Indo-european accent and ablaut

Alwin Kloekhorst

122

9  Amphikinetic in Anatolian

In Anatolian, the amphikinetic paradigm is best reflected in the Hittite diph-

thong stems, for which I will give lingai- ‘oath’ and ḫarnau- ‘birthing stool’ as 

examples here. In NH times, these nouns show no stem alternations: nom.

sg. lingaiš, acc.sg. lingain, gen.sg. lingai̯aš; nom.sg. ḫarnauš, acc.sg. ḫarnaun, 

gen.sg. ḫarnau̯aš. In OH times, we still find the original gen.sg. forms linkii̯aš 

and ḫarnuu̯aš, however, which clearly betray the amphikinetic origin of these 

nouns. I set up the following chronology of developments:

37

hysterodyn.

amphikinetic

OH

NH

nom.sg. *h₁lénǵh-i = *h₁lénǵh-i

>>*h₁lénǵh-ōi = *h₁lénǵh-ōi >>link-ai-š = linkaiš

acc.sg. *h₁lnǵh-éi-m >>*h₁lénǵh-oi-m = *h₁lénǵh-oi-m = *h₁lénǵh-oi-m > link-ai-n= linkain

gen.sg. *h₁lnǵh-i-és = *h₁lnǵh-i-és = *h₁lnǵh-i-és >>*h₁lénǵh-i-os > link-i-aš >>linkai̯aš

troduction of the accusative stem in the nominative. Nouns that had undergone 

the first development as well thus became amphikinetic: *CéC-C, *CéC-oC-m, 

*CC-C-és > *CéC-ōC, *CéC-oC-m, *CC-C-és. Nouns that had not undergone the 

first development, but did participate in the second one, became hysterokinetic: 

*CC-ḗC, *CC-éC-m, *CC-C-és. Nouns that resisted the second development as 

well, remained hysterodynamic, *CéC-C, *CC-éC-m, *CC-C-és. 

    is scenario explains the semantic development of *peh₂-ter-. is noun 

originally was a verbal abstract of the verb *peh₂- and therefore meant ‘protec-

tor’, which was also used to refer to the father of a family. Its inflection was hys-

terodynamic, *péh₂-tr, *ph₂-tér-m, *ph₂-tr-és. Like most other hysterodynamic 

nouns, *peh₂-ter- participated in the development by which the full grade of 

the root spread from the nominative to the accusative stem, yielding *péh₂-tr, 

*péh₂-tor-m, *ph₂-tr-és. However, in its specific semantic usage as the designa-

tor of the father of a family it resisted the regularization and kept its original 

inflection, *péh₂-tr, *ph₂-tér-m, *ph₂-tr-és. is difference can be explained by the 

fact that syntactically a ‘protector’ is especially used as an actor (= nominative), 

whereas a ‘father’ is used in all kinds of functions (cases). When the second de-

velopment as described above took place, namely introduction of the accusative 

stem in the nominative form, the paradigmatic split was complete: the word for 

‘protector’ had become amphikinetic, *péh₂-tōr, *péh₂-tor-m, *ph₂-tr-és (reflect-

ed in e.g. Skt. pātár-), whereas the word for ‘father’ had become hysterokinetic, 

*ph₂-tḗr, *ph₂-tér-m, *ph₂-tr-és (reflected in e.g. Skt. pitár-). 

37  I now retract my treatment of the prehistory of the Hittite diphthong stems, 

ḫāran- and šīu̯att- as given in Kloekhorst 2008: 106.

@ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2013

---

Indo-European nominal ablaut patterns: The Anatolian evidence 123

hysterodyn.

amphikinetic

OH

NH

nom.sg. *h3ér-nu

= *h3ér-nu

>>*h3ér-nōu

= *h3ér-nōu >>ḫar-nau-š = ḫarnauš

acc.sg. *h3r-néu-m >>*h3ér-nou-m  = *h3ér-nou-m = *h3ér-nou-m > ḫar-nau-n = ḫarnaun

gen.sg. *h3r-nu-és = *h3r-nu-és = *h3r-nu-és >>*h3ér-nu-ós > ḫar-nu-aš >>ḫarnau̯aš

In the original hysterodynamic paradigm *CéC-C, *CC-éC-m, *CC-C-és, 

first the full grade of the root was generalized from the nominative to the ac-

cusative, yielding *CéC-C, *CéC-oC-m, *CC-C-és. en the accusative stem 

was introduced into the nominative, yielding the paradigm that is called 

‘amphikinetic’, *CéC-ōC, *CéC-oC-m, *CC-C-és. Introduction of the full 

grade of the root from the nominative and accusative into the oblique cases 

yielded *CéC-ōC, *CéC-oC-m, *CéC-C-os. After addition of the nom.sg. end-

ing *-s, this paradigm yielded OH *CéC-aC-š, *CéC-aC-n, *CéC-C-aš. e 

generalization of the full grade vowel of the suffix from the nominative and 

accusative into the oblique cases then yields the NH paradigm *CéC-aC-š, 

*CéC-aC-n, *CéC-aC-aš. is development can be regarded as the last step 

in a chain of developments that all took place in order to regularize the origi-

nal paradigm.

Other examples are e.g. Hitt. ḫāran- ‘eagle’ and šīu̯att- ‘day’:

hysterodyn.

amphikinetic

pre-Hitt.

OH

nom.sg. *h3ér-n

= *h3ér-n

>>*h3ér-ōn

= *h3ér-ōn

> *ḫār-an

>> ḫāraš

acc.sg. *h3r-én-m >>*h3ér-on-m = *h3ér-on-m = *h3ér-on-m > *ḫār-an-an = ḫāranan

gen.sg. *h3r-n-és = *h3r-n-és = *h3r-n-és

>>*h3ér-n-ós > *ḫār-n-aš >> ḫāranaš

hysterodyn.

amphikinetic

pre-Hitt.

OH

nom.sg. *diéu-t

= *diéu-t

>>*diéu-ot

= *diéu-ot

> *šīu-at

>> šīu̯az

acc.sg. *diu-ét-m >> *diéu-ot-m = *diéu-ot-m = *diéu-ot-m > *šīu-att-an = *šīu̯attan

gen.sg. *diu-t-és = *diu-t-és = *diu-t-és

>> *diéu-t-ós > *šīu-tt-aš >> šīu̯attaš

Interestingly, within the paradigm of šīu̯att-, an archaic endingless loca-

tive is attested, namely šīu̯at. is form reflects a virtual *diéu-ot, which in 

view of the developments described above probably goes back to an original 

form *diu-ét. is form is therewith the Anatolian pendant to forms like Skt. 

loc.sg. kṣám(i) ‘on the earth’ < *dhǵ-ém(-i) or tmán ‘in the soul’ < *h₁h₁t-

mén(-i), which prove the existence of hysterodynamic locatives of the shape 

*CC-éC(-i).

@ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2013

---

Alwin Kloekhorst

124

10 Conclusions

We have seen that the Anatolian language branch provides evidence for 

nominal paradigms inflecting according to the following ablaut patterns:

·  the static one, as reconstructed in both the Erlangen and the Leiden mod-

el (albeit that I find evidence for the ablaut grade *e only, and not *o/e or 

*ē/e).

·  the proterodynamic one, as reconstructed in both the Erlangen and the 

Leiden model.

·  the hysterokinetic one, as reconstructed in the Erlangen model.

·  the amphikinetic one, as reconstructed in the Erlangen model.

·  the hysterodynamic one, as reconstructed in the Leiden model.

is means that all these paradigms must have existed as such in Proto-

Indo-European and that in that sense both the Erlangen and the Leiden 

model are correct. We have moreover seen that the hysterokinetic and the 

amphikinetic paradigm (as reconstructed in the Erlangen model) can be re-

garded as younger off-shoots of an original hysterodynamic paradigm *CéC-

C, *CC-éC-m, *CC-C-és (as reconstructed in the Leiden model), which with-

in Proto-Indo-European underwent some morphological regularizations. 

us, the difference between the Erlangen and the Leiden model is that the 

Leiden model describes a stage that is relatively older than the Erlangen 

model. It must be stressed, however, that the postulation of a hysterodynam-

ic paradigm from which the hysterokinetic and the amphikinetic paradigms 

originated is not based on internal reconstruction. It is synchronically still 

attested in the Hittite paradigm of the word for ‘hand’, keššar, kiššeran, kišraš, 

which therewith can be regarded as one of the most archaic paradigms with-

in Indo-European.

To sum up, the Erlangen model describes the state of affairs as it was 

in late Proto-Indo-European, its hysterokinetic and amphikinetic paradigm 

having developed out of the hysterodynamic paradigm only rather recently. 

For early Proto-Indo-European we therefore have to assume a situation as 

described in the Leiden model, namely that at that stage only three accent-

ablaut paradigms existed: the static, the proterodynamic and the hysterody-

namic one.

@ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2013

---

Indo-European nominal ablaut patterns: The Anatolian evidence 125

static

proterodynamic

hysterodynamic

nom.sg.

*CéC-C

*CéC-C

*CéC-C

acc.sg.

*CéC-C(-m)

*CéC-C(-m)

*CC-éC-m

gen.sg.

*CéC-C-s

*CC-éC-s

*CC-C-és

loc.sg.

*CéC-C

*CC-éC

*CC-éC

Note that in these paradigms there is a one to one correlation between the 

presence of the full grade vowel and the place of the accent, which speaks in 

favor of a historical connection between the two.

11 Consequences

It has been noted before that the proterodynamic inflection is mainly found 

with neuter words, whereas the hysterodynamic inflection occurs almost 

only with non-neuter words.

38

 is seems to point to an original comple-

mentary distribution. If this is correct, we can reduce the number of ablaut-

accent patterns even further. We now only have to distinguish between a 

static pattern (which includes neuters as well as non-neuter nouns) and a 

mobile pattern (which was proterodynamic when the noun is neuter and 

hysterodynamic when the noun is non-neuter).

Neuter

Static

Mobile

nom.sg. CéC

-C

CéC

-C

acc.sg.

CéC

-C

CéC

-C

gen.sg.

CéC

-C

-s

CC

-éC -s

loc.sg.

CéC

-C

CC

-éC

Non-neuter

Static

Mobile

nom.sg. CéC

-C

CéC

-C

acc.sg.

CéC

-C

-m

CC

-éC -m

gen.sg.

CéC

-C

-s

CC

-C

-és

loc.sg.

CéC

-C

CC

-éC

e hypothesis that the proterodynamic and the hysterodynamic paradigms 

are both representatives of a single underlying mobile paradigm, is support-

ed by the fact that the nom.sg. form, *CéC-C, and the loc.sg. form, *CC-éC, 

are identical in shape in both paradigms.

38     Beekes 1985: 167–171.

@ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2013

---

Alwin Kloekhorst

126

e exact origins of these ablaut patterns must lie in pre-Proto-Indo-

European times, and it would go beyond the scope of this paper to speculate 

on these. Yet, a few predictions can be made: the difference between static vs. 

mobile inflection was probably dependent on the phonetic shape of the root, 

whereas the difference between the proterodynamic and the hysterodynamic 

inflection must have been due to the morphologic / syntactic differences be-

tween neuter and non-neuter words.

References

Beekes, R. S. P. 1985. The origins of the Indo-European nominal inflection. 

Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.

Beekes, R. S. P. 1995. Comparative Indo-European linguistics: An introduction. 

Amsterdam & Philadelphia (PA): Benjamins.

Clackson, J. 2007. Indo-European linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press.

Fortson IV, B. W. 2004. Indo-European language and culture. An introduction. 

Oxford: Blackwell.

Friedrich, J. 1952. Hethitisches Wörterbuch. Kurzgefaßte kritische Sammlung 

der Deutungen hethitischer Wörter. Heidelberg: Winter.

Hajnal, I. 1995. Der lykische Vokalismus. Methode und Erkenntnisse der ver-

gleichenden anatolischen Sprachwissenschaft, angewandt auf das Vokalsy-

stem einer Kleincorpussprache. Graz: Leykam.

Kloekhorst, A. 2008. Etymological dictionary of the Hittite inherited lexicon. 

Leiden & Boston: Brill.

Kloekhorst, A. 2011. e accentuation of the PIE word for ‘daughter’. In Tij-

men Pronk & Rick Derksen (eds.), Accent matters (Studies in Slavic and 

General Linguistics 37), 235–243. Amsterdam & New York (NY): Rodopi.

Kloekhorst, A. Forthcoming. Hittite ‘water’. To appear in The heart of the 

matter (Fs. J. J. S. Weitenberg). See also www.kloekhorst.nl.

Kortlandt, F. 1975. Slavic accentuation: A study in relative chronology. Lisse: 

Peter de Ridder.

Kortlandt, F. 1986. Review of Bemerkungen zu den Reflexen indo germanischer 

Dentale im Tocharischen. Bibliotheca Orientalis 43 (Innsbrucker Beiträ-

ge zur Sprachwissenschaft 42) by P. P. Anreiter (Innsbruck: Institut für 

Sprachwissenschaft, 1984). 557–560.

Kortlandt, F. 2001. The Indo-Uralic verb. www.kortlandt.nl.

@ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2013

---

Indo-European nominal ablaut patterns: The Anatolian evidence 127

Kortlandt, F. 2009. Balto-Slavic accentuation revisited. www.kortlandt.nl. 

Kroonen, G. 2007. On the ablaut of Gr. νέφος, Skt. ámbhas- and Lat. nimbus 

‘rain cloud’. Paper presented at the 4th Indo-European Colloquium Lei-

den–Münster. Leiden, May 7–8, 2007.

Kuiper, F. B. J. 1942. Notes on Vedic noun-inflexion (Mededeelingen der Neder-

landsche Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeeling Letterkunde, Nieuwe 

Reeks 5, 4). Amsterdam: Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen.

Meier-Brügger, M. 2002. Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft. Berlin & New 

York (NY): Walter de Gruyter.

Melchert, H. C. 1994. Anatolian historical phonology. Amsterdam & Atlanta 

(GA): Rodopi.

Neu, E. 1980. Studien zum endungslosen „Lokativ“ des Hethitischen. Inns-

bruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.

Pedersen, H. 1926. La cinquième déclinaison latine (Historisk-Filologiske 

Meddelelser udgivne af det Kgl. Danske Videnskabernes Selskab XI, 5). 

København: Høst.

Pinault, G.-J. 2007. A star is born: A “new” PIE *-ter-suffix. In A. J. Nuss-

baum (ed.), Verba docenti: Studies in historical and Indo-European lin-

guistics presented to Jay H. Jasanoff by students, colleagues, and friends, 

271–279. Ann Arbor (MI): Beech Stave. 

Puhvel, J. 1997. Hittite etymological dictionary. Vol. 4 Words beginning with K. 

Berlin & New York (NY): Mouton de Gruyter.

Rieken, E. 1999. Untersuchungen zur nominalen Stammbildung des Hethiti-

schen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Rieken, E. 2002. Review of: S. Kimball. Hittite historical phonology. Kraty los 

47. 96–103.

Rix, H. 1976. Historische Grammatik des Griechischen. Darmstadt: Wissen-

schaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Schindler, J. 1967. Tocharische Miszellen. Indogermanische Forschungen 72. 

239–245.

Schindler, J. 1975a. L’apophonie des thèmes indo-européens en -r/n. Bulletin 

de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 70. 1–10.

Schindler, J. 1975b. Zum Ablaut der neutralen s-Stämme des Indogermani-

schen. In H. Rix (ed.), Flexion und Wortbildung, 259–267. Wiesbaden: 

Reichert.

Szemerényi, O. 1956. Latin rēs and the Indo-European long-diphthong stem 

nouns. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 73. 167–202.

@ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2013

---

Alwin Kloekhorst

128

de Vaan, M. A. C. 2003. The Avestan vowels. Amsterdam & New York (NY): 

Rodopi.

Wackernagel, J. 1896. Altindische Grammatik, 1. Lautlehre. Göttingen: Van-

denhoeck und Ruprecht.

@ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2013