PER ASPERA AD ASTERISCOS

Studia Indogermanica in honorem JENS ELMEGARD RASMUSSEN

sexagenarii Idibus Martiis anno MMIV

Ediderunt

Adam H y llested, Anders Richardt J 0rgensen, Jenny Helena Larsson et Thomas 0 lander

INNSBRUCK 2004

Table of Contents

Preface ............................................................................................................................................. 11 Bibliography of Publications by Jens Elmegard Rasmussen ................................................. 13

Henrik Vagn Aagesen Greenlandic Word Splitting ................................................................................................... 21

Douglas Q. Adams The Lessons of Two Words for Materials, 'Clay' and 'Iron,' in Tocharian .................... 27

Peter Anreiter Schnittpunkt dreier Kulturen: Das Kaiser Tal in Osttirol .................................................. 33

Irene Balles Zur Rekonstruktion des friih-urindogermanischen Nominalklassen systems .............. 43

RS.P. Beekes Armeniangiferand the Indo-European Word for 'Evening' ............................................ 59

Vaclav Blazek A Little Light upon 'Night' .................................................................................................... 63

Allan R. Bombard The Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals ................................................................................ 69

Lars Brink PIE Feature Synchronism and Word Division in Verner's Law ...................................... 81

Gerd Carling Tocharian B erkatse [A *arkats] and Related Phenomena .................................................. 95

Fabrice Cavoto Lorsque reconstruction interne et comparaison externe se rencontrent: Le cas du marqueur personnel*¥ ....................................................................................... 103

James Clackson Minge - a Loanword Study .................................................................................................. 109

George E. Dunkel The Indo-European Resultative Particle *es ...................................................................... 117

Bernhard Forssman Lateinisch proprius} propridre .................................................................................................. 131

Michael Fortescue Lexical Sources of Eskimo-Aleut Affixes ......................................................................... 139

Jose Luis Garcia Ramon Homerisch ovpo{ ,Kielfurchen, Landgraben' (*I;(Orl;f-6- ,der Ziehende') und Epvw ,ziehen', gr. oAK6s- und EAKW, KEAETpov und hom. KEAaat ............................. 145

Jost Gippert Ein Problem der indogermanischen Pronominalflexion ................................................ 155

Olav Hackstein Rhetorical Questions and the Grammaticalization of Interrogative Pronouns as Conjunctions in Indo-European .................................................................. 167

Ivo Hajnal Die lydischen a-Stamme ....................................................................................................... 187

Eric P. Hamp Indo-European* S¥- in Albanian ......................................................................................... 207

George Hinge .itMhwv: Lexikalische Diffusion im 2. vorchristlichen Jahrtausend .............................. 211

The Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals

Allan R. Barnhard Charleston, SC, USA

The Indo-European parent language is assumed to have had one or more sounds conventionally called "laryngeals", though this label refers to these sounds as a group and is not an indication of their phonetic make-up. The ba­sic (and most widely-accepted) tenets of the Laryngeal Theory may be summa­rized as follows:

1. The Indo-European parent language possessed one or more laryngeals -most scholars posit either three or four distinct laryngeals.

2. The laryngeals were lost as independent phonemes in all branches of Indo­European except for Anatolian and Armenian, where the laryngeal *H2 (*b) appears as h initially before vowels in a small number of words.

3. The loss of preconsonantal laryngeals after short vowels caused the com­pensatory lengthening of these vowels.

4. One or more of the laryngeals had an assimilatory effect on contiguous vowels- it is usually assumed that *H2 (*h) and *H4 (*;4) changed a con­tiguous *e to *a and that *H1 (*b) changed a contiguous *e to *o.

5. The so-called "long syllabic resonants" (*!ft, *1}, */, *t) are to be reinterpreted as sequences of *'!I, *t;, *j, *r plus laryngeal, that is, *'!IH, *t;H, *jH, *rH.

6. Some examples of voiceless aspirates in Indo-Aryan owe their origin to the former presence of a laryngeal between an immediately preceding plain voiceless stop and an immediately following vowel: *pH, * tH, * kH > ph, th, kh.

7. Proto-Indo-European had no initial vowels; in every instance where initial vowels had been reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European by the Neogram­marians, a preceding laryngeal has been lost.

8. The laryngeals could have both syllabic and non-syllabic allophones de­pending upon their environment. That is to say that the patterning of the laryngeals was similar to that usually assumed for the resonants. The syllabic

70 Allan R. Bombard

form of the laryngeals is commonly associated with the schwa primum (*a) reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European by the Neogrammarians.

At first glance, the form of the Laryngeal Theory that would seem to con­form best to the evidence found in the daughter languages would appear to be that which assumes four laryngeals for the Indo-European parent language. Specifically, four laryngeals seem to be needed for pre-Anatolian Proto-Indo­European and for that form of Proto-Indo-European existing immediately after the separation of the Anatolian languages from the main speech commu­nity. However, for the Indo-European antecedent of the non-Anatolian daugh­ter languages (what I call "Disintegrating Indo-European"), only one laryngeal is to be reconstructed.

Disintegrating Indo-European must have had the full complement of long and short vowels traditionally reconstructed. Furthermore, Disintegrating Indo-European must have had initial vowels- to assume otherwise would be to ignore the evidence of the non-Anatolian daughter languages as well as to deny the efficacy of the Comparative Method. This can only mean that the vowel­lengthening and vowel-coloring effects usually attributed to the laryngeals must have taken place prior to the Disintegrating Indo-European period. On the surface, it would thus appear as if one could almost get by without positing any laryngeals at all for this period. At least one laryngeal must be reconstructed for Disintegrating Indo-European, however, to account for developments in the non-Anatolian daughter languages such as:

1. The Indo-Aryan voiceless aspirates.

2. The Greek prothetic vowels.

3. The Greek rough breathing, in part.

4. Armenian initial h, in part.

5. Some aspects of the Balta-Slavic intonations.

6. The Germanic Verscharfung.

No doubt, it was this single laryngeal of Disintegrating Indo-European that had a syllabic allophone, the traditional schwa primum (*a).

For pre-Anatolian Proto-Indo-European, four laryngeals would seem to be needed to account for:

1. Disintegrating Indo-European *e without a corresponding Anatolian laryn­geal reflex (this is Kurylowicz's *R1, Sturtevant's *').

2. Disintegrating Indo-European *a with a corresponding Anatolian laryngeal reflex (this is Kurylowicz's *b, Sturtevant's *x).

The Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals 71

3. Disintegrating Indo-European *e and/or *o with a corresponding Anatolian laryngeal reflex (this is Kurylowicz's *JJ, Sturtevant's *y). It should be noted that Kurylowicz assumes that this laryngeal changed a contiguous *e to *o, while Sturtevant assumes that this laryngeal did not color contiguous vow­els.

4. Disintegrating Indo-European *a without a corresponding Anatolian laryn­geal reflex (this is Kurylowicz's *p., Sturtevant's *! [in later works, Sturtevant writes *h)).

One of the most difficult riddles to solve has been and continues to be the determination of the probable phonetic values of the various laryngeals. Stur­tevant (1942: 19), following Sapir, assigns the following phonetic values to the laryngeals: *' = a glottal stop with frontal timbre; *! (in later works, *h) = a glot­tal stop with velar timbre; *x = a voiceless velar spirant; *y = a voiced velar spirant. According to Lehmann (1952: 103-1 08), *; was either a weakly aspi­rated glottal fricative or a pharyngeal fricative; *h was apparently a glottal aspi­rated fricative; *x was a voiceless velar fricative; and *y was a rounded voiced velar fricative. Keiler (1970: 68) posits the following values: *H1 = a voiceless glottal fricative /h/; * H2 = a voiceless pharyngeal fricative /h/; and * H3 = a voiced pharyngeal fricative /~/. Finally, Colarusso (1981: 550) assigns the fol­lowing values: *H1 = either a glottal stop or voiceless and voiced pharyngeal­ized velar fricatives; *H2 = voiceless and voiced pharyngeal fricatives; *H3 = either labialized voiceless and voiced pharyngeal fricatives or a labialized glottal stop; and *H. = a voiceless glottal fricative.

According to Colarusso (1981: 512), Couvreur (1937: 264), and Sturtevant (1942: 19 and 1951: 54), *H1 was a glottal stop/?/. The interpretation of *H1

as a glottal stop explains why this laryngeal did not color contiguous vowels. As noted by Catford (1977: 1 05): "simple glottal stop has no influence on the qual­ity of contiguous vowels". This is verifiable from both Northwest Caucasian and Arabic, where glottal stops have no effect on vowel quality (cf. Colarusso 1981: 511 for Northwest Caucasian and Al-Ani 1970: 60-62 for Arabic). More­over, loss of a glottal stop between an immediately preceding short vowel and an immediately following non-syllabic causes compensatory lengthening of the vowel in Akkadian and Arabic (cf. Couvreur 1937: 288-289; Moscati 1964: 61-64). Note the following examples from Akkadian (these are taken from Cou­vreur 1937: 288-289):

1. Akkadian *ra'fu > rdfu (later refu) 'head': Hebrew rof 'head'; Aramaic refd 'head'; Phoenician r'f 'head'; Arabic ra's 'head'; Epigraphic South Arabian r;s 'head'; Sl)eri I Jibbali ref/ rif 'head'; Soqotri rjy 'head'; Ugaritic rls 'head'; Geez / Ethiopic r!J'!Js 'head'; Tigrinya rg'si 'head'; Tigre rii'as 'head'; Amharic ras 'head'.

72 Allan R. Bombard

2. Akkadian *rabmu > *rebmu > *re-mu > remu 'grace, mercy': Arabic rabima 'to have mercy, compassion', rabma 'pity, compassion'; Sl:teri I Jibbali rabam 'to be kind'; Mehri r!Jbtim 'to be kind to someone'; I:Iarsusi rebam 'to pity'; He­brew rabiim 'compassionate'; Ugaritic rbm 'to be kind'; Tigre riil;ama 'to have pity on' (Arabic loan).

3. Akkadian *ba•lu > *be•lu > *be-lu > belu 'owner, lord': Hebrew ba•al 'lord, owner'; Ugaritic b•l 'owner of the house'; Arabic ba•l 'husband, master, owner'; Epigraphic South Arabian b•l 'master, owner'; J:Iarsusi btil 'master, lord'; Mehri bat 'owner, possessor'; Sl:teri I Jibbali ba•al 'person owning'; Soqotri ba•l 'master, lord'; Geez I Ethiopic ba•til 'owner, master'; Tigrinya bii'a/, ba•al 'master'; Tigre bii'al 'master'; Amharic bal 'master'.

Identical developments are assumed for *H1 in Proto-Indo-European. This laryngeal is not directly attested in any of the Indo-European daughter lan­guages, including Hittite (cf. Sturtevant 1942: 53 and 1951: 1 54).

Additional confirmation that *H1 was a glottal stop is provided by Sanskrit (3rd sg.) p!bati 'drinks', Latin bibit 'drinks', Old Irish ibid 'drinks'. The Proto­Indo-European antecedent would have been the reduplicated 3rd sg. verbal form *phi-phHrethi 'drinks' (or, in traditional terms, *pi-p.Rt-etz), that is, *phi-ph?-ethi. Now, according to Gamkrelidze, Hopper, and Ivanov, glottalized stops (the plain voiced stops of traditional Proto-Indo-European) become voiced stops in Sanskrit, Latin, and Old Irish. Likewise, we would expect the cluster *-ph?- to become lbl in these languages, and this is exactly what we do in fact find. The following developments may be assumed: *phi-ph?-ehi > (with deaspiration of *-ph- in the cluster *-ph?-) *phi-p?-ethi > (with reanalysis of *-p?­as *-p'-) *phi-p'-ethi > (with deglottalization) *phi-p-ethi > (with voicing of medial *p) *phi-b-ethi > (with deaspiration of voiceless aspirates) *pi-b-eti > Sanskrit p!bati 'drinks', Latin bibit 'drinks', Old Irish ibid 'drinks'.

Kurylowicz (1935: 29-30) sets up *J4 (*H4) to account for those cases in which an a in the non-Anatolian daughter languages corresponds to an a in Hittite, and Hittite lacks a contiguous laryngeal reflex. That is to say that *H4 is not directly attested in Hittite or in any of the other daughter languages (cf. Sturtevant 1942: 42 and 1951: 51-52), though its former presence can be de­termined by the fact that it changed a contiguous *e to *a and by the fact that it caused compensatory vowel lengthening when lost between an immediately preceding short vowel and an immediately following non-syllabic. According to Hopper (1977: 49-50), typological evidence implies that the voiceless laryngeal fricative lhl should be added to the Proto-Indo-European phonemic inven­tory, and this coincides with the phonetic value assigned to * H4 by Colarusso (1981: 512), Lehmann (1952: 108), and (apparently) Sturtevant (1951: 52). In terms of distinctive feature theory, lh/ is [+cons, +low, -voice, +cant, +grave].

The Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals 73

As far as we are concerned, the most important feature is ~ow]. According to Colarusso (1981: 509), the articulatory gesture behind the feature ~ow] is "an opening of the oral cavity to enhance resonance". It was the presence of this feature that was responsible for the lowering of a contiguous *e to *a. Finally, we may note that developments similar to those assumed for *H., in Proto­Indo-European are found in Ubykh and in the Circassian languages, where /h/ (and /hw /) lowers and colors contiguous vowels and also causes compensatory vowel lengthening when lost (cf. Colarusso 1975: 396).

Reflexes of *H2 (*b) are found in Hittite and the other older Anatolian lan­guages (that is, Palaic and Cuneiform and Hieroglyphic Luwian), where they are written (b)b (cf. Sturtevant 1942: 35 and 1951: 47). This laryngeal also survives in Lycian, where it is written X· Like *H.,, *H2 lowers a contiguous *e to *a. On this basis, we would expect *H2 also to be characterized by the presence of the feature ~ow]. Good candidates to assigned as the phonetic values of *H2 would be the multiply-articulated pharyngeal/laryngeals /hh/ and Jfili/. Not only are these sounds marked by the presence of the feature ~ow], which accounts for the lowering of adjacent vowels, but they also make it easy to account for the fact that *H2 appears as h in Armenian before full-grade vowels. We can envi­sion a change of lih into *h and of *lih first into *hand then into *h similar to what is found in the Ashkharwa dialect of Abkhaz (cf. Colarusso 1981: 516). The resulting *h would have subsequently been lost in all of the non-Anatolian daughter languages except pre-Armenian. As in Ashkharwa, we may venture a guess that *lih and *lih developed from the earlier pharyngeals *li and *li respec­tively in pre-Anatolian Proto-Indo-European. Indeed, support for such an as­sumption comes from the lexical parallels between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Afroasiatic, where Proto-Indo-European *H2 corresponds to Proto­Afroasiatic *li and *li. Finally, we should take note of Jakobson's (1971: 518-520) description of similar sounds in Arabic:

... /b/ is essentially a pharyngealized laryngeal. Of the two phonemes of this type, /1)./ is usually produced without voice and/'/ with voice. Since a considerable part of the air used with /'/ is consumed by voicing alone, this phoneme is a lenis, in contradistinction to the fortis /1)./. Thanks to the pharyngeal contraction, the voice-pitch in /'/ and the whisper-pitch in /1)./ are very low: "In passing to /'/ from a preceding vowel the voice has to descend rapidly, often through more than an octave, and is cut off at its lowest pitch. If a vowel follows, the pitch begins at its lowest level and rises quickly, through a similar interval, to normal vowel pitch."

As to the influence upon the adjacent vowels, the componential analysis of a pho­neme cannot proceed from the contextual variants of neighboring phonemes: of­ten the variation is due not to a single feature but to a combination of concurrent features. Furthermore, in many instances the pharyngeals modify adjacent vowels in the same direction as pharyngealized buccals. In colloquial Egyptian both the pharyngealized buccals and the pharyngeals appear to exert a modifying retracting influence on preceding and following a-vowels ... In the dialect of El-Hamma,

74 Allan R. Barnhard

Cantineau observes that the /a:/ is pronounced "entre a et o ouvert" in contact with pharyngealized dentals, while in contact with pharyngeals it is realized as "a moyen franc;:ais", in contact with velars it oscillates between the two positions men­tioned, and in other contexts it is a front vowel. In the same dialect the phoneme /u:/ is shifted towards the closed o in the neighborhood of pharyngealized dentals, velars, and pharyngeals ...

It is more difficult to determine the phonetic value of *H3 (*b) than of any of the other laryngeals. Reflexes of * H3 are also found in the older Anatolian languages (cf. Sturtevant 1942: 44 and 1951: 49-51). Kurylowicz (1935: 28-30) tried to show that * H3 changed a contiguous *e to *o, but Sturtevant (1938: 104-111 and 1942: 20) has convincingly argued against such an assumption. Indeed, forms such as Hittite me-bur 'time' beside Gothic mil 'time' and Latin mitior 'to measure', for example, in which the vowel e is found directly before a laryngeal reflex in Hittite, are difficult to explain if, as claimed by Kurylowicz, *H3 changed a contiguous *e to *o. Now, comparison with Proto-Afroasiatic indicates that *H3 corresponds to *hand *f, exactly as does *H2 • This is an im­portant piece of evidence, for, surprisingly, it raises the possibility that *H2 and *H3 might have been identical in Proto-Indo-European. Such an assumption would mean that only one laryngeal, instead of two, was preserved in the older Anatolian languages. Moreover, by reexamining the relevant data from the Indo-European daughter languages, we find that the assumption that *H2 and *H3 were identical actually provides the key to understanding the full scope of the vowel-coloring effects of the laryngeals in Proto-Indo-European. We know that *H2 lowered and colored a contiguous *e to *a. As in the Arabic case dis­cussed by Jakobson above, we would expect this laryngeal to have had a similar effect on the vowels *i and *u in early Proto-Indo-European as well. That is to say that we would expect *H2 to have lowered and colored a contiguous *ito *e and a contiguous *u to *o. In fact, there is some evidence- albeit controversial - within Indo-European itself to support this, as the following examples illus­trate:

1. Early Proto-Indo-European *H2inkh- > later Proto-Indo-European *H2enkh- 'to reach, to come to, to arrive at': Hittite (3rd sg.) bi-in-ik-'{j 'to present, to deliver, to offer, to allot'; Sanskrit afn6ti 'to reach, to come to, to arrive at, to get, to obtain; to master; to offer'; Latin nancior 'to get, to gain, to obtain', nanciscor 'to get, to gain, to receive, to meet'; Tocharian A ents-, B enk- 'to seize, to take'. The Hittite form directly attests *H2inkh-. Note: that the transition from *i to *e was already taking place as early as Hittite is shown by forms such as (nom.-acc. sg.) bf-en-gur 'consignment, offering, ob­lation, gift, tribute' beside (nom.-acc. sg.) bi-in-ku-wa-ar. The same variation occurs in (nom.-acc. sg.) be-en-kan 'death, doom, deadly, disease, plague' alongside (nom.-acc. sg.) bi-in-kan.

The Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals 75

2. Early Proto-Indo-European *H2ul- > later Proto-Indo-European *H2o/- 'to

destroy': Hittite (3rd sg.) bu-ul-la-a-i 'to smite, to destroy, to defeat'; Latin ab-o/eo 'to destroy'; Greek oAAiif-1-L 'to destroy'. Cf. Couvreur 1937: 143-144; Cowgill 1965: 146-147 and 157 (Cowgill derives the Greek form from *Oj-ne-0-mi and considers the o to be a replacement for original a- none­theless, Cowgill accepts the comparison with Hittite bu-ul-la-a-t). The Hittite form directly attests *H2ul-. Note: Polome (1965: 18) and Puhvel (1984- .3: 368) reject this etymology.

3. Early Proto-Indo-European *H2um- > later Proto-Indo-European *H2om­'all, whole': Hittite (nom. sg.) bu-u-ma-an-za 'all, whole'; Latin omnis 'all, every, whole'. Cf. Couvreur 1937: 144-146; Kronasser 1956: 41; Pedersen 1938: 165. The Hittite form directly attests *H2um-. Note: Polome (1965: 18) and Puhvel (1984- .3: 380) reject this etymology - Puhvel derives Latin omnis from *opnis. On the other hand, Walde-Hofmann (1965-1972.II: 209-210) mention Oscan umbn, which points to earlier *omb-nis and not *opnis as the source of both the Oscan form and Latin omnis. *omb-nis may contain an ep­enthetic b, in which case the original form would have been *om-ni-s. Here, -ni- is a suffix. Likewise, in Hittite bu-u-ma-an-za, the stem is *bum-, and the -anz(a) is a suffix (< *-onts or *-fjts). Thus, this etymology can be revived if we consider the original form to have been *H2um-, which later became *H2om-, with -o- from earlier -u- under the influence of the preceding laryn­geal. Such an explanation overcomes the objections raised against this ety­mology based upon the irregular correspondence of Hittite u and Latin o.

This explains the origin of at least some cases of so-called "non-apophonic" *e and *o. At a later date, secondary e- or o-grade forms (corre­sponding to original non-apophonic *o and *e respectively) may have developed in accordance with the regular *e ~ *o ablaut patterning. Where secondary e- or o-grade forms did not develop, we would have examples of non-apophonic *e or *o, as the case may be. An important point needs to be made here: *i and *u had more than one origin in Proto-Indo-European. In some cases, *i and *u were original (that is, inherited from Prato-Nostratic), while, in other cases, they resulted from the stress-conditioned weakening of *vy and *Vw respec­tively. Only original *i and *u were lowered and colored to *e and *o respectively when contiguous with *H2 (and *H3) and *H,. When *i and *u resulted from the stress-conditioned weakening of *vy and *Vw, however, they were not lowered to *e and *o respectively in the neighborhood of *H2 (and *H3) and *H,, since such a change would have disrupted the integrity of the ablaut rela­tionship.

The question of whether or not labialized laryngeals should be recon­structed for Proto-Indo-European will not be considered here, though there is

76 Allan R. Barnhard

at least circumstantial evidence that one or more labialized laryngeals may have existed in the Indo-European parent language (cf. Colarusso 1981: 503-552; Martinet 1970: 212-234; Puhvel 1965: 86-92; Watkins 1965: 89). We may note in passing that there is even some evidence - albeit extremely controversial -that Proto-Indo-European may also have had labialized dentals as well as ala­bialized sibilant (cf. Gamkrelidze-Ivanov 1984.1: 122-134 and 1995.1: 111-115).

We may summarize our findings by setting up the following matrix:

*? *h *hh ~

Traditional *Ht (*it) + - - -Traditional * H4 (* p4) - + - -Traditional *H2 (*b) - - + + Traditional *HJ (*b) - - + + e lowered and colored to a - + + + i lowered and colored to e - + + + u lowered and colored to o - + + + Preserved in Anatolian - - + + Partially preserved in Armenian - - + +

Now that we have determined the probable phonetic values of the Proto­Indo-European laryngeals, we can turn to the question of their prehistoric de­velopment.

On the basis of comparison with other Nostratic languages, especially Proto-Afroasiatic, the following laryngeals may be posited for pre-Proto-Indo­European: *?, *h, *fz, and *'7. At this time, the laryngeals were stable and non­vowel coloring.

The earliest change to take place was the development of the voiceless and voiced pharyngeal fricatives *li and *<i into the multiply-articulated pharyn­geal/laryngeals * lih and *f fi respectively. Colarusso (1981: 516) cites a similar development in the Ashkharwa dialect of Abkhaz. These pharyn­geal/laryngeals, as also the voiceless laryngeal fricative *h, contained the feature ~ow] as part of the simultaneous bundle of features characterizing these sounds. These were the so-called "a-coloring laryngeals". It was at the end of this stage of development that the Anatolian languages became separated from the main speech community. In Anatolian, the laryngeals *?and *h were lost.

In early post-Anatolian Proto-Indo-European, *?and *h were lost initially before vowels, while *lih > *hand *<iii > *fi > *h in the same environment. In later post-Anatolian Proto-Indo-European ("Disintegrating Indo-European"),

The Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals 77

alllaryngeals first merged into *h. *h (from earlier *hh and *'iii) was then lost initially before vowels (except in pre-Proto-Armenian) and medially between an immediately preceding vowel and a following non-syllabic. This latter change caused the compensatory lengthening of preceding short vowels:

eHC > eC oHC > oC aHC > ac iHC > IC uHC > -uc I assume that the single remaining laryngeal, *h, was, at first, preserved in all

other positions and that it had a syllabic allophone when between two non­syllabics - this may be written *&. It is on the basis of the Armenian evidence that I assume this single remaining laryngeal to have been the voiceless laryn­geal fricative [h]. Szemerenyi (1967: 89-90), among others, also agrees that, in its final stage of development, Proto-Indo-European had only a single laryn­geal and that that laryngeal was a voiceless laryngeal fricative. See also Collinge 1970: 67-101.

In closing, we may note that many of the developments posited here for the Proto-Indo-European laryngeals are similar to developments found in Coptic (cf. Greenberg 1969: 183-184).

References

Al-Ani, Salman, 1979: Arabic Phonology. The Hague. Bammesberger, Alfred, 1984: Studien :?{!lr Laryngaltheorie. Gottingen. Beekes, R.S.P., 1988: "Laryngeal Developments: A Survey". - Alfred Bammesberger

(ed.), Die Laryngaltheorie und die Rekonstruktion des indogermanischen Laut- und Formen­{)'Stem. Heidelberg: 59-105.

Benveniste, Emile, 1935: Origines de Ia formation des noms en indo-europeen. Paris. Bombard, Allan R. & John C. Kerns, 1994: The Nostratic Macrofami!J: A Stuc!J in Distant

Linguistic Relationship. Berlin I New York (NY) I Amsterdam. Burrow, Thomas, 1973: The Sanskrit Language. 3rd edition. London. Catford, John C., 1977: Fundamental Problems in Phonetics. Bloomington (IN). Colarusso, John, 1975: The Northwest Caucasian Languages: A Phonological Surory. Ph.D.

dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge (MA). Colarusso, John, 1981: "Typological Parallels between Proto-Indo-European and the

Northwest Caucasian Languages".- Yoel L. Arbeitman & Allan R. Bombard (eds.): Bono Homini Donum: Essqys in Historical Linguistics in Memory of]. Alexander Kerns: part I. Amsterdam: 475-557.

Collinge, N. E., 1970: "The Indo-European Laryngeals". - Collectanea Linguistica: Essqys in General and Genetic Linguistics. The Hague: 67-101.

Couvreur, Walter, 1937: De Hettitische Ij: Een Bijdrage tot de Studie van het Indo-Europeesche Vocalisme. Louvain.

78 Allan R. Barnhard

Cowgill, Warren, 1965: "Evidence in Greek".- Werner Winter (ed.): Evidence for Laryn­geals. The Hague: 142-180.

Gamkrelidze, Thomas V., 1968: "Hittite and the Laryngeal Theory". - J. C. Heester­man, G.H. Schokker & V.I. Subramanian (eds.): Pratiddnam: Indian, Iranian and Indo­European Studies Presented to Franciscus Bernardus Kuiper on his Sixtieth Birlhdqy. The Hague: 89-97.

Gamkrelidze, Thomas V. and Vjaceslav V. Ivanov, 1984: Indoevropqskij ja?Jk i indo­evropqry: Rekonstrukcija i istoriko-tipologiceskij analizprqja?Jka i protokul'tury. 2 vols. Tbi­lisi.

Gamkrelidze, Thomas V. and Vjaceslav V. Ivanov, 1995: Indo-European and the Indo­Europeans: A Reconstruction and Historical Tjpological Ana!Jsis of a Protolanguage and a Proto-Culture. 2 vols. English translation by Johanna Nichols. Berlin I New York (NY) I Amsterdam.

Greenberg, Joseph H., 1969: "Some Methods of Dynamic Comparison in Linguistics". - Jaan Puhvel (ed.): Substance and Structure of Language. Los Angeles (CA): 147-203.

Hopper, Paul J., 1973: "Glottalized and Murmured Occlusives in Indo-European". -Glossa 7: 141-166.

Hopper, Paul J., 1977: "The Typology of the Proto-Indo-European Segmental Inven­tory".- Journal of Indo-European Studies 511:41-53.

Jakobson, Roman, 1971: "Mufaxxama: The 'Emphatic' Phonemes in Arabic".- Selected Writings, vol. I. 2nd edition. The Hague: 510-522.

Jonsson, Hans, 1978: The Laryngeal Theory: A Critical Survry. Lund. Keiler, Allan R., 1970: A Phonological Stucjy of the Indo-European Laryngeals. The Hague. Kellens, Jean (ed.), 1990: La reconstruction des laryngales. Paris. Kronasser, Heinz, 1956: Vergleichende Laut- und Formenlehre des Hethitischen. Heidelberg. Kurylowicz, Jerzy, 1935: Etudes indoeuropeennes I. Krakow. Lehmann, Winfred P., 1952: Proto-Indo-European Phonology. Austin (TX). Lindeman, Fredrik Otto, 1987: Introduction to the "Laryngeal Theory". Oslo. Maddieson, Ian, 1984: Patterns of Sound. Cambridge. Martinet, Andre, 1970: Economie des changements phonetiques. 3rd edition. Bern. Mayrhofer, Manfred, 1986: Indogermanische Grammatik. Vol. 1. Heidelberg. Moscati, Sabatino (ed.), 1964: An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic

Languages. Wiesbaden. Pedersen, Holger, 1938: Hittitisch und die anderen indoeuropiiischen Sprachen. Copenhagen. Polome, Edgar C., 1965: "The Laryngeal Theory So Far". -Werner Winter (ed.): Evi­

dence for Laryngeals. The Hague: 9-78. Puhvel, Jaan, 1965: "Evidence in Anatolian". -Werner Winter (ed.): Evidence for Laryn­

geals. The Hague: 79-92. Puhvel, Jaan, 1984-: Hittite Etymological Dictionary. Berlin I New York (NY) I Amster­

dam. Rasmussen, Jens Elmegard, 1991: "ih, uh and J3.h in Indo-European: A Phonetic Inter­

pretation". - Copenhagen Working Papers in Linguistics 2: 19-35. (Repr. in Rasmussen 1999, 2: 442-458.)

Rasmussen, Jens Elmegard, 1991: "Notes on Indo-European Aspiration". - Copenhagen Working Papers in Linguistics 1: 127-139. (Repr. in Rasmussen 1999, 2: 490-504.)

The Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals 79

Rasmussen, Jens Elmegard, 1999: Selected papers on Indo-European linguistics. With a section on comparative Eskimo linguistics, 1-2 [= Copenhagen Studies in Indo-European 1]. Copen­hagen.

Sturtevant, Edgar H., 1941: "The Indo-European Voiceless Aspirates".- Language 17: 1-11.

Sturtevant, Edgar H., 1942: The Indo-Hittite Laryngeals. Baltimore (MD). Sturtevant, Edgar H., 1951: A Comparative Grammar rifthe Hittite Language. Vol. I. Re­

vised edition. New Haven (C1). Szemerenyi, Oswald, 1967: "The New Look of Indo-European: Reconstruction and

Typology".- Phonetica 17: 65-99. Vennemann, Theo (ed.), 1989: The New Sound rif Indo-European. Berlin / New York

(NY). Walde, Alois and Johann Baptist Hofmann, 1965-1972: Lateinisches erymologisches

Wiirterbuch. 3 vols. 5th ed. Heidelberg. Watkins, Calvert, 1965: "Evidence in Italic". -Werner Winter (ed.): Evidence for Laryn­

geals. The Hague: 181-189. Winter, Werner ( ed.), 1965: Evidence for Laryngeals. The Hague.

Adam Hyllested L'esprit des eaux: grec VVJ-1-CfJYJ, sanskrit &imbhd, lituanien Lauml et quelques autres formes semblant apparentees ............................................................. 219

Michael Janda Vom blauen Himmel Griechenlands: Ovpav6s •••.....•••••••••••.•........................................... 235

Jay H. Jasanoff Acute vs. Circumflex: Some Notes on PIE and Post-PIE Prosodic Phonology ........ 247

Folke Josephson Singulative and Agentive in Hittite and Germanic .......................................................... 257

Anders Richardt J0rgensen Middle Breton eugen 'Ox') euryen 'Edge' and Plurals in -yen ............................................. 263

Jan Katlev The Odyssey through Space and Time of an Inherited and Borrowed Culture-Word: The Case of the Danish Numeral .ryv '7' ................................................. 269

Joshua T. Katz Sanskrit sphij-/ sphigt- and Greek cp{KtS ••...•....................................•..................................... 277

Frederik Kortlandt Nivkh as a Uralo-Siberian Language .................................................................................. 285

Martin Joachim Kiimmel U ngeklartes * u neb en Liquida in germanischen Nomina ............................................... 291

Jenny Helena Larsson Metatony and Length in Baltic ............................................................................................ 305

Alexander Lubotsky Aves tan siiazd-, Sanskrit sedh-, Latin cedere .......................................................................... 323

Javier Martinez Gr. t~-tas, [J-tovta y otra forma emparentada: a[J-1-aata •••......••••.....................•................... 333

Gerhard Meiser Die Peri phrase im Urindogermanischen ........................................................................... 343

H. Craig Melchert Hieroglyphic Luvian Verbs in -min(a) ................................................................................. 355

Ole Nedergaard Thomsen Direction Diathesis and Obviation in Functional Grammar: The Case of the Inverse in Mapudungun, an Indigenous Language of South Central Chile ......................................................................................................... 363

Benedicte Nielsen An Introduction to Vedic Nominal Accentuation (An Attempt at a Simplified Analysis) ............................................................................................................... 379

Norbert Oettinger Die Entwicklung von h1 im Anatolischen und hethitisch ardi ,erhebt sich" .......................................................................................................................... 397

Thomas Olander The Ending-Stressed Word-Forms of the Baltic and Slavic Mobile Paradigm. .......... 407

Birgit Anette Olsen A Note on * s/ t-Stems and Secondary Derivation ............................................................ 419

Martin Peters Mogliche Reflexe einer Interaktion hoher und niederer Phonostile im Tocharischen .... 429

Georges-Jean Pinault Sur les traces du lievre tokharien ........................................................................................ 44 7

Elisabeth Rieken Luwisch tarza/i- ..................................................................................................................... 457

Don Ringe Some Problematic Consonant Clusters in Tocharian ...................................................... 469

]0rgen Rischel Some Thoughts on Sound Change ..................................................................................... 4 7 5

Ralf-Peter Ritter Zur Etymologie von lat. lignum ............................................................................................ 487

Helmut Rix Ein neuer oskisch-griechischer GOttername in Pompei ................................................. 491

Peter Schrijver Apes, Dwarfs, Rivers and Indo-European Internal Derivation ..................................... 507

Vitaly Shevoroshkin Topics in Milyan .................................................................................................................... 513

Maren Sleth t Hieroglyphic Luvian zarzami- .............................................................................................. 527

Wojciech Smoczynski Litauisch veizdi als Zeugnis einer athematischen Prasensform ....................................... 529

Marko Snoj Zur Akzentuierung der urslawischenter-Stamme ............................................................. 537

Finn Thiesen Telugu Loanwords and the Influence of Prehistoric Telugu on Indo-Aryan ............. 545

Gudnin Th6rhallsd6ttir The Etymology of Old Norse eglir 'hawk' ........................................................................ 555

Eva Tichy Vedisch tirati ........................................................................................................................... 565

Xavier Tremblay Die Ablautstufe des Lokativs der akrostatischen Nomina (APOPHONICA III) .......... 573

Michiel de Vaan 'Narten' Roots from the Avestan Point of View ............................................................. 591

Theo Vennemann Note on the Etymology of PGmc. +smitan and +smipaz (E smite, smith, G schmeijlen, Schmied, etc.) ...................................................................................................... 601

Brent Vine New Thoughts on an Old Curse (Tab. Ig. VIb 60/VIIa 49) ......................................... 615

Jos J.S. Weitenberg Armenian banvokc "Good, Well" ......................................................................................... 627

Stefan Zimmer, Harald Jankuhn and Rolf Kodderitzsch Schleicher's Tale: Six Post-PIE Versions ........................................................................... 633

INNSBRUCKER BEITRAG£ ZUR SPRACHWISSENSCHAFT Herausgeber: Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Meid

Bestell- und Auslieferungsadresse: A-6020 Innsbruck, ElisabethstraBe 11

Telefon und Telefax: (+43-512) 56 19 45