The origin of the Proto‑Indo‑European nominal accent-ablaut paradigms

28 Pages·2018·0.222 MB·English

by  Alwin Kloekhorst

100 Jahre Entzifferung des Hethitischen
Morphosyntaktische Kategorien in Sprachgeschichte und Forschung
Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft
vom 21. bis 23. September 2015 in Marburg
Herausgegeben von
Elisabeth Rieken
unter Mitwirkung von
Ulrich Geupel und Theresa Maria Roth
Wiesbaden 2018
Reichert Verlag
Inhaltsverzeichnis
Vorwort .................................................................... VII
SergeyBoroday–IlyaYakubovich
Hittitelocaladverbsincomparativeperspective ................................ 1
PaolaCotticelli-Kurras–FedericoGiusfredi
TowardsastudyoftheLuwiansyntax:Methodologyandapreliminarycase-study 23
PaolaDardano
ZurSubjektmarkierungimHethitischen:syntaktischeundsemantischeFragen ... 39
HannesA.Fellner–LauraGrestenberger
DieReflexeder*-nt-und*-mh no-PartizipienimHethitischenundTocharischen 63
1
RitaFrancia
ThegrammarofHittitepoetry ................................................ 83
DitaFrantíková
AdjectivevalenceinHittiteincomparisonwithotherancientIndo-European
languages ................................................................... 91
OlavHackstein
FormaleMerkmalenegierterrhetorischerFragenimHethitischenundinälteren
indogermanischenSprachen .................................................. 103
StefanHöfler
Dieanatolischens-Stämme:flexivischerArchaismusoderKategorieimZerfall? .. 121
JayH.Jasanoff
WhathappenedtotheperfectinHittite?Acontributiontothetheoryofthe
h e-conjugation ............................................................. 137
2
RonaldI.Kim
Onehundredyearsofre-reconstruction:Hittite,Tocharian,andthecontinuing
revisionofProto-Indo-European .............................................. 157
AlwinKloekhorst
TheoriginoftheProto‑Indo‑Europeannominalaccent-ablautparadigms ......... 179
PetrKocharov
Theperfecto-presentverbsinthehistoryofthe*h e-conjugation ................ 205
2
DanielKölligan
FunktionsverbgefügeundSekundärwurzeln ................................... 219
MartinJoachimKümmel
AnatolischesundindoiranischesVerbum:ErbeundNeuerung ................... 239
SilviaLuraghi–GuglielmoInglese
TrendsinthedevelopmentofsentenceconnectivesinHittite:Evidencefrom
subordination ............................................................... 259
VI Inhaltsverzeichnis
ElenaMartínez-Rodríguez
RevisitinggenderandmorphologyinLyciana-stemnouns ..................... 275
H.CraigMelchert
HittiteandIndo-European:Revolutionandcounterrevolution ................... 289
NorbertOettinger
AuswirkungendesCaland-SystemsaufdasVerhältnisvonVerbumundAdjektiv
inindogermanischenSprachen ............................................... 295
DavidSasseville
NewevidenceforthePIEcommongendersuffix*-eh inAnatolian:Luwian -ašša-
2
(c.)andLycianB-asa-(c.) .................................................... 303
MatildeSerangeli
Lykisches-Verbenundsḱe/o-BildungenimAnatolischen ........................ 319
AndrejV.Sideltsev
Hittitesyntaxandmodernlinguistictheory:TwokindsofNPIsinHittite ........ 329
ZsoltSimon
DasHethitischeunddergrundsprachlicheVokalismusdesPersonalpronomens
der1.Sg. ................................................................... 355
MarionaVernet
Evidenceforaninheritedhi-conjugationinLycian:The3sg.presentsin-e ....... 363
PaulWidmer
IndogermanischeStammbäume:Datentypen,Methoden ........................ 373
KazuhikoYoshida
OntheprehistoryofHittitemediopassivesin-ia̯ ttaand-šketta .................. 389
The origin of the Proto‑Indo‑European nominal
accent-ablaut paradigms
AlwinKloekhorst
Abstract: In this paper, I will discuss the origin of the different nominal accent-ablaut
paradigmsthatcanbereconstructedfor(late)Proto-Indo-European,andarguethatnew
insightsintoseveralpeculiaritiesoftheHittitenominalcasesystemmayhaveinteresting
consequencesforthistopic.Inordertodoso,itisimportantthatwefirsthaveagoodunder-
standingofthenatureanddevelopmentofProto-Indo-Europeanablautanditscorrelation
withaccent.
1 Theinner-Proto-Indo-Europeandevelopmentofablaut:Brugmann
Asiswellknown,virtuallyeverymorphemeinProto‑Indo‑Europeancontainsaslotthat
canbefilledeitherbyoneofthevowels*e,*o,*ē,or*ō,orbynovowelatall,*Ø (zero).1
It was already Brugmann (1897) who made the following interesting statement on the
Proto‑Indo‑Europeanablautsystem:“FragtmannachdemUrsprungdesuridg.Ablautes,
so ist also wahrscheinlich, dass er der Hauptsache nach durch lautgesetzliche Wirkung
entstand”(1897:483).Headdstothis,however,that“esvonvornhereinklar[ist],dassnicht
eineinzigesLautgesetzdiesenAblautgeschaffenhat,sonderneinegrössereAnzahl,unddass
dieseinverschiedenenPeriodengewirkthaben,sodassindem,waswirdenuridg.Ablaut
nennen,mehrere,inverschiedenenZeiträumenentstandeneSchichtenübereinanderliegen.
IndenälterenSchichtenwirdsichaberjedesmalschonmanchesdurchFormübertragungen
verschiednerArtverschobenhaben,ehederneueablautwirkendeFactorinThätigkeitkam”
(1897: 484). As we see, Brugmann assumes that the shaping of the Proto‑Indo‑European
ablautsystemliesinseveralsoundlawsthathaveworkedindifferenttimeperiods.Moreover,
hestatesthatitiswellpossiblethatintheperiodsbetweenthesesoundlawsseveral“Form-
übertragungen”,i.e.morphologicalprocesseshavetakenplacethatmayhaveblurredthe
regularityofthesoundlaws.AccordingtoBrugmann,therearethreebasicablautpatterns,
whichheexplainsbyassumingthreedifferentsoundlaws.
1. ThefirstpatternBrugmannrecognizesisthealterationbetweene-gradeandØ‑grade,
aboutwhichhestates:“Manerkenntleicht,dassdieAbstufung[i.e.thealteration
between*eand*Ø]zumgrösstenTeilaufmehroderminderweitgehenderReduktion
sonantischerElementeschwachtonigerSilbenberuht,aufLautverlusten,durchdie
baldSilbengekürztworden,baldauchSilbenverlorengegangensind:z.B.1.Plur.*imés
ai.imás ‘imus’aus*eimés,vgl.*éimi ai.ḗmi ‘eo’,*smés ai.smás ‘sumus’aus*esmés,
1 ItisoftenclaimedthatPIEalsoknewthevowels*aand*ā(e.g.Tichy2000:25;Meier-Brügger2002:76;
Fortson2004:60–61;Clackson2007:34–36;Weiss2009:40–41),andthatwethereforealsomustreconstructan
*a/ā-ablaut(e.g.inthewordfor‘salt’,nom.sg.*sā´l(-s),acc.sg.*sál-m,gen.sg.*sal-ós,cf.NIL:586–590)andan
*a/Ø-ablaut(e.g.intheroot‘togive’,*h ai-/ *h i-,cf.LIV²:229).Nevertheless,itisusuallyassumedthat*a
1 1
“doesnotnormallyalternateinregularablautwith*eor*o”(Weiss2009:41),andIwillthereforenottakethese
vowelsintoaccounthere.Infact,Imyselfdonotseeanygoodreasonforreconstructingthevowels*aand*ā
forPIE(cf.Lubotsky1989):thewordfor‘salt’shouldinmyviewratherbereconstructedasahysterokinetic
nounnom.sg.*sh -ḗl,acc.sg.*sh -él-m,gen.sg.*sh -l-és,andtherootfor‘togive’canbereconstructedas*h ei-
2 2 2 2
(cf.Kloekhorst2006:11817).
180 AlwinKloekhorst
vgl. *ésmi ai. ásmi ‘sum’” (1922: 138–139). In other words, Brugmann explains the
e/Ø‑ablautinthesewordpairsbyassumingthatinapre‑stageofProto‑Indo‑European
eachmorphemewithinagivenwordcontainedavowel,butthatatacertainpoint
intimeasoundlawappliedduetowhichonlytheaccentedvowelofthewordwas
retained,andtheunaccentedvowelswerelost.
2. The second pattern treated by Brugmann is the alteration between ē˘ and ō˘, about
whichhestates:“BeidemqualitativenAblaut,derAbtönung,handeltessichzunächst
umdenWechselé :oundḗ :ō.Gr.φρέν‑εςφρήν:ἄ‑φρονεςἄ‑φρων;arm.anjink-k‘
‘Seelen,Personen’:mi-anjunk‘ ‘Mönche’.Gr.πατέρ‑εςπατήρ:εὐ‑πάτορεςεὐ‑πάτωρ;
ai.pitár-as:tvát-pitāras[…].Esistdarnachklar,dassmitdemZurücktretendesTons
dieUmfärbungvonē˘zuō˘imZusammenhangstand”(1922:145–146).Inotherwords,
Brugmannassumesthatinthesewords*oand*ōaretheresultofalossofaccentuation
oforiginal*eand*ē.Moreover,hestates:“Dieō˘‑Formensindausderlautgesetzlichen
StellungimSatzvielfachinandereStellungenübergegangen,z.B.hatimGriech.πόδες
altes*πέδες(lat.pedēs)verdrängt”(Brugmann1922:145).ThismeansthatBrugmann
assumesthatinallcaseswherewefindan*ō˘inanaccentedposition,thisistheresult
ofananalogicaldevelopment,like,forinstance,theintroductionofthe*o-gradeina
morphemethatoriginallycontainedan*e-grade.2
3. ThethirdpatternmentionedbyBrugmannisthealterationbetweenshortandlong
vowels,*eand*ovs.*ē and*ō,aboutwhichhestates:“IndenBereichdesquantitativen
Ablauts,derAbstufung,gehörtauchdieEntstehungderDehnstufebeidenleichten
Basen.DieseerscheintbesondersimNom.sg.,[…]ims-Aorist,[…]undinPräsentien
[…]”(1922:144).Inotherwords,Brugmannnotesthatthedistributionofthelengthened
gradeisremarkablylimited.Hethereforeassumesthat“solcheLängenausKürzen
entstanden[sind]”(Brugmann1922:144),i.e.aretheresultofsomespecificsound
lawsbywhichoriginalshort*eand*owerelengthenedto*ē and*ō.
Atfirstsight,especiallytheexplanationforpattern1andpattern2seemtocontradicteach
other.Accordingtothesoundlawthatwouldberesponsibleforpattern1allunaccented
e’swouldbelost,whereasaccordingtothesoundlawthatwouldberesponsibleforpat-
tern2allunaccentede’swouldturnintoo.Inordertosolvethiscontradiction,wemust
assume,asBrugmannhimselfalreadynoted,thatbothsoundlawstookplaceindifferent
periods.Moreover,wemustassume,againasBrugmannhimselfalreadynoted,thatinthe
intermediateperiodseveralanalogicaldevelopmentshavetakenplacethatyieldedtheinput
forthesoundlawthatcausedpattern2.
2 ThedevelopmentofablautwithinProto‑Indo‑European:theBeekes‑Kortlandt
chronology
It is on the basis of such considerations as Brugmann’s that Beekes and Kortlandt have
formulatedarelativechronologyofdevelopmentsthatexplainstheablautsystemasattested
inlateProto‑Indo‑European.3 Inthefollowing,Iwillexemplifythischronologywiththe
useoftheparadigmofthewordfor‘mind’,whichinlateProto‑Indo‑Europeaninflectedas
2 Oranaccentshiftbywhichan*osecondarilybecameaccented.Suchashiftcanbeassumedforexplaining,for
instance,theaccented*óintheverb‘toknow’:1sg.*uóid-h e,2sg.*uóid-th e,3sg.*uóid-e.Thisverbmustthen
2 2
beregardedastheresultofanaccentshiftfromearlier*uoid-h é,*uoid-th é,*uoid-é,possiblybyanalogywith
2 2
therootaccentuationoftheathematicrootpresent(*h és-mi,etc.)orthestative(*ḱéi-h ,etc.).
1 2
3 Beekes1985:157;Kortlandt2002;cf.alsoKloekhorst2013:118–119.
TheoriginoftheProto‑Indo‑Europeannominalaccent-ablautparadigms 181
nom.‑acc.sg.*mén-os,gen.sg.*mén-es-os(Skt.mánas,mánasas,Gr.μένος,μένεος),butwhich
hasbeentracedbackbySchindler(1975b:259–264)toanearlyPIEinflectionnom.‑acc.sg.
*mén-s,gen.sg.*mn-és-s.
– SoundLaw1Massivevowelreduction:allvowelsthatinapre‑Proto‑Indo‑European
stagewereaccentedbecame*e,4whereasallunaccentedvowelswerelost.Afterthis
soundlawhastakenplace,allwordscontainedonlyonemorphemethatcontained
anaccentede‑grade,whereasallothermorphemeswereinzero‑grade:nom.‑acc.sg.
*mén-s,gen.sg.*mn-és-s.
– IntermediateperiodAAfterSoundLaw1hasceasedtooperate,wesometimesfind
spreadofthevowel*etounaccentedmorphemes.Inthecaseof*mén-s,*mn-és-s,the
vowel*eofthesuffixspreadtothenom.‑acc.sg.form,yielding*mén-es.Moreover,the
zero‑gradeformofthegen.sg.endingisreplacedbyitsfullgradeforminanalogyto
hysterodynamicparadigms,yieldinggen.sg.*mn-és-es.
– SoundLaw2Allunaccented*e’sareweakenedto*o.5Theregularoutcomeof*mén-es,
*mn-és-esisthen*mén-os,*mn-és-os.6
– IntermediateperiodBAfterSoundLaw2hasceasedtooperate,weagainfindsome
regularizations.Forinstance,inthecaseof*mén-os,*mn-és-os,theaccentede-grade
ofthenom.‑acc.sg.formisgeneralizedthroughouttheparadigm,yielding*mén-os,
*mén-es-os.Thevowels*e and*o arenowindeedseparatephonemes,whichmeans
thatalso*ocannowspreadtoaccentedmorphemes.
– SoundLaw3Insomeenvironments,short*e and*o arelengthened.Thereisstill
somedebateontheexactconditionsoftheselengthenings,butitseemsnowgenerally
accepted that, for instance, the long *ē in nom.sg. *ph -tḗr ‘father’ is the outcome
2
ofanearliershort*e,whichunderwentlengtheningeitherbecauseitstoodbeforea
word‑finalresonant(thusBeekes1985:152)orbecauseitstoodbeforeaword‑final
sequence*-rsthatwasreducedwithcompensatorylengthening(so‑calledSzemerényi’s
Law).7
3 Consequencesforthenominalaccent‑ablautparadigms
InKloekhorst2013,IhavearguedthatBeekes’andKortlandt’schronologyasgivenabovecan
helpelucidatetheinternaldevelopmentsoftheProto‑Indo‑Europeannominalaccent‑ablaut
paradigms.Inmostrecenthandbooks,fiveofsuchnominalaccent‑ablautparadigmsare
4 Thatis,theybecameavowelthatintheenddevelopedinto*e.SinceinthestagedirectlyfollowingSoundLaw
1weareeffectivelydealingwithalanguagewithonlyonephonemicvowel(notethat*iand*uarejustvocalic
variantsofearlier*yand*w),thisvowelphoneticallyprobablywas[ə].
5 SinceatthisstageProto‑Indo‑Europeanhadatwo‑vowelsystem,itislikelythatthephoneticrenderingof*o
wassomethinglike[ɐ].Onlyafter*h startedtohaveacolouringeffectonneighbouring*e’s,loweringthem
2
to[a],theothertwovowels,*e[ə]and*o[ɐ],werepushedtothepositionof[ɛ]and[ɔ],respectively.
6 Notethatinprint,Schindler(1975b:266)claimedtobeagnosticabouttheoriginof*-o-in*mén-os:“Eine
sichereDeutungdero-Qualität[ofmén-os]läßtsichfreilichnichtgeben,undichverzichteaufSpekulationen
darüber”.InthediscussionafterthepresentationofthispaperattheMarburgArbeitstagungseveralcolleagues
confirmed,however,thatinclassSchindlerdidteachtheideathatthe*-o-inmén-oswastheregularoutcome
ofanearlierunaccented*-e-thatwastransferredfromthesuffixsyllableoftheobliquestem*mn-és-.
7 Szemerényi1962:13.
182 AlwinKloekhorst
reconstructed,twoofwhicharestatic,theotherthreebeingmobile(‘kinetic’)(‘R’=root,‘S’
=suffix,‘E’=ending);cf.Table1.8
Table1:Nominalaccent‐ablautparadigmsaccordingtorecenthandbooks
acrostaticI acrostaticII protero- hystero- amphi-
kinetic kinetic kinetic
R S E R S E R S E R S E R S E
nom. ó - - ḗ - - é - - - ḗ - é ō -
acc. ó - - ḗ - - é - - - é - é o -
obl. é - - é - - - é - - - é - - é
loc. é - - é - - - ḗ - é (‑i) - é (‑i)
3.1 Staticparadigms
Thetwostaticparadigmsthatareusuallyreconstructedarecalled“acrostatic”,whichmeans
thattheyareregardedtohavebeenaccentedontheirrootthroughouttheparadigm,whereas
theothermorphemesareallunaccentedandinzero‑grade.Intheparadigmthatiscalled
“acrostaticI”itisassumedthattherootshowedan*ó/é-ablaut,whereasintheparadigmthat
iscalled“acrostaticII”therootisassumedtohaveshown*ḗ/é‑ablaut.9
In Kloekhorst 2014b, I have reviewed all the available evidence for these paradigms
and have argued for several adaptations of these reconstructions. First, I have found no
indisputableevidenceinfavoroftheexistenceofaPIE*ó/é-ablautingacrostaticparadigm.
Thewordsthatundeniabledoshowanablautbetweeno-gradeande‑gradeintheroot(*pod-
/ *ped-‘foot’,*iokw-r/n-/ *iekw-r/n-‘liver’)areinfactmobile.10Second,inmytreatmentof
theacrostaticallyinflectednounsthatthusfarwereseenasshowing*ḗ/é‑ablautintheirroot,
Ihavefoundnoindisputableevidenceinfavorofthepresenceofalengthenedgrade*ē in
anyoftheformsoftheirparadigms.11Instead,allevidenceratherpointstothepresenceofa
8 E.g.Meier-Brügger2002:203–220;Fortson2004:107–110;Clackson2007:79–86.NotethatMeier‑Brüggerin
hisoverviewofparadigmsstatesthatintheacrostaticparadigmthelocativehasthestructure*CC-éC(2002:
216),whereasintheparadigmof*nokw-t-,*nekw-t-,hismainexampleforanacrostaticallyinflectednoun,he
citesalocativeform*nékw-t(2002:218),i.e.accordingtothestructure*CéC-C.
9 Eichner1973:68,9133;Schindler1975a:4–8.
10 Iregardtheseassecondaryoffshootsoforiginallymobileparadigmswithonlyoneaccentede-gradeperform.
Inthecaseofthewordfor‘foot’,IreconstructearlyPIEnom.sg.*péd-s,acc.sg.*péd-m,gen.sg.*pd-és,dat.sg.
*pd-éi,etc.(notethatgen.sg.*pd-ésmaybeattestedassuchinSkt.upabdá-‘noiseofgoing’,whichmayreflect
anolduniverbationofthecollocation*h upopdés‘underthefoot’,p.c.A.M.Lubotsky).InIntermediatePeriod
1
Athevowelofthestemwasgeneralized,yieldinggen.sg.*ped-és,dat.sg.*ped-éi,etc.,whichthroughSound
Law2regularlydevelopedinto*pod-és,*pod-éi.WhenthroughSoundLaw3thevowelofthenom.sg.form
waslengthenedbecauseitstoodinamonosyllable,wearriveatthelatePIEparadigmnom.sg.*pḗd-s,acc.sg.
*péd-m,gen.sg.*pod-és,dat.sg.*pod-éi,whichtomymindcanaccountforallattestedformsintheIEdaughter
languages.Inthecaseofthewordfor‘liver’,IreconstructanearlyPIEproterodynamicparadigmnom.‑acc.sg.
*iékw-r,gen.sg.*ikw-én-s,loc.sg.*ikw-én-i,etc.InIntermediatePeriodA,therootvocalismwasgeneralized,
yieldinggen.sg.*iekw-én-s,loc.sg.*iekw-én-i,whichthroughSoundLaw2regularlyyieldedgen.sg.*iokw-én-s,
loc.sg.*iokw-én-i.ItisthislatePIEparadigmthatismostfaithfullyreflectedinLat.iecur,iocineris.Fora
detailedtreatmentofthesewords,cf.Kloekhorst2014b:151–161.
11 Thewordfor‘time’thatisusuallyreconstructedas*mḗh -ur,*méh -un-smustinmyviewinfacthavebeen
2 2
*méih -ur,*méih -un-s;thewordfor‘well’thatissometimesreconstructedas*bhrēu̯-r̥,*bhréu̯-n-s(Eichner
2 2
1973:68)mustinfacthavebeen*bhréh -ur,*bhrh -uén-s;thelong*ē asfoundinGr.ἧπαρ‘liver’mustbe
1 1
secondary,whereastheAv.formyākar‘id.’isamistake.SeeKloekhorst2014bforanextensivetreatmentofall
theseandotheracrostaticnouns.
TheoriginoftheProto‑Indo‑Europeannominalaccent-ablautparadigms 183
singleablautgrade,namely*e.Ihavethereforeconcludedthatwecanreconstructonlyone
staticparadigm,whichhadthestructureasshowninTable2. Examplesare,forinstance,the
wordfor‘mother’(nom.sg.*méh -tr,acc.sg.*méh -tr-m,gen.sg.*méh -tr-s)andtheword
2 2 2
for‘time’(nom.‑acc.sg.*méih -ur,gen.sg.*méih -un-s).
2 2
Table2:Staticparadigm
static
R S E
nom. é - -
acc. é - -
obl. é - -
loc. é -
3.2 Mobileparadigms
Inmosthandbooks,threemobileparadigmsarereconstructed:aproterokinetic,ahysteroki-
netic,andanamphikineticone.InKloekhorst2013,Ihavecalledattentiontothefactthata
fourthmobileparadigmcanbereconstructedaswell,namelyonthebasisoftheHittiteword
for‘hand’,nom.sg.keššar,acc.sg.kiššeran,gen.sg.kišraš,whichcanonlyreflectaparadigm
ofthestructurenom.sg.*CéC-C,acc.sg.*CC-éC-m,gen.sg.*CC-C-és.12Moreover,Ihavein
thatsamearticle13explainedthatalthoughallthesefourparadigmscanbereconstructed
forthelateststageofProto‑Indo‑European,wecanonthebasisofinternalreconstruction,
usingBeekesandKortlandt’srelativechronologyoftheinternaldevelopmentofablaut(as
alsogivenabove),arguethatthehysterokineticandtheamphikineticparadigmsareinfact
youngeroffshootsofthekeššar‑paradigmthathaveundergonemorphologicalgeneraliza-
tions.14ThismeansthatfortheearlieststageofPIEweonlyneedtoreconstructtwomobile
12 Cf.alreadyBeekes1985:56andKloekhorst2008:471–472.
13 OnthebasisofBeekes1985.
14 ThescenariosketchedinKloekhorst2013runsasfollows:InEarlyPIE,therewasonlyonetypeofmobile
paradigmforanimatenouns,namelythekeššar‑type:*CéC-C,*CC-éC-m,*CC-C-és.InIntermediatePeriod
A,someofthesenounsintroducedtherootshapeofthenom.sg.form(includingtheaccentuation)into
theiracc.sg.form,yieldingtheparadigm*CéC-C,*CéC-eC-m,*CC-C-és.BecauseofSoundLaw2,thislatter
paradigmdevelopedinto*CéC-C,*CéC-oC-m,*CC-C-és.Atthisstagewehadtwotypesofparadigms,namely
thekeššar‑type,andthetypewiththeacc.sg.form*CéC-oC-m.InIntermediatePeriodB,somenounsintroduced
thestemoftheacc.sg.intothenom.sg.form.Wheneverthishappenedinkeššar‑typeparadigms,theresultwas
*CC-éC,*CC-éC-m,*CC-C-és.Wheneverithappenedinparadigmswiththeacc.sg.oftheshape*CéC-oC-m,
theresultwas*CéC-oC,*CéC-oC-m,*CC-C-és.BecauseofSoundLaw3,thevowelofthesuffixinthenom.sg.
formsoftheselattertwoparadigmswaslengthenedto*CC-ḗCand*CéC-ōC,respectively.Wenowarriveat
thesituationasattestedinLatePIE,namelythatwehavethreeparadigms:thekeššar‑type,*CéC-C,*CC-éC-m,
*CC-C-és(i.e.thetypethatresistedthemorphologicalgeneralizationsthattookplaceinIntermediatePeriod
AandB),thehysterokinetictype,*CC-ḗC,*CC-éC-m,*CC-C-és(i.e.thetypethatresistedthemorphological
generalizationthattookplaceinIntermediatePeriodA,butdidtakepartinthemorphologicalgeneralization
thattookplaceinIntermediatePeriodB),andtheamphikinetictype,*CéC-ōC,*CéC-oC-m,*CC-C-és(i.e.the
typethattookpartbothinthemorphologicalgeneralizationtakingplaceinIntermediatePeriodA,andinthe
onethattookplaceinIntermediatePeriodB).Itshouldbeemphasizedthatthisscenarioperfectlyexplains(1)
whythekeššar‑typeisattestedonlyinthewordfor‘hand’‒becauseasaworddenotingabasicbodypart
itbelongstothecoreofalanguage(nr.48ontheSwadeshlist),andthereforewasanoftenusedwordthat
wasabletoresistmorphologicalgeneralizations;(2)whythehysterokinetictypeisattestedinonlyasmall
groupofwordsthatprimarilyconsistsofkinshipterms(‘father’,‘daughter’)‒becausethese,too,belongtothe
coreofalanguage(beitlessthan‘hand’),andthereforearealsooftenusedwordsthatwereabletoresistthe
184 AlwinKloekhorst
paradigms, a proterokinetic one (which from now on I will call ‘proterodynamic’, since
thisisthetermasitwasoriginallycoinedinPedersen1926:24)15andthekeššar-paradigm
(which from now on I will call ‘hysterodynamic’)16, which had the following structures
seeninTable3.Examplesare,forinstance,thewordfor‘fire’(proterodynamic:nom.‑acc.sg.
*péh -ur, gen.sg. *ph -uén-s) and the word for ‘hand’ (hysterodynamic: nom.sg. *ǵhés-r,
2 2
acc.sg.*ǵhs-ér-m,gen.sg.*ǵhs-r-és).
Table3:Proterodynamicandhysterodynamicparadigms
proterodynamic hysterodynamic
R S E R S E
nom. é - - é - -
acc. é - - - é -
obl. - é - - - é
loc. - é - é
4 Correlationbetweenparadigmsandgender
Inhistreatmentoftheproterodynamicandhysterodynamicparadigms,Beekes(1985:167)
statesthat“[w]henwelookatthedistributionofthegenderofthetwotypes,itappears
thatthereisanoveralldistribution.[…]TherearehardlyanyHD[=hysterodynamic,A.K.]
neuters, whereas most classes of the PDI [= proterodynamic inflection, A.K.] consist of
neuters”.ThesamedistributionhasbeenobservedbyViti(2015),whogivesthefollowing
listsofthedifferentnounclassesthatarefoundwithaproterokinetic,hysterokinetic,or
amphikineticinflection(2015:117–120):
Proterokinetic:
1. Femininenominaactionisin-ti-(e.g.*ǵenh -ti-s/*ǵnh -téi-s‘birth’).
1 1
2. Femininestemsin*-h -or*-ih -(e.g.*gwén-h /*gwn-éh -s‘woman’).
2 2 2 2
3. Neuterstemsin*-r/n-(e.g.*h ésh -r /*h sh -én-s‘blood’).
1 2 1 2
4. Neuterstemsin*-uer/uen-(e.g.*péh -ur /*ph -uén-s‘fire’).
2 2
5. Neuterstemsin*-l/n-(e.g.*seh -ul /*sh -uén-s‘sun’).
2 2
6. Neuterstemsin*-n-(e.g.*h éngw-n/*h ngw-én-s‘butter’).
3 3
7. Neuterstemsin*-men-(e.g.*h néh -mn/*h nh -mén-s‘name’).
3 3 3 3
8. Neuterstemsin*-s-(e.g.*mén-(o)s/*mn-és-s‘mind’).17
firstmorphologicalgeneralization;and(3)whytheamphikinetictypeisthenormaltype‒becausethewords
thatshowthistype(e.g.‘dawn’,‘king’,‘eagle’)belongmuchlesstothecoreofalanguage,thereforewereless
oftenusedandasaconsequenceweremoreeasilysubjecttomorphologicalgeneralizations.
15 Cf.alsoKuiper1942:4.
16 Cf.alsoKloekhorst2013:111–116.
17 Vitiusestheexample“*h óh -s/*h h -és-os”‘mouth’here,butthereconstructionofthisnounisdifficult,cf.
3 1 3 1
Kloekhorst2008:166–167.Vitidoesnotmentiontheproterokineticmasculineu-stem*suHnu-’son’.However,
sincethiswordisprobablyacompound*suH-nu-’new-born’(nextto*suH-Hiu-’young-born)(p.c.F.Kortlandt),
itsinflectionmaynotbeoriginal.
TheoriginoftheProto‑Indo‑Europeannominalaccent-ablautparadigms 185
Hysterokinetic:18
1. Kinshiptermsin*-r-(e.g.*ph -tḗr /*ph -tér-m/*ph -tr-és‘father’).19
2 2 2
2. Nominaagentisin*-r-(e.g.*dh -tḗr /*dh -tér-m/*dh -tr-és‘giver’).
3 3 3
3. Masculinen-stems(e.g.*h uks-ḗn/*h uks-én-m/*h uks-n-és‘youngbull’).
2 2 2
4. Possessiveadjectivesin*-s-(e.g.*h su-men-ḗs/*h su-men-és-m/*h su-mn-s-és
1 1 1
‘well-disposed’).
Amphikinetic:20
1. Perfectactiveparticiples(e.g.*uéid-uos-/*uid-us-és‘whoknows’).
2. Masculineorfemininer-stems(e.g.*suésor-/*suesr-és‘sister’).
3. Masculinen-stems(e.g.*dhǵém-on-/*dhǵm-n-és‘human’).
4. Masculinemen-stems(e.g.*h éh t-mon-/*h h t-mn-és‘breath’).
1 1 1 1
5. Masculineu-stems(e.g.*néḱ-ou-/*nḱ-u-és‘dead’).
6. Masculineorfeminines-stems(e.g.*h éus-os-/*h us-s-és‘dawn’).
2 2
7. Formsin*-h -(e.g.*pént-oh -/*pnt-h -és‘path’).
2 2 2
8. Femininem-stems(e.g.*dhéǵ-om-/*dhǵ-m-és‘earth’).
Tothesecanbeaddedthelistofhysterodynamically(i.e.keššar-type)inflectednouns:
keššar-type:
1. Thefemininewordfor‘hand’(*ǵhés-r /*ǵhs-ér-m/*ǵhs-r-és).21
2. Thecommongenderwordfor‘border’(*h ér-h /*h r-éh -m/*h r-h -és).22
1 2 1 2 1 2
3. Themasculineandfeminineformsof‘large’(*méǵ-h (-s)/*mǵ-éh -m/*mǵ-h -
2 2 2
és).23
4. Feminine nouns in *-uh - (e.g. *dénǵh-uh (-s) / *dnǵh-uéh -m / *dnǵh-uh -és
2 2 2 2
‘tongue’).24
Inprinciple,allnounclassesthatinflectaccordingtothehysterokinetic,amphikineticor
thekeššar-typeinflection(andwhichcanbeseenastheoffspringsofasingle,originally
hysterodynamicinflection)areofmasculineorfemininegender(orofcommongenderwhen
onlyattestedinAnatolian),25i.e.non-neuter,andthusconfirmBeekes’andViti’sobservations.
18 Towhichcanbeadded:5.Themasculineu-stem*di-éu-/*di-u-és‘sky’(cf.alsofootnote32).
19 Vitigives*dhugh -ter-‘daughter’asanexample,butcf.Kloekhorst2011forthepossibilitythatthisword
2
originallywashysterodynamicaccordingtothekeššar-type:nom.sg.*dhuégh -tr,acc.sg.*dhugh -tér-m,gen.sg.
2 2
*dhugh -tr-és.
2
20 Vitialsocites“9.Thenounindiphthongofthe“sky”(M):NOM*dyéw-s[…]vs.GEN*diw-és”,whichIwould
ratherinterpretashysterokinetic,cf.footnote32;and“10.Collectivenounsin-r/n-asNOM*wéd-or-“waters”
vs.GEN*ud-n-és”,whichtomyminddidnotexistassuch(cf.KloekhorstforthcomingandKloekhorst2014a:
3081157,whereitisarguedthatHitt.u̯idārinfactreflectsapreform*ud-ō´r).
21 Beekes1985:53–56;Kloekhorst2008:471–472;Kloekhorst2013:111–115.
22 Kloekhorst2008:246–247.
23 Cf.Beekes1985:8,17–19;Kloekhorst2014a:45–46.
24 Cf.Beekes1985:39–43forthisreconstruction.AccordingtoBeekes(2011:201)thesamestructureapplies
tothe*-iH-suffixthatcreatesfeminines(nom.*CéC-iH(-s),acc.*CC-iéH-m,gen.*CC-iH-és)likeinSkt.vr̥k´ī-
‘she-wolf’.InViti’sview(2015:117),thesesuffixesratherinflectedmesostatically(i.e.withtheaccentonthe
suffixthroughouttheparadigm).
25 Thestatusofafewneutersthatseemtoinflecthysterodynamicallyisnotfullyclear.Hitt.ḫaštai-‘bone’
isaneuterword,butshowsanamphikineticinflection:nom.-acc.sg.ḫaštai<*h éstH-ōi,gen.sg.ḫaštiia̯š<
3
*h éstH-i-os«*h stH-i-és.Beekes(1985:167)statesthatḫaštai-cannotbeanoldformation(theoriginalnoun
3 3
was*h est-H-instead)andisthereforeirrelevant.Buteveniftheformationofḫaštai-isold,itneednotbe
3