This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 27 Sep 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK

The Indo-European Languages

Anna Giacalone Ramat, Paolo Ramat

The Indo-European Linguistic Family: Genetic and Typological Perspectives

Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203880647.ch3 Bernard Comrie Published online on: 20 Nov 1997

How to cite :- Bernard Comrie. 20 Nov 1997, The Indo-European Linguistic Family: Genetic and Typological Perspectives from: The Indo-European Languages Routledge Accessed on: 27 Sep 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203880647.ch3

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT

Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms

This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 18:26 27 Sep 2021; For: 9780203880647, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203880647.ch3 The Indo-European 3 The other chapters in this book are essentially inward-looking in terms of their their of terms in inward-looking essentially are book this in chapters other The Indo-European perspective, examining reasons for positing the genetic unity unity genetic the positing for reasons examining perspective, Indo-European and Areal Genetic Affiliations Introduction: nito fo a ige netr agae Ti catr b cnrs, is contrast, by chapter, This differ­ language. their for ancestor accounting single of a ways from and languages entiation Indo-European the of outward-looking, seeking to identify some salient features of Indo-European Indo-European of features salient some identify to seeking outward-looking, Proto-Indo-European might have been in areal contact; in some cases, the the cases, some languages in other contact; what areal in with been and have might affiliations genetic Proto-Indo-European have might Proto-Indo- languages other European what with consider to important is it perspective, the and The languages. IE Proto-Indo-European on attested be Indo-European. early will typologize chapter to typological words, this in other in emphasis - world the of languages against a background of the range of structural diversity found across the the across found diversity structural of range the of background a against istics with other languages and language families, distant genetic affiliations affiliations genetic distant families, language and character­ languages typological other shares with istics Indo-European early Where areal in them. been have with also must it contact point some at then relatives, genetic have does Proto-Indo-European if since same, the be might questions two the to answers polemic, and no attempt will be made here to impose a particular viewpoint. viewpoint. particular a impose to here emotional made with be even will often attempt no and controversy, with polemic, fraught one is family language similarities. these for reason a plausible are contact areal or unit, that is, any two arbitrarily selected IE languages are genetically closer genetically are languages IE selected arbitrarily two any is, that unit, One thing that is clear is that Indo-European itself is a well-defined genetic genetic well-defined a is itself Indo-European that is clear is that thing One In order to put the typology of early Indo-European into historical historical into Indo-European early of typology the put to order In The question of possible more distant genetic affiliations of the IE IE the of affiliations genetic distant more possible of question The Perspectives Linguistic Family: Linguistic Bernard Comrie Bernard Genetic and Typological 74

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 18:26 27 Sep 2021; For: 9780203880647, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203880647.ch3 European forms part of a larger genetic unit (in much the same way as the the as way same the much (in unit genetic larger a of part forms European respectively. Essentially this same pattern, with with pattern, same this in Essentially instance, respectively. For characterized, are consideration. pronouns person of second further and hints first the deserve tantalizing that some Proto-Indo-European are links there less genetic the none broader but itself, Indo-European Indo- not or whether but Indo-European of nature issue at is the what Thus much language. so non-IE any not to are is they than another one to Turkic, Mongolian, Tungusic (which three, many scholars consider to form form to consider scholars (which many three, Yukaghir (which Uralic, Tungusic unit), genetic Eurasia: Mongolian, Uralic-Yukaghir a Turkic, Uralic, northern with form, to of consider scholars families many language other and of person first for labial) of unity genetic internal the for those are as argued The tightly affiliations as family). genetic IE from distant far more larger for are the made been within have that unit suggestions genetic a various form languages Germanic personal pronouns are relatively immune to borrowing, this suggests that that suggests this borrowing, to since and immune low, is relatively instances are many so pronouns in chance personal by independently replicated putative Eurasiatic family. Other scholars have placed equal or more more or equal placed have scholars Other family. Eurasiatic putative northern North America). Since the probability of this same pattern being being pattern (in same this of Eskimo-Aleut probability and the Since Siberia), America). North north-eastern northern (in Chukotko-Kamchatkan ’ir­ and *ra- containing stems by forms, morphological some in least at including Georgian as its major representative), and Dravidian (whose (whose Dravidian and representative), major its as Georgian its South or of including one Kartvelian as Hebrew), and Semitic Arabic as includes east, and languages which such south family with the to (the branches, languages Afroasiatic to relations particular which in genetic languages, possible on these emphasis among relation genetic distant a be may there a single, Altaic family, perhaps also including Japanese and Korean), Korean), and Japanese including also perhaps family, Altaic single, a influence, it is important to restrict our attention to languages with which which with languages to attention our restrict to important areal is through it arisen have may that influence, similarities of possibility the and families, prefer assign they would they India); 1971-84). which to unit southern Illic-Svityc (e.g. genetic in larger Indo-European and the of primarily name Caucasus the spoken as the of Nostratic are range languages main the member of south the to (spoken Caucasian a in others, some with along subsumed, has (forthcoming) Greenberg rt-noErpa wl o cus dpn o te ouin o uh con­ such geographic the to and homeland solution PIE the by the of into on location the as entered depend questions contacts course of troversial areal of will those range of precise history Proto-Indo-European the The to properly languages. belong individual languages individual non-IE between and contacts later languages since IE contact, in was Proto-Indo-European families: Uralic, Afroasiatic (more specifically: Semitic), Kartvelian, possibly possibly Kartvelian, Semitic), specifically: (more Afroasiatic Uralic, families: Proto-Indo-European with contact that areal say to it substantial Suffice for question. in candidates time the at plausible languages other the of location include the proto-language or some individual languages of the following following the of languages individual some or proto-language the include also North Caucasian (i.e. the indigenous languages of the northern Caucasus, northern the of languages indigenous the (i.e. Caucasian North also In dealing with areal contacts between Indo-European and other language language other and Indo-European between contacts areal with dealing In t- for second person, is found across a number number a across found is person, second for H NOERPA IGITCFML 75 7 FAMILY LINGUISTIC INDO-EUROPEAN THE m- (or sometimes another another sometimes (or Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 18:26 27 Sep 2021; For: 9780203880647, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203880647.ch3 From a typological perspective, the vowel system of late Proto-Indo- Proto-Indo- late of system parent the of vowel break-up the the preceding immediately stage the perspective, is, that European, typological a From North-east or Nakh-Daghestanian and Caucasian North-west including five-vowel system in the world ( world the in common system most the does it as five-vowel containing surprise, elicit hardly would language, Topology Phonological Caucasian). FAMILY LINGUISTIC INDO-EUROPEAN THE 6 7 plausible account of the consonant system - but with the result that in turn a turn in that result the with but - system consonant the of account And plausible whole. a as world the of languages across unusual certainly are they new vowel system has been proposed that stands at the boundaries of of boundaries the at stands that proposed been more plausibility. has typological system typologically a vowel providing new with Proto- early concerned to back been reconstruction has further the of Indo-European part substantial a Australia, of indeed, languages indigenous the in typically quite instance for found unaspirated, as voiced aspirated, (perhaps types voiceless five: phonation as unaspirated, of many and voiceless as four: as labiovelar) (perhaps many velar, articulation palatal, of dental, places of labial, set rich a by the specifically tinguished more system, consonant the contrast, the By outside standing opposition. ‘schwa’-vowel length the plus length, vowel of opposition way plus laryngeal, and schwa can then in turn be considered a syllabic laryngeal; laryngeal; syllabic a considered be turn in then can schwa and laryngeal, plus came with the Laryngeal Theory, which gradually stripped away the the away stripped gradually which Theory, Laryngeal the with came dis­ stops of preponderance a with skewed, highly is system, obstruent it is assumed that the long vowels reflect an earlier sequence of short vowel vowel short of sequence earlier an reflect vowels long the that assumed is it of alternant system: vowel the in quality and quantity of oppositions reflexes of laryngeal-vowel or vowel-laryngeal sequences if one assumes assumes one if qualities vowel of sequences differentiation PIE late the vowel-laryngeal laryngeals, three or were there that laryngeal-vowel of reflexes many remaining instances of the vowels vowels the of instances remaining many irrn te aaa-ea-aivlr poiin se lo hpe 2, Chapter also accepted widely (see this least at or opposition Proto-Indo-European, early Thus palatal-velar-labiovelar 40-4). pp. the mirroring systems with so many stops and so few fricatives are not unknown, being being unknown, not are fricatives few so and stops many so with systems as allophones of of allophones as t s oooai, hr ae oe agae ta crany oe close, come certainly that languages some are there monovocalic, that world the of is language it well-described and attested any for made been has version of early Proto-Indo-European, ends up with a more balanced balanced more a least (at with ‘laryngeals’ three up the of ends introduction the through Proto-Indo-European, system obstruent early of version a typologically highly unusual vowel system: perhaps just a single vowel, vowel, single a just perhaps system: vowel unusual highly typologically a (e-a-o) some of which are probably fricatives), but by the same token ends up with with up symbolized ends token same the by but fricatives), probably are which of some ‘voiced aspirated’), but only a single fricative phoneme (s). While obstruent obstruent While (s). phoneme fricative single a only but aspirated’), ‘voiced Perhaps the most important step in this shift of typological perspective perspective typological of shift this in step important most the Perhaps rfetn nerydfeetaino aygas ( laryngeals of differentiation early an reflecting e *e. under ablaut; a neater overall account can be given of ablaut if if ablaut of given be can account overall neater a ablaut; under While it is probably true that no absolutely convincing case case convincing absolutely no that true probably is it While y and and w respectively; respectively; -- o-u -o i-e-a o is to a large extent a morphophonemic a morphophonemic extent a large to is a and and ), ^superimposed on which is a two- a ), istwo- ^superimposed which on o can plausibly be considered considered be plausibly can i and and - 2-h l-h h u can be treated treated be can 3), perhaps 3),perhaps Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 18:26 27 Sep 2021; For: 9780203880647, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203880647.ch3 reanalysis is required, as in the Glottalic Theory (Gamkrelidze and Ivanov Ivanov and (Gamkrelidze Theory Glottalic the the in in as possible required, is is series reanalysis voiced breathy a whether a to down of question the and boils voice’, something therefore murmured) (or is ‘breathy is meant incompat­ is are aspirate’ what aspiration and rather, ‘voiced ible; voicing terms term phonetic strict in since the misnomer, Actually, types. phonation of presence the typologically, that, argued then and was it unaspirated, But voiced aspirated. unaspirated, voiced voiceless three: to reduced be plausibly conservative more phonologically especially languages, Semitic the that is not the only evidence in favor of the Glottalic Theory, and if the Glottalic Glottalic the if and Theory, Glottalic the of favor in evidence only the not is other three of other or one of nature phonetic the reanalyses one or types, can types phonation the proto-language, the of feature a than rather Iranian partic­ back the at are produced languages consonants is, that Semitic consonants, and ‘laryngeal’ in rich Caucasian ularly North-west Both inventories. areal of terms In 205-7). noting worth also is 1981:it comparison, genetic (Hewitt distant (Abkhaz- more perhaps and inventories typology, languages consonant and inventories rich Caucasian vowel very restricted very have North-west which Ubykh), the Circassian, Abaza, interestingly, including, detailed consideration of these phonological problems, reference may be be may reference problems, phonological 1993.) these more Comrie to a made of (For unclear). is consideration Proto-Semitic in detailed value their (the consonants; Semitic glottalized possibly and typo­ Kartvelian striking a Caucasian, share North would with feature Proto-Indo-European logical then accepted is Theory (Stewart threeway Proto-Indo-European the for essentially proposed have types that phonation Africa of West in opposition languages of discovery phono­ being stops voiced unaspirated so-called the while voiceless unglottalized, voiced as the rather classifiable with logically stops, glottalized fact tract. vocal upper the of of Proto-Indo-European, namely ablaut, whereby the basic vowel as vowel basic circumstances, the appropriate whereby under ablaut, namely Proto-Indo-European, of phonetic then not, is it that assumes one If aspirates. voiceless of absence phonation of opposition fourway the to back voiceless goes a one of Either existence series. the aspirated presupposes necessarily series aspirated voiced a Indo- of innovation an reflecting perhaps marginal, rather voiceless is the for series evidence the aspirated Since types. phonation of range the in anomaly inventories vowel small relatively has have Arabic Arabic, like (Classical languages Semitic Chapter 2, p. 38). The typological debate has, however, been reopened by the the by reopened (see been stops however, has, voiced debate as simply typological The 38). p. 2, phonologically Chapter classified be can stops aspirated ocle ‘mhtc’ hwu i sm Smtc agae, ..Ahrc as Amharic, e.g. languages, Semitic some in up show ‘emphatics’ so-called iia pten o hne i vwl ult ad os fvwl hv been have vowels of loss and quality vowel in changes of patterns similar 1989: 231-9). It should be noted that the typological argument just outlined outlined just argument typological the that noted be should It 231-9). 1989: in were stops unaspirated voiced so-called the that holds which 1), ch. 1984; We have already alluded to the most striking morphophonemic alternation alternation morphophonemic striking most the to alluded already have We typological apparent another provides system obstruent PIE late The i-a-u , long and short) but rather rich consonant consonant rich rather but short) and long , H NOERPA IGITCFML 77 7 FAMILY LINGUISTIC INDO-EUROPEAN THE o or is even deleted altogether. Somewhat Somewhat altogether. deleted even is or e appears, appears, Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 18:26 27 Sep 2021; For: 9780203880647, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203880647.ch3 investigated from the viewpoint of areal typological similarities to Indo- Indo- to similarities 1965). typological Macavariani and areal (Gamqrelige languages of Kartvelian the in viewpoint European the from investigated three main topics that deserve attention: (a) the general morphological type, type, morphological general the (a) attention: deserve are that there topics main Proto-Indo-European, three of typology morphological the of speaking In Typology Morphological FAMILY LINGUISTIC INDO-EUROPEAN THE 8 7 in terms of the classification into isolating, agglutinating and fusional fusional and speech; agglutinating of parts or isolating, classes word into into words of distinction classification the (b) the languages; of terms in Morphological Type Morphological linguistics. language in that it is frequently impossible to segment a word into morphs morphs Lat. into In word a phemes. segment to impossible frequently is agglutinating it an from that in distinct is It language morphemes. three it, and that number, case, singular of genitive of (‘man’), item lexical the of expression Lat. includes word example, for more of consisting morpheme, words one many has than it that in morpheme, one consists only word and each one which of in is language, isolating an Indo-European from early distinct types, is It fusional. morphological of morphologically. classification the of terms In expressed are Indo-European of area that this of categories discussion masterly a salient is (1964) most Kuryfowicz the (c) expressing genitive case (cf. gen. pi. gen. (cf. case genitive expressing of morphemes often finds different expression in different inflectional inflectional different in expression different finds often combination same the major that the morphemes such that classes, fact of the inflectional into by fall speech exacerbated of is parts morphology Indo-European early fraie, eune o hnms crepnig o t cnttet mor­ constituent its to corresponding phonemes) of sequences (formatives, lse: hs gntv snua cn lo e elzd n ai as Latin in realized be also can singular genitive thus, classes: range of categories expressed is of the order of person-number (of the the (of person-number of order the of is expressed categories of range two only instance, for nouns, In poly synthetic. not is it fusional, is European number large a typically where language a to introduced, referring sometimes is type polysynthetic, fourth namely a types, morphological of classification mensae sg. acc. (cf. number singular remarkable that despite the complexity of the morphology of the early IE IE early the of morphology the of complexity the despite that remarkable single a in morphemes dozen a include readily which languages polysynthetic Indo- early Although word. single a into combined are morphemes of categories are expressed inflectionally (case, number), while in verbs the the verbs in while number), (case, inflectionally expressed are categories languages, easily testified to by anyone who has had to master the the fusional master the to to rather but had expressed. are that expressed, has categories few the of categories large who expression any to not due morphological anyone is pf complexity by this number language, IE to early an of testified is morphology it easily Indeed, sentence. languages, complete a as functioning often word a such word, subject), tense-aspect, mood, voice, finiteness, in sharp contrast to typical typical to contrast sharp in finiteness, voice, mood, tense-aspect, subject), While fusional morphology characterizes the earliest attested IE languages IE attested earliest the characterizes morphology fusional While ‘table (gen. sg.)’), sg.)’), (gen. ‘table viri, for example, there is no segmentable morph expressing expressing morph segmentable no is there example, for -is (e.g. (e.g. virum regis virörum). ), nor is there a segmentable morph morph segmentable a there is nor ), viri ‘king (gen. sg.)’), and so on. In the the In on. so and sg.)’), (gen. ‘king ‘man (gen. sg.)’, where the one one the where sg.)’, (gen. ‘man Indeed, the fusional nature of of nature fusional the Indeed, -ae (e.g. Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 18:26 27 Sep 2021; For: 9780203880647, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203880647.ch3 means all, of the fusional nature of early Indo-European and point to an earlier earlier an to point and Indo-European early of nature fusional the of all, means product the to reconstruction late internal of of application the reconstruction the of part forms Proto-Indo-European, and languages), Slavic and Baltic the respectively. Historically, Ancient Gk Gk Ancient Historically, exponents, respectively. major two whose singular Greek, accusative the by Ancient that provided in is example changes obscured simple A further pattern. which phonological analogy, original of the influence intervening the to and from similarities part obscured in stems Indo-European no by but some, away strip to able been has reconstruction comparative of and Icelandic (e.g. languages modem many of characteristic still indeed is and sa t sget ln te ie nm sg. nom. lines the along segment to usual tion is disturbed by exceptions like like exceptions by disturbed is tion syllabic and non-syllabic *-m, PIE from derive both synchronically, different ian languages. ian in in the take syllable final in as segment, syllabic while a after expected thus is and hort-T inflection, from stem separating in difficulty to lead even changes analogical The most readily distinguishable word class in Proto-Indo-European is the the is Proto-Indo-European in class word distinguishable readily most The Kartvel­ and Semitic the of characteristic particularly is morphology fusional Proto- Late of nature to fusional made rather The be (1990). for may Beekes reference and agglutinative; type, (1989) this more of Szemerenyi was reconstructions which different strikingly Proto-Indo-European of stage aeois hrceie ubro te odcass ht r distinguish­ are that classes same word These other of number. and number a case of characterize term), categories this categories of the sense by narrow the characterized in are (nouns, core which the substantives remainder, of the Within composed mood. class, is and word class other any tense-aspect, by shown not person-number, e.g. categories of number a has which verb, Speech) of (Parts Classes Word usually is singular in as segment, singular of of singular being used in place of third person pronouns) have an even more idiosyncratic more even an have pronouns) person third of (demonstratives inplace used persons being second and first the to restricted originally pronouns, Lat. e.g. *-m, than rather *-d in neuter singular nominative with example, for which (of like noun Latin a declining in that so categories as substantives, but follow a different inflection in some respects, respects, some in inflection different a same the follow show but pronouns substantives, as Thus, categories substantives. from degrees, different to able, illud er er in, Of the languages with which early Indo-European was in areal contact, contact, areal in was Indo-European early which with languages the Of ‘that (nom. sg. n.)’ versus versus n.)’ sg. (nom. ‘that dt-b. sg. dat.-abl. , -a accusative singular of of singular accusative is the reflex of syllabic *m and is thus expected after a non-syllabic non-syllabic a after expected thus is and *m syllabic of reflex the is horte elpi's phylaka is an ablaut variant). ablaut an is hp’ wt n cetdfnl ylbe. vnti distribu­ this Even syllable). final accented an with ‘hope’, hort-ö klein -n ‘guard (acc. sg.)’. But dental stems with unaccented unaccented with stems dental But sg.)’. (acc. ‘guard allomorph, with deletion of the stem-final dental, as dental, stem-final the of deletion with allomorph, , rarely rarely , , thus losing sight of the etymological stem stem etymological the of sight losing thus , er er is H NOERPA IGITCFML 79 7 FAMILY LINGUISTIC INDO-EUROPEAN THE kleida. (stem (stem kiefs bonum -n (stem (stem Such subsequent phonological and and phonological subsequent Such hortus i h elxo I o-ylbc *m non-syllabic PIE of reflex the is erid-) ‘good (nom. sg.)’; the personal personal the sg.)’; (nom. ‘good hort-us kleid-) gre’ ycrncly i is it synchronically, ‘garden’ srf’ (cf. ‘strife’ vc sg. voc. , -n ‘key’, whose accusative accusative whose ‘key’, logon and and ‘word (acc. sg.)’, sg.)’, (acc. ‘word elpida, -a, hort-e though quite quite though accusative accusative gn sg. gen. , horto-

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 18:26 27 Sep 2021; For: 9780203880647, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203880647.ch3 The distinguishability of a separate class of adjectives is even more more even is adjectives of class separate a of distinguishability The cases, oblique and nominative the between suppletion some with declension, derivational category, for example, example, for category, Lat. (e.g. derivational gender of category inflectional that m. being productive fully difference a show important adjec­ most the adjectives languages IE substantives, early from the little in differ and tives Proto-Indo-European, for questionable Africa, that is, those languages with which Indo-European has been in areal areal in been has Indo-European which with languages those is, northern and that Asia northern Africa, Europe, of languages of characteristic particularly for genitive Greek, the of when Ancient accented as plural always In is patterns, nouns accentual adjectives. first-declension of different plural and have may substantives they instance, distinc­ between further however, arise languages, IE tions early individual In (female)’. queror in return we which to phenomenon a FAMILY LINGUISTIC INDO-EUROPEAN THE 0 8 items expressing prototypically qualities rather than entities (substantives) or or (substantives) entities than rather qualities prototypically expressing items treatment of quality-words is widespread only in Australia, parts of Mexico Mexico of parts Australia, in this only area this widespread is outside Dixon, quality-words of R.M.W. by treatment to investigations According affiliations. typological genetic ongoing distant have may it which with and contact genitive plural of of plural genitive activities (verbs), as similar or identical to substantives seems to be be to seems substantives to identical or similar as (verbs), activities (e.g. accent final have not does singular nominative the if accented from verbs and thus showing some verbal categories in addition to the the to addition in categories verbal some showing thus derived and adjectives rather verbs are they class: from word inciden­ separate a Participles, strictly not are substantives). as tally, or verbs as either other treated (with adjectives of quality-words class closed small, a are form or verbs quality-words like world the treated of either most over Philippines; the and California, and diva categories expressed in an adjective. an in expressed categories for which at least no such substantival origin is clear, for example, example, for clear, is origin substantival such no least at which for Lat. example, for nominals, of forms case been the lack of adpositions. The items in question were earlier adverbs, adverbs, earlier were question in items The adpositions. of lack the the of one been but languages, IE contemporary most and early some in prefixes Gk Gk by means of case, with those adverbs that were later to become adpositions adpositions become to later were that adverbs those with case, of means by reinterpretation in favour of an adposition governing a particular case came case particular a governing adposition an of favour in reinterpretation primarily expressed were phrases noun of roles semantic and grammatical the (or postpositions, which we may together call adpositions) and also as verbal verbal as also and adpositions) call together may we which postpositions, (or Skt (cf. and their use as adpositions or prefixes is secondary. In Proto-Indo-European Proto-Indo-European In secondary. is prefixes have or to adpositions as use seems their and Proto-Indo-European of characteristics typological striking at best further specifying the semantics of the case in question; the the question; in case the of semantics the specifying further best at ‘up’ (cf. Ancient Gk Gk Ancient (cf. ‘up’ Many adverbs are etymologically, and sometimes even synchronically, synchronically, even sometimes and etymologically, are adverbs Many pöthen bonus (< instr. sg.) ‘by day’, or nominals with case-like suffixes, e.g. Ancient Ancient e.g. suffixes, case-like with nominals or day’, ‘by sg.) instr. (< pra). f. , khorä ‘whence?’ However, there is also a set of primarily short adverbs adverbs short primarily of set a also is there However, ‘whence?’ Many of the last-named items also show up as prepositions prepositions as up show also items last-named the of Many bona ln’ wie ht f is-elnin detvs s o so not is adjectives first-declension of that while ‘land’) aksi'ä n. , n) *uper(i) and), ‘worthy (f.)’). The treatment of adjectives, that is, of of is, that adjectives, of treatment The (f.)’). ‘worthy bonum), hra wt nus edr s t et a best at is gender nouns with whereas ‘above’ (cf. Skt Skt (cf. ‘above’ victor Morphological Categories, Categories, Morphological ‘conqueror (male)’, (male)’, ‘conqueror partim (< acc. sg.) ‘partly’, Skt Skt ‘partly’, sg.) acc. (< -on updri (e.g. ), khörön pro victrix ‘forwards’ ‘forwards’ , genitive genitive , pp. 8Iff. 8Iff. pp. akswn ‘con­ *hxen ,

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 18:26 27 Sep 2021; For: 9780203880647, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203880647.ch3 gelasse depäsaperi khthon depäsaperi gelasse in classical Attic prose. Thus, the adverbial use of of While use adverbial the Thus, prose. Attic classical in yeins eii esthion Eelioio Hyperionos later. Clear traces of the earlier system are visible in Homeric Greek, in in Greek, prepositions strict as Homeric question in in visible items the are of use system later the earlier with the of comparison traces Clear later. range of usages is still found with some items in English, for example, example, for English, in items some with found still is usages of range primarily in the literal sense; see Chapter 14, p. 448). And while across most most across while And 448). p. 14, Chapter see sense; literal the in primarily in as found, also is postposition norm, the is which is a preposition in in preposition a is which wide This 258). p. 9, Chapter (cf. gods’ the from decrees the preposition knew ‘he while 5.64) usage, adpositional in even And Sun-god’. the Hyperion still possible for it to be separated from its verb, as in in as verb, its from separated be to it for possible still have prepositions, for example, Lat. Lat. example, for norm, the prepositions, are have postpositions where Hittite, as such languages, prepositions, also became are adpositions, there becoming in items, such Indo-European of Uralic and Kartvelian languages, in this respect contrasting sharply with with sharply contrasting respect this in languages, Kartvelian and Uralic in adverb an and senses), metaphorical in primarily (used nominative, accusative and genitive) and prepositions of no clear non- non- clear no of prepositions and Arabic Classical (e.g. genitive) origin and prepositional accusative nominative, origin, alongside a well-developed case system are also characteristic of of characteristic also are system case well-developed a alongside origin, normally that languages in even postpositional are that items individual and invariable and substantival. Whether Proto-Indo-European had clause- clause- had Proto-Indo-European Whether pronominal), languages, substantival. some in and instances some in invariable (or, items combining adjectival terms, are morphological in that class word single a as treated be to adpositions, or adpositions that are for the most part clearly of secondary secondary of clearly part most the for are that adpositions or adpositions, combining conjunctions is questionable, since clause-combining probably probably clause-combining since questionable, is conjunctions combining Semitic, with its limited case system (e.g. Classical Arabic has only only has Arabic Classical (e.g. system case limited its with Semitic, originally involved the use of non-finite verbal forms (see (see forms verbal ing, non-finite of use the involved originally Morphological Categories Morphological interjections. course, of and, particles invariable of number ei rather small. While the reconstruction of the PIE forms for most of these these of most for forms PIE the is of morphologically reconstruction the expressed While categories small. of rather number actual the morphology in noted As and meaning, or more generally function, is typically fraught with greater have greater forms with identical fraught etymologically typically which languages. is to different in use in extent diverged function, precise the their given generally of difficulty, more reconstruction the or straightforward, meaning, relatively is categories ‘that, the aforementioned’. The enclitic coordinating conjunctions conjunctions coordinating enclitic The aforementioned’. the ‘that, , Goth, Goth, , Although the numerals form a clearly defined semantic class, they are not not are they class, semantic defined clearly a form numerals the Although *-ue pp. 94-5); the most plausible candidate is the word for ‘if’, Ancient Gk Gk Ancient ‘if’, for word the is candidate plausible most the 94-5); pp. katd ‘or’ have widespread reflexes. Finally, Proto-Indo-European had a had Proto-Indo-European Finally, reflexes. widespread have ‘or’ ei ‘down’ appears as a verbal prefix in in prefix verbal a as appears ‘down’ suggesting originally a locative of the anaphoric pronoun pronoun anaphoric the of locative a originally suggesting Morphological Type, Type, Morphological p h Nl River Nile the up

(Iliad

(Odyssey H NOERPA IGITCFML 81 FAMILY LINGUISTIC INDO-EUROPEAN THE 19.362) ‘and all the earth laughed around’. around’. laughed earth the all ‘and 19.362) pp. 78f., despite the complexity of early IE IE early of complexity the despite 78f., pp. mecum 1.8-9) ‘they ate up the cattle of of cattle the up ate ‘they 1.8-9) t f ‘in’, , a prefix in the verb verb the in prefix a , ‘with me’. Weakly developed developed Weakly me’. ‘with hö e hsht eide thesphata ek theön min kat-edomai ‘from’). pen ‘about’ is clear in in clear is ‘about’ lue Combin­ Clause o it up lift to o kt boüs katä hoi et p, t is it up’, ‘eat *-kwe o uplift to

(used (used ‘and’ (Iliad *hxe up ,

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 18:26 27 Sep 2021; For: 9780203880647, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203880647.ch3 ie, rnus ae edr nme ad ae ad f hs gne is an gender reflecting these perhaps of pronouns, and some case, and and adjectives in number only gender, inflectional are pronouns) tives, probably quite recent (as seen, for instance, in the number of languages languages of number the in instance, for seen, (as recent quite probably inflectional than rather derivational always was gender where stage earlier eii, lhuh n rlc a lat te eeomn o ti ctgr is category this of development the least, at and Uralic Uralic, to in contrast striking although in is etc.) ‘my’, Semitic, category a for of affixes absence (i.e. The nouns. possession from of indistinct were adjectives where and hampered by uncertainty over whether the PIE system was basically basically was system PIE the whether over uncertainty by hampered FAMILY LINGUISTIC INDO-EUROPEAN THE 2 8 relatively late grammaticalization of a derivational pattern, it is not clear how how clear not is it pattern, derivational a of grammaticalization late relatively suffixes). case after suffixes possessive attaching masculine-feminine-neuter (as in Sanskrit, Ancient Greek, Latin, etc.) or or etc.) Latin, Greek, Ancient Sanskrit, in (as masculine-feminine-neuter Caucasian has a masculine-feminine-neuter system, but with the gender gender the North-west with but languages; system, IE modem) many masculine-feminine-neuter (and a early has the reminis­ Caucasian of assignments type gender in idiosyncratic cent apparently completely is including gender opposition, languages, related areally the Of is. process this late happened over most of Indo-European, is again widespread cross- cross- widespread again is Indo-European, of most languages; Kartvelian) over not (though happened Semitic and for Uralic found being some world, the in of languages instance the among Proto-Indo- of widespread is European singular-dual-plural, system, number The sex. biological their masculine-feminine a has Semitic while Kartvelian, and Uralic from absent < *-ä (e.g. formally *-ft2 the in While 177). p. 7, feminines Chapter see distinct Hittite: in (as animate-inanimate recourse being had in particular to those adverbs that later became adpositions adpositions became later that adverbs those to particular in had being recourse some or Hungarian of that as so rich certainly nearly not but Semitic, reconstruction), of that standard than the richer on vocative, the plus (seven inventory and humanness semantic their from directly predictable nouns of assignment tory no larger than this, other means were used to encode finer distinctions, distinctions, finer encode to used were inven­ means an other from this, than typologically larger expect no might tory one As languages. Daghestanian Semitic. and Uralic in parallels with again linguistically, reduction in the number of cases or at least in their functional range and and range functional their in least at or towards cases case of on number reliance the from away in development reduction continuing a discern can has as opposition, singular-plural a to system a such of simplification Rome’), its replacement in this function by prepositional phrases (e.g. Vulgar Vulgar (e.g. phrases Lat. prepositional by function this in Lat. (e.g. replacement towards its of motion Rome’), demise the indicating of instance, means a for as witness, accusative the adpositions; on reliance greater towards (Word Classes, Classes, (Word reconstruction with respect to early Indo-European. early to respect syntactic with less and internal of reconstruction basis the on semantic made claims more other some even hypothesize with in fit had would This might cases content. one the stage backwards, earlier an at Extrapolating that objects. direct indicating h ol mrhlgcl aeois xrse n oias nus adjec­ (nouns, nominals in expressed categories morphological only The pcltos n h ael yooia afnte o h gne sse are system gender the of affinities typological areal the on Speculations The case system of early Indo-European represents a moderate-sized moderate-sized a represents Indo-European early of system case The *ad *ad Roma(m)), pp. 79f.). Indeed, even looking at the early IE languages one one languages IE early the at looking even Indeed, 79f.). pp. and the restriction of its functions to the syntactic one of of one syntactic the to functions its of restriction the and *-e-h , - < *-r 2, *-i-h ) r cery a clearly are 2) Römam ‘to Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 18:26 27 Sep 2021; For: 9780203880647, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203880647.ch3 rather strange, being absent in particular from neuter nouns. There are three three are There nouns. neuter from particular in absent being strange, rather languages of the world. In the ‘nominative-accusative system’, one case case one system’, ‘nominative-accusative the In world. the the of across found objects and languages subjects for systems case-marking of kinds main patient-like (whence: inactive) subjects of intransitive verbs. (See, for for (See, verbs. intransitive of subjects inactive) (whence: patient-like transitive clauses, while another case (ergative) is used for the subject (agent) (agent) subject the for of used is (patients) (ergative) case objects another direct (absolu- while the and clauses, case one subjects transitive system’, intransitive both for used ‘ergative-absolutive is tive) the In (patient) object clauses. direct the for transitive used is of (accusative) case another while agents), for both subjects (agents) of transitive verbs and for semantically more agent­ more semantically for and verbs transitive of (agents) subjects both for (nominative) is used for both intransitive subjects and transitive subjects (or (or subjects transitive and subjects intransitive both for used is (nominative) traditionally described in terms of the nominative-accusative system, system, nominative-accusative the of terms in are described languages IE early The there.) traditionally cited references and 1990 Harris instance, of a transitive clause. In the ‘active-inactive system’, one case (active) is used used is (active) case one system’, ‘active-inactive the In clause. transitive a of for both direct objects (patients) of transitive verbs and for semantically more more semantically for and verbs transitive of (patients) used is case objects another direct while both for verbs, intransitive of subjects active) (whence: like nominative-accusative inflection *-m which is identical to the accusative of of accusative the to identical is which *-m inflection nominative-accusative used in the nominative and that used in the accusative and other oblique cases, cases, oblique other and accusative the in used that and nominative the in used which pronouns, personal the with clear- found is most system the Proto-Indo-European, nominative-accusative In cut declension. this of nouns masculine in indeed and accusative and nominative between distinction for example, Lat. nom. nom. Lat. example, stem for the between suppletion have to as far as go typically person first the in a show never fact in nouns neuter that fact the of sight loses this although the question arises whether they formed part of an ergative-absolutive or of of or ergative-absolutive an of part formed they whether arises question the in is singular nominative so-called the where paradigms those If the problem (Silverstein 1976). Crucial to this area of study is the so-called so-called the is study of area this to Crucial 1976). or two (Silverstein combine problem which the is, that systems, case-marking split with languages analysed, at least for early Proto-Indo-European, as nominative-accusative, nominative-accusative, as Proto-Indo-European, early for least at analysed, more of the three case-marking systems in various ways, can throw light on light throw can ways, various of in systems studies case-marking three cross-linguistic the of more Here, system. case-marking active-inactive an distinctions): first/second-person pronouns > human noun phrases > other other > phrases noun human > pronouns first/second-person distinctions): which combine nominative-accusative case marking with one or more other other more or one with marking case nominative-accusative combine which animacy, as follows (though individual languages may make more or fewer fewer or more make may languages individual (though follows as animacy, case-marking systems, it is always the case that the nominative-accusative nominative-accusative the that case the always is it systems, case-marking esn, hw h ms cerct oiaieacstv cs-akn sys­ case-marking nominative-accusative clear-cut most the show persons, a have which languages In phrases. noun inanimate > phrases noun animate tem. In languages where the ergative-absolutive system is combined with with combined is system ergative-absolutive the second where and languages first In to tem. restricted pronouns, personal PIE that observation our and Hierarchy Animacy the by conditioned system case-marking their in split system is used for noun phrases highest in animacy. This fits in perfectly with with perfectly in fits This animacy. in highest phrases noun for used is system other case-marking systems, it is always the case that the ergative-absolutive ergative-absolutive the that case the always is it systems, case-marking other ‘Animacy Hierarchy’, which arranges noun phrases in terms of their inherent inherent their of terms in phrases noun arranges which Hierarchy’, ‘Animacy system is found with noun phrases lowest in animacy. This is not consistent not is This animacy. in lowest phrases noun with found is system For instance, the distribution of the PIE nominative singular suffix suffix singular nominative PIE the of distribution the instance, For ego T , acc. acc. , T H NOERPA IGITCFML 83 FAMILY LINGUISTIC INDO-EUROPEAN THE me, Skt nom. nom. Skt vaydm w’ acc. ‘we’, o -stems have a have -stems *-s are not not are asman. *-s is

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 18:26 27 Sep 2021; For: 9780203880647, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203880647.ch3 be reconciled with the cross-linguistic distribution of ergative-absolutive case case ergative-absolutive of distribution cross-linguistic the with reconciled be that neuter nouns rarely or never appeared as agents of transitive verbs, and and verbs, transitive of agents as appeared never or rarely nouns neuter that that claim to be would marking PIE that observation the with beoming a gender-restricted nominative. If, however, we assume that the the that assume we however, If, nominative. gender-restricted a beoming and least characteristic of neuter nouns, the latter being typically lowest in lowest typically being latter the nouns, neuter of characteristic least and that neuter nouns thus rarely or never showed up in the form in in form the in up showed never or rarely thus nouns neuter that can evidence IE the which in way only The Proto-Indo-European. in animacy 8 4 THE INDO-EUROPEAN LINGUISTIC FAMILY LINGUISTIC INDO-EUROPEAN THE 4 8 the inherent animacy of the subject noun phrase. In sum, while the PIE case case PIE the while sum, In phrase. noun subject the only of role, no animacy plays verb the inherent system the case-marking PIE the of analysis inactive intransitive or transitive of subjects whether ‘active’, more are that phrases Subsequently, the use of of use the Subsequently, the effect of assigning greater semantic content to this suffix. The problem of of problem The suffix. this to content semantic greater assigning of effect the of kind this adopt to need the then case, active the of marker a originally was determining the case of the intransitive subject, whereas on the active- active- in the on factor whereas crucial the subject, usually intransitive is the stative) of or case the (dynamic verb determining the of nature the assumption of an ergative-absolutive or active-inactive case-marking case-marking active-inactive or ergative-absolutive an of assumption the of function original the has this nouns; neuter to preference in nouns masculine including thus verbs, noun those mark to used simply was inflection the evaporates: argumentation others (see further Comrie 1994). Comrie further (see others polypersonal agreement found in Kartvelian languages (subject, direct object, object, direct (subject, languages Kartvelian in found agreement polypersonal reconstruction of the PIE tense-aspect system comprises the following following the comprises system tense-aspect PIE the of reconstruction straightforwardly the not or quite whether of inflections irrespective subject, the the of person-number person-number The person-number the of nouns. encode with exception is the it with though finiteness, and voice system has anomalies in terms of the nominative-accusative case marking, marking, case nominative-accusative the of terms in anomalies has system the instance, for marking, case active-inactive with languages in solved: indirect object) and especially in North-west Caucasian languages (where (where languages Caucasian the and North-west in languages especially Uralic and some object) and indirect the Semitic to in contrast in found argument, other any agreement for verb object the on inflection no is there system serves only to eliminate these anomalies at the expense of introducing introducing of expense the at anomalies these eliminate to only serves system verbs may in addition agree with adpositional objects). adpositional with agree addition in may verbs than verbs with elusive more even is categories of characterization semantic oppositions: that between non-past and past tense, seen clearly in the the in clearly the on seen imperfect and present between tense, opposition the in seen three past aspect, on perfective and rests non-past system This between perfect. that aorist, oppositions: imperfect, present, categories: subject is agentive, that is, following a strict nominative-accusative system; system; nominative-accusative strict a following is, that agentive, is subject opposition between present and imperfect; that between imperfective and and imperfective between that imperfect; and present between opposition em, e Cmi 17) O hs, h ipret s lal a oe recent more a clearly is imperfect the these (for these, rest Of the 1976). and perfect Comrie the see between terms, non-perfect, and distinction perfect the to between that and corresponding other, the on aorist and hand, one The major verbal categories are person-number, tense-aspect, mood, mood, tense-aspect, person-number, are categories verbal major The On the basis primarily of Ancient Greek and Indo-Aryan, the conventional conventional the Indo-Aryan, and Greek Ancient of primarily basis the On *-s *-s still cannot, however, be regarded as definitively definitively as regarded be however, cannot, still spread from transitive to intransitive verbs, thus thus verbs, intransitive to transitive from spread *-s *-s is most characteristic of masculine nouns nouns masculine of characteristic most is was originally an ergative case marker, marker, case ergative an originally was *-s. *-s

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 18:26 27 Sep 2021; For: 9780203880647, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203880647.ch3 branches of Indo-European have simpler systems, though often with traces of of traces with Many often though crucial. systems, become simpler has have opposition, Indo-European of branches languages past-non-past IE the early the of particular time in the by tense, although tense, than important more is perfect formations lie behind the Latin preterite preterite Latin the behind lie formations perfect synchronically no have instance, for Germanic, and Latin richness. earlier the more a so stem, present the on based tense past a essentially development, in having not even traces of the earlier richness, since its verbal system system verbal its since richness, earlier the of traces even not having in present etymologically the although perfect, PIE the of reflex a as tense-aspect distinct aspect reconstruction, this in that noteworthy is It perfect. (perfective), aorist this in Since, perfect. aorist, present, following: the be might picture accurate whether this represents innovatory loss or the retention of an archaic system system unclear. archaic remains an of languages IE the retention of that the or predating loss innovatory aspect; of represents this distinctions no with whether opposition a past-non-past of terms in operates imperfective, as reformulated be can it tense, of opposition no is there system, and present present and non-past opposition in the system. One is the opposition between primary and and primary between opposition the is One system. the in opposition non-past putting, used to put’, with with put’, to used putting, original, the primary inflections being formed from them with a final final a with them final from the of formed function being inflections primary the original, inflections gives a form with clearly present tense, in principle sufficient to sufficient principle in tense, present clearly with form a gives inflections Greek present present Greek Armenian and Phrygian, and may have been a local innovation. Thus, at least least at Thus, innovation. local a been have may and Phrygian, and Armenian aorist the in and cited just form imperfect Greek Ancient the in as reference, of development the is augment, second the The references. time other from this distinguish secondary inflections. Despite the terminology, the secondary inflections are are inflections secondary the terminology, the Despite inflections. secondary had the augment, then they are characterized throughout by a distinct present present distinct a by with throughout tense distinct a characterized are is they then there augment, the had augment, the with with tense Indo-European present of branches those for elyse thus leaving them in principle free to express either past or future time time future or past either be can situation express this of Traces to reference. time free of absence indeed principle or reference, in reference, time present them with is leaving inflections thus secondary the for incompatibility reference, for example, time example, future has for often which reference, past, augmentless an morphologically injunctive, . 1) Sbeunl, oee, h scnay nlcin cm t b more be to came inflections secondary the however, Subsequently, 116). p. states of affairs can be seen as standing outside real time) and in the Vedic the in and time) real outside standing wished-for as (since seen optative be the can with affairs of inflections states secondary of use the in seen will now proclaim the heroic deeds of Indra’, Indra’, of deeds heroic the proclaim now will {RigVeda Two developments in Proto-Indo-European served to develop the past- past- the develop to served Proto-Indo-European in developments Two In this general schema of tense in late Proto-Indo-European, the only only the Proto-Indo-European, late in tense of schema general this In ‘he loosed’. The augment is attested only in Indo-Iranian, Greek, Greek, Indo-Iranian, in only attested is augment The loosed’. ‘he .41 ‘h wl gv u bc t get dt? (e Catr 4, Chapter (see Aditi?’ great to back us give will ‘who 1.24.1) -i. növT wait e tithemi -, perhaps originally a temporal adverb, to indicate past time time past indicate to adverb, temporal a originally perhaps -, ‘I know’, behind the Gothic preterite preterite Gothic the behind know’, ‘I ‘I know’. Hittite is unusual, for so ancient an IE language, language, IE an ancient so for unusual, is Hittite know’. ‘I -i -i and a distinct past tense with with tense past distinct a and ‘I put (pres.)’ in contrast to the imperfect imperfect the to contrast in (pres.)’ ‘Iput was to indicate present time reference, as in the Ancient the Ancient in as reference, time present indicate to was day n vraipa vocam pra viryani nü mdrasya -n from *-m. The development of the primary primary the of development The *-m. from H NOERPA IGITCFML 85 8 FAMILY LINGUISTIC INDO-EUROPEAN THE ko no mahyä dditaye pünar dät pünar dditaye mahyä no ko peperci e-.\f gaigrot some branches never never branches some ‘I have spared’ and and spared’ have ‘I

(RigVeda ‘I have wept’ wept’ have ‘I etithen .21 ‘I 1.32.1) ‘I was -i. The The

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 18:26 27 Sep 2021; For: 9780203880647, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203880647.ch3 present on the one hand and imperfect and aorist on the other, and the the and other, the on aorist and imperfect and hand aspectual one the on imperfective-perfective present the retain that languages IE early most European. All of the forms that can be referred to as future tenses in IE IE in tenses future as to referred be can that forms the of All and European. present between 1990). that (Comrie in other the on aorist and hand reflected one the on imperfect opposition between that in reflected imperfective-perfective opposition past-non-past the find we opposition pcfcly id o at ie eeec, t es i te niaie s ta in that so indicative, the in least at reference, time past to tied specifically FAMILY LINGUISTIC INDO-EUROPEAN THE 6 8 languages are later formations, paralleling ways of forming future tenses that that tenses future forming of ways paralleling formations, later are languages formations (e.g. Lat. Lat. (e.g. formations are found in many languages of the world (Ultan 1976), for instance modal modal instance for 1976), (Ultan world the of languages many in found are present has basically future time reference, e.g. Russ, Russ, e.g. reference, time future basically has present form present-tense a of use the Georgian), Hungarian, Finnish, (e.g. tense originally meaning ‘must’), inchoative formations (e.g. Ger. Ger. (e.g. formations inchoative ‘must’), meaning originally clearly in the West and East Slavic languages, where the perfective of the the of perfective cf. most the throw’, where reference, languages, future-tense Slavic gives East and often West the meaning in clearly perfective or telic with nacingtü and ‘want’ meaning originally auxiliary an h dvlpet fte I peet es, ih t piay nig, no a into endings, primary its with tense. tense, non-past present general more PIE the of development the simply the present tense with future time reference (e.g. Ger. Ger. (e.g. reference time future with tense present the simply the perfect being in origin a stative derivative of the verb stem, as seen for for seen as stem, verb the of clear are derivative stative there a origin Greek, in Attic being perfect classical the in extent large a to and Sanskrit in to the rest of the paradigm, for example, in Ancient Greek Greek Ancient in relation in example, for perfects many paradigm, the of characterize rest that the to changes diathesis the in instance signs that its relation to the rest of the paradigm was once much looser, looser, much once was paradigm the of rest the to instance relation for its that paradigm, verbal signs the into integrated well been have to seems find such diathesis changes, the phenomenon always involves expression of of expression we involves Where always persuaded. phenomenon been the having changes, of result diathesis a such as find is, that trust’, ‘I rather but perfects its of one as has below). From this one can conclude that the IE perfect was originally a voice- a voice- originally was perfect IE the that conclude can one this From below). neutral derived form and that its original value was to express a state, this this state, a express to was value original its that and form derived neutral ‘I will go’ with an auxiliary originally meaning ‘become’, OCS OCS ‘become’, meaning originally auxiliary an with go’ will ‘I in Proto-Indo-European are also close to those of the middle voice (see (see voice middle the of those to close also perfect the are of inflections The affected. Proto-Indo-European is in subject the where affairs of state a was derived typically from dynamic verbs, its value was more specifically specifically more was value its verbs, dynamic from typically derived was ‘I (will) go tomorrow’). As in some other languages that lack a distinct future future distinct a lack that languages other some in As tomorrow’). go ‘I(will) expression of a state resulting from a previous action, as ‘to trust’ is the the is trust’ ‘to as action, previous a from resulting state a of expression IE languages, find a natural explanation on the basis of this assumption about assumption this of basis early the on of explanation description natural a synchronic find the languages, in IE idiosyncratic appearing perhaps while perfect the Since affected. most entity that to naturally attributed being state state resulting from a previous action of persuasion. The changes in diathesis, diathesis, in changes The persuasion. of action previous a from resulting state It will be noted that there is no future tense reconstructible for Proto-Indo- Proto-Indo- for reconstructible tense future no is there that noted be will It This leaves the perfect. Although in some early IE languages the perfect perfect the languages IE early some in Although perfect. the leaves This ‘they will think’ with an auxiliary originally meaning ‘begin’), or or ‘begin’), meaning originally auxiliary an with think’ will ‘they ja brosaju ja erö (ipfv.) ‘I throw’. It will be noted that this presupposes presupposes this that noted be will It throw’. ‘I (ipfv.) ‘I shall be’ from the subjunctive, Eng. Eng. subjunctive, the from be’ shall ‘I pepoitha, with the meaning not ‘I have persuaded’ persuaded’ ‘Ihave not meaning the with sal go shall I ja brosu ja with an auxiliary auxiliary an with peithö ich gehe morgen ich gehe ich werde gehen werde ich I will go will I (pfv.) ‘I will will ‘I (pfv.) ‘persuade’ ‘persuade’ mineti with with

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 18:26 27 Sep 2021; For: 9780203880647, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203880647.ch3 periphrastic formation with resultative meaning, for example, example, for meaning, resultative with formation past general periphrastic even or Latin, and de­ Sanskrit in as semantically, aorist, the supplanting value pasts, with perfective merging general shifted or became often with forms action, such earlier that the subsequently more result the emphasizing and state perfect resultant the many emphasizing In 1988). the Nedjalkov see the which on (for languages, observations constructions typological resultative general of and nature perfect the of value original the ho scritto ho past ucie ottv ad meaie pras lo nucie atog a a as although injunctive, also perhaps imperative, and optative junctive, tenses, as in Germanic. This is a diachronic shift that has taken place place taken has that new a shift scnptäs developed Latin diachronic instance, for a languages: is IE of This number a in Germanic. cyclically in as tenses, Indo-European. The closest parallel to the core present-imperfect-aorist present-imperfect-aorist core the to parallel closest The Indo-European. agae, ih t cr rsn-mefc-oit ytm Tebsc distinc­ basic The system. present-imperfect-aorist core its with languages, to related genetically possibly or contact areal in plausibly languages other of recalled that even within Indo-European we can plausibly reconstruct back back reconstruct be plausibly should can it we However, Indo-European languages. radically within is Semitic even that the system in The recalled found languages. that Europe, of from Finno-Ugric languages different the all and nearly in Basque found is including non-past and past between tion from the system of such early IE languages as Ancient Greek to a rather rather a to Greek Ancient as languages IE early such of system the from systems of many early IE languages is perhaps found in the Kartvelian Kartvelian the in found perhaps is languages IE early many of systems respect to moods. The role of the subjunctive in the development of future future of development the in subjunctive the of role The moods. to respect tense- of genetic typology deeper the of any of discussion than further (For contact exist. areal may of that relations representative more be well tense, on than aspect on emphasis heavier much with system earlier different respect to the imperative is that both Sanskrit and Latin, and therefore therefore and Skt Latin, (e.g. and reference more Sanskrit with time imperative an both between proximate that distinguish is Proto-Indo-European, imperative probably the to respect morphologically clearly distinct form the injunctive is limited to Sanskrit. Sanskrit. to limited is injunctive the form distinct clearly morphologically tense forms has already been alluded to. One interesting observation with with observation interesting One to. alluded been with already relevance has typological forms of tense much say to difficult is it systems, mood of 1990.) Comrie see Europe, of languages in systems aspect may neighbours its of many and Indo-European between similarities the so relation as illustrated in English English in illustrated the as is, that passive, relation and active between opposition the be to taken been usually (Skt reference time distant more Given the rather undeveloped state of cross-linguistic studies on the typology typology the on studies cross-linguistic of state undeveloped rather the Given uoen hwvr tee s o vdne o a active-passive an for evidence no is there however, the from European, derived as viewed be can passive the since voice’, ‘derived as this dog. the by active (with preservation of at least the basic meaning). In Proto-Indo- Proto-Indo- In meaning). basic the least at of preservation (with active We may now compare the reconstructed PIE tense-aspect system with that that with system tense-aspect PIE reconstructed the compare now may We h dsic mos n rt-noErpa wr te niaie sub­ indicative, the were Proto-Indo-European in moods distinct The In most general linguistic studies of voice, the paradigm case of voice has has voice of case paradigm the voice, of studies linguistic general most In ‘I have the letters written’, which has eventually given the perfective perfective the given eventually has which written’, letters the ‘Ihave Following the terminology of Klaiman (1991), we may refer to refer may we (1991), Klaiman of terminology the Following ‘I wrote’ of spoken Italian. spoken of ‘Iwrote’ The dog bit the cat the bit dog The it at, H NOERPA IGITCFML 87 8 FAMILY LINGUISTIC INDO-EUROPEAN THE Latin Latin ihi, Lat. Lat. itö). T ‘go’) and an imperative with with imperative an and ‘go’) versus versus The cat was bitten was cat The habeö litteräs habeö

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 18:26 27 Sep 2021; For: 9780203880647, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203880647.ch3 rather that between active and middle, a voice distinction of a type that that type a of distinction voice a middle, and active between that rather itnto, n te om (ytei o, oe sal, nltc ta are that analytic) usually, more or, (synthetic forms the and distinction, prisoners’, where in the second example the subject gains benefit from the the from benefit gains subject the example second the in where prisoners’, is affected by the action of the verb, a distinction well illustrated by the the by illustrated well Gk distinction Ancient a between verb, opposition the cited of subject action the traditionally that the is voice by middle the affected of is characteristic The meaning. same share not do the middle the and active the since is voice’, ‘basic as to refers Proto-Indo-European Klaiman of characteristic distinction voice only The ments. FAMILY LINGUISTIC INDO-EUROPEAN THE 8 8 reconstructed with minimal difficulty. As will be seen in in seen be will As difficulty. minimal with reconstructed Proto-Indo-European. Verbal adjectives (participles) include the present present the include Skt (participles) (e.g. active adjectives participle Verbal in combining clause in role crucial a Proto-Indo-European. played forms verbal non-finite 94-5, pp. be can forms PIE that clear so are formation in parallels the instances most in Proto-Indo-European. of that binyanim) not am I However, world. the of by languages are the systems across voice basic infrequent such 2) means ch. no (1991: Klaiman by shown As action. participle active (e.g. Ancient Gk Gk Ancient (e.g. active participle develop­ later clearly all are languages IE individual in passive specifically tous aware of basic voice systems in the languages likely to have been in direct direct in been have to likely languages the in systems voice basic of aware the the addition, the Dravidian languages have a basic voice system very similar to similar very system voice basic a (Hebrew have languages derivatives Dravidian verbal the of addition, systems the be perhaps Proto-Indo-European. with would relation closest genetic The distant possible or contact areal carried’), the middle participle (e.g. Ancient Gk Gk Ancient (e.g. participle middle the carried’), nouns were of various morphological formations, originally part of the the of part originally formations, morphological various of were nouns derivational rather than the inflectional morphology, though various case case various though morphology, inflectional the than rather derivational forms of such verbal nouns became generalized lexically and specialized specialized and lexically generalized became nouns verbal such of forms particular have verbal adverbs (usually called gerunds or converbs). or gerunds called (usually adverbs verbal have particular the of Most formations. language-specific later being participle, a of form verbal with specifically terminology, are Turkologist and for that Slavicist in evidence converbs, clear or less Proto-Indo-European (gerunds is adverbs to There form. ancestor reconstructible PIE forms single a to back going adverb) adverb) richness in the Uralic and especially the Altaic languages, which latter in in latter which particular languages, reaching Altaic the forms, especially and non-finite of Uralic the systems in richness have affiliation or contact areal in been genetic have may Proto-Indo-European which with languages not but languages IE most in found a category infinitives, give to syntactically such meanings as ‘while doing. . . ’), such forms as the Russian gerund (verbal (verbal gerund Russian the as forms such ’), . . doing. ‘while as meanings such Non-finite verbal forms are characteristic of all the early IE languages and and languages IE early the all of characteristic are forms verbal Non-finite ‘I free the prisoners’ and and prisoners’ the ‘Ifree *-to-l*-no- citaja in the Semitic, and more generally Afroasiatic, languages. In In languages. Afroasiatic, generally more and Semitic, the in ‘(while) reading’, etymologically a frozen nominative case case nominative frozen a etymologically reading’, ‘(while) verbal adjective (e.g. Skt Skt (e.g. adjective verbal bhdrant lyomai -, Goth, Goth, -, (mid.) (mid.) eidos syütä ‘knowing’, OCS OCS ‘knowing’, bairands tous aikhmalotous tous , Lith. Lith. , hepömenos lyö ‘carrying’), the perfect perfect the ‘carrying’), (act.) (act.) siütas Clause Combining, Clause ‘following’), and and ‘following’), ‘sewn’). Verbal Verbal ‘sewn’). toils aikhmalo- toils ‘I ransom the the ‘Iransom nesü ‘having ‘having

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 18:26 27 Sep 2021; For: 9780203880647, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203880647.ch3 Much of the discussion of the syntactic typology of Indo-European in recent recent in Indo-European of typology syntactic the of discussion the of Much years has centered on the question of word-order typology, with quite quite with typology, word-order of question the on centered has years most frequently with this word order, such as the adjective (A) and genitive genitive and (A) adjective the as such order, word this with frequently most subject of order the as questions such on given being assessments different Syntactic Typology Syntactic Constituent Order Constituent more dependents (arguments), Proto-Indo-European would thus be a head- head- a be thus would dependency Proto-Indo-European the of (arguments), terms dependents In more NPAd. is, that (NP), phrase noun dependent co-occur to cross-linguistically, expect, would one other that with orders language, SOV an constituent basically was Proto-Indo-European that argues final language, with the head (verb of a verb phrase, noun of a noun phrase, phrase, noun a of noun phrase, verb a of (verb head the with language, final (1974) Lehmann Thus, Proto-Indo-European. in (O) object and (V) verb (S), approach to syntax, in which each constituent typically has a head and one or or one and head a has typically constituent each which in syntax, to approach the following (Ad) adpositions and GN, AN, is, that (N), noun the before (G) European, or as marked constituent orders allowed in Proto-Indo-European. Proto-Indo-European. in allowed orders constituent marked as or European, languages, that for several of the constituent-order parameters there is at least least at IE is there early the parameters of analysis constituent-order the of statistical several a for Proto-Indo- that of of basis languages, the order on argues, word (1975) the Friedrich from languages IE early the in departures of individual frequent terms in are the treated be to orders in were constituent deviations that these aware these languages: of course, IE all of early or was, he some these although from with languages, deviations consistent IE examples early Lehmann’s of the from phrase. citations that orders of of end primarily the at consisted phrase) database adpositional an of adposition early IE languages (perhaps especially given that some of the earliest earliest the of some that given especially (perhaps languages IE (1976) Watkins early assessment). Friedrich’s on Proto-Slavic also even (Celtic, and VSO assessment), Friedrich’s on Greek, (e.g. SVO Tocharian), Anatolian, aial a SVlnug, n ohti cnlso adWtis method­ Watkins’ and conclusion this both and language, SOV an basically mhss hud e lcd n xrsin ta cn tews b ugd as judged be otherwise can that rather, expressions on Proto-Indo-European); placed late be of should break-up emphasis the from years of thousands trichotomization of the early IE languages into SOV (e.g. Indo-Aryan, Indo-Aryan, a (e.g. with SOV order, into constituent languages other IE some early the assuming of for trichotomization evidence much as rt-noErpa ws N r A n wehr t a G o N is NG or GN was it whether and NA or AN was Proto-Indo-European lal ietfe, hy on rte cery o rt-noErpa as Proto-Indo-European to clearly rather point they identified, clearly attestations of individual branches of Indo-European are separated by by separated are Indo-European of branches individual of attestations history of the individual branches. individual the of history adpositions, lacked probably proto-language the above, whether for noted As evidence indecisive. The field. the in accepted generally been have ology archaic in the attested texts. In cases where such archaic formulations can be be can formulations archaic such where cases In texts. attested the in archaic suggests that it is methodologically unsound to rely on statistical analyses of of analyses statistical on rely to unsound methodologically is it that suggests constituent order over their recorded histories. While in some cases this this cases some in While and Romance the with histories. as SVO, more to SOV more recorded from a movement their involves over order constituent so the question of postpositional versus prepositional belongs properly to the the to properly belongs prepositional versus postpositional of question the so It should be noted that many individual branches show changes in basic basic in changes show branches individual many that noted be should It

H NOERPA IGITCFML 89 8 FAMILY LINGUISTIC INDO-EUROPEAN THE Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 18:26 27 Sep 2021; For: 9780203880647, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203880647.ch3 historically attested languages and project these same directions back back directions same these project and languages attested historically basis of the attested early IE languages, allowed considerable freedom of of freedom considerable allowed languages, IE early attested the of basis past. the into indefinitely consistent to closer much are languages Indo-Aryan as modem movement, opposite Indo-Aryan: the in involve to likely equally is it languages, Germanic FAMILY LINGUISTIC INDO-EUROPEAN THE 0 9 phrase, for instance, meant that it was even possible to move words out of of out words move to possible even was it that meant instance, for phrase, was noun on order case of marking constituent the of particular in freedom morphology, rich the relative by This facilitated purposes for highlighting. proposed being pragmatic of constituents with instance for order, constituent Agreement, Agreement, con­ of irrespective relations grammatical of recovery permitting phrases, is than verb-finality, of the in found requirement development of the directions take to to possible not thus is It particular Sanskrit. in and order, SOV this sense, Proto-Indo-European can be characterized as having freedom of of 14,449). freedom p. (Chapter having order as constituent in of characterized not just noun; and be head order, can word its from separated Proto-Indo-European be sense, might this adjective an that so constituents, outlined above is provided by enclitics, that is unstressed items that are are that items unstressed is that enclitics, by provided is above outlined in many early IE languages such enclitics appear as the second word in the the in as such Gk word Ancient pronouns, second the as appear enclitics such languages IE early many in since as a whole, sentence to the relative is determined position whose enclitics, word stressed preceding the with unit stress a single as pronounced necessarily in indicated As subject. the identifying of means additional an this since as subject, the with serves agreement verb by extent lesser a to order, stituent enclitics in isolation, it is usual to mark them as if accented. Despite it the use is of to Despite as in them usual mark isolation, if the accented. enclitics sentence are interest Of particular 187f.). 7, pp. Chapter Hittite, especially (see Wackemagel (cf. Chapter 2, p. 70). In many instances the notion of sentence- sentence- of notion the instances many In 70). p. 2, Chapter (cf. Wackemagel accent in all environments, such Ancient Greek particles as particles Greek Ancient such environments, all in accent object of forms unstressed particular in includes enclitics of set This sentence. and connective and connective sentence particles, such as Ancient Gk Gk Ancient as such particles, sentence appropriate, separate the constituents of a single phrase, as in Ancient as Gk in phrase, Ancient of a single constituents the separate appropriate, IE in least at called, be to come has enclitics for position sentence-second ityä o mantike moi eiöthyiä the sentence, is widespread across the languages of the world (see, for instance, instance, for (see, world the of of languages the word across stressed first widespread is the after sentence, the positioning as literally interpreted is this where instances including enclitics, second-position that established has linguistically me to customary primarily on the order of constituents, it is also worth commenting briefly on briefly commenting worth also is it constituents, of order the on primarily if will, enclitic an that so literally, absolutely interpreted is position second studies, Klavans 1982). Klavans While Proto-Indo-European was probably basically SOV, it also, on the the on also, it SOV, basically probably was Proto-Indo-European While One systematic set of exceptions to the general constituent-order principles principles constituent-order general the to exceptions of set systematic One Although recent discussions of PIE constituent order have concentrated concentrated have order constituent PIE of discussions recent Although Wackernagel Wackernagel ’s Law pp. 9If., agreement among the individual words of a noun noun a of words individual the among agreement 9If., pp. de have all the word-order properties expected of enclitics.) This of enclitics.) expected properties all the have word-order ...’ ... (Plato, (Plato, ... Recent work on the behaviour of clitics cross- cross- clitics of behaviour the on work Recent after an early formulation of the regularity by of Jacob the regularity an formulation after early me ‘me (acc.)’, ‘me (acc.)’, Apologia te ‘and’. (In citing Ancient Greek Greek Ancient citing (In ‘and’. 0) fr h dvnto ta is that divination the ‘for 40A) moi ‘to and a of me (dat.)’, number gar ‘for, because’ because’ ‘for, he he gär

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 18:26 27 Sep 2021; For: 9780203880647, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203880647.ch3 Proto-Indo-European, and still of most modem IE languages, is almost almost is languages, IE modem most of still and Proto-Indo-European, restriction of inflections to suffixes is also found in the Uralic (and Altaic) Altaic) (and Uralic the in found also is suffixes to inflections of restriction Proto- in infix only the infix stem present reduplication; the is and Indo-European augment inflectional only the The are so. prefixes exclusively verbal nominals of of that morphology suffixing, inflectional exclusively The word. the within morphemes of order the agae, n i i srkn cnrs t te rqet s o peie in prefixes of use and frequent languages the Semitic and to Kartvelian in verb contrast the of striking morphology in reflectional is and languages, perfect compare conquer’, to an even greater extent in the inflectional morphology of the North North the of morphology inflectional the in extent greater even an to Uralic languages. Prefixing in the early attested IE languages consists consists languages IE attested early asprefixes, verb the to the fused been have that in adverbs (i.e. preverbs of Prefixing primarily in part most the for languages. found also and is Uralic languages morphology Turkic in derivational exception without suffixing virtually suffixing; Proto-Indo-European primarily of likewise morphology is derivational The languages. Caucasian Uralic languages that have widespread prefixing, such as Hungarian, the the Hungarian, as example, such for kind, this of prefixing, primarily widespread likewise is have prefixing that those in languages that significant is it Uralic and prefixing, with than compounding with more Agreement where ihn nu prs, detvs icuig trbtv poon, uh as such pronouns, attributive agree. must (including phrase adjectives multi-word a phrase, of noun a constituents the Within which languages IE to early the extent of structure the is syntactic the of characteristics the of One see demonstratives used attributively) must agree in gender, number and case case and noun, head its number with genitive a gender, of agreement in no is (There agree noun. must head their with attributively) used demonstratives indeed the Balto-Finnic branch of Uralic, which does have adjective adjective have does which Uralic, of influence. Semitic branch and and Balto-Finnic languages, Kartvelian Uralic the part, the most in the for indeed found or, Turkic is in not nouns though of head languages, Agreement their languages.) with Kartvelian in way adjectives limited a in found possibility a with their subject. The major exception to this generalization is that finite finite that is generalization this to exception major The subject. their with agreement in noun phrases, is the branch of Uralic most subject to IE IE to subject most Uralic of branch the is phrases, noun in agreement hs a sml rfet h fc ta te etr lrl a oiial a originally was plural neuter the that fact the reflect simply however, may languages; IE early this of number a form) in default plural the neuter is (arguably subject the singular when third-person the in stand normally verbs ahr hn tu pua. Areet f rdctv ajcie i cs is case in adjectives predicative of (Agreement *A i.e. plural. true ä-stems, of a singular than the to rather (analogous formation collective subject, while predicative adjectives must agree in gender, number and case case and number gender, in agree must adjectives predicative while subject, nominative, for example, with the accusative subject of an infinitive in Latin, Latin, in infinitive an of subject accusative the with example, for nominative, most clearly visible when the subject is in some case other than the the than other case some in is subject the when visible clearly most as in in as ihn h cas, h fnt vr ms are n esnnme wt its with person-number in agree must verb finite the clause, the Within Word Classes, Classes, Word ee rvm se oportet esse brevem legem el- is in origin an adverb meaning ‘away’. meaning adverb an origin in is pp. 79f.), in which case one is dealing etymologically etymologically dealing is one case which in 79f.), pp. vTcT i s itn fralw ob re’ (Seneca, brief’ be to law a for fitting is ‘it H NOERPA IGITCFML 91 FAMILY LINGUISTIC INDO-EUROPEAN THE and past participle passive passive participle past and -n- of the verb, for example, example, for verb, the of el-megy victus. ‘go away’, away’, ‘go 2 vincö -stems), -stems), This This ‘I Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 18:26 27 Sep 2021; For: 9780203880647, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203880647.ch3 Epistulae morales Epistulae pp. 81f., agreement of the predicate with the subject is found in most other other most in found is subject the with predicate the of agreement 81f., pp. languages of the area, including Uralic, Turkic, Kartvelian, North Caucasian Caucasian North Kartvelian, Turkic, Uralic, including area, the of languages 9 2 THE INDO-EUROPEAN LINGUISTIC FAMILY LINGUISTIC INDO-EUROPEAN THE 2 9 than the subject, a possibility not found in the early IE languages and not not and languages IE early the in Proto-Indo-European. for other found not arguments of reconstructive possibility verb a the in subject, indexing the allow than also Semitic, and Caucasian predicate (head) and arguments (dependents) is shown primarily by case case by primarily shown is (dependents) arguments and (head) predicate and Semitic, although some of these, in particular Kartvelian, North North Kartvelian, particular in these, of some although Semitic, and eedn mrig nrdcd y ihl (96, rt-noErpa is Proto-Indo-European (1986), Nichols by introduced marking dependent overwhelmingly dependent marking: within the clause, the relation between between relation the clause, the within marking: dependent overwhelmingly typically possible to omit the subject whose person-number is indexed in the the in indexed is person-number whose subject the omit to possible typically basically otherwise are that languages in unusual not is level clausal the having by primarily shown is Subject-predicate noun. head the with (dependents) agreement show to marked attributes dependents its head the and between relation the noun phrase noun the within arguments; the marking verb and the head noun whose gender, number and case are indexed in the the in indexed are case and number gender, whose noun head the and verb are also found in most Uralic, in Semitic and in Kartvelian languages. Kartvelian in and Semitic in Uralic, most in found also are Proto-Indo-European in found that to similar the patterns at and marking, marking dependent head cross-linguistically 75-6), (1986: Nichols by noted As Furthermore, it is possible for the constituents of a noun phrase to be be to phrase noun a of constituents the for possible is it Furthermore, trbt, fte mte ies r rcvrbe rm h bodr otx, as context, broader the amat singular from first-person recoverable are Latin is when items it omitted the since if attribute, languages, IE many and Proto-Indo-European in agreement predicate the here (dependents). since arguments its of one marking, with head agreement show of to marked is instance (head) only the is agreement uts icmuu Söcrm libns Stöicörum circumjusum multTs books of the Stoics’, where where Stoics’, the of books one might argue, following Hale’s (1982) characterization of non- non- of single a form is, that really apposition, in characterization not do constituents distinct agreement rather are but in (1982) items constituent, languages, Hale’s IE early some in following argue, might one orum is ‘he, the boy, loves’ rather than ‘the boy loves’, and and loves’, boy ‘the than rather loves’ boy, the ‘he, is have decreased sharply, and the configurationality of most attested IE IE attested most of configurationality the way and this in sharply, phrases up decreased breaking for IE have the possibilities of these history recorded however, the Over languages, boy’. good ‘the than rather boy’ the one, residually least at and Proto-Indo-European in that languages, configurational separated from one another, for instance for the attributive adjective to be be to adjective attributive the Lat. in for as noun, head its instance from for separated another, one from separated languages is hardly to be doubted. be to hardly is languages and another one from separated In terms of the typological distinction between head marking and and marking head between distinction typological the of terms In n sne i i pras ilaig o ee t ti peoeo as phenomenon this to refer to misleading perhaps is it sense, a In means ‘(s)he loves’, or masculine singular singular masculine or loves’, ‘(s)he means , ID.2, 7 (536)) ‘I saw Cato sitting in a library, surrounded by many many by surrounded library, a in sitting Cato saw ‘I (536)) 7 ID.2, , , 94.38)). As already noted in Morphological Categories, Categories, Morphological in noted already As 94.38)). , aöe, sedentem Catönem, multTs amö (Cicero, (Cicero, means T love’, third-person singular singular third-person love’, T means is separated from from separated is Catönem vidi in bibliothecä sedentem inbibliothecä vidi Catönem efnbs oou e mal- et bonorum finibus De bonus and and bonus bonus puer means ‘good man’. man’. ‘good means circumfusum libns. On this basis, basis, this On is ‘the good good ‘the is puer amat puer are all all are

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 18:26 27 Sep 2021; For: 9780203880647, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203880647.ch3 consistently nominative-accusative clause structure, with the same case case same the with structure, clause nominative-accusative rather show family IE the of consistently branches various the attestations, earliest their At resultative participle in in participle resultative consistently with the subject, whether transitive or intransitive. Attested Attested some First, intransitive. kinds. two or of are structure transitive whether is nominate-accusative agreement from subject, verb deviations the objects; direct with for used consistently being (accusative) case different languages, as in many other languages of the world, for example, the the example, for world, the of languages other many in as languages, nmntv) en ue fr oh nrniie n tastv sbet, n a and subjects, transitive and intransitive both for used being (nominative) Typology Clause-structure (originally) derivational forms have ergative-absolutive syntax in PIE PIE in syntax ergative-absolutive have forms derivational (originally) Proto-Indo-European at some stage had either ergative-absolutive or active- active- or ergative-absolutive either had stage some at Proto-Indo-European most striking piece of evidence is the existence of the nominative singular in singular nominative the of the existence the Perhaps is 5). ch. evidence 1984:of piece Ivanov striking and most (Gamkrelidze structure clause inactive ergative- have to likely quite Sanskrit. in are perfect periphrastic the as elements such such syntax, background). on absolutive typological the based for 1988 forms Second, Nedjalkov (see sewn’ been) (having been noted repeatedly in the cross-linguistic study of case-marking systems systems case-marking of study cross-linguistic the in repeatedly noted been (see nouns the active when they denote the active participant in an event (e.g. (e.g. event an in in participant appear active the nouns denote marking, they case when active active-inactive the with languages In European. nominative-accusative clause structure. With respect to ergative-absolutive ergative-absolutive to respect With structure. clause nominative-accusative that recently propose to investigators of nominative-accusative number a the led of have these and background system, the against anomalous somewhat misleading to regard such terms as nominative-accusative, ergative- ergative- nominative-accusative, as terms such thus is It regard 1976). Anderson to (e.g. type misleading clause-structure its mirror not does language a of necessarily system case-marking the structure: clause to relation in even in assuming an ergative-absolutive case-marking system for Proto-Indo- Proto-Indo- for system case-marking ergative-absolutive an assuming in even whole of a language’s structure. language’s a of whole absolutive or active-inactive, it is important to note one phenomenon that has has that phenomenon one note to important is it ergative- was active-inactive, or absolutive Proto-Indo-European of system case-marking the that accepted in in a died, (e.g. man event an in participant inactive the absolutive or active-inactive as providing uniform characterizations of the the of characterizations uniform providing as active-inactive or absolutive there are a few impersonal verbs that take a single non-nominative argument argument non-nominative single a though take that even verbs languages; IE impersonal few early a the are in there found however, not, is This inactive. *-s, argument of an intransitive predicate can appear in either the active or the the or active the either in appear can predicate intransitive an of argument in noted as structure, ny ht rt-noErpa hd n poiin ewe mr animate more between opposition an had shows evidence direct Proto-Indo-European The subjects. that nominative only take predicates, inactive of (e.g. Lat. Lat. (e.g. the man hit the dog hit man the There are, however, certain features of Proto-Indo-European that appear appear that Proto-Indo-European of features certain however, are, There n h ery E agae, hr i n drc eiec fr neie non­ inherited for evidence direct no is there languages, IE early the In occurring in many declensional classes but noticeably absent from neuter neuter from absent noticeably but classes declensional many in occurring me me pudet or or Morphological Categories, Categories, Morphological h mn s good). is man the ‘I am ashamed’), adjectives, which are the prime instances instances prime the are which adjectives, ashamed’), ‘Iam Morphological Categories, Categories, Morphological , or ,or *-to-/*-no-, the man ran away), the man H NOERPA IGITCFML 93 9 FAMILY LINGUISTIC INDO-EUROPEAN THE Crucially, a given noun phrase as single single as phrase noun given a Crucially, as in Skt Skt in as the man the p 3.. oee, vn f t is it if even However, 83f.). pp. in the inactive when they denote denote they when inactive the in gatd- in in pp. 83f. there are problems problems are there 83f. pp. hvn oe vs come’ ‘having h o i h a, the man, the bit dog the the man the syütd-

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 18:26 27 Sep 2021; For: 9780203880647, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203880647.ch3 nouns (with nominative singular in in singular nominative (with nouns high degree of speculation. In areal terms, nominative-accusative case case nominative-accusative terms, areal In speculation. of degree high clause nominative-accusative The to points structure. clause languages IE early active-inactive the with of evidence correlation necessary no having 9 4 THE INDO-EUROPEAN LINGUISTIC FAMILY LINGUISTIC INDO-EUROPEAN THE 4 9 lue tutr o ee cs mrig o PooId-uoen novs a involves Proto-Indo-European for marking case even or structure clause Dyirbal), language with Australian nominative- the languages (e.g. and with structure languages) languages clause Bantu in the (e.g. ergative-absolutive widespread structure are clause kind accusative this of distinctions in at least case marking or verb agreement. verb or marking case least at in languages, Semitic and Uralic the with shared is structure clause and marking back to Proto-Indo-European (cf. Word Classes, p. 81). One recent study study recent One 81). p. pronoun Classes, reconstructed Word be (cf. can conjunctions Proto-Indo-European these of to few back very languages, IE modem are conjunctions, subordinating by introduced clauses, subordinate Although languages structure Caucasian while active-inactive or languages, ergative-absolutive of Altaic degee a high the have typically with distantly more and ergative-absolutive or active-inactive of reconstruction the and structure, the prime means of combining clauses into longer sentences in most of the the of most in sentences longer into clauses combining of means prime the European made relatively little use of finite subordinate clauses, preferring preferring clauses, subordinate Proto-Indo- finite that of use plausible little highly thus relatively is made It European clauses). below see (but relative pronoun correlative relative the on for given is form reconstructed single no instead various non-finite constructions, which are richly reflected in the early early the in languages. reflected IE richly are which constructions, non-finite various instead (Beekes 1990: 266-7) lists only a handful of derivatives of the relative relative the of derivatives of handful a only lists 266-7) 1990: (Beekes Combining Clause that the dog bit’. The forms of the participles are clearly reconstructible back back reconstructible clearly are participles the of forms The bit’. man ‘thedog the for that dog’ the fed having man ‘the substituting instance for clauses, (apparently the locative of an anaphoric pronoun), and it should be noted that that noted be should it and pronoun), anaphoric an of locative the (apparently to the parent language (see Morphological Categories, p. 88). They can also also can They 88). p. Categories, Morphological (see man ‘the language for parent dog’ the to the by bitten been having man ‘the and dog’ the fed that fed the dog, he went home’; the appearance of special verbal adverb forms, forms, adverb verbal special of appearance the home’; example, went for he dog, clause, the main fed the of that as same the is constmction adverbial he (had) fed it’. Finally, the existence of so-called absolute constructions constructions absolute so-called of existence the Finally, it’. fed (had) he thus nominative, the than appropriate other case the a in in noun a to participle a assigned be However, also can case development. later a is languages, permits the expression of such adverbial notions even where there are no no are there where even notions adverbial such of expression the permits Slavic many in gerund the or Sanskrit in participle absolute the as such the of subject the where cases in obviously most function, adverbial in serve h dg o: h dg aig en e b te a) te a rn wy is away’ ran cat the man), the by fed been having fed having dog man ‘the the when (or: as clauses, dog two the the in phrases noun coreferential (had) man the ‘when for home’ went man the dog, the fed ‘having substituting substituting ‘the dog bit the having-fed-it man’ for ‘the dog bit the man when when man the bit dog ‘the for man’ having-fed-it the bit dog ‘the substituting Participial constmctions serve readily as substitutes for many relative relative many for substitutes as readily serve constmctions Participial (*70 or or *kwo- according to dialect) plus the conditional conditional the plus dialect) to according *-s) and less animate nouns, but but nouns, animate less and *hxei ‘if’ Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 18:26 27 Sep 2021; For: 9780203880647, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203880647.ch3 delati p. Categories, of Morphological forms case of specializations represent languages individual of infinitives languages these all by shared is pattern syntactic basic the Slavic), and Baltic construction absolute the in used case the in differ languages IE early different borrowed from Persian in Turkish and, especially, Azerbaijani). In Uralic, Uralic, In Azerbaijani). especially, and, Turkish in Persian from borrowed dialect- representing branches individual the of infinitives the infinitive, (see proto-language the to back reconstructible are that nominals action language. parent the to back reconstructible therefore seems and uoen atclry lsl tplgcly o h Uai ad lac lan­ Altaic and Uralic the to typologically closely particularly European hand and Uralic and Altaic on the other. In comparison with the rich syntactic syntactic rich the with comparison In other. the on Altaic and Uralic and hand Balto-Finnic instance for Indo-European, from influence longest the under IE influence, for example, the use of the finite subordinating conjunction conjunction subordinating finite the of use the example, for influence, IE (e.g. infinitive the between Slavic Church Old in contrast the in as survives, Gothic, in dative Latin, in ablative Greek, in genitive Sanskrit, in (locative Although away’. ran cat the dog, the fed (had) man the ‘when for substituted non-finite constructions that are used especially in more literary and archaic archaic and literary more in especially used are that constructions non-finite been have that languages those in primarily occur clauses subordinating finite an than rather nouns verbal had Proto-Indo-European Thus accusative). an guages. Nearly all attested Altaic languages make almost exclusive use of of use clear under exclusive being almost exceptions few (the make clauses combining languages for means Altaic non-finite attested all Nearly guages. plausibly reflects a further development of this kind of construction, whence whence construction, of kind this of development further a reflects plausibly to close very systems verb non-finite have (given languages this than attested richer early much was suppose the that to that system reason a no had is there and Proto-Indo-European forms, the verb non-finite among oppositions specific integrations of verbal nouns into the inflectional system (Disterheft (Disterheft system inflectional the into nouns verbal of integrations specific relative pronoun (see further Haudry 1973). Haudry further (see pronoun relative in as clauses, relative good’ is man expressing he/the dog, the of feeds man way ‘who/which a type the of as constructions particular in correlative construction, the is had have well may languages, IE early the of evidence the on another). one of set restricted more much a have languages IE early the the languages, especially, and, Altaic Uralic the in found forms non-finite of range semantic and the close formal links between many subordinating constructions and the the and constructions subordinating many between links formal languages close IE the early the even in found subordinating clauses of set richer subordinate The and good’. is dog conjunctions the feeds who man ‘he/the for one the on Indo-European between difference one of however, set is, There rich a styles. by paralleled less the none are they where Finnish), (including 1980). While no infinitive as such is reconstructible for Proto-Indo-European, the the Proto-Indo-European, for reconstructible is such as infinitive no While The widespread use of non-finite devices for combining clauses links Indo- Indo- links clauses combining for devices non-finite of use widespread The One kind of finite subordinate-like construction that Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Indo-European, that construction subordinate-like finite of kind One ‘to do’, deriving from a dative) and the supine (e.g. supine the and dative) a from deriving ‘todo’, 88 H NOERPA IGITCFML 95 9 FAMILY LINGUISTIC INDO-EUROPEAN THE ). Occasionally more than one case form form case one than more Occasionally ). delat, deriving from from deriving ki

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 18:26 27 Sep 2021; For: 9780203880647, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203880647.ch3 nesn Sehn . 17) O te oin fsbet n raie agae’ in languages’, ergative in subject of notion the ‘On (1976) R. Stephen Anderson, ------Beekes, R. S. P. (1990) (1990) S.P. R. Beekes, References FAMILY LINGUISTIC INDO-EUROPEAN THE 6 9 ------(1976) Bernard Comrie, Friedrich, Paul (1975) (1975) Paul Friedrich, ------(1980) Dorothy Disterheft, Gamqrelige, Tamaz (= Gamkrelidze, T. V.) and Macavariani, Givi (= Macavariani, Macavariani, (= Givi Macavariani, and T.V.) Gamkrelidze, (= Tamaz Gamqrelige, Gamkrelidze, Tamaz V. and Ivanov, Vjaceslav V. (1984) (1984) V. Vjaceslav Ivanov, and V. Tamaz Gamkrelidze, Greenberg, Joseph H. (1966) ‘Some universals of grammar with particular reference reference particular with grammar of universals ‘Some (1966) H. Joseph Greenberg, Harris, Alice C. (1990) ‘Alignment typology and diachronic change’, in Winfred P. Winfred in change’, diachronic and typology ‘Alignment (1990) C. Alice Harris, configurationality’, on remarks ‘Preliminary (1982) Kenneth Hale, Illic-Svityc, V. M. (1971-84) V. (1971-84) M. Illic-Svityc, (ed.), Comrie Bernard in languages’, ‘Caucasian (1981) G. B. Hewitt, latine’, phrase la dans correlation et hypotaxe ‘Parataxe, (1973) Jean Haudry, Lehmann, Winfred P. Winfred (1974) Lehmann, Klavans, Judith L. (1982) (1982) L. Judith Klavans, (1991) H.M. Klaiman, Kuryfowicz, Jerzy (1964) (1964) Jerzy Kuryfowicz, Linguistics: An Introduction, An Linguistics: Charles N. Li (ed.), (ed.), Li N. Charles Lingua estile Lingua Institute ofGakushuin University ofGakushuin Institute and Perspectives, Problems Linguistics: European, Het Utrecht: 176), Paperback (Aula taalwetenschap Indo-europese lijkende Indo-Europeans, Indoevropejcy, Press. University Cambridge P. S.Beekes, Robert translation: (English Spectrum. in Toa V Gmrlde n Vaelv . Ivanov, V. Vjaceslav and Gamkrelidze V. Thomas tion: Linguistic Society Linguistic Language, Studies. Indo-European of Journal 1),Mont.: Butte, Monograph Studies, Language Family Language (ed.), Greenberg H. Joseph in elements’, meaningful of order the to sprachen, (1965) I.) G. Gamkrelidze and G. I. Macavariani, Macavariani, I.G. and Gamkrelidze emn (ed.), Lehmann icue Rsin eu£ Gra tasain piaiy f h rsm: T.V. resume: the of primarily translation, German resum£; Russian (includes Nauka. Union, Soviet the of deParis de Linguistique laSociete de 67-90. pp. Benjamins, John Amsterdam: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Linguistics University Indiana Texas Press. Texas Carl Winter. Carl 19) Te yooy f es-set ytm i Erpa languages’, European in systems tense-aspect of typology ‘The (1990) (1994) ‘Was Proto-Indo-European ergative?’, ergative?’, Proto-Indo-European ‘Was (ed.), (1994) Jones Charles in reconstruction’, and ‘Typology (1993) (forthcoming) (forthcoming) Tbne:Gne ar 1982.) Narr, Gunter Tübingen: Columbus, Oh.: Slavica. Oh.: Columbus, 2nd edn, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 73-113. pp. Press, MIT Mass.: Cambridge, edn, 2nd 25: 209-18. 25: Sonantta sistema da ablauti kartvelur enebsi, kartvelur ablauti da sistema Sonantta 2 vols, Tbilisi: Izd-vo Tbilisskogo Universiteta. (English transla­ (English Universiteta. Tbilisskogo Izd-vo Tbilisi: vols, 2 2vl,Bri:Muo eGutr 1994-5.) Gruyter, de Mouton Berlin: 2 vols, agae yooy 97 Sseai Blne n Language, in Balance Systematic 1987: Typology Language , Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. University Stanford Calif.: ,Stanford, 12:86-96. Cmrde abig nvriyPes p 196-237. pp. Press, University Cambridge Cambridge: Subject and Topic, and Subject Grammatical Voice, Grammatical noErpa ad t Coet eaie: h Eurasiatic The Relatives: Closest its and Indo-European egljed tawtnca: e iliig n e verge- de in inleiding een taalwetenschap: Vergelijkende Aspect rt-noErpa Syntax Proto-Indo-European The Inflectional Categories of of Indo-European, Categories TheInflectional Some Problems in a Theory of Clitics, of Theory a in Problems Some Proto-Indo-European Syntax. Proto-Indo-European h Snatc eeomn o h Ifntv i Indo- in Infinitive the of Development Syntactic The Opyt sravnenija nostraticeskix nostraticeskix Opyt sravnenija jazykov, Asedm onBnais 1995.) Benjamins, John Amsterdam: CmrdeTxbos n igitc) Cambridge: Linguistics), in Textbooks (Cambridge 17:3-14. Sonantensystem und Ablaut in den Kartwel- den in und Ablaut Sonantensystem 6() 147-86. 68(1): NwYr:Aaei rs,p. 1-23. pp.York: Press,New Academic London: Longman, pp. 74-97. pp. Longman, London: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. University Cambridge Cambridge: (Journal of Indo-European Indo-European of (Journal Comparative Indo-European Comparative ultn f h Language the of Bulletin Austin, Tex.: University of of Tex.: Austin, University noErpa ad the and Indo-European novoesi ay i jazyk Indoevropejskij Tiii ‘Mecniereba’; Tbilisi: Bloomington, Ind.: Bloomington, 3Moscow:vols, The Languages North-Eastern Universals of Universals Heidelberg: Heidelberg: Historical Bulletin

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 18:26 27 Sep 2021; For: 9780203880647, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203880647.ch3 Nichols, Johanna (1986) ‘Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar’, grammar’, dependent-marking and ‘Head-marking (1986) Johanna Nichols, (1988) (ed.) V.P. Nedjalkov, Ultan, Russell (1978) ‘The nature of future tenses’, in Joseph H. Greenberg, Charles Charles Greenberg, H. Joseph in tenses’, future of nature ‘The (1978) Russell Ultan, akn, avr (96 ‘oad PooId-uoen ytx polm and problems syntax: Proto-Indo-European ‘Towards (1976) Calvert Watkins, Silverstein, Michael (1976) ‘Hierarchies of features and ergativity’, in R. M.W. R. in ergativity’, and features of ‘Hierarchies (1976) Michael Silverstein, Szemerenyi, Oswald (1989) (1989) (ed.), Oswald Szemerenyi, Bendor-Samuel John in ‘Kwa’, (1989) M. John Stewart, Languages tralian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, pp. 112-71. pp. Studies, of Aboriginal Institute tralian Dixon (ed.), (ed.), Dixon guage rs, 1996.) Press, of V.(ed.), of P. Nedjalkov d, amtd: isncatih Bcgslshf. Egih rnlto: Sze­ translation: (English Oswald, merenyi, Buchgesellschaft. Wissenschaftliche Darmstadt: edn, suopolm’ i Snod . tee, ao A Wle ad aioo S. Salikoko and Walker A. Carol Steever, B. Sanford in pseudo-problems’, A. Ferguson and Edith A. Moravcsik (eds), Moravcsik A. Edith and Ferguson A. Studies in Language 12), Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (Translation and revision revision and (Translation Benjamins. John Amsterdam: 12), Language in Studies uwn (eds), Mufwene Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 305-26. Society,pp. Linguistic Chicago 3, 1983.) Word Structure 62: 56-119. 62: , Lanham, Md.: University Press of 217-45. pp.of America, Press University Md.: ,Lanham, rmaia Ctgre i utain Languages Australian in Categories Grammatical aesfo te aaeso o Dahoi Syntax Diachronic on Parasession the from Papers , Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, pp. 83-123. pp. Press, University Stanford Calif.: ,Stanford, Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics Indo-European to Introduction Tipologija rezuVtativnyx konstrukcij rezuVtativnyx Tipologija Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft invergleichende die Einführung yooy fRslaie Constructions Resultative of Typology H NOERPA IGITCFML 97 9 FAMILY LINGUISTIC INDO-EUROPEAN THE Universals of Language Human of Universals eiga: ‘Nauka’ ,Leningrad: , Oxford: Clarendon Clarendon Oxford: , h Niger-Congo The Cner: Aus­ Canberra: , (Typological Chicago: , , vol. , Lan­ ,3rd