Indo-european accent and ablaut
Yüklə 0,8 Mb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
Indo-European nominal ablaut patterns: The Anatolian evidence 109 However, as I argue in Kloekhorst fthc., 6 the stem u̯iten- phonologically rep- resents /uɨdén-/, which is the regular outcome of a preform *u̯dén-, with ze- ro-grade of the root syllable. 7 is means that ‘water’ should in fact go back to a proterodynamic paradigm *uód-r, *ud-én-. 8 Also the word for ‘knee’, which is usually reconstructed as a static u-stem *ǵón-u, *ǵén-u-, rather shows a proterodynamic inflection in Hittite: the stems genu- besides ganu- 9
10 Since the only other al- leged *o/e ablauting statically inflected noun, *nokʷt-, *nekʷt- ‘night’, 11 is not 6 Cf. also Kloekhorst 2008: 987–8. 7 is *u̯dén- is the outcome of *udén- in which the *u̯- of *u̯ódr was secondarily introduced in order to eliminate the alternation between consonantal *u̯- and vocalic *u-. 8 In a paper presented at the 14th World Sanskrit Conference (Kyōto, September 2009), Lubotsky has shown that in Vedic, nom.-acc.sg. vā́r ‘water’ < *uéh₁r forms one paradigm with the stem ud(a)n- ‘id.’ < *ud-(e)n-. Lubotsky assumes that this situation is original, and that *uéh₁r is in fact the phonetic outcome of an origi- nal form *uéd-r (showing a development *d > *h₁ as also known in *h₁ḱmtom < *dḱmtom ‘100’, *h₁uih₁ḱmti < *duidḱmti ‘20’). If so, we must assume that ‘water’ originally inflected *uéd-r, *ud-én-, which already within PIE yielded *uéh₁r, *udén-. Since CLuwian u̯ār(ša) ‘water’ attests to nom.-acc.sg. *uéh₁r, this para- digm must have been present as such in Proto-Anatolian as well. Only in pre- Hittite, *uéh₁r apparently was replaced by *uódr, although the exact origin of this latter form is unclear to me (perhaps it was taken from compounds?). 9 Note that ganu- cannot reflect *ǵónu-, since this would have yielded Hitt. **gānu-. 10 Supported by Av. žnubiias ‘knees (dat.-loc.pl.)’ and Germ. *kniu- ‘knee’. 11 It is true that for ‘night’ an o-grade stem is attested in Lat. nox, Gr. νύξ, Germ. *naχt-, Lith. naktìs, OCS noštь, whereas Hitt. nekuz (gen.sg.) shows an e-grade, but this does not necessarily mean that we must reconstruct an *o/e ablauting static paradigm. Moreover, in his fthc. Etymological dictionary of Proto-German-
with the root *dhngʷ- as attested in the Germanic words for ‘dark’ (OHG tunkal, OSax. dunkar) and in Hitt. dankui- ‘dark’. His idea is that the root originally was *dhnegʷ-, in which the cluster *dhnV- was simplified to *nV- in PIE already. We could therefore imagine that when in e.g. an original hysterodynamic paradigm *dhnégʷ-t, *dhngʷ-ét-m, *dhngʷ-t-és (for which see section 5) the nom.sg. form regularly developed into *négʷ-t, the whole paradigm was reshaped. We may have to assume that on the one hand, the stem *négʷ-t was used as a basis for a static paradigm (*négʷ-t, *négʷ-t-m, *négʷ-t-s), or that the root *negʷ- was gen- eralized throughout the paradigm, yielding *négʷ-t, *nogʷ-ét-m, *nogʷ-t-és (with regular change of unaccented *e > *o as described in section 8). e former para- digm could have yielded the Hitt. gen.sg. form nekuz, whereas the latter could have been the basis for *nokʷt- as attested in the other IE languages. @ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2013 Alwin Kloekhorst 110
synchronically attested as such, I am sceptical as to whether this type really existed in PIE. For type 2, static nouns with an *ḗ/é ablaut, Schindler (1975a: 5–6) gives two main examples, which in my view both must be interpreted differently. e first example is the word for ‘liver’, which was reconstructed by Schindler as *i̯ḗkʷ-r̥, *i̯ékʷ-n̥-s (followed by e.g. Fortson 2004: 108 and Clackson 2007: 94f.), but for which I rather reconstruct a proterodynamic paradigm, *iékʷ-r, *ikʷ-én-s. 12 e second example is Hittite mēḫur, mēḫunaš ‘time, period’, for which Schindler reconstructs *mḗh₂-ur, *méh₂-un-s, following Eichner 1973. Although I certainly believe that this latter word is static in the sense that it was root-accented throughout the paradigm, I have doubts regarding the reconstruction of the ablaut grades. As I have argued elsewhere, 13 I assume that mēḫur, mēḫun- should rather be reconstructed as *méih₂-ur, *méih₂- un-, i.e. a derivative of the root *meih₂- (as attested in Skt. minā́ti, Lat. minuō ‘to diminish’) with e-grade in both the nom.-acc. and the oblique stem. 14 An
e-grade can also be found in the endingless loc.sg. form mēḫur < *méih₂-ur. is ablaut pattern is supported by the paradigms for ‘mother’ and ‘broth- er’, which probably were static as well, and also show e-grade throughout: *méh₂-tr, *méh₂-tr-m, *méh₂-tr-s and *bhréh₂-tr, *bhréh₂-tr-m, *bhréh₂-tr-s. 15 12 e reconstruction of a lengthened grade stem *iēkʷ- is based on two forms. For the first form, Av. yākarǝ, De Vaan (2003: 68–9) has shown that this hapax is less trustworthy than its duplicate yakarǝ, which rather points to a short vowel in the root syllable (with which it would be parallel to the other Iranian languages that all point to a PIr. form *i̯akar). e second form, Gr. ἧπαρ is not trustworthy either. Already Szemerényi (1956: 191) argued that, since in Greek several words for organs contain an -η- (ἧτορ ‘heart’, κῆρ ‘heart’, σπλήν ‘spleen’), the -η- in ἧπαρ might be secondary. is would mean that there is no reliable evidence for re- constructing a lengthened grade stem *iēkʷ- anymore. A stem *iekʷ- is well at- tested, however: Skt. yákr̥t, Lat. iecur, Lith. jẽknos ‘liver’. Moreover, evidence for a stem *ikʷ- can be found as well: Lith. ìkras ‘roe, spawn, caviar’, Latv. ikri ‘id.’, and Slav. *jьkrà ‘id.’ go back to a stem *ikʷ-r-. e existence of a stem *iekʷ- beside *ikʷ- rather points to a proterodynamic paradigm, which is supported by the full grade in the suffix syllable of the Lat. gen.sg. form iocineris (cf. footnote 1 for the exact origin of this latter form). Hence the reconstruction *iékʷ-r, *ikʷ-én-s. 13 See Kloekhorst 2008: 567–8. 14 e idea that the ‘strong’ stem should always contain an ablaut grade that is one grade ‘heavier’ than the ‘weak’ stem (*ē besides *e, or *o besides *e) is a theoreti- cal preconception. 15 Cf. Beekes 1985: 174–5; Kloekhorst 2011. @ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2013 Yüklə 0,8 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|