Indo-european accent and ablaut
Yüklə 0,8 Mb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
Indo-European nominal ablaut patterns: The Anatolian evidence 119
[At this stage the vowel *e, which is always accented, and the new vowel *o, which is always unaccented, are in a complementary distribution, and can therefore in fact be regarded as allophones of a single phoneme.] “C. analogical introduction of a full grade vowel in unstressed sylla- bles (e.g. in compounds), which automatically yielded new *o;” [Since accented *é and unaccented *o are allophones of each other, whenever the accented vowel *é by analogical (morphological) developments was in- troduced in an unstressed syllable, it automatically becomes *o.] “D. introduction of *o in stressed syllables (e.g. by decompounding), resulting in a phonemic opposition between /e/ and /o/ under the stress;” [At this stage also analogical (morphological) developments take place by which unstressed *o is introduced into a stressed syllable or is secondarily stressed (e.g. by generalization of a stress pattern throughout a paradigm). e result of a secondarily stressed *o is not *é however, but *ó. Consequent- ly, *e and *o become two distinct phonemes at this point.] “E. analogical introduction of full grade *e in unstressed syllables, generalizing the opposition between /e/ and /o/;” [Since *e and *o are at this stage two distinct phonemes, whenever stressed *é is now through analogical developments introduced in an unstressed syl- lable or secondarily loses its stress, it does not become *o anymore, but re- mains *e.] “F. rise of lengthened grade vowels *ē and *ō, yielding the conven- tional Proto-Indo-European vowel system.” [Only in certain specific positions, namely in monosyllabic words (e.g. diḗus) and in word-final position before a resonant (e.g. *ph₂tḗr), original short *e and *o are phonetically lenghtened to *ē and *ō (Kortlandt 1975: 85, going back to Wackernagel 1896: 66f.). 33 is means that *ē and *ō did not belong to the original ablaut patterns.] 33 is is the reason why introduction of the accusative stem *ph₂-tér- (with short *é) into the nominative case yielded *ph₂-tḗr with long *ḗ, cf. section 6. @ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2013 Alwin Kloekhorst 120
is chronology of developments can explain certain phenomena that thus far remained unexplained, for instance, the development of neuter s-stems. Since Schindler 1975b, it is commonly accepted that neuter s-stems originally had the proterodynamic shape *CéC-s, *CC-és-s, but were later on reshaped to *CéC-os, *CéC-es-os: nom.-acc.sg. *mén-s >> *mén-os gen.sg. *mn-és-s >> *mén-es-os Schindler (1975b: 266) could not explain the origin of *-o- in *mén-os, how- ever: “Eine sichere Deutung der o-Qualität [of mén-os] läßt sich freilich nicht geben, und ich verzichte auf Spekulationen darüber”. In the light of Beekes-Kortlandt’s chronology above, this and the other forms of the para- digm can now be explained in the following way. We first have to assume that at stage C, i.e. the stage in which an unaccented *e auto matically turned into *o, “[*ménos] arose when -es- from the oblique cases was introduced into the nominative” (Beekes 1985: 158). nom.-acc.sg. *mén-s >> *mén-os gen.sg. *mn-és-s = *mn-és-s dat.sg. *mn-és-i = *mn-és-i At the same time, the hysterodynamic gen.sg. ending *-és was introduced in order to keep the genitive recognizable as such “da idg. /ss/ [in *mn-és-s] als [s] realisiert wurde und somit der Genitiv phonetisch nicht mehr durch eine Endung charakterisiert war” (Schindler 1975b: 264). Since this ending became unaccented, its vowel *-e- automatically turned into *-o-. nom.-acc.sg. *mén-os = *mén-os gen.sg. *mn-és-s >> *mn-és-os dat.sg. *mn-és-i = *mn-és-i Later on, at stage D, 34 when *e and *o had become distinct phonemes, the full grade of the root was generalized. 35 34 For Latin iecur, iocineris ‘liver’ we must assume that in the original proterody- namic paradigm *iékʷ-r, *ikʷ-én-, the full grade of the root spread through the paradigm at stage C already. In this way, the unaccented full grade root automati- cally turned into *-o-, yielding *iékʷ-r, *iokʷ-én-, which eventually developed into Lat. iecur, iocineris. 35 On the basis of e.g. Skt. mánas, mánasas and Gr. μένος, μένεος the PIE paradigm is usually reconstructed as *ménos, *ménesos. Yet, if HLuw. tipas- ‘heaven’ in- deed reflects *nebhés- (thus Hajnal 1995: 63), which contrasts with CLuw. tappaš- @ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2013 Indo-European nominal ablaut patterns: The Anatolian evidence 121
nom.-acc.sg. *mén-os = *mén-os gen.sg. *mn-és-s >> *men-és-os dat.sg. *mn-és-i >> *men-és-i A similar scenario may now explain the origin of the Erlangen amphikinetic paradigm out of the Leiden hysterodynamic paradigm. We have to assume that first a spread of the full grade of the root from the nominative to the ac- cusative form took place at stage C. is caused the suffix syllable to become unaccented and turned its *e into *o: *CC-éC-m >> *CéC-oC-m. Only af- terwards, the accusative stem *CéC-oC was introduced into the nominative. e regular lengthening of the suffix syllable of nom.sg. *CéC-oC to *CéC-ōC (if the final consonant is a resonant) then took place at stage F. nom.sg. *CéC-C = *CéC-C >> *CéC-oC > *CéC-ōC acc.sg. *CC-éC-m >> *CéC-oC-m = *CéC-oC-m = *CéC-oC-m gen.sg. *CC-C-és = *CC-C-és = *CC-C-és = *CC-C-és Again we see that this scenario involves only two trivial assumptions, namely first the spread of the full grade of the root syllable of the nominative to the accusative, and then the introduction of the accusative stem into the nomi- native. Both of these are well attested developments. 36 ‘heaven’ that reflects *nébhe/os-, we must assume that in Proto-Luwic, and, by extension, in Proto-Anatolian, neuter s-stems still showed a mobile accentua- tion, *CéC-os, *CeC-és-os (cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 604). is mirrors the situation in Slavic, where s-stems (e.g. OCS nebo ‘heaven’) inflect according to accent par- adigm c, which points to an earlier mobile accentation as well (as kindly pointed out to me by Frits Kortlandt). Moreover, Kroonen (2007) argued that on the basis of e.g. Lat. imber ‘rain’ and Arm. amb ‘cloud’ < *nbh-, the PIE paradigm for ‘cloud’ must be reconstructed as *nébh-os, *nbh-és-os. is would mean that the generalization of the full grade of the root throughout the paradigm as attested in Sanskrit, Greek, Anatolian, Slavic, etc., was not a PIE development, but rather took place in the separate branches independently. In the Graeco-Indo-Iranian branch, the accent was later on regularized as well, yielding *CéC-os, *CéC-es-os. 36 Since both the hysterokinetic and the amphikinetic paradigms are derived from the hysterodynamic paradigm, the question arises why a given noun would turn up as hysterokinetic or as amphikinetic. In my opinion, the following chronol- ogy applied. e first major morphological development that took place was the introduction of the full grade vowel in the root from the nominative to the ac- cusative: *CéC-C, *CC-éC-m, *CC-C-és > *CéC-C, *CéC-oC-m, *CC-C-és. Only some specific (often-used) nouns resisted this regularization and remained as such. e second major morphological development that took place was the in- @ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2013 Yüklə 0,8 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|