|
Post by Admin on Dec 12, 2021 18:20:52 GMT
1.1. Indo-Uralic 1.1.1. Indo-Uralic, or Early Indo-European and Early Uralic One of the most promising macro-language proposals nowadays is Indo-Uralic (IU). This language family was traditionally considered formed as Indo-European (IE) and Uralo-Yukaghir (Kortlandt 2010), but it seems likely that the greatest similarities between Uralic and Yukaghir are due to late areal contacts, while early loanwords point to close contacts between Uralic and Indo-European (Häkkinen 2012). The latest population genetic research has made it still more evident that the relationship of Proto-Yukaghir (PYuk) with Proto-Indo-European (PIE) and Proto-Uralic (PU) must be considered within the framework of an ancient Eurasian Proto-Indo-Uralic (PIU) community, hence the need to establish Yukaghir, if genetically related to Indo-Uralic, as a third independent branch, which is supported by its independent phonetic development (Hyllested 2009). The relationship of Indo-Uralic with other Asian languages, especially with Altaic, into a Eurasian group has also been proposed as quite likely (Kortlandt 2010). Regular phonetic equivalences in shared ancient vocabulary between Indo-European and Uralic not only speak in favour of a common group, but the specifics of their evolution may be partly explained if we “think of Indo-European as a branch of Indo-Uralic which was transformed under the influence of a Caucasian substratum” (Kortlandt 2002). Population genetics has made it obvious that a Caucasian substratum (probably driven by exogamy and absorption of a previous population of the Caucasus or the nearby steppes) affected both, Uralic- and Indo-European-speaking communities, but probably the influence was earlier and stronger on the latter, which in turn affected the genetic composition of the former—but less so its pronunciation—due to successive migration waves. There are two ways of seeing the close relationship of Proto-Indo-Anatolian (or Middle Indo-European) and Uralic: either one considers both to derive from a common Proto-Indo-Uralic trunk from which they split, or they began as different languages that converged due to contacts. To complicate things further, the first option does not include the second one, and may in fact explain the similarities of Uralic and Indo-European over Yukaghir (Figure 1). Based on the current archaeological and genetic data, it is likely that the Neolithic Pontic-Caspian steppes represented the Proto-Uralic community to the west (Mariupol) and the Proto-Indo-European community to the east (Samara-Orlovska), already separated during the 6th millennium BC; before, during and after which period they influenced each other with successive population movements. We will assume in this paper an ancient genetic relationship—that is, that Early Proto-Indo-European is in fact Proto-Indo-Uralic—which is supported by the initial formation and continued similar genetic admixture in the Eneolithic steppe. By the time of the Suvorovo-Novodanilovka expansion at the end of the 5th millennium, though, they were already two different, unintelligible languages. 1.1.2. Indo-Uralic proto-language These are some common traits of Indo-Uralic: · Shift from PIU implosives *ɓ, *ɗ, *ɠ → PU *p~m, *t~n, *k~ŋ, nasals PIU *m, *n, *ŋ → PIA *m/u̯~ˀb, *n~ˀd, *ˀg? (Kümmel 2015; Pooth 2017). · PIA *H- ~ PU *k- (and partly also in Yukaghir) in initial position, distinguished with neighbouring vocalism, although the three appear in with neighbouring PU *u (Hyllested 2009): o PIU *χ → PIA *h- before front vowels, with only a few examples available; e.g. PIU *χegu̯e → PU *kii̯i, *küi̯i ‘snake’ ~ PIA hogw-i-s ‘snake, worm’, heg-i- ‘snake, leech’. o PIU *χ → PIA *χ- before PIU *a-, or PU *k before PIU *a, *ä; e.g. PIU *χanɠu̯e (*χenɠu̯e-) → PU *kunčë ‘tapeworm, intestinal worm’ ~ PYuk *könč’ə ~ PIA χenˀgw- ‘snake’. o PIU *ɣ → PIA *ʕw-, PU *k (appears next to *o or *i ~ ü), PYuk *Ø-; e.g. PIU *ɣmige ‘urinate’ → PU *kuńćë ‘urine’ ~ PYuk *ončə ‘water’ ~ PIA *ʕwmeig- ‘urinate’. · Laryngeals in non-initial position yield similarly PIA *H ~ PU *k: o PIU *deχe ‘do, make’ → PFU *teki ‘do’ ~ PIA *deh- ‘put’. o PIU *kalχe ‘straw, talk’ → PFU *kalkë ‘(a) hair; stalk’ ~ PIA *kelχ- ‘twig, thin handle or shaft’, *kolχ-mo- ‘straw’. o PIU *ɠurɣV ‘swallow’ > PU *kurkV ‘throat, neck’ ~ PIA *ˀgwer(ɣw)-(i̯-) ‘swallow’ > *ˀgwer-u̯eχ, *ˀgwriɣw-u̯éχ- ‘neck’. · Exceptions in laryngeal outputs (Hyllested 2009): o PIU intervocalic *ɣ is kept in PU in the position *V[+back]_V, cf. PIU *luɣV → PU *luɣV ‘to wash’ PYuk *loɣo- id. PIA *leu̯ɣw- id. o PIA *-mH- ~ PU *-mp-; e.g. PIU *śemχV → PU *ćumpV ‘scoop, ladle’ ~ PIA *semH- ‘scoop out, ladle out (water, etc.)’. Compare also the comparative/superlative adjectival suffix (see below). o Loss of laryngeal preceding PIU *u̯ (theoretically also *i̯) cf. PIU *buχu̯e ‘grow’ → PU *puu̯ë ‘tree’, PIA *beuχ-, bu̯eχ- ‘become, grow; plant etc.’ · Intervocalic PIU *g- → PIA *g- (PIE *gh-) ~ PU, PYuk *ɣ- (Hyllested 2009). · Proto-Uralic palatalisation trend (Hyllested 2009): o Word-initial PIA *g- ~ PU, PYuk *i̯-, in positions where it eventually yields palatals in certain Late PIE dialects; e.g. PIU *χag-, *χeg- → PU *kii̯i, *küi̯i, ‘snake’ ~ PIA *heg-i- ‘snake, leech’, *hegw-, ‘snake, worm’; o but, e.g. PIU *gfollowing a nasal shows PU *ć, *č (<*dź, *dž before the devoicing of voiced stops and affricates in pre-PU); e.g. PIU *deng-u- ‘tongue’ → Pre-PU *ńaŋkdźë ‘tongue, gums’ (denasalisation) ~ PYuk *anče-, anču- ‘tongue’ ~ PIA deng-u(-eχ) ‘tongue’. · PIU imperfect aspect *-χ-, terminative aspect *-me, preserved in PU, but not in PIA, except in root variants. Compare PIU *gau̯e ‘go’ (cf. PU *kau̯e ~ PYuk *keu̯e) in PIU *gau̯é-χe- → PIA *ˀgwe(u)h2- vs. PIU *gau̯é-me- → PIA *ˀgwem-, etc. · PIU 1st person sg. inactive/intransitive ending *-χ(V) → PU 1st sg. pres. subj. *-k ~ PIA 1st sg. perf. *-χe (Hitt. 1st sg. pres. -ḫi). · PIU comparative/superlative adjectival suffix *-mχa → PU *-mpa comparative suffix PIA *-mH-(o-) superlative suffix, see above for PIU *-mHV → PU *-mpV (typologically similar to Old Irish -mch- giving Modern Irish -mp-). · PIU 1st person *mi, *m. · PIU 2nd person pronoun *ti, later assibilated to *si (Kortlandt 2002) → PU nom. *ti, obl. *tina ~ PIA *ti(H), *tu, Late PIE *tu(H), *tu- (Kloekhorst 2008). · PIU verbal endings 1.sg *-mi, 2.sg. *-ti/-si, 1.pl. *-me, 2.pl. **-te. · PIU demonstrative *i-, also *e- (behind PIU 3rd person singular), *t-, *s-. · PIU dual *-i/*-e; *-χ → PU *-k. · PIU plural nom. *-t, obl. *-i; PIE *-es < **-eti. · PIU accusative *-m. · PIU genitive *-n. · PIU dative *χ, *-χa, to be compared with the characteristic laryngeal *-χ of the non-third persons, e.g. PIA perfect endings, with PIE *-ghi, and with PU *-k, *-ka. · PIU locative *-i, *-ru, *-n. · PIU ablative *-t → PU *-ta ~ Hitt. -z (<*-t-i); *-os (maybe originally ergative), also found in *t-os and abl. pl. *-i̯-os. · PIU nominaliser *-i, *-m. · PIU diminutive *-k. · PIU reflexive *-u/u̯ → PIA *-o, originally limited to the third person, also found in the dual. · PIU interrogative *ku̯-. · PIU participle *-n, *-t, *-nt, *-l, verbal noun *-s. · PIU negative *n.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 12, 2021 18:46:13 GMT
1.2. Early and Middle Indo-European 1.2.1. Early and Middle Indo-European evolution Features of the Middle Proto-Indo-European or Proto-Indo-Anatolian (PIA) parent language can be reconstructed based on Proto-Anatolian (PA) differences with the Common Indo-European (CIE) trunk—defined in turn by differences between Tocharian and other Late PIE dialects—complemented with data informed by internal reconstruction (Kloekhorst 2016, 2017, 2018; Pooth 2018).
Phonology:
· Laryngeals probably reconstructible as *h and uvular fricatives *χ, *ɣw (Weiss 2016), although possibly uvular stops (Kloekhorst 2018).
· Vocalic system:
o Ablauting *e, *o, with *ē, *ō (see below).
o Dubious existence (or alternatively minimal relevance) of vowel *a.
· System of stops most likely different from the classically reconstructed *p/*t/*k – *b/*d/*g – *bh/*dh/*gh:
o Most likely (typologically) *p/*t/*k – *ˀb/*ˀd/*ˀg – *b/*d/*g (Kümmel 2015); also supported by Kortlandt’s glottalic reformulation of Lachmann’s law (Kroonen 2018).
o Maybe *pː/*tː/*kː – *ˀp/*ˀt/*ˀk – *p/*t/*k, i.e. like Pre-Proto-Anatolian. This could be supported by the divergent evolution of PIE *TT → Late PIE *TsT in compounds with *tː in Anatolian.
Nominal system:
· Evolution of the accent-ablaut system (as described by Beekes and Kortlandt):
o Initially there were apparently only three paradigms: static (inanimate/animate), proterodynamic (inanimate), and hysterodynamic (animate).
o Sound Law 1: massive vowel reduction, with all accented vowels becoming *e, all unaccented vowels were lost: e.g. nom.-acc. sg. *mén-s, gen. sg. *mn-és-s.
o Intermediate period A: sometimes spread of vowel *e to unaccented morphemes, e.g. nom. acc. *mén-es. Zero-grade forms may be replaced by its full-grade form in analogy to hysterodynamic paradigms; e.g. gen. *mn-és-es.
o Sound Law 2: all unaccented *e are weakened to *o. Regular outcome of *mén-es, *mn-és-es is then *mén-os, *mn-és-os.
o Intermediate period B: new regularisations, e.g. the accented e-grade is generalised throughout the paradigm, yielding *mén-os, *mén-es-os. Vowels *e and *o are now separate phonemes, so *o can spread to accented morphemes.
o Sound Law 3: In some environments, short *e and *o are lengthened; e.g. *pχ-tḗr ‘father’ is the outcome of an earlier short *e, either because it stood before a word-final resonant, or because it is a compensatory lengthening from **pχ-ters (Szemerényi’s law).
o Finally, the full reconstructible Middle PIE nominal accent-ablaut system includes also a hysterokinetic (e.g. nom. *pχ-tḗr, acc. *pχ-térm, gen. *pχ-trés) and an amphikinetic one (e.g. *su̯ésor- / *su̯esr-és ‘sister’).
· The earliest reconstructible PIE gender system showed differences in gender agreement only in the grammatical cases. Different agreement patterns arose primarily in the nominative, with common gender nouns, adjectives, and pronouns showing different case/number endings in contrast to neuter nouns, which did not distinguish the nominative and the accusative (Matasović 2014).
· Endings:
o Nom. sg. *-s, *-Ø.
o Gen. sg. *-(e/o)s, originally probably **-és.
o Dat.-Loc. in **-i, that develops into an accented *-éi, hence:
§ Dat. unaccented in *-i, accented (hysterodynamic) in *-éi: *CC-éC-i, *CC-C-éi.
§ Loc. unaccented in *-i (proterodynamic, hysterodynamic): *CC-éC-i.
o Allative in **-é, which developes into *-ó (cf. Hitt. parā ‘forward’, Gk. pró, Skt. prá), possibly with zero-grade *-Ø. Not productive in later stages.
o Instrumental in *-et, accented *-ét, zero-grade *-t.
o Development of ablative by adding *-i to the instrumental, cf. PA *-(o)ti. The common ending *-(e)s developed later.
o Nominal paradigms for Middle PIE:
Verbal system:
· Basic forms were probably injunctive (tenseless) *CéC-t and derivative *CéC-i, with an affix *-i which was either an aspectual (progressive, ongoing at refrence time) or a temporal (hinc et nunc, i.e. ‘here and now’) mark.
· Endings originally only *-m, *-s, *-t, which added information on person and number.
· From punctual verbal roots derivatives could be made (by reduplication, n-infix, etc.) with repetitive, durative, causative, etc. meaning; with suffix *-s- a punctual derivative could be made from non-punctual roots.
· Original distributive-iterative inflectional tipe (*su̯opé, opposed to *u̯oidé) becomes proto-middle.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 12, 2021 19:47:23 GMT
1.3. Early Uralic 1.3.1. Early Uralic evolution Common traits of Uralic languages, which can be traced back to the parent language[ii], include the following (Janhunen 1982; Comrie 1988; Sammallahti 1988; Raun 1988):
· General SOV order. Noun phrase basic order is attribute (adjctive, genitive, numeral) before the head noun. Postpositions instead of prepositions.
o Subjects of finite clauses in the nominative, of nonfinite verb forms in the genitive (or appear as possessive suffixes, for pronouns).
o Noun phrase structure: Attribute precedes the head noun, with no agreement between attributive adjective and head noun.
o Direct object in the accusative.
o Possession may be expressed by two bare nouns standing adjacent to one another (attributive use of a noun), but a specialised structure with possessor in the genitive + head noun unmarked is also common to this early stage.
o No distinction between nominal and verbal stems.
· Number: Singular, plural, and probably dual.
o Dual suffix *-ka- + -n ~ *-kä- + n/ń.
o Plural marker originally probably *-t, ancient ones including *-t, *-i, and *-k.
· Three grammatical cases (nominative, accusative, genitive) and three local cases (locative, allative, ablative):
o Subjects of finite clauses in the nominative, of nonfinite verb forms in the genitive (or appear as possessive suffixes, for pronouns).
o Direct object in the accusative (if no distinct form, the nominative form is used). General accusative ending sg. *-m.
o Oblique plural case suffix *-i, possibly from a possessive adjective.
o Subordinative suffix (eventually functioning as genitive / prenominaliser with nouns, or adverb-formant with verbs) in *-n.
o Ablative or separative as *-tV (*-tə, *-tu), for example found with the verb ‘to fear’ in all Uralic languages, and in the adverb ‘from under’ *al-ta.
o Locative in *-na/-nä, with the original local meaning appearing in adverbs and postpositions.
o Lative suffix *-k(V) ‘moving toward, moving along; becoming somebody or something’.
o Dative-lative suffix *-n or -ń.
· Possession:
o Possessive suffix 1p *-mV/me, 2p. *-tV/te, 3p. *-sV/se. In plural a *-t or *-k is added, in dual cases an *-n.
o Oblique cases *-n before a possessive suffix in singular or plural, probably from the genitive ending.
· Diminutive *-mpV.
· Ancient ordinal *-ntV.
· Pronouns *mi/me-nä ‘I’, *me ‘we’, *ti/te-nä ‘thou’, *ti/te ‘you’, *ći/ će‘this’, *e ‘this’, *tä ‘this’, *to ‘that’, *u/o ‘that’, *ke/ki ‘who’, *ku/ko ‘who’, *-me ‘what’. Functions of third person personal pronouns are covered by demonstrative pronouns.
· Originally, neither imperative nor indicative were marked.
· Verb agreement in person and number with the subject, but less usual in the third person.
· Original verb form probably a kind of aorist, neutral as regards time. Present marker *-k would develop initially as an emphatic.
· One tense distinction: past and non-past tense (subsuming present future).
· Verbal personal suffixes 1p. *-m, 2p. *-t (or *-n?), 3p. *-s, plus number suffixes.
· Deverbal suffixes in nouns: *-kV, *-i̯V (to designate the actor), *-mV (different meanings), *-nV (infinitives and participles), *-tV/ttV, and *-pV (predominantly participial), which can be traced back to an Indo-Uralic participial suffix, cf. Pre-PIE *-bo (Hyllested 2009).
· Deverbal suffixes in verbs: *-l- (frequentative or momentary), *-tV (frequentative and causative), *-ttV (momentary, causative), *-ktV (causative), *-ntV (frequentative or causative), and reflexive *-u̯-.
· Denominal verbs: *-j-, *-lV-, *-mV-, *-nV-, *-tV-, and reflexive *-u̯-.
· The verb ‘to have’ was expressed with the owner in the locative (possibly also genitive), and the thing owned (grammatical subject) in the nominative, with the verb ‘to be’ acting as the predicate.
· Phonetically, Uralic vowels were divided in two exclusive harmonic categories. Front and back vowels could not occur together in a (non-compound) word (Sammallahti 1988; Janhunen 1982): o *a is typologically more likely than the traditionally reconstructed *a, hence the more modern notation will be used here.
o The traditionally reconstructed unrounded *ɨ (also *ï) will also be replaced by the proposed mid vowel *ë /ɤ/, so the traditional reconstruction of the Uralisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (UEW) by Rédei (1988) can be used for consistency purposes. The true original value of certain vowels is disputed (Abondolo 1998), and different probably between EPU and LPU.
o The phonetic nature of *ɣ is unclear. It could have been two different sounds, a laryngeal (*h or *ʔ) and a velar (*g or *ǥ); or even a mere syllable boundary between two successive heterosyllabic vowels.
o Phonemes *d and *ð were probably spirants, and *ć was retroflex (cacuminal).
o Consonants could be combined to form geminates, at least *pp, obstruent + obstruent, sonorant + obstruent, and sonorant + sonorant.
1.3.2. Early Uralic–Indo-Anatolian contacts If one assumes no genetic relationship between Proto-Indo-Anatolian and Early Proto-Uralic, then one should interpret the above Indo-Uralic roots and words as wanderwords, or loanwords from one language into the other, at a very early stage of both, probably during the Neolithic and Early Eneolithic in the Pontic-Caspian steppes. In this case, it is very difficult to say in each case which one was the donor language, if only because of the scarce material available on Uralic comparative grammar.
If one assumes a genetic relationship between PIA and PU, and thus an Indo-Uralic trunk, it would be very difficult to differentiate an early loanword from a common root, since the phonological rules involved in borrowing would have been quite similar to those described here for derivation.
Suggested loans include:
· PIA *ɣwneɣwmn- ‘name’ → PA *ʔlóʔmn, cf. Hitt lā́mn (Kloekhorst 2008), cannot be the origin of PU *nime ~ PYuk *nime, unless a late, non-laryngeal PIE stage is proposed for its adoption. Most likely, Cavoto’s interpretation of an original PIA root *(H)nem- +*-men accounts for PIU *ɣnem yielding PU *nem- due to the phonotactically illicit sonorant + obstruent + sonorant in PU (Hyllested 2009). It is, therefore, more likely an ancient, shared IU noun.
· Similarly, PIU *medu → PU *mete ‘honey’ ~ PIA *medu (cf. hitt. mitgaimi- ‘sweetened (bread)’) ‘mead, sweet; honey’ seems also an ancient root, and it could have originally been a borrowing from Semitic into Indo-Uralic, cf. Semitic *mVtḳ -, ‘sweet’, NE Caucasian miʒʒV ‘sweet’ (Bjørn 2017). Since beekeeping may have spread (replacing the previous honey gathering techniques) with the domestication of Apis mellifera ca. 9000 BC in the Near East (Bloch et al. 2010), the arrival of a foreign word could have reached Indo-Uralic with Neolithisation via the North Pontic to the west, or via the Caucasus to the south.
· PIU *u̯ede ‘water’ → PU *u̯ete ~ PIA *u̯ed-, is in e-grade not only in Hitt. obl. u̯eten-, but also in other Late PIE languages (Kloekhorst 2008), and could thus suggest a very old loanword, but it is unlikely that this kind of word would be easily borrowed (Kortlandt 2010), and the vocalic alternation suggests a more complex nom. *uód-r, obl. *ud-én- paradigm (Kloekhorst 2019 fthc.).
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 12, 2021 20:12:21 GMT
2.1. Anatolian 2.1.1. Anatolian as archaic Indo-European Proto-Anatolian was the earliest language to branch off of the parent Proto-Indo-European trunk. This can be seen, for example, in the following archaic traits, compared to Late Proto-Indo-European (LPIE) innovations (Kloekhorst 2008):
· While thematic o-stems were already productive in PIA, some stems show a previous stage, such as the reinterpretation of athematic PIA *heku- ‘horse’, reconstructed from Anatolian, into LPIE *heku̯os. While thematisation of an athematic stem is a simple step, the opposite is infrequent.
· Retention of original uvular fricatives where LPIE evolves to pharyngeal fricatives. Laryngeal evolution different from LPIE (§II.2. Laryngeal evolution) although the colouring of neighbouring vowels is similar.
· Animate (common) vs. neuter gender, in contrast with the opposition of feminine to masculine among animates in LPIE.
· The fourth number, collective plural, is still fully productive for animate nouns in Anatolian, which shows a number of collective pluralia tantum.
· Case system with certain potential defective (e.g. ablative and dative plural) or archaic inflections—obscured by later dialectal developments —not undergoing LPIE innovations, especially regarding the thematic and pronominal inflections (e.g. lack of distinction of singular and plural in oblique cases of personal pronouns).
· Full development of neuter heteroclite nouns in *-r̥/-(e)n-, *-tr̥/-t(e)n-, *-mr̥/-m(e)n-, *-sr̥/-s(e)n-, *-u̯r̥/-u̯(e)n-, etc. (Rieken 1999)
· Verbal system with certain archaic traits, such as two tenses (past vs. preterite, from a predecessor of the LPIE present/aorist opposition), two aspects (imperfective with ske-verbs and perfective), two moods (indicative and imperative), two voices, and two conjugations (with the innovative hi-conjugation), as well as the participle. Most of these are derived from an archaic PIE stage ancestral to LPIE, with some traits being innovations only found within Anatolian.
· Hitt. mer-zi/mar- ‘to disappear’, cognate with LPIE *mer- ‘to die’, must point to the original meaning, since the semantic development of disappear as a euphemism for dying is much more likely than the reverse.
· PA opposition *tiH, obl. *tu- seems more likely to reflect the original situation, which would have undergone in LPIE the adoption of the general oblique form for *tuH.
· Hitt. šāḫ-i ‘to fill up, to plug, to stuff’, cognate with LPIE *seħ- ‘satiate’ is also more likely the original meaning of the verb.
· PA points to PIA nom. *du̯égχtr̥ ‘daughter’, while LPIE material points to *dhugħtḗr, which is probably a derived form from the declension of the former.
· PIE *χerɣw- can be reconstructed as meaning ‘to plough’, but Proto-Anatolian material points to an original ‘to crush (the ground)’, which suggests that Anatolian split off before the introduction of the plough.
· PIA verbal root *meh- ‘to refuse, to reject’ is found in LPIE only as the 2sg. imp. act. form *meh ‘don’t!’, grammaticalised as a prohibitive particle.
2.1.2. Anatolian evolution and contacts In Proto-Anatolian, the following phonetic changes can be seen:
· The old PIE laryngeal system collapses (Kloekhorst 2008):
o PIA *χ, *ɣw were preserved in some environments.
o PIA *χ, *ɣw → PA */H/ in positions *#He- and *CRHV. In all other positions merge of *ɣw, *h and loss.
o Allophonic colouring of pre-PA *e due to adjacent *χ and *ɣw becomes phonemicised, yielding PA *a and *o.
· PIA *eh → PA *ǣ.
· Monophthongisation of *ei and *eu, and of *oi, *ai, *ou, and *au in some environments.
· Geminate nasals, liquids, and stops arise through assimilation.
· Probable merger of the voiced aspirates with voiced stops.
· Voicing of IE voiceless stops after long accented vowels and in unaccented syllables.
· PIA medial *kw → PA *gw except before *s.
· Affricate *ts- < PIA *ti̯-.
Suvorovo chiefs are probably to be identified with Proto-Anatolian speakers expanding from Khvalynsk, and were thus in close contact with the (most likely Proto- or Para-Uralic-speaking) Sredni Stog culture, and with cultures from the Caucasus and Old Europe, which makes any innovative trait traced to the Proto-Anatolian stage suspicious of being a potential loan.
Traits associated with early contacts could include the following:
· The satemising trend proposed for Anatolian (Melchert 1987), if accepted, could stem precisely from this close contact (see below §3.4.1. Indo-Iranian evolution and §4.13.1. Balto-Slavic evolution).
· Similarly, the ‘fortis-lenis’ system Pre-PA **tt/t/ˀt → PA *tt/t (Kloekhorst 2008) may stem from early contacts with languages of the Caucasus.
· PU common structure noun + ending + poss. enclitic is found exclusively in Anatolian, which suggests a common origin in Indo-Uralic (Kloekhorst 2008), but possibly also its adoption by Pre-Proto-Anatolian migrants:
1sg.
noun + ending + -mV + ending
noun + case suffix + -mV
2sg.
noun + ending + -tV + ending
noun + case suffix + -tV
3sg.
noun + ending + -sV + ending
noun + case suffix + -sV
The earliest attested Anatolian language is possibly to be found in the inscriptions of Armi, dated ca. 2500-2300 BC (Bonechi 1990), whose onomastic tradition is used to locate it in or near Ebla territory, in what is today north-western Syria (Archi 2011):
“Most of these personal names belong to a name-giving tradition different from that of Ebla; Arra-ti/tulu(m) is attested also at Dulu, a neighbouring city-state (Bonechi 1990b: 22–25). We must, therefore, deduce that Armi belonged to a marginal, partially Semitised linguistic area different from the ethno-linguistic region dominated by Ebla. Typical are masculine personal names ending in -a-du: A-la/li-wa-du/da, A-li/lu-wa-du, Ba-mi-a-du, La-wadu, Mi-mi-a-du, Mu-lu-wa-du. This reminds one of the suffix -(a)nda, -(a)ndu, very productive in the Anatolian branch of Indo-European (Laroche 1966: 329). Elements such as ali-, alali-, lawadu-, memi-, mula/i- are attested in Anatolian personal names of the Old Assyrian period (Laroche 1966: 26–27, 106, 118, 120).”
Common Anatolian seems to have expanded thus early during the 3rd millennium BC into the three known main groups, due to their close relatedness: Southern Anatolian (comprising Luwian and Lycian, and probably Lydian), and two conservative branches, Palaic and Hittite. Intensive language contact after the spread of Common Anatolian is apparent from the morphological and phonological convergence of different dialects, which makes their classification more difficult.
The first attested Hittite and Luwian words come from clay tablets unearthed at Kaneš ca. 1920–1720 BC, before the first texts written in Hittite. Written in Old Assyrian dialect of Akkadian, the tablets refer to the local Anatolian population, and record hundreds of personal names that may be related to various languages, including Hittite, Luwian, Hurrian, and Hattian. The merchant records contain a number of Anatolian Indo-European loanwords adopted by the Assyrian community.
Hittite loans include layers of Hattic, Hurrian, Akkadian loanwords. Potential substrates behind some Anatolian languages include (Watkins 2001):
· Phonetic changes, like the appearance of /f/ and /v/.
· Split ergativity: Hurrian is ergative, Hattic probably too.
· Increasing use of enclitic pronoun and particle chains after first stressed word: in Hattic after verb, in Hurrian after nominal forms.
· Almost obligatory use of clause initial and enclitic connectors: e.g. semantic and syntactic identity of Hattic pala/bala and Hittite nu.
Interesting is the Indo-Iranian words found in the hippological texts of Kikkuli, which contains e.g. PIIr. aikau̯artanna- ‘single turn’, maybe through Luwian or Hurrian (see below §3.4.4. Mitanni Indic). The two last layers seen on Hittite are Luwian-like (the so-called “Glossenkeilwörter”, marked by writers as of foreign origin), and the Luwian loanwords increasing in the Middle Hittite, and especially in the Neo-Hittite periods.
Luwian loans include potential Hittite Luwianism PIIr. assussanni-, as well as Lycian esbe, assumed to derive from the Mitanni reflex of LPIE *eku̯os ‘horse’.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 12, 2021 21:19:05 GMT
2.2. Late Indo-European 2.2.1. Late Indo-European evolution Although it is difficult to pinpoint the potential relationship between certain changes, it is clear that there was no immutable Indo-European at any stage, either in phonological or in morphosyntactic development.
Reconstructible changes from PIA to Late PIE include (Lundquist 2018; Pooth 2016, 2017):
· Phonology:
o Laryngeal uvular-to-pharyngeal evolution is assumed for the PIA - CIE transition, i.e. *χ →*ħ, *ɣw → ʕw.
o The process of laryngeal evolution (called ‘laryngeal loss’) continues from the PIA stage well into the Disintegrating Indo-European (DIE) phase (see below §II.2. Laryngeal evolution).
§ Expansion (or appearance?) of *a as an evolution of *χ or through its effect on neighbouring vowels.
o The shift to the classical velar distribution may be attributed to the Disintegrating Indo-European stage—following to some extent Kortlandt (2013)—roughly at the same time as the merging of laryngeals, due to the findings in Tocharian; i.e. **ˀb/**ˀd/**ˀg → *b/*d/*g; **b/**d/**g → *bh/*dh/*gh.
o Simplification of medial *-ss-: compare for PIA *héssi, PA *ʔesːi (Hitt. e-eš-ši), Late PIE *hési (Skt. ási, Gk. ei, etc.).
· Nominal system:
o Development of the feminine gender from common gender words (e.g. Gk. f. kheír = Hitt. c. keššar ‘hand’) and from forms that originally belonged to the neuter gender (feminines in *-χ).
o Accent-ablaut paradigms, fully developed in a previous stage, start a simplification trend (merger) into a single static paradigm.
o Further evolution of endings, with an unstable plural oblique system is evident at this stage. Areal innovations that did not reach all dialects (and should therefore be attributed to a Disintegrating Indo-European) include:
§ Common Indo-European ins. pl. *-is (thematic -ōis) evolves regionally into DIE *-bhis from adverb-forming suffix *-bhi (cf. Hitt. kuwa-pi), as attested in Indo-Iranian and North-West Indo-European (NWIE).
§ CIE ins. singular evolves in a western area into *-bhi, in Gk. (cf. Myc. Gk. -pi) and NWIE.
§ Dative-ablative plural *-os is eventually added to the adverb-forming suffix *-bhi, probably independently in Indo-Iranian (*bhi̯os) and NWIE (*-bhos).
· The old nominal derivation system (including adjectives) collapses, evolving radically from a PIA root and pattern morphology to a concatenative, fusional, and predominantly suffixation-based morphology accompanied by ablaut change.
· Verbal system evolution (many changes since the first shift point to a period of disintegration, but with contact among the main early dialects):
o After the separation of Anatolian, the tense–aspect system develops. If a previous tenseless system is assumed for the parent PIA (i.e. progressive vs. non-progressive), then the original PIE aspect system collapses, and tense (and reinterpretation and reanalysis of old forms) develops.
o First shift or Great Voice Shift: Voice-marking collapses, with reanalysis of antipassive construction to neotransitive, original proto-middle and active merging into a (neo-)active voice.
o Second shift, of progressive aspect to present imperfective tense and aspect: cumulative (present + imperfective) exponence introduced to the word final. Eventual distinction of primary and secondary endings. Present-tensedness develops.
o Dual endings specialised from PIA 1p. + 2p. plural/dual inclusive endings.
o Emergence of new mediopassive endings in *-r(i)-, probably originally from 3pl. endings, and developed (later, specialised mainly in Northern Indo-European) as opponent mediopassive (reflexive, benefactive, O-possessive, passive) endings, i.e. in opposition to the old middle endings.
o (Late) development of the ‘passive input’ voice side by side with the mediopassive one, with no dedicated morphology at this stage, and with demoted agents originally in the instrumental case, as well in thegenitive (Schmalstieg 2002), and through derivation in the dative (Luraghi 2016; Danesi, Johnson, and Barddal 2017).
o Late appearence of the dialectal (Graeco-Aryan) augment in *é- as a marker of punctual preterite.
o Introduction of optative and subjunctive endings.
2.2.2. Late Indo-European culture Some interesting aspects of the complex Proto-Indo-European culture and society can be inferred from the language (Benveniste 1969).
2.2.2.1. Economy and technology The domestic horse *heku̯os, features prominently in the Proto-Indo-European society since before the Anatolian split, and this is reflected in their Weltanschauung. with dozens of words reconstructed for horse-related terms, as well as in common imagery (swift horses, horses accompanying men in battle), rituals (horse sacrifice for the renewal of kingship in the Indian Asvamedha, the Roman Equus October, the Gaulish name Epomeduos, the Irish account by Giraldus Cambrensis’ Topography of Ireland, and the Nordic examples from sagas), myths (the horse-driven chariot of the Sun, the divine twins and their horses, the Gallo-Roman goddess Epona, etc.) surviving into the historical period, including divine epithets, and common names (cf. Gaul. Eposo-gnatus, OInd. Asva-ghosa ‘tamer of horses’, etc.). Whereas cattle and cattle-related terms influence all aspects of life, the horse seems to be associated with the ruling classes.
To transport using animals, *u̯egh- ‘carry, lead’, was essential for Late Proto-Indo-Europeans, who knew the technology associated with wagons, *u̯oghom, including the wheel, *kwekwlós, *róteħ (found in Tocharian), the axle, *aks-; and the thill, *ʕwéisā (known in Anatolian).
The common abstract collective *pekū ‘wealth; moveable goods, property’ developed its meaning further into ‘livestock, animal’. This transition evidences the relevance of livestock for the overall subsistence economy of Proto-Indo-Europeans. The subsequent specific meanings of the word (and the rituals of animal sacrifice) can be followed through further specialisations into mainly cattle or cattle and goat-sheep herding economies. The animal sacrifice to the goddess Ardvī Sūrā Anāhitā in Iran, consisting of ten thousand sheep, a thousand cattle, and a hundred stallions, is possibly the closest to the original trifunctional sacrifice in terms of the domestic animals used and their hierarchical order of relative economic weight (see below §2.2.3.1. Graeco-Aryan, §3.2.2. North-West Indo-European evolution, and §4.1. Greek for more on its evolution).
Cattle were essential for Proto-Indo-Europeans (West 2007):
· Among a man’s possessions his cattle stood on a level with his wife (RV 10. 34. 13; Hes. Op. 405).
· Terms like ‘cow’, ‘bull’, ‘heifer’, were often applied metaphorically to human family members.
· A good ruler was a ‘cowherd’ or a herdsman.
· Cattle raid is a form of aggression celebrated in Indo-European traditions, as a quick way of acquiring wealth.
· The cow served as a unit of value.
· The measure of a small puddle was ‘a cow’s hoofprint’ (góṣ padam, MBh. 1. 27. 9; 9. 23. 18; Rm. 6. 77. 11; cf. Hes. Op. 488 f.).
· Times of day were designated as: ‘the cow-gathering’ (the morning milking: sáṃgatiṃ góḥ, RV 4. 44. 1; saṃ gavé, 5. 76. 3), ‘the yoking of oxen’ (Old Irish im-búarach), ‘the unharnessing of oxen’ (govisarga-, Rm. 7. 1523*.1; oulutós, Il. 16. 779, al.).
· Epithets, myths, and references to the sovereign gods often included their bovine nature: the ‘bull’ Sky God and his partner the ‘cow’.
*pekū also includes human slaves, as opposed to the common free people, *leudh-. In Skr. dvipáde cátus padeca paśáve the man is considered as bipedal paśu ‘cattle, mobile property’. An interesting formula is reconstructed by Calvert Watkins as ‘protect men and livestock’, from the correspondence of (etymologically related words underlined) Skt. trā́i̯antām asmín grā́me / gā́m áśvam púruṣam paśúm lit. ‘protect in-this village cow, horse, man, (and) flock-animal’ Av. ϑrāϑrāi pasuuā̊ vīraiiā̊ lit. ‘for protection of-cattle (and) of-men’, Lat. pāstōrēs pecuaque salua seruāssīs lit. ‘shepherds farm-animals-and may-you-preserve’, Umb. nerf arsmo uiro pequo castruo frif salua seritu ‘magistrates ordinances men cattle fields fruit safe let-him preserve’.
Slaves are usually prisoners, spoils of war or raids, always foreigners. Particular terms existed for human value, *alghwós (cf. Gk. alphḗ, PIIr. *arghás, Lith. algà), and human sale, *u̯ésnos (cf. Lat. vēnus, Gk. ṓnos, Skr. vasna, OArm. gin).
The economy is based on exchange and reciprocity, with roots reconstructed for transaction, buying and selling, payment, and recompense. The central terms of exchange involve a a mutual transaction, a gift entails a countergift, with some derived verbs showing both the meaning of ‘give’ and ‘take’. The traditional rules of hospitality, usually attributed to the Late PIE period (because of its presence in Ancient Greek texts), making guests almost part of the extended family and friends, are more clearly developed in reconstructed lexicon during the NWIE period (see below §3.2.2. North-West Indo-European evolution).
|
|