University of Kentucky UKnowledge Linguistics Faculty Publications Linguistics Spring 6-1-2010 Reconstructing Indo-European Syllabification Andrew M. Byrd University of Kentucky, [email protected] Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits oy u. Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/lin_facpub Part of the European Languages and Societies Commons, Indo-European Linguistics and Philology Commons, and the Other Languages, Societies, and Cultures Commons Repository Citation Byrd, Andrew M., "Reconstructing Indo-European Syllabification" (2010). Linguistics Faculty Publications. 55. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/lin_facpub/55 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Linguistics at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Linguistics Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Reconstructing Indo-European Syllabification This dissertation is available at UKnowledge: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/lin_facpub/55 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Reconstructing Indo-European Syllabification A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Indo-European Studies by Andrew Miles Byrd 2010 © Copyright by Andrew Miles Byrd 2010 To my parents, Jack and Vicky, who have always encouraged me to look for four-leaf clovers. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Symbols and Abbreviations . viii 1 Assumptions, Previous Scholarship & Goals ................. 1 1.1 Overview. 1 1.2 Assumptions of Proto-Indo-European Phonology. 2 1.2.1 Allophonic Variation. 5 1.2.2 Reconstructing Consonant Clusters. 7 1.3 Optimality Theory. 14 1.3.1 Relevance to IE Phonology. 15 1.3.2 PIE Conspiracies. 22 1.4 Theoretical Assumptions of the Syllable. 23 1.5 Past Views of PIE Syllabification. 28 1.6 Goals of Dissertation . 37 2 Predicting Indo-European Syllabification through Phonotactic Analysis. 39 2.1 Overview. 39 2.2 CHCC > CCC Revisited. 40 2.2.1 Evidence and Past Scholarship. 41 2.2.2 Counterexamples. 46 2.2.3 Hackstein’s Syllable-Based Treatment of CHCC > CCC. 48 2.3 General Guidelines to Reconstructing Indo-European Syllabification. 49 2.3.1 Deducing Indo-European Syllabification. 50 iv 2.3.2 Proto-Indo-European ‘father’. 52 2.3.3 Why does *#CHC- simplify to *#CC-? . 57 2.4 The DECOMPOSITION THEOREM...................... 63 2.5 Exceptions to the DECOMPOSITION THEOREM.............. 65 2.5.1 Sequential Constraints. 65 2.5.2 Consonant Licensing. 67 2.5.3 Lexical & Morphological Gaps. 69 2.5.4 Morpheme Structure Constraints. 71 2.5.5 Extrasyllabicity. 72 2.5.6 Review of Exceptions to the DECOMPOSITION THEOREM... 72 2.6 Establishing the DECOMPOSITION THEOREM as a Typological Uni- versal. 73 2.7 Fine-tuning the DECOMPOSITION THEOREM............... 77 3 Livin’ on the Edge: PIE Extrasyllabicity and the MAXST. ........ 82 3.1 Overview. 82 3.2 Past Uses of the DECOMPOSITION THEOREM in Indo-European Studies. 83 3.3 Extrasyllabicity in Proto-Indo-European. 85 3.3.1 Extrasyllabic Consonants in Coda Position. 86 3.3.2 Revisions to CHCC > CCC. 87 3.3.3 *RF$. 88 3.3.4 Extrasyllabicity Test #1: Monosyllabic Lengthening. 94 3.3.5 Extrasyllabic Consonants in Onset Position. 100 v 3.3.6 Extrasyllabicity Test #2: Reduplication. 100 3.3.7 The Rule of Onset Extrasyllabicity. 105 3.4 Review of PIE Extrasyllabicity. 106 3.5 The Maximum Syllable Template. 107 3.6 The métron rule. 110 3.7 Exceptions to the MAXST? . 112 3.8 Conclusions. 114 4 Motivating Sievers’ Law. ............................. 116 4.1 Introduction and Overview. 116 4.2 Overview of Sievers’ Law. 117 4.2.1 Evidence in the daughter languages. 120 4.2.2 Einzelsprachlich or Inherited? . 123 4.2.3 Schindler 1977. 125 4.3 Motivating Sievers’ Law: the Avoidance of Superheavy Syllables. 128 4.3.1 Framework Used in Analysis. 130 4.3.2 The Stem Level. 132 4.3.3 The Postlexical Level. 134 4.3.4 Overgeneration. 138 4.4 Consequences of Analysis. 142 4.4.1 Advantages. 143 4.4.2 Disadvantages. 143 4.4.3 Predictions. 146 vi 4.5 Summary and Conclusions. 147 5 Concluding Remarks. ............................... 148 5.1 Overview of Findings. 148 5.2 The Rules of Proto-Indo-European Syllabification Redefined. 150 5.2.1 FAITH(σ) at the Word Level. 151 5.2.2 Why should VCCV be syllabified as VC.CV? . 157 5.3 Future Directions. 158 A Glossary of Concepts and Constraints ..................... 160 B Proto-Indo-European Edge Phonotactics ................... 163 References . 169 vii SYMBOLS C consonant U glide “ C syllabified consonant V vowel ˚ F fricative V¯ long vowel H or hx laryngeal * reconstructed as, violation K tectal ** non-occurring L liquid > diachronically develops into N nasal < diachronically derives from O obstruent becomes by analogy or sound law → P stop ! becomes by analogy & sound law R sonorant µ mora R syllabic sonorant σ syllable ˚ T dental stop $ or ]σ or . syllable boundary U high vowel # word boundary ABBREVIATIONS acc. accusative Alb. Albanian aor. aorist Arm. Armenian Av. Avestan Bal. Balochi Boeot. Boeotian Bret. Breton Corn. Cornish Cret. Cretan Cyp. Cypriot dat. dative Dor. Doric du. dual Eng. English Gaul. Gaulish GAv. Gathic Avestan gen. genitive viii Germ. German Gk. Greek Gmc. Germanic Goth. Gothic EWAia Mayrhofer 1985-2001 Hitt. Hittite HLuv. Hieroglyphic Luvian IE Indo-European IEW Pokorny 2005 Ion. Ionic impfct. imperfect instr. instrumental Ital. Italian iter. iterative Jap. Japanese Khot. Khotanese Lac. Laconian Lat. Latin Latv. Latvian Lith. Lithuanian LIV Rix et al. 2001 loc. locative Luv. Luvian Lyc. Lycian masc. masculine MBret. Middle Breton MIr. Middle Irish M/P mediopassive MWel. Middle Welsh NIL Wodtko et al. 2008 nom. nominative NPers. Modern Persian nt. neuter OCorn. Old Cornish OCS Old Church Slavic OE Old English OHG Old High German OIce. Old Icelandic OIr. Old Irish OLat. Old Latin OLith. Old Lithuanian OPhryg. Old Phrygian OPruss. Old Prussian OSax. Old Saxon Osc. Oscan Osc.-Umb. Osco-Umbrian OT Optimality Theory Parth. Parthian ix PGmc. Proto-Germanic PIE Proto-Indo-European PIIr. Proto-Indo-Iranian PInd. Proto-Indic PIran. Proto-Iranian PItal. Proto-Italic pl. plural pres. present PSlav. Proto-Slavic RCS Russian Church Slavic Russ. Russian TA Tocharian A TB Tocharian B Toch. Tocharian RV Rig Vedic sg. singular Skt. Sanskrit Slav. Slavic subj. subjunctive Umbr. Umbrian Ved. Vedic Wel. Welsh Yagh. Yaghnobi YAv. Young Avestan x ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The following dissertation would not be nearly as good – and probably never even completed – if I had not been helped by so many along the way. I would first like to thank my advisor, Craig Melchert, for giving an effective mix of skepticism and support throughout this process, and for putting a bug in my ear that the topic of Indo-European syllabification was one that so sorely needed revisiting. I have been blessed to have had a committee of excellent scholars at my disposal, with Kie Zuraw aiding me through the intricacies of generative phonology and Brent Vine, Cal Watkins and Chris Stevens through the mysteries of Indo-European linguistics. I am indebted to the many other teachers that I have had throughout my aca- demic career, beginning with Jared Klein at the University of Georgia, followed by Onofrio Carruba in Pavia, Jeremy Rau and Jay Jasanoff at Harvard, and Vyacheslav Ivanov, Raimo Anttila and Stephanie Jamison at UCLA. I am most especially grateful to Stephanie during my time in L.A., whose insightful work, though rarely dealing with consonant clusters per se, has taught me the value of effective presentation and of common-sense scholarship. I have also been fortunate to have studied generative phonology with Bruce Hayes and Kie Zuraw during my stay at UCLA, and to have been introduced to the wonderful world of Georgian (whose consonant clusters still make me giddy) with Pam Munro and Manana Batashvili as my guides. I would also like to thank all of my fellow UCLA PIES graduate students, espe- cially Jessica DeLisi and Tim Dempsey, who have been most kind to have read through multiple incarnations of what follows, as well as the sole other member of my 2004 cohort, Dieter Gunkel, for six years of challenging discussions and ideas. I would also like to show my appreciation to Masato Kobayashi and Götz Keydana, who have been kind enough to give me advice throughout this entire process and whose work xi the reader will no doubt recognize to be especially influential on my own. I would last like to thank my family and friends for listening to me prattle on about Indo-European linguistics and consonant clusters throughout the years, especially my wife Brenna, who keeps me sane and smiling, and my parents, who have kept me driving on. xii VITA Sept. 25, 1979 Born, San Diego, California. 2002 A.B., Linguistics University of Georgia, Athens Athens, Georgia 2002–2003 Fulbright Fellowship Università degli Studi di Pavia Pavia, Italy 2003-2004 Visiting Student in Linguistics Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts 2005-2006 Graduate Research Mentorship University of California, Los Angeles 2007-2009 Teaching Assistant Linguistics Department University of California, Los Angeles 2008 Candidate of Philosophy Program in Indo-European Studies University of California, Los Angeles 2008 Lecturer in Linguistics California State University, Fullerton Fullerton, California xiii PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS Byrd, Andrew Miles (In press a). Motivating Sievers’ Law. Proceedings of the 21st Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. ——— (In press b). Deriving Dreams from the Divine: Hittite tesha-/zash(a)i-. His- ˇ ˇ torische Sprachforschung. ——— (In press c). Predicting Indo-European Syllabification through Phonotactic Analysis. The Sound of Indo-European - selected papers from the conference, held in Copenhagen 16–19 April 2009. ——— (October 2009). Motivating Sievers’ Law in a Stratal OT Framework.