On PIE. tectals.

\. The problem

1.1. The growing certainty expressed in some circles in recent years
that Luvian at least, of all the Indo-European languages, provided
direct and incontrovertible evidence of three tectal series in Proto-
Anatolian and PIE.1 has lately suifered a setback due to the simultane-
ous discovery by Melchert (1993: 247) and, with more detailed argu-
ments, Kimball (1994) that voiced tectals - specifically voiced palatalo-
velars2 - are preserved in Luvian äs velars in non-palatalizing
environments. The doctrine that in its voiced tectals Luvian behaves
like a typical centum language while its voiceless tectals preserve
PIE. tritectalism is deeply unsatisfying and suggests once again3 that
there is something fundamentally wrong with the tritectal reconstruc-
tion. The purpose of the remarks offered here is to contribute to the
elucidation of this problem.
1.2. A virtually complete, phonologically sound, bitectal solution,
based on facts rather than prejudices, is in fact available. It was pre-
sented by Kortlandt (1978; reaffirmed 1994: 93 f.) in a neglected,4
perhaps because slightly mistitled, article which continued and extended
ideas developed by Meillet over a Century ago. The few inadequate
counterexamples that have been advanced against this solution cannot
be taken seriously5 beside the massive tritectal residue. This residue

See especially Melchert (1987: 203f.; 1988: 243 ff.; 1989: 23ff:; 1993: 238f.); Tischler
(1990: 83 ff.). · .
There appears to be no evidence confirming this for^plain velars.
Two other cogent disabilities of tritectalism are summarized by Kortlandt
(1978: 237). The old complaint that no actual IE. language attested all three series
was effectively shown to be hollow by Allen (1978: 92ff.).
Its significance remained quite unnotice4> e. g., by Shields (1981: esp. 207, fn. 3); Tischler
(1990: 69f., fn. 28) seems to have ignored it altogether.
Those cited by Beekes (1995: 112f.), and which Beekes does not himself dismiss, can
be dealt with äs follows: for Skt.,smasru- see Kortlandt (1978, §7); Lith. esva has the
required front vowel in Beekes' own protoform; the possible connection of Skt. sri-
Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM
Indogermanische Forschungen, 103. Band 1998

On PIE. tectals 41

and the allophonic complexity that Beekes (1995: 113) mistakenly ob-
jects to are not the only reasons for regarding the Kortlandt/Meillet
developments s 'postdispersionar, i.e. s occurring during the period
of identifiable dialectal Variation (see Kortlandt 1978, § 22; also below
§ 7.3.1). Clearly it is wrong to project back into the protolanguage par-
allel developments not shared by all dialects.
The only real objection to the Meillet/Kortlandt solution is that it
specifies the palatovelars and labiovelars s primary6 and this is feit
to infringe against typology.7 Kortlandt must himself accept some re-
sponsibility for this state of affairs since the presence of Uvular series
in all the languages he adduced in support of his bitectal reconstruction
was not nearly s irrelevant s Kortlandt (1978: 237, fn.l) tried to sug-
gest. Indeed, in view of the longstanding tradition of interpreting and
symbolizing the pure velars s uvulars, this circumstance crucially dis~
credited the very point Kortlandt intended to make.
It appears then that the most important obstacle to acceptance of
the Meillet/Kortlandt bitectal solution for PIE. is the lack of suitable
typological support.
It turns out that a perfect typological model for this cbi- to tritectaF
development is indeed available. But in order to appreciate it, it will
be necessary to dispense with the unnecessary and preemptive belief
that the two primary tectal series must be the same in all respects s
two of their descendants. It will be convenient to exhibit this model,
and indicate the hypothetical PIE. development implied by it, before
turning to an examination of some residual problems thrown up in
recefat literature.

'beauty' (*£/-#,-), despite its declension, with Gk. καλός 'beautifuP (*Jk/-wfc) (see Frisk
1954-73 s.v. on the n-o-suffix) and even κλειτός 'splendid', despite the obvious alter-
native, is worth investigating; Skt rusant- beside rocate is hardly supportive of tritec-
talism if the forms are thought to be cognate (so Mayrhofer 1992-: 464); Lith. slaunis
belongs, according to Fraenkel (1962-65 s.w.), with ^-grade forms ke slia kti; Skt.
cy vate, with its delabialized labiovejar, seems^aJso not immune from the effects of
PIE. ablaut (cf. Mayrhofer 1986-1992: 551, 553; but see also Kortlandt 1980: 248).
This is hardly surprising: Allen (1978: 96 ff.) details sound objections to the two alter-
native bitectal hypotheses, but has nothing much to say bout tbe hazy (and untenable)
proposals of Magnusson (1967).
See, e.g., Mayrhofer (1986: 105, fn.42); Tischler (1990: 69, fn.27).
Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM

the equally rare and solitary (unaspirated) labial is less encouraging for the 'glottalic' theory.). Unauthenticated Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM . The original pair of tectal series appears to be preserved in Hupa äs a prevelar and a backvelar series. . but frequently overlooked equation: retention vs. Beekes 1995:129) lacks badly needed empirical support. 9 These authors do not use the terms 'palatal'. are sufficient to establish this.to tritectalism* Two Athapaskan languages with appropriately organized occlusive inventories. The typological basisfor PIE. Phonetically. loss of voiced aspirates (NOT = retention vs: loss merely of three distinct occlusive series). The Upper dialect has a palatal and a velar series which correspond to a velar and a postvelar series. 1973: VUff. I have here deliberately chosen terms different from those used by Woodward (1964) in order to avoid implying unwarranted identifications of the various series in the different languages. Koyukon and Hupa. plus one dental series. o/' and the backvelars tend to have a velar glide before front and central vowels and to be labialized before /o/ (Wood- ward 1964: 200 f. in the remaining dialects (Henry et al. respec- tively (although they have not yet done so).Glottalicists can take comfort in the fact the three (voiceless) stops in each series comprise one unaspirated.). Thus the prevelars and backvelars of Hupa already show signs of incipient development into full-blown palatals and labiovelars.42 Robert Woodhouse 2. However. while Koyukon represents a more developed stage in which the original two series have split into a total of three for the entire dialect family (though there are still only 8 Note that the occlusive inventory of each dialect involved in this demonstration has only two tectal series. it is noteworthy that the prevelars in Hupa 'are followed by a palatal glide which is especially prominent before /a. loss of Bar- tholomae's law = retention vs. one aspirated. respectively. also that the aspirated backvelar in Hupa is extre- mely rare. and bodily rearward in the remainder. Moreover. plus a lone labial. viz.9 There is no evidence that palatalization in the Upper Koyukon dialect was triggered by front vowels: instead an original pair of tectal series appears to have moved bodily forward in the Upper dialect. that analysis also disregards the striking. fbi. and one glottalized. the voicing of a: voiceless aspirated bi-occlusive cluster that that analysis entails in order to account for Bartholomae's läw in Indo- Iranian (cf. 'velar' and 'postvelar' in their carefully compiled pedagogical work but their descriptions are sufficiently transparent.8 The dialects of Koyukon present an embryonic centum/satem-like split.

The Athapaskan Situation described in the preceding section pro- vides the perfect model for the split of a bitectal PIE. development are äs follows (for details see generally Kortlandt 1978. may have been affected by the other factors just alluded to) it is noticeable that la- biovelar before *a occurs only in interrogatives and two forms of the 'come' root. these 10 The temptation to regularize Woodward's terminology (i. ^a. The principal differences in the IE. 1980. centum + satem development 3. *r (Steensland 1973: 88 if. The palatals are also poorly represented before *a. 18) includes essentially two bird names. bitectal to IE.). The parallelism with IE. (Steensland's fourth example. with the same problem. tectals 43 two series per dialect) and of these three the resulting 'middle' series derives from the original back series in one dialect area and the original front series in the other.11 3. Unauthenticated Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM . On PIE. äs in Hupa.and post- velars or front. 11 Cf. labiality was phonetic only before *o). but with rea- lignments with the two phonemic series proceeding differently in dif- ferent dialects.'enemy1 : OCS. Distinctions between the two series were obliterated in certain environments. root-final tectals on p. notably Albanian and Armenian.2.1. Conse- quently they are identified either äs pure velars or äs instances of Gut- turalwechsel. with prevelars and backvelars10 and their subphonemic glides. with essentially füll mutual intelligibility be- tween the two parts.. *ghazdo-. Possible environments additional to those listed by Kort- landt (1978. probably prior to the centum-satem split. 64f.1. 1994: 93. 3. is obvious. in my opinion. immediately before PIE. §5) are immediately following *w.e. to either pre. In Steensland's material(1973:19f. exactly äs in Hupa.1.) and. kowra 'fight'. In some dialects. in all of which it clearly need not be original in the bitectal sense (thus. proposed modifications of some of Kortlandfs sugge- stions are discussed below). has no denionstrable palataL).and backvelars) is here resisted in order to avoid unwarranted and unnecessary deviations from the typological modei. which have problems of Gutturälwechsel (perhaps due to onomatopoeicdisturbances). The non-fronted prevelars merged with the fronted backvelars in these dialects. Allen (1978:96f. PIE.1.. äs in Koyukon. into centum + satem IE. In the satem dialects the fronting of the prevelars was inhibited in various ways depending an the particular dialect. Steensland (p. plus Skt sätru. 3.

2. 1) äs early äs 1989Mayrhofer (1986-92. not of any one of the daughter dialects. As the two tectal series moved rearwards in the centum dia- lects.material of Baltic-Slavic should be regarded similarly.).2. both deriving ultimately from the backvelars. except where it was maintained by unaffected members of the paradigm. 469) had abandoned the view endorsed by Tischler (l 990:78 f.2.1. Kortlandt (1978: 240) is really having a bet both ways in suggesting that the different developments depend on the preceding tectal while agreeing with Trautmann thaf they were deter- mined largely by apophonic relationships: they cannot be determined 'largely' by both. The new pure velars (< delabialized backvelars) in centum dialects are generated in the same environment before *0 äs will have 12 Note that (pace Stempel 1994: 298. 6. . It is the tritectal basis of PIE. 3.44 Robert Woodhouse processes were further obscured by other developments (Kortlandt 1980).. fn. the originally subphonemic labial glide accompanying the backvelars before *o increased in intensity until it was levelled in para- digms to the other positions and thus became part of the feature spe- cification for the phonemes. p.12 3. a reversal set in:13 precisely in the position before *o.2. the labiality of the labiovelars reverted to the Status of a mere glide. Lfg.3. Unauthenticated Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM . corresponding to velars in satem dialects.and non- fronted prevelars became phonemicized without the latter merging immediately with the backvelars.) that the Indic reflexes of -RH. At this point. There would of course be no theoretical objection to positing a stage in any of these prehistoric dialects in which the distinction between the fronted.much äs Sanskrit represented a rare trisibilantic stage in Indic. that is being questioned.1. perhaps under the influence of incipient labiality of the pure velars ( < backed prevelars) in this environment. At no stage has it been necessary to posit a single dialect with palatals and labiovelars äs its sole two tectal series. Hence the rise of labiovelars alongside the pure velars. Hence the new pure velars in centum dialects.were diagnostic of the quality of a preceding tectal. This made the more posterior point of contact of the series phonemically irrelevant and this feature was äs a consequence abandoned. 13 Similar reversals can be documented in Slavic in relation to palatalization of conso- nants before front vowels: the palatalization is retained in several länguages only where the vowel ceased to be front or disappeared (see Shevelov 1964: 494ff. The similar but more plentiful -R. 3. The following is noteworthy: 3.

3. Recently. following *u in order to suggest that both phenomena can be explained on the äs- sumption that the PIE. thus there would have been no pressure for the Georgian uvulars to impose themselves on the Ar- menian velars to the extent envisaged. pure velars became postvelars or uvulars in OkP Armenian under the influence of neighbouring Old' Georgian.) characterizations must point to the corres- ponding primary tectal. 304) shows that it is also seriously undermotivated: Old' Georgian had a series of pure velars which matched the Old' Armenian series exactly.and (2) palatalization of pure velars. prevelar or backvelar. Stempel (1994) has reasserted (1) the curious pattern of palatalization of non-palatal tectals by front vowel in Armenian . On PIE.2. whereas the uvular series did not. the tendency re- 14 Cf. since a glance at Stempers own comparative table (p. 4. 4. Stempel's proposed development of uvuiars in Armenian is unnecessary (cf. This is not a good argument.). the labialized 'gutturals* acquired by Ethiopic from the Cushitic Substrate: in the Unauthenticated Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM . On the other hand delabiali- zation of labiovelars can remain since this was certainly the critical pro- cess in the centum dialects. which is perhaps just äs well.4.in particular the apparent resistance of the pure velars to palatalization before front vowel . respectively. Everything that is 'theoretisch möglich' KI or KIII in Steensland's (1973: 33 f.14 Moreover.e. On this basis the correct primary tectal can be determined for most of the data. Armeniern. notably Pre-Albanian and Pre-Armenian. A pre- liminary study suggests that Kortlandt's work provides the algorithm for correctly classifying the resulting 'pure velar' residue in all but a few doubtful cases. Huld 1984: 144 ff. but not labiovelars. This parallelism of development ex- plains why the apparent pure velars identified by a rigid application of the comparative method 'turn out' to be so extraordinarily resistant to palatalization in these satem dialects. Kortland's 'loss of the palatal feature' or 'depalatalization of palatovelars' in satem dialects should perhaps be replaced by non-pa- latalization or non-fronting of prevelars. 3. i.2. tectals 45 preserved unpalatalized backvelars in certain satem dialects.3.1.

to become allophones in the vicinity of u. etc. 2) Claims there are no known examples. relatively few instances where these replace the non-labialized sounds in native words their origin from a following o. 16 Stempel (1994: 298. does not inspire confidence. cf. Stempel vitiates bis entire presentation by not discussing at what point in the develop- ment these two words acquired their palatal articulation. 1969: 38. but not [kw]. ciw clower limb. 59). The labialization was probably regarded by Speakers of Ethiopic äs the hallmark of a foreign word or loan. hoof. [q] and [c]. *gA in one case (ej 'descent'). w.2 above). e.: *fcw in one case (k*im-k* 'palate.: *k in one case (c*ilj/c*elj 'Fledermaus'). Tischler 1990: 78 and fnn. unguo) (Jahukyan 1982: 57. in all probability.46 Robert Woodhouse flected in (1) has now been explained on a bitectal basis (§ 3. loans from other Semitic languages. *u that takes the place of a nasal re- sonant. awj 'snake' (Lat. cim 'bridle'. long been held to represent a general phe- nomenon of PIE.3. es- pecially naqwet 'point'. entrails. who demonstrates: (1) palatalization before front vowel of PIE. Unauthenticated Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM . in a sense. is usually transparent (see Moscati et al.15 4. just äs end-stress has tended to be the mark of a foreign word for Speakers of Russian (cf. viz.58. *g in seven cases16 (e. äs follows.).). /bei (d)ziq/ 'Beijing') 15 It is fortunate though that labiovelars turn out to be involved äs well.2.2. because the phonetics of Stempers hypothesis reqüiring. innards. fn. Some of the alleged native words cited by Dillmann/Bezold are. beside the richly developed Arabic root n-q-t. that in (2) has. This evidence is presented by Jahukyan (1982: 59-60). paw. wing'). u. taste'). v. cror 'bowels. (Kortlandt 1978.g. § 5). The significance of Stempelt point (2) (above) is disposed of by referring to the two well known examples of labiovelars converting to palatals following the Pre-Arm. Dillmann/Bezold 1907: 51 f.g. *gw in two cases (ci 6mucus'. 4. Both propositions äs presented by Stempel for Armenian appear to be factually dubious anyway.. /vasinkton/ 'Washington') and z rather than dz has had a similar significance for (some) Speakers of English (cf. tripe9).. The Armenian counterevidence to Stempers point (1) (above) helps to confirm that analogy and levelling have played a part in the developments. and (2) absence of palatalization before front vowel of PIE. anguis\ awc-anem 'anoinf (Lat. which is isolated in Ethiopic according to Dillmann (l 865 s.

j. smell of burning. 20 OHG. s. *gwh by four and one cases. etc.> Arm.4. *g by two cases (ket 'point. äs follbws.> gelj cdesire'18 and khan-d.4turn.v.: *fcw by two and one independent cases. Wulst) with zero grade äs in OHG. roll' (cf. beside MLG. However.v.19 it is tempting to see a similar formation to the first of these in geljk* and derive it from PIE. of PIE. 59 moved to the position occupied by the superscript '76' at line 10 on the same page (the genuine 76 occurs further down). Beside the usual dissimilative explanation of the Armenian initial17 is Mann's (ibid.1. kcanem 'bite.: *£ by two cases. Arm.(cf. mediae.sg. 19 Cf. Why Stempel relies on geljk* cgland' is unclear: RUSS. and the various Greek etymologies recorded by Vasmer/Trubacev (1986-87 s. sting') (4no examples'. of which geljk'may simply be an ablaut variant. and (2') the absence of palatalization by front vowel of PIE. with similar semantic development. not geljk'). walzan.'. Since Suk'iasyan (1986: 73) has two examples of medial *-J. see above). etc. OHG. gi7-4round stone for throwing' Pokorny 1948-59: 1141) with the same *J-extension äs in OHG. *gh by one case (imperat. note that his nn. accörding to Stempel. bumblebee5.v.> xanj 'conflagration.20 17 See Jahukyan (1982: 216. w *^ 6 by four cases. tectals 47 4. walen. Kluge/Götze 1948. viz. Jahukyan (1967:110). (Pokorny 1948-59: 1143) and. On PIE. etc. all pointing to PIE. respectively. *wel-d. (Pokorny 1948-59:1142).) by similarly small num- bers of cases: ( ) palatalization by front vowel and *y. Braune/Mitzka 1963: 192). wulsta.) shrewd Suggestion of influence by galj 4gall'.). suffix -st. 75). and the Germanic one recorded by Suk'iasyan (1986:153) and Mann (1963: 123). n. zeleza does not determine the initial to be a pure velar.) *w\d-tä(ni) (pace Kluge/Götze 1948 s. Unauthenticated Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM . also Jahukyan (1982: 103. wulsta 'swelling' (Pokorny 1948-59: 1142) < (acc. gog cspeak'.75 on p. are no help at all. Kunst). a quite diiferent alternative appears not to have been considered. *wel. stunta (cf. 176). may be the source of the HG. 18 Cf. 4. 74 and 75 should actually be inter- changed and the superscript key for n.3. The Standard view is supported (ibid.

. Lindeman's (1993: 48. prevelar* not a palatalized backvelar. 22 This is also clearly what Kortlandt (1980: 247) had in mind when he compared the palatalized labiovelar in Alb. In the context of our bitectal theory the Baltic forms suggest independently that the root-final tectal in this word re- presents a PIE. fn. with the result that his proposed cöunterexample is nothing of the kind since it contains an original PIE. Goth.22 Thus in the centum dialects. Jahukyan 1982: 47). k'or 'itch'.think about'" (p. dergjem 6lie sick' on the basis of Celtic material is super- ficially persuasive. Nowhere does Kortlandt posit loss of the palatal feature of his . k'orem 'scratch' beside k'erem 'scrape'. 51). in which case there is nothing particularly remarkable about the change from 'care for' to 'love' to long for' to cpine for' to 'waste away'. 53). Unauthenticated Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM .and the levelling process.PIE. 5. (3) if the task is to decide whether a given protoform begins with *sV. but *swurgh.or *swV- then it is far from illogical or irrelevant to remark that Baltic forms in s V.g. cf. once begun. After the palatalization has occurred the nominal root is */cor-. backvelar. hing and the tectal in Alb. which in this case will correspond to a de- labialized centum labiovelar.9. palatovelars in the environment/0//0vvmg a resonant. both **kor-.18) 'die'. 1) self-confessed inability to wi- derstand this indicates his complete failure to grasp the point of Kortlandt's analysis. This triggers the first levelling to (*kor-)l ker. Albanian Lindeman's (1993) recent attempt to destroy the accepted etymol- ogy of Alb. Other natural outcomes could be envisaged (e. 52) but can be the other way round. swulta-wairpja) 'near death' (L.äs the zero grade of *kwmbh.should be not **srugh (p. prior to 21 E -g- (1) Vedic svabh.are not probative (p.vel sim. pese '5' with the non-palatalized one in Arm. fn.2) criticism of Kortlandt's ex- planation of ker^ keray äs requiring 'einander widersprechende Ana- logien' is incorrect.48 Robert Woodhouse 4. dergjem. ga-swalt M. cf.suggests that the Germanic reflex of *swrgh. Finally. Mutually contra- dictory analogies would presumably yield different shapes for the two forms of the root. but its author's tendency to overstate his case21 prompts a closer look.2) beside ga-swiltan (pret. such äs ker-/**cor.5. the verbal *cer~. continues until it naturally produces the attested identity of the two root forms. Stempel's (1994: 298. 7. (2) the semantic change need not be from '"waste away' to 'care for.

23 hence its general absence in Celtic and Germanic. to whose shrewd insight we owe the recovery of this fascinating Vedic item.).1.). gfr. Ved. 36. since elsewhere the character of the nasal has been obscured by assimilation.of the Ar- 23 For parallel disturbances due to dissimilation see Berg/Lindeman ( 993: 181 f. if OHG. 35). fn. the labial resonant in a proposed root- initial cluster *sw.26 Eichner-Kühn (1976: 28 ff. cannot be relied upon. On PIE.24 Nevertheless this etymology offers no support at all to the tritectal theory: indeed Lindeman's unwitting contribution has been to provide the raw materials required to demonstrate the unexpected additional support this item furnishes for Kortlandf s theory of delabialized la- biovelars. proposed a pure velar initial.) now reeonstructs with a labiovelar. tectals 49 the delabialization of the tectal. words for 10' and 100'.will have been subject to non-obligatory dissimila- tion. 3). One of these. On this basis the various attested forms can be united and the etymology upheld. solely on the authority of Baltic.'brother's wife (or husband's sister?)' (1986-92: 487). 1980: 246ff. Since Eichner-Kühn could only explain the initial i. the *m universally reconstructed in the PIE. Unauthenticated Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM .*song of praise'. Mayrhofer (l 986-92 s. 25 I have nothing further to add to Kortlandt's remarks on Albanian (1978: 242. viz. Cork* '45 cked by Stempel (1994: 299. v. n. believing that only the Slavic evidence was in favour of a palatal (p. Therefore the only language in which the onset is diagnostic for the labial resonant.25 6. Indic and Phrygian 6. is the satem language Albanian. Although Mayrhofer has abandoned the old theory of tectal determination of the reflexes of -$H. viz. 1992-) to a pure velar reconstruction in a number of in- stances. giri.). 26 The other. is of some interest since it is the sole survivor of two 'certain' examples of pure velars cited earlier by this great scholar (see Mayrhofer 1986: 104).clusters in Indic (above fn. 12) he nevertheless clings in bis new Sanskrit etymological dictionary (1986-1992. also Schmitt's explanation of Arm. 24 The fact that only Albanian authörizes the *-w.in the root-initial cluster is unimpor- tant: cf.

e.27 We now know that Arm. is dialectally too restricted and hardly likely to be in use long enough in any particular real life Situation for the posited transfer to occur. zat'}. Neither of these meanings suggests the possibility of close pro- ximity in any utterance in anyone's Speech of this word and the 'hus- band's sister' word. everywhere eise in Slavic the word also means 'sister's husband'.in Slavic this is less easy to justify. whether original or *u. 28 Jahukyan (1982: 56-57) records six good cases for /.e.seven if tit. In West Slavic (Pol. 27 The specifically Bulgaro-Macedonian meaning. Since in tritectal terms the Latin and various Greek cognates naturally allow the initial to be either palatal or pure velar.v. zet'. 'woman's breast' is not excluded s a nursery or migratory word . 'bridegroom'.of Slavic cognates came from Slav. the similarity of the Initials of the two words affecting the semantic development of the 'son/brother-in-law' word. t can also be the reflex of a palatal. ζςίϊ. Cz. since here the two words in question would indeed be used by our hypothetical young wife in referring to another husband -h wife combination in the family. zi$c. generally 'husband of the daughter of the family'. both pointing to a palatal initial. is probably late. beside de. it remains to be seen whether any useful Information can be wrung from Phrygian γέλαρος 'brother's wife'. and is clearly far too restricted dialectally to offer convincing support for the proposed transfer. Unauthenticated Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM . viz. a young wife living in her husband's extended family would use these two words to refer to her husband's siblings. translations only in the specifically Bulgaro-Macedonian sense 'bridegroom'. This meaning is first recorded c. which happens to be attested in the OCS. While the proposed transfer is semantically plausible in Armenian . and this meaning appears to predominate in extra-Slavic cognates s well (see Mayrhofer 1986-92 s. This last is not true of the peculiar semantic devel- opment in Russian that includes also 'husband of husband's sister'. g. BSBBESH5S 50 Robert Woodhouse menian cognate /#/(-/) 'husband's sister' s a transfer from taygr 'hus- band's brother\ she suggested that the initial z. thus the conditions for transfer are absent.vs. and also in Belorussian (zjac'\ this appears to be the only meaning of the word. The only meaning of Slav. who would be other members of the same family (cf. eleven for c. If anything the influence would have run the other way. Slk.j matar-).induced28 so that the Armenian evidence complements the Slavic. z$ti common to all Slavic dialects where the word is found is 'daughter's husband'. Beekes 1976: 15 for the cogent belief that the sisters referred to would originally have been unmarried) . 1800 in the Slovar' Akademii rossijskoj (1789-1794). i.

30 The Interpretation given by Bajun/Orel (l 988:"177) for the pronominal deictic s. On PIE.. More difficult is the lack of palatalization in the initial consonant of γέλαρος . Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM . and bagun (p. Woud- huizen (1993: 2 ff.) and Bednarczuk (1986: 482 f. e. siseio vs.g. cf. not Old. Bajun/Orel (l 988:185 f.) bears out for the most part the rule of pa- latalization of erstwhile palatovelars bef re front vowel enunciated by Bednarczuk (1986: 482). Inhibition by following resonant appears also 29 Cf. tectals 51 6.). Neroznak 1992: 274) clearly carniot be upheld since there is no trace of it in Old Phrygian. since the vocalism of the first syllable is in fact sufficient to brand the word s non-Greek. and occurring at least prior to the period of the New Phrygian inscriptions (c.g. The satem Status sometimes alleged for Phrygian (cf. 3J Cf. mekas 'great': Bajun/Orel (1988: 180).31 followed.). 194). s in the case of βέκος 'bread'. in particular. who reaffirms the older view of an Armenian-style consonant shift (cf. 181). vise (p. 185f.).) on asperae. seem not to reckon with the possibility that the protoform of this word contains a laryngeal (which.found in both Old and New Phrygian seems. secondly. Georgiev 1981:132). Differing Views over the fate of the asperae do not directly concern us here but it is worth observing that these may originate with OPhryg. Acceptance of the prevailing majority view that PIE. Bajun/Orel (1988). davoi (p. to reflect New. since one may fairly expect glosses in Greek authors of the Ist millenium AD. by pa- latalization of some velars under certain conditions. Neroznak (1992: 273 f. Romance). 2nd Century AD. Emendation to *γέλα/ος (Georgiev 1981: 130) or *γέλαβος (with β = J:) simply improves the connection. γέλαρος s inherited^ rather than some kind of Greek loan. though it seems probable that by the time it did occur all knowledge of the phonetic Unauthenticated value of <T) had been lost. Woudhuizen (1993) vs.). Bednarczuk (1986:482).?) in- scriptions. to be the only one possible.32 A scrutiny of the New Phrygian material presented by Georgiev (1981: 129 ff.). early depalatalization or loss of the (den- tal?) phoneme denoted <f> in the eafliest (8th Century BC.30 but among the consonantal developments detectable in Phrygian appear to be: first.2.. e. datirig and interpretations by Young (l 969:265f. Phrygian phonology.) 32 This palatalization could have occurred within the Old Phrygian period without ne- cessarily affecting the orthography (cf... despite the odds against. mediae are represented in Phrygian predominantly s mediae29 is a first step in accepting Phryg. may be responsible for the devoicing) and are compelled several times to ignore their ruling (1988: 176f.

bonok35 there seems to be no evidence anywhere in Phrygian of any labiality associated with tectals.g. zie(g)zdra 'graveP. the Aeolic acc.33 together with a general loss of labial con- sonantal features imraediately following any velar or tectaL34 Apart from the disputed case of OPhryg. etc.(cf.cdog'. both items having rieh assemblages of variants. κος 'someone' (*(-)fcw-) and καν. 34 Cf.e.sg.Calder quotes for comparative purposes a much longer Greek inscription (1911: No. 'vegetables' (etc.pl. (cf.g.). RUSS. This seems to be a huge coincidence. XIX has γυνή. Consequently. Unauthenticated Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM . e. Woudhuizen 1993: 13).). i. the uncertainty over *-kt. grestv 'coarse sand'. κίκλη 'cart'. on the other hand Phrygian clearly does not have assibilated palatovelars from the beginning of its record.w.. gversta. The language of the inscription in which this word ccurs (Calder 1911: No. squeak.. βανήκας quoted from Hesychius by Thumb/Scherer 1959: 30f. XXX) appears to tread a fine line between graecized Phrygian and phrygified Greek . Since tritectalists have perceived evidence for their three PIE. Slavic further responds with RUSS. with a dialectal Greek genitive singular (cf. tectal series in Modern Alba- nian. etc. gafgzdas 'gravel'..> -/. 35 Unlike γέλαρ/^ος. connections can be entertained with Lith. ζέλκια. girkse'ti 'creak. Since in tritectal terms the onset of γίσσα may be either *gw(fi) or *g(/z)w and since nothing very definite can be said about the origin of the medial -σσ. with backvelars that never actually become labialized. arouses suspicion because of its almost exact correspondence. Thus the support βανεκος can offer to the Interpretation of OPhryg. But according to Fraen- kel (1962-65 s. if it does mean 'wife'. but nevertheless 33 Cf. Phryg. On the other hand it must be admitted that if βανεκος is a loan its date may need to be assessed against the fact that the Greek portion of Calder's No. ακαλα 'water'.v.in otuvoi. ieltyj 'yellow' vs. we must therefore look elsewhere for an etymology for γίσσα. the New Phrygian hapax gen. whether it really means c wife'. Bednarczuk 1986: 482) with exact parallels in Slavic. βανεκος.). zelenyj 'green' (Kortlandt 1978. XXXII. dial. γίσσα either attests a backvelar or is further evidenee of non-fronting of a prevelar before resonant. apart from the questions of whether it has been segmented properly and if it has. crunch') and zvirgzdas 'coarse sand'. whereas the commoner word for 'wife' in the Greek (portions of) inscriptions of the same time and place appears to the presumably more formal σύμβιος (see. γλουρός 'gold' vs. Phryg. §13-15). in Phrygian of the 8th Century BC. bonok s 'wife' is (pace Calder (1911: 178). (*£»v-) (Georgiev 1981: 130).52 Robert Woodhouse to be part of the picture. it is perhaps not too farfetched to see preservation of the origi- nal bitectal state of PIE. zerstv 'graveF.) the Lithuanian word is a Prussian loan. etc. girgzde'ii. Calder 1911: Nos. Woudhuizen (1993: 7). e. XXI.) not strong. XXXIII.I) con- taining nearly s many identifiably Phrygian elements. (Vasmer/Trubacev 1986-87 s. Phryg. γίσσα 'stone' appears to represent an exception since it is cited by Bednarczuk (1986:482) s possibly cognate with Lith.

39 The Slavic forms of our word must have dispensed with the syllabic */ at an early date. the requirement that the Indic form derive from a back- velar must be revised. 35) that the Phrygian word does not resolve the problem of the initial con- sonant. the two Hebrew sibilants both denoted by 'shin'. OPhryg.37 If this view is accepted. tectals 53 resist palatalization. it is interpreted s an anthroponym by Bajun/Orel (1988: 186). On PIE. proto- form.s least not in any consistent or enduring way. the confusion in Old Russian writing between the only partly merged phonemes /e/ and /e/. mid vowels and sibilants in Itaiian.26 in terms of Greek phonology (1993: 9). 36 It is unfortunate that Woudhuizen. still feit it necessary to Interpret the Old Phrygian sign no. even ancient ones. 6. and its use was discontinued when the two series approached each other to the point of being indistinguishable in most contexts. z l va (see also Eichner-K hn 1976: 35. the abandonment by c rrent Madurese orthography of special symbols for aspirated consonants. gelavo (inscription W~10) is almost ceftainly a different word. If (-)δακετ is indeed one of the relatively few precious 'tectal' items found in both forms of Phrygian.3. since a putative alternative Interpretation of the inscription s **'! dedicate this to the father of my brother's wife' is highly improbable.g. e. 38 Unfortunately. zolovka. cf. the palatalization of which was inhibited by the following resonant in the protoform. are by no means confined to Phrygian. 37 One may cite: manner series in Mycenaean Linear B and probably in Anatoliaii. n. even so. but a backvelar.). Since the derivation of the initial of this csister-in-law' word from a prevelar is obligatory in two branches of IE. n. The only peculiarity in this Situation is that the two series of tectal phonemes were not distinguished in the Old Phrygian script . d g 'long') testifies further to this and. γέλαρος < gIh2- is straightforward: in bitectal terms. to the genuineness of the vocalism attested in late OCS. RUSS. Serbo-Croat zaova *husband's sister' (not **z«va. 26 represented neither Greek /ksi/ nor /chi/. together with. . and is possible in another three.38 s in some satem languages. 33). In Phrygian terms this meant prehistoric conversion to a backvelar. despite bis spirited defence of the priority of Phry- gian writing over Greek (1993: 3 ff. the word can have contained a prevelar. and probably wisely so. and prevelars whose assibilative shift forward takes place during the historical period and only under the influence of a following front vowel.36 But then imperfect orthographies. the acute in this word seems to be further confirmation of the laryngeal in the PIE. the evaluation of Phryg. it is possible that sign no. Unauthenticated Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM .39 Thus we can agree with the conclusion implied by Eichner-K hn (1976: 36.the list of imperfect orthographies is essentially endless.

*k > Luv. if possible. viz. *r. §22) denies depalatalization in Indo-Iranian before resonants other than PIE. one of the environments for PIE. viz. the fact that giri. Kortlandt (1978. *y and *w/*w. certainly before front vowels. *k > Luv. the sources of the apparent pure velars in Luvian. Luvian 7. CLuv.2. (2) to determine. The problem in bitectal terms is thus twofold: (1) to determine.1). 1988: 241) argued convincingly that all the non- controversial examples of the development of the voiceless palatal in Luvian can be explained by palatalization in definable circum- stances. Melchert (1987: 190) was nevertheless struck by the apparent constancy of the equation PIE. Mel- chert (1987: 203 f. possibly in other environments äs well.1. that giri. Unauthenticated Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM . Sources on the Luvian evidence for tritectal PIE.too has a prevelar initial which was subject to the same Inhibition of fronting by the syllabic */ äs occurred in the Phrygian word. 7. and the prob- lern that has now arisen with this Interpretation of the Luvian mate- rial have been indicated above (§1..argues other- wise is consistent with the morphological Isolation of the form.'plof.54 Robert Woodhouse Since Vedic g/ri* 4brother's wife* is unlikely to have acquired its g- from elsewhere in Indic. There is also an example of an unpalatalized alleged pure velar before u. shows clearly enough two things: (1) the reflexes of palatals/prevelars in Luvian can be velar. viz. though this interesting peculiarity appears to have left Melchert (1987: 190) unmoved. §7). The lack of other evidence is then due to the usual Indic propensity for eliminating the non-fronted consonants by paradigmatic levelling (Kortlandt 1978. kup. The new material on voiced tectals in Luvian. before front vowel. if possible. only one conclusion now seems possible. z. (2) Pre-Luvian experienced a process of palatalization of non-labialized velars. 7. z and by the fact that there seemed to be at least one example of an unpalatalized pure velar before front vowel. In his earlier articles. the conditions of palatalization of tectals in this language. despite its paucity.

tectals 55 7. The example is therefore non-probative.Melchert's (1987:188 ff.w.ccut(?)'. in OIcel. But it is not clear to me why kiklu.s. 7.v. which is attractive in view of the possibility that prevelars were generally palatalized in L vian before *w (§ 7. On PIE. REL + ra/i 'cut\ etc. Thus three of Melchert's examples for pure velars can be ex- plained unproblematically s having delabialized labiovelars. HLuy.). e. kars. On the other hand if the 'L vian word is connected with Gk. (4) kup. in which case Inhibition of palatalization by following resonant could be considered. kupyati) allow for a backvelar delabialized by the u. to Lith. either or both can be responsible for the delabialization seen.'comb': satem cognates indicate a backvelar. e. k'erem 'scratch'. Examples like this indicate how late the delabialization may have been . gelezis 'iron'.g. origin of the velar is confirmed by its failure to participate in the L vian palatalization of velars before front vowels. *<z.'plaintifF: Celtic cognates indicate PIE. k r.3.. *a foliowing the tectal. metathetically.'plof: both the pr posed etymologies (Gm.'cut' suggests the delabialization may have been postdispersionaL Unauthenticated Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM . haddr 'hair on woman's head' (Vasmer/Trubacev 1986-87 s.4 below).'black'.even to the point of being inde- pendent in the various languages. χαλκός 4bronze'. Absence of palatalization in kisai- shows the levelling of the delabialized velar to have been posterior to the L vian palatalization before front vowel. κηλίς or κιλλός (see. the other has no certain etymology.'plate with iron': the connections of the pr posed Greek etymon are uncertain: it could easily contain the normal reflex of a prevelar. (see § 3. (Melchert 1987: 188).1. o-grade forms are well attested. Frisk 1954.1 above). say./k r.should be assigned to *kel. and thus late. The remaining two are indeterminate: one has PIE. beside -grade in k'or citch? points to the backvelar which occurs with preserved labiality in CLuv. Gk. (3) kattawalli. (2) kars ccut': equation with Arm. cesat'\ The sec- ondary.1. (5) kiklimai. hup -.3.) five examples for pure velars in L vian can be assessed s follows: (1) kisai. rather than. before which tectal differences were neutralized in PIE. Skt. zero-grade forms occur in Greek. original backvelar becomes likely.g.

The example is CLuv. I think it is possible to ex- tend the palatalization before u/W demonstrable for the tenüis to in- clude the prevelar aspera. HLuv. Melchert 1993: 238). papparkuwa. the proposed connection of this item with 'pouring' and 'wall' may well be fanciful: since the words refer to carved and even inscribed stone objects they may be derived equally well from the 'hewing' root attested. in Armenian this is true of the media with respect to the tenüis. Palatalization of prevelars before front vowels appears assured. 900 (OED. and thus the two processes complement each other. ejective mediae). with reference to hewing stone. A possible counterexample is CLuv.'carved stone. Kortlandt 1980:247 f. It therefore cannot be ruled out that the media prevelar in Luvian was more resistant to palatalization than the tenüis or the aspera and that this is the sole circumstance in which mediae and asperae can be di- stinguished in Anatolian (cf. On the other side of the equation the greater tendency of the backvelar media to turn up äs a labial in Greek and Celtic is well known. in Öld English c. 1996.).7) may here have retained its injective feature until a relatively late stage. sense 3. 40 However. kuttasra/i-. Tectal mediae elsewhere seem to show a certain tendency away from palatality and towards labiality by comparison with the tenues and asperae (which is another factor against the theory of PIE.4. Pokorny 1948-59:139f. Conditions for palatalization of prevelars can be assessed thus. Both Melchert (1993: 247) and Kimball (1994: 79) explain the palatalization of the root final consonant äs due to early transfer of the word from w-stem to /-stem. äs I have suggested elsewhere (Woodhouse 1995: 94.40 CLuv.56 Robert Woodhouse 7. cf. §4. ku-ta-sa+ra/i.). but Melchert (1993: 247) has already suggested an acceptable 0-grade in the protoform. but not the aspera which.).'high'. s. the initial of which in bitectal terms is clearly a backvelar (see Pokorny 1948-59: 535). such äs is found later in Classical Greek. Although the material is currently sparse. u. Unauthenticated Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM . hew. Thus in Sanskrit the prevelar media appears to have undergone assibilation later and there- fore less thoroughly than the tenüis and the aspera.'purify' appears to be the only example for velar reflex of the prevelar media (the aspera indicated in Melchert 1987: 247 must be a slip. unless the laryngeal is to be viewed äs inhibiting palatalization in the satem dialects (cf. orthostat'. Both the stem transfer and the fact of palatalization already attested in the case of the tenüis are consistent with a fronted articulation of Pre-Luv.v. but this chronological assumptionmay be unnecessary. parray.

. äs at present. etc. this may be a palatalizing environment in Luvian.. There can thus be a general similarity with the common notation for PIE. Albanian) adduced for the purpose of overturning it. one cannot speak of setting up rules. to the phonologically viable theory proposed and developed by Meillet and Kortlandt. of the languages con- cerned. seems a natural choice for the backvelars.(Melchert 1987: 201). can be used. theplot thickens: the Slavic equivalent has a backvelar that is widely believed to have been palatalized by the preceding.1. A typologically satisfactory model for bitectal PIE. The suffix. The former has no etymology and so there is nothing to discuss. Luvian) I believe it has been shown that this bitectal approach results in a substantial simplification in recon- struction and prompts further insights into the historical phonology. Unauthenticated Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM . The best one can do is to find a con- sistent framework into which to fit the small amount of otherwise dis- parate data. If not.g. whose derivation is cvery speculative' (Melchert 1987: 203).203): if so. consequently. based on prevelars and backvelars has been described äs an adjunct. or /c0. Confirmation of the correctness of the approach adopted by these scholars has been found in some instances in data (e. Conclusions 8.. Meillet in his Introduction has in a sense led the way with /r1. may have tectal preceded by *s (Melchert 1987: 201. k2. There remain zarsiia Oeleitbrief (Tischler 1990: 88) and the nom- inal suffix -iz(z)a. especially since labiality was not originally a phonemic feature of the backvelars. either the unadorned Symbols. In other cases (Phrygian. The question of notation remains. tectals 57 It is true of course that with only one example per category. including questions of relative chronology. Indic. for the prevelars. high front vowel (Arumaa 1976: 33): perhaps Luvian underwent a similar development. 8. etc. On PIE. In cases of inde- terminacy.2. laryngeals but without the preemptive Suggestion of an identity of pattermng~between these two very differ- ent sets of phonemes. 8. etc. or to indicate an intermediate pure velar stage in a partic- ular development. The current tritectal sym- bols cannot well be adapted to a bitectal reconstruction since they are clearly preemptive.

References Allen. Eqrem. Erevan. Slavica. Vladimir L. Winter/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.3. David C. Ocerki po istorii dopis'mennogo perio- da armjanskogo jazyka. IF. -. Heidelberg. 2nd enlarged ed. by Leszek Bednarczuk. Calder. Columbus (Ohio). Sprache 18: 132-154. is the reprocessing of Standard etymological reconstructions containing tectals to reflect this new. Vier altindische W rter. Althochdeutsche Grammatik. V. Sidney. 1911. 1972. Dinaak'a our language: Koyukon Athapascan. 3 vols. Warsaw. W. 1984. PWN. 1995. Philol. Marie D. 1976. Fraenkel. Benjamins. nauk Arm. p. MSS. 1954-1972. Some Greek aRa-forms. Nils & Lindeman. 1993. Robert Stephen Paul. Lexicon linguae aethiopicae. 87-HO/ Arumaa. Jazyk frigijskix nadpisej kak istoriceskij istocnik. Urslavische Grammatik. tr. by Walther Mitzka. An urgent desideratum.. Glotta 70: 181-196. Fredrik Otto. 1978.a question of priority. W. Heidelberg. Soc. Ernst. L.. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. Sara E. Fairbanks (Alaska). SSR.. & Orel. 1986. Martin E. Indoeuropejskie j?zyki Balkanow. Niemeyer. August. Eichner-K hn. Loss and retention of voiced velars in Luvian: another look. Jahukyan = Dzaukjan. p. Osnabr ck. JHellSt. 469-513. No.31: 161-215.. Winter. Hunter. 19. The etymology of Greek αύος and Od. Basic Albanian etymologies. by UvA Vertalers/ Paul Gardiner. llth ed. 1962-65. 1994. Comparative Indo-European linguistics: an introduction. Huld. Eliza et al. 1976. Henry. Erevan.327 αυσταλέος: Homeric metrics and linguistics . 99: 75-85. for statistical puφoses s much s any other. Peeter. 1865. 1970. £abej. Crichton. 1976.58 Robert Woodhouse 8. Litauisches etymologisches W rterbuch. ed. typologically respectable formu- lation of a venerable and unjustly neglected theory. Biblio. -.S. Vestnik drevnej istorii. Leszek. Heidelberg/G ttin- gen. Akad. I. by James A. nauk Arm.. Williams & Norgate. Summer Institute of Linguistics. 1981. Wilhelm.M. T bingen. 34: 9-20. Hjalmar.. 1963. [Repr. Corpus inscriptionarum neo-phrygiarum. Berg. 1967. Georgiev. SSR. Bajun. Gevork Beglarovic. MSS. p. 2: Konsonantismus. Akad. Unauthenticated Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM . Introduction to the history of the Indo-Eujropean languages. Griechisches etymologisches W rterbuch. Sofia. Braune. Kimball. Ethiopic grammar. ber einige Lautregeln des Albanischen. Winter. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. 1988. In: Jgzyki indoeuropejskie l. Ingrid. Sravnitel'naja grammatika armjanskogo jazyka. 34: 21-37. 1973. -. 1982. London. Jones. Bednarczuk. tr. The PIE velar series: Neogrammarian and other Solutions in the light of attested parallels. 173-200.. Frisk. Trans. 1907.]. by Carl Bezold. Dillmann. Beekes.E.l.

I. Bern. Uppsala (Studia Slavica Upsaliensis 12). Lars. HS. Winter. 1993. Lindeman. Heidelberg. 1994.. From Proto-Indo-European to Slavic. 1980. H. 1987. Oxford. George Y. 1948-59. de Gruyter. 1963. 1993. Kortlandt. Hayjc'. Suk'iasyan. KZ. HS. Complementary distributions among the root patterns of Proto-Indo-European. 1981. (Lfg. 1: 2. 1988. 102: 23-45. 1973. Moscati. A prehistory of Slavic: the historical phonology of Common Slavic. 1969. -. Mayrhofer. Shields. New Luvo-Lycian isoglosses. An introduction to the comparative grammar of the Semitic languages. Armenian and Indo-European (historical phonology). de Gruyter (Studies in Indo-European language and culture. Reinhard. Phrygian. Magnusson. Poland 17-20 March 1976. 1948. -. by A. 1967. 2. 1959. A new look at the centum/satem isogloss.. 107: 288-309. Stempel. p. Manfred. ed. Unauthenticated Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM .E. PIE velars in Luvian. Kenneth. Berlin/New York. Winter. 2nd printing. 1992. Historical phonology of Anatolian. Studies and monographs 58). -. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. 182-204. Die Distribution der urindogermanischen sogenannten Gutturale. JIES. Steensland. OED. Walter L. Shevelov. Scherer. 1971. Melchert. *serg(h). Mouton (Trends in linguistics: Studies and mo- nographs 4). p. by Edgar C. 1-10) Heidelberg. Wiesbaden. teetais 59 Kluge. Luzac. Halbband: Lautlehre. Friedrich & Götze.1992-. by Calvert Watkins. KZ.. Neroznak. The Hague. IF. 1964. New series 3). Mann. 14th ed. 1978. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Stuart E. London. 237-243. 94: 243-251. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen.. 95: 203-213. SSH Gitawkf. Henrieta. In: Studies in memory of Warren Cowgill (1929-1985). Winter. Jr. 1986-92. Francke. 1994. -. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. Ere- van. Thumb. JIES. On PIE. Albanian and Armenian. be sick'. Fredrik Otto. (Lfg. 1989. 101: 211-243. OUR Pokorny. The compact edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. palätovelars before resonants in Balto-Slavic. -. 1986> Indogermanische Grammatik. In: Recent developments in historical phonology: papers prepared for the International Confer- ence on Historical Phonology held at Ustronie. Linguistics 34: 17-25. by Jacek Fisiak. HS. Albert. Frederik. Berlin. ed. Winter. 1986. Mouton de Gruyter (Trends in Linguistics. Zur Vertretung der drei indogermanischen Gutturalreihen im Armenischen. 1. neue Serie 6). 2. Luvian lexical notes. Sabatino et al. Craig. Vladimir R. 21: 237-257. Alfred. Acakans hayerenum [Root determinants in Armenian].'waste away. akad. In: Reconstructing languages and cultures. Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte. ed. Heidelberg. 11-17 to date) Heidelberg. IE. Heidelberg. 271-278. 98: 48-54. Berlin/New York.Polomo & Werner Winter. Harrassowitz (Porta linguarum orientalium. 22: 91-112. Julius. p. Winter. -.. 1. -. 2nd enlarged ed.

1993. Robert.60 Robert Woodhouse Tischler. Mary F. Johann. Etimologiceskij slovar' russkogo jazyka. Woudhuizen. Moscow. -. plates 67-74. Proto Indo-Eurc)]pean injective asperes [sie]. Hupa phonemics. IF. JIES. Progress.N. 4vols. 1969. Old Phrygian: some texts and relations. Old Phrygian inscriptions from Gordion: toward a history of the Phrygian alphabet. tr. Young. Queensland 4072. 100: 92-100. 1995. by William Bright. Berkeley/Los Angeles. Woodhouse. 1964. 2nd ed. 24: 27-44. 199-216. JIES. In: Studies in Californian linguistics. and augm.. IR 95: 63-98. Hesperia 38: 252-296. Fred C. 1986-87.Trubacev. by O. p... Rodney S. Department of German and Russian Studies Robert Woodhouse University of Queensland. Maks. 1996. Hundert Jahre kentum-satem Theorie. Australia Unauthenticated Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM .21: 1-25. The origin and relative chronology of Winter's law: some observations on Kortlandt's prehistory of Slavic and glottalic hypothesis. Vasmer/Trubacev = Fasmer. ed. 1990. of California P. U. Woodward.