Collective and Feminine in Tocharian. In: Multilingualism and History of Knowledge
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Olav Hackstein 2011/2012: Collective and Feminine in Tocharian. In: Multilingualism and History of Knowledge. Vol. II: Linguistic Developments along the Silk Road. Archaism and Innovation in Tocharian. Edited by Olav Hackstein and Ronald I. Kim. Wien. 143-177. (= Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse Sitzungsberichte, 834. Band.). * COLLECTIVE AND FEMININE IN TOCHARIAN 1.1.1. The morphological markers of the Indo-European feminine gender arose from a word-formation suffix with collective meaning *-h2 and various derivatives formed with it, including thematic *-e-h2 and athematic * -i-h2. This insight goes back to Johannes SCHMIDT and was later substantiated in many ways by advances in the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European nominal morphology, most notably NUSSBAUM 1986 and HARÐARSON 1987a, b. The origin of the collective morpheme *-h2 is hinted at by a wealth of traces of the pre-inflectional, purely word-formational use of *-h2, which survive into the individual Indo-European lan- guages. The evidence includes the placement of *-h2- before derivational suffixes in complex formations and before inflectional endings, which accords with the usual behavior of derivational morphemes, cf. e.g. w w PIE * k e-h2-nt-o- > Lat. quantus; PIE * te-h2-nt-o- > Lat. tantus; PIE * k i-h2 ⇒ w *k i-h2-ent - > Skt. kíyant- (SIMS -WILLIAMS 1997: 318); PIE * ker-h2 ⇒ * ker-h2-s- ⇒ * ker-h2-s-ro- ⇒ * ker-h2-s-re-h2 > Lat. cerebra ‘brains’ (for the semantics cf. Germ. Gehirn ); PIE * dru-h2 ‘wood’ ⇒ singulative * dru-h2-s ‘single tree’ > Gk. δρKL 28ALLES 200.a: .A, NIKOLAEV 2010a: 192E on the derivation of singulative formations cf. LEUKART 199.: 153f.9. Also pointing in the same direction is the functional restriction of the collective suffix to indicating collectivit , with no implication of grammatical gender or num0 ,er. Originall , h20collectives were independent of gender 2a9 and could su,se0 Nuentl ,e associated ,oth with masculine 2,9 and with neuter 2c9 o0stems 2SCHMIDT 1889: 5, -IDMER 200A: .39f.9. * This article evolved out of a paper which was presented to the 28th East Coast In0 do0European Conference held at the HOskPli Qslands, Re kRavSk, on June 13, 2009. The ,asic insights concerning the et mological identification of the Tocharian agent0noun suf0 fixes 8 0tsa /0ca , 0ntsa /0ñca , 0nta and vocative/o,liNue 8 0ñcai , 0cai were presented on the handout circulated at that conference. IGm happ to acknowledge that H. J. PINAULT reached some ,asic insights and similar results independentl in a lecture presented in Ju0 l 2009, which ma ,e taken as a confirmation of the ,asic results of ,oth our papers, cf. this volume pp. 180f. on 8 Teñca , A –ant , pp. 181f. on B aknātsa . 144 Collective and Feminine in Tocharian a9 PIE masculine * ih 1ros 2count9 plural * ih 1r!"s Fendowed with strength, collective * ih 1reh 2 Fgroup of menG 2Um,r. ueiro, virileG 2Toch. A wir , Lat. MEISER 198A: 1189 vir 9 w w w w ,9 PIE *k ek h 1os 2count9 plural *k ek h 1!s Fcircle, wheelG F2single9 wheelsG w w c9 PIE neuter *k ek h 1om 2count U collective9 plural V collective we w *k k h 1$h2 Fset of wheels, chariotG PIE neuter *iʢugom 2count U collective9 plural V collective *iʢugeh 2 F okeG F2single9 okesE set of okesG 2Cf. HARBARSON 1981a: 18f. Note that Vedic c'kra- is normall neuter, like Pro0 w w to0Hermanic * ( e( a 0, and onl rarel masculine, see KLEIN 1992: 1.1.9 h20collectives were also indifferent to num,er, ,eing assigna,le to either singular or plural depending on the semantic categor of the noun in Nuestion. -hereas mass nouns are prone to ,e assigned to the singular 2a9, numerals and count nouns prefer an assignment to the plural 2,9: a9 PIE *$dor-h2 Faggregate of water, HewWsserG C *$d!r FwaterG 2HARBARSON 1981a: 89, 919E ,ut plural meaning FwatersG is also attested 2RAU 2009: 399E ,9 PIE *tri-h2 d$)om-t 2Hackstein 2010: A19 X dou,l marked collective *tri-h2 d$)om-t-h2 Fthree decadsG 2RAU 2009: 1A, .89. Likewise uncontested is the origin of the feminine in the collective, given the partial homophon of collective and feminine morphemes. The feminine preserves morphological traces of its collective origin in the feminine nominative/accusative dual ending *0eh 2-ih 1 2Lat. duae , OCS d*v+ 9, which takes the neuter dual marker *-ih 1 2cf. o0stem neuter nominative/accusative dual *0o-,h1E CO-HILL apud NUSS0 8AUM 198A: 132 n. 59, TICHY 1993: 12f. and 2000: 109. Nonetheless, the precise motivation for and pathwa of development leading from the collective to the femi0 nine has remained controversial. -hatever their ultimate connection, it seems rea0 sona,l clear that the association of the notion of collectivit and feminine gram0 matical gender must ,e governed , a language0independent mechanism, ,ecause even collective formations of post0PIE date that arose within the individual IE lan0 guages show su,seNuent gender assignment to the feminine, cf. Latin collective neuter plural gaudia C French feminine singular -oie . 2One could argue, as R. KIM reminds me, that this is merel morphologicall governed, i.e. a 2reanal 6ed9 noun in 0a is automaticall assigned feminine gender. The fact, however, that the given Collective and Feminine in Tocharian 145 transition is t picall found with a,stract nouns and nouns denoting natural aggre0 gates suggests that while the phonological identit of the two morphemes ma have ,een facultative, the development was semanticall driven, see RHEINFELDER 19A1: 21f. for an instructive collection of cases.9 2.2.2. Despite general agreement on the original word0formational status of the col0 lective and its relation to the feminine gender, the flow of articles devoted to the evolution of the feminine from the collective has not ceased. Much of the de,ate concerns the factors which promoted the emergence of feminine gender. -ere cer0 tain constructions pivotal for the conversion of the collective noun class into nouns of feminine gender, e.g. s ntactic conversion of collective0a,stract nouns into adRec0 tives 2HARBARSON 19819Z Or did particular lexemes pla a decisive role, e.g. the PIE word for FwomanG as in Hk. [\]^, Skt. gn- 28RUHMANN apud -ACKERNAHEL h 1928: .39 or the PIE collective * id eeh 2 Ffemales left ,ehind , a warrior killed in ,attleG, su,seNuentl speciali6ed in usage to denote a single mem,er of the group, i.e. a widow 2TICHY 19939Z In Tocharian, the development of the collective morpheme *0h2 into a marker of feminine gender is not as far evolved as in the other Indo0European languages. This makes Tocharian an especiall interesting candidate for examining the transition from the collective to the feminine and determining the precise steps involved. 8e0 fore discussing the Tocharian evidence, however, it will ,e useful to recall some well0documented pathwa s of development, attested outside Tocharian, which illus0 trate the tendenc of collective0a,stracts to turn into animate agent nouns with su,0 seNuent restriction to either male or 2more s stematicall 9 female reference. 3. From a,stracta,stract0000collectivecollective to animate 3.1 Sociological salienc of group affiliation and meron mic wholewhole0000partpart relation The crucial Nuestion is how to account for the functional extension of the collec0 tive to denote female sex. In this context, linguists have freNuentl called attention to the use of collectives to refer to individual females. For instance, HARBARSON 21981,: 123, 12A9 adduced instances of collectives as denotations of individual fe0 males. Note however that Herman .rauen/immer is not a valid example of such a collectiveE rather it exemplifies the meton mic shift from F2da 9 room for womenG to FwomenG and finall Fsingle womanG 2KLUHE U SEE8OLD 1989: 2309. In a similar vein, TICHY 21993: 10f.9 stated that _Die Umdeutung einer Hruppen,e6eichnung 6ur 8e6eichnung einer ein6elnen Frau war ,eispielsweise im Kontext von Possessivver0 hWltnissen m`glich, vgl. etwa dt. 0err 1 und 2nhang .a Pointing out instances like the foregoing, however, onl restates the phenomenon to ,e explainedbthe use of collectives to denote femalesbinstead of explaining it. 146 Collective and Feminine in Tocharian A promising explanation for the proclivit of collectives to signif female sex is ,ased on the sociological perception of females as famil mem,ers. A num,er of ancient Indo0European 2and non0Indo0European9 cultures attest to the practice of identif ing and addressing women not primaril as individuals, ,ut , their famil affiliation. Conversel , then, it was the famil affiliation that could ,e used to met0 on micall refer to and identif a particular female ,eing. For females, the famil affiliation was so prominent as to ,ecome a distinguishing mark in the identification of individual feminine famil mem,ers. This correspondence ,etween sociolog and linguistic expression has left its trace in the onomastic s stems of some In0 do0European languages. An example is furnished , Ancient Italic: aFrauen hatten in den Hemeinwesen centralitaliens kein 8drgerrecht. Darum ,enut6ten in Rom Frauen T Freige,orene wie Freigelassene T grundsWt6lich die Namenformel der MWnner, Redoch ohne Tri,usanga,e und normalerweise auch ohne PrWnomen e Die Tochter des K`nigs Servius Tullius wird in der f,erlieferung stets nur mit dem Hentile Tullia 6itiertg 2RIh 1995: 12AE cf. -ACKERNAHEL 1912: 2A, STf8ER 2009: 22.ff.9. Similarl in Hreek, men are usuall addressed , their name2s9, while wom0 en tend not ,e ,e addressed , name ,ut , the generic i [j]kl Fo womanmG 2-ACKERNAHEL 1912: 2A9. The collective0,ased perception of females is further reflected , et mological h evidence. The latter includes the secure reconstruction of a collective * id e-eh 2 Ffamil of the slain 2warrior9G, whose morphological derivation was clarified , h h TICHY 21993: 15f.9: PIE * id - Fsla G D PIE * id -u- Fslain 2warrior9G D h h vnddhi0derivative * id e-o- Fakin to the slain 2warrior9G D collective * id e-eh 2 Ffamil of the slain 2warrior9G.