26. Grimm's Law and Loan-Words**
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
26. Grimm's Law and loan-words** Abstract This article addresses the controversy about the reconstruction of the Proto-Indo European consonant inventory, namely the question of whether the traditional, Neo-Grammarian reconstruction or one of the more recent alternatives such as the Glottalic Theory is correct. This question is directly related to that of the proper formulation of Grimm's Law. In the traditional framework the Proto-Germanic voiceless plosives derive from an Indo-European series of plain voiced plosives, whereas in the alternative account they derive from some kind of voiceless plo sives, e.g. voiceless glottalics. The article brings to bear on the problem a new kind of evidence: the integration of prehistoric Semitic loan-words. This evidence unambiguously supports the traditional framework, in particular a shift of voiced to voiceless plosives under Grimm's Law. f130 26.1. Introduction The question of how to reconstruct the Proto-Indo-European plosive inventory has received much attention in recent decades. The traditional reconstruction with four series (DOh T Th, Brugmann 1904: § 261)1 was abandoned by many because several occurrences of Th could be reconstructed as arising from T plus laryngeal. The resulting inventory with three series (0 Dh T, see especially Lehmann 1955: § 13.1) was shown to be typologically problematical (Pedersen 1951, Jakobson 1958). Alternative inventories were proposed replacing the traditional mediae by a different series, often glottalic, and adjusting the remaining series to this move. 2 Thus, Hopper (1973, 1977a, b, 1982) proposed T' D T, Le. (I) voiceless glottalic plosives, (II) voiced plosives, (III) voice less plosives; Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1973, 1995 [1984]), the same with allophonic aspiration in the second and third series; Kortlandt (1978: 107, 1985: 184, 197f.), (I) glottalic lenis p\osives, (II) aspirated lenis plosives, (III) fortis plosives, "all ... usually voiceless"; and Ven nemann (1984c), T' Q Th, i.e. (1) voiceless plosives with some fortis fea ture, possibly g\ottalicness, (II) voiceless lenis plosives, (III) aspirated voiceless plosives. The traditional and the alternative reconstructions mentioned are displayed in Table 1.3 498 Grimm's Law and loan-words Series I II m IV Traditional Brugmann D T Lehmann D T Alternative Hopper T' D T Gamkrelidze/lvanov T' D(h) T(h) Kortlandt gl. Lenis Fortis asp. Lenis Vennemann T I Th Do Table 1. Reconstructions of the Proto-Indo-European plosive series f 131 But the traditional reconstruction has also been defended; cf. the sum maries in Salmons 1993: 18-24. A compromise approach accepts both lines of argumentation that supporting the typologically based re vision as well as that in favor of the traditionally accepted inventory - by assigning the new type of inventory to a pre-Proto-Indo-European stage of the language and leaving the traditional inventory for Proto-Indo European itself intact (e.g. Rasmussen 1989: 156f., 167f., Matasovic 1994, and Salmons 1993: 59-61 with further references). The two types of reconstruction - the traditional ones with a first series of plain voiced plosives (mediae) and the alternatives with a first series of voiceless plosives plus some special feature such as glottalic ness have their well-studied effects on the way the language-specific inventories are derived from them, in the case of Germanic: the formu lation of Grimm's Law. If the traditional reconstruction, e.g. the D Dh T Th inventory of most handbooks, is posited for the final stage of Proto Indo-European, Grimm's Law takes the traditional form D Dh TlTh > T D p.4 If one of the alternative reconstructions is accepted, then Grimm's Law changes accordingly, e.g. into T' D Th > T' D P (Vennemann 1984c).5 fl32 0 0 Grimm's Law and loan-words 499 26.2. Traditional or alternative reconstruction? The traditional reconstruction of the Indo-European plosive inventory (with three or four series) was based on the inner-Indo-European com parative work of many generations and was thus very well founded; it was the standard wisdom of all the handbooks. The alternative re constructions were motivated by the typological near-impossibility of the traditional inventories, especially the total or nearly total absence of a phoneme fbi from the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European vocabulary, the root constraint *D-D- forbidding two plain mediae at the beginning and end of a root, and the near-complete lack of suffixes containing a plain media. Many linguistically minded philologists were naturally in clined to accept the new doctrine, and the fact that the only major syn thesis of the results of Indo-European studies published in recent years (Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1984 [in Russian], ] 995 [in English]) presen ted one of the alternative inventories and its consequences and con sistently used it in the notation of reconstructed Proto-Indo-European forms did a lot to further this movement. The most comprehensive defense of the traditional reconstruction, viz. of the Brugmannian system, was proffered by Rasmussen (1989). Yet one cannot say that it was very successful. Perhaps it could not be because all the evidence he mustered had been available before, at least in principle. Almost all the arguments he proposed in favor of the tradi tional D Dh T Th inventory for the final stage of Proto-Indo-European have to do with the inner workings of the Indo-European languages or with the adaptation of loan-words from one Indo-European language into another.6 He could also have mentioned loan-words from unknown languages, such as Gmc. +paid- (Goth. paida, OE pad, OS piMa, OHG pfeit, Bavarian pfoacjY, Gk. {3atrfJ. He does give an argument - a single one, as far as I can see - transgressing the bounds of Indo-European, 1133 so to speak, namely one based on a comparison with a non-Indo 8 European language : Ftir die Lehnworter [im FinnischenJ beachte man vor aHem das von Koivulehto (1981: 176-179) (neben anderen) gegebene Beispiel der doppelten Entlehnung des ahd. ruohha 'cura' entsprechenden Worts, einmal als ruoka 'Kost, Verpfle gung' aus vorgerm. *roga, das andere Mal als ruokko 'PfIege, Ftitterung (von Haustieren)' aus urgerm. *rok6 mit Widerspiegelung der etwa gieichzeitig mit dem Ubergang a > 0 erfolgten Fortisierung der indogermanischen mediae (s. auch Rasmussen 1983: 215-6 tiber die Chronologie).9 500 Grimm's Law and loan-words But again Germanic-Finnish loan contacts were a well cultivated field, so that even this splendid argument seems to have left other Indo-Europea nists unimpressed. In any event, Salmons, whose book has a chapter specifically devoted to "Critical responses to the Glottalic Theory" (1993: 18-24) and mentions Rasmussen 1989 in the bibliography, could characterize the state of affairs in the following words, four years after the appearance of Rasmussen's defense (and nine years after its presen tation at the conference in the proceedings of which it was published): While there is some evidence to support the claim that the Glottalic Theory is becoming the standard view of PIE obstruents, it is somewhat clearer that the old system is dead. The attempts to counter the Glottalic Theory without excep tion propose other alternatives rather than defending the system canonized in the great works from Schleicher to Lehmann. This speaks for the devastating power of the critiques of Hopper, Gamkrelidze and Ivanov and others, even if none of their particular systems has yet established itself. (Salmons 1993: 72) It seems that about this time scholars gained the impression that all evi dence and arguments had become known, and that nothing more r134 could be said about the matter given the state of the art. At least my im pression is that in the years since 1993 it has become rather quiet around this issue. Neither side had the strength to persuade the other to their position. The controversy was simply abandoned, waiting to be revived as new data or new methods emerged. 1O 26.3. Towards a solution As for myself, I spent these years working on the linguistic prehistory of Europe north of the Alps, initially hoping I would find new evidence supporting my reconstruction of the Indo-European and Germanic con sonant inventories and the Germanic consonant shifts but gradually lo sing sight of the controversy. Yet problems do not go away just because they are left alone. Without realizing at first what was happening, I did uncover new evidence; but it was the opposite of what I had, a decade earlier, been hoping for. What I believe to have found is a new and unexpected transgressing the-bounds argument and the evidence to support it: borrowing from a non-Indo-European language into Germanic, i.e. the reverse of Rasmus sen's borrowing into a non-Indo-European language from Germanic. As will be seen, this evidence relates crucially to the question of the pre-Germanic pJosive inventory and thus of Grimm's Law. It does not, Grimm's Law and loan-words 501 however, support any of the alternative reconstructions (and thus not my own) but the traditional one. More precisely, it requires a voiced rather than voiceless first series, and it is compatible with a breathy-voiced se cond series and with a plain voiceless and/or voiceless aspirated third series. The evidence consists of Semitic loan-words in Germanic, espe cially such recently identified Semitic loan-words as occur only in Ger manic. This argument is provided in the present paper. Even though only the first series (that of the traditional mediae) is crucial to a comparison of the theories for Germanic, I will illustrate all three series, D Dh TlTh, in order to show that the entire traditional reconstruction is supported by the new evidence.