Professional Documents
Culture Documents
kh- branch
Arm. xac- to bite = Iranian *xz- to drink/eat
Alb. ha to eat = OIA khd- to chew etc. (cf. Lith. knd- to bite)
Instead of *k assimilation *kx > x?
But Alb. also *t > *t > in rreth, Pl. rrath ring, formed like OIA rath
ti and ubhna
s, ka
, zm, zmi ~ z
ya- = MIA jhya- burn, km- burnt, dried, MIA jhma- = Av. jma- black
< PIIr *d- < PIE *dg-eh- PIE *deg- burn
Problematic:
OIA k, MIA kh/ch = Iranian x- = Greek < IE *tk?
OIA k-, kya- = Av. x-, xaiia- rule, reign ?=? Greek kt- achieve, possess
OIA k, MIA gh/jh = Iranian g- = Greek pt < IE *dg? (better *gg )
OIA kar- = Av. ar- flow ?=? Greek pter- perish
No IE thorn //, not even peculiar allophone after dorsal stops; main arguments by Lipp 2009 (following
Burrow)
Basic assumption: simplification of (palatal) affricates after stops (Lipp 2009)
Cf. *pk > PrePIIr. *p [pt] > *p [p] > *p, cf. *pk u- cattle > *pu- > OIA k-, Av. fu-
however, probably not heterosyllabic, cf. OIA virap- < *wirap.w- < *wi(H)ra-pw--
Cf. *kk > PrePIIr. *k > *k > *k?
Ved. cak- may contain old s in all cases (contra Kmmel 2000, weak perfect stem cak- from *ak- <
*kekks- rather than *ak- < *ak- < *kekk-); so heterosyllabic preservation, cf. OIA cakhy-, Av. caxs- <
*a-k.- (generalized to root *k-)
12
Martin Joachim Kmmel, martin.kuemmel@mail.uni-freiburg.de
Similarly after dentals *tk > *t > *t > *t, but here also heterosyllabic [t. ] > [. ] > [. ] = /t/, due to
greater similarity of *t and *; merged with *k s > * [. ] > [.] *t.
PIIr *t > PIA * > OIA k, MIA c h/ch/kh; PIran. postalveolar affricate * (distinct from palatal *) > CIran.
(Persian s; africate exceptionally preserved in Kurd. hir bear)
PIE *r tk o- > *hr ta- > PIIr *hr ta- > OIA r ka- = PIran. *hra- > YAv. ara-, NP xirs bear
PIE *tk jti > *titi > PIIr *titi > OIA kti = PIran. *aiti > YAv. aiti settles
PIIr *d > PIA * > OIA k, *MIA jh/gh; PIran. postalveolar affricate * (distinct from palatal * ) > CIran.
*, though no clear Iranian examples (since earth generalized simplified anlaut *j-)
PIE *dg m-i on the earth > *d mi > PIIr *dmi > OIA kmi = PIran. *ami *jami > YAv. zmi
With secondary palatals similar but slower development > different Iranian outcome
PIIr *t = [t] > PIA * > OIA k, MIA c h/ch/kh; PIran. palatal affricate * (merged with old simple * < *)
> CIran. *; no sure examples
PIIr *d = [d] > PIA * > OIA k, MIA jh/gh; PIran. palatal affricate * (merged with old simple * < *)
> CIran.
PIE *dgi- > PIIr *di- [di-] > OIA ki-, MIA jhi- = PIran. * i- > Av. ji- perish
3. Laryngeals again
Preserved in Old Avestan and partly in Vedic, because of hiatus between vowels shown by metre
PIIr merger in phonemic glottal stop (Beekes 1988: 50, 83ff.)?
However: hiatus [] // (cf. automatic glottal stop in German) not conclusive
Lubotskys Law (Lubotsky 1981) implies dissimilation of [] preceding *D$ shortening = no
compensatory lengthening, cf. pajr- firm vs. pa
-
?OIA rtha- chariot = Av. raa- < *rtha- < *rto- *rot-(a)-, cf. Lat. rota
OIA sthit-, t-h-a- to stand < *sth- < *st-, by analogy sth- *st- < *stah- < *sta-
2) Controversial cases
Indo-Iranian aspiration by original *h (Beekes 1988: 87f.)?
Aspiration by *h (already PIE) proposed by Olsen 1988; 1993; 1994), Rasmussen (1992b = 1999: 490-504) but
not generally accepted (though rarely explicitly refuted)
If *h = [h] and PIE (or some post-PIE dialects) had *D, aspiration of *D preceding *h would be
unavoidable tautosyllabically plausible idea
13
Martin Joachim Kmmel, martin.kuemmel@mail.uni-freiburg.de
Grammatical elements: 2nd plural PE OIA -th = Av. -a < *-tha < *-the, cf. Greek etc. -te?
Aspiration in roots:
Root type *eTH-: * clearly overrepresented in LIV, but reconstruction of * more often than not
circularly reconstructed from IIr. aspiration only some may have had *h
Root type *TeH-: OIA aspiration in sth- < *sta- as well as in sph- < *speh- become fat
Interestingly, *Teh roots typically have *T = *D (sole exception: *deh- to bind) while other *teH roots
may have any *T
general situation rather speaks for aspiration by *h
No good counterexamples! Unaspirated stop + final *H only in 5 Vedic roots (vs. 15):
OIA pat(i)- from *peth- unsure reconstruction (see EWAia II 71f., Hackstein 2002: 140-143)
ved(i)- secondary laryngeal; ati-, rodi-, vadi- laryngal unknown
3) New arguments
a) Desonorization by *h in Iranian
Cf. Kmmel, Vienna 2012
Iranian *dh > *th > * in some words with *d+*h < *:
CIran. *ai wr- husbands brother < *dhaiwr- < PIIr. *dahiwr- < *daiwr-, cf. OIA devr-, Greek dr-,
BSlav *daiwer-
CIran. *a
w- to burn < *dhau- < *dahu-/dauh- < *dau-, cf. OIA du-/da
v-, Greek da
u-
[pace Werba 2006: 265ff. certainly no EIran. innovation]
likewise *f < *ph < *b+h, cf. CIran. nf- navel *nb-h-, OIA na
-?)
*c < *j+h, cf. YAv. mas-, mas- vs. maza
h- = OIA
mah-, mah
- (~ maha
-,maha
h- < *dd(o)h-
possibly YAv. (+)
u
ru- to weep < *ru- < *rudh-, cf. OIA rodii
[also subjunctive *-he/o- in *waid-ha- > YAv. vaa- to know? Or rather variant derived from 1s *waia <
*widha I know]
*Dh- from original *Dahi/u- or internal *VD$hV- = where PIran *Dh was distinct from *D
presupposes post-PIIr preservation of aspirating laryngeals
Problem: Old Avestan only maz-, dad-, analogical?
b) Preserved h- in peripheral Iranian proth*etic h-?
Quite some words with Persian h-/x-, Kurd. Bal. Khot. h- corresponding to Av. = OIA - < PIE *H-
Av. am n. egg, Khot. haa- ++ MP p. hdyk, NP xya, Bal. hik, Kurd. hk < PIIr *hwya- < PIE *wjo-
(Zair 2011)
Giran. *haka- dust, earth, Kurd. ax MP p. hk', NP xk, Bal. hk, Zaz. h(y)g, cf. OIA a
-, Hitt. hiss-
Giran. *ma- raw > Pto. om, W. ying MP p. hm, NP xm, Bal. hmag, Khot. hma-, cf. OIA m- < PIIr
*hm- < PIE *HoHmo- (*om-, Kortlandt 1981: 128?), cf. Arm. hum, Gr.
Av. asma- m. fuel, MP p. yzm ++ NP hzum, cf. OIA dhas- < PIIr *hidas- < PIE *id-(e)s-
Av. ui ears, MP m. w(y) mind NP h < PIIr *h(a)u- < PIE *aus-
Av. uh- f. dawn, MP p. w, m. wy- MP paz. h, cf. OIA ua
p- > OIA a
, duhitram; duhitr
> OAv. dug
d; dug
, Lith. atuon = Gr. okt, Lat. oct < *(H)ok tH(-) eight
OIA nas, OLith. uns Gr. kuns, OIr. con < *k uns/-s of the dog
k = k
w
< *k
w
: Av. ci-/ca-, Slav. /e- : Hitt. kui/kue-, Lat. qui-/que- < *k-/k- who, what
OIA kr-, ORuss. krnj- : Gr. pra-, Welsh pryn- < *k
w
ri-, k
w
rin- to buy
OIA nkt-, Lith. nakt- : Gr. nukt-, Lat. noct- < *nk
w
t- night, Hitt. nekut- /nek
w
t-/
k = k < *k/q: Lith. kas-, Slav. *es- < *kes- : Hitt. kiss- < *kes- to comb
OIA krav, Lith. krajas : Gr. kras, Lat. cruor < *kreu - blood, raw flesh
OIA rukta = Hitt. lukta < *luk-t became light
OIA kup- to shiver = Lat. cup- to wish < *kup- to be excited
Distributional peculiarities
No labiovelars beside *w/u, no velars before *j/i
Velars dominate after *s and before *r, frequent root-finally
No labiovelars in suffixes, in roots rarely before consonants
frequent delabialization neighbouring rounded vowels and before [-syll]
Threefold reflexes in small inherited corpus languages?
Armenian sirt heart < *k rdi-; ork 4 < *k
w
etores; ker scratches < *kereti
Albanian tho(sh)- to say < *k s-; sorr crow < *k
w
rsn-; korr harvest < *kr(s)n-
dimr winter < *g (e)imon-; zjarm warmth < *g
w
ermo-; gjind- to get < *gend-
Palatalization of labiovelars only? (velars in Alb. very late)
Labiovelars more easily palatalized in Greek, Lycian
Luvian (= Lycian and Carian)
zi- /tsi-/ to lie < *k ei-; kui- /k
w
i-/ who, what < *k
w
-; k
and -()c
23
Martin Joachim Kmmel, martin.kuemmel@mail.uni-freiburg.de
alternative theory (Zubaty, Lubotsky 2001): *sk > OIA Iran. sk, palatalized > *s > OIA c, Iran. s after
consonants (stops?), elsewhere earlier palatalization > *s > OIA cch, Iran. *sc > s
counterarguments of Lipp (2009: I 18f. fn. 30) not effective
Problem (not too grave)=: Motivation of early vs. late palatalization
In other satem languages no clear difference of *sk vs. *sq
*sk practically absent in general (cf. doublets like *ker- : *sker- to cut), but no phonetic motive for
delabialization relic of older phonetics, viz. front velar : back velar?
b) Neutralization (delabialization) after *u
Weiss (1995) proved nonexistence of labiovelar vs. velar distinction beside *u
Neutralization of labialization?
Phonological process: rounding interpreted as coarticulatory rather than phonological, cf., e.g.,
Yazghulami (Eastern Iranian, Pamir): phonological labiovelars beside unrounded vowels only, with
rounded vowels /k/ = [k]
According to Steensland also no palatals in this environment but some (not optimal) counterexamples:
PIIr. *kru-, *yu -, Iran. *guz-, OIA tu-, Lith. lu-, pus
Arm. generally only palatals after u, also in cases of original labiovelars, cf. *ang- > *awk- > awc- to
palatals = delabialized labiovelars = phonetic velars
Gr. epon said < *weyko/e- < *we-wko/e- (cf. PIIr *wawa- > Av. vaoca-, OIA voca-) shows preservation
of *uk in Proto-Greek, later /wk/ [wk] > /wk/
c) Neutralization (depalatalization) before resonants
Before *r (IIr., Balto-Slavic, Alb., Arm.)
Velars: *qr_w-/qru-, *qr_t(u)-, *r_s-, *r_b-
Labiovelars clearly attested, but rare: *kr_j-, *kr_p-, *grmo-?
Palatals: *kr_jH-, *kr_m-, ?*kr_tH-, *gr_j- (palatal only in IIr.)
Weises Law in IIr.? Contra Kloekhorst (2011) palatalization also before *re (at least)
Before other resonants (Balto-Slavic, Alb., Arm.)
IIr. *lu- : Alb. *klu-, BSl. *klau- ~ *lau- to hear
Some analogical redistribution esp. root-finally
2) Velars + labiovelars (preserved in Centum)
Satem split of velars into palatals and velars
a) by normal palatalization before following (resonant +) palatal vowel with analogical generalizations
(Lipp 2009 I), viz. *kleu- > *cleu- analogical *clu- etc.
Problems:
implausible analogies necessary: *ok-t eight after semantically dissociated *ok-et- (harrow)
unexpectedly few root variants with palatal ~ velar in Satem languages
b) contrastive differentiation of velars vs. delabialized labiovelars no shift in non-contrastive
environments, hence not after *u and *s; early shift in case of earlier delabialization, e.g., before *w, *t
etc.?
Exceptions (older Uvularization?) before low back vowels and maybe *r velars
Advantage: matches actual distribution (at least mostly)
24
Martin Joachim Kmmel, martin.kuemmel@mail.uni-freiburg.de
Origin of labiovelars by pre-PIE syncope and monophthongization **kw > *k _V and/or something like
**ko- > *ke- : **ke- > ke-; hence but rarely contrast *kw : *kw < **kVw : **kVw, and never *ku : *ku;
absence of *sk because of absence of old cluster *skw?
Or rather relic of different distinction (see next)
3) Front velars + back velars
Huld 1997; Woodhouse 1998; Biovsk 2010
Satem: general fronting, but front velars unfronted in some environments
Centum: general backing, strengthening and phonologization of concomitant labialization of back velars;
contextual delabialization
Problem also here: actual distribution, otherwise identical to 2b).
Evidence for original labialization in Satem lang. (position after *u in Armenian etc.)
rather pre-PIE