Indogermanische Forschungen - PDF Free Download

I Indogermanische Forschungen 112. Band II III Indogermanische Forschungen Zeitschrift für Indogermanistik und all...

Author: Wolfgang P. Schmid

161 downloads 3013 Views 1MB Size Report

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

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

I

Indogermanische Forschungen 112. Band

II

III

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

112. Band 2007

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

IV Alle für die Indogermanischen Forschungen bestimmten Aufsätze und kleineren Beiträge senden Sie bitte an Apl. Prof. Dr. Eckhard Eggers, Nikolausberger Weg 63, D-37073 Göttingen, bzw. als .pdf-File per E-Mail an: [email protected] Rezensionsexemplare senden Sie bitte an Apl. Prof. Dr. Eckhard Eggers, Redaktion Indogermanische Forschungen, Zentrum für Interdisziplinäre Sprachforschung, Käte-HamburgerWeg 3, D-37073 Göttingen.

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

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

to ensure permanence and durability.

© Copyright 2007 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this journal may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Copying in the USA! Authorization to copy items for internal or personal use, or for the internal or personal use by specific clients is granted by Walter de Gruyter, for libraries and other users registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) Transactional Reporting Service, provided that the base fee of US $ 3.00 per copy is paid to CCC, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. 0019-7262/07 © by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG Berlin New York Printed in Germany ISBN: 978-3-11-019284-1 ISSN (Print) 0019-7262 ISSN (Online) 1613-0405 Cover design: Christopher Schneider, Berlin Indexed in Current Contents

V

Inhalt I. Aufsätze: A d r a d o s Francisco R. Must we again postulate a unitary and uniform Indo-European? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P a t r i Sylvain. Remarque sur le positionnement syntaxique du déterminant adverbial (préverbe) en indo-européen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G a˛ s i o r o w s k i Piotr. The meaning of life: PIE *gwih3Ü- . . . . . . . . . . . K i m Ronald I. Two problems of Ossetic nominal morphology . . . . . . . S o w a Wojciech. Anmerkungen zum Verbalsystem im Phrygischen . . . . . A n g h e l i n a Catalin. A note on the Greek perfect active participle . . . . P a g n i e l l o Frederick James. The past-iterative and the augment in Homer N a p o l i Maria. Telicity as a parameter of aspect in Homeric Greek. Activity and accomplishment verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z a v a r o n i Adolfo. Le formule votive retiche del tipo XIVIXI (iu ii): esempi di cognazione lessicale fra retico-camuno e germanico . . P â r v u l e s c u Adrian. Lat. volgus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q u i n l i n Daniel P. Wulfila’s (mis)translation of Philippians 2:6 . . . . . . . B r o s m a n Paul W., Jr. The cognates of the Gothic masculine i-stems . . . P i e r c e Marc. Die Rolle linguistischer Theorien in der historischen Sprachwissenschaft: Eine Fallstudie aus dem Gotischen . . . . . . . . . . R e m y s Edmund. General distinguishing features of various Indo-European languages and their relationship to Lithuanian . . . . . . . . P e t i t Daniel. Zur baltischen Bezeichnung des Feuersteins . . . . . . . . . S z a b ó József. Zur Spiegelung der volkstümlichen Betrachtungsweise im Wortschatz einiger ungarischer Mundarten . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 26 39 47 69 96 105 124 170 198 208 215 236 244 277 303

II. Besprechungen: McKenna Malachy, Kelly Fergus (ed.). Celtica vol. XXIV. In memory of Brian ó Cu´ıv. ( K a r l H o r s t S c h m i d t ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

316

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

321

II

Must we again postulate a unitary and uniform Indo-European?

1

Must we again postulate a unitary and uniform Indo-European? 1. The problem In 1992 in an article which I published in IF. entitled “The new Image of Indo-European” (Adrados 1992), I described an evolution, within the circle of the Indo-Europeanists, in which the older description of Indo-European as a unitary and uniform language was gradually being replaced by a new one asserting that there had been various phases of Indo-European. The unitary description of Indo-European by Brugmann, Meillet and others was being replaced by another in which Indo-European had had various phases and, within these phases, various dialects. In that article I gave a description of my contribution to this new view, to which I will add some comments below. I spoke of several other linguists who had preceded me or had furthered these ideas. I maintained that this great change had come from the deciphering of Hittite and the other Anatolian languages, which differed from the traditional Indo-European not only because they had kept the laryngeals to a certain extent, but, among other reasons, because they had also kept a monothematic inflection in the noun and the verb. In the noun of these languages there is no opposition of masculine / feminine themes, no oppositions positive / comparative / superlative for the adjective, nor are there in the verb the oppositions present / aorist / perfect / future or indicative / subjunctive / optative. And in the other Indo-European languages there are traces of all of this, with some exceptions. The Indo-European (IE) of the traditional reconstruction would, then, really be an IE III, which would have added to IE II (preserved above all in Anatolian) innovations such as the loss of the laryngeals and the creation of the polythematic inflection. Of greater antiquity would be IE I or pre-inflectional IE, in which the pure uninflected roots, aided by certain elements which I will discuss below, would be the basis of the entire linguistic system. I justified this whole theory and my part in it, described its origins, and gave information about its growing acceptance by many linguists. Indogermanische Forschungen, 112. Band 2007

DOI 10.1515/IDGF.2007.001

2

Francisco R. Adrados

I will repeat some of this and will give details about the process, attempting to justify it. But the question is this: since the 90s there has, in my opinion, been a recession, a return to the defense of a unitary Indo-European with no internal evolution. The authors of some manuals present it this way with no explanation; others try to justify their position. All of this is rather strange. How is it that a language which, if we respect the opinion most widely accepted, probably entered Europe around the year 5000 B. C. from the steppes that extend from the Ukraine to Central Asia and spread through a vast territory over thousands of years, could have remained intact, with no evolution? And this, above all, in a pre-literary era, when there was no unified State? It is unbelievable, to be sure, if we can rely on our linguistic and historical knowledge. But this is actually the case. There continue to be published manuals that describe this supposedly unitary Indo-European; there are linguists who continue to say (or assert with no supporting arguments) that Hittite, and Anatolian in general, are just another branch of IndoEuropean, derived, as always, from the Brugmannian scheme. Here, before going into the acceptance by many scholars of the theory of several Indo-Europeans and their history, and into the eventual retraction of it by these scholars (unjustified, in my opinion), I wish to recall three points: 1. The previous research of various Indo-Europeanists into the ancient history of Indo-European. 2. The theories on the archaism of Hittite and Anatolian in general. 3. The theories, based on the foregoing, on the history of Indo-European throughout various stages. Only after this will we be able to judge this turning back, this new acceptance, without supporting arguments, of a unitary uniform Indo-European.

2. On the prehistory of Indo-European It would not be amiss to recall, however briefly, that before there was any knowledge of Hittite and of Anatolian in general, or even independently of this, there were voices that proposed investigation into the antecedents of classic or Brugmannian Indo-European. Curiously enough, the first of these antecedents is prior to Brugmann: Bopp himself, whose studies on this subject were the object of an ar-

Must we again postulate a unitary and uniform Indo-European?

3

ticle of mine (Adrados 1994a). His insistence on root and theme and on agglutination leads, in the final analysis, though he does not actually say so, to an ancient, uninflected Indo-European. And later, as is well known, A. Meillet (1908, 1931) asserted the recent character of the thematic vowel, the sigmatic aorist, and the feminine. Later, authors such as Carruba (1971, 2001) and Brosman (1976) joined him in this view1; F. Specht (1944) defended the recent character of the thematic vowel and the Indo-European declination in general. This latter subject was later treated by authors such as Fairbanks, Lehmann, Schmalstieg and Shields, among others; in short, from here it is only a small step to postulating an ancient uninflected Indo-European. And every Indo-Europeanist will recall E. Benveniste’s study on the root (1935)2, which implies the existence of ancient root-words, and Hirt’s Indogermanische Grammatik (1921–37), with abundant speculations on its origins. Studies on the prehistory of Indo-European are, then, not a recent occurrence. They point the way to postulating the recent character of some themes and the even more recent, but also secondary, character of others; and to postulating that classic, or Brugmannian, Indo-European is merely the development of an earlier one. Later studies on the innovations of one branch or another, for example, of Indo-Greek3, point in the same direction.

3. On Hittite and Indo-European In 1917 we had the deciphering and interpretation of Hittite by Hrozny, and after that, as is well known, came the study of the other Anatolian languages: Luvian, Palaic, Lydian and Lycian. This obviously was a revolution. In 1927 Kurylowicz established that Hittite had kept the Indo-European laryngeals discovered by Saussure: it had kept three laryngeal consonants, something clearly archaic. Furthermore, it lacked a feminine, a system of comparison for the adjective, and aorist, perfect, subjunctive and optative themes for 1 2

3

See also Giacalone Ramat / Ramat 1995: 261ff. and Zeilfelder 2001. In Adrados 1992: 6, I allude to other works by the same author in which he defends the recent character of comparatives and superlatives. Cf. Birwé 1956.

4

Francisco R. Adrados

the verb, among other things. It should be clear to anyone that these are also archaisms. But no. Pedersen affirmed that Hittite was an Indo-European language similar to the other, and the majority followed his lead; it is not worth giving a bibliography. Meillet himself said, in 1937, in a new edition of his Introduction à l’étude comparative des langues Indo-Européennes, that “the Hittite deciphered by M. Hrozny does not require us to change anything essential in the doctrines presented here”. Hittite was problematic; it required a change in the old ideas. It was, as I have written (1994a: 11ff.), “a member of the family who turned up at a family gathering at the wrong moment and was therefore unwelcome”. If it did not have such-and-such a theme, it was because “it had lost it”. This was the standard reply from Kurylowicz on4, and it still is, with exceptions. Some linguists attempted to find traces of these “losses”, for example H. Eichner’s (1975) proposal of an ancient sigmatic aorist in Hittite5, a thesis that I criticized, as did other authors: some themes with -s- not opposed to other without -s-, described as aorists by Eichner, were not aorists, according to me6. The onus probandi would have to be assumed by those who disagreed with the concept of a unitary Indo-European. Actually, it had already been assumed (see below for this).

4. On old monothematic Indo-European (IE II) Hittite forced us to deal, for the first time, with an Indo-European language that did not oppose themes with different grammatical value: no masculine / feminine, no positive / comparative / superlative, in the verb no present themes opposed to aorist, perfect or future themes, or indicative opposed to subjunctive or optative themes.

4

5 6

Cf. Kurilowicz 1958 and later publications. See, in Adrados 1992: 4–5, a list of the linguists who adopted similar positions. As regards the onus probandi, cf. p. 73. Cf. Adrados 1988b: 360ff. On p. 362 can be found an extensive discussion of lengthening and the suffix -s-, which have different values depending on the system of oppositions in which they operate; likewise -e-, -a-, the thematic vowel (which can function as indicative or subjunctive), etc.

Must we again postulate a unitary and uniform Indo-European?

5

These forms of different theme and grammatical value were simply lacking in this stage of Indo-European. The closest approximation to the traditional Indo-European system was in the case of heteroclitic inflection7, as well as in that of the coupling of a base verb and another, understood as a variant of that verb, marking an Aktionsart. This was the commencement of a tendency to associate themes, a tendency that was without doubt beginning to make itself heard. But it never reached the point of opposing different themes in a single paradigm, as occurred in classic Indo-European, themes that would mark the grammatical oppositions referred to above. In view of this situation only two attitudes were possible: either consider Hittite as simply another Indo-European language, not mentioning these differences or explaining them as “losses”, or consider that Hittite belonged to an earlier stage in which oppositions of themes did not exist, that only later would different themes enter into opposition within one single system instead of producing different words. It would seem, as I have said, that generally speaking the solution that prevailed is to maintain at any cost the traditional scheme and consider Hittite as just another of the Indo-european languages, Nevertheless, at a certain moment the other hypothesis arose alongside the traditional one: that Hittite and Anatolian in general are representatives of an IE II (later than IE I or pre-inflectional Indo-European), earlier than classic Indo-European (which would now be IE III), that would have produced, among other things like the loss of the laryngeals, a new type of Indo-European. However, the existence of laryngeals and of polythematic inflection is not the only thing that speaks in favor of the archaism of Hittite and of Anatolian in general. At times there are features in Hittite that do not exist in the traditional Indo-European, like the laryngeals in their phonetics. In the noun there are various archaisms, like the lack of a dual (also in the verb); the indistinction of nominative and genitive in the thematic inflection; the occasional indistinction of singular and plural apart from the nominative and accusative; traces of the pregeneric neuter becoming animate at times; scarce development of the opposition animate / inanimate and none at all of the opposition mas-

7

Cf. Adrados 1991.

6

Francisco R. Adrados

culine / feminine; lack of the opposition of the type / « and of the morphological use of the long vowel; the frequency of heteroclitic inflection; the lack of correspondence with IE III in the marginal cases of the noun (except in the dative-locative singular); the presence in the same paradigm of themes in -a, -ai and -i (which in IE III were classified in different inflections); defectiveness and scarce diffusion of the themes in -e / -o; etc.8. On the other hand, there are different choices in the case system. There are also archaisms in the verb, apart from monothemism and the different choices, as in the two Anatolian conjugations in -mi and -hi ¥ 9. Then, too, the fact that IE III, the IE of the traditional reconstruction, represents a more advanced moment than IE II in the evolution of Indo-European does not mean that it holds no traces of the latter: archaisms can be preserved in the most advanced evolutionary stages, where vestiges of earlier stages can remain. For example, nowaday everyone accepts the fact that the vocalism of IE III implies the early existence of laryngeals in it10. Moreover, at times there still is, outside of Anatolian, a trace of aspiration of the laryngeals11. In the noun and the adjective there are traces indicating that in the thematic nouns the nominative plural of IE III is nothing other than the formalization of an *-os of the nominative singular and plural and nominative and genitive singular: nominative plurals in -oi and -os, and genitive singulars in -osyo and -i were created. Whereas in later IE the genitive singular in -os is opposed to the genitive plural in -om, in Hittite they are interchangeable12; there are many pure themes in various cases of the declination, like the Greek type (and various uses of the cases, nominative, genitive, dative-locative and nominative-accusative with -i, -a, -ai)13. And in the noun and adjective there are preserved forms that distinguish neither masculine and 8 9

10

11 12 13

Cf. Adrados / Bernabé / Mendoza 1996: 102ff. and Adrados 1988a. Cf. Adrados 1974: 95ff. and Adrados / Bernabé / Mendoza 1996: 326ff. Also Adrados 1982. Accepted in the case of the laryngeals H1, H2 and H3, but not in the case of the laryngeals with appendix which I defended in Adrados 1961 and to which I will return elsewhere. Cf. A. Bernabé in Adrados / Bernabé / Mendoza 1995: 352ff. Cf. Adrados / Bernabé / Mendoza 1996: 146ff. and Adrados 1990. For pure themes see Adrados 1975: 370ff. Also Adrados 2006: 147ff.

Must we again postulate a unitary and uniform Indo-European?

7

feminine nor do they accept suffixes for grades of comparison (they are created periphrastically)14. In the verb of IE III themes with no desinences are still frequent. For example we have in Latin do, there was surely ama (later amo), there is future archaic Latin dice (I shall say). In Old Indian, Baltic and Tocharian we have, in the past, forms of the preterite in which a radical vowel -a, -e, -o alternates with a variant with -u (Old Indian jajñau / -atha)15. These can be compared with forms in Hittite in -ah¥ hi ¥ (dah¥ hi, ¥ tarnah¥ hi), ¥ in which an indicator of the present, -i, is added. Also, in Hittite, themes like esˇ ‘be’, comparable to Latin ei, -i ‘go’. And all through IE III we find themes with a long -o, of the Greek type , classified as first person singular present indicative (and subjunctive!). Sometimes, in one language or another, a second theme has been created from another root (verbs with multiple roots of the Latin type eo / ueni, as in the English go / went). In other cases “general” themes oppose, in a different vocalic degree, a present and an aorist, for example, while in Old Indian both tudáti ‘strike’ and bhárati ‘carry’ are simply present, the Greek has reduced the theme with -e to the present and imperfect ( , ), and the theme with vocalism ø to the aorist ( ). In Old Slavic the pure root can be preserved in the preterite as opposed to a derived present (Old Slavic speˇjo˛ present ‘advance’ / preterite speˇ). In the Indo-European languages there remain verbs with a single theme, like the verb ‘to be’ *es. Others have in some cases become multiple root verbs, organizing various roots or themes into a system, a type which I have mentioned. On the other hand, I have already pointed out that the various themes of the IE III verb inflections have not always reached all of its languages. Thus though the imperative is universal, the subjunctive and optative are missing in Baltic and Slavic. And even where there is a subjunctive, it is a secondary derivative. There are still many languages in which one single form acts as both indicative and subjunctive, as in Old Indian dati ‘give / may give’, Cretan Greek ‘is 14 15

See Adrados 1975: 479ff. In my opinion this -u is phonetic, coming from the laryngeal with velar appendix. On the subject of the roots and pure themes in the verb see Adrados 1975: 542 ff.

8

Francisco R. Adrados

able to / may be able to’, Gothic indicative / subjunctive salbo ‘anoint’, etc.16 Naturally, assigning the indicative and subjunctive themes to the general themes of the verb as derivatives is secondary. Their independence can be seen in Tocharian, Archaic Latin and Celtic especially. Something similar occurs with the optative, which at times merges with the subjunctive or the imperative. IE III, as can be seen, was far from being completely independent of IE II and far from being absolutely uniform. IE was constantly developing, advancing, diversifying, its branches influencing each other. What a terrible, ingenuous, childish error to consider it as a single language, created in all its details once and forever! This also happens with the perfect17, a general verbal form with special middle voice desinences, converted in IE III, though not in every case, into an independent theme, conjugated as an opposite to the other verbal themes. There was no single form of the perfect nor does the perfect appear in Baltic and Slavic. And when it does appear, it is in different guises: sometimes it is assimilated into other themes as a simple preterite. That is what happens in general in IE III B (from Tocharian to Latin and Celtic), but also secondarily in Greek and some languages of IE III A. Or a middle form and a secondary form are created for it, etc. All this comes later, within IE III, as does the creation of the future in various languages, and to a great extent, the nominal forms of the verb, which coincide with those of Hittite only along general lines. Naturally, all this speaks in favor of the second hypothesis, namely, that what is lacking in Hittite and Anatolian was created later in a second phase: polythematic IE III. And in this phase there were, of course, losses such as that of the laryngeals, as well as innovations of its own.

5. The theory of the archaism of Hittite and Anatolian I would like to summarize very briefly the origin of this theory and its diffusion in subsequent years, principally in the 80s of the last century, as I announced in my article “The new Image …”. Following that

16 17

See further details in Adrados 1975: 719ff. See Adrados 1975: 695 and Adrados / Bernabé / Mendoza 1996: 256ff.

Must we again postulate a unitary and uniform Indo-European?

9

I will have a look at its almost total abandonment in the 90s and afterwards. The origin of this theory of the greater archaism of an IE II, from which would stem, on the one hand, Anatolian, and on the other, the classic Indo-European (IE III) promulgated in the manuals, is not always explained clearly. I shall attempt to do that now. There have been three moments in the proposal of the existence of an ancient IE prior to that of the traditional doctrine: 1. In 1942, E. H. Sturtevant published his book The Indo-Hittite laryngeals. His hypothesis that there were two branches of Indo-European (which he called Indo-Hittite), namely Hittite and Indo-European, “two sister languages”, is based solely on the loss of the laryngeals in Indo-European. He presents no morphological arguments at all. Doubtless for this reason he received little support. But there are those who identify this hypothesis with the one that is based on the monothematic morphology of Anatolian and Hittite. 2. The first presentation of this latter hypothesis, although summary and not very clear, was that of Kerns and Schwartz in 194618. With Sturtevant as a basis, they proposed that the traditional Indo-European, besides having lost the laryngeals, presents an isogloss consisting of polythematic inflection: various themes in the inflection of the verb. Whether through the influence of my publications or through reading the work of Meid or from the mere coincidence of ideas stemming from facts that are absolutely clear, the question is that soon studies along the same lines began to be published in Germany; I offered a review in “The new Image …”, which I will recall briefly here. 3. I believe that the next plea in favor of the archaism of Hittite, much more extensive and complete, was the one I published in 1962, which included a paper I gave in Innsbruck before the second “Fachtagung” of the Indogermanische Gesellschaft. It is a more detailed version and includes the noun and adjective also. According to this paper, it would have been a later type of IndoEuropean, the IE of the traditional reconstruction, which I call IE III,

18

See also a much later exposition in Kerns / Schwarz 1972.

10

Francisco R. Adrados

that introduced the innovation of polythematism, which would then have passed into the derived languages. This contribution of mine in Innsbruck was only a preview of the book that I was preparing and that appeared in 1963. It is clear to me that this brief work of 1962 fell on rather barren ground as did my later studies, which, besides, were written in Spanish, making access more difficult. Some critics disregarded them because they considered that they were based on my laryngeal theory and on structural premises little known in Germany. Much more complete versions of the theme were, in effect, those that I published later: my Evolución y Estructura del Verbo indoeuropeo (1st ed., Madrid, C.S.I.C.1963, 2nd ed. augmented, 1974), which I have just mentioned; Lingüística Indoeuropea (Madrid, Gredos 1975); and numerous articles published in various journals on IndoEuropean research. Among these the one that attracted most attention was “Arqueología y diferenciación del Indoeuropeo”, Emerita 47, 1979, 261–282: especially after the publication of the German translation, Die räumliche Differenzierung des Indoeuropäischen im Lichte der Vor- und Frühgeschichte (Innsbruck 1982). This movement to which, after the precedents mentioned, I gave an impulse finally found an eco, above all in the work of W. Meid, “Probleme der räumlichen und zeitlichen Gliederung des Indogermanischen”, in Rix (ed.) Flexion und Wortbildung, Wiesbaden, 1975. Meid did not cite my works, but it was evident that he was familiar with my ideas, because he had reviewed my Evolución y estructura del verbo indoeuropeo in IF. 70, 1965, 346–350. In this book and in my Lingüística Indoeuropea the theory was well set forth. An unfortunate episode occurred. The work of Meid just cited is from 1975, and the German translation of my “Arqueología …” is from 1982 (the titles almost coincide). The idea, formulated by J. Tischler in 1989, circulated among certain German linguists that “the idea initiated by W. Meid and enriched by E. Neu is now widely known … similarly Adrados 1982”. Other comments of this nature were made by K. Strunk (1984), E. C. Polomé (1985) and W. P. Lehmann19, among others. This thesis is sometimes called the “Meid-Neu

19

Kratylos 32, 1987, 29.

Must we again postulate a unitary and uniform Indo-European?

11

thesis” (Jasanoff20 says “Neu-Meid”). And I had proposed it in 1962, 1963 and many other times before 1975! How could there be such a lack of akribeia and ignorance of the bibliography? In the first place, certainly, it was because Meid did not mention his source and then because my previous works were unknown, especially El Verbo Indoeuropeo of 1963, which, to make matters more difficult, was written in Spanish (but was cited in “Arqueología …”, pages 261 and 282, and pages 5 and 28 of the German translation). Doubtless this was also due to ignorance of my laryngeal theory, which however, was not the basis of the theory but simply a marginal support, and to lack of diffusion of certain ideas about the use of the structuralist method in reconstruction21. Also perhaps to too little knowledge of grammaticalization: of how lengthenings or other diverse elements acquire grammatical values in the context of different oppositions.22 The truth is that gradually the theory of grammaticalization has been widely disseminated and is frequently adopted. Nevertheless, in the field of Indo-European studies the old belief is still maintained that the meaning of linguistic units remains invariable from the time of its origins, that the task of the linguist is to reconstruct the oldest phase using modern languages as a starting point. This has been so since Schlegel and Bopp. It would be a matter of reconstructing a complete and perfect language, later full of “losses” and errors. This may be the idea that impeded the comprehension of Hittite, which adds various features to the traditional reconstruction of IndoEuropean but which lacks others, supposedly “lost” but really not yet existent.

6. Diffusion of the theory of the strata of Indo-European (the 70s and 80s) In any case, my ideas, whether known directly, or via Meid, or deduced independently from simply studying the facts, were widely dif20

21 22

Jasanoff 2005, in the Index & 19 (in the text page 25 “Meid’s and New’s specific hypotheses”). Cf. also Rieken 1999: 505. Cf. Adrados 1965 and 1968. Cf., for example, Adrados 1962a, 1967, 1977.

12

Francisco R. Adrados

fused in the 80s and even in the 70s. I am not going to describe that movement here, as I have done so in my 1992 article, “The new Image …” already cited. In that article I proposed, but only as a hypothesis, that some of the linguists who had dealt in some way with the theory of the antiquity of Anatolian and with the recent character of a series of features of the traditionally reconstructed Indo-european based their work, to a greater or lesser extent, on my publications, which they were familiar with: I refer, for example, to Kurylowicz and Watkins; see my article for details. In other cases I would be at a loss to identify the origin and means of diffusion of the theory. In any case, I gave a list of the Indo-Europeanists who support the idea of the archaism of Hittite: O. Carruba (by 1969), E. Neu (since 1968), W. Cowgill (1975), B. Rosenkranz (1978), W. P. Schmid (1979), K. Strunk (1984), W. R. Schmalstieg (1980), J. Tischler (1988). Of course, critics of the theory, such as H. Eichner (1975) or E. Risch (1975), appeared. Others did not mention it, for example Gamkrelidze-Ivanov in their great work, whose original version, in Russian, is from 1984 (but it has not been modified on this point in the English translation of 1997). I continued writing articles in defense of the theory and developing it further23, I included also within IE II a language I consider to be the Anatolian type: Etruscan, which is also monothematic24. I am not going to discuss this subject here. Independently of the means by which these ideas were disseminated and their specific form, the fact is that when I published my article “The new Image of Indo-European” in this same journal in 1992, I was optimistic. The facts were so clear, I thought, that it was inevitable that the thesis of the archaism of Hittite and Anatolian in general should prevail. And, at the same time, the thesis should prevail that the polythematic inflections of the classic reconstruction were a later innovation of Indo-European, of a third stage. Because along with other linguists, 23

24

Among others (apart from those that I will cite later on pre-inflectional IndoEuropean and on general theory, and omitting also those referring to the laryngeals): Adrados 1971, 1981a, 1981b, 1982, 1984, 1985, 1988a, 1988c, 1989a, 1991, 1994a, 2000a. See Adrados 1989b, 1997, 2005.

Must we again postulate a unitary and uniform Indo-European?

13

I postulated (and continue to do so, see below) that before the monothematic IE II there existed an uninflected IE I or Proto-IndoEuropean (PIE). Of course neither Hittite nor Anatolian are pure IE II: they add certain innovations, just as IE III added others, either in the whole language or in parts of it, and not only polythematism, but other features as well.

7. A return to the past in the theory of the strata of Indo-European (the 90s and the 21st century) Now the central theme of this article is to explain how, in spite of previous hopes, the theory of various strata of Indo-European, the monothematic one of Anatolian and Hittite being older than the Indo-European of the traditional reconstruction, tends to be abandoned nowadays. Less and less is being written on the subject. I too, disconcerted by the cold reception of these ideas, with certain exceptions, have written less about them. On the other hand, together with two colleagues and previous students of mine, Alberto Bernabé and Julia Mendoza, I have published a Manual de Lingüística Indoeuropea (1995–98), not very well known, perhaps because of the language in which it is written. It is now to appear in English in Peters, Louvaine la Neuve. I would like to describe the situation during this period, beginning in the 90s. A number of authors of Manuals and other books continue to present the traditional reconstruction of Indo-European, which I call Brugmannian, as the only possible and evident one. Hittite is barely mentioned, or if they say anything about it, it is to suggest that the categories that it lacks have probably been lost. Other writers, the minority, try to demonstrate that, in fact, these “lost” categories existed in Pre-Hittite and left traces in Hittite. Of course, there is an exception: the traditional laryngeals are accepted as a vestige of archaic Indo-European, preserved in Hittite and lost in the rest of Indo-European. Only in this would Hittite, and therefore Anatolian, be archaic. I am talking about the three traditional laryngeals, accepted by everyone, not the laryngeals with appendices that I proposed and which I will discuss again elsewhere. It is strange that only in this would Anatolian be archaic and not in its morphology. Naturally there are exceptions, like W. P. Lehmann

14

Francisco R. Adrados

(1993: 28 ff.)25, who still does not give credit to the Brugmannian reconstruction, which he calls “a kind of storehouse”. But since the 70s there has been a series of Manuals of Indo-European, like those of O. Szemerényi (1979), V. Georgiev (1981), A. Giacalone Ramat and P. Ramat (1995) and R. Schmitt-Brandt (1998), in which the only possibility mentioned is that of the traditional scheme of Indo-European. At other times there is some hesitation in accepting the theory of its archaism. Thus in the case of A. Giacalone Ramat and P. Ramat (1995), no conclusion is reached, but the general explication by C. Watkins and that of Anatolian by L. Luraghi follow the traditional lines, after some vacillation in the latter. And the theme is practically not touched on in Warren Cowgill’s “Einleitung” to volume I of his and M. Mayrhofer’s Indogermanische Grammatik (1986): the traditional unitary and uniform Indo-European is taken for granted. This was the position of J. H. Greenberg (2000) as well. And I can add that of H. Rix in a recent work on the lexicon of the Indo-European verbs (2001). He presents the primary verbal themes (present, perfect, aorist, causative-interative, desiderative, intensive and essive) and the modal forms as characteristic of all the Indo-European languages. He accepts, then, with no further explanation, that they also existed in Anatolian. At most, the two hypotheses, the loss of categories in Hittite and its archaic nature, are mentioned, but the subject is left undecided26. All this represents a step backward. Only as regards phonetics is it a phase in which the three classical laryngeals still existed27, a curious imbalance which I mentioned earlier: Hittite would be archaic in phonology but not in morphology. Of course, there is no serious attempt at criticism of my theory of laryngeals with labial and palatal appendices, only mere unfavorable references made in passing28. But I do not intend to discuss that here. 25 26 27

28

Likewise in later publications. As in Mallory / Adams 1997, art. Anatolian Languages. As in works such as Bammesberger (Ed.) 1988, Mayrhofer 1986, Lindeman 1997, Mayrhofer 2004, Kimball 1997. Mayrhofer (2004: 35) simply makes reference to a review by G. Cardona in Language 39, 1963, 91ff. Melchert, Kratylos 42, 1997, 170ff. did a criticism, which I consider partial, of my Laryngale mit Appendix? (1994b). I replied with a commentary (unpublished but widely distributed): “An answer to an unfair review”.

Must we again postulate a unitary and uniform Indo-European?

15

Returning to morphology, in new publications it is actually stated, as it was in the 70s, that the grammatical categories that did not exist in Hittite “had been lost”. For example the Manual by R. P. Beekes (1984: 31) states, regarding Hittite morphology, “that its simplicity does not suggest antiquity, but could rather be owing to loss”. Pure assumption, with no atempt at proof. And C. Melchert (1994: 122) says that “the evidence for a common prehistoric development [of the Anatolian languages] does not settle the issue of whether the rest of the Indo-European languages underwent a period of common development”. He presents Anatolian as a subgroup of Indo-European, alongside Germanic, Slavic, etc. All of this is mere personal assumption with no arguments as proof. This is the recession to which I alluded above: by way of mere asseverations with no attempt at proof, once again it is affirmed, as it was in the time of Kurylowicz and others, that Anatolian and, within it Hittite, had lost categories that appear in the other Indo-European languages. And that many of us had maintained – and continue to maintain – that they were created secondarily. This is the IE III that I have been discussing; it is the heir to IE II and conserves vestiges of it, as I have said29. Of course there are exceptions in Germany also. I am referring to the book by S. Zeilfelder (2001). She is a competent Hittite scholar, although she hardly speaks of the other languages and does not get to the heart of the problem30. The only one, as far as I know, who has recently tried to demonstrate this “loss” of categories (the feminine, the comparative and the various themes of the verb) within Anatolian is J. H. Jasanoff, who in 2005 attempted to demonstrate the same thing that H. Eichner and 29

30

Nevertheless, there continue to be published works that sustain the idea of the secondary creation, in the later Indo-European, of categories lacking in Hittite. See, for example, on gender, Matasovicz 2005 (and my review in Emerita 74, 2006, 169–170). She should have read, at least, my “The new Image of Indo-European” (Adrados 1992). But of the four books and thirty or forty articles that I have published on the subject, also in German and U. S. journals, the author is only familiar with two. And she does not mention the capital item: the age of the polythematic inflexion. At any case, she recognizes Anatolian as “die älteste Tochter der Grundsprache”. Also E. Rieken (1999) recognizes the archaism of the Hittite nominal inflexion – but she does not study the verbal one.

16

Francisco R. Adrados

E. Risch tried in 197531. I do not feel that he really provides any proof whatsoever. Eichner and Risch, in their day, were overtaken by the wave that promoted the archaism of Anatolian and the innovations in the rest of Indo-European. Now, it seems, the wave goes in the other direction, so one can hope that apart from apodictic pronouncements, there may come someone who will try to demonstrate that these innovations already existed in anatolian. Or rather, not in the one that we know, but in a Pre-Anatolian now lost. Jasanoff’s is a difficult book to follow. Incidentally, he continues to call the theory of the archaism of Hittite “the Neu-Meid theory”, this time changing the order of the names. He does not mention me, the real author of the theory, but that is not the most important matter here. I shall try to summarize several things. Jasanoff begins with a hypothesis on which he puts great emphasis but which I consider very precarious: the existence of an archaic Indo-European conjugation in h2 e of which in Hittite there would remain verbs that later would become middle verbs, and in other languages thematized presents or perfects. These are roots like Hittite mallai-, malliya- and thematic presents taken from here, like Lithuanian malù, Gothic malan, or old Iranian melid, an unusual theory that would, in any case, leave Hittite in an archaic situation, with no perfect. Although there are various hypotheses concerning the relation between Hittite middle present and Indo-European perfect, in this case the principle of the archaism of Hittite with no perfect is maintained. More radical than this is Jasanoff’s position on other points; according to him there must have been in Pre-Hittite an aorist (radical or sigmatic) and a subjunctive, which were later lost. They would appear again (or were preserved) in the other Indo-European languages. In this, I must confess, my position is just the opposite. For me, the aorist themes are radical (thematic or not) or sigmatic themes, with their present and preterite, that had become associated with other themes. Within this opposition the aspectual opposition present / aorist would have developed. For Jasanoff, on the other hand, certain roots must simply have had an aoristic aspect; the pure roots must

31

Jasanoff 2005. This is a continuation of another work, Jasanoff 1994.

Must we again postulate a unitary and uniform Indo-European?

17

have been aoristic. This is not true: there are root themes in the present and in the aorist; it is not a question of aorists changing into presents. Aspect arose with the opposition of themes, and there are none in Hittite! At other times certain verbs have the value of an Aktionsart, as is known, but the present and aorist values always arose from oppositions, for example, between reduplicated or suffixed themes and other radicals; between thematic themes of full degree and others of 0 degree; between various themes and others with -s-. This is well known32. There is no omnipresent, innate and essential aspectual value in every root; only the languages that have preserved the present / aorist opposition have preserved this aspectual difference as well. There is nothing at all to support the idea of its existence in Anatolian. For this reason I cannot go along with Jasanoff: between an essentialist exposition (each morphological element has a single precise grammatical value from the beginning), which is Jasanoff’s, and a structuralist and historical one, which is mine, there is an abyss. And in Jasanoff there is still implicit the old tendency of the Indo-Europeanists to include in the reconstructed language a maximum of morphological elements, in an attempt to find the “most perfect” language possible. In short, Jasanoff offers no proof at all that there has ever been an aorist in Hittite. Nor a subjunctive. Nor do the thematic vowel e/o, the long e/o and the -s- have, per se, a subjunctive value except by opposition to the indicatives. At other times they can mark the indicative in opposition to other subjunctives! Nor is it true, I believe, that the Tocharian subjunctive is, as we are told33, “a repository of older indicative forms.” Tocharian, on the contrary, offers a good example of the fact that the indicative / subjunctive system only arose from oppositions between themes which could have one or the other value depending on the context34. This has always been my position, extensively explained in a littleread work of mine, Evolución y estructura del verbo indoeuropeo, and also in various articles. I see no reason to change it. That there existed in pre-Hittite an aorist and a subjunctive is in no way demon32 33 34

See Adrados 1974: 256. Cf. Jasanoff 2005: 161. Cf. Adrados 1974: 416ff. On the evolution of the verbal system in general, 815.

18

Francisco R. Adrados

strable. It would be really remarkable if Hittite had lost a series of categories and then recuperated them later, thus being, in its origins, the same as the rest of the Indo-European languages. Furthermore, this would give antiquity to certain features of the traditionally reconstructed Indo-European that many linguists, as can be seen, would like to have found in Hittite when it was deciphered. But it did not have these categories, and this disconcerted one sector of the Europeanists, who attempted to reencounter them in Hittite at whatever the cost. Hittite and Tocharian were poorly received because they broke an earlier agreement. Everything possible was done to silence their testimony or to turn them into something that they were not. Hittite and Tocharian did not have features which came only later in the history of Indo-European. You cannot reconstruct a language with what was never there. For example, in Old Indic the thematic verbs with a root in grade ø, like tudáti, give a present and a preterite, depending on the desinences, as do those with a root in grade e. But it is in the opposition of the preterites of both types that the imperfects and aorists arise. And parallel to this is the opposition of the modes of present and aorist. Naturally what has been said here is in general terms. From time to time one can find affirmations that coincide with the positions that I have taken before. For example, when Meier-Brügger (2000: 160, 170, 259) assures us that the augment is not Indo-European but more recent, that the subjunctive and optative originated after the separation of Hittite, or that the feminine is secondary. Or when B. Drinka (2005) accepts that the sigmatic aorist is recent; only Indo-Iranian and Greek present it within a coherent system. Or when R. Matasovicz (2005) emphasizes the recent character of the masculine / feminine opposition. Even so, in the work being published today, especially works of a general nature, the direction most frequently taken is the opposite one.

8. The oldest stratum: IE I or Pre-Inflectional Indo-European Now, to close, I want to say a few words about Pre-Inflectional IndoEuropean, the oldest stratum of Indo-European that we can go back to. I am going to omit phonetic problems, which, nevertheless, are important, one being the question of the laryngeals with labial and pala-

Must we again postulate a unitary and uniform Indo-European?

19

tal appendices that I have proposed. I cannot give them the necessary consideration here without straying too far from my central theme. I am only going to concern myself with the fact that if Indo-European inflection (especially markers of person and case in IE II, but also, of course, the recent categories) is of secondary origin as a great number of researchers have proposed, then the inevitable conclusion is that there was a previous uninflected state. And if it is generally recognized that the structure of the root is monosyllabic, although it can add lengthenings, then it seems clear that the oldest Indo-European – call it IE I or PIE (Proto-Indo-European) – was a language that operated with monosyllabic roots, constructing its sentences by means of procedures other than inflection. But the subject of an Indo-European earlier than that of the traditional reconstruction has, as I have said, been abandoned to a considerable extent. And with it the subject of the earliest Indo-European, prior to the monothematic IE II and, of course, to the polythematic IE III. Ever since Bopp35, a long list of Indo-Europeanists – Meillet, Specht, Benveniste, Bader, Fairbanks, Lehmann, Polomé, Schmalstieg, Shields and I myself – have worked on the origins of Indo-European inflection: the desinences, the suffixes and grammatical formatives, etc. And on the roots and how they are employed, both independently and integrated into the inflection (nominative and dative singular, various forms of the pronoun, the first person singular of the present indicative, the second person singular of the imperative, etc.). Actually, all the various hypotheses on the recent character of the feminine, the thematic vowel, the suffixal -s- etc. of Indo-European point, whether their authors are aware of it or not, to the early existence of uninflected systems, and this applies as much to the nouns and the pronouns as to the verbs. In some cases it has been thought that the old root-words were inflected with the help of agglutinated elements; in others that there was adaptation. I consider that there have been both36. The -s and the -m of the nominal inflection, for example, are, in my opinion, lengthened forms that later took on these values, as occurred with various verbal forms. 35

36

On Bopp, cf. Adrados 1992: 4–14. On other authors that I cite below, see my book (in press) Historia de làs lenguas de Europa. See Adrados 1985 and 1989a.

20

Francisco R. Adrados

In any case, some roots, also themes, remained within the IndoEuropean inflections with certain values: for example, in the noun, the dative singular as in the Greek , the vocative singular as in the Greek or Latin domine, the nominative singular masculinefeminine in -a, the inanimate in -ó, both with no desinence; in the pronoun, the accusative singular of the personal pronoun as in the Greek (but in other languages there is a desinence, cf. Old Indic mam); in the verb, the present indicative as in the Latin do (and with a thematic vowel as in Greek ; with lengthening, Hittite dah¥ hi), ¥ the imperative as in the Latin ei or i and also the thematic ones (as in the Latin age); etc. etc. This is a well-known fact. In Hittite we still find, side by side, the nominative singulars kurur and kururasˇ, accusative singulars kurur or kururan. In Etruscan, which I have considered an Anatolian language37, there are both nominative singulars, tin and tins ‘Zeus’, etc. In short, a system in which the word was a simple root, either pure or lengthened, evolved into another in which this form was included in a paradigm with a specific value. But it could also remain uninflected as a particle, a proposition, an adverb or a conjunction38. All this was implicit, I repeat, in authors who considered the existence of an inflection as secondary. But this pre-inflectional system was barely taken into consideration. How could the syntax function, how could intelligible sentences be constructed if there was no inflection, a colleague asked me at the 10th Meeting of the Indogermanische Gesellschaft in Würzburg, in October 1999. At that meeting I had read a paper, later published (Adrados 2000b)39, precisely on that topic. And it is understandable, to a certain extent, that an Indo-Europeanist accustomed to the traditionally reconstructed Indo-European (and to the German language, so rich in declination and conjugation) could not conceive that there should exist, precisely in Indo-European, such a different linguistic type, even if it were an early stage. But this type really is possible, and it really exists. In languages like Chinese and various languages of southeast Asia there are similar systems. 37 38

39

See, after earlier works, Adrados 2005. On the resulting system, cf. Adrados 1973. On particles and the other non-inflective forms, cf. Berenguer 2000. See also Adrados / Bernabé / Mendoza 1996: 134ff., 381 ff.

Must we again postulate a unitary and uniform Indo-European?

21

These are monosyllabic languages with a large lexicon, various lengthenings and very little morphology. IE I, or Proto-Indo-European or pre-inflectional Indo-European, whichever term you prefer, can be compared with these languages. Essential features were the fact that some roots were only nouns or only pronouns or only verbs, lengthenings, tones (and their place in the word; and also atony), word order, determination of one word by another, composition and reduplication. It should be noted that some features of PIE remain as archaisms in certain later Indo-European languages: suffixation, the determination of one word by another, composition and reduplication, etc. Sometimes forms of a declination have been replaced by groups of preposition plus noun. Or a new word order has been created to distinguish between determiner and determined. Also preserved are the different melodic lines to distinguish different types of sentences, impressive uses, unimembral and bimembral sentences, as well as the use of indeclinable words to distinguish the types of sentence and to organize the whole phrase. In a way, Indo-European is like the snake that bites its own tail; I have mentioned this with regard to IE IV, the Indo-European languages of today, which tend to reduce the role of inflection and, at times, to increase the use of word order. And we find that languages such as English have in some cases returned to monosyllabism (the bomb / to bomb) and to verbal forms with multiple values (I put, you put, etc.). At other times radical vowel change is used (English foot / feet; Spanish muevo / movemos), etc. Many more things could be postulated for that preinflectional IndoEuropean, in which in any case the word predominated over the morpheme. It was not so far distant from the later Indo-European in spite of the lack of inflection. It worked with the same word classes, with a subject and a transitive or intransitive verb, it added the lengthenings and thematic vowels to the right, etc. Lehmann has differed with my proposals, but the general lines are clear. In the final analysis, we cannot reduce Indo-European to its complex inflectional phase, that of the traditional reconstruction, based above all, as is known, on Greek and Sanskrit (though there are innovations in Greek and Sanskrit that should not be attributed to a common past). There existed, before this phase III, the monothematic phase II, in which there was inflection but no opposition of themes, and the pre-inflectional phase I.

22

Francisco R. Adrados

We must have the courage to reconstruct, insofar as possible, phases II and I, which are proposals based on clear facts, on vestiges that are maintained in the more recent phases. And we must decide, within a typological study, what there is that is common and what differentiates in the evolution that commences with Indo-European I or pre-inflectional Indo-European. IE III, the Indo-European of the traditional reconstruction, is not the only one that existed. What I have attempted to emphasize here are precisely the chronological differences within the history of IndoEuropean, and what all the stages and dialects have in common, in spite of everything. Bibliography Adrados, F. R. 1961, Estudios sobre las laringales indoeuropeas. Madrid. Adrados, F. R., 1962a. Gramaticalización y desgramaticalización. In: Homenaje a André Martinet. III, La Laguna. 5–41. Adrados, F. R., 1962b. Hethitisch und Indogermanisch. In: II. Fachtagung für indogermanische und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft. Innsbruck. 145–151. Adrados, F. R., 1965. Historische und strukturelle Methode in der indogermanischen Sprachwissenschaft. Kratylos. 10, 131–154. Adrados, F. R., 1967. Estructura del vocabulario y estructura de la lengua. In: Problemas y Principios del estructuralismo lingüístico, Madrid. 193–229. Adrados, F. R., 1968. Die Rekonstruktion des Indogermanischen und die strukturelle sprachwissenschaft. IF. 73, 1–47. Adrados, F. R., 1971. On indoeuropean sigmatic verbal stems. ArchL. 2, 95–116. Adrados, F. R., 1973. Estudio sobre la estructura del Indoeuropeo preflexional. RSEL. 2, 117–142. Adrados, F. R., 1974. Evolución y estructura del verbo indoeuropeo. 2a ed. aumentada. Madrid. Adrados, F. R., 1975. Lingüística Indoeuropea. Madrid. Adrados, F. R., 1977. La creazione di nuovi sistemi morfologici. Metodi di ricostruzione. In: Problemi della ricostruzione in linguistica, Roma. 121–132. Adrados, F. R., 1981a. Indo-european -s Stems and the origins of Polythematic Verbal Inflection. IF. 86, 96–122. Adrados, F. R., 1981b. Perfect, middle Voice and Indo-European Verbal Endings. Emerita 49, 27–58. Adrados, F. R., 1982. The archaic structure of Hittite: the crux of the problem. JIES. 11, 1–35. Adrados, F. R., 1984. La flexion nominale du grec et de l’indoeuropéen III à la lumière de l’Anatolien. In: E. Benveniste aujourd’hui. Actes du Colloque Intenational du C.N.R.S. (Université Rabelais, Tours, 28–30 septembre 1983. Ed. J. Taillardat / G. Lazard / G. Serbat. Tours. II. 1–6.

Must we again postulate a unitary and uniform Indo-European?

23

Adrados, F. R., 1985. Der Ursprung der grammatischen Kategorien des Indoeuropäischen. In: Akten der VII Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft. Ed. B. Schlerath. Wiesbaden. 1–46. Adrados, F. R., 1988a. Archaisms in anatolian Nominal Inflexion. In: A Linguistic Happening in Memory of Ben Schwartz. Studies in Anatolian, Italic and Other Indo-European Languages. Bibliothèque des Cahiers de Linguistique de Louvain 42. Ed. Y. L. Arbeitman. Louvain-la-Neuve. 13–40. Adrados, F. R., 1988b. Nuevos estudios de Lingüística Indoeuropea. Madrid. Adrados, F. R., 1988c. On the Origins of the Indo-European Dative-Locative singular Endings. In: Languages and Cultures. Studies in honor of Edgar C. Polomé. Ed. M. A. Jazayery / W. Winter. Berlin / New york. 21–41. Adrados, F. R., 1989a. Agglutination, Suffixation or Adaptation? For the History of IE nominal Inflexion. IF. 94, 21–44. Adrados, F. R., 1989b. Etruscan as an IE (but not Hittite) language. JIES. 17, 363–383. Adrados, F. R., 1990. El genitivo temático en -o en micénico y chipriota. In: Studia Indogermanica et Palaeohispanica in honorem A. Tavar et L. Michelena. Ed. F. Villar. Salamanca. 175–181. Adrados, F. R., 1991. El formante -n y el origen de la flexión heteroclítica del Indoeuropeo. Emerita. 59, 5–21. Adrados, F. R., 1992. The new Image of Indoeuropean. The History of a Revolution. IF. 97, 1–22. Adrados, F. R., 1994a. Bopp’s Image of Indo-European and some Recent Interpretations. In: Bopp-Symposium 1992 der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Ed. R. Sternemann. Heidelberg. 5–14. Adrados, F. R., 1994b. Laryngale mit Appendix?, Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft. Vorträge und kleinere Schriften 60, Innsbruck. Adrados, F. R., 1997. More on Etruscan as an IE-Anatolian Language. HS. 107, 46–76. Adrados, F. R., 2000a. ¿Cómo describir el Indoeuropeo y sus variantes. In: Europa et Asia Polyglotta. Dettelbach. 1–6. Adrados, F. R., 2000b. Towards a Syntax of Proto-Indo-European. IF. 105, 60–67. Adrados, F. R., 2005. El etrusco como Indoeuropeo anatolio: viejos y nuevos argumentos. Emerita. 73, 45–56. Adrados, F. R., 2006. A note on the +-o/-eu, +-a/-eu, +a/+ai/-i stems in Indo-European. Emerita 74, 197–200. Adrados, F. R., in press. Historia de làs lenguas de Europa. Adrados, F. R. / Bernabé, A. / Mendoza, J., 1995. Manual de Lingüística Indoeuropea. I. Prólogo. Introducción. Fonética. Madrid. Adrados, F. R. / Bernabé, A. / Mendoza, J., 1996. Manual de Lingüística Indoeuropea. II. Morfología nominal y verbal. Madrid. Bammesberger, A. (Ed.), 1988. Die Laryngaltheorie und die Rekonstruion des Urindogermanischen Laut und Formensystem. Heidelberg. Beekes, R. P., 1984. Comparative Indo-European Linguistics, Amsterdam. Benveniste, E., 1935. Origines de la formation des noms en indoeuropéen, Paris.

24

Francisco R. Adrados

Berenguer, J. A., 2000. Estudio sobre las partículas indoeuropeas con base consonántica y laringal. Manuales y Anejos de Emerita 42. Madrid. CSIC. Birwé, R., 1956. Griechisch-Arische Sprachbeziehungen im Verbalsystem, Waldorf. Brosman, P., 1976. The hittite gender of cognates or PIE feminines. JIES 4, 141–159. Carruba, O., 1971. Il problema del genere in anatolico e in indoeuropeo. In: Le lingue dell’Europa. Brescia. 175–191. Carruba, O., 2001. La mozione in -i e il caso in -sakza del luvio. In: Anatolisch und Indogermanisch, Innsbruck. 28–42. Drinka, B., 2005. The sigmatic aorist in Indo-European, Washington 2005. Eichner, H., 1975. Die Vorgeschichte des Hethitischen Verbalsystems. In: Flexion und Wortbildung. Akten der V. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft. Regensburg, 9–14 September 1973. Ed. H. Rix. Wiesbaden. 71–103. Georgiev, V., 1981. Introduction to the History of the Indo-European Languages. Sofia. Giacalone Ramat, A. / Ramat, P. (Edd.), 1995. Las lenguas indoeuropeas, Madrid. Greenberg, J. H., 2000. Indo-European and its Closest Relatives. Stanford. Jasanoff, J. H., 1994. Aspects of the internal history of IE verbal-chronological interpretations of idealized reconstructions. In: Früh, Mittel- und spätindogermanisch. Edd. G. E. Dunkel et al., Wiesbaden. 149–168. Jasanoff, J. H., 2005. Hittite and the Indo-European Verb. Oxford. Kerns, J. A. / Schwarz, B., 1946. Multiple Stem Conjugation: an Indo-Hittite Isogloss?. Language 22, 57–68. Kerns, J. A. / Schwarz, B., 1972. Sketch of the Indo-European Finite Verb. Leiden. Kimball, S. E., 1997. Hittite Historical Phonology. Innsbruck. Kurylowicz, J., 1958. Le hittite. In: Proceedings of the eighth international Congress of Linguists. Oslo. Lindeman, F. O., 1997. Introduction to the laryngeal Theory. Innsbruck. Mallory, J. P. / Adams, D. Q., 1997. Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. London / Chicago. Matasovicz, R., 2005. Gender in Indo-European. Heidelberg. Mayrhofer, M., 1986. Indogermanische Grammatik. I. Heidelberg. Mayrhofer, M., 2004. Die Hauptprobleme der indogermanischen Lautlehre seit Bechtel. Vienna. Meier-Brügger, M., 2000. Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft. Berlin. Meillet, A., 1908. Sur l’aoriste sigmatique. In: Mélanges Saussure. Paris. 81–116. Meillet, A., 1931. Charactère secondaire du type thématique indoeuropéen. BSL 32, 194–203. Melchert, C., 1994. Anatolien. In: Les langues indo-européennes. Ed. F. Bader. Paris. 121–136. Polomé, E. C., 1985. How archaic is Old Indic?. In: Studia Linguistica Diachronica et Synchronica Werner Winter … oblata. Ed. U. Pieper / G. Stickel. Berlin / New York / Amsterdam. 671–683. Rieken, E., 1999. Untersuchungen zur nominalen Stammbildung des Hethitischen. Wiesbaden. Risch, E., 1975. Zur Entstehung des hethitischen Verbalparadigmas. In: Flexion

Must we again postulate a unitary and uniform Indo-European?

25

und Wortbildung. akten der V. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft. Regensburg, 9–14 September 1973. Ed. H. Rix. Wiesbaden. 247–258. Rix, H., 2001. Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Wiesbaden. Schmitt-Brandt, R., 1998. Einführung in die Indogermanistik. Tübingen. Specht, F., 1944. Der Ursprung der indogermanischen Deklination. Gotinga. Strunk, K., 1984. Probleme der Sprachrekonstruktion und das Fehlen zweier Modi im Hethitischen. Incontri Linguistici 9, 131–152. Szemerényi, O., 1970. Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft. Darmstadt. Tischler, J., 1988. Relative Chronology: the case of proto-indo-european. In: A Linguistic Happening in Memory of Ben Schwartz. Studies in Anatolian, Italic and Other Indo-European Languages. Bibliothèque des Cahiers de Linguistique de Louvain 42. Ed. Y. L. Arbeitman. Louvain-la-Neuve. Louvain la Neuve. 559–573. Zeilfelder, S., 2001. Archaismus und Ausgliederung. Studien zur sprachlichen Stellung des Hethitischen, Heidelberg.

Instituto de Filología Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas Duque de Medinaceli 6 E-28014 M a d r i d Spain [email protected]

Fr a n c i s c o R . A d r a d o s

26

Sylvain Patri

Remarque sur le positionnement syntaxique du déterminant adverbial (préverbe) en indo-européen 1. Introduction Brièvement décrit, le phénomène qu’on se propose ici de prendre en considération consiste en ceci que l’acception résultant de la dérivation par préverbe d’une forme verbale donnée peut être assumée par une forme non préverbée si celle-ci est intégrée dans une construction faisant suite à un emploi prédicatif de la forme préverbée. Wackernagel (1928/II: 177) semble avoir été le premier à mettre en relation les données du grec et du latin qui reflètent cette construction avant que Watkins (1967) ne démontre le caractère hérité de celle-ci en produisant des témoignages de son fonctionnement en hittite. L’objet de cette étude sera d’accroître les données de la comparaison en apportant des exemples inédits de cette construction en slave oriental et de montrer, que l’apport de ces données est de nature à préciser l’interprétation linguistique du phénomène.

2. Une construction indo-européenne Les organisations discursives impliquant la répétition d’un même verbe dans deux propositions contiguës sont relativement peu fréquentes, ce qui explique que, dans les langues indo-européennes où elle a été jusqu’à présent étudiée, la construction en cause ne soit reflétée que par un nombre limité de témoignages (moins d’une dizaine de cas en hittite, une trentaine en latin, plus en grec)1. On reprendra

1

On trouvera chez Clausen 1955: 49–51, Fraenkel 1959: 20–22 = 1964: 440–442, Puhvel 1967, Renehan 1976: 11–27, Dubois 1988: 217–218, d’utiles discussions philologiques portant sur les attestations de ces constructions dans les textes grecs et latins; comme le relève Clausen (p. 49), avant que d’être synthétisé par Wackernagel, ce phénomène avait été signalé par plusieurs éditeurs de textes du XIXe siècle.

Indogermanische Forschungen, 112. Band 2007

DOI 10.1515/IDGF.2007.002

Remarque sur le positionnement syntaxique

27

ici brièvement ceux de ces exemples qui présentent un intérêt particulier pour le présent propos. Les premières attestations sont aussi anciennes que les données de la comparaison indo-européenne. Dans le Code hittite, la tablette ancienne KBo 6.2, transmet un article précisant les modalités selon lesquelles le propriétaire d’un esclave encourant une condamnation est à même de réparer le délit2: (1)

KBo 6.2 iv 47–48 (CTH 291 § 95, Hofner 1997: 93)3 takku BEL-SˇU tezzi ser-sit-wa si maître-sien déclarer-3sg.prés. rel.-PPoss.3sg.-part.quot. sarnikmi nu sarnikzi restituer-1sg.pr. conn. restituer-3sg.prés. “si son maître déclare: ‘je restitue pour lui’, alors, il restitue”

Une disposition pratiquement similaire est énoncée dans un article voisin: (2)

KBo 6.3 iv 55–57 (CTH 291 § 99, Hoffner 1997: 96)4 takku ARAD-is É-er lukkezzi ishas-ses-a si esclave-nom. maison-acc. incendier-3sg. maître-sienser sarnikzi (…) takku UL-ma sarnikzi rel. restituer-3sg.prés (…) si nég.-mais restituer-3sg.prés. “si un esclave incendie une maison, son maïtre restitue (…), mais s’il ne restitue pas …”

Un troisième témoignage se rencontre encore dans le même texte avec pai- “donner” dans un article stipulant la conduite à tenir lorsqu’un propriétaire trouve sur son terrain un animal qui ne lui appartient pas:

2

3 4

-

Dans la transcription large des textes cunéiformes, ‘ ’ indique que le terme de droite est un clitique et ‘-’ indique la limite entre un logogramme et une séquence phonétique. Duplicats: KBo 6.3 iv 46, KBo 9.69: 4, KUB 29.19: 6. On cite cet article d’après KBo 6.3 iv 55–57 (en ductus récent) plutôt que d’après KBo 6.2 iv 56 (en ductus ancien) dont la lecture est, sur le passage impliquant la présence de ser, plus conjecturale; cf. Hoffner 1997: 96 n. 310.

28 (3)

Sylvain Patri

KBo 6.3 iv 20–21, dupl. KBo 6.7: 3–4 (CTH 291 § 86, Hoffner 1997: 88) n-an ishi-ssi EGIR-pa pa¯i conn.-Pr2sg.acc. propriétaire-dat.-sien rel. donner-3sg. ¯ takku-an UL-ma pa¯i n-as si-Pr3sg.acc. nég.-mais donner-3sg. conn.-Pr3sg.nom. LÚNÍ.ZU-as kisa voleur devenir-3sg. “il le rend à son propriétaire, mais s’il ne le rend pas, il devient un voleur”

Selon l’usage prévalent dans le texte des Lois, le relateur adpositionnel appa “en retour, derrière” est ici logographié EGIR-pa (Hoffner 1997: 270, 291). On constate un phénomène analogue dans un autre texte, également ancien, mais transmis par des tablettes plus récentes, le Rescrit de Télépinu; il s’agit cette fois d’une recommandation du roi à un futur souverain: (4)

KBo 3.1 ii 43–44 (CTH 19 § 29, Hoffmann 1984: 32) kissann-a le tesi arha-wa ainsi-et nég. déclarer-3sg.prés. rel.-part.quot. parkunummi parkunusi-ma-za UL kuitki pardonner-1sg. pardonner-2sg.-mais-emph. nég. rien/acc.nt. “ne parle pas en disant: ‘je pardonne’ alors que tu ne pardonnes rien”

En grec, la même construction semble être attestée pour la première fois dans le traité de la Seconde confédération athénienne de -377: (5)

IG II2 43, lignes 115–118 [= Pouilloux 1960: 148] (…) κ | [] 2A λ | [ ]« |« | Ν

!| α# « $% ν » ν | !

² ' (…) “(…) qu’il ne soit permis à aucun Athénien, ni à titre privé, ni à titre public, d’acquérir, dans le territoire des alliés, ni maison ni terrain, ni par achat, ni par hypothèque, ni d’aucune autre façon; et si quelqu’un achète ou acquiert ou prend en gage, de quelque façon que ce soit (…)”

Remarque sur le positionnement syntaxique

29

Comme l’a remarqué Wackernagel, on a ici deux exemples imbriqués avec () “acquérir” résumé par ) » , sans -, et * “hypothéquer”, par % , sans *-. En latin, l’existence de cette structure s’observe dès la Loi des XII tables (si nox furtum faxsit … “si un vol est commis de nuit”, cf. Huvelin 1901: 15sq.): (6)

si im occisit, iure caesus esto (Tab. 8.2) si PP3sg-acc. tuer-3sg. droit-abl. tuer-ptc. être-3sg. “s’il (= le propriétaire) le tue, il (= le voleur) est tué (conformément) au droit”

Le latin semble être la langue dans laquelle cette construction est, relativement, la plus fréquente en raison de son adoption ultérieure comme artefact stylistique chez les poètes, notamment Ovide; l’exemple suivant est cité, entre autres, par Clausen (1955: 49–50): (7)

languida consurgit nec scit cur languida surgat (Ov. Fast. 3.25) “elle se lève languissante, ne sachant pourquoi elle se lève languissante” 3. Données slaves

En slave, les rares exemples de cette construction que j’ai pu relever se rencontrent régulièrement dans des sources non littéraires (droit, correspondances privées) indemnes de toute influence slavonne. Le premier est attesté dans le traité diplomatique et commercial conclu en 1229 entre la cité de Smolensk, celle de Riga et l’organisation hanséatique du Gotland (éd. Sumnikova & Lopatin 1963, version A, lignes 14–16): (8)

Aze budeˇte xolu˘pu˘ ubitu˘ 1 grivna ser˘ıbra si être-opt.3sg. esclave tuer-pt. 1 monnaie argent zaplatiti u smol˘ıneˇsku˘ tako platiti i u rize payer prép. S. ainsi payer-inf. et prép. Riga i na gotskom˘ı ber˘ızeˇ et prép. got-adj.loc.sg. rive-loc.sg. “si un esclave est tué, (on doit) payer une grivna d’argent; de même (on doit) payer à Smolensk, à Riga et au Gotland”

Bien que za- constitue précisément le préverbe au moyen duquel le couple aspectuel platít’ / zaplatít’ apparaît constitué en russe moderne,

30

Sylvain Patri

rien ne permet, dans ce passage, d’évoquer une interprétation de cette nature, le contexte dans lequel fonctionnant platiti étant identique à celui dans lequel apparaît intérieurement zaplatiti. On ne peut, pour la même raison, inférer une quelconque différence lexicale entre les deux verbes. Dans le texte du Traité, cette situation semble au demeurant présenter une certaine régularité comme le montre cet autre article, construit lui aussi avec (za-)platiti (version A, lignes 29–30): (9)

Aze latininu˘ dastu˘ kne˛zju xu˘lopu si latin-nom.sg. donner-3sg. princier-dat. esclave-dat. vu˘ zajemu˘ (…) a umrete ne prép. prêt-acc. (…) conn. mourir-3sg. nég. zaplativu˘ a kto jeml˘ıt˘ı jego payer-ptc.pass.act. alors qui prendre-3sg. PP3sg.-gén. ostatu˘ku˘ tomu platiti nemcˇinu reste-acc. dém.dat. payer-inf. Allemand-dat. “si un Latin accorde un prêt à un esclave princier (…) et que celui-ci meure sans avoir payé (= remboursé), alors celui qui recueille la succession doit payer (= rembourser) l’Allemand (= le Latin)”

Ces témoignages présentent une évidente analogie avec les articles du Code hittite: on énonce des règles de droit prescrivant le versement de sommes d’argent en compensation de dommages; le verbe correspond partout avec une expression de “payer” et les préverbes accolés, hitt. ser “au profit de, sur”, sl. za- “en faveur, pour”, répondent tous deux à un même sens général de projection dirigée vers un objectif localisé. Un autre exemple apparaît dans la plus longue des écorces de bouleau actuellement connues, datée de la fin du XIIe siècle: (10)

NGB 531 Ro = DND B-98 (Zaliznjak 2000: 374) aze ti vozomolovi kosne˛tino (…) ty si Pr2sg.-dat.encl. dire-3sg.prés. NPr. Pr2sg.-nom. ze brace tospodine molovi emo part. frère-voc. seigneur-voc. dire-2sg.imp. Pr3sg.-dat. tako (…) ainsi “si Kosnjatin te dit (…), alors toi, frère seigneur, dis-lui ainsi (…)”

Remarque sur le positionnement syntaxique

31

En dépit de la variation flexionnelle, la valeur lexicale du présent vozo-molvi (on notera l’absence de la désinence -t˘ı) est, comme dans les cas précédents, identique à celle de l’impératif molvi. Cet exemple est lui aussi frappant par son analogie avec le passage déjà cité du Rescrit de Télépinu (4): dans les deux cas, un verbe de parole fonctionne en relation avec un préverbe répondant à un sens général d‘externalisation spatiale du procès (hitt. arha “loin de, au-delà”, sl. voz(o)“hors de, extra-”)5.

4. Discussion A l’instar de ce qui a déjà été constaté au sujet des données grecques et latines, les exemples reflétant cette construction en slave appartiennent à des registres linguistiques exempts de toute élaboration savante ou poétique6. Elle ne paraît pas attestée en vieux slave canonique, ni même dans le Code russe (Pravda russkaja) où l’influence slavonne, bien que limitée, reste évidente. Les données slaves s’accordent sur ce point avec celles des langues classiques pour témoigner du caractère stylistiquement marqué de la construction de Wackernagel typiquement rencontrée dans un registre qui est celui de la régulation normée d’opérations d’échanges articulées autour de notions telles que “rendre” (hitt. appa pai-), “payer” (v. r. zaplatiti), “restituer” (hitt. ser sarnink-) ou “acheter” (gr. () ). Mais le fait le plus notable introduit par les données slaves est leur caractère inattendu. En effet, le statut particulier que les langues slaves assignent aux préverbes dans l’expression formelle des relations aspectuelles en attribuant un rôle grammatical à des couples de verbes appariés par dérivation préfixale définit un cadre de fonctionnement a priori incompatible avec le phénomène décrit par Wackernagel. Même en reconnaissant que l’instauration et le figement des couples aspectuels représentent des processus encore relativement peu systématisés dans les états anciens des langues slaves par rapport à la situation contemporaine, il n’en demeure pas moins que, dès les plus anciens textes, certaines pro5

6

Güterbock & Hoffner estiment CHD P-173a § 5, que le sens de parkunu- dans l’exemple (4) pourrait être “réformer, améliorer (la vie du royaume)”. “Diese Art der Wiederaufnahme hat an sich mit poetischer Sprache nichts zu tun; sie gehört der Sprache des Lebens an” (Fraenkel 1959: 22 = 1964: 440).

32

Sylvain Patri

priétés relevant de l’aspect apparaissent régulièrement liées à la préverbation7. Le caractère exceptionnel de cette construction, en slave oriental, est, en outre, accentué par la tendance à utiliser les marques de dépendance de façon explicitement redondante. Selon un trait que lón observe dans divers textes vieuxrusse, notamment dans la langue des écorces de bouleau, et qui s’est perpétué jusqu’à nos jours dans la littérature orale traditionnelle (bylines), une préposition peut être répétée devant chaque élément d’un syntagme nominal et non, comme c’est le cas le plus souvent, placée devant le terme occupant la tête du constituant nominal8: (11)

a. u m˘ıstoka u kuzn˘ıce˛ prép. NPers.-gén. prép forgeron-gén. “chez le forgeron Mestko” (NGB 630 = DND, B-13, milieu du XIIe s.) b. vo slavnom vo gorode vo Kieve prép. glorieux-loc. prép. ville-loc. prép. Kiev-loc. “dans la glorieuse ville de Kiev” (Kirsˇa Danilov)

Autrement dit, le relateur adpositionnel vise ici à investir autant de positions qu’il y a de mots au sein du constituant nominal, exactement à l’opposé de la stratégie d’effacement qu’illustre le phénomène décrit par Wackernagel. Sous considération de leur syntaxe, les données slaves du type de (8–10) présentent donc un intérêt propre dans la description: si l’on admet que, lors de la répétition d’une forme préverbée, l’effacement du préverbe reflète un phénomène de redondance, la question se pose de savoir quelle est la nature de la relation syntaxique ici réinterprétée comme superflue.

5. Contrainte et choix sur la détermination adverbiale Il paraît significatif de remarquer que, de façon générale, la mise en relation du verbe et du préverbe n’entraîne pas nécessairement un changement sémantique à même de susciter une interprétation lexi7 8

Pour des exemples de ces propriétés, voir, par exemple, Patri 1994: 271 sq. Sur cette construction, voir, en dernier lieu, Zaliznjak 2004: 162sq. (avec bibliographie), qui décrit ses conditions de possibilité.

Remarque sur le positionnement syntaxique

33

calement différenciée du lexème dérivé par rapport à sa forme non préverbée. Face aux cas évidents illustrés par hitt. apa pai- “rendre (litt. ‘donner en retour’)” (3) ou gr. *- % “hypothéquer, gager (litt. ‘mettre sous’)” (4), la préverbation de sarnink- par ser dans un exemple tel que (2), ne modifie en rien le contenu lexical du verbe par rapport à son emploi non préverbé attesté dans le passage suivant: (12)

9 KBo 6.3 iv 52–54 (CTH 291 § 98, Hoffner 1997: 95) takku LÚ-as EL-LUM É-er lukkezzi si homme-nom. libre maison-acc. incendier-3sg. [EG]IR-pa wetezzi (..) nakkus UL en-retour construire-3sg. (…) dommage nég. sarnikzi 9 restituer-3sg.prés. “si un homme libre incendie (litt. ‘allume’) une maison, il rebâtit la maison, (…) mais il ne restitue pas le dommage10”

Autrement dit, la présence ou l’absence de ser n’a aucune incidence lexicale observable sur le comportement de sarnink-, situation qui est également celle de hitt. parkunu- par rapport à (arha) parkunu- (4), de lat. (con-)surgo (7) ou de v. r. (za-)platiti (8–9), (vozo-)molviti (10). l’élimination du préverbe lors de la répétition de la forme antérieurement préverbée constitue donc un mécanisme indifférent, de façon générale, à la référence lexicale et à l’incidence que le préverbe peut fréquemment avoir sur l’interprétation sémantique du lexème verbal11. Il s’ensuit que, dans les cas qui nous occupent, le “préverbe”,

9

10

11

On cite ce passage d’après la même tablette que celle qui transmet l’exemple précédent (supra, n. 3). Sur l’interprétation de l’hapax nakkus “le dommage”, voir Laroche 1986 (avec discussion bibliographique); CHD, L-N 374–375. Cette observation réfute la conclusion de Turcan 1982, selon qui le phénomène étudié serait la conséquence d’un mécanisme de “dépréverbation”. Ce mécanisme, dont l’existence a été imaginée par Vaillant 1946, estime que l’évolution sémantique dont témoignent certains lexèmes verbaux se justifie en postulant que leur signification a été modifiée par un préverbe éliminé aprè être devenu “inutile”. Le mécanisme suggéré par Vaillant, incontrôlable par définition, n’est attesté dans l’évolution historique d’aucune langue et semble, de façon générale, peu vraisemblable au regard des principes généraux d’évolution des morphèmes.

34

Sylvain Patri

n’étant pas corrélé à la forme verbale, ne peut être considéré comme une propriété du verbe. L‘apparent paradoxe suscité par cette constatation peut s’expliquer sous considération d’une propriété formelle que les données hittites mettent clairement en évidence: dans les exemples hittites témoignant de la construction de Wackernagel, le “préverbe” peut se trouver au contact direct de la forme verbale, mais peut aussi être placé à l’initiale de la construction phrastique où il peut servir d’hôte pour les clitiques normalement attendus dans cette position. Comparer ser sarnikzi (2), face à ser-sit-wa sarnikmi (1), ou EGIR-pa pai (3) face à arha-wa parkunummi (4). Or selon les critères mis en évidence pour la grammaire hittite par Zuntz (1936: 111–115) puis, plus explicitement, par Goetze (1963: 100–101), mais qui ne font que refléter une situation attestée dans d’autres langues indo-européennes et qui, selon toute probabilité, était celle de l’état commun, la première situation témoigne d’une détermination du relateur adverbial exclusivement orienté sur la forme verbale (un préverbe, au sens strict), tandis que la seconde reflète le fonctionnement d’un relateur adverbial auto-accentué (hôte de clitiques), dont la détermination porte sur l’ensemble de l’organisation phrastique12. Cette observation, combinée avec la précédente, conditionne tout le reste de l’interprétation. Précisément décrit, cette fois en termes positifs, le phénomène traité par Wackernagel consiste à reconnaître que la détermination introduite par un adverbe, qu’elle porte sur un des constituants nucléaires de la phrase (nom ou verbe), ou qu’elle soit référée à la construction phrastique dans son entier, est implicitement récapitulée du moment où la forme verbale réapparaît comme noyau prédicatif dans une phrase discursivement dépendante de la première. Le cumul de ces propriétés indique que le fonctionnement de la construction ne peut que remonter à la situation, en l’occurence archaïque, dans laquelle 12

Goetze ne semble pas s’être rendu compte qu’il répétait – mot pour mot – au sujet du hittite une caractérisation déjà donnée par Kuryłowicz des faits du védique: “il n’y a en réalité que deux types possible: ou bien le préverbe, détaché du verbe, se place en tête de la phrase sans que le verbe le suive immédiatement; ou bien le préverbe, quelque place qu’il occupe, précéde le verbe immédiatement” (Kuryłowicz 1936: 39). Pour une démonstration du caractère hérité de ces propriétés, voir Watkins 1963: 36–39; pour d’autres conséquences dérivées, Renou 1933, Garrett 1992: 207–208). Le jugement de Starke 1977: 123 sq., selon qui il n’y aurait pas de préverbes en hittite semble être resté isolé.

Remarque sur le positionnement syntaxique

35

un même déterminant adverbial était, selon sa position séquentielle, à même de porter sur un constituant (nom, verbe) de la phrase, comme sur la phrase elle-même13. La composante pragmatique du phénomène relevé par Wackernagel (caractère optionnel, registre spécialisé) conduit en définitive à considérer que cette construction relève, pour l’essentiel, d’une stratégie d’élaboration de la cohésion textuelle utilisant un des moyens les plus banalement utilisés à cette fin, dans les langues: la condensation14.

6. Conclusion Le phénomène considéré semble instructif sous deux aspects. En premier lieu, il confirme la possibilité de discerner l’existence de registres de langue spécialisés en indo-européen, comme celui du droit, caractérisés bien entendu par un lexique, mais aussi par des traits syntaxiques qui leur sont propres (Watkins 1970, Ivanov & Toporov 1978). Il paraît probable que les propriétés de la langue du droit, ici comme ailleurs, se caractérisaient par le recours à des lexèmes pris dans des acceptions lexicales figées ainsi qu’à des structures syntaxiques restée intelligibles, mais tombées en désuétude, autrement dit, sur une élaboration concertée de la tradition à l’image même de la pérénité que la loi est censée incarner. Or il est intéressant d’observer qu’un problème connexe à celui qui vient d’être étudié, comme celui de la tmèse, se présente à l’observation dans des conditions similaires; Morpurgo Davies (1985: 87) a remarqué qu’en grec, l’utilisation de la tmèse dans l’état de langue reflété par l’épopée constituait une structure dont le domaine ne pouvait plus être délimité en termes de propriétés formelles, ce qui l’assimilait à un trait stylistique savant dont le maintien n’avait plus de rapports avec la norme d’usage15. On discerne donc que des genres littéraires aussi différents que le droit et l’épopée, mais également caractérisés par un certain nombre de pro-

13

14

15

Sur les étapes, menant un adverbe au statut de préverbe ou de préposition dans les langues indo-européennes, voir Kuryłowicz 1964: 171–178, Ivanov 1965: 217–227, et les remarques de Laroche 1979: 88–89. Le plus étonnant catalogue de constructions syntaxiques manipulées à cette fin se trouve probablement dans le RgVeda ﬂ (Renou 1966: 50–52). Sur le problème de la tmèse, voir en dernier lieu la discussion de Hajnal 2004.

36

Sylvain Patri

priétés linguistiques spécifiques utilisent la détermination adverbiale de façon délibérément anachronique en soustrayant le déterminant adverbial de la position syntaxique où il est normalement attendu, soit en le déplacant ailleurs dans la phrase, soit, en l’éliminant complètement. Autrement dit, en indo-européen, les variations de positionnement du déterminant adverbial peuvent refléter des manipulations pragmatiques distinctes, quant à leur motivation, des critères qui identifient normalement le domaine du déterminant adverbial en fonction de sa position syntaxique. Cette observation vaut particulièrement au sujet du slave où la construction de Wackernagel continue à fonctionner en discordance évidente avec les normes de la grammaire. Les données du slave où, à la différence de ce que l’on peut observer dans d’autres langues (hittite, grec), les préverbes sont toujours des morphèmes liés à la forme verbale et dont l’utilisation répond à une assignation grammaticale précise représentent, à cet égard, une illustration particulièrement nette de ce que peut être un archaïsme syntaxique. Références bibliographiques Clausen, Wendell. 1955. Silua coniecturarum. American Journal of Philology 76, 47–62. DND: Zaliznjak 2004. Dubois, Laurent. 1988. Recherches sur le dialecte arcadien. I, Grammaire (Bibliothèque des Cahiers de l’Institut de linguistique de Louvain, 33). Louvain: Peeters. [Fraenkel, Eduard. 1959. Zum Text der Vögel des Aristophanes. Hellfried Dahlmann & Reinhold Merkelbach (éds.). Studien zur Textgeschichte und Textkritik. Köln: Westdeutscher Verlag, 9–30 = 1964: 427–451. Fraenkel, Eduard. 1964. Kleine Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie. I, Zur Sprache. Zur griechischen Literatur. Roma: Storia e letteratura. Garrett, Andrew. 1992. Topics in Lycian Syntax. Historische Sprachforschung 105(2), 200–212. Goetze, Albrecht. 1963. Postposition and Preverb in Hittite. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 17(3), 98–101. Hajnal, Ivo. 2004. Die Tmesis bei Homer und auf den mykenischen Linear B Tafeln – ein chronologisches Paradox? Sous presse dans un volume de mélanges. Hoffmann, Inge. 1984. Der Erlaß Telipinus (Texte der Hethiter, 11). Heidelberg: C. Winter. Hoffner, Harry A., Jr. 1997. The Laws of the Hittites. A Critical Edition (Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui, 23). Leiden: E. J. Brill. Huvelin, Paul. 1915. Études sur le furtum dans le très ancien droit romain. I, Les sources (Annales de l’Université de Lyon. N. S. II: Droit, 29). Lyon: Rey.

Remarque sur le positionnement syntaxique

37

Ivanov, Vjacˇeslav Vsevolodovicˇ. 1965. Obsˇcˇceindojevropejskaja, praslavjanskaja, i anatolijskaja jazykovye sistemy. Moskva: Nauka. Ivanov, Vjacˇeslav Vsevolodovicˇ & Vladimir Nikolaevicˇ Toporov. 1978. O jazyke drevnego slavjanskogo prava. Viktor Ivanovicˇ Borkovskij (éd.). Slavjanskoje jazykoznanie. VIII mezdunaradnyj s"ezd slavistov. Moskva: Nauka, 221–240. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1936. Les formes verbales composées du RgVeda. ﬂ Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Je˛zykoznawczego 5, 39–46. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1964. The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: C. Winter. Laroche, Emmanuel. 1979. L’inscription lycienne. Henri Metzger; Emmanuel Laroche & André Dupont-Sommer (éds.). Fouilles de Xanthos. VI, La stèle trilingue du Létôon. Paris: C. Klincksieck, 49–127. Laroche, Emmanuel. 1986. Hittite nakku – nakkussis. Harry A. Hoffner, Jr. & Gary M. Beckman (éds.). Kanisˇsˇuwar. A tribute to Hans G. Güterbock on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday, May 27, 1983 (Assyriological Studies, 23). Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 137–140. Morpurgo Davies, Anna. 1985. Mycenaean and Greek Language. Anna Morpurgo Davies & Yves Duhoux (éds.). Linear B. A 1984 Survey (Bibliothèque des Cahiers de l’Institut de linguistique de Louvain, 26). Louvain-la-Neuve: Cabay, 75–125. NGB: Documents novgorodiens sur écorce de bouleau, Sous la direction initiale d’A. V. Arcixovskij. Moskva, 1953 sq. Patri, Sylvain. 1994. Morphogenèse des relations d’aspect du verbe slave. Bulletin de la Société de linguistique 89(1), 255–287. Pouilloux, Jean. 1960. Choix d’inscriptions grecques. Textes, traductions et notes (Bibliothèque de la Faculté des lettres de Lyon, 4). Paris: Les BellesLettres. Puhvel, Jaan. 1967. An “Indo-European Construction” in Arcadian. Classical Philology 65(1), 50–51. Renehan, Robert, 1976. Studies in Greek Texts. Critical Observations to Homer, Plato, Euripides, Aristophanes and Other Authors (Hypomnemata, 43). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Renou, Louis. 1933. La séparation du verbe et du préverbe en védique. Bulletin de la Société de linguistique 34(2), 49–96. Renou, Louis. 1966. Sur l’économie des moyens linguistiques dans le RgVeda. ﬂ Bulletin de la Société de linguistique 61(1), 47–55. Starke, Frank. 1977. Die Funktionen der dimensionalen Kasus und Adverbien im Althethitischen (Studien zu den Bogazköy-Texten, ˘ 23). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Sumnikova, T. A. & V. V. Lopytin. 1963. Smolenskie gramoty XIII–XIV vv. Moskva: Izd-vo. Akademii Nauk SSSR. Turcan, Isabelle. 1982. La dépréverbation dans les langues classiques. Bulletin de la Société de linguistique 77(1), 273–284. Vaillant, André. 1946. La dépréverbation. Revue des études slaves 22(1), 5–45. Wackernagel, Jacob. 1928. Vorlesungen über Syntax, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch. 2. Aufl. I–II. Basel: Birkhäuser.

38

Sylvain Patri

Watkins, Calvert. 1963. Premliminaries to a Historical and Comparative Analysis of the Syntax of the Old Irish Verb. Celtica 6, 1–49. Watkins, Calvert. 1967. An Indo-European Construction in Greek and Latin. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 71, 115–119. Watkins, Calvert. 1970. Studies in Indo-European Legal Language, Institutions, and Mythology. George Cardonna; Henry M. Hoenigswald & Alfred Senn (éds.). Indo-European and Indo-Europeans (Haney Foundation Series, 9). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 321–354. Zaliznjak, Andrej Anatol’evicˇ. 2000. Paleografija berestjanych gramot i ich vnestratigraficˇeskoe datirovanie. Valentin Lavrent’evicˇ Janin & Andrej Anatol’evicˇ Zaliznjak (éds.). Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste (iz raskopok 1990–1996 gg.). Moskva: Russkie slovari, 134–429. Zaliznjak, Andrej Anatol’evicˇ. 2004. Drevnenovgorodskij dialekt. Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury. Zuntz, Leonie. 1936. Die hethitischen Ortsadverbien aha, para, piran als selbständige Adverbien und in ihrer Verbindung mit Nomina und Verba. Speyer: PilgerDruckerei.

Institut universitaire de France Sylvain Patri (Université Lumière, Lyon-II & CNRS, UMR 5596) Institut des Sciences de l’Homme 14, avenue Berthelot F-69007 Ly o n France [email protected]

The meaning of life: PIE *gwih3 Ü-

39

The meaning of life: PIE *gwih3 u3 The Proto-Indo-European present *gwíh3Üe/o- ‘live’ (Lat. vivo, OCS zivo, ˛ Ved. jâvati, TB s´aim, ﬂ Hom. Gk. , etc.) has several aberrant properties. To begin with, it combines the barytone accentuation, typical of pure thematic presents like *bhér-e/o- ‘carry’, with the zero grade of the root.1 Next, the morphological segmentation of *gwíh3Üe/o- is baffling: the *Ü preceding the thematic vowel looks as if it belonged to a formative suffix rather than the root of the verb (whether one prefers *{gweÁh3} or *{gwÁeh3} as its canonical form); however, if analysed as *gwíh3-Üe/o-, it has no parallel among the known types of PIE present stems. One is tempted to connect it directly with the adjective *gwih3Üó- ‘living, alive’ (Lat. vivus, OCS zivõ, Lith. gy´vas, Ved. jiváh, ﬂ Gk. «, etc.), usually taken to contain the adjective-forming suffix *-Üó-. Such a solution is in fact adopted by Meier-Brügger (2002: 168–169), who (following Rix 1994: 79) treats *gwíh3Üe/o- as “eine hocharchaische Denominativbildung mit Nullsuffix”. Archaic or not, the formation is still unique and puzzling. A normal stative present derived from *gwih3Üó- should be of the form *gwih3Üe-h1 -Áé/ó- ‘be alive’.2 The zero-derivation of *gwíh3Üe/o- from *gwih3Üó-, even if accepted for the sake of the argument, requires a shift of accent from the suffix to the zero-grade root syllable; no convincing motivation for such a shift has been proposed. The influence of the pure thematic type must be doubted, since it has no visible effect on PIE oxytone presents like *gwrh3-é/ó- ‘devour’ (Ved. giráti).

1

2

The Greek and Tocharian stems might in theory contain a “full grade II” (*gwÁóh3Üe/o-), but if one accepts the breaking of *i and *u before tautosyllabic *h2/3 in Greek and Tocharian (in particular *ih3 > PGk. *Áo and PT *ya), reconstructions other than *gwíh3Üe/o- must be considered superfluous; the same holds for the adjective *gwih3Üó- > Gk. « (for a similar change in Armenian, cf. *ih3 > *Áa in keam ‘live’). In fact, it may have existed: it virtually underlies Lat. vividus ‘full of life’ and possibly OInd. jivatha- ‘long-lived’(cf. albeo ‘be white’: albidus ‘whitish’). Another expected derivative is the inchoative *gwih3Üe-h1-skˆé/ó- > Lat. vivesco ‘become alive, grow lively’ (cf. albesco ‘become white’).

Indogermanische Forschungen, 112. Band 2007

DOI 10.1515/IDGF.2007.003

40

Piotr Ga˛siorowski

There is, however, another type of present whose formal resemblance to *gwíh3Üe/o- may be significant: reduplicated thematic stems like *sí-zd-e/o- ‘sit’ or *gˆí-gˆn-e/o- ‘beget, bring forth’3, with accented *í in an initial syllable. Rasmussen (2004: 272) convincingly explains the vocalism and accentuation of this type by assuming accent retracting to the reduplication syllable if at a certain pre-stage of PIE it became countertonic by virtue of being two syllables away from the original accent: pre-PIE *se-sed-é-ti > *sì-sod-é-ti > PIE *sízdeti.4 Let us suppose that the structure of *gwíh3Üe/o- was initially similar – namely, that the stem represents an obscured reduplication, not unlike *píb(h3)e/o- ‘drink’ < *pí-ph3-e/o-. The dissimilation of gw … gw to *gw … h3 is plausible, since there are good reasons to reconstruct a voiced dorsal fricative [γ] as the approximate pronunciation of PIE *h3. The actual root would therefore be *gweÜ-, forming the reduplicated present *gwí-gwÜ-e/o- > *gwí-γÜ-e/o-. It is now time to clarify the relationship between the verb and the adjective *gwih3Üó-. Reduplicated nouns are not unknown in PIE, one particularly transparent example being *kwé-kwl-o-s ‘circle, wheel’ (from *kwelh1 - ‘turn, go round’), coll. *kwo-kwl-áh2. Given the role of accent in distinguishing between related adjectives and substantives (as in Gk. « ‘sharp, cutting’: « ‘slice’), there should be a place in the system for an adjective of the form *kwo-kwl-ó- – or rather *kwikwl-ó- if vowel reduction rules operated similarly in verbs and adjectives.5 The use of reduplication probably emphasises repeated or continual activity: *‘revolving, moving round in circles’ by contrast to other deverbatives from the same root, such as *kwólh1 -o-s ‘turningpoint, axis, turm’ and *kwolh1 -ó-s ‘moving about’ (figuratively, ‘guarding, tending’, etc.). Whatever, then, the fundamental meaning of hypothetical *gweÜ-, the semantics of the reduplicated adjective *gwigwÜ-ó- > *gwi-γÜ-ó- (‘living, alive’) should be derived by adding overtones of continuity, intensity or repetition. Unlike the present stem, 3

4

5

From *gˆenh1-, with the usual simplification (here involving the loss of the rootfinal laryngeal) characterising compounds and reduplications. With a very old reduction of unaccented *e/o to *i before certain morphological boundaries (Rasmussen 1999 [1988]). Perhaps also in collective, cf. Phryg. ‘the Great Bear’= ‘(the wheels of a) wagon’; there is also some vacillation between *e and *i in the first syllable of of the ‘beaver’ word, *bhV-bhr-o/u-s (certainly a reduplication, whatever the underlying root).

The meaning of life: PIE *gwih3 Ü-

41

the adjective keeps its accent on the thematic vowel because of its contrastive value (an accent shift would have yielded a substantive). Once obscured, *gwíh3Üe/o- could easily be interpreted as containing an independent root, *{gwih3Ü} or *{gwih3}, understood as a zero grade and a possible basis for analogical full grades such as *gweÁh3-/*gwoÁh3-.6 To be sure, full-grade derivatives of this root are extremely rare. The only example of an e-grade stem is the exclusively Homeric Gk. fut. (Il. 15.194) ~ (Il. 22.431), 2sg. 9 (Il. 16.852, 24.431), which looks like an an aorist subjunctive, but whose precise relationship to other forms is unclear.7 The o-grade is attested in the causative *gwoÁh3-éÁe/o- > PSl. *gojiti ‘cure, protect’ and the thematic verbal noun *gwóÁh3-o-s > PSl. *gojô ‘peace’, Av. gaiia- ‘life’, Ved. gáya‘household, wealth’. However, in derivatives like these, i.e. the *monéÁe-ti and *tómh1 -o-s types, the o-grade is derived from an original zero grade.8 The process resulting in vowel insertion, grammaticalised as a morphophonological rule, remained productive long enough to create analogical derivatives of new roots like *gwih3- by infixing an *o in its synchronically “natural” place: *CiC > *CoÁC. Forms allegedly reflecting the “full grade II” *gwÁoh3- can be explained differently, namely as containing the usual zero grade (see footnote 1). There are also forms apparently lacking a reflex of the laryngeal, cf. Goth. quius, OIr. béo ‘living’ (as if from gwiÜ-ó-); these may be decompositional, and are at any rate parallelled by familiar examples of similarly shortened variants of words like *suhnú- ‘son’ and *Üih1 ró‘man’ (i. e. *sunu-, *Üiro-, known from several branches, including Germanic).9 6

7 8

9

Cf. the neo-root {bib} ‘drink’ in Latin, with its own perf. bibi and p. p. bíbitus (co-existing with potus), or the occasional transformation of compound verbs such as *h1 pi-s(e)d- ‘sit upon’ into unanalysable roots like *{peisd} in some branches (cf. Ved. perf. mid. pipidé ﬂ ‘suppressed’ < *pi-pizˇd-ái). See footnote 20. See, in particular, Rasmussen’s o-infix theory (Rasmussen 1989a: 145–230; 1992). Gk. « ‘manner of life, means of life’ may alternatively reflect *gwíh3-o-s. In either case the reduction possibly originated in compounds; cf. Gk. π -« ‘half-alive’(vs. the full form in Lat. semi-vivus), Gk. -« ‘living together’ (Skt. sam-jiva-), ﬂ etc., which would make « a mutilated substantivisation of *gwih3Üó-. There are also other shortened derivatives in Greek that contrast with full variants occurring elsewhere, e. g. « (= «): OCS zˇivotõ ‘life’ < *gwih3Üo-to-s.

42

Piotr Ga˛siorowski

The fact that we have *h3 both in the verb *gwíh3Üe/o- and the adjective *gwih3Üó- can be explained with recourse to analogical generalisation. However, it is possible that the levelling was not carried out consistently and that isolated traces of older forms could survive. Thus, beside the widespread normal development of *gwih3Üó-, we have (NW) Gmc. *kwikwa-. Rather than interpret the second *k as resulting from the irregular hardening of *h3 in the passage from PIE to Proto-Germanic (*γ > *g, yielding PGmc. *k by Grimm’s Law)10, it is now possible to explain *kwikwa- as a relict, directly reflecting *gwi-gwÜ-ó-. Such an analysis enables us to accommodate the Latin abstract noun vigor ‘liveliness, force’ as a member of the same wordfamily, namely *gwigwÜos ‘the condition of being lively’.11 A variant form of this -es-stem, this time with *h3, underlies Gk. « ‘healthy’ < *h2 Áu-gwih3es,12 a bahuvrihi compound that can be understood as *‘having youthful vigour’.13 At this point one cannot escape speculation about the original meaning of the reconstructed root *gweÜ-. Reduplicated presents are normally paired with root aorists,14 so the meaning of *gwíh3Üe/oshould have arisen as the durative counterpart of a verb with punctual semantics. ‘Move’ is a sensible preliminary conjecture, given that the concept of ‘living’ is intimately associated with bodily movements and the power of locomotion.15 Let us observe, first, that PIE has a pair of alliterating roots, *gwem- and *gwah2-, both of which mean approximately ‘proceed on foot (come, go)’ and both form root aorists 10 11

12

13

14

15

As proposed by Rasmussen (1989b: 158). With delabialisation before a rounded vowel in pre-Latin: *gwig(w)Üos > *gwigwos > *Üigos; hence the analogical velar stop in vigeo ‘be lively, thrive’ and vigesco ‘become vigorous’. Or, alternatively, *-gwiÜes (either form seems possible as the compositional simplification of *gwih3Ü-es-). Lat. perf. vixi and p. p. victus may owe their velar stop to the influence of forms preserving their -g-, although at least in the case of vixi laryngeal “hardening” (*h3 s > ks) is a possibility. Note that Gk. (Hom.+), although employed as the aorist of , is not a root verb but reflects *gwih3- extended with the stative suffix *-eh1- – a secondary formation, corresponding to the present (Arist.+) ‘pass one’s life’ (by contrast to , Att. , which means ‘live’ in the sense ‘exist’ or ‘be in full vigour’). Suffice it to mention such figurative expressions as walk the earth or alive and kicking.

The meaning of life: PIE *gwih3 Ü-

43

(*gwem-t > Ved. ágan; *gwah2-t > Ved. ágat, Gk. ) accompanied by various kinds of derived presents (*gwm-Áé/ó- > Gk.

, Lat. venio; *gwm-skˆé/ó- > Ved. gácchati, Gk. ; reduplicated *gwi-gwáh2- > Ved. jigáti). It is often assumed that the two roots are somehow related, though the nature of the relationship remains unexplained. There is an intriguing parallel with roots meaning ‘run’, *drem- (Skt. drámati, reduplicated intens. dandramyate; Gk. aor. , perf. 16) and *drah2- (Ved. drati; Gk. $- , 0 aor. $-- ‘ran away’). In PIE, the elements *-em- and *-ah2- were in all likelihood fossilised “extensions” rather than bona fide morphological units, but the fact that they recur in verbs of motion strengthens the impression that we are dealing with relicts of pre-PIE derivational morphology. Of course, the hypothesis that *gwem-, *gwah2 were once decomposable into smaller constituents does not mean that one-consonant verb roots like *{gw} are admissible for PIE or, for that matter, for pre-PIE – the *gw may reflect an old cluster reduced to a single segment. There is, however, another root beginning with *dr- and meaning ‘run’, namely *dreÜ-, represented by Ved. drávati, -te (RV) ‘run, hasten, flee’ < *dréÜ-e/o-, perf. dudrava (Brah.) < *de-dróÜ-e, reduplicated thematic aor. adudruvat (Brah.), etc.17 In strictly comparative terms, the attestation of *dreÜ- outside Indo-Iranian is scanty and uncertain, but the root happens to be exceptionally productive in old European hydronymy: river-names reflecting *droÜ-o-, *dru-tó(cf. Skt. drutá- [Mbh.] ‘swift, speedy’) and *dru(Ü)-ént- or *dréÜ-o-nt(drávat [RV] ‘running, swift’) are numerous and widely distributed,18 which compensates for the inherently limited value of onomastic data and confirms the PIE status of *dreÜ-. The reconstruction of the approximate meaning of *gweÜ- as ‘move’19 is therefore strengthened by the fact that such a root would fill a gap in the following pattern:

16 17

18 19

In a suppletive paradigm, with the present forms supplied by . The “extension” *-eÜ- is also vaguely discernible in a few other verbs expressing movement, such as *sreÜ- ‘flow’ and *pleÜ- ‘swim, go in a boat’, but this is obviously a controversial matter requiring further study. Cf. Krahe (1963: 322–324). The actual meaning may have been more specialised, referring to some particular mode of moving, but such details are harly recoverable.

44

Piotr Ga˛siorowski

*gw-em*dr-em-

*gw-ah2*dr-ah2-

(*gw-eÜ-) *dr-eÜ-

In this scenario, the only original form of the verb *gweÜ- that survived into the historically known Indo-European languages was the reduplicated thematic present,20 whose meaning evolved rather naturally from ‘keep moving, move repeatedly’ to ‘live, be alive’.21 The morphological obscuration of the present stem caused the wordfamily based on *gweÜ- disintegrate, and the competition of the alliterating near-synonyms *gwem- and *gwah2- ousted the remaining forms (such as the hypothetical aor. inj. *gwéÜ-t/*gwÜ-ént). On the other hand, *gwíh3Ü-e/o- supplied its own, analogically created verbforms with shifted semantics (including new aorists meaning ‘survived’ rather than ‘moved’). Though lost or distorted beyond recognition as a verb, *gweÜ- may have left its traces elsewhere. Primary verbs form root nouns, originally acrostatic (with an o-grade in the strong cases), like *kˆläps (Gk. ! ‘thief’) from *kˆlep- ‘steal’, *späkˆ-s (Gk. ! ‘scops owl’) from *spekˆ- ‘look’ or *ptäh2-s (Gk. " ‘hare’) from *ptah2- ‘flinch, crouch’.22 Since such nouns can serve as epithets describing a characteristic habit, it is easy to see how some of them came to be used as animal names: owls, when hunting, spend most of their time watching from a perch; a hare is most often seen cowering or trying to leap out of sight. An animal that habitually wanders from place to place could accordingly be named *gwäÜs (acc. *gwäm, gen. *gwéÜs). In other words, I propose that the PIE word for ‘head of cattle’23 is a deverbal root noun presumably motivated by observations of herds of cattle 20

21

22

23

If the in Hom. (hapax) represents lengthening metri causa, one could entertain the possibility that , 9 reflect unreduplicated *gwéÜ-e/o- from the old root aorist. A meaning like ‘shall go/walk’ is at any rate compatible with all their occurrences in the Iliad! Note the reverse semantic evolution of Eng. quick from ‘alive’ to ‘swift’ and the frequent use of the reflexes of *gwih3Üó- in various languages to describe vigorous movement, cf. Lat vivus flumen ‘running water’. For the now-standard classification of root nouns and examples of o-grade root nouns that are “noms d’agent … avec une nuance itérative”, cf. Schindler (1972). Ved. gáuh, ﬂ Av. gausˇ, Gk. #« (Dor. «), TA ko, TB keu, Lyc. wawa-, HLuw. wawa/i-, Lat. bos, OIr. bó, OE cu, Latv. gùovs, Arm. kov, etc. As regards its apophony and case-forms, see Schindler (1973).

The meaning of life: PIE *gwih3 Ü-

45

roaming open grazing-lands or being driven by herdsmen. Calling a naturally nomadic gregarious animal a ‘roamer’ or ‘onward-walker’ is not without precedent, cf. Hitt. iyant- ‘sheep’ (lit. ‘going, marching’) and Gk. , coll. of *pró-gwm-t-, lit. ‘forward-going’ (cf.

‘step forward, advance, go on’).24 In Homer, Herodotus and generally in Ionic and Doric Greek means ‘cattle’ or refers to any ruminant livestock (“flocks” and “herds” alike); only in Attic prose and comedy (and in later Greek) does the term mean specifically ‘sheep’. It is therefore unlikely, pace popular etymology, that it should originally have been applied to small livestock – sheep and goats, which allegedly “went before” the more valuable cows when driven together. It follows that - and *gwous, though formed independently at different times, have entirely covergent etymological explanations. I have tried to demonstrate that the verb *gwíh3Üe/o-, which at first glance looks anomalous and hard to account for, on closer inspection not only turns out to be a regular member of the PIE verb system but may also hold the key to the solution of several other etymological puzzles. It is because of these ramifications that the problem of the ‘live’ word seems worth reopening.

References Krahe, Hans. 1963. Die Struktur der alteuropäischen Hydronymie. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner. Meier-Brügger, Michael. 2002. Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft (8th edition, revised in cooperation with Matthias Fritz and Manfred Mayrhofer). Berlin– New York: Walter de Gruyter. Rasmussen, Jens Elmegård. 1999. Indo-European ablaut -i- ~ -e-/-o-. E. Rasmussen, Selected Papers on Indo-European Linguistics (2 vols.). Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 312–326. [First published 1988 in APILKU 7, 125–142.] Rasmussen, Jens Elmegård. 1989a. Studien zur Morphophonemik der indogermanischen Grundsprache. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. Rasmussen, Jens Elmegård. 1989b. Die Tenues Aspiratae: Dreiteilung oder Vierteilung des indogermanischen Plosivsystems und die Konsequenzen dieser Frage für die Chronologie einer Glottalreihe. In: Theo Vennemann (ed.), The New Sound of Indo-European: Essays in Phonological Reconstruction. Berlin– New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 153–176.

24

The neuter sg. is analogical.

46

Piotr Ga˛siorowski

Rasmussen, Jens, Elmegård. 2004. On the typology of Indo-European suffixes. In: James Clackson and Birgit Anne Olsen (eds.), Indo-European Word Formation. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 269–282. Rix, Helmut. 1994. Die Termini der Unfreiheit in den Sprachen alt-Italiens. Stuttgart: F. Steiner. Schindler, Jochem. 1972. L’apophonie des noms-racines indo-européens. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 67/1, 31–38. Schindler, Jochem. 1973. Bemerkungen zur Herkunft der indogermanischen Diphthongstämme und zu den Eigenheiten ihrer Kasusformen. Die Sprache 19, 148–157.

School of English Adam Mickiewicz University Al. Niepodległos´ci 4 PL–61–874 P o z n a n´ Poland [email protected]

P i o t r G a˛ s i o r o w s k i

Two problems of Ossetic nominal morphology

47

Two problems of Ossetic nominal morphology 1. Proto-Iranian word-final *-aya- in Ossetic 1

1.1. A comparison of the two main dialects of Ossetic, the majority Iron (upon which the standard literary language is based) and generally more archaic Digor, reveals two principal correspondences in word-final position. In Digor, most nouns of Iranian origin (and most nouns in general) end in a consonant (1), but a significant number have a final vowel -æ (2). The Iron cognates of the first class likewise end in a consonant, as do the overwhelming majority of the second type; the following examples could easily be multiplied. (1)

Digor Iron furt fyrt

Proto-Ossetic *furt ‘son’

Old Iranian *pur-ah (GAv. pura-, OP puça-) ‘bear’ *arc´sˇ-ah (YAv. arsˇa-) ‘ear’ *gausˇ-ah (GAv. gw-usˇa-, OP gausˇa-) ‘kidney’ *wrk-ah (YAv. vwrwka-) ‘sweat’ *hwaid-ah (YAv. xvaea-) ¯

ars γos

ars qus

*ars *γos

urg xed

wyrg xid

*urg *xed

*(a)rt-am1 (GAv. asˇ· a-, OP (a)rta- ‘truth’) ærzæt ærzæt *ærzæt ‘ore’ *r´jat-am (YAv. wrwzata-, OP (a)rdata-‘silver’) jex ix *ex ‘ice, hail’ *aix-am (YAv. aexa‘frost, ice’) ard

1

1

ard

*ard

‘oath’

This paper was presented at the 25th East Coast Indo-European Conference at the Ohio State University, 20 June 2006. I would like to thank Stanley Insler, Jay Jasanoff, and Alan Nussbaum for their helpful comments on that occasion. All opinions and errors of fact remain entirely my responsibility. H.V.S. POss. *ard may continue either *árt-am or *rt-ám; see Hoffmann 1986: 166-9 on the distribution of the two variants in Old and Middle Iranian. The meaning ‘oath’ may be archaic, as suggested by Cheung (2002: 152); see Hoffmann (1969: 197–8fn. 17) for examples of Ved. rtám with this value.

Indogermanische Forschungen, 112. Band 2007

DOI 10.1515/IDGF.2007.004

48

Ronald I. Kim

mizd myzd *mizd ‘wages, *mizˇd-am compensation (for labor)’ w γun q yn *γun ‘hair, *gaun-am wool’ fus

(2)

fys

*fus

‘sheep’

(YAv. gaona‘hair (color)’)

*pac´-u(h) (GAv. m. pasu‘small cattle’) *mad-u (YAv. mau- ‘sweet alcoholic drink’)

mud myd

*mud ‘honey’

fidæ fyd madæ mad æfsæ jæfs citæ cit

*fidæ ‘father’ *madæ ‘mother’ *æfsæ ‘mare’ *citæ ‘honor’

*pit-a *mat-a *ac´w-a *cˇi-a

γædæ qæd

*γædæ ‘wood, trunk, log; forest, woods’ *siwæ ‘horn

*gad-a

siwæ sy

(GAv. mizˇda‘wages, reward’)

*c´ruw-a

(YAv. pita) (YAv. mata) (GAv. aspa-) (YAv. cia- ‘punishment, revenge’) (YAv. gaa- ‘club, mace’)

(YAv. sruua‘finger-, toenail; horn’)

Since the late 19th century, it has been known that the forms of type (2) go back to Proto-Iranian (PIr.) word-final *-a.2 In most cases, this *-a represents the nom. sg. of (feminine) a-stems, but it also continues PIr. r-stem nom. sg. *-a in the kinship terms, e. g. ‘father’ and ‘mother’ above.3 The final vowel is reflected in the form ‘(esteemed) lady, madam’ from the 12th-century Theogony of the Byzantine courtier Ioannes Tzetzes (R. Kim 2003: 55; cf. D æxsijnæ, I æxsin ‘lady, mistress’ and see § 2.1 below), and appears as -a in the 15th-century Jász word list from Hungary, e. g. basa ‘soup’, sana ‘wine’ (cf. D basæ,

2

3

Cf. Fortunatov apud Miller 1903: 16–7 § 3.6 (“Westossetisches Schluss-ä”), although there is no good evidence for D -æ (< POss. *-æ) < PIr. *-ám. As well as D ærvadæ, I ærvad ‘male relative’ < POss. *(æ)rvadæ < PIr. *brata ‘brother’.

Two problems of Ossetic nominal morphology

49

sænæ; Németh 1959: 28–9); its loss in Iron is therefore relatively recent.4 1.2. A small number of nouns end in -æ in both Digor and Iron (Abaev 1949: 395).5 Most of them are loanwords from neighboring languages, principally Kabardian,6 but a few are of Iranian origin: (3)

(4)

Digor zærdæ arfæ bæstæ

Iron zærdæ ‘heart’ arfæ ‘blessing, greeting, congratulation’ bæstæ ‘country, region, land’

dungæ dymgæ ‘wind’ lixstæ læxstæ ‘prayer(s)’

The last two are clearly Ossetic innovations: dungæ/dymgæ ‘wind’ is a lexicalized present participle in D, I -gæ of dumun/dymyn ‘blow’ (< PIr. *dum-), which may have begun as a euphemism for the now less common wad < *wata- < PIr. *waHata- (Abaev Dict. I: 382), while lixstæ/læxstæ ‘prayer’ is in origin a substantivized plural of liγz/læγz ‘smooth’ (i. e. ‘tender, ingratiating (words)’; Abaev Dict. II: 39–40). On the other hand, the items in (3) are generally considered to represent the development of PIr. word-final *-aya-,7 even if only ‘heart’

5

6

7

As pointed out by Testen (1997: 721 fn. 16), Iron nouns of the shape CæCC go back to POss. *CæCCæ, whereas those of the shape CaCC reflect POss. *CaCC < *CæCC with lowering of *æ > *a (or lengthening of *a > *a) befor a syllable-final consonant cluster. Cf. D γar(m), I qarm ‘warm’ < POss. *γarm < *γærm (< PIr. *garma-), D, I zærond ‘old’< POss. *zærand < *zærænd (< PIr. *´jar-ant-) vs. D wærmæ, I wærm ‘pit’ < POss. *wærmæ (< *warma or sim.; Cheung 2002: 241 with refs.), D xwælcæ, I xælc ‘foodstuffs’ < POss. *xwælcæ (æ PIr. *hwarti-; see below, (7)). As already noted by Hübschmann (1887: 78). On the pl. suffix D, I -tæ, see fn. 28 below. I.e. D guffæ, I gwyffæ ‘body of a bullock-cart’ æ Kab. gufä ‘(wagon) shaft, pole’; D guzavæ, I gwyzavæ ‘doubt; hesitation, unease’ æ Kab. guzavä; D kiræ, I cˇyræ ‘carrier’s trade; freight transported as payment’ æ Arabic kira ‘rent(al), hire; wages, pay’ (Pers. kira’, kiraye, Tk. kirâ); D, I kwatæ ‘woman’s apron’ æ Kab. xwatä ‘gown’; D livzæ (libzæ), I lyvzæ (lybzæ) ‘meat stew’ æ Kab. lwbz´ä ‘stew, finely cut meat with sauce’; D unaffæ, I wynaffæ ‘advice, counsel; judgment, decision’ æ Kab. unafä ‘decision, resolution, order’. For further details, see Abaev Dict. s. vv. Cf. Bielmeier 1977: 40–1 (“pir. *-aya > oss. - (- )”, i.e. D, I -æ), Thordarson 1989: 459, Christol 1990: 25 s.v. zærdæ, 2003: 38, Cheung 2002: 64, R. Kim 2003: 55 fn. 32. a a

4

50

Ronald I. Kim

has an incontrovertible source, namely *´jrdayam8 (cf. Av. zwrwaem, Ved. hr0´dayam; Abaev Dict. IV: 301 with refs.). Abaev (Dict. I: 64) derived D, I arfæ from an i-stem nom. pl. *afrayah which was reinterpreted as a normal a-stem *afray-ah, and Thordarson (1990: 258) took D, I bæstæ to be from a preform *upastaya-; but both of these nouns may be interpreted otherwise, as we will see below. In any case, proper methodology requires that we formulate sound changes based only on maximally secure etymologies. 1.3. Other forms which end in -æ in both dialects are the numerals D duuæ, I dyuuæ ‘two’ and D, I ærtæ ‘three’; but although most scholars derive them from PIr. masc. *d(u)wa and masc./fem. *rayah,9 their exact prehistory is not entirely clear. At first glance, POss. *duwæ (~ *dwæ?) could equally well reflect PIr. masc. *duwa or fem./neut. *duwai, with final *-a or *-ai giving POss. *-æ. However, the loss of *-æ < *-ë in fon© ‘five’, avd ‘seven’, ast ‘eight’, dæs ‘ten’ < PIr. *pancˇa, *hafta, *asˇta, *dac´a (probably by syncope in phrase-internal position; R. Kim 2003: 60 fn. 41 ad fin.) should also have occurred in *duwæ < *duwa,10 which argues for a derivation from the fem./neut.: *duwai > POss. *duwe > D duuæ, I dyuuæ.11 As for ‘three’, it is true that PIr. neut. *ri could hardly have resulted in POss. *(æ)rtæ – one would expect either POss. *ærti > D “ærti”, I “ærty”, or perhaps *ri + *-a > *riya > POss. *ælt(iy)æ (?) –

8

9

10

11

Alongside the inherited root-noun *´jrd-, continued in GAv. instr. zwrwda-ca (cf. Ved. hárdi, instr. hrdá). Cf. Miller 1903: 40, 47–8, Abaev Dict. II: 425 s. v. ærtæ, Thordarson 1989: 459, 464, 1990: 258 (ærtæ < *raya-; -æ in ‘two’ “probably … retained for morphological reasons (to avoid a monosyllable) or in analogy with ærtæ”). Pace R. Kim 2003: 55 fn. 32; but perhaps *-æ was preserved in monosyllabic *dwæ (in variation with *duwæ)? Phrase-finally, PIr. *-a and *-a became POss. *-æ, as in iptv. 2sg. D kæn-æ, I kæn ‘do!’ < POss. *-æ < PIr. *-a (R. Kim 2003: 59, 2005b: 54). See further § 1.6. and fn. 27. Pace Cheung (2002: 63), the Digor oblique case forms gen. duw-e-j, dat. duw-em-æn, do not necessarily imply that nom. duwæ/ dywæ goes back to *duw-ai. Pronominal -e(m)- (ultimately from PIr. *-ai-; R. Kim 2003: 45 fn. 9, 49 fn. 18) has been generalized to the oblique cases of all numerals in Digor, and to nouns governed by numerals, e. g. dat. avd-em-æn ‘to/ for (the) seven’, and bæx-em-æn ‘to/for (the) seven horses’ (Miller 1903: 49, Isaev 1966: 50–1).

Two problems of Ossetic nominal morphology

51

but remodeling to *rai, with the ending of *d(u)wai ‘two’, cannot be entirely excluded. On D, I sædæ and ærzæ (ær©æ), see fn. 19. 1.4. Since the ending -æ is found in both dialects for the class of nouns in (3), one would naturally reconstruct their Proto-Ossetic preforms with final *-æ as well, e. g. POss. *zærdæ ‘heart’. But if the final vowel of ‘heart’ (and ‘blessing’, ‘country‘) in POss. was the same as that in ‘father’, ‘honor’, ‘wood(s)’, and other nouns of type (2) above (continuing PIr. *-a), why is it that the latter *-æ, but not the former, was apocopated in Iron? A straightforward application of the comparative method requires that we reconstruct some distinction between the Auslaute of the two groups: if the POss. preform of the nouns in (2) ended in *-æ (whatever its phonetic value), that of ‘heart’ must have contrasted in some way with this *-æ. The contrast must be connected with the different origin of the two endings, as Christol (1990: 25) has seen: “D’une final *-aya(s) on attend en ossète, avec chute de *-a(s) : *-aei qui se réduit à -ae, stable en iron, contrairement à -ae issu de *-a”. This statement is essentially correct, as I will argue shortly, but Christol does not specify to which linguistic stage the reconstructed ending *-æi applies (early (pre-)Ossetic? Proto-Ossetic? early Iron?).12 Cheung (2002: 63–6) reconstructs “POss. *-ai, which goes back to either PIr. *-ëÁa(h) or *-ai” (66) for ‘two’, ‘three’, and the nouns zærdæ, arfæ, as well as a number of other forms to be considered below; but he too does not make explicit the precise stages through which these preforms passed on their way to POss. and the modern dialects. 1.6. The situation becomes clearer if we reconstruct the development of PIr. *´jrdayam ‘heart’ on the basis of our current knowledge of Ossetic historical phonology. Intervocalic yod is usually lost in most Iranian languages, but there is no indication that the same occurred in Ossetic; in fact, verbs such as D zajun, I zajyn ‘bear, give birth to’ < PIr. *zaya- (see below, (7)) or D nimajun, I nymajyn ‘count’ < OIr. *ni-ma-ya- (cf. Av. ma- ‘measure’) suggest that *y between vowels has survived down to the present day.

12

See also fn. 15 below.

52

Ronald I. Kim

Although positive evidence is lacking, Cheung’s suggestion that PIr. word-final *-am first became *-u in pre-POss. is reasonable and supported by parallels from medieval Eastern Iranian languages, e.g. Sogd. -w [-'u] (in light stems), Khot. -u. In any case, this vowel, like *-i < PIr. *-ah, was eventually lost by the POss. stage. PIr. *´jrdayam should therefore have developed to pre-POss. *zærdæju and then to *zærdæj. If the ancestor of D zærdæ and I zærdæ was still *zærdæj in ProtoOssetic, the loss of the word-final glide must have been a post-POss. innovation which took place in both dialects.13 In contrast, *j was preserved in non-final position before vowels as well as consonants, so that the POss. paradigm of ‘heart’ would have looked as follows:14 (4) nom. gen./iness. dat. all. abl. adess. equat. [comit.

POss. *zærdæj *zærdæj-i *zærdæj-æn *zærdæj-mæ *zærdæj-æjæ *zærdæj-bæl *zærdæj-au

Digor zærdæ zærdæ-j zærdæ-j-æn zærdæ-mæ zærdæ-j-æj zærdæ-bæl zærdæ-j-au

Iron zærdæ zærdæ-j-y (zærd-y) zærdæ-j-æn zærdæ-mæ zærdæ-j-æ zærdæ-j-yl (zærd-yl) zærdæ-j-au zærdæ-imæ]

In both dialects, gen./iness. *zærdæj-i, dat. *zærdæj-æn, abl. *zærdæjæj, and equat. *zærdæj-au were reinterpreted on the basis of unmarked *zærdæ < POss. *zærdæj as *zærdæ-j-i, *zærdæ-j-æn, *zærdæj-æj, *zærdæ-j-au, with epenthetic *-j- between vowels.15 On the other 13

14

15

But not necessarily independently: we could be dealing with a change which spread throughout the Ossetic-speaking areas some time after Iron and Digor began to diverge. Paradigms taken from Abaev 1949: 396, 1964: 20; cf. also Bagaev 1965: 145, Isaev 1966: 38, Christol 1990: 29–30. D gen./iness. zærdæ-j must go back to an earlier *zærdæ-j-i (Isaev 1966: 38), whereas I abl. zærdæ-j-æ has been dissimilated from POss. *zærdæj-æj (Bagaev 1965: 142; cf. mæj ‘moon, month’, abl. mæj-æ). The Iron variants zærdy, zærdyl are surely contracted from zærdæjy, zærdæjyl; so also bæst-y, -æn, -æj, -yl, -au vs. all. bæstæ-m, to bæstæ (op. cit. 141)? – On the abl. ending *-æjæ, see § 1.9. In a recent article, Christol (2003: 38) posits POss. *-æj as the reflex of PIr. *-aya-, but improbably sees this as the source of both the nom. and gen./loc. of ‘heart’: “Plutôt que i.-ir. *-aya > OC *-a pour lequel on attend -Ø en iron … on posera i.-ir. *-aya > OC *-æi … d’où sont issus, par polarisation, zærdæ (nom. sg.) et zærdæiy (gén. sg.).”

Two problems of Ossetic nominal morphology

53

hand, all. *zærdæj-mæ was replaced with *zærdæ-mæ, i.e. the *j before consonant-initial *-mæ was eliminated by analogy to nom. *zærdæ.16 This and similar nouns ending in -æ < POss. *-æj could have contributed to the synchronic rule by which nouns ending in a vowel insert -j- before vowel-initial case endings (Bagaev 1965: 141–3, Isaev 1966: 38), although I would not go as far as Christol (1990: 25, Rem. 26) in seeing them as the source of the vowel-final inflectional class; after all, epenthesis of [j] between vowels is crosslinguistically far from unusual, and the great majority of vowel-final nouns in Ossetic end in vowels other than -æ and are of non-Iranian origin, e. g. D qæma ‘dagger’, I kærdo ‘pear’, k’utu ‘basket for storing corncobs’, læppu ‘boy’, nesi ‘melon’, syk’a ‘horn’.17 1.6. Alternatively, word-final *-æj < pre-POss. *-æji, *-æju could have fallen together with the reflex of PIr. *-ai, which as in other positions appears to have been POss. *e.18 When not “protected” by a following morpheme such as pl. *-tæ, POss. *-e became -æ in both Digor and Iron. Thus the -æ of D be(w)ræ, I biræ ‘much, many; very’ probably 16

17

That this change happened separately in Digor and Iron is illustrated by the adessive form: POss. *zærdæj-bæl has become D zærdæ-bæl, with the same preconsonantal stem allomorph as in all. zærdæ-mæ, but I zærdæ-j-yl, with *j reanalyzed as intervocalic hiatus between stem zærdæ- and case suffix -yl (æ *-bæl). Thus Digor has a three-way contrast between consonant-final noun stems, stems in -æ which is dropped in the oblique cases (Christol’s “-æ caduc”), and other vowel-final stems with hiatus -j- before case endings beginning with a vowel, including those in -æ ü -æ(j)-. nom. furt mad-æ zærdæ, qæma gen./iness. furt-i mad-i zærdæ-j, qæma-j (< *-j-i) all. furt-mæ mad-mæ zærdæ-mæ, qæma-mæ

18

The first two types have fallen together in Iron by the change of POss. *-æ > I -Ø. Sims-Williams (1979: 342) suggests that the Oss. numerative in D -i, I -y might go back to the PIr. dual, which would have to be fem./neut. *-ai (masc. *-a would have become POss. *-æ > D -æ, I -Ø). More recently, Christol (2003: 37) argues that the numerative reflects PIr. pronominal nom. pl. *-ai; see fn. 11 above on pronominal inflection in nouns governed by numerals. I still see no reason why this ending cannot be simply the genitive in POss. *-i; cf. R. Kim 2003: 49 fn. 18. – Christol (op. cit. 37–8) also suggests that POss. gen. *-i continues *-ai, but I do not understand which PIr. ending he has in mind (a-stem loc. sg. *-ai??).

54

Ronald I. Kim

continues PIr. pronominal nom. pl. *-ai, which survives as -e- in D pl. ber-e-tæ (Lubotsky apud Cheung 2002: 65–6).19 Elsewhere, final -æ reflects POss. *-e < PIr. a-stem loc. sg. *-ai in D, I dælæ ‘below, beneath, under’ < POss. *dæle < PIr. *adarai20 and D ændæ, I æddæ ‘outside’ < POss. *ænde < PIr. *antai (cf. Ved. ánta- ‘end, limit’; Cheung 2002: 65),21 and has been extended to other adverbs such as D, I wælæ ‘(up)on, over, above’, D, I fæstæ ‘behind, after’ < POss. *fæste æ PIr. *pascˇa (Av. pasca, cf. Ved. pas´cá ‘behind, back, after’). 1.7. We may now return to the other nouns under (3). The oldest Indo-Iranian cognates of arfæ, namely Av. a-fri- f. ‘wishing (well or evil); blessing, curse’22 and OIA a-prâ- f. ‘invocation introducing animal sacrifice’ (-prâ- ‘delightful, pleasant’, e. g. abhi-prâ-), are root nouns in -i-.23 According to Abaev’s proposal (see above), PIr. *a-fri- must first

19

20

21

22

23

Perhaps also D ijnnæ, I innæ ‘other’ < POss. *ijnne, backformed to pl. *ijnnetæ (Cheung 2002: 64). The same ending occurs in Digor collective plurals to proper names, e. g. Uoræzmæg-e-tæ ‘U. and the others, U. and his companions/kin’ (Bailey 1956: 126–6; cf. Iron Uyryzmæg-tæ, with regular nominal -tæ). The final -æ of D, I sædæ ‘hundred’, ærzæ (ær©æ) ‘countless number, myriad; (obsolete, epic) thousand’ may also go back to pronominal *-ai, but at least ‘hundred’ could also continue POss. *-æ < PIr. *-a (in generalized pl. *c´ata); the Digor form must then have been borrowed into the standard language, like the higher decads (Thordarson 1990: 258; see fn. 38). Cheung (2002: 66) opts for *-a over *-ai and suggests that “[t]he exceptional preservation of -æ in Iron is perhaps due to composition”, but in that case we would expect syncope of *-æ in pre-POss., as in *fan©, *avd, *ast, *dæs (R. Kim 2003: 60 fn. 41 ad fin.; see § 1.3 and fn. 27). Cf. Av. aara- ‘lower, western’; the -l- has been generalized from dæl- < PIr. *adari (Av. aairi ‘under(neath), below’). On this form and wælæ, see also R. Kim 2005a: 146–7. Possibly also falæ ‘on the other side’ æ PIr. *parai (cf. Av. durae-para- ‘having a far-off bank’, Pers. (rod-)bar ‘(river)bank’; Ved. pará- ‘going/leading across; opposite side’). The -l- is probably due to the influence of dælæ, wælæ, rather than having spread from comparative fal-dær ‘further’ < *far-dær (Abaev Dict. I: 418; cf. fuldær/fyldær ‘more’ to fur/fyr ‘much’); in any case, older far- now survives only in far-ast ‘nine’ (literally ‘beyond eight’; Benveniste 1959: 102). Attested in compounds, e. g. afrì-uuacah- ‘who speaks blessings, curses’ (Bartholomae 1904: 330–1, Kellens 1974: 95–6). To the verb *pray(i)- ü *pri-: cf. Ved. 3pl. prinanti ﬂ ‘delight, refresh; take pleasure in, enjoy’, pf. á … pipriyé ‘is favorably inclined’; GAv. friiAnmahi /frinmahi/, YAv. frinamahi ‘we satisfy’; and in particular YAv. a-frinami ‘wish festively’, a-frì-ti-

Two problems of Ossetic nominal morphology

55

have adopted i-stem inflection, and i-stem pl. *afrayah then came to be used “in [a] collective sense” (Cheung 2002: 64). Such a development is not impossible, but it would be far simpler to suppose than *a-fri- was simply thematized as *a-friya-, whence POss. *arfæj (*arfe?) > D, I arfæ.24 For its part, bæstæ could well continue a substantivized adj. *upastiya- ‘vassaldom (or sim.)’ to PIr. *upa-sta- ‘subordinate, vassal’ < PIE *upo-sth2-ó- ‘standing under’ (OIr. foss, Welsh gwas ‘servant’; cf. Ved. úpa-sti- (RV+), upa-stí- (AV+) ‘subordinate, (house) servant’).25 Terms for ‘region, territory, country’ are of course frequently derived from titles of rulers, e. g. Lat. praefect-ura ‘prefecture’, French comt-é ‘country’, Polish wojewódz-(s)two ‘vojvodship’, Gr. - ‘satrapy’. 1.8. In summary, the POss. reflex of PIr. word-final *-ayah, *-ayam may be reconstructed as either *-æj (§ 1.5) or *-e (§ 1.6); in the latter case it would have merged with PIr. *-ai. If the proposed interpretations of arfæ and bæstæ are correct, PIr. *-iyah (*-iyam?) must like-

24

25

‘wishing (well or evil); blessing, curse’, a-fri-tar- ‘well-wisher’, a-fri-na- ‘good wish, benediction’ (M, CSogd. ’fryn- [afrin] ‘to praise, bless’, ’frywn [afriwan] ‘praise, blessing’, Pers. afarin ‘praise, applause, blessing; well done!’). For other cognates, see Abaev Dict. II: 55 s.v. lymæn, Bailey 1979: 314–5 s.v. briya-, EWA I: 169, II: 181–2. Cf. Bailey 1945: 4 (“árfæ I. D. ‘blessing, greeting’… < *a-fraya- or *a-friya-”). Less likely on semantic grounds is arfæ < OIr. *a-friya- (cf. GAv. friia- ‘dear, friendly’, Ved. priyá- ‘dear, desired, one’s own’). From *upo-sth2-ti- with loss of laryngeal between dentals after an unstressed vowel (Hill 2003: 53ff.). Cf. upa stha- ‘be at (one’s) service, be available’. For the meaning and usage of the Iranian cognates Av., OP upasta- ‘foundation, basis’ (upastam bara- ‘lend support‘), see Testen 1989. Miller (1903: 33) and Abaev (Dict. I: 255) compared bæstæ with Ved. upastá- ‘lap, womb’, which is unrelated to the preceding forms: see EWA I: 221 s. v. upás-. Bæstæ cannot be from *upasta- itself (so Miller and Abaev), nor from *upasta- ‘power, authority’ (Testen 1989: 210), which would leave I -æ unexplained; also hardly from loc. sg. *upastai (Cheung 2002: 173). The Scythian personal name B « might belong here (= Oss. bæstag ‘countryman’?); see Testen 1989: 215–6 for a list of possible interpretations.

56

Ronald I. Kim

wise have yielded POss. *-æj or *-e, whence D, I -æ.26 The evolution of these Auslaute is summarized in the following table:27 PIr. *-ah, *-am *-ë *-ai *-ayah, *-ayam *-iyah (*-iyam?)

pre-POss. *-i, *-u (?)

POss. *-Ø *-æ *-e *-ayi, *-ayu (?) *-æj or *-e ?? *-æj or *-e

Digor -Ø -æ -æ, -e-æ -æ

Iron -Ø -Ø -æ -æ -æ

1.9. The reconstruction of POss. *zærdæj, *arfæj, *bæstæj (or *zærde, etc.) for the forms in (3) also has consequences for the prehistory of another word-final sequence, that of the Oss. ablative case. This ending takes the form -æj in both Digor and Iron, and so would seem to cintinue POss. *-æj. Why then is the word-final glide not lost here as in D, I zærdæ < POss. *zærdæj? One possibility is that the change POss. *-æj > D, I -æ was restricted to polysyllables, and the ablative ending was still a postposition at the time when final j-loss took place.28 But as the Digor and Iron case markers are fully cognate (except of course for the inno26

27

Cheung (2002: 179) argues that D dæsni, I dæsny ‘skilled, expert; (obs.) sorcerer’ goes back to a derivative *dasˇinìya- of PIr. *dasˇina- (Av. dasˇina-, Ved. dákﬂsinaﬂ ‘right (side, direction); south’), but the meaning of Ved. dakﬂsinâyaﬂ ‘belonging to the sacrificial payment’ (æ dákﬂsinaﬂ ‘sacrificial, priestly payment’) does not support his view. The origin of final -i/-y in this noun and D xwali, I xoly ‘corpse, cadaver, carrion’ is not entirely clear: if. one starts from a preform *dasˇinya- (Thordarson 1989: 459), possibly *dasˇinyah > *dasˇ(i)nyi > POss. *dæsni, with syncope and *-yi > POss. *-i after a consonant cluster? The development of the numerals ‘two’ and ‘three’ must then have been something like the following (see § 1.3); contrast that of ‘five’, and similarly ‘seven’, ‘eight’, ‘ten’. PIr. *duwai

>

*duwe

>

*rayah > *ærtæji

>

*ærtæj (*ærte)

>

*ærtæ ü *ærtæj X (*ærte)

Ô D, I ærtæ

*fæn©æ ü *fæn© X Ô*fæn© > *fan© > D, I fon© (*fæn©æ ü *fan© X Ô) Cf. the development of the plural suffix *-ta > D, I -tæ, with non-voicing of *t and retention of final *æ in Iron (Bailey 1945: 25; Thordarson 1989, 469, R. Kim 2003: 56–7). Attempts to derive this *t from earlier * (in a suffix *-a or the like; Miller 1903: 41–2, Christol 2003: 36ff.) are beset with difficulties; see the discussion in Cheung 2002: 136–7. *pancˇa > *fæn©æ

28

POss. Oss. *duwæ ü *duwe X Ô D duwæ, I dywæ

>

Two problems of Ossetic nominal morphology

57

vative comitative -imæ of Iron), it is most likely that sequences of noun + postposition were already univerbated before the POss. stage; this view is also supported by fossilized case forms such as I færsyl ‘on the side’, ræstæj ‘without fault’ (originally adess. to fars ‘side’ and abl. to rast ‘right, correct’; Abaev 1964: 5, Thordarson 1989: 460), preserving the vowel alternation *a ü *æ which has otherwise been completely leveled out in nominal paradigms (R. Kim 2003: 64–5). Indeed, one would rather expect a conditioned sound change like loss of word-final *-j to be reflected in an isolated case ending, but undone or blocked in nouns like *zærdæj, where *-j could be restored or maintained from the rest of the paradigm (gen. *zærdæj-i, dat. *zærdæj-æn, etc.). How then to account for the retention of the glide in D, I abl. -æj? For reasons given elsewhere (R. Kim 2003: 44–6), this and most other Oss. case endings are unlikely to go back to PIr. case endings such as a-stem gen./abl. *-ayah (cf. Thordarson 1989: 459); instead I have argued that a-stem loc. sg. *-aya and a-stem instr. *-aya, gen./abl. *-ayah (probably also dat. *-ayay, loc. *-ayam) fell together by independently motivated sound changes in pre-POss. as *-i, which became generalized as the ending for all “oblique” syntactic relations. The various Oss. case markers subsequently arose through grammaticalization of postpositions, a process paralleled in other IE languages such as Tocharian or Old Lithuanian; this is indisputable at least for adessive *-bæl < PIr. *upari ‘on, above, at’ (Miller 1903: 46–7, Bailey 1945: 6, Thordarson 1989: 471). For the ablative ending *-æj, Testen (1996: 370 fn. 18; cf. already Miller 1903: 44 with refs.) tentatively suggests a connection with PIr. *hacˇa, reflected in e. g. GAv. as5ˇa™t.haca ‘aufgrund der Richtigkeit’, YAv. nmana™t.haca ‘away from the house’, OP hacˇa(-ma) ‘from (me)’. If postposed *hacˇa developed to (pre-)POss. *-æjæ, the latter could have become D, I -æj under the reasonable assumption that final *-æ was weakened and dropped, in POss. or independently in both dialects; for a parallel, cf. elision of final *-æ in Iron all. pl. -tæ-m < POss. *-tæ-mæ (D -tæ-mæ) vs. sg. -mæ. Unfortunately, this derivation requires an ad hoc change of PIr. *-cˇ- > *©ˇ to POss. *j, rather than the expected *© of e. g. D tæ©un, I tæ©yn ‘drip, run (in drops)’ < POss. *tæ©un < PIr. *tacˇ-a- or D, I fon© ‘five’ < POss. *fon© < PIr. *pancˇa. Although I can think of no other possible source for the ablative ending at present, it seems probable that its shape in POss. was indeed *-æjæ, and that this was shortened to -æj in both dialects.

58

Ronald I. Kim

2. Ossetic reflexes of Proto-Iranian i- and i-stems 2.1. I have argued elsewhere that Proto-Iranian i-stem and feminine i-stem nouns were remodeled as a-stems in the prehistory of Ossetic (R. Kim 2003: 50–1 fn. 20, 60–2, 2005a: 143–4, 2005b: 54). In the case of i-stems, a new nom. sg. in *-ya (and presumably acc. sg. in *-yam) was backformed to the oblique cases, e. g. gen./abl. *-yah, dat. *-yay (cf. GAv. gen. vaKhu-iiå, dat. vaKhu-iiai to vaKvhi ‘good’). This process is illustrated by the forms below: (5)

PIr. fem. *abi-sˇai-n-i- ‘inhabitant (of a house)’ (cf. Av. aii-sˇaetan-) Ô *abisˇai()nya > *avisˇinya > POss. *æfsijnæ > D æfsijnæ, I æfsin ‘landlady, mother-in-law, housewife, hostess’; PIr. fem. *xsˇai-n-i- ‘bright, radiant, splendid’ (Av. xsˇaetan-, fem. xsˇoini-) Ô *xsˇai()nya > *xsˇinya > POss. *(æ)xsijnæ > D æxsijnæ, I æxsin ‘lady, mistress’; PIr. *s(t)ri- ü *srya- Ô *srya- > POss. *silæ > D silæ, I syl ‘female’ (R. Kim 2005a: 138ff.).

A similar fate befell PIr. feminine i-stems: in addition to (6)

D arcæ, I arc ‘spear’ < POss. *arcæ < *arscæ < *arsˇtya æ PIr. *rsˇti- (Av. arsˇti-, OP (a)rsˇti-, Ved. rﬂsﬂtí- ‘spear, lance’); D -ærijnæ in cæng-ærijnæ ‘elbow’ (lit. ‘hand-elbow’, cf. cong ‘hand’), I -ærin in ælm-, ærm-ærin ‘cubit, ell (unit of length)’ < POss. *ærijnæ < *arinya < *arai()nya æ PIr. *arani‘elbow’ (cf. Verd. aratní-); and D sujnæ, I sin ‘thigh, hip’< POss. *sujnæ < *sunya < *sraunya æ PIr. *c´rauni-,

deverbal nouns in D -cæ, I -c < POss. *-cæ < *-tya continue PIr. proterokinetic i-stem nomina actionis in *-ti- (Abaev 1949: 572–3, Thordarson 1990: 263; R. Kim 2003: 65 fn. 54, 2005b: 54 fn. 5), e. g. (7)

29

D bærcæ, I bærc ‘measure’ < POss. *bærcæ < *brtya æ PIr. *br-ti- ü *-tay- (æ PIE *bhér-ti- ü *bhr-téy-) to D barun, I baryn ‘measure’ (Abaev Dict. I: 252);29

On the vocalism of the verb, see R. Kim 2003: 65 fn. 54.

Two problems of Ossetic nominal morphology

59

D xwælcæ, I xælc ‘food(stuffs), provisions, sustenance’ < POss. *xwælcæ æ PIr. *hwarti- (cf. Av. xvarwti- ‘meal, food and drink’, Sogd. M, C xwrt, B γwrt ‘food, meal’) to D xwærun, I xæryn ‘eat’ (Bailey 1945: 5, Abaev Dict. IV 168); D zæjcæ, I zæjc ‘posterity, descendants’ < POss. *zæjcæ30 to D zajun, I zajyn ‘bear, give birth to’ (< PIr. pass. *zaya- ‘be born’ < (post-)PIE *gnh ´ 1-yé/ó-, cf. Av. zaiia-, Ved. jáyate; Abaev Dict. IV: 294).31 Since i-stems and a-stems had no case endings in common in PIr., it is most likely that feminine i-stems adopted i-stem inflection at an early date, and subsequently were remade as a-stems with nom. sg. in *-ya.32 On the other hand, PIr. masculine and neuter i-stems were not so affected, but apparently preserved their ending *-i(h) for some time; this was eventually lost, leaving POss. *-Ø. (8)

30

31

32

PIr. masc. *krmi- ‘worm, snake or sim.’ (MSogd. kyrm- ‘snake’, Pers. kirm ‘worm’, cf. Ved. masc. k´rmi- ‘worm, maggot’) > *kærmi > *kælmi > *kælm > POss. *kalm > D, I kalm ‘worm, snake’ (Cheung 2002: 24, 196); PIr. neut. *haxti- ‘thigh’ (Av. haxti-, du. haxti; cf. Ved. neut. sákthi-) > POss. *aγd > D, I aγd.

Probably an independent creation of Ossetic, rather than an isolated (indirect) reflex of PInIr. *´jan-ti- < PIE *génh ´ ´ 1-téy- (cf. Gr. «). 1-ti- ü *gnh Cf. also I abl. ær©-æj ‘by nature, from birth’ (whence ær© ‘nature’ in the modern literary language; Abaev Dict. I: 174) to aryn ‘find, give birth’. Cheung (2002: 133–4) objects that an origin in *-ti- “explains neither the voiceless nature of the affricate nor the final -æ in Digoron”, but this assumes that no morphological innovations took place between PIr. and (Proto-)Ossetic, which is plainly false. For the same reason, the forms in (5) and (6) are not evidence for (or against) a sound change PIr. *-ì > POss. *-æ; cf. the comments in R. Kim 2005b: 54. On the other hand, the suffix in abstract nouns derived from adjectives, e. g. D dærγcæ, I dærγ (< *dærγc?) ‘length’ æ darγ ‘long’, may or may not be related to Khot. -kya-, -ca- (Cheung, op. cit.). Similarly, fem. light i-stems in Sogdian were remade as a-stems in *-ya, e. g. ’kty’ ‘action, deed’< *krtya æ *krti- to *kar- ‘do’, B (’)csˇtyh ‘terror’ < *trsˇtya æ *trsˇtito *ters- ‘shake’ (Gershevitch 1954: § 948, Sims-Williams 1981: 14–5).

60

Ronald I. Kim

2.2. The Ossetic word for ‘dog’ would also belong here, if it goes back to a masc. i-stem: D kuj, I kwy© ‘dog’ < POss. *kudy < *kuti- (Abaev Dict. I: 605, Benveniste 1959: 75, Gershevitch 1967: 173 fn.; cf. SimsWilliams 1979: 343).33 Yet as Sims-Williams notes, “cognates of Sogd. (’)kwt- other than the Oss. forms indicate a m. stem in -a- with a corresponding f. in -i-: for Iranian cf. Sˇuγni kud ‘dog’, f. kid with umlaut, for Indo-Aryan Pkt. kutta-, f. kutti-, and their descendants” (op. cit. 344, with refs.). In the same article, he argues that Sogd. pl. kwt-ysˇt [kut-âsˇt] ‘dogs’ arose through suffixation of the productive plural marker *-tato nom. sg. *-isˇ (see below), i. e. kwtysˇt < *kutisˇ+ta; similarly for other plurals in -ysˇt [-âsˇt], obl. -ysˇt-y [-âsˇt-i] to light stems denoting animate beings, e. g. wyrk-ysˇt ‘wolves’ < *wrkisˇ+ta (op. cit. 344–6). The sg. (’)kwt- would then go back to a PIr. i-stem *kutisˇ ‘bitch’ of the vrkâinflection, just as wyrk- ‘wolf’ continues PIr. *wrkisˇ ‘she-wolf’.34 That vrkâ-type nouns survived as a separate morphological class in Iranian is now beyond doubt: although vrkâ-inflection has largely fallen together with the more frequent devâ-inflection in Avestan, forms such as sg. nom. zarwnaen-isˇ ‘golden’, instr. -iia, acc. GAv. rai-im ‘charioteer’ (-im scanned disyllabic, hence for *-iywm; cf. Ved. rathiyàm), and pl. acc. tisˇriiaen-iio, -iias-ca ‘(and) Sirius-stars’ vouch for its survival into Proto-Iranian (Mayrhofer 1980; Hoffmann/Forssman 1996: 127–8). Cf. also Khot. i-stem acc. sg. -iu, which can only reflect the vrkâ- ending *-(i)yam (Emmerick 1968: 289, 291).35 33

34

35

Possibly reflected in the Sarmatian PN (AAO) KOYZAIOY ‘(D., son) of Z.’ and borrowed into Old Georgian as ku©-i ˇ (Bielmeier 1988, 104 fn. 9 with refs.). Pace Bielmeier, the correspondence D -j ü I -© surely does not go back to antiquity, but merely represents the regular treatment of POss. word-final *-dy; see § 2.3 and fn. 37. Cf. R. Kim 2003: 47 fn. 14. The other plurals of (’)kwt-, namely C2 qwtyy [kut-iyì] (cf. spy5y5, Mug ’spyy [(w)spiyì] ‘horses’, ’γwsˇt’ry [usˇtwr-iyì] ‘camels’) and Buddhist ’kwtyh, ’kwt’yh [kut-iyë] (cf. ’sp-yh, ’sp-y’ ‘horses’ [wsp-iyë], ’γw[sˇ]t’r-yh, ’γwsˇt’r-’yh [usˇtwr-iyë]), must continue respectively vrkâ-inflection nom. pl. *-yah and devâ-inflection *-yah (Sims-Williams 1979: 342–4). Cf. Khot. i-stem nom. pl. -ie < *-yah alongside -iä < *-yah (Emmerick 1968: 289, 291). PIr. i-stems and both types of i-stems merged into a single inflectional class in Khotanese (Emmerick 1968: 288ff.; 1989: 217, though not “[a]s already in Avestan”). The same occurred in Old Persian, where e. g. abl. Harauvatiya, Baxtriya, Uvarazmiya go back to devâ- gen./abl. *-yah; the only vrkâ- ending attested is fem. nom. pl. aa(n)gainiya ‘stone (adj.)’ (Kent 1953: 60–2, Mayrhofer 1980: 144 and passim).

Two problems of Ossetic nominal morphology

61

We should therefore consider the possibility that Oss. kuj/kwy©, like Sogd. (’)kwt-, goes back to a generalized OIr. *kuti- ‘bitch’.36 Why then was this noun not remodeled as an a-stem (nom. *-ya) like other inherited i-stems, such as æxsijnæ/æxsin ‘lady, mistress’ < *xsˇai()nya æ PIr. *xsˇai-n-i-? The difference in their inflection offers an obvious answer. Whereas the nouns in (5) are of the devâ- type, with alternating suffix *-i- ~ *-ya-, ‘bitch’ belonged to the vrkâ- inflection with uniform suffix *-i- (*-iy- before vowels) and so would have had no case endings in common with a-stems: cf. gen./abl. *kutiy-ah, dat. *kutiy-ay vs. devâ-inflection *-yah, *-yay and a-stem *-ah, *-ay. Unlike the devâtype i-stems *abi-sˇai-n-i- or *xsˇai-n-i-, then – or the feminine i-stems *rsˇti-, *c´rauni-, *brti-, etc. – ‘dog’ was not transferred to the a-stems, but eventually fell together with a-stems (and u-stems) and masc. and neut. i-stems in the majority type of POss. nouns ending in a consonant: PIr. *kut-isˇ > POss. *kudy > kuj/kwy©, just as PIr. *krm-isˇ > POss. *kalm > kalm ‘worm’, PIr. *pur-ah > POss. *furt > furt/fyrt ‘son’, PIr. *mizˇd-am > POss. *mizd > mizd/myzd ‘wages’. Although PIr. *kuti- is reconstructible only from Middle and Modern Iranian evidence (supported by the Indo-Aryan forms), I emphasize that only a vrkâ-type i-stem *kuti- ü *kutiy- can account for the absence of -æ in Digor and the final consonant POss. *-dy. The latter excludes a derivation from the corresponding masculine *kuta-, which would have become POss. *kud > D “kud”, I “kwyd”. 2.3. What about other instances of word-final D -j, I -(n)© < POss. *-(n)dy < PIr. *-(n)tì-, such as D afæj, I afæ© ‘year’ or D æfsoj, I æfson© ‘yoke’?37 According to our hypothesis, none of these should

36

37

For a possible parallel, cf. Waxi sˇacˇ ‘dog’ < fem. *c´wacˇi- or sim. (Morgenstierne 1962: 163) vs. Median (Herodotos), Pers. sag < *c´waka- (Av. spaka- ‘doglike’). Av. sun-isˇ was long considered to be a generalized PIr. fem. *c´un-i- cognate with Ved. s´unâ- ‘bitch’ [AV+], but Tichy (1985) argues that pl. nom./acc. sunisˇ is actually a reinterpreted instr. pl. of span- ü sïn- < PIr. *c´wan- ü *c´un- < PIE *kwón´ ü *kun´ (originally epicene, cf. Gr. and RV 9.101.1d s´vánam … dirghajihvyàm ‘the long-tongued bitch’; EWA II: 674–5). Cf. Bagaev 1965: 5, Abaev 1966: 247, although the latter’s notion of “crisscrossed isoglosses” is unenable; the exact prehistory of 3pl. endings such as fut. (< subj.) D -oncæ, I -oj remains unclear. POss. *-ndy (> I -n©) probably passed through a stage *-ny en route to Digor -j. Cf. POss. *kuranyæ ‘millstone’> D

62

Ronald I. Kim

continue a PIr. feminine i-stem or devâ-type i-stem, which should have become pre-POss. *-ya > POss. *-cæ > D -cæ, I -c, as in bærcæ/bærc, etc. (7). This is clearly the case for the following two items: 1.

2.

38

D insæj, I ssæ© ‘twenty’< POss. *insædy goes back to PIr. *winsati (Ved. vims ﬂ ´ atí-; Av. visaiti); here one would not expect any influence from a-stems or any other inflectional class of nouns.38 D ælxij, I ælxync’ ‘knot’ < POss. *(æ)lxin© (~ *-c’?) was derived from *granya- by Bailey (1945: 4–5), who compared BSogd. γr’nsˇ ‘bond’< *granya-, but may just as easily continue PIr. *grani- (Morgenstierne apud Henning 1936: 63; cf. Pashto γar.wl, Morgenstierne 1927: 27 s. v.). In any case, the Ved. cognate granthí- ‘knot’ is masculine, and the replacement of PIr. *grani- with a (masculine) a-stem in Khot. grantha- suggests that the Iranian noun was also. The phonological development

kurojnæ, I kwyroj (Jász kuraynu), with *a > D, I o before nasal and word-final *-ny > -j in Iron (R. Kim 2003: 55 fn. 30). In non-final position, *dy appears to have fallen together with *© in Digor as well: cf. D kuj vs. ku©-i læxæ ‘dog shit’(Abaev Dict. I: 605). Pace Abaev (Dict. I: 172, 485), there is no reason to treat the -j of D ærcij, æfsoj, fij, etc. as “secondary”: the variants ærcin©æ (given in Cheung 2002: 137), fin©(æ) can easily have been backformed to the oblique cases, e. g. iness. fin©-i ‘in front, ahead’. – I do not understand the -j- of Iron pl. kwyjtæ [kwitæ] ‘dogs’, adj. kwyjdym [kwidym] ‘“dog-tail”, name for a sheep without a fatty tail’ (D kujdun), or the poetic forms kwyj-dur, kwyj-aæd (Bagaev 1965: 135). Similarly for the higher decads in Digor: fæn©aj ‘fifty’, æxsaj ‘sixty’, ævdaj ‘seventy’, æstaj ‘eighty’ < POss. *-ady < *-ati æ PIr. *-ati (Av. haptaiti-, asˇtati-; extended to ‘fifty’ and ‘sixty’). Almost all Iron dialects had adopted the vigesimal system of counting from neighboring Caucasian languages, e. g. ærti-ssæ©y ‘sixty’ (< *ærtæ-yssæ©y), fon©-yssæ©y ‘hundred’; the decimal system and Digor forms were (re)introduced into the Iron-based literary language in early Soviet times (Bagaev 1965: 211–2, Thordarson 1989: 471). D næwæ©æ ‘ninety’ < *næwædyæ æ *næwædy < PIr. *nawati (Av. nauuaiiti-) must have adopted the final *-æ of * sædæ ‘hundred’ (fn. 19); this was adopted in Iron as næwæ©, without the characteristic D -æ. I cyppor ‘forty’ also appears to be borrowed from D cuppor < POss. *cuppor < *cˇawaru(sat-) (cf. Av. caarwsat-), since the expected cognate would be “cyppur”; cf. D cæpporsæ*, I cyppurs < POss. *cæpporsæ (?) ‘Christmas, December’, originally ‘a winter festival preceded by forty days of fasting’ (Abaev 1970: 5, Cheung 2002: 177). This suggests that I ærtyn ‘thirty’ was adopted as well from D ærtin < POss. *ærtin < PIr. *rin(sat-) (Av. risa(n)t-, ﬂ cf. Ved. trims ˙ ´ át-). The Iron neologism dywyn ‘twenty’ is analogical to ærtyn.

Two problems of Ossetic nominal morphology

63

would have been approximately *grani- > *grainti > *grindy > *glindy > *(æ)lγindy Ô POss. *(æ)lxindy > D ælxij, I ælxync’.39 Other forms lack a clear etymology and/or morphological analysis: 3.

4.

5.

6.

D æfsoj, I æfson© ‘yoke’ < POss. *(æ)fsandy < *span-ti- was compared with Khot. kﬂsana- ‘shoulder’, Pers. sˇane ‘shoulder blade’ by Bailey (1945: 36, 1979: 67), but the semantics are not compelling and the morphology problematic; rather connected to PIE *(s)penh1- ‘pull, stretch’ (Abaev Dict. I: 485)?40 D ærcij, I ærcyn© ‘big three-edged needle for sewing soles onto cˇuvjaki (soft leather slippers)’ < POss. *ærcindy is probably derived from D arcæ, I arc ‘spear’ < POss. *arcæ < PIr. *rsˇti-, with the same suffix found in I wadyn© ‘reed pipe’ æ wad ‘wind’;41 but the exact origin of the formant is unclear.42 D fij (fin©, fin©æ), I fyn© ‘nose’ < POss. *findy æ *pin©ˇ or sim. has been borrowed from a neighboring Caucasian language: cf. Georgian p’incˇvi ‘nostril’, Mingrelian p’i©i ˇ ‘mouth’ (Abaev Dict. I: 497). D xuluj, I xwyly© ‘wet’ < POss. *xuludy is of obscure origin; see the discussion in Abaev Dict. IV: 260.

Finally, D afæj, I afæ© ‘year’ < POss. *afædy has been traced back to a preform *afatì- (Benveniste 1954: 17ff., Gershevitch 1967: 172–3, Cheung 2002: 149). Gershevitch (op. cit.) had compared Av. acc. afwntwm ﬂ ‘time’ (Y 8.35, 13.54) with D afonæ, I afon ‘(definite) time,

39

40

41

42

The devoicing of *γ > *x is unexplained, but has parallels elsewhere in Ossetic, e. g. D æfug, I ærfyg ‘eyebrow’ < POss. *(æ)rfug < *bru-ka- (BSogd. r’wk’ [ruk], Pers. abru) for expected “ærvug” / “arvyg”. As for the final consonant of I ælxync’, is it possible that word-final *-i- < *-ti < POss. *-ty, and that this merged with POss. *-dy < -j in Digor, but became -c’ in Iron?? But this root is not otherwise reflected in Indo-Iranian, and initial *s- is confined to Germanic (OHG spannan, etc.; LIV: 578–9 s. v. *(s)penh1-). Perhaps rather POss. *(æ)fsandy < *us-pan-ti- ‘that which stretches over’? Pace Abaev (Dict. IV: 35), wadyn© is probably not related to PIE *h2wedH‘(re)sound, speak’ (Ved. vádati ‘raise one’s voice, speak’; cf. Gr. ‘voice, speech; sound’), which has no certain Iranian representatives (EWA II: 496, LIV: 286). Cheung (2002: 137) derives POss. *-indy from *-ain-acˇ¯ı-, fem. to *-ain-aka- æ *-aina- (suffix forming adjs. of material) – but then why does the Digor form not end in -æ like other (erstwhile) feminines in *-acˇ¯ı- (or *-icˇ¯ı-)?

64

Ronald I. Kim

period’ < POss. *afanæ, and derived them respectively from an active participle *af-ant- and mediopassive fem. *af-an-a; afæj/afæ© would then continue the active fem. *af-at-i- ü *-a-ya-. The latter, however, should have developed to a-stem *afaya- > *afaca > POss. *afcæ,43 rather than *afædy. More importantly, there are no traces of a root *afanywhere else in Iranian, and it is hard to imagine what kind of PIE source it could have: a construct *(H)eHph2- would seriously violate our current understanding of PIE root structure constraints.44 On the other hand, Bailey’s (1956: 119–22) connection with the Khotanese verb naﬂs-phan- ‘move, come (out)’ is both semantically and formally plausible. Av. acc. afwntwm ﬂ would then be an a-stem a-fwntaﬂ of the type of spwntaﬂ ‘holy’< *kwen-to´ (cf. Lith. sˇveñtas, OCS sve˛tõ), whereas POss. *afædy ‘year’ would go back to a PIr. deverbal abstract noun *(a-)fa-ti- ‘movement (of time)’ with generalized zero-grade of the root; for its part, POss. *afanæ could continue PIr. *(a-)fan-a < (virtual) *phon-eh2 (with *a < *o by Brugmann’s Law), a nomen actionis of the type of Gr. , , , etc. We would expect pre-POss. *afati- to have been feminine, like other abstract nouns in *-ti-, but this noun probably became derivationally opaque very early on (especially after the loss of the verb), and could have shifted to masculine gender under the influence of other time expressions, e. g. *banu- ‘day’ (> POss. *ban > D, I bon).45 2.4. Even if the proposed derivation of D kuj, I kwy© is correct, it does not necessarily follow that the contrast between the two i-stem types remained a living distinction in pre-Ossetic.46 Since the vrkâ- inflection 43

44

45

46

With regular syncope of medial *-a-. For a detailed discussion of syncope in Ossetic, see Cheung 2002: 69–85. One could postulate a PInIr. root *aph- with acrostatic inflection, in which case act. ptcp. *aph-ant- would have replaced original PInIr. *áph-at- (cf. Ved. tákﬂs-at‘making, forming’, s´ás-at- ‘instructing’; Narten 1968), but no PIE root of the shape *(H)eph2- can be reconstructed either. If Gr. -, Toch. B, A pont- ‘all’ (< *pant-) really do go back to a fossilized pres. ptcp. *péh2-nt- ü *ph2-nt-´ of PIE *peh2- ‘guard, take care of’ (*‘watched, guarded, kept’ > *‘whole, entire’ > ‘all’; R. Kim 2002: 84 fn. 31), PIr. *afant-, *afati- could be interpreted as compounds of preverb *a- and PInIr. *phánt- ü *phat-´, fem. *phat-â- ü *pha-yá-, with semantic development ‘watched, guarded (time)’Ô ‘delimited period of time’. Also PIr. gen. pl. *a´jn-am ‘(series?) of days’ (Av. asnAm) Ô *azna- > POss. *anz. > D anz, I az ‘year’ (cheung 2002: 155–6). Thanks to Alan Nussbaum for clarifying this point.

Two problems of Ossetic nominal morphology

65

was clearly losing ground to the devâ- inflection in Old Iranian, the most likely hypothesis is that the latter was generalized at an early stage of pre-Ossetic. In addition, i-stems may also have merged with the likewise predominantly feminine i-stems, as in Old Persian and Khotanese (see fn. 35). These nouns were later remodeled as a-stems with nom. in *-ya, backformed to gen. *-yah, dat. *-yay, and other devâ-type oblique case endings. As a result, their POss. reflexes both end in *-æ (preserved in Digor) and show the palatalizing effects of *y on a preceding vowel and/or consonant, e. g. PIr. *abi-sˇai-n-i- Ô *abisˇai()nya > POss. *æfsijnæ > æfsijnæ/æfsin, PIr. *br-ti- Ô *brtya > POss. *bærcæ > bærcærc (see (5)–(7)). Only OIr. *kuti- maintained its inflection and escaped the fate of other i-stem nouns, no doubt because it had been generalized as the epicene term for ‘dog’ and so was no longer perceived as a marked feminine. Along with a few non-feminine i-stem relics (PIr. *krmi-, *haxti-; probably *grani-), *kuti- became a consonant-final stem in Proto-Ossetic, thus joining the reflexes of the old a- and u-stems. Once again we find that, notwithstanding far-reaching morphological changes and the loss of most inherited nominal inflection – not to speak of a near-total lack of documentation before the 19th century – Ossetic preserves features of great antiquity in its lexicon, and thereby reaffirms its value for Iranian historical linguistics.

References Abaev, V. I. 1949. Ocˇerk rasxozˇdenij ironskogo i digorskogo dialektov. In: Osetinskij jazyk i fol’klor, Tom I, 357–493. Moscow/Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR. –. 1964. A Grammatical Sketch of Ossetic, ed. Herbert H. Paper, tr. Steven P. Hill. (International Journal of American Linguistics 30, 4 [October 1964], Part II. Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics, 35.) Bloomington, IN: Indiana U. Press; The Hague: Mouton. –. 1966 [1968]. O perekrestnyx izoglossax. In: Ètimologija 1966, 247–63. –. 1970. The names of the months in Ossetic. In: W. B. Henning Memorial Volume, ed. by Mary Boyce and Ilya Gershevitch, 1–7. London. Humphries. Abaev Dict.: Abaev, V. I. Istoriko-ètimologicˇeskij slovar’ osetinskogo jazyka. Tom I: A–K’ (1958). Moscow/Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR. Tom II: L–R (1973). Tom III: S–T’ (1979). Tom IV: U–Z (1989). Leningrad: «Nauka» (Leningradskoe otdelenie).

66

Ronald I. Kim

Bagaev, Nikolaj K. 1965. Sovremennyj osetinskij jazyk. Cˇast’ I (Fonetika i morfologija). Ordzˇonikidze: Severo-Osetinskoe Knizˇnoe Izdatel’tsvo. Bailey, H. W. 1945. Asica. In: Transactions of the Philological Society 1945, 1–38. –. 1956. Armeno-Indoiranica. In: Transactions of the Philological Society 1956, 88–126. –. 1979. Dictionary of Khotan Saka. Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press. Bartholomae, Christian. 1904. Altiranisches Wörterbuch. Straßburg: Trübner. Benveniste, Émile. 1954. Avestica. In: Donum natalicium H. S. Nyberg oblatum, ed. by Erik Gren, Bernhard Lewin, Helmer Ringgren, and Stig Wikander, 17–26. Uppsala: Almqvist og Wiksells. –. 1959. Études sur la langue ossète. (Société de Linguistique de Paris, Collection Linguistique LX.) Paris: Klincksieck. Bielmeier, Roland. 1977. Historische Untersuchung zum Erb- und Lehnwortschatzanteil im ossetischen Grundwortschatz. (Europäische Hochschulschriften, Reihe XXVII: Asiatische und Afrikanische Studien, Bd. 2.) Frankfurt am Main/Bern/Las Vegas: Lang. –. 1988. Zum Namen der kaukasischen Iberer. In: Nubia et Oriens Christianus: Festschrift für C. Detlef G. Müller zum 60. Geburtstag, hrsg. von Piotr O. Scholz und Reinhard Stempel, 99–105. (Biblioteca Nubica, Band 1.) Köln: Dirnter. Cheung, Johnny. 2002. Studies in the Historical Development of the Ossetic Vocalism. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Christol, Alain. 1990. Introduction à l’ossète: éléments de grammaire comparée. In: LALIES: Actes des sessions de linguistique et de littérature 8, 7–50. –. 2003. Les deux pluriels de l’ossète. In: Iran: Questions et Connaissances. Actes du IVe Congrès Europén des Études Iraniennes, organisé par la Societas Iranologica Europæa, Paris, 6–10 Septembre 1999. Vol. III: Cultures et Sociétés Contemporaines, textes réunis par Bernard Hourcade, 29–44. (Studia Iranica, Cahier 27.) Leuven: Peeters, Association pour l’Avancement des Études Iraniennes. Emmerick, Ronald E. 1968. Saka Grammatical Studies. (London Oriental Series, Vol. 20.) London/New York: Oxford U. Press. –. 1989. Khotanese and Tumshuqese. Schmitt (ed.) 1989, 204–29. EWA: Mayhofer, Manfred, Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. I. Band, Lieferungen 1–10 (1986–92). II. Band, Lieferungen 11–20 (1992–6). Heidelberg: Winter. Gershevitch, Ilya. 1954. A Grammar of Manichean Sogdian. (Publications of the Philological Society, Vol. 16.) Oxford: Blackwell. –. 1967. The Avestan Hymn to Mithra. With an Introduction, Translations, and commentary. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press. Henning, W. 1936 [1937]. Ein manichäisches Bet- und Beichtbuch. (Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Jahrgang 1936, PhilosophischHistorische Klasse, Nr. 10.) Berlin: Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Kommission bei Walter de Gruyter u. co. Hill, Eugen. 2003. Untersuchungen zum inneren Sandhi des Indogermanischen. Der Zusammenstoß von Dentalplosiven im Indoiranischen, Germanischen,

Two problems of Ossetic nominal morphology

67

Italischen und Keltischen. (Münchener Forschungen zur Historischen Sprachwissenschaft, Band I.) Bremen: Hempen. Hoffmann, Karl. 1969. Materialien zum altindischen Verbum. 11. ami, 12. jakﬂs. In: ZVS 83, 193–215. (Reprinted in Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik I, hrsg. von Johanna Narten, 288–310. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1976.) –. 1986. Avestisch sˇ·. In: Studia Grammatica Iranica: Festschrift für Helmut Humbach, hrsg. von Rüdiger Schmitt und Prods Oktor Skjærvø, 163–83. München: Kitzinger. – and Bernhard Forssman. 1996. Avestische Laut- und Flexionslehre. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, Band 84.) Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. Hübschmann, Heinrich. 1887. Etymologie und Lautlehre der ossetischen Sprache. Straßburg: Trübner. Isaev, M. I. 1966. Digorskij dialekt osetinskogo jazyka. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo «Nauka». Kellens, Jean. 1974. Les noms-racines de l’Avesta. (Beiträge zur Iranistik, Band 7.) Wiesbaden: Reichert. Kent, Roland G. 1953. Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon. (American Oriental Series, Vol. 33.) Second edition, revised. New Haven: American Oriental Society. Kim, Ronald I. 2002. The continuation of Proto-Indo-European lexical accent in ancient Greek: preservation and reanalysis. In: University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 7:2, 59–93. –. 2003. On the historical phonology of Ossetic: the origin of the oblique case suffix. In: Journal of the American Oriental Society 123:1, 43–71. –. 2005a. Ossetic silæ/syl and the Indo-Iranian word for ‘female’. In: International Journal of Diachronic Linguistics and Linguistic Reconstruction 2:1, 123–68. –. 2005b. Review of Cheung 2002. In: Indo-European Studies Bulletin 11:1, 53–6. LIV: Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben: Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. Unter Leitung von Helmut Rix und der Mitarbeit vieler anderer, bearbeitet von Martin Kümmel, Thomas Zehnder, Reiner Lipp, Brigitte Schirmer. Zweite, erweiterte und verbesserte Auflage bearbeitet von Martin Kümmel und Helmut Rix. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2001. Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1980. Zu iranischen Reflexen des vrkâ-Typus. In: Recherches de linguistique: Hommages à Maurice Leroy, ed. Jean Bingen, André Coupez, Francine Mawet, pp. 130–52. (Université Libre de Bruxelles, Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres, Travaux, 73.) Brussels: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles. Miller, Wsewolod. 1903. Die Sprache der Osseten. In: Grundriß der iranischen Philologie, hrsg. von Wilhelm Geiger und Ernst Kuhn, Anhang zum ersten Band. Straßburg: Trübner. Morgenstierne, Georg. 1927. An Etymological Vocabulary of Pashto. (Skrifter utg. av det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo. II. Hist.-filos. Klasse, 1927, No. 3.) Oslo: Dybwad. –. 1962. Iranian feminines in cˇi. In: Indological Studies in Honor of W. Norman Brown, ed. by Ernest Bender, 160–4. (American Oriental Series, Vol. 47.) New Haven: American Oriental Society. (Reprinted with addendum in Irano-Dar-

68

Ronald I. Kim

dica, 102–7. [Beiträge zur Iranistik 5.] Wiesbaden: Reichert, in Kommission bei Harrassowitz, 1973.) Narten, Johanna. 1968. Zum “proterodynamischen” Wurzelpräsens. In: Pratidanam: Indian, Iranian and Indo-European Studies Presented to F. B. J. Kuiper on His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. by J. C. Heesterman, G. H. Schokker and V. I. Subramoniam 9–19. The Hague: Mouton. Németh, J. 1959. Eine Wörterliste der Jassen, der ungarländischen Alanen. (Abhandlungen der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Klasse für Sprachen, Literatur, und Kunst, Jahrgang 1958, Nr. 4.) Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Schmitt, Rüdiger. 1989. Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Sims-Williams, Nicholas. 1979. On the plural and dual in Sogdian. In: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 42, 337–46. –. 1981. Some Sogdian denominal abstract suffixes. In: Acta Orientalia 42, 11–19. Testen, David. 1989. The correspondence: Scythian B « = Ossetian bästä. In: The Non-Slavic Laguages of the USSR: Linguistic Studies, ed. by Howard I. Aronson, 209–17. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. –. 1996. On the development of the clitic pronominals in Ossetian. In: NSL.8: Linguistic Studies in the Non-Slavic Languages of the Commonwealth of Independent States and the Baltic Republics, ed. by Howard I. Aronson, 359–74. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. –. 1997. Ossetic phonologie. In: Phonologies of Asia and Africa, ed. Alan S. Kaye, pp. 707–31 (Ch. 35). Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Thordarson, Fridik. 1989. Ossetic. In: Schmitt (ed.) 1989, 456–79. –. 1990. Old Ossetic accentuation. In: Iranica Varia: Papers in Honor of Professor Ehsan Yarshater, 256–66. (Acta Iranica 30.) Leiden: Brill. Tichy, Eva. 1985. Jungavestich sunisˇ. In: ZVS 98:1, 150–61.

Linguistics Department Swarthmore College 500 College Road S w a r t h m o r e , PA 19081-1397 USA [email protected]

Ronald I. Kim

Anmerkungen zum Verbalsystem des Phrygischen

69

Anmerkungen zum Verbalsystem des Phrygischen* 0

Unter den indogermanischen Rest- und Trümmersprachen scheint das Phrygische einen speziellen Platz einzunehmen. Einerseits ist es eine Sprache, deren schriftlich bezeugte Geschichte von den ersten Denkmälern in einem einheimischen Alphabet aus dem 7. Jh. v. Chr. bis zum 3./4. Jh. n.Chr. 1000 bis 1200 Jahre umfasst. Auf der anderen Seite aber, trotz recht zahlreicher Überlieferung, ist die Erschließung des phrygischen Systems noch defizitär.1 Dies hat vor allem zwei Gründe. Die altphrygischen Denkmäler umfassen ein Korpus von 245 *0 Der folgende Aufsatz wurde mit der finanziellen Unterstützung der Stiftung zugunsten polnischer Wissenschaft (Fundacja na Rzecz Nauki Polskiej) im Rahmen des wissenschaftlichen Projekts Nr. 5/05 geschrieben. Ich möchte meinen Dank an den The Robert Anderson Research Charitable Trust richten, der mir einen wissenschaftlichen Aufenthalt in London ermöglicht hat. Für Korrekturen und Anmerkungen danke ich Joachim Matzinger. Für den Inhalt trage ich selbst die Verantwortung. Die Numerierung der phrygischen Inschriften folgt für das Altphrygische dem CIPP von Brixhe – Lejeune 1984 und für das Neuphrygische Haas 1966. Später publizierte neuphrygische Denkmäler werden wie gewöhnlich nach der Reihung der Veröffentlichung zitiert, z.B. 116 = Brixhe, C. – Neumann, G. 1985. Decouverte du plus long texte neo-phrygien: l’inscription de Gezler Köyü. Kadmos 24. 161–184. Die neuedierten altphrygischen Inschriften werden generell nach Brixhe 2004 zitiert, die Inschrift aus Vezirhan wird als Vez angegeben, mit je einer Anmerkung zum Autor der Lesung. 1 In dem Sinne ist es sehr schwierig das Phrygische mit den anderen Trümmersprachen zu vergleichen, wie z.B. mit dem Thrakischen, Illyrischen oder Makedonischen, die entweder nur in wenigen unverständlichen Inschriften (wie Thrakisch; die Darstellung bei Katicˇic´ 1976: 128–153; Brixhe–Panayotou 1994b: 179–203.) oder Nachrichten der antiken Autoren, bzw. nur in Namen und Glossen ans Licht kommen. Das Makedonische zählt heute zu den griechischen Dialekten als „wohl … ein ursprünglich äolisches Idiom, das frühzeitig unter (nord)westgriechischen und schließlich auch ungriechischen Einfluß geraten ist“ (Peters 2000: 38326). Die Inschrift aus Pella (Dubois in REG 108 (1995): 191) scheint diesen Status des Makedonischen als griechischen Dialekt zu bestätigen (Hajnal 2003: 123f.; vgl. noch Brixhe–Panayotou 1994: 2005–220; Brixhe 1997: 41–71, Sowa 2006b). Das in den 60er Jahren beliebte und viel diskutierte Illyrische wird in der heutigen Indogermanistik, wenn schon, dann nur am Rande und eher vorsichtig und kritisch betrachtet (vgl. Eichner 2004: 108ff.). Indogermanische Forschungen, 112. Band 2007

DOI 10.1515/IDGF.2007.005

70

Wojciech Sowa

epigraphischen Dokumenten, die 1984 von C. Brixhe und M. Lejeune ediert wurden. Davon sind aber mehr als 200 nur sehr fragmentarisch erhaltene Inschriften. In den letzten zwanzig Jahren sind noch manche Neufunde dazugekommen, unter anderem eine lange Inschrift aus Vezirhan (eigentlich der längste erhaltene Text auf phrygisch, vgl. Neumann 1997, Brixhe 2004: 42–67), ein Epitaph auf einer Säule von Dokimeion (Ende des 4. Jhs. v. Chr.), die von Th. Drew-Bear entdeckt wurde, bis 2004 aber unpubliziert blieb (Brixhe 2004: 7–26 mit der epigraphgischen Bestätigung des phrygischen Ausdrucks für „Gold“, Z. 2 gloureos, vgl. Hsch. 659 . « < λ> «α «);2 sowie weitere Inschriften.3 Von diesen Dokumenten sind aber nur wenige verständlich, die große Anzahl der Wörter und Formen bleibt nach wie vor ungeklärt. Keine bessere Situation liegt bei der Aufarbeitung neuphrygischer Denkmäler vor. Hier gibt es bis heute kein vollständiges Korpus.4 Die neuphrygischen Inschriften reichen bis in das 4. Jh. der christlichen Ära (bes. in die Zeit vom 1. bis zum 3. Jh. n.Chr.). Es sind meistens Fluchformeln auf Grabsteinen in scriptio continua in griechischem Alphabet, die zusammen mit griechischen Epitaphen auftreten. Von diesen Fluchformeln ist nur der Vordersatz, die Protasis, verständlich: „Wer immer diesem Grab Böses antut, der soll …“, worauf die Nennung einer Strafe folgt. Ob diese Inschriften zugleich als eine Bestätigung lebendiger phrygischer Sprache aus der Kaiserzeit (im 3./4. Jh.) betrachtet werden dürfen, ist schwer zu beurteilen. Die hellenistische wird schon seit langem als „Umgangssprache“ überall in Kleinasien gesprochen (zur sprachlichen Lage vgl. 2

3

4

Vgl. auch Gen.Sg. in Anth. Graeca 15, 25, 7: ’E« μ ²9 « ; diese Form scheint in Verbindung mit dem gr. Adj. « „grüngelb“, „hell grün“ (hom. auch „gelb“ von Sand oder Honig, vgl. Il. 11.631, $φλ Soph. Aj. 1064) zu stehen, beide <*g`hloh3-ró-; das phrygische Wort weist auf den „balkanischen“ Wandel MA > M hin. Alle jetzt durch Brixhe 2004 mit exzellentem epigraphischen Kommentar weiterpubliziert. Die einzige verfügbare Sammlung der neuphrygischen Inschriften ist bis heute „Die phrygischen Sprachdenkmäler“ von O. Haas (1966) mit 110 Inschriften. Dazu sind in der Zwischenzeit vier weitere von Brixhe (1978), sowie je eine von Brixhe–Waelkens (1981) und von Brixhe–Neumann (1985) publiziert worden. Insgesamt umfasst das Korpus jetzt 116 epigraphische Dokumente. Außer Haas (1966) wurde das phrygische Material von Diakonoff–Neroznak (1985) sowie von Orel (1997) monographisch ediert und behandelt.

Anmerkungen zum Verbalsystem des Phrygischen

71

Neumann 1980: 172–181; Bubenik 1989, passim), das in der römischen Periode ein „ganz griechisches Land mit griechischer Cultur“ ist (Thumb 1901: 103). Auch wenn das Phrygische noch im 3./4. (nach manchen Autoren auch im 5.) Jh. gesprochen wurde (vgl. zB. Neumann 1980: 175, Brixhe 1987: 11),5 zeigen die erhaltenen Dokumente eine so uniforme Sprache, die auch nur in einem bestimmten Kontext angewendet wird, dass eine präzise Analyse der Daten fast unmöglich zu sein scheint; es ist auch mit starkem Einfluss durch das Griechische zu rechnen – die phrygischen Fluchformeln werden stets von griechischen Epitaphen begleitet. Viele Formen sind eher als griechische Bildungen bzw. Entlehnungen zu verstehen und die verwendete griechische Schrift zeigt

5

Die zwei Stellen bei christlichen Historikern (Socrates und Sozomenos), die über einem arianischen Bischof Selinas erzählen, der angeblich auf Gotisch und Phrygisch predigen konnte, sind m. E. mit Vorsicht zu interpretieren. So schreibt z. B. Socrates deutlich über die gemischte Abstammung des Selinas, die auch sprachliche Konsequenzen mit sich brachte !"»« ² # %&' &«, $κ %&' ) μ «α « ξ μ«, ξ α λ $φ« « « « κ " " # (Hist. Eccles. 5.23.23–27); Sozomenos aber, wenn er über die gleichen Diskussionen unter den Arianern erzählt, berichtet nur, daß Selinas „in der Kirche nicht nur in seiner Vatersprache (d.h. auf Gotisch) aber auch auf Griechisch gepredigt hat“, vgl. Soz. 7.17.11–12: , *, λ !»« ² %&' &« ²'« %*+ -, %& « *ξ ) *μ &« ¹ 1 23« %

"' -. & %« ) % &# ) » % , 4& φ3 ) λ * * ) O2φ' 5 & ’ 23« %& & « λ λ "« ¹ ) % ' # , ( κ ' (% φ * , $ λ κ +E* . Es scheint also auch in diesem Fall möglich, dass der Terminus „Phryger“ wie bei den klassischen griechischen Autoren üblich als Bezeichnung der – geographisch gesehen – kleinasiatischen Herkunft benutzt wurde, vgl. z. B. Euseb. H. E. 4, 15, 7, wo der Hl. Polykarpos den gewissen μ «, K Κ , und dessen Tod sieht (als Parallele vgl. den Terminus „thrakisch/Thraker“ bei den byzantinischen Historikern und Lexikographen im Sinne von „slavisch/Slave“). Die Goten wurden tatsächlich im 3. und 4. Jh. in Kleinasien in Kolonien angesiedelt und sind der arianischen Lehre gefolgt. Das phrygische Christentum ist sehr stark montanistisch geprägt, noch in der Zeit des Selinas (4. Jh.) wurden die Bewohner von Phrygien eindeutig als Montanisten bezeichnet (vgl. z.B. Soz. 7, 18, 12 M λ *, ?« P&-' « λ « 8-; zum phrygischen Montanismus und seiner Präsenz in Inschriften s. Gibson, E. 1978. Die „Christians for Christians“ Inscriptions of Phrygia. Ann Arbor, Mi.: Edward Brothers (= Harvard Theological Studies 32).

72

Wojciech Sowa

auch für die griechische des 2./3. Jhs. n. Chr. typische Schreibkonventionen, die den Sachverhalt noch verkomplizieren.6 Worüber im Hinblick auf die Sprache der antiken Phryger Sicherheit herrscht, ist die Tatsache, dass ihr Ursprung – trotz ihrer anatolischen Heimat in historischer Zeit – auf dem prähistorischen Balkan zu lokalisieren ist. Das Phrygische ist als Teil des „Balkanindogermanischen“ anzusehen, eines Areals des Spätindogermanischen, dessen Fortsetzer in historischer Zeit das Griechische, Armenische, Phrygische, Albanische und vielleicht auch das Tocharische sowie andere antike Balkansprachen sind.7 Trotz der sich ergebenden Affinität zum Griechischen ist unsere Kenntnis der phrygischen Morphologie sehr begrenzt. Dies betrifft vor allem das Verb. Die spärlich überlieferten Texte des Phrygischen beinhalten zwar viele Verbalformen, doch ist ihre präzise Interpretation durch den dunklen Kontext oft unmöglich. Zumindest lässt sich ihr Verbalcharakter wegen der großen Formalisierung der Sprache der Denkmäler ohne Zweifel erkennen, da die Verben an charakteristischen Stellen der Fluchformelprotasis bzw. Apodosis auftreten; vgl. die Stele von Vezirhan, wo sich in den sonst unklaren Zeilen 8–9 8. 9.

atﬂikvaiu yosniyart sint imenan ﬂ kﬂaka oﬂskavos kakey kﬂan dedapitiy ﬂtubetivoyneﬂ ﬂ vos deragiv mekﬂasﬂ key

mit Sicherheit mindestens zwei Verben identifizieren lassen: kakey (mit Anschlüssen an die anderweitig überlieferten kakoioi G-02 und kakuioi P-04b) sowie dedapitiy, das sonst weder in alt- noch in neuphrygischen Inschriften zu finden ist. Die beiden können im syntaktischen Plan eine Protasis bilden: yos ni yart sint imenan ﬂ kﬂaka oﬂskavos kakey in etwa „wer immer diesem Grab böses antut“ (wahrscheinlich mit einer figura etymologica) und Apodosis mit verbum destruendi in der 3. Sg. Präs. (mit lediglich in dieser Inschrift vorkommender Ortho6

7

Vgl. die typischen Beispiele im Bereich des Vokalismus nach Lubotsky 1998: 414: /a/ < > aus /*a, *n, *a:(i), *e(:)i/, vgl. , , ** ; /o/ <, , , > aus /*o, *o:(i)/, vgl. , , , ; /u/ <, , , > aus */u(:), *ou, *o:/, vgl. , , , , , , ; /e/ <, > aus /*e/, vgl. , , , -«, /i/ < , > aus /*i(:), *ei,/, vgl. «, «, «; etc. Zur Darstellung des Balkanindogermanischen, vgl. Klingenschmitt 1994a: 244f., Klingenschmitt 1994b, Matzinger 2005: 375–394; zum generellen Konzept Hajnal 2003, auch Ritter–Sowa 2004: 646f., Sowa 2006a: 511–514.

Anmerkungen zum Verbalsystem des Phrygischen

73

graphie für /i/, vgl. Neumann 1997: 23).8 Trotzdem lässt sich das Verbalsystem des Phrygischen im Ganzen nur schwer interpretieren. Die klassische Auffassung nach Haas unterscheidet beim Verbum die Tempora Präsens, Aorist, Futur und Perfekt, dazu die Modi Imperativ und Optativ und die Diathesen Aktivum und Medium (Haas 1966: 226 ff.). Nach Orel sind im Phrygischen auch Beispiele des Imperfekts nachzuweisen, wobei er als „imperfekt“ die Formen „with secondary endings and without augment“ versteht (Orel 1997: 398–401). Es scheint, dass, anders als zunächst angenommen, nicht nur die Formen der 3. Sg. und Plur. zu finden sind. Das Supplement II zum CIPP bringt auch die Formen der 2. Sg. Der Plural tritt im allgemeinen nur sehr selten hervor. Die systematische Untersuchung des Verbalsystems bringt für das Phrygische schließlich folgende Ergebnisse.

§ 1 Präsens Die Bildungen der Präsens sind in den phrygischen Texten häufig und klar erkennbar. Orel zitiert 11 zumeist thematische Formen des Präsens, nämlich liketi, poreti, reideti, daketi, deyati, dakati. Dazu treten die Fortsetzer des athematischen Paradigmas von eimi, eiti, kiti, nati und siti (Orel 1997: 398). Da sich die Bildungen z.T. in sehr dunklem Kontext finden, ist ihre Identifizierung als Verben nicht immer über jeden Zweifel erhaben. So erscheint die 1.Sg. eimi nur einmal in einem Fragment Ô eymivaki [… (G-178), kiti scheint eher ein Teil eines größeren Wortes zu sein, vgl. Ô iosoporokitis- (G-02) und siti ist vielleicht als sit zu lesen (mit einem direkt nachfolgenden Dat.Sg. des Pronomens), vgl. Ô kesitioyvosaeyapaktneni (B-01.8). Nur die in N°99 belegte Form könnte, wenn es keine Partikel ist, als Verb erklärt werden, vgl. « [] [ ] [] * : « [] « B « (< *h1eÁ-, vgl. Haas 1966: 85). Mit dem neuen Material, vor allem aus Vezirhan, wird die Anzahl von möglichen Präsentien um eine kleine Menge erhöht, vgl. dazu das mögliche Inventar:

8

Vgl. Brixhe 2004: 61, der die Möglichkeit einer verbalen Interpretation von dedapitiy im Grunde nicht ablehnt, selbst aber skeptisch bleibt.

74

Wojciech Sowa

1. Sg.: atikraiu (Brixhe) / atikvaiu (Neumann) Vez 8. aﬂtikvaiu yosniyart sint imenan ﬂ kﬂaka oﬂskavos kakey; wird von Neumann als Beispiel eines verbum dicendi „ich sage“ (Neumann 1997: 22) – „je proclame, je menace“ (mit /u:/ < */o:/) erklärt (vgl. aber Brixhe 2004: 59); vielleicht auch 1. Sg. Medium dakor in einer bis heute unpublizierten Inschrift aus Kerkenes (Brixhe 2004: 52); auch akor in G-105, vgl. si Fidosakor (wenn die Lesung richtig ist) 3. Sg.: andati Bez 4., vgl. panta vebras adunpoﬂ ﬂ skey es´tat patorp ike … h aﬂ ndati ﬂ (sehr wahrscheinlich von < *°d eh1-ti); kakey Vez 8., vgl. atﬂikvaiu yosniyart sint imenan ﬂ kﬂaka oﬂskavos kakey; Brixhe 2004: 60; eine andere Bildung als in kakoioi < *kako-Áe / o-?); dedapitiy und tubeti Vez 9, vgl. kﬂan dedapitiy ﬂtubetivoyneﬂ ﬂ vos deragiv mekﬂasﬂ key (mit hyperkorrekter Schreibung, vgl. auch ituv im gleichen Text, verbum destruendi nach Neumann 1997: 23; vgl. auch Brixhe 2004: 61); poreti T-03a I, vgl. tes poreti otu; vgl. Brixhe 2004: 101), vielleicht auch -niti in W-11 (Dokimeion), vgl. 7. ros pants: pen(-)niti ios koro an(-)detoun („l’obscuritè du contexte interdit l’identification“; Brixhe 2004: 24); dazu kann noch Med. okdeketoy aus Daskyleion (B-07), vgl. Z.2 ..]es va knais manuka odeketoy meros ke – manes is yos tiv[.? (wenn < Wz.*dheh1-k-, wieso Schwundstufe und Primärendung?; vgl. Brixhe 2004: 80 f.; vielleicht eine andere Wurzel, wie z. B. in gr. * , * ?) oder * N°42, vgl. « # (dagegen Haas 1966: 226) gestellt werden; auch abretoy (mit einer Synkope, vgl. s. unten; Brixhe 2004: 62), mederitoy und dupratoy (Brixhe 2004: 64)/pupratoy (Neumann 1997: 25) Vez 12 f., vgl. 12. ﬂtubnuv nevos ﬂ mederitoy koﬂriske abretoynunﬂ oynev | 13. yosiseko5sos s´emeney dupratoy veban ituv, negretoy (als 3. Sg. *n-h1egretoÁ, ˚ Janda 1997: 276 f.). Als Präsensformen der 3.Sg. sind auch die bekannten neuphrygischen mediopassiven Formen zu nennen, nämlich und ** (vgl. N°73, 75; N° 25; ][ N°103; [---] N°79, N°91, N°113, ** N°40, 63, ** [-- N°101 für ** ?).9

9

Vgl. N°73 « M;YEI---; N°75 « --## [---]; N°25 « [ ] --# ; N°103 [«] [ ]-#-

Anmerkungen zum Verbalsystem des Phrygischen

75

Betrachtet man die Stammbildung dieser Formen, so ist festzuhalten, dass sie meistens thematisch erfolgt. Ihre Zugehörigkeit zu den verschiedenen Typen lässt sich nicht immer leicht erkennen wie z.B. bei dem eindeutigen thematischen Wurzelpräsens bere- < *bhér-e-: ein vielleicht redupliziertes athematisches Präsens in dedapitiy (obwohl der Reduplikationsvokal -e- eher für das Nicht-Präsens sprechen könnte), vielleicht -Áe / o- Formation in atikraiu und ein Denominativ in kakey (vgl. kakoioi, s. unten). Als die wichtigste und interessanteste Erscheinung gilt die Wurzelerweiterung mit -k- bei phryg. dak- < *dheh1-, die als innere Entwicklung des Phrygischen zu sehen ist, wohl unabhängig von dem griechischen - -, das nur in Aoristen und v. a. in Perfekta vorkommt.10 Die Endungen im Aktiv folgen dem aus dem Griechischen bekannten Muster *-ti bei der athematischen und -eÁ bei der thematischen 3. Sg., -u < *-o bei der 1. Sg. Die belegten Medialendungen sind dagegen eher verwirrend. Soweit wir das Material interpretieren können, lässt sich die Präsenz von zwei, ihrem Ursprung nach, verschiedenen Endungen feststellen. Ihre Verteilung ist vielleicht von der Chronologie abhängig: 3. Sg. med. -toÁ in der altphrygischen Zeit und -tor in den neuphrygischen Inschriften. Das altphrygische Medium auf -toÁ ist natürlich mit dem griechischen - (dial. noch bewahrte -, vgl. myk. di-do-to PY Ng 319.2 /didotoÁ/ „gibt“, ark. z. B. * Dubois 1986: 178 f.) eng verwandt.11 Die -tor-Endung könnte aus dem ursprünglichen Stativ bezogen sein, und könnte das Phrygische auch mit dem Tocharischen verbinden (nach Klingenschmitt eine Gemeinsamkeit im Rahmen des „Balkanindogermanischen“, Klingenschmitt 1994: 244: vgl. auch Jasanoff 1978: 52). Dieses Nebeneinander der alt- und neuphrygischen Medialendungen ist bis jetzt noch unerklärt. So ist

10

11

#[[ -]& ; N°91 [« ] [ ] [ ] [] []--## [] [ ]; N°101 [« --- ] #[---; N°40 « #; N°63 « #. Wie auch das lat. -k- in facio, s. Untermann 1993: 462, 468, der für die getrennten innersprachlichen Neuerungen spricht. Vgl. Jasanoff 1978: 52ff., Jasanoff 2003: 48–51 für das Medium im Idg. Nach Kuryłowicz ist die erwartete Serie von mediopassiven Endungen im Griechischen *-ai, *-soi, *-toi, die belegten - , - , - sind als Resultat von Analogie entstanden nach der Einführung des *-m in der 1. Sg.: -mi : -mai = si : -sai (für -soi) = -ti : -tai (für -toi) (Kuryłowicz 1964: 59).

76

Wojciech Sowa

-tor ausschließlich neuphrygisch, woneben auch zwei Beispiele von (N°91, N°113) treten, die wahrscheinlich als Verschreibungen aufzufassen sind (Brixhe 2004: 53).12 Von Bedeutung ist auch die Tatsache, dass die tor-Formen keine anderen semantischen Information zeigen, als die offensichtlich aktiven Formen wie ** .13 Sollten die phryg. -tor-Formen irgendeinen älteren Zustand fortsetzen, dann ist es auffällig, dass diese Formen erst in der spätbelegten (zum Teil künstlichen) Sprache vorkommen. Die Verwendung von Medium für Aktivum (und auch umgekehrt) könnte schon durch den Einfluss des Spätgriechischen hervorgerufen sein, wo statt der alten Medialformen die aktiven Endungen auftreten wie auch umgekehrt (vgl. die Warnungen vor falscher Anwendung bei Longinos 9, 191, hH in BlassDebrunner 78 f.). Diese Tendenz lässt sich auch im kleinasiatischen Griechisch finden (vgl. z.B. Kilikien "* statt "* Adanda 3; für Adana 5; Laminger-Pascher 1974: 37). Es wäre aber möglich, dass im Phrygischen die Fortsetzer der idg. Stativa existierten, vgl. die Form N°48, die nach Lubotsky als °steh2-r-ntaÁ mit dem „middle“ -r- und der stativen, bzw. passiven Bedeutung erklärt wird (1997: 123),14 dazu noch vielleicht die 1.Sg. dakor, akor (wenn tatsächlich Verbalformen vorliegen).15 Außerdem zitiert Janda hier lakedokey aus der Areyastis-Inschrift und trennt die Form in la + ke, ein Präverb (wie in lat. cedo) und dokey < *deh3- „geben“; °dokey < *doh3keÁ enthält dann ein langes /o/ und eine stativische Endung (ist -k- dann eine Wurzelerweiterung?), die auf idg. *eÁ/oÁ- zurückgehen kann (vgl. ai. s´áye ~ gr. ' ; Janda 1997: 274). Sind die altphrygischen -toÁ-Bildungen sprachwirklich (und nicht etwa in -t + oy zu trennen, s. u.), so könnte das merkwürdige Nebeneinander von -toÁ und -tor durch die frühere Existenz zweier Endungssätze im Phrygischen erklärt werden: neben mediopassivem -toÁ stand stativisches -or/oÁ/eÁ-. In der altphrygischen Zeit waren die Fortsetzer der 12

13

14 15

Die gleiche geographische Verteilung der Dokumente schließt prinzipiell die Erklärung die Formen als dialektale Varianten aus (Brixhe, ibidem). Vgl. Watkins 1969: 175, der die phrygischen Beispiele mit der 3.Sg. des armenischen Imperfekts, wie etwa berer (nachklass. beriwr) < *bheretor zusammenbringt. Diese Herleitung scheint aber im Lichte des analogischen Ursprungs von beriwr unwahrscheinlich (Klingenschmitt 1982: 22f.). Vgl. vielleicht auch ved. pass. Aor. ápadran „sind gefallen“ < *é-ped-r-nt. dakor in einer bis heute unpublizierten Inschrift aus Kerkenes (Brixhe 2004: 52); akor in G-105, vgl. si Fidosakor (wenn die Lesung richtig ist).

Anmerkungen zum Verbalsystem des Phrygischen

77

Stativa (Intransitiva) wahrscheinlich noch lebendig, in der weiteren Entwicklung der phryg. Sprache bedingt auch durch die starke Hellenisierung ist diese Kategorie vielleicht untergegangen. In der vorneuphrygischen Periode wurde wahrscheinlich auch die Diathese umgebildet, zum Ausdruck des alten Mediums, das sich an das Aktivum angenähert hat, wird jetzt das ursprünglich „stativische“ -or verwendet. Neuphrygisch -tor ist vielleicht eine Verschränkung aus *-toÁ und -or. Die Form , wenn sie tatsächlich als °steh2-r-ntaÁ zu interpretieren ist, zeigt bereits die beiden Elemente in Kombination. Trifft dies zu, so ist neuphrygisches -tor sekundärer Genese und stellt keine Parallele zu den anderen idg. mediopass. Formen wie etwa heth. kittar(i) dar. § 2 Aorist Neben den Formen des Präsens sind in den phrygischen Inschriften auch solche Verbalformen belegt, die sich als eindeutige Präteritalbildungen erklären lassen, und zwar sehr wahrscheinlich als Aoriste. Die Beispiele der phrygischen Aoriste sind generell sigmatische Formationen, das Augment ist auch belegbar, was zusätzlich die Annahme einer speziellen Affinität zum Griechischen stützt. Von diesen Bildungen tritt die Form edaes „stellte auf“ am häufigsten auf, was auch in dem überlieferten Typ der Dokumente, nämlich Dedikationen bzw. Grabinschriften, nichts Unerwartetes ist, vgl. edaes: edaes M-01a, M-01b, edae[s] M-01f, °ed[e]daes W-05b, edae[s] P-04c °edaes° B-01, tedaes W-08, °edae° W-10, * « (N°18), * « (N°116),16 dazu kommen noch die sicheren Beispiel des Aorists eneparkes: eneparkes°G-125, °eneparkes?° M-01d, [e]n[e]parkes° G-01c;17 & « 16

17

Vgl. z. B. M-01a ates arkiaevais akenanogavos midai lavagtaei vanaktaei edaes; M-01b baba : memevais : proitavos : kφiynaveyos : sikeneman : edaes; M-01f [--] as : tuaveniy : ae : esuryoyoy : totin : edae[s]; W-02 iketaios : pseik--ed[a]es; W-05b [ ]nst[ e]daespormate; P-04c iman -------- edae[s] mekas; B-01,2 kavarmoyo[-]imroyedaesetovesniyo[-]; W-08 atesagomoi sa-tatedaes; W-10, 1 ataiedaele-avo; N°18, 6 f. « #/#« ; Vgl. G-125 …]rono-oy : eneparkes-eie?s.; M-01d midas smateran tvemeseneparkes; G-01c [e]n[e]parkesv […; N°31 P « M # # #« *.

78

Wojciech Sowa

(N°31) und estaes: sﬂ eﬂ sﬂtaﬂ eﬂ sﬂ (Brixhe–Savis 2003: 72); « (N°18, 31).18 Die Publikationen neugefundener Inschriften bringen auch potentielle Aoriste mit, wie z.B. konjiziertes <E>;IKE! in N°31 statt <;;IKE! > (vgl. Neumann 1994: 367),19 dazu noch mokves und lakes aus Üyücek B-04 (phrygisch-mysische Grenze; vgl. Brixhe 2004: 40f.), auch wenn das Fehlen des Augments ungewöhnlich erscheint, vgl. B-04, Z. 3 lami(?)b(?)av(?)aymokves und Z. 7 .(?)lakes(?)braterais patrio(?)is(?)ke, oder auch dunkles eptuv[s] – aus einer unveröffentlichten Inschrift aus Tyana, T-03b („etymology and meaning unknown. The root is preceded by a prefix“; Orel 1997: 428). Wie aphryg. edaes und °estaes zeigen, folgt der sigmatische Aorist des Phrygischen dem bekannten Muster: *-s- wird im Aktivum der dehnstufigen Wurzel, im Medium der vollstufigen Wurzel hinzugefügt, worauf die Sekundärendung folgt.20 Nach diesem Modell sind auch edaes aus *e-dhíh1-s-t, estaes aus *e-stíh2-s-t und eneparkes aus *(en-)e-pírk0-s-t (wenn etwa „inscripsit“ zu *perk0- „graben, aufreißen“, wie Neumann 1994: 368) zu erklären.21 Deswegen ist es unverständlich, dass LIV2, 137 das phrygische Beispiel edaes als eine augmentierte Neubildung *e-dhh1-s-t mit R(z) als „einer Verallgemeinerung der Schwundstufe im Paradigma“ betrachtet. Eine solche Schwundstufe *e-dhh1-s-t hätte im Phrygischen jedoch eher **edes ergeben. Auf Grund von /a/ kann aber geschlossen werden, dass in edaes

18

19

20

21

Vgl. 18, 6 f. « # #« ; «, auch 31: « * | = [ ]* | Ian ##« | " P « M # # #« *. Zur möglichen Konjektur in <E>DIKES in 31 statt <;;IKE!> vgl. Neumann 1994: 367. Die sigmatischen Aoriste sind in vielen indogermanischen Sprachen vertreten, v. a. im Indo-Arischen, Griechischen, Slavischen, Lateinischen, Keltischen und Albanischen (vgl. Watkins 1962: 9–17). Im Griechischen, wo schon in der mykenischen Periode der s-Aorist belegt ist, sind die Spuren der ursprünglichen Alternation eher schwer zu erkennen – meistens haben die s-Aoriste die gleiche apophonische Stufe, wie im Indikativ Präsens (Duhoux 1992: 361). *e-dhíh1-s-t; *e-stíh2-s-t; *-e-pírk0-s-t (wenn eneparkes etwa „inscipsit“ zu *perk0„graben, aufreißen“, vgl. Neumann 1994: 368).

Anmerkungen zum Verbalsystem des Phrygischen

79

(und ähnlichen Formen wie «, usw.) entweder Voll- oder Dehnstufe vorliegt (vgl. auch Lubotsky 1988: 16).22 Umstritten bleibt die Herkunft von /e/ in edaes, estaes, usw.23 Die vermuteten rein phonetischen Interpretationen sind: als Notation des Übergangslautes zwischen -ê- und -â- (Kretschmer bei Gusmani 1959: 873f.), bzw. in edaes (wie auch in anderen formen, z. B. arkiaevais, lavagtaei, aey) für die Sequenz -ae- < *-ahe- < *-ase(Lubotsky 1988: 17f.). Beides ist wenig plausibel, im zweiten Fall edaes, bzw. °estaes müsste dann in *e-da-h-es/*e-sta-h-es segmentiert werden (< *e-dhíh1-s-e-s-t, *e-stíh2-s-e-s-t?). Man könnte den Präteritalausgang -es des Phrygischen auch als ein ursprüngliches Phänomen der Konsonantenstämme interpretieren, das dann auf die anderen Aoristbildungen ausgeweitet wurde, d. h. eneparkes < *°e-perk0-es (mit der Dehnstufe im sigmatischen Aorist) < *-e-perk0-e-s-t mit /e/ als Vokaleinschub in der Sequenz */k>st/ (Sowa 2006a: 617);24 das gleiche Schema wäre dann auch für die Formen wie mokves, lakes, vielleicht eptuves (wenn ihre Interpretation als Aoriste stimmen sollte) denkbar. Diese Hypothese ist trotz der spärlichen Beleglage der Konsonantenstämme auch aus anderen Gründen interessant. Die Inschrift aus Vezirhan und Daskyleion zeigen nämlich Formen, die sich als Fortsetzer ursprünglicher Wurzelaoriste analysieren lassen, vgl. edat und es´tat, Vez. Z. 2 und 4. (Neumann 1997: 18): 2. 4. 22

23

24

iben edatoy dakeran atriyaﬂsdﬂavﬂ oﬂ ﬂ i vﬂ rﬂ eﬂ kan ﬂ akﬂ ﬂ i van; panta vebras adunpoﬂ ﬂ skey es´tat patorp ike ….. aﬂ nﬂ dati

Auch im Altphryg. wird */e:/ > /a/, vgl. matar | ". Zum Vokalismus s. Brixhe 1990. Hajnal vergleicht die phrygischen Bildungen mit den dialektalen griechischen und messapischen Aoristsformen wie z.B. arkad.-kypr., äol. Pl. , * , mess. Ind. Aor. 3. Sg. hipades < *supo-dhe-s-t (vgl. de Simone 2002: 164) und überlegt, ob es sich nicht in diesem Falle um eine „Balkan-Isoglosse“ handeln könnte (Hajnal 2003: 130). Wegen des deutlich sigmatischen Charakters der phrygisichen Formen jedoch und des sehr wahrscheinlich altertümlichen Zustandes der griechischen Dialektbeispiele, die als Fortsetzer der Wurzelaoriste erklärt werden, erscheint diese Hypothese kaum zutreffend (vgl. Diskussion in Sowa 2006a, 615ff. mit Literatur). Oder wird man an eine Art „Schwalaut“ (Svarabhakti) /ə/ denken müssen, der phonetisch an [e] heranreichte, d. h. *°-perk0-st < *°e-perk0-əst > *°est, oder so ähnl.

80

Wojciech Sowa

Davon scheint es´tat gesichert zu sein, edat ergibt sich nach der Trennung von selbständigem oy (vgl. auch oy in der Z. 9. kﬂan dedapitiy ﬂtubetivoyneﬂ ﬂ vos deragiv mekﬂasﬂ key; Neumann 1993: 21; vgl. auch in [------] " N°30). Skeptisch bleibt Brixhe, der in edatoy eine medialo-passive Endung sehen möchte (2004: 53f.). Der Beleg in Z.4 es´tat deutet aber auf eine Formation mit Sekundärendung hin, die sich einwandfrei auf einen ursprünglichen Wurzelaorist *e-stah2-t < *e-steh2-t, vgl. gr. )" oder ved. ásthat, zurückführen lässt.25 Die vorgeschlagene Lesung edat (+ oy) würde auch zu einem Wurzelaorist *e-dheh1-t (vgl. ved. ádhat) passen; vielleicht ebenso in Daskyleion B-07, Z.1, wo eine Form e]gat zu finden ist (vgl. 1. [.]gat : s manes iyungidas manitos apelev porniyoy – est[..; Brixhe 2004: 76) – durch den obskuren Kontext haben wir aber in diesem Fall keine Anhaltspunkte.26 Wenn diese Annahme das Richtige trifft, dann müssten auch die anderen Beispiele der augmentierten -toÁ Formen, wie z. B. f estatoiavun G-144, f tedatoy in W-01a (III bonok akenanogavos II materan areyastin I vrekun tedatoy), oder ektetoy in B-0127 überprüft werden, ob vielleicht auch hier die Trennung von -oy möglich wäre (dann etwa W-01a: t + edat + oy). In der ersten Zeile der phrygischen Inschrift aus Vezirhan ist die Sequenz titedat[ zu lesen (1. sint imenan kaliya titedaﬂt ….. eﬂ . eﬂ kﬂ m ﬂ oﬂ . menan ﬂ . a. Brixhe liest hier sin t imenan kaliya ti tedat[---]edekm[---] mea(?)d(?)mid, Brixhe 2004: 65). Auch in diesem Fall wäre die Interpretation als Wurzelaorist möglich. Die Form könnte vollständig (ohne oy wie es tedatoy in W-01a aufweist) und mit einer Partikel tid versehen sein, vgl. neu-phryg. /*// < pronominalem *-te/o (vgl. «; Brixhe 2004: 32; zu den Partikeln des Phrygischen s. Brixhe 1997: 41–70). Nach Brixhe könnte es sich auch um eine Form des reduplizierten Perfekts handeln, entweder Aktiv tedat oder Medium tedat[oy]. Diese Annahme scheint vor allem aus morphologi-

25

26

27

Nach Neumann eine Form mit Augment, nach Brixhe ein Imperfekt (Brixhe 2004: 57). Etwa zu *gÜem- „gehen“ wie gr. )", dann egat < *e-gÜ-e-t? Aber das setzte voraus, dass das Phrygische, ähnlich wie das Griechische, eine langvokalische Wurzelstufe durchgeführt hat, vgl. Risch 1974: 234. Natürlich, wenn /e/ als Augment und nicht als Partikel bzw. Präverb anzusetzen wäre, Z. 3 matarkubeleyaaibeyadumanektetoy).

Anmerkungen zum Verbalsystem des Phrygischen

81

schen (e-Reduplizierung, Vollstufe, keine Perfektendung) aber auch aus phonologischen Gründen (keine Lautverschiebung im Phrygischen, wie wäre dann /t/ zu erklären?) implausibel. Wenn aber titedat in tit- + edat segmentiert wird, läge dann noch ein Beispiel des Wurzelaorists vor wie im Falle von es´tat. Die durch Brixhe vorsichtig formulierte Hypothese, dass es´tat als ein Imperfektum zu verstehen wäre, muss m. E. abgelehnt werden. Wenn die 1. Zeile eine Form °edat zeigt, dann besteht keine Möglichkeit für die Annahme eines Imperfekts, da die erste Zeile der Vezirhaninschrift unabhängig von ihrer Segmentierung die einzige verständliche Zeile der Inschrift ist. sin t (oder sint) imenan kaliya ti tedat[---]edekm[---]mea(?)d(?)u(?)mid stellt als abgeschlossene Handlung sehr wahrscheinlich die Eröffnungsformel der Dedikationsinschrift dar, die als „Kaliyas hat dieses Monument (Relief) errichtet (gestiftet)“ zu übersetzen ist. Sie könnte auch eine Entsprechung in einem (jüngeren) griechischen Teil dieses Dokuments haben, vgl. KA@@IA!ABIKTOYPAI!HI MHHMA!ANE CEKENO!TO!PEDI

(vgl. Neumann 1997: 18, Brixhe 2004: 65), was als K « A " I"" « ## # „Kalias, Sohn des Abiktos oder Imegemas, hat errichtet“ aufzufassen ist.28 indem auch der benutzte griechische Aorist diese Hypothese stützt. Es ist dann wahrscheinlich, dass es zur Zeit der altphrygischen Inschriften noch die alten (wohl nicht sehr produktiven) Formationen des ererbten Wurzelaorists gab, die später durch die produktiven sigmatischen Aoriste ersetzt wurden. Vielleicht konnten sie auch zur gleichen Zeit koexistieren, wie es das Mykenische zeigt, wo in der gleichen Serie, von dem gleichen Schreiber geschrieben die Dubletten de-ko-to und de-ka-sa-to in der gleichen Funktion und Bedeutung existieren, vgl. KN Le 642+5950 de-ko-to /dekto/ „(he, she, it) received“ (Ventris–Chadwick 19732: 539) und de-ka-sa-to KN Le 641.1, PY Pn 30.1 /deksato/ „(he, she, it) received“ (Chadwick–Baumbach 1963: 183). Die Form de-ko-to ist offensichtlich älter als de-ka-sa-to (vgl. Watkins 1962: 54; Risch 1982: 32827; zur Analyse s. Sowa 1998: 288 f.). 28

Wo Imegemas offensichtlich der epichorische Name des Abikots ist. Ich verdanke diesen Hinweis Herrn Prof. H. Eichner.

82

Wojciech Sowa

§ 3 Andere Präteritalformen? Eine umstrittene Bestimmung tritt im Falle von Formen auf, die durch scheinbar sekundäre Endungen markiert werden, zugleich aber kein Augment aufweisen, so v. a. ** , , die als Pendants zu den Präsentien ** , gesehen werden können. Im Falle von ** handelt es sich um die häufigste Verbalform des Phrygischen überhaupt, vgl. von der Wz. +bher- (N°6, N°13; [ N°11; [ ] N°91 von der Wz. *dheh1-k- (mit Präverb) * N°4, N°20, N°21, N°28, N°36, N°61, N°72, N°87, N°93, N°94, N°97, N°99, N°102; * [ ] N°105; * […N°68; 3.Pl. * N°5; ** N°2, N°10, N°12, N°18, N°32, N°33, N°34, N°43, N°48, N°57, N°59, N°62, N°69, N°76, N°77, N°79, N°82, N°88, N°90; [ ]** N°53; [*]* N°3; *[*] N°78; *[*] N°60; **[ ] N°86; ** [N°29, N°55; ** ] N°38, N°70; ** ] N°108; [- *]* N°39, N°80; [** ] N°65; < ** > N°19; [ ** N°37, N°64, N°92; ** N°35 („Der Auslaut ist an den folgenden Anlaut angeglichen“ (Haas 1966: 226); ohne Präverbien daket Vez 11, * N°26, N°56, N°67, N°100, vielleicht auch * N°54, * [ N°44, * N°106; vielleicht auch altphryg. daet W-01b (mit für -ks oder eher für Palatalisierung / oder Behauchung?; vgl. CIPP 40f.)29 Durch den Vergleich mit den Formen des Präs-Med. auf -tor (Beispiele und Kontext s. o.) lässt sich feststellen, dass die ursprüngliche Distribution ** : gelautet haben muss. Die sonst seltenen Beispiele von ** und sind als Resultate späterer Kreuzungen zwischen den beiden Paradigmen anzusehen (Lubotsky 1997: 12726). Soweit festgestellt werden kann, liegt auch in allen Fällen die gleiche Bedeutung vor, etwa „zufügen, (zu)bringen“ immer mit als Objekt, vgl. N°6 []« [ ] und N°12 « | ** „wer diesem (Grab, Monument) Schaden zufügt“.

29

Gegen vgl. die Form eveteksetey in der gleichen Inschrift.

Anmerkungen zum Verbalsystem des Phrygischen

83

Beide Formen werden in LIV als Präsens klassifiziert, vgl. Präs. *bhér-e- phryg. bringt (LIV2: 76); ? ** wird mit Reserve und ohne Kommentierung als Neubildung, nämlich als schwundstufiges thematisches Präsens eingetragen (LIV2: 139), was aus phonetischen Gründen jedoch unmöglich ist (vgl. auch Lubotsky 1997: 12727). Beide Bildungen setzen sicherlich eine vollstufige Wurzel fort, die Endung -t aber bereitet Probleme. Handelt es sich hier tatsächlich um eine Sekundär- oder doch eine Primärendung, die nach Haas (1966: 204) in thematischen Formationen aus *-ti zu -t wurde? Orel sieht darin Beispiele des Imperfekts, die semantisch den Bildungen des Präsens und Aorists als „having no tense or modality reference“ gegenübergestellt werden (Orel 1997: 399). Die angenommenen, speziellen Beziehungen zu den ai. Injunktiven (Orel, ibidem) scheinen einer solchen Hypothese aber zu widersprechen. Eine präzise Interpretation der Formen scheint nicht möglich zu sein. Für Brixhe sind dies die möglichen Beispiele des Konjunktiv Präsens (Brixhe 1979; idem 2004: 52), doch sollte man dann aber eher die Formen **berat und **dakat erwarten, gemäß der Bilderegel des Konjunktivs: Wz. + Suff. *-e / o- mit Vollstufe bei den athematischen und Dehnstufe bei den thematischen Verben (Rix 1976: 230; erweitertes phryg. *da-k- scheint thematisiert zu sein, vgl. * ). Die besagten Formen kommen vor allem in der Protasis der Fluchformeln vor, d. h. „wer ….. zufügt“, die aus syntaktischen Gründen kein Imperfektum enthalten kann.30 Als Entsprechungen in den griechischen Inschriften Phrygiens erscheinen die Konjunktive des Aorists, vgl. z. B. N°103 [« ] " [ ]# oder auch in N°96 « « #, manchmal auch die Aoristindikative, vgl. N°48 1.8 ** was dem griech. Aor. & " (aus gleichen Inschrift) entspricht (Lubotsky 1997: 127). Da aber in den griechischen Inschriften der Kaiserzeit eine Vielfalt der Möglichkeiten des Verbalgebrauchs zu finden ist (z.B. wird ein Aorist durch Futur bzw. Konjunktiv oder auch Indikativ Präsens ersetzt; Strubbe 1997: 185, vgl. auch Brixhe 2004: 53), besagt das für das Phrygische nichts. Dagegen zeigen die altphrygischen Inschriften In30

Natürlich aber im Sinne der klassischen griechischen Syntax – der irrealis schiene hier aber auffällig; ist eher ein potentialis intendiert? Vgl. die Beispiele des Imperfekts für Aorist in den griechischen Inschriften Lykaoniens in Laminger–Pascher 1974: 51.

84

Wojciech Sowa

dikativ Präsens in diesem Kontext, vgl. Vez 8 yosniyart sint imenan ﬂ kﬂaka oﬂskavos kakey. In einem Fall scheint die Semantik abzuweichen, denn vgl. das prohibitive in N°86, [-] « [-], das nach Haas als „Injunktiv“ betrachtet wird (1966: 227). Die Nichtsetzung des Augments hat ebenfalls eine gute Parallele im Griechischen. In den mykenischen Linear-B Tafeln erscheinen Formen eigentlich nur in augmentloser Gestalt. Hierbei kann natürlich überhaupt keine Rede von „poetischer Lizenz, bzw. poetischem Stil“ sein, wie er den augmentlosen, epischen Formen zu Grunde liegt. Bedeutsam ist aber, dass auch in den spätgriechischen Inschriften das Fehlen des Augments vorkommt, vgl. etwa aus Lykaonien ",

, " oder & " (Laminger–Pascher 1974: 48). Fehlendes Augment begegnet aber auch in literarischen Quellen wie z. B. im Neuen Testament. Der Ausgangspunkt hierfür liegt sehr wahrscheinlich zunächst bei den Komposita (siehe Blass– Debrunner 83 f., 88).31

§ 4 Futur Als Beispiele des phrygischen Futurs werden hauptsächlich zwei Formen zitiert, die beide vom gleichen Stamm abgeleitet sind, nämlich egeseti P-04a (vgl. f ios ni aﬂ kenan ﬂ egeseti) und (vgl. N°58 MONANM-PO " ).32 Dazu kann man auch das Hapax anivayeti von Daskyleion (B-07.Z.3, ke devoun k(e) umnotan ordoineten mekos anivayeti (i)s manin; vgl. Brixhe 2004: 74, 84f.) stellen. In allen diesen Fällen, wie auch im Griechischen, handelt es sich um ein sigmatisches Futur mit einem *-se/o-Suffix, das wohl ein ursprüngliches Desiderativ fortsetzt. Die eher unerwartete Endung -t in 31

32

Ein interessanter Fall ist im Dokument aus Dokimeion belegt, wo eine Form blaskon zum Vorschein kommt, vgl. W-11, Z. 3. sa soroi mati makran: blaskon ke takris ke louniou, die, wenn sie als Verb erklärt werden sollte, dann das für ionische präteritale augmentlose Iterativa typische Suffix -sk- zeigt mit einer Endung -on entweder aus *-om (1. Sg.) oder aus *-o-nt (3.Pl.). Der Kontext ist aber dunkel (Brixhe 2004: 19; für Bildungstyp s. Rix 1976: 229). * in N°31, vgl. « * | - ## … ist wahrscheinlich eine griechische Entlehnung < $* (Haas 1966: 227; wenn die Lesung stimmt, anders Orel 1997: 333; vgl. auch Neumann 1994: 367).

Anmerkungen zum Verbalsystem des Phrygischen

85

wird nach Haas durch den Schwund des auslautenden /i/ erklärt (1967: 207).33 egeseti wiederum wird mit einem Imperativ * zusammengestellt, die etymologische Interpretation ist aber umstritten (meistens als < *segh-; * = % , vgl. z. B. Schmid 1993: 378, 381; dagegen Brixhe 2004: 76, der aus phonetischen Gründen – ein anlautendes *s schwindet im Phrygischen nicht – diese Annahme ablehnt).

§ 5 Perfekt Die als Perfekt bezeichneten Formen des Phrygischen treten nur zweimal in den bekannten Texten der neuphrygischen Periode auf.34 Sie werden auf Grund ihrer r-Endungen (bzw. ihres Ausgangs) als Perfekta bezeichnet, vgl. 3.Sg. * (im enigmatischen Kontext in N°18, Z. 3 M* « ; * @ * ) und 3.Pl. * (N°98 * & "« ). Beide sollen ältere Formationen mit einer Vollstufe < *dheh1-k-r bzw. *dheh1-k-rnt fortsetzen. Es ist aber auffällig, dass keine Beispiele von reduplizierten Bildungen mit dem beim Perfekt zu erwartenden Ablaut zu finden sind (vgl. gr. -- < *mé-mon-h2e, mit Ablaut in Med. - - < *me-mn-to). Nach Orel hat das phrygische analogisch die Endung der 3.Pl. Perfekt *-r (vgl. heth. r-Präteritum, ved. vidúr, toch. B prekar „fragten“ oder lat. uidere ü uiderunt) sowohl im Singular wie auch im Plural generalisiert; -en als Fortsetzer des *-ent soll sekundär zur Markierung des Plurals eingeführt worden sein (Orel 1997: 400). Die Endung der 3.Pl. Perfekt im Idg. wird heute mit *-er < **-ers, bzw. *-r(s) angesetzt (Jasanoff 2003: 51); dieses *-er könnte ohne weiteres zu phrygischem langen a führen. Die Annahme der Entwicklung des idg. Sonanten r > ar ist zwar für das Phrygische nicht ausgeschlossen, doch auf Grund der undurchsichtigen Beispiele eher problematisch (vgl. Orel 1997: 33

34

Orel (1997:52ff.) zitiert dazu noch dokseti (eigentlich dokses´) < *dhek-s(Á)e-ti aus Üyücek, Z.3; seine Lesung ist aber nicht korrekt, vgl. mokveﬂs in Brixhe 2004: 39 f. (B-04); es liegt eher ein sigmatischer Aorist vom Typ edaes vor. Vgl. das defizitär erhaltene System des mykenischen Verbums, wo nur eine einzige Personalform des Perfekts in PY Vn 20.1 zu finden ist, vgl. e-pi-de-da-to /epidedastoÁ/ < *epi-de-dat-toÁ „(he, she, it) distributed“ (Chadwick–Baumbach 1963, 181). Dies ist die 3.Sg. Ind. Med.-Pass. eines Verbs, das im klass. Gr. als %&* erscheint. In den Linear-B Tafeln ist, ähnlich wie im Phrygischen, eine große Menge an Perfektpartizipien zu finden.

86

Wojciech Sowa

371, der neben der postulierten Entwicklung r > ar, auch ein Beispiel mit r > or, geschrieben <>, aus N°88 zitiert, vgl. & O „für Vanakta“, wo & < *pr-i zum *per- zu analysieren ist), vgl. auch aphr. por in W-05b (…]daes por mate „hat gestellt für die Mutter“) und W-11.Z. 6 porkoros (uitan partias plade porkoro os …; Brixhe 2004: 21, 24).35 Soweit der Kontext es erkennen lässt, hat sich wohl das Perfektum (zumindest im Neu-) Phrygischen an die Funktion des Aorists angeglichen. Wenn die Interpretation * als „fecerunt“ zutrifft (vgl. Haas 1966: 112, 239), dann steht es an der Stelle, an der in den altphrygischen Dokumenten die Formen des Aorists (Präteritum) auftreten, vgl. z. B. M-01a (sog. Midas Grab): f ates … midai … edaes „Ates … dem Midas … hat gestiftet“. Eine vergleichbare Situation ist aus dem hellenistischen Griechischen bekannt, wo eine Tendenz, den Vorgang anstatt des Moments des Zustandes zu betonen, sehr häufig ist und zum Rückgang sowie zum endgültigen Verlust des aktiven Perfekts geführt hat (Rix 1976: 195).36 Eine besondere Stellung nimmt dagegen eine Form aey in W-01 (Areyastis-Inschrift), Teil I (f vrekun tedatoy yostutut --- a -m? – noy akenanogavos aey) ein, die nach Lubotsky das Perfektum von *h1es„sein“ fortsetzt.37 Trifft diese Interpretation zu, so wäre es das einzige Beispiel eines Zustandperfekts – eines ursprünglichen Stativums mit Stativendung -eÁ/oÁ (Lubotsky 1988: 16). Die exakte Semantik lässt sich nicht ermitteln, eine Bedeutung „ist, ist präsent, adest“ (oder „sitzt“ < *h1eh1s-?) ist aber durchaus plausibel.38 aey wäre dann als eine Reliktform zu betrachten, im Gegensatz zu der im Phrygischen anscheinend aussterbenden (bzw. in der neuphrygischen Periode schon geschwundenen) Kategorie des Perfekts. Die Bildung des phrygischen Perfekts ist, wie bereits erwähnt, auffällig. Einfluss von grie35

36 37

38

Vgl. auch die Form mrotis in W-11 (Dokimeion), Z.4; der genaue Kontext lässt sich aber nicht feststellen, vielleicht sollte man hier auch neu-phryg. « (Brixhe–Drew–Bear 1997: 78f.) erwähnen. Vgl. auch das erneuerte lateinische Perfektum. Unkorrekt als eine Form des Aorists aufgefasst bei Orel 1997: 398f.: aes – wegen der Lesung des Zeichens < > als einer Art von „sigma“, vgl. CIPP 37f. Vgl. schon Orel 1997: 21, 35 „to sit, enthrone“; vgl. auch heth. esˇari „sits down“, sekundär ved. aste, gr. F alle < *h1esor (oder *h1eh1sor; zur Konkurrenz und Ersetzung des Medial *-o(r) durch *-to(r) im Indogermanischen s. Jasanoff 2003: 50 f.).

Anmerkungen zum Verbalsystem des Phrygischen

87

chischen, semantisch (und phonetisch) nahestehenden Formationen wie )" kann nicht ausgeschlossen werden. Es ist denkbar, daß in der kaiserzeitlichen Periode der frequente Stamm * - andere Stammallomorphe wie ***-* - verdrängt hat. Kontinuanten der reduplizierten Bildungen haben sich in Partizipialformen erhalten.

§ 6 Modi des Phrygischen Optativ Im Phrygischen gibt es zwei Belege, die als Beispiele des Optativs zitiert werden, vgl. kakoioi (G-02c f iosoporokitis- kakoioitovo podaska[) und °kakuioi (P-04b h ioser?v?ot?s?atikakuioi) (vgl. CIPP, 87, 239; Brixhe 2004: 60). In diesen Fällen begegnet eine Formation des Denominativs auf *-Áe/Áo- (1. Sg. etwa **kakoiu?) wie auch in gr.

, 5 „to treat ill, maltreat, afflict, distress“ (LSJ). Der phrygische Optativ folgt dem bekannten Schema von Primärstamm mit ablautendem Suffix *-Áeh1/ih1- + Sekundärendungen (bei den thematischen Stämmen tritt das schwundstufige Suffix *-ih1- an den Themavokal -o-; Rix 1976: 231): kakoioi wäre somit als Fortsetzer eines *kakoÁ-oÁ-t wie gr. φ < *bher-oÁ-t zu analysieren. Der Schwund der Sekundärendung *-t, die sich in den präteritalen Formen, wie z. B. edat, es´tat (vgl. oben) erhalten hat, ist aber dann zu erklären. Vielleicht kann man hier mit einer Vereinfachung der auslautenden Konsonantgruppen rechnen (Orel 1997: 384), vgl. z.B. *-st/_# > -s, wie edaes < *e-dh1eh1-s-t, dann auch *-Át/_# > -t. Die genannten Beispiele scheinen von der eigentlichen Funktion des Optativs nicht abzuweichen, zumindest im Falle des P-04c ist die Auffassung als „wer …. Böses antun will (soll)“ berechtigt.39 Beide Inschriften sind in die 2. Hälfte des 6. Jhs. v. Chr. zu datieren. Sie bewahren vielleicht Reste des Optativs als eigene Kategorie; in der neuphrygischen Zeit scheint die Semantik des Optativs kakoioi durch andere Mittel, etwa durch 39

Der Wunschausdruck ist die primäre Funktion des Optativs, der der Möglichkeit – die sekundäre (vgl. Kuryłowicz 1965: 143; die Optative mit einem thematischen Suffix *-oÁ- < *-o- + *i sollen als sekundäre Erscheinungen gelten, zur Stammbildung des Optativs, idem, 140 ff.; vgl. auch Fritz apud Meier–Brügger, Idg. Sprachwiss., 8. aufl., 262).

88

Wojciech Sowa

das Verb * - bzw. - (°* , °* , °, °) + Akk. Sg. , ausgedrückt worden zu sein. Auch die Stele aus Vezirhan, die in das 5. Jh. v. Chr. datiert wird – präziser an das Ende des 5. Jh. (Brixhe 2004: 66f., Neumann 1997: 14) –, kennt offensichtlich keinen Optativ kakoioi, obwohl wahrscheinlich der gleiche Inhalt (d.h. „wer Böses will“) in der Z.8. mit einer figura etymologica kaka + Präs. kakey (Indik. oder Konj.?) ausdrückt wird, vgl. Vez 8: atﬂikvaiu (Neumann)/atikraiu (Brixhe) yosniyart sint imenan ﬂ kﬂaka oﬂskavos kakey. Imperativ Neben dem Optativ tritt in der neuphrygischen Periode auch der Imperativ deutlich hervor, vgl. die häufigsten Beispiele: von der Wz. *h1eÁ- 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 17, 21, 25, 26, 28, 33, 37, 38, 40, 48, 53, 56, 62, 69, 72, 75, 76, 82, 86, 88, 93, 94, 96, 104; [] 6; [] 19, 39, 90, 91, [] 102; [][Τ] 78; *[] 108, ] 103; ] 63; [] 68, 92, 97; ], 7; ituv Vez 13; mit Präverbien: *ad- * 39, 44, 57, 61, 67, 72, 76, 77, 80, 85, 87, 101, 106, 108; *[] 11, 100; *[ –] 51, 54; *] 65; * 12; [*] 70, 71; mit *an- [] 14, 99; 30 (für solche Schreibung s. ], *) wahrscheinlich von der Wz. *seg0h- (?) *[ 59; *] 108; * 106; * 32, 33, 34, 36; * 105; * 60; * 76 sowie das nur in Vez 5 belegte karatu. Dabei zeigen sich nur die Formen der 3. Sg. sowohl aktiv als auch medial von thematischen wie auch athematischen Bildungen. Sie werden üblicherweise mit einem Suffix -tou/dou gebildet. Nicht zu finden sind Beispiele für die 2.Sg. des Typs φ bzw. athematische Imperative des Typs lesb. &' < *-dhi. Die Imp. der 2. Sg. auf -tou/dou werden als Fortsetzer des idg. *-to erklärt. Dagegen treten 3-mal Beispiele der 3. Pl. auf, nämlich - und - < *- (eine stimmhafte Geminata, vgl. Lubotsky 1997: 123). Das Vorkommen der Imperative ist nur auf Apodosis der Fluchformel begrenzt, was dem griechischen Modell zu entsprechen scheint.

Anmerkungen zum Verbalsystem des Phrygischen

89

§ 7 Verbum infinitum Der Infinitiv, der als Verbalkategorie innerhalb der indogermanischen Sprachfamilie als relativ rezente Erscheinung gilt, ist in den phrygischen Texten nicht nachzuweisen.40 Das phrygische Verbum infinitum ist in den bekannten Dokumenten ausschließlich als Partizip des Medio-Passivums bezeugt, das, wie auch im Griechischen, mit dem Suffix -meno- (< *-mh1no-) gebildet wird. Die Entscheidung, ob es sich bei den belegten Formen um ein Partizip Perfekt oder Präsens handelt, ist schwer zu treffen. Die Partizipialbildungen erscheinen fast ausnahmslos in den neuphrygischen Dokumenten, vgl. (mit oder ohne Präv. -; anlautendes verdoppeltes <> aus sandhi zwischen - und «): « 14, 38, 57, 61, 67, 72, 77, 76, 82, 93, 99; [« 108; [«] 100; « 75, [ ]« 63; [] [«] 78; [] [«] 80; [ ][« 70; [- ]« 101; [ ]« 85; [ ]« 37; « 3, 69, 94, 96; « 26, 40, 62; « 19; [] « 102; [] [«] 53; 71; [] « 91; [][] [« 65; [] [« 68; ] [][« 11; [« 97; [][] [«] 39; []« 8, 6, 92; ] « 4; « 5; 90; [ ]« 51; atiatitikmeno« 103; « 2, [] «

TETIKMENO!

40

Die idg. Einzelsprachen verwenden als Infinitiv einen mehr oder weniger isolierten Kasus des Singulars eines Verbalabstraktums. Es fehlt ein gemeinsames, vererbtes Model (Schwyzer 1939: 358). Vgl. die große Vielfalt an Infinitiven im Vedischen, wo die Formen auf -(a)dhyai-, -sáni, -táni, áse-, -sé-, -vane neben der sog. „Infinitivbildungen“ auf -máne, -táve, -tum, -toh, -táya existieren (meistens dativisch oder lokativisch zu interpretieren). Im Avestischen gibt es Infinitive, die als paradigmatische Dative von Wurzelnomina analysiert werden können, dazu die Formen auf -he, -ahe, vielleicht auch die Formen auf -tw/-taiiae, -uuanoi/-uuane (vgl. Hoffmann–Forssmann 1996, 241). Im Armenischen ist das Suffix -l < *-lo- belegt, im Hethitischen -anna und -(u)wanzi, im Italischen -om, -um, -fi, -fír (in Osk.-Umbr.; die letzten aus dem idg. Instrumental auf *-dhÁeh1 García Ramón 1993: 103), -se (Lat.), im Germanischen -an, im Baltisch-Slavischen -ti (Slav., Lit.), -t, -tun, -twei (Altpreuß.) und im Tocharischen -tsi. Im Keltischen sind die Infinitive auf -nei, -unei, -um nur im Keltiberischen belegt, im Altirischen existieren keine Infinitive, dagegen lässt sich dort eine Vielfalt an Verbalnomina in Infinitivfunktion beobachten (vgl. Adrados 1995: 448f.; García Ramón 1997: 51–55, 59; Vanséveren 2000: 20–31, Ziegler 1997: 631–644).

90

Wojciech Sowa

10, « 56; [--] « 25; 28; « 6, 20, 21, 45, 106; ]« 17; - « 104; (nom. pl. neutr. ?) 12; nom. pl. [ 7 34, 36, 59, 76, 105; [] 60; [] 32; [ 108; <> 33; 58, 106

EDEIMENO!:

« 33, 36 [ « 64, 88; [– ] [« 79

EADITMENO! :

dazu noch N°15, & N°9 (Brixhe 1997: 56). Hierzu könnten noch einige vereinzelte Formen wie « 48, [----]« 8, bzw. die in den altphrygischen Inschriften belegten evememesmeneya in B-01, Z. 6 (Lubotsky 1988: 15; 1997, 121)41 oder gamenoun, (W-11.2 Dokimeion, mit einem für das Phrygische charakteristischen Wandel *o f *u/_n#), aidomenou (W-11.5; Brixhe 1983: 115; Brixhe 2004: 16f.; 23) gestellt werden.42 Die phrygischen Partizipien des Mediums werden nur athematisch gebildet und (mit ausnahme von «, * und ) von reduplizierten Stämmen abgeleitet, was für die Zuordnung zum Perfekt sprechen könnte (Lubotsky 1988: 15, 17). Die oben zitierten Beispiele des Partizips stehen in der Wortfolge an einer bestimmten Position in den apotropäischen Fluchformeln der Grabinschriften. Im Fall von « und ist die tentative Bedeutung „verflucht“ (vgl. Orel 1997: 462 „strike, damn“; Haas 1966: 87f. „gebrandmarkt“) bzw. „written“ (Orel 1997: 431; dagegen Schmid 1993: 378–381) einer Perfektbildung nahe.43 scheint zwar dem gr. " 41

42

43

Vgl. B-01. Z. 6: opito[-]eyoyev[-13]m[-15]mesmeneyaanato[-] mit möglichen, aber nicht sicheren Spuren von <e> in beiden Lakunas, „6/13. e tous les éditeurs. En fait, traces non identifiables avec certitude. 6/15i tous les éditeurs; mais e possible“ Brixhe–Lejeune in CIPP 65. Vgl. W-11. Z. 2: nekoinoun: pokraiu k gloureos gamenoun; Z. 5. kleuma1oi miros aidomenou matin kisuis mo | .kros. Eine etymologische Herleitung ist schwierig: « vielleicht zu ?*teg„schwören“, vgl. LIV2, 615, das das phrygische Partizip mit den air. Formen von -tech und korn. ty „Eid“ < *teg-o- vergleicht. Das einmalig bezeugte - mit <> dürfte eher phonetische Ursachen haben als eine analogische o-Stufe. Schmid stellt das Partizip zum lit. Verbum gre˙˜sti „drohen,

Anmerkungen zum Verbalsystem des Phrygischen

91

zu entsprechen, doch ist der Kontext in der Apodosis der Fluchformel, „wer … Böses antut, der soll « (werden/sein?)“ zu bedenken (Haas 1966: 94f.). Neben den Partizipien treten an infiniten Bildungen nur Verbaladjektiva auf. Diese sind mit einem Suffix *-tó- gebildet, vgl. omasta, bilata, lapta und vielleicht andetoun alle aus Dokimeion (W-11, Z. 8, 1, 4, 7; Brixhe 2004: 24),44 * in N°31 und * in N°116, das, wenn °detoun aus *dhh1-tó- stammt,45 die erwartete Schwundstufe der Wurzel zeigt. Die exakte Bedeutung und Funktion lässt sich nicht feststellen. Ob jedoch die *-tó-Bildungen im Phrygischen, wie im mykenischen Griechischen, eine mögliche Handlung bezeichnen können, ist aus der Evidenz des Materials nicht zu erkennen.46 Es lässt sich aber beobachten, dass sie wie detoun (*), * „monument“ (Lubotsky 1993: 129, Orel 1997: 423) zum Teil lexikalisiert wurden.

44

45 46

abschrecken“ und nimmt eine Fortsetzung von *ge-ghesr-meno- mit postuliertem phrygischen Lautwandel *esC > eÁC- an (Schmid 1993: 378–81). W-11.1: manka mekas sas kiuin en ke bilata; Z. 4. iou mrotis lapta mati aoinoun: nikostratos, Z. 7. ros pants: pen(-)niti ios koro an (-)detoun, Z. 8. soun omasta omnisit ous. Diskussion bei Brixhe 2004: 23. Im Griechischen gibt es zwei Typen des Verbaladjektivs: (a) mit *-tó- und der Schwundstufe der Verbalwurzel, vgl. z.B. --« aus *dhh1-tó- ('"), sowie (b) den wahrscheinlich als griechische Innovation anzusehenden Typ mit Suffix --«, der wie *-t- die Schwundstufe der Wurzel fordert (zur Etymologie des -/ - < *-teÜo/a-, vgl. ved. hantv-as, av. ja˛-o „necandus“ vgl. Rix 1976: 237; Duhoux 1992: 304). Beide Typen sind für das Griechische wahrscheinlich schon seit der frühesten Überlieferung anzusetzen, ihre Bedeutung scheint vom klassischen Gebrauch nicht abzuweichen: bei -« wird die Möglichkeit der Verbalhandlung intendiert, vgl. o-pa-wo-ta KN Sk 5670.2; 8100.A; 8149.Ba,Bb; 9195.2; PY Sh 737 /opaworta/ „hung on“ (Chadwick–Baumbach 1963: 167) – verwendet als Substantivum (< *°h2Üer-, Ruijgh 1967: 121111) mit einer Bedeutung „items in construction of corslet and helmet: & ζ „attachments“ (bronze plates)“ (Palmer 1963: 437), ähnlich Ruijgh „beigelegene Stücke vom Metal“ (Ruijgh 1963: 121). Bei den --« Bildungen handelt es sich um die Angebe einer Notwendigkeit (participium necessitatis) (Duhoux 1992: 305), vgl. vielleicht qe-te-jo PY Fr. 1206, 1241.1 /kÜeÁteÁ(Á)on/ „to be paid“ nach einer traditionellen Auffassung (so z. B. Palmer 1963: 450) – mit einer orthographischen Dublette qe-te-o in KN Fh 348.2; L 513.a; 693.1; 5092.a; 7384.a; 8441.a). Die Interpretation als Verbaladjektiv ist aber umstritten (keine sicheren Beispiele vor dem 5. Jh. v. Chr.; ganze Diskussion in Hutton 1991). Im Mykenischen sind auch „privative“ Verbaladjektiva zu beobachten, z.B. a-na-mo-to (KN Sf 4420.b; 4421; 4423 /anarhmostos/ Nom.Sg. und /anarhmostoÁ/ Nom. Pl. „ohne Räder“ (Plath 1994: 50).

92

Wojciech Sowa

Wie schon erwähnt, lässt sich das gesamte Bild der phrygischen Konjugation im Ganzen nur schwierig interpretieren. Viele Probleme bleiben nach wie vor unerklärt. Man muss sich zunächst fragen, wie das Verhältnis zwischen den alt- und neuphrygischen Inschriften ist, zwischen denen eine lange Zeit dunkler Geschichte liegt, und die in einer, zum Teil völlig hellenisierten Umgebung zu fungieren scheinen. Mit dem Einfluss seitens des Griechischen muss man immer rechnen – aber sind die neuphrygischen Inschriften wirklich eine Bestätigung irgendeines Sprachzustandes, oder wurden sie in einer fremdsprachigen (griechischen) Umgebung als eine Art Manifest der lokalen Besonderheit künstlich eingeführt? Auf der anderen Seite bleibt die Theorie Phrygisch und Griechisch als Fortsetzer eines Sprachkontinuums anzusehen. Doch bedeutet es noch nicht, dass das phrygische und das griechische Verbalsystem und ihre Syntax gleich aussehen müssen. Erst nach einer systematischen Darstellung des ganzen Materials kann man genauere Schlussfolgerungen ziehen, die vielleicht auch bei der Deutung der bis jetzt enigmatischen Inschriften helfen können.

Literatur Brixhe, C. – Lejeune, M. 1984. Corpus des inscriptions paléo-phrygiennes. I: Texte. Paris: Institut Française d’Études Anatoliennes. (Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations „Mémoire“ (N°45)). Brixhe, C. 1981. Epigraphie et grammaire du Phrygien: état présent et perspectives. Le lingue indoeuropei di frammentaria attestazione. Atti di Convegno della Società Italiana di Glottologia e della Indogermanische Gesellschaft Udine, 22–24 settembre 1981. Testi raccolti a cura di Edoardo Vineis, 109–133. Pisa: Giardini Editori e Stampatori. Brixhe, C. 1987. Essai sur le grec anatolien au début de notre ère. Nancy: Presses universitaires de Nancy (Travaux et mémoires: études anciennes 1). Brixhe, C. 1990. Comparison et langues faiblement documentées: l’exemple du phrygien et de ses voyelles longues. La reconstruction des laryngales. Bibliotheque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l’Université de Liège – Fascicule CCLIII, 59–99. Brixhe, C. 1994. Le Phrygien. Langues indo-européennes. Sous la direction de Françoise Bader, 165–178. Paris: CNRS. Brixhe, C. – Sivas, T. 2003. Exploration de l’ouest de la Phrygie: nouveau documents paléo-phrygiens. Kadmos 42. 65–76. Brixhe, C. 2004. Corpus des inscriptions paléo-phrygiennes. Supplement II. Kadmos 43 (2004). 1–130.

Anmerkungen zum Verbalsystem des Phrygischen

93

Bubenik, V. 1989. Hellenistic and Roman Greece as a Sociolinguistic Area. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 57). Diakonoff, I. M. – Neroznak, V. P. 1985. Phrygian. Delmar, New York: Caravan Books. Dressler, W. 1968. Rez. von O. Haas. Die phrygischen Sprachdenkmäler. Die Sprache 14. 40–49. Dubois, L. 1986. Recherches sur le dialecte arcadien I. Grammaire, II. Corpus dialectal, III. Notes-index-bibliographie. Louvain-la-Neuve: Bibliothèque des cahiers de l’Institut de Linguistique de Louvain, BCILL 33/34/35. Eichner, H. 1975. Die Vorgeschichte des hethitischen Verbalsystems. Flexion und Wortbildung. Akten der V. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Regensburg, 9.–14. September 1973. Hrsg. von H. Rix, 71–103. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. Gusmani, R. 1959. Le iscrizioni dell’antico frigio. Studi frigi, 870–903. Milano: Instituto Lombardo di Scienza e Lettere. Haas, O. 1966. Die phrygischen Sprachdenkmäler. Sofia: Academie Bulgare des Sciences (Linguistique Balkanique 10). Hajnal, I. 1995. Studien zum mykenischen Kasussystem. Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter (Untersuchungen zur indogermanischen Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft. Neue Folge 7.). Hajnal, I. 2003. Methodische Vorbemerkungen zu einer Paleolinguistik des Balkanraums. Languages in Prehistoric Europe. Hrsg. von A. Bammesberger & Th. Vennemann, 117–145. Heidelberg: C. Winter Universitätsverlag. Hardarson, J. A. 1993. Studien zum urindogermanischen Wurzelaorist und dessen Vertretung im Indoiranischen und Griechischen. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft; Bd. 74). Hoffmann, O. 1893. Die Griechischen Dialekte in ihrem historischen Zusammenhänge mit den wichtigsten ihrer Quellen. 2. Band. Der nord-achäische Dialekt. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Janda, M. 1997. Zur altphrygischen Areyastis-Inschrift. Frigi e Frigio. Atti del 1° Simposio Internazionale Roma, 16–17 ottobre 1995. A cura di R. Gusmani, M. Salvini, P. Vannicelli, 271–277. Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Instituto per gli Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici. Jasanoff, J. 1978. Stative and Middle in Indo-European. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft. Jasanoff, J. 1994. Aspects of the Internal History of the PIE Verbal System. Früh-, Mittel-, Spätindogermanisch. Akten der IX. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Zürich, 5.–9. Oktober 1992. Hrsg. von G. E. Dunkel, G. Meyer, S. Scarlatta, Chr. Seidl, 149–168. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Rechert Verlag. Jasanoff, J. 2003. Hittite and the Indo-European Verb. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press. Kuryłowicz, J. 1964. The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Winter Verlag.

94

Wojciech Sowa

Latte, K. (ed.) 1953–1966. Hesychii Alexandrini lexicon. 1–2 (A–O). Hauniae: Ejnar Munksgaard editore. LIV2 = Lexikon der Indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. Unter Leitung von Helmut Rix. Zweite, erweiterte und verbesserte Auflage bearbeitet von Martin Kümmel und Helmut Rix. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 2001. Lubotsky, A. 1988. The Old Phrygian Areyastis-Inscription. Kadmos 27. 9–26. Lubotsky, A. 1998. New Phrygian metrics and the *« -« formula. Mír Curad. Studies in Honor of Calvert Watkins. Edited by J. Jasanoff, H. C. Melchert and L. Oliver, 413–421. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft; Bd. 92). Matzinger, J. 2005. Phrygisch und Armenisch. Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel. Akten der XI. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, 17.–23. September 2000, Halle an der Saale. Hrsg. von G. Meiser und O. Hackstein. 375–394. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. Neumann, G. 1980. Kleinasien. Die Sprachen im Römischen Reich der Kaiserzeit. Kolloquium vom 8. bis 10. April 1974, 167–185. Köln – Bonn: Rheinland Verlag & Rudolf Habelt Verlag. (Landschaftsverband Rheinland. Rheinisches Landesmuseum Bonn und Verein von Altertumsfreunden im Rheinlande. Beihefte der Bonner Jahrbücher Band 40). Neumann, G. 1988. Phrygisch und Griechisch. Wien: ÖAW (Philosophisch-Historische Klasse Sitzungsberichte, 499. Band). Neumann, G. 1994. Ausgewählte kleine Schriften. Hrsg. von E. Badalì, H. Nowicki, S. Zeilfelder. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft; Bd. 77). Neumann, G. 1997. Die zwei Inschriften auf der Stele von Vezirhan. Frigi e Frigio. Atti del 1° Simposio Internazionale Roma, 16–17 ottobre 1995. A cura di R. Gusmani, M. Salvini, P. Vannicelli, 13–32. Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Instituto per gli Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici. Orel, V. 1997. The Language of Phrygians. Description and Analysis. Delmar, New York: Caravan Books. Peters, M. 1980. Untersuchungen zur Vertretung der indogermanischen Laryngale im Griechischen. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Risch, E. 19732. Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache. Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter. Risch, E. 1975. Zur Entstehung des hethitischen Verbalparadigmas. Flexion und Wortbildung. Akten der V. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Regensburg 9.–14. September 1973. Hrsg. von H. Rix, 247–258. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. Risch, E. 1982. Ein Problem des griechischen Verbalparadigmas: Die verschiedenen Formen der 3. Person Plural. Serta Indogermanica. Festschrift für Günter Neumann zum 60. Geburtstag. Hrsg. von J. Tischler, 321–334. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft; Bd. 40). Ritter, R.-P. 1996. Introducción al Armenio Antiguo. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas.

Anmerkungen zum Verbalsystem des Phrygischen

95

Rix, H. 1976. Historische Grammatik des Griechischen. Laut- und Formenlehre. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Schmid, W. P. 1993. Spätphrygische Kleinigkeiten. Sprachen und Schriften des antiken Mittelmeerraums. Festschrift für J. Untermann zum 65. Geburtstag. Hrsg. von F. Heidermanns, H. Rix und E. Seebold. 377–383, Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft; Bd. 78). Schmidt, G. 1977. Das Medium im vorhistorischen Keltisch. Indogermanisch und Keltisch. Kolloquium der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Bonn, 16.–17. Februar 1976. Hrsg. von K. H. Schmidt unter Mitwirkung von R. Ködderitzsch. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. Sowa, W. 1998. Notes on the Mycenaean verbal morphology: The finite verb forms. Linguistica Baltica 7. 271–297. Sowa, W. 2006a. Anmerkungen zum Balkanindogermanischen. Indogermanica. Festschrift für Gert Klingenschmitt. Hrsg. von G. Schweiger, 611–628. Taimering: VWT. Sowa, W. 2006b. Die makedonische Glossen in antiken Quellen. Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia. 115–133. Thumb, A. 1901. Die griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus. Beiträge zur Geschichte und Entstehung der KOINH. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner Verlag. Untermann, J. 1993. Gr. )" = lat. feci, gr. Q = lat. ie¯ci? Indogermanica et Italica. Festschrift für H. Rix zum 65. Geburtstag. Unter Mitarbeit von J. Bendahman, J. A. Hardarson und Ch. Schaefer, hrsg. von G. Meiser. 461–468. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft ; Bd. 72). Watkins, C. 1969. Indogermanische Grammatik III/1. Geschichte der indogermanischen Verbalflexion. Heidelberg: Winter Verlag. Yoshida, K. 1990. The Hittite Mediopassive Endings in -ri. Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter (Untersuchungen zur indogermanischen Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft 5). Ziegler, S. 1997. Zur Entwicklung und Syntax des Verbalnomens in den keltischen Sprachen. Berthold Delbrück y la sintaxis indoeuropea hoy. Actas des Coloquio de la Indogermanische Gesellschaft; Madrid, 21–24 septiembre de 1994. Hrsg. von E. Crespo und J. L. García Ramón. 631–644. Madrid – Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.

Jagellonen Universität Institut für Klassische Philologie Al. Mickiewicza 9/11 PL-31-120 K r a k ó w Polen [email protected]

Wo j c i e c h S o w a

96

Catalin Anghelina

A note on the Greek perfect active participle One of the most problematic issues regarding the t-stems in Greek is the perfect active participle, the masculine and neuter forms in the oblique cases, where the theme in t seems to be neither of PIE nor of Common Greek date. Originally, the perfect active participle was formed in Greek with the suffix -wos-, which shows a PIE ablaut variation –wos-/-us(< *wos) between the masculine and feminine. An example which illustrates this situation is the participle of the verb “to know”, PIE *we/oid-, «< *weidwos/ <*widusyw2. The original ablaut variation in the suffix can be seen clearly in Sanskrit1. On the other hand, this suffix alternates in Greek with -wot- in the weak cases of the masculine and neuter («, «, etc.). The feminine did not have such a suffix, because a PIE *widutya would have given - or -

in all Greek dialects, which does not happen. Therefore the issue of t revolves around the masculine and neuter stems. The existence of a similar alternation in Sanskrit was seen by Chantraine (1933: 439f.) to be the relic of a PIE alternation that used the suffix *-wot-. The Sanskrit paradigm, however, does not display the same pattern as Greek. There is no single case form in Greek, which matches up with its Sanskrit cognate. The t in the neuter singular in Sanskrit (N.Ac.V. vidvat) might be the result of an analogy process and, therefore, is not original here.2 And, in Greek, it cannot be shown that - , the ending for dative plural, comes from -ot-si rather than from -os-si. These consideration make questionable the assumption of a PIE t in this category. Szemerényi (1967: 7–26) argued more than thirty years

1

2

N.masc.sg. vidván < *vidvans < *vidvas, but N.fem.sg. vidú si; the n is analogical ' after the present active participle: cf. Burrow (2001: 228); the lengthened grade of the nominative is of PIE date: cf. Beekes (1995: 175), Sihler (1995: 308). Probably from forms like the present active participle, where the suffix -ant has its weak form -at < *nt in the neuter: cf. N.masc.sg. bhávan < *bhavant-, N.nt.sg. ' bhávat < *bhavnt; t in Sanskrit is not of PIE date in the neuter and, therefore, it ' could not spread from this case in Greek; cf. Puhvel (1964: 175).

Indogermanische Forschungen, 112. Band 2007

DOI 10.1515/IDGF.2007.006

A note on the Greek perfect active participle

97

ago that all the instances in all PIE languages where there is a t-stem are the result of internal developments within each language and not a PIE process. His main argument against positing a t that developed within PIE comes from the fact that the Iranian languages don’t display the same pattern as their Indic cognates. In contrast to Sanskrit vidvadbhis, vidvatsu, Avestan has viuzˇbisˇ and viusˇu, with no t in the paradigm. In other words, there is no basis for positing a t even for the Indo-Iranian period, which makes the claim of a common origin for the Sanskrit and Greek t very suspect. The t in Sanskrit then should be explained on internal grounds3. With regard to Greek, Szemerényi addresses the most important issue, the one we are dealing with here: if t is not of PIE date, it must have appeared as a result of a process within Greek itself. Can we trace the emergence of this process? Szemerény’s conclusion is that we can. His arguments are based entirely on facts from Mycenaean. The evidence we have seems to suggest that in this dialect of Greek the t was not present in the paradigm of the perfect active participle. The relevant examples given by Szemerényi regard only masculine and neuter forms, because the feminine ones, as we said above, would not be in any case relevant: a-raru-wo-a4 and te-tu-ko-wo-a represent the neuter plural forms of the perfect active participle of the verbs $ and , respectively. The forms display a certain variation in their endings5 depending on the places where the tablets were found. a-ra-ru-wo-a was found on a tablet6 at Knossos; a similar morphological form, te-tu-kowo-a, appears also at Knossos7, whereas a form te-tu-ko-wo-a2 is

3

4

5

6 7

Before endings like -su, -bhis, or bhyas/bhyam the s of the weak form of the suffix -us or even -vas would have been obscured by phonological processes. This is shown by the Avestan examples. Sanskrit innovated and replaced the clusters s-s and s-bh with -ts- and -dbh-; cf. mas “month”, which has forms with mad-bh-; u sás “dawn” has a form u sád-bhis; cf. Whitney (1997: 145, 155). ' ' a-ra-ru-wo-a is an epithet of pa-ka-na, which is the Greek word for ‘sword’, φ . The writing system in Mycenaean spells clusters like the above one, i. e., -CwV-, either CVwV or Cu-wV. a2 represents in Mycenaean aspirated a, [ha], in this case the aspiration being the outcome of s from the suffix wos; woa represents [woa], whereas woa2 [woha]. KN Ra 1541, 1545, 1550; cf. Morpurgo (1963). KN Ld 871.

98

Catalin Anghelina

found at Pylos only8. This latter form is more archaic, since it still displays the intervocalic h representing a former *s. These forms correspond to the Homeric $ , which has t in its paradigm, and to an unattested * ζ 9. In addition to these participles, Szemerényi (1967: 22) adds the proper noun wi-do-wo-i-jo, to be interpreted as widwohios, which is derived from widwos-, “knowing”, and another possible participle, ke-ke-tu-wo-e, to be interpreted as kekethwohes, whose meaning is not clear, but which is believed to derive from “to help”, itself a gloss met only in Hesychius10. Widwohios, however, is not very relevant, because, as a patronymic, its form could go back to a time before the t-insertion generally affected the participial paradigm. The name could have been used in the older shape even after the t was inserted into the participial paradigm. There are no other instances of a perfect active participle in Mycenaean texts. Basically, Szemerényi argues that the t entered the paradigm when the change s to h would have obscured the endings. Nevertheless, although his example based on Attic is relevant, Ionic seems to contradict him. In Ionic the contraction does not always take place and, in spite of this, Ionic still has t in the participial paradigm11. This was, in short, Szemerény’s demonstration that the t-insertion into the paradigm of the perfect active participle is of post-Mycenaean date. Some questions should be raised, though. One of them concerns the fact that the entrance of t into the paradigm respected the vowel alternation in the suffix, namely long vowel in the nominative and short vowel elsewhere. The cases we have with t entering the paradigms of s- stem nouns («, ¹«, «, etc.) show something else, namely that the nominative had a major role in forming the new paradigm12. In order to have this for the participles we need to assume that the neuter played a major role, with t entering the neuter paradigm first. 8 9

10 11

12

PY Sa 682. The Homeric N. sg. « ( 423) has a different ablaut. See below for my hypotheses. See Liddell-Scott Dictionary. For Attic the paradigm would have been “obscured”: N. masc. sg. «, A* < *, G*« < *«, etc. Ionic allows uncontracted vowels: e. g. the themes in s («): A. sg. , G.sg. «, etc. X«, «, etc. has generalized through the paradigm, whereas «, « has the alternation w/o in its masculine paradigm. Only the neuter has throughout its paradigm.

A note on the Greek perfect active participle

99

A second question concerns the way t spread in all the dialects. This is the toughest question and there has been no clear answer for it so far, because of the problems raised by the distribution of Greek dialects and because Mycenaean itself seems not to have been a single dialect13. Indeed, Szemerényi was right in pointing out the fact that the t in the Greek paradigm cannot be of PIE date. His argument about Mycenaean, however, is based only on two clearer examples. These examples are both translatable by “made up”, “built”, “finished”, which means that they have passive meaning, although they are ostensibly in form active participles14. This is not necessarily a problem, since it has been long15 recognized that the original role of the perfect was to express the state or result of the action. In this respect, the perfect is in aspectual opposition to the aorist. A wellknown example illustrates this with the perfect » opposed to the aorist (participle) «: T» ¹ « (“the ones who died are dead”; Eur. Alcestis 541). This value of the perfect, therefore, is an old one. Consequently, the participles in our examples can also be very old, since they seem to show this meaning. Besides, they are technical terms and, as such, could have been present in Greek for a longer time. They can also be found in Homer with the same meaning: BΩ« « “made from the skin of an ox” ( 423) or !« " λ $ « “piled close to the wall” (% 342)16. We have seen so far how the scanty17 evidence from Mycenaean led to the conclusion that Mycenaean didn’t have a perfect active participle with a -wot- suffix. Consequently, if we assumed that the participle in Mycenaean didn’t have a theme in t then we would be forced to admit that what we have beginning with Homeric Greek was the result of a post-Mycenaean development. Its origins, therefore, must be looked for in the way it is present in the other major dialects. Aeolic,

13

14 15 16 17

Cf. Ruijgh (1967: 38). Ruijgh II (1991: 222) believes that all major dialects may have already been present in late Mycenaean times. Ruijgh (1967: 96): “la valeur spéciale de te-tu-ko-wo-a2 est inconnue”. Cf. Wackernagel (1969: 1000–21), Chantraine (1926: 4–16). With the difference that the Homeric participles are t-stems. Not too surprising a situation given the fact that the tablets contain basically just lists of objects.

100

Catalin Anghelina

for example, is a dialect which behaves differently in the way it builds its perfect active participle. It uses the present active participle suffix attached to the perfect stem, so that forms like &&, && «, '" , %% are regular in Lesbian, Thessalian or Boiotian18. It is not clear, in my opinion, whether Aeolic innovated here before or after the introduction of the formant k into the paradigm. Examples like %%, Hom. %%« (( 522) do not prove much, since the Homeric form is the regular one in postHomeric times, which means that parallel forms existed in the language. It is also very hard to say whether the Aeolic innovation has something to do with the avoidance of hiatus after the losses of s and subsequent h. Another interesting fact is what happens in Doric and West Greek dialects. Although we don’t have enough data to support a firm conclusion, in a West Locrian inscription from the beginning of the 5th century, which Buck describes as being written in a pure Locrian dialect19, we meet the term ζζ , which is translated as “statute” by Buck and as quae placuerunt by Liddell–Scott. This neuter plural form belongs to the verb 420, which means “to please”, “to delight”, and is already met in Homer (acc.masc.sg): ξ "» * " (“he said words pleasing everybody”: I 173). We can see that in Homer this participle doesn’t have the formant k. The form presents also some difficulties, since in the above hexametric formula the first in this word is long. Because the form is a t-stem, it was wrongly thought to be an Aeolism. Therefore, the explanation with a being metrically lengthened after the fall of ζ is more plausible.21 The Locrian participle, on the other hand, displays the k, and, in addition, its meaning as a noun is “the things that have been decided”, quae placuerunt. This meaning is not confined to Locrian. A similar meaning can be found in P 647 or in Hdt. 9.19.22 If the word in 18 19 20

21

22

Cf. Buck (1928: 110), Bechtel I (1963: 194). A West Greek dialect; cf. Buck (1928: 144, 217). The word derives from the PIE root *sweH2d-, which gave in Greek, in IonicAttic, π«, in Doric 4«, in Latin suavis, in Vedic svadú, in OE swéte> English “sweet”, in OHG suozi > NHG süss. Chantraine (1958: 20) argues for Aeolism; Leumann (1956: 246–8) for metrical lengthening: * wewadwos > *wewados. Homer: '" Κ . « (“if you decided this way” = si tibi placuit); Herodotus describes the opinion of a body of people: / $ his meliora placuit.

A note on the Greek perfect active participle

101

Locrian were a borrowing of some sort, the borrowing should have occurred from a dialect which had both ζ and the formant k at the time of the borrowing. This is shown neither by Ionic-Attic nor by any of the other dialects. On the other hand, we know that Locris was populated by Aeolians before the Doric invasion.23 However, this is not very helpful. Given the morphological form, the Locrians could not have taken the word from the Aeolians. It is then hard to explain how West Greeks such as Locrians, who are so close in territory to the Aeolians, came to insert the t into the paradigm of a perfect active participle, if they did not inherit it from a previous stage of their language. The only other examples of a t-stem perfect active participle in Doric dialects are in Argolic, %%&% « from the verb %&" , and in Cretan, where we have a late inscription from the 3rd century with " 0«24. These examples show that t belongs to all dialects. It becomes clearer now that it is hard to explain the distribution range of the t-stem perfect active participle unless we go back to a very early stage of the dialects, perhaps at a time when their differentiation was not complete. But this is in itself a point of dispute in Greek dialectology. The fact that both West Greek and Doric have t in the participle shows that the process of its insertion must be old, before the split of these two dialects. The Mycenaean evidence, on the other hand, seems to show that t was not present in it. This means, therefore, that Arcadian, its descendant, developed it in one way or another25. The general picture from above could lead to some off-hand hypotheses: a) Mycenaean is the only major dialect that did not have t in the participial paradigm, and its daughter dialect, Arcadian, got it through contact with Doric26. b) Mycenaean never had t in its paradigm and Arcadian, however close it may be to Mycenaean, is not the descendant of Mycenaean. All the other dialects had t from the beginning.

23 24 25

26

Cf. Ruijgh II (1991: 450). IG XII 3 no. 25423; cf. Bechtel II (1963: 758). These dialects have t in their participles: cf. Arcadian

, from the root '&-, “to go”, with the Arcadian special treatment of the cluster -&-; cf. Bechtel I (1963: 365). Cf. Thumb–Scherer (1959: 115f.); Wathelet (1970: 328).

102

Catalin Anghelina

It seems to me that the first hypothesis is unlikely. Arcadian and Mycenaean are similar in respect to other aspects of the verbal paradigm, namely the endings for the middle voice: Mycenaean presents endings of the type - , whereas the other dialects make use of the innovation - 27. It is, therefore, hard to admit that Doric influenced Mycenaean only in respect to the perfect active participle and not in any other aspect, including the verbal endings. The second hypothesis is unlikely. Arcado-Cyprian is the pre-Doric dialect in the Peloponnesus and the most likely candidate to be the descendant of Mycenaean. We are again led to the vicious circle which concerns the relation between Arcadian and Mycenaean. Another possibility would be if we adopted Tovar’s theory (1964: 141 ff.) that Ionic-Attic were a substratum for Mycenaean. Under this theory, Mycenaean could, in principle, get the t in the participial paradigm from a proto-Ionic dialect. This solution, however, presupposes that Ionic and Doric are the only dialects that share the participial themes in t. Although not impossible, this would make Ionic and Doric have this single isogloss in common, which is hard to admit. The picture that emerges is that by taking as certain the lack of t in the Mycenaean participial paradigm it would be difficult to explain the presence of t in the other dialects. The answer needs to be sought elsewhere. We may launch another hypothesis: c) since the Homeric form « is built with a different ablaut28 from what we find in Mycenaean, we could imagine a situation in which the Mycenaean form was a specialized adjective derived from the “older” t-less participle, but not a perfect participle per se. Similar situations with participles we can find in other languages, for example in Romance, where Romanian has the adjective mort, “dead”, which originated in the Latin perfect passive participle of the verb morior, iri, mortuus sum and is used nowadays only as an adjective meaning “dead”; in the place of the former participle Romanian created another (analogical) perfect passive participle, which is seen today in murit, (am murit = “I have died”). In a similar way, in English 27 28

Cf. Ruijgh (1967: 36). The zero grade is older than the full grade; cf. Sihler (1995: 618ff.); Leumann (1956: 241 ff.).

A note on the Greek perfect active participle

103

the adjective “dead” originates in a former past participle, which has been later replaced by the new one, “died”. Other examples are those participles in Latin which have been replaced by the newer ones belonging to the factitive verbs: meritum was a former participle of mereor, mere¯re, merui, meritus sum and ended up being used as a noun, both in Latin and in Romance languages, whereas in Romance new participles were created29. Romanian has the same situation with the participle fa˘cut from the verb a face, Lat. facio, ere, feci, factum = “to make”. The old Latin participle became specialized as a noun, fapt(a), which means “deed”30. In Greek itself there are feminine nouns which represent former perfect active participles: Ν or $ “street”, cf. Ν; Ρ or 3 “length of the outstretched arms”, cf. 35, 6 “a sea bird”, cf. 6, Ϊ" “Harpie”, cf. 4"8, etc.31 The considerations from above, therefore, could also apply to a-raru-wo-a, which has a meaning similar to te-tu-ko-wo-a32. Thus,

ζ φ could mean something like “finished/well-made sword”. In this way, the perfect with t could have appeared in Common Greek and all the dialects would have had it from the beginning. This last hypothesis is more attractive. If the t-insertion were a Common Greek process, we could account for the distribution of t in all the dialects. The Mycenaean forms would be only specialized adjectives, remnants of the “older”, t-less, participles. The participial paradigm then would have developed t in its paradigm within Common Greek. And, although the conditions which led to the appearance of the t-stems in Common Greek are obscure33, this development must be seen as a Greek fact, not a PIE one.34

29

30 31 32

33 34

In French mérite = “merit” < Lat. meritum, but the participle mérité is a new one, belonging to the paradigm of the former factitive verb meritare > Fr.mériter. Already present in Latin with this meaning: factum means “deed”. Chantraine (1933: 439f.). The other form mentioned (ke-ke-tu-wo-e) is obscure; wi-di-wo-i-jo as a name could have been derived bevore the t-insertion. One cannot exclude the presence of both forms – with and without t- in Mycenaean, but this cannot be proven; Common Greek, then, could have also known this variation. Cf. Szemerényi (1967: 24). I would like to thank Prof. Brian Joseph from the Department of Linguistics of The Ohio State University for supporting me in writing this paper. It goes without saying that all the scientific errors in this paper belong entirely to me.

104

Catalin Anghelina

Bibliography Bechtel, F., Die Griechischen Dialekte I–II. Berlin 1963 (original edition 1921–1924). Beekes, R. P., Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia 1995 (original edition 1990). Buck, C. D., The Greek Dialects. Chicago 1928. Burrow, T., The Sanskrit Language. Delhi 2001 (original edition 1955). Chantraine, P., Histoire du parfait grec. Paris 1926. Chantraine, P., La formation des noms en grec ancien. Paris 1933. Chantraine, P., Grammaire Homérique. Paris 1958. Leumann, M., Gr. hom. « und « '=, $« $. Celtica 3/1956. Morpurgo, A., Mycenaeae Graecitatis Lexicon. Rome 1963. Puhvel, J., Indo-European and Mycenaean Perfect Active Participles. In: Mycenaean Studies. Madison 1964. Ruijgh, C. J., Études sur la grammaire et le vocabulaire du grec mycénien. Amsterdam 1967. Ruijgh, C. J., Scripta Minora I, II. Amsterdam 1991. Sihler, A., A New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. Oxford 1995. Szemerényi, O., Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici II. Roma 1967. Thumb, A., and Scherer, A., Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte2 II. Heidelberg 1959. Tovar, A., On the Position of the Linear B Dialect. In: Mycenaean Studies (Madison 1964). Wackernagel, J., Studien zum Griechischen Perfektum. In: Kleine Schriften II. Göttingen 1969. Wathelet, P., Les traits éoliens dans la langue de l’épopée grecque. Roma 1970. Whitney, D., Sanskrit Grammar. Delhi 1997 (original edition 1896).

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

Catalin Anghelina

The past-iterative and the augment in Homer

105

The past-iterative and the augment in Homer1 The past-iterative, a preterit built with a -ske/o- suffix, is a productive category in the Homeric verbal system. As a rule, it lacks the augment (prefixed e- and vowel lengthening for C- and V-initial verbs, respectively), which forms a discontinuous morpheme complex with the secondary endings and is assumed to be a marker of past-time. The -ske/o- suffix, variously defined as signifying an iterative or durative action, is widely attested in the Indo-European family in a range of values. In Latin, it is used to build verbs signifying an inchoative action (e.g., igne¯sco¯ ‘I kindle’ h ignis ‘fire’), although this value is opaque in words of the more archaic stratum of the lexicon (e.g., posco¯ ‘I ask’ from *pr5 k´-sk´o¯). Curiously, the ske/o-formant in Avestan is also inchoative (cf. Kellens 1984: 156–160: “Le présent inchoative en -sa-”: tafsa- ‘devenir chaud’ vs. tap ‘être chaud’). The -ske/o- suffix productively builds causatives in Tocharian: Toch.B. tänmäskä/e- ‘beget, engender, produce’ (but Toch.A. tänmäs5 5säm 5 ‘I beget’) from täm- ‘be born’. In Hittite, it is the productive marker of a class of verbs signifying iterative and/or durative actions: pí-en-ni-isˇ-ki-iz-zi ‘is driving’ æ píen-na-a-i ‘drives’, ha-asˇ-ki-it ‘kept having children.’ Elsewhere in IndoEuropean the suffix is not associated with a single semantic value: Gk. ‘I come’, Ved. 5rccháti ‘goes’ < *(H1)r5 -sk´-e/o-, and O.Lat. escit 2 ‘is,’ each bearing no sense of the original meaning of the -ske/o- suffix. With regard to Homeric Greek, Szemerényi (1989: 293f.) notes that the past-iterative still retained an archaic distributive or iterative sense. This is essentially the view of Sihler (1995: 505–7), who goes further by pointing out that certain preterits built to the -ske/o- suffix (notably “be” and “say”) became the basis for a new “im-

1

2

I would like to give special thanks to my teacher Jared Klein; his suggestions, advice, and editoral assistance were invaluable, especially during the initial phase of writing this paper. This form appears to function as a simple present (e.g., cui suus heres nec escit ‘for whom there is no heir’ [XII Tables, V; cited from Kimball 1997: 8]) and is best explained as a relic of a once productive system of secondary derived ske/oformants that survived into Old Latin.

Indogermanische Forschungen, 112. Band 2007

DOI 10.1515/IDGF.2007.007

106

Frederick James Pagniello

perfect” for their respective verbs; an original imperfect, such as ‘(s)he/it was,’ was reinterpreted along “aoristic” lines. Earlier, Monro (1891: 47) described this class of preterit as “carrying distinctly the notion of repeated action”; the past-iterative was motivated by the sense of an action as subject to being regular, continuative and (arguably) predictable in occurrence, as Sihler notes, albeit subject to metrical convenience.3 On a productive basis, Homeric Greek retains only the preterit forms built with the -ske/o- suffix, however.4 These preterits are built to the same root as other preterits: < *é-H1 s-ent vs. < *H1 s-sk´o-nt (: ’I am‘); vs. (: ’I live, dwell in‘); φ vs. φ (: φ ’I bear‘). Iteratives and distributives do not fall into their own respective classes, for both fundamentally describe an activity as a set of noncontiguous repetitive actions. They differ only with respect to interpretation: for example, a distributive signifying the prototypical activity of a group (e.g., “each one shouted ‘Fight!’”) in contrast to the repeated activity of a single actor (e.g., “in each battle the hero would lead”). Indeed, a distributive is a type of iterative, given a repeated occurrence at a single point in time. Furthermore, a distributive can reoccur over a span of time (e.g., “they shout ‘Fight!’ occured before each battle”) and hence be an iterative, weakening the distinction between distributive and iterative. Although the distributive sense is evident in some 78 out of an approximate total of 210 past-iterative tokens in Homer,5 this number depends on the interpretation of the readers, some of whom may infer particular tokens as iterative. For these reasons, we will denote these two classifications by the hyphenated nomenclature iterative-distributive.

3

4

5

“Large numbers of Homeric forms in -sk- are uniquely attested, which is what one would expect of a freely productive type used opportunistically.” (Sihler 1995: 506) Some ske/o-preterits in Homer are morphologically imperfects to primary ske/o-presents, such as φ ‘she declared’ (Od.xi.306; from φ ‘I say, assert’). These presents do not express repetitive actions (cf. also the participle ‘[the man] growing old’ [Il.II.663] and « ‘you will nourish’ [Od.xvii.559]). In contrast, true past-iteratives are deverbative formations built to both imperfective- and perfective-aspect stems and are functionally distinct from preterits of either aspect stem (cf. Monro 1891, §§ 48, 49). Such as (Il.IV.233), (Il.VIII.271), (Od.v.332), and (Od.viii.376).

The past-iterative and the augment in Homer

107

Fundamentally, an iterative-distributive essentially expresses a set of repetitive actions in a single temporal reference frame that can be characteristic of a group (e.g., “each said to his neighbor”) or of an individual character (e.g., “all day long, as each enemy came forth, he would strike them down”).6 In the latter case the actions are non-contiguous; that is, they recur at different points in time. During the battle in Book IV of “The Iliad,” Agamemnon goes among the battle lines, urging on the host. In the following collocation, he encourages the brave (Il.IV.231–233) and condemns the cowardly (Il.IV.240–241):7 Il.IV.231 ! χ $%μ« &Ω &$$( « $*α

’ , ?« ξ $« .* /$0, 1« $ « &$ α … but [Agamemnon] himself ranged on foot through the ranks of warriors. And whichsoever of the Danaans with swift steeds he saw eager, to these drawing nigh he would hearten them earnestly with words: *** Il.IV.240 Κ« « σ « /4 $, 1« ( &$ α And again whichsoever ones he saw holding back from hateful war, those would he chide roundly with angry words: The optative signifies the action in a general sense, rather than any specific occurrence.8 It is a type of conditional statement, providing a background for the occurrence of the following speech, intro6

7

8

Other examples are found in the following passages: Il.II.188–189, Il.II.198–199, Il.VIII.269–272, Il.XI.62–65, Il.XI.566–568, Il.XVII.423, Il.XVII.459–462, Il.XVIII.544–547, Il.XVIII.599–602, Il.XXII.194–198, Od.v.328–332, Od.viii.87–92, and Od.viii.374–376. The translations of Homer I have quoted from Murray (1919a, 1919b, 1924, 1925) with some revisions to reflect contemporary literary tastes. In such cases the optative implies multiple occurrences of the same action and is “equivalent” to the past-iterative, due to the probabilistic nature of an optative expression (e.g., “whenever the character …”). In contrast, the past-iterative (as illustrated in the examples given above in the text) can express the actual multiple occurrences of an action outside of a conditional statement.

108

Frederick James Pagniello

duced by 1« . Together, the past-iterative and the optative jointly describe a prototypical example of all occurrences of the action. Furthermore, both passages are linked together by a ~σ construction, the second particle expressing a contrasting action9 that stands in counterpoint to the first. Combined, they form a narrative unit describing an entire series of actions by Agamemnon. Of special interest is the past-iterative of 2$ ‘I spoke’. The imperfect of φ and the aorist ρ$ are both employed to introduce a speech by a single character. In Book XIV of “The Iliad,” Hera responds to Sleep, whose aid she has requested in hindering Zeus’ intentions to assist the Trojans: Il.XIV.263

μ ’ σ $ $ *$« $7 6Hα To him then spake again ox-eyed, queenly Hera:

In contrast, the past-iterative of a verb of “speaking/saying” in the same environment always introduces a prototypical example of the speech of some unspecified “everyman” representing all members of a group. It never introduces the speech of a single specific character: Il.XVII.420 γ« ξ « σ T0 : α “τ φ, λ ( $’ $ ) * $ « ²*«, : $0 « « & $.” γ« Ν « $ , « ’ @ A

/. And thus in like manner would one of the greathearted Trojans speak: “Friends, though it be our fate all together to be slain beside this man, yet let none give backward from the fight.” Thus would one speak and arouse the might of each. In addition to the spatial domain, an action may be distributed over an extended period of time. The repetitive occurrence of an action, such as “they would drink at the bar every day,” may be categorized as possessing a sequential regularity over a span of time. In Book ii of “The Odyssey,” Antinous recounts Penelope’s attempt to deceive his fellow suitors. She would choose one of them as a new husband after she completes a burial shroud for Odysseus, whom everyone believes

9

See Klein and Condon (1993) and Klein (1988). The latter supersedes all prior studies of au.

The past-iterative and the augment in Homer

109

is dead. The shroud was never completed, for as Antinous points out to Telemachus, she would unravel during the night whatever weaving she had completed during the day: Od.ii.104

“ λ ξ Cφ ¹ μ, « ’ $ , &$λ D« $(.” “Then by day she would weave at the great web, but by night would unravel it, when she had let torches be placed by her.”

Each weaving and subsequent unraveling of the shroud together forms a single action over temporally discrete intervals. This deception continued on a daily basis for three years, until one of the female slaves betrayed her mistress to the suitors.10 In the following two passages,11 the past-iteratives express repetitive actions that provide background information for the story. The first example describes some activity that has long since ended, whereas the second describes an activity that is still happening: Il.IX.451

Od.xviii.1

“ … E ’ ξ &ξ $ $, F# &: .” “So [my mother] besought me by my knees continually, to have dalliance with [the concubine] myself, so that she would hate the old man.” ’ &$λ $μ« $:«, χ« ! Ν / $/ 2 #I « … Now there came up a public beggar who was wont to beg through the town of Ithaca.

One also finds past-iteratives that signify an action that is habitual in nature, representing essentially a defining characteristic of some facet of daily existence. We understand this signification based on the underlying nature of this type of action. A habitual action is a repeated but non-contigous occurrences over space and/or time, according to which one may predict a future recurrence. Consider the case of

10

11

Other examples are found in the following passages: Il.II.216–222, Il.VIII.362– 363, Il.IX-485–489, Il.XV.23–25, Il.XX.28–30, Il.XXII.500–504, Il.XXIV.11–18, Il.XXIV.391–393, Il.XXIV.751–756, Od.ii.104–105, and Od.xiv.219–221. Other examples are found in the following passages: Il.IX.408–409, Il.XXII.153– 156, Il.XXIV.453–456, Od.iii.405–409, and Od.xxii.312–315.

110

Frederick James Pagniello

a person who takes a daily walk at 3 p.m. Barring any unforeseen circumstances, (s)he pretty much performs the same action on a regular basis, though perhaps with some minor variation (e.g., sometimes the action commences 15 minutes earlier). An observer may then say confidently, noting the variation, “Mr. Jones usually takes a walk every day around 3 p.m, though he sometimes varies the route.” Because of the repeated occurrence, the observer may denote the activity as habitual. In Homer, this type of action is denoted by the past-iterative. For example, in Book vii of “The Odyssey,” Odysseus enters the house of the Phaeacian king, Alcinous. Invisible to all present because of the mist cast by Athena, Odysseus looks upon the revelry at the feast table: Od.vii.136

L ξ M: π:« ξ « $« $ &β 7$) $φ79 , Q ) $/ ) $ , Ρ /. There [Odysseus] found the leaders and counselors of the Phaeacians pouring libations with their cups to the keen-sighted Argeiphontes, to whom they were wont to pour the wine last of all, when they were minded to go to their rest.

The last act of the feast is the honoring of the gods by libations. The second of these lines names the god who receives the final libation as a normal matter of course. It is an action expected of those partaking in a feast. The Ρ-clause, an optative of potential action, states the condition under which the action occurs; hence, the past-iterative $ refers to a multiple and predictable occurrence of the pouring of libations.12 The question of past-iteratives standing in isolation can now satisfactorily be addressed. In contrast to the previous examples – where the repetitive but non-contiguous occurrence of an action is clear from the narrative structure – no such information is available to specify these past-iteratives as being members of their class of verb. Effectively isolated (such as a single past-iterative in a subordinate clause surrounded by other preterits in the superordinate narrative

12

Other examples are found in the following passages: Od.x.107–108, Od.xi.585–587, Od.xi.591–592, Od.xvii.419–421, and Od.xviii.6–7.

The past-iterative and the augment in Homer

111

structure), they appear to be isofunctional with the imperfective preterit; hence, a redactor may render a past-iterative as an imperfect (as illustrated by the citations from Murray below). This interpretation assumes the past-iterative to be equivalent to the imperfect, which can signify an action distributed contiguously over space/time. However, treating the isolated past-iterative as a true past-iterative obviates the assumption of its existence outside of the expected functional domain; -ske/o-formants in Homer act in a manner predictable and consistent with the rules of grammar. Here the true nature of the past-iterative is essentially “covert.” To Homer’s contemporaries a verb marked with the -ske/o- suffix was structurally distinct from the imperfect;13 otherwise we would have to assume that here alone these “covert isolates” are isofunctional with the imperfect. However, “imperfect” past-iteratives that signify single actions within the main narrative (such as a ‘they were fighting’) appear to be absent. Rather than a mere variant of the imperfect, this “covert isolate” is another element in the repertoire of oral poetry. This option offers the poet a powerful tool in metrical composition whenever the selection of one type or the other would not significantly impact the narrative structure. An object, such as a warrior’s panoply (in the first example cited below), may be described as either “the armor he was wearing at that time” or “the armor he was wont to wear,” a concurrent description or a general characterization, respectively: Il.XIII.371

13

… ’ S 0 «, χ φ , ) ’ & $. …, nor did the corselet of bronze that he wore [= was wont to wear] avail him, but the spear was stuck in the middle of his belly.

The imperfect denotes a single action that is continuative/durative; cf. Chantraine 1963: 191: “[The imperfect] exprime donc en principe la durée et le développement de l’action.” However, the past-iteratives of a few verbs appear to function as imperfects, such as those of & ‘I am’ and φ ‘I state’ (so Sihler 1995: 506), in addition to (perhaps) and ‘I dwell.’ These examples stand in the minority as exceptions to the rule, for which reason we omit them from our analysis.

112

Frederick James Pagniello

Il.XIII.405

… φ ! C$’ $ $ $ ’ &D ) , κ $’ Ρ ) ( * λ 0$ ) * κ φ , 7 ’ $/(αV … for he [Idomeneus] was hidden beneath his shield that was well-balanced upon every side, which he was wont to bear, cunningly wrought with bull’s hide and gleaming bronze, fitted with two rods.

Il.XXI.30

’ W$ (« &β: ¹» , 1« λ φ &$λ $( * … and [Achilles] bound their hands behind with shapely thongs, which they themselves wore [= were wont to wear] about their pliant tunics.

Od.xxii.185 X Y«, χ /% φ α κ 7 ’ S , φλ # ’ &/ ¹ α … [the shield] of Laertes the hero, which he was wont to bear in his youth, but now it was laid by, and the seams of the straps were loosened. Of these examples, the clearest instance of an iterative-distributive sense is provided by φ (Od.xxii.185). Laertes, the father of Odysseus, is at the time of “The Odyssey” too old to bear arms. Syntactically, the subordinate clause within which φ stands contrasts with the clause κ 7 ’ S (, a description of the present state of the shield; hence, both statements serve as a description of the shield at certain points in time past and present, respectively, relative to the narrative. One can argue that the past-iteratives of above are, as Sihler (1995: 506) writes, “a freely productive type used opportunistically,” although the last example (Od.xxii.185–6) clearly points to habitual action.14 In the above examples past-iteratives appear in subordinate clauses providing additional information rather than describing contemporaneous actions within the main narrative. This function of de14

Note, however, that φ is a deverbative to φ that is itself a deverbative causative-iterative (with o-grade of the root and the -eye/o- suffix; cf. Sihler 1995, §468.2) built to NXDT ‘I carry.’ Such past-iteratives are in a sense “doubly-marked.” The question naturally arises as to what degree of difference in their functional specification past-iteratives exhibit with respect to the causative-iteratives from which they are derived.

The past-iterative and the augment in Homer

113

scribing background information, such as qualities and tendencies of a character or object within the story, is further illustrated by the following passages, in all of which the past-iteratives appear in subordinate clauses: Il.XV.638

…, χ 2 ρ $φ M/ (, K$« φ /¹7, χ« E/ « Ν « $« 9 ,H 9 . albeit he [Hector] slew only one man, Periphetes of Mycenae, the dear son of Copreus, that had been wont to go on messages from king Eurystheus to the mighty Heracles.

Il.XXIV.471

… 2 1« /, ) 2 , #A1« F% .D φ«α … but the old man [Priam] went straight toward the house where Achilles, dear to Zeus, was wont to sit.

Od.xvii.210

… μ« 2 &φ$ / /φ /, Ρ $ « &$% ²(α … and on the top was built an altar to the nymphs where all passers-by made offerings.

Od.xxii.208 “M, Ν/ $, ’ A φ, χ« 2 $! % α” # “Mentor, ward off ruin, and remember [me], your dear comrade, who often befriended you [= was wont to befriend you].” Od.xxii.357 “ λ :/ M 0 , Ρ« / λ ) & π) $μ« &7«” “Aye, and let us save also the herald, Medon, who ever cared for me in our house, when I was a child.” We have seen from the above discussion that there is evidence in support of some sort of metrical convenience underlying the appearance of past-iteratives, though we should not presuppose a blanket application of this principle devoid of any constraint. Though used “opportunistically,” the poet employs the past-iterative freely, but only to the degree that the narrative structure will support it. Hence, φ signifies a repeated action that denotes armor someone “was wont to wear” with the nuance of “his own armor.” Likewise,

114

Frederick James Pagniello

with % , (Od.xxii.209) Odysseus reminds Mentor (actually Athena in his guise) of the good deeds he has regularly done for him, which carries far more weight than a single action when appealing for assistance. This “option of choice” provides a means of dealing with the framework of a fixed metrical space.15 The poet employs a verb form for its metricality but conditioned by thematic structural requirements; the armor that saved the warrior was either being worn at that moment (coincident) or was usually worn in battle (habitual). The past-iterative in the language of Homer is fundamentally iterative-distributive, though the term iterative alone should suffice. A distributive, expressing multiple occurrences spread over space/time, is then a type of iterative (as could be a frequentive and an intensive). A habitual action is likewise composed of separate but contextually related actions that repeat with a predictable occurrence. This multiplicity of non-contiguous repetitions of an action points to the underlying characteristic of the past-iterative as signaling <multiple copies of an action >, each copy of which is a “cell” within the overall structure of a declarative statement. Quite significant, then, is the virtual absence of augmented past-iteratives in Homeric Greek. This absence is highly curious, given that the augment e- is the overt marker of past-time that forms a discontinuous morpheme complex with the secondary endings: Skt. á-bharat, Gk. -φ (< PIE *é-bheret ‘s/he carried/bore’). Only a handful of such forms is attested in Homer, the aggregate of which appears to constitute a class of exceptions to the rule. The explanation cannot lie merely in the fact that the past-iterative appears only in descriptions of actions that occur in past-time either from the perspective of the reader/listener or a character within the story (albeit the past-iterative is excluded from signifying a single occurrence of an action within a narrative sequence), for other types of preterits appear with the augment in this same environment. Nor should one exclusively appeal to a metrical solution, that is, the prosodic shape of the past-iterative effectively excludes the augment. Although this may be true in individual instances, the question remains about the underlying rule that permits the poet15

Consider the comments of Nagy (1996) in paragraphs 5–7 (pp.22–25), which suggest that the poet-composer was not enslaved by the compositional idiom. Note also the description of the Kirghiz bard (circa 1885), who could customtailor “his song” to the make-up of the audience (p.59).

The past-iterative and the augment in Homer

115

composer to discard the augment when it is prosodically inconvenient, essentially a principle of metrical licensing. The starting point to account for the absence of the augment from the past-iterative lies in the semantic nature of this class of verb and of the augment. Scholarship has been generally uniform in its acceptance of an Indo-European source for the augment, though no communis opinio exists with regard to its etymology. Watkins (1963: 15) believed that the Luwian particle a- “goes back regularly to IE *é- [the augment].” This conclusion is very uncertain, for it is based upon a sound correspondence in the absence of any functional relationship. This objection was registered by Strunk (1994), who discussed the entire history of scholarship on the origin of the augment morpheme, beginning with Bopp. Bopp’s account of the augment was based primarily on sound correspondences which Strunk shows to have been invalidated by later discoveries within Indo-European linguistics. Other scholars have proposed that the augment was originally an adverbial particle and have posited meanings for the augment based upon its temporal signification in Vedic Sanskrit and Homeric Greek: a temporal ‘früher’ or ‘einmal’ or a spatial-deictic sense ‘then and there’ with a later extension onto the temporal axis (cf. Szemerényi 1989: 322). Some scholars, such as Reichelt (1908) and Krahe (1959), proposed that the particle was originally a temporal marker. Others suggested meanings of various shades that offered a point of departure for the particle’s grammaticalization as a temporal marker. Thumb and Hauschild (1959: 190) proposed ‘true’ and ‘certainly’ while simultaneously rejecting the value ‘at this time,’ earlier posited by Brugmann (1904: 288).16 Similar to the latter is Bréal’s ‘vraiment’ (quoted from Schwyzer 1939: 652). These proposals fail to address the restriction of the augment to preterit forms, for an emphatic marker (as implied by the semantics of Bréal, as well as Thumb and Hauschild) is equally appropriate to an imperative and prohibitive – and possibly even a present – to strengthen the force of a declaration. Hirt (1928: 171) believed that the original value of the augment was to signal “Perfektiviering,” a development parallel to the Irish preposition ro p’sand the German prefix ge- of the past-passive participle. In this case the augment would at first have been prefixed to the aorist, since a per16

They are in agreement with Schwyzer (1939: 652), who considered the augment to be a mandatory prefix of the preterit.

116

Frederick James Pagniello

fectivizing marker would be semantically incompatible with an imperfect as signifying noncompletive action. Although suggestive, these proposals are merely hypothetical, for none can provide a firm etymon that provides a point of departure for the temporal augment. They assume that the origin of the augment was some particle that was retained only in a few languages of South Eastern Indo-European but otherwise disappeared without a trace. However, one might expect traces of the original particle to have been retained in relic form throughout the Indo-European family. A relic of an old adverbial particle might be retained in values other than the augment in languages that have otherwise discarded it from their respective productive lexicons. For example, the adverbial ‘einmal’ might be attested in the lexicon of at least one daughter language. Furthermore, with regard to Homer, not all scholars reiterated the communis opinio of the temporally-marked augment. As early as 1891, Platt argued against a temporal augment, though only with regard to the aorist (p. 227). He stated quite openly (p. 213) that “the augment, both syllabic and temporal, is no original feature of the past tense.” The most salient facet of Platt’s argument is the large number of augmented aorists attested in gnomic periods and those translatable in English as present-perfects, which signify, respectively, atemporal general truths and actions completed in the immediate past. A relationship of the augment to contextual environment was recognized to exist to some degree; the prefix was analyzed as a type of marker of the present by Platt, which would account for its predominance in essentially “present” tense environments, including those signaling either the completion of some action in the immediate past or the effects of an action that remain in the present (in contrast to an event in the more remote past, the after-effects of which have no temporal relevance for the interlocutors). This signification could likewise be extended to statements of general truths that express qualities of permanent duration. More recently, Bakker (1999a) examined the augment with regard to the narrative environment. He noticed that the main verb in statements for which there was a strong perception of hic-et-nunc deixis (such as temporal recency, personal experience, and overt reference to the here and now) tended to be augmented. Achilles’ declaration Ρ« ’ $ Ρ 7 &0 M(« A 2 $7 ‘Who can tell why Phoebus Apollo is so angry?’ (Il.I.64) refers to his own personal ex-

The past-iterative and the augment in Homer

117

perience (‘He does not tell a story or refer to the past; instead, he is speaking in his own lived-in present’ [p. 2]); after slaying Hector, Achilles says to his men, 7 ’ Ν // 4«α &$φ 6E ( ‘and let us take him [here with us]. We have won ourselves enormous fame; we have killed the great Hector’ [p. 2] (Il.XXII.392–3), speaking of an event in the immediate past while pointing to the body of Hector (note the deictic pronoun 7 ‘this one’). Bakker noted, furthermore, that the degree of augmentation for aorists describing events of the “present” (i.e., the so-called “now past,” equivalent to the present perfect of Modern English) was greater than for those in descriptions of events set in the more remote past. This analysis is reminiscent of the views of Platt (1891), who stated that the augment was a type of verbal marker of emphasis (p. 215) and interjection that was limited to tenses of the indicative (p. 216); these claims imply that the augment was related to the topicality of an action and temporal recency. The deictic conception of the augment could explicate the paradox of the augmented aorist within the gnomic period in Homer (i.e., a temporally marked preterit in an atemporal declaration). Bakker shows that similes (which lie in the domain of the gnomic period) are “intensely visual” because their subjects are found in the “everyday world of the audience” (p. 4). Similes, he points out, have a higher frequency of augmentation than that found in character speech. The topical currency of familiar phenomena of regular occurrence in the natural world, such as the flight of flies and mists upon a mountain, contrasts significantly with the descriptions of battles and the gods, which are more removed from the experiences of the audience. Bakker’s thesis suggests that the Homeric augment is fundamentally deictic and signifies in some fashion closeness and/or vividness, for which prototypical examples are actions of the immediate past and similes, respectively. Consequently, we must investigate whether the underlying natures of the past-iterative and the Homeric augment are somehow incompatible. One could then account for the general absence of an augmented past-iterative under rules of verbal morphology that were productive in Homeric Greek. Bakker’s notion represents a radical departure from the commonly accepted view of the augment; its role as a temporal marker would be an innovation postdating Homer. This fact is supported, in part, by the research of Hirt, who identified the “proto-augment” *e- with the

118

Frederick James Pagniello

deictic element e- seen in Gk. &- ( ‘there’ and pronominal forms such as the Sanskrit genitive singular a-sya ‘of him/it’ (<*e-syo), dative singular a-sma¯i, and Umbrian dative singular e-smei ‘to him/it’ (1927b: 11). It is significant that these traces involve elements possessing clear deictic force, suggesting that the augment was originally a deictic particle. Furthermore, Platt (ibid.) noted a strong relationship between temporal recency and the appearance of the augment, which essentially explained the higher frequency of augmented preterits in speeches.17 That augmented preterits should be prevalent in character speech is not unexpected, since this is the environment in which one could properly speak of events in the recent past (explaining the frequency of the so-called “present-perfect” aorist in speeches, as noted by Platt) and of those of a personal nature. Curiously, this non-temporal interpretation of the augment seems to be implied in several statements of Platt (ibid.): “It is admitted apparently that the augment, é, was originally an interjection which was afterwards amalgamated with the verb form it emphasizes” (p. 215); “The augment, [prior to the split-up of the languages possessing the augment] a separate interjection or particle of emphasis, was used with certain tenses of the indicative, and with no other mood” (p. 216). The relationship between the Homeric past-iterative and the absence of the augment reduces to a question of the verbal formant’s semantic force. The past-iterative is fundamentally continuative, though each occurrence of an action is an individual “cell” contained within a set expressing an activity as a series of non-contiguous steps spread over space and/or time. In contrast, the imperfect consists of a contiguous series of “cells.” Consider the statements “Frank was walking the dog” and “Frank was wont to walk the dog.” The first denotes the factual continuative action; the second is a general statement about an activity that the subject performs from time to time with some regularity. This contrast becomes more pronounced with spatial/temporal specifiers, not all of which stand in syntactic free variation. A prepositional phrase, such as “on Tuesday,” may modify

17

However, the frequency of augmentation is essentially equivalent in narratives by the narrator and the character as narrator (such as Odysseus’ recounting of his adventures to Alcinous). This fact was duly noted by Schewan (1912: 402) in his critique of Drewitt, who had appealed to incongruities in the distribution of the augment in support of a multi-author origin of Homer.

The past-iterative and the augment in Homer

119

both statements, though the temporal specifier “Tuesdays,” is generally restricted to expressions of a non-specific nature. One could not say *“Frank was walking the dog Tuesdays”: regular temporality is signified by “Tuesdays,” an adverbial that implies multiple occurrences (the function of the distributive). In contrast, the phrase “on Tuesday” is ambiguous in temporal plurality and may modify either statement, perhaps because it denotes a single point in time. In either case, it specifies a particular day of the week, whose precise interpretation – general or particular – is predicated upon the nature of the action. One can consider the putative equation of the deictic augment with the Indo-European proximal deictic pronoun *i/*e. The *i- (attested in Ved. i-há and OAv. ida¯ ‘here’) and *e-particles are demonstrably present on a suppletive basis in this pronoun. Given that this pronoun is found throughout the Indo-European languages (e.g., Lat. is/eius, as well as Skt. ayam/asmai < *ey-om/*e-smo¯i ‘this one’), its constituents represent assured members of the morpheme inventory of the protolanguage; and if the deictic -i could have been incorporated into the verbal system as a marker of present-tense, nothing stands in the way of assuming a parallel incorporation of the *e-variant. That the role of *e in the verbal system is not as clearly deictic as that of *i is perhaps owing to its less clearly proximal value. In fact, in Vedic Sanskrit, whereas forms like ayám and imám, built to *i, are proximal deictics, forms like asya and asmai, built to *e, are frequently mere anaphors, especially when not accented. Similarly, if this is the same morpheme seen in the initial e of Gk. & (« and Skt. amúm ‘that one (acc.)’ (< *em-u-m), then there is ample evidence that *e- was not excluded on semantic grounds from occurring even within a distal deictic pronoun, a fact that would make its ultimate role as a marker of past (i.e. distal) tense in post-Homeric Greek and Vedic Sanskrit less surprising. Moreover, the reanalysis of the augment from a deictic to a temporal marker merely requires a shift from the spatial to the temporal axis. One finds without difficulty spatial markers that show a relationship to the temporal realm, such as Lat. ubi ‘where, when’ and Skt. idám ‘here, now.’ Indeed, spatial sentience is a fundamental feature of human languages (cf. Lyons 1977: 718 ff.), which not unsurprisingly are endowed with various means of denoting spatial relationship; in contrast, overt temporal verbal markers may not be present in a language (Lyons ibid.: 705: “there are many languages that do not have

120

Frederick James Pagniello

tense”). Additionally, temporality is a type of deixis, given that the speaker is refering to a point in time relative to him/herself, effectively an anaphoric/antecedental relationship. Languages often employ spatial idioms (such as locatives) to denote tense, inter alia, prepositions, particles and adverbial expressions, such as English before, thereabouts, and thereupon, a phenomenon that is panlinguistic (Lyons ibid.: 718). Finally, the development of the temporal augment is paralleled by the hic-et-nunc particle in the creation of the primary endings of P.I.E.: primary endings were denoted by the addition of a proximal deictic i-particle (e.g., 1st person singular -m-i vs. secondary -m). The augment underwent the same process, though at a later period in time (the transition was completed sometime prior to Greek of the 4th Century B.C.). In this context, one may now understand the paucity of augmented past-iteratives in Homer as a product of the system of grammar. A deictic augment, a type of focus particle, is incompatible with a signifier of distributiveness: focus and non-focus (or diffuseness) cannot easily be expressed at the same time. Many past-iteratives in Homer (as those cited above) express qualities, characteristics, and tendencies, which are for the most part descriptions and not actual events; others specify actual events that are non-focal. In both instances the action is distributed over the spatial/temporal domains. A deictic marker, which is focal, would signify information that stands contrary to the inherent signification of the non-focal past-iterative: a deictic augment could only focus on one specific “cell,” each of which within the cellular constellation exhibits no greater degree of saliency than another.18 Nor should one consider the -ske/o- suffix in Homer to be a marker of pasttime. The suffix is attested throughout Indo-European in non-preterit formants (e.g., Gk. ‘go!’, Skt. gachati ‘(s)he goes’), and in Hittite ske/o-formants are freely attested in descriptions of actions that are distributive, habitual, and iterative (comparable to the past-iterative in Homer), regardless of tense. Whatever the origin of the Homeric pastiterative (Greek or Anatolian), one must still account for Homeric ske/o-formants limited to preterits. The thematic structure of the narrative should not be disregarded; note the absence from Mycenaean 18

The imperfective is likewise composed of a series of “cells,” although they are contiguous. It is a continuum, essentially a unitary “super cell” of internal constituency, to which the deictic augment applies.

The past-iterative and the augment in Homer

121

Greek of the subjunctive mood, whose appearance in later Greek implies nothing more than a lacuna produced by the subject matter of the tablets.19 The statement that the earliest Greek ske/o-formant is restricted to the preterit essentially arises ex silentio. The absence of a Homeric present-iterative should be discussed in a comparative analysis of the ske/o-formants of Homeric Greek and Anatolian. From the above discussion, we are led to an understanding of the underlying semantic structure of the past-iterative and augment in Homeric Greek as well as a suggestion for a P.I.E. origin of the latter. As illustrated above, the Homeric past-iterative signifies a non-contiguous repetitive activity over space and/or time. The prototypical speech of a crowd at a single point in time, Odysseus’ address to individuals within the assembly over a space of time and a single action of predictable occurrence are underlyingly similar, given their distribution over space and time. Indeed, the so-called “covert” past-iterative falls into this category, for a regularly occurring action acquires a sense of habituality (and possibly implied ownership): “the armor he wore in each battle” f “the armor he was wont to wear.” For the pastiterative, the most salient notion is the sense of “distributiveness” or perhaps “diffuseness.” That is, the non-contiguous repetition of the past-iterative stands in contrast to the contiguous repetition of the imperfect. Hence, the underlying semantics of “an action copied n-times” of the past-iterative permits a range of interpretations. This openness lends support to the qualities of the past-iterative and the augment in Homer as being “diffuse” and “focused,” respectively. “Distributiveness,” which falls within the functional compass “diffuse,” is relatively incompatible with the focal quality of the augment as a deictic particle; the almost total absence of augmented past-iteratives from Homer can be accounted for under the rules of verbal semantics and morphology. This conclusion is all the more salient, given that this class of verb shows itself to be productive albeit in a highly restricted environment; the past-iterative is not simply an archaic relic.

19

See Risch (1959), who takes the absence of the subjunctive (as well as the optative and the augment) in Mycenaean as characteristic of chancellery documents. Highly specialized for one particular task – recording transactions of goods and lists of names – the Mycenaen tablets can hardly be expected to reflect the entire range of Greek grammar in the last two or three centuries of the 2nd millennium B.C.

122

Frederick James Pagniello

We may further account for the sparseness of the augmented pastiteratives within the context of Bakker 1999b: the augmented preterit foregrounds a statement that is thematically salient within the narrative structure. As discussed above, past-iteratives frequently appear in background statements that provide supporting information for the main narrative. They are thematically subordinate to the activity in the main narrative structure. Actions that are habitual (such as the pouring of libations at a feast or the wearing of armor) are mere expectations associated with everyday life. Past-iteratives also denote an aggregate activity by describing a prototypical occurrence. Such an activity may be done either by one individual or a group distributed (as in “one said to another”) over space/time. Within the aggregate each occurrence is a single element carrying equal weight and hence does not lend itself to thematic foregrounding. The few augmented past-iteratives that are attested fall under the rubric of the Homeric “Kunstsprache,” as discussed by Meister (1921). Rather than aberrant forms, they are merely the few exceptions to the rules, a bending rather than a breaking. Thus, far from being a mere tool of the artistic repertoire, the past-iterative in Homer reflects a verbal category that is still vigorous and provides a glimpse of the Greek language in a more archaic state.

References Bakker, E. J., 1999a, Homeric Performance and the Deixis of Time and Space. Presentation at the 95th Annual Meeting of CAMWS, Cleveland, Ohio, April, 1999. –, 1999b, Pointing to the Past: Verbal Agreement and Temporal Deixis in Homer. In: Euphrosyne: Studies in Ancient Epic and its Legacy in Honor of Dimitris N. Maronitis (J. N. Kazazis and A. Renyakos, eds). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner 1999. Brugmann, K., 1904, Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner. Chantraine, P, 1963, Grammaire homérique – Tome II: Syntax. Paris: Librarie C. Klincksieck. Hirt, H., 1928, Indogermanische Grammatik Teil IV: Doppelung. Zusammensetzung. Verbum. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung. Kimball, S., 1997, Untitled Paper. Presentation at the ECIEC XVI Conference, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Kellens, J., 1984, Le verbe avestique. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. Klein, J. S., 1989, Homeric Greek au: ˜ A Synchronic, Diachronic, and Comparative Study. Historische Sprachforschungen CI: 249–288.

The past-iterative and the augment in Homer

123

Klein, J. S. and Condon, N. J., 1993, Gothic -(u)h: A Synchronic and Comparative Study. Transactions of the Philological Society XCI.I: 1–62. Krahe, H., 1959, Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft II: Formenlehre. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Lyons, J., 1977 (reprinted. 1990), Semantics – Volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Meister, K., 1921, Die Homerische Kunstsprache. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. (Reprinted 1966) Monro, D. B., 1891, A Grammar of the Homeric Dialect. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Murray, A. T.,1924 (reprinted. 1971), Homer: The Iliad (Books I – XII). London: William Heinemann, Ltd. –, 1925 (reprinted. 1976), Homer: The Iliad (Books XIII – XXIV). London: William Heinemann, Ltd. –, 1919a (reprinted. 1976), Homer: The Odyssey (Books i – xii). London: William Heinemann, Ltd. –, 1919b (reprinted. 1980), Homer: The Odyssey (Books xiii – xxiv). London: William Heinemann, Ltd. Nagy, G., 1996, Homeric Questions. Austin: University of Texas Press. Platt, A., 1891, The Augment in Homer. The Journal of Philology XIX: 211–237. Reichelt, H., 1908 (reprinted. 1978), Awestisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. (Reprinted 1978) Risch, E., 1959, Frühgeschichte der griechischen Sprache. Museum Helveticum 16: 215–27. Reprinted in A. Etter and M. Looser, eds. 1981, Kleine Schriften zum siebzigsten Geburtstag. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, p. 438–50. Schewan, A, 1912, The Homeric Augment. Classical Philology VII: 397–411. Sihler, A, 1995, A New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. Oxford: University Press. Smyth, H. W., 1920 (reprinted. 1956), Greek Grammar (revised by Gorden M. Messing). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Strunk, K., 1994, Der Ursprung des verbalen Augments – Ein Problem Franz Bopps aus heutiger Sicht. In R. Sternemann, ed. Bopp Symposium 1992 der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin: Akten der Konferenz vom 24. 3.–26. 3. 1992 aus Anlaß von Franz Bopps zweihundertjährigen Geburtstag am 14. 9. 1991. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, pp. 270–84. Szemerényi, O., 1989, Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Thumb, A. and Hauschild, R., 1959, Handbuch des Sanskrit – II. Teil: Formenlehre. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Watkins, C., 1963, Preliminaries to a Historical and Comparative Analysis of the Syntax of the Old Irish Verb. Celtica VI: 1–49.

12 College Avenue F r e d e r i c k Ja m e s P a g n i e l l o P o r t C h e s t e r , N e w Yo r k 10573 U.S.A. [email protected]

124

Maria Napoli

Telicity as a parameter of aspect in Homeric Greek. Activity and accomplishment verbs* 1. Introduction 0

In a cross-linguistic perspective, the core of a tense-aspect system turns out to be the result of the relationship between tense, aspect and actionality, even though their interaction may be different across languages. It is well-known since Curtius (1846), that Ancient Greek has been regarded as a language where the category of verbal aspect plays a crucial role: in particular, the present and the aorist have been analysed as forms conveying aspectual values. Generally, this hypothesis has been accepted by scholars: however, the issue of aspect in Ancient Greek has repeatedly been discussed during the last century, even though the basis for such discussions was not always very solid. In recent years, there has been great progress in works on aspectual and actional categories, providing a new perspective of analysis1. In this paper, I will try to perform a critical revision of the Homeric data in the light of these proposals in theoretical linguistics and typology. Recently, some linguists who deal with aspect and actionality have stressed the necessity of an approach that captures similarities and differences among languages in this field. Labels like “imperfective

*0 This paper is drawn from the revision of my doctoral dissertation (Napoli 2003), which is now published as Napoli (2006). I would like to thank Marina Benedetti, Paolo Di Giovine, Romano Lazzeroni, Paolo Ramat and Velizar Sadovski for their valuable comments. There are two more people I am particularly thankful to: Piermarco Bertinetto, who made me see things from a new perspective, and Philip Baldi, who not only revised my English, but also added some relevant remarks. Finally, I want to express my gratitude to Pierluigi Cuzzolin: the interest that he has taken in my doctoral dissertation, the discussions we have engaged on linguistic issues, and his precious, careful criticism have encouraged me to begin, and mainly to continue, the revision of this work. For these reasons I am indebted to him. 1 See Botne (2003), Bybee and Dahl (1989), Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca (1994), Dahl (1985; 2000b), Johanson (2000), Tatevosov (2002), Thieroff (2000). Indogermanische Forschungen, 112. Band 2007

DOI 10.1515/IDGF.2007.008

Telicity as a parameter of aspect in Homeric Greek

125

aspect” and “perfective aspect” have often been applied to forms whose function may vary at the cross-linguistic level: for instance, the category that has been called “perfective” in Russian does not have the same properties as the Bulgarian or Romance “perfective”2. Therefore, such terms are problematic, because sometimes the same label does not correspond to the same meanings. Similarly, Vendler’s categories (see 3.1.) have usually been applied to all natural languages: nevertheless, verbs belonging to the same class may have different properties across different languages, as recently shown by Botne (2003) with regard to achievement verbs meaning “to die”. When one examines a specific verbal system, the crucial question cannot simply be whether a verb belongs to one of the classes proposed by Vendler, but rather, what is the role of the parameters according to which verbs are classified in a given language, and how these parameters are encoded by morphology. In particular, with regard to actionality, it is worth trying to account for how the semantic content of the verbs affects the distribution of aspectual marks. In the following pages, I will present a short sketch of the framework within which some important questions about aspect and actionality in Ancient Greek may be approached. In particular, the distribution of imperfective and perfective aspectual markers will be examined in relation to activity and accomplishment verbs in Homeric Greek. I will focus on the role of the actional parameter of telicity. The aim of the present paper is to show that in Homeric Greek, telicity is conveyed not only by verbal, but also by nominal morphology, depending on the actional class the verb belongs to.

2

Bulgarian “possesses both a Russian-like general perfective: imperfective opposition and a Romance-like inflectional perfective: imperfective distinction confined to the past” (Lindstedt 1995: 96). Romance languages differ from Bulgarian and Russian because they “tend to relegate actional values to the background, giving prominence to temporal reference and aspect” (Bertinetto and Delfitto 2000: 210).

126

Maria Napoli

2. The Present/Aorist opposition in Ancient Greek 2.1. Previous studies As already noted in the Introduction, many scholars have discussed the question of aspect in Ancient Greek. Methodological issues concerning the vast literature on this topic have been extensively dealt with in Napoli (2006): here, I will briefly summarise some points relevant to the scope of the present study. The Greek opposition between present and aorist has generally been regarded as aspectual3. However, among scholars the terms imperfective/perfective, borrowed from Slavic grammars, are not widespread4; the choice of other labels is not only a terminological problem, but it reflects the attempt to theorize about the content of this opposition. Since Brugmann (1885) and Delbrück (1897), scholars have tended to interpret the present/aorist dichotomy in terms of durativity versus punctuality5. This terminology fails to define the nature of aspect: as will be shown in 3.1., the distinction between durativity and punctuality is semantic in nature and concerns the type of verbal action; it cannot depend on aspectual markers6. The assertion that the present is “durative” and the aorist is “punctual” or “non-durative” does not explain the function of these forms 3

4

5

6

A few scholars disagree with this claim, considering the Greek verbal system as purely “temporal”: for instance, Rijksbaron (1984) and Ruijgh (1985). In my opinion, this view is untenable, because, as is well-known, the present and the aorist do not have temporal functions at all in non-indicative moods. More recently, there has been an attempt to clarify the present/aorist alternation by means of pragmatic factors, in terms of discourse theory, as in Sicking (1996). With some exceptions: for instance, Kuryłowicz (1964: 94) and Rix (1976: 193); Schwyzer and Debrunner (1950, II: 252f.) used the terms infektiv and konfektiv, functionally equivalent to imperfective and perfective. For instance, Chantraine (1953: 183f.), Duhoux (1992: 136f.), Delaunois (1994: 188 f.), Meillet (1922: 212). Following Ruipérez (1954: 89), the present is marked for durativity, the aorist is unmarked, since it envisages an action which is sometimes punctual, sometimes simply not durative. Nevertheless, the category of aspect is not interpretable in terms of a binary opposition of marked and unmarked members: as stressed by typological studies, “for some verbs (in particular, activity verbs and stative verbs) imperfective is the conceptually unmarked member, while for other verbs (in particular, telic or event verbs), perfective is the conceptually unmarked member” (Bybee 1985: 147). Cf. Grassi (1966: 115f.), who already rejected the characterisation of the aorist as “punctual”.

Telicity as a parameter of aspect in Homeric Greek

127

in all the contexts where they are used. Significantly enough, Chantraine (1966: 44) asserted that sometimes it is impossible to find any difference in the value of present and aorist in non-indicative moods: this proves the difficulty of accounting for the relation between aspect and modality under this approach7. Moreover, it is not clear why the “non-durative” aorist can occur with durative expressions, as in the well-known type (“he ruled for fifty years”). Scholars tried to solve this problem by invoking the concept of “neutrality” or “semantic vagueness” of the aorist: since Meillet (1922: 212), the aorist has been defined as capable of denoting an action “pure et simple”8. Nevertheless, by assigning such an elusive content to the aorist, or by claiming that it has no semantic content at all, as Friedrich (1974) did9, no real explanation is provided.

2.2. Towards a new approach to aspect in Ancient Greek In the preceding section, it has been suggested that it is not correct to explain the present/aorist opposition on the basis of concepts such as durativity and punctuality. Otherwise, if we consider present and aorist in Ancient Greek as expressions of imperfective and perfective aspect, respectively, some questions about this opposition seem to be answered, which have not been settled in a satisfactory way in previous studies. For instance, the fact that the aorist may co-occur with durative expressions, as noted in 2.1., can be understood if evaluated as representative of its perfective function: cross-linguistic works have provided evidence of the fact that “duration can be explicitly asserted in sen7

8

9

On modality, see also Ruipérez (1954: 103–105), who argued that the aspectual function of present forms is “neutralised” in the subjunctive and optative for durative stems, because the durative value is already inside the semantic content of the verb. However, it remains unexplained why the aspectual function of the present should be neutralised only in these moods. Cf. also Chantraine (1953: 183) and Ruipérez (1954: 89). More recently, Duhoux (1992: 140–141) has asserted that “le ponctuel est tantôt une façon neutre d’envisager les faits, tantôt un bon moyen de minimiser [italics mine] une action verbale, présentée comme de peu d’importance, sans grandes implications”. “There is no inherent semantic feature that defines the aorist” (Friedrich 1974: 16).

128

Maria Napoli

tences with the perfective view-point” (Smith 1997: 72), i.e. in sentences where the event is viewed as global or bounded10. Moreover, the perfective aspect may have an ingressive value, i.e. it focuses on the beginning of the event, as many scholars have noted about the aorist. As regards the present, its use in Ancient Greek appears to be consistent with the cross-linguistic definition of the imperfective aspect, which “pays essential attention to the internal structure of the situation” (Comrie 1976: 16): the imperfective aspect denotes unbounded situations, without reference to a terminal point, and it may also cover specific meanings such as progressive and habitual11. In the Ancient Greek verbal system, these values are normally codified by present and imperfect forms. Moreover, it has been emphasized that the imperfect is sometimes employed in contexts involving a bounded situation, like the indicative aorist. However, this kind of use is common to the imperfective aspect of many languages, especially Romance ones: its function in such “perfective” contexts consists of not implying or denying that the action has been completed12. It is thus correct to recognize the present/aorist dichotomy in Ancient Greek as an aspectual opposition, and to claim that the present is “imperfective”, whereas the aorist is “perfective”. Nevertheless, this point needs further investigation. As has been suggested in the Introduction of this paper, the category of aspect has to be analysed by taking into account not only the morphological structures of individual languages, but also the actional parameters which operate on, and interact with, aspect itself. In previous studies on aspect in Ancient Greek, we only find generalized considerations about the tendency of

10

11

12

In the relevant literature, perfectivity has been defined in terms of totality (Comrie 1976: 16) or in terms of boundedness (Dahl 1985: 74f.). The two definitions are not incompatible: saying that the perfective aspect views a situation in its totality means that the terminal point is included, i.e. the situation referred to is a bounded one. I shall return to the use of the perfective aspect with durative adverbials in 3. On habitual as an aspectual category, see Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca (1994: 160 f.), Comrie (1976: 27f.). Comrie (1976: 113), Thieroff (1999: 155f., 2000: 280). On this subject, see also Hedin’s analysis (2000), where the use of the imperfective “pro perfective” is seen “as actually representing a basic imperfective function, common to its uses” (Hedin 2000: 228).

Telicity as a parameter of aspect in Homeric Greek

129

durative verbs to be inflected in the present more frequently than non-durative verbs13. If this assumption is correct, actionality turns out to be a constraint on the selection of aspectual markers: this is a significant claim, though by itself it does not explain the function of present and aorist forms. Most previous studies were published before the debate on actionality had begun: it must be stressed, however, that most linguists have not dealt with this type of analysis14. A systematic investigation of the actional properties of verbs in Ancient Greek may lead us to recognize some interesting generalizations about the interplay between aspectual functions and actional classes. In the next part of this paper, an example of such an investigation will be provided: I shall present a short report of an extensive survey of the interaction between aspect and actionality in Homeric Greek15; in particular, I will focus on the case of verbs corresponding to Vendlerian activities and accomplishments.

3. Defining aspect and actionality in Homeric Greek 3.1. Preliminary remarks: actionality and classification of events Before proceeding to illustrate some of the results of my analysis, a few considerations about actionality are necessary. The notion of actionality is semantic in nature: it concerns the type of action encoded by the verb. The basic idea is that verbs may be categorized into well13

14

15

So, for instance, in Chantraine (1938), who divided Homeric stems into racines duratives and racines de sens déterminé, and in Ruipérez (1954: 74), who introduced the distinction between semantemas transformativos and no-trasformativos. The criteria adopted by Chantraine and Ruipérez greatly differ from the ones adopted here; moreover, these attempts at classifying Greek verbs are not supported by enough attention to textual analysis. Some remarks on the necessity of applying it to Ancient Greek are found in Berrettoni (1976). On the contrary, Ruijgh (1985: 20–21) proposed to give it up: “de très nombreux lexèmes verbaux sont neutres quant à l’actionalité, si bien que le critère de l’actionalité n’est guère opérationnel. […] Dans le cas du grec ancien, en revanche, une telle analyse n’est guère praticable”. More recent considerations about actionality in Indo-European are found in García Ramón (2002). I shall briefly comment only on some results of my research; they are treated in detail in Napoli (2006). More precisely, the following pages represent a short version of section 2.5. and section 3.1. in Napoli (2006).

130

Maria Napoli

defined classes depending on their temporal properties. On this topic, terminology and approaches vary widely: however, as is well-known, the paper by Vendler (1957) was a landmark which has served as the basis for most later work16. Here, I shall adopt Vendler’s terminology, without taking into account more recent relabeling. For the reader’s sake, let me present the Vendlerian classification: i.e. states, activities, accomplishments and achievements. States are durative and non-dynamic; activities are durative and dynamic; accomplishments are durative, dynamic, and, unlike the first two classes, proceed towards an inherent end-point, i.e. they are telic; achievements are telic and dynamic too, but the event expressed is punctual, instantaneous. Vendler’s distinction is exemplified by the sentences in (1): (1)

a. b. c. d.

John loved her for three years [state]. John ran in the park for one hour [activity]. Mary wrote a book in two years [accomplishment]. Mary found the key in few minutes [achievement].

To sum up, actional classes have been identified with respect to the following features, dynamicity, durativity and telicity, as displayed in Table I: Verbal Classes

Dynamicity

Durativity

Telicity

States

–

+

–

Activities

+

+

–

Accomplishments

+

+

+

Achievements

+

–

+

Table I. Actional properties of Vendlerian classes

Activities, accomplishments and achievements are non-stative: they share the feature [+dynamicity]. Durativity distinguishes the first three classes from achievements. Telicity is a feature proper of accom16

Some of the most interesting contributions to the discussion about actionality are: Bache (1997), Bertinetto (1986; 1994), Bertinetto and Delfitto (2000), Dowty (1979), Filip (1999), Ramchand (1997), Smith (1997), Tatevosov (2002), Tenny (1994), Van Valin and LaPolla (1997).

Telicity as a parameter of aspect in Homeric Greek

131

plishments and achievements: they denote an event leading towards a natural goal, which delimits the event itself; when such a goal is achieved, a change is produced, leading to a new state of affairs.

3.2. Applying syntactic tests to Homeric Greek The classification of events is not based purely on semantic criteria. To distinguish actional classes, syntactic tests have been elaborated: actional properties of verbs, such as dynamicity, durativity and telicity, determine their compatibility with temporal adverbials or inflectional verbal forms. Syntactic tests check whether a particular verb is compatible, for instance, with a given temporal adverb. Generally, verbs belonging to the same class show the same syntactic behaviour cross-linguistically. I have applied syntactic tests to the Homeric corpus of verbs in order to determine their actional properties and divide them into the four Vendlerian classes. Moreover, I follow Bertinetto and Delfitto (2000), where, interestingly, the temporal adverbials investigated in English and Italian are classified according not only to their actional, but also to their aspectual properties. It is useful to extend this investigation to Ancient Greek, comparing the Homeric data with English and Italian data: such an investigation leads us to identify some peculiar aspectual constraints on the use of imperfective and perfective aspect in Homer. In the following pages, I will comment on the results obtained by this kind of analysis. In particular, I shall concentrate on three specific types of durative temporal adverbials, as they are described in Bertinetto and Delfitto (2000): Type I: durative adverbial “for X time” (It. “per X tempo”). Type II: durative adverbial “until” (It. “fino a”). Type III: durative adverbial “still” (It. “ancora”)17. 17

I give the Homeric forms corresponding to the three types: – Type I: the expressions made up of a preposition (especially , # , «, , ) and a noun like « “one year”, « “year”, “day”, « “dawn”, « “month”, “night”, « “time”, — “season” (sometimes with a numeral); the adverbs “for a long time”, “for a long time, long”, !« “for ever, continuously”, « “for nine years”, « “for nine nights”, " “for nine days”, $" “for six days”, $ « “for seven years”, “for a short time”, " “all day”, " “for how

132

Maria Napoli

3.3. Syntactic tests and actionality As claimed in the preceding paragraph, I have applied syntactic tests to the Homeric corpus in order to individuate the actional class to which a particular verb seems to belong. In my research, I have taken into account the main types of syntactic tests usually selected in studies on aspect and actionality in modern languages. Obviously, not all of them are found in Homeric Greek, or they are very limited in their occurrences: for instance, “in X time” adverbials are always assumed as a basic test to distinguish between atelic and telic verbs (see examples 1.c. and 1.d.); nevertheless, they are hardly ever used in Homer. On the contrary, durative temporal expressions of the types listed in note 17 are very widespread: analysing their occurrences, it is possible to distinguish between durative and non-durative verbs18. I shall begin with the “for X time” type and the “until” type. These adverbials are atelic, so they are normally employed with states and activities (see examples 1.a. and 1.b.). The use of such durative expressions with accomplishments is possible, but it implies a specific kind of entailment: saying, for instance, that John read the book for two hours does not entail that the book has been completely read, i.e. it cannot be said that the inherent goal of the action has been reached. So, the “for X time” type and the “until” type can have a detelicizing function with accomplishments (Bertinetto and Delfitto 2000: 195f.). The corresponding Homeric expressions normally occur with atelic verbs (i.e. states and activities). This is also true for «/« ², %«/&'«/(«, Ρφ plus a verb, meaning “until” (It. “finché”)19. Consider the following examples:

18

19

many days?”; the adjectives !« “all day long” and «/

« “all night long”; – Type II: the preposition «/« (rarely ) plus a noun; – Type III: the adverb . Durative adverbials are obviously incompatible with achievement verbs, which are non-durative; however, they can occur with such verbs in specific contexts, as will be shown by the Homeric data. Bertinetto and Delfitto (2000) do not consider such a case; however, the actional and aspectual properties of Engl. “until” plus verbs, and It. “finché”, are the same as the ones of the durative adverbials types I and II mentioned in 3.2.: see, for instance, Bertinetto (1986: 246f.).

Telicity as a parameter of aspect in Homeric Greek

(2)

133

a.

—« !φ# +« ,« . , !« # « /μ &9 “so that all night long until early dawn we may burn many fires, and their gleam may reach to heaven”. (0 508–509)

b.

κ « ! 6E « μ ' “and now the whole day long until the setting of the sun would they have made lament for Hector with shedding of tears there outside the gates”. (2 713–714)

These durative expressions are rarely attested with achievements in Homer; such occurrences are linked to two specific contextual interpretations, illustrated by (3.a.) and (3.b.): (3)

a.

# Ν , "« Ν « φ,# “so the whole night long as with one blast they beat on the flame of the pyre”. (4 217)

b.

γ« ¹ ξ + μ« « # , , # # / μ λ , . # “thus they spoke to one another, and then they lay down to sleep, for no long time, but for a little”. ( 493–494)

Clearly, in (3.a.), the focus is on the iterative character of the action; in (3.b.) the temporal adverbial delimits the duration of the result state of the action (i.e., the state of being asleep). Consider now the durative adverbial “still”: unlike the other two types, it can be combined with atelic and telic verbs both in English and Italian. However, in Homer the adverb is normally attested with states and activities, as in 207: (4)

: λ ²» ) φ« “if indeed he still lives and beholds the light of the sun”.

The adverb rarely occurs with achievements: in such cases, it assumes the meaning “again”, “another time”, and the verb is normally inflected in the aorist ( 353–355):

134 (5)

Maria Napoli

γ« φ, ² ξ λ ˙ ; # <« π> μ ' # 9 ? σ «˙ ‘« φ' μ Κ ξ’ “so I spoke, and he took the cup and drained it, he was wondrously pleased as he drank the sweet draught, and asked me for it again a second time: ‘Give me it again with a ready heart, and tell me your name’”.

3.4. Syntactic tests and aspectual constraints According to Bertinetto and Delfitto (2000: 196f.), durative adverbial types “for X time” and “until” have the same aspectual value: they are both [+ perfective]20, denoting the duration of an action or state which has been completed, as shown by examples (1.a.) and (1.b.). Consequently, these adverbials undergo significant constraints with the imperfective aspect. In Homeric Greek, they correlate both with imperfective and perfective aspect; nevertheless, they preferentially select the imperfective aspect. The Homeric state of affairs is mirrored in Table II21: Durative Expressions

% of Imperfective Aspect

Adverbial Types

Present Imperfect Present Indicative Non-Ind.

% of Perfective Aspect Aorist Indicative

Aorist Non-Ind.

“for X time”

11.30 %

45.80 %

30.50 %

6.70 %

5.70 %

“until” +noun

–

56.25 %

18.75 %

–

25 %

“until” +verb

8.92 %

37.50 %

30.38 %

8.03 %

15.17 %

Table II. Distribution of imperfective and perfective aspect with durative adverbial types in Homeric Greek

20

21

Bertinetto and Delfitto (2000) use the term “terminative” as equivalent to “perfective”. In this Table (as in the ones in section 4), for comparative purposes, the occurrences of the present indicative have been differentiated. The imperfect and the aorist indicative both refer to the past, so they are comparable; otherwise, in the temporal domain of the present, any opposition between indicative moods is neutralised, the only choice being the present indicative.

Telicity as a parameter of aspect in Homeric Greek

135

On the basis of the statistical data presented in Table II, it is selfevident that in general, the imperfective aspect is much more common than the perfective aspect. The use of the aorist both in indicative and non-indicative moods is generally connected with contexts in which the durative expression denotes the duration of the state consequent to the action expressed by the verb (which is often an achievement). An example has been given in (3.b.); see also (6), where the speaker imagines he could arrive and stay just for a short time at his father’s home ( 501): (6)

# « !« < “if only in such strength I could come, even only for an hour, to my father’s house”.

The most significant result concerns the imperfect: as clearly shown in Table II, it is widely preferred to the indicative aorist (more exactly, the adverbial type “until” followed by nouns never selects aorist stems in the indicative mood). The interesting point is that the imperfect is attested in contexts referring to a single completed action in the past, just as the aorist normally does. An example will make this point clear ( 235–242): (7)

$# Ρ κ , ,κ ²μ / Z>« φ#, C < $< D μ , # , κ ’ # ?', λ $, μ #I" ’ π, « 5I˙ /! "« $ , κ ’ φ"«. ξ « %« #A<, ) < ) ' ξ II ! « : > , μ« # ! #A« “but when Zeus, whose voice is borne afar, devised that hateful journey which loosened the knees of many a warrior, then they bade me and glorious Idomeneus to lead the ships to Ilium, nor was there any way to refuse, for the voice of the people pressed hard upon us. There for nine years we sons of the Achaeans warred, and in the tenth we sacked the city of Priam, and set out for home in our ships, and a god scattered the Achaens”.

136

Maria Napoli

In this passage, the imperfect depicts an atelic durative action linked to a single, specific occasion in the past, and continued throughout a certain period, until another action began (such a change is denoted by the aorist). Thus, the imperfect seems to have the function of denoting that the action has gone on during this period, and this is one of the peculiar imperfective functions cross-linguistically: what is crucial is that here the imperfect is employed in spite of the fact that the end-point of the action may be inferred from the context (see 2.2.). Obviously, translating such Homeric imperfects accompanied by durative expressions into English or Italian, we cannot choose the English progressive past or the Italian imperfect, because the sentences would probably sound odd or even ungrammatical; in such cases, the Homeric imperfect has to be translated as a simple past. Consider now the adverbial type “still”. First of all, a difference exists between English and Italian in this case: whereas Engl. “still” is [- perfective], the corresponding Italian adverb (“ancora”) may select both the imperfective and the perfective aspect; however, this adverb means “again, another time” with perfective tenses. The corresponding form in Homer, i.e. the adverb , occurs as illustrated in Table III: Durative Expression

% of Imperfective Aspect

% of Perfective Aspect

Adverbial Type

Present Indicative

Imperfect

Present Non-Ind.

Aorist Indicative

Aorist Non-Ind.

“still”

21.15 %

26.92 %

28.87 %

5.12 %

17.94 %

Table III. Distribution of imperfective and perfective aspect with Homeric

The Homeric adverb is mostly used with the imperfective aspect, but it allows for a perfective with the meaning “again, another time”, as already shown by example (5): thus, it has a behaviour similar to It. “ancora”. To this point, we have compared three durative temporal adverbial types in English, Italian and Homeric Greek, both from an actional and an aspectual view-point. To summarize the results of this comparison, in Table IV the Homeric data have been added to the English and Italian data drawn from Bertinetto and Delfitto (2000):

Telicity as a parameter of aspect in Homeric Greek

Durative Expressions Adverbial Types

English Actionality

Aspect

Italian Actionality

Aspect

137

Homeric Greek Actionality

Aspect

Type I “for X time” – telic + perfective – telic + perfective – telic ± perfective Type II “until”

– telic + perfective – telic + perfective – telic ± perfective

Type III “still”

± telic – perfective ± telic ± perfective ± telic ± perfective

Table IV. Actional and aspectual properties of selected English, Italian and Homeric durative adverbial types

The durative adverbials selected have the same actional properties across the three languages. On the contrary, the different behaviour of Homeric types I and II stands out clearly with regard to aspect: in English and Italian, the “for X time” type and the “until” type are regularly associated with the perfective aspect, whereas there are significant constraints on the use of the imperfective aspect; on the contrary, in Homer such forms allow both for imperfective and perfective stems, but, as shown in Table II, they preferentially correlate with the imperfective aspect. It may thus be claimed that in this respect, the Homeric state of affairs is clearly different from the English and Italian one22. Considering that such durative expressions normally take atelic verbs in Homeric Greek, it may be assumed that atelic actional values tend to be connected with the imperfective aspect. I shall examine this point more in depth, discussing the relationship between aspect and actionality with regard to activities and accomplishments.

22

From this view-point, as argued by Holvoet (1995), Homeric Greek is rather similar to Russian (and more generally, Slavic), where durative adverbials preferentially select the imperfective aspect.

138

Maria Napoli

3.5. More on the distribution of imperfective and perfective aspect in Homeric Greek In this paragraph, I shall briefly mention other restrictions connected with the distribution of imperfective and perfective aspect in Homeric Greek: they have to be taken into account in the analysis of the occurrences of actional classes, in order to differentiate between actional and aspectual constraints. With regard to the aorist, it must be stressed that this is the regular complement of numerous temporal expressions such as “before”, J “since”, “after that”,

“after that”, «/« ², %«/&'«/(«, Ρφ “until”23, denoting an action which modifies a particular state of affairs. We have just seen that the imperfective aspect (represented by the present stem) is the preferred form with durative temporal expressions. It can be added that only present stems are employed with the adverb “for ever, always”24. An important syntactic restriction involving aspect concerns the use of negative particles: aorist stems are never inflected in the imperative in the negative form (i.e., with ); as a result, in this case, the imperative present is obviously the only form that can be used. More generally, present stems appear to be accompanied by negative particles more often than the aorist25. It is also useful to point out that, as already noted in 2.2., the imperfective aspect may be linked to contexts where the action is represented as going on or habitual.

23

24

25

Such expressions may also mean “while, as long as”: in this case they are normally used with the imperfect. As noted by Armstrong (1982), in Homer this adverb occurs only once with the aorist. Similarly, in Russian the negation is mainly associated with the imperfective aspect, even if it does not exclude perfective forms (Hedin 2000: 238).

Telicity as a parameter of aspect in Homeric Greek

139

4. A case study: activity and accomplishment verbs in Homeric Greek 4.1. Activities versus Accomplishments: the influence of the direct object on telicity So far, I have shown the methodology applied to the Homeric corpus of verbs in order to distinguish between actional classes, and to check the aspectual constraints connected with the use of temporal adverbials. In the following pages, I shall concentrate on those Homeric verbs which correspond to the Vendlerian labels activities and accomplishments. In 3.1. the actional properties of activities and accomplishment verbs have been displayed. However, a crucial point is at issue now: the distinction between activity and accomplishment verbs may depend on the direct object taken by the verb. According to Vendler’s approach, actional properties are recognized only at the level of verbal lexical meaning. The first person who acknowledged that actionality may depend on the verbal phrase level was Verkuyl (1972; 1999). In particular, some durative non-stative verbs may give rise to either an atelic or a telic reading, depending on whether their direct object is a non-count noun or a count noun. Noncount nouns include nouns with a cumulative reference, i.e. mass nouns or indefinite plural nouns; count nouns include nouns with a quantified reference, i.e. singular nouns or definite plural nouns. Consider the following examples: (8)

a. b. c.

Mary wrote letters for an hour. *Mary wrote letters in an hour. Mary wrote the letter in an hour.

Syntactic tests give evidence of the fact that in (8.a.) to write is atelic (i.e. activity), while in (8.c.) the same verb is telic (i.e. accomplishment). It may thus be claimed that “accomplishment verbs which take a direct object unexpectedly behave like activities if an indefinite plural direct object or a mass-noun direct object is substituted for the definite (or indefinite singular one)” (Dowty 1979: 62)26. The addition of a quantified or definite object, which may be totally affected by the 26

On this topic see also Carlson (1981), Krifka (1989), Mittwoch (1982), Mourelatos (1981), Ramchand (1997), Sanfilippo (1995), Tenny (1994). On the mass/ count distinction see, in particular, Behrens (1995) and Corbett (2000: 78f.).

140

Maria Napoli

verbal action, bounds the event, providing a natural end-point for the verb itself. Given this assumption, it becomes clear why these verbs generally denote an atelic action if used intransitively: no overt direct object implies that the verb lacks the element which may bound the event. Consider the following examples, where to write behaves like an activity verb, as in (8.a.): (9)

a. b.

Mary wrote for an hour. *Mary wrote in an hour.

So far, I have emphasised the fact that the definiteness of the direct object may suggest a telic interpretation of the verb. However, the relevant point is that telicity is not simply a semantic property of the verb, but it may have important reflexes on the morphological structure of languages, also involving the direct object. This is not the case with either English or Romance languages like Italian and French, where the verbal morphology is not able to capture the distinction between telicity and atelicity: the telicity of an event may be encoded either by the perfective or the imperfective aspect, the difference being that the goal inherent to the verb is envisaged as attained only in the perfective aspect (Engl. he wrote a book; It. lui scrisse un libro; Fr. il a écrit un livre), while the imperfective aspect does not envisage its attainment (Engl. he was writing a book; It. lui stava scrivendo un libro; Fr. il écrivait un livre: we do not know if the book has been completed). On the other hand, the opposition between atelic and telic is overtly marked in some of the world’s languages. As demonstrated by Sanz (2000), in Spanish only accomplishments occur with the reflexive clitic se (Juan se leyó un libro “John read a book”), whereas activities do not (Juan [*se] leyó libros “John read books”): apparently, telicity displays overt syntactic consequences in the Spanish verbal system. In Finnish, if the object is marked with the accusative case, the event is telic (Matti luki kirjat [tunnissa] “Matti read the books [in an hour]”), if the object is marked with the partitive case, the event is atelic (Matti luki kirjoja [tunnin] “Matti read books [for an hour]”): in the first sentence the verb is an accomplishment, in the second the verb indicates an activity. In Georgian, telicity is encoded by the verb itself, with the result that the verb stem changes depending on the direct object: for example, the atelic form of write is c’er, the telic form adds a preverb (dac’er); the verb kill has one form if the direct object is plural (dav-

Telicity as a parameter of aspect in Homeric Greek

141

xoce “I killed them”), a suppletive form if the direct object is singular (movk’ali “I killed him”)27. One of the most striking cases concerns the Slavic languages, exemplified by Russian28. As already noted in Dahl’s typological questionnaire (Dahl 1985: 74f.), the Russian translation of the English “he wrote letters” implies the imperfective aspect (10.a.); the perfective aspect is required only if the direct object is viewed as definite, and the action has attained its terminal point (10.b. and 10.c.): (10)

a. b. c.

On pisal pis’ma “He wrote letters”. On napisal pis’ma “He wrote the letters”. On napisal pis’mo “He wrote a/the letter”.

The sentence in (10.b.) shows that the perfective napisal can never be interpreted as atelic: it corresponds to an accomplishment, just as the imperfective pisal corresponds to an activity. This was the starting point for some scholars, who have argued that the aspectual system of the Slavic languages is based on the actional parameter of telicity29. From our discussion, two generalisations follow, which will be useful for the analysis of the Homeric data: the atelic/telic opposition, depending on the properties of the direct object of the verb, may be encoded by morphological means across languages; in particular, it may be encoded by forms with a prevailing aspectual value.

27

28

29

The examples of Finnish and Georgian are drawn from Van Valin and LaPolla (1997: 90 f.; 181; 665). As already stressed, Bulgarian has a rather different aspectual system: see note 2. Cf. Bertinetto and Delfitto (2000), Dahl (2000b), Johanson (2000), Lindstedt (1995), Van Valin and LaPolla (1997). However, there is disagreement on the proper role of actionality: Bertinetto and Delfitto (2000) consider the Slavic imperfective/perfective dichotomy as an actional opposition, even if it is related to aspect; alternatively, according to Johanson (2000), the Bulgarian system could be regarded as purely actional, while in North, East and Western South Slavic languages “the aspectual values always have scope over the actional ones” (Johanson 2000: 142).

142

Maria Napoli

4.2. The interplay of number, definiteness, animacy and the present/aorist dichotomy As I have pointed out above, “some verbs, basically those of consumption or creation, behave like activities if they have a non-specific, indefinite generic or mass noun object, but they behave like accomplishments if they have a specific, quantified object which serves to delineate the action” (Van Valin and LaPolla 1997: 99). For this reason, in examining the occurrences of Homeric activities and accomplishments, I have taken into account the properties of the direct object concerning number, definiteness and animacy. First of all, in investigating the type of noun phrase involved, I have considered the type of number marking on the noun that the verb takes as its direct object. The position of the direct object in the animacy hierarchy has also been taken into account, for the reason that animacy is closely related to definiteness and number hierarchies. Nouns which are more animate are at the same time more definite: for instance, personal pronouns are by definition human and definite30. Moreover, nouns typically affected by the singular-plural distinction are nouns higher in the animacy hierarchy: “the ‘more animate’ a nominal is the more likely it is to show number” (Corbett 2000: 14–15). This implies that the distinction between mass nouns and count nouns concerns only inanimate and abstract nouns, because, obviously, nouns of higher animacy are perceived as individuals, and they are amenable to counting. With regard to definiteness, some remarks are in order here. As is well-known, Ancient Greek belongs to those languages which have only markers of definiteness: when there is no definite article, the noun phrase is indefinite. In Homeric Greek, the definite article as an independent category is not yet fully developed; consequently, in Homer the forms which unambiguously correspond to definite articles in Classical Greek, often still preserve the function of the demonstratives from which they develop. The picture, however, is neither consistent nor systematic. This means that if in Homer the “article” does not co-occur with a noun, it does not imply that the

30

On this topic see Comrie (1981: 185f.), Croft (1990: 115) and Lyons (1999: 213 f.).

Telicity as a parameter of aspect in Homeric Greek

143

noun is indefinite. This point is particularly relevant with respect to the analysis of activities and accomplishments in Homer: as I shall show in 4.4., one of the most significant results of my analysis relates to the fact that sometimes nouns seem amenable to being interpreted as definite or indefinite depending on the actional properties of the verb. Working on the relation between verb and noun phrase more in depth, it is possible to achieve a generalization not observed till now: for Homeric activities and accomplishments, the choice of present or aorist seems to be influenced by the actional parameter of telicity, i.e. the present seems to be linked to atelicity, the aorist to telicity. This means that the same verb tends to behave as an activity if inflected in the present, denoting an atelic action, and as an accomplishment if inflected in the aorist, denoting a telic action. In general, activities are inflected in the aorist only if the action is at the same time aspectually and temporally bounded: this may happen in the indicative, which functions also as a past tense, and in non-indicative moods, when temporal expressions of the type given in 3.4. are employed. As regards the imperfective aspect, accomplishments are inflected in the present when the speaker wants to present the action as habitual or as going on. Of course, in this last case, the action is detelicized, like in (K 146–147), where the imperfect of L' is used with a progressive reading: (11)

M«, λ ' = !' L<, >« #A>« = . O /# ! “Xanthus, angered because of the youths slain in battle, whom Achilles was slaughtering along the stream and did not pity”.

Nevertheless, whenever constraints of the type described do not operate in a clear-cut way, the atelic/telic dichotomy tends to correspond to the present/aorist opposition. Now, I shall examine the Homeric data more in detail, in order to provide the examples which may corroborate the hypothesis suggested here.

144

Maria Napoli

4.3. Some specific data: Homeric verbs of destruction In this section, the interaction between noun phrase type and the actional type of the verb will be dealt with in detail in relation to a specific group of verbs, i.e. verbs meaning “to kill”, “to destroy”. Before turning to a consideration of the data themselves, it is worth quoting again what has been said in 4.2.: verbs that behave as atelic or telic depending on their direct object are “basically those of consumption or creation” (Van Valin and LaPolla 1997: 99). In the Homeric corpus, the verbs belonging to the semantic field of “destruction” are quite numerous: first of all, here I present the results concerning such verbs in order to demonstrate that they are consistent with the cross-linguistic tendency indicated by Van Valin and LaPolla (1997). Consider the sample of Homeric verbs of destruction31. Table V displays their occurrences according to number distribution in the present and the aorist:

31

In this paper, the forms quoted are in the first singular person, even though they are translated into English as infinitives. The 16 verbs of this sample are: Ν, “to break, to shiver”, $L' “to treat unseemly, to injure”, $ L' “to destroy”, L' “to destroy, to divide”, '/9 ' “to cut down, to kill”, L' “to strip a slain foe of his arms; to slay, to kill”, ¹' “to sacrifice, to slaughter”, ' “to burn”, ' “to kill”, P “to kill, to destroy; to lose”, !' “to destroy”, , O “to break asunder, to shatter”, and the prefixed forms L' “to kill, to strip off”, ' “to burn”, $ ' “to kill”, ' “to kill”. As is well-known, prefixes may change the actional value of the verb, and, in particular, they may focus on completion. I will not discuss this issue here, even though it has been taken into account in the analysis of verbal forms. I have not considered the occurrences of those modal forms which are formally identical, such as present/aorist subjunctive and III person singular of the imperfect/aorist indicative of ', $ ', '.

145

Telicity as a parameter of aspect in Homeric Greek

Verbal Stem

Singular Non-Sing. Direct Direct Object Object

Sing. Obj. + Object Without Plur. Obj. Deletion any Direct Object

PRES.: Ind. (14)

9 64.30 %

4 28.40 %

–

–

1 7.30 %

Impf. (33)

3 9.10 %

22 66.70 %

2 6.00 %

3 9.10 %

3 9.10 %

Non-Ind. (52)

12 23.07 %

16 30.78 %

–

10 19.23 %

14 26.92 %

AOR.: Ind. (190)

117 61.60 %

59 31.05 %

2 1.05 %

12 6.30 %

–

Non-Ind. (159)

92 57.86 %

41 25.80 %

–

25 15.72 %

1 0.62 %

Table V. Verbs of destruction: the distribution of occurrences according to number distinction (Table V should be read as follows: Arabic numerals represent the occurrences of present and aorist forms in indicative and non-indicative moods; such occurrences have also been given as a percentage. In the first column total occurrences are given in brackets; in the other columns the occurrences are subdivided depending on the type of direct object: i.e., it is singular; it is non-singular (plural or dual); there are two direct objects, singular plus plural; there is object deletion; there is no direct object at all, i.e. the verb is used intransitively).

As shown in Table V, the selection of present and aorist seems to be influenced by the type of direct object: the imperfect is mainly used with non-singular nouns, whereas more than half of the occurrences of present forms in non-indicative moods are with non-singular nouns or without any object. With regard to the aorist, we should note, first of all, that in general it is more frequently attested than the present/imperfect; moreover, the aorist is preferentially associated with singular nouns, both in indicative and non-indicative moods. If we look at those verbs of destruction that are attested only in the aorist, the same tendency stands out (see Table XII in the Appendix). If we add the parameter of definiteness and animacy to that of number, a more detailed and insightful analysis is possible, con-

146

Maria Napoli

cerning the direct object. The results of this analysis are presented in Tables VI and VII32: SINGULAR Verbal Stem

I/II III Personal Personal Pronouns Pronouns

Proper Nouns

Human Non-Hum. Inanim. Abstract Nouns Animate Nouns Nouns Nouns

PRES.: Ind.

3

Inanim.: 1

1

1

–

3

–

–

Hum.: 1

2

–

2

–

–

1

Hum.: 1

3

2

–

3

–

5

38

3

7

30

1

(9) Impf. (5) NonInd. (12)

Adj.: 2

AOR.: Ind.

1

(116)

Hum.: 20

16

Anim.: 1 Inanim.: 1 (of city: 1)

NonInd. (91)

12

Hum.: 9

27 Adj.: 2

7

Pt.: 1 24

(of city: 1)

Table VI. Verbs of destruction and the Animacy Hierarchy (Part I)

32

The third column of Table VI, like Table XIV in the Appendix, indicates whether the referent of the personal pronoun is human (abbreviated Hum.), non-human and animate (abbreviated Anim.), or inanimate (abbreviated Inanim.); in the fourth column occurrences of city names are given in brackets. The cases in which the direct object is an adjective (abbreviated Adj.) or a participle (abbreviated Pt.) are specified.

147

Telicity as a parameter of aspect in Homeric Greek

NON-SINGULAR Verbal Stem

I/II III Personal Personal Pronouns Pronouns

Proper Nouns

Human Non-Hum. Inanim. Abstract Nouns Animate Nouns Nouns Nouns

PRES.: Ind.

–

Hum.: 1

–

1

1

1

–

–

Hum.: 6

–

3

4

5

–

(4) Impf. (19)

Inanim.: 1

NonInd.

–

Hum.: 1

–

6

3

6

–

–

Hum.: 2

1

14

8

26

–

4

8

–

(16) AOR.: Ind. (59)

Anim.: 1

Adj.: 5

Inanim.: 2 NonInd.

4

Hum.: 3 Anim.: 1

–

18 Adj.: 3

(41)

Table VI. Verbs of destruction and the Animacy Hierarchy (Part II)

Non-personal Pronouns Verbal Stem

SINGULAR

NON-SINGULAR

Animate

Inanimate

Animate

Inanimate

Ind.

–

–

–

–

Impf.

–

–

5

–

PRES.:

Non-Ind.

–

–

–

–

AOR.: Ind.

3

–

2

–

Non-Ind.

1

–

–

–

Table VII. Verbs of destruction and non-personal pronouns

148

Maria Napoli

Comparing present and aorist from Tables VI and VII, it is evident that the aorist turns out to be the regular form with those nouns whose referent is higher in the animacy hierarchy. Present stems do not frequently select pronouns, human or animate nouns, i.e. those kinds of direct objects with which the aorist is more likely to occur; moreover, in such cases, aspectual restrictions of the type illustrated above (see 2.2. and 3.5) generally occur: i.e., the action is going on (in this case the verb is almost always inflected in the participle); the action is represented as gnomic or habitual; the verb is accompanied by a negative particle, especially in the imperative. In Table VIII, singular inanimate and abstract direct objects have been subdivided into mass nouns and count nouns; non-singular direct objects have been subdivided into 4 groups: bare plurals or plurals with a determiner, a numeral, or a quantifier. Verbal Stem

Singular Direct Object (Inanim. and Abstr.)

Verbal Stem

Tot. Occ.

Mass Count Nouns Nouns

Tot. Occ.

PRES.: Ind. (3)

2

1

Impf.

–

–

Non-Ind. (3)

1

2

4

37

–

31

AOR.: Ind. (41) Non-Ind. (31)

PRES.: Ind. (3)

Non-Singular Direct Object (Proper N., Hum. N., Non-Hum. Anim. N., Inanim. N., Abstract N.) With With Deter- Numeral miner

With Quantifier

Bare Plural

–

–

2

1

Impf. (12)

2

–

1

9

Non-Ind. (15)

2

–

1

12

5

6

10 Adj.: 5

28

1

3

12 Adj.: 3

14

AOR.: Ind. (54) Non-Ind. (33)

Table VIII. Verbs of destruction: singular inanimate and abstract nouns distributed according to the mass/count distinction; non-singular nouns distributed according to the presence of a determiner, a numeral or a quantifier

Telicity as a parameter of aspect in Homeric Greek

149

As displayed in Table VIII, the aorist is never attested with mass nouns in non-indicative moods, whereas the aorist indicative occurs with them only four times. However, I shall treat the relation between aspectual stems and definiteness in more detail in 4.4., in particular with regard to mass nouns and bare plurals. So far, I have concerned myself with the total occurrences of verbs of destruction. It may be argued that in Homeric Greek, the type of direct object tends to affect the choice of the aspectual form. In languages like English or Italian, as we have seen above (4.1.), aspectual oppositions are neutralized in sentences like (12.a.) and (12.b.), where the same infinitive form is used: (12)

a.

Il soldato vuole uccidere nemici The soldier want: PRES to kill: INF enemies “The soldier wants to kill enemies”.

b.

Il soldato vuole uccidere Marco The soldier want: PRES to kill: INF Marco “The soldier wants to kill Marco”.

On the contrary, according to the statistical tendencies displayed above, in Homer we should expect to find the aorist infinitive in a sentence like (12.b.), where “uccidere” and “to kill” are telic. This is exactly the state of affairs of Homeric Greek, as I will try to demonstrate here by means of some specific examples. In the discussion, I shall be concerned primarily with non-indicative moods, i.e. with those forms which do not have temporal value: as seen above (2.1.), their interpretation has often been viewed as problematic under the traditional approach. I shall begin by discussing in greater detail a typical verb of “destruction”: ' “to kill”, rarely “to destroy”. According to the number distinction, it occurs as indicated in Table IX33:

33

This verb has three aorist forms: , , ; in Table IX they are represented by Roman numerals as (I), (II), (III), next to their respective occurrences.

150

Maria Napoli

Singular Direct Object

Non-Sing. Direct Object

Object Deletion

Without any Direct Object

2

1

–

1

Impf. (4)

–

3

–

1

Non-Ind. (12)

3

2

2

5

1(I) 18(II) 7(III)

1(I) 9(II) 2(III)

3(II) 1(III)

–

15(I) 2(III)

4(I) 1(III)

Verbal Stem PRES.: Ind. (4)

AOR.: Ind. (42) Non-Ind. (31)

– 7(I) 2(III)

Table IX. ' “to kill”

Clearly, the form mainly used with a singular noun is the aorist; moreover, it never occurs without a direct object. The present, instead, is used intransitively 7 times, as, for instance, in Q 192–193: (13)

[…] ¹ « ,, ' , « Ρ "« β! « $φ “[…] then will I grant might to Hector to slay and slay until he comes to the well-benched ships”.

In non-indicative moods, the present is used 3 times with a singular noun: in two of them it occurs in a negative sentence (K 95: S’() “do not slay me”; 37; 39: ¹ : πS« […] ’/ μ “we told him before […] that he should neither slay the man”)34, in the third in a gnomic context ( 401–402: […] μ ξ ,!« = “a dread thing is to slay one of the royal stock”); with regard to non-singular number, the present is

34

Similarly, in 400 f. the present infinitive of ' occurs in a negative sentence with a proper noun (/ ω , , !/T! “I surely would not choose to kill Telemachus”). Compare this occurrence with example (15).

Telicity as a parameter of aspect in Homeric Greek

151

inflected in the participle, with a personal pronoun (Q 755) and with a human noun (I 653), describing an on-going action. See, for example, I 651–653: (14)

,’ ¹μ II ηφ« 6E S M ' « λ "« ¹! # #A, « […] “until battle-minded Priam’s son, noble Hector, has come to the huts and ships of the Myrmidons, as he slays the Argives […]”.

The three aorist stems are always attested with a personal pronoun or a noun denoting humans or animates; see, for instance, the infinitive in 315: (15)

’ ? ’ / ) < “but if now you are passionate to kill me myself with the bronze”.

Note also that the aorist of the prefixed form ' is attested without any direct object only once (M 172): however, it is accompanied by the temporal form , which regularly selects the aorist (see 3.5.). Now, I shall briefly comment on three verbs representative of the same semantic field as ', i.e. L' “to destroy, to divide”, ¹' “to sacrifice, to slaughter”, and P “to kill, to destroy; to lose”. Considering their occurrences, two main tendencies emerge: as already noted for ', the aorist of these verbs is more frequently attested than the present with singular nouns35; the present turns out to be attested without an object, whereas the aorist is never used intransitively. Compare the use of the infinitive of L' in present and aorist:

35

Only the present of P is attested with a singular noun in non-indicative moods: it is inflected in the participle, as in the two occurrences with non-singular nouns. For the sake of brevity, I do not give the Tables with the occurrences of these three verbs; the reader is referred to Napoli (2006: 98–99).

152 (16)

Maria Napoli

a.

b.

/ . ² ωX = ' “then he sprang back again eager to slay”. (K 33) λ !, II « ¹

! , "« ,φ «, λ &E « $φ ¹ < λ 1! “come not back, I charge you, Patroclus, master of horsemen, to the hollow ships, till you have cleft man-slaying Hector’s tunic about his chest and stained it with his blood”. (II 839–841)

The present infinitive of L' occurs without an object (16.a.), focusing on Achilles’ wish to kill his enemies (it does not matter who and how many); the aorist infinitive occurs with a singular inanimate noun (16.b.), in relation to Hector’s death. With regard to non-singular nouns, it is interesting to note that the presents of ¹' and P always take bare plurals, unlike the aorist. The aorist of ¹' is attested four times with animate plural nouns plus a numeral or a quantifier; the 17 occurrences of the aorist of P in non-indicative moods are distributed as follows: 1 with a pronoun; 11 with a human noun and 2 with adjectives referring to people, always with a quantifier; only 3 with an inanimate bare plural. Examine the opposition between the present and the aorist of ¹' in (17.a.) and (17.b.), and P in (18.a.) and (18.b.): (17)

a.

¹ # « π ! ' ? , +« ¹ « λ P=« λ « ρ,«, L : ρ “instead, thronging our house day after day they slay our oxen, and sheep, and fat goats, and keep revel and drink the sparkling wine”. ( 55–57 = 534–536)

b.

Pφ / + +« λ ) < ?« ! « ¹" […] “so that we may now immediately sacrifice to you in your shrine twelve year-old heifers that have not felt the goad […]”. (Z 308–309)

Telicity as a parameter of aspect in Homeric Greek

(18)

153

a.

[…] Ρ σ « $ ’ P« 6E '

$« #A, «, Ρ κ λ > X “[…] where mighty Hector had turned back again from destroying the Argives, when night enfolded him”. (K 200–201)

b.

: T<« ' K S« « "" “if the son of Cronos has granted you to slay all the men of Troy”. (K 216)

In (17.a.) and (18.a.) the present participles of ¹' and P occur with bare plurals, whose referents are not well-specified groups, respectively, of animals and Argives; in (17.b.) the aorist subjunctive of ¹' takes a plural noun plus a numeral, in (18.b.) the aorist infinitive of P takes a plural noun plus a quantifier: clearly, such count nouns delimit the action.

4.4. More on definiteness and telicity So far, the opposition between present and aorist as the expression of atelic and telic actions, respectively, has been illustrated by focusing on verbs that belong to the semantic field of “destruction”. The following section will provide a brief description of such alternation with regard to the Homeric durative non-stative verbs of other semantic fields, which are likely to behave as activities and accomplishments36.

36

The sample is made up of 40 verbs: $,' “to gather together”, $' “to sing”, $' “to reap corn, to cut”, $!' “to count”, $!' “to work, to form by art”, ' “to plan, to deliberate”, !' “to build”, ' “to make”, ' “to cleanse, to purify”, ' “to cut down, to shear”, L' “to attend, to take care of, to carry out”, !' “to order, to arrange”, ' “to pour, to make a libation”, L' “to be in doubt, to devise”, ,' “to mix, to bring together”, !' “to pasture, to dispense”, !' “to load, to pile”, !' “to observe, to think, to apprehend”, '' “to distribute; to guide”, !' “to polish, to shave”, ] ' “to roast, to cook”, ²' “to debate, to think”, ]' “to dig up”, ' “to pour, to sprinkle”, “to fill”, ' “to drink”, !' “to make, to produce”, ' O “to sew (together)”, !L' O “to make, to act, to sacrifice”, !' “to make ready”, ' “to cut”, ' “to make, to build”, Dφ' “to weave”, φ ' “to plant”, !'

154

Maria Napoli

On these verbs I have performed the same counts that I applied to verbs of destruction. For the purpose of comparison, here I have selected three verbs that allow us to compare present and aorist for the same non-indicative moods: i.e., “to fill”, L' “to take care of, to carry out”, and ]' “to dig up”. First of all, it is relevant to compare the present and aorist of , both inflected in the imperative: (19)

a.

$’ , ! O ^ « ,!', « ’ ] « “but bring help quickly, and fill your streams with water from your springs, and rouse all your torrents”. (K 311–312)

b.

S’, Ν, ρ $φφ+ Νφ […] ’ " Ν Ϊ « “nurse, draw me off wine in jars […]. Fill twelve jars and fit them all with covers”. ( 349; 353)

In (19.a.), the present imperative is employed with an inanimate bare plural; significantly enough, one verse later, we find the aorist imperative of ]', which takes a plural noun with a quantifier. In (19.b.), the aorist imperative is used with a numeral, referred to the name for “jar”: unlike (19.a.), the quantified direct object bounds the action. With regard to the use of L' in non-indicative moods, the present stem always occurs with inanimate nouns, except once, when it takes a human noun in a gnomic context ( 73). In all the other cases it means “to carry out”, or “to attend to something”. Consider the following examples:

“to pour, to shed”, ' “to anoint with unguents”. Prefixed forms: φ L' “to make ready”, “to fill”, ' “to kindle, to set on fire”, ' “to cut out”.

Telicity as a parameter of aspect in Homeric Greek

(20)

155

a.

$# « ρ + . # / "« , ¹ ’ […] “but go to the house and busy yourself with your own tasks, the loom and the distaff […]”. (Z 490–491= 356–357= φ 350–351)

b.

λ # " 9 μ« λ φλ L, ν / + ’ !9 λ < 9 “and as for my mother, the heart in her breast wavers this way and that, whether to stay here with me and keep the house […]”. ( 73–74)

In particular, look at (20.b.). Even though L' takes a singular count noun, it is an activity verb: the action of keeping the house, intended as “to attend to the whole of women’s housework”, is clearly atelic37; interestingly, when a single, specific task concerning the house is expressed, the aorist is used: so, for instance, in 149–150 (¹ ξ < O 2 “let some of you busily sweep the hall and sprinkle it”). Now, compare the aorist subjunctive of L', which is associated with a personal pronoun, denoting a telic action ( 297–298): (21)

> ! # # $ + / , Pφ ! 9 # $ « / ""9 “whereupon do you in your turn no longer refuse the couch of the goddess, that she may set free your comrades and give you yourself attendance”.

The present stem of ]' is attested only once, without any direct object, whereas its aorist stem occurs always with singular nouns (five times). Compare the use of the present and aorist infinitives: (22)

37

a.

< ! ! , μ ! ’ "" $ , S8 λ ! “moly the gods call it, and it is hard for mortal men to dig; but the gods can do anything”. ( 305–306)

The present subjunctive of L' is used with the accusative < also in 337, with the same meaning as in (20.b.).

156

Maria Napoli

b.

! Ρ , λ , $φ’ / ) < ξ κ S » […] λ ’ Νφ . “and dig a pit of a cubit’s length this way and that, and around it pour a libation to all the dead […] and sprinkle on it white barley meal”. ( 517–518; 520)

The present is used in order to denote the action itself of digging up, without an object delimiting it; the aorist is used with the meaning “to make a hole”, i.e. as a verb of “creation”. Interestingly, the aorist infinitive ], used with a singular count noun, is accompanied by two present infinitives (S and ), whose objects are mass nouns (respectively and Νφ 38). Such examples clearly show that the same verb is atelic if inflected in the present, and telic if inflected in the aorist. Consider now the total occurrences of the 40 verbs of the sample. If we examine their distribution with regard to the animacy hierarchy, we see that the aorist is more likely than the present to occur with pronouns and human or animate nouns (see Tables XIII and XIV in the Appendix), just as for the sample of verbs of destruction. However, other statistical tendencies concerning this sample of verbs seem to confirm the hypothesis discussed here, albeit not strikingly: now I will concentrate on these data. The present stem of these verbs often occurs with singular count nouns, just as the aorist occurs with mass nouns; moreover, both present and aorist take bare plurals as direct objects, which, being non-count nouns, should be taken by atelic verbs. These results are presented in Tables X and XI:

38

The noun Νφ belongs to the Homeric group of pluralia tantum, but it is a mass noun from a semantic point of view, i.e. it corresponds to an uncountable entity. Cross-linguistically, mass nouns are often split between singular and plural (Corbett 2000: 173).

Telicity as a parameter of aspect in Homeric Greek

Verbal Stem

157

Singular Direct Object

Non Sing. Direct Object

Sing. Obj. + Plur. Obj.

Object Deletion

Without any Direct Object

PRES.: Ind. (57)

28 49.20 %

20 35.10 %

–

1 1.60 %

4 7.05 % 4 + sub.cl. 7.05 %

Impf. (152)

51 33.56 %

66 43.42 %

1 0.65 %

5 3.30 %

21 13.81 % 8 + sub.cl. 5.26 %

Non-Ind. (218)

95 43.57 %

66 30.27 %

–

–

52 23.86 % 5 + sub.cl. 2.30 %

AOR.: Ind. (365)

201 55.06 %

85 23.28 %

1 0.30 %

40 10.95 %

16 4.38 % 22 + sub.cl. 6.03 %

Non-Ind. (235)

103 43.84 %

57 24.25 %

6 2.55 %

16 6.80 %

41 17.46 % 12 + sub.cl. 5.10 %

Table X. The sample of 40 verbs: the distribution of occurrences according to number distinction

158

Maria Napoli

Verbal Stem

Singular Direct Object (Inanim. and Abstr.)

Verbal Stem

Tot. Occ.

Mass Count Nouns Nouns

Tot. Occ.

PRES.: Ind. (21)

PRES.: Ind. (16)

Non-Singular Direct Object (Proper N., Hum. N., Non-Hum. Anim. N., Inanim. N., Abstract N.) With Determiner

With Numeral

With Quantifier

Bare Plural

2

–

1

13

8

13

Impf. (47)

13

34

Impf. (52)

–

2

7 37 Adj.: 4 Adj.: 2

Non-Ind. (84)

19

65

Non-Ind. (58)

4

–

1 47 Adj.: 3 Adj.: 3

4139

65

6

6

9 Adj.: 1

9

66

2

1

3 48 Adj.: 1 Adj.: 1

AOR.: Ind. (106) Non-Ind. (75)

AOR.: Ind. (69) Non-Ind. (56)

47

Table XI. The sample of 40 verbs: singular inanimate and abstract nouns distributed according to the mass/count distinction; non-singular nouns distributed according to the presence of a determiner, a numeral, a quantifier. 39

As already claimed, apparently the behaviour mirrored in Table X and Table XI is not consistent with what has been argued above on verbs of destruction. Nevertheless, a remark is in order here which may be of some importance. In 4.2. it has been pointed out that in Homer the grammatical category of the article is not fully developed: thus, both bare singulars and bare plurals may be interpreted as definite or indefinite. This consideration is basic to the analysis of Homeric verbal occurrences, as I shall try to show below. First of all, it must be observed that singular count nouns occurring with present stems often have a generic value, i.e. their referent does not really 39

In 31 cases we find !', especially with accusatives like ρ “wine”, ^' “water”, ^ “sleep”.

Telicity as a parameter of aspect in Homeric Greek

159

correspond to a single, particular entity. An example will make the point clearer. Singular count nouns are attested 65 times with present stems in non-indicative moods (see Table XI): in half of these occurrences (36 cases) we find the participle of !' “to pour” plus the noun “tear”. Clearly, such a verbal phrase does not mean “to pour a/the tear”; it rather means “to cry”, denoting an atelic action40. On the contrary, when the aorist occurs with mass nouns or with bare plural nouns, interestingly, such nouns rarely have a generic value. One of the most significant cases concerns the imperative of '. The aorist imperative is attested only once; the present imperative is used without any direct object ( 168; φ 310) or it takes the mass noun ρ« (M 5, 340, 460, 23, 391) with a generic reading (“some wine”, “a lot of wine”)41. Compare the following passages: (23)

a.

$. > ξ + « : ρ « Ρ . . β « OE / 9 “But you now sit where you are and drink your ruddy wine, until fair-tressed Hecamede heats for you a warm bath”. (M 5–7)

b.

λ ’ ,Ω K' ' Ν, «, . λ ' !« :α OK'X, ", ρ, λ φ,« $ !’ “Then I drew near and spoke to the Cyclops, holding in my hands an ivy-wood bowl of dark wine: ‘Cyclops, here: drink wine, now that you have had your meal of human flesh’”. ( 345–347)

In (23.b.) the aorist takes the mass noun ρ«, like the present; however, unlike (23.a.), in (23.b.) the quantity of wine referred to is 40

41

The same is true for :' “to pour”, which occurs only as a present stem with the singular noun . It is also worth noting that the Homeric intransitive verbs meaning “to cry” are generally inflected in the present, while the use of the aorist is limited to the indicative (for ' and '') or to the participle (for L'); some of them completely lack the aorist (,', L', L'/ ' and !'). Here, I do not deal with those cases in which ' takes a noun marked with the genitive.

160

Maria Napoli

clearly definite: it is the goblet () that Odysseus held in his hands when he joined the Cyclops, and that he offered to him. With regard to the plural, the emphasis must be on the fact that plural nouns taken by the aorist are not usually affected by generic interpretation, even if they are not accompanied by a determiner, a numeral or a quantifier. I shall consider the following occurrence of the aorist imperative of !' ( 354–355): (24)

! Νφ % βφ! Sα : ’ ' ! φ $φ $ "« “and pour me barley meal into well-sewn skins, and let there be twenty measures of ground barley meal”.

It may be useful to mention again example (22.b.), where the present infinitive of ', whose meaning is close to the meaning of !', takes the noun Νφ too. Note that with the aorist + the quantity of flour is specified (: ! ): thus, in (24) the bare plural Νφ , taken by the aorist, refers to a quantified entity, whereas in (22.b.) the same noun, taken by the present, refers to a generic entity. Let us to return to the sample of verbs of destruction. The present stem of verbs meaning “to kill”, “to destroy” may be used with bare plurals, which usually have a generic value. An example has already been mentioned above (14). Two further cases concerning the present ' “to kill” are (25.a.) and (25.b.): (25)

a.

ξ ,’ Ν« , ’ λ &

“or you slay the men, and I will look to the horses”. (K 481)

b.

ν ¹ + φ« ’ ! ,= ) ' Q!,« λ T<« “who [sc. Athene] went before him and set there a light of deliverance, and urged him to slay Leleges and Trojans with spear of bronze”. (ϒ 95–96)

In both cases the verb concerns the murder of an indeterminate group of people: for instance, in (25.a.) Odysseus orders Diomedes to kill enemies, without indicating a specific number of men. In the following verses, we read that Diomedes S # φ (“he

Telicity as a parameter of aspect in Homeric Greek

161

fell to slaying on this side and on that”): he kills 13 men, and then Athene stops him while he is in doubt < ' 09 < $ μ μ d “whether he should rather take the lives of yet more Thracians”. This means that in (25.a.) Ν« has an indefinite and generic value, and it does not bound the action, like the nouns Q!,« and T<« in (25.b.). Compare now the aorist subjunctive of 9 ' in e 415–416: (26)

) ' ξ ,. +« Ϊ’ dX , : ’ Aλ T<« 9 "" d' 5I ¹ “for him [sc. Agamemnon] will great glory follow if the Achaeans slay the Trojans and take sacred Ilios”.

The case of the aorist 9 ' has to be interpreted differently: the context tells us that the accusative T<« alludes to the whole population of Troy: only when all Trojans are killed and their city is conquered, for the hero “will great glory follow”. I would like to concentrate now on those cases in which the speaker has a specific referent for the bare plural in mind – a group of people or things – since the referent has already been mentioned before: in such cases the aorist occurs. The following example is of particular significance, seeing that the aorist optative and the present imperative of ' are attested in the same context (K 335–338): (27)

: 4 κ P , ; $ μ T' φ.« λ & φ!, μ φ! α ξ M ’ P« ! ’ […] “but I will hurry and rouse from the sea a fierce blast that will utterly consume the Trojan dead and their battle gear spreading on the evil flame; and you along the banks of Xanthus burn up his trees […]”.

Clearly, !, taken by the present imperative S, is a generic bare plural: Hera wants Hephaestus to burn some of the trees (it does not matter which and how many) that are on the banks of the river. On the contrary, the aorist optative occurs with the accusatives φ« and , which have referential meaning; a few verses before this passage we read (K 301–302):

162 (28)

Maria Napoli

. ξ . !' L<

< λ « […]42 “and many fair weapons of young men slain in battle were floating there, along with their corpses […]”.

The action expressed by the aorist is bounded by a specific endpoint (i.e. it is telic): to burn up the corpses and weapons of the Trojans killed during the battle, floating down the river; the action expressed by the present is atelic: to burn up an indefinite number of trees. Some verses later, when the fire is described, we read (K 343–344; 348–349): (29)

< ξ ) ' + , ξ «

«, & O ’ / μ Ϊ« , ?« # #A« […] γ« », . ’ Ν «/'α “first on the plain was the fire kindled and began to burn the dead, the many dead that lay thick there, whom Achilles had slain; […] so was the whole plain dried, and the dead he utterly consumed”.

In (29) both the imperfect and the indicative aorist of ' are employed: first, the imperfect occurs, representing the action as detelicized; then, the aorist is employed to indicate that the inherent endpoint of the action has been reached (i.e., all Trojans’ corpses have been burnt). To conclude, I will quote a verse occurring three times in the Odyssey ( 488, 496, j 213)43, in which the subjunctive of the aorist has a bare plural as its direct object: (30)

42

43

: # D # , μ« "9 "« $, « “if a god shall subdue the lordly suitors to me”.

The noun ! « “corpses” is substituted by the noun φ« “heads” in K 336 (see ex. 27): φ« obviously functions as a synecdoche, in order to indicate the Trojans killed. The three instances are identical, except for the dative of the personal pronoun, which is instead than in 496.

Telicity as a parameter of aspect in Homeric Greek

163

It is obvious that the "« referred to are the men courting Odysseus’ wife: they have been mentioned at the beginning of the Odyssey ( 90–91) and then in many other passages of the poem. All these examples have demonstrated that bare plurals are often specific or referential with the aorist, i.e. they do not possess a generic value: it means that they have to be considered as definite plurals. This observation also suggests that in Homeric Greek, lacking the grammatical category of the article, which usually encodes the property of definiteness across languages, this property may be conveyed by verbal morphology, and in particular by aspect.

5. Conclusions In the present paper, I have attempted to investigate the dichotomy between present and aorist in Ancient Greek, interpreted as purely aspectual by traditional approaches, considering its interaction with the category of actionality. In particular, Homeric data have been analysed within the theoretical framework provided in these fields by studies in general linguistics and typology. Homeric verbs have been divided into Vendler’s actional classes according to their semantic properties and their compatibility with syntactic tests; moreover, syntactic constraints concerning the selection of imperfective and perfective aspect have been specified. I have been concerned primarily with the class of durative nonstative verbs: cross-linguistically, such verbs behave like activities if used with a non-count noun, denoting an atelic action; they behave like accomplishments if used with a count noun, denoting a telic action. This means that the actional type of the verb is linked to the noun phrase type. Moreover, the distinction between atelic and telic actions, involving the direct object, may be conveyed by morphology across languages. Working on this hypothesis with regard to Homeric Greek, the properties of noun phrases which may determine a telic interpretation of the verb, such as number, definiteness and animacy, have been taken into account in the analysis of the present/aorist opposition. This type of investigation has provided evidence of the fact that in Homer, telicity is a relevant parameter for the selection of the present or aorist of durative non-stative verbs. Direct objects which are singu-

164

Maria Napoli

lar or whose referent is higher in the definiteness and/or animacy hierarchies, show the statistical tendency to occur with the aorist, suggesting a telic reading of the event; otherwise, direct objects whose referent is indefinite, generic, non-quantified, are more likely to occur with the present. Present stems are often used without any direct object, and they turn out to be the regular forms with those durative temporal expressions that normally select atelic verbs. An important result of this study is that, following this approach, it has become possible to account for the opposition between present and aorist in non-indicative moods, which had often been regarded as problematic in previous works on aspect in Ancient Greek. As I have tried to demonstrate, it is clearly understandable if actional parameters such as telicity are taken into account. The distinction between activities and accomplishments, i.e. between atelic and telic events, seems to have morphological reflexes in Homeric Greek. From this perspective, the Homeric verbal system is probably comparable to the verbal system of those languages, such as Slavic, where the atelic/telic distinction, characteristic of the actional domain, is marked by morphological means. On this topic, many issues should be dealt with which cannot be treated here: however, in my opinion, this method of investigation, combining both aspectual and actional parameters, and the contrastive analysis of the data of ancient and modern languages may achieve significant results.

165

Telicity as a parameter of aspect in Homeric Greek Appendix Verbal Stem

Singular Direct Object

Non-Sing. Direct Object

Object Deletion

Without any Direct Object

AOR.: Ind.

75

24

10

–

(109)

68.80 %

22.01 %

9.19 %

Non-Ind.

38

9

6

(53)

71.70 %

16.70 %

11.60 %

–

Table XII. Verbs of destruction (only aorist stems): the distribution of occurrences according to number distinction (The verbs are: “to overpower, to subdue”, φ “to kill”, “to burn; to blow out”, “to destroy, to sack”, $ “to kill; to lose”, ! φ “to kill”, ! /! “to destroy utterly, to sack”, /! “to destroy utterly, to sack”, ! “to cut up”). Non-personal Pronouns Verbal Stem

SINGULAR

NON-SINGULAR

Animate

Inanimate

Animate

Inanimate

PRES.: Ind.

–

3

–

2

Impf.

–

1

–

1

Non-Ind.

–

3

–

6

AOR.: Ind. Non-Ind.

2 2

26 11

– –

7 2

Table XIII. The sample of 40 verbs and non-personal pronouns

166

Maria Napoli

SINGULAR Proper Human Non-Hum. Inanim. Abstract Nouns Nouns Nouns Nouns Animate Nouns

I/II Personal Pronouns

III Personal Pronouns

1

Hum.: 1 Inanim.: 2

–

–

–

21

–

Impf. (51)

1

Hum.: 1 Inanim.: 2

–

–

–

47

–

Non-Ind (92)

1

Inanim.: 2

–

4

1

83

1

2

Hum.: 32 Inanim.: 16

10

7

–

104 Pt.: 1

2

6

Hum.: 3 Anim.: 3

1

6 Pt.: 1

–

71 Pt.: 1

4

Verbal Stem PRES.: Ind. (25)

AOR.: Ind. (174) Non-Ind. (96)

NON-SINGULAR Verbal Stem

I/II Personal Pronouns

III Personal Pronouns

–

Inanim.: 2

–

–

–

16

–

Impf. (66)

–

Hum.: 2 Inanim.: 12

1

1

–

41 Adj.: 6

3

Non-Ind. (60)

–

Inanim.: 2

–

2

–

50 Adj.: 6

–

1

Hum.: 6 Anim.: 1 Inanim.: 2

–

8

6

53 Adj.: 1

1

–

Hum.: 1 Inanim.: 3

–

3

3

48 Adj.: 2 Pt.: 1

–

PRES.: Ind. (18)

AOR.: Ind. (79) Non-Ind. (61)

Proper Human Non-Hum. Inanim. Abstract Nouns Nouns Animate Nouns Nouns Nouns

Table XIV. The sample of 40 verbs and the Animacy Hierarchy

Telicity as a parameter of aspect in Homeric Greek

167

References Armstrong, D., 1981, The Ancient Greek aorist as the aspect of countable action. In: Tedeschi and Zaenen (eds.), 1981: 1–12. Bache, C., 1997, The Study of Aspect, Tense and Action. Frankfurt am Main. Bache, C., Basbøll, H., Lindberg, H. (eds.), 1994, Tense, Aspect and Action. Empirical and Theoretical Contributions to Language Typology. Berlin, New York. Behrens, L., 1995, Categorizing between lexicon and grammar. The MASS/ COUNT distinction in a cross-linguistic perspective. Lexicology 1, 1: 1–112. Berrettoni, P., 1976, Per un’analisi del rapporto tra significato lessicale e aspetto in greco antico. Studi e Saggi linguistici 16: 207–236. Bertinetto, P. M., 1986, Tempo, Aspetto e Azione nel verbo italiano. Firenze. Bertinetto, P. M., 1994, Temporal reference, aspect and actionality: their neutralization and interactions. In: Bache, Basbøll and Lindberg (eds.), 1994: 113–137. Bertinetto, P. M. and Delfitto, D., 2000, Aspect vs. actionality: why they should be kept apart. In: Dahl (ed.), 2000a: 189–226. Bertinetto, P. M., Bianchi, V., Dahl, Ö and Squartini, M. (eds.), 1995, Temporal Reference, Aspect and Actionality. Torino. Botne, R., 2003, To die across languages: toward a typology of achievement verbs. Linguistic Typology 7, 2: 233–278. Brugmann, K., 1885, Griechische Grammatik. München. Bybee, J., 1985, Morphology. A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam, Philadelphia. Bybee, J. and Dahl, Ö., 1989, The creation of tense and aspect system in the languages of the world. Studies in Language 13, 1: 51–103. Bybee, J., Perkins, R. and Pagliuca, W., 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago, London. Carlson, L., 1981, Aspect and quantification. In: Tedeschi and Zaenen (eds.), 1981: 31–64. Chantraine, P., 1938, Remarques sur les rapports entre les modes et les aspects en grec. Bullettin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 40: 69–79. Chantraine, P., 1953, Grammaire Homérique, II. Paris. Chantraine, P., 1966, Questions de syntaxe grecque. I. Encore en AklAZ. II. Remarques sur l’emploi des thèmes de présent et de l’aoriste. Revue de Philologie 40: 37–45. Comrie, B., 1976, Aspect: an Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. London, New York. Comrie, B., 1981, Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Syntax and Morphology. Oxford. Corbett, G. C., 2000, Number. Cambridge. Croft, W., 1990, Typology and Universals. Oxford. Curtius, G., 1846, Die Bildung der Tempora und Modi im Griechischen und Lateinischen sprachvergleichend dargestellt. Berlin. Dahl, Ö., 1985, Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford, New York. Dahl, Ö. (ed.), 2000a, Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe. Berlin.

168

Maria Napoli

Dahl, Ö., 2000b, The tense-aspect system of European languages in a typological perspective. In: Dahl (ed.), 2000a: 3–25. Delaunois, M., 1994, L’aoriste en grec classique: mises au point et réflexions. Cahiers de l’Institut de Linguistique de Louvain 20, 3–4: 185–199. Delbrück, B., 1897, Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen, vol. II. Strassburg. Dowty, D. R., 1979, Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht. Duhoux, Y., 1992, Le verbe grec ancien. Louvain-La-Neuve. Filip, H., 1999, Aspect, Eventuality Types and Nominal Reference. New York, London. Friedrich, P., 1974, On aspect theory and Homeric aspect. International Journal of American Linguistics 40, Memoir 28: 1–44. García Ramón, J. L., 2002, Zu Verbalcharakter, morphologischer Aktionsart und Aspekt in der indogermanischen Rekonstruktion. In: Hettrich, H. (ed.), 2002, Indogermanische Syntax. Fragen und Perspektiven. Wiesbaden: 105–136. Grassi, C., 1966, Problemi di sintassi latina. Consecutio temporum e aspetto nel verbo latino. Firenze. Hedin, E., 2000, The type-referring function of the imperfective. In: Dahl (ed.), 2000a: 228–264. Holvoet, A., 1995, Jerzy Kuryłowicz on verbal aspect. In: Smoczyn´ski, W. (ed.), 1995, Kuryłowicz Memorial Volume. Cracow: 19–24. Johanson, L., 2000, Viewpoint operators in European languages. In: Dahl (ed.), 2000a: 27–188. Krifka, M., 1989, Nominalreferenz, Zeitkonstitution, Aspekt, Aktionsart: Eine semantische Erklärung ihrer Interaktion. In: Abraham, W. and Janssen, T. (eds.), 1989, Tempus – Aspekt – Modus. Tübingen: 227–258. Kuryłowicz, J., 1964, The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg. Lindstedt, J., 1995, Understanding perfectivity – understanding bounds. In: Bertinetto, Bianchi, Dahl, Squartini (eds.), 1995, vol. 2: 95–103. Lyons, C., 1999, Definiteness. Cambridge. Meillet, A., 1922, Introduction à l’étude comparative des langues indo-européennes. Paris. Mittwoch, A., 1982, On the difference between eating and eating something: activities versus accomplishments. Linguistic Inquiry 13, 1: 113–122. Mourelatos, A., 1981, Events, processes, and states. In: Tedeschi and Zaenen (eds.), 1981: 191–212. Napoli, M., 2003, Tempo, Aspetto e Aktionsart nel greco di Omero: funzioni del presente e dell’aoristo. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pisa. Napoli, M., 2006, Aspect and Actionality in Homeric Greek. A Contrastive Analysis. Milano. Ramchand, G. C., 1997, Aspect and Predication: the Semantics of Argument Structure. Oxford. Rijksbaron, A., 1984, The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek. Amsterdam. Risch, E., 1937, Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache. Berlin, Leipzig. Rix, H., 1976, Historische Grammatik des Griechischen. Darmstadt.

Telicity as a parameter of aspect in Homeric Greek

169

Ruijgh, C. J., 1985, L’emploi ‘inceptif’ du thème du présent du verbe grec. Mnemosyne 38: 1–61. Ruipérez, M. S., 1954, Estructura del sistema de aspectos y tiempos del verbo griego antiguo. Salamanca. Sanfilippo, A., 1995, Thematic affectedness and aspect compositionality. In: Bertinetto, Bianchi, Dahl, Squartini (eds.), 1995, vol. 2: 179–193. Sanz, M., 2000, Events and Predications. A new Approach to Syntactic Processing in English and Spanish. Amsterdam, Philadelphia. Schwyzer, E. and Debrunner, A., 1950, Griechische Grammatik. München. Sicking, C. M. J., 1996, Aspect choice. Time reference and discourse function. In: Sicking, C. M. J. and Stork, P. (eds.), 1996, Two Studies in the Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek. Leiden, New York, Köln: 3–118. Smith, C., 1997, The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht. Tatevosov, S. 2002, The parameter of actionality. Linguistic Typology 6, 3: 317–401. Tedeschi, P. J. and Zaenen, A. (eds.), 1981, Syntax and Semantics 14. Tense and Aspect. New York. Tenny, C. L., 1994, Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Dordrecht. Thieroff, R., 1999, Preterites and imperfects in the languages of Europe. In: Abraham, W. and Kulikov, L. (eds.), 1999, Tense-aspect, Transitivity and Causativity. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 141–162. Thieroff, R., 2000, On the areal distribution of tense-aspect categories in Europe. In: Dahl (ed.), 2000a: 265–305. Van Valin, R. D. and LaPolla, R. J., 1997, Syntax. Cambridge. Vendler, Z., 1957, Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review 56: 143–160. Verkuyl, H. J., 1972, On the Compositional Nature of the Aspect. Dordrecht. Verkuyl, H. J., 1999, Aspectual Issues: Studies on Time and Quantity. California.

Texts Homer, The Iliad, with an English Translation by A. T. Murray, 1954, revised by W. F. Wyatt, 1999. Cambridge. Homer, The Odyssey, with an English Translation by A. T. Murray, 1919, revised by G. E. Dimock, 1995. Cambridge.

Dipartimento di Linguistica Università di Pisa via Santa Maria 36 I-56126 P i s a Italy [email protected]

Maria Napoli

170

Adolfo Zavaroni

Le formule votive retiche del tipo XIVIXI (iu ii): esempi di cognazione lessicale fra retico-camuno e germanico 1. Non cifre, ma lettere Il 29 luglio 2004, durante il Campo Archeologico organizzato dal Dipartimento Valcamonica e Lombardia del Centro Camuno di Studi Preistorici, in località Verdi presso Foppe di Nadro, vennero alla luce alcune scritte filiformi in alfabeto camuno: la serie alfabetica r s t u ,1 la parola usi e, circa un metro più a destra, con grafi molto più grandi (7–8 cm.), sottili ma nitidi, la sequenza sinistrorsa XIVIXII. Molte iscrizioni camune sono nomi ed epiteti delle vicine divinità rappresentate o si riferiscono ad esse. Ma XIVIXII non può essere il nome di una divinità, sebbene la Roccia 2 sia ricca di figure, la più vicina delle quali, a circa 50 cm., è un cervo. Siccome le figure sulla roccia alludono a funzioni, attributi ed aspetti di divinità (Zavaroni 2006, 2007), è presumibile che anche la scritta XIVIXII abbia un carattere sacro. D’altra parte la sua forma richiama immediatamente varie scritte votive retiche ed in particolare l’identico gruppo XIVIXII graffito su una ciotola trovata a Kurtatsch-Cortaccia, a sud di Bolzano-Bozen. Le scritte retiche simili a XIVIXII di più sicura lettura sono le seguenti:2

1

2

I grafi, alti un centimetro circa, sono simili a quelli degli alfabetari trovati sulla Roccia 24 di Foppe di Nadro (circa 400 metri in linea d’aria più a monte), che pubblicai (Zavaroni 2005), correggendo molte letture di Tibiletti Bruno 1992. Altri segni erano certamente incisi davanti e dietro la serie suddetta, ma il riconoscervi dei grafi sembra un’impresa disperata, anche con l’uso di macrofotografie. Sull’alfabeto camuno vedi anche Zavaroni 2005b. IR abbrevia Mancini 1975, SZ- e VN- si riferiscono alle scritte su oggetti votivi provenienti rispettivamente da Sanzeno e dal Ganglegg presso Schluderns (Vinschgau-Valle Venosta), secondo la classificazione geografica di Schumacher 2004, in cui è menzionata anche HU-1 (unbekannter Herkunft).

Indogermanische Forschungen, 112. Band 2007

DOI 10.1515/IDGF.2007.009

Le formule votive retiche del tipo XIVIXI (iu ii)

VXI IXI (IR 43, 44, 49) IIVXIII (SZ-70) IIXII (IR 48, BZ-12) IIIIV 9IIII (IR 53) IIIIXIv (VN-5, VN-6)

VXI la (IR 45)3 IXI VXI (HU-1) IXIV (IR 46, 47) IIIII 9I ? (IR 51) IIIIXI (VN-11)

171

VXII (IR 50); IXII (SZ-71); XIV (IR 69) XIV IXI.I XIV 0III (IR 82) IXIXI (Mayr 1954)

Mancini (1975: 275) considera le iscrizioni citate sigle o numeri; Schumacher (2004: 115–116, passim) le riporta con la dicitura “Schriftcharakter nicht sicher”. Un esame accurato di molte presunte sigle, per la maggior parte incise su oggetti votivi, è compiuto da Sebesta (2002) che, elaborando utili tavole, confronta i segni retici ed i loro raggruppamenti con quelli delle sigle di Bologna (VII–VI secolo a. C.) e di Marzabotto (dalla fine del VI agli inizi del IV secolo a.C.) su materiale etrusco. Rinvio al lavoro di Sebesta (2002: 141) per ciò che concerne la datazione di alcuni scritte retiche al VI–V secolo a.C. e la probabile diffusione dei grafi da Bologna al territorio retico. Circa la funzione delle sequenze di segni, mantenendo prudentemente aperte varie possibilità, Sebesta (2002: 133) osserva: “… per comparazione, nulla ci vieta di ipotizzare che segnature e genericamente sigle possano riferirsi a messaggi relativi ad un momento della trafila vasaio-abitazione dell’acquirente o del ricevente-santuario o cimitero. Perciò una parte di esse potrebbe contenere informazioni allusive a strutture grafiche votive.” Siccome la maggior parte dei gruppi di segni in questione è formata da X, V e I, si è diffusa l’idea che essi siano delle cifre di tipo etrusco o romano, ma l’analisi complessiva delle loro disposizioni mostra che non c’è una logica numerica simile a quella di numerazioni note. E comunque, l’ipotesi che le sequenze sopra elencate siano cifre numeriche non è più sostenibile dopo la scoperta della scritta XIVIXII su una roccia della Valcamonica. Conseguentemente, dobbiamo eliminare anche l’ipotesi che esse si riferiscano ad un momento della produzione degli oggetti su cui esse sono incise. L’unica prospettiva ermeneutica valida è che si tratti di formule votive e augurali. La scritta VXI IXI è incisa su tre oggetti di ferro, due dei quali sono uguali. Infatti essa è leggibile in senso destrorso anche su uno scalpello, nonostante i dubbi di Schumacher (2004: 144, SZ-50) il quale

3

L’abbreviazione la, che figura anche sulla faccia opposta degli oggetti di ferro su cui sono scritte IR 43 e 44, è cassata mediante due piccole linee.

172

Adolfo Zavaroni

considera la seconda X “nicht lesbar”. In IR 43 la sequenza è più precisamente VXI x IXI: in mezzo c’è una piccola croce di Sant’Andrea che funge da divisore di parole. Sarebbe dunque statisticamente sorprendente che due numeri uguali (VXI e IXI) fossero incisi su tre oggetti, uno dei quali del tutto diverso. D’altra parte, una semplice constatazione dovrebbe fugare ogni perplessità. Si legge la sequenza XIVXI (= iu i) nel mezzo dell’iscrizione BZ-4 su piede di vaso bronzeo da Siebeneich-Settequerce, mentre nell’iscrizione retica della paletta di Padova appare il termine uiku che funge da participio passato passivo come uiku = upiku, eluku e come alcuni termini etruschi in -ku, -cu (Zavaroni 2004: 117–119). Quindi VXI, da trascrivere come ui, è probabilmente un tema verbale. Non si può, però, esserne certi, perché il sistema verbale retico, come quello etrusco e camuno, è estremamente semplificato, senza coniugazione personale e basato semplicemente sull’antitesi presente / passato.4 È quindi difficile capire quali termini fungono da verbi, specialmente se non esistono forme di preterito in -e (attivo), -ke (passivo)5 e di participio passato passivo in -ku. Inoltre, è presumibile che anche in retico, come in etrusco (cfr. anche l’inglese ordierno), alcuni termini fungano da sostantivo in alcune iscrizioni e da verbo in altre. A favore della tesi che i termini ui e ii siano in rapporto sintagmatico, c’è anche il fatto che in HU-1 le loro posizioni sono scambiate: abbiamo ii ui invece di ui ii. Dunque, possiamo presumere che 1) in retico esistessero brevi parole come i, iu, ii, i, i, ui etc.; 2) gli scribi le associassero per formare sequenze con un certo effetto sia sonoro (per via delle allitterazioni) sia visivo (per via delle associazioni grafiche); 3) le sequenze fossero comunque dotate di un senso religioso (ciò che più interessava ai devoti utenti).

4

5

I tentativi di individuare altri tempi, modi e coniugazioni varie risultano spesso inattendibili. Tali sono, a mio avviso, anche le presunte novità di Wylin 2000. Un punto di vista misurato che prende le distanze dalle tesi di Wylin è espresso da Belfiore 2001. I due morfemi del preterito -ke e -e hanno una funzione inversa rispetto a quella dell’etrusco (Zavaroni 2004: 114–116).

Le formule votive retiche del tipo XIVIXI (iu ii)

173

2. Etr. ret. i, ret. *u- < *auLa breve parola i è attestata anche in etrusco: ovviamente, nessuno ha mai ritenuto i una cifra, dato che in etrusco il suono /th/ è solitamente espresso da un segno diverso da X.6 L’etimologia che propongo è la seguente:7 etr. ret. i [thi] sarebbe la contrazione di *˘ıhi, da una base *˘ıh- < ie. *tek- ‘reichen, die Hand ausstrecken’ che trasla sia a ‘empfangen, erlangen’ sia a ‘bitten’ (IEW 1057–58; aisl. piggja, asx. thiggian ‘annehmen, erhalten’, aisl. pægr ¯ ‘angenehm’, aat. dicken, diggen ‘worum bitten’ etc.; air. techtaim ‘io ho’, bret. tizaff ‘accolgo, ricevo’ etc.). È da notare che lat. accepta significa anche ‘lotto di terreno assegnato’: il traslato semantico “(pars) accepta” > “pezzo di terreno” potrebbe essere passato in latino dall’etrusco. L’analisi testuale mostra, a mio avviso, che nel Cippo di Perugia il probabile plurale ii designa degli appezzamenti di terreno che sono oggetto di una lite giudiziaria. Un comma del documento è interpretabile facilmente: aules´i . velinas´ arznal clensi . ii . il s´cuna . cenu eplc. felic larals´ afunes´ clen unule

6

7

8

Auli Velthinae Arzna nati acceptas acceptus (vel: accepte?) inspector8 gnovit et opus et pretium a Larth Afuna libenter statuta sunt.

Si veda tuttavia X = in uno dei cippi di Rubiera. L’opposizione X : T = [th] : [t] in etrusco è stata accuratamente illustrata da Cristofani (1977) con specifico riferimento all’iscrizione venetica di Lozzo e all’alfabeto venetico successivo. Per la tesi secondo cui il camuno, il retico e l’etrusco, fra loro strettamente imparentati, avevano la struttura di una lingua franca, tipica di popoli originariamente dediti al nomadismo, ai commerci su lunghe distanze e anche, presumibilmente, alla pirateria ed al brigantaggio, si veda Zavaroni 2006b. Questa lingua franca, il cui sistema verbale era estremamente semplificato, aveva acquisito molte radici indoeuropee dai popoli contattati qualche secolo prima che la scrittura fosse usata dagli Etruschi, cioè prima dell’VIII–VII secolo a.C. Poiché quasi per definizione il lessico di una lingua franca è costituito da imprestiti, la comparazione con le radici indoeuropee è per me imprescindibile, anche se il cosiddetto metodo etimologico è ricusato dagli etruscologi attuali. Nella comparazione, però, occorre tenere presente che l’acquisizione delle radici indoeuropee avvenne con una Lautverschiebung di cui vari esempi sono presentati in Zavaroni 2006b. Suppongo che scuna, qui come in altre iscrizioni, sia un ispettore (cfr. aisl. skyn ‘Einsicht’, skynia ‘untersuchen’, da *(s)kew- “beobachten, schauen”, IEW 587). Per l’analisi di tutto il comma vedi Zavaroni 2005c.

174

Adolfo Zavaroni

Probabilmente il, qui ed in una proposizione successiva, è un avverbio o aggettivo avente la radice di i (il < *ihil) e significante ‘acceptus‘o ‘accepte’. Nel Liber linteus Zagrabiensis9 il senso di i è, a mio avviso, ‘acceptio (sacrorum), gradimento (da parte del dio)’,10 cioè identico a quello che attribuisco a i delle iscrizioni retiche. Questa ipotesi etimologica sembra avere dei riscontri nel termine retico ii dell’iscrizione sinistrorsa IR 19 = SZ 6 (Fig. 1) incisa su un bronzetto a forma di cavallino senza zampe. La parola ii è seguita dalla sequenza II 1II, incisa meno profondamente, e poi da una legatura quadrupla che presumo si debba risolvere come VXVX = u u o uu (ho sottolineato le lettere in legatura). Anche per questa sequenza possiamo escludere una funzione numerica, perché essa è simile al gruppo di segni = uu u inciso nella grotta dello Schneidjoch (Steinberg, Austria), dove si leggono altre iscrizioni retiche (Zavaroni 2003: 62–63). In retico un gruppo di tre aste III ha, come grafo, il valore alfabetico , ma le due aste II non costituiscono un grafo come avviene nelle iscrizioni camune, dove due linee comunque orientate ed anche di lunghezza diversa (//, | /, II) denotano . Quindi ipotizzo che nella sequenza II 1II i due gruppi II abbiano la funzione di separare 1 che non è una vera legatura, ma una sovrapposizione di grafi. Il valore del segno 1 è probabilmente diverso da quello di 9., la cui soluzione come i è abbastanza intuitiva. In 9 la i è incisa sotto il punto mediano della croce di Sant’Andrea sia per accelerare il lavoro d’incisione sia per ottenere una simmetria ottica ed una crittografia che dovevano essere stilisticamente apprezzate. Il segno 9 si trova isolato su tre oggetti votivi retici (IR 17, IR 18; HU-5) ed anche sul Sasso Rosso del Passo di Giau (sul quale vedi § 5). Il valore di 9 = i è accertabile, perché questo segno si trova anche nelle scritte iu e ih. Anche quando è isolato, però, 9 = i (< *ihi) ha un senso compiuto, perché vale ‘acceptio, cosa gradita (al dio)’. Si ha 9 II mel II “acceptionem molior, aspiro al gradimento” su un cavallino di bronzo di Sanzeno (IR 20). Al segno 1 si potrebbero assegnare i valori i, i ed ii a seconda che l’asta mediana sia considerata una i anteriore o posteriore a X oppure l’insieme di due i, una sopra (> davanti) e l’altra sotto (> dietro) 9

10

A mio avviso, il Liber linteus Zagrabiensis contiene istruzioni sulla conduzione del haruspicium in vari giorni dell’anno (Zavaroni 1996: 225–280). Per questo senso di acceptio cfr. Arnob. 7, 12.

Le formule votive retiche del tipo XIVIXI (iu ii)

175

Fig. 1. ii g i g u u

il punto di incrocio. La possibilità della lettura i (con l’asta mediana = i) sembrerebbe confermata dal fatto che la lettura della legatura può essere soltanto uiu; tuttavia, considero il valore 1 = ii come il più plausibile per i motivi che menzionerò più sotto. Nella sequenza di Fig. 1 l’incisore avrebbe scelto parole idonee a creare effetti di simmetria, forse per accrescere “esteticamente” l’impressione di potere “magico” che i sacerdoti-scribi, custodi del sapere rituale, tendevano ad ostentare. Globalmente leggo: ii II 1II u u. A favore della ripetizione u u invece di un unico termine uu c’è il fatto che u sembra isolabile nella scritta uu u della grotta dello Schneidjoch (Austria) e sul manico di una situla di Sanzeno (uiu u inu: vedi oltre). Inoltre, u è leggibile in alcuni gruppi di segni del Sasso Rosso del Passo Giau. Presumibilmente u ha la radice del verbo ui / uiku e ne è l’imperativo attivo, costituito dal solo radicale. La radice potrebbe essere *h2 ewh1- ‘preferire, desiderare, augurarsi; favorire’ di lat. aveo, avidus, audeo,11 gallico avi- e Avites, del prefisso aisl. aud-, aing. eade, asx. odo, aat. odo accanto ad aat. odi etc. ‘Bequem, leicht’, aind. utí-hﬂ ‘giovamento; aiuto’ (IEW 77, de Vries 1962: 18). Ovviamente *u- riflette un precedente *au-- che rimane nei termini retici auu e aupile. Come in etrusco, anche in retico ed in camuno termini in cui il dittongo è ancora aperto (au) sussistono insieme a termini in cui è avvenuta la monottongazione (u [o]). L’etymon proposto è forse più plausibile, se si ricorda che in retico è attestato anche un isolato ave (IR 41 su lamina metallica), che presumibilmente denota la richiesta di favore (‘sii benevolo’) al dio destinatario dell’offerta. Tornando alla scritta di Fig. 1, l’individuazione dei verbi è problematica, come in molte altre iscrizioni retiche ed etrusche. Verbi pos11

Lat. audere ¯ non significa solo ‘osare, cimentarsi’, ma anche ‘consentire, permettere, gradire’.

176

Adolfo Zavaroni

sono essere ii e u. Alcuni termini etruschi che terminano in - (acil, nunen, trin, cave, unu, ra, hes) sono interpretabili come imperativi passivi,12 mentre il solo tema (rin, ra, nunen etc.) può fungere da imperativo o esortativo attivo, oltreché da presente indicativo. Dunque, teoricamente ii potrebbe valere ‘sia gradito, -a, sia accettato, -a’ e u ‘sia (o: sii) favorevole’: il soggetto di ii sarebbe il bronzetto votivo; il soggetto di u potrebbe essere o il bronzetto votivo o anche il dio a cui esso è offerto. Nell’iscrizione di Fig. 1 il segno 1, che sembra inciso con un utensile più fine, fu probabimente scritto da solo ed in seguito furono aggiunti gli altri segni. A favore dell’ipotesi secondo cui 1 vale ii c’è il fatto che questo termine compare da solo o associato ad ui in altre iscrizioni. Su tre oggetti votivi la sequenza di segni è traslitterabile come ui ii ed in un quarto oggetto la sequenza è ii ui: quindi anche l’imperativo u di IR 19 (Fig. 1) potrebbe avere ii come oggetto. Il segno 1 è presente anche nell’iscrizione dello Schneidjoch ST-4, di cui proposi la traslitterazione apile1aikinuale > apile ii akinuale,13 pensando che occorresse un verbo per l’agentivo in -ale. Ma il verbo non è strettamente necessario: se poniamo 1 = ii e supponiamo che sia il soggetto ed aile il suo attributo, l’agentivo non necessita strettamente di un verbo, anche perché l’agentivo in retico ed etrusco è una forma aggettivale in -ale del nome da cui proviene l’azione. Occorre, comunque, correggere aikinuale in ailinuale. Il grafo lacunoso molto probabilmente è l e non k, perché ailinu è un derivato di aile. Sciogliendo la legatura 1 come ii, possiamo leggere: apile ii ailinuale. Un indizio a favore della soluzione 1 = ii è dato dal fatto che questa parola è scritta poco sopra, a sinistra (Zavaroni 2003: 61), mentre in un cerchietto tracciato sopra la prima a di ailinuale si legge ID in caratteri latini.14 Sul mutamento > d torneremo più avanti. Il termine aile può essere un aggettivo derivato da *a- (cfr. auile da *au-). Esso può essere comparato con etr. aelis e

12

13

14

Per vari autori (Pallottino 1936: 54–55; Vetter 1937: 31, n.; Pfiffig 1969, 137–138; ecc.) il suffisso di questo imperativo è non solo -, -t(i), ma anche -i e -t(i). Ma a mio avviso -i e -t(i) non possono denotare un imperativo. Zavaroni 2003: 55. Migliorando un poco la lettura di precedenti autori e la propria, Schumacher 2004: 352 legge at3ile t2at2ivnuale. Si legge ID anche poco più sopra.

Le formule votive retiche del tipo XIVIXI (iu ii)

177

aumic (= aumit), aemeica, aeneica a cui attribuisco i sensi ‘favore, benevolenza’ e ‘benevolente, favorevole’, ipotizzando il passaggio semantico ‘paterno, familiare’> ‘benevolente, amichevole’ che si ha anche in lat. familiaris ed in paternus, patrocinans > fautor, protector. Etr. a-el-is ed *a-um- avrebbero la radice di aing. œdelu, asx. adali, aat. adal, edili ecc. ‘edles Geschlecht’: mi sembra valida la vecchia tesi secondo cui essi derivano dalla base *at- di *atos, *atta ‘Vater, Mutter’.15 Siccome ii è interpretabile (vedi oltre) come ‘fervore’, il senso di apile ii ailinuale potrebbe essere “generosus fervor Athilinalis”, dove Athilinalis, derivato di apile, significa ‘da parte di quello (figlio di? della gens di?) Nobile’. L’iscrizione ii g ii g u u sul bronzetto di Fig. 1 sarebbe così traducibile: “accipito fervor (devoti) fave fave”.16 Si potrebbe leggere ii l’iscrizione (destrorsa?) su un piede di vaso di provenienza ignota che Mancini (IR 70) e Schumacher (2004: 198) leggono ia (sinistrorso) oppure ai (destrorso). In effetti la linea mediana della presunta a interseca l’asta obliqua sinistra, formando una croce di Sant’Andrea con i bracci superiori corti.

3. Probabile corrispondenza fra ret. cam. ii ed anord. *idData l’esistenza di uiku (participio passato in -ku), è probabile che nelle formule ui ii = ii ui il termine ui abbia una funzione verbale. Il senso del verbo ui < *o-i- < *audh-i- sarebbe, come si è visto sopra, ‘essere propizio, favorire’. Quindi ii sarebbe un sostantivo. Supponendo che anche ii derivi da una radice indoeuropea acquisita dal proto-etrusco (da cui derivano anche il retico ed il camuno-euganeo) e applicando la Lautverschiebung a cui l’etrusco-retico-camuno sottopose le radici indoeuropee (Zavaroni 2006b), la comparazione più immediata è quella con con aisl. id, íd, idja 1 ‘Arbeit, Verrichtung’,

15

16

Per una rapida discussione delle più note ipotesi etimologiche di aat. atal etc. vedi EWAhd I 43–48. Si confronti questa invocazione con la seguente dedica a Poeninus (CIL V 6876, San Bernardo): C(aius) Iul(ius) Rufus Poenino v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito) / at tua templa lbens vota suscepta perei / accepta ut tibi sint numen adoro tuum / inpensis(!) non mana quidem te sancte precamur / maiorem sa(e)culo nostrum ani<m=N>um accipias.

178

Adolfo Zavaroni

idja 2 ‘sich mit etwas befassen, arbeiten’, idinn ‘eifrig’, aing. idig ‘fleissig’. La loro etimologia è però dubbia (de Vries 1962: 282–283). A mio avviso, l’ipotesi più attendibile è quella proposta da Wood (1914: 500), secondo cui la loro radice sarebbe *h2 eidh- ‘ardere, infiammare, risplendere’: il senso ‘ardere’ riferito alle sensazioni ed all’attività umana avrebbe metaforicamente indicato anche ‘agitazione, stimolo, travaglio, passione, fervore operoso’ e simili (cfr. lat. aestus e fervor). Secondo de Vries (1962: 283), il nome Idavöllr dell’abitazione degli dèi, potrebbe derivare da *h2 eidh- e significare ‘das glänzende Gefilde’. Dunque, accettando tale comparazione, possiamo ricondurre ii a h2 eidh- (se ii) o al grado ridotto *h2 idh- (se ôi), attribuendogli il senso ‘fervore, passione (espresso/-a con l’offerta dell’oggetto’). Insomma, ii qualificherebbe l’offerta come “atto di calore (religioso)”. Non è però accertabile se ii è il soggetto o l’oggetto di ui ‘favere’. Se esso fosse il soggetto, potremmo intendere “fervor favet” (divinam benevolentiam). Si ii fosse l’oggetto, allora il soggetto più probabile sarebbe il dio a cui l’oggetto è donato: “(deus) fervorem favet”. Il derivato iiu (IXIV in IR 46 e 47) definirebbe l’oggetto votivo come ‘concernente il fervore (religioso)’. La sola parola ui ‘aude(a)t, fave(a)t’ è presente in IR 45. In IR 69 il gruppo VXI è preceduto e seguito da due linee verticali (IIVXIII) che a mio avviso non sono grafi, ma segni di delimitazione: quindi leggerei llVXI ll = :ui:. Analogamente in IR 50 il gruppo VXI è seguito da un’altra linea verticale che pare che fungere da segno di chiusura (VXII > VXIl = ui:) qui come in altri casi che saranno esaminati più sotto. Non è certo che ui sia sempre un verbo: anche alcune parole etrusche fungono ora da verbi ora da sostantivi: comunque, ui esprimerebbe una richiesta di favore del dio propiziato dall’offerta. La differenza fra u e ui consisterebbe nel fatto che u è un imperativoesortativo e ui un presente indicativo-congiuntivo. Allora uu sarebbe un sostantivo o aggettivo; ma è difficile chiarire se uu u significa “faustus fave” o “favorem fave”. La forma dittongata *auu appare isolata su un manico di situla ed anche in questo caso è difficile scegliere fra faustus e favor. Un indizio a favore di faustus si trova sul Sasso Rosso di Giau dove due gruppi di segni vicini si possono sciogliere come uu aa (Fig. 9a): molto probabilmente aa vale ‘padre, nutritore’ e forse è riferita ad un dio. La parola ii racchiusa fra due aste verticali (IIXII) si trova in IR 48 e su un lato della chiave BZ-12 proveniente da Pfatten, sull’altro lato

Le formule votive retiche del tipo XIVIXI (iu ii)

179

della quale c’è la dedica pali s´upri(x?) al dio S´upri (Vulcano).17 In SZ-71 (IXII) c’è solo l’asta di chiusura. Se ora torniamo alla scritta camuna XIVIXII sulla roccia di VerdiFoppe di Nadro, dobbiamo preliminarmente supporre che l’ultima asta deve essere un segno di chiusura come nelle iscrizioni retiche menzionate sopra. In camuno due aste parallele (II) costituirebbero uno dei grafi denotanti [k], ma la lettura iu ik con il gruppo k alla fine di una parola sarebbe improbabile. In retico, d’altronde, il grafo II non esiste. In conclusione, l’unica lettura plausibile è quella sinistrorsa XIVIXII = iu ii l. Questa scritta appare identica sul fondo di una tazza trovata presso Kurtatsch-Cortaccia (Bozen-Bolzano). Sull’arco opposto della tazza c’è la sequenza XIV 0III, dove il segno 0 è formato da una linea sottile ed un poco obliqua inserita nella parte superiore della X. Ponendo 0 = 9 = i, tutta la sequenza XIV 9III si leggerebbe come iu ih. Infatti, come si è detto sopra, il gruppo III in retico denota come in alcune iscrizioni camune e venetiche.18 In iu ih, il lemma ih sarebbe una variante grafica di i,19 dalla radice ie. *tek- di germ. *pig- ‘accipere’ (vedi ii nel § 2). Anche iu (< *ihu) deriverebbe da *tek- e definirebbe l’offerta come ‘acceptum, cosa approvata, gradita’. È da ricordare che anche in etrusco forme in -u come mulu ‘dedicato’ e lupu ‘morto’ fungono da participi passati. In iu ii il verbo mancherebbe: dovremmo interpretare la formula come “acceptus fervor (sit)”. Una tale interpretazione sarebbe idonea anche per l’iscrizione iu ii della roccia di Verdi-Foppe di Nadro, le cui figurazioni sono rappresentazioni simboliche di divinità e di attributi divini che certamente erano dedicate agli dèi stessi. Su un frammento di corno di cervo del Museo Civico di Merano sono incise due iscrizioni (IR 103): a) lavisie lavise alu; b) XIVp = iu up, dove up è una variante fonematica o grafica di u ‘fave’. Quindi iu up significherebbe “acceptum fave, il beneficio approva”. Un peso da telaio trovato presso St. Lorenzen (Pustertal) è di forma quadrata (Mayr 1954). Su due facce opposte sono incisi rispettiva-

17 18 19

Su s´upri (da *steup- ‘picchiare, battere’) vedi Zavaroni 2004b: 248–252. Per il venetico vedi Fogolari – Prosdocimi 1988: 321. Il termine i è individuabile anche nell’iscrizione della Tomba delle Iscrizioni di Tarquinia (530–500 a.C.), ma il testo, essendo una inscriptio continua, è di difficile interpretazione.

180

Adolfo Zavaroni

Fig. 2. Iscrizione su manico di situla (uiu u inu?)

mente i segni IXI e IXIXI. La seconda serie è divisibile in i ii “fervet fervor” piuttosto che in ii i. La seconda suddivisione sarebbe accettabile se si sapesse che i è una riduzione recenziore del verbo ih per scomparsa di h finale. Su un manico di situla proveniente da Sanzeno è tracciata una sequenza di segni (Fig. 2) che Mancini (IR 52) rinuncia a traslitterare, mentre Schumacher (2004: 145) la definisce con la formula “Schriftcharakter nicht sicher”. Supponendo che il primo e l’ultimo trattino verticale servano a delimitare l’iscrizione, possiamo traslitterare la sequenza come | uiu u inu |. Probabilmente prima del trattino verticale di chiusura c’è una legatura fra una n ed una u. Potremmo leggere sia inu sia iun, ma le analoghe legature della grotta dello Schneidjoch (Steinberg), che certamente si devono leggere mu e nu (Zavaroni 2003: 49–50), mi inducono a preferire inu. D’altronde un ipotetico *iun < *ihun da *ih< *tek- sarebbe un sinonimo di inu. Infatti inu è riconducibile alla radice delle forme verbali inae, pinake e pine a cui ho attribuito il senso ‘tenere, ricevere’< ‘trarre a sé, tirare, indurre’ di lat. teneo, umbro tenitu, da *ten- ‘(sich) dehnen, ziehen, spannen’ (Zavaroni 2004: 113). Supponendo che uiu significhi ‘favorevole’ (riferito il dio), l’iscrizione uiu u inu è così interpretabile: “faustus fave, (donum) tene”. Ovviamente, si tratterebbe di una preghiera alla divinità a cui l’offerta è dedicata. La legatura = uiu è incisa sulla superficie ottenuta resecando longitudinalmente un corno votivo (Sebesta 2002: 143). Inoltre essa è preceduta da n per dare la parole nuiu su una tazza da Dercolo (Fig. 7). Si è visto sopra che etr. il è probabilmente un aggettivo avente la radice di i. Un suo corrispondente retico è pil nell’iscrizione pil uli di un frammento di osso da Sanzeno (IR 31): lo scambio p = è attestato dal fatto che anche *pin- equivale a *in-. Siccome il senso attribuibile a pil sarebbe simile a quello di iu, la formula pil uli potrebbe esprimere un concetto analogo a quello di iu ii “acceptus fervor (sit)”. In effetti uli è riconducibile al grado zero della radice *welH- ‘(sich) wälzen, wallen, sieden’ come got. wulan ‘sieden’, aisl. ylja ‘wärmen’,

Le formule votive retiche del tipo XIVIXI (iu ii)

181

ylr ‘(Lebens)wärme, warmes Gefühl’, olmr ‘wütend’ (cfr. aat. walm ‘Wallung, Inbrunst’). I teonimi U(2)l, Ulai, Uleu, Uló, O2lau, Tiu Ulu appaiono in alcune iscrizioni camune. Siccome U(2)l, Uló e probabilmente Tiu Ulu sono associati ad un’ascia,20 che è notoriamente un simbolo di morte incombente, mentre Ulai è il nome di un dio con la doppia ascia, in precedenti lavori (vedi ad esempio Zavaroni 2006: 136) ho privilegiato l’ipotesi che essi derivino da *ol(e)- < *h3 elh1 - ‘vernichten; verhängnisvoll’ (IEW 777; LIV 298). Essi indicherebbero il grande dio ambivalente, distruttore e creatore, che presiede ai cicli universali. Ma ora, data la presenza di ret. uli in una probabile formula votiva, non escludo che Ulai significhi ‘quello del calore’, anche perché sopra il nome c’ l’iscrizione21 uelu eaio mi elu “volumen aetherium (vel flagrans) ego cieo”. Ad eaio attribuisco la radice di etr. Eausva = Iavus¸va (§ 6), cioè quella di ret. cam. ii ‘fervor’. L’interpretazione delle formule con ii sembra confermata anche dall’iscrizione su corno votivo da Serso (Pellegrini – Sebesta 1965: 8–9) ] ansum navia hur “deorum desiderium ardet” o “deorum cupidus ardeo”: per hur ‘ardere’ cfr. aisl. hyrr ‘feuer’, got. hauri ‘kohle’, aing. here ‘kleiner ofen’, lit. kuriù, kurti ‘heize’ etc.; navia è riconducibile ad ie. *naw- ‘Zwang, Not, Verlangen’ (IEW 405). Sul frammento di un altro corno da Serso si legge ]avia hur. Prima di a “il Sebesta ha letto abbastanza chiaramente i due trattini che si intersecano in alto” e che sarebbero quelli di una n (Pellegrini – Sebesta 1965: 14); per Mancini (1975: 294) “n iniziale è una congettura: possibile e più probabile m”. Anche ponendo [ansu]m avia hur e comparando avia con lat. aveo, avidus e gallico Avitus, Avites, avremmo “deorum aviditas ardet” o “deorum avidus ardeo”.

20

21

Tiu deriva da ie. *deiwo- ‘luce, giorno, dio’ come il teonimo germanico *teiwaz ´ r, aat. Ziu, Zio e come il tema etrusco *tiu- “luce” > > aing. Tiw, Tig, anord. Ty “luna” (Zavaroni 2006: 137). Sulle pareti del sepolcro dei Tiu (Chiusi; CIE 1299–1304) sono dipinti il sole e la luna. Correggo la precedente lettura kelu (Zavaroni 2006: 137) in elu: una delle aste del presunto k è in realtà il manico di un maglio rappresentato sulla parte finale della scritta. Del verbo elu (da *h1elh2- ‘treiben, in Bewegung setzen’, LIV 235, IEW 306–307) è attestato anche il participio passato eluku nelle iscrizioni retiche IR 27 e IR 29.

182

Adolfo Zavaroni

4. Formule votive retiche contenenti ih Essendo III = h, il gruppo IIII è leggibile come ih ed equivale ad i che sembra fungere da verbo.22 Ad esempio, la sequenza IIIIXIv (VN-5, VN-6) si legge ih iv, mentre IIIIXI (VN-11) si legge ih i. La radice di ih = i non è definibile con certezza a causa della brevità e struttura dei pochi testi. Ponendo i (lungo?) < ei come in ii, sembrano teoricamente possibili 1) *Heyk’- ‘sich aneignen’ > germ. *eig(LIV 223; IEW 298) e 2) *Heygˆh-/Higˆh- ‘begehren, wünschen’ (LIV 222). L’analogia con le iscrizioni contenenti i temi verbali *ih-, *ined *e(n)pe- esprimenti ‘accettazione’ mi induce ad optare provvisoriamente per ih ‘tene, appropriati’ (imperativo-esortativo). La formula ih i ‘tene, accipe‘ sarebbe un’esortazione al dio affinché consideri sua l’offerta.23 Più problematica è l’interpretazione di IIIIXIv a causa delle incertezze su iv. Siccome in nessuna iscrizione retica v denota [u], non possiamo traslitterarlo come ih iu. Non essendo attestata, è improbabile anche una consonantizzazione di u simile a quella che appare in alcuni termini etruschi (vedi eterau > eterav; trau > trav, tiurs > tivrs ed il cognomen ivcle di CIE 5456). Si potrebbe ipotizzare la caduta di e finale dopo v (*ihive > *iv) come nei preteriti attivi etruschi eprnev, macstrev, eisnev e presumibilmente anche in ret. epeav. Ma la presenza di un preterito con un imperativo od un presente ih sarebbe inspiegabile. L’unica possibilità è che anche iv sia un verbo esortativo: ancora una volta è il germanico che offre una comparazione pertinente: cfr. got. piup ‘das Gute’, piupjan ‘segnen’ ecc. a cui è attribuita la radice *tew- ‘aufmerken, schützen, favere’ (IEW 1079–80, Lehmann 1986: P45). Avremmo: ih iv “tene, tuere”. Il verbo i = ih può essere associato anche a i ed a iu che definiscono l’oggetto votivo come “cosa gradita, acceptum”, sempre che i non sia uno sviluppo recenziore di ih. Ad esempio si legge i i “tene acceptum” in direzione destrorsa su un frammento di manico di situla (IR 35). 22

23

In etrusco i è attestato come avverbio, a volte connesso con congiunzioni temporali (i nac, etnam i). Però il lemma iu della lamella di piombo di Heba potrebbe avere laradice di ret. i = ih. La formula ih i è scritta in senso destrorso e quindi opposto alla scritta lumene · a presente sulla stessa faccia di un osso appuntito (VN-11).

Le formule votive retiche del tipo XIVIXI (iu ii)

183

Su un frammento di verga di bronzo (IR 71) sono incisi i segni I I IIXIIX IIII Leggendo da destra a sinistra, abbiamo una prima sequenza IIIIXI = ih i “tene acceptum”. L’unica ipotesi che dà senso ai restanti segni è che essi formino un’iscrizione uguale alla precedente, ma scritta in senso opposto per simmetria: dovremmo leggere di nuovo ih i in senso destrorso, anche se le distanze fra le asti verticali sono irregolari. Su uno dei lati di un pesce di bronzo da Sanzeno (Fig. 4) c’è l’iscrizione sinistrorsa epeav 9IIIII IXIIII. Sull’altro lato è scritto (æ) laspa irima pina/e // i (o i) (f) kas´ikanu. Siccome i o i è staccato dalle altre parole, il senso del suo ductus è dubbio: potrebbe essere o una parola a sé stante come i in PU-1 = IR 99 oppure essere sintatticamente connesso con la parola successiva (e allora dovremmo leggere i). Come in due iscrizioni votive di Magré (Schumacher 2004: 163, MA-8, MA-11), anche qui il preterito attivo pinae = inae non è accompagnato da alcun termine con morfema di obliquità. Se ne desume che le altre parole sono il soggetto e l’oggetto del verbo. Come si è visto nel § 3, il tema pina- = ina- sembra avere la griglia semantica di lat. tenere. Si legge soltanto pine su una piccola zappa votiva di Sanzeno (IR 32): forse si tratta di una esortazione (`accetta, ricevi, tieni”) equivalente a ih. Quindi laspa irima pina/e è così traducibile: „Laspa l’offerta ha accettato”. Laspa è un teonimo (da *las- ‘gierig’, IEW 654); irima è da *bher- ‘tragen, bringen’ come la forma sincopata rima di IR 15: cfr. gr. e aksl. br˘eme˛. Il vocalismo i è presente anche in air. biru = lat. fero e brith (acc. dat.) ‘das Tragen’. Interpretando (i)rima come ‘offerta’, le iscrizioni IR 15, su un bronzetto a forma di granchio, sono così interpretabili: A) rima remi(e) vispeanu “oblationem contulit Vispekhanus”; B) aria remi “Charicha confert”. La scritta remina sul manico di un simpulum è interpretabile come ‘stips’. Siccome etr. Remzna < *rem--na è tradotto con lat. Pontius nei titoli funerari CIE 1075–78 ed è quindi riconducibile ad ie. *h1 rem- ‘ruhen, sich aufstützen, stützen’, è probabile che anche il retico avesse acquisito questa radice, sottoponendola al passaggio semantico ‘sostegno’ > ‘offerta’ (cfr. lat. arc. tulo, ven. toler e lat. stips da stipo). Sul lato A del bronzetto di Fig. 3, forse la parola epeav fu aggiunta dopo che erano state scritte le sequenze I 9IIIII e IXIIIII, nelle quali la prima e l’ultima asta potrebbero denotare la delimitazione delle parole. Se così fosse, dovremmo leggere l 9IIII l = ·i ih· ‘acceptum tene’ e

184

Adolfo Zavaroni

Fig. 3. epeav·i i· ·i·

Fig. 4. enpetake iu aau

l XIIII l

= ·i· ‘accipe’. Lo spazio ristretto indusse l’incisore che voleva scrivere epeav ad utilizzare come asta verticale del v l’asta di inizio del gruppo I 9IIIII. Teoricamente la sequenza finale IXIIIII si potrebbe traslitterare come ii ih ‘fervorem tene’: potrebbe essere una preghiera alla divinità, affinché apprezzi il fervore del devoto. Poiché è attestato il participio passato passivo enpeake, epeav < e(n)peave può essere un preterito attivo. Il tema sarebbe enpea-, dalla radice con labiale prenasalizzata *Hxemp- che si sviluppò in *h1 em- e *h1 ep- di lat. emo ed apiscor, coepi, apruss. imt, lit. imù, pret. e˙miau, ˜ imti ˜ ‘nehmen’etc.) (IEW 310–311). Ret. *e(n)pea- sembra un tema verbale rideterminato su un participio *empeo- (come lat. accepto, habito, haesito ecc.) corrispondente ad ie. *em(p)to-: quindi potrebbe essere un sinonimo di i-. Nell’iscrizione di Fig. 4 (IR 28) leggo enpeake iu aau. Forse anche su questo bronzetto c’era inizialmente solo una breve iscrizione, cioè 9 = i o 9V = iu (o il). Poi fu scritto enpeake, utilizzando un’asta obliqua del preesistente X per l’e finale. Se il participio passato passivo enpeake è un sinonimo di iu, esso fu scritto per ribadire il concetto che l’offerta era stata ricevuta dal dio. La parola aau (pure u è in legatura) appare anche sulla placca di cinturone da St. Lorenzen (Pustertal) dove si legge: 1) anel zuries.kala heprus´ia hil / klunurus;24 24

Rinvio ad un altro momento la discussione di questa iscrizione che a mio avviso è così interpretabile: “la flessibile atta-a-sostenere cintura (è) la (prova di) venerazione di Klunthur”.

Le formule votive retiche del tipo XIVIXI (iu ii)

Fig. 5: ih ui ih

185

Fig. 6: ih aa ?

2) aau (al centro); 3) i (presso il lato sinistro). Ad aau attribuisco la radice di etr. au = Medicus: nel sepolcro della famiglia Achonia di Perugia, il cognomen Medicus dei titoli latini traduce etr. Au, Aunie (Zavaroni 1996: 63–64). La radice di au è *yek- di gr. Ν « ‘remedium, Heilmittel’, cimr. iach ‘gesund’, air. hicc ‘Heilung’ etc. (IEW 504). Quindi traduco enpeake iu aau come “sumptum est acceptum remedium”. Su una tazza di Sanzeno sono incisi tre gruppi di segni (IR 53); ma uno di essi, se è grafico, è difficile da traslitterare, mentre un altro gruppo (Fig. 5) si può traslitterare come IIIIV 9IIII = ih ui ih “tene fave tene”. Il secondo ih richiede un commento. Dopo avere tracciato le prime due aste, lo scriba si è accorto che non c’era più spazio sufficiente per le altre due, perché sarebbe andato ad interferire parzialmente con i solchi decorativi successivi. Quindi ha tracciato più in basso ed in obliquo le rimanenti due aste ed ha unito con una linea i tre tratti formanti h. Su un’altra tazza di Sanzeno (IR 51) la lettura dopo ih è incerta (Fig. 6). L’ipotesi più probabile è che la breve linea convergente con uno dei bracci di X sia la linea mediana di una a in legatura con X. Avremmo: i aa.

5. Legature particolari L’uso delle legature in altre iscrizioni conferma che anche le sequenze di segni viste sopra sono grafiche e non numeriche. In Fig. 7 è riprodotta l’iscrizione su una tazza ombilicata trovata a Dercolo (Val di Non: IR 76). La terza parola è certamente nuiu : n precede la legatura uiu. La legature uiu si trova anche sulla faccia di un corno votivo di Magré (Sebesta 2002: 143, Fig. 4.5). Nuiu richiama la parola cam. nuu, che

186

Adolfo Zavaroni

Fig. 7: sis pual nuiu (æ)

Fig. 8. puali \\ (æ)

sulla roccia 50 di Naquane (Valcamonica) regge il genitivo di vari nomi divini ed è riconducibile alla radice *neudh- di aat. niot ‘Begierde’, aing. neod, nied, asx. niud ‘Wunsch, Sehnsucht, Eifer’ etc. La parola sis di Fig. 7 è scritta anche su un corno di verbo sotto una riga lacunosa in cui si legge ]rima piamn[ (IR 87). Potremmo integrare il tutto e interpretarlo come [(i)]rima piamn[es] / sis “oblatio Pithamni pro suis (?)”. Probabilmente sis equivale a ssiis ‘per i suoi’ dell’iscrizione venetico-retica di Làgole che sarà commentata al §. 7. Che in Fig. 7 il secondo gruppo di segni si possa leggere pual 25 sembra confermato dal fatto che anche la legatura di Fig. 8 – incisa sulla tazza di Sanzeno su cui si legge pure ih ui ih – sembra potersi sciogliere come puali. In Fig. 8, dopo il p iniziale,26 c’è una u del tipo ad y capovolto e poi la legatura -al : l finale si sovrapporrebbe al trattino interno di a. Seguono tre aste con opposte inclinazioni: la prima potrebbe denotare i e le altre due la fine dell’iscrizione. Su pual(i) si potrebbero proporre solo labili congetture. Vari segni che possono essere interpretati come legature sono incisi sul Sasso Rosso del Passo Giau, sasso che forse in età antica era usato

25 26

Il secondo è ottenuto con un trattino che interseca un’asta del primo eta. Il grafo

si distingue da perché ha l’uncino rivolto in senso contrario al ductus.

Le formule votive retiche del tipo XIVIXI (iu ii)

187

Fig. 9. Legature: sul Sasso Rosso (a) e su ossi ciaslir di Monte Ozol (b, c, d, e)

come altare.27 Alcuni gruppi sono simili alle legature viste sopra per u e i; altri sono complessi ed il loro scioglimento è incerto. I due gruppi più chiari sono riprodotti in Fig. 9.a. In senso sinistrorso essi sono leggibili come uu ‘faustus, fautor’ e aa ‘pater’ (gli a sono capovolti). Data la loro prossimità, uu potrebbe essere un attributo di aa, qui riferito ad un dio: cfr. gli epiteti divini camuni selp-appa ‘Buon-padre’e selpa alaiala ‘Buon nutritore’, dove *seld- è riconducibile (Zavaroni 2006: 127–128) ad ie. *sel- ‘buono, benevolo’ (IEW 900) di got. sels ‘gütig’, aisl. sœll ‘glücklich’, aing. sel, selra < *soliza ‘besser’, aing. sœld, as. salda, ags. ‘Glück’, aat. salida ‘Güte, Heil, Glück’. In Fig. 9.b,c,d,e sono riprodotti i gruppi di segni incisi su alcuni astragali od ossi provenienti dal Monte Ozol.28 In b) si legge ih, verticalmente sul lato sinistro e si può leggere pi con il segno F = p asimmetrico, seguito da i e da 4 = . Su quest’ultimo segno sono incise tre piccole aste che forse alludono all’equivalenza = h. La parola iu è leggibile da sinistra a destra in c) sopra due segni che possono denotare idi = ii, mentre in d) dopo iu potrebbe essere scritto uli con i sul prolungamento di un’asta di X = . 6. I nomi divini Ido, Ida ed il mutamento > d > d Durante il Campo Archeologico 2004 fu scoperta anche l’iscrizione Ido > OM su una piccola roccia situata a circa 70 metri da quella su cui si legge iu ii. L’iscrizione, in caratteri latini con un tratto incerto, mostra la scarsa familiarità con la grafica latina. Inoltre, il grafo D ( ) sembra la legatura di un D orizzontale con la croce di Sant’Andrea X, 27 28

Ho usufruito delle fotografie mostratemi dall’amico Daniele Petito. Per i segni di Fig. 9.b,c,d,e vedi Perini 1999, figg. 23, 24 e Sebesta 2002: 153, fig. 8b.

188

Adolfo Zavaroni

come se lo scriba avesse voluto adattare la nuova lettera alla vecchia equivalente.29 Attribuendogli la radice di ret. ii, possiamo supporre che Ido indichi un dio del calore, del fuoco, dello splendore. Il dio Colpitore, che era certamente uno dei puù venerati in Valcamonica con il nome S´upeu, Zupu, Zupeu, Zaupau (da *steu-b- o *steu-p- ‘stoßen, schlagen’30), è assimilabile al Vulcano romano, poiché a volte è rappresentato con una fiamma in mano e anche come un fuoco dotato di armi (Zavaroni 2004b: 248-256). È probabile che il nome latinizzato Ido seguito da OM = Optimus Maximus si riferisca al dio del fuoco. Com’è noto, secondo Giulio Cesare i Germani adoravano soltanto Vulcano, Sole e Luna. Ciò sembra sorprendente, perché nell’Edda di Snorri e nell’Edda poetica una divinità del fuoco sembra a prima vista assente.31 Tuttavia, in alcune zone della Germania romana e anche della Gallia ci sono indizi che attestano l’importanza del dio del fuoco. Per esempio, alcuni monumenti (cfr. CIL XIII 6098, 6331, 6395) sono dedicati a I.O.M, ma si vede Vulcano invece di Giove fra le divinità rappresentate. Come il gallico Sucellos ‘Buon Colpitore’, anche il dio Colpitore camuno poteva essere identificato con il Giove romano per certe funzioni ed inoltre, essendo anche un Creatore, era il riproduttore della vita. Infatti la scritta Ido OM è associata a delle coppelle che simbolizzano il potere di fecondazione universale. Il nome IDA, scritto in caratteri latini alti circa 13 centimetri con una picchiettatura accurata, si legge sulla Roccia N. 6 di Luine (Valcamonica). Le altre quattordici iscrizioni della roccia sono in caratteri camuni. Anche la scritta IDA è associata a delle coppelle simbolizzanti il potere di fecondazione: due di esse coincidono con le estremità della lettera I. Inoltre, la figura più vicina, a sinistra, è un grande “phallos con le gambe”, figura disegnata non solo su alcune rocce della Valcamonica, ma anche nelle più antiche incisioni rupestri scandinave. Sulla sinistra, una linea congiunge il phallos con la parola kinpe che fa parte dell’iscrizione bustrofedica hohlu2 / kinpe incisa in parte dentro ed in parte fuori un grande cerchio. Applicando le regole

29

30

31

Il D orizzontale è raro, ma esiste anche in altre iscrizioni dell’Italia settentrionale. Per il passaggio ie. [st] > etr. cam. ret. [ts] e [s’s] in età arcaica vedi Zavaroni 2001 e successivi. In verità una delle ipostasi del Vulcano germanico è il fabbro (anord. smidr) che costruisce la residenza degli Asir (Zavaroni 2003c: 87).

Le formule votive retiche del tipo XIVIXI (iu ii)

189

della Lautverschiebung reto-camuna, si può supporre che: 1) il termine hohlu 2 derivi dall’ie. *kwokwlo-, germ. *hwehwla ‘ruota, cerchio’ e si riferisca al grande cerchio entro cui è scritto; 2) kinpe rifletta *gentos, *genwtos ‘nato, figlio’ o piuttosto ‘nascita, genesi’ (cfr. germ. *kind- ‘Kind, Geschlecht’), dato che il nome è collegato al phallos con una riga. Il grande cerchio allude al dio Ruota, dio dei cicli universali – compreso il ciclo della rigenerazione delle anime – adorato in Europa almeno fin dall’Età del bronzo ed assimilabile anche a Vulcano. È presumibile che il nome IDA (femminile?) abbia una connessione con questo dio. La scritta IDA è incisa pochissimi centimetri sopra la scritta camuna epu che richiama – come vari termini etruschi aventi la base *ep- – la radice ie. *h3 ep- ‘herstellen, arbeiten, Ertrag der Arbeit, Reichtum’ (LIV 298–299; IEW 780) di aisl. efna ‘operare’, aing. efnan, aat. ebanon ‘ausführen, leisten, helfen’, anord. efni ‘Stoff, Material; Grund; Ursache’, lat. opus, operor etc. È quindi possibile che IDA fosse uno degli epiteti di una divinità chiamata Epu che poteva anche essere assimilata a lat. Ops o Copia.32 Nell’incisione su uno specchio etrusco del IV secolo a.C. da Palestrina (ES V, 6) è rappresentata la nascita di Minerva dalla testa di Giove. La dea che funge da levatrice si chiama Eaus´va. Questo nome è unanimemente considerato equivalente ad Iavus¸va,33 che si legge in una iscrizione etrusca del VII secolo a.C. insieme ad altri teonimi. In un’altra rappresentazione della nascita di Minerva dalla testa di Giove la dea levatrice è anr ed alle sue spalle c’è Selans, notoriamente corrispondente a Hephaistos ed a Vulcano. Il nome iavus¸va sembra composto da *ia- + avus- + il suffisso -va, nel qual caso il senso potrebbe essere ‘colei che favorisce il calore (> il fervore, l’opera)’, essendo *avus- riconducibile a *h2 ewh1 - ‘desiderare, favorire’, come il prenome etr. Avule = Avile > lat. Aulus, gallico Avitus, Avi-cantus ecc. Anche il nome Idunn della dea germanica che possiede le mele dell’eterna giovinezza potrebbe indicare ‘colei che favorisce il calore’ (ovviamente si tratterebbe del calore vitale). Com’è noto, l’etimologia di Idunn è dubbia (de Vries 1962: 283): non è 32

33

Questa tesi è confortata dall’esame di alcuni nomi divini etruschi (anr, Epiur, Epule, Ana) che qui non è opportuno discutere. Cfr. anche la variazione etan-al (genitivo) / itan-im (con morfema -m di fine, vantaggio) nelle Lamine d’oro di Pyrgi, da *eid- ‘gonfiare, accrescere’.

190

Adolfo Zavaroni

chiaro se *id- è connesso con il prefisso aisl. id- = lat. re-, gall. ate- etc. o con aisl. id ‘Arbeit, Verrichtung’. A mio avviso, poiché gli Asir abitano nell’Idavöllr e poiché dubito che un prefisso possa essere usato come un sostantivo, ritengo che nel nome Idunn il membro id- sia connesso con *id- ‘attività’ < ‘calore (vitale), ardore’. Nei nomi personali femminili (cfr. Jórunn, Pórunn etc.) il secondo membro -unn è notoriamente ricondotto ad unna ‘lieben, gönnen’ (de Vries 1962: 635). Quindi, se Idunn contenesse il prefisso id-, dovremmo interpretarlo come ‘colei che concede, ama di nuovo’. Un tale senso non mi sembra più plausibile di ‘colei che concede calore (vitale) ’. La dedica Deae / Idba/ns Gabiae / sacru[m] … di Pier (Nordrhein, CIL XIII 7867) potrebbe riguardare una dea che concede calorefuoco (id) luminoso-puro (per *ban- cfr. air. bán ‘bianco, brillante, puro’, aing. bónian ‘fare brillante’, mbt. bonen ‘blanc reiben’): D’altronde anche il nome Idbert pare significare ‘Fuoco luminoso’ (*bert < *berht-: vedi de Vries 1962: 39). Probabilmente il nome femm. germ. Ida, dat. Idun (Weimar, VI secolo d. C.) ed il masc. Idorih etc. hanno la stessa base *h2 eidh- ‘ardere, infiammare’. Se si accetta la tesi qui proposta di una stessa radice per ret. cam. ii (etr. *i-) ed i più tardi nomi IDA ed IDO incisi su due rocce della Valcamonica, la corrispondenza fra e D pone alcune questioni fonologiche: la sonorizzazione delle occlusive avvenne in un periodo abbastanza breve all’inizio della romanizzazione? Oppure il denotava sia [th] sia [dh] e la lettera latina D fu poi usata per [d] e [dh]? A questa seconda domanda sembra dare una risposta positiva la bilingue di Voltino contenente nomi camuni scritti in camuno ed i corrispondenti nomi gallici latinizzati: cam. Sanaina (patronimico) corrisponde a Sanadis (genitivo patronimico) e ome al reduplicato Tetumus (da *twem- di lat. tumeo). Quindi la lettera camuna corrisponde sia a D sia a T. Negli alfabetari camuni, redatti probabilmente pochi decenni prima della definitiva conquista romana, sono anche segnati dei grafi nei posti di -B, d-D, -G; ma soltanto il grafo per -B è usato in iscrizioni in tardo camuno: è notevole che esso sia formato dalla sovrapposizione di p e h. Quindi è da supporre che le occlusive sonore non aspirate non fossero ancora generalizzate e che fu proprio la romanizzazione a introdurre fonemi che il contatto con popolazioni celtiche nei due o tre secoli precedenti non aveva indotto ad accogliere regolarmente. I segni per le dentali con modo di articolazione diverso da [t] sono numerosi, ma non è chiara la distinzione fra spiranti ed aspirate. Negli

Le formule votive retiche del tipo XIVIXI (iu ii)

191

alfabetari, dopo il segno per [t], è generalmente segnato il grafo X che teoricamente dovrebbe denotare un suono che non è [t] e nemmeno [] (denotato certamente da :α:); e poiché per [p] ci sono due grafi specifici, è possibile che il valore teorico di X sia [d], sebbene in qualche caso X sia intercambiabile con :α: []. Sfortunatamente una datazione precisa delle iscrizioni incise su roccia è impossibile, ma mi sembra che sia ragionevole datare la scritta Ido OM nel periodo tra il primo secolo a.C. ed il primo secolo d. C. Elementi che permettono una migliore puntualizzazione del fenomeno e che confermano le ipotesi presentate nei precedenti paragrafi si trovano nelle iscrizioni di Làgole (§ 7).

7. Formule votive retiche associate ad iscrizioni venetiche Su alcuni oggetti della stipe votiva di Làgole di Calalzo (Cadore) sono incise, insieme alle iscrizioni venetiche, formule votive retiche qualche volta identiche ed altre volte simili a quelle viste sopra. Probabilmente il santuario era stato istituito quando la popolazione era in maggioranza retica. Poi, con la spinta verso nord di genti venetiche, l’area divenne bilingue: Reti e Veneti dovettero coesistere insieme per vari secoli. Un altro territorio con parlanti retici e venetici fu probabilmente quello dell’attuale confine italo-sloveno. Infatti, sulla ciotola di bronzo proveniente da una tomba di Idrija (Slovenia) e datata al I secolo a. C., sotto l’iscrizione venetica traslitterabile come Laivnai Vrotai (probabile nome divino in dativo: vedi Prosdocimi 1988: 322) è inciso il gruppo IXIXI. D’altronde Laivnai è un evidente derivato di etr. (e dunque anche retico) laive = lat. laevus. È da notare che la t dell’ iscrizione venetica è del tipo T e non X. Certamente, IXIXI è una formula retica identica a quella scritta sul peso da telaio trovato presso St. Lorenzen (Pustertal). Forse, essa fu scritta prima della dedica. Come si è visto, la scansione i ii “fervet fervor” sembra più sensata che ii i (“fervor; acceptio”), sempre che i non funga da verbo (< ih). Sulle due facce A e B di un manico di simpulum datato al 420–300 a. C. (ma la scritte potrebbero essere posteriori) e trovato nella stipe votiva di Làgole di Cadore sono state incise le seguenti parole: A) B)

Turijonei Okijaijoi Ebos ke Alero u teuta[m ans´ores kvi ssiis >VXV<XI (Fig. 10)

192

Adolfo Zavaroni

Fig. 10. La formula retica uu i su un simpulum di Làgole

Le parole di A e probabilmente ans´ores di B costituiscono una proposizione venetica. Si è sempre supposto che Turijonei Okijaijoi (dativo) indichi l’uomo in beneficio del quale la dedica è stata fatta da Ebos ed Alero e nello stesso tempo si è interpretato u teuta come ‘a nome della comunità, ob civitatem’.34 A mio avviso, però, Turijonei Okijaijoi sono probabilmente il nome e l’epiteto funzionale di origine retica di un dio dell’amore e dell’unione coniugale (per Turion- cfr. etr. Turan ‘Venere’ e Turnu ‘Amor’,35 da *deu-r- ‘venerare’; per Okiaios cfr. cam. U2ko, Uko, Ukiliau ‘Coniugalis’, da *yug- ‘unire, coniugare’ con normale perdita di y- iniziale come in antico nordico: Zavaroni 2006: 138–139). Infine si è supposto che kvi sia un’abbreviazione di kvidor, un verbo individuato nell’iscrizione Ca 64 (Prosdocimi 1988: 310–312); ma l’ampio spazio a disposizione (Fig. 10) mi induce a ritenere kvi una parola intera. La formula >VXV< XI (i segni > e < indicano l’inizio e la fine della parola come in altre iscrizioni) è certamente retica ed è traslitterabile come uu i ‘benevolens acceptio’. Interpreto ssiis come ‘suis’ (la doppia s è presente anche in ven. SSELBOISSELBOI ‘a se stessi’: forse ss- < *sw-). Il termine sis di due iscrizioni retiche potrebbe essere una forma contratta da ssiis: esso è comparabile con il pronome riflessivo got. sis (dat.), sik (acc.). Dunque, ssis ‘per i suoi, per la loro gente’ potrebbe corrispondere ad u teuta ‘ob civitatem’ della scritta venetica e kvi potrebbe essere il verbo di una scritta retica kvi ssiis ans´ores il cui soggetto sarebbe ans´ores, un termine il cui significato era certamente noto anche a chi parlava il retico. Prosdocimi (1988: 311), ipotizza che ans´ores “probabilmente design[i] funzionari o magistrati” e che sia un termine composto da una preposizione e dalla radice *ser-, come umbro anseriatu : seritu”. Tale etimologia è a mio avviso inaccettabile, 34

35

Vedi da ultimo la scheda di Marinetti Anna in AKEO 227 N. 52.1. L’Autrice scrive che “in B, tranne l’iniziale an.s´ores., i gruppi di lettere presenti non sembrano trascrivere forme di lingua, ma piuttosto numerali, sigle, simboli o simili”. Disegno su uno specchio da Castel Viscardo in cui turnu è un puer alato con l’arco.

Le formule votive retiche del tipo XIVIXI (iu ii)

193

perché anche in venetico s´ denota /ts/ o /s’s/ da /st/. Quindi aderisco all’ipotesi di Lejeune (1974: 275), secondo cui ans´ores è un nome d’agente in -tor “répondant au nom d’action en -ti- *ansti- conservé par le germanique (got. ansts ‘ «’)”: avremmo lo sviluppo *anstor> *ans´or-. Se si accetta la tesi prevalente (Lehmann 1986: A184; LIV 302; EWAhd I: 265–267), secondo cui la base *anst(i)- deriva da *h3 neh2 ‘genießen, nutzen, lieben, frui’, gli ans´ores sarebbero coloro che fanno una cosa gradita al dio con l’offerta. Infine kvi è riconducibile a *gwei‘jammern, (weh)klagen’ (IEW 467) di got. qainon ‘weinen, trauern’, aisl. kveina ‘jammern’, kvida ‘sich ängstigen’, asx. quid¯ian ‘wehklagen’ etc. Se supponiamo che anche il verbo kvidor di un’altra iscrizione di Làgole sia di origine retica, possiamo attribuirgli la radice *gwet- di aisl. kvedja ‘begrüßen, anreden, fordern, aufbieten’, as. queddian, aat. chetten ‘begrüßen’ etc. (IEW 480–481). È da notare che in molte iscrizioni votive retiche il nome degli offerenti è omesso. Su una statuetta bronzea raffigurante un guerriero, trovata nella stipe votiva di Làgole e datata al IV secolo a.C., è scritta, lungo un fianco, una dedica alla divinità S´ainate Trumusiate. Sulla spalla sinistra c’è una breve iscrizione che finora era stata letta tir come se fosse venetica. Secondo la tesi comune, queste tre lettere sarebbero un errore di scrittura: l’incisore avrebbe scritto tir invece di tru (inizio di Trumusijatei) e quindi avrebbe interrotto l’iscrizione, per riprenderla nella parte posteriore della gamba destra. A mio avviso, invece, i segni sulla spalla sinistra sono una formula retica preesistente alla iscrizione venetica e devono essere letti come XII > = ii· (il segno > denota la fine della parola). ii potrebbe essere una forma non contratta di i < ii < *ihi ‘acceptum, acceptio’. La sequenza IXII (cioè IXII = ii· o forse IXII = ·i·) è incisa sul manico di simpulum da Làgole dell’iscrizione Ca 67.36 In Ca 31 la formula retica è I I X I I = · ii · “fervor”. Per le questioni fonetiche poste nel § 6 sono interessanti gli sviluppi delle formule prima citate. Sul manico del simpulum di Ca 68 la formula finale retica è I 5, da leggere in senso sinistrorso. Poiché nelle is36

Qui ed in seguito l’abbreviazione Ca seguita da un numero si riferisce alla catalogazione delle iscrizioni venetiche del Cadore adottata da Pellegrini – Prosdocimi 1967 (con foto ed apografi) e da Prosdocimi 1988.

194

Adolfo Zavaroni

crizioni venetiche di Làgole il segno usuale per [d] è proprio 6, la scritta 6I = è una versione recente di XI ‘acceptum, acceptio’ e denota l’esistenza di un fonema dentale sonoro [dh] o [d] che prima era assente o non era denotato come tale. Alla fine dell’iscrizione venetica Ca 64 la sequenza sinistrorsa di segni è XIX III6I = i hdi. Nel camuno recente il digrafo hp denota probabilmente [ph] o/e [bh], mentre th denota [th]. Quindi hd sarebbe un digrafo con cui si tenta di denotare in modo più preciso il suono che nel retico recente è espresso in modo approssimativo con 6= d e con X = th. Si tratta, però, di una grafia non codificata, visto che in precedenza è stato usato X per lo stesso suono. Ponendo i (con i) < *ihi = ii < *teki-t-e) e hdi = i, la formula retica è traducibile come “sia accettata la cosa gradita”. Il manico di simpulum di questa iscrizione è datato al IV secolo a.C., ma la presenza del digrafo hd mi induce a ritenere che l’iscrizione sia più recente (II–I secolo a.C.). Anche due dei tre gruppi di segni incisi su uno dei lati del simpulum con l’iscrizione venetica Ca 49 mets´o (Pellegrini – Prosdocimi 1967: II, 532) si possono coi trascrivere: IIXII (= IIXII = · ii·) e IIII 6I = ihdi [idi] o [idhi] I loro significati sono equivalenti: il secondo contiene il digrafo hd, mentre nel primo i segni di delimitazione sono uguali alla lettera i. La scritta I 6I su un’ascia di ferro da Sanzeno (IR 65) e su un’ansa di vaso di ceramica da Wattens (IR 104) deve essere letta idi : il segno 6non è una n di tipo latino come suppongono Mancini e Schumacher (2004: 190), ma è un d dell’alfabeto di Làgole. È probabile che anche il gruppo 8 si debba leggere idi. Se 1 sembra essere la sovrapposizione di due i (una sopra e una sotto il centro della figura) su X = th, la stessa sovrapposizione può essere vista in 8 su 2. Il segno 2 si trova in alcuni alfabetari camuni, ma appare soltanto una volta in una parola, dove denota il doppio pp : si tratta del teonimo Selpappa ‘Buon-Padre’ (Zavaroni 2006: 128). Ma qualche scriba retico potrebbe avere adottato il segno 2 per denotare [d] o [dh]. Com’è noto, la runa germanica 2 vale d : presumibilmente tale valore fu influenzato da qualche alfabeto alpino piuttosto che dal leponzio, dove 2 denota [ts]. In Fig. 9c possiamo leggere, allora, iu idi (d indica una qualsiasi dentale sonora) che ovviamente equivale a iu ii “acceptus fervor (sit)”.

Le formule votive retiche del tipo XIVIXI (iu ii)

195

8. Conclusione Senza pretendere che le interpretazioni qui proposte siano considerate esatte o valide, spero di avere sufficientemente dimostrato che le iscrizioni retiche e camune del tipo XIVIXI non sono numeriche né marchi o sigle di proprietà, ma formule votive constituite da brevi parole. Le parole ed i loro grafi sono spesso disposti o legati in modo da creare una certa simmetria ed allitterazioni che dovrebbero accrescere il sentimento di potenza magica che certamente era attribuito alle rune retiche. L’Edda poetica contiene varie allusioni a tale potenza magica. D’altronde è proprio la comparazione con il germanico che dà la possibilità di interpretare la maggior parte del lessico retico, camuno ed etrusco (Zavaroni 2006b). Secondo le interpretazioni qui adottate, i termini retici i, i, ii, ii, iiu, u, ui, uiu, uu, i = ih, aa, aile ed i nomi e termini camuni Hohlu2, Kinpe, Selappa, nuu, Epu, Tiu, Ido avrebbero le stesse radici di termini germanici noti e presenterebbero anche un mutamento delle consonanti dentali affine a quello germanico. Nella sottostante tabella sono riportati gli elementi di comparazione più significativi proposti in questo contributo. etrusco, retico, camuno ret. ih ‘accipe’, ii ‘accipito’ etr. ret. cam. i < *ihi ‘acceptio’ ret. cam. iu < *ihu ‘acceptus’ ret. u ‘fave’, cam. ret. ui ‘fave(a)t’ ret. auile, uu ‘faustus’ ret. uiu ‘favens’, ave ‘fave’ cam. ret. ii > idi > idi ‘fervor’ ret. iiu ‘fervidus’, cam. eaio etr. lavus¸va, Eausva < *eidh-h2 ewuret. ih = i ‘tene, appropriati’ ret. nuiu, cam. nuu ‘votum’ cam. epu ‘Ops’ etr. epl ‘opus’, Epiur cam. hohlu2 ‘circulus, orbis’ cam. kinpe ‘genus’ cam. *seld- ‘bonus’

germanico

indoeuropeo

*pig-

*tek-

*au-dh-

*h2 ewh1 -

*id-

*h2 eidh-

*eig*neud*ab*hwehwla*kin-p*sel-(dh)-

*Heyk’*neudh*h3 ep*kwokwlo*gen(w)t*sel-

196

Adolfo Zavaroni

Riferimenti bibliografici Agostiniani Luciano – Nicosia Francesco (2000): Tabula Cortonensis. Roma. AKEO = AKEO I tempi della scrittura. Veneti antichi. Alfabeti e documenti. Cornuda (Treviso). Museo di Storia Naturale e Archeologia di Montebelluna – Tipoteca Italiana Fondazione di Cornuta. 2002. Belfiore Valentina (2001): Alcune osservazioni sul verbo etrusco. AGI 87-1, 226–245. Cristofani Mauro (1977): Appunti di epigrafia etrusca arcaica III. Le iscrizioni di Chiusi. Studi Etruschi 45, 193–204. de Vries Jan (1962): Altnordisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Leiden. EWAhd = Lloyd Albert – Springer Otto (1988–): Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Althochdeutschen, B. I. Göttingen – Zürich. IR = vedi Mancini Alberto Lehmann Winfred P. (1986): A Gothic Etymological Dictionary. Leiden. Lejeune Michel (1974): Manuel de la langue vénète. Heidelberg. Mancini Alberto (1975): Iscrizioni retiche. Rivista di epigrafia italica (Studi Etruschi) 43, 249–306. Mayr Karl M. (1954): Webstuhlgewicht mit rätischen Schriftzeichen aus St. Lorenzen im Pustertal. Der Schlern 28, 552–553. Pallottino Massimo (1936): Elementi di lingua etrusca. Firenze. Pellegrini Giovan Battista – Sebesta Carlo (1965): Nuove iscrizioni preromane da Serso (Pergine). Studi Trentini di Scienze storiche XLIV, 3–33. Pellegrini Giovan Battista – Prosdocimi Aldo Luigi (1967): La lingua venetica. 1. Le iscrizioni. 2. Studi. Padova. Perini Renato (1999): Dati inediti sui ritrovamenti retici nel Trentino. La situazione del Ciaslir del Monte Ozol rilevata con gli scavi del 1980. In Ciurletti G. e Marzatico F. (a cura di) I Reti/Die Räter – Atti del Simposio. Castello di Stenico. Trento 1993. Archeoalp/Archeologia delle Alpi 5, 121–149. Pfiffig Ambros J. (1969): Die etruskische Sprache. Graz. Prosdocimi Aldo-Luigi (1988): La lingua. In Giulia Fogolari Giulia – Prosdocimi Aldo L. I Veneti antichi Lingua e cultura. Padova. 225–420. Schumacher Stefan (2004): Die rätischen Inschriften. Geschichte und heutiger Stand der Forschung. Innsbruck. Sebesta Carlo (2002). Nota retica. Archeologia delle Alpi 5, 133–175. Tibiletti Bruno Maria Grazia (1992): Gli alfabetari. Quaderni camuni 60, 309–380. Vetter Emil (1937): Etruskische Wortdeutungen I: Die Agramer Mumienbinde. Wien. Wood Francis A. (1914): Germanic etymologies. JEGP 13, 499–507. Wylin Koen (2000): Il verbo etrusco. Ricerca morfosintattica delle forme usate in funzione verbale. Roma. Zavaroni Adolfo (1996): I documenti etruschi. Padova. – (2001): L’alfabeto camuno. Studi Trentini di Scienze Storiche 80, 715–743. – (2003): Nuove letture delle iscrizioni retiche di Steinberg nel loro contesto religioso. Römisches Österreich 26, 47–69. – (2004): Passivo e agentivo in etrusco e retico. Grazer Linguistische Studien 61, 101–122.

Le formule votive retiche del tipo XIVIXI (iu ii)

197

– (2004b): Teonimi e figure divine camune sulla Roccia 50 di Naquane (Valcamonica). Ollodagos 18, 225–264. – (2005): Gli alfabetari camuni. Res Antiquae 2, 363–380. – (2005b): The Camunic Inscriptions: A Phonological Framework. GL 43 [2003], 87–105. – (2005c): La procedura di acquisto ante causam nella Tabula cortonensis e nel Cippus Perusinus. Habis 36, 111–124. – (2006): Le divinità dei Camunni nelle iscrizioni prelatine della Val Camonica. Klio 88, 125–144. – (2006b): Imprestiti indoeuropei con Lautverschiebung in etrusco. IF 111, 2006, 149–181. – (2007): Cernunnos cervo cerchio e i non-oranti. In Pre-Atti del XXII Valcamonica Symposium 2007, 18–24 Maggio. Centro Camuno Studi Preistorici, Capo di Ponte.

Via Porta Brennone, 11 I-42100 R e g g i o E m i l i a e-mail: [email protected]

Adolfo Zavaroni

198

Adrian Pârvulescu

Lat. volgus The image of a disorderly mass of people pressing closely against one another, trampling upon one another, or heavily treading the ground is at the origin of several words for “crowd”, “mob”, or “rabble”. Most of these terms are back-formations from verbs meaning “to press, trample, tread, or crowd”: 1. NE. crowd < OE. croda m. “crowd, throng” < croden pp. of creodan, crudan “to crowd, press, drive, push” (ca. 1000); cf. NE. crowd vb. intr. “to gather or congregate closely so as to press upon one another” (ca. 1400).1 2. MLat. pressura “crowd” < pressare “to press”.2 3. OFr. presse f. (ca. 1040) “crowd, multitude of people pressing one another” < OFr. presser “to press” < Lat. pressare “to press”.3 4. It. pressa f. (XIII c.) “press, pressure, crowd, crowding, throng, crash” < pressare (ca. 1410) “to press”.4 5. SCr. tisˇma, tiska “crowd, throng” < tiskati “to press”.5 6. Czech. dav “crowd, throng, mob” < dáviti “to press”.6 7. Alb. truç m. “crowd” < truc (trus, trys) “to press, compress, squeeze”.7 8. OE. pring “press, crowd”, ME. throng “throng, crowd, mass”, ON. prong f., OE. ge-prang “throng, crowd, tumult”, OHG. ge-threngi, NHG. Ge-dränge “crowd, throng, crash”: all derivatives of Goth. preihan “to squeeze, press, oppress”, OHG. dringan “to force, press, push”, OE. pringan “to press (round, upon), crowd (together), throng”, ON. pryngva, pryngja, Ice. pröngva, OHG. thringan, MHG. 1 2

3

4 5

6 7

Bosworth/Toller, p. 170; OED., vol. 4, p. 67–68. Blaise, Dictionnaire latin-français des auteurs du moyen-age. Turnhout 1975, p. 730 s. v. See also Godefroy, vol. 6, p. 392 s. v. presseure. Godefroy, vol. 10, p. 412; Tobler/Lommatzsch, vol. 7, p. 1808–1812; Trésor, vol. 13, p. 1137 (the examples given are not convincing). Battisti/Alessio, vol. 4, p. 3070; Cortelazzo/Zolli, p. 1254. P. Skok, Etimologijski rjecˇnik hravatskoga ili srpskogo jezika. Zagreb 1973, vol. 3, p. 473–4. V. Machek, Etymologicky´ slovnik jazyka cˇeského. Prague 1968, p. 112. V. Orel, Albanian Etymological Dictionary. Leiden/Boston/Köln 1998, p. 467–8.

Indogermanische Forschungen, 112. Band 2007

DOI 10.1515/IDGF.2007.010

Lat. volgus

199

drengan, NHG. drängen “to press, squeeze, throng, thrust, push”, OE. ge-pringen (pret. ge-prang) “to press, oppress”, etc.8 9. Gk. « n., pl. “masses, groups” <.IE. *steib(h)- “to crowd together”.9 10. NE. crush “a great crowd” < crush vb.10 11. Lith. minià “crowd, throng” < mìnti “to tread, trample down”.11 12. It. calca f. (before 1292) “crowd, throng, press, crush” < calcare (before 1306) “to trample, tread”.12 13. It. folla (ca. 1673) “crowd, throng, multitude, mob” < follare (ca. 1420) “to press, full, mill, trample”.13 14. OFr. fole (ca. 1172), Fr. foule “crowd, throng” < OFr. foler (ca. 1160), Fr. fouler “to full, stamp, tread, cast down, ill-treat, subdue”, etc.14 The last two examples have a common origin: MLat. fullare “to full cloth”15
9 10 11

12 13

14

15

Bosworth/Toller, p. 456–7, 1065; OED., vol. 17, p. 1013 s. v. thring, vol. 18, p. 7 s. v. throng; Pokorny, p. 1093; Seebold, p. 520–1; A. L. Lloyd/O. Springer, Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Althochdeutschen. Göttingen/Zürich 1998, vol. 2, col. 754 s. v. drangon, col. 780–2 s. v. dringan. Pokorny, p. 1015. OED., vol. 4, p. 87. E. Fraenkel, Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg/Göttingen 1962, vol. 1, p. 453. Battisti/Alessio, vol. 1, p. 671; Cortelazzo/Zolli, p. 272. Battisti/Alessio, vol. 3, p. 1678; Cortelazzo/Zolli, p. 597 (with an unconvincing semantic explanation). Godefroy, vol. 4, p. 112, vol. 9, p. 649; Tobler/Lommatzsch, vol. 3, p. 2005 s.v. fole, p. 2006–9 s.v. foler; Trésor, vol. 8, p. 1150 and 1153; Wartburg, FEW., vol. 3, p. 846. J. F. Niermeyer, C. van der Kieft, and J. W. J. Burgers, Mediae latinitatis lexicon minus. Leiden/Boston 2002, vol. 1, p. 597: XIII c.; Wartburg, FEW., vol. 3, p. 848.

200

Adrian Pârvulescu

also trodden underfoot when the intention was to felt it, make it shrink or make it stronger. The fuller’s trampling movement was a characteristic “show” in Rome, and Seneca speaks of the saltus fullonicus “the fuller’s jump” (Epist. 15) among other “signature” body movements that could be seen in his time.16 These specific aspects of the fulling process explain why verbs for “full” developed semantically to “trample, press underfoot”. They also enable us to similarly derive Lat. volgus (vulgus) n. and m. “crowd, mob, mass, rabble, common people” from IE *Üolg- “to full, press, roll”, etc.17 This root includes a number of term for „full” and “felt” in the Germanic languages: OHG. walkan, MHG. walkan (past tense wielc), MDu., NHG. walken “to full, felt, kneed, pummel, codgel, mat, clog up, beat, thrash, cane”, Sw. valka, Dan. valke, Norw. valka “to full”, OE. wealcere “fuller” and ME./NE. walk “to full” (not attested before 1400, the latest occurrence in the OED. is 1814, cf. also 16

17

On prehistoric fulling, finishing, and felting of wool cloth, see E. J. Barber, Prehistoric Textiles. Princeton 1991, p. 216–8, 283–5. On the history of fulling, see R. J. Forbes, Studies in Ancient Technology. Leiden 1958, vol. 4, p. 81–97. On Roman fullers, see W. Smith et al., Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. London 1890, vol. 1, p. 881–2 s.v. fullo; Ch. Daremberg/E. Saglio, Dictionnaire des antiquites grecques et romaines, vol. 2, part 2, p. 1349–52 s.v. fullonica (Jacob); J. P. Wild, Textile Manufacture in the Northern Roman Provinces. Cambridge 1970, p. 82–6. On relics of the ancient craft of fulling still performed in the twentieth century Austria, see V. Geramb, Wörter und Sachen 12 (1929), p. 37–46. Cf. Walde/Pokorny, vol. 1, p. 304 (*Üalg-); Pokorny, p. 1144; Seebold, p. 537–8 s. v. WALK-A-. The translation of volgus by “people”, NHG. Volk, or Fr. peuple used in some dictionaries (Leverett, Lewis/Short, Klotz, Quicherat, Benoist/ Goelzer) is at least misleading and should be avoided. From its first occurrences this term referred to a very low category of people. Thus, for Plautus volgare means “to prostitute” (Amph fr. 16 at Nonius Marcellus, De compendiosa doctrina. Ed. W. M. Lindsay. Leipzig [Teubner] 1903, vol. 1, p. 268 quae me absente corpus volgavit suum), also “to spread among the crowd”, and volgus denotes “rabble”: Mil. 1035 me inclamato, quia sic te volgo volgem “scold me, because I divulge you to the rabble this way”, if volgo ist not an adverb in this case. For Terence, volgus is the rabble shunned by young girls of mature attitude and seeking a relationship for life with men (Heaut. 386 quom … vitam tuam considero omniumque adeo vostrarum vulgus quae ab se segregant) and thus, by implication, volgus designates the clientele of the courtesans. For the same author, volgus mulierum quod male audit (Hec. 600) indicates “the mass of women of bad reputation” and volgus servorum (Andr. 583) “the common run of slaves” (trans. J. Barsby). Later on, volgus came to denote “common people, crowd, populace, mob”, etc.

Lat. volgus

201

walk pin (for felting) recorded in 1831).18 Almost every aspect of the fulling operation may find its linguistic expression in this root. That trampling or stamping or treading with the feet was also the mark of the fuller’s profession in the Anglo-Saxon area is proven by the meaning “to pass over” (ca. 1000) wealcan showed in Old English19 and the connotation “to go from place to place, wander, journey, travel” walk had in Middle and Modern English.20 The jumping movement (cf. saltus fullonicus above) is reflected by Skt. valgati “to spring, bound, leap, dance”, valgita adj. “leaped, jumped, gone by leaps, moving to and fro”, valgita n. “bound, jump, spring”.21 The felting process involved not only beating and pressing of the wool into a compact mass evenly distributed, whence Dial.Norw. walken “to press, squeeze, push”, MDu. walken “to press, squeeze”, Dial.NHG. walken “to beat and hit”, but also the repeated rolling and pressing of this mass in order to make the fibers mat closely together, whence ON. valka “to form rolls of fat”, Sw. valka “to tuck up, turn up”, OE. wealcan “to roll, toss” and wealca m. “roller, wave, billow; garment that may be rolled round a person, muffler, wrap, veil”.22 18

19

20

21 22

Bosworth/Toller, p. 1171; OED., vol. 19, p. 842; Kluge/Seebold, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. 23. Auflage. Berlin/New York 1999, p. 872–3 ref. Prudentius Glosses in Germania XI. 400 emensus gewealcon apud OED., vol. 19, p. 838. See also Seebold, p. 537–8, and LIV., p. 676. See OED., vol. 19, p. 842, and Middle English Dictionary. University of Michigan Press 1999, vol. 13, p. 44–5. See Monier-Williams, Sanskrit Dictionary s. v.; Mayrhofer, KEWA., vol. 3, p. 164. To this series has also been added the desperate case of Hitt. walk-, walkiya“damage (?), mistreat (?)” (S. Kimball, MSS 53 (1992 [1994]), p. 81), a verb of “non entirely clear” meaning, “since it is preserved mostly in damaged or obscured contexts, but it seems to indicate an action with destructive, or at least unpleasant, consequences” (Kimball, op. cit., p. 82, see also J. Tischler, Hethitisches Handwörterbuch. Innsbruck 2001, p. 193 “Verbum: Bedeutung unbekannt, in bestimmter Weise schlagen oder misshandeln?”). At any rate, if the connotation “damage” is real, Hitt. walk- can be related to IE. *Üolg- “to full”, a parallel being seen in MLat. fullare “to full” > OFr. foler “to damage” (Wartburg, FEW., vol. 3, p. 848). Kimball reconstructs the IE. root as *welg-: *wolg- or *walg- “with a basic meaning “move with a rolling gait, move violently (?)”, trans. “perform a violent action or something” (ibid.). Unfit semantically is Toch.B walak- “to stay, tarry, abide, dwell”, which D. Q. Adams (A Dictionary of Tocharian B. Amsterdam/Atlanta 1999, p. 581) connects with PIE. *wel- “to turn, roll”, and J. Jasanoff with OE. wealcan and the IE. root *Üelhxg- (Hethitisch und Indogermanisch. Hrsg.

202

Adrian Pârvulescu

Lat. volgus does not directly derive from the idea of “fulling”. The IE. root *Üolg- must have developed in Proto-Latin the connotation “to tread, trample”, similar to MLat. fullare “to full” > OFr. foler “to tread, trample, stamp (one’s foot)”, Sp. hollar “to tread”, It. follare “to press, trample”, and OE. wealcan *“to full” (cf. OE. wealcere “fuller”) > “to roll, toss”, intr. “to journey, wander, walk on foot”. Lat. volgus has been traditionally linked to Skt. varga,23 but this connection appears to be questionable. It must be pointed out from the outset that varga is recorded in dictionaries with two widely divergent meanings: 1. 2.

“one who averts, averter, remover”24 (mostly as the second part of a compound) “division, class, category, set, group, party”, etc.25

The first meaning, “averter”, etc., makes varga a cognate of varjati “to avert, remove” (Rig Veda), causative varjayati “to remove, avoid” (Mahabharata, Chandogya Up., etc.) and this sense is also confirmed by compounds and Avestan: pari-varga m. “avoiding, removing” vs. pari-varjati “to avoid” = Av. pairi-varwz “to avoid”.26 Since varjati is a

23

24

25 26

E. Neu/W. Meid. Innsbruck 1979, p. 85) or *ÜolHg- (Hittite and the Indo-European Verb. Oxford 2003, p. 76, where he adds Toch. B woloktär “rests” (= “turns in”) and Ved. valgáti “jumps”). He explains the absence of a laryngeal reflex in valgáti as due to Saussure’s law of laryngeal loss in the vicinity of *-o-. He also compares Toch. B woloktär < walak- to koloktär < kalak). Walde, Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, Heidelberg 19102, p. 854; F. Muller, Altitalisches Wörterbuch. Göttingen 1926, p. 560–1; Walde/Pokorny, vol. 1, p. 296; Walde/Hofmann, vol. 2, p. 826–7; Pokorny, p. 1138. PW., vol. 6, col. 729 “Abwender, Beseitiger”; pw., vol. 6, p. 26 “Abwehrer, Beseitiger”; Monier-Williams, A Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Oxford 1979 (= 1899) p. 923–4 “one who excludes or removes or averts”. This meaning is not recorded in V. S. Apte, A Practical Sanscrit–English Dictionary. Lucknow 2002 (= 1890), vol. 2, p. 1393, and A. A. Macdonell, A Practical Sanscrit Dictionary. Oxford 1969 (= 1929), p. 270. Same references as at n.24. See L. Bloomfield, JAOS 35 (1915), p. 280. On the presence of -g- (varga) instead of the expected -j- (varjati), which is due to the action of analogy, see K. Brugmann, Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Strassburg 1904, p. 158; J. Wackernagel, Altindische Grammatik. Göttingen 1896, vol. 1, p. 138–162, esp. 158–162; (J. Wackernagel)/ A. Debrunner, Altindische Grammatik. Bd. II, 2. Die Nominalsuffixe. Göttingen 1954, p. 92; T. Burrow, Sanskrit Language. London 1965, p. 78–9.

Lat. volgus

203

reflex of IE *Üerg- “to turn, rotate, twist”27, it is obvious that between varga “averter, remover” and varjati “to avert, remove” on the one hand, and Lat. volgus “crowd, mob, rabble” on the other hand, there is no relationship whatsoever. The second set of connotations is the one suggesting the connection with Lat. volgus. We deal with a series of compounds, such as dasavarga “slaves, servants”,28 bandhu-varga „(the class of) relatives”, mitra-varga “(the class of) friends”, etc., where -varga denotes “the class” of similar things or is simply the mark of the plural. In another series, -varga designates phonetical categories: ka-varga “the class of the velar consonants, lit. “the ka-class”, ca-kara-varga “the class of the palatal consonants”, lit. “the ca-class”, ta-varga “the class of the dental consonants”, lit. “the ta-class”, etc. In other formations such as catur-varga “a group of 4 things”, lit. “the 4-group” or “the tetrad”, tri-varga “a group of 3 things”, lit. “the 3-group” or “the triad”, -varga plays the role of a suffix similar to NHG. -schaft29 or NE. -ship. Is there anything in these or in the previous examples that shows some similarity with Lat. volgus “mob, rabble, common people”? Can the notion of “category” or “class” or “group” be linked to that of “mob” or “crowd”? The obvious answer is no, “class” and “crowd” being in fact opposites. Whereas “class” can be defined as “a group of people or things having some attribute in common” (Oxford English Dictionary), “crowd”, “mob”, or “rabble” usually refer to a disorderly mass of people of indistinct components. One can compare Gk. «, a -mo- derivative of the IE. root *da-(dw-)l*dai-(dw i-) “to divide, cut to pieces” (Gk. , Skt. dayate “to divide”),30 which in Homer and Classical Greek denotes “district, land”, also “the citizenry exclusive of its rulers”,31 with Gk. « “throng, crowd, multitude”, a -- extension of IE. *pel-/ple- “to fill” (Gk. “to fill”), the basic 27

28 29 30 31

Walde/Pokorny, vol. 1, p. 271, cf. 281; Pokorny, p. 1154; Mayrhofer, KEWA., vol. 3, p. 243–4; id., EWAIA., vol. 2, p. 517–8 (*h2Üerg-). PW., ibid. Fact already noted by O. Böhtlingk, pw., vol. 6, p. 26. Pokorny, p. 1154. See W. Donlon, Parola del Passato 134 (1970), p. 384–5 and 391. In Mycenaean the same term designates an administrative division of land, see M. Lejeune, Revue des études grecques 78 (1965), p. 6–13. See similarly Lat. populus “the totality of the Roman citizens” in the official formula Senatus populusque Romanus.

204

Adrian Pârvulescu

idea being that of a “filling” composed of indistinct material (cf. “landfill”). Therefore, Ernout/Meillet seem right when stating that Skt. varga “est loin pour le sens”.32 And if we are to consider particular connotations of varga such as “section, chapter, or division of a book” or “the square of a number” (pañca-varga “the square of five”, etc.), it will become again evident that it is quite difficult to argue for its relationship with Lat. volgus. In conclusion, the above interpretation of the terms related to the IE. root *Üolg- “to full” would require a rearrangement of the IE. roots involved. Thus, IE. *Üolg- “to full”, instead of being listed as a -g- extension of IE. *Üel- “to turn, wind, roll”,33 it should rather be attached to IE. *Üel- “to press”,34 where Lat. volgus is actually included, but together with the unfit Skt. varga.35 At the same time, it must be said that the two verbal roots, *Üel- “to press” and *Üel- “to roll”, were most likely identical at origin.36

32

33

34

35 36

P. 749. On the other hand, the etymology of varga raises many questions. varga “averter, remover” has been traditionally linked to varjati (vﬂrnakti) ﬂ “to turn, twist off, avert, remove”, etc. (see C. Uhlenbeck, Kurzgefasstes etymologisches Wörterbuch der Altindischen Sprache. Amsterdam 1899, p. 274; Walde/Pokorny, vol. 1, p. 271 ref.; Mayrhofer, KEWA, vol. 3, p. 244 [vrj*“wegdrehen, absondern”], cf. Walde/Hofmann, vol. 2, p. 287) and vﬂrnoti ﬂ “to choose, select, prefer” (Walde/Pokorny, vol. 1, p. 281). varga “division, class, group”, etc. has been derived from IE. *Üer- “Schnur, Strick, damit binden oder ausspannen oder anreihen”, etc. (Walde/Pokorny, vol. 1, p. 263 and 266 n. 2) and IE. *Üel- “drangen, pressen” (Walde/Pokorny, vol. 1, p. 295–6; Pokorny, p. 1138; Mayrhofer, EWAIA, vol. 2, p. 517 ref. Mayrhofer’s remark (ibid.) that the stem varj- shows forms which actually belong to varh- (barh-) “to tear, pluck” and vras´c- “to cut down, cleave, hew” could be an excellent lead toward solving the etymology of varga, because words for “division, group, class, category” can derive from verbs meaning “to cut, divide, split” like NHG. Abteilung “division, group, side, section” from abteilen “to divide, separate, split up”. Walde/Pokorny, vol. 1, p. 298–304; Pokorny, p. 1140–4 (“drehen, winden, walzen”). LIV 675–6 does not connect the two. Walde/Pokorny, vol. 1, p. 295–6, Porkorny, p. 1138: 3. Üel- “drängen, pressen, zusammendrängen, einschliessen”. LIV., p. 674 considers only a root 1. Üel“einschliessen, verhüllen”. Pokorny, p. 1138. Pokorny, p. 1138 “ursprüngliche Gleichheit mit 7. *Üel- ‘drehen’ ist denkbar, da ‘pressen, zusammendrücken’ ursprüngl. ‘zusammenwinden’ sein kann.”

Lat. volgus

205

A more difficult problem is the relationship, if any, between IE. *Üolg- “to full” and Lat. valgus adj. “having calves of the legs bent outwards, bow-legged, knock-kneed”. Latin philologists explained this term as qui diversas suras habent “with widely separated calves of the legs” (Paul. Fest.37.5 Lindsay) and glossed intortum “twisted” (ibid.). Modern linguists have linked Lat. valgus with Skt. válgati “to spring, bound, leap, dance”.37 Indeed, the “dance” or “jump” of the fuller might find here a perfect correspondence. But, as it will be seen from the following examples, in many languages this particular physical movement has been expressed with linguistic metaphors that are not even close to the idea of “jumping” or “dancing”: “bow”: NE. bow-legged; It. gambi arcuati (gamba “leg”, arcuato “curved like a bow”); Pol. pała˛kowatych nogach (noga “leg”, pała˛kowaty “bowlike”). “saber”: NHG. Säbel-beinig (Säbel “saber”, Bein “leg”); Turk. kiliçbacakli (kiliç „sword”, bacak “leg”). “plow-handle”: Sp. estevado (esteva “plow-handle”). “bench (with crooked legs)”: Fr. bancal (banc “bench”), bancroche (banc, crochu “crooked”). “curved stick”: NE. bandy-legged (bandy “curved club”); NE clubfooted; Hung. löcslábú (löcs “stake brace, prong, pole”, lab “leg”); Hung. dongalábú (donga “stave”). “wheel, circle”: Dan. hjulbenet (hjul “wheel”, ben “bone”); Hung. karikalábú (karika “circle”); Ice. hjólfœttur (hjol “wheel”, fœttur “feet”). “crooked leg”: Bulg. krivokrak (kriv “crooked, twisted”, krak “leg”); Czech. krˇivonohy´ (noha “leg”) = Russ. krivonogij = Pol. krzywonogi; Lith. kreiva kojis (kreivas “crooked”, koja “leg”); MGk.

« ( « “crooked”, “leg”); Turk. e˘gri bacakli (e˘gri “crooked”, bacak “leg”); Alb. këmbështrembër (këmbë “leg”, shtrembër “crooked”); Lat. vatax, vatius “with legs bent outwards, bow legged” (IE. *Üat- “to bend, twist”).

37

valgus: see F. Muller, Altitalisches Wörterbuch. Göttingen 1926, p. 519 ref.; Walde/Pokorny, vol. 1, p. 304; Pokorny, p. 1144; Walde/Hofmann, vol. 1, p. 728–9 ref.; Ernout/Meillet, p. 712; P. Schrijver, The Reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Latin. Amsterdam/Atlanta 1991, p. 464.

206

Adrian Pârvulescu

“(wide) open”: Sp. patiabierto (pata “leg”, abierto “opened”); Skt. viralajanu (virala “having interstices, separate by intervals”, janu “knee”). “legs going forward”: Skt. pragatajanu (pragata “gone forward”). “feet all round”: Ice. kringilafœttur (kring “all round”, fœttur “feet”). It is obvious that the above survey does not offer any suggestion to a possible semantic link of Lat. valgus with the IE. root *Üolg-. A certain relationship between the two seems very likely, but at this point the semantic evidence is still wanting. Abbreviations Battisti/Alessio = C. Battisti, G. Alessio, Dizionario etimologico italiano. Firenze 1950–1957, vols. 1–5. Bosworth/Toller = J. Bosworth, T. N. Toller, An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. Oxford 1973 (= 1898). Cortelazzo/Zolli = M. Cortelazzo, P. Zolli, Dizionario etimologico della lingua italiana. Seconda edizione. Bologna 1999. Ernout/Meillet = A. Ernout, A. Meillet, Dictionaire étymologique de la langue latine. Paris 19854. Godefroy = F. Godefroy, Dictionnaire de l’ancienne langue française. Paris 1880–1902, vols. 1–10. LIV. = H. Rix et al., Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Wiesbaden 20012 Mayrhofer, KEWA. = M. Mayrhofer, Kurzgefasstes etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindischen. Heidelberg 1956–1980, vols. 1–4. Mayhofer, EWAIA. = M. Mayrhofer, Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. Heidelberg 1986–2002, vols. 1–3. OED. = Oxford English Dictionary. Second edition. Oxford 1989, vols. 1–20. Pokorny = J. Pokorny, Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Tübingen/ Basel 1994 (= 1959), vol. 1. PW. = O. Böhtlingk/R. Roth, Sanskrit Wörterbuch. St. Petersburg 1868–1871, vol. 6. pw. = O. Böhtlingk, Sanskrit Wörterbuch in kürzerer Fassung. Graz 1959 (= Petersburg 1886). Seebold = E. Seebold, Vergleichendes und etymologisches Wörterbuch der germanischen starken Verben. Den Haag 1970. Tobler/Lommatzsch = A. Tobler, E. Lommatzsch, Altfranzösisches Wörterbuch. Wiesbaden 1915–. Trésor = Trésor de la langue francaise; dictionnaire de la langue du XIXe et du XXe siecle )1789–1960). Ed. P. Imbes. Paris 1971–1994, vols. 1–16. Walde/Hofmann = A. Walde, J. B. Hofmann, Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg 1938–1956, vols. 1–2.

Lat. volgus

207

Walde/Pokorny = A. Walde, Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der indogermanischen Sprachen. Hrsg. J. Pokorny. Berlin/Leipzig 1927–1932, vols. 1–3. Wartburg, FEW. = Walter von Wartburg, Französisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Leipzig/Berlin 1934–.

101 Washington Avenue S u f f e r n , N e w Yo r k 10901 U.S.A. [email protected]

Adrian Pârvulescu

208

Daniel P. Quinlin

Wulfila’s (mis)translation of Philippians 2:6 The fourth century was a crucial period in the development of the early Christian Church, because an important theological controversy was coming to a crux over the nature and divinity of Jesus Christ. One theological camp held to the position that Jesus was of the same essence as, or consubstantial with, God the Father – a theological position whose victory at the Council of Nicæa in 325 was evidenced in the formally recorded and hence oft-repeated statement in regard to Jesus’ deity in the Nicene Creed: Greek: “ ,

, ²

) II ” Latin: “genitum, non factum, consubstantialem Patri” English: “begotten, not made, of one being with the Father” The other theological camp, championed by a presbyter by the name of Arius (ca. 256–336) challenged this doctrine of “homoousia.” Arius argued that Jesus was neither co-eternal, nor one with God the Father, although the theological umbrella of Arianism covers a variety of positions that allow for Jesus’ acquisition of divinity at some point in his life (e.g., at his baptism). One of the adherents of Arianism was a young man by the name of Wulfila (ca. 310–382), the eventual translator of the Bible into the Gothic language, who was educated in Constantinople, the home of Arius and the battleground of the Arian controversy. While relatively little is known about the person of Wulfila, his siding with Arian theology is clearly revealed through historical evidence, as, for example, James Marchand1 points out in his translation of a letter from the margins of a manuscript of Ambrose’s “De Fide” by Auxentius of Durostorum, the foster-son of Wulfila, in which he denies that Wulfila was a heretic: “The Homoiousians, however, he [Wulfila] put to flight, since they defended the assumption that they [God and Jesus] were not of com1

Marchand, James, Auxentius on Wulfila: Translation by Jim Marchand. .

Indogermanische Forschungen, 112. Band 2007

DOI 10.1515/IDGF.2007.011

Wulfila’s (mis)translation of Philippians 2:6

209

parable but different substance. And he [Wulfila] did not preach the Son to be similar to his Father according to the fraudulent Macedonian depravities and perversities against the Scriptures, but according to the Divine Scriptures and Traditions.” Auxentius went on to write that on his death bed Wulfila uttered the following credo: “I, Wulfila, Bishop and Confessor, have always believed thus and in this sole and true faith I make my journey to my Lord, I believe that there is only one God the Father, alone unbegotten and invisible, and in His only-begotten Son, our Lord and God, creator and maker of all things, not having any like unto Him. Therefore there is one God of all, who is also God of our God, and I believe in one Holy Spirit, an enlightening and sanctifying power.” Then, Wulfila purportedly ended with this statement in which he compared his relationship to Christ with Christ’s relationship to God the Father: “[I am] Neither God nor Lord, but the faithful minister of Christ; not equal, but subject and obedient in all things to the Son. And I believe the Son to be subject and obedient in all things to God the Father.” Wulfila’s adherence to the Arian “heresy”, as deemed by his opponents whose homoousian theology eventually prevailed as doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church (and later in most protestant denominations), may well be one reason why Wulfila and his remarkable achievements are relatively unknown in theological circles today. Nevertheless, Wulfila’s work remains a linguistic icon in Germanic studies, and its importance as a reflection of its cultural and historical setting is often underestimated. While the modern scholar tends to view Wulfila’s translation as a linguistic document, Wulfila’s intent was to produce a theological document, and as such, it could potentially bear witness to his Arian interpretations of the original text. As part of his theological education in Constantinople, Wulfila was undoubtedly trained in both Greek and Latin – tools that proved essential to his translation of the Scriptures. He apparently worked from several Greek manuscripts, and presumably had Old Latin manuscripts with which to compare. And as was typical for translators of the day, he was dogmatically literal in his translation from the Greek,

210

Daniel P. Quinlin

generous in transliterations (as was Jerome, whose Vulgate translation is basically contemporary with the Gothic translation), and clearly attempted to follow Greek word order and even syntax to an extent that one must wonder at times how “Gothic” Wulfila’s translation really was. Yet for a linguistic-theological study, Wulfila’s literal consistency is an asset in determining if any traces of Wulfila’s Arian beliefs are evident in his Gothic translation. Such a study must begin, of course, with biblical passages that would arguably address the divinity of Christ. Such a study is also dependent on the passages that are still extant, and unfortunately, many passages that would be of interest (e.g., John 1, Hebrews 1, and 2 Peter 1) are not found in the existing manuscripts. But in the second chapter of Philippians, one finds a curious and inaccurate word choice – a choice that also agrees with Wulfila’s theology. Table #1 Philippians 2:6 Greek (Aland):

“χ« φ9 4 μ π μ ρ ) !” Gothic (Wulfila): “saei in gudaskaunein wisands ni wulwa rahnida wisan sik galeiko guda” Latin (Vulgate): “qui cum in forma Dei esset non rapinam arbitratus est esse se aequalem Deo” English (KJV): “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God” While Gothic gudaskaunein ‘form of God’ is potentially of interest in this semantic-theological study, it is a hapax legomenon, and as such it is difficult to draw firm conclusions about its usage (although the meaning and etymology of the related Gothic root skauns ‘beautiful’ makes its appearance as a translation of Greek 9 rather suspicious). Of even greater interest here, however, is appearance of the Gothic adverb galeiko, Wulfila’s choice for the translation of Greek " . As seen in the Table #2, galeiko is used four times in Wulfila’s translation in addition to the occurrence in Philippians 2:6 (although related verbal and adjectival forms are common2), and in these pas-

2

Wulfila used the related verbal and adjectival forms galeiko¯n and galeiks fourteen times (often in Gospel parables) to translate Greek the Greek root ²

-

Wulfila’s (mis)translation of Philippians 2:6

211

sages (Matthew 7:24, Matthew 11:16, Luke 7:31, and Galatians 5:21) one observes important parallels: Table #2 Matthew 7:24 Matthew 11:16 Luke 7:31 Galatians 5:21

Greek ²

²

$ ²

$ ²

Gothic galeiko galeiko galeiko galeiko

Latin (Vulgate) adsimilabitur similem similes similia

English (KJV) liken liken liken such things

From these contexts, Gothic galeiko clearly exhibits a meaning equivalent to ‘like’ or ‘similar’. Of particular interest, however, is that galeiko corresponds consistently to Greek forms with the root ²

-. (The forms in Matthew 7:24, Matthew 11:16, and Luke 7:31 are from the verb ² ‘to make like’, ‘liken’, whereas the form in Galatians 5:21 is from the related adjective ² « ‘like, resembling’.) Likewise, it is noteworthy that in these same four passages the Vulgate shows a consistent use of forms with the root simil-; clearly, the Greek, Latin and Gothic words have similar connotations! The fifth and final attestation of galeiko in Gothic occurs in Philippians 2:6, a passage that speaks to Jesus’ equality with God, and the parallels noted in Table #2 are curiously missing: Table #3 Philippians 2:6

Greek Gothic " galeiko

Latin (Vulgate) aequalem

English (KJV) equal

One possible explanation of this deviation from the expected translation could be that Wulfila used a different Greek manuscript from the other translators – a manuscript that exhibited a word other than " . This, however, is highly unlikely, since all known Greek manuscripts of Philippians 2:6 exhibit " , and it is doubtful that Wulfila would have had access to different (and now unknown) ‘like/similar’ (Matthew 6:8, Mark 4:30, Mark 7: 8, 13, Mark 12: 31, Mark 14:70, Luke 6:47, 48, 49, Luke 13:21, John 8:55, Romans 8:3, Romans 9:29, Philippians; 2:7), five times in the Epistles to translate Greek # ‘form/shape’ (Romans 12:2, 1 Corinthians 4:6, 2 Corinthians 11: 13, 14, 15), and six times in the Epistles to translate Greek ‘imitate’ (1 Corinthians 11:1, Ephesians 5:1, Philippians 3:17, 1 Thessalonians 2:14, 2 Thessalonians 3:7, 9).

212

Daniel P. Quinlin

manuscripts from that which Jerome had at his disposal for his Vulgate translation. If, then, one can assume that Wulfila was attempting to translate the word " , one must then determine its meaning in Greek, which is easily done, as it is clearly attested in Attic and koine literature as well as in modern Greek, and it is accurately translated aequalem ‘equal’ in the Vulgate. So, one must ask, is it possible that the meaning of ‘equality’ was within the scope of galeiko, or did Wulfila just miss the mark on this one? In fact, it would appear that Wulfila’s translation of " in Philippians 2:6 is inconsistent with his translations found in three other verses where, in Greek, an adjectival form of " « is found: Table #4 Greek Mark 14:56 Mark 14:59 Luke 6:34

Gothic " " "

Latin (Vulgate) samaleikos samaleika samalaud

English (KJV) convenientia conveniens aequalia

agreed agree as much

While it is noteworthy that in Mark 14 Wulfila used a compound with the same root (-leik-) as in galeiko, his consistency in these three passages in using a compound with sama- ‘same’ is of particular interest. One wonders, then, why Wulfila would not have chosen a similar construction in Philippians 2:6. In other words, in this context the prolific adverb samaleiko ‘likewise, in the same way’ would seem to have been at least a closer translation than galeiko. To be sure, this is a point of interest, yet in light of the license taken in the Latin and English translations, one can still give Wulfila some benefit of the doubt. That is, until one considers one final point. Is it possible that galeiko had enough of a connotation of equality in Gothic, as in modern German gleich, to render it as equivalent to Greek " ? While the compounds with sama- mentioned above cast some doubt on this, the clearest refutation of this idea comes from two passages in the Skeireins, a Gothic commentary on the Gospel of John. And even though the authorship of the Skeireins is disputed, the following passages shed great insight into the current discussion. Skeireins 1:2 exhibits the following phrase: “ni ibna nih galeiks unsarai garaihtein,” ‘neither equal nor like our righteousness’. And in Skeireins 5:9 one finds the phrase: “ni ibnaleika frijapwa ak galeika,” ‘not equal love, but like’. These passages clearly show that there was a

Wulfila’s (mis)translation of Philippians 2:6

213

contrastive difference between ibna, meaning ‘equal’ and galeik, meaning ‘like’, and thus, Wulfila had the option of connoting equality through some form of the word ibna. But since these passages are not translations from Greek, what evidence exists that some word containing the root ibna was a viable option for translating the concept of Greek " ? Four passages are particularly pertinent: Table #5 Greek

Gothic

Latin (Vulgate) Luke 20:36 %&

ibnans aequales aggilum enim angelis 2 Corinthians 8:13 %' « ibnassau aequalitate 2 Corinthians 8:14 %'« ibnassus aequalitas Colossians 4:1 %' ibnassu aequum

English (KJV) equal unto the angels equality equality equal

These examples indicate a direct correlation between the Greek root %- (denoting equality) and the Gothic root ibna, and in these translations Wulfila clearly identified Gothic ibna as an appropriate translation for this concept; furthermore, he did so for every occurrence of Greek %-, except in Philippians 2:6. Thus, in his translation of Greek " in Philippians 2:6, Wulfila had the choice to use a more accurate term, i.e., some form of ibna (perhaps unattested *ibnaleiko?); yet he chose a different, almost generic word. So what conclusions can be drawn from this evidence? It is clear that Wulfila was predictably consistent in his translation of the Greek roots ²

- (with galeiko, meaning ‘like’) and %- (with compounds such as sama-leik- or sama-laud-, or even better, ibna- meaning ‘equal’). The one exception to this pattern, however, is found in his choice to translate Greek " as galeiko in Philippians 2:6, and there is no linguistic reason for this striking deviation from Wulfila’s predictable pattern of translation. There is, however, a theological reason. Clearly, this passage speaks directly to the issue of equality or “homoousia” of Jesus Christ, a theological concept, with which Wulfila was at odds. How tempting must it have been for Wulfila as a translation committee of one, and with few contemporaries multi-lingual enough to challenge his word choices, to consider just a small bite from his tree of knowledge, and enjoy the fruit of bringing a troublesome phrase more in line with his personal beliefs! The evidence suggests that in Philippians 2:6, Wulfila yielded to that temptation and

214

Daniel P. Quinlin

made a deliberate mistranslation of a word that his Arian theology could not reconcile, that Jesus Christ was equal to God. Bethel College 300 E. 27th Street N o r t h N e w t o n , KS 67117 U.S.A. [email protected]

D a n i e l P. Q u i n l i n

The cognates of the Gothic masculine i-stems

215

The cognates of the Gothic masculine i-stems A few years ago I examined the Gothic ti-abstracts and their cognates throughout Indo-European (Brosman 1994a). The study served as part of a larger process of verification of the proposal that inheritance of the cognates of the Hittite ai- and au-stems provides the means of explaining the first arbitrary athematic feminines as well as the Latin i-stems with nom. sg. -e¯s, the derived nouns of the Latin fifth declension, the Baltic e¯-stems and the Greek nouns in -«, -« and - (Brosman 1984). Subsequently it has been proposed that the i/ya¯-, iand u¯-stems were of the same origin (Brosman 1994b). According to these views Anatolian and Indo-European inherited eight types of diphthongal noun consisting of e¯i-, o¯i-, e¯u- and o¯u-stems of each original gender. In Hittite phonological mergers within the long diphthongs reduced this number to four, the common and neuter ai- and au-stems. In Indo-European identical forms of the nominative singular produced by the loss of the second element of long diphthongs caused confusion between the i- and u-stems, while identical forms among the oblique cases led to confusion between the e¯- and o¯-types and between the diphthongal nouns and the zero-grade i- and u-stems. Presumably because of the long vowel of the nominative singular, the diphthongal nouns were transferred to the newly arisen pre-feminine gender, with the result that the original neuters adopted animate forms of the accusative singular and the nominative and accusative plural, thereby causing confusion between the inherited animate and neuter forms. Subsequently the diphthongal forms were lost throughout most of Indo-European. Four principal methods of elimination were originally proposed, one of which, thematicization, has since been found to have been erroneous. The three still held to have been employed were conversion to zero-grade i- and u-stems, transfer to the distinctively feminine a¯-stems and the spread of the long vowel of the nominative within the paradigm. A later proposal, which was considered the first step in the development of the i-, u¯- and i/ya¯-stems, was the replacement of the nominatives in -e¯(s) and -o¯(s), each of which occurred among both the i- and u-stems, by distinctive forms in -i(s) among the Indogermanische Forschungen, 112. Band 2007

DOI 10.1515/IDGF.2007.012

216

Paul W. Brosman, Jr.

i-stems and -u¯(s) among the u-stems. In addition to extending the confusion between the diphthongal i- and u-stems to the zero-grade forms, the conversions to zero-grade i- and u-stems were held to have produced the first arbitrary athematic feminines. It was recognized that prior to the existence of athematic feminines referring to females the conversion of pre-feminine or feminine diphthongal nouns would have resulted in animate (pre-masculine) or masculine zero-grade forms, since at that stage gender remained linked to form as it was in Hittite and the i- and u-stem nouns of animate form belonged to the pre-masculine or masculine gender. However, after the origin of athematic feminines with female referents had severed the link with form, the converted diphthongal nouns presumably would have remained feminine and thus would have included the first feminines which were formally indistinguishable from masculines but did not refer to females. When the original proposals summarized above were made, two procedures were suggested for their verification. One was taking each of the nominal classes proposed to have preserved traces of an inherited diphthongal type and examining the cognates of every member throughout Indo-European. The other was similar studies of the i- and u-stems in the older Indo-European dialects. In the cases of the Greek and Latin types of proposed diphthongal origin, the former has been completed (Brosman 2004 and references). The results indicated that each of the types examined was diphthongal in origin or that Indo-European had indeed inherited e¯i-, o¯i-, e¯u- and o¯u-stems. Since the Hittite forms show that the diphthongal i- and u-stems each included both animate and neuter nouns, it appears probable that the full proposed complement of eight diphthongal types was realized. The evidence of the cognates also supported occurrence of the change of gender and of confusion of every possible sort among the original diphthongal forms. That four of twelve Baltic cognates were e¯-stems was consistent with the diphthongal origin of that type. Although support was also found for transfer to the a¯-stems, conversion to zero-grade i- and u-stems seemed clearly the most important of the methods employed in the elimination of the diphthongal forms. Concerning thematicization, however, the evidence appeared inconclusive at best. More recently a closer examination of it has indicated that thematicization should no longer be proposed to have been among the principal means used to eliminate the diphthongal nouns (Bros-

The cognates of the Gothic masculine i-stems

217

man 2006). Otherwise the evidence of the Greek and Latin forms apparently confirmed all of the original proposals except that concerning the origin of the arbitrary athematic feminines. Although it appeared that the circumstances under which they were held to have originated indeed existed, little bearing more directly on this question was revealed. The examination of the Gothic ti-abstracts was undertaken as the first step in use of the second suggested method of verification. Although it had originally been intended to treat all of the Gothic i-stems, it was found that they were too numerous to be considered in their entirety in a single article or, for that matter, in a pair of them. The evidence based upon Gothic indicated that the first PIE ti-abstracts resulted from the conversion to zero grade of diphthongal abstracts in *-te¯(i)- and *-to¯(i)-. In this connection it was noted that the existence of diphthongal ti-abstracts is apparently established by Gk. ‘substance’, a derivative in *-to¯(i)- of es- ‘be’, which occurred also in four compounds (Schwyzer 1939: 478). Since one of the compounds, ‘well-being, prosperity’, corresponded precisely (apart from inflection) to Skt. svastí- ‘health’ (Pokorny 1959: 342), it also appears that in at least one specific instance a typical ti-abstract can be identified as having stemmed from an earlier diphthongal form. The Gothic material also provided the first substantial support for the proposed origin of the arbitrary athematic feminines by indicating that the diphthongal ti-forms were converted first to masculine zero-grade forms but later to feminines. It thus appeared likely that the change in the gender of the converted forms coincided with the origin of athematic feminines. Of sixteen Gothic ti-forms with extra-Germanic cognates, eleven stemmed from etyma with variants containing full and/or unaccented zero grade of the root, while the other five were ambiguous from this point of view. It thus seemed clear that, despite the familiar observation that the ti-abstracts typically contained accented zero grade of the root, there had originally been a great deal of variety among them with respect to gradation and accent. Seventeen forms with cognates confined to Germanic provided only two additional examples of this variety. From the near coincidence of the forms involved in the variation and those with attested extra-Germanic cognates, it appeared that accented zero grade did not begin to become usual until shortly before the end of the period of unity or that full or unaccented zero

218

Paul W. Brosman, Jr.

grade of the root, like possession of an extra-Germanic cognate, could be considered evidence of early origin. As was to be expected, the Gothic ti-forms were almost entirely feminine. However, six of them, including one which was itself masculine in Gothic, possessed cognates which occurred as masculine, though in no case exclusively, elsewhere in Germanic. Since it is quite improbable that ti-abstracts feminine in Proto-Germanic would have been transferred to the masculine in one or more separate Germanic dialects without special motivation, it was concluded that these forms were original masculines which had retained their gender in ProtoIndo-European and Proto-Germanic but finally succumbed in part to the analogical influence of what had become an overwhelming majority of feminines. That five of the six apparent original masculines possessed extra-Germanic cognates was consistent with this view. Moreover, the only such form without an extra-Germanic cognate displayed a variation in gradation within Germanic that indicated that it too was early. From this point of view, four of the six presumed masculines were involved in variation as to gradation and/ or accent, while two were ambiguous. From these figures it appeared that, collectively at least, the masculine ti-forms were considerably earlier than the feminines, since most of the apparent feminines neither possessed extra-Germanic cognates nor were identifiable as involved in the formal variation (Brosman 1994a: 355–8). If the ti-forms were of diphthongal origin, several should have possessed variants in *-tu- because of the confusion between the diphthongal i- and u-stems. For example, among the cognates of the Latin forms of apparent diphthongal origin and the Greek nouns in -, all of which presumably stemmed immediately from diphthongal i-stems, i-stems outnumbered u-stems by only ten or eleven to eight (Brosman 1992: 335). That the diphthongal ti-abstracts participated in the confusion and acquired tu-variants as a result is indicated by Gk. ‘absence’, another of the compounds of , and its variant « (Brosman 1992: 325). Indeed the sixteen Gothic ti-forms with extraGermanic cognates included ten with apparent variants in *-tu-. Among the remaining Gothic forms only two with variants occurred, one of which was a presumed original masculine with full-grade cognates in Germanic. From these points of view the twelve forms with variants included eight of the thirteen certainly involved in variation as to gradation and/or accent and five of six with masculine cognates.

The cognates of the Gothic masculine i-stems

219

The early origin of the tu-variants indicated by these figures supported the conclusion that they were produced by the confusion between the diphthongal i- and u-stems. If, conversely, the proportion of forms with variants is taken as a measure of the age of the three other groups, one finds again that one can hardly distinguish between the forms containing full or unaccented zero grade and those with extra-Germanic cognates, while the presumed original masculines, also as before, appear distinctly the earliest. Since the evidence of the tu-forms indicated that the ti-abstracts had originally been diphthongal, it appeared that the most likely explanation for the occurrence of a handful of early masculines alongside a large majority of feminine ti-forms was that the diphthongal ti-abstracts had been converted originally to masculine zero-grade forms but later to feminines (Brosman 1994a: 358–60). The purpose of the present article is to continue, but not complete, examination of the Gothic i-stems by beginning consideration of the nouns not containing a recurring suffix such as *-ti-. As indicated earlier, at least three articles will be required to deal with the i-stems in their entirety. Indeed it now appears that a single article will not suffice to treat all of the forms without a derivational suffix. Fifty-two Gothic nouns held to have been of that sort1 occurred as i-stems at least on occasion. Twenty-three were feminine, twenty-six masculine and three of variable or unknown gender. If the proposal concerning the arbitrary athematic feminines is correct, all inherited feminine i-stems should have been original diphthongal nouns. The inherited masculines should include all of the original animate zero-grade i-stems but should not be confined to such forms. As has been noted, original diphthongal nouns could have produced masculines through the conversion of feminine diphthongal forms to zero grade prior to the origin of athematic feminines referring to females. That such a development appears actually to have occurred was seen here earlier in connection with the ti-abstracts. Indeed it appears that the proportion of masculines among the forms of apparent diphthongal origin should be expected to be sub1

Except where specified otherwise, the identification here of forms with and without suffixes has been based as before on the views expressed by the dictionaries of Feist (1939) and Lehmann (1986).

220

Paul W. Brosman, Jr.

stantial. In addition to the proposals summarized here at the outset, which concerned developments among the diphthongal nouns as a whole following the loss of the second element of long diphthongs, others were more recently made concerning the history of the diphthongal i-stems prior to the phonological change (Brosman 2005), most of which should also be verifiable by studies of the present sort. It was noted that since the Hittite common ai-stems, the Latin i-stems with nom. sg. -e¯s and the Greek nouns in - were all closely associated with verbal abstracts (Sturtevant 1937: 61–2; 1951: 69; Friedrich 1960: 39; Kronasser 1966: 204–5; Ernout 1965: 23–4; Kuryłowicz 1966: 19–20; Schwyzer 1939: 478; Brosman 2005: 191–4), it seems clear that the animate e¯i- and o¯i-stems were productive in the derivation of such forms prior to the separation of Anatolian. Evidence that the productivity continued beyond the separation was found in Hittite, where the occurrence beside the secondary verbs maniyahh- ‘govern’ and istarnink- ‘sicken’ of the further derivatives maniyahhai- ‘government’ and istarningai- ‘sickness’ indicated that the ai-stems were still productive in the derivation of action nouns in pre-Hittite (Friedrich 1952: 135, 92; Puhvel 1984-: 6.49–51; 2.476). It thus is possible that in Proto-Indo-European the animate diphthongal i-stem abstracts remained productive until their paradigms were disrupted by the loss of the second element of long diphthongs. That such was in fact the case was suggested by a comparison of the semantic characteristics of the Hittite common ai-stems and the Greek and Latin types presumably of diphthongal i-stem origin, which found that the association with verbal abstracts was closer among the Indo-European forms than it was among those of Hittite (Brosman 2005: 197–9). Confirmation that this is what occurred is apparently provided by the semantics of the zero-grade i-stems. In Hittite the ai-stems were associated with action nouns but the i-stems were not. However, in Indo-European i-stem forms of both types displayed a close connection with verbal abstracts. As has been noted previously (Brosman 1994a: 351), since conversion to zero grade was the most important means employed in the virtual elimination of the diphthongal nouns as a whole, an obvious explanation for the zero-grade abstracts of Indo-European is the conversion of diphthongal abstracts to zero-grade forms. Since a large majority of the Indo-European i-stems consisted of action nouns (Brugmann 1906: 167–70), it thus appeared that at the time of the loss of the second element of long diphthongs the animate diphthongal

The cognates of the Gothic masculine i-stems

221

i-stems were perhaps more numerous than the corresponding zerograde forms or that the diphthongal abstracts had indeed remained productive until the occurrence of the phonological change. The same evidence also implied that the animate diphthongal i-stems of other meanings were not appreciably productive in Proto-Indo-European, though those that had been inherited presumably were preserved for the most part. In his discussion of the i-stems Brugmann (1906: 167–9) provides a lengthy list of examples illustrative of the fact that most of the i-stem substantives were original abstracts. That approximately a third of the action nouns listed were masculine indicated that the proportion of masculines among the i-stems of diphthongal origin must have been appreciable. However, since Brugmann’s list was not intended to be complete, nothing more specific could be determined concerning the relative frequency of the genders. Under these circumstances it was proposed that the former diphthongal nouns contained a feminine majority but also included a masculine minority of substantial but otherwise uncertain size. It was also noted that the evidence concerning the zero-grade forms not only indicates that the number of masculine i-stems of diphthongal origin was substantial but apparently provides a means of identifying such forms in addition to that of their cognates. Since zero-grade i-stem abstracts were not inherited, it appears that i-stem abstracts, masculine as well as feminine, should have been original diphthongal nouns. Although it must be considered conceivable that the zero-grade abstracts themselves became productive after the association between the zero-grade forms and action nouns had been established in Proto-Indo-European, it will be seen here later that such appears not to have been the case. Although the evidence of the Gothic masculine i-stems for the most part supported the latest set of proposals, concerning one point it appeared to require their revision. It was primarily for this reason that it was decided to begin consideration of the i-stems without suffixes by discussing the masculines. Although it had originally been intended to continue verification of the proposed origin of the arbitrary athematic feminines by examining the feminine forms first, it was felt that the evidence concerning the masculines was of greater immediate interest, since it suggested an unexpected conclusion in addition to supplying the initial apparent confirmation of most aspects of the proposed productivity of the diphthongal i-stem abstracts, as opposed to fur-

222

Paul W. Brosman, Jr.

nishing further verification of a proposal for which support had already been found. Of the twenty-six masculines occurring at least in part as i-stems, two were set aside because their i-stem forms were apparently not inherited. The a-stem wêgs ‘wave’ and ja-stem andeis ‘end’ each occurred once as an i-stem. The evidence elsewhere in Germanic indicates that they were inherited a- and ja-stems which in both cases had acquired an analogical i-stem form in Gothic (Feist 1939: 556, 49; Lehmann 1986: 397, 36; Kluge-Seebold 2002: 995, 244). Three masculines referring to males, -faps in brup -faps ‘bridegroom’, hunda-faps ‘centurion’ and similar compounds, gasts ‘stranger’ and jugga-laups ‘youth’, were also eliminated, since semantics was capable of accounting for their gender (Feist 1939: 386, 110, 109, 276, 469, 506, 202, 303; Lehmann 1986: 275, 83, 82, 194, 337, 367, 149, 212). Although a fourth masculine, baúr ‘one born, son’ (Feist 1939: 84; Lehmann 1986: 64), also possessed a male referent, it will be seen here later that it was nevertheless of potential significance and probably had become masculine before semantics acquired a role in the determination of gender. Including it, twenty-one forms remain to be considered. In one way or another the Gothic evidence indicates that the number of masculine i-stems of diphthongal origin was more than merely substantial, for it appears that more than half of the masculines were former diphthongal nouns. It may first be noted that eleven of the twenty-one remaining masculines, each of which will be identified in the course of what follows, may confidently be identified as verbal abstracts. Six of the masculine abstracts were mentioned in the earlier article on the ti-forms. It was noted there that six of the Gothic ti-abstracts had beside them in Gothic originally abstract i-stems which differed from the ti-forms only in the absence of -t-. It appeared that one occurrence of such pairs of i-stem abstracts with and without -t- was probably due to coincidence. The two forms were us-drusts ‘rough road’ and drus ‘fall’ = OE dryre (m.). Since -drusts was without a cognate anywhere and the verb us-driusan ‘fall out’ occurred in Gothic, it seemed likely that us-drusts had been derived from us-driusan in pre-Gothic and that drus was a relic of an earlier means of deriving abstracts which by chance contained the same root. However, the five other pairs all included ti-forms identifiable on multiple bases as early. It was found that the number of apparently inherited pairs was increased to twelve by the inclusion of Germanic abstracts with-

The cognates of the Gothic masculine i-stems

223

out -t- which did not occur in Gothic but only to thirteen when i-stems attested elsewhere in Indo-European were also included. That only one pair was added by the inclusion of those containing i-stems without -t- occurring outside Germanic is consistent with the fact that only three of the twelve such Germanic forms possessed precise extra-Germanic cognates. Apparently the i-stems without -t- were largely eliminated elsewhere by the existence of synonymous ti-forms beside them (Brosman 1994a: 362–3). Of the eight Gothic ti-abstracts added by the inclusion of those paired with i-stems without -t- which did not occur in Gothic, three had Germanic cognates but were otherwise ambiguous as to age. However, each of the other five was certainly early. When the latter were combined with the five inherited ti-forms with Gothic i-stems beside them, the ten forms included nine of the sixteen with extra-Germanic cognates, seven of thirteen involved in variation as to gradation and/or accent, eight of twelve with tu- variants and all six presumed original masculines. The obvious correlation between the age of the tiforms and the occurrence beside them of similar i-stem abstracts without -t- suggested that the latter stemmed from inherited diphthongal forms somehow involved in the origin of the corresponding abstracts in *-ti-. A further finding was that three of the ten ti-forms, -baúrps ‘birth’, staps ‘place’ and -qumps ‘assembly’, also had beside them in Indo-European abstracts containing -t- not followed by -i- (Brosman 1994a: 363–4). On the basis of this evidence an explanation was proposed for the origin of the diphthongal ti-abstracts. It was that the first such forms were quite few, perhaps hardly more numerous than the sources of -baúrps, staps and -qumps, and that they had arisen as blends of t-abstracts and synonymous diphthongal i-stems which stood alongside them through the occasional realization of both of two possible methods available for the derivation of verbal abstracts. Subsequently, during the confusion produced by the loss of the second element of long diphthongs, the number of diphthongal ti-forms was increased appreciably through the analogical alteration of abstracts in *-e¯(i)- and *-o¯(i)- to forms in *-te¯(i)- and *-to¯(i)- on the model of the blends in order to preserve their identity as abstracts. Ultimately almost all of the diphthongal ti-forms were converted to zero grade. Presumably the first such conversions occurred before the origin of athematic feminines and thus produced masculine zero-grade ti-

224

Paul W. Brosman, Jr.

forms. However, most of them must have taken place later, with the result that the zero-grade ti-forms acquired a feminine majority, which was subsequently augmented greatly, first by i-stem extensions to the t-abstracts, as proposed by Brugmann (1906: 422, 428) as the sole explanation for the origin of the ti-abstracts, and eventually by the independent productivity of the suffix *-ti- obtained through resegmentation. As has been indicated, all five of the Gothic i-stems with inherited ti-forms beside them were masculine. Since each of them possessed Germanic cognates, all of which were exclusively masculine also, they were presumably inherited masculines. The forms involved were: muns ‘thought’ = ON munr, OE myne (and Skt. múni- ‘sage’) beside -munds, -minds, qums ‘arrival, advent’ = OE cyme, OS cumi, OHG -cumi beside -qumps, slahs ‘blow’ = ON slegr, OE slege, OS slegi, OHG slag beside slaúhts (cf. OHG slaht), baúr ‘son’ (< ‘birth’) = ON baur, OE byre beside baúrps and naus ‘corpse’ (< ‘death, need’) = ON nár, OE -né (and OCS navц ‘corpse’) beside naups (Feist 1939: 368, 391, 436, 84, 372; Lehmann 1986: 260–1, 279, 314, 64, 264; Pokorny 1959: 728, 464, 131, 756; Brugmann 1906: 168). That the i-stems without -t- were masculine is not surprising, for three of the ti-forms beside them, -baúrps, naups and slaúhts, were themselves apparently original masculines (Brosman 1994a: 358) and thus had presumably also been converted to zero grade prior to the origin of athematic feminines referring to females. It is because -baúrps was one of the presumed masculine ti-forms that it appears probable that baúr was converted early enough to have become masculine before it acquired a male referent. Although -qumps and -munds, -minds were apparently feminine, each qualified as early by all three of the other usual criteria, extra-Germanic cognates, variation as to gradation and/or accent and tu-variants. Moreover, in the case of muns the original diphthongal nature of the i-stem may be substantiated, for in addition to the precise correspondences given above the forms related to it included an o¯(i)-stem, the Greek woman’s name M , M (Pokorny 1959: 727). There is evidence as well to support the diphthongal origin of naus in the Baltic e¯-stems Lith. nove˙ ‘oppression, death’ and Latv. nawe ‘death’ (Feist 1939: 372; Lehmann 1986: 264). Although the six remaining masculine abstracts did not have inherited Gothic ti-forms beside them, in the case of one, plaúhs ‘flight’, such a form occurred elsewhere in Germanic in OE flyht and OHG,

The cognates of the Gothic masculine i-stems

225

OS fluht. Since flyht was masculine and the two others were feminine, the ti-abstract was presumably an original masculine as were six of those found in Gothic. Germanic cognates of plaúhs also occurred in OHG flug, OE flyge and ON flugr, all of which were masculine (Feist 1939: 499; Lehmann 1986: 363). The five other forms included four which like plaúhs had retained their original abstract meanings essentially unchanged. They were wlits ‘appearance’, saggws ‘song, recitation’, laiks ‘dance’ and the previously mentioned drus ‘fall’, which occurred beside the verbs seen in strong OE wlítan ‘see’, Got. siggwan ‘sing, shout’, Got. laikan ‘jump’ and Got. driusan ‘fall’. The only correspondence of drus was the masculine i-stem OE dryre cited earlier. Besides precise cognates in the masculines OS wliti and OE wlite, wlits possessed a u-stem variant in ON litr, while saggws, the only one of the forms with an extra-Germanic cognate, corresponded to the a¯-stem Gk. φ ‘divine voice, oracle’, which was also consistent with diphthongal origin. Although the Germanic forms beside saggws and laiks were strong masculines, they included a-stems in ON songr, ˛ OE sang and ON leikr, OE lác. It will be seen later that such forms seem more likely to have resulted from independent derivation than from confusion between the masculine i- and a-stems in Germanic (Feist 1939: 127, 571–2, 403, 319; Lehmann 1986: 95, 408, 302, 225; Pokorny 1959: 907). The source of the final form, saups ‘sacrifice’, evolved in different ways semantically within Germanic. Held to have stemmed from the verb attested in ON sjBa, OE séopan, OHG siodan ‘seethe, boil’, it became associated with sacrificial ceremony in North and East Germanic and with the turbulent water of springs elsewhere. Saups possessed a precise cognate in the masculine i-stem ON sauBr ‘sheep’ (presumably < ‘sacrificial animal’) and supplied another example of a Germanic u-stem variant in OE séap ‘spring, cave’. That the synonymous a-stem MHG sôt ‘seething, spring’ resulted from separate derivation seems clearer in this case since it occurred as both neuter and masculine (Feist 1939: 413; Lehmann 1986: 297–8; Kluge-Seebold 2002: 854). In addition to the eleven verbal abstracts, five of which had cognates indicative of diphthongal origin as well, two other masculines appear to have been former diphthongal nouns. Although both may also have been original abstracts, they could not be identified as such with the same certitude as the others. One is stiks = OHG stih, OS stiki, OE stice ‘point, prick’, which may be compared to Gk. «

226

Paul W. Brosman, Jr.

‘sticker, tattooer, branding iron’ regarded as a probable derivative of ‘pierce, puncture, tattoo, brand’ (Feist 1939: 453; Lehmann 1986: 325; Pokorny 1959: 1016; Frisk 1960–70: 2.798; Chantraine 1968–80: 1056; Brosman 2004: 14). That the Greek nouns in -« were diphthongal u-stems is no obstacle to a connection with the Germanic form in view of the confusion between the i- and u-stems established as having taken place among the diphthongal nouns. The second form is aiws ‘time, eternity’, which occurred in Gothic as both an a- and an i-stem. Since i-stems are also found elsewhere Germanic in ON aevi ‘life, age’ and OE ae(w) ‘law, marriage’, and as an a-stem aiws would have a precise cognate in Lat. aevus, aevum ‘age, eternity’, it appears that both forms should be considered to have been inherited. Because the Germanic evidence also includes an ô-stem and a form in -î(n) in OHG ewa ‘eternity’ and OHG ewî ‘law, marriage’, the i-stem appears to have originally been diphthongal. However, it differed in one respect from the other masculine i-stems which have been so identified here. Whereas the Germanic i-stem cognates of the other forms were exclusively masculine also, in the present case aevi and ae(w) were both feminine. It thus is not clear at this point whether its Proto-Germanic etymon should be considered to have been masculine or feminine (Feist 1939: 30; Lehmann 1986: 22). Of the twenty-one masculine i-stems to be considered here, there remain only eight which could apparently have been original zerograde forms: arms ‘arm’, balgs ‘bag, sack’, barms ‘bosom, lap’, gards ‘house, court’, hups ‘hip’, mets ‘food’, stafs ‘stave’ and staks ‘mark’ (Feist 1939: 58, 78, 81, 147–8, 277–8, 348, 446, 448–9; Lehmann 1986: 43, 59, 62, 147, 196, 247, 321, 322). Since Indo-European connections which are at least possible have been proposed for all of them, that is probably what most of them were. However, at least one, balgs, may provide an additional example of an original verbal abstract, for Feist (1938: 78), Lehmann (1986: 59) and Pokorny (1959: 126) consider it to be related to the strong verb OHG, OS, OE belgan ‘swell, be angry’. The noun corresponds to the masculine i-stems ON belgr ‘bag, belly’, OE belg and OS, OHG balg ‘bag’ in Germanic and elsewhere to MIr. bolg ‘sack’, which could be either an o- or an i-stem. However, even if all eight forms had been original zero-grade i-stems, they would be clearly outnumbered by the thirteen apparent former diphthongal nouns. It should be noted that there also occurred eight strong masculines which have not been included here, since they could not be identi-

The cognates of the Gothic masculine i-stems

227

fied as a- or i-stems: hrôps ‘clamor’, grêts ‘weeping’, krusts ‘gnashing’, striks ‘hook’, waips ‘crown’, writs ‘stroke, line’, waúrms ‘snake’ and saiws ‘sea’ (Feist 1939: 470, 221, 315, 457, 544, 574, 555, 406; Lehmann 1986: 191, 160, 221, 328, 400, 410, 397, 292). However, since hrôps, grêts and krusts were obviously verbal abstracts (cf. OE, OS hrôpan, OHG hruofan ‘shout, call’, Got. grêtan ‘weep’ and Got. kriustan ‘gnash’), their inclusion among the i-stems presumably would merely increase the number of original diphthongal nouns among them. It may be added that, as held by Feist and Lehmann, the Proto-Germanic source of saiws was likely to have been a loanword. Although some of the four other forms may have belonged to the original zerograde i-stems, it appears that among the inherited masculine i-stems with inanimate referents, those of diphthongal origin were at least slightly more numerous than original zero-grade forms. Since the evidence of the ti-forms supported the view that all of the inherited feminine i-stems were diphthongal in origin, the Gothic evidence examined thus far therefore indicates that at the time of the loss of the second element of long diphthongs the diphthongal i-stems were considerably more numerous than those of zero grade or that the diphthongal i-stem abstracts had indeed been productive on an appreciable scale in Proto-Indo-European. The latest indications concerning the productivity of the diphthongal abstracts are consistent with the evidence seen when the question was discussed originally, for it was noted then that a large majority of the i-stem nouns consisted of verbal abstracts. The tentative conclusion proposed on that occasion was merely that the diphthongal i-stems had become perhaps more numerous than the zero-grade forms. However, it was stated at the same time that the only reason for describing the relative frequency of the two types in such vague terms was the possibility that the zero-grade abstracts themselves had become productive after they had originated and that otherwise the diphthongal forms would have been held to have been considerably more numerous (Brosman 2005: 201). The original contribution of the more recent evidence will thus be limited to an indication that, as will be seen below, the zero-grade abstracts did not become productive to a significant degree. Their failure to have done so should not be surprising, for although in an abundance of caution allowance was made for the possibility of such a development, there was little reason to expect it to have occurred. Although the zero-grade i-stems clearly

228

Paul W. Brosman, Jr.

acquired a close association with verbal abstracts, the ti-forms, which arose at approximately the same time, possessed a similar association which, since it was exclusive, was significantly closer. Since the tiforms are known to have become extremely productive in the derivation of abstracts, it is unlikely that the i-stem abstracts without -twould have concurrently been undergoing appreciable expansion. In this connection it may be noted that the evidence seen here earlier that the i-stems without -t- were largely eliminated outside Germanic by the existence of synonymous ti-forms beside them shows the outcome to be expected in the case of competition between i-stem abstracts with and without -t-. Although that evidence applied only to developments within the separate dialects, those during the period of unity would presumably have been similar. At any rate, productivity on the part of the zero-grade abstracts apparently played no role in producing the results seen here. The only Gothic masculines identified as abstracts which had extra-Germanic i-stem cognates were muns and naus. Since both of these forms appeared on the basis of their other correspondences to have been diphthongal in origin, there was no evidence of a PIE i-stem abstract which could have resulted from such productivity. Aside from the question of its relevance concerning the other conclusions reached here, the view that the zero-grade i-stem abstracts had originally been diphthongal now appears justified. Since i-stem abstracts were not inherited, the only alternative to the diphthongal origin of such forms is later productivity after they had arisen, which has been seen apparently not to have occurred, at least in the case of the masculine forms.2 Concerning this question support of a different sort was also found, for of the eleven masculine i-stems identified as abstracts, five possessed apparent cognates indicative of diphthongal origin, one of which was itself a diphthongal noun. The only possible cognates of a type not appropriate for a former diphthongal noun were the otherwise identical Germanic a-stems which occurred beside three of the Gothic abstracts. By indicating that the diphthongal i-stem abstracts remained productive in Indo-European, the evidence 2

As I hope to demonstrate before long, the evidence concerning the feminines is identical in that it includes no Gothic form with an extra-Germanic i-stem cognate which did not also possess other correspondences indicative of diphthongal origin.

The cognates of the Gothic masculine i-stems

229

that the diphthongal i-stems were once considerably more numerous than the corresponding zero-grade forms supports the view that the a-stems were the results of independent derivation rather than cognates of an unexpected form. It now appears that the diphthongal abstracts were not entirely relics inherited from a period prior to the separation of Anatolian but that a considerable number of them had been derived later during the separate history of Proto-Indo-European. Since the o-stems were also associated with verbal abstracts (Brugmann 1906: 631) and newly derived o-stems of that and every other sort were being produced in large numbers at that time as part of the expansion which made them the most important Indo-European nominal type, it is plausible that the use of both of the two alternative methods available for the derivation of action nouns would sometimes have resulted in pairs of abstracts derived from the same verb. In addition to the three a-stems occurring beside certain verbal abstracts, one of the i-stems held to have been of diphthongal origin on the basis of cognates alone, aiws, had an a-stem variant in Gothic which apparently corresponded to Lat. aevus. That the same explanation applies to the o-stem in its case appears possible but is uncertain. As noted earlier, that aiws was an original abstract cannot be ruled out but is by no means clear. Although the Gothic evidence otherwise appeared consistent with the original proposals concerning the productivity of the diphthongal i-stem abstracts and its consequences, it conflicted with one, that concerning the relative frequency of the genders among the forms of diphthongal (or abstract) origin. It was proposed previously that the original diphthongal nouns contained a feminine majority but included a substantial masculine minority. However, the number of Gothic feminine i-stems which were apparently inherited was thirteen, the same as that of masculines identified as former diphthongal nouns. Therefore, even if all of the inherited feminines were of diphthongal origin as predicted, the Gothic material indicates that masculines were as numerous as feminines among the original diphthongal forms. Although a lack of space prevents the examination here of the cognates and other relevant related forms of each of the inherited feminines, the significance of their total number requires that the basis for its determination be given. Of the twenty-three Gothic feminines reported earlier to have occurred as i-stems, three were apparently orig-

230

Paul W. Brosman, Jr.

inal consonant stems. Though usually attested as i-stems dulps ‘festival’ and waíhts ‘thing’, both of which had Germanic cognates but were of uncertain origin otherwise, each occurred once as a consonant stem. Gaits ‘goat’ was an i-stem in Gothic but had consonant-stem cognates in Old Norse, Old English and Old Saxon, as well as an extra-Germanic correspondence in Lat. haedus ‘buck’ (Feist 1939: 129, 543, 186; Lehmann 1986: 97, 388, 140; Walde-Hofmann 1938–54: 1.632). It thus appears that all three were inherited as consonant stems by Germanic, where they became subject to the tendency there to convert feminine consonant stems to i-stems, in which case haedus may be explained through thematicization of the original consonant stem as a masculine o-stem for semantic reasons. Two other forms, qêns ‘wife’ and brûps ‘bride’, were set aside because of their female referents (Feist 1939: 386, 110; Lehmann 1986: 275, 83). Of the eighteen which remain, it is probable in one case and possible in four others that the i-stem was an original abstract derivative in *-ti-, *-sti- or *-sni-. The case considered probable is that of haifsts ‘strife’, which had Germanic cognates in the feminines ON heifst ‘enmity’, OE háest ‘enmity, vehemence’ and MLG heist ‘vehemence’ but is otherwise of uncertain etymology. Although neither Feist (1939: 231) nor Lehmann (1986: 169) identifies it as such, it is suitable in both form and meaning to have been a sti-abstract. The view here is that the Old Norse ti-variant heipt indicates that it was. The four other forms are dauhts ‘feast’, ga-grêfts ‘decree’, grips ‘standing’ and rôhsns ‘courtyard’ (Feist 1939: 116, 182, 222, 400; Lehmann 1986: 88, 138, 161, 287). Concerning them there is little that can be said, for each is without a certain connection anywhere. It thus appears that the inherited feminines with inanimate referents included a minimum of thirteen plus possibly four additions which may have contained *-ti- or *-sni-, while the masculines of apparent diphthongal origin included a minimum of thirteen plus possibly three or four additions, three verbal abstracts which may have been a-stems and the uncertain balgs. In view of the other uncertainties the question of whether aiws was an inherited masculine or feminine seems to be of little additional consequence. Under these circumstances all that can be said is that masculines of diphthongal origin apparently were approximately as numerous as feminines. As was seen earlier, the basis for the view that feminines were in the majority among the originally diphthongal i-stems was the list of zero-

The cognates of the Gothic masculine i-stems

231

grade i-stem abstracts published by Brugmann, where feminines were roughly twice as numerous as masculines. Since the list was not intended to be complete, it might be considered inadequate to permit conclusions concerning the relative frequency of the genders. That it is inadequate to permit precise conclusions of that sort is indeed obvious and was recognized when it was first discussed. However, it was felt that as a large random sample of i-stem abstracts it would not have distorted the picture concerning the genders so greatly that one could not determine which was more numerous. This attitude appears to be justified by Brugmann’s presumable concurrence with the conclusions based on his list, for when he later discusses verbal abstracts in general (Brugmann 1906: 630–3), he identifies the feminine i-stems as one of the principal types employed in this manner but does not mention the masculines. An explanation thus seems to be required for the apparent conflict between the evidence seen here, which indicates that in Gothic masculine i-stems of diphthongal origin were approximately as numerous as feminines, and the statement of Brugmann implying that i-stem abstracts were chiefly feminine. A plausible basis for such an explanation may be found in what was reported here earlier in connection with the abstracts in *-ti-, where it was noted that in the separate dialects i-stem abstracts without -t- apparently were largely eliminated everywhere outside Germanic if they occurred beside synonymous ti-forms. It was also seen that five of the eleven Gothic masculine i-stems identified as verbal abstracts had beside them in Gothic otherwise identical ti-abstracts which could be established as inherited on multiple bases but that no feminine i-stem did. As was to be expected from what was said concerning the elimination of such forms elsewhere, only two of the abstracts without -t- possessed precise extraGermanic cognates, a single one in each case. Moreover, the cognates, Skt. múni- ‘sage’ and OCS navц ‘corpse’, had both acquired concrete meanings capable of accounting for their preservation outside Germanic. If the masculine abstracts with Gothic ti-forms beside them were removed from the evidence seen here, the minimum of thirteen inherited feminines would be distinctly more numerous than the eight remaining masculines identified as diphthongal in origin. It thus seems likely that the Gothic evidence would not have appeared to conflict with what was found by Brugmann had it not been for the extreme relative conservatism of Germanic with respect to the retention

232

Paul W. Brosman, Jr.

of pairs of abstracts with and without -t-. There thus seems to be no reason not to accept the facts reported by Brugmann. Presumably his view that the i-stem abstracts contained a distinct feminine majority is correct as far as the forms attested in the older Indo-European dialects are concerned. However, the inference that the same was true at the end of the period of unity does not necessarily follow. It appears instead that in this case it is the Gothic evidence which is more likely to be accurate. It thus appears possible to reconcile the statement of Brugmann and the evidence seen here by holding that among inherited i-stem abstracts, and thus presumably among i-stems of diphthongal origin in general, masculines and feminines were roughly equal in number. Thereafter, in the separate dialects other than Germanic the elimination of most of the abstracts which occurred beside otherwise identical ti-forms reduced the proportion of masculines in those dialects, producing discernible feminine majorities, which in some cases may have remained largely unchanged but in others could have been expanded analogically to varying degrees. Despite the lack of involvement by Germanic, the result was that in the attested dialects as a whole, feminines came to be clearly in the majority among i-stem abstracts. The same was true of the former diphthongal i-stems in general, though among them the feminine majority presumably was slightly smaller because of the failure of the relatively small minority of former diphthongal nouns which were not original abstracts to have participated in the developments described above. The tentative explanation proposed here depends upon the assumption that masculines predominated by a wide margin among the abstracts with synonymous ti-forms beside them. It has been seen that this is what is indicated by the evidence of Gothic, where, unlike in the dialects outside Germanic, such forms were preserved for the most part and where they were exclusively masculine. That such should be the case appears plausible in view of the previous proposal concerning the production of diphthongal ti-abstracts during the confusion following the loss of the second element of long diphthongs and the evidence that the first conversions of diphthongal nouns to zero grade resulted in masculine forms. Apparently most of the abstracts in *-e¯(i)and *-o¯(i)- held to have been altered in part to forms in *-te¯(i)- and *-to¯(i)- were eliminated shortly thereafter by being converted to masculine zero-grade forms when not dropped from the language, though

The cognates of the Gothic masculine i-stems

233

a majority of the diphthongal ti-abstracts stemming from them, having been rendered more stable by the -t- which they had acquired, were not converted to zero grade until after the origin of athematic feminines referring to females. According to the original proposals concerning the history of the diphthongal i-stems prior to the loss of the second element of long diphthongs, the animate e¯(i)- and o¯(i)-stems were productive in the derivation of verbal abstracts on an appreciable scale in Proto-IndoEuropean until their expansion was halted by the phonological change. The animate diphthongal i-stems of other meanings were at best no more than slightly productive during that time, though they presumably were not yet subject to elimination to a significant degree. As a result of the productivity of the verbal abstracts the diphthongal i-stems became at least as numerous as those of zero grade and may well have been considerably more numerous, the uncertainty concerning this point being due to the possibility that the zero-grade i-stem abstracts stemming from the diphthongal forms later became productive to some extent in their own right. It was also proposed at the same time that the i-stems of diphthongal origin, or the zerograde i-stem abstracts which largely coincided with them, included a feminine majority but a masculine minority of substantial but otherwise unknown size. The evidence seen here appeared to confirm the previous conclusions concerning developments prior to the loss of the second element of long diphthongs and to render more precise the vaguely worded proposal regarding the relative frequency of the diphthongal and zero-grade i-stems by indicating that the zerograde i-stem abstracts did not become significantly productive and that the diphthongal i-stems were thus considerably more numerous than their zero-grade counterparts at the time of the phonological change. In the case of the proposed feminine majority among the i-stems of diphthongal origin, it conflicted with the previous conclusion, indicating instead that masculines and feminines were approximately equal in number among such forms, but offered a possible means of resolving the conflict. Since the Gothic evidence also indicated that i-stem abstracts with synonymous ti-forms beside them, most of which were apparently masculine, were largely eliminated in the separate dialects other than Germanic, it seemed likely that in accord with the evidence seen here masculines of diphthongal origin were indeed roughly as numerous as feminines in late Proto-Indo-

234

Paul W. Brosman, Jr.

European, but that among the forms attested in the older separate dialects feminines had come to be in the majority. It should be added that the proposal that masculine i-stems of diphthongal origin were approximately as numerous as feminines in the parent speech implies that a period of appreciable duration intervened between the loss of the second element of long diphthongs and the origin of athematic feminines referring to females.

References Brosman, Paul (1984): The cognates of Hittite ai- and au-stems. In: Journal of Indo-European Studies 12.345–65. –, (1992): The Greek nouns in -. In: Journal of Indo-European Studies 20.317–38. –, (1994a): The Gothic ti- abstracts and the PIE arbitrary feminines. In: Journal of Indo-European Studies 22.345–69. –, (1994b): The PIE i/iy-, u¯/uw- and i/ya¯-stems. In: Folia Linguistica Historica 15.3–19. –, (2004): The Greek nouns in -« and -«. In: Folia Linguistica Historica 25.1–19. –, (2005): The Hittite ai-stems. In: Indogermanische Forschungen 110.186–204. –, (2006): The cognates of the Hittite ai- and au-stems and thematicization. In: Indogermanische Forschungen 111.98–109. Brugmann, Karl (1906): Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. 2nd ed. vol. 2. pt. 1. Strassburg: Trübner. Chantraine, Pierre (1968–80): Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Paris: Klincksieck. Ernout, Alfred (1965): Philologica III. Paris: Klincksieck. Feist, Sigmund (1939): Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der gotischen Sprache. 3rd ed. Leiden: Brill. Friedrich, Johannes (1952): Hethitisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Winter. –, (1960): Hethitisches Elementarbuch. 2nd ed. Heidelberg: Winter. Frisk, Hjalmar (1960–70): Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 2 vols. Heidelberg: Winter. Kluge, Friedrich and Elmar Seebold (2002): Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. 24th ed. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. Kronasser, Heinz (1966): Etymologie der hethitischen Sprache. vol. 1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy (1966): Les thèmes en -e¯- du baltique. In: Bulletin de la société de linguistique de Paris 61.13–20. Lehmann, Winfred (1986): A Gothic etymological dictionary. Leiden: Brill. Pokorny, Julius (1959): Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. vol. 1. Bern: Francke. Puhvel, Jaan (1984–): Hittite etymological dictionary. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

The cognates of the Gothic masculine i-stems

235

Schwyzer, Eduard (1939): Griechische Grammatik. vol. 1. Munich: Beck. Sturtevant, Edgar (1937): Latin and Hittite substantive i-stems with lengthened grade in the nominative. In: Mélanges linguistiques offerts à M. Holger Pedersen à l’occasion de son soixante-dixième anniversaire, ed. by Louis Hjelmslev. Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget 57–62. –, (1951): A comparative grammar of the Hittite language. 2nd ed. vol. 1. New Haven: Yale University. Walde, Alois and J. B. Hofmann (1938–54): Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 3rd ed. 2 vols. Heidelberg: Winter.

1550 2nd St. N e w O r l e a n s, Louisiana 70130 USA

P a u l W. B r o s m a n , J r .

236

Marc Pierce

Die Rolle linguistischer Theorien in der historischen Sprachwissenschaft: Eine Fallstudie aus dem Gotischen* 0

Im Idealfall ziehen Arbeiten zur historischen Linguistik Forschungsergebnisse aus modernen linguistischen Theorien sowie der traditionellen historischen Sprachwissenschaft in Betracht. Leider sind diese oftmals widersprüchlich, was die folgende Frage aufwirft: welchem Fachgebiet sollte der Vorzug gegeben werden? Sollten etablierte historische Ansichten geändert werden, um Rücksicht auf neuere linguistische Theorien nehmen zu können, oder sollte sich die Theorie an den Daten und Ansichten der traditionellen historischen Sprachwissenschaft orientieren? Der vorliegende Beitrag widmet sich diesem Sachverhalt anhand einer Fallstudie aus dem Gotischen, die die Interpretation der Lautwerte der mit <j> und <w> transliterierten Buchstaben des gotischen Alphabets untersucht. In den meisten Handbüchern des Gotischen sowie den Studien zur gotischen Phonologie werden diese Buchstaben als Halbvokale interpretiert. Braune/Ebbinghaus (1981: 42) argumentieren mit Bezug auf <w>, dass „[d]as Zeichen des gotischen Alphabets, welches wir durch w wiedergeben, …. ursprünglich die lautliche Geltung des konsonantischen u (= engl. w) gehabt [hat]. Ob zur Zeit des Wulfila ein spirantisches Element mit dem u-Laute verbunden gewesen ist, wie von manchen angenommen wird, ist zweifelhaft.“ In Bezug auf gotisch <j> sagen Braune/Ebbinghaus (1981: 44), dass „[d]as Zeichen j … in der Aussprache des Got. wahrscheinlich die Geltung des konsonantischen i, nicht den Lautwert unseres spirantischen j gehabt [hat].“ Ähnliche Bemerkungen sind in anderen Werken zu finden. Andere Handbücher gehen auf diese Frage nicht ein, wie z.B. Binning (1999), in dem die zwei Laute schlichtweg als „Halbvokale“ klassifiziert und nicht weiter analysiert werden. Die wohletablierte Interpretation dieser Buchstaben wurde bereits in Bezug auf den Lautwert von <j> in den siebziger Jahren in Frage gestellt. Laut Vennemann (1971: 108–109), der sein Argument auf den *0 Ich danke Hans Boas, Robert Kyes und Ilka Rasch für ihre Hilfe in der Vorbereitung dieser Arbeit. Indogermanische Forschungen, 112. Band 2007

DOI 10.1515/IDGF.2007.013

Die Rolle linguistischer Theorien in der historischen Sprachwissenschaft

237

Regeln der Worttrennung in den gotischen Handschriften basiert, gebe es „some likelihood that Gothic had a low-level rule changing high glides into obstruents.“ In einem späteren Aufsatz wurde diese Behauptung von Murray und Vennemann (1983) durch den Zusatz erweitert, dass <j> einschliessende Lautgruppen normalerweise vor dem <j> getrennt werden, und, dass dieses Muster der Silbenbildung nicht aus dem Urgermanischen stamme. Stattdessen stelle es einen „strengthening process of glides into fricatives in Gothic“ dar (Murray und Vennemann 1983: 517). Um diese These zu unterstützen, fügten sie hinzu, dass der palatale Halbvokal in den altwestgermanischen Sprachen nach der Westgermanischen Konsonantendehnung wegfällt, wenn er wort-intern und der letzte Konsonant einer Lautgruppe ist, wie z. B. in Formen wie as. bitten, ae. biddan ,bitten‘. Im Gotischen ist der Laut nicht verlorengegangen, z.B. got. bidjan ,bitten‘. Gemäss Murray und Vennemann (1983: 526) wäre <j> auch im Gotischen verloren gegangen, wenn der Buchstabe einen palatalen Halbvokal repräsentiert hätte, wie in den Handbüchern behauptet wird. Diese Behauptung wird am ausführlichsten von Vennemann (1985: 210–216) besprochen, der die folgenden Argumente dafür vorlegt.1 Zuerst werden Lautgruppen, die in <j> oder <w> enden, fast ausschließlich vor dem <j> oder <w> am Zeilenende in den gotischen Handschriften getrennt. Wenn die gotischen Schreiber am Ende einer Zeile angelangt waren und nicht genügend Platz hatten, das ganze Wort auf eine Zeile zu schreiben, trennten sie es, wie die folgenden Formen belegen (ein Bindestrich repräsentiert eine Wortbrechung): stai-nam ,Stein‘, sun-jus ,Sohn‘, piudangard-jos ,Königreich‘, fuhlsn-ja ,Geheimnis‘ und weina-gardis ,Weingarten‘. Traditionell wird behauptet, in solchen Fällen hätten die gotischen Schreiber das Wort an einer Silbengrenze getrennt. Schulze (1908: 484) behauptet z.B., dass „[i]n allen gotischen Handschriften … die Praxis der Zeilenbrechung durch feste Regeln beherrscht [wird], die … auf dem Prinzipe rationeller und konsequenter Silbenbildung beruhen.“2 Laut Hermann (1923: 288) gibt es in den gotischen Handschriften circa 340 Fälle sol1

2

„Vennemanns Argumentation betreffend die Alternation zwischen und in Wörtern wie gaf ,(ich) gab‘ und giban ,geben‘ wird hier nicht diskutiert, da es sich um eine Art Reibelaut handelt, der <w> repräsentieren soll.“ Man vergleiche die neueren Arbeiten zu diesem Punkt von Riad (2004), der die traditionelle Ansicht bestreitet, sowie Pierce (2006), der sie verteidigt.

238

Marc Pierce

cher Lautgruppen am Zeilenende, von denen nur ein Beispiel nicht getrennt wird.3 Sollten <j> und <w> wirklich Halbvokale repräsentieren, werden Silbenkontakte geschaffen, die gegen das Silbenkontaktgesetz verstossen. Dieses Präferenzgesetz für die Silbenbildung besagt: „ein Silbenkontakt … ist umso besser, je größer die Differenz aus der Konsonantischen Stärke … des zweiten Sprachlauts und derjenigen des ersten Sprachlauts … ist“ (Vennemann 1987: 167). Diesem Präferenzgesetz zufolge gäbe es in Formen wie bidjan ,bitten‘, welches als bidjan syllabifiziert wird, einen schlechten Kontakt, weil Halbvokale die schwächsten und Verschlusslaute die stärksten Konsonanten sind. Wenn <j> und <w> jedoch Reibelaute wären, existiert dieses Problem nicht, weil Reibelaute stärker als Halbvokale sind. Desweiteren fällt es Vennemann (1985: 214) schwer zu glauben, dass „a vowel should be able to maintain a syllable margin position under the same conditions as the speech sound spelled w does in Biblical Gothic.“ Seiner Meinung nach ist „[a] fricative … more likely to appear in this position, because … a pair of speech sounds in a syllable-final margin is the more preferred, the greater the difference in consonantal strength is between the second and the first speech sound.“ Außerdem kann vom Buchstabieren von Lehnwörtern im Gotischen geschlossen werden, dass <j> und verschiedene Laute repräsentieren. Vennemann zufolge wird <j> in gebräuchlicheren Lehnwörtern, wie z. B. aikklêsjo ,Kirche‘ und Makidônja ,Mazedonien‘, und in selteneren gebrauchten Lehnwörtern sowie in persönlichen Namen wie Gabriel und Maria benutzt. Daraus schließt Vennemann (1985: 215), dass <j> und „represented appreciably different sounds to those writing Gothic.“ Seine Erklärung für diesen Sachverhalt ist, dass „they represented a palatal fricative and palatal vowel.“4 Als letztes Argument führt Vennemann an, dass die Verwendung verschiedener Buchstaben im gotischen Alphabet bedeutet, dass die verschiedenen Laute anders ausgesprochen wur-

3

4

Die von Vennemann genannten Zahlen schliessen seine Auswertung von einigen anderen Studien zur Wortbrechung im Gotischen ein und sind deshalb etwas anders als die von Hermann. Der Gebrauch der zwei Buchstaben könnte auch auf eine unvollkommene Eingliederung in das gotische Schreibsystem verweisen, aber auf diese Hypothese geht Vennemann nicht ein.

Die Rolle linguistischer Theorien in der historischen Sprachwissenschaft

239

den, da ein orthographischer Kontrast auf einen phonemischen Kontrast verweist (vgl. Kyes 1967 zu diesem Punkt). Vennemann (1985: 215) führt ausserdem an, dass „Greek, the primary model for Wulfila’s alphabet, had no separate letters for marginal vowels; why should Wulfila introduce them?“ Aufgrund dieser Belege kommt Vennemann zu dem Schluss, dass die Buchstaben <j> und <w> Reibelaute und keine Halbvokale repräsentieren, wie traditionell angenommen worden ist. Obwohl zugegeben werden muss, dass Vennemann die traditionelle gotische Philologie nicht geschlossen zurückweist, sind die meisten seiner Argumente dazu angebracht, die gotischen Daten an seine (linguistische) Theorie der Silbenpräferenzgesetze anzupassen. In einer späteren Behandlung der Daten aus der gotischen Skeireins bringt Frey (1989), eine ehemalige Studentin Vennemanns, die Verbindung zwischen Theorie und Interpretation am deutlichsten zum Ausdruck: „Akzeptiert man die Auffassung, daß die Wortbrechung auf der Syllabierung beruhe und daß diese wiederum allgemeinen Silbenpräferenzgesetzen entspreche, so muß auch der Lautwert der Grapheme j und w neu festgelegt werden, da ihre Bestimmung als reine Halbvokale nicht mehr aufrechterhalten werden kann, wenn Trennungen wie bruk-jands etc. mit dem Silbenkontaktgesetz übereinstimmen sollen.“ (Frey 1989: 291; um eine Fußnote gekürzt). Dieses Zitat sowie die oben besprochenen Artikel von Vennemann vertreten die folgende Meinung: die traditionelle auf der Philologie basierende Interpretation dieser Buchstaben sollte zugunsten einer neuen linguistischen Theorie (die Theorie der Präferenzgesetze für die Silbenbildung) abgelehnt werden. Diese Entscheidung wurde von Barrack (1997) in einem Aufsatz angefochten, in dem der größte Teil seiner Argumentation auf traditionellen Ansichten beruht.5 Barrack zufolge werde die von Vennemann vorgeschlagene Syllabierung des Gotischen schnell problematisch, wenn das Silbengewicht in Betracht gezogen würde. In Fällen wie fulhsnja ,Geheimnis‘ (das fulhsn-ja getrennt wird) gibt es mehr als zwei Moren in der betonten Silbe, obwohl das präferierte Silbenge5

In diesem Zusammenhang ist es interessant zu bemerken, dass Barrack selbst in anderen Arbeiten zur gotischen Phonologie der Linguistik den Vorzug über die Philologie gibt (vgl. Barrack 1998).

240

Marc Pierce

wicht in betonten Silben nicht mehr als zwei Moren zulässt. Auch sei die diachrone Entwicklung dieser Lauten wegen der germanischen Verschärfung problematisch, weil in Formen wie twaddjê ,zwei (gen.)‘, von einem Prä-Gotisch *twaijê, der Halbvokal ein Verschlußlaut werden müßte, aber die Entwicklung „presupposes that the palatal glide either strengthened inexplicably to the stop … in the coda, … or moved there inexplicably from the following onset position“ (Barrack 1997: 3). Deshalb schlägt Barrack vor, dass die Worttrennung von Lautgruppen mit Halbvokalen in den gotischen Handschriften auf morphologischen, nicht phonologischen, Bedingungen basiere. Eine Morphemgrenze befindet sich vor fast jedem inlautenden Halbvokal im Gotischen. Laut Barrack (1997: 3) wäre es möglich, dass die Trennung von Lautgruppen vor dem Halbvokal „these ubiquitous morphological boundaries“ widerspiegele.6 In Bezug auf den Verlust des Halbvokals im Westgermanischen im Gegensatz zu seiner Beibehaltung im Gotischen vertritt Barrack (1997: 3–4) die Ansicht, man dürfe „archaic fourth-century Gothic“ mit „the relatively innovative West Germanic of a period several centuries later“ nicht vergleichen. Barrack zufolge könne man Bibelgotisch nur mit dem Krimgotischen vergleichen,7 und im Krimgotischen geht der Halbvokal verloren, vgl. Bibelgotisch hlahjan mit Krimgotisch lachen ,lachen‘ oder Bibelgotisch siggwan mit Krimgotisch singhen ,singen‘. Desweiteren bespricht Barrack die Entwicklung von <j> und <w> am Ende eines Wortes oder einer Lautgruppe. Hierzu behauptet Barrack, diese Entwicklungen lassen sich anders erklären als Vennemann behauptet, z.B. könne das Graphem <w> in diesem Zusammenhang weder einen Halbvokal noch Reibelaut repräsentieren. Stattdessen liege eine Labialisierung des vorhergehenden Konsonanten vor. Andere Evidenzen der Behaltung der Halbvokale werden ebenfalls von Barrack hervorgehoben. Er bemerkt, dass <j> manchmal als epenthetischer Konsonant vorkommt, z.B. in dem gotischen Wort für

6

7

Es gibt einige Ausnahmen zu dieser Generalisierung, nämlich einige von der Verschärfung betroffene Formen sowie einige Wurzeln, die in enden. Barrack zufolge haben die gotischen Schreiber vielleicht „simply followed the general pattern in dividing before them also“ (Barrack 1997: 3). Im Lichte der wohlbekannten Probleme mit der krimgotischen Evidenz (siehe Stearns 1978) kommt mir diese Behauptung nicht ganz plausibel vor.

Die Rolle linguistischer Theorien in der historischen Sprachwissenschaft

241

,Feind‘, das sowohl fiands als auch fijands buchstabiert wird. Auch alternieren <j> und manchmal miteinander in der Transkription griechischer Namen, z.B. sind sowohl Judas als auch Iudas in dem gotischen Beweismaterial zu finden. Als letzten Beleg bespricht Barrack ein Lehnwort aus dem Lateinischen, cautio ,Sicherheit, Vorsicht‘. Dieses Lehnwort wurde als kawtsjo- ins Gotische assimiliert. Wie Barrack (1997: 6) zu Recht bemerkt, ist es „surprising that scribes should have resorted to employing a sequence of two obstruents … to capture the Latin obstruent + glide sequence,“ wenn <j> wirklich ein Reibelaut wäre. Alle drei angeführten Belege lassen sich jedoch erklären, wenn <j> wirklich ein Halbvokal wäre, wie traditionell angenommen worden ist.8 Die zwei kontroversen Aufsätze können wie folgt zusammengefasst werden. Einerseits dürfen traditionelle philologische Ansichten geändert werden, falls eine neue linguistische Theorie dieses erfordert. Andererseits müssen sich neuere Theorien der traditionellen Philologie unterordnen. Welcher Ansatz ist nun der richtige? Mit andern Worten, wenn Ergebnisse der Philologie und theoretischer Linguistik in Konflikt miteinander geraten, welchem Fach ist Vorzug zu geben? In diesem Fall ist es angebracht, der Philologie den Vorzug zu geben, d. h. die traditionelle Interpretation dieser Buchstaben zu akzeptieren und den Vorschlag von Vennemann und seinen Anhängern abzulehnen, da ihre Argumente sich auf das obengegebene Zitat von Frey (1989: 291) reduzieren lassen: wenn die Lautwerte der betroffenen Buchstaben nicht neu interpretiert werden, dann kann die gotische Silbenbildung nicht in Rahmen des Silbenkontaktgesetzes korrekt analysiert werden, was kein zwingender Grund ist, traditionelle Ansichten aufzugeben.9

8

9

Zuletzt argumentiert Barrack, seine Hypothese, dass <w> manchmal eine Labialisierung des vorhergehenden Konsonanten repräsentiert, gebe eine bessere Lösung zu einem alten Problem, die Interpretation von sihw, eine Randnotiz zu 1 Korinther 15:37 im Codex Ambrosianus. Auf diesen Vorschlag wird hier nicht eingegangen. Interessanterweise wird die m.E. stärkste Evidenz für die vennemannsche Hypothese beiseite gelassen, nämlich die historisch-vergleichende Evidenz aus den anderen altgermanischen Sprachen, da Halbvokale bestimmt im Gotischen und im Altnordischen (die wohlbekannte Verschärfung) und vielleicht auch in den altwestgermanischen Sprachen Reibelaute geworden sind. Vgl. Smith (1998) zu diesem Punkt.

242

Marc Pierce

Es ist offensichtlich, dass „an unprincipled invocation of known typologies from the present to discredit deductively presumed reconstructions“ (Markey 1986: 678 fn 5) zu vermeiden ist. Diese Bemerkung Markeys lässt sich ebenfalls auf die Beziehung zwischen linguistischen Theorien und der historischen Sprachwissenschaft anwenden. Lang erprobte traditionelle Ansichten sollen nicht zugunsten modischer linguistischer Theorien aufgegeben werden, stattdessen sollten sich neuere linguistische Theorien den Daten anpassen. Man denke z. B. an die Entwicklung der Laryngaltheorie, die zuerst von Ferdinand de Saussure vorgeschlagen wurde und als interessanter Vorschlag galt, bis die Entzifferung des Hethitischen neue Evidenz für die Theorie ergab, und jetzt weithin (aber nicht universell) akzeptiert wird (vgl. dazu Meier-Brügger 2000: 98–115). Allerdings basierte die Akzeptanz dieser Theorie auf der Entdeckung neuer Daten, nicht auf deren Neuinterpretierung, wie in der hier besprochenen Fallstudie. Das bedeutet längst nicht, traditionelle Ansichten dürften nicht verändert werden, nur dass ein zwingender Grund vorliegen muss. Die Entscheidung, welche Gründe wirklich zwingend sind, gehört zu den wichtigsten Herausforderungen der historischen Sprachwissenschaft.

Literatur Barrack, Charles. 1997. Putative strengthening of glides in Gothic. In: Insights in Germanic linguistics II: Classic and contemporary. Hrsg. von Irmengard Rauch und Gerald F. Carr. Berlin: de Gruyter. S. 1–8. –. 1998. Sievers’ Law in Germanic. New York: Peter Lang. Binning, Wolfgang. 1999. Gotisches Elementarbuch. Begr. von Heinrich Hempel. Hempel. 5. neubearb. Aufl. Berlin: de Gruyter. Braune, Wilhelm. 1981. Gotische Grammatik. 19. Auflage, neu bearbeitet von Ernst A. Ebbinghaus. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Frey, Evelyn. 1989. Worttrennung und Silbenstruktur des Gotischen mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Skeireins. Indogermanische Forschungen 94: 272–293. Hermann, Eduard. 1923. Silbenbildung im Griechischen und in den anderen indogermanischen Sprachen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Kyes, Robert L. 1967. The evidence for i-umlaut in Old Low Franconian. Language 43: 666–673. Markey, T. L. 1986. Rez. von Apprehension: Das sprachliche Erfassen von Gegenständen, hrsg. von Hansjakob Seiler, Christian Lehmann und Josef Stachowiak. Language 62: 676–681.

Die Rolle linguistischer Theorien in der historischen Sprachwissenschaft

243

Meier-Brügger, Michael. 2000. Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft. 7., völlig neubearbeitete Auflage unter Mitarbeit von Matthias Fritz und Manfred Mayrhofer. Berlin: de Gruyter. Murray, Robert W. und Theo Vennemann. 1983. Sound change and syllable structure in Germanic phonology. Language 59: 514–528. Pierce, Marc. 2006. Syllable structure and Sievers’ Law in Gothic. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 18: 275–319. Riad, Tomas. 2004. Syllabification and word division in Gothic. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 16: 173–202. Schulze, Wilhelm. 1908. Wortbrechung in den gotischen Handschriften. Sitzungsberichte der preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse 31: 610–624. [Die Seitenzahl bezieht sich auf den Neudruck in Schulze 1966]. –. 1966. Kleine Schriften. 2. Auflage. Hrsg. von Wilhelm Wissmann. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Smith, Laura Catharine. 1998. What’s all the fuss about 16 words? A new approach to Holtzmann’s Law. Göttinger Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 1: 75–100. Stearns, MacDonald Jr. 1978. Crimean Gothic. Analysis and etymology of the corpus. Saratoga, CA: Anma Libra. Vennemann, Theo. 1971. The phonology of Gothic vowels. Language 47: 90–132. –. 1985. Phonologically conditioned morphological change. Exceptions to Sievers’ Law in Gothic. In: Phono-morphology. Studies in the interaction of phonology and morphology. Hrsg. von Edmund Gussmann. Lublin: Redakcja Wydawnictw Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego. S. 192–229. –. 1987. Muta cum liquida. Worttrennung und Syllabierung im Gotischen. Mit einem Anhang zur Worttrennung in der Pariser Handschrift der althochdeutschen Isidor-Übersetzung. Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 116: 165–204.

Department of Germanic Studies University of Texas at Austin EPS 3.102 1 University Station C3300 Au s t i n , TX 78712 USA [email protected]

Marc Pierce

244

Edmund Remys

General distinguishing features of various lndo-European languages and their relationship to Lithuanian Wilhelm von Humbolt (1769–1835) viewed language as the characteristic expression of the cultural experience of mankind and its creative activity. He studied American Indian languages, Greek, Latin, Basque, Sanskrit, Chinese, Polynesian and Malayan languages. Humboldt believed that the differences between languages were primarily reflected in their grammatical structure, the soul of a people, which reflects their intellectual and spiritual development. The study of linguistics provided Humboldt with a unique means of accessing the similarities and differences between languages. Greek and Sanskrit were for him the most perfect inflecting languages. At the other extreme was Chinese, an isolating language, lacking inflections or affixes. Between these languages came the agglutinative languages, which to Humboldt had inferior inflections. Thus, on the language scale, Humboldt ranks Indo-European languages at the top.1 The following large groups or types of languages distinguish themselves by their grammatical structure and modes of grammatical change based on Humboldt’s division of languages. They should not, however, be interpreted as being a line of linguistic evolution: Isolating, analytic or root languages, in which a sound change takes place without reference to neighboring sounds in the word or sentence. All words are invariable – there are no endings. These lan1

For a brief overview of Humboldt see Bright, William, ed.: International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Vol. 2, Oxford University Press, New York/Oxford, 1992, pp. 179–180; Asher, R. E., ed.: The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Volume 3, Pergamon Press, Oxford/New York/Seoul/Tokyo, 1994, pp. 1614–1615. For a detailed study of Humboldt’s philosophy of language, see his work, especially the introduction to Über die Kawi Sprache auf der Insel Java nebst einer Einleitung über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluß auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts, Königliche Akademie der Wissenschaft, Berlin, 1836–39. The introduction deals with the divinity of human language structure and the influence it has on the development of mankind.

Indogermanische Forschungen, 112. Band 2007

DOI 10.1515/IDGF.2007.014

General distinguishing features of various lE languages

245

guages consist of one-syllable and unchangeable roots, which carry the meaning. They have no parts of speech and the grammatical relationships are expressed through word order. In these languages for the most part words do not vary in form according to their grammatical functions in sentences, as contrasted with agglutinating and inflecting languages. Belonging to this group are, for example, Polynesian languages, especially the East Polynesian subgroup; all Chinese dialects, in which grammatical functions are expressed through word order, particles, prepositions and discourse, rather than by suffixes attached to nouns or verbs such as in Indo-European languages; Vietnamese; Samoan, and several African languages as for example the Igbo language of southern Nigeria and the Bantu languages. In incorporating or polysynthetic languages two or more parts of speech are combined – verbs and objects – in one word as when the object or complement of a verb is inserted between its stem and termination so that the whole forms one word. The main elements in the structure of the sentence are incorporated into a single word. Words are often very long and complex. Belonging to this language group are Nahuatl, an Uto-Aztecan polysynthetic language, also known as Aztec and Mexicano (Nahuatl creates long words by means of multiple derivational affixes and extensive compounding as well as reduplication); the North American Indian Siouan languages, including the Lakota/Dakota language, which is also a polysynthetic language where words are formed by adding affixes to stems to signal grammatical relationships, the Hopi, Shoshoni, Paiute, Comanche and Ute languages; Greenlandic, an Eskimo-Aleut language and a close relative to Inuktitut. There are three main Greenlandic dialects: North [Inuktun], West [Kalaallisut] and East Greenlandic; American Indian Mohawk language; and Australian languages. Agglutinative languages form their words primarily by means of agglutination, i.e., the combination of simple root words into compound terms without change of form or loss of meaning. Suffixes are added to unchangeable stems for derivation and for expressing various grammatical relations. Turkish, Mongolian, Tartar, Finnish, Japanese, Tibetan, Uzbek, Balinese, Ilocano, Maleyan, a number of Polynesian dialects, Sumarian and Swahili are good examples of languages with suffixing or agglutinative morphology; also Tamil of southern India, in which affixes are attached to lexical roots or stems. Inflected suffixes

246

Edmund Remys

mark certain categories, such as person, number, mood, tense; in Quechua, the South American Indian language, a large number of suffixes and infixes can be added to words to change their meaning. This language group can often yield lengthy forms through widespread compound formations. Inflected, synthetic or fusional and/or highly inflected languages express their grammatical relationships through changes in the form within word stems, by changing the internal structure of the words, typically by the use of inflectional endings, for example umlaut and ablaut. Here we see modification of the form of a word to express the different grammatical relations into which it may enter, including the declension of substantives, adjectives and pronouns, the conjugation of verbs, the comparison of adjectives and adverbs. Inflection or alteration of the form of a word indicates grammatical features, such as number, person and tense. In these languages words and grammatical forms are constructed within the root of the word. To these (highly) inflected languages belongs the Indo-European (IE) language family.2 The various subgroups of the IE family of languages include: IndoIranian with Sanskrit, Prakrit, Avestan, Kurdish, Persian, Dardic, Nuristani, Assamese, Zazaki and Pashto (Eastern Iranian branch); Greek; Italic, including Latin and the extinct Umbrian-Sabellian language; Celtic; Germanic – English, German, Scots; Armenian; Albanian; Slavic3; Baltic (West Baltic – Galinden, Sudovian, Old Prussian, and East Baltic – Curonian, Selonian, Semigallian, Latvian and Lithuanian);4 and the recently discovered extinct languages Hittite 2

3

4

See Moser, Hugo, Deutsche Sprachgeschichte, 6th edition, Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tübingen, 1969, p. 69f; Wolff, Gerhart, Deutsche Sprachgeschichte, 3rd edition, Francke Verlag, Tübingen und Basel, 1994, pp. 37–42; also, Crystal, David, ed., The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 295 and on the various IE branches pp. 300–303. For a detailed study of Slavic peoples and languages, see Trautmann, Reinhold, Die slavischen Völker und Sprachen – Eine Einführung in die Slavistik, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen, 1947, pp. 5–173; Bulygina, T.V., analyzes the morphological word structure in contemporary Lithuanian literary language in the written form with grammatical comparisons of Lithuanian and Russian, pp. 7–25, in Zirmunskij, V.M., ed. Morfologicˇeskaja struktura slova v indoevropejskich jazykach, “Nauka”, Moskva, 1970. In his work Die Sprache der alten Preußen, Berlin, 1845, p. 28, Nesselmann, George H.F., introduced the term Baltic languages for the first time. He suggested using the name Balts for Lithuanians, Latvians, and Old Prussians; for a

General distinguishing features of various lE languages

247

(Anatolian branch) and Tocharian.5 Other perhaps less-known IE languages include Illyrian, Venetic, Liburnian, Messapian, Thracian and Ancient Macedonian. In this paper, we will focus our attention on the Indo-European languages: Proto-Indo-European (PIE), Latvian, Old Prussian, Sanskrit, Hittite and Tocharian, briefly discuss their distinguishing linguistic features, and look at their lexical, phonetic, and morphological relationship (similarities and differences) to Lithuanian, the oldest living IE language, as well as to several other languages of the IE language family.6 Common features of these languages will be quite apparent, even striking, as numerous examples will illustrate, and thus establish the importance of the archaic Lithuanian language to the study of historical-comparative linguistics. The notion of the reconstructed Indo-European parent language or Proto-Indo-European as being one common language, from which the numerous IE branches and languages developed, should perhaps include the consideration that there existed various dialects which either formed the IE parent language or to which all IE languages can be traced. Julius Pokorny in his study on Indogermanistik, points out

5

6

discussion of the name Balts, see also Frenkelis, Ernstas, Baltu˛ Kalbos, Leidykla “Mintis”, Vilnius, 1969, pp. 23–25. An excellent study on Baltic languages and peoples is found in Salys, Antanas, Baltu˛ Kalbos, Tautos bei Kiltys, Lietuviu˛ Kataliku˛ Mokslo Akademija, 1985, pp. 3–41, 135–164, 231–242. Salys analyzes the Baltic-Slavic, Proto-Baltic, West and East Baltic, Galindian languages as well as Baltic monuments. Besides Lithuanians, Latvians, and Old Prussians, other Baltic peoples included the Galindians, Sudovians, Semigallians, Curonians, Yatvingians, Sambians, Selians, and Skalvians. See Gerutis, Albertas, ed., 2nd revised edition, Lithuania 700 Years, Manyland Books, New York, 1969, p. 36. Gerutis says, “They [the Balts] can be … divided into three large groups: the Prussians, who lived in the western sector up to the Vistula; the Latvians, who stayed around the Daugava, and the Lithuanians, who settled around the Nemunas and Neris rivers,” p. 43. Frenkelis, Baltu˛ Kalbos, pp. 16–17. A good overview of the IE branches from Indo-Iranian to numerous extinct languages with many examples of reconstructed Proto-Indo-European (PIE) words, which the author compares to various IE languages, can be found in Kieckers, Ernst, Die Sprachstämme der Erde, Carl Winter, Heidelberg, 1931, pp. 4–25; see also Eggers, Hans, Deutsche Sprachgeschichte, Volume I, Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH, Reinbeck bei Hamburg, 1991, pp. 23–25. For further discussion on IE subgroups, see Asher, R.E., pp. 1661–1666. Also, Crystal, David, p. 298.

248

Edmund Remys

that at the time of the first migration, Indo-European was only an existing phase in a development which lasted for thousands of years and which was eventually formed from the merging of several languages. The linguistic term IE parent language is an abstraction that does not exist in reality. It perhaps should be understood as consisting of dialects which possibly date back to the palaeolithic period during which time these dialects formed the linguistic structure of the IE language group. Indo-European is solely an isogloss system which held together the various dialects spoken by a large number of tribes (“Indo-Europeans”) from which the historical IE languages emerged.7 Based on the designation for the numeral hundred, the IE languages can be separated into so-called centum and satem languages. This group classification is based on the loss of the distinction between palatal velars and pure velars in the centum languages and the loss of the distinction between labiovelar and pure velar sounds as well as the assibilation of the palatal velars in the satem language group. The centum group retained the velar k and the labiovelar kw, while in satem languages the original velar stops became fricatives (as k > s or sˇ) and labiovelar stops became velars (kw > k). Hundred is in Latin centum, Greek hekaton, Old Irish cet, Welsh cant, Tocharian A känt, Tocharian B kante, Gothic hund, Old High German hunt, German hundert, Afrikaans honderd, Dutch hondert, Norwegian hundrruh compared with Old Iranian satem, Sanskrit satam, Avestan satem, Old Bulgarien suto, Russian sto, Macedonian sto, Czech sto, Serbo-Croatian sto, stotina, Latvian simts, and Lithuanian sˇimtas. The centum languages comprise primarily the western IE languages while the satem languages belong to the eastern IE language group. The centum-satem isogloss runs between the Greek (centum) and Armenian (satem) languages. Examples of centum languages are Latin, Greek, Italic, Illyrian, Celtic, and Germanic. To the satem language group belong the Slavic languages, Baltic (Lithuanian, Latvian and the extinct Old Prussian), Albanian, Thracian, Sanskrit, Iranian, Armenian, and Phrygian. This differentiation of centum and satem languages became, however, questionable through the discovery of Hit7

Pokorny, Julius, Allgemeine und Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft – Indogermanistik, Vol. 2, A. Francke AG Verlag, Bern, 1953, p. 70, 78, pp. 79–80.

General distinguishing features of various lE languages

249

tite and Tocharian, two Asiatic centum languages, which geographically should belong to the satem group.8 There are a number of reasons or causes for the emergence of the various IE languages. The variety of these languages has its origins in the population shifts (migration of peoples), physical separation, and intermixing with other peoples. The similarities and common features of languages related to IE can be seen in cognates derived from the same roots, physical contact and in part also in the further development of the same linguistic structures.9 Through historical and comparative research on IE languages, linguistic relationships emerged based on similarities and systematic divergences of these languages.10 The introduction of Sanskrit to European scholarship revolutionized the perception of linguistic relationships. The new science of comparative grammar correctly saw these relationships and evaluated the similarities of the IE family. Similarities among languages such as Greek, Latin, Sanskrit, and Gothic suggested that they came from a common source, which no longer excisted. Different IE languages are the continuation of a single protolanguage. Historical-comparative linguistics, especially of the 19th century, through systematic comparisons, established phonetic, lexical and grammatical agreements among IE languages, which had to originate 8

9

10

Sperber, H. & Polenz, P.v., Geschichte der deutschen Sprache, Sammlung Göschen, Band 915, Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 1968, pp. 11–15. Schmidt, Wilhelm, Geschichte der deutschen Sprache, 6th edition, S. Hirzel Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft, Stuttgart/ Leipzig, 1993, p. 36. See also Anderson, James M., Structual Aspects of Language Change, Longman Group Limited, London, 1973, pp. 23–24; for additional centum / satem analysis, see Beekes, Robert S.P, Comparative Indo-European Linguistics, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamin, 1955, pp. 109–113, 129. Also Kieckers, Die Sprachstämme der Erde, p. 18. Moser, Deutsche Sprachgeschichte, pp. 70–74; Porzig, Walter, in Die Gliederung des indogermanischen Sprachgebiets, Carl Winter, Universitätsverlag, Heidelberg, 1954, provides a detailed examination of the connection between the individual related IE languages and their prehistoric distribution. See especially pp. 93–181 about the relationship of the western and eastern IE languages. Anderson, Structual Aspects of Language Change, states on page 26, “A comparison of IE languages with a view to reconstructing the parent form brings us closer to the structure of the prototype in that the phonological and grammatical systems reached by such comparisons represent closely related dialects and not diverse languages.” The reconstructed Proto-Indo-European is the parent language of all ancient and modern IE languages.

250

Edmund Remys

in a common early stage of development.11 An excellent study of the Indo-European grammar is the work by Hermann Hirt which discusses the individual IE branches, the Lithuanian language and centum and satem langauges. He then gives a detailed analysis in seven volumes of IE etymology and consonantism, vocalism, nouns, compounds and verbs, accentuation, and syntax.12 In his book, A Comparative Grammar of the Indo-Germanic Languages, Karl Brugmann presents a concise exposition of the history of Sanskrit, Old Iranian, Greek, Latin, and other languages, including Lithuanian. He also analyses IE phonology, morphology, numerals, cases, pronouns, verbs, mood stem, and verbal nouns.13 In an earlier work, Brugmann analyzed the grammar of Indo-European languages. In the beginning of the book, the author provides us with a good overview of the PIE and its branches and a brief discussion of the Baltic branch.14 If we compare words based on common lexical features with equivalent words in several IE languages, we notice similarities in their vocabulary structure. A few examples, mother: lat. mater, russ. materi (gen.), lith. mote˙, Old Indic matar; three: lat. tres, russ. tri, lith. trys, Old Indic trayas; new: lat. novus, goth. nuijis, russ. novyj, lith. naujas; is: lat. est, goth. ist, russ. jest, lith. est(i), Old Indic asti; eat: lat. edere, goth. itam, russ. est, lith. esti; car: Celtic carrus, Spanish carro, French carriole, Czech kara, German Karren; lance: Celtic lencia, Latin lancea, Czech lance, Spanish lanza, German Lanze; Spanish trepar (climb), Irish dreap, Scottish spreap, German Treppe (stairs).

11

12

13

14

Stedje, Astril, Deutsche Sprache gestern und heute – Einführung in Sprachgeschichte und Sprachkunde, 3rd edition, Uni-Taschenbücher, 1499, Wilhelm Fink Verlag, München, 1996, pp. 37–40. Hirt, Hermann, Indogermanische Grammatik, Vol.1–7, Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, Heidelberg, 1927 – 1937, pp. 16–45; 32–34; 54–61, Vol. 1. Brugmann, Karl, A Comparative Grammar of the Indo-Germanic Languages, Vol. 1–5, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, Varanasi, 1972 edition. Brugmann, Karl, Kurze Vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen, Verlag von Karl J. Trüber, Strassburg, 1904. A fotomechanical reprint was published in 1970 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, pp. 16–18. For an excellent study of comparative phonetics, word stem formation and accidence of the IE languages, see Brugmann, Vergleichende Laut-, Stammbildungs- und Flexionslehre der indogermanischen Sprachen, Vol. 1 (introduction and phonetics), Vol. 2 (word formations and their usage), Karl Trübner, Strassburg, 1897, 1906, 1911, 1913.

General distinguishing features of various lE languages

251

Such words are related to each other, going back to a common root. By looking at common IE morphological characteristics, we can also show the grammatical identity or unity of the IE languages. For example in the verbal form: I am – goth. im, Old High German b-im, Armenian je-m, Old Lith. es-mi, Hittite es-mi, IE *es-mi;15 or the word five: Hindi panc, Greek pente, Hittite panta, Tocharian pen-, Sanskrit panca, lith. penki. The parts of the body, for example, belong to the basic layer of vocabularies and are for the most part preserved in IE languages: IE *dent – lith. dantis (tooth), *ous – lith. ausis (ear). In many instances Lithuanian presents forms that are much closer to PIE than those of other languages: IE *su¯nus (son) – lith. su¯nus, IE *gwiwos (alive) – lith. gyvas.16 Similarities between Proto-Indo-European and Lithuanian are quite striking as the following words illustrate: *tenko – tenku (I have enough); *ped/pod – pe˙da (foot/foot print); *tu¯ – tu (you); *kakha – sˇaka (branch); *seq’, sequ – seku (I follow); *nokt – naktis (night); *bhu¯- – bu¯ti (to be); *dhur-, dhura – duris (door); *esmi – esmi (I am); *is – jis (he); *-ois ending > vilkais (with the wolves – instrumental plural); *agros – akras (acre); *saldo – saldus (sweet); *dhe – de˙ti (put); * teuta – tauta (peoples, nation); *roudhos – raudas (red); *mrtrom – mirtis (death); *bhendh – bendras (common); *leip – lipti (climb); *metti – mesti (throw); *sreu – srave˙ti (flow); *dhukter – dukte˙ (daughter); *pelnom – pilnas (full); *dhves – dvase (spirit);17 *perkwsnos – perku¯nas (thunder); *dhuxmos – du¯mas (smoke); *tekw – teke˙ti (flow, run); *nogws – nuogas (naked); *senos – senas (old); *semen – sˇeima (family).

15 16

17

See Schmidt, Geschichte der deutschen Sprache, pp. 32–43. Sperber & Polenz, Geschichte der deutschen Sprache, p. 12; for an etymological and morphological analysis of Germanic and IE languages, providing a comparison of the structure of Germanic words with other IE languages, see ˙ . A., Struktura slova v indoevropejskich i germanskich jazykach, Makaev, E “Nauka”, Moskva, 1970, pp. 5–14. Examples of the reconstructed PIE words are selected from Krahe, Hans, Germanische Sprachwissenschaft, I, Einleitung und Lautlehre, Sammlung Göschen, Walter de Gruyter / Co., Berlin, 1966, pp. 10–134; and Krahe, Germanische Sprachwissenschaft, II, Formenlehre, 6th edition, Berlin, 1967, pp. 6–141. Krahe gives a detailed comparative analysis of the lexical, phonetic, and morphological relationship between PIE and many IE languages, including Lithuanian.

252

Edmund Remys

Proto-Indo-European was a highly inflected language. Grammatical relationships and syntactical function of words were indicated by variations in word endings or prefixes.18 The structure of inflected words was root, suffix and ending. The root plus suffix/suffixes constituted the word stem.19 Nouns had different endings for the eight cases and numbers (singular, plural, and dual); verbs had different endings for persons and numbers, for the voices – active, passive and middle. PIE also had special affixes for tenses, moods, and transitive and intransitive verbs. Nouns had three genders – masculine, feminine, and neuter. Adjectives agreed in gender, case, and number – singular, plural, and dual forms – with the nouns. They were classified by their stem endings -o -i -u -s -m/n as were types of nouns classified by their endings, of which the most important are -a -o -i -u -s -m/n -l/r. The dual form has been lost in most IE languages. Proto-Indo-European had 10 vowels a, e, i, o, u (short and long); six diphthongs ei, eu, oi, ai, au, ou; many consonants and velars. PIE was rich in stop consonants: voiceless p, t, k, kw and voiced b, d, g, gw and voiced aspirates bh, dh, gh, gwh. It also had the dental fricative s, which was voiced to z before voiced stop consonants. PIE had two nasals m and n, two liquids r and l and semivowels w, j. The verbs in PIE had two conjugations, three voices, four moods, but no infinitives. A prominent feature of PIE was the ablaut, a system of vocalic alternations, expressing different morphological functions. Through vowel gradation, the root vowel would change to express, for example, singular and plural, present and past tense, etc. The ablaut affected e and o. The e form could appear as o or both e and o or disappear entirely (zero grade), IE *ped- (foot), lat. ped, Greek pod, Germanic fotuz, Sanskrit pd, lith. pe˙da.20 IE had eight cases – nominative, accusative, dative, genitive, ablative, locative, instrumental, and vocative. These case notations were retained in Old Indian and the Baltic languages, but were simplified in the Germanic languages as in most other IE languages. IE also had

18 19

20

Bright, William, International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Volume 2, pp. 206–212. Watkins, Calvert, ed., The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots, Houghton Miffin Company, Boston, 1986, pp. XIV–XVII. See Frenkelis, Baltu˛ Kalbos, pp. 17–22 for further discussion of IE characteristics. Brief mention is also made of the centum and satem language groups; also Watkins, pp. XIV–XV.

General distinguishing features of various lE languages

253

personal pronouns, demonstrative and interrogative pronouns.21 Lith. vilkui goes back to the IE dative case ending -oi. The instrumental IE ending -o is retained in lith. vilku (with the wolf). The dative case in IE is based on an IE instrumental ending -omis – lith. rankomis (with the hands). The IE dative form -i-mis, an old instrumental case, is retained in lith. naktimis. The IE genitive ending -ois is closely related to lith. nakties. The genitive case masculine ending -eus or -ous is lith. su¯naus. The IE genitive ending -en and -es/-os is reflected in lith. akmens < IE *akmen-os. IE dative ending -u-mis (instrimental) is in lith. su¯numis. The vocative IE case ending -u as well as IE -ou can be seen in lith. su¯nau. The vocative case belonged to the IE case system and existed in Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, Old Prussian, Hittite, and Tocharian. Some languages have retained the vocative case, including Celtic, Romanian, Slavic, Latvian and Lithuanian. It also occurs in some non-IndoEuropean languages such as Georgian, Arabic, Chinese and Korean. In PIE the ending was -e, in Sanskrit it is -a, in Latin the ending is -e for nouns ending in -us or -iusin, in Georgian the ending is -o, in Romanian -e (masculin/neuter), -o (feminine) and -lor (plural), in Bulgarian -e or -ju (masculine), in Macedonian the vocative is optional – Ivan -e, zˇeno (wife), in Hindi vocative forms also have the -e and -o endings, Armenian also preserved the vocative, but it has no special endings or markings, in Russian the ending can be -e or -i (Gospodi) or -o in Church Slavonic. The vocative in Russian is based on the first palatalization of velars, in which k became cˇ, g became zˇ, and ch became sˇ: Bog > voc. Bozˇe (O God), lat. Dominus > voc. Domine, lith. dievas > voc. dieve. Some other examples of the vocative in Lithuanian are: Jonas – voc. Jonai (John), profesorius – voc. profesoriau (professor), ju¯ra – voc. ju¯ra (sea), zˇmona – voc. zˇmona (wife), zˇmogus – voc. zˇmogau (man), su¯nus – voc. su¯nau (son), dukte˙ – voc. dukterie (daughter), seserys – voc. seserys (sisters), brolis – voc. brolau (brother), marcˇia – voc. marcˇios (daughters-in-law). Lithuanian also uses the so-called illative case. This case, denoting direction of movement, is, however, used 21

Krahe, Hans, Germanische Sprachwissenschaft, II, Formenlehre, pp. 6–10. Regarding the cases in Indo-European, Krahe says that IE had seven cases. “If we include the vocative (which is strictly speaking an independent sentence), then IE had eight cases.”

254

Edmund Remys

rarely in modern standard Lithuanian, mostly in the spoken language. It is no longer included in the case system. The prepositional construction + the accusative case is much more frequently used to indicate direction. The ending of the illative form always ends with -n in the singular, and -sna in the plural: oras (air) – ˛i ora˛ – oran, laukas (outside) – ˛i lauka˛ -laukan, misˇkas (forest) – ˛i msˇka˛ – misˇkan, pietu¯s (south) – ˛i pietus – pietuosna, Lietuva (Lithuania) – ˛i Lietuva˛ – Lietuvon, misˇkai (forests) – ˛i misˇkus – misˇkuosna, karas (war) – ˛i kara˛ – karan, karuosna, akmuo (rock, stone) – ˛i akmnen˛i – akmenin – akmenysna, ju¯ra (sea) – ˛i ju¯ra˛ – ju¯ron – ju¯rosna, upe˙ (stream, river) – ˛i upe˛ – upe˙n – upe˙sna.22 The pronouns for the 1st and 2nd person and the reflexive pronouns have no gender in Indo-European, there is only one form – IE *tu¯ – lith. tu; dual – IE *iu-d – lith. ju-du; plural – IE *iu¯- – lith. ju¯s; IE *tas – lith. tos (feminine plural); the IE interogitive pronoun *q os is lith. kas; IE *on-tero-s (other) – lith. antras; the cardinal numbers *penq, *septm – lith. penki, septyni; IE *liq – lith. vienuo-lika and dvy-lika; IE ordinal number *pr- – lith. pir-ma-s, *tri-tio – lith. trecˇas. Indo-European had five verb moods: indicative, subjunctive, optative, imperative, and injunktive – close to the subjunctive. There were also active, medium, and possibly passive verb forms. Verb tenses also existed – present tense, past tense, aorist tense, present perfect and past perfect tenses. It’s possible that IE used the future tense. Plural IE ending -oi-me corresponds to lith. suk-o-me-s (we turned).23 The complex issue of the development of the Indo-European languages does not concern us here per se. This would go considerably beyond the scope of this study. Suffice it to mention that there are several theories which attempt to describe the development of IE languages or language relationships as well as language change from an older integrated or unified Indo-European protolanguage (PIE).

22

23

Most of the vocative and illative examples were taken from Remys, Edmund, Review of Modern Lithuanian Grammar, second edition, Lithuanian Research and Studies Center, Chicago, 2003, p. 29, pp. 40–48. Krahe, Hans, Germanische Sprachwissenschaft, II, p. 11, 28, 30, 33, 44, 49, 52, 53, 64, 70, 71, 87, 88, 91, 93. The reference in the text is to Lithuanian.

General distinguishing features of various lE languages

255

The family tree of languages (Stammbaumtheorie), developed by August Schleicher to represent the IE group of languages, was motivated by views on evolution. The Proto-Indo-European language was conceived as the trunk (a single source) from which split two branches, each of which again split into smaller and smaller branches, etc. This IE family tree notion has shortcomings. The theory does not account for influences languages have on others in the form of substratum and abstratum. Relationships and divergences between languages can be partially based on non-systemic criteria. Commenting on the Stammbaumtheorie, Albert Drexel states: “The trouble with this theory is that common features of separated members (IE branches), for example, the Indo-Iranian, Baltic and Slavic branches cannot be explained. On the other hand, we find curious differences, which are inexplicable according to the Stammbaumtheorie, within the same branch, as for example between Greek and Albanian.”24 The wave-theory (Wellentheorie) proposed by Johannes Schmidt in 1872, says that linguistic changes spread like waves over a speech area and the dialects of adjacent districts resemble each other the most. Common language characteristics are the result of the spreading of linguistic features in waves over adjacent dialects within a family. This theory infers that the relationship among IE languages was the result of wave-like dissemination of PIE features. Dialect waves spread out from different centers and spread in all directions, crossing each other as they went. Thus, common features shared by various branches could be explained in this manner. The wave theory interprets language relationship based on the spread and extent of dialectical isoglosses, but does not account for the origin of change.25 The substratum theory of language development says that the substratum influence is due to prior language shift from a less prestigious substratum language to a new target language. That is to say, through contact a substratum language is superseded by another language which speakers adopt. In extreme cases, the new target language can replace the substratum language entirely. This process of substituting 24

25

Drexel, Albert, Die indogermanischen Sprachen, part two of the complete works, Verlag der Universitätsbuchhandlung, Freiburg in der Schweiz, 1956, p. 8. See Anderson, Structural Aspects of Language Change, pp. 191–194.

256

Edmund Remys

one language for another is known as language shift – a possible explanation for language change.26 Language change under the so-called biological theory suggests an evolution of language as a natural event. It interprets the biological history of natural languages. A rejection of this biological model of language change is based on the reaction against an equation between evolutionary biology and historical linguistics.27 Lithuanian belongs to the Baltic branch of the IE language family together with Latvian and Old Prussian. Lithuanian has the voiceless stops – p, t, k, voiced stops – b, d, g, voiceless fricatives (f), s, sˇ, (x), voiced fricatives – z. zˇ, (h), voiceless affricatives – (c), cˇ, voiced affricatives – (dz), dzˇ, nasals – m, n, liquids – r, l, and glides – v, j. The voiceless fricatives (f) and (x) – pronounced ch – are found in recent borrowings, for example: faksimile˙ (facsimile), familiariai (without ceremony), farmaceutas (pharmacist), feljetonas (feuilleton), chartija (charter), chirurgas (surgeon), choras (chorus), chuliganas (hooligan). A typical noun form consists of a stem + vowel + case ending + number marker, for example, many plural instrumental nouns illustrate this: gatve˙mis, zˇmone˙mis, rankomis, kojomis. A characteristic feature of Lithuanian is the genitive preceding modified nouns (for a brief discussion of the genitive case in Lithuanian, see Remys, Edmund, Review of Modern Lithuanian Grammar, pp. 53–54). The closest relative to Lithuanian is Latvian. Being the oldest living IE language, Lithuanian has retained the PIE pitch accent in which a stressed vowel may have a rising pitch or circumflex, or a falling pitch called acute. In most IE languages the term circumflex refers to a falling tone. Among the Baltic languages, only Lithuanian preserves the reflexes of the IE palatal velars. In Latvian, for example (as well as in Slavic) these have merged with s, z: lith. sˇuo (dog), zˇeme˙ (earth), latv. suns, zeme, slav. sabaka, zemlya.

26

27

Asher, The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Volume 8, pp. 4396–4398; also Anderson, pp. 89–95. Substratum presence can be seen today as Anderson points out: “The Guarani Indian language of Paraguay has influenced Spanish spoken in the area as a substratum language. In the district of Leon in Brittany, the local French has acquired the Breton rules of stress. In recently anglicized districts in Ireland, the local English dialect has Irish features in grammar and syntax as well as in phonology.” (p. 92) Anderson, pp. 194–203.

General distinguishing features of various lE languages

257

In Latvian the accent or word stress falls on the first syllable. Exceptions are names of Slavic origin. Latvian has three intonations – prolonged (level tone), falling, and broken. The meaning of the word depends on the pitch (tone). Latvian also has six normal cases, the vocative is, however, used for animate objects only; three simple tenses (present, past, future) and three perfect tenses; five moods; three voices; two genders; and two numbers. It has no aspirates and no articles. But as in Lithuanian, Latvian distinguishes between indefinite and definite attributive adjectives, the former corresponds to English a, the latter to the: Latv. balts suns – lith baltas sˇuo (a white dog), latv. baltais suns – lith. baltasis sˇuo (the white dog), lith. geras vyras (a good man) – gerasis vyras (the good man). The definite adjective in Lithuanian is a combination of the indefinite adjective and the pronoun jis which functions like an article: jis, gerasis = geras-jis, both parts are inflected. The j of the pronoun before palatal vowels falls off after consonants: geras > geras-is, not gerasjis.28 Serbo-Croation, for example, also has no articles, adjectives can show an indefinite-definite distinction by certain endings: dobar pas (a good dog), dobri pas (the good dog) – lith. geras sˇuo, gerasis sˇuo. Loanwords in Latvian come from Gothic and Old Norse – alus (beer, ale), gatve (gate), klaips (loaf), kviesis (wheat); others come from Finno-Ugric and Slavic – f-u. laiva (boat), slv. baznica (church), muita (customs); from English – menedzˇeris (manager).29 The lexical similarities between Lithuanian and Latvian are quite apparent as the following examples illustrate. (Most of these are identical, but some are merely similar): Latv. dauzit – lith. dauzˇyti (to beat, knock), latv. berzaine – lith. berzˇynas (birch grove), latv. alzmigt – lith. uzˇmigti (fall asleep), latv. desa – lith. desˇra (sausage), latv. ezers – lith. ezˇeras (lake), latv. izlit – lith. isˇlieti (pour out), latv. jau – lith. jau (already), latv. ju¯su – lith. Ju¯su˛ (your), latv. ju¯ra – lith. ju¯ra (sea), latv. saule – lith. saule˙ (sun), latv. kalvis – lith. kalvis (smith), latv. kas – lith. kas (who), latv. sauja – lith. sauja (handful), latv. lu¯pa – lith. lu¯pa (lip), latv.

28

29

Leskien, August, Litauisches Lesebuch mit Grammatik und Wörterbuch, Carl Winter’s Universitätsbuchhandlung, Heidelberg, 1919, pp. 164–165. For an overview of the definite adjective in Lithuanian, including declensions, see Remys, Edmund, Review of Modern Lithuanian Grammar, pp. 71–77. For a comprehensive discussion of Latvian grammar, see Endzelins, Janis, Latviesˇu valodas gramatika, second edition, Latvijas Valsts Izdevnieciba, Riga, 1951.

258

Edmund Remys

medus – lith. medus (honey), latv. sauss – lith. sausas (dry), latv. sekunde – lith. sekunde˙ (second), latv. alus – lith. alus (beer, ale), latv. siena – lith. siena (wall), latv. sleptuve – lith. sleptuve˙ (shelter, hiding place), latv. snaust – lith. snausti (slumber), latv. snukis – lith. snukis (snout), latv. tautietis – lith. tautietis (compatriot, countryman), latv. upe – lith. upe˙ (river, stream), latv. vasara – lith. vasara (summer), latv. mazgat – lith. mazgoti (wash), latv. nelaime – lith. nelaime˙ (misfortune), latv. nekur – lith. niekur (nowhere), latv. kam – lith. kam (to whom), latv. pardot – lith. parduoti (sell), latv. virtuve – lith. virtuve˙ (kitchen), latv. lietus – lith. lietus (rain), latv. zvirbulis – lith. zˇvirblis (sparrow), latv. pasaka – lith. pasaka (fairy tale), latv. alga – lith. alga (salary), latv. liet – lith. lieti (found, mould), latv. laistit – lith. laistyti (pour, to water), latv. lieku – lith. lieku (I stay or remain), latv. darzs – lith. darzˇas/sodas (garden), latv. bert – lith. berti (pour, strew, sow, break out), latv. darbs – lith. darbas (work), latv. mirt – lith. mirti (die), latv. durt – lith. durti (thrust, prick, stab), latv. laicit – lith. laukyti (hold), latv. sasirgt – lith. susirgti (fall ill), latv. pupa – lith. pupa (bean), latv. ka ju¯su vards? – lith. kaip Ju¯su˛ vardas? (what is your name?). Regardless of the close relationship between Latvian and Lithuanian lexical elements as illustrated above, there are words that are quite different: lith. medis – latv. koks (tree); lith. pauksˇtis – latv. putns (bird); lith. vaikas – latv. berns (child); lith. moteris – latv. sieviete (woman); lith. didis, didelis – latv. liels (big); lith. sesuo – latv. masa (sister); lith. virve˙ – latv. sˇnore (string, line, cord – German Schnur); lith. puodukas – latv. tase (cup – German Tasse); lith. laiptai – latv. trepes (stairs, staircase – German Treppe); lith. kiausˇinis – latv. ola (egg) – ola in Lithuanian means cave or cavern. There are also a number of phonetic differences. For instance: Latvian c, dz = Lithuanian k, g; Latvian s, z = Lithuanian sˇ, zˇ; Latvian uo, ie, i, u = Lithuanian an, en, in, un; Latvian sˇ, zˇ = Lithuanian cˇ, dzˇ. Let’s look at examples of these differences. Latvian c, dz and Lithuanian k, g: cits – kitas (another), celt – kelti (lift), celot – keliauti (travel), cept – kepti (bake), cirvis – kirvis (axe), ciets – kietas (hard), celis – kelis (knee), cepore – kepure˙ (hat, cap), dzenis – genys (woodpecker), dzert – gerti (drink), dzimt – gimti (be born), dzintas – gintaras (amber), dzelt – gelti (sting), dzeltans – geltonas (yellow), dzelzs – gelezˇis (iron) draudzias – draugisˇkas (friendly), daudz – daug (a lot, much), dzeguze – geguzˇe˙ (May).

General distinguishing features of various lE languages

259

Latvian s, z and Lithuanian sˇ, zˇ: siens – sˇienas (hay), ziema – zˇiema (winter), desa – desˇra (sausage), sirds – sˇirdis (heart), salna – sˇalna (frost), salt – sˇalti (freeze), zeme – zˇeme˙ (earth), saukt – sˇaukti (call), sesi – sˇesˇi (six), suns – sˇuo (dog), darzs – darzˇas (garden). Latvian uo, ie, i, u and Lithuanian an, en, in, un: ruoka – ranka (hand), liekt – lenkti (bow, bend), dzit – ginti (defend), ju¯tu – juntu (I feel), dalit – dalinti (divide), jugs > jungas (yoke), milzis > milzˇinas (giant). Latvian sˇ, zˇ and Lithuanian cˇ, dzˇ: vaciesˇa – vokiecˇio (German, genitive.), briezˇa – briedzˇio (elk), sˇe – cˇia (here), sˇepat – cˇia pat (in this place, right here), sˇkaudiens – cˇiaudyti (sneese), zˇaut – dzˇiauti (dry), zˇu¯t – dzˇiuti (to dry).30 Lithuanian is also closely related to Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit, having also retained more ancient grammatical forms of extinct IE languages, including Old Prussian, Hittite, and Tocharian.31 Before we look at Old Prussian and Sanskrit and say a few words about Hittite and Tocharian in relationship to PIE and the Lithuanian language, here are a few examples of similarities between words in Latin and Lithuanian – the similarities are quite obvious: lat. deus (God), lith. dievas; lat. noctis (night), lith. naktis; lat. tu (you), lith. tu; lat. auris (ear), lith. ausis; lat. ignis (fire), lith. ugnis; lat. jungum (yoke), lith. jungas; lat. ovis (sheep), lith. avis; lat. sol (sun), lith. saule˙; lat. axis (axe), lith. asˇis; lat. tres (three), lith. trys; lat. septem (seven) lith. septyni; lat. rota, lith. ratas (wheel); lat. angius (snake), lith. angis (Vipera berus); lat. aro, lith. ariu (I plow); lat. septem, lith. 30

31

Jonikas, Petras, Lietviu˛ Kalba ir Tauta Amzˇiu˛ Bu¯vyje, Lituanistikos Instituto Leidykla, 1987, pp. 25–27. Here Jonikas gives a few examples of phonetic differences between Latvian and Lithuanian; unlike closely related Lithuanian, in which the pitch accent only occurs on stressed syllables, any long syllable has pitch in Latvian. The first syllable in a word is stressed. Some examples were also taken from Endzelins, Janis, Baltu˛ Kalbu˛ Garsai ir Formos, Valstybine˙ Politine˙s ir Moksline˙s Literatu¯ros Leidykla, Vilnius, 1957, p. 28. For a detailed analysis of phonetics, grammatical structure, lexicon, including the vowel system (development of nasal vowels, short and long sounds, etc.), nouns, stress and intonation, etc. of the Lithuanian language, see Zinkevicˇius, Zigmas, The History of the Lithuanian Language, 2nd printing, Mokslo ir enciklopediju˛ leidybos institutas, Vilnius, 1998, translated by Ramute˙ Plioplys, pp. 85–105; see also Jonikas, Lietuviu˛ Kalba ir Tauta Amzˇiu˛ Bu¯vyje, about the Proto-Baltic-Language, the division of the Baltic language group into Lithuanian, Latvian, Old Prussian and other extinct dialects/Old Prussian tribes.

260

Edmund Remys

septyni (seven); lat. gentes, lith. gentys (tribes); lat. mensis, lith. me˙nesis (month).32 In the introduction of his Handbuch der litauischen Sprache, 1856/57, August Schleicher says, “Among all living Indo-European languages, Lithuanian shows by far the greatest archaism in its system of sounds. That is why it is of great importance to linguists.”33 In his analysis of the Lithuanian language, Hermann Hirt in Indogermanische Grammatik asserts that “it is a very ancient IE language which is of utmost importance for Indo-Europeanists especially because of its stress.” Distinguishing characteristics of Lithuanian include an “exceptional simplification and transformation of the verb, excellent preservation of the declension and retention of the IE accentuation.”34 Lithuanian is indeed an exceptional ancient language and occupies a special position among the IE languages. To the ancient elements or features of Lithuanian also belong the diminutive forms, which are found in no other language in such abundence, unlike modern German, for example, which only has two forms > -chen and -lein: der Bub, das Bübchen, der Vater, das Väterchen, der Garten, das Gärtlein, der Ofen, das Öfchen, die Mutter, das Mütterlein or das Mütterchen or Muttchen (no umlaut), die Rose, das Röslein, die Mütze, das Mützchen. The vowels a, o, u normally add an umlaut in the diminutive form. In some Southern German dialects the ending -el is added to nouns or names – Hänsel and Gretel. In Swabian the -el becomes -le – bissle (a little) from bisschen, the diminutive form for der Biss and der Bissen (bite, morsel, snack, mouthful). Lithuanian has a much greater number of diminutive forms for nouns, adjectives, even verbs and adverbs. For instance, let’s take the word mazˇas (small): some variations of the word are – mazˇale˙les, mazˇile˙lis, mazˇele˙lis, mazˇutis, mazˇytis, mazˇiukas, mazˇylis, mazˇuliukas; or the word for mother, just some examples – mama, mamele˙, mamyte˙, mamute˙, mamycˇiute˙, mamulyte˙, mamuzˇe˙, motina, motine˙le˙, mamaite˙, mamuzˇele˙, motule˙, mamule˙; devil – velnias, velniukas, velnyksˇtis, vel-

32

33 34

For most of the indicated lexical Latin-Lithuanian similarities, see Jungfer, Victor, Litauen, Anlitz eines Volkes, Patria-Verlag, Tübingen, 1948, p. 20; Jonikas, Lietuviu˛ Kalba, pp. 50–51. Quoted in Jungfer, p. 13; see also Jungfer, p. 18. Hirt, Hermann, Indogermanische Grammatik, Vol. 1, pp. 32–33.

General distinguishing features of various lE languages

261

niuksˇtis.35 The word bernas (young, unmarried man) also has numerouus diminutive forms. Some examples are bernelis, berniokas, bernytis, berniukas, bernuzˇis. Likewise the word for girl (maid, maiden): merga, mergaite˙, mergele˙, mergina, mergiote˙, mergyte˙, merguzˇe˙, merguzˇe˙le. There are some diminutives in Lithuanian that end in -utis or -ute˙, for instance: katutis or kacˇiutis (kitten), pauksˇtutis (small bird), varliutis or varliute˙ (small frog), vilkutis (small wolf), zˇvirblutis (small bird), peliute˙ (small mouse), upeliute˙ (small stream).36 Even though Lithuanian, Latvian, and Old Prussian are related languages, having many common word stems and grammatical forms, the Old Prussian language differs considerably from Lithuanian and Latvian. For instance, Old Prussian does not have the diphthong ie as does Lithuanian, but has retained the Baltic ei (ai): lith. dievas, dievu, dievaite˙, opr. deiw(a)s, deiwis; lith. vienas, opr. ains; lith diena, opr. deinam. Old Prussian has s and z, while Lithuanian uses sˇ and zˇ: opr. assis, lith. asˇis (axle); opr. zyrne, lith. zˇirnis (pea).While the genitive case singular of o stem nouns in Lithuanian ends in -o, in Old Prussian the ending is -as: lith. dievo, opr. deiwas. The plural dative case in Old Prussian has the ending -mans – su¯numans, akimans, zememans, but in Lithuanian it is -mus/-ms – ms later developed from mus: lith. tiem(u)s (to them), opr. steimans; other lith. examples are vaikams, jiems, studentams, te˙vams. The plural accusative of stem nouns has the -ans ending in Old Prussian, while Lithuanian has -us: opr. deiwans, lith. dievus.37 In Old Prussian the word stress was free; it had a substantive neuter gender, which became masculine in Lithuanian long ago: opr. assaran – lith. ezˇeras (lake), opr. balgnan – lith. balnas (saddle), opr. median – lith. misˇkas (forest). It did not have the dual number as in Lithuanian, and only five cases. Old Prussian also did not have affricates: opr. geide – lith. geidzˇia. The phonetical and morphological differences of Old Prussian in relation to Lithuanian and Latvian are significant. Antanas Salys in Baltu˛ Kalbos, Tautos bei Kiltys, notes that the separate development of Old Prussian began between 500–300 BC, after the Proto-Baltic language split into the western and eastern branches, 35 36 37

Jungfer, pp. 21–22 Endselins, Janis, Baltu˛ Kalbu˛, p. 98. See Frenkelis, Baltu˛ Kalbos, pp. 27–31.

262

Edmund Remys

while Lithuanians and Latvians still spoke the same language until around the 8th century AD.38 Therefore, the relationship of Old Prussian to Lithuanian was not as close as that of Latvian to Lithuanian. Regardless of the differences between these languages, all three do have common lexical features as illustrated by the following words: lith. dievas (God), latv. dievs, opr. deivs; lith. ranka (hand), latv. ruoka, opr. ranko; lith. galva (head), latv. galva, opr. galvo; lith. gel(e)zˇis (iron), latv. dzelezs, opr. gelso; lith. plienas (steel), latv. pliens, opr. plainis; lith. ilgas (long), latv. ilgs, opr. ilgi. Yet, there are also lexical differences: lith. duona (bread), latv. maize, opr. geitis; lith. sviestas (butter), latv. sviests, opr. anktan; lith. pienas (milk), latv. piens, opr. dadan (opr. ructan dadan is lith. ru¯gusis pienas); lith. ugnis (fire), latv. uguns (very similar to lith.), but opr. panno – probably related to German Flamme (flame).39 Endzelins in his Baltu˛ Kalbu˛ Garsai ir Formos provides several other examples of vocabulary, showing common lexical features between Lithuanian, and Old Prussian: opr. kaulins – lith. kaulai (bones); opr. sunis – lith. sˇuns (dog); opr. bu¯ton – lith. bu¯ti (to be); opr. tauto – lith. tauta (peoples, nation); opr. semme – lith. zˇeme˙ (earth); opr. tickray – tikrai (really); opr. turit – lith. ture˙ti (to have); opr. laiku¯t – lith. laikyti (to hold), pp. 12–25. A few additional examples of Old Prussian-Lithuanian lexical similarities are mentioned by Calvert Watkins in Indogermanische Grammatik, Vol. 3, Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, Heidelberg, 1969: opr. giwa (lives) – lith. gyva; opr. immais (take) – lith. imk; opr. past tense postai (got pregnant) – lith. past tense pastojo; opr. polaikt (stay, remain) – lith. likti (p. 215, 223). The oldest known text written in Old Prussian is the so-called Basel Fragment, an epigram that dates from the second half of the 14th century and was discovered as a marginal note in a Latin manuscript in the public library of the University of Basel. In fact, this fragment is presumably the oldest Baltic text.40 Another old and important monument is the Elbing Vocabulary, named after Elbing where it was found in 1825. The vocabulary was copied around 1400 AD, probably from an earlier copy. It was found 38 39 40

Salys, Baltu˛ Kalbos, p. 152. Jungfer, Litauen, Anlitz eines Volkes, p. 12, 37–38. For a discussion of this Old Prussian epigram, see Mazˇiulis, Vytautas, “Seniausias baltu˛ rasˇto paminklas”, Baltistica 11/2, 1975, pp. 125–131.

General distinguishing features of various lE languages

263

by Fredrick Neumann among other manuscripts acquired from the heritage of a merchant by the name of A. Grübnau and is part of the “Codex Neumanniamus.” Frenkelis in his Baltu˛ Kalbos (p. 27) states that this monument is also important for the history of Lower German dialects. The transliterated text of the Elbing Vocabulary was first published by G.H.F. Nesselmann in Altpreußische Monatsschrift, V. 5, Königsberg, 1868. A photocopy of the Vocabulary was published by Adalbert Bezzenberger and W. Simon in 1897: Das Elbinger DeutschPreußische Vokabular.41 The following selected examples of Old Prussian words taken from the Elbing Vocabulary and their modern Lithuanian equivalents atest to the close lexical relationship of these two ancient Baltic languages. The similarities of those words selected are quite apparant. Not included here are the original German words listed in the Vocabulary, but English translations of the modern Lithuanian terms: opr. deywis – lith. dievas (God); opr. dangus – lith. dangus (heaven/sky); opr. saule – lith. saule˙ (sun); opr. agnis/ackis – lith. akis (eye); opr. ape – lith. upe˙ (stream/ river); opr. buttan (house) – lith. butas (apartment); dantis – dantis (tooth); gandarus – gandras (stork); malun – malu¯nas (mill); menso – me˙sa (meat); mergo – merga (girl/maid/maiden); pettis – petys (shoulder); percunis – perku¯nas (thunder); snaygis – sniegas (snow); weware – vovere˙ (squirrel); antis – antis (duck); gulbes – gulbe˙ (swan); sagnis – sˇaknis (branch); plauti – plautis/plaucˇiai (lung, lungs); crauyo – kraujas (blood); sticlo – stiklas (glass); doalgis – dalgis (scythe); sylecke – silke˙ (herring); lape – lape˙ (fox); sawayte – savaite˙ (week); suris – su¯ris (cheese); gelso – gelezˇis (iron); juri – ju¯ra (sea); mettan – metas (year); sunis – sˇuo, sˇunys (dog, dogs); wijrs – vyras (man); tauto – tauta (peoples/ nation); ketwirtire – ketvirtadienis (Thursday); pelanne – pelenai (ash); alkunis – alku¯ne˙ (elbow); pirsten – pirsˇtas (finger); kulnis – kulnis (heel); golis – galas (end/death); stogis – stogas (roof); catels – katilas (kettle); asilas – asilas (ass); balgnam – balnas (saddle); lopto – lopeta (spade); ragis – ragas (horn); pagonbe – pagonybe˙ (paganism); caymis – kaimas (village), crausios – kriausˇe˙ (pear), sari – zˇarija (embers), nozy – nosis (nose), ponasse – panose˙ (place under the nose), anglis – anglis (coal). 41

The complete title is: Das Elbinger Deutsch-Preußische Vokabular, 17 Tafeln in Lichtdruck herausgegeben namens der Altertumgesellschaft Prussia von Dr. A. Bezzenberger und Dr. W. Simon (Photographie von F. Surand in Elbing. Lichtdruck von Meisenbach Riffarth Co., in Berlin). Printed by R. Leupold, Königsberg.

264

Edmund Remys

The following are some examples of Old Prussian words selected from the Elbing Vocabulary that do not correspond to Lithuanian: assanis (autumn) – goth. asans – lith. ruduo – latv. rudens < lith. rudas (brown) and rude˙ti (turn brown), aglo (rain) – lith lietus < lieti (pour), widdewu (widow) – lith. nasˇle˙, sasins (rabbit) – ohg. haso – germ. Hase – lith. kisˇkis/zuikis. The second, shorter vocabulary of Old Prussian words was compiled by Simon Grunau between the years 1510 and 1529. The Grunau Vocabulary contains 100 Old Prussian and German words, which the author included in his “Prussian Chronicle.” Among the list of words are some Polish and a few Lithuanian words. Frenkelis believes that one should use this vocabulary very carefully – with caution (Baltu˛ Kalbos, p. 27). Grunau precedes the vocabulary list with a brief statement entitled Von vnderscheit der sprachen – about the difference between languages, in which he states that in Prussia the German language is mostly used. In some villages only Prussian is spoken, in others only German. So that one could perceive a difference between Prussian and German, the words are listed in both languages. Some selected words from the Grunau Vocabulary are listed below together with their Lithuanian equivalents: angol – angelas (angel); maysta – miestas (city/town); ruggis – rugiai (rye); nalko – malkos (firewood); rancho – ranka (hand); sneko – sniegas (snow); salta – sˇalta (cold); merga – merga (maiden); wolgeit – valgiti (to eat); muti/ muthi – mote˙ (mother); nackt – naktis (night); peile – peilis (knife); pirmas – pirmas (first); ludis – liaudis (people); pastnygo – pasninkauti (to fast); eykete (come here) – eikite (go), ateikite (come here). Perhaps the most important Old Prussian written records are three printed catechisms translated from German and published in Königsberg. The first two catechisms are short and anonymous and dated from 1545. The third one, known as the Enchiridion, dates from 1561 and was translated by a German pastor Abel Will. Compared to the Elbing Vocabulary, the catechisms already indicate a later development of the Old Prussian language. Furthermore, the Elbing Vocabulary was written in a southern Old Prussian dialect, while the catechisms reflect a northern dialect.42

42

Salys, Baltu˛ Kalbos, pp. 165–166.

General distinguishing features of various lE languages

265

The first printed Old Prussian book is the translation of Martin Luther’s Small Catechism, which was published by Hans Weinreich in Königsberg in 1545. In the same year, a corrected version (2nd edition) of the translation was also published in Königsberg, including the German original: Catechismus in preußnischer sprach gecorrigiret vnd dagegen das deüdsche, Königsberg, Hans Weinreich, 1545. The third translation, printed by Johann Daubman, Königsberg, 1561 is excessively literal. Antanas Salys, in Baltu˛ Kalbos, Tautos bei Kiltys, states that this translation is very bad and that Abel Will did not know Prussian very well. He not only translated Luther’s text word for word, but also confused the cases, especially the accusative with the nominative as well as the numbers, and used inaccurate endings. Wolfgang Schmid in his study on the Baltic and IE verb asserts that to a large extent, the translation slavishly clings to the German model or pattern. In Will’s translation, the Old Prussian ending -i equates to Lithuanian -e˙: smu¯ni (person) – lith. zˇmone˙s, duckti (daughter) – lith.dukte˙. The ending of the e-stem nouns in Old Prussian are written as -i by Will instead of -e. However, if the -e ending of Old Prussian substantives is stressed, Will does retain the ending as -e: semme – lith. zˇeme˙ > “tou asse semme” = lith. “tu esi zˇeme˙” (you are the earth). In contrast to Will’s translation, in the Elbing Vocabulary the Old Prussian nouns ending in -e normally correspond to Lithuanian -e˙: lape – lith. lape˙ (fox), bitte – lith. bite˙ (bee).43 Abel Will had translated Martin Luther’s Enchiridion, Der kleine Catechismus Für die gemeine Pfarher und Prediger, Jacobum Berwald, Leipzig, 1549. This small catechism was conceived by Luther as a concise handbook or manual of devotions, which deals with certain themes that Christians should know: The Ten Commandments, the Creed, the Our Father, Baptism, Confession, and Communion. In his study The Language of the Old Prussian Catechisms, Frederik Kortlandt presents a comparative analysis of the three Old Prussian catechisms. He shows that the Enchiridion language is the result of a later development from the first two catechisms. In the third catechism Kortlandt sees a strong German language influence. He states that since the three texts represent three distinct varieties of the Old 43

Ibid., p. 150; see also Schmid, Wolfgang P., Studien zum baltischen und indogermanischen Verbum, Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, 1963, p. 2, p. 17, p. 20.

266

Edmund Remys

Prussian language, they must be looked at separately in any analysis of the material. The older catechism “gives us a glimpse of what Prussian must have looked like before it succumbed to the pervasive influence of German.”44 Vytautas Mazˇiulis published a facsimile of all Prussian documents in 1966, in which a detailed linguistic analysis of the catechisms is included in the comments section by Letas Palmaitis.45 In 1910, Reinhold Trautmann had already published all of the Old Prussian language monuments in his Die altpreussischen Sprachdenkmäler. Einleitung, Texte, Grammatik, Wörterbuch, including a selection of proper names and place names. Because there are so few Old Prussian texts available, including only a few fragments,46 of great importance are also Prussian proper names. One of the best sources of information about these names, is Reinhold Trautmann’s Die altpreussischen Personennamen. The collection contains traditional Old Prussian names from the 13th to the 15th century.47 An important stimulus for the development of historical-comparative linguistics was the acquantance with Sanskrit, the classical language of India and liturgical language of Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. A systematic comparison of similarities between European languages and Sanskrit established the existance of the Indo-European family of languages. The pre-classical form of Sanskrit, or Vedic Sanskrit, is one of the earliest attested members of the IE language family. Its most ancient text is the Rigveda which dates back to the middle of the second millenium B.C. The Vedas are collections of hymns, incantations and philosophical discussiona, forming the earliest religious texts in India. M.B. Emeneau in his article on the dialects of Old Indo-Aryan, asserts that classical Sanskrit is a written literary language, in which no dialects, no chronological development and no geographical divergencies are 44

45 46

47

See Kortlandt, Frederik, The Language of the Old Prussian Catechisms, Res Balticae, Leiden, 1998, pp. 117–129. Mazˇiulis, Vytautas, Pru¯su˛ kalbos paminklai, Mintis, Vilnius, 1966, see pp. 59–75. The first few words of the prayer “Our Father”discussed by Mikalauskaite˙, E. in “Priesˇreformaciniu˛ laiku˛ pru¯sisˇko Te˙ve Mu¯su˛ nuotrupa”, Archivum Philologicum 7, Kaunas, 1938, pp. 102–106. Trautmann, Reinhold, Die altpreussischen Personennamen, 2nd edition, Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, Göttingen, 1974.

General distinguishing features of various lE languages

267

found. He points out that Vedic Sanskrit is not a unified language or a language of one dialect and that the Rigveda shows linguistic features whose origin is based on slightly different dialects.48 Early pioneers of European scholarship in Sanskrit were Heinrich Roth (1620–1668) – a German missionary in India and the first Sanskrit scholar – and Johann Ernst Hanxleden (1681–1732) who wrote a Malayalam (spoken in southwestern India)-Sanskrit-Portuguese lexicon. In 1767, a Jesuit by the name of Gaston-Laurent Coeurdoux presented a memorandum to the French Academy, in which he demonstrated remarkable similarities between Sanskrit, Greek and Latin. Coeurdoux had spent much of his time in Southern India from 1734 until 1779. The English philologist William Jones demonstrated the links between Sanskrit and the classical languages of Europe. He made the observation that Sanskrit bore a close linguistic recemblance to the four oldest languages known at that time, Latin, Greek, Sanskrit and Persian and suggested that these languages had a common root. Jones had come to India as a judge of the Supreme Court of Calcutta. There he presented his findings to the Asiatic Society of Calcutta in 1786. He laid the foundation for the science of linguistics.49 Friedrich v. Schlegel also recognized the overall extent of the relationship of these languages in his work: Über die Sprache und Weisheit der Inder, which was published in Heidelberg in 1808. With a systematic and meticulous thoroughness, Franz Bopp, the founder of comparative linguistics, likewise recognized the common 48

49

Emeneau, M.B., “The Dialects of Old Indo-Aryan”, Ancient Indo-European Dialects, ed. Henrik Birnbaum and Joan Puhvel, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1966, p. 123; according to Shukla, Shaligram in his article on “Bhojpuri” – an Indo-Aryan language – “the Indo-Europeans came to India from the northwest about four thousand years ago. In India they called themselves arya – ‘noble, honorable’ … The historical period of Indo-Aryan begins with the composition and compilation of the Rigveda. … Old Indo-Aryan is represented by Vedic and Classical Sanskrit.” In Garry, Jane and Rubino, Carl, ed, Facts about the World’s Languages, New York/Bublin, H.W. Wilson Press, 2001, p. 86. See Crystal, David, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 298; see also Bright, William, ed., International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Vol. 2, pp. 260–261; and Asher, R.E., ed., The Encyclopedia of Languages and Linguistics, V. 4, pp. 1820–1821. Compare with Anon, Indian, European and American orientalists from William Jones to Sylvain Levy, Asian Educational Services, reprint edition, 1991, p. 21.

268

Edmund Remys

features in the grammar of Sanskrit and the older European languages, but was, however, the first who produced evidence of the unity of what would become the Indo-European languages, in two major studies: Über das Konjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in Vergleichung mit jenen der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Sprachen (On the conjugational system of Sanskrit in comparison with that of Greek, Latin, Persian and Germanic languages), Frankfurt a.M., 1816, which also contained translations from Sanskrit literature; and his comparative grammar: Vergleichende Grammatik des Sanskrit, Zend, Griechischen, Lateinischen, Litauischen, Altslavischen, Gothischen und Deutschen, Ferdinand Dümmler, Berlin, 1833–1852. The second edition (1856–1861) also comprised Old Armenian. The third edition of his Grammatik in three volumes was published by Ferdinand Dümmler’s Verlagsbuchhandlung (Harrwitz & Gossmann), Berlin, 1868, 1870, 1871. Bopp also wrote on Celtic, Albanian (he proved that Albanian was an IE language in 1854) and Old Prussian.50 Sanskrit is a highly inflected language with three grammatical genders, masculine, feminine, and neuter and three numbers – singular, plural, and dual; it has eight cases and over 10 noun declensions; it has personal, reflexive, and interrogative pronouns, but no articles; verbs have four tenses – present, perfect, aorist and future; two aspects – imperfective and perfective; three voices – active, passive, and middle; and three moods – imperative, conditional, and indicative. Aorist is a narrative verb tense that usually denotes past action without indicating completion, continuation or repetition – Late Latin aoristos < Greek aoristos (indefinite).51 Michael Witzel in his study on the Sanskrit language points out that “most of the nouns and verbs of Sanskrit are, as in all older IE languages, composed of three elements, the monosyllabic root (carrying the lexical meaning), one or two stem suffixes (specifying some grammatical or semantic relationship with or derivation from, the root), and the endings that indicate certain grammatical catagories such as case, number, gender (in nouns), and person, number and voice (in verbs).”52 50 51

52

Bright, V. 1, pp. 195–196. For an analysis of the Sanskrit language, see Michael Witzel’s article “Sanskrit” in Facts about the World’s Languages, pp. 611–622. Ibid., p. 615.

General distinguishing features of various lE languages

269

Sanskrit shows stark similarities with Latin, Ancient Greek, Avestan and even Persian. Vedic Sanskrit ia a pitch accent language having three tones – raised, not raised and sounded. The raised tone corresponds to the original PIE stress. Classical Sanskrit is usually pronounced with a stress accent decided by the syllable length pattern of each word. Sanskrit also shows striking similarities – to varying degrees – with Baltic. The lexical similarities between Sanskrit and Lithuanian, the oldest living IE language, are illustrated by the following examples: skr. sunus (son), lith. su¯nus; skr. viras (man), lith. vyras; skr. avis (sheep), lith. avis; skr. dhumas (smoke), lith. du¯mas; skr. padas (sole), lith. padas; skr. dvau (two), lith. du (dvi); skr. panca (five), lith. penki; skr. kataras (which), lith. katras; skr. asmi (I am), lith. esu; skr. asi (you are), lith. esi; skr. asti (he is), lith. yra/esti; skr. agni (fire), lith. ugnis; skr. tava (yours), lith. tavo; skr. dina (day), lith. diena; skr. deva (God), lith. dievas; skr. devataa (goddess), lith. dievaite˙; skr. bhuvana (home), related to lith. buveine˙ (residence, abode); skr. antaras (second), lith. antras; skr. ka, lith. kas (who); skr. kravis (raw flesh), lith. kraujas (blood); skr. eti (he goes) – lith. eiti (to go); skr. loka (space, room, world) – lith. laukas (outside, out of doors); skr. rasa (moisture) – lith. rasa (dew). The ending -yate in Sanskrit/Old Indic corresponds to Lithuanian -i / -e˙ti: skr. yudhyate (move), lith. jude˙ti; skr. rupyati (worry), lith. rupe˙ti.53 The following is a sample of other words that exemplify the close linguistic relationship of Old Prussian, Latvian, and Sanskrit to Lithuanian: opr. nozy, latv. nass, skr. nasa, lith. nosis (nose); opr. deinam, latv. diena, skr. dina-m, lith. diena (day); opr. lauxnos (stars), latv. lauks, skr. locana-h, lith. laukas (out of doors, outside); opr. ensadints, latv. sedet, skr. sadah, lith. se˙de˙ti (sit); opr. sinnat, latv. zinat, skr. janati, lith. zˇinoti (know); opr. gorme (heat), latv. gars, skr. gharma-h (heat), lith. garas (steam, vapor); opr. iau, latv. jau, lith. jau (already); opr. rugis, latv. rudzi, lith. rugiai (rye); opr. karyago, latv. karsˇ, lith. karas

53

Jungfer, Victor, Litauen, Anlitz eines Volkes, p. 20; for a comprehensive list of correspondences between Sanskrit and those of other IE languages, see Burrow, Thomas, The Sanskrit Language, Faber and Faber, London, 1955. The corresponding words in Sanskrit and Lithuanian were taken from Burrow, p. 74, 75, 79, 102, 190; see also Schmid, Wolfgang P., Studien zum baltischen und indogermanischen Verbum, p. 62, p. 64.

270

Edmund Remys

(war); latv. sakas, skr. sakha, lith. sˇaka (branch); opr. wedais (lead!), latv. vedu, lith. vedu (I lead); opr. nikai, lith. niekur (nowhere); opr. piuclan, lith. piu¯klas (saw); opr. kadegis, latv. kadegs, lith. kadagys (juniper).54 The ancient, extinct IE language Hittite is the language in which the kings of the Hatti empire in Eastern Asia Minor recorded their historical and legal documents as well as of numerous religious texts during the 2nd millenium BC. Thousands of documents written in Hittite were found on clay tablets in the ancient Hittite capital Oattußa, located near the modern town of Boaazkale, Turkey. The language was written in the Babylonian cuneiform script. Until its recent discovery, Hittite was an unknown language. The famous Czech Hittitologist and archaeologist Bedrich Hrozny showed that the tablets were an ancient record of a hitherto unknown IE language. He discovered that Hittite grammatical forms were typical of the IE language family. However, Hittite does not have the dual number or the masculine/feminine gender distinction, typical of older IE languages, including Lithuanian.55 Hittite belongs to the extinct Anatolian branch of the IE language family. It is IE on the basis of core vocabulary and inflectional similarities with other early IE languages. One example: Hittite lis- [les] (select, pick out), lith. lesti (peck up seeds or grain).56 It has seven cases, adjectives are inflected like nouns, two genders (animate and neuter), two numbers, two moods, indicative and imperative and two inflected tenses, present-future and past. Albert Drexel asserts that Hittite has numerous grammatical features of Indo-European, but also clearly extensive non-Indo-European lexical components. As to the IE character of Hittite, Drexel points out that “the first inhabitants of the Chatti empire spoke a non-Indo-European language, which in time had to give way to the language of the IE conquerors and rulers.”57

54

55

56

57

See Endzelins, Janis, Baltu˛ Kalbu˛ Garsai ir Formos, pp. 25–35, p. 40, 48, 53, 56, 66, 81, 86, 92. Dalby, Andrew, Dictionary of Languages, Columbia University Press, New York, 1998, p. 252. Porzig, Walter, Die Gliederung des indogermanischen Sprachgebiets, Carl Winter, Universitätsverlag, Heidelberg, 1954, p. 191. Drexel, Albert, Die indogermanischen Sprachen, p. 47.

General distinguishing features of various lE languages

271

Hittite is important in helping to formulate the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European.58 In his article on the Hittite language, Kenneth Shield, Jr. states: “Because the oldest Hittite records constitute the earliest attested forms of any Indo-Europeans language, Hittite data today play a central role in any attempts to reconstruct ProtoIndo-European.”59 Another extinct ancient IE language is Tocharian with features closely related to Western IE languages. Excavations in Central Asia, East Turkestan (present Xinijiang in China), yielded manuscripts in various languages, among which was a previously unknown IE language with two distinct dialects, A and B, which established a connection to the ancient peoples of the Tocharians. The language is interspersed with Buddhist-Indian influences.60 Referring to the similarities between Tocharian and other IE languages, Andrew Dalby states: “Although the Tocharian A and B manuscripts were found side by side, the two languages had actually been growing apart linguistically for hundreds of years. And it was soon found that Tocharian had quite astonishing relationships with the other Indo-European languages. Its strongest similarities were not with Indo-Aryan or Iranian languages, … but with Celtic, Italic and Hittite. … Like these, Tocharian belonged to the centum group.”61 Douglas Adams in an article on Tocharian suggests, however, that “what special linguistic ties Tocharian may have with other IndoEuropean groups appears to be, disconcertingly, with Western groups such as Germanic or Greek. However, the number of similarities is 58

59

60 61

Friedrich, Johannes, Hethitisches Elementarbuch – Kurzgefasste Grammatik, Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, Heidelberg, 1940, 108 pages. See the Foreword pp. V–VI and the Introduction p.1. The work contains an analysis of the Hittite writing system, phonetics, morphology – nouns, numbers, verbs, syntax, cases, adjectives, particles, and clauses. For a good Hittite – German lexical tool, consult Friedrich, Johannes, Hethitisches Wörterbuch – Kurzgefasste kritische Sammlung der Deutungen hethitischer Wörter, Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, Heidelberg, 1952, pp. 7–344. See the Foreword, pp. 15–16; see also Sturtevant, E.H., Comparative Grammar of the Hittite Language, William Dwight Whitney Linguistic Series, Vol. 1 (phonetics and morphology), Philadelphia, 1933. Shields, Kenneth Jr., “Hittite,” in Garry, Jane and Carl Rubino, ed., Facts about the World’s Languages, H.W. Wilson Press, New York/Dublin, 2001, p. 311. See pp. 310–313 for further discussion on Hittite. Drexel, Albert, Die indogermanischen Sprachen, p. 50. Dalby, Andrew, Dictionary of Languages, p. 632.

272

Edmund Remys

small, and it is possible that they reflect shared retensions or independent creations rather than shared innovations.”62 With regard to the linguistic ties Tocharian might have to Eastern IE languages, Georges-Jean Pinault asserts that the idea of Tocharian being an Eastern IE language, corresponding to its geographical situation, “is simplistic and based on insufficient evidence.” The supposed proof for this Eastern location was the absence of the initial occlusive in the word for “tear”, for example, toch. A akar, pl. akrunt, IndoIranian (Ved) asˇru-, av. asru, lith. asˇaros, in contrast with the Western languages: Old Irish der, Gothic tagr. Pinault maintains that “tear” has no significance for the relationship between the mentioned languages. The forms with initial dr- or d- “display no unity,” pointing out that “at a period subsequent to the formation of proto-Tocharian as a distinct dialectical branch of IndoEuropean, the ‘Tocharians’ came into contact with speakers of the Indo-Aryan and Iranian languages. … As a result of this contact, … the Tocharian vocabulary was penetrated by words of foreign origin.” As mentioned, the two attested Tocharian languages (A and B) differ significantly. As Pinault points out, there was no mutual comprehension and the differences between A and B presupposes separate development during at least five centuries. He asserts that the Buddhist vocabulary in Tocharian shows crucial differences between A and B, “this proves that the peoples speaking Toch. A and Toch. B were wholly separate at the time when the first Buddhist missionaries reached them.”63 Likewise, George S. Lane in his article on Tocharian states that the divergence of A and B is quite significant, “especially with regard to morphology, to a lesser extend perhaps in their phonology and vocabulary.” Lane further points out that many words common to Tocharian A and Tocharian B are not cognates, but a result of extensive borrowings from B into A.64 62

63

64

Adams, Douglas, “Tocharian,” in Facts about the World’s Languages, p. 749. For further analysis of Tocharian, see pp. 748–751. Pinault, Georges-Jean, “Tocharian and Indo-Iranian relations between two linguistic areas”, in Indo-Iranian Languages and Peoples, ed. Nicholas, Sims-Williams, for The British Academy by Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 245. Lane, George S., “On the Interrelationship of the Tocharian Dialects,” Ancient Indo-European Dialects, ed. Henrik Birnbaum and Jaan Puhvel, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1966, p. 213.

General distinguishing features of various lE languages

273

Tocharian is a highly inflected language, both nominal and verbal and its basic morphology is similar to most older IE languages. It has four cases (nominative, accusative/oblique, genitive, and vocative), three numbers (singular, plural, and dual – as does Lithuanian), typical IE gender system, present, past, imperfective, and perfective aspects, and indicative and subjunctive moods. Tocharian alphabet is syllabic in which each consonant has an inherent a vowel, for example, ga, ja, ta, na, pa, ma, va, sa. Other vowels are indicated with a variety of diacritics. Calvert Watkins points out that Tocharian is the only language of all older IE languages that shows no trace of the old athematic primary verbal ending -ti, not even in the verb to be. Compare, for example, lith. bu¯-ti (to be), galvo-ti (to think), saky-ti (to say). He further states that Tocharian, which was apparently isolated from other IE dialects for a long time during its early history, has retained the original form of the IE thematic inflection the longest.65 There is a significant, special linguistic agreement between Tocharian, Slavic, and Baltic. All three languages have a unique suffix for the formation of adjective abstracts: Toch. -une, slav. -ynja, lith. -une˙.66 The word salmon, for example, has its cognates in the following languages: OHG. lahs, lith. lasˇisˇ/lasˇisˇa, russ. lososц, toch. B laks (fish) < IE* lakso. The word tear is toch. A akär (as we have seen), latv. asara, lith. asˇara. Another similarity between Tocharian and other IE languages is a common expression for grain/seed. For instance: Old Indic dhanas (plural), Persian dana, toch. B tano, latv. duona (bread), lith. duona. The word for monk in Tocharian B is samane, borrowed from Sanskrit sramana, which became English shaman via Russian Пaman, German Schamane; lith. sˇamanas. Tocharian also shares the name for gold with Latin, Old Prussian and Lithuanian: Toch. A was, B yasa/yas, lat. aurum, opr. ausis, old lith. ausas, lith. auksas.67 Holger Pedersen in his comparative study of the Tocharian language, asserts that the IE character of Tocharian is reflected by common features in the core vocabulary (numerals, many related words, etc.), which is quite striking. He has attempted to compare Tocharian 65

66 67

Watkins, Calvert, Indogermanische Grammatik, Vol. 3, Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, Heidelberg, 1969, p. 199, p. 205. Porzig, Walter, Die Gliederung des indogermanischen Sprachgebiets, p. 183. Ibid., p. 185.

274

Edmund Remys

with other IE languages and he raises the question whether or not there exists an especially close relationship between Tocharian and Hittite.68

References Adams, Douglas, “Tocharian”, Facts about the World’s Languages, Jane Gary and Carl Rubino, ed., New York/Dublin, H.W. Wilson Press, 2001. Anderson, James M., Structual Aspects of Language Change, Longman Group Limited, London, 1973. Asher, R. E., ed.: The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Volume 3, Pergamon Press, Oxford/New York/Seoul/Tokyo, 1994. Beekes, Robert S.P, Comparative Indo-European Linguistics, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamin, 1955. Bright, William, ed.: International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Vol. 2, Oxford University Press, New York/Oxford, 1992. Brugmann, Karl, A Comparative Grammar of the Indo-Germanic Languages, Vol. 1–5, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, Varanasi, 1972 edition. –. Kurze Vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen, Verlag von Karl J. Trüber, Strassburg, 1904. –. Vergleichende Laut-, Stammbildungs- und Flexionslehre der indogermanischen Sprachen, Vol. 1 (introduction and phonetics), Vol. 2 (word formations and their usage), Karl Trübner, Strassburg, 1897, 1906, 1911, 1913. Burrow, Thomas, The Sanskrit Language, Faber and Faber, London, 1955. Crystal, David, ed., The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, 1997. Dalby, Andrew, Dictionary of Languages, Columbia University Press, New York, 1998. Drexel, Albert, Die indogermanischen Sprachen, part two of the complete works, Verlag der Universitätsbuchhandlung, Freiburg in der Schweiz, 1956. Eggers, Hans, Deutsche Sprachgeschichte, Vol. 1, Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH, Reinbeck bei Hamburg, 1991. Emeneau, M.B., “The Dialects of Old Indo-Aryan”, Ancient Indo-European Dialects, ed. Henrik Birnbaum and Joan Puhvel, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1966. Endzelins, Janis, Latviesˇu valodas gramatika, second edition, Latvijas Valsts Izdevnieciba, Riga, 1951. –. Baltu˛ Kalbu˛ Garsai ir Formos, Valstybine˙ Politine˙s ir Moksline˙s Literatu¯ros Leidykla, Vilnius, 1957. Frenkelis, Ernstas, Baltu˛ Kalbos, Leidykla “Mintis”, Vilnius, 1969.

68

Pedersen, Holger, Tocharisch – vom Gesichtspunkt der indoeuropäischen Sprachvergleichung, I Kommission Hos Ejnar Munksgaard, Copenhagen, 1941, Introduction, pp. 3–10.

General distinguishing features of various lE languages

275

Friedrich, Johannes, Hethitisches Elementarbuch – Kurzgefasste Grammatik, Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, Heidelberg, 1940. –. Hethitisches Wörterbuch – Kurzgefasste kritische Sammlung der Deutungen hethitischer Wörter, Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, Heidelberg, 1952. Gerutis, Albertas, ed., 2nd revised edition, Lithuania 700 Years, Manyland Books, New York, 1969. Hirt, Hermann, Indogermanische Grammatik, Vol.1–7, Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, Heidelberg, 1927 – 1937. Humboldt, Wilhelm v., Über die Kawi Sprache auf der Insel Java nebst einer Einleitung über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluß auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts, Königliche Akademie der Wissenschaft, Berlin, 1836–39. Jonikas, Petras, Lietuviu˛ Kalba ir Tauta Amzˇiu˛ Bu¯vyje, Lituanistikos Instituto Leidykla, 1987. Jungfer, Victor, Litauen, Anlitz eines Volkes, Patria-Verlag, Tübingen, 1948. Kieckers, Ernst, Die Sprachstämme der Erde, Carl Winter, Heidelberg, 1931. Kortlandt, Frederik, The Language of the Old Prussian Catechisms, Res Balticae, Leiden, 1998. Krahe, Hans, Germanische Sprachwissenschaft, I, Einleitung und Lautlehre, Sammlung Göschen, Walter de Gruyter / Co., Berlin, 1966. –. Germanische Sprachwissenschaft, II, Formenlehre, 6th edition, Berlin, 1967. Lane, George S., “On the Interrelationship of the Tocharian Dialects,” Ancient Indo-European Dialects, Henrik Birnbaum and Jaan Puhvel, ed., University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1966. Leskien, August, Litauisches Lesebuch mit Grammatik und Wörterbuch, Carl Winter’s Universitätsbuchhandlung, Heidelberg, 1919. ˙ .A., Struktura slova v indoevropejskich i germanskich jazykach, Makaev, E “Nauka”, Moskva, 1970. Mazˇiulis, Vytautas, “Seniausias baltu˛ rasˇto paminklas”, Baltistica 11/2, 1975. –. Pru¯s) kalbos paminklai, Mintis, Vilnius, 1966. Mikalauskaite˙, E. in “Priesˇreformaciniu˛ laiku˛ pru¯sisˇko Te˙ve Mu¯su˛ nuotrupa”, Archivum Philologicum 7, Kaunas, 1938. Moser, Hugo, Deutsche Sprachgeschichte, 6th edition, Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tübingen, 1969. Nesselmann, George H.F., Die Sprache der alten Preußen, Berlin, 1845. Pedersen, Holger, Tocharisch – vom Gesichtspunkt der indoeuropäischen Sprachvergleichung, I Kommission Hos Ejnar Munksgaard, Copenhagen, 1941. Pinault, Georges-Jean, “Tocharian and Indo-Iranian relations between two linguistic areas”, in Indo-Iranian Languages and Peoples, ed., Nicholas, Sims-Williams, for The British Academy by Oxford University Press, 2002. Pokorny, Julius, Allgemeine und Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft – Indogermanistik, Vol. 2, A. Francke AG Verlag, Bern, 1953. Porzig, Walter, in Die Gliederung des indogermanischen Sprachgebiets, Carl Winter, Universitätsverlag, Heidelberg, 1954. Remys, Edmund, Review of Modern Lithuanian Grammar, second revised edition, Lithuanian Research and Studies Center, Chicago, 2003.

276

Edmund Remys

Salys, Antanas, Baltu˛ Kalbos, Tautos bei Kiltys, Lietuviu˛ Kataliku˛ Mokslo Akademija, 1985. Schmid, Wolfgang P., Studien zum baltischen und indogermanischen Verbum, Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, 1963. Schmidt, Wilhelm, Geschichte der deutschen Sprache, 6th edition, S. Hirzel Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft, Stuttgart/ Leipzig, 1993. Shields, Kenneth Jr., “Hittite”, Garry, Jane and Carl Rubino, ed., Facts about the World’s Languages, H.W. Wilson Press, New York/Dublin, 2001. Sperber, H. & Polenz, P.v., Geschichte der deutschen Sprache, Sammlung Göschen, Band 915, Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 1968. Stedje, Astril, Deutsche Sprache gestern und heute – Einführung in Sprachgeschichte und Sprachkunde, 3rd edition, Uni-Taschenbücher, 1499, Wilhelm Fink Verlag, München, 1996. Sturtevant, E.H., Comparative Grammar of the Hittite Language, William Dwight Whitney Linguistic Series, Vol. 1 (phonetics and morphology), Philadelphia, 1933. Trautmann, Reinhold, Die slavischen Völker und Sprachen – Eine Einführung in die Slavistic, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen, 1947. Watkins, Calvert, ed., The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots, Houghton Miffin Company, Boston, 1986. Michael Witzel’s article “Sanskrit”, Garry, Jane and Rubino, Carl, ed., Facts about the World’s Languages, New York/Dublin, H.W. Wilson Press, 2001. Wolff, Gerhart, Deutsche Sprachgeschichte, 3rd edition, Francke Verlag, Tübingen und Basel, 1994. Zinkevicˇius, Zigmas, The History of the Lithuanian Language, 2nd printing, Mokslo ir enciklopediju˛ leidybos institutas, Vilnius, 1998. Zirmunskij, V. M., ed. Morfologicˇeskaja struktura slova v indoevropejskich jazykach, “Nauka”, Moskva 1970.

1614 Ebbotts Place Crofton, MD 21114 U.S.A. [email protected]

Edmund Remys

Zur baltischen Bezeichnung des Feuersteins

277

Zur baltischen Bezeichnung des Feuersteins1 1. Einleitung In seiner Wortbildung der litauischen Sprache (1943: 393–456) hat P. Skardzˇius der Nominalkomposition einen wichtigen Abschnitt gewidmet, der auch heute seinen Wert noch nicht verloren hat. In diesem Abschnitt macht er beiläufig (S. 404–405) auf eine Reihe von Wörtern aufmerksam, die im Litauischen offensichtlich alte Komposita sind, deren Bestandteile aber synchron unmotiviert bleiben. Für die Rekonstruktion früherer Phasen der litauischen Sprache sind derartige verdunkelte Zusammensetzungen von großem Wert, denn es ist ja zu erwarten, daß sie Wörter fortsetzen, die einst eine selbständige Existenz hatten, jetzt aber außer Gebrauch gekommen sind. Als Beispiele führt Skardzˇius folgende Formen an: lit. áitvaras „Schutzgeist des Hauses“ (*ait-varas), óvaidas „Schelm, Lausebengel“ (*o-vaidas), posnagà „Huf“ (*pos-naga), pùtnagas „Quarz“ (*put-nagas), ska˜rmalas „Lumpen, Fetzen“ (*skar-malas), ty´tveikas „Menschen-, Viehoder Vögelhaufen“ (*tyt-veikas), tìtnagas „Feuerstein“ (*tit-nagas). All diese Wörter sind offensichtlich zusammengesetzte Bildungen. Sie entziehen sich aber jeder synchronen Analyse; oft bleiben sie auch diachron dunkel. Sie sind deshalb in der etymologischen Forschung vielfach diskutiert worden. Im folgenden Aufsatz möchte ich auf das letztgenannte Wort – lit. tìtnagas „Feuerstein“ – zurückkommen und die Frage seiner Herkunft aufs neue zu klären versuchen.

2. Litauisch tìtnagas Das litauische Substantiv tìtnagas „Feuerstein“ (LKZ XVI, 447–448) ist ein relativ altes Wort. Seine ersten Belege gehen auf das 16. Jahrhundert zurück. In der Bibelübersetzung von Jonas Bretku¯nas, die 1

Für die Korrektur der deutschen Sprache danke ich herzlich Prof. Dr. RalfPeter Ritter (Krakw).

Indogermanische Forschungen, 112. Band 2007

DOI 10.1515/IDGF.2007.015

278

Daniel Petit

von dem Jahr 1590 datiert und auf dem deutschen Text von Martin Luther beruht, liest man folgenden Satz (Pr 20, 17):2 dt. Das gestolen Brot schmeckt jederman wol / Aber hernach wird jm der mund vol kiseling werden lit. Du˚na pawogta kosznam skani ira, Bet paskui burna io bus pilna titnago Spätere Bibelversionen verwenden in derselben Stelle ein anderes Wort, lit. zˇv˜yras, das gemeinhin als Lehnwort aus dem pol. z˙wir „Kieselstein“ gilt.3 In allen späteren lexikographischen Quellen, seit dem 17. Jahrhundert, weist tìtnagas meist die engere Bedeutung „Feuerstein“ auf und übersetzt regelmäßig dt. Feuerstein, pol. krzemien´, lat. silex „Feuerstein“. Ich führe hier nur die wichtigsten Belege an: Krzemien´ / Silex, Titnagas „Feuerstein“ (Sirvydas DTL3 1642: 135); Feuerstein titnagas (Lexicon Lithuanicum, 17. Jahrhundert, 35a); Feuerstein, Titnakas (Clavis Germanico-Lithvana, 17. Jahrhundert, 656); titnakas / Feuerstein (Ruhig 1747: 139 und 222); titnakas / Feuerstein (Mielcke 1800: 115 und 183); Krzemien, titnagas (Daukantas DLL 1850–1856: 314); titnagas und titnaginis (Nesselmann 1851: 107); titnagas, krams, krzemien´, skałka, kremenц (Miezˇinis 1894: 257); tìtnagas „Feuerstein, Flint, Kiesel(stein)“; titnagìngas „feuerstein-, kieselreich, -haltig“ und titnagìnis „Feuerstein-, aus Feuerstein angefertigt“(NdZ 1932–1963: IV, 679); tìtnagas „Feuerstein, Kiesel“; titnagìngas „reich an Kieseln“ und titnagìnis „Kiesel-, Feuerstein-“ (A. Kurschat TLL 1968–1972: IV, 2506); titnangas im Wörterbuch von Antanas Jusˇka (1897–1922: I, 551). In neuerer Zeit sind verschiedene mundartliche Formen dokumentiert, stets mit der Bedeutung „Feuerstein“:4 tìtnagas in Dusetos, Vepriai, Vilkavisˇkis, Ariogala, Kve˙darna, Kuliai, Plunge˙, tìtnegas in Rietavas, tìtnagis in Deltuva, cìcnagas in Druskininkai5, tìsnagas in Kabeliai, Leipalingis, Marcinko2 3

4 5

Vgl. Bretku¯nas (Rinktiniai rasˇtai, 1983: 260). Anders Urbutis (1983: 150–168), der lit. zˇv˜yras als echt baltisch und pol. z˙wir als Lehnwort aus dem Litauischen betrachtet. Vgl. Bu¯ga (RR(B) I, 219); LKZ (XVI, 446, 447–448). Naktiniene˙, Paulauskiene˙, Vitkauskas (1988: 409).

Zur baltischen Bezeichnung des Feuersteins

279

nys, Kapcˇiamiestis, c´ìsnagas in Merkine˙, tìknagas in Kruopiai6, tìtinagas in Armonisˇke˙s, Gerve˙cˇiai, tìtilingas in Dysna und Linkmenys, cicil’ingas in Tverecˇius7. Das Substantiv tìtnagas ist wahrscheinlich ein altes Kompositum. Dafür spricht vor allem die mundartliche Variante tìtinagas, die altertümlicher als die anderen Formen zu sein scheint und den im Litauischen geläufigen Kompositionsvokal -i- (tìt-i-nagas) noch bewahrt. Aus tìtinagas entstanden durch Synkope die am weitesten verbreitete Form tìtnagas8 sowie andere Nebenformen wie cìcnagas (in den sogenannten „dzu¯kischen“ Dialekten *t’it’i- > *cici-), tìsnagas, c´ìsnagas (mit Dissimilation von *t’it’i- zu *t’is’i-) oder tìknagas (mit der vereinzelt bezeugten Entwicklung *-tn- > *-kn-).9 Wahrscheinlich stellt die Variante titnangas, die nur in dem Wörterbuch von Antanas Jusˇka bezeugt ist, nichts anderes als eine Reduplikation des vorangehenden Nasals durch Fernassimilation (*-nagas > *-nangas) dar.10 Die Variante tìtilingas, die in der Mundart von Linkmenys belegt ist, bleibt für mich zugegebenermaßen schwer zu erklären. Es könnte sich bloß um eine zufällige Entstellung von tìtinagas handeln, obwohl sich die phonetischen Bedingungen dieser Veränderung nicht bestimmen lassen: Eine Entwicklung *titinagas > *titinangas > *titiningas (mit Assimilation) > *titilingas (mit Dissimilation) wäre nicht unbedenklich.11

6 7 8

9 10

11

Otre˛bski (GJL I, 359); Zinkevicˇius (1966: 174); LKZ (XVI, 253). Otre˛bski (1934: 93). Larsson (2002: 105–122) hat gezeigt, daß die Synkope des Kompositionsvokals zuerst in nachtoniger Position stattfand, d.h. in den nach dem ersten Betonungsparadigma akzentuierten Komposita, was bei *tìti-nagas > tìt-nagas (1) der Fall ist. Zu dieser Entwicklung vgl. Otre˛bski (GJL I, 359). Die Vermutung von Bu¯ga (RR(B) I, 219), sie könne etwas Altertümliches fortsetzen und mit einer angeblichen altisländischen Entsprechung naggr „kleine scharfe Stein- oder Klippenspitze“ verglichen werden, ist verfehlt. Erstens ist ein Substantiv naggr in der ganzen altisländischen Literatur, soweit ich weiß, unbelegt (vgl. Holthausen 1948: 206, oder de Vries 1962: 404); zweitens, auch wenn das Wort existiert hat, ist die geminierte Schreibung in naggr keineswegs als Beweis von der Existenz einer Konsonantengruppe [-ng-] zu interpretieren. Auf jeden Fall scheint es mir unmöglich, der Meinung Bu¯gas (RR(B) I, 219) zuzustimmen, der ein anderes Lexem *lingas oder *lengas „Stein“ rekonstruiert (vgl. ebenfalls Fraenkel LEW II, 1103), obwohl er selbst zugeben muß, daß eine solche Form völlig isoliert wäre (kurio giminaicˇiai nezˇinomi).

280

Daniel Petit

Man muß also aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach ursprünglich von einem Kompositum *titi-nagas ausgehen. Die Frage stellt sich nun, wie dieses Kompositum, dessen Einzelglieder nicht selbständig vorkommen, etymologisch zu erklären ist.

3. Litauisch *-nagas Ein Hinterglied -nagas ist im Litauischen nicht völlig isoliert. Zwei andere zusammengesetzte Bildungen weisen noch als Hinterglied eine Form -nagas oder -nagis auf, für die eine Grundbedeutung „Stein“ nicht ausgeschlossen zu sein scheint. Zuerst ist auf das Kompositum pùtnagas „Quarz“ hinzuweisen, das seit dem 19. Jahrhundert bezeugt ist. Es tritt zum ersten Mal in einer Dialektsammlung auf, die von dem polnisch-litauischen Pfarrer Ambroz˙y Kossarzewski (1821–1880) im sibirischen Exil verfaßt wurde (Lituanica, 86). Einige Jahrzehnte später wird es in den Wörterbüchern von Antanas Lalis (1915: 75) und Jonas Baronas (1933: 199) wiederholt, wovon es in die meisten Wörterbücher der modernen Sprache (z.B. pùtnagas in NdZ III, 481, und DZ 4, 2000: 637) neben dem weit verbreiteten Lehnwort kvárcas (< dt. Quarz oder pol. kwarc) geriet.12 Auch wenn die Deutung des Vorderglieds put- schwierig ist (man denkt an lit. putà „Schaum“), läßt sich das Hinterglied -nagas problemlos mit unserem tìt-nagas vergleichen. Weiter ist noch auf lit. pãlianagis „ein weißes Gestein vom Typ des Feuersteins“13 hinzuweisen. Dieses Kompositum, das vor allem in dem Dialekt von Dusetos belegt ist, ist offensichtlich aus pãliai „Eiter“ und *-nagis, *-nagas „Stein“ zusammengesetzt: Seine Grundbedeutung kann als *„eiterfarbiges Gestein“ rekonstruiert werden.14 All diesen Formen gemein ist also ein Hinterglied *-nagas oder *-nagis, dem eine Bedeutung „Stein“ mit einer gewissen Sicherheit zugeschrieben werden kann.

12 13

14

Vgl. auch LKZ (X, 1133). Bu¯ga (RR(B) I, 217): baltas, titnagu˛ veisle˙s, akmene˙lis. Das Wort wird aus den Dialekten von Dusetos und Sudeikiai dokumentiert; s. LKZ (X, 878), wo dem Kompositum pãlianagis eine Grundbedeutung „Quarz“ (=pùtnagas) zugeschrieben wird. Bu¯ga (RR(B) II, 218).

Zur baltischen Bezeichnung des Feuersteins

281

Es gibt aber andere Formen, in denen diese Deutungsmöglichkeit nicht wahrscheinlich ist. Litauisch posnagà „Huf“ (*pos-naga) ist semantisch kaum mit einem Stamm *nagas „Stein“, sondern vielmehr mit lit. nagà „Huf“, bzw. nãgas „Nagel“ in Verbindung zu stellen. Dasselbe gilt für andere Komposita wie lit. skarnãgai „die beiden Hinterfußkrallen eines Rehes oder einer Ziege“.15 Man muß also mit einer gewissen Zweideutigkeit der Komposita auf *-nagas / *-nagis rechnen, denen im Prinzip sowohl *nagas „Stein“ als auch nagà „Huf“, bzw. nãgas „Nagel“ zugrunde liegen kann. Das Substantiv *nagas „Stein“ blieb weder im Litauischen noch im Lettischen selbständig erhalten. Hingegen bezeugt das Altpreussische eine Form nagis / fuersteyn „Feuerstein“, die einmal im Elbinger Vokabular (E 371) auftritt und wahrscheinlich als *nagws (< *nagas) zu interpretieren ist. Beachtenswert ist, daß das Altpreussische die Homonymie von *nagas „Stein“ und *nagas „Nagel“ durch den Ersatz vom letzteren durch eine Deminutivform nagutis „Nagel“ (E 117, vgl. aksl. nogчtц „Nagel“) beseitigte und dadurch das Wort *nagas „Stein“ bewahren konnte, während sich im Litauischen gerade wegen der gleichen Homonymie das Wort nãgas „Nagel“ durchsetzte und *nagas „Stein“ nur noch in einigen verdunkelten Komposita (tìtnagas, pùtnagas, pãlianagis) erhalten blieb. Das Lettische ist einen Schritt weiter gegangen, indem es die alte Form *nagas „(Feuer)stein“ völlig beseitigte. An ihrer Stelle tritt ein Substantiv kràms „Feuerstein“ (ME II, 258) auf,16 das an die entsprechende slavische Bezeichnung erinnert (aksl. kremy „Feuerstein“, russ. kremenц, pol. krzemien´17 und nach Endzelin (ME II, 258) und Karulis (1992: I, 417) etymologisch zur Sippe des Substantivs krama „Grind“ und des Verbs krìmst „nagen, klauben“ gehören könnte. Alles spricht also dafür, daß die baltischen Sprachen einst eine Form *nagas in der Bedeutung „Stein“ (oder vielleicht genauer 15 16

17

Fraenkel (LEW I, 478–479, auch 640–641 zu lit. posnagà). Nur die latgalischen Dialekte bezeugen zuweilen eine Form tytnags „Feuerstein“ neben kroms (vgl. Kurmin 1858: 60: Krzemien´ / Silex. Tytnags, kroms), wahrscheinlich unter dem Einfluß des benachbarten Litauischen. Wahrscheinlich ist von einer balto-slavischen Grundform *krem-as auszugehen, die im lettischen kràms fast unverändert fortgesetzt wird, während die Endung der slavischen Formen durch das Hyperonym *kamy, -en- „Stein“ beeinflußt wurde (*kremas >*kremч f aksl. kremy nach kamy, russ. kremenц nach kamenц, pol. krzemien´ nach kamien´, usw.).

282

Daniel Petit

„Feuerstein“) besessen haben. Wie sich dieses *nagas von der Hauptbezeichnung des Steins *akmo¯n (lit. akmuõ, lett. akmens) unterschied, ist nicht schwer zu bestimmen: Es ist wahrscheinlich, daß *nagas genau ein scharfes Gestein vom Typ des Feuersteins oder vielleicht schon den Feuerstein selbst bezeichnete, während *akmo¯n als Oberbegriff verwendet wurde. Es ist m. E. signifikant, daß das selbständige Wort nagis im Altpreussischen nur die enge Bedeutung „Feuerstein“ aufweist und sich also keineswegs mit der geläufigen Hauptbezeichnung stabis „Stein“ (E 32) überlappt. Auf dieser Basis sind zwei etymologische Deutungen möglich, die beide – wie wir gleich sehen werden – Schwierigkeiten bereiten. (1) Einige Wissenschaftler, unter denen besonders der Name von Vytautas Mazˇiulis (PKEZ III, 167) hervorzuheben ist,18 haben die Meinung geäußert, das Wort *nagas „Stein“ sei mit *nagas „Nagel“ identisch, wobei man mit einer metaphorischen Bedeutungsverschiebung rechnen müßte. Aus dieser Perspektive wäre von einer Wurzel *h3 engu3 h-, bzw. *h3 negu3 h- auszugehen, die noch in anderen indogermanischen Sprachen die Bezeichnung des „Nagels“ liefert:19 lat. unguis „Nagel“, gr. , -« „Nagel“, ahd. nagal „Nagel“, aksl. noga „Fuß“, nogцtц „Nagel, Kralle“, ai. nakhám „Nagel“ (mit ungeklärtem stimmlosen Konsonant), usw. Nach Mazˇiulis handelt es sich prinzipiell um ein und dasselbe Wort. Er nimmt an, das Wort „Nagel“ habe sekundär die Bedeutung „Stein“ bekommen, weil der Feuerstein wegen seiner Farbe einem Nagel, insbesondere einem Pferdenagel, ähnlich ausgesehen habe (titnagas isˇ spalvos labai panasˇus ˛i arklio ir pan. naga˛, kanopa˛). Als Parallele könnte man eventuell an gr. „Nagel“ denken, das in nachklassischem Griechisch zuweilen einen Edelstein, den „Onyx“, bezeichnen kann.20 Diese Deutung ist theoretisch möglich, doch kann sie nicht ohne Bedenken angenommen werden. Der Vergleich von gr. zeigt nur, daß die postulierte metaphorische Bedeutungsverschiebung „Nagel“ f „nagelfarbiger Stein“ unter bestimmten Bedingungen in Betracht kommen darf,

18 19

20

Vgl. auch Sabaliauskas (1990: 204). Vgl. Trautmann (BSW 192); Ernout-Meillet (DELL 747); Chantraine (DELG 805); Mayrhofer (EWA II, 4). Zum Baltischen s. auch Steinbergs (1996–1997: 26). Nach Chantraine (DELG 805) könnte diese Entwicklung durch die Ähnlichkeit der Farbe des Nagels und des Onyx erklärt werden.

Zur baltischen Bezeichnung des Feuersteins

283

nicht daß sie im Falle von lit. *nagas tatsächlich zu postulieren ist, zumal sich die griechische Parallele von sowohl historisch als auch semantisch von der baltischen Sachlage unterscheidet.21 Die Frage bleibt offen, ob das Farbmotiv ausreicht, um der Bezeichnung des „Nagels“ die spezielle Bedeutung „Feuerstein“ zuzuschreiben. Hinzu kommt, daß man sich schwer vorstellen könnte, wie diese innovative Bedeutung „Feuerstein“ und die ererbte Bedeutung „Nagel“ miteinander koexistieren und getrennte Derivate und Zusammensetzungen bilden konnten. Ausgehend von der Annahme, daß *nagas „Stein“ und *nagas „Nagel“ zwei abweichende Bedeutungen desselben Wortes darstellen, hat O. N. Trubacˇëv (1957: 33) die entgegengesetzte Vermutung geäußert, die Bedeutung „Stein“ sei die ursprüngliche, während die andere Bedeutung „Nagel“ als Neuerung zu deuten sei. Diese Hypothese ist aber, wie K. Karulis (1992: I, 614) darlegte, wenig überzeugend, denn das Zeugnis der anderen idg. Sprachen zeigt, daß die Bedeutung „Nagel“ überall alt ist, während die Bedeutung „Stein“ auf eine kleine Gruppe von Sprachen beschränkt ist und in diesen Sprachen als sekundär interpretiert werden kann. (2) Eine andere Möglichkeit würde von der Annahme ausgehen, daß *nagas „Nagel“ und *nagas „Stein“ seit jeher homonymische, von einander unabhängige Bildungen waren. In diesem Fall wäre die Etymologie von *nagas „Stein“ in eine andere Richtung zu suchen. Seit Bu¯ga (RR(B) III, 587) wurde das baltische Wort mit der slavischen Bezeichnung des „Messers“ *nozˇц verglichen (vgl. aksl. nozˇц „Messer“, bulg. nozˇ, skr. noz ¤ ˇ , slov. nòzˇ, russ. nozˇ, tsch. nu˚zˇ, pol. nózˇ, slav. Lehnwort im Lettischen nazis). Von der semantischen Seite her gesehen wäre dieser Vergleich unproblematisch: Man könnte mit Bu¯ga auf Parallelfälle wie ahd. mezzi-sahs „Messer“, das mit lat. saxum „Stein, Fels“ verwandt ist, und ferner aisl. hamarr, das sowohl „Stein“ als auch „Hammer“ bedeutet, hinweisen. Formal wäre im Slavischen

21

Beiläufig sei bemerkt, daß der Feuerstein in den baltischen Ländern normalerweise weiß ist, aber gemischt mit anderen Elementen eine graue oder gar schwarze Farbe bekommen kann, worauf schon z.B. in einer Stelle der berühmten Zeitschrift des 19. Jahrhunderts, Ausˇra (1883: 74), hingewiesen wurde: Titnagas tikrasis yra baltas, bet pas mumis ans pilkas ar juodas nuo priemaisˇcˇiu˛ gelzˇaicˇiu˛ ir kitu˛ dalyku˛ „Der wahre Feuerstein ist weiß, aber bei uns ist er grau oder schwarz einer Vermengung mit Eisen und noch weiteren Dingen“.

284

Daniel Petit

wahrscheinlich von einer ursprünglich adjektivischen Possessivbildung auf *-i3 os „feuersteinspitz oder -scharf, spitz oder scharf wie Feuerstein“ > slav. *nozˇц „Messer“ auszugehen. Bemerkenswert ist, daß *nozˇц „Messer“ im Slavischen über eine verbale Basis verfügt. Seit Miklosich (1886: 214 und 217) wird es zur Sippe von aksl. -nisti „hineinstecken, hineinbohren“ (Ind. Präs. -nцzo) ˛ 22, -nцznoti ˛ „hineinbohren“ (Ind. Präs. -nцzno) ˛ 23 und -noziti „hineinstechen“ (Ind. Präs. -nozˇo) ˛ 24 zusammengestellt. In den anderen slavischen Sprachen ist diese Sippe durch verschiedene Formen heute noch bezeugt.25 Die semantische Beziehung liegt auf der Hand („Messer“, vs. „hineinbohren“). Phraseologische Verknüpfungen legen sogar die Möglichkeit nahe, daß sie gewissermaßen noch synchron empfunden wurde, vgl. z. B. чnцzi nozˇц ч nozˇцnico˛ „steck dein Schwert zurück in deine Scheide“ (Jn 18, 11 = gr. κ « κ ). Formal hätte man mit komplexen Ablautverhältnissen zu rechnen. Neben o-stufigen Bildungen in der Nominalableitung *nozˇц „Messer“ und im Kausativum-Iterativum *noziti „hineinstechen“ liegt eine unregelmäßige Schwundstufe in *nцz- (vgl. *nцzo˛ und *nцznoti) ˛ anstatt *nz- > *je˛z- vor. Diese neue Schwundstufe läßt sich wahrscheinlich aus dem Muster von *bor- (< *bhor-), vs. *bцr(< *bhr-) „nehmen“ herleiten; daraus *noz- : x (mit x = *nцz-). Schließlich wurde zu *nцz- eine neue Dehnstufe *niz- (vgl. *nisti) gebildet, etwa nach dem Muster von *pцs- (< *pik-), vs. *pis- (< *peÁk-) „schreiben“. Trautmann (BSW 200) schreibt dazu: „Der eigentümliche Ablaut erweist die Sippe als uralt“. Weitere etymologische Verknüpfungen, etwa mit gr. « „Lanze“ (unter Annahme eines Schwebeablauts *h1engˆh-, vs. *h1negˆh-?) oder mit air. ness „Wunde“ (falls

22

23

24 25

Meist mit Präverbien: aksl. чnisti „hineinstecken“ (Ind. Präs. чnцzo); ˛ unisti „hineinstecken“ (Ind. Präs. unцzo); ˛ pronisti „hineinbohren“ (Ind. Präs. pronцzo). ˛ Mit Präverbien: aksl. чnцznoti ˛ „hineinbohren“ (Ind. Präs. чnцzno); ˛ unцznoti ˛ „dss.“ (Ind. Präs. unцzno); ˛ pronцznoti ˛ „dss.“ (Ind. Präs. pronцzno). ˛ Nur aksl. цnoziti „hineinstechen“ (Ind. Präs. чnozˇ) ). Z.B. russ. onzitц „durchbohren“ (Ind. Präs. vonzˇu); atsch. venznúti „hineinbohren“ (heute venznouti = aksl. цnцznoti); ˛ pol. nizac´„hineinstecken, Perlen aufreihen“. Postverbale Ableitungen liegen in russ. zanoza „Splitter“, pol. snoza „hölzerne Klammer“ (klamra drewniana nach Brückner 1927: 505) und s.-kr. niz, naniz „Schnur“ vor.

Zur baltischen Bezeichnung des Feuersteins

285

< *negh-s-o-?), bleiben jedoch sehr fraglich,26 so daß die Rekonstruktion der zugrunde liegenden idg. Wurzel problematisch ist. Diese zweite Deutungsmöglichkeit weist aber eine entscheidende Schwäche auf. Die slavischen Formen setzen unbedingt eine Wurzel *negˆh- „stechen, bohren“ mit palataler Media aspirata voraus: Ein einfacher stimmhafter Verschlußlaut (*negˆ-, *neg- oder *negu3 -) hätte die sogenannte „Wintersche Dehnung“ (Winter 1978) bewirken müssen. Reine Velare oder Labiovelare (*neg-, *negh-, *negu3 -, *negu3 h-) sind ebenfalls ausgeschlossen, da sie keinen Zischlaut (wie z.B. in *noziti „hineinstechen“) ergeben hätten – abgesehen in dem Kontext der zweiten Palatalisierung, bei der slav. *g in der Stellung vor *eˇ2 (< idg. *oi, *ai) zu *z werden kann, die aber kontextbedingt ist, was bei der Sippe von slav. *-nisti, *-noziti nicht der Fall ist. Bei slav. *nozˇц „Messer“ ist der zugrunde liegende Konsonant unmöglich zu bestimmen, da sowohl slav. *nogjos als auch *nozjos zu dem selben Ergebnis geführt hätten (vgl. aksl. lozˇe „Lager, Bett“ < *logjo- < *logh-Áo- und vozˇo˛ „ich fahre“ < *vozjo˛ < *Üogˆh-Áo-). Im Slavischen muß die Wurzel also unbedingt als *negˆh- „stechen, bohren“ rekonstruiert werden. Dagegen setzen die baltischen Formen aus ähnlichen Gründen eine zugrunde liegende idg. Wurzel *negh- oder *negu3 h- voraus, die allein den velaren Verschlußlaut von apr. nagis, lit. -nagas erklärt. Die slavischen und die baltischen Formen sind also miteinander inkompatibel. Es bestünde dann nur die Möglichkeit, einen „Gutturalwechsel“ zwischen dem Baltischen (*negh-) und dem Slavischen (*negˆ h-) anzunehmen, wie z. B. zwischen lit. klausy´ti und aksl. slusˇati „hören“ (*kleÜs-, vs. *kˆleÜs-) oder umgekehrt zwischen aksl. goyц ˛ und lit. zˇa˛sìs „Gans“ (*ghans-, vs. *gˆhans-).27 Diese Notlösung ist denkbar, doch käme sie mir recht unbefriedigend vor. Beide Deutungen von *nagas „Stein“ bereiten also Schwierigkeiten. Ob es sich um eine semantische Entwicklung der indogermanischen Bezeichnung des „Nagels“ oder um die Vertretung einer unab26

27

Vgl. Johansson (1893: 51–52), der noch weitere phantasievolle Vergleichungen hinzufügt, z.B. mit aind. áks5 u- „Stange“, gr. „stechen“, „Birnbaum“, $ « „Weißpappel“, schließlich sogar mit gr. #A „Achäer“, usw. Zu gr. « erwähnt Chantraine (DELG 311) – wohl mit Recht – die Möglichkeit einer Entlehnung. Zu air. nes vgl. Vendryes (LEIA N-11), der eher an die idg. Wurzel *nekˆ - „verschwinden, verloren gehen“ denkt (IEW 762, LIV1 407, LIV2 451–452, vgl. lat. neca¯re „töten“, gr. « „Leichnam“, « „tot“). Vgl. Bräuer (1961: 169–172); Stang (1966: 91–92).

286

Daniel Petit

hängigen Wurzel „hineinstechen, -bohren“ handelt, ist letztlich kaum zu entscheiden. Fest steht nur, daß es eine Neuerung des Baltischen, eventuell des Balto-Slavischen ist, die einzelsprachlich entstanden ist, aber später wieder verschwunden ist.

4. Litauisch *titiIch gehe nun zum Vorderglied *titi- von tìtnagas über. Die Hauptschwierigkeit dabei ist, daß die Form *titi- im Baltischen völlig isoliert ist. Wir sind deshalb gezwungen, uns gleich an den indogermanischen Vergleich zu halten – eine recht unbequeme Situation, die die Tür für allerlei Spekulationen offen läßt. Das Vorderglied *titi- von tìtnagas wird gemeinhin mit einer Reihe von Formen verglichen, die in anderen indogermanischen Sprachen scheinbar eine ähnliche phonetische Gestalt haben und für die eine Grundbedeutung „Feuer“ vorausgesetzt werden könnte. Die Forschung hat sich mindestens seit Bu¯ga (RR(B) I, 219) in drei Richtungen orientiert:28 *titi- wurde zu gr. Ti „Tagesgöttin“ sowie Ti » « „Titanen, riesenhafte Götter der griechischen Mythologie“, zu aind. títhi-, tithá- „lunarer Tag, Feuer“, letztlich zu lat. titio¯ „Feuerbrand, Feuerscheit“ zusammengestellt. Die Gleichung von gr. Ti und Ti » « mit lit. tìtnagas „Feuerstein“ ist sowohl morphologisch als auch semantisch unbegründet. Allen Formen gemein ist nur eine Silbe *tit- oder *tit-, die Vokallänge ist verschieden, und vor allem ist keine morphologische Segmentierung ins Auge zu fassen. Von der semantischen Seite her ist diese Gleichung auch sehr schwach. Sie könnte nur durch eine kleine Bemerkung von Isidorus von Sevilla unterstützt werden, derzufolge die Griechen die Sonne T nennen (17. 9. 77: nam Graeci T » Solem uocant). Aber, auch wenn die Titanen ursprünglich Sonnengottheiten waren, ist dies noch kein Beweis dafür, daß ihre Bezeichnung etwas mit dem litauischen Kompositum tìtnagas „Feuerstein“ zu tun hat. Dasselbe gilt für gr. Ti , das bei Kallimachos (Frg. 21,1) und Lykurgos (Alexandra 541) die „Morgendämmerung“ bezeichnet. An eine Verbindung mit lit. *titi- „Feuer“ (*titi-nagas „Feuerstein“) ist

28

Vgl. Fraenkel (LEW II, 1104); Sabaliauskas (1990: 204). S. auch Cˇop (1956: 41).

Zur baltischen Bezeichnung des Feuersteins

287

kaum zu denken. Soweit ich es beurteilen kann, sind die griechischen Theonyme eher als Substratwörter oder Lehnwörter ungeklärter Herkunft zu betrachten.29 Bu¯ga (RR(B) I, 219) stellt auch zwei altindische Formen títhihﬂ „lunarer Tag“ und titháhﬂ „Feuer“ in Verbindung mit dem Vorderglied von lit. tìtnagas. Diese Formen können aber eine andere Erklärung finden und müssen als einzelsprachliche Neuerungen gelten. Das Substantiv títhihﬂ (M.) oder tithi (F.) ist erst nachrigvedisch bezeugt. Es tritt zum ersten Mal in den Grhyasu¯tras auf, dann taucht es wieder in Pa¯li (tithi „a lunar day“ nach Rhys Davids und Stede 1921: 302) und in Pra¯krit (tihi-) auf,30 schließlich scheint es noch in Hindi durch das Kompositum tewha¯r „Festival“,31 das wohl aus *tithi-va¯rastammt, fortgesetzt zu sein. Gemeinhin wird diesen Formen títhihﬂ (M.) und tith¯ı (F.) eine Bedeutung „lunarer Tag“ zugeschrieben.32 Eine kurze Notiz von Kielhorn (1907) hat aber deutlich gezeigt, daß diese Übersetzung „lunarer Tag“ ungenau ist.33 Nach Kielhorn bedeutet títhihﬂ genau „der […] Zeitraum, den der Mond braucht, um sich 12° von der Sonne zu entfernen“.34 Auf dieser Basis schlug Zubaty´ (1906) eine innerindische Erklärung des Wortes vor: Das Substantiv títhi- sei eine künstliche Bildung, die aus Zusammensetzungen wie ved. kati-thá- „der wievielte“ (sekundär als *ka-tithá- interpretiert, daraus z. B. episch bahu-tithá- „viele Tithis enthaltend“) abstrahiert worden sei. Die Möglichkeit einer Verwandtschaft mit lit. tìtnagas ist also zu verwerfen. Bu¯ga (RR(B) I, 219) erwähnt noch ein altindisches Substantiv tithá- „Feuer“: Eine solche Form ist aber in der ganzen 29

30 31

32

33

34

Ähnliche Auffassung bei Nehring (1925: 168); Frisk (GEW II, 904); und Chantraine (DELG 1122). Vgl. Turner (1966: 331). Turner (1966: 331). Vgl. auch Sindhi tiha¯5ro, Pañja¯bi tiha¯r, Kumauni tiwa¯r, tiha¯r, ¯ rmur5 i´ tiha¯r, Awadhi tevaha¯ra, Lakhimpuri teuha¯r, Gujara¯ti thwa¯r tya¯r, O („festival“), Nepa¯li tiwa¯r, ti(h)a¯r, tewa¯r („the first three days of the festival of Diwali“). Platts (1884: 353) übersetzt das hindische Wort als „a holiday, a festival“. Vgl. auch Mara¯t5 hi divai „festival of lamps on the full-moon day od ¯ sﬂ a¯dha“ (< *dipatithi-), cf. Turner (1966: 364). A Für das klassische Hindi gibt das Wörterbuch von Platts (1884: 310) folgende Bedeutungen an: „tithi, tith (F) a lunar day, the thirtieth part of a whole lunation; day (of the month)“. Vgl. Mayrhofer (KEWA I, 501): „die übliche Übersetzung ‚lunarer Tag‘ ist nicht ganz zutreffend“. S. auch Mayrhofer (KEWA I, 500; EWA I, 646).

288

Daniel Petit

altindischen Literatur völlig unbelegt.35 Man kann sich also letzten Endes der Meinung von Mayrhofer (EWA I, 646) anschliessen: „An ein idg. Erbwort, cf. lit. tìtnagas, ist kaum zu denken“. Es bleibt nur die Zusammenstellung von lit. tìtnagas zu lat. titio¯ „Feuerbrand, Feuerscheit“. Diese Gleichung, die zuerst von August Fick formuliert wurde und in den meisten Nachschlagewerken wiederholt wird,36 ist semantisch besser als die anderen. Lat. titio¯ tritt nach dem Zeugnis des Grammatikers Nonius Marcellus (182, 21 und 302, 7) seit Varro auf.37 Es wird von eben dem Nonius (268L) als fustem ardentem „brennendes Scheit“ glossiert. Laktanz schreibt dazu (4, 14): titionem uolgus appellat extractum foco torrem semiustum et extinctum „das Volk nennt titio einen aus dem Feuer gezogenen, halb verkohlten, erloschenen Brand“. Neben der üblichen Bezeichnung des „Feuerbrands“ torris (Verg. Aen. 12, 298; Ovid. Metam. 8, 457; 8, 152; 12, 272) war titio¯ wahrscheinlich ein „populäres“ Wort, was z. B. schon durch die Formulierung von Laktanz (4, 14: titionem uolgus appellat …) suggeriert wird. Es ist deshalb nicht überraschend, daß das Wort in allen romanischen Sprachen erhalten blieb: rum. tócôune, ital. tizzone, span. tizón, port. tição, fr. tison „Löschbrand“.38 Im Vulgärlatein wurde davon ein Verb abgeleitet, und auch dieses haben die romanischen Sprachen bewahrt: vulgärlat. *attitia¯re > rum. atît¸a, ital. attizzare, span. atizar, port. atisar, afr. aticier, fr. attiser „ein Feuer schüren“.39 Im Lateinischen ist titio¯ „Feuerbrand“ synchron isoliert. Eine Verbindung mit ähnlich klingenden Formen wie tôtio¯, -a¯re „zwitschern“, tôtus „Ringeltaube“ oder tôtinnio¯, -ire „klingeln“ ist trotz Zimmermann (1915: 270) aus semantischen Gründen nicht wahrscheinlich. Das Wort wird gemeinhin als ein indogermanisches Erbwort betrachtet und mit lit. tìtnagas verglichen. Von der semantischen Seite her ist diese Gleichung durchaus plausibel, denn titio¯ bezeichnet nicht irgendein Feuer, sondern genau den Feuerbrand, der durch die

35 36 37

38 39

Vgl. Mayrhofer (KEWA I, 501). Walde-Hoffmann (1910: 781; 1938: 685–686); Fraenkel (LEW II, 1104). Außerhalb Varro tritt das Wort noch bei dem Arzt Celsius (De Medicina, 3, 12, 4), bei Hyginus (Fabulae, 171, 2), bei Apuleius (Metamorphoseis, 7, 28 und 10, 24) und bei Ulpianus (Dig., 32, 55, 7) auf. Meyer-Lübke (REW 726). Meyer-Lübke (REW 769).

Zur baltischen Bezeichnung des Feuersteins

289

im verlöschenden Feuer noch glühenden Funken entzündet wird, was eine sehr gut passende Entsprechung zu dem litauischen Kompositum tìtnagas bildet, insofern der Hauptgebrauch des Feuersteins gerade durch Sprühen von Funken gekennzeichnet ist. Dieser Vergleich wirft jedoch zwei Fragen auf, die noch der Erklärung bedürfen. Zunächst bleibt der Unterschied zwischen dem Kurzvokalismus der litauischen Form (tôt- in lit. tìtnagas) und dem Langvokalismus der lateinischen Form (tit- in lat. titio¯) zu klären. Zweitens muß eine morphologische Segmentierung der Formen versucht werden, die es ermöglichen würde, auf der Basis dieser isolierten Substantive eine Verbalwurzel zu finden. Ich glaube, daß beide Probleme miteinander verknüpft sind. Im Lateinischen weist das Wort titio¯, -o¯nis „Feuerbrand“ eine Endung -tio¯, -o¯nis auf, die an die produktive Bildung der femininen Abstrakta auf -tio¯ erinnert, wie rótôo¯ „Rechnung, Verstand, Vernunft“, na¯tôo¯ „Geburt, Geschlecht, Volk“, mentôo¯ „Hinweis, Erwähnung, Gesetzvorlage“, captôo¯ „Haft, Betrug, Falle“, usw.40 Mit diesem Suffix werden fast nur Abstrakta gebildet, doch sind einige Konkreta (meist mit passiver Bedeutung) bezeugt, wie z.B. po¯tôo¯ „Getränk“ (< „was getrunken wird“) oder contôo¯ „Versammlung“ (< „was sich versammelt“). Es ist längst bekannt, daß diese Bildung, die außerhalb des Lateinischen fast keine Entsprechung hat (vgl. jedoch air. (air)-mitiu „Ehre“ = lat. mentôo¯, got. raPjo „Abrechnung“ = lat. rótôo¯ ?), einen Ersatz für die alten Verbalabstrakta auf *-ti- darstellt,was z.B. durch den Vergleich von lat. na¯tôo¯ und aind. ja¯tíh5 oder von lat. stótôo¯ und gr. « „das Stehen“ suggeriert wird. Nimmt man an, daß titio¯, -o¯nis „Feuerbrand“ ursprünglich zu dieser Bildung gehörte, so ergibt sich ein Stamm *ti-, dem ein Suffix *-tôo¯n (Ersatz für *-ti-) hinzugefügt wurde, also *ti-tôo¯, -o¯nis (Ersatz für *ti-ti-). Im Lateinischen werden die Substantive auf *-tôo¯n meist von Verben abgeleitet. Ihre Bildung verläuft im Prinzip parallel zu den Verbaladjektiven auf *-to-. Sie haben normalerweise dieselbe Ablautstufe, meist die Schwundstufe, vgl. z. B. ratio¯ / ratus (: reor „rechnen“), na¯tio¯ / na¯tus (: nascor „geboren werden“), captio¯ / captus (: capio¯ „nehmen“), statio¯ / status (: sto¯ „stehen“), usw. Versucht man, dieses Modell auf lat. titio¯, -o¯nis „Feuerbrand“ anzuwenden, so ergibt sich,

40

Andere Beispiele bei Leumann (1963: 240).

290

Daniel Petit

daß der Stamm *ti- als Schwundstufe einer Verbalwurzel angesehen werden muß (*ti-tio¯n- < *tiH-tio¯n-, Ersatz von *ti-ti- < *tiH-tí-). Diese Wurzel kann demnach als *teÁH- (mit Schwundstufe *tiH- > *ti-) rekonstruiert werden. Eine solche Wurzel wird tatsächlich von verschiedenen Autoren postuliert. Sie hat sogar einen Platz im Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben (LIV1 561, LIV2 617–618, vgl. schon IEW 1053–1054) gefunden, wo sie als *teÁh1- „heiß werden“ (mit Hinweis auf lat. titio¯) gebucht wird.41 Verbale Bildungen sind vielleicht in anderen Sprachen bezeugt: z.B. heth. ze¯ari „ist gar, kocht“ (< *teÁH-). Unter Annahme einer Bedeutungsverschiebung von „warm werden“ zu „schmelzen, feucht werden“ werden auch air. tinaid „schmilzt, verschwindet“, ae. dinan „befeuchten, feucht werden“, aksl. tina „Kot“, timeˇno „Sumpf, Morast“, gr. !« „flüssiger Stuhlgang“, !φ« „sumpfige Stelle“, letzlich auch lit. ty´ras, lett. trs „rein“ (vgl. die ursprüngliche Bedeutung „feucht“ noch in lett. trelis „Morast“) zu dieser Sippe gestellt,42 was jedoch m.E. unsicher bleibt. Man kann sich schwer vorstellen, wie das Litauische gleichzeitig die ursprüngliche und die sekundäre Bedeutungen („heiß werden“ in tìtnagas, vs. „feucht werden“ in ty´ras) hätte erhalten können. Es ist immerhin zu bemerken, daß das aisl. Verbaladjektiv Pdr „geschmolzen, getaut“ (< *tiH-tó-),43 falls es sich wirklich um eine und dieselbe Sippe handelt, dasselbe Verhältnis zu lat. titio¯ (h *tiH-tí-) hätte wie z.B. im Lateinischen selbst status zu statio¯ (*sth2-tó-, vs. *sth2-tí-). Wie läßt sich nun das litauische Kompositum tìtnagas in diese Sippe einfügen? Nimmt man an, daß das Vorderglied *titi- etymologisch mit lat. titio¯ zusammenhängt, so kommt man nicht um die Frage herum, weshalb es einen Kurzvokal aufweist. Man würde eine Entwicklung *tiH-ti- > lit. **tyti- erwarten, wie z. B. in lit. ly´ti „regnen“ (< *liH-ti-), gy´ti „genesen“ (< *gu3 ih3-ti-). Offensichtlich ist der Stammvokal in lit. tìt-nagas sekundär verkürzt worden. Das Problem ist, daß eine solche Kürzung völlig unregelmäßig ist. Man kann m.E. dieses Problem erst

41

42

43

Die Rekonstruktion von *-h1- beruht auf der thematischen Flexion des hethitischen Nasalpräsens zinnizzi „beendet, macht fertig“ (wenn aus *ti-Ne/N-h1„macht gar, kocht“?), vgl. LIV1 561; Barton (1993: 551–561). Dies bleibt aber unsicher, vgl. Melchert (1994: 119), der zinnizzi als *si-nh1- deutet. Zu den lettischen Formen vgl. Mülenbachs und Endzelins (ME IV, 203). Eine andere Auffassung bei Karulis (1992: II, 413). Vgl. de Vries (1962: 610).

Zur baltischen Bezeichnung des Feuersteins

291

dann lösen, nachdem man die Bildung des litauischen Wortes genau bestimmt hat. Es gibt im Litauischen zumindest noch ein Wort, bei dem man eine ähnliche Kürzung beobachten kann: lit. bùtas „Wohnung“ (dial. „Haus“). Eine Entsprechung liegt im Altpreussischen vor, auch mit einem Kurzvokal:44 apr. buttan / hues „Haus“ (E 193, III 5313, usw.). Lit. bùtas und apr. buttan setzen ein baltisches Neutrum *bu˘tan fort, das im Altpreussischen (z.T. unter dem Einfluß der deutschen Entsprechung das Haus) als Neutrum aufbewahrt wurde, im Litauischen regelmäßig in die Maskulina integriert wurde. Daß dieses Neutrum mit der Sippe von lit. bãti, apr. bu¯ton „sein“ etymologisch zu verknüpfen ist, liegt auf der Hand. Wie immer der Kurzvokal zu erklären sein mag, es besteht zwischen diesem Neutrum und der femininen *-ti-Bildung, die in dem litauischen Infinitiv bãti überlebt hat, dasselbe Verhältnis wie zwischen lat. titio¯ und lit. (tìt)-nagas. Formal könnte man dieses Verhältnis so schematisieren: x

x

Langvokal in der *-ti-Bildung, vs. Kurzvokal in der *-to-Bildung: {bu¯ / bõ-} lit. bãti (< *bhuH-), vs. apr. buttan, lit. bùtas Langvokal in der *-ti-Bildung, vs. Kurzvokal in der *-to-Bildung: {ti- / tô-} lat. titio¯ (< *tiH-), vs. *tôtan (> lit. *tìtas in tìtnagas)

Diese Rekonstruktion setzt voraus, daß in dem Kompositum tìtinagas nicht eine *-ti-Bildung, sondern eine ursprünglich neutrale *-to-Bildung (*tôtan) steckt. Diese Annahme ist sehr gut möglich, wenn man sich daran erinnert, daß *-i- als Kompositionsvokal im Litauischen produktiv ist45 und *titi-nagas mithin nicht unbedingt eine *-ti-Ableitung (*titis) voraussetzt, sondern problemlos als auf einer thematischen Bildung *titan beruhend erklärt werden kann (*titan f *tit-i-nagas). Nun bleibt zu klären, warum diese neutrale *-to-Bildung in diesen zwei isolierten Fällen eine Kürzung des Stammvokals aufweist. Im Altpreussischen sind die Ableitungen auf -tan reichlich belegt. Das Material ist jedoch nicht einheitlich, so daß man nicht sicher sein kann, daß es sich um eine und dieselbe Bildung handelt.46 Mit diesem Suffix werden meist Nomina instrumenti gebildet: so z.B. baytan „Sieb“ (E 346, als *saytan zu lesen), dalptan „Meißel“ (E 536), staytan 44 45 46

Vgl. Toporov (PrJ I, 274–276). Vgl. Skardzˇius (1956: 502–509). S. Petit (2000: 35–36).

292

Daniel Petit

„Schild“ (E 421, als *scaytan zu lesen). Manchmal begegnet man in derselben Funktion einer Variante -stan, wie z.B. in perstlanstan „Fensterladen“ (E 215), spanstan „Mühlenspindel“ (E 322) oder twaxtan „Badequast“ (E 553). Andere semantische Klassen sind jedoch ebenfalls bezeugt, insbesondere Konkreta ohne mediative Bedeutung wie z.B. anctan „Butter“ (E 689), meltan „Mehl“ (E 335), saltan „Speck“ (E 376), pirsten „Finger“ (E 115) oder schließlich gerade buttan „Haus“ (E 193). Im Ostbaltischen ist eine Bildung auf -tas, die z.T. die alten Neutra auf *-tan fortsetzen kann, verhältnismäßig selten, doch nicht unbelegt:47 Beispiele sind etwa lit. káltas „Meißel“ (: kálti „schmieden“), kéltas „Fähre“ (: kélti „heben“), lit. dial. plãktas „Hammer“ (: plàkti „schlagen“), usw. Das Slavische besitzt zuweilen genaue Entsprechungen, was auf das hohe Alter dieser Bildung hinweist: vgl. z.B. lit. síetas, apr. baytan (*saytan) und aksl. sito, russ. sito, pol. sito „Sieb“; apr. dalptan und aksl. dlato, russ. doloto, pol. dłuto „Meißel“.48 Ursprünglich handelt es sich wohl um substantivierte Formen von neutralen Verbaladjektiven auf *-to-.49 Solche Formen treten gelegentlich auch in anderen indogermanischen Sprachen als Abstrakta (vgl. avest. sraota-, N. „das Hören“ = aisl. hljód, N. „Zuhören, Stille“ < idg. *kleu3 -tom), Nomina instrumenti (vgl. gr. % „Rhyton, Vase“ h « % < idg. *sru-to-) oder Konkretbezeichnungen mit passiver Bedeutung (vgl. gr. & „Getränk“ h & « < idg. *ph3-to-) auf.50 Gr. φ „Gewächs, Pflanze“ bildet insbesondere eine genaue Entsprechung zu balt. *bõtan;51 es ist zu bemerken, daß das griechische Wort – wie das baltische – einen unregelmäßigen Kurzvokal aufweist. Doch suggeriert die Semantik eher unabhängige Bildungen (z.B. gr. φ „Gewächs“ h φ «, Verbaladjektiv von φ „wachsen“).

47

48 49

50 51

Vgl. Skardzˇius (1943: 320–322); Otre˛bski (GJL II, 1965: 235–236, zu lit. bùtas S. 237). Vgl. Meillet (1905: 296–298). Vgl. Je¯gers (1970: 81–86); Bammesberger (1973: 80). Anders Seldeslachts und Swiggers (1995: 23–33), die *-tan dissimilatorisch aus *-tlan (< idg. *-tlom) herleiten. Vgl. Meid (1967: 143); Chantraine (1933: 300–301). Trautmann (BSW 41–42.) Vgl. auch apol. byto „Nahrung“, aind. bhu¯tám 5 „Wesen“ (mit Langvokal). Es ist zu bemerken, daß das Altirische ein Substantiv both „Hütte“ (vgl. kymr. bod, bret. bout) aufweist, das auf *bhõ-ta¯ zurückgeht. Der Kurzvokal scheint auch hier sekundär zu sein.

Zur baltischen Bezeichnung des Feuersteins

293

Abgesehen von diesen Formen setzt die neutrale *-to-Bildung nirgends eine Kürzung des Stammvokals voraus. Eine phonetische Erklärung kommt für das Baltische nicht in Betracht. Es muß sich also um eine sekundäre Entwicklung handeln, die wohl morphologischer Natur ist. Gewöhnlich wird der Kurzvokal von lit. bùtas für analogisch zur Präteritalform bùvo „er war“ gehalten,52 wo der Kurzvokal auf einem „Laryngalhiat“ beruht (*bhuH- + Vokal > bõv-).53 Eine ähnliche Vermutung wird auch oft für das gr. φ˘ formuliert, das dem Verb φ (φ˘ 'ζ)- < *bhuH- + Vokal) seinen Kurzvokal verdanken soll; dasselbe könnte auch letztlich für den Kurzvokal von gr. φ« „Natur“ gelten.54 Diese Erklärung läßt sich aber auf das Baltische schwer anwenden. Denn die Präteritalform bùvo ist bekanntlich eine Neuerung des Litauischen, die nach dem Infinitiv bãti analogisch zu Formen wie z. B. zˇãti „zugrundegehen“ (Präteritum zˇùvo) entstanden ist.55 Das Altlitauische besaß eine ältere Form bìti (z. B. Bretku¯nas, 1590: 2 Kön 24, 16), die heute nur noch in dem litauischen Dialekt von Zietela (Weißrußland) als bìt fortgesetzt wird; diese Form hat Entsprechungen in den anderen baltischen Sprachen, vgl. apr. be¯i „er war“ (z. B. III, 6714),56 lett. bija „er war“ (mit sekundärem Übergang zum *-a¯- Präteritum). Alles spricht also dafür, daß bùvo eine Neuerung des Litauischen ist und mithin als Ausgangspunkt für die analogische Verbreitung eines Kurzvokals auf das alte Substantiv *bõtan kaum in Betracht kommt. Das Altpreussische hat buttan (mit Kurzvokal), obwohl es keine Spur einer Präteritalform *bõv-a¯- aufweist. Es ist dem-

52

53

54 55

56

Eine andere Auffassung bei Smoczyn´ski (2000a: 186–187), der apr. buttan als [bu:tan] mit Langvokal interpretiert und als eine Übernahme des niederdeutschen bu¯te (< mnd. buwete „Gebäude, das Bauen, Bebauen (des Ackers)“) betrachtet; lit. bùtas sei eine Entlehnung aus dem Altpreussischen. Aus philologischen und linguistischen Gründen halte ich diese Deutung für wenig wahrscheinlich. Zum Laryngalhiat im Baltischen vgl. allgemein Smoczyn´ski (2003: zu lit. bùvo S. 55). Vgl. auch lat. fu˘tu¯rus mit Kurzvokal (wohl nach fu˘i „ich war“). So ausdrücklich Stang (1966: 380–381), vgl. S. 380: „Lit. bùvo ist eine Neubildung“. Vgl. auch Stang (1942: 197–198). Vgl. Toporov (PrJ I, 208–210); Breidaks (1998: 39–43); Smoczyn´ski (2000b: 169, Anm. 17).

294

Daniel Petit

nach wahrscheinlich, daß der Kurzvokal von lit. bùtas unabhängig von der Präteritalform bùvo entstanden ist. Dasselbe gilt natürlich auch für balt. *tôtan, das ich als Grundlage von tìtnagas rekonstruiert habe: In diesem Fall wird nicht einmal eine Verbalform bezeugt, so daß ein analogisches Muster fehlt. Wie ist nun dieser Kurzvokal zu erklären? Die Lösung könnte in einer anderen Bildung verborgen sein. Im Litauischen und im Lettischen gibt es noch ein Substantiv auf -tas, das im Gegensatz zu den anderen zugehörigen Formen einen Kurzvokal aufweist: lit. dial. stãtas (M.) oder statà (F.) „Mühlstein“, lett. stats „Pfahl“.57 Die Schwankungen zwischen dem maskulinen und femininen Genus deuten auf ein altes Neutrum; man kann eine ähnliche Schwankung in den litauischen Dialekten zwischen bùtas und butà „Wohnung, Haus“ beobachten. Man darf also mit einer gewissen Sicherheit von einem Neutrum *statan ausgehen. Daß dieses Substantiv zur Sippe von lit. stóti, lett. stât „aufstehen“ gehört, wird durch die lettische Form (stats „Pfahl“ < „aufrecht stehendes Holzstück“) suggeriert und ist auch für die litauische (stãtas „Mühlstein“) denkbar. Baltisch *statan „aufrecht stehender Gegenstand“58 ist aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach eine substantivierte Form des alten Verbaladjektivs auf *-to-, idg. *sth2-to-, das in anderen Sprachen als solches bewahrt wurde (gr. «, lat. stótus, aind. sthitá-).59 Es ist bemerkenswert, daß das Baltische, wie in geringerem Maße auch das Slavische, generell die Tendenz aufweist, die Schwundstufe von laryngalhaltigen Wurzeln der Struktur *KeH- zu beseitigen. An der Stelle der ererbten Schwundstufe in *dh3-tí- „das Geben“ (gr. *«, lat. dótio¯) tritt im Baltischen eine sekundäre Vollstufe in *do¯ti (> lit. dúoti, lett. duôt „geben“) ein; dasselbe gilt auch für das Slavische (aksl. dati). Die alten Verbaladjektive auf *-to- haben an dieser Innovation teilgenommen, so daß man im Litauischen z.B. dúotas „gegeben“ nach dúoti „geben“ anstatt **dótas (< *dh3-tó-, vgl. gr. * «, lat. 57 58 59

Vgl. LKZ (XIII, 672 = lit. gubà), Mülenbachs und Endzelins (ME III, 1048). Mazˇiulis (PKEZ III 352–353): „tai, kas stovintis“. Smoczyn´ski (2001: 102, Anm. 23, und S. 252) setzt m.E. unnötigerweise eine Form *sth2-etó- an. Eine Bildung auf *-eto- ist aber im Baltischen völlig unbelegt. Außerdem ist der Ansatz einer Laryngalvokalisierung in idg. *sth2-tó- > balt. *stóta- unproblematisch (vgl. u.a. die Vokativendung der a¯-Stämme lit. rañka < *-ó < *-h2); es ist anzunehmen, daß die Laryngaltilgung in dem Kontext *KHK > *KK nur im Inlaut auftritt (Paradebeispiel: lit. dukte˜˙ „Tochter“ < *dhugˆh2te¯r).

Zur baltischen Bezeichnung des Feuersteins

295

dótus) findet. Aus der Wurzel *steh2- „stehen“ wurden ursprünglich ein Substantiv *sth2-tí- (vgl. gr. «, lat. stótio¯ „das Stehen“) und ein Verbaladjektiv *sth2-tó- (vgl. gr. «, lat. stótus) mit Schwundstufe gebildet.60 Das Baltische hat auch hier eine Vollstufe etabliert: lit. stóti „stehen“ (< *sta¯-ti-, vgl. auch lett. stât, aksl. stati) und stótas „gestanden“ (< *sta¯-to-). Daraus ergibt sich, daß das substantivierte Verbaladjektiv *statan mit Schwundstufe im Baltischen nur als Reliktform gedeutet werden kann, es muß unbedingt auf die Zeit zurückgehen, da das Verbaladjektiv noch *stótas mit ererbter Schwundstufe lautete und noch nicht zu *sta¯tas (> lit. stótas) mit sekundärer Vollstufe geworden war. Das Baltische hat vielleicht noch andere Spuren der ursprünglichen schwundstufigen Form in zwei isolierten Adjektivbildungen (lit. statùs „steil“ < „senkrecht“, stãcˇias „aufrecht stehend“) und in einem abgeleiteten Verb (lit. staty´ti, lett. statît „bauen“, vgl. apr. preistattinnimai / fuerstellen „wir stellen dar“, III 11115)61 erhalten. Es ist bemerkenswert, daß die alten Formen (mit Schwundstufe *stó-t-) nur noch in sekundären (lexikalischen) Funktionen überlebt haben, während die alte Funktion (Verbaladjektiv) durch eine neue Form (mit Vollstufe *sta¯-t-) ausgedrückt wird; dies ist ein schönes Beispiel des berühmten „vierten Gesetzes der Analogie“ von Jerzy Kuryłowicz. Daraus entstand also diese eigentümliche Konstellation, daß das Baltische gleichzeitig ein altes Verbaladjektiv in einer substantivierten Form *stó-tan (mit Schwundstufe) und ein neues Verbaladjektiv *sta¯-tas (mit Vollstufe) neben einer ebenfalls sekundären vollstufigen Infinitivform *sta¯-ti- aufweist. Das Verhältnis dieser Formen läßt sich so formulieren: Verbaladjektiv und Infinitiv mit Vollstufe (*sta¯-tas > lit. stótas „gestanden“, *sta¯-ti- > lit. stóti „aufstehen“), vs. neutrale Substantivierung mit Schwundstufe (*stó-tan > lit. stãtas < „stehender Gegenstand“). x

60

61

Daß die *-ti-Ableitungen im Indogermanischen durch interne Flexion eine Vollstufe enthalten konnten (etwa *KéK-ti-, vs. *KK-téÁ-), spielt dabei keine Rolle. Das Balto-Slavische gehört zu den Sprachen, die wahrscheinlich schon vorgeschichtlich die Schwundstufe verallgemeinert hatten. Die Vollstufe von balt. *do¯ti und slav. *da¯ti ist nicht ererbt, sondern innovativ. Vgl. Petit (2004: 248–249 und 274–278). Vgl. Karulis (1992: II, 289). Zur Bildung von lit. staty´ti vgl. auch Kortlandt (1989: 104–112).

296

Daniel Petit

Indogermanistisch gesehen war dieses Ablautverhältnis rein qualitativ: Der Kontrast lag regelmäßig zwischen einer Vollstufe (*steh2> balt. sta ¯ -) und einer Schwundstufe (*sth2- > balt. stó-). Im Baltischen, wie auch anderswo, sind aber laryngalhaltige Ablautverhältnisse sekundär als Unterschiede quantitativer Natur umgedeutet worden: Der Gegensatz lag nun zwischen einer Langstufe (*sta¯-) und einer Kurzstufe (*stó-). Ich schlage nun vor, daß sich dieses Modell, das in *sta¯-tas (Verbaladjektiv), *sta¯-ti- (Infinitiv), vs. *stó-tan (Substantiv) phonetisch begründet war, analogisch in andere Wurzeln verbreitete, in denen es ursprünglich fehl am Platze war. Nach dem Muster von *sta¯- (im Verbaladjektiv *sta¯-tas und im Infinitiv *sta¯-ti-), vs. *stó- (im Substantiv *stó-tan) wurde ein ähnliches quantitatives Verhältnis zwischen *bu¯- (im Verbaladjektiv *bu¯-tas > lit. bãtas und im Infinitiv *bu¯-ti- > lit. bãti) und *bõ- (im Substantiv *bõ-tan > apr. buttan, lit. bùtas), sowie zwischen *ti- (z. B. in einem Infinitiv *ti-ti- > lit. *ty´ti = lat. titio¯) und *tô- (im Substantiv *tô-tan > lit. tìt-nagas) geschaffen. Also formal: Verbaladjektiv = Langstufe

Infinitiv = Langstufe

Substantiv = Kurzstufe

idg. *steh2„stehen“

*sta¯-ti-[> lit. stóti] *sta¯-tas [> lit. stó(Vollstufe sekuntas] (Vollstufe sekundär anstatt *stó- där anstatt *stó-ti-) tas)

*stó-tan [> lit. stãtas] (Schwundstufe ererbt)

idg. *bhuH„sein“

*bu¯-tas [> lit. bãtas] (Schwundstufe ererbt, sekundär als Langstufe interpretiert)

*bu¯-ti-[> lit. bãti] (Schwundstufe ererbt, sekundär als Langstufe interpretiert)

f *bõ-tan [> lit. bùtas] (Kurzstufe sekundär)

idg. *teÁH„heiß werden“

*ti-tas [> lit. *ty´tas] (Schwundstufe ererbt, sekundär als Langstufe interpretiert)

*ti-ti- [> lit. *ty´ti = lat. titio¯] (Schwundstufe ererbt, sekundär als Langstufe interpretiert)

f *tô-tan [> lit. *tìtas in tìtnagas] (Kurzstufe sekundär)

Eine Parallele könnte im Griechischen vorliegen. Der Kurzvokal von gr. φ« „Natur“ und φ « kann neben dem Langvokal von

Zur baltischen Bezeichnung des Feuersteins

297

dem Aorist φ¯ analogisch zu dem Muster von «, « neben ( ¯ ) enstanden sein, das seinerseits ein ererbtes Ablautverhältnis aufweist (idg. *sth2- / *steh2-). Vielleicht ist auch der Kurzvokal von gr. φ „Gewächs“ auf diese Weise zu erklären. Für das Baltische hat diese Lösung eine weitere Folge. Es ist bekannt, daß einige Ableitungen auf -tas im Litauischen eine Metatonie aufweisen, vgl. klõtas „Decke“ (: klóti „decken“), kliu¯˜tas „Hindernis“ (: kliãti „anhaken“), ski˜rtas „Unterschied“ (: skìrti „unterscheiden“).62 In einigen Fällen ist auch mit einer Ablautsentgleisung zu rechnen, wie z.B. in lit. dial. dõtas „Gabe“ (< *da¯-, vgl. dúoti „geben“ < *do¯- < *deh3-).63 Rick Derksen (1996: 119–121) setzt diese Metatonie überzeugend mit den alten Neutra in Verbindung und erklärt sie durch eine Zurückziehung des Akzents64. Ich möchte hier auf eine andere Möglichkeit hinweisen, die in diesem Prozess vielleicht ein Rolle gespielt haben kann. Ich glaube, daß es prinzipiell eine der Hauptfunktionen der Metatonie im Baltischen war, unbequeme, bzw. systemwidrig gewordene Ablautverhältnisse zu beseitigen. Es ist m.E. generell im Baltischen eine Tendenz zu beobachten, Ablautsunterschiede durch Intonationsunterschiede zu ersetzen. Aus dieser Perspektive wäre das metatonische Verhältnis in der betreffenden Bildung auf -tas so zu verstehen: Ursprünglich war diese Bildung durch die Kürzung, die ich oben rekonstruiert habe, in der Weise charakterisiert, daß z. B. vom Verb klóti „decken“ (*kla¯-ti-) ein Substantiv *kló-tan abgeleitet wurde, parallel zu dem oben erwähnten Ablautverhältnis *sta¯-ti- / *stó-tan. In einer späteren Phase wurde der Vokalwechsel *kla¯- / *kló- beseitigt und durch eine sekundäre Dehnung ersetzt, die, insofern sie sekundärer Natur war, nur einen Schleifton entstehen lassen konnte: Demnach wurde *kló-tan durch *kla¯˜-tan (lit. *kla¯˜-tas > klõtas) ersetzt. Daß es sich um eine sekundäre Dehnung handelt, wird durch lit. dõtas suggeriert, in dem bei der Entstehung 62

63 64

Weitere Beispiele bei Derksen (1996: 80–81 und 119–121). S. auch Bu¯ga (RR(B) II, 387). Vgl. Derksen (1996: 80): „secondary ablaut“. Vgl. auch Stang (1966: 152–153; 1970: 220–221); Rasmussen (1992: 81). Es ist zu bemerken, daß die Zurückziehung des Akzents (*kla¯t'as f *kl'a¯˜tas) in diesem Fall ausdrücklich durch das Beispiel von lit. zˇibiñtas „Laterne“ (: zˇìbinti „anzünden“), bei dem eine „Projektion“ (oder „Hervorschiebung des Iktus“) zu beobachten ist, unterstützt wird. Die Projektion stellt bekanntlich eine Variante der Zurückziehung des Akzents in mehrsilbigen Stämmen dar.

298

Daniel Petit

der sekundär gedehnten Form noch dazu eine Ablautsentgleisung eintrat: Die ererbte Schwundstufe *dótan (< *dh3-tó-) wurde im Litauischen zu einer neuen Vollstufe dõtas nach einem Muster {ó/a¯} umgebildet, das geläufiger war als das synchron unverständlich gewordene Muster {ó/o¯} (< idg. {h3 / eh3}).65 Später wurde diese Metatonie gewissermaßen als Kennzeichen der betreffenden Bildung auf -tas empfunden, so daß sekundär vom Verb stóti wieder ein metatonisches Substantiv stõtas „Wuchs“ abgeleitet wurde. Die Kürzung, die eine ältere Phase darstellt, wurde nur in drei semantisch isolierten Formen stãtas, bùtas und *tìtas (in tìtnagas) bewahrt.

Abkürzungen BSW = Trautmann, R., 1923. DELG = Chantraine, P., 1968–1980. DELL = Ernout, A. und Meillet, A., 1932. DLL = Daukantas, S., um 1850–1856. DTL3 = Sirvydas, K., 1642. DZ = Dabartine˙s lietuviu˛ kalbos zˇodynas. E = Elbinger Wortschatz, nach PKP, II, 14–46. EWA = Mayrhofer, M., 1986–1996. GEW = Frisk, H., 1960–1972. GJL = Otre˛bski, 1956–1965. IEW = Pokorny, J., 1959. KEWA = Mayrhofer, M., 1956–1980. LEIA = Vendryes, J., 1959-.

LEW = Fraenkel, E., 1962–1965. LIV = Rix, H. (hrsg.), 11998, 22001. LKZ = Lietuviu˛ kalbos zˇodynas. ME = Mülenbachs, K., Endzel¯ıns, J., 1923–1935. NdZ = Niedermann, M., Senn, A., Brender, F., Salys, A., 1932–1968. PKEZ = Mazˇiulis, V., 1988–1997. PKP = Mazˇiulis, V., 1966–1981. PrJ = Toporov, V., 1975–1990. REW = Meyer-Lübke, W., 1935. RR(B) = Bu¯ga, K., 1958–1961. RR(S) = Skardzˇius, P., 1996–1999. TLL = Kurschat, A., 1968–1973.

Literaturverzeichnis Bammesberger, A., 1973. Abstraktbildungen in den baltischen Sprachen. Göttingen, Vandenhœck und Ruprecht, Ergänzungsheft zur Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiet der indogermanischen Sprachen, Nr. 22. Bammesberger, A., 1992. Zur Herkunft der baltischen Ablautstufe a¯. Linguistica Baltica, 1, 49–53. 65

Zu dieser Ablautsentgleisung vgl. Bammesberger (1992: 51).

Zur baltischen Bezeichnung des Feuersteins

299

Baronas, J., 1933. Rusu˛ lietuviu˛ zˇodynas. Kaunas, 2. Auflage. Barton, C., 1993. Hittite zinni-, tuwarni-, zig and related matters. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 113, 551–561. Bräuer, H., 1961. Slavische Sprachwissenschaft, I. Einleitung, Lautlehre. Berlin, De Gruyter & Co., Göschen. Breidaks, A., 1998. Aorist and imperfect relics in East Baltic dialects and origin of Old Prussian be, be¯i, bei. In: W. Smoczyn´ski (Hrsg.), Colloquium Pruthenicum Secundum. Kraków, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellon´skiego, 39–43. Bretku¯nas, J., 1590. Biblia, tatai esti Wissas Schwentas Raschtas, Lietúwischkai pergúlditas, Manuskript. Bretku¯nas, J., 1983. Rinktiniai rasˇtai. J. Palionis und J. Zukauskaite˙ (Hrsg.), Vilnius, Mokslas. Brückner, A., 1927. SÖownik etymologiczny je˛zyka polskiego. Kraków, Krakowska SpóÖka Wydawnicza. Bu¯ga, K., 1923–1924. Die Metatonie im Litauischen und Lettischen. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung, 51, 1923, 109–142 und 52, 1924, 91–98 und 50–302 = RR(B) II, 1959, 386–483. Bu¯ga, K., 1958–1961. Rinktiniai rasˇtai, RR(B). Z. Zinkevicˇius (Hrsg.), I. Band, 1958; II. Band, 1959; III. Band, 1961, Vilnius, Valstybine˙ politine˙s ir moksline˙s literatu¯ros leidykla. Chantraine, P., 1933. La formation des noms en grec ancien. Paris, Champion. Chantraine, P., 11968–1980, 21999. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque, Histoire des mots (DELG). Paris, Klincksieck, I. (A-+), 1968; II. (E-K), 1970; III. (,-II), 1975; IV / 1. (II-Y), 1977; IV / 2. (.-/), von J. Taillardat, O. Masson und J. L. Perpillou, unter der Leitung von M. Lejeune, mit der Mitwirkung von F. Bader, J. Irigoin und P. Monteil, 1980; 2. Auflage, 1999. Clavis Germanico-Lithuana. V. Drotvinas (Hrsg.), 1997, Vilnius, Mokslas, 4 Bände. Cˇop, B. 1956. Etyma (69–83). Ziva Antika, 6, 25–49. Dabartine˙s lietuviu˛ kalbos zˇodynas (DZ). 4. Auflage, 2000, Vilnius, Mokslas. Daukantas, S., um 1850–1856. Didysis lenku˛-lietuviu˛ kalbu˛ zˇodynas (DLL). G. Subacˇius (Hrsg.), 1993–1996, Vilnius, Mokslas, 3 Bände. Derksen, R. 1996. Metatony in Baltic. Amsterdam-Atlanta, GA, Rodopi, Leiden Studies in Indo-European 6. Ernout, A. und Meillet, A., 1932. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine (DELL). Paris, Klincksieck. Fraenkel, E., 1962–1965. Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (LEW). I. Band, A-privekiuoti, 1962; II. Band, privyke˙ti-zˇvolgai, 1965, Göttingen, Vandenhœck und Ruprecht. Frisk, H., 1960–1972. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (GEW). Heidelberg, Winter, 3 Bände. Holthausen, F., 1948. Vergleichendes und etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altwestnordischen, Altnorwegisch-isländischen, einschließlich der Lehn- und Fremdwörter sowie der Eigennamen. Göttingen, Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Je¯gers, B., 1970. Remarks on some Baltic names of tools of the type of Lithuanian káltas ‚chisel‘. In: Th. F. Magner und W. R. Schmalstieg (Hrsg.). Baltic Linguistics. University Park and London, The Pennsylvania State University Press, 81–86.

300

Daniel Petit

Johansson, K. F., 1893. Sanskritische Etymologien. Indogermanische Forschungen, 2, 1–65. Jusˇka, A., 1897–1922 = ЇПka, A., 1897–1922. Litovskіi clovarц A. ЇПkeviљa sц tolkovanіemц clovч na rucckomч i polцskomч ѕz«kahч. Peterburg. Karulis, K. 1992. Latviesˇu etimologijas ´ va¯rdnica. Riga, Avots, 2 Bände. Kielhorn, F., 1907. Zu ai. tithi. Indogermanische Forschungen, 20, 228. Kortlandt, F., 1989. Lithuanian staty´ti and related formations. Baltistica, 25(2), 104–112. Kossarzewski, A., vor 1880. Litvanica czyli Wiadomos´c´i o Litwie zebrane przez … Ambroz˙ego Kossarzewskiego. Manuskript. Kurmin, J., 1858. Słownik polsko łacinsko łotewski ułoz˙ony i napisany przez Xie˛dza Jana Kurmina. Vilnius. Kurschat, A., 1968–1972. Litauisch-deutsches Wörterbuch, Thesaurus Linguae Lituanicae (TLL). Göttingen. Lalis, A., 1915. Lietuvisˇkos ir anglisˇkos kalbu˛ zˇodynas. Chicago. Larsson, J. H., 2002. Nominal compounds in Old Lithuanian texts: the original distribution of the composition vowel. Linguistica Baltica, 10, 105–122. Larsson, J. H., 2004. Metatony and Length in Baltic. In: A. Hyllested, A. R. Jørgensen, J. H. Larsson und T. Olander (Hrsg.). Per aspera ad asteriscos, Studia Indogermanica in honorem Jens Elmegard Rasmussen sexagenarii Idibus Martiis anno MMIV. Innsbruck, Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, 305–322. Leumann, M., 1963. Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre. München, Beck. Lexicon Lithuanicum. V. Drotvinas (Hrsg.), 1987, Vilnius, Mokslas. Lietuviu˛ kalbos zˇodynas (LKZ). 1941–2001, Vilnius, Mintis (I–II: 1968–1969, 2. Auflage), Valstybine˙ enciklopediju˛, zˇodynu˛ ir mokslo literatu¯ros leidykla (III–VI: 1956–1962), Mintis (VII–IX: 1966–1973), Mokslas (X–XX: 1976–2001), J. Balcˇikonis (Hrsg.), später K. Ulvydas und J. Kruopas (Hrsg.). Mayrhofer, M., 1956–1980. Kurzgefaßtes etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindischen (KEWA). Heidelberg, Winter, 3 Bände. Mayrhofer, M., 1986–1996. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen (EWA). Heidelberg, Winter, 2 Bände. Mazˇiulis, V., 1966–1981. Pru¯su˛ kalbos paminklai (PKP). Vilnius, Mokslas, 2 Bände. Mazˇiulis, V., 1988–1997. Pru¯su˛ kalbos etimologijos zˇodynas (PKEZ). Vilnius, Mokslas, 4 Bände. Meid, W., 1967. Germanische Sprachwissenschaft, III. Wortbildungslehre. Berlin, De Gruyter & Co., Sammlung Göschen. Meillet, A., 1905. Études sur l’étymologie et le vocabulaire du vieux slave. 2. Teil, 2. Auflage 1961, Paris, Champion. Melchert, H. C., 1994. Anatolian Historical Phonology. Amsterdam-Atlanta, GA, Rodopi, Leiden Studies in Indo-European 3. Meyer-Lübke, W., 1935. Romanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (REW). 3. Auflage, Heidelberg. Mielcke, Ch. G., 1800. Littauisch-deutsches und Deutsch-littauisches WörterBuch. Königsberg. Miezˇinis, M., 1894. Zodynas Lietuviszkas-Latviszkas-Lenkiszkas ir russiszkas. Tilzˇe˙, Noveski.

Zur baltischen Bezeichnung des Feuersteins

301

Miklosich, F., 1886. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der slavischen Sprachen. Wien, Wilhelm Braumüller. Mülenbachs, K. und Endzelins, J., 1925–1932. Latviesˇu valodas va¯rdnica (ME). Riga, Izglitibas ministrija. Naktiniene˙, G., Paulauskiene˙, A. und Vitkauskas, V., 1988. Druskininku˛ tarme˙s zˇodynas. Vilnius, Mokslas. Nehring, A., 1925. Griechisch , und ein vorgriechisches k-Suffix. Glotta, 14, 153–192. Nesselmann, G., 1851. Wörterbuch der Littauischen Sprache. Königsberg. Niedermann, M., Senn, A., Brender, F. und Salys, A., 1932–1968. Wörterbuch der litauischen Schriftsprache (NdZ). Heidelberg. Otre˛bski, J., 1934. Wschodnolitewskie narzecze Twereckie, I. Gramatyka. Kraków, NakÖadem Polskiej Akademji Umieje˛tnos´ci. Otre˛bski, J., 1956–1965. Gramatyka je˛zyka litewskiego (GJL). Warszawa, Pan´stwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 3 Bände. Petit, D., 2000. Quelques observations sur les substantifs de genre neutre en vieux prussien. Baltistica, 35(1), 29–43. Petit, D., 2004. Apophonie et catégories grammaticales dans les langues baltiques. Louvain, Peeters, Société de linguistique de Paris. Platts, J. T., 1884. A Dictionary of Urdu, Classical Hindi and English. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Pokorny, J., 1959. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (IEW). Bern und München. Rasmussen, J. E., 1992. Contributions to the Understanding of Lithuanian Metatony. Copenhagen Working Papers in Linguistics, 2, 79–89. Rhys Davids, T. W. und Stede, W., 1921. Pali-English dictionary. Oxford [Reprint, New Delhi, Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 1994]. Rix, H., 11998, 22001 (Hrsg.). Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben (LIV), Wiesbaden, Ludwig Reichert Verlag. Ruhig, Ph., 1747. Littauisch-Deutsches und Deutsch-Littauisches Lexicon. Königsberg. Sabaliauskas, A., 1990. Lietuviu˛ kalbos leksika. Vilnius, Mokslas. Seldeslachts, H. und Swiggers, P., 1995. Remarks on Baltic, Slavic and Latin tool names. Linguistica Baltica, 4, 23–33. Sirvydas, K., 1642. Dictionarium trium linguarum (DTL3). Vilnius, 3. Auflage, J. Kruopas (Hrsg.), 1979. Pirmasis lietuviu˛ kalbos zˇodynas. Vilnius, Mokslas. Skardzˇius, P., 1943. Lietuviu˛ kalbos zˇodzˇiu˛ daryba. Vilnius, Lietuvos mokslu˛ akademija, Lietuviu˛ kalbos institutas = RR(S) I, 1996. Skardzˇius, P., 1956. Die Bindevokale in den litauischen zweistämmigen Personennamen, Festschrift für Max Vasmer zum 70. Geburtstag, 502–509 = RR(S) IV, 665–675. Skardzˇius, P., 1996–1999. Rinktiniai rasˇtai, RR(S). A. Rosinas (Hrsg.), I, 1996; II, 1997; III, 1998; IV, 1998; V, 1999, Vilnius, Mokslas. Smoczyn´ski, W., 2000a. Untersuchungen zum deutschen Lehngut im Altpreussischen. Kraków, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellon´skiego. Smoczyn´ski, W., 2000b. Zum Partizip II auf -t und -n im Altpreussischen. Linguistica Baltica, 8, 151–179.

302

Daniel Petit

Smoczyn´ski, W., 2001. Je˛zyk litewski w perspektywie porównawczej. Kraków, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellon´skiego. Smoczyn´ski, W., 2003. Hiat laryngalny w je˛zykach baÖto-sÖowian´skich. Kraków, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellon´skiego. Stang, Ch. S., 1942. Das slavische und baltische Verbum. Oslo, I Kommisjon Hos Jacob Dybwad. Stang, Ch. S., 1966. Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen. Oslo, Universitetsforlaget. Stang, Ch. S., 1970. Opuscula linguistica, Ausgewählte Aufsätze und Abhandlungen. Oslo, Universitetsforlaget. Steinbergs, A., 1996–1997. The reconstruction of Proto-Batic body parts. Linguistica Baltica, 5–6, 21–31. Toporov, V. I. = Toporov, B. H., 1975–1990. Pruccki“ ѕz«k, Clovarц (PrJ). Mockva, Nauka (5 Bände, I. A–D: 1975; II. E–H, 1979; III. I–K, 1980; IV. K–L: *kirk- *laid-ik-, 1984; V. L: laydis – *lut- & *mod-, 1990). Trautmann, R., 1923. Baltisch-Slavisches Wörterbuch (BSW). Göttingen, Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Trubacˇev, O. N., 1957. Clavѕnckie Њtimologii. Boproc« clavѕnckogo ѕz«koznaniѕ, 2, 29–42. Turner, R., 1966. A Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages. London, Oxford University Press. Urbutis, V., 1983. Lie. zˇv˜yras. Baltistica, 19(2), 150–168. Vendryes, J., 1959-. Lexique étymologique de l’irlandais ancien (LEIA). Paris, CNRS und Dublin, Dublin Institute for advanced studies. Vries, J. de, 1962. Altnordisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Leiden, Brill, 2. Auflage. Walde, A. und Hofmann, J. B., 21910. Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (WH2). Heidelberg, Winter, 2. Auflage. Walde, A. und Hofmann, J. B., 31938. Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (WH3). Heidelberg, Winter, 3. Auflage. Winter, W., 1978. The distribution of short and long vowels in stems of the type Lith. qsti : vèsti : mèsti and OCS jasti : vesti : mesti in Baltic and Slavic Languages. In: J. Fisiak (Hrsg.). Recent Developments in Historical Phonology. Mouton, The Hague, 431–446. Zimmermann, A., 1915. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der lateinischen Sprache. Hannover, Verlag der Hahnschen Buchhandlung. Zinkevicˇius, Z., 1966. Lietuviu˛ kalbos dialektologija, Lyginamoji tarmiu˛ fonetika ir morfologija. Vilnius, Mintis. Zubaty´, J., 1906. Ai. tithi, tithih5 ‚lunarer Tag‘. Indogermanische Forschungen, 19, 370–376.

École Normale Supérieure Centre d’Études Anciennes 45, rue d’Ulm F-75005 P a r i s Frankreich [email protected]

Daniel Petit

Zur Spiegelung der volkstümlichen Betrachtungsweise

303

Zur Spiegelung der volkstümlichen Betrachtungsweise im Wortschatz einiger ungarischer Mundarten* 1. Einleitende Bemerkungen 0

Seit Anfang der Geschichte der Menschheit und über viele Jahrtausende hinweg war man der Auffassung, dass die Sachbenennungen konkrete Abbildungen der bezeichneten Dinge sind. Erst mit der Abstrahierung der Bedeutungen entstünden die allgemeinen Begriffe. Unter „volkstümlicher Betrachtungsweise“ verstehe ich eine Anschauung, wie in der Naturumgebung lebende größere oder kleinere Gemeinschaften über die Dinge der materiellen Welt denken. Diese Anschauungsweise konnte sich – ungeachtet der in der Gesellschaft und der Denkungsart stattgefundenen Veränderungen – bis heute erhalten. Besonders solche Gemeinschaften haben sie bewahrt, die mit der Natur in einer engen Beziehung lebten. Das war seit langer Zeit im Allgemeinen überall die Bauernbevölkerung. Das erste Glied der Wortfügung „volkstümliche Betrachtungsweise“ im Titel meines Vortrages bezieht sich hauptsächlich auf diese gesellschaftliche Gruppe, und ich benutze es im Weiteren in dieser Bedeutung.

2. Zur Forschungsgeschichte Die Rolle und die Art der Betrachtungsweise in der Wortschöpfung bezüglich des engen Zusammenhangs von Sprache und Denken untersucht die allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, wogegen sich die sprachgeschichtliche Forschung auf eine engere, aber noch hinreichend allgemeine Ebene bezieht. Als dritter Wissenszweig tritt die Dialektologie hinzu.

*0 Dieser Aufsatz ist eine Fassung meines Vortrages, den ich auf dem 2. Internationalen Kongress der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Dialektologie des Deutschen (IGDD) vom 20.–23. September 2006 in Wien gehalten habe. Indogermanische Forschungen, 112. Band 2007

DOI 10.1515/IDGF.2007.016

304

Szabó József

Gewisse Übereinstimmungen und Ähnlichkeiten der verschiedenen Sprachen in der Wortschöpfung sind nicht nur mit allgemeinen Besonderheiten des menschlichen Denkens erklärbar, sondern sie hängen – z. B. im Falle von Lehnwörtern, Lehnübersetzungen – auch mit den Kontakten der Völker und der Sprachen zusammen. In seinen semantischen Forschungen hat Károly (1970) überzeugend darauf hingewiesen. Außerdem hat er darauf aufmerksam gemacht, dass auch Eigenarten in einer Sprache (z.B. im Ungarischen) auftreten können, die nicht universell sind, sondern nur mit dem Sprachgebrauch der einzelnen gesellschaftlichen Schichten verknüpft sind. Die Frage der Entstehung und des Ursprungs der Wörter, der Komposita, der Wortfügungen und der Redewendungen hat man – neben der Untersuchung sonstiger Teilgebiete der Sprache vom geschichtlichen Standpunkt – immer zu den interessantesten Themen in den sprachgeschichtlichen Forschungen gezählt. Deshalb ist es verständlich, dass sich die Sprachgeschichtsforscher für die Problematik der Wortschöpfung seit langem interessieren. Offensichtlich hängt das auch damit zusammen, dass sie auch die Rolle und die Bedeutung der volkstümlichen Betrachtungsweise teilweise berührt haben. Es ist offenbar, dass auch die Dialektforscher bemerkt haben, dass die volkstümliche Betrachtungsweise bei der Entstehung gewisser Dialektwörter eine wichtige Rolle spielen kann. In der Fachliteratur kann man mehrere beachtenswerte Hinweise darauf finden, dass der Wortschatz der Mundarten im Vergleich mit der Standardsprache viel konkreter und anschaulicher ist (vgl. z.B. Csu˝ry 1933: 66; Ruoff 1989: 133–4; Hartmann 2005: 155). Die Rolle der volkstümlichen Betrachtungsweise wurde nicht nur von der Sprachwissenschaft, sondern auch von anderen Wissenschaften – vor allem von der Ethnographie – beachtet. Indem die Ethnographen bäuerliche Lebensgeschichten, verschiedene Lebenserinnerungen und Selbstbiographien studierten, wurden sie auch darauf aufmerksam, dass die Sprache der volkstümlichen Erzählungen – auch noch in schriftlicher Form – die Eigentümlichkeiten der gesprochenen Sprache wiedergibt.

Zur Spiegelung der volkstümlichen Betrachtungsweise

305

3. Theoretisch-methodologische Fragen und Quellen der Untersuchung Nach dem bisher Ausgeführten ist es offensichtlich, dass eine Untersuchung der volkstümlichen Betrachtungsweise in mehrerer Hinsicht möglich ist. Ihre Rolle kann sich in der Entstehung der Wörter und bei der Herausbildung neuerer Bedeutungen zeitlich und regional unterscheiden. Die psychologischen und linguistischen Forschungen haben schon lange herausgefunden, dass das menschliche Denken – unabhängig von den einzelnen Sprachen – Gleichheiten und einander sehr ähnliche Eigenheiten aufweist, außerdem können voneinander abweichende Besonderheiten die Denkweise und die Anschauung der einzelnen Völker charakterisieren. Das Individuum – wie bereits Deme es erklärt hat (1978: 34) – „erhält von der Gesellschaft nicht nur seine Sprache, sondern auch seine Denkweise: seine Begriffe und auch seine Begriffsverbindungsformen. Also ist nicht nur das Wort ein gesellschaftliches Gebilde, sondern auch der dadurch bezeichnete Begriff.“ In seiner die sinnverwandten Wörter behandelnden Arbeit hat Végh solche Beispiele genannt, die mit der verschiedenen Betrachtungsweise der Völker und ihrer Sprachen zu erklären sind. So benennen z. B. wir Ungarn die ältere und jüngere Schwester bzw. den älteren und jüngeren Bruder besonders (húgom ‚meine jüngere Schwester‘, néném ‚meine ältere Schwester‘, öcsém ‚mein jüngerer Bruder‘ bzw. bátyám ‚mein älterer Bruder‘), dagegen halten es das Deutsche und das Französische nicht für wichtig, eine genauere diesbezügliche Bezeichnung vorzunehmen: im Deutschen ist Bruder ‚der männliche Teil von Geschwistern; ein männlicher Verwandter, der dieselben Eltern hat‘ bzw. Schwester ‚der weibliche Teil von Geschwistern; eine weibliche Verwandte, die dieselben Eltern hat‘, im Französischen ebenso: frère ‚allgemein ein männlicher Teil von Geschwistern‘ bzw. soeur ‚allgemein ein weiblicher Teil von Geschwistern‘. Wiederum hat „das Deutsche zwei Wörter für die Bezeichung fa: Baum ‚als eine Pflanze‘ bzw. Holz ‚als ein Stoff, eine Materie‘. Das Ungarische besitzt nur ein Wort dafür“ (Végh 1935: 12). Es wäre aufschlussreich und interessant, zugleich aber sehr schwierig zu untersuchen, welche Abweichungen und Übereinstimmungen die Denk- und Betrachtungsweisen der unterschiedlichen Völker

306

Szabó József

zeigen. Das habe ich jedoch nicht als meine Aufgabe angesehen, weiterhin auch nicht, wie sich die Bedeutung gewisser Wörter und Ausdrücke – vom Konkreten der auf dem Sinnlichen beruhenden Betrachtung bis hin zur abstrakten und allgemeinen Bedeutung – mehrere Jahrhunderte hindurch im Ungarischen verändert hat. Dafür gibt es recht viele Beispiele in verschiedenen sprachgeschichtlichen Arbeiten. Meine Untersuchungen zielen auf die Analyse der in ungarischen Mundarten befindlichen anschaulichen Wörter und Ausdrücke, da die bisherige Forschung diesen sehr wenig Aufmerksamkeit geschenkt hat. Die Grundlage meiner Untersuchungen bilden aus Dialektwörterbüchern gesammelte Dialektwörter, die die volkstümliche Betrachtungsweise illustrieren. Die einzelnen Dialektwörterbücher habe ich so ausgewählt, dass sie voneinander fernliegende Landschaften des ungarischen Sprachgebiets repräsentieren.

4. Typen der aufgrund der volkstümlichen Betrachtungsweise entstandenen Wörter 4.1. Die bäuerliche Zeitrechnung Eine eigentümliche Anschauung, also eine speziell bäuerliche Denkweise, äußert sich darin, dass fast überall auf ungarischem Sprachgebiet – in den Mundarten – für die Bezeichnung der Zeit statt des genauen Zeitpunktes die Nennungen solcher Ereignisse, Prozesse gebräuchlich sind, die die örtliche Einwohnerschaft aus verschiedenen Gründen für sehr wichtig hält. So sind z.B. solche Wörter und Ausdrücke besonders häufig, die sich auf die verschiedenen landwirtschaftlichen Arbeitsprozesse beziehen bzw. mit den Hausarbeiten verknüpft sind (z. B. aratás ‚Ernte‘, disznóölés ‚Schweineschlachten‘, szüret ‚Weinlese‘). Relativ viele sind mit den Feiertagen, den verschiedenen Gedenktagen (z.B. búcsú ‚Kirmes‘, farsang ‚Fasching‘, gyertyaszentelo˝ ‚Kerzenweihe‘, húsvét ‚Ostern‘, karácsony ‚Weihnachten‘, keresztelo˝ 1. ‚Taufe‘ 2. ‚Taufschmaus, Kindelbier‘, Luca-nap ‚Luzientag‘) verbunden. In der bäuerlichen Zeitrechnung können auch die Geschichts- und Wirtschaftsperioden Spuren hinterlassen, die einst im Leben gewisser (größerer und kleinerer) Gemeinschaften eine bedeutende Rolle spielten. So z.B. weist das Kompositum cserevilág ‚Tauschwelt‘ auf die Inflationszeiten nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg

Zur Spiegelung der volkstümlichen Betrachtungsweise

307

hin, als man gewisse Waren nicht für Geld kaufen konnte, sondern über einen Tauschhandel erhielt. Noch ein anderes Beispiel: Die Wortfügung beadási rendszer ‚Einlieferungssystem‘ lässt die älteren Generationen in Ungarn an den Anfang der 1950-er Jahre denken, an die so genannte Rákosi-Zeit, als man nicht nur Steuern zu zahlen hatte, sondern dem Staat auch einen gewissen Teil an Naturalien abliefern musste. Die jetzt erwähnten Ausdrücke sind im Ungarischen sehr bekannt. Man kann auch verhältnismäßig viele Beispiele dafür finden, dass sich die Erinnerungen gewisser Ereignisse nur in einem kleineren Gebiet (z.B. in den einzelnen Siedlungen) erhalten haben. Ein solches Ereignis war in der Geschichte von Szeged das Hochwasser im Jahre 1879, als die Einwohner der Stadt große Verluste an Menschen und an materiellen Gütern erlitten hatte. Die Wörter víz ‚Wasser‘ und nagyvíz ‚großes Wasser‘ sind bis heute gebräuchlich im Kreise der älteren Generation; es ist ein Markstein im Leben von Szeged (z. B. spricht man oft víz elo˝tt ‚vor dem Hochwasser‘, víz után ‚nach dem Hochwasser‘, vízkó ‚bei Hochwasser, während des Hochwassers‘).

4.2. Die Bezeichnungsübertragung Es ist bekannt, dass sich nicht nur die Lautform der Wörter von Zeit zu Zeit verändert, sondern auch ihre Bedeutung. Weil die volkstümliche Betrachtungsweise in der Veränderung der Bedeutung verschiedener Lexeme eine Rolle spielen kann, deshalb habe ich mich bemüht, die damit zusammenhängenden Dialektwörter zu betrachten. Man pflegt – aufgrund der verschiedenen Gesichtspunkte – mehrere Gruppen von Bedeutungswandel zu unterscheiden. Eine ihrer häufigsten und wichtigsten Kategorien ist die Bezeichnungsübertragung. Nach Aussage der für die Untersuchung ausgewählten Dialektwörterbücher ist in den ungarischen Mundarten die auf der Ähnlichkeit der Begriffe beruhende Bezeichnungsübertragung besonders häufig, die „auf zweifache Weise stattfinden kann: Eine basiert auf ihrer inhaltlichen Ähnlichkeit, die andere beruht auf ihrer Stimmungsverwandschaft“ (Temesi 1961: 182).

308

Szabó József

4.2.1. Bezeichnungsübertragungen aufgrund der inhaltlichen Ähnlichkeit der Begriffe Die mit der inhaltlichen Ähnlichkeit zusammenhängende Bezeichnungsübertragung entsteht im Allgemeinen durch Gleichsetzung. Im Falle einer ihrer sehr häufigen Untergruppen geht die Bezeichnung der menschlichen und tierischen Körperteile auf die Nennung irgendeines Teils (z. B. der verschiedenen Sachen, Formen) der umliegenden materiellen Welt zurück (z. B. hegygerinc ‚Berggrat, Gebirgsgrat‘, hegyláb ‚Bergfuß‘, káposztafej ‚Krautkopf‘). Es ist auch nicht selten, dass man die Bezeichnung von Tieren auf den Menschen überträgt, und zwar gewöhnlich in ziemlich beleidigender, verletzender Weise und immer mit sehr stark pejorativem Beigeschmack (z. B. disznó ‚Schwein, Schweinkerl‘, ökör ‚Ochs, Heuochse‘, szamár ‚Esel, Eselkopf‘). In der Volkssprache ist dieser Bezeichnungsübertragungstyp im Allgemeinen häufiger als in der Standardsprache. Die auf der inhaltlichen Ähnlichkeit beruhende Bezeichnungsübertragung ist deshalb möglich, weil man eine wirklich vorhandene Ähnlichkeit in der materiellen Welt zwischen dem Vergleichenden und dem Verglichenen erkennt. Dies beweisen z.B. die nächsten Beispiele aus einigen ungarischen Dialektwörterbüchern: cingelli 1. ‚die lange, dünne Wurzel der Stoppelrübe, der Wasserrübe‘ 2. ‚Geschlechtsglied des Knaben, des Kleinen‘, cinöge 1. ‚Meise‘ 2. ‚schmächtig, spindeldünn‘, furulya 1. ‚Hirtenpfeife‘ 2. ‚männliche Scham‘ (spaßig, witzig). Hier erwähne ich, dass sich diese und die weiteren ähnlichen Beispiele mit dem Humor und mit der scherzhaften Lust der Dialektsprecher zusammenhängen.

4.2.2. Bezeichnungsübertragungen aufgrund der Stimmungsverwandschaft der Begriffe Die Anzahl der hierher gehörenden Beispiele ist geringer als die der auf inhaltlicher Ähnlichkeit beruhenden Bezeichnungsübertragungen. Die Aufstellung bestimmter Kategorien und die Einreihung der Einzeldaten in Gruppen ist nicht einfach: Im Falle der auf Metonymie beruhenden Bezeichnungsübertragungen sind nämlich die unter ihnen vorhandenen psychologischen Zusammenhänge latenter, weni-

Zur Spiegelung der volkstümlichen Betrachtungsweise

309

ger greifbar. Solche Belege sind z.B. die Folgenden: fattyú 1. ‚Nachtrieb ‘. 2. ‚uneheliches Kind‘; gané ~ ganyé 1. ‚Mist‘ 2. ‚charakterlos, schnöde‘; süldo˝ ~ su˝do˝ 1. ‚junges Schwein, Ferkel‘ 2. ‚ein Junge oder ein Mädchen im Alter von ungefähr 12 bis 15 Jahren; Halbwüchsiger‘.

4.3. Die bedeutungsverdichtenden Komposita Die bedeutungsverdichtenden substantivischen und adjektivischen Komposita spielen – besonders in letzter Zeit – eine immer wichtigere Rolle in der gemeinsprachlichen Wortschöpfung. Von ihnen bilden die vergleichsbedeutenden Zusammensetzungen eine spezifische Gruppe, in denen sich ein Vergleich zwischen dem Erst- und Zweitglied ausprägt. In einer ihrer Untergruppen sind beide Glieder der Komposita Substantive und das Erstglied ist das verglichene Element (z. B. dongaláb ‚Klumpfuß‘ [< donga ‚Daube, Fassdaube‘ + láb ‚Bein‘], gyöngyfog ‚Perlenzahn‘, lapátfül ‚Schaufelohr‘, szivárványhártya ‚Regenbogenhaut‘). In der anderen Gruppe ist das Erstglied auch ein Substantiv, das Zweitglied aber ein Adjektiv, dessen Bedeutung man zu dem Erstglied in Vergleich setzt (z. B. csontszáraz ‚knochentrocken‘, dióbarna ‚nussbraun‘, jéghideg ‚eiskalt‘, koromfekete ‚rauchschwarz‘). Die substantivischen und adjektivischen Komposita mit vergleichender bzw. verglichener Bedeutung kommen in ungarischen Mundarten im Allgemeinen viel häufiger vor als in der Standardsprache. Im Weiteren werde ich diese erörtern und zwar in natürlich voneinander abgesonderten Gruppen.

4.3.1. Substantivkomposita mit vergleichender Bedeutungsstruktur Das Verhältnis zwischen dem Vorder- und Hinterglied der bedeutungsverdichtenden Komposita kann zweierlei bedeuten: In ihrer ersten Untergruppe drückt sich nur ein reiner Vergleich aus, so sind z. B. in: kapafog ‚ein Zahn, der der Hacke ähnlich ist‘; Hackezahn’ (< kapa ‚Hacke‘ + fog ‚Zahn‘), könyékkürt ‚Knieröhre‘ (< könyék ~ könyök ‚Knie‘ + kürt ‚Röhre‘), tokmányorr ‚eine sehr große Nase; Futternase‘ (< tokmány ‚Futter, Sensensteinhalter‘ + orr ‚Nase‘). In dem anderen Typ gibt es – neben der Ähnlichkeit – auch ein possessives Verhältnis

310

Szabó József

zwischen dem Erst- und dem Zweitglied, so z.B. kecskeszakáll ‚ein Bart, der aussieht, wie der einer Ziege; Ziegenbart‘, papagájtulipánt ‚eine buntfarbige Tulpensorte, die eine ähnliche Farbe hat, wie ein Papagei; Papageitulpe‘.

4.3.1.1. Komposita mit Vergleich In diese Untergruppe werden solche Zusammensetzungen eingereiht, in denen eine Ähnlichkeit zwischen dem Erst- bzw. Zweitglied des Kompositums vorliegt. Das sind z.B.: cilindërkémény ‚Zylinderkamin‘, csepërkekalap ‚ein Hut, der dem Waldchampignon, dem Waldegerling ähnlich ist; der Waldegerlingshut‘ (< csepërke ‚eine Pilzart‘ + kalap ‚Hut‘), csikósparhelt ‚auf vier Füßen stehender, beweglicher, verrückbarer Sparherd‘ und egéruborka ‚eine winzige, in ihrem einen Teil sich verdünnende Gurkensorte‘.

4.3.1.2. Vergleichende Komposita in einem possessiven Verhältnis Die hierher gehörenden Angaben sind die Folgenden: búzavirágszín ‚Kornblumenfarbe‘ (< búzavirág ‚Kornblume‘ + szín ‚Farbe‘), büdösku˝szín ‚schwefelgelb‘ (< büdösku˝ ‚Schwefel‘ + szín ‚Farbe‘), gesztenyeszin ‚kastanienbraun‘ (< gesztenye ‚Kastanie‘ + szín ‚Farbe‘), gólyaláb ‚Stelzbein‘ (< gólya ‚Storch‘ + láb ‚Bein‘) und o˝zlábgomba ‚Schirmblätterpilz, Schirmpilz‘ (< o˝zláb ‚Rehbein‘ + gomba ‚Pilz‘).

4.3.2. Die mit dem Suffix -ú/-u˝ aus den Substantivkomposita gebildeten Adjektive mit vergleichender Bedeutungsstuktur In den einschlägigen Fällen fügt sich das Suffix -ú/-u˝ nicht an einfache Grundwörter an, sondern immer an substantivische Komposita. Diese bilden ebenfalls zwei Untergruppen: Zwischen dem Erst- und dem Zweitglied der Zusammensetzungen besteht eine Ähnlichkeit, so z.B. kapafogú ‚ein Mann mit großen, hervorstehenden, der Hacke ähnlichen Zähnen‘ (< kapa ‚Hacke‘ + fog ‚Zahn‘ + -ú/-u˝ Adjektivsuffix) bzw. prägt sich zwischen den Gliedern der Komposita neben der Ähn-

Zur Spiegelung der volkstümlichen Betrachtungsweise

311

lichkeit ein possessiver Vergleich aus, so z.B. lófogú < kukorica > ‚eine Maissorte mit großen länglichen Körnern, die dem Pferdezahn ähnlich sind‘ (< lófog ‚Pferdezahn‘ + -ú Adjektivsuffix). In beiden Typen liegt eine Ähnlichkeit vor, aber auf eine andere Art, z.B. die Bedeutung des Adjektivs kapafogú ‚jm. hat Zähne, die der Hacke ähnlich sind‘ bzw. z.B. ‚etw. [Mais] hat Körner, die den Zähnen des Pferdes ähnlich sind‘. Ein relativ kleiner Teil der Beispiele nicht leicht in irgendeine Gruppe der zwei Kategorien einreihen, so ließ sich z.B. das Ableitungswort pókhasú ‚dickwanstig, dickbäuchig; jm. hat ein Bauch, der dem Bauch der Spinne ähnlich ist‘ (< pók ‚Spinne‘ + has ‚Bauch‘ + -ú Suffix). 4.3.2.1. Komposita – Ableitungen mit Vergleich An den nächsten Komposita kann man das Adjektivsuffix -ú /-u˝ anhängen und eine Ableitung bilden: kalácsképu˝ ‚ein Mann mit rundem Gesicht‘ (< kalács ‚Kuchen‘ + kép ‚Gesicht‘ + -u˝ Suffix), kalánfülu˝ ~ kanálfülu˝ ‚ein Mann mit großen, abstehenden Ohren‘ (< kalán ~ kanál ‚Löffel‘ + fül ‚Ohr‘ + -u˝ Suffix), karónyakú ‚ein Mann mit langem Hals‘ (< karó ‚Pfahl, Rebenstecken‘ + nyak ‚Hals‘ + -ú Suffix), lo˝cslábú ‚dachsbeinig, krummbeinig‘(< lo˝cs ‚Wagenleiste‘ + láb ‚Bein‘ + -ú Suffix), ludájfeju˝ ‚ein Mann mit formlos länglichem Kopf‘ (< ludáj ‚gemeiner Kürbis‘ + fej ‚Kopf‘ + -u˝ Suffix), pomposszájú ‚ein Mann mit dicken, wulstigen Lippen‘ (< pompos ‚Brotlaib, Weck‘ + száj ‚Lippe‘ + -ú Suffix) und tülökorrú ‚stumpfnäsig, plattnäsig‘ (< tülök ‚Horn, Stange‘ + orr ‚Nase‘ + -ú Suffix). Ich möchte noch ein anderes interessantes Beispiel erwähnen: die Ableitung lébërszájú, die ein Synonym des Adjektivs pomposszájú ist und die Bedeutung hat: ‚ein Mann mit wulstigen Lippen‘ (< lébër ‚Leber‘ + száj ‚Lippe‘ + -ú Suffix). Dieses Wort kann man im Dialektwörterbuch der Koppány-Gegend finden (Szabó 2000: 138). Ich kenne es seit meiner Kindheit, denn es ist in meiner Muttermundart Nagykónyi im Kreise der älteren Generation noch heute bekannt und gebräuchlich. Aber woher und wann kam das Erstglied lébër der Ableitung lébërszájú in diese Mundart? Im Zusammenhang mit dem Adjektiv lébërszájú möchte ich bemerken, dass das Erstglied vermutlich das deutsche Substantiv Leber ist, das als ein selbständiges Wort im vorliegenden Dialekt nicht existiert, sondern nur als ein Erstglied des Adjektivs lébërszájú. In die Mundart

312

Szabó József

von Nagykónyi ist das Substantiv lébër wahrscheinlich in der zweiten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts gelangt, als sich eine deutschsprachige Einwohnerschaft in erster Linie aus den Nachbardörfern Kocsola und Pári angesiedelt hatte. Die Bevölkerung dieser Dörfer kam im 18. Jahrhundert aus Nordbaden, wie Wiesinger festgestellt hat (1983: 918). Die Zahl der deutschsprachigen Schicht der Gemeinde Nagykónyi betrug damals ungefähr 200 bis 250 Personen. Nach zwei, drei Generationen haben sich die deutschen Siedler im 20. Jahrhundert assimiliert, doch haben sie eine relativ bedeutende Wirkung auf den Wortschatz der Nagykónyer Mundart ausgeübt (siehe ausführlicher Szabó 1986: 237–239).

4.3.2.2. Komposita – Ableitungen mit Vergleich und auch mit possessivem Verhältnis Die hierher gehörenden Angaben sind: gólyalábú ‚langbeinig, storchbeinig; jm. hat Beine, wie ein Storch‘, gúnárnyakú ‚ein Mann mit langem Hals; jm. hat ein Hals, der aussieht, wie der eines Ganters‘ (< gúnár ‚Ganter‘ + nyak ‚Hals‘ + -ú Suffix), nyúlhasú ‚hager, sehr mager, klapperdürr; jm. hat einen Bauch, der dem des Hasen ähnlich ist‘ (< nyúl ‚Hase‘ + has ‚Bauch‘ + -ú Suffix). 5. Fazit Vor allem scheint es aufschlussreich zu sein, eine Analyse vorzunehmen, denn die Untersuchung der Widerspiegelung der volkstümlichen Betrachtungsweise im Wortschatz der ungarischen Mundarten bietet etliche Erkenntnisse. Die Anzahl der Wörter und Ausdrücke, die zur bäuerlichen Zeitrechnung und Bezeichnungsübertragungen gehören, ist relativ gering, ihre Mehrheit ist mit den bedeutungsverdichtenden Komposita verknüpft. Die zur bäuerlichen Zeitrechnung gehörenden Wörter und Ausdrücke sind in erster Linie mit den landwirtschaftlichen Arbeitsprozessen und Feiertagen verbunden, seltener mit solchen Ereignissen, die im Leben der Einwohnerschaft eine bedeutende Rolle spielten. Für die Bezeichnungsübertragungen ist es charakteristisch, dass mehrere Beispiele aus den ungarischen Mundarten eher der metaphorischen Untergruppe angehören als der metonymischen.

Zur Spiegelung der volkstümlichen Betrachtungsweise

313

Wegen ihrer größen Anzahl scheint es noch nützlicher zu sein, einige Schlüsse aus der Untersuchung der bedeutungsverdichtenden Komposita zuziehen. So erkennt man, was die Bevölkerung der einzelnen Landschaften oder Siedlungen in den bedeutungsverdichtenden Komposita womit verglichen hat, d.h. mit welcher – in dem Erstglied genannten – Sache sie den Bedeutungsgehalt des Hinterglieds kontrastiert. Dass der mit der Natur in alltäglicher Beziehung lebende Mensch aus einer bestimmten Begriffklasse das Vergleichende auswählt, hängt natürlich mit seiner Tätigkeit zusammen. So spielten z. B. in Szeged und in einigen Nachbardörfern die Fischerei und die Wasserwirtschaft immer eine wichtige Rolle, verursacht durch die Nähe des Flusses Theiß. So ist es verständlich, dass die Einwohnerschaft dieser Siedlungen den Gegenstand des Vergleichs für die Bezeichnung irgendeines Eigenschaftsbegriffs aus gerade diesem Gebiet des Volkslebens gewählt hat, vgl. z.B.: gólyalábú ‚langbeinig, storchbeinig‘, go˝dénybélu˝ ‚Fressling, Vielesser‘ (< gödény ‚Pelikan, Kropfgans‘ + bél ‚Darm‘ + -u˝ Suffix), harcsabajusz ‚Schnauzbart‘ (< harcsa ‚Wels‘ + bajusz ‚Schnurrbart‘), keszegseggu˝ ‚spindeldürr, rappeldürr‘ (< keszeg ‚Weißfisch‘ + segg ‚Hinterteil‘ + -u˝ Adjektivsuffix). Außerdem hängt das offensichtlich mit der alten Tradition der Viehhaltung und des Obstbaus zusammen, sodass entsprechende Komposita auch in Verbindung mit diesen viel häufiger in der Umgebung von Szeged vorkommen als in anderen Landschaften des ungarischen Sprachgebiets, siehe dazu z. B. diese: juhfarkalma ‚Schafschwanzapfel‘, kecskecsöcsu˝ <szo˝lo˝> ‚Griechische Trauben; Geißtutteln‘ (< kecskecsöcs ‚Ziegeneuter‘ + -u˝ Adjektivsuffix), lánycsöcsu˝ ‚Apfel, der der Mädchenzitze ähnlich ist‘ (lány ‚Mädchen‘ + csöcs ‚Zitze‘ + -u˝ Adjektivsuffix).

6. Schlussbemerkungen Aufgrund einer Analyse des Materials der berücksichtigten vierzehn Dialektwörterbücher lässt sich feststellen, dass relativ bedeutende Unterschiede in der Anzahl der anschaulichen, bildhaften Dialektwörter zwischen bestimmten Gegenden und Siedlungen auftreten. Das erscheint noch eindeutiger, wenn man in den Mundarten mehr solcher Elemente entdeckt als in der Standardsprache. Was die in der ungarischen Standardsprache vorliegenden anschaulichen Wörter be-

314

Szabó József

trifft, so ist ein großer Teil davon mundartlicher Herkunft. Es wäre gewiss sehr lehrreich und auch nützlich zu analysieren, wie oft diese bildhaften Lexeme in den verschiedenen Sprachen und in ihren Dialekten vorkommen. In einer Studie hat Ruoff die Wechselbeziehungen zwischen der Dialektologie und dem Schulunterricht untersucht und er hat z. B. auch auf die Anschaulichkeit, Bildlichkeit, Konkretheit der Mundarten hingewiesen: „Die zuletzt genannten Texte von Mundartaufnahmen scheinen mir die günstigsten Hilfen im Oberstufenunterricht zu geben, weil der Lehrer authentische Mundartbelege als Handhaben hat, um den Ausdrucksreichtum der Mundart darzutun, um deren grammatische Formen zu erklären, um die Schüler zu sensibilisieren für den Unterschied der Gattungen, um ihnen zu zeigen, wie anschaulich, bildhaft, konkret, drastisch Mundart sein kann, und das mit welch knappen Mitteln aus welcher Fülle von Wörtern, Wendungen, Formeln!“(1989: 133–4). Mir kommt es vor, dass die anschauliche Wörter und Ausdrücke in ungarischen Mundarten und in der ungarischen Standardsprache vielleicht in größerer Anzahl auftreten als z. B. im Deutschen. Es wäre nützlich und wissenswert, wenn jemand (z. B. ein ungarischer Germanist) auch diese Problematik untersuchen würde. All das könnte freilich im Zusammenhang auch mit anderen Sprachen lohnenswert sein, denn im Wortschatz widerspiegeln sich nicht nur die alten Zeiten und die geschichtliche Vergangenheit, sondern auch die Betrachtungsweisen aller Völker.

Literatur Csu˝ry, Bálint 1933: A szamosháti szótár [Das Wörterbuch der Szamoshát-Gegend]. Magyar Nyelv, 29: 65–82. Deme, László 1978: A beszéd és a nyelv [Das Sprechen und die Sprache]. Tankönyvkiadó, Budapest. Forgács, Tamás 2001: Ungarische Grammatik. Edition Praesens, Wien. Hartmann, Dietrich 2005: Bildhafte Strukturen im umgangsprachlichen und standardsprachlichen Wortschatz des Deutschen. In: Bayerische Dialektologie. Akten der Internationalen Dialektologischen Konferenz 26.–28. Februar 2002. Herausgegeben von Sabine Krämer-Neubert und Norbert Richard Wolf. Universitätsverlag Winter. Heidelberg, S. 155–170. Károly, Sándor 1970: Általános és magyar jelentéstan [Allgemeine und ungarische Bedeutungslehre]. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest. Ruoff, Arno 1989: Dialekt als Gegenstand des Schulunterrichts. Praktische Beispiele aus Baden-Württenberg. In: Sprache und Dialekt in Oberösterreich.Vor-

Zur Spiegelung der volkstümlichen Betrachtungsweise

315

träge der 1. Arbeitstagung am 13. und 14. Mai 1988 in Schloß Zell a. d. Pram. Herausgeber: Johann Lachinger, Hermann Scheuringer, Herbert Tatzreiter. Linz, S. 125–139. Szabó, József 1986: A nagykónyi nyelvjárás [Die Mundart von Nagykónyi]. Szekszárd. Szabó, József 2000: Koppány menti tájszótár [Das Wörterbuch der Koppány-Gegend]. Wosinsky Mór Megyei Múzeum, Szekszárd. Szabó, József 2005: Dialektwörter deutscher Herkunft in der Mundart von Nagykónyi und ihr geschichtlicher Hintergrund. In: Bayerische Dialektologie. Akten der Internationalen Dialektologischen Konferenz 26.–28. Februar 2002. Herausgegeben von Sabine Krämer-Neubert und Norbert Richard Wolf. Heidelberg, S. 313–325. Temesi, Mihály 1961: A szójelentés. [Die Wortbedeutung]. In: A mai magyar nyelv rendszere. [Das System der heutigen ungarischen Sprache.] I. Hrsg.: Tompa József. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, S. 143–192. Végh, József 1935: Adalékok a rokon értelmu˝ szavak keletkezéséhez. [Angaben zur Entstehung der sinnverwandschaftlichen Wörter]. Debrecen. Wiesinger, Peter 1983: Deutsche Dialekgebiete außerhalb des deutschen Sprachgebiets: Mittel-, Südost- und Osteuropa. In: Dialektologie. Ein Handbuch zur deutschen und allgemeinen Dialektforschung. Herausgegeben von Werner Besch, Ulrich Knoop, Wolfgang Putschke, Herbert Ernst Wiegand. Zweiter Halbband. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin-New York, S. 900–930.

Debreceni utca 22 H-6723 S z e g e d Ungarn

Szabó József

316

Celtica vol. XXIV. In memory of Brian Ó Cuív

II. BESPRECHUNGEN

Celtica, Vol. XXIV. In memory of Brian Ó Cuív. Ed. by Malachy McKenna and Fergus Kelly. Dublin: School of Celtic Studies. Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies 2003. (VI +) 369 S. gr. 8°. ISBN 1-85500-186-1, ISSN 0069-1399. Der Tradition dieser 1946 gegründeten keltologischen Zeitschrift des Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies (DIAS) folgend, dient der vorliegende Band gleichzeitig als Gedächtnisschrift (GS) für einen prominenten Keltologen; es handelt sich hier um Brian Ó Cuív (1916–2000), der bereits durch die Festschrift Celtica XXI (1990) zu seinen Lebzeiten geehrt worden war.1 Der durch zwei Review Articles (285–330) und 12 Reviews (331–369) abgeschlossene band enthält 23 Artikel, darunter einen, der sich auf den Keltologen bezieht, dessen Andenken durch die GS geehrt wird: R. Ó Maolalaigh. A title index of Brian Ó Cuív’s publications 1942–71 (270–279). Dem Charakter der vorliegenden Zeitschrift entsprechend, überwiegt auch bei den übrigen Beiträgen das Irische (15), gefolgt von Gallisch (2), Kymrisch (2), Hiberno-Lat. (2), Protokelt. (1). Zu den auf das Irische bezogenen Studien gehören Jacqueline Borsje and Fergus Kelly: ,The Evil Eye‘ in early Irish literature and law (1–39). Der Aufsatz ist in zwei Abschnitte unterteilt: J. Borsje: Part I: Early Irish examples of the evil eye (1–33). F. Kelly: Part II: The Evil Eye in early Irish law (34–39). Daß der „böse Blick“ weit über das Irische hinausgeht, wird von der Vf. S. 2 ff. durch eine Reihe von Belegen gezeigt2, ehe sie auf irisch (ir.) súil milledach „a destructive eye“ zu sprechen kommt: „The most famous person with such an eye in early Irish literature is Balor King of the Fomoire, described in Cath Maige Tuired (4). Eine Reihe der Beiträge behandelt philologische Probleme des älteren Irischen, darunter C. Breatnach: Manuscript sources and methodology: Rawlinson B 502 and Lebar Glinne Da Loche (40–54); Johan Corthals: The rhymeless Leinster Poems: diplomatic texts (79–100): Die Studie impliziert einen kritischen Bericht über die Diskussion dieser archaischen „non-syllabic rhyming, and rhymeless, poetry from the genealogical tract on the ruling families of Leinster, which was first edited by Kuno Meyer“ (79); Gerald Maning: The later marginalia in the Book of Leinster (213–222).

1

2

Zu den als GS dienenden Bänden von Celtica gehören außerdem: III (1956): Johann Caspar Zeuss (1806–1856), V (1960): Richard Irvine Best (1872–1959), VI (1963): Michael A. O’Brien (1896–1962), XI (1976): Myles Dillon (1900–1972), XIII (1980) und XV (1983): Cecile O’Rahilly (1894–1980), XXIII (1999): James Patrick Carney (1914–1989). In dem S. 2 lediglich in englischer Übersetzung gegebenen Plinius-Zitat wird verwiesen auf „Nemesis as a protecting deity against the evil eye“ (S. 2 Fußnote 6).

Indogermanische Forschungen, 112. Band 2007

DOI 10.1515/IDGF.2007.017

Celtica vol. XXIV. In memory of Brian Ó Cuív

317

Sprachwissenschaftliche Fragen des Irischen sind Gegenstand der Studien von T. M. Charles-Edwards: Dliged: its native and latinate usages (65–78), Kevin Murray: Lulgach ,a milch cow‘ (223–224), Malachy McKenna: Grammatical gender in a nineteenth-century Ulster text (182–204). Der erstgenannte Aufsatz behandelt ein Problem, dessen grundsätzliche Bedeutung weit über das Irische hinausgeht: „Some old Irish words have two distinct semantic ranges. On the one hand they have a range of meanings not determined by Latin; on the other, when Latin influence is clearly present, typically in a learned register, they can be used in quite different senses“ (65).3 Andererseits hätte bei air. dliged ,loi, principe, norme, règle, raison‘; loi ,droit, devoir‘4 „the standard Irish term for Latin ratio and dictum (sententia)“ (65), die keltische und idg. Etymologie in die Diskussion einbezogen werden sollen.5 Eine Basis für die Diskussion protokelt. Probleme bietet die Studie von K. McCone, Old Irish na nni: a case of quid pro quo? (168–181). Im Prinzip berechtigt ist die Zurückweisung von P. Schrijvers Interpretation von kelt. *sin < *sim „as the neuter of *so“ (169).6 Weitere Bemerkungen im Anschluß an McCones Studie: a) Keltiberisch (Kib.) soz < *sod (172). Das bereits von Rez., BBCS 26 (1976) 389 als Pronomen diskutierte Wort wird häufig auf *sod < *tod zurückgeführt7. Andererseits wird der Lautwandel von *sod > soz im Auslaut nicht allgemein anerkannt.8 Während demnach die Lenierung von -d > -z im Auslaut eher abzulehnen ist, könnte das -d im vorliegenden Falle eine intervokalische Position einnehmen, wenn sich das nachfolgende auku(e) als enklit. Partikel erklären läßt9; soz

3

4 5

6

7

8

9

Typische Belege für lat. beeinflußte Lehnübersetzungen finden sich in der grammat. Terminologie; vgl. z.B. áinsid accusative case als Ableitung von ad.nessa, áinsid lampoons, censures, reproaches; die griech. κ « als Ableitung von das Bewirkte beweist, daß air. áinsid die verfehlte Lehnübersetzung des Lat. (accusativus nach accusare) nachvollzieht; zu lat. accusativus vgl. F. A. Trendelenburg, in: J. Wackernagel, Vorlesungen über Syntax I (Basel 21926) 19; zur air. Lehnübersetzung nach dem Lat. vgl. Rez., in: Recht – Wirtschaft – Kultur. FS Hans Hablitzel (Berlin 2005) 284. J. Vendryes, LÉIA-D (1996) 107. Vgl. Vendryes, LÉIA-D 107 f.: ky. dylu il doit, il a droít à, got. dulgs Schuld, abg. dlчgч «. Die bei Vendryes angesetzte Theorie einer Entlehnung der slav. Belege aus dem German. bedarf der Überprüfung. Vgl. P. Schrijver, Studies in the History of Celtic Pronouns and Particles (Maynooth 1997) 43. Vgl. die Literatur bei Wodtko, MLH V.1 (Wiesbaden 2000) 339–341. Zur analogischen Übernahme des *s von *so statt *tod vgl. Rez., IF 100 (1993) 283. Vgl. Rez., Studia Celtica et Indogermanica. FS W. Meid (Budapest 1999) 438; De Bernardo Stempel, Actas del VIII Coloquio Internacional sobre Lenguas y Culturas Prerromanas de la Península Ibérica (Salamanca 2001) 329f. Nach Wodtko [Fußnote 7] 339 ist soz zweimal belegt: 1) letontu auz soz; 2) soz auku(e). Von den bei Wodtko 1.c. 53 f. diskutierten Etymologievorschlägen für auku(e) ziehe ich den von Hamp als *au-ku(e) = griech. σ vor.

318

Celtica vol. XXIV. In memory of Brian Ó Cuív

auku(e) genügt dann der Definition der Kategorie Wort (parola), wie sie letztlich wieder von P. Ramat, Pagine linguistiche (Roma – Bari 2005) 23 gegeben worden ist10. b) soz < *tod begegnet in dem kib. Passus soz auku(e) arestalo tamai. Trotz Untermann, MLH IV (1997) 565 und wodtko 2000 [Fußnote 7] 38 scheint mir wegen der sich dadurch ergebenden Interpretationsmöglichkeit die Lesung arestalo (statt arestaso) vorzuziehen zu sein11. Das von W. Meid12 mit Vorsteher übersetzte Kompositum are-stalo enthält im Vorderglied das Äquivalent von gall. are-, air. air usw.; als Hinterglied ist idg. *steh2-lo- oder *sth2-lo- anzusetzen. Wenn Klingenschmitts – von Rix et al., LIV (22001) 590 f. akzeptierte – Etymologie von armenisch ert’am ich gehe < *per-stisth2- (mit Reduplikationsverlust) richtig ist, läge im Armen. ebenfalls eine Komposition vor. c) tamai = damai gehört zur Wurzel *dheh2- (LIV2, 136 f.), wobei sich aus semantischen Gründen die Rückführung auf *dhomai (Dat. Sg. oder Lok. Sg. des a-Stammes *dho-ma) anbietet13: vgl. got. doms m. Urteil, Ruhm, ags. dom Meinung, Sinn, Urteil, Gericht, ahd. tuom Urteil, Tat, Sitte, Zustand (Pokorny, IEW 238)14. d) Als Übersetzung für den ganzen Passus soz auku(e) arestalo tamai ergibt sich: „Dies (soz) aber (auku[e]) ist gemäß der Anordnung (tamai) des Vorstehers“15, wobei diese Analyse durch zwei syntaktische Regeln bestätigt wird: 1. Wackernagels Gesetz mit der Partikel auku(e) an zweiter Position; 2. Gen. Attribut arestelo steht vor dem dazugehörigen Determinatum tamai. e) Abzulehnen ist die von Vf. vorgenommene rückführung von kib. gabizeti (Bot. I A 3) auf *gabiyeti: Die Hypothese dient dem Zweck, zu beseitigen „the strongest evidence currently available for Celtiberian z < |s|“ (171). Die Theorie ist durch eine Reihe von Hypothesen belastet: ) „that Celtiberian underwent a typologically unsurprising strengthening *-iyV(-) > *-iBV(-) (> *-izV(-)?) also seen independently in British Celtic“ (171). ) Das von Vf. als Parallele für die Lautentwicklung herangezogene noviza (Bot. III 01) ist unsicher und selbst erklärungsbedürftig16.

10

11

12

13

14

15 16

„The prototypical word has the following characters: cohesion (it cannot be interrupted …); autonomy (clitics or endings are not words since they cannot appear in isolation); mobility (a word can take different positions in the sentence; clitics or endings cannot).“ Zu den idg. Nomina agentis auf *lo- vgl. letztlich R. Stempel, Die infiniten Verbalformen des Armenischen (Frankfurt a. M./Bern/New York 1983) 40–48. Meid, Die Erste Botorrita-Inschrift. Interpretation eines keltiberischen Sprachdenkmals (Innsbruck 1993) 86. Zum Übergang von *o > *a im Kelt. vgl. Thurneysen, GOI 35f. Der Wurzelansatz in tamai = damai könnte aber auch *dhh2- sein. Anders Meid 1993 [Fußnote 12] 117, der ausgeht von dëma Erlaubnis zu air. daimid gestattet, gewährt, läßt zu, Prät. dámair (langvokalisch) und Imperativ 2. Sg. gall. dama (Lezoux) und auch andere Lösungsvorschläge diskutiert. Vgl. auch Rez., IF 100 (1995) 283. Vgl. die Diskussion bei Wodtko 2000 [Fußnote 7] 283f. und s. Rez., ZCP 52 (2001) 261f.

Celtica vol. XXIV. In memory of Brian Ó Cuív

319

) Zu gabizeti < *ghabh-i-s-e-ti liegen in Bot. I eine Reihe von Parallelbildungen für den themat. s-Konjunktiv 3. Sg. vor: robizeti < *pro-bhih2-s-e-ti : Wurzel *bheih2-, *bhih2- schlagen, auzeti: vgl. Wodtko 2000 [Fußnote 7] 51f.; bei ambitiseti < *mbhi-dhig-s-e-ti und robiseti < *pro-bhid-s-e-ti erklärt sich die fehlende Lenierung des -s- durch die auf intervokalische Konsonantengruppen aus Verschlußlaut + s zurückgehende Position des Sibilanten17. ) Die Schwundstufe der Wurzel beim themat. s-Konjunktiv war von Rez. bereits BBCS 26 (1976) 387 als kib. Innovation festgestellt und später wiederholt durch den Einfluß der Nasalpräsentien erklärt worden (vgl. z.B. Rez. 1999 [Fußnote 8] 436; idem 2001 [Fußnote 17] 60618. ) Die Morphologie von gabizeti bestätigt demnach den Übergang von kib. s > z in intervokalischer Position und falsifiziert Untermann, MLH IV (1997) 382; 394 ff., nach dem das von Untermann als -B- angesetzte intervokalische und auslautende -z- stets auf -d- zurückzuführen ist19. ) Es sei hinzugefügt, daß die Lenierung von intervokalisch s zu z ein phonetisch naheliegender Prozeß ist, für den Parallelen aus anderen idg. und kelt. Sprachen vorliegen20. ) Da die Lenierung von auslautendem -d > -z nicht gesichert ist, muß die von Meid 1993 [Fußnote 12] 117 vorgeschlagene Rückführung der Endung -tuz (3. Sg. Imper. Fut.) auf *-tod durch eine andere Interpretation ersetzt werden, d.h. durch den Ansatz eines Morphemagglutinates -tu + enklitisches Pronomen -z, das nach der Theorie von De Hoz 1981 „recoge al objeto directo expressado anteriormente“21.

17

18

19

20

21

Zur Morphologie von -s-e- vgl. Rez. in: F. Villar und M.a Pilar Fernández Álvarez (Eds.), Actas del VIII Coloquio Internacional sobre Lenguas y Culturas Prerromanas de la Península Ibérica (Salamanca 2001) 606f. Es gehört zu den Oberflächlichkeiten von St. Schumacher, Die keltischen Primärverben (Innsbruck 2004) 224, daß er diese Erklärung der Einfachheit halber ignoriert, wenn er feststellt: „Wie in Einleitung § 5.2.2.4 ausgeführt, nehme ich an, daß die Wurzelsilbe beim se/o-Konjunktiv ursprünglich vollstufig war und daß das Keltiberische einzelsprachlich die Ablautstufe des Präsens eingeführt hat.“ Villar, der die Differenzierung zwischen s´ = [s] und s = [z] im iberischen Alphabet als erster gesehen hat (vgl. Actas del V Coloquio Internacional sobre Lenguas y Culturas Prerromanas de la Península Ibérica, Salamanca 1989, 773ff.), setzt als Lenierungsprodukt *d > z an (nicht: *d > B). Abwegig ist die Analyse von kabizeti als Verbalkompositum *ka(m) + biBeti durch Untermann, MLH IV (1997) 414 und Schumacher 2004 [Fußnote 18] 225. Vgl. westgerm. (ags. as. ahd.) lesan [d. h. lezan] vs. got. lisan sammeln, arm. (mit Schwund des s) nu Schwiegertochter < *snusós, griech. (mit Übergang über h zu Null): hom. , ich war : ai. asam, kehre heim : -« Heimkehr, air. (mit Übergang über z zu Null): iarn iron : got. eisarn (Thurneysen, GOI 132). Vgl. J. Gorrochategui, in: Memoriae L. Mitxelena. Magistri Sacrum (San Sebastián 1991) 29; vgl. auch Rez. 1999 [Fußnote 8] 438f. Zur analogischen Verallgemeinerung von *-tus > -tuz im Auslaut vgl. De Bernardo Stempel 2001 [Fußnote 8] 329.

320

Celtica vol. XXIV. In memory of Brian Ó Cuív

) Wenn man für -tuz den Imperativ auf -tu + enklit. Pronomen *-so ansetzt, würde sich die Lenierung des intervokalischen -s- (in: *-tu-so) lautgesetzlich erklären. Eine typologische Parallele für den Schwund des auslautenden Vokals wäre air. ed „es“22. Heerstr. 74 53340 Meckenheim

22

Karl Horst Schmidt

Vgl. Thurneysen, GOI 283, der zu ed bemerkt: „This, together with the retention of -d, suggests that at one time a neutral vowel (-a?) was appended; cp. Goth. it-a; vgl. auch Schrijver 1997 [Fußnote 6] 177ff., der jedoch Thurneysen ignoriert. Zur Suffigierung des -z im Kib. – auch bei Verbalkomposita – vgl. Rez., ZCP 54 (2004) 204.

II

II

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

Read more

Indogermanische Grammatik-Formenlehre

Read more

Der indogermanische Akzent

Read more

Forschungen eines Hundes

Read more

Forschungen eines Hundes

Read more

Forschungen eines Hundes

Read more

DIE INDOGERMANISCHE DEKLINATION IM LICHTE DER INDOURALISCHEN VERGLEICHENDEN GRAMMATIK

Read more

Indogermanische Grammatik (Cambridge Library Collection - Linguistics) (Volume 3)

Read more

Francia 35: Forschungen zur westeuropäischen Geschichte

Read more

Rhetorik und Film Rhetorik-Forschungen, Band 26

Read more

Der indogermanische Ablaut, vornehmlich in seinem Verhältnis zur Betonung

Read more

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

Read more

Alvissmal. Forschungen zur mittelalterlichen Kultur Skandinaviens: 8 1998

Read more

Postcolonial Postmortems (Internationale Forschungen Zur Allgemeinen & Vergleichenden Literaturwissenschaft S.)

Read more

Alvissmal. Forschungen zur mittelalterlichen Kultur Skandinaviens: 5 1995

Read more

Alvissmal. Forschungen zur mittelalterlichen Kultur Skandinaviens: 1 1992

Read more

Die Beteiligung im Verwaltungsverfahren (Forschungen aus Staat und Recht 164)

Read more

Forschungen zur Apostelgeschichte (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 137)

Read more

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

Read more

Reading Song Lyrics. (Internationale Forschungen Zur Allgemeinen Und Vergleichenden Literaturwissenschaft)

Read more

Alvissmal. Forschungen zur mittelalterlichen Kultur Skandinaviens: 4 1994

Read more

Das mittelniederdeutsche Theophilus-Spiel: Text Ubersetzung Stellenkommentar (Quellen Und Forschungen)

Read more

Gleichheit vor dem Gesetz (Forschungen aus Staat und Recht)

Read more

Indogermanische Grammatik. Band 1. 1. Halbband: Einleitung. 2. Halbband: Lautlehre Segmentale Phonologie des Indogermanischen

Read more

Der Einfluß von Erdnußbutter auf die Erdrotation: Forschungen, die die Welt nicht braucht

Read more

Psychologische Aspekte paulinischer Theologie (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 131)

Read more

Sites of Exchange: European Crossroads and Faultlines (Internationale Forschungen zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Literaturwissenschaft 103)

Read more

Öffentliche Verwaltungskommunikation: Öffentlichkeitsarbeit, Aufklärung, Empfehlung, Warnung (Forschungen aus Staat und Recht) (German Edition)

Read more

Eckpunkte der Parteistellung: Wegweiser fur Gesetzgebung und Vollziehung (Forschungen aus Staat und Recht) (German Edition)

Read more

Der Einfluß von Erdnußbutter auf die Erdrotation. Forschungen, die die Welt nicht braucht

Read more

Recommend Documents

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

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

Indogermanische Grammatik-Formenlehre

...

Der indogermanische Akzent

DER INDOGERMANISCHE AKZENT. Digitized by Goog Ie Digitized by Goog Ie DER INDOGERMANISCHE AKZENT. '- r · , n ' ,...

Forschungen eines Hundes

Franz Kafka Forschungen eines Hundes eB B Franz Kafka Forschungen eines Hundes © eBOOK-Bibliothek  für di...

Forschungen eines Hundes

Franz Kafka Forschungen eines Hundes eB B Franz Kafka Forschungen eines Hundes © eBOOK-Bibliothek  für diese Au...

Forschungen eines Hundes

Franz Kafka Forschungen eines Hundes eB B Franz Kafka Forschungen eines Hundes © eBOOK-Bibliothek  für diese Au...

DIE INDOGERMANISCHE DEKLINATION IM LICHTE DER INDOURALISCHEN VERGLEICHENDEN GRAMMATIK

...

Indogermanische Grammatik (Cambridge Library Collection - Linguistics) (Volume 3)

Cambridge Library CoLLeCtion Books of enduring scholarly value Linguistics From the earliest surviving glossaries and ...

Francia 35: Forschungen zur westeuropäischen Geschichte

Francia – Forschungen zur westeuropäischen Geschichte Bd. 35 2008 Copyright Das Digitalisat wird Ihnen von perspectivia...

Rhetorik und Film Rhetorik-Forschungen, Band 26

Rhetorik: Ein internationales Jahrbuch – Band 26: Rhetorik und Film Herausgegeben von Hans-Edwin Friedrich Max Niemeye...