On the Gresk type immed Jochen Schindler iseoe eefooe nts eel eeaen et eee two monographs! and numerous articles have been devoted I formulate my views as a of hypotheses, in principle falsifiable or inprovable. 1. The type in -€¥¢ is not borrowed from a non-Indo- European language. As Se well kno, no ainect correspondence of ~e05 has so far been found in any other Indo-European language. This circunstance together with the fact that this suffix appears in sone appellatives (pueihedy, beapesy » bpunveds) and proper nanes CAyMNeUs ete.) that have no etymology, 200has led to the view that -¢U (-nf-) is borrowed from an unknown non-IE source’. Given the great productivity of ~eus atready in Mycenaean tines, any non-Gréek explanation must necessarily rely on completely uncontrolled assunp- Hons about prehistory, which are of course not disprov= able in the strict sense, On the other hand, the two afore nentioned points (the lack of cognates and the existence of unanalyzabie words) are not conclusive arguments in the absence’ of additional positive evidence. The lack of direct correspondences could also be explained as due to the retent= on exclusively in Greek of a PIE type or to an innovation based on PIE material, and the incorporation of foreign appeliatives and names into already extatent stem classes is a Linguistic commonplace. I shal2 therefore forgo any further discussion of the loan hypothesis and take -0s as either inherited on created by inherited meane. 2. The oldest Greek paradigm that ue can establish by internal reconstruction shows an alternation between #eu-C and *-8y-V: sing. nom. Some remarks are in order: 202-3- @) The reconstruction of @ long vowel #5 eareostort the paracign is possibie tut ts not required by the taste of Greek. Te Avcadian nom. sing. in -ng ly case secont- ary nd created on the base of the ace. sing. =p. ») For the circumflex of the vocative -¢3, compare the vocative in -eT from the stems in -o (Larpotete.) ©) The original form of the acc. sing. is problematic. Arcadian -qv and the form of the other dialects, *. can each be interpreted as an analogical replacenent of the other.® However, a decision on which of the two is the elder is not crucial to the following discussion. @) Whereas the epic by-forms with -£¥- instead of -nV~ can be considered as secondary without any difficulty (met- Pical shortening, younger forms)," no conclusive explana- tion is known for the nominatives TAYE , NEPYE . OINYE, DEZYE , EPEXOYE , attested on Attic vases.° Whatever their origin might be, these forms do not permit any conclusion concerning the constitution of the Proto-Greek paradigm, as long as we have no particular reason to believe that they are relic forms. 3. The stens in -e¥¢ are originally secondary formations nade from o-stens. That appedlatives 2ake tvedy are not primary formations is evident, The words belonging to the sub-type toxédy coud in pringiple be conceived of as primary agent nouns, but this assumption would exclude a uniform explanation of the class of tv-stens as 4 whole (since tered, yalkevs 5 Lepeds ete. are necessarily secondary), and it would also 202-4e involve postulating an apophonic structure totally un- known elsewhere in athenatic stens (o-grade in the root plus Z-grade in the suffix). Under the interpretation shat rowed is derived fron edkoy Like treads is fron frreg , both of these difficulties disappear. The connection with g-stens in particular is a stat- istical fact, for alphabetic Greek. In Homer, the following (astens are derived directly or indirectly from o-stens: 2) temeds, negaper, alners 5 obpeds . Tophuedy . yadueds « ») voweds, toreds, yoreds (uncertain are dyedy « ropmels, yopess with gucpuryopeds >. ©) Reds, dgioreds, tepeds « 4) margogoverig, Iuoxeds- The only exceptions to this pattern are otds (ron pods atten byevs ), Sovaneds (tron Sévaf >, rpatefeds (trom tpkrefur, ienegueds » and frepor tly . These are attested altogether only eight times as conpared with the 276 attestations for the derivatives from g-stens. The post-Homeric situation is more or less the sane, with the exception that Z-stems as underlying nouns increase. This is at least in part a consequence of the ambiguity in the sub-type Toxev, in which equivalent -stene often exist beside the underlying g-stens (vépos : vod etc.). gv-stens derived fron nouns belonging to other stem classes continue to be rare (cf. eKvTEUs from exitos n.). Ht is much more difficult to arrive at a clear picture for Mycenaean, since too often we cannot decide whether 203or not a word is to be interpreted as a personel nane. Because -605 functions as a productive suffix for hypo- coristic names of various types® already in Mycenaean, such anes cannot be used for the clarification of the original derivational process. Moreover, because of our restricted knowledge of the Mycenaean lexicon, it is impossible in nnany cases to determine the sten form of the underlying oun. At least this much is clear, however: Beside numer ous (v-stens derived from o-stens (apiporeve, dixijeu, Like Doroneu (eAgomEdS ), Kakeren ( Kwedbis?, ete., derivatives fron stens of other classes are also attested. Compare anoteu and meriteu (from neuters in -t), kotonewe (from kotona, contrast kanaeu and ekaraewe, if from Z-stens), opikapiewe and opiteukeene (from s-stems; also zeukeusi?), wateu and perekeu (from the u- svens Faery ana Tédexys 2). Though we must therefore state that in Mycenaean -tby 4s not ve- stricted to formations built on ovstens, as far as the de- ternination of the original pattern is concerned, ve stil2 have to rely on the oldest docunents of alphabetic Greek. And since an extension of the suffix from o-stens to other stem classes in Mycenaean (especially for words denoting professions or occupations) would be understandable, whereas a secondary restriction to formations from g-stems could not be motivated, I conclude that the Homeric picture pre- serves the original state of affairs better than Mycenaean. 20H-6- This interpretation — that the ev-stems are secondary formations based on Stems — has the far-reaching consequence that it excludes direct comparison of the «v-stens with any primary sten class. That is, it is not possible sinply to postulate a hysterokinetic type of u-stens (nom. sing. s-énem, *oneds or tthe, e-tée -és etc., comparable to #. are rather tp be compared with other types of secondary formations, especially with those made from o-stens. This comparison leads to the following result: In LE secondary formations, the thematic vowel of ‘the o-stems can be replaced only by *-i-; otherwise it is preserved. For *-i- compare vrddhi-formations of the type Avestan sisaSulert-, ene vpkt-type CE AyyM Eng £. trom tye“), and nunerous suffixes with the structure *i¢o. (thoy Acino-, ete.) or #-2Co- (*Ino- ete.). Tt is possible that this *-i- was originally identical with the Caland-i that is substituted for *-u- and 4-ro- in the first member of compounds. Elsewhere, is preserved. Compare for #-e- the E-stons Gelyerny- parallel to #yL"ieng-), the adjes: Hives in #-eio~ (< rerih,o-), secondary e-stems Like Gk. Kpye-r-, Lat. e1uBs), ete.s for #-o- the de-adjectivad abstracts in @ SHt-, the adjectives in *-o-uent-, ete. Whereas the o-stems that precede the secondary suffix are rigid, the suffix itself frequently shows ablaut. Com pare *-ypte Ved. maghdvan- : maghdn-, the suffix 205#cpon- + Ann- ‘provided with', ox. dpyis + dyydet . ete. 8. If the assunptions made in paragraphs 1-H are correct, it follows that the gv. tems must contain the thenatic vowel throughout their paradigm. The thematic vowel has to be subtracted before we get theform of the secondary suf- Fix. The only possibilities that directly lead to the Greek paradign and are in accordance with known ablaut patterns in uestems, are the following two:® a) nom. f-e-hjurs : gen. *-e-hyyros ete., ») nom. ays: gen. f-a-eue(o)s ete. Since we have no evidence for a suffix second possibility is to be preferred. In this case we can reconstruct a paradigm with a quite si formal make-up. ‘The thematic vowel #-e- is followed by the proterokinetic allonorphe of the suffix *-ey-: non. tekye-u-s Like Gk. 55s. gen. tehuereyros Like Gk. (S£cF)05 ete. Examples for U-yY after a thematic vowel are, for in stance, the IE optatives from thematic presents (#bhero-ih (-e/o-3fh, Ane), TE Acecgngo~ (lrnegp). For the contraction fees Wed. maghSn- (#-e/onun-), Avestan ubgaén ‘2 cf. for example the shenatie subjunctives (phere-e--> *pner@-). The accusative must be reconstructed as Melye-y-n/. If the formation 1s 014, ue would expect the phonetic realiza- tion selydn (ef. /*ajey-n/ > *0f8n), which could in Fact be preserved in Arcadian -yv. Gk. *-3va is in any case an innovation after the other oblique cases. 206-8- 6. The corresponding feminine in in, had these forms: sing. nom. *-e-eurihy gen. Ae-uriehy-s ete. in other Greek formations, both full grade and zero grade of the sorphene preceding the feminine suffix *-i8 are attested. E. g- full grade in the type $bsTa » z0r0 grade in the perfect participle in -vfa, and both variants srPfgent nouns in -Teuga,-Efem. In the case of the feni- nines from ev-stems; either *-ewig or *-3ujk (#-j8 does not trigger Siever's Law, cf. ghibwew) are possible pre- forns of ~tix. In Mycenaean, the feminine has the form soja (ijereja ete.), which SzenerSnyi® nas elained cannot go back to *-aujd, since a cluster *-uj- would have been preserved. He proposes @ reconstruction *-ehja < 68425 peside a masculine *-ghus < * Jus. This proposal’ is high- hy implausible on morphological grounds (the devi-suffix sin, is added to the masculine-neuter sten) and in fact superfluous: ali instances of Mycenaean -wij- (-uj-) can be explained as *-yii- (as opposed to A-yl- that gives Gk. 424j-).20 Morphologicatly *-Evj% is the only poseibitity. 7. We mast finally discuss the question of whether the postulated secondary suffix #-gu-/-y- has further connec- ‘ions. It is true that from athenatic stems no substantiv- al formations with a secondary proterokinetic * are attested. However, we do find @ secondary u-suffix with originally amphikinetic infkexion in the type repre- 207-3- sented by Gk. wérqus, Suds (Hpatr-ou-, tenrou-), ete. The Indo-European age of this type is guaranteed by the deriv- e4 formations *paty-u fo- (e. gs Ved. pftgvya-) and fabtr-uy-iit- (e.g: Gk-pmrquid). Note in particular that Spibs and olwoss are senanticatly equivalent formations: gon —y Admcoy- = tyoikee >» tyosken why the suffix had amphikinetic inflexion after athenatic stems but proterokinetic inflexion after o-stens is unknown. We may note however that anphikinetic inflexion is also found in secondary formations like é ok"hy-oi- (Ved. >, SCanvBrmcon- (OLEth. Fnuo), *hyeiymos- (Gk. abs , and *diu-ot- Giitt. Biwaz). Another question for the future is whether other secondary suf- fixes that contain *-yu- should be connected with the #-u- elucidated here. I mention only to. Vedic and Avestan "having, provided with’ (Ved. maghévan-, rtévan-, ete.) could theoretically consist of #-y- and the individualiz~ ing t-on- (of. rBj- : nijar ). And Lithuanian -ius which is functionally close to Gk. -es (ct. balnius ‘eaddler’ from inas ‘saddle’ or pubdius ‘potter’ from plodas 'pot!), could, in the preform *-i-u-, show the sane relationship to 208fosshardt, Die Nomina auf -ev¢, Ein Beitrag zur Wort- pildung der griechischen Sprache, Zirich 1942} Jil, Per- pillou, Les substantifs grece en -tig, Paris 1973. 2p ,g. Bosshardt 163ff~ 30¢, szemerényi, Kratylos 18, 1973(74) 44f. Soe, perpiliou $7, with further references. Sposshandt 158f., Perpillou S7f- Sse Perpiliou 169¢f. . Beekes, Glotta 51, 1973, 230ff- Svackernagel's *-efu- (X2 24, 1879, 295ff.) and Szenenényi's seesu- (Gedenkschrife Kretschmer 2,Vienna 1957, 159ff.) are impossible on phonological grounds. Gs Kretschmer 2, 1738. 104, Heudeck, Kwatylos 17, 1972(74), 161, with further vefer-