lehmann - proto-indo-european phonology (1983)

8/13/2019 Lehmann - Proto-Indo-European Phonology (1983)

1/68

P R O T O I N D O E U R O P E ~ P H O N O L O G Yn overview over recent research

September 1983

Foreword. This essay surveys recent work on thephonology of PrototndoEuropean with a focus on the theoreticalassumptions underlying i t Other part icipants in the project arewriting essays on the phonoloQy of i t s subbranches so that th is

s not t reated here The version produced nere is preliminaryIn the course of preparation i t s aims often seemed out ot reachPublication is enormous making a comPlete survey impossible inthe space available. The diversity of views adds to the feelingof inadequacy. In spi te t shortcomings the sketch may ass is tothers in identifying problems ot interest and in locatingefforts to deal with those Problems as well as in providing aguide to the scholarship I will be grateful tor comments whichwill make the essay more useful in adding scope to tnematerials ci ted by correct ing inadequacies and shortcomings ofrepresentat ion or interpretat ion.

Typographic note: Because a sizable number is beingrun off copies of this survey are being produced as standardcomputer output. Diacrit ics and underlines avai lable on suchprintout obscure characters. Accordin Y the devices used tosignal special matter such as t i t l e s citat ions and so on are


2/68

- indicated with especial ly chosen devices: angled b r c ~ e t s areused for ci ta t ions; C PS for t i t l e s out not in thebibliography, where however n o n v i l ~ o l e characters aretranscribed or otherwise modified; diacr i t ics when notessential to i l lus t ra te a point, have been omitted, I tmay be useful to point out here that the representation, Panini,has the authorization of even small desk dict ionaries l ikewebster s Collegiate; other wellknown names l ike Kurvlowtcz(not yet in the Collegiate) are inclujed nere on a similarbasts, Only a ew pages With many citations are producedwith the more expensive laser printer and the character setdeveloped for the Gothic etymological dictionary project ,

1, Principal areas of advance, Major contributions ofthe past five decades nave modified eKtens1vely the views onProtolndoEuropean phonology presented in the standard handbooksbV arugmann (18971916, 1904), Hirt (192137, 1939) and Meillet(1937), These contributions result on the one hand from adifferent approach to the p ~ r e n t languaqe, on the other from twotarreaching theories, the laryngeal tneory and the glottaliCtheory, of which esoecial ly the f i r s t has implications for thetreatment of suorasegmentals.

The change in aoproach took hold slowly but now iswidely evident, tndoEuropeanists nave come to assume that theycan propose several chronological stages ot ProtolndnEuropean,The Phonological system of tne Protolanguage is no longer heldto be an inventnrv of elements determined largely y thecomparative method CCM from tne s y s t e ~ proposed for the varioussubbranches, Instead, a series of stages of ProtoIndoEuropeanare prooosed, stages show nq modifications which are treated


3/68

3

primarily by the laryngeal and 9lot tal ic theories,The advances have led to massive Publication. Measured

against the total amount Of publication in l inguist ics dndphilology i t may seem minute. Nevertheless, so much has beenpublished that a brief survey cannot nope to encompass al l of i t .Total accounting would require a h n d o o o ~ larQer than Bechtel sof 1892, If w set 1935 as the s tar t of our attention, we aredealing with a period more than twice as long as Bechtel s , andof much more massive support for scnolarship. Bechtel s majorreferences are central European, This area may s t i l l be theheartland for lndoEuropean studies, though i t has brought aboutresearch elsewhere, as in southern and eastern Europe, in India.Japan and the country sponsoring the present w o r ~ such a broa1extent of IndoEuropean studies precludes p r o ~ u c t i o n of acomprehensive survey l ike Bechtel s, much as the scholarshiP othis day precluded preparation of an elegant tool for researchl ike von Bander s of 1883, Instead, a survey today may best becharacterized as an overview with references to selected workwhich in turn provides further references to the huoe amount Ofpublication,

mong these works are the organs of scholarship wnichl i s t current publications. Even mention of them miQht extend thepatience of the editor ot this votume, thougn one can scarcely


4/68

avoid reference to journals l ike DIE SPRACHE and KRAfYLOS orbibliographical sources liKe 8IBLIOGRAPHIE L I N G U I S T I ~ U and theModern Languaqe Association Biblio1raphy. In addition, thereports of conferences sponsored by the IndogermanischeGesellschaft and of others less frequent, include bibliographicalreferences in their statements on advances. Of the conferencereports, that edited by Winter, with i t s extensive bibliograPhybY Polome remains one of the most imPortant for JndoEuropeanphonology (1965). Seebold's book on the resonants provides acomParable survey of scholarshiP while i l lustra t ing tnrouqh i t sres tr ic t ion to the two resonants w yl the lncreasinQ magnitudeof Phonological data and Problems ~ t h i t s mastery (1972). Inhis publications, Gamkrelidze includes references of furtherin teres t as in the t ranslat ion by Boeder 1982. Merlinqen'sbibliography must be determined from reference$ in the text andthe footnotes (1983). Bomhard includes a comprehensivebibliography (1983:293315),

The work l i s ted tn these and many other references hasl e f t vir tual ly no segments of the system in the standardhandbooks untouched, Modifications in the vowel and resonantsets of that system are required by the laryngeal theory, inaddition to the added phonemes; the glot ta l lc theory requiresmodifications of the obstruents, and With the laryngeal theorybrings about reconsideration ot the supraseqmental system

_ _________ -------- ---


5/68

5

The renewed interest in the Nostratic theory a1sorequires at tent ion. This interest s t e ~ s largely frompublications of I l l1cSvityc C19o8, 1971, 1975); see alsoRas us sen 1 9 7 4 ) and J amp r e h 1 9 7 6> Co n par i son ofProtolndoEuropean with Oralie and ultimately Nostratic leadsproPonents of the theory to assume an obstruent set c o n s i s t i n ~ ofvoiceless stop, voiced stop and glottal tzed stoP as well as threelaryngeals, To the extent permitted y the scanty materials,assumption of a Nostratic lanryuaqe familY permits application ofthe M to ProtoIndoEuropean i t se l f , The Phonological systemproposed for ProtoIndoEuropean under the assumption resemblesthat posited unrter the laryngeal and glotta l lc theories,

2, Theoretical views underlying the conclusions tn thestandard handbooks and subsequent wor(, While the distance inyears may have leveled differences in the theoretical views ofBrugmann, Hirt ~ n ~ e i l l e t we regard tnese as virtuallYequivalent. I characterize their theoretical position asnatural-systematic. In support of the characterizat ion na tura lwe may observe their treatment Of resonants as separate ent i t ieswhen consonantal, vocalic and also l o n ~ vocalic, They maintainthis view even though Sievers had observed tl\e alternationbetween consonantal and vocalic real izat ion of the resonantsaccording to the environment. In support of tne labelsystemat ic we may recal l the Positing of six long vocalic


6/68

6

resonants including long vocalic or of four (voiceless andvoiced, aspirated and unaspirated) interdentals, regardless ofthe lack of evidence for them. This theoretical approach led tothe assumption of a larqe number of phonoloq1cal elements (e.g.Brugmann 1897:9293).

The Phonemic approach, which involves classif icat ion yfunction as well as phonetic properties, brought about a strongreduction in number of elements. Meillet already assumed onlY twosets of palatovelars, a position forcefullY maintained bYSteensland (1973). nd in two powerfUllY reasoned papers,Edgerton Posited six resonants, with vocalic and consonantalallOPhones, as well as a third alloPhone which in his notationconsists of a vocalic plus a c o n s o n ~ n t a l constituent (1934,1943), This third allophone removed ~ u c h of the hasts for schwasecundum J t also led to c o n f l i c t i n ~ dnalyses, such as

t u r t e v a n t ~ s with i t s maintenance of schwa secundum consonantalresonant corresronding to Edgerton s third allophone(1942:3132>. I t should also be noted that some scholarsinterpret the Sievers law phenomena morphophonemtcally withoutset t ing up the compact system of ProtoIndoEuropean resonantsproposed by Edgerton. Whatever the reaction of individualscholars to detai ls no analysts of tne PrototndoEuropeanphonological system after 1943 can posit the arrays of resonantstound in Brugmann and Hirt.


7/68

7

Of the methods applied in historical studies, thecomparative method was adequate to propose the modifications inthe resonant system. I t was also an adequate basis for thelaryngeal theory as proposed by Kurvlotcz. His decisiveargument rested on c o ~ p r t s o n of tne elements of Hitt i te withdistinctive patterns in other dialects, as in Hitt i te ,Greek . But the comparative method in a restr ic ted sensefavored bY many scholars does not permit the assumption of morethan one laryngeal. such scholars firmly maintain a phonologicalsvstem for ProtoIndoEuropean witn one laryngeal cszemereny11970, 1980, though he posits for late ProtolndoEuropeanvirtuallY the ent i re panoPlY Of Bruqmann 1897, even omitting thegrudgingly acknowledged single laryngeal).

any scholars on the other nand place equal credence inthe method of internal reconstruction (tR). Their we Qhtiestexample of i t s re l iabi l i ty derives directly from the evidence inHit t i te supporting Saussure's conclusions of 1879. Strongrel iance on lR is also evident in the 935 monographs ofKurylowicz and aenven ste, which toqether with Edgerton'sar t ic les introduced a new Phase in tne study of IndoEuropeanphonology.

Other evidence was taken f r o ~ penetrating analysis Ofdata in the welleXPlored dialects , d ta we may characterize as


8/68

8

residues f ter explanation of the major phonological andmorphological patterns. Such analysis w s carried out by carefuland wellinformed IndoEuropeanists. Examples are wilhelmSchulze's fundamental paper on tne long diphthongs (1885, 1966),KUiPer's detailed analysts t the nasalintlxed verbs (1937), them ny treatments of Germanic long (Streitberg 1936:369),Arnold's not yet surpassed treatment of Vedic meter (1905).Benveniste, Kurylowicz and others drew heavily on authori tat ivetreatments of fundamental problems In restat ing the patterns tthe ProtolndoEuropean sound system. Subsequent scnolars whodeal with the problems must acquaint themselves with thosee r l ier studies i f they wish to achieve recngnition for their owntormulations. IndoEuropeanists often assume those studies to beselfevident fundamental works, so tnat current scholars m yreceive l i t t l e assistance tn determining them, as a glance at thescanty references in any t Kurvlowtcz's publications willindicate.

Having based their innovative t o r ~ u l t i o n s on respectede r l ier worK Kurylow cz and Benveniste were wellreeeived.Debrunner, for example, published a very s y ~ p t h e t i c revtew ofthe proposed revisions in the phonological system (1929, 1937,1938). The l i s t of other reviewers indicates that by the t t ~ e ofworld war IT there w s strong support for the revised system.


9/68


10/68

10The techniques applied in the past ~ u s t be supplemented

with conclusions obtained in typoloq cal s tudies . These combineresul ts from reasoned applicat ion of the observations achieved inl inguist ic study. Rather tnan random select ion amongobservations made in indiVidual l a n g u a ~ e s through typologicalstudy a l l s u e ~ observations are coordinated in the attempt todetermine the s ta t i s t ica l ly ~ o s t probable s i tuat ion for anyl inguis t ic event or process. The considerable attention inrecent years to phonological tyPology obviates any need to ci tedetai ls here.

In applying theoretical approaches w invite thepar t ic ipat ion of generative phonologists, as Dressler nasproPosed, while indicat ing taSkS that Phonologists expect ofIndo uroPeanists (1972, 1980), Yet nuch of generative phonologyhas been taxonomic, recasting known facts in accordance withgenerative ohonology Procedures. rne j a ta both in Phonology andmorphology, have often been described, and analyzed throughtheoret ica l procedures of the time, If application of generativephonological techniques to ablaut and other morPhopnonemicproblems provides n w insights, they would indeed be welcomeBut i t must be noted that these p r o b l e ~ s involve the assumotionof successive s t ~ q e s of ProtoIndo urooean in cnanqe.

Generative Phonologists mlgnt also contribute to


11/68

11

InooEuropean studies by examining the a t t e ~ p t s of Brugmann'searlY years to interpret I n d o E u r o p e ~ n phonology f r o ~ amorPhological point of view. 8oth Brugmann and H rt in theirearlY work tor example, distinguished the o> alternating ~ l t from "original" . t woUld be far more useful to havethat work and the reasons tor i t s abandonment examined byspecia l is ts in generative phonology tnan to have wellknown datareformulated in an idiosyncratic notation.

t is also important that such undertakings make use ofthe most accurate earl ier understanding of the data. Dresslerand Gross, in i l lus t ra t ing the approach with attention to tnepalatovelar ser ies (1972), l imit the value of theirdemonstration by posi t ing three members in contrast withwidespread assumption of two.

The force of proposed conclusions depends equa11v onapplication of a l l methods developed in 11nquistic study andcontrol of the data. In dealing with the limited data of earlytexts the use of every available method is essent ia l . But methodsare of l i t t l e use i f the data aPPlied bV i t s proponents areinadequate or inaccurate.

3. The laryngeal theory. O e v e l o p ~ e n t ot the larynQealtheory, 1n wnich much was accomPlished tnl t la l lY to clarifYunsolved Problems in IndoEuropean ~ r a m m a r ~ a s followed for a


12/68

12time by disappointments. some resulted from inadequacies ofdata; Mycenaean Greek, especially with i ts tantal izing tlnsolVed,residual symbols, seemed to promise a second subbranch withwritten evidence for laryngeals. So far the hoPe is unfulfi l led.

Other disappointments relate to inajequacies of theory.The unambiguous data for laryngeals are confined to cuneiformsymbols represented with Palate g> in t rans l i te ra t ion.Even these are not entirely unambiguous; some instances of h>represent reflexes of ent i t ies other than the laryngeals, rheproblems are compounded bY continued lack of information on theprecise source of the Hitt i te scr ip t The uncertainties blockadvance in interpreting single versus dual representations of; the problem is sufficientlY imPortant to permit a briefsummary.

y S t u r t e v a n t ~ s interPretat ion Unfortunately labeledin an atavis t ic retention ot a dubious 19th century use of thelabel ~ l a w ) , the treatment of h> was equated with that of p tk> When medial, these frequently contrast single verstts dualrepresentation with the single representing voiced obstruent, thedUal a voiceless; see, however, Jucquois 1972:86128), and also

~ a t k i n s 1975:37576), who supports the position of Sturtevant.If applicable to this practice provides written evidence t rtwo different laryngeals. Support or rejection of S t u r t e v a n t ~ s


13/68

13

interpretat ion requires thorougn application of the philologicaltechniques developed in the 19th century and al l availableevidence on the background of the early contacts betweenAnatolian and the users t the A ~ k a d i a n scr ipt from w h ~ m theyadopted it To ia te the evidence is inadequate to resolve theissue (Ketler 1970:9295 and ~ t h e r s l .

Further, no one has provided a defini t iveinterpretat ion of scriPtio Plene for in t t la l vowels, as in i s ~ (Sturtevant 195112324), If such representationreflects glot ta l stop, Anatolian provides written evidence for athird larvn9eal,The scantY Palate materials may provide sUPPorttor assuming script io plene as notation for larynqeals. w a t ~ n shas POinted out alternation with in severalmorPhological categories (1975: 36061): the scr ipt io plenewriting here may well have been introduced to represent thelaryngeal. watkins himself interprets one such pattern as1ndicat1n9 accent (367), A comPrehensive e x a ~ i n a t i o n of theevidence by Hart (1980) has convinced some that plene writinQindicates accent; the argumentation that Hart uses in oppositionto the ear l ier interpretat ion may however be equallY applied tohis own. o evidence has yet been provided to demonstrate thatthe sequences in question do not provide support for a larynQeal,

The s c ~ n t and problematic Anatolian tntormatlon nas

--------- --


14/68

14brought about heavy reliance on the otner subbranches, whereevidence is not unambiguous, Moeover since the evidence istaken from patterns which include m ~ n v thP greatestdiff i ul t ies in IndoEuropean g r a m ~ a r such as the original longvowels or the Germanic strong Class VI verbs with long al ternate e x p l a n ~ t i o n s are also offered bY scholars who do notaccePt the theory, Even reference to ~ a n y such Proposals isimpossible within the scope of this essay, To resolve suchproblems the evidence must be scrutinized thoroughlY by rigorousaPPlication of l inguist ic methods, The choice of metnods used to

t n t e r ~ r e t the evidence therefore eniovs great importance inevaluating the data apposite for the laryngeal theory, Methodsand their application therefore provide the basis tor reviewinghere briefly work on the laryngeal tneory and i t s impact onlndoEuropean grammar.

3,1 Some scholars maintain sole application of thecomparative method, positing at best only one laryngeal.Presentation of this Position is available in publications ofszemerenyi (1967; 1970:11423, 13031), szemerenyi'spresentation ts especiallY Vdluable because of his expl ic i targumentation for his posit ion.

A strong statement in favor of the preeminence of thecomparative method is available in the publications of Lightfoot,


15/68

15

such as 1983. I t is ironic Lhat Liqhtfoot selects the Lachmannaw phenomena to demonstrate the predominant usefulness of the

comparative method, inasmuch as he accepts a 1uestionableinterpretat ion of the data. The other examples given in hisstudy provide i l lus t ra t ions of the danger inherent in puttingstock in a selected method rather than acquiring a k n o ~ l e g e tthe data.

3.2 Whlle relying heavilY on the comparative method,other scholars observe the systematic approach to thephonological system noted in Brugmann. For tnese scholars thelaryngeals must be outf i t ted wtth an array of members much asare Brugmann's interdentals . The possibi l i t ies are enormous, astn the ventures of Martinet (1955:2t234l. Puhvel and Lindemanare somewhat more restrained. Lindeman's array of laryngealsconsists of s i x ~ labeled wtth [ ~ l the sub-numerals < 2 3> intwo sets one of which is subdotted (1970:101).

3.3 A third group incorPorates the findings of thecomparative method and internal reconstruction with analysis Ofvarious IndoEuropean phenomena that had been well explored,Following the t radi t ion of Saussure anj Meilletf this groupincludes Benveniste as one of i t s rigorous representatives, erecal l briefly some of those longstud1ed phenomena. They includemorPhological, syntactic and lexical as well as phonoloQ Cal


16/68

..

16

data.3.3.1 Amonq phonological data the most important ~ a y

well be those involving long vowels not or1;1nat1nq in ablaut. Inaddition to S a u s s u r ~ s analysis of tnem, they were intensivelyscrut inized, as in the monograph of ~ a n 1 o w (1879), in successivepUblications of Hlrt (1900, 192137 11:3136), and 1n treatmentsbV the best i n f o r ~ e d and most reliable IndoEuropean1sts, such asJ. Schmidt C1889J Schulze (1885) and ~ a c k e r n a g e l (1896:8092).Found in monophthongal heavy bases, such as < ~ h e e > ~ p l a c e , ~ s t a n d , ~ Q i v e , as well as in diphthongalbases, such as PIE ~ s u c k l e , s t ea l and

~ s m a l l , their treatment under varytn; accentual andmorphological conditions sets them clearly apart from long vowelsresult ing from ablaut. By aPPlication of internal reconstruction,the original vowels whether standing before obstruents orresonantsin the so-called long d Phtnongsmav be reconstructedas eX eY eZ> (using here labels f r o ~ symbolic logic forvariables>.

The variants of oriqinal long vowels under lack ofstress , of which the most prominent ts tradit ionallY symboltzeabY schwa, are generally accepted as additional evidence tor1aryngea1s. Yet the place of schwa in the phonological s y s t ~ m hasremained a problem solved differently according to the

- -


17/68

7theoret ical views of the scholars concerned. some assumevocalized variants o laryngeal , comparable to vocalizedresonants. Others assume a r e d u c e ~ v o ~ e l laryngeal. Whateverthe analysis of the SYllabic nucleus i t se l f i t s relat ion to thethreefold reflexes in Greek, as in ,provides further p r o b l e ~ s Some scholars ascribe tne threecontrasting vowels to the three contrasting l a r v n ~ e a l s concernedCcf especial ly aeekes 1969). Others assume one reflex,subsequently modified by the vowel under s t ress Gk by and so on. Others totallY reject schwa, assuminginstead merqer of the unstressed nucleus with a short vowel,typically < > in IndoIrantan, in the other dlalectSJ seeBurrow 1979.

Another pattern associated With research on laryngeals,the prothetic vowel of Greek, has been reexamined at length byBeekes (1969>. rlis scrutiny a t f l r ~ s the assumption of twolaryngeals, plus the possibilitY of a th ird . Although one wouldprefer more mature presentation ot opposed positions, such asthose of szemereny1 (Beekes 1969:27174), such monographs ~ 1 t hdetailed examination t data cited in support of positedlaryngeal are highly welcome.

3.3.2 Of morpholoQlcal data the sanskri t < n > ~ i n f l x e dverbs are amo g the most imPortant, both because of the


18/68

18

in terPretat ion provided by the laryngeal theory and the evidencet r the position of laryngeals in the ProtoIndoEuropean system.y the theory the three classes of infixe1 verbs for tne

synchronically based Indic grammarians are reduced to one.v , e.g. csunoti> 'press out '

VII. , e.g. f reesIX , e.g. ' c leanses '

The laryngeal theory simPlifies the morphology byclarifying the basis for this transparently complementarydis t r ibut ion. The tnree Sanskrit classes resulted fromphonological realignments of one ear l ier class. Clarification ofsuch morphological PrOblems rather th n purely Phonologicaldiscussion occupied the primary attention ot Kurylowicz in 1927.

such Clarification continues as p r i ~ a r y supoort tor thelaryngeal theory. The support is especial ly impressive whenassumption of laryngeals on the basis of one pattern, e.g. 4 inTable I , accounts also for another pattern, e.g. s The tneoryaccounts neatlY for patterning l ike that i l lus t ra ted in Table I .

Many problems nave remained intractable, such as tnenumber of larynqeals. To account tor the lack of retlex inHitt i te cognates with vocalism in some words as well as i t spresence in others, u r v l o w i c ~ assume1 two eoloring


19/68

191arvngea1s for ProtoIndoEuropean (1935:25455), Usinq tneestablished convention of representing these with H the tour areas follows, with phonetic ident i f icat ion proposed oy Sapir: ,glot ta l stop; , voiceless velar f r ica t ive ; , voiced velarf r ica t ive with labia l iza t ion; , glot ta l f r ica t ive (h), Manyscholars fa i l to include , in disregard of the Hit t i tepat terning.

Other patterning is even more tenuous. since SansKritClass VII verbs have an obstruent suff ix , and Class IX verbs an from laryngeal, i t seemed a t t rac t ive to derlve Class Vverbs from laryngeals associated with vowels, that is alaryngeal with labia l coart tculat ion. y Linguist ic Societypaper of 1952 sugqest ng such a source, as Proposed ear l ier bysweet, was never published. SubsequentlY Martinet assumedseveral such laryngeals (1955), followed by Adrados (1961) andLindeman (1970). Convincinq evidence for that laryngeal hass t i l l not been ~ a d e available; see C o w ~ t l l s c o ~ m e n t s(1965:7879); subsequent Publicat ions vary in the ir analysis ofthat laryngeal, i t s allophones and ref lexes.

Strong support for three laryngeals H1, H2, H3l wasasserted by Beekes 1969 on the basis of GreeK reflexes e a oJ inunstressed posit ion. Kortlandt asserts f la t ly (19B4): "Since thepublicat ion of R. s. P. Beekes' monograph on the development ot

--------


20/68

20

the ProtolndoEuroPean laryngeal& in GreeK (1969), the t r ip lerepresentation of 'schwa' is a solved problem," adding:"Lindeman's l i t t l e book C19B2 has convince; me that nothing canbe regained from reopening the issue." In this way Kort1an1trepresents a firm espousal of three 1arynqea1s1 unfortunatelY hedoes not c o m ~ e n t on the evidence w h l c ~ led Kurylowtcz, Sapir andsturtevant among others to assume four,

St i l l other patterns of the dialects were explained onthe basis of the laryngeal theory, ~ o n Q them is the eleganttheory of Germanic strong verbs presented in ProKosch'sposthumous grammar Of 1939, 6y this the early Germanic systemwas arranged from parallel bases, here given with Roman numeralsindicating tne la ter classes:

Monophthongal simple: xv vM o n o p h t h o n ~ a l laryngeal: VI

DlPhthonJal simple l DiPhthongal + laryngeal VII

O a t ~ supporting such a syste are l imited, Very few"laryngeal bases" with reflexes in Classes VI and VII can bedetermined. Even a clear laryngeal base l ike was restructured, presumablY in preGermanic to , wttnnewly created present. The tew ascertainable lonqdiphthongal bases of Class VII are equallY Problematic, thouQhsome have support nq coqnates, liKe in Lith .And ndoEuropeanists nave not been deeply sympathetic to


21/68

2proPosals of semantic shi f t in the early dialects , including thatfrom aspect to tense in Germanic verbal inflect ion, ThoughProkosch's tneory provides reasonej explanation of the Germanicstrong verb system, the laryngeal theory nas never achievedadequate authority to uphold his explanation coupled with i t sbold semantic proposal. In recent treatments of theredUPlicating verbs (Voyles 1981:12045 and van c o e t s e ~ 1983,with references to his e r l ier PUblications> Prokosch's proposaliS disregarded and the preteri te vowel lonq derived bY

reanalysis with no attention to the semantic Problems.Otner applications of the laryngeal theory to diff icul t

problems may be found in Watkins 1975 for ~ n a t o l 1 a n Kortlandt1978 and in numerous l te r publications for Baltic and Slavic,ConnallY 1979, 1980 tor Germanic, Kuiper 1978 and Beekes t981 forIranian, Peters 1981 for Greek. ~ n a t may well be the mostsurPrising feature of l l these recent s t u ~ i e s is the acceptanceof laryngeal reflexes into the dialects , for Kortlanjt well intoearlY Balt ic, Slavic and other dialects . After the periodextending f r o ~ 1927 to roughlY 1960, i t was widely assumed thatmany unexplained phenomena treated as reflexes ot laryngealsshould be accounted t r in other ways; some of course maintainthis posit ion.

3,3.3 The major pattern in ~ h i c h the laryngeal theory


22/68

22

has been applied to syntax nave to 1o with the neuter plural , In1989 J Schmidt accounted tor the use of neuter plural subjectshaving singular verbs in Greek by equating i t s with tnat ofthe feminine singular, identifying i t s earl ier use as collect ive;see amonQ others watKins 1975:36268, who sets forth expl ici t lythe evidence for the laryngeal collect ive suffix, especially inAnatolian, y the laryngeal theory tne earl ier collect ive ~ r ~ e rwas , the fourth laryngeal t Kurvlowicz,

A similar explanation solves a congruence pattern inGermanic, specificallY in Old saxon. Here congruence moditers oftwo or more individuals of different sex are placed in tne neuterplural . the old syntactic pattern extenied from use of t r subjects to modifiers tn collect ive constructions generallyLehmann 1957>. y the laryngeal theory a semantic as well as a

phonological explanation is provided. A recent study has onceagain attempted a phonological exolanatton of the Old Saxonsyntactic pattern with no consideration of semantics (Htersche1980),

3,3.4 Some of the most impressive evidence forSaussure s positing of ~ s o n n t e s coeffic ients came from lexicalevidence. Such evidence is also prominent in the early ar t iclesof Kurylow1cz and in his 1935 monograPh. But Benveniste smonograPh of the same year has enjoyed greater receptivitY for

- -


23/68

23

i t s presentation of the lexical f r a m e ~ o r now generally accePtedin IndoEuropean studies. Based on i n v e s t i ~ a t i o n s from theearl iest attent ion to lexical elements in t ~ e 19th century,subsequently bY Schleicher and Hirt tnrougn 1ncreas1nQ refinementas in the works of Schr jnen (1921) a n ~ Meillet (1937), theIndo-European theory of the root received i t s most elegantformulation in Benveniste 1935.

Canonical root structure provides the possibi l i tY ofpositing laryngeal& in i t i a l ly , as in PIE < l e ad ,and finallY as in < s tand . In roots withobstruent as the other consonant, the posited laryngeal may beidentif ied, ei ther by vowel colOring or bY aspiration of avoiceless stop, as in the root for s tan1 .

In roots with resonant, however, such as SKt 'move', the laryngeal is dl f t icul t to identify; of the possiblein i t ia l consonants we propose HJ> on the basis of G .

S i m i l ~ r l y i t is often diff icul t to 11ent1fV a laryngeal s u t f i ~ e dto a root. Here the problem results from the possibi l i ty ofsuffixing a number of elements to an IndoEuropean root, as toPIE rub , PokornY 1959:4394n: ' rubapart 'C458), ' rub apar t , further crush , ~ r i n d (459), < ' anoint ,smear' (457), < < g h r e H l - ~ > ' rub hard, damage'


24/68

24(46062) .

Just as different resonants or obstruents ~ a y beaffixed to a root, so may different laryngeals. Amon examplesare Sanskrit verbs inflect ing in both the 7th and 9th classes,such as , c u t . ~ h e n tne suffixes are1aryngea1s, they can only e diStinguished in some t theirreflexes, such as the normal grade, an then only in somedialects , x a ~ p l e s are given n Table I I .

In many patterns on the otner han the reflexes cannotbe distinguished. Examples may be pursued in handbooks l ikePokorny 1959, as tor toP (1959:57477), grow(577>, qr tno (71619), th ink with asin Doric Gk memorial and as in OH despise (72628). There is no res tr ic t ion on use of any

larynqeal as suffix to a root. Since ~ n y of the reflexes oflarynqeals merge, the laryngeal suffiXed in any given form maynot be ident i f iable.

3,4 Requirements for acceptance of furtheraPPlications. Unless uncover furtner texts containingunambiguous evidence for laryngeals, r e s l d ~ e s provide the besthope of advances in determining the esr11er phonological systemof ProtoIndoEuropean. In the nature t scient if ic study suchresidues have been examined earl ier : in s u e ~ examination scholars


25/68

25

nave Proposed explanations tor t h e ~ and continue to Proposeexplanations, 1th or without the s s u ~ p t i o n of laryngeals. AnyproPoSed exPlanation accordingly requires b u t t r e s s i n ~ from al lpossible sources: related phonological evidence, morphologicalevidence, evidence from patterning, both in the dialect concernedand also in other dialects .

An I l lustrat ion May be taKen from attempts to accountfor Greek z> in words l ike 'VoKe'. Ry the mostplausible hypothesis before knowledge of laryngeal , they werederived from an earl ier palatal gl ide, differing in some way fromthe consonantal variant of Cil. such hypotheses are empty,simPlY referr ing the problem to an earl ter Period, use t sucn ahYPOthesis is also a source of the many phonological elements inthe standard handbooks.

In his very brief at tent ion to the laryngeals, Sapirrelated them and their reflexes to other Phenomena of thephonological system, (1938:24874), rne approach s admiraole,bOth for solving the Problem t in i t ia l z> and tor examining anyotner problems. For in the absence of direct cognate elements,such as the in i t ia l consonants of Skt , Gk , L ~ t, N , our best support for proposing laryngeals inthe treatment of any Phenomena l ies in the relationship of thosephenomena with others in the lanquaqe and in related languages.

----------


26/68

26

s Beekes 1969:9395.Three such bi ts of evidence are pertinent for the Greek

words with = PIF one in Greek, the others in Germanicand Inct1c. The ~ r e e k evidence consists in other sources of notably voiced s tops+ [y), as in < [dyJ as in Skt, and in < [qyJ, cf. ~ e g a s > Qreat , I f thepertinent words had etyma with Voiced larynqeal [yJ, theirdevelopment is paral le l ; see Schwyzer 193953 1:33032. Theassumption on the basis of the Greek Patterning that thislaryngeal was voiced does not seem excessive.

Sanskrit sandhi phenomena provide evidence for in i t ia llaryngeal in . Anj the Alemannic contrastbetween retention of a palatal glide in reflexes of PIE such as yoke and i t s loss in reflexes with only ,such as cener> tha t one , provides further evidence for theassumption of a more extensive w o r ~ i n i t i a l element in the words as opoosed to the words, Moreover, the Alemannicpattern of retention of [ j ) supPorts assumption of incrementalvoiced elements,

Derivation of the pertinent f r o ~ then hasvarious kinds of support. The ear l ie r explanations, cited inSchwyzer, lack such support; yet subsequently other suchexplanations have been attempted, even through ascribing the


27/68

7Greek words to borrowing from a sPecific social group,

As noted earl ier , a complete review of proposalsconcerning laryngeal-related data m1Jht virtual ly be endless.Beekes (1969:9697) is concerned at lack of rebuttal for somesuch Proposals, examples of which are noted briefly here.Cowgill (1960:16466, 161 doubts the value of Vedic tor assuming an in i t ia l laryngeal on the root ,, He alsoprovides his own interpretat ion of Skt . Further, hepoints to OH year = Gk year as not inaccordance with my proposed rules, Since the loss of in i t ia l is found only in one Old High German dialect , the occurrenceof a form with in that dialect aay be the result of spreadtrom another dialect , The adverb < ln thisyear may be cited to i l lus t ra te the relat ively weak in i t i a l .See also Frisk 196072 111:191 on the disputed origin of Gk; data of uncertain explanation is scarcely ot great notewhen applied to account tor other data,

Rather than countereVidence, such statements merelyindicate the views and favored methods of the proponent, Hitt bind may well be related to Skt , though thederivatives l ike qt rd le are semantically closer toGk g t r t , gi rd le than to derivatives ofcsyat1>. And i f Gk ceela> is not related to s p e l t , no


28/68

8better exPlanation has been f o u ~ d (Chantraine 196880:408).

Tnese brief comments are not d e s i ~ n e d onlY toi l lUstrate the exte t of treatment for relat ively tew items orthe length required tor discussing fully the views ot otners.TheY also n d c a t ~ once again how tenuous our evidence i s Onemay consider the situation hoPeless and turn ones attent ionelsewhere. If one does attemot to reconstruct ear l ier stages ofProtolndoEurooean, including s t a ~ e s with laryngeals, evidencemust be assembled from al l dialects and that evidence ~ u s t beimpeccable and i t must be treated witn expl ici t use of availablemethods,

3,5 A specif ic hypothesis for the origin of some GreeK i l lus t ra tes the advantage Of identifying the laryngeal&phoneticallY. readily accept Saussures use of symools forunidentified coefficients, since his assumptions were basedsolely on use of internal reconstruction. rn view ot the s tateof Hit t i te studies in the 1930s we also understand the use ofsymbols without pnonetic content by Benveniste and Kurvlowicz.aut continued use of such sYmbols nampers understandlnQ of theIndoEuroPean Phonological system. l t is surelY preferable tofollow the lead of a l inguist l ike SaPir, who had investigatedother languages whiCh included P h o n o l o ~ t c a l elements withphonetic members articulated in the back of tne vocal t ract As


29/68

29Sapir noted such elements undergo s i ~ i l a r Phonologicaldevelopments t.n other language groups than the tndoEuropeanScholars positing laryngeals ~ a Y well follow his lead wnetner ornot they accept the tour symbolS he proposed given in TableII B Those hesitant to use Phonetic labels for laryngeals mayfind comparable objections to phonetic labels for theIndoEuropean obstruents f ter proposal of the glot t l ic theoryThe resulting reconstructions may come to resemble the formulaeof chemists rather tnan the representat ions of languages today

3 7 In sum acceptance of the laryngeal theory dependsheavily on views concerning l inguist ic methodology Scholars whores t r ic t thei r acceptance of methods to ~ accePt at best onelaryngeal . such scholars must also res t r ic t their concern forthe parent language V the comparative method alone one cannotreconstruct anything but tne l test stage ofProtoIndo European

On the ntner hand scholars receptive to IR as well asto CM and to conclusions based on general l inguis t ic studyaccept both the laryngeal theory and tne posslbil i tY ofreconstructing e r l ier stages of ProtoIndo EuropeanAcceptance of that possibilitY has le j to the proposal of tneglot t l ic theory.

4 the glot t l ic theory this term has been

- - . - - - - - - - -


30/68

30

introduced for hypotheses on the early lndoEuropean obstruentsYstem, These hypotheses prooose that the series of voiced stopsin that s y s t e ~ develooed from ear l ie r g lot ta l ic consonants.Moreover, the series represented with the symbols bh dh Qh Wh>iS taken by some scholars to be a set of voiced stops at the timewhen the obstruent system included glot ta l ic elements.

The primary scholars Proposing and developing theqlot ta l ic theory are Tamas Gamkrelidze and Vyacheslav Ivanov onthe one nand, Paul Hopperwho has returned to his interest insYntactic problems on the otner nan1, Their views differ indeta i l s . But tney agree in posit ing glot ta l lc consonants.

In considering tne qlOttaliC theory i t is i ~ p o r t n t torecal l that some ear l ie r scholars interpreted PIE hh dh gh gwh>as f r ica t ives not as voiced stops with glot tal increment,Statements of th is al ternate system are accessible through thereferences in Prokosch 1939:30304. That in terPretat ion , whichhas not been prominently mentioned by proponents of the glot ta l ictheory, would deprive the theory ot ~ u c h of i t s appeal. For i twas the unusual system of:

t ddh

whiCh led to the ~ t t e m p t to account in a more systematic manner


31/68

3tor the early phonoloqical system.

Treatlnq the three-member system for i t s dis t inct ivefeatures, others attempted to a c c o ~ n t for i t by examlninq thedistr ibut ion of the members within ProtoIndoEuropean roots andtheir development ln Armenian and e r ~ a n i c Lehmann 1963, withreference to a broadbased series published in VoprosyJazykoznanija 1961 . y 1963 ar t ic le viewed the ent i ty asdistinguished from primarily through lenls ar t iculat ionand the two fort is members distinguished trom each otherbY aspira t ion, with voicing as a secondary corre la t ion.

4.1 The t radi t ional obstruent system. The proposedsystem consist ing of voiceless stops, voice1 stops andf r icat ives which corresponos closely to the obstruent systems tmany wellstudied lanquages, never was widely accepted. The setof obstruents posited by Bopp and other early IndoEuropean1stson the basis of S a n s ~ r i t seemed to be well-supported by the datain Indic, and was also a Plausible source tor the obstruentsystems of the dialects . For i t s unusual members, and ,were precisely those lost over a broad span of dialects . Andphonologists seeking balance could scarcely find a moresymmetrical set than:


32/68

32

t dth dh

Dialects l ike Balt ic , Slavic, Iranian, CelticwhiChmaintained only the two top wembers, also had symmetrical sets ;these could be derived from the posited set in Proto-IndoEuropean by the simple processes: loss and ~ e r g e r . nd thesystems of Armenian, Greek, I ta l ic and Germanic, which maintainedone representative besides reflexes of the two top memoers werereadily accepted af ter l inguis ts in the 19th century came tounderstand Phonological relationshiPs and phonological change.Hence the set based on Indic was posited generallY forProtolndoEuropean in the standard handbooks.

But the symmetry of the set was destroyed by thelaryngeal theory. By i t the voiceless aspirates ot Indic arederived through a merger ot voiceless aspira tes laryngeals i thvoiced asPirates which in some e n v t r o n ~ e n t s became voicelessCKurylowicz 1 9 3 5 : 5 1 - ~ 4 ; see however Kiersche 1964. This imPactof tne laryngeal theory was not widely noted by IndoEuropeanists, having been made af ter the major handbooks by Hirt192137) and ~ e i l l e t 1937) had apPeared. Even Prokosch, who

had always assumeri the set writ ten as voiced asPirates to bevoiceless f r icat ives fai led to use Kurylowlczs observation insupport of his view 1939:3841, 5759).


33/68

33

Most lndoEuropeanists devoted l i t t l e attention to theobstruents, much as they had accepted the lack of evidence forb> since the days of Schleicher, rypoloQ cal observations,

however, prompted closer attent ion. This achieved broad noticethrough Roman JaKobson's Presentation at the Eightn Congress OfLinguists, Oslo, 1954; Jakobson in turn may have directed hiSattent ion to the problem because t an observation madepersonallY by Haudricourt, In his art ic le of 1965 Haudrtcourtstates that he proposed the new interPretat ion to l inguists inNew York on the basis of the Vietnamese consonant system,

Additional attention came only l a te r , in vir tual lysimultaneous publications tn two different quarters, v 1973,typological studies in ononology had assembled considerableinformation on patterning of PhOnological systems, Thisinformation provided evidence that a qap in a glot ta l ic series isoften found tor the labial order, star t ing from this observationboth GamKrelidze/Ivanov and Hopper proposed that the absence ofb> in ProtoJndoEuropean can be accounted tor by assuming i t

was the expected gap .in a glot ta l tc sertes,, The gap is typicallyfound, however, in a voiceless rather than a voiced, ser ies , Theser eswas therefore assumed to have dev@lopedfrom ear l ie r


34/68

34

This assumption requires a ~ a j o r modification in theobstruent system of ProtoJndoEurooean. For i f the set


35/68

35

glot ta l ic theory was proposed without application of theestablished methods of histor ical l inguist ics . Neither the Mnor IR was used in arriving at i t . I ts sole basis wastypological. subsequently proPonents have sought support for thenew system f r o ~ phonological Phenomena that have resistedexplanation, in snort , by analysis of residues. At least threesuch phenomena have been ci ted.

Before we note tnese, a oriet c o m ~ e n t on terminologymay be useful. ro avoid the connotdtions of tne d t dh>symbols, several devices have been used. Hopper returns toGrimm s old labels , mediae, tenues, asptratae.Gamkrelidze/lvanov use the term se r ies , referring to former d>etc. as series t , to etc. as Series I I , to etc . , asseries I l i . Individuals will no doubt choose their symbolizationbY attempting to balance the awkwar1ness of those new devicesagainst the danger of misinterpretation of conventional .

4.2a One support is Winter s proposal that ProtoIndoEuropean short vowels preceding glotta l ics were l e n g t ~ e n e d andart iculated with acute accent in Baltic and Slavic ~ i n t e r1979:43144). The change did not taKe place before Series 111stops, providing contrasts as exemplified in Table I I I . Someupholders Of the theory, ~ s p e c i a l l Kortlandt (e.g. 197Ra:117),reter to the formulation as Winter s law.


36/68

36

The proposed change unfortunately ta i ls to tal


37/68

374.2e A third set ot data Kortlandt finds in

IndoIranian, with reference to the forms t reated oyB a r t h o l o m a e ~ s law C1978a:11718). In c o n t r ~ s t to Skt,

e x t r a c t e d ~ from PIE , f o r ~ s with Series consonants donot have a voiced cluster , e.g. Skt , Av fromPIE y o k e ~ . A c c o r d i ~ g to Kortlandt, the in i t ia lglot ta l izat ion in < y e w g ~ - > and the fOllowing tor t i s stopprevented voicing. Yet in this same section Kortlandt ascribesthe change of

to in Skt t r a m p l i n g ~ , Av ' forefee t ' also to glot ta l iza t ion. For this third set i tiS diff icul t to escape the conclusion that the argumentation isstrained.

4.2d The proponents nave ~ l s o reinterPreted wellknowndata in accordance with their theorv, e.g. the absence o rootswith voiceless stops and voiced aspirated stops, sucn as*tebh and with two voiced stops, such as *deg. Here again tneyfai l to mention the ear l ier assumption of dissimilation, as inLehmann 1963, which accounts more simPlY tnan does the QlOttalictheory for the constraints on root structure by positing a singlecause.

4.2e Another wellknown si tuat ion is the scarcitY ofvoiced Cglottalic) stops (Series I l in affixes and the lowerfrequency overall of these consonants as opposed especially to

-- .- -- -- -- - - -- -


38/68

B

ser ies I I I and I I re t similar frequency relat ionships are notedt r Middle Malayalam b> as oPposed to .Moreover, he ascribes Baltic acute accent to glot ta l stop, ~ h i c hresulted from merqer of that feature and reflexes of laryn;eals .The merged glot tal stop also has cnaracter s t ic reflexes inSlavic C1984u:S6). In addit ion he accounts for the Armenianconsonant shi f t and especiallY the phonological systems ofseveral Armenian dialects through assumption of glot ta l ics(1978c, 1984u:612). Further, he t ~ k e s the ~ p l o s i v e s t Sindh1as reflexes of qlottal1cs1 similar lY, supraseqmental phonemes of


39/68

39

Panjabi (1984u:13).Proposal of such la te retention t reflexes of

laryngeals and glot ta l ics is in sharp contrast to the positionheld bY most IndoEuropeanists d u r i n ~ the l s t two decades.Further support for the views propounded especially bY Kortlandt1s provided by tne at t r ibut ion ot Nellknown ohenomena in moderndialects , l ike glot ta l effects in Danish and other Germaniclanguages to articulatory patterns as early as ProtoGermantc(see especiallY ~ i e b e r m a n >

In this way the proponents of the gtot t l ic theory seeksupporting evijence from residues. They must also account forthe far more massive set of obstruent changes into the dialectsthan is required tor the earl ier a s s u ~ e d system; see Kortlandt1978a, with rejection of longaccepte1 developments, such asGrimm s law, and vennemann s striking reinterpretat ion of theGermanic events (t9A4>.

5. Pre-IndoEuropean suprasegmentals. Accounting forthe accentual system of the early language r e ~ a i n s one t themajor problems of IndoEuropean phonology. o explain mostsimPlY IndoEuropean ablaut we must assume an early period ~ i tst ress accent, followed bY a subsequent period with pitch accent,and thereupon in most dialects the introduction of st ress accent,as in the modern subbranches of IndoEuropean.


40/68

40

- 5,1 Pitch accent and ablaut. When we examinethe position of Pitch accent and i t s effects on the phonologicalsystem, we find that i t s imPact was not great . The major effectproposed is ablaut, brought about in accordance ~ i t h the mostwidely accepted assumPtion as an etfect of accent shi f t . Inshort , pitch accent seems l ike an intrusion of a tonal systeminto IndoEuropean.

Assumption of glotta l lcs oermtts us to account tor i t sintroduction, Recent attention to phonology has led to improvedunderstanding of the origin of tones in lanquage, the processknown as tonoqenests. A readilY accessible essay on tne processts that of Hombert e t al (1979), y own acquaintance withtonogenesis n ~ i t s possible apPlication to PrelndoEurooean Iowe to Kenneth Gregerson, at the time of the Linguistic Inst i tuteof 1976J his la te student, Marvin Matners, was explorinq theeffects in Vietnamese at the time of his death.

Of interest is tne proposed source of tone dist inct ionsfrom postvoca ic glotta l consonants, including glot tal stop,When these are los t a high tone or r is ing tone may resul t onthe preceding vowel. on the other hand, v o ~ l s with following[hl are accompanied bY a lower fundamental frequency, which mayresul t in a low tone on loss of the Cnl Since theProtoIndo European laryngeals (glot tal stop) and


41/68

41

C[h]) were lost at the same time, a contrast between hign pitchand low pitch could nave arisen in roots l i ~ e PIE as inGk and PIE tehH4> in Gk cntstaami>, The loss ofpostvocal1c glot ta l tcs, as in roots l ike e a t , foot*, csed> sit , weave , provided many moreposs ibi l i t ies for introduction t h ~ h tone. ~ l m o s t onefi t tn ofthe roots in Whitney s handbooK on Sanskrit roots end in voiceastops, many t them reflexes t the proposed series 1 elements,There is then an ample basts for the origin of ProtoIndoEuropean h Qh pitch,

In accordance with the accepted theory, ablauttng developed from when the prtnctpal (Pitch) accent shifted, andthe ear l ie r came under low Pitch accent.

The process y which the contrast came to beused for morphological Purposes is inaccessible to us, The was available in roots l ike in derived formations, e,g,Gk se l l* , Oir. postpone , Gothic s e t . Similarly, in stems, l ike Gk word beside

assemble , in stems l ike uat garment beSide cover . Further, in Perfects l ike beside assemble . Yet the process bY which such co> ~ e r egeneralized has not been d e t e r m i n ~ d

In al l of these morphological patterns the use of

--------------------------


42/68

42

ts not general. Tne incidence Of i t s occurrence may be comparedwith that of umlaut vowels to maKe PlUrals in German Both Pointto a situation in which features were spread outside a focal areaand never became thoroughly dominant.

such a l i n ~ between the introduction ot pitch accent inla te ProtoIndoEuropean and the loss of glot ta l ics may providegreater credence for the Qlottal ic theory. s with e r l ieri l lus t r t ions I do not pursue this hYPothesis further here. Imust Point out however that the time of loss proposed here isearl ter than that assumed bY Kortlanjt . Rather than elaborationof such differences y primary interest here has to do wtth theeffect of theoret ical views in regard to recent theoriesconcerning the reconstruction of the ProtoJndoEuropeanphonological system.

5.2 Scholars agree in general on the presence in earlyProtoIndoEuropean of a stress accent to which zero grade isat t r ibuted as well as lengthened grade CHirt 192137 t i :3651IV:34955 V:2829 199224>. Vowels affected by accentualshif ts merged at various times wttn vowels affected bylaryngeals. The several stages of snif t and merger requireextensive treatment. No thorough statement is available thoughpertinent volumes of i r t ~ s grammar contain much of the data andcan be interpreted in sympathetic reacting. successive stages


43/68

43

were sketched in PrototndoEuropean Phonology (1952:11214).Lindeman has proposed stages of development for some of thephenomena which correspond in general to the 952 arranqement1982:6970) ,

6, Current si tuat ion. In reviewinq the resul ts ofrecent proposals concerning IndoEuropean phonology we must notethat acceptance of the views sketched above requires majormodification of the system presented in the handbooks,

The views of the resonant system were modified throughapplication of phonemic theory, ijestdes reducing to six Phonemesthe t radi t ional ly assumed consonantal tr n w yJ, theirvocalic allophones, and these with an increment, e.g, Edgerton's[1yl etc . , the new formulation results in a short vowel s y s t e ~consisting of three members: /e a o and a central vowelcharacterist ical lY found in unaccented syllables S well as fivelong vowels: 11: e: a: o: u: / ,

The laryngeal theory requires positing a kind ofphonological element not recognized tn the t radi t ional handbooks,of which the number varies among scholars; most assume threedisregarding Kurylowtcz's observation ot the need to assume afourth on the basis of Anatolian coqnates lacking h> oeside in other dialects . ses des bringlnq an increase in ~ n d s ofphonological elements, the theory removed the long vocalic


44/68

44resonants, including [1 ul ln earl ier stages of ProtoInaoEuropean; also, [e a ol, wnen or1q1nally long, and [ph th khkWh]

The removal of the asPirated voiceless stops is largelvresponsible for the further scrutinY that led to the glot ta l ictheory, which requires revision of the previously bestestablished members of the system, the obstruents. what hadseemed one of the most solid achievements of 19th centuryl inguist ics is now modified in every section,

The modifications had a turtner consequence. Thesvstem is now reconstructed in a series of changes, For example,laryngeal are not proposed tor every environment in the las tpredialect stageJ gradual change is assumed for other elementsas well. t is one of the important tasks of current study todetermine these successive stages of tne phonological system, andto link them with stages in the syntactic and the morphologicalsvstems.

The new proPosals are by no means Pverywnere accepted.o gain acceptance, specialists must fu l f i l l a number of

expectations,1 Procedures and methojs, the importance of rigorousphtloloq1cal procedures. In view of the increasing tenuousness


45/68

5

of the data, as ear l ier and ear l ier stages are reconstructed,s t r ic t attention must be given to evaluation ot the data. one ofthe ear l ies t syntagms singled out tor reconstruction may be citedas example, the expression for ~ i m p e r i s h b l e glory' ,

The complex cluster in the ~ j e c t t v e lends support toKuhn's assumption that the Phrase is archaic, one that could bereconstructed for the parent language. Yet in the 19tn centuryl i t t l e attention was given to the order of i t s consti tuents, orto their formation n the changing structure of the language.The few Vedic and Homeric occurrences point to tne sequence:adjective noun. In the majority of occurrences in the ear l ies ttexts the adjective precedes, as we expect of v languages.Further, the tndic text twice gives the adjective as an stem,rather than in the la te thematic form. Yet scholars persist inreconstructinq the syntaym on the basis of K ,Schmitt even attempted to argue in favor of this transparentlyla ter form and order (1967:6180),

In much the same way scholars may fai l to discriminatebetween Old and ew Hit t i te between older segments of theHomeric poems and newer, between archaic and innovative texts ofdialects at tes ted only late . Procedures for identif icat ion ofolder texts are not always simple, Late poets may arcnatze, utthe data of texts must be evaluated tor reliao111ty and


46/68

46

chronological sequence before analysts with l inguis t ic methods.Just as l inguis ts dealing with lanquages spoken today mustcontrol the requisi te anthropological procedures, so l inguistsconcerned with ~ a s t texts must control Philological procedures.

7.2 APProPriate use of metnojs. Reconstructedlanguages have g ~ n e r a l l y been pos tea as dialect f ree; only oneform has been assumed for a lexical item or morPhologicalcategory. Recently th is assumption nas been modified, so thateven reconstructed languages l ike Proto-InooEuropean are viewedas "natural languages," consisting ot a "group of dialects"(Palmaitis 1982>. This view comPlicates teatment of tne data,for i t requires analysis for registers , l ike poetic language, aswell as for social and geographical dialects .

such an approach also d ~ m a n d s t r e a t ~ e n t of the data asspeech, not merely an abstract system. Detailed analysis in thissense may provide inferences c o n c e r n i n ~ phonetic content. s anexamPle I c i te Kortlandt 's analYsis of Slndhi ' l iv ingbeing' and other forms from the s ~ e root . Kortlandt Recountsfor the nonglottalic in i t ia l stop in this Sindhi set throughloss by dissimilation before the glotta l closure "which haddeveloPed from the laryngeal ot PI < * ~ w H ( U ) > ' l ive ' (1981>.Y Sapir 's analysis the laryngeal in this base was a glotta l stop

I t Kortlandt 's proposal is accepted, i t provides evidence


47/68

7in favor t the reconstruction with and also for QlottalstoP whevever the original long vowel occurs. Continuedscrutiny of such patterns roay provide even greater precision indetermining the phonetic descriPtion t the laryn;eals .

Similar scrut iny is necessary of evidence proposed infavor of the new theories, Since some of this is typologicalevidence, we must draw on patterning in al l available languages.In dealing with the conclusions based on absence ot inProtoIndoEuropean, we must note tne loss in cel t ic of thevoiceless labial as in Otr Lat , By theargumentation proposed for P r o t o l n d o ~ u r o p ~ a n Celtic mayalso have been los t because i t was qlot ta l ic ; but the lack ofglot ta l ic dentals and velars dampens such an assumption.

Finally, t may seem that major departures from thestandard formulations in the major handbooks are radicalinnovations, foreign to the solid achievements of the 19thcentury. on the contrary, tney merelY continue the earl ierac t iv i t ies . Some of the new proPosals will no doubt be rejected,as were theories proposed bY scholars of tne past. Others Willno doubt become part ot the new standard formulation. Theincreasing acceptance of the l a r y n ~ e a l theory suggests that thephonoloq1cal system will be reformulated to include consonantscomparable to those attested only in the Anatolian languages.

---


48/68

48

a ProtoIndoEuropean as a natural language. rnereformulation will follow in great part because of a departuretrom the restr ic ted aims announced y r u g ~ a n n for his day(18971916 I : ixX , He envisioned a time when l inguists wouldt rea t ProtoIndoEuropean as a natural language, But for him thetime was not yet at nand; the data were s t i l l too unmanageablet r such a step, All that was possible in his eyes was acollection of the data, with no reconstruction even to the extentof Schleicher s fable. the subsequent grammars of Hirt , Meilletand KurylowiczWatKins observe Srugmann s self-imposedres t r ic t ion .

Attempting to carry out Srugmann s ideal aim raisesmanv questions. Should Indo-European phonology be tne majorguide in th is aim? How can morPhology anJ s y n t a ~ be correlatedwith i t ? Can we correlate further the conjectures on thelexicon, as for example in Specht 1944:1114? ~ n d willarcheologists contribute to the new effort?

9, f:ar l i e r stages of ProtoIndoEuropean and poss 1blerelationship wltn otner protolanguages. Archeology hasdemonstrated how ricn was the cultural diversitY of early periodswhich l inguists have largely dtsregarjed. know that asuccession of cultures preceded that of each oranch ofIndoEuropean, whatever i t s location. These cultures centered


49/68

9

around social groups which in accordance with M e i l l e t ~ s preceptsmust have corresponded to l inguist ic groups. This social andcultural s i tuat ion suggests one possibi l i ty tor varieddevelopments n the various subgroups of ?rotoIndoEurooean.For i f the Greek set of gods owes i t s special features to earl ierinhabitants of the Hellenic peninsula, the Injic set to gods tthe area occuoied by the IndoAryans, language also may have beenaffected and may reflect characterist ics of the preceding group.

Linguists now investigate such influences withoutproposing substrata and superstrata effects , ~ h i c h often wereaPplied with a heavy hand. Linguists must also oe more flexiblein their interpretat ion of s u b g r o u p t n ~ s as i l lustr ted by

v e n n e m a n n ~ s bri l l i n t essay l1984); discussion of this must bel e t t to the chAPter on Germanic.

After long disregard of e ~ r l i e r stages of IndoEuropean, other than the widely discredited IndoHitt i te, somescholars have ventured opinions on relat ively large periods.Meld (1975) dealt primarily with successive branching oft ofsubgroups from the parent stock; see also uhn 978 and Joseph1980. Neu (1976) on the other hand, Proposing stages of theverbal system, recommends the d e v e l o p ~ e n t of models which permitdetailed scrutiny of the evidence on Which hypotheses are baSed.That evidence must include the PhonoloQtcal data underlYing the


50/68

50

stages noted in 5.2 above,Efforts to determine areal relationships for Proto

IndoEuropean and also to proPose relationships with otherreconstructed languages should frame their hyPotheses withreference to the earlY stages, and also take archeologicalevidence into consideration,

Since IndoEuropeanists now agree that the speakers ofProtoIndoEuropean expanded from an area north of tne Caspianand Black Seas, and since i t is likelY that they adoptedinnovations in the production of metals from the caucasus, themost l ikely areal influence of ProtolndoEuroean came fromKartvelian, Recent attention to i t s etfects is accessiblethrough Gamkreltdze and Macavariani 982 and Schmidt 1983b,

Indo-European and otner reconstructed languages arealso being widely explored as noted in section above, s earlyas 973 Jokl, in an important monogra9h tor i t s careful treatmentof data and i t s calm presentation of hypotheses, accompanied bycentral references, acKnowledaed the effor ts to establishproto-relationships to have become a Kind of epidemic1973:35374), He also pointed out the problems of

distinguishing the tenuous evidence from chance s imilari t ies aswell as the diff i ul t ies caused bY onomatopoeia, If there ts anyone solid resul t of glottochronoloqy, i t is the demonstration


51/68

51that eight millennia of separation r e ~ u c e s the evidence torestablishing relat ionships virtuallY to that obtainable fromchance s imi lar i t ies . And since i t is scarcely Possible to set adate la ter than sooo e.c. t r an earlv stage otProtolndoEuropean, proponents of further relationships mustrecognize that they are dealing with very s l ight evidence.

Yet work in this hazardous f ield continues. Bomnard1983) directs his Primary attention at possible relationshiP

with AfroAsiatic, as do Makki Cms and others. Themodifications proposed for the P r o t o I n d o ~ u r o p e a n pnonologiCalsystem by proponents of the laryngeal and glotta l ic theories ~ a k ei t di f f icul t for such effor ts to establish credence forthemselves. I t would be useful tor a l l concerned to revtew thework of predecessors, l ike Cuny ro solve the increasinglydi f f icul t problems without textual evidence but only inferencesfrom l inguist ic and archeological data we need cooperation asmanifested in the undertaking we are now completing, andwillingness to draw on theoretical advances of a l l kinds indealing with the tenuous evidence.


52/68

52

BibliograPhY

Adrados, Francisco Rodr Juez. 1961, ~ s t u d i o s soorelas lar nqales indoeuropeas. Madrid: Ins t i tuto "Antonio deNebrija,"

. 1981. Further considerat ions on thephonetics and morphophonemics of and in Indoeuropean.Emerita 49:23171,

Allen, William s. 1976, The PlE aspirates: phoneticand typological factors, PP. 2l7t9 in Lln1uist1c Studiesoffered to Joseph Greenberg, I t . ~ Y A Jui l lard Saratoga:Anma Libri .

Arnold, E. Vernon. 1905, Vedic ~ e t r e in i t shis tor ical development. Cambridge: University Press.

Bahder, Karl von, 1883, Die deutsche Philoloqie imGrundriss, Paderborn: Schoentngh,

Bechtel, Fri tz . 1892. Die Hauptorobleme derndogermanischen Lautlehre sei t Schleicher. G o e t t i n ~ e n :

vandenhoeck ~ o p r e c h t [Reviewed y H, Moellerz ZDP25(1893):36694,)

Beekes, R,s,P. 1969, The development of theProtoIndoEuropean larynqeals in G r e e ~ The Hague: Mouton,

--


53/68

53

1981, The neuter plural and the vocalizationof the laryngeals in Avestan, IIJ 23:27586.

- ~ ~ - - - - 1982/83. on larvngeals ana pronouns. zv

Benveniste, Emile. 1935. Origines de la formation desnoms en indoeuropeen, Paris: M a i s o n ~ e u v e

Birnbaum, Henrik, 1975, Genet sche, typoloQ sche unduntversale Linguistik, Folia Linquistica 7:22124,

Bomhard Allan R 1983, Toward ProtoNostratic: A newbeginning, Amsterdam: Benjamins,

Bruqmann Karl, 18971916, vergleichende Laut,stammbildungs- und Flexionslehre der indogermanischen SPracnen,2nd ed, Strassburg: Truebner. 2 vols,

1904, Kurze vergle chende r a r u m a t i ~ der1ndogerman1scnen Spracnen. Strassburg: rruebner,Burrow, Thomas. 1979. rne problem of shwa in

Sanskrit , Oxford: Clarendon,Chantraine, Pierre. 196880, Dictionnaire

etymologique de la langue grecque: Histoire des mots, Parts:Klincksieck,


54/68

54Collinder, Bjoern. 1974, IndnUratischeoder gar

Nostratisch? Vierziq Jahre auf rauhen Pfajen. PP. 36375 tnAnt quitates Indoqerman1cae: e d e n k s c ~ r i f t fuer Hermann Guentert,ed, y Manfred Mayrhofer et a l lnnsbruck:Sprachwissenschaftliches Ins t i tu t der Universitaet,

Connolly, Leo A 1977, IndoEuropean 1 > e r ~ a n l c e: Anexplanation by the laryngeal theory, BGDSL CT 99:175205,33350.

............

laryngeal theorv.

1979. and the laryngeal theory. BGDSL

1980, "Grammatiscner wecnsel" and thelF 85:96123.

Cowgill, warren. 1963. R e v i e ~ of Jaan Puhvel:Laryngeal& and the IndoEuropean vero, Lg 39:24870,

1965, Evidence in Greek, Po, 14280 inevidence for laryngeal&, eo, by werner winter. the Hague:Mouton.

- - - - - - 1979, Anatolian h1con1ugat1on andIndoEuropean perfect: Installment I I . Pp. 2540 in HethitiSChund Indogermanisch, ed, bY Erich Neu and Wolfgang keid,Innsbruck: tns t i tut tuer SprachWissenschaft,


55/68

55

Cox Jerry L. 1977. The laryngeal theory a n ~ i t sapplication to problems in Germanic l inqu s t ics , ~ l o o m i n Q t o n :Indiana University diss , 373 pp.

Debrunner, Albert. 1929, Review of J . Kurylowicz:Schwa indoeuropeen e t hi t t i t e . IrJb 13:6 67,

- - - - - - 1937. Review of E. Benveniste: Origines de1a formation des noms en i n d o e u r o ~ e e n . IF 55:31418.

1938. Review of J , Kurvlowicz: tudes1ndoeuropeennes. IF 56:5558,

Deroy, Louts, 1949. La racine indo-europeenne ~ n o u r r r , se nourr t r , SL 3:1831,

Dressler, wolfgang w and Alexander Grosu, 1972.Generative Pnonologie und tndogermanische Lautgesch1chte. IF77:1972.

Dressler, Wolfgang w. 1980. was erwarten Phonolog1eTheorien von der I n d o Q e r m a n 1 s t i k ~ a s kann die Indogerman1stikbieten? Pp, 102-19 in Lautgescntchte und Etymologie, ea. bYM Mayrhofer et ~ 1 . Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Edgerton, Franklin. 1934. S i e v e r s ~ s law a n ~ IEweakgrade vocalism. Lg 10;23565.

-


56/68

56

1943, The IndoEuropean semivowels. LQ19:83124.

Eichner, Heiner. 1973. Die Etymologte von heth.. MSS 31:53107,

FistaK, JaceK, ed. 1978. Recent developments inhistor ical Phonology. The Hague: Mouton.

Frisk, Hjalmar. 196072. ~ r t e c h l s c h e s EtymologtschesWoerterbuch. Heidelberg: winter.

GamKrelidze, Thomas v. 198. . The IndoF.uropeanglot ta l1c theory. A new paradigm in the Indo-Europeancomparative l lnguls t ics unpublished paper.

GamKrelidze, Thomas v. and v. Ivanov. 1973.Sprachtypolog e und die Rekonstruction der ~ e m e t n n d o g e r m a n i s c b e nverschluesse, vorlaeutiger Bericht, Phonetica 27:15056,

Hamp Erie P, 1982. Mycenaean ' theycontributed(?)# IF 86:190 [1981 Issue) ,

Hart, Gillian R 1980, Some observations onplenewriting in Hit t i te DSOAS 43:117,

Haudricourt, Andre G. 1975. Les mutationsconsonant1Ques Cocclusives) en indoeuropeen,, PP. 26772 in:


57/68

57Melanges lingu1st1ques offer ts a ~ m t l e Benveniste, Louvain:Peeters.

Hiersche, Rolf. 1964, U n t e r s u c h u ~ g e n zur rrage derTenues Aspiratae 1m tndogermanischen, ~ i e s b a d e n : Harrassowttz.

Masc, Du,

1980, Nocnmals allnora. tnau Ntr. Pl . < idq,zvs 94:20201.

Hirt, Hermann. 1900. Oer indoqerman sche Ablaut.Strassburg: Truebner.

192137. Indogermanische Grammatik, I

VII, Heidelberg: winter.

1939, Die Hauptprobleme 1er indoqermaniscnen

Spracnw ssenschaft. Ed, by H. Arntz. H a l l e ~ Niemeyer,H o ~ b e r t Jean-Marie, J J . Ohala and w.G. Ewan, 1979.

Phonetic explanations for tne development of tones, lJg 55:3758,Hopper, Paul J 1973, Glottatized and murmured

occlusives in IndoEuropean. Glossa 7:14166,

- - - - - - - 1981, uecem a n ~ "Taihun" l a n g u a ~ e s AnIndoEuropean isogloss, Pp, 13342 in Bono homini donum: Essaysin his torical l inquist ics in memory of v. Alexander Kerns, ed, bYYoel L, Arbeitmann and ~ l l a n R a o ~ h a r d Amsterdam: Benjamins


58/68

58

l l l ic Svi tyc v.M. 1959. un some reflexes of theIndoEuropean "laryngeals" in ProtoSlavonlc. VoprosyJazykoznanija 1959, 2.318.

1971. Opyt sravnentja nostraticeskichjazvkov, Moskva

Izut , Hisanosuke. 1981, Skr , Gr, The Bulletin of the International Inst i tute t rLinguistic Sciences, Kyoto Sangyo University. 1,2 :1&784.

Joki, Aults J , 1973. Uralier una Indogermanen.Helsinki: SuomalaisUgrilatnen Seura.

Joseph, Lionel Saint, 1980, Problems in thedevelopment of the Indo-European 1aryn9eals in Celt ic, Diss.Harvard,

Jucquois, Guy 1972, Aspects du consonant smehi t t i t e . Pp. 59128 in Hethitica. 1, Travaux edites par idem.Louvain: Bibliotheque de l 'Untvers te .

Kammenhuber Annelies. 1980. Zum 1ndogerman1scnenErbe im Hethith1schen. zv 94;3344.

Ketler, Allan R 1970, A phonoloq1cal study t tneIndoEuropean laryngeals, The Hague: Mouton.


59/68

59Kortlandt, Freder1k. 1978a. ProtoIndoEuropean

obstruents. I f 83110718, 1979o, o the ~ s t o r y of Slavic

accentuation, zv 92:26981,

t978c, Indo-European palatovelars beforeresonants in BaltoSlavic, PP. 23843 in Recent develoments inhistor ical Phonology, ed. bY Jacek Fisiak, The Hague: Mouton.

1979, Three problems of BaltoSlavicphonology, Zbornik za f i lo logi ju u l n q v s t ~ u 22:57 2. 1980. Albanian anj Armenian. zv 94:24351.

.....1981, Glot ta l ic consonants in Sindhi and

ProtolndoEuropean, I I J 23:1519.

Slavic accentuation,

1st sg, middle . IF 8 :12336,1983, Linguistic theory, universals, and

Folia Linguistica Historica 4:2143.t984u. Notes on Armenian histor ical

phonology IV To appear in: Stuaia caucasica 6.

19 ProtoIn1ouropean glot ta l ic stoPs:The comparative evidence, To be PUblished,


60/68

60

Kuhn Hans 1978, oas le tz te Indoqerman1sch, AAWLM1978.4, Wiesbaden: s teiner .

Kuiper, Franciscus B J 1937, Die n d o g e r ~ a n s c h e nNasalpraesentta, Ein Versucn zu einer morphologischen Analyse,Amsterdam: North Holland,

1978, Zarathustra 's language. MKNAL 41.4,

Amsterdam.Kurylowtcz, Jerzy. 1927. Schwa i ~ d o e u r o p e e n et

h1tt1te, Pp, 95104 in Symbolae g r a m ~ a t i c a e in h o n o r e ~ IoannisRozwadowski vol I cracow,

5162 in Etrennes de Linqutstique, offertes par quelques amis aEmile Benveniste. Paris: Geuthner.

1935, Etudes indoeuropeennes, Cracow.

1967, The Germanic "Verscnaertunq", g43:44551.

~ 1975. Probleme der indoqermantscnenLautlehre. Pp, 14351 in Esquisses linguist ques I I ~ u e n c h e n :Fink.

Lamprecht, Arnost. 1976, Oer 1ndoeuropae1sche


61/68

61

Konsonantismus 1m Licht der nostratlschen rneorie, Sborn1k Brnenske Univerzlty A24:172 ,

Lehmann, ~ i n f r e d P. 1952, ProtoIndoEuropeanphonology, ~ u s t i n University of Texas Press.

1957, A syntactic reflex of theIndoEuroPean laryngeals, Pp. 14547 in studies presented toJoshua Whatmougn, ed, by Ernst Pulgram, The Hague: Mouton.

- - - - - - - 1963, ome Phonological observations oasedon the Germanic consonant shif t . Monatshefte 55:22935.

Liberman, Anatoly. 1982, Germanic accentoloqy, Vol,I The Scandinavian Languages, Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press,

Lindeman, Fredrik o. 1964. Les origines indoeuropeennes de la Verschaertunq germanique. Oslo:Un1versttetsforlaqet,

- - - - - - - 1970, Eintuehrung in die Laryngaltheorte.(Sammlung Goeschen 1247/47a,) Berlin: de Gruyter,

~ 1982, The t r iple representation of schwa inGreek and some related p r o b l e ~ s of Indo-European phonology,Oslo: Universi tetsforlaqet ,


62/68

62

.. 1983. Zu al theth . aas-suu. Die SpracheLubotsky, A. 1981. Gr < p e ~ n u m 1 > : SKt and

loss of laryngeals before mediae In lndolranlan, MSS 40:11338,Mahtow Georg Heinrich, ta79, Die langen vocale In den europaeischen Spracnen. Diss. ~ o e t t i n g e n Berlin:Hermann.

Martinet, Andre, 1955, Economle des changementsphonettque, Tratte de phonoloQie diacnronlque,) aern: rrancke.

Meld Wolfgang, 1975, P r o ~ l e m e der raeumlichen undzeit l ichen Gllederung des Indogermaniscnen, Pp. 204-- tnFlexion und Wortblldung, Akten der v Fachtaqung ct. Idq. Gr.Regenby 1973, Wiesbaden: Reichert.

Metllet, Antoine, 1937. Introduction a l ~ e t u d ecomparative des lanques indoeuropeennes. Paris: Hacnette.

Merlingen, 1983. Larvngattheorie und Laryngale,Ablauttneorien und Ablaut. Wien: orivatelv ouolishedl.

Moeller, H 1880. Zur Declination germanisch caa eeoo> in den F.ndungen des Nomens und die ntstenung des ,BGOSL 7:482547,


63/68

63

Neu Erich. 1976 Zur e k o n s t r u ~ t i o n desindogermaniscnen verbalsystems. Pp 23854 in Studies in GreekI ta l ic and Indo-European Linguistics. ~ f f e r e d to LeonardR. Palmer ed by Anna ~ o p u r g o Davies and Wolfgang Meia.Innsbruck: Ins t i tu t tuer SprachWissenscnatt.

Palmaltis Mykolas L 1979[801. ProtoIndoEuropeanvocalism and the development t the IndoEurooean declensionalmodels. IF 84 :1748

1982. The new look of tnaoEuropeandeclension. IF 86:7195.Pedersen Holger. 1951 Die gemeinindoeuropaeischen

und die vorlndeuropaeischen Verscnlusslaute. Copennaqen.Peeters Christian. 1971. phonetic defini t ion of

IE . ZVS 85:14.Peters Martin. 1980 Untersuchungen zur vertretung

der indogermanischen Laryngale m Griecnischen. Vienna: AustrianAcademy of Sciences.

Pokorny Julius. 1959. Indogermanischesetymologisches woerterbuch I . Bern: Francke.

Polome Edqar. 1965 The laryngeal theory so far. Acr i t ica l bibliographical survey Po. 979 in Evidence for

- - -


64/68

64

Laryngeal&, ed, y Werner Winter. The Hague: Mouton.Prokosch, Eduard, 1939, A comparative Germanic

grammar. Philadelphia: University o ~ e n n s y l v a n i a Press.Puhvel, Jaan, 1960, a r y n ~ e a l s and the Indo-EuroPean

verb. Berkeley: University of California press.Puthusser1, Ramachandran. 1973, Language of Middle

Malayalam, Trivandrum: Dravidian Linguistics Association ofIndia,

Rasmussen, I,E, 1974, Haeretica Indogermanica.Copenhagen,

Ravnaes, Erling, 1981, The development ofschwa/Interconsonantal laryngeal in Iranian, IIJ 23:24773,

Rix, Helmut, 1970, Anlautender Laryngal vor Liquidaoder Nasalis sonans tm Grieehischen. SS 27:79110,

Sapir, Edward 1938, Glottalized continuants inNavaho Nootka, and Kwakiutl. g 14:2474,

Saussure, rerdinand de. 1979. ~ e m o i r e sur le systemeprtmit if des voyelles dans les langues ndoeuropeennes,LeiPZig, Pp, 1268 of Recueil des publications scientlfiques deFerdinand de saussure. Geneva: Payot

--


65/68

65

Schmidt, Gernot. 1973, O e 1ran1scnen woerter tuer'Tochter ' und 'Vater ' und die Retlexe des tnterKonsonanttscnen(schwa) HH> in den 1dg, Sprachen, ZVS e7:3ti83,

Schmidt, Johannes, 1889. Die Pluralblldungen der1ndogerman1scnen Neutra, weimar: soenlau.

Schmidt, Karl Horst, 198la, rypusrelevantersprachwandelFlektierend zu Agglutin erend und seineKorrelationen, Etudes F i n n o ~ O u Q r i e n n e s 15:335-46,

1983b, KauKas1sche TypoloQ e als H lfsm1tteltuer die Rekonstruktion des Vorindoqermaniscnen. Innsbruck:Ins t i tu t fuer Spr.achwlssenschaft det Universitaet,

Schmitt, Ruediger, 1967, Oichtunq und Oichter Inindogermanischer ze i t Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,

Schrijnen, Josef, 1921, Einfuehrunq in das Studiumder indogermanischen Spracnwissenschaft, Trans, by waltherFischer, Heidelberg: Winter,

Schulze, Wilhelm, 1966 (1885), IndogermaniscneWurzeln. Pp, 4956 tn his Kleine Schriften, ed, by ~ i l h e l mWissmann, Goetttngen: VandenhoecK Ruprecht. Also zv27(1885):42029,)

Schwyzer, Eduard, 193953, Griecn sche G r a m ~ a t i ~


66/68

66

Muenchen: Becl


67/68

67

Rekonstruktion des 1ndoqermantschen PhonPminventars. Po. 495522in Lautqeschichte una Etymologte, ed. v M a y r h o f e r et alWtesbaden: Reichert.

Vennemann, Theo. 1984. H o h g e r ~ a n i s c h undNiedergermanisch, BGDSL 106:145,

Voyles, Joseph B 1981. Gothic, Germanic and NorthwestGermanic. CZOL Heft 39.) Wiesbaden: Steiner.

wackernagel, Jacob. 1896 (1957) , AltindischeGrammatik:. [2nd ed. with snpplements by A. Oebrunner, 1957,1Goettinqen: Vandenhoeck Ruprecht.

Watkins, Calvert. 1975, Die Vertretung der LarynQalein gewtssen morPhologischen Kategorien in den indogermantschenSPrachen Anatoliens. Pp. 35878 in Flexion und wortbildung.wtesbaden: Reichert.

Winter, werner, ed, 1965. Evidence for larynqeals.The Hague: Mouton.

1978. The distr ibution of short and longvowels in stems of the type Lith. : : ando s : : in Baltic and Slavic languages.PP, 43146, followed by comment of rrederlk Kortlandt,p, 447, in Recent developments in histor ical phonology, ed. by

-


68/68

8

Jacel

lehmann - proto-indo-european phonology (1983)

Documents