The Indo-European Year Lenka Doçkalová & Václav Blazek Department of Linguistics and Baltic Studies Masaryk University, Brno Czech Republic [email protected] and [email protected] In the present study the designations of “year” and its seasons are summarized in all Indo-European branches, analyzed from the point of view of their word-formation, internal reconstruction and etymology. For typological comparison the external parallels from language families in the neighborhood of Indo-European are surveyed. Some of these indicate which terms could be inherited from older stages of development of the Indo-European protolanguage and which represent innovation. During more than the six or seven millennia of language evolution estimated by archaeologists and glottochronologists, the Indo-Europeans have spread over an enormous area with different climates and vegetation, as well as different lengths of day and night, depending on the season and, indeed, their geographical latitude. In order to recover their original division of the year into its seasons, it is necessary to analyze, and then reconstruct, the terminology of seasons in the individual daughter protolanguages. In this study, lexical material is ordered according to the following topics: 1. Year; 2. Part of the year, or a period of time in general; 3. Temporal adverb; 4. Winter; 5. Spring; 6. Summer; 7. Autumn; 8. Child, juvenile animal or any animal in general whose name originates from the season or by the year-length; 9. Plant, whose designation is motivated by the seasons of a year or the length of a year. A. Anatolian languages 1. Hitt. wett-/witt- & wettant-/wittant- c. “year”, adj. wittassiya- (Tischler 2001, 201, 203); a form extended by The Journal of Indo-European Studies The Indo-European Year 415 the suffix -s- appears in other Anatolian languages: *utsV- > CLuv. ussa/i-, HLuv. u-sa/i-, Lyc. uh(V)- (Melchert 1994, 269, 314); perhaps also Sidetic oßad “by year, yearly” (Pérez Orozco 2003, 106; Vine 2009, 216). 2. CLuv. ára/i-, HLuv. á+ra/i- “time” < Anat. *´ro- < *iéro- (Melchert 1989, 41, see Note no. 28; 1994, 75, 245: *yéH1ro-; Morpurgo Davis 1987, 219, see Note no. 31). Lyc. abl. nuredi nuredi “with every new segment of time”, which is possible to project into proto-Lyc. *nu(i) “new” + *ere/i- “time interval”, cp. Gr. n°vnta “next year” < *neuo-uót-M, meaning exactly “in a new year” (Starke 1990, 116-17, see fn. 339a) is also related; Lyd. ora- “month” like the segment of the time, as well (Gusmani 1964, 178; 1982, 81). 4. Hitt. gem-/gim(m)- & g/kimmant- “winter” (from November till March; Puhvel 3, 73: gimmanza kisat “winter is coming”, gimmanti “for the period of winter”, dat. sg. gi-im- mi < *ghimei, dat.-loc. sg. gi-(e)-mi “in winter”= < IE. loc. sg. *gh(i)iém-i, acc. sg. giman can reflect an n-stem of neuter *gheim÷, corresponding to Gr. xe›ma “winter” or a root name * ghim-M with nom. *ghim-s or o-stem *ghimom of the type of OI. himá- “frost”; see Puhvel 4, 145). Hitt. verb giman-ye “to overwinter” (Oettinger 2001a, 307) reflects the form in -n-. According to Melchert (1994, 153), it is possible to derive the form gimmant- from the form *gheimn-ont- which is, however, what the majority of other specialists does not agree with; above all, we can mention e.g. Oettinger (2001a, 307), who reconstructs the basis of *gheim-on-t-. Oettinger (1982, 238) proposes the following reconstruction of the whole paradigm: nom. sg. *ghéió(m), acc. *ghéiom-M, gen. *ghim-és, dat. *ghim-ei, loc. *gh(i)iém-i. 5/6. Hitt. ha(m)mesha- & ha(m)meshant- c. “spring(- summer)” (from April till June; Puhvel 3, 73): hameshi kisari “(e. g. a storm) is coming in spring”, but hameshanza kisari “spring is coming”, hameshanza zinattari “spring is ending”; gen. ha-me-is-ha-as / ha-mi-es-ha-as, dat.-loc. ha-me-es-hi “in spring”; -nt-stem: acc. sg. ha-mi-es-ha-an-tin, gen. sg. ha-am- me-es-ha-an-ta-as, dat.-loc. ha-mi-is-ha-an-ti. For the Hitt. word ha(m)mesha(-nt)- a number of etymologies was proposed: (i) It was already Bedich Hrozn… who first speculated on the connection with IE. words for “summer”, such as Av. Volume 39, Number 3 & 4, Fall/Winter 2011 416 Lenka Doçkalová and Václav Blazek ham-, Eng. summer, plus OI. samá, Arm. am “year”. Hoenigswald (1952, 183) tried to explain the difference between Hitt. h- : IE. *s- through the effect of s-mobile. Hamp (1961a, 26) admits that the Hitt. word is akin to other IE. equivalents, but he is not convinced that this is via metathesis. Starting from a proto-form *sH2em-, the root-vowel a in Armenian, as well as in Celtic, is automatically clarified, and there is no need to speculate on the laryngal following -m-. Furthermore, it is likely that the extension of the base *sham- (on the basis of Hittite) by a suffix -sha- gives rise to the simplification of an initial consonantal cluster *sh-. CLuv. hishiya- “to bind”, HLuv. hishimin compared to Hitt. ishiya- “to bind” offer an analogous translation. Luvian forms represent an intensive reduplication, characteristic for Luvian verbs (Puhvel 1-2, 398-402). The simplification of the consonantal clusters *sh .. sh > h .. sh has an exact analogy in the supposed development of the basis *sham- after affixing the suffix -sha-. (ii) Kurylowicz (1927, 101) proposed the solution hamesha- < *hwesha-, which would determine the approach to other IE. words for “spring”, such as OI. vasantá-. Indeed, Hitt. -m- can reflect an original *-w-, but only after *u/*u, e.g. Hitt. sumés “you” < *s(u)uès (Melchert 1994, 58). (iii) Starke (1979, 249-50) and Gusmani (1972, 259) elaborate on Sturtevant’s (1928, 163-64) old idea about the connection of the Hitt. word with Gr. émãv “I am reaping”. The reconstruction of the root *H2meH2-, extended by the suffix of verbal abstract nouns *-sH2o-, results from this idea. (iv) Goetze (1951, 471) saw the compound there: ha(m)esha- < *hanwasha- < *hant-wesha- “an early spring”, cp. It. primavera, Akkad. pán satti “spring” = “the beginning of the year”. Hoffner’s (1974, 15) idea derives from *hant- miyasha- where mai-/miya- “to grow” is used in connection with “spring” in a cult legend about the feast Purulli. (v) Çop (1971, 63) sought a cognate in Toch. A omäl, B emalle “warm, hot” < *omel(i)o- < **H3m-. (vi) Guyonvarc’h (1968, 55) and de Bernardo Stempel (1999, 426, fn. 24) find promising parallels in OIr. amser & The Journal of Indo-European Studies The Indo-European Year 417 aimser “time, period, age, season; weather” < *am(m)-es-terá, where the root *am- also creates another close word amm “time”, which corresponds to Gaul. amman “time, period” from the Calendar of Coligny (*am(s?)-m÷; see de Bernardo Stempel 1999, 241, fn. 7; 273, fn. 104). We prefer this solution. 7. Hitt. zena- & zenant- c. “summer-autumn” (from July till October; Puhvel 3, 73). As for the etymology, a number of options was again introduced: (i) Goetze (1951, 471) linked zena- (as a label of warm period of a year) with other IE. words for a “day”: Got. sinteins “daily”, Pruss. deina “day”, OCS. d"n∫ “day”. However, another research showed that the palatalization of the dental to z only concerns *t. (ii) Benveniste (1954, 35), Puhvel (3, 73) etc. suppose that there is a link to Gr. “late summer” (*op-ohará < *os®-); they remind that Gr. and Hitt. seasons used to begin at the same time: at the rise of Sirius, i.e. around 20th June. Then the Hitt. form would reflect Benveniste’s basis II in the heteroclitic r/n- paradigm: *H1os-®: *H1s-en-. In addition, Ivanov (2003, 201-02) enquires if the initial cluster *H1s- could not give rise to the origin of Hitt. z- in contrast to the expected s-. Let us add a remark that Hitt. z does not mean the voiced correlate to s, but the palatalized t, i. e. /ts/. (iii) Oettinger (1979, 152; 1994, 323) derives zéna- from IE. *séno- which means “old” in the most of IE. branches. Furthermore, G. Neumann (1999, 50-53) added to it Lyc. kbi-sñne “two years old”, tri-sñni “three years old”. Oettinger (1994, 322-323) explains the ‘mysterious’ z- via pre-nasalization: *s ... N > *ns ... N > *z ... N, evoked by that N; cp. zamankur- “beard”, zini “to end” (see Melchert 1994, 83, 172, 315). H. Eichner (1973, 89, fn. 26) can take the credit for this etymology. He first compared Hitt. zena- “autumn” and Gr. d¤enow “two-year” < *dui-seno-. This solution seems most convincing. Note 1.: Puhvel (3, 73) compares three seasons in Hittite to the analogous pattern known from Akkadian - “winter”: ki§§u, exactly “cold” ~ Sum. EN.TE.NA; “spring”: dísu or pán satti, exactly “the beginning of a year”; “summer”: ebúru, exactly “harvest”, cp. Sum. EBUR or Volume 39, Number 3 & 4, Fall/Winter 2011 418 Lenka Doçkalová and Václav Blazek ummátum, cp. umsu “hot” or Assyrian %arpú. 8. Neumann (1958, 221) identified the compound *sM-uétes- “yearly” in Hitt. saw(i)tis(t)- “infant”. His solution is generally accepted. 9.1 Puhvel (3, 74-75) proposed the idea that the original IE. word for “spring” is hidden in the Hitt. compound suppi-washarSAR “onion”, where suppi- means “clean” or “sacred” (it concerns the ritual text, where the peels of the onion are found in the metaphorical context; cp. Hoffner 1974, 108-09; Ivanov 2003, 191) and Sum.