Leire Sarto-Zubiaurre
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
LEIDEN UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF HUMANITIES THE THEMATIC NOMINAL STEMS IN ANATOLIAN AND INDO-EUROPEAN MA Linguistics Thesis by Leire Sarto-Zubiaurre Supervisor: Dr. Alwin Kloekhorst To my family and my friends, for their invaluable support [a]mmell-a-mu-kan LÚ.MEŠ arus LÚ.MEŠTAPPI-YA[-ya] sarriskir1 'and my peers and partners separated from me' 1 KUB XXI 19+1303/u III 28-29, apud HED 1:116. 1 Index 1. Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... 3 2. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 4 3. Materials, methodology and a note on Luwic ............................................................ 10 4. The thematic stems in the synchronic Anatolian languages ....................................... 12 4.1. The inflection of the common gender thematic nouns ............................................ 13 4.1.1. The singular cases ................................................................................................. 13 4.1.2. The plural cases .................................................................................................... 26 4.2. The inflection of the neuter thematic nouns ............................................................ 32 5. The thematic stems in Proto-Anatolian. ..................................................................... 35 6. Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 38 7. Excursus: Hitt. išḫā- ‘lord’ and the accent of the thematic nouns .............................. 39 8. Bibliography ............................................................................................................... 44 2 1. Abbreviations abl. ablative instr. instrumental acc. accusative Lat. Latin CHD Chicago Hittite loc. locative Dictionary Luw. Luwian CLL Cuneiform Luwian MH Middle Hittite Lexicon MS Middle Script CLuw. Cuneiform Luwian neut. neuter comm. common (gender) NH Neo-Hittite dat. dative nom. nominative EDG Etymological Dictionary of Greek NS Neo-script EDHIL Etymological Dictionary OH Old Hittite of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon OS Old Script EDL Etymological Dictionary PA Proto-Anatolian of Latin Pal. Palaic gen. genitive PD proterodynamic Gr. Greek PIE Proto-Indo-European HD hysterodynamic pl. plural HED Hittite Etymological sg. singular Dictionary Skt. Sanskrit Hitt. Hittite voc. vocative HLuw. Hieroglyphic Luwian IE Indo-European 3 2. Introduction Since the first handbooks of Indo-European linguistics,2 a twofold distinction was made in the realm of nominal classes, i.e. the distinction between thematic3 (Lat. dominus, Gr. θεός, Skt. deva-, etc.) and athematic (Lat. civis, Gr. πατήρ, Skt. ájas-, etc.) nouns. As already seen by Meillet, the thematic nouns are distinct from the athematic ones, including the stems in -i and -u,4 because they have the so-called thematic vowel and they do not show ablaut or accent shifts.5 The thematic vowel is a morpheme that for PIE is reconstructed as *-o-6 (on the basis of Gr. -ο-, Lat. -u-, Skt. -a-, etc.) and that it regularly appears between the root and the endings, so the nom.sg. is cited as *-o-s, acc. sg. *-o-m-, etc. (e.g. Meier-Brügger 2000:198-9). Much has been written about the origin and the function of the thematic vowel,7 because it does not have a distinct meaning in either the daughter languages or PIE itself. Additionally, a different set of endings is traditionally reconstructed for the thematic stems, compared to the athematic ones. Let us take, for example, the singular endings of the non-neuter nouns (Meier-Brügger 2000:198): 2 Meillet 1908:224 and ff. 3 I will use the term “thematic stems” rather than the also widespread “o-stems” since in the main language of this thesis, Hittite, the “o-stems” are in fact a-stems. “Thematic” is therefore clearer and equally descriptive. 4 Which are athematic. The i- and u-stems behave like consonants stems as per the ablaut patterns they show, cf. Beekes 1985:198-9. 5 “Cette voyelle change d’ailleurs tout l’aspect de la formation, car elle entraîne fixité du vocalisme de la racine et de la place du ton dans la flexion” (Meillet 1908:224). 6 It is often claimed that the thematic stems do show ablaut, and as such they are often cited as the *-o/-e- stems (Clackson 2007:92, Fortson 2010:126). However, Beekes showed that it is not necessary to reconstruct an ablauting inflection, since all of the cases that allegedly had the e-grade (the voc. and gen.sg.) in the thematic vowel can and should be explained differently (1985:184-191). Those alternative explanations are preferable because even if one considers the thematic stems to be ablauting, it is very difficult to justify the presence of ablaut in the vocative alone. Vid. infra for the discussion on the vocative. 7 See Villar 1974:99 and ff. for references. 4 athematic endings thematic endings nom. *-s, *-ø *-o-s voc. *-ø *-e acc. *-m *-o-m gen. *-és / -ós / -s *-o-sioi abl. *-ōt < *-o-etii dat. *-ei *-ōi < *-o-ei iii instr. *-éh1 / -h1 *-o-h1 / *-e-h1 loc. *-ø / -iiv *-o-i / *-e-i ii -es(y)o / -os(y)o (Szemerényi 1996:186) ii -es / -os / -s; -ed / -od (Szemerényi ibid.) iii -ē / -ō (Szemerényi ibid.) iv -e/-o, -bhi/-mi (Szemerényi 1996:160) As we can see, the main differences are in the oblique cases: a genitive and an ablative case with different endings in the thematic stems, but a genitive-ablative case for the athematic inflections; a separate vocative ending, and a long vowel in the ablative and dative, that is often explained as the result of a contraction between the thematic vowel and the ending —but not always: Clackson directly reconstructs abl.sg. *-ōd, dat.sg. *-ōi (2007:97)—. Indeed, the presence of the thematic vowel, the lack of ablaut/accent shifts and the different endings has lead scholars to set the thematic nouns apart from the athematic ones. The thematic inflection is different, but why? Already Meillet (1931:196) concluded that the thematic type (nominal and verbal) was more recent that the athematic. Since then, and particularly since Specht’s Der Ursprung der indogermanischen Deklination, the communis opinio has agreed to consider that the thematic nouns are of a younger age.8 A great number of scholars have weighed in in the matter about the function of the thematic vowel. In the 1940s and the 1950s it was thought to have a pronominal origin; as for its function, Knobloch connected 8 What scholars have considered to be “recent” varies. For example, Haudry thought the thematic stems to be more recent than the athematic ones, but still of considerable old age, since according to him the athematic endings, after being added to the thematic stems, were still understood as post-positions (1982:71-2). His theory however must be rejected for several reasons: it is impossible to prove that the thematic vowel was a post-posed article, such formation has not survived in any of the daughter languages. The relative chronology that he offers is very unclear, as is the motivation for the creation of a new inflection.. 5 it with the ergative theory and considered it to be an object marker (1953:419-20). But the origin of the inflection itself remained a mystery. Sturtevant was one of the first scholars to advance a hypothesis regarding the genesis of the thematic stems. Continuing Thurneysen’s idea that Latin reus ‘party to a lawsuit’ came from an old genitive *rēius (Skt. rāyās), connected to rēs ‘thing, legal case’, so reus would have come to being by a process of hypostasis: from *vir reus ‘man of the case’, vir would at some point be omitted by force of use and reus would have been reinterpreted as the nom.sg. of a new adjective, afterwards substantivized. Sturtevant saw that similar constructions were present in Hittite: a ‘vassal’ is literally linkii̯ aš ‘(man) of the oath’ (1940:574); kūruraš ‘enemy’, lit. ‘man of enmity’ < kūrur- ‘enmity, hostility’ (Sturtevant 1940:575; EDHIL 496-7). All of this led him to conclude that “in Indo-Hittite [...] adnominal genitives in -os might give rise to o-stem adjectives.” (1940:578) Following Sturtevant among others, Villar fully adhered to the “hypostasis theory” (1974:99-122; 1995). As a whole, it is syntactically and semantically attractive, but it falls short when it comes to analyzing the relationship between the thematic stems and the other inflectional types as well as the development of the rest of the inflection. Brosman defended the hypostasis theory as opposed to9 another hypothesis that arose with Beekes’ 1985 book (which apparently Villar did not know) and that I will call the “hysterodynamic theory”. Beekes sought to find the formation of the PIE inflection through the systematic analysis of the accent-ablaut distribution in the languages. He reduced the main accent- ablaut paradigms of a very early stage of the proto-language to two: one static, one mobile. PIE would have been at this stage an ergative language:10 the mobile inflection had an absolutive case *CéC-R and an ergative *CC-R-ós (1985:202). In a second stage, out of the mobile paradigm, the proterodynamic (that of the neuters) and hysterodynamic (that of the animates) types would arise. At this point the language slowly shifted from 9 With unconvincing arguments: he dismisses Beekes’ theory solely on the grounds that “it would require that the origin of the o-stems be relegated to an improbably early date.” (1998:66). 10 There are however many cautious voices