The derivational history of Greek p p ow

and
flp p ew
Michiel de Vaan
Leiden University
m.a.c.de.vaan@hum.leidenuniv.nl

The recent insight that the Proto-Anatolian word for horse was
*@ek-u- suggests that the non-Anatolian word *h 1ekuo- horse
resulted from thematization. Its source may have been the
genitive singular *h 1kus of the Early PIE u-stem for horse. In
Greek, the vowel i in ppow may reflect a prop vowel which
regularly arose in the cluster *h 1 ku-, showing the generalization
of *h 1 ku- in a prestage of Greek. The suffix of flppew horseman
may have arisen from hypostasis of the locative singular *h 1 ku on
the horse, on horseback, yielding *h 1 kus horse-rider; thence,
the suffix spread to other occupational denominations.

1. In his recent etymological dictionary of Hittite, Alwin

Kloekhorst (2008: 237-239) convincingly shows that the
Anatolian words for horse go back to a Proto-Anatolian u-stem
*@ek-u- horse from PIE *h1 k-u-. Compare the attestations:
Hittite
*ekku-(c.):
ANSE.KUR.RA-us
[nom.sg.],
ANSE.KUR.RAHI.A-un [acc.sg.], ANSE.KUR.RA-as [gen.sg.],
ANSE.KUR.RAMES-us [acc.pl.]; Cuneiform Luwian *ssu- or
*azzu- (c.) (ANSE.KUR.RA-us [nom.sg.]), Hieroglyphic Luwian
su- (c.) horse; Lycian esb- horse (esbedi [abl.-ins.], esbehi
[gen.adj. nom.sg.c.]). The Lycian word is mostly cited as esbe(e.g. by Melchert 2004: 17), but, as Kloekhorst argues, this is
not necessarily correct as the -e- visible in abl.-instr. esbedi and
gen.adj. esbehe/i- in both cases is inherent to the ending (-edi
~ CLuw. -ti, -ehe/i- ~ CLuw. -assa/i-). Kloekhorst infers that
the thematic stem *h1ekuo- horse found in the other IndoEuropean languages must be the result of a thematization
which was not shared by Anatolian. This, then, is one of the
common innovations of the Indo-European dialects that
remained a linguistic unity for some time after Proto-Anatolian
split off, and one of the indications for the correctness of the
Indo-Hittite hypothesis (Kloekhorst 2008: 711, Cowgill 1974,
The Journal of Indo-European Studies

The derivational history of Greek ppow and flppew

199

and predecessors). In the remainder of this paper I will call

Early Proto-Indo-European (EPIE) the prestage reconstructed
for all attested IE languages, including Anatolian, and Late
Proto-Indo-European (LPIE) the prestage which resulted after
Proto-Anatolian split off.
Since EPIE *h1ku- and LPIE *h1kuo- both mean horse, a
derivation of *h1ku-o- as with speed, speedy = horse from
*h1ku- speed, as proposed by Schindler apud Balles (1997:
221, Anm. 8), cannot be defended anymore. The
thematization attested outside Anatolian did not change the
meaning horse, and is therefore best interpreted as the
result of a formal reanalysis. Thematization of athematic nouns
took place at a larger scale in the prehistory of many IndoEuropean nouns. Well-known examples include the agent
noun suffix *-ter-/-tr- versus the instrument noun suffix *-tro-,
and Hittite huuant- wind < *h2uh1ent- vs. Sanskrit vta-,
Avestan vta-, Tokharian A wnt, B yente, Latin ventus, Welsh
gwynt, Gothic winds wind < *h2ueh1nto-. Thematizations from
different ablaut grades of a single athematic noun attest to the
productivity of this process in the prestages of the individual
languages, as in the case of PIE *sue/op-r, *sup-n-os sleep
yielding OIc. svefn < *suep-no-, Skt. svpna-, Lat. somnus <
*sue/op-no-, Lith. spnas < *suop-no-, OCS sn, Gr. pnow <
*sup-no-.
The most attractive theory proposed to account for
nominal thematization is the view that it originated from the
hysterodynamic genitive/ablative ending *-os, which was
reanalyzed as a nominative singular and led to the creation of
the new category of o-stems (Beekes 1985: 167207, 1995:
194, Kortlandt 2004: 166f.). This explanation is based on the
hypothesis that at an earlier, Pre-Indo-European stage, the
genitive/ablative could also function as an ergative case,
indicating the agent of transitive verbs. This was proposed over
a hundred years ago independently by Uhlenbeck 1901 and
van Wijk 1902, on the one hand, and by Holger Pedersen
1907, on the other hand; a summary is provided by Kortlandt
1983a and 2008. When the nominative-accusative system of
PIE arose, the genitive/ablative ending *-s was reinterpreted
as a nominative ending with animate nouns.
Some readers may be reluctant to accept that the o-stems
arose from a reanalysis, since the attested languages often
derive adjectives, collectives and compounds by adding *-o- to
Volume 37, Number 1 & 2, Spring/Summer 2009

200

Michiel de Vaan

existing stems (Brugmann 1906: 156165). A famous example

of such a derivation is *Hrot-h2- wheel (Latin rota) > *Hrot-h2o- with wheels, waggon (Skt. rtha-). Other instances are
derived adjectives in *-dh h1o- (Balles 2003), *-iHo-, *-no-, -ro(Nussbaum 1986: 243), etc., ordinal numbers such as *s(e)ptm- seventh, decasuative compounds such as Gr. nliow in the
sea, and nouns which might continue adjectives, e.g. Skt.
uts- spring, presumably from *containing water (Balles
1997: 2208). Widmer (2004: 33) explicitly distinguishes two
types of thematic vowel, denominated o1 and 2: whereas the
former does not change the meaning of the original stem (as
in Hittite huuant- vs. Skt. vta-wind), the latter is regarded as
a possessive suffix by Widmer.
In defence of the reanalysis theory, I would like to make
the following two remarks. Firstly, the distinction between o1
and 2 is not always self-evident. For instance, Widmer (p. 33)
interprets Gr. biw bow as a derivative *gwiH-o- *with a bowstring to athematic Skt. jiy- bow-string < *gwieH-, but the
meaning bow could just as well be due to metonymical use of
bow-string. Secondly and more importantly, the apparent
bifold function of *-o- need not be old. An EPIE system in
which gen.abl.sg. *-os and nom.sg. *-os existed side by side
could easily lead to the reinterpretation of a genitive/ablative
as an adjective: (he is) a man of courage = a courageous
man, (it is) a path of stone = a stony path. Hence the
productivity of o-stem adjectives. Such a reinterpretation of
the genitive is actually found in Hittite syntax, cf. Friedrich
(1974: 123), Yoshida (1987: 1-11): nominative taiazil theft >
genitive taiazilas (he) of theft = thief; genitive arkammanas
iianun I made (these cities) to (such) of tribute nat-za
arkammanallius [iianun] I [made] them tribute-bearing. Note
that an origin from a hysterodynamic gen.sg. in *-s may also
account for the stressed character of possessive *-- (Balles
1997: 2208).
Returning to the word for horse, a genitive singular in
*-os points to an original hysterodynamic (in the terminology
of Beekes 1995: 174190) paradigm of earlier *h1k-u-. The
genitive singular must therefore have been *h1k-u-s; the
familiar full grade of the root in non-Anatolian *h1kuo- must
have been introduced from the old nom.sg. of the u-stem
which survives in Anatolian. Thus, I reconstruct the following
EPIE paradigm of *h1 ku- horse:
The Journal of Indo-European Studies

The derivational history of Greek ppow and flppew

201

nom.sg. *h1k-u[-s]
acc.sg. *h1k-u-m
gen.sg. *h1k-u-s nom.sg. *h1ku--s >> *h1ku-o-s
loc.sg. *h1k-u-i / *h1k-u

If the root of this noun is the same as in the adjectives

Skt. -, Gr. kw swift, Latin cior faster < *h1k- or
*h1o-h1k-, the original meaning of EPIE *h1k-u- must have
been the swift one.
2. This hypothesis, which was designed to explain the
co-occurrence of an Anatolian u-stem and a LPIE o-stem, has
the additional advantage of yielding a plausible explanation for
initial i- in Greek ppow, Mycenaean i-qo, which has always
been a crux of Greek linguistics. It has been proposed that i- is
due to raising of *e in the neighbourhood of a labial in the
Mycenaean dialect (cf. Meier-Brgger 1992 I: 61), but the
number of forms in support of this theory is very small (depa /
dipa, temitija / timitija, iqo), and the first two forms show a
vowel vacillation which is absent from iqo and ppow.
Initial i- in horse may now be understood as a lone
survivor from word-initial *h1k- before the introduction of the
full vowel *-- into the first syllable. Greek exhibits a number
of forms with unexpected -- instead of zero within a
consonant cluster (cf. Mayrhofer 1986: 176), as in ptnhmi to
spread out < *ptnmi, skdnhmi to scatter < *skdnmi, Hom.
psurew four < *kwtwr-, pnw oven < *sp-no- (etymology
proposed by Vine 1999). According to Vine (who builds on
earlier proposals), the i in these forms is an inner-Greek
syllabification of a non-phonemic prop vowel in clusters of the
structure *(s)TTRV- and *sTRV-. A slightly different structure is
found in =za root, Myc. wiriza, which Vine explains from a
secondary zero grade *wrdj- beside regular full grade *wrd- <
PIE *urh2 d- (Lat. rdx).
We can now see that LPIE horse, when it was syllabified
as *h1k-u-o-, would also contain three initial consonants, and
Greek i- could reflect vocalization in the environment *h1CC-.
Possibly, the development was *h1CC- > *@CC- > *@iCC- > iCC-.
Diachronically, the vocalization to i would have to precede the
vocalization of *h1CV- to *eCV- which is otherwise found in
Greek. The same environment of *h1- plus two consonants
Volume 37, Number 1 & 2, Spring/Summer 2009

202

Michiel de Vaan

may be seen in the cluster laryngeal + s + stop in Greek

be! (OAv. zd) < *h1s-dhi, thus supporting the solution for i- in
horse. Finally, a sequence of glottal stop plus two consonants
may have arisen in Gr. xyw fish < PIE *dghuH- (Arm. jukn,
Lith. zuvs, Latv. zuvs), if we assume that *d was preglottalized:
*@dgh - > *@idgh - > *@ikth - > ikhth- (Haye van den Oever,
pers.com.).
A different solution is proposed by Ruijgh (1995: 353
to Gr. xyw fish, xyuw
355), who compares
* strength <
h
PIE *sg -uH- and
kite < *tkiH-ino- (?; to Arm. cin, Skt.
yen- < *(t)kieH-in-, cf. Beekes 2003: 200). Since initial
clusters xy, sx, kt are otherwise unproblematic in Greek,
Ruijgh surmises that the forms in i- were borrowed from a
cognate and neighbouring proto-grcoide language or
dialect, in which these initial clusters were not allowed. A
similar dialect would be responsible for the development
*h1kw- > *kw- > *ikw-. While this scenario is possible, it
requires the assumption of an extra, unknown dialect from
which Greek borrowed a couple of words. It is striking that in
xyw, xyw and ktnow, the initial cluster of two stops is
followed by a glide which would serve as a consonant when the
suffix had the full grade: *dgh -ueH-, *sgh -ueH-, *tk-ieH-. Hence,
initial i- could have arisen as an alternative vocalization
etc.
*iTTRV- as opposed to the type *TiTRV- seen in
Although not all the details in the prehistory of these words
are clear, I would reckon with the possibility that we are
dealing with regular reflexes in both cases, rather than with
dialect borrowings. Note that we find a vocalization to *eCV- in
*dkMtom > Gr. katn 100 and *duidkMti > Gr.
20,
where *d is followed by only one stop plus a vocalic resonant or
glide (cf. Kortlandt 1983b).
The introduction of -e- in the stem of horse was a trivial
development found in all non-Anatolian languages except
Greek, unless the personal name Epeiw (Homer, Pindar), the
mythical constructor of the Trojan Horse (Odyssee 11.523),
and/or the ethnonym Epeio (Iliad, Pindar) from Elis contain
*ekwo- horse and thus show that Proto-Greek contained both
formations. The survival of a preform *kus or *kwos until a
relatively recent date may also explain the barytone accent of
(Ruijgh 1995: 355), viz. as the result of analogy. The
only element still defying an explanation is the initial h-,
The Journal of Indo-European Studies

The derivational history of Greek ppow and flppew

203

which is not found in the PN Lek-ippow. Ruijgh (1995: 355)

explains it from analogy with rmata chariot.
This interpretation of the Greek data implies that the
image of a uniform post-Anatolian preform *h1kuo- must be
abandoned. That seems a high price to pay, but note that both
thematization (of *h1ku-) and paradigmatic ablaut levelling
(in *h1ku-) frequently occur in all branches of IndoEuropean.
3. The identification of a EPIE u-stem *h1k-u- horse also
allows for a new analysis of Greek flppew horseman. This
noun represents a category of derived agent nouns which
kennzeichnen einen Mann nach seinem Beruf oder Stand
(Risch 1974: 157). The suffix synchronically alternates
between /eu/ in front of consonants and /w/ in front of
vowels; it could thus reflect a uniform long-vowel form *-u(with shortening in front of tautosyllabic consonants by
Osthoffs Law), or go back to an earlier ablaut *eu versus *u.
There are some dialectal variants with a short vowel in the
oblique cases, in particular gen.sg. -eow in Arcadian, dat.sg. -e in
Attic. Haug (2002: 111115) argues that these may continue
PGr. *-ew-, but I agree with Perpillou (1973: 6372) and
Widmer (2008: 626, fn. 24) that these can be analogical to the
paradigm of the s-stems.
Nouns with this suffix are well attested in Mycenaean and
Homer (cf. Schindler 1976: 350, Bartoek 2003: 279290; the
lists given below are modelled on Schindlers account). In
Mycenaean, the phonological interpretation, the etymology
and the status as appellative or personal name are often
unclear. I therefore exclude from the enumeration the
approximately 150 personal names, in which -eus became very
productive. The appellatives mostly indicate male agents
(professions), as well as names for vessels (for an explanation
of this type see Leukart 1983) and sheep terms. Among the
formations with a relatively certain meaning and etymology,
we find:
a. Derived from o-stems: apiporeu amphora (to forw
bearing), ijereu priest (to flerw holy), kakeu smith (to
xalkw copper, bronze), kanapeu fuller (to knfow
carding-comb), kerameu potter (to kramow potters
earth), wirineu tanner (to =inw hide).
Volume 37, Number 1 & 2, Spring/Summer 2009

204

Michiel de Vaan
b. From other stems: amotewo cartwright/assembler (to
rmat- chariot), meritewo bee-keeper (to mlit- honey), kotonewe who possesses a property (to ktona
piece of land), opiteukeewe inspector of arms? (to texow
armor), perekeu who plaits? (to plkv to plait or a
derivative thereof), zeukeusi driver of a yoke of oxen? (to
zegow pair of oxen).
c. Unknown basis (possibly a noun or adj. in *-lo-): qasireu
local officer.

In Homer, by contrast, the o-stems provide the large

majority of the derivational bases for the eu-stems:
a1. From concrete o-stem nouns: flppew charioteer,
horseman, keramew potter, okew inmate of ones
house, orew mule (to orow boundary?), porymew
ferryman (to porymw ferry; strait), xalkew coppersmith.
a2. From abstract o-stem nouns: nomew herdsman (to
nomw place of pasturage), tokew parent (to tkow
offspring; parturition), fonew murderer (to fnow
murder). To a1 or a2 belong: xew band, strap (to
xow holder, stead), pompew guide (to pompw escort,
guide), forew bearer, mfiforew amphora.
a3. From o-stem adjectives: liew fisher; sailor (to liow
of the sea), ristew chief, leader, flerw priest.
b. From other stems: boew rope of ox-hide (to bow or
beow), donakew thicket of reed, trapezew at a table,
perew thwarter, peropew deceiver.
c. basilew king.

Thus, although Homeric Greek is more recent than

Mycenaean, it shows a more restricted productivity of the eustems. Schindler (1976: 351) resolves this paradox by linguistic
reasoning: since a secondary restriction to o-stem bases as
found in Homer cannot be motivated within Greek, the
reverse must be true: the Homeric pattern is more ancient
than the one found in Mycenaean. I agree with this
conclusion. In its favor we may also regard the fact that four
out of the six Mycenaean nouns derived from o-stems are also
attested in Homer: mfiforew, flerew, xalkew, and keramew. If
we add knafew, attested in an Old Attic inscription and
The Journal of Indo-European Studies

The derivational history of Greek ppow and flppew

205

Herodotus+, and basilew king (if derived from a stem in

*-lo-), the overlap between Linear B and the oldest
alphabetical Greek becomes even more impressive.
4. There are three central questions regarding the suffix
-eu-/-w-: What was its function? Why does it predominantly
have the form -w-? Why were these stems originally restricted
to o-stem base nouns?
The solution adhered to in a majority of articles and
handbooks is that the suffix *-w- somehow developed out of a
regular hysterodynamic u-stem paradigm (cf. Meier-Brgger
1992 II: 26, Rix 1992: 147, Beekes 1994: 10, Haug 2002: 114).
The exact way in which this happened has never been
clarified, however. Also, the link with o-stems remains
unexplained in this scenario.
Schindler himself in 1976 argued that *-w- arose by
secondary suffixation of *-u- to thematic stems. He arrives at
his conclusion by the following chain of arguments:
1. The large majority of Homeric and Mycenaean eustems belong to an o-stem basis.
2. Therefore, they cannot be primary u-stems, but must
have been built on o-stems (p. 351).
3. In IE secondary formations, the thematic vowel of the
o-stems can be replaced only by *-i-; otherwise it is
preserved. (p. 351)
4. The eu-stems must contain the thematic vowel
throughout their paradigm (p. 351).

Schindler therefore concludes that The thematic vowel

*-e- is followed by the proterokinetic allomorphs of the suffix
*-ew-: nom. *ekue-u-s, gen. *ekue-eu-os (p. 351352).
As pointed out by Beekes (1994: 10), the reasoning in
points 2 to 4 is far from compelling. Firstly, Schindler does not
consider an alternative reason why the eu-stems are closely
linked to o-stems: the possibility that they developed from a
small nucleus of forms in which an o-stem and an eu-stem were
derived from the same root. Such a development is well-known
in historical morphology. Consider the example of the Latin
adjectives in -idus which are formed especially often to
presents in -re (cf. Nussbaum 1999). The reason is not that
-idus contains (an element of) the vowel --, but that both
formations ultimately go back to different PIE derivations from
Volume 37, Number 1 & 2, Spring/Summer 2009

206

Michiel de Vaan

identical root forms. For example, lcidus bright and lcre to

shine are both derived from *le/ouk- light. This objection
removes the basis for step 4 in Schindlers scheme, which
posits the presence of the thematic vowel with the suffix *-ew-.
Secondly, Schindler proposes to derive the lengthened
grade suffix *-w- from a PIE sequence *ekue-eu-, by the
addition of a vowel-initial suffix to a stem already ending in a
thematic vowel. Such a morphological procedure seems highly
unlikely to me. A word-internal sequence of two full vowels is
at variance with the (generally acknowledged) principle that
there can only be one full vowel (*e, *o, *, *) per syllable in
PIE. Indeed, it is unlikely that a sequence *-e-e- was allowed
phonotactically in PIE at all. There is no certain example of a
derivational sequence *-e-e- (or, for that matter, *-e-o-, *-o-e-, or
*-o-o-) in nominal derivation. Of course, we do find -o-ei and
*-o-es in nominal endings of the o-stems, but these are clearly
very recent formations. In verbal derivation, Greek and IndoIranian show thematic subjunctive endings in *-e-e- (23sg, 2pl.)
and *-o-o- (1sg, 13pl.). Additional support for a sequence *-e-eis often seen in the Italic subjunctives in *-(s)-, such as those
of the first conjugation (Latin amet love, Oscan deiuaid
swear) and of s-presents (Latin amaret < *-s--, Oscan fusd
be); thus e.g. Meiser (1998: 200), Tichy (2000: 99), MeierBrgger (2002: 167), Fortson (2004: 95). An alternative
explanation for * in these forms is the PIE optative suffix *ieh1- (Jasanoff 1991: 87, 96), and there is strong distributional
evidence that this accounts for all Italic subjunctives in -much better than *-e-e- (Schrijver 2006: 58f.). Hence,
subjunctive *-e-e- and *-o-o- in Greek and Indo-Iranian are best
regarded as post-PIE (cf. Beekes 1995: 245).
Thirdly, although he has a theory about the how,
Schindler does not explain the why of the problem. Why was
the suffix *-(e)u- used for deriving nouns indicating
professions and occupations; in other words, what was the
semantic motivation? And: why was it specifically with o-stems
that the suffix *-eu- came to be productive in Greek?
5. The conclusions reached in section 1, that the PIE
word for horse was a u-stem, and in section 2, that Greek ppow
may directly continue a form of that stem, suggest the
following solution to the formal and semantic problems. The
loc.sg. of the EPIE word *h1ku- horse that we have posited
The Journal of Indo-European Studies

The derivational history of Greek ppow and flppew

207

above would either have had the form *h1kui, or, as an

endingless locative, *h1ku on the horse, on horseback. A
hypostasis of the latter form (that is, a reinterpretation as a
strong case form) with subsequent sigmatization in the
nom.sg. would have yielded a new noun *h1ku-s the one on
horseback, horse-rider. A similar process of reinterpreting the
locative as the nominative has been claimed for Skt. skhay-,
Av. haxaii- companion < *sokw -h2-oi- to a loc.sg. *sokw -h2-ei in
the retinue/loyalty (Widmer 2008: 621), Skt. obl. rnhead < loc.sg. *k rh2-s-n, Av. xsapan- night < loc.sg. *kwsp-n
at night to xsap- night (Nussbaum 1986). In order to explain
the resulting geminate -pp- in flppew, we must assume that the
stem form *h1ku- was reintroduced into the original loc.sg.,
yielding Pre-Greek *h1kuus. This form could lead directly to
flppew if one adopts the explanation of Greek -i- as given
above; even if one is not prepared to believe this, one could
assume that i- was adopted in Greek from the word for horse.
This hypothesis surmises that the entire Greek type of
nouns in euw had as its starting point the noun flppew; there
could have been other loc.sg. forms of u-stem nouns where
the same process took place, but none are attested. This would
seem a small basis, especially since the word for horseman
itself is not attested in Mycenaean. However, there are two
weighty arguments in favor:
Of all the Homeric eu-nouns derived from o-stems,
flppew is the only one that can also be linked to a PIE
u-stem. Hence the connection between o-stems and stems that is so striking.
The meaning of flppew can be understood as
horserider > one who is occupied with horses, drives
horses, charioteer. This is not so, for instance, with
keramew potter, xalkew copper-smith or flerew
priest, which cannot be explained as someone who
is in/at X but rather denote someone concerned with
X. Thus, the meaning of occupation which is the
productive meaning in Greek, can be understood
from an original locatival meaning only in the case of
flppew. The model horse : horseman was then
extended to other occupational denominations.

Volume 37, Number 1 & 2, Spring/Summer 2009

208

Michiel de Vaan

6. The discussion of flppew is often combined with that of

the Greek u-stems dmw slave, ptrvw fathers brother and
mtrvw mothers brother. Their nom.sg. in -vw may hide an
earlier asigmatic ending *-u, the interpretation of which is
disputed. In the following, I will not put forward any new
analysis of my own, but it may be useful to summarize what
seems to me the most likely explanation. For the semantics we
may follow Pinault, who on several occasions (1997: 227, 2000:
89) has argued in favor of a possessive or collective
interpretation of the suffix *-u-. Thus, I assume that *dm-u-,
*ph2tr-u- meant of/belonging to the house, of/belonging to
the father. We have corroborating evidence for these u-stems
in other IE languages: PIE *dom-u- in Proto-Slavic *dom
house, *domov [adj.] house- and Skt. dmnas- (Pinault
2000), and PIE *ph2tr-u- kinsman on the fathers side in Lat.
patruus, Skt. pitvya-, Av. tiriia-; see Rau (2004) for a discussion
of the latter formations.
A similar explanation has been proposed for Gr. rvw
warrior; forefather by Peters 2002, who connects it with the
root *ser- to rob, seize. He regards Hom. ra [acc.] tribute as
a reflex of a PIE root noun *sr, *srs robbing, loot. Hittite
sru- booty, plunder < *sru and Welsh herw raid, Old Irish
serb theft < Proto-Celtic *serw- point to the existence of a
PIE u-stem to the same root. The noun rvw, Peters argues,
may then be explained on the basis of an original nom.sg.
*sr-u who captures, robber with long -- presumably taken
from the root noun. The Myc. theonym tiriseroe /trisr(h)ei/
[dat.sg.] may show generalization of a suffix form *-h- on the
basis of the nom. and acc.sg., thus Peters (2002: 363).
As for the morphology, the Greek nouns show the
structure nom.sg. *CC-R, acc.sg. *CC-R-m, which was one of
the derivational types derived from an EPIE hysterodynamic
type *CC-R, *CC-R-m by Beekes (1985: 161). In the root, the
zero grade *CC- was generalized from the accusative, whereas
in the suffix, the full grade in *-R arose in the nominative
and then spread to the accusative. A trace of the asigmatic
ending *-u is found in the Hittite au-stems, in particular
harnu(s), harnu- birthing chair (< *h3r-nou-), where the
nom.sg. is attested both as commune har-na-a-us and as neuter
har-na-a-. As argued by Kloekhorst (2008: 310), this points to
a PIE nom.sg. *h3r-nu which was either sigmatized to mark its
The Journal of Indo-European Studies

The derivational history of Greek ppow and flppew

209

common gender, or was reinterpreted as a neuter (a

phenomenon described by Weitenberg 1995).
The old asigmatic nominative is confirmed by Greek.
Since the ending of flppew must go back to *-us with
Osthoffs shortening, we would expect an outcome *-ouw for
an original ending *-us if it were equally old. The fact that we
find nom.sg. -vw suggests that these forms remained asigmatic
at least until after Osthoffs shortening had ceased to work,
with an ending *- that was identical to that of the f. i-stems
of the type peiy persuasiveness. For the development of the
attested paradigm of the Gr. ou-stems see Peters 2002: 362f.
In summary:
*dom-, *dem- house
*dm-u- belonging to the house:
nom.sg. *dmu belonging to the house(hold), slave
> Pre-Proto-Greek *dm
>> Proto-Greek nom.sg. *dms
*ph2ter- father
*ph2tr-u- belonging to father:
nom.sg. *ph2tr-u relative on fathers side
> PPGr. *patr
>> PGr. *patrs

This explanation removes the semantic objections put forward

by Widmer (2008: 624, fn. 20), who argues that it is difficult to
get from *dem-u- house to *dmu- household by means of
internal derivation. I start from different premises: the word
for house was a root noun, while *de/om-u- must have had a
derivational meaning. Widmers own solution of a locative
singular *dom-eu in house, in the household, whence with
hypostasis *dm-u- slave, does not explain the origin of the
locatival suffix.
References
Balles, Irene
Griechisch f(e)now Reichtum. Historische Sprachforschung 110:
215232.

Volume 37, Number 1 & 2, Spring/Summer 2009

210
2003

Michiel de Vaan
Die lateinischen idus-Adjektive und das Calandsystem. In: Tichy,
Eva, Dagmar Wodtko and Britta Irslinger (eds.), Indogermanisches
Nomen. Derivation, Flexion und Ablaut. Akten der Arbeitstagung der
Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Freiburg, 19.-22. Sept. 2001, 929.
Bremen.

Bartoek, Antonn
2003
Handbuch des mykenischen Griechisch. Heidelberg.
Beekes, Robert
1985
The origins of the Indo-European nominal inflection. Innsbruck.
1994
The neuter plural of thematic nouns. Derivatives from a stem in -efrom thematic nouns. In: Dunkel, George e.a. (eds.) Frh-, Mittelund Sptindogermanisch, 115. Wiesbaden.
1995
Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. Amsterdam / Philadelphia.
2003
Historical phonology of Classical Armenian. In: Kortlandt,
Frederik: Armeniaca. Comparative Notes. With an appendix on the
historical phonology of Classical Armenian by Robert S.P. Beekes, 133
225. Ann Arbor.
Brugmann, Karl
1906
Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen
Sprachen. II. Band: Lehre von den Wortformen und ihrem Gebrauch. 1.
Teil: Allgemeines. Zusammensetzung (Komposita). Nominalstmme. 2.
Bearbeitung. Straburg.
Cowgill, Warren
1974
More evidence for Indo-Hittite: the tense-aspect systems. In:
Heilmann, Luigi (ed.) Proceedings of the Eleventh International
Congress of Linguists, 557570. Bologna.
Fortson, Benjamin
2004
Indo-European Language and Culture. An Introduction. Oxford
Friedrich, Johannes
1974
Hethitisches Elementarbuch. Erster Teil: Kurzgefasste Grammatik. Dritte,
unvernderte Auflage. Heidelberg.
Haug, Dag
2002
Les phases de lvolution de la langue pique. Gttingen.
Jasanoff, Jay
1991
The origin of the Italic imperfect subjunctive. Historische
Sprachforschung 104: 84105.
Kloekhorst, Alwin
2008
Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden.
Kortlandt, Frederik
1983a PIE verbal syntax. Journal of Indo-European Studies 11: 307324.

The Journal of Indo-European Studies

The derivational history of Greek ppow and flppew

1983b
2004

2008

211

Greek numerals and PIE glottalic consonants. Mnchener Studien

zur Sprachwissenschaft 42: 97104.
Indo-Uralic consonant gradation. In: Hyvrinen, Irma, Petri Kallio
and Jarmo Korhonen (eds.) Etymologie, Entlehnungen und
Entwicklungen. Festschrift fr Jorma Koivulehto zum 70. Geburtstag,
163170. Helsinki.
C. C. Uhlenbeck on Indo-European, Uralic and Caucasian.
www.kortlandt.nl

Leukart, Alex
1983
Gtter, Feste und Gefe. Mykenisch -eus und -wios: Strukturen
eines Wortfeldes und sein Weiterleben im spteren Griechisch.
In: Heubeck, Alfred and Gnter Neumann (eds.) Res Mycenaeae,
234252. Gttingen.
Mayrhofer, Manfred
1986
Lautlehre. In: Indogermanische Grammatik. Band I, 2. Halbband, 87
181. Heidelberg.
Meier-Brgger, Michael
1992
Griechische Sprachwissenschaft. Two volumes. Berlin / New York.
2002
Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft. 8., berarbeitete und ergnzte
Auflage. Berlin / New York
Meiser, Gerhard
1998
Historische Laut- und Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache. Darmstadt.
Melchert, H. Craig
2004
A Dictionary of the Lycian Language. Ann Arbor / New York.
Nussbaum, Alan
1986
Head and Horn in Indo-European. Berlin [etc.].
Pedersen, Holger
1907
Neues und nachtrgliches. Zeitschrift fr vergleichende
Sprachforschung 40: 129217.
Perpillou, Jean-Louis
1973
Les substantifs grecs en ew. Paris.
Peters, Martin
2002
Aus der Vergangenheit von Heroen und Ehegttinnen. In: Fritz,
Matthias and Susanne Zeilfelder (eds.) Novalis Indogermanica.
Festschrift fr Gnther Neumann zum 80. Geburtstag, 357380. Graz.
Pinault, Georges-Jean
1997
Remarques sur le pluriel tokh. B akrna, A krunt. In: Lubotsky,
Alexander (ed.) Sound Law and Analogy. FS Beekes, 219233.
Amsterdam / Atlanta.
2000
Vdique damnas-, latin dominus et lorigine du suffixe de
Hoffmann. Bulletin de la Socit de Linguistique de Paris 95: 61118.

Volume 37, Number 1 & 2, Spring/Summer 2009

212

Michiel de Vaan

Rau, Jeremy
2004
PIE *ph 2 trou-/*ph 2 tu- and its derivation. Handout, XII. Fachtagung
der Inodgermanischen Gesellschaft. Cracow, October 2004.
Risch, Ernst
1974
Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache. 2., vllig berarbeitete
Auflage. Berlin.
Rix, Helmut
1992
Historische Grammatik des Griechischen. Darmstadt.
Ruijgh, Cornelis
1995
Observations sur les voyelles dappui en proto-indo-europen et
en grec ancien. In: Smoczy!ski, Wojciech (ed.) Kurylowicz Memorial
Volume, part I, 345356. Cracow.
Schindler, Jochem
1976
On the Greek type flppew. In: Morpurgo Davies, Anna and
Wolfgang Meid (eds.) Studies in Greek, Italic and Indo-European
Linguistics (FS Palmer), 349352. Innsbruck.
Schrijver, Peter
2006
Review of: Gerhard Meiser, Veni Vidi Vici. Die Vorgeschichte des
lateinischen Perfektsystems (Mnchen: Beck, 2003), Kratylos 51, 46
64.
Tichy, Eva
2000
Indogermanistisches Grundwissen fr Studierende
sprachwissenschaftlicher Disziplinen. Bremen.
Uhlenbeck, Christiaan Cornelis
1901
Agens und Patiens im Kasussystem der indogermanischen Sprache.
Indogermanische Forschungen 12: 170172.
Vine, Brent
1999
Greek =za root and Schwa Secundum. In: Ivanov, Vyacheslav
and Brent Vine (eds.) UCLA Indo-European Studies, Volume I, 530.
Weitenberg, Jos
1995
Sigmatization and thematization in Hittite. In: van den Hout, Theo
and Johan de Roos (eds.) Studio Historiae Ardens, Ancient Near
Eastern studies presented to Philo H.J. Houwink ten Cate on the occasion
of his 65th birthday, 333344. Istanbul.
Widmer, Paul
2004
Das Korn des weiten Feldes. Interne Derivation, Derivationskette und
Flexionsklassenhierarchie: Aspekte der nominalen Wortbildung im
Urindogermanischen. Innsbruck.
2008
Drei griechische *-u-Stmme. In: Huber, Brigitte, Marianne
Volkart and Paul Widmer (eds.) Chomolangma, Demawend und

The Journal of Indo-European Studies

The derivational history of Greek ppow and flppew

213

Kasbek. Festschrift fr Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, 615

630. Halle an der Saale.
van Wijk, Nicolaas
1902
Der nominale Genitiv singular im Indogermanischen in seinem Verhltnis
zum Nominativ. Zwolle.
Yoshida, Daisuke
1987
Die Syntax des althethitischen substantivischen Genitivs. Heidelberg.

Volume 37, Number 1 & 2, Spring/Summer 2009