WYŻSZA SZKOŁA PEDAGOGICZNA W KRAKOWIE PRACE MONOGRAFICZNE NR VIII

LESZEK BEDNARCZUK

INDO-EUROPEAN PARATAXIS

WYDAWNICTWO NAUKOWE WYŻSZEJ SZKOŁY PEDAGOGICZNEJ KRAKÓW 1971

INDO-EUROPEAN PARATAXIS PRACE MONOGRAFICZNE WYŻSZEJ SZKOŁY PEDAGOGICZNEJ W KRAKOW IE TOM VIII ÉTUDES MONOGRAPHIQUES DE L’ÉCOLE NORMALE SUPÉRIEURE A CRACOVIE

WYDAWNICTWO NAUKOWE WYŻSZEJ SZKOŁY PEDAGOGICZNEJ WYŻSZA SZKOŁA PEDAGOGICZNA W KRAKOWIE PRACE MONOGRAFICZNE NR VIII

LESZEK BEDNARCZUK

INDO-EUROPEAN PARATAXIS

WYDAWNICTWO NAUKOWE WYŻSZEJ SZKOŁY PEDAGOGICZNEJ KRAKÓW 1971 WINCENTY DANEK President

JAN FLIS ZOFIA KRYGOWSKA IGNACY ZARĘBSKI Members

BOLESŁAW FARON Secretary

WSP Kraków BG

1050012112

Editor KAZIMIERZ PTAK

Printed in Poland

Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły Pedagogicznej. Kraków 1971 Wydanie I. Nakład 500 + 60 egz. Objętość ark. wyd. 10; ark. druk. 10,5; ark. form. Al 13,5. Pap. druk. sat. kl. III, 80 g, 70x100 z fabryki pap. we Włocławku. Oddano do składania w maju 1971, podpisano do druku w październiku 1971, druk ukończono w grudniu 1971. Zam. 385/71. Cena zł 30— Drukarnia Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego w Krakowie BIBL WSF

1972- 0 .1 1 : 5 CONTESTS

1. STATE OF RESEARCHES IN INDO-EUROPEAN S Y N T A X ...... 7 2. POSITION OF SYNTAX WITHIN INVESTIGATION OF UTTERANCE 13 2.1. Syntax and other branches oflin g u istics...... 13 2.2. Syntax and sty lis tic s ...... 14 2.3. Syntax and p sy ch o lo gy ...... 16 2.4. Syntax and l o g i c ...... 19 3. PARATAXIS AND H Y P O T A X IS ...... 23 3.1. Results of previous investigations ...... 23 3.2. Formal d iffe re n ce s...... 26 A. Structure of con stitu en ts...... 27 B. Order of constituents...... £9 C. Prosodic contour of u tteran ce...... 30 D. (NonRecurrence of special w o r d s ...... 30 3.3. Relation to other kinds of construction...... 31 3.4. Origin and exp an sion ...... 31 4. FORM AND ORDER OF CONSTITUENTS ...... 33 4.1. Kinds of connexity of constituents ...... 33 4.2. Order of con stitu en ts...... 36 4.2.1. Factors of o rd e r ...... ! ...... 36 A. Phonetic factors 37 B. Prosodic factors ...... 40 C. Semantic f a c to r s ...... 41 4.2.2. Linear contact of joined con stitu en ts...... 42 5. CONSTRUCTIONS...... 45 5.1. Iteratio n ...... 46 5.1.1. Iteration of co n stitu e n t...... 48 5.1.2. Iteration of conjunction (polysyndeton)...... 49 A. Copulative function...... 52 B. Alternative function...... 52 C. Disjunctive fu n c tio n ...... 53 D. Adversative fu n ctio n ...... 55 E. Relative function...... 56 F. Conditional fu n c tio n ...... 57 G. Concessive function...... 57 5.2. Ellipsis...... 59 5.2.1. Morphological e llip s is ...... 60 5.2.2. Syntactic ellipsis . ! ...... 62 A. Accessory e le m e n t...... 62 i. P re p o sitio n ...... 63 ii. P rev erb ...... ; ...... 65 iii. A r t i c l e ...... 65 iv. Other adnominal e le m e n ts ...... 65 V. Pronoun...... 66 vi. Auxiliary v e rb ...... 66 vii. Modal p article...... 66 B. Main element...... 67 C. Set of e le m e n ts ...... 68 5.2.3. Other kinds of ellipsis...... 69 5.3. A n acolu th on ...... 70 5.3.1. Nominal constructions...... 70 A. Prepositional co n stru ctio n s...... 70 i. S o c ia tiv e ...... 70 ii. A d d itiv e ...... 72 iii. Others...... 73 B. Comparative constructions...... 73 C. Connections of different c a s e s ...... 74 i. V o c a t iv e ...... 74 ii. N om in ative...... 75 iii. Accusative ...... 76 iv. Other c a s e s ...... 76 5.3.2. Verbal constructions...... 77 A. Participial constructions...... 77 B. Infinitive constructions...... 82 C. Verboid constructions...... 85 5.3.3. Sentence constructions...... 86 A. Modal co n stru ctio n s...... 86 i. Copulative...... 87 ii. A lte rn a tiv e ...... 88 B. Hypotactical constructions...... 88 i. Copulative...... 89 ii. A d versative...... 90 5.3.4. Word — sentence constructions...... 92 A. Conjunctive constructions...... 93 B. Absolute co n stru ctio n s...... »...... 94 6. MEANS OF CONNECTION...... 95 6.1. A syn d eton ...... 95 6.1.1. General characteristics...... 95 6.1.2. Kinds of asyn d eton ...... 96 6.1.3. Asyndetic co-ordinate connections...... 97 A. Copulative...... 97 B. A lte r n a tiv e ...... 98 C. Disjunctive ...... 99 D. A d v ersativ e...... 99 6.1.4. Extension of asyndeton in Indo-European languages...... 100 6.2. Conjunctions...... 101 6.2.1. Position and classification ...... 101 A. Position of conjunctions ...... 101 i. Position of conjunctions within syntactic system .... 102 ii. Position of conjunctions within parts of speech...... 104 iii. Position of conjunctions within lexical sy s t e m ...... 105 B. Classification of co n ju n ctio n s...... 106 C. Mutual relations and internal differentiation between conjunctions 109 6.2.2. Review of paratactical conjunctions in Indo-European languages 111 i. Proto-Indo-European s t a t e ...... I ll ii. Tokharian...... 114 iii. Indo-Iranian...... 116 iv. A n atolian ...... 122 V. Phrygian-Armenian...... 124 vi. G reek...... 126 vii. A lb a n ia n ...... 127 viii. I t a l i c ...... 128 ix. Romanic...... 130 X. C e ltic...... 132 xi. G erm an ic...... 134 xii. В alto-Slavonic...... 139 6.2.3. Provenance of Indo-European paratactical conjunctions...... 144 A. Copulative function...... 145 B. Alternative function...... 146 C. Disjunctive f u n c t i o n ...... 147 D. Adversative fu n ctio n ...... 148 6.3. Other means of connection ...... 152 6.3.1. Conjunctional co rre la te s ...... 152 6.3.2. Independent m e a n s ...... 154 7. ORIGIN OF INDO-EUROPEAN P A R A T A X IS ...... 155 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL A B BR EV IA T IO N S...... 161 POSTSCRIPT...... 168 1. STATE OF EESEAECHES Ш INDO-EUEOPEAN SYNTAX

Syntactic researches had remained under the influence of logic until the nineteenth century, in the second half of which they were inspired by psychology, but the development of an autonomous syntactic theory begins no earlier than in the twentieth century 4 This was not, however, in direct connection with the development of historical-comparative research and a certain disinclination for too hasty use of actual syntactic theory 1 2 can be partly explained by the fact that a theoretically justified approach does not always appear to be useful in practice3. General con­ ceptions comparatively soon become outdated4 and they may often be open to discussion. The development of comparative research depends in the first place on the supply of new materials from given languages. The first synthesis of comparative syntax made by B. Delbrück 5 arose as a result of the comparison of Greek and Latin with Sanskrit, only partial account having been taken of Germanic and Balto-Slavonic. K. Brugmann’s 6 monographs, virtually based on the same material, bring nothing essential here. Vor­ lesungen über Syntax by J . Wackernagel, based on the enlarged study of classical languages, is the second important achievement in this field.

1 Cf. J. Ries, Was ist Syntax?, Marburg 1894. The history of syntactic investigations in Europe up to the mid-nineteenth century was presented by B. D elbrück, VS, I, 1— 72, completed by S. W itkow ski, HSG, 1— 29. On investigations of young- grammarians: H. Ziemer, Junggrammatische Streifzüge im Gebiete der Syntax, Col- berg 1882. On syntactic theories of the twentieth century: 0 . A khm anova and Gr. Mi- kael’an, The theory of syntax in modern linguistics, The Hague 1969. 2 Cf. S. Witkowski, HSG, IX—X; W. Porzig, Festschrift für W. Streitberg, Heidel­ berg 1924, 126— 161. 3 Cf. e.g. the transposition of syntactic usage of inflexional categories to morphology (according to J. Ries’ concept) in 2nd edition K. B ru g m an n ’s, GVG, which makes the picture less clear. 4 This was also why I have not taken into account the transformational-generative theory and other modern syntactic concepts, which deserve consideration. 5 VS (= K. Brugmann, GVG, III—V). 6 GVG2, II; Syntax des einfachen Satzes im Indogermanischen, Berlin und Leip­ zig 1925 (= IF, X L III Beiheft). The latest synthesis of IE syntax was made by H. H irtT who considered more Germanic and Lithuanian languages. F . Sommer’s 87 * syntax has the character of a text-book and the work by W. Havers *, in spite of its use of IE comparative material, has a general character. There is also a number of monographs and detailed papers. Tho syntax of each separate IE language has been worked out with different exactness. In this respect the Tokharian language has been examined very little so far. Apart from the articles by W. Thomas 10 on infinitive, participle and negation there are no monographs as yet. Old Indian syntax was fully discussed by B. Delbrück11 and J . Speyer12 nearly 80 years ago. The latest synthesis of approaches to Vedic syntax was made by L. Eenou13, the use of cases was dealt with by H. Oertel14 and a number of particular problems were raised by J . Gonda 1S *. The comparative syntax of Middle Indo-Aryan was characterized in an outline by S. Senie. Modern Indo-Aryan languages do not bring much into the IE syntax because of far gone evolution. There are, however, quite a number of thorough treatments of this aspect. The fullest presentation of Old Persian syntax after the papers by A. Meillet17 and E. Benveniste18 * is given by B. Kentie; for Avesta the monograph by H. Beichelt20 is irreplaceable in spite of its text-book character. The relative clause and the adjective are dealt with by H. Seiler21 and the use of the instrumental by T. Pobożniak22 *. The grammars of Middle Iranian languages by L. Ger- cènbèr **, E . Benveniste24 and I. Gershevitch25 comprise also syntax.

7 IG, VI—VII. • V 88. • H E 8. 10 Asiatica, Leipzig 1954, 101— 164; Die tocharischen Verbaladjektive auf -l, Berlin 1952; Central Asiatic Journal, III, 289— 308. 11 Altindische Syntax, Halle 1888 (= SF, V). 11 88. A newer, abridged version in GIAP, I, 6. i» OLV, 333— 403. 14 The syntax of cases in the narrative and descriptive prose of Brahmdnas, Heidel­ berg 1926; Zu den Kasusvariationen in der vedischen Prosa, München 1937— 1938. 11 Remarks on the Sanskrit passive, Leyden 1951; Stylistic repetition in the Veda, Am­ sterdam 1959; Epithets in the Rgveda, The Hague 1959, etc. 14 Historical syntax of Middle Indo-Aryan, Calcutta 1953. 17 Grammaire du vieux-perse *, Paris 1931, 203— 253 (enlarged by E. B en ven iste). 14 BSL, XXX, 58—70; XXXI, 63—66; XLVIII, 52—62. 14 OP, 79— 106. 44 AE, 218—387. 41 RAA. 44 Folia Orientalia, VII, 119— 171. 44 Хотаносакский язык, Москва 1965, 117—137. 44 EG8, 181— 197. 44 GM8, 236—244. Of all the Modern Iranian languages, which are also considerably developed, Persian26 2728 is best examined in this respect, whereas Afghan27, Kurdish **, Ossetic29 and others are less known. On Hittite syntax we have J . Frie­ drich’s 30 monograph; comparative research in the same syntax was done by C. Watkins31 and V. Ivanov32. Armenian syntax has been examined fairly well: from the comparative point of view it has been dealt with by A. Meillet33 and its fullest presentation is given in H. Jensen’s 34 * descriptive grammar. The synthesis of Greek syntax after the monographs by B. Del­ brück 36 and K. Brugmann33 was made by E . Schwyzèr37 and recently discovered texts from the Mycenaean epoch can hardly change the picture38. Albanian syntax has not been scientifically described to this day. A new synthesis of historical Latin syntax was made by J . Hofmann and it was enlarged and completed by A. Szantyr39. The question of verbal aspects was fully discussed by J . Safarewicz40. Late Latin syntax was examined by E. Löfstedt41. For Osco-Umbrian dialects B. von Planta’s 42 work is irreplaceable also in this respect. The syntax of Bomanic languages which vary from the original IE type, has been sufficiently investigated; W. Meyer-Lubke’s 43 grammar published 70 years ago is the latest comparative approach to this question. In H. Pedersen’s 44 comparative Celtic grammar the syntactic use of inflectional categories has been discussed, whereas the synthetical part is lacking. The separate Celtic languages have no exhaustive treatises of this aspect45 * J . Gagne- 26 H. Jen sen , NPG, 191—320; G. Lazard, GPG, 169— 252. Л. Пейсиков, Воп­ росы синтаксиса персидского языка, Москва 1959. 27 Н. Дворников, Язык пушту, Москва 1960; W. Skalm ow ski, Folia Orientalia, IX , 99— 129. 28 К. Кур доев, Курдский язык, Москва 1961. 22 Грамматика осетинского языка, Орджоникидзе 1963 ff., I, 297— 328. 80 НЕ , I, § 208—336. 31 Celtica, VI, 1—49. 82 ЯСУ 185—290; Хеттский язык у Москва 1963, 166—185. 38 Recherches sur la syntaxe comparée de Varménien, Lisboa 1962. 88 AG, 133— 224. 85 Grundlagen der griechischen Syntax, Strassburg 1879 (= SF, IV). 88 GG, 414— 672 (enlarged by A. Thumb). 87 GG, II (prepared by A. Debrunner). 88 Cf. Ventris-Chadwick, DMG; E. Vilborg, A tentative grammar of Mycenaean Greek, Göteborg 1960. 88 LSS. 80 GHJŁ, II. 81 Syntactica, Lund 1928— 1933; The Late Latin, Oslo 1959, and others. 82 GOUD, II, 407—490. 88 GRS, III. 88 VGK, II. A newer, abridged version (worked out together with H. Lew is) CCG. 85 Comparatively best examined was the Old Irish (cf. J . V endryes, GY I) and Modern Welsh (cf. J . M o rris-Jo n es, WS) syntax. pain’s 46 monograph on the verbal noun being an exception. In spite of the studies made by B. Delbrück47, G. Neckel48, О. Behaghel49 and others the comparative syntax of Germanic languages — omitting from consideration H. Hirt’s 50 text-book — has not been synthetically pre­ sented as y e t51. On each separate language, however, many treatises have been written, especially on German 52 and English53. Baltic syntax, also lacking synthesis to this day, was rendered accessible to science thanks to the papers by E. Fraenkel54, J. Endzelin55 and E. Hermann56. Lithuanian syntax was recently presented synthetically in E. Senn’s 57 text-book. The comparative synthesis of Slavonic syntax was made 100 years ago by F. Miklosich 58, but in spite ot the existence of W. Vondrâk’s 59 more recent approach, it has preserved its value till the present day. Since then many synthetic and detailed treatises on the syntax of each sepa­ rate language have been produced, especially on Czech and Bussian. In this respect Slovene is examined least of all. The above shows that in spite of considerable achievements there is still much to be done in the field of IE syntax. Most languages have been scientifically described but they are often lacking the historical approach which is most important for a comparative grammar. The syntax of colloquial language and dialects, which often represent an earlier state and are less subject to foreign influences, alse need a more exact research. So far as the comparative aspect is concerned, the following questions in particular have been hitherto examined: the syntax of cases 60,

48 SNVLC, I. 47 IF, X X V I, 187— 199; Abhandlungen der Königlich-Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, XV III, 4, 7; X X X III, 1; X X X V I, 1, 4, and others. 48 KZ, XLV, 1—14. 48 DS. 60 Handbuch des Urgermanischen, Heidelberg 1931— 1934, III. 51 Cf., however, Сравнительная грамматика германских языков, Москва 1962 ff., V (in preparation). 52 Cf. О. B eh aghel, DS. 53 Cf. F. Visser, HSEL. 54 SLK ; SLP, and others. 55 Латыьистя предлоги, Юриевъ 1905— 1906; LG = 2 Latviesu valodas gramatika, Riga 1951 (completed). 56 E L K ; Litauische Studien, Berlin 1926. 57 Handbuch der litauischen Sprache, Heidelberg 1957— 1966, I, 352—489. 58 VGS, IV. 59 VSG, II, 418— 575 (enlarged by О. Grünenthal). 60 Cf. W. Havers, Untersuchungen zur Kasussyntax der idg. Sprachen, Strassburg 1911; A. Heinz, Genetivus w indoeuropejskim systemie przypadkowym, Warszawa 1955. A number of comparative observations are contained in E. F ra e n k e l’s, SLK. the use of moods61, the absolute62 and ergative63 construction, the nominal64 and subjectless65 sentence, the parenthesis66, the order of words 67, the negation 68, the conjuctions 69 and the interjections 70. There remain for discussion: the syntax of articles, prepositions, particles, infinitives and participles, the means of expressing parts of the sentence and semantic categories 71, the mutual transformation of different parts of speech 72 and the problem of the complex sentence. The conception of comparative syntax itself needs certain modification. At first its aim was to reconstruct the original IE state. It gave rise to various objections both as to the character of the proto-language and to the possibility cf distinguishing genetic innovations from parallel ones. In the most of the above quoted comparative monographs the stress has been laid on simi­ larities and differences between languages under consideration in order to show their characteristics. This approach enables us to pass from the genetic conception to a typological one 73, which may be divided into : an internal (characteristics within one group) and an external one (charac­ teristics as compared with the languages of other families)74. The latter — considering the fact that it involves the examination of a great number of languages — appears difficult to realize in practice; it allows one,

61 Cf. J. Gonda, The character of the Indo-European moods, Wiesbaden 1956; Z. Go­ łąb, Gonditionalis typu bałkańskiego w językach południowosłowiańskich, Wrocław— Warszawa— Kraków 1964. 62 Cf. W. H avers, IF, ХЫ И , 207— 257; Giotta, XVI, 94— 127. 63 Эргативная конструкция предложения, Ленинград 1967, 58—94; А. Пирейко, Основные вопросы эргативности, Москва 1968; W. Skalmowski, op. cit. 84 Cf. A. M eillet, MSL, XIV, 1—26; E. B en v en iste, BSL, XLVI, 19—36. 66 Cf. H. Pedersen, KZ, XL, 129—173; J. Zubatÿ, KZ, XL, 478—520. ee Cf. E. Schw yzer, Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1939, VI. 67 Cf. J. Wackernagel, IF, I, 333—436; О. Behaghel, IF, XXV, ПО—142; W. K rause, KZ, L, 74— 129, and others. 68 Cf. J. Wackernagel, VS, II, 248—312; O. Jespersen, Negation in English and other languages, Kobenhavn 1917. 88 J. Gonda, Mnemosyne, VII, 3, 177—214; 4, 265—296; S. Dik, Coordination, Amsterdam 1968; LP, X , 79—90, X I, 33—46, BPTJ, X IX , 99— 115, X X III, 159— 174, XXV, 63—74. 70 Cf. E. Schwentner, Die primären Interjektionen in den idg. Sprachen, Heidel­ berg 1924; С. Л у р ье, НС. 71 Such as agens, patiens, possessiveness, (in)determination, etc. 72 Cf. e.g. S. Jod łow sk i, Substantywizacja przymiotników w języku polskim, Kra­ ków 1964. 73 Hence the need for comparative investigations of categories, which did not exist yet in proto-Indo-European e.g. the article. 74 The parallels from non IE languages are quoted by W. H avers, HES; W. Porzig, op. cit.; J. Gonda, The character of the Indo-European moods, and others. however, to state the universale thanks to which it will be possible to create in future a general grammar by induction ,6.

The main purpose of my monograph is to give comparative charac­ teristics of co-ordinate clause syntax in IE languages. I have also con­ sidered some general problems such as the position of syntax, the relation between parataxis and hypotaxis, the classification of conjunctions etc. To obtain as full and exhaustive a picture as possible greater attention has been paid to those languages which have been little or not at all considered in comparative syntax * 76. In some cases parallels from non IE languages have been quoted. In the comparative part of my paper I tried to present both the genetic and typological aspect. To avoid un­ necessary repetitions I have laid stress on the phenomena which occur more rarely, especially if they are specific for colloquial language and dialects. While touching on general problems — because of the great number of treatises (partly outside the strict confines of linguistics) and different points of view, often accompanied by disagreement in terminology together with ignorance of the literature on the subject — it has become indispensable to summarize the results of investigations existing till this day.

76 On the attempts of deductive construction of general grammar cf. § 2.4. 76 Especially Balto-Slavonic, Indo-Iranian and Celtic. 2. POSITION OF SYNTAX WITHIN INVESTIGATION OF UTTE­ RANCE

2.0. The syntax has as its subject the structure of utterance which may be considered indifferent aspects. Linguistics studies its commu­ nicative function* 1, stylistics — the aesthetic (expressive-impressive) one, psychology considers utterance as a result of the operation of thought, philosophical epistemology (by means of logic) — as an instrument of knowledge. Accordingly, we may distinguish the following syntaxes: gram­ matical, stylistic, psychological and logical. The first three syntaxes consider the structure of utterance in natural languages, whereas logical syntax is limited to artificial constructions approaching in character grammatical syntax as both refer to system, unlike stylistic syntax which deals with individual features first of all; psychological syntax analyzing mainly abnormal utterances, investigates the psychical background of syntactic phenomena. The notion of 'syntax* usually refers to gram­ matical syntax. In order to define' properly its subject and to obtain as full a picture of the problem as possible it is necessary to discuss the relation between syntax and other branches of linguistics and also styli­ stics, psychology and logic.

2.1. SYNTAX AND OTHER BRANCHES OF LINGUISTICS

The traditional syntax mainly dealt with the usage and meaning of morphological categories, it was, however, less interested in the structure of the sentence. It was J . B ies2 who first stated that word-complexes are the real subject of syntax whereas categories and forms are not con­ cerned here except when they influence the structure of syntactic units. Such a conception could diminish the scope of syntactic problems and therefore it has not been adopted in practice by linguists. The position of syntax within linguistics was presented by T. Milewski3 who, basing his approach on the view of F. de Saussure, K. Bühler and

1 The communicative function of language is also investigated by the cybernetics and information theory, cf. L. Z ab rock i, ZPSK, XIV, 1, 64— 73. 1 Was ist Syntax t, Marburg 1894. 8 BPTJ, XI, 74—92. L. Hjelmslev came to the conclusion that grammatical syntax shows a system of conventional syntagmatic connotation of words, word groups and sentences. Sentences in a text, their functions, frequency in using different form etc. are analyzed by means of stylistics. Syntax has a con­ nection with lexicology which — besides “asyntactic” meaning, referring a word to its designate — must take into account the relational meaning resulting from the use of a word within utterance4. It can be assumed that within the scope of linguistics syntax is nearest to morphology as it considers mutatis mutandis the use, functions and connections of parts of speech. The problem of relational meaning comprises both syntax and lexicology. The connection between phonology and syntax is mainly 5 6 limited to the problems of external sandhi and to the prosodic frame of utterance.

2.2. SYNTAX AND STYLISTICS

Grammatical and stylistic syntaxes consider the structure of normal utterance in natural languages. It is not always possible, to distinguish one from another. Already in ancient times, however, it was realized that stylistics has as its subject the aesthetic value of utterance which can be attained by choice from among several possibilities of expression. The bifurcation of grammatical from stylistic syntax became possible thanks to distinction between two aspects of language: langue and parole made by F. de Saussure. On the basis of this opposition grammatical syntax concerns the abstract system of language (regular phenomena), whereas stylistic syntax — texts (individual phenomena). It has been observed, however, that stylistics, thus comprehended, involves a social system of means of expressione. In literary texts syntagmatical associations form a system based upon the principle of similarity and contrast7. Already in classical poetics attention was paid to the individual colour of a style and to the conscious choice 8 of means of expression which is 4 Hence the importance of dictionaries as the source of syntactic information cf. Z. Klemensiewicz, JP, XXXIX, 327—339; K. Pisarkowa, JP, XLVII, 213—232; II. Misz, Zeszyty Naukowe (Toruń), X X V , 17— 33. 6 Cf. also § 4.2.1. A. 6 Cf. W. G órny, PL, LI, 475— 500, especially 477—478. 7 Taken from the basic unit “syntagme” (introduced by F. de Saussure) in which time-space relations become realized in linear connections, cf. L. Tesn ière, ESS; A. Mikus, ВЯ, 1960, V, 128; W. G órny, op. cit.; TJ. Dąmbska-Prokop, BPTJ, XXII, 143— 152. 8 This last question has been laid stress upon by G. von G abelentz, J. M arouzeau and Prague School, while the so-called Idealistic German School has dealt with stylistic innovations of literary creators and individual features as a means of recognition of author’s psyche (L. Spitzer, К. Vossler, A. Tobler). the subject of so-called internal stylistics. External stylistics 9, on the other hand, examines the characteristics of several languages. Between the style of an individual and that of language there are styles specific for certain situations, literary kinds and periods as well as for different environments and social groups. Thus, we can speak of a typology of styles the research of which was already initiated by Aristotle 10. For historical syntax current style is of great importance as its expressiveness influences the evolution ’of language 11. An ornate variant of colloquial speech is rhetorical style; the subjects of a sometimes differentiated rhetorical syntax are: prosodic structure of utterance, the degree of its complexity, its communicativenes and efficiency 12. In the development of a language some stylistically marked structures lose their expressiveness with frequent use becoming ordinary structures 13 whereas other phenomena historically or geographically unmarked acquire stylistic value. There is a need to survey the syntactic problems of figures of speech. Their importance for general and comparative linguistics can be proved by the papers written by A. Heinz 14 and V. Ivanov 15 on the internal accusative (figura etymo- logica). In recent stylistic investigations the role of statistics has been considerably increasing. It enables us to characterize precisely the style of a given author or a given te x t16 17. The frequency of various forms and structures is not without influence upon the syntactic evolution of a language 11. As was mentioned above, it is not always possible to distinguish grammatical from stylistic syntax. This occurs in parataxis when order of components, polysyndeton, ellipsis and asyndeton are concerned. The relation between parataxis and hypotaxis as a stylistic and syntactic criterion was dealt with by A. Bynell18 who noticed the archaic character

9 Cf. Ch. B ally , Le langage et la vie 8, Genève 1965, 53— 62; cf. a similar differentia­ tion between subjective and objective stylistics (J. Kies, op. cit. 127— 135). 10 Cf. T. Milewski, LP, I, 5—52. 11 Cf. Ch. B ally , TSF; Hofmann-Szantyr, LSS, 686; J. Rozwadowski, Kwar­ talnik Filozoficzny, I, 19— 37. 12 The grammatical syntax is generally limited to the investigations of basic, simple and mainly binary connections. On rhetorical syntax cf. T. K alick i, ZNUJ, CXIV, 211—254. 18 It was an inspiration for the well-known saying of L. S p itzer: Nihil est in gram- matica, quod non fuerit in stylo (Cultura Neolatina, XV I, 1, 86). 14 BPTJ, X X , 39— 56. 16 Cf. JP, XLVII, 299. 16 Cf. P. Guiraud, Problèmes et méthodes de la statistique linguistique, Dordrecht 1959, II, 6; G. H erdan, Quantitative linguistics, London 1964; L. Doleźal, R. Bailey, Statistics and style, New York 1969. 17 Cf. H. Андреев, CKM. 18 Lunds Universitet Ârsskrift, XLV III, 3, 1—47. of parataxis and the connection between hypotaxis and literary language. According to Bynell the degree of development of a language does not depend on the relative frequency of parataxis and hypotaxis as is shown by the examples where parataxis is preferred to hypotaxis19 as the result of a tendency to spontaneity.

2.3. SYNTAX AND PSYCHOLOGY

Problems common to psychology and linguistics comprise the following questions: the psychical background of language phenomena; the genera­ tive process of speech; psychical, social and physiological aspects of human communication. Psychological syntax deals mainly with the first three questions. In spite of the integral relations between language and thinking the psychical background of language phenomena has not as yet become the subject of systematical investigation. This results from the inaccessibility of the human psyche for direct knowledge. It has not been possible to concatenate language and psychical phenomena20 *. Investigations in the psychology of language were initiated in the nineteenth century and they have been presented synthetically in monographs by W. W undtn, K. Buhler22 and F. Kainz23. W. Havers’s Handbuch der erklärenden Syntax is an attempt at a psychological interpretation of various syn­ tactic phenomena in IE languages. J . Bozwadowski’s 24 * principle of binary perception of language images concerns the psychological concept of the sentence. The so-called actual division of the sentence into datum and novum26, i.e. psychological subject and predicate which do not always correspond to grammatical ones, also has a psychological character. The so-called deep structure recently introduced by Ch. H ockett20 and N. Chom­ sky 27 to a certain extent resembles the psychological concept of the sentence. Both these concepts — contrary to the formal-grammatical one — have in fact a semantic character, based on an epistemological perception of reality.

12 Cf. § 3.4. 20 Nor the psychical phenomena to respective neurophysiological processes. 11 Völkerpsychologie 2, Leipzig 1921— 1922, I—II. 22 Spracktheorie, Jena 1934. 28 Psychologie der Sprache2, Stuttgart 1964—1969. 24 Wortbildung und Wortbedeutung, Heidelberg 1904. 26 This differentiation — already known earlier (e.g. in H. P a u l’s, PS) — was distinctly made by V. M athesius, öeMina a obecny jazykospyt, Praha 1947, 234—242. 24 A course in modern linguistics 2, New York 1969, § 29. 27 ATS. For investigation in the general evolution of a language it is essential to differentiate between normal and archaic psyche. The latter we meet in children, in primitive people, in mythology, in creative art, in dreams and in psychopathology. Here thinking is little abstract, memory infirm, causation and the principle of non-contradiction do not exist. This differ­ entiation is related to the discovery of B. Jakobson28 that the basic phonological oppositions (those most widespread in the languages of the world) earliest appear in children and latest disappear in the aphatics. It seems that further investigation of this kind will allow for differentia­ tion between primary and secondary categories and that they will throw some light upon the origin of language. Of all the so-far described language products of archaic psyche in syntax29 the phenomenon of repetition (syllable, word, group) is most characteristic. It is, for the most part, mechanical, rhythmical and oc­ casionally perseverative. We meet this phenomenon in children’s speech30, in aphasia and in certain manifestations of schizophrenia (dissociatio) 31, in magic spells (incantation), in children’s games (counting out), in slips of the tongue and in literary stylization32. From the formal point of view such repetition imitates the referring-attaching way of connection, typical of stylistically undeveloped language33 34. It has been discovered that in children’s speech parataxis is prior to hypotaxis and asyndeton to conjunctional connections M. Of all paratactical conjunctions35 36 first appears the copulative one, then adversative, alterna­ tive and disjunctive, whereas of all hypotactic conjunctions the conces­ sive one comes la st33 ; this is in accordance with the general development of a language. The second discovery Jakobson made was differentiation — based

28 Kinder spräche, Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze, Uppsala 1942. 28 The pathology of syntax and its connection with primitive thinking is dealt with by so-called “Gedankensyntax”, cf. H ofm an n -S zan ty r, L 8S, 3. 30 Cf. T. Bilikiewicz, PK, 264. 31 Cf. T. Bilikiewicz, PK, 91—92; J. Masłowski, J. M itarski, Psychiatria Polska, XVII, 1, 103— 108; H. Fleg el, Schizophasie in linguistischer Deutung, Berlin 1966. 32 This phenomenon was observed by W. S h ak esp eare: “his speech was like a tan* gled chain; nothing impair’d, but all disorder’d” (A Midsummer Night's Dream, V, 1, 124—126). 33 See more, widely § 5.1.2. 34 They sometimes occur simultaneously, but H never precedes P. 36 Cf. L. G eppert o wa, Pola spójników hipotaktycznych w ujmowaniu stosunków przez dzieci, Kraków 1959; M. Przełącznikową, BZD; M. Zarębina, KJD, who has observed, that in children’s speech copulative conjunction begins to join clauses earlier than words. Also certain theoretical respects point to such order, cf. § 6.2.1. A. 36 This conjunction arose relatively late and it is still unknown in certain languages. Indo-European Parataxis 2 on F . de Saussure’s division langue and parole — between associative aphasia37, consisting in the inability to arrange words sensibly, while preserving the formal structure of utterance 38, and syntagmatical aphasia causing the disappearance of syntactic rule, which gives the utterance a character of telegraphic style. They correspond approximately to agrammatism and alexia 39. It is worth while to mention here the so-called depth hypothesis created by V. Yngve40 who constructed a model of generation of speech with great stable memory and limited auxiliary working memory. In a language we distinguish regressive structures, which need a deeper auxiliary memory, and progressive structures, which do not overburden it. Then a tendency to limitation of depth seems to be one of the factors in the evolution of language. The popular conception in cybernetics that human brain is a living logical machine (and language its code) does not seem to be convincing because of the tendency to constant in­ crease of psychical energy41 — a thing unknown in actual existing auto­ mata 42. Some psychical, social and physiological aspects of human communica­ tion have recently been dealt with by psycholinguistics43, investigating intellectual and emotional attitude to a text (which is being uttered or perceived) and treating the language as one of manifestations of human activity; this partly refers to investigations initiated by A. Korzybski of the influence of language upon Weltanschauung and behaviour. As a result of that kind of studies in American Indian languages the well- known Sapir-Whorf hypothesis came into being.

37 From the point of view of psychiatry this formulation is inexact, as beside aphasia (which is a focal distemper) also certain symptoms of schizophrenia and amentia take place here. The described by R. Jakobson Uspenski’s disease was a case of schizo­ phrenia, as was shown by J. M asłowski, J . M itarsk i, op. cit. 88 Cf. nonsensical sentences with correct syntax, as Woggles ugged (Higgles (Fries) etc. as well as semantically incorrect sentences in generative grammar, as Colorless green ideas sleep furiously (Chomsky), in which semantic correctness is joined with grammatical regularity. 89 The above described syntactic phenomena rather belong to the former type. 40 A model and am, hypothesis for language structure, Technical Report, 369,444—466. A similar phenomenon has been observed by Ch. B ally , LGLF, § 313—314, who distin­ guished progressive word order from anticipated one. 41 On its importance in the evolution of language, cf. J. Rozw adow ski, Kwartalnik Filozoficzny, I, 19— 37. 42 Cf. H. Андреев, CKM, § 7.2.1. 48 Cf. Теория речевой деятельности, Москва 1968; А. Леонтев, Психолингвистические единицы и порождение речевого высказывания, Москва 1969, where further literature on this subject can be found. 2.4. SYNTAX AND LOGIC

Grammatical syntax originally dealt with the functions of parts of speech and their usage whereas the sentence (propositio) was the object of logic. This situation in fact, lasted till the nineteenth century which was not without influence on terminology, the scope of problems, as well as on several syntactic conceptions. Syntax and logic investigate the sign structure of language but from different points of view. Linguistics deals with natural structures whereas logic deals with the substitutes of some of these structures. According to J. Chmielewski44 both the types of structure are mutually equivalent and representative but not isomeric and isomorphic. They also fulfil various functions. Language structures serve for human communication; logical structures for correct reasoning. The semantic intention is a basis for mutual coincidence, such cases, however, according to Chmielewski 45, are rare and occur incidentally 46. It is also in logic that the first attempts to create general grammar have appeared and logical theory has become the basis of new trends in lin­ guistics, i.e. mathematical linguistics, notably its formalized and axiomatic algebraic part. For that reason two basic parts of logic: syntax and seman­ tics deserve greater attention. The notion of logical syntax in reference to logistics (i.e. mathematical logic also called symbolic logic) which deals with formalized, i.e. not referring to meaning, propositional calculus was introduced by B. Car­ nap 47. Its true initiators 48, however, were the Stoics who assumed as a basic unit propositio (instead of 'term3 as Aristotle did) introducing the following functions: negation, implication, conjunction and disjunction; they also knew the rule of distraction. From the achievements of medieval logic in this scope we ought to mention here the rule: “copulativa et disjunctiva de partibus contradicentibus contradicunt” 49 rediscovered for terms by A. de Morgan. Algebraic symbols in logic were introduced by G. Boole who first noticed a nufnber of correspondences between logical and arithmetical operations. The axiomatics was introduced to mathe­ matical logic by G. Frege, author of a thesis on the priority of propositional

44 SPAN, 1964, 25. 45 Ibidem. 46 Owing to the genetic relation between grammatical and logical syntax one can hardly accept the second part of this formulation, cf. J. B a r-H ille l, Language, X X X , 230—237; N. Chomsky, ibidem, X X X I, 36— 45 and also J. Chm ielew ski’s investi­ gations in R K J, II, 51— 71; VIII, 13— 39. 47 Logische Syntax der Sprache, Wien 1934. 48 Cf. J. Lukasiewicz, Przegląd Filozoficzny, XXXVII, 417—437. 49 Cf. H. G reniew ski, Elementy logiki formalnej, Warszawa 1955, 409. calculus as related to the term calculus. Several important observations within the logical syntax — conceived as formal theory of language — were made by Carnap, who distinguished here the rules of construction and transformation50. K. Ajdukiewicz51 gave a logical method for stating syntactic connexity, while J. Bar-Hillel52 proved the falseness of Witt­ genstein’s thesis that complicated statements can be reduced to simple ones. H. Beichenbach53 made a logical analysis of current language which is, in its details, controversial from linguistic point of view. Logical semantics has become a starting point for working out the so-called general grammar. The first attempts to create such grammar had been made already in the middle ages as the learning of modi signifi- candi 54, which was a genuine synthesis of Priscian’s grammatical theory and ancient philosophy. Priscian’s notion proprietas significandi was changed into modus significandi, i.e. means or function of meaning origi­ nally variously conceived 55. Then the opinion appears, that the elements, rules and ontological bases of construction are the same in all languages whereas differences (e.g. the article in Greek and its absence in Latin) are mere “accidences”. This tradition was recurred to by Lancelot and Arnauld’s Grammaire générale et raisonnée in which the authors introduced to linguistics a distinction between the auto- and synsemantic words 56. Another attempt to create a general grammar as so-called pure logical grammar — after the model of K ant’s “reine Naturwissenschaft” — was made by E. Husserl57 whose certain views were intercepted by B. Ingar­ den 58 who distinguished within “meaning”: material contents, formal contents, directional indicator, existential characterization and position. A recent attempt at general grammar is the generative theory of N. Chom­ sky 59 who introduces as universal the so-called deep structure. The role of logical analysis in linguistic investigations can be illustrated by so-called

50 Philosophy and logical syntax, II, § 1— 3. 51 Język i poznanie, Warszawa 1960—1965, I, 222—242. 52 Four lectures on algebraic linguistics and machine translation, Jerusalem 1963, II, 11— 12. 83 Elements of symbolic logic, New York 1948, 151—354. Cf. also 0. Naes, NTS, X I, 145— 214, who made an attempt to create general syntax based on logic. 54 Cf. R. Gan siniec, Myśl Filozoficzna, X X V I, 80— 115. 55 P. A b ailard : “grammatical propriety”; P. H elie: “semantic function of a given part of speech, its basic meaning”. 66 Already known in Aristotelians and in Middle Ages as (syn)cathegorematica, cf. E. O tto, Stand und Aufgabe der allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin 1954, 10—20; G. Künig, Ontologie und logistische Analyse der Sprache, Wien 1963, 109. 87 Logische Untersuchungen2, Halle 1913— 1921, II, 1, 294—342. 88 O dziele literackim 2, Warszawa 1960, 99— 122. 88 ATS. material supposition, which enables the change of any expression into a substantive when conceived materially, i.e. as a designate, whose notion is evidently a substantive. This considered, it seems to be advisable to make a comparison of no­ tions, rules of construction and formulations between logic and linguistics. Here we shall confine ourselves only to certain parallels and differences concerning syntax, notably conjunctions. The logistic principle of priority of propositional calculus concerns also conjunctional connections in natural languages, in which conjunctions serve primarily to combine sentences 60. The associative, commutative and idempotent laws in Boolean algebra is also applicable to paratactical constituent as they can be transposed without changing the sense of utterance and their subcomponents which repeat can be placed once only. The law of multiplication can be expressed in polysyndeton which allows us to adjoin any number of con­ stituents 61. It is also in polysyndeton that combinations of copulative and alternative conjunction with negation become equivalent which reminds us of de Morgan’s laws. Grammatical and logical conjunctions only partly correspond with each other. A full equivalence occurs be­ tween copulative function and logical “conjunction”, while alternative func­ tion corresponds with both forms of logical “disjunction” (generally the exclusive one 62). Logical equivalence is attributed to alternative connection of synonymic expression, whereas disjunctive function can be reduced to combination of logical “conjunction” and “disjunction” with negation 63. The adversative conjunction in logic is usually not distinguished from the copulative one 64. Hypotactical functions correspond to logical implica­ tion 65 and to the “intensional” conjunction "that’ 66 which takes a special

60 See § 6.2.1. A. 61 Cf. Gr. Birkhoff and S. Mac Lane, A survey of modern algebra, New York 1957, X I. 62 In natural languages in order .to show, that both parts of alternative may be realized simultaneously, we usually add after conjunction the word ‘‘also, too9, whereas the correlation or repetition of conjunction sometimes used in logic has no grounds in language. 63 As special function (antidisjunction) it has been distinguished by A. Church, Introduction to mathematical logic, Princeton 1956, § 05. 64 Beside et Beotius mentioned autem, at, atqui; similarly R. M cCall, Basic logic2, New York 1963, 98 ff. His opinion, that negative implication makes an adversative sense is confirmed in natural languages, in which combination conditional conjunc­ tion + negation often occurs facultatively (sometimes also obligatorily), see § 6.2.3. D. ii. c. 65 Cf. I. D ąm bska, Przegląd Filozoficzny, X L I, 241— 267. 66 Cf. T. Kotarbiński, RKJ, VIII, 7— 12; W. Quine, Word amd object, New York— London 1960, 141— 156, 166— 169, 200— 216; I. Scheffler, Analysis, XIV, 83—90; Philosophy of Science, X X II, 39— 44. position also in natural languages67. J . Lukasiewicz’s 68 concept of theory of necessary relations built upon the principle of non-contradiction is im­ portant for semantic classification of conjunctions in natural languages. It seems that the system of modal logic may prove useful for the study in grammatical modality.

67 It may be followed by imperative (which is impossible with the remaining hypo- tactical conjunctions) and other unexpected verbal forms. 68 Przegląd Filozoficzny, IX , 105— 179. 3. PARATAXIS AND HYPOTAXIS

3.1. RESULTS OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS

The notions of complex sentence (CS), main (MC) and subordinate (SC) clause appear in the eighteenth century. They became popular thanks to Ch. Adelung’s 1 German grammar. It has not been stated, however, who was the first to use them 2. It was only in the nineteenth century that the terms parataxis (P) and hypotaxis (H) became used3. Girard4 5 and Adelung6 define SC as a part of sentence. It is the most popular definition of SC. We find it in W. Wundt ®, E . Hermann7 8*, A. Bräunlich ®, F. Sommer ®, E. Seidel10 11, K. Bühleru, O. Jespersen12, V. Bröndal13, Ch. Bally14 15, L. Tesnière16 and others. It is generally assumed that H has arisen from P. This view, however, was argued by H. P au l16 who stated that co-ordinate clauses also lack full independence. He too, noticed different transitory constructions between P and H. Referring to A. Marty’s 17 view, W. Brandenstein18 considers SC as a synsemantic

1 Umständliches Lehrgebäude der deutschen Sprache, Leipzig 1782, II, 572. 2 According to V. B rön d al, Mélanges A. Belié, Beograd 1937, 245, it was ГаЪЪё G irard, cf. however, M. H. Jellin ek , IF, X IX , 272— 295. 3 Cf. S. Witkowski, HSG, 39—40; see also Liddell-Scott, GEL, 1326, 1897. 4 Les vrais principes de la Icmgue française, Amsterdam et Paris 1747. 5 Ibidem. 6 Völkerpsychologie2, I, 2, 371—374. 7 KZ, X X X III, 484— 487, showing a number of features of hypotaxis: special words, the order of constituents, the forms and accentuation of Verb, greater speed of pronun­ ciation and shorter pause than in parataxis. 8 IF, X X X V , 239, pointing to organic integration of SC within utterance which can be obtained by means of its grammatical features» context and meaning. 8 VSS, 105. 10 Geschichte und Kritik der wichtigsten Satzdefinitionen, Jena 1935, 76. 11 Sprachtheorie, 412. 12 Analytic syntax, Copenhagen 1937, 166. 13 Ibidem, 245—246. 14 LGLF, § 351. 15 ESS, 386— 387. 16 PS, § 100— 102; DG, IV, 160— 182. 17 Untersuchungen zur Grundlegung der allgemeinen Grammatik, Halle 1908, I, 205—287. 18 IF, XLIV, 117— 136. unit which determines, modifies and expresses some relation. Lacking the parallelism of substance and form of sentence, Brandenstein gives only a semantic definition of SC 19 which alone either has no meaning or it has a different meaning than when it is in combination with MC. A. Nehring20 polemizes with this concept considering not the whole SC but only its parts as being synsemantic. Those parts, however, have so-called relational meaning. According to Nehring the difference be­ tween SC and MC consists in psychological “Strukturierung des Sach­ verhalts”. The logical structure of sentence when taken as a whole is psychologically conditioned by a given state of affairs and the relation between clauses reflects the objective-logical relations of this state of affairs. Similarly, from the psychological point of view the relation be­ tween P and H was considered by K. Bühlèr21 who pointing out the “Anlehnungsbedürfnis” of SC, generally agrees with Nehring’s approaches. He states, however, that not all types of the SC can be acknowledged as synsemantic. F. Slotty22 takes into account the language phenomena such as pause, suspension of tone, melody and rhythm which give the sentence a definite shape. According to Slotty MC also contains synsemantic ele­ ments 23. The constituents of CS constitute a complete entity24 in which MC is determined and, consequently, is more important psychologically, whereas SC is a determiner2S. V. Bröndal26 distinguished four concepts of approach to H : morphological (formal), semantic, logical and syntactic (functional). The first characterizes SC by its form, i.e. by the occurrence of certain words and forms or (a pseudomorphological concept) by the analogy to the parts of speech; this is inexact and inadmissible owing to the autonomy of syntax and universal character of the sentence. The semantic concept is psychological and subjective. According to logical concept27 determination28 is the essence of subordination. This does not always agree with the facts of language. Finally, in the syntactic con­

19 Similarly M. Sandm ann, Archivum Linguisticum, II, 1, 24— 38. 20 KZ, LVII, 118— 158. 21 Sprachtheorie, § 27. 22 TCLP, VI, 133— 143. 23 Such as the lack of completeness and rising intonation which proves the need of completing. 24 Similarly, E. D rach (Grundgedanken der deutschen Satzlehre, Frankfurt/M 1937, 28—29) observes that in H there is a closer connection than in P. 25 The author remarks, however, that this definition does not comprise all kinds of SC. 26 Ibidem, 241—249. 27 While P. G uberina (Valeur logique et valeur stylistique des propositions complexes2, Zagreb 1954) maintains that SC from the logical point of view expresses causal-resultative relation or to this relation it can he reduced. 28 I.e. relation : substance — accident. cept, preferred by the author, SC is the expression of a member of the sentence. M. Peterson29 represents an extreme view, considering objective (grammatical) criteria to be insufficient to distinguish P from H and SC from MC. A. PeSkovskij30 polemizing with this view has shown that there is an important formal difference between P and H : paratactical con­ junctions join words and clauses and they admit the transposition of connected constituents whereas it is not possible with hypotactical conjunctions. U. Alijev31 distinguishes complex sentence with one syn­ tactic centre, approximately corresponding with H, and with more centres corresponding with P, in which the meaning of constituents is expressed in parallel, whereas in H such parallelism does not occur. Alijev declares for the view that the constituents of the complex sentence are dependent non unilaterally but mutually, pointing to similarities between syntactic, morphological and phonological structures. Also B. P ettier32 widens the scope of the notion со/sub-ordination comprising morphology and compares the units of both levels in the aspect of substance and form. The views of French scholars on the problem of CS have been fully reported by G. Antoine33 who declares for the definition of Ch. Bally34, emphasizing the functional similarity between subordinate conjunctions and prepo­ sitions 35 36 and also between co-ordinate conjunctions and adverbs. K. Svo- boda33 presented an interesting concept according to which hypotactical connections are a relatively homogeneous modal entity while paratactical ones may be modally heterogeneous. Of all the investigators of generative grammar W. H artung37 was first to give a wide description of the relation between P and H, introducing a generalizing notion for the representation of sentence in order to explain essential, i.e. representative, regularities. From proper conjunctions he distinguishes “pro-elements” which are parts of sentence and which correspond with some member or a whole preced­ ing clause. When considering the relation between SC and parts of the sentence he points to the lack of full isomorphism and vagueness of such formulations as “SC represents” (how?), or “SC enlarges” (what?), and he

29 Очерк синтаксиса русского языка, Москва—Петроград 1923, 32. 30 Годный язык в школе, 1926, X I— X II, 396— 422. The possibility of the trans­ position of constituents in co-ordinate constructions was also pointed to by R. В Him el, Einführung in die Syntax, Heidelberg 1914, § 586, and Ch. B ally , LGLF, § 346. 31 ВСП. 32 Systématique des éléments de relation, Paris 1962, 115— 137. 33 GF, 195— 458. 34 LGLF, § 351. 35 Cf. similarly A. Sechehaye, Essai sur la structure logique de la phrase, Paris 1926, 205—209; Ch. B ally , LGLF, § 192. 36 Slovo a slovesnost, X X II, 241—254. 37 Die zusammengesetzten Sätze des Deutschen2, Berlin 1966, 2— 15. also shows the logical and grammatical inconsequences in the classification of SC made from this point of view. According to Hartung these difficul­ ties can be avoided when we introduce degrees of representation which allow us to recognize nominal expressions and SC as abstract representations of categories of parts of speech. K. Polański38 discusses various views, nota­ bly of Czech and American scholars, pointing to symmetry in the structure of constituents in P (conjunction between clauses) as opposed to H (con­ junction becomes a part of SC while in case of inversion or parenthesis it moves together with SC). As a result of discussions which have hitherto taken place, in spite of varying opinions, a number of differences between P and H have been discovered. To these belong such as: auto/syn-semantia, homo/hetero­ geneity, (independence, (non)equivalènce, (incompleteness, degree of complexity, (un)detèrmination, (a)symmetry. All these, however, are concepts of semantics and logic, and it has not been possible to concatenate them with proper formal features. Certain criteria of SC, however, have been called in question: dependence also refers to MC and to co-ordinate clauses, the view that SC can be subordinated to respective parts of MC being inexact39 from the linguistic 40 as well as the logical41 point of view. Other criteria have a limited scope of usage while the difference among conjunctions is an autonomous problem. It seems that opposition P — H has a strictly language character without reference to reality and to logic. There is no need therefore, to give one more definition of P and H but it would be useful to collect formal differences between both the types of connections which may lay the background for further investiga­ tions.

3.2. FORMAL DIFFERENCES

There are a number of formal differences between P and H which manifest themselves by (A) structure of constituents, (B) their order, (C) prosodic contour of utterance, (D) (non)occurrence of special words. Some of these differences have, as it seems, a universal character. Others are limited to one or more languages.

“ SZŁ, 24—33. " Cf. Sechehaye, op. eit. 184. *° SC like other sentences has existential moment, generally unfamiliar to nominal constituents to which SC is reduced. F . B la tz , Neuhochdeutsche Grammatika, Karlsruhe 1900, II, 763, states that it is possible when a substantive has “verbale Kraft”. 41 Cf. J. Bar-Hillel, Four lectures..., loc. cit. A. Structure of constituents

The opposition between P and H manifests itself mainly in form, accentuation and the use of the verb; inasmuch as has been stated by J . Kurylewicz42 the verb of SC is marked. It has long been observed that the imperative generally43 44 does not occur in SCM, while there is a predilection for the use of other “modal” moods which occur as a rule in some kinds of SC, e.g. in final clauses45. They sometimes lose their semantic function becoming only a feature of subordination46. These moods have a less developed tense opposition, also the tenses in SC are less differential47 and in the case of consecutio temporum they are formally dependent on the tenses of MC. The grammatical aspect of the verb, however, if it is not directly connected with consecutio temporum48, has no direct relation with the type of sentence. It is only in certain South Slavonic languages that in SC only perfecto-praèsens can be used49. Some languages have a special form of subordinate predicate, e.g. in Turkish the verb is reduplicated here50 ; in Celtic languages51 in

42 Studia Philosophica, III, 203— 209. 43 The rare cases when it is used can be put down to a few definite types: (1) After the verbs of psychical motion, e.g. Greek oIoO’oöv, b Spaaov (Schw yzer, GG, II, 344), Latin quid enim viderunt: hoc quod nunc vos, quaeso, perspicite (Brugmann, GVG, II, 3, 825), Middle High German ich rate dir, waj du tuo (ibidem, 826), Slovene veS, Tcako naredi (Miklosich, V8G, IV, 798), Polish wiesz, co zrób, 'do you know what (you must) do’, etc.; (2) After the verbs with intentional or final implication, e.g. Hindi udhar ca- prâsï ko bhl hukm hud ki logon ko yahdn se hatdo 'the messenger was ordered to send the people way* (Лицеровский, Категория наклонения в хинди, Москва 1964, 150), Gothic saihvip ei atsaihvip izwis pis beistis Fareisa/iê 'орате рхётсете атг0 тг\с, ÇupTjç Ttov Фар ига ho v’ (Mr. VIII, 15; Brugmann, ibidem), Serbo-Croatian völa boSja je, da delajmo '(such) is God’s will, that we should do (this)9 (M iklosich, ibidem); (3) In concessive clause, e. g. Bengali ydi balun jdta bhdyier upar or badda beH darad 'Whatever you may say, yet he sympathizes with his brethren9 (Световидова, ВГБЯ, 124), Middle Welsh kyt boet keuyndyrw у mi 'obgleich er mein Vetter ist9 (Pedersen, VGK, II, 323), Polish choc go bij, nie powie 'beat him he will not tell9, etc. The 3rd person may occur in SC, but functionally it is a subjunctive. Also as subjunctive (optative) should be interpreted (occurring in final clauses) the imperative in some TJralo-Altaic languages, as it has 1st person sg. unknown in imperative. 44 In contrary to co-ordinate clauses, where imperative can be used, cf. § 6.2.1. B. 46 Cf. LP, X , 86— 87. 46 E.g. coniunctivus obliquus and optativus obliquus in the Greek, cf. E. Schw yz er, GG, И, 310—335. 47 Cf. for Modern Greek A. Mirambel, BSL, LII, 219—253. 48 As e.g. in Latin, cf. J . Safarew icz, GHJŁ, II, 77— 82. 48 Cf. A. Vaillan t, Grammaire comparée des langues slaves, Paris 1950— 1966, III, 472. 80 Cf. A. Кононов, ГТЯ, 521—523. certain typés of SC 52 the verb has special endings (Gaelic group) and a different copula than in MC. Beyond IE a special subordinate co­ pula occurs e.g. in the Khmer language53. It has also been observed that the copula in SC is omitted more rarely than in MC 54. Here only the nominal (elliptic) relative clause is an exception 55 56. The morphologically characterized category of subordinate predicate can be found in many non IE languages, e.g. Altaic, Caucasian, Palaeo-Asiatic and American Indian 5e. It is usually an impersonal form, bearing no flexional features, resembling the categories of IE participle, infinitive or gerund, which too — if they are not parts of the sentence — are treated as subordinate utterances, especially in so-called absolute constructions. The neutrali­ zation of opposition between persons takes place in oratio obliqua, where only 3rd person occurs. Subordinate predicate may differ from main predi­ cate by accentuation, e.g. in Old Irish the above mentioned verbal form 57 has initial stress whereas the verb of MC is stressed on the post-initial syllable. This phenomenon may have some relation 58 with the accentua­ tion of the verb in Vedic, which undergoes enclisis (préfixai accentuation) in MC, namely in the case of two prefixes the second one is stressed, which corresponds with the accentuation of two-prefixal verb in Old Irish. The accentuation of the verb in SC is the cause of rarely occurring tmesis of prefix in SC — as compared with its frequency in other types of clauses — which may be observed in Old Indian 59, Avestan60, Greek61, German62 and suspected in Old Irish63. The absence of stress, as ex­ plained J . Wackernagel64 *, is caused by the tendency to the enclisis of

61 Here also occurs the so-called relative form of verb, cf. recently C. W atkins* IG, III, 1, § 151— 158. 62 Cf. E. Thurneysen, GOI, § 38, 542, 791— 818; H. P ed ersen , VGK, II, 340—341, 419—449. 53 Cf. Y. Grorgoniyev, KL, 113. 64 Cf. for Latin: Hofmann-Szantyr, LSS, 420— 421. 65 Cf. W. Havers, IF, XLIII, 239—245; A. Meillet, MSL, XIV, 21; A. Mores- chini Q u atto rd io , Studi e saggi linguistic!, VI, 40— 52. 56 Cf. T. Milewski, BPT J, X III, 117— 146; ЯН СССР, II, IV, V. 57 Cf. R. Thurneysen, GOI, § 38, also in imperative, interrogative and negative clauses, which in some respect (modal shading) approach SC. 58 Cf. E. Hermann, KZ, XXXIII, 520—534. 58 Cf. B. Delbrück, SF, V, 432. 60 Cf. H. R eich elt, AE, 81, 266. 61 Cf. K. Brugmann, GG, 638. 62 Cf. E. Hermann, ibidem. 63 Cf. R. Thurneysen, GOI, § 38, 513; J. Kuryłowicz, IG, II, 72. 64 IF , I, 425— 434, quoting parallels (the post-initial position of 1— 2 syllable verbs) from other IE languages. He considers the final position of verb to be original. the verb of MC in Germanic65 and to the recession of accent in the Greek verb **. Consequently, we can observe a tendency to simplification, rela- tivization and nominalization of the verb in SC. This can be shown by the fact that in some languages, e.g. in Armenian and Celtic ®7, the SC may be characterized by an article similarly to other nominal categories.

B. Order of constituents

As has been mentioned above, the order of constituents in P is not obligatory; this manifests itself — if modal and semantic shades do not take place — by the possibility of transposition of joined members. This is not possible in H and only certain kinds of SC can be transposed toge­ ther with the conjunction (which originally was their constituent) before MC or interposed into it. The order of subcomponents of joined constitu­ ents generally depends on other factors and it is only in certain languages that the verb of SC takes initial88 of final66 *69 position while in co-ordinate sentence in certain Germanic70 and Bomanic 71 languages the verb may be transposed to the position after conjunction. Considering other elements it has been observed — in connection with Wackernagel’s law — that in the Slavonic languages the enclitics in SC usually take post-initial po­ sition, whereas in other kinds of the sentence they occur with the word to which they are related72. It had already been discovered by Wacker- nagel73 that in Greek the modal particle in SC with conjunctive is post-initial, whereas with all other moods and in MC it is close to the verb. A similar tendency in the verb of MC in Germanic languages has already been mentioned.

66 Cf. also K. Schneider, Die Stellungstypen des finiten Verbs im wgermanischen Haupt- und Nebensatz, Heidelberg 1938. 69 Cf. J. Wackernagel, ibidem;- E. Schwyzer, GG, I, 389. 97 Cf. H. Jen sen , AG, 197, H. P ed ersen , VGK, II, 182— 184. M E.g. in Modern Greek (cf. A. Thum b, HNG, § 289, 292), Albanian (cf. C. H aebler, Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, X I, 49— 61). ** E.g. in Georgian (cf. А. Ч и к о б а в а , ЯН СССР, IV, 57), in Germanic and in other IE languages (cf. J. W ack ern ag el, op. eit.; O. Behaghel, KZ, LVI, 276—281; H. H irt, IG, V, 363—365; Ch. B ally , LGLF, § 351; A. Wierzbicka, SPB, 172, 173). 70 Cf. O. Behaghel, DS, IV, 31—35; A. Heusler, AIE, 174— 175. 71 Cf. G. A ntoine, CF, 600—633; J. Hermann, Acta Linguistica (Budapest), IV, 69—94, 351— 382. 72 Cf. F . Sław ski, Miejsce enkUtyki odmiennej w dziejach języka bułgarskiego, Kraków 1946, 13— 14, 40, 62—63, 87; E. D ecau x, МЕР, 24; К. Polański, SZŁ, 32—33. 79 IF, I, 380—391. C. Prosodie contour of utterance

Investigations which have been made on intonation of the complex sentence do not show a distinct difference between P and H, only SC is usually pronounced at greater speed than other kinds of sentence74. This, however, need more exact investigation. In some languages there are boundary signals of SC, e.g. juncture, lenition etc.75.

D. (Non)occurrence of special words

P differs from H by the occurrence or non-occurrence of certain words. To these belong: conjunctions, pronouns and other accessory words which are not used for connotation. Conjunctions differ from one another in their scope and usage. The hypotactical ones do not join words and they do not generally occur in polysyndeton, whereas the paratactical ones allow for transposition of constituents while the verbs of joined clauses — except for adversative construction — have to be in the same mood. It is only in SC that the relative pronoun can occur 76. There is also a predi­ lection for the use of certain modal particles such as Greek av, xé(v); acpecç, gçgW 77 78, Middle High German en 'quin5 78; in Celtic languages in SC a special form of negation occurs 79. In SC, however, interjections, inter­ rogative pronouns (particles) and elements pointing to situation do not appear.

Of the above mentioned (A — D) formal differences between P and H the most universal seems to be the principle that in SC neither the im­ perative nor interjections can be used80, whereas P is characterized by its possibility of transposition of constituents, and the conjunctions which here occur can join words. For the present purpose P does not include various kinds of causal, resultative, consecutive etc. sentences which are sometimes involved here81.

74 Cf. T. Николаева, ИСП, 62—63, 69. 76 Cf. W. Moulton, Language, XXIII, 224; H. Pedersen, VKG. 76 Structurally relative pronoun can be reduced to the connection of relative con­ junction with pronoun, cf. 6.2.1. B. 77 Cf. K. Brugmann, GG, 638; Kühner-Grerth, GG, I, 250 ff. 78 Cf. H. P au l, DG, IV, 179— 181. 78 Cf. H. P ed ersen , VGK, II, 252—259. 80 Which seems to indicate — similarly to the simplification of grammatical opposi­ tion of the verb — the lack of direct relation between the matter of SC and reality. 81 P. Grub er in a (op. cit.) is of similar opinion including causal and consecutive sentences to hypotaxis. 3.3. RELATION TO OTHER KINDS OF CONSTRUCTION

P and H do not exhaust all the combinations of constituents in the Unear sequence of utterance. They belong to connective combinations within the scope of which the so-called segmentation 82 can sometimes be distinguished. Segmentation is characterized by parallelism (often marked by pronoun) and by having looser connexity of components than in H. Beside the above mentioned there also exist sets of constituents without formal features of connexity, i.e. iuxtapositio, which according to some theories have given rise to connective sets83 84. The sometimes dis­ tinguished so-called intermediate, transitory or improper constructions, e.g. “cum inversum” are not difficult to classify from the formal point of view M. In isolated SC the ellipsis of MC should always be assumed.

3.4. ORIGIN AND EXPANSION

On examining the languages of different families one can come to a conclusion that the opposition P — H has a universal character 85. Even in the Bushman language — considered to be one of the most primitive languages in the world — a number of conjunctions occur 86. This considering, it is impossible to state empirically which of these two constructions is older or which has arisen from which. The most widespread theory 87 which says that H has arisen from P is based on the fact that it is less frequent in colloquial language and in children’s speech, while in the historical development of different languages it expands at the cost of P. In some languages, on the contrary, we

82 Cf. Ch. B ally, LGLF, § 61— 109, who introduces notions coordination, segmenta­ tion and liaison, differing from one another in their degree of connexity which excede the scope P — H involving various word and conjunctionless connections. Recently А. Мухин, Структура предложений и их модели, Москва 1968, 198— 204, beside co-ordination and subordination quotes the introductive and sociative connections. 88 Cf. W. Wundt, op. eit., I, 2, 307— 329. 84 As it concerns only the aspect of matter. 86 On the American Indian languages see T. Milewski, B PT J, X III, 117— 146. Beside this I have examined about 200 grammars of various languages. 88 Cf. D. Bleek, Zeitschrift für Eingeborenensprachen, X IX , 2, 97— 98. 87 Cf. К. Bühler, op. cit. 398—418; differently H. P au l, PS , § 100— 102, A. Ryn- ell, op. cit. can observe the expansion of P at the cost of H, e.g. in Modern Greek88, Late Latin 89 90, in contemporary French ", Danish 91, Po­ lish 92, e tc .93.

88 Cf. A. M iram bel, BSL, LVIII, 86— 134. 89 Cf. Hofmann-Szantyr, L 88, 527—528; J. Hofmann, LTJ. 90 Cf. U. Dąmhska-Prokop, Le style indirect libre dans la prose narrative d' A. Baudet, Kraków 1960, 57. 91 Cf. A. Rynell, op. cit. 45— 47. 92 Cf. A. W ierzb ick a, PL, LIII, 195— 216. 93 The conception that H has arisen from P is theoretically imprecise both the notions being mutually conditioned: if it were not for H, P could not exist. Both the types of connection seem to have arisen independently, from loose syntactic sets which formally may resemble asyndetic parataxis. 4. FORM AND ORDER OF CONSTITUENTS

4.1. KINDS AND CONNEXITY OF CONSTITUENTS

The sentence is the basic constituent of paratactical construction. In extreme cases it may occur as a single word or as a developed period in co-ordinate relation with another sentence. Paratactical conjunctions also join parts of the sentence. The terms “parataxis” and “hypotaxis” may occasionally be applied to morphological connections (composita). Conse­ quently, we could define as paratactical all elements of equal rank at all levels of language. It seems desirable, however, to limit this term to strictly syntactic (i.e. word and sentence) connections whereas the analo­ gical connections at other levels could be defined as co-ordinate, because, in spite of some isomorphismx, there are essential formal differences between them. It is already at the level of composita which are on the margins of syntax and morphology that conjunction — as basic indicator of parataxis — may occasionally appear, its role as in a simple word being taken by a connective affix which has no meaning and which serves only to connect other morphemes 1 2; at the phonetic level a similar role is played by the so-called glide-sound (epenthesis)3. Although some con­ junctions occur at the level of stylistic organization of the text, in con­ nections of greater syntactic units, yet they lose their specific semantic function, serving but to introduce or refer to the preceding text. The notion of “reference” (Polish nawiązanie) was introduced by S. Jodłow­ ski4 *, who pointed to the fact,' that human communication consists in referring new contents to those others, which are known from context, situation and general knowledge. Within a sentence he distinguished

1 This isomorphism can he expressed by: (1) the appearance or lack of special joining elements, (2) modification of structure of joined units (special variants, prosodic feature, etc.). On the notion of isomorphism cf. J. K u ryłow icz, TCLC, V, 48— 60; BPTJ, XXIII, 35—47. 2 The notion of connective morpheme (Verbindungsmorphem) serving only to join other morphemes was introduced by N. T ru b etzk o y , TCLP, V, 2, 14— 15. Cf. also K. N etteb erg, Scando-Slavica, VII, 286— 299. 8 Cf. syntagmatic phonology and morphology in Ch. B ally , LGLF, § 163; S. Dik, Coordination, 1. 4 BPT J, IV, 64— 70. Indo-European Parataxis 3 “referring” and “developing” members, which in some respects resemble the so-called psychological subject and predicate. Z. Klemensiewicz5 used the term “reference” to define the relations between sentences and groups of sentences within a complete set of sentences. The “reference” may be: internal (smaller complexes), external (with a “basis” and “member of reference”), loose and combined of various kinds of sentence (parenthesis)6. Hence we can distinguish the following units which can be connected with one another:

Name of units means of connection

I. period pause, intonation, certain conjunctions II. sentence (clause) conjunctions, asyndeton III. word conjunctions, asyndeton IV. morpheme connective affixes, combinatorial allomorphs V. phoneme glide-sounds, combinatorial allophones

The constituents of equal rank which appear in the text can be of different degrees of connexity. If we limit ourselves to connections of units I—HI (i.e. to the syntax in a broader sense), it will be possible to distinguish five degrees of connexity characterized according to the following features 7:

criteria of connexity Kinds of connexity linear semantic formal accentual auto­ pause contact association agreement integration nomy

A. isolated 0 0 + B. loose + ± — — + + C. referred + + — + + + D. connected + + + + db + E. contracted + + + + — —

6 Slavia, X IX , 13— 27; Zarys składni polskiej8, Warszawa 1961, 104— 118. • On the connections of compound sentences (Czech souvëti) cf. K. Svohoda, SloVo a slovesnost, X X X V I, 35— 44; X X X V III, 132— 136, where further literature can be found. On semantic connexity of discourse cf. A. W ierzb ick a, Dociekania seman­ tyczne, Warszawa 1969, 132— 158. 7 The last three criteria of connexity have been presented in a simplified way, as in connections of various units the accent and the pause have a different character while the autonomy of conjunctions is not complete: semantically they modify one another, whereas the formal dependence is only negative, i.e. in definite constructions certain forms are impossible. The above scheme shows that in the type (A) and (B) syntactic relation does not occur. In “reference” (C) semantic relation occurs, there is, how­ ever, no closer congruency between the constituents besides conjunctions. It is only in connective constructions that formal relation takes place, whereas in contracted connections there is already close interdependence. This may be proved by the ellipsis of repeated subcomponents (§ 5.2) without which a given constituent could not occur in isolated position. In all kinds of connection the constituent may be a word or a sentence and it generally happens that the closer the association the smaller the constituents. Cross-reference of these two tables8 shows that the combinations I. D and I. E are impossible; I. A, B, C occur only exceptionally. The remaining combinations are admissible and parataxis is represented here by II. D, E and III. D, E , i.e. by connected and contracted connections of words and sentences. On the margins of parataxis there are on the one hand — originated from loose asyndetic connections — copulative composita (dvandva) occasionally joined by a conjunction, e.g. Old Indian Âgna lndraś-ca, Greek xaXoç xàyaOoç, Latin usus et fructus, German ein-und-zwanzig, etc.9, on the other hand parenthesis10, the interposed member of which may be joined by paratactical conjunctions 11 with the preceding part of the broken sentence, e.g. Old Persian utä huvnarä tyä Ahuramazdä upariy mäm niyasaya — utä diś atävayan brt(ana)iy — vasnä Ahuramazdahä tyamaiy lertam imaibiS huvn(araibië) akunavam fund die Meisterschaften, mit denen mich A. bekleidet hat — und ich habe sie auszubilden vermocht — durch A.’s Willen habe ich, was ich gewirkt, durch diese Meisterschaften getan5 (Schwyzer, ibidem, 11— 12), Greek vouaov àvà axpaxov &pae xaxifjv—ôXéxovTO 8è Xaoi— ouvexa xtX; arceLpouaiv—t) toh Çcocnv—At)(jl7)tpoç ara/uv (ibidem, 14, 17), Latin forsan — et hoc dubitem — ...aptus sim\ in ripa elephantos — quadraginta autem er ant — disponit (TLL, Y, 2 , 892, II, 1592), French Paul — et c'est fort heureux — a renoncé à son projet (Antoine, CF, 634—640), English She cooked — and she was a good cook — and marketed... (Кобрина, УЗЛУ, 272, 134— 145), Old Icelandic komr snemma til pings — en pinget var pa under Ar-

8 Excluding types IV—V, which in the second scheme have not been considered. • Cf. J. Wackernagel, A1G, II, 1, 149— 173, Nachträge 45; H. H irt, IG, IV, 44; В. D elbrück, SF, V, 55— 59, 472; even after 'between9: antard prayäjänuyäjdn 'zwi­ schen dem Anfangsopfer und dem Endopfer9 (ibidem, 56). According to P an in i “dvandva occur in sense of ca” (2. 2. 29). On conjunctional connections of compound numerals see J. Wackernagel, KS, 236— 256. 10 Cf. E. Schw yzer, Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1939, VI; H. Кобрина, УЗЛУ, 272, 137— 145. 11 Usually of copulative and adversative conjunctions. mannzfelle — ok sua sem flokkar к о ш а . .. eer kommt früh zum Thing — aber das Thing war damals unter dem Berg A. — und sobald die Scharen kommen.. / (Schwyzer, ibidem, 21), German (dialectal) Denn d'Genfer klagen sich so seer — und lägen si schon Ы dem meer, noch gieng es mir zuo herzen — dass... (ibidem, 25), Polish A gdy gospodarz wesela skosztował wody, która stała się winem, a nie wiedział skąd by było — lecz wiedzieli słudzy, którzy wodę czerpali — woła oblubieńca (Jo. II, 9). Generally, however, composita belong to IV class, whereas parenthesis belongs to II. B. The constituents of paratactical constructions — especially word con­ nections — can be in formal congruence with other members of utterance: either conforming to them or giving them a special form. Thus e.g. the paratactical connection of substantives in the singular needs a verb in the plural (or dual). Similarly, certain connections of adjectives need a noun in the plural. The category of gender and person are given in the follow­ ing order: masculine, feminine, neuter and 1st, 2nd, 3rd person. From this rule some exceptions may occur as a result of lack of congruence (loosening of the course of thought) or its modification, namely in given texts the semantically more important or neighbouring member of a paratactical connection gives a special form to the member which is dependent on this connection12.

4.2. ORDER OF CONSTITUENTS

4.2.1. Factors of order

Constituents of paratactical construction can generally be transposed without changing the meaning of utterance, yet their order in given texts is not indifferent though perhaps it is less determined than in hypotaxis and in word connections of unequal rank. The order of subcomponents of joined units, however, has no direct relation with the character of this construction. We can but observe that in elliptical word connections the main element is usually omitted in the position before the conjunction, whereas the accessory element — after it (§5.2). Moreover, in certain languages after a copulative conjunction the inversion of the verb may occur (§ 3.2. B). The order of constituents in paratactical constructions depends on stylistic factors. Two contradictory tendencies can be observed here: one — towards unification of joined constituents, the other — towards their differentiation (i.e. syntactic assimilation and dissimilation). The

12 Cf. B. Delbrück, У 8, III, 229—259; К. Brugmann, IF, XLIII Beiheft, 151—166; А. Пешковский, PC, 403—406, etc. first tendency has a more general character and is perceptible in artistic texts. The other tendency refers mainly to fixed phraseological expres­ sions 13 and it can be embraced in a few strictly formulated rules. Both tendencies are easily perceptible in word connections while the order of joined sentences is more influenced by individual factors; the situation is more complicated here and it is difficult to state any precise rules. In all kinds of connections the emotional factors should also be taken under consideration. The order of constituents, too, may be a matter of accident. This problem still needs further investigation and the following remarks constitute only a sketch. Among the above mentioned tendencies we can distinguish: (A) pho­ netic, (B) prosodic and (C) semantic factors which influence the order of word constituents in paratactical constructions.

A. Phonetic factors The tendency to unification exerts but a slight influence on the phonetic form of joined constituents. It can be observed in certain kinds of connections: puns, onomatopoeic expressions, persistent slips of tongue and the like whieh appear in euphonical modifications 14. The following may be considered results of the tendency to differ­ entiation: (i) vowel alternation high in preceding member — low in the following member, (ii) labial initial of the following member. In view of the opinion that both phenomena are connected with each other we shall discuss them together. The above mentioned rules — in IE far from being regular — affect mainly fixed word expressions, composita and re­ duplicated formations 15. They are often onomatopoeic expressions whose constituents themselves do not possess definite semantic value. These rules are somewhat general and in some cases the examples which fit them may be but a matter of accident. The connections under consider­ ation generally have a co-ordinate character and conjunctional con­ structions can also be found here. This kind of connection occurs also in languages of other families, among others in Finno-Ugric, Altaic, Cau­ casian and Semito-Hamitic, with much greater regularities than in IE 16. Hence it seems that it is a general phenomenon based on physiology.

13 In the order of subcomponents of joined by conjunctions units it may be ex­ pressed by so-called chiasmus. 14 Cf. W. Havers, HES, § 158. 16 It may be well to add, that if in the reduplicated syllable of IE Verb the root-vo­ wel ever changes its shade, it is only into high i, e. 16 Cf. e.g. Basque zurru-burru (Spitzer, KZ, LIV, 220), Arabic hasan-basan 'sehr schön1 (Brockelmann, VGS, И, 462), Turkish htk-mik etmek 'to habber1 (Кононов, ГТЯ, 371), Hungarian csiga-biga 'peg-top1, etc. The alternation of high vowel in the preceding member with low vowel in the following member in expressions like German lcling-klang, misch- masch was first pointed out by Eiselein11. О. W eise17 18 quoted several further examples of such and similar alternations. W. Krause 19 explains such configurations of alternation by the fact that the tone of the preceding member is usually higher than that of the following one. He adds to the German examples a parallel from Hungarian such as csivirgös-csavargos 'curved, winding5. H. Jacobsohn20 — basing himself on the rule of labial initial of the following member in so-called “twin-composita” 21 in Finno- Ugric, discovered by E. Lewy 22 — explains the word order in German connections such as angst und bange, Arm und Bein, Grund und Boden as well as in the Low German expression tagen-baren 'procreated and born5 (with reverted order). He joins together both phenomena explaining them by a rule of increasing voice which he also finds in Behaghel’s law. L. Spitzer23 explains both phenomena by synaesthetical symbolics of phones. For vowel alternations he quoted parallels from musical acoustics and compares the labial initial of the following member — which is often but a mechanical repetition of the preceding member — to children’s speech (babbling) and to early formation of labial consonants. H. Winkler24 on the basis of meaningless expressions such as the German ellerli-bellerli states “alpha — beta rule” (vowel initial of the preceding, labial initial of the following member). J . Wackernagel25 recalls here the rule of compo­ sition by Panini (2.2.33) for vowel initial of preceding member (also applicable in Avesta) where in some examples the following member has a labial initial26. The connection between back vowel and labial conso­ nants in opposition to front vowel and the remaining consonants has recently been revealed by so-called spectral analysis 27: they form an op-

17 Die reimhaften, anklingenden und ablautartigen Formeln der hochdeutschen Sprache, Leipzig 1841, 63; Cf. also W. W ack ern ag el, WA, 32— 34. 18 ZDW, II, 8—24. 19 KZ, L, 123— 124; LII, 312— 313. 20 KZ, LIV, 100— 102. 21 On the “twin-composita” see S. Jodłowski, BPTJ, XXI, 49—60. 22 Zur finnisch-ugrischen Wort- und Satzverbindung, Göttingen 1911, 67. 23 KZ, LIV, 213—223, 311. 24 Festschrift für E. Littmann, Leiden 1935, 170— 185. 25 KS, 439—443; AIG, II, 1, § 71. It is possible that the Panini’s rule (2.2.32), which says that i- and м-stems (high Vowel) precede other stems, is connected with the above mentioned alternation. 26 In North Slavonic and Yiddish here may appear -sm-, cf. money-shmoney, Polish dialectal woda-szmoda 'water1 (Kuraszkiewicz, JP, XLIX, 22—27; E. Stankiewicz, Approaches to semiotics, The Hague 1964, 239—276). 27 Cf. Jakobson-Fant-Halle, Preliminaries to speech analysis, Technical Report, 13, § 2.421. position g ra v e (larger and less comparted mouth cavity) — a cu te (smaller and more divided cavity). The change of pure vowel into a labi­ alized 28 one is an intermediate stage between both kinds of alternation, which, as it seems, occurs in Ossetic (dybal-dybul 'murmuring’), Georgian (bargi-burgi 'knocking’), Kirghiz (quabor-qubur 'whisper’). (i) The change of high vowel (usually a front one) into a low (usually a back one) can be found in most IE languages, especially in German. Conjunctional connections are generally infrequent. Hindi chüt-chät 'pollution’ (Баранников, Записки Коллегии Востоко­ ведов, III, 252), Bengali mit-mät 'accordance’ (Чевкина, ВГБЯ, 10), Armenian ker-a-kur 'food’ (Solta, НО, I, 7, 111), Greek(?) трьх&а те хаь тетрах&а (Homer, Г, 363, cf. W. Wackernagel, W A , 32), Latin tux-taœ, buttu-batta, п е с mu, п е с т а (Ottenjann, Giotta, VI, 224—5; Hofmann, LU, 60), Italian Quel che vien de tinche-tanche, se ne va de ninche-nanche (Ottenjann, ibidem, 223), Provençal trin-tran (Spitzer, KZ, LIV, 220), French mic-mac, flic et flac (Weise, ZDW, II, 10; Spitzer, ibidem), Ku- manian tilinc-talanc (Spitzer, ibidem, 215), Welsh wich-wach (Morris- Jones, WG, 450), English thwick-thwack, criddle-craddle (Weise, ibidem, 9), Old Saxon wind endi wag (Behaghel, DS, III, 367), Middle High German enplipfes unde enplapfes (W. Wackernagel, W A , 33), Modern German tick-tack, sing-sang, singen und sangen, weder gicks noch gacks (Behaghel, ibidem), Lithuanian ślypu-ślapu (Zinkevicius, LD, 443), Latvian pi6u- pacu, briku-brakUj Sniks-Snçks (DravipS-Rûcke, IMS, 16—17), Polish bim-bam, tip-top, tik(u)-tak(u), Czech ëiry-ëâry, kriêem-krdèem (Hujer, op. cit. 162), Russian х щ xu, xu д а ха, х а, х а (Германович, МРЯ, 88), Ukrainian г ир - г ар (Смаль-Стоцький, ПС, 41), Bulgarian динге-данге (Игов, Годишник на Софийский Университет, L X I, 1,265), Serbo-Croatian bim-bam, tika-taka (ibidem). (ii) Asyndetic, often onomatopoeic connections with the labial initial of the following member can be found in many IE languages. The com­ binations of full-meaning words are rare, whereas conjunctional construc­ tions occur but exceptionally. Similar is the case in non IE languages. Tokharian A tseke-si р е к е -si 'formatus (et) pictus’ (Schulze, Kleine Schriften, 260—1 ; Poucha, ILT, 187,394), Old Indian idhmâ-barhih = Aves- tan aesma-barosma 'Holz und heiliges Zweigbündel’ (Wackernagel, KS, 438), Avestan aspa-vlra = Latin equi-viri (ibidem), Hindi äs-päs 'around’ (Баранников, ibidem, 252), Bengali cak-mak 'glitter of light’ (Чевкина, ibi­ dem, 6 ), Singhalese data-pata 'teeth’ (Выхухолев, СЯ, 28), Marathi khadhï- madhï 'from time to time’ (Катенина, ЯМ, 37), Persian kaS-u-maê 'curved’ (Horn, GIP, I, 2,196), Tadjik kitob-mitob 'book and accessories’ (Баранни­ 28 Cf. T. Бертагаев, Морфологическа типология и проблема классификации Языкову Москва 1965, 133. ков, ibidem, 265), Ossetic ja%an-ma%an chelT (Miller, GIP, I, Anhang, § 100), Armenian luf-mur estill und stumm3 (Jensen, AG, 47), Latin ista-pista-sista (magic formula), at enim, b-at enim, heia, b-eia (Ottenjann, Giotta, III, 253—256), Portuguese choldra-boldra (Spitzer, ibidem, 220), Rumanian treanca-fleanca (ibidem, 221), Breton grïk-mïk (Hardie, HMB, 145), English hodge-podge, hotch-potch (J. Wackernagel, ibidem, 441), German Schorle­ morle, Icasten-basien-wasten, Gut und Blut, Rand und Band, hangen Ъ а п д е щ arm und bloss (Spitzer, op. cit.; J . Wackernagel, ibidem, 337), Lat­ vian zliuks un bliuks (Draviçâ-Rücke, ibidem, 12), Polish czary-mary, figle-migle, huku-puku, krętu-wętu, szach-mach, szuru-buru (cf. Jodłowski, BPTJ, XXI, 56), Russian шурум-бурум (Баранников, ibidem, 255), Bulga­ rian t/мгу-лтгу (Игов, loc. cit.), Serbo-Croatian hr-mr (ibidem).

В. Prosodic factors

Accentual-rhythmical parallelism may be considered as a result of the tendency to unification. It is realized in versified texts by metre, rhyme, alliteration and other means of rhythmical organization of utte­ rance. In other kinds of texts this parallelism is not so distinct. The tendency to differentiation is revealed by the “law of increasing members” which has been discovered for composita dvandva by Panini (2.2.34) and rediscovered for syntactic units by O. Behaghel29 who proved that the members of different size joined by paratactical conjunctions in Greek, Latin and German are placed in the order: shorter — longer30. Behaghel sees here a general inclination of language already observed by ancient authors 31. The background of this rule, however, has not as yet been convincingly explained32. Old Indian kanyä-kumärau 'girl and boy3 (Wackernagel, AIG, II, 1, 166), Avestan aëdrya-aëd rapaiti 'pupil and master3 (Benveniste, B808, VIII, 405), Greek àXXot. [iiv pa OeoŁ те xal àvépeç ьтгтсохористтаь;

» IF, X X V , 110— 142. 30 This rule is also conformed to by the elliptical (§ 5.2.2: main i.e. longer member is placed after conjunction) and word — sentence (§ 5.3.4: word usually is in the first place) constructions. 31 E.g. Demetrius from Phaleron, § 18: èv 8è toclç ow&śtok; irepiôScnç тb TeXeurodov xtoXov jxaxpÔTepov х р Ь eïvai (Behaghel, ibidem). 32 As a parallel from morphonology we may quote the lengthening of final vowel in Greek, Latin and also in a few IE languages, cf. J. Safarew icz, Études de phoné­ tique et de métrique latines, Wilno 1936, 7— 72, especially 10— 13. In Old Indian in case of eqqal number of syUables a word containing fewer moras precedes (W ackernagel, ibidem). Cf. also W. Mańczak, JP, XXXII, 15—24, and A. Isacenko, To honor R. J a ­ kobson, The Hague 1967, 967— 976, who state, that in Russian the phrase-stress is placed on the following member of connection (not only co-ordinate ones). ou83 àyyeXôç tiç ou8è aufjjrpàxTcop 0800 xocteiSev (Behaghel, ibidem, 120— 121), Latin ego stulta et mora multum; cecidisset-ve ebrius aut de equo uspiam; neque te decora, neque tuis virtutibus a te expetere (ibidem, 124), French Perceval ou le Conte du Graal, Bouvard et Pécuchet, German zerschmettre dich und deine Katzengeister; vom Garten, m dem sie wan­ delt, oder von den Blumen, die sie am liebsten pflückt (Behaghel, ibi­ dem, 117, 120), Lithuanian nuliudims ir gramSumas 'grief and sorrow3 (cf. Krause, KZ, L, 93, 113), Polish zrzędność i przekora 'peevishness and contradiction3, wóz albo przewóz 'take it or leave it3, Spisz i Orawa, Warmia i Mazury33, Russian ц а п - ц а р а п (onomatopoeic expression), бегать и рез­ в и т ь с я 'to romp and play3.

C. Semantic factors

The predilection for putting together semantically near or parallel notions is a well-known phenomenon which occurs in all styles of a lan­ guage. It plays an important role in psychoanalytic investigations of subconsciousness (associations) M. The tendency to differentiation is revealed in contrasting connections of different notions. W. K rause35 investigating the sequence of members in the connections of this kind on the basis of Old Indian, Avestan, Old Icelandic and Lithuanian found that a more important, nearer, earlier and logically basic notion always precedes, with the sole exception of Old Iranian. O. Behaghel36 37 formulates similar rule of word order for the German language stating also that positive notion (Freude und Schmerz, Gnade und Ungnade, gut und böse) and the term older, less frequent and more difficult to understand usually precedes (Lug und Trug, Fug und Recht, Hülle und Fülle). J. Wackernagel37 points to the aspect of estima­ tion-politeness underlining the relativity of notions 'more important3, "nearer3 and even 'earlier3 according to a language, environment or author. Yet he does not question the rule itself which was known already to Quin­ tilian who wrote: uest et alius naturalis ordo, ut viros ac feminas, diem ac noctem, ortum et occasum dicat potius quam retrorsum” (9, 4, 23). Most of the above mentioned factors can be reduced to the main two: (i) importance, (ii) sequence, while it may happen that both the factors contradict each other. We find it in the figure of speech called (iii) hyste-

33 Cf. also Z. K lem ensiew icz, Ze studiów nad językiem i stylem, Warszawa 1969, 129; A. W ierzb ick a, SPR, 132— 147. 34 Which from the point of view of semantics may seem to be accidental. 36 KZ, L, 74— 129. 36 DS, III, 367—368. 37 KS, 250— 256. г о п — proteron, in which the natural temporal sequence is reverted owing to psychological importance of the following events38. (i) Old Indian devebhyaś-ca pitrbhyaś-ca 'den Göttern und den Manen* (Krause, KZ, L, 94), Greek avSpcov rfik yvvaixcov (Wackernagel, KS, 253), Latin mihi collegis-que meis (ibidem, 256), French Mesdames et Messieurs, English Ladies and Gentlemen, German Meine Damen und Herren, Old Icelandic a guâs midi ok jarls 'in Gottes und des Grafen Gewalt9, oxi eda asni 'Ochs oder Esel9 (Krause, ibidem, 95), Lithuanian gaspadme ar merga 'housewife or girl9, ne tèvaï ne bróliai 'neither parents nor brothers9 (ibidem, 94), Polish ty i ja 'You and I9, panowie i panie 'gentlemen and ladies9, Eussian non и диакон 'orthodox priest and precentor9, ц а р ь и ц а р и ц а 'Czar and Czarina9 (Андронов, ИЛГРЯ, 209, 210) ^ Avestan mi&ahyä yäcä höi ärozvä 'was falsch und was ihm richtig ist9 (Krause, ibi­ dem, 100), Old Persian huvaspä huvmartiyä 'reich an Bossen und Männern9 (ibidem, 101). (ii) Old Indian ägatam-cä5 śd-ca 'Vergangenheit und Zukunft9 (Krause, ibidem, 110), Greek vuxtocç те xai 9)fxap (Wackernagel, ibidem, 252), Latin noctes-que dies-que (ibidem), German Blitz und Schlag (Behaghel, ibidem, 368), Polish złapać i zamknąć 'to catch and to shut9, Eussian взяли... от­ вели и отдали 'they took.. .led away and gave back9 (Андронов, ibidem, 213). (iii) Old Indian grlsma-vasantau 'summer and spring9 (Wackernagel, AIG, II, 1,166), Greek тгируоис; те vecov xocl Tacppov ixovto (Homer, Q., 443; Schwyzer, GG, II, 698), Latin statuerai et deliberaverat (Hofmann-Szantyr, L8 S, 699), Old Irish is M leech na cernd ocus na comram 'du bist der Held der Triumphe und der Weltkämpfe9 (Havers, HES, 93), Low German tagen, baren lonebörger kind 'erzogenes (und) geborenes Lüneburger Kind9 (Jacobsohn, KZ, LIV, 100, LVT, 2), Upper Lusatian studentojo su mi ćekli a njezapła- ciii 'the pupils escaped from me and they did not pay9 (Liebsch, WS, 185), Eussian л е т а в е с н ы 'summers and springs9, зимой осенью 'in winter and in autumn9 (Krause, ibidem, 111).

4.2.2. Linear contact of joined constituents

In the IE languages the developed system of syntactic connotation makes possible a relatively free order of constituents in the utterance, thanks to which syntactically connected words need not be in immediate contact with each other. For such connections in classical poetics we find the term hyperbaton whose special variant was 3AXx(jl

38 Cf. H. Jakobsohn, KZ, LIV, 100—102;LVI, 1—9;L. Spitzer, KZ,L X ,233—236. 38 HES, § 46. following D. Westermann — sees thé origin of this construction in succes­ sive thinking occurring in children and in primitive people 40, which can be proved by the fact that in the historical development of a language this kind of connection gradually falls out of use. SA in some respect resembles parenthesis. The difference consists in the fact that parenthesis concerns mainly sentences and here the direct relation between the broken members need not occur, whereas SA is a word connection and the interposed members are in relation with both the connected constituents or with one. Some examples of SA can be interpreted as so-called атго xoLvou, which consists in the fact that the member which refers to two other constituents is placed only with the following one. W. Krause41 investigating the construction of the elliptical dual deals with SA more exactly. He found that the essence of this construction is the relation of the interposed member with both the constituents and therefore it is in dual or plural. It happens, however, that an interposed member refers only to one of the two connected constituents. This type is older and it reaches — according to Krause — as far back as the P IE epoch. Both kinds of construction are known not only in Greek: the first one was attested in Old Indian and Old Irish, the other one in most of the IE languages. Old Indian Indraś-ca yad yuyudhdte ahiś-ca 'als Indra und die Schlange miteinander kämpfen3 (Krause, ibidem, 246), Avestan manö voliü urunas- ёй 'das gute Denken und die Seelen3 (Beichelt, AE, 357), Yazgulami im-ja wuyd dim-ja 'this one cried and that one3 (Эдель- м а н , ЯЯ, 94), Greek poàç Eifióeię aufjißaXXeTov Y)$è Sxà(xavSpoç; àXXà îbzi 7) aÙTov àTroXcoXévai vj Kav&auXyjv (Krause, ibidem, 245, 247), Latin soli luna obstitit et nox (Hofmann-Szantyr, LSS, 693), Italian duro sera ed impos- sibile 42, Old Irish Boiluid anair i rrieht da géise ocus a Ji-inailt 'Sie kam von Osten in Gestalt zweier Schwäne und ihre Dienerin3 (Krause, ibidem, 246), Gothic ainamma sipa jah twaim еатга£ xal Się3, Old Icelandic stor dyr oJc manushaed 'grosse und reissende Tiere3, Old English claene Ud ond hälig 'reine und heilige Zeit3 (Havers, HES, 45), German der Vater muss zahlen oder der Sohn (Paul, DG, III, 66), Lithuanian tèws tai ëino o ir aś 'father knows it and so do I 3 (Kurschat, Grammatik der litauischen Spra­ che, 437), Latvian vai kajdm iesi vai brauksus% 'will you go on foot or will you take a horse-cart3 (Endzelin LG, 812), Polish lub pieszo się bił, lub konno 'he fought either on foot or on horse3, Bussian пути у меня и данные згорели *my letters have burnt3 (Андронов, ibidem, 212).

40 Thus it is a feature of archaic psyche, cf. § 2.3. 41 KZ, LII, 245— 249. 42 Examples from other Romanic languages see A. P ar, Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, XLV, 84. An opposite to SA is the connection attested in Modern Irish in which the conjunction refers only to the neighbouring words, e.g. Seaghân, agus Séamas agus Peadar 'John, James and Peter’ 43, in other words it is an obligatory polysyndeton, which does not occur in most of the IE languages but which appears as a stylistic variant only (§ 5.1.2. A). J . Po­ korny 44 compares this construction with the infrequent ellipsis of preposi­ tion and article in Modern Irish, quoting parallels from Semito-Hamitic languages. However, co-occurrence of both the facts seems to be incidental and if the obligatory polysyndeton is not clear enough then the infrequency of ellipsis of preposition and article is known also in other IE languages (§ 5 .2 .2 . A). Hon IE parallels are not very exact but we can mention here, also from Semitic, the conjunctional connections of two substantives with another substantive in the genitive, which must be repeated with the second of the two as possessive pronoun45. As we see both kinds of construction are marginal (but not strictly contradictory) variants and these resemble the above described tendencies of word order: ’AXxfxavtxôv — tendency to differentiation, the Irish construction — tendency to unification.

« Cf. J . P ok orn y, ZCP, XV I, 141— 143. 44 Ibidem. 45 Cf. C. Brockelmann, VGS, II, 230; C. Steuernagel, HG, 83; Б. Гранде, КАГ, 335— 336. 5. CONSTRUCTIONS

5.0. Thé structure of an utterance can be investigated at various levels of the language. The phonetic form of the constituents has no great importance for paratactical constructions, with the exception of the above described alternations (§ 4.2.1. A). Moreover, it can be observed that in certain languages the vocalic harmony of the main member comprises its accessory elements; joined constituents, however, remain in this respect mutually independent. The rhythmical configuration of the members of different dimensions is regulated by Behaghel’s law (§ 4.2.1. B). Morphological structure is also of no great importance and it is only in certain languages that the repeated suffix, ending or main member of the word may be omitted (§ 5.2.1). At the syntactic level the constituents of the utterance can be investigated with regard to their function and struc­ ture. The constituents of paratactical construction are homofunctional1 yet they need not be isomorphic. It allows us to distinguish between the connections of isomorphic and polymorphic constituents 2. The former ones are characterized by their simple and regular structure. They are more frequent in the texts and one can consider them as basic for the con­ nections of polymorphic constituents which have a more complicated and differentiated structure. They are less frequent, therefore they can be defined as special types of construction. To these belong the connections of various forms of the same part of speech, groups of different structures, word and sentence, various kinds of sentence (§ 5.3). If — according to J . Bozwa- dowski’s principle of binary perception of language images 3 — we assume the binary connection of constituents as basic, then we shall have to con­ sider all connections with more constituents as special types of which

1 I.e. they represent categories of the same kind. The latter basing on some general semantic intentions, cf. L. T esnière, ESS, 325— 327. 2 Similarly in Avestan ëa rand$ H. Seiler, BAA, 185— 191, makes a distinction between connections intra classem and inter classes. 8 Sometimes as an argument against universality of this principle the multimembral co-ordinate connections are quoted. However, it does not seem to he justified as it is only the position before the last (or after first) constituent that is distinctive being taken by conjunction in a simplified polysyndeton. Cf. a similar distinction of position before the last member in the composita of certain kind. polysyndeton and other constructions with a repeated conjunction and constituent claim attention here (§ 5.1). In syntactic descriptions of various languages and in comparative or general approach mainly basic types are dealt with, whereas the constructions considered here as special types are generally disregarded or mentioned marginally; in spite of their infrequent occurrence they show some regularity and so they deserve a more exact description. Thanks to their stylistic shade some of them are considered as figures of speech; hence the relevant terminology which need not be changed. In most cases at the back of these structures lie psychical processes attending human communication yet their exact origin is not clear enough everywhere. Some constructions are characteristic of certain types of language or of a definite stage of evolution (e.g. the process of disappearance of flexion); others belong to a definite style; also the semantic predisposition of syntactic categories plays a certain role, admitting or determining a definite scheme. Theoretically three possibilities of deviation from the basic construc­ tion, i.e. from binary connection of isomorphic and complete constituents4 can be taken into consideration: (1 ) repetition of constituent or conjunc­ tion— iteration, (2 ) omission of subcomponent — ellipsis, (3) con­ nection of constituents of various structures — anacoluthon. Generally speaking the constructions of type (1 ) arose from a tendency to hyper­ characterization 5, (2 ) are a manifestation of the principle of economy6 and the constructions of type (3) result from the loss of the trend of thought7.

5.1. ITERATION

5.1.0. Iteration is a primitive and at the same time universal means of language creation. It often appears in children’s speech, in certain psychical diseases, in magic formulae, in literary texts. As grammatical means it mainly occurs in languages which owing to some features of their structure may be defined as primitive. All this shows that iteration is one of the characteristics of the archaic psyche (§2.3). Because of an easily discernible direct relation to reality, the phenomenon of iteration — beside onomatopoeic creation — is one of the few arguments for the çucjsl theory of the origin of speech.

4 Which will not he concerned here owing to their commonplaceness. 6 On the hypercharacterization cf. E. Schw yz er, Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin 1941, IX . 6 On the principle of economy cf. J. V endryes, Mélanges Ch. Bally, Genève 1939, 49— 62; A. M artin et, Économie des changements phonétiques, Berne 1955. 7 Cf. E. Schwyzer, GG, II, 703—706. Iteration can be found at all levels of language where it performs various tasks. Phonetic iteration — consisting in prolonging the articula­ tion of phones or the repetition (immediately or at intervals) of phones and syllables — is sometimes used for onomatopoeic, prosodic and even semantic 8 purposes. In morphology the repetition of a word or morpheme (reduplication) 9 serves to create a formation which has an intensive, col­ lective and distributive meaning; in some languages it is a regular means of the plural10. Unlike phonetic and syntactic iteration where a given element can be repeated several times, in a morphological function we can find only reduplicated formation which from the formal point of view can be defined as composita (dmredita). In the syntactic system iteration does not play any greater role and it generally has a stylistic character. In substantives it expresses great size or importance; in adjectives and adverbs — durability of a feature or state; in verbs — frequency, durati- veness and continuity; in numerals it has a distributive function. The iteration of the whole sentence serves to intensify, reinforce and also produce harmony. The latter function — which belongs to the level of stylistic organization of the text (especially a literary one) — occurs also in greater units than a sentence. In syntax and stylistics we can rarely find immediate iteration; the repeating units may often be separated by other constituents of utterance. We can also mention here semantic iteration consisting in the repetition of the same notion by means of various synonymic expressions, such as: Old Indian ójo balam 'Kraft (und) Stärke9 (Delbrück, SF, V, 60), Greek crto, eyxovüfiev, ßacrx9 tśh, Latin velitis iubeatis, reddantur restituantur, Lithuanian Tcâlbin sznékin 'spricht (und) redet9, Polish często-gęsto 'very often9, Czech silou-mocou 'by force and power9 (Hujer, MNHMA, 159— 164), Eussian х о д и т ъ - г у л я т ь 'walk and stroll9, ж и л - б ы л 'there lived = there was9 (Fraenkel, Giotta, IV, 31—34), which according to E . Fraenkel11 is associated with the phenomenon of morphological contamination. Finally we may find graphic iteration in abbreviations, such as the Latin EE.QQ 'équités9, FF 'fecerunt9, English B.B. 'best quality9, //. 'following pages9, Polish O.O. 'Fathers9, P.P. 'Mr. and Mrs.9; in music pp. 'pianissimo9, etc. 12 Within syntactic iteration we shall limit ourselves to (1) expressions which can be considered as being of equal rank and (2 ) iteration of con­

8 Cf. e.g. the pronunciation of Polish daleeeko '(very) far* to express the distance. • Which may he defined as a residual form of word iteration. As a grammatical means it is considerably more frequent than full iteration. 10 E.g. in Hottentot, Hansa, Kushitic, Sumerian, Indonesian, Burmese, etc. 11 Giotta, IV, 31— 36. 12 Similarly in the Egyptian and Chinese hieroglyphs the plural may he marked by two or more points. junction, where immediate iteration occurs but exceptionally as e.g. in Polish Ale, ale, ale — na miłość boską zaklinam cię 'But, but, but for God’s sake I beseech you’, ani, ani 'certainly not’, No to pamiętaj! Albo, albo 'Well, so remember! Either, or!’ (PSP, 33, 80), while polysyndeton is the real form of conjunctional iteration, in which the conjunction is repeated with each of the connected constituents unlike the ordinary construction where it precedes the last constituent.

5.1.1. Iteration of constituent

In IE languages iteration of constituents can be found mainly in colloquial language and in artistic creation. This construction was noticed in classical stylistics 13 and from the linguistic point of view it was widely described on the basis of Balto-Slavonic material by E . Hofmann14. Here word connections prevail; conjunctional and sentence constructions can rarely be found. Tokharian A kalyme kalyme "alle Weltgegenden5 (Hofmann, ibidem, 19), Old Indian mäsi mäsi "jedesmal nach Verlauf eines Monats5, yatra yatra "überall wo5, tasmin ydvän-vä yävän-vä rasah sam asravat "in ihm lief so oder so viel Saft zusammen5 (Delbrück, SF, V, 52— 55), Sogdian kws Jews "everywhere5 (Gershevitch, GMS, 236), Armenian ami ami "alljährlich5 (Jensen, AG, 46), Greek yépcov yépcov el; [xaXXov zal (làXXov; ysveà xal yeveà (Schwyzer, GG, II, 700), Latin unus et unus\ diu diu-que, fuge fuge podagra) lalla, lalla, lalla aut dormi, aut lacta (Hofmann-Szantyr, LSS, 808—811), Italian na picciotta povira, povira (Meyer-Lübke, GES, III, 165), French II compilait, compilait, compilait (Grevissé, BU, 167), Eumanian un cordu mare, mare "ein grosser, grosser Wald5 (Meyer-Lübke, ibidem), German neu {und wieder) neu, er lief {und) lief, du schöne, schöne Braut (Hofmann, ibidem, 12, 13, 16), Lithuanian tarp jo п а т ц ir п а т ц "zwischen seinen vielen Häusern5, ne muSkl ne muśkl "schlage nicht5 (ibidem, 18, 24), Latvian rçti, rçti "sehr selten5, auzu, auzu kumétam "Hafer, Hafer dem Eoss5, ka salst, ta salst "wie es friert, so friert es5 (ibidem, 14, 18, 31), Old Prussian beigeite, beigeite puckolle "laufft laufft jr Teufel5 (cf. note, 6 . 39), Polish pisze i pisze "he writes and writes5, sam a sam "alone with5 (PSP, 12, 20), Czech marna, marna prace "poor, poor work5 (Hofmann, ibidem, 14), Eus- sian no лесам да лесам "about the forest5 (ibidem, 19), Old Church Sla­ vonic dbva п ъ dbva "8uo $uo5 (cf. Иванов, ЯС, 187), Bulgarian ж и в e т о й ж и в e! 'alive is he, alive’ (Ботев, Хаджи Димитър).

13 Cf. E. Schwyzer, GG, II, 699—700; Hofmann-Szantyr, LSS, 808— 813; for Old Indian: J. Gronda, Stylistic repetition in the Veda, Amsterdam 1969. 14 KZ, Ergheft IX ; cf. recently W. D ressier, Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kultur­ wissenschaft, XIV, 39—47. 5.1.2. Iteration of conjunction (polysyndeton)15 16

Although polysyndeton is a well-known phenomenon in IE and other languages it has not been so far an object of special investigations. The term itself was known to ancient grammarians who used it to denote the re­ petition of a conjunction within the scope of one construction 16. From the polysyndeton proper we must differentiate the so-called “linking”, i.e. the attaching-referring usage of a conjunction, as well as the connections which can be defined as “multimembral elliptical constructions” (MEG). They differ from each other so that in polysyndeton each following member is connected with one which immediately precedes whereas in MEG the following member refers to the first one (more rarely to the last one) omitting the immediate members. Thus we might except the repetition of the first (last) member with each of them, hence the term “elliptical” 17, e.g. Greek етгеьЗт] 8e ouSèv ècppôvTiÇov y^cov, àXX'... ïjyavàzTouv те xai ouSèv t)ttov exàXouv, àXX' èSôxouv... dcTTopoL elvai 7гро<т<ререа$ш (Kühner-Gerth, GG, 1 1 ,2 8 3 ), Latin instare miles, arma poscere, dum Galliae trépident, 4um Hispaniae cunctentur (TLL, V, 1, 2 2 2 2 ), French il ne travaille pas, mais s'amuse, mais fait du sport (Wartburg-Zumthor, PSFC, 69), Polish Żem często dumał nad mogiłą ludzi, żem nie znał prawie rodzinnego domu, żem był jak pielgrzym, co się w drodze trudzi przy blaskach gromu, że nie wiem, gdzie się w mogiłę położę — smutno mi Bożel T o r oft I ’ve ponder’d o’er people’s tomb, For I have almost never known my home, For I ’ve been like a pilgrim whom thunderbolts lighten as he toils in storm, For where to lay my bones I know not — I ’m sad, oh, God!3 (Słowacki, Smutno mi Boże). Most conjunctions occur in MEG, with the exception of copulative, alternative and disjunctive ones whereas in polysyndeton only resul- tative, final and comparative conjunctions of different degrees do not occur, while adversative, relative, conditional and concessive ones — so the only ones possible in both types of construction — change their function in polysyndeton into alternative, so that only copulative, al­ ternative and disjunctive functions can be considered as polysyndetic. In MEG on the other hand, the primary function of the conjunction remains unchanged 18 and it is only its specific semantic value that is neutralized so that it approaches the copulative function, as was observed

15 First draft of this chapter has been published in BPT J, X X I, 83—92. 16 Cf. Liddell-Scott, GEL, 1444. 17 If repeated SC in MEC are also joined by paratactical conjunction, then naturally we shall obtain the polysyndetic construction. 18 Here only a certain stylistic shade may be added, cf. W artb u rg -Z u m th o r, PSFC, 69. Indo-European Parataxis 4 on examination of adversative conjunctions in Ukrainian by G. Shevelov19, cf. MoSna Sality raba., .ale Syty z rabamy, ale postijno buty v oseredku jix i vkupi z п у ш у stremity do spiTnoji mety i pljaniv — nemoSlyvo 'One can have pity for a slave...but to live among them, but (= and) to be con­ stantly in their midst and at the same time to strive together with them to a common goal — is impossible9. Finally, MEG are generally sentence constructions whereas in polysyndeton word constituents occur more frequently also with primary hypotactical conjunctions. The phenomenon of “linking” appears only with copulative function. In Eussian linguistic tradition this has been termed “threading”. The phenomenon was first observed by F. Buslajev20 and recently it has been dealt with by G. Kaöevskaja21. The similar use of xou was given attention to in the Greek text of New Testament especially in the Gospel of St. John, with attempts to explain it by its Hebraic (Aramaic) original and by folk character of the text22. P. Kretschmer 23 compares it with attaching xod which often occurs in Modern Greek. J . Safarewicz 24, when describing the use of et at the beginning of a sentence, compares it with a similar use of conjunction in children’s speech. As we see “linking” is characteristic of a stylistically undeveloped language while polysyndeton of copulative conjunction appears mostly in literary texts. There are also other differences. In polysyndeton we generally find smaller units, often isomorphic ones, without a special semantic shade, whereas in “linking” greater units occur, not infrequently polymorphic and more loosely connected and the conjunction may have a special semantic value, e.g. deictic, additive, distinctive. Moreover, in polysyndeton various conjun­ ctions occur while “linking” is associated only with copulative function. Old Persian pasäva Oaubaruva Üvjiä aväja utä myamarda utä tyamëâm ma&iëtam agarbäya anaya abiy mäm utâëim adam aväjanam 'Thereupon G. smote and crushed the E ., and captured the chief of them; he led him to me, and I killed him9 (Kent, OP, 133,134), Hittite numukan ^UM.MA. dKAL-Land A. hinüber, und U. widerstand mir nicht und floh vor mir und ging übers Meer und blieb dort drinnen9 (Friedrich, H E, § 310, A), Armenian ew haneàl zosTeëaul śileaphoTe parann, ew ançeal orpës zarcui srathew dnd getn, ew jgeal zoskëaul śiTeaphole parann 'and he took a red-leather string with a gold ring and he flew over the river like a fast-winged eagle, and he threw it9 (Кусикьян, Очерки историчес­ кого синтаксиса армянского языка, 28), Greek èv аитф Çg>y) xal т) Çg)y) 9jv то cpœç T(ov àvOpcoTccùv ; xal то cpcoç èv ty) axoTia çaivei, zal Y) сгхотьа аито où хате- Xaßsv (Jo. I, 4—5), Latin Жоп idem, quod multa etiam п и п е ex vetere instituto bubus et ovibus dieitur, et quod aes antiquissimum quod est flatum pecore est notatum, et quod, mbs cum condita est, tauro et vacca qua essent muri et portae definitum, et quod... (TLL, V, 2, 900), Old French Savoir faisons que...et fut faite ladite baillée... et seront tenuz faire lesdiz prénoms.. .et ont promis lesdiz prénoms... et ne pourront lesdiz prénoms charger ... ее fut donné au Mans... (Antoine, CF, 628), Middle Welsh Pwyll Pendeuie Dyuet a oed yn arglwyd ar seith cantref Dyuet... a threigylgweith yd oed yn Arberth ...a dyuot yn y uryt... uynet y hela ...ac ef a gychwynnwys ...ac a doeth hyt yn Penn Llwyn Diarwya, ac yno y bu y nos honno 'P. prince of D. was lord of the seven cantref s of D. And once upon a time he was in A., and it came into his mind to go a-hunting. And he set out and came as far as P.L.D ., and there he was that night9 (Evans, A grammar of Middle Welsh, 230—231), Old Icelandic Siâan sigldi lïôrolfr г haf, ok byrjadi honum vel, ole fann landitj oh sigldi fyrir sunnan 'Then Th. went off to sea, and he had fair wind, and he found a land, and he sailed around it from the south9 (Стеблин- Каменский, Древнеисландский язык, 149), Polish I tatusiul I nas porwali, i wieźli na wielbłądach, i Gebhr mnie uderzył, i Staś mnie bronił, i przy­ jechaliśmy do Chartumu... 'And, Daddy! And they captured us, and carried us on camels, and G. struck me, and S. defended me, and we came to Ch.9 (Safarewicz, ibidem). Polysyndeton can be: primary, i.e. obligatorily bound with the func­ tion of a given conjunction and usually participating in its formation, and secondary, i.e. applied to already existing conjunction and modulat­ ing or changing its primary function. As primary polysyndetic we may consider the disjunctive conjunction, besides continuants of P IE *leve 'and9 and *ue 'or9 25 and certain alternative conjunctions. In all of them we can find secondary monosyndeton which generally does not change the function of conjunction. 25

25 Cf. more widely § 7. A. Copulative function When a copulative conjunction connects more than two constituents, it stands as a rule26 before the last one (more rarely after the first), whereas secondary polysyndeton serves as reinforcement of expression, e.g. Latin et de liospite, et de auro, et de lembo (TLL, V, 2 , 901), French et son père, et sa mère, et son frère, la famille au complet était là (Wartburg-Zumthor, PSFC, 67), German und es wallet, und siedet, und brauset, wntZ mcM (Paul, DG, III, 59), Polish I biegu przyśpiesza, г gna coraz prędzej, г dudni i stuka, łomoce i pędzi 'and it accelerates, and it spurs forward faster and faster, and rumbles, and batters, and thuds and rushes3 (Tuwim, Lokomotywa)27.

B. Alternative function Here bimembral polysyndeton is a frequent phenomenon. With certain conjunctions it is obligatory, and this has some connection with their ori­ ginal meaning 28 29. In combinations of more than two constituents, however, we can observe that the alternative function has a tendency to change into a copulative one as can be shown by the copulative conjunction which occasionally appears in a later (last) position, e.g. Polish (dialectal) Byw chwop. Maw jednego syna, chcâw go dać uëyc za kśęńdza albo za ekcecja- rusa i za rechtora 'There was a peasant. He had one son, he wanted him to be a priest or an official and (= or) a teacher3 (PSP, 35), Old Czech ktoS tu biese taky — leë bohat i chudy — vSaky jeho fed pokornu slySe 'Who­ ever was here whether he was rich and (= or) poor everyone was liste­ ning to his humble speech3 (Bauer, Slavia, XXIV, 396), Latin ficorum pirorum-ve et malorum (Stolz-Schmalz, LG5, 676). In the last example the copulative meaning of both the conjunctions is clear, similarly in combinations et...siue, ac...seu, siue... nec non etiam 29 and in Greek TS. . .7), 7). ..те 30. The change of alternative into copulative function in polysyndeton occurs in Avestan 31, Latin 32 and, as it seems, in Bengali33, e.g. Avestan a&râ vâéim baraitï mifiahvadâ va oroś л а с а vä vïdvâ vä ovïdvâ vä 'Da erhebt seine Stimme einer, des Sprüche die rechten, oder auch einer, des Sprüche die falschen sind, ein wissender oder auch ein nichtwissender3 (Bartholomae,

26 Continuants of PIE *kve and Modern Irish agus (§ 4.2.2) are an exception. 27 Cf. A. W ierzb ick a, SPR, 122— 127. 28 Cf. § 6.2.3.B. 29 Stolz-Schmalz, LGb, 676. 30 J. Denniston, GP, 514. 31 Bartholomae, AIW, 1308. 32 Stolz-Schmalz, LGb, 673—677; Hof mann-Szantyr, L8S, 500—504. 33 БРС, 234. AIW, 1308), Latin prndenter quod dicta loqui-ue tacere-ue posset (Stolz- Schmalz, LG3, 348); ue...uel, uel...siue, seu...uel, aut...seu, seu qui...seu qui, uel cum...aut cum (Stolz-Schmalz, LG5, 675— 7).

C. Disjunctive function

As it has already been mentioned the disjunctive conjunction is primary poly syndetic and this arises from repeated sentence negation or from its combination with copulative or alternative conjunction. The three follow­ ing kinds of combination can be distinguished here: (a) Immediate, polysyndetic, e.g. continuants of P IE *nehve.. .*netee, *neuë...*neuê, Polish ani...ani, etc. (b) At the distance, e.g. Old Indian na...vd, na...ca, na...api34, Latin ne...ue, n e...ant, n e...uel, n e ...et35 36, Gaelic cha...noz6, North Germanic (ne)hvdrrgi... ellar37, German weder... oder, noch... oder38, English neither ...o r 39 40, etc. (c) Mixed (a + b), e.g. Avestan nava...nöit*°, Greek où... oute, OU... oÙSé, OUTE... OÙ, où&é. . . où, OUTE... TE, TE... OUTE, ТЕ... OÙSe, ТЕ... (JL7)$E 41, Latin ne...neue, ne... aut ne, ne...neqtie, ne... et ne, nec...ue, neque.. .aut, neque... que, neque... et, neque... ac, et... neque, et... et non, et non... et42, Polish n ie...ani, etc. The nearing of both (i.e. copulative and alternative) conjunctions can be explained by attenuation of their primary function after negation (neutralization) which resembles de Morgan’s laws in logic (§2.4). Here some exceptions may occur, namely the combination of alterna­ tive conjunction with negation *ne-ue in Celtic and Anatolian does not fulfil — as might be expected — a disjunctive function but an alterna­ tive one. According to B. Thurneysen43 the alternative function origi­ nated in a negative clause by neutralization of negation, however, the originally disjunctive character.of *ne-ue in Celtic — as in Latin and Old Indo-Iranian — can be indicated by the use of other disjunctive con­ junctions in alternative function, namely continuants of P IE *ne-hve in

34 S. Speyer, 88, 320. 36 Stolz-Schmalz, LG\ 674. 36 M cL aren ’s, G8T, 165. 37 Falk-Torp, NDEW, 438. 38 J. Grimm, DW, VII, 876; 0. Behaghel, DS, III, 337—339. 38 NED, VI, 86. 40 W. Jackson, An Avesta grammar, Stuttgart 1892, I, 205. 41 J. Denniston, GP, 196— 197, 505—514. 42 Stolz-Schmalz, LG*, 663—664, 674, 692—693. 43 GOI, 551. Celtic44j Old Icelandic 45, and Old Romanic 46 (in the Obwald dialect of Rhaeto-Bomanic to this day). A similar change can be assumed for the Gypsy-Welsh conjunction am 'or’ which J . Sampson47 derives from Slavonic ani 'nor’. Historically in English48 and in Russian49, Ukra­ inian 50 and Lusatian51 * dialects the disjunctive conjunction may be used occasionally in an alternative function. In Polish, too, ni 'nor’ with deictic to oscillates towards alternative meaning, cf. the analo­ gous change in Ukrainian and Russian ne-to 62. The negation itself occurs in alternative function: facultatively, polysyndetically in Gaelic gan5*, and (?) Spanish no54 *; and also in monosyndeton in (?) Old Indian, Old Marathi5б, K ati56, Oriya 57 and Bengali58 na. Of non IE languages we may quote Kumyk ne...ne 'either... or, neither... nor’ 59, Balkar ne-da 'or’, cf. ne 'not’, da 'and, too’ 60, similarly Old Chinese fou* 'or’ 61 and Arabic 9am 'or’ 62 are negations by origin. Old Indian Tcdd vas ârtham ganta divâs na prthivyäs 'zu welchem Zwecke kommt ihr vom Himmel oder von der Erde?9 (Grassmann, WRV, 702), Bengali hayä §e nayä tumi 'either he or you’ (БРС, 484), Gypsy-Welsh an i9vena ani Jana pem% 'are they arriving or departing’ (Sampson, ibidem), Old Provençal e cel que los a mortz ni brizatz ni cruichitz ja no deu tenir terra 'wer sie getötet oder vernichtet oder zermalmt, soll kein Land haben’ (Meyér-Lübke, GRS, III, 249), Old French plus se fait fiers que leon ne leupart (Lérch, HFS, I, 81), Obwald sehe viess figl veng hauer il soleigl ne U luft 'wenn euer Sohn Sonne oder Luft bekommen wird’ (Meyer- Lübke, ibidem), Old Irish ni* frithalim-se rucai na-mmebuil 'I do not ex-

44 Cf. H. P ed ersen , VGK, II, 253—254, 323; R. Thurneysen, GOI, 540. 45 Cf. H. Lüning, Die Edda, Zürich 1859, 604; F. H olth au sen, WAN, 208. 46 Cf. W. Meyer-Lübke, GRS, III, 249—250. 47 The dialect of the Gypsies of Wales, Oxford 1926, 222. 48 Cf. NED, VI, 206, e.g. how... members sound nor unsound participiant each of other. 49 Cf. РД, 198. 60 Cf. Д. Лысенко, Славянская лексикография и лексикология, Москва 1966, 9. 61 Е. Muka, SDR, I, 154. 62 Gr. Shevelov, SMLÜ, 270; ГРЯ, II, 2, 245. 63 Cf. e.g. Heroic poetry, Edinburgh 1939, 8, 12, 124, 156. 64 О. Василева-Шведе, Г. Степанов, Грамматика испанского языка2, Москва 1963, 305 (Without examples!). 65 A. M aster, A grammar of Old Marathi, Oxford 1964, 159. 56 J. Bloch, L ’indo-aryen du Veda aux temps modernes, Paris 1934, 308. 57 Б. Карпушкин, ЯО, 81, 107. 68 R. Wagner, ВТ, 91, 107; БРС, 484. 69 А. Магомедов, ЯН СССР, II, 206. 60 М. Хабичев, ibidem, 228. 61 С. Яхонтов, Древнекитайский язык, Москва 1965, 77. 62 Н. R eck en d orf, Die syntaktischen Verhältnisse des Arabischen, Leiden 1895— 1898, pect shame or disgrace* (Thurneysen, GOI, 540), Old Gaelic Gidh bé ri thiosadh ann sin do-ghéabhadh Fólda i n-aisgidh, gan chath gan iorghail, gan agh gan iomghuin gan achmhusan 'Whatever king should then have come he could have taken Ireland right easily, without fight or strife or fray, without wounding, without quarrel* (Heroic poetry, 156, 157), Middle Welsh pan dycko beicJi na mawr na bychan uo 'when he .brings a load whether it be great or small* (Strachan, IEW , 133), Old Icelandic Hvat er pat alfa né asa sona né vissa vana% 'Wer der Elbe oder Äsen oder wissenden Vanen ist das?* (Lüning, ibidem), Polish Ni to chór potępieńcówj ni wycie stada psów, ni ryk dzikich zwierząt, ni grzmoty burzliwe rozchodziły się po pokoju 'sometimes like a chorus of the damned or the howling of pack of dogs or the roar of wild beasts or thunders of storm were heard in the room* (PSP, 63), Lower Lusatian bratś danië doma ńejo abo je chóry 'der Bruder ist entweder nicht zu Hause oder er ist krank* (Muka, SDK, I, 154), Kozak ne vymovyv i slova. Ne to buv pryholomSenyj, ne to prosto z nespodivanky zomliv 'The Cossak did not utter a word. Either he was stunned or he fainted* (Shevelov, ibidem), Bussian (dialectal) ни домой-то и д т и , ни не ходить 'either to go toward the house or not to go’ (РД, 198). A similar phenomenon can be observed at the change of disjunctive function — in polysyndeton and monosyndeton — into copulative one, which may be found in L atin 63, Old Bomanic64 and Celtic65, e.g. Latin imber, ш , pruina, glades nec fulgura nocent ( Hof mann-Szantyr, LSS, 517), Old Italian s’eu fui enfermo ne amalato (Bohlfs, HGIS, III, 53), Old French Joffrois li coisona mult durement, cornent ne en quel guise il avoit prise la terre (Meyer-Lübke, GBS, III, 246), Middle Breton na clevif na na santif guet an poanyou cref 'de sorte que je n’entende ni ne sente les grandes douleurs* (Pedersen, VKG, II, 253), Middle Welsh meibon a dynyon didraha ny ellynt п а е ny wedei udunt п а е ymlad na ryfelu 'Kinder und mut­ lose [Menschen, die nicht konnten und denen es nicht passte weder zu kämpfen noch zu kriegen* (ibidem), Cornish ellas pan...na pan... na pan 'ach dass... und dass...und dass* (ibidem, 254).

D. Adversative function

An adversative conjunction in polysyndeton changes its function into alternative66, as can be seen in Lower Lusatian pak 'but*67, Slovene

63 Cf. E. Löfstedt, Syntactica, I, 271; Hofmann-Szantyr, LSS, 517. 64 Cf. W. Meyer-Lübke, GBS, III, 246—247. 66 Cf. H. P ed ersen , VGE, II, 253—254. 66 S. Dik, Coordination, 48—49, has recently pointed to binary character of ad­ versative connections. 67 E. Muka, SDB, II, 10. dialectal anoboj 'however9 68 as well as in Upper Lusatian zaś ‘again9 69, and Sanskrit punar ‘‘again9 70 which are primarily not conjunctions but adverbs. We can also mention here use of Hittite nu 'and, but9 71 and Greek àXXà (in protest or refusal) in so-called double question 68 69707172, where usually alternative conjunction occurs. Of non IE parallels we may quote Telugu -käni (-gäni) 73 and Malayalam enkilum 74. Hittite BAL andurza kuiśki DtJ-iazi...nu BAL arahza ma kuiśki DÙ-яг 'Macht im Innern jemand Aufruhr?.. .Oder macht ausserhalb jemand Aufruhr?9 (Friedrich, HE, § 291, B), Greek TcoTEpov fjTouv tl cts z a l sttsl jxdl oux eSlSouç stuociov ; àXX9 aTryjTouv ; àXXà 7repl TraiSix&v (j.axó(j.£Voę ; àXXà (jls& ucov етгарфу/)ста (Fraenkel, ibidem), Lower Lusatian pak daj swoje peńeze, pak dejś humreś 'entweder gib dein Geld oder du musst sterben9 (Muka, SDB, II, 10), Upper Lusatian zas hasnje zas mièkri so wohen 'the fire now dims, now flares up9 (Liebsch, LS, 179).

E. Relative function The change of relative function to alternative in polysyndeton is a frequent phenomenon in IE and other languages, e.g. in Livonian voi, kas 75 76. We find it, among others, in Hittite man 'als, wie9 76, Greek eÏ( t e ) 77, Spanish cuando 78 79, Old Irish in 'in which9 79, German ob 80 8182, Slavonic li, ci 'whether9 81, Bulgarian к о д а 'when9 82. This change should be assumed for all alternative conjunctions originating from relative-interrogative ones (§ 6.2.3.B.i). Hittite nu IUrhi — dU-paś к и й apiia nan punuś man kiśan man TJL kiśan 'Da nun U. T. dort (ist), so frage ihn, ob es so (oder) ob es nicht so (ist)9 (Friedrich, HE, § 335), Greek sßouXsuovTo, e it e хатахаистсостм... e it e Ti aXXo x p V WVTaŁ (Schwyzer, GG, II, 630), Old Irish rm-bem im-bethu, i'm-bem i m-baaSj bad les-som 'whether we be in life or in death, let it

68 A. W olf, M. P letersn ik , Slovensko-nemski slovar, Ljubljana 1894— 1895, I, 5. 69 Gr. L ieb sch , LS, 179. 70 Stchoupak- N itti-Renou, Dictionnaire sanskrit-français, Paris 1931— 1932, 438. 71 J. Friedrich, HE, § 291, B. 72 E. Fraenkel, Giotta, IV, 47—49; IF, XXVIII, 239. 73 3. Петруничева, ЯТ, 87. 74 Ч. Секхар, Ю. Глазов, Язык малаялам, Москва 1961, 78. 76 L. Kettunen, Livisches Wörterbuch, Helsinki 1938, 108, 447, 464, 475, 481, 502. 76 J. Friedrich, HE, § 335. 77 E. Schwyzer, GG, II, 630. 78 J. Bouzet, Grammaire espagnole, Paris 1946, 412. 79 B. Thurneysen, GOI, 562. 80 H. P au l, DG, IV, 279. 81 Cf. for Polish PSP, 46— 47, 49— 51. 82 К. Мирчев, ИГРЕ, 232. be with him3 (Thurneysen, GOI, 562), German Er liest es jedem froh und laut, ob es uns quält, ob es erbaut (Paul, DG, IV, 279), Bulgarian т о й ч е с т о сеопитваше да сьчинява малки песнички кога весели кога тъжни 'häufig versuchte er kleine Lieder zu dichten, teils fröhliche, teils traurige5 (Мир- чев, ibidem). F. Conditional function The conditional function is near the relative one so that the same conjunction often occurs in both simultaneously, as Greek el, Latin si, German ob, Polish jak. Thus the polysyndetic change of conditional con­ junction into an alternative one is clear and can be found in Old Indian yadi83 84, Persian ägär M, Hittite takku 85, Armenian (e)the 86, Greek èàvте 87, Latin si 88, Old Lithuanian jei 89 9091929394, Old Polish jeśli " , Old Church Slavonic aśte91 and besides IE in Akkadian èumma 92, Arabic Ч п , Ч т т а 93, Luganda oba M, Livonian ja 95 etc. Also immediate combination of both conjunc­ tions has been attested in Old Indian yadi-vd, Latin si-ue, Old Church Slavonic aéte-li. Old Indian yadi kale yady anäkäle 'que ce soit de saison ou hors de saison5 (Minard, SPV, 157), Armenian Unici inj ordi ew ethe çliniçi 'wird mir ein Sohn werden oder nicht werden?5 (Jensen, AG, 193), Greek èàvTe $PX

5.2. ELLIPSIS

5.2.0. Ellipsis consists in the facultative omission of an element of some construction — which occurs also in its full shape — within a given utterance110, whereas the obligatory omission forms a newer structure and from the descriptive point of view it is not an ellipsis. Thus conceived ellipsis does not embrace all phenomena which are sometimes ascribed

В. Белошацкова, СПРЯ, 62, 76. This distinction, however, does not agree with the division into co-ordination and subordination (or P and H). 107 Wortbildung und Wortbedeutung, 14, 81— 84. 108 Cf. the replacement of alternative by copulative conjunction in further position as semantic change of conjunctions in MEC. 109 LG*, 348; LG6, 674. Cf. also monosyndetical use of Latin ue, uel,

5.2.1. Morphological ellipsis

In standard flexional languages the suffixes and endings are so strictly associated with their stems that they cannot be omitted in repetition. The case is not the same in agglutinative languages where this associa­ tion is looser and “syntactic suffixes” preserve their semantic (lack of cumulation of function) and morphological autonomy, thanks to which they need not be repeated with each stem (to which they refer). From the descriptive point of view this phenomenon may be defined as mor­ phological ellipsis although historically it is a residue of the original full meaning and nothing has been omitted here. Similar is the case in certain languages in which the connective elements — functionally corresponding with flexional endings — refer to groups of morphemes, as words do not exist there. To such groups belong among others: the combination of adjective with substantive and the combinations of co-ordinate substantives, adjectives and verbs which may have only one common ending, usually following the last member of group 111. This phenomenon can be observed on a large scale in Uralo-Altaic, Caucasian, Basque, Tibetan, Dravidian, Indonesian, Palaeo-Asiatic, Semitic, African and American Indian lan­ guages 112.

111 Cf. Б. Успенский, Структурная типология языков, Москва 1965, §2—4. 112 E.g. Hungarian török s tatar-tôt mety titeTcet védett, magyar kezekben villogotta kard 4he sword(s) that defended you against Turks and Tatars, flashed in Hungarian hands* In IE this kind of construction has been attested in the Germanic, Indo-Iranian and Tokharian languages. Besides, one uncertain example for omission of suffix in Late Latin has been found113. In Germanic we find it in English114 and Danish115 with genitive 's and historically (X III—XV III c.) in German116 with various endings and suffixes repre­ senting the original members of composita, which can be subject to el­ lipsis to this day. Moreover, the ellipsis of the repeated — usually the main member of composita — can be found in other IE languages (e.g. Polish, Avestan, Old Indian). In the Tokharian language, which under the influence of a substratum has changed its structure from flexional to agglutinative, the ellipsis of repeated morphological elements is a frequent phenomenon 117. Similar is the case in Modern Indo-Iranian languages which either are analytic or tend towards agglutination. This kind of construction has been attested already in Middle Indo-Iranian (namely in P ali118 and Sogdian 119) and the earliest examples originate from the Vedic texts 12°. Although attempts have been made to explain it by independent evolution, external influence seems to be probable here121. (i) Endings. Tokharian A Jculclas yuhas onkälmäs-yo "mit Wagen, Pferden und Elefanten3 (Krause, KZ, LXIX, 186), Tokharian В sarm о к о -ne 'in Ursache und Wirkung3 (ibidem, 187), Old Indian devd a mârtye-sv a "bei Göttern und bei Menschen3 (Wackernagel, AIG, I, XV II), Mitrd Varunä-bhyäm (Bartholomae, KZ, XXIX, 583), Hindi Räm, Krsna am Gopäl-ne galtl kl 'B . K. and G. made a mistake3 (Чернышев, СППХ, 129), Oriya tebula upare bahi, Tchätä, pensila kalama-gurika achanti 'there are

(Collinder, ITJL, 56), Finnish luku- ja Mrjoitustaito fdie Lese- und Schreibkunst’ (Peters-Heikkinen, 30 Stunden Finnischu, Berlin 1969, X I), Estonian taimede ja lindude-le 'to the plants and the birds’ (Collinder, ITJL, 57), Ostyac turum jigem, turum ankem-a 'to my heavenly father, to my heavenly mother’ (ibidem, 57), Buriat x o h u яма ухэрнуудые туужа асарба 'he drove up goats, sheep and bulls’ (Бертагаев, ЯН СССР, V, 30), Turkish ben de korka korka ycminda gidiyor ve susuyor-dmm T was walking beside her timid and silent’ (Кононов, /Т Я , 431), Tamil katal katal enpavai- ka\in alai-kal 'Meer, Liebe, dieser (genannten Dinge) Wellen’ (B eyth an , Grammatik der Tamilsprache, Leipzig 1943, 189), Quiche k-at-petik kJamari kotsi'x 'you are coming (and) bringing sacrifical gifts’ (Milewski, B PT J, X III, 118). 113 Cf. M. N iederm ann, Festgabe H. Blümner, Zurich 1914, 333—334. 114 Cf. E. Einenkel, Geschichte der englischen Sprache3, Strassburg 1916, 50. 116 Cf. W. Krause, KZ, LXIX, 187. 116 Cf. W. Steglich, ZDW, III, 1—52; H. Paul, DG, IV, 360—362. 117 Cf. W. K rause, ibidem 186—187; Sieg-Siegling-Schulze, TG, 205—228. 118 Cf. H. Oldenberg, KZ, XXV, 318. 118 Cf. I. Gershevitch, GMS, 236—237. 120 Cf. J. Wackernagel, AIG, I, XV II. 121 Cf. W. K rau se, ibidem, 188. copy-books, pencils and pens on the table* (Карпушкин, ЯО, 28), Sog- dian ßyjtrt Ч у stßtrt-* "most wicked and cruel* (Gershevitch, GMS, 237), Modern Persian ketab-o dafter-o qalam-e Hasan le livre, le cahier et la plumé de H .’ (Lazard, GPC, 62), Ossetic fala mad ämä fid-äi nä râigurdï raber von Vater und Mutter ward er nicht geboren* (Stackeiberg, Bei­ träge zur Syntax des Ossetischen, 68), Middle English for syr Gye and Harrowdes sake (Einenkel, ibidem, 50), Modern English well born by father and mother's side (ibidem), Danish Far og M ors Bryllupsdag "Vaters und Mutters Hochzeitstag* (Krause, ibidem, 187), Middle High German wî$ und swarz-er varwe ër schein (Paul, DG, IV, 360), Modern German den Gut und Bös-en, mit senkrecht oder schräg-er Strahlung, kein stark'noch schwach-er (ibidem, 361), nicht pflantz noch pfleg-en (Steglich, ZDW, III, 8), (ii) Su ffixes. Hindi bhavita tathä prem-pürvaka "with reverence and love’, jala athavä thalamaya-pradesa "wet or dry ground’ (Гуру, ГХ, II, 399), Latin (?) portati vel ex contusione (Niedermann, ibidem), Modern High German die einhell vnnd ein-igkeit (Steglich, ibidem, 9), des Christ- und HeidenthumbSj Männ oder Weib-liches (Paul, DG, IV, 362)r nicht allein Kund sondern auch gar Brüderschaft (Steglich, ibidem, 9), (iii) Members of composita. Tokharian A wäst-, tri-, stwar-wäknä "auf zwei, drei, vier Arten’ (Sieg-Siegling-Schulze, TG, 232), Old Indian pa- tayan- mandayat-sakham "den Freund erheiternd und beflügelnd* (Wacker­ nagel, AIG, II, 1, 30), Avestan vdrozi-ëaémanô -sroai&rïS "die scharf sehen­ den und -hörenden* (Bartholomae, IF , X I, 114), German Seelen-oder körperliche Krankheit, mit dem Frziehungs- und wissenschaftlichen Wesen (Paul, DG, IV, 388), Polish mało- i wielkopolski "Little- and Great-Polish*.

5.2.2. Syntactic ellipsis 122

Syntactic ellipsis consists in the omission of a word which belongs to both (all) constituents of an utterance connected by conjunction or asyndeton. This word (A) may have an accessory-grammatical function or (B) it may constitute the main member of a word group; more rarely (C) omission of a word group takes place.

A. Accessory element The ellipsis of an accessory-grammatical element in IB and other languages is a frequent phenomenon. The following may be omitted: (i) preposition, (ii) preverb, (iii) article, (v) personal pronoun, (vi) auxiliary verb, (vii) modal particle and (iv) other elements. Some of these are in

122 First draft of this chapter has been published in BPT J, X X IV , 163— 171. close relation with the determined word, resembling endings and suffixes in agglutinative languages; they preserve, however, a greater autonomy (tmesis, possibility of transposition) and they are omitted — like other syntactic elements — immediately following the conjunction. (i) P rep o sitio n . The omission of a repeated preposition has often been observed. This phenomenon usually occurs in connections of words which are semantically near to one another or those which make complete sense123. As was pointed out by A. PeSkovskij124 * ellipsis becomes easier in immediate connections. For the most part it appears in colloquial and less refined language126. Linguistic norms usually demand the re­ petition of the preposition. Ellipsis most often occurs with a copulative conjunction, more rarely — with an adversative one. On the basis of pre­ vious investigations not much can be said on the extension of this con­ struction in IE languages. In Armenian126 and in L atin 127 the repetition of the preposition is a general rule. For the Greek language E. Schwy- zer128 states that the preposition with each word “der ältere Sprachge­ brauch war; in jüngerer Zeit wurde er als nachdrücklich empfunden oder dient er der Deutlichkeit”. A similar phenomenon has been noticed by O. Behangel129 in German. Also in the historical development of Polish 130 and other Slavonic languages131 we can observe a tendency to omission of the preposition. A contrary tendency has been stated by J . Gagnepain 132 for Old Irish. Similarly in French the now almost regular repetition of de, à, en, is a feature which seems to be a result of their full grammaticaliza- tion, whereas in the historical epoch like other prepositions they could stand with the first word133. In the diachronical aspect the repetition of prepositions, which are by origin adverbs, is a secondary phenomenon» Together with grammaticalization and disappearance of semantic auto­ nomy a tendency arose to put a preposition with each word to which it refers — not only in conjunctional constructions 134 * — as is the case with

123 Cf. Kühner-Gerth, GG, I, 548; M. Grevisse, BU, 848—852; Wartburg- Zum thor, PSFG, 377; А. Пешковский, PC, 401. 124 Ibidem. 126 Cf. Hofmann-Szantyr, L 8 8 , 217. 126 H. Jen sen , AG, 183. 127 Hofmann-Szantyr, LSS, 217; J. Wackernagel, VS, II, 202. 128 GG, II, 433. 129 D8, III, 399—401. m p 8Pf 11— 12, 18. 181 Cf. for Old Russian, А. Шахматов, Исследование о двинских грамотах, СПб. 1903г 139— 140. 182 8NVLC, I, 106. 188 Cf. М. G revisse, BTJ, 852. 184 Cf. E. Fraenkel, MSL, XIX, 42—48. other grammatical elements, whereas a tendency to omit the preposition is here a secondary phenomenon. It seems that in colloquial language the repetition of prepositions has never been in common usage136. This applies mainly to the continuants of PIE *nter 'between3, which usually stand only with the first substantive, similarly to their newer semantic equivalents 136 this is a result of the meaning of these prepositions. By its original adverbial character (also partly by stylistic reasons) 137 the rare use of preposition with the second constituent only can be explained, as in Greek т) àXoç Ą ml y9)ç (Wackernagel, ibidem; Baehrens, Giotta, IX, 178—182). Latin cur non exilium malas-que in oras itis (ibidem), Lithuanian malanes ir sussi- müima-p '(zur) Gnade und zur Erbarmung3 (Fraenkel, SLP, 22). The ellipsis comprises both repeated prepositions and postpositions, e.g. in Lithuanian. Old Indian âcchâ pitâram mdtaram-ca 'to father and mother3 (Mac- donell, GIAP, I, 4, 416), Middle Persian apar man и tö 'over me and you3 (Расторгуева, СПЯ, 120), Greek (after Homer) Xoyouç t z o iz ïg & cli тгерь tou Sizaiou xai àpeTïjç; y] Tuepl Méyapa r\ B o k o to uç; ou^ utto voctou où8k tcov toioutcùv; àyeiv 8k à[xetvov Taç xuvaç się та орт), та 8k êpya $)ttov (Küh- ner-Gerth, GG, I, 549), Latin sunt quae non possunt vivere nisi in loco aquoso aut etiam aqua; in viris et mulieribus idem periculum non est (Hofmann-Szantyr, L8S, 217, 273), Oscan anter tiurri X II ini veru sarinu 'inter turrim XII et portam Sarinam3 (Planta, GOUD, II, 503), French Il se mit à aller et venir, École des arts et métiers (Grevisse, BU, 848), après quatre ou cinq essais infructueux (Wartburg-Zumthor, PSFC, 377), Old Irish im-moth 7 machthad 'in stupor and admiration3 (cf. Gagnépain, SNVLC, 106), Welsh gofynnodd amfwyd a diod 'he asked for food and drink3 (Vinay-Thomas, The Basic of Welsh, 90), Gothic т г р agisa jah reiron '(лета cpoßou xal тропой3 (Behaghel, D8, III, 399), Old Icelandic of selfarar ok beiter 'concerning the keeping of cattle at a mountain shed and pastu­ rage3 (Blaisdell, Preposition-adverbs in Old Icelandic, 54), German mit Furcht und Hoffnung (cf. Paul, PS, 314), Lithuanian gaspadînâ mäsos stukû dëjo tarbö-n ir jaëëûkû 'Ein Stück Fleisch des Herrn hat er in die Tasche und Kasten eingesteckt3 (Fraenkel, SLP, 6), Latvian ir ar naSa un klat 'er ist mit Brot und Messer da3 (Endzelin, Латышстя предлоги, I, 50), Polish ludzie z krwi i kości 'people of blood and bone3, bądź z szlachcicem, bądź duchownym 'either with a nobleman or a clergyman3 (PSP, 18, 43),

136 Cf. e.g. in Plautus et 33 (ellipsis)— 15 (preposition repeated), que 11 — 5 (ac­ cording to G. L od ge’s, Lexicon Plautinum, Berlin—Leipzig 1905— 1934). 136 Cf. for Polish J. Łoś, Krótka gramatyka historyczna języka polskiego, Lwów 1927, 336; J. Safarew icz, JP , X L III, 160— 161. 137 In the Biblical texts J. W ack ern ag el, VS, II, 202—204, sees here Hebrew influence. Czech V Praze a Brnë "in P. and B.9 (Trâvnicek, MSÖ, II, 1244), Slovak V zdravi a St'asti 'in health and happiness9 (Oravec, Slovénskâ Вес, X X V I, 158), Bussian no рощам и лугам 'about bushes and meadows9 (Пешковский, PC, 401), Bulgarian казвам на майка-та и дете-то 'I speak to the mother and the child9 (В. Попова, oral information). (ii) P rev erb . Verbal prefixes, too, being in origin adverbs, when they preserve formal independence (accent, tmesis, transposition) can stand only with the first verb, e.g. Old Indian sam.. .mârjmi, didhisämi.. .dddhämi 'I cleanse, collect, give together9 (Benou, GLV, 322), Greek tcocvtcov pie- TocGX

138 Cf. also P. Ju n gm an n , Revue des Études Arméniennes, I, 47— 99; II, 43— 116. 188 Cf. also J. M orris-Jones, WS, 12. 140 Calque from the Greek original, as the postpositive pronoun in Slavonic is not the actual article but the main member of the compound adjective and therefore it is omitted after conjunction, as in the Russian сыр, высокий дуб 'grim (and) high oak’, б л е д н о j з е л е н о е ... н е б о 'pale (and) green sky’ (Keller, AB8, 32). 141 Cf. also E. Lew y, ZCP, X X V II, 10— 13. Indo-European Parataxis (v) Pronoun. The ellipsis of the repeated pronoun which composes finite forms of the verb in Modern Eomanic and Germanic languages is a common phenomenon, cf. French il écrit et pense, English he writes and thinks, German er schreibt und denkt. Similar is the case with Old Prus­ sian -ts (demonstrative by origin) contracted with the verb: dinkau-ts bhe limau-ts, bhe dai "(er) danket und brachs und gabs’ (Trautmann, APS, 49, 274), as well as with the relative pronoun in Old Irish (incorporated): inti charas nech 7 fortét "celui qui aime et (qui) aide quelqu’un’ (Vendryes, GVT, 343) and sporadically in Latin at quibus longior mora est...aut etiam proprios cursus agunt (TLL, II, 1565) 142. Also the Polish reflexive and impersonal się is not repeated: pisze się i mówi (cf. PSP, 12, 18), similarly German man schreibt und spricht. (vi) A u x ilia ry verb. The auxiliary verb occurring in periphrastical formations usually is not repeated, cf. French j'aurai parlé et écrit, English I shall talk and write, German ich werde sprechen und schreiben, Polish będę mówił i pisał, even when it is contracted with the base-verb, as e. g. the movable ending of the past tense in Polish: odtąd nie czuliśmy... i nie my­ śleli nic "since then we have not felt and not thought anything’ (Decaux, МЕР, 30). Ellipsis of the copula, however, is a rare phenomenon, e.g. Hittite nuuaza damêdaza K U Il-eza kûrur e§ ammëtazamauazakan KUB- eza arha lê kûrur "nun sei von einem anderen Lande aus feindlich, von meinem Lande aus aber (sei) nicht feindlich’ (Friedrich, H E, § 212, B), Old Irish letlian dóib ar thus in drochet, cóel 7 cumung fó deóid "at the begin­ ning the bridge is wide for them, at the end narrow and strait’ (Thur- neysen, GOI, 548), Polish tuż myśliwców herbowe klejnoty wyryte. I stoi wypisany każdy po imieniu "here hunter’s armorial bearings (are) carved and the name of each of them stands here written upon’ (PSP 19), Russian они, оказалось> Казаки но между ними были и Башкирцы "They (were), as it ap­ peared, Cossacks but there were also Bashkhirs among them’ (Шахматов, Синтаксис русского языка, 238). (vii) M odal p a rticle . In the Polish language the repeated conditional formant -by may occasionally be omitted: gdybyś był rozsądny, tobyś nie urządzał tragedii i nie chodził jak z krzyża zdjęty "if you were wise you would not make a tragedy of this and (you would) not walk about more dead than alive’ (PSP, 1 8 )143; similarly <£v and xe(v) in Greek: out’ocv o5to<; îjpi

142 Sometimes the repeating relative pronoun can be replaced in further position by the deictic or anaphoric ones; e.g. in Avestan (H. R eich elt, AE, 369—370), Latin (Hofmann-Szantyr, LSS, 565— 566), Romanic and English (0. Jesp ersen , MEG, III, 105). 143 On similar constructions in other Slavonic languages and in Lithuanian cf. E.Fraenkel, IF, XLIII, 314. Xéyetv 0 0 У 1>[A£LÇ 7T£(T&£17)T£ ; TGV X£V ayOL^JL1 £7UL VTjOÇ, 6 S’ ÖfJUV (JLUplOV (bvOV àXÇpOL ( Kühner-Gerth, GG, I, 248— 249). Also in Old Icelandic the infinitive particle at need not be repeated: lion œtlafje at hitta fqjjor sinn ok spyria kann 'sie dachte ihren Vater auszusuchen und ihn (zu) fragen5 (Heusler, AIE, 134). The same phenomenon can be observed with the English to, e.g. to go and see.

B. Main element Ellipsis of the main member of a word group is a far more infrequent phenomenon, occurring — as in composita (§ 5.2.1) — before conjunction, e.g. Greek àp-tpl 8ł xuavéyjv xAttetov, тс£р1 8’epxoç eXocgctev xaaaiTEpou (Wacker - nagel, VS, II, 176), Latin uls et eis Tiberim (Hofmann-Szantyr, LSS, 217), French c'est par et en elle que j'ai trouvé la joie ( Wartburg-Zumthor, PSFC, 377), German mit, durch und für diesen Beruf; aus oder für den Gebrauch der Poeten (Paul, DG, IV, 55), Polish za i przed domem 'behind and in front of the house5. Ellipsis after the conjunction can be explained by its originally ad­ verbial character or by logical stress 144. Of course from the historical point of view there was no ellipsis, e.g. Greek ino piv £&av£ 6 атрату)уо<;, атго 8ł aXXoi tuoXXol (Wackernagel, VS, II, 177), Latin aut intra muros aut extra (Hofmann-Szantyr, LSS, 217), Latvian sader miezis ar apini, sa zâlïte ar äbuolu 'zusammen passt die Gerste mit dem Hopfen, zusammen das Gras mit dem Klee5 (Endzelin, LG, 480). Also before conjunction the personal pronoun (1st, 2nd and 3rd person) can be omitted in Old Indian, Avestan and Old Irish. The caique of this construction quoted by H. Zimmer 145 in Middle Latin, shows its vitality in the Old Irish, e.g. Old Indian d yad ruhdva Varunas-ca ndvam 'wenn wir beide besteigen, (ich) und V. das Schiff (Delbrück, VS, III, 256), Avestan hyat va akä manavhä у э п д daëvông akas-öä mainyuś akä Syaoÿanom vaëavhâ yâ fraëinas drdgvantdm 'welches Tun (er) und der böse Geist samt bösem Denken und bösem Reden euch, die D., was er den D. Genossen gelehrt hat5 (Reichelt, AE, 353), Middle Latin in illo autem die ante vespe- rum venit Pintanus ad consilium, et salutaverunt se invicem et Lasserianus (Zimmer, ibidem), Old Irish conrancatar 7 Dubthach '(er) und D. trafen zusammen5 (Pedersen, VGK, II, 138). A similar ellipsis of pronoun (more rarely of substantive) usually in the dual can be seen in — conjunctional, prepositional, asyndetic — connection with one of the substantives indicated by this pronoun. This construction (with different variants) has been attested in most IE languages: with *146

144 A simüar phenomenon can be found in Hungarian with preverbs. 146 KZ, X X X II, 155. copulative conjunction in Old Indian, Greek, Old Irish and Frisian; asyn- detically mostly in Old Germanic, occasionally also in other languages 146, e.g. Old Indian Mitrd V arunas-ca (Sittig, KZ, L, 60) 147 148, Greek Ne[/ioci 8è xal àfjLçpoiv Iluüiou ts; AïavTe Teuxpôv те (ibidem, 58, 60), Old Irish scith limm comrac düib 7 Cuchulaind 'lästig ist mir Kampf für dich und C.5 (Pedersen, VGK, II, 138), Old English vit Scilling song ähöfon 'wir beide (ich und) S. erhoben Sang5 (Delbrück, VS, III, 257), Old Icelandic sätud it Völundr saman г hölmi 'sasset ihr beide (du und) V. zusammen auf dem Hügel?5 (ibidem), Old High German (?) wig Hiltiprant 'wir (ich und) H.5148, Frisian wat en min TVüf wel Injung tö Komeedi 'wir beide, d. i. ich und mein Weib, wollen heute abend zu Komödie5 (Hermann, KZ, L, 132), French nous deux Paul, nous deux le professeur (Edgerton, KZ, XLIV, 23). It has not yet been possible to explain the genesis of both kinds of ellipsis of the pronoun. It is hardly probable — owing to its rare occur­ rence in full shape — that actual ellipsis took place here. For connections with a verb the contamination 149 or equivalence of verbal endings to per­ sonal pronouns 150 * was assumed. In construction with elliptical dual the substantive is treated as apposition. Here, too, the possibility of contami­ nation should be taken into consideration ш.

C. Set of elements The above described connections do not exhaust all possibilities of syntactic ellipsis in paratactical constructions. Here we can find amongst others the replacement of the whole constituent by an element which can distinguish it from the preceding one162. In alternative construction this may be negation, which sporadically can be also omitted. Old Indian pratisthëti brüyäd vä 'er sagte P. oder (auch nicht)5 (Del­ brück, VS, II, 517), Hindi usne tumhem buläyä thä yä nahim% 'did he call you or not5 (Гуру, ГХ, II, 398), Avestan äfS narem jainti vä 'tötet Wasser den Menschen oder (nicht)5 (Delbrück, ibidem), Greek (txôttei, eî tri fiivet 7](juv y) ou (Kühner-Gerth, GG, II, 191), English Did be say that or did he not

146 Cf. B. Delbrück, VS, III, 257; H. Zimmer, ibidem, 153—157; F. Edgerton, KZ, XLIV, 23—25; E. Sittig, KZ, L, 56—65; E. Hermann, KZ, L, 130—138; W. Krause, KZ, LII, 223—249; J. Pokorny, ZCP, XV, 384—386. 147 On conjunctional connections of substantives both being in elliptical dual cf. Oh. Bartholomae, BB, X, 268. 148 Cf. E. Sittig, KZ, L, 58; W. Krause, KZ, LII, 236. 148 B. Delbrück, VS, III, 256. 150 H. P ed ersen , ibidem. 161 Cf. note 145, especially W. K rau se, op. cit. ш Which in this case may be treated as the semantically main member. (Jespersen, MEG, V, 480), Latvian vai näksi mi% 'wirst du kommen oder (nicht)9 (Endzelin, LG, 812), Polish pójdziesz czy nie% 'will you go or not9.

Both morphological and syntactic ellipsis — owing to their well- defined character and the formal modification of one of the connected constituents (which in this form cannot occur in another position) — can be called grammatical ellipsis and reduced to the following rule: before the conjunction a main member is omitted, after it — an accessory member, whereas endings and suffixes take the position of the main mem­ ber, as was already observed by Rozwadowski153. It seems that such configuration of ellipsis is correlated (in inverse proportion) to the order determinans — determinatum in IE languages 154, i.e. the main member “postponed” after a conjunction and the accessory member “preponed” before it do not undergo ellipsis.

5.2.3. Other kinds of ellipsis

Other kinds of ellipsis which can be found in paratactical constructions do not show such regularity. The relation between the reduced form and the full one is loose, the latter being usually stylistically marked and serving to enhance and complete. Stylistic ellipsis, sometimes termed “constriction”, consists in the single use of a word (clause) referring to several other words (clauses), e. g. one verb or one adjective with more substantives; one adverb or one sub­ stantive with more adjectives or verbs, etc. The position of the omitted constituent is not strictly determined as it is in morphological and syn­ tactic ellipsis. Both from the historical and descriptive point of view this is a normal construction, whereas the repetition of constituents serves to emphasize, as e.g. in Latin: tanto consilio, tanta-que animi magnitudine155. Thus conceived stylistic ellipsis allows in the last instance the reduction of conjunctional word connections to sentence connections; this, in turn, resembles the logistic principle of priority of propositional calcu­ lus 156, cf. in this respect the so-called generalized transformations in the generative grammar, such as he and I will come he will come and I will come 157, which may be termed the logical ellipsis.

153 Wortbildung und Wortbedeutung, 9. 154 With a similar sequence of members we have to do in Uralo-Altaic languages which is essential for morphological ellipsis. 156 Hofmann-Szantyr, L 88, 444; for Welsh: W. S purreil, GWL, 132; for Hindi: Гуру, ГХ, II, 469—473. 156 Cf. above § 2.4. 167 Z. Harris, Language, XXXIII, 283—340. Finally, semantic ellipsis, i.e. the omission of meaning, which takes place when — owing to the impossibility of formal ellipsis — the repeated nominal constituents are replaced by the relative or anaphoric pronoun. In some languages there are also relevant auxiliary verbs which replace the full-meaning verb while preserving its grammatical structure, cf. the English John arrives and so do I ; John has arrived and so have J ; John can arrive and so can J, etc. Which was pointed out by N. Chomsky158 in respec­ tive transformations.

5.3. ANACOLUTHON

The combination of constituents of different structure which in stylistics is sometimes termed anacoluthon 159, can be — omitting from consideration an occasional or individual combination — reduced to four basic types of construction: (1) nominal, (2) verbal, (3) sentence, (4) word— sentence. Within these constructions we can distinguish: commonplace combina­ tions (frequent) — having little differentiated formal structure of consti­ tuents, and characteristic combinations (rare) — with constituents having a more differentiated structures, which will be more widely discussed below.

5.3.1. Nominal constructions

Paratactical conjunctions especially the copulative one can be used in (A) prepositional or (B) comparative constructions and also in (C) connec­ tions of various cases. Of these only the last one may be considered as co-or­ dinate while in the remaining ones constituents of different functions occur and the paratactical conjunction appears here as a result of conta­ mination of co-ordinate and subordinate word connections.

A. Prepositional constructions 160

In prepositional constructions only the copulative conjunction occurs, namely in combination with (i) sociative, (ii) additive and more rarely with (iii) another type of preposition. (i) S o cia tiv e . In combination with a sociative preposition the copu­ lative conjunction occurs in Greek, Latin, Old French, Rumanian and

158 Syntactic structures, The Hague 1957, § 7.1. 159 Cf. Schw yzer, GG, II, 704—705. 160 First draft of this chapter has been published in RS, X X V III, 21—25. Balto-Slavonic; in the German language in a similar role the enhancing auch (semantically close to the copulative conjunction) has been attestediei. The use of the copulative conjunction with the sociative preposition in the Slavonic languages has been discussed by J . Łoś 162,161 E. Hermann 163 and also by E. Fraenkel164 who quoted the Baltic parallels. In Slavonic this construction has occurred historically from the earliest times in Russian, Ukrainian, Serbo-Croatian, Czech and Polish; in the last two languages it was attested until the nineteenth century. In the Baltic area this construction occurs in Lithuanian (historically and in dialects). The existence of a similar construction in proto-Latvian seems to be indicated by J. Endzelin’s 165 166 hypothesis that the sociative meaning of ar "with5 has arisen from 'and, also, too3166 by means of pleonastic socia­ tive instrumental such as: tevs dęlu gaja X tevs ar dels gäja -*tevs ar dein gaja 'der Vater ging mit dem Sohne3, as can be proved by sporadic examples of attraction of the instrumental to the case which precedes ar, similarly to the construction with the copulative conjunction, cf. e.g. dziejwoja jauns kienincz pi tawa ar motis 'es lebte ein junger König beim Vater und bei der Mutter3 (Endzelin, LG, 492) 167. It is, therefore, not impossible that this construction existed already in the pro to -B alt о - Slavonic epoch. In the case of Old French and Rumanian it is difficult to say whether this construction is a continuation of the Latin one or has developed independently. In Rumanian possible Slavonic influence must be taken into consideration. Apparently, this construction arose by contamination of a conjunctional (copulative) connection with a prepositional (sociative) one owing to their semantic proximity 168. Here the eventual suspected pre- conjunctional meaning is hardly probable because of differences in chro­ nology and in the origin of conjunctions. Greek KuOipeia auv т’аитф ETiXßovTt, ; v xocl Ооуатрь (jlou; (лета ха! lireptov (Schulze, KZ, X X X III, 239—240), Latin ut...pater nuptae cum-que pa­ rente domus; te...canam nec non...te- с и т virgulta (TLL, IV, 1377), Old French done moi, rois, Vaseüre la grant et avec Nymes et le fort mandement (Antoine, CF, 812), Rumanian împàratul si eu fetele 'the emperor with the

161 Cf. О. B ehaghel, DS, III, 83, e.g. der Mensch auch mit dem, was Natur ist. 162 Gramatyka języka polskiego, Kraków 1923, 367. 168 KZ, L, 137— 138. 164 ZSP, III, 75— 76. 166 LG, 492. 166 Similarly in Old Breton (F leu rio t, VB, 294) and in Middle Welsh (S trach an , IEW, 108) copulative a(c), a(g) occur in sociative function. 167 Cf. sporadical examples of inverse change in Latin: Marci(anus) ...e t Marcia Basiliss. matre (TLL, V, 2, 897). 168 In this respect cf. copulative conjunctions arisen from sociative prepositions (§ 6.2.3.A.Ü). girls3 (Weigand, EG, 175), Lithuanian Misius Powüaytys yr su sunumis dwiem Jurgiu ir Wayciu 'M. P. with two sons J . and W .3, rado grażą szulniiiką гг sù rentiniukù 'she found a suitable well with boarding3 (Fraén- kel, Z8P, III, 76), Old Polish rgrzeszyly gesmy г s otczsy naszymy 'pecca- vimus cum patribus nostris3 (SS, III, 8), Modern Polish chwasty i z liljami Burbonów porosną 'weeds with Bourbons’ lilies will grow3 (Fraenkel, ibidem), Old Czech gey i s maiku ohladass 'you see her with her mother3 (ibidem), Modern Czech po tfech dnech propustil od sebe krale Ladislava TJherského i s vojskem jeho 'after three days he let the king L.U. with his soldiers go3 (Булаховский, UK, 362), Eussian Наталья Дмитревна и с мужем 'Ж. D. with her husband3 (ibidem), Old Ukrainian вызнавам то ... и с т ы в е л е Ь н ы м и 'I confess it together with those reverends3 (Гумецька, Нарис сло- вотворчо! системы украшсько! актово! мсши, 268), Old Serbo-Croatian Zetu i Sb gradovy 'Z. with cities3 (E S J, III, 759). (ii) Additive. The combination of copulative conjunction with addi­ tive preposition has been attested in Greek169, Albanian 17°, Latin1T1, Norwegian169 170171172 and South-East Slavonic173 languages174 *176. Owing to semantic and chronological differences the common origin — in spite of partial geographic convergence (Balkan) — is hardly probable. In addition, in the Albanian dialect of Italy the copulative e occurs with the meaning of 'to3, e.g. uda te śpię pe ńe politi e ne Vjeter 'die Strasse führt dich aus einer Stadt bis in eine andere3175. The copulative connection of a pronoun in the dative after preposition do 'to3 with a substantive in the nominative in Old Irish, as immanarnaic doib ocus in mac-Caillech 'wobei Zusammentref­ fen stattfand für ihn und die junge Nonne3, was explained by W. Krause 176 as contamination. In colloquial Danish 177 there has been formal iden­ tification of the copulative og and the particle at 'to3 which forms the infinitive, and so the infinitive can be adjoined to a clause by means of og (§ 5.3.2. B), which may occur also in normal function of at, e.g. jeg gik ud og spadsere 'ich ging aus zu spazieren3, and after this fashion und 'and3 in German dialect of Schleswig, cf. es ist heute schön und spazieren gehn 178. 169 Miklosich, LPS, 164, 236; Liddell-Scott, GEL, 1123. 170 J. J arnik, Zur albanischen Sprachkunde, Leipzig 1881, 16. 171 TLL, V, 2, 897 (In Biblical texts it is considered hebraism). However, the inverse change took place in atque £= *ad-kve fand to* which also in Brythonic group of Celtic langages changes into copulative conjunction (L ew is-P edersen , CCG, § 86). 172 Falk-Torp, Dansk-Norskens syntax, Kristiania 1900, 224. 173 Miklosich, LPS, 164, 235—236. 174 Cf. also Middle High German unz unde *bis* (Lambertz, KZ, L II, 79) and Ru­ manian pina si occurring in the meaning 'even9 (Tiktin, BDW, 1164). 176 M. Lambertz, KZ, LII, 79. 176 KZ, L II, 232—233, differently R. T h u rn eysen , KZ, L III, 82— 84 (cf. § 5.3.1.C.Ü). 177 H. Jen sen , NDS, 80, 84. 178 J. Grimm, DW, X I, 3, 412. Greek pixpi xal tou cppéaToç (Miklosich, ibidem, 236), pi/pi xal vuv (Liddell-Scott, GEL, 1123), Albanian c. fillón te sarâj mrétit e déri te sarâj juj "welcher beginnt bei Palast des Sultan und bis zu Palast euer3 ( Jarnik, ibidem), Latin ad olim et usque nunc; a solis ortu et usque in occasum (TLL, V, 2, 897), Norwegian fra Kristiania о д til Sandvilcen "from К. to S.3 (Falk- Torp, ibidem), Old Russian отъ утра и до вечера "from morning till evening3 (Срезневский, МСДРЯ, 1 , 1017), Old Church Slavonicrazdbranq otb gory [do&i i do dolu "еахьагяЬ) оск àvcoOev ëmç хато) elç $uo3 (SJS, 500; Mt. XXVII, 51), Old Serbo-Croatian odb mala i do velija "from little to much3, dialectal blago meni jutros i do vijelcal "I am in bliss for ever3 (RSJ, III, 759). (iii) O thers. It is difficult to say whether in the only five examples of the connection i z known from Old Polish texts we have to do with the pre­ position z "from, of3 or whether it is a continuant of the proto-Slavonic *jbz179. In the first case the above described connection i s (z) "and with3 may have served here as a model; e.g. nye dam tobye nyczego y z zemye gich "non enim dabo tibi quidquam de terra eorum3 (SS, III, 8).

B. Comparative constructions Apart from prepositions the comparative conjunction also serves to join word constituents of different functions. The Celtic languages pos­ sess so-called “equative” which serves for equating comparison. This con­ struction is semantically nearest to a copulative connection; hence the use of the copulative conjunction with the “equative”: in Old Irish — facul­ tative 180, in Middle Welsh — frequent181, in Modern Celtic languages — obligatory. Only in Modern Welsh there is a secondary bifurcation into conjunction a{c) "and3 and preposition ä(g) "with3 where the latter occurs in the equative construction 182. Also in other languages in comparison of equal degree (gradus positivus) a copulative conjunction may occasionally appear183. Greek coç tlç xal àXXoç ( Kühner-Gerth, GG, II, 256),

179 Cf. SS, III, 8. 180 E. Thurneysen, GOI, 563. 181 J. Strachan, IEW, 29, 119. 182 Cf. E. Anwyll, WG, 121. 183 Whereas in Greek xod and Latin vel with superlative it is not the case of con­ junctional function, but xod has the intensifying whereas vel the intensifying-dubitative meaning. On the use of alternative conjunction in comparative function in Greek cf. § 6.2.2Л.В. same way as one sees something through a mirror9 (Thurneysen, GOI, 563), Modern Irish nil na pratai chomh maith i mbliana agus a bhiodar anuraidh 'the potatoes are not as good this year as they were last year9 (Dillon-Cróinm, T Y I, 125), Manx T'ou cha aalin as eshyn 'you are as hand­ some as he9 (Goodwin, FLM, 60), Gaelic bha e cho trom agus nach do thog mi e 'it was so heavy that I did not lift it9 (Maclaren’s, GST, 166), Middle Welsh Jcyngadarnet ac Adaf 'as strong as Adam9 (Strachan, IEW, 29), Modern Welsh Dos ymaith gynted а д y gelli 'go away as soon as you can9 (Rowland, GWL, 153), Middle Breton kyn uelynet a blodeu y banadyl 'aussi jaune que les fleurs du genêt9 (Fleuriot, VB, 249), Modem Breton keit ha lost al logoden 'as long as the mouse’s tail9 (Hardie, HMB, 65).

C. Connections of different cases

Within homofunctional constructions, from among various combina­ tions of constituents the conjunctional connections of different cases deserve a more detailed study. We can distinguish here: (i—iii) generally infrequent connections, in which — because of the change of function caused by diminution or disappearance of flexion — a “grammatical” case is conjunctionally joined with a “concrete” case, and (iv) relatively fre­ quent connections of “concrete” cases semantically corresponding with each other. (i) V o ca tiv e . In linguistic literature great attention has been paid to copulative connection of the vocative with the nominative. It was first observed by F. Rosen184, then it was investigated by Benfey, Delbrück, Brugmann, Wackernagel, Bielenstein, Fraenkel, Schwyzer185 and recently by J. Svennung 186 and R. Schmitt187. It occurs in Old Indian, Avestan, Greek, Balto-Slavonic and sporadically in Latin, where in Vedic and Old Lithuanian it is almost a rule 188. Since in Greek and Old Indo-Iranian the postpositive continuant of the PIE *kve 'and’ occurs here, it seems pro­ bable that this construction existed already in the P IE epoch. The origin of this connection is not clear. It is usually explained by the sentence­ forming character of the vocative — while *kve generally joins the words — and a predicative function is usually ascribed to the following nominative. This explanation, however, encounters two principal difficulties: (a) in­ verse connections in which the nominative is followed by the vocative in its own or a nominative function, (b) the possibility of using other

184 Rigveda-Sanhita, London 1838, Adnotationes IX . 186 GG, II, 63, where further literature on this subject can be found. 186 Anredeformen, Lund 1958, 187— 190, 239—245. 187 Orientalia, X X X II, 441—447. 188 Cf. B. Delbrück, SF, V, 105; L. Renou, GLV, 342; E. Fraenkel, SLK, 39. conjunctions of sentence type. It seems more probable that connections of this kind can be explained by the exchangeableness of both the cases which may cause the use of vocative with nominative function189 or formal disappearance of vocative in Armenian, Germanic and Russian. V o c ativ e — N o m in a t iv e : Old Indian Vâyav Indraś-ca cetathah "V. und I. ihr habt acht3 (Delbrück, SF, V , 105), Greek Zeu тгатер... 3HXióę те (Schwyzer, GG, II, 63) 19°, Old Lithuanian ach brólau.. .ach schlechticzius "vae frater... vae domine3, dabolces tu name Israel ir priimk ausimis tunamas har alians "attendite domus Israel et domus regis ascultate3 (Fraenkel, SLK, 39), Old Polish o łotrze przeklęty a zdrajca niewierny "O, crushed scoundrel and unfaithful traitor3 (PSP, 10), Old Church Slavonic gospodi, pomoètbnice mojb, izbavitelb mojb "xupis ßoiqüi, xal Хитрсота fiou5 (Vondrâk, VSG, II, 226). N o m in a tiv e — V o c a t iv e : Old Indian îndras-ca Vâyav, Avestan Maz- das-cä Ahurävho (Schmitt, ibidem, 441, 446), Greek yap^poę ejxoç Оиуатер те TiOea-d'3 6vo(jl36ttl xev естгсо; & ttoXlç xal 8y)(jl(s), Modern Greek ÇuTivaTe 7) 8óXia auvTpocpià xal xaTreTave М9)тро "wacht auf, die unglückliche K a­ meradschaft und Hauptmann M.3 (Schwyzer, ibidem), Latin vel infensus vel.. .miserate\ о ipse invisus et.. .comprehense (Hofmann-Szantyr, LSS, 26), Lithuanian mans Wiesspatis ir mans Diewe "dominus meus et deus meus3 (Fraenkel, ibidem). In Old Indo-Iranian the vocative may be followed by a substantive in the dependent case which Delbrück 191 explains also by a tendency to avoiding the connection of two vocatives, e.g. Old Indian iyâm väm brah- manas pate suvrhtir brâhmendrâya vajrinê ahäri "hier ist euch beiden, dir, о В., und (dem) L , ein Lied und eine Andacht bereitet worden3 (Delbrück, ibidem), Avestan anaiś va nöit Ahurd Mazda aSom-cd ydndis zaranaëmd manas-ëd vahütdm "um dieser Gunstbeweise willen, о A., möchten wir euch nicht erzürnen, о M. und (den) A. und (den)3 (Reichelt, AE, 226), yet it can also be interpreted as ellipsis of a personal pronoun, the vocative being in apposition to i t 192 (§ 5.2.2. B). (ii) Nominative. In Old Irish the nominative may occur after a pro­ noun in various cases contracted with prepositions do "to3, la "by, at3, in "in3, eter "between3. This Thurneysen 193 explains by the loss of preposi­ tional rection and by the free use of the nominative. The latter phenomenon may be related to proleptic and absolute usage of this case 194. Concerning

189 As in Polish Jasiu 'John’ instead of Jaś, cf. J. Zaleski, JP , X X X IX , 32—50. 190 On the connections as ATav $I8o(jLevou те see J. W ack ern ag el, BB, IV, 280—281. 191 VS, I, 396. 192 H. B eich elt, AE, 353— 354. 193 KZ, L III, 82— 83; cf. also K. M eyer, Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1917, 644— 645. 194 Cf. J. Pokorny, ZCP, XV, 384—386; XVI, 138—141. the connection of do 'to3 with the dative there is also the above mentioned possibility of its explanation by contamination (§ 5.3.1. A. ii) with the elliptical construction (§ 5.2.2. B); e.g. dun-ni ocus Barnaip 'uns (mir) und ВЛ, cethardha ndülatha leis ocus a ben 'vier Gewänder (sind) bei ihm und seiner Frau3, do'ècastar i'mbi hinun folud bis indib ocus a cêtnide fman sehe, ob es derselbe Gegenstand ist, das in ihnen ist und ihrem Stammwort3, do'roinäe sïth celgi etarro ocus a dann 'sie schloss einen Schein­ frieden zwischen ihnen und ihren Kindern3 (Thurneysen, ibidem). Apart from Celtic the nominative in connection with dependent cases occurs but occasionally, usually in enumeration, when in a later position association with what goes before is attenuated and anacoluthon arises, as in Greek т а 83èv т ф 0Üpavü...ßXE7u0(xeva...T0i><; xevTaupouç x a l TpayeXàçouç xal, VT) At3, ol Xuxot, те xal ol Ï tcttol, tl с р о с т е lç (Havers, Giotta, XVI, 98), Latin pater filiabus carissimis fecit Flaviae Vere...et Flavia Sura (ibi­ dem, 99— 100), Lithuanian nés tri ją daiktą reik: vieną maista, ąntrą àp- daraj tret\ pastógis 'because three things are necessary: first food, second clothes, third lodging3 (Fraenkel, SLK, 26), Old Russian отъ града Киева и пакы отъ Чернигова и отъ Переяславля и прочш гради 'from town К. and again from C., and from P., and other towns3 (Fraenkel, ibidem, 27). (iii) A ccusative. The tendency towards the disappearance of flexion can explain the expansion of the accusative at the cost of other dependent cases. In the Romanic languages this case has even partly replaced the nominative form. Thus the conjunctional connections of accusative (usually in a later position) with other cases are clear. We can find this construction in Late Latin, Middle Bulgarian and Old Prussian which, as it seems, had a tendency to loss of flexion 195, cf. Latin liberti liber- tas-que (OIL, III, 2386), Old Prussian mennei bhe wissamans druwlngins 'mir und allen Gläubigen3 (Trautmann, APS, 33, 210), Middle Bulgarian ot prSmądry i razumne ' а т г о aocpcov x al guvet& v’ (К. Н. Meyer, Der Untergang der Deklination im Bulgarischen, 65). (iv) O ther cases. In contrast to the above described constructions, conjunctional connections of different “concrete” cases have a stylistic character and can be explained by the above mentioned tendency to differentiation (§ 4.2.1), by euphonic factors {horror aequi)19e, by semantic contrast of joined notions, etc. Thus for instance in the connection 'by day and at night3 in spite of the semantic parallelism of the constituents their formal differentiation often occurs. Here Meillet196 197 sees the peculi­ arity of primitive concrete thinking in which 'night3 constitutes a mass and 'day3 a length at which the action takes place. For Greek and Latin

196 Cf. R. Trautmann, APS, 210. 196 Cf. W. H avers, HES, § 158. 197 MSL, XV III, 238— 241. ЛУackernagel198 states a predilection to the use of the substantive 'night* in genitive as against the usual prepositional accusative for 'day*, cf. Greek v u x t o ç xocl (jie&’ 7][iip av; où v u x t o ç , àXXà [X£T*Y][i.épY]v; оите v u x t o ç оите Y)[iipav, Latin lud — nox\ the same is the case in Old Persian xsapa-vä rauëa-pati-vâ (Meillet, ibidem), Tokharian ykom oseni (Krause, HO, (I) 4, 3, 21). In other languages this opposition has generally been removed, sometimes even an ending has been imposed: by 'day* in Old High German tages ->nahtes199, by 'night* in Old Church Slavonic nośtbję -> (I b ïlb jQ 20°. A number of examples of other notions are quoted from Lithuanian by Fraenkel201: dangui ir ant szemes (ir po szeme) 'on earth and in heaven*, dienoy vakaru 'by day and in the evening’, sziwate ir prieg smer- ties 'in life and after death*; cf. from other languages: Latin stultus et sine gratia, Italian una cosa piacevole e da ridere (Meyer-Lübke, GES, III, 247), English at home and abroad, Old Prussian sen senditmai ränkän bhe kanxtei 'mit gefalten Henden und züchtig9 (Fraenkel, MSL, X IX , 5), Polish książka stara i bez tytułu 'old book and without title*, etc.

5.3.2. Verbal constructions

Within verbal constructions the conjunctional connections of a finite form with (A) participle, (B) infinitive and (C) onomatopoeic expression (i.e. so-called “verboid”) deserve more detailed consideration.

A. Participial constructions 202 In the IE languages the participle has two main functions: attributive and predicative. Omitting from consideration the attributive function, which will not concern us here, we can state that the participle (seman­ tically) defines more closely the activity expressed by the finite verb, usually joining with it asyndetically, more rarely by hypotactical con­ junction, relative pronoun, preposition, particle, etc. On the other hand, constructions, in which the participle and finite verb are joined by a copulative conjunction, are much less frequent. Constructions of this kind, however, are relatively common in the North IE languages, es­ pecially in Slavonic and Celtic. We usually find here a copulative con­

198 IF, X X X I, 251— 254, differently C. W atk in s, Symbolae Unguisticae in honorem G. Kuryłowicz, Kraków 1965, 351—358. 199 Cf. Сравнительная грамматика германских языкову IV, 256. 200 A. M eillet, ibidem. 201 SLK, § 169, 219, 223. 202 First draft of this chapter has been published in Acta Baltico-Slavica, III, 29—32. junction, more rarely an adversative conjunction and the remaining con­ junctions quite exceptionally. The participle occurs here as “conjunctive” or “absolute”, occasionally also as the predicate of a subordinate clause (e.g. in Latin and Celtic). The order of the constituents is not strictly determined 203, although the finite verb usually precedes the participle. In Tokharian and in Indo-Iranian I have found the examples only with participium passivi; these can be explained by the ellipsis of auxiliary verb 204. Similarly in Armenian this construction has been attested with (generally passive) participle in -eal 205. In Greek such combinations with participium praesentis activi, medii and perfecti occur from Homer to Middle Greek 206. In Latin these connections with participium activi and passivi appear relatively late 207. They have also been attested in the Borna- nic languages, namely in Spanish and Italian 208. In the Celtic languages the active participles have been replaced by the so-called verbal noun which also occurs in some infinitive functions 209. According to D. Hardie210 the combination of finite verb with so-called “absolute” is a normal phe­ nomenon in the Modern Celtic languages and had even been known from the earliest times. In Germanic after the disappearance of participium prae- teriti activi only participium praesentis here occurs, if we omit from consideration examples of the ellipsis of an auxiliary verb with the par­ ticipium praeteriti passivi211. The examples are taken mainly from Gothic and West Germanic languages 212. In the Slavonic area 213 the copulative connections of active participles with the finite verb occur quite frequently from the earliest times, but are generally unknown today. It is attested in Polish (historically and sporadically in dialects), Old Czech, Old Rus­ sian, Byelorussian, Old Church Slavonic, Middle Bulgarian and in Old Serbian. The connections with adversative conjunction can be found in

208 As it was observed by W. T aszyck i, Imiesłowy czynne, teraźniejszy i przeszły I. w języku polskim, Kraków 1924, 52— 53, in Polish conjunction a is followed by parti­ ciple, while i by finite verb. 204 Cf. B. Delbrück, SF, V, 393—395; A. Meillet, MSL, XVI, 348; J. Vendryes* Melanges Ch. Bally, 51—52. See also § 5.2.2.A.vi. 206 Cf. H. Jen sen , AG, 178. 206 Cf. E. Schwyzer, GG, II, 387—405; E. Mayser, GGP, II, 1, 344; H. Jensen* ANSL, CLV, 61. 207 Cf. Hofmann-Szantyr, L 8S, 389. 208 Cf. H. Jensen, ANSL, CLV, 60—61. 209 Cf. H. Pedersen, VGK, II, 418; J. Gagnepain, 8NVLC, I, 338—340. 210 HMB, 166. 211 Cf. 0. Behaghel, DS, III, 308; recently W. Henss, ZNW, XLVIII, 133—141. 212 In English where participium praentis activi was also lost a new form of participle with suffix -ing here occurs, perhaps under Celtic influence cf. F. V isser, HSEL , 1163. 213 Cf. recently J. Kurz, К historickosrovnavcLcimu studiu slovanskych jazykû, Praha 1958, 89— 107; RES, X L , 122— 125. the Polish language in the historical period. They are common in North Russian and Byelorussian dialects where participial constructions are quite frequent. In other Slavonic languages they are only sporadically attested. In Lithuanian 214 the combination of participle and finite verb with the copulative conjunction is known mostly from folk language. It has been attested already in the sixteenth and seventeenth century. Here for the most part participium praeteriti activi and participium contemporale occur. This construction is not attested in Old Prussian texts. Apparently, it does not occur in the Latvian language either. (i) Copulative conjunction. Old Indian tatâm me âpas tad и täyate punah 'getan (ist) mein Werk und es wird wiederum getan5 (Delbrück, SF, V, 394), Avestan tąm yazata haoSyavhö... satdm aspanąm... uta zaodrąm frabarö 'to her did... the good shepherd offer up a sacrifice... with a hundred male horses...and with an offering of libations5 (Bartholomae, AIW, 386), Persian ân loqat-râ foru borde va nos%ar Tcarde va qâbel-e hazm sâzad 'elle avale ce mot et rumine et digère5 (Lazard, GPC, 210), Tadjik una odam mekovâd-ü yoft 'Thé man shall seek and find5 (Расторгуева, ТД, 144), Armenian zawrakanaçn ankeal ar ots arakheloyn ew asein 'als die Soldaten zu Füssen des Apostels gefallen waren, sprachen sie5 (Jensen, AG, 178), Greek e7upaaraev eç те ty)v Aaxe8ai(JLOva 7ué(JL7rcov.. .xal touç KopivOtouç TupoaeTToieiTo (Schwyzer, GG, II, 406), Middle Greek xal àxouaocç AeovTioç xal ’IXXooç.. .xai àvrjX&av się то IlaTrupiv xaaTeXXiov (Jensen, ANSL, CLV, 61), Latin moliuntur et...délirantes-, respondens Iesus et dixit; provitu(s) annoro XVII et militavit munifix annis VII; Nerone...procedente...et ecce aparuit (TLL, V, 2, 897), Italian e istando in cotale maniera e Gover- nale si tornoe (Jensen, loc. cit.), Spanish hyo sirviendo vos sin art, et vos consseiastes para mi muert (ibidem), Old Irish с о rabai andsin eu cend mis 7 eu ica comét 'and it was there till the end a month and dog guarding it5 (cf. Gagnepain, SNVLC, 120), Middle Irish acht с о fhagthar hi co cóir 7 a cor ar dit maith 'pourvu qu’on l’obtienne justement et qu’il en soit fait bon usage5 (ibidem, 226),. Modern Irish da ndeachaidh agat ar na Gollaibh 7 a marbhadh 'si tu prends sur les Colla l’avantage et que tu viennes à les tuer5 (ibidem, 333), Manx nagh bee eh jymmoosagh as myr shen shiu dy herraghtyn 'lest he be angry and thus you perish5 (Carmody, University of California Publications, I, 8, 352), Gaelic an ceann beagan uine chunnaic iad e, agus e 4ol gu luath 'after a short time they saw him and he going quickly5 (Hardie, HMB, 166), Middle Welsh pan bebillo Lloegir in tir Ethlin a guneuthur Dyganhuy dinas degin 'when L. shall encamp in the land of E. and make D. a strong fort5 (Pedersen, VGK, II, 418), Modern Welsh aeth Vr ystafell a'r dynion yn bwyta 'he went into the room

214 Cf. Recently V. A m brazas, Baltistica, I, 1, 53— 66. while the people were eating 3(Anwyl, W 6, 121), Cornish mar a cresyn ha bos vas 'if we believe and be good3 (Pedersen, ibidem), Old Breton ha se dined houl... adau em terram cum longitudine diei hac hunc diminet iterum cum brevitate (noctis) 'et ceci est le comportement du soleil, il quitte lui la terre à la fin du jour et revient auprès de nouveau la nuit étant brève3 (Fleuriot, VB, 331), Middle Breton qnement maz aenn, e-n dongenn net hac e caret dre meledy 'partout où j’allais, je respectais et je l’aimais avec louange3 (Pedersen, VGK, II, 674), Modem Breton deuet oc*h hag c'houi skuiz-maro 'you have come and you dead tired3 (Hardie, HMB, 167), Gothic hwazuh nu sa gahansjands at attin jah ganam gaggïp du mis '7Гàç о àxouaaç тгара той тгатрсх; xal (laOöv ер^етас 7zpoç èpi3 (Béhaghel, D8, III, 308; Jo. VI, 45), Old High German tho antbringinti.. Anti quad 'respondens... ait3 (ibidem), Middle High German das der herre noch grosser wunder empfachende und sinem diener hiess zellen (ibidem), Old Dutch in den buuc hebbende und riep 'in utero habens clamabat3 (Behaghel, Germania, X X III, 243; Apoc. X II, 3), Middle English Ihesus dwelte alone: and the womman stondynge in the myddil (Jo. VIII, 9), Modern English And what time would a man take, and he floating (Visser, HSEL, 1163—4), Old Lithuanian kursay sugawęs irgi sukuls 'who having captured will beat3 (Fraenkel, KZ, Ergheft, XIV, 104), Modern Lithuanian jau szaunei \ nakt\ esant ir atejo dvi Laumês 'being already late at night two L. came3 (Потебня, ЗРГ, I-II, 193), piemuo valgyti norédamas ir surname 'the shepherd wishing to eat it changed3 (Ambrazas, Baltistica, I, 1, 57), Old Polish zawolaw к sobye Baguel slug swich i szly s nym 'accersiri iussit B. servos suos et abierunt cum eo pariter3 (SS, III, 6), Polish dialectal(?) cekawsy...i przysed do chaty 'waiting.. .he came into house3 (Kolberg, Dzieła, X L , 583), Old Czech matka jeho znamenâSe véecka ta slova a kla- duci V svê srdce 'mater eius conservabat omnia verba haec in corde suo3 (Gebauer, HMJÖ, IV, 606), Old Bussian въставъ Яковъ отъ сна и рече 'J., having awakened from sleep, he said3 (Потебня, ЗРГ, I —II, 192), Old Byelorussian онь же тогда не возма Вилни и поиде ко мистру 'and then he did not take Vilna and he went to the Master3 (Карский, Б, II—H I, 448), dialectal боючися вовка и в лес не ходзйцъ 'he who fears the wolf does not go to the wood3 (ibidem, 363), Old Church Slavonic vsi bo vidëvbSe jb i vzmęto§ę sę 'TràvTeç yap ocutöv eïSav xal èT$Y)v Si’àXXïjç ó$ou ave^copYjcrav9 (Mt. И, 12). (iii) Disjunctive conjunction. Old Indian na jäto na janishyate 'er ist nicht geboren und wird nicht geboren werden9 (Delbrück, SF, V, 394), Latin qui contristans spiritum sanctum neque confitetur deo (Hofmann- Szantyr, LSS, 389). From the stylistic point of view the above illustrated connections are examples of anacoluthon 215 216 and the conjunction which occurs here is some­ times called pleonastic2ie. The origin of this construction is not clear. In spite of the fact that it has been attested in most IE languages, it is a rare phenomenon and there are certain differences between the lan­ guages in the chronology as well' as in the use and structure of the parti­ ciple. In the Northern IE languages only, owing to its frequency, its being limited to active participles and the fact that it has occurred from the earliest times, one can take the moment of its origin back to the prehistorical period, and there is no reason why we should not consider this a result of IE dialectal innovation. The basis for the emergence of this construction was the great freedom of use and the relatively loose con­ nection of the participle with the remaining constituents of utterance in proto-Indo-European, which fact can be observed in Vedic texts and in Homer, where this construction also appears. In the other languages the 215 E. Schwyzer, GG, II, 406—407. 216 H. Jen sen , ANSL, CLV, 59—66. Indo-European Parataxis 6 possibility of ellipsis — notably with participium praeteriti passivi — must be taken into consideration. Less probable (owing to its frequency and to the lack of exact patterns) seems to be the attribution of this phenomenon to foreign influence 217 218219220 or to contamination of a native con­ struction by foreign pattern, as was suggested for Old Church Slavonic by Meillet218 and for German by Behaghel219. J . Kurz’s 220 hypothesis that here we have to do with the original, expressive meaning of the conjunction is also inconclusive because of differences in the chronology and origin of the conjunctions, which occur here. If we assume that in the constructions under consideration we are dealing with a real con­ junctional function, then the participle must be considered as the functional equivalent of the finite verb which is a well-known phenomenon in most IE languages.

B. Infinitive constructions Similarly the infinitive may be connected by means of a conjunction, preposition or particle to the finite verb. Of all the paratactical types the copulative ones are most frequent, while the adversative and the remaining ones are far more rare. Here too, the finite verb is followed by the infinite form. In the Indo-Iranian area connections of this kind are generally speaking unknown221. On the other hand, in Armenian where the predicative function of the infinitive has a larger scope, the con­ struction under consideration is well attested in the classical epoch 222. In the Greek language, in spite of the fact that the infinitive may be used with a hypotactical conjunction 223, this construction is quite rare and it occurs with imperative infinitive only, whereas in Latin and in the Romanic languages it is widespread thanks to the historical function of the infinitive. In Celtic languages the above mentioned (§ 5.3.2.A) verbal noun among others plays the part of an infinitive 224 225. In the Germanic area in Old Icelandic the conjunctions oh ‘‘and5, eâa eor5, en fbut5 may often connect the infinitive to the preceding clause 225; this, it seems,

217 W. Henss, ibidem, hut the original source of these constructions has as yet not been exactly identified. 218 RES, VIII, 47—48. 219 DS, III, 308. 220 Ibidem. 221 Sometimes in the Vedic texts the “epexegetic” infinitive at the end of a verse may he strengthened hy the enclitic и 'too, and9 cf. P. Sgall, Philologica, II, 238; also with ahsolutive, cf. P. Grüne, Die altindischen Absolutiva, Leipzig 1913, 24. 222 Cf. H. Jen sen , Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Universität Rostock, III, 2, 166. 223 Cf. E. Schwyzer, GG, II, 373. 224 See note 5. 209. 225 Cf. A. H eusler, AIE, 155— 189. may bé related with the fact that in Old Icelandic the infinitive was identified with the 3rd person plural of the verb. The particle at 'to5 usually added to the infinitive is the only formal difference here. In Danish this particle is phonetically identified with the copulative con­ junction og thanks to which it is possible to connect an infinitive to a sentence22e. In the English language until the beginning of the nine­ teenth century — nowadays only in slang — we find a few types (absolute, narrative, expressive) of connections of infinitive and the clause by means of copulative and adversative conjunction 226 227. It is possible that this construction is partly influenced by French (historical infinitive) and by Celtic (verbal noun). In the Balto-Slavonic languages this construction is also infrequent. In the East Slavonic languages the possibility of Finno- Ugric influence is not unlikely here 228. (i) Copulative conjunction. Armenian z-amenyan inç z-iur uni, ew z-ordi-n mist 9nd iur unel 'er hat alles Seinige (bei sich), und hat den Sohn immer bei sich5 (Jensen, ibidem, 166), Greek ех&оте xat ti(jly)v à7ccmvé|jiev (Schwyzer, GG, II, 381), Latin п е с iam publicis magis consiliis Servius quam privatis munire opes et...duas filias iuvenibus regiis. . .iungit (Cat- terall, Transactions of the Philological Association, L X IX , 311), Old French et le bon homme de soy saulver et dessouz le lit se boute (Meyer-Lübke, GES, III, 570), Modern French II décrète...et de ramener le chat à Vam­ bassade (Grevisse, BU, 654), Old Icelandic sende Ketell fœ r ut at segia tif enden oh ]jâ mœtte huerr of rom segia 'schickte K. sie aus, die Nach­ richten zu sagen und dann könnte jeder sie weitergeben5 (Heusler, AIE, 155), Danish jeg fandt ham gaaende og drive 'ich fand ihn gehen und sich herumtreibend5 (Jensen, NDS, 84), Middle English this is т у counceïll... that we lete puruey X hny$tes men of good fame, and they to hepe this swerd (Visser, HSEL, 1057), Modern English 0, what an hour is this! and naebody to help a poor lone woman (ibidem), American slang I am going up the street and eat (Jespersen, MEG, V, 211), Old Polish potym z migda­ łowym olejkiem.. .zmieszać a na rynce trochę przysmaż 'then (to) mix with almond oil and fry a little in the stewpan5 (SIBL, I, 9), Czech Tomdneh drSel ëepici obëma ruhama a ne pustit 'T. was holding to the cap with both hands and did not let go5 (Gebauer, HMJÖ, IV, 579), Old Eussian ж а л о б н и к ъ солгалъ и того жалобника казнити 'the accuser lied, so one has to punish him5 (Спринчак, OUC, I, 96), Byelorussian т ут праходзщъ дарога з eecni i сама веска eidatfb адгэтуль 'here the road from the village passes by and the village itself is seen from here5 (Ломтев, OUC, 84), Old Church

226 Cf. H. Jen sen , NDS, 80, 84. 227 Cf. F. V isser, HSEL, 1066—1057; O. Jespersen, MEG, V, 211. 228 Cf. Б. Ларин, Lietuvii* Kalbotyros Klausimai, VI, 87— 106. Slavonie Petrb %ozdaSe na vodayb i priti к ъ Isusovi ' Петров тгерьетгатт)^ етиь та и$ата xai jjX&ev (1. v. eXO-etv) TTpoç tov 5I y)(jouv5 (Pancérova, SS J, 265). (ii) A d v e rsa tiv e co n ju n ctio n . Greek р1фет<о..Лф $è véea&at (Wackernagel, VS, I, 267), Italian non parler ma prende (Wędkiewicz, PNW, 19), French II voulait faire entendre. . .mais le petit Lorrain de ré­ pondre (Sandfeld, SPC, 160), Old Icelandic bióp Gupmunde sœter, en ek géra um malet 'biete dem G. Vergleich an, aber (dass) ich den Spruch täte5 (Hêusler, AIE, 166), Latvian skrien divas stirnas; dęli tûlin Saut, bet stirnas lùdzas 'ès laufen zwei Eehe; die Söhne schicken sich sofort an zu schiessen, aber die Eehe flehen5 (Endzelin, LG, 772), Eussian г р у с т н о м н е б у д е т , но быть терпеть 'I shall be sad but one has to suffer5, dialectal бегом бежишь, а быть опоздать 'you run but one has to be late5 (Спринчак, OUC, I, 98). (iii) Alternative conjunction. Old Icelandic at ek she pik...at pü hefner peira allra sdra, sem bann hafpe a sér daupom, epa heita huers manz nipingr ella 'dass ich dich beschwöre, dass du rächest all die Wun­ den, die er als Toter an sich hatte — oder sonst heissen jedermanns Neiding5 (Heusler, A IE, 189). Furthermore, the impersonal forms of the verb thanks to their transi­ tory position can be joined with nominal categories. With the participle they are frequent and can be explained by its originally attributive func­ tion. On the other hand, connections of infinitive with substantive (pro­ noun) are far more infrequent owing to the disappearance of flexion and close relation with the verb which considerably attenuated the originally nominal character of infinitive. This kind of connection is characteristic of colloquial language and it has a distinctly emotional shade, as in German der und Soldat werden (Behaghel, DS, III, 457), Polish on i śpiewać! 'him and to sing5. Besides infinitive generally appears with nominal function, as in Latin rem militarem et argute loqui (TLL, V, 2, 873). Also conjunctional connections of different forms of infinite verb may occur here 229 230, cf. Latin eludendi occasiost...et...adimere (TLL, V, 2, 873), German daz ir alle dinkt absmeken und stinkent sullen werden (Behaghel, DS, II, 365), Latvian uzvilkusi ka&uokus.. .un tad tikai skriet pa purviem meSiem 'hätten Pelze angezogen... und dann sogleich durch Sümpfe und Wälder zu laufen begonnen5 (Endzelin, LG, 772), Old Polish jest skarżon a...sły­ chać 'he is accused and...can be heard5 (SIBL, I, 9) 23°.

229 Sometimes owing to formal identification, as e.g. historically in German, cf. O. Behaghel, DS, II, 365. 230 Also the gerund can be joined by means of paratactical conjunction with verbum finitum, e.g. Italian dialectal arzanno Vocci ar celo, e vidde a vvvi (Wędkiewicz, PNW, 30), or with substantive, e.g. Latin fessum stando et vigiliis Volscum (Catterall, ibidem, 313). C. Verboid constructions

In the IE languages onomatopoeic expressions semantically corre­ sponding to the verb can be joined with its finite form by a conjunction: usually a copulative one, the remaining conjunction (also hypotactical) being much less frequent. Such words sometimes called “verboids” 231, are generally considered as interjections, for the most part, however, they remain in the genetic relation with the verb 232, namely as the basis of deriva­ tion (e.g. Polish cap\ -> capnąć 'to catch5) or more rarely as a derived form from the verb (e.g. Polish machnąć -+machl 'to whisk5). In certain lan­ guages, e.g. in Lithuanian, it is a regular morphological formation 233. Expressions of this kind are confined to colloquial language; hence their rare occurrence in written texts. In paratactical constructions they can be placed before or after the verb. They may also be joined with them­ selves or with other parts of speech. Marathi hä äni pora jhâlï kl tulä detö änün 'hum, and if any children are born I ’ll give them to you5 (Катенина, ГЯМ, 291), Yazgulami %ud-an kya wû paékd ëôy-ata...sap-o sap 'they alone took out the whole packet of tea and then slop, slop5 (Эдельман, ЯЯ, 104), Greek ouSè Çu oùSè xvu (Лурье, Studia in honorem Decev, 63— 72), ou^i. t&v [летрисм, àXXà tcov ßaßal, ßaßod (Liddell-Scott, GEL, 300), Latin vae misero mihi: :et mihi quidem (Hofmann, LU, 13), (?) ego vix teneor quin accurram sed si! litteras tuas exspecto (Cicero, Farn. XVT, 24), French Nicolas Rainette consentait... à s'asseoir en face de Mélie, et clac, cZac, clac, clac, la chanson laborieuse com­ mençait (Grevisse, BU, 966), Gothic hiri jah saihv 'ëpx0l) xal Ï8e5 (Лурье, НС 29; Jo. X I, 34), German er hatte einfach seinen Dienst abzuschrauben und damit hollah (Behaghel, DS, III, 437), Lithuanian tik kïlst ir nukêlê miką nuo suolo 'only one movement up and she raised the baby from the bench5 (Otrębski, GJL, III, 373), Latvian nuokrit: zeme й п p\iks\ '(das Schiissel- chen) fiel auf die Diele und — pliks (entzwei war es)!5 (Draviçâ-Bûcke, IMS, 20), Polish ja go za piersi chap, a on o ziemię, klapl 'I seized him by the chest and he fell to the ground5 (Linde, SJP, II, 364) 234 *, Czech sebral se a hybaj 'he pulled himself together and took to his heels5 (Travni- cek, MSÖ, II, 1468), Slovak sadol som na kona a hajdy 'I got on the horse and gee-up!5 (Morfologia slovenského jazyka, 822), Lower Lusatian a to éëéo buch a buch 'und das ging Schlag auf Schlag5 (Muka, SDB, I, 91),

231 Cf. С. Лурье, HG, 9; Studia in honorem D. JDeëev, София 1958, 63— 72. 232 Cf. A. Leskien, IF, X III, 165— 212; P. Смаль-Стоцький, ПС. 233 J. Otrębski, GJL, III, 374, considers them the original deverbative substan­ tive with suffix -(s)ti-. 234 On the constructions of this kind in Polish see Z. K lem ensiew icz, ZNUJ, XVII, 10— 11. Russian ccc...а теперь вы говорите chush!...and now say’ (Германович, MPЯ, 41), Byelorussian крыша шусь и упала rthe roof made whiz and fell’ (Носович, СБН, 719), Ukrainian г у к i с о с н а в п а л а ebang and the pine fell’ (Смаль-Стоцький, ПС, 45), Bulgarian помисли си той — и бух\ в прозореца fhe stopped to think and jumped to the window’ (Стоянов, Граматика на българския език, 439), Serbo-Croatian onda se Brlco zaleti i hop\ cthen B. broke into run and hop!’ (Brabec etc., Gramatika hrvat- skosrpskoga jezika, 157).

The above (A— C) described conjunctional connections can be ex­ plained by the variety of functions of verbal categories, which makes pos­ sible their secondary approach and the parallel use. Apart from the IE languages similar connections can be found for instance in the Semitic languages where the copulative va may join the participle 235 and in­ finitive 236 with the finite verb; in colloquial Arabic also onomatopoeic expressions with the verb 237.

5.3.3. Sentence constructions

The sentences joined by paratactical conjunctions may differ from one another (A) in their modality or (B) in the degree of syntactic dependence. In both cases the connected constituents cannot be transposed owing to the asymmetric modulation of functions of the conjunctions, which makes them closer to subordinate connections.

A. Modal constructions Each paratactical conjunction remains in a different degree of de­ pendence on the modal shading of the joined constituents. Here the ad­ versative conjunction shows the greatest independence, as it does not impose any modal limitations. With the remaining three types of con­ junctions the difference of mood of the verb in joined clauses — if el­ lipsis of the mood formant does not take place (§ 5.2.2. A. vii) — modifies or changes the function of conjunction. Connections of this kind occur mainly in colloquial languages. Among these the use of (i) copulative and (ii) alternative conjunctions after the imperative, usually before the future indicative is most widespread. In such combinations the copulative

236 E.g. in Hebrew (W. Gesenius, Hebrew Grammar7, Oxford 1957, 359—362), in Phoenician (P. S chröder, Die phönizische Sprache, Halle 1869, 210). 286 E.g. in Hebrew (op. cit. 345—347), in South Arabic (Г. Бауер, Язык южноа- раеийской письменности, Москва 1966, 85). 237 S. H am arneh (oral information); for Japanese cf. M. Киэда, ГЯ, II, 149. conjunction gets a final shading 238 and the alternative one — a resultative shading. Similar is the case when either conjunction stands before the optative (subjunctive) or conditional mood. The occurrence of the dis­ junctive conjunction in combinations of the verb in different moods is rare and then it becomes a negative strengthening particle 239. Apart from grammatical mood the following serve as modal shading: intonation, certain particles and the meaning of the verb, and these also modify the function of the conjunction, e.g. after the verb 'want9, 'wish9 etc. the copulative conjunction behaves in the same way as when it follows the imperative. (i) C opulative. The use of the copulative conjunction with final sha­ ding is sometimes interpreted as a result of the tendency to replace hypo­ taxis by parataxis and it is one of a number of syntactic phenomena, regar­ ded as specific for the Balkan area 24°. This construction has, of course, a wi­ der scope and it occurs mainly in colloquial language. Here the copulative conjunction may become formally independent, e.g. the Old Polish a 'and9 connected with the conditional particle by has become an autonomous aby 'that, in order to9. Besides IE this construction was attested among others in Hebrew241, Ugaritic 242 and Arabic 243. Ossetic vasty cäv, ämä zylyn sbäräg na 'beat the innocent one to find the guilty one9 (Кудаев, СОЯ, 57), Armenian а р а et hraman ew acin araji iwr zsurbn Nerses 'dann gab er den Befehl den HI. N. vor ihn zu führen9 (Jensen, AG, 197—198), Greek sink Xoyco xaL LodhqcreTai о tuocïç (лои (Mt. VIII, 8), Modern Greek ^eXa xat той ToScoaa (Andriotis, Kourmoulis, ibidem, 28), Albanian sonde me la е д е fjeta me te solcen 'die Nacht hat er mich bei seiner Frau schlafen gelassen9 (Fraenkel, IF , X L III, 306), Latin die...et eris mihi magnus Apollo (TLL, V, 2, 894), ibo et cognoscam (Stolz- Schmalz, LG6, 661), Italian dialectal bolo e ffaééi esto (ibidem), French viensj et je serai content (Antoine, CF, 247), Middle Welsh mi a rodaf vy iarllaeth yth uedyant a thric gyt a mi 'I will give my earldom into thy pos­ session and stay with me9 (Strachan, IEW , 75), English remove the jury and in the hands of the judge alone will rest the capital issue (Scheurweghs, English Syntax, 313), Danish glem И с к е og shriv under 'vergiss nicht zu unterschreiben9 (Fraenkel, ibidem), German stirb und werde (Grimm, DW,

288 Л. Булаховский, UK, 345 and K. Polański, SZŁ, 173 interpreted this con­ struction as a conditional one. га» Whereas when used in comparative function (cf. § 6.2.l.C) it can join the Verbs in different moods, similarly as other comparative conjunction. 240 Cf. N. P. Andriotis, Gr. Kourmoulis, I Congres des Études Balkaniques, VI, Sofia 1968, 21— 30; E. F raen k el, IF, X L III, 306. 241 C. Steuernagel, HG, 47. 242 С. Сегерт, Угаритский язык, Москва 1965, 83. 243 Б. Гранде, КАГ, 400. XI, 3, 411), Lithuanian duok ir dabar nugrauszim 'gib her, und wir wollen jetzt abbeissen5 (Fraenkel, ibidem), Polish idź i zobaczysz 'go and you will see5, Upper Lusatian budé lëpsi a Up je so zmëjeë 'get better and you will feel [better5 (Polański, SZŁ, 173), Bussian скажи и все будет сделано 'speak and all will be done5 (Булаховский, UK, 345), Old Church Slavonic ostavi i izbmQ sçëecb 'àcpeç exßaXco tó xàpcpoç5 (Mt. VII, 4). (ii) A lte rn a tiv e . The change of function from alternative to re- sultative in the Lusatian language has been discussed by L. Bojzenzon 244 who quotes also parallels from Bussian. This change generally takes place after the imperative and before the future indicative; it can be also found before the conditional mood. From the semantic point of view the preceding clause expresses a wish while the following clause expresses the eventual result of its being not fulfilled. Here the alternative conjunction becomes equivalent to the adverb 'otherwise5 (i.e. 'or else5) and it can be replaced by a resultative conjunction. This construction is known also in other Slavonic and IE languages. Modern Persian ya piè-i man bâè ya tora piè-i 'Abd-ul-Malik firistam 'entweder bleibe bei mir, oder ich schicke dich zum A.5 (Jensen, NPG, 272), Sarikoli %ыу Uw so, %ыу waz som 'go or else I shall go5 (Пахалина, СЯ, 85), Greek oûx êÇecmv аитф etę то iepöv тоtv O-eoTv eimévou, y) aTro&avsiTat. (Kühner-Gerth, GG, II, 297), Latin cede...au t...veniemus in ignés; aut dormi aut ego iam dicam patri; sit tandem pudor, aut eamus in ius (TLL, II, 1570), French obéis à Vinstant, ou sinon tu seras châtié (Grevisse, BU, 1038), Gothic atsaihwifj armaion izwara ni taujan in andwairfija manne, aïppau (et 8è [xvjye) laun ni habaifj fram attin izwaramma (Mt. VI, 1), Middle High German nu han ich nikt verge$zen oder ich habe in genant, Modern German), nehmen Sie... oder Sie sind verloren (Behaghel, DS, III, 239— 240), English we must go now, or we shall be late for tea (Jespersen, MEG, V, 388), Old Polish wypełń ustawę abo umrzesz 'conform to the rule or else you will die5, w nędzy zejdzie potomstwo jego, abo-by sie pańskie słowo musiało wspak obrocie 'his descendants will die in poverty or else the Lord’s word would come awry5 (SIBL, I, 111), Upper Lusatian niewalej kamjenje na puc abo zwrociè sam wo nje 'don’t throw the stone on the road or else you will come back5 (Bojzenzon, ibidem, 164), Bussian о т к р о й или я брошу бомбу 'open or else I shall throw a bomb5 (ibidem, 165). B. Hypotactical constructions 245 To sentence connections of constituents with different degree of auto­ nomy belong the constructions having a paratactical conjunction, i.e. (i) copulative and (ii) adversative, in the apodosis of a subordinate clause. 244 P J, I960, 161— 166. 245 First draft of this chapter has been published in RS, X X V III, 25—30. (i) C opulative. The copulative conjunction occurs in the apodosis of conditional and relative-temporal clauses, less frequently in the other clauses. In this position a deictic particle or adverb 'then, so" usually occurs while the copulative conjunction generally appears in a stylistically undevelopped language (colloquial, dialectal, archaic) where in some cases a preconjunctional meaning may be preserved here. Old Indian yddi nidräydd dpi kàmam svapyât 's’il s’endort, qu’il dorme à sa guise9 (Minard, SPY, § 637), Modem Persian éu an safal ra behakim-i Basra dad va vay suvar bud az asp furud amad 'als er die Scherbe dem Statthalter von B. übergab, und dieser sass zu Pferde, stieg dieser ab9 (Jensen, NPG, 319—320), Hittite takku ÏB MES-&t7 GEMEMEä-$ f7 kuëlqa Jiurkel iianzi tu§ arnuuanzi 'wenn jemandes Knechte (und) Mägde Greuel begehen, dann bringt man sie weg9 (Friedrich, H E, § 319, B), Armenian ibrew ekn emut i xoran andr, ew yonthris bazmecaw 'als er in das Zelt ein­ getreten war, legte er sich zum Bankett nieder9 (Jensen, AG, 197), Greek аХХ'бте 8r) p ex тоьо 8и<о8ехатт) yéveVYjax;, ха! тоте 8y) Ttpoç 9,OXu(jlttov ïcrav Oeoi aîèv sôvteç (Kühner-Gerth, GG, II, 255), Albanian ôerpela is bere hazer, Us me ts dais pulat, e t'i zij 'der Fuchs hatte sich bereit gemacht, um, wenn die Hühner herauskämen, sie auch zu fangen9 (Lambertz, IF, XXXIV, 188), Latin quom Incuboni pilleum rapuisset et invenit; quae (puellae) habentes unum asellum...et nutriebant leonem (Hofmann-Szantyr, LSS, 389, 482), Italian perché tu vuogli che io piii avanti ancora dica, ed io il diro (Jensen, ANSL, CLV, 59), Old French quant U rois Vot coisie...et a dit a ses homes (ibidem), Spanish a quien quiere y es a su primo (ibidem), Rumanian deci-l birui, si iara se închisera în cetate 'nachdem er ihn be­ siegt hat, so schlossen sie sich wieder in der Stadt ein9 (Meyer-Lübke, GRS, III, 697), Old Irish ma beid ni di rûnaib do'thêi ar menmuin ind fir...et ad'reig 'if aught of the mysteries should come before the mind of the m an...and he rises9 (Thurneysen, GOI, 558), Middle Welsh tra yttoed vilwyr Arthur yn ymlad ar gaer rwygaw о Gei y uagwyr a chymryt y car- charawr ar у geuyn 'während die Krieger Arthur’s mit der Stadt kämpften, durchbrach Kei die Mauer und nahm den Gefangenen auf seinen Rücken9 (Pedersen, VGK, II, 418), Cornish i vam pan y-n drehevys ha-y vos deueäis de oys 'when his mother (had) reared him, and he was come to age9 (ibi­ dem), Old Icelandic er hjartblód Fafnis kom a tungu honom1 ok skïldi hann fugls rqdd 'als das Herzblut F. auf seine Zunge kam, da verstand er die Sprache des Vogels9 (Jensen, ibidem), Old English him ]>â gyt sprecendum and ]jä beorth wolcn hig oferscedn 'adhuc eo loquente, ecce nubis lucida obumbravit eos9 (Bosworth-Toller, An Anglo-Saxon dictionary, Suppl. 38; Mt. XV II, 5), Old High German do dar niuuiht ni uuas enteo ni uuenteOj enti do uuas der eino almahtico cot 'als da nichts war an Enden und Wenden, da war der eine allmächtige Gott9 (Jensen, ibidem, 60), German dialectal wenn se wella, und do gii ich mit (Grimm, DW, X I, 3, 419), Lithuanian kaip povälgydavo Ir vel vlskas prapütdavo 'when he had finished eating again it had all vanished3 (Fraenkel, KZ, Ergheft I, 52), Old Polish kthori czhlovyek tho popelny, a myloszcz bozchą then odzyrschy 'whoever does it he shall have God’s love3 (SS, I, 4), dialectal matka jak weźnie chłopaka bić, i wygnała go 'when mother began to beat the boy she turned him out3 (Karłowicz, SGP, II, 220), Old Czech moci-li budeS tak uciniti, a ty nein 'if you have the power to do it then do3 (Bauer, VÖS, 310), Old Bussian аще вы послтъдтя не люба , а передняя приимаише 'if the last one is not nice to you then take the first one3 (Срезневский, МСДРЯ, I, 2), dialectal если где-ка родные , и поеду туда 'if there are somewhere any relations then I ’ll go there3 (Шапиро, ОСРНГ, 35), Old Byelorussian к о л и пойдуть...и вы бы йхъ пропускали 'if they go let them go3 (Карский, Б, II—III, 496), dialectal (?) як просплюся , и свини боюся 'when I slept enough then I am afraid of the pig3 (ibidem, 484), Ukrainian dialectal jak vzat boha prosyty, i dał mu boh chłopca 'when he began to pray to God then God gave him a boy3 (Miklosich, VGS, IV, 260), Old Church Slavonic aste vbznenavidëvb oUpustièi i pokrijetb neëbsUje na tę 'if hating someone you forgive then your unchastity (trespasses) shall be forgiven3 (SJS, 63), Middle Bulgarian ако бъди да стане а той стана ще и без твоето баъше 'if you except him to get up he will get up without your bothering about it3 (Мирчев, УГБЕ, 245), Old Serbo-Croatian koji imao bude milosrdje od druzije, a druzi ce imati od riega 'he who has been shown mercy will be merciful to others3 (BSJ, I, 20), dialectal kad je bio blizu dvora, a on babu dovikuje 'when he was near the manor then he called the woman3 (ibi­ dem, 19), Slovene kar reëe in &e se zgodi 'if he said so he also agreed3 (Miklo­ sich, ibidem). (ii) Adversative. The use of an adversative conjunction in the apo- dosis of a concessive clause is a normal phenomenon in most of the IE lan­ guages. Tokharian A mäsratsi pe snikek nu kätkästär ni tunkyärincä 'quam- quam pavidum, tarnen amore gaudet cor meum3 (Poucha, ILT, 187), Old Indian yadi àpy asmâdârakâd âsy âtha na etdc chrnv evàivâm evàitân manyasvêty evàitâd âha 'bien que tu sois loin de nous, entends pourtant cette nôtre (prière), regarde-la pourtant favorablement3 (Minard, SPY, § 600), Modem Persian agar ce nazarie-§ân sahih-astj Vatikan dar injâ na- bâyad zekr-eę beçavad 'quoique leur opinion soit juste, cependant il ne faut pas qu’elle soit mentionnée ici3 (Lazard, GPC, 240), Ossetic bäräjyn $yrdton, fälä ne'srazy is 'although I persuaded yet he did not agree3 (OPC, 537), Modern East Armenian theyew inj hamozum ëin bayç es ëseçi gnaçi 'though others dissuaded me I did not obey and I went3 (Гарибян, КАЯ, 226), Greek xai yap et |av&cû8y)ç о Xôyoç yéyovev, ofxcoç aurai xat vuv p r iv a i 7rpoo7)Xei (Kühner-Gerth, GG, II, 489), Latin quamquam ego vinum bibo, at mandata non consuevi simul bibere una (Safarewicz, GHJŁ, II, 184), French pour être lent, il achève néanmoins toujours son travail ( Wartburg-Zumthor, PSFC, 110), Rumanian mäcar cà 1er a Grec, от strain, dar ïera от bun "though he was Greek, a stranger, he was a good man5 (Weigand, EG, 173), Old Irish ceso comprehensio literarum, as'berr camaiph "although (a syl­ lable) is a с. 1. nevertheless (a single vowel) is so called5 (Thurneysen, GOI, 560), Modern Welsh E r na fedyddiasai yr lesu ei hun, eithr ei ddisgyblion ef "Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples5 (Jo. IV, 2), Gothic jabai unhrains im waurda, akeini kunpja "ei $è xai lSicoty)^ тф Xoyco, àXX'où ту) yvcoaet5 (2, Korinth. X I, 6), German ob ich gleich vom Podagra frei bleibe, wie ich doch, leider! nicht hoffen darf (Paul, DG, IV, 281), Lithuanian kaczei dëvo żodj girdédamij taczau netïk devą sant\ "obgleich Gottes Wort hörend, glauben sie nicht, dass ein Gott sei5 (Leskien, LL, 227), Latvian had arï nesaltu, tadśu braukśu "wenn auch Frost nicht eintreten sollte, (so) werde ich doch fahren5 (Endzelin, LG, 826), Polish chociaż teoretycznie o znalezienie posady było bardzo łatwo, jednakże spotykały ją zawody "although it was theoretically very easy to find a job yet she would encounter disappointment5 (PSP, 95), Old Czech ас со s blaznem kdy ulovis, ale nerovnë s nim rozdëlis "though you find some­ thing with a fool yet you will not share it evenly5 (Bauer, VÖS, 327), Slovak i ked' su chapci nie suci do takej roboty, jednako mi dobre pomohli "though boys are not fit for such work yet they have helped me a lot5 (Pauliny etc., Slovenskâ gramatika, 376), Upper Lusatian hdyS njeje ze êkliëkami, dha je tola ze Uiëkami "though it is not with pieces of glass yet it is with tears5 (Liebsch, LS, 213), Russian хотя было еще рано, но ворота оказались запертыми "though it was still early the gate had already been locked5 (ГРЯ, II, 2, 337), Byelorussian хоць ты за мине больший, але дурынь гбршый 'though you are bigger than I you are still a greater fool5 (Карский, Б, II—III, 498), Ukrainian хоч тчого ïcmu, та весело жити "though not eating anything yet living merrily5 (Гринченко, СУМ, IV, 412), Old Church Slavonic aste i Vbsi Sbblaznęt' sę о tebë, a ażb nikoli&e ne Sbblaznjo sę "though others will disavow you yet I will never5 (SJS, 65), Bulgarian мъж да принася с две ръце, жена да изнася с малкия си пръст, пак е празна кьщата "let the man bring with both his hands and the woman carry out with her little finger yet the house is empty5 (Попов, Синтаксис2, 303), Serbo-Croatian ako drugima i nijesam apostoł, ali vama jesam "though for the others I am no apostle yet for you I am5 (RSJ, I, 55), Slovene kakor je bil Janez lacen in premrl, se je vendar zopet lotil uëenja "though J . was hungry and tired yet he again took to learning5 (Bajec etc., Slovenska slovnica, 313). On the other hand, the adversative conjunction in the apodosis of conditional and temporal clause is much less frequent. Greek èizzi u(Xetç T) Ïctte ouSèv yj ou тоХ^ате Xéyeiv, àXX5èyo> èpéco; ei $è (jlt) Xôycp, àXX'ëpyw a7uoSeLxvu[xai (Kühner-Gerth, GG, II, 287), Latin si illi sunt virgae ruri, at mihi tergum domist (Hofmann-Szantyr, L88, 489), French la perquisition...si elle ne provoqua pas de nouvelles preuves, amena cependant la découverte d'un peleton de corde (Lerch, HFS, 1 ,265), Old Irish amal ni bad atrab sidoib fadisin acht bid arecein nusgabtis 'comme si ce n’était pas leur demeure à eux-mêmes mais c’était par force qu’ils l’avaient prise la ville* (Vendryes, GVI, 364), Old Lithuanian Nęs ięi su kuo Wieszpatis Diewas, o kas priesz tą efor if the Omnipotent is with someone, who (will stand) against him* (Drotvinas, Kalbotyra, I, 124), Old Polish jeżeli macie sprawę przeciw komu, wszak sądy bywają rif you have a lawsuit with someone yet there are courts of justice* (Linde, SJP, VI, 435), Old Czech a kdyS jemu najprvé pfikâzachu posluSnu byti, ale on к tomu slibi i utrpenie drSëti eand when he was first told to obey he also swore that he could suffer poverty* (Bauer, VÖ8, 241), Old Russian аще кто оца ли мтре не послушаешь, но смртъ п р и и м е т ь eif someone does not obey his father or mother he will suffer death* (Срезневский, ibidem, II, 479), Serbo-Croatian kad je blizu dvora dolazila7 aVu dvoru kuka kukavica 'when she was approaching the manor a cuckoo cuckooed* (RSJ, I, 72). Although there is no formal difference between the use of copulative conjunction and adversative conjunction in the apodosis of a subordinate clause, in former investigation these two phenomena have not been related with each other. The copulative conjunction in the apodosis of a subord­ inate clause has usually been considered as a pleonasm M6, being a vestige of its pre-conjunctional meaning 246 247 or of the period during which hypotaxis was arising from original parataxis 248. The occurrence of this construction from the earliest times and in dialects — also in non IE languages 249 * — seems to point to its antiquity. It is difficult, however, to see conjunctional meaning everywhere. It seems easiest to explain this connection by the contamination of hypotactical and paratactical constructions thanks to their semantic likeness which in the case of the function concessive — adversative is more distinct 25°, whence its extension.

6.3.4. Word — sentence constructions

There is a certain semantic similarity between sentences and parts of sentences thanks to which on the one hand certain kinds of subordinate

246 H. Jen sen , ANSL, CLV, 59— 66. 247 J. Bauer, VÖS, 345— 350. 248 Я. Сцринчак, OTIC, II, 30— 31, 126— 128. 249 E.g. in Semitic (C. B rock elm an n , VGS, II, 672), in Basque (W. Havers, HES, § 10). 260 In this respect cf. change of concessive conjunction into adversative (§ 6.2.3.D.i.d). clauses can be reduced to respective parts of the main clause. On the other hand, words can be joined with sentences by means of paratactical con­ junctions. Here we can distinguish (A) 66conjunctive” connections of parts of the sentence with semantically corresponding subordinate clauses and (B) “absolute” connections of the (loose) word with an independent sentence. Of these the former are quite frequent whereas the latter ap­ pear sporadically.

A. Conjunctive constructions Within “conjunctive” connections the combination of substantive or adjective (more rarely participle, e.g. in French and Bussian) with relative clauses, which complements or develops it, is rather frequent. In Old Indian, Avesta, Greek and Latin this clause may occur in elliptical form without a finite verb 251. In Greek it is virtually the only certain type of this construction as in the connection xal oç where the original deictic meaning of the pronoun is usually assumed 252, whereas the inter­ pretation of the so-called “epic те” after a relative pronoun as a copulative conjunction — in spite of parallels from Avesta quoted by H. Seiler 253 — is not the only possible one. Sporadically, other parts of a relative clause, too, may undergo ellipsis. Old Indian (?) ndvam...grhdya nityäriträm...yd pärayäc charma yd-ca 'gib... das Schiff, das selbst sich rudert... und sichre Zuflucht bietet5 (BY, 1, 140, 12, cf. Grassmann, WBV, 428), svapno yo vä 'der Schlaf oder welcher es ist5 (Delbrück, SF, V, 571), Avestan västryät vä dite у э vä nöit anhat västryö 'um zum Weidehirten hinzugehen oder zu dem der nicht Weidehirte ist5 (Humbach, GZ, 33, 90), mainyuS spmiStö.. .yaë-ëâ %snaosdn ahurdm 'spiritus sanctissimus et (ii) qui satisfaciant5 (Bartholo- mae, AIW, 566), Greek ai TrXaCTTixal yàp xal Saat TuXexTixal tcov tc^vcov ; TLva х р г ш то сто V ixet. Y)è vecov avSpcov t) oi Ttpoyevecrrepoi eic iv (Havers, IF, XLIII, 242), àvTi vu tuoXXcov Xa&v ecttIv av/jp ov те Zeùç xrjpi фсХу^сту) (Seiler, BAA, 192), Latin iusto hornine eo-que qmm virum bonum dicimus; non esse servos peior hoc quisquam potest п е с magis versutus nec quo ab caveas aegrius (Hofmann-Szantyr, LSS, 561), haec suspensa rapit carpente cacu- mina morsu vel salicis lentae vel quae nova nascitur alnus (Havers, IF, XLIII, 242), French huit grands pendards ivres, ou que le dévoient être; (confrère) survenu en 1941, et dont il vient d'être informé (Antoine, CF, 489,490), Old Irish rolegsat canóin fetarlaici 7 nufiodnissi amal rundaleg- sami, acht ro-n-sa siabset som 'ils ont lu le canon du Vieux et de Nouveau Testament comme nous l’avons lu; mais ils l’ont dénaturé5 (Vendryes, 251 Cf. W. Havers, IF, XLIII, 242; H. Seiler, BAA, 185— 191. 252 Cf. E. Schwyzer, GG, I, 611. 258 Ibidem, 192. GVI, 362), English born in a poor district, and which yet Betaineth more of ancient homeliness ; I take this rather as an unkind piece of kindness in you, but which... I forgive (Jespersen, MEG, III, 78), German was ist die gröste Sünde, und die ihn am grimmigsten aufbringt; sie ist zwar eine stumme Poesie, aber die sich unmittelbar unsern Augen verständlich machen will; ein Elend ohne Sorge, oder dessen einzige Sorge darin besteht (Paul, DG, IV, 386—387), Old Polish wybierz męże m ądre...a со-by łakomstwem gar­ dzili "choose wise men... and (such) who would scorn greediness3 (SIBL, 1 ,8), Russian люди... составлявшие ...и которые не принадлежали "men... constitu­ ted ... and who did not belong3 (Ruźicka, Zeitschrift für Slavistik, VIII, 842). More rarely in this construction other kinds of subordinate clause may occur. Avestan paourvlm.. .уаШ-ёа anhat арртэт avhuS "Grundlage seines Lebens... und die Art, wie das Leben zuletzt sein wird3 (Humbach, GZ, 33, 85), Middle Greek sïxev Y^P <*7го xocX

B. Absolute constructions Occasionally the “nominative absolute” 254 may be joined by means of conjunction with verbal clause, which also finds non IE parallels 255. Mycenaean Greek (4)Atukhos entesdomos ekhei-cpe onätonparo Warnataiôi "A. the artificer, and he holds a lease from W.3 (Vilborg, op. cit. 129—130), Latin ingenio vigilans... et meruit (Hofmann-Szantyr, LSS, 141), English The battle done, and they within our power shall never see his pardon (Visser, HSEL, 1267), Old Russian А князь Андртьй Михайлович Шуйской> а онъ быль злодтьй "and him, the duke A. M. §. and he was an evildoer3 (Потебня, ЗРГ, I— II, 204), Ukrainian А той didycb, та був калта "and him, this gaffer and he was a cripple3 (ibidem). 266264* 264 On the conjunctional connections of “nominative absolute” with substantive see § 5.3.1.C.Ü, with (omitted) pronoun § 5.2.2. 266 In Hebraic (C. Steuernagel, HG, 119) as nominativus pendens with verbal sentence. 6. MEANS OF CONNECTION

In the IE languages the paratactical connections of constituents of utterance are realized by means of (1 ) asyndeton, (2 ) conjunctions and (3) certain pronouns, adverbs and particles. Of these the basic means of connection — owing to the importance and variety of functions as well as to the frequency of use — are conjunctions; asyndeton is a facultative stylistic variant of the conjunctional construction, whereas other parts of speech may perform secondary paratactical functions, at the same time preserving their basic meaning.

6.1. ASYNDETON

6.1.1. General characteristics

Asyndeton in the IE languages — with the exception of Balto-Slavo- nic1 — has not been as yet the subject of special investigation. From the comparative point of view it has been characterized by B. Delbrück2 with particular regard to Old Indian. Much attention, however, has been paid to the classification of asyndetic connections 3. In classical poetics the term aauvSeTov (Latin inconexio) denoted connection or style without conjunctions 4 and to this day it has been treated rather as a figure of speech than as a grammatical category of syntax5. This seems to be justified by the fact that in IE and in the languages of other families asyndeton does not occur independently but is a facultative variant of the conjunctional construction 6. Thus one can consider as asyndetic only such connections which comply with the formal requirements of the relevant conjunctional constructions 7. Also from the semantic point of view there is no need to

1 Cf. G. K eller, ABS. 2 VS, III, 181— 194. 3 Cf. recently J. Knobloch, Sprachwissenschaftliches Wörterbuch, Heidelberg 1961 ff., III, 193— 196, where further literature can be found. 4 Cf. Liddell-Scott, GEL, 265; J. Knobloch, ibidem, 193. 5 Cf. E. Schwyzer, GG, II, 701—702; Hofmann-Szantyr, LSS, 828— 831. 6 Or of constructions containing other connective elements. 7 Cf. В. Белошацкова, СПРЯ, 138— 143. assume that thé asyndetic connections essentially differ from the con­ junctional ones; here we can only speak of the cumulation of several func­ tions or of a special semantic shade. Generally speaking, asyndetic connec­ tions are less differentiated than conjunctional ones. Thus conceived asyndeton does not include all loose and “non-connective” combinations of constituents. At the morphological level asyndetic connections have corresponding composita which differ from them in the lack of autonomy of their constituents and in stylistic status 8. As we know the co-ordinate asyndetic constructions correspond to the composita dvandva, and asyn­ detic iteration to ämredita9. Unlike conjunctional connections, charac­ teristic of written, official and educated language, asyndeton is more frequent in colloquial and stylistically undeveloped language, in dialects, in children’s speech and in certain kinds of poetical texts. The association of asyndeton with colloquial language can be explained by the relatively simple structure of utterance and by the possibility of compensation for ambiguity — resulting from the lack of conjunctions — by means of pro­ sodic signals (more distinct intonation, longer pause)10. Asyndetic connec­ tions make themselves felt as more natural than conjunctional ones and hence their frequent occurrence in colloquial language and in dialects 11 as well as in poetry, where they also serve to intensify an expression. The occurrence of asyndeton in onomatopoeic expressions (§ 4.2.1. A) can be explained by the emotional shade. It also serves to enhance action, heigh­ ten tension, emphasize importance, etc. In literary texts it is sometimes used to enliven a narration and to make the description more picturesque.

6.1.2. Kinds of asyndeton

From the formal point of view we can distinguish two kinds of asynde­ ton: sentence and word asyndeton; the latter can in turn be divided ac­ cordingly to each particular part of speech. On the grounds of G. Keller’s 12 observations in Eussian we can come to a conclusion that 'connections of substantives are most frequent then, successively less frequent, of verbs, adjectives, adverbs and pronouns. This is in some congruence with the general frequency of these parts of speech. There is therefore cause to suppose that certain parts of speech are especially predestined to asyndetic

8 Cf. B. Delbrück, VS, III, 190— 192. 9 Cf. P. Salus, Orbis, X II, 551— 554; cf. also § 5.1.1. 10 Cf. T. Николаева, ИСП3 19, 84, 125, 242. 11 However, the opinion that it is a residue of the original state, does not seem to be justified, as all basic conjunctional functions are known here. The differences between dialectal and literary language consist in the frequency of conjunctions and in the complication of utterance. 12 ABS, 12—44. connections. The quantitative relation between word and sentence asyn­ deton has not as yet been systematically investigated. The latter seems to be more frequent than word asyndeton since it generally happens that the greater the units the looser the relation between them; a sentence may constitute a finite utterance whereas a simple word appears in this cha­ racter comparatively rarely. From asyndeton proper one can sometimes distinguish a useeming” asyndeton 13 in which a conjunction is replaced by some other means of connection such as pronoun, particle, repetition or parallelism of the matter etc. If we take into account the number of constituents, we can distinguish two types of asyndeton: bimembral and multimembral14, the second of which some scholars do not regard as asyndeton proper 15. This is bound up with the division — fundamental from the semantic point of view — of word asyndetic constructions into “collective” (usually bimembral) connections of notions which complete each other, and “summing” connections of notions (any member of con­ stituents), which are not so closely associated. This distinction was made by K. H. Meyer 16 in his review of O. Hujer’s 17 study of “collective” asyn­ deton, in which the author basing his remarks on the evidence (mostly) of the Czech language noticed that its constituents may (i) complete synonymically18, (ii) strengthen by repetition19, (iii) form a collective idea by (a) distinctive exhaustion, (b) indication of external (contradic­ tory) possibilities, (c) enumeration of constitutive ideas. Little attention has so far been paid to the relation between asyndetic and conjunctional constructions, only within sentence asyndeton the following connections have been distinguished: adversative, conclusive, causal, explicative, enumerative and summing20. It seems that this distinction can be made according to each separate function.

6.1.3. Asyndetic co-ordinate connections

A. Copulative Apart from the frequent “summing” combinations of words and more or less loose connections of sentences which are formed according to

13 Cf. Kühner-Gerth, GG, II, 339— 347 who considers that the “seeming” asyn­ deton occurs in connections of sentences only. 14 Cf. a similar division of conjunctional constructions into mono- and polysyndetic. 15 Cf. J. Knohloch, ibidem, 195. 16 IF, XLVI, 344. 17 MNHMA, Praha 1926, 159— 174. 18 Cf. the above mentioned (§ 5.1.0) examples of semantic iteration. 19 With eventual phonetic modification, cf. § 4.2.1. 20 Cf. Hof mann-Szanty r, LSS, 830; J. Knohloch, ibidem, 196. Indo-European Parataxis 7 proximity, sequence and internal association, we can distinguish “col­ lective” word connections which modify or change the meaning of their constituents. To the most widespread combinations in the IB languages belong: 'father — mother3 in the meaning of 'parents3, cf. Tokharian A pä- cär-mäcär, Old Indian mätarä-pitarau, Baluchi mâ&-piiï, Hittite attas- annas, Luwi anniyan-tatiyan, Paelignian matereif-patereif, Lithuanian te- vas-motna, Latvian tevs- ш а ш т а , Bussian о т е ц - м а т ь , Polish ojciec-matka21. Also certain old poetical connections 22, such as Avestan aspa-vira, pasu- vira corresponding to Latin equi-viri, Umbrian veiro-pequo; Old Indian dvipac-catuspad = Umbrian dupursus-peturpursus 'biped-quadruped3 corres­ ponding to Avestan bizQngra-ca&warozengra 'all living things3; pasuka-daitika 'all animals3 corresponding to Latin ferae-pecudes23 may be inherited from the P IE epoch. From the connections of this kind composita dvandva have arisen which had certainly existed24 — similarly to the compound words of other kinds — even in the epoch of the proto-language. Asyndetic word connections without semantic modification can be found in certain ritual texts of early attested IE languages, as Old Indian dt sûryam ja- nâyan dydm usasam 'darauf die Sonne erzeugend den Himmel, die Morgen­ röte3 (Delbrück, VS, III 193), Hittite adanna akuuanna 'to eat, to drink3 (Friedrich, HE, § 306, B), Latin node die, sartus tectus, purus putus (Meil- let-Vendryes, TGC, 633— 634), Umbrian pernaiaf pustnaiaf 'in front, at the back3, atru alfu 'black, white3 (Buck, EOUD, 125).

B. Alternative

Alternative asyndetic connections are much less frequent than copu­ lative ones and they are generally limited to certain expressions of a de­ finite structure. Here belong the connections in which a positive notion is joined with a negative one, such as the Old Indian jaya-paräjayam 'Sieg oder Niederlage3 (Wackernagel, AIG, II, 1, 163), Latin plus minus, Latvian guodîgs neguodîgs '(ob er) ehrlich (ist oder) nicht3 (Endzelin, LG, 805), Polish kupić nie kupić 'to buy (or) not to buy3, Bussian я д а в а л н е д а в а а 'I used to give or not to give3, Ukrainian спав неспав 'he slept (or) he did not sleep3 (cf. Потебня, ЗРГ, III, 423—424, 430, 432), among which the combination of semantem 'want3 is more frequent, e.g. Tok­ harian A krï mä krï (Poucha, ILT, 219), Modern Greek Się 8e Się (Thumb,

21 In examples given by M. Szym czak (Nazwy $topni pokrewieństwa..., Warszawa 1966, 31) with conjunction 37, asyndetically 12. 22 Cf. H. H irt, IG, I, 127. 23 E. Benveniste, BSOS, VIII, 405—409. 24 Differently B. D elbrück, VS, III, 139; recently P. Salus, Orbis, X II, 551—554, derives dvandva from âmrédita (inconvincingly). HNG, 173), Latin volens nolens, velim nolim, English willy-nilly, Lithuanian norint nenorint (Keller, ABS, 28), Polish chcąc nie chcąc, Czech chtëj nechtëj, vol nevol (Bauer, Sla via, XXIV, 391), Bussian волей неволей , Bulgarian м/гш нещешу сакат несакат , Serbo-Croatian des тгеее£ (cf. Потебня, ibidem; BPTJ, X X III, 160). Similarly in the enumeration of notions which ex­ clude one another, as in English five, six minutes later the bomb exploded (Dik, C, 32), Polish wrócą za jakie dwa, trzy tygodnie Til be back in about two (or) three weeks’, which can be found also in the languages of other families 25 26. In Old Indian the alternative function in the so-called double question may be realized by the intonation pluti given to one or both the constituents, e.g. adhah svid äslzd upâri svid äslH 'war es unten oder war es oben?’, êko mrtyûr bahàvâ3 iti 'giebt es einen Tod oder mehrere?’, ahir im3 rajjur nu 'ist es Schlange oder Strick?’ (Speyer, GIAP, I, 6 , 79). In all connections the alternative function is enhanced by parallelism.

C. Disjunctive

Disjunctive asyndeton arises from the connection of negative con­ stituents. Besides morphological (prefix) or syntactic (particle) negation — of which the latter is not asyndeton sensu stricto (§ 6 .1 .2 . C) — denying may also be achieved by means of dissimilarity of the matter of joined constituents.

D. Adversative

Both conjunctional and asyndetic adversative connections of words are a rare phenomenon since objects and features as such are neither con­ tradictory nor opposed. On the other hand, adversative connections of sentences — also asyndetic — are normal phenomena owing to their dif­ ferent or quite dissimilar matter, cf. e.g. Avestan janavhô saiôin nöit ] а п э п 'sie scheinen zu schlagen, (aber) sie schlagen nicht’ (Beichelt, AE, 357), Greek Еттартг)*; àvàaacov 5jX&eç, ou/ y)[a<ûv xpaT&v (Kühner-Gerth, GG, II, 342), Latin quaesivi, nusquam repperi (Safarewicz, GHJŁ, II, 139), La­ tvian gan udeńa ta purâ nuoëuuêi kârklù gali 'Wasser ist genug in dem Morast (aber dennoch) verdorrt sind die Weidenwipfel’ (Endzelin, LG, 814), Polish deszczyk pada, słońce świeci 'it rains (but) the sun shines’, Old Bussian Игорь спить, Игорь бъдитъ 'Igor sleeps (but) Igor watches’ (Потебня, ibidem, 431) etc., similarly in non IE languages 2e.

25 Cf. Ch. H o ck ett, A course in modern linguistics2, New York 1959, 186; M. Киэда, Г Я , II, 70. 26 As e.g. in Semitic, cf. C. B rockelm an n , VGS, II, 480—482. 7* 6.1.4. Extension of asyndeton in IE languages The fact that in the P IE epoch there existed conjunctions: copula­ tive and alternative *ue allows us to suppose that co-ordinate word asyndeton27 was of no great importance in the period which directly pre­ ceded the disintegration of the proto-language. However, its presence with copulative function is indicated by composita dvandva and the above mentioned connections. The alternative function may have been realized by interrogative intonation as is the case in the Old Indian plûti. The disjunctive connotation was presumedly achieved by negation while the adversative meaning may have been expressed by difference of matter. There is no basis for the reconstruction of elements joining greater syn­ tactic units in the proto-language 28. This seems to indicate that asyndetic connections were more frequent between sentences than between words. In the Tokharian language copulative asyndeton of substantives signi­ fying “collective” notions is particularly frequent. This phenomenon is not so widely known in the remaining IE languages and a foreign influence should rather be considered here29. In the Vedic texts asyndetic connections occur simultaneously beside conjunctional ones and composita dvandva and according to B. Delbrück30 the difference between them has a stylistic character only. In classical Sanskrit and later in the Middle and Modern Indo-Aryan languages asyn­ deton was limited by the remaining kinds of connection. In the Old Iranian texts (chronologically later) word asyndeton is less frequent than in Old Indian31. Similar is the case in the Middle and Modern Iranian langua­ ges 32, whereas connections of a non IE types (such as occur in Tokha­ rian) have, been attested in Ossetic33. In ritual Hittite texts of the Old Kingdom both word and sentence asyndeton frequently occur without special stylistic value. In later Hittite and apparently in other Anatolian languages it is already more rare. Similarly in Armenian where one can find the above mentioned (§ 4.2.1. A) onomatopoeic, expressions the origin of which should be traced (as for Ossetic) in the neighbouring Caucasian languages 34. 27 P IE *kve and *це represent the word type conjunctions, cf. § 7. 28 Differently C. W atk in s, Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, The Hague 1964, 1035— 1042. 29 Cf.,W. K rau se, НО, (I) 4, 3, 37, e.g. ak-mal 'eye-nose’ = Tace’, cf. Estonian suu-silmat 'mouth-eyes’, Kabardian na-ре 'eye-nose’ (K. B ouda, Caucasica, X , 95 ff.). 80 7S , III, 190— 192. 31 Similarly as the relevant composita. 32 On the asyndeton in Modern Persian see Ю. Рубинчик, Индийская и иранская филология, Москва 1964, 152— 163. 33 E.g. cäs(t)-kom 'eye-mouth’ = 'face’ (Bouda, ibidem). 34 Cf. Gr. S olta, HO, I, 7, 111— 112. In classical Greek asyndeton is an exceptionally rare phenomenon, notably in word connections; this is probably related to the stylistic development of this language. However one finds the rare occurrence of asyndeton in Mycenaean texts (almost as old as Vedic and Hittite) and in dialects 35. In Italic area word asyndeton is frequent, especially in legal and sacred texts. As is the case with other IE languages, multimembral con­ nections are more frequent whereas bimembral (“collective”) ones in classical and Late Latin already have a stylistic, sometimes an archaic, character36. Dialectal inscriptions, especially the Umbrian ones, have preserved the old state. In the Komanie and Germanic languages sentence and multimembral word asyndeton — used mostly for stylistic purposes — is a well-known phenomenon. On the basis of investigations so far carried out, little can be said on asyndeton in the Celtic languages; composita dvandva are infrequent here37. In the Balto-Slavonic languages 38, notably in folkloric texts, there is a great variety of all kinds of asyndeton. This concerns mainly Bussian and East B altic39 languages. Some of those connections — namely so- called “twin-composita” in Bussian 40 — seem to be the result of Finno- Ugric influences 41.

6.2. CONJUNCTIONS

6.2.1. Position and classification A. Position of conjunctions The conjunction can be examined as (i) a syntactic function, (ii) a mor­ phological category and (iii) a lexical unit. 36 Only a few examples from inscriptions are quoted by B. D elbrück, VS, III, 186. 36 Hofmann-Szantyr, LSS, 828— 831. 37 Cf. H. P edersen, VGK, II, 3—4; differently W. Meid, Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft, XIV, 107— 108. 38 Cf. Gr. K eller, ABS; recently on Latvian : L. Ceplïtis, Raksti LatVijas PSR Zinätnu Akademija, XV II, 111— 195, on Russian: Л. Глинкина, ИЛГРЯ, 230—260. 39 In this respect in the Old Prussian texts I have not found any deviations from the German original (with one exception: R. T rau tm an n , APS, 78). However, the presence of asyndeton in Prussian is pointed to by the autentic expressions like: Ohoho moi mile swente pannike fo mein libes heiliges f ewerlein9, beigeite beigeite puœkolle Tauf ft laufft jr Teufel9, trencke trencke fstos an stos an9 quoted by Maletius (cf. V. M ażiulis, PrUsą kalbos paminklai, Vilnius 1966, 30— 31). 40 On the “twin-composita", which generally from the point of view of semantics are not co-ordinate, see S. Jod łow sk i, BPT J, X X I, 49—60. 41 H. Jaco b so h n , ANTIAQPON, Göttingen 1923, 206; W. V eenker, Die Frage des finnougrischen Substrats in der russischen Sprache, The Hague 1967, 143, 260—261. (i) Position of conjunctions within syntactic system. In certain typological theories the conjunction is treated as a universal42 and this seems to be justified by the fact that wherever it is unknown or has a limited scope its function is fulfilled by other syntactic means. Of the three basic functions of language: naming, demonstration and con­ notation distinguished by K. Biihler 43 and adapted in syntactic investi­ gation by T. Milewski44 — the conjunctions belong to the latter. As a pa­ rallel to the three mathematical notions “— ”, “O”, “ + ” we can distin­ guish the following possibilities of realization of a connotative unit: (a) omission, (b) lack, (c) addition of special elements. (a) The omission of some element of joined constituents can be found in various kinds of ellipsis, which secondarily mark the relation between juxtaposed constituents (§ 5.2), where one* word may be sometimes a mem­ ber of two different clauses simultaneously, e.g. the object of the preceding clause and the subject of the following one, as in Chinese vo ju где penju %uej so c&ungo %ua eI have a friend (the friend) speaks Chinese’ (Коротков etc., Китайский язык, 123), Khmer chmoh Maw Ц : р - п ш ю tow vmmin ehe whose name is Maw, (Maw) has just left9 (Gorgoniyev, KL, 122). (b) As examples of the lack of special joining element we may regard: asyndeton, the ending “zero”, a determined order of constituents or their formal modification, e. g. in the Telugu language the copulative function may be realized by the prolonged articulation of the final vowel in the joined words45. (c) A special joining element may be pré-, inter- or postponed according to the joined constituents and it may remain in a more or less strict formal relationship to them. This is the most frequent kind of connotation, whereas the two preceding ones do not occur on their own, since appa­ rently we usually have several possibilities. According to the syntactic rank of the joined constituents we can distin­ guish connections of homo- and polyfunctional units as well as respecti­ vely two kinds of connotation: horizontal (constituents of the same fun­ ction, i.e. homofunctional) and vertical (constituents of different function, i.e. polyfunctional). If we assume as the semantically fundamental func­ tion of a sentence a statement of existence46, then in short we may consider all connections of sentences as homofunctional, whereas vertical connota­ tion can be limited to the certain connections of words. In this sense

42 Cf. Ch. H o ck ett, Universals of language2, Cambridge 1966, 21; S. Dik, Coordi­ nation, 1; Б. Успенский, op. cit. §08. 43 Sprachtheorie. 44 BPT J, X I, 74— 92. 46 Cf. 3. Петруничева, ЯТ, 87. 46 Cf. J. Safarew icz, JP , X X X III, 94—98, where further literature can be found. vertical connotation is realized in IE languages by endings, prepositions, intonation and order of constituents, and horizontal connotation — by conjunctions, relative pronouns, asyndeton and other syntactic means 47. Hence endings join clauses only exceptionally (secondarily) 48 and preposi­ tions — if they occur in such connections — become, from descriptive point of view, conjunctions 49. The formal association of an element with joined constituents may be expressed in its pro/en-clisis, lack of pause, (im)possibility of tmesis, vocalic harmony, definite position, etc. It is obvious that owing to the scope of utterance — the greater the units the looser the connection — the rela­ tion of constituents in vertical connotation is more strict. However, on the one hand the preposition is more loosely joined with the basis than the ending; on the other hand — leaving aside normal conjunctions which owing to their scope and usage can be named a sentence type — there exists a certain kind of conjunction, nearing in its form and usage the units of vertical connotation, which can be named a word type. It is usually a postpositive enclitic which, similarly to other syntactic “suffixes”, is placed with all the words or with the last one only and in agglutinative languages it may undergo vocalic harmony, thus being unsuitable for joining greater syntactic units. This conjunction can be found inter alia in Caucasian, Uralo-Altaic, Tibeto-Chinese, Korean, Swahili and in some American Indian languages, and apparently also in P IE language (§ 7). The sentence type of conjunction — more widespread in the languages of the world — is placed between joined constituents, while preserving its formal autonomy and it can join homofunctional constituents of all kinds while hypotactical conjunctions do not occur in word connections. As has been noticed in logistics (§ 2.4.) and (?) consequently in transfor­ mational-generative grammar the conjunctional word connections are reduced by some scholars to sentence connections, for which respective transformations have been introduced. However, recently conjunctional connections are included in the so-called “base” 50. Adso from the historical point of view word connection of certain conjunctions is secondary51, as their function has arisen from a meaning that cannot be used between words (§ 6.2.3). This can be illustrated by the phonetical form of certain 47 Besides, the connotation of both kinds may be realized by various affixes and loose morphemes, the classification of which requires special investigations. 48 E.g. of modal forms of the verb. 49 E.g. English for, Lithuanian azu "for, because9 (E. Fraenkel, IF, XLIII, 301). 60 On the conjunction in generative grammar cf. N. Chom sky, ATS, 134, 224; S. Yamada, I. Igarashi, ZPSK, XX, 1/2, 143—156; P. Sgall, Generativni popis jazyka a ëeskâ deklinace, Praha 1967, 29—31; I. Bellert, Biuletyn Fonograficzny, X , 3—29; most widely : S. Dik, Coordination, 17— 142. 51 Cf. for German H. P au l, BG, IV, 161; for Polish: PSP, conjunctions 52 as well as by the fact that in children’s speech the copula­ tive conjunction appears first in sentence connections and later in word connections, as was observed by M. Zarębina 53. A similar conclusion — namely that the function of conjunction is a reflex of the function of a sen­ tence — was made by J . Łoś 54. (ii) Position of conjunctions within parts of speech. While examining the position of the conjunction within the morphological system it should be remembered that parts of speech are word classes, differing from one another in each particular language in frequency, grouping and function and these have an influence upon their scope and usage55. The Indian grammarians knew besides substantive and verb also indéclinables which involved the so-called expletiva; however, they did not create the category of conjunction 56. Within the system of parts of speech 57 this cate­ gory was distinguished by Aristotle who used the term auvSeafxoç also for other accessory-grammatical words 58. Dionysius Thrax 59 distinguished preposition and adverb from conjunction, stating that XéÇiç cruvSéouaa 8ià- voiav [лета TaÇecoç xal то tï)ç èp[XY)veiaç xe/yjvôç тгХт)роиаа which proves that he included here also certain particles. Within parts of speech the conjunctions together with prepositions and particles (partly also interjections and adverbs) belong to the class of function (accessory, auxiliary, dependent, formal, grammatical) words which are characterized by their lack of flexion and non-occurrence as members of the sentence60. The relation between conjunctions and pre­ positions was discussed by S. Jodłowski61 who stated that they both are signs of “non-independent” relations where prepositions can be used with 62 E.g. Slavonic a 'and, hut1, i 'and1 without initial pro thesis, which originally was possible after pause only, i.e. between sentences. 63 KJD, 61. 64 Gramatyka języka polskiego, Kraków 1923, 365— 366. According to Ch. B ally, LGLF, § 192, the conjunctions transpose the processes thanks to which they refer to sentences; similarly, L. Teeniere, ESS, 325. 56 On the classification of the parts of speech cf. S. Jod łow sk i, BPT J, X IX , 51—98, where further literature can be found. 66 The Chinese grammarians were nearer this conception, when dividing words into full meaning and empty ones. 57 The ancient grammarians did not make a distinct differentiation between parts of speech and parts of sentence, cf. S. Jod łow sk i, ibidem. 58 Except for the article considered a separate part of speech. 58 Cf. B. Delbrück, VS, I, 3— 8. 60 Generally speaking the grammatical words are less frequent than fullmeaning ones. The conjunction stands after preposition and before particle and interjection, cf. for Latvian: Latvieëu valodas biezuma värdnica, Biga 1968, I, 2 ,6 ; for Russian: E. Steinfeldt, Dictionnaire des fréquences de mots dans la langue russe moderne, Moscou 1969, 18; for Polish: M. Zarębina, JP , L, 33—46. 61 SPAU, LU , 6, 403—407. words only and conjunctions also with sentences; of these the paratactical ones are “set-forming”, while the hypotactical ones (with prepositions) serve to subordinate. The similarity between prepositions and hypotactical conjunctions has long been observed62. Recently it was dealt with by G. Antoine63 who pointed to the resemblance between paratactical con­ junctions and adverbs, this likeness, however, concerns genetic relations only64. The difference between conjunctions and prepositions consists also in the fact that the latter have a concrete meaning (indicating direc­ tion), which the conjunctions lack. The relation between conjunctions and particles was dealt with by J . Bauer 65 according to whom particles refer to one constituent (word or sentence) emphasizing or modifying it, whereas conjunctions join two or more constituents. Apart from con­ junctions, sentences can be joined by means of relative pronouns 66 which remain, however, integral parts of them. Owing to its semantic structure the relative pronoun can be reduced to the connection of relative conjunc­ tion with anaphoric pronoun; the catégorial and occasional examples of such substitution can be found in a number of languages, not only IE 67. On the other hand, there is no direct relation between conjunctions and interjections as their functions differ too much from each other: con­ junctions are used for abstract connotation whereas interjections express an emotional state and in fact they are not parts of speech but sentence substitutes. Thus J . Kurz’s 68 opinion, partly upheld by J . B auer69, that certain conjunctions have originated from interjections, does not seem to be justified. (iii) Position of conjunctions within lexical system. Con­ junctions serve to connotate while themselves they do not denote any­ thing, i.e. they do not possess pendants in reality 70. They have but a re­

62 Cf. note 3. 35. 63 CF, 315— 329. 64 On the criteria of differentiation between conjunctions and adverbs cf. J. B au er, SPBU, X I, 29—37 (with examples of changes of adverbs into conjunctions). 66 Ibidem, X III, 131— 139. 66 On the relations between relative pronouns and conjunctions cf. T. Milewski, BPTJ, X I, 89— 90; J. B au er, Slavica Pragensia, IV, 131— 139. 67 Cf. Gr. Cuendet, Mélanges Ch. Bally, 93—100; E. Benveniste, BSL, XLIV, 72— 73; T. M ilewski, BPT J, X I, 90; M. Боголюбов, Иранская филология, Москва 1963, 100. 68 К historicTcosrovnàvacimu studiu... 89— 107. 69 SPBU, X II, 21—28; cf. also Э. Коротаева, Slavica Slovaca, I, 3, 250—258; S. Karcevski, op. cit. 37. 70 As it is generally assumed in logistics, cf. R. C arnap, Foundations of logic and mathematics, I, § 4; Gr. Kiinig, op. cit. 66; A. W ierzb ick a, Studia Filozoficzne, 1968, III—IV, 89— 102. The question of semantic value of conjunctions in generative grammar was widely discussed by S. Dik, Coordination, 250—295. lational meaning and general semantic intention; from among the five constituents of the notion “meaning” distinguished by E . Ingarden (§ 2.4) only one, i.e. formal contents can be ascribed to them. Conjunctions generally do not differ from other words by their phonetic form, however, they are characterized by a smaller number of syllables than meaningful words 71 and they are sometimes graphically abbreviated 72. According to their structure they can be divided into simple and composed73 of two or more constituents. In most cases compound forms had arisen before they were used for conjunctional function. Like other words the conjunctions occur in phraseological expressions 74. They may do several functions simultaneously and they may play the same role as other parts of speech, which is usually a residue of their original (pre-conjunctional) meaning, whereas they are more rarely changed into other parts of speech: mainly into particle (enhancing, dubitative, admirative, interrogative, negative)75, sporadically into full meaning words (as a metaphor) such as in French des si et des mais (Bally, LGLF, § 204), English but me no huts, Polish ale 'but3 in meaning 'flaw, defect3 etc. Owing to their frequent use the ex­ pressiveness of conjunctions undergoes attenuation and hence the need to renovate the conjunctions as has been observed by A. Meillet76. This phenomenon consists in strengthening the existing conjunctions by means of particles or by the formation of new conjunctions having a similar structure: morphological, as Polish ino— je(d)no— jedynie '‘only, but3, wszako — wszelako 'nevertheless3, jednak— jednakowoż 'however3, or se­ mantic (caiques), as Latin nihilominus — French néanmoins — English nevertheless — German nichtsdestoweniger, etc.

B. Classification of conjunctions Conjunctions can be classified according to their function, usage, frequency and structure of the utterances in which they occur. The criteria which are used here are generally miscellaneous. The first classification made by Dionysius Thrax has a more semantic (functional) character. Stoics mainly based their classification on (logical) structure of utterance.

71 Which is congruent with the principle of inverse proportion between the number of syllable and frequency in the text, cf. О. Ахманова etc., О точных методах исследования языка, Москва 1961, 148 (with literature). 72 Cf. the logograms Old Irish “7” copulative, “Z” alternative, etc. 73 On the so-called paired conjunctions (in correlation) see § 6.3.1. 74 Cf. the examples in relevant dictionaries; for continuants of *kve in Old Indian, Greek and Latin see J. Gond a, Mnemosyne, VII, 177— 214; 265—296; for Polish paratactical conjunctions: PSP. 75 Examples from the Polish language in PSP. 76 EC. It is only recently that formal differences between conjunctions have been taken into consideration (E. Hermann, A. Peäkovskij). The frequency of their occurrence has not as yet been definitely stated; of all paratactical conjunctions the copulative one is most frequent, then successively less frequent are adversative, alternative and disjunctive ones 77. The structure of utterance is taken into consideration generally with hypotactical con­ junction only 78. Dionysius T h rax79 distinguished eight conjunctions: aupjuXexTixoi— copulative, SiaÇeuxTixoi — disjunctive (i.e. alternative), cjuvoctttixol — conditional, aiTioXoyixoi — final, тиросспл/аттхоь — causal, aoXXoytaTixoi — conclusive, атгорт^отхоь — dubitative and тгаратгХ^рсорихтьхоЁ — expletive (serving to complete metrum and as ornamentation). Omitting from con­ sideration the last two which are particles this division has been used to this day. In the meantime further conjunctions have been distinguished: adversative, concessive, comparative, relative, temporal and others, and if we take into account shades of meaning their number can be multiplied to Okham’s praeter necessitatem. Therefore it seems desirable to carry out their formal verification 80. As basic criteria I have assumed the scope and usage of the con­ junctions. These criteria do not concern directly the conjunctions them­ selves but only the functions they fulfil. Here exact correspondence does not occur as certain conjunctions can fulfil several functions whereas others occur in some of the variants of one function only. As has often been pointed out, the functional criterion has a universal character and can be applied to heterogeneous languages81, however each separate function need not have its formal (i.e. syntactic) exponent everywhere. For this reason we shall confine ourselves to the basic types which occur, it would seem, in most languages of the world. According to their scope we can distinguish “word-sentence” func­ tions: copulative, alternative, disjunctive, adversative and comparative, and those occurring between sentences only: relative, conditional, con­ cessive, resultative and final. This distinction is not inconsistent with the fact that in certain languages some of the “word-sentence” conjunctions join only words or only sentences, while some of the “inter-sentence”

77 Cf. for Polish : PSP, 110, similarly in other languages, cf. respective frequency dictionaries. 78 A review of more recent classifications of compound sentences was given by K. P o ­ lański, SZŁ, 35—43; В. Белошапкова, СПРЯ, 105— 137. On semantic relations between conjunctions and the constituents they join cf. J. B au er, SPBU, XV, 27— 36. 79 Cf. B. Delbrück, VS, I, 5. 80 Firstly this conception has been presented in LP, X , 79— 90. 81 Cf. E. Benveniste, BSL, LIII, 39—54. conjunctions may be occasionally used between words82. The logical principle of transposition 83 allows us to distinguish “symmetrical” func­ tions: copulative, alternative, disjunctive and adversative and “asym­ metrical” ones: all remaining functions. In given texts (parole) this sym­ metry may be violated by modal or semantic shades and certain “sym­ metrical” conjunctions may possess a (uni)directional indicator. How­ ever, it is not contradictory to the principle itself which concerns the syntactic system (and it has been assumed in this paper as a fundamental criterion of distinction between parataxis and hypotaxis). However, we cannot agree with the statement84 that both divisions are conterminous, inasmuch as comparative conjunctions being “asymmetrical” join both sentences and words. The possibility of iteration of a conjunction within one construction (§ 5.1.2) allows us to distinguish: polysyndetic func­ tion — copulative, disjunctive and partly alternative; the functions which in polysyndeton change into the alternative — adversative, relative, con­ ditional and concessive; functions which do not occur in this construc­ tion — comparative, resultative and final85. Within polysyndetic functions the mood of the verbs in joined sentences must be the same; the adversative function86 and partly the comparative ones do not impose limitations in this respect, whereas with the remaining functions the imperative cannot be in a subordinate clause, and the subjunctive mood usually occurs in final clauses (§ 3.2. A). As has been mentioned already, polysyndeton may be either se­ condary (i.e. applied to the already existing conjunctions and modulating or changing their functions) or primary (obligatorily joined with a given con­ junction); the latter occurs with disjunctive function and with certain al­ ternative and copulative conjunctions. Most of conjunctional functions may be regarded as simple; the concessive one only seems to be complex, since in many IE and other languages 87 it is usually expressed by the connec­ tion of the conditional conjunction (or modal particle) with a copulative one (or strengthening particle). Where a given conjunction occurs in simple form, there exists also potentially a compound form, which can be formed after the general scheme 88. If the conditional function is ful­

82 Cf. for Polish: Z. K lem ensiew icz, JP , X X X V II, 261— 268; for Ukrainian: И. Чередниченко, Вопросы славянского языкознания, II, 191— 198. 83 Cf. more widely § 3.1. and note 3. 30. 84 Cf. А. Пешковский, PC, 412—442. 86 With the two last functions the inversion of subordinate clause before the main clause is considerably less frequent than with other hypotactical functions. 86 Cf. also the lack of lenition after certain adversative conjunctions in Celtic languages. 87 Cf. Z. Gołąb, BPTJ, XIII, 74; examples in LP, X, 89. 88 Here a seeming exception is the Germanic thoh derived from a strengthening- adversative particle, which — as was proved by O. B eh agh el (DS, III, 648) — originally filled by a gerundial suffix or by a special verbal morpheme, then to express the concessive function only a strengthening particle or copulative conjunction is added * 89. The relative function differs from the conditional one by the fact that it can be realized by means of the relevant pronouns. The proposed classification is inconsistent in respect of the various criteria applied and in some details may be open to question; however, it allows us to distinguish formally the types of conjunctional functions which I regard as basic.

Types of conjunctional functions

con­ disjunc­ copula­ alterna­ adversa­ compa­ rela­ condi­ résulta- ces­ final tive tive tive tive rative tive tional tive sive

primary without tendency change of non-poly- com­ exis­ non­ subjunc­ sub­ polysyn- change to chan- function syndetic plex tent exis­ tive un­ junc­ detic of ge of in poly­ function func­ pro­ tent necessary tive function function syndeton tion noun pro­ neces­ noun sary

secondary simple non-polysynde­ polysyndetic function tic ones polysyndetic ones changing function in polysyndeton

“word-sentence” ones “inter-sentence” ones

“symmetrical” ones (paratactical) “asymmetrical” ones (hypotactical)

C. Mutual relations and internal differentiation between conjunctions

The semantic relations between the joined constituents expressed by the conjunctions give a definite sense to the whole utterance. If we confine ourselves to binary connections it will be possible to distinguish, from the point of view of the wholeness of utterance, three relations: (1 ) as­ suming both possibilities, (2 ) assuming one and rejecting the other possi­ bility, (3) rejecting both. Here the meaning of the constituents is respecti­ vely: (1) conjoining, (2) disjoining, (3) indifferent (joining does not occur). occurred in a concessive function with the subjunctive only, the latter being a supple­ mentary modal component. 89 E.g. in Turkish (А. Кононов, /Т Я , 357), Tamil (M. Андронов, Тамильский язык, Москва 1960, 54), Malayalam (Ч. Секхар, Ю. Глазов, Язык малаялам, Москва 1961, 57). Relation (3) corresponds to the disjunctive function, (2) to the alternative 90 and (1 ) to the copulative and all those remaining which can be considered as being its particular modifications. Between conjunctions there are certain correspondences, among which the semantic equivalence copulative — equative comparative, and ad­ versative — concessive is most distinct. Some of these correspondences are revealed in the relevant conjunctional changes. Those changes may be regular (e.g. in polysyndeton) or occasional. The latter can be generally explained by the context, semantic similarity or by pre-conjunctional meaning. The copulative conjunction changes into the adversative one (obligatorily: in Ossetic uta, Arumanian et-, facultatively: in most IE lan­ guages) and more rarely into alternative one (obligatorily: in Pali udäho; facultatively: in Greek xcd, Latin et, que). The alternative conjunction may be changed into the adversative one (obligatorily in Bulgarian dialectal lju(bo); facultatively in Polish dialectal abo, Old Lower Lusatian and Macedonian albo) or contaminated with it (as in Middle German ader <- oder X aber) whereas in polysyndeton it shows a tendency to change into the copulative one. The polysyndetic changes of the disjunctive conjunction have been discussed above. Besides, this conjunction changes into the com­ parative one (Old Indian na(tu), Greek oûSé, English dialectal nor, na, Ger­ man weder, Lithuanian nei(gi), ne{gi), Slavonic ni{&e), ani, nego(li)) or is con­ taminated with it (as in Old Prussian ni-kai, Slovene dialectal ani-koj) 91. The adversative conjunction changes in polysyndeton into alternative and occasionally may be used in copulative function. Within the basic conjunctional functions we can distinguish a number of semantic shades, e.g. the relative function may be extensional, in- tensional, temporal, local, quantitative; the resultative — causal, con­ secutive, explicative; the comparative — equal, gradual, etc. Within the paratactical functions the copulative 92 one (as in asyndeton) may be: “collective” (occurring in combinations of words which constitute a com­ mon notion) or “summing” (ordinary). The alternative function may be: generally disjoining, disjoining with consentient shade and identifying (with the constituents having synonymic meaning). The disjunctive func­ tion generally has no semantic shades, however it may occasionally ac­ quire the deictic colour (as in Polish ni-to, Russian ne-to). The greatest

90 Which from this point of view can be defined as disjunctive (alternative con­ junction is sometime termed “disjunctive”). 91 Cf. Ę. Fraenkel, IF, XXVIII, 236—239; XLIII, 295—297; F. Holthausen, IF, XXXII, 339—340; J. Wackernagel, VS, II, 307; А. Потебня, ЗРГ, III, 425; PSS, II, 1, 164— 165. However, the semantic evolution in details is not clear. 92 Cf. K. Biihler, Sprachtheorie, §21; E. Coseriu, Sprache—Strukturen und Funk- tionen, Tübingen 1970, 89— 110. differentiation of semantic shades takes place in the adversative function, which may be: weak, strong (after negation) or with deictic, restrictive, resultative, concessive, resumptive and other shades. These shades are generally related with the origin of a given conjunction (§ 6.2.3).

6.2.2. Review of paratactical conjunctions in IE languages

Paratactical conjunctions in each separate IE language will be dis­ cussed successively within functions (A) copulative, (B) alternative, (C) disjunctive and (D) adversative from the historical-comparative point of view, which allows us to establish their semantic and morphological provenance as well as parallel lexical changes. To give as full a picture of the problem as possible, we shall discuss here — beside the actual (primary) paratactical conjunctions — those hypo- tactical conjunctions which appear in paratactical constructions occasio­ nally (secondarily) and also other parts of speech used for co-ordination.

i. Proto-Indo-European state

(A) The congruency of all early attested IE languages allows us to suppose that in the final period of P IE community the copulative function was fulfilled by *1cve which had been preserved as an independent con­ junction in Indo-Iranian 6a, Lycian Ice, Lydian k, Old Phrygian xs, Greek те, Messapian ti,&i, s i 93, Latin que, Venetic Ice9*, in inscriptions from Ornavasso p e 95, from Picenum p 96, Gaulish c, Celto-Iberian c(u)e, Old Irish eh, Gothic, proto-Nordic (u)h and in combination with other elements: Tokharian A ś-lcam, (?) Hittite ni-Tclcu, Armenian o-c, Albanian mo-s, a-s, Osco-Umbrian nei-p, Welsh a-c, na-c, Cornish, Breton (h)a-g, na-g, Old Germanic ja-h, ne-h, (?) Slavonic je§-6e 97. The etymology of this conjunction is not clear98. The copulative 838485868788

83 Cf. O. Haas, LP, IV, 79; V. Pisani, Le lingue delVItalia cmtica oltre it Latino2, Torino 1964, 243, whereas C. de Simone, Kratylos, VII, 124, derives it from *eti, in- convincingly, owing to its enclitic position. 84 Cf. V. P isan i, ibidem, 277; whereas M. L ejeu n e, Revue de Philologie, X X V I, 2, 192— 199, inconvincigly joins it with the Greek xaL 85 Cf. V. P isan i, ibidem, 288. 86 Ibidem, 229. 87 Cf. PSS, III, 1, 127. 88 It is usually derived from the interrogative pronoun *kvo-, however, the ex­ planation of its semantic evolution is difficult. A. M eillet, MSL, X , 272, basing on Latin plërïque etc. suppose that the generalizing meaning was intermediary here, chang­ ing into copulative function in the connections like Greek т о х т ^ р àvSpcov т е 9-ecov т е le père des dieux, des hommes en général9, however, it seems unlikely owing to its function has probably arisen from enhancing-strengthening meaning which was attested in -tee of the indefinite pronoun in Hittite ", Indo-Iranian, Armenian, Greek, Italic and Gothic 10°. In the epoch of dialectal disintegration the copulative function of *eti, attested in Phrygian, Italic, (?) Celtic and Gothic, and of *öd, attested in Balto-Slavonic and Indo-Iranian, may have arisen. (B) As P IE alternative conjunction we may consider preserved in Tokharian В wa-t, (?) Tokharian A pa-t, Old Indo-Iranian m, Greek 9j-e, Latin ue} after negation in Hittite nass-u, (?) hieroglyphic napa-wa, Lycian ne-и, Old Irish no, п й , Welsh ne-и, Old Breton no-u. The etymology of *ue is also not clear enough. It is generally compared with Old Indian iva like, as it were5, Greek т)ите, Latin ceu. J . Endzé- lin * 100101 also quotes here Latvian ve-lig 'whether, if5. As to the Greek after comparative the opinions of scholars vary. K. Brugmann102 derives this use from the pre-con junctional meaning 'how, as5, whereas B. Delbrück103, M. Leumann104, E. Schwyzér 105 106 suppose that it has developped from the meaning 'or5. M. Leumann considers such change possible in questions as ара о frzoc, zpeiTTcov ïj о àv&pomoç which by perseveration may have had the answer ó &eóę xpeiTTcov ï) ó xv&pcoTroç; however, it is only from Plato that he quotes the examples of this construction. Here the definitive explanation is not possible. The change of the meaning 'as5 into 'than5 is pointed to by y)ute 'as, like as5 *т)-5е-ите and a number of parallels (e.g. Latin quam, Lithuanian Tcaip, Polish jdk), whereas we have no con­ vincing examples of the change of 'or5 into "than, as5106. Considering the polysyndeton. The conditional function of *№e, attested in Old Indian, Greek (6-те), Latin (abs-que csi abs9), Umbrian (a-pe rubi, quum9), Gothic (ni-h rel p.V)9), Slavonic (а-ёе rif, whether, that9), perhaps also Hittite (ta-kku If9), cf. J. W ack ern ag el, KS, 257—261; H. H irt, IG, VII, 140— 141, differently J. Gonda, Mnemosyne, VII, 200 ffH o fm a n n - S zan ty r, LSS, 258. 88 Cf. H. Kronasser, VLFH, 148. 100 Cf. K. Brugmann, GVG, II, 3, 1004. Hofmann-Szantyr, L 88, 474, assume the meaning 'as (well as)9 as intermediary. 101 LG, 542. E. F raen k el, IF, X L III, 297, includes also Lithuanian ne-va 'as if, a- like9. 102 GG\ 624. 103 VS, II, 518. 104 Donum Natalicium Schrijnen, Chartres 1929, 647. 106 GG, II, 565. 106 The examples of German oder 'than9 quoted by B. D elbrück, ibidem, are con­ nected in G rim m ’s, DW, VII, 1153, with weder 'neither9 (exchangeable with oder in dis­ junctive construction) in meaning 'als9 occurring in this area, which is a frequent phe­ nomenon with disjunctive conjunction. Then this parallel is hardly convincing. The Old Icelandic eda, edr 'or9 after comparative expresses possibility, not comparative function, cf. G. Zoëga, A concise dictionary of Old IcelandicB, Oxford 1961, 102. quoted facts it is probable, that the alternative function of *ue has arisen from the interrogative-relative meaning. In comparison with *kve it can be observed that fewer direct con­ tinuants of *ue have been preserved and that postpositive usage was removed earlier. It is caused by the fact that this conjunction is less frequent, and thus its susceptibility to changes is greater. The combi­ nation of *ue with negation may date back as far as P IE epoch. (C) In the most of IE languages the sentence negation may be used in disjunctive function107, where in Vedic and in a few Modern Indo- Iranian languages the autonomous disjunctive conjunction does not occur at all. It seems, that the original P IE state has been preserved here108. However, judging from geographical configuration we can infer that the tendency to application of connection * п е - к ч dates back to the epoch of the proto-language as it has been attested in classical Sanskrit, Ana­ tolian, Italo-Celtic, Germanic and with renewed negation in Greek оите, Albanian as, (?) Phrygian uke and Armenian oç. In Indo-Iranian, Ana­ tolian and Italo-Celtic the continuants of parallel *ne-ue occur. With prohibitive shade *me-k4e occurs in Indo-Iranian and Greek; the Albanian mos V*/)’? (?) Phrygian meke and Tokharian т а к "non5 are its formal equivalents. To the IE dialectal innovations belong Old Saxon nek = Baltic negi related to Old Indian nahi and to Greek Latin neg(-otium), which do not occur as conjunctions. Also the congruency of Avestan naëda, mäda with Greek oùSé, (jlyjSś seems to be genetic 109 110. The autonomous disjunctive conjunction arose, when to iterated ne­ gation with each constituent the copulative (alternative) conjunction or intensifying particle was added to mark the connection: first in the further position (*ne.. *ne-kve. . .), and then in the initial one to emphasize parallelism (*ne-kve.. *ne-kve...). Both the schemes have been attested in the texts from the oldest times no, where the word negation rwithout8 may sporadically appear in initial position111. There is no reason to consider P IE the reduced construction, with conjunction occurring only between constituents and the lack of negation before the first con-

107 As J. Wackernagel, VS, II, 310, states, that in classical languages and in Ger­ man it appears in the rhetorical and poetic style. 108 Cf. B. Delbrück, VS, II, 513. 109 Cf. J. W ackernagel, VS, II, 309—310. 110 Except for Old Icelandic, where the combinationnë ...n ë has not been attested, cf. however, the Gothic nih ... nih. 111 E.g. French sans peur ni reproches (Wartburg-Zumthor, PSFC, 61), German sonder Furcht noch Grausen (Paul, DG, IV, 339), English without my knowledge nor consent; on Latin sine qualitate neque inqualitate cf. H ofm an n -S z a n ty r, LSS, 806. Indo-European Parataxis g stituent (.. *ne-1cve...). As it has been pointed out by E. Löfstedt112, this con­ struction is not yet to be found in Homer, and in Latin it appears rela­ tively late. According to G. Neckel113 and J . Wackernagel114 it is already proto - Germanic, however it is unknown in Gothic while in other Germanic languages different conjunctions occur here. The attested in Vedic texts combination without initial na was explained by H. Grassmann115 116 as being caused by rhythmical factors. (D) The fact that there is no foundation for the reconstruction of PIE adversative conjunction does not prove that the adversative function should not exist in the syntactic system of the proto-language. It may be supposed that this function was partly fulfilled secondarily by the co­ pulative *fcve, which can be shown by the examples in the texts of early attested IE languages ne. The lack of a -special adversative conjunction in the proto-language may by explained by the fact, that the postpositive type of conjunction which occurs there was originally polysyndetic and belonged to word type, whereas the adversative function is limited to the monosyndetic, mainly sentence constructions. The autonomous adversative conjunction appeared — as it seems — in the epoch of dialectal disintegration of the proto-language. Here belong: *at(i) occurring in this function in Avesta, Greek, Latin and Gothic; *(s)ma *(s)më117 in Anatolian, Greek and Messapian; (?) *auti in Greek and Italic, and generally copulative in Iranian and Balto-Slavonic.

ii. Tokharian (A) In the Tokharian A the postpositive ś- к а щ may be a residue of P IE *fcv6, whereas it is difficult to state more precisely the origin of Tokharian B s, sp(a) owing to possibility of various interpretations. It is also used postpositively 118, however s is not a regular phonetic equiva­ lent of PIE * №e. W. Krause 119 compares the Tokharian В ra 'and, also* with the Greek Spa, Sp, pa, which proves it to be related to Baltic ir 'and, also9. To form numerals in the dialect A pi 'and9 is used, which

112 Vermischte Studien zur lateinischen Sprachkunde und Syntax, Lund 1936, 1—6. 118 KZ, XLV, 13— 14. 114 VS, II, 310. 116 WRV, 701. 116 Cf. J. Gronda, Mnemosyne, VII, 195— 204; for Old Indian J. Speijer, SS, 34l, for Greek J. D enniston, GP, 514, for Gothic W. S treitb erg , Die gotische Bibel2, Heidelberg 1919, e.g. Mt. X X V II, 44; Jo. X , 20; Eph. IV, 32. 117 The enclitic -m (?) cand9 was attested in the inscription from Lemnos and in Etruscan, which among others suggests the relation of these languages with Anatolian; cf. also the Human -ma rbut’ (J. F rie d rich , HO, I, 1, 1— 2, 2, 19). 118 But not polysyndetically, cf. W. Thom as, KZ, L X X X I, 161— 180. 118 Westtocharische Grammatik, Heidelberg 1952, 201. P. Poucha 120 121122123124 derives from P IE *Ш , cf. Gothic Ы, English by etc., thus copulative function has arisen from denotation of proximity. On the other hand the form pe 'api3 corresponds — as it seems — to the Baltic be 'and, but3; the copulative function has developed from the meaning "also, too3, attested in the texts. The only anteponed copulative conjunction in Tokharian (A) is 3/0, which Sieg-Siegling-Schulze 121 formally identify with the ending of instrumental -yo. There have been other attempts to explain the origin of this conjunction 122, however its relation to instru­ mental points to sociative meaning. (B) In the alternative function of the dialect В the continuant of PIE *ue has been preserved as wa-t123, usually postponed 124, which may yet be the result of the Indian original (enclitic vä). P. Poucha125 identified wot with pat in dialect A, which is also postponed. The direct relation of this conjunction with epe 'or3, known in both dialects, seems to be less probable 126. (C) For disjunctive connotation the sentence negation mä is used, originating from the P IE prohibitive *me, where in dialect A we can also find the form mäh 127, which may be identified with Old Indian mäca etc. This would point to the use of disjunctive conjunction for negation. Besides, in dialect A mä penu occurs, where the second member is an intensifying particle128. (D) The adversative function in pre-Tokharian was fulfilled by the particle *nu 'now3 and by conjunction which formed in Tokharian A parmä, В permä. P. Poucha 129 * derives it from P IE *6йег-, quoting as parallels from dialect A hos-prem 'how many3, hu-pre 'if3 which allows to suppose that an intensifying meaning was intermediate 13°. The continuants of nu 120 Ibidem, 179— 180. 121 TG, 36, 312— 313. Cf. parallels from Votyac and Zyrian (§ 7). 122 E. Fraenkel, IF, L, 10, and P. Poucha, ILT , 245—246 derived it from PIE root *iu- "join*. В. Иванов, ЯС, 241— 242, identified it with the Hittite (i)a deriving from relative pronoun **0-, however, 4’ in Hittite is an hiatus (here in Luwi occurs h-). Besides, there are no sufficient examples for such semantic change. 123 Cf. A. M eillet, Introduction à Vétude comparative des langues indo-européennes8, Paris 1953, 353. 124 They constitute about 2/3 examples in Tocharische Spraćhreste, Göttingen 1949— 1953. 125 ILT , 159. As to the possibility of ц =±p cf. K rau se-T h om as, Tocharisches Elementarbuch, Heidelberg 1960— 1964, I, 69. 126 Cf. P. P ou ch a, ILT , 40. В. Абаев, Скифо-европейские изоглоссы, Москва 1965, 137 identified them with the Ossetic ävi for’, cf. below § 6.2.2.Ш.В. 127 Cf. P. P ou ch a, ILT, 217, 219. 128 Ibidem, 219. As prohibitive negation in dialect A mar occurs, attested also in disjunctive function, cf. W. Thom as, Central Asiatic Journal, III, 289—308. 129 ILT, 162. 180 Cf. similarly the Germanic ah "but* compared with the Greek <5tye fgo on!*. occur in dialect A as nu 'hi, tu, vai9 and in В as no 'tu, api, hi9131. From the latter we can also quote nice 'but9 which preserves bilaterally the meaning 'now9132. Moreover, in the dialect A we can find in adversative function snikek, which P. Poucha 133 refers to the possessive sni, origi­ nating from P IE reflexive pronoun. Thus the meaning of difference would be intermediary, as is the case with Latin sed, belonging to the same root.

iii. Indo-Iranian (A) In Old Indo-Iranian, apart from the hereditary ca, uta 'and, also9 occurs, therefore it may be considered proto-Indo-Iranian innovation. It is usually derived from the connection и (see below) and ta 131 132133134 *, which belongs to the demonstrative stem Ho--, here additive meaning was proba­ bly intermediate. The copulative function of Old Indian dd 'and, after, then, so9 = Avestan dat 'and, but, after, then, because9 seems to date back to satem epoch, cf. Slavonic a and Lithuanian о 'and, but9. The postpositive ё а has been preserved in Middle Persian135, Sakian136, Yazgulami137; in the Indian area it is widespread in inscriptions of Aśoka 138, in Prakrits (e.g. in Maharashtri)139 140141142, in Pali 14°, and to this day in certain Modern Indian languages 141. Uta in Vedic may be postponed like ca 142 ; in classical Sanskrit it is a little less frequent and in Singhalese, Ashkun and perhaps in the Gypsy language 143 it has survived to the present day; it also occurs in Middle and Modern Iranian 144. In Yedic in copulative function the intensifying particles a and и oc­ casionally appear and are usually postponed; besides these the adverb atha (adha) 'and, then, therefore9 occurs, which corresponds to the German und. The Sanskrit api 'and, also, even9 has its parallel145 146 in the Armenian ew 'and, also9; the additive meaning was intermediary here. This con­

131 Cf. P. P ou ch a, ILT, 151; Krause-Thomas, op. cit. I, 172. 132 Krause-Thomas, ibidem, 170, derived nice from n(a)he 'now1. 133 ILT , 352— 353; similarly K rau se-T h om as, op. cit. I, 172. 134 K. Brugmann, GV G, II, 3, 983. 136 Cf. C. Salem ann, GIP, I, 1, 322. 136 Cf. S. Konow, KG, 25, 64. 137 Cf. Д. Эдельман, ЯЯ, 94. 138 Cf. E. S en art, Les inscriptions de Piyadasi, Paris 1881—1886, II, 568. 139 Cf. H. Ja co b i, AEM, LV; after the vowel as ya, cf. note 215. 140 Cf. M. M ayrhofer, HP, I, 196. 141 Cf. R. T urner, CDIAL, 246. 142 Cf. H. Grasmann, WBV, 247— 248. 143 Cf. R. T u rn er, ibidem, 78. 144 Cf. C. Salem ann, GIP, I, 1, 322; E. Benveniste, EGS, 173; S. Konow, KG, 64; А. Фрейман, ХЯ, 96 and also GIP, I, 2, 165, 247, 330. 146 The Middle Persian api "and* may also belong here, if it is not a graphical variant of и 'and1 (W. Skalm ow ski, oral information). junction can still be found in Maharashtri146 and in a few Modern Indian languages 146 147. Comparatively rare in Sanskrit is the copulative tathä 'so, thus, well9, attested in Pali and in a number of Modern Indian languages, including Gypsy 148. To the most widespread copulative conjunctions in Modern Aryan languages of India belong the — phonetically reduced — forms of the pronoun apara- 'other, further, later3; here additive meaning (attested inter alia in the Bengali)149 was probably intermediate. A similar development has taken place in Kashmiri biye 'and3, which G. Grierson 150 considers dative sg. of the pronoun byakh 'another, other, different3, and also in conjunctions derived from the stem anya- 'other, different3 which occur in Gujarati, Marathi, Oriya and Nepali151 **.153 In Hindi evam 'and, so, well3152 and Kashmiri t i 153 Sanskrit iti 'so, thus3 (similarly as in tathä) the affirmative-completive meaning, whereas in Singhalese ha — Old Indian saha 'with3154 the sociative one were original. As a North-East Iranian innovation we may regard Sogdian rt, rt(t)y 'and9155, Khorasmian da 'and3156 and adversative Sakian hade157 formally corresponding to Avestan habra 'simultaneously, together, with3; therefore a denotation of proximity was intermediate. A similar de­ velopment has taken place in Modern Iranian ham 'and, also3, cf. Avestan ham- 'together3, Old Indian samam 'with3, which have been applied to copulative function in Modern Persian, Kurdish, Ossetic, Tali and Yagnobi158. In Ossetic dar copulative function has arisen from additive meaning 159. (B) In alternative function in Old Indian, Avestan and Old Persian the hereditary, postpositive and often polysyndetic vä occurs, which has been preserved unchanged in Pali 16°, Maharashtri161 and in a number of

146 Cf. H. Ja co b i, ibidem, LV. 147 Cf. R. T urner, GDIAL, 22. 148 Ibidem, 321. 149 Cf. R. W agner, ВТ, 85; R. Turner, ibidem, 20. 160 A dictionary of the Kashmiri language, Calcutta 1924— 1932, 149. 151 Cf. R. T urner, GDIAL, 19. 182 Cf. PXG, 1355. 153 Cf. G. G rierson, ibidem, 961. 184 W. Geiger, GIAP, I, 10, 85. 188 Cf. E. Benveniste, EGS, 171. 186 Cf. А. Фрейман, ХЯ, 59. 187 Cf. Л. Герценберг, Хотаносакский язык, 115. 188 Cf. В. Абаев, ИЭСОЯ, I, 133— 134; Андреев-Пещерева, ЯТ, 260; Б. Ми­ ллер, ТЯ, 213; G. Lazard, GPG, 208. 189 Cf. В. Абаев, ibidem, 356. 160 Cf. М. M ayrhofer, HP, I, 197. 181 Cf. H. Ja co b i, AEM, e.g. 141. Modern Indian languages 162 and in Sakian163, whereas in Sogdian — if we assume E. Benvéniste’s 164 etymology — it is already anteponed. In combination with other elements vd has been preserved on a considerably larger scale: atha-vä (adha-vd) 165, which was even known in Old Indian, occurs in Pali athavä, Prakrits a(d)havä, inscriptions of Aśoka, Hindi athavd166, Singhalese ho, (?) hevat167 and in Sakian о 168 *170; here probably belong also: Young Avestan aöäv ie9, Middle Persian ayöw, ayd(b), 'ywp, 'y'b 17°, Modern Persian (ä)yä171, Afghan y d 172, Baluchi y d 173, Ossetic yd (ye) 174, etc. A. Frejm an175 sees a residue of vd in Khorasmian va-ba eor% while V. Abajev176 in Ossetic d-vi for\ B. Turner177 derives the Singhalese ev eors from Old Indian eva cso9 + vd for\ The remaining alternative conjunctions consist of innovations of sepa­ rate languages. The change of conditional into alternative function takes place in Old Indian yadi178, Modern Persian dgdr179, Baluchi Ы 18°, Afghan ka 181. The interrogative-relative meaning was intermediary in Pali uddhu = Prakrit uddhö, udahu = Singhalese dö(ho) eor’ 182 and Modern Indian k i183, Sogdian kt'r184, Modern Persian 6e185, Tadjik mi 186, Ossetic hand (kend) 187. 182 Cf. PXC, 1356; H. Королев, ЯН, 113; Савельева, ЯГ, 58; Е. Быкова, БЯ, 73, etc. 168 Cf. S. Konow, KG, 64. 164 EG8, 173. 166 The Old Indian atha and adha occur side by side; the form atha is latter and it appears in copulative function (more rarely in adversative one), cf. H. G rass mann, WEY, 42. 166 PXC, 1356. 167 Cf. R. T u rn er, CDIAL, 12; whereas W. Geiger, GIAP, I, 10, 85 sees in ho 2. sg. imperat. of substantive verb. 168 Cf. S. Konow, KG, 107. 189 Cf. Ch. B arth o lo m ae, AIW, 1310. 170 Cf. C. Salem ann, GIP, I, 1, 322; W. H enning, HO, I, 4, 1, 70. 171 Cf. P. H orn, GIP, I, 2, 165— 166. 172 Cf. PAG, 1121. 173 Cf. С. Соколова, Труды Института Языкознания, VI, 90. 174 Cf. В. Абаев, ИЭСОЯ, I, 563. 176 ХЯ, 66. 178 ИЭСОЯ, I, 203. 177 CBIAL, 122. The Gypsy vai eorł may also belong here, cf. J. Sam pson, op. cit. 222. 178 Cf. L. Renou, GLV, 391. 179 Cf. P. H orn, GIP, I, 2, 166. M0 Cf. G. G ilberson, The Balochi language, Hertford 1923, 174. 181 Cf. РАС, 1121. 182 Cf. R. T u rn er, CDIAL, 78. 188 Ibidem, 161. 184 Cf. E. Benveniste, EG8, 173— 174. 186 Cf. Б. Миллер, ПРС, 653. 188 Cf. А. Керимова, Говор таджиков Бухары, Москва 1959, 65. 187 Cf. В. Абаев, ИЭСОЯ, I, 579. The denotation of wishing has developed in alternative function in Ossetic föndy, 3. sg. ind. praes. of verb 'want’ 188 * and väd, 2. sg. imper, of sub­ stantive verb 18e, may be also in Parthian 'km, 'g'm, which W. Henning190 191 derives from *äkämam 'according to wish’. Concessive conjunction, used polysyndetically, in alternative function occurs in Hindi ëâhe1M, Panjabi cahe192, Avestan yat-ëit193, perhaps also in Modern Persian hah194, Yagnobi Xo{h), %°{y), %oye195 196 and Shugni %öy19e. In a few Modern Indian languages for alternative function the sentence negation na has been used197; in Gy­ psy (Welsh) the borrowed from Slavonic anl 'nor’ occurs198. (C) As it has been mentioned, the disjunctive function in Yedic is fulfilled by means of the sentence negation na appearing occasionally in combination with uta 'and’ 199. In classical Sanskrit it may be intensified by ca 'and’, ш 'or’, api 'and, also’, tu 'indeed’ 20°, of which п а с а 201 202 has its equivalents in other IE languages and parallels in Avestan п а ё ё а , Middle Persian neëi02; navä besides Old Indian is known in Avêsta, Ana­ tolian and Italo-Celtic; ndhi has been discussed above (§ 6.2.2.LC). In the disjunctive connections of prohibitive expressions in Old Indo-Iranian the negation т а occurs, intensified in Young Avesta by -da — Greek while naëda corresponds to the Greek oùSé. The Old Indian mäca generally unknown in Iranian area 203, has its equivalents in Greek (хг;те. In disjunctive function na has been preserved to this day in the Indian area 204. In Avesta and Old Persian na was reduced to a prefix; it fulfills disjunctive function in Afghan 205 *, Baluchi 208, Yagnobi 207, 188 Cf. А. Касаева, OPC, 359. 188 Cf. W. M iller, GIP, I, Anhang, 86. 190 HO, I, 4, 1, 70— 71 and M. B o yce, МНР, 87, note. 191 Cf. Камтапрасад Гуру, ГХ, I, 217. 192 Cf. H. Толстая, ЯП, 47. 193 Cf. Ch. B arth o lo m ae, AIW, 1261. 194 Cf. Б. Миллер, /7РС, 653. 195 Cf. Андреев-Пещерева, ЯГ, 359. 196 Cf. И. Зарубин, ШТ, 267. . 197 Cf. notes 5. 53— 58. 198 Cf. J. Sam pson, op. cit. 222. 199 Cf. H. G rassm ann, WRY, 701. It rarely appears also as no *= na 'not* + и and ralso’, which in disjunctive function occurs in Kashmiri, cf. L. T u rn er, CDIAL, 428. 200 Cf. J. Speijer, SS9 320, 345—346. 201 Cf. however, A. D eh runner, IF, L X , 324. 202 Cf. Ch. B arth o lo m ae, AIW, 1034, who compares it directly with Osco- Umbrian neip. 203 However, cf. the examples of occasional connections md-ca in Avesta (Ch. B a r­ tholom ae, AIW, 1095— 1097). 204 Cf. G. G rierson, Linguistic survey of India, Calcutta 1899—1928, V—IX. 206 Cf. H. Дворников, Язык пушту, Москва 1960, 78. 208 Cf. G. G ilberson, ibidem, 174. 207 Cf. Андреев-Пещерева, ЯГ, 289. Ishkashmi 208, Shugni 209 and Modern Persian210, where a continuant of the Old Persian nay = Avestan noit211 occurs, which in this meaning was occasionally attested in Old and Middle Iranian 212. The Old Indian näpi can still be found in Pali, Prakrits (navi, mirh, w'i) and Gujarati (nav) 213 ; nahi occurs in Hindi214. The Maharashtri nay a is most probably a continuant of the Old Indian п а с а 215 216217218. Of the innovations within the individual languages we can mention the Ossetic nädär ±=na + dar 'and, also9 216 and the Tat nd-iś 'and not5 217. Here more attention should be given to the Old Indian с а п а , which occurs in the meaning 'also not, not even5 in the sentences with or without normal negation; in the last case с а п а may also occur in the meaning 'also, even5. Besides, it is a formant of indefinite pronoun having here its equivalents in Avestan -ëinâ, Gothic -hun and Old High German -gin 218. However, this last use does not allow us to explain the meaning 'also not, even not5, whereas it becomes clear when we take as a connection ca + na. Though the enclitic ca should be placed after na, yet if we assume B. Delbriick’s 219 220 view that с а п а after negation at the end of a clause like trtiyam asya nakir d dadharshati vàyaç с а п а patâyantah patatrinah 'an seinen dritten (Schritt) mag sich niemand wagen, selbst nicht die be­ flügelten Vögel, welche doch fliegen5 (BV, 1, 156, 5), represents the original state, then ca would be here a copulative conjunction which through perintegration was attached to the emphatically intensifying na in this position 22°. From the sentences of this kind Delbrück derives the use of с а п а without negation in the meaning 'also not, even not5 and consequently 'also, even5 (with neutralization of negative sense). With this last meaning we may have to do with - с а п а in indefinite pronoun,

гое Cf. T. Пахалина, ИЯ, 218. 209 Cf. И. Зарубин, ШТ, 337. 210 Cf. Р. H orn, GIP, I, 2, 166. 211 Cf. Old Indian ned '(that) not, lest9. 212 Cf. Ch. B arth o lo m ae, AIW, 1072—1079; C. Salemann, GIP, I, 1, 322; M. B o yce, МНР, 106— 107, 192; E. Leum ann, Das nordarische Lehrgedicht des Bud­ dhismus, Leipzig 1933— 1936, 453. 218 Cf. R. T u rn er, CDIAL, 405. 214 Cf. PXC, 1355. 216 Cf. H. Ja co b i, AEM, LV. As to the change of intervocalic c into у cf. e.g. äyära Old Indian äcära 'behaviour9. 216 A. K acaeb a, ibidem, 239, 500. 217 Cf. А. Грюнберг, Язык североазербайджанских mamoe, Ленинград 1963, НО. 218 Cf. М. M ayrhofer, Kurzgefasstes etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindischen, Heidelberg 1953, ff. I, 372; R. H auschild, Asiatica, Leipzig 1954, 267. 219 SF, V, 544. 220 On occasional connection ca-na 'and not9 in classical Sanskrit cf. J. Speijer, SS, 345. where it occurs incidentally (inherited from PIE) itself intensifying ca. This question, however, cannot be solved in an explicit and convincing way. It is possible, that с а п а 'also (not), even (not)5 and - с а п а in in­ definite pronoun constitute two different formations. (D) As proto-Indo-Iranian we may regard conjunction tu 'but, yet5 and the tendency to use the adverb param in adversative function. Tu serves for adversative connotation in Avesta221, Old Indian 222, in­ scriptions of Aśoka 223, Maharashtri 224 as well as in Hindi, but only in combinations paran-tu, Ы п -tu 225, which were even attested in Sanskrit, the latter also in Maharashtri. The intensifying meaning was probably intermediate here, preserved in tu after imperative in Old Indian 226. Param in adversative function occurs in Sanskrit 227, Prakrits 228 and Modern Indian languages 229 as well as in Sogdian (p'rny, p'rwty) 230 and Ossetic (fälä) 231. Here the denotation of difference — attested in Old Indian — was original 232. Furthermore in Old Indian the copulative ca, atha and и may appear in adversative function, the latter being attested in this meaning in Maharshtri 233. In the classical Sanskrit to adversative connotation were adapted 234 : the restrictive Tcevalam, additive tâvat, concessive fcâmam, confirming fciZa, Tchalu, satyam and resumptive punar 235, known also in Maharashtri 236. The continuants of generally copulative aparam in adversative function occur in Panjabi 237 and Bengali 238, where also the adversative ta 239 ap­ pears, probably corresponding to the above mentioned tathä 'so, then, and5. In the Singhalese language the concessive numut occurs here 240.

221 Cf. Ch. B arth o lo m ae, AIW, 654. 222 Cf. L. Renou, GLV, 376. 223 Cf. S. Sen, op. cit. 126. 224 Cf. H. Ja co b i, AEM, LV. 226 Cf. PXC , 1355. 226 Cf. L. Renou, GLV, 376. 227 Cf. J. Speijer, 88, 343. 228 Cf. R. T urner, GLIAL, 440. 229 Cf. PXC, 1355; H. Толстая, ЯП, 47. 230 Cf. E. Benveniste, EG8, 174r—175. 231 Cf. В. Абаев, ИЭСОЯ, I, 434. 232 Cf. H. Grassmann, WEV, 779. 233 Cf. H. Ja co b i, AEM, LV. 234 Cf. J. Speijer, 88, 342; GIAP, I, 6, 81. 285 Cf. J. Speijer, 88, 340; on alternative use of punar cf. § 5.I.2.D. 286 Cf. H. Ja co b i, ibidem. 237 Cf. H. Толстая, loc. cit. 288 Cf. B. Mazundar, The history of the Bengali language2, Calcutta 1927, 314. 289 Cf. R. W agner, ВТ, 101. 240 Cf. W. G eiger, GIAP, I, 10, 85. In Avêsta we can find in adversative function (ä)al, which has IE equivalents; as its residue we may regard the adversative a in Osse­ tic 241, Shugni 242 and Ishkashmi 243. The adversative function has arisen directly from the copulative one with uta in Ossetic 244 and Ishkashmi24S, probably also in Afghan %o24e. As Middle Iranian innovation we may regard the adversative func­ tion of Sogdian ß'w 247 and Ossetic ba 248; here Middle Persian be 'but, beside, behind* may also belong24*. The Sogdian yw'r is identified by E. Benveniste 260 with Pahlavi ëvar 'vraiment*, who compares it semanti­ cally with the Latin uero; thus the affirmative meaning would be inter­ mediary here, so is the additive one in the pySt 'mais, après, puis*2И. The adversative function of the Parthian bye, cf. byd 'second, other, again, then* 252, has probably arisen from the denotation of resumption. In the Early Modern Persian after negation at the beginning of a clause the conditional &i and ki may be used, the latter also in immediate combi­ nations with negation (naki), which G. Lazard 260261262263* 264* compares with the Tadjik п е к ц here also belongs the Yagnobi neki 'but, only’ 254. The re­ strictive meaning is intermediate here. In the Ossetic ändära 'but, other­ wise* 255 the adversative function has arisen from the denotation of differ­ ence, whereas in Yagnobi ke from additive-completive meaning 266 267.

iv. Anatolian (A) The P IE *k*e unknown as conjunction in Hittite, was preserved in Lycian ke 257 and Lydian к 268. In cuneiform inscriptions the copulative

“» Cf. W. Miller, GIP, I, Anhang, 87. “ * Cf. И. Зарубин, ШТ, 98. 248 Qf у. Пахалина, ИЯ, 178. 244 Cf. M. Касаева, ibidem, 321; Андреев-Пещерева, ЯТ, 227. 246 Cf. T. Пахалина, ИЯ, 255. 246 Cf. PAG, 1121. 247 Cf. E. Benveniste, EGS, 175. 248 Cf. В. Абаев, ibidem, 229. The Baltic be, ba ebut, also* are partly an equivalent. 249 Cf. C. Salem ann, GIP, I, 1, 323; А. Фрейман, Записки коллегии Востокове­ дов, I, 372— 374. 260 EGS, 175. 261 Ibidem, 154, 175, 231. 262 Cf. M. B o yce, МНР, 185. 268 La lamgue des plus cmciens monuments de la prose persane, Paris 1963, 475—476, 484. 264 Cf. Андреев-Пещерева, ЯТ, 292. 256 Cf. Абаев, ibidem, 155. 266 Cf. Андреев-Пещерева, ЯТ, 272. 267 H. K ro n asser, VLFH, 230, whereas E. L aro ch e, BSL, LIII, 173— 174, joins it with ha; its phonetic shape and polysyndeton points to its origin front *kve. 258 Cf. R. Grusmani, Lydisches Wörterbuch, Heidelberg 1964, 140— 141. function is fulfilled by the postpositive (i)a, probably derived from the pronominal stem *e/o- and it can be found — similarly as the continuant *k*e — in indefinite pronoun25e. In Hittite also the anteponed nu, ta, su occur, of which the first has its formal equivalent in Palaic nu 'now, therefore’ * 260 261 and a parallel in Old Irish neo 'and’, Slavonic п ъ , no, nu 'but’, Tokharian no, nu 'but’. The remaining two belong to the pronominal stem *so/to-, from which the Lycian se was probably derived to o 2ei. (B) As a residue of P IE *ue in Hittite may be regarded: na-wi 'noch nicht’ 262, perhaps the hieroglyphic na-pa-wa 'or’ 263 and frequent in cuneiform inscriptions nass- и 'or’, usually identified with Old Irish no, nu 'or’ etc. 264. Besides in alternative function occur: the conditional takku, relative man, sporadically also the adversative ma after copulative con­ junction 26S 266. In the Lycian language neu *= *ne-ue266 has been attested; the Lydian bu(k) 'or’ was derived by R. Gusmani 267 from imperative of verb *bheu-, which has its parallels in the Lithuanian buk and Slavonic bqdi 'or, be it’. (C) The continuants of P IE *ne-k*e occur in Lydian nik and perhaps in (semantically obscure) Hittite nikku 2®8. The alternative use of equiva­ lents of P IE *ne-ue has been discussed above 269; however the origin of -ss- in nassu is not clear, and so it is not unlikely, that here the connection of na 'not’ + su 'and’ takes place 27°. In Hittite in disjunctive function a combination of copulative (i)a with negation usually occurs271. (D) The tendency to adaptation in adversative function of the particle *(s)ma, *(s)me — comprising Anatolian, Greek and Messapian — seems to date back to the epoch of dialectal disintegration of the proto-language. As its results the Hittite and Palaic ma 'but’ 272, Lydian m 'but’ 273 and

269 Cf. H. K ro n asser, VLFH, 152— 153. 260 Cf. A. Kammenhuber, BSL, LIV, 42. 261 H. P ed ersen , HAIES, 66, 196; E. Schwyzer, GG, II, 573 derived it from PIE *kve, from which, however, as it seems, the above quoted ke arose. 262 Cf. H. K ro n asser, VLFH , 161. 268 Cf. J. Friedrich, HW, 335. 264 Cf. H. Pedersen, HAIES , 200; J. Friedrich, HW, 149; H. K ro n asser, VLFH, 153. 268 Cf. J. Friedrich, HW, 132, 134— 135, 205. 266 Cf. H. Kronasser, VLFH, 230. 267 Op. cit. 86— 87. 268 H. K ro n asser, VLFH, 161. 269 § 5.1.2.С. 270 Cf. H. K ro n asser, VLFH, 153. 271 Cf. J. Friedrich, HE, § 307, B. 272 Cf. J. Friedrich, HW, 132; Ergheft, II, 38; cf. also Hurrian-ma 'but* (J. F r ie ­ drich, HO, I, 1, 1—2, 2, 19). 278 Cf. E. V etter, österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 232, 3, 27. Lycian me 'now, then, after, and, but5 274 have arisen; here probably the intensifying meaning was intermediary, preserved in Old Indian sma (cf. also IE pronominal suffix -sm-). In Hittite in adversative function the copulative (i)a may also be used 274 275 and imma 'aber, wirklich, vielmehr, dazu, noch5 identified with the Latin immo 276. In the hieroglyphic and Luwi inscriptions in adversative function the particle pa occurs 277 278279280281, which may be related with the Baltic and Iranian ba 'but, also5. In the Lydian dum- 'aber, doch, während5 = Latin dum 278 the additive­ supplementary meaning is intermediate.

V. Phrygian-Armenian (A) In Old Phrygian inscriptions xe *kve 279 and et(i) 'und, ferner5 280 = Latin et etc. in copulative function have been attested. Both the conjun­ ctions have been preserved in Modern Phrygian281, where also xou, (?) xe occurs borrowed from the Greek language 282. In Armenian we can find ew 'and, also5 £= *epi 283 284, cf. Old Indian api, which has survived to this day in the both dialects. In Modern East Arme­ nian ham 'and, also5 284 and и (£= uta) 285 has been borrowed from Iranian. (B) The Phrygian aini 'or5 O. Haas 286 287 derives from pronominal stem *anio- 'other5; thus the denotation of difference was intermediate. From the oldest times to this day the alternative function in Armenian has been fulfilled by kam, which is related with the substantive kamkh 'wish, will5, borrowed from Iranian 287. Already in classical epoch thepët 'though5 and (e)the 'if, that5 were used in alternative connotation 288; the 274 Cf. J. Friedrich, RW, 132; H. K ro n asser, VLFH, 153; Gr. Neumann, HO, I, 1, 1—2, 2, 393. 276 Cf. J. Friedrich, HE, § 308, B. 276 Cf. W alde-Hofmann, LEW, I, 682. 277 Cf. J. Friedrich, RW, 153, 329, 335; Ergheft, II, 42. 278 Cf. E. V etter, ibiden, 21— 28. 279 Cf. P. K retsch m er, Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, X III, 358— 359. 280 Cf. О. H aas, LB, X , 96, 108, 111, 181. 281 Ibidem; A. H eubek, IF , LXIV , 16. 282 Cf. W. Ramsay, KZ, XXVIII, 386—388. 283 Cf. A. M eillet, AE, 132— 133. 284 Cf. А. Томсон, Историческая грамматика современного армянского языка, СПб. 1890, 219. 285 However, it hardly seems to be probable, that и ew, as maintained by A. M eillet, BG, 12, owing to unlikely phonetic change and the preservation of ew to this day. 286 LB, X , 77, 225. 287 Cf. A. M eillet, AE, 133. It is not unlikely, that it comes directly from above (§ 6.2.2.Ш.В) quoted 'km, 9g9m ror\ 288 Cf. H. Jen sen , AG, 193, 219. latter can also be found in the language of the present day 289 290291292. In Modern West Armenian in alternative function 3. sg. subjunct. of the substantive verb dllay cto be* appears 29°. (C) As the formal equivalent of Phrygian uke (cf. meke)291 may be regarded the Armenian oç, which is mainly negation, whereas in disjunc­ tive function it generally occurs in combination with ew ‘‘and3 292. W. Ci- mochowski 293 identified the Armenian oc with the Albanian as 'nor3; thus oç would be an original disjunctive conjunction which has changed into negation. The initial o- seems to be identical with Phrygian u-, Greek où, and Albanian a-, yet it gives an impression of being a borrowing from some non IE language 294, whereas -c is a continuant of P IE *kue 295 296. In disjunctive connections of prohibitive expressions in Armenian the nega­ tion mi — P IE *me occurs. (D) In the Phrygian inscriptions the adversative conjunction was not attested, whereas its function in Armenian was fulfilled by baych, isk, sakayn 29e. This state — omitting from consideration the disappearance of isk in Modern West Armenian — has been preserved to this day. In the origin of adversative function in ayl the meaning of difference was inter­ mediary 297; in isk the affirmative one; baych has been attested in the meaning 'other3, therefore it constitutes the parallel to ayl. The adversa­ tive function of sakayn was derived from the meaning 'unter solchen Bedingungen3 by A. Meillet 298 299*, who compares it with sak 'Vertrag3; ayn signified 'jener, dort3, thus the additive completion was a starting point here. A similar development has probably taken place in Modern Armenian aynu amënayniw, cf. amen 'alle, jeder3 2". H. Jensen 300 sees an opposite meaning in the classical Armenian gonë(a) 'at least3, which would point to restrictive meaning.

289 Cf. A. A beghian, NAG, 143. 290 Cf. F. F e y d it, Manuel de langue arménienne2, Paris 1969, 143. 291 Cf. 0. Haas, LB, X, 85. 292 Cf. H. Jen sen , AG, 195. 293 LP, IV, 204—205. 294 Cf. recently W. Cowgill, Language, X X X V I, 347— 350, who gives an incon- vineingly IE etymology. 296 Although the Armenian -kh is considered to be continuant of PIE -kve, however, before i, e also the change of ku into ç is possible. In these conditions the PIE g*h con­ sequently changes into j . 296 Cf. A. M eillet, AE, 133. 297 Ibidem, 134. 298 AE, 135. 299 Cf. A. A beghian, NAG, 143. 800 AG, 196. (A) In the Mycenaean epoch the copulative connotation was realized by qe301 (classical те) which was postponed after all or only after the last constituent of paratactical connection. Besides we can find also postpositive de 'and, to, towards5 302 (classical Sé) later limited to the adversative func­ tion, cf. however î8é, rjSé 'and5. Here probably the intensifying meaning was intermediate, preserved in the pronoun 6-8e etc. * 303301 304 The existing to this day xou appears in Homer. It used to be identified with Lithuanian Jcai-p 'as, if5 and Old Church Slavonic а - с ё , с ё i 'tough5 304. However re­ cently it is generally derived from the preposition *kmti 'together, with5 — preserved in xacdyvrçToç 'brother, born together5 — which seems more convincing owing to (a) Arcado-Cyprian ха(т), xaç, (b) various semantic parallels, (c) the probable origin of Balto-Slavonic forms from the pro­ nominal stem *&vo-; there are however certain phonetic difficulties 305. (B) Since the times of Homer to this day in alternative function yj (Cy­ prian Ï) occurs, earlier rj (deictic particle) + inherited (f)s = Latin ue etc. 306 Besides for alternative connotation serve: relative sÏ(ts), condi­ tional èàvTe, concessive xàv and occasionally adversative аХХа 307 308. Modern Greek &£Xeiç 'or, be it5 represents 2. sg. praes. of verb 'want5 308. (C) In disjunctive function the continuant of PIE *ne-k*e occurs in Greek with a renewed negation as outs (Mycenaean ouqe, 1 example from Knossos auqe) 309. In Homer the form où8é appears, corresponding to Avestan naêda, and a combination of copulative те with the prohibi­ tive negation (jly). АД these forms have been preserved in Modern Greek310. PolysyndeticaUy also the où and (jly) alone in combinations with xai, те, 8é can be used. (D) As a result of IE dialectal tendency we may regard the adver-

301 Cf. Ventris-Chadwick, DMG, 91. 802 Ibidem, 91. 308 K. Brugmann, GYG, II, 3, 998— 999, joins this conjunction with 8r), deriving it from the pronominal stem *do-. 304 Cf. E. Schwyzer, GG, II, 567. 806 Cf. V. Pisani, KZ, LXXVII, 246—251; O. Masson, Giotta, XLI, 63—65; W. W yatt jr., Giotta, XLII, 170—182; M. Lejeune, BSL, LV, 20—26; R. Gusmani, Giotta, XLIV , 22—25; P. K ip arsk y , Giotta, XLIV , 133. 306 Cf. E. Schwyzer, GG, II, 564— 565. J. V endryes, MSL, X III, 58—62, compares the twofold accentuation: т)£ (in initial), 9je (in further position) with the accentuation of the first verb in the alternative construction in Old Indian (as in subordinate clause, cf. § 3.2.A). 807 Cf. § 5.1.2.D— G. 308 Cf. A. Thum b, HNG, 174. зов cf Ventris-Chadwick, DMG, 390, 402. 810 Cf. A. Thum b, HNG, loc. cit. sative function of the Greek: ат-àp (cf. Latin at, Avestan at, Gothic ap-pan), а5(те), a51hç, аитц, аитар (cf. Latin autem, Oskian aut 'séd3), |i.à(v), [liv (cf. Hittite ma etc. and Messapian min 'but3), whereas аХХа is rather parallel to Armenian ayl, while 8e may be lent to Messapian (dde). Further­ more in adversative function we can find: the adverb ttXtqv 'except3 and Sfjuoç 'all the same, nevertheless3 related with pronoun 6[l6q fone and the same3. Here also occur the copulative те, хас3n. In Modern Greek to the contra­ sting connection of sentences restrictive (xóv(o) ‘‘only3, comparative тиара 'than; nisi3 and additive-completive Albanian language has no original copulative conjunctions. Here e 'and3 borrowed from Eomanic (Latin et) and be 'and, also3 taken over from Turkish occur313 314. As it seems, their combination resulted in ebe, dialectal en(d)e, nende 'and, also3 314. (B) In alternative function we can find: a, о borrowed from Eomanic (Latin aut), i from Modern Greek (^), and ja from Turkish315. Beside these, the genuine ndo occurs, which G. Meyer 316 derives from the connection of nde 'if3 with do 3. sg. of verb 'want3. M. Lambertz 317 notes also the form ndeç, which seems to comprise 2. sg. of the same verb. Thus the conditional- wishing meaning would be intermediate. (C) In disjunctive function in Albanian as 'nor3 appears, which G. Meyer318 explained as a combination of alternative a with negation s, whereas W. Cimochowski319 identified it with Armenian oç, deriving also the prohibitive mos from mo ( P IE *me) + as. Thus it should be assumed, that in proto-Albanian as fulfilled the function of negation, and then the differentiation between as 'nor3 and s 'not3 took place. The prohibitive mos may have been derived directly from P IE *më-lc*e, owing to the fact, that the change of disjunctive conjunction in negation has a number of parallels, whereas the intensification of prohibitive negation by means of the normal one would be unlikely. This considering, we should assume 311 Cf. E. Schwyzer, GG, II, 543, 559—560, 569—570, 582; J. Denniston, GP, 292, 514. 312 Cf. A. Thumb, ibidem. The restrictive meaning was intermediate in Middle Greek el (jlt), attested in adversative function, e.g. R. H elbing, Auswahl aus griechi- sehen Inschriften, Berlin 1915, 90. 313 Cf. G. M eyer, EWAS, 83, 93. 314 Ibidem. 316 Ibidem, 1, 157, 160, 314. 316 Op. cit. 299. M. Lambertz, GAS, 169, considers ndo primary conditional conjunction. 317 Op. cit. 169. 318 EWAS, 17. 318 LP, IV, 204—205. in Albanian the existence of modified — in the first case formally, in the se­ cond semantically — continuants of P IE *nekve and * т ё к ч . (D) The genuine adversative conjunctions are also lacking in Albanian, where we can find т а , po(r) borrowed from Italian and ama borrowed from Turkish 320.

viii. Italic (A) We can assume, that in the pre-Italic community there was a ten­ dency to use eti 'and’ (cf. Greek Eti 'yet, still, beside’). This tendency be­ came prevailing in the Northern parts (Latin, Umbrian), whereas in Oscan and in the neighbouring dialects321 we can find inim 'et’, cf. Paelignian inom 'et’ 322. The late origin of this conjunction is pointed to by the dif­ ference of vocalism in close related dialects; the Oscan form corresponds to the Latin enim, while Paelignian to the Umbrian enom 'turn’. The copulative function has arisen from the temporal-conclusive meaning. A similar development took place in the Osco-Paelignian sua 'que, et’, cf. Old Latin suad 'so, then’ 323. The hereditary *kve in Osco-Umbrian was preserved only after negation. In archaic Latin que is frequent, in the living language it became out of use at the beginning of the imperial epoch, yet being preserved in combination with the preposition ad as atque, ac. In Late Latin the adverb sie 'so, then’ 324 *326 was adopted for copulative connotation. Occasionally in this function the intensifying- additive quoque, etiam and disjunctive neque 325 could be used. (B) In alternative function the hereditary, postpositive ue has been preserved only in Latin. The postpositive usage was partly reduced by means of orthotonic connections në-ue, neu (archaic nei-ue, ni-ue) and sei-ue, si-ue, seu 326; the last one has survived to this day in Bumanian 327. In alternative function also si alone may be used (known in this meaning in Old Spanish 328). Its semantic parallel is suae...pod, suai puh 'siue’ noted in Oscan 329. In pre-Italic the adverb auti 'other’ (cf. Greek au-л etc.) was used

320 Cf. G. M eyer, EW A 8, 9, 262, 346. 321 Sporadically also in Umbrian, cf. R. von P la n ta , GOUD, II, 463. 322 Ibidem. 323 R. von P la n ta , GOUD, 463, assumes the change of meaning 'wie’ into 'und’, which cannot he justified owing to he meaning of the Latin suad and the lack of convincing parallels. 324 Cf. J. Safarewicz, GEJŁ, II, 141. 326 Cf. Hofmann-Szanty r, L 8S, 484—486, 617. 326 Cf. W alde-Hofmann, LEW, II, 165—166, 549, 740. 327 Cf. W. Meyer-Lübke, GB8, III, 249. 328 Cf. F. Hanssen, 8G, 223. 328 Cf. R. von P la n ta , GOUD, II, 457, 463. for alternative connotation 330 331. Here belong Oscan auti 'aut9, aut 'aut, sed9, Umbrian ote, ute 'aut9 331 and Latin aut preserved in most of the Ro­ manic languages 332. Besides we can find here a parallel innovation, con­ sisting in the adaptation of various forms of the verb 'want9 to alternative function. To these belong: Oscan loufir, 3. sg. conjunct, praes. pass., Umbrian Am(s), 2. sg. ind. praes., herie(i), 3. sg. conjunct, perf., and Latin uel, which can be interpreted as 2. sg. ind. praes. or 2. sg. impe- rat. 333. The first possibility is pointed to by the fact, that to alternative function 2. sg. ind. praes. in Italian moi 334 and Rumanian ori 335 as well as 3. sg. ind. praes. in Old Spanish quier 336 and Portuguese querzzl of respective verb were used. : Already in the historical times for alternative function dn Latin the interrogative an (having parallel in the Baltic an-) was. used33& *, Here occasionally the interrogative ne, being by origin a negation, may occur 339. (0) The P IE *nekve was preserved in Latin neque, nec and in Osco- Umbrian nep, where also the forms neip ±= *nei-kve and nip *ne-kve occur 34°. The form neue, known only in Latin, specializes in prohibitive shade, owipg to the meaning of nê-341. The latter too, can be used in dis­ junctive construction. In archaic ащ! Late Latin neque, nec — similarly as OscQ-PaeUgnjan neip -— can appear as negation, which K. Brugmann342 and E . Löfstedt 343 344 explain by its intensifying function. It is difficult to say, if the pre-Latin *negi attested in negare, negotium, fulfilled disjunctive function, which seems to be indicated by the Old Saxon nek&nd Baltic negi 'nor9. Besides, the sentence negation non and the prohibitive nê may be used for disjunctive connotation, also in combination with copulative and. alternative conjunctions 345.

330 Cf. W alde-Hofmann, LEW, I, 87. 331 Cf. R. von P la n ta , GOUD, II, 465. : 332 Cf. W. Meyer-Lübke, GES, I, 504, III, 592. 338 Cf. C. Buck, GOUD, 94; Walde-Hof mann, LEW, I, 743, where further litera­ ture can be found. , , 334 Cf. G. R ohlfs, HGIS, III, 54. 386 Cf. H. T ik tin , BDW, II, 1094, 336 Cf. F. Haussen, SG, 222. 387 Cf. J. H uber, Altportugiesisches Elementarbuch, Heidelberg 1933, 239; U. M achado, Gramdtica portuguesa, Lisboą 1917, 104. 388 Cf. J. Safarewicz, GHJL, II* 147^ 339 Cf. Stolz-Schmalz, LG6, 699. 340 Cf. Hofmann-Szanty r, LS S, 447—452; R. von Planta, GOUD, II, 468:—469. 341 Ibidem, 535— 536. 342 GY G, II, 3, 1004— 1005. 343 Syntactica, Lund 1928— 1933, I, 268. 344 Cf. W ald e-H of mann, LEW, II, 157. 346 Cf. Hofmann-Szantyr, LSS, 499—500, 517, 536. Indo-European Parataxis (D) As has been mentioned above, the Latin at (cf. also ast, atqui, atquiri) may be considered a result of IE dialectal innovation34®. As far back as the epoch which precedes the pre-Italic community we may date a tendency to use in adversative (simultaneously with alternative) function the adverb auti ‘other*, cf. Latin autem, Oscan aut 'séd, aut’ and its Greek equivalents 347. The original meaning ‘wahrlich’ was assumed for immo by Walde-Hofmann M8, who identified it with Hittite imma; thus the affir­ mative meaning would be intermediary here. A similar development took place in uero, uerum and partly in tam{en) 346. From the denotation of dif­ ference the adversative function has arisen in sê(d), ceterum and Late Latin porro, whereas from resumptive meaning in denuo, iterum, rursus35°. Besides, for adversative connotation in Latin serve: the affirmative utique, sane, plane, additive magis, tandem, pointing to similarity nihilominus and intensifying quidem, usually used in enclitic position351. In the Umbrian texts the adversative conjunction has not been attested.

ix. Bomanic (A) In the Bomanic languages only the continuants of et have sur­ vived to this day, with the exception of Bumanian, where the conjunction si ‘and’ *= Latin sic 362 occurs. In Old West Bomanic the continuants of nee and ae have been attested; the latter has partly survived to this day 353. (B) Within the alternative function to the Bomanic innovations belong: the polysyndetic French soit, Italian sia 36*, Spanish sea35S, Por­ tuguese seja 354 representing 3. sg. subiunct. praes. of substantive verb; in Bumanian fie ±= Latin fiat 357 is their semantic equivalent, cf. also the preterite form of relevant verb: French fût 368, Spanish fuese 'be it’ 35*. They all have simultaneously preserved their primary verbal value. From the relative-interrogative meaning the alternative function arose *444440 ”• Cf. J. Pokorny, 1EW , 70: ati 'über etwas hinaus’. The resumptive meaning seems to be an innovation of the Celtic group. 447 Cf. Walde-Hofmann, LEW, I, 87. 444 Ibidem, I, 682. 444 Cf. Hofmann-Szantyr, L 8 8 , 494—497. 440 Ibidem, 486—488, 491—492. 461 Ibidem, 486, 492—493, 497—498. 444 Cf. J. Safarewicz, GHJŁ, II, 141. 444 Cf. W. M eyer-Lübke, GRS, III, 249—250; E. Lerch, HFS, I, 47; G. Rohlfs, HGI8, III, 51. 444 Cf. H. R ohlfs, HGIS, III, 54. 444 Cf. F. Haussen, 8G, 222. 444 U. Machado, op. cit. 104. 447 Cf. Diefionarul limbii romäne, Bucureęti 1913 ff. III, 115. 444 Cf. E. L erch , HFS, I, 87. 444 Cf. J . B ou zet, Grammaire espagnole, Paris 1946, 411. in Old Spanish que 36°, with temporal shade in Modern cuando and in Por­ tuguese quando 361. In the historical epoch of French, Provençal and Italian and to this day in the Obwald dialect of the Bhaeto-Bomanic language in alternative function the continuant of nee has been attested 362. (C) This conjunction, however, occurs mainly in disjunctive function in Bumanian nici, Italian ne, French ni, Provençal ne, ni, Spanish ni and Portuguese nem 363. (D) Omitting from consideration the continuant tarnen in Sardinian 364, of all the Latin adversative conjunctions in the Bomanic languages only magis has been preserved 365. Besides, nihilominus was renewed in French néanmoins, Italian nondimeno and related 366 *. As a West Bomanic inno­ vation we may regard the adversative function of Latin ante(a), antius and per-hocZB7, attested in Old French, Provençal, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian; the additive(-conclusive) meaning was intermediate here. A similar development took place in French cependant, pourtant, plutôt, perhaps also in du reste, au reste, aussi bien 368. The adversative function of toujours 369 and toutefois, Italian tuttavia, Spanish, Portuguese todavia370 has arisen from the affirmative-intensifying meaning. The conjunctions of this group, as well as generally opposite en revanche, par contre have preserved their original adverbial value371. The continuants of Latin pure 'only’ acquired adversative function in Italian pure and Obwald pir 372. A similar development was in vulgar Latin nisi and in the West Bomanic continuants of si-non 373, where the denied conditional conjunction was intermediary. In the Bumanian language with adversative meaning appear: affirma­ tive-intensifying însà, ci and resumptive dar, whereas in Arumanian we can find here e 'but’ originated from the Latin et 'and’ 374.

880 Cf. F. Haussen, SG, 180, 190— 191, 223. 881 Cf. J. B ou zet, ibidem, 412; U.-Machado, op. cit. 104. 888 Cf. W. Meyer-Lübke, GRS, III, 249—250. 368 Loc. cit. 884 Ibidem, 585. 888 Ibidem, 585, 593. 888 Ibidem, 596. 887 Cf. W. Meyer-Lübke, GRS, III, 597; G. Rohlfs, HGIS, III, 55. 888 Cf. W artburg-Zumthor, PSFC , 69—71; G. Antoine, CF, 681— 687. 888 Cf. E. L erch , HFS, I, 119— 121. Cf. W. Meyer-Lübke, GRS, III, 596. 371 Cf. W artburg-Zum thor, PSFC, 70— 71. 372 Cf. W. Meyer-Lübke, GRS, III, 529, 596—597. 378 Cf. Hofmann-Szantyr, LSS, 668—669; W. Meyer-Lübke, GRS, III, 750; E. L erch , HFS, I, 104. 878 Cf. W. Meyer-Lübke, GRS, III, 529, 586—587, 596, 749—750. X. Celtic (A) The P IE enclitic, postpositive * к ч in the Celtic area has been attes­ ted in Gaulish c 375, Celto-Iberian cue, ce, que 376, Old Irish ch 377 as well as in the obligatory connections *ad-k4e ( =± Latin atque) in Welsh a(c). and Cornish, Breton ha(g) 378. As an innovation .of the Gaulish language we may regard duci 'anti3, which B. Thurneysen 379 compares with the Old Irish do 'to3 and the Ogham ci "here3, reconstructing its original additive meaning 'hierzu3. The appearing in Aquitanian inscriptions >et(i) was interpreted by J. Whatmough 380 as a copulative ,conjunction. In the Goidelic group this function is fulfilled by the continuants of the Old Irish adverb ocus 'beside, near3, cL Old Irish ocus, ocuis, acus 'and5, Modern Irish agus, as, Manx es,.Gaelic agus, (i)s*81. In Old Irish the forms neo and sceo (sceu) have been attested In copulative, function; their etymology is not. clear 382. It seems to me* .that the former may represent the PIE *neu, a variant form, of the ♦ adverb * пги 'now3, cf. the adjective *neu-os 'new,3 and its conjunctional equivalents in , Tpkhąriąn, Hittite and Sla­ vonic, where also a fqrm with .an original diphthong is, known 383. .(B) Basing on the congruency of the Old Iri^h no, п ц 'or3, Welsh neu 'or3 and Old Breton nou 'or, it Is3 it may be considered, that in pre- Celtic the alternative function was realized by continuant of PIE *ne-/ue in.which п е т , according to ,B* Thurneysen 384, was semantically neutralized in the negative construction. This conjunction has been preserved in Irish, Gaelic and Welsh to this day. The. tendency to the use of the continuants of disjunctive *ne-tee with the modal shading in alternative function also seems to be common ta Old Irish (in negative nominal clause), Welsh (with subjunctive) and Breton (in interrogative, relative and conditional shade) 385 *. Probably the alternative function in Old Gaelic gan 'not, without3 386 has arisen in a similar way. In Old Irish and Cornish the following modal forms of substantive verb have been used: 3. sg. cónmnct. in Old Irish bä, fä and Cornish bo

375 Cf. R. T h urneysen, ZCP, XV I, 287, differently J. P ok orn y, IEW, 344. 376 Cf. A. Tovar, Kratylos, III, 11. 877 Cf. R. Thurneysen, GOI, 549— 550; D. B in ch y, Celtica, V, 77— 94; C. W a t­ kins, Celtica, VI, 8 ff. 378 Cf. Lewis-Pedersen, CCG, § 86. 878 ZCP, XV I, 287. 380 The dialects of Ancient Gaul, An Arbor 1963, 125. 381 Cf. H. Pedersen, VGK, I, 161. 382 Cf. J. Vendryes, LEI, N-10. 383 On the etymology of sçeo see D. B in ch y , Celtica, V, 78. 384 GOIf 551, cf. also § 5.1.2.C' 385 Cf. H. Pedersen, VGK, II, 253, 323; R. Thurneysen, GOI, 540. 388 Cf. Heroic poetry, Edinburgh 1939, e.g. 8, 12, 124, 156. and 3. sg. subiunct. in Irish ro{d)bo, ro(d)buZ87. Similarly the interrogative particlea in Welsh, occurring in the alternative function, before a sub­ stantive is enlarged by e, which probably represents 3. sg. praes. of sub­ stantive verb 387 388 * ; its equivalent is the Old Breton hai "or9 389, contradicting such interpretation. The interrogative-relative meaning was intermediary in Old Irish in 39°, in Cornish po, py and Breton pe which represent forms of the pronoun *&vo-391. In Old and Middle Irish ce, cia, cid 392 the concessive function was original, whereas in the aire, airg(g) 'autrement, cas difficile, embarras5 393 — the denotation of difference. (C) The P IE *nekve has been preserved in Old Irish na(ch), Welsh na(c) and Cornish, Breton na(g) 394. This conjunction occasionally occurs in copulative and alternative function and as negation in interrogative, imperative and certain subordinate clauses 395. On this background a pleo­ nastic combination of disjunctive na — conceived as negation — with copulative conjunction may appear historically in Irish (ocus na) and in Welsh (ac na) 396. The generally alternative continuants of *neue may occur in disjunctive function in Manx 397 and Gaelic 398 after negation. Also a newer negation g an, cha(n) may occasionally appear in Gaelic in disjunctive function 3 400". As a correlate of disjunctive conjunction in Cornish na nyll 'neither9 occurs, where n- is an article and yll pronoun 'other9 400. (D) The data from each separate Celtic language give no grounds for the reconstruction of the proto-Celtic adversative conjunction. In Old Irish we find ac(h)t preserved to this day (also in Gaelic), which Thur­ neysen 401 identified with the missing-separating Greek sxtoç. A similar development takes place in inge 'but, except9, cammaiph, cammaif, cam- mai(b), cf. mmm-oiph 'false .appearance, false semblance9 and in im(m)urgu,

387 Cf. H. Pedersen , VGK, I, 270, II, 438; R. Thurneysen, GOI, 551. 388 Cf. Lewis-Pedersen, GCG, § 478, 3, A. 388 Cf. L. F le u rio t, У Д 28,1. 380 Cf. R. Thurneysen, GOI, 562. 381 Cf. H. Pedersen , VGK, I, 459, II, 208, differently (from substantive verb) J. Vendryep, LEI, N-17. 332 Cf. H. Pedersen , VGK, II, 207. 383 Cf. J. Vendryes, LEI, A-45; Thurneysen, GOI, 551. 384 Cf. H. P ed ersen , VGK, II, 252—261. _ 395 Ibidem. 396 Ibidem, 260. 397 Cf. E. Goodwin, ELM, 32. 398 Cf. Maclaren's, GST, 165. 399 Ibidem. 400 Cf. H. Ped ersen , VGK, II, 196. 401 GOI, 560. immargu, cf. imargo 'falsehood5 402 and also in a{i)le 'mais, autre5 403 spora­ dically attested in this function. The additive-completive meaning was intermediate in ar apa 'nonobstant, néanmoins, pour la raison que5 404. As an innovation of the Brythonic group we may regard the adver­ sative function of Middle Welsh hagen 405 = Old Breton hacen (gloss to Latin at) which J. Loth 406 derives from ha 'and5 407 + ken 'though5. In Middle Breton this conjunction appears as hoguen and hogen (the latter preserved to this day) 408. The etymology of Modern Breton avad and met 409 is not clear to me; met may be an equivalent of the Cornish mes, mas 'but5 41°. The normal adversative conjunction in Welsh is ond 'but, only5 410411, which has arisen from onid 'if not, only5 411. The Middle and Modern Welsh namyn has changed in a similar w ay412 413, whereas in eithr 'but, except5 413 the denotation of difference was intermediary. In Cornish sav 'tarnen, modo excepto5 and bytegyns have been attested in adversative function; the former is borrowed from English save, the latter is derived by Zeuss-Ebel414 from byth-dhe-gyns 'utique potius5, thus it would point to its original additive-conclusive meaning.

xi. Germanic (A) The continuant of the P IE *k*e, which has been attested in Go­ thic 415 and pre-Nordic416 (u)h, had already been transformed in proto-Ger­ manic into the anteponed conjunction ja-h by means of connection with pronominal stem *io-417; here belong Gothic and (?) pre-Nordic ja(h) 418,

408 Cf. E. Thurneysen, GOI, 560—561; H. P ed ersen , VGK, II, 677. 403 Cf. J. Vendryes, LEI, A-32. 404 Ibidem, A-7. 406 J. M orris-Jones, WG, 442. 406 Vocabulaire vieux-breton, Paris 1884, 150. 407 This conjunction was attested also in adversative function in the languages of Brythonic group. 408 Cf. J. L o th , ibidem. 408 Cf. D. H ardie, Н М В , 141. Here also mes rbut’ occurs borrowed from the French mais. 410 Cf. Zeuss-Ebel, GO, 732. 411 Cf. J. M orris-J ones, WG, 442. 412 Ibidem, 442; J. Strachan, IEW, 125. 413 Cf. J. M orris-Jones, WG, 411, 442. 414 GC, 732. 416 Cf. W. B rau n e, GG, 117; recently P. Scherer, (Hossa, II, 1, 28—45. 416 Cf. A. Johannesson, GUN, 74. 417 Cf. H. H irt, Handbuch des Urgermanischen, III, 192— 193. 418 Cf. A. Jo h an n esso n , GUN, 74. Old High German j a 419, Old Saxon ja, ge, gi(e) 420 and Old English ge421. It is quite possible, that in the period which followed the separation of Easfr Germanic, a tendency arose to use the additive-intensifying particle auk 422 in copulative function. This tendency prevailed in North Germanic, whereas in West group auk never acquired a pure copulative function and was replaced here by continuants of *ntha and *anti/a423 424 which were adopted to copulative function even before the final loss of contact between both groups, cf. Old Icelandic en(n) 'und, aber, so, nun, wieder5 424. The form *ntha (cf. Old High German unta, unti, unde 425 426, Middle High German unde, Modern German und 42e) corresponds to Old In­ dian atha 'and, then, therefore’, while the *anti/a (cf. Old High German anti, enti, inti, endi, inde 427, Old Saxon ande, endi 428, Middle Low German ande, ende*29, Old Frisian anda, ande, an(d), enda, en(d) 43°, Dutch en, English and) is by its origin an adverb of proximity, cf. Greek ocvtl etc. The derivation of all the forms from the common shape is not possible481. The sociative meaning was original in Norwegian and Swedish samt 'and, together’, while the additive one in Gothic if '8é, xai’ *eti432 433 the IE equivalents of which have already been mentioned. (B) For the alternative connotation in proto - Germanic the conjunction effau was used, from which arose Gothic aiffau*zz, Old Icelandic eda, edr 434, Old Danish eth, oth 435 436437, Old English edda, odda, odde(r)43e, Modern English or, Old Saxon atha, ohtho, ettha, ettho*zl, Middle Low German od(d)er, ad(d)er, ed(d)er 438, Old High German odo, ëddo, odar 439 and Modern 418 Cf. O. B ehaghel, DS, III, 200. 4,0 Ibidem. 421 Cf. F. Holthausen, AEW, 141. 422 Cf. Gothic auk 'ferner, dann, aber, nämlich’. 423 Cf. К. Maisenhelder, Die altenglische Partikel “and”, Heidelberg 1935. 424 Qf F. Holthausen, WAN, 51. 426 Cf. W. B raun e, AHDG, 63. . 426 Cf. H. Paul, DG, III, 59. 427 Cf. W. B raun e, AHDG, 63. 428 Cf. J. G allée, Altsächsische Grammatik2, Halle—Leiden 1910, 43, 235. 428 Cf. A. L asch , MNDG, 33, 87. 430 Cf. W. Steller, AFG, 135. 431 Cf. K. Maisenhelder, op. cit. 51—54. 432 Cf. S. F e ist, WGS, 297. 433 Ibidem, 29. 434 Cf. F. Holthausen, WAN, 45, 46. 435 Cf. F alk -T o rp , NDEW, 187. 436 çf F. Holthausen, AEW, 94, 243. 437 Cf. F. Holthausen, A 8E , 72. 438 Cf. A. L asch , MNDG, 75, 128. 438 Cf. F. Kluge, EW D8, 519. German oder. Here some scholars include also Old Saxon eftha, eftho, ofthe, Old Frisian jeftha, ofte, of(t), Middle Low German jofte, oft(e), ift(e) and Dutch of**0. However, owing to phonetic difficulties, as well as to the simultaneous occurrence of both forms in Old Saxon and Middle Low German, the last of them was compared by F . Holthausen with Old Saxon ef 'if’ ***, which would point to contamination, as was assumed by Th. Siebs **г. The Gothic aippau %àv, 8é’ is derived from ep (a particle of obscure origin) + '8é, ^’, the etymology of which is also uncertain **3. It is generally compared with Indo-Iranian tu 'but, yet*. The alternative function probably arose from the denotation of difference associated with adversative function of pan (see below). As an innovation of North Germanic group we may regard the al­ ternative function of the adverb ellar 'otherwise’, cf. Old Icelandic ellar 'oder, sonst’ *** and Modern Scandinavian ellèr 'or’. To the same root (PIE *alio-) the Old High German alde(r) 'or’ belongs, survived to this day in South-West German dialects **5. The Gothic jappe 'eïxe’ * 441442443444445446 jab, 'and’ + pe, which may be related with Old Saxon the 'oder, als’ 447 448 and the Old English de 'als, oder, dann, so’ M8, where the relative meaning was intermediate, similarly as in whether and in the German historical oh-, whereas in Modern English be it, Dutch het zij, German sei es, es sei (denn) and Swedish rare sig 449 it was the wishing-consenting one. In Old Icelan­ dic the disjunctive në has been attested 45°. (C) The PIE *neTc*e occurs in the Gothic as nih and in Old Icelandic as ж 451; in the West Germanic area this word has been preserved in Old High German nih-ein and Old Saxon nig-ën 'none’ 452. Also ni (ne) alone may occur in disjunctive function polysyndetically in Gothic 453, pre-Nordic 454,

“® Cf. F. Holthausen, AFW, 52; A 8E , 70, 72; A. L asch , MNDG, 128. 441 ASE, 72. Here also belongs the German ob attested in historical epoch in alterna­ tive function, cf. H. P au l, DG, IV, 279. 442 Grundriss der germanischen Philologie, Strassburg 1891— 1893, I, 744. Cf. a similar contamination eder ror’ )( ave fif -> aver eor, if in Middle Low German (A. L asch , MNDG, 128). 443 Cf. S. F e is t, WGS, 491. 444 Cf. F a lk -T o rp , NDEW, 187. 445 Cf. Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch, Berlin 1968, I, 196—221. 446 Cf. S. F e is t, WGS, 301. 447 Cf. F. Holthausen, ASE, 255. 448 Cf. F. Holthausen, AEW, 361. 449 Cf. A. Lindquist, Satzwörter, Göteborg 1961, 61, 68. 460 Cf. H. Lüning, Die Edda, Zürich 1859, 604; F. H olth au sen, WAN, 208. 461 Cf. G. Neckel, KZ, XLV, 1; S. Feist, WGS, 375. 452 Cf. K. Brugmann, GVG, II, 3, 1005. 453 Cf. G. N eckel, ibidem, 11. 464 Cf. A. Johannesson, GUN, 82. Old Icelandic (besides nei) 455, Old Saxon 456, Old Frisian 457, Old High German 458 and historically in English 459. In North and West Germanic as correlate the denied indefinite pronoun (ni)hvedar *= P IE *ne-k4oter (cf. Latin ne-uter) appears, in North Germanic strengthened by the particle -gi. G. Neckel 460 explains the disappearance of the initial ni- by rhythmical reasons, which took place already in the prehistorical period. In Modern Scandinavian languages after disjunctive correlate the alternative con­ junction eller appears 461, whereas in Old and Modern Icelandic we find in this position the inherited ne 462. In West Germanic the negation ni was strengthened in disjunctive construction by (above mentioned) auk, hence Old High German, Old Saxon noh, Old Frisian noch, nach, Dutch, Modern German noch 463. This innovation, however, has not comprised the English language, where nor — analogically to Old Frisian ner, nor — has arisen, as a result of irregular phonetic change, from nawder ^ nahwaeder 464. In the historical period of the English language neither... neither, nor... nor occur, which find structural equivalents in German weder ...weder, noch... noch. In both languages in further position the alternative or, oder may appear; in English sporadically the adversative but 465. In this last historically and in dialects the sentence negation no (na) may occur in disjunctive function. The Old Saxon nek 'nor5 was compared by F. Holthausen 466 with the Latin neg- and it was identified by J . Endzelin 467 * with the Baltic negi 'nor5. (D) Besides the Gothic af- in a]j-])an 'àXXà, o5v5 468 dating back to the epoch of dialectal disintegration of the proto-language, as pre-Germanic adversative conjunction we may regard ]iau(h) and ak. Possibly in both of them affirmative-intensifying meaning was intermediary. The above mentioned Gothic fau is known in adversative function also with -h 'and5 469,

455 Cf. F. Holthausen, WAN, 208, 209. 466 Cf. F. Holthausen, A 8E , 247. 467 Cf. W. Steller, AFG, 163. ' 458 Cf. 0. Behaghel, DS, III, 218. 488 Cf. NED, VI, 52. 480 Ibidem, 1— 8. 461 Cf. F a lk -T o rp , NDEW, 438. 462 Cf. Gr. N eckel, ibidem, 11; Исландско-русский словарь>. Москва 1962, 472. «es cf, F, Kluge, EWDS, 513. According to J. P ok orn y, IEW, 757, it may have arisen from PIE *nek4e, however, this encounters phonetic difficulties. 464 cf. F. Holthausen, AEW, 231— 232. 466 Cf. NED, VI, 1, 85—86, 168, 206; 0. Behaghel, DS, III, 218, 334—339. 466 KZ, XLV II, 309; differently F. K luge, EWDS, 513. 467 LG, 542. 488 Cf. S. F e is t, WGS, 63. 489 Ibidem, 491. occurring in Old Icelandic j>o 47°, Old Saxon thoh 470 471, Old Frisian thäch 472, Old English âéah 473, Old High German doA 474, Modern German (je)doch and Dutch docA, toch 475 476. This conjunction was borrowed from Low German in Danish and Swedish, whereas the genuine continuant of ]jauh was preserved in Old Danish thoo, do and Norwegian dialectal do 47e. The con­ junction ok occurs in adversative function in Gothic 477, Old High Ger­ man 478, Old Saxon 479 and Old English 48°. It is usually identified with Greek strengthening-stimulating aye 'go on!3 (by origin 2. sg. imperativi)481. When the West and North Germanic groups had neared each other 482, there was probably a tendency to use the adverb ûtan 'except, save, beside3 in adversative function, cf. Old Icelandic ûtan 'sondern, ausserhalb, draussen, wenn nicht3 483, Swedish utan 'but3 and also enlarged by Ы- in Old Saxon b(i)ûtan, botan 'but, except3, Old English butan 484, Modern English but. The tendency to use the copulative *andi\a in adversative function is a North Germanic feature, the examples of which can be found in Old Icelandic 485, Norwegian and Old Danish 486. From the restrictive meaning of connection ni-wäri 'es wäre denn3 (attested in Old Saxon) the adversative function arose in Old Frisian were, wëra, wara 'aber, son­ dern, jedoch, nur, ausser3 and mar 487, Middle Low German war, mar, mer 488 * and Dutch maar. A similar development took place in Old Saxon nevan, newan, nowan 'ausser3 489, Old Frisian men 'aber, sondern, wenn nicht, als3 49°, Middle Low German man, men 491. This conjunction was borrowed by Scandinavian languages 492. 470 Cf. F. Holthausen, WAN, 316. 471 Cf. F. Holthausen, A 8E , 256. 472 Cf. F. Holthausen, AFW, 109. 473 Cf. F. Holthausen, AEW, 361. 474 Cf. F. K luge, EW D8, 135— 136. 475 On concessive use of the West Germanic thoh cf. 0 . B ehaghel, D8, III, 648. 476 Cf. F a lk -T o rp , NDEW, 145. 477 Also in the form akei, cf. S. F e is t, WG8, 32. 478 Ibidem. 478 Cf. F. Holthausen, A 8E , 189. «so çf. F. Holthausen, AEW, 1. 481 Cf. S. F e ist, WGS, 32. 482 Cf. above *auk and *ntha, *anti/a. 483 Cf. F. Holthausen, WAN, 327— 328. 484 Cf. F. Holthausen, AEW, 39. 486 Cf. F. Holthausen, WAN, 51. 486 Cf. F a lk -T o rp , NDEW, 192, 712. 487 Cf. F. Holthausen, AFW, 69, 128. 488 Cf. A. L asch , MNDG, 273, 283. 488 Cf. F. Holthausen, A 8E , 189, 247. too cf f . Holthausen, AFW, 70. 481 Cf. A. L asch , MNDG, 273. 483 Cf. F a lk -T o rp , NDEW, 712. To the innovations of each separate language belong: in Gothic the additive-conclusive if '8é, xai5 493 and fan '8e, ара, o5v, t o t e , örav3 494; in German the differentiating after, sondern, the restrictive allein, the ad­ ditive^ conclusive) vielmehr, (je)dennoch, dannoch, resumptive (hinwie­ derum) and generally contrasting dagegen, hingegen 493 494495 496; in English the ad­ ditive ye/, still, the resumptive again, instead, the concessive however, howbeit and (placed at the end of clause) though ш . The German nichts­ destoweniger — which has its structural equivalent in English nevertheless — was explained by O. Behaghel 497 as a caique of the Latin nihilominus.

xii. Balto-Slavonic (A) As a proto-Balto-Slavonic copulative conjunction we may re­ gard *öd =± Lithuanian o, Slavonic a, which has equivalents in the Indo- Iranian area. In most Slavonic languages the copulative function was removed in the historical period by adversative function, except for Czech, Slovak and Lusatian 498. It is to the pre-Baltic epoch, that we must trace the copulative func­ tion of ir 499 and conjunctional use of the affirmative-intensifying particle be, ba, cf. Old Prussian bhe, bha "and9, Lithuanian be(t), bei 'and, but5, Latvian bat 'but5 50°. In the East Lithuanian dialect the conjunction è 'and, but5 occurs, which was derived by J . Zubatÿ 501 from *6Й, analogically to *öd; therefore we can assume a similar semantic development. In Latvian the Low German un confines the genuine ir to dialects; also in Old Prussian this conjunction has a limited application. It is very unlikely, that the Slavonic i should be related with Baltic ir or with East Lithuanian è owing to phonetic difficulties 502. A. Meillet503 identified i with Greek d and Gothic ei 'in order that5, interpreting it as the original locative sg. of the pronominal stem *e/o-, *öd being its ablative.

493 Cf. S. F e ist, WGS, 297. 494 Ibidem, 489. 496 Cf. O. B ehaghel, DS, III, 175— 177; F. K luge, EWDS, 716—717. 496 Cf. G. S c h e u r w e g h s , op. cit. 316— 317. 497 DS, III, 220—221. 498 On the Slavonic copulative conjunctions cf. SPAN, III, 2— 3, 139— 147. 499 Which corresponds to the Tokharian В ra fand, also’. 600 J. Endzelin, BKGF, 228, derives copulative function from the meaning fyet, still* (similarly to Latin et) which was attested in Lithuanian. 601 ip, IV, 470—472. 802 Ir after disappearance of -r, being a conjunction (absolute initial, after pause), could not be enlarged by the prothetic j-. Quoted by J. Z u b atÿ, ibidem, parallel ë =±i in nom. sg. of r-stem is inconvincing, owing to the possibility of different interpretation of this ending. 803 MSL, XIV, 387. A. Brückner 504 compares i with Lithuanian jei 'if3, however it would lead to the assumption of semantic change which is hardly probable. The origin of this conjunction from the nom. sg.. masc. demonstrativum jb is not impossible either. Thus a convipcing etymology is lacking here, though the occasionally attested in Old Polish meaning "so, then3 505 poipts to this relation with demonstrative pronoun. The conjunction i is not alb Slavonic, it does not occur in Lusatian, Polabian and in certain Slovene and Polish dialects. In the remaining languages — with the exception of Czech and Slovak — it is customary. In the East Slavonic and Bulgarian copulative function is fulfilled also by da 'and so3. A similar change took place in Old Church Slavonic and Bussian ti, Old Church Slavonic, Old Bussian, Bulgarian and Ukrainian ta, Old Church Slavonic to, Serbo-Cr'otian and Slovene te which represent various forms of the demonstrative stem Ho- 506. The additive meaning was intermediary in Serbo-Croatian and Slovene ter(e) < te + że etoo3, cf. Polish też 'also3. In the South Slavonic group to copulative connotation pa was applied; the meaning 'also, likewise, as well3 was probably a star­ ting point here 507. From among the innovations of each separate language we can men­ tion Bulgarian ч е 'and, because, that3, where copulative function has arisen from the resultative one. The direct relation with P IE *k*e 'and3 ^ seems to be unlikely, owing to its meaning (the copulative function is limited to East Bulgarian), the non-enclitic usage and the lack of ёе in Old Church Slavonic. This form probably arose by means of recomposition of а -ce 'if, that3, which is well known in the most of Slavonic languages 509. A similar semantic change took place in Old Czech a£(e) 'and, that, as far as3 510 and in Old ^Polish ez 'that, because, as far as3 here used sporadically5n. The indication of proximity was original in Macedo­ nian тики 'and3 512, cf. Bulgarian dialectal тик 'but3, Slovene tik 'by, near3, and in Modern Polish oraz 'and, as well as ^ together, simulta­ neously3 513.

504 KZ, XLVI, 203. 605 Cf. J. Łoś, SPAU, XII, 6, 2—6. 506 Cf. K. Brugmann, GVQ, II, 3, 998—999; W. Vondrâk, VSG, II, 462—464; A. Leskien, ASP, X X II, 1— 5. 607 Cf. Ъ. ДанцчиН, PjeuHUKиз книжевних старина српских, Београд 1863— 1864, II, 265. 508 Cf. S. M ladenov, Geschichte der bulgarischen Sprache, Berlin 1929, 271. 609 Cf. PSS, II, 1, 167— 168. 610 Cf. J. B au er, VÖS, 33— 34. 611 Cf. SS, II, 351. 612 Cf. Б. Конески, Граматика на македонскиот литературен ]азик, Cnonje 1952 — 1954, II, 245. 513 Cf. PSP, 23— 24. (В) Within the alternative function — excepting the structural parallel between Slavonic bgdi and Lithuanian bûk 4be it3 514 — no Balto-Slavonic innovation can be found. In proto-Baltic the alternative function was fulfilled by the inter­ rogative an preserved in Old Prussian an-ga cor9 515 and iïi Lithuanian an-gù cor’ 516. The alternative Latvian jeb and Lithuanian dialectal je(i)b were a result of East Baltic innovation, which J . Endzelin 517 derives from relative stem io- ; here the conditional function may be intermediary, cf. Old Lithuanian jei 4f, or", whereas in Lithuanian (historical and dialectal) nor(int), kaczej a concessive one 51*. Generally in Modern Lithuanian the alternative function is fulfilled by interrogative-relative ar(ba) 519, in Latvian borrowed from Livonian voi 617618619620614*616 *622 and in Old Prussian the Middle German adderfor, but* here occurs'521. - As ' a common Slavonic alternative conjunction522 we may regard ali(bo) which consists bf combination of copulative à with relative-inter­ rogative li strengthened by &o; the form ali occurs in South-East Slavonic, wherea's* alibo is generally Nôrth Slavonie, however, was attested in Slo­ vene and Macedonian dialects 523. Being a parallel to aiï, thé form Ш is ah innovation of South-East group 524: As pre-Slavônic we may regard the tendency to use the adverb ljubo '"‘pleasantly,* àgreèably* an d bçdi, 2. sg*. im- perat. of substantive verb, in the alternative function; The former occurs as conjunction in Polish, Old Czech, Old Bussian and in Old Church Slavonic; the latter is known in this'function in Polish, Czecho slovak, Slovene, Serbö-Croätian and in colloquial Bussian. To the innovations of the North group belong abo, (a)leboand ëi(li); in the first two the denotation of difference was probably intermediate 525, in ëi(li) — the relative-interrogative meaning. Besides North Slavonic abo is known in Slovene 526. Lebo appears in Slovak and in Polish and Ozech dialects; alebo in Slovak, Old Lower Lusatian and in Byelorussian

614 Cf. E. Fraenkel, KZ, Ergheft, I, 44; cf. also the Lydian bu(k) for\ 616 Cf. R. Trautmann, APS, 299—300. 616 Cf. E. Fraenkel, LEW, I,* 1Ô. 617 BKGF, 229; LG, 541, 543, 825— 826. 618 Cf. E. Hermann, ELK, 26, 28, 52. 619 Cf. J. Otrębski, GJL,■ Ш , 358. 620 Cf. K. Mühlenbach; LEW, IV, 432—433; 821 Cf. R. Trautmann, APS, 295—296. 622 On the Slavonic alternative conjunctions cf. RS, X X II, 13— 20. 523 However, as in Lusatian, in adversative function, cf. H. Геровъ, Ргъчникъ на юлъгарекый языкъ, Пловдивъ 1895— 1908, Допълнение, 4. 824 Cf. also South and East Slavonic Ubo 'or* (J. B au er, SSJ, 86). 828 Cf. J. B au er, SSJ, 84—86. 826 Cf. A. Wolf, M. Pletersnik, op. cit. I, 1. dialects 527, cf. parallel Czech (a)nebo 'or, because9. For alternative con­ notation ëi is used in all North Slavonic languages (without Lusatian), cili in Polish, Czech, Byelorussian, Ukrainian and Old Russian, cf. also parallel Slovak die and Kashubian edle 'or, it is9. From the wishing-optative meaning alternative function arose in Church Slavonic volje and in Serbo-Croatian volja 'wish9 as well as in Ukra­ inian в о л ь , 2. sg. imper at. of the verb 'want9. A similar change took place in Czech leda, at(si), necht' 'let9, perhaps also in Old Czech leë528, whereas in Lower Lusatian Uc the interrogative meaning was attested. The con­ cessive function was original in Old Polish choć(że)j choeia(ż) 'or, be it9, Ukrainian х о ч , Russian dialectal х о т ь 529; the relative(-conditional) in Old Polish jeśli, Upper Lusatian haë, East Slavonic ci, Russian dialectal б уд е, Bulgarian ели, кога, куги and in Old Church Slavonic aSte 530; the adversative in Lusatian pafc, (?) zas and Slovene dialectal anoboj 531. From the meaning of possibility it arose in Modern Polish względnie, ewen­ tualnie 532. (C) The disjunctive function in proto-Balto-Slavonic was probably fulfilled by *wci, a variant of P IE *nc, cf. Lithuanian nei 'nor, as, than9, Latvian nei 'nor9 and Slavonic ni 'nor, (occasionally) as, than9 533. The equivalents of the common Baltic ne-gi 'nor9 (cf. Old Prussian neggij Lithuanian negi, Latvian nedz) in other IE languages have already been discussed above. In Lithuanian also the forms negu, neigu, neigi occur, while in Latvian ne vel 'nor, not yet9 534. The Slavonic niSe and neSe are the structural counterparts of the Baltic negi. The former occurs in disjunctive function in Old Czech, Old Russian and (occasionally) in Old Church Slavonic, while the latter can only be found in comparative function — originating from disjunctive one 535 — in South Slavonic, Czech and Slovak. The South Slavonic nego(li) 'than ^ nor9 corresponds with North Slavonic niSe(li), also comparative only. Ani 'nor9 is a North Slavonic innovation, comprising also Slovene dialects 53e, it has also been attested in comparative function. A parallel to ani is Old

827 Cf. J. B au er, SSJ, 82—86, PSP, 38—39; E. Карский, Б, II—III, 82; E. Muka, Historische Laut- und Formenlehre der niedersorbischen Sprache, Leipzig 1891, 470. 628 Cf. J. B au er, VÖS, 343— 344. 629 Cf. S. Smal-Stockyj, Th. Gärtner, op. cit. 445; В. Собинникова op.cit. 270. 130 J. and M. B au er, Slavia, X X V I, 178, see here the Greek influence. 431 Cf. A. Wolf, M. Pletersnik, ibidem, I, 5. 832 Cf. PSP, 57—58. 833 Cf. PSS, II, 1, 164— 165. 834 Cf. J. Endzelin, LG, 815. 838 On the change of disjunctive into comparative function cf. literature quoted in note 6. 91. 838 Cf. A. Wolf, M. Pletersnik, op. cit. I, 5. Czech ini 537. In South group ni was enlarged by the intensifying -ti. Besides^ we can find in disjunctive function: Lower Lusatian dani$(li) with copula­ tive da, Kashubian anè and Polish dialectal nili 538. On ni-to, ne-to see § 5.1.2. C. (D) It seems, that in proto-Balto-Slavonic *öd fulfilled also the ad­ versative function, as it was attested in Avesta, Lithuanian and most of Slavonic languages. As an Bast Baltic innovation the adversative meaning of particles be(ti), ba(ti) ‘also* and adverb Hat-jau may be assumed. The first two occur in Old Lithuanian beti, betaigi, betag, bat 539, Modern bet and in Latvian as bat and ne-ba 'but not, because not9 54°. Originating from deictic tat and temporal jau 'already9 *tatjau 541 in Lithuanian appears as taëiau, tauëiau, teëiaus M2, while in Latvian as tadSu =± taëu 543 instead of expected *ta§u, which may be a restitution after the fashion tad 'then9, lead 'when9, vysad 'ever9 etc. Here the additive-completive meaning was intermediary* A similar development took place in the Lithuanian vienok (parallel to Greek 6(jl

6.2.3. Provenance of IE paratactical conjunctions

The above presented materials from the individual languages allow us to state the types of semantic and morphological provenance of IE pa­ ratactical conjunctions.

662 In Old. Church Slavonic the form jedinaëe (cf. Russian, Ukrainian одначе) was attested. 663 Cf. PSP, 105— 106; И. Срезневский, МСДРЯ, II, 446. 664 Cf. J, B au er, VÖS, 72— 74. 666 Cf. PSP, 97— 101, 106— 107. 666 Cf. J. B au er, VÖS, 69, PSP, 86—94. 567 On the Slavonic conjunctions cf. most widely T. M are tic, Rad JugosloVenske Akademije Znanosti i Umjetnosti, L X X X V I, 76— 150, L X X X IX , 61— 128, XC, 1— 80, XCIII, 1— 77. Type of kind of original morphologi­ conjunctions semantic denotation meaning cal origin provenance

A. Copulative function

(i) Addition, (a) intensifi­ too (?) IE *kve, Old Indian u, a, particle, intensifi­ cation Hittite (i)a, Greek И, Latin conjunction cation quoque, etiam, (?) continuants of IE *nek4e in Italo-Celtic

(b) intensify­ likewise, Tokharian В ra = Baltic ir, adverb, ing affir­ as well, Tokharian A pe, Old Indian particle mation also api = Armenian ew, Indo-Ira- nian uta, Germanic auk, South Slavonic pa, ter(e)

(c) addition­ more­ IE dialectal *eti, Modern Indian adverb, following over), continuants of aparam, anya-, particle still, yet, Kashmiri Ыуе, Ossetic dar, besides Gaulish duci, Baltic ba, be

(ii) Proxi­ proximity togeth­ Tokharian A yo,(*l)pi, Singhalese adverb, mity er, si­ ha, Middle Iranian aéra, Modem preposition multa­ Iranian ham, (?) Greek xou, Goi- neously, delic оспе, (?) Old Irish sceo, Ger­ with, by manic *anti/a 668, Norwegian, Swedish samt, Polish oraz, Mace­ donian тики

(iii) Affirma­ (a) affirmation so, yes Old Indian tathä, Hindi evam, adverb tion, Kashmiri ti, (?) Hittite ta, su, comple­ Latin sic, Osco-Paelignian sua, tion Slavonic da, ta, ti, te, (?) i

(b) temporal after, IE dialectal *ôd, Old Indian, adverb conseque­ then Germanie *ntha, Oskian inim, nce Paelignian inom, Lithuanian dialectal è

(c) temporal now Hittite nu, (?) Old Irish neo adverb simulta­ neity

(d) relative- that, Old Polish eź, Old Czech a£(e), conjunction resultative because, Bulgarian не function as far as

658 Perhaps here belongs indi rand’ attested in Lusitanian inscriptions, cf. A. T o var, Études Celtiques, X I, 261. Indo-European Parataxis 10 Type of kind of original morphologi­ conjunctions semantic denotation meaning cal origin provenance

B. Alternative function

(i) Relative (a) general re­ what, (?) IE *цё, Pali uddhu, Hindi ki, conjunction interroga­ lative func­ as, whe­ Sogdian kt'r, Persian ёе, Tadjik tion tion ther mi, Ossetic kämt, Hittite man, Greek et (те), Latin an, ne, Old Spanish que, Irish in, Welsh a(e) = (?) Old Breton hai, Corn­ ish po, py, Breton pe, Old Germanic pe, English whether, German, ob, Baltic an-, Lithua­ nian ar(ba), Slavonic li, ci, ci and related, Lusatian hac, Uc, (?) Bulgarian ели

(b) temporal when Spanish cuando, Portuguese conjunction relative quando, Bulgarian кога, куги function

(c) conditional if Old Indian yadi, Persian ägär, conjunction function Afghan ka, Baluchi ki, Hittite takku, Armenian (e)the, Greek èàvTe, Latin, Old Spanish si, Oscan suae ... pod, suai puh, Lithuanian jei(b), Latvian jeb, Old Polish jeśli, Russian буде, Old Church Slavonic aśte

(ii) Choice669 (a) wishing be (it) Ossetic vdd, Lydian bu(k), Ar­ verb menian ollay, French soit and related, Spanish fuese, Ruma­ nian fie, Irish bä and related, English be it and related, Lithua­ nian buk, Slavonic bgdi

let Czech necht', at(si), (?) leda, leë particle

(b) consent want Ossetic fdndy, Modem Greek verb &£Xeiç, (?) Albanian ndo, ndeç, Latin uel, Oscan loufir, Um­ brian heri(s), herie(i), Italian vuoi, Old Spanish quier, Portu­ guese quer, Rumanian ori, Ukrainian воль

669 The conjunctions of this group often correspond with a formant of indefinite pronoun, as e.g. in Rumanian on, Old Irish ce, cia, cid, Slavonic ljubo,bçdi, Czech leda. Type of kind of original morphologi­ conjunctions semantic denotation meaning cal origin provenance

(accor­ Parthian 'km, 'g'm = (?) Arme­ substantive, ding to) nian kam, Slavonic ljubo, volja, adverb wish, volje, Polish względnie, ewentual­ possibly nie

(c) concessive though Hindi cahe = Panjabi cähe, conjunction function Avestan yat-ëit, (?) Persian hah and related, Armenian thepët, Greek xdtv, Irish, ce, cia, cid, Lithuanian nor (int), kaczej, Old Polish choc and related, Ukrai­ nian хоч, Russian dialectal хоть

(iii) Diffe­ (a) difference other (?) Phrygian aini, Italic anti, adverb rence, Old Irish airc, airg(g), North dissimi­ Germanic ellar, South German larity alder

(b) opposition but (?) Old Indian punar, Hittite ma, conjunction Greek àXXà, (?) Germanic (ep)pau, Lusatian pak, zas, Slovene anoboj

(c) negative otherwi­ North Slavonic abo, (a)lebo, conjunction result se = or Czech (a)nebo else

(iv) Negati­ (a) disjunctive nor (?) Gypsy Welsh ani, IE *nekve conjunction ve en­ function in Romanic, Celtic and Old hancing Icelandic

(b) negation660 no, not Indo-Aryan na, (?) Spanish particle no, Old Gaelic gan, Slavonic ni-to, ne-to

C. Disjunctive function

(i) Negation (a) sentence no, not IE *ne, *nei, *mê, Greek où, particle negation Latin ne, non, Goidelic gan, cha(n), English no etc.

(b) negative neither English neither, German weder conjunction correlate

660 Here the interrogative meaning (as in Latin -ne) is not impossible. Type of kind of original morphologi­ conjunctions semantic denotation meaning cal origin provenance

(ii) Enhan­ (a) sentence and not IE *nekve, *neikve, *mëkve, Tat particle + ced nega­ negation + näis, Armenian oç = (?) Phry­ conjunction tion copulative gian uke = Greek outs = Alba­ conjunc­ nian as, Slavonic ani, Old Czech tion ini, Kashubian anê and relevant facultative connections

(b) sentence or not IE *пеце in Indo-Iranian, Ana­ particle + negation + tolian and Celtic, North Germa­ conjunction alternative nic (ne)hvdrrgi. . .ellar, (?) Goi- conjunc­ delic no (after negation) and tion relevant 'facultative connections

(c) sentence but not Greek 8é after negation is rather particle + negation + a particle561, probably also Old conjunction adversati­ Indian tu in па-tu; in Early ve conjun­ Modern English after negation ction but was attested

(d) sentence also not Avestan mada, naëda = (?) compound negation + Greek, (jly]8é, où8é, Old Indian particle intensify­ па-hi, na-u, (?) па-tu, Iranian ing parti­ *na-id, (?) Ossetic nädär, West cle Germanic noch, Old Saxon nek = Baltic negi, Lithuanian neigi, negu, neigu, Slavonic niSe(li), neze(li), nego(li), South Slavonic niti, Polish dialectal nili, (?) L at­ vian ne-vel 'not yet’ 661662

D. Adversative function

(i) Differen­ (a) difference otherwi­ (?) IE dialectal *at(i), Indo-Ira­ adverb ce, dissi­ se, besi­ nian param, Ossetic ändära, milarity des Armenian ayl, baych, Greek àXXà, 7uXr)v, Italic auti-, Latin porro, ceterum, Old Irish aile, inge, acht, cammaib, immargu, Welsh eithr, Cornish sav, Germanic (bi)ûtan, German aber, Slavonic kromè

661 Owing to the equivalents in Avestan mâ-da, naê-da, where da is unknown as conjunction. 862 Cf. the inverse change in Armenian ç-ew 'not yet’ ±=oç 'not* + ew 'and, also* and Hittite nawi 'not yet’ — (?) PIE *пе-це. Type of kind of original morphologi­ semantic conjunctions denotation meaning cal origin provenance

(b) lack, depri­ without Tokharian A snikek, Middle Per­ preposition vation sian be, Latin sê(d), German sondern, (?) Old Prussian schldit(s)

(c) alternative or (else) Polish dialectal abo, Old Lower conjunction function Lusatian albo, Macedonian албу, Bulgarian лю

(d) concessive though Old Indian kdmam, Singhalese conjunction function numut, Breton bogen and related, English however, howbeit, facul­ tatively though

(e) general on the French en revanche, par contre, adverb opposition contrary German dagegen, hingegen

(ii) Restric­ (a) limitation only Old Indian kevalam, Modern adverb tion Greek (jlov(o), Romanic pure, Welsh namyn, West Germanic *ni-wdri, *ni-wan, German al­ lein, Slavonic U, jedino, toliko, samo, Polish dialectal jacy, aby, ino, Ukrainian лит

(b) minimali- at least Armenian gonê(a) adverb zation

(c) negative if not Persian ci, ki (after negation), conjunction condition Tadjik, Yagnobi neki, Greek et jjLY), Latin nisi, West Romanic si-non, Welsh ond

(d) limitative unless Modern Greek ттара (after nega­ conjunction compari­ # • ; j tion), Slavonic nize(li), neze, son W & m nego (iii) Resum­ (a) renovation again, Old Indian punar, (?) Parthian adverb ption anew bye, (?) Greek ай (те), ай-îhç, айтар, Latin denuo, Herum, rur- sus, Rumanian dar, English again, German (hin)wieder(um), Latvian atkal, Slavonic ракъ, Polish zasię, zaś, Serbo-Croatian opet

(b) replace­ instead English instead, Polish natomiast, adverb ment tymczasem, za to, Ukrainian за me Type of kind of original morphologi­ conjunctions semantic denotation meaning cal origin provenance

(iv) Affirma­ (a) affirmation so, yes, Old Indian kila, khalu, satyam, adverb tion, in­ really Sogdian yw'r, Hittite imma, Ar­ tensifica­ menian isk, Latin immo, uero, tion uerum, tam(en), plane, sane, uti- que, Slavonic da (b) strengthe­ indeed, IE dialectal *(s)ma, *(s)me, To- adverb, ned confir­ too kharian nu, nke, (ï)permâ, Indo- particle mation Iranian tu, Iranian ba = (?) Luwi-Hittite pa, Greek Si, Latin quidem, French toujours, toute­ fois and related, Rumanian insä, ci, Germanic ak, (?) pau(h), Bal­ tic ba(ti), be(ti), Slavonic no, że, vêdè and related, Polish ba, Lusatian £e(m), Bulgarian дгьвгь (c) copulative and (?) Bengali ta tathä, Ossetic, conjunction function Ishkashmi ta ±=uta, (?) Afghan Xo, Arumanian e *= et; facul­ tatively also in other IE lan­ guages (v) Addi­ (a) addition more­ Old Indian tdvat, Sogdian pyst, adverb tion, com­ over), Modern Greek

6.3. OTHER MEANS OF CONNECTION

The remaining parts of speech used for co-ordinate connections preserve their basic meaning so that this is for them a secondary function. Here apart from the pronouns, only the so-called accessory parts of speech appear, mainly particles and adverbs, which are often conjunctions in statu nascendi, belonging to the above presented relevant types of pro­ venance. In paratactical connections they occur (1) in correlation with a conjunction or (2) independently.

6.3.1. Conjunctional correlates The conjunctional correlates occur both in parataxis and in hypota­ xis 589. They serve mainly to emphasize the binarity of connections. Some

584 Cf. Л. Хакулинен, ibidem. 685 Cf. А. Кононов, ГТЯ, 359. 686 Cf. К. Майтинская, ВЯ, III, 258—262. 887 Ю. Дешериев, Бацбийский язык, Москва 1953, 211. 888 Cf. A. W ehr, AW, 619. 889 On the use of paratactical conjunctions as correlates in hypotaxis cf. § 5.3.3. В . of them may be considered signals of limit (i.e. beginning) in compound utterance 59°. The correlates are characteristic of stylistically developed languages (especially written type), whereas in colloquial language and in dialects they appear rarely or they are quite unknown. This allows us to infer, that at least some of them have arisen with the literary language. In parataxis the correlate element occurs in protasis, whereas in hypo­ taxis — owing to the possibility of inversion or parenthesis — it may also stand in apodosis. Generally the correlates are treated as members of utterance or they are conceived together with grammatical conjunctions as “paired” or “complex” conjunctions 590 591 *. (A) In the copulative connections of sentences it is usually the pronoun 'both3, the adverb 'alike, as-well-as3 etc., while in word connections the preposition 'between3 occurs, which in the Celtic and Romanic languages has acquired the secondary meaning 'both3, cf. Old Irish eter carit et escarit 'both friend and foe3, Middle Welsh y rvng Brytany eit a chenedloed ereill 'both B. and other races3 592; French entre ce brave homme et moi, Spa­ nish fablaron entre él y ella, Italian tra suo padre e lui, Late Latin inter familiam et penates et iura successionum equi traduntur 593. (B) In alternative construction an interrogative-relative particle or a pronoun occurs. Here in Indo-Iranian, Greek (after Homer), Italic, Germanic and Balto-Slavonic we find the pronominal stem *kvoter- 'whe­ ther3, in Indo-Iranian relative yatara-, whereas the German entweder and the North Germanic enten 'whether3 were somewhat differently formed, originally signifying 'one of two (who?)3. (C) In the disjunctive function the negative indefinite pronoun 'no one, none, neither3 appears, and it can often be reduced to its original meaning 'nor one3, as in Greek ouSeiç, Albanian as-kush, Old High German nih-ein Modern German kein, Old Saxon nig-ën, Polish żaden *ni-że- jeden 594. In Germanic the negative continuant of the above mentioned *k4oter- is used, cf. English neither, German weder, Swedish varken, Norwe­ gian, Danish hverken. In Cornish we find na-nyll 'neither3, where na­ is the negation, -n- the article, -yll the pronoun 'other3. (D) In the adversative construction of most European languages occurs the formula 'not only...but (also)3, cf. Greek ou [iôvov...àXXà xai, Latin non solum... sed etiam, French non seulement.. .mais aussi, English

590 Cf. A risto tle, Rhetorica, III, 5: 8è écoç [ii(jw/)TaŁ àvT

6.3.2. Independent means

From the formal point of view these are asyndetic constructions, as the connecting word consists of or belongs to a member of the sentence. Consequently, they are not grammatical but lexical means of connota­ tion, and therefore they do not form a compact system. (A) In the copulative function there occur enhancing-intensifying particles, anaphoric-deictic pronouns, assertive particles and certain ad­ verbs used mainly to refer some new utterance to a context or a situation. Of special kinds of connection particular attention should be paid to the pleonastic use of the particle da in North Eussian dialects (mainly post­ poned) also in the function of a conjunction, which may occur simulta­ neously in both positions, e. g. головушка у меня болит да, болит да 'I have a headache’, and after this fashion the normal anteponed con­ junctions a 'and, but’ and i 'and’, cf. да ты Марью на руку возмеш а, а сам уйдеш a 'then you take М. in your arms and you run away’, coxy вынес и ладит, и ладит и 'he has taken out the plough and he is wor­ king on and on’ 6M. (B) The alternative function is usually expressed by the repetition of pronoun, adverb, particle and occasionally of other parts of speech. Here the deictic, temporal and modal meaning prevails. In the connections of synonymic notions the verbal expression 'it is’, 'i.e.’, 'that is to say’ or the adverb 'namely’ etc. are used. (C) The disjunctive connotation is realized by the negative particle which in some languages is the only means to express this function. (D) The adversative function may be fulfilled by various adverbs denoting difference, dissimilarity, restriction, resumption etc. as well as by particles emphasizing the material contrast between constituents. As it is not always possible to make a precise distinction between these and the relevant conjunctions proper, they have been described together.

6,6 Cf. A. Thum b, Handbuch des Sanskrit, Heidelberg 1905, I, 474. 686 Cf. А. Шапиро, ОСРНГ, 233— 236. This construction maybe a result of Finno- Ugric influence, cf. E. Lew y, FUV, 25—26; Б. Серебренников, Об относительной самостоятельности развития системы языка, Москва, 1968, 33. 7. ORIGIN OF INDO-EUROPEAN PARATAXIS

Studies of syntax in the languages of different families allow us to infer that the opposition parataxis — hypotaxis has a universal character in spite of the various ways in which it is realized. This in turn seems to prove that the origin of both categories should date back to a compara­ tively distant past. It is probable that in the IE area they existed in the epoch of the proto-language 1 since it seems unlikely that such far-reaching similarity in form and order of joined constituents and in means of con­ nection should be just a matter of independent evolution. However, the origin of IE parataxis is not clear2. The following may be considered vestiges of original “pre-conjunctional” epoch in the sphere of word- connections: commonplace asyndetic connections, which are thought to be the residue of P IE poetic language3 and dvandva composita. However

1 It is not, however, the general opinion of scholars, as the existence of subordinate clause in the proto-language was questioned by E. H erm ann, KZ, X X X III, 481— 535, who pointed to differences in stress, position and the lack of tmesis of preverb in the verb of subordinate clause, considering the relative io- as originally anaphoric. This opinion, however, does not seem to be justified for following reasons: 1) The difference quoted by Hermann concerns details, whereas the relation between tmesis and stress is unquestionable. It also seems probable, that both these phenomena are in connection with the final position of verb in subordinate clause; 2) The stem to- has been attested in the relative (and derived) function from the oldest times in Indo-Iranian, Phrygian, Greek and Slavonic as a pronoun and in Celtic, Germanic and Baltic only as a conjunction; 3) The existence of hypotaxis in proto-language is pointed to by the fact of existence of parataxis — undoubtful in the light of the above observations — as both the categories condition each other. The problem of hypotaxis in proto-Indo-European was widely discussed by G. В оnf an te, Archivio Glottologico Italiano, X X IV , 1— 64, and recently touched by J. K u ry łow icz, IG, II, 71— 72, and C. W atk in s, Celtica, VI, 31—40; Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, The Hague 1964, 1035— 1042. Summing up, we can state, that in the subordinate clause of proto-Indo-European the verb took the final, stressed position with a tendency to avoid tmesis contrary to non-final, enclitic position with admissible tmesis in the verb of main clause. 2 Cf. W. Wundt, loc. cit. 8 On the proto-Indo-European poetic language cf. J. W ack ern ag el, KS, 186—204; H. H irt, IG, I, 125— 129; recently Indogermanische Dichter spräche, Darmstadt 1968; R. Schmitt, Dichtung und Dichtersprache in indogermanischer Zeit, Wiesbaden 1967, where further literature can be found. H. Jacobi’s 4 5 view that certain composita represent original hypo tactical constructions does not seem to be justified, for these constructions com­ prise sentences only, while composita are wordsThe asyndetic sen­ tence connections which can still be found today must have occurred on a considerably larger scale since the only unquestionable P IE paratactical conjunctions *ifcue and *ue represent a word type unfit for joining greater syntactic units. The fact that the etymology of 6 and *ue is not clear and that asydeton has since the oldest times been of no great importance allows us indirectly to infer that the conjunctional function of these words does not constitute a late innovation. The continuants of *kve and *ue — if they occur independently — are generally postponed after the second (and the following) constituent, and in Indo-Iranian, Anatolian, Greek, Latin and Germanic they may also be placed with all constituents (poly­ syndeton). The last mentioned usage seems to be original7. It is more fre­ quent in poetry 8 which is stylistically more archaic than prose and was lost earlier than the first usage 9. The postpositive usage predestined both the conjunctions to word connection, bringing them closer to derivative- flexional morphological formants 10 11 such as suffix and ending, and the conjunction was placed after each word, to which it referred. It followed the stem, having no stress of its own n, and in cases of simplification of polysyndeton it was omitted — like suffix and ending (§5.2.1) — with the preceding constituent. In certain agglutinative languages we find a similar meaning and usage with normal suffixes, e.g. in the Crimean Tatar language the suffix -ly which indicates attachment-inclusion may be placed with more than one word thus giving them a copulative sense,

4 Compositum und Nebensatz, Bonn 1897. Cf. objections made by B. D elbrück, VS, III, 162— 163, 317— 318. 5 Although some of these have arisen from sentences, but only simple ones, e.g. cer­ tain personal names formed from imperative or interrogative sentences, cf. T. Milew­ ski, Indoeuropejskie imiona osobowe, Kraków 1969. 6 N. Holm er, Sprâkliga Bidrag, X X III, 3— 132, quoted parallels from the languages of various families, which use particle ka (“palaeolithicum”) in connective function. В. Иллич-Свитыч, Славянское языкознание, Москва 1968, 414, compares *kve with the intesifying particles, containing the consonant k in the so-called “nostratic” lan­ guages. 7 The eventual hypothesis, that the polysyndeton is a result of contamination of postponed with anteponed usage, is unlikely as in the Mycenaean texts the anteponed xod is still unknown whereas the (postpositive) polysyndetic те can often be found. 8 Cf. J. Speijer, SS, 331; M. Denniston, GP, 503. 9 In Homer 621 to compare with 2046 non polysyndetic example, in Plautus 62— 810. 10 Cf. similarly J. Gonda, Mnemosyne, VII, 184; N. H olm er, op. cit. 102. 11 Cf. the Greek atone те, contrary to other stressed conjunctional enclitic, e.g. 8e. e.g. Ъ а Ъ а -ly og°ul-ly 'father and son512. Similarly in certain Finno-Ugric languages here may occur the endings of adjective, dual, plural and instru­ mental12 13, cf. Zyrian vij-en ndn-en 'butter and bread*, Votyac dSitSij-dn kion-dn 'the fox and the wolf 14, no ta-bere vurmurt-en gondir-en Vuko sârVsîzes 'und jetzt Wassermann-mit, Bär-mit teilen ihre-Büben*. Such “ending” may stand — like IE *&ve — with the second word only: vumurt gondîr-en sât'éî kiéilTam 'Wassermann Bär-mit Büben säen*15. In the IE languages beside and *ue other postpositive conjunctions occur, notably in Tokharian, Old Indian and Hittite; however the poly­ syndeton is here infrequent and therefore those conjunctions do not be­ long to the word type sensu stricto. Because of the need to join greater syntactic units postpositive poly­ syndeton could not be preserved. The starting point here was the simplifi­ cation of polysyndeton16 and the fixing of the position of conjunction in word groups by Wackernagel’s law. The emergence of new anteponed con­ junctions of the sentence type belongs to the epoch of the IE dialects. These innovations affect one or (more rarely) a few groups of languages related to one another. In the historical period conjunctions of the sentence type occur already in all languages — excepting Mycenaean Greek — gradually eliminating the continuants of and *ue. In Old Indo-Iranian ëa and vd are still quite frequent. In Homer те is twice as infrequent as xou17. In archaic Latin que is customary, however in Plautus et is twice as frequent18; ue was rare from the oldest times, whereas in Greek r\ represents the sentence type of conjunction; in other languages postpositive *ue has not been attested and *fcve appears rarely. In the Indo-Iranian area ëa and vd became obsolete towards the end of the Middle Indo-Iranian period, whereas to this day ëa has been preserved in a few Indo-Aryan languages19 and in Yazgulami. In Greek те disappears in the Koine period20. In colloquial Latin que and ue become obsolete at the beginning of the im­ perial epoch, being more persistent in the literary language21. In the

12 Cf. Э. Севортян, ЯН СССР, II, 241. 18 Cf. V. T auli, Structural tendencies in TJralic languages, The Hague 1966, 273—274. 14 Ibidem, 274. 16 Cf. E. Lew y, F UV, 25, 26. 16 A similar phenomenon can be observed in case of conjunctions of sentence type, which in combination of more than two constituents are usually placed before the last (more rarely after the first) one, while polysyndeton serves for stylistic purposes, cf. §5.1.2. A. 17 According to A. G eh rin g’s, Index Homericus, ca 2700—5700. 18 According to G. L od ge’s, Lexicon Plautinum, ca 850—1900. 18 Where it is probably a word borrowed from Sanskrit (tatsama). 20 Cf. E. Schwyzer, GG, II, 573. 21 Cf. Hofmann-Szantyr, LSS, 473—474, 502—503. Celtic area the continuant of *kve — attested in Gaulish and Celto-Tbe- rian — in Old Irish occurs only in combinations with the following deictic-accessory elements: ba-ch, na-ch, ro-ch, se-ch and to-ch22. In Ger­ manic this conjunction showed a certain vitality only in Gothic. In the remaining languages the examples are uncertain. The fact that the continuants of and uê are preserved in ante- poned connections with other elements in some languages to this day, proves the removal of continuants and *ue to be the result of their postpositive usage23. Thus, for instance, the Indo-Iranian m in the connection adha-vä (atha-vä), which gradually became widespread in Middle Indo-Iranian, is known in certain Indian and in most Modern Iranian languages. Similarly in Greek {e-ue), Rumanian (si-ue) and Celtic (ne-ue), where the continuants of P IE *ue have survived to this day. The continuants of *kve, too, show a greater durability in anteponed connec­ tions: in Old Germanic ja-h is a normal copulative conjunction; the Italo- Celtic *ad-Tcve has been preserved to this day in the languages of the Brythonic group and in some Romanic dialects; the connection *ne-kve which goes back to the P IE epoch, is attested in most IE languages. Also indirect combinations of conjunctions of both types, such as Indo-Iranian uta...ca, Greek те...хаь, Latin et...que, aut...ue, Gothic jah...{u)h, etc. are possible. Here the question arises whether the postpositive usage could not have been replaced by the transposition of the conjunction into the posi­ tion between the joined constituents. Such a change, in fact, has been attested within a limited range, namely in the so-called “6a inversum” of Old Indo-Iranian. Recently R. Schmitt24 has quoted a number of examples from Old Indian and Avesta, trying to explain by means of this construction certain doubtful points in Old Persian inscriptions. The Yazgulami ja derived from 6a may be used between joined constituents. Outside Indo-Iranian examples of anteponed *kve (in Latin also ue) are sporadic and they date back to the period of disappearance of this con­ junction, when its expressiveness was attenuated. W. Dressier25 has quoted examples from inscriptions which come from outside Greece proper. It is only in Late Latin, that the anteponed que and ue first appeared26. Here V. Pisani27 also includes examples from Yenetic; however, this is 22 Cf. R. Thurneysen, GOI, 549; C. W atk in s, Celtica, VI, 8— 12. 28 According to Ch. B ally , LGLF, § 350, the elimination of the postpositive usage of conjunctions is a result of a tendency to “progressive” word order. Cf. also S. Dik, Coordination, 41—48. 24 Orientalia, X X X II, 437—448. 26 Giotta, X L III, 76— 78. 26 Cf. Hofmann-Szantyr, LSS, 476, 503. 27 Op. cit. 257 ff. (Cf. note 6. 93). not the only possible interpretation. Of. Old Indian Mitraś-ca.. .Varunah; stâumi devant Savitdrarn-ca Vdyum 'I praise god S. and V / (Schmitt, ibi­ dem, 447), Avesta Mazdds-cä Ahurdvho; pancä-ca haptditlm '753 (ibidem, 441, 442), (?) Old Persian arta-ca brazmaniy 'in due time and in proper ceremonial style3, duuv4tiyam-c(a) ç(itiyam) 'second and third3 (ibidem, 437, 442), Yazgulami ddvûri %°àd ja awâèt-ay 'she opened the door and wiped them3 (Эдельман, ЯЯ, 187), Greek <Ы)р aya&óę те aaôcppov; [xeyà- poiaiv èviTrpeTuéa те Xaoïatv (Dressier, ibidem, 76), Latin Paulus que Io- hanneSj humandum ue sacrificandum (Hofmann-Szantyr, LSS, 503), Vé­ nétie (zo)nasto he laxsainatei 'dédit et posuit3 (Pisani, ibidem, 257). Apart from asyndetic connections, certain conjunctional constructions, too, may be regarded as coming directly from the proto-language. Here belong the above discussed poly syndetic and reduced connections of *kue and * у , also after négation in disjunctive function. Apparently, the con­ nection of vocative with nominative (§ 5.3.1. C. i) occurred already in the P IE language, whereas the “éa inversum” does not go back to the epoch of the proto-language, although, according to E . Schm itt28, it already existed in the proto-Aryan period. As North IE we may consider the conjunctional connection of (active) participle with finite verb (§ 5.3.2. A). Also the ellipsis of pronoun after verb (§ 5.2.2. B) seems to be attested in the proto-language. The iteration of a constituent, to be found also in composita (§ 5.1.1), has an archaic character. It is not clear when the other constructions emerged, owing to the differences between the languages and the limited (sometimes late) documentation. It seems unlikely that most of them should reach very far back into the past. In some cases foreign influences are at work, occasionally even of non Indo-European languages 29. The order of joined constituents (§ 4.2) in the proto-language — as is the case in most of the IE and other languages — was probably deter­ mined by the principle of importance and sequence in time, as well as the law of alternation of vowels high — low, and of initial labiali­ zation of the following member, reaching far beyond the limits of the IE family. On the evidence of research, we can assume, that the principle of

28 Orientalin X X X II, 448. 29 Here we can distinguish: 1) the literary influence of the Hebrew-Aramaic biblical pattern, which can he suspected in a) the attaching-referring usage of copulative con­ junction (§ 6.1.2), h) the repetition of preposition inter in Latin (Note 5. 137), c) the connection et usque in this language (Note 5. 171); 2) The influence of Uralo-Altaic and Caucasian substratum in East Indo-European languages in case of a) certain asyn­ detic connections (Note 6. 41); b) phonetic modifications of constituents (§ 4.2.1. A), c) morphological ellipsis (§ 5.2.1), d) postpositive usage of certain particles (Note 6. 596). homofunctional symmetry, which is expressed by the possibility of trans­ position of co-ordinated constituents, seems to have a universal character, while the above discussed constructions in several cases have their equi­ valents in the languages of other families. Thus, we may regard IE parataxis as representative for all languages that have a similar stru­ cture and the same degree of development30. The diachronic aspect is also concerned here, since the process of replacement of word type conjunction by sentence type — which is a most characteristic syntactic development of IE parataxis — may be understood as symptomatic of general evolution of syntax. It seems to consist in the change from word to sentence constructions, which, for instance, can be found in: (1) gradual elim ination of pure nominal proposition 31, (2) replacement of the ergative (by origin nom inal)32 construction by a predicative one, as well as (3) in the replacement of participial (infinitive, gerundial) connections — also of nominal origin — by complex sentences 33.

30 Contrary to hypotaxis, which shows a greater difference, cf. e.g. for American Indian languages: T. M ilew ski, BPTJ, XIII, 117— 146. 31 Cf. A. M oreschini Q u attord io, Studi e saggi linguistici, VI, 1—53. 32 Cf. И. Мещанинов, Эргативная конструкция в языках различных тыпов, Л е н и н ­ г р а д 1967. 33 Cf. the absolute constructions — semantically corresponding to hypotaxis — in which the co-ordinate and subordinate conjunctions can be used. Abeghian, NAG...... A. A., Neuarmenische Grammatik, Berlin—Leipzig 1936. ANSL ...... Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen, Braunschweig 1846 ff. Antoine, CF ...... G. A., La coordination en français, Paris 1958— 1962. Anwyl, WG ...... E . A., Welsh grammar2, London— York 1907. ASP ...... Archiv für slavische Philologie, Berlin 1876— 1929. Bally, L G L F...... Ch. B., Linguistique générale et linguistique françaisea, Berne 1950. Bally, T S F ...... Ch. B., Traité de stylistique française3, Paris—Genève 1951. Bartholomae, A IW ...... Ch. B., Altiranisches Wörterbuch, Strassburg 1904. Bauer, VĆS ...... J. B., Vÿvoj ceského souvëti, Praha 1960. B B ...... Beiträge zur Kunde der idg. Sprachen, Göttingen 1877— 1907. Behaghel, D S ...... О. B., Deutsche Syntax, Heidelberg 1923— 1932. Benveniste, E G S ...... E. B., Essai de grammaire sogdienne, II, Paris 1929. Bilikiewicz, P K ...... T. B., Psychiatria kliniczna 2, Warszawa 1960. Boyce, МНР ...... M. В., Manichaean Hymn-Cycles in Parthian, Oxford 1954. BPTJ...... Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego, Kra­ ków 1927 ff. Braune, AHDG...... W. B., Althochdeutsche Grammatik 7, Halle 1950. Braune, G G ...... W. B., Gotische Grammatik13, Halle 1952. Brockelmann, V G S...... С. B., Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semi­ tischen Sprachen, Berlin 1908— 1913. Brugmann, GG...... К. B., Griechische Grammatik4, München 1913. Brugmann, G VG ...... K. B.,. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen2, Strassburg 1897— 1916. BSL ...... Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, Paris 1868 ff. BSO S...... Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, London 1917 ff. Bück, E O U D ...... C. B., Elementarbuch der oskich-umbrischen Dialekte, Heidelberg 1905. Chomsky, ATS...... N. Ch., Aspects of the theory of syntax, Cambridge Massachusetts 1965. C IL...... Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, Berlin 1863 ff. Collinder, I U L ...... B. C., Introduction to the Uralic languages, Berkeley and Los Angeles 1965.

* Other abbreviations: P — parataxis, H — hypotaxis, MC — main clause, SC — subordinate clause, EA-— AXx^avixôv, MEC — multimembral elliptical constructions. Indo-European Parataxis Ц Decaux, МЕР ...... E. D., Morphologie des enclitiques polonais, Paris 1956. Delbrück, V S ...... B. D., Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Spra­ chen, Strassburg 1893— 1900. Denniston, G P ...... J. D., The Greek particles, Oxford 1934. Dik, C ...... S. D., Coordination, Amsterdam 1968. Dillon-Cróinm, T Y I ...... M. D. and D. C., Teach Yourself Irish, London 1961. Dravins-Rücke, IMS...... K. D. und V. R., Interjektionen und Onomatopöie in der Mundart von Stenden, Lund 1962. Endzelin, B K G F ...... J. E., Baltq kalbq garsai ir formos, Vilnius 1957. Endzelin, L G ...... J. E., Lettische Grammatik, Heidelberg 1923. Falk-Torp, NDEW ...... H. F. und A. T., Norwegisch-dänisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, Heidelberg 1910— 1911. Feist, WGS...... S. F., Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der gotischen Sprache 8, Leiden 1939. Fleuriot, D V B ...... L. F., Dictionnaire des gloses en vieux-breton, Paris 1964. Fleuriot, VB ...... L. F., Le vieux-breton, Paris 1964. Fraenkel, L E W ...... E. F., Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, Heidel­ berg 1955— 1965. Fraenkel, SLK ...... E. F., Syntax der litauischen Kasus, Kaunas 1928. Fraenkel, S L P ...... E. F., Syntax der litauischen Postpositionen und Präpo­ sitionen, Heidelberg 1929. Friedrich, H E ...... J. F., Hethitisches Elementarbuch, I, Heidelberg 1940; Friedrich, H W ...... J. F., Hethitisches Wörterbuch, Heidelberg 1952 ff. Gagnepain, SNVLC...... J. G., La syntaxe du nom verbal dans les langues celti­ ques, I, Paris 1963. Gebauer, HMJÖ...... J. G., Historickâ mluvnice jazyka ceského, Praha 1894— 1929. Gershevitch, GMS...... I. G., À grammar of Manichean Sogdian, Oxford 1954. G IA P ...... Grundriss der indo-arischen Philologie und Altertums­ kunde, Strassburg—Berlin—Leipzig 1896— 1935. GIP ...... Grundriss der iranischen Philologie, Strassburg 1895— 1904. Goodwin, F L M ...... E. G., First lessons in Manx 2, Belfast 1947. Gorgoniyev, K L ...... Y. G., The Khmer language, Moscow 1966. Grassmann, W R V ...... H. G., Wörterbuch zum Rig-Veda, Leipzig 1873. Grevisse, B U ...... M. G., Le bon usage7, Gembloux—Paris 1961. Grimm, D W ...... J. und W. G., Deutsches Wörterbuch, Leipzig 1854 ff. Haussen, SG...... F. H., Spanische Grammatik, Halle 1910. Hardie, H M B...... D. H., A handbook of Modern Breton, Cardiff 1948. Havers, H ES ...... Handbuch der erklärenden Syntax, Heidelberg 1931. Hermann, E L K ...... E. H., Über die Entwicklung der litauischen Konjunktion nalsätze, Jena 1912. Heusler, A I E ...... A. H., Altisländisches Elementarbuch3, Heidelberg 1932. Hirt, I G ...... H. H., Indogermanische Grammatik, Heidelberg 1921— 1937. H O ...... Handbuch der Orientalistik, Leiden—Köln 1952 ff. Hofmann, L U ...... J. H., Lateinische Umgangssprache, Heidelberg 1926. Hofmann - Szantyr, L S S ...... J. H. und A. Sz., Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik, München 1965. Holthausen, AE W ...... F. H., Altenglisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, Heidel­ berg 1934. Holthausen, A F W ...... F. H., Altfriesisches Wörterbuch, Heidelberg 1925. Holthausen, ASE ...... F. H., Altsächsisches Elementarbuch 2, Heidelberg 1921. Holthausen, WAN ...... F. H., Vergleichendes und etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altwestnordischen, Göttingen 1948. Humbach, G Z ...... II. H., Die Gathas des Zarathustra, I, Heidelberg 1959. I F ...... Indogermanische Forschungen, Strassburg—Berlin 1892 ff. IG ...... Indogermanische Grammatik, Heidelberg 1968 ff. Jacobi, AEM ...... H. J., Ausgewählte Erzählungen in Mähäräshtri, Leip­ zig 1886. Jensen, A G ...... H. J., Altarmenische Grammatik, Heidelberg 1969. Jensen, N D S ...... H. J., Neudänische Syntax, Heidelberg 1923. Jensen, N P G ...... H. J., Neupersische Grammatik, Heidelberg 1931. Jespersen, MEG...... O. J., A Modern English grammar, London—Copen­ hagen 1954— 1958. Johannesson, GUN...... A. J., Grammatik der urnordischen Runeninschriften, Heidelberg 1923. J P ...... Język Polski, Kraków 1913 ff. Karłowicz, SG P...... J. К., Słownik gwar polskich, Kraków 1900— 1911. Keller, A B S ...... G. K., Das Asyndeton in den baltoslavischen Sprachen, Heidelberg 1922. Kent, O P ...... R. K., Old Persian 2, New HaVen 1953. Kettunen, L W ...... L. K., Livisches Wörterbuch, Helsinki 1938. Kluge, E W D S ...... F. K., Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Spra­ che 18, Berlin 1960. Konow, K G ...... S. K., Khotansakische Grammatik, Leipzig 1941. Kronasser, VLFH ...... H. K., Vergleichende Laut- und Formenlehre des Hetlii- tischen, Heidelberg 1956. Kühner-Gerth, G G ...... R. K. und B. G., Ausführliche Grammatik der griechi­ schen Sprache8, II, Hannover 1898— 1904. KZ ...... Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der idg. Sprachen, Berlin—Leipzig 1852 ff. Lambertz, GAS...... M. L., Grammatik der albanischen Sprache, Halle 1959. Lasch, MNDG...... A. L., Mittelniederdeutsche Grammatik, Halle 1914. Lazard, GPC ...... G. L., Grammaire du persan contemporain, Paris 1957. L B ...... Linguistique Balkanique, Sofia 1959 ff. Lerch, HFS ...... E. L., Historische französische Syntax, Leipzig 1925— 1929. Leskien, L L ...... A. L., Litauisches Lesebuch, Heidelberg 1919. Lewis-Pedersen, CCG...... H. L. and H. P., A concise comparative Celtic grammar, Göttingen 1937. Lewy, F U V ...... E. L., Zur finnisch-ugrischen Wort- und Satzverbind­ ung, Göttingen 1911. Liddell-Scott, G E L ...... H. L. and R. S., A Greek-English lexicon ®, Oxford , 1961. Liebsch, L S ...... G. L., Syntax der wendischen Sprache in der Ober­ lausitz, Bautzen 1884. Linde, S J P ...... B. L., Słownik języka polskiego s, Warszawa 1951. L P ...... Lingua Posnaniensis, Poznań 1949 ff. Maclaren’s, G S T ...... M.’s., Gaelic self-taught4, Glasgow 1960. Mayrhofer, HP ...... M. M., Handbuch des Pâli, Heidelberg 1951. Mayser, G G P ...... E. M., Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit, Leipzig—Berlin 1923— 1934. Meillet, A E ...... A. M., Altarmenisches Elementarbuch, Heidelberg 1913. Meillet, R C ...... A. M., Le renouvellement des conjonctions, Paris 1915. Meillet-Vendryes, TGC...... A. M. et J. V., Traité de grammaire comparée des langues classiques 8, Paris 1963. Meyer, E W A S ...... G. M., Etymologisches Wörterbuch der albanesischen Sprache, Strassburg 1891. Meyer-Lübke, GRS ...... W. M.-L., Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen, Leip­ zig 1890— 1902. Miklosich, LPS ...... F. M., Lexicon palaeoslovenico-graeco-latinum, Vindo- bonae 1862— 1865. Miklosich, V G S ...... F. M., Vergleichende Grammatik der slavischen Spra­ chen3, Heidelberg 1926. Minard, SPV ...... A. M., La subordination dans la prose védique, Paris 1936. Morris-Jones, W G ...... J. M.-J., A Welsh grammar8, Oxford 1955. Morris-Jones, W S ...... J. M.-J., Welsh syntax, Cardiff 1931. MSL ...... Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, Paris 1868 ff. Mühlenbach, LDW ...... K. M., Lettisch - deutsches Wörterbuch, Riga 1923— 1946. Muka, S D R ...... E. M., Słownik dolnoserbskeje rëcy, Petrohrad—Praha 1911— 1928. NED ...... A New English dictionary on historical principles, Oxford 1889— 1933. NTS ...... Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap, Oslo 1928 ff. Otrębski, G J L ...... J. O., Gramatyka języka litewskiego, Warszawa 1956 ff. Paul, D G ...... H. P., Deutsche Grammatik 4, Halle 1956— 1957. Paul, P S ...... H. P., Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte6, Halle 1920. Pedersen, H A IE S ...... H. P., Hittitisch und die anderen indoeuropäischen Sprachen, Kobenhavn 1938. Pedersen, V G K ...... H. P., Vergleichende Grammatik der keltischen Spra­ chen, Göttingen 1909— 1913. P J ...... Poradnik Językowy, Kraków—Warszawa 1901 ff. P L ...... Pamiętnik Literacki, Lwów—Warszawa 1902 ff. Planta, GOUD...... R. von P., Grammatik der oskisch-umbrischen Dialekte, Strassburg 1892— 1897. Pokorny, IE W ...... J. P., Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, Bern 1949— 1969. Polański, S Z Ł ...... K. P., Składnia zdania złożonego w języku górnołużyc- kim, Wrocław—Warszawa— Kraków 1967. Poucha, ILT ...... P. P., Institutions linguae tocharicae, I, Praha 1955. Przełącznikową, RZD ...... M. P., Rozwój struktury i funkcji zdań u dzieci w wieku przedszkolnym, Kraków 1963. P S P ...... L. Bednarczuk, Polskie spójniki parataktyczne, Kra­ ków 1967. PSS ...... Z Polskich Studiów Slawistycznych, Warszawa 1958 ff. Reichelt, A E ...... H. R., Awestisches Elementarbuch, Heidelberg 1909. Renou, GLV...... L. R., Grammaire de la langue védique, Lyon 1952. RES ...... Revue des Études Slaves, Paris 1921 ff. RKJ ...... Rozprawy Komisji Językowej, Łódź 1954 ff. Rohlfs, H G IS...... G. R., Historische Grammatik der italienischen Sprache, Bern 1949— 1954. Rowland, G W L ...... T. R., A grammar of the Welsh language4, Wrexham (1876). R S ...... Rocznik Slawistyczny, Krakow 1908 ff. RS J ...... Rjecnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika, Zagreb 1880 ff. Safarewicz, G H JŁ ...... J. S., Gramatyka historyczna języka łacińskiego, II, War­ szawa 1950. Sandfeld, S F C ...... K. S., Syntaxe du français contemporain. L ’infinitif, Genève 1965. Schwyzer, G G ...... E. Sch., Griechische Grammatik, München 1939— 1953. Seiler, R A A ...... H. S., Relativsatz, Attribut und Apposition, Wiesbaden 1960. S F ...... Syntaktische Forschungen, Halle 1871— 1888. Sieg-Siegling-Schulze, TG-----E. S., W. S. und W. Sch., Tocharische Grammatik, Berlin 1931. She vélo V, SMLU ...... G. Sh., The syntax of Modern literary Ukrainian, The Hague 1963. SIBL ...... Słownik polszczyzny XVI w. (IBL), Warszawa 1966 ff. SJS ...... Slovnik jazyka staroslovënského, Praha 1958 ff. Sommer, V SS...... F. S., Vergleichende Syntax der Schulsprachen3, Leip­ zig—Berlin 1931. SPAN...... Sprawozdania z Prac Naukowych Wydziału I. PAN, Warszawa 1958 ff. SPAU...... Sprawozdania z Posiedzeń (P)AU w Krakowie, Kra­ ków 1890— 1952. SPBU...... Sbornik Praci Filosofické Fakulty Brnënské Univer­ sity (A), Brno 1952 ff. Speijer, S S ...... J. S., Sanskrit syntax, Leyden 1886. Spurrell, G W L...... W. S., A grammar of the Welsh language 3, Carmarthen 1870. S S ...... Słownik staropolski, Kraków—Warszawa—Wrocław’ 1953—1952. SS J ...... Studie ze slovanské jazykovëdy, Praha 1958. Steller, A FG ...... W. S., Abriss der altfriesischen Grammatik, Halle 1928. Steuernagel, H G ...... C. S., Hebräische Grammatike“10, Berlin 1933. Stolz-Schmalz, L G ...... F. S. und J. Sch., Lateinische Grammatik, München 3 1900, 4 1910, 6 1928. Strachan, IE W ...... J. S., An introduction to Early Welsh, Manchester 1909. TC LC ...... Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague, Copen­ hague 1944 ff. TCLP...... Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague, Praha 1929— 1939. Tesnière, ESS...... L. T., Éléments de syntaxe structurale, Paris 1959. Thumb, H N G ...... A. Th., Handbuch der neugriechischen Volkssprache2, Strassburg 1910. Tliurneysen, GOI ...... R. Th., A grammar of Old Irish, Dublin 1946. Tiktin, RD W ...... H. T., Rumänisch - deutsches Wörterbuch, Bukarest 1903— 1914. TLL ...... Thesaurus linguae latinae, Lipsiae 1900 ff. Trautmann, APS ...... R. T., Die altpreussischen Sprachdenkmäler, Göttingen 1909— 1910. Trävnicek, MSÖ...... ’.. F. T., Mluvnice spisovné cestiny2, II, Praha 1951. Turner, C D IA L ...... R .T ., A comparative dictionary of the Indo-Aryan languages, London 1962 ff. Vendryes, GVI...... J. V., Grammaire du vieil-irlandais, Paris 1908. Vendryes, L E I ...... J. V., Lexique étymologique de l’irlandais ancien, Paris 1959 ff. Ventris-Chadwick, DMG .... M. V. and J. Ch., Documents in Mycenaean Greek, Cambridge 1956. Visser, H S E L ...... F. V., An historical syntax of the English language, Leiden 1963 ff. Vondrâk, V SG ...... W. V., Vergleichende slavische Grammatik 2, Göttingen 1924— 1928. Wackernagel, A I G ...... J. W., Altindische Grammatik, Göttingen 1896 ff. Wackernagel, KS ...... J. W., Kleine Schriften, Göttin gen 1953. Wackernagel, VS ...... J. W., Vorlesungen über Syntax, Basel 1920— 1924. ' Wackernagel, W A ...... W. W., Voces variae ańimantium, Basel 1864. Wagner, ВТ ...... R. W., Bengalische Texte, Leipzig 1930. Walde-Hof mann, L E W ...... A. W. und J. H., Lateinisches etymologisches Wörter­ buch, Heidelberg 1938— 1956. Wartburg-Zumthor, PSFC. .. W. von W. et P. Z., Précis de syntaxe du français con­ temporain 2, Berne 1958. Wehr, A W ...... H. W., Arabisches Wörterbuch 2, Leipzig 1958. Weigand, R G ...... G. W., Rumänische Grammatik, Leipzig 1903. Wędkiewicz, P N W ...... S. W., Przyczynki do charakterystyki narzeczy po­ łudniowo-włoskich, I, Kraków 1920. Wierzbicka, S P R ...... A. W., System składniowo -stylistyczny prozy polskiego Renesansu, Warszawa 1966. Witkowski, H SG ...... S. W., Historyczna składnia grecka na tle porównaw­ czym, Lwów 1936. Zarębina, KJD ...... M. Z.1, Kształtowanie się systemu językowego dziecka, Kraków 1965. ZCP ...... Zeitschrift für ccltische Philologie, Halle— Göttingen 1897 ff. -v^ ZDW ...... Zeitschrift für deutsche Wortforschung, Strassburg 1901 ff. Zeuss-Ebel, G C ...... I. Z. et H. E., Grammatica celtica2, ’Berolini 1869— 1871. Zinkevicius, LD ...... Z. Z., Lietuviq dialektologiia, Vilnius 1966. ZNUJ...... Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, Kra­ ków 1955 ff. ZNW ...... Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, Giessen 1900 ff. ZPSK ...... i ...... Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Komu- nikationsforschung, Berlin 1952 ff. Z S P ...... Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie, Leipzig 1925 ff. Абаев, ИЭСОЯ ...... В. А., Историко-этимологический словарь осетинского языка, Москва—Ленинград 1958 ff. Алиев, ВСП ...... У. А., Вопросы сложного предложения в русском и тюрк­ ских языках, Черкасск—Нальчик 1959. Андреев-Пещерева, Я Т ...... М. А. и Е. IL, Ягнобские тексты, Москва 1957. Андреев, СКМ ...... Н. А., Статистико-комбинаторные методы в теоретическом и прикладном языкознании, Москва 1967. Белошапкова, СПРЯ...... В. Б., Сложное предложение в современном русском языке, Москва 1967. БРС...... Бенгальско-русский словарь, Москва 1957. Булаховский, ИК ...... Л. Б., Исторический комментарий к русскому литератур­ ному языку5, Киев 1958. Быкова, Б Я ...... Е. Б., Бенгальский язык, Москва 1966. ВГБЯ...... Вопросы грамматики бенгальского языка, Москва 1964. Выхухолев, СЯ ...... В. В., Сингальский язык, Москва 1964. ВЯ ...... Вопросы Языкознания, Москва 1952 ff. Гарибян, КАЯ ...... А. Г., Краткий курс армянского языка 3, Ереван 1960. Германович, МРЯ ...... А. Г., Междометия русского языка, Москва 1966. Гранде, КАТ ...... Б. Г., Курс арабской грамматики, Москва 1963. Гршченко, С У М ...... Б. Г., Словарь украшсько*! мови2, Кшв 1958—1959. ГРЯ...... Грамматика русского языка, Москва 1960. Гуру, ГХ ...... К. Г., Грамматика хинди, Москва 1957—1962. Зарубин, ШТ...... И. 3 ., Шугнанские тексты, Москва—Ленинград 1960. Иванов, ЯС ...... В. И., Общеиндоевропейская, праславянская, анатолийская языковые системы, Москва 1965. ИЛГРЯ ...... Исследования по лексикологии и грамматике русского языка, Москва 1961. Карпушкин, Я О ...... Б. К., Язык ория, Москва 1964. Карский, Б ...... Е. К., Белорусы2, Москва 1955—1956. Катенина, ГЯМ ...... Т. К., Очерк грамматики языка маратхи, Москва 1963. Катенина, ЯМ ...... Т. К., Язык маратхи, Москва 1963. Киэда, ГЯ ...... М. К., Грамматика японского языка, Москва 1958—1959. Кононов, ГТЯ ...... А. К., Грамматика современного турецкого литературного языка, Москва—Ленинград 1956. Королев, ЯН .. i ...... Н. К., Язык педали, Москва 1965. Кулаев, СОЯ ...... Н. К., Союзы в современном осетинском язьше, Орджони­ кидзе 1959. Ломтев, О И С ...... Т. Л., Очерки по историческому синтаксису русского языка, Москва 1956. Лурье, Н С ...... С. Л., Неизменяемые слова в функции сказуемого в индо­ европейских языках, Львов 1955. Майтинская, ВЯ ...... К. М., Венгерский язык, Москва 1955—1960. Миллер, ПРС ...... Б. М., Персидско-русский словарь3, Москва 1960. Миллер, Т Я ...... Б. М., Талышский язык, Москва 1953. Мирчев, ИГБЕ ...... К. М., Историческа граматика на българския език, София 1958. Николаева, И С П ...... T. Н., Интонация сложного предложения в славянских языках, Москва 1969. Носович, СБН...... И. Н., Словарь б^лорусскаго нарМя, СПб. 1870. О РС ...... Осетинско-русский словарь, Москва 1952. Пахалина, ИЯ ...... Т. П., Ишкашимский язык, Москва 1959. Пахалина, С Я ...... Т. П., Сарыкольский язык, Москва 1966. Петруничева, ЯТ ...... 3. П., Язык телугу, Москва 1960. Пешковский, P C ...... А. П., Русский синтаксис в научном освещениив, Москва 1933. Потебня, ЗРГ ...... А. П., Из запасок до русской грамматике8, Москва 1958— 1968. РАС ...... Русско-афганский словарь, Москва 1955. Расторгуева, С П Я ...... В. Р., Среднеперсидский язык, Москва 1966. Расторгуева, ТД ...... В. Р., Опыт сравнительного изучения таджикских говоров, Москва 1964. р д ...... Русская диалектология2, Москва 1965. Р Х С ...... Русско-хинди словарь, Москва 1957. Савельева, Я Г ...... Л. С., Язык гуджарати, Москва 1965. Смаль-Стоцький, ПС...... Р. С.-С., Прим1тивний словотв!р, Варшава 1929. Сцринчак, ОИС ...... Я. С., Очерк русского исторического синтаксиса, Киев 1960—1964. Срезневский, М СДРЯ...... И. С., Материалы для словаря древнерусского языка2, Москва 1958. Толстая, Я П ...... H. Т ., Язык панджаби, Москва 1960. УЗЛУ ...... Ученые Записки Ленинградского Университета, Ленин­ град. Фрейман, Х Я ...... A. Ф., Хорезмийский язык, Москва—Ленинград 1951. Чернышев, С П П Х ...... B. Ч., Синтаксис простого предложения в хинди, Москва 1965. Шациро, О СРН Г...... А. Ш., Очерки по синтаксису русских народных говоров, Москва 1953. Эдельман, Я Я ...... Д. Э., Язгулямский язык, Москва 1966. ЯН СССР...... Языки народов СССР, Москва 1966—1968.

POSTSCRIPT

At the conclusion it is a pleasurable duty for me to express my thanks to W. Walda for undertaking the onerous task of translation of this paper into English, as well as to H. Leeming, T. Pobożniak and H. Wiszniewska for their kindness in reading the proofs.

Cena zł 30.—