VIT by

In memory of Jakob Pieter Smit t 28.8.1965

1. The origin of the final -.t in the nominatives of noun stems in ~r j, and h (representing proto-Indo-European k, g, and ~h) and of the corresponding .d before the case endings -bhih. and -bhyah.1 is not merely one of the minor problems of the historical grammar of Indo-Aryan. 2 Since it has often been assumed that the retroflex stop indirectly reflects a palatal stop [t'] or an affricate [tg] in proto-Indo-Iranian, 3 it is also of some importance for the reconstruction of the prehistoric development of Iranian, and especially for the interpretation of Old Persian 0, 4 for the
1 For the Vedic forms in -.t see Lanman, Noun-Inflection in the Veda ( = JAOS, 10) (1878), pp. 463, 490, 499; Macdonell, Vedic Grammar (1910), pp. 183, 237, 239. 2 See Wackernagel, Altindische Gramrnatik, I (1896), pp. 173ff., 176 and Nachtriige, pp. 92-94; III (1930), pp. 232f., 253f. 3 Cf., e.g., F. MOiler, Wiener Sitzungsberichte, 89 (1878), p. 5: "ConsonantenDiphthonge" (ts'etc., different from affricates, see WZKM, 9, p. 138 and Bartholomae's comment, ZDMG, 50 [1896], p. 705 n. 1), "im Indischen richtiger ~ " ; Meillet, MSL, 8 (1894), p. 284, J. Bloch, L'Indo-Aryen (1934), p. 53 (tA~ .t.y~ .t), Kurytowicz, Actes du 4e Congrks des linguistes (Copenhagen, 1938), p. 63 (ks ~ .t~~ t.), Comptes rendus de la Socidtd des Sciences et des Lettres de Wroctaw, III/1 (1948), p. 5, L'Apophonie (1956), p. 373f. (ks>t's.~t..s). 4 But OP. Oadayati can only be explained on the assumption of proto-Iranian *g or or *s, see Hfibschmann, KZ, 23 (1877), p. 397, Nyberg, Studia Indo-Iranica, Ehrengabe fiir W. Geiger (1931), pp. 213-216, Leumann, IF, 58 (1941), p. 3 ( = Kleine Schriften [1959], p. 3291".). It is hard, in the light of this evidence, to accept the view that Kafiri [ts] corresponding to Av. s and Skt. L is decisive proof for the existence of affricates in proto-Iranian. See for the evidence of Kafiri Morgenstierne, NTS, 13 (1945), p. 225f. and the theories based on it by Pisani, Archivio Glottologico Italiano, 33 (1941), p. 71, Rysiewicz, Studia Jfzykoznawcze (1956), p. 290, V. V. Ivanov, Voprosy Jazykoznanija, VII/4 (1958), p. 14. As for Oss.faerxt "axe", which Hfibschmann was the first to draw attention to, this may be a loan-word; see Abaev, Osetinskijjazyk ifol'klor (1949), p. 139f. As for *~h the possibility that uaganna "race-track" in the Kikkuli-text stands for prehistoric (Indo-)Aryan *v~hana- should be noted (see Benveniste, Hittite et IndoEuropden, p. 9 and Mayrhofer, llJ, VII [1964], p. 210, Die Sprache, 10 [1964J, p. 175), whereas for *z"the rendering by z (as in -~aza = Ved. vdja-) is instructive. The evidence of Kafiri (which may have split off in the common Indo-Iranian period, see Morgenstierne, p. 235) has no clear support in either Iranian or Indo-Aryan.


r . B . J . KUIPER

PIE. reconstruction of the phonemes traditionally denoted by k/5 or k 8, etc., 5 and for the relations between centum and satem languages. ~ In view of the far-reaching theories which, partly at least, have been based upon the final -.t of Sanskrit it may be useful to reconsider the problem. Before entering into a discussion of the general problem itself, however, I should like to make some remarks about a point of detail. Many of the explanations proposed start without further discussion from the assumption that a (proto-Indo-Iranian) affricate [t~] had become a retroflex cluster [t..s] in some prehistoric period (which most authors omit to specify sufficiently). Thus Jules Bloch writes that in [t~] "le premier 616ment tendait ~t s'assimiler au second, donc ~ prendre la forme c6r6brale". 7 If, however, the proto-Indo-Iranian representative of PIE. ~: still was ITS], the question necessarily arises whether this has actually become [.t.s] in any position, no matter at what time this must be supposed to have taken place. If so, the prototype of Skt. gatdm "hundred" must have been *t.s.atdm, with an initial .t which even in classical Sanskrit was extremely rare. A second objection that must be raised concerns the cluster [t..s], which is, in some way or other, the basis on which most of the more recent explanations have been founded. This cluster, however, is entirely non-existent in the phonemic system of Sanskrit in historical times, the only comparable clusters that actually occur being ts and .ts. A third objection concerns the obvious fact that the assumption of retroflex phonemes for proto-Indo-Iranian is fully unwarranted. In old Iranian such retroflexes are entirely lacking, and in Indo-Aryan the genesis of these phonemes is in all likelihood a comparatively late process which must have taken place in the separate branch owing to foreign influence in the Indian linguistic area. 8 A theory, therefore, which presupposes the existence of such retroflex phonemes at an early date, either in proto-Indo-Iranian or in proto-IndoAryan, would for this very reason seem a priori implausible. It is curious that so little attention has been paid to these quite obvious difficulties by the advocates of the theories in question. 2. To get a better insight into the prehistory of the enigmatic final -.t it may be convenient first to consider more closely the problem of the long
5 T. Burrow, JAOS, 79 (1959), pp. 85-90; cf. pp. 255-262. 6 V.V. Ivanov, Voprosy Jazykoznanija, VII/4 (1958), pp. 12-23. 7 L'lndo-Aryen (1934), p. 53f. He here follows Meillet, MSL, 8 (1894), p. 284. Cf. also F. Mtiller, Wiener Sitzungsber., 89 (1878), p. 5 (see above, note 3). Wackernagel, Altincl. Gramm., I (1896), p. 176, accepted .t.s as the previous stage of .t, Bartholomae, ZDMG, 50 (1896), p. 704, rejected it. 8 See above, "The Genesis of a Linguistic Area" (p. 81 ft.).

OP. 34. 11 Wackemagel-Debrunner. 10. (Y. etc. "r 105 sibilant in Sanskrit.dbhih that will be put forward below. where the Iranian stem form zarah."narrowness" (AS. loc. III. Owing to an incorrect interpretation of its stem form Bartholomae was led to explain this as an analogical formation. VIII. Here the long ("geminate") s occurs only in cases where one morpheme ends in -s and the following begins with it. : a) In the phonemic system of proto-Indo-European a long s seems always to have been shortened: 9 cf. lo See Bartholomae. In the case of raucabiY. pl. VI. of drhhas. The same shortening is found in word-final position (in accordance with the general rule) in such Rigvedic forms as dvive. of apds.. . the OP.13c stand for [yat cai~ta huda'ahbyah] Cf. has been created by the side of the loc. Av. this explanation. ahi. Gramm. x4 See IIJ. e.11 However. 29 (1888). The chief difficulty is that the corresponding Avestan forms point to [-ah-big]. id. owing to a different analogy.13 (also occurring in Later Avestan). id. 290. p. 289f."active" (RS. etc. a parallel instance in Sanskrit would be the instr. As far as I can see. pl. instr. p. 180). 575.2).should be noted.7. raucabiJ for *raucazbi~ deserves mention in this connection. viz. which can be due either to a proto-Iranian innovation or to one of Avestan alone.THE SANSKRIT NOM.h which. 310. 111.35. 1~ it can hardly be doubted that the words hya. it is possible that the analogy of the corresponding case forms of the n-stems. however. p. p. Avestan qzahu.). 1 (1895). and since the stem must have been [huda'ah-] in Zarathustra's dialect. 4. I (1957).t cavi~ta huddby6 in Y. *nama-hu : *nama-bi~. p. pp.h. p. (for *vi-ve. d in the vulgate text is a graphic representation of [ah]. 1824 n.s-s). *raucahu (analysed as *rauca+hu). PIE. Gr. 89. etc) ~ In view of the explanation of vi. Philologie.14).seems to function as the first member of the compound. pl. I. Wackernagel. In that case.g. zftrakara. the most important evidence in this respect is the Gathic form huddbyO Y. col. Awestisches Elementarbuch [1909]. apdsu.. SING. I. 34. pl. e. Altind. as reflected by Skt. III.. dsi. 6hasu. 18 Altiranisehes W6rterbueh. It is a well-known fact that in these cases we find three different representations. first proposed by Bartholomae. g[.. It is true that a similar anomaly is found in such an apparently recent compound as OP."evil-doer" for *zftras-kara-. KZ. 13 Since. 1 (not mentioned by Reichelt. Altindisehe Grammatik. pl. The contrast with Vahyaz-data. has given rise to a new form rauca-biYby the side of the loc. *dsi for *dssi "thou art". 12 Grundriss der iran. ahiy. 215.g. however. Some last traces of this shortening are found in the noun-inflection of the oldest Indo-Iranian texts: Skt. drhhasu. vivdh. dho-bhi. 12 is far from certain.

raucdhva [= raueahva]. 708f. 46ff. Tedesco.g.. 63. 244) (Paris.. S. Humbach.. p.).. ~ standing for 5 (e. took -~ as representing a visarga (= -ah.-The reading huddby6. note 20. p. which point to the conclusionthat a is merely graphical.g. 107. GrlrPhiI. I. p. 17 K. MSS. II. p. OM Persian.. G6tt. 153: "Bereits in der arischen Grundsprache scheint inlautendes z vor bh zu h geworden zu sein. p. 83). Gramm. -6big "sont donc deux ph6nomgnes radicalement ind6pendents Fun de l'autre'. 41.6) stands for [raucahbi@ As such it can s u p p o r t the theory that final -~ in the Gathic dialect is merely a graphic representation of [-ah]. The traditional explanation (e. GrlrPhil.. 33 [1913-14]. 83) is unacceptable. 9. 1925). The explanations proposed by Gauthiot. Aw.. I (1923). in any case. L'Apophonic en indo-europden. 173f. p. col. I(1852-54).. Traces de laplace du ton en gathique ( = Biblioth~que de l'l~cole des Hautes t~tudes.. Bartholomae and Brugmann. Nachr. Thumb-Hauschild. 1889. fail to convince. 154. Iranistik. p. who explained -adbhib and -adbhya. IF. n.. 486. JAs. 70. 1. 11. but in Irans Forntida Religioner [1937]. p.1c.Handbuch des Sanskrit. Im Awesta ist dieses sektmd~irentstandene o durch #. 289.h. ravShu. Zoroastrian Problems in ninth-century Books (1943). Kurytowicz.106 F. 16 Since the occasional spelling with -6big (thus p r o b a b l y in gar6bf~ Y. 48 n. 117 (ah >qh > oh >5) and W. Jos. similarly Scheftelowitz. 50) (1930). p. Elementarb. 8: "-# (ftir auslautendes -ah. 215. Bailey. p.. See Hoffmann. 225. ~9 Wackenaagel-Debrunner. Altind. ("vorindisch"). pl. ved. 202 n. I. Reiehelt. F... I/I. ZII.. Elementarb. Latin de mot. Das Awestaatphabet ( = Caucasica. Aw. qzahu. The explanation of LAv. 164. p. For different opinions on a see Andreas.aojSnghvantdm (Bartholomae. there would not seem to be any need for a particular term for a voiceless h in final position (Reichelt. p. Reichelt. like Wackernagel. who reads hudaby6. 1 (fracara apausa form of *fracarah. III (1930). H. is which reflects the characteristic I n d o . p. Vayu. p. pp. that the Gathic instr. Le Zend-Avesta. II) (1925). which was. found in the best manuscripts. No.. he takes a different view). aoja~hvat. I (1892). like LAv. Karl Hoffmann. Nyberg.~. 15 It is probable. See below.c. Allen. 336. Bartholomae. 174). -ih). Sandhi (1962). -aO aus -as)". Wikander. ZDMG.. Wb. p. 5 for ah in final position and for a in compounds remains a crux (see also Markwart. Das erste Kapitel der GSp5 ugtavatf ( = Orientalia. has rightly been accepted by most authorities ever since Westergaard. 31. p. I. Grammatik. aojSnghva_t. 30. III. u~ahva beside LAv.c. 1. 1.A r y a n developm e n t of -az-? 9 I n the light of this Avestan evidence it is quite possible 15 For eavigtd (Geldner civigtd) = *cOigtd. Hoffmann. -obhiO and that in Av.6 a n d raoc3byd Y. 17 it is impossible to assume any historical c o n n e c t i o n between Avestan -6bio~ a n d Vedic -obhi. In 1913 Scheftelowitz . and note LAv. p. raoc~b~ Y. Les dialeetes indoeuropdens (1908). Bartholomae's reading cavi~t5 (Altiran. W. 33. 180). 5 wiedergegeben . B. KUIPER in Z a r a t h u s t r a ' s dialect. 67. even if intervocalic h was voiced in Old Iranian. Zendavesta. p. p. 180. 34.7a (cf.h as the regular phonetic developments of -azbhil. p. pp. Markwart. etc. 58. welches den vorhergehenden a-Vokal zu o triibte und dann in der Aussprache mit dem nachfolgenden bh zusammenfiel. 1911. 442) has been corrected in col. op. see Darmesteter. p. GrlrPhiL. 333 ("-obhis vielleicht schon urarisch". 2 (1952). p. p. stressed the fact that the o in Skt. fasc." Against this view Meillet. p. 30.e.2c) is due to the secondary i n t r u s i o n of LAv. merely an allophone of the phoneme/h/. J. 21. ~s Bartholomae. 2. beside GAv.. who thereby corrects the older theory of GAv. However. therefore. 1931. p. p. p. J. Junker. 289. Kent. tdmShva. 18 See H. p. 1. 2 (d = w). 192f. Altind. rightly reject the older theory of Benfey. 15ft. p. pp. I. 19. I. in spite of Geldner. 6 for ~ into the G a t h i c orthography. Awestisches Elementarbuch. 43f.. 50 (1896). l. (a = y). Reichelt.

24 N o instance o f a monosyllabic root m o r p h e m e with a short vowel is recorded. vas.. pp. of a stem in -i. Grammatik. p. Ved. For a different explanation of OP. 8). 153). in -assu (or -a. p. b) The n o r m a l representation in Sanskrit. V[t.."to eat". see Wackernagel-Debrtmner. however. 38 and 178. and that in raucabig this nominative form had been introduced. In the same way the loc. A parallel p h e n o m e n o n in the verbal inflection is the long s in ~dssi SB. III. IV. occurs only in some verbal stems of the roots ghas. Gramm. Lanman. which seems equally possible. In this connection the evidence of Ved.h idd ~ f.1 (p. 573. I. VII. op. As far as I can see.g. etc. viz. p.ddbhi. 233. p. endings -as and _ffsis certainly incorrect. 20 With loss of the voiced h according to Kent.). 289."to dawn". 111. ts for ss. See below. dialect.. r6jassu. In this connection it may be observed that Meillet's assumption (apud Meillet-Benveniste. p. which are fully parallel to raks.hsu). raucabi5 also stands for *raucahbiL ~~ In that case the substitution of-ahbiY for *-azbiY might have been an innovation o f proto-Iranian. *i.1. ~rdvassu. the ancient Iranian genitive [mazda'ah] of the Gathic dialect must have survived in Old Persian as *mazdah (with a final h) up to a certain time. Noun-Inflection in the Veda. mdsfi TS.2 was replaced by m~ssu KS. p. 261) of an implosive s in the OP. ~sse ChU. As the genitive mazdah-a (with a new genitive ending added) shows. vas. 24 See Nachtriige ad Altind. Vedic Grammar.. pp. etc. SING. Gramm.g. the nora.. OM Persian. It is restricted to the stems of the future and the s-aorist had already combated it (IF. c) The third representation. Altind. 27. o f the nouns in -asis.s-. c.5.dbhi. (etc. 22 Cf."to clothe". *raucahd.andpurobh~-. mayobh~.oh6n-. p. sing. Altind. p. 33." m o n t h " . p. PB. no matter how these -ah and -ah had come to be pronounced in the period of the Achaemenids in the S. p. v ~ i b y 6 [ = vd#byah] for *v~gby6. III (1930). 41. final -as and -as must have become -ah and -ah in the common proto-Iranian language. Wackernagel(-Debrunner). which would be parallel to.2. is the long s. 109. raucabi~. this innovation is mostly explained as an intrusion of the nominative f o r m (or a sandhi variant o f it) into other case forms. 39. of rods. viz. sing. v~xL In view of the mutual influence exercized by the singular and plural fornls of the instrumental (see below. Lanman. Macdonell. TB.h) the stem-form of [raucahbiY] might as well be explained f r o m the instr. e. which has analogically been restored."to dwell". 61. 107 that OP. pl.4. 33. or merely graphic for [raucahbid] according to Brandenstein-Mayrhofer. f r o m the Rigveda downwards.W. 567. 2891'. would seem of particular importance.. manoj~-.THE SANSKRITNOM. 2a CT. They assume that the nora. and vas. 22 e. I (1896). e. ~ See. Grammaire du vieux-perse. ~1 The loc. . sing. 63. had already become *rauca in OP. Handbuch des Altpersischen.g. However that m a y be. 2s The explanation by analogy implies a (more or less conscious) effort on the speakers' part to m a r k off the m o r p h e m e -su as a separate element of the word. lll. and similarly hav(s. cf..

haurvatas. this theory (which Bartholomae later put forward with the greatest reserve. 32 (1911). 39. in *sarvdtat-s>*sarvdtas. XX. 129.g. as due to the 3 sing. sarvdtat (for *sarvdtat-s). p.. before dh developed to h in Vedic. Gramm. 27 See resp. this isolated instance ofzdh at a prehistoric stage of Indo-Aryan has since satisfactorily been ex25 See Wackernagel. in spite of the numerous analogical new formations which it presupposes. 27 They assumed that (apparently in protoIndo-iranian) ts had become ss. I. p. 178. vy-avat (from vi-vas-). 26 For exact references see Wackernagel. In this isolated case the group d-dh must have become (via regular *dzdh) zdh.c.: Av. however. pp.. it is on the analogy of this restoration of ts in patsyati (supposed to stand for *passyati) that vatsyati for *vas-syati (future of vas-"to dwell") can be explained. 28 No inference. 711). but does not occur before the personal endings -si and -se. etc."wishing to fast". p. can be drawn from Rigvedic tsdru-"a crawling animal". 336-338). a-gat (root gas-) are themselves comparatively recent new formations. Bloomfield and M. A different theory was developed by L. indeed. datsva."fish". AmJPhil. 2s Leumann's main reason for maintaining the theory. 179 with Nachtriige. Br. however. a-vat (from vas. ts is supposed to have been restored "aus Grtinden etymologischer Durchsichtigkeit". ZDMG. 50 [1896]. Gr. I. which is still extant in Avestan. 96 (ad Altind. Now. p. where such an analogy cannot have worked. J. patsyati and pats(t. is Ved. the development that is found in Iranian. accordingly.. corresponding to GAy.6. B. Here. e. p. 55 and IF. It has. I.Altind.I. patsti > *passfi. dazd~. In Indo-Aryan. which accounts for Ved. The most complete list of forms attested is to be found in Debrunner's Naehtriige. which may date from either the protoIndo-Iranian or the Indo-Aryan period.. can hardly account for such forms as jighatsat KS. This is. vivatsydti MS. However.108 F. 26 Besides. 58 (1941). masya. Leumann. it seems."to dwell"). aghas AS. dasva. dehi from *dazdhi. this analogical explanation fails to account for Ved. mdtsya. . *dz seemed to have become z. 1681~ The explanations proposed for this particular development are essentially of two types :55 The first group of explanations is based on the supposition that ts is the result of an analogical innovation. However. *pat-syati > *passyati. contrasting with Av.s-s) could easily be re-interpreted as the personal ending (like a-pa-s : a-pa-t). fut. KUIPER and some desiderative formations like upa-vivatsu. as Leumann rightly observes. due to the fact that in the corresponding 2 sing. add vatsyan JB..g. 12-14 (= Kleine Schriften [1959].. pp. for *a-ghas. the s in -as (e. long since been recognized that such forms as AS. Bartholomae explained the t in the aorist a-vat-s-am AB.

Cf. *dadzdhi). Hoffmann. rightly objected that this did 29 K. such as dmhasu. I. Nor can it be a regular development. p. 8 (1956).h 2 and jlghatsati 2 (with jighatsf~. Grammar. also the external sandhi of ddha k sa'rantf. III. cut to pieces". fell. Wackernagel(-Debrunner). the earliest occurrences apparently being avdtsi. in -assu (as against one instance in -asu) show that as a rule the long ss. remained intact. p. Afterwards the cluster [sts] in [vas-tsy~mi] must have undergone the same dissimilation that is found in the future of vraAc. in -tsu. There was. ~2 Altind. s0 E. the normal development of *vas-sydmi to *vasydmi would have resulted in a lack of morphological clearness as it would have suggested an analysis va-sydmi. rcijassu."to hew down. and the future stem of such a monosyllabic verbal root as vas. not a single instance of ts is found in the Rigveda. pl. to mark off the beginning of the morpheme from the preceding s. Schmidt. p. p. viz. 21. I."to dwell". ~ vrak. 1. when it was analogically restored. Pisani) must be ruled out because ss was itself an innovation of lndo-Aryan. 29 Hence the only support for the supposed phonetic development in Indo-Iranian has been eliminated. 270. etc. 109 plained as the result of dissimilation (either in PIL. or in PIA.Veda. ZDMG. p. : "nur jungvedisch land ganz selten").34. 50. Gramm. p.THE SANSKRIT NOM. . Ved. The possibility that this has taken place in p r o t o . Pit.E u r o p e a n ( J o h . The conscious will of the speakers to counteract the normal phonetic tendency of their language. pl. 711. Altind..sydmi. I. 71). 179. 31 Something of this kind Wackernagel must have had in mind when he wrote that ts is due to the fact "dass man den zugeh6rigen Formen zu lieb dem s ein zweites s vorschob. *vrask-.11 (Macdonell.I n d o . one difference between the loc. ''82 Bartholomae.g. p... dann wurde s-s zu ts. SING. pl. Attempts to formulate such a law have failed because vatsyati (for *vas-syati) cannot possibly be explained from such an ausnahmsloses Lautgesetz.h VII. the development ofss to ts.. While the first category remained sufficiently identifiable as case forms of words in -as-. 289 on -dbhil~. Gramm. however. Therefore. Gramm. Bartholomae. The ten Rigvedic instances of a l o c . it is true. such as can be formulated in a phonetic law. 3~ Indeed. 31 See Wackernagel. of disyllabic stems in -as-. p. 251 (on the loe. and their effort to over-emphasize the s of the tense morpheme -syaapparently led to a realization of the second s as the affricate [ts]. Altind.2 and ~ for s in ~atdkratuO tscirat VIII. cf. even if the long ss was not restored (as in dmhasu from drhhas-). far from dating back to PIE. 178f. must rather be a (comparatively late) secondary development of the separate Indo-Aryan branch..2) in the Atharva. The second group of theories tries to explain ts as the result of a phonetic development of ss.

B . ~assi. 58 (1941). too. forms in the Rigveda (1546 occurrences) as compared with those of the instr. . madbhib RS.h has gone out of use. die auf zwei Silben verteilt waren. is not attested. IF.c. sddassu. 2 AS..hin the AS.h. 2. of the words of kindred meaning div. was still thinking of a normal phonetic law. op. t und k in der Silbenfuge . and svdtavadbhyah. -~-. 289. 154). he was right in stressing the importance of the syllabic trench.. 582) 3360 for the instr. and ~arddbhih but not a single of their loc. F (1897).s+s > k s (dveks. See Altind. 13 (= Kleine Schriften. 33 (1913-14).sdrn VS.(see below). etc. Table I. 8~ Macdonell. in Yajurvedic texts. The Vajasaneyi Sarhhita."year" there are 19. which uses the normal form sa-jd. p.bhih.5 could have been provoked by karddbhih. on the analogy of the acc. in one of the last parts of the Rigveda (I. 2 occurrences of dy~bbih. Taken by itself. p.h). pl. 2. pl. RS. J . the form of the loc. and dat." However. u. 9. In the light of these facts it can hardly be questioned that the few 38 ZDMG. I m Loc. III.sddbhih. (also AS. pl.. II.. 3 in bk. madbhyd. p. massu.h AS. p. dhgirobhya. pl.-abl. Brugmann.i) is the result of a fundamentally different process (see below.sddbhih. apart from the fact that . and dat. 1. p. PI. together (3847 occurrences in total) 86 sufficiently explains the non-occurrence of *matsu in our text. The lower frequency of the loc. it is fully obscure why *u.. sing. pl. of regis. and 487 for the dat."month".."day" and gardd. pl. 24. the instr.6. ist diese Entwicklung durch Systemzwang gestSrt worden. op. resp. p.. XX). 710. 50.c. pp.which precedes it immediately (Scheftelowitz. pl. has usdbhyam. A more exact definition of the process is found in Brugmann's Grundriss.s6bhi. III.-abl. z~ I think Leumann is right in explaining these forms as new formations based upon a loc. *rnats~. pl. O f the disyllabic stems there is only one isolated instance of u. but it is somewhat hard to believe that madbhyd. 86 The exact figures are (according to Lanman's statistical account in Noun-Inflection in the Veda. p. KtJn'ER not happen in Ved..110 r . 35 Just as in the parallel cases discussed below. 112).3). On the other hand.sobhyam. 33 but this objection is only valid in so far as it proves that ts from ss is not the result of a regular phonetic law. 250. opposite p. 337). As for u. 283. p. Thus. The animate nouns in -ashave the normal ending (dhgirobhi. 85 IF. Gr. A confirmation of the view that the development of s to the affricate Its] was determined by the monosyllabic character of the preceding root morpheme can be found in rnddbhih. which alone can account for those of the instr. and dat. Wackernagel-Debrunner. 735 in the words: "Vermutlich entwickelten sich in den Geminatae -ss-.-abl. could have been created on the analogy of the Rigvedic hapax and have nothing to do with the parallel forms in -d..-abl. 221 n.

pl. v[.v / w i t h a contrastive long a~ "Dissimilatorische Geminataufl6sung als Folge yon l]bersteigerung'. par. p. as Kruisinga rightly observes.t 111 isolated instances of-dbhi. Cf. "is evidently due to the speaker's consciousness of the elements of the compound word" (A Handbook of Present-day English. in all cases. p. SING. his explanation is an improvement upon Brugmann's. -dbhya. The idea that ts is the result of a conscious effort of some speakers in some cases to over-emphasize the second part of the long s after the syllabic trench. 143. III. 20ff. concord (in contrast with. In Old English. I [1896]. KZ. m~t-te "met" remained long.. The starting point probably was.. einerseits sei idg. ~8 In this connection long consonants are particularly interesting in cases where shortening might cause a lack of morphological clearness. In 1930 Wackernagel and Debrunner (Altindische Grammatik. ss. 61 (1934). lff. 38 MSS. 3."all" on the first syllable (instead of the older accentuation *ekd. for instance. ekd-manas-. Thus Berger has pointed out that the accent of dka."one" and vi~va. Long vowels in stressed syllables were indeed shortened before long consonants but this process did not happen if the long consonant belonged to two different morphemes. 32 (1956). p. 436 n. p. As Kurath puts it.THE SANSKRIT NOM. 12.g. und ts lfisst auch die Annahme unverf/inglich erscheinen. Nebeneinander von s. ss zu s reduziert. this is manifest in the length of the preceding vowel. vi~vd-rCtpa-) reflects the emphatic pronunciation which almost automatically results from the meanings "one" and "all". but the long vowels in the past forms rg~d-de "advised". 39 Language. Thus OE. ~7 On p.h are due to a secondary development of Indo-Aryan. also the English pronunciation ofn in income. not to exclude) a process in the Indo-European proto-language.h. the loc.zer has studied a similar phenomenon in modern Greek. 289) rightly abandoned the older theory of zbh >dbh (vol. 401)." Apart from the fact that Schwyzer here seems to assume (or at least. 179) and explained dbh as analogical. especiallyp. 222-252. *mdbbum "treasure" (Goth. 5ft. 3 (1953). The influence of such an emphasis on what would be the regular phonetic development is too well-known to require an ample discussion. p. . p. anderseits (restituiertes) ss iibertreibend zu ts geworden. 5. is no novel one. Ed. 32 (1958). e.g. e. In more than one language they apparently constituted a specific problem. 234 of his article he makes the following remark: "Das neugriech. maibms) became mabbum.and *vi~vdwhich is still normal in composition. pp.. who still operated with a regular phonetic law. ~9 there is in this case a structural difference " b e t w e e n / % c . Schw3. conquer) which.

29 (1888).B. In ddvf. .sam. In terms of the classical historical grammar it might be stated that the long vowel was here analogically restored in accordance with the normal type of past forms like m#. viv~h. In Old Tamil a rule of external sandhi demanded that a sentence like mu[ t~tu "a thorn is (a) bad (thing)" should become muttrtu but an optional rule allowed this to be pronounced as muh t. 4~ Cf. 61. indeed. Grundriss. In cases where a final . Either definition ultimately refers. This may (but need not necessarily) have resulted in a particular articulation of the long consonants so as to bring out more clearly the trench between the root morpheme and that of the past tense. KUIPER consonant belonging to the same morpheme. is essential. nor dd "then" with a preceding -a.. where OE. pp. 4~ This is no doubt the reason why Vedic nd "like" is never contracted with any following vowel.~tu in case the first word was monosyllabic and had a short vowel. 574. 4~ See Macdonell. however. KZ. to recognize monosyllables as individual words than to identify polysyllables. p. I S(1897).112 F. 725. e. The introduction of external sandhi in Vedic mdnat.s Wsi > dvek. bhaib in the later language. 41 The conclusion that the emphatic pronunciation of ss in *matsfi...s~ (shortened to .s + s y d m i > dvek.salX. for the basic problem with which we are here concerned is that of "Sprachk/Srper". Brugmann. p. It is harder.. : jds. e. : *dve.s-si). The latter restriction is irrelevant since after long vowels the long consonant was regularly shortened.. Bartholomae.i (*jd.s 4-sam > ddvik.g.syami.5 there is a different sandhi.~-su for mdnassu (the manuscripts and the editions of the Rigveda vary in this respect) may be due to the same tendency.s. yauh. tt but to a specific attitude of the speakers. II (1958). 4~ or it was k.812. *dve. This will be discussed in the next section. vatsydmi was conditioned by the monosyllabic character of the noun stem and the verbal root is confirmed by the evidence of the stems and roots ending in -~. 197.J.s in final position and sometimes medially). hav(s.s of a stem or root was followed by an s of a case or personal ending or a tense morpheme the result in Sanskrit was either . retained long vowels". * advi.g. Vedic Grammar. p. and/~vc-cv/with a sequence of identical short consonants belonging to different morphemes . dviveh.s .lde. 40 For this interpretation of the Old Tamil evidence see llJ. not to a phonic difference between bb and dd.. The first condition. .

has -k.SING. the 2 sing.s-.t is never retroflex. mostly post-Rigvedic. In the same manner the nora. The 2 sing.g. pl. 45 Burrow. See below. ae For the incorrect assumption of . To the same emphatic pronunciation must be due *dvi. as a result of the merger in the 3 sing.44 nor a regular 4~ development in Sanskrit.. pres.s at a prehistoric time. indeed. owes its origin to an optional emphatic articulation after a monosyllabic stem. p.g.V~t 113 Instances of this secondrepresentationare extremelyrare in the Rigveda. Gramm. p. In the noun inflection the normal phonetic development in the paradigm of dvLs.t in Sanskrit. vat-). of the noun inflection. L'lndo-Aryen. Since t after s always becomes . before consonantal clusters lost their last components in final position. vivdh. 123. +s > *dvi.. *dve. 137 with Nachtriige. dvek. Afterwards *dv#. I. pl.g.s§ > *dvi. 25. accordingly. 54. 4a Wackernagel. created on the analogy of vaks. due to an optional emphatic articulation of-su. and it can hardly be doubted that Wackernagel's analogical explanation is correct.s which was properly a PIE. Grundriss.s. It was assumed above that by the side of mds~t. is the very thing that must be expected if-t. pl..46 this would seem the only explanation that is in full accord with the phonetic laws of the language.t$ in proto-Indo-Iranian or proto-Indo-Aryan (e. Never. ist diese Entwieklung durch Systemzwang gestbrt"). who followed Meillet's lead. with a shortening of the long .su.h).su for -ssu been introduced in the loc. >dvit. 87). p. Vedic Grammar.h > *dvirbhi. in -s+si (e. Burrow. (of. > *dv[h. These facts point to the conclusionthat ks for sa is a comparativelylate. It is. 12. Bloch. 44 Thus Brugmann.s+ti and -2+ti into -s[i (cL dvesti and was.i from dvi. *dvi.i. there has existed a variant *mas-tsu >*matsu. massu.43 and ill the later languagethey are limited to the verbal inflection. 104. which was represented by -k. whereas s after .innovationof Sanskrit. Altind. 79 (1959). *dvi.s. p. ss."enemy" would consequently have been as follows: nom. of-. see above. p. loc. *dvis. which represent the non-emphatic pronunciation of the case ending of the loc.. > *dvi.. The contrast with the disyllabic form havLs. accordingly. neither an old. He assumedthat. which is actually attested in the classical language.s regularly became dvit.s. just as in modern Greek s. sing. JAOS. 735 ("Im Loc.s+si) merged with that in -~+si (e. J.s+su > *dvi. pl. p. instr. hav[rbhi. p. rather than an Indo-Aryan. *dvLs+s must have become *dv(st. .su RS. and ts occur side by side as variants. *va~+si).su ( ~ *dvi. > *dv#.h (of.THESANSKRITNOM. p.zbhi. P1. JAOS.s+bhih.

sing.aya 5 must soon have called into existence the noun il.. sing. k.114 F. pl... HI.s>*it. 6nira RS. Gramm.h there are a few instances o f f o r m s w i t h -. vigour. in the inflection of i. Neisser. 1. Gramm. snaiOi~bya).sap-dbhih. are not attested although their former existence must be postulated on account of havtrbhih. is guaranteed by the isolated f o r m dorbhydm VS. pl."fore-arm". 248.7. and *dvirbhya. 552. 27. p. but the new instr.replacing older stems in a consonant. Gramm. sing. 18) and zbh > dbh. KS. p. Gramm. etc.h. but see II/2 (1955).. sing. MS. and llJ.before the endings -bhih and -bhyah.dbhya.and i.. 260. p. k. Noun-Inflection in the Veda.2. and the dat. i. 49 See op. instr. Zum W6rterbuch des 8gveda. sing.I n d o .d. p. IX. 163.128.53.z +bhi. 1.h 5. IV. II/2. III. p.h > *irbhi.-abl.zbh> dbh (strongly questioned by Tedesco. il. The correctness of the reconstruction *dvirbhi. pl. 1. vol. 2. I.see Wackernagel(-Debrtmner) > *it.h AS. 79.s>*#.sip-d). 493 . cf. 3). AS.dayam VS. p. still defended both . As for ira. 47 In this connection the root noun [.slp-abhi. Lg.99..see Lanman.B. 6. ira. 259 and III.s~.dbhi.dbhih. III. Altind.. *i. in -dbhih which are based on a reinterpretation of the instr. Altindisch (1927). etc. In p r o t o . . 48 For the inflection of is.. For the interplay of the declensions of is. ilaya. pl. questioned this origin of ida-. in -d: cf. 1. instr. sing.57 (: *k.zbhis (cf. KUIPER The forms attested in the Veda are: -dv[t. 324. there occur some forms of the instr. *(s+s>*i. sing. pl. p. As a result. p. p. which continues to be used in the later Vedas (loc. pravr" t. viprfit. Altind. Altind. 1 of do. which can be reconstructed as follows: nom. for nouns in -a. p. of root nouns was not formally distinguishable f r o m that of the stems in -a-. Av. however.c. 7 ~ instr. Wrist. and Nachtriige ad Altind. 307ff. 323. p. ilam 9. Gramm.a 16. p. 5. madbhyd. Philologica lndica. madbhi. also accounts for vipr(t.s. The same analogy that gave rise to the instr. II/2. 248. ildlbhih. the last f o r m ild 1. The forms *dvirbhih. f r o m *-i. III. gen.A r y a n the instr. I. III. II. 26. RS.97.see L/iders. p.7 (: k. I. p. pl. has been remodelled after the instr.24. etc. 24.s-.. i. p. pl. III.s+su > *i.h ~B. instr. (iram AS. 49 Inversely the instr.h. p. ~ instr. Altind. *i.h RS. 323. I. p. strength ''4s is particularly interesting. AS. RS. *i.h VS.d-d In the RS.2). III.10 has not ousted i. Instead of such forms in -rbhi. p. p. sing. 155. 5o Wackernagel-Debrunner. and vipr~.J..s. 19 [1943].h IX. 212. T h e word is equally frequent in the family books and in I and X (12 113 I l l 3 IV 1 V ~ V I P V I I P IX 1 X3)3 ~ The word ira 1 (iravant.5) is m u c h less fre~7 Wackernagel-Debrunner. 241.d."prosperity.) loc. 260. *ir-d ~ nora.

53 Av. ~ +s. *-fcsu. -j-. Altir.3 (with dot.h.). name of a cock ("looking forward"). ~4 See Bartholomae.2) and dik. "direction". the PII. -varg "working" (in du~var~tdvarg. the outcome of the historical development can be stated in the morphophonemic rule that monosyllabic stems in -r.s-. It cannot be questioned that the regular representation of PIE.s~ (RS. viz. 1). f. 51 furnishes additional corroboration for the conclusion that proto-Indo-Iranian had in the loc. Wb.. and -us. Weller (1954). See W. in spite of the survival of the isolated instance dorbhydm in VS. bard "mountain".. 52 It follows that also in the nora. Asiatica. pl. GrIrPhiL.).dbhi. ~2. forms of vii-. il. 34 (w92 with compounds. accordingly. 58 such parallel forms as spa~ "spy"..sapdbhi. see p. the normal representation of PIE.s in Indo-Aryan (as represented by Sanskrit).hd< *s(v)ag(s)+dhd (el. vik. However.42). 25. and it remains rare in the later texts (irWin AS. 48 AS./. is a nominative of vis-. a in nd~. I.s-. p. sing. pl. fcs as is found in the loc. lI.h). p. For Av.19 is hardly a trace of an older accentuation. vi~ibyd. 118. 1456. 1057n. I. 1. 1). -is-.s > *vlk.2. onwards). gav~stravarM. III. col.gveda. therefore. Bartholomae. 291. The inference that may be drawn from these facts is that. vi5 Yt. Kent. The aberrant accentuation ird in AS. 13.d before consonants and in final position. e. GrIrPhil. Fs. hvard~.h (: k. I. Henning.2. col.5. to question that the Vedic loc. SING. Gramm. 2). Latin nex. pl. k.(from PIE. no matter how this pre-stage of Indo-Aryan k.d. Although the corresponding Avestan forms are not attested.dard.THE SANSKRIT NOM. *nefcs~. 50 (1896). ~h) was originally quite different from that of the stems in -. par6. 1. 5~ Cf. 2.. 38.sfl (AS. 115 quent. see Bartholomae.-abl. The declension of the Sanskrit root nouns in -i-. ~h +s) was ~ in Iranian and k. ks in Indo-Aryan. 705 . Most important is the evidence of . n~5~7. from the ~B. p. VS. forms must have been a direct continuation of PIE. f. From the same time must date the shift of accent in k. p.s and Iranian ~ is exactly reconstructed. and -h. 5~ The regular Sanskrit form. 216. 2. "clan" and dii-. Such nominative forms in -k actually occur in stems with r or . means rather "bird" (as in V.change . p.. the existence of a nominative *rig is indirectly proved by the dat. 1. which according to Bartholomae. a~vara~ show the same representation of PIE. 1924-1930) obviously dates from preRigvedic times. OM Persian. 12 (w n. Jr&. Altind. pl. *wlfcs and *dlfcs. ks (for k +s. Altir. represent the normal development of PIE. which apparently stands for PIE.g. Wb. 354f. irayai VS. There is no reason.r immediately ~1 cf. Zum W6rterbuch des R.s into t. ZDMG. The differentiation between the three words (for their meanings see Neisser. p. would have been *vlk. 9. 5. The Avestan form nddg "in straits" Y. necis.d/~< *saz.sip~bhi.. XV.

. . d. p. 2 [1932]. which may have been inherited from PII.116 v . vi~va-sr'k MS. for those in ].(Renou. 173. but the whole Rigvedic evidence is confined to the words dik. however. "name of a metre" AS. "parching grain".79. Av.rtvlk RS.~k "coveted by many" (root sprh-. from a stem in -j-. I. 1958/4. Since there can be no doubt that -k was the regular representation.see however Oldenberg. see Lanman. after dental (dik.1. 463.t is. p. In rtv-ij.1 and 3. el. for vi~va-s. sraj. KUIPER preceding the final consonant (as in svar-d~k. u&nik).rt. 232f.'t. 57 Wackernagel.[k see Nachtriige ad Altind. X. p. p. 197 n. I. 17. cf.. pp. or to the preceding t.rt TS. dagvayaz-).97.: nominative in -k after r/r (-dik.sdk "physician" RS..5: avoidance of . II. "tearing out roots" Pft. 5s For the stems in g see Lanman. e. [For rtv-i]..g. p.. Skt. p. 290: -k also after i and u (like Ed. p. 499.).131.'k from stems in -~-.33. where it stood traditionally in pravr.iz-? but see Bartholomae. Meillet. The neuter form purusp. Quite differently ThumbHauschild. and upa-spr. 56 Such cases as the verbal forms asrgtk TS. p. and abhi. Nyberg.nini).] . Vopr. divi-yd].rt.-). *purusp. hira. the problem is how the anomalous nominatives in -. 2). (Vedic Variants. also ]invar av.6k. upa-ya]. etc. 490.ApS. 1 may be relevant. Studia Jfzykoznawcze (1956). that the phonemic system of Indo-Aryan tended to avoid a retroflex stop in the immediate neighbourhood of a vocalic or consonantal r. Noten ad 1.. Gramm. 43! accepted by V..was no longer considered a compound.dat.rtvik). J . sing. masc. s8 bhir occurs IX.: ya]. mfda-v.VS. 6. 310. Av.nya-srak X.4 shows that -k must have been generalized before consonants at an early date.112. B . Ivanov. p. Altind..RS.. 106. III. but bhisdktamarn II. MO.s. 358 and u. Grarnmaire sanscrite. Hence the different formulations that have been proposed for the rule. and perhaps gartd-rf& from one in -h-). and after a retroflex (bhis..i. Sanskritization ofjinva rdvar MS.. aibig is fully obscure (abi. Gramm.7 may be due either to the fact that -/j. p. p.nak X. Rysiewicz. Lanman.' deva-yd].r (dh~n~bh. and vit. 88). Noun-Inflection in the Veda (= JAOS. ~5 or with the syllable beginning with a dental (as in dfk). 323).had early ceased to function as the root noun of yaj.5. found even after . Wackernagel-Debrunner. Zum altiranischen W6rterbuch.4 "having a golden wreath" is ambiguous. and in the classical language -yd]. I/l. The exact conditions under which -k occurs instead o f . Hb.rtvik.. 10) (1878). p. In later times -."sacrificing at the proper seasons. KZ. IF."to sacrifice''59 so that rtvij.. etc.[k indirectly proves the existence of a nora. .s (MeiUet)? 89 Cf. sing. p. 5e Cf. (: LAy. a priest" the nora. It cannot be doubted. Jazykozn. Wackernagel-Debrunner.6. Hermann. 166. 35 [1931].1. 57 In the light of the preceding remarks on the restriction of ts (for ss) to the position after monosyllabic stems and roots. p. MS. 417ff.. V.t after retroflex . are characteristic of the uncertainty that existed among Vedic speakers regarding these forms. the fact that -k is also the only ending that occurs in disyllabic words like bhi. 18 (1905-06). drk YV. There are no further traces of 4/-. and for those in h. 253f. p. bhi~dkti VIII.). indeed. "rainy season" MS. KS (stem prdvr. sparaz-vant-).f are hard to determine because there is some vacillation in Vedic.2 for *bhis. 173.. : asr~t.6. 41 [1907].t are to be accounted for.

su vs. p.. i.h IV. spa~ and *i~ (of the stems spasand i~-) contrasting with vaxg. spdt. In Avestan this parallelism was the natural result of the phonetic development of PII. is perfectly clear. so But see Altind. -~-.s> *spdts > spdt. gen. gen. KZ.2. 53t".t). 173) by. V.s-s > dvit. 18. MSL.dbhi. 284. the further development *spaits >*spd. p. Similarly Meillet. 117 Besides. in the last books.s. stems in -k-. 53. 146. 63 Hermann Jacobsohn. SING. is found intact in Lat.must be reconstructed as *vil-bhi~ and *vi$-bhyas. also assumed substitution of the antevocalic stem form (which he writes as *spat'-) for *spdk(~). Hermann. In Indo-Aryan the normal development would have yielded *spdk. (and compounds).h II.for *spak. 284! . (and other words in -vdt. stems in -h-: abhi-s. however. and dat. Cf. spdf.. in the light of the explanation proposed for dv#. 247. Bloch.).h and vdk.4 and. sing. 41 (1907). The real difficulty is not.h I. 6~ . it can be made plausible that in proto-IndoAryan the inherited nominative form *spdk. Ed. III (1930). p.h X. p. the retroflex occurs before -bhi. v~c-~.dbhi.28. 172.t The Rigvedic evidence comprises the following forms: stems in -g-: v#. *g-s and *g-s to 7.. (haru) If. spaL In contrast with the latter form Ved.10f.s-d. Grarnm. 417f. Av. They have.12. which is hardly possible. In the loc.dt (and other words in -. rdt. stems in -j-: bhrdt. 40f. therefore. 13. Gramm.t. cf. *spdks} 1 However. IF. In accordance with a well-known morphophonemic rule ~q-t is represented by . is much the same as in * v[. cannot directly represent PIE. which ended in -ks. p.s (from PIE. 1-17.dbhi. gen. p. been replaced by new formations in all the older dialects: Old Persian has viObigfor *vidbiL Avestan (in both dialects: Y. contrasting with *it. in vi.. Nachtrlige ad I (1957). this nominative but the instr. 8 (1894). I. plural. 8 (1894).t owing to the introduction of a new nominative form *spag-s.. pl.6~ The motive for this substitution of the stem spdg. 18.h. Meillet.dbhya. Arier und Ugrofinnen (1922).st. but in final position -k was replaced by -.. this contrast (-k. vac-d. as the normal development of a nominative *spdt" (without s). Altind. but tried to explain sprit.. e.. -fsu) was maintained. gen.8 and sard.-abl. and -~h-..21 (with a disyllabic stem). *specs) has been replaced by a new formation *spa~-s (with the normal antevocalic representation of k by d).may have been the tendency to treat the stems in the sibilants Aand . p. ~1 -t was explained as the result of a regular phonetic development (against Wackernagel. 112. L'Indo-Aryen. however. MSL. spa~-d. The nom. the form spdt. (vibhrdt. of PIE.h.8.g.Sin an analogous way.). havya-vdt. For proto-Indo-Iranian these case forms of the stem *rig. p..THE SANSKRITNOM.h in pa.t from *swdks.

viz. pl. 41. I.h.).has become -. 67. druxLmanah-. Bartholomae.. Similarly the form of the nom. As far as I can see. 289. v?spaiti~. vigpaOa-. 103. Handbuch des Sanskrit. 299. 242.s devant occlusive". 246 (*purod. col. 48) is of course a different problem: gn and sn reflect different dialectal developments. and ~ had become ~ and ~ before stops 65 is not sufficiently supported by the evidence. Gramm. Gramm. Wackernagel-Debrunner. p. pp. vi~pdti. plur. Bartholomae's view that PII. Gramm. therefore...dd. 66 The representation before continuants (e. reference to vol. g and $ are also before stops regularly represented by s and z: LAy. where d. 15f. p. 6~ still hold on to the corresponding assumption that -z.ddg-. L'Apophonie en indo-europden (1956). 150. Altiran. sing."great". Grammaire du vieux-perse.. 724. Yr. viz.h "chief of a community" points to the existence of a word *vi~pdti. It must. there is no reason to doubt that in Avestan PII. perhaps the nora. Altiran. 67 See Bartholomae. p.dbh[h.1.dbh-. II/2. etc. va~ibig N. I/1 (1957). This statement calls for some comment. 781.. 72 (otherwise Hans Hartmann. of maz. and Ved.c. assumes a proto-IndoIranian development "/~ devient . p.zbh-> *purod.1. I.. Aw. (but cf. p. *viL It is impossible to determine what the regular development of *vi$bhig 68 Altind.. ~bh.88. 1.for *vi~-.. Also Kurylowicz. from the the common Indo-Iranian proto-language. and v ~ i b y 6 Y. As such it is very unlikely to have been transformed secondarily. p. col. 6. see MeilletBenveniste. I/2 (1959). 156). stem puro. *puro. 372. III. Les cornpos~s de l'Avesta.bhih. 92. *vi. III (1930). p. rnazibig [ = mazbi~. p. In the light of vax~. p. 6~ However. Gramm. pp. II/l. Duchesne-Guillemin. . *wi~. etc. corresponding to Ved.. 1. Wb. eL Altind. 1335. I. 48. bazuLaojah-. which here has taken the place of the stemY In quite the same manner v~iby6 is likely to stand for *vizbyah (cf. Wb. 16. puro. 173ff. be an old inheritance in Avestan. Elernentarbuch. p. *ma~Hbhig.118 r . 186). 10. v~spaitis3 and to contain the nora."word".. For vi~pfti. GrlrPhil. op. 12 and"offering of a prayer" and parallel formations Bartholomae was no doubt right in explaining v~?~. vf~ibyO (mentioned above). 66 On the other hand. col.h?). and cf. sing.a. p...see also Altind.bhis (probably with elimination of the voiced hushed consonant and lengthening of the preceding vowel: *v~bhih cf. instr. OLZ. The same is true of GAv. which stands for PII. The latter form must have taken the place of the regular representation of PIE.g. sing. p. 1937. although rightly rejecting the older theory of -zbh. The form should obviously be paralleled with the corresponding forms of v~tk.dd[~]-bhi. with substitution of v~s.becoming -dbh-. J . 40) vT~iby6 for *vizbyah. (see above for pad. Vr. Debrunner.. KUIPER 17f. Altind. for the only counter-instance. an analogical explanation would seem quite natural. B .bh is explained from PII. e~ See GrlrPhil..

jvalati.d(h). The relative chronologycannot be determined since this must have happened in the prehistoric period.dhd. However that may be. where they merged with .s6. the second disappeared before . e.dbhih.t/.h AS. v#.dbhyd.~ *mu~dha.h. In this way the parallelism between vii. X~v~. The Mahdbhdrata has prd. this would be the earliest instance of this new formation.s(t as against dvit. ~9 Cf. Immediately before stops.z].s-6.h. ajati. e. in -.. sing. The fact that in the classical language also vik.h : dvi. for praydk.~ *muz.ts.dbhi. whereas vi. l (RS.-pa. jma. .h (AS. Since the evidence of Indo-Iranian points to the former existence of a phoneme/~/. vi. vit.~ rnft. were mere allophones of the phoneme/s/. The same is true of the representatives o f / ~ / a n d / 2 h / b e f o r e dentals and n. If praydtsu TS.das the first member of compounds is (except for . vi.d. RS.t-) not found before TB.dha. vi~-dh. gen.h. jraya. 6) are the forms corresponding to the nom. the only exception being the 68 Either the original nominative form in -.n and became r in other positions. KhiIa) are those corresponding to the nora. therefore. sing. 3 VS. dfk. indirectly proves the existence of * shows that the tendency for parallelism continued to operate in later times. before the classical language.-kula-"house of a Vai~ya".t.h RS. was replaced by vit. j~u-. j. dvi. or the stem in -. susarh-dfgbhi.-pati-. probably dates back to a much earlier period. it seems./~/was dropped in *vi~bhyas in proto-Indo-Aryan. SING.dbhyd. viz. : that was inferred from that nominative. In Indo-Aryan voiced sibilants and hushed sounds were never preserved in this position. . . In all positions before vowels and continuants/~/became the palatal stop j. j does not occur in AS.g.d-vivdka-.h and dvlt.h. though not attested. The other voiced sibilant and the corresponding hushed consonant..THE SANSKRITNOM. as *viJpati. 1.g. v#.nya-. however..).69 digbhyd. The use of this secondary stem in . V[. The first disappeared in Indo-Aryan in all positions with compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel. Some more instances are attested from Mauu onwards: prd. parallel to/~/.did.t 119 would have been in Indo-Aryan.h.vivdka-"judge'" (for which the earlier language uses pra~navivdkdVS.z. and h the stem was replaced by the nominative sing: s before the endings -bhi. The latter form. dvi.dbh/. Hence it is that digbhi. gen.h had become almost complete. *mu~h+ta. or the later nora. [z] and [. it is clear that in the stems in g. *vi~-bhyas must have existed in proto-lndo-Iranian. the Rdm6ya. vit.. VS. vik.h and -bhya.

From the root aorist (for *-~-s) dnat (anal) 2 from the root the Br~hma. from parivraj.apat. Jts. dnal (anal) 24. 71 Root forms of bhraj-. but was pronounced with voiceless palatal ~ before s. 17ab).ha). 6. however. -k might have been preserved but here a tendency for clarity caused the personal ending-s to be over-emphasized. raj.the indicative form dvat 1. ~1 See Nachtrlige ad Altind. At some time the old morphophonemic rule To Ram.s (for *-~sl) in the 3 sing. like adrak from d. Gramm. Here the ending -I of ya. 2) J . The whole course of events can be reconstructed as follows: 1) Owing to the need of emphatic articulation of the personal ending -s in the 2 sing. : s-aorist (for *-a~+s-t) aprat. 7~ and K~lid~sa has vi.sis became *-!s. recensions. 37. of the s-aorist and the root inflection. from the root yaj. In these cases the regular ending would have been -k (from -*ks[s]) in the 2 sing. could not remain intact since the rules of Sanskrit do not allow the occurrence of this final consonant in this compounds (Gan.t is rather due to the analogy of the root forms. like asral MS. J.rg-). but -~. the root could not be maintained in its inherited form with k before s.. 1 (root p.nas).rj. The forms attested in the Rigveda are the following: 2 sing. KUIPER furnishes vil-gftdra-.120 F.the injunctive form yat 1 (but indicative aya.(but RS.. 5) In this final consonant cluster the -s was dropped. ak 4).d-ojas. p. It is This analysis of the various stages of this process gives us an insight into their relative chronology. 4) As the result of dissimilation *-. with final -. which is the earliest trace of the genesis of an Indian linguistic area.s-s has at any time been replaced by *aya~-ks-s. I.and nag-: 6bhral 2. the critical ed.s after a.W. from s. An analogous phenomenon is well known from the 2 and 3 sing. from the root yah. 3 sing. caused *-~ts to become *-s. Of this original situation no traces are left. I. 1 (but pran. 53 (248". In the 2 sing. vol. . 7.s became -gts and further.aujas-. which is not morphologically clear). in accordance with a morphophonemic rule which dates back to proto-Indo-Iranian. The ending of the 3 sing.: s-aorist (for *-a~+s-s).(beside vid.21 in the Eastern and N. 3) A fundamental change in the consonantal system of Indo-Aryan. Cf. asrak 2.. 174.rg.h 2). I. abh[ nat. B. rdt 1.which itself is not attested before the epics. p. that in the s-aorist such a pre-form like *ayak.. Similarly parivrd!.

however. accordingly. although of minor importance when taken by itself. has some consequences for problems of much wider interest. the very opposite of Wackernagel's. It cannot be determined whether or not the new formations of the type *abhrdd-s were anterior to the introduction of retroflex phonemes. The conclusion resulting from this analysis of the historical process is. (1896). vii 121 "g§ > ~t" has been replaced in [ndo-Aryan by "d§ > . it may be useful to summarize the main objections to it.hd or */c8 and *~hz). Second. Gramm.t aus . 72 the final -. 7z E X C U R S U S O N B U R R O W ' S T H E O R Y O F PIE. palatalization of PIE. pp. 255-262. Apart from this detail. the relative chronology of the various stages would seem unquestionable.-~(s)t lautgesetzlich". 85-90. ~ and ~h. 50 (1896). SING. labiovelar (*gUhd).st". Burrow's interpretation of the evidence is to be found in two articles in JAOS. An exhaustive critical analysis of this theory is not. p. pp. in the second a few words with a PIE. 709 73 See Altind. K. aimed at. 174.S In the introductory section it was pointed out that the problem under discussion. In the first article he studies the words commonly supposed to represent some modification of PIE. gU and gh. etc. all developments must have taken place at a time when final consonant clusters had not yet lost their last components. As for the 3 sing. gUh.t: ig. First. had not yet merged w i t h / j / a n d /]h/. the further development inevitably presupposes the introduction of a new series of retroflex phonemes.. which again can only have taken place after proto-Indo-Aryan had come to be spoken in the Indian linguistic area..t could this ending also be adopted for the 3 sing. g. Not before the ending of the 2 sing. Since his theory seems to have found more or less general acceptance. I. in accordance with the general formal identity of these two forms after the simplification of final clusters. resp. the results of a particular PII. . 79 (1959). *gUhd. palatals (*~b and g. This leads to the following conclusions. Third.THE SANSKRIT NOM.s. as Bartholomae has rightly pointed out.t in the verbal and nominal forms must date from a period of Indo-Aryan when /~/ and/s representing PIE. in so far as they are implied in the preceding article. One of these is Burrow's theory of the origin of those Indo-European words for which the traditional Comparative Grammar used to posit such phonemes as *kb. Since the conclusions of my article have 72 ZDMG. p. had become a single -. TK < Skt. Wackernagel's reserve should be noted: " I n der 3. scheint -. *~hO.

They will be discussed separately. since in r e d . *ku~ regularly became *kd in proto-Indo-Iranian. In quite the same way the word :ks. Cf. In other words. and similarly Skt.t. 7. in Skt.sam-< *tgam-< *ddham. ar~a-) is explained from *rts."question" (but Skt.dbhyds<*viz. d. From this fact he concludes that . dh) by the cacuminal or cerebral sibilants when these palatals were in contact with other consonants."bear" stands for PIE.(from PIE. k in ks. Skt. guttural series but also from "the internal sandhi of .9. As for the first point it should be observed that PIE. however.'k.s is found for . 2. Avestan. s or b.6. where "the first s is replaced by the corresponding (dental) occlusive". B. 1.t.t).u. 15). if he considers this the only regular development or rather a sporadic development. viz. 72.slost its last component before . akAat having passed through a stage *< *. pradna-). 3.4 (eL also M ~ . as is shown by the root extension PIE. Av."earth" from *t.umdnt. s.s. 8. in vit. Av. Skt. vi. sa~kustoma"who understands best" (sak-)." 5) In this way Skt. 1.a-. 3) On the other hand.rtko-.. d (from PIE. I shall here mainly confine myself to this one.. 4) "The ~. *dh~hom-.t. II.anu vgt akhyan the older form is still used side by side with the later dialectal form. the combinations d + s and s."possessing cattle" Skt. ks.J. In the other Vedas it is replaced by khy~-.s-t-s".si as the result of a phonetic development. Only in cases like -d/k "the change took place earlier so as to affect the group even in final position". which became xsgt. ks.s. 1."to see" (kad-).sa. III. was the earlier stage of This is a problem which he does not discuss..umdnt-. In final position -. r. Vedic. The development Ss >..2 (p. Av.~ya Sarhhitd. k) can be represented. *H. 2) anukggttyai . but in KS. *pku-). and dvlt.sbecame k~.10 (p. 20). which he takes to stand for *vlt.s (>. Burrow's argument is as follows: 1) It should not be taken for granted that the an instance of a widespread tendency in Indo-Iranian to replace the palatal series (i. r. As far as I can see.'k."bear" can be explained from *. This is almost exclusively attested in the Maitrdyan. seen in Av. KUIPER a bearing on the first of his articles only.s.bhyas (vii-).122 r. ss > ts.-t-s are represented by t. It follows that Burrow explains dvek. Only in a few corrupt variant readings k. by the side of hav(s~u. ks. 2) Skt. PII. the first four points do not justify the conclusion drawn sub 5. oak.. It is not clear. VI. dvek.s is said to be parallel to Skt.(Av. and *dv[t. derives not only from the three PIE. by ~.stands for PII. *kuk-eH -.ts. under certain conditions.r.< PIE.t.< PIE. and kda.fra~na. *p~u. also 19. Skt. Similar examples are seen in Av.

1.s. which became kl6man"the right lung".16 (p. See above. k. However. this much seems certain that it cannot be a basis on which to found such general statements as Burrow did.. and PII. nafju. From the third thesis it must be inferred.t. Y derive from *. 230. IX (1966).su and dvive. allophone of s after the retroflex .s to the phonemic system of proto-Indo-Iranian. If he has not actually overlooked these counter-instances he must have meant a "sporadic" phonetic law (see below. *nap(t)su > Av. The case of k. and the additional assumption of a retroflex .(Greek ~L~6gmv). cf. 199.s in this isolated case of normalization. As for the last thesis. 222. 11. 13. SING.sar for akhyad (but 16. Burrow's rather vague reference to "a widespread 74 Bartholomae. cf. Burrow attributes . sub 4).10 (p. for which little support can be found in the evidence. the same text sometimes reads khy for ks. that both represents a phonetic development .s{t-. cf. Burrow's second thesis to the effect that dvek. Similarly after the labial phonemes pu. 18) ak. just as in *ploman. 104.s does not stand for ~ except before t (where it reflects a PII. GrlrPhil. akhyabhi. Persian 5ubfin "herdsman".s> k s in -d.> Av.h. In the absence of any argumentation it is difficult to see what may have induced Burrow to substitute for Wackernagel's theory a novel one. 16. If this is correct. consisting of) many cattle". 20 akhyar). 8). hav(s.sat for avakhyat. 13. These assumptions. v.t. Inversely. which became puru-k. 16) avak. Skt. p.sabhi. V[.s seems to disregard Ved. 4. pp.s and *puru-pgu"possessing (or. is not even supported by the evidence of Sanskrit. the assumption of a retroflex phoneme . which adds a new complication to the theory. necessitate the further assumption of different chronological stages for the change *. mod. PII. although this is not explicitly stated. 74 In Indo-Aryan the following rounded vowel plus m caused the preceding labial p to be dissimilated. Although it is impossible to give a fully satisfactory explanation of the . KS.t in PII. ill-founded in themselves.rk on the one hand. for ak.. 231. different because the proto-Indo-Iranian form must still have been *pgu-mant-. In proto-Iranian *p5 seems to have merged with *ps into *fg.s. .s-ks > k.2 (p.9: p.t 123 khy (rather than for the original form with k~fi-). In this comparatively late and specifically Indo-Aryan development *kSwas replaced by the current combination ks. 30.fgumant-. development). his reasons for his silent rejection of a generally accepted theory are not clear.t. I.sumdnt. 1 (1895).h.THE SANSKRITNOM.t. See also IIJ. Since he does not mention Wackernagel's analogical explanation. *pgu.h. and in vif on the other. lacks any foundation.

Burrow is. jdrndspa-).I. none of the examples quoted can support the assumption of a change ~ > ~ before consonants in the widest sense of the word.(Skt. GrlrPhil.(dkasa.. N. 1. 78 It must be stated. GrIrPhil. p. Burrow omits to mention that this explanation isolates these two words from the other words where d and t are found 79 (a) before palatals: vi-J-c6i~ta-.and *dh?.. 88) is open to grave objections.. d~jgtrn6spa. which contains the perf. ptc. Since these critical remarks are confined to the Indo-Iranian evidence.."eye" as the stem of perf. p. sa~ku~tama-. Letterk.s. I am afraid. pte. r. A single remark may be added on the second article.R. accordingly. of the root rather due to the influence of the pres. I.124 F. p. Grammaire du vieux-perse. 158. For Av. The brief reference to "Skt.. 71f. saJqs (Geldner sax~qs).B.s. p. impossible because of Av. cak.din. root yaz-). it is impossible to derive these words from PIE. which gives an ingenious explanation of GAy.t "he noticed. 1. lacks a solid foundation. 15. ursus from PIE. *I-I(tko. v~iby6 see above. Av. which shows the root caJ. Unlike Bartholomae 75 1 think sagk. 243. sometimes only in Iranian but not in Indo-Aryan. p. be an s-present of Av. 1553. S. ptc. 75 ArischeForschungen. In fact. The tendency is supposed to have left just some occasional traces. Altiran. jit. 78 See Meillet-Benveniste. In spite of Leumann's tempting analysis of the noun cdk. p. it has long been recognized that this is not an instance of a sporadic phonetic development but rather a dialectal (more particularly. Therefore. W. Wb. ~ Morphologische Neuerungen im altindischen Verbalsystem. perceived")/7 As for Av. pp. 105]. cajrnan. II(1886).. 1952. ~n this is. superlative of vi-cira-. 12 (1934). ~7 See Acta Or.'tko-. Iranian) form.'to see' (kai-)" seems to imply that Burrow accepts the theory which explains cak. So the explanation of Lat. However. which is based on this thesis.aga-) and GAy. vaJna-."eye".is based would seem to stand a critical examination.hdrn. KUIPER tendency" involuntarily evokes reminiscences of the long-forgotten notion of "sporadic sound laws". 52f.ardta.'k~a. that none of the four theses upon which Burrow's explanation of Skt. v. dgfi!.and the reduplicated perfect stem ca-ks-. ~9 Bartholomae. OP. Wetensch. Ned. the way proposed.(with s. ~ak-) probably stands for *sa-sk-u~-.. The present sa~aiti ( < *sacyati) may also account for the perfect preterite sa-~k-on. I can only incidentally point out that also the thesis of a phonetic development kt > ks in Latin (Burrow.(LAy.s. 17. . Ak. indeed.C LAy. Afd. col. 33 [ = Mededelingen Kon. quite aware of the fact that he is not dealing here with a "normal" phonetic law. 118. 92."question" by the side of yasna. *Hr.. I. p. kas.

Duchesne-Guillemin. vi-. The Avestan Hymn to Mithra (1959). V[. 12 (1940). p. 10 n.for j. 7~ar. barhh-) ~2. no reason to p r o p o u n d a different explanation for the d in d~j?_t. p. Gershevitch. Skt. II. 300. Acta Or..seem to be invalidated by the new theory which. 51. SING.with Av. P. 217 n. accordingly. Bailey.arata. t h o u g h testifying to its author's acumen. p. I (1865). ddbqz.t-ka6~a-. 9 (1937-39). GAv. op.see Mayrhofer. p. 54 ("ungenaue pleonastische Schreibtmg"). Commentar fiber das Avesta. Kuiper. I (1958).. NTS. 2. Geiger. Studien zum Avesta. 513 n. so Geldner. Mitra and Aryaman (1957). Kurzgef. Zoroastrian Problems in the Ninth-century Books(1943). 191 (] = d$ broken up by a vowel). 17 (1939). 55. Kuiper. p. p.c. 53 n. p. (b) before b: fra-~-baoye. like v~-~. and Karl H o f f m a n n ? ~ N o r would the traditional equation of Skt. is nonetheless unacceptable. BSOS.. .t 125 and urva-. Pkt.p. lranistik. and to reject silently the interpretation o f the spelling ddj. 864f. p. ss See Geldner. B. 12 (1934). p. MSS. p. Hoffmann. 1. 280 n. For LAy. Wb. 186.. 13. 82 Spiegel. Humbach. 39. k~ar-. Aeta Or. p.c6i~ta-. K. dbOidta.given by Geldner. 2 (1952). Morgenstierne.THE SANSKRITNOM.(: LAv. Thieme.t-ca6m s~ ardna-_t-ca6ga-81. vi-~-baoye. bqz-.than for the other cases with ~ before palatals. etym. I (1882). F r o m the viewpoint o f Avestan text tradition there is. p. p. Die Ama~a Spantas (1916).. Bailey. (c) before k: _tka6da-. 11. 81 Cf. jhar. 70.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful