Remerciez-le!

Remerciez @Admin pour avoir partagé cet document gratuitement, de la manière la plus simple, en partageant sur les réseaux sociaux.

The Journal of Indo-European Studies The derivational history of Greek ·ppow an

The Journal of Indo-European Studies The derivational history of Greek ·ppow and ﬂppeÊw 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 *h1ekuo- ‘horse’ resulted from thematization. Its source may have been the genitive singular *h1kuós 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 *h1ku-, showing the generalization of *h1kuó- in a prestage of Greek. The suffix of ﬂppeÊw ‘horseman’ may have arisen from hypostasis of the locative singular *h1kèu ‘on the horse, on horseback’, yielding *h1kèus ‘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 *h1ék-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 *ássu- or *azzu- (c.) (ANSE.KUR.RA-us [nom.sg.]), Hieroglyphic Luwian ásu- (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. -áti, -ehe/i- ~ CLuw. -assa/i-).” Kloekhorst infers that the thematic stem *h1ekuo- ‘horse’ found in the other Indo- European 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: 7–11, Cowgill 1974, The derivational history of Greek ·ppow and ﬂppeÊw 199 Volume 37, Number 1 & 2, Spring/Summer 2009 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 *h1éku- and LPIE *h1ékuo- both mean ‘horse’, a derivation of *h1éku-o- as ‘with speed, speedy’ = ‘horse’ from *h1éku- ‘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 Indo- European nouns. Well-known examples include the agent noun suffix *-ter-/-tr- versus the instrument noun suffix *-tro-, and Hittite huuant- ‘wind’ < *h2uh1ent- vs. Sanskrit vàta-, Avestan váta-, Tokharian A wänt, 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. svápna-, Lat. somnus < *sue/op-no-, Lith. sãpnas < *suop-no-, OCS s∫n∫, Gr. Ïpnow < *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: 167–207, 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 200 Michiel de Vaan The Journal of Indo-European Studies existing stems (Brugmann 1906: 156–165). A famous example of such a derivation is *Hrot-h2- ‘wheel’ (Latin rota) > *Hrot-h2- o- ‘with wheels, waggon’ (Skt. rátha-). Other instances are derived adjectives in *-dhh1o- (Balles 2003), *-iHo-, *-no-, -ro- (Nussbaum 1986: 243), etc., ordinal numbers such as *s(e)ptm- ó- ‘seventh’, decasuative compounds such as Gr. §nãliow ‘in the sea’, and nouns which might continue adjectives, e.g. Skt. utsá- ‘spring’, presumably from *‘containing water’ (Balles 1997: 2208). Widmer (2004: 33) explicitly distinguishes two types of thematic vowel, denominated ‘o1’ and ‘ó2’: whereas the former does not change the meaning of the original stem (as in Hittite huuant- vs. Skt. vàta-‘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 ‘ó2’ is not always self-evident. For instance, Widmer (p. 33) interprets Gr. biÒw ‘bow’ as a derivative *gwiH-o- *‘with a bow- string’ to athematic Skt. jiyà- ‘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 *-ós may also account for the stressed character of “possessive” *-ó- (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: 174–190) paradigm of earlier *h1ék-u-. The genitive singular must therefore have been *h1k-u-ós; the familiar full grade of the root in non-Anatolian *h1ékuo- 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 *h1éku- ‘horse’: The derivational history of Greek ·ppow and ﬂppeÊw 201 Volume 37, Number 1 & 2, Spring/Summer 2009 nom.sg. *h1ék-u[-s] acc.sg. *h1k-éu-m gen.sg. *h1k-u-ós → nom.sg. *h1ku-ó-s >> *h1éku-o-s loc.sg. *h1k-éu-i / *h1k-èu If the root of this noun is the same as in the adjectives Skt. áßú-, Gr. »kÊw ‘swift’, Latin ócior ‘faster’ < *h1ók- or *h1o-h1k-, the original meaning of EPIE *h1ék-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-Brügger 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 *-é- into the first syllable. Greek exhibits a number of forms with unexpected -ι- instead of zero within a consonant cluster (cf. Mayrhofer 1986: 176), as in p¤tnhmi ‘to spread out’ < *ptnámi, sk¤dnhmi ‘to scatter’ < *skdnámi, Hom. p¤surew ‘four’ < *kwtwr-, ﬁpnÒw ‘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 *wrád- < PIE *urh2d- (Lat. rádíx). 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 202 Michiel de Vaan The Journal of Indo-European Studies may be seen in the cluster laryngeal + s + stop in Greek be!’ (OAv. zdí) < *h1s-dhi, thus supporting the solution for i- in ‘horse’. Finally, a sequence of uploads/Geographie/ greek-hippos-and-hippeus.pdf