Indo-european accent and ablaut
Yüklə 0,8 Mb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- 5 Hysterodynamic
Indo-European nominal ablaut patterns: The Anatolian evidence 113
not take all data regarding Hittite ‘hand’ as serious as he should have done. In spite of this, Schindler’s reconstruction has been influential. For instance, Rieken (1999: 280–1) follows Schindler’s reconstruction and assumes that the
scholars do not take the spelling kiššer- seriously at all. E.g. Melchert (1994: 151) states that he views “spellings such as ki-iš-ra-, ki-iš-ša/še-ra- as alterna- tes for [kis.sra-]”, therewith fully ignoring the consistent spelling difference between acc.sg. kiššer- and the oblique stems kiš(ša)r-. 20
In my opinion, these views do not do justice to the forms as they are at- tested. I therefore want to propose a new reconstruction. I will start from the Hittite data, without any preconceptions about PIE ablaut paradigms. On the basis of the data presented above, the oldest paradigm of ‘hand’ can be summarized thus: nom.sg.
keššar acc.sg.
kiššeran gen.sg.
kiš(ša)raš dat.-loc.sg. kiš(ša)rī all.sg.
It should be noted that the reality of the acc.sg. form kiššeran is supported by the fact that in NH times the stems kiššera- /kiSéra-/ and keššira- /kéSera-/ become productive. Per case form, I will discuss possible preforms. On the basis of cognates like Gr. χείρ, Arm. jer̄n, Skt. hásta- ‘hand’, we can recon- struct the root of this word as *ǵhes-. nom.sg.: e -e- in keššar can only go back to an accented short *é. e geminate -šš- in keššar can only be explained from an *s that has been in contact with another consonant. Since contact with *ǵh- is excluded (because of the *é in between), *s must have been in contact with *r. So keššar can only reflect *ǵhésr. 20 In 2002, Rieken stated something similar, namely that “[z]ur Erklärung des e- Vokalismus in kiššeran Akk. Sg. c. „Hand“ läßt sich […] an eine Anaptyxe den- ken: *ǵhés-or- → gíssran → g/kísseran <ki-iš-še-ra-an>” (2002: 102), apparently abandoning her 1994 view in which she regarded the -e- in kiššeran as going back to an original *e. @ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2013
Alwin Kloekhorst 114
acc.sg.: e -i- in kiššeran can either go back to an unaccented *e, or it can represent an anaptyctic vowel in a cluster *Ks-. 21 Since the geminate -šš- can only be explained from an *s that has been in contact with another conso- nant, we must assume that it originally was adjacent to *ǵh-. e -e- must go back to an accented *é. We arrive at a mechanic reconstruction *ǵhsérom.
*-o-. Yet, since the spelling kiššaraš alternates with kišraš, it is much more likely that the first -a- of kiššaraš is a dead vowel: the sign ŠA in ki-iš-ša-ra-
presence of a real vowel -a-. 22 So both kiššaraš and kišraš represent /kiSras/. e -i- in kišraš can either go back to an unaccented *e, or it can represent an anaptyctic vowel in a cluster *Ks-. We therefore can reconstruct either *ǵhesrós or *ǵhsrós.
gen.sg. kiš(ša)raš. e -ī points to an accented ending *-éi. So kiš(ša)rī rep- resents *ǵhesréi or *ǵhsréi.
the dat.-loc. forms. e -ā points to an accented ending *-ó (cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 161). So kišrā represents *ǵhesró or *ǵhsró. us, a simple transposition of the Hittite data yields the following para- digm: nom.sg. *ǵhésr acc.sg. *ǵhsérom gen.sg. *ǵhesrós or *ǵhsrós dat.-loc.sg. *ǵhesréi or *ǵhsréi all.sg. *ǵhesró or *ǵhsró Since it is unlikely that the oblique cases would contain a full grade root while the accusative form did not, I assume that the kiš(ša)raš, kiš(ša)rī and kišrā reflect *ǵhsrós, *ǵhsréi and *ǵhsró, respectively. If we now assume that in the accusative the ending *-om replaced an original *-m, and in the genitive 21 Cf. kištuu̯ant- ‘hungry’ < *Kst-uént-, derived from kāšt- ‘hunger’ < *Kóst- (Kloek- horst 2008: 74). 22 Similarly in e.g. e-eš-ša-ri- besides e-eš-ri-, representing /ʔeSri-/ ‘shape, image’, or
der’.
@ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2013 Indo-European nominal ablaut patterns: The Anatolian evidence 115
the ending *-ós replaced original *-és (both trivial assumptions since in Hit- tite the endings -an < *-om and -aš < *-os have been generalized in all nomi- nal paradigms), we arrive at the following original paradigm for ‘hand’: 23 nom.sg. *ǵhés-r acc.sg. *ǵhs-ér-m 24 gen.sg. *ǵhs-r-és dat.-loc.sg. *ǵhs-r-éi etc.
5 Hysterodynamic It is interesting to see that the paradigm of ‘hand’ exactly corresponds to the paradigm that was reconstructed by Beekes (1985: 7f.) for e.g. *meǵ-h₂- ‘large’, and which he calls ‘hysterodynamic’. 25 nom.sg.
*CéC-C i.e.
*méǵ-h₂(-s) (Gr. μέγας) acc.sg.
*CC-éC-m *mǵ-éh₂-m (Gr. ἄγᾱν) gen.sg.
*CC-C-és *mǵ-h ₂-és (Skt. maháḥ) Crucial to this paradigm is the nominative form, which shows a full grade in the root, but zero-grade in the suffix (with which it is identical in shape to the proterodynamic nominative form). In Anatolian, the word for ‘hand’ most faithfully reflects this paradigm, but there are other traces of it to be found as well. For instance, the Hittite word for ‘boundary, line’ shows the following forms (note that the reconstructed forms are just mechanic trans- positions, without any comparison to other IE languages or preconceived ideas on ablaut paradigms). nom.sg.
acc.sg. ar-ḫa-an (OS) < *h₁rh₂om gen.sg.
ar-ḫa-aš < *h₁rh₂os dat.-loc.sg. ar-ḫi (OS) < *h₁rh₂(e)i 23 Cf. already Beekes 1985: 56. 24 According to Kortlandt (1986: 560), an acc.sg. *ǵhsérm is also reflected in TochB
25 Note that Beekes consistently reconstructs the gen.sg. ending as *-ós, but that need not concern us here. @ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2013 Yüklə 0,8 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|