Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction to Nostratic
Comparative Linguistics
With Special Reference
To Indo-European
Allan R. Bomhard
SECOND EDITION
2015
A Comprehensive
Introduction to Nostratic
Comparative Linguistics
With Special Reference
To Indo-European
VOLUME 1
Allan R. Bomhard
SECOND EDITION
2015
A Comprehensive
Introduction to Nostratic
Comparative Linguistics
With Special Reference
To Indo-European
Volume 1
By
Allan R. Bomhard
CHARLESTON, SC
2015
Bomhard, Allan R. (1943 )
VOLUME ONE
Preface xvii
2.1. Indo-European . 33
2.2. Kartvelian 35
2.3. Afrasian ... 37
2.4. Uralic-Yukaghir .. 38
2.5. Elamo-Dravidian . 38
2.6. Altaic ... 40
2.7. Chukchi-Kamchatkan . 41
2.8. Gilyak . 41
2.9. Eskimo-Aleut .. 42
2.10. Etruscan .. 42
2.11. Sumerian . 43
13. The Nostratic Homeland and the Dispersal of the Nostratic Languages 265
VOLUME TWO
20.1. Introduction .. 1
20.2. Proto-Nostratic *b 7
20.3. Proto-Nostratic *p (> Proto-Afrasian *p) . 93
20.4. Proto-Nostratic *p (> Proto-Afrasian *f) 153
20.5. Proto-Nostratic *p ... 165
20.6. Proto-Nostratic *d 169
20.7. Proto-Nostratic *t 213
20.8. Proto-Nostratic *t 255
20.9. Proto-Nostratic *d .. 286
20.10. Proto-Nostratic *t . 293
20.11. Proto-Nostratic *t . 302
20.12. Proto-Nostratic *s .. 315
20.13. Proto-Nostratic * 337
20.14. Proto-Nostratic *c .. 347
20.15. Proto-Nostratic *c ... 352
20.16. Proto-Nostratic *s 362
20.17. Proto-Nostratic * 378
20.18. Proto-Nostratic * .. 383
20.19. Proto-Nostratic * 387
20.20. Proto-Nostratic * . 390
20.21. Proto-Nostratic *g 398
20.22. Proto-Nostratic *k ... 450
20.23. Proto-Nostratic *k ... 514
VOLUME THREE
VOLUME FOUR
References .. 1
VOLUME ONE
Research on this book can truly be said to have begun some forty years ago, when I
first began exploring the possibility that Indo-European might be related to Semitic.
I published the on-going development of my ideas in a series of articles, beginning
in 1975 (for details, see the list of my works cited in the references at the end of this
book). As time went on, I gradually expanded the scope of the investigation to
include all of Afroasiatic (in this book, I use Afrasian as the designation for this
language family, in accordance with a proposal made by Igor M. Diakonoff). The
culmination of this phase of my research resulted in the publication of my 1984
book Toward Proto-Nostratic: A New Approach to the Comparison of Proto-Indo-
European and Proto-Afroasiatic (Amsterdam: John Benjamins). Over the many
years that it took me to develop the ideas that led to that book, I received support
and feedback from Raimo Anttila, Martin Bernal, Henrik Birnbaum, John
Colarusso, Thomas Gamkrelidze, Paul Hopper, and Saul Levin. Through the whole
process, the encouragement I received from my friend, colleague, and collaborator
on the Kerns Gedenkschrift, Yol L. Arbeitman, was a constant source of
inspiration, and the careful scrutiny that he gave my work saved me from making
many foolish errors. I owe much to Konrad Koerner for courageously agreeing to
accept the book for publication, for his editorial advice, and for guiding the work
through the publication process. Paul J. Hopper kindly prepared the Foreword to
that book. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the much-needed assistance I
received from El Rabih Makki, who carefully reviewed the Arabic material found in
that book, and Gilbert Davidowitz looking back, it is hard to believe that well
over thirty years have passed since Davidowitz suffered a fatal heart attack (on 21
July 1980).
After the publication of Toward Proto-Nostratic, I had intended to leave distant
linguistic comparison behind for a while and move into other areas of research,
particularly Indo-European morphology and syntax, which I felt needed a new
synthesis to reflect current views. However, this was not to happen. Reviews of my
book as well as personal correspondence and discussions with colleagues prompted
me to begin taking a look at other language families. Here, I owe much to Vitaly
Shevoroshkin had he not been so critical of many aspects of my work, I probably
would not have been motivated to devote the better part of the next decade to doing
painstaking research into other language families with which Indo-European might
be genetically related, but I needed to see for myself whether or not my views could
hold up when the field of inquiry was expanded, and I needed to see whether or not
there was any basis for Shevoroshkins criticisms. Needless to say, I was extremely
pleased with what I found. And, as for Shevoroshkin, all I can say is thank you,
Vitaly. Though Shevoroshkin continues to support Moscovite views on Nostratic
and to be critical of my views, on a personal basis, he has turned out to be a warm,
xviii PREFACE
friendly, and generous individual, and I am glad that I have had the opportunity to
get to know him and his wife, Galina.
Unfortunately, in spite of my best efforts to get my hands on a copy of Illi-
Svitys dictionary so that I could consult it in preparing Toward Proto-Nostratic, I
was unsuccessful. When I finally received volumes I and II of Illi-Svitys
dictionary from Dolgopolsky (on 22 August 1983), the camera-ready manuscript of
the book had already been sent to the publisher. To those who wondered why Illi-
Svity was not given more credit in my 1984 book, the answer should now be
obvious one cannot cite nor comment upon what one has not seen. This
unfortunate shortcoming has since been rectified in my subsequent work.
In addition to expressing my deepest gratitude to Aharon Dolgopolsky for his
great kindness and generosity in giving me copies of his and Illi-Svitys articles
on Nostratic as well as copies of volumes I and II of Illi-Svitys comparative
Nostratic dictionary, I would also like to thank my friend Yol L. Arbeitman for
sending me a copy of the first fascicle of volume III of Illi-Svitys dictionary.
In October 1985, I had the good fortune to come into contact with, and
eventually to meet, John C. Kerns, who had sent me a copy of his book Indo-
European Prehistory. When I read his book, I was struck by how closely his views
coincided with mine. As I continued to work on gathering material for a book on the
Nostratic languages, I realized that I needed help, or I would never get done the
material just kept becoming more and more voluminous. Therefore, I asked Kerns
to assist me by writing the chapter on Nostratic morphology and syntax. This he
agreed to do. This collaborative effort resulted in the publication (in 1994) of our
joint monograph The Nostratic Macrofamily: A Study in Distant Linguistic
Relationship (Berlin, New York, NY, and Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter). It is
with great sadness that I must note here that Kerns passed away on 24 November
1995. I enjoyed working with him, and I regret that he was no longer here to help
with the current book. No doubt, this book would have benefited tremendously from
his keen intellect and vast knowledge.
There are others who offered their help when Kerns and I were preparing our
joint monograph the problems associated with working with so many different
language families required consultation with and assistance from others more
qualified than I in their respective areas of expertise. Thanks are due especially to
Aimo Murtonen for reviewing the Afrasian material, to Karl Krippes for reviewing
the Altaic material, and to Gyula Dcsy for commenting on Uralic. Others offered
overall support and critiques here, an expression of appreciation is due Mykolas
Palmaitis and Hal Fleming. Palmaitis, in particular, advised me not to rush into print
before studying the other language families in greater detail. Moreover, the papers
and letters he sent me contained many insightful and stimulating ideas along with
much-needed criticism and advice. Fleming, on the other hand, helped me to
network with others working on problems of distant linguistic relationship. He also
was the source of many of my best ideas. Indeed, I will never be able to repay the
enormous debt I owe him. And, as if that were not enough, in the process, he has
become a friend. I am also grateful to Claude Boisson and Vclav Blaek, who
generously shared their work with me. Had it not been for Boissons pioneering
PREFACE xix
studies, I would not have ventured into Sumerian, while Blaeks many articles on
Nostratic have been a constant source of inspiration. Finally, I would like to express
gratitude to Werner Winter for recommending that Mouton de Gruyter accept the
book for publication in the Trends in Linguistics series.
In early 1994, Ken Jacobs, Department of Anthropology, University of
Montreal, invited me to deliver a paper at a session on Language, Culture, and
Biology in Prehistoric Central Eurasia: (Re)establishing the Links at the 1994
annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association to be held in Atlanta,
GA, in December of that year. Jacobs charged participants to move beyond their
specialties and interests and to approach the issues from a multidisciplinary
perspective. Other participants included well-known linguists and anthropologists. It
was at that meeting that I had the good fortune to meet John Colarusso for the first
time. The original title that I selected for my paper was Archeology and the
Nostratic Hypothesis.
Then, later in that year, Kevin Tuite, a colleague of Jacobs, invited me to
deliver a paper covering the same topics before faculty members and students of the
Department of Anthropology, University of Montreal, which I did on 20 October
1994. By then, I had changed the title to Indo-European and the Nostratic
Hypothesis. Reaction to the paper was enthusiastic, and a lively discussion ensued,
with many valuable comments being received from Marc Picard, tienne Tiffou,
Kevin Tuite, and others in attendance.
As time went on, I kept adding new material to the paper, which, as a result,
grew to over eighty typed pages by the time I reached Atlanta.
When I was in Montreal in October 1994, Tuite suggested to me that it might
be valuable to have a book on Nostratic that was aimed at a more general audience
than my 1994 joint monograph The Nostratic Macrofamily. Tuite wanted a book
that he could use in his classes most of his students are anthropology majors. I
liked Tuites suggestion. The paper that I delivered first in Montreal and then in
Atlanta seemed like a good place to start. Not only did it contain a summary of
much that was in my 1994 book, it also contained, thanks to Jacobs, a discussion of
homelands, which, by its very nature, incorporated a good deal of information
derived from archeology and anthropology. Over the next few months, I reworked
the paper, dividing it into chapters and adding much new material.
Then, in mid-1994, Joseph Greenberg sent me a draft of the manuscript for the
volume on morphology (published in 2000) of his two-volume work Indo-European
and Its Closest Relatives: The Eurasiatic Language Family. I learned much from it
and revised the manuscript of my book accordingly. (Volume 2 of Greenbergs
book, Lexicon, appeared in 2002.)
In the course of working on the book, valuable comments were received from
Hal Fleming and, especially, the late Igor M. Diakonoff. Next, in December 1995,
Alexis Manaster Ramer engaged me in a challenging on-line debate on Nostratic. At
the same time, Manaster Ramer brought my attention to his many insightful articles
on Nostratic. As a result of this debate and reading Manaster Ramers articles,
additional refinements were made. I would also like to thank Manaster Ramer for
pointing out that two entries (the terms for the number seven and bull, steer)
xx PREFACE
Allan R. Bomhard
Charleston, SC
xxii PREFACE
PREFACE
A Comprehensive Introduction to Nostratic Comparative Linguistics:
With Special Reference to Indo-European.
First edition.
All of my work on Nostratic has been cumulative. Each new iteration incorporates,
corrects, and expands upon everything that I have written before. This book is
different in but one respect it represents my final contribution to the subject
(though I will continue to make corrections, as warranted).
The current iteration has given me the opportunity to correct a number of
typographical and other errors that, unfortunately, appeared in the immediately
previous iteration (Reconstructing Proto-Nostratic). However, even though I have
tried to be extremely thorough, I am sure that there are still errors here and there
that have escaped my attention. I will continue to correct any errors that I or others
may come across.
Countless changes have been made throughout this new iteration on the basis of
more recent scholarship. Moreover, over 100 new Nostratic etymologies have been
added, new material has been incorporated into existing etymologies, and the list of
references has been expanded. All of the Germanic, Italic, Albanian, Kartvelian,
Elamite, North and Central Cushitic, Hebrew, and Geez material cited in Part Three,
Comparative Vocabulary (Volumes 2 and 3), has been reviewed, corrected, and
expanded. Hebrew and Geez forms are now cited in both their native scripts and in
transliteration. Altogether, over 400 pages have been added to the current iteration.
Every chapter has been modified several quite extensively. Due to the increase in
size, I have divided this new iteration into four volumes, and I have changed the
title to A Comprehensive Introduction to Nostratic Comparative Linguistics.
I would like to thank Arnaud Fournet, Stefan Georg, and Simonetta Pelusi for
their insightful reviews of Reconstructing Proto-Nostratic. I would also like to
thank Pierre Bancel and David Appleyard for their comments and suggestions.
Finally, I want to express my gratitude to Carla Breidenbach.
I owe an enormous debt to Arnaud Fournet. He proofread a draft of the entire
manuscript of volume 1 of the current iteration and saved me from making many
foolish mistakes. It goes without saying that I alone am responsible for any mistakes
that remain.
In closing, it is gratifying to note that, as far back as 1933 (English translation
2011), Holger Pedersen had already hinted at many of the same conclusions reached
in this book.
Allan R. Bomhard
Charleston, SC
February 2014
PREFACE xxiii
PREFACE
A Comprehensive Introduction to Nostratic Comparative Linguistics:
With Special Reference to Indo-European.
Second revised, corrected, and expanded edition.
This edition contains many corrections and updates. New material and references
have been added to take into consideration the latest scholarship, and new sections
have been added to several chapters as well. Chapter 7, A Sketch of Proto-Afrasian
Phonology, has been reformatted and greatly expanded. I have added one new
etymology (no. 674), and I have added a great deal of additional material, especially
from Berber and Yukaghir, to the existing etymologies. Finally, I have added many
new items to the list of references, including recent theoretical works. References to
and quotations from these works have been included where appropriate. All told,
just over 300 pages have been added.
In this edition, I have paid special attention to addressing all of the doubts and
criticisms that have been expressed to date against both the glottalic model of Proto-
Indo-European consonantism and the Nostratic Hypothesis. Some of the misgivings
were actually quite easy to refute, while others required careful reconsideration and
a more nuanced refutation. In those cases where the criticisms were legitimate, the
mandatory changes have been made.
Special thanks are due to Petr Hrubi for bringing the work of Andrew Simpson
to my attention.
Allan R. Bomhard
Charleston, SC
October 2015
PART ONE
INTRODUCTION,
COMPARATIVE PHONOLOGY,
HOMELANDS, ETC.
CHAPTER ONE
1.1. INTRODUCTION
From the very earliest days of Indo-European comparative linguistics, there have
been speculations about the possible genetic relationship of Indo-European to other
language families. Though, in the course of study, many striking similarities were
noted between Indo-European and certain other language phyla, notably Uralic and
Afrasian (formerly called Hamito-Semitic, Semito-Hamitic, Afroasiatic, Erythraic,
and Lisramic), truly convincing evidence of distant linguistic relationship was
simply not brought forth. Indeed, much of the early work was not of high quality
and did more to discredit the attempt to discover possible relatives of Indo-
European than to help. Gradually, the intellectual climate, especially in the United
States of America and France, became hostile to long-range comparison, and Indo-
European remained an orphan with no known relatives.
In the first half of the nineteenth century, no less a figure than one of the
founders of Indo-European comparative grammar, Franz Bopp, investigated
possible relationship of Indo-European with Kartvelian (in 1846 and 1847) on the
one hand and with Malayo-Polynesian (in 1840) on the other. In the mid-1860s,
Rudolf von Raumer (in 1863) and Graziadio Ascoli (in 1864) claimed that Indo-
European and Semitic were related. At about the same time (in 1869), Vilhelm
Thomsen proposed relationship between Indo-European and Finno-Ugrian. This
proposal was later (in 1879) explored in depth by the Estonian Nicolai Anderson
and (in 1900) by the British phonetician Henry Sweet. Unfortunately, Andersons
2 CHAPTER ONE
work contained too many errors to be of lasting value. However, insightful and
solid contributions were made concerning the possible relationship of Indo-
European and Uralic during the twentieth century by the Swedish Uralicist Bjrn
Collinder. Towards the end of the nineteenth century (1873), the Semiticist
Friedrich Delitzsch investigated lexical parallels between Indo-European and
Semitic. Then, at the beginning of the twentieth century, the Danish linguist
Hermann Mller, in the course of several publications, attempted to show that Indo-
European and Semitic might be related. Mllers work was later continued by the
French linguist Albert Cuny, whose last publications date from the mid-1940s.
Mllers and Cunys efforts were generally not highly regarded by the scholarly
community. One exception was Mllers student Holger Pedersen, who not only
coined the term Nostratic but who also expanded the definition to include Indo-
European, Semitic, Samoyed and Finno-Ugrian, Turkish, Mongolian, Manchu,
Yukaghir, and Eskimo. Though Pedersen never published a systematic account of
his views, he did make the following insightful observations (1931:335338):
The question of the relationship among the Indo-European and foreign families
of languages came up in the first period of comparative linguistics.
Relationship between Semitic and Indo-European was asserted by Rudolf von
Raumer, beginning in 1863, and by Ascoli from 1864 on. But convincing proof
could not be expected at that time. Resemblances in the morphology of the two
families are extremely few, and proof by means of vocabulary and the laws of
sounds was not then understood. Schleicher denied most positively any
relationship between the two, pointing to the great dissimilarity in the forms of
the roots: in Semitic the roots consist of three syllables of very simple and
uniform structure, as in Arabic atala (root form and preterite of the verb to
kill), while in Indo-European the roots are monosyllabic and of widely
varying partly heavily compounded form, as in Latin -re to go, st-re
to stand, lub-et it pleases, vert- I turn, ed- I eat, and so on. At that time
nobody could weaken this argument. And it might have been added, although
Schleicher did not do so, that the phonetic systems of the two language families
are extremely different, as may be seen from a single example: in Semitic there
is an abundance of gutturals, whereas in Indo-European there is not one, not
even the (to us) ordinary h. With this in view, one might feel tempted to assent
to Schleichers exclamation: What weight have the few similarities in roots in
the two language families against these sharp contrasts? And one might well
be disposed to neglect the few similarities which one could not help
observing.
Nothing was changed in the problem by the first step in a systematic
examination of the vocabulary which Friedrich Delitzsch took in his Studien
ber indogermanisch-semitische Wurzelverwandtschaft (1873). But the
development of Indo-European linguistics changed the problem greatly. The
monosyllabic form of Indo-European roots turned out to be an entirely
secondary phenomenon: in historical times the roots of the words for heaven,
god, or heart may appear to be *diw- or *kerd-, but we have good reason to
believe that in the period older than that of the Indo-European parent language
INTRODUCTION, HISTORY OF RESEARCH, AND METHODOLOGY 3
these roots had forms like *dyw-, or *krd- , and that the phonological
system in this older period had quite a different appearance from that which we
attribute to the Indo-European language.
With this background, there appeared in 1906 an extraordinarily important
work by the Danish scholar Hermann Mller, Semitisch und Indogermanisch.
This is a splendid attempt to discover the laws controlling the relationship
between Indo-European and Semitic consonants a successful attempt,
although only the main lines of development are traced. Time alone will show
how far we can advance by Mllers method. Certain it is, however, that the
comparison of the two families can never be carried out so completely and in
such detail as the comparison within the fields of the individual languages of
one family.
But Indo-European has been brought into connection with other families
besides Semitic. Vilhelm Thomsen, as early as 1869, indicated the possibility
of a relationship with Finno-Ugrian, but he did not pursue the subject very far.
In 1879, the Estonian Nicolai Anderson published an extensive work on the
subject, the value of which is considerably impaired by its many errors. Great
interest was awakened when the English scholar Henry Sweet advocated the
relationship somewhat passionately in a little popular book, The History of
Language (1900). However, among the individual similarities which Sweet
mentions, some are incorrect, and his space was too limited to permit of actual
proof. Trustworthy studies of some length by K. B. Wiklund and H. Paasonen
appeared in 1906 and 1908. After these works it seemed unnecessary to doubt
the relationship further.
Moreover, the inflectional systems show much greater relationships than
in the case of Semitic. The original ending of the accusative case in Finno-
Ugrian was -m, which in Finnish has changed to -n. The same ending is Indo-
European:
Finnish Latin
min I (Lappish mon) m me
sin thou (s from t; Lapp. don) t thee
4 CHAPTER ONE
Sanskrit
t-m this ta-
jo-ka who, which (relative) ya-
ku-ka who? (interrogative) ka-
range comparison) has continued to work, throughout the better part of the
twentieth century and on into the twenty-first century, on binary (or, in rare cases,
wider) comparisons of various languages that are currently considered to belong to
the Nostratic macrofamily. For comprehensive bibliographies listing publications
dealing with distant linguistic comparison, cf. Hegeds 1992a, Landsberg 1986,
BomhardKerns 1994:715864, and the list of references contained in this book.
Beginning in the mid-1960s, the intellectual climate slowly began to turn
around, and a growing number of linguists, especially in the former Soviet Union,
have begun to turn attention toward investigating distant linguistic relationship. The
revived interest was sparked by the work of Vladislav M. Illi-Svity [-
] (19341966) and Aharon B. Dolgopolsky [] (1930
2012), who first started working independently and, at a later date, through the
efforts of their mutual friend Vladimir Dybo [], cooperatively. Their work,
though not without its own shortcomings, was the first successful demonstration
that certain language phyla of northern and central Eurasia, the Indian subcontinent,
and the ancient Near East might be genetically related. Following a proposal first
made in 1903 by Holger Pedersen, they employed the name Nostratic to designate
this grouping of languages. In particular, Illi-Svity, in the course of several
publications, culminating in his posthumous comparative Nostratic dictionary
(19711984), which, unfortunately, was never completed, included Afrasian
(Semito-Hamitic []), Kartvelian, Indo-European, Uralic,
Dravidian, and Altaic in his version of the Nostratic macrofamily. From his earliest
writings, Dolgopolsky also included Chukchi-Kamchatkan and Eskimo-Aleut.
Before his tragic death in an automobile accident on 21 August 1966, Illi-
Svity had planned to prepare a comparative Nostratic dictionary listing over 600
Nostratic roots and tracing their development in detail in each of the daughter
languages in which they were attested. He had published a preliminary report on his
work in 1965 entitled (in English translation) Materials for a Comparative
Dictionary of the Nostratic Languages (Indo-European, Altaic, Uralic, Dravidian,
Kartvelian, Hamito-Semitic). Working diligently, literally devoting all of his
energy to the project, he had managed to prepare the entries for approximately 350
roots. After his death, Illi-Svitys work was prepared for publication by the
dedicated efforts of Rimma Bulatova, Vladimir Dybo, and Aharon Dolgopolsky,
with the result that the first volume of the dictionary appeared in 1971, containing
245 entries. A second, smaller volume appeared in 1976, listing entries 246 through
353 and ending with an index this completed all of the material prepared by Illi-
Svity himself (by the time this volume appeared, Dolgopolsky was in the process
of emigrating to Israel). Finally, the first fascicle of volume three appeared in 1984,
containing entries 354 through 378, none of which was prepared by Illi-Svity
it represents the collective efforts of a team of scholars.
In the meantime, Dolgopolsky continued to make important contributions to
Nostratic studies, especially a ground-breaking 1984 paper on Nostratic pronouns,
and he worked virtually nonstop on his unpublished Nostratic Dictionary until his
death in 2012. Fortunately, a draft of this dictionary was made available on-line in
6 CHAPTER ONE
2008. Other Russian scholars have also done important research into problems
affecting Nostratic mention should be made of the work of Alexandra Y.
Aikhenvald, N. D. Andrejev, M. S. Andronov, Vladimir Dybo, Eugene Helimskij,
Vjaeslav V. Ivanov, G. Kornilov, Oleg Mudrak, Vitaly V. Shevoroshkin, Sergej A.
Starostin, V. A. Terent'jev, Vladimir N. Toporov, and V. L. Tsymburskij, among
others. Though not Russian (but clearly someone who belongs to the Moscow
School), special recognition must be given to the Czech scholar Vclav Blaek,
who has published many important papers, most of which deal with the common
Nostratic lexicon. Others who should be noted include Alexis Manaster Ramer and
Irn Hegeds each has published a number of interesting papers on Nostratic.
Beginning with an article that appeared in Orbis in 1975, I published several
studies, culminating in a 1984 book entitled Toward Proto-Nostratic: A New
Approach to the Comparison of Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Afroasiatic, in
which I tried to show that Indo-European and Semitic (later expanded to include all
of Afrasian) might be distantly related. Reviews of that book as well as discussions
with colleagues prompted me to expand the scope of my research to include other
language families. This resulted in the publication in 1994 of a joint monograph by
myself and John C. Kerns entitled The Nostratic Macrofamily: A Study in Distant
Linguistic Relationship. It was Kerns who prepared the chapter dealing with
Nostratic morphology. That book supplied a great deal of lexical evidence from the
Nostratic daughter languages to support the reconstruction of 601 Proto-Nostratic
roots. In an article published in Orbis in 1995, I supplied material to support an
additional 29 Proto-Nostratic roots, and another 21 etymologies were proposed in
my 1996 book entitled Indo-European and the Nostratic Hypothesis. Afterwards, I
continued collecting lexical data, with the result that an additional two hundred
Nostratic etymologies were included in Reconstructing Proto-Nostratic, which was
published in two volumes in 2008. It should be noted that my views on Nostratic
differ somewhat from those of Illi-Svity and Dolgopolsky (see 1.5 below).
The late Joseph Greenberg has prepared a two-volume work entitled Indo-
European and its Closest Relatives: The Eurasiatic Language Family. The first
volume, which was published at the beginning of 2000, deals with grammar, and
the second, which was published at the beginning of 2002, deals with lexicon.
Greenberg includes Indo-European, Uralic-Yukaghir, Altaic (Mongolian, Chuvash-
Turkic, and Manchu-Tungus), Japanese-Korean (Korean, Ainu, and Japanese-
Ryukyuan), Gilyak, Chukchi-Kamchatkan, and Eskimo-Aleut in his Eurasiatic
language family. Unlike Illi-Svity, Dolgopolsky, and myself, he does not include
Kartvelian, Afrasian, or Elamo-Dravidian not because he believes that they are
unrelated, but because he believes that these three language phyla are more distantly
related to Indo-European than are the others, which, along with Indo-European,
form a natural taxonomic subgrouping. My own opinion is close to that of
Greenberg. As I see the situation, Nostratic includes Afrasian, Kartvelian, and
Elamo-Dravidian as well as Eurasiatic; in other words, I view Nostratic as a higher-
level taxonomic entity. Afrasian stands apart as an extremely ancient, independent
branch it was the first branch of Nostratic to separate from the rest of the
INTRODUCTION, HISTORY OF RESEARCH, AND METHODOLOGY 7
1.3. METHODOLOGY
Even though I have repeated the following points verbatim many times in previous
works, I still read irresponsible statements being made in the literature to the effect
that Nostraticists do not use traditional methods or that they use a weakened form
of the Comparative Method. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Therefore, I will
once again state the methodological principles used in distant linguistic comparison
(cf. BomhardKerns 1994:711; Bomhard 1996a:49 and 2008e.I:813).
The founders of Indo-European comparative linguistics placed great
importance on the comparison of grammatical forms, and this bias continues to the
present day in Indo-European studies and has even been carried over into the study
of other language families. However, this overemphasis on the comparison of
grammatical forms is far too restrictive and was the reason that the Celtic
languages, which have developed many unique features, were not immediately
recognized as Indo-European. As noted over eighty years ago by Pedersen (1931:
245) (these same points were made in 2008 by Anna Dybo and George Starostin):
INTRODUCTION, HISTORY OF RESEARCH, AND METHODOLOGY 9
period of separation, the lesser the chances will be that similarities of morphological
forms and rules of combinability will be found.
Fortunately, there remain other factors that can be helpful in determining
possible genetic relationship. One significant factor is the semantic resemblance of
lexical forms. Here, it is important to be able to establish recurrent sound-meaning
correspondences for a reasonably large sample of lexical material. Lexical forms
with identical or similar meanings have the greatest value. Next in value come
forms that, though divergent in meaning, can convincingly be derived, through
widely-attested semantic shifts, from earlier forms of identical or similar meaning.
The chances that lexical resemblances indicate genetic relationship increase
dramatically when additional languages are brought into the comparison and when
these new languages also exhibit a very large number of recurrent sound-meaning
correspondences. Greenberg originally called this method mass comparison
(subsequently, he changed this to multilateral comparison). He considers the
comparison of basic vocabulary from a large number of languages from a specific,
wide geographic area to be the quickest and most certain method to determine
possible genetic relationship. To Greenberg, lexical data are of paramount
importance in attempting to establish genetic relationship among languages,
especially in the initial stages of comparison.
The basic principles underlying the Comparative Method may be summarized
as follows: The first step involves the arduous task of data gathering, placing
special attention on gathering the oldest data available. Once a large amount of
lexical material has been gathered, it must be carefully analyzed to try to separate
what is ancient from what is an innovation and from what is a borrowing. After the
native lexical elements have been reasonably identified in each phylum, the material
can be compared across phyla to determine potential cognates. Once a sufficient
body of potential cognates has been identified, one can begin to work out the sound
correspondences. Not only must the regular sound correspondences (that is, those
that occur consistently and systematically) be defined, exceptions must also be
explained. Here, widely-attested sound changes (palatalization, metathesis,
syncope, assimilation, dissimilation, etc.) provide the key to understanding the
origin of most exceptions. In other cases, the analysis of the influence that
morphology has exerted provides an understanding of how particular exceptions
came into being. Some exceptions, though clearly related, simply defy explanation.
All of these must be noted. The final step involves the reconstruction of ancestral
forms and the formulation of the sound laws leading to the forms in the descendant
languages, identifying the laws that have produced the regular sound
correspondences as well as the exceptions. The same principles apply to the
reconstruction of grammatical forms and rules of combinability and to the
identification of the historical transformations leading to the systems found in the
daughter languages. Invariably, it takes the dedicated efforts of several generations
of scholars to work out all of the details. Here, we may cite the case of Indo-
European as even the most casual reading of Lehmanns 1993 book Theoretical
Bases of Indo-European Linguistics shows, after two full centuries of research into
INTRODUCTION, HISTORY OF RESEARCH, AND METHODOLOGY 11
what must surely be the most thoroughly-studied language family on the face of the
earth, there still remain many uncertainties about the reconstruction of the Indo-
European parent language. The following are superb introductions to Comparative-
Historical Linguistics: Arlotto 1972; Bynon 1977; L. Campbell 2013; Hock
Joseph 1996; Lehmann 1973 [1992]; Sihler 2000. More advanced are: Anttila 1972
and 1989; Hock 1986 [1991a]; RingeEska 2013. See also BowernEvans (eds.)
2014; CampbellMixco 2007; Hoenigswald 1960; Trask 1994, 1996, and 2010.
At this point, we may note that the description of the Comparative Method and
Internal Reconstruction given by Schwink (1994:9) is virtually identical to the
procedure outlined in the preceding paragraph:
Let us now proceed to the nuts and bolts of reconstruction. Winter (1970:149)
describes the comparative method in the following terms. First one carries out
inspection. This is looking at a number of languages for a sufficient number
of apparently recurrent correspondences. One should look at the oldest stages
of languages, judge which languages have the most archaic features or residues
(Lehmann 1990). Inspection is followed by sorting which involves a
complete listing of the correspondences discovered although without
interpretation (Winter 1970:149). Thereafter comes the reduction of the
material to major correspondence classes. If there are irregularities in
distribution, one looks for specific factors which may condition the difference.
This is now an interpretive procedure. The label chosen for an entity of a major
correspondence class should have a maximum of similarity with the items
labeled (p. 152). In this selection, the question of archaicity of daughter
languages will be taken into account. After assumption that the label represents
some earlier stage of the languages being looked at, an attempt may be made to
look at the labels of parts of systems.
The comparative method does not produce temporal distinctions... It
produces a proto-language which is a potpourri of features. It will be the job of
internal analysis to sort out this proto-language.
As noted in the first paragraph of this section, it was necessary to discuss these
issues in order to address concerns that have been raised about the applicability of
traditional methods of comparison to long-range comparison. It must be made
perfectly clear that the same principles are just as applicable to long-range
comparison as they are to any other type of linguistic comparison. The fact is, these
are the only tools we have. Moreover, they work their efficacy has been proven
over and over again.
Furthermore, claims that these methodologies break down when one tries to
apply them beyond a certain time limit, say 5,000 to 10,000 years ago, can be
shown, without a shadow of doubt, to be false. One can cite, for example, the case
of the aboriginal languages of Australia. Archaeological evidence indicates that
Australia has been inhabited by human beings for at least 40,000 years, and
possibly even longer. Though there remain many unsettled questions, such as
exactly when a putative Proto-Australian might have been spoken (probably at least
30,000 years ago), or about how the different languages should be subgrouped, and
12 CHAPTER ONE
so on, it has been suggested (though not proven) that all extant languages belong to
the same family (cf. Ruhlen 1987:188), and comparative work on these languages is
continuing apace (cf. Dixon 1980 and 2002). Another example that can be cited is
the case of the Afrasian language family. Due to the extremely deep divisions
among the six branches of Afrasian (Semitic, Egyptian, Berber, Omotic, Cushitic,
and Chadic), which are far greater than those found, by way of comparison, among
the earliest attested branches of Indo-European, the Afrasian parent language must
be placed as far back as 10,000 BCE (cf. Diakonoff 1988:33, fn. 15), or perhaps
even earlier, according to some scholars (Hodge [1993:99], for example, dates
Proto-Afrasian [his Lisramic] at 13,000 BCE). This extremely ancient date
notwithstanding, the major sound correspondences have been determined with great
accuracy (cf. Diakonoff 1992), excellent progress is being made in reconstructing
the common lexicon (to date, three main Afrasian etymological dictionaries have
appeared: one by Vladimir E. Orl and Olga V. Stolbova [1995], one by a team of
Russian scholars, and one by Christopher Ehret [1995]), and scholars are beginning
to piece together the original morphological patterning, though progress here lags
behind other areas. Comprehensive surveys of the Afrasian languages are: David
Cohen (ed.), (in English translation) Languages in the Ancient and Modern World:
Hamito-Semitic Languages (1988), and Zygmunt Frajzyngier and Erin Shay (eds.),
The Afroasiatic Languages (2012). A good introduction though now somewhat
out of date to Afrasian comparative phonology and morphology is Afrasian
Languages (1988) by Igor M. Diakonoff. Finally, it should be noted that Edward
Lipiski brings in a lot of data from related Afrasian languages in his Semitic
Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar (1997; second edition 2001), as
does Stefan Weninger (ed.), The Semitic Languages (2011).
One last point needs to be made: Reconstructed languages should be thought of
as real languages in every sense of the term. Of course, our reconstructions are, in a
sense, purely formulaic, and one can only hope to approximate, not fully recover,
all of the features of the actual proto-language. Nevertheless, our reconstructions
can be surprisingly accurate, as can be seen, for instance, when reconstructed Proto-
Romance is contrasted with so-called Vulgar Latin. When we undertake the task
of trying to recover the salient features of this or that proto-language, we must be
very careful not to reconstruct anything that is not characteristic of language in
general: our goal should be to strive for reality in our reconstructions (cf. Labov
1994:17). The prudent use of the insights gained from linguistic typology can be
extremely valuable in helping to arrive at realistic reconstructions. Now, a few more
conservative linguists have questioned the propriety of using typological data in
Historical-Comparative Linguistics, their main argument running somewhat along
the lines: since we cannot possibly know all of the languages that currently exist or
that have ever existed, we cannot say that such and such a type was impossible,
unnatural, or has never existed that is to say, our database of linguistic
systems will always be incomplete. Of course, there is no arguing with this line of
reasoning. However, these linguists miss an important point: from all of the data
that have been collected to date from an extremely large sample of the worlds
INTRODUCTION, HISTORY OF RESEARCH, AND METHODOLOGY 13
languages there emerge consistent, regular patterns that are repeated over and
over again. There are, to be sure, rare types typological isolates, so to speak ,
but these are less important (though no less interesting) from a statistical point of
view. It is the regular patterning that has emerged from the analysis of the data from
a great number of languages that is most important to Historical-Comparative
Linguistics. These data are important in two respects: (A) they provide a control
against which our reconstructions can be evaluated and (B), when part of a system
has been reconstructed, they provide a means to deduce what the rest of the system
might have been like, that is to say, they can be used as a discovery procedure by
making use of implicational universals. Concerning the consistent, regular
patterning that has been observed, it should be noted that the basis for some of this
patterning is human physiology, and, in such cases, we can speak of true universals.
Given this regular patterning, it is disturbing when our reconstructions contradict it,
as in the case of one form of the traditional reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European,
for instance. To say merely that Indo-European was a unique type or some such
statement only means that the person making such a statement chooses not to
confront the issues involved. We should not hesitate to use every means at our
disposal to help us arrive at realistic reconstructions. To be sure, we should be fully
cognizant of the work of our predecessors and adhere closely to the time-honored
methodologies the Comparative Method and Internal Reconstruction that
have served Comparative-Historical Linguistics well since the days of Bopp, Rask,
and Grimm. However, we must not stop here we must also make full use of
advances in phonological theory that have broadened our understanding of sound
change and of new insights gained from typological studies, and our proposals must
be consistent with the data. For a superb overview of the relevancy of typological
studies to diachronic linguistics, cf. Schwink 1994.
In attempting to determine whether or not particular lexical items from the
various language families might be related, I have made extensive use of Carl
Darling Bucks A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European
Languages as a control for the semantic development of the proposed lexical
parallels. It may be noted that, in examining the lexicons of Kartvelian, Afrasian,
Uralic-Yukaghir, Elamo-Dravidian, Altaic, and Eskimo-Aleut, semantic shifts
similar to those described by Buck for the Indo-European languages are found over
and over again in these other language families as well. I cannot emphasize strongly
enough that, in order to gain a complete understanding of how I arrived at my
proposals, Bucks dictionary must be consulted.
One final note is necessary. In recent years, several scholars (most notably,
Donald Ringe and Sheila Embleton) have proposed techniques based upon
statistical modeling and probability analysis as a means to help us judge the validity
of our proposals concerning possible genetic relationship. Properly used, these
techniques can indeed provide another valuable tool, which may be used along
with, but not as a replacement for, established methodologies. Moreover, these
techniques have the important advantage of introducing an objective set of criteria
against which our proposals can be evaluated.
14 CHAPTER ONE
The ultimate proof of genetic relationship, and to many linguists minds the
only real proof, lies in the successful reconstruction of the ancestral forms from
which the systematically corresponding cognates can be derived. (Note that
just as in courts of law, the terms proof, prove here are used in the sense of
establish beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, the general tenet of historical
linguistics is that all hypotheses, whether they concern genetic relationship,
language-internal developments like sound change or analogy, or contact-
induced changes, should be established beyond a reasonable doubt. It must be
admitted, however, that this tenet is often ignored in practice.)
Hocks statement is extremely important and pinpoints the crux of the problem in
attempts to establish genetic relationship, especially long-range genetic relationship
it seems that no one can agree on the threshold beyond which reasonable
doubt has been dispelled. For some, the threshold is set so low that highly unlikely
proposals can slip by, while, for others, the threshold is set so high that even well-
established language families have difficulty passing that is to say, they set
impossible standards.
Next, Kimball (1992:275) notes that [t]he comparative method makes three
assumptions:
As previously stated, the first step involves the arduous task of data gathering,
placing special attention on gathering the oldest data available. Once a large amount
of lexical material has been gathered, it must be carefully analyzed to try to separate
what is ancient from what is an innovation and from what is a borrowing. This is
not a simple task the problem of borrowing is particularly acute within Altaic,
for instance. Greenberg has addressed this problem by laying out two main
techniques for detecting borrowed lexical items. First, he notes that borrowing is
most commonly confined to certain semantic spheres (for example, cultural items)
and certain grammatical categories (nouns far more often than verbs). Second,
borrowed words can be distinguished from native vocabulary by expanding the
range of comparison to include additional languages. Moreover, there are important
clues that can assist us in identifying borrowings. First, a knowledge of the history
or, in the case of reconstructed languages, the prehistory of a language can tell us
which languages were in contact or might have been in contact with the language or
languages under analysis at different stages in its history. Next, knowledge of the
different levels of material culture achieved by population groups speaking these
languages at particular times in their history will give us a clue about the probable
direction of borrowings. Archeology can be of value here by providing us with a
description of the artifacts of the material cultures in question, by giving us a
glimpse of the salient characteristics of the societies using those artifacts, and by
identifying probable trade routes and population movements.
Let us turn once again to Kimball (1992:275) to see what she has to say on this
matter:
However, languages can resemble each other for other reasons. Onomatopoetic
words, baby-talk, and words showing sound symbolism are excluded from
consideration; in these, the relationship between sound and meaning is not
entirely arbitrary. Similarity can result from borrowing and other effects of
language contact, or even from sheer chance factors which must be
eliminated in a list of potential cognates.
Sometimes knowledge of the external history of a language allows us to
exclude borrowing as a cause of similarity. For example, we know that many
English words resemble French words because English has borrowed
extensively from French since the 11th century. Where language contact is less
well documented or prehistoric, similarity resulting from borrowing can be
excluded with reasonable certainty by selecting items unlikely to have been
borrowed. For instance, words referring to technology or material culture,
which are often borrowed along with cultural or technological innovations,
may make poor candidates for comparison. By contrast, basic vocabulary
kinship terms, numerals, pronouns, pre- and postpositions, and common verbs,
adverbs, adjectives, and nouns are less likely under most circumstances to
be borrowed, and are usually more helpful to the comparativist.
After the native lexical elements have been reasonably identified in each phylum,
the material can be compared across phyla to determine potential cognates. Once a
16 CHAPTER ONE
sufficient body of potential cognates have been identified, one can begin to work
out the sound correspondences. Let us illustrate this by looking at a few cognates
from the Nostratic languages (only the reconstructed forms will be given for each
language group) I have also included data from Sumerian:
PN PIE PK PAA PU PD PA PE
b- b- b- b- p- p- b- p-
p- p- p- p- p- p- p- p-
m- m- m- m- m- m- m- m-
Not only must the regular sound correspondences (that is, those that occur consistently
and systematically) be defined (a full set of Nostratic sound correspondences can be
18 CHAPTER ONE
found at the end of Chapter 12), exceptions must also be explained. Here, widely-
attested sound changes (palatalization, assimilation, metathesis, dissimilation,
syncope, etc.) provide the key to understanding the origin of most exceptions. In other
cases, the analysis of the influence that morphology has exerted provides an
understanding of how particular exceptions came into being. Some exceptions, though
clearly related, simply defy explanation. All of these must be noted. The final step
involves the reconstruction of ancestral forms and the formulation of the sound laws
leading to the forms in the descendant languages, identifying the laws that have
produced the regular sound correspondences as well as the exceptions. The same
principles apply to the reconstruction of grammatical forms and rules of combinability
and to the identification of the historical transformations leading to the systems found
in the daughter languages.
Let us now look at some exceptions to the regular sound correspondences that
have been established and provide explanations for these exceptions:
Here are some of the attested data from within each language family to support this
example (for a more complete set of data, cf. Chapter 20, no. 73):
20 CHAPTER ONE
The second example which we will explore in depth is the words for to flee, to
fly:
Here are some of the attested data from within each language family to support this
example (for a more complete set of data, cf. Chapter 20, no. 101):
Here are some of the attested data from within each language family to support this
example (for a more complete set of data, cf. Chapter 20, no. 880):
a direct comparison of the actual attested data from the individual Indo-European
daughter languages without recourse to reconstructed Proto-Indo-Iranian, Proto-
Italic, Proto-Greek, Proto-Germanic, etc. That is to say that it was not necessary to
reconstruct every intermediary level before one could tackle the problems of
reconstructing the Indo-European parent language. Of course, reconstruction is still
both important and necessary. Reconstruction, including the reconstruction of
intermediary levels, allows us to make powerful statements about the (pre)historical
development of each daughter language, especially about how and why particular
features came into being or became extinct. Finally, the understanding of what has
taken place historically in one daughter language often provides an explanation of
what has taken place in another daughter language.
In any attempt to establish genetic relationship, one is going to come across
chance resemblances. By chance resemblances, one means unexpected, and
sometimes rather striking, instances of identical or nearly identical vocabulary items
or, in rare cases, even grammatical forms in two or more totally unrelated languages
or in languages that, if they are related, are distant enough apart to make it
otherwise unlikely that they would share such items. The example that Kimball
(1992:275) gives is the word for man, wiro, in the extinct Timucua language,
formerly spoken in northern Florida and southeastern Georgia, which resembles
Latin vir man. Chance resemblances of this type do occur and, it goes without
saying, do not indicate genetic relationship. Chance resemblances can range from a
mere handful of examples up to several dozen depending upon how much latitude
one is willing to allow in both forms and meanings. As noted above, one of the
main assumptions of the Comparative Method is that the relationship between
sound and meaning is arbitrary; therefore, widespread similarity in form and
meaning between two languages cannot be accidental. Thus, when the languages
under analysis exhibit a large number of recurrent sound-meaning correspondences,
we are not dealing with chance resemblances.
Let me begin by stating unequivocally that I have the highest admiration for what
Moscovite scholarship (especially the work of V. M. Illi-Svity and A. B.
Dolgopolsky some of the work done by other Russian scholars is not on the
same level) on Nostratic has achieved. Their research has opened up new and
exciting possibilities and given Nostratic studies new respectability. However, this
does not mean that I agree with everything they say. I regard their work as a
pioneering effort and, as such, subject to modification in light of advances in
linguistic theory, in light of new data from the Nostratic daughter languages, and in
light of findings from typological studies that give us a better understanding of the
kind of patterning that is found in natural languages as well as a better
understanding of what is characteristic of language in general, including language
change.
INTRODUCTION, HISTORY OF RESEARCH, AND METHODOLOGY 23
Let us begin by looking at phonology: In 1972 and 1973, the Georgian scholar
Thomas V. Gamkrelidze and the Russian scholar Vjaeslav V. Ivanov jointly
proposed a radical reinterpretation of the Proto-Indo-European stop system.
According to their reinterpretation, the Proto-Indo-European stop system was
characterized by the three-way contrast glottalized ~ voiceless (aspirated) ~ voiced
(aspirated). In this revised interpretation, aspiration is viewed as a redundant
feature, and the phonemes in question could also be realized as allophonic variants
without aspiration. Paul J. Hopper made a similar proposal at about the same time
(Hopper 1973). I should point out here that, even though I support the revisions
proposed by Gamkrelidze, Hopper, and Ivanov, my views are not dependent upon
any particular reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European stop system the sound
correspondences I have proposed can be maintained using the traditional
reconstruction as well. What the new views of Proto-Indo-European consonantism
did was bring into light the implausibility of certain Nostratic sound
correspondences established by Illi-Svity and Dolgopolsky (see below for
details). Moreover, this new interpretation opened new possibilities for comparing
Proto-Indo-European with the other Nostratic daughter languages, especially Proto-
Kartvelian and Proto-Afrasian, each of which had a similar three-way contrast. The
simplest and most straightforward assumption would be that the glottalized stops
posited by Gamkrelidze, Hopper, and Ivanov for Proto-Indo-European would
correspond to glottalized stops in Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Afrasian, while the
voiceless stops would correspond to voiceless stops and voiced stops to voiced
stops. This, however, is quite different from the correspondences proposed by Illi-
Svity and Dolgopolsky. They see the glottalized stops of Proto-Kartvelian and
Proto-Afrasian as corresponding to the traditional plain voiceless stops of Proto-
Indo-European, while the voiceless stops in the former two branches are seen as
corresponding to the traditional plain voiced stops of Proto-Indo-European, and,
finally, the voiced stops to the traditional voiced aspirates of Proto-Indo-European.
Illi-Svity and Dolgopolsky then reconstruct the Proto-Nostratic phonological
system on the model of Kartvelian and Afrasian, with the three-way contrast
glottalized ~ voiceless ~ voiced in the series of stops and affricates.
The mistake that Illi-Svity and Dolgopolsky made was in trying to equate the
glottalized stops of Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Afrasian with the traditional plain
voiceless stops of Proto-Indo-European. Their reconstruction would make the
glottalized stops the least marked members in the Proto-Nostratic bilabial series and
the most marked in the velar series. Such a reconstruction is thus in contradiction to
typological evidence, according to which glottalized stops uniformly have the
opposite frequency distribution (most marked in the bilabial series and least marked
in the velar series [for details, cf. Gamkrelidze 1978]). The reason that Illi-Svitys
and Dolgopolskys reconstruction contradicts the typological evidence is as
follows: Illi-Svity and Dolgopolsky posit glottalics for Proto-Nostratic on the
basis of a small number of seemingly solid examples in which glottalics in Proto-
Afrasian and/or Proto-Kartvelian appear to correspond to traditional plain voiceless
stops in Proto-Indo-European. On the basis of these examples, they assume that,
24 CHAPTER ONE
6.1. Finally, quite recently, I decided to see what would happen if one counted
up the occurrences of the different stops (voiceless vs. voiced vs. glottalized as
well as labial vs. coronal vs. velar) reconstructed for Nostratic by Illich-
Svitych. I only performed the experiment on root-initial stops, with the
following results: (they are given as approximations because there is a problem
arriving at exact figures given that there [are] some cases where it is difficult to
tell whether one is dealing with a single Nostratic form or two, or whether a
particular form should begin with this or that stop):
The first observation (see Manaster Ramer in press a) was that the
relative frequencies of the three phonation types (voiced, voiceless, glottalized)
posited for Proto-Nostratic stops, as reflected in the sets of cognates compiled
by Illich-Svitych, seem to be inconsistent with typological predictions.
Specifically, at least in initial position, the series of stops reconstructed as
glottalized is much more frequent at all points of articulation than the series
reconstructed as (plain) voiceless.
Since one expects glottalized stops to be more marked and hence less
frequent than plain voiceless, in particular, something was amiss. However,
just as in the case of the clusters and affricates discussed above, the solution
turned out to be quite simple. Given the markedness considerations, I would
26 CHAPTER ONE
suggest that the glottalized series was actually plain voiceless in Proto-
Nostratic, while the voiceless series represented some more marked
phonation type, glottalized or perhaps aspirated. This is consistent with the fact
that the Nostratic series Illich-Svitych wrote as glottalized is in fact realized
as glottalized only in parts of Afro-Asiatic and in Kartvelian, and in the latter it
is easy to imagine that this could be a contact-induced development.
This reinterpretation of Nostratic naturally calls to mind the glottalic
theory of Indo-European. As it happens, the stop series reconstructed by Illich-
Svitych as plain voiceless and by me as glottalized (or aspirated) comes out in
Proto-Indo-European as that series of stops which is traditionally reconstructed
as voiced (media) but which many scholars have recently interpreted as
glottalized.
*t *t (or *t) *d *t
*t *t *t *t
*d *d *dh *d
The following evidence provides the basis for setting up a Nostratic macrofamily:
1. First and foremost, the descendant languages can be shown to share a large
common vocabulary. In an article published in 1965, Illi-Svity listed 607
possible common Nostratic roots, but only 378 etymologies were included in
his posthumous comparative Nostratic dictionary. It should be noted that there
are differences between the etymologies proposed in 1965 and the items
included in the later dictionary: first, some of the items listed in 1965 do not
appear in the dictionary; next, minor changes were made to several of the
earlier etymologies. At the time of his death, Dolgopolsky had gathered data to
support a little over 3,000 common Nostratic roots in his Nostratic Dictionary
(a draft of which is now available on-line). In the joint monograph (1994) by
myself and John C. Kerns, entitled The Nostratic Macrofamily: A Study in
Distant Linguistic Relationship, I supplied a great deal of lexical material from
INTRODUCTION, HISTORY OF RESEARCH, AND METHODOLOGY 27
The results are overwhelming. We are forced to conclude that the pronominal
agreements between Indo-European and Uralic, between Uralic and Altaic, and
between Indo-European and Altaic, did not develop independently, but instead
were CAUSED by some UNIQUE historical circumstance. In short, it is
extremely unlikely that the three pronominal systems could have evolved
independently.
It has been said that identical pronouns do not even give an indication of
affinity, because you will find such identities anywhere, even if you compare
two manifestly unrelated languages. The random checks I have made seem to
indicate that this does not hold good. Outside the nostratic group, there are
identities, but only a few, from one to four. Within the nostratic group the
number of identities varies from, let us say, seven to ten. As the probability of
28 CHAPTER ONE
NOSTRATIC
Notes:
1. Indo-European: The 1st sg. stem *mi-/*me- is used in the oblique cases (except
in the Celtic branch, where it has spread into the nominative as well); the 1st pl.
inclusive stem *ma-/*m- is preserved in 1st person plural verb endings; the 1st
pl. stem *wa-/*w- is preserved as an independent 1st person plural pronoun
stem and in 1st person dual and/or plural verb endings; the 2nd sg.
reconstructions *t, *te- thou, you represent later, Post-Anatolian forms
the forms found in the Anatolian languages are based upon *ti- thou, you.
2. Kartvelian: The 1st pl. stem *na-/*n- is found in Svan nj we.
3. Afrasian: The 1st sg. stem *mi-/*me- and 1st pl. inclusive stem *ma-/*m- are
found only in Chadic as independent pronouns; the 1st sg. stem *mi-/*me-
serves as the basis of the 1st sg. verbal suffix in Highland East Cushitic; the 1st
pl. stem *wa-/*w- is found in Egyptian and Chadic (in Egyptian, wy means I,
me).
4. Elamo-Dravidian: The 2nd sg. stem *ti-/*te- is found in Elamite in the 2nd
sg. and pl. personal class marker -t(i/a) (cf. Khaikjan 1998:34) and in
Dravidian in, for example, the Parji appositional marker -t of the 2nd sg. in
pronominalized nouns and as a verb suffix of the 2nd sg.
30 CHAPTER ONE
5. Altaic: The 1st sg. stem *mi- has become *bi I in the Altaic daughter
languages, while the 1st pl. stem *ma- has become ba in Mongolian (= 1st pl.
exclusive); the initial *m- is preserved in the oblique cases, however; the 2nd
sg. stem *ti- has become i you in Mongolian.
6. Chukchi-Kamchatkan: The pronouns of the 1st and 2nd persons sg. and pl. are
as follows in Chukchi:
Singular Plural
1 -m mu-ri
2 -t tu-ri
7. Gilyak: The 1st pl. inclusive stem *ma-/*m- is preserved in the 1st pl.
inclusive pronoun me-r, mi-r we (note also 1st dual me-ge, me-gi); the 1st
plural stem *na-/*n- is found in the 1st pl. exclusive pronoun y we; the
2nd sg. stem *ti-/*te- is preserved in the 2nd sg. pronoun i you. (The
forms cited are from the Amur dialect [cf. Gruzdeva 1998:2526].)
8. Eskimo-Aleut: The 1st sg. stem *mi-/*me- is preserved in the West
Greenlandic 1st sg. relative possessive suffix -ma, while the 2nd sg. stem *ti-/
*te- is preserved in the 2nd sg. absolutive possessive suffix -(i)t. The plural
forms are -ma and -tit respectively.
9. Etruscan: The 1st sg. stem *mi-/*me- is preserved in (nominative) mi I,
(accusative) mini me; the 2nd sg. stem may be preserved in the pronoun stem
i, but this is uncertain since the meaning of the Etruscan form is unknown
however, the 2nd sg. stem *ti-/*te- is clearly reflected in the Etruscan verbal
imperative endings -ti, -, -i.
10. Sumerian: ma(-e), me-a, me-e I are Emesal forms; -me is a 1st pl. possessive
suffix, our; -zu is a 2nd sg. possessive suffix, your.
INTRODUCTION, HISTORY OF RESEARCH, AND METHODOLOGY 31
Notes:
Notes:
2.1. INDO-EUROPEAN
Two large dialect groups are often recognized, especially in older works: (A)
the so-called centum languages and (B) the so-called satm languages. This
dialectal division is based upon the different treatment of the gutturals in each
group. In the satm languages, sibilants (s and z), palato-alveolar fricatives ( and
), and affricates correspond to velars in the centum languages, while velars and
affricates in the former group correspond to reflexes of earlier labiovelars in the
latter group. There are other correspondences as well, found in a small number of
examples, in which velars in the centum languages correspond to velars in the satm
languages. Though much attention has been devoted in the literature to this division,
its significance is greatly overrated.
Morphologically, Proto-Indo-European was a highly inflected language
except for particles, conjunctions, and certain quasi-adverbial forms, all words were
inflected. The basic structure of inflected words was as follows: root + suffix (one
or more) + inflectional ending. A notable morphophonemic characteristic was the
extensive use of a system of vocalic alternations (Ablaut in German) as a means
to mark morphological distinctions. Verbs were strongly differentiated from nouns.
For nouns and adjectives, three genders, three numbers, and as many as eight cases
have been reconstructed (mainly on the basis of what is found in Classical
Sanskrit), though it is doubtful that all of these features were ancient it is indeed
possible to discern several chronological layers of development. The traditional
reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European verbal system sets up two voices, four
moods, and as many as six tenses. Syntactically, Proto-Indo-European seems to
have had many of the characteristics of an SOV language, though there must, no
doubt, have been a great deal of flexibility in basic word order patterning. Proto-
Indo-European morphology is discussed at length in Chapter 18 of this book, while
earlier developments are discussed in Chapter 19.
It is generally agreed that the homeland of the Indo-Europeans is to be located
to the north of and between the Black and Caspian Seas (cf. Anthony 2007).
Alternative proposals are far less convincing. See Chapter 13 for more information
about homelands.
The subgrouping of the Indo-European daughter languages has long been
controversial. Though Sturtevant (following a suggestion by Emil Forrer) attempted
to show that the Anatolian languages were the first to split off from the remainder
of the Indo-European speech community, up until recently, most Indo-Europeanists
did not follow him on this (a notable exception being Warren Cowgill). Sturtevant
renamed the parent language Indo-Hittite to reflect this early split. The question
about whether Baltic and Slavic are two independent branches or whether they are
descended from a common Balto-Slavic is still contentious, as is the question of
Italo-Celtic unity. In 1998, the problem of subgrouping was addressed by Donald
Ringe and a group of linguists from the University of Pennsylvania. By using a
computational cladistic model, they arrived at the following conclusions (Ringe
WarnowTaylorMichailovLevison 1998:406407):
The important features of this tree can be summarized as follows. The Indo-
Hittite hypothesis, according to which Anatolian is one first-order subgroup of
A SURVEY OF THE NOSTRATIC LANGUAGES 35
the IE family and all other branches together are the other first-order subgroup
is supported but by only one character, the presence of a thematic aorist in
the verb system... The satem core emerges as an extremely robust subgoup,
always with the traditional internal structure (which is not surprising). More
interestingly, there is always a subgroup including Greek and Armenian, as has
been suspected in the past Most interesting of all, Italo-Celtic emerges as a
robust subgroup, as suggested by Jasanoff 1994.
They further note that Tocharian also split off from the rest of the speech
community at a very early date it was the next branch to break away after
Anatolian. Finally, they conclude that Germanic was originally part of the dialect
continuum that included Balto-Slavic but that it later was in contact with and shared
several common developments with Pre-Proto-Celtic and Pre-Proto-Italic.
The conclusions reached by Ringe and his colleagues are both sober and
persuasive. Consequently, it is their views on the subgrouping of the Indo-European
daughter languages that are followed in this book.
2.2. KARTVELIAN
Proto-Kartvelian
Zan
Georgian, which has its own distinctive alphabet, has a literary tradition going back
1500 years, the earliest text being a translation of the Bible dating from the 5th
century CE, only fragments of which still exist. The early literature was exclusively
religious, and it was only with the so-called Golden Age (12th century CE) that
secular literature began to appear. There are a number of Georgian dialects, which
differ not only in vocabulary and phonology but also in morphology and syntax.
A notable feature of Kartvelian phonology is the existence of complex
consonant clusters Georgian, for example, tolerates 740 initial clusters, which
can have upwards of six members (Fhnrich 1993:20 lists eight), and 244 final
clusters. In Svan, on the other hand, initial consonant clusters are far less complex
than in Georgian, while final clusters can be far more complex. Old Georgian had
both voiceless and glottalized uvular stops, but only the glottalized member is
retained in Modern Georgian. Both are still found in Svan. Unlike Georgian, Svan
does not distinguish /v/ and /w/ as distinct phonemes it only has /w/.
Morphologically, the Kartvelian languages are all highly inflected; Georgian,
for example, has six basic grammatical cases as well as eleven secondary cases. A
notable characteristic of noun declension is the distinction of ergative and
absolutive cases; the ergative case is used to mark the subject of transitive verbs,
while the absolutive case is used to mark direct objects and the subject of
intransitive verbs. It is the dative case, however, that is used to mark the subject of
so-called inverted verbs. There are several other departures from canonical
ergative-type constructions, so much so in Mingrelian, for instance, that this
language no longer possesses any true ergative features. Adjectives normally
precede the nouns they modify. Postpositions are the rule. Verb morphology is
particularly complicated for example, Tuite (2004:978981) lists thirteen
distinctive functional elements that may be arrayed around a given verb root in
Early Georgian, though they may not all appear simultaneously (Fhnrich 1994:78
lists twenty-three elements, including the root); the overall scheme is as follows:
Syntactically, the predominant word order is SOV, though SVO is not uncommon.
A SURVEY OF THE NOSTRATIC LANGUAGES 37
2.3. AFRASIAN
have intricate inflectional systems, while others do not. Syntactically, the classical
Semitic languages, Egyptian, and the Berber languages are VSO, the majority of the
Cushitic languages are SOV, and most Chadic languages are SVO. For more
information, cf. especially FrajzyngierShay (eds.) 2012 and D. Cohen (ed.) 1988.
2.4. URALIC-YUKAGHIR
As the name implies, Uralic-Yukaghir has two divisions, namely, Uralic and
Yukaghir. Yukaghir consists of a single branch, while Uralic is divided into Finno-
Ugrian (also called Finno-Ugric) and Samoyed. There are about 30 Uralic
languages. The internal subgrouping of the Uralic languages is still not fully settled.
Finno-Ugrian is thought to have become separated from Samoyed some time
between 4,000 to 2,000 BCE. Yukaghir is located in northeastern Siberia, while
Uralic languages are spread across northern Eurasia, from Scandinavia and central
Europe in the west to north-central Siberia east of the Ural Mountains in the east.
Hungarian is the first Uralic language for which there are written records.
Though the first printed text did not appear until 1527, Hungarian words are cited
as early as the 9th and 10th centuries CE in Arabic and Byzantine documents.
Finnish literature did not begin until 1548, with a translation of the Bible. An
Estonian translation of the Bible first appeared in 1632. Yukaghir has no written
literature.
Morphologically, the Uralic languages are predominantly agglutinating, though
many of the modern languages, especially Estonian, which has innovated
considerably, have deviated from the original type. Proto-Uralic nominal inflection
had at least three numbers (singular, dual, and plural), two grammatical cases
(accusative and genitive), and three local cases (dative, locative, and ablative). Verb
morphology distinguished two conjugational types, namely, subjective and
objective. A large number of suffixes existed, each with its own distinctive
morphological function. The original syntactic structure seems to have been SOV,
and this is fairly well preserved in the modern Samoyed and Ob-Ugric languages
(Ostyak [Xanty] and Vogul [Mansi]) and Cheremis (Mari). The basic word order in
the other languages is SVO, though, as a general rule, word order in all of the
Uralic languages is rather flexible. Hungarian stands apart, word order being
determined here more by topic-comment considerations than in the other Uralic
languages, so that neither SOV nor SVO can be said to be dominant.
Yukaghir is also basically agglutinating, though a certain amount of fusion has
taken place in the verb. There are few prefixes but numerous suffixes. Postpositions
are the rule. Syntactically, the basic word order is SOV.
2.5. ELAMO-DRAVIDIAN
are concentrated in southern India, there are also pockets of Dravidian in northern
India, in Pakistan, in Nepal, in northern and eastern Sri Lanka, and on the Maldive
Islands. At least 25 Dravidian languages are spoken. There is still uncertainty over
the subgrouping of several languages. Elamite, which is now extinct, was located
primarily in southwestern Iran in the vicinity of the Zagros Mountains as well as the
adjacent plains of Khuzistan and to the south along the coast of the Persian Gulf.
There is good reason to believe that Elamite once occupied all or nearly all of the
Iranian plateau. The inscriptions of the Indus Valley (Harappan) Civilization may
have been written in an early Dravidian language (cf. Bonta 2010 and 2015;
Fairservis 1992:1423; Parpola 1994; but see ZideZvelebil [eds.] 1976 for a
critical assessment of attempts to decipher the Indus Valley script), though other
possibilities cannot be entirely ruled out (cf. Witzel 1999; FarmerSproatWitzel
2004).
The earliest Elamite text is the Treaty of Narm-Sin, which dates from before
2200 BCE. After that, only cuneiform texts composed in a slightly deviant form of
Akkadian are found until around 1300 BCE, when Elamite cuneiform texts begin to
appear. The literature of the Dravidian languages, especially Tamil, is enormous. In
addition to Tamil, Malayalam, Kannaa, and Telugu are fully-developed literary
languages, while the remaining Dravidian languages have extensive oral traditions.
The oldest Tamil literature probably dates from around the 2nd or 3rd centuries CE.
Morphologically, the Dravidian languages are agglutinating. The basic root
type was monosyllabic, though there is some indication that an extremely small
number of bisyllabic roots may have to be reconstructed at the Proto-Dravidian
level as well. This is, however, by no means certain, and it is best at present to
regard Proto-Dravidian roots as exclusively monosyllabic. Inflectional
categorization was achieved by means of suffixes added directly to the lexical roots
or to the lexical roots extended by means of derivational suffixes. Prefixes were not
used. Any vowel, long or short, could appear in a root, but only a, i, or u could
appear in a suffix. Two basic parts of speech were differentiated in Proto-
Dravidian: (A) nominals, which included nouns and adjectives, and (B) verbs.
Nouns were inflected for case, person, number, and gender. Eight cases
(nominative, accusative, sociative, dative, genitive, instrumental, locative, and
ablative), two numbers (singular and plural), and two genders (animate and
inanimate) are assumed to have existed in Proto-Dravidian. There were separate
first person plural inclusive and exclusive pronouns. Verbs were inflected for tense
and person. There were two tenses (past and non-past) and two moods (modal and
indicative). Indeclinables existed as a separate stem type distinct from nouns and
verbs. Syntactically, the basic word order was SOV.
Elamite was also agglutinating. Three basic parts of speech were differentiated:
(A) verbs, (B) nominals, and (C) indeclinables. The basic verbal stem form was
(C)VC(V). Grammatical categorization was achieved by means of suffixation. In
the nominal stems, case relationships were mostly indicated by the use of
postpositions. Verb morphology was extremely simple. Word order structure was
SOV. Cf. Grillot-Susini 1987; HinzKoch 1987; Khaikjan 1998; Paper 1955;
McAlpin 1981; Reiner 1969; Stolper 2004.
40 CHAPTER TWO
2.6. ALTAIC
2.7. CHUKCHI-KAMCHATKAN
2.8. GILYAK
Gilyak (also called Nivkh) is usually considered to be a single language, but the two
main dialects, namely, the Amur dialect, on the one hand, and the Sakhalin (or
Eastern) dialect, on the other, are not mutually intelligible. Of the two, the Sakhalin
dialect is more archaic. The Gilyaks are found on the lower reaches of the Amur
River and on Sakhalin Island. Though a written language was developed for the
Amur dialect in the 1930s, next to nothing has appeared in it.
Gilyak tolerates highly complex consonant clusters. Furthermore, initial
consonants undergo various alternations, which are conditioned both by the final
segment of the preceding word and by syntactical considerations. In contrast, the
vowel system is fairly simple.
42 CHAPTER TWO
2.9. ESKIMO-ALEUT
As the name implies, Eskimo-Aleut has two branches: Eskimo and Aleut. The Aleut
dialects are mutually intelligible. However, this is not the case with the Eskimo
dialects. Two main Eskimo dialect groups are distinguished, namely, Yupik and
Inuit (also called Inupiaq). Yupik speakers are concentrated in southwestern
Alaska, beginning at Norton Sound and extending southward along the western and
southern coasts and inland. An extremely small enclave of Yupik speakers is found
in northeastern Siberia as well. Inuit speakers are found north of Norton Sound all
the way to the northern coast of Alaska and extending eastward across all of the
northernmost parts of Canada and on into Greenland. Aleut is spoken on the
Aleutian Islands and the Commander Islands.
The Proto-Eskimo vowel system was relatively simple (Proto-Eskimo had only
four vowels: *i, *a, *u, * phonemic length probably did not exist), while the
consonant system resembled that of Proto-Uralic. The phonological systems found
in the Eskimo dialects are far more complex than that of Proto-Eskimo. In contrast,
Aleut phonology is less complicated. Nouns differentiate between singular, dual,
and plural. The case system is reminiscent of that found in Chukchi-Kamchatkan,
though it differs by using suffixes to indicate the plural. The verb makes no tense
distinctions but has four moods and separate transitive and intransitive
conjugations. The absolutive case is used as the subject of intransitive verbs and as
the direct object of transitive verbs, while a different case is used as the subject of
transitive verbs. Conjunctions and other particles are absent in most Eskimo
dialects. A notable characteristic is that incorporation has been developed to such
an extent that whole phrases may be expressed in a single word.
2.10. ETRUSCAN
Etruscan was spoken in central and northern Italy. Its earliest texts date from the 7th
century BCE, and it probably ceased to be a spoken language around the first half
of the first century CE, being replaced by Latin. It was written in a special alphabet
derived from Greek. There are about 13,000 Etruscan inscriptions currently known,
most of which are found on tombs and sarcophagi or on artifacts. These inscriptions
A SURVEY OF THE NOSTRATIC LANGUAGES 43
are extremely short, repetitive, and formulaic in nature. A few longer texts also
exist, such as the Pyrgi quasi-bilingual (Etruscan and Phoenician) discovered in
1964. Unfortunately, no literary texts have survived. Though there still remain
problems, the majority of what has survived can be read and understood. Several
developmental stages and regional variants can be observed in the texts.
Etruscan is now known to be related to the poorly-attested Lemnian (spoken on
the island of Lemnos) and to Raetic (spoken in northeastern Italy in present-day
Tyrol). Together, they form the Tyrrhenian language family.
The Etruscan phonological system was composed of plain voiceless stops,
voiceless aspirates, and fricatives, as well as two nasals (m and n), two liquids (l
and r), and h. There were no voiced stops. There were only four vowels (a, e, i, u).
Etruscan was an inflectional language. Though there probably was no
grammatical gender, special suffixes were used to indicate females. Etruscan nouns
and adjectives distinguished several cases as well as two numbers (singular and
plural). Verb morphology is not as well known due to the nature of the material that
has survived.
2.11. SUMERIAN
Sumerian, which is now extinct, was spoken in southern Iraq, extending from
around Babylon in its northernmost limits to the tip of the Persian Gulf in the south.
From the time of the earliest texts, several dialects can be distinguished the two
most important dialects are called eme-g ir and eme-sal (eme means speech,
language) by the Sumerians themselves. Moreover, during the three thousand or so
years in which Sumerian was recorded, several distinct stages of development can
be discerned Old Sumerian, Neo-Sumerian, Old Babylonian Sumerian, etc. As
noted in the previous chapter, Sumerian is not a Nostratic daughter language but is
distantly related to Nostratic.
The earliest Sumerian inscriptions date from around 3200 BCE, though the
oldest intelligible literary texts date from about 2600 BCE, and the language was
probably still spoken as late as the 3rd century BCE. The Sumerian writing system
was based exclusively on the cuneiform syllabary, which exhibits several marked
stages of development over the course of Sumerian literary history.
Though the Sumerian phonological system was simple, there are still many
uncertainties about underlying phonemic distinctions. For example, the traditional
transcription shows a voiced ~ voiceless contrast in the stops, but this may well
have been a voiceless unaspirated ~ voiceless aspirated contrast instead. There is
still not, even after more than a century of intensive study, widespread agreement
among experts in the field on many fundamental questions of Sumerian grammar.
Nevertheless, the overall structure is reasonably clear. Morphologically, Sumerian
was an agglutinating language. Three word classes were distinguished: (A) nouns,
(B) verbs, and (C) adjectives. Though grammatical gender in the strictest sense did
not exist, nouns fell into two classes, namely, animate and inanimate, which were
only differentiated in 3rd person actor verbal and possessive pronoun affixes and in
44 CHAPTER TWO
the relative pronoun. Ten cases and two numbers (singular and plural) were
distinguished. The plural was indicated either by means of the suffix -ene, which
was used only with animate nouns, or by reduplication. In later texts, the plural
could also be indicated by the form hi-a, which was used with inanimate nouns and
which was originally an independent word meaning mixed, various, unspecified,
or by -me-e, which was properly the enclitic copula with plural suffix. Sumerian
differentiated between ergative and absolutive in nouns. In pronouns, however, the
patterning was that of a nominative-accusative system. Sumerian verbs were formed
by adding various prefixes and/or affixes directly to the verbal root. Verbal
constructions fell into one of two categories, namely, finite forms or non-finite
forms. Finite verbal stems distinguished three conjugational types: (A) the
intransitive conjugation, (B) the transitive hamu conjugation, and (C) the transitive
mar conjugation. Intransitive forms were noted by means of pronominal suffixes,
while transitive forms were noted by means of either prefixes, suffixes, or both. The
basic word order structure was SOV.
References:
General: Brown (ed.) 2005; BrownOgilvie (eds.) 2009; Collis 1990; Comrie
1981; Comrie (ed.) 1987; Fortescue 1998; Gray 1939:295418; Gzella (ed.)
2012; JosephSalmons (eds.) 1998; Kaye (ed.) 1997 and 2007; Lamb
Mitchell (eds.) 1991; MeilletCohen (eds.) 1952; Pereltsvaig 2012; Ruhlen
1987; Woodard (ed.) 2004, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c, and 2008d.
Indo-European: Bader (ed.) 1994; Baldi 1983; Fortson 2010; Hirt 19051907;
Lockwood 1970; Mallory 1989; MalloryAdams 2006; MalloryAdams
(eds.) 1997; RamatRamat (eds.) 1998; Sergent 1995; Villar 1991b and 1996.
Kartvelian: Fhnrich 1994; Hewitt (ed.) 1989; Klimov 1969:3546; Tuite 2004.
Afrasian: Bergstrsser 1928 and 1983; Brockelmann 19081913; D. Cohen (ed.)
1988; Diakonoff 1965 and 1988; FrajzyngierShay (eds.) 2012; Hetzron (ed.)
1997; Garbini 1972; Lipiski 1997 and 2001; Rubin 2010; Weninger (ed.) 2011.
Uralic-Yukaghir: Abondolo (ed.) 1998; Collinder 1957 and 1965; Comrie 1981:
92141; Dcsy 1965; Hajd 1975; Nikolaeva 2006; Sinor (ed.) 1988.
Elamo-Dravidian: Caldwell 1913; Krishnamurti 2001 and 2003; Steever (ed.) 1998;
Zvelebil 1990; McAlpin 1981; Grillot-Susini 1987; Khaikjan 1998; Reiner 1969.
Altaic: Comrie 1981:3991; A. Dybo 2016; Fuchs et alii 1968; Gabain et alii
1982; Janhunen (ed.) 2003; JohansonCsat (eds.) 1998; Menges 1968b and
1996; Poppe 1965; Poppe et alii (eds.) 1964; Robbeets 2005; Rna-Tas 1991.
Chukchi-Kamchatkan: Bogoras 1922; Comrie 1981:240252; M. Dunn 1999.
Gilyak / Nivkh: Comrie 1981:266272; Gruzdeva 1998.
Eskimo-Aleut: Comrie 1981:252258; Fortescue 1994.
Etruscan: BarkerRasmussen 1998; BonfanteBonfante 1983 and 2002.
Sumerian: Crawford 1991; Edzard 2003; Falkenstein 1959; Hayes 1997a; Jagersma
2010; Michalowski 1992 and 2004; Rubio 2007a:7985; Thomsen 1987.
CHAPTER THREE
a-grade a a + a = aa a + aa = a
i-grade i a + i = ai a + ai = i
u-grade u a + u = au a + au = u
Schleichers reconstruction remained the accepted standard until the late 1870s,
when a series of brilliant discoveries were made in rapid succession (cf. Delbrck
1974:5561; Pedersen 1931:277310):
46 CHAPTER THREE
1. First, there was the discovery of The Law of Palatals (Das Palatalgesetz) (cf.
Collinge 1985:133142; Pedersen 1931:277282), which established the
antiquity of the vowel systems found in Greek and Latin and recognized, for
the first time, that the Sanskrit vowel system was an innovation in which earlier
*, *, * had merged into . This realization also led to the reconstruction of
three distinct series of tectals (gutturals) in Proto-Indo-European: (1) palatals:
*k , *g , *g h; (2) the so-called pure velars: *q, *, *h; and (3) labiovelars:
*q, *, *h.
2. The next major discovery was that Proto-Indo-European had syllabic nasals
and liquids: *m , *n , *n , *, *l , *r (cf. Pedersen 1931:283285).
3. Following these discoveries, the system of vowel gradation (Ablaut) became
clear, and the original patterning was worked out in precise detail (cf. Beekes
1995:164167 and 2011:174178; Brugmann 1904:138150; Clackson
2007:7175; Fortson 2004:6062 and 7376; Hbschmann 1885:71180;
Meillet 1964:153168; Pedersen 1931:285290; Szemernyi 1990:8697).
4. Finally, Verners Law (cf. Collinge 1985:203216; Pedersen 1931:282283)
explained several annoying exceptions to the expected developments of the
earlier voiceless stops in Proto-Germanic. First, the voiceless stops became
voiceless fricatives in Proto-Germanic: *p, *t, *k, *k > *f, *, *, *w. Then,
at a later date, these voiceless fricatives became the voiced fricatives *, *, *,
*w respectively except (A) initially and (B), in some cases, medially between
vowels. The problem was that both voiceless and voiced fricatives appeared
medially between vowels, and the choice between voiceless fricatives, on the
one hand, and voiced fricatives, on the other hand, appeared to be entirely
random. What Verner figured out was that the patterning was tied to the
original position of the accent the voiceless fricatives appeared medially
between vowels when the accent had originally fallen on the contiguous
preceding syllable. If the accent had originally fallen on any other syllable,
however, voiced fricatives appeared.
By the end of the nineteenth century, the phonological system reconstructed by the
Neogrammarians was widely accepted as being a fairly accurate representation of
what had existed in Proto-Indo-European. To this day, the Neogrammarian system,
or slightly modified versions thereof, commands a great deal of respect and has
many defenders.
The Neogrammarian reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European phonological
system, which was arrived at through strict adherence to the principle that sound
laws admit no exceptions, was notable for its large inventory of stops and its
extremely small inventory of fricatives. The stop system consists of a four-way
contrast of (A) plain voiceless stops ~ (B) voiceless aspirated stops ~ (C) plain
voiced stops ~ (D) voiced aspirated stops. This system is extremely close to the
phonological system of Old Indic (cf., for example, Gonda 1966:9; Mayrhofer
1972:17). Actually, there were two competing versions of the Proto-Indo-European
phonological system at this time: (A) the German system (cf. Brugmann 1904:52;
Hirt 19211927.I:198337, II:1230), which was phonetically based, and (B)
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PIE PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM 47
the French system (cf. Meillet 1964:82145), which was phonologically based (cf.
Szemernyi 1972:122). It must be pointed out that, in spite of its wide acceptance, a
small group of scholars has, from time to time, questioned the validity of the
Neogrammarian reconstruction, at least in part (for a discussion of some of the
opposing views, cf. Hopper 1977b:5772 and Szemernyi 1972:122136).
Brugmanns (1904:52 and 1905:54) reconstruction is as follows:
Monophthongs: e o a i u
Diphthongs: ei oi ai i eu ou au u
i i i u u u
Semivowels: i u (j ?)
Occlusives: p ph b bh (bilabial)
t th d dh (dental)
k kh g gh (palatal)
q qh h (pure velar)
q qh h (labiovelar)
Spirants: s sh z zh h h
Brugmann reconstructed five short vowels and five long vowels plus a reduced
vowel, the so-called schwa indogermanicum (also called schwa primum),
written *, which alternated with so-called original long vowels. A full set of
diphthongs was posited as well. Finally, the system contained the semivowels *i
and *u , a series of plain and aspirated spirants, several nasals, and the liquids *l and
*r. The nasals and liquids were unique in their ability to function as syllabics or
nonsyllabics, depending upon their environment. They were nonsyllabic (A) when
between vowels or initially before vowels, (B) when preceded by a vowel and
followed by a consonant, and (C) when preceded by a consonant and followed by a
vowel. The syllabic forms arose in early Proto-Indo-European when the stress-
conditioned loss of former contiguous vowels left them between two nonsyllabics.
It should be noted here that the Proto-Indo-European vowels were subject to
various alternations that were partially correlated with the positioning of the accent
within a word. These vowel alternations served to indicate different types of
grammatical formations. The most common alternation was the interchange
between the vowels *e and *o in a given syllable. There was also an alternation
among lengthened-grade vowels, normal-grade vowels, and reduced-grade and/or
48 CHAPTER THREE
zero-grade vowels (for details, cf. Anttila 1969; Brugmann 1904:138150; Fortson
2004:7376 and 2010:7983; Hirt 1900; Hbschmann 1885).
Hirts reconstruction (1900; 1902:73 and 131; 19211927, vol. I:198337
and vol. II) is close to that of Brugmann:
Fricatives
Fricatives
Voiceless
Aspiratae
Aspiratae
Mediae
Mediae
Tenues
Tenues
Voiced
Place of
Nasals
Articulation
Labial p ph b bh m
(?) (?)
Dental t th d dh n
s z
Palatal k kh g gh (?) n
Pure Velar k kh g gh
Labialzed Velar k kh g gh
Also: r, l, j, w
Monophthongs: e o a
Diphthongs: ei oi ai eu ou au
i i i u u u
Reduced-grade: i u r l m n (j w r l m n)
languages, the voiceless aspirates and plain voiceless stops have the same treatment,
except that *kh appears to have became x in a small number of examples in Slavic
however, these examples are better explained as borrowings from Iranian rather
than as due to regular developments in Slavic (cf. Carlton 1991:95). As early as
1891, in a paper read before the Socit de Linguistique de Paris, the Swiss scholar
Ferdinand de Saussure suggested that the voiceless aspirates might have had a
secondary origin, arising from earlier clusters of plain voiceless stop plus a
following coefficient sonantique. This idea was taken up by Meillet (1964:90
91), who pointed out the great rarity of the voiceless aspirates, noting in particular
that the dental voiceless aspirate *th often appears to be the result of aspiration of a
plain voiceless dental by a following *: *t + * > *th, at least in Sanskrit. Current
thinking on the part of the overwhelming majority of linguists is that the series of
voiceless aspirates (*ph, *th, *k h, *qh, *qh) reconstructed by Brugmann and other
Neogrammarians for the Indo-European parent language should be removed, being
secondarily derived in the individual daughter languages (cf. BomhardKerns
1994:39 for references). The main opponent of this view was Oswald Szemernyi,
who argued for the reinstatement of the voiceless aspirates and, consequently, for a
return to the four-stop system (plain voiceless ~ voiceless aspirated ~ plain voiced ~
voiced aspirated) of the Neogrammarians. We will return to this problem later.
Particularly noteworthy is Meillets (1964:105126) treatment of the
resonants. Here, he considers *i and *u to be the syllabic allophones of *y
(Brugmanns *i ) and *w (Brugmanns *u ) respectively and classes them with the
resonants, thus: *i/*y, *u/*w, *m /*m, *n /*n, *r /*r, *l /*l, that is to say that he does
not consider *i and *u to be independent phonemic entities. The diphthongs are
analyzed by Meillet as clusters of (A) vowel plus nonsyllabic resonant and (B)
nonsyllabic resonant plus vowel.
Meillets (1964:82145) reconstruction may be represented as follows:
Vowels: e o a
Occlusives: p ph b bh (bilabial)
t th d dh (dental)
k kh g gh (palatal)
k kh g gh (labiovelar)
Sibilant: s
* = Glottal stop //
* = Voiceless and voiced multiply-articulated pharyngeal/laryngeal
fricatives // and //
* = Voiceless and voiced multiply-articulated pharyngeal/laryngeal
fricatives // and //
* = Voiceless glottal fricative /h/
With the reduction of the gutturals to two series, the removal of the traditional
voiceless aspirates, the reanalysis of the diphthongs as clusters of vowel plus
nonsyllabic resonant and nonsyllabic resonant plus vowel, and the addition of
laryngeals, we arrive at the system of Lehmann (1952:99):
1. Obstruents: p t k k
b d g g
b d g g
s
2. Resonants: m n
w r l y
3. Vowels: e a o e
i e a o u
4. Laryngeals: x h
Now, the removal of the traditional voiceless aspirates creates a problem from a
typological point of view. Data collected from the study of a great number of the
worlds languages have failed to turn up any systems in which voiced aspirates are
added to the pair plain voiceless stop ~ plain voiced stop unless there are also
corresponding voiceless aspirated stops in the system (cf. Jakobson 1971[1957]:
528; Martinet 1970:115). This is an important point, affecting the entire structure of
the traditional reconstruction. In order to explain this imbalance, several scholars
have sought typological parallels with systems such as those found, for example, in
the Indonesian language Javanese. In these rare systems, there is a three-way
contrast, sometimes described as (A) plain (unaspirated) voiceless ~ (B) voiced ~
(C) voiced aspirated: /T/ ~ /D/ ~ /D/. However, this interpretation is based upon
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PIE PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM 51
a lack of understanding of the phonetics involved. Series (C) in such systems is, in
reality, voiceless with breathy release something like /t/ and not true voiced
aspirated (cf. Maddieson 1984:207; Weiss 2009b:23). Regarding the so-called
voiced aspirates of Bario Kelabit, Blust (2013:183) notes:
b, d, g, g > p, t, k, k > f, , , w
As in the Arabic example just cited, such sounds are always accompanied by
backing of adjacent vowels wherever they occur (cf. Dolgopolsky 1977:113;
Hyman 1975:49; Ladefoged 1971:6364; Laver 1994:328) in Arabic, this is
called tafm emphasis spread (cf. Ryding 2014:19; J. Watson 2002:268286).
In Proto-Indo-European, all vowels were found in the neighborhood of the
voiced aspirates, and there is no indication that any of these sounds had different
allophones here than when contiguous with other sounds. Had the voiced aspirates
been emphatics such as those found in Arabic, they would have caused backing of
contiguous vowels, and this would be reflected in the daughter languages in some
manner. However, this is not the case. If, on the other hand, the emphatics had been
ejectives such as those found in the Modern South Arabian languages, the Semitic
languages of Ethiopia, and several Eastern Neo-Aramaic dialects (such as, for
instance, Urmian Nestorian Neo-Aramaic and Kurdistani Jewish Neo-Aramaic), the
question arises as to how these sounds could have developed into the voiced
aspirates needed to explain the developments in Indo-Iranian, Greek, Italic, and
Armenian.
Oswald Szemernyi (1967:6599) was one of the first to bring typological
data to bear on the problem of reconstructing the Proto-Indo-European
phonological system. Taking note of Jakobsons (1971[1957]:528) remark that:
... no language adds to the pair /t/ ~ /d/ a voiced aspirate /d/ without having its
voiceless counterpart /t/...
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PIE PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM 53
p t k k k
p t k k k
b d g g g
b d g g g
y w
l r m n
s h
a e o i u
Szemernyi does not include diphthongs in his reconstruction since their phonemic
status is disputed.
Szemernyis reconstruction is in fact typologically natural, and he defended it
strongly right up through his last major work (cf. Szemernyi 1996:3770). His
system as well as that of the Neogrammarians, it may be added is merely a
projection backward in time of the Old Indic phonological system (cf. Mayrhofer
1972:1729; Gonda 1966:919). In certain dialects of Disintegrating Indo-
European (specifically, in the early development of Pre-Indo-Iranian, Pre-Greek,
and Pre-Italic), such a system no doubt existed in point of fact.
Next, there are the proposals put forth by Joseph Emonds (1972). According to
Emonds, the plain voiced stops of traditional Proto-Indo-European are to be
reinterpreted as plain lax voiceless stops, while the traditional plain voiceless stops
are taken to have been tense and aspirated:
Lehmann Emonds
p t k k = ph th kh kh
b d g g = p t k k
b d g g = bh dh gh gh
54 CHAPTER THREE
Emonds regards the voicing of the lax stops as common to a Central innovating
area and the appearance of voiceless stops in Germanic, Armenian, and Hittite as
relics.
Similar proposals were put forth by Toby D. Griffen (1988:162189).
According to Griffen, Proto-Indo-European had a three-member stop system, which
he represents as (using the dentals for illustration) *[d], *[t], *[t] (media, tenuis,
aspirata). While this system was maintained in Germanic with only minor changes,
a series of sound-shifts in the other Indo-European daughter languages completely
restructured the inherited system. Thus, Germanic emerges as the most conservative
daughter language in its treatment of the Indo-European stop system.
There are other problems with the traditional reconstruction besides the
typological difficulties caused by the removal of the voiceless aspirates. Another
problem, noted in most of the standard handbooks (cf., for example, Adrados
1975.I:108; Burrow 1973:73; Krause 1968:116117; Lehmann 1952:109; Meillet
1964:84 and 89), is the statistically low frequency of occurrence perhaps total
absence of the traditional voiced bilabial stop *b. We may cite Meillets (1964:
89) comments on this matter:
b is relatively rare; it does not occur in any important suffix nor in any ending;
it is secondary in some of the words where it is found, thus, Skt. pbmi I
drink, OIr. ibim I drink, Lat. bib (with initial b through assimilation) is an
ancient reduplicated form in view of Skt. phi drink, Gk. , OCS. piti to
drink, Lat. pculum cup; ...other words are imitative, thus Gk. ,
Lat. balbus, etc.; still others are limited to a few languages and give the
impression of being recent borrowings.
Brugmann Pedersen
b d g = t k k k
p t k q q = b d g g g
Later shifts would have changed the earlier plain voiced stops into the traditional
plain voiceless stops and the earlier plain voiceless stops into the traditional plain
voiced stops. In a footnote in his 1953 BSL article entitled Remarques sur le
consonantisme smitique, Andr Martinet (1975[1953]:251252, fn. 1) objected
to this musical chairs rearrangement:
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PIE PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM 55
Though hinted at as early as 1939 by Nikolaj Trubetzkoy, this appears to be the first
time that anyone had explicitly proposed reinterpreting the plain voiced stops of
traditional Proto-Indo-European as glottalics. Gamkrelidze devotes a whole paper
(2001a) to discussing Martinets important role in the development of the Glottalic
Theory.
In the preceding discussion, only the more well-known counterproposals were
mentioned, and only the briefest of explanations were given. More details could
easily have been given. Insights gained from typological studies, for example, could
have been used to strengthen the arguments: no phoneme stands alone; it is, rather,
an integral part of the total system. Each and every phoneme is tied to the other
phonemes in the system by discrete interrelationships to disturb one phoneme is
to disturb (at least potentially) the entire system. This is basically the message that
Jakobson and Martinet were trying to bring home. All too often, this message is
ignored. Moreover, the interrelationships are not only synchronic, they are
diachronic as well.
Lehmann Gamkrelidze
b b p = p bh/b ph/p
d d t = t dh/d th/t
g g k = k gh/g kh/k
g g k = k gh/g kh/k
2. Not only does the reinterpretation of the traditional voiced stops as ejectives
easily account for the frequency distribution of these sounds, it also explains
the fact that they were used only very infrequently in inflectional affixes and
pronouns, since this type of patterning is characteristic of the way ejectives
behave in natural languages having such sounds.
3. For the first time, the root structure constraint laws can be credibly explained.
These constraints turn out to be a simple voicing agreement rule with the
corollary that two glottalics cannot cooccur in a root. Hopper (1973:160) cites
Hausa, Yucatec Mayan, and Quechua as examples of natural languages
exhibiting a similar constraint against the cooccurrence of two glottalics.
Akkadian may be added to this list as well if we take Geers Law (cf. Bomhard
1984b:135; UngnadMatou 1969:27 and 1992:2627) to be a manifestation
of such a constraint.
4. The so-called Germanic and Armenian consonant shifts (in German,
Lautverschiebungen), which can only be accounted for very awkwardly within
the traditional framework (cf. Emonds 1972:108122), turn out to be mirages.
Under the revised reconstruction, these branches (together with the poorly-
attested Phrygian for details on Phrygian, cf. DiakonoffNeroznak 1985:
28) turn out to be relic areas. For an excellent and insightful discussion of
the Germanic and Armenian consonant shifts along traditional lines, cf. Meillet
1967a:116124 and 1984:8996.
Moreover, the reinterpretation of the traditional plain voiceless stops (*p, *t, *k , *q,
*q) as voiceless aspirates, with aspirated ~ unaspirated allophones, overcomes the
problems caused by the removal of the traditional voiceless aspirates.
In 1984, Gamkrelidze and Ivanov published their monumental joint monograph
entitled : -
[Indo-European and the
Indo-Europeans: A Reconstruction and Historical Typological Analysis of a
Protolanguage and a Proto-Culture]. As is to be expected, this massive work (2
volumes, 1,328 pages) contains the most detailed discussion of the Glottalic Theory
that has yet appeared. Gamkrelidze and Ivanovs book also contains trajectories of
the revised Proto-Indo-European phonological system in the various Indo-European
daughter languages, original proposals concerning the morphological structure of
the Indo-European parent language (they propose that, at an earlier stage of
development, Proto-Indo-European was an active language [strong support for
these views is expressed by Lehmann 1995 and 2002, among others]), an
exhaustive treatment of the Proto-Indo-European lexicon, and a new theory about
the homeland of the Indo-Europeans (they argue that the Indo-European homeland
was located in eastern Anatolia in the vicinity of Lake Van). One of the most novel
proposals put forth in the book is that Proto-Indo-European may have had labialized
dentals and a labialized sibilant. GamkrelidzeIvanov also posit postvelars for
Proto-Indo-European. Their complete reconstruction is as follows (cf.
GamkrelidzeIvanov 1984.I:134 and 1995.I:116):
58 CHAPTER THREE
I. II. III.
4. q - q[]
Note: The consonants enclosed in the box are considered to be the most reliably
reconstructed.
Lehmann Hopper
p t k k = p t k k
b d g g = p t k k
b d g g = b d
This differs from the views of GamkrelidzeIvanov, who, as noted above, regard
the traditional plain voiceless stops as voiceless aspirates, while making no changes
to the traditional voiced aspirates. Moreover, they consider the feature of aspiration
to phonemically irrelevant, with the choice between the aspirated and unaspirated
variants being mechanically determined by the paradigmatic alternations of root
morphemes.
In his last major work, Lehmann (2002:198202, 211214) accepts a form
of the Glottalic Theory. Lehmann (2002:200) reinterprets *b, *d, *g, *g of
traditional Indo-European as *p, *t, *k, *k respectively, with preglottalization.
However, in the chart on p. 201, he writes *p, *t, *k, *k. In view of the chart
on p. 218, I take this to be a typographical error, and, therefore, I have changed the
representation of the obstruents in the chart on the following page to reflect this.
Furthermore, Lehmann (2002:200) reinterprets the traditional plain voiceless stops
and voiced aspirates as voiceless and voiced respectively with aspirated and
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PIE PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM 59
unaspirated allophones (this is not reflected in the chart on p. 201 of his book). As
in his earlier work (1952:100102), he (2002:214216) posits only palato-velars
and labio-velars, assuming a secondary status for the plain velars reconstructed by
the Neogrammarians. Lehmann reconstructs the following four laryngeals: *, *h,
*, *. Lehmann (2002:201) assumes that * and * were voiceless and voiced
velar fricatives respectively and that * may have had a w-offglide. Lehmanns
revised system is as follows (2002:201):
Vowels
e o
a
Consonants
Obstruents Resonants Fricatives
Bilabial: p p b m w
Dental: t t d n r l y s
Palato-velar: k k g
Labio-velar: k k g
Laryngeal: h
Occlusives Fricatives
Laryngeal: h //
60 CHAPTER THREE
Frederik Kortlandt (1978b:107), on the other hand, proposes the following system
(using the dentals for illustration):
Lenis: dh d
Fortis: t
Though it would be more correct to write t:, t, t instead of t, d, dh, I will stick
with the traditional transcription. A similar system must be reconstructed for
the labial, postvelar, and labiovelar orders.
Obstruents: I p t k k k
II b d g g g
III (p) t k k k
Laryngeals: h
Notes:
1. Series I is voiceless aspirated; series II is voiced aspirated; and series III is
glottalized (ejectives).
2. Voiced aspirates (series II) may have already developed, or at least started to
develop, at this stage, but this is uncertain. They are really only needed in order
to account for developments in Armenian, Indo-Iranian, Greek, and Italic.
3. The glottalics (series III) became deglottalized just prior to the emergence of
the non-Anatolian Indo-European daughter languages. The resulting system
was as follows:
Obstruents: I p t k k k
II b d g g g
III (p) t k k k
4. The palatalovelars may already have started to become phonemic at this stage,
at least in the ancestors of those daughter languages (the satm languages) in
which the labiovelars were delabialized. They did not become phonemic in the
ancestors of the so-called centum daughter languages.
5. In the final stage of Disintegrating Indo-European, the laryngeals had been
mostly lost (see Chapter 4 for details).
At a later date, the implosives would have been changed to plain voiced stops.
This is the scenario favored by Kmmel (2012:303306).
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PIE PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM 63
The Indo-European parent language is assumed to have had one or more sounds
conventionally called laryngeals, though this label refers to these sounds as a
group and is not an indication of their phonetic make-up. The basic (and most
widely-accepted) tenets of the Laryngeal Theory may be summarized as follows:
At first glance, the form of the Laryngeal Theory that would seem to conform best
to the evidence found in the daughter languages would appear to be that which
assumes four laryngeals for the Indo-European parent language. Specifically, four
laryngeals seem to be needed for Pre-Anatolian Proto-Indo-European and for that
form of Proto-Indo-European existing immediately after the separation of the
Anatolian languages from the main speech community. However, for the Indo-
European antecedent of the non-Anatolian daughter languages (Disintegrating
Indo-European), only one laryngeal is to be reconstructed (cf. Polom 1987a:167).
Disintegrating Indo-European must have had the full complement of long and
short vowels traditionally reconstructed (cf. Szemernyi 1967:6787). Further-
more, Disintegrating Indo-European must have had initial vowels to assume
otherwise would be to ignore the evidence of the non-Anatolian daughter languages
as well as to deny the efficacy of the Comparative Method. This can only mean that
the vowel-lengthening and vowel-coloring effects customarily attributed to the
laryngeals must have taken place prior to the Disintegrating Indo-European period.
On the surface, it would thus appear as if one could almost get by without positing
any laryngeals at all for this period. At least one laryngeal must be reconstructed for
Disintegrating Indo-European, however, to account for developments in the non-
Anatolian daughter languages such as:
One of the most difficult riddles to solve has been and continues to be the
determination of the probable phonetic values of the various laryngeals (cf. Kessler
no date). Sturtevant (1942:19), following Sapir, assigns the following phonetic
values to the laryngeals: *! = a glottal stop with frontal timbre; *' (in later works,
*h) = a glottal stop with velar timbre; *x = a voiceless velar spirant; * = a voiced
velar spirant. According to Lehmann (1952:103108), *" was either a weakly
aspirated glottal fricative or a pharyngeal fricative; *h was apparently a glottal
aspirated fricative; *x was a voiceless velar fricative; and * was a rounded voiced
velar fricative. Keiler (1970:68) posits the following values: *H = a voiceless
glottal fricative /h/; *H = a voiceless pharyngeal fricative //; and *H = a voiced
pharyngeal fricative //. Finally, Colarusso (1981:550) assigns the following values:
*H = either a glottal stop or voiceless and voiced pharyngealized velar fricatives;
*H = voiceless and voiced pharyngeal fricatives; *H = either labialized voiceless
and voiced pharyngeal fricatives or a labialized glottal stop; and *H = a voiceless
glottal fricative.
According to Colarusso (1981:512), Couvreur (1937:264), Fortson (2004:58),
Messing (1947:223225), and Sturtevant (1942:19 and 1951:54), *H was a glottal
stop //. The interpretation of *H as a glottal stop explains why this laryngeal did
not color contiguous vowels. As noted by Catford (1977b:105): simple glottal stop
has no influence on the quality of contiguous vowels. This is verifiable from both
Northwest Caucasian and Arabic, where glottal stops have no effect on vowel
quality (cf. Colarusso 1981:511 for Northwest Caucasian and Al-Ani 1970:6062
for Arabic). Moreover, loss of a glottal stop between an immediately preceding
short vowel and an immediately following non-syllabic causes compensatory
lengthening of the vowel in Akkadian and Arabic (cf. Cantineau 1960:79; Couvreur
1937:288289; Moscati [ed.] 1964:6164; J. Watson 2002:1819). Note the
following examples from Akkadian (these are taken from Couvreur 1937:288
289):
68 CHAPTER FOUR
1. Akkadian *ra"u > ru (later ru) head; Hebrew r" [var)] head;
Aramaic r head; Phoenician r" head; Arabic ra"s head; Epigraphic
South Arabian r"s head; eri / Jibbli r/r head; Soqori riy head;
Ugaritic rs head; Geez / Ethiopic r"s head []; Tigrinya r"si head;
Tigre r"as head; Amharic ras head. Cf. Militarv 2011:75, no. 38.
2. Akkadian *ramu > *remu > *re"mu > rmu grace, mercy; Hebrew ram
[<Wjr^] compassionate; Arabic raima to have mercy, compassion, rama
pity, compassion; eri / Jibbli ram to be kind; Mehri rm to be kind
to someone; arssi ream to pity; Ugaritic rm to be kind; Tigre rama
to have pity on (Arabic loan).
3. Akkadian *balu > *belu > *be"lu > blu owner, lord; Hebrew baal [lu^B^]
lord, owner; Ugaritic bl owner of the house; Arabic bal husband, master,
owner; Epigraphic South Arabian bl master, owner; arssi bl master,
lord; Mehri bl owner, possessor; eri / Jibbli bal person owning;
Soqori bal master, lord; Geez / Ethiopic bal [] owner, master; Tigre
bal master; Tigrinya bal, baal master; Amharic bal master.
It is more difficult to determine the phonetic value of *H (*) than of any of the
other laryngeals. Reflexes of *H are also found in the older Anatolian languages
(cf. Bomhard 1976:228230; Fortson 2004:156; Sturtevant 1942:44 and
1951:4951). Kuryowicz (1935:2830) tried to show that *H changed a
contiguous *e to *o, but Sturtevant (1938:104111 and 1942:20) has convincingly
argued against such an assumption. Indeed, forms such as Hittite me-ur time
beside Gothic ml time and Latin mtior to measure, for example, in which the
vowel e is found directly before a laryngeal reflex in Hittite, are difficult to explain
if, as claimed by Kuryowicz, *H changed a contiguous *e to *o. Now, a more
careful examination indicates that *H and *H may actually have had the same
vowel-coloring effects. This is an important finding, for, surprisingly, it raises the
possibility that *H and *H may have been identical in Proto-Indo-European. Such
an assumption would mean that only one laryngeal, instead of two, was preserved
in the older Anatolian languages. Moreover, by reexamining the relevant data from
the Indo-European daughter languages, we find that the assumption that *H and
*H were identical actually provides the key to understanding the full scope of the
vowel-coloring effects of the laryngeals in Proto-Indo-European. We know that *H
lowered and colored a contiguous *e to *a. As in the Arabic case discussed by
Jakobson above, we would expect this laryngeal to have had a similar effect on the
vowels *i and *u in early Proto-Indo-European as well. That is to say that we would
expect *H to have lowered and colored a contiguous *i to *e and a contiguous *u
to *o. In fact, there is some evidence albeit controversial within Indo-
European itself to support this, as the following examples illustrate:
This explains the origin of at least some cases of so-called non-apophonic *e and
*o. At a later date, secondary e- or o-grade forms (corresponding to original non-
apophonic *o and *e respectively) may have developed in accordance with the
regular *e ~ *o ablaut patterning. Where secondary e- or o-grade forms did not
develop, we would have examples of non-apophonic *e or *o, as the case may be.
An important point needs to be made here: *i and *u had more than one origin in
Proto-Indo-European. In some cases, *i and *u were original (that is to say,
inherited from Proto-Nostratic), while, in other cases, they resulted from the stress-
conditioned weakening of *Vy and *Vw respectively. Only original *i and *u were
lowered and colored to *e and *o respectively when contiguous with *H (and *H)
and *H. When *i and *u resulted from the stress-conditioned weakening of *Vy
and *Vw, however, they were not lowered to *e and *o respectively in the
neighborhood of *H (and *H) and *H, since such a change would have disrupted
the integrity of the ablaut relationship.
The question of whether or not labialized laryngeals should be reconstructed
for Proto-Indo-European will not be considered here, though there is at least
circumstantial evidence that one or more labialized laryngeals may have existed in
the Indo-European parent language (cf. the Appendix at the end of this chapter for
more information as well as: Colarusso 1981:503552; Adrados 1961, 1981b, and
1981c; Martinet 1970:212234 and 1975[1967]:114143; Puhvel 1965:8692;
72 CHAPTER FOUR
Watkins 1965b:89). We may note in passing that there is even some evidence that
Proto-Indo-European may also have had labialized dentals as well as a labialized
sibilant (cf. GamkrelidzeIvanov 1984.I:122134 and 1995.I:111115).
We may summarize our findings by setting up the following matrix:
* *h * *
Traditional * (*) + - - -
Traditional * (*) - + - -
Traditional * (*) - - + +
Traditional * (*) - - + +
e lowered and colored to a - + + +
i lowered and colored to e - + + +
u lowered and colored to o - + + +
Preserved in Anatolian - - + +
Partially preserved in Armenian - - + +
Now that we have determined the probable phonetic values of the Proto-Indo-
European laryngeals, we can turn to the question of their prehistoric development.
On the basis of comparison with other Nostratic languages, especially Proto-
Afrasian, the following laryngeals may be posited for Pre-Proto-Indo-European: *,
*h, *, and *. At this time, the laryngeals were stable and non-vowel coloring.
The earliest change to take place was the development of the voiceless and
voiced pharyngeal fricatives * and * into the multiply-articulated pharyngeal/
laryngeals *, and *, respectively. Colarusso (1981:516) cites a similar
development in the Ashkharwa dialect of Abkhaz. These pharyngeal/laryngeals, as
also the voiceless laryngeal fricative *h, contained the feature [low] as part of the
simultaneous bundle of features characterizing these sounds. These were the so-
called a-coloring laryngeals. It was at the end of this stage of development that
the Anatolian languages became separated from the main speech community. In
Anatolian, the laryngeals * and *h were lost.
In early post-Anatolian Proto-Indo-European, * and *h were lost initially
before vowels, while * > *h and * > * > *h in the same environment. In later
post-Anatolian Proto-Indo-European (Disintegrating Indo-European), all
laryngeals first merged into *h. *h (from earlier * and *) was then lost initially
before vowels (except in Pre-Proto-Armenian) and medially between an
immediately preceding vowel and a following non-syllabic. This latter change
caused the compensatory lengthening of preceding short vowels:
eHC > C
oHC > C
aHC > C
iHC > C
uHC > C
THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PIE PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM 73
I assume that the single remaining laryngeal, *h, was, at first, preserved in all other
positions and that it had a syllabic allophone when between two non-syllabics
this may be written *h . It is on the basis of the Armenian evidence that I assume
this single remaining laryngeal to have been the voiceless laryngeal fricative [h].
Szemernyi (1967:8990), Vaillant (1950:241246), and Zgusta (1951:428
472) also agree that, in its final stage of development, Proto-Indo-European had
only a single laryngeal and that that laryngeal was a voiceless laryngeal fricative.
See also Collinge 1970b:67101 and Hammerich 1948.
The following table compares the symbols used in this book (1) to represent the
laryngeals with the symbols used by various other scholars: (2) Kuryowicz 1935;
(3) Benveniste 1935, Watkins 2000; (4) Couvreur 1937, Messing 1947; (5) Sapir
1938, Sturtevant 1942 (note the table on p. 22); (6) Lehmann 1952; (7) Beekes
1995 and 2011, Clackson 2007, Fortson 2004 and 2010, Meier-Brgger 2003,
Watkins 1998; (8) MalloryAdams 1997; (9) Keiler 1970; (10) De Saussure 1878:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
h h A
x x h h A
h h A
h ' h h O
In closing, we may note that many of the developments posited here for the Proto-
Indo-European laryngeals are similar to developments found in Coptic, as analyzed
by Greenberg (1969:183184). For more information on the Coptic developments,
cf. Loprieno 1995:4050; Peust 1999; Vergote 1945 and 1973.Ib:12101.
1 2 3 4
p ph b bh (bilabial)
t th d dh (dental)
% %h h (palatal)
q qh h (pure velar)
q qh h (labiovelar)
The traditional voiceless aspirates (series 2 above) were originally posited by the
Neogrammarians on the basis of the following correspondences from Indo-Iranian,
Armenian, and Greek:
74 CHAPTER FOUR
ph f f p
th t
kh x x x
In the remaining daughter languages, the traditional voiceless aspirates and plain
(unaspirated) voiceless stops have the same treatment. In Slavic, there are a small
number of examples in which *k appears to become *x. These examples are best
explained as borrowings, most likely from Iranian (cf. Carlton 1991:95). In
Armenian, the dental voiceless aspirate and plain voiceless dental stop have the
same treatment (except after r), and the same appears to have also been the case in
Greek, at least superficially.
Current thinking on the part of the vast majority of Indo-Europeanists is that
the traditional voiceless aspirates are not to be reconstructed for the Indo-European
parent language, being secondarily derived in the daughter languages, and, in a
great many cases, it is clear that the reflexes found in the daughter languages can
indeed be secondarily derived from earlier clusters of voiceless stop plus a
following laryngeal (as first suggested in 1891 by Ferdinand de Saussure in a paper
read before the Socit de Linguistique de Paris [cf. de Saussure 1892 and
1922:603; Sturtevant 1942:83, 78]).
As far as the alleged Greek reflex of the traditional dental voiceless aspirate is
concerned, we are mostly dealing, in the available Greek examples, with forms in
which an earlier laryngeal did not occur in the position directly following the dental
stop. In the Sanskrit cognates, on the other hand, there was an earlier laryngeal in
this position, and this has left a trace in the form of aspiration. A couple of
examples will illustrate the difference between Greek and Sanskrit here:
1. Greek wide, broad, flat, level (< Pre-Greek *pl t-s) versus Sanskrit
pth- wide, broad (< Pre-Sanskrit *pl tH-s). There simply was no laryngeal
in the Pre-Greek ancestor of the Greek form, and, hence, there is no aspiration
in Greek. Cf. Burrow 1973:72.
2. Greek (Doric) I stand (< Pre-Greek *si-steA-mi *[si-staA-mi]) versus
Sanskrit thati stands (< Pre-Sanskrit *(s)ti-stA-eti). Here, Greek has full-
grade of the root, and Sanskrit has zero-grade. Cf. Burrow 1973:72; Cowgill
1965:172; Sturtevant 1942:83, 78a.
There is, however, at least one example in which Greek corresponds to Sanskrit
th, namely, the second singular perfect ending found, for instance, in Greek (+)-
you know, Sanskrit vt-tha you know from earlier *-tAe *[-tAa]. Cf. Beekes
THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PIE PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM 75
On the basis of the reflexes found in Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Baltic, and Slavic, The
Neogrammarians (as well as August Schleicher before them) posited a series of
plain (unaspirated) voiceless stops for series 1 at the Proto-Indo-European level.
The evidence of Germanic, Celtic, and Armenian (along with the poorly-attested
Phrygian), however, points to the presence of aspiration in this series in Proto-Indo-
European. Two explanations were available to the Neogrammarians to account for
the reflexes found in the various daughter languages: (A) loss of aspiration in
Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Baltic, and Slavic or (B) secondary development of
aspiration in Germanic, Celtic, Armenian, and Phrygian. The Neogrammarians
chose the second alternative (cf., for example, Meillet 1967:118119 and
1984:9192), and this view has been followed by most scholars until fairly
recently. However, the first alternative should not be so quickly dismissed. Let us
take a closer look at the developments found in the daughter languages.
In Germanic, the traditional plain voiceless stops are represented by voiceless
fricatives, which are assumed to have developed from earlier voiceless aspirates (cf.
Meillet 1984:91; Prokosch 1938:5960; Streitberg 1963:105113), thus:
76 CHAPTER FOUR
p > p > f
t > t >
% > % >
q > q >
q > q > w
It should be noted that the traditional voiceless stops were retained unchanged in
Germanic when preceded by *s: *sp, *st, *sk > *sp, *st, *sk. *t was also retained
unchanged when preceded by another voiceless stop (> fricative): *pt, *kt > *ft, *t.
At a later date, medial (and final) *f, *, *, *w , together with *s, became the
voiced fricatives *, *, *, *w, and *z respectively except between vowels when
the accent fell on the contiguous preceding syllable (Verners Law).
In Celtic, the traditional plain voiceless stops are assumed to have developed
into voiceless aspirates (LewisPedersen 1937:4048), thus:
Traditional Proto-
Indo-European Celtic
p > p
t > t
% > %
q > q
q > q
The bilabial member was eventually lost (cf. Fortson 2004:275; LewisPedersen
1937:2627; Morris Jones 1913:124126), thus:
p > h >
Pre-Armenian Armenian
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
In Armenian, some of the reflexes of series 1 merged with the reflexes of series 2.
This happened in the case of the onomatopoeic terms discussed above, where, for
example, earlier *p and *k became p and x respectively in Armenian as if from
earlier *pH and *kH (this also occurred for all reflexes of series 1 in Sanskrit and
Greek). In like manner, the aspiration of series 1 was preserved in Armenian after
initial s-. *t and *tH have mostly merged in Armenian, though earlier *rt became
rd, while *rtH became rt (cf. Meillet 1984:79).
Thus, the Germanic, Celtic, and Armenian developments can be explained by
assuming that series 1 was voiceless and aspirated at the Proto-Indo-European level,
that is to say, it is not necessary to posit earlier plain voiceless stops to account for
the developments in these branches. Armenian is particularly important in that it has
preserved the contrast between the older voiceless aspirates (series 1) and those that
developed at a later date from former clusters of voiceless stop plus a following
laryngeal (series 2).
In Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Baltic, and Slavic, series 1 is represented by plain
(unaspirated) voiceless stops. This, however, is not the original patterning but is,
rather, an innovation. Here, Armenian provides the key to understanding the
developments in these branches. On the basis of the Armenian (along with
Germanic and Celtic) evidence, series 1 may be assumed to have originally been
voiceless and aspirated. Furthermore, following the views of GamkrelidzeIvanov,
it may be assumed that the aspiration was phonemically non-distinctive. There were
thus two allophones, one with aspiration, and one without:
p ~ p
t ~ t
k ~ k
k ~ k
Emonds (1972:120) also assumes that the voiceless aspirates found in Indic, Greek,
and Armenian have developed from series 1:
78 CHAPTER FOUR
Whereas Emonds sees the voiceless aspirated reflexes of series 1 (instead of the
expected plain voiceless stops) that appear in Sanskrit, Greek, and Armenian as due
to borrowings, I see them as the natural result of the phonemicization of the
allophones of this series in each of these dialects themselves.
Correspondences:
Proto-Indo-European *p *t *k *k *k
Sanskrit p t kc kc
Avestan p t s k k
Albanian p t th s kq kqs
Armenian hw t s k k
Old Church Slavic p t s kc kc
Lithuanian p t k k
Gothic fb d hg hg hw h
Old Irish t th c ch c ch c ch
Oscan p t ck ck p
Latin p t c c qu c
Greek
Tocharian p t c ts k k ku k
We can now return to the question of the choices that were available to the
Neogrammarians: (A) loss of aspiration in Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Baltic, and Slavic
or (B) secondary development of aspiration in Germanic, Celtic, and Armenian. In
view of the theory proposed by GamkrelidzeIvanov, it is not so much a question
of loss or retention as it is of the phonemicization and generalization of the
THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PIE PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM 79
In Latin (but not Oscan and Umbrian), the voiceless fricatives were preserved
initially, but, medially, they first developed into the corresponding voiced fricatives,
which then yielded voiced stops (cf. GamkrelidzeIvanov 1984.I:6465 and
1995.I:5758).
Correspondences:
Proto-Indo-European *b *d *g *g *g
Sanskrit bh dh h gh h gh h
Avestan b d z gz gz
Albanian b d dh z dh d g gj g gj z
Armenian bw d jz g g
Old Church Slavic b d z g dz g dz
Lithuanian b d g g
Gothic b d g g w
Old Irish b d g g g
Oscan f f h h f
Latin fb fd hgf hgf f v gu
Greek
Tocharian p t c ts k k ku k
the less marked it is in relationship to other sounds, which are less common, less
usual, less frequent, that is, more marked. The various hierarchies established by
Gamkrelidze were arrived at by investigating the frequency distribution of sounds
in a great number of languages. These hierarchical relationships are found to be
characteristic of language in general and not language specific, the underlying
reasons being phonetic the distinctive features making up the unmarked sounds
simply combine with each other into simultaneous bundles more easily than do the
distinctive features making up marked sounds. Finally, Gamkrelidze notes that,
when there are gaps or empty slots in a system, they invariably occur at the point of
articulation of the most highly marked member in the hierarchy.
Following are three of the hierarchies established by Gamkrelidze:
The arrows indicate the direction of greater markedness. In the first hierarchy, /b/ is
the most common, most usual, most frequent, hence, least marked member; /p/ is
less common than /b/ but more common than /p/ and /p/; /p/ is less common than
/b/ and /p/ but more common than /p/; finally, /p/ is the least common, hence, most
marked member. Since gaps occur at the position of the mostly highly marked
member, if there is a gap in this series, it will be /p/ that will be missing. In the
second hierarchy, on the other hand, the markedness relationship is reversed: /k/ is
the most common, most usual, most frequent, hence, least marked member; /k/ is
less common than /k/ but more common than /k/ and /g/; /k/ is less common than
/k/ and /k/ but more common than /g/; finally, /g/ is the least common, hence,
most marked member. Since gaps occur at the position of the mostly highly marked
member, if there is a gap in this series, it will be /g/ that will be missing here. As
can be seen, the postvelar series (number 3 above) has the same markedness
correlation as the velar series.
Gamkrelidzes findings have important implications for Proto-Indo-European.
As pointed out in the standard handbooks, the phoneme traditionally reconstructed
as *b was a marginal sound of extremely limited occurrence, if it even existed at all.
As we have seen from the typological evidence discussed above, such a frequency
distribution is not at all characteristic of /b/. Rather, the frequency distribution
points to the original non-voiced character of this sound in Proto-Indo-European.
Further investigation reveals other anomalies in the whole series traditionally
reconstructed as plain voiced stops (series 3 in the chart of the Neogrammarian
reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European stop system given above [4.2]). First,
the frequency distribution of all of the traditional plain voiced stops (*b, *d, *, *,
*) points to the non-voiced character of the entire series when viewed from a
typological perspective. Next, the plain voiced stops are rarely found in inflectional
endings and pronouns. Finally, two plain voiced stops could not cooccur in a root.
82 CHAPTER FOUR
The frequency distribution of these sounds plus their limited role in the system in
general makes the traditional reconstruction highly suspect from a typological point
of view.
These are the observations that led GamkrelidzeIvanov, as well as Hopper,
to reinterpret the traditional plain voiced stops as glottalics (ejectives). Not only
does such a reinterpretation easily account for the frequency distribution of these
sounds, it also explains the fact that they were used only very infrequently in
inflectional affixes and pronouns, since this type of patterning is characteristic of
the way ejectives behave in natural languages having such sounds. Finally, the root
structure constraint against the cooccurrence of two ejectives in a root is found in a
number of languages with ejectives (cf. Hopper 1973:160).
There is no uniform treatment of the ejectives in the Indo-European daughter
languages. In some cases, plain voiceless stops are found, while in others, there are
plain voiced stops. To understand the types of changes ejectives can undergo, the
developments found in the Afrasian daughter languages may be looked at. The
following developments are attested (using the dentals for purposes of illustration):
Correspondences:
Proto-Indo-European *p *t *k *k *k
Sanskrit b d d gj gj
Avestan b d z gz gz
Albanian b d dh z dh d g gj g gj z
Armenian p t c k k
Old Church Slavic b d z g dz g dz
Lithuanian b d g g
Gothic p t k k qk
Old Irish b d g g bg
Oscan b d g g b
Latin b d g g v gu g
Greek
Tocharian p t c ts k k ku k
As noted above, the sound traditionally reconstructed as *b may have been non-
existent in Proto-Indo-European. Under the revised interpretation, this would have
been a bilabial ejective *p. Had this sound existed in the Indo-European parent
language, it would have developed into b in those daughter languages that have
changed the ejectives into voiced stops. In the case of Sanskrit (3rd sg.) pbati
drinks, Latin bibit drinks, Old Irish ibid drinks, from Proto-Indo-European
*pi-p-eti (traditional *pi-p-eti) (cf. GamkrelidzeIvanov 1995.I:856), there is
direct evidence for such a development. While it is common for languages having
ejectives to have a gap at the point of articulation of the bilabial member, no known
natural language with a voicing contrast in stops has a gap at the point of articula-
tion of the voiced bilabial. Since the normal development of the Disintegrating
Indo-European phonological system in Greek, Italic, and Indo-Iranian would have
created such a gap, a voiced bilabial was introduced in these branches by various
means. In Greek, the glottalized labiovelar *k developed into b (written ) under
certain conditions. This is the regular development in Oscan and Umbrian. In Latin,
b arose from medial *f and from earlier * when before or after r, before l, or after
u. In Indo-Aryan, b arose from bh through the change described by Grassmanns
Law. Finally, the gap was also filled in all three branches through borrowings.
Under the traditional reconstruction, the Germanic and Armenian sound
shifts are anomalous (for discussion, cf. Meillet 1967:116124 and 1984:89
96). Nothing quite the same exists in any of the other daughter languages (except
the poorly-attested Phrygian). There is, of course, Tocharian, but the changes there
are different in that the opposition between the traditional plain voiceless, plain
voiced, and voiced aspirated stops is completely eliminated (cf. Adams 1988:36
43; Fortson 2004:353354; KrauseThomas 1960:64; Van Windekens 1976
1982.I:76), while in Germanic and Armenian, the opposition remains intact. The
84 CHAPTER FOUR
That is to say that, while the palatalization of following consonants by front vowels
(or high back vowels) does in fact occur (Bhat discusses several examples), it is a
far less frequently attested phenomenon than the palatalization of preceding
consonants. Bhat (1978:6667) also discusses the fact that certain environments
may block palatalization:
Somewhere around the beginning of the third century CE, /k/ and /g/ were
palatalized to /k/ and /g/ respectively before, a, ae, , i, and (cf. Elcock
1960:5355). /k/ and /g/ then became /t/ and /d/ respectively and then // and
/m/. // developed into French /s/, Spanish (Castilian) // (dialectal /s/),
Portuguese /s/, Italian //, and Romanian //. It should be noted that Sardinian is a
relic area in which /k/ and /g/ were not palatalized. /m/ developed into French //,
Spanish /j/, Portuguese //, Italian /o/, and Romanian /o/.
There has also been a general delabialization of /k/ and /g/ in the Romance
languages, especially before front vowels. For details about the development of the
gutturals in the Romance languages, cf. Elcock 1960:5255; Mendeloff 1969:16
31; Posner 1996:110115; HarrisVincent (eds.) 1988:3840 and 1997:3840.
The comparative evidence allows us to reconstruct the following phonemic
gutturals for Pre-divisional Proto-Indo-European:
Plain velars: k k g
Labiovelars: k k g
The Anatolian data especially the Hittite data are particularly important here.
Hittite shows no trace of either palatalization of the velars or of delabialization of
the labiovelars (cf. Kronasser 1956:6468 and Sturtevant 1951:5559, 7881,
for examples). There is some evidence from the Luwian branch, however, that the
86 CHAPTER FOUR
Palatals (palatovelars): k k g
Plain velars: k k g
Labiovelars: k k g
4.7. RESONANTS
Traditionally, the semivowels, liquids, and nasals are included in this class (cf.
Watkins 1998:4446). However, only the liquids and nasals will be dealt with
here. The semivowels *y (*) and *w (*) will be discussed below in the section
dealing with the vowels and diphthongs.
According to Brugmann (1904:52 and 109138), the following resonants are
to be reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European:
Non-syllabic: l r m n n
Syllabic: l r m n n
l r m n n
Finally, it should be mentioned that the long syllabic resonants reconstructed by the
Neogrammarians are now universally thought to have been clusters of short syllabic
resonant plus laryngeal: RH.
For a fuller discussion of the patterning of the resonants, cf. Adrados 1975.I:
263289; Beekes 1995:135137; Clackson 2007:3436; GamkrelidzeIvanov
1995.I:167170; Edgerton 1943 and 1962; Fortson 2004:5556; Horowitz 1974;
Lehmann 1952:1014; Meillet 1964:105126; Szemernyi 1996:105110.
88 CHAPTER FOUR
Correspondences:
Proto-Indo-European *m *n *l *r
Sanskrit m n rl r
Avestan m n r r
Albanian m n l r
Armenian m n l r
Old Church Slavic m n l r
Lithuanian m n l r
Gothic m -n n l r
Old Irish m n l r
Oscan m n l r
Latin m n l r
Greek -
Tocharian m n l ly r
The first attempt to reconstruct the Proto-Indo-European vowel system was made
by August Schleicher. Schleichers system was as follows (1876:11):
a-grade a a + a = aa a + aa = Xa
i-grade i a + i = ai a + ai = Xi
u-grade u a + u = au a + au = Xu
Even though Schleichers system, which was modeled after that of Old Indic, was
able to account for many of the developments found in the daughter languages,
there remained many unsolved problems, and his system did not endure the
onslaughts of a series of brilliant discoveries made in the seventies of the nineteenth
century by a younger generation of scholars, the so-called Neogrammarians
(Junggrammatiker).
Perhaps the most important discovery of the Neogrammarian period was the
Law of Palatals (cf. Collinge 1985:133142), according to which an original *k,
for example, developed into c in Old Indic under the influence of a following *, *,
or *y. This discovery firmly established the primacy of the vowel systems found in
the European daughter languages and proved that the Indo-Iranian system had
resulted from an innovation in which original *, *k, and *` had merged into *`.
Also important was the demonstration by the Neogrammarians that the Indo-
European parent language had syllabic liquids and nasals.
THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PIE PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM 89
Monophthongs: e o a i u
Diphthongs: ei oi ai i eu ou au u
i i i u u u
Semivowels: i u (j ?)
Brugmann (1904:52) also reconstructs the following syllabic liquids and nasals:
l r m n n
l r m n n
Throughout the greater part of the twentieth century, the Neogrammarian view was
steadily attacked. It was dealt its first major blow in 1927 with Kuryowiczs
demonstration that one of de Saussures coefficients sonantiques was preserved in
Hittite. In one fell swoop, the so-called original long vowels (as well as the long
syllabic liquids and nasals) were eliminated as was *a, which was taken to result
from *e when next to an a-coloring laryngeal. The next to go were the
diphthongs, which were reanalyzed as clusters of vowel plus non-syllabic resonant
and non-syllabic resonant plus vowel (cf. Lehmann 1952:1014). The independent
status of *i and *u had early been questioned by Meillet (1964:118122), who
regarded them as the syllabic forms of *y (*i ) and *w (*u ), respectively. Finally, a
strict adherence to Hirts ablaut and accentuation theories made it possible to
eliminate apophonic *o, which was taken to result from an earlier *e when the
accent was shifted from the *e to another syllable (cf. Burrow 1973:112113; Hirt
1921:173179; Lehmann 1952:109110). By applying all of these theories, it
became possible to reduce the Proto-Indo-European vowel system to a single
member: *e.
It should be made clear that this extreme view was never universally accepted.
In fact, it was vigorously attacked by several scholars, including Roman Jakobson
(1971[1957]:528), who soberly noted: The one-vowel picture of Proto-Indo-
European finds no support in the recorded languages of the world. See also
Trubetzkoy 1969:96.
In 1967, Szemernyi, relying heavily on typological data to support his
arguments, reinstated all of the vowels reconstructed by the Neogrammarians:
e o a i u
Szemernyi (1967:97, fn. 91), however, ignores the diphthongs, whose phonemic
status is disputed. I fully support Szemernyis views on the vowels and would
90 CHAPTER FOUR
A. ~ e~o
B. y ~ y ey ~ oy i, yV (> iyV) y
w ~ w ew ~ ow u, wV (> uwV) w
m ~ m em ~ om m, mV (mmV) m
n ~ n en ~ on n, nV (nnV) n
l ~ l el ~ ol l , lV (l lV) l
r ~ r er ~ or r, rV (rrV) r
C. a~o
D. ay i, yV (> iyV) y
aw u, wV (> uwV) w
E. ~ h
F. h
G. ~ h
The most common vowel was *e, and the most common gradation pattern was the
*e ~ *o contrast. The vowel *a was of relatively low statistical frequency and, at
THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PIE PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM 91
least according to Meillet (1964:154), did not take part in the regular gradation
patterning. It should be pointed out, however, that several rare examples of an *a ~
*o contrast are attested in the non-Anatolian daughter languages, one probable
example being:
Vowels: i (~ e) u (~ o)
e o
( ~) a
similar interpretation and also discusses possible typological parallels with the
Northwest Caucasian languages.
According to Hirt (1921:172199) and those who follow his theories
(Burrow, Lehmann, and formerly the author, for example), the oldest ablaut
alternation was the full-grade ~ zero-grade contrast. This alternation is assumed to
have arisen at a time when the Proto-Indo-European phonological system was
characterized by a strong stress accent. This accent caused the weakening and loss
of the vowels of unstressed syllables. This period may be called the Phonemic
Stress Stage of Proto-Indo-European (cf. Lehmann 1952:111112). At a later date,
stress became phonemically non-distinctive, and Proto-Indo-European was
characterized by an accent system based on pitch. This period may be called the
Phonemic Pitch Stage of Proto-Indo-European (cf. Lehmann 1952:109110). It
was supposedly during this period that the *e ~ *o contrast came into being. *e is
assumed to have been changed to *o when the accent was shifted from the *e to
another syllable. These theories find support in the fact that the position of the
accent is partially correlated with ablaut patterning in both Greek and Old Indic.
Counter-examples are usually explained as due to analogical developments or as
later forms that came into being after the accent lost its ability to influence the
vowels (cf. Burrow 1973:112).
Though Kuryowicz originally adhered to Hirts theories as well, he later
(1956:3696 and 1964b:52) tried to show that the *e ~ *o contrast existed prior to
the development of the full-grade ~ zero-grade contrast. Kuryowicz argues that the
numerous counter-examples with accented *o indicate that qualitative ablaut was a
morphological device in its own right and only superficially connected with the
positioning of the accent. Moreover, he notes that, while vowel weakening and loss
are closely tied to the accent, a change in vowel quality is primarily due to the
environment in other words, there is no cause-and-effect relationship between
qualitative ablaut and accentuation. These are convincing arguments and are the
primary basis for my belief that qualitative ablaut existed at the earliest
reconstructable period of Proto-Indo-European. Moreover, Kuryowiczs views find
support in the data from the other Nostratic languages (note here especially
Greenberg 1990a:125: the Indo-European e:o (i.e. e:a) Ablaut is very old and is
part of a larger system of alternations which has correspondences in a number of
other branches of Eurasiatic).
The development of * into *e, which must have occurred fairly early since it
is already found in Hittite, is relatively easy to explain: *e was the normal allophone
of * under stress. John Colarusso (personal correspondence) has informed me of a
similar development in Ubykh and Circassian, where accented // > [e].
We may assume that *a had a rounded allophone in certain phonetic
environments (cf. Colarusso 1981:500), perhaps next to labiovelars as well as when
next to *w. In late Disintegrating Indo-European, these allophones were
reapportioned, and apophonic *a was rephonemicized as *o. That this is an
extremely late development is shown (A) by the fact that it had not yet occurred in
the Anatolian languages and (B) by the widespread tendency of *a and *o to have
identical reflexes in several of the non-Anatolian daughter languages. No doubt, the
THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PIE PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM 93
ei oi ai i
eu ou au u
i
u
Szemernyi (1990:148 and 1996:141) notes that, while this looks good on paper, it
is difficult to imagine the process that would have led to *i and *u in the reduced-
grade. He points out that it most certainly could not have been due to a simple loss
of *e, *o, and *a. The actual process leading to the appearance of *i and *u in the
reduced-grade was probably along the following lines:
A B C D
In addition to the sequences of vowel plus *y and *w, the earliest form of Proto-
Indo-European also had sequences of *y and *w plus vowel. In unstressed
positions, the vowel was first reduced to *. * was then assimilated to *i after *y,
THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PIE PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM 97
and the preceding *y was lost, while after *w, it was assimilated to *u, and the
preceding *w was lost:
The vowels *i and *u were converted into the corresponding glides *y and *w
respectively when directly followed by another vowel:
iV > yV
uV > wV
In a 1967 book devoted to the study of the Indo-European vowel system, Robert
Schmitt-Brandt (1967:831 [2nd edition 1973]) concludes that it is necessary to
assume a fundamental form in *i and *u for certain kinds of roots in Proto-Indo-
European and to view the full-grade forms as secondary. This conclusion is reached
on the basis of the observation that, as a general rule, when diphthongs are
reduced, long monophthongs result and not, as traditionally assumed, short
monophthongs. Support for this conclusion is to be found in root-nouns, which
appear in the reduced-grade (Schmitt-Brandt cites *di$-, *wi$-, and *duk- [I would
write *tik-, *wik-, and *tuk-] as examples), this being their original form. To
have it the other way around, with *ey, *ew, etc. as the original forms, would lead,
in his opinion, to reduced-grade forms with * and *: *dey$- > *d$-, *wey$- >
*w$-, and *dewk- > *dk-, etc. Schmitt-Brandt thus posits *i and *u as
independent vowels in Proto-Indo-European and explains the full-grade forms in
*ey, *ew, etc. as due to analogy. Finally, Schmitt-Brandt (1967:7991) explains
that, in an earlier period of Proto-Indo-European, *y and *w (he writes *i and *u )
were consonants in their own right and were not connected with the independent
vowels *i and *u. Somewhat similar views are expressed by William F. Wyatt
(1970:58 and fn. 24).
The parts of Schmitt-Brandts theories outlined in the preceding paragraph
make a lot of sense, at least on the surface. Other parts of his theories, however,
have purposely been left out of the discussion since, at least in my opinion, they are
less convincing (see here the review of Schmitt-Brandts book by Kuryowicz
1969:4149). What Schmitt-Brandt has correctly identified is the fact that, in
certain specific instances, it is necessary to assume secondary full-grade forms.
Schmitt-Brandt is also correct in seeing the vowels *i and *u as independent
phonemic entities at an early stage of development within Proto-Indo-European.
Where his theories are mistaken, however, is in the assumption that the reduction of
diphthongs can only lead to long monophthongs. While this is indeed a very
common development, it is not the only possible outcome. Here, we can cite
developments in the Romance languages: Classical Latin had both long vowels and
short vowels along with three diphthongs, namely, ae, oe and au. In Vulgar Latin,
length distinctions were lost, and the earlier long vowels were realized as closed
vowels, while the earlier short vowels were realized as open vowels. At the same
98 CHAPTER FOUR
time, ae > open e [], oe > closed e [], and au > closed o [] (though there is
actually a great deal of variation in the development of au). In Balkan Romance,
unstressed front vowels merged into [e], and unstressed back vowels merged into
[u], except for [a] and [] (closed [i] < Classical Latin ), which remained intact. (Cf.
Mendeloff 1969:416 for details about the development of the vowels and
diphthongs in the Romance languages.) Another problem with Schmitt-Brandts
theories concerns the failure to recognize the fact that the latest period of Proto-
Indo-European contained the remnants of multiple successive earlier periods of
development. The reduction of diphthongs in unaccented syllables had a different
outcome in the earliest period than in later periods in the earliest period, short
monophthongs resulted from the stress-conditioned weakening of diphthongs in
unstressed syllables, while in later periods, when stress was no longer phonemically
distinctive, long monophthongs resulted.
In Post-Anatolian Proto-Indo-European, secondary diphthongs arose as
follows: By this time, the *e ~ *o ablaut patterning had assumed an important role
in grammatical categorization in the emerging morphological system of Proto-Indo-
European all of the older non-Anatolian daughter languages attest to this. In
order to bring stems such as *tik-, *wik-, and *tuk- (traditional *di$-, *wi$-,
and *duk-), and the like into line with the regular *e ~ *o ablaut patterning, *e and
*o were inserted before accented *i and *u, thus creating secondary diphthongs:
We may close this section by mentioning one last point. The numerous cases of
vddhied stems in the non-Anatolian daughter languages especially Old Indic
appear to represent a contamination of types *CC and *CC with types *CeyV-/
*CoyV- and *CewV-/*CowV-, producing the new types *CyV-/*CyV- and
*CwV-/*CwV- (cf. Schmalstieg 1973b:108).
1. Acrostatic: fixed accent on the stem throughout the paradigm, but with ablaut
changes between the strong and weak cases.
2. Proterokinetic (or proterodynamic): the stem is accented and in full-grade
vowel in the strong cases, but both accent and full-grade vowel are shifted to
the suffix in the weak cases.
3. Amphikinetic (or holokinetic or amphidynamic): the stem is accented in the
strong cases, while the case ending is accented in the weak cases. Typically, the
suffix is characterized by a lengthened o-grade vowel in the nominative
singular and a short o-grade vowel in the accusative singular.
4. Hysterokinetic (or hysterodynamic): the suffix is accented in the strong cases,
and the case ending in the weak.
100 CHAPTER FOUR
1. Neuter action nouns were accented on the stem in the so-called strong cases
but on the ending in the so-called weak cases (cf. Burrow 1973:220226).
2. Common gender agent noun/adjectives were accented on the suffix throughout
the paradigm (cf. Burrow 1973:119).
3. Athematic verbs were accented on the stem in the singular but on the ending in
the plural (and dual) in the indicative but on the ending throughout the middle
(cf. Burrow 1973:303).
The thematic formations require special comment. It seems that thematic agent
noun/adjectives were originally accented on the ending in the strong cases and on
the stem in the weak cases. This pattern is the exact opposite of what is found in the
neuter action nouns. The original form of the nominative singular consisted of the
accented thematic vowel alone. It is this ending that is still found in the vocative
singular in the daughter languages and in relic forms such as the word for the
number five, *penke (*peqe in Brugmanns transcription). The nominative
singular in *-os is a later formation and has the same origin as the genitive singular
(cf. Szemernyi 1972a:156; Van Wijk 1902).
The system of accentuation found in Disintegrating Indo-European was by no
means ancient. The earliest period of Proto-Indo-European that can be
reconstructed appears to have been characterized by a strong stress accent (cf.
Burrow 1973:108112; Lehmann 1952:111112, 15.4, and 1993:131132;
Szemernyi 1996:111113) following Lehmann, this period may be called the
Phonemic Stress Stage. This accent caused the weakening and/or loss of the vowels
of unaccented syllables. There was a contrast between those syllables with stress
and those syllables without stress. Stress was used as an internal grammatical
morpheme, the stressed syllable being the morphologically distinctive syllable. The
phonemicization of a strong stress accent in Early Proto-Indo-European caused a
major restructuring of the inherited vowel system and brought about the
development of syllabic liquids and nasals (cf. Lehmann 1993:138).
In the latest period of Proto-Indo-European, quantitative ablaut was no longer a
productive process. Had there been a strong stress accent at this time, each Proto-
Indo-European word could have had only one syllable with full-grade vowel, the
vowels of the unstressed syllables having all been eliminated. However, since the
majority of reconstructed Proto-Indo-European words have more than one full-
grade vowel, the stress accent must have become non-distinctive at some point prior
to the latest stage of development.
THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PIE PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM 101
have wrecked havoc with the original system. Gradually, the vast majority of the
earlier markers were replaced by newer forms, and the use of inflectional endings
became the primary means of grammatical categorization, with the result that vowel
gradation and accentuation became mostly unnecessary and redundant features. It
was not long before the earlier system of vowel gradation began to break down as
analogical leveling took place. Also, in its later stages, Proto-Indo-European, as
well as the individual daughter languages, it may be noted, continued to create new
formations that, unlike older formations, were not affected by the causes of vowel
gradation. Therefore, the patterns of vowel gradation are only imperfectly preserved
in the final stage of the Indo-European parent language and in the daughter
languages.
the root is the part of the word (it is a question of only the simple word)
made up of (1) the initial consonant or consonantal group, (2) the fundamental
vowel, (3) the final consonant or consonantal group. The final group can
consist of no more than two consonantal elements, the first of which has
greater syllabicity than the second. In other words, the first consonantal
element is i , u , r, l, n, m, while the second is a consonant in the strictest sense
of the term: stop, s, or laryngeal (, , ).
A careful analysis of the root structure patterning led Benveniste to the discovery of
the basic laws governing that patterning. According to Benveniste (1935:170
171), these laws may be stated as follows (see also Lehmann 1952:1718):
2. In this constant scheme: consonant plus e plus consonant, the consonants can
be of any order provided that they are different: however, the cooccurrence of
both a voiceless stop and an aspirated voiced stop is forbidden.
3. The addition of a suffix to the root gives rise to two alternating stem types:
Type I: root in full grade and accented, suffix in zero-grade; Type II: root in
zero-grade, suffix in full-grade and accented.
4. A single determinative can be added to the suffix, either after the suffix of stem
Type II, or, if n, inserted between the root element and the suffix of stem Type
II.
5. Further addition of determinatives or suffixes points to a nominal stem.
When used as a verbal stem, Type 1 could undergo no further extension. However,
Type 2 could be further extended by means of a determinative. Further addition
of a determinative or suffixes pointed to a nominal stem (cf. Benveniste 1935:171;
Lehmann 1952:17). According to Benveniste (1935:148), a suffix was
characterized by two alternating forms (*-et-/*-t-, *-en-/*-n-, *-ek-/*-k-, etc.), while
a determinative was characterized by a fixed consonantal form (*-t-, *-n-, *-k-,
etc.). Finally, Benveniste (1935:164) notes:
in the numerous cases where the initial [consonant group has been
reconstructed in the shape] *(s)k-, *(s)t-, *(s)p-, etc., with unstable sibilant, it is
generally a question of prefixation, and it may be observed that the root begins
with the [plain] consonant [alone excluding the sibilant].
APPENDIX:
THE PREHISTORIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM
1. Pre-Indo-European
2. Phonemic Stress Stage of Proto-Indo-European
3. Phonemic Pitch Stage of Proto-Indo-European
4. Disintegrating Indo-European
These stages are similar to what Lehmann sets up in Chapter 15, The Development
of the PIE Phonemic System, of his 1952 book Proto-Indo-European Phonology.
The Proto-Nostratic phonological system may tentatively be reconstructed as
follows (cf. BomhardKerns 1994:122 and Chapter 12 in this book):
p t c t k k q q
b d d r (?) g g
p t c t k k q q
Fricatives:
s s x x h
z (?) z (?)
Glides:
w y
m n n
l l
r r
Vowels: i (~ e) u (~ o)
e o
( ~) a
106 CHAPTER FOUR
A shift of lateralized affricates into velar stops, similar to that shown above, may be
posited for Pre-Proto-Indo-European.
The palatalized alveolar stops, palato-alveolar affricates, and dental affricates
posited for Proto-Nostratic correspond to dental stops in Proto-Indo-European. Two
explanations are possible to account for this correspondence: (A) Proto-Indo-
European retained the original value, and the palatalized alveolar stops, palato-
alveolar affricates, and dental affricates were secondarily derived from earlier
dental stops in the other languages, or (B) the other languages reflect the original
patterning, and the Indo-European developments are secondary. The data from the
other Nostratic languages unequivocally favors the second alternative. Typological
considerations also point in this direction. In general, a contrast between velars and
labiovelars, such as that posited for Proto-Indo-European, implies a frontal contrast
of some kind.
It may thus be assumed that the palatalized alveolar stops, palato-alveolar
affricates, and dental affricates were inherited by Pre-Proto-Indo-European from
Proto-Nostratic. However, since these sounds are not found in any of the daughter
languages, they must have been eliminated at some point within Proto-Indo-
European proper.
THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PIE PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM 107
The first change that may be assumed to have taken place was the elimination
of the original palatalized alveolar stops through merger with the plain dental stops
(as has happened, for example, in the case of Aramaic, where Proto-Semitic *d,
*t, *t have become Aramaic d, , t, respectively [cf. Moscati 1964:2939, 9.18
Moscati posits interdental fricatives for Proto-Semitic, but see Ehret 1995:251
254 on the possibility that this series may have been palatalized alveolars instead
note expecially the table of correspondences on p. 253], and in Ancient Egyptian,
where t and d were sometimes depalatalized to t and d , respectively,
under unknown conditions [cf. J. P. Allen 2013:49]). Within Indo-European, the
same phenomenon may be observed in modern Polabian, Czech, Slovak, Bulgarian,
and Ukrainian, where the inherited palatalized consonants were depalatalized before
front vowels, where palatalization was automatic or nearly so, i.e. devoid of
phonemic function (cf. Shevelov 1964:494). In Early Proto-Indo-European, the
original palatalized sounds were depalatalized in all positions, merging with their
non-palatalized counterparts:
d > d
t > t
t > t
n > n
l > l
r > r
At the same time, the inherited palato-alveolar affricates merged with the inherited
dental affricates: *, *, * > *c, *, *c.
Pre-Proto-Indo-European was followed by the Phonemic Stress Stage of Proto-
Indo-European, which is the earliest stage of Proto-Indo-European proper that can
be recovered. This stage was characterized by the phonemicization of a strong
stress accent that caused the reduction and elimination of the vowels of unaccented
syllables that is to say that the phonemicization of a strong stress accent was
responsible for the development of quantitative vowel gradation. This change was
the first in a long series of changes that brought about the grammaticalization of
what began as a purely phonological alternation (cf. Fortson 2004:74 and 2010:81),
and which resulted in a major restructuring of the earlier, Pre-Proto-Indo-European
vocalic patterning. This restructuring of the vowel system was a continuous
process, which maintained vitality throughout the long, slowly-evolving prehistory
of the Indo-European parent language itself and even into the early stages of some
of the daughter languages.
It was during the Phonemic Stress Stage of Proto-Indo-European that the
syllabic resonants came into being. Lengthened-grade vowels may also have first
appeared during this stage of development.
The phonological system of the Phonemic Stress Stage of Proto-Indo-European
may be reconstructed as follows:
108 CHAPTER FOUR
Obstruents: p t c k k (q)
b d g g ()
p t c k k (q) (q)
s x x h
Vowels: i u
e o
e~a
~
y ~ y y ~ y y ~ y
w ~ w w ~ w w ~ w
Phonemic analysis:
Suprasegmentals:
Obstruents: p t k k
b d g g
(p) t k k
s
Laryngeals: h
Vowels: e o a i u
Notes:
A. High vowels had non-phonemic low variants when contiguous with so-called
a-coloring laryngeals (*h, * and *), while the vowel *e was lowered and
colored to *a in the same environment.
110 CHAPTER FOUR
Suprasegmentals:
A. Stress: non-distinctive.
B. Pitch: distribution morphologically conditioned: high pitch was applied to
morphologically-distinctive vowels, while low pitch was applied to
morphologically-non-distinctive vowels.
During the Phonemic Pitch Stage of development, the system of vowel gradation
assumed the following form:
A. ~ e~a
B. y ~ y ey ~ ay i, yV y
w ~ w ew ~ aw u, wV w
m ~ m em ~ am m, mV m
n ~ n en ~ an n, nV n
l ~ l el ~ al l , lV l
r ~ r er ~ ar r, rV r
C. Ae [Aa] ~ Aa A A
D. Aey [Aay] Ai, AyV Ay
Aew [Aaw] Au, AwV Aw
Notes:
A. Long vowel gradation did not exist during this period of development. It arose
later, in Disintegrating Indo-European, when the loss of preconsonantal
laryngeals caused the compensatory lengthening of preceding short vowels.
THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PIE PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM 111
Obstruents: p p b (bilabial)
t t d (dental)
k k g (palatovelar)
k k g (velar)
k k g (labiovelar)
s
Laryngeals: h/h
112 CHAPTER FOUR
Notes:
A. The palatovelars (*k, *g, *k) are traditionally written *$, *h, * or *%,
*h, *, occasionally even *#, *h, *, respectively.
B. The above reconstruction is a composite details about developments in the
individual daughter languages are given in Chapter 5.
A. ~ e~o
B. y ~ y ey ~ oy i, yV (> iyV) y
w ~ w ew ~ ow u, wV (> uwV) w
m ~ m em ~ om m, mV (mmV) m
n ~ n en ~ on n, nV (nnV) n
l ~ l el ~ ol l , lV (l lV) l
r ~ r er ~ or r, rV (rrV) r
C. a~o
D. ay i, yV (> iyV) y
aw u, wV (> uwV) w
E. ~ h
F. h
G. ~ h
Note: The symbol *h is used here to indicate the syllabic form of the one remaining
laryngeal, *h. This is the so-called schwa primum of traditional Indo-
European grammar. It is usually written *.
CHAPTER FIVE
5.1. ANATOLIAN
1 2 3
Bilabial: p p b
Dental: t t d
Velar: k k g
Labiovelar: k k g
Sturtevants Law is the name given to the Hittite scribal convention according to
which double writing of medial stops (though only when the cuneiform syllabary
makes this possible, and even then not consistently [cf. Melchert 1994a:14]) in
certain words contrasts with single writing of medial stops in certain other words.
This writing convention is interpreted under Sturtevants Law to be the method by
which the Hittite scribes indicated some sort of phonemic contrast, usually taken to
be a contrast between medial voiceless stops on the one hand and medial voiced
stops on the other (cf. Sturtevant 1951:2628, 53). This interpretation is based
upon the observation that words exhibiting medial double writing of stops generally
correspond etymologically to words in other Indo-European languages with medial
voiceless stops (or their equivalents), while words exhibiting medial single writing
of stops generally correspond etymologically to words in other Indo-European
languages with medial voiced stops (or their equivalents), the latter being derived
from what has traditionally been reconstructed as either plain voiced stops or as
voiced aspirated stops at the Proto-Indo-European level. The following examples
114 CHAPTER FIVE
A. Hittite (nom.-acc. sg.) ne-p-i heaven, sky ~ Sanskrit nbhas- sky, cloud,
mist; Greek cloud; Old Church Slavic nebo sky < Proto-Indo-
European *nebas- (later *nebos-).
B. Hittite (nom.-acc. sg.) p-e-da-an place ~ Sanskrit padm step, footstep,
position, site; Greek the ground, earth < Proto-Indo-European
*petam (later *petom).
C. Hittite (nom.-acc. sg.) wa-a-tar water ~ Sanskrit udn- water; Greek
water; Gothic wat water; Old Church Slavic voda water < Proto-Indo-
European *wet-/*wat-/*ut- (later *wet-/*wot-/*ut-).
D. Hittite (1 sg. pres.) e-it-mi I eat ~ Sanskrit dmi I eat; Greek I eat;
Latin ed I eat < Proto-Indo-European *et-.
E. Hittite (nom.-acc. sg.) i--kn, i--ga-an yoke ~ Sanskrit yugm yoke;
Greek yoke; Latin iugum yoke; Gothic juk yoke; Old Church Slavic
igo (< *jgo) yoke < Proto-Indo-European *yukam (later *yukom).
F. Hittite (nom. sg.) ar-ki-i white ~ Sanskrit rjuna- white, bright; Greek
shining, bright, glistening; Latin argentum silver < Proto-Indo-
European *erk- [*ark-].
G. Hittite (nom. sg.) pr-ku-u high ~ Armenian barjr high; Sanskrit bhnt-
high < Proto-Indo-European *br g- (later *br g-).
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PIE PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM 115
H. Hittite (nom.-acc. sg.) -kur, -gur summit, peak ~ Sanskrit gram point,
tip, summit < Proto-Indo-European *Hekr-.
A. Hittite -uk-ga I (also written -uk, -ga; Melchert [1994a:7] considers the u
to be analogical after the 2 sg. personal pronoun tu-uk, tu-ga you, while
Kloekhorst [2008b:112114] considers it to be from the oblique form *Mg)
~ Latin eg, eg I; Greek () I < Proto-Indo-European *ek-aH (later
*ek-oH).
B. Hittite 2 pl. mediopassive primary ending -dduma in, for example, i-ya-at-du-
ma you go ~ Sanskrit 2 pl. mid. secondary ending -dhvam; Avestan 2 pl. mid.
secondary ending -wm; Greek 2 dual mid. primary and secondary ending
- (< *-zdwom) < Proto-Indo-European *-dwem/*-dwam/*-dum (later
*-dwem/*-dwom/*-dum).
C. Hittite (3 sg. pres.) pd-da-i, pd-da-i to dig ~ Latin fodi to dig; Lithuanian
bed, bsti to dig, to bury; Gaulish bedo- canal, ditch; Old Church Slavic
bod, bosti to stick, to prick < Proto-Indo-European *bed-/*bad- (later
*bed-/*bod-).
D. Hittite (acc.-dat. sg.) am-mu-uk-ga to me (also written am-mu-uk, am-mu-ug-
ga, am-mu-uq-qa, am-mu-uk-qa) ~ Greek (acc. sg.) - me < Proto-Indo-
European *-ke.
E. Hittite (nom. sg.) me-ik-ki-i large ~ Greek great < Proto-Indo-
European *mek-.
1 2 3 4
p ph b bh (bilabial)
t th d dh (dental)
% %h h (palatal)
q qh h (pure velar)
q qh h (labiovelar)
During the last century, it became widely accepted that the traditional voiceless
aspirates (column 2) should be removed from the Proto-Indo-European
phonological inventory (cf. Bomhard 1986a:6971 for details). The problem with
removing the voiceless aspirates, however, is that the resulting system has no
typological parallels among the known languages of the world (cf. Jakobson
1971[1957]:528; Martinet 1970:115). And yet, on structural grounds, positing a
three-way contrast (without the voiceless aspirates) for Proto-Indo-European
instead of the four-way contrast (with the voiceless aspirates) posited by the
Neogrammarians seems fully justified.
There are also problems involving the traditional plain voiced stops (column 3).
One such problem, which is usually mentioned in the standard handbooks, is the
unexpected statistically low frequency of occurrence of the traditional plain voiced
bilabial stop *b. Such a frequency distribution is not at all characteristic of /b/ in
natural languages having a voicing contrast in stops (for details, cf. Gamkrelidze
1978:946). Rather, the frequency distribution points to the original non-voiced
character of this sound in Proto-Indo-European. Indeed, the frequency distribution
of all of the traditional plain voiced stops (*b, *d, *, *, *) points to the non-
voiced character of the entire series when viewed from a typological perspective.
Moreover, the traditional plain voiced stops are rarely found in pronouns and in
inflectional affixes. Finally, there is the problem of the root structure constraint that
prohibits the co-occurrence of two plain voiced stops in a given root.
It was in trying to find solutions to these problems in particular that the
Georgian scholar Thomas V. Gamkrelidze and the Russian scholar Vjaeslav V.
Ivanov, on the one hand, and the British-born American scholar Paul J. Hopper, on
the other, working independently, were led to propose, in the early 1970s, a radical
revision of the Proto-Indo-European stop system. Observing that the traditional
plain voiced stops seemed to exhibit many of the typological characteristics of
glottalized stops (ejectives), they proposed reinterpreting this series as ejectives. In
their version of what has now come to be known as the Glottalic Theory,
Gamkrelidze and Ivanov made no changes to the traditional voiced aspirates, but
they reinterpreted the traditional plain voiceless stops as voiceless aspirates. In this
revised interpretation, aspiration is viewed as a redundant feature, and the
phonemes in question could be realized as allophonic variants with or without
aspiration depending upon the paradigmatic alternation of root phonemes. The
system of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov may be represented as follows (cf. Gamkrelidze
1976:403 and 2001a:84):
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PIE PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM 117
1 2 3 4
A. Cuneiform Luwian kia- to comb, to card ~ Hittite kiai- to comb < Proto-
Anatolian *kes- to comb, to card < Pre-Anatolian Proto-Indo-European
*kes-. Probable non-Anatolian cognates include Greek (< *kes-kes-
[reduplicated]) tow, oakum; Old Church Slavic e, esati to comb, to pull
off.
B. Cuneiform Luwian (nom. sg.) (i-)i-a-ri-i hand; Hieroglyphic Luwian (dat.
sg.) istri hand; Lycian izri- hand (all with loss of an earlier initial voiced
velar before high front vowel) ~ Hittite (nom.-acc. sg.) ki-e-ar hand <
Proto-Anatolian *gsar hand < Pre-Anatolian Proto-Indo-European *gsr .
Non-Anatolian cognates include Sanskrit hsta- hand; Old Persian dasta-
hand; Avestan zasta- hand; Latin praest (< *prae-hestd) at hand, ready.
The Hieroglyphic Luwian form contains an epenthetic t.
A. Hittite (dat.-loc. sg.) iwatti day ~ Palaic (nom. sg.) Ti-ya-az(-) name of the
sun-god; Luwian (nom. sg.) Ti-wa-az name of the sun-god; Hieroglyphic
Luwian Tiwat- name of the sun-god, (adj.) tiwatami- bright, sunny < Proto-
Anatolian *tywat- < Pre-Anatolian Proto-Indo-European *tyw-. Non-
Anatolian cognates include: Sanskrit dyu- heaven, sky, day; Armenian tiv
day; Latin dis day; Old Irish de, da day.
B. Hittite (gen. sg.) i-(i-)-na-a god < Proto-Anatolian *ty - < Pre-Anatolian
Proto-Indo-European *tyw- (cf. Melchert 1994a:150). Non-Anatolian
cognates include Greek Zeus, god-like, divine; Sanskrit dev-
god; Latin deus god.
There may be additional evidence from the later Lycian and Lydian, as
Shevoroshkin (1988) has tried to show. Shevoroshkin claims, for instance, that the
(traditional) Proto-Indo-European stop system developed as follows in Lycian:
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PIE PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM 119
Some of the evidence that Shevoroshkin adduces to support his views, however, is
questionable and is to be treated with the utmost caution. Moreover, there is other
Lycian evidence, not cited by Shevoroshkin, that points to alternative
interpretations (note especially Melcherts [1994a:5354] critical assessment of
Shevoroshkins views).
There are enough clues within the Anatolian daughter languages to support the
contention that the three series of stops reconstructed for the phonological system of
the Indo-European parent language maintained their separate identity in Proto-
Anatolian. It is not possible to tell, however, whether or not series 3 was glottalized at
the Proto-Anatolian level, though there is nothing to indicate that it was. I assume that
series 3 was not glottalized in Proto-Anatolian. The most important point to bear in
mind is that it is series 3 and 4 that are represented by medial single writing in Hittite
and that it is series 1 that is represented by medial double writing. Thus, the Proto-
Anatolian stop system is probably to be reconstructed as follows:
1 2 3 4
p - p b
t - t d
k - k g
k - k g
5.1.4. HITTITE
Hittite was written in a cuneiform syllabary derived from a form of Old Akkadian
cuneiform in use in Northern Syria in the beginning of the second millennium BCE
(cf. Gamkrelidze 1968:9192). Now, the older cuneiform writing system, which
was developed by the Sumerians, was not suited to rendering Akkadian, much less
Hittite. In Old Akkadian, voiceless, voiced, and emphatic consonants were not
differentiated in the writing system, though methods were gradually developed to
represent most of the Akkadian phonological distinctions. This is important, for no
attempt was ever made, even after Akkadian had introduced separate syllabograms
to differentiate voiceless, voiced, and emphatic consonants, to modify the Hittite
writing practices to make use of the same methods to note a voicing contrast in
120 CHAPTER FIVE
stops. We must conclude, therefore, that the Hittite scribes did not feel that it was
worthy of noting such a contrast, regardless of what the underlying phonetics may
have been.
What then, if anything, does medial double writing of stops indicate if not a
voicing contrast? The answer to this question can be ascertained by looking closely at
the Proto-Anatolian stop system reconstructed above. Series 1 is differentiated from
series 3 by the presence of aspiration and from series 4 by the absence of voicing,
while series 3 and 4 are differentiated from each other by a contrast in voicing. Since it
is only series 1 that is represented by medial double writing, it must have been the
feature of aspiration that was considered significant by the Hittite scribes. This means
that series 4 cannot have been aspirated since it, too, would have been represented by
medial double writing. It also means that the opposition of medial double writing and
medial single writing cannot have indicated a voicing contrast, since, if that had been
the case, then series 3 would also have been represented by medial double writing,
which is clearly not the case, both series 3 and 4 being represented by medial single
writing. It should be noted here that Gamkrelidze (1968:94) was the first to suggest
that medial double writing of stops in Hittite was used as a means to indicate the
presence of aspiration:
Gamkrelidze devotes two later articles (1982 and 2008) to a detailed analysis of
Hittite consonantism, noting specifically in the first article (1982:7879):
This does not explain the whole picture, however, for we must still account for the
exceptions to Sturtevants Law. Since the exceptions exhibit medial double writing
of stops in Hittite words which correspond etymologically to words in other Indo-
European languages with medial voiced stops (or their equivalents, these being
derived from either earlier glottalized stops or earlier voiced aspirates at the Proto-
Indo-European level), the distinguishing characteristic cannot have been aspiration.
Let us take a look at each of the exceptions listed previously (as above, the Proto-
Indo-European reconstructions represent the Phonemic Pitch Stage of Proto-Indo-
European [Pre-Anatolian Proto-Indo-European]):
A. Hittite -uk-ga I: in this case, we are dealing with a particle added to the stem
(cf. Sturtevant 1951:103, 170a), so that, in fact, we have gemination: Proto-
Indo-European *ek-+-ke/a > Proto-Anatolian *ek+ka > Hittite (with
analogical u) *uk+ka. The particle appears in Greek as - (dialectal -).
B. Hittite 2 pl. mediopassive ending -dduma in, for example, i-ya-at-du-ma you
go: here, the verb stem is probably to be reconstructed as *y-eh- [*y-ah-] (so
Sturtevant 1951:34, 61; Puhvel 1984 .1/2:334335, however, considers
iya- to be a thematic stem comparable to Vedic 3 sg. pres. ayate and derives it
from earlier *eyo-), to which the ending *-dum- has been added. Most likely,
the second laryngeal (*h), which was lost as an independent phoneme in
Hittite, has merged with the following dental, producing a geminate. Thus,
double writing here indicates former presence of a laryngeal, which has left a
trace in the gemination of the following stop.
C. Hittite (3 sg. pres.) pd-da-i, pd-da-i to dig: here, we are dealing with a
Proto-Indo-European stem *bed-/*bad-, to which a laryngeal suffix has been
added: *bed-+-H-. In this case, the laryngeal has merged with the preceding
stop, producing a geminate.
D. Hittite (acc.-dat. sg.) am-mu-uk-ga to me (also written am-mu-uk, am-mu-ug-
ga, am-mu-uq-qa, am-mu-uk-qa): as in the first example, we are dealing with a
particle that has been added to the stem, thus producing gemination.
E. Hittite (nom. sg.) me-ik-ki-i large: this is similar to the third example in that
a laryngeal suffix has merged with a preceding stop, producing a geminate:
Proto-Indo-European *mek-+-Hi- > Hittite *mekkis (cf. Kimball 1999:261).
122 CHAPTER FIVE
5.1.5. CONCLUSIONS
Melcherts views are not incompatible with the conclusions reached here.
On fortis/lenis articulation, cf. Laver (1994:344) and LadefogedMaddieson
(1995:9599). Both Laver and LadefogedMaddieson caution against the
careless use of these terms.
We can say with a reasonable amount of certainty that the form of Proto-Indo-
European spoken immediately prior to the emergence of the historically-attested
non-Anatolian daughter languages was not a unitary language but, rather, a speech
area composed of several closely-related dialect groups (cf. Anthony 2007:3958;
Burrow 1973:1218; Georgiev 1966:382396). For excellent summaries of the
changes that have occurred in the individual Indo-European daughter languages, cf.
Bader [ed.] 1994; Baldi 1983; BirnbaumPuhvel [eds.] 1966; Fortson 2010:170
471; Lockwood 1970; RamatRamat [eds.] 1998; VoylesBarrack 2009. For
discussions relating to specific problem areas, cf. Meillet 1967a and 1984.
The following changes were common to all of the Disintegrating Indo-
European dialects (except where noted):
1. The laryngeals * and *h were lost initially before vowels, while * > *h and
* > * > *h in the same environment.
2. Next, all medial and final laryngeals merged into *h.
3. The single remaining laryngeal *h was then lost initially before vowels (except
in Pre-Armenian) and medially between an immediately preceding vowel and
an immediately preceding non-syllabic. This latter change caused compensa-
tory lengthening of preceding short vowels.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PIE PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM 123
The velars developed palatalized allophones when contiguous with front vowels,
apophonic *o, and *y. The beginnings were probably much earlier, before the
separation of the Anatolian dialect group from the main speech community. What is
certain here is that the palatovelars were fully established in Disintegrating Indo-
European. In a central, innovating area, the labiovelars were (probably only
partially at first) delabialized. The newly-delabialized labiovelars merged with the
unpalatalized allophones of the velars. This change brought about the
phonemicization of the palatals since both palatalized velars (from earlier plain
velars) and unpalatalized velars (from earlier labiovelars) were now found in the
vicinity of front vowels, apophonic *o, and *y. It was from this central, innovating
area that the so-called satm daughter languages developed.
The phonological system of the Disintegrating Indo-European antecedent of the
satm daughter languages may be reconstructed as follows (column 1 is voiceless
aspirated, column 2 is glottalized, and column 3 is voiced aspirated):
1 2 3
Obstruents: p p b (bilabial)
t t d (dental)
k k g (palatovelar)
k k g (velar)
k k g (labiovelar)
s
Laryngeals: h/h
1 2 3
Obstruents: p p b (bilabial)
t t d (dental)
k k g (velar)
k k g (labiovelar)
s
Laryngeals: h/h
5.3. TOCHARIAN
1. No doubt, the first step involved the deaspiration of the voiceless aspirates.
2. This was followed by the deglottalization of *p, *t, *k, and *k and their
merger with the voiceless stops *p, *t, *k, and *k, respectively. This is shown
by the fact that *mp remained mp, while *mb became m (cf. Van Windekens
19761982.I:79), and by the fact that *t and *t had the same treatment before
front vowels, namely, palatalization to c, while *d went its own way under the
same conditions palatalization to *dz > ts (cf. Van Windekens 1976
1982.I:8384).
3. Last, the voiced stops were devoiced and merged with the plain voiceless stops.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PIE PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM 125
I II III IV
Pre-Tocharian deaspiration deglottalization devoicing
*s usually remained but was palatalized to before front vowels. The non-syllabic
resonants generally remained.
The Disintegrating Indo-European vowels and diphthongs were greatly
modified.
5.4. GERMANIC
1 2 3
Bilabial: p p b
Dental: t t d
Velar: k k g
Labiovelar: k k g
1. The voiceless aspirates (series 1) become voiceless fricatives: *p, *t, *k,
*k > *f, *, *, *w, except after *s-.
126 CHAPTER FIVE
Stops Fricatives
Bilabial: p b f
Dental: t d
Velar: k g
Labiovelar: kw (gw) w (w)
In Germanic, *a and *o merged into *a, and * and * merged into *. *e become
*i (A) before a nasal plus consonant (*eNC > *iNC) and (B) when *i, *, or *y
followed. *ey became *. *i was changed to *e and *u to *o when *a, *o, or *e
appeared in the following syllable except when a nasal plus consonant intervened.
In the sequences *an, *in, and *un, the n was lost, and the vowels were
lengthened. *m , *n , *l , and *r developed into u plus m, n, l, r.
The Proto-Germanic vowels and diphthongs may be reconstructed as follows:
Vowels: i u
e
a
Diphthongs: ay aw ew
The consonantal resonants remained unchanged except that final *m became *n.
This change is also found in Anatolian, Greek, Celtic, and probably Balto-Slavic.
5.5. CELTIC
The discussion will be confined to Old Irish; only the major developments will be
discussed. For information on developments in the other Celtic daughter languages,
the references listed at the end of this section should be consulted.
1. The earlier dental and velar ejectives (*t and *k) merged completely with the
plain voiced stops (*d and *g) in Pre-Proto-Celtic. The developments may be
assumed to have been ejective > plain voiceless stop (through deglottalization)
> voiced stop (through voicing): *t > *t > *d and *k > *k > *g. There is no
evidence in Proto-Celtic for an earlier bilabial ejective *p.
2. Next, the voiced labiovelar *g was delabialized and merged with *g.
3. Then, the glottalized labiovelar *k developed (A) into *b initially and
medially after consonants and (B) into *g initially before *u and medially
between vowels and before consonants.
4. Original *p was lost in all of the Celtic languages: *p > *h > *. However, p
has been reintroduced into Old Irish through loanwords.
*p *t *k *k *d *t *g *k *g *k *b
*t *k *k *d *g *b
In Old Irish, the palatal and velar allophones were indicated as such in writing by
surrounding vowels. Unpronounced vowels were often introduced to indicate the
quality of the following consonant. /p, t, c, b, d, g/ became the fricatives /f, , , v,
, / (written ph, th, ch, b, d, g), respectively, initially after words that end or that
formerly ended in a vowel and medially between vowels. /m, n, l, r/ became /, , ,
/ (written m, n, l, r), respectively, and /s/ became /h/ under the same conditions. //
was probably a nasalized /v/, while /, , / were lax variants of /n, l, r/. Consonants
were changed as follows initially when the preceding word ended or formerly ended
in a nasal:
Old Irish thus had the following system of consonants (the written form is given
first followed by the allophones in slashes):
l /l, / r /r, /
h /h/
Except for the merger of * and * into and of * and * into , the long and short
vowels were mostly preserved in accented syllables. In unaccented syllables,
vowels were either lost or subject to various modifications governed by a
complicated set of rules. *i and *u became e and o, respectively, under the influence
of a or o in the following syllable. *ew and *ow merged into /a, *ey became /a,
*oy became e/o, and *ay became a/e in accented syllables. The Old Irish vowel
system was as follows:
Vowels: i e a o u
Diphthongs: u a a u
u/o o/e
u i/e
*y was lost. *w became f initially and b /v/ after r, l, d. *m, *n, *l, *r were
preserved except that final *m became n. In the sequences *Vnt, *Vnc(h), and *Vns,
the *n was lost, and the preceding vowel was lengthened. The developments of the
syllabic nasals and liquids were complicated, though, in general, *m , *n , *l , *r
became am, an, al, ar, respectively, before vowels and em, en, li (le), ri (re),
respectively, elsewhere.
5.6. SLAVIC
1 2 3
Bilabial: p p b
Dental: t t d
Palatal: k k g
Velar: k k g
(Labiovelar: k k g)
1. The ejectives merged completely with the plain voiced stops (*b, *d, *g, and
*g) in Pre-Proto-Slavic. The development may be assumed to have been
ejective > plain voiceless stop (through deglottalization) > voiced stop (through
voicing): *p > *p > *b, *t > *t > *d, *k > *k > *g, and *k > *k > *g. The
loss of glottalization caused lengthening of preceding contiguous short vowels
(Winters Law [cf. Collinge 1985:225227]).
2. Then, the voiceless aspirates were deaspirated: *p, *t, *k, *k > *p, *t, *k,
*k. Note: there are a small number of examples in which *k appears to become
*x in Proto-Slavic. These are best explained as borrowings, probably from
Iranian (cf. Carlton 1991:95).
3. After *k, *r, *i, *u, *s became *x (> * before front vowels). A similar change
is found in Indo-Iranian.
4. *k and *g became *s and *z, respectively. No doubt, the developments were
as follows: *k > *t > * > *s and *g > *d > *m > *z.
5. *k and *g were palatalized to * and *, respectively, before front vowels and
*y.
6. The syllabic resonants *m , *n , *l , *r developed into *i (or *u) plus *m, *n, *l,
*r, thus: *m , *n , *l , *r > *im, *in, *il, *ir.
7. At a later date, *k and *g were palatalized to *c and *dz, respectively, before
* (< *oy). *t, *d, *n, *l, *r plus the semivowel *y became *t, *d, *n, *l,
*r, respectively, while *s became * under the same conditions.
8. *p, *b, *m, *v plus *y became *pl, *bl, *ml, *vl, respectively.
9. *a and *o merged into *o, and * and * merged into *a. *ey and * both
became *i, and *oy (< *ay and *oy) and * became *. * became *y, *i
130 CHAPTER FIVE
Stops: p t t k
b d d g
Fricatives: (v) s x
z
Affricates: c
dz
Nasals: m n n
Liquids: r l r l
Semivowels: (v) j
Vowels: i y u
e o
a
5.7. BALTIC
The Baltic developments were fairly similar to the early Slavic developments,
except that *k and *g became * and *, respectively. As in Pre-Proto-Slavic, the
ejectives merged completely with the plain voiced stops in Pre-Proto-Baltic.
Lithuanian shows the change of *s to * after *k and *r but not after *i and *u as in
Slavic and Indo-Iranian. The syllabic resonants *m , *n , *l , *r developed into *i (or
*u) plus *m, *n, *l, *r, thus: *m , *n , *l , *r > *im, *in, *il, *ir. In Lithuanian, t plus
j (= y) and d plus j (= y) became i and di, respectively; t plus l and d plus l became
kl and gl, respectively.
Except for the merger of *a and *o into *a, *ay and *oy into *ai, and *aw and
*ow into *au, the vowel system remained reasonably faithful to that of
Disintegrating Indo-European. Unlike Slavic and Germanic, Baltic did not merge
Disintegrating Indo-European * and *.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PIE PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM 131
p b m
t d n
k g []
k (?) g (?) [n] (?)
s (z)
r l y w
5.8. ARMENIAN
3. Then, the plain voiced stops became voiced aspirates: *b, *d, *g, *g > *b,
*d, *g, *g. This was a context-free development. On the interpretation of
the sounds traditionally transcribed as /b/, /d/, /g/, /j/, //, /z/, and // as voiced
aspirates, cf. Godel 1975:910; Garrett 1998; Schirru 2012. It should be noted
that Grassmanns Law did not operate in Armenian (cf. Vennemann 1989:239).
4. The Pre-Armenian voiced aspirates remained except that, medially between
vowels, *b > w, *g > *j /m/ > z, and *g > , while *g remained initially
before back vowels but was changed to /o/ before front vowels.
5. The syllabic resonants *m , *n , *l , *r developed into *a plus *m, *n, *l, *r,
thus: *m , *n , *l , *r > am, an, al, ar (a before n).
6. l became before consonants.
7. *w became g or v.
8. *s became h or initially before vowels.
9. As in Indo-Iranian, Slavic, and Lithuanian, *s became after r.
10. *sk and *ks became c .
11. The short vowels remained unchanged, but * became i, * became u, and *
became a. *i/* and *u/* lost any distinction of length. *ew and *ow became
oy, *ay became ay, *aw became aw, and *ey and *oy became .
I II III IV
palatalization deglottalization development Classical
of velars and of ejectives of voiced Armenian
delabialization aspirates (traditional
of labiovelars transcription)
pH > p
tH > t
kH > x
In Armenian, some of the reflexes of the original voiceless aspirates merged with
the reflexes of the new voiceless aspirates. This happened in the case of certain
onomatopoeic terms, where, for example, original *p and *k appear as p and x,
respectively, as if they were from earlier *pH and *kH. In like manner, the
aspiration of the original voiceless aspirates was preserved in Armenian after initial
*s- (a similar development took place in Indo-Iranian). Finally, *t and *tH have
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PIE PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM 133
mostly merged in Armenian, though earlier *rt has become rd, while *rtH has
become rt (cf. Meillet 1967a:104105 and 1984:7879).
Armenian is the only non-Anatolian daughter language that has preserved a
trace of a consonantal laryngeal. Kuryowiczs * (Sturtevants *x) appears as h
initially before full-grade vowels in a small number of words (cf. Austin 1942:22
25; Bomhard 1976:231232, 1979a:8788, and 1984b:8283; Greppin 1981:
120122; Polom 1980:1733; Sturtevant 1942:2930; Winter 1965b:102). The
following examples have cognates in the Anatolian languages:
1. Armenian hav bird (< Pre-Armenian *hawi-s): Latin avis bird; Sanskrit v-
bird.
2. Armenian hot smell (< Pre-Armenian *hotos-): Latin odor smell; Greek
to smell.
3. Armenian hum raw (< Pre-Armenian *hmo-s): Sanskrit m#- raw; Greek
raw.
The Armenian material is not without problems, however. Both Meillet (1936:38)
and Winter (1965b:102) point out that initial h is unstable. This means that the same
word sometimes has two alternates, one with h- and one without Meillets
example is hogi wind, spirit beside ogi. Furthermore, h- is sometimes missing
where the Hittite cognate unequivocally points to original * (= *) such as in
Armenian arcat silver beside Hittite arki white (other cognates include Greek
bright, white and Latin argentum silver). Consequently, the Armenian
material, though extremely valuable, must be used with caution.
The Neogrammarians and their followers with the exception of Ferdinand
de Saussure did not reconstruct laryngeals as part of the Proto-Indo-European
phonological system. However, they had all of the tools at their disposal to do so.
First of all, as early as 1878, de Saussure had posited his now famous coefficients
sonantiques solely on the basis of an analysis of the patterns of vowel gradation.
Secondly, Armenian has a clear reflex of one of de Saussures coefficients.
Unfortunately, the Armenian evidence escaped detection until after the discovery in
1927 by Kuryowicz that one of de Saussures coefficients was preserved in
Hittite. It was only then that the Armenian material was re-examined by Austin
(1942:2225) and the laryngeal reflex found. It should be noted that Albert Cuny
made the same discovery at the same time (1927) as Kuryowicz.
5.9. INDO-IRANIAN
phonemicization of the palatals since both palatalized velars (from earlier plain
velars) and unpalatalized velars (from earlier labiovelars) were now found in
the vicinity of front vowels, apophonic *o, and *y.
2. Next, the glottalics were deglottalized: *p, *t, *k, *k > *p, *t, *k, *k.
3. Then, the plain voiced stops became voiced aspirates: *b, *d, *g, *g > *b,
*d, *g, *g. This was a context-free development. This was the stage
reached by Armenian.
4. When two voiced aspirates cooccurred in a root, the first was deaspirated
(Grassmanns Law). It should be noted that Grassmanns Law only appears in
Indo-Aryan. In Iranian (Old Persian and Avestan), the plain voiced stops and
the voiced aspirates have the same treatment (cf. Kent 1953:29).
5. In Pre-Indo-Iranian (and in Pre-Greek and Pre-Italic), but unlike Pre-Armenian,
the plain (unaspirated) voiceless stops (from earlier glottalics) developed into
plain (unaspirated) voiced stops: *p, *t, *k, *k > *b, *d, *g, *g. This was a
context-free development. (An identical change has taken place in Kabardian.)
6. The imbalance caused by the voicing of the plain voiceless stops caused the
voiceless aspirates to be partially deaspirated. The deaspiration took place
everywhere except (A) after initial *s- and (B) in onomatopoeia (cf. Bomhard
1986a:73). However, aspiration was lost in the clusters *sp-, *st-, *sk- when
an earlier laryngeal followed in the stem or when another aspirated stop
followed in the stem: *(s)teHy- > *(s)teHy- > *(s)ty- (cf. Sanskrit styati he,
she steals, sty-, ty- thief, robber); *(s)teHi- > *(s)teHi- > *(s)tai- (cf.
Sanskrit sten- thief, stya- theft, robbery). *(s)tenH- > *(s)tenH- >
*(s)ten- (cf. Sanskrit stanati resounds, reverberates). Note: apparent
exceptions to these rules appear to be due to the generalization of variant forms
of the stems in question, or, in some cases, the exceptions are due to
borrowing.
7. Additional voiceless aspirates arose from earlier clusters of voiceless stop plus
laryngeal: *pH, *tH, *kH > *p, *t, *k, respectively.
8. *s was changed into * after *k, *r, *i, *u. A similar change is also found in
Slavic.
9. *k, *g, *g were affricated to *, *m, *m, respectively (cf. Burrow
1973:74).
10. Following that, the velars *k, *g, *g were palatalized to *k, *g, *g,
respectively, before *, *, and *y (cf. Mayrhofer 1972:24). Note: *k was not
palatalized.
11. After the palatalization of the velars had taken place, the short vowels merged
into *a, and the long vowels merged into *. Original *o became in open
syllables (Brugmanns Law).
12. The syllabic nasals became a, and the syllabic laryngeal (*h ) partially merged
with i.
13. *h was then lost after a (< *m and *n ) with compensatory lengthening.
14. *r and *l merged into r, and *r and *l merged into r .
I II III
palatalization deglottalization development
of velars and of ejectives of voiced
delabialization aspirates
of labiovelars
IV V VI VII
voicing of partial palatals partial
plain (unaspirated) deaspiration of become palatalization
voiced stops voiceless aspirates affricates of velars
In Avestan and Old Persian, the plain and aspirated voiced stops merged. The
voiceless aspirates became fricatives except after a sibilant, where they were
deaspirated. The plain voiceless stops developed into fricatives when immediately
followed by a consonant unless a sibilant preceded.
In Old Indic (Vedic and Classical Sanskrit), *m and *g merged into j, and
*m and *g merged into h.
The Old Indic phonological system was as follows (cf. Burrow 1973:67117;
Ghatage 1962:71; Gonda 1966:910; Mayrhofer 1972:17; Thumb 19581959.
I/1:188197; Whitney 1889:23):
Velar: k kh g gh y
Palatal: c ch j jh
Retroflex: h h
Dental: t th d dh n
Bilabial: p ph b bh m
Semivowels: y r l v
Sibilants: s
Aspirate: h
Visarga:
AnusvXra:
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PIE PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM 137
Vowels: a i u ` e o
Diphthongs: ai au
Once the above system was established, it remained remarkably stable for well over
three thousand years the phonological systems of the modern Indo-Aryan
languages remain to this day similar in structure to the phonological system of Old
Indic (cf. Bloch 1965:9697; see Ghatage 1962 for examples). This fact raises an
interesting question about the phonological system reconstructed for the Indo-
European parent language by the Neogrammarians: The Neogrammarian
reconstruction is extremely close to the phonological system of Old Indic. If the
Neogrammarian system were in fact an accurate representation of what had existed
in Proto-Indo-European, one may legitimately ask why it, too, did not remain stable
in the majority, if not all, of the Indo-European daughter languages. It thus seems to
be a fair conclusion that the Proto-Indo-European phonological system was not in
fact similar to that of Old Indic and that the Old Indic system was an innovation.
5.10. GREEK
Many of the early Pre-Greek developments were similar to what is assumed to have
happened in Pre-Armenian and Pre-Indo-Iranian. However, Greek is a so-called
centum language, which means that it initially preserved the original contrast
between velars and labiovelars. Unlike Pre-Armenian and Pre-Indo-Iranian, but
similar to Italic, Greek changed the voiced aspirates into voiceless aspirates.
1. First, the glottalics were deglottalized: *p, *t, *k, *k > *p, *t, *k, *k.
2. Then, the plain voiced stops became voiced aspirates: *b, *d, *g, *g > *b,
*d, *g, *g. This was a context-free development.
3. As in Old Indic (but not Iranian), when two voiced aspirates cooccurred in a
root, the first was deaspirated (Grassmanns Law).
4. In Pre-Greek (and in Pre-Indo-Iranian and Pre-Italic), but unlike Pre-Armenian,
the plain (unaspirated) voiceless stops (from earlier glottalics) developed into
plain (unaspirated) voiced stops: *p, *t, *k, *k > *b, *d, *g, *g (cf.
GamkrelidzeIvanov 1995.I:5257). This was a context-free development.
138 CHAPTER FIVE
5. The imbalance caused by the voicing of the plain voiceless stops caused the
voiceless aspirates to be partially deaspirated. Note: Emonds (1972:120) also
assumes that some of the examples of voiceless aspirates found in Indo-Iranian,
Greek, and Armenian are derived from the original voiceless aspirates, that is
to say, they failed to undergo the expected deaspiration. Edmonds accounts for
this by reintroduction from a dialect that did not undergo Z2 [deaspiration].
In other words, he sees them as borrowings. While this may be true in some
cases, I prefer to see them mostly as the natural result of developments within
these branches themselves.
6. Additional voiceless aspirates arose from earlier clusters of voiceless stop plus
laryngeal: *pH, *tH, *kH > *p, *t, *k, respectively.
7. At a later date, the voiced aspirates were devoiced the unaspirated
allophones became plain (unaspirated) voiceless stops, and the aspirated
allophones became voiceless aspirates: *b ~ *b, *d ~ *d, *g ~ *g, *g ~
*g > *p ~ *p, *t ~ *t, *k ~ *k, *k ~ *k. The newly-formed plain and
aspirated voiceless stops merged completely with the previously-existing plain
and aspirated voiceless stops. As a typological parallel, it may be noted that
similar devoicing of earlier voiced aspirates took place in Romany (cf. Meillet
1967a:100 and 1984:76).
I II III
deglottalization development voicing of
of ejectives of voiced plain (unaspirated)
aspirates voiced stops
IV V
partial devoicing
deaspiration of voiced
of voiceless aspirates
aspirates
p, p, b, b > p, p, b
t, t, d, d > t, t, d
k, k, g, g > k, k, g
k, k, g, g > k, k, g
1. Before or after u, *k, *k, and *g were delabialized, and the resulting
phonemes merged with k, k, and g (written , , and ), respectively.
2. Next, *k, *k, and *g were palatalized before and . The resulting sounds
then merged with t, t, and d (written , , and ), respectively, in the majority
of Greek dialects.
3. Finally, all remaining labiovelars became bilabials: *k, *k, and *g > p, p,
and b (written , , and ).
*m, *n, *l, *r generally remained in Greek except that final *-m became -n (written
) as in Anatolian, Germanic, Celtic, and probably Baltic and Slavic. *m , *n , *l , *r
developed into , , , , respectively, before vowels. Before consonants, *m
and *n merged into , while *l and *r became / and /, respectively.
*s, *y, and *w were lost medially between vowels. Initially before vowels, *s
became h (written ), *y became either h or z (written and , respectively), while
*w was lost in Attic-Ionic. *s remained when final and when before or after
voiceless stops.
The vowels and diphthongs were well-preserved in all of the Greek dialects.
The most important change was that of to in Attic-Ionic. Additional changes
worth mentioning include the compensatory lengthening of short vowels, the
shortening of long vowels, and the development of new long vowels through
contraction. For details about these developments, cf. Lejeune 1972:187263.
5.11. ITALIC
Italic is divided into two distinct branches, namely, Oscan-Umbrian (also called
Sabellian or Sabellic) and Latin-Faliscan. The Oscan-Umbrian branch includes a
number of poorly-attested languages besides Oscan and Umbrian these include
Aequian, Marrucinian, Marsian, Paelignian, Sabinian, Southern Picenian, Vestinian,
and Volscian (cf. Sihler 1995:14). The differences between Oscan-Umbrian, on the
one hand, and Latin-Faliscan, on the other, are extremely pronounced, so much so
that some scholars deny any special relationship between these two groups and see
them instead as two separate branches of Indo-European (for a discussion of the
issues involved, cf. Beeler 1966:5158).
140 CHAPTER FIVE
1. First, the glottalics were deglottalized: *p, *t, *k, *k > *p, *t, *k, *k.
2. Then, the plain voiced stops became voiced aspirates: *b, *d, *g, *g > *b,
*d, *g, *g. This was a context-free development. Note: Grassmanns Law
did not operate in Italic.
3. In Pre-Italic (and in Pre-Indo-Iranian and Pre-Greek), but unlike Pre-Armenian,
the plain (unaspirated) voiceless stops (from earlier glottalics) developed into
plain (unaspirated) voiced stops: *p, *t, *k, *k > *b, *d, *g, *g (cf.
GamkrelidzeIvanov 1995.I:5765). This was a context-free development.
4. The imbalance caused by the voicing of the plain voiceless stops caused the
voiceless aspirates to be partially deaspirated.
5. Additional voiceless aspirates arose from earlier clusters of voiceless stop plus
laryngeal: *pH, *tH, *kH > *p, *t, *k, respectively.
6. At a later date, the voiced aspirates were devoiced: *b, *d, *g, *g > *p,
*t, *k, *k. The newly-formed aspirated voiceless stops merged completely
with the previously-existing aspirated voiceless stops.
7. Finally, the voiceless aspirates (from earlier voiced aspirates as well as from
clusters of voiceless stop plus laryngeal) became voiceless fricatives.
I II III
deglottalization development voicing of
of ejectives of voiced plain (unaspirated)
aspirates voiced stops
IV V VI
partial devoicing voiceless aspirates
deaspiration of voiced become voiceless
of voiceless aspirates fricatives
aspirates
p, p, b, b > p, p, b > p, f, b
t, t, d, d > t, t, d > t, , d
k, k, g, g > k, k, g > k, , g
k, k, g, g > k, k, g > k, , g
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PIE PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM 141
In Oscan and Umbrian, *f, *, and * merged into f, while * became h. In Latin,
the merger of *f, *, and * into f only took place initially. *f became b medially;
* became (A) d medially but (B) b before or after r, before l, or after u; and *
became (A) v between vowels, (B) gu after n, but (C) g before consonants or u. *
became (A) h initially in Latin but (B) g when before or after consonants and (C) f
when before u.
*m, *n, *l, *r were preserved. *y remained initially in Latin (written i) but was
lost between vowels, while *w (written v) was unchanged. *m , *n , *l , *r developed
into a plus m, n, l, r, respectively, before vowels. Elsewhere, *l and *r became ol
and or, respectively, and *m and *n became em and en, respectively.
*s generally remained, though it was voiced to z between vowels. The z was
retained in Oscan but was changed to r in Umbrian and Latin.
The vowels generally remained in accented syllables but were weakened or lost
in unaccented syllables. The vowels underwent the following modifications in Latin
(cf. Buck 1933:78117). Final i became e. e became i before ng, gn, nc, and ngu. e
became o before or after w and before l. o became u (1) before nc, ngu, mb, and
before l plus a consonant, (2) in final syllables ending in a consonant, and (3)
medially before l or before two consonants. vo became ve before r plus a consonant,
before s plus a consonant, and before t. ov became av.
The diphthongs were preserved in Oscan but underwent various changes in
Umbrian and Latin. ei became , and oi, eu, and ou became in Latin.
5.12. ALBANIAN
Though the Albanian developments are still not completely understood, some
tentative conclusions are possible.
velars. This change brought about the phonemicization of the palatals since
both palatalized velars (from earlier plain velars) and unpalatalized velars
(from earlier labiovelars) were now found in the vicinity of front vowels,
apophonic *o, and *y. Note: Albanian provides the strongest evidence for the
existence of three distinct guttural series in its Disintegrating Indo-European
ancestor: the labiovelars are distinguished from the plain velars by the fact that
the former are palatalized to sibilants before front vowels, while the latter are
not (cf. Mann 1977:2425 and 3435).
2. The ejectives were deglottalized: *p, *t, *k, *k, *k > *p, *t, *k, *k, *k.
3. Then, the palatals became palatalized alveolars: *k, *k, *g > *t, *t, *d.
These later developed into voiceless and voiced interdental fricatives.
4. Next, the plain voiceless stops (from earlier ejectives) became plain voiced
stops: *p, *t, *k, *k, *k > *b, *d, *g, *g, *g. In general, the developments
of the plain voiced stops and the former ejectives are identical, though initial
*g (> *d) appears as d, while initial *k appears as dh (cf. Mann 1977:33).
This seems to indicate that the bilabial and dental stops may have developed
ahead of and slightly differently from the palatal, velar, and labiovelar stops.
5. Finally, the voiceless aspirates were deaspirated: *p, *t, *t, *k > *p, *t, *t,
*k.
I II III
palatalization deglottalization palatals
of velars and of ejectives become
(partial) palatalized
delabialization alveolars
of labiovelars
IV V VI
voicing of deaspiration Albanian
voiceless of voiceless
stops aspirates
p, b > p, b > p, b
t, d > t, d > t, d
t, d, d > t, d, d > th, d (dh), dh
k, g > k, g > k (q), g (gj)
k, g > k, g > k (q, s), g (gj, z)
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PIE PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM 143
Proto-Indo-European Phrygian
b > b
p > p (also ph)
d > d
t > t (also th)
t > t
g, g > g
k, k > k (also kh)
k, k > k
g > z (?)
k > s (?)
k > z (?)
Note: The reflexes of the palatovelars are unclear. According to Fortson (2010:
461), Phrygian appears to be a centum language.
As can be seen, the voiced stops remained unchanged. The voiceless aspirates also
remained unchanged, though the aspiration is usually not indicated in the writing.
Finally, the glottalics were simply deglottalized. It should be mentioned, however,
that this interpretation is challenged by Brixhe (1994:171172 and 2004:782).
Phrygian had five short vowels (a, e, i, o, u) and at least four long vowels (, ,
, ), though the long vowels were not indicated in the writing. Proto-Indo-
European * and * merged into in Phrygian.
The Thracian developments appear to be similar to those given above for
Phrygian (cf. Georgiev 1981:118119; see also BrixhePanayotou 1994a:198
199; Katii 1976.I:128153), though this interpretation has recently been called
into question by the work of Svetlana Yanakijeva.
144 CHAPTER FIVE
A. SANSKRIT: Vedic Sanskrit (Old Indic), like Ancient Greek, had a system of
accentuation in which pitch (svara- accent, pitch, tone) was dominant. Every
word, except certain enclitics, bore an accent; however, there was only one
accented syllable per word. The accented syllable had high pitch (udtta-
raised, elevated, high). All other syllables had low pitch (anudtta- not
raised) except (1) the syllable directly preceding the udtta-, which was
pronounced lower than normal (sannatara- lower or anudttatara- lower
than anudtta-), and (2) the syllable directly following the udtta- (provided
there was no udtta- or svarita- in the syllable following that), which began at
the high level of udtta- and then slowly fell to the level of anudtta-. The
accent of this syllable was called the enclitic (or dependent) svarita-. A so-
called independent svarita- also existed, but this was always of secondary
derivation, having arisen from the contraction of two syllables, the first of
which had high pitch and the second low pitch, into a single syllable. The
independent svarita- was thus a compound intonation comparable to the Greek
circumflex. The enclitic svarita- differed from the independent svarita- in that
the former could never appear alone, being totally dependent on a prededing
udtta- for its existence, while the latter could appear alone as the main accent
of a word. Also, the enclitic svarita- was a falling intonation, while the
independent svarita- was a compound, rising-falling intonation.
Phonemically, Sanskrit had level pitches, with the main contrast being
between the high pitch of the accented syllable and the low pitch of the other
syllables. However, the voice did not rise abruptly from low pitch to high pitch
or fall abruptly from high pitch to low pitch, but, rather, both ascent and
descent were characterized by clearly audible glides. Thus, the pitch of the
accented syllable began at the low level of the positionally-conditioned
sannatara- and quickly rose to the level of udtta-. The pitch was then
maintained at a high level until the end of the syllable. Similarly, the pitch of
the syllable following the accented syllable began at the high level of udatta-
and quickly fell to the level of anudtta-.
The native grammarians say nothing about stress, and there is nothing to
indicates, such as, for example, vowel weakenings or losses, that the language
of the Vedas possessed a strong stress accent. There are, however, remnants of
an earlier, Indo-European system, manifest in the quantitative vowel gradation,
in which stress played an important part. Stress replaced pitch in the spoken
language (Classical Sanskrit) only when the latter became extinct in the first
centuries CE (cf. Burrow 1973:115; Mayrhofer 1972:2930).
The Sanskrit accent was free (mobile), that is, not tied to a particular
syllable, as, for example, in Czech with its fixed initial accent or Polish with its
fixed penultimate accent, but able to fall on any syllable, initial, medial, or
final. The position of the accent was morphologically-conditioned, its place in
a word having been used as a means to differentiate grammatical categories.
However, the accent was seldom so used alone but, rather, in conjunction with
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PIE PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM 145
vowel gradation and/or inflectional endings. Take, for example, the declension
of pad- foot: in the singular, the strong cases are differentiated from the weak
cases both by the position of the accent and by changes in the vowel grade of
the stem. Furthermore, each case is characterized by a special ending:
The following were used enclitically and had no accent of their own, being
dependent upon the words with which they were in combination for accent: (1)
certain particles such as iva, u, ca, v, etc.; (2) the personal pronouns m, me,
nau, nas, tv, te, vm, and vas; (3) the demonstrative pronouns ena- and tva-;
and (4) the indefinite pronoun sama-. Loss of accent also occurred in verbs in
an independent clause, unless they stood at the beginning of the clause, and in
nouns in the vocative case, unless they stood at the beginning of a sentence.
long vowels and diphthongs in the penultimate syllable if the ultima were short
or on the ultima itself if it were long. To state things slightly differently, and
more accurately, the position of the accent could be no further back from the
end of the word than three morae if the ultima contained two morae. However,
if the ultima contained only one mora, the position of the accent could be as far
back as the the last mora of the antepenult. In the latter case, the number of
morae in the penult was irrelevant, either one or two being permissible. This
means that the following patterns were possible:
; ; ; ; ;
The grave accent, which was originally considered as the regular intonation of
unmarked syllables, was later used in writing as a replacement for the acute on
the last syllable of a word when standing before another word in the same
sentence.
Since the Greek accent could fall only on one of the final three syllables,
an accent originally falling on any other syllable was moved forward to fall on
either the antepenult or the penult, depending upon the length of the ultima.
However, if an accent originally fell on one of the last three syllables, its
position was usually maintained, the exception being the widespread shift of
the accent from the ultima to the penult in words ending in a dactyl ():
< * (cf. Sanskrit peal-); < * (cf. Sanskrit
akur-).
On verbs, regardless of its original position, the accent was thrown back as
far toward the front of the word as the rules of accentuation would allow.
Even though the ancient ability of the accent to fall on any syllable was
restricted in Greek, the ancient function of accentuation was maintained. As in
Sanskrit, the position of the accent within a word was used as a means to
indicate grammatical relationships. For example, in the declension of
foot (cf. Sanskrit p t foot), the accent falls on the base in the strong cases
but on the ending in the weak cases:
Nominative -
Accusative - -
Genitive(-Ablative) - - -
Dative - (Homeric) -
(Attic)
Greek possessed a certain number of words that had no accent of their own.
These words were used in combination with other words. Some of the
unaccented words were inherited from Proto-Indo-European, while others
arose in Greek itself. They fall into two categories: (1) the proclitics, which
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PIE PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM 147
were combined with a following word, and (2) the enclitics, which were
combined with a preceding word. The procitics include: (1) the forms of the
definite article , , , ; (2) certain prepositions such as , , , ,
, , etc.; (3) certain conjunctions; and (4) the negative adverbs , ,
, . The enclitics include: (1) certain particles such as , , , etc.; (2)
the personal pronouns , , , , , , , , etc.; (3) the indefinite
pronoun , ; (4) certain indefinite adverbs; and (5) certain forms of the verb
to be and to say.
Notwithstanding the limitations mentioned above for Greek and several
other minor modifications on one side or the other, the position of the Greek
accent corresponds in the main to the position of the Sanskrit accent.
Moreover, both agree (1) in having accent systems characterized by contrasts in
pitch rather than differences in stress, though stress eventually replaced pitch in
both; (2) in the fact that accent played an important role in morphology; and (3)
in the fact that accent and meter were independent of each other. These
similarities clearly indicate that both the Greek and Sanskrit systems of
accentuation must have had a common origin.
*pnke five > Proto-Germanic (*fmfe >) *fmfi five > Gothic
fimf five; Old Icelandic fimm five; Faroese fimm five; Swedish
fem five; Norwegian fem five; Danish fem five; Old English ff
five; Old Frisian ff five; Old Saxon ff five; Dutch vijf five; Old
High German fimf, finf, funf five (New High German fnf). Cf. Orl
2003:98 *fenfe; Kroonen 2013:140; Feist 1939:154; Lehmann 1986:
117; De Vries 1977:120; FalkTorp 19031906.I:153 *fimf (<
*pempe); Onions 1966:358 *fimfi (< *pempe < *peqwe); Klein 1971:
283; BoutkanSiebinga 2005:113 *finfe; KlugeMitzka 1967:224
*fmf(e); KlugeSeebold 1989:236 *femf(e); Vercoulie 1898:307.
B. Sanskrit npt grandson, descendant; Avestan napt- grandson;
Old Persian napt- grandson; Latin neps, -tis grandson < Proto-
Indo-European *np-t- grandson, nephew > Proto-Germanic
*nf nephew > Old Icelandic nefi nephew; Old English nefa
nephew, grandson, stepson; Old Frisian neva nephew; Old Saxon
neo nephew; Middle Dutch neve nephew (Dutch neef); Old High
German nevo nephew (New High German Neffe). Cf. Orl 2003:283
*nef(z); De Vries 1977:406; KlugeMitzka 1967:506 *nf(d);
KlugeSeebold 1989:500501; Vercoulie 1898:200.
Sanskrit sapt seven; Greek seven; Latin septem seven < Proto-
Indo-Eurpean *septm seven > Pre-Germanic *sepm seven > Proto-
Germanic *sen seven > Gothic sibun seven; Old Icelandic sjau (<
*sju) seven; Faroese sjey seven; Norwegian sjau seven; Danish syv
seven; Swedish sju seven; Old English seofon (< *seun) seven; Old
Frisian soven, sigun (the g is from ni(u)gun nine), siugun, sogen, sav(e)n
seven; Old Saxon siun seven; Dutch zeven seven; Old High German
sibun seven (New High German sieben). Kroonen 2013:429; Orl
2003:321 *seun; Feist 1939:417; Lehmann 1986:300301; FalkTorp
19031906.II:340341; De Vries 1977:478; Onions 1966:813 *seun;
Klein 1971:676; BoutkanSiebinga 2005:339 *sebun; KlugeMitzka
1967:706707 *seun; KlugeSeebold 1989:671 *sebun; Vercoulie
1898:336.
Sanskrit pitr- father; Greek - father; Latin pater father < Proto-
Indo-European *pH tr- father > Proto-Germanic far- father >
Gothic fadar father; Old Icelandic fair father; Faroese fair father;
Swedish fader father; Danish fader father; Norwegian fader father;
Old English fKder father; Old Frisian feder, fader father; Old Saxon
fadar father; Dutch vader father; Old High German fater father (New
High German Vater). Orl 2003:88 *far; Kroonen 2013:121; Feist
1939:133; Lehmann 1986:101; De Vries 1977:109; FalkTorp 1903
1906.I:144 *fadr; Onions 1966:347 *fadr; Klein 1971:275; Boutkan
Siebinga 2005:102 *fadr; KlugeMitzka 1967:810 *fadr (< *ptr);
KlugeSeebold 1989:756 *fader (< *ptr); Vercoulie 1989:300.
After the sound changes described by Verners Law had taken place, many
Germanic nouns and verbs were characterized by a paradigmatic alternation
between forms with voiceless fricatives and forms with voiced fricatives. Even
though there was a tendency in the Germanic daughter languages to level out
the paradigm, numerous traces of the former alternation remain, especially in
the verbs. Take, for example, the verb *wran to become (cf. Prokosch
1938:65; Hirt 19311934.I:76; Krause 1968:127):
Toward the end of the Proto-Germanic period, the old mobile accent was lost,
and the stress became fixed on the initial syllable. This new fixed initial stress
characterized (1) simple nominal forms, (2) simple verbal forms, and (3)
compound nominal forms. Compound verbal forms were accented differently,
however. In compound verbal forms, the stress fell on the first syllable of the
second member. The verbal compounds, apparently later formations than the
nominal compounds, were not strongly joined together, and, therefore, the
accent was not shifted to the preverb. The independent nature of the two
members of the verbal compounds was still preserved in Gothic, where the
enclitic copula -uh- and could be placed between the preverb and the verb. If
a nominal compound were composed of two substantives, the initial syllable of
the first member had primary stress, and the initial syllable of the following
member had secondary stress. The foregoing system of accentuation still
prevails in the modern West Germanic languages.
Both Swedish and Norwegian make considerable use of pitch. However,
the use of pitch in these two languages has arisen in historical times and does
not go back to either Proto-Indo-European or Proto-Germanic.
D. SLAVIC: No theory has yet been proposed that can account completely for all of
the data relative to the development of accentuation in the Slavic languages.
This is due in part to the fact that all knowledge concerning accentuation is
drawn solely from the modern languages, that is to say, from about the
fourteenth century on, and in part to the fact that the older patterns have been
greatly disrupted by subsequent changes. The following discussion closely
follows that of Shevelov (1964:3880).
That Proto-Indo-European had a system of accentuation characterized by
contrasts in pitch is confirmed by the evidence of Sanskrit and Greek. Stress
was nondistinctive, each syllable being pronounced with more or less equal
intensity. The Indo-European dialect from which Proto-Slavic (and Proto-
Baltic) descended preserved the tonal character of the accent. However, the
position of the accent underwent a systematic displacement.
In the Disintegrating Indo-European dialect that gave rise to Balto-Slavic,
the rising pitch was shifted to long monophthongs and long diphthongs. The
shift of rising pitch to these positions left falling pitch on all other syllables (cf.
Shevelov 1964:70, 4.14A). No doubt, the loss of laryngeals was the cause of
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PIE PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM 153
both the accent shift and compensatory vowel lengthening. Eventually, long
monophthongs and diphthongs of whatever origin (except when due to
contractions) received rising pitch under the influence of the intonation of long
monophthongs and diphthongs resulting from the loss of laryngeals. The
intonations were not phonemic at this time, depending solely on vowel quantity
for their distribution.
The earliest form of Proto-Slavic was probably characterized by a weak
fixed penultimate stress (cf. Shevelov 1964:7071, 4.14B). In addition,
Proto-Slavic had rising pitch and falling pitch, but these intonations were not
phonemic; rising pitch characterized long monophthongs and long diphthongs,
and falling pitch characterized short diphthongs and contractions. Short
monophtongs were apparently tonally nondistinctive (cf. Bidwell 1963:9;
Shevelov 1964:4546, 4.6). However, Stang (1965:173) maintains that,
while short monophtongs were originally tonally nondistinctive, they later had
falling pitch in initial syllables and rising pitch elsewhere. The intonation
became phonemic when, at a later date, the long diphthongs underwent
shortening and merged with the short diphthongs. Even though the former long
diphthongs had been shortened, they retained rising pitch. Thus, the original
short diphthongs had falling pitch, while short diphthongs from original long
diphthongs had rising pitch.
After the shortening of long diphthongs had taken place, stress was shifted
from a penultimate syllable with falling pitch or short monophthong to a
contiguous preceding syllable with rising pitch (cf. Shevelov 1974:7175,
4.14C; Vaillant 1950.I:246252, 99). Stress was not shifted in those words
that had either rising pitch or falling pitch only on every syllable.
Thus, the Proto-Slavic system of accentuation was dominated by pitch.
Even though each syllable had its characteristic pitch, however, it was only
under stress that pitch became distinctive. The stress usually fell on the
penultimate syllable but was shifted to a contiguous preceding syllable with
rising pitch or to a following syllable with rising pitch when the penult
contained either falling pitch or a short monophthong. A stressed penult could
have either rising pitch or falling pitch depending upon the original quantity of
the vowel segment.
When Proto-Slavic began to split up into dialects, the system of
accentuation outlined above as destroyed. Two events caused the disruption of
the old accent system: First, there was a widespread shortening of long vowels.
Next, there was a series of stress shifts. In the South Slavic dialects, the stress
shifts were accompanied by shifts in vowel quantity and pitch. It was in the
South Slavic area that the so-called new rising pitch and new falling pitch
arose (cf. Shevelov 1964:563569, 33.1433.15). The other Slavic
dialects, some of which also underwent shifts in quantity, give no evidence of
any pitch mutations. Indeed, phonemic pitch was probably lost in the East and
West Slavic languages at the time of the stress shifts (cf. Shevelov 1964:563
569, 33.14, and 574578, 33.17).
154 CHAPTER FIVE
E. CELTIC: The accentuation of Old Irish was remarkably similar to that of Late
Proto-Germanic. Old Irish had a stress accent that normally fell on the first
syllable of a word, the main exception being, as in Germanic, in compound
verbal forms, where the stress fell on the first syllable of the second member
except in the imperative. The stress caused the weakening and loss of
unaccented vowels.
In all of the modern Brythonic languages, with the exception of the
Vannetais dialect of Breton, the stress falls on the penult. In Vannetais, the
stress falls on the ultima. Old Welsh was accented on the ultima, and it is
probable that this was the original position of the accent in all of the Brythonic
languages.
F. ITALIC: In Early Latin, as well as in Oscan and Umbrian, the accent fell on the
first syllable of a word. That the accent was one of stress is shown by the effect
it had on unaccented vowels. The vowel of the initial syllable was never
modified, but the vowels of the unaccented syllables were regularly weakened
or lost. The syllable directly following the initial syllable underwent the
greatest modification, often being completely lost: for example, Latin aets
age < *avits.
Between Early Latin and Classical Latin, the position of the accent was
shifted. In Classical Latin, the accent fell on the penult if this were long or on
the antepenult if the penult were short. Words with four or more syllables had a
secondary accent on the first syllable: for example, (acc. sg.) tmpest tem a
space or period of time; weather.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PIE PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM 155
G. ARMENIAN: In Classical Armenian, the accent fell on what had originally been
the penultimate syllable. That the accent was one of stress is shown by the
widespread reduction and elimination of unaccented syllables.
H. SUMMARY: The Old Indic system of accentuation remained the most faithful to
that of Disintegrating Indo-European. The accent limitation rule found in Greek
is clearly an innovation. Likewise, the development of the circumflex probably
arose, at least in part, as the result of contractions in the early prehistory of
Greek itself (cf. Kuryowicz 1958:106113 and 1968:8390). Baltic and
Slavic have innovated even more than Greek. Unlike Disintegrating Indo-
European and Old Indic, which had register-type systems, Baltic and Slavic
had contour-type systems. Moreover, the position of the accent has undergone
a systematic displacement. The accentuation of Disintegrating Indo-European
and Old Indic was syllable oriented, while that of Greek, Baltic, and Slavic was
mora oriented. None of the remaining daughter languages supply any
information either about the distribution or about the quality of the accent in
the parent language except for Germanic, which supplies some information
about the original position of the accent.
5.15. METER
Proto-Kartvelian had a rich system of stops, affricates, and fricatives. Each stop and
affricate series was characterized by the three-way contrast (1) voiceless (aspirated),
(2) voiced, and (3) glottalized. Thomas V. Gamkrelidze and Givi Maavariani
(1982:18) reconstruct three separate series of affricates and fricatives, namely, a
front series (*c, *c , *, *s, *z), a mid series (*c, *c , *, *s, *z), and a back
series (*, * , *, *, *) on the basis of the following correspondences:
I II III
Dental Affricates Palato-alveolar Affricates Clusters
Comparison with other Nostratic languages indicates that series III developed from
earlier palatalized alveolar stops and sibilants: *t, *t, *d, *s, (*z) respectively.
In pre-Proto-Kartvelian, the palatalized alveolars were first reanalyzed as
geminates: *, *, *, *, (*). Subsequently, the geminates dissimilated into
*t, *t, *d, *t, (*d), which then became *t, *t, *d, *t, (*d).
These developments are similar to what happened to Proto-Slavic *t and *d in
Bulgarian and Old Church Slavic and to *d in certain Greek dialects, within Indo-
European. The final change in Proto-Kartvelian was the further dissimilation into
the clusters *k, *k, *g, *k, (*g) respectively. These clusters were preserved in
Svan and Zan but were simplified into palato-alveolar affricates in Georgian (no
158 CHAPTER SIX
doubt after the original palato-alveolar affricates had been lost they appear as
dental affricates in Georgian). For Georgian phonology, cf. Aronson 1997.
The Proto-Kartvelian phonological system may be reconstructed as follows (cf.
FhnrichSardshweladse 1995:25; Fhnrich 2007:26; GamkrelidzeMaavariani
1982:2561; Gamkrelidze 1967:709; Schmidt 1962:60):
Obstruents: p t c k q
b d g
p t c k q
s x h
z ()
Vowels: e, o, a,
Notes:
1. The voiceless stops and affricates were aspirated (*p, *t, *c, *, *k, *q).
The aspiration was phonemically non-distinctive.
2. Fhnrich (2007:15) reconstructs several additional phonemes for Proto-
Kartvelian. These new phonemes are highly controversial and, therefore, are
not included here.
Proto-Kartvelian Georgian
*q > x
* >
*q > q
6.2. RESONANTS
6.3. VOWELS
Three short vowels and three long vowels are usually reconstructed for Proto-
Kartvelian: *e, *; *o, *; *a, *. These vowels were not evenly distributed the
vowel *o in particular was of a fairly low statistical frequency of occurrence in
comparison with *e and *a. As in Proto-Indo-European, the vowels underwent
various ablaut changes. These vowel alternations served to indicate different types
of grammatical formations. The most common alternation was the interchange
between the vowels *e and *a in a given syllable. There was also an alternation
among lengthened-grade vowels, normal-grade vowels, and reduced- and/or zero-
grade vowels. Reduced-grade was functionally a variant of zero-grade, while
lengthened-grade was functionally a variant of normal-grade. The lengthened-
grade, which was found mostly in the system of primary verbs and was a
fundamental morphological component of a group of verbal stems with thematic
aorist (cf. Gamkrelidze 1967:712), appears to have been a late creation (cf.
Gamkrelidze 1966:82). The basic rule was that no more than one morpheme could
have a full-grade vowel in a given polymorphic form, the other morphemes in the
syntagmatic sequence being in either zero-grade or reduced-grade.
The vowel system of Pre-Proto-Kartvelian may have been as follows:
Vowels: i (~ e) u (~ o)
e o
( ~) a
160 CHAPTER SIX
This is identical to the vowel system reconstructed for the earliest form of Proto-
Indo-European. As with Proto-Indo-European, I assume that the qualitative ablaut
alternations are very old and that they preceded the quantitative alternations.
Proto-Kartvelian proper began with the phonemicization of a strong stress
accent (cf. Gamkrelidze 1966:81, 3.4; GamkrelidzeMaavariani 1982:9596;
Schmidt 1962:41). This accent caused the weakening and/or loss of the vowels of
unaccented syllables. There was a contrast between those syllables with stress and
those syllables without stress. As in Proto-Indo-European, stress positioning
appears to have functioned as a means of indicating different grammatical
categories. The phonemicization of a strong stress accent in early Proto-Kartvelian
caused a restructuring of the inherited vowel system and brought about the
development of syllabic nasals and liquids and may also have ultimately been
responsible for the creation of the so-called introvertive (decessive) harmonic
consonant clusters.
When stressed, * became *e, while, when unstressed, it became *i. The
vowels *o and *a remained unchanged when stressed, but became * when
unstressed (cf. GamkrelidzeMaavariani 1982:96).
Though Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Kartvelian may be assumed to have
undergone similar developments in their early prehistory, the resulting systems
were not identical (cf. Harris 1990:9092). For example, Proto-Kartvelian did not
rephonemicize apophonic *a as *o as did Proto-Indo-European, while, in the
reduced-grade, *e was realized as *i in Proto-Kartvelian and not as * (traditional
schwa secundum, usually written *), which appears to have been the regular
development in Proto-Indo-European. Moreover, though a rule similar to that found
in Proto-Kartvelian prohibiting more than one full-grade vowel in any given
polymorphemic form must have also characterized an early stage of Proto-Indo-
European, in its later stages of development, this rule was no longer operative.
The sound systems of the Kartvelian daughter languages are relatively similar,
with only the vowel systems exhibiting major differences. In addition to the vowels
a, e, i, o, u, which exist in all of the daughter languages, the various Svan dialects
have , , , and . Each of these vowels also has a lengthened counterpart, thus
giving a total of eighteen distinctive vowels in some dialects of Svan. Vowel length
is not distinctive in the other Kartvelian daughter languages.
At this time, there were three fundamental stem types: (A) verbal stems, (B)
nominal and adjectival stems, and (C) pronominal and indeclinable stems. That this
distinction remained in Proto-Kartvelian proper is shown by the fact that prefixes
mostly maintained their original structural identify, being only partially involved in
the system of vowel gradation (cf. Gamkrelidze 1967:715) as well as by the fact
that nominal stems were sharply distinguished from verbal stems in that they had
the same ablaut state throughout the paradigm, while extended (that is,
bimorphemic) verbal stems had alternating ablaut states according to the
paradigmatic pattern (cf. Gamkrelidze 1967:714715).
The phonemicization of a strong stress accent in Early Proto-Kartvelian
disrupted the patterning outlined above. The positioning of the stress was
morphologically distinctive, serving as a means to differentiate grammatical
categories. All vowels were retained when stressed but were either weakened (=
reduced-grade) or totally eliminated altogether (= zero-grade) when unstressed:
the choice between the reduced-grade versus the zero-grade depended upon the
position of the unstressed syllable relative to the stressed syllable as well as upon
the laws of syllabicity in effect at that time. Finally, it was at the end of this stage of
development that the syllabic allophones of the resonants came into being and
possibly the introvertive harmonic consonant clusters as well.
The stress-conditioned ablaut alternations gave rise to two distinct forms of
extended stems:
These alternating patterns, which characterize the bimorphemic verbal stems, may
be illustrated by the following examples (these are taken from Gamkrelidze 1966:74
and 1967:714):
162 CHAPTER SIX
State 1 State 2
Intransitive Transitive
When a full-grade suffix was added to such stems, the preceding full-grade vowel
was replaced by either reduced-grade or zero-grade:
State 1 State 2
Nominal stems also displayed these patterns, though, unlike the bimorphemic verbal
stems, the same ablaut state was fixed throughout the paradigm (these examples are
from Gamkrelidze 1967:714):
State 1 State 2
a v k o t
b z l p wi q c h
g m u
d t n r p x
e i j s k c q
Note: The following are no longer in use: (), j (), wi (), q (), ().
6.6. CORRESPONDENCES
Vowels:
*a a o o a
*e e a a e
*i i i i i
*o o o o o
*u u u u u
Note: Long vowels are not included in the above table (for a discussion about the
problems connected with the reconstruction of long vowels in Proto-
Kartvelian and their development in the individual Kartvelian daughter
languages, cf. Schmidt 1962:3941).
Bilabials:
*b b b b b
*p p p p p
*p p p p p
Dentals:
*d d d d d
*t t t t t
*t t t t t
Velars:
*g g g g g
*k k k k k
*k k k k k
Postvelars:
*
*q x x x q
*q q [] q q k q
Glide:
*w v v v w
164 CHAPTER SIX
* (*)
*c (*c) c c c c
*c (*@) c c c c
*z (*z) z z z z
*s (*s) s s s s
* (*)
* (*c) c
* (*@) c
* (*z) z
* (*s) s
Palato-alveolar/Velar Clusters:
*g (*) g g g
*k (*) k k k
*k (*E) k k k
*k (*) k k k
*h h
*
*x x x x x
*m m m m m
*n n n n n
*l l l l l
*r r r r r
CHAPTER SEVEN
p t c t k k (q)
b d d g g ()
p t c t k k (q) (q)
Fricatives:
f s s x x h
z ()
s
Glides: w y
Vowels: i e a o u
ii ee aa oo uu
OrlStolbova i u
e o
a
Ehret i, ii u, uu
e, ee o, oo
a, aa
Other sounds have also been posited for Proto-Afrasian by several scholars these
include prenasalized labials (cf. Greenberg 1958:295302 and 1965:8892),
postvelar stops, affricates, and/or fricatives (cf. Diakonoff 1974:595 and 1988:34,
A SKETCH OF PROTO-AFRASIAN PHONOLOGY 167
In the Semitic branch, the so-called emphatics have three different realizations:
(A) in Arabic, the emphatics have been described in the relevant literature as either
uvularized (cf. Catford 1977b:193) or pharyngealized consonants (cf. Al-Ani
1970:4458; Catford 1977b:193; ChomskyHalle 1968:306); (B) in the Modern
South Arabian languages (cf. Johnstone 1975:67, 2.1.2), the Semitic languages
of Ethiopia (cf. Moscati 1964:2324, 8.2), and several Eastern Neo-Aramaic
dialects (such as, for example, Urmian Nestorian Neo-Aramaic and Kurdistani
Jewish Neo-Aramaic), the emphatics are glottalized the glottalization is weak in
Urmian Nestorian Neo-Aramaic; and (C) in several other Neo-Aramaic dialects
(such as, for example, r-Abdn), the emphatics are realized as unaspirated
voiceless stops (cf. Dolgopolsky 1977:1) here, the non-emphatic voiceless stops
are distinguished from the emphatics by the presence of the feature of aspiration.
Circumstantial evidence indicates that the emphatics may also have been
glottalized in Akkadian, Ancient Hebrew (cf. Rendsburg 1997:73), and the oldest
Aramaic: (A) In Akkadian, when two emphatics cooccurred in a root, one of them
was changed into the corresponding non-emphatic (Geers Law), thus: ~ / > t ~
/; ~ > k ~ ; ~ > ~ t (cf. UngnadMatou 1969:27). Now, a constraint
similar to that described by Geers Law is found in several languages having
ejectives (cf. Hopper 1973:160161). According to this constraint, two ejectives
cannot cooccur in a root. Thus, if we take the emphatics of Akkadian to have been
ejectives, then Geers Law finds a perfectly natural explanation as a manifestation
of this constraint. (B) Pharyngealization is not incompatible with voicing, but
glottalization is (cf. Greenberg 1970:125127, 2.2). Thus, Arabic has voiced as
well as voiceless emphatics (cf. Al-Ani 1970:4458; Ambros 1977:810 and
1314). In Hebrew and Aramaic, however, the emphatics are never voiced (cf.
Cantineau 1952:93; Moscati 1964:2324), and the same is most likely true for
Akkadian and Ugaritic as well. (C) Pharyngealization is always accompanied by the
backing of contiguous vowels (cf. Hyman 1975:49; Ladefoged 1971:6364).
Similar backing is sometimes also found in conjunction with glottalization. Indeed,
in all of the Neo-Aramaic dialects mentioned above, vowels are always backed
when next to emphatic consonants, regardless of how the emphatics are realized.
However, while backing of adjacent vowels is a mandatory corollary of
pharyngealization, it is optional with glottalization. Therefore, since the emphatics
of Arabic are pharyngealized, contiguous vowels are always backed (cf. Al-Ani
1970:2324; Cantineau 1952:92; Martinet 1975[1959]:237; Bellem 2007:4347).
No such backing is observable in either Akkadian or Hebrew (cf. Cantineau 1952:
93; Martinet 1975[1959]:237238; Moscati 1964:2324).
168 CHAPTER SEVEN
1. The earliest Arabic inherited the triple contrast voiceless aspirated ~ voiced ~
glottalized from Proto-Semitic.
2. First, vowels were backed when next to emphatic consonants.
3. Next, the glottalization was weakened and eventually lost. Non-emphatic
voiceless consonants were then distinguished from emphatics by the presence
of the feature of aspiration. Furthermore, vowels were backed when next to
emphatics but not when next to non-emphatics. (This is the stage of
development reached by the Neo-Aramaic dialect of r-Abdn.)
4. Lastly, aspiration was lost, and the emphatics were distinguished from the non-
emphatic voiceless consonants solely by backing (that is, pharyngealization).
The evidence from the other branches of Afrasian supports the contention that the
emphatics were ejectives not only in Proto-Semitic but in Proto-Afrasian as well
(cf. D. Cohen 1968:13011303; Diakonoff 1988:35).
The emphatics were lost as a separate series in Ancient Egyptian (cf. Loprieno
1995:32; Vergote 1971:43). The velar emphatic *k became the voiceless postvelar
stop q, while the remaining emphatics merged with the voiceless unaspirated
consonants. The developments probably went as follows:
1. The earliest Egyptian inherited the triple contrast voiceless aspirated ~ voiced ~
glottalized from Proto-Afrasian.
2. First, the voiced consonants became devoiced. The resulting system had the
contrast voiceless aspirated ~ voiceless unaspirated ~ glottalized.
3. Next, the emphatics other than *k became deglottalized and merged with the
voiceless unaspirated stops. It is not difficult to understand why *k would have
A SKETCH OF PROTO-AFRASIAN PHONOLOGY 169
remained longer than the other emphatics since back articulation (velar and
postvelar) is the unmarked point of articulation for ejectives (cf. Greenberg
1970:127129, 2.3).
4. Finally, *k became q. (We may note that a similar development is found in
several East Cushitic languages, Somali being one example.)
In the modern Berber languages, the emphatics are pharyngealized as in Arabic (cf.
D. Cohen 1968:1302; Penchoen 1973:7, 2.3.1[a]; Lipiski 1997:105; Kossmann
Stroomer 1997:464; Kossmann 2012:25; Frajzyngier 2012:509). Both voiced and
voiceless emphatics exist. We may assume that the pharyngealized emphatics found
in the Berber languages are due to secondary developments. No doubt, the
emphatics developed in Berber in much the same way as they did in Arabic.
Of the modern Chadic languages, Angas, Dangaleat, Gaanda, Higi, Margi,
Tera, and Sayanci, for instance, have implosives, while Hausa has implosives in the
bilabial and dental series but ejectives in the sibilant and velar series corresponding
to the Semitic emphatics (for details, cf. Ruhlen 1975). According to Newman
(1977:9, 2.1), a series of implosives is to be reconstructed here for Proto-Chadic:
*, *, * (Newman writes *J). JungraithmayrShimizu (1981:1920),
however, reconstruct a system for Proto-Chadic similar to what is found in Hausa,
with bilabial and dental implosives and sibilant and velar ejectives. OrlStolbova
(1995:xviii) reconstruct ejectives for Common Chadic: *t, *k (they write *, *,
respectively; they do not reconstruct a bilabial member). Finally, Ehret (1995)
mostly follows JungraithmayrShimizu. Martinet (1970:113, 4.28) notes that
ejectives can develop into implosives through a process of anticipation of the voice
of the following vowel, thus (see also Fallon 2002:281284):
p t k >
affricate ejective c and the voiceless postvelars q and q (from earlier *k and
*k, respectively) plus, marginally, and (cf. Maddieson 1984:315, no. 260;
Ruhlen 1975:210); Dahalo has the ejectives p, t, c, , (), k, and k (cf. Ehret
1980:126). For information on the East Cushitic languages, cf. Sasse 1979 and
Hudson 1989; for the Southern Cushitic languages, cf. Ehret 1980.
Of the modern Omotic languages, Kafa (Kefa) has the ejectives p, t, c, k (cf.
Maddieson 1984:317, no. 264; Ruhlen 1975:219); Dizi has the ejectives t, , k
(cf. Maddieson 1984:317, no. 263); Welamo has the ejectives p, t, c, k, k, s
(cf. Ruhlen 1975:288); while Hamar (Hamer) has the velar ejective k plus the
implosives , , and (cf. Maddieson 1984:318, no. 265). For additional
information on Kafa, Dizi, and Hamar, see Bender (ed.) 1976; for other Omotic
languages, cf. Hayward (ed.) 1990 and Amha 2012:434438. For details about the
development of the emphatics in the Afrasian daughter languages as a group, cf.
Diakonoff 1965:1829, 1988:3441, and 1992:5664; D. Cohen 1968:1301
1303.
7.3. BILABIALS
There can be no question that Proto-Semitic contained *p, *b, and *m. The f found
in Arabic, South Arabian, and Ethiopian Semitic is an innovation and can easily be
derived from earlier *p (cf. Moscati 1964:2425, 8.6; OLeary 1923:62; Lipiski
1997:109). Several modern Eastern Arabic dialects have p in loanwords (cf.
Lipiski 1997:109). In Hebrew and Aramaic, /p/ and /b/ have the non-phonemic
allophones // and //, respectively (cf. Bergstrsser 1928:3738 and 62, 1983:51
and 79; Lipiski 1997:113114; Moscati 1964:2627, 8.10; OLeary 1923:88
89; Rendsburg 1997:7475). Ethiopian Semitic languages have a voiceless bilabial
emphatic p, but this is most likely of Cushitic origin and is not an inherited
phoneme (cf. Lipiski 1997:110).
Semitic correspondences (cf. Bergstrsser 1928:4 and 1983:3; Gray 1934:10
11; Lipiski 1997:109116; Moscati 1964:2427 and 4345; OLeary 1923:
6263; R. Stempel 1999:4445; Brockelmann 19081913.I:136):
Proto-Semitic *p *b *m
Akkadian p b m
Ugaritic p b m
Hebrew p /p/ b /b/ m /m/
Aramaic p /p/ b /b/ m /m/
Arabic /f/ /b/ /m/
Epigraphic South Arabian f b m
Geez / Ethiopic f b m
A SKETCH OF PROTO-AFRASIAN PHONOLOGY 171
Notes:
The material from the other Afrasian branches supports the assumption that Proto-
Afrasian also had the bilabials *p, *b, and *m.
Diakonoff (1965:20) reconstructs an emphatic bilabial, which he writes *, for
Proto-Semitic. However, as he himself admits, the evidence for this sound is
extremely weak. It is best to agree with Cantineau (1952:8081) and Moscati
(1964:25, 8.7) that an emphatic bilabial should not be reconstructed for Proto-
Semitic. However, a glottalized bilabial must be reconstructed for Proto-Afrasian
(cf. Diakonoff 1988:35; Ehret 1995:77). This sound was characterized by an
extremely low frequency of occurrence.
According to Greenberg (1958:295302 and 1965:8892), two additional
labials should be reconstructed for Proto-Afrasian: *f and *pb. While he has made a
strong case for *f separate from *p, his theories concerning *pb are not convincing
and have been successfully argued against by Illi-Svity (1966a:934). Illi-
Svity considers *pb to contain a prefix *m-.
Afrasian correspondences (cf. Diakonoff 1988:35 and 1992:1013; Ehret
1995:7779; OrlStolbova 1995:xviiixix and xx; Takcs 2011:98):
Proto-Afrasian *p *b *p *f *m
Proto-Semitic *p *b *b *p *m
Ancient Egyptian p b b f m
Proto-Berber *f *b (?) ? *f *m
Proto-East Cushitic *f *b ? *f *m
Proto-Southern *p *b *p *f *m
Proto-Chadic *p *b *p *f *m
7.4. DENTALS
It is quite evident from the following correspondences that Proto-Semitic had *t, *d,
*t, and *n. In Hebrew and Aramaic, /t/ and /d/ have the non-phonemic allophones
// and //, respectively (cf. Moscati 1964:2627, 8.10). In Akkadian, Hebrew,
and Epigraphic South Arabian, n becomes m in mimation (cf. Diakonoff 1965:28,
note 2, and 6162; Moscati 1964:96100).
Semitic correspondences (cf. Moscati 1964:4345; Lipiski 1997:116117):
Proto-Semitic *t *d *t *n
Akkadian t d s n
Ugaritic t d s n
Hebrew t /t/ d /d/ f /s/ n /n/
Aramaic t /t/ d /d/ f /s/ n /n/
Arabic /t/ /d/ /s/ /n/
Epigraphic South Arabian t d s n
Geez / Ethiopic t d s n
The data from the remaining Afrasian branches leave no doubt that Proto-Afrasian
also had the dentals *t, *d, *t, and *n. Secondary palatalization of the dentals
before front vowels is a widespread phenomenon, being especially common in the
Semitic languages of Ethiopia and in Chadic.
Afrasian correspondences (cf. Diakonoff 1988:35 and 1992:1314; Ehret
1995:120124; OrlStolbova 1995:xviiixix and xx; Takcs 2011:98):
Proto-Afrasian *t *d *t *n
Proto-Semitic *t *d *t *n
Ancient Egyptian t d d n
Proto-Berber *t *d * * *n
Proto-East Cushitic *t *d *g *n
Proto-Southern Cushitic *t * *d * *t *n
Proto-Chadic *t *d *t *n
sibilants are posited in the standard handbooks (cf. Bergstrsser 1928:4 and 1983:3;
Brockelmann 19081913.I:128136; OLeary 1923:5362; Gray 1934:8;
Moscati 1964:3337; W. Wright 1890:5764). There is some evidence, however,
that at least some examples involving this series were originally composed of dental
affricates instead (cf. M. Cohen 1947:141, 143, and 145; Diakonoff 1965:2021,
1974:595, and 1992:1622, 3655; Faber 1981:233262; Martinet 1975[1953]:
253254; Takcs 2011:2126): *c //, * /m/, and *c //. This does not mean
that the independent existence of sibilants in the Semitic parent language is to be
excluded. On the contrary, in addition to the dental affricates, Proto-Semitic may
also have had a full set of sibilants, namely, *s, *z, *s, and *s (traditional *s, *z,
*, and *), though opinions differ on this matter.
The primary evidence for earlier dental affricates comes from Hebrew and
Akkadian (cf. Diakonoff 1965:2021). First the emphatic sibilant, x //, is
traditionally pronounced as a dental affricate in Hebrew, and, as noted by Cantineau
(1952:83), this pronunciation is not a recent or secondary development. Next, it is
now known that the Hittite cuneiform syllabary was borrowed at the beginning of
the second millennium BCE directly from the form of Old Akkadian then written in
Northern Syria (cf. Gamkrelidze 1968:9192) and not from Hurrian as previously
thought (cf. Sturtevant 1951:23, 5). The Hittite syllabary contains signs that are
transliterated with a z but which, in fact, represent the dental affricate // (cf.
Sturtevant 1951:1415, 25). This seems to indicate that the <z> of Old Akkadian
was pronounced as an affricate (cf. Martinet 1975[1953]:254). Also worth noting is
the fact that the Hittite scribes employed the cuneiform signs containing <> to
represent /s/ (cf. Sturtevant 1951:25, 50). Since the Akkadian cuneiform syllabary
contained signs traditionally transliterated as s in addition to those transliterated as
, we must conclude that the Hittite scribes chose the latter signs because they were
closer to their sibilant than the former. We may venture a guess that the Hittites
chose the -signs because the s-signs represented affricates in Akkadian at the time
when they adopted the cuneiform writing system. This conclusion is supported by
the Hurrian evidence, where, according to Diakonoff (1965:21), the cuneiform
signs with <z> and <s> are used to denote affricates (see also DiakonoffStarostin
1986:1315 for a discussion of Hurrian phonology and 1986:1113 for a
discussion of the closely-related Urartian; see also Speiser 1941:5068).
Additional evidence for affricate pronunciation comes from Egyptian material
dating from the second millennium BCE. In transcribing Semitic words and names,
Egyptian fairly consistently uses t (= // or, better, //) for (traditional) s in the
Semitic words and d (= // or, better, //) for (traditional) z and in the Semitic
words (cf. Diakonoff 1988:36; for examples, cf. Albright 1934:3367).
Finally, Cantineau (1952:83) and M. Cohen (1947:145) briefly mention the fact
that Proto-Semitic *c (traditional *) is mostly pronounced as either an affricate or
a dental stop in the Semitic languages of Ethiopia.
For details on the developments in the Semitic daughter languages, see
Diakonoff 1992:3655.
Note David Cohens (1968:1304) remarks, which summarize the above points
rather nicely:
174 CHAPTER SEVEN
As for the three phonemes that are, at the present time, realized everywhere as
sibilants, it seems necessary to assume that they were formerly realized as
affricates. Such a pronunciation, at least for the emphatic member, is traditional
among certain Jews in reading Biblical Hebrew. Furthermore, it is attested in
Ethiopic. There are important arguments in favor [of such an interpretation] on
the basis of external evidence: in particular, the Hittite use of the Akkadian sign
interpreted as z to indicate an affricate.
Proto-Semitic *c * *c
Akkadian s z
Ugaritic s z
Hebrew s /s/ z /z/ x //
Aramaic s /s/ z /z/ x //
Arabic /s/ /z/ //
Epigraphic South Arabian s z
Geez / Ethiopic s z
Proto-Afrasian *c * *c
Proto-Semitic *c * *c
Ancient Egyptian s z d
Proto-Berber *s *z * *
Proto-East Cushitic *s *z *
Proto-Southern Cushitic *c * *c
Proto-Chadic *c * *c
Note: Ehret (1980) writes *ts, *dz, *ts for Proto-Southern Cushitic.
A SKETCH OF PROTO-AFRASIAN PHONOLOGY 175
There is a problem with the series generally defined, based upon [the evidence
of] Arabic, as consisting of interdentals. But, outside of Common Arabic, these
sounds are represented, depending upon the language, sometimes as palato-
alveolar fricatives, sometimes as sibilants, and sometimes as plain dental stops.
Such correspondences can only be explained clearly if the series in question is
considered to have been in Proto-Hamito-Semitic, as well as in Proto-Semitic,
made up of palatals.
Moscati (1964:2730) reconstructs interdentals (IPA [], [], and []) for Proto-
Semitic on the basis of the Arabic reflexes, and this is the reconstruction found in
all of the standard handbooks (cf. Bergstrsser 1928:4 and 1983:3; Brockelmann
1916:5354; GraggHoberman 2012:153; Gray 1934:810; OLeary 1923:53
60; Lipiski 1997:117122). Cantineau (1952:8182), however, reconstructs
earlier (palato-)alveolars (apicales pointe basse) he notes:
Proto-Semitic *t *d *t
Akkadian z
Ugaritic t d v
Hebrew v // z /z/ x //
Aramaic t /t/ d /d/ f //
Arabic /t/ /d/ //
Epigraphic South Arabian t d
Geez / Ethiopic s z [
Proto-Afrasian *t *d *t
Proto-Semitic *t *d *t
Ancient Egyptian t d d
Proto-Berber *s *z * *
Proto-East Cushitic *t *d *
Proto-Southern Cushitic *t *d *t
Proto-Chadic * * *
7.7. SIBILANTS
The Semitic sibilants have been the subject of much controversy (cf. especially
Beeston 1962:222231; Buccellati 1997b:1822; Faber 1981:233262;
Murtonen 1966:135150). Though there are many points of agreement among
A SKETCH OF PROTO-AFRASIAN PHONOLOGY 177
Proto-Semitic *s *z *s *s
Akkadian s z [
Ugaritic s z [
Hebrew s /s/ z /z/ x /[/ v //
Aramaic s /s/ z /z/ x /[/ v //
Arabic /s/ /z/ /[/ /s/
Epigraphic South Arabian s z [ s
Geez / Ethiopic s z [ s
Proto-Afrasian *s *z *s *s
Proto-Semitic *s *z *s *s
Ancient Egyptian s z ? s
Proto-Berber *s *z * *s
Proto-East Cushitic *s *z ? *s
Proto-Southern Cushitic *s *z *c *
Proto-Chadic *s ? *s *s
The Modern South Arabian languages contain the fricative laterals and , that is,
/V/ and //, respectively (cf. Johnstone 1975:7, 2.1.3; Steiner 1977:20). The
voiceless fricative lateral corresponds to sibilants in the other Semitic languages
(excluding Hebrew, for the moment): Mehri, Jibbli (formerly called eri),
arssi, Soqori , Epigraphic South Arabian s () = Akkadian , Ugaritic ,
Aramaic s, Arabic , Geez (Classical Ethiopic) . In Hebrew, however, a special
character, adapted from in (?) and transliterated as (c), appears in words whose
cognates in the South Arabian languages contain fricative laterals (cf. Moscati
1964:3334, 8.29). The evidence of Hebrew, coupled with that of the South
Arabian languages, makes it seem likely that Proto-Semitic contained the voiceless
lateralized affricate * (cf. Martinet 1975[1953]:253). Cantineau (1952:8487)
and Steiner (1977:155156), however, would rather posit a voiceless fricative
lateral *V for Proto-Semitic. R. Stempel (1999:60) notes that either *V or * can be
reconstructed. I prefer lateralized affricates to fricative laterals because the former
provide a better basis for comparison with cognates in other Afrasian languages.
The original pronunciation of the Arabic sound transliterated as ( )can be
determined by the testimony of the native grammarians (cf. Cantineau 1952:84;
Steiner 1977:5767) and from the evidence of loanwords in other languages (cf.
Steiner 1977:6891). In all probability, this sound was originally a voiced
emphatic fricative lateral (cf. Cantineau 1952:84; Steiner 1977:6465). This sound
can be derived from either an earlier glottalized lateralized affricate * (cf.
Cantineau 1952:8486, who writes *b; D. Cohen 1968:13041305, who writes
*tl; Martinet 1975[1953]:253, who writes *tl; R. Stempel 1999:60) or an earlier
glottalized fricative lateral *V (cf. Steiner 1977:155156). Either reconstruction
can also account for the developments found in the other Semitic daughter
languages. In Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Hebrew, Proto-Semitic * has the same
reflex as *c, namely, . As for the Modern South Arabian languages, it is
represented by a lateralized dental emphatic in Soqori, while in Mehri, arssi, and
Jibbli, it is represented by a lateralized interdental fricative emphatic (transcribed
^). In Geez, its reflex is generally transcribed as , though the traditional
pronunciation is identical to that of (cf. Lambdin 1978:4). The Aramaic
A SKETCH OF PROTO-AFRASIAN PHONOLOGY 179
Proto-Semitic *V or * *V or *
Akkadian [
Ugaritic
Hebrew c /`/ x //
Aramaic s /s/ u //
Arabic // //
Epigraphic South Arabian s
Geez / Ethiopic
Proto-Afrasian *V * *
Proto-Semitic *V * *
Ancient Egyptian d
Proto-Berber *s *c *@
Proto-East Cushitic *s *s * *c
Proto-Southern Cushitic *V * (?) *
Proto-Chadic *V * *
Note: Ehret (1980:37) reconstructs *V and *, which he writes *V and *tl, for
Proto-Southern Cushitic.
Ehret (1995:394) gives the following correspondences (as in the preceding table,
Ehrets transcription has been changed):
180 CHAPTER SEVEN
Proto-Afrasian *V *r *
Proto-Semitic *V *r *
Ancient Egyptian d t
Proto-Cushitic *V *r *
Proto-Chadic *V *r *
Proto-Omotic *l * *
7.9. GUTTURALS
Proto-Semitic had only a single guttural series, namely, the velars *k, *g, and *k
(sometimes transcribed *q, sometimes *). In Hebrew and Aramaic, /k/ and /g/ have
the non-phonemic allophones // and //, respectively (cf. Moscati 1964:2627,
8.10; OLeary 1923:52). Proto-Semitic *g has become [o] (sometimes
transcribed j) in Classical Arabic (cf. Moscati 1964:38, 8.42; Lipiski 1997:138)
this is a context-free development and is considered the standard pronunciation,
though g is retained unchanged in some Arabic dialects (cf. Martinet 1975
[1959]:243245; Moscati 1964:38, 8.42). Secondary palatalization of the velars
is a common innovation in modern Arabic dialects, in modern South Arabian
languages, and in Ethiopian Semitic (cf. Lipiski 1997:138139). In the Semitic
languages of Ethiopia, a series of labiovelars has developed alongside the plain
velars (cf. Moscati 1964:38, 8.43; Lipiski 1997:139). The labiovelars are a
secondary development and do not go back to Proto-Semitic. There are several
other notable secondary developments for this series (cf. Lipiski 1997:137140,
Moscati 1964:3738, and OLeary 1923:4953 for details).
Semitic correspondences (cf. Moscati 1964:44; Gray 1934:10; Lipiski 1997:
137140; R. Stempel 1999:44):
Proto-Semitic *k *g *k
Akkadian k g
Ugaritic k g
Hebrew k /k/ g /g/ q //
Aramaic k /k/ g /g/ q //
Arabic /k/ // //
Epigraphic South Arabian k g
Geez / Ethiopic k g
Proto-Afrasian *k *g *k
Proto-Semitic *k *g *k
Ancient Egyptian k g q
Proto-Berber * *-- *g *
Proto-East Cushitic *k *g *k
Proto-Southern Cushitic *k *g *k
Proto-Chadic *k *g *k
Semitic: Arabic ub, "iba finger, toe; Sabaean "b finger; Ugaritic (pl.)
bt fingers; Hebrew "eba [uB^x=a]# finger, toe; Imperial Aramaic (sg.
abs.) b finger, (pl. abs.) "bn fingers; Aramaic i finger, toe; Geez /
Ethiopic "ab()t [] finger, toe; Tigrinya "aab finger, toe;
= Egyptian db finger; Coptic tbe [thhbe] finger, digit;
= Berber: Tamazight aa finger; Siwa a finger; Ghadames a, a
finger; Mzab a finger; Tuareg aa finger; Kabyle aa finger;
= Cushitic: Proto-East Cushitic *kub- finger > Sidamo (pl.) kubbe fingers;
Hadiyya kuba"a ring, finger-ring; Yaaku qop-e finger.
Afrasian correspondences:
In addition to the correspondences that make it seem likely that Proto-Afrasian had
a series of plain velars, there are still other correspondences that point to the
existence of a series of labiovelars in Proto-Afrasian (cf. D. Cohen 1968:1303; M.
Cohen 1947:129130; Diakonoff 1988:34 and 1992:6, 2229; Ehret 1995:174
178): *k, *g, and *k. Although the labiovelars were lost in the Semitic branch,
having merged with the plain velars, their former presence can be ascertained by the
fact that, in primary nominal stems, they, along with the bilabials, caused a
following earlier * to be raised, backed, and rounded to *u (cf. Diakonoff
1970:456 and 464, 1975:135 and 141): *k, *g, *k > *ku, *gu, *ku. The
labiovelars were preserved in Proto-Southern Cushitic (cf. Ehret 1980:2336) and
Proto-Chadic (cf. Newman 1977:11).
Afrasian correspondences:
Proto-Afrasian *k *g *k
Proto-Semitic *k *g *k
Ancient Egyptian k g q
Proto-Berber *k *g *
Proto-East Cushitic *k *g *k
Proto-Southern Cushitic *k *g *k
Proto-Chadic *k *g *k
There can be no question that Proto-Semitic had *w, *y, *l, and *r. The liquids are
well preserved in the Semitic daughter languages, but the glides are subject to
various modifications: In later Akkadian, the glides were lost initially (cf. Moscati
1964:4546, 8.63; OLeary 1923:6667), while in Ugaritic, Hebrew, and
Aramaic, initial *w mostly became y (cf. Gray 1934:19, 27; Moscati 1964:46,
A SKETCH OF PROTO-AFRASIAN PHONOLOGY 183
Proto-Semitic *w *y *l *r
Akkadian y l r
Ugaritic wy y l r
Hebrew w /w/ y /y/ y /y/ l /l/ r /r/
Aramaic w /w/ y /y/ y /y/ l /l/ r /r/
Arabic /w/ /y/ /l/ /r/
Epigraphic South Arabian wy y l r
Geez / Ethiopic w y l r
The glides *w and *y and the liquids *l and *r are also to be reconstructed for
Proto-Afrasian (cf. Diakonoff 1992:6 and 3235; Ehret 1995:390395 and 452;
OrlStolbova 1995:xx).
The Ancient Egyptian developments require special comment. Egyptian did not
have separate signs for /l/. There can be no doubt, however, that /l/ existed as an
independent phonemic entity since it occurs as such in the later Coptic. In Egyptian,
/l/ was written with the signs <n>, <r>, <&>, and <> (< *li-, *lu- [cf. Diakonoff
1974:595]) (cf. Loprieno 1995:33, note c; Peust 1999:127132; Vergote 1973.Ib:
26). *r became <&> in Egyptian when it occurred at the end of an accented syllable
before a following consonant or before pause. Similar developments can be
observed for t, d, and n. In some instances, y represents either an earlier glottal stop
or an earlier w.
Newman (1977) does not reconstruct *l for Proto-Chadic, but the evidence
presented by JungraithmayrShimuzu (1981) and JungraithmayrIbriszimow
(1994) make it clear that *l must have existed. Both Ehret (1995:393394) and
OrlStolbova (1995:xx) reconstruct *l for Proto-Chadic.
Afrasian correspondences (cf. Ehret 1995:390395 and 452; OrlStolbova
1995:xx; Diakonoff 1965:2728):
Proto-Afrasian *w *y *l *r
Proto-Semitic *w *y *l *r
Ancient Egyptian w y nr& r &
Proto-Berber *w *y *l *r
Proto-East Cushitic *w *y *l *r
Proto-Southern Cushitic *w *y *l *r
Proto-Chadic *w *y *l *r
184 CHAPTER SEVEN
1. Akkadian *ra"u > ru (later ru) head; Hebrew r" [var)] head;
Aramaic r head; Phoenician r" head; Arabic ra"s head; Epigraphic
South Arabian r"s head; eri / Jibbli r/r head; Soqori riy head;
Ugaritic rs head; Geez / Ethiopic r"s head []; Tigrinya r"si head;
Tigre r"as head; Amharic ras head. Cf. Militarv 2011:75, no. 38.
2. Akkadian *ramu > *remu > *re"mu > rmu grace, mercy; Hebrew ram
[<Wjr^] compassionate; Arabic raima to have mercy, compassion, rama
pity, compassion; eri / Jibbli ram to be kind; Mehri rm to be kind
to someone; arssi ream to pity; Ugaritic rm to be kind; Tigre rama
to have pity on (Arabic loan).
3. Akkadian *balu > *belu > *be"lu > blu owner, lord; Hebrew baal [lu^B^]
lord, owner; Ugaritic bl owner of the house; Arabic bal husband, master,
owner; Epigraphic South Arabian bl master, owner; arssi bl master,
lord; Mehri bl owner, possessor; eri / Jibbli bal person owning;
Soqori bal master, lord; Geez / Ethiopic bal [] owner, master; Tigre
bal master; Tigrinya bal, baal master; Amharic bal master.
Ethiopic. On the other hand, ", h, and are preserved in Harari, Argobba, and
several dialects of Gurage under certain conditions (cf. Lipiski 1997:148).
Semitic correspondences (cf. Moscati 1964:4445; Lipiski 1997:141150;
R. Stempel 1999:6063; Gray 1934:10 and 19; Buccellati 1997b:18):
Proto-Semitic * *h * * *x *
Akkadian " " " " "
Ugaritic 9 h
Hebrew a /"/ h /h/ j // u // j // u //
Aramaic a /"/ h /h/ j // u // j // u //
Arabic /"/ /h/ // // // //
Epigraphic South Arabian " h
Geez / Ethiopic " h
Opinions differ as to how many of these sounds are to be reconstructed for Proto-
Afrasian. Indeed, the correspondences adduced to support the reconstruction of
voiceless and voiced velar fricatives in Proto-Afrasian are controversial, and in
some cases, it can be shown that secondary developments have led to the
appearance of these sounds in the daughter languages. Moreover, some examples of
voiceless and voiced velar fricatives are considered by some specialists to be
reflexes of earlier postvelars. Finally, there is some confusion among the reflexes
found in the daughter languages. Nonetheless, it seems that *, *h, *, * , *x, *
need to be reconstructed for Proto-Afrasian. Labialized varieties of these sounds
may also have existed (cf. Diakonoff 1975:142). These sounds were generally
preserved in the earlier stages of the Afrasian daughter languages, the main
exceptions being Berber, where they seem to have been mostly lost, and Chadic,
where they were partially lost. In the course of its history, Egyptian also reduced
and/or modified these sounds, similar to what is found in several modern Semitic
languages (cf. Vergote 1973.Ib:28; Loprieno 1995:4146; Greenberg 1969). For
discussion, correspondences, and examples, cf. Diakonoff 1992:2529 (for the
velar fricatives) and 2932 (for *, *h, *, *); Ehret 1995:174178 (for the velar
fricatives) and 338340 (for *, *h, *, *); OrlStolbova 1995:xx (Orl
Stolbova reconstruct *, *h, *, *, *x, *, *q, and *q for Proto-Afrasian).
Afrasian correspondences (cf. Takcs 2011:98):
Proto-Afrasian * *h * * *x *
Proto-Semitic * *h * * *x *
Ancient Egyptian & h h
Proto-Berber *h *h *h * *h
Proto-East Cushitic * *h * * * *
Proto-Southern Cushitic * *h * * *x
Proto-Chadic *h *h
186 CHAPTER SEVEN
7.12. VOWELS
Six vowels are traditionally reconstructed for Proto-Semitic (cf. Bergstrsser 1928:5
and 1983:5; Brockelmann 19081913.I:44, 141151, and 1916:54, 6770;
Kogan 2005; Lipiski 1997:152165; Moscati 1964:46, 8.66; OLeary 1923:
91119; R. Stempel 1999:314):
i u
a
i u
e o
a
i u
e o
a
Newman (1977:11) assumes that Proto-Chadic had, at most, four phonemic vowels:
i u
a
On the basis of a comparison of the vowel systems reconstructed for the various
Afrasian daughter languages, it would appear that a vowel system identical to that
traditionally posited for Proto-Semitic is to be posited for Proto-Afrasian as well, at
least for the period of development existing immediately prior to the emergence of
the individual Afrasian daughter languages. Such a reconstruction has indeed been
proposed by a number of scholars. However, when the vocalic patterning is
subjected to careful analysis, it becomes clear that a reconstruction modeled after
that of Proto-Semitic does not represent the original state.
In a series of articles published in (Voprosy
Jazykoznanija) in 1988 and 1990, respectively, Vladimir Orl and Olga Stolbova
analyzed vowel correspondences in non-derivative nominal stems in West Chadic,
Semitic, and Proto-Coptic. They also noted that the original vocalism of verbs is
represented by West Chadic and Arabic imperfectives. Their analysis led them to
reconstruct six vowels for Proto-Afrasian: *a, *e, *i, *o, *u, and *. Orl
Stolbova base their reconstruction upon the following correspondences:
Proto-Afrasian *a *e *i *o *u *
Proto-Semitic *a *i *i *u *u *a *i
Proto-West Chadic *a *ya *i *wa *u *u
Proto-Coptic *a *o *e *e *i *e *u *o *i
188 CHAPTER SEVEN
Though it is Ehrets views on the vowels that are followed in this book (for both
Proto-Semitic and Proto-Afrasian), it must be cautioned that much work still needs
to be done here.
The Pre-Proto-Afrasian vowel system may be reconstructed as follows:
Vowels: i (~ e) u (~ o)
e o
( ~) a
There has been much discussion, some of it rather heated, concerning root structure
patterning within Afrasian. Until fairly recently, there was strong resistance to look
objectively at the data from all of the branches of the Afrasian language family, far
too much emphasis being placed on the importance of the Semitic branch alone,
which was often uncritically taken to represent the original state of affairs.
In the Semitic branch, the vast majority of roots are triconsonantal. It is certain,
however, that at one time there were more biconsonantal roots and that the
triconsonantal system has been greatly expanded in Semitic at the expense of roots
with other than three consonants (cf. Moscati 1964:7275; Ullendorf 1958:69
72; Militarv 2005). In particular, we may note Diakonoffs (1984:12) comments
on Afrasian root structure patterning:
The latest argument which has recently been advanced in favour of retaining
the term Hamitic was, as far as I know, the supposed fact that the Hamitic
roots are mainly biconsonantal while those of Semitic are triconsonantal. Our
work on the Comparative Historical Vocabulary of Afrasian (CHVA) has
shown without a shadow of doubt that this is wrong. The Common Afrasian
roots were in principle biconsonantal; most of them have been extended to a
triconsonantal status either by reduplicating the second consonant of the root or
by adding a real or fictitious weak consonant (forming either mediae infirmae
or tertiae infirmae roots); the choice between the formation of a secundae
geminatae, a mediae infirmae or a tertiae infirmae secondary stem is virtually
non-predictable (i.e. these types of the root are allomorphic at the Proto-
Afrasian level). An additional method of forming secondary roots is the one
well known from Proto-Indo-European, viz., the adding of a suffixed (very
rarely prefixed) consonant complement to the root. In about 90% of the cases
(at least in that part of the vocabulary which we have worked through) the so-
called three-consonantal roots can with a great certainty be derived from well
attested biconsonantal roots plus a complement which is used to modify the
main semantics of the biconsonantal roots. Note that the biconsonantal cum
complement roots are well attested not only in Semitic but also in Cushitic,
Berber and Egyptian, and though they are somewhat more rare in Chadic and
some of the Cushitic languages, the reason for this phenomenon is: (1) the loss
of external inflection which later also caused losses in the final stem
consonants and (2) the loss of a number of Proto-Semitic phonemes in Late
Stage languages.
In an article published in 1989, Christopher Ehret closes the case. Through careful
analysis, fully supported by well-chosen examples from Arabic, Ehret demonstrates
that the third consonantal elements of Semitic triconsonantal roots were originally
suffixes, which, in the majority of cases examined by him, had served as verb
extensions. In particular, he identifies and categorizes thirty-seven such extensions.
In subsequent works (1995:1554, 2003a, 2003b, and 2008a), Ehret expands his
investigation to encompass other branches of Afrasian. He concludes (1995:15):
190 CHAPTER SEVEN
Thus, the Proto-Afrasian root may be assumed to have had two forms, either *CV-
or *CVC-. As in Pre-Proto-Indo-European, *CVC- could be extended by means of a
suffix to form an inflectional stem: *CVC-(V)C-. Originally, these suffixes appear
to have been utilized primarily as verb extensions. Depending upon when they
became separated from the rest of the Afrasian speech community, each branch
exploited to a different degree the patterning that was just beginning to develop in
the Afrasian parent language, with Semitic carrying it to the farthest extreme.
It thus emerges that the rules governing the structural patterning of roots and
stems in the earliest stage of Proto-Afrasian (cf. Diakonoff 1988:4256) are
remarkably similar to what is posited for the earliest stage of Proto-Indo-European:
There were three fundamental stem types in Proto-Afrasian: (A) verb stems, (B)
noun and adjective stems, and (C) pronoun and indeclinable stems. Pronoun and
indeclinable stems could end in a vowel. Verb stems had to end in a consonant (it
may be noted that this is the stem patterning posited by Ehret [1980:4547] for
A SKETCH OF PROTO-AFRASIAN PHONOLOGY 191
The Omotic, Cushitic, and Chadic evidence conjoin in requiring the existence
in PAA of an additional element in word formation, a terminal vowel (TV) in
nouns and modifiers, the original function and meaning of which remain
obscure. TVs have been subjected to comparative-historical investigation in
only two groups of Afroasiatic languages. In Omotic they have no
reconstructible function beyond their necessary attachment to singular noun
stems in semantically predictable fashion. With the exception of Kafa, in which
two TVs, -o and -e, have been grammaticalized respectively as masculine and
feminine markers, they carry no grammatical or recognizable semantic load
(Hayward 1987). In proto-Southern Cushitic, pairs of TVs formed a variety of
singular-plural markers. Particular paired sets tended to go with either
masculine or feminine nouns, but an individual TV on a singular noun
generally gave no indication of the grammatical gender of that noun (Ehret
1980:4950).
From these indicators it seems reasonable to conclude that TVs are fossils
of a nominal morphology productive in pre-proto-Afroasiatic and predating the
rise of grammatical gender in the family. Having lost their original grammatical
function, they have been reanalyzed as markers of the singular or sometimes,
as in the case of Southern Cushitic, of the plural in nominals. In the
Boreafrasian subgroup (Semitic, Egyptian, and Berber: see Chapter 6 for this
classification), the TVs have generally been dropped entirely, leaving most
nouns and adjectives as consonant-final words.
The existence of TVs at early stages of Afroasiatic evolution obviates the
need to reconstruct any syllabic consonants for PAA. The usual word structure
of nouns and adjectives would have been *C(VC)(Cs)Vtv, in which the only
possible structures are CVC and CV and never just C. The presence of syllabic
C in Boreafrasian languages can be understood as the natural outcome of
vowel loss, whether word-internal or word-final, within that particular
subgroup (as is also separately the case in a few modern Omotic languages,
notably Bench and Maji, where the same kind of sound change has
independently been at work).
The consonants carried the basic meaning of the stem in Proto-Semitic, while the
vowels were used as internal grammatical morphemes: that is to say, grammatical
categorization was partially achieved by means of fixed vocalic patterning, at least
in verb stems (for more information, see the Appendix to Chapter 17; see also
Rubio 2004).
It is thus now certain beyond any reasonable doubt that the third consonantal
element of the Proto-Semitic root, be it infix or suffix, was simply not a part of the
root, in the overwhelming majority of cases, at the Proto-Afrasian level and that the
underlying basic root structure patterning was biconsonantal (cf. Hecker 2007).
192 CHAPTER SEVEN
Notes:
The Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic scripts and their standard transliterations are
included in the tables of sound correspondences in the preceding sections and will
A SKETCH OF PROTO-AFRASIAN PHONOLOGY 193
not be repeated here. The Ethiopian script was not included in those tables it is
as follows (cf. Lambdin 1978:89; Dillmann 1907:34113; Daniels 1997b:39):
Ca C C C C C, C Ca C C C C C, C
C C
h
l z
y
m d
g
r
s p
b
t f
n
"
k k
w g
EGYPTIAN: Here, I will just give the Egyptian hierogplyphs and their traditional
transliteration, without further discussion (cf. J. Allen 2010:14; Gardiner 1957:27;
Hannig 1995:XLVXLVII; Mercer 1961a:4; Peust 1999:48; Loprieno 1995:15):
The Coptic alphabet is based upon Greek, with six additional letters borrowed from
Demotic. It is as follows (cf. J. Allen 2013:12; Lambdin 1982:x; Loprieno 1995:25;
Steindorff 1904:67; Till 1978:40):
194 CHAPTER SEVEN
a a h n n t t
b b c th 3 ks u, ou u f f
g g i, ei i o o v ph x h
d d k k p p y kh j
e e l l r r 2 ps q
z z m m s s w + ti
ai, aei = ay
au (rarely aou) = aw
ei (less commonly eei) = ey
eu (rarely eou) = ew
hi = ey
hu = ew
iei, eiei = yi
iou (rare) = iw
oei, oi = oy
oou = ow
wi = oy
wou = ow
oui (rare) = uy, perhaps also wi
ouou (rare) = uw
BERBER: The Proto-Berber phonological system has not been reconstructed yet.
The Ahaggar Tuareg consonant system may be taken as a representative example
(cf. Kossmann 2012:23; Maddieson 1984:314):
The following vowels are found in Ayer Tuareg (cf. Kossmann 2012:28):
i u
e a o
i u
a
b d dz dl g g
p t ts k k
p t ts tl k k
f s V x x
z
m n (?)
w l, r y h
Vowels: short: i e a o u
long: ii ee aa oo uu
b d dz l (d ?) g g
p t (ts ?) V t k k
p t ts tl t k k
f s r x x
m n n
pp t ts V t k k
w y h
Notes:
i u
e o
a
Vowels: i u
e o
a
Vowels: i e a o u
Notes:
p t c k k k
b d j g g g
J
f s (sh)
z
m n
hl
r
w y
Notes:
1. /c/ = /t/; /j/ = /d/; /J/ = //; /sh/ = //; /hl/ = /V/.
2. The exact phonetic value of // is unclear.
3. Newman does not reconstruct */l/ for Proto-Chadic, but Jungraithmayr
Ibriszimow do. JungraithmayrIbriszimow also reconstruct a velar ejective
*// and a voiced fricative lateral *//. For more information, see the table of
sound correspondences in JungraithmayrIbriszimow 1994.I:XXXXIX.
i u
a
7.15. SUBGROUPING
Proto-Afrasian
1. North Afrasian (NAA) (first branching dated to the mid 9th mill. BCE):
1.1. Semitic
1.2. African North Afrasian (ANAA):
1.2.1. Egyptian
1.2.2. Chado-Berber:
1.2.2.1. Berber-Canarian
1.2.2.2. Chadic
2. South Afrasian (SAA):
2.1. Cushitic
2.2. Omotic
I. Omotic:
A. North Omotic
B. South Omotic
II. Erythraean:
A. Cushitic:
1. Beja / Beawye
2. Agaw
3. East-South Cushitic:
a. Eastern Cushitic
b. Southern Cushitic
B. North Erythraean:
1. Chadic
2. Boreafrasian:
a. Egyptian
b. Berber
c. Semitic
Fleming (2002b:39) adds Ongota to the above chart as a separate branch under
Erythraean.
Huehnegard (2004:140), on the other hand, takes a more cautious view:
SEMITIC: Rubin (2008 and 2010:321) presents the current understanding of the
subgrouping of the Semitic branch, on the basis of the facts available to date. First,
he recognizes a primary division between East and West Semitic. As he notes, this
division has remained relatively uncontroversial for more than a century. East
Semitic includes two sub-branches Eblaite and Akkadian , while West Semitic
is divided into Central Semitic, Ethiopian, and Modern South Arabian. Rubins
views are illustrated in the following chart (see also Faber 1997; Ruhlen 1987:323;
Pereltsvaig 2012:96; Lipiski 1997:4785; Kogan 2015; Groen 2015:5):
Proto-Semitic
Eblaite Akkadian
Note: Coptic was still spoken in isolated pockets until the sixteenth century CE (cf.
Pereltsvaig 2012:296).
A. Guanche: Guanche
B. East Numidian: East Numidian (= Old Libyan)
C. Berber proper:
1. Eastern:
Siwa
Awjila-Sokna: Awjila, Sokna, Ghadames
2. Tuareg:
a. Northern: Tamahaq
b. Southern: Tamazheq, Tamasheq
3. Western: Zenaga
4. Northern:
a. Atlas: Shilha, Tamazight
b. Kabyle: Kabyle
c. Zenati:
Shawiya, Tidikelt, Tuat, Riff, Ghmara, Tlemcen, Sheliff
Basin
i. Mzab-Wargla: Guara, Mzab, Wargla, Ghardaia, Tugurt
ii. East Zenati: Tmagurt, Sened, Jerba, Tamezret, Taujjut,
Zwara, Nefusi
Proto-Cushitic
Proto-Agaw
Kalia
For East Cushitic, Sasse (1979:34) identifies the following modern languages,
language groups, or dialect clusters:
Proto-East Cushitic
Somali Arbore .
For a slightly different subclassification, cf. Mous 2012:346; see also Ehret 2012:
124.
Ehret (1980:132) gives the following subclassification for Southern Cushitic:
Southern Cushitic:
(a) Rift branch:
(a.1) West Rift subgroup:
(i) Iraqw, Gorowa
(ii) Alagwa-Burunge:
Burunge
Alagwa
(a.2) East Rift subgroup:
(i) Kwadza
(ii) Asa
(b) Mbuguan branch:
Maa
(c) Dahaloan branch:
Dahalo
OMOTIC: Various attempts at subclassification have been attempted (for details, cf.
Amha 2012:425434). Bender devotes a whole book to the study of Omotic
subgrouping, based upon an analysis of morphology. He starts out (2000:2) by
giving the following chart. Later (2000:221235), he summarizes his findings and
applies them to the problem of subgrouping.
A SKETCH OF PROTO-AFRASIAN PHONOLOGY 205
CHADIC: The Chadic branch of Afrasian contains the largest number of daughter
languages. Pereltsvaig (2012:206) places the number around 195 languages, while
FrajzyngierShay (2012b:236) place the number between 140 and 160 languages
(the exact number is still a matter of debate). FrajzyngierShay also note that the
Chadic languages are the most typologically diverse Afrasian languages. Their
subclassification is as follows (2012b:240):
West
A B
1. Hausa 1. Bade, Ngizim
2. Bole 2. Miya, Paa
Tangale 3. Guruntum, Saya (Za:r)
Bole 4. Don (Zoi)
Pero
3. Angas
Sura (Mwaghavul)
Mupun
4. Ron, Fyer
Biu-Mandara
A B
1. Gaanda, Hwana (Hona), Jara, Tera 1. Buduma, Kotoko, Logone
2. Bura, Cibak, Margi 2. Musgu
3. Bana, Higi, Kapsiki 3. Gidar
4. Glavda, Guduf, Lamang, Hdi
5. Ouldene, Zulgo
6. Sukun (Sukur)
7. Daba, Hina (Mina)
8. Bachama, Tsuvan
206 CHAPTER SEVEN
East
A B
1. Somrai, Tumak 1. Bidiya, Dangla, Migama, Mubi
2. Lele, Nancere, Tobanga 2. Mukulu
3. Kera, Kwang 3. Barain, Saba, Sokoro
Masa
Masa
Mesme
Musey
Zime-Lame
Zumaya
For alternative subgrouping schemata and alternative language names, cf. Ruhlen
1987:320323, Blench 2000, and OrlStolbova 1995:xixiii. As can be clearly
seen from the above discussion, there remain many uncertainties regarding the
subgrouping of the Afrasian daughter languages, with the Chadic branch being
particularly challenging.
References: Arbeitman (ed.) 1988a; Bergstrsser 1928 and 1983; Bomhard 2014b;
Brockelmann 1908, 19081913, 1910, and 1916; Bynon (ed.) 1984; Bynon
Bynon (eds.) 1975; D. Cohen 1968; D. Cohen (ed.) 1988; M. Cohen 1947, 1952,
and 1953; Comrie (ed.) 1987 and 1990; Diakonoff 1965, 1974, 1988, and 1992;
DiakonoffMilitarvPorxomovskyStolbova 1987; Ehret 1980 and 1995;
FrajzyngierShay (eds.) 2012; Gray 1934; Gzella (ed.) 2012; Hetzron (ed.) 1997;
Hodge (ed.) 1971; Huehnergard 2004; JungraithmayrMueller (eds.) 1987; Kaye
(ed.) 1997 and 2007; LecarmeLowenstammShlonsky (eds.) 2002; Leslau 1988;
Lipiski 1997 and 2001; Moscati (ed.) 1964; OLeary 1923; OrlStolbova 1988,
1990, and 1995; Militarv 2000, 2002, 2005, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2014; Petrek
1985, 1976, 1988b, and 1989; Porxomovsky (ed.) 1987; Rssler 1981; Takcs 1999
and 2011; Takcs (ed.) 2008; Weninger (ed.) 2011; Woodard (ed.) 2004; W.
Wright 1890.
CHAPTER EIGHT
8.1. INTRODUCTION
Even though the Uralic language family is part of a larger grouping called
Uralic-Yukaghir (cf. Ruhlen 1987:6465) (Abondolo 1998a:89 and Fortescue
1998: 4447 are more cautious), the main part of this chapter will be devoted to
Uralic. Yukaghir will be dealt with separately in an Appendix.
Vowel harmony and consonant harmony are two notable phonological
characteristics of the Uralic languages, though not all languages of the family
exhibit these features. In those Uralic languages exhibiting vowel harmony, the
system is generally based upon a front ~ back contrast, most often with the vowels i
and e being neutral in regards to this contrast and thus able to combine freely with
either front or back vowels, though absolute consistency is unusual. The vowel
harmony systems found in the Uralic languages thus differ in this respect from
those found in the Altaic languages, especially Turkic and Mongolian, where more
consistent systems are the rule. Cf. Abondolo 1998a:1318; Collinder 1965:65
67; Marcantonio 2002:82.
As an active phonological feature, consonant harmony (German Stufenwechsel)
is not as widespread as vowel harmony, being found exclusively in Balto-Finnic
and Lapp (Saami) (though there are traces in the Erza dialect of Mordvin [cf. Zaic
1998:190] as well as Tavgi [Nganasan], Forest Yurak [Forest Nenets], and Southern
Selkup Samoyed [cf. Collinder 1965:6773]). Consonant harmony is based upon a
contrast, in different forms of the same word, between (1) medial voiceless
geminated stops at the beginning of an open syllable versus medial single voiceless
stops at the beginning of a closed syllable on the one hand and between (2) medial
single voiceless stops at the beginning of an open syllable versus medial voiced
stops, fricatives, or zero at the beginning of a closed syllable on the other hand.
Diachronically, the system of consonant harmony may be viewed as a weakening of
the phonetic value of a consonant before closed syllables. This resulted in a
correlation of so-called strong-grade variants with open syllables and so-called
weak-grade variants with closed syllables. Even though consonant harmony
began as a purely phonetic process, however, it has since become morphologized in
those languages where it developed, and a certain amount of leveling has also taken
place. In Estonian, in particular, so many diachronic changes have taken place that
there is no longer a readily discernible correlation between strong-grade and open
syllables nor between weak-grade and closed syllables. Cf. Abondolo 1998a:11
12; Marcantonio 2002:8384.
As noted by Vajda (2003:117), the constituent branches [of Uralic] have
undergone extensive areal contact mutually as well as with non-Uralic languages.
208 CHAPTER EIGHT
p t t k
(= ) (= ) x
s s
m n n
r l (l)
w y
p m w
t s c n d r l
s n d y
k
x
4. The ordinary as well as the palatalized liquids: *r, *l/* and nasals *m, *n/*;
5. The affricates: generally one: *, or two: * and the palatal(ized) *.
Glides: w y x
Nasals: m n n
Stops: p t k
Affricates: c
Fricatives: s s
Lateral: l
Trill: r
8.3. VOWELS
There are still many uncertainties regarding the reconstruction of the Proto-Uralic
vowels. Dcsy (1990:22), for example, has proposed the following system:
i u
e o
a
At the Proto-Uralic level, the system of vowel harmony was based exclusively upon
a front ~ back contrast. This affected the distributional patterning of vowels in such
a way that only front vowels could combine with front vowels and only back
vowels could combine with back vowels in a given word. The basic rule is that the
vowels of non-initial syllables adjust to the vowel of the initial syllable. According
to Dcsy (1990:36), the following combinations were permitted:
Front Back
i~ u~a
e~ o~a
~ a~a
A key point in this scheme is the assumption by Dcsy (1990:3943) that only *
and *a could appear in non-initial syllables. The traditional view among Uralic
scholars, however, is that *i/* (or *e) could also occur in non-initial syllables.
Indeed, the evidence from the Uralic daughter languages strongly supports the
reconstruction of the opposition *i/* (or *e) versus *a/* in non-initial syllables.
210 CHAPTER EIGHT
High i u
Middle e o
Low a
Sammallahti (1988:481), on the other hand, reconstructs the following vowels for
Proto-Uralic, all of which could appear in stressed syllables (in general,
Sammallahtis views are supported by Abondolo 1998a:1318, especially p. 16,
though Abondolo devotes considerable space to a discussion of alternative
proposals, including the suggestion that Proto-Uralic may have had phonemic long
vowels):
u i
o e
(a)
i
(a)
i ~ , i ~ ,
~ , i u ~ ,
e ~ , i o ~ ,
~ , i ~ ,
Though front rounded and back (or central) unrounded vowels are typical
characteristics of most Uralic languages, they are innovations within Uralic proper
and, consequently, are not to be reconstructed for Proto-Nostratic. There have been
several attempts to show that phonemic long vowels also existed in Proto-Uralic;
however, the prevailing view appears to be that phonemic long vowels were
secondary developments in the Uralic daughter languages (cf. Lehtinen 1967) and
not part of the phonological system of the Uralic parent language.
A SKETCH OF PROTO-URALIC PHONOLOGY 211
8.4. ACCENTUATION
There were probably three degrees of stress contrast in Proto-Uralic (cf. Dcsy
1990:4849): (A) strongest, (B) weak, and (C) weakest. These are relative terms
the actual intensity differences between these three degrees was not great. The
rule is that the strongest degree always fell on the first syllable of a word, and the
weakest always on the last. The weak degree fell on odd non-initial syllables
(except for the final syllable), while the weakest degree fell on even non-final
syllables and the final syllables. Cf. also Sammallahti 1988:480.
The Proto-Uralic root structure patterning was fairly straightforward (cf. Bakr-
Nagy 1992, especially pp. 133158):
#C(V)
{{ CCC
CC
C
} V
} (+CV)#
Proto-Uralic did not differentiate between nominal and verbal stems (cf. Dcsy
1990:56). Only pronouns existed as an independent stem type.
The tables of correspondences on the following pages are based primarily upon
Collinder 1965:75103. For comprehensive discussions of the developments in the
individual Uralic daughter languages, see Collinder 1960:45193, Cavoto 1998,
Sammallahti 1988:478554, Abondolo (ed.) 1998, and (for Samoyed) Hajd
1968:5764. Due to the uncertainties surrounding the reconstruction of vowels in
Proto-Uralic, only consonants are presented in the following tables (see Zhivlov
2010 and 2014 for information on the reconstruction of the vowels).
A SKETCH OF PROTO-URALIC PHONOLOGY 213
8.7. CORRESPONDENCES
Notes:
1. Proto-Uralic *w-: the developments shown in the above table are for *w-
before rounded vowels.
2. Proto-Uralic *l- and *n-: the developments shown in the above table are for *l-
and *n- before , e, and i.
A SKETCH OF PROTO-URALIC PHONOLOGY 215
Notes: Medial *--: Finnish t, h; Lapp / Saami cc (hc) ~ c, hcc ~ cc (hc), ss ~ s, s's
~ s; Cheremis / Mari , ; Votyak / Udmurt and Zyrian / Komi , , , .
Otherwise = *-. Cf. Collinder 1965:84.
Notes: Medial *--: Finnish t, h; Lapp / Saami cc (hc) ~ c, hcc ~ cc (hc), ss ~ s, s's
~ s; Cheremis / Mari , ; Votyak / Udmurt and Zyrian / Komi , , , .
Otherwise = *-. Cf. Collinder 1965:84.
A SKETCH OF PROTO-URALIC PHONOLOGY 217
APPENDIX:
PROTO-YUKAGHIR PHONOLOGY
Stops p t k/q
Affricates
Sibilants s ()
Fricatives ()
Nasals m n
Laterals l l
Trills r
Approximants w j
Front vowels i e ()
Back vowels y a o u
Notes:
9.1. INTRODUCTION
Even though the Dravidian languages are most likely related to Elamite (cf.
McAlpin 1974a, 1974b, and 1981; Ruhlen 1987:140 and 330), which together form
a larger grouping called Elamo-Dravidian, this chapter will concentrate primarily on
Dravidian. Elamite phonology is discussed briefly in 9.6 below.
Several scholars have attempted to relate Dravidian with other language
families. Edwin Norris (in 1853), Georg Hsing (in 1910), Alfredo Trombetti (in
1913), Ferdinand Bork (in 1925), and Igor M. Diakonoff (in 1967), respectively,
made early attempts to show that Dravidian might be related to Elamite. The most
serious, and the most convincing, attempt along these lines has been the work of
David McAlpin (in 1974 and 1981). On the other hand, Rasmus Rask, Robert
Caldwell, Otto Schrader, Thomas Burrow, Stephen Tyler, and Elli Johanna Pudas
Marlow explored the possibility of a relationship between Dravidian and Uralic.
Attempts to relate Dravidian to Nilo-Saharan and to Japanese have not proved
fruitful.
Dravidian phonology has been studied in detail by Andronov (2003), Zvelebil
(1970), Krishnamurti (2003), and Subrahmanyam (1983), among others, and is
fairly well understood. Tamil is the most conservative modern Dravidian language.
9.2. CONSONANTS
Word initially, there were only voiceless stops in Proto-Dravidian. This is still the
situation found in Tamil. On the basis of the reflexes found in South Dravidian
languages and Telugu, a series of alveolars distinct from dentals and retroflexes has
been reconstructed for Proto-Dravidian. A notable feature of Proto-Dravidian
consonantism is the absence of sibilants. Medially, Proto-Dravidian had a contrast
between geminated (including clusters of nasal plus consonant) and non-geminated
consonants. Initially and medially in combination with other stops, *p, *t, *k, and
*c were voiceless; between vowels and before nasals, they were voiced. The
geminates were voiceless.
The reconstruction shown below is close to that set up by Zvelebil (1970:77)
and Krishnamurti (2003:91 and 120) for Proto-Dravidian; however, I have followed
BurrowEmeneau (1984:xiixiii), Steever (1998a:14), and McAlpin (1981:24) in
the representation of the alveolar as *r instead of *t. The reason for my decision to
represent the Proto-Dravidian phoneme as *r instead of *t is based upon the
observation that this phoneme corresponds to /r/ in the closely-related Elamite
220 CHAPTER NINE
(though there is some room for interpretation here) as well as in the other Nostratic
languages.
Proto-Dravidian had the following consonants (cf. Krishnamurti 2003:91 and
120; Andronov 2003:300; McAlpin 1974a:93 and 1981:25; Steever 1998a:1318;
Subrahmanyam 1983:40; Zvelebil 1970:77 and 1990:113):
p- t- c- k-
-p- -t- -r- -- -c- -k-
-pp- -tt- -rr- -- -cc- -kk-
-mp- -nt- -nr- -- -c- -k-
-p(u) -t(u) -r(u) -(u) -c(u) -k(u)
m n
-mm- -nn- -- --
v- -r -l -r y
-v- -r- -l- -r- -y-
-
--
-vv- -ll- -- -yy-
(-v)
9.3. VOWELS
Proto-Dravidian had five short vowels and five long vowels plus the sequences *ay
and *av (< *aw) (cf. McAlpin 1981:2324; Subrahmanyam 1983:36; Zvelebil
1970:35 and 1990:6; Krishnamurti 2003:91; BurrowEmeneau 1984:xiixiii;
Steever 1998a:1314; Andronov 2003:2627):
e o a i u
A SKETCH OF PROTO-DRAVIDIAN PHONOLOGY 223
9.4. ACCENTUATION
Primary stress always falls on the first, that is, the root syllable and is not
phonemically distinctive in Dravidian. On the other hand, intonation plays an
important role. For details, cf. Zvelebil 1970:4041, Steever 1998a:18, and
Krishnamurti 2003:5960.
*V- and *CV- almost always occurred with a derivational suffix; *- and *C-
could occur both with and without a derivational suffix; *VCC- and *CVCC- could
occur both with and without a derivational suffix in bisyllabic nominal stems, while
in verbal stems, they always occurred without a suffix they alternated with *VC-
and *CVC- before a derivational suffix in verbal stems and trisyllabic nominal
stems; *CC- and *CCC- could occur both with and without a derivational suffix
224 CHAPTER NINE
in bisyllabic nominal stems, but in verbal stems, they always occurred without a
suffix.
Roots ending in a vowel were followed by derivational suffixes beginning with
a consonant, while roots ending in a consonant could be followed by derivational
suffixes beginning with either a consonant or a vowel, though those beginning with
a vowel were by far the most common type. Derivational suffixes beginning with a
vowel could consist of (A) the simple vowel itself (*-V-), (B) the vowel plus a
single consonant (*-VC-), (C) the vowel plus a geminate stop (*-VCC-), (D) the
vowel plus the sequence of nasal and its corresponding homorganic stop (*-VNC-),
or (E) the vowel plus the sequence of a nasal and its corresponding homorganic
geminate stop (*-VNCC-). In primary nominal stems, the derivational suffix *-VCC-
could be further extended by adding another suffix of the type *-VC-. The
derivational suffixes probably originally modified the meaning in some way,
though, as noted by Caldwell (1913:209), it is no longer possible, in most cases, to
discern their original meaning.
There were three fundamental form-classes in Proto-Dravidian (cf. Zvelebil
1977:6): (A) nominal, adjectival, and pronominal stems, (B) verbal stem, and (C)
indeclinables.
The Elamite phonological system was fairly simple (cf. Grillot-Susini 1987:1011;
Khaikjan 1998:69; Paper 1955:36; Reiner 1969:7175; Stolper 2004:7073):
Consonants:
p t k
b d g
s
z
v/f (?) h
m n
l r
Vowels: i e a u (o ?)
The Dravidian sound correspondences on the following pages are from Burrow
Emeneau 1964:xiixiii; Krishnamurti 2003:90178; Zvelebil 1970; Andronov
2003:65101; Subrahmanyam 1983.
A SKETCH OF PROTO-DRAVIDIAN PHONOLOGY 225
9.7. CORRESPONDENCES
VOWELS
Proto-Dravidian *a *e *i *o *u * * * * *
Tamil a e i o u
Malayalam a e i o u,
Kota a e i o u
Toda o, a , e , i wa, w, e, X i, wX,
w, wa, w,
o, u
Kannaa a e i o u
Koagu a e, i o u ,
Tuu a e i o u
Telugu a e i o u
Kolami a e i o u
Naiki a e i o u
Naiki a e i o u
(of Chanda)
Parji e, a e, a i o u , ,
Gadba (Ollari) a e i o u
Gadba (Salur) a e i o u
Gondi a e, a i o, u u
Kona a e i o u
Pengo a e i o u
Mana a e i o u
Kui a e i o u
Kuwi a e i o u
Kuux a e i o u
Malto a e i o u
Brahui a a, i i , u, u
a
226 CHAPTER NINE
CONSONANTS
10.1. INTRODUCTION
The study of the Altaic family has had a long and stormy history, and even
today there is considerable disagreement among specialists over exactly which
languages belong to the family.
The similarities among what has come to be known as the Altaic languages
(specifically, Chuvash-Turkic, Mongolian, and Manchu-Tungus) were recognized
nearly three hundred years ago by the Swedish military officer Johann von
Strahlenberg, who published a work on the subject in 1730 (though Strahlenberg
actually rejected the idea of a genetic relationship among these languages). The
famous Danish scholar, and one of the founders of Indo-European comparative
grammar, Rasmus Rask, also conducted research into these languages as well as
Eskimo, several Uralic languages, and what have sometimes been called the
Paleosiberian languages. In the middle of the last century, important work was
done by the Finnish linguist Matthew Alexander Castrn. It was another Finnish
scholar, Gustav John Ramstedt (cf. Poppe [1965:8385] for a sketch of Ramstedts
life), who really put Altaic comparative linguistics on a firm footing. Ramstedt
published many important studies, culminating in the publication (19521957) of
his two-volume magnum opus (in English translation) Introduction to Altaic
Linguistics. A few of the many scholars who have made significant contributions to
Altaic linguistics are: Pentti Aalto, Johannes Benzing, Anna Dybo, Joseph Grunzel,
Erich Haenisch, Shiro Hattori, Wladyslaw Kotwicz, Samuel E. Martin, Karl H.
Menges, Roy Andrew Miller, Antoine Mostaert, Oleg Mudrak, Gyula (Julius)
Nmeth, Jerry Norman, Martti Rsnen, Martine Robbeets, Andrs Rna-Tas,
Andrew Rudnev, Aurlien Sauvageot, Boris A. Serebrennikov, Denis Sinor, Sergej
A. Starostin, John C. Street, Vilhelm Thomsen, Vera Ivanovna Tsintsius (Cincius),
rmin Vmbry, Boris Yakovlevich Vladimirtsov, Alexander Vovin, and others too
numerous to count, including several Russian, Korean, and Japanese scholars. One
of the most prominent Altaic scholars of the twentieth century was the Russian-born
Nicholas Poppe, who published numerous books and articles, including (in English
translation) Khalkha-Mongolian Grammar (1951), Introduction to Mongolian
Comparative Studies (1955; reprinted 1987), (in English translation) Comparative
Grammar of the Altaic Languages (1960; only Part I appeared), Introduction to
Altaic Linguistics (1965), and Grammar of Written Mongolian (third printing
1974). A noteworthy work (1991) is the monograph by the late Russian linguist
232 CHAPTER TEN
Sergej Starostin entitled (in English translation) The Altaic Problem and the Origin
of the Japanese Language. Finally, we may note in passing that Illi-Svity (1963,
1964b) also made a couple of important contributions to Altaic linguistics.
Traditionally, Altaic has included the core groups (Chuvash-)Turkic,
Mongolian, and (Manchu-)Tungus, to which some have tried to add Korean,
Japanese-Ryukyuan (Japonic), and Ainu. Looking at just the core group, one is
hard-pressed to find features common to all three. There are, to be sure, common
features between (Chuvash-)Turkic and Mongolian on the one hand and between
Mongolian and (Manchu-)Tungus on the other, but there appear to be relatively few
features common to (Chuvash-)Turkic and (Manchu-)Tungus alone. All three are,
in fact, similar in structure, but this has been considered by some to be strictly a
typological characteristic. The common features found among the members of the
core group have been explained as due to diffusion, and, for a good portion of the
common lexical material, this seems to be a valid explanation (cf. Poppe
1965:157163). There are, however, features common (pronouns, to cite a single
example) to the members of the core group as a whole that cannot be explained as
due to diffusion, and which do indeed point to some sort of genetic relationship.
The problem is in trying to define the nature of that relationship. Two explanations
are possible: (1) The shared features are due to common descent from Proto-
Nostratic and do not imply a closer relationship between the three. In this scenario,
(Chuvash-)Turkic, Mongolian, and (Manchu-)Tungus turn out to be three
independent branches of Nostratic this is Dolgopolskys view. (2) The shared
features are due to descent from a common Altaic parent language intermediate
between Proto-Nostratic and each of the core group members. The trouble with the
first explanation is that it merely shifts the question back to the Nostratic level
without resolving a thing, whereas the second explanation keeps the focus exactly
where it belongs. The second alternative thus remains a viable working hypothesis.
Strong opposition to the Altaic Theory has been expressed by several reputable
scholars, perhaps the most vocal being Gerhard Doerfer and Gerard Clauson. At the
Workshop on Linguistic Change and Reconstruction Methodology held at Stanford
University from 28 July through 1 August 1987, the consensus of the Altaic panel
was that [i]n short, we found Proto-Altaic, at best, a premature hypothesis and a
pragmatically poor foundation on which to build a sustained research program (cf.
Unger 1990:479).
The whole question of Altaic unity was again reexamined by Roy Andrew
Miller (1991). Miller addresses and convincingly demolishes objections that have
been raised by those opposed to setting up an Altaic language family, and he
concludes his paper by listing a number of important tasks that must be undertaken
by Altaicists to redirect Altaic historical-linguistic studies back into the
mainstream of comparative linguistics. Another who defended the Altaic Theory
against its critics was the Hungarian linguist Lajos Ligeti. In a 1969 article entitled
A Lexicostatistical Appraisal of the Altaic Theory, Ligeti reevaluated the
evidence for and against the Altaic Theory, concentrating particularly on the views
of Clauson. Ligeti concluded that the evidence does indeed point to a genetic
A SKETCH OF PROTO-ALTAIC PHONOLOGY 233
p t k
b d g
s
m n n --
-r- (= -r-) -r- (= -r-)
-l- (= -l-) -l- (= -l-)
y
! o u i e h r
i
Sibilants: s (?)
z (?)
Vowels: i e () (?) u o a
Diphthongs: ia io iu (ue?) ua
A SKETCH OF PROTO-ALTAIC PHONOLOGY 235
Note: Though not shown in the charts on pages 2124 of his 1991 book, Starostin
also reconstructs long vowels for Proto-Altaic.
Aspirata: p t k
Tenuis: p t k
Media: b d g
An important milestone in Altaic studies was reached in 2003 with the publication
by Sergej A. Starostin, Anna Dybo, and Oleg A. Mudrak of An Etymological
Dictionary of Altaic Languages. Though this dictionary must be used with caution
(note the critical reviews by Georg 2004, Vovin 2005, and Norman 2009 [Starostin
wrote a rebuttal to Georgs review in 2005 in Diachronica]), it contains much that
is of value and is, in many respects, an improvement over previous efforts.
StarostinDyboMudrak (2003:24) reconstruct the Proto-Altaic phono-
logical system as follows (where their transcriptions differ from those used in this
book, their transcriptions are shown in parentheses immediately after those used
here):
Sibilants: s
z-
Vowels: i e u o a
Diphthongs: i a i o i u
Vowels of the non-initial syllable are generally very unstable in all modern
Altaic languages. They tend to become assimilated to initial vowels, are frequently
contracted in various combinations with following suffixes, and are often lost
completely. They are best preserved in the Manchu-Tungus languages and are
completely lost in the majority of Turkic and Korean roots. The situation, therefore,
is very close, for example, to what is found in Germanic, within Indo-European, or
in the Nakh languages in the Eastern Caucasus, where the quality of non-initial
vowels can only be recovered on the basis of umlaut processes in the first syllable.
Thus, StarostinDyboMudrak have chosen to reconstruct non-initial vowels on
indirect evidence, namely, by the way the non-initial vowels have influenced
preceding vowels. They note that rules for the development of non-initial vowels in
the individual Altaic subbranches have yet to be worked out and will depend
substantially on the future analysis of verbal and nominal morphophonemics and
accent systems.
final root vowel that had earlier disappeared before other verbal suffixes of the type
*-V(CV)-.
A small number of trisyllabic roots such as *alaku to walk, *kabari oar,
*kobani armpit, etc. can also be reconstructed for Proto-Altaic. It cannot be
excluded that, in many or most of these cases, the final syllable was originally a
suffix, but the deriving stem was not used separately, and the derivation had already
become obscure in the proto-language.
The monosyllabic structure *(C)V was typical for pronominal and auxiliary
morphemes, but a small number of verbal (and, quite exceptionally, nominal)
monosyllabic roots can also be reconstructed.
A special case involves a number of verbal roots that appear as monosyllables
of the type *CV in some languages but have the structure *CVl(V) or, less
frequently, *CVr(V) in others. StarostinDyboMudrak reconstruct disyllables
here, but note that the exceptional loss of *r and *l remains unexplained. A possible
solution would be to reconstruct those roots as *CVC, with occasional loss of the
root-final resonant. However, the number of examples is not large, and the roots in
question are frequently used as auxiliary verbs, which by itself could explain the
exceptional phonetic development. It is also possible that *-r- and *-l- were
originally suffixed and that the roots belonged instead to the rare type *CV.
StarostinDyboMudrak note that the problem requires further investigation.
There were four fundamental stem types in Proto-Altaic:
1. Verbal stems
2. Nominal and adjectival stems
3. Pronouns
4. Particles
The first table of correspondences on the following pages is based exclusively upon
the work of StarostinDyboMudrak (2003) (see also Griffen 1994). Older views
must now be considered outdated. Only the consonants are given in this table. The
vowel correspondences are extremely complicated for details on the vowels, cf.
StarostinDyboMudrak (2003:90134). The next set of tables is based upon
the work of Robbeets (2016:206207). Here, both consonants and vowels are
given.
StarostinDyboMudrak consider Japanese-Ryukyuan (Japonic) and Korean
to be members of the Altaic language family. Consequently, these languages are
included in the table on the following page (though note the above comments on the
position of these languages).
For information on the Turkic languages, cf. JohansonCsat (eds.) 1998 and
von GabainPritsakPoppeBenzingMengesTemirToganTaeschner
SpiesCaferoluBattal-Taymas 1982; for the Mongolic languages, cf. Janhunen
(ed.) 2003, Poppe 1955, PoppeDoschDoerferAaltoSchrderPritsak
Heissig (eds.) 1964, and SvantessonTsendinaKarlssonFranzn 2005; and for
the Manchu-Tungus languages, cf. FuchsLopatinMengesSinor 1968. A new
book on the Manchu-Tungus languages, under the editorship of Alexander Vovin,
is currently being prepared (Vovin [ed.] to appear).
240 CHAPTER TEN
10.6. CORRESPONDENCES
I. Consonants:
II. Vowels:
APPENDIX:
THE CONSONANT INVENTORIES OF
THE ALTAIC DAUGHTER LANGUAGES
For each branch, we will begin with the reconstructions proposed by Starostin
DyboMudrak (2003).
(CHUVASH-)TURKIC
p t k
b d y g
s
-m- -n- -n- --
-r-, -l- -r-, -l-
Dybos reconstruction is very close to the consonant system of early Old Turkic (cf.
Erdal 2004:62 Erdal does not include sounds found only in loanwords):
Menges (1968b:81), on the other hand, reconstructs a more complicated system for
Common Turkic and Ancient Turkic (see also Rna-Tas 1998:7172; Tenishev
Dybo 20012006.III:17):
MONGOLIC
t k
b d g
s h/
m n
w r y
l
t k
b d g
s x
m n
r y
l
Poppe (1955:95 and 1960:9), on the other hand, reconstructs a more complicated
consonant system for Common Mongolic:
Let us now compare the consonant system of Written (Literary) Mongolian (cf.
Hambis 1945:XII; see also GrnbechKrueger 1993:910; Janhunen 2003b:35;
Poppe 1974:17; Rybatzki 2003a:64 [Middle Mongolian]):
Vibrants
Liquids
Nasals
Voiceless
Voiceless
Voiceless
Voiced
Voiced
Voiced
Bilabial p b m
Labiodental w
Dental t d s (z) n l r
Palatal
k g
Guttural
q
Semivowel: y
(MANCHU-)TUNGUS
p t k
b d g
s x
l, r y
m n n
p t t q/k
b d d ///g
s
w? /l y w?
m n n
11.1. ESKIMO
p t c (= ) k q
v y
l
V
m n
i u
a
11.2. CHUKCHI-KAMCHATKAN
The Chukchi phonological system is relatively simple not only is there a very
small inventory of obstruents, there is also no voicing contrast in stops. The
following chart is from Maddieson 1984:416, no. 908 (see also George Campbell
1991.I:328; Comrie [ed.] 1981:243; M. Dunn 1999:43; and Ruhlen 1975:182):
Voiceless stops: p t k q
Voiceless affricates: [c]
Voiced fricatives: N
Voiceless sibilant: s
Voiceless fricative lateral: V
Nasals: m n
Glides: w y
Vowels:
High: i e u
Low: e a o
The Chukchi vowels form a system of vowel harmony in which the second
correspondent (e, a, o) is labeled dominant, and the first (i, e, u) recessive.
Native Chukchi words must contain either all dominant or all recessive vowels;
the two correspondents cannot co-exist in the same word. The schwa () is neutral
in regards to the dominant ~ recessive contrast. Cf. M. Dunn 1999:48.
The system of vowel harmony found in Chukchi operates according to different
principles than the system found, for example, in Altaic. In Altaic, the direction of
vowel harmony is determined by the vowel of the root. In Chukchi, on the other
hand, a particular morpheme is either dominant or recessive; it is the vowel of
the dominant morpheme (this need not be the root) that influences the remaining
vowels.
There are several differences between the Koryak and Chukchi phonological
systems worth mentioning. In the Chavchuven dialect of Koryak, r and y have
merged into y. In general, Koryak has a larger phonemic inventory than Chukchi,
although some of the phonemes have a low frequency of occurrence. Whereas
Chukchi has only w, Koryak distinguishes both v and w (though the opposition is
neutralized to w in syllable-final position). Koryak also distinguishes between non-
palatalized t, l, n and palatalized t, l, n, though palatalization plays primarily an
affective role, being used in the formation of diminutives. There are other
differences as well: for example, l is a voiced frictionless continuant in Koryak,
while the Koryak pharyngeal corresponds to Chukchi .
The Kamchadal / Itelmen consonant system is considerably more complicated
than those of Koryak and Chukchi. The Kamchadal / Itelmen consonant system
contains both plain and ejective stops, voiced and voiceless fricatives, and three
lateral phonemes. The following chart is based upon Ruhlen (1975:215):
Vowels: i u
e o
a
p t c k q i u
v e o
m n a
l
r
w j
Fortescue also mentions that there may have been a full palatal series in Proto-
Chukchi-Kamchatkan as well (*/t/, */n/, and */l/). Moreover, Fortescue claims
(2005:78) that the ejectives found in Kamchadal / Itelmen are secondarily
derived, having arisen mostly as a result of syncope.
Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan / Proto-Nostratic phonological correspondences
(consonants only):
Chukchi-Kamchatkan Nostratic
p b p p
t d t t
c c c s z
k g k k; g k k
q q q q
v x
d t t s;
r
m m
n n n
l l
r r
w w
j y l
250 CHAPTER ELEVEN
The vowel harmonic relationship described above for Chukchi must also be
reconstructed for Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan, where the dominant vowels *a,
*o, *e contrasted with the recessive vowels *K, *u, *i (cf. Fortescue 2005:11).
Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan words had to contain either all dominant or all
recessive vowels; the two correspondents could not co-exist in the same word
(Fortescue 2005:438). The schwa () was neutral in regards to the dominant ~
recessive contrast. For details, cf. Fortescue 2005:1112.
Voiceless stops: p t k k q
Voiceless asp. stops: p t k q
Voiced stops: b d g g
Palato-alveolar affricate:
Voiceless fricatives: f s x h
Voiced fricatives: v z
Nasals: m n n
Voiced trill: r
Fricative vibrant: R
Lateral: l
Glides: w y
Vowels: i e a o u
[] [] [] []
Proto-Nostratic had a rich system of stops and affricates. Each stop and affricate
series was characterized by the three-way contrast: (1) voiceless (aspirated), (2)
voiced, and (3) glottalized. The aspiration of series (1) was phonemically non-
distinctive.
The Proto-Nostratic phonological system may tentatively be reconstructed as
follows (cf. BomhardKerns 1994:122; Illi-Svity 19711984.I:147171;
Dolgopolsky 1998:101 [correspondences, pp. 102105] and to appear, 2):
p t c t k k q q
b d d r (?) g g
p t c t k k q q
Fricatives:
s s x x h
z (?) z (?)
Glides:
w y
m n n
l l
r r
(It may be noted that the above reconstruction is extremely close to what Ehret
[1980:37] posits for Proto-Southern Cushitic, but without the retroflex and pre-
nasalized sounds.)
Vowels: i (~ e) u (~ o)
e o
( ~) a
252 CHAPTER TWELVE
The following vowels may be reconstructed for Proto-Nostratic: *a, *e, *i, *o, and
*u. At least some of these vowels must have been subject to considerable
subphonemic variation in the Nostratic parent language. The high front and back
vowels *i and *u, in particular, may be assumed to have had lowered variants
(indicated in the Proto-Nostratic reconstructions as *e and *o respectively), while
the central low vowel *a may be assumed to have had higher variants (indicated in
the Proto-Nostratic reconstructions as *). To complicate matters, *e and *o must
also have existed as independent vocalic elements. It was the reanalysis,
phonemicization, and exploitation of this subphonemic variation that gave rise, at
least in part, to the ablaut and vowel harmony patterning found in the majority of
the Nostratic daughter languages. It may be noted here that, according to Greenberg
(1990a), traces of an earlier system of vowel harmony can be discerned in Proto-
Indo-European.
It is unclear whether phonemic long vowels existed in Proto-Nostratic as well,
though the evidence seems to indicate that they did not, except, probably, in nursery
words.
Finally, it may be noted that, while any vowel (*a, *e, *i, *o, *u) could appear
in initial syllables, only *a, *i, *u could appear in non-initial syllables. This is
identical to the patterning found in Dravidian.
The Proto-Nostratic vowels were, for the most part, preserved in initial
syllables in Uralic, Dravidian, and Altaic. They appear to have been originally
preserved in Proto-Afrasian as well. Within Afrasian, Cushiticand Omotic are
particularly conservative in their vocalism, while the vowel systems found in
Semitic, Egyptian, and Berber exhibit a wholesale reduction of the inherited system
(cf. Ehret 1995:5567).
The system of vowel gradation found in Semitic, Egyptian, and Berber initially
arose through morphological processes that will be discussed in the chapter on
A SKETCH OF PROTO-NOSTRATIC PHONOLOGY 253
The derivational suffixes were derivational rather than grammatical in that they
affected the meaning of a word rather than its relation to other words in a sentence.
While there were noun-deriving and verb-forming suffixes, the presence of a
suffix was not necessary to the use of a noun or verb in grammatical constructions.
Unextended roots could be used as either nouns or verbs.
Verb stems could also be used as nouns denoting the action of the verb, and
noun stems could be used as verbs. Nevertheless, the distinction between nouns and
verbs was clear. Reduplication was a widespread phenomenon.
The original root structure patterning was maintained longer in Afrasian,
Dravidian, and Altaic than in the other branches, while the patterning found in
Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Kartvelian has been modified by developments
specific to each of these branches. The root structure constraints found in Proto-
Indo-European were an innovation. In Proto-Uralic, the rule requiring that all words
end in a vowel was an innovation and arose from the incorporation of the so-called
terminal vowel into the stem.
On the basis of the evidence of Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Kartvelian, Proto-
Afrasian, Proto-Dravidian, and Proto-Altaic, it may be assumed that there were
three fundamental stem types: (A) verbal stems, (B) nominal and adjectival stems,
and (C) pronominal and indeclinable stems. Some stems were exclusively nominal.
In the majority of cases, however, both verbal stems and nominal stems could be
built from the same root. In Proto-Nostratic, only pronominal and indeclinable
stems could end in a vowel. Verbal and nominal stems, on the other hand, had to
end in a consonant, though, as noted above, when the undifferentiated stems were
used as real words in themselves, a terminal vowel had to be added to the stem.
As explained in Chapter 17, the terminal vowels were morphologically significant.
Adjectives did not exist as an independent grammatical category in Proto-Nostratic.
Illi-Svity (19711984) considers Proto-Nostratic to have been an agglutina-
ting language. However, according to Dolgopolsky (1994:2838 and 2005), Proto-
Nostratic probably had an analytical grammatical structure.
Those daughter languages that are highly inflected, namely, Proto-Indo-
European, Proto-Kartvelian, and Proto-Afrasian, may be assumed to have gone
through earlier periods of development as agglutinating languages. Such a
development is suggested for Proto-Indo-European by Bomhard (1988c:475488)
and Rasmussen (1987:107122); note also Adrados (1989b). See Chapters 18 and
19 of this book for details on Proto-Indo-European morphology.
While their reconstructions are fairly close to what is proposed in this book (see
above, 12.1), Illi-Svity and Dolgopolsky arrive at their reconstructions through
different sets of sound correspondences. Even though Dolgopolsky mostly adheres
to the sound correspondences originally established by Illi-Svity, he makes some
modifications based upon his own research. Illi-Svity did not prepare a table of
A SKETCH OF PROTO-NOSTRATIC PHONOLOGY 255
Nostratic sound correspondences himself, but the work was done for him by his
friend Vladimir Dybo and included at the beginning of volume 1 (pp. 147171) of
Illi-Svitys posthumous Nostratic dictionary (19711984). The following table
is taken from page 147 and includes only the stops (see also Illi-Svity 2008):
*t- *t t *t *t *d *t *t *d, *d *t
_i/*
*-t- *t t *t *t *d *t *t *d *d *
*- *, *t d *d * *t *t *t *t, *t *t
_i/*
*-- *, *t d, *d, * *t *tt *t *t *t *tt/t
t *t
*g- *g g, *g *g *g, *k *k *g, * *g *k
*,
*g
*-g- *g g, *g *g *g, * *g *g, *g *k
*, *,
*g *, *
*k- *k k, *k, *k *g, *k *k *k, *q *k *k
c *g? *,
*g
*-k- *k k, *k *g, *k *g, *g, *g *k
c *, *k *,
*g *, *
*- *, q *, * *k, *k *k, *k, *q *x *k
*k *k %, *k
*k
*-- * ? * *x, * * * *, *
*x, ? *g
[*x?]
It should be noted that Semitic, Egyptian, and Berber are given separate treatment
in the above table of sound correspondences, while the other branches of Afrasian
(Cushitic, Omotic, Chadic) are ignored. Likewise, Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungus
are listed separately.
On the basis of these sound correspondences, Dolgopolsky (1998:101 and to
appear, p. 8) reconstructs the following consonant system for Proto-Nostratic:
A SKETCH OF PROTO-NOSTRATIC PHONOLOGY 257
b p w m
d t n l
c c z s
(= ) r
y
g k
q "
(= )
h
The system of vowels posited by Dolgopolsky (to appear, pp. 2024) is identical
to that reconstructed for Proto-Nostratic by Illi-Svity (19711984.I:152153):
i u
e o
a
The tables on the following pages summarize the sound correspondences existing
among those branches of Nostratic dealt with in this book. These correspondences
are based upon the analysis of the lexical material that forms the core of this book
(Part 3, Comparative Vocabulary). The Chukchi-Kamchatkan correspondences can
be found in Chapter 11.
These sound correspondences are based on three fundamental assumptions:
Lehmann GamkrelidzeIvanov
b b p = p bh/b ph/p
d d t = t dh/d th/t
g g k = k gh/g kh/k
g g k = k gh/g kh/k
12.6. CORRESPONDENCES
d- d- d- d- t- t- d- t-
-d- -d- -d- -d- -t- -()- -d- --
t- t- t- t- t- t- t- t-
-t- -t- -t- -t- -t(t)- -tt- -t- -t(t)-
t- t- t- t- t- t- t- t-
-t- -t- -t- -t- -t- -t(t)- -t- -t-
d- d- g- d- t- c- - c-
-d- -d- -g- -d- -t- -c(c)-/-y- --/-d- -c-
t- t- k- t- t- c- - c-
-t- -t- -k- -t- -t- -c(c)-/-y- -- -c(c)-
t- t- k- t- t- c- - c-
-t- -t- -k- -t- -tt- -c(c)-/-y- -- -c-
s- s- k- s- s- c- s-
-s- -s- -k- -s- -s- -c(c)-/-y- -s-
- d- - - - c- - c-
-- -d- -- -- -- -c(c)- --/-d- -c-
c- t- c- c- - c- - c-
-c- -t- -c- -c- -- -c(c)- -- -c(c)-
c- t- c- c- - c- - c-
-c- -t- -c- -c- -- -c(c)- -- -c-
s- s- s- s- s- c- s-
-s- -s- -s- -s- -s- -c(c)- -s-
z- s- z- z- s- z-
-z- -s- -z- -z- -s-
A SKETCH OF PROTO-NOSTRATIC PHONOLOGY 261
g- g- g- g- k- k- g- k- q-
-g- -g- -g- -g- -x- -k- -g- --
k- k- k- k- k- k- k- k- q-
-k- -k- -k- -k- -k(k)- -k(k)- -k- -k(k)-
-q(q)-
k- k- k- k- k- k- k- k- q-
-k- -k- -k- -k- -k- -k(k)- -k- -k- -q-
g- g- gw/u- g- k- k- g- k- q-
-g- -g- -gw/u- -g- -x- -k- -g- --
k- k- kw/u- k- k- k- k- k- q-
-k- -k- -kw/u- -k- -k(k)- -k(k)- -k- -k(k)-
-q(q)-
k- k- kw/u- k- k- k- k- k- q-
-k- -k- -kw/u- -k- -k- -k(k)- -k- -k- -q-
- g- - - (?) k- k- g- k- q-
-- -g- -- -- (?) -x- -k- -g- --
q- k- q- q- (?) k- k- k- k- q-
-q- -k- -q- -q- (?) -k(k)- -k(k)- -k- -k(k)-
-q(q)-
q- k- q- q- (?) k- k- k- k- q-
-q- -k- -q- -q- (?) -k -k(k)- -k- -k- -q-
- g- w/u- g- k- k- g- k- q-
-- -g- -w/u- -g- -x- -k- -g- --
q- k- qw/u- q- (?) k- k- k- k- q-
-q- -k- -qw/u- -q- -k- -k(k)- -k- -k- -q-
262 CHAPTER TWELVE
- - - - - - - -
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
- - x- - - - - -
-- -- -x- -- -- -- -- --
- - - - - - - -
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
- - w- - w- v-/- v-
-- -- -w- -- -w- -v- -v-
h- h- - h- - - - -
-h- -h- -- -h- -- -- -- --
x- - x- x- - - - -
-x- -- -x- -x- -x- -- -- --
x- - xw/u- x- w- v-/- v-
-x- -- -xw/u- -x -x- -v- -v-
- - - - - - - -
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
y- y- y-/- y- y- y-/- y-
-y- -y- -y- -y- -y- -y- -y-
w- w- w- w- w- v-/- v-
-w- -w- -w- -w- -w- -v- -v-
m- m- m- m- m- m- m- m-
-m- -m- -m- -m- -m- -m- -m- -m-
n- n- n- n- n- n- n- n-
-n- -n- -n- -n- -n- -n-/-n- -n- -n-
n- n- n- n- n- - n-
-n- -n- -n- -n- -n- -- -n-
-- -n- -n- -- -- -- -- --
A SKETCH OF PROTO-NOSTRATIC PHONOLOGY 263
Note: In Eskimo, *-l- > -l- after -i- but -y- after -u-.
i ie i i i i i i
ea ei iu e e e
u uo u u u u u u
e e e e e e e i
a ao a a a a a a
o o o o o o o u
iy y ey iy i iy iy i iy iy
y ey ay ey i iy uy ey ey y
uy y uy i uy uy uy uy
ey ey y ey i ey ey e ey iy
ay ay oy ay i ay ay y ay ay
oy oy y oy i oy oy oy uy
iw w iw u iw iw iv iv
w ew aw ew u iw uw ew ev v
w
uw w uw u uw uw u uv uv
ow
ew ew w ew u ew ew ev iv
aw ow w aw u aw aw w av av
ow ow ow u ow ow o ov uv
w
13.1. OVERVIEW
Here, we run into potentially serious problems, for we must turn to other disciplines
such as archeology. Archeological data provide the raw material from which
archeologists construct theories about the past. The problem is that the raw material
is hardly ever complete, but rather it is limited by what has happened to survive,
usually products of manual skill and craftsmanship. This means that the theories
derived from the controlled analysis of the raw material involve a good deal of
interpretation on the part of the observer ones view of the past will be directly
conditioned to a greater or lesser degree by the theoretical framework within which
one operates as well as by ones prejudices in addition to the type of evidence
employed. (To complicate matters, many of these same problems occur in the field
of Linguistics [cf. Labov 1994:1011].) Moreover, when dealing with pre-literate
cultures, there is seldom a clear-cut correlation between linguistic groups and
culture, and cultural spread does not always mean language spread, even when
migration of people takes place individuals or small groups of individuals
moving peacefully to a new territory may simply be assimilated into the dominant
population group. One could cite the example of the many ancient Greek trading
colonies established on the shores of the Mediterranean and Black Seas, most of
which were eventually absorbed into the surrounding communities. On the other
hand, language spread can occur with a relatively small migration of people when
the language belongs to conquerors or to those bearing a more technologically
advanced culture both these factors were involved, for example, in the spread of
Latin to the Iberian Peninsula, Gaul, and Dacia, where modern-day Romance
languages are found, nearly all of the indigenous languages existing at the time of
the Roman conquest having been replaced (Basque is an exception). Another
example would be the spread of Turkic languages across Central Asia, mostly
replacing the Iranian languages that were spoken there at the time of the appearance
of the Turkic tribes (Tajik [also called Tadzhik] is an exception). Tocharian was
completely replaced and is now extinct. It goes without saying that written records,
when combined with the surviving relics of material culture, give a much broader
view of earlier communities and reduce the need for speculation/interpretation.
Even when no written records exist, however, the analysis of the lexicon of a
reconstructed proto-language can give important clues about the habitat, social
organization, and material culture of the speakers of that language this endeavor
is referred to as linguistic paleontology or paleolinguistics.
266 CHAPTER THIRTEEN
13.2. INDO-EUROPEAN
At the present time, there are two main competing theories regarding the Indo-
European homeland (cf. MalloryAdams 2006:442463; Darden 2001): (1)
according to the first theory, championed by the late Marija Gimbutas and a large
number of supporters, the Indo-European homeland was located to the north of and
between the Black and Caspian Seas and has been broadly identified with the
Kurgan Culture; (2) another view, made popular by Colin Renfrew, would place
the Indo-European homeland in Anatolia similar views were put forth by
GamkrelidzeIvanov in the second volume of their massive 1984 work (in English
translation) Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A Reconstruction and
Historical Typological Analysis of a Protolanguage and a Proto-Culture (an
English translation of this work was published in 1995), by Krantz (1988),
Dolgopolsky (1988a), and Drews (1997). Renfrew tries to link the spread of Indo-
European languages in Europe with the spread of agriculture. According to
Gimbutas, the period of Indo-European unity is to be placed at around 4,500 BCE,
while Renfrew would place the date significantly earlier at around 7,000 BCE.
The following objections may be raised against the theory of an Anatolian
homeland for Proto-Indo-European and against the view that Indo-Europeans were
somehow responsible for the spread of agriculture in Europe:
(this is but a small sampling the Northwest Caucasian examples cited below are
from the Circassian branch [cf. Kuipers 1975]; a more extensive list, incorporating
examples from the remaining branches of Northwest Caucasian, can be found in the
Appendix [Language Contact] at the end of Chapter 19). (Note: The Proto-Indo-
European reconstructions are in accordance with the Glottalic Model of Proto-Indo-
European consonantism proposed by GamkrelidzeIvanov [1972 and 1973] and
Hopper [1973] see Chapter 3, 3.4, for details):
The Armenian linguist Gevork B. Djahukyan has devoted a book (1967) entitled (in
English translation) Interrelations of the Indo-European, Hurrian-Urartian, and
Caucasian Languages to exploring lexical parallels between Indo-European and
Caucasian languages. Though dated, this book can still be used with profit,
especially for its bibliography.
Thus, it was the area to the north of and between the Black and Caspian Seas
that was most likely the final homeland of a unified Indo-European parent language
(cf. Mallory 1997, especially pp. 112113). By 3,500 BCE, Indo-European had
begun to split up into different dialect groups, and Indo-European-speaking people
had started to spread westward into Central Europe and southward into the Balkans
(cf. Anthony 1991; Nichols 1997a:134135). Gimbutas (1973b) suggests similar
dating and identifies the spread of Bronze Age metallurgical technology with the
Indo-Europeanization of Europe. For more information, cf. Anthony 2007. The
Indo-European homeland is shown in Map 1, and the dispersal of the Indo-
European languages is shown in Map 2 at the end of this chapter.
13.3. AFRASIAN
So much controversy surrounds the subject of the homeland of Afrasian that none
of the proposals advanced to date can be considered definitive (cf. HamedDarlu
2003). Diakonoff (1988:2325) presents a summary of several of the proposals
his own view is that Afrasian was located in the South-Eastern Sahara (say,
between Tibesti and Darfur). Both Werner Vycichl (1987) and Alexander
Militarv (2000, 2002, and 2009), on the other hand, favor an Asian homeland.
THE NOSTRATIC HOMELAND AND THE DISPERSAL OF THE NOSTRATIC LANGUAGES 271
According to Militarv, the original Afrasian homeland was in the Middle East and
the Arabian peninsula (cf. Diakonoff 1988:24). Diakonoff (1988:32, fn. 14) further
clarifies Militarvs views (note also the map given by Shnirelman [1997:159]):
Blaek maintains that the most likely scenario for the disintegration of Proto-
Afrasian and the migrations of speakers of the various daughter languages can be
accounted for by two distinct migrations from the Levant: the first branches to
become separated were Cushitic and Omotic, at around 12,000 BP. They spread
southward into the Arabian Peninsula. The second series of migrations separated
Egyptian, Berber, and Chadic from Semitic, which remained in the Levant, at
around 11,00010,000 BP. Egyptian, Berber, and Chadic migrated first to the Nile
Delta and Valley, where Egyptian remained, while Berber and Chadic continued
westward and southwestward. Blaeks views concerning the migrations of each of
the individual branches of Afrasian may be summarized as follows:
1. Semitic: The Semitic ecological vocabulary indicates that the Semitic homeland
is to be located in the northern Levant. The homeland of the Akkadians was in
northern and central Mesopotamia. Beginning with the reign of Sargon,
Akkadian began to replace Sumerian in Southern Mesopotamia. It also spread
into Elam, Syria, and Anatolia. In the 2nd millennium BCE, the Babylonian
274 CHAPTER THIRTEEN
dialect was used as a diplomatic language in the Near East, including Egypt.
The massive migration of the Canaanite tribes into Lower Egypt around 1700
BCE has been connected with the invasion of the Hyksos. A part of this multi-
ethnic conglomeration could have been Hebrews, whose return to the Levant is
described in the book of Exodus in the Bible. This narrative is supported by the
linguistic analysis of the Egyptian toponyms from the Bible. The oldest
Phoenician inscriptions are known from Byblos and later also from Tyre,
Sidon, and other Levantine ports. During the 1st millennium BCE, Phoenicians
founded numerous colonies in southern Anatolia, Cyprus, Malta, Sicily,
Sardinia, the coast of Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and on to Morocco and the
Iberian Peninsula. Although the strongest of them, Carthage, was destroyed by
the Romans in 146 BCE, the Phoenician/Punic language survived in North
Africa until the 5th century CE. Traces of Punic influence have been identified
in modern Berber languages. In the late 2nd millennium BCE, Aramaeans lived
in northern Syria and northwestern Mesopotamia. During the first half of the
1st millennium BCE, their inscriptions appeared throughout the Fertile
Crescent. From the end of 9th to mid-7th centuries BCE, Aramaeans were
brought into North Mesopotamia as captives of the Assyrians. At the time of a
fall of Assyria (612 BCE), Aramaic was already a dominant language in
northern Mesopotamia, and from the time of the Babylonian captivity (586
539 BCE), Aramaic began to replace Hebrew in Palestine. Aramaic became the
dominant Near Eastern language during the Achaemenid Empire (539331
BCE), where it served as a language of administration from Egypt and northern
Arabia to Central Asia and the borders of India, where the Aramaic script
served as the basis for local Indian scripts. The dominant role of Aramaic in the
Near East continued until the expansion of Arabic in the 7th century CE. Even
though it has been mostly replaced by Arabic, small pockets of Aramaic
speakers have remained in the Near East until the present day (for details, cf.
Rubin 2008:7273, 10.1; Otto Jastrow 1997). A half millennium before the
rise of Islam, Arabs expanded from northern Arabia into the southern Levant
and Mesopotamia. Two Arabic speaking states, Palmyra and the Nabatean
kingdom, controlled the commercial routes between the Mediterranean Sea, the
Red Sea, and the Persian Gulf. With the spread of Islam, the rapid expansion of
Arabic began. By the 8th century CE, Arabic was used from Morocco and the
Iberian Peninsula in the west to Central Asia in the east. Although Arabic has
lost ground in some areas (the Iberian Peninsula, Sicily, and Iran), elsewhere, it
has expanded. In Africa, it spread to the southern border of the Sahara and
along the East African coast. One of the pre-Islamic languages of Yemen
crossed the Red Sea into Eritrea and northern Ethiopia in the early 1st
millennium BCE and became the basis of the Ethiopic branch of Semitic.
Separation of the northern and southern Ethio-Semitic subbranches has been
dated to 890 BCE. See also Blench 2012 and Rubin 2008.
2. Egyptian: Egyptian was spoken in the Nile Valley from Lower Nubia to the
Delta, probably also in the oases of the Western Desert and, due to Egyptian
expansion during the New Kingdom, also in the Sinai Peninsula and Palestine.
THE NOSTRATIC HOMELAND AND THE DISPERSAL OF THE NOSTRATIC LANGUAGES 275
The unification of Upper and Lower Egypt in 3226 BCE probably stimulated a
process of integration of local dialects. Only a few traces remained of the
original dialectal diversity. In the course of time, new dialects developed such
as the Sahidic, Akhmimic, and Bohairic dialects of Coptic.
3. Berber: Not only do the modern Berber languages spoken across North Africa
from Morocco, Senegal, and Mauritania in the west to Egypt (Oasis Siwa) in
the east belong to the Berber branch of Afrasian, so do the language(s) of the
Libyco-Berber inscriptions attested from the Canary Islands to Libya and dated
from the 7/6th century BCE to the 4th century CE, as well as fragments of
languages of the original inhabitants of the Canary Islands recorded by Spanish
and Italian chroniclers in the 1416th centuries CE. No doubt, the Proto-
Berbers spread westward along the Mediterranean coast from the Nile Valley.
4. Cushitic: A Cushitic-like substratum has been identified in Modern South
Arabian, and it has been proposed that early Cushitic speakers originally
occupied the entire Arabian Peninsula. Thus, they can be seen as southern
neighbors of the Semites, who gradually assimilated those Cushites who did
not cross the Bab el-Mandeb Strait into what is now Eritrea, Djibouti, and
Ethiopia. This hypothesis is supported by the rock art of Central Arabia. The
spread of Cushites in Africa is connected with the Rift Valley. In the coastal
areas of Eritrea and Djibouti, where the Rift enters the African mainland, three
archaic representatives of the North, Central, and Eastern branches of Cushitic
are found: (1) Beja / Beawye, (2) Bilin, and (3) Saho-Afar, respectively. The
disintegration of Cushitic probably began in this general area. Ancestors of
Agaw spread throughout Eritrea and northern Ethiopia, while Beja / Beawye
spread into the Sudan between the Nile and the Red Sea. Other East and South
Cushitic languages moved further south along the Rift Valley through Ethiopia
and Kenya, and even into Central Tanzania. Further migrations from the Rift
Valley spread the Cushites throughout the Horn of Africa and south into
Kenya.
5. Omotic: Both the external and internal classifications of Omotic remain
controversial; indeed, Thiel (2006) considers Omotic to be a language isolate.
The separation of Omotic as a distinct branch of Afrasian from what was
formerly called West Cushitic was originally based on a lexico-statistical
analysis. But a later grammatical analysis demonstrated that most of the gram-
matical formants that Omotic inherited from Afrasian are shared with Cushitic.
Then, it was shown that there were numerous lexical isoglosses connecting
Omotic with other Afrasian branches that were not shared with Cushitic,
providing further evidence that Omotic and Cushitic are sister branches, and
that Omotic is not West Cushitic. That Cushitic and Omotic should be
considered distinct branches of Afrasian now seems certain. The separation of
Cushitic and Omotic has been dated to the early 8th millennium BCE.
6. Chadic: The disintegration of Proto-Chadic has been dated to around 5000
BCE. The easternmost Chadic language is Kajakse from the archaic Mubi
group, spoken in the Waddai highlands in Southeastern Chad. This area is
accessible from the Nile Valley in two ways only: along the Wadi Howar
276 CHAPTER THIRTEEN
north of Darfur and along the Bahr al-Ghazal and its north tributary Bahr al-
Arab south of Darfur. The northern route could lead along the Batha River,
which flows into Lake Fitri at the present time but which formed a part of a
much larger Lake Chad in the past (around 4000 BCE). The southern route
could continue along the Bahr Azoum/Salamat in the basin of the Chari River,
the biggest tributary of Lake Chad.
13.4. KARTVELIAN
At the present time, the Kartvelian (also called South Caucasian) languages are
located in the Republic of Georgia (), except for Laz, which is
spoken in Lazistan, Turkey. Georgian has the most speakers, while Svan is the most
conservative. As is to be expected by its more archaic nature, Svan was the first
language to split from the rest of the Kartvelian speech community (Georgian,
Mingrelian, and Laz). According to GamkrelidzeMaavariani (1982:2324),
Klimov, using glottochronology, has dated this split at 2,000 BCE. The next split
was between Georgian and Laz-Mingrelian (together called Zan), which has been
dated at 800 BCE. This chronology would mean positing a rather shallow time
depth for Proto-Kartvelian, in the vicinity of 4,0003,000 BCE. However, in view
of the apparent contacts between Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Indo-European (cf.
Gamkrelidze 1966, 1967, and 1970:141), Proto-Kartvelian must have been roughly
contemporaneous with Proto-Indo-European, which would imply a slightly earlier
date. Therefore, I very hesitatingly suggest a date of around 5,000 BCE for Proto-
Kartvelian. It is certain, at the very least, that Kartvelians were in their current
location by that date.
THE NOSTRATIC HOMELAND AND THE DISPERSAL OF THE NOSTRATIC LANGUAGES 277
13.5. URALIC-YUKAGHIR
There is general agreement about the homeland of Uralic Dcsy (1990:9), for
example, places the Uralic proto-language in the Forest-Zone-Steppe-Border
(mainly north of it) between the Volga Bend in Eastern Russia and the Ob River in
Western Siberia (for more information on the Uralic homeland, cf. Collinder
1965:2830; Fortescue 1998:180183; Hajd 1972:1723 and 1975:3040;
Hkkinen 2012a; Janhunen 2009; and Napolskikh 1995).
The date at which the unified Uralic parent language is thought to have been
spoken is 4,0005,000 BCE (cf. Suihkonen 2002:165; Janhunen 2009:68), while
278 CHAPTER THIRTEEN
bringing in Yukaghir pushes that date back another millennium or so and moves the
homeland slightly to the east. Nichols (1997a:140141) also sees Pre-Uralic as
having spread westward and northward from Central Asia, slightly just ahead of the
westward movement of Pre-Indo-European. Pre-Uralic took a more northerly route,
while Pre-Indo-European took a more southerly route directly across the steppes.
A number of scholars have claimed that Indo-European and Uralic are more
closely related to each other than either of them is to any other language or
language family, while others have claimed that Uralic and Altaic are particularly
close, even going so far as to set up a Ural-Altaic language family. The Ural-Altaic
hypothesis is generally no longer supported by specialists in the field. The Indo-
Uralic hypothesis, however, may indeed have some validity. I would very, very
tentatively set up an Indo-Uralic subbranch within Eurasiatic (note, in particular,
Kortlandt 2010e), suggest that Indo-Uralic be located in Central Asia not far from
the Aral Sea, and place the date of Indo-Uralic at around 7,000 BCE. This is
definitely an area that requires additional research. We will close by citing
Collinders (1965:2930) tantalizing remarks on the possibility of a relationship
between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic and the question of homelands:
As we shall see later, Uralic and Indo-European seem to have several words in
common. If these words were borrowed from Common Indo-European, the
speakers of Common Uralic must have been the neighbors of the speakers of
Common Indo-European. If we account for them by assuming that Uralic and
Indo-European are interrelated, we arrive at the conclusion that the Uralians
and the Indo-Europeans once had a common Urheimat. Both alternatives imply
that the Indo-Europeans lived to the north of the Black Sea, and the Uralians
lived to the north of them.
There is evidence of both continuous contact after they had become independent
language families they were indeed neighbors and earlier genetic relationship
between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic. Cf. Anthony 2007:9397.
13.6. ELAMO-DRAVIDIAN
Dravidian languages are located in the southern half of the Indian subcontinent and
in the northern part of ri Lanka, though a few outliers are found to the northwest
and northeast of the main body of Dravidian languages Brahui, for instance, is
spoken in the Qalat, Hairpur, and Hyderabad districts of Pakistan (plus a smaller
number of speakers in Iran and southern Afghanistan), while Kuux is spoken in the
districts of Bihar, Orissa, and Madhya Pradesh, and Malto near the borders of Bihar
and West Bengal (cf. Zvelebil 1970:1518; Ruhlen 1987:136137). We may note
in passing that the inscriptions of the Indus Valley (Harappan) Civilization may
have been written in an early Dravidian language (cf. Fairservis 1992:1423 and
Parpola 1994; but see also ZideZvelebil [eds.] 1976 for a critical assessment of
earlier Soviet attempts to decipher the Indus Valley script).
David McAlpin (1981) has presented convincing evidence for a genetic
relationship between Elamite and Dravidian, and many prominent scholars now
accept this view (though there are still some notable holdouts!). I would suggest a
date of 8,000 BCE for Proto-Elamo-Dravidian, though a bit later (say, 7,000 BCE)
is also possible. Elamite, which is now extinct, was located primarily in south-
western Iran, in the vicinity of the Zagros mountains as well as the adjacent plains
of Khuzistan and to the south along the coast of the Persian Gulf. There is good
reason to believe that Elamite once occupied nearly all of the Iranian plateau.
PejrosShnirelman (1988) accept the Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis. They
argue for a western origin of the Dravidian languages somewhere in the Middle
East. After the disintegration of Proto-Elamo-Dravidian, the Dravidian languages
could begin to spread eastwards to South Asia. Though, as noted above, their
dating is questionable, the scenario they propose for the spread of Dravidian
languages into India is plausible. Thus, the Elamo-Dravidian homeland may be
placed roughly in western and central modern-day Iran at about 8,000 BCE. Elamo-
Dravidian gradually spread eastward covering all of the Iranian plateau and
extending into modern-day Pakistan and northwestern India. There was then an
east-west split, with Proto-Elamite developing in the western area and Proto-
Dravidian developing in the eastern area. Thus, the Dravidian homeland may be
placed in Pakistan and northwestern India and dated at about 5,000 BCE, from
which Dravidian languages spread southward into India proper (note the map in
Andronov 2003:23). The invasion of Indo-Aryans (occurring in several phases
during the period of about 1,7001,400 BCE [cf. Burrow 1973:3034]) drove the
Dravidians further south and severed the geographical links between Brahui,
Kuux, and Malto and the main body of Dravidian languages. Similar views are
expressed by Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994:221222. But, cf. Krishnamurti (2003:2
5) for a critical assessment of these views.
PejrosShnirelman (1988) correlate the movement of the Dravidian languages
into India with archeological evidence of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic. After
surveying faunal and floral terminology in Central-Southern Dravidian languages,
they discuss agricultural and stock-raising terminology. This combined evidence
confirms a high level of agriculture in West-Central India by about 2,000 BCE.
They associate this area and culture with the homeland of Central-Southern
Dravidian. This is the region from which Central-Southern Dravidian languages
280 CHAPTER THIRTEEN
spread eastward and southward. They also note that the archeological evidence as
well as linguistic reconstructions indicate that arable farming was widespread in the
western South Asian regions already by the late third millennium BCE and that both
the Harappans and the Chalcolithic inhabitants of Central India and Maharashtra
kept goats, sheep, humped cattle, buffaloes, pigs, and dogs.
Neolithic settlements in Iran (Tepe Ganj Dareh, for example) have been dated
to before 7,000 BCE. The dwellings from this period were constructed of sun-dried
mud bricks, and the inhabitants herded goats and produced lightly-fired pottery. In
the 5th and 4th millennia BCE, the settlements had grown to large towns Susa
had already been established (Susa was the capital of Elam). At that time, the
western part of Iran was under the influence of the Ubaid and Uruk cultures of
Mesopotamia. Though it is probably safe to say that an early form of Elamite was
the language of western and southern Iran (and most likely well to the east) by this
time, Caucasian languages were spoken in the northwestern part of Iran on into
modern-day Turkey (as evidenced by the later Hurrian and Urartian). By the 3rd
millennium BCE, there were several Bronze Age cultures in Iran. In the west and
south, the Elamite kingdom had been established it lasted until it was destroyed
by the Assyrians in 640 BCE. As noted above, the earliest Proto-Elamite
inscriptions date to this period. To the north of Elam, in what is currently central
and western Iran, the Giyan culture was flourishing it lasted nearly a thousand
years. Another noteworthy cultural center (at sites such as Sharh-i Sokhte and Tepe
Yahya) existed in southeastern Iran, not far from the Indus Valley (Harappan)
Civilization. In the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE, Persian tribes began
invading from the northeast, and, by 1,200 BCE, they had conquered nearly all of
Iran.
The India-Pakistan cultural area is enormous and has always been
heterogeneous even now, there is still tremendous variety. In the 3rd millennium
BCE, Baluchistan and northwestern India were part of the vast Mesopotamian-
Iranian-Indus Valley cultural complex. Copper-working agriculturalists were living
in well-built villages. Trade routes were thriving. By 2,500 BCE, the Indus Valley
(Harappan) Civilization was well-established it extended over most of
Baluchistan, north well into Punjab, and south as far as the Gulf of Cambay. Indo-
Aryan tribes began invading from the northwest at about 1,700 BCE. Given the
geography, claims that the Indus Valley inscriptions were written in an early form
of Dravidian are not impossible, though another possibility is that the language of
the Indus Valley Civilization may have constituted an independent branch of this
language family, related to but distinct from both Elamite and Dravidian (cf.
Southworth 2006). References: DaniMasson (eds.) 1992. For information about
the Indus Valley (Harappan) Civilization, cf. McIntosh 2002 and Possehl 2002.
13.7. ALTAIC
At the present time, Altaic languages cover an enormous territory, beginning with
Turkey in the west; stretching eastward across the Russian Federation and the
THE NOSTRATIC HOMELAND AND THE DISPERSAL OF THE NOSTRATIC LANGUAGES 281
republics of Central Asia in the middle and across nearly all of northern Siberia;
encompassing all of Mongolia, parts of northern, northwestern (Xnjing) and
northeastern China (the area formerly called Manchuria [Mnzgu], but now
mostly divided into Hilngjing, Jln, and Lionng provinces along with part of
the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region [Ni Mngz Zzhq]); possibly even
reaching down into the Korean peninsula; and ending far to the east in Japan. The
spread of Turkic and Mongolian languages across vast stretches of Eurasia has
occurred within the past two millennia the first westward forays of Altaic tribes
began with the Huns, going as far back as Roman times (Nichols [1997a] gives a
good overview of the spread of Turkic and Mongolian languages; see also Menges
1968b:1653). (Manchu-)Tungus languages were once more widely spoken but
have lost considerable ground fairly recently.
In the middle of the first millennium BCE, Turkic tribes were concentrated in
the vicinity of modern-day Mongolia and just to the north (cf. Golden 1998:16
17), while Mongolian tribes were immediate neighbors to the east, south, and
southeast. Tungus tribes were to the north and northeast. Indo-European languages
covered most of Central Asia (Iranian) and parts of Xnjing (Tocharian). To the
extreme northeast were Chukchi-Kamchatkan peoples. Prior to their expansion
westward, Altaic-speaking people had lived for millennia in the area delimited
above in small pastoral nomadic tribes, apparently freely intermingling with one
another.
Menges (1968b:5657) specifies the original geographical distribution of the
Altaic languages as follows (see also Golden 1998:16 and Vovin 2013):
Not discussing here the position of Korean, and not including it in the Altajic
group of languages proper, this group originally comprised four large families:
I. Hunnic, originally in the southwest and south of the Altajic area,
although we know so little about it that we include it in Altajic mainly because
it apparently survives in Volga-Bulgarian and present-day va [Chuvash];
II. Turkic, originally in the northwest and west;
III. Mongolian, in the center and southeast; and
IV. Tungus, in the north and northeast.
Of all of these, Turkic represents the most recent evolutionary type, while
Mongolian, though more archaic than Turkic, nevertheless shows a more
recent type of development than does Tungus, which is the most archaic type
of Altajic, and thus serves as an excellent time-table for relative evolutionary
age in Altajic.
For the times prior to the separation and differentiation from the
primordial nucleus groups of Altajic, which were later to become the four
Altajic divisions mentioned above, a habitat must be assumed which probably
comprised all of the Central Asiatic steppes, so that the term Altajic
languages is actually justified, since it designates that group of languages
spoken around the Altaj Mountains, in a wider sense of the term, in this case
on the steppes extending to the south around the Altaj
282 CHAPTER THIRTEEN
13.8. OTHERS
13.8.1. CHUKCHI-KAMCHATKAN
13.8.2. GILYAK
Gilyak (also called Nivkh) is usually considered to be a single language, but the two
main dialects, namely, the Amur dialect, on the one hand, and the Sakhalin (or
Eastern) dialect, on the other, are not mutually intelligible. Of the two, the Sakhalin
dialect is the more archaic. The Gilyaks are found on the lower reaches of the Amur
River and on Sakhalin Island. Though a written language was developed for the
Amur dialect in the 1930s, next to nothing has appeared in it.
Recently, Fortascue (2011) has presented compelling evidence for a close
relationship between Gilyak / Nivkh and Chukchi-Kamchatkan.
13.8.3. ESKIMO-ALEUT
As the name implies, Eskimo-Aleut has two branches: Eskimo and Aleut. The Aleut
dialects are mutually intelligible. However, this is not the case with the Eskimo
dialects. Two main Eskimo dialect groups are distinguished, namely, Yupik and
Inuit (also called Inupiaq). Yupik speakers are concentrated in southwestern
Alaska, beginning at Norton Sound and extending southward along the western and
southern coasts and inland. An extremely small enclave of Yupik speakers is found
in northeastern Siberia as well the result of a fairly recent migration. Inuit
speakers are found north of Norton Sound all the way to the northern coast of
Alaska and extending eastward across all of the northernmost parts of Canada and
on into Greenland. Aleut is spoken on the Aleutian Islands and the Commander
Islands. For more information, cf. Fortescue 1998:178180.
13.9. NOSTRATIC
Now that we have surveyed the homelands and/or present locations of the Nostratic
daughter languages, we are in a position to try to determine the probable homeland
of Nostratic itself. Before beginning, however, let us quote what Aharon
Dolgopolsky, John C. Kerns, and Henrik Birnbaum have to say about Nostratic in
THE NOSTRATIC HOMELAND AND THE DISPERSAL OF THE NOSTRATIC LANGUAGES 283
general, about its structure, about its dating, and about its homeland this will set
the stage for what follows.
First, Dolgopolsky (1994:2838):
I believe that Nostratic languages did not exist except as a part of Dene-
Caucasian until the waning of the Wrm glaciation, some 15,000 years ago. At
this time the glacial ice began a rapid retreat all along the Northern fringe of
Eurasia. In Europe, the effect was particularly dramatic, where the ice had been
piled to impressive heights with moisture received from the Atlantic. Huge
lakes developed from the melt water, particularly in the lowlands of Southern
Russia, and new rivers were eroded into being, to both feed and drain the lakes,
284 CHAPTER THIRTEEN
and to drain the Northern slopes of Eurasia as they came into view. As the new
lands emerged, sub-Arctic winds whipped up the dust of rocks, which had been
ground by the movements of glacial ice, and carried it Southward into the
newly emerging forests. Most of the dust was deposited in the valleys near
rivers, forming the basis of the fertile loess soils that later proved so attractive
to early Neolithic farmers with their techniques of slash and burn and their
casual herding of domesticated animals. These people included the Chinese in
Asia, and also the Indo-Europeans in the Balkans and later in Central Europe
with the Linear Pottery expansion around 5000 BCE, and in the lands radiating
Northward and Eastward from there.
By 10,000 BCE, the Northern half of Eurasia and North America had been
transformed. Formerly glacial and sub-Arctic lands were now temperate
forests; only the Circumpolar fringe was still Arctic or sub-Arctic. The great
herds of large Arctic mammals had been replaced by more solitary game, and
fish abounded in the lakes and streams. People of (ultimately) Aurignacian
ancestry adapted their equipment and techniques to take advantage of the new
opportunities. The small-blade stone working of the Aurignacians and their
successors was refined and elaborated to provide a varied array of new tools
and weapons by setting these microliths in handles of wood or antler. Greater
use was made of bows and arrows (with microlith tips), and dogs were used in
the hunt and for food. Fishing industries were established in the rivers and
lakes, and particularly in the Baltic, involving nets, boats and bait lines.
As always in hunter-gatherer societies, mobility was at a premium. Canoes
were used for water travel and snow shoes and sleds were developed for
overland travel in winter. The conditions were favorable for the rapid spread of
tribes and their new linguistic family over immense distances. This expansion,
which is called Mesolithic, is indicated archaeologically by microliths found all
along Northern Eurasia and Southward through the Caucasus into the Near
East, where it later developed smoothly into the Neolithic with its
domestication of cereals and of animals suitable for food and fibers.
The Mesolithic culture is aptly named, for it provided a gradual though
rapid transition between the Upper Paleolithic and the agricultural Neolithic.
There was, in fact, a steady advance in mans ability to control and exploit his
environment. This point is brought out by Grahame Clark (1980).
The more I study the matter, the more I am convinced that the spread of
the Nostratic speaking peoples was occasioned by the spread of the Mesolithic
culture, for it occupied the right positions in time and space, and its
characteristic features are compatible with the residual vocabulary of the
Nostratic families it was the last of the pre-agricultural eras in Eurasia.
Was the culture unilingual? I believe it was, in origin, though by the time
the culture had spread into the more extreme areas North Africa and Eastern
Eurasia and North America it had broken up into a catenation of mutually
unintelligible, though closely related, languages, some of which eventually
became ancestral to new linguistic families, including those comprising the
Northern Nostratic sub-phylum we observe today. One reason for assuming a
unitary origin is that certain features of vocabulary and morphology are shared
between Eskimo-Aleut and Indo-European that occur only vestigially in the
intervening families. This includes the heteroclitic declension. It also includes a
few items of shared vocabulary such as Eskimo (Yupik) alla other and ingne
THE NOSTRATIC HOMELAND AND THE DISPERSAL OF THE NOSTRATIC LANGUAGES 285
fire (with a velar nasal in the first syllable). The paucity of such corres-
pondences is analogous to the vestigial retention of radioactive atoms after the
lapse of several half-lives.
Here, ingne is particularly interesting. It reminds us of Latin ignis fire.
The vowel in the first syllable is controversial since the corresponding vowels
in the Lithuanian and Sanskrit words are respectively u- and a-, which cannot
be reconciled with the Latin form or with each other by the accepted rules of
phonological correspondence. This suggests that the ancestral word in
Nostratic had the velar nasal in the first syllable, preserved in Yupik but
perhaps lost sometime during the prehistory of Indo-European. Bomhard
informs me that some Indo-Europeanists (cf. ErnoutMeillet 1979:308) have
suggested that the Latin form may come from an earlier *n gnis, with a syllabic
nasal in the first syllable.
I believe that the Mesolithic culture, with its Nostratic language, had its
beginning in or near the Fertile Crescent just south of the Caucasus, with a
slightly later northern extension into Southern Russia in intimate association
with woods and fresh water in lakes and rivers. From these positions, it had
ready access to the lower Danube and the Balkans (Indo-European), to the
Caucasus (Kartvelian), south of the Caucasus into Mesopotamia, Palestine,
Egypt, and the rest of North Africa (Sumerian and Afroasiatic), eastward into
Central Siberia (Elamo-Dravidian), and northward and thence eastward along
the Circumpolar fringe (Uralic-Yukaghir, Altaic, Chukchi-Kamchatkan,
Gilyak, and Eskimo-Aleut). In the process of its expansion, it undoubtedly
effected a linguistic conversion of many tribes of Dene-Caucasian or other
origin; this accounts for the fact that non-Nostratic languages in Eurasia in
historic times have been found mostly as relics in mountainous regions.
Exceptions are Chinese and the now moribund or extinct Ket, which, together
with Hattic and Hurrian, probably represent post-Nostratic reemergences of
Dene-Caucasian speakers from their relict areas.
The Nostratic dispersion probably began at least 15,000 years ago, giving
ample time for a plethora of eccentric linguistic developments unrecorded in
history. By historic times i.e., as late as the nineteenth century in many
instances the primordial features have been much diluted and transformed.
Only by viewing the entire macrofamily holistically can we gain some idea of
the features of the original Nostratic language; the importance of Indo-
European in this is crucial in that it serves as an intermediate link, linguistically
as well as geographically, between Kartvelian, Sumerian, and Afroasiatic on
the one hand, and the Circumpolar group (Uralic-Yukaghir to Eskimo-Aleut)
on the other. Besides, Indo-European seems to be fairly conservative in its
syntactic system, its nominal declension, its pronouns, and its vocabulary in
general.
At last we return to the issue I raised at the beginning of this section: Why
does Indo-European resemble Afroasiatic in phonology and vocabulary, but the
Circumpolar group in syntax and morphology? If the foregoing scenario is
correct, or nearly so, it suggests that the Nostratic dispersal began almost as
soon as its unity was formed; this is the inevitable result of the peripatetic
activities of hunter-gatherers in an expansive situation. If we assume that the
speakers of pre-Indo-European remained in the neighborhood of the Caucasus
to a fairly late period (say 7500 BCE), with Afroasiatic already extending
286 CHAPTER THIRTEEN
through Palestine into Egypt and eventually into the rest of North Africa, but
with its Semitic branch still situated in Northern Mesopotamia high on the
upper slopes of the Fertile Crescent, we would have an explanation for the
similarity of vocabulary. That this proximity existed to a late period is
suggested by shared words for field, bull, cow, sheep, and goat, animals which
were then being domesticated in the Fertile Crescent. In addition, shared words
for star and seven suggest a common veneration for that number and perhaps a
shared ideology. This is speculative, of course, but if it is true it suggests an
association that was social as well as geographical.
Meanwhile, the Circumpolar families were developing in a situation that
was geographically and environmentally separate. Here, the Mesolithic way of
life has been maintained continuously to recent times; any impulses toward
agriculture have been late, and except for the Finno-Ugrians, they all have been
received from non-Indo-European sources. The linguistic developments have
been equally idiosyncratic. In all of these families the SOV word order and
associated morphological principles of early Indo-European have been retained
except where subjected to alien influences in more recent times, and they have
been maintained with special purity in Altaic and Elamo-Dravidian, which may
well have been of Siberian origin. In vocabulary, they show little in common
with Indo-European or Afroasiatic except at a strictly pre-agricultural level.
In Uralic-Yukaghir, the linguistic idiosyncrasy is particularly marked.
While the syntax and a considerable part of the morphology are basically
conservative, the latter has been extended to an astonishing degree in several
languages. But the most striking peculiarity of this family is the remarkable
simplification that has developed in its consonantal system (reminiscent of
Tocharian in Indo-European), and in the paucity of the Nostratic vocabulary
that it has retained. It suggests a long isolation along the North Siberian fringe
in the neighborhood of tribes not yet converted to Nostratic speech, for these
features are less prominent in the other families of this group.
By the same token, it also suggests that the similarities shared by Uralic
with Indo-European, or Eskimo-Aleut are very likely to have been features of
the original Nostratic since borrowing among these groups is excluded by their
mutual isolation until much more recent times. Although the similarities are
few as discernible at this late date, they are sufficiently striking that they are
unlikely to have been due to independent developments.
Finally, the following quote is what the well-known Slavicist Henrik Birnbaum has
to say about the Nostratic Hypothesis in general and about the Nostratic homeland
in particular (Birnbaum 1992:25):
If, in conclusion, I were to indicate my own position with regard to the still
highly controversial issue of Nostratic, I would have to say that I have no
difficulty in accepting the notion of a Nostratic macrofamily of languages
comprising at least the six language families envisioned by Illi-Svity and
Dolgopol'skij. However, my understanding of such a macrofamily and
similar considerations would presumably apply to other large-scale language
groups elsewhere in the world would not, and could not, be based
exclusively on evidence of genetic relationship as defined above. Linguistic
macrofamilies (such as the one we term Nostratic) must, I submit, be viewed as
THE NOSTRATIC HOMELAND AND THE DISPERSAL OF THE NOSTRATIC LANGUAGES 287
the tangible result of both genetic relationships resulting from divergence and
structural adjustments reflecting convergent trends in linguistic evolution.
Consequently, and in line with some of the views propounded by Baudouin de
Courtenay, Polivanov, and Trubeckoj, I would consider it fairly realistic to
hypothesize a once actually spoken Nostratic ancestral language. Presumably,
this language was characterized by a degree of inner cohesion comparable to
what, mutatis mutandis, we can assume to have been the case with, say,
Common Baltic or, possibly, Anatolian in their chronological and substantive
development from Proto-Indo-European. And perhaps, if the heartland of
Proto-Nostratic, as just qualified, is indeed to be identified with an area
encompassing Transcaucasia, eastern (and southern) Anatolia, as well as the
upper reaches of the Tigris and Euphrates, it would not be too far-fetched to
assume secondary Indo-European protohomes in territories closer to the Black
Sea, namely in the Pontic Steppe region, in northern and western Anatolia, and
in parts of the Balkan Peninsula. This would further provide at least a point of
departure for a reasonable explanation for the early settlement of the Greeks in
mainland Greece and the archipelagos of the Aegean; for the formation of a
secondary if not tertiary Indo-European core area focused in the Baltic
region; and possibly even for the yet largely opaque earliest moves of Celtic
tribes throughout Western, Central, and Southeastern Europe.
In my opinion, Kerns has hit the nail on the head (BomhardKerns 1994:155): I
believe that the Mesolithic culture, with its Nostratic language, had its beginning in
or near the Fertile Crescent just south of the Caucasus. Let us now reexamine the
evidence from the Nostratic daughter languages and see how it leads to this
conclusion.
The Indo-European homeland was most likely to the north of and between the
Black and Caspian Seas. However, Nichols has convincingly argued that Pre-Proto-
Indo-European originated in Central Asia and later spread westward to the North
Pontic/Steppe zone that was the geographical location where Proto-Indo-European
proper developed, where it began to split up into different dialect groups, and from
which its descendants spread into Europe, the Iranian plateau, and northern India.
Likewise, again as argued by Nichols, Pre-Proto-Uralic may be presumed to have
originated in Central Asia and to have spread westward, following a more northerly
route than Pre-Proto-Indo-European. Thus, it is likely that the Eurasiatic parent
language was located in Central Asia and that it is to be dated roughly at about
9,000 BCE. This would mean that the eastern Eurasiatic languages (Altaic,
Chukchi-Kamchatkan, Gilyak, and Eskimo-Aleut) must have spread eastward from
Central Asia (more specifically, the area traditionally called Western Turkestan)
to their prehistoric homelands. Nichols has also speculated that Pre-Proto-
Kartvelian may have originally been located in Central Asia, from which it spread
westward along a southern route below the Caspian Sea to the Caucasus Mountains.
The Elamo-Dravidian homeland may be placed roughly in western and central
modern-day Iran and dated at about 8,000 BCE. Finally, following Militarv and
Shnirelman, the Afrasian homeland may be placed in the Middle East in the Levant
and dated at about 10,000 BCE. Working backwards geographically and
chronologically, we arrive at the only possible homeland for Proto-Nostratic,
288 CHAPTER THIRTEEN
namely, the Fertile Crescent just south of the Caucasus. For a candid assessment
of these proposals, cf. Makkay 2004.
Thus, the following scenario emerges: The unified Nostratic parent language
may be dated to between 15,000 to 12,000 BCE, that is, at the end of the last Ice
Age it was located in the Fertile Crescent just south of the Caucasus (see Map
4). Beginning around 12,000 BCE, Nostratic began to expand, and, by 10,000 BCE,
several distinct dialect groups had appeared. The first to split off was Afrasian. One
dialect group spread from the Fertile Crescent to the northeast, eventually reaching
Central Asia sometime before 9,000 BCE this was Eurasiatic. Another dialect
group spread eastward into western and central Iran, where it developed into
Elamo-Dravidian at about 8,000 BCE. If Nichols is correct in seeing Pre-Proto-
Kartvelian as having migrated from Central Asia westward below the Caspian Sea
to the Caucasus, this would seem to imply that Pre-Proto-Kartvelian had first
migrated northeastward from the Fertile Crescent along with or as part of Pre-Proto-
Eurasiatic, that it stopped somewhere along the way, and that it then returned to the
Middle East. The early dispersal of the Nostratic languages is shown in Map 5.
Analysis of the linguistic evidence has enabled us to determine the most likely
homeland of the Nostratic parent language, to establish a time-frame during which
Proto-Nostratic might have been spoken, to date the disintegration of Proto-
Nostratic, and to trace the early dispersal of the daughter languages. To round out
the picture, let us now correlate the linguistic data with archeological data. During
the last Ice Age (the so-called Wrm glaciation), which reached its zenith about
18,000 to 20,000 years ago, the whole of northern Eurasia was covered by huge
sheets of ice, while treeless steppe tundra stretched all the way from the
westernmost fringes of Europe eastward to well beyond the Ural Mountains. It was
not until about 15,000 years ago that the ice sheets began to retreat in earnest. When
the ice sheets began melting, sea levels rose dramatically, and major climatic
changes took place temperatures rose, rainfall became more abundant, all sorts
of animals (gazelles, deer, cattle, wild sheep, wild goats, wild asses, wolves,
jackals, and many smaller species) became plentiful, and vegetation flourished.
Areas that had formerly been inhospitable to human habitation now became
inviting. Human population increased and spread outward in all directions,
exploiting the opportunities created by the receding ice sheets. New technologies
came into being toward the end of the last Ice Age, hunter-gatherers had
inhabited the Middle East, living either in caves or temporary campsites. As the Ice
Age began coming to an end, more permanent settlements started to appear, and
there was a gradual transition from an economy based on hunting and gathering to
one based on cultivation and stock breeding. This was the setting in which Nostratic
arose. Nostratic was indeed at the right place and at the right time. The
disintegration of the Nostratic parent language coincided with the dramatic changes
in environment described above, and Nostratic-speaking people took full advantage
of the new opportunities.
Roaf (1990:18) has an interesting map showing the spread of agriculture in the
ancient Middle East and beyond (see Map 6; see also Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994:257
and Guilaine [ed.] 1989:118). It is striking how closely this map matches the early
THE NOSTRATIC HOMELAND AND THE DISPERSAL OF THE NOSTRATIC LANGUAGES 289
dispersal of Nostratic languages as shown in our Map 4, though the time-frames are
different the language spread seems to have preceded the spread of agriculture
by about three millennia, at least in Central Asia. It is tempting to speculate that the
spread of agriculture may have been facilitated by the cultural contacts that seem to
have been maintained among the speakers of the early Nostratic daughter languages
(for more discussion, see the following section on Eurasiatic). There is, however,
one very important exception, namely, the spread of agriculture into and throughout
Europe, which could not have been in any way connected with the early dispersal of
the Nostratic daughter languages, since Nostratic languages do not appear in
Europe until a much later date. In what follows, I would like to offer a proposal to
account for this.
Nostratic-speaking people were not the only population group in the Middle
East at the time that the dramatic changes described above were taking place. To the
north of the Fertile Crescent, in Anatolia and the Caucasus, there were non-
Nostratic-speaking people (as evidenced by the later Hattic, Hurrian-Urartian, and,
perhaps, Gutian [so Diakonoff 1990:63] in Anatolia), and these people were also
active participants in the Neolithic Revolution and the resulting development and
spread of agriculture and stock breeding. I suggest that these were the people
responsible for the spread of agriculture into Europe, not early Nostratic-speaking
people and definitely not Indo-Europeans as suggested by Renfrew. I further
suggest that it was the migration of these ancient non-Nostratic-speaking
agriculturalists into the Balkans that gave rise to the civilization of Old Europe
(on Old Europe, see Paliga 1989; Gimbutas 1994). Thus, we can plot two distinct
migrations into Europe: the earliest, which crossed from Anatolia into the Balkans
and then spread northward into Europe, began about 10,000 years ago. I am
proposing that this migration was by non-Nostratic-speaking agriculturalists. The
second, which came from the Russian steppes and spread westward into Europe,
began about 6,000 years ago. This migration was by Indo-European-speaking
horsemen. As a result of this migration, Indo-European languages gradually
replaced all of the earlier languages of Europe except for Basque.
13.10. EURASIATIC
In the preceding section, I stated that the Nostratic dialect group which developed
into Proto-Eurasiatic spread from the Fertile Crescent to the northeast, eventually
reaching Central Asia sometime before 9,000 BCE. At the time of their arrival in
Central Asia, the climate of the area was too dry to support primitive agriculture
it was not until the eighth millennium BCE that climatic conditions significantly
improved. Therefore, we would expect to find no traces of agriculture in this region
before this date, and indeed there are none. Nonetheless, there is evidence for early
trade and cross-cultural contacts between northeastern Iran, Central Asia, and the
Fertile Crescent dating as far back as Mesolithic times (cf. Sarianidi 1992:112
113). Moreover, in northeastern Iran, on the southeastern shores of the Caspian Sea,
there is evidence that wild goats and sheep were hunted as early as the twelfth and
290 CHAPTER THIRTEEN
eleventh millennia BCE, and these were among the first animals to be domesticated.
The earliest known Neolithic remains in northeastern Iran go back to about the
seventh millennium BCE. By the sixth millennium BCE, Neolithic culture had
spread northward into Central Asia the Neolithic settlement patterns and
technology (pottery, agriculture, stock breeding, etc.) appearing in this area were
clearly imported from the Middle East (cf. Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994:198). On the
basis of this information, we may surmise that the earliest Nostratic-speaking
people to appear in Central Asia were Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, not
agriculturalists, though agriculture and stock breeding eventually followed. Even
after the introduction of agriculture, there is evidence of different cultural traditions
co-existing in the region, as noted by Sarianidi (1992:126):
2
3b
3a
1
Map 2a: According to Anthony (2013:7), the first three migrations out of the
Indo-European homeland are as shown above: (1) Anatolian; (2) Tocharian; (3a)
Celtic; (3b) Germanic.
Map 2b: This map shows the approximate area to which Indo-European languages
had spread by the first century BCE (cf. Mallory 1998:179; Villar 1991b:17).
THE NOSTRATIC HOMELAND AND THE DISPERSAL OF THE NOSTRATIC LANGUAGES 293
This map shows the approximate distribution of the Afrasian languages at about
500 BCE it is adapted from the map facing page 1 in D. Cohen (ed.) 1998.
294 CHAPTER THIRTEEN
This map shows the approximate location of the Nostratic homeland at about
15,000 BCE.
THE NOSTRATIC HOMELAND AND THE DISPERSAL OF THE NOSTRATIC LANGUAGES 295
This map shows the approximate areas to which Nostratic languages had spread by
about 8,000 BCE.
296 CHAPTER THIRTEEN
Map 5b: The Dispersal of the Nostratic Languages at about 5,000 BCE
Note: Recent research conducted at the Harvard Medical School in the United
States and the University of Tbingen in Germany has identified a genetic
component in modern Europeans that is derived from Ancient North Eurasians.
According to the new model, the Ancient North Eurasians entered Europe from the
East and mingled with an exiting population composed of early farmers and still
earlier hunter gatherers. Thus, nearly all modern Europeans have DNA from these
three ancenstral groups: (1) hunter gatherers, (2) early farmers, and (3) Ancient
North Eurasians. Moreover, [t]he research team also discovered that ancient Near
Eastern farmers and their European descendants can trace much of their ancestry to
a previously unknown, even older lineage called the Basal Eurasians. This genetic
model complements the linguistic dispersal scenario diagrammed in the above map
for the Nostratic languages, especially as it relates to the entry of the Indo-
Europeans into Europe. The full article was published in Nature (no. 513, pp.
409413 [18 September 2014]); summaries can be found at:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v513/n7518/full/nature13673.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29213892
http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/archives/09/2014/new-branch-added-to-
european-family-tree
http://www.archaeology.org/news/2525-140918-european-genetic-ancestry
See the maps on the following pages for the spread of agriculture.
THE NOSTRATIC HOMELAND AND THE DISPERSAL OF THE NOSTRATIC LANGUAGES 297
14.1. INTRODUCTION
In spite of several heroic efforts, Etruscan has never been convincingly shown to be
related to any known language or language family, except the poorly-attested
Lemnian (spoken on the island of Lemnos) and Raetic (spoken in northeastern Italy
in present-day Tyrol) (cf. Rix 1998b; Sverdrup 2002). This applies as well to recent
attempts by Russian scholars to establish a connection between Etruscan and
Northeast Caucasian (cf. OrlStarostin 1990). And yet, there are some important
clues as to the origin of Etruscan, and these need to be looked at in a new
perspective. But, first, a few introductory comments need to be made.
Etruscan was spoken in central Italy, with the largest concentration of speakers
being in the region now known as Tuscany. Recent research indicates that the
Etruscans came to Italy from Anatolia, corroborating what the Greek historian
Herodotus wrote (cf. Beekes 2003; John Hooper 2007; van der Meer 2004). The
first written documents date from the 7th century BCE, while the latest date from
the first century CE, which is probably not far beyond the time that Etruscan
became extinct. Etruscan was usually written from right to left in an alphabet based
mostly on Western Greek models (cf. Rix 2004:945). Though approximately 13,000
Etruscan inscriptions have been found, the overwhelming majority of them are
extremely brief and consist mainly of formulaic inscriptions written on tombs and
sarcophagi.
The phonological system was simple: There were only four vowels, namely, a, e, i,
u, and the consonant system distinguished a relatively small number of phonemes
and lacked a voicing contrast in stops (, , were voiceless aspirates; z was a
voiceless dental affricate).
Fricatives: f s (= ?) h
v
Around 500 BCE, Etruscan developed a strong stress accent on the first syllable of
words. The result was that the vowels of non-initial, that is, non-stressed, syllables
were gradually weakened and eventually lost. This led to an increase in the number
of consonant clusters: cf., for example, turuce gave > turce.
Case Endings
Nominative -
Accusative -, -n
Genitive -(V)s, -(a)l
Dative -(i), -ale, -ane, -i
Locative -i, -ti
Singular Plural
There was also an archaic genitive ending -n (-an, -un), while a genitive ending
-(a)l was frequently found on nouns ending in a velar or dental. Plural was usually
indicated by adding the suffixes -ar, -er, -ur: cf. (singular) clan son, (plural)
clenar sons. Gender is clearly indicated in personal names: masculine names end
in a consonant or -e, feminine in -a or -i:
Masculine Feminine
A special form was used to indicate the patronymic. The general scheme was as
follows:
We can venture a guess that the original meaning of -al was belonging to, so that
laral would have originally meant belonging to Larth. The patronymic can be
seen as a hypercharacterized (double genitive) form in which the genitive ending
-isa was added to the ending -al. The ending -la could be added again to the
patronymic to indicate the grandfather: cf. laralisla in the phrase arn velimna
aules clan laralisla, where Larth is the father of Aule and, therefore, the
grandfather of Arnth. Interestingly, in this example, aules contains the genitive
ending -s. Thus, we can render this loosely as Arnth Velimna, son of Aule,
belonging to Larth or, in better English, Arnth Velimna, son of Aule, whose father
was Larth.
The cardinal numbers one through nine were most likely as follows (cf.
BonfanteBonfante 2002:9498; Cristofani 1991:7679; Jatsemirsky no date, p.
1; Rix 2004:961; Glen Gordon 2008):
1 = tu(n), u(n)
2 = zal (esal)
3 = ci, ki
4 = hut, hu
5 = ma
6 = a, sa
7 = sem
8 = cezp
9 = nur
Demonstrative: ca, ta (ita), cen, cn, eca (ica), ek, tn; itun (emphatic)
this
Relative: ipa, an who, which; where
Indefinite: ipe, ipa whoever
Verb morphology is even less completely understood. The past passive ending, for
both first and second persons, was -e, while the third person past active ending
was -ce, as in turce gave. The second person imperative endings were -t, -, -i.
There was an active past participle ending in -as, while present participles were
formed with an ending -an.
The following conjunctions and adverbs may be noted:
Although only a relatively small portion of the Etruscan vocabulary is known (cf.
Briquel 1994:328329), even that small sample contains unmistakable Nostratic
elements, including the personal pronouns mi I, and mini me, the demonstrative
pronouns eca, ca this and ita, ta this, and several lexical items such as, for
example:
Etruscan Nostratic
ma honey, A. Proto-Indo-European *medu honey, mead (cf.
honeyed wine Sanskrit mdhu sweet drink, anything sweet, honey);
B. Proto-Finno-Ugrian *mete honey (cf. Finnish mesi
nectar, honey);
C. Proto-Dravidian *mau honey, nectar, toddy (cf. Tamil
mau honey, toddy, fermented liquor, sweet juice,
etc.).
There is also a pronoun i, whose meaning is unknown, but which resembles the
Nostratic 2nd singular personal pronoun. That i may, in fact, have been a form of
the 2nd singular personal pronoun finds support in the verbal 2nd person imperative
endings -ti, -, -i (though it must be noted here that the 2nd person personal
pronoun is attested in the Zagreb mummy wrappings as *u you). There is a
widespread plural marker *-r in the Nostratic daughter languages it shows up,
THE ORIGIN OF ETRUSCAN 307
for example, in the Proto-Dravidian plural marker *-(V)r used with nouns of the
personal class and pronouns. In Manchu, there is a plural in -ri, which is used with
certain kinship terms. Moreover, Benzing reconstructs a Proto-Tungus *-ri as the
plural marker of reflexive pronouns. Within Kartvelian, Svan has a plural ending
-r. In Upper Bal, this is changed to -l, but in Lower Bal, -r has mostly been
generalized. The Chukchi first and second person plural personal pronouns mu-ri
we and tu-ri you, respectively, contain the plural marker -ri. Finally, a plural
marker -r is also found in Omotic, within Afrasian: cf. the typical Zayse plural
suffix -ir in, for example, o-ir snakes (singular o snake). These forms may
be compared with the Etruscan plural suffixes -ar, -er, -ur.
But, there is more. The declensional system is reminiscent of Indo-European,
and verb morphology, though poorly known, also exhibits Indo-European
characteristics. According to Georgiev (1981:232233), there were five noun stem
types in Etruscan: (A) stems ending in -a, with genitive singular in -as or -a; (B)
stems ending in -i, with genitive singular in -is, -ias, or (rarely) -aias; (C) stems
ending in -ai, with genitive singular in -ias or -aias; (D) stems ending in -u, with
genitive singular in -us; and (E) consonant stems, with genitive singular in -as or
(later) -s. These correspond to similar stem types in Indo-European. Moreover, the
genitive singular in -s is typically Indo-European. Etruscan also had an archaic
genitive in -n (-an, -un), which corresponds to the Indo-European genitive plural in
*-om (also with long vowel: *-m, contracted from *-o-om). In demonstrative
stems, the accusative ends in -n, and this also has a correspondence with the Indo-
European accusative singular ending *-om (note: the change of final -m to -n occurs
in several Indo-European daughter languages). The locative in -ti, -(i) has parallels
in Anatolian (Hittite ablative singular -az, -aza [z = //], instrumental singular -it;
Luwian ablative-instrumental singular -ati; Palaic ablative-instrumental singular -at;
Lycian ablative-instrumental singular -edi, -adi) and in other Nostratic languages,
such as the Uralic ablative ending *-ta. The active past participle ending in -as is
reminiscent of the Proto-Indo-European suffix *-to-s found, for example, in
Sanskrit in (past participle passive) `ru-t- heard and in Greek in heard
of, famous, renowned, glorious (cf. Burrow 1973:370371; Szemernyi 1996:
323324), while the present participle ending in -an also has parallels in Indo-
European.
There are also several remarkable lexical parallels with Indo-European, a few
examples being:
Etruscan Indo-European
-c and Sanskrit -ca and; Latin -que and
tin day, Jupiter Sanskrit dna-m day; Old Church Slavic dn day
308 CHAPTER FOURTEEN
tiu, tiv-, tiur Same stem as in Sanskrit dvasa- heaven, day, divy-
moon, month divine, heavenly, celestial; Latin dis day
am- to build, Same stem as in Latin domus house, home; dwelling abode;
to found and Sanskrit dma- house, home; Greek to build, to
tmia place, construct
sacred building
an (ana, ane, anc, Sanskrit demonstrative stem ana- this; Hittite demonstrative
ananc) he, she anni that, yonder; Lithuanian demonstrative ans that one
(over yonder)
While some of these may be borrowings (-c and and sem seven, for example),
others (an this, for instance) are native Etruscan words. The following is also a
borrowing: neft`, nef`, nefi` grandson (< Latin nepos grandson).
14.5. CONCLUSIONS
These and other similarities are discussed in detail in articles by Adrados (1989a
and 2005a) and Woudhuizen (1991). Adrados draws the conclusion that Etruscan is
an archaic Indo-European language and that it is particularly close to the languages
of the Anatolian branch. Woudhuizen reaches a similar conclusion, as did Georgiev
(1979) before them. In my opinion, Adrados and Woudhuizen have indeed shown
that Etruscan is related in some way to Indo-European, but not as a daughter
language this differs from my previous position on this matter. The question then
arises, if Etruscan is not an Indo-European daughter language, then what is the
nature of its relationship to Indo-European and, further, to Nostratic?
Until fairly recently, Etruscan was considered to be a language isolate, with no
known relatives. However, this view is no longer tenable. As noted at the beginning
of this chapter, Etruscan is now known to be related to Raetic and Lemnian (cf. Rix
2004:944). Together, these three form the Tyrrhenian language family. Hence,
when looking for possible relatives of Etruscan, we need to think in terms of
Tyrrhenian as a whole rather than working with a single branch of this language
family. Unfortunately, Proto-Tyrrhenian has not yet been reconstructed. Rix
(2004:944) calls the parent language Proto-Tyrsenic and dates it to the last quarter
THE ORIGIN OF ETRUSCAN 309
of the second millennium BCE. He further notes that the location of its homeland is
disputed.
The striking similarities between Tyrrhenian (only Etruscan has been compared
to date, not reconstructed Proto-Tyrrhenian) and Indo-European presented in this
chapter and by several other scholars are real, as are the similarities between
Tyrrhenian and other Nostratic languages. These similarities point to genetic
relationship. Thus, the following hypothesis may tentatively be proposed: The
Tyrrhenian language family is a separate branch of Eurasiatic, closest to Indo-
European. Eurasiatic, in turn, is a branch of the Nostratic macrofamily. Future
research must be directed toward testing the validity of the conclusions reached in
this section, especially in light of the growing body of literature on Nostratic.
15.1. INTRODUCTION
noted by means of either prefixes, suffixes, or both. Syntactically, the basic word
order was SOV.
p t k
b d g
s h
z
m n g (= [])
l
r
*w *y
a e i u (o ?)
There may have been corresponding long vowels as well. There were no initial
consonant clusters, while final consonants, especially t, d, k, g, m, n, and r, were
often omitted in the writing (cf. Thomsen 1987:43), and this often makes it difficult
to ascertain the form of the word. Internally, there was a tendency for consonants to
assimilate. The traditional transliteration shows a voicing contrast in stops. There is
a very strong probability, however, that the actual contrast was between voiceless
aspirated versus voiceless unaspirated or simply between tense versus lax (cf.
Boisson 1988b:21519; Hayes 1997a:12; Thomsen 1987:43): thus, traditional p, t,
k = p, t, k respectively, while traditional b, d, g = p, t, k respectively. Traditional
z may have been an affricate (cf. Boisson 1989b:22126). Though the semivowels
/y/ and /w/ were not directly represented in the writing system, there is indirect
orthographic evidence of their existence. The vowels have also drawn the attention
of several scholars. It is possible that Sumerian may have had more vowels than
what are directly represented in the writing system in particular, a strong case
has been made for an o-quality vowel. Other proposals, however, are much more
controversial and have not won wide support. Lastly, Boisson (1989b:212214)
considers Bauers proposed dV (cf. Hayes 1997a:1213; Thomsen 1987:44) to be
highly questionable. For a discussion of the problems involved in interpreting
Sumerian phonetics and phonology, cf. Diakonoff 1992:125129; Edzard 2003:
1321; Hayes 1997a:715.
The Sumerian root was generally monosyllabic: V, CV, VC, and, most often,
CVC. There was no distinction between verbal roots and nominal roots thus, for
example, dg could mean either good or to be good.
In the Sumerian texts, certain non-standard forms of speech can be discerned. It
is not entirely clear what this means perhaps different dialects, perhaps not;
perhaps so-called refined speech, perhaps not. These forms, which have been
314 CHAPTER FIFTEEN
A. Proto-Elamo-Dravidian:
Nominative *-
Accusative *-(V)n
Adessive/ *-kk
Purposive (Dative) (?)
Genitives:
1. Possessive *-a
2. Adnominal *-in
3. Oblique/Locative *-t
B. Sumerian:
The prefix chain cases require special explanation (I will quote from Thomsen
1987:215 and 219 [for the dative, 431 below]):
SUMERIAN AND NOSTRATIC 315
423. Some cases, the so-called dimensional cases, can be incorporated in the
prefix chain of finite verbal forms. These cases are: dative, comitative,
terminative, ablative, and locative. In principle the case elements have the same
shape as the corresponding postpositions and only minor changes in writing
and pronunciation occur.
The rank of the case elements in the prefix chain is between the
conjugation prefixes and the pronominal element serving as subject/object
mark...
424. Terminology
The case elements of the prefix chain are most often called infixes or
dimensional infixes by the sumerologists. However, since they do not act as
infixes in the stem but merely as members of the chain of grammatical
elements preceding a verbal root, case elements or case prefixes are used
here as the most appropriate terms.
431. The dative is the only case prefix which has different prefixes for every
person...
There are parallels, to be sure, but as many with other Nostratic languages as with
Elamo-Dravidian. The Sumerian ablative-instrumental case ending (inanimate) -ta,
(prefix chain) -ta- agrees with the Proto-Uralic ablative ending *-ta as well as with
the Proto-Elamo-Dravidian oblique/locative ending *-t. The Sumerian locative
case ending (prefix chain) -ni- is similar to the Proto-Uralic locative case ending
*-na, though the vowels are problematic, and to the Proto-Dravidian locative case
ending *-in(/*-il ?). The Sumerian genitive case ending -ak is similar in form to the
Proto-Dravidian dative case ending *-(k)ku and the Proto-Elamo-Dravidian
adessive/locative (dative) *-kk, but the difference in function is a problem.
Moreover, the -na- and -ni- prefix chain case endings may be somehow related to
the oblique-n formations described by John C. Kerns (cf. BomhardKerns 1994:
173179, 3.5.3.1).
An extremely interesting parallel involves the Sumerian comitative element da
(also -d). As noted by Thomsen (1987:99): The basic meaning of the comitative
is with, together with, expressing accompaniment as well as mutual action. A
particle *da (~ *d), with the basic meaning along with, together with, in addition
to, shows up all over Nostratic (cf. BomhardKerns 1994:275276, no. 89). It
appears in Kartvelian as a conjunction: Georgian da and, Mingrelian do and,
Laz do and < Proto-Kartvelian *da and, and probably as the adverbial case
ending -ad/d found, for example, in Old Georgian (in Modern Georgian, the ending
is -ad[a]). In Afrasian, it is found in Chadic: Hausa d with; and; by, by means of;
regarding, with respect to, in relation to; at, in, during; than; Kulere tu; Bade d;
Tera nd; Gidar di; Mokulu ti; Kanakuru d < Proto-Chadic *d with, and.
316 CHAPTER FIFTEEN
McAlpin derives the Elamite 1st sg. ending -h from Proto-Elamo-Dravidian *-H,
the 2nd sg. ending -t from *-ti, and the 3rd sg. ending - from *-(V). The Proto-
Elamo-Dravidian 2nd sg. ending *-ti survives in South Dravidian negative
imperatives.
The Sumerian finite verb employs various pronominal elements. These are
described by Thomsen (1987:147, 287) as follows:
The pronominal elements of the finite verbal form refer to the persons involved
in the verbal action. There are two main series with different marks: the
prefixes and the suffixes. A verbal form can have at most one prefix
immediately before the verbal root and one suffix after the verbal root (or, if
present, after /ed/), both referring to subject and/or object. The prefixes are
identical with the pronominal elements which under some conditions occur
together with case prefixes...
Thomsen (1987:148149, 290) lists the following pronominal prefixes (see also
Hayes 1997a:19 and 2224):
SUMERIAN AND NOSTRATIC 317
1.sg. -?-
2.sg. -e-
3.sg. animate -n-
inanimate -b-
1.pl. -me-
2.pl. -e ene-
3.pl. -ene-
The plural pronominal prefixes are used as dative elements only..., and it is thus
more probable that they are case elements rather than pronominal elements (cf.
Thomsen 1987:148).
The Sumerian pronominal prefixes are strongly reminiscent of the possessive
suffixes/personal endings found in various Nostratic daughter languages note,
for example, the Proto-Uralic personal endings, which have been reconstructed as
follows (cf. Hajd 1972:40 and 4345; Sinor 1988:725):
Even more interesting are the possessive suffixes reconstructed for Proto-Tungus
(cf. Sinor 1988:725):
Similar forms are found in Indo-European, Kartvelian, and Afrasian. The first
person possessive suffixes/personal endings in *-m found in various Nostratic
daughter languages are similar in both form and function to the Sumerian first
person pronominal prefixes, 1st singular ma- (< /mu-a-/) and 1st plural -me-, while
the Proto-Tungus third person singular possessive suffix in *-n (related forms are
found in other Nostratic daughter languages) is similar to the Sumerian third person
pronominal prefixes, 3rd singular -n-, -na- (< /-n-a-/) and 3rd plural -ne-, -ene-.
There are also two series of pronominal suffixes (cf. Thomsen 1987:152), the
first of which (column A below) marks both the subject of intransitive verbs and the
direct object of transitive verbs. It is also found after the enclitic copula. The second
series (column B below), on the other hand, serves as the subject marks of the two-
318 CHAPTER FIFTEEN
part. mar conjugation. In actual fact, only the 3rd persons singular and plural are
different (cf. Thomsen 1987:152).
A B
Person Sg. Pl. Sg. Pl.
1 -en -enden -en -enden
2 -en -enzen -en -enzen
3 - -e -e -ene
There is simply nothing here that resembles what is found in Elamo-Dravidian nor,
for that matter, at least for the first and second persons singular and plural, in other
Nostratic languages. The third person pronominal suffixes, however, do have
parallels in various Nostratic daughter languages. For a discussion of the etymology
of the pronominal stems, see below.
The Sumerian personal pronoun stems are as follows (the Emesal forms are
shown in parentheses; /g/ = //) (cf. Thomsen 1987:68; Boisson 1992:437):
Singular Plural
1 -g u my -me our
2 -zu your -zu.ne.ne, -zu.e.ne.ne,
-zu.ne your
3 animate -a.ni his, her -a.ne.ne their
inanimate -bi its -bi also their, presumably
collective
Right away, we notice that the Emesal 1st singular forms (subject) me.e, (dative)
ma-a-ra parallel the common Nostratic 1st person personal pronoun stem *mi (~
*me) I, me (cf. Illi-Svity 19711984.II:6366, no. 299 *mi; BomhardKerns
1994:661662, no. 540), while the 1st plural possessive suffix -me parallels the
SUMERIAN AND NOSTRATIC 319
common Nostratic inclusive 1st plural personal pronoun stem *ma- (~ *m-) we,
us (cf. BomhardKerns 1994:661662, no. 540; Illi-Svity 19711984.II:
5256, no. 289 *m). The 2nd person personal pronoun ze-, za-, -zu may also
correspond to the Proto-Nostratic 2nd person personal pronoun stem *ti- (~ *te-)
you (cf. BomhardKerns 1994:285287, no. 102; Dolgopolsky 1984:8789
*[]), assuming affricatization of the dental before front vowel (similar to what has
happened in Mongolian): *ti- (~ *te-) > *ti- (~ *te-) > (*tni-/)*tne- > ze- /e-/,
etc. (Sumerian <z> = // [cf. Boisson 1989:221226 and 1992:436]). Finally, the
3rd person forms e.ne and a.ne are related to the demonstrative pronoun ne.en,
ne(-e), which has a parallel in the Proto-Nostratic demonstrative stem *na- (~ *n-),
*ni- (~ *ne-), *nu- (~ *no-) (cf. BomhardKerns 1994:688689, no. 570). To
account for the beginning vowels in e.ne and a.ne, Shevoroshkin (cited in Boisson
1992:443) has suggested that these appear to be a compound of the demonstrative /
personal pronoun of the 3rd person **i / ** [...] plus the demonstrative base
**n(). I agree with Shevoroshkins suggestion. Though widespread in the
Nostratic daughter languages, these stems are lacking in Dravidian (though see
Dolgopolsky 1984 for a slightly different interpretation of the Dravidian material).
Zvelebil (1977:40) reconstructs the following personal pronoun stems for Proto-
Dravidian (see also Krishnamurti 2003:244253):
Singular Plural
1 *yn : *yan- I (incl.) *ym : *yam- we
(excl.) *nm : *nam- we
2 *nn : *nin- you *nm : *nim- you
3 *tn : *tan- he, she, it *tm : *tam- they
530.0 The personal pronouns have long been an enigma in the relationship of
Elamite to Dravidian. On the one hand, the second person pronouns provided
the morphological detail first recognized as being cognate... On the other hand,
one of them, the first person plural is still somewhat ambiguous as to its form
in PED. For the others, it has been a long quest, fitting together the
morphological pieces. The major breakthrough came with the realization that
the Proto-Dravidian pronouns were not ultimately archaic, but rather a major
innovation in late Pre-Dravidian. The nature of the innovation was the
replacement of the nominative by oblique stems. Thus, Proto-Dravidian
pronouns have little to say directly about the morphology of nominative bases
in PED. However, the same forms, in a different usage, were preserved as
personal possessive prefixes in kinship terminology. This was maintained as a
system for a few kin terms in Old Tamil and sporadically in many other
Dravidian languages. Thus, Dravidian does attest the PED system, but not
directly in the paradigm.
320 CHAPTER FIFTEEN
Singular Plural
1 *i *nNK
2 *ni *nim
3 resumptive *ta(n)
reflexive *i
The 1st person singular is to be derived from Proto-Nostratic *iya 1st person
personal pronoun stem (postnominal possessive/preverbal agentive) found also in
Afrasian (cf. BomhardKerns 1994:597598, no. 470; Dolgopolsky 1984:72, 83,
8586, 96, and 99100), while the 3rd person stem *ta(n) is to be derived from
the widespread Nostratic demonstrative stem *ta- (~ *t-) this (cf. Bomhard
Kerns 1994:287289, no. 103), and the Proto-Dravidian 1st plural (exclusive)
stem *nm : *nam- we is to be derived from the Proto-Nostratic 1st person
personal pronoun stem *na- (~ *n-) (cf. BomhardKerns 1994:683684, no.
564; Dolgopolsky 1984:9091) this stem may have a parallel in the Sumerian
1st person pronoun g - /a-/, but this is uncertain.
Also worth noting are the Sumerian interrogative particles me-na-m when?,
me-a where?, and me- to where?, which parallel the Nostratic interrogative
stem *mi- (~ *me-), found in Indo-European (marginally only relic forms are
found in Celtic, Tocharian, and Hittite), Kartvelian, Afrasian, Uralic, and Altaic (for
details, cf. BomhardKerns 1994:645647, no. 524).
15.5. CONCLUSIONS
The evidence surveyed in this chapter indicates that Sumerian does not bear a
special relationship to Elamo-Dravidian. Moreover, Sumerian does not bear a
special relationship to any other Nostratic daughter language either. Rather, the
evidence seems to indicate that Sumerian is not a Nostratic daughter language at all
but that it is distantly related to Nostratic. However, there are also many problems
that must still be solved regarding the exact nature of that relationship we have
only scratched the surface in this brief summary.
References: Boisson 1987a, 1987b, 1988a, 1988b, 1988d, 1989a, 1989b, 1992,
2002a, and 2002b; Clauson 1973b; Crawford 1991; Edzard 2003; Fhnrich 1981;
Falkenstein 1959; Fane 1990; Hayes 1997a and 1997b; Jagersma 2010;
Michalowski 1980, 1992, and 2004; Rubio 1999, 2007a, and 2007b; Sathasivam
1965; Thomsen 1987; Zakar 1971; Zlyomi 2010.
PART TWO
COMPARATIVE MORPHOLOGY
CHAPTER SIXTEEN
16.1. INTRODUCTION
One of the criticisms often leveled at the Nostratic Hypothesis is the relative dearth
of morphological evidence presented by its proponents. Recently, this deficiency
has begun to be filled. The late Joseph H. Greenberg has amassed a tremendous
amount of morphological evidence in volume 1 of his book Indo-European and Its
Closest Relatives. On the basis of the morphological evidence alone, I believe that
Greenberg has successfully demonstrated that Eurasiatic is a valid linguistic taxon
of and by itself. Though not without problems (cf. GeorgVovin 2003), the
morphological evidence that Greenberg has gathered for determining which
languages may be related to Indo-European is the most complete to date and the
most persuasive it goes far beyond what Illi-Svity was able to come up with,
and it also surpasses what was presented in the chapter on morphology by John C.
Kerns in our joint monograph The Nostratic Macrofamily.
I have tried to demonstrate in this and other works that Greenbergs Eurasiatic
is a branch of Nostratic. If, as I have claimed, that is in fact the case, then there
should be clear morphological parallels between Eurasiatic and the other branches
of Nostratic, and indeed there are. This will be demonstrated here.
In this chapter, I shall present the morphological evidence for Nostratic,
incorporating (and amending, as necessary) what Greenberg gathered for Eurasiatic
with data from the non-Eurasiatic branches of Nostratic, making use especially of
the works of Illi-Svity and Dolgopolsky (Fortescue 1998, Kortlandt 2010, and
Nafiqoff 2003 have also been helpful). I shall also include evidence not found in
Greenbergs book nor in the works of Illi-Svity and Dolgopolsky, while, at the
same time, excluding dubious or poorly supported proposals made in these works.
However, I shall not attempt a systematic reconstruction of Nostratic morphology
here, but, rather, I shall merely present the evidence a systematic reconstruction
of Nostratic morphology will be attempted in the following chapter. Explanations
are provided where appropriate, and references are given to relevant literature.
In volume 1 of his book Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives, Greenberg did
not reconstruct the vowels for the Eurasiatic pronoun stems he identified. However,
this shortcoming can be easily remedied since the evidence from the daughter
languages (both Eurasiatic and non-Eurasiatic) is fairly straightforward here. Thus:
1. First-Person M: first person independent pronoun (active) *mi. 2. First-Person
322 CHAPTER SIXTEEN
16.3. First person singular *mi (~ *me), first person plural (inclusive) *ma (~ *m)
(Greenberg: 1. First Person M; Illi-Svity 19711984.II:5256, no. 289,
*m 1st person pl. inclusive personal pronoun, II:6366, no. 299, *mi 1st
person sg. personal pronoun; Dolgopolsky 1984:85 *mi I, me, my and to
appear, no. 1354, *mi I, no. 1354a, *mi a we; Nafiqoff 2003:4041, 46
*m [1st pl. inclusive], *mi [1st sg.], and 5862; Fortescue 1998:96123)
There actually appear to be two separate stems involved here: (a) *mi (~ *me) first
singular personal pronoun I, me and (b) *ma (~ *m) first plural personal pronoun
(inclusive) we, us.
In Afrasian and Dravidian, first person singular *mi and first person plural
(inclusive) *ma have been mostly lost. For an excellent overview of the personal
pronouns in Afrasian, cf. Diakonoff 1988:7079; for Elamo-Dravidian, cf.
McAlpin 1981:112117; and for Dravidian, cf. Krishnamurti 2003:244253,
Steever 1998a:2123, and Zvelebil 1977:4052.
Sumerian: (Emesal) ma(-e), me-a, me-e I. According to earlier theories, the first
person plural pronominal suffix was -me-. But Thomsen (1987:148) points out that
-me- is used as a dative element only, in the meaning for us. She considers -me- to
be a case element rather than a pronominal element. However, both its form and
meaning indicate that -me- should be included here. The first first person singular
possessive suffix was -mu my.
Now, Greek has a unique formation, the so-called first perfect, which
would be better named the -perfect. As noted by Sihler (1995:576): Its
inception must belong to prehistoric G[reek], for it is already established,
within limits, in Hom[er] and in the earliest records of other dialects.
Moreover, Sihler notes (1995:576): In Hom[er] the formation is found in
some 20 roots, all ending in long vowel (from the G[reek] standpoint), and in
all of them the -stem is virtually limited to the SINGULAR stems which actually
contain a long vowel Later the formation, by now more accurately a -
perfect, spreads to other stems ending in a long vowel, then to stems ending in
any vowel (including denominatives), and finally to stems ending in
consonants, and to all persons and numbers. This is very important, for Sihler
here traces the expansion of this stem type within the history of Greek itself.
Thus, we are dealing with developments specific to Greek. Buck (1933:289
290) agrees with Sihler here.
In Latin, we find first singular perfect forms fc I did and ic I threw
(N.B. faci and iaci are secondary elaborations based on these [Sihler
1995:562]). As in Greek, the -c- [k] is found in all persons (cf. third singular
fecit), and, as in Greek, the -c- [k] has given rise to secondary formations.
The -k- forms are also found in Tocharian, as in first singular preterite
active tk- (< *(s)t-k-- < *(s)teA- [*(s)taA-] to stand [cf. Adams 1999:
345356]) I was, and, as in Greek and Latin, the -k- is found in all persons
and has given rise to secondary formations. Van Windekens (1976.I:495496)
goes so far as to posit Proto-Indo-European *dhq-, *dhq-, as does Rix
(1998a:120121 and 2001:139140 *dehk-).
On the basis of the evidence from Greek, Latin, and Tocharian, we may
assume that a suffix *-k- is to be reconstructed for late-stage Proto-Indo-
European what I have often referred to as Disintegrating Indo-European.
This suffix originally had a very limited distribution it seems to have
appeared only in the perfect (< stative) singular of verbs that ended in a long
vowel, when the long vowel originated from earlier short vowel plus laryngeal.
All of the other formations found in Greek, Italic, and Tocharian are secondary
elaborations. But, we can go back even farther it is my contention that the
-k- originally characterized the first person exclusively, from which it spread to
other persons. Of course, this suggestion is not new. Sturtevant (1942:8788)
suggested that *-k- developed in the first person singular when a root-final
laryngeal was followed by the ending *-xe (that is, *-e [Kuryowicz would
write *-e]). Though a laryngeal explanation along these lines has not been
generally accepted, the suggestion that the -k- was originally confined to the
first person singular is still worthy of consideration, especially in view of the
extensive evidence from other Nostratic languages.
D. Uralic: Proto-Uralic alternative first person marker (subjective conjugation)
*-k. Greenberg (2000:6768) presents evidence from Hungarian and Selkup
for this ending. See also Collinder 1960:309: Selkup has -k (). Hungarian
has, in all the form groups except in the ik-verbs and in the t-preterite of the
verbs without -ik, the ending -k. (Note: the ending -k occurs here as well.)
328 CHAPTER SIXTEEN
INTRANSITIVE
I .. -k we -mk
thou ? ye -tk
he they -t
It may be that the m and t of the first and second persons plural are related
to mri and tri ,
F. Eskimo-Aleut: Greenberg (2000:6869) discusses the contrast between an
ergative -m and an absolutive -k as first person singular in Eskimo. He notes
specifically that the first person singular possessive suffix -ma is attached to
nouns that are the subject of transitive verbs, while -ka (> -a) is attached to
nouns that are the object of transitive verbs or the subject of intransitive verbs.
G. Etruscan: First person singular passive preterite ending -e, as in: mi araiale
ziue I was written for Ara, mi titasi cver menae I was offered as a gift to
Tita or I was offered as a gift by Tita (cf. BonfanteBonfante 2002:101).
This ending is also found in Raetic: tina-e I have given, I gave (cf. Sverdrup
2002:98).
perhaps in the case of the second sg. perfect ending in Indo-European, where
the ending of the first singular appears to have been added to *-t: *-t+Aa).
C. Indo-European: Proto-Indo-European first singular perfect (< stative) ending
*-e [*-a] (Cf. Lehmann 2002:171 *--e; Fortson 2004:93 *-he; Beekes
1995:238 *-he; Meillet 1964:231 *-a; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1995.I:256260
*-Ha; Brugmann 1904:590 *-a; Szemernyi 1996:243244 *-a; Burrow
1973:317 *-Ha; Dolgopolsky 1984:58 *-He): Sanskrit vd-a I know; Greek
-. In Indo-European, this ending has mostly replaced first person *ka,
which is preserved only in secondary formations in several daughter languages
(see above for details).
On the basis of Dravidian (and possibly Altaic), the original form of this stem may
have been *a (~ *), but this is not certain. Sumerian (Emegir) g .e (= /a-/) I
supports such a reconstruction as well.
A. Afrasian: There is evidence for a first person singular *nV in Afrasian: Chadic
independent pronoun: Hausa ni I, me; Ngizim na(a) I; Mubi ni I; Semitic
first person verb suffix: Akkadian -ni, Ugaritic -n, Hebrew -n, Syriac -n,
Arabic -n, Geez -n, etc. (cf. Moscati 1964:106, 13.14). Ongota naa-ku/na
for me, to me, s-ine my (cf. Fleming 2002b:50).
Ehret (1995:362 and 363) reconstructs the following first person pronouns
for Proto-Afrasian: *an-/*in- or *an-/*in- I; *ann-/ *inn- or *ann-/*inn-
we (= *an-/*in- or *an-/*in- + old Afrasian pl. in *-n). Militarv (2011:77),
however, analyzes this stem as a compound *a-na(-k/tV)-, that is, *a+na-:
Semitic: Arabic "an I, Sabaean "n I, Hebrew "n, "n I, Syriac "en
I, Eblaite "anna I, Old Babylonian anku I, Ugaritic 9n, 9nk I, Geez /
Ethiopic "ana I, Tigrinya "an I, Tigre "ana I, Amharic ne I (cf.
Moscati 1964:102, 13.1; Lipiski 1997:298299); Egyptian nk I, Coptic
anok [anok] I; Berber: Tuareg nk I, me, Kabyle nkk me, Tamazight
nkk me; East Cushitic: Burji ni I, Gedeo / Darasa ani I, Hadiyya ani I,
Kambata ani I, Sidamo ane, ani I, Saho-Afar an-u I, Bayso an-i, an-a,
an-ni I, Rendille an(i) I, Galla / Oromo an(i) I, Dullay an-o I; Southern
Cushitic: Iraqw an, ani I, Burunge an, ana I, Alagwa an, ana I, Maa ni
I, Dahalo "nyi I. Cf. Hudson 1989:83; Sasse 1982:26; Ehret 1980:283.
Beja / Beawye "ane I (cf. Appleyard 2007a:457; Reinisch 1895:20).
B. Dravidian: First person singular stem *-n- and the first singular suffix *-n in:
first person singular *y-n- (obl. *y-n-), alternative first person singular
*-n- (obl. *-n-, also *-) > Tamil yn, n I; Malayalam n I; Kota
an I; Toda on I; Kannaa n, nn I; Koagu nan, na I; Tuu ynu,
ynu I; Telugu nu, nnu I; Kolami an I; Naiki n I; Parji n I; Gadba
n I; Gondi an, (emph.) ann, nann, nan, nana I; Kona nn(u) I;
330 CHAPTER SIXTEEN
16.9. Second person *ti (~ *te), (oblique form) *ta (~ *t) (Greenberg: 4.
Second-Person T; Illi-Svity 19711984.I:6 *i and I:7 *; Dolgopolsky
1984:8788 *[] and to appear, no. 2312, *[] (> *i) thou; Starostin
DyboMudrak 2003:1424 Proto-Nostratic *ti thou; Nafiqoff 2003:62
65 *ti thou; Fortescue 1998:96123)
NOSTRATIC MORPHOLOGY I: THE EVIDENCE 333
A. Afrasian: In Semitic, this stem occurs first as the second component in the
second person independent pronoun: cf. Arabic (second person sg. m.) "anta (=
"an-+ta) you, (f.) "anti (= "an-+ti); (m.) Akkadian att you, (f.) att;
Ugaritic (m./f.) 9t you; Hebrew (m.) "att you, (f.) "att; Geez / Ethiopic
(m.) "anta you, (f.) "ant (cf. Moscati 1964:102: The first and second
persons singular and plural belong to the same system [!an- plus suffixes] ...;
note also Diakonoff 1988:70: [t]he independent personal pronouns in the
direct [absolute] case may be introduced by a special demonstrative element:
Sem[itic] an-, Eg[yptian] n- and nt-, Berb[er] n-, nt-, Cush[itic] an, a-).
Next, it appears as a second person personal affix, prefixed in the imperfect
(atelic) and suffixed in the perfect (telic) (for comparison of Proto-Semitic
with Berber and Cushitic, cf. Diakonoff 1988:80):
Imperfect Perfect
Suffixed forms (cf. Lipiski 1997:360361): Akkadian (m.) -t(a/i), (f.) -ti;
Ugaritic (m./f.) -t; Hebrew (m.) -t, (f.) -t; Aramaic (m.) -t, (f.) -t; Arabic (m.)
-ta, (f.) -ti. Prefixed forms (cf. Lipiski 1997:370371): Old Akkadian (m.)
ta-, (f.) ta--; Ugaritic (m.) t-, (f.) t--n; Hebrew (m.) ti-/ta-, (f.) ti-/ta--;
Arabic (m.) ta-, (f.) ta--; Mehri (m.) t-, (f.) t--i; Geez / Ethiopic (m.) t-,
(f.) t--i; Amharic (m.) t-, (f.) t--i. In later Egyptian, it forms part of the
second person independent personal pronoun: (m. sg.) nt-k you, (f. sg.) nt-t;
(m. pl.) nt-tn, (f. pl.) nt-sn. In Berber, this stem also appears as a second person
personal affix (cf. Tashelhiyt second person personal affix (m./f.): t-...-t), and
likewise in Beja / Beawye (Cushitic) (second person personal prefix, old
conjugation: [m.] te-... -a, [f.] te-...-i). Also note the Highland East Cushitic
second person singular subject pronouns: Burji a-i; Gedeo / Darasa a-ti;
Hadiyya a-ti; Kambata a-ti; Sidamo a-ti; and the conjunctive suffixes (sg.):
Burji -i; Gedeo / Darasa -tee; Hadiyya -ta; Kambata -ti(ke"i); Sidamo -te. Cf.
Sasse 1982:29 (Proto-East Cushitic *at-i/u); Hudson 1989:172, 405, and 423.
In Southern Cushitic, note the Dahalo second singular independent pronoun:
(m.) "t:, (f.) "t: (cf. Ehret 1980:282). Ehret (1980:65) lists the following
second person singular and plural conjugational affixes for Southern Cushitic:
McAlpin 1981:120, 542.3). Cf., for example, the conjugation of hutta- to do,
to make in Middle Elamite:
For Dravidian, McAlpin cites the Brahui second person singular ending -s as a
possible reflex of Proto-Dravidian *-ti but is careful to note that this is
uncertain.
C. Indo-European: Proto-Indo-European second person singular personal pronoun
stem *t: cf. Hittite (acc.-dat. sg.) tu-uk, tu-ga; Palaic (acc.-dat. sg.) tu-;
Hieroglyphic Luwian (poss.) tuwa-; Sanskrit (nom. sg.) tvm you; Avestan
(nom. sg.) twm, tm; Greek (nom. sg.) you (Doric ); Old Latin (nom.
sg.) t you; Gothic (nom. sg.) u you; Old Church Slavic (nom. sg.) ty you
(cf. Szemernyi 1996:211221 nom. sg. *tu/*t, acc. sg. *twe/*te ~ *tw/*t ~
*twm/*tm; Pokorny 1959:10971098 nom. sg. *t, acc. sg. *te; Walde
19271932.I:745; Burrow 1973:263269; Beekes 1995:209; Meier-Brgger
2003:225227; Fortson 2004:128; Meillet 1964:333335). The data from the
Anatolian branch indicates that the original form must have been *t: cf.
Hittite (nom. sg.) zi-ik you; Palaic (nom. sg.) ti-i; Hieroglyphic Luwian (nom.
sg.) ti. As a verb ending, *-t- is preserved only in Hittite and Tocharian in the
second person singular: cf. Hittite (2nd sg. pret.) -ta in, for example, e-e-ta
you were; Tocharian A (2nd sg. athematic) -()t, B -()t(o). This was later
replaced by the ending *-s-. In the second person plural, however, *-t- is
found in all of the older daughter languages: Proto-Indo-European (athematic)
*-te; (primary) *-te-s-i, *-te-n-i; (secondary) *-te-s, *-te-n with ablaut
variants: Hittite (primary) -teni, (secondary) -ten; Sanskrit (primary) -tha,
-thana, (secondary) -ta, -tana; Avestan (primary) -a, (secondary) -ta; Greek
(primary/secondary) -; Old Latin (primary/secondary) -tis; Gothic (primary/
secondary) -; Lithuanian (primary/secondary) -te; Old Church Slavic
(primary/secondary) -te (cf. Beekes 1988:153 and 1995:232; Burrow 1973:309;
Brugmann 1904:591592; Fortson 2004:8485; Szemernyi 1996:233
234; Watkins 1998:60).
D. Uralic-Yukaghir: Proto-Uralic second person singular personal pronoun:
(Abondolo 1998a:20) *tV you, thou; (Rdei 19861988:539) *t; (Collinder
1965:144) *tin ~ *tyna; (Dcsy 1990:57) (sg.) *te, (pl.) *te(k): (a) singular:
Finnish sin/sinu- you; Lapp / Saami don ~ d- you; Mordvin ton you;
Cheremis / Mari t you; Votyak / Udmurt ton you; Zyrian / Komi te (acc.
ten) you; Hungarian t you; Selkup Samoyed ta, tat you; Tavgi
Samoyed / Nganasan tanna you; Yenisei Samoyed / Enets tod'i you;
Kamassian tan you; (b) plural: Finnish te you; Lapp / Saami d you;
Mordvin (Erza) ti, t you; Cheremis / Mari t, te you; Votyak / Udmurt ti
NOSTRATIC MORPHOLOGY I: THE EVIDENCE 335
When I was doing research for my co-authored book The Nostratic Macrofamily, I
considered the evidence for a second person pronoun stem *si and rejected it. At
that time, I thought that this stem may have been secondarily derived, at the Proto-
Nostratic level, from *ti as follows: *ti > *i > *si. I thought that the Kartvelian
second person pronoun *si- may ultimately have had the same origin (*si < *i <
*ti). However, I reasoned that the original stem must not have been lost either, so
336 CHAPTER SIXTEEN
that there was a split which resulted in two competing forms at the Proto-Nostratic
level. Considering the evidence Greenberg presents, my former views should be
abandoned, and two distinct second person pronoun stems should be recognized,
namely, *ti and *si. This is certainly much more straightforward than the scenario I
had previously envisioned.
A. Kartvelian: Note the second person verb prefix s- found in Old Georgian
(present) s-cer you write and the second singular personal pronoun in
Mingrelian si you, Laz si(n) you, and Svan si you (cf. Tuite 1997:18).
Klimov (1998:164) reconstructs Proto-Kartvelian *sen you (sg.), while
FhnrichSardshweladse (1995:300) reconstruct *si- you (sg.) (variant form
*si-n- with secondary -n-), as does Fhnrich (2007:366). In Georgian, this stem
has been replaced by that of the possessive pronoun: en- you (< *kwe[n]-).
The Kartvelian evidence strengthens the case for an independent second person
pronoun stem *si in Proto-Nostratic.
B. Indo-European: In Indo-European, this stem is found only in the second person
singular verbal endings (primary) *-s-i, (secondary) *-s > Sanskrit (primary)
-si, (secondary) -s; Avestan (primary) -si, (secondary) -s; Hittite (primary) -i,
(secondary) -; Greek (primary) -, (secondary) -; Old Latin (primary/
secondary) -s; Gothic (primary/secondary) -s; Old Church Slavic (primary) -si/
-i; Lithuanian (primary) -si. It appears that there were originally two
competing endings of the second person singular in Proto-Indo-European: (A)
*-t, which is preserved only in Hittite and Tocharian, and (B) *-s(i), which is
also found in Hittite as well as in the non-Anatolian daughter languages other
than Tocharian. It is clear that the *-s(i) ending ousted the *-t ending in the
singular in the non-Anatolian daughter languages, while the *-t ending was
preserved intact in the plural. Cf. Beekes 1995:232234; Brugmann 1904:590;
Meillet 1964:227228, 229, and 1965:316318; Szemernyi 1996:233
236; Burrow 1973:306314; Fortson 2004:8485 and 2010:9293.
C. Altaic: This stem is found in Tungus, and Turkic: Proto-Altaic *si second
person singular pronoun: you: Proto-Tungus *si, *s second person singular
pronoun: you > Manchu si you; Spoken Manchu (Sibo) i you; Evenki si
you; Lamut / Even h you; Negidal s you; Ulch si you; Orok si you;
Nanay / Gold i you; Oroch si you; Udihe si you; Solon ei you. Second
person singular possessive suffixes: Lamut / Even (after vowels) -s, (after
consonants) -as, (after n) -si; Evenki (after vowels) -s, (after consonants) -is.
Proto-Turkic *s- second person singular pronoun: you > Old Turkic sen
you; Turkish sen you; Azerbaijani sn you; Turkmenian sen you; Tatar
sin you; Bashkir hin you; Karaim sn you; Kazakh sen you; Kirghiz sen
you; Noghay sen you; Uzbek sn you; Uighur sen you; Tuva sen you;
Yakut en you; Chuvash es you. Second person singular possessive
suffixes/personal markers: Turkish -sIn; Kazakh -sI; Kirghiz -sI; Uzbek -s$n.
Cf. JohansonCsat 1998; StarostinDyboMudrak 2003:12371238.
NOSTRATIC MORPHOLOGY I: THE EVIDENCE 337
16.11. Second person *ni (~ *ne) and/or *na (~ *n) (Greenberg: 6. Second-
Person N)
While the evidence for this stem in Eurasiatic is not plentiful, it is found in other
Nostratic languages. However, the evidence is somewhat controversial, especially
in Afrasian, where it is found only in Omotic. Nonetheless, the evidence is
compelling enough to make it seem likely that this stem should be reconstructed for
Proto-Nostratic. The vowel is difficult to reconstruct Afrasian and Dravidian
point to original *ni (~ *ne), while Altaic points to *na instead.
A. Afrasian: Interestingly, this stem exists in Omotic (cf. Zayse second singular
[subject] n[j] you, bound form -n; Bench / Gimira [subject] nen3 you,
[oblique] ni4; Yemsa / Janjero ne you; etc.). Bender (2000:196) reconstructs a
Proto-Omotic second person singular independent personal pronoun *ne you.
Bender (2000:197) implies, however, that there may have been a reversal of the
Afrasian *n (first person) ~ *t (second person) pattern to *t (first person) ~ *n
(second person) in Omotic. But note the patterning in Elamite (below).
B. Elamo-Dravidian: The possessive pronouns of the second series, or the
possessive pronouns proper in Achaemenid Elamite were: (1st person sg.) -ta,
(2nd person sg.) -ni, (3rd person sg.) -e (cf. Khaikjan 1998:2627). Middle
Elamite second person singular personal pronoun (nom. sg.) ni ~ nu you, thou
(Old Elamite ni), (pl.) num, numi you. The Proto-Dravidian second person
pronoun has been reconstructed as (sg.) *nn-, (pl.) *nm- > (a) singular: Tamil
n you; Malayalam n you (obl. nin(n)-); Kota ni you; Toda ni you;
Kannaa nf, nn(u) you; Koagu nin/ni you; Telugu nvu you; Kolami
niv you; Naiki nv you; Kona nn you; Kuwi nn you; Kuux nn
you; Malto nn you; Brahui n you; (b) plural: Tamil nm, nr, nyir, nvir,
nka you; Malayalam nia you; Kota nim you; Toda nm you;
Kannaa nm, nvu, nnga you; Koagu niga you; Kolami nir you;
Naiki nr you; Kuux nm you; Malto nm you; Brahui num you (cf.
Krishnamurti 2003:249252; BurrowEmeneau 1984:327, no. 3684, and
328, no. 3688). McAlpin (1981:114115) reconstructs Proto-Elamo-
Dravidian second person singular independent personal pronoun *ni you,
thou, possessive clitic *-ni. For the second person plural, he reconstructs
Proto-Elamo-Dravidian *nim.
C. Uralic: Greenberg (2000:7677) notes that there is some evidence for a
second person personal pronoun n- in Uralic, especially in Ob-Ugric. However,
as he rightly points out, this evidence is extremely controversial and has been
variously explained by specialists. As noted by Marcantonio (2002:226):
the Possessive endings of the 2nd Singular in Vogul and Ostyak differ, yet
again, from those of Hungarian and other U[ralic] languages; in fact, Vogul
and Ostyak have the ending -(V)n and not -t as reconstructed for P[roto]-
U[ralic]. Compare Hun[garian] hz-a-d vs Finn[ish] talo-si your house vs
Vog[ul] ula-n bow-your (Keresztes 1998: 411). Several connections have
been proposed for -(V)n (compare for example Sinor 1988: 733; Hajd 1966:
338 CHAPTER SIXTEEN
132-3). Among these connections, one may consider that of the formant -n- in
P[roto]-Samoyed. As Janhunen puts it (1998: 471):
From the Proto-Uralic point of view, one of the most interesting features is
that the second-person singular predicative ending seems to have been -n
in proto-Samoyedic, as opposed to *-t in most sub-branches of Finno-
Ugric.
According to Collinder (1965a: 134), there might have been two words to
indicate you: *-t and *-n;
D. Altaic: StarostinDyboMudrak (2003:959) reconstruct Proto-Altaic *na
thou on the basis of: (a) Proto-Turkic *- an ending of the second person >
Old Turkic (Orkhon, Old Uighur) -; Karakhanide Turkic -; Turkish -n;
Gagauz -n; Azerbaijani -n; Turkmenian -; Uzbek -; Uighur -; Karaim -n, -y;
Tatar -; Bashkir -; Kirghiz -; Kazakh -; Noghay -; Oyrot (Mountain Altai)
-; Tuva -; Chuvash -n; Yakut -; (b) Proto-Japanese *na thou > Old
Japanese na thou; (c) Proto-Korean *n thou > Middle Korean n thou >
Modern Korean ne thou (cf. Sohn 1999:207). They note: Velarization in
Turkic is not quite clear and probably secondary (perhaps a fusion with the
attributive *-ki). The root is widely used only in the Kor[ean]-J[apanese] area,
and its original function (to judge from the O[ld] J[apanese] opposition of si
and na) was probably limited to the oblique stem of the suppletive 2nd p[erson]
paradigm.
16.13. Deictic particle (A) *a- (~ *-) (distant), (B) *i- (~ *e-) (proximate),
and (C) *u- (~ *o-) (intermediate) (Greenberg: 8. Third-Person I ~ E and
9. Demonstrative A ~ E; Illi-Svity 19711984.I:257258, no. 121,
*a demonstrative pronoun indicating distant object: that, I:270272, no.
134, *i/(?)*e demonstrative pronoun indicating nearby object: this;
Nafiqoff 2003:42, 4647, and 4950 *i/(?)*e; Dolgopolsky to appear,
no. 751, *ha deictic pronominal particle [ille, distal deixis], no. 753, *h[e]
this, no. 754, *[h]i iste [or hic], no. 755, *[h]u iste)
Greenberg (2000:81) notes that the Common Eurasiatic third person singular
pronoun *i- ~ *e- originates from a near demonstrative. He also notes (2000:87)
that *a- is a far demonstrative that alternates with *e-. Greenberg does not posit an
intermediate demonstrative. The Dravidian and Southern Cushitic material supports
Greenbergs findings on the proximate and distant demonstrative stems and adds
evidence for an intermediate demonstrative. In Kartvelian, the distal distribution has
been reversed: here, *i- is the distant stem, and *a- is the proximate stem.
Turkmenian ana here; Karaim (locative) an-da that, (dative) an-ar; Tatar
(locative) an-da that, (dative) a-a; Bashkir (locative) an-ta, an-da that,
(dative) a-a; Kirghiz (locative) an-ta that, (dative) a-()a; Oyrot (Mountain
Altai) (locative) an-da that, (dative) o-()o; Tuva (locative) n-da that,
(dative) a()-a; Chuvash (locative) on-da that, (dative) n-a; Yakut ana-r
here. Cf. StarostinDyboMudrak 2003:447. StarostinDyboMudrak
include the Turkic (and Japanese) forms under Proto-Altaic *e. However, the
difference in both form and meaning indicate that two separate stems are
involved here. Rna-Tas (1998:74) notes: Proto-Turkic may nevertheless have
had a pronoun for the third person, possibly *a(n)-, since the oblique stem of ol
is an-; cf. Chuvash un-. The fact that Chuvash has a 3p. sg. - < *-i in certain
conjugations shows that Proto-Turkic had a third-person singular pronoun *i-
or *in-. It developed into a suffix [in Chuvash], but disappeared in other Turkic
languages. Note that Proto-Mongolian had 3p. sg. *in- and 3p. pl. *an-.
Proto-Altaic *o this, that (deictic particle) > (a) Proto-Tungus *u- this,
that > Manchu u-ba here, this place; this; Spoken Manchu (Sibo) ev this;
Udihe u-ti that; (b) Proto-Mongolian *on- other, different > Written
Mongolian onuui peculiar, unusual; specific; separate; special, particular,
different; remote, isolated (of place or area); strange, ondu other, another;
different(ly); apart, separately; Khalkha ond other, different; Buriat ond
other, different; Ordos ondn other, different; Dagur en other; (c) Proto-
Turkic *o(l)- that > Old Turkic (Old Uighur) o-l that; Karakhanide Turkic
o-l that; Turkish o that; Gagauz o that; Azerbaijani o that; Turkmenian ol
that; Uzbek that; Uighur u that; Karaim o that; Tatar u-l that; Bashkir
o-o, u that; Kirghiz o-o that; Kazakh o-l that; Noghay o-l that; Oyrot
(Mountain Altai) o-l that; Tuva ol that; Chuvash v-l that; Yakut ol that
(cf. Rna-Tas 1998:74). StarostinDyboMudrak 2003:1040.
G. Gilyak / Nivkh: Distant demonstrative (Amur) a-d that, even more distant
from the speaker but visible (cf. Gruzdeva 1998:26; Greenberg 2000:91).
H. Etruscan: i- in i-ca this, i-n, i-nc it (inanimate), i-ta this (cf. Bonfante
Bonfante 2002:91, 92, and 93).
16.14. Deictic particle (A) *ka- (~ *k-) (proximate), (B) *ku- (~ *ko-)
(distant), and (C) *ki- (~ *ke-) (intermediate) (Greenberg: 10.
Demonstrative KU; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 982, *[] demonstrative
pronoun [animate ?])
The evidence from all of the Nostratic daughter languages seems to point to the
existence of at least two, possibly three, stems here: (A) *ka- (~ *k-)
(proximate), (B) *ku- (~ *ko-) (distant), and (?) (C) *ki- (~ *ke-) (intermediate).
Greenberg (2000:91), however, considers *ku to have been a near demonstrative.
Indeed, there appears to have been some confusion between these stems in the
NOSTRATIC MORPHOLOGY I: THE EVIDENCE 343
16.15. Deictic particle (A) *ta- (~ *t-) (proximate), (B) *tu- (~ *to-) (distant),
and (C) *ti- (~ *te-) (intermediate) (Greenberg: 11. Demonstrative T;
Nafiqoff 2003:51 *a; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2310, * demonstrative
pronoun of non-active [animate] objects [without distance opposition
(proximate intermediate distal)])
It seems that three separate stems are to be reconstructed here, indicating three
degrees of distance: (A) *ta- (~ *t-) (proximate), (B) *tu- (~ *to-) (distant),
and (C) *ti- (~ *te-) (intermediate). As in (A) *ka- (~ *k-) (proximate), (B)
*ku- (~ *ko-) (distant), and (C) *ki- (~ *ke-) (intermediate), discussed above,
there appears to have been some confusion between these stems in the various
daughter languages, which makes it difficult to determine which degree of distance
is to be assigned to which stem.
feminine gender marker; Asa -(i)t(o), -(e)t(o) feminine gender marker; Maa
-eta suffix on feminine nouns; Dahalo t- in t"ini (f.) they.
B. Dravidian: Proto-Dravidian *tn- reflexive pronoun singular, *tm- reflexive
pronoun plural > Tamil tn oneself (obl. tan-; before vowels tann-), tm (obl.
tam-; before vowels tamm-) they, themselves; you; Malayalam tn self,
oneself, tm (obl. tam-, tamm-) they, themselves; you; Kota tan oneself,
tam (obl. tam-) themselves; Toda ton oneself, tam (obl. tam-)
themselves; Kannaa tn he, she, it (in the reflexive or reciprocal sense),
tm (obl. tam-), tvu (obl. tav-) they, themselves; you; Koagu tan oneself,
taga (obl. taga-) themselves; Telugu tnu oneself; he or himself; she or
herself, tmu (obl. tam-, tamm-), tamaru, tru they, themselves; you; Naiki
tm they, themselves; Parji tn self, oneself, tm (obl. tam-) they,
themselves; Gadba (Ollari) tn (obl. tan-) self, oneself, tm (obl. tam-) they,
themselves; Pengo tn he, himself; Kuux tn reflexive pronoun of the third
person: himself, tm- (obl. tam-) they, themselves; Malto tn, tni himself,
herself, itself, tm, tmi (obl. tam-) they, themselves; Brahui tn self,
myself, thyself, himself, ourselves, etc. Cf. Krishnamurti 2003:252253;
BurrowEmeneau 1984:275, no. 3162, and 278, no. 3196.
C. Indo-European: Proto-Indo-European *to- that, also *tyo- (< *ti-o-) >
Sanskrit td this, that; Greek this, that; Gothic ata that; Old Icelandic
at that, it; Old English Kt that; Lithuanian ts this, that; Tocharian A
tm this, B te this one, it; Hieroglyphic Luwian tas this; Hittite ta sentence
connective. This stem is joined in a suppletive alternation with *so- this. It is
also used as a third person verb ending (primary) *-ti, (secondary) *-t >
Hittite (primary) -zi (< *-ti), (secondary) -t; Sanskrit (primary) -ti, (secondary)
-t; Avestan (primary) -ti, (secondary) -t ; Greek (primary) -; Gothic (primary)
-; Latin (primary/secondary) -t; Lithuanian (primary) -ti; Russian Church
Slavic (primary) -t. Cf. Pokorny 1959:10861087; Burrow 1973:269272
and 306311; Brugmann 1904:399401 and 590591; Beekes 1995:202
and 232; Szemernyi 1996:204206 and 233235; Meillet 1964:228 and
326; Fortson 2004:129130.
D. Uralic-Yukaghir: Proto-Uralic (demonstrative pronoun stem) *ta/*t this >
Finnish tm/t- this; (?) Estonian tema, tem he, she, it; Lapp / Saami dat
~ da- this, deik (< *dekki) hither; Mordvin (Erza) te, (Moksha) t this,
(Erza) tes, (Moksha) t'asa here, (Erza) tite, teke, (Moksha) tit, t'aka (just)
this; Cheremis / Mari (West) ti, (East) t, t this; (?) Votyak / Udmurt ta
this; (?) Zyrian / Komi ta this; Vogul / Mansi te, ti, t this, tet, tit, tt
here; Ostyak / Xanty temi, t- this; Yurak Samoyed / Nenets tKm" this,
(pl.) teew" these; Selkup Samoyed tam, tau, tap this, teda" now, tii, tea,
teka hither; Kamassian teeji hither. Cf. Rdei 19861988:505 *ta;
Collinder 1955:62 and 1977:79; Dcsy 1990:108 *ta/*t that, this. Yukaghir
(Southern / Kolyma) ti this, ti: here, ti:-ta: here and there. Proto-Uralic
(demonstrative pronoun stem) *to- that > Finnish tuo that, yonder; Lapp /
Saami duot- ~ duo- that (one) over there, that over there, that; Mordvin
tona, to- that; Cheremis / Mari (East) tu that; Vogul / Mansi ton, to- that;
346 CHAPTER SIXTEEN
Votyak / Udmurt tu that; Zyrian / Komi ty that; Ostyak / Xanty tmi, tomi,
tm, t- that; Hungarian tova away, tl beyond, on the further side;
exceedingly, too; Yurak Samoyed / Nenets taaky that, yonder, taaj there;
Yenisei Samoyed / Enets tohonoo that (one) there; Selkup Samoyed to this.
Cf. Collinder 1955:64, 1965:146, and 1977:81; Rdei 19861988:526528
*to; Dcsy 1990:109 *to those; Joki 1973:330331; Raun 1988b:562. Ob-
Ugric and Samoyed third person singular possessive suffix *-t. Cf. also
Abondolo 1998a:25. Yukaghir (Southern / Kolyma) ta that, tada there, ta:t
so, then, tude- he, she, it (cf. Nikolaeva 2006:423424 and 438).
E. Altaic: Proto-Altaic *ta (*te) that > (a) Proto-Tungus *ta- that > Manchu
tere that; Solon tari that; Evenki tar, tari that; Lamut / Even tar that;
Negidal tay that; Orok tari that; Nanay / Gold taya that; Udihe tei, teyi
that; Oroch t, tei that; Solon tay, tari that; (b) Proto-Mongolian (sg.) *te,
*te-r-e that > Written Mongolian (sg.) tere that, (pl.) tede those; Dagur
(sg.) tere that, (pl.) tede those; Moghol t that; Ordos (sg.) tere that, (pl.)
tede those; Khalkha (sg.) ter that, (pl.) tdd those; Monguor (sg.) te
that; Moghol (sg.) te that; Buriat (sg.) tere that, (pl.) tede those (cf.
Poppe 1955:225, 226, 227, and 228); (c) Proto-Turkic *ti(k)- that > Gagauz
te bu this here, te o that there; Tatar tg that; Kirghiz tigi that; Kazakh
(dialectal) tigi that; Yakut i-ti that (pl. itiler those). StarostinDybo
Mudrak 2003:1389 *ta (*te) that.
F. Gilyak / Nivkh: (Amur) tyd this, the nearest to the speaker, visible and
available in the present situation, tus so much (persons or objects close to
the speaker) (cf. Gruzdeva 1998:26).
G. Etruscan: Note the demonstratives ita, ta this and the adverb ar there,
thither.
16.16. Deictic particle *a- (~ *-) this one here, that one there (Greenberg: 12.
Demon-strative S; Nafiqoff 2003:53 *sV)
16.17. Anaphoric pronoun stem *si- (~ *se-) (Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2006,
*sE he/she; Greenberg: 12. Demonstrative S)
This is an old anaphoric pronoun distinct from Proto-Nostratic *a- (~ *-) this
one here.
A. Afrasian: Proto-Afrasian *si- third person pronoun stem, *-s(i) third person
suffix > Egyptian -s, -sy third person singular suffix; dependent pronouns: sw
he, him, it, sy she, her, it, sn they, them, st old form of the dependent
pronoun third singular feminine, which has been specialized for certain
particular uses, mainly in place of the third plural they, them or of the neuter
it. Cf. Gardiner 1957:45, 43, 46, 44, and 98, 124; Hannig 1995:647, 674,
712, and 777; Faulkner 1962:205, 211, 215, 230, and 252. Berber: Tamazight
third person indirect pronouns: (singular after preposition and possessive with
kinship) s, as, (possessive sg.) -nns or ns; (m. pl.) sn, -sn, asn, (f. pl.) snt,
-snt, asnt, (possessive m. pl.) -nsn, (possessive f. pl.) -nsnt. Cf. Penchoen
1973:2627. Chadic: Ngizim demonstratives (previous reference): (deictic
predicator) sn here/there (it) is, here/there they are (pointing out or
offering), (pronoun) snq this one, that one; this, that (thing or event being
pointed out or in question); Hausa ii he, (direct object) i him. Proto-East
Cushitic *u-s-uu he > Burji s-i third singular masculine personal pronoun
348 CHAPTER SIXTEEN
abs. (= obj.) him; Gedeo / Darasa isi third singular masculine nominative
pronoun he; Kambata isi third singular masculine nominative pronoun he;
Sidamo isi third singular masculine nominative pronoun he. Proto-East
Cushitic *i--ii she > Burji -e third singular feminine personal pronoun
abs. (= obj.) her; Gedeo / Darasa ise third singular feminine nominative
pronoun she; Hadiyya isi third singular feminine nominative pronoun she;
Kambata ise third singular feminine nominative pronoun she; Sidamo ise
third singular feminine nominative pronoun she. Cf. Sasse 1982:106 and 107;
Hudson 1989:77 and 132. Highland East Cushitic: Kambata -si third singular
possessive pronoun (m.): his, -se third singular possessive pronoun (f.): her;
Sidamo -si third singular possessive pronoun (m.): his, -se third singular
possessive pronoun (f.): her. Cf. Hudson 1989:80. Proto-Southern Cushitic
*i-si- she > Iraqw, Burunge, Alagwa -s in -os his, her, its. Proto-Southern
Cushitic *-si (bound) her > Dahalo "i she, -i her. Proto-Southern
Cushitic *u-su- he > Iraqw, Burunge, Alagwa -s in -os his, her, its. Proto-
Southern Cushitic *-su (bound) his > Maa -"u in ku-"u his, her, its; Dahalo
"u he, -u his. Cf. Ehret 1980:290 and 295. Omotic: Zayse bound third
person singular subject pronouns: (m.) -s, (f.) -is, third person singular
independent pronouns: (subject m.) "-s-, (subject f.) "-s-, (direct object
complement m.) "-s-a, (direct object complement f.) "-s-a, (postpositional
complement m.) "-s-u (-ro), (postpositional complement f.) "-s-u(-ro),
(copular complement m.) "-s-te, (copular complement f.) "-s-te; Gamo sekki
that, those, third person singular subject markers (affirmative): (m.) -es, (f.)
-us. Ehret (1995:156, no. 210) reconstructs Proto-Afrasian *su, *usu they.
B. Elamite: Third singular personal suffix - (< *-si ?).
C. Kartvelian: Proto-Kartvelian *-s verb suffix used to mark the third person
singular (subjective conjugation) > Georgian -s; Mingrelian -s; Laz -s; Svan -s.
Cf. Fhnrich 1994:241 and 2007:357358; Klimov 1964:160; Fhnrich
Sardshweladse 1995:292.
D. Indo-European: Proto-Indo-European *-s third person singular verb ending >
Hittite i-conjugation third singular preterit ending - (cf. Sturtevant 1951:144,
270a; J. Friedrich 1960:7679); Sanskrit third singular root aorist optative
ending -s in, for example, bh-y -s (cf. Burrow 1973:352); Tocharian A third
singular verb ending - (< *-se) in, for example, plk shines (cf. Adams
1988:56, 4.212). According to Watkins (1962), it was this suffix that gave rise
to the sigmatic aorist in Indo-European. Proto-Indo-European *-s- in (m.)
*ey-s-os, (f.) *ey-s-eA [*ey-s-aA] (> *eys), *ey-s-yos a compound
demonstrative pronoun: this > Sanskrit e- (f. e ) this; Avestan aa- (f.
a) this; Oscan eses he; Umbrian erec, erek, ere, eek, erse he, it.
Note: the *-s- element could be from the Proto-Indo-European demonstrative
stem *so- this, that (< Proto-Nostratic *a- [~ *-] this, that) instead. Cf.
Pokorny 1959: 281283; Walde 19271932.I:9698; Mann 1984
1987:235 *eisi os (*eiso-, *eito-) a compound pronoun; Mayrhofer 1956
1980.I:129.
NOSTRATIC MORPHOLOGY I: THE EVIDENCE 349
16.18. Deictic particle *na (~ *n), *ni (~ *ne) (not in Greenberg 2000; Nafiqoff
2003:5051 *NA; Illi-Svity 19711984.II:9394, no. 332, *NA
demonstrative pronoun)
Selkup Samoyed na that, nyy thither (cf. Collinder 1955:38 and 1977:57;
Rdei 19861988:300301; Dcsy 1990:103).
E. Altaic: Proto-Tungus third person possessive suffix *-n (cf. Sinor 1988:725) >
Evenki -n (-in after consonants); Lamut / Even -n (-an after consonants); Udihe
-ni; etc. Cf. FuchsLopatinMengesSinor 1968.
Sumerian: na, ne this; ane, ene he, she, -ani (-ni after vowels) his, her.
16.19. Deictic particle *ta- (~ *t-) that over there, that yonder (not very far)
(not in Greenberg 2000)
A. Afrasian: Proto-Semitic *ta- that over there, that yonder > Arabic tamma
there, yonder, tumma then, thereupon; furthermore, moreover; and again,
and once more, tammata there, there is; Hebrew m there, thither;
Imperial Aramaic tmh there; Biblical Aramaic tamm there; Phoenician m
there; Ugaritic tm there. Cf. Klein 1987:664.
B. Altaic: Proto-Altaic *a- that over there, that yonder (not very far) > (a)
Proto-Tungus *- that, further (not very far) > Manchu a- over there (not
very far): ala over there, on the other side; previously, before, argi there,
over there, that side, beyond; formerly, asi in that direction, thither, there;
Evenki - that, further (not very far); Lamut / Even - that, further (not
very far); Negidal - that, further (not very far); Ulch a- that, further (not
very far); Orok - that, further (not very far); Nanay / Gold a- that, further
(not very far); Oroch - that, further (not very far); Udihe a- that, further
(not very far); Solon s- that, further (not very far); (b) Proto-Mongolian
*a- that, beyond > Mongolian a- in: adu, aadu situated on the other or
opposite side; beyond, aaduki lying opposite, situated on the other side;
situated beyond, aan-a, ian-a farther, beyond, behind, yonder, aaur
along or on the other side; farther, beyond, aanaan a little further or
beyond; Khalkha cna that, beyond; Buriat s- that, beyond; Kalmyk c-
that, beyond; Ordos na that, beyond; Dagur - that, beyond, i
thither; Monguor a, ta that, beyond. Cf. StarostinDyboMudrak
2003:406 *a that, beyond (not very far); Poppe 1960:26 and 139; Street
1974:10 *ag there, further away.
C. Eskimo: Proto-Eskimo demonstrative stem *cam- down below, down-slope
(not visible): Alutiiq Alaskan Yupik camna; Central Alaskan Yupik camna;
Naukan Siberian Yupik samna; Central Siberian Yupik saamna; Sirenik
samna; Seward Peninsula Inuit samna; North Alaskan Inuit samna; Western
Canadian Inuit hamna; Eastern Canadian Inuit sanna; Greenlandic Inuit sanna.
Note: all of the preceding forms are cited in the absolutive singular. Cf.
FortescueJacobsonKaplan 1994:458.
NOSTRATIC MORPHOLOGY I: THE EVIDENCE 351
16.20. Dual *ki(-nV) (Greenberg: 14. Dual KI[N]; Dolgopolsky to appear, no.
1902, *" particle of collectivity [(in descendant languages) a marker of
plurality]; Fortescue 1998:96123)
A. Afrasian: Note Egyptian (m.) ky, k, k, (f.) kt (kt) other, another; Coptic ke
[ke] another (one), (the) other (one); other, different. Cf. Hannig 1995:878
879; Gardiner 1957:78, 98, and 597; Vycichl 1984:70; ern 1976:51.
B. Indo-European: Mann (19841987:618) posits a Proto-Indo-European *$in-,
but he does not assign a meaning. He bases this reconstruction on the following
forms from the daughter languages: Armenian mia-sin together; Old Church
Slavic s-sn mutual, pri-sn akin. The underlying sense seems to have
been togetherness or complementarity, which may be derived from an original
meaning pair, set of two or the like. Though speculative, there is nothing
unreasonable in this proposal.
At the very end of the discussion of Dual *KI(N), Greenberg (2000:106)
briefly mentions the Armenian plural ending -k (= -k), which, as he notes, has
always been enigmatic. I would remove Armenian from this section and put it
in 18. Plural KU. The Armenian ending -k has no known parallels in other
Indo-European languages and is usually considered to be a development
specific to Armenian, without clear explanation (cf., for example, Godel
1975:102, 5.22, and Rdiger Schmitt 1981:111112). To be sure, a suffix
*-k(o)- is well represented in other Indo-European daughter languages it is
found, for instance, in Latin senex old man, Greek young man, lad,
and Sanskrit sanak- old , but it usually does not change the meaning
except in a few cases where it seems to add a diminutive sense (as in Sanskrit
putrak- little son). Nothing would lead one to think that this ending could
have been the source of the Armenian plural ending -k. At the same time, I
find it hard to believe that a Proto-Eurasiatic plural marker *-k(V) could have
been preserved in Armenian and have left absolutely no traces in the other
Indo-European daughter languages and yet, there it is!
C. Uralic: Greenberg (2000:102103) mentions possible related forms in Uralic:
Proto-Uralic dual *-ka ~ *-k + *-n or *-n (cf. Collinder 1960:302303;
Dcsy 1990:73). This is identical in form to the plural ending of the
personal/possessive inflection. However, we would expect Proto-Uralic *-ki ~
*-ke + *-n or *-n, with *-i ~ *-e vocalism, if the Uralic forms had indeed been
related to the others discussed by Greenberg instead of the vowels
352 CHAPTER SIXTEEN
16.21. Plural *-ta (Greenberg: 15. Plural T; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2240,
*t a postnominal marker [pronoun ?] of plurality [together]; Fortescue
1998:96123)
A. Afrasian: A plural marker -ta is found in Cushitic. In Kambata, for instance, the
most common plural suffix is -ata, as in duunn-ata hills, (sg. duuna). This
suffix occurs elsewhere in Highland East Cushitic: cf. the Sidamo plural suffix
-oota in ballicca blind one, (pl.) balloota. Also note Galla / Oromo: nama
man, (pl.) namoota. A plural marker -t (~ -d) also occurs in Omotic (cf.
Bender 2000:212213). Ehret (1995:17) notes that [a] distinct Afroasiatic
suffix in *t, a nominal plural marker, may be reflected in the Egyptian cases
where *t indicates a collectivity. Later, Ehret (1995:27) lists a number of
nominal suffixes that are most certainly ancient in Afrasian, including plurals
in t, probably reconstructible as *-at-, seen in Semitic, Egyptian (as the
collective *t), Cushitic, and Omotic. Note also the remarks concerning t-
plurals in Semitic by Lipiski (1997:241242): Some nouns, both masculine
and feminine, without the -t mark of the feminine in the singular, take the
feminine ending in the plural. This phenomenon assumes larger proportions
in Assyro-Babylonian and especially in North Ethiopic where the feminine
plural ending -t is widely used for masculine nouns. Also the external plural
in -o / -a, used for both genders in South Ethiopic (31.17) and in some
Tigre nouns, originates from an ancient *-ti, which was the ending of the
plural oblique case: the vowel i caused the palatalization of t and was absorbed
in the palatal. In Assyro-Babylonian, some of the nouns in question are really
feminine also in the singular, as e.g. abullu(m), city gate, plur. abulltu(m), or
eleppu(m), ship, plur. elepptu(m). Other nouns however, as e.g. qaqqadu(m),
head, plur. qaqqadtu(m), or ikkaru, peasant, plur. ikkartu(m), are
NOSTRATIC MORPHOLOGY I: THE EVIDENCE 353
Nominative perq-n-i
Ergative perq-t(a)
Genitive perq-t(a)
Adessive perq-t(a)
Dative perq-t(a)
Instrumental perq-t(a)
Adverbial perq-t(a)
Vocative perq-n-o
354 CHAPTER SIXTEEN
Thus, there are really only three distinct case forms in the n-plural, namely,
nominative, vocative, and oblique (that is, all the other cases). There is also a
plural marker -eb-, which was probably originally collective. The plural ending
-t(a) is also found in pronoun stems in the oblique cases. Finally, note that a
plural marker -t is also found in verbs cf., for instance, the Old Georgian
present forms of the verb cer- to write (cf. Fhnrich 1994:85):
Singular Plural
As a plural suffix of the first and second persons in the verb (subjective
conjugation), *-t is found in Mingrelian and Laz as well (cf. Fhnrich 1994:240
and 2007:185186; FhnrichSardshweladse 1995:153154).
C. Uralic: According to Collinder (1960:297), the nominative plural ending was
*-t in Proto-Uralic: cf. Finnish kala fish, (pl.) kalat; Lapp / Saami (pl.) guolet,
guolek (-k < *-t) fish; Mordvin (Erza) (pl.) kalt fish; Vogul / Mansi (pl.) hult
fish; Ostyak / Xanty (pl.) kult fish; Yurak Samoyed / Nenets (pl.) haale"
fish. See also Abondolo 1998a:21; Dcsy 1990:7275. Regarding plural
endings in Uralic, Marcantonio (2002:229) notes: Most U[ralic] languages,
like Finnish, Vogul, Ostyak, Samoyed, have an ending -t, as in Finn[ish] talo-t
houses. This morpheme -t is also used in the verbal conjugation in several
languages, for example in Vogul See also Sinor 1952:211.
D. Altaic: Common Mongolian had a plural suffix *-t (cf. Sinor 1952:211212).
This suffix is preserved in Ordos, Khalkha, Buriat, and Moghol. In Mongolian,
it appears as -d, in Dagur as -r, and in Kalmyk as -D (see the table in Poppe
1955:183). Though Poppe (1955:178184) reconstructs a Common
Mongolian plural suffix *-d, Greenberg (2000:107) cites an earlier work by
Poppe in which he derives *-d from an earlier *-t. Tungus: Manchu -ta and -te
form the plural of certain kinship terms. Turkic has a few forms with a relic
plural -t (cf. Menges 1968b:111; Sinor 1952:212213). For Proto-Altaic,
StarostinDyboMudrak (2003:221) reconstruct a plural suffix *-t- on the
basis of: Proto-Tungus *-ta(n)/*-te(n) (basically in Manchu; in other Tungus
languages, it is used as the 3rd plural pronominal suffix); Mongolian -d; Proto-
Turkic *-t; Proto-Japanese *-ta-ti; Proto-Korean *-t-r. They note: This is the
most common and probably original P[roto-]A[ltaic] plural suffix.
E. Gilyak / Nivkh: Suffix *-t is used to indicate the plural in all three persons in
the participle indicating action simultaneous with that of the main verb (cf.
Greenberg 2000:107).
F. Chukchi-Kamchatkan: Greenberg (2000:120; see also 107108, 15) notes
that the plural of nouns in declension I in Chukchi is -t after vowels and -ti ~
-te after consonants. Declension I distinguishes singular from plural only in
the absolutive. In declension II, singular and plural are distinguished in all
NOSTRATIC MORPHOLOGY I: THE EVIDENCE 355
cases. In the absolutive, the plural is -n-ti ~ -n-te, formed with the -n plural
formant discussed below plus the plural endings -ti ~ -te under discussion here.
G. Eskimo: A plural marker *-t is also found in Eskimo (cf. Greenberg 2000:108;
FortescueJacobsonKaplan 1994:441).
16.22. Plural *-ri (Greenberg: 17. Plural RI; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 1953a,
*r[i] a particle of plurality/collectivity)
A. Afrasian: A plural marker -r is found in Omotic: cf. the Zayse plural suffix -ir
in, for example, o snake, (pl.) o-ir. Cf. also Bender 2000:214.
B. Dravidian: Note here the Proto-Dravidian plural marker *-(V)r, used with
nouns of the personal class and pronouns (cf. Tamil avan [sg.] that man, [pl.]
avar those people) (cf. Krishnamurti 2003:206207; Zvelebil 1977:1516).
Particularly interesting is the close agreement here with Manchu, where, as
Greenberg remarks (2000:113), the plural -ri is confined to certain kinship
terms. Finally, Krishnamurti (2003:308) reconstructs a Proto-Dravidian third
plural (human) verb suffix *-r > Old Tamil -ar, -r(ka); Old Malayalam -r;
Irua -ar(u), -r; Kota -r; Kannaa -ar(u), -r, -or; Tuu -ri; Koraga -ri;
Telugu -ru, -ri; Kona -ar; Kui -eru; Kuwi -eri; Pengo -ar; Mana -ir; Kolami
-ar, -er; Naiki -ar, -er, -r; Parji -ar, -or, -er, -ir, -r; Gadba -ar, -er, -or, -r;
Kuux -ar, -r; Malto -er, -ar, -or; Brahui -ir, -r. This has a close parallel in
Indo-European (see below).
C. Kartvelian: Proto-Kartvelian plural suffix *-ar > Georgian -ar; Svan -ar
(Upper Svan -r). In Upper Bal, this is changed to -l, but in Lower Bal, -r
has mostly been generalized. Cf. FhnrichSardshweladse 1995:35; Fhnrich
2007:38.
D. Indo-European: Verbal third person endings in -r are found in Indo-Iranian,
Hittite, Italic, Venetic, Celtic, Phrygian, and Tocharian (cf. Szemernyi
1996:242243: It follows that the r-forms were originally limited to the
primary endings and, there, to the 3rd persons. The early forms were for Latin
-tor/-ntor, for Hittite -tori/-ntori, for Old Irish [giving conjunct endings -ethar/
-etar] -tro/-ntro.). According to Lehmann (2002:171), *-r was originally used
to mark the third plural in the stative in early Proto-Indo-European. This
contrasted with third plural *-n in the active. This *-n was later extended by
*-t, which itself was further extended by the deictic particle *-i, meaning here
and now, to form the later Proto-Indo-European third plural primary ending
*-nti.
E. Uralic: In her discussion of plural markers in Uralic, Marcantonio (2002:231)
notes: Finally, one should mention the ending -r, although its distribution is
very restricted. It is present in the function of a collective suffix in Samoyed
Yurak and in Cheremis. Sinor (1952:217) also notes that Cheremis / Mari had
a denominal collective suffix in -r and cites the following example: llper
alder grove (llp alder). For Yurak Samoyed / Nenets, Sinor cites kr-rie
larch grove (kr larch) as an example.
356 CHAPTER SIXTEEN
16.23. Plural *-ku (Greenberg: 18. Plural KU; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 837,
*kU particle of plurality)
of the first two: *-nk(k), *-V, and *-nk(k)V. According to Jules Bloch, the
plural ending *-(n)kV(u) developed from the coalescence of the two plural
markers *-k(V) and *-V(u) this agrees with Krishnamurtis analysis.
Specifically, Zvelebil (1977:1415) remarks: ...from the existence of only
the reflexes of *k in North Dravidian (Brahui) and Gondi-Konda Kui-Kuvi, we
may infer that the velar stop is preferably to be regarded as the earliest
Dravidian suffix of substantive plurals of the non-personal class. The
Dravidian plural suffix *-k(V) may be compared with the forms under
discussion here.
C. Indo-European: On Armenian, see above (Greenbergs 14. Dual KI[N]).
D. Uralic: Marcantonio (2002:234235) notes: Unlike most U[ralic] languages,
Hungarian has a different Plural ending, used both for nouns (in non-oblique
Cases), and for verbs: the ending -k. A Plural -k is also found in Lapp, although
this is generally considered as deriving from *-t Further, she notes: The
origin of -k is disputed. Some researchers believe that it derives from a
derivational suffix *-kkV, compare Finn[ish] puna-kka rubicund from puna
red (Abondolo 1988b: 439). This explanation looks a bit far fetched.
Abondolo himself (ibid.) also considers the possibility that the verbal element
-k is the same as the possessive element -k in uru-n-k. This is indeed the
interpretation which is chosen here, but this interpretation still does not tell us
where the component -k comes from. Aalto (1969/78: 326) considers the
possibility of connecting *-k with the Samoyed co-affixal element *-k()-
discussed above (Section 8.4.1), as well as with the Tungus, Turkic and
Mongolian collective ending -g. Menges (1968/95: 129) on the other hand
remarks that in a number of Turkic languages the 1st Poss. Plu. -ym ~ -yz
(normally used in connection with a verbal noun) is replaced by -yq ~ -ik (the
two forms coexist in some languages), whose origin is considered unclear, but
whose meaning and sound-shape could be connected with Hung. -k. A Plural -k
also exists in Dravidian. Collinder (1965:106) notes: [t]he ending -ikko often
forms collective nouns, as in [Finnish] koivikko (seldom koivukko) birch
grove.
E. Gilyak / Nivkh: Amur plural suffixes: -ku/-u/-gu/-xu; East Sakhalin: -kun/
-un/-gun/-xun; East and North Sakhalin -kunu/-unu/-gunu/-xunu. As noted by
Gruzdeva (1998:16), one or another phonetic variant of the suffix is chosen
according to the rules of morphophonological alternation. Gilyak / Nivkh also
forms plurals by means of reduplication.
F. Eskimo: Greenberg (2000:115116) devotes most of the discussion to the
Eskimo plural forms containing -ku.
In Turkic, Mongolian, and Japanese this suffix seems to have been originally
restricted to forming plurals of animate nouns, and in Japanese it basically
reflects associativity (brothers and those together with them, assoicated with
them). Ramstedt (EAS 2) suggests it was originally a separate noun *larV
which accounts for the specific reflex n- in Mongolian (otherwise typical for
*l- in word-initial position, see above). Turkic and Japanese already treat it as
suffix (word-initial *l- is absent in Turkic, just as word-initial *r- is absent in
Japanese). Loss of *-rV in T[ungus-]Manchu and Japanese, however, is
difficult to account for perhaps one should think of an early assimilative
process in a suffixed morpheme (something like *-larV > *-lrV- > *-llV). My
own views differ somewhat from those of StarostinDyboMudrak. I take
Mongolian *-nar to be a reflex of the Proto-Nostratic plural suffix *-nV, and I
take Proto-Turkic *-lA-r to be a compound suffix (see above).
A. Afrasian: In Geez, the masculine external plural is -n, which is related to the
Akkadian plural marker (nom.) -nu (cf. Lipiski 1997:239240). A plural
suffix -n occurs elsewhere in Afrasian: In Egyptian, the personal endings added
to the stative (old perfective, or pseudoparticiple) conjugation add -n in the
plural (cf. Loprieno 1995:65). Furthermore, Loprieno (1995:64) notes that the
plural forms of the suffix pronouns, common to both masculine and feminine,
show the addition of an element n (in the dual nj) to the singular: (1) first
person plural = n (**-ina > *-in), dual = nj (*-inij); (2) second person plural =
tn (from **-kina; the front vowel led to palatalization of the velar stop: *-tin),
dual = tnj (*-tinij); (3) third person plural = sn (**-sina > *-sin), dual = snj
(*-sinij). In Burji, for example, there are a few plurals formed with a suffix
-nna/-nno: gt-a hyena, (pl.) got-nna; saa-y cow, (pl.) saa-yanna, sa-ynaa;
rud-a sibling, (pl.) rud-annoo (data from Sasse 1982). Note also the plural
suffix -n in Berber: Tamazight ass day, (pl.) ussa-n; asif river, (pl.) i-saff-
n. In Tamazight, i- is prefixed, and -n is suffixed to masculine nouns to form
so-called sound plurals, while the prefix ti- and the suffix -n serve the same
function for feminine nouns (in rare cases, one finds ta-...-in instead). Nouns
ending in vowels add one of the following suffixes: -tn, -wn, or -yn. Thus, the
common marker for sound plurals in Tamazight is -n. (There are also so-
called broken plurals, which do not add -n.) In Semitic, there is a so-called
intrusive n found in the plural of the personal pronouns. Though Gelb
(1969:5053) explains this as a consonantal glide introduced in order to
avoid two contiguous vowels, it is curious that it is only found in the plural
NOSTRATIC MORPHOLOGY I: THE EVIDENCE 361
(1960:303, 960), however, identifies this as a dual for personal pronouns and
possessive suffixes. Marcantonio (2002:229230) notes: Another frequent
morpheme of Plurality is -(a)n, which is found for example in Zyrian, Mordvin,
Samoyed, Estonian (as a prefix in Personal pronouns), and Vogul. In this last
language it is also used in connection with verbs, to express Plurality of the
Definite Object in the Definite Conjugation. It is mainly used to form Plurality
of nouns when the Possessive ending is present as well, and it indicates
Plurality of the Possession (and/or Possessor). Compare Vog[ul] kol house,
kol-um my house vs kol-an-um house-Plu.-my, my houses The formant
-n is generally believed also to have existed in P[roto]-Finnish. For example, in
modern Finnish the form talo-mi has two grammatical meanings: (1) my
house < *talo-mi (where *-mi is the 1st Possessive); (2) my houses < *talo-
n-mi, where -n indicates Plurality.
E. Altaic: Sinor (1952:207208) observes: So far as I can see, Grnbech was
the first to demonstrate the existence of a Turkish plural suffix -n. It is absent
from the modern dialects and it is quite clear that even in Old Turkish it was
already obsolescent. It occurs mainly with two words oul boy, son and r
man, the plurals of which are respectively olan and rn. On the Proto-
Mongolian plural suffix *-nar, see above under plural/collective *-la.
F. Chukchi-Kamchatkan: Greenberg (2000:120; see also 107108, 15) notes
that the plural of nouns in declension I in Chukchi is -t after vowels and -ti ~
-te after consonants. Declension I distinguishes singular from plural only in
the absolutive. In declension II, singular and plural are distinguished in all
cases. In the absolutive, the plural is -n-ti ~ -n-te, formed with the -n plural
formant under discussion here plus the plural endings -ti ~ -te.
Sumerian: In Sumerian, the plural of animate nouns is indicated by the suffix -ene.
This ending is also found in the second and third plural possessive suffixes: (2nd
pl.) -zu.ne.ne, -zu.ne, and -zu.e.ne.ne your; (3rd pl.) -a.ne.ne their. This suffix
appears to be close both in form and function to the material gathered here.
There is evidence for both direct object markers *-m and *-n. *-m is found in Indo-
European, Uralic, Mongolian, Tungus, and the Aroid branch of Omotic within
Afrasian. *-n is found in Elamo-Dravidian, Etruscan, the Dizoid Branch of Omotic
within Afrasian, Turkic, and possibly even in Indo-European in the accusative
plural. The original forms of these formants may have been *-ma and *-na.
NOSTRATIC MORPHOLOGY I: THE EVIDENCE 363
A. Afrasian: There are traces of both of these endings in Omotic. In Aari, [i]n
direct object function the head of a definite NP receives an accusative suffix
-m (Hayward 1990b:443). Likewise in Dime, [d]irect objects are indicated by
the suffix -im attached to the stem of the object noun (Fleming 1990:518).
Bender (2000:211) reconstructs an accusative/absolutive formant *-m for the
Aroid branch of Omotic. For Dizoid, he reconstructs *-(n)a. Zaborski (1990:
625) lists the following examples of accusative -n, -na in Omotic (see also
Fleming 1976a:316): -na in Gofa Ometo pronouns and in Yemsa / Janjero; -n
in Basketo pronouns, in Yemsa / Janjero, in Kefa, in Dizi (with nouns other
than masculine singular), in Galila (for accusative pronoun me), and in Hamer.
Fleming (1976a:316) also discusses accusative -n in Hamer, Galila, and Kefa
and remarks that South Omotic otherwise uses -m for direct objects on nouns
and pronouns, while Dime has -n for the dative-benefactive.
B. Dravidian: The Proto-Dravidian accusative ending has been reconstructed as
*-(V)n > Kota -n; Kannaa -aM, -an, -n; Tuu -nu/-n, -anu; Gondi -n; Kona
(acc.-dat.) -/-i; Pengo (acc.-dat.) -a; Kolami -n ~ -un, -n (after any stem
ending in a vowel, liquid, or semivowel), -un (elsewhere); Naiki -/-; Naiki
(of Chanda) -n ~ -un; Parji -n ~ -in; Gadba (Ollari) -n ~ -in; Malto -n/-in (cf.
Zvelebil 1977:2731; Krishnamurti 2003:228230, 495, and 498). (There
was also an accusative ending *-ay in Proto-Dravidian.) Note the Elamite
accusative ending -n found in the declension of personal pronouns: first
singular (nominative) u I, (acc.) un; second singular (nom.) nu you, (acc.)
nun; etc. McAlpin (1981:109, 522.1) sets up a Proto-Elamo-Dravidian
accusative singular ending *-n. This is not, however, quite as straightforward a
comparison as I have made it out to be. In general, final *-m is preserved in
Dravidian (though, in at least one case, namely, the Proto-Dravidian
nominative suffix of some nouns with stems ending in -a, final *-m alternates
with *-n [cf. Zvelebil 1970:127]), and, therefore, we would expect the
accusative ending to have been *-(V)m instead of *-(V)n (but note McAlpin
1981:92, 314.2: The reflexes of PED *m are clear only in the first syllable.
After that Elamite and Dravidian attest both n and m finally; n more commonly
in Elamite, m more commonly in Dravidian [symbolized as PDr. *N]. This is
really no different from the situation in Dravidian where the common formative
PDr. *-aN ... is attested in both m and n [but never in alveolar n] ...). But,
considering that an -m ~ -n variation occurs throughout Nostratic for this case,
the Dravidian forms may still belong here if we assume that the variation went
all the way back to Proto-Nostratic itself.
C. Indo-European: The Proto-Indo-European accusative singular masculine/
feminine ending is to be reconstructed as *-m (after vocalic stems) ~ *-m (after
consonantal stems), and the accusative plural masculine/feminine as *-ns (after
vocalic stems) ~ *-n s (after consonantal stems): (a) accusative singular:
Sanskrit vkam wolf; Greek wolf; Latin lupum wolf; Gothic wulf
wolf; Lithuanian vil k wolf; Old Church Slavic vlk wolf; (b) accusative
plural: Sanskrit vkn wolves, sn n sons; Avestan vhrk wolves; Greek
(Cretan) (Attic ) wolves, sons; Latin lups wolves;
364 CHAPTER SIXTEEN
Gothic wulfans wolves, sununs sons; Old Prussian deiwans gods (cf.
Szemernyi 1996:160; Brugmann 1904:378379 and 391392; Burrow
1973:231232 and 236237; Sihler 1995:250). Clearly, the plural form is
composed of *-n/*-n plus the plural marker *-s. If not assimilated from *-ms,
the plural form may represent preservation of the n-accusative attested in
Elamo-Dravidian, Etruscan, and the Dizoid branch of Omotic within Afrasian.
Except for *-o-stems, the nominative and accusative had the same form in
neuter nouns.
D. Uralic: Both Greenberg (2000:129) and Collinder (1960:284286) reconstruct
Proto-Uralic accusative singular *-m, which was mainly used to mark the
definite direct objects of finite verbs: cf. Finnish kalan fish; Lapp / Saami
guolem fish; Cheremis / Mari kolm fish; Vogul / Mansi pkm his head;
Yurak Samoyed / Nenets udam" hand; Tavgi Samoyed / Nganasan kinda(m)
smoke; Kamassian dagam river (see also Abondolo 1998a:1820; Dcsy
1990:69; Raun 1988b:558; Sinor 1988:714715). Marcantonio (2002:284)
notes: The Accusative -m is present in a few U[ralic] languages: Cheremis,
some dialects of Lapp, some dialects of Vogul and Samoyed. Ostyak has -.
Perhaps reflexes of *-m can be found in the Finnish Accusative -n, in Permian
and Mordvin (Hajd 1981: 136). If present, this ending applies only to known,
referential, Direct Objects, so that it might be the reflex of an original Topical
marker, rather than of a proper Accusative marker. This is still the case in
Vogul and this function is still transparent in the behaviour of Acc. -n in
Finnish (see Marcantonio 1988 and 1994).
E. Altaic: Greenberg (2000:129) discusses possible evidence from Mongolian and
Tungus for an accusative *-m. Specifically, he notes that, in Mongolian, the
first and second person personal pronouns contain a suffixal element -ma in all
cases except the genitive (Common Mongolian first person *na-ma-, second
person *i-ma-). This -ma is not found in nouns. This element is mentioned in
passing by Poppe (1955:211 and 213). Greenberg takes -ma to be a relic of the
accusative -m. According to Greenberg (2000:129), the accusative marker in
both nouns and pronouns in Tungus is -wa ~ -we, -ba ~ -be, or -ma ~ -me,
depending on the phonological environment. Sinor (1988:715) reconstructs a
Proto-Tungus accusative *-m. He also notes (1988:714) that the accusative is
-nV (mostly -ni) in the majority of the Turkic languages. Rna-Tas (1998:73)
reconstructs the Proto-Turkic accusative as *-nVG (in the pronominal
declension *-nI): cf. Middle Kipchak -nI (cf. quln servant, aqan money,
teirni god, kiini man); Chagatay -nI, -n; Azerbaijani -(n)I (cf. atan
father, vi house, ou arrow); Turkmenian -(n)I; Tatar and Bashkir -n
(cf. Tatar etin father); Kazakh -NI; Kirghiz -NI; Uzbek -ni; Uighur -ni (cf.
balini child, klni lake, quni bird, yurtini his house, tgmilirimni my
buttons); Yakut -(n)I (cf. eyeni peace); Chuvash (dat.-acc.) -nA.
F. Chukchi-Kamchatkan: The following Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan absolutive
suffixes may belong here as well, assuming that they are derived from the n-
variant of the Proto-Nostratic direct object relational marker: (class 1 sg.)
NOSTRATIC MORPHOLOGY I: THE EVIDENCE 365
In Greenbergs book, this whole section is extremely powerful and well presented.
Many of the same conclusions were reached by John C. Kerns in his discussion of
Nostratic morphology in our joint monograph (1994:141190, Chapter 3:
Nostratic Morphology and Syntax). Kerns notes: Oblique cases with *-n- stems.
Though scantily attested in Dravidian and Uralic (there vestigially preserved as a
stem for the personal possessive endings of nouns in oblique cases), it is better
preserved in some of the other families. It is a major feature of the heteroclitic
declension in Indo-European and Eskimo (J. C. Kerns 1985:109111).
Genitive *-nu developed from a particle meaning belonging to. The clearest
indication that this is the origin of these formations comes from Egyptian and
Berber (see below).
has -. In Latin, this type is found, for example, in hom human being, person,
man, (gen. sg.) hominis (for a detailed discussion of this stem, cf. Ernout
Meillet 1979:297298).
D. Uralic: The genitive ending in Proto-Uralic was *-n > Finnish kalan (kala
fish); Lapp / Saami guolen (guole fish); Cheremis / Mari koln (kol fish);
Selkup Samoyed (Ket) logan (loga fox); Kamassian dagan (daga river);
Tavgi Samoyed / Nganasan kinda (- < *-n) (kinta smoke) (cf. Abondolo
1998a:1920; Collinder 1960:282284; Greenberg 2000:130 and 133; Raun
1988b:558559; Sinor 1988:715). Marcantonio (2002:284) notes: The
Genitive -n within U[ralic] is present in Finnish, Cheremis, Lapp, Mordvin, and
Samoyed Selkup.
E. Altaic: Poppe (1955:187) reconstructs the Common Altaic genitive suffix as
*-n > Korean *-n, Tungus *- (< *-n + the ending *-gi < *-ki); Ancient Turkic
- (< *-n). Poppe notes that, after stems ending in a vowel, *-n was used, but,
after stems ending in a consonant, a connective vowel was inserted before the
n: *C-Vn, which appears as *--/*-i- in Turkic, as either *-u-n or *--n/*-i-n
in Pre-Mongolian, and as *-6 or *-n in Korean. Several important changes
occurred in Pre-Mongolian. In Pre-Mongolian, the ending *--n/*-i-n was
generalized, and the inherited post-vocalic form, *-n, was replaced by *--n.
Additional changes occurred in Common Mongolian. First, the final *-n of the
genitive ending was lost in stems ending in *n: *n-Vn > *n-V. With the
replacement of the post-vocalic genitive *-n by *--n, the hiatus between the
final vowel of the stem and the genitive suffix was filled with the consonant -j-:
*-V-n > *-V-n > *V-j-n. See Poppe (1955:189194) for details concerning
the developments in the individual Mongolian daughter languages. Examples
of the genitive in Mongolian: ger-n (ger house), eke-yin (eke mother),
kbegn- (kbegn son), bars-un (bars tiger), aqa-yin (aqa older
brother), qaan-u (qaan king). Note here also the genitive marker -nu found
in the Mongolian obsolete pronouns anu and inu. Rna-Tas (1998:73)
reconstructs a Proto-Turkic genitive *-n > Ottoman Turkish oqn of his
arrow (later oqn); Turkish (sg.) tan (ta stone), (pl.) talarn; Azerbaijani
vin (v house), oun (o arrow), atann (ata father); Turkmenian genitive
singular suffix (after vowels) -nI, (after consonants) -I; Tatar (and Bashkir)
genitive singular suffix -n; Kirghiz genitive singular suffix -Nin; Uighur
balani (bala child), klni (kl lake), quni (qu bird); yurtini (yurti
house), tgmilirimni (tgmilirim my buttons); Uzbek genitive singular
suffix -ni; Chuvash genitive singular suffix -(n)n/-nn. Rna-Tas (1998:73)
also mentions that an oblique marker in *-n has left traces in four cases in
Proto-Turkic: genitive *-n, accusative *-nVG (*-nI in pronouns), dative *-nKA,
and instrumental *-nVn. Greenberg (2000:135) notes that [i]n South Tungus
there is a large class of nouns in which -n occurs in the oblique cases, but not in
the nominative or accusative. In North Tungus the -n has apparently been
extended through the whole paradigm According to Greenberg (2000:135),
the only remnant of an n-genitive is found in pronouns in North Tungus
Greenberg cites an example from Negidal (min, mini my versus nominative
368 CHAPTER SIXTEEN
bi I). However, note the Manchu genitive particle -ni, used after words
ending in -. Cf. Sinor (1988:715) for an excellent sketch of n-genitive forms
in Uralic and Altaic, and Greenberg (2000:133135) for additional discussion
of the Altaic data. StarostinDyboMudrak (2003:221) reconstruct a Proto-
Altaic genitive suffix *-V on the basis of: Proto-Tungus *-i (< *--ki); Old
Japanese -no; Korean -; Proto-Mongolian *-n; Old Turkic - (< *--ki).
F. Chukchi-Kamchatkan: Note the following Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan
attributive suffixes: (class 1 sg.) *-nu, (class 2 sg.) *-()nu, (class 2 pl.)
*-()nu (cf. Fortescue 2005:426 and fn. 10). Also note the Proto-Chukchi-
Kamchatkan possessive suffix *-inK pertaining to: Chukchi -in(e) pertaining
to (possessive adjective formant of human possessors), -nin(e) on personal
pronouns and optionally on proper names (pl. -in(e)); Kerek possessive suffix
-in(a); Koryak possessive suffix -in(e) pertaining to (also -nin(e) on personal
pronouns and optionally vowel-final proper names); Alyutor possessive suffix
-in(a) pertaining to; Kamchadal / Itelmen possessive suffix -n, -in, -an
pertaining to. Cf. Fortescue 2005:409.
G. Etruscan: In Etruscan, in addition to the regular genitive endings in -s, there is
an archaic genitive in -n (-an, -un): cf. lautn family, (genitive) lautun or
lautn; puia wife, (genitive) puian.
In his book on Eurasiatic morphology, Greenberg treats the different cases based on
this suffix separately. Indeed, despite their similarity in form, the locative *-n and
genitive *-n developed from two separate formants:
The origin of the locative marker *-ni may have been as follows: Evidence from
Afrasian and Indo-European supports reconstructing an independent particle *in-
(~ *en-), *(-)ni meaning in, within, into (from Afrasian, cf. Akkadian ina in, on,
from, by; Egyptian n in, to, for, because, by; from Indo-European, cf. Greek ,
, in, on, among, into, and, besides, moreover, Latin in in, on, among, into,
on to, towards, against, Gothic in in). Originally, *in- (~ *en-) meant place,
location (cf. Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 45, *in [A] place). When this particle
NOSTRATIC MORPHOLOGY I: THE EVIDENCE 369
was used in conjunction with nominal stems, it indicated the place in, on, or at
which something existed or occurred: NOUN+ni. From there, it developed into a
full-fledged case form with locative, inessive, or adessive meanings. At a later date,
*-n became generalized as the oblique marker par excellence. Greenberg (2000:
130) is thus correct in noting the wider use of -n as a marker of the oblique case.
To complicate matters, there may have been yet a third form involved, namely, a
(lative-)dative *-na. The evidence for this comes mainly from Samoyed (cf.
Collinder 1960:293294), from Vogul, where the lative-dative endings are -()n,
-na ~ -n (cf. Marcantonio 2002:208), and several Afrasian languages. The forms in
Nostratic thus appears to have been similar to what is found in Sumerian, which has
a locative prefix -ni- and a dative prefix -na-. The original patterning has been
reversed in Uralic (except for Samoyed and Vogul, as just indicated).
Sumerian: Note the locative dimensional prefix -ni- (cf. Thomsen 1987:99 and
234240; Hayes 1997a:22).
Sumerian: The (3rd sg. animate) dative dimensional prefix is -na- (cf. Thomsen
1987:220; Hayes 1997a:22).
This formant appears to be derived from an old particle *ka meaning direction to
or towards; motion to or towards.
16.32. Locative *-ma and locative *-bi (Greenberg: 27. Locative M, and 28.
Locative BH)
These two forms will be discussed together. The locative function ascribed to these
forms by Greenberg is clearly a later development. At the Proto-Nostratic level, we
are dealing with independent particles.
sense also: avan roi tinnu; veavum kuiccu he ate the bread; he drank the
water also; in the sense and: rghavan-um kumr-um vannu Raghavan and
Kumar came; in the sense always: avar epp-um vyiccu-ko-irukk-unnu
they are always reading). In Old Kannaa, -um means and or even, also
(cf., in the sense and: i-ut-umr-ut-ummung-ut-um hitting, shouting,
and swallowing, ty-um tande.y-um mother and father; in the sense even,
also: nuiyey-um even after saying, ad-um that also). In Elamite, the
locative sense is dominant, while in Dravidian, the conjunctive-comitative
sense prevailed.
C. Indo-European: Two separate stems must be reconstructed for Proto-Indo-
European, namely, (1) *me-/*mo- and (2) *bi-, just as Greenberg indicates.
Pinning down the exact meaning of each is not easy, however. In Germanic,
the primary meaning of the derivatives of the first stem is with, among: cf.
Gothic mi with, among; Old English mid, mi together with, with, among;
Middle High German mite, mit with, by, together; Old Icelandic me with,
along with, together with. Greek means (with gen.) in the midst of,
among; (with dat.) among, in the company of; (with acc.) into the middle of,
coming among. The original meaning seems to have had to do with
accompaniment, conjoinment, that is, with, along with, together with, as in
Old Icelandic. In other words, a stem is involved that is more instrumental or
comitative in meaning than locative, at least in Indo-European. As Greenberg
notes, the use of this stem as an inflectional ending is restricted to Germanic,
Slavic, and Baltic. As Greenberg points out in 28, the stem *bi- also exists as
an independent stem in Germanic: cf. Gothic bi about, over; concerning,
according to; at; Old English be, bi; b (preposition, with dat., indicating place
and motion) by (nearness), along, in; Old High German bi-; b adverb
indicating nearness, preposition meaning (with dat.) (near) by, at, with, as
adverb from now on [von jetzt an]. The original meaning, based upon the
Germanic evidence, seems to have had to do with proximity, nearness, either
of place (near) by, at or time now, at the present time. There is a compound
in Sanskrit, namely, abh (either < *e-/o-+bi- or *m -+bi-), whose primary
meaning is moving or going towards, approaching as an independent
adverb or preposition, it means (with acc.) to, towards, in the direction of,
against, into; as a prefix, it means to, towards, into, over, upon. Another
compound is found in Greek (*m -+bi-), preposition used with the
genitive, dative, and accusative with the basic meaning on both sides, as
opposed to , whose basic meaning is all around (with gen., causal)
about, for, for the sake of, (of place) about, around; (with dat., of place) on
both sides of, about; (with acc., of place) about, around; (as independent
adverb) on both sides, about, around. This compound is also found in the
Latin inseparable prefix amb-, ambi-, meaning on both sides; around, round
about. Further relationship to words meaning both is usually assumed,
though uncertain. When we look at the use of *-bi- as a case ending, we find a
slightly different semantic range than what is indicated by the above evidence.
I think it is significant that it is specifically this ending that shows up in the
376 CHAPTER SIXTEEN
instrumental singular in Greek and Armenian. This seems to indicate that the
original meaning was similar to *me-/*mo-, that is, with, along with, together
with. Indeed the choice between *-me-/*-mo- as a case ending in Germanic,
Baltic, and Slavic, on the one hand, and *-bi- as a case ending in Italic, Indo-
Iranian, Greek, and Armenian, on the other, seems to indicate that they were
close, if not identical, in meaning. Considering this, it appears to me that the
Germanic meanings are secondary. Thus, we can reconstruct two separate
stems for Proto-Indo-European, the first of which, *me-/*mo-, meant with,
along with, together with, the second of which, *bi-, meant (on the basis of
its use in case endings) in, with, within, among. The evidence from Afrasian
and Sumerian mentioned above reinforces the interpretation that the original
meaning of Proto-Indo-European *bi- was in, with, within, among.
D. Altaic: In Tungus, -mi appears as a locative-instrumental adverbial suffix, as in
Orok gitu-mi on foot, by foot (cf. Greenberg 2000:141).
E. Chukchi-Kamchatkan: Chukchi comitative suffix -ma (cf. Comrie [ed.]
1981:245; Fortescue 2005:426 and fn. 9).
F. Eskimo-Aleut: Proto-Eskimo postbase *mi- and then, again > Central
Alaskan Yupik +mi also; Seward Peninsula Inuit +(p)mi even though;
North Alaskan Inuit +(m)mi- also; Western Canadian Inuit +(m)mi again,
too, and then; Eastern Canadian Inuit +(m)mi again, also; Greenlandic Inuit
+(m)mi and then. Proto-Aleut *ma- also, too (Eastern Aleut also finally:
cf. Atkan maaya- finally). Cf. FortescueJacobsonKaplan 1994:412.
Note also the Proto-Eskimo locative singular ending *-mi (cf. Greenberg
2000:143; FortescueJacobsonKaplan 1994:442). FortescueJacobson
Kaplan (1994:446, note 10) point out that this ending is also found in Aleut (cf.
qila-m in the morning).
G. Etruscan: In Etruscan, we find the enclitic copula -m (-um after a consonant)
and, which may also be compared (cf. BonfanteBonfante 2002:104).
Perhaps the preposition pi (also pen, pul, epl) at, in, through belongs here as
well (if from *bi).
Sumerian: In Sumerian, there is a conjunctive prefix -m- and a third person singular
comitative prefix inanimate -m-da-. The -da- in -m-da- is the standard Sumerian
comitative element. The -m- may be related to the forms we have been discussing
here. Note also the locative-terminative prefixes ba-, bi- (on which, cf. Thomsen
1987:176185).
The exact meaning of this formant is difficult to determine, though something like
direction to or towards; motion to or towards (as in Mongolian) is probably not
too far off. In the Eurasiatic languages (including Etruscan), its primary function
appears to have been to form adverbs from pronominal stems.
NOSTRATIC MORPHOLOGY I: THE EVIDENCE 377
Sumerian: In addition to the common form -ni-, Sumerian also has a locative prefix
-ri- (cf. Thomsen 1987:234). This may be compared with the forms being discussed
here. It is also interesting to note that Sumerian has a distant demonstrative stem ri
378 CHAPTER SIXTEEN
that, yonder (cf. Thomsen 1987:8081), which may be in some way related to
the forms under discussion here.
This formant may be a derivative of the proximate demonstrative stem *i- (~ *e-).
A comitative-locative particle *da (~ *d) with the basic meaning along with,
together with, in addition to; in, at, shows up all over Nostratic (cf. Bomhard
Kerns 1994:275276, no. 89). I would equate the forms Greenberg lists with the
widespread Proto-Nostratic comitative-locative element *da (~ *d) discussed there
and would, therefore, derive them from Proto-Eurasiatic *da instead of TA. Thus, I
NOSTRATIC MORPHOLOGY I: THE EVIDENCE 379
suggest that it would have been better to have written 32. Locative DH. This is a
case where material from the non-Eurasiatic Nostratic languages can help explain
developments in Eurasiatic. Greenberg sometimes confuses the Altaic reflexes of
this particle with those of oblique *-ta (see below), as does (to a lesser extent)
Sinor (1988:716718), which is understandable given the phonology involved and
the overlapping semantics between the two forms.
This formant served as the basis for a number of oblique cases in the various
Nostratic daughter languages. Only Dravidian preserves it as a general oblique
marker.
A. Afrasian: Ongota has the locative suffix -tu/-to (cf. Fleming 2002b:40).
B. Elamo-Dravidian: McAlpin (1981:110112, 522.4) reconstructs a Proto-
Elamo-Dravidian oblique/locative ending *-t. McAlpin notes that this form is
confused with the appelative and derivational ending *-t in Elamite, though it
may be found in the locative-genitive particle -da (-te) (cf. Khaikjan 1998:53).
In my opinion, we are dealing here with what were originally two separate
particles, the first of which, -da, probably belongs with the comitative-locative
particle *da discussed above, the second of which, -te, belongs here. The two
have become confused in Elamite. In Dravidian, the *-t reconstructed by
McAlpin developed into the oblique augment *-tt-: Old Tamil mara-tt- in (loc.
sg.) mara-tt-il in a tree, (dat. sg.) mara-ttu-kku to a tree; Malayalam (gen.
sg.) mara-tt-in of a tree; Irua (acc. sg.) mara-tt-e tree; Kannaa (instr.-abl.)
mara-d-inda by the tree; Pengo mar tree: (acc. sg.) ma(r)-t-i, (loc. sg.)
ma(r)-t-o, (gen. sg.) ma(r)-t-i, (instr.-loc.) mar-(t)-a; Parji mer tree: (gen.
sg.) mer-t-o, (loc. sg.) mer-t-i; etc. (cf. Krishnamurti 2003:218221).
C. Kartvelian: Worth noting is the Proto-Kartvelian instrumental suffix *-it (cf.
Georgian -it/-jt/-t, Mingrelian -(i)t/-t, Laz -t), which may ultimately come from
NOSTRATIC MORPHOLOGY I: THE EVIDENCE 381
the same formant under discussion here. Cf. Fhnrich 1994:240 and 2007:213;
FhnrichSardshweladse 1995:177178.
D. Indo-European: The ablative singular case marker is traditionally reconstructed
as *-d/*-d in Proto-Indo-European (cf. Brugmann 1904:282283; Buck
1933:176, 181, 196, and 199; Szemernyi 1996:160). It is found only in
thematic stems: cf. Oscan -ud, -d; Old Latin -d; Sanskrit -t (-d); etc. As
noted by Burrow (1973:233), [i]t is not possible to determine whether the final
consonant was originally d or t. Note that Beekes (1995:173) reconstructs
*-(e)t, as do Sihler (1995:250251 and 258259), Fortson (2004:114, 6.49),
and Watkins (1998:66). If Beekes, Sihler, Fortson, and Watkins are correct,
then the Proto-Indo-European ablative singular ending may indeed belong here,
as Greenberg (2000:157158) has tried to show.
E. Uralic-Yukaghir: Collinder (1960:287288) posits a Proto-Uralic separative
suffix *-ta ~ *-t, but later (1960:291), he refers to this case as partitive.
Finally, he (1960:296297) notes that there was probably a locative case in
*-tta ~ *-tt in Proto-Finno-Ugrian. Abondolo (1998a:18) reconstructs a Proto-
Uralic separative *-tA ~ *tI. According to Marcantonio (2002:285), two
separate case suffixes are to be reconstructed for Proto-Uralic: (a) locative *-t
and (b) ablative *-t(V). She notes: The ending -t(V) is fully functional as a
Locative in Vogul (but not in Ostyak); it is present in Hungarian and Samoyed
Yurak in fossilised forms. The ending -t(V) is also present in Balto-Finnic,
Permian, Samoyed, Lapp. In Finnish, it has the function of Partitive. Further:
The Ablative -t(V) is absent in Ob-Ugric languages. In Hungarian, in addition
to -t, there is an Ablative -l, which is also used to form complex endings, such
as -tV-l (see Table 8.5). This morpheme is found also in Vogul, where it is used
to express Instrumental/Comitative functions. In its Ablative function it co-
occurs with the Vogul Dative/Lative *-nV , to form the complex ending
-nV-l. The following forms are found in the Uralic daughter languages (these
are taken from Collinder 1960:287288 and 1965:124): Finnish -ta ~ -t after
monosyllabics and sometimes after trisyllabics (but -a ~ - after disyllabics that
are not the result of contraction); Veps -d; Lapp / Saami -ht (or -t) after
monosyllabic stems ending in a vowel, otherwise -t; Mordvin -do ~ -de (but -to
~ -te after a voiceless consonant); Cheremis / Mari -c, -. Proto-Yukaghir
ablative affix *-t (> Northern / Tundra -t) (cf. Nikolaeva 2006:83).
F. Altaic: According to Greenberg (2003:150), [i]n Altaic, the ablative-
instrumental t is found only in Yakut, the non-Chuvash Turkic language that is
genetically the most remote. Here we find an instrumental -t ~ -ti and an
indefinite accusative -ta. StachowskiMenz (1998:421) list Yakut (a)
partitive -TA, which they derive from an old locative suffix, and (b) ablative
-(t)tAn: (a) partitive: eyete (eye peace), uotta (uot fire), oto (o arrow);
(b) ablative: eyetten, uottan, oton. Menges (1968b:110) mentions the existence
in Turkic of an old locative in -t, which survives only in petrified forms.
Finally, Greenberg (2003:150) notes that [i]n Northern and Southern Tungus
(but not in Manchu), there is an instrumental -ti. Sinor (1988:716718)
382 CHAPTER SIXTEEN
provides an excellent overview of the reflexes of -t, -t in the Uralic and Altaic
languages and the interrelationship between the various forms.
A. Afrasian: (?) Coptic la- [la-] plus noun, forming adjectives, possessing,
endowed with. Cf. Vycichl 1983:93 (probably not derived from Egyptian n, ny
belonging to); ern 1976:69.
B. Kartvelian: In Georgian, there is a suffix -el- which is used to form adjectives
of nationality designating human beings; examples include: kartveli and kartuli
Georgian, megreli and megruli Mingrelian, ingliseli English, ineli
Chinese, etc. This same suffix is used to derive adjectives designating human
beings from common nouns: cf. kalakeli citizen, city-person (< kalaki city),
sopleli peasant, country-person (< sopeli village), etc. The fundamental
meaning of the Proto-Kartvelian *-el- suffix appears to have been pertaining
to or belonging to. Cf. Hewitt 1995:108; Vogt 1971:231232; Fhnrich
Sardshweladse 1995:121122; Fhnrich 2007:147; Klimov 1998:46.
C. Indo-European: In Hittite, one of the primary functions of the suffix -li- is to
form adjectives indicating nationality (cf. Kronasser 1966:211214);
examples include: urrili- Hurrian, attili- Hattic, Palaumnili- Palaic,
Luwili- Luwian, Nili- and Neumnili- Hittite (?), etc. Lydian also has a
possessive suffix -li, which has the underlying meaning pertaining to or
belonging to (cf. Gusmani 1964:3637; Greenberg 2000:174), as in (nom.
c.) manelis pertaining to Mane from the noun (nom.) Mane. The ending -ili-
is also used to derive adjectives from adverbs in Hittite (cf. Luraghi 1997:20).
D. Yukaghir: Proto-Yukaghir possessive affix *-l (cf. Nikolaeva 2006:81).
E. Altaic: According to Greenberg (2000:173), [i]n Turkic there is a common
suffix -li that derives adjectives or nouns from nouns, with the resulting
meaning possessing the thing or quality expressed by the noun. Greenberg
cites the following examples from Turkish: ev house, ev-li possessing a
house; el hand, el-li having a hand or handle; yaz- writing, yaz--l
written, inscribed, registered (yaz- to write). Greenberg (2000:173) further
notes: In Old Turkish there is also a suffix -l with essentially the same
meaning, e.g. krk-l beautiful, krk- form (Gabain 1950:65). Chuvash has
a similar adjectival suffix -l, e.g. ap-l famous, ap- fame (Krueger 1961:
13031).
F. Etruscan: In Etruscan, personal names often have a genitive ending -al: cf. aule
velimna laral clan (= aule velimna laralisa) Aulus Velimna, son of Larth
(laralisa is a patronymic form in which the ending -isa replaces clan) (cf.
BonfanteBonfante 2002:8788). The general scheme was as follows:
NOSTRATIC MORPHOLOGY I: THE EVIDENCE 383
We can venture a guess that the original meaning of -al was belonging to, so
that laral would have originally meant belonging to Larth. The patronymic
can be seen as a hypercharacterized form in which the genitive ending -isa was
added to the ending -al. The ending -la could be added again to the patronymic
to indicate the grandfather: cf. laralisla in the phrase arn velimna aules clan
laralisla, where Larth is the father of Aule and, therefore, the grandfather of
Arnth. Interestingly, in this example, aules contains the genitive ending -s.
Thus, we can render this loosely as Arnth Velimna, son of Aule, belonging to
Larth or, in better English, Arnth Velimna, son of Aule, whose father was
Larth.
In the following sections, the cover term nominalizer is used for any suffix that is
used to create nouns and adjectives (in the daughter languages adjectives did not
exist as a separate grammatical category in Proto-Nostratic), whether from verbs or
nouns. Some of these forms are also listed under non-finite verb forms.
16.38. Nominalizer *-r- (Greenberg: 13. Substantivizer RE; see also Bomhard
Kerns 1994:169; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 1953, *r [< *[r] ?]
theme-focalizing [topicalizing] particle)
-iri, Kwadza -il- in complexes -ilika, -ilita, Maa -iri, Dahalo -iiri; Proto-
Southern Cushitic *-ore > Maa -ore, Dahalo -oore (also -ora); Proto-Southern
Cushitic *-ori > Iraqw -ori, Maa -ori, Dahalo -ori; Proto-Southern Cushitic
*-oro > Iraqw, Burunge -oro (no longer productive), Kwadza -ol- in complex
-oluko, Maa -olo (no longer productive), Dahalo -ooro; Proto-Southern
Cushitic *-ura > Iraqw, Alagwa -uru, Kwadza -ul- in complex -uluko,
-ulungayo (cf. also -ule), Maa -ure, -ura, Dahalo -ura; (b) adjective suffixes:
Proto-Southern Cushitic *-ari > Iraqw, Alagwa -ar, Burunge -ari, Kwadza
-al(i)-, Asa -ara, Maa -ari, Dahalo -are, -aare; Proto-Southern Cushitic *-iru
> Alagwa -iru (noun suffix), Iraqw -ir, Burunge -iru (noun suffix), Asa -ir-
noun suffix in complex -iruk, Maa -(V)ru. In his analysis of third consonants
in Semitic roots, Ehret (1989:128131) identifies three uses of *r: (a) *r
diffusive (as in Arabic "afr to attack, to drive away, sabr to probe or clean a
wound, namr to ascend, to mount, etc.), (b) *r noun suffix (as in Arabic far
split, opening, hole, bahr abuse, kasr breach, fracture, mar thirst, etc.),
and (c) *r modifier suffix (as in Arabic batr much, batr much, many, ar
shortness, etc.).
B. Elamite: Note the animate ending -r found in the Elamite third singular
anaphoric (animate sg.) i-r this one here, (neuter) i-n this (cf. Grillot-Susini
1987:17). This may belong here. Also note the derivational suffix -r(a) used to
form personal substantives indicating a member of a group (cf. Khaikjan
1998:12): cf. liba-r servant, peti-r enemy, hindui a-ra Indian (< Hindu
India), kurta-ra worker (kurta is a loan from Old Persian).
C. Indo-European: The origin of the heteroclitic declension in Indo-European has
long defied explanation. In the heteroclitic stems, the nominative-accusative is
characterized by -r, while the oblique cases are characterized by -n. A good
example here is Sanskrit (nom. sg.) sk blood versus (gen. sg.) asns (an
additional suffix has been added to the nominative singular), which has an
exact parallel in Hittite (nom-acc. sg.) e-e-ar blood versus (gen. sg.) e-e-
a-na-a, e-e-na-a) (cf. Tocharian A ysr blood, Greek blood, Latin
assir blood). This is an archaic type of neuter noun, which is abundantly
represented in Hittite, but which is tending towards obsolescence in the older
non-Anatolian daughter languages (cf. Burrow 1973:127). In looking at the
other Nostratic daughter languages, we find an exact match for this patterning
in Altaic. The Common Mongolian nominative singular of the demonstrative
stem *te- has an extended form *te-r-e, while the oblique cases are built upon
*te-n (also *te-gn) (cf. Poppe 1955:225228). At long last, the origin of the
heteroclitic stems in Indo-European is clear: the nominative singular was
created by adding the nominalizing particle *-ri/*-re, while the oblique cases
were built upon the Common Nostratic oblique marker *-n (see above for
details). A trace of this element as a separate particle may survive in the
Cuneiform Luwian enclitic particle -r (on which, cf. Melchert 1993b:182 and
Laroche 1959:83).
The suffix *-ro- was also used to create verbal adjectives in Indo-
European (cf. Brugmann 1904:329, 404; Burrow 1973:147148; Sihler
NOSTRATIC MORPHOLOGY I: THE EVIDENCE 385
A. Afrasian: Ehret (1995:17) reconstructs two suffixes for Proto-Afrasian: (a) *-m
attributive noun suffix and (b) *-m adjective-forming suffix. He notes that [i]t
is common in Semitic in the C position and is well attested also for Egyptian,
Cushitic, Chadic, and Omotic. Ehret claims that [t]he *mV- instrument-agent
prefix of Semitic, Egyptian, and Chadic is argued below (this chapter) to have
an origin quite distinct from that of this suffixed *m deverbative. In his
groundbreaking work on the origin of third consonants in Semitic roots, Ehret
(1989:163164) lists a large number of triliteral roots in Arabic in which m in
C3 position can be derived from just such a deverbative noun-forming suffix:
cf. aam ruin, perdition, death (cf. aa to break, to split, to cleave, to
fracture, to bash in), aam sword (cf. aa to pierce, to perforate, to bore;
to break into pieces, to crush, to bray, to bruise, to pulverize [something]; to
tear down, to demolish [a wall]; to pull out, to tear out [a peg or stake]), lifm
cloth covering the mouth and the nose (cf. laffa to wrap up, to roll up, to fold
up; to wind, to coil, to spool, to reel; to twist, to wrap, to fold; to envelop, to
cover, to swathe, to swaddle), etc. According to Moscati (1964:8283,
12.22), the suffix -m is infrequent in Semitic and occurs mainly in Arabic
adjectives: cf. fusum wide, adam wide-mouthed. Moscati also cites
several examples with suffix -m from other Semitic languages: cf. Hebrew
m moustache; Geez / Ethiopic astam bow. Similar formations occur in
Cushitic: cf. Galla / Oromo liil-am-a thread (< something whirled; cf. liil-
386 CHAPTER SIXTEEN
power (voi- to be able, to have power, to know how to); (b) in Finnish,
derivatives in -ma ~ -m often function as passive participles (with the agent in
the genitive): cf. Finnish ensimminen suomalainen kielioppi ruostsalaisen
krijoittama the first Finnish grammar was written by a Swede; (c) in Lapp /
Saami, the counterpart of Finnish -ma ~ -m forms action nouns: cf. Lapp /
Saami Klem life, japmem death, kllem-pihke ford (klle- to wade, to
ford a river + pihke place), saddjem whetstone (saddje- to hone).
Mordvin has two suffixes: (a) *-ma (without vowel harmony) and (b) *-m ~
*-m. Suffix (a) forms concrete nouns (cf. Erza vekuma pipe, whistle [veka-
to whistle], apavtuma ferment, leaven, yeast [apavto- to ferment, to
make sour]), while suffix (b) is found mainly in abstracts (cf. simeme tarka
drinking place [sime- to drink]). Suffix (a) also forms action nouns which
function as passive participles and gerunds, as in nilima (the activity of)
swallowing, swallowed (participle), one must swallow, whereas suffix (b)
forms the infinitive. In Cheremis / Mari, -m suffixes form (a) deverbative nouns
(cf. koem woven ribbon [koe- to weave]), (b) action nouns, and (c) past
participles in -m, -m (cf. wr oktm bagpipe playing, jratm loved,
beloved, kom woven, kaym gone). In Vogul / Mansi, -m suffixes form (a)
action nouns and (b) participles (cf. uulm sleep, minm gone [or going],
wrm made). In Ostyak / Xanty, -m suffixes form (a) action nouns and
(chiefly past) participles (cf. ulm sleep, dream, mnm gone). -m suffixes
are rare in Hungarian a few examples include: lom sleep (al- to sleep),
rm joy, pleasure (rl- to rejoice, to be glad). In Yurak Samoyed /
Nenets, -ma, -me form (a) action nouns (cf. kaema [the act of] going [away])
and (b) participles that function in passive constructions in the same way as
Finnish participles in -ma ~ -m (cf. toondamaw jaw the place I covered
[toonda- to cover, -w = 1st sg. personal ending]). Collinder also (1960:260)
reconstructs Proto-Uralic *m and notes: [t]his is a typical stem determinative.
It may be historically identical with the deverbative noun-formant *m See
also Raun 1988b:566: Richly represented is the suffix *-mV which has several
meanings
F. Altaic: A suffix -m is used to form verbal nouns in Turkic (cf. Greenberg
2000:172). This includes passives in -ma/-me, as in Turkish yaz-ma written
and der-me collected, gathered together, and the common infinitives in -mak/
-mek, as in Turkish bur-mak to twist and sil-mek to wipe, to scrub, to plane,
to rub down, to polish. Dcsy (1998:6266) also lists Old Turkish (a) -m
denominal substantive builder identical with the possessive ending first person
singular in addresses and titles, (b) -ma/-m rare deverbal substantive builder
(more frequently adjective), (c) -ma/-m rare deverbal adjective builder, (d)
-maq/-mq deverbal substantive builder for abstract concepts, (e) -maz/-mz
deverbal substantive builder for negative nouns used mainly in predicative
function, (f) -myr/-mur rare deverbal substantive builder, (g) -my/-mi/-ma/
-m(/-mu/-mi) deverbal substantive builder for nouns used mainly in
predicative function, tense-indifferent, active or passive, (h) -ym/-im/-am/-m
deverbal substantive builder, (i) -maz/-mz deverbal adjective builder, used as
NOSTRATIC MORPHOLOGY I: THE EVIDENCE 389
16.41. Nominalizer *-t- (not in Greenberg 2000; but Greenberg does posit the
following: 43. Passive Participle T; see also Hegeds 1992b:4142 *t:
suffix forming deverbal or denominal nouns, mainly abstracta; Dolgopolsky
to appear, no. 2311, *i syntactic particle; it is combined with words of
392 CHAPTER SIXTEEN
Asa -a(i), Maa -a, Dahalo -ate; Proto-Southern Cushitic *-ite (rare) > Iraqw
-it, Burunge -d in qadayd bitter (*qadayit-), Dahalo -iite in pbiitee bad; (e)
plural suffixes in *-Vt-: Proto-Southern Cushitic *-ata > Iraqw -ta in qarta,
plural of qari age-mate, -t adjective plural, Kwadza -ata, Asa -at- in
complexes of the form -atVk, Dahalo -Vtta; Proto-Southern Cushitic *-etu >
Kwadza -etu, Dahalo -ettu; Proto-Southern Cushitic *-ota > Asa -ot- in
complexes -otVk, Dahalo -Vtta; Proto-Southern Cushitic *-uta > Asa -ut,
Dahalo -Vtta.
B. Elamo-Dravidian: Note the Elamite derivational suffix -t(e) (cf. Khaikjan
1998:12; Grillot-Susini 1987:14): cf. hal-te door, hala-t brick, Haltam-ti
Elam, Nahhun-te Sun. Krishnamurti (2003:199) reconstructs two Proto-
Dravidian compound deverbal suffixes: (a) *-t-al/*-tt-al and (b) *-t-am, which
are added to roots ending in *-: cf., for example, Tamil u (< *o+t-; cf. u
to run [intr.]) to cause to run (tr.), --am (< *o+t-am) running; cf. also
Kannaa k-am (< *k+t-am; cf. ku to join) union, p-am (< *p+t-
am; cf. pu to sing) song. Krishnamurti (2003:200) also reconstructs two
other Proto-Dravidian complex noun formatives: (a) *-am+t+am (cf. Tamil
opp-antam agreement, contract, unanimity; Malayalam opp-antam
agreement, contract; Kannaa opp-anda agreeing, agreement, contract;
Telugu opp-andamu contract, agreement; Tuu opp-anda agreement,
contract, treaty) and (b) *-t+al+ay (cf. Telugu oppu-dala agreement;
Kannaa tavu-dale destruction [cf. tavu to decrease]). These are obviously
extensions of the *-t- nominalizer under discussion here.
C. Kartvelian: Klimov (1998:46) reconstructs Proto-Kartvelian *-et toponymic
suffix. It is found mostly in the names of villages and regions: cf. Georgian -et-
toponymic suffix as in: viri-et-, Tu-et-, oox-et- hell; Mingrelian and Laz
-at- toponymic suffix as in: Zan-at-, Max-at-; etc. Cf. also Fhnrich
Sardshweladse 1995:121; Fhnrich 1994:240 and 2007:146147.
D. Indo-European: Nominal/adjectival-forming suffixes in *-t- are extremely
productive in Indo-European. For details, cf. Brugmann 1904:315 (*-ent-,
*-nt-, *-n t-), 317318 (*-to-), 321 (*-tero-), 322 (*-is-to-, *-tm mo-), 325
(*-to-), 326 (-tn no-, *-tno-), 330331 (*-(t)er-, *-(t)or-, *-(t)r-, *-(t)r -), 332
333 (*-ter-, *-tor-, *-tr-, *-tr -), 334335 (*-tro-, *-ter-, *-tor-, *-tr-), 335
(*-tro-), 344345 (*-to-, *-t-), 348349 (*-ti-s), 349350 (*-tu-s), 350
(*-tti-, *-tt-, *-tti, *-tt-); Burrow 1973:164173. According to Burrow
(1973:164), [i]ts original function as one of the primary neuter suffixes is seen
most clearly when it serves as an extension of the neuter r- and n- stems, e.g. in
Skt. kt, ykt and in Gk. , gen. sg. winter (but the
corresponding -nt- stem in Hittite, gimmant- winter, is common gender).
Similarly the primitive suffix t on which the suffix -t-ar has been built may be
presumed to have been neuter. Apart from this there remain in the various
languages a few sporadic instances of a neuter suffix t: Skt. pat- drop,
upat-pat- fever; Gk. (for *), Hitt. milit honey; Gk. ,
, Lat. lac, lactis milk; Lat. caput head. Examples from Sanskrit
include: (a) adjectives in *-to-s: darat- visible (cf. Greek ),
394 CHAPTER SIXTEEN
16.42. Nominalizer *-n- (not in Greenberg 2000; but Greenberg does posit the
following: 42. Passive Participle N; Illi-Svity 19711984.I:16 *-na; see
also BomhardKerns 1994:170; Hegeds 1992b:3741 *na: formative of
verbal and relative constructions); see below: participle *-na.
adjectives from verbs or nouns. It is known from all branches of the family. Its
Semitic reflex appears to have been *-n. In Semitic, the suffix *-n is used to
create (a) verbal nouns or abstracts (cf. Arabic ayarn flight; Hebrew
[*pitrn >] pirn interpretation; Syriac pun order; Epigraphic South
Arabian "wn brotherhood; Geez / Ethiopic rn old age); (b) adjectives
(cf. Arabic sakrn intoxicated; Hebrew [*admn >] amn eastern;
Syriac "arn terrestrial); and (c) diminutives (cf. Arabic arabn little
scorpion; Hebrew [*n >] "n [little man >] pupil [of the eye]; Akkadian
mrnu little animal) (cf. Moscati 1964:82, 12.21; Lipiski 1997:221223).
In Akkadian, prefix n- either (a) alternates with prefix m-, in which case it
cannot be considered an independent category, or (b) is used to derive deverbal
nouns (cf. namungatu paralysis, nalbubu enraged, etc.) a possible non-
Akkadian example may be found in Ugaritic nbl9t flames (cf. Moscati
1964:8182, 12.19; Lipiski 1997:218219). Ehret (1980:5556) lists
several Southern Cushitic nominal suffixes in *-Vn-: (a) noun singular suffixes
in *-Vn-: Proto-Southern Cushitic *-ana > Burunge -ana, Iraqw -an adjective
suffix, Kwadza -an- in complex -aniko, -an- adjective suffix, Asa -ana, Maa
-(a)na, -(a)ne, Dahalo -ana, -anna; Proto-Southern Cushitic *-ano (feminine) >
Iraqw -ano, Dahalo -(a)no; Proto-Southern Cushitic *-eno > Iraqw, Burunge
-eno (also -ino), Alagwa -inu, Asa -en(d)- in complex -endet (also -ena),
Kwadza -ino, Maa -(e)no (also -(e)nu), Dahalo -eno (cf. also -eeni); Proto-
Southern Cushitic *-ina > Burunge -ina, Dahalo -ina (cf. also -iini); Proto-
Southern Cushitic *-oni > Iraqw -oni, Dahalo -oni; Proto-Southern Cushitic
*-ona > Burunge -ona, Alagwa -onda (also -ono), Dahalo -ona (also -una); (b)
plural suffixes in *-Vn-: Proto-Southern Cushitic *-ena > Iraqw, Burunge -en
adjective plural, Iraqw -(V)na, Kwadza -Vn- in complexes -VnVk-, -en(d)- in
complex -endayo, Asa -Vn(d)- in complexes -VndVk, Maa -ena, Dahalo -eena;
Proto-Southern Cushitic *-eno > Burunge -eno, Kwadza -Vn- in complexes
-VnVk-, -en(d)- in complex -endayo, Asa -Vn(d)- in complexes -VndVk, Maa
-no suffix attached to nouns indicating a great number or quantity.
B. Elamo-Dravidian: Elamite had the following derivational suffixes: -in, -un, -n.
These suffixes were part of neutral nouns with a weakly expressed abstract
meaning, often connected with building or locality (cf. Khaikjan 1998:12):
cf. Elamite muru-n land, sii a-n temple, huhu-n wall, ua-n Susa, ati-n
priest. According to Krishnamurti (2003:307), Old Tamil is said to have
-un/-n- used as adjectival formatives, followed by personal suffixes in deriving
predicative nouns in the third human plural, e.g. ceppu-n-ar those who tell,
varu-n-ar those who come, turakk-un-ar those who renounce, -n-ar those
who give, etc.
C. Kartvelian: Proto-Kartvelian *na- word-formation affixes of the past participle
> Georgian na- (as in na-parev- stolen, na-tex- broken, broken off, na-
ob- born); Mingrelian no-; Laz [no-]; Svan na-. Proto-Kartvelian *ne- word-
forming prefix > Georgian [ne-] (as in ne-zv- female of small livestock, ne-
kerxal- maple tree, ne-rg- sapling, seedling, ne-rcqv- saliva, spittle, ne-
sto- nostril); Mingrelian [na-]; Laz [na-]; Svan [ne-, n-]. Proto-Kartvelian
396 CHAPTER SIXTEEN
*ni- word-forming prefix > Georgian [ni-] (as in ni-kap- chin); Mingrelian
[ni-]; Laz [ni-]; Svan [ni-]. Cf. Klimov 1998:136, 140, and 142; Fhnrich
Sardshweladse 1995:259, 262, and 265; Fhnrich 1994:240 and 2007:312, 316,
320. Hegeds (1992b:40) also mentions Georgian -n- element of adjective-
forming suffixes, as in cver-ian-i bearded. Note also Fhnrich (2007:36) and
FhnrichSardshweladse (1995:34) Proto-Kartvelian *-an derivational affix >
Georgian -an (in the combinations -ev-an, -e-an, -i-an, -ov-an, -os-an);
Mingrelian -on; Laz -on.
D. Indo-European: *-n- suffixes figure prominently in nominal derivation in Indo-
European. For details, cf. Brugmann 1904:315 (*-ent-, *-nt-, *-n t-), 316
(*-meno-, *-mno-), 316317 (*-n-: *-eno-, *-ono-, *-no-), 325 (*-no-), 325
326 (*-ino-, *-no-), 326 (*-tn no-, *-tno-), 338 (*-no-, *-eino-), 339340
(*-en-, *-on-), 345 (*-no-, *-n-), 347348 (*-men-), and 349 (*-ni-s);
Burrow 1973:127158 (Burrow discusses *-r- and *-n- formations together).
Examples include: (a) Proto-Indo-European *-en-t-/*-on-t-/*-n-t-/*-n -t-:
Sanskrit snt-, st- being, bhrant-, bhrat- bearing; Greek (Doric) -
being, (-) bearing; Latin -sns in prae-sns being before,
presiding over, ferns bearing; Gothic bairands bearing; (b) Proto-Indo-
European *-me-no-, *-m-no-: Sanskrit middle passive participle -mna- in, for
example, bdha-mna- (cf. bodhti is awake, observes, notices,
understands, root: budh-); Greek middle passive participle -- in, for
example, -- (cf. to learn of, to hear of); Latin f-mina
woman, female (that is, she who suckles); (c) Proto-Indo-European: *-e-no-
/*-o-no-/*-no-: Sanskrit d -na-m the act of giving; donation, gift, bhra-a-m
the act of bearing; Latin d-nu-m gift; Gothic (inf.) baira-n to bear, fulg-
in-s hidden; Old Church Slavic nes-en borne; (d) Proto-Indo-European
*-no-: Sanskrit pr-- filled, full, svp-na- sleep, dream, rac-ana-m an
arranging, regulating; Avestan kan punishment; Gothic fulls (< *ful-na-z)
filled, full; Lithuanian pl-na-s filled, vr-na-s raven; Greek
requital, punishment, reward, -- food; Latin pl-nu-s full, som-nu-s
sleep; Old Irish l-n full; (e) Proto-Indo-European *-i-no-, *--no-: Sanskrit
dk-ia- right, able, dexterous, aj-na-m skin, mal-in- spotted; Greek
-- beech-like, -- consisting of flowers; Lithuanian uks-ina-s
golden, med-ni-s wooden; Latin fibr-nu-s of or belonging to the beaver,
capr-na goats flesh; (f) Proto-Indo-European *-t-n no-, *-t-no-: Latin di-
tinu-s lasting a long time, prs-tinu-s former, previous, earlier; Sanskrit
(adv.) pra-tn- former, old, n -tna-, n -tana- present, prtas-tna- in
the morning, early; Lithuanian b-tina-s being, remaining, actual; (g) Proto-
Indo-European *-ni-s: Sanskrit agn- fire; Latin ignis fire; Lithuanian
ugns fire; Old Church Slavic ogn fire. The specialized use of *-no- as a
participle ending is discussed below.
E. Uralic: Collinder (1960:262 and 1965:108) reconstructs a Proto-Uralic *n,
which seems to have been a stem determinative in C[ommon] U[ralic]: cf.
Votyak / Udmurt viznan (= vizan) fishhook; Mordvin diminutive suffixes -e,
- in, for example, kine diminutive of ki path, track; Zyrian / Komi
NOSTRATIC MORPHOLOGY I: THE EVIDENCE 397
16.43. Nominalizer *-l- (not in Greenberg 2000; but Greenberg does list the
following: 45. Gerundive-Participle L; Illi-Svity 19711984.II:2021,
no. 253, *-l adjectival suffix; see also Hegeds 1992b:3537 *-l: suffix
of adjectives; BomhardKerns 1994:169); see below: gerundive-participle
*-la.
stone]), and collective nouns of numerals (cf. blik unit of five). There is
also a homophonous suffix -lIK, which is used to form adjectives meaning
intended or suitable for (cf. donluq mata material for clothing). One of the
most frequent adjective suffixes is -li (cf. owatl with document [owat
document]). Note the Tatar suffixes -l (cf. aq l q clever, k l [= k sl ]
strong) and -lK (cf. szlk [= hlk] dictionary, ygtlk bravery, kplk
multitude). In Kazakh, the suffix -lIK is used to form nouns and adjectives
from noun stems (cf. qalalq baq municipal park), while -LI forms adjectives
from nouns (cf. mud sad [mu sadness]). The suffix -LAs (which
corresponds to -DA in several other Turkic languages) is used to denote
fellowship (cf. erles countryman [er land]). Hegeds (1992b:37) also
briefly mentions the Turkic suffixes -ly, -lyk and notes that Menovshchikov
compared them with Eskimo -lyk. She assumes that both the Turkic and
Eskimo suffixes ultimately go back to a common Nostratic source.
G. Eskimo: Hegeds (1992b:37) compares Eskimo -lyk, suffix forming nomina
possessoris with attributive-predicative and substantive features. She cites the
following examples: (a) Greenlandic Eskimo: tungalik having juice (tungo
juice), sakulik armed (sako weapon); (b) Alaskan Eskimo: qayalik having
a kayak (qayaq kayak), awiyatalik place with a lot of shrubs (awiyak
shrubbery), moqtalik place rich in water (moq water).
The Dravidian and Uralic examples cited here are phonologically ambiguous. They
may belong under Nominalizer *-ka instead (see below).
piece). Similarly, -Kay (cf. Tatar balaqay dear little baby, esekey
mummy).
E. Gilyak / Nivkh: Note the (Amur, East Sakhalin) nominalizing suffix -k
indicating object/person (cf. hyjm- to grow old > hyjmk old man) (cf.
Gruzdeva 1998:22).
The Dravidian and Uralic examples cited above under Nominalizer *-ka are
phonologically ambiguous. They may belong here instead.
There is a good deal of overlap between the forms discussed here and those
discussed above as nominalizers. The non-finite verb forms are to be considered a
subset of the above forms.
in Tungus it is still found as the ancient present-base, not only in the Manu
[Manchu] nomen praesentis in -m-bi < *-n + bi (cf. BANG, tudes ouralo-
altaques), but also in the older group of forms of the heteroclitic aorist in the
North Tungus languages
F. Etruscan: The Etruscan present participles ending in -an (such as, for example,
turan giving, mulvan founding, etc.) belong here as well. Cf. Bonfante
Bonfante 1983:85.
A. Indo-European: The participle ending *-nt is found in all of the older Indo-
European daughter languages: cf. Sanskrit bhrant- bearing, bhvant-
being; Greek - bearing; Latin ferent- bearing, amant- loving;
NOSTRATIC MORPHOLOGY I: THE EVIDENCE 405
Gothic frijnds friend (< loving), bairands carrying, bearing; etc. (cf.
Szemernyi 1996:317319; Brugmann 1904:315 *-ent-, *-nt-, *-n t-; Burrow
1973:367368; Beekes 1995:249250; Sihler 1995:613616; Lindsay
1894:352; Palmer 1980:312313; Fortson 2004:97; Meier-Brgger 2003:
185). In Hittite, there is a single participle ending: -ant-. As noted by Sturtevant
(1951:78, 111), [i]f the verb from which a participle is formed is intransitive,
it is usually convenient to translate it by an active English participle (e.g. a-a-
an-za being: e-e-zi he is, pl. a-a-an-zi), while a participle from a transitive
verb generally calls for a passive expression in English (e.g. a-da-an-za
eaten: e-iz-za-az-zi he eats, pl. a-da-an-zi they eat). Although participles
are formed from the stems with suffix or other modification which in I[ndo-]
E[uropean] grammar are called tense stems, the Hittite participles do not denote
time. If a verb has both active and middle conjugation, it is not possible to
assign its participle to either voice.
According to Greenberg (2000:183184), the Proto-Indo-European third
person plural ending *-nti of the present tense is to be derived from the
participle *-nt. This idea is not new Oswald Szemernyi and Thomas
Burrow proposed a similar theory. In my 1988 article on The Prehistoric
Development of the Athematic Verbal Endings in Proto-Indo-European
(1988c:475488), I accepted the views of Szemernyi and Burrow. However,
I have since proposed a different explanation (1996a:76). Basically, I see the
incorporation of the third person ending *-t into the conjugational system in
Proto-Indo-European as an innovation (so also Watkins 1998:59: The third
persons in -t-, -nt- belong to a later chronological layer), which, nevertheless,
must have taken place at an early date since it is found in Anatolian as well as
later stage daughter languages. I believe that the third plural was indicated by
the ending *-n at the time that *-t was added and that, with the addition of the
*-t, a new third plural ending was created, namely, *-nt. At a later date, this
was further extended by a deictic *-i to form so-called primary endings.
Thus, while the new third plural ending *-nt was identical in form with the
participles ending in *-nt, I believe that, ultimately, they had a different origin
(a similar conclusion is reached by Sihler 1995:615, note a). Note that there
may be evidence from the Indo-European daughter languages for an
unextended third plural ending -n: cf., for example, the so-called secondary
third plural forms in Sanskrit bharan, Avestan barn, and Greek .
These are usually interpreted as being derived from *-nt through loss of the
final *-t. But, could they not be simply relics of an earlier unextended *-n
instead? Quite honestly, it is probably impossible to tell whether or not this
suggestion has any validity given that regular phonological developments in
each of these daughter languages can also account for loss of final *-t rather
nicely.
B. Uralic: Proto-Uralic *-nt- (cf. Collinder 1960:269270 and 1965:113114;
Greenberg 2000:184). In Finnish, this is a deverbative suffix, while in Lapp /
Saami, it forms absolute gerunds. Examples include: Finnish ammunta
shooting, fire (ampu- to shoot), ammunta (the act of) lowing, mooing
406 CHAPTER SIXTEEN
(ammu- to moo, to low), myynti sale (myy- to sell); Lapp / Saami kuotteht,
kuotteda- (the reindeers) calving-time (kuodde- to calve), absolute gerund
lokadettin, (Tornio) lokadin while (he is, was) reading (lohka- to read; cf.
Finnish luenta the act of reading, luento lecture); Zyrian / Komi jitd
joining, fastening; tie, band, etc. (jit- to tie or sew together); Selkup
Samoyed present participle in -nde, as in ilinde living; Taigi participle in
-nde, as in ilinde living.
C. Gilyak / Nivkh: Greenberg (2000:184) notes: In Gilyak there is a verb suffix
that in the standard dialect of the Amur region takes the form -d and in
Northeastern Sakhalin, -nd. Grube (1892:30) notes that in the collection of
Gilyak data of Glehn and Schrenk it includes as variants -nt, -n, and -. The
first is characteristic of the Tym dialect of Sakhalin, whereas the latter are
found on the west coast of the same island. Kortlandt (2004:288) as well
identifies the Gilyak / Nivkh verbal suffix (Amur) -d/-t, (East Sakhalin) -d/
-nd/-nt (cf. Gruzdeva 1998:22) with the participial suffix *-nt- found in Indo-
European and Uralic.
The most usual marker of a noun clause is a nominalized verb form. In the
formal variety of the language, these nominalized forms fall into two
types: (i) nominalized forms marked for tense. The most common one
found for all verbs is one consisting of verb stem + (t)tal, e.g. varutal
the coming, kouttal the giving...
Clearly, the ending -(t)tal described by Asher has been built by adding -al to
-(t)t-.
Krishnamurti (2003:346) reconstructs a South Dravidian *-al infinitive-
nominal marker > Kota -l, -lk; Old Kannaa -al (+ ke); Tuu -alka/-akka; Kuwi
-ali ~ -eli. The infinitive-nominal marker *-al should be included with the
forms being discussed here.
B. Kartvelian: In a long section on Georgian participles, Vogt (1971:246254)
devotes considerable attention to perfect passive participles (he uses the term
[p. 247] participes passs passifs) in -ul-/-il- (see also Fhnrich 1993:6769,
and, for Old Georgian, Fhnrich 1994:77): cer-il-i written, kr-ul-i tied,
NOSTRATIC MORPHOLOGY I: THE EVIDENCE 407
bound, etc. Note also the noun cer-ili letter (that is, that which has been
written). Klimov (1998:81) reconstructs a Common Georgian-Zan *-il affix
used to form participles (see also FhnrichSardshweladse 1995:178 and
Fhnrich 2007:213214). Tuite (1997:37) notes that, in Svan, [t]he masdar
(li-) is used in roughly the same contexts as in Georgian, and can take
nominal as well as verbal stems Svan also has a past participle in l- (-e)
(cf. Tuite 1997:37). Finally, Svan has two distinct future participles, denoting
patients and themes (le-), and instruments and destinations (la- -a) (cf. Tuite
1997:37).
C. Indo-European: Godel (1975:128) points out that *-lo- endings form participles
or infinitives in Tocharian, Slavic, and Armenian: Both the INFINITIVE and
PARTICIPLE belong to the o declension (3.2): in bereal as well as berel, -l <
*-lo-. Evidence for primary adjectives in *-lo- is found in several I[ndo-]
E[uropean] languages: G[reek] deils cowardly, tuphls blind; Lat[in]
pendulus hanging, etc. In O[ld] C[hurch] S[lavic] this morpheme supplies the
active past participle, mostly used in compound tenses (bil jesm I have
struck). Verbal adjectives in -l < *-lo- also occur in Tokharian (Eastern
dialect; instead of -l, Western Tokharian has -lye, -lle < *-lyo-). Thus, we have
a frame of reference for the Armenian participle in -eal. As, on the other hand,
adjectives do not evolve into infinitives, the above evidence does not account
for berel. Although there are only faint traces of P[roto-]I[ndo-]E[uropean]
action nouns in *-lo-, such a formation has to be postulated in order to explain
the Armenian infinitive: it may have been productive in some limited dialectal
area. The Tocharian, Slavic, and Armenian developments are discussed at
length by Greenberg (2000:186188). In Old Church Slavic, the resultative
participle was formed by adding the suffix -l- to the infinitive stem. The
resultative participle indicated the result of a completed action. It was used in
compound verbal categories (perfect, conditional), where it was accompanied
by a finite form of the verb to be: cf. jesm nesl I have carried, bim/byx
nesl I would carry.
D. Uralic: According to Greenberg (2000:188189), *-lV is used to form
participles in Samoyed. He notes: In Kamassian the aorist, which is used to
indicate both past and present tense, is formed by a participle in -la, -le, or -l,
for example, nere-le-m I fear (fear-le-I). This participle occurs also in
Selkup (e.g. ity-l taking), where it is used as a verbal participle just like
Russian berja (Serebrennikov 1964: 89). Greenberg also notes that -l is used
to form infinities in Yukaghir: The l-morpheme we have been discussing is
prominent in Yukaghir. What is sometimes described as the infinitive is formed
by an -l suffix, e.g. Kolyma kelu-l arrival, to arrive (Krejnovich 1979b: 355).
It may also qualify a noun, e.g. lodo-l adilek a playing youth. The verbal
noun in -l also forms an optative, e.g. -l-uol wish to do (Kolyma dialect,
literally, do-l-wish). In addition, if it is intransitive it may be predicated, in
what is called the definite conjugation, that is, when the verb is unfocused and
the statement supplies definite information about the subject (if the verb is
intransitive), i.e. is an answer to such questions as who played? An
408 CHAPTER SIXTEEN
The vowel is difficult to pin down the evidence from the daughter languages
points to proto-forms *ka, *ki, and *ku. This leads me to suspect that we may
ultimately be dealing here with the deictic stems *ka (~ *k), *ki (~ *ke), and
*ku (~ *ko) (see above) used adverbially. Used in conjunction with a verb, their
original function was to reinforce the imperative: GO+*ka = go here (close by)!,
GO+*ki go over there (not too far away)!, GO+*ku go yonder (far away)!.
When so used, *ka, *ki, and *ku were interpreted as imperative markers in
Uralic, Altaic, and, in relic forms, in Indo-European. In Afrasian, however, *ka,
*ki, and *ku were interpreted as second person markers: GO+*ka = you go
(here)!, GO+*ki you go (over there)!, GO+*ku you go (yonder)!.
do-ki give!); Slavic modal particle -ka (-ko, -ku, -ki, -k, -e, -i, -u) (cf.
Russian -ka, -ko, which are sometimes put after the imperative to make a
request more pressing, Serbo-Croatian -ka, and Ukrainian -ko). In Russian and
South Slavic, these particles may also occur after pronouns. Cf. Stang
1966:427 (proto-form *-#e); Walde 19271932.I:326. Greenbergs comments
regarding the Hittite middle imperative form -ut(i) are not convincing.
C. Uralic-Yukaghir: Proto-Finno-Ugrian imperative *-k, *-ka/*-k (cf. Collinder
1960:303304, 963974; Dcsy 1990:75; Abondolo 1998a:28; Raun
1988b:562563). Collinder (1965:131132) remarks: *k apparently had two
functions in the C[ommon]U[ralic] verb paradigm, occurring as a tense
characteristic in the present tense, and as a mood characteristic in the
imperative. The latter function is no doubt secondary, but it is so widespread
that it must date from CU. Probably the imperative characteristic was *-k (or
*-k ~ *-ke) in the 2sg, and *-ka ~ *-k in the other persons. In Finnish *-k is
preserved in some eastern dialects, elsewhere it has disappeared in pausa or
changed into a faint glottal stop, as in anna, Savo annak give! (stem: anta-).
In Lappish, *-k has disappeared or changed into an unvoiced vowel, but the
weak grade of the stem shows that the second syllable was once closed, as in
poa come! (stem: poahte-). In Mordvin, the *-k is preserved, as in eak
live!. In Northern Samoyed and Kamassian, *-k has changed into a glottal
stop. It is worth noting that in Tavgi the 2nd sg imper has, contrary to
expectation, the strong grade. For example, [Yurak] mada, [Tavgi] matu,
[Yenisei] mota cut!. In Selkup the 2nd imper ends in -k (Castrn) or -ik
(Prokofev). In the Ket dialect the stem is, as was to be expected, in the weak
grade. Proto-Yukaghir imperative affix *-k (> Northern / Tundra -k) (cf.
Nikolaeva 2006:81).
D. Altaic: Greenberg (2000:194) lists several non-Chuvash Turkic languages with
imperatives ending in -k: Old Turkic -ok; Noghay -ok; Shor -ok; Karakalpak
-ak; Tatar and Bashkir -uk. For Tungus, Greenberg (2000:194) notes that
Benzing reconstructed a Proto-Tungus imperative built from a suffix *-ki (or
*-gi). Greenberg further notes (2000:195) that the second person singular
imperative is -ka in Nanay / Gold (South Tungus).
It appears that the original form was *ba and not *P, though this creates problems
with the Turkish data, which point to *pa instead. That the Eurasiatic stem was *ba
instead of *pa seems particularly likely, however, in view of the fact that Greenberg
derives the Anatolian forms from an Indo-European particle that Pokorny
(1959:113) reconstructs as *bh, *bh. Note also the consistent single writing in
Hittite, which points to a voiced stop in Proto-Indo-European, according to
Sturtevants Law. The evidence from Mongolian also points to original *ba. The
material from Uralic is phonologically ambiguous.
NOSTRATIC MORPHOLOGY I: THE EVIDENCE 411
Gothic ba, cf. Lehmann 1986:55; see also Krause 1968:210. On the same page,
Lehmann lists a Gothic adverbial suffix -ba and illustrates its use with an
example, namely, baitraba bitterly. He remarks: Isolated, both in
G[ermanic] and the I[ndo-]E[uropean] languages; origin obscure.) Similarly,
in Mongolian, There are modal adverbs with the meaning completely,
derived by reduplication of the first syllable of the word with the inserted
consonant -b. If the first syllable of the word concerned is no, the adverb is
nob; if the first syllable is qa, the adverb is qab, and so on (quote from Poppe
1974:5960, 218). The parallel between Gothic and Mongolian is striking.
D. Uralic: The Proto-Finno-Ugrian present participle suffix *-pa/*-p probably
belongs here as well: cf. Finnish present participle ending -pa ~ -p (preserved
after a few monosyllable stems, elsewhere: -va ~ -v) (cf. ky-v walking,
present participle of ky- to go, to walk; ky-p raha legal tender; el-v
living, alive, lively, present participle of el- to live; sy-v eating, present
participle of sy- to eat; sy-p cancer; kumarta-va [Agricola kumarta-pa]
bowing, present participle of kumarta- to bow); Veps elb living;
Livonian jelaab living; in Lapp / Saami, this suffix is found in the 1st plural,
2nd plural, 2nd dual, and 3rd dual of the present indicative, as in: (1st pl.)
mannap, (2nd pl.) mannapehtiht, (2nd dual) mannapKhtte, (3rd dual) mannapa
(manna- to go); in Ob-Ugric and Samoyed, this suffix forms participles and
nomina actoris, etc.: Vogul / Mansi lup nee a weeping woman (lu- to
weep or cry), minp going (present participle of min- to go), holp dead
(hool- to die), skp mortar (sek- to beat); Ostyak / Xanty jyntw, jyntp
needle (jant- to sew); Yurak Samoyed / Nenets pohoopa vigorous (poho-
to be near to the end, to come near, to be near to recovering); Yenisei
Samoyed / Enets kaabe dead (kaa- to die); Selkup Samoyed kuubie dead
(kuu-) to die; Kamassian kube dead (cf. Collinder 1960:270 and 1965:114).
E. Altaic: The Classical (Written) Mongolian conditional gerund -basu (also -bes
and -ubasu/-ubes after b and r; Modern Mongolian has -bala/-bele) is used to
indicate an act which is the necessary condition of the following action coming
into effect (as Greenberg notes, -basu is made up of the past converb [i.e.
adverbial participle] -ba- plus a-su would be; the suffixes used to indicate
past tense are -ba/-be and -bai/-bei, as in gbe or gbei he gave, odba or
odbai he went, he departed for details, cf. Poppe 1974:164165, 588
589). Constructions using the conditional gerund are usually translated with
when, if, as when this happens, then that, if this happens, then that, so that
there is an implied temporal relationship as well as an implied cause and effect
relationship (cf. Poppe 1974:95, 366): cf. yabubasu if he goes, when he
went, arubasu (ar-) if he goes out, when he went out, abubasu (ab-) if he
takes, when he took, bosbasu if he rises, when he rose, gbes if he gives,
when he gave. Thus, this construction could easily develop into a causative, as
Greenberg notes.
According to Menges (1968b:135136), there is a syndetic gerund suffix
-p/-Vp in Turkic, which is used to indicate the expression of successive
actions whose time-levels are not essentially different or distant from each
NOSTRATIC MORPHOLOGY I: THE EVIDENCE 413
On the basis of what has been discussed above, I think we are justified in setting up
a Proto-Nostratic particle *ba meaning then, therefore, just as Greenberg suggests.
This particle was inherited by Eurasiatic. Originally, *ba could be used with verbs
to indicate a conditional relationship, but without necessarily any reference to time,
that is to say that the actions could be either simultaneous or successive, thus:
when this happens, then that happens (at the same time), when this happens, then
that comes about (at a later time). This is basically the situation found in Turkic.
The next stage is found in Mongolian, where there is an implied temporal
relationship as well as an implied cause and effect relationship. The implied cause
and effect relationship develops into causatives in Dravidian and Kartvelian.
A. Afrasian: There are various causative prefixes in Semitic, the most common of
which is -, which is found in Akkadian, Ugaritic, and South Arabian (except
Sabaean): cf. Akkadian uamqit he caused to fall, from maqtu to fall down,
to collapse; to fall, to fall to the ground. A similar formation, with prefix s-, is
found in Egyptian: s-sdm to cause to hear, from sdm to hear, s-nfr to make
beautiful, s-r to cause to fall, etc. The same goes for Berber: cf. Tamazight
ssrwl to cause to flee, to rout, from rwl to run, to flee. In several
Afrasian languages (such as East Cushitic and Hausa, for example), causatives
are formed with a suffix -s: cf. Burji gat-is- to cause to sell, from gat- to
sell, etc. Causatives in -s (or extended forms) are also found in Omotic: cf. the
Aari causative suffix -sis- in wur-sis- to cause to hear, from wur- to hear, or
the Dime causative suffix -s- in wuy-s-u cause to stand!, stop!, from wuy
stand!. For Proto-Southern Cushitic, Ehret (1980:63) reconstructs causative
*-Vs- > Iraqw, Burunge, Alagwa -Vs-; Kwadza, Asa -Vs-; Maa -V, -s in
complexes of the form -sV, and -ti (< *Vtis, which historically was a sequence
of a continuative and a causative); Dahalo -V-, -VV-, -VV-. The *s
causative in Afrasian is discussed by Ehret (1995:34): The causative in *s
continues to be productive in many of the languages of the Afroasiatic family
NOSTRATIC MORPHOLOGY I: THE EVIDENCE 415
The original meaning of this extension appears to have been inchoative (also called
inceptive or ingressive): starts to, becomes such. This sense is preserved
416 CHAPTER SIXTEEN
16.55. Negative *na (~ *n), *ni (~ *ne), *nu (~ *no) (Greenberg: 56. Negative
N; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 1524, *i not)
Sumerian: Note the following: na not, na- modal prohibitive prefix (imperfect
root), nu not, nu- negative prefix. Cf. Thomsen 1987:190199.
NOSTRATIC MORPHOLOGY I: THE EVIDENCE 419
originally the same morpheme, but functioning as a separate word and thus
subject to the rule *mV > *bV.
16.57. Negative particle *al- (~ *l-) (perhaps also *el-, *ul-) (originally a
negative verb stem, as in Dravidian: to be not so-and-so later used in
some branches as a negative particle), probably also *li (~ *le) no, not
(Greenberg: 58. Negative E/ELE; Illi-Svity 19711984.I:263264, no.
128, *la particle of categorical negation; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 22,
*la particle of negation and categorical prohibition)
with two separate forms here. The first is the Proto-Nostratic negative particle
*e no, not, and the second is the negative verb al- (~ *l-) to be not so-and-
so. The latter is to be distinguished from the Uralic verb *el- to live, to be
(cf. Rdei 19861988:73; Collinder 1955:10 and 1977:31). Greenbergs
(2000:215) analysis of the situation is as follows: As we have just seen, the
Yukaghir verb to be is le, a form that has cognates in other Eurasiatic
languages. The theory tentatively suggested to account for this and other
intricate facts is that there was a Eurasiatic negative verb *e(i) that, when
combined with the positive verb to be le, formed a negative existential verb
*e-le that in some instances lost either its initial or final vowel. Contrary to
Greenberg, the Proto-Nostratic verb under discussion here must be
reconstructed as *il- (~ *el-) to live, to be alive; to be, to exist (cf. Illi-
Svity 1965:341 to live: *el), not *le. To complicate matters further,
there may have also been a separate Proto-Nostratic negative particle *li (~ *le)
no, not (note here the Proto-Yukaghir prohibitive affix *-l [cf. Nikolaeva
2006:81]). The interrelationship among these forms is extremely complex.
E. Altaic: Proto-Altaic *ule (~ -i) negative particle: Proto-Mongolian *l-
negative element preceding verbs > Written Mongolian l; Khalkha l; Buriat
le; Kalmyk le; Ordos le, l; Moghol la, l, l; Dagur ul, ule; Dongxiang
ulie; Shira-Yughur l; Monguor li, l. Cf. Poppe 1955:287, 288, 289, 290, and
291; StarostinDyboMudrak 2003:1493 *ule (~ -i) negative particle.
F. Chukchi-Kamchatkan: According to Greenberg (2000:216): In the Koryak
group reflexes of *ele form sentence negations or are equivalent to English
no!, a natural use for a negative existential. Examples are Palana Koryak elle
and Kerek ala not. Kerek has lost its vowel harmony system through merger
so that a is the expected reflex of *e. Aliutor has gone through similar phonetic
changes and has al, alla no, not. In addition, for prohibitives, Kerek uses the
imperative of a negative auxiliary verb illa, which follows the negative
infinitive Fortescue (2005:31) reconstructs Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan
*Kl(lK) not.
G. Gilyak / Nivkh: Greenberg (2000:215) compares the Gilyak / Nivkh verb stem
ali- to be unable, which may be considered to represent the full form of the
negative existential *ele.
A. Uralic: Proto-Uralic *e- negative particle: no, not. For details, see the
discussion above under Proto-Uralic *el imperative of the negative auxiliary
verb (cf. Collinder 1955:31 and 1977:26; Rdei 19861988:6870).
B. Altaic: Proto-Altaic *e negative particle: Proto-Tungus *e- not > Negidal e-
not; Jurchen ey-e, esi(n)-in not; Ulch e- not; Orok e- not; Nanay / Gold
422 CHAPTER SIXTEEN
e- not; Evenki e- not; Lamut / Even e- not; Oroch e- not; Udihe e- not;
Solon e- not. Proto-Mongolian e-se not > Written Mongolian ese not;
Khalkha es not; Buriat ehe not; Kalmyk es not; Ordos ese not; Moghol
sa, se not; Dagur es not; Monguor s, s not. Cf. Poppe 1955:287, 290,
and 291 Poppe points out that [t]he negative ese is the stem of the verb ese-
not to be = Tungus wsi-. Cf. StarostinDyboMudrak 2003:488 *e not.
C. Etruscan: ei not.
D. Chukchi-Kamchatkan: Chukchi negative prefix e- ~ a-; Koryak negative prefix
e- (or its expected phonetic outcomes). Cf. Greenberg 2000:216.
Sumerian: e no.
This stem is one of the strongest Nostratic etymologies. The data supporting this
etymology are extremely rich, and derivatives are found in nearly every branch of
Nostratic. Rather than list all of the data, I will only give a summary here.
East Cushitic *ay(y)- > Saho ay who?; Boni ay who?; Somali ayy-o
who?; Burji yye who?; Hadiyya ay, ayy-e who? (cf. Sasse 1979:46 and
1982:30; Hudson 1989:167). This stem also occurs in Proto-Southern Cushitic
*ayi here, (combining form) *yi here > Kwadza ayiye here; Maa i"i
here; Dahalo *ji- in jiko who? (cf. Ehret 1980:288). Bender (2000:209)
reconstructs an interrogative stem *ay who?, what?, why? for Proto-Omotic.
Cf. Diakonoff 1988:83, 4.4.4.
B. Dravidian: Proto-Dravidian *y- interrogative stem: who?, which?, what? >
Kannaa y-, -, -, e- interrogative base; Malayalam yvan/van, yva/va,
yvar/var/yr/r who?, y/ytu/tu/n what?; Tamil y, yvai what or
which things?, van who?, n why?, what?, how? (cf. Krishnamurti 2003:
256258 *yaH-/*yH-; BurrowEmeneau 1984:465467, no. 5151).
C. Kartvelian: Svan (interrogative) jr who?, (relative) jerwj who, (indefinite)
jer somebody, something, jer someone, somebody, jerwle anybody.
D. Indo-European: Proto-Indo-European *yo- relative pronoun stem > Greek ,
, which; Phrygian which; this; Sanskrit y- which (cf. Greenberg
2000:225227; Pokorny 1959:283 *i o-; Mann 19841987:452). According
to Szemernyi (1996:210), among others, *yo- is to be derived from the
anaphoric stem *i-. However, Greenberg successfully refutes this view.
E. Uralic: Proto-Finno-Ugrian relative and indefinite pronoun *yo- who, which
> Finnish jo- in joka who, which, joku someone, anyone, jos when; Lapp /
Saami juokk each, every; Mordvin ju- in juza toza to and fro, back and
forth; Cheremis / Mari (Western) ju, (Eastern) ju someone, anyone (cf.
Greenberg 2000:227; Joki 1973:264; Rdei 19861988:637 *jo).
F. Altaic: Proto-Altaic *y- interrogative stem: who?, which?, what? > (a)
Manchu ya which?, what?, yaba where?, yade where?, whither?, to
whom?; Evenki ma (< *yma) what kind?, du (< *ydu) why?, for
what?; (b) Mongolian yaun what?, yambar which?, what kind?; Dagur y
what?; Moghol yan what?, which?, yem ~ yema what?; Ordos y what?;
Buriat y which?. Cf. Greenberg 2000:227; Poppe 1955:126, 226, 229, 230
and 1960:32, 33; Street 1974:29 *y- to do what?; who, what. Starostin
DyboMudrak (2003:754) derive the Manchu-Tungus forms cited above from
Proto-Altaic *ka(j) who? (interrogative pronoun), while they (2003:2034)
derive the Mongolian forms from Proto-Altaic *[i V] what?, who?
(interrogative pronoun). In view of the data from other Nostratic languages, it
seems more likely that a Proto-Altaic interrogative stem *y- needs to be
reconstructed here to account for the Tungus and Mongolian forms. Proto-
Altaic *ka(y), then, was the source of Proto-Tungus *ai but not Proto-Tungus
*y-. This agrees with the traditional etymology as opposed to what Starostin
DyboMudrak propose.
The CVC- root structure patterning points to the ultimate verbal origin of this stem.
I take it to be a derivative of an interrogative verbal stem *ay- (~ *y-) meaning
to do what?, to act in what manner? (cf. BomhardKerns 1994:595596, no.
468):
426 CHAPTER SIXTEEN
who, what; Mordvin meze what; Cheremis / Mari ma, mo what, which, what
kind; Votyak / Udmurt ma what, which, what kind; Zyrian / Komi myj
what, which, what kind; Vogul / Mansi mn which, what kind; Ostyak /
Xanty m gi which, what, mt any, which, who; Hungarian mi what,
which, what kind; Tavgi Samoyed / Nganasan ma what; etc.). Cf. Rdei
19861988:296 *m; Collinder 1977:54.
E. Altaic: Proto-Altaic *mV interrogative stem > (a) Proto-Mongolian *-mu, *-mi
suffixed interrogative particle > Middle Mongolian -mu, -mi suffixed
interrogative particle; (b) Proto-Turkic *-mi suffixed interrogative particle >
Old Turkic -mu suffixed interrogative particle; Karakhanide Turkic -mu
suffixed interrogative particle; Turkish -mi/-m/-mu/-m suffixed interrogative
particle; Gagauz -mi suffixed interrogative particle; Azerbaijani -mi suffixed
interrogative particle; Turkmenian -mi suffixed interrogative particle; Uzbek
-mi suffixed interrogative particle; Uighur -mu suffixed interrogative particle;
Karaim -mo suffixed interrogative particle; Tatar -mi suffixed interrogative
particle; Bashkir -m suffixed interrogative particle; Kirghiz -b suffixed
interrogative particle; Kazakh -ma/-me suffixed interrogative particle; Noghay
-ma/-me suffixed interrogative particle; Oyrot (Mountain Altai) -ba/-be
suffixed interrogative particle; Tuva -be suffixed interrogative particle;
Chuvash -im suffixed interrogative particle. StarostinDyboMudrak
2003:958. Note also: Chuvash mn, msker what?, mie how much (in
number)?, mnn why?, mnle what kind of? (cf. Greenberg 2000:230;
Larry Clark 1998:440).
F. Chukchi-Kamchatkan: Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan *mikK who? > Chukchi
mik()- who?, someone; Kerek maki who?; Koryak meki (Kamen maki) (<
*mKki, metathesized form of *mikK) who?; Alyutor mia who?, mikin
whose; (?) Kamchadal / Itelmen ke (pl. knntx) who?. Cf. Fortescue
1998:154 and 2005:175; Greenberg 2000:231. As noted above, *mikK is a
combination of *mi- plus *-kK. Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan *mi(k) where?
> Chukchi mik where?, mikri(l) to where?; Kerek mikiil to where?;
Koryak mik where?, mikje to where?, meqo from where?; Alyutor
m"annu (Palana mik, meje) where?, makt() to where?; Kamchadal /
Itelmen ma" where?, manke to where?, manx"al from where?. Cf.
Fortescue 2005:177. Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan *miki how? > Chukchi
mikri how?, what kind?; Kerek mikii how; Koryak mikjehow?, what
kind?; Alyutor makt how?; Kamchadal / Itelmen (Sedanka) mank how?.
Cf. Fortescue 2005:177. Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan *mKin what kind? >
Chukchi mein used as the suppletive absolutive case form of mik()- who?,
someone; Kerek main ippa which?; Koryak mein what kind of?; Alyutor
main what kind of?; Kamchadal / Itelmen min what kind?. Cf. Fortescue
2005:173.
G. Eskimo: Proto-Eskimo (enclitic) *-mi what about?: Alutiiq Alaskan Yupik
+mi I wonder, how about?; Central Alaskan Yupik +mi how about?,
contrast; Naukan Siberian Yupik #mi or other (with question words);
Central Siberian Yupik +mi how about?, contrast; Sirenik +mi emphatic
NOSTRATIC MORPHOLOGY I: THE EVIDENCE 429
enclitic; Seward Peninsula Inuit (+)mi why (not)?; North Alaskan Inuit
(Uummarmiut) +mi what about?; Greenlandic Inuit +mi but, indeed, what
about? (contrastive emphasis). Cf. FortescueJacobsonKaplan 1994:411.
Sumerian: Note the interrogative stem *me- found in me-na-m when?, me-a
where?, me- where to?.
16.63. Indefinite *ma- (~ *m-), *mi- (~ *me-), *mu- (~ *mo-) (not in Greenberg
2000; Illi-Svity 19711984.II:7071, no. 303, *mu demonstrative
pronoun: this, that; Nafiqoff 2003:4749 *mu; Dolgopolsky to appear,
no. 1510, *mu[w] this, that)
This may originally have been a demonstrative stem (as suggested by Illi-Svity),
with three degrees of distance: *ma- (~ *m-) (proximate), (B) *mu- (~ *mo-)
(distant), and (C) *mi- (~ *me-) (intermediate), as in the stems: *ka- (~ *k-)
(proximate), (B) *ku- (~ *ko-) (distant), and (C) *ki- (~ *ke-) (intermediate) and
*ta- (~ *t-) (proximate), (B) *tu- (~ *to-) (distant), and (C) *ti- (~ *te-)
(intermediate), cited above.
16.64. Indefinite *di- (~ *de-) this one, that one (not in Greenberg 2000)
A. Afrasian: Proto-Afrasian *di- this one, that one > Proto-Semitic *d, *d
this one, that one > Arabic (m.) ], (f.) ] this one, this; Hebrew (m.) zeh,
(f.) zh, (poetical) z this; Biblical Aramaic d this; Sabaean ] (he) who,
(that) which; Mehri ]()- who, which, what; eri / Jibbli ]- one who,
whoever; arssi ](e)- who, which, that; Geez / Ethiopic za- who, that,
which (zi"a- with possessive suffix pronouns), (m. sg.) z-, (f. sg.) z- this
(adj. and pronoun); Tigrinya z he who, that, "zu this; Gurage za that, that
one, that one here, z this; Harari zi he, who, that, -zo the. Cf. D. Cohen
1970 :324; Klein 1987:194; Leslau 1979:701 and 1987:629630. Cf. Ehret
1995:260, no. 470, *ji or *dzi one, someone, somebody (indefinite pronoun).
Note: the putative Egyptian and Chadic cognates adduced by Ehret are not
convincing.
B. Uralic: Proto-Uralic *te/*ti this one, that one > Finnish se/si- this, that, it;
Mordvin e this, that one; Cheremis / Mari sede this one, that one; Ostyak /
Xanty (Northern) , t this, that one, (Southern) ti this one; Tavgi
Samoyed / Nganasan sete he, seti both of them, sete they; Kamassian
that one here. Cf. Collinder 1955:56 and 1977:73; Rdei 19861988:3334
*e ~ *i; Dcsy 1990:109 *tje that.
IX. INDECLINABLES
This particle is derived from relative *ki- (~ *ke-), interrogative *ka- (~ *k-)
(see above).
16.66. Particle *kay- when, as, though, also (derived from *ki- [~ *ke-]
relative pronoun stem, *ka- [~ *k-] interrogative pronoun stem) (not
in Greenberg 2000)
A. Afrasian: Proto-Afrasian (?) *kay- when, as, though, also > Proto-Semitic
*kay- in order that, for, when, so that > Akkadian k according to,
concerning; Hebrew k that, for, when; Syriac kay therefore; Ugaritic k, ky
for, because, when, if, that; Arabic kay in order that, so that; Sabaean ky
when. Egyptian non-enclitic particle k& so, then.
B. Indo-European: Proto-Indo-European *kay- when, as, though, also >
Lithuanian ka when, as; Old Church Slavic c as, as also. Cf. Pokorny
1959:519; Walde 19271932.I:327; Mann 19841987:1039.
16.67. Particle *ar-: (1) particle introducing an alternative: or, (2) conjoining
particle: with, and, (3) inferential particle: then, therefore (not in
Greenberg 2000)
A. Afrasian: Egyptian r upon, in, at, from, on account of, concerning, through,
and, having on it; because. Cf. Hannig 1995:546; ErmanGrapow 1921:113
and 19261963.3:131132; Faulkner 1962:174; Gardiner 1957:582.
B. Indo-European: Proto-Indo-European *er- [*ar-]/*r - then, therefore;
and > Greek (Epic Greek [enclitic] and, before a consonant, )
inferential particle: (Epic usage) then, straightway, at once, (Attic usage)
then, therefore (much like , only less strongly); Lithuanian ar whether,
if, ir and, and then, and so; Latvian r and, and also. Cf. Pokorny 1959:62;
Walde 19271932.I:77; Mann 19841987:31 and 1105; Boisacq 1950:72;
Frisk 19701973.I:127; Chantraine 19681980.I:100; Hofmann 1966:21.
C. Altaic: Proto-Altaic *arV or > Proto-Turkic *aru or > Old Turkic (Old
Uighur) azu or; Karakhanide Turkic azu or; Tuva az or. Cf. Starostin
DyboMudrak 2003:316 *aV or.
16.68. Particle *in- (~ *en-), *(-)ni in, into, towards, besides, moreover
(originally a nominal stem meaning place, location) (not in Greenberg
434 CHAPTER SIXTEEN
A. Afrasian: Semitic: Akkadian ina in, on, from, by; Geez / Ethiopic "n- -ta
through, by way of, by, at, into, in the direction of, because; Tigre "t on, in,
by, with, because of. Egyptian n in, to, for, because, by.
B. Indo-European: Proto-Indo-European *en- in, into, among, on > Greek ,
, in, on, among, into, and, besides, moreover; Latin in in, on, among,
into, on to, towards, against; Old Irish ini-, en-, in- in, into; Gothic in in;
Old English in in, on, among, into, during; Old High German in in; Old
Prussian en inside, within. Cf. Pokorny 1959:311314; Walde 1927
1932.I:125127; Mann 19841987:241; Watkins 1985:17 and 2000:23.
C. Uralic: Proto-Finno-Ugrian *[i]n place > Votyak / Udmurt in, i place,
spot; Zyrian / Komi (Sysola) -in in: kos-in dry place, dry land, (Letka) in
place, spot; (?) Hungarian (dialectal) eny, enyh shelter; covered or sheltered
place where men and animals take cover from wind, rain, snow, or heat. Cf.
Rdei 19861988:592593.
16.69. Sentence particle *wa (~ *w) and, also, but; like, as (not in Greenberg
2000; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2452, *wa also, same [(in descendant
languages) and])
A. Afrasian: Proto-Afrasian sentence particle *wa and, also, but > Proto-Semitic
sentence particle *wa and, also, but > Arabic wa and, and also, with;
Hebrew w and, also, even, and indeed, with, and in addition, but; Geez /
Ethiopic wa- and. Cushitic: Beja / Beawye w and. Cf. Klein 1987:189; D.
Cohen 1970 :473480; Leslau 1987:602; Reinisch 1895:236.
B. Kartvelian: Georgian enclitic particle -ve.
C. Indo-European: Proto-Indo-European sentence particle *we, *u and, also, but;
like, as > Sanskrit va like, as; Gothic enclitic particle -u; Tocharian B wai
and. Cf. Pokorny 1959:7375; Walde 19271932.I:187189.
A. Afrasian: Proto-Semitic *aw- or > Arabic "aw or; Hebrew " or;
Akkadian or; Tigrinya wy or. Cf. D. Cohen 1970 :11; Murtonen
1989:8485; Klein 1987:9; Leslau 1987:47. East Cushitic: Saho oo or.
B. Indo-European: Proto-Indo-European *we or > Sanskrit -v or; Latin -ve
or. Cf. Pokorny 1959:75; Walde 19271932.I:188189; Burrow 1973:284.
C. Uralic: Finnish vai or; Estonian vi or.
CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
17.1. INTRODUCTION
1. Those whose subjects have the same grammatical marking as the subjects of
transitive verbs. These are Trasks agent [subjects]. This type is referred to in
this chapter as active constructions.
2. Those whose subjects have the same grammatical marking as direct objects of
transitive verbs. These are Trasks non-agent subjects. This type is referred
to in this chapter as stative constructions.
To complicate matters, some verbs are ambitransitive, that is, they can occur in
either a transitive clause or an intransitive clause. Semantic and morphosyntactic
considerations play an important role here (see Chapter 19 for more information).
NOSTRATIC MORPHOLOGY II: RECONSTRUCTIONS 437
Nichols (1992:910) lists the sets of typical features of active type languages
established by Klimov (1977) as follows:
Lexical properties:
1. Binary division of nouns into active vs. inactive (often termed animate and
inanimate or the like in the literature).
2. Binary division of verbs into active and inactive.
3. Classificatory verbs or the like (classification based on shape, animacy,
etc.).
4. Active verbs require active nouns as subject.
5. Singular-plural lexical suppletion in verbs.
6. The category of number absent or weakly developed.
7. No copula.
8. Adjectives are actually intransitive verbs.
9. Inclusive/exclusive pronoun distinction in first person.
10. No infinitive, no verbal nouns.
11. Etymological identity of many body-part and plant-part terms (e.g., ear
= leaf).
12. Doublet verbs, suppletive for animacy of actant.
Syntactic properties:
Morphological properties:
19. The verb is much more richly inflected than the noun.
20. Two series of personal affixes on the verb: active and inactive.
21. Verbs have aspect or Aktionsarten rather than tense.
22. The noun has possessive affixes.
23. Alienable-inalienable possession distinction.
24. Inalienable possessive affixes and inactive verbal affixes are similar or
identical.
25. Third person often has zero affix.
26. No voice opposition (since there is no transitivity opposition). Instead,
there can be an opposition of what is called version in Kartvelian studies
(roughly active vs. middle in the terminology of Benveniste 1966, or an
opposition of normal valence vs. valence augmented by a second or
indirect object, or an opposition of speech-act participant vs. non-
participant in indirect-object marking on the verb).
27. Active verbs have more morphological variation or make more
morphological distinctions than inactive verbs.
28. The morphological category of number is absent or weakly developed.
29. There are no noun cases for core grammatical relations (no nominative,
accusative, genitive, dative). Sometimes there is an active/inactive case
opposition.
30. Postpositions are often lacking or underdeveloped in these languages.
Some of them have adpositions inflected like nouns.
Nichols (1992:8) notes that Klimovs definition of active type languages is close to,
though not identical with, her definition of dominant stative-active alignment (see
also Nichols 1992:89):
According to Klimov, the basic determinant of linguistic type is what I call the
conceptual cast of a languages predictions and its categorization of basic
nominal and verbal notions; whether they are based on subject-object relations,
agent-patient relations, an active/inactive distinction, referential properties, or
others. The salient indicator of the conceptual cast is the stative-active,
ergative, or accusative alignment of the clause, and this in turn determines the
occurrence of a number of other categories. The whole set of properties
conceptual cast, alignment type, and attendant categories constitutes the
type of the language. (Klimov 1977 divides the relevant grammatical features
into those that are more or less direct implicanda of type and those that are
frequently observed secondary properties.) There are four basic types: the
ACCUSATIVE TYPE, which grammaticalizes subject-object relations, the
ERGATIVE TYPE, which grammaticalizes agent-factitive relations (for factitive
a semantic role essentially coinciding with the formal category of S/O of
Dixon 1979 see Kibrik 1979); the ACTIVE TYPE, which grammaticalizes an
active/inactive or animate/inanimate principle; and (singled out only in the
1983 book) the CLASS TYPE, based on referential properties of nominals and
having well-developed gender or class inflection. The first three types are
named for their typical clause alignments, but in Klimovs view clause
alignment is merely one of several symptoms (albeit a salient one) of the
NOSTRATIC MORPHOLOGY II: RECONSTRUCTIONS 439
conceptual cast and hence type. Thus the active type is almost identical in
extension but different in intension from the set of languages exhibiting stative-
active alignment. Since the active type is focal in Klimovs sense, I will use his
term active in his sense while using stative-active in what I take to be the
current standard sense. Klimov carefully distinguishes type from features,
faulting most contemporary typology for failing to make this distinction and
pointing out that much of what is called typology is actually the cross-linguistic
study of features rather than types. A type, in Klimovs view, is a set of
independent but correlated features from different levels of grammar
accompanied by a theory explaining the correlation.
What is of particular interest to cross-linguistic comparison is the sets of
typical features Klimov establishes for each type. For instance, he shows that
the active type is associated with underdevelopment of number inflection, an
inclusive/exclusive opposition in pronouns, an opposition of alienable to
inalienable possession, classificatory verbs, grammaticalized animacy in nouns,
and other features. The active and class types display the largest number of
distinctive, interesting, and testable properties, and it is these traits that will be
surveyed here.
2.0.4. Clause alignment. This term (taken from relational grammar) will be
used here as generic for accusative, ergative, stative-active, etc. Only
morphological alignment is surveyed in this study. The following categories
are used, based on the morphological distinction or nondistinction of A, O, S
(as those abbreviations are used by Dixon 1979 to refer to subject of transitive,
direct object, and subject of intransitive respectively). The first five are
standard and the last, hierarchical, is a well-described pattern with no standard
label (Mallinson and Blake 1981 use the term relative-hierarchical).
of the verb, as shown in table 19. The high frequency of neutral alignment in
languages with no head marking in the clause is to be expected by definition: a
language having no clause head marking has no marking on the verb, and no
marking is neutral alignment. What requires comment is the non-neutral
examples with zero clause head-marking. These include two languages that use
detached marking, which I somewhat arbitrarily counted as marking of
alignment on the verb. These two languages are Haida (stative-active) and
Luiseo (accusative). Otherwise, once again the distribution of the accusative
alignment is much like that of the total, and the stative-active and hierarchical
alignments are concentrated in the head-marking end of the scale (higher
numbers of H points in S). The ergative alignment is fairly evenly distributed
throughout the scale except that it does not occur in languages with zero head
marking in the clause (since ergativity cannot be marked on the verb if the verb
has no marking).
It is apparently possible to combine any of the three major alignment types
with any head/dependent type, though there are preferred and dispreferred
combinations and there are gaps (which I interpret as accidental) in the
distribution of the low-frequency types. The accusative alignment is equally
compatible with all types, as is consistent with its generally preferred and
unmarked status. The less frequent types have interesting asymmetries and
limitations. The ergative alignment favors dependent marking. This is
consistent with the fact that ergative, of all alignment types is prone to be
marked on the noun (see 2.3.1), and this in turn may have to do with the fact
that ergative alignment grammaticalizes nominal semantic roles. Stative-active
and hierarchical alignments prefer head marking, and this is consistent with
what they grammaticalize: the stative-active type grammaticalizes lexical
categories of verbs, and the hierarchical type grammaticalizes relative ranking
(for referential properties: animacy, person, etc.) rather than absolute
functional status of clause arguments. The dependent-marked stative-active
type is generally fluid-S, which is to say that it codes nominal semantic roles
and not verb categorization. In general, the alignments that favor marking on
nominals (ergative; fluid-S stative-active) are associated with grammatical-
ization of nominal semantic functions; those that favor marking on verbs are
associated with the grammaticalization of verbal semantics and/or the
semantics of the whole clause. Thus we have a functional explanation, albeit a
rather abstract one. But on a more general level, the distributional constraints
on alignment types suggest that there is some kind of consistency between the
morphological form of coding (head-marked or dependent-marked) and the
semantics coded; fluid categories and NP relational semantics favor dependent
marking, while split categories and verbal notions favor head marking. If the
function of the part of speech bearing the marking influences the semantics
coded, it is also true that the form of the coding, specifically its location,
restricts its possible semantics.
The correlation of stative-active type with head marking and ergative with
dependent marking is difficult to demonstrate areally, partly because
nonaccusative alignments are not common enough to form clear patterns in any
but the largest areas and partly because ergative and stative-active alignments
are roughly in complementary distribution across the areas. Table 20 shows
that wherever the ergative alignment is at all frequent it is associated with
442 CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
the undifferentiated stems were real forms in themselves and could be used
without additional suffixes or grammatical endings. However, when so used, a
vowel had to be added to the stem: (A) *CV- > *CV (no change), (B) *CVC- >
*CVC+V, (C) *CVC+C- > *CVC+C+V, or (D) (reduplicated) *CVC-CVC- >
*CVC-CVC+V. Following Afrasian terminology, this vowel may be called a
terminal vowel (TV). Not only did terminal vowels exist in Proto-Afrasian
(cf. Ehret 1995:15; Bender 2000:214215 and 2007:737739; Mous 2012:
364), they are also found in Dravidian, where they are called enunciative
vowels (cf. Steever 1998a:15; Krishnamurti 2003:9091; Zvelebil 1990:8
9), and in Elamite (cf. Khaikjan 1998:11; Grillot-Susini 1987:12; Stolper
2004:73), where they are called thematic vowels. In Proto-Dravidian, the
enunciative vowel was only required in stems ending in obstruents, which
could not occur in final position.
No obstruents can occur finally. When they do, they are followed by a non-
morphemic automatic (so-called epenthetic, or enunciative or euphonic,
i.e. predictable morphophonemic) vowel *- which is regularly dropped
according to morphophonemic rules
Ehret (1995:15) makes the following observations about the terminal vowels in
Proto-Afrasian:
The Omotic, Cushitic, and Chadic evidence conjoin in requiring the existence
in PAA of an additional element in word formation, a terminal vowel (TV) in
nouns and modifiers, the original function and meaning of which remain
obscure. TVs have been subjected to comparative-historical investigation in
only two groups of Afroasiatic languages. In Omotic they have no
reconstructible function beyond their necessary attachment to singular noun
stems in semantically predictable fashion. With the exception of Kafa, in which
two TVs, -o and -e, have been grammaticalized respectively as masculine and
feminine markers, they carry no grammatical or recognizable semantic load
(Hayward 1987). In proto-Southern Cushitic, pairs of TVs formed a variety of
singular-plural markers. Particular paired sets tended to go with either
masculine or feminine nouns, but an individual TV on a singular noun
446 CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
As noted above, terminal vowels are only used with nouns and modifiers in
Afrasian, while in Dravidian, the single reconstructible terminal vowel, *-u, is used
after any free-form stem ending in an obstruent. For Proto-Nostratic, the patterning
may be assumed to have been as follows: If an undifferentiated nominal or verbal
stem was used as a free-form, a terminal vowel had to be added. In Proto-Nostratic,
the terminal vowels were: *a, *i, and *u. The origin of terminal vowels will be
investigated below.
The original root structure patterning was maintained longer in Afrasian,
Dravidian, and Altaic than in the other branches, while the patterning found in
Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Kartvelian has been modified by developments
NOSTRATIC MORPHOLOGY II: RECONSTRUCTIONS 447
specific to each of these branches. The root structure constraints found in Proto-
Indo-European were an innovation. In Proto-Uralic, the rule requiring that all words
end in a vowel (cf. Dcsy 1990:54) was an innovation and arose from the
incorporation of the so-called terminal vowel into the stem. It should be noted
that reduplication was a widespread phenomenon in Proto-Nostratic. It was one of
the means used to indicate plurality in nouns, while, in verbs, it may have been used
in frequentive and habitual formations.
On the basis of the evidence of Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Kartvelian, Proto-
Afrasian, Proto-Dravidian, and Proto-Altaic, it may be assumed that there were
three fundamental stem types: (A) verbal stems, (B) nominal and adjectival stems,
and (C) pronominal and indeclinable stems. Some stems were exclusively nominal.
In the majority of cases, however, both verbal stems and nominal stems could be
built from the same root. In Proto-Nostratic, only pronominal and indeclinable
stems could end in a vowel. Verbal and nominal stems, on the other hand, had to
end in a consonant, though, as noted above, when the undifferentiated stems were
used as real words in themselves, a terminal vowel had to be added to the stem.
As we shall see below, the terminal vowels were morphologically significant.
Adjectives did not exist as an independent grammatical category in Proto-Nostratic.
As in Proto-Kartvelian, it appears that Proto-Afrasian underwent several
syntactic shifts in its prehistoric development. Surely, the VSO pattern found in
Semitic, Egyptian, and Berber is an innovation. While it is not possible to trace the
exact developments, it seems likely that the original pattern was SOV, which is
what is found in the majority of Cushitic languages. Ehret (1995:52) arrives at the
same conclusion for Proto-Afrasian. He notes that nominalizing morphology in
Proto-Afrasian was predominantly suffixal. One little aside: The more I look at the
matter, the more I am convinced that, within Afrasian, Semitic is the most aberrant
branch. In view of this, notions of what Proto-Afrasian might have been like, based
primarily upon the Semitic model, are likely to be false.
During the earliest period of Proto-Nostratic, roots could only have the forms: (a)
*CV- and (b) *CVC-. Type (a) was restricted to pronominal stems and
indeclinables, while type (b) characterized nominal and verbal stems. A single
derivational suffix could be placed after root type (b): *CVC+C (derivational suffix
[DS]). Grammatical relationships were indicated by placing particles either after the
undifferentiated stem or after the stem plus a derivational suffix: (a) *CVC + CV
(particle [P]) or (b) *CVC+C (derivational suffix [DS]) + CV (particle [P]). In
nominal stems, a morphologically significant terminal vowel (TV) had to be added
directly after the root, while in verbal stems, a formative vowel (FV) had to be
added between the root and any following element, be it derivational suffix or
particle; thus, we get the following patterns:
448 CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
The derivational suffixes were derivational rather than grammatical in that they
affected the meaning of a word rather than its relation to other words in a sentence.
This is essentially the stage represented in Proto-Dravidian, though Proto-
Dravidian has added long vowels to the equation as well as stems beginning with a
vowel (no doubt arising from the loss of initial laryngeals) (cf. Krishnamurti
2003:179184 and 277279). Next, the formative vowel was reinterpreted as part
of the derivational suffix in verbal stems: *CVC+VC+CV. This is the stage
represented by Proto-Afrasian (cf. Diakonoff 1988:85110; Ehret 1995:15 and
2734) and is the basis for the root structure patterning found in Proto-Kartvelian
and Proto-Indo-European as well. From an Afrasian perspective, there is no such
thing as formative vowels they are only preserved in Dravidian and Elamite,
though, in Elamite, their status is disputed (cf. Reiner 1969:78).
In Proto-Dravidian, the original meaning of the formative vowel was
completely lost. According to Krishnamurti (2003:97), [i]t apparently had an
epenthetic role of splitting clusters without affecting the syllable weight Note
the following examples given by Krishnamurti (2003:181):
Elamite was an agglutinative suffixal language. The suffixes joined either the
root or the stem.
The root morpheme consisted mostly of two consonants and one or two
vowels: nap deity, ruh man, zana lady, kap treasure, kik sky, etc.
NOSTRATIC MORPHOLOGY II: RECONSTRUCTIONS 449
Reiner (1969:78) notes, likewise, that the Elamite verb base always ended in a
vowel: CVCV, CVCCV, and, though more rarely than the first two types, CV.
Reiner argues against treating the thematic vowel (stem-vowel) as a separate
morpheme. Khaikjan, however, follows Paper in considering the thematic vowel to
be a separate morpheme. Grillot-Susini (1987:32) simply states: The structure of
the verb is analogous to that of the noun. It consists of a base (simple root or
enlarged by -i/u/a) to which the inflections of the verbal conjugation, the participial
formants, and/or the nominal person suffixes are attached.
Now, it is curious that the formative vowel can take different shapes in Proto-
Dravidian: *a, *i, or *u. This seems to indicate that the different formative vowels
must have had some sort of morphological significance at an earlier point in time,
though this distinction was lost in Proto-Dravidian proper. Not only must the
formative vowels have had morphological significance, the terminal vowels must
also have had morphological significance.
The formative vowels found in verbal stems may have been aspect markers, as
Zaborski has tried to show for Omotic (cited in Bender 2000:217). Here, according
to Zaborski, the patterning was as follows: a marks present (imperfective), i ~ e
mark past (perfective), and u ~ o mark subordinate. Though originally supportive of
Zaborskis views, Bender later became skeptical, pointing out that he finds the
consonantal markers to be more significant. Indeed, for Omotic or even Afrasian,
this is what we would expect. But Zaborskis views are not so easily dismissed.
What he may have uncovered is a more archaic pattern, as Bender himself admits.
In Finno-Ugrian, the ending *-i- shows up as a past tense marker (cf. Collinder
1960:305307 and 1965:132134; Dcsy 1990:76). Likewise in Dravidian,
where the suffix *-i- is one of several used to mark past tense (cf. Krishnamurti
2003:296298). These may ultimately be derived from a perfective marker *-i-.
As noted above, when the unextended root (*CVC-) served as the verbal stem,
the formative vowel (aspect marker) was added directly to the root: *CVC+VFV.
For nominal stems, the situation is a bit more complicated. Diakonoff
(1988:5961) reconstructs two abstract case forms for Proto-Afrasian: (a) *-i/
*-u and (b) *-/*-a. Diakonoff notes that the best preserved case marker was *-i. It
served two functions: (a) nominative-ergative and (b) genitive (in the sense
belonging to). In Cushitic, it often has two variants: (a) a short one in -i and (b) an
expanded one in -iya or -ii. Given the identical form of the nominative-ergative
and genitive, Diakonoff assumes that the nominative-ergative function arose from
the genitive function. For *-/*-a, Diakonoff assumes that it represented the noun
outside of grammatical links (the so-called status indeterminatus) or the noun-
predicate (the so-called status praedicativus), but also the subject of a state or
condition, including the subject of the state that resulted from the action. Finally, it
450 CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
should be noted that Sasse (1984:117) reconstructs the following two declensional
paradigms for nouns with short final vowels for Proto-East Cushitic:
Masculine Feminine
Sasse (1984) discusses the development of this system within Cushitic and ends by
noting that traces of the above patterning can also be found in Semitic and Berber
(Proto-Semitic nominative *-u, accusative *-a, genitive *-i [cf. Hasselbach 2013]).
I assume that the following patterning existed in early Proto-Nostratic:
1. *-u was used to mark the subject (the agent) in active constructions these
subjects perform, effect, instigate, and control events (Mithun 1991:538);
2. *-i indicated possession (belonging to);
3. *-a was used to mark:
(a) *CVC+u
(b) *CVC+CDS+u
(c) *CVC-CVC+u
2. *-a ~ *-ma/*-na: used to mark the direct object of transitive verbs as well as
the subject in stative constructions:
*-ma/*-na was the first case form (bound relational marker) to develop in Proto-
Nostratic. The second was the genitive (in the sense belonging to) in *-nu. Indeed,
these are the only two bound relational markers that can be confidently
reconstructed for the latest period of Proto-Nostratic (see below for more
information). Finally, it seems likely that unextended *-a remained as the indicator
of the status indeterminatus.
In Elamite, the *-a (and *-u ?) variant was eliminated in nominals. Dravidian,
on the other hand, underwent further developments. Here, *-i ~ *-a were
reinterpreted as oblique markers (on which, cf. Krishnamurti 2003:225226),
while *-u assumed the role of enunciative vowel (cf. Krishnamurti 2003:91:
[w]hen roots in final obstruents are free forms, the consonant is geminated
followed by a non-morphemic [enunciative] u.).
This, then, explains the origin of both the so-called formative vowels and
terminal vowels. It may be noted here that Ehret (1995:15) concludes that the
terminal vowels found in Afrasian are fossils of a nominal morphology productive
in pre-proto-Afroasiatic and predating the rise of grammatical gender in the family.
Having lost their original grammatical function, they have been reanalyzed as
markers of singular or sometimes, as in the case of Southern Cushitic, of the plural
in nominals. As a further note, the terminal vowel *-a may ultimately be the source
of the highly productive thematic stems in later Proto-Indo-European.
Ehret does not reconstruct formative vowels for Proto-Afrasian. In this, he is
correct. As noted above, in Proto-Afrasian, the earlier formative vowels have been
reinterpreted as part of the derivational suffixes.
A. Words are classified into three groups (which differ in their syntactic
behaviour):
a) Full Words (in the sense of the Chinese traditional grammar, i.e.
semantic counterparts of nouns, adjectives, adverbs and verbs of
modern languages),
b) Pronouns,
c) Grammatical Words (i.e. case-markers).
B. Pronouns (if stressed) can behave syntactically according to the rules of
Full Words as well.
C. The predicate is the last Full Word of the sentence.
D. Any object precedes its verb (i.e. its Full Word with verbal meaning).
E. Any attribute (expressed by a Full Word) precedes its regens.
F. A pronoun (personal or demonstrative) functioning as attribute follows its
regens. In this case a personal pronoun has possessive meaning.
G. A pronoun functioning as subject follows its predicate.
452 CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
Note: The deictic particles (A) *a- (~ *-) (distant), (B) *i- (~ *e-) (proximate),
and (C) *u- (~ *o-) (intermediate) often combined with other deictic stems,
as follows:
17.7.5. SUMMARY
The following two tables correlate the reconstructions for the Proto-Nostratic first
and second person personal pronoun stems proposed in this book (column A) with
those proposed by Illi-Svity (19711984; also V. Dybo 2004) (column B),
Dolgopolsky (1984, 2005, and to appear) (column C), Greenberg (2000) (column
D), and Kortlandt (2010b/d/e) (column E):
454 CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
A B C D E
1st pers. sg. (active) *mi *mi *mi *m *mi
1st pers. pl. (incl., active) *ma *m *m *me
1st pers. (stative) *ka *k
1st pers. (stative) *a
1st pers. sg. *na *naHe-na, *n
*na
1st pers. pl. (excl., active) *na
*n *n
1st pers. (postnominal) *iya *Hoy
A B C D E
2nd pers. *ti, *ta *-na, *a *[] (> *i) *t *te
2nd pers. *si *si- possessive *[] (> *i) *s
2nd pers. *ni *n
This table correlates the reconstructions for the Proto-Nostratic anaphoric, deictic,
interrogative, relative, and indefinite stems proposed in this book (A) with those
proposed by Illi-Svity (B), Dolgopolsky (C), Greenberg (D), and Kortlandt (E):
A B C D E
Deictic *-gi (~ *-ge) *ge
particle
Deictic *a- (~ *-), *a, *ha, *[h]e, *i ~ *e, *i/*e
particle *i- (~ *e-), *i/*e *[h]i, *[h]u *a ~ *e
*u- (~ *o-)
Deictic *ka- (~ *k-), *[] *ku
particle *ku- (~ *ko-),
*ki- (~ *ke-)
Deictic *ta- (~ *t-), *a * *t *t
particle *tu- (~ *to-),
*ti- (~ *te-)
Deictic *a- (~ *-) *s *s
particle
Anaphoric *si- (~ *se-) * *sE
stem
Anaphoric *na-, *ni- *nE (dual)
stem
Deictic *ta- *BE
particle
Relative *ki- (~ *ke-)
NOSTRATIC MORPHOLOGY II: RECONSTRUCTIONS 455
A B C D E
Interrogative *ka- (~ *k-) *o *o *k *k
Interrogative *ay-, *ya- *ja *ya *j
-relative
Interrogative *mi- *mi *mi *m
Relative *ma-
Interrogative *na- *na *n
-relative
Indefinite *ma-, *mi-, *mu- *mu
Indefinite *di- (~ *de-)
17.8.1. INTRODUCTION
A stem could consist of the unextended root (*CVC-) or the root extended by a
single derivational suffix (*CVC+C-). As noted above, it is necessary to recognize
two distinct periods of development in Proto-Nostratic. In the earliest phase of
development, the relational markers listed below were free relational morphemes
(postpositional particles). In later Proto-Nostratic, however, at least two of them
were well on their way to becoming bound relational morphemes (case suffixes).
As just stated, only the following two bound relational markers (case suffixes)
can be confidently reconstructed for the latest period of Proto-Nostratic: (a) direct
object *-ma, *-na and (b) genitive *-nu. Other case relationships were expressed by
postpositions (see below for a list), some of which developed into bound case
morphemes in the individual daughter languages. This is confirmed by Dravidian,
where only the accusative (*-ay, *-Vn), dative (*-kk-/*-k-), and genitive (*-a, *-in)
can be confidently reconstructed for the Dravidian parent language (cf.
Krishnamurti 2003:227; Steever 1998a:20 [Steever adds nominative *-]). Other
case forms developed within the Dravidian daughter languages (for discussion, cf.
Krishnamurti 2003:227243). Likewise, only the following two grammatical cases
can be reconstructed for Proto-Uralic (cf. Abondolo 1998a:18; Raun 1988:558
559): (a) accusative *-m, which probably was used to mark the definite direct object
of finite verbs, and (b) a subordinate suffix *-n, which functioned as a genitive/
nominalizer with nouns and as an adverb formant with verbs. Abondolo (1998a:18)
further points out that there were also at least three local cases in Proto-Uralic: (a)
locative *-nA, (b) separative *-tA ~ *-tI, and (c) and perhaps the latives *-k (and/or
*-) and *-t (traditional *-) (and/or *-n [traditional *-]). Sinor (1988:714725)
devotes considerable attention to the question of common case markers between
456 CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
Uralic and Altaic. He, too, posits a Proto-Uralic accusative in *-m and a genitive in
*-n. For the former, he notes that nothing comparable can be posited for Proto-
Turkic or Proto-Mongolian, but he does reconstruct a Proto-Tungus accusative *-m,
which is in agreement with what is found in Uralic. The clearest parallels for the
latter are to be found in the Proto-Mongolian genitive *-n (cf. Poppe 1955:187
194) and in the Proto-Turkic genitive *-n (cf. Rna-Tas 1998:73). Poppe (1955:
187194) mentions that the genitive and accusative have converged in some
Mongolian languages. This seems to indicate that Proto-Mongolian may have
preserved the *-n variant accusative form as opposed to the *-m variant found in
Uralic and Tungus. Sinor (1988:715725) also discusses the Uralic and Altaic
parallels between various local cases. Finally, it is worth mentioning here that,
within Afrasian, Zaborski (1990:628) tentatively reconstructs the following case
morphemes for Proto-Omotic: (a) nominative *-i, (b) genitive-instrumental-
directional *-kV, (c) dative *-s, (d) dative-comitative *-rV, (e) accusative *-a and
*-nV, (f) instrumental-locative-directional-dative *-nV, and (g) ablative *-pV.
Zaborski (1990:618) notes that some of these case forms may go back to earlier
postpositions. Parallels with Cushitic show that at least some of these case forms go
back to Proto-Afrasian. Diakonoff (1988:61) notes that the following cases can be
established for Proto-Afrasian with reasonable certainty: (a) *-V, *-V locative-
terminative; (b) *-dV, *-Vd comitative, dative; (c) *-kV ablative and comparative;
(d) *-Vm locative-adverbialis; (e) *-l directive; and (f) *-p (also *-f) ablative (in
Omotic); conjunction, demonstrative pronoun in other languages. The ultimate
Nostratic origin of several of the case forms posited by Zaborski for Proto-Omotic
and by Diakonoff for Proto-Afrasian is completely transparent.
In Proto-Nostratic, adjectives did not exist as a separate grammatical category.
They were differentiated from nouns mainly by syntactical means a noun placed
before another noun functioned as an attribute to the latter. Moreover, they did not
agree with the head noun in number or gender. Caldwell (1913:308318)
describes similar patterning for Dravidian: adjectives have neither number,
gender, nor case, but are mere nouns of relation or quality, which are prefixed
without alternation to substantive nouns. Krishnamurti (2003:389) points out,
however, that not all Dravidian adjectives are of the derived types described by
Caldwell. Krishnamurti considers adjectives to form a separate part of speech in
Dravidian, as does Zvelebil (1977:5969 and 1990:2728), though Zvelebil
mentions the fact that primary, underived adjective stems are statistically very rare
in the Dravidian daughter languages. According to Steever (1998a:19): The
reconstruction of further parts of speech such as adjectives and adverbs to the proto-
language is controversial. While some scholars have projected the category of
adjectives to Proto-Dravidian, many of the candidates for adjectival status appear to
be defective nouns or verbs. Although the scholarly literature speaks of certain
forms as having adjectival function, viz., modifying a nominal, conclusive evidence
that those forms constitute a formally distinct class is largely lacking. Further, none
of the putative adjectives in Dravidian exhibits a comparative or superlative degree.
These degrees are expressed instead by syntactic means As for Elamite,
Khaikjan (1998:17) notes: There was no special class of adjectives in Elamite.
NOSTRATIC MORPHOLOGY II: RECONSTRUCTIONS 457
The mechanism of forming adjectives was the same as that used to express
attributive relationships. According to Diakonoff (1988:57), adjectives did not
form a separate grammatical category in Proto-Afrasian, and this appears to have
been the situation in Proto-Berber (cf. Kossmann 2012:34) and probably Proto-
Cushitic (cf. Mous 2012:359) as well. Likewise in Proto-Uralic (cf. Abondolo
1998a:18): Nouns were probably not morphologically distinct from adjectives in
proto-Uralic, although the distribution of the comparative suffix *=mpV suggests
that an adjective category may have been developing before the breakup of Finno-
Ugric. In later Proto-Indo-European, on the other hand, adjectives formed a
distinct grammatical category, and they agreed with the head noun in number and
gender (for details and examples, cf. Szemernyi 1996:19220; Beekes 1995:
196200 and 2011:219223; Fortson 2010:134136; Meillet 1964:408409;
Meier-Brgger 2003:218223). Adjectives also form a separate part of speech in
the Kartvelian languages. In Turkic, adjectives are not usually clearly distinguished
from nouns morphologically. However, several suffixes are used primarily to form
adjectives. In Modern Mongolian, there is no difference between adjectives and
nouns. A noun placed before another noun functions as an attribute to the latter (cf.
GrnbechKrueger 1993:18). In Gilyak / Nivkh, adjectives do not exist as a
distinct word-class, the semantic function of adjectives being performed by
qualitative verbs (cf. Gruzdeva 1998:16).
The following table correlates the reconstructions for the Proto-Nostratic relational
markers proposed in this book (A) with those proposed by Illi-Svity (B),
Dolgopolsky (C), Greenberg (D), and Kortlandt (E):
A B C D E
Direct object *-ma *-m *-mA *-m *-m
Direct object *-na
Possessive *-nu *-n *-nu *-n *-n
458 CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
A B C D E
Possessive *-lV *-l
Dative *-na *-nV
Directive *-ka *- *-K *-ka *-ka
[= *- ?] Dative Dative
Directive(-locative) *-ri *-ru *-rV
Locative *-ni *-na *-n *-nV
Locative, instr.-comit. *-ma *-m
Locative *-bi *-bh-
Locative *-i *-i
Comitative-locative *-da *-da *-d[E]Ha *-ta *-du, *-da
Loc. Locative (Altaic)
Oblique *-ta *-t *-ta *-t
Instr. Ablative Ablative
Dual: *ki(-nV)
Plural: *-ta
Plural: *-ri
Plural: *-ku
Plural (Eurasiatic only): *-sV
Plural/collective: *-la
Plural: *-nV
The following table correlates the reconstructions for the Proto-Nostratic dual and
plural markers proposed in this book (A) with proposed by Illi-Svity (B),
Dolgopolsky (C), Greenberg (D), and Kortlandt (E):
A B C D E
Dual *ki(-nV) *-" *ki[n] *-ki
Plural *-ta *-t *-t *-t *-t
Plural *-ri *-r[i] *-ri
Plural *-ku *-kU *-ku
Plural (Eurasiatic only) *-sV *-s
Plural/collective *-la *-lA *-A *-l
Plural *-nV *-nA *-n[] *-n
Nominalizer: *-r-
Nominalizer: *-m-
Nominalizer: *-y-
Nominalizer: *-t-
NOSTRATIC MORPHOLOGY II: RECONSTRUCTIONS 459
Nominalizer: *-n-
Nominalizer: *-l-
Nominalizer: *-k-
Nominalizer: *-k-
In an important study, Leonid Kulikov (2009) discusses the various ways in which
new cases can arise; specifically, he lists five main mechanisms (2009:439):
New cases may arise (i) by adding adverbs, postpositions, and (rarely)
prepositions (see section 28.1.1); (ii) by adding existing case markers to other
case forms, which results in multilayer case marking (see 28.1.2); (iii) from
demonstrative pronouns or articles (see 28.1.4). New case forms may also go
back to (iv) denominal adjectives and adverbials incorporated into the case
paradigm (see 28.1.3). An important mechanism of the rise of new case(s) is
(v) splitting of one case into two by borrowing of a new case marker from a
different declension type (see 28.1.5).
These were the very mechanisms that were at work in the development of the case
systems found in the various Nostratic daughter languages. Here, we may cite the
paper entitled Indo-European Nominal Inflection in Nostratic Perspective (2014)
by Vclav Blaek, in which he shows that the same mechanisms were at work in the
prehistoric development of the Proto-Indo-European case system (2014:35):
As far back as 1958, Winfred P. Lehmann had proposed a similar model regarding
the early development of the Proto-Indo-European case system.
460 CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
Nominative *-
Accusative *-m
Genitive *-n
Dative-Lative *-nV (palatalized *-n followed by a front vowel)
Locative *-na
Ablative *-ta and *-a
Kerns believes that the above endings, with a few reservations, can also be
attributed to Proto-Nostratic (here, I would substitute Proto-Eurasiatic for his
Proto-Nostratic Kerns himself uses Eurasiatic in his 1985 book Indo-
European Prehistory). According to Abondolo (1998a:18), there were at least two
grammatical cases in Proto-Uralic: an accusative *-m and a subordinate suffix *-n,
which functioned as a genitive/pronominalizer. There were at least three local cases
as well: a locative *-nA, a separative *tA ~ *tI, and perhaps the latives *-k (and/or
*-) and *-t (and/or *n).
At this point, it is interesting to compare the case endings (properly, tightly
bound postpositions) reconstructed for Proto-Dravidian by Zvelebil (1977:33) (see
also Krishnamurti 2003:217243; Steever 1998a:2021; Caldwell 1913:252
308 Caldwell also notes parallels with Uralic):
Nominative *-
Accusative *-(V)n
Adessive/ *-kk
Purposive (Dative) (?)
Genitives:
1. Possessive *-a
2. Adnominal *-in
3. Oblique/Locative *-t
The so-called cases in both Elamite and Dravidian are merely tightly bound
postpositions with no immediately available lexical source.
When this occurs it invariably precedes the specific indicator. In certain cases it
has also spread to the nominative.
17.9.1. INTRODUCTION
In Proto-Nostratic, verbs fell into two types of construction: (1) active and (2)
stative. In active constructions, which usually involved transitive verbs, the
grammatical subject of the verb represented the agent performing the action, and the
direct object represented the patient, or recipient, of the action (cf. Trask 1993:5).
Stative constructions, on the other hand, expressed a state of affairs, rather than an
event (cf. Trask 1993:259). Verbs expressed aspectual contrasts rather than
temporal contrasts. Tense relates the time of the situation referred to to some other
time, usually to the moment of speaking (cf. Comrie 1976:12), while aspect
marks the duration or type of temporal activity denoted by the verb (cf. Crystal
1992:29; Comrie 1976:3). Proto-Nostratic had two aspects: (a) perfective (past) and
(b) imperfective (non-past). Here, we may note that Diakonoff (1988:85) posits two
aspects for the earliest form of Proto-Afrasian: (a) punctive (instantaneous) and (b)
durative (protracted, or continuous). He assumes that these later developed into
perfective and imperfective aspects and then, eventually, in the individual Afrasian
daughter languages, into past and present-future tenses. He does not posit tenses for
the Afrasian parent language. Proto-Nostratic had, at the very least, the following
moods: (a) indicative; (b) imperative; (c) conditional; (d) inchoative; (e) hortatory-
precative; and (f) prohibitive. In addition to a causative marker *-sV, there may also
have been valency-changing markers.
The overall structure of verbs was as follows:
A stem could consist of the unextended root or the root extended by a single
derivational suffix (preceded, as indicated above, by a formative vowel). The
position of the number marker seems to have been flexible it could also be
placed before the person marker. Gender was not marked. There were no prefixes in
Proto-Nostratic. We may note here that Krishnamurti (2003:279 and 312) posits the
following structure for verbs in Proto-Dravidian:
Paper (1955:44) analyzes the Royal Achaemenid Elamite verb structure as follows:
1 2 3 4 5
Verb base + stem vowel + tempus + person + mode
464 CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
Stative verbs were indifferent to number and, therefore, had no plural forms. They
also had a special set of person markers different from those of active verbs:
Active Stative
Person Singular Plural Singular only
1 *-mi *-ma (inclusive) (+ plural marker) *-ka
*-na *-na (exclusive) (+ plural marker) *-a
2 *-ti *-ti (+ plural marker) *-ti
*-si
*-ni
3 *-a (~ *-) *-a (~ *-) (+ plural marker) *-
*-na, *-ni *-na, *-ni (+ plural marker)
The following non-finite verb forms are widespread enough in the Nostratic
daughter languages to guarantee their common origin, and, consequently, they are
listed separately here. However, at the Proto-Nostratic level, they were
indistinguishable from the nominalizing suffixes listed above.
Participle: *-n-
Participle: *-t-
Gerundive-participle: *-l-
The following table correlates the reconstructions for the Proto-Nostratic non-finite
verb forms proposed in this book (A) with those proposed by Illi-Svity (B),
Dolgopolsky (C), Greenberg (D), and Kortlandt (E):
A B C D E
Participle *-n- *n *n *n
Participle *-t- * *t *t
Gerundive-participle *-l- *l *l
Note: Greenberg (2000:182186, no. 44) also posits a participle in *-nt- for Proto-
Eurasiatic on the basis of reflexes found in Indo-European, Finno-Ugrian,
and Gilyak / Nivkh. However, this is best seen as a compound suffix: *-n- +
*-t-.
NOSTRATIC MORPHOLOGY II: RECONSTRUCTIONS 465
Indicative: unmarked
Imperative: *-ka, *-ki, *-ku; *-a, *-i, *-u
Conditional: *-ba
Hortatory-precative: *-li
Inchoative: *-na
Note: The bare stem could also serve as imperative, in which case the vowels *-a,
*-i, or *-u were added to the stem. These were different than the formative
vowels (aspect markers) previously discussed. Ultimately, they may go back
to the deictic particles (A) *a- (~ *-) (distant), (B) *i- (~ *e-)
(proximate), and (C) *u- (~ *o-) (intermediate).
The following table correlates the reconstructions for the Proto-Nostratic mood
markers proposed in this book (A) with those proposed by Illi-Svity (B),
Dolgopolsky (C), Greenberg (D), and Kortlandt (E):
A B C D E
Imperative *-ka, *-ki, *-ku *k ~ *g *ka
Conditional *-ba *p
Hortatory-precative *-li *l
Inchoative *-na
Causative: *-sV
The following table correlates the reconstruction for the Proto-Nostratic causative
marker proposed in this book (A) with that proposed by Illi-Svity (B),
Dolgopolsky (C), Greenberg (D), and Kortlandt (E):
A B C D E
Causative *-sV *s
European may have been as follows (cf. Bomhard 1988; see also Villar 1991:244
252; for details, cf. Chapters 18 and 19 of this book):
This earlier system may be partially preserved in Tocharian A, where the athematic
endings are as follows:
Note: There are phonological problems with the 3rd singular ending -() in
Tocharian had this been inherited directly from Proto-Indo-European *-si,
we would expect -()s, not -(). The best explanation is that of Pedersen,
who derived this ending from an enclitic *se-.
Traces of the earlier system are also found in the Anatolian languages. Note, for
example, the Hittite 2nd singular active preterite ending -ta.
Now compare the following system of personal endings, which are assumed to
have existed in Proto-Uralic (cf. Hajd 1972:40 and 4345; Cavoto 1998:127;
Collinder 1965:134135; Dcsy 1990:6668; Sinor 1988:725):
Traces of these endings are found in the Altaic languages as well. Sinor (1988:725)
reconstructs the following possessive suffixes for Proto-Turkic and Proto-Tungus:
Proto-Turkic:
Proto-Tungus:
It may be noted here that Common Mongolian did not have special verbal endings
to indicate person or number. However, at a later date, personal pronouns were
added enclitically to the verbal forms (cf. Poppe 1955:251).
In an unpublished paper entitled Cross-Bering Comparisons, Stefan Georg
lists the following possessor suffixes in Uralo-Eskimo, Samoyed, and Eskimo-
Aleut (see also Seefloth 2000):
The personal endings survive in Elamite as well, especially in the 2nd and 3rd
persons (by the way, the Elamite 1st singular ending, -h, is, of course, related to the
1st singular perfect ending *-e of traditional Proto-Indo-European, which is
found, for example, in Luwian in the 1st singular preterite ending -a, in Hittite in
the 1st singular ending -i, and in Greek in the 1st singular perfect ending -; this
ending may also be related to the Proto-Kartvelian 1st person personal prefix of the
subject series, *xw- [GamkrelidzeMaavariani 1982:85 reconstruct *w- here,
however], as suggested by Ivanov and Palmaitis) compare, for example, the
conjugation of hutta- to do, to make from Middle Elamite (cf. Reiner 1969:76;
Grillot-Susini 1987:33):
Traces of the 2nd singular ending are also found in Dravidian McAlpin
(1981:120) reconstructs Proto-Elamo-Dravidian 2nd person ending *-ti (> Proto-
Elamite *-t, Proto-Dravidian *-ti). This is a significant archaism, since it bears no
apparent resemblance to the common Elamo-Dravidian 2nd person personal
468 CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
pronoun stem, which McAlpin (1981:114115) reconstructs as *ni and which may
be an innovation (cf. Dolgopolsky 1984:8788 and 100; Dolgopolsky posits
Proto-Elamo-Dravidian *nn, which he derives from *n through assimilation),
though Greenberg (2000:7677) discusses the possibility that there may have been
a second person pronoun stem *nV in Eurasiatic.
Traces of these endings are also found within Afrasian in Highland East
Cushitic, where the suffixes of the simple perfect in Gedeo / Darasa, Hadiyya,
Kambata, and Sidamo are as follows (cf. Hudson 1976:263264):
While the suffixes of the present perfect in Hadiyya, Kambata, and Sidamo are as
follows (cf. Hudson 1976:264265):
The suffixes of the subordinate conjugation in Kambata and Sidamo are as follows
(cf. Hudson 1976:270):
Finally, Bender (2000:202) lists the following verbal affixes in the ta/ne (TN)
branch of Omotic:
The 1st person possessive suffix in *-m was thus common to Indo-European, part of
Afrasian (Highland East Cushitic), Uralic, and, within Altaic, Turkic and Tungus,
while the 2nd person in *-t was common to Indo-European, Uralic, Tungus, Elamo-
Dravidian, and Afrasian, and the 3rd person in *-s was common to Indo-European,
Uralic, Turkic, Elamite, and Kartvelian (cf. Old Georgian cer-s writes). The 3rd
singular possessive suffix was *-n in Proto-Tungus, and this mirrors what is found
in the 3rd plural in Indo-European and Kartvelian (cf. Old Georgian 3rd plural
suffix -en in, for example, cer-en they write, Mingrelian 3rd plural suffix -an, -a,
-n, Laz 3rd plural suffix an, -n), in Berber (cf. Kossmann 2012:4447) and Beja /
Beawye (cf. Appleyard 2007a:467), and partially in the 3rd singular and plural
suffixes and Highland East Cushitic, with traces in Omotic (see above) and perhaps
Semitic (R. Stempel [1999:105106] takes the 3rd plural froms in *-n(a) to be late
formations taken over from the 2nd plural, while Moscati [1964:140] suggests that
they are due to analogy with certain personal pronouns) there is also a parallel
here in Sumerian (see Chapter 15). As noted by Fortescue (1998:99), it is also
found in Chukchi-Kamchatkan:
Within Indo-European, the 2nd singular ending *-t is preserved in Hittite and
Tocharian. This was later replaced by what had been the 3rd singular, namely, *-s.
In his 1962 book entitled Indo-European Origins of the Celtic Verb. I: The Sigmatic
Aorist, Calvert Watkins discusses the extensive evidence from the Indo-European
daughter languages for an original 3rd singular ending in *-s. It was Watkins who
also showed that the 3rd singular indicative was originally characterized by the
fundamental ending zero. The *-n- found in the 3rd plural was a relic of the 3rd
person ending found in Tungus, Kartvelian, and Sumerian. The development of the
3rd singular ending *-t was a later change, though this still occurred fairly early
since it is found in Hittite and the other Anatolian daughter languages this *-t
was added to the 3rd plural ending *-n- at the same time, yielding the new ending
*-nt-. This *-t probably had the same origin as the 3rd singular possessive suffix
*-t found in Ugric and some of the Samoyed languages on the one hand and in the
Proto-Tungus 3rd plural possessive suffix *-t on the other (cf. Sinor 1988:727
728). It is also found in Berber (cf. Tuareg 3rd person pronominal affix: [m. sg.] -t,
[f. sg.] -tt; [m. pl.] -tn, [f. pl.] -tnt). The most recent change must have been the
NOSTRATIC MORPHOLOGY II: RECONSTRUCTIONS 471
development of the so-called primary endings, which were built upon the so-
called secondary endings by the addition of the deictic particle *-i meaning here
and now, as shown by Kerns and Schwartz in their book on Indo-European verb
morphology (1972:4). It may be mentioned that this deictic particle had a Nostratic
origin, coming from a widely-represented proximate demonstrative stem meaning
this one here.
Now, Proto-Uralic is assumed to have had two conjugational types (cf. Hajd
1972:4344; Collinder 1960:308): (A) a determinative (objective) conjugation,
which was characterized by the 3rd singular in *-s and which was used with
transitive verbs, and (B) an indeterminative (subjective) conjugation, which was
characterized by the 3rd singular in zero and which was used with intransitive
verbs. The same two conjugational types existed in Proto-Indo-European, except
that the contrast was between active and stative. Indeed, the active ~ stative contrast
appears to be the more ancient in both Proto-Uralic and Proto-Indo-European.
After all of the changes described above had taken place, the resulting Proto-
Indo-European athematic endings were as follows (cf. Brugmann 1904:588594;
Beekes 1995:232233; Burrow 1973:306319; Szemernyi 1990:356357 and
1996:327; Fortson 2004:8485; Clackson 2007:123125; Shields 1992; Meillet
1964:227232; Watkins 1998:60; Meier-Brgger 2003:178; Sihler 1995:454;
Adrados 1974.II:619663; Ringe 2006:31):
Note: The 1st person plural endings have different extensions in the various daughter
languages: *-me-s(i), *-mo-s(i), *-me-n(i), *-mo-n(i). In these endings, the
plural markers *-s and *-n have been added to *-me/*-mo. It may be noted
that the plural marker *-n is also found in Tungus in Evenki, Even, Solon,
Negidal, for example, the 2nd plural possessive suffix is made up of the 2nd
singular possessive suffix plus the plural marker *-n (cf. Sinor 1988:727).
In volume 1, Grammar, of his book Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives: The
Eurasiatic Language Family, Greenberg (2000:67) discusses the evidence for a
Eurasiatic first-person singular pronoun stem *k. He writes:
Less widely distributed than m for the first-person singular is k. Wherever they
both appear, the general contrast is m as ergative versus absolutive k, m as
active versus middle or passive k, and m as active versus stative k. I am
inclined to believe that this last contrast is the basic one from which the others
developed. A contrast of this kind between m and k seems to be attested only in
the first-person singular.
472 CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
Over the past quarter century or so, several scholars have tried to show that Indo-
European is to be reconstructed as an active language (for a brief discussion, cf.
Schwink 1994:8687 and 89110; see also Lehmann 2002). Indeed, such an
interpretation seems to clarify many problems in the early dialects. According to
this interpretation, the so-called perfect of traditional Indo-European is seen as
originally stative (cf. Lehmann 1993:218 and 2002:169172; see Chapters 18 and
19 for details). Comparison with other Nostratic languages allows us to confirm this
view.
The perfect reconstructed by the Neogrammarians for Proto-Indo-European
was distinguished from the present and aorist by a unique set of personal endings in
the indicative, namely, first person singular *-a (cf. Sanskrit vd-a I know,
Greek -, Gothic wait), second person singular *-ta (cf. Sanskrit vt-tha you
know, Greek -, and Gothic waist), third person singular *-e (cf. Greek -
he/she knows, Sanskrit vd-a, and Gothic wait). Except for Armenian and Balto-
Slavic, the perfect remained in all branches. It was least changed in Indo-Iranian,
Celtic, and Germanic. In Greek, however, it was mixed up with a -formation and,
in Italic, with a whole series of non-perfect tense forms. According to Greenberg,
the perfect of traditional comparative grammar was originally stative in Proto-Indo-
European, and, as noted above, others have recently made similar assertions. Sihler
(1995:564590) gives an excellent overview of the stative in Indo-European.
Now, Greek has a unique formation, the so-called -perfect. However, this
formation arose exclusively within prehistoric Greek. It is already found, to a
limited extent, in Homer and in the earliest records of other dialects. In Homer, the
formation is found in some 20 roots, all ending in a long vowel, and, in all of them,
the -stem is virtually limited to the singular stems which actually contain a long
vowel. Later, the formation spread to other stems ending in a long vowel, then to
stems ending in any vowel (including denominatives), and finally to stems ending
in consonants, and to all persons and numbers. Thus, it is clear that we are dealing
with developments specific to Greek itself. For a discussion of the Greek perfect, cf.
Chantraine 1927; see also KernsSchwartz 1972:14.
In Latin, we find first singular perfect forms fc I did and ic I threw. As
in Greek, the -c- [k] is found in all persons (cf. third singular fecit), and, as in
Greek, the -c- [k] has given rise to secondary formations (such as faci and iaci,
for example).
The -k- forms are also found in Tocharian, as in first singular preterite active
tk- I was, and, as in Greek and Latin, the -k- is found in all persons and has
given rise to secondary formations. Van Windekens (19761982.I:495496) goes
so far as to posit Proto-Indo-European *dhq-, *dhq- as the source of Tocharian
tk- I was.
On the basis of the evidence from Greek, Latin, and Tocharian, we may assume
that a suffix *-k- is to be reconstructed for late-stage Proto-Indo-European, that
is, what I refer to as Disintegrating Indo-European. This suffix originally had a
very limited distribution it seems to have appeared only in the perfect singular of
verbs that ended in a long vowel, when the long vowel originated from earlier short
vowel plus laryngeal. All of the other formations found in Greek, Italic, and
NOSTRATIC MORPHOLOGY II: RECONSTRUCTIONS 473
Tocharian are secondary elaborations. But, we can go back even farther we can
speculate that the -k- originally characterized the first person exclusively, from
which it spread to other persons. This suggestion is not new. Sturtevant (1942:87
88) suggested that *-k- developed in the first person singular when a root-final
laryngeal was followed by the ending *-xe (that is, *-e [Kuryowicz would write
*-e]). Though a laryngeal explanation along these lines has not been generally
accepted (cf. Messing 1947:202203), the suggestion that the -k- was originally
confined to the first person singular is still a viable hypothesis, especially in view of
the evidence from other Nostratic languages. Thus, both in function and form, the
first singular *-k- ending would belong with the Eurasiatic first person singular
pronoun stem *k reconstructed by Greenberg. It should be noted that this
explanation is different than that given by Greenberg, who compares the Proto-
Indo-European first person perfect (stative) ending *-Ha with the *-k- endings
found in the other Eurasiatic languages. On purely phonological grounds, I find
Greenbergs proposal less convincing than the alternative suggested here.
Moreover, the first person perfect ending *-Ha has a exact match in Elamite (see
above), which clearly shows that it was inherited from Proto-Nostratic and, thus,
not related to the *-k- endings under discussion here.
Note: The CVC- root structure patterning of some of these forms points to their
ultimate nominal or verbal origin. For example, the negative particle *al- (~
*l-) must ultimately have been a negative verb stem meaning to be not so-
and-so, as in its Dravidian derivatives, while *in- (~ *en-), *(-)ni was
originally a nominal stem meaning place, location (cf. Dolgopolsky to
appear, no. 45, *in[A] place [(in descendant languages) in]).
474 CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
Illi-Svity never published his views on Nostratic morphology during his lifetime.
However, his notes were gathered together and published by Vladimir Dybo in
2004 in the proceedings of the Pcs Centennial Conference, edited by Irn Hegeds
and Paul Sidwell. According to Illi-Svity, Proto-Nostratic was an inflected
language, apparently of the accusative type. It had both nouns and adjectives.
Nominal declension was only available in the singular. Adjectives were declined
only if they were substantivized and used independently. Illi-Svity reconstructs
the nominal paradigm as follows:
Only the first and second person singular and plural pronouns were represented in
these four types.
Illi-Svity reconstructs the following stems for these types:
4. Possessive forms:
Illi-Svity also posits the following demonstrative stems (fulfilling the function of
3rd person pronouns): *a-, *-, *mu-; the following interrogative stems: *o
who?, *mi what?; and the following interrogative-relative stems: *ja, *na (?).
Illi-Svitys views on verb morphology were not as well developed. He
reconstructs an imperative as well as the following two opposing verb categories:
(1) The first designated the action itself (transferred to the object in the case of
transitive verbs). This was used with the subject pronoun and (in the case of
transitive verbs) with the object pronoun. Here, the nominal direct object was the
marked form, and the verb stem coincided with the infinitive. (2) The other verb
form was a derived noun ending in *-a. It indicated the state of the subject. If the
verb were transitive, it contained only the prefix of the subject, and, in this case, the
object noun could not be marked and thus always appeared in the subjective-
objective case. Finally, Illi-Svity suggests that there existed a temporal (or
aspectual) distinction between these two basic verb categories, which was probably
realized with the help of deictic particles of pronominal origin.
1. *mi I
2. *{} (> *i) and its assibilated variant *{} (> *i) thou
3. *Hoy (= *hoy ?) by me, my
4. *n|{} pronoun of collectivity and plurality (see above)
5. *n|ai to go ( to go to do something)
6. *c |ci, * \i, or * \i marker of verbal frequentativity/iterativity
7. *{s }Ew[0] to want, to beg ( desiderative)
8. *H{e} to make (> causitivizing morpheme)
9. *SuwY to push, to cause ( to ask for, causative)
10. *t{a}w head ( oneself)
11. *woy[]E ~ *wo[]yE power, ability
12. *me[y]n U oneself, ones own; body
But we cannot say the same about those elements of roots that are called
Wurzelerweiterungen, Wurzeldeterminative, root extensions, largisse-
ments, that is of those parts of roots of daughter languages (mostly root-final
consonants) that are added or alternate without clear-cut and regular change of
meaning. Some of them are probably explainable by lexical interaction of roots
(Reimbildungen, influence of synonymic roots, etc.), but we cannot rule out the
possibility that some of them reflect ancient (synthetic?) derivation. In order to
elucidate this matter we need a systematic comparative investigation of all
these root extensions [the extant literature (Persson 1901 for Indo-European,
Hurwitz 1913 and Ehret 1989 for Semitic) has not produced satisfactory
results, probably because each scholar worked with one daughter-family only
480 CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
Unfortunately, Dolgopolsky gives far too much weight to later stage branches such
as Uralic and Altaic, and his reconstructions, consequently, are, for the most part,
more applicable to Eurasiatic than to Nostratic. The same is true for Illi-Svity.
At the end of his paper Nostratic and Sino-Caucasian, Sergej Starostin (1989:
6465) compares various Proto-Nostratic pronouns and particles with Proto-Sino-
Caucasian. Though it is beyond the scope of this book to discuss the merits or
demerits of the Sino-Caucasian hypothesis, it is worth repeating Starostins list,
leaving out the Sino-Caucasian data he cites. Curiously, even though he specifically
rejects (1989:4546) my revision of the Proto-Nostratic phonological system and
the sound correspondences that are used as the basis for that revision, it is my
reconstructions that Starostin uses for the Proto-Nostratic stops as opposed to the
reconstructions of Illi-Svity and Dolgopolsky. Here is his list (my reconstructions
are given in a separate column for comparison, together with the number of each
item as it appears in Chapter 16 of this book):
In this chapter, an attempt has been made to show that Proto-Nostratic exhibited
many of the characteristics of an active-stative language. One of the objections that
has been raised against this view is the alleged comparative rarity of active-stative
languages in Eurasia. This problem has been admirably dealt with by Johanna
Nichols in her 2008 paper entitled Why are Stative-Active Languages Rare in
Eurasia? A Typological Perspective on Split-Subject Marking, and it is well worth
repeating her conclusions (2008:134):
Why are stative-active languages rare in Eurasia? On the basis of what has
been argued here, three different answers might be given to this question. The
first is that they are not in fact rare in Eurasia; S.g and S.poss, which are
variants or counterparts or allo-codings of S.o, are common in Eurasia, where
they take the form of dative experiencer subjects.
A different, narrower answer can be given using the classical definition of
stative-active and excluding S.g marking: they are rare in Eurasia because
primary object alignment is rare there.
A third answer would be that they are only rare in northern Eurasia. S.g
coding of experiencer subjects is common across southern Eurasia from the
Pyrenees through the Caucasus to the Himalayas and South Asia. There is a
northward extension in the form of Germanic and Balto-Slavic, but the north
central and northeast of Eurasia (including Siberia, Manchuria, Mongolia, and
Central Asia) is almost entirely lacking in oblique subject marking of any kind.
features that pattern with one another but are not logically or typologically
connected. These include features of the phonology, systems of nominal and
verbal morphology, and the syntax of the simple and complex sentence. With
regards to nominal morphology, two characteristic features of case systems
commonly attested in the languages of Siberia were discussed in some detail
above. These include on the one hand, an opposition between dative and
allative case forms, and on the other, a formal contrast between instrumental
and comitative case functions.
In the first instance (the dative: allative opposition), the feature primarily
clusters around languages that have had significant and prolonged interaction
with Tungusic languages (except Turkic, where the opposition is clearly old).
In the case of the instrumental: comitative opposition, the directions of
influence are more complex. Some groups clearly reflect an old opposition
(Yukaghiric, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, Mongolic). With others (e.g. Tungusic,
Turkic, Ob-Ugric) the situation is less clear. Northern Tungusic languages
might reflect Chukotko-Kamchatkan influence, but Yukaghiric influence is
perhaps more likely in this instance (large numbers of Yukaghiric speakers
shifted to Northern Tungusic). The northeastern Turkic varieties on the other
hand may well reflect secondary and later Northern Tungusic influence, albeit
reinforcing a potentially archaic contrast. The situation with the western and
central Siberian languages is also not clear at present. Ob-Ugric seems to have
innovated this contrast fairly early, at the proto-language level; however, its
trigger is currently opaque. Selkup is even more confusing as the opposition is
quite recent, and Khanty influence is possible as an explanation, but this is far
from certain.
As is probably obvious from the present discussion, the features of the
Siberian linguistic macro-area cluster around those of the Northern Tungusic
languages and this is not by accident. Indeed, the highly mobile Evenki (and to
a lesser degree its sister language Even) have both the local bilingualism
relationships and wide-spread distribution necessary to make them likely
vectors of diffusion for at least certain of these features, whether they be older
Tungusic features (the dative: allative contrast) or seemingly later innovations
(the instrumental: comitative opposition). However, Tungusic > non-Tungusic
is in no sense the only direction of influence apparent in these developments,
but rather one in a highly complex mosaic of linguistic interactions operative
over centuries and millennia across the languages of the macro-region. To be
sure, an understanding and elucidation of the multifaceted dynamics of
diffusion and borrowing evidenced by the distribution of these and numerous
other potential areal features unfortunately still remain in their infancy. Further
insights into the complex histories of the case systems and other features of the
languages of the Siberian linguistic area must await future research.
NOSTRATIC MORPHOLOGY II: RECONSTRUCTIONS 483
APPENDIX:
FROM PROTO-NOSTRATIC TO PROTO-AFRASIAN:
PRELIMINARY THOUGHTS
Masculine Feminine
Note: The absolute case is not to be confused with the absolutive case of
ergative languages. It is a translation of Italian forma assoluta first used
by Moreno in 1935 (cf. Mous 2012:369).
Sasse notes:
Thus, the feminine forms reconstructed for Proto-East Cushitic by Sasse are to
be derived from the *-a found in the masculine absolute. This must have been
the oldest patterning, and, inasmuch as there are traces of this patterning in
Berber and Semitic, it must ultimately go back to Proto-Afrasian. Once the
category of gender was firmly established in Afrasian, the individual daughter
languages exploited other means to indicate the feminine, such as, for example,
the formant *-t-. For more information on how the category of gender is treated
in the various branches, cf. especially D. Cohen (ed.) 1988 and Fajzyngier
Shay (eds.) 2012.
Singular Plural
1 *V- *nV+Plural
2 *tV- *tV+Plural
3 *sV- *sV+Plural
Notes:
1. The first and second person forms were exactly as given above for the
prefix conjugation personal prefixes, except that the third person prefix
was based upon the stem *yV-. This is an important piece of information,
for it allows us to ascertain what the most archaic forms of the personal
pronouns may have been and to speculate about their later development.
2. In Omotic, the first person is built upon the stem *ta- and the second upon
the stem *ne- (cf. Welaitta 1st sg. subject ta-ni, 2nd sg. subject ne-ni).
NOSTRATIC MORPHOLOGY II: RECONSTRUCTIONS 485
It should be noted that the first person singular and plural were originally two
distinct stems. The first innovation was the combining of the two first person
stems into a new compound form:
Singular Plural
1 *V+nV- *V+nV+Plural
2 *tV- *tV+Plural
3 *sV- *sV+Plural
Then, *V- was extended to the second and third person forms in imitation of
the first person forms:
Singular Plural
1 *V+nV- *V+nV+Plural
2 *V+tV- *V+tV+Plural
3 *V+sV- *V+sV+Plural
Next, *-n- was angalogically inserted into the second person forms on the basis
of the first person forms:
Singular Plural
1 *V+nV- *V+nV+Plural
2 *V+n+tV- *V+n+tV+Plural
3 *V+sV- *V+sV+Plural
Singular Plural
1 *V- *nV-
2 *tV- *tV-
3 (m.) *yV- *yV-
(f.) *t-
Note: Masculine and feminine are not distinguished in the 3rd plural.
It is instantly obvious that these prefixes are based upon earlier Proto-Nostratic
pronominal elements. It should be noted here that Banti (2004:40) reconstructs
a nearly identical set of forms for the Proto-Cushitic suffix conjugation (SC1):
Singular Plural
Notes:
1. The 2nd and 3rd plural forms contain the plural marker *-n (see Chapter
16, 16.26). Similar forms are found in several Indo-European daughter
languages (for example, Hittite and Greek).
2. Masculine and feminine are not distinguished in the 3rd plural.
NOSTRATIC MORPHOLOGY II: RECONSTRUCTIONS 487
Singular Plural
1 *a- *ni-
2 (m.) *ta- *ti- -
2 (f.) *ta- -t *ti- -
3 (m.) *ya- *yi- -
3 (f.) *ta- *yi- -
Beja / Beawye has the following personal prefixes (cf. Appleyard 2007a:467):
Singular Plural
Note: Masculine and feminine are not distinguished in the 2nd and 3rd plural.
At this stage, the vowel of the first syllable was stable, while that of the second
syllable changed as indicated above.
The innovation that led to the rise of apophony was the modification of the
vowel of the first syllable to indicate different morphological functions in
imitation of the patterning of the second syllable. A repercussion of the rise of
apophony was the need to bring all verbal roots into conformity with the
triconsonantal scheme, at the expense of other root types. The reason for this
was that the emerging apophonic patterning could only function properly
within the context of a fairly rigid structure. This system became so tightly
integrated that it was, for all practical purposes, impervious to further change.
Even to the present day, the verbal patterning is highly homologous among the
Semitic daughter languages. For details, see especially Diakonoff 1988:85
110, Kuryowicz 1962, Rubio 2005, and A. K. Simpson 2009. Rssler 1981 is
also of interest.
5. STATE: Proto-Semitic nouns had two distinct forms, depending upon their
syntactic function: (1) construct state; (2) free state (additional states developed
in the daughter languages). The construct state was used when a noun governed
a following element. It had no special marker and was the unmarked form. The
free state was used elsewhere and was the marked form. It was indicated by the
markers *-m(a)/*-n(a), which were appended after the case endings (cf. Rubin
2010:3840). Ultimately, these markers had the same origin as the relational
markers *-ma and *-na, which were originally used to mark the direct object of
transitive verbs as well as the subject in stative constructions (see above, 17.5;
see also Michalove 2002a:94, note 2; Blaek 2014:28; Del Olmo Lete 2008). In
Proto-Semitic, they were reinterpreted as markers of the free state.
CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN MORPHOLOGY I:
TRADITIONAL RECONSTRUCTION
18.1. INTRODUCTION
In this chapter, we will discuss traditional views on the reconstruction of the Proto-
Indo-European morphological system. Several topics, such as root structure
patterning, accentuation, and ablaut, have already been discussed in the chapters on
phonology some of that material will be repeated in this chapter. The next
chapter will focus on an investigation of the possible prehistoric development of
Proto-Indo-European morphology.
The traditional reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European morphological
structure represents the stage of development just before the emergence of the
individual daughter branches. Prior to the discovery of Hittite and the other Indo-
European languages of ancient Anatolia, the morphological system that was
assumed to have existed in the Indo-European parent language closely resembled
that of Classical Sanskrit and Ancient Greek. As the Hittite material began to be
taken into consideration, the earlier views had to be modified, and many points are
still being debated.
Morphologically, Proto-Indo-European was a highly inflected language
except for particles, conjunctions, and certain quasi-adverbial forms, all words were
inflected. The basic structure of inflected words was as follows: root + suffix (one
or more) + inflectional ending (see below for details). A notable morphophonemic
characteristic was the extensive use of a system of vocalic alternations (Ablaut in
German) as a means to mark morphological distinctions. Verbs were strongly
differentiated from nouns. For nouns and adjectives, three genders, three numbers,
and as many as eight cases have been reconstructed (mainly on the basis of what is
found in Classical Sanskrit), though it is doubtful that all of these features were
ancient it is indeed possible to discern several chronological layers of
development. The traditional reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European verbal
system sets up two voices, four moods, and as many as six tenses. Syntactically,
Proto-Indo-European seems to have had many of the characteristics of an SOV
language, though there must, no doubt, have been a great deal of flexibility in basic
word order patterning. For details on Proto-Indo-European syntax, cf. Brugmann
1904:623705; Clackson 2007:157186; Fortson 2004:137152 and 2010:
152169; Paul Friedrich 1975; Lehmann 1975, 1993:187207, and 2002:100
133; Meier-Brgger 2003:238276 (by Matthias Fritz); Watkins 1977.
490 CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
the root is the part of the word (it is a question of only the simple word)
made up of (1) the initial consonant or consonantal group, (2) the fundamental
vowel, (3) the final consonant or consonantal group. The final group can
consist of no more than two consonantal elements, the first of which has
greater syllabicity than the second. In other words, the first consonantal
element is i , u , r, l, n, m, while the second is a consonant in the strictest sense
of the term: stop, s, or laryngeal (, , ).
Fortson (2004:71) also points out that a small number of roots began with a cluster
consisting of two stops; he cites the following examples:
A careful analysis of the root structure patterning led Benveniste to the discovery of
the basic laws governing that patterning. According to Benveniste (1935:170
171), these laws may be stated as follows (see also Lehmann 1952:1718):
The following examples may be given to illustrate this patterning (cf. Benveniste
1935:151, 152, and 161; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1995.I:194201; Lehmann 1952:
17):
When used as a verbal stem, Type 1 could undergo no further extension. However,
Type 2 could be further extended by means of a determinative (also called
extension or enlargement). Further addition of a determinative or suffixes pointed to
a nominal stem (cf. Benveniste 1935:171; Lehmann 1952:17). According to
Benveniste (1935:148), a suffix was characterized by two alternating forms (*-et-/*-t-,
*-en-/*-n-, *-ek-/*-k-, etc.), while a determinative was characterized by a fixed
consonantal form (*-t-, *-n-, *-k-, etc.). Benveniste further (1935:164) notes:
in the numerous cases where the initial [consonant group has been
reconstructed in the shape] *(s)k-, *(s)t-, *(s)p-, etc., with unstable sibilant, it is
generally a question of prefixation, and it may be observed that the root begins
with the [plain] consonant [alone excluding the sibilant].
The German word Ablaut refers to the alternation of vowels in a given syllable. In
the earliest form of Proto-Indo-European, ablaut was merely a phonological
alternation. During the course of its development, however, Proto-Indo-European
gradually grammaticalized these ablaut alternations. For information on ablaut, cf.
Chapter 4, 4.84.9; Beekes 1995:164167; Brugmann 1904:138150;
Hbschmann 1885; Meillet 1964:153168; Schmidt-Brandt 1973; Szemernyi
1996:8393; Watkins 1998:5153; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1995.I:131167;
Meier-Brgger 2003:144152; Fortson 2004:7376; Fulk 1986; Hirt 1900.
Undifferentiated roots could serve as nominal stems (these are called root
nouns), though the majority of nominal stems were derived from roots by the
494 CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
addition of determinatives and/or suffixes (these are called derived nouns) (cf.
Szemernyi 1996:163; Beekes 1995:168). There was considerable variety in the
determinatives/suffixes, though several were more frequently used than others. In
later Proto-Indo-European, stems ending in a thematic vowel, in particular, became
increasingly common, while heteroclitic stems had started to decline as a productive
category they are best preserved in Hittite. In the majority of cases, it is not
possible to discern any difference in meaning or function among the determinatives/
suffixes, though several of them had developed specialized functions. Benveniste
devotes an entire book (1935) to the study of the origins of the formation of nouns
in Proto-Indo-European Chapter X on the structure of the most ancient nominal
derivations is particularly important. He elaborates on his views in his 1948 book
on agent nouns and action nouns in Proto-Indo-European.
Proto-Indo-European had constraints on permissible root structure sequences
(cf. Fortson 2004:72; Meillet 1964:173174; Szemernyi 1996:99100; Watkins
1998:53) Szemernyi (1996:99) lists the following possible and impossible root
structure types (his notation has been retained):
Possible Impossible
Most probably it is the result of some kind of external sandhi affecting initial s-
in the Indo-European period. It seems fairly clear that the phenomenon is due
to loss of initial s, and if this is so the theory that would regard the s as the
remains of some kind of prefix is out of the question.
The nominative and vocative singular, dual, and plural and the accusative singular
and dual are known as strong cases, while the remaining cases are known as weak
cases (also called oblique cases). In Early Proto-Indo-European, the accent was on
the stem in the strong cases, which also had a full-grade (or lengthened-grade)
vowel, while in the weak cases, the accent was shifted to the suffix or to the case
ending (with a corresponding shift in full-grade vowel) (cf. Burrow 1973:220).
During the earlier period of development, the accent shift typically resulted in the
reduction or loss of the vowel of the unaccented syllable, unless such a reduction or
loss would have resulted in unpronounceable consonant clusters (cf. Burrow
1973:220). In later Proto-Indo-European, there was a tendency to level out the
paradigm, either in terms of accent or vowel grade or both, though enough traces of
the older patterning remained in the later stages of development so that it is possible
to discern its underlying characteristics.
An important distinction must be made between thematic stems and athematic
stems. Thematic stems ended in a so-called thematic vowel (*-e/o-), while
athematic stems did not end in such a vowel (cf. Fortson 2004:7778 and 113).
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN MORPHOLOGY I: TRADITIONAL RECONSTRUCTION 497
Notes:
1. The -t and -k that have been added to the nominative singular in Sanskrit are
innovations.
2. In Greek, -- has been added to the oblique-n, which is in the reduced-grade
(*-n - > --).
As noted above, nouns were inflected for number and case, while adjectives were
also inflected for gender in Proto-Indo-European. Inasmuch as their gender was
fixed, nouns were not inflected for gender. Gender in Proto-Indo-European was
grammatical and might or might not have accorded with natural gender. In the
Anatolian branch, masculine and feminine did not exist as separate gender classes;
rather, there was a combined common gender, which included both masculine and
feminine (see below). Different sets of case endings must be reconstructed for
athematic stems, on the one hand, and for thematic stems, on the other hand. In
thematic stems, the case endings were added after the thematic vowel *-e/o-.
498 CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
Singular:
Nominative *-s
Nominative-accusative *-
Vocative *-
Accusative *-m /-m (or *-n /-n)
Genitive-ablative *-es/-os/-s *-es/-os/-s
Dative *-ey *-ey
Locative *-i, *- *-i, *-
Instrumental *-(e)H *-(e)H
(Directive/allative) (*-oH) (*-oH)
Dual:
Nominative-accusative *-H(e) *-iH
Genitive *-oHs (?), *-ows (?) *-oHs (?), *-ows (?)
Dative *-by (?), *-m (?) *-by (?), *-m (?)
Locative *-ow (?) *-ow (?)
Instrumental *-by (?), *-m (?) *-by (?), *-m (?)
Plural:
Nominative-vocative *-es
Nominative-accusative (collective *-(e)H)
Accusative *-m s/-ms or *-n s/-ns *-m s/-ms or *-n s/-ns
Genitive *-m *-m
Locative *-su/-si *-su/-si
Dative-ablative *-b(y)os, *-mos *-b(y)os, *-mos
Instrumental *-bi(s), *-mi(s) *-bi(s), *-mi(s)
Singular:
Nominative *-o-s
Nominative-accusative *-o-m
Vocative *-e
Accusative *-o-m (or *-o-n)
Genitive *-o-s(y)o *-o-s(y)o
Ablative *-t (< *-o-et) *-t (< *-o-et)
Dative *-y (< *-o-ey) *-y (< *-o-ey)
Locative *-e/o-y *-e/o-y
Instrumental *-e/o-H *-e/o-H
(Directive/allative) (*-H [< *-o-oH]) (*-H [< *-o-oH])
Dual:
Nominative-accusative *-oH, *-oy *-oH, *-oy
Genitive *-oHos (?) *-oHos (?)
Dative *-by(m) (?), *-m (?) *-by(m) (?), *-m
(?)
Locative *-ow (?) *-ow (?)
Instrumental *-by(m) (?), *-m (?) *-by(m) (?), *-m
(?)
Plural:
Nominative-vocative *-s (< *-o-es)
Nominative-accusative *-e-H
Accusative *-ns (< *-o-ons) *-ns (< *-o-ons)
(or *-ms [< *-o-oms]) (or *-ms)
Genitive *-m (< *-o-om) *-m (< *-o-om)
Locative *-oysu/-oysi *-oysu/-oysi
Dative-ablative *-o-b(y)os, *-o-mos *-o-b(y)os, *-o-mos
Instrumental *-ys (< *-o-oys), *-ys (< *-o-oys),
*-o-mis *-o-mis
I. Athematic case endings: we may use (t)t-stems (and -nt-stems) to illustrate the
general patterning of athematic case endings (cf. Meriggi 1980:304; Hoffner
Melchert 2008:105131, especially 121123; Sturtevant 1951:100101; J.
Friedrich 1960.I:52 and I:53; Kronasser 1956:128131; Luraghi 1998:177
180; Neu 1979; Carruba 1970:4143; Laroche 1959:135140; Gusmani
1964:3540; Werner 1991:29; Watkins 2004:560):
Notes:
II. Thematic case endings (cf. Meriggi 1980:275; J. Friedrich 1960.I:4546 [see
also the table of case endings on p. 43]; HoffnerMelchert 2008:7985;
Sturtevant 1951:9192 [overall discussion of the case endings on pp. 84
91]; Kronasser 1956:99109 [summary on p. 108]; Luraghi 1997:1516
[table of case endings on p. 15] and 1998:177180 [table of case endings on
p. 178]; Carruba 1970:4143; Werner 1991:27; Laroche 1959:135140
[table of case endings on p. 137]; Gusmani 1964:3540; Watkins 2004:560):
Notes:
1. The Hittite case endings are for Old Hittite (for details on the case endings in
Hittite, as well as nominal declension in general, cf. J. Friedrich 1960.I:4259;
HeldSchmalstiegGertz 1988:1226; HoffnerMelchert 2008:79131;
Kronasser 1956:97139; Luraghi 1997:1522; Sturtevant 1933:161178 and
1951:81101; Van den Hout 2011).
2. The Hittite ablative and instrumental plural endings are identical to the singular
endings for these cases.
3. The genitive singular has been replaced in the Luwian branch (Cuneiform and
Hieroglyphic Luwian and Lycian) by a suffix of adjectival origin (cf. Luraghi
1998:179).
4. In the Luwian branch, the plural endings are most likely based upon the
accusative plural ending *-ons (or *-n s) reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European
on the basis of the evidence of the non-Anatolian daughter languages (cf.
Melchert 1994b:278 and 323; Luraghi 1998:177).
5. In the Lycian genitive singular, the -ahi form is found in Lycian, while the more
archaic -asi form is found in Milyan.
point in noting that both feminine and collective function occurs in the more widely
attested ending *-i-H (> *-) as well. As noted by Lehmann (1993:152), the
common element here is the laryngeal and not the vowel. That the collective
function of *-e-H is ancient is indicated by the fact that it is found in Hittite, where
it appears as -a. Curiously, and importantly, in Anatolian, Greek, and Gatha
Avestan, neuter plurals took singular verb agreement (cf. Fortson 2004:118;
Watkins 1998:63; Meillet 1964:291292; Beekes 1985:28; Luraghi 1997:8 [for
Hittite]). The following scenario may be proposed: The thematic declension ending
*-e-H was originally a collective with the meaning group of , as in Hittite
(nom.-acc. pl. n. [= collective]) alpa (group of) clouds (besides regular plural
alpe, alpu clouds), Greek (collective) (group of) thighs (besides regular
plural thighs), and Latin loca (group of) places (besides regular plural loc
places) (examples from Fortson 2004:118). The lack of a laryngeal reflex in
Hittite points to *H as the laryngeal involved here (cf. Sturtevant 1951:91
[Sturtevant writes *-eh]; Kuryowicz 1964:217 [Kuryowicz writes *]). It was
accompanied by singular verbs, whereas the regular plural forms were accompanied
by plural verbs. Inasmuch as it took singular verb agreement, it was partially
reinterpreted as a nominative(-accusative) singular ending in early post-Anatolian
Proto-Indo-European (cf. Lehmann 1993:150; J. Schmidt 1889; Gamkrelidze
Ivanov 1995.I:246). Later, an independent accusative singular was formed on the
analogy of the thematic accusative singular ending *-o-m : *-eH+m (> *--m [cf.
Sanskrit acc. sg. snm army, kany m girl]). The fact that there were two
competing thematic nominative singular endings (*-o-s ~ *-e-H) brought about a
split in which *-os was reinterpreted as a masculine marker and *-eH as a feminine
marker. A new, specifically feminine declension was then built around the
nominative singular ending *-eH. The final change that took place was the
analogical extension of this patterning to *-i-H (and *-u-H) stems, which are
feminine in the older non-Anatolian daughter languages (cf. Shields 1982:80). We
should note that the *-o-s declension remained the default when no specific gender
was indicated, and that a few archaisms have survived into the non-Anatolian
daughter languages in which the *-o-s declension is used for both masculine and
feminine an example here would be Greek , meaning both god and
goddess (beside the specifically feminine form goddess). In some cases, the
*-o-s declension was even used with feminine nouns, such as *snus-s daughter-
in-law (cf. Greek daughter-in-law and Armenian nu daughter-in-law, Latin
nurus daughter-in-law, but not Sanskrit, which has snu daughter-in-law).
Nonetheless, the majority of *-o-s stems were masculine. Thus, it emerges that the
system of two genders found in the Anatolian languages represents a more archaic
state of affairs (cf. GamkrelidzeIvanov 1995.I:328329; Matasovi 2004). It
was replaced in post-Anatolian Proto-Indo-European by a system of three genders
(cf. Beekes 1995:174; Brugmann 1897; Luraghi 2011; Szemernyi 1996:156). One
additional remark is needed here: as I see the situation, the abstract nominal stems
in *-VH played no part whatsoever in the development of distinct feminine forms.
It was only after a feminine had already been formed and laryngeals had been lost
that a superficial resemblance between the two materialized.
504 CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
We may close by making one final remark about gender. Above, the two
genders found in the Anatolian languages were called common and neuter. It is
clear that the distinguishing characteristic was animacy. Consequently, better terms
would be animate and inanimate (cf. Haudry 1979:33; Luraghi 1997:8; Meier-
Brgger 2003:188189; Meillet 1982:211228; Shields 1982:14).
NUMBER: The dual reconstructed for Late Proto-Indo-European on the basis of the
evidence found in the non-Anatolian daughter languages is controversial. Indeed,
some scholars have questioned whether a dual should even be reconstructed at all
for Proto-Indo-European. However, it appears likely that the rudiments of a dual
had already started to form in later Proto-Indo-European. That the process was not
complete before the parent language began to disintegrate into different dialect
groups is shown by the fact that the endings, especially those for the oblique cases,
differ in important details among the various daughter languages. In other words, it
was left to the individual daughter languages to fill out the paradigm (cf. Meier-
Brgger 2003:190). This being the case, it is easy to understand why it is virtually
impossible to reconstruct a common Proto-Indo-European set of dual endings that
can account for all of the developments in the various daughter languages. The
reconstructions given in the above tables are taken mainly from Szemernyi
(1996:160 and 186). Szemernyis reconstructions are based almost exclusively on
what is found in Indo-Iranian (especially Old Indic). Other scholars have proposed
either different reconstructions or none at all. That there are uncertainties about the
reconstructions given in the above tables is indicated by the question marks. Some
of the daughter languages did not carry the process of creating a full set of dual
endings very far and eventually dropped the dual altogether, while others (notably
Indo-Iranian) built quite elaborate systems. Here, again, the Anatolian languages
represent a more archaic state of affairs in which the dual had not yet developed.
The singular and plural were well established in all stages of development of
the Indo-European parent language. However, the system of plural case endings
was less well developed than the corresponding system of singular endings (cf.
GamkrelidzeIvanov 1995.I:244245; Szemernyi 1996:159) this is
especially clear in Hittite (cf. Sturtevant 1951:83; Fortson 2004:165; Luraghi
1997:8 and 1998:179180). In the non-Anatolian daughter languages, the plural
(and dual) system was filled out, in part, by the incorporation of endings based on
*-b(y)o- ~ *-bi- (in Indo-Iranian, Greek, Armenian, Italic, Venetic, and Celtic)
and *-mi- ~ *-mo- (in Germanic and Balto-Slavic) (cf. GamkrelidzeIvanov
1995.I:332335; Meillet 1964:298; Shields 1982:5052; Fortson 2004:116;
Lehmann 2002:184), both of which were originally independent particles, and both
of which still exist in Germanic: (1) *me-t with, along with, together with (>
Proto-Germanic *mii with, along with, together with > Gothic mi with,
among; Old Icelandic me with, along with, together with; Old English mid, mi
together with, with, among; Old Frisian mithi with; Old Saxon midi with;
Middle High German mite, mit with, by, together [New High German mit]); but
*me-t in Greek (with gen.) in the midst of, among; (with dat.) among, in the
company of; (with acc.) into the middle of, coming among; and (2) *bi- in, with,
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN MORPHOLOGY I: TRADITIONAL RECONSTRUCTION 505
within, among (> Proto-Germanic *bi [near] by, at, with, in, on, about > Gothic
bi about, over; concerning, according to; at; Old English be, bi; b [preposition,
with dat., indicating place and motion] by [nearness], along, in; Old Saxon be-, b-
by, about, in, on; Old High German bi-; b adverb indicating nearness, preposition
meaning [with dat.] [near] by, at, with, as adverb from now on [von jetzt an]
[New High German bei]). There is a compound in Sanskrit, namely, abh (either <
*e-/o-+b- or *m -+b-), whose primary meaning is moving or going towards,
approaching as an independent adverb or preposition, it means (with acc.) to,
towards, in the direction of, against, into; as a prefix, it means to, towards, into,
over, upon. Another compound is found in Greek (*m -+b-), preposition
used with the genitive, dative, and accusative with the basic meaning on both
sides, as opposed to , whose basic meaning is all around (with gen.,
causal) about, for, for the sake of, (of place) about, around; (with dat., of place)
on both sides of, about; (with acc., of place) about, around; (as independent
adverb) on both sides, about, around. This compound is also found in the Latin
inseparable prefix amb-, ambi-, meaning on both sides; around, round about.
Singular:
Nominative *-s
Nominative-accusative *-
Vocative *-
Accusative *-m /-m (or *-n /-n)
Genitive-ablative *-es/-as/-s *-es/-as/-s
Dative-Locative *-ey/-i *-ey/-i
Plural:
Nominative-vocative *-es
Nominative-accusative (collective *-(e)H)
Genitive *-am *-am
The following thematic case endings may be reconstructed for the same period:
Singular:
Nominative *-a-s
Nominative-accusative *-a-m
Vocative *-e
Accusative *-a-m (or *-a-n)
Genitive *-a-s *-a-s
Ablative *-t (< *-a-et) *-t (< *-a-et)
Dative-Locative *-y (< *-a-ey)/*-e/a-y *-y (< *-a-ey)/
*-e/a-y
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN MORPHOLOGY I: TRADITIONAL RECONSTRUCTION 507
Plural:
Nominative-vocative *-s (< *-a-es)
Nominative-accusative *-e-H
Genitive *-m (< *-a-am) *-m (< *-a-am)
Note: At this stage of development, apophonic *a had not yet become apophonic
*o (for details, cf. Chapter 4, 4.8. The Vowels and Diphthongs).
This section is repeated from Chapter 4 (4.9), The Reconstruction of the Proto-
Indo-European Phonological System.
Disintegrating Indo-European was a stress-accent language (for details on
accentuation in Proto-Indo-European, cf. Bubenik 1979:90106; HalleKiparsky
1977:209238; Adrados 1975.I:311323; Hirt 1895; Meillet 1964:140143;
Szemernyi 1996:7382; Meier-Brgger 2003:152158; Fortson 2004:62;
Burrow 1973:113117; Sihler 1995:233234; Lubotsky 1988; for a good general
discussion of stress and stress-accent systems, cf. Hyman 1975:204212,
especially p. 207, and for pitch-accent systems, pp. 230233). Correlating with the
stress was changing pitch: rising from an unstressed syllable to a stressed syllable
and falling from a stressed syllable to an unstressed syllable. Every word, except
when used clitically, bore an accent. However, each word had only one accented
syllable. The position of the accent was morphologically conditioned, accentuation
being one of the means by which Proto-Indo-European distinguished grammatical
categories. Though originally not restricted to a particular syllable, there was a
tendency to level out the paradigm and fix the position of the accent on the same
syllable throughout (cf. Adrados 1975.I:317). This tendency the development of
columnar accentuation (cf. Kuryowicz 1964a:207208) began in
Disintegrating Indo-European and continued into the individual non-Anatolian
daughter languages. Therefore, the Disintegrating Indo-European system is only
imperfectly preserved in even the most conservative of the daughter languages,
Vedic Sanskrit.
Fortson (2004:107110) recognizes four distinct types of athematic stems in
later (Pre-divisional or Disintegrating) Proto-Indo-European, determined by the
position of the accent as well as the position of the full-grade (or lengthened-grade)
vowel (Fortson notes that additional types developed in individual daughter
languages) (see also Watkins 1998:6162; Beekes 1985:1 and 1995:174176):
1. Acrostatic: fixed accent on the stem throughout the paradigm, but with ablaut
changes between the strong and weak cases.
2. Proterokinetic (or proterodynamic): the stem is accented and in full-grade vowel
in the strong cases, but both accent and full-grade vowel are shifted to the suffix
in the weak cases.
508 CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
1. Neuter action nouns were accented on the stem in the so-called strong cases
but on the ending in the so-called weak cases (cf. Burrow 1973:220226).
2. Common gender agent noun/adjectives were accented on the suffix throughout
the paradigm (cf. Burrow 1973:119).
3. Athematic verbs were accented on the stem in the singular but on the ending in
the plural (and dual) in the indicative but on the ending throughout the middle
(cf. Burrow 1973:303).
The thematic formations require special comment. It seems that thematic agent
noun/adjectives were originally accented on the ending in the strong cases and on
the stem in the weak cases. This pattern is the exact opposite of what is found in the
neuter action nouns. The original form of the nominative singular consisted of the
accented thematic vowel alone. It is this ending that is still found in the vocative
singular in the daughter languages and in relic forms such as the word for the
number five, *penke (*peqe in Brugmanns transcription). The nominative
singular in *-os is a later formation and has the same origin as the genitive singular
(cf. Szemernyi 1972a:156; Van Wijk 1902).
The system of accentuation found in Disintegrating Indo-European was by no
means ancient. The earliest period of Proto-Indo-European that can be
reconstructed appears to have been characterized by a strong stress accent (cf.
Burrow 1973:108112; Lehmann 1952:111112, 15.4, and 1993:131132;
Szemernyi 1996:111113) following Lehmann, this period may be called the
Phonemic Stress Stage. This accent caused the weakening and/or loss of the vowels
of unaccented syllables. There was a contrast between those syllables with stress
and those syllables without stress. Stress was used as an internal grammatical
morpheme, the stressed syllable being the morphologically distinctive syllable. The
phonemicization of a strong stress accent in Early Proto-Indo-European caused a
major restructuring of the inherited vowel system and brought about the
development of syllabic liquids and nasals (cf. Lehmann 1993:138).
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN MORPHOLOGY I: TRADITIONAL RECONSTRUCTION 509
Szemernyi (1996:216) reconstructs the following first and second person personal
pronoun paradigms for Proto-Indo-European (see also Brugmann 1904:407413;
Meillet 1964:332336; Fortson 2004:127129; Beekes 1995:207209; Meier-
Brgger 2003:225227; Watkins 1998:67; Haudry 1979:6163; Adrados
1975.II:784813; Schmitt-Brandt 1998:228231; AdradosBernabMendoza
19951998.III:2768; Buck 1933:216221; Sihler 1995:369382; Burrow
1973:263269; Liebert 1957) (Szemernyis notation is retained):
Singular:
Nominative *eg(h)om, *eg *t, *tu
Accusative *(e)me, *m, *mm *twe/*te, *tw/*t, *twm/*tm
Genitive *mene, (encl.) *mei/*moi *tewe/*tewo, (encl.) *t(w)ei/*t(w)oi
Ablative *med *twed
Dative *mei/*moi, *mebhi *t(w)ei/*t(w)oi, *tebhi
Plural:
Nominative *wei, *n sms *ys, *usms (*uswes ?)
Accusative *nes/*nos, *ns/*ns, *wes/*wos, *ws/*ws,
*n sme *usme, *uswes
Genitive *nosom/*nsom *wosom/*wsom
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN MORPHOLOGY I: TRADITIONAL RECONSTRUCTION 511
A notable feature of the personal pronouns is the use of suppletion in the first
person personal pronoun, four distinct stems have been combined into a single
paradigm, while three are combined in the case of the second person. At an earlier
stage of development, there were also four distinct stems involved in the second
person as well. However, the original nominative singular form (*ti, see below)
was analogically remodeled on the basis of the oblique form (*tu) in post-
Anatolian Proto-Indo-European. The personal pronouns do not distinguish gender.
The situation is not as straightforward as the above table seems to indicate. The
daughter languages actually show a great deal of variation, and this makes it
difficult to reconstruct a set of forms for the Indo-European parent language that
can account for all of the developments in the daughter languages (cf. Fortson
2004:126). Moreover, bringing the Anatolian data into the picture only adds further
complications. Mainly on the basis of the Anatolian data, Sturtevant (1951:103)
posited an extremely reduced set of forms for Proto-Indo-Hittite:
Singular:
Nominative *g *t
Oblique *m, *m *tw, *t
Plural:
Nominative *wys ?
Oblique *ns, *ns(-sm) *ws, *ws(-sm)
The first person singular personal pronoun has a number of different reflexes in the
individual daughter languages they may be divided into several groups: (1)
Greek (), Latin eg, Venetic .e.go; (2) Gothic ik, Runic eka, Old Icelandic ek;
(3) Sanskrit ahm, Old Persian adam, Avestan azm; (4) Armenian es, Lithuanian
(Old Lithuanian e), Latvian es, Old Prussian es, as; (5) Old Church Slavic
(j)az; (6) Old Hittite -uk (later -uk-ga). The first group points to Proto-Indo-
European *ek-oH(m) (traditional *e(m)), the second to *ek-om (traditional
*eom), the third to *eg-om (traditional *ehom), the fourth to *ek (traditional
*e$), the fifth to *k-om or *g-om (traditional *om or *hom), while the
guttural in the sixth group (Hittite) is too phonetically ambiguous to be sure which
group it should be assigned to according to Sturtevant (1951:103, 170b), the u-
is due to the influence of the oblique forms of the second person personal pronoun
(but cf. Kloekhorst 2008b:113114). For additional forms, cf. Pokorny 1959:291.
The variation seems to indicate that this pronoun stem was a late development (cf.
Lehmann 1993:157). The common element is *e- to which one or more than one
additional elements have been added. The first element is always a guttural:
*e+k-, *e+k-, *e+g- (cf. Adrados 1975.II:785, II:789, and II:794). In the
512 CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
fourth group, no additional element has been added after the guttural (Armenian es,
etc. < *e+k). In the first group, the element following the guttural is *-oH (> *-),
which could be further extended by *-m (as in Greek even in
Laconian). In the second group, the element following the guttural is *-om (Gothic
ik, etc. < *e-k-om), and the same element characterizes the third (Sanskrit ahm,
etc. < *e-g-om) and fifth groups as well, though the gutturals are different.
Finally, the fifth group points to an earlier long vowel (Old Church Slavic (j)az <
*-k-om or *-g-om). The origin of this pronoun is rather transparent it was a
compound deictic stem meaning something like this one here (cf. Lehmann
2002:188189; Georgiev 1981:58). The elements *-oH and *-om are most likely
due to the influence of the first person verbal endings (cf. Lehmann 2002:189;
Szemernyi 1996:216).
The data from the Anatolian languages demonstrate that the original form of
the second person nominative singular was *ti. This form has been preserved intact
in Palaic (nom. sg. ti-i) and Hieroglyphic Luwian (ti), while, in Hittite, it was
extended by a guttural, and the initial stop was affricated before the high front
vowel (nom. sg. zi-ik, zi-ga). The oblique cases were based upon *tu (cf. Palaic
acc.-dat. sg. tu-; Hittite acc.-dat. sg. tu-uk, tu-ga, gen. sg. tu-(e-)el; Hieroglyphic
Luwian acc. sg. tu-wa-n), while the enclitic forms were based upon both *ti (cf.
Hittite nom. sg. c. -ti-i, -te-e, acc. sg. c. -ti-in) and *ta (cf. Hittite gen. sg. -ta-a).
The second person forms based on *tw- found in the non-Anatolian daughter
languages are derived from *tu (cf. Meier-Brgger 2003:226; Szemernyi 1996:
213 and 216).
The first person plural form *n s- and second person plural form *us- are
merely reduced-grade variants of *nos and *wes respectively. *n s- was optionally
extended by *-me (> *n s-me-), while *us- was optionally extended by *-we- (> *us-
we-) (cf. Meier-Brgger 2003:226, who credits Joshua Katz for the idea). Later,
*us-we- was analogically refashioned to *us-me- after the first person plural form,
though traces of the original patterning survive in the daughter languages (cf.
Gothic dat. pl. izwis to you).
Fortson (2004:128129) notes that there was also a series of unstressed
enclitic object personal pronouns in Proto-Indo-European (see also Meier-Brgger
2003:225226). Fortson reconstructs the following forms:
Singular:
Accusative *me *te
Dative-Genitive *moi *toi
Plural:
Oblique (all cases) *nos *u os
It was the enclitic forms that served as the base for the oblique cases of the
independent personal pronouns (cf. Lehmann 1993:157). A series of enclitic
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN MORPHOLOGY I: TRADITIONAL RECONSTRUCTION 513
Singular:
Nominative *e+k-, *e+k-, *e+g- *ti
Oblique/Enclitic *me *tu, *ta/e
Plural:
Nominative *wey(s) *yuH(s)
Oblique/Enclitic *nas *was
Notes:
1. As noted above, at this stage of development, apophonic *a had not yet become
apophonic *o.
2. Likewise, voiced aspirates had not yet developed.
1. *so-, *to- (*sii o-, *si o-, *tii o-, *ti o-), neutrally deictic
2. *$o- (with the particle *$e), *$i-, *$(i)i o-, I-deictic
3. *i-, *-: *(i)i - and *e-, *a-, general deictic
4. the n-demonstratives: *no-, *eno- (< *e-no-), *ono-, *oino-, *aino-, distal or
yonder-deictic
5. l-demonstratives, that-deictic (Brugmann 1904:402 reconstructs *ol- here)
514 CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
Beekes also posits three particles/adverbs, which served as the basis for pronouns in
later Proto-Indo-European:
1. *#i here
2. *hen there
3. *heu away, again
There was also a reflexive pronoun *s(w)e- (one)self (cf. Szemernyi 1996:220
221; Watkins 1998:67; Fortson 2004:130; Meier-Brgger 2003:226227).
According to Watkins, it was used to mark reference to the subject or topic of a
sentence.
The declension of the demonstratives differed somewhat from what is found in
nominal stems (cf. Fortson 2004:129). The nominative-accusative singular neuter
ended in a dental stop (cf. Sanskrit t-t; Latin (is)tu-d; Gothic at-a; etc.), while the
nominative plural masculine ended in *-i (cf. Sanskrit t; Homeric ; Latin (is)t;
Old Church Slavic ti; etc.). Several of the oblique cases were built on a formant
*-sm-, which was inserted between the stem and the case endings. The stems *so-
and *to- this, that were joined in a suppletive relationship in which *so- was
found in the nominative singular masculine (but without the typical nominative
ending *-s [cf. Sanskrit sa, when followed by a word beginning with a consonant;
Greek ; Gothic sa], though this ending was added later in some daughter
languages [cf. Sanskrit masc. sg. s-]) and feminine (*seH > *s), while *to-
served as the basis for the nominative-accusative neuter as well as the remaining
cases (cf. Sihler 1995:384385; Lehmann 1993:158). Fortson (2004:129) also
notes that the genitive singular ending was *-eso in pronominal stems (cf. Gothic
is of the; Old Church Slavic eso of what; etc.), while a special genitive plural
ending *-sm can be reconstructed as well. Several of the pronominal endings
spread to the nominal declensions, both in the later Indo-European parent language
as well as in the older daughter languages.
Hittite possessed the following demonstratives (cf. Luraghi 1997:2526;
Kronasser 1956:147148; Sturtevant 1951:108112; Meriggi 1980:322324; J.
Friedrich 1960.I:6668; HoffnerMelchert 2008:143144):
There were also several rare and/or defective stems in Hittite (this is a sampling; not
all attested forms are given) (cf. HoffnerMelchert 2008:144146):
The following enclitic is also found in Hittite: (nom. c.) -a that one; he.
The stems *so- and *to- served as the basis for the connective particles u and
ta found in Hittite (cf. Sturtevant 1951:108109). They, along with the stem na-,
were also combined with enclitic -a as follows (cf. Sturtevant 1951:108109 and
113; Kronasser 1956:143144; J. Friedrich 1960.I:6364; Luraghi 1997: 25 and
1998:181):
Singular:
Nom. c. -a a-a ta-a na-a
Acc. c. -an a-an ta-an na-an
Neut. -at ta-at na-at
Dat. (Obl.) -e/-i
Plural:
Nom. c. -e e
-at na-at
Acc. c. -u u-u, u-a tu-(u-)u nu-u
-a ta-a
Neut. -e/-i ne-it-ta
-at na-at
Dat. (Obl.) -ma
Luwian had the following demonstratives: (nom. sg. c.) za-a-a this (= Hittite ka-
a-a) (nom.-acc. sg. n. za-a, nom. pl. c. zi-(i-)in-zi, etc.) and (nom. sg. c.) a-pa-a
that (one); he, she, it; they. The same stems are found in Hieroglyphic Luwian.
Hieroglyphic Luwian also has the stem - this (one). Lycian has ebe- this (one)
and him, her; them, while Lydian has (nom. sg. c.) e this and (nom. sg. c.)
bis he, she. Palaic has the demonstrative (-)apa- that (one). The common
Anatolian demonstrative *aba- seems to be a uniquely Anatolian development (cf.
Puhvel 1984 .1/2:90; Kloekhorst 2008b:191192).
Most of the anaphoric and deictic elements reconstructed by Brugmann for
later Proto-Indo-European (as given above) can be reconstructed for the stage of
516 CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
1. *sa-, *ta-
2. *ka-/*ke-, *ki-
3. *i-, *e-/*a-
4. *na-; *e-na-/*a-na-
Singular Plural
Masc.-Fem. Neut. Masc.-Fem. Neut.
The Hittite, Palaic, and Luwian paradigms are as follows (cf. Sturtevant 1951:115;
Luraghi 1997:26; J. Friedrich 1960.I:6869; HeldSchmalstiegGertz 1988:33;
Kronasser 1956:148; Carruba 1970:60; Kimball 1999:266; HoffnerMelchert
2008:149; Laroche 1959:55; Meriggi 1980:325327):
Singular:
Nom. c. ku-i kui ku-(i-)i
Acc. c. ku-in ku-in ku-i-in
Nom.-acc. n. ku-it, ku-wa-at ku-it-
Gen. ku-e-el
Dat. ku-e-da-(a-)ni (?) ku-i
Abl. ku-e-iz(-za)
Plural:
Nom. c. ku-(i-)e-e, ku-e ku-in-zi
Acc. c. ku-i-e-e, ku-i-u
Nom.-acc. n. ku-e, ku-i-e ku-i
Dat. ku-e-da-a, ku-e-ta-a
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN MORPHOLOGY I: TRADITIONAL RECONSTRUCTION 517
18.10. NUMERALS
Though there are problems with the reconstruction of a common form for the
numeral one (see below), the following cardinal numerals one to ten are
traditionally reconstructed for later Proto-Indo-European (for additional
information, cf. Adrados 1975.II:871877; AdradosBernabMendoza 1995
1998.III:127131; Beekes 1995:212213 and 2011:237240; Blaek 1999b:
141324 and 2012; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1995.I:740744; Meillet 1964:409
413; Sihler 1995:404433; Szemernyi 1960):
The numerals in Anatolian are, for the most part, not known inasmuch as they are
written ideographically (cf. Luraghi 1997:27). The numeral seven occurs in Hittite
in the ordinal (dat.) i-ip-ta-mi-ya seventh (cf. Sanskrit saptam- seventh; Latin
septimus seventh) (cf. Sturtevant 1951:30, 44, 60, 63, 77, and 87; Kronasser
1956:152; Benveniste 1962:83). The numeral three is also represented in Hittite in
(adv.) te-ri-ya-an-na for the third time, and the military title te-ri-ya-al-la, tar-ri-
ya-na-al-li third-in-command, officer of the third rank (cf. Kronasser 1956:151;
Benveniste 1962:82; Blaek 1999b:186187), apparently to be read *tri- three
(cf. Benveniste 1962:86), while two is found in Hittite in the military title du-ya-
na-al-li second-in-command, officer of the second rank, the compound ta-a-i--
ga-a, da-a-i--ga-a, ta-a--ga-a two years old (da-/ta- two + i--ga-a
yearling), da-a-an, ta-a-an a second time; (before a substantive) second, and
(nom. sg. c.) da-ma-a-(i-)i second, other (cf. Benveniste 1962:81; Kronasser
1956:151; Sturtevant 1951:34, 58, 61, 67, and 110), and in Hieroglyphic Luwian
tu-wa/i-zi two (cf. Laroche 1960:206; Meriggi 1962:136; Blaek 1999b:164). All
three of these forms agree with what is found in the non-Anatolian Indo-European
daughter languages. The forms in the Anatolian languages for the numeral four,
however, differ from those that are found elsewhere: Proto-Anatolian *meyu- four
> Hittite (nom. pl.) mi-e-(ya-)wa-a, (acc. pl.) mi-e--u, (gen. pl.) mi-i--wa[-a]
four, Luwian mauwa- four (instr. pl. ma-a-u-wa-a-ti) (cf. Benveniste 1962:81;
Laroche 1959:70; Blaek 1999b:201202; Kloekhorst 2008b:571572).
Two basic stems may be reconstructed for the numeral one: *Hoy- and *sem-
(cf. Sihler 1995:404407; Fortson 2004:131). The underlying meaning of the first
stem appears to have been single, alone, while that of the second stem appears to
have been together (with) (cf. Szemernyi 1996:222; Blaek 1999b:155). The first
stem only occurs with various suffixes: (1) *Hoy-no- (cf. Latin nus one [Old
Latin oinos]; Old Irish en, in one; Gothic ains one; Old English n one; Old
High German ein one; Old Church Slavic in some(one), other it is also
found in Greek , roll of one [in dice]); (2) *Hoy-wo- (cf. Avestan ava-
one; Old Persian aiva- one it is also found in Greek alone, lone, lonely
[Cyprian +]); (3) *Hoy-ko- or *Hoy-ko- (cf. Sanskrit ka- one; Mitanni
[Proto-Indic] aika- one). The second stem is found in Greek: Attic (nom. sg. m.)
one, Doric one, Cretan (< * < * < *sems) one; Attic (f.) (<
*-) one. It is also found in Armenian mi one. To complicate matters, the
various forms of the ordinal found in the daughter languages are based upon yet
another Proto-Indo-European stem: *per(H)-/*pr (H)- first (> *pr H-wo-,
*pr H-mo-, *prey-mo-, *prey-wo-, *proH-to-, *proH-mo-, etc. [for details, cf.
Blaek 1999b:141162; see also Szemernyi 1996:228; Sihler 1995:427428]).
The Hittite word for one was *ia-, cognate with Greek (Homeric) (f.) one
(cf. HoffnerMelchert 2008:154155; Kloekhorst 2008b:750751).
There was a variant form *tw-i- (traditional reconstruction *dw-i-) two in
Proto-Indo-European that was used in compounds (cf. GamkrelidzeIvanov
1995.I:742) and in the adverbial form *tw-i-s twice (cf. Latin bis twice [Old
Latin duis]; Sanskrit d(u)v twice; Avestan bi twice; Greek twice; Middle
High German zwir twice). The regular form for the numeral two is traditionally
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN MORPHOLOGY I: TRADITIONAL RECONSTRUCTION 519
4. This numeral is formed on the basis of a root ket which seems originally to
have meant something like angle (cf. Lat. triquetrus triangular), whence
square and from that four. In the masc. and neut. (catv ras, catv ri, Lat.
quattuor, etc.) the stem is formed by means of the suffix -var, with adjectival
accent and vddhi in the nominative. In the other cases (acc. catras, etc.) the
suffix has the weak form according to the general rule. A neuter noun *ctvar,
or its IE prototype, is presupposed by the thematic extension catvara- square,
crossroads. Elsewhere the simple r-suffix may appear (Gk. Dor. , Lat.
quarter), or the elements of the suffix may be reversed (Av. aru-).
In accordance with Burrows views, the form *ket-wor- four-sided, square may
be reconstructed for later Proto-Indo-European. It was preserved in Sanskrit in the
thematic derivative catvar-m quadrangular place, square, crossroads (cf.
Mayrhofer 19561980.I:371). It was this form that served as the basis for the
numeral four found in the non-Anatolian daughter languages: (nom. pl.) *ket-
wr. Curiously, the suffix *-wor- is replaced by *-sor- in the feminine (cf. Sanskrit
ctasra). Thus, the root was *ket-, to which different suffixes could be added.
It is intriguing to speculate that *ket-wor- may have replaced an earlier form for
four, which is preserved in Anatolian. On the other hand, some have suggested
that the original form for the numeral four was *Hokto- and that eight was
simply the dual of this stem, whose underlying meaning was two groups of four
(cf. GamkrelidzeIvanov 1995.I:747; Burrow 1973:260 *o$t(u)). This suggestion
finds support in Kartvelian (cf. Blaek 1999b:268). The numeral four is
reconstructed as *otxo- in Proto-Kartvelian, and this is generally taken to be a loan
from Proto-Indo-European (cf. FhnrichSardshweladse 1995:269; Fhnrich
2007:325326; Klimov 1964:150151 and 1998:145146; Schmidt 1962:128;
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN MORPHOLOGY I: TRADITIONAL RECONSTRUCTION 521
considers the initial *s- to be a secondary development (imported from the numeral
seven) (Szemernyi 1996:222 and Beekes 1995:213 express the same view).
Thus, in accordance with Sihler, the earliest form of the Proto-Indo-European
numeral six should be reconstructed as *weks. As Sihler notes, when *s- was
merely added to *weks, the result was *sweks, but when it replaced the initial
consonant, the result was *seks. The Iranian forms pointing to original *ksweks
(cf. Avestan xva six) appear to be due to developments specific to Iranian and
should not be projected back into Proto-Indo-European (cf. Sihler 1995:413).
The Proto-Indo-European word for the numeral seven, *septm (Brugmann
*septm ), is sometimes considered to be a loan from Semitic (cf. Blaek 1999b:
256257; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1995.I:747). That this numeral is ancient in Indo-
European is clear from the fact that it is found in Hittite.
We have already discussed the numerals eight and ten above. For nine,
Proto-Indo-European most likely had *newn (cf. Szemernyi 1996:223). Other
possible reconstructions are *newm and *Hnewn /m (cf. Brugmann 1904:365
*neu n , *enu n ; Meier-Brgger 2003:234 *hnu n ; Watkins 1998:67 *hnwn ;
Haudry 1979:68 *nwm /n ; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1995.I:744 *neu(e)n; Burrow
1973:260; Sihler 1995:415 *Hnwn ; Buck 1933:230 [Buck takes Greek to
be a blend of *+ and *+]; Rix 1992:172 *nu n ; Blaek 1999b:283).
The Proto-Indo-European word for the numeral hundred is traditionally
reconstructed as *(d)$m tm it is usually considered to be a derivative of
*de$m (t) ten and meant something like ten tens (cf. Szemernyi 1996:226;
Watkins 1998:67; Meier-Brgger 2003:235; Beekes 1995:213; Gamkrelidze
Ivanov 1995.I:744).
Though there was probably no common Proto-Indo-European word for
thousand, the form *geslo- served as the basis for the Indo-Iranian, Greek, and
Latin terms (cf. Szemernyi 1996:227; Beekes 1995:216; Meier-Brgger 2003:235;
Meillet 1964:414; Brugmann 1904:368).
Lacking Anatolian corroboration for several numerals (cf. HoffnerMelchert
2008:153), it is difficult to reconstruct the earliest Proto-Indo-European forms for
the numerals one to ten with complete confidence. Consequently, the following
reconstructions must be considered provisional:
The persons were distinguished by a special set of personal endings. These personal
endings will be discussed in detail below.
Again, as with the noun, there were three numbers in the verb, at least for the
latest period of the Indo-European parent language just prior to the emergence of
the non-Anatolian daughter languages: singular, dual, and plural (cf. Meillet
1964:243244). All three numbers were preserved in the verbal systems of
Sanskrit, Avestan, Gothic, Older Runic, Old Church Slavic, Lithuanian, and certain
Ancient Greek dialects (cf. Meillet 1964:243244). As is to be expected, there was
no separate dual in the Anatolian languages (cf. KernsSchwartz 1972:5).
Tense marks the time at which an action takes place. The following tenses are
assumed to have existed in later Proto-Indo-European (cf. Fortson 2004:81;
Szemernyi 1996:231; Beekes 1995:225; Baldi 1987:5758 [Baldi does not posit
an imperfect for Proto-Indo-European]):
There was also the category of voice, which was used to express the role that
the subject played in the action. There were two voices in Proto-Indo-European (cf.
Fortson 2004:8283; Szemernyi 1996:231; Haudry 1979:71; Baldi 1987:56):
1. Active: the subject is performing the action but is not being acted upon;
2. Middle (also called mediopassive): the subject is being acted upon: either the
subject is performing the action on or for himself/herself, or the subject is the
recipient but not the agent of the action.
The agent is the entity responsible for a particular action or the entity perceived to
be the cause of an action, while the patient is the recipient, goal, or beneficiary of a
particular action.
While tense marks the time at which an action takes place, aspect refers to the
duration or type of a temporal activity. While tense and aspect are closely related,
they must ultimately be carefully distinguished. Aspect can indicate an action that is
done once at a single point in time (punctual aspect), an action that lasts for a
certain length of time (durative aspect), an action that is repeated over and over
again (iterative or frequentative aspect), an action that is regularly or habitually
performed by someone or something (habitual aspect), an action or event that is
about to begin (inceptive aspect, inchoative aspect, or ingressive aspect), an action
or event that is in progress (progressive aspect), etc. A distinction can also be made
between perfective aspect and imperfective aspect the perfective aspect lacks a
reference to a particular point of time, while the imperfective aspect is a broad term
that indicates the way in which the internal time structure of the action is viewed.
The imperfective includes more specialized aspects such as habitual, progressive,
and iterative. Though the full extent to which Proto-Indo-European employed
aspect is not entirely clear, the imperfect tense also had imperfective aspect, while
the aorist tense had perfective aspect (cf. Fortson 2004:83; Haudry 1979:76 [with
reference to the aorist only]). According to Meier-Brgger (2003:165), the aorist
stem indicated perfective aspect, the present stem indicated imperfective aspect, and
the perfect stem indicated a kind of resultative aspect. For details about tense and
aspect in general, cf. Comrie 1976 and 1985; Crystal 1980 and 2003; Trask 1993.
Several other terms should be defined as well: a finite verbal form denotes an
action, an event, or a state and is marked for tense, number, mood, aspect, etc. A
finite verbal form can occur on its own in an independent clause. A non-finite
verbal form is not marked for tense, number, mood, aspect, etc. and can only occur
on its own in a dependent clause. Non-finite forms include participles, infinitives,
verbal nouns, and verbal adjectives (cf. KernsSchwartz 1972:1). A transitive
verb takes a direct object, while an intransitive verb does not. A direct object
denotes the goal, beneficiary, or recipient of the action of a transitive verb (the
patient). An indirect object denotes the person or thing that is indirectly affected by
the action of the verb. Additional terms will be defined as they occur. As an aside, it
may be noted that research begun in 1980 by Paul J. Hopper and Sandra Thompson
and since continued by many others (Comrie, Givn, Kemmer, Langacker, Rice,
Slobin, etc.) has greatly enhanced our understanding of transitivity.
526 CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
There was also a difference between primary and secondary endings and between
thematic and athematic endings. The terms primary and secondary are
misnomers the active primary endings arose from the secondary endings through
the addition of a particle *-i indicating here and now to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd
persons singular and the 3rd person plural (cf. Watkins 1998:59; KernsSchwartz
1972:4; Szemernyi 1996:327; Fortson 2004:85; Sihler 1995:455; Lehmann
1993:173; Burrow 1973:314). Intraparadigmatic ablaut and accent variations also
played a role in determining the form of the personal endings.
We can now look more closely at each set of personal endings, beginning with
the active endings of the present/aorist (cf. Meier-Brgger 2003:178; Szemernyi
1996:233238; Watkins 1969:2268 and 1998:6061; Meillet 1964:227232;
Brugmann 1904:589594; Burrow 1973:306311; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1995.I:
283286; Beekes 1995:232233; Adrados 1975.II:601605; Sihler 1995:454;
Fortson 2004:8485; Clackson 2007:123125; Baldi 1987:58; Rix 1992:240):
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN MORPHOLOGY I: TRADITIONAL RECONSTRUCTION 527
Notes:
1. The 1st singular and plural may have had alternative endings in */w/ besides
*/m/, as indicated by the Luwian 1st singular present indicative ending -wi and
the Hittite 1st plural present indicative primary endings -weni/-wani. The */w/ is
also preserved in the 1st singular preterite ending in Tocharian: A -w, B -wa.
2. The dual endings given in the above table are extremely controversial.
3. On the basis of the Hittite and Greek evidence, it is possible that the athematic
primary endings for the 1st person plural may have had the alternative forms
*-men/*-mon in the Indo-European parent language (cf. Szemernyi 1996:235;
Beekes 1995:233). It is clear that the basic ending was *-me-/*-mo- to which the
plural markers *-s or *-n could be optionally added. The individual daughter
languages chose one or the other of these variants. In the case of Indo-Iranian,
the resulting *-mes/*-mos was further extended by *-i, yielding, for example,
the Vedic 1st plural primary ending -masi, Avestan -mahi (cf. Burrow
1973:308309; Beekes 1988:154), while the same thing happened in Hittite,
but with the *-men/*-mon endings instead.
The primary endings were used in the present, while the secondary endings were
used in the aorist (cf. Szemernyi 1996:233; Meier-Brgger 2003:166). In addition,
the secondary endings were used in the optative and in the imperfect (cf. Meier-
Brgger 2003:166). Finally, both primary and secondary endings could be used in
the subjunctive (cf. Meier-Brgger 2003:166). Except for the fact that they were
added after the thematic vowel in thematic stems instead of directly to the
undifferentiated verbal stem as in athematic stems, the endings were identical in
thematic and athematic stems apart from the first person singular thematic primary
ending, which was *-o-H (cf. Szemernyi 1996:233 and 236237; Meier-Brgger
2003:179). Thematic and athematic stems were differentiated, however, by the fact
that there was an ablaut variation along with a corresponding shift in the placement
of the accent between the singular and plural in active athematic stems, while the
528 CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
thematic formations do not exhibit such variations between singular and plural
forms (cf. Meier-Brgger 2003:168).
The following reconstructed Proto-Indo-European paradigms of *Hes- to be
and *ber- to bear, to carry illustrate the typical patterning of the active/aorist
system (only the singular and plural forms are given) (cf. Szemernyi 1996:314 and
316; Fortson 2004:87 and 89; Sihler 1995:548; Watkins 1969:25 and 40; Buck
1933:242243; Clackson 2007:124127; Beekes 1995:232234):
Athematic Thematic
Primary Secondary Primary Secondary
Singular
1 *Hs-mi *Hs-m *br-o-H *br-o-m
2 *Hs-si *Hs-s *br-e-si *br-e-s
3 *Hs-ti *Hs-t *br-e-ti *br-e-t
Plural
1 *Hs-m(s) *Hs-m *br-o-me(s) *br-o-me
2 *Hs-t *Hs-t *br-e-te *br-e-te
3 *Hs-nti *Hs-nt *br-o-nti *br-o-nt
Notes:
1. The athematic and thematic secondary forms are for the imperfect.
2. The imperfect is characterized by the so-called augment in Sanskrit and Greek
(see below).
3. There was a change of accent and ablaut in the athematic stems in the
singular, the stem had full-grade vowel and was accented, while, in the plural,
the stem had zero-grade vowel, and the accent was shifted to the ending.
In Indo-Iranian and Greek, there is a prefix *He-, usually termed the augment,
which is added to imperfect and aorist stems. The same prefix is found in
Armenian, but it is only added to the aorist. There is also a trace of the augment in
Phrygian (cf. DiakonoffNeroznak 1985:2223; Brixhe 1994:173174 and
2004:785; Fortson 2004:403: cf. Old Phrygian e-daes/- [he/she] put, placed
[= Latin fcit]). The use of the augment was a later development specific to these
branches (cf. Lehmann 1993:165, 180181, 244 and 2002:3233; Meier-Brgger
2003:182; Sihler 1995:484485; Meillet 1964:242243) and, accordingly, is not
to be reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European. According to Meier-Brgger
(2003:182) and Beekes (1995:226), the augment developed from a Proto-Indo-
European adverb *He- meaning at that time.
The next set of personal endings to be examined are the middle endings of the
present/aorist system (only the singular and plural forms are reconstructed in the
following table) (cf. Fortson 2004:8687; Sihler 1995:471; Watkins 1998:61, table
2.8; Adams 1988:59):
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN MORPHOLOGY I: TRADITIONAL RECONSTRUCTION 529
Recently, there has been a shift of opinion regarding the reconstruction of the
middle endings. Earlier views based the reconstruction of these endings mainly on
the forms found in Indo-Iranian and Greek, and it is these older reconstructions that
are given, for example, in Brugmann (1904:594596), Meillet (1964:232234),
Szemernyi (1996:239), Meier-Brgger (2003:179180), Rix (1992:240 and
246249), and Buck (1933:248, 342), among others. However, the primary
middle personal endings in *-r found in Anatolian, Italic, Celtic, Tocharian, and
Phrygian are now thought to represent the original patterning, while the primary
middle personal endings in *-i found in Indo-Iranian, Greek, Germanic, and
Albanian are taken to be innovations (cf. Fortson 2004:86). GamkrelidzeIvanov
(1995.I:286288), however, suggest that both types of middle personal endings go
back to Proto-Indo-European and that there has been contamination between the
two types in the individual daughter languages. Beekes (1995:241 and 252), on the
other hand, rejects the reconstructions based upon the Indo-Iranian and Greek
models and also assumes that the primary middle endings in *-i are innovations and
do not represent the situation in the Indo-European parent language. However, he
views the endings in *-r as innovations as well and claims, consequently, that there
was no difference here between primary and secondary endings in the middle.
Beekes (1995:252) summarizes his views in a table (see also the sample paradigm
on p. 257). My own thinking is that there was only one set of middle personal
endings in Proto-Indo-European not two as proposed by GamkrelidzeIvanov
and that Anatolian, Italic, Celtic, Tocharian, and Phrygian reflect the original
patterning (cf. Sihler 1995:473). The middle personal endings were related to the
perfect (= stative) personal endings (cf. Kuryowicz 1964:58 and 61; Watkins
1998:60), as is clear from the forms listed in the above table when compared with
the perfect personal endings, which are given below. I further support the view that
the middle personal endings found in Indo-Iranian, Greek, Germanic, and Albanian
are innovations. The middle personal endings found in these branches may be viewed
as having been remodeled after the active endings (cf. Sihler 1995:472; Fortson
2004:85). They have, however, retained traces of the older endings (cf. Burrow
1973:315). Even in the branches that have preserved the middle personal endings in
*-r, there has been some contamination by the active personal endings as well as other
innovations specific to each branch (for an excellent discussion of the development of
530 CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
the middle personal endings in the various Indo-European daughter languages, cf.
Sihler 1995:474480). Contamination by the active personal endings is most
certainly what has happened, for example, in Hittite in the 3rd plural present endings
of the i-conjugation, which are based upon *-nti (> Hittite -anzi, with -z- from
earlier *-t- before -i) instead of the expected *-nto-r or *-ro-r (cf. Hittite 3rd pl. pres.
ak-kn-zi they die [but pret. a-ki-ir, a-kir, e-ki-ir, e-kir]; 3rd pl. pres. a-ra-an-zi they
arrive [but pret. e-ri-(e-)ir, i-e-ri-ir]; 3rd pl. pres. a-e-a-an-zi, a-i-a-an-zi they set
up, they found [but pret. a-e-(e-)e-ir, a-e-ir]; 3rd pl. pres. a-a-a-an-zi, -e-
a-an-zi they open [but pret. i-e-e-ir]; ka-ri-pa-an-zi, ka-ra-pa-an-zi they devour
[but pret. ka-ri-e-p-ir]; e-ik-kn-zi they know [but pret. e-ik-ki-ir] [the preceding
examples are taken from Sturtevant 1951:160171; for additional examples, cf. J.
Friedrich 1960.I:98106; Kronasser 1966.1:511569]).
The following reconstructed Proto-Indo-European paradigm of *ber- to bear,
to carry illustrates the typical patterning of the middle system (only the singular
and plural thematic forms are given) (cf. Fortson 2004:86):
Primary Secondary
(Non-past) (Past)
Singular
1 *br-o-He-r *br-o-He
2 *br-e-tHe-r *br-e-tHe
3 *br-o-r *br-o
Plural
1 *br-o-medH *br-o-medH
2 *br-e-dwe *br-e-dwe
3 *br-o-ro-r *br-o-ro
Now, let us take a look at the perfect (= stative) endings (in comparison with the
middle endings, repeated here from the above table [cf. Fortson 2004:93]) (only the
singular and plural forms are given) (note also Jasanoff 2003:55):
Middle endings
Secondary endings Primary endings
Person Perfect Athematic Thematic Athematic Thematic
1st sg. *-He *-He *-o-He *-He-r *-o-He-r
2nd sg. *-tHe *-tHe *-e-tHe *-tHe-r *-e-tHe-r
3rd sg. *-e *-to *-o *-to-r *-o-r
1st pl. *-me- *-medH *-o-medH *-medH *-o-medH
2nd pl. *-e *-dwe *-e-dwe *-dwe *-e-dwe
3rd pl. *-r, *-r s *-nto, *-o-nto, *-nto-r, *-o-nto-r,
*-ro *-o-ro *-ro-r *-o-ro-r
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN MORPHOLOGY I: TRADITIONAL RECONSTRUCTION 531
The close resemblance between the two sets of personal endings is obvious, at least
in the singular (cf. Burrow 1973:317). The perfect personal endings are most
certainly the oldest, and the middle personal endings are later formations derived
from them (cf. Burrow 1973:317; Kurzov 1993:120121 and 157171).
The perfect of traditional grammar is now commonly interpreted as stative. It
referred to a state in present time (cf. Watkins 1998:57; Jasanoff 1979:79) and was
restricted to verbs that were semantically appropriate (cf. Lehmann 2002:77 and
7880; Sihler 1995:564). Later, it developed into a resultative and, from that, into
a preterite in the individual Indo-European daughter languages (cf. Watkins 1998:
57). The perfect was characterized by reduplication (cf. Fortson 2004:93), by a
special set of personal endings, and by a change of accent and ablaut between the
singular and plural. There was no distinction between primary and secondary
personal endings in the perfect.
The following reconstructed Proto-Indo-European paradigm of *me-mon- to
remember illustrates the typical patterning of the perfect system (only the singular
and plural forms are given) (cf. Fortson 2004:94) (Jasanoff 2003:42 reconstructs a
different set of plural forms):
Singular Plural
1 *me-mn-He *me-mn -m
2 *me-mn-tHe *me-mn-
3 *me-mn-e *me-mn-r
Proto-Indo- Homeric
European Sanskrit Greek Gothic Latin
Singular
1 *wyt-He vda (+) wait vd
2 *wyt-tHe vttha (+) waist vdist
3 *wyt-e vda (+) wait vdit
Plural
1 *wit-m vidm (+) witum vdimus
2 *wit- vid (+) witu vdistis
3 *wit-r vidr (+)() witun vdre, -runt
Notes:
532 CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
Active Middle
Athematic Thematic
Singular
2 *-, *-di *-e *-so
3 *-t(+ u) *-e-t(+ u) *-to
Plural
2 *-te *-e-te *-dwo
3 *-ent(+ u) *-ont(+ u) *-nto
The 2nd singular and the 3rd singular and plural middle forms given above are
reconstructed on the basis of what is found in Greek and Latin. They are clearly
derived from the active/aorist personal endings through the addition of *-o. Only
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN MORPHOLOGY I: TRADITIONAL RECONSTRUCTION 533
the 2nd plural imperative ending is derived from the regular middle endings. These
forms are not ancient Meier-Brgger (2003:181), for one, considers them to be
post-Proto-Indo-European.
Finally, it should be noted that the 3rd singular and plural future imperative
endings in Greek, Italic, and Celtic go back to *-tt (traditional *-td < *-to-od) and
*-ntt (traditional *-ntd) respectively: Archaic Latin da-td he shall give. In
Sanskrit, the corresponding ending is -tt (cf. Burrow 1973:349350), which is used
for both the 2nd and 3rd singular as well as the 2nd plural imperative (but not the 3rd
plural). According to Szemernyi (1996:248), this ending was derived from the
ablative singular of the pronoun *to- (*tt < *to-ot), which was simply appended
to the verbal stem (see also Brugmann 1904:558). Szemernyi further notes that it
meant something like from there, thereafter, which accounts for its future
reference.
For more information on the imperative endings, cf. Brugmann 1904:557
558; Fortson 2004:95; Szemernyi 1996:247249; Meier-Brgger 2003:181;
Beekes 1995:248249; Meillet 1964:235237; Sihler 1995:601606.
Cuneiform Hiero.
Hittite Palaic Luwian Luwian Lycian Lydian
1st sg. -mi, -wi -w, -wi -u, -
-()i
2nd sg. -i, -ti -i, -ti -i -i -s
3rd sg. -zi, -i -ti, -i -ti, -i -ti, -i (?) -t/di -t, -d
1st pl. -weni -wani
2nd pl. -teni -tani
3rd pl. -anzi -anti -(a)nti -(a)nti -ti -t, -d
Cuneiform Hiero.
Hittite Palaic Luwian Luwian Lycian Lydian
1st sg. -un, -a -a -ha -a -, -(i)d
-()un
2nd sg. -, -()ta -i -
3rd sg. -t(a), -i -ta -ta -te -l
-()ta
1st pl. -wen -man -min
2nd pl. -ten
3rd pl. -er -(a)nta -(a)nta -(a)nta -te
The middle is only attested in Hittite with certainty (cf. Luraghi 1998:183):
Present Preterite
1st sg. -a, -ari, -aari -ar(i), -aat(i)
2nd sg. -ta -ta, -tat(i)
3rd sg. -ta, -tari, -a, -ari -(t)at(i)
1st pl. -wata, -watari, -watati -watat(i)
2nd pl. -duma, -dumari, -dumati -dumat
3rd pl. -anta, -antari -antat(i)
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN MORPHOLOGY I: TRADITIONAL RECONSTRUCTION 535
Cuneiform Hiero.
Hittite Palaic Luwian Luwian Lycian Lydian
1st sg. -allu, -allu ?
-llu
2nd sg. -, -i, -t ?
3rd sg. -tu, -u -du -(d)du, -tu -tu, -u ?
-(t)tu
1st p. -weni ?
2nd pl. -ten, -tin -ttan -tan -tanai ?
3rd pl. -antu, -ndu -ndu, -ntu -(a)ntu -tu ?
-andu
In Hittite, the ending -ru could be added to the middle forms to create middle
imperatives (cf. Sturtevant 1951:146).
The endings of the Hittite i-conjugation are based upon the Proto-Indo-
European stative endings, to which -i has been appended: Pre-Hittite *-a+i, *-ta+i,
*-a+i > Hittite -i, -ti, -i (cf. Beekes 1995:239; Drinka 1995:3; Jasanoff 2003:6).
The 1st singular preterite ending -un is a Hittite innovation. The original form of
the 1st singular preterite ending, *-a, is preserved in the other Anatolian daughter
languages: Palaic -a, Cuneiform Luwian -a, Hieroglyphic Luwian -ha, Lycian
-a. The origin of the Hittite i-conjugation is thus clear, even if all of the details
are not yet completely understood. The Proto-Indo-European stative has been
changed into a present class in Hittite by the addition of -i to the stative personal
endings in imitation of the mi-conjugation. The original forms of the endings of the
stative have been partially preserved in the preterite, though the development of a
distinct preterite here is an Anatolian innovation.
Person Endings
1st sg. *-He
2nd sg. *-tHe
3rd sg. *-e
1st pl. *-me- (?)
2nd pl. *-e
3rd pl. *-r, *-r s
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN MORPHOLOGY I: TRADITIONAL RECONSTRUCTION 537
These are the endings that served as the basis for the Hittite i-conjugation and for
the perfect in the non-Anatolian daughter languages. Inasmuch as the stative
indicated a mere state without reference to time, there was no differentiation
between primary and secondary endings here (cf. Lehmann 2002:170; Kerns
Schwartz 1972:1011). Moreover, except for the 3rd person plural, the plural
endings seem to be later additions (cf. Lehmann 2002:169 and 171).
A separate set of middle endings must also be reconstructed for Early Proto-
Indo-European:
The middle endings were built mostly on the stative endings (cf. Watkins 1962:98).
However, the 3rd person singular and plural forms in *-ta- and *-nta- respectively
were imported from the active conjugation. The 1st and 2nd plural endings, on the
other hand, were unique to the middle. The 1st plural was created by the addition of
*-dH (> *-dH ) to the 1st plural active ending *-me- (cf. Sihler 1995:477), while
the origin of the 2nd plural ending *-dwe (> *-dwe) is not known. The primary
endings were distinguished from the secondary endings by the addition of a
suffix *-r. The original meaning of the middle is clear. The middle was used to
indicate that the subject was being acted upon either the subject was performing
the action on or for himself/herself, or the subject was the recipient but not the
agent of the action (cf. Lehmann 1993:243; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1995.I:289
295). Thus, the middle was nothing other than a specialized form of the stative (cf.
Lehmann 1993:218, 219, and 243; Luraghi 1998:184). GamkrelidzeIvanov
(1995.I:288) note that the middle could only have arisen in Proto-Indo-European
after subject-object relations and distinct forms for direct and indirect objects had
appeared.
The last set of personal endings that we will examine are the imperative
endings, which may be reconstructed as follows for Early Proto-Indo-European:
Singular Plural
The bare stem was the fundamental form of the 2nd person singular imperative (cf.
Lehmann 1993:182; Szemernyi 1996:247; Meier-Brgger 2003:181). This could
be further extended by a particle *-di (> *-di), the meaning of which is unknown.
538 CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
The 3rd person singular and plural imperative endings were the same as the active
endings to which *-u was added, while the 2nd person plural imperative ending was
identical with the 2nd person plural active ending (cf. Szemernyi 1996:247). The
Anatolian first singular imperative ending *-(a)llu may indeed have been a remnant
of an old hortatory ending as noted by Greenberg (2000:196). The hortatory was
used to express an exhortation as in English lets go.
We are not quite done yet. In addition to the regular personal endings of
traditional grammar, there are irregular forms that need to be examined as well (cf.
Villar 1991:248).
First, there is some evidence from Hittite and Tocharian for a 2nd singular
active personal ending *-t (cf. Villar 1991:248; Malzahn 2010:3031). In Hittite,
this ending may be preserved in the 2nd singular active preterite ending -ta (cf., for
example, 2nd sg. pret. e-e-ta you were, e-ip-ta you took, ku-en-ta you struck,
etc.). Note also the following Tocharian A athematic endings (cf. Adams 1988:55;
Van Windekens 19761982.III:259297; for paradigms, see KrauseThomas
19601964.I:262270; Winter 1998:167):
Note: There are phonological problems with the 3rd singular ending -() in
Tocharian had this been inherited directly from Proto-Indo-European *-si,
we would expect -()s, not -(). The best explanation is that of Pedersen,
who derived this ending from an enclitic *se-. For details on the develop-
ment of the personal endings in Tocharian, cf. Adams 1988:5162; Van
Windekens 19761982.II/2:259297; Malzahn 2010:2649.
Considering that the form of the 2nd plural personal ending was *-te, it would
make sense if the original form of the 2nd singular personal ending were *-t.
Next, there is also evidence for an original 3rd singular personal ending *-s.
Watkins (1962:97106) discusses the evidence from the Indo-European daughter
languages for an original 3rd singular ending in *-s in great detail (though Watkins
concludes that the *-s- was an enlargement rather than a personal ending indeed,
some, but not all, of the material examined by Watkins supports such an
interpretation). It was Watkins who also showed that the 3rd singular indicative was
originally characterized by the fundamental ending zero (see also Villar 1991:248).
At a later date, the 3rd singular personal ending *-s was mostly replaced by the new
3rd singular personal ending *-t. This change must have occurred fairly early,
however, since the *-t forms are found in Hittite and the other Anatolian daughter
languages.
When the personal ending *-t was added to the 3rd singular, it must also have
been added to the 3rd plural ending at the same time, yielding the new 3rd plural
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN MORPHOLOGY I: TRADITIONAL RECONSTRUCTION 539
ending *-nt. This leads us to conclude that the original form of the 3rd plural
ending must have been *-n.
It thus appears that the earliest recoverable Proto-Indo-European active
personal endings may have been as follows (cf. Villar 1991:249, who reconstructs
an identical set of personal endings for the singular and 2nd person plural but not
for the 1st and 3rd persons plural Villar reconstructs *-u e for the 1st plural and
*-r for the 3rd plural):
The important point in this proposal is the regularity between the 1st and 2nd
persons singular and plural, which are constructed on the same elements, though it
must be noted that there was also an alternative 1st plural ending *-we, as suggested
by Villar (1991:249). That this alternative ending is ancient is shown by the fact
that it is found in the Anatolian languages. The difference in form was due to an
intraparadigmatic accent shift the accent was placed on the root in the singular
but on the ending in the plural, at least in athematic stems (cf. Burrow 1973:320).
An important benefit of this reconstruction is that it provides a means to explain the
1st and 2nd person plural endings in *me-n- (~ *-we-n-) and *-te-n- respectively
found, for example, in Greek and Anatolian. These endings may be seen as having
been analogically remodeled after the 3rd plural. At a later date, this *-n was
partially replaced by *-s in the 1st person plural in the other non-Anatolian Indo-
European daughter languages: cf., for example, Sanskrit active 1st plural personal
ending (primary) -mas(i) (as in Vedic smsi we are, Classical Sanskrit sms, etc.).
It may be noted here that there are alternative forms of the 2nd plural primary and
secondary endings in -na in Sanskrit: (primary) -thana, (secondary) -tana. These
are now to be seen as reflecting the older patterning and not as Sanskrit innovations
(cf. Burrow 1973:309). The link between the *-n of 3rd person plural and the *-n of
the 1st and 2nd persons plural was permanently broken when the 3rd person plural
ending was extended by *-t, as indicated above. An alternative scenario is possible
here the *-n may be a remnant of an old plural ending. In this scenario, *-n and
*-s would have been competing plural markers that could have optionally been
added to the 1st plural personal endings, with *-n being the more archaic of the
pair.
The fact that the same set of personal endings could be used interchangeably
for the 2nd and 3rd persons singular in Hittite in the preterite (cf. Sturtevant
1951:141) seems to indicate that Hittite represents a transitional stage in which the
arrangement of the endings had not yet been completely worked out. This gives us a
clue about the chronology of the changes we have been talking about here they
must have begun just prior to the time when the Anatolian languages became
separated from the main speech community.
540 CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
As noted above, four moods are traditionally reconstructed for later Proto-Indo-
European: indicative, subjunctive, optative, and imperative. Inasmuch as the
indicative was the default mood, there were no special markers to distinguish the
indicative (cf. Szemernyi 1996:257). Moreover, we have already discussed the
imperative in the section on personal markers. Therefore, only the subjunctive and
optative require explanation in this section. This is also the place to mention the so-
called injunctive.
SUBJUNCTIVE: The subjunctive was constructed on the indicative stem and was
distinguished by the connecting vowel *-e/o-, which was inserted between the bare
stem and the personal endings in the case of athematic verbs or between the thematic
vowel and the personal endings in the case of thematic verbs (cf. Szemernyi
1996:257; Fortson 2004:93; Meier-Brgger 2003:176177), as illustrated by the
following examples (athematic *Hes- to be, thematic *ber-e/o- to bear, to carry;
note that the accent is on the root throughout the paradigm, and the full-grade vowel is
retained in the root as well [cf. Beekes 1995:246; Sihler 1995:593]):
Athematic Thematic
Singular
1 *Hs-o-H *br-e-oH > *br--H
2 *Hs-e-s(i) *br-e-e-s(i) > *br--s(i)
3 *Hs-e-t(i) *br-e-e-t(i) > *br--t(i)
Plural
1 *Hs-o-me- *br-o-o-me- > *br--me-
2 *Hs-e-te *br-e-e-te > *br--te
3 *Hs-o-nt(i) *br-o-o-nt(i) > *br--nt(i)
Singular Plural
Singular Plural
The optative did not exist in Anatolian, which indicates that it was a later
development within Proto-Indo-European (cf. Meier-Brgger 2003:178; Fortson
2004:96).
PRESENT STEMS: The formation of present stems was complicated. Present stems
could be thematic or athematic, active voice or middle voice or even both,
underived (= root stems) or derived (from verbal stems or from nominal stems) (cf.
KernsSchwartz 1972:68).
A. ATHEMATIC ROOT STEMS: Athematic root stems consisted of the simple verbal
root without further extension. In this type of verbal stem, there was an
intraparadigmatic alternation of accent and ablaut between the singular and the
plural in the singular, the accent fell on the root, and the vowel of the root
appeared in its full-grade form, while, in the plural, the accent was shifted to
the ending, and the vowel of the root appeared in its zero-grade form (that is, it
was lost) (cf. Burrow 1973:320). This is an ancient type. This type may be
illustrated by the following examples (only the singular and plural forms are
given):
Singular
1 *Hs-mi *Hy-mi *gn-mi
2 *Hs-si *Hy-si *gn-si
3 *Hs-ti *Hy-ti *gn-ti
Plural
1 *Hs-ms *Hi-ms *gn -ms
2 *Hs-t *Hi-t *gn -t
3 *Hs-nti *Hy-nti *gn-nti
Singular Plural
1 *wg-o-H *wg-o-mes
2 *wg-e-si *wg-e-te
3 *wg-e-ti *wg-o-nti
Singular Plural
D. STEMS WITH NASAL INFIX: *-n- occupied a special position in verbal derivation
in Proto-Indo-European. Unlike other derivational elements, *-n- was inserted
as an infix into type II verbal stems (*CCV C-) according to the following
pattern: *CC-n-C- (cf. Benveniste 1935:159163 [note especially the table
on p. 161]; see also Szemernyi 1996:270271; Sihler 1995:498501;
Watkins 1998:57; Fortson 2004:88; Lehmann 1993:170171), but only when
the verbal stems ended in obstruents or laryngeals (cf. Lehmann 2004:118).
These were the seventh-class present stems of Sanskrit grammar. As noted by
Watkins (1998:57) (see also Szemernyi 1996:271), this type was most
faithfully preserved in Indo-Iranian. The original system was modified in the
other Indo-European daughter languages typically, they have become
thematic formations, as in Latin find to split, to cleave, linqu to leave, to
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN MORPHOLOGY I: TRADITIONAL RECONSTRUCTION 545
abandon, to forsake, to depart from, etc. The fact that the thematic formations
are also found in Indo-Iranian indicates that the original system was already
moribund at the time of the emergence of the individual non-Anatolian Indo-
European daughter languages. This type may be illustrated by *yu-n-k-
(traditional *yu-n-g-) to join (only the singular and plural forms are given;
the Sanskrit forms are also listed for comparison [cf. Burrow 1973:327]):
Proto-Indo-European Sanskrit
Singular
1 *yu-n-k-mi yunjmi
2 *yu-n-k-si yunki
3 *yu-n-k-ti yunkti
Plural
1 *yu-n-k-ms yujms
2 *yu-n-k-t yuykth
3 *yu-n-k-nti yujnti
Szemernyi (1996:270271) points out that similar structures are found in the
fifth-class and ninth-class present stems of Sanskrit grammar, and he cites
Sanskrit ru- to hear (< Proto-Indo-European *klew-; cf. Greek to
hear; Latin clue to hear oneself called, to be called, to be named) and (3rd
sg. pres.) pvate to make clean, to cleanse, to purify (< Proto-Indo-European
*pewH-/*puH-; cf. *p- in Latin put to cleanse, to clear, prus clean,
pure) as examples (see also Meier-Brgger 2003:170), thus:
Proto-Indo-European Sanskrit
*klew-/*klu- ru-
*kl -n-w-ti ti
*pewH-/*puH- pvate
*pu-n-H-ti pun ti
E. *-sk- FORMATIONS: The fact that verbal formations employing this suffix are
found in Hittite indicates that this type is ancient. In Hittite, this suffix forms
iteratives, duratives, or distributives (cf. Luraghi 1997:28 and 1998:185;
Kronasser 1966.1:575576; Beekes 1995:230; Sturtevant 1951:129131;
Sihler 1995:506) an iterative or durative meaning seems to be its original
function (cf. Szemernyi 1996:273; Sihler 1995:507; Meillet 1964:221). This
suffix is always thematic and accented and is attached to roots in the zero-grade
(cf. Szemernyi 1996:273; Watkins 1998:59; Meier-Brgger 2003:171; Fortson
2004:90; Beekes 1995:230; Sihler 1995:505; Watkins 1998:59). This type may
be illustrated by *prek- (*pre%- in Brugmanns transcription) to ask and
546 CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
Proto-Indo-European Sanskrit
This suffix is also found in Hittite (cf. 3rd sg. wa-a-i-e-iz-zi, wa-a-e-iz-zi,
and wa-a-i-ya-zi to get dressed, to put on clothes) (cf. Kronasser
1966.1:467511 for details). In Hittite, however, the regular causative
conjugation was formed with the suffix *-new-/*-nu- (cf. Luraghi 1997:28;
Sturtevant 1951:127128; Kronasser 1966.1:438460). Luraghi (1997:28)
notes that this suffix could derive transitive verbs from adjectives or from
intransitive verbs, or it could derive ditransitive verbs from transitive verbs.
Causatives could also be formed in Hittite by means of the infix -nen-/-nin- (cf.
Kronasser 1966.1:435437). As noted by Luraghi (1997:28), causatives in
-nu- were much more frequent than causatives in -nen-/-nin-.
The causative(-iterative) conjugation reconstructed for Proto-Indo-
European on the basis of the non-Anatolian Indo-European daughter languages
is best seen as a later, post-Anatolian development. Though the same type of
formation is found in Hittite, its use as the regular means to indicate the
causative(-iterative) did not arise until later. It was constructed on pre-existing
thematic stems, extended with the suffix *-ye/o- (cf. KernsSchwartz 1972:8).
AORIST STEMS: As noted above, the aorist indicated an action or an event that
occurred once and was completed in the past. There were two distinct types of
aorist formations in Late Proto-Indo-European: (A) the sigmatic aorist, in which
548 CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
*-s- was added to the verbal root, and (B) asigmatic aorist, without *-s-. In Indo-
Iranian, the sigmatic aorist was accompanied by lengthened-grade of the root in the
active (cf. Szemernyi 1996:282; Beekes 1995:235236), and there is evidence
from Slavic and Italic pointing in the same direction (cf. Fortson 2004:92).
However, Drinka (1995:833) argues that this was a secondary development and
should not be projected back into Proto-Indo-European, though Szemernyi
(1996:282) maintains that lengthened-grade was original. The asigmatic aorist itself
contained two subtypes: (A) the root (athematic) aorist, in which the personal
endings were added directly to the root, and (B) the thematic aorist, which, as the
name implies, was characterized by presence of the thematic vowel *-e/o- between
the root and the personal endings. In the root asigmatic aorist, the root had full-
grade in the active singular but reduced-grade elsewhere. In the thematic asigmatic
aorist, on the other hand, the root had reduced-grade (or zero-grade) throughout the
paradigm (cf. Szemernyi 1996:281). Finally, a reduplicated aorist can also be
reconstructed for Late Proto-Indo-European (cf. Szemernyi 1996:281; Fortson
2004:9293). The aorist was characterized by secondary personal endings and, in
Indo-Iranian, Greek, Armenian, and Phrygian (cf. Brixhe 1994:173 and 2004:785;
DiakonoffNeroznak 1985:22), by the presence of the so-called augment.
Inasmuch as the aorist did not exist in Anatolian, it must have arisen in later,
post-Anatolian Proto-Indo-European. Its development is fairly transparent. The
asigmatic type was the most ancient. It was constructed on the preterite forms (with
so-called secondary endings) reconstructed above for Early Proto-Indo-European
(cf. Austefjord 1988:2332) and originally exhibited an intraparadigmatic accent
and ablaut variation in the root similar to what was found in the present stems.
Thematic variants came into being in the aorist at the same time that they began to
appear in the present. The thematic variants were accented on the thematic vowel
throughout the paradigm, and the root had reduced-grade (or zero-grade). The next
change was the development of the sigmatic aorist. According to Fortson (2004:92),
the characteristic *-s- of the sigmatic aorist was most likely derived from the 3rd
singular active preterite ending *-s- found, for example, in the Hittite i-conjugation
(cf. na-(a-)i he/she led, turned, drove, (a-)ak-ki-i he/she died, a-ar-a he/she
arrived, ka-ri-pa-a he/she devoured, a-ak-ki-i he/she knew, etc.) (see also
Drinka 1995:141143). The next change was the development of lengthened-grade
forms in the active in the sigmatic aorist (though not in Greek). The final change was
the addition of the augment in Indo-Iranian, Greek, Armenian, and Phrygian. These
last two changes belong to the early prehistory of the individual daughter languages
and should not be projected back into Proto-Indo-European. Cf. Jasanoff 2003:174
214 for original and stimulating ideas about the possible origin of the sigmatic aorist
(but these ideas are rejected by Ronald I. Kim 2005:194).
For an excellent discussion of the differences and similarities between the
present and the aorist, cf. Meillet 1964:247250. One of the things that comes out
quite clearly from Meillets discussion is that the semantic nuances between the
present, aorist, and imperfect are often quite subtle.
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN MORPHOLOGY I: TRADITIONAL RECONSTRUCTION 549
IMPERFECT STEMS: The imperfect was formed directly from the present stem (cf.
Fortson 2004:91). At the same time, it was closely related to the aorist (cf. Burrow
1973:333). It was used to indicate an action or an event occurring at some
unspecified point in the past, with no indication that the action had come to an end.
Thus, the distinction between the aorist and the imperfect was that the former
indicated completed action in the past, while the latter indicated continuous action
in the past. Thus, in terms of aspect, the aorist was perfective, and the imperfect was
imperfective (Sihler 1995:446447 uses the terms punctual and durative, but
see Comrie 1976:1640 for a description of perfective and imperfective
aspects and 4144 for a discussion of the difference between punctual and
durative). Like the aorist, it had secondary endings, and, in Indo-Iranian, Greek,
Armenian, and Phrygian, it was also characterized by the presence of the augment
(cf. Fortson 2004:91). There were both thematic and athematic types. Various
means were used to distinguish the aorist from the imperfect in later Proto-Indo-
European and in the individual non-Anatolian daughter languages, the most
significant being the development of sigmatic forms in the aorist. Nothing
comparable existed in the imperfect. There was also a close relationship between
the imperfect and the injunctive (they are treated together by Fortson 2004:9192),
and the injunctive is often described as an imperfect without the augment (cf.
Burrow 1973:346; Meillet 1964:247; Beekes 1995:245).
Szemernyi (1996:303) traces the development of aorist and imperfect as
follows:
FUTURE STEMS: The future did not exist as a separate tense in Proto-Indo-European
(cf. Szemernyi 1996:285; Beekes 1995:226; Sihler 1995:451 and 556; Kerns
Schwartz 1972:19). Consequently, the study of the sundry future formations that
appear in the individual non-Anatolian Indo-European daughter languages properly
belongs to those languages (for details, cf. Szemernyi 1996:285288; Fortson
2004:91; Burrow 1973:332333; Meillet 1964:215216; Sihler 1995:556559;
Buck 1933:278281; Palmer 1954:271272 and 1980:310312; Lindsay 1894:
491494; LewisPedersen 1937:289292; Endzelins 1971:231234).
Non-finite forms typically include participles, infinitives, verbal nouns, and verbal
adjectives. Participles have qualities of both verbs and adjectives and can function
as adjectival or adverbial modifiers. They can also be combined with auxiliary
550 CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
As noted by Sihler (1995:620), there is some disagreement about the form of the
root in the above paradigm since the evidence from the non-Anatolian daughter
languages is contradictory. According to some Indo-Europeanists, the root is to be
reconstructed with full-grade throughout (*weyt-), while others maintain that the
root had reduced-grade (*wit-) throughout, and still others (Szemernyi, Rix, and
Beekes, for example) maintain that there was an intraparadigmatic ablaut variation
(*weyt- ~ *wit- [traditional reconstruction *u ei d- ~ *u id-]). Sihler favors the
second alternative, namely, *wit- throughout.
The suffix *-meno-/*-mno- was used to form middle participles in Late Proto-
Indo-European (cf. Szemernyi 1996:320321; Beekes 1995:250; Meier-Brgger
2003:186; Fortson 2004:9798; Meillet 1964:279; Sihler 1995:618; Adrados
1995.II:741; Rix 1992:236): cf. Greek -- carrying; Sanskrit bhra-
ma- carrying; Avestan barmna- carrying. Related forms may have existed
in Anatolian (cf. Szemernyi 1996:320321): cf. the Luwian participle (nom. sg.)
ki-i-a-am-m[i-i] combed (n. ki-a-am-ma-an) (cf. Laroche 1959:55), assuming
here that graphemic -mm- either represents or is derived from -mn-.
In Late Proto-Indo-European, the suffixes *-to- and *-no- were used to form
verbal adjectives. Both later developed into past participle markers in the individual
non-Anatolian daughter languages (cf. Meillet 1964:277; Meier-Brgger 2003:186).
The suffix *-to- was the more widespread of the pair. It was originally accented
and attached to the reduced-grade of the root: *klu-t-s famous, renowned (cf.
Sanskrit ru-t- heard; Greek heard; Latin inclutus famous, celebrated,
renowned; Old Irish [noun] cloth fame). The same patterning may be observed in
*-no-: *pl H-n-s full (cf. Sanskrit pr- full, filled; Old Irish ln full;
Lithuanian plnas full). For details, cf. Fortson 2004:98; Beekes 1995:250251;
Adrados 1975.II:740745; Schmitt-Brandt 1998:268269; Szemernyi 1996:
323324; Sihler 1995:621625 and 628; Burrow 1973:370371. Occasionally,
other suffixes were used to form past participles as well in the individual daughter
languages: cf. Sanskrit chid-r- torn apart (with *-r-), pak-v- cooked (with
*-w-), etc. These, too, were originally verbal adjectives.
languages that set them apart as a group from Hittite and the other Anatolian
languages, it must be emphasized that much that appeared later was already
incipient in Early Proto-Indo-European.
As a result of the preceding analysis, it is clear that the Late Proto-Indo-
European morphological system not only contained the remnants of earlier
successive periods of development, it also included a substantial number of new
formations (cf. Lehmann 1993:185) KernsSchwartz (1972) refer to these new
formations as neologisms. In many cases, we have been able to trace how and
when these new formations came into being. It is even possible to discern different
stages within Late Proto-Indo-European, though, for our purposes, it is not
necessary to define all of these stages. Moreover, we have also caught glimpses of
how the inherited morphological system was modified in the individual daughter
languages, though the study of these changes falls outside of the scope of this book,
and individual descriptive and comparative grammars should be consulted for more
information. These works are listed in Volume 4 of this book.
It may be noted that Drinka (1995:4) reaches many of the same conclusions
arrived at in this chapter specifically, she states:
Similar views are expressed by, among others, Shields (2004:175), Watkins
(1962:105), Adrados (1992), Lehmann (2002), and Polom (1982b:53), who notes:
the wealth of forms, tenses, and moods that characterize Greek and Sanskrit,
and in which an earlier generation saw prototypes of exemplary Indo-European
grammatical structure in the verbal system, is nothing by a recent common
development of this subgroup of languages.
Drinka (1995:4) further remarks that, among the non-Anatolian daughter languages,
Germanic is particularly archaic (likewise Polom 1972:45: The particularly
conservative character of Gmc. has long been recognized), and the same may be
said about Tocharian (cf. Jasanoff 2003).
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN MORPHOLOGY I: TRADITIONAL RECONSTRUCTION 553
APPENDIX:
THE ORIGIN OF THE VERBAL THEMATIC STEMS
Beyond mentioning that verbal thematic stems were mostly later, post-Anatolian
developments, nothing has been said in the previous sections of this chapter about
their possible origin. In this Appendix, we will briefly explore how they may have
come into being. We will begin by listing the verbal thematic paradigm as
traditionally reconstructed (cf. Fortson 2004:89):
Primary
Singular Plural
1 *br-o-H *br-o-me(s)
2 *br-e-si *br-e-te
3 *br-e-ti *br-o-nti
Secondary
Singular Plural
1 *br-o-m *br-o-me
2 *br-e-s *br-e-te
3 *br-e-t *br-o-nt
Fortson (2004:89) mentions that the first person singular ending was ultimately the
same as the 1st singular ending of the middle (*-he), and it is widely believed that
the thematic conjugation had its origins in the middle. It is more likely, however,
that the middle, the thematic conjugation, and the perfect of traditional Indo-
European grammar all ultimately developed from a common source, namely, the
undifferentiated stative of Early Proto-Indo-European (cf. Jasanoff 2003:144
145). As shown by Jasanoff (2003), this was also the source of the Hittite i-
conjugation.
As noted by Jasanoff (2003:70, 97, 148149, and 224227), the starting
point for the development of the verbal thematic forms must have been the stative
third person singular. In accordance with Jasanoffs views, I assume that, just as the
third person ending *-t was added to athematic/active stems, replacing the earlier
athematic/active ending *-s, it was also added to the third person in stative stems:
(athematic/active) *br+t, (stative) *bre+t. Significantly, the ending *-e was
retained here instead of being replaced, as in the case of the athematic/active stems.
From there, the pattern was analogically extended to the rest of the paradigm, thus
producing a new stem type, the so-called thematic stems. The stem was then
reinterpreted as *br-e/o-, and the position of the accent was fixed on the root
throughout the paradigm. It should be noted here that there may also have existed a
second type of thematic formation in which the root was in reduced-grade and the
accent was fixed on the thematic vowel throughout the paradigm (cf. Fortson
2004:89) this is the tudti or sixth class of Sanskrit grammar (cf. Burrow
554 CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
19.1. INTRODUCTION
1. Early Proto-Indo-European
2. Late Proto-Indo-European
1. Pre-Proto-Indo-European
2. Phonemic Stress Stage of Proto-Indo-European
3. Phonemic Pitch Stage of Proto-Indo-European
4. Disintegrating Indo-European
Laryngeals: h
Vowels: e o a i u
Notes:
1. The high vowels *i and *u had the non-phonemic low variants *e and *o
respectively when contiguous with a-coloring laryngeals (*h, * and *),
while the vowel *e was lowered and colored to *a in the same environment.
2. Apophonic o had not yet developed. It arose later in Disintegrating Indo-
European from apophonic a. However, already during this stage, and even
earlier, in the Phonemic Stress Stage of Proto-Indo-European and in Pre-Proto-
Indo-European, there was a non-apophonic o that had been inherited from
Proto-Nostratic.
3. The velar stops developed non-phonemic palatalized allophones when
contiguous with front vowels and *y.
4. There were no voiced aspirates at this time. They developed later in
Disintegrating Indo-European from earlier plain voiced stops.
Phonemic analysis:
Suprasegmentals:
A. Stress: non-distinctive.
B. Pitch: distribution morphologically conditioned: high pitch was applied to
morphologically-distinctive vowels, while low pitch was applied to
morphologically-non-distinctive vowels.
During the Phonemic Pitch Stage of development, the system of vowel gradation
assumed the following form:
A. ~ e~a
B. y ~ y ey ~ ay i, yV y
w ~ w ew ~ aw u, wV w
m ~ m em ~ am m, mV m
n ~ n en ~ an n, nV n
l ~ l el ~ al l , lV l
r ~ r er ~ ar r, rV r
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN MORPHOLOGY II: PREHISTORIC DEVELOPMENT 559
C. Ae [Aa] ~ Aa A A
D. Aey [Aay] Ai, AyV Ay
Aew [Aaw] Au, AwV Aw
Note that in a split-S language like Mandan each intransitive verb has
fixed class membership either Sa or So generally on the basis of its
prototypical meaning. If one wanted to use a verb which deals with a proto-
typically non-controlled activity to describe that activity done purposely, then it
would still take So marking (and something like an adverb purposely could be
added). And similarly for a verb which describes a prototypically controlled
activity used to refer to that activity taking place accidentally Sa marking
would still be used (according to the prototypical pattern) together with some-
thing like an adverb accidentally.
Guaran, a Tup-Guaran language from Paraguay, provides a further
example of split-S marking. Gregores and Surez (1967) distinguish three
classes of verb. Transitive verbs (e.g. give, steal, know, order,
suspect, like) take prefixes from both subject and object paradigms (i.e. A
and O). Intransitive verbs (go, remain, continue, follow, fall) take
subject prefixes (i.e. Sa). Both of these classes can occur in imperative
inflection, unlike the third class, which Gregores and Surez call quality
verbs; these take prefixes (So) which are almost identical to object prefixes on
transitive verbs. Most quality verbs would correspond to adjectives in other
languages, although the class does contain remember, forget, tell a lie and
weep.
Split-S languages are reported from many parts of the world they
include Cocho, from the Popolocan branch of Oto-Manuean (Mock 1979),
Ikan, from the Chibchan family (Frank 1990), many modern languages from
the Arawak family and quite possible Proto-Arawak (Alexandra Y. Aikhen-
vald, personal communication), many Central Malayo-Polynesian languages of
eastern Indonesia (Charles E. Grimes, personal communication), and problably
also the language isolate Ket from Siberia (Comrie 1982b). The most
frequently quoted example of a split-S language is undoubtedly Dakota,
another member of the Siouan family (Boas and Deloria 1939; Van Valin 1977;
Legendre and Rood 1992; see also Sapir 1917; Fillmore 1968: 54). There are
many other languages of this type among the (possibly related) Caddoan,
Souan and Iroquoian families, e.g. Ioway-Oto (Whitman 1947) and Onondaga
(Chafe 1970).
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN MORPHOLOGY II: PREHISTORIC DEVELOPMENT 561
It will be seen that although intransitive verbs divide into an So class (which is
closed, with about a dozen members, e.g. to be sad, to remember, to yawn)
and an Sa class (which is open and includes walk and cry), Yawa does work
in terms of the S category there is always a prefix indicating S (rather than
Sa being marked by a postposition, as A is). (Data from Jones 1986.)
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN MORPHOLOGY II: PREHISTORIC DEVELOPMENT 563
There are also examples of a split-S system where syntactic functions are
marked by constituent order. Tolai, an Austronesian language spoken in New
Britain, Papua New Guinea, has, in transitive clauses, the A NP before the verb
and the O NP following it. Intransitive clauses have a single core NP this
must precede the verb for one set of verbs (e.g. go, sit, say, eat, be sick,
be cold) and must follow the verb for another set (e.g. flow, fall, burn,
cry, grow, be big, be nice). We thus have a contrast between Sa and So
realized through constituent order. (Data from Mosel 1984.)
A very similar pattern is apparent in Waur, an Arawak language spoken
on the Upper Xingu River in Brazil. Here a transitive clause shows basic
constituent order AVO; the verb has a pronominal prefix cross-referencing the
A NP, as in (1). There are two classes of intransitive verbs. One (which
includes work, flee, walk, fly) has an Sa NP that precedes the verb, and
there is a verb prefix cross-referencing it, as in (2). The other (which includes
catch fire, die, be full, be born and explode) has an So NP that comes
after the verb. This is illustrated in (3).
ways of combining ergative and accusative features can all yield systems that
are grammatically coherent and semantically sophisticated.
The one difficulty we do have is what case names to use for A and O in a
split-S language. Since each of A and O is like S for some intransitive verbs
and unlike S for others the names nominative/accusative and absolutive/
ergative are equally applicable to choose one of these sets over the other
would be unmotivated. Using ergative for A and accusative for O is one
possibility, although one might also want to take into consideration the relative
markedness between A-marking and O-marking in each particular language.
One solution is not to employ any of ergative, absolutive, accusative or
nominative for a split-S language but just stick to the terms A-marking and O-
marking.
According to Klimov, the typical features of active type languages are as follows:
Lexical properties:
1. Binary division of nouns into active vs. inactive (often termed animate and
inanimate or the like in the literature).
2. Binary division of verbs into active and inactive.
3. Classificatory verbs or the like (classification based on shape, animacy,
etc.).
4. Active verbs require active nouns as subject.
5. Singular-plural lexical suppletion in verbs.
6. The category of number absent or weakly developed.
7. No copula.
8. Adjectives are actually intransitive verbs.
9. Inclusive/exclusive pronoun distinction in first person.
10. No infinitive, no verbal nouns.
11. Etymological identity of many body-part and plant-part terms (e.g., ear
= leaf).
12. Doublet verbs, suppletive for animacy of actant.
Syntactic properties:
Morphological properties:
19. The verb is much more richly inflected than the noun.
20. Two series of personal affixes on the verb: active and inactive.
21. Verbs have aspect or Aktionsarten rather than tense.
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN MORPHOLOGY II: PREHISTORIC DEVELOPMENT 565
In accordance with this structure, two nouns and two verbs may be present
in the lexicon for objects and actions that may be regarded on the one hand as
being active or on the other hand as representing a state. Among such
phenomena is fire, which may be flaring and accordingly viewed as active or
animate, as expressed by Sanskrit Agns and Latin ignis, which are masculine
in gender, or as simply glowing and inactive, as expressed by Hittite pahhur,
Greek pr [], which are neuter in gender. Similarly, the action lying may be
regarded as active, i.e. to lie down, as expressed by Greek lg [] lay,
lull to sleep (cf. Pokorny 1959:65859) or as stative, as expressed by Greek
ketai [], Sanskrit te is lying (cf. Pokorny 1959:53940). Through
their inflection and some of their uses, such lexical items may be recognized in
the texts; but by the time of the dialects the earlier distinctions may have been
lost. As Pokorny says of reflexes of *legh-, it was punctual originally but its
reflexes subsequently became durative. Other verbs as well as nouns were
modified so that specific active or stative meanings of their reflexes were no
longer central in the dialects.
As a further characteristic, there is relatively little inflection, especially for
the stative words. Inactive or stative verbs were inflected only for the singular
and third plural. This restriction is of especial interest because it permits us to
account for one of the features of the Indo-European perfect. As will be
discussed further below, the perfect has been recognized as a reflex of the Pre-
Indo-European stative conjugation. In this way, its stative meaning as well as
the inclusion of characteristic forms only for the singular and the third plural
find their explanation.
As noted above, the lexicon consists of three parts of speech: nouns, verbs,
particles. There are two classes of nouns: active or animate and stative or
inanimate. Active nouns may have referents in the animal and plant world; for
example, a word may mean leaf as well as ear, cf. Sanskrit jambha- tooth
versus Greek gmphos [] bolt, pin. Adjectives are rare, if attested;
many of those in Government languages correspond to stative verbs in active
languages. Verbs, like nouns, belong to one of two classes: they are either
active/animate or stative/inanimate. Members of the active verb class are often
associated with voluntary action.
Active languages have no passive voice. Verbs may have, however, a
semantic feature known as version. That is, action may be directed
centripetally towards a person, or centrifugally away from the person. As an
example, the root *nem- has reflexes in some dialects with the meaning take
as in German nehmen, but in others with the meaning give, distribute as in
Greek nm []. Like the two words for some nouns that were given above,
only one of the meanings is generally maintained in a given dialect. Version is
subsequently replaced by voice, in which the centripetal meaning is expressed
by the middle, as in Greek danezesthai [] borrow as opposed to
danezein [] lend. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov relate with version the
presence of alienable possessive pronouns having centrifugal value in contrast
with inalienable pronouns having centripetal value (1995:291).
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN MORPHOLOGY II: PREHISTORIC DEVELOPMENT 567
Active languages include a third set of verbs that have been labeled
involuntary; their ending is that of the third person singular, and they have no
overt subject (Lehmann 1991). Some of these refer to the weather, such as
Latin pluit it is raining, others to psychological states, such as Latin paenitet
(me) I am sorry. As the dialects become accusative, these require subjects, as
in their English counterparts.
Lacking transitivity, active languages have no verb for have. Instead, the
relationship between a possessor and the possessed is expressed by use of a
case corresponding to the dative or locative accompanied by the substantive
verb, as in the Latin construction illustrated by mihi est liber [to me is the
book] I have a book. Reflexes of this situation are apparent in many of the
early Indo-European languages. As they adopt accusative characteristics,
however, the languages tend to lose impersonal constructions; to replace them
they adapt finite verbs, such as Greek khein [], Latin habre and English
have (cf. Lehmann 1993:22123; Justus 1999; Bauer 2000:18688).
Syntactically, active languages are generally OV. They construct sentences
by usually pairing active nouns with active verbs, and conversely stative nouns
with stative verbs. Not related to the verb through transitivity, these elements
may be referred to as complements (Comp). The nominal element closest to the
verb corresponds to a direct object in Government languages through its
complementation of the meaning expressed by the verb, while the more remote
nominal element corresponds to an adverbial nominal expression. Active verbs
may be associated with two complements, in the order: Subject Comp-2
Comp-1 Verb. Stative verbs do not take Comp-1.
Morphologically, there is little inflection of nouns and verbs, especially of
the stative classes. The plural has fewer forms than does the singular. The
stative class of nouns may be subdivided into groups according to the shape of
their referent; for example, the active class may be divided into groups by
persons as opposed to animals. Verbs have richer inflection than do nouns,
although that for stative verbs is not as great as that for active verbs. The
inflectional system of verbs expresses aspect, rather than tense.
There is no passive. Instead, active verbs may express centrifugal as well
as centripetal meaning, such as produce versus grow in accordance with
version. We have illustrated its effect by citing the two meanings of reflexes of
*nem-.
In somewhat the same way, possession may be expressed differently for
alienable and inalienable items, like his shirt (centrifugal) vs. his hand
(centripetal). In keeping with such reference, pronouns may differ for exclusive
and inclusive groupings, as illustrated by the old story about the missionary
who used the exclusive pronoun in saying: We are all sinners, to the
satisfaction of his native audience. These oppositions in active verbs and
nominal relationships are in accord with the opposition between active
(alienable, exclusive) and stative (inalienable, inclusive) reference.
Finally, particles play a major role in indicating sentential and inter-
sentential relationships.
Much as the basic force of stativity in active languages may be associated
with the expression of inalienability and exclusivity, transitivity as a major
force in Government languages affects not only the relationship between verbs
and nouns but also that between adpositions and nouns. A major shift between
568 CHAPTER NINETEEN
A. LEXICON: In active languages, nouns and verbs fall into two large groups:
active/animate and stative/inanimate. Lehmann emphasizes that the
classification by speakers of nouns into one of these groups may not coincide
with what may seem logical. For instance, trees and plants, moving natural
items (such as the sun, moon, smoke, etc.), animals, and exterior body parts
(such as legs and hands) are typically classified as active/animate in the Indo-
European daughter languages, while internal body parts (such as heart and
liver), stationary natural items (such mountain peaks and cliffs), and grains and
fruits are typically classified as inanimate. Lehmann (2002:6674) cites,
among others, Latin (f.) manus hand and (m.) ps foot as examples of
external body parts, Latin (n.) cor heart and (n.) iecur liver as examples of
internal body parts, Latin (f.) mlus apple tree, (f.) ornus ash, (m.) quercus
oak, and (m.) fls flower as examples of trees and plants, Latin (n.) mlum
apple, (n.) hordeum barley, (n.) fr spelt, and (n.) milium millet as
examples of fruits and grains, Latin (m.) sl sun and (m.) fmus smoke as
examples of moving natural items, Latin (f.) avis bird as an example of
animal, and Hittite (n.) -kur mountain peak and (n.) te-kn earth (cf. J.
Friedrich 1991:68 and 220) as examples of stationary natural items. All of
these and other such examples may be counted as residues of an earlier active
structure.
Lehmann also cites examples of doublets from the individual daughter
languages for common words like fire (= flaming, burning) (as in Latin
ignis fire, flame) vs. fire (= glowing) (as in Hittite pa-a-ur fire and
Greek fire), thunderbolt (as in Sanskrit vjra- thunderbolt [= Indras
weapon] and Avestan vazra- club, mace) vs. lightning (as in Gothic
lauhmuni lightning and New High German Blitz lightning), to sustain, to
nourish (as in Latin al to nourish, to support and Old Irish alim to
nourish) vs. to grow (as in Gothic alan to grow). The first forms are
active/animate, while the second forms are inactive/inanimate. These doublets
can be seen as residues of an earlier active structure. Such doublets are also
noted by GamkrelidzeIvanov (1995.I:238239).
B. NOUNS, VERBS, AND PARTICLES: Lehmann points out that the gender of nouns
in the individual Indo-European daughter languages indicate whether particular
objects (persons or things) were viewed by speakers as active/animate or
inactive/inanimate. For instance, in Latin, tree names are masculine or feminine
(= active/animate), while names for grains or fruits are neuter (= inactive/
inanimate) (see above for examples). Lehmann concludes that active/animate
nouns became masculine or feminine, whereas inactive/inanimate nouns
became neuter when the earlier classification was replaced by the threefold
gender classification (masculine ~ feminine ~ neuter) found in Late Proto-Indo-
European and the early dialects. As noted in the previous chapter, Hittite
represents a stage of development in which the feminine gender had not yet
appeared (cf. Luraghi 1997:7; Lehmann 1993:150). Hittite nouns inherently fall
570 CHAPTER NINETEEN
into one of two gender classes, usually referred to as common and neuter.
Common gender corresponds to masculine and feminine in the non-Anatolian
Indo-European daughter languages. Though common nouns can be both
inanimate and animate, neuter nouns are almost always inanimate. Luraghi
(1997:7) prefers to call them inactive, inasmuch as neuter nouns cannot be
utilized as the subject of action verbs. Thus, Hittite provides direct evidence for
an earlier, two gender system (cf. Lehmann 2002:66) comparable to what is
found in active languages. Residues of this earlier system are also preserved
here and there in other daughter languages (Lehmann cites kinship terms as
examples).
In like manner, verbs associated with actions (Lehmann cites Latin fer to
bear, to bring, to carry and fodi to dig, to excavate as examples) show
active inflection in the individual daughter languages, while verbs associated
with states (such as Latin sequor to follow) show middle/passive inflection,
the former of which reflect an earlier active pattern, and the latter, an earlier
stative pattern. Moreover, verbs referring to natural events (such as Latin tonat
[it is] thundering, fulget [it is] lightning, pluit [it is] raining, ningit [it is]
snowing) or psychological states (such as Latin me piget it disgusts me, me
pudet I am ashamed, eos paenitebat they were sorry, me miseret I pity,
eum taedet he is disgusted) are typically rendered in the third person singular
in the daughter languages. In the Indo-European parent language, active and
stative conjugations were distinguished by a special set of endings (these are
discussed in detail in the preceding chapter). The stative developed into the
perfect in the non-Anatolian Indo-European daughter languages (cf. Lehmann
2002:7880); it also served as the basis for the middle (cf. Lehmann
2002:8081). This patterning is in full agreement with what occurs in active
languages.
Lehmann (2002:83) points out that the verb to have was lacking in Proto-
Indo-European. Possession was expressed by constructions such as Latin mihi
est it is to me [= it is mine, I own it]. Each of the daughter languages has
introduced various means to indicate possession. Active languages lack the
verb to have (cf. Klimov 1977).
Finally, Lehmann discusses the use of particles in the daughter languages.
Particles include what are commonly designated adverbs, adpositions
(prepositions and postpositions), conjunctions, etc. (cf. Lehmann 2002:86). In
particular, he discusses how the Proto-Indo-European particle *bi served as
the basis for the instrumental/dative/ablative dual and plural case endings in
Sanskrit. In a lengthy section, Lehmann (2002:8799) lists and analyzes the
particles traditionally reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European. Importantly, he
notes that the demonstrative pronouns of traditional comparative grammar can
be traced back to earlier anaphoric and deictic particles. Lehmann convincingly
demonstrates that the class of particles is comparable to those found in active
languages.
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN MORPHOLOGY II: PREHISTORIC DEVELOPMENT 571
them, but only in the later dialects do these and other forms function as
conjunctions that indicate subordinate clauses. Such clauses came to be
further distinguished from principal clauses by verb forms such as the
subjunctive and optative. Complex sentences were supported by the
introduction of writing as demonstrated in Greek, Latin and other dialects
with continuous textural tradition. The earliest texts before writing was
introduced in any given dialect were basically paratactic, as were those of
Proto-Indo-European and Pre-Indo-European.
We have dealt with root structure patterning in detail in the preceding chapter. Here
we will only be concerned with summarizing the most ancient patterning.
The phonemicization of a strong stress accent during the Phonemic Stress
Stage of Proto-Indo-European disrupted the inherited root structure patterning. The
positioning of the stress was morphologically distinctive, serving as a means to
differentiate grammatical categories. All vowels were retained when stressed but
were either weakened (= reduced-grade) or totally eliminated altogether (= zero-
grade) when unstressed: the choice between the reduced-grade versus the zero-
grade depended upon the position of the unstressed syllable relative to the stressed
syllable as well as upon the laws of syllabicity in effect at that time. During the
Phonemic Stress Stage of development, the basic rule was that only one full-grade
vowel could occur in any polymorphemic form. Finally, it was at the end of this
stage of development that the syllabic allophones of the resonants came into being.
Roots were monosyllabic and consisted of the root vowel between two
consonants (cf. Benveniste 1935:170; Lehmann 2002:141): *CVC-. Unextended
roots could be used as stems (also called bases or themes) by themselves (when
used as nominal stems, they are known as root nouns), that is to say that they
could function as words in the full sense of the term (cf. Burrow 1973:118;
Lehmann 2002:142), or they could be further extended by means of suffixes.
The stress-conditioned ablaut alternations gave rise to two distinct forms of
extended stems:
When used as a verb stem, Type 1 could undergo no further extension. However,
Type 2 could be further extended by another suffix on the pattern *CC-V C-C-, or
*-n- could be infixed after the root and before the suffix on the pattern *CC-n-V C-
(cf. Lehmann 1952:1718 and 2002:142). Examples of these alternating patterns
are given in the preceding chapter and need not be repeated here. Further addition
of a determinative or suffixes pointed to a nominal stem (cf. Benveniste 1935:171;
Lehmann 1952:17). In keeping with the rule that only one full-grade vowel could
occur in any polymorphemic form, when a full-grade suffix was added to any stem,
whether unextended or extended, the preceding full-grade vowel was replaced by
either reduced-grade or zero-grade. We should note that this rule was no longer in
effect in the Phonemic Pitch Stage of Proto-Indo-European. During the Phonemic
Pitch Stage, many of these reduced-grade or zero-grade vowels were analogically
574 CHAPTER NINETEEN
of a small number of suffixes; they are in fact the last remnants of a system
dying out. In earlier Indo-European on the other hand the system was of very
great extension and importance, and it is fundamental to the understanding not
only of the formation of nouns but also of their declension.
According to Burrow, the rules governing the position of the accent may be stated
as follows:
1. Neuter action nouns were accented on the stem in the so-called strong
cases but on the ending in the so-called weak cases (cf. Burrow
1973:220226).
2. Common gender agent noun/adjectives were accented on the suffix
throughout the paradigm (cf. Burrow 1973:119).
3. Athematic verbs were accented on the stem in the singular but on the ending
in the plural (and, later, in the dual as well) in the indicative but on the
ending throughout the middle (cf. Burrow 1973:303).
This fairly simple system was replaced by a more elaborate one during the
Disintegrating Proto-Indo-European period. For Disintegrating Proto-Indo-
European, Fortson (2004:107110) recognizes four distinct types of athematic
stems, determined by the position of the accent as well as the position of the full-
grade (or lengthened-grade) vowel (Fortson notes that additional types developed in
individual daughter languages) (see also Watkins 1998:6162; Beekes 1985:1 and
1995:174176):
1. Acrostatic: fixed accent on the stem throughout the paradigm, but with ablaut
changes between the strong and weak cases.
2. Proterokinetic (or proterodynamic): the stem is accented and in full-grade
vowel in the strong cases, but both accent and full-grade vowel are shifted to
the suffix in the weak cases.
3. Amphikinetic (or holokinetic or amphidynamic): the stem is accented in the
strong cases, while the case ending is accented in the weak cases. Typically, the
suffix is characterized by a lengthened o-grade vowel in the nominative
singular and a short o-grade vowel in the accusative singular.
4. Hysterokinetic (or hysterodynamic): the suffix is accented in the strong cases,
and the case ending in the weak cases.
The thematic formations require special comment. It seems that thematic agent
noun/adjectives were originally accented on the ending in the strong cases and on
the stem in the weak cases. This pattern is the exact opposite of what is found in the
neuter action nouns. The original form of the nominative singular consisted of the
576 CHAPTER NINETEEN
accented thematic vowel alone, *-/. It is this ending that is still found in the
vocative singular in the daughter languages and in relic forms such as the word for
the number five, *penke (*peqe in Brugmanns transcription [cf. Sanskrit
pca, Greek ]), perhaps for earlier *pn k. The nominative singular in *-os
is a later formation and has the same origin as the genitive singular (cf. Szemernyi
1972a:156).
Benveniste (1935:174187) devotes considerable attention to describing the
origin of the most ancient nominal formations. He begins by identifying the basic
principles of nominal derivation, thus: An adjective such as Sanskrit pth- broad,
wide, large, great, numerous is based upon a root *pel- to stretch, to extend,
suffixed by the laryngeal *H (Benveniste writes *--) found in Hittite pal-i-i
broad. Adding the suffix *-t- to the root yields two alternating stem types: type 1:
*pl-t-, type 2: *pl-t- (Benveniste writes *pl-t- and *pl-t- respectively).
Next, the laryngeal determinative *-H- (Benveniste writes *--) is added to type 2,
followed by *-- (Benveniste writes u-). The addition of the accented *-- results
in the loss of the stem vowel: *pl tH- (Benveniste writes *pl tu-) (> Sanskrit
pth- broad, wide, large, great, numerous, Greek wide, broad).
Benveniste then goes on to illustrate these principles with further examples.
Next, according to Benveniste, two fundamental types of nominal formations
can be established on the basis of the two alternating stem types mentioned above.
The first is built upon type 1. These are often characterized by a long vowel, though
normal-grade is also found (where they are different, the transcriptions used in this
book are given first, followed by those used by Benveniste in parentheses):
*ter-w- (*der-w-) > *trw- (*drw-) (cf. Greek tree; [wooden] plank
or beam; Hittite *ta-ru wood;
Sanskrit d ru- piece of wood, wood,
wooden implement)
*ken-w- (*gen-w-) > *knw- (*gnw-) (cf. Greek knee [o-grade];
Hittite gi-e-nu knee; Sanskrit j nu-
knee)
*Hy-w- (*i-w-) > *Hyw- (*iw-) (cf. Sanskrit yu- vital power, life
force)
*sn-w- > *snw- (*snw-) (cf. Sanskrit s nu summit, top)
*pl-w- (*pl-w-) > *pelw- (*pelw-) (cf. Gothic filu much; Greek *
much, many [o-grade])
*tr-w- (*tr-w-) > *terw- (*terw-) (cf. Greek [Hesychius] )
*pk-w- (*pk-w-) > *pekw- (*pekw-) (cf. Sanskrit pu domestic animal;
Latin pecu sheep, flock)
Note: The voiced aspirates reconstructed above (*br-w-, etc.) did not appear until
the Disintegrating Indo-European stage of development. The voiced aspirates
developed from earlier plain (that is, unaspirated) voiced stops. I follow
GamkrelidzeIvanov (1995.I:1215) in reinterpreting the plain voiceless
stops traditionally reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European as voiceless
aspirates and the plain voiced stops as glottalics (ejectives).
Benveniste goes on to point out that such formations can be further extended
according to the same scheme: the new suffix takes full-grade vowel, and
everything preceding it passes into zero-grade (meanings are not given for forms
built on those cited in the preceding charts):
*tr-w-n- (*dr-w-n-) > *tr-u-n-s (*dr-u-n-s) (cf. Vedic [gen. sg.] drna)
*br-w-n- (*bhr-w-n-) > *br-u-n-n- (*bhr-u-n-n-) (cf. Proto-Germanic
*brunan- to rush > Old
Icelandic bruna to rush, to
advance with great speed,
etc.)
*kr-w-n- (*r-w-n-) > *kr-u-n-y (*r-u-n-i) (cf. Avestan [dat. sg.] zrun)
*Hw-t-n- (*u-d-n-) > *Hu-t-n-s (*u-d-n-s) (cf. Sanskrit [gen. sg.] udn)
578 CHAPTER NINETEEN
Singular:
Nominative *-s
Nominative-accusative *-
Vocative *-
Accusative *-m /-m (or *-n /-n)
Genitive-ablative *-es/-as/-s *-es/-as/-s
Dative-locative *-ey/-i *-ey/-i
Plural:
Nominative-vocative *-es
Nominative-accusative (collective *-(e)H)
Genitive *-am *-am
The following thematic case endings may be reconstructed for the same period:
Singular:
Nominative *-a-s
Nominative-accusative *-a-m
Vocative *-e
Accusative *-a-m (or *-a-n)
Genitive *-a-s *-a-s
Ablative *-t (< *-a-et) *-t (< *-a-et)
Dative-locative *-y (< *-a-ey)/*-e/a-y *-y (< *-a-ey)/
*-e/a-y
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN MORPHOLOGY II: PREHISTORIC DEVELOPMENT 579
Plural:
Nominative-vocative *-s (< *-a-es)
Nominative-accusative *-e-H
Genitive *-m (< *-a-am) *-m (< *-a-am)
According to Lehmann (2002:185), three endings represent the most ancient layer
and came to provide the basis for the development of the central case system; these
endings are: *-s, *-m, and *-H (Lehmann writes *-h). *-s indicated an individual
and, when used in clauses, identified the agent; *-m used in clauses indicated the
target; and *-H supplied a collective meaning.
According to GamkrelidzeIvanov (1995.I:233236), there were two distinct
genitive formatives in the earliest form of Proto-Indo-European:
Original Oppositions
*-os *-om
GamkrelidzeIvanov claim that the first formative (*-os) marked the genitive
singular/plural on animate nouns, while the second (*-om) marked the genitive
singular/plural on inanimate nouns. At a later date, these formatives were
completely redistributed.
GamkrelidzeIvanov also note (1995.I:236242) that the genitive singular
ending *-os coincides formally with the nominative singular ending, while the
genitive singular ending *-om coincides with the accusative singular ending. This
cannot be an accident. Rather, it points to an original connection between these
endings. They propose that the ending *-os was originally used to form
semantically animate nouns, while *-om was used to form semantically inanimate
nouns. They regard the animate class as active (that is, capable of action) and the
inanimate class as inactive (that is, incapable of action). Semantically active nouns
were characterized by the inactive formative *-om when they functioned as the
target or patient of an action. Thus, for the Phonemic Stress Stage of Proto-Indo-
European, the following set of formatives may be posited (replacing the *o posited
by GamkrelidzeIvanov with *a to reflect the reconstructions used in this
chapter):
Animate/Active Inanimate/Inactive
Agent Animate Patient
*-(a)s *-(a)m
The endings *-as and *-am (GamkrelidzeIvanov write *-os and *-om,
respectively) could also mark attributive syntactic constructions. These later gave
580 CHAPTER NINETEEN
The endings *-os and *-om were not only markers of the active and inactive
noun classes; the nature of their functions enabled them to mark attributive
syntactic constructions that later gave rise to possessive constructions. Where
the modifying noun (the possessor) in such a syntagma belonged to the active
class, the syntagma was marked with *-os regardless of the class of the head
(possessed) noun; and when the determiner was inactive, the syntagma was
marked with *-om regardless of the class membership of the head word (A =
noun of active class, In = noun of inactive class; modifier [possessor] precedes
modified [head] noun):
(1) A A-[o]s
(2) A In-[o]s
(3) In In-[o]m
(4) In A-[o]m
Constructions types (1) and (2) give rise to appositive forms that yield
compounds such as Skt. rja-putra- son of king, mnua-rkasa- man-
demon, i.e. demon in human form, Gk. iatr-mantis [-] doctor-
soothsayer, Ger. Werwolf werewolf, man-wolf (Thumb and Hauschild
1959:II, 661, 401).
On the other hand, constructions type (2) and (4), where inactive nouns
had the ending *-os and active nouns had *-om provide the source for a
separate case form which subsequently developed (in Indo-European proper)
into a distinct genitive, both determining and possessive. As dictated by the
modifying word in the construction, the ending *-os, identical to the active
class marker *-os, becomes the genitive marker of the inactive class, while the
ending *-om, identical to the inactive class marker *-om and the structural-
syntactic inactive with two-place predicates, becomes the genitive markers
with both attributive and possessive functions, on respectively inactive and
active nouns. This account of the origin and development of *-om genitive
explains its formal identity to the ending *-om which marked the structural
syntactic inactive and subsequently developed into the accusative case.
Constructions (1) and (4) later gave rise to a separate class of adjectives
(GamkrelidzeIvanov 1995.I:242244). As noted by Lehmann (2002:187188),
stative verbs largely filled the role of adjectives in early Proto-Indo-European.
At the beginning of the Phonemic Pitch Stage of Proto-Indo-European, simple
plural forms first started to appear in active/animate stems. They were built upon
the same elements described above. According to GamkrelidzeIvanov
(1995.I:244), the plural of active nouns in *-(a)s (they write *-s/*-os) was formed
by changing the ablaut grade of the ending to *-es. At first, there was no change to
the *-(a)m form, though it was later extended by *-s, yielding the form usually
reconstructed for the genitive plural in Disintegrating Indo-European: *-(o)ms.
Later, though still within the Phonemic Pitch Stage, separate dative-locative forms
came into being (cf. GamkrelidzeIvanov 1995.I:247250). They were based
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN MORPHOLOGY II: PREHISTORIC DEVELOPMENT 581
upon earlier adverbial particles that came to be incorporated into the case system
(cf. Blaek 2014; Burrow 1973:234; Lehmann 2002:186). Thus, we arrive at the
case forms reconstructed in the preceding chapter (and repeated above) for the end
of the Phonemic Pitch Stage of Proto-Indo-European.
It was during the Phonemic Pitch Stage of Proto-Indo-European that the accent
rules mentioned above were in effect. In light of what we have been discussing
about the active structure at this stage of development, these rules should now be
restated as follows:
1. Active/animate nouns were accented on the stem in the so-called strong cases
(nominative-accusative) but on the ending in the so-called weak cases
(dative-locative).
2. Stative/inanimate (= inactive) nouns were accented on the suffix throughout the
paradigm.
The change of accent from the stem to the ending in the weak cases in active nouns
may be an indication of the more recent origin of these cases. The strong cases were
inherited by Proto-Indo-European from Proto-Nostratic. In Proto-Nostratic, these
case markers were originally independent relational markers. The relational marker
*-ma was used in Proto-Nostratic, as in early Proto-Indo-European, to indicate
semantically inactive/inanimate nouns as well as the patient (that is, the recipient,
target, or goal of an action). The dative-locative case maker also developed from a
Proto-Nostratic relational marker, and there are parallels in other Nostratic daughter
languages. However, it was not fully incorporated into the system of case endings
until the Phonemic Pitch Stage of Proto-Indo-European. During the Phonemic
Stress stage, what later became the dative-locative case ending was still an
independent adverbial particle.
19.8. PRONOUNS
In the preceding chapter, the following personal pronoun stems were reconstructed
for the stage of development of the Indo-European parent language immediately
prior to the separation of the Anatolian languages from the main speech community
(cf. Kloekhorst 2008b:112116 for a discussion of the Anatolian developments):
Singular:
Nominative *e+k-, *e+k-, *e+g- *ti
Oblique/Enclitic *me *tu, *ta/e
Plural:
Nominative *wey(s) *yuH(s)
Oblique/Enclitic *nas *was
582 CHAPTER NINETEEN
When used as a verb stem, Type 1 could undergo no further extension. However,
Type 2 could be further extended by a single additional suffix on the pattern *CC-
V C-C-, or *-n- could be infixed after the root and before the suffix on the pattern
*CC-n-V C- (cf. Lehmann 1952:1718 and 2002:142). This represents the most
ancient patterning.
Furthermore, athematic verbs were accented on the stem in the singular but on
the ending in the plural (and, later, in the dual as well) in the indicative but on the
ending throughout the middle (cf. Burrow 1973:303). The general patterning may
be represented as follows (this is what was reconstructed for Late Proto-Indo-
European [= Disintegrating Indo-European] in the preceding chapter):
Singular
1 *Hs-mi *Hy-mi *gn-mi
2 *Hs-si *Hy-si *gn-si
3 *Hs-ti *Hy-ti *gn-ti
Plural
1 *Hs-ms *Hi-ms *g-ms
2 *Hs-t *Hi-t *g-t
3 *Hs-nti *Hy-nti *gn-nti
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN MORPHOLOGY II: PREHISTORIC DEVELOPMENT 583
In thematic verbs, the accent was fixed on the stem throughout the paradigm, as
follows (this is what was reconstructed for Late Proto-Indo-European [=
Disintegrating Indo-European] in the preceding chapter):
Primary Secondary
Singular
1 *br-o-H *br-o-m
2 *br-e-si *br-e-s
3 *br-e-ti *br-e-t
Plural
1 *br-o-me(s) *br-o-me
2 *br-e-te *br-e-te
3 *br-o-nti *br-o-nt
Though thematic stems were the most common type in the early non-Anatolian
dialects, they were relatively late formations. They arose mostly in Disintegrating
Indo-European, where they gradually replaced the earlier, athematic stems (cf.
Lehmann 2002:160).
The athematic stems represent the most ancient layer and go back to the
Phonemic Stress Stage of Proto-Indo-European. Originally, this conjugational type
distinguished active verbs (cf. Lehmann 2002:171; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1995.I:
256260). During the Phonemic Stress Stage of development, there was no
difference between primary and secondary endings. The primary endings arose
during the Phonemic Pitch Stage of Proto-Indo-European when the deictic particle
*-i meaning here and now was appended to the secondary endings. Thus, it is
clear that the so-called primary endings are really secondary, while the so-called
secondary endings reflect the earliest forms.
As noted in the preceding chapter, the earliest recoverable Proto-Indo-
European active personal endings may have been as follows (there may also have
been alternative first person endings: sg. *-w, pl. *-we the primary evidence for
these endings comes from the Anatolian branch):
while the endings had zero-grade. In the plural, the position of the accent was
shifted to the ending, with the result that the root had zero-grade, while the endings
had full-grade. This patterning has been most clearly preserved in Sanskrit, which is
particularly archaic in this regard. The patterning was as follows, using the verbal
root *Hes- to be for illustration:
Singular Plural
An important assumption here is that the original ending of the third person, both
singular and plural, was *-e the same ending found in the stative verbs. This
assumption is based upon the observation that the form of the third plural found in
the daughter languages is anomalous. Unlike the first and second person plural
personal endings, which had the form *-C, the third plural had the form *-C. The
following scenario may be proposed to account for this anomaly: The third plural
was formed by the addition of a deictic element *ne/a-, which is the same stem
found in Hittite na-a that; Armenian *na that; he she, it; him, her. Had *ne been
added directly to the root, the expected from would have been as follows: *Hes-
+n > *Hs-n, just like in the first and second persons plural. However, the actual
form was *Hs-n (> *Hs-n-t-i, after *-t- and *-i- were added [cf. Sanskrit snti
they are]). This indicates that *ne was not added directly to the root but, rather, to
*Hs-, thus: *Hs-+ne > *Hs--n. Here, the accent was kept on the ending *--,
and, consequently, the element *ne had zero-grade. By the way, the same patterning
may be observed in the third plural of stative verbs, where *-r is to be derived
from earlier *--+re.
Active verbs were used with active nouns, while stative (= inactive) verbs were
used with inactive nouns (cf. GamkrelidzeIvanov 1995.I:256). However, this
only represents part of the picture. GamkrelidzeIvanov (1995.I:258) note that
verbs used active endings in two-place constructions in which both nouns were
active. They represent the paradigmatic conjugational model for verb forms with
active arguments in a convenient chart (A = active noun; V = verb; In = inactive
noun; superscripts show structural syntactic status):
They also note that there must have also been two-place constructions in which the
first noun was active and the second inactive, such as in the phrase person moves
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN MORPHOLOGY II: PREHISTORIC DEVELOPMENT 585
1p. A V-Ha In
2p. A V-tHa In
3p. A V-e In
Person moves stone
Stative verbs (these are the so-called perfect stems of traditional grammar) were
characterized by a special set of personal endings (originally, the first and second
person plural endings were lacking they were later borrowed from the active
conjugation) (cf. Szemernyi 1996:243244; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1995.I:260;
Lehmann 1993:174175 and 2002:170171; Beekes 1995:238239; Watkins
1998:62; Meier-Brgger 2003:180181; Adrados 1975.II:617621; Sihler 1995:
570572; Rix 1992:255257; Fortson 2004:9394):
Person Endings
1st sg. *-H
2nd sg. *-tH
3rd sg. *-
3rd pl. *-r
Unlike the active verbs, which were accented on the stem in the singular but on the
ending in the plural, the stative forms were originally accented on the ending
throughout the paradigm (as was the middle, which, as we saw in the preceding
chapter, was derived from the stative). During the Phonemic Stress Stage of Proto-
Indo-European, the stem was in zero-grade, in accordance with the rule that only
one full-grade vowel could occur in any polymorphemic form. However, during the
Phonemic Pitch Stage of Proto-Indo-European, the accent was shifted to the stem in
the singular in imitation of the active verbs, with the result that the zero-grade was
changed to full-grade. The endings remained in full-grade as well, even though they
were no longer accented. The fact that the stem appeared in the o-grade (earlier *a)
instead of the e-grade indicates the secondary nature of the full-grade vowel in the
singular forms. It was also during the Phonemic Pitch Stage that reduplication
started to be used with stative verbs.
As Proto-Indo-European began changing from an active type language to an
accusative type language during the Phonemic Pitch Stage of development, tense
forms were introduced. At first, only two tenses were distinguished: a present/future
and a preterite (= non-present). This is the situation reflected in Hittite. Additional
586 CHAPTER NINETEEN
1. Pre-Proto-Indo-European
2. Phonemic Stress Stage of Proto-Indo-European
3. Phonemic Pitch Stage of Proto-Indo-European
4. Disintegrating Indo-European
Disintegrating Indo-European:
1. The earlier plain voiced stops become voiced aspirates (*b, *d, *g > *b, *d,
*g), at least in some of the dialects of Disintegrating Indo-European.
2. Apophonic o develops from earlier apophonic a.
3. First, the laryngeals * and *h are lost initially before vowels. In all other
environments, they merge into *h.
4. Then, the laryngeals * and * become *h.
5. Finally, the single remaining laryngeal (*h) is lost initially before vowels
(except in Pre-Proto-Armenian) and medially between an immediately
preceding vowel and a following non-syllabic; this latter change brings about
the compensatory lengthening of preceding short vowels (*eHC, *oHC, *aHC,
*iHC, *uHC > *C, *C, *C, *C, *C). Note: *h may have been simply lost
without a trace in certain contexts (cf. Byrd 2010).
6. In some of the dialects of Disintegrating Indo-European, the palatovelars (*k,
*k, *g) become phonemic.
7. Word order begins to shift from (S)OV to (S)VO.
8. The characteristic sentence structure of OV languages with subordinate clauses
based on participles is replaced by clauses with finite verbs that are governed
by conjunctions.
9. The change to an accusative-type language is complete, though numerous relic
forms from the earlier active period remain.
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN MORPHOLOGY II: PREHISTORIC DEVELOPMENT 589
10. The inflection of nouns and verbs is restructured to reflect the new accusative
type.
11. New case forms are created, and several declensional classes are differentiated.
12. The plural of nouns also begins to be filled out.
13. The feminine appears as a separate gender class.
14. Thematic nominal stems proliferate at the expense of other stem types.
15. Adjectives become common.
16. Personal pronouns become more widely used.
17. Rudimentary dual forms begin to appear in both nouns and verbs.
18. The change of the verb system from representation of aspect to representation
of tense is completed.
19. Verb inflections are developed for use in subordinate clauses, subjunctives, and
optatives.
20. Thematic verbal stems become common.
21. Aorist and imperfect verbal forms develop.
22. The function of the suffix *-nt- is changed it is now used to form present
and aorist participles in the active voice.
23. Separate past participle forms begin to appear; they are based upon earlier
verbal adjectives.
24. Different dialect groups begin to emerge.
APPENDIX:
LANGUAGE CONTACT
To further complicate the matter, Proto-Indo-European must have come into contact
with non-Nostratic languages in the course of its development, and that contact
must have resulted in some sort of influence (probably mutual), such as the
introduction of loanwords or changes in pronunciation, morphology, and/or
syntactic constructions. In Chapter 13, 13.2, I suggested that, when the Indo-
Europeans arrived on the shores of the Black Sea at about 5,000 BCE, they
encountered and occupied territory formerly inhabited by Caucasian-speaking
people, and I listed several possible shared lexical items between Proto-Indo-
European and Northwest Caucasian to support this view. Of course, the people they
encountered did not speak the Caucasian languages of recorded history but, rather,
their ancestral language or languages.
In 1992, John Colarusso published an important paper entitled Phyletic Links
between Proto-Indo-European and Northwest Caucasian. This paper was
subsequently reprinted in 1994 in Mother Tongue and in 1997 in the Journal of
Indo-European Studies. Though Colarusso tried to make a case for a genetic
relationship between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Northwest Caucasian, I prefer
to see this as a case of language contact instead.
Colarusso begins by discussing the phonology of Proto-Indo-European, and he
proposes a revised (fortified) phonemic inventory for Proto-Indo-European. He
then lists several grammatical formants common to both language families. Next, he
presents a number of lexical parallels, including preverbs, numerals, particles, and
conventional cognates. On the basis of his study, he concludes that there is
evidence, albeit preliminary, for a genetic relationship between Proto-Indo-
European and Proto-Northwest Caucasian, and he posits a common proto-language,
which he names Proto-Pontic.
In my 1994 co-authored book The Nostratic Macrofamily: A Study in Distant
Linguistic Relationship, my 2008 book Reconstructing Proto-Nostratic: Compara-
tive Phonology, Morphology, and Vocabulary, and the current book, I present a
considerable amount of evidence, both morphological and lexical, for a genetic
relationship between Indo-European and certain other languages/language families
of northern Eurasia and the ancient Middle East, to wit, Afrasian, Elamo-Dravidian,
Kartvelian, Uralic-Yukaghir, Altaic, and Eskimo-Aleut. Following Holger Pedersen
(as well as Illi-Svity and Dolgopolsky), I posit a common ancestor named Proto-
Nostratic. I also list possible cognates found in Sumerian and note that Tyrrhenian,
Gilyak (Nivkh), and Chukchi-Kamchatkan are probably to be included as members
of the Nostratic macrofamily as well.
Recently, several scholars have suggested that Afrasian may have been a sister
language of Nostratic rather than a descendant language (see Chapter 13 for a
discussion of these views), while Indo-European is seen by Greenberg as being
more closely related to Uralic-Yukaghir, Altaic, Gilyak, Chukchi-Kamchatkan, and
Eskimo-Aleut, these forming a distinct language family called Eurasiatic. I prefer
to see Nostratic as a higher level taxonomic entity that includes Afrasian (along
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN MORPHOLOGY II: PREHISTORIC DEVELOPMENT 591
NOSTRATIC
Dravidian
Kartvelian
Indo-European
Uralic
Turkic
Mongolian
Tungus-Manchu
Korean
Japanese
Semitic
592 CHAPTER NINETEEN
Now, Proto-Indo-European presents some special problems. On the one hand, its
grammatical structure, especially in its earlier periods, more closely resembles those
of its sister Eurasiatic languages; on the other hand, its phonological system more
closely resembles the phonological systems found in Proto-Afrasian and Proto-
Kartvelian, at least when using the revised Proto-Indo-European phonological
system proposed by Gamkrelidze, Hopper, and Ivanov. Moreover, there are
typological problems with every phonological system proposed to date for Proto-
Indo-European one wonders, for example, why there are no affricates. This leads
me to suspect that Proto-Indo-European may be a blend of elements from two (or
more?) different languages, as has already been suggested by several other scholars.
But a blend of what? In footnote 1 of his paper, Colarusso notes that [t]he amateur
archeologist Geoffrey Bibby suggested in 1961 that PIE was a Caucasian language
that went north and blended with a Finno-Ugrian tongue. This suggestion merits
closer consideration. Note: Here, I am using the term blend to conform with
Colarusso nowadays, the term convergence would be used to describe this
kind of language contact.
In this Appendix, I would like to discuss how Colarussos theories shed
possible light on this and other issues, noting both the strong points and the
limitations of his approach, and I will propose an alternative theory that I believe
better fits the linguistic evidence.
The phonological system of Proto-Nostratic may be reconstructed as follows:
p t c t k k q q
b d d r (?) g g
p t c t k k q q
Fricatives:
s s x x h
z (?) z (?)
Glides:
w y
m n n
l l
r r
Vowels: i (~ e) u (~ o)
e o
( ~) a
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN MORPHOLOGY II: PREHISTORIC DEVELOPMENT 593
Consonants: p p b - m w
t t d t n r l
c c c s z
y
k k g k x
q q - q x
h
Vowels: i u
e o
a
Though there are many points of agreement between the phonological systems
posited by Colarusso for Proto-Pontic and by me for Proto-Nostratic, the main
differences are: (A) I do not posit a separate series of unaspirated voiceless
obstruents; (B) I posit a series of rounded gutturals (labiovelars); (C) I posit a
series of palatalized alveolars; (D) I do not posit a series of lateral approximants,
and (E) I posit fewer laryngeals.
For Proto-Nostratic, I set up a series of non-phonemically aspirated obstruents.
There is some evidence, albeit limited, that two series may be warranted: (A)
aspirated voiceless obstruents and (B) unaspirated voiceless obstruents exactly
what Colarusso has set up for Proto-Pontic. The evidence comes from Afrasian. For
Proto-Afrasian, a separate phoneme *f must be posited in addition to a voiceless
bilabial stop *p, and both of these correspond to voiceless bilabial stops in the other
Nostratic daughter languages. Setting up two series at the Proto-Nostratic level
would make it easy to account for Proto-Afrasian *f, which would be seen as the
reflex of an original phonemic voiceless bilabial aspirated stop *p distinct from *p.
In this scenario, we would then have to assume that the aspirated and the
unaspirated obstruents have merged in the remaining Nostratic daughter languages
(as well as in Proto-Afrasian except in the bilabial series).
At this point, let us look a little more closely at Proto-Indo-European itself.
Colarusso sets up a three-way contrast for his Fortified PIE: (A) voiceless
aspirated, (B) plain voiced, and (C) glottalized. GamkrelidzeIvanov, in a number
of works, also set up a three-way contrast: (A) voiceless (aspirated), (B) voiced
(aspirated), and (C) glottalized. In their system, the feature of aspiration is viewed
as phonemically irrelevant, and the phonemes in question can be realized either
594 CHAPTER NINETEEN
1. Active participle *-ent-, *-ont-, *-n t- Old participle endings: Abaza -n;
Ubykh -n, -na, plus (Circassian)
durative -t-
2. Perfect active participle *-we/os-, Aspect suffix *-w(a)-
*-we/ot-
3. Feminines and abstracts in *-, *-y- *-xa woman
(< *-eA, *-y-eA)
4. Collectives in *-y Collective *-a
Case forms
For the last form, Colarusso reconstructs Proto-Pontic *k because, arising from,
issuing from.
Colarusso (1992a:3540) finishes his discussion of morphology by comparing
verbal desinences and suffixes. Some of the parallels presented by Colarusso are
intriguing and deserve further investigation. Specifically, I would like to see more
about what Proto-Northwest Caucasian might be able to tell us about the Proto-
Indo-European athematic ~ thematic conjugational types.
I am skeptical about the Proto-Indo-European perfects (1992a:37, no. 48)
discussed by Colarusso, while the Proto-Indo-European primary active present
athematic ending *-i (1992a:38, no. 50) is usually derived from a deictic particle
meaning here and now.
The explanation given by Colarusso (1992a:39, no. 52) for Proto-Indo-Euro-
pean s-movable is not convincing and should be abandoned, and the same goes
for the derivation of the 1st person singular thematic personal ending *- from *-o-s
through compensatory vowel lengthening upon loss of the *-s (1992a:39, no. 53).
Let us now list the verbal desinences and suffixes discussed by Colarusso:
Colarusso derives the augment from Proto-Pontic *(a) (in) hand, which was
originally an independent adverb before the verb denoting accomplishment of
action.
Colarusso (1992a:4042) continues by presenting an alternative explanation
for certain stem patterns to that offered by Benvenistes theory of the Proto-Indo-
European root. While Colarussos views on stem patterning accurately describe
what is found in Northwest Caucasian, they are a poor fit for Proto-Indo-European.
Colarusso completes his study (1992a:4248) by listing twenty possible
cognates (conventional cognates). Over half of these alleged cognates are not
convincing. Colarusso subsequently proposed additional cognates (Colarusso
2003), and I have also proposed a substantial number (over 150) of possible lexical
comparisons (Bomhard 2015b). Altogether, there are enough good comparisons to
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN MORPHOLOGY II: PREHISTORIC DEVELOPMENT 599
demonstrate that there must have been prolonged and substantial contact between
Proto-Indo-European and Northwest Caucasian. The following is a complete list of
the lexical comparisons between Proto-Indo-European and Northwest Caucasian
that have been gathered to date (this list includes several comparisons proposed by
Colarusso as well as those listed in Chapter 13, 13.2):
this, ia here; Latin is, ea, id he, she, it; this or that person or thing; Oscan
eiso- this; Old Irish he, they, ed it; Gothic anaphoric pronoun is he, ita
it; Old Icelandic relative particle es (later er) who, which, what; Old Saxon
et, it it; Old High German er, ir he, ez, iz it; Lithuanian js (< *is) he.
Notes:
1. The above forms are usually compared with some-what similar forms in
Italic and Balto-Slavic: (A) Italic: Latin aper wild boar; Umbrian (acc.
sg.) abrunu boar (the Umbrian form refers specifically to domestic boars
offered as a sacrifice). The Proto-Italic form was probably *apro- or
*aprn-. (B) Balto-Slavic: Latvian vepris castrated boar; Old Church
Slavic vepr boar; Russian vepr [] wild boar; Czech vep pig.
2. The attested forms have been remodeled in each of the daughter languages,
making it difficult to reconstruct the Proto-Indo-European form.
3. For the semantic correlation between the Indo-European and Abkhaz
forms, cf. Greek boar, wild boar ~ Latin caper he-goat, buck;
Old Icelandic hafr buck, he-goat; Old English hKfer he-goat.
during, inn in; Old Frisian in in; Old Saxon in in; Old High German in
in; Old Prussian en inside, within; Old Church Slavic v(n) in(to).
Northwest Caucasian: Common Abkhaz *ta from inside out; from below,
upwards: Abaza/Tapanta t- in, for example, t-ga-ra to drag something out
(cf. ga-r to carry, to bring, to take).
Northwest Caucasian: Common Abkhaz *aja: South Abkhaz aja pallid, dim,
wan (color) (arch.).
A. *oy-no-: Latin nus one [Old Latin oinos]; Old Irish en, in one;
Gothic ains one; Old Icelandic einn one; Old English n one; alone,
sole, lonely; singular, unique; Old Saxon n one; Old High German ein
one; Lithuanian venas (with unexplained initial v-) one; alone; Old
Prussian ains one; Old Church Slavic in some(one), other; Russian
Church Slavic inokyj only, sole, solitary; Russian inj [] different,
other it is also found in Greek , roll of one (in dice).
B. *oy-wo-: Avestan ava- one; Old Persian aiva- one it is also found
in Greek alone, lone, lonely (Cyprian +).
C. *oy-ko-: Sanskrit ka- one; Mitanni (Proto-Indic) aika- one.
abode; Old Frisian bowa, bwa to dwell, bgia to dwell; Old Saxon ban
to dwell; Old High German ban, bwan, ben, bwen to dwell.
20. Proto-Indo-European *blu-, *bluH- (> *bl-) to burn, to blaze, to light up:
Old Icelandic blys torch; Old High German bluhhen to burn, to light up; Old
English blysa torch, fire; Middle Irish blosc clear, evident, bloscad
radiance; Czech bleti to flash, to blaze, blskati to lighten, to flash; Polish
bysk lightning.
Northwest Caucasian: Common Abkhaz *bra: Bzyp -bra mane (of a horse),
a-br- tow-haired; Abaza/Tapanta bra plait, braid; hair (arch.), qa-br
hair (qa head).
32. Proto-Indo-European *gey- snow, ice, winter: Sanskrit him- snow, frost,
hoar-frost, winter, hemant- winter, the cold season; Greek snow;
snow-water, ice-cold water, winter-weather, cold, frost,
winter; wintry weather, a winter storm; Hittite (nom. sg.) gi-im-ma-an-za
winter.
37. Proto-Indo-European *gor-o- open area set aside as a public space (only in
Italic): Latin forum an open square, marketplace, public space; Umbrian (acc.
sg.) furo, furu forum. Note: Latin forum is usually (though not always)
derived from Proto-Indo-European *dwr- door (cf. Latin foris door).
However, the semantic development required to get from door to forum
seems rather contrived.
38. Proto-Indo-European *gr -k- round, pointed object (only in Latin): Latin
furca a two-pronged fork, pitchfork; any forked-shaped object; a two-pronged
instrument of torture used to punish criminals it was put over the neck, and
the arms were tied to the two ends, furcifer one who is forced to wear the
furca as punishment, furcula a forked-shaped prop, furcilla a little fork or
pitchfork.
40. Proto-Indo-European *hel- [*hal-] alder (*h = *): Latin alnus (< Proto-
Italic *alsno-) alder; Old Icelandic lr alder-tree; Old English alor alder;
Old High German elira alder; Russian olx [] alder(-tree); Lithuanian
al ksnis, el ksnis, (dial.) aliksnis alder.
610 CHAPTER NINETEEN
Notes:
1. The material from the daughter languages pointing to a Proto-Indo-
European root meaning wealth, riches, though often compared with the
above forms, appears to belong to a different root: *op- (* = a
laryngeal preserved in Hittite, most likely * here [cf. Hittite (adj.)
appina- rich; Latin ops wealth, power, opulentus rich, wealthy;
powerful, mighty; Sanskrit pnas- possession, property (same form as
given above, but with a different meaning); Avestan afnah-vant- rich in
property]) (cf. Kloekhorst 2008b:296297; Mayrhofer 19862001.I:88;
De Vaan 2008:431).
2. Greek riches, wealth, plenty is best explained as a borrowing.
Notes:
1. The following forms have also been compared with the above: Lithuanian
op wound, sore, ops, pus sensitive, susceptible to pain; Sanskrit
apv name of a disease.
2. According to Eric P. Hamp (1965a), the laryngeal * is preserved initially
in Albanian. If this is indeed the case, as Hamp claims, then Albanian hap
to open may be a derivative of the unextended Proto-Indo-European verb
*hep- [*hap-]/*hop- (vb.) to cut, to split, though this is not the
etymology suggested by Hamp (1965a:125).
44. Proto-Indo-European *hew- [*haw-] and, but, also (*h = *): Gothic auk
but, also; Old English ac and, also; Latin aut eitheror, au-tem but, on
the other hand, indeed; Oscan aut but, or; Greek again, on the contrary.
eir brass, copper; Old English r, br brass, copper; Old Saxon r ore; Old
High German r ore, copper.
Northwest Caucasian: Common Abkhaz *ajx : South Abkhaz ajx iron; axe;
bit (of a horse); Abaza/Tapanta ajx iron; metal; Ashkharywa jx a iron.
Note also: South Abkhaz ajg small axe; Abaza/Tapanta ga small axe,
kaa small axe; Bzyp ajk(a) small axe; Abzhywa ajka small axe.
Notes:
1. This is probably a reduplicated stem: *keA-keA-.
2. The Slavic forms may be borrowings.
forms cited above are to be derived from the same root found in to
cover with (a thing); to cover or conceal; to cover over, while others reject this
view.
Albanian dhmb tooth; Old Icelandic kambr comb; Old English camb
comb, cemban to comb; Old Saxon kamb comb; Old High German kamb,
champ comb; Lithuanian am bas pointed object; Old Church Slavic zb
tooth; Russian zub [] tooth; Tocharian A kam, B keme tooth.
knot of a cord; bunch or protuberance; Latin grmus a little heap, hillock (of
earth); Old Irish grinne bundle; Old Icelandic kring round; etc. Note:
According to Pokorny (1959: 385390), all of the above forms are ultimately
derived from Proto-Indo-European *ker-/*kor-/*kr - (traditional *ger-/*gor-
/*gr -) to twist, to turn.
78. Proto-Indo-European *keru- spear, spit (< round object): Latin veru spit
(for roasting); Umbrian (acc. pl.) berva (roasting-)spit; Avestan grava-
staff; Old Irish bir, biur spear, spit; Welsh ber spear, lance, shaft, spit.
620 CHAPTER NINETEEN
82. Proto-Indo-European *kr H-u- heavy, weighty; great, large, extended, long;
grievous, serious; important, elevated: Sanskrit gur- heavy, weighty; great,
large, extended, long; high in degree, vehement, violent, excessive, deep,
much; difficult, hard; grievous; important, serious, momentous; valuable,
highly prized; dear, beloved; haughty, proud; venerable, respectable; best,
excellent; Latin gravis heavy, weighty, burdensome; important, elevated,
dignified; grievous, painful, hard, harsh, severe, unpleasant; Greek
heavy, weighty; impressive; difficult, wearisome, troublesome, oppressive;
Tocharian A krmrts, B kramartse heavy, B krmr weight, heaviness.
84. Proto-Indo-European *leh- [*lah-] (> *l-) to bark (*h = *): Albanian leh
to bark; Lithuanian lju, lti to bark; Old Church Slavic laj, lajati to
bark; Russian ljat [] to bark.
86. Proto-Indo-European *le- [*la-] (> *lw-), (*l- >) *lu- (> *l-)
to hit, to strike, to beat (* = *): Sanskrit l- (3rd sg. pres. act. lun ti,
[Vedic] lunoti) to cut, to sever, to divide, to pluck, to reap, to gather; to cut
off, to destroy, to annihilate, lva- act of cutting, reaping (of grain),
mowing, plucking, or gathering, lva- cutting, cutting off, plucking, reaping,
gathering; cutting to pieces, destroying, killing, lav- cutting, sharp, edge (as
a tool or instrument); an iron instrument for cutting or clearing, lna- cut,
cut off, severed, lopped, clipped, reaped, plucked; nibbled off, knocked out;
stung; pierced, wounded; destroyed, annihilated, lnaka- a cut, wound,
anything cut or broken; sort, species, difference, lavtra-m sickle; Old
Icelandic ljsta (< *lew-s-) to strike, to smite; to strike, to hit (with a spear or
arrow), ljstr salmon spear, lost blow, stroke, lja to beat, to hammer; to
forge iron; to wear out, to exhaust; (reflexive) to be worn, exhausted, li
weariness, linn worn, bruised; worn out, exhausted; Norwegian (dial.) lua
to unwind; Old Irish loss the point or end of anything, tail; Welsh llost
spear, lance, javelin, tail (< *lust).
Northwest Caucasian: Common Abkhaz *na-: South Abkhaz nas (< *n-s:
*na- thither, *s to go) then, afterwards; Ashkharywa anas yes (with the
interrogative connotation well, then); Bzyp naq (< *n-qa) thither, nax
(< *n-a+x : *na- thither, *a+x directional postposition) there. Common
Abkhaz *a-n: South Abkhaz an there; Abaza/Tapanta an-a there.
from, fram from, by, since, on account of, framis further, onward, frumists
first, foremost, best, chief, fruma the former, prior, first, frums beginning;
Old Icelandic for- before, fjarri far off, fram forward, fyrr before,
sooner, fyrstr first; Old English feorr far, feorran from afar, for, fore
before, forma first, fram from, frum first, fyrst, fyrest first, fyrmest
first; Old Frisian for before, fara, fore before, ferest first, forma first,
vorsta, fersta prince; Old Saxon for, fur before, for(a), far before, forma
first, furi before, furist first, foremost, furisto prince; Old High German
furi before, for, fora before, furist first, fir(i)- opposite; Lithuanian pr
through, past, by, pri at, near, by, pri against; Hittite pa-ra-a forth,
p-ra-an before, forth; Luwian pr-ra-an before, in front, pa-ri-ya-an
beyond; exceedingly, especially; Lycian przze/i- front, foremost, pri forth;
in front.
sunus son; Old Icelandic sunr, sonr son; Old English sunu son; Old Saxon
sunu son; Old High German sunu son; Lithuanian sns son; Old Church
Slavic syn son; Russian syn [] son; Tocharian A se, B soy son.
Sanskrit d-na-m the fluid flowing from an elephants temples when in rut,
d -nu a fluid, a drop, dew; Avestan dnu river, stream; Ossetic don water,
river. Also used in various river names: Don (Russian ), Dniepr (Russian
), Dniestr (Russian ), Danube, etc.
139. Proto-Indo-European *we-/*w- you (dual and pl.): Sanskrit vas you (acc.
pl.), vm (acc.-dat.-gen. dual); Avestan v you (nom. dual), vam (nom. pl.),
v (encl. acc. pl.); Latin vs you (nom.-acc. pl.), vestrum (gen. pl.); Old
Church Slavic vy you (nom. pl.), vas (acc.-gen.-loc. pl.).
Note: The Abkhaz forms cited above are taken from Chirikba 1996b, and the
Circassian froms are from Kuipers 1975. Several other works have also been
consulted (such as TuiteSchulze 1998). The Indo-European material is
taken from the standard etymological dictionaries listed in the references
(volume 4), with heavy reliance on the etymological work currently being
done by a group of scholars in Leiden, The Netherlands.
I believe that Colarussos work has enormous merit, though, as pointed out above,
not all of his proposals are convincing. However, rather than view these similarities
as evidence of genetic relationship, I prefer to see them as evidence that there was
prolonged and substantial contact between Proto-Indo-European and Northwest
Caucasian. As a result of the socio-cultural interaction with and resultant borrowing
from Caucasian languages, especially primordial Northwest Caucasian languages,
Proto-Indo-European developed unique characteristics that set it apart from the
other Eurasiatic languages. Though Proto-Indo-European remained a Eurasiatic
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN MORPHOLOGY II: PREHISTORIC DEVELOPMENT 641
language at its core (cf. Collinder 1934, 1954, 1967, and 1970; op 1970a and
1975; Hyllested 2009; J. C. Kerns 1967; Kloekhorst 2008a; Kortlandt 2010a
[various papers]; Pisani 1967; Ringe 1998a; Rosenkranz 1966; Uesson 1970), the
interaction with Northwest Caucasian had a profound impact on the phonology,
morphology, and lexicon of Proto-Indo-European (technically, this is known as
contact-induced language change) and gave it a distinctive, Caucasian-like
appearance (Kortlandt 2010f expresses a similar view).
But, there is more. One of the most significant byproducts of the comparison of
Proto-Indo-European with Northwest Caucasian is that it provides empirical
support for the Glottalic Model of Proto-Indo-European consonantism as well as the
interpretation of the traditional plain voiceless stops as voiceless aspirates. Though
we cannot say for certain on the basis of this comparison whether voiced aspirates
existed in Proto-Indo-European at the time of contact with primordial Northwest
Caucasian languages, there is nothing to indicate that they did. Indeed, the most
straightforward explanation is that voiced aspirates arose at a later date in the
Disintegrating Indo-European dialects that gave rise to Indo-Iranian, Armenian,
Greek, and Italic.
Another important insight that can be gleaned from this comparison is that the
Pre-Proto-Indo-European morphological system changed dramatically as a result of
contact with Northwest Caucasian languages in certain respects, it became more
complicated. At the same time, some of the earlier morphology must have been lost.
In his 2002 book entitled Pre-Indo-European, Winfred P. Lehmann suggested that
three endings represented the most ancient layer of the Proto-Indo-European case
system these endings were: *-s, *-m, and *-H. According to Lehmann, *-s
indicated an individual and, when used in clauses, identified the agent; *-m used in
clauses indicated the target; and *-H (= * [see Chapter 18, 18.6]) supplied a
collective meaning. Lehmann further maintains that the remaining case endings
were based upon earlier adverbial particles that came to be incorporated into the
case system over time. That this has indeed taken place is especially clear in the
case of the dual and plural endings in *-bi- and *-mo-, which were incorporated
into the Proto-Indo-European case system after Hittite and the other Anatolian
daughter languages had split from the main speech community. The comparison
with Northwest Caucasian indirectly corroborates Lehmanns views, though details
of how and when the individual case endings traditionally reconstructed for Proto-
Indo-European arose still need to be fully worked out it may be noted that a
good start has recently been made in this direction by the Czech scholar Vclav
Blaek (2014) and, before him, by Beekes (1985), Haudry (1982), Kuryowicz
(1964a), Shields (1982), and Specht (1944), among others.
No doubt, as pointed out by Polom (1990b), the Indo-Europeans must have
come into contact with and replaced other non-Indo-European languages as they
moved into and conquered central, southern, and western Europe. Basque is the sole
non-Indo-European language to have survived from before the arrival of the Indo-
Europeans to the present day (cf. Tovar 1970). On contacts between Proto-Indo-
European and Proto-Uralic/Proto-Finno-Ugrian, cf. Kronasser 1948; Carpelan
ParpolaKoskikallio 2002; Jacobsohn 1980; Joki 1973; Kudzinowski 1983; Rdei
642 CHAPTER NINETEEN
1983 and 1988c; Szemernyi 1988. For Kartvelian contacts, cf. Fhnrich 1988;
Klimov 1985, 1991, and 1994a; Djahukyan 1967. Mention should also be made
here of the theories advanced by Theo Vennemann (2003), according to which
Indo-European speakers came into contact with and either substantially reduced or
outright replaced Vasconic (that is, Pre-Basque) and Semitic languages in Western
Europe. For remarks on substrate influence on the vocabulary of Northwest Indo-
European, cf. Salmons 1992a. For an excellent overview of language contact in
general, cf. Henning Andersen (ed.) 2003, the first section of which is devoted to
Indo-European. Andersens own contribution to the volume (pp. 4576) deals with
early contacts between Slavic and other Indo-European dialects, while that of Mees
(pp. 1144) deals with the substrata that underlie the Western branches of Indo-
European. Farther afield, Forest (1965:136) even lists several possible Indo-
European loanwords in Chinese.
Finally, Arnaud Fournet has brought to my attention a large number of non-
Indo-Iranian Indo-European elements in Hurro-Urartian.
References:
VOLUME 2
Allan R. Bomhard
SECOND EDITION
2015
A Comprehensive
Introduction to Nostratic
Comparative Linguistics
With Special Reference
To Indo-European
Volume 2
By
Allan R. Bomhard
CHARLESTON, SC
2015
Bomhard, Allan R. (1943 )
VOLUME ONE
Preface xvii
2.1. Indo-European . 33
2.2. Kartvelian 35
2.3. Afrasian ... 37
2.4. Uralic-Yukaghir .. 38
2.5. Elamo-Dravidian . 38
2.6. Altaic ... 40
2.7. Chukchi-Kamchatkan . 41
2.8. Gilyak . 41
2.9. Eskimo-Aleut .. 42
2.10. Etruscan .. 42
2.11. Sumerian . 43
13. The Nostratic Homeland and the Dispersal of the Nostratic Languages 265
VOLUME TWO
20.1. Introduction .. 1
20.2. Proto-Nostratic *b 7
20.3. Proto-Nostratic *p (> Proto-Afrasian *p) . 93
20.4. Proto-Nostratic *p (> Proto-Afrasian *f) 153
20.5. Proto-Nostratic *p ... 165
20.6. Proto-Nostratic *d 169
20.7. Proto-Nostratic *t 213
20.8. Proto-Nostratic *t 255
20.9. Proto-Nostratic *d .. 286
20.10. Proto-Nostratic *t . 293
20.11. Proto-Nostratic *t . 302
20.12. Proto-Nostratic *s .. 315
20.13. Proto-Nostratic * 337
20.14. Proto-Nostratic *c .. 347
20.15. Proto-Nostratic *c ... 352
20.16. Proto-Nostratic *s 362
20.17. Proto-Nostratic * 378
20.18. Proto-Nostratic * .. 383
20.19. Proto-Nostratic * 387
20.20. Proto-Nostratic * . 390
20.21. Proto-Nostratic *g 398
20.22. Proto-Nostratic *k ... 450
20.23. Proto-Nostratic *k ... 514
VOLUME THREE
VOLUME FOUR
References .. 1
VOLUME ONE
COMPARATIVE VOCABULARY
(FIRST HALF)
CHAPTER TWENTY
20.1. INTRODUCTION
In comparing the lexical material from the various Nostratic daughter languages, I
have tried to be very careful about the issue of semantic plausibility. Where there is
either a one-to-one or an extremely close semantic correspondence, there is, of
course, no problem. Unfortunately, things are not always this straightforward. Quite
often, there is not a one-to-one semantic correspondence in such cases, we must
be able to derive the proposed cognates from the postulated ancestor form by
widely-attested semantic shifts and not by mere speculation. Therefore, in
attempting to determine whether or not particular lexical items from the various
language families under consideration might be related, I have made extensive use
of Carl Darling Bucks A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-
European Languages as a control for the semantic development of the proposed
lexical parallels, and references to the appropriate sections of this work are given at
the end of each proposed Nostratic etymology. It may be noted that, in examining
the lexicons of Kartvelian, Afrasian, Uralic-Yukaghir, Elamo-Dravidian, Altaic,
and Eskimo-Aleut, semantic shifts similar to those described by Buck for the Indo-
European languages are found over and over again in these other language families
as well. I cannot emphasize strongly enough that, in order to gain a complete
understanding of how I arrived at my proposals, Bucks dictionary must be
consulted. However, in a number of instances, where I felt it was warranted due to
the wide semantic differences found among the forms cited from the daughter
languages, I have given brief explanations within the etymologies themselves.
As valuable as Bucks dictionary is, however, it is not without its
shortcomings. In the first place, as noted by Buck himself (1949:xii), the dictionary
is not complete due to the nature of the material involved, Buck and his
assistants had to be selective in choosing what to include. Next, the research upon
which the dictionary is based is now well over half a century old. Therefore, Bucks
dictionary must be supplemented by more recent scholarship. Unfortunately,
however, this work is spread throughout so many journal articles, dissertations, and
books that it is virtually impossible to consult all of it, especially when one is
dealing with multiple language families.
It is not enough, moreover, simply to compare dictionary forms. Rather, when
working with the lexical data from the various Nostratic daughter languages, one
must strive to ascertain the underlying semantics, that is to say, the fundamental
meaning or meanings from which the full set of semantic nuances are derived,
based upon actual usage, wherever this is possible, and one must be cognizant of
2 CHAPTER TWENTY
the interrelationship between social, cultural, and conceptual factors on the one
hand and semantic structures on the other (cf. Birnbaum 1977:4151). It goes
without saying that this is neither a simple nor an easy undertaking.
The approach that I have followed thus leads to the establishment of what may
be called families of words in the tradition of the great Indo-European
comparative dictionaries such as Pokorny (1959) and Walde (19271932). The
starting point is always the reconstructed Nostratic forms. The material cited from
the individual Nostratic daughter languages is then to be judged primarily by
whether or not it can be convincingly derived from the antecedent Nostratic forms
either directly or through widely-attested semantic shifts.
The difficulties involved in dealing with semantic change in unattested
languages have been clearly articulated by Winter (2003:206207):
Another important point that needs to be reiterated concerns how I segment the
reconstructed forms I am dealing with. Comparison of the various Nostratic
daughter languages indicates that the rules governing the structural patterning of
COMPARATIVE VOCABULARY OF THE NOSTRATIC LANGUAGES 3
roots and stems is Proto-Nostratic were most likely as follows (this is repeated from
Chapter 12, 12.3):
The original root structure patterning was maintained longer in Afrasian, Dravidian,
and Altaic than in the other branches, while the patterning found in Proto-Indo-
European and Proto-Kartvelian has been modified by developments specific to each
of these branches. The root structure constraints found in Proto-Indo-European
were an innovation. In Proto-Uralic, the rule requiring that all words end in a vowel
was an innovation and arose from the incorporation of the so-called terminal
vowel into the stem. It should be mentioned here that reduplication was a
widespread phenomenon.
On the basis of the evidence of Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Kartvelian, Proto-
Afrasian, Proto-Dravidian, and Proto-Altaic, it may be assumed that there were
three fundamental stem types: (A) verbal stems, (B) nominal and adjectival stems,
and (C) pronominal and indeclinable stems. Some stems were exclusively nominal.
In the majority of cases, however, both verbal stems and nominal stems could be
built from the same root. In Proto-Nostratic, only pronominal and indeclinable
stems could end in a vowel. Verbal and nominal stems, on the other hand, had to
end in a consonant, though, as noted above, when the undifferentiated stems were
used as real words in themselves, a terminal vowel had to be added to the stem.
4 CHAPTER TWENTY
All language names have been fully spelled out rather than abbreviated.
Moreover, since different spellings are sometimes found in the literature, the
language names have been mostly standardized to agree with what is found in
Ruhlen 1987. In those cases where a particular language is referred to by two
different names, both are given, separated by a slash. Where languages are
referred to in the literature by more than two names, I have tried to choose only
the two most common names.
In the case of many modern Afrasian languages, the names found in the
literature, especially when dialects and subdialects are taken into consideration,
are varied and confusing. Here, I mostly left unchanged what was used in the
sources I consulted.
Since the break-up of the former Yugoslavia, the language formerly called
Serbo-Croatian has been treated as four separate languages, mainly on
political grounds: Croatian, Serbian, Montenegrin, and Bosnian. The older term
is retained in this book.
TO SUMMARIZE: It should now be clear that I have tried to eliminate the arbitrary
nature of much of the previous work, as well as some current work, in distant
lexical comparison by relying heavily on proven, widely-attested semantic shifts as
found in the daughter languages, especially Indo-European, Semitic, and Dravidian,
which, due to having written records of sufficient time depth to be able to follow
how words have changed meaning over time, as well as due to having voluminous
data with which to work, are particularly valuable. My approach is thus positivistic,
that is, data-oriented, rather than impressionistic. To further ensure that my views
are firmly grounded in the attested data and not derived from purely theoretical
assumptions, I supply a large amount of cited forms from the daughter languages to
illustrate the types of changes that have occurred, I give explanations where needed,
I supply voluminous references to the standard etymological dictionaries and other
relevant literature, I set rather narrow limits on the meanings of the terms selected
for comparison, and I stay well within the bounds of established scholarship within
each language family.
20.2. PROTO-NOSTRATIC *b
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
b- b- p- b- b- p- b- p-
Buck 1949:2.33 marry; 2.34 marriage, wedding; 9.16 bind (vb. tr.). Illi-Svity
19711984.I:172, no. 2, *baH to tie to; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 180,
*baH- to tie, to bind.
Tashelhiyt / Shilha baba father; Wargla baba father; Riff baba father;
Tamazight baba father; Kabyle baba father, grandfather; Chaouia baba
father; Zenaga baba father. Note: Some of the Berber forms may be
borrowed from Semitic. Proto-East Cushitic *baabb-father > Dasenech
baaba father; Gawwada papp-o father. Sasse 1979:44. Southern
Cushitic: Proto-Rift *baba father > Iraqw baba father. Proto-Chadic
*baba father > Hausa baba father; Angas baba father; Karekare
babo father; Ngizim bab father (term by which a person refers to or
addresses his own father or an older man with whom he feels a father-like
attachment); Tera baba father; Gabin babu father; Gisiga baba father;
Buduma baabei father; Mubi baaba father. Proto-Omotic *baba
father > Bench / Gimira baba ancestors. OrlStolbova 1995:42, no.
165, *bab- father.
B. Proto-Kartvelian *baba father: Georgian babua- grandfather; Laz
baba- father, dad; Mingrelian baba- father, dad; Svan baba- dad.
Klimov 1964:47 *baba-; Schmidt 1962:94.
C. (?) Indo-European: Palaic (nom. sg.) pa-a-pa-a father (the phonetics are
uncertain Melchert [1994a:191] reconstructs Proto-Anatolian *bba-).
D. (?) Etruscan papa grandfather, papals, papacs of the grandfather: grand-
son (the phonetics are uncertain).
Buck 1949:8.22 dig; 9.26 break (vb. tr.); 9.27 split (vb. tr.); 12.23 separate
(vb.); 12.232 divide; 12.24 open (vb.). BomhardKerns 1994:214, no. 18;
Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 171, *bed[] to pierce, to prick also, no. 174b,
*bad[]X to be open.
Buck 1949:4.82 weak; 7.42 bed; 10.23 fall (vb.). Bomhard 1996a:225, no. 637.
PROTO-NOSTRATIC *b 15
Buck 1949:3.25 sheep; 3.26 ram; 3.27 wether; 3.28 ewe; 3.29 lamb; 3.36 goat.
Buck 1949:13.19 multitude, crowd; 13.192 Note on words for collective body
(of persons, animals, or things).
C. Proto-Uralic *pala- (vb.) to bite, to eat; (n.) bite, bit, morsel: Finnish
pala fragment, bit, crumb; Estonian pala fragment, bit, crumb; Lapp /
Saami buola small piece, bit; Mordvin pal small piece, bit; (?)
Cheremis / Mari pult morsel, bit; Vogul / Mansi puul piece, bit,
morsel; Ostyak / Xanty pu, (Southern) pul piece; mouthful (of food),
morsel, crumb (of bread or other food), pulem- to devour; Hungarian
fal- to eat, to devour, falat morsel; Yurak Samoyed / Nenets paale- to
devour; Selkup Samoyed poly- to devour. Collinder 1955:4646 and
1977:64; Dcsy 1990:105 *pala (n.) a bit, a bite; (vb.) to eat; Rdei
19861988:350 *pala.
D. Altaic: Mongolian balu- to swallow, to gulp, balu mouthful, gulp,
swallow; Manchu bila throat.
E. (?) Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan *lplo- to gnaw or bite: Chukchi
nalplo- to gnaw; Koryak plo- to gnaw, to lick around; Kamchadal /
Itelmen pl-kas to bite (for example, dog). Fortescue 2005:165166;
Mudrak 1989b:101 *lplo- to bite. Note also: Proto-Chukotian *pl- (or
*lpl-) to drink (up) > Chukchi pl- to drink (up), e-lp-lin drunk;
Kerek pl- to drink; Koryak pl- to drink (up); Alyutor pl-, -lp- to
drink, ina-lp-at- to get drunk, to be a drinker. Fortescue 2005:221.
According to Fortescue (2005:165), the relationship, if any, between these
two stems is obscure.
Buck 1949:4.27 tooth; 4.58 bite (vb.); 5.11 eat. Illi-Svity 19711984.I:173,
no. 4, *bal/u/ to swallow; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 201, *ba[i]a (or
*ba[i][U] ?) (vb.) to swallow; (n.) throat.
Buck 1949:1.55 lightning; 15.57 bright; 15.64 white; 16.25 laugh (vb.), smile
(vb.). Illi-Svity 19711984.I:174, no. 5, *bal"a to flash, to sparkle;
BomhardKerns 1994:210211, no. 15; Mller 1911:2526 and 2930.
Buck 1949:4.85 wound (sb.); 15.78 sharp; 20.26 spear; 20.27 sword.
30 CHAPTER TWENTY
band; Old High German bintan to bind (New High German binden),
binda bond (New High German Binde), bant ribbon, band, bond (New
High German Band); Middle High German bunt band, neckband, collar,
waistband (New High German Bund); Old Irish bann bond, belt, hinge,
chain, law; Thracian - to bind. Rix 1998a:6061 *bend- to
bind; Pokorny 1959:127 *bhendh- to bind; Walde 19271932.II:152
*bhendh-; Mann 19841987:72 *bhendh- to bind, 87 *bhn dh- bound,
binding, 92 *bhondhos, -, -i os band, thong, company; Watkins 1985:7
*bhendh- and 2000:10 *bhendh- to bind; MalloryAdams 1997:64
*bhendh- to bind; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1984.I:174 *b[]end[]-,
*b[]n d[]- and 1995.I:150 *bend-, *bn d- to tie, to bind; Mayrhofer
19561980.II:406 and II:407; Feist 1939:79 and 93; Lehmann 1986:60
61 and 71; Orl 2003:35 Proto-Germanic *anan, 35 *anilaz, 35
*anjan, 35 *anj, 41 *enanan; Kroonen 2013:51 Proto-Germanic
*band- bond, fetter and 64 *bindan- to bind; De Vries 1977:25, 32, 65,
and 67; Klein 1971:69, 8283 *bhendh-, and 88; Onions 1966:72, 95,
106, and 126; BoutkanSiebinga 2005:49; KlugeMitzka 1967:48, 78
*bhendh-, and 111; KlugeSeebold 1989:86 *bhendh- and 114.
D. Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan *(l)pnit- to tie: Chukchi pnit- (medial
-lpnit-) to tie laces, pnit lace; Kerek pcii-twa- to untie laces; Koryak
(Kamen) pnit- (medial -lpnit-) to tie laces; Kamchadal / Itelmen pons-
nom binding, tying (of footwear), nypint bundle. Fortescue 2005:223.
Buck 1949:9.16 bind; 9.75 plait (vb.). Illi-Svity 19711984.I:194, no. 30,
*bn to bind; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 214, *bKn (~ *bKn d ?) to
tie.
Buck 1949:4.142 beard; 4.40 breast (front of chest); 4.46 belly, stomach; 10.31
boil (vb. intr.); 12.53 grow (= increase in size). BomhardKerns 1994:198
200, no. 4; Illi-Svity 19711984.I:190191, no. 24, *bur'a to boil, to
bubble up; Mller 1911:34; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 254, *ba big,
much, thick.
Sumerian bar to blow, to stretch or spread out, to ferment, to blow away, bar
to blow at or upon.
36 CHAPTER TWENTY
Buck 1949:11.13 take; 11.14 seize, grasp, take hold of. Dolgopolsky to appear,
no. 224, *ba[]eri to hold, to take; Illi-Svity 19711984.I:176177, no.
8, *bari to take.
Buck 1949:8.31 sow, seed; 8.42 grain; 8.44 barley. BomhardKerns 1994:
219, no. 24; Brunner 1969:27, no. 79. For the semantics, cf. the following
meanings of the English word grain: (1) a small, hard seed or seedlike fruit (as
of wheat, rye, oats, barley, maize, or millet); (2) cereal seeds in general; (3)
a tiny, solid particle, as of salt or sand; (4) a tiny bit, smallest amount; etc.
Buck 1949:1.55 lightning; 15.57 bright; 15.87 clean; 17.34 clear, plain.
BomhardKerns 1994:211213, no. 16; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 247,
*bR[]K to flash, to shine; Brunner 1969:27, no. 74.
Sumerian bar to split (with a tool or weapon), bar to cut into, to notch, to cut
or slit open, to carve, to slice, to cut up, bar to dig, to excavate.
Buck 1949:9.21 strike (hit, beat); 9.22 cut (vb.); 9.26 break (vb. tr.); 9.52
board; 9.81 carve. BomhardKerns 1994:226227, no. 32.
Buck 1949:3.82 bee; 18.12 sing; 18.14 (words denoting various cries,
especially of animals); 18.21 speak, talk. BomhardKerns 1994:227228,
no. 33.
Buck 1949:4.37 foot; 10.45 walk (vb.); 10.47 go; 10.49 go away, depart.
Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 238, *barq (~ *barX) to go, to go away, to
step. The Dravidian forms included by Dolgopolsky do not belong here.
to be thirsty, j-pa-v- to dry out (tr.); Alyutor pa- to dry (out) (intr.),
t-pa-v- to dry out (tr.), qasa-pa- to be thirsty. Fortescue 2005:225.
Buck 1949:15.84 dry. Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 219, *bAr earth, land,
dust.
Buck 1949:15.11 perceive by the senses, sense; 17.16 understand; 17.24 learn;
17.31 remember. BomhardKerns 1994:195196, no. 1.
produced, gain, profit < Old English gield (n.) payment, tribute, tax,
compensation, (vb.) gieldan to pay, to pay for, to give, to render.
C. Proto-Indo-European *bey-/*boy-/*bi- to give: Hittite (3rd sg. pres.,
i-conjugation) pa-a-i, (3rd sg. pres., mi-conjugation) p-e-ya-zi, pi-iz-zi
to give; Palaic pia- to give; Hieroglyphic Luwian pi-ya- to give;
Luwian piya- to give; Lycian piye- to give; Lydian bi- to give.
Semantic development as in Kashmiri bazun to give away (prizes, etc.), to
distribute < Old Indic (Sanskrit) bhjati to divide, to distribute, to allot or
apportion to, to share with; to grant, to bestow, to furnish, to supply.
D. Altaic: Proto-Turkic *by rich > Old Turkic bay rich; Karakhanide
Turkic bay rich; Turkish bay (originally) a rich man, (now) gentleman,
Mr.; Gagauz bay rich; Azerbaijani bay rich; Turkmenian by rich;
Uzbek by rich; Uighur bay rich; Karaim bay rich; Tatar bay rich;
Bashkir bay rich; Kirghiz bay rich; Kazakh bay rich; Noghay bay
rich; Tuva bay rich; Chuvash poyan rich; Yakut by rich. Turkic
loans in Classical Mongolian bayan rich and related forms in other
Mongolian languages. Poppe 1955:128 and 1960:66, 97; Street 1974:8
*bya(n) rich. Semantic development as in Old Church Slavic bogat
rich, bogatiti to be rich < *bog share, portion < Proto-Indo-
European *bak- to divide, to distribute (cf. Sanskrit bhjati to divide,
to distribute, to allot or apportion to, to share with; to grant, to bestow, to
furnish, to supply; Tocharian A pk, B pke part, portion). Note:
StarostinDyboMudrak (2003:340341) include the above forms
under Proto-Altaic *bu numerous, great.
E. Proto-Eskimo *payu- to bring food or supplies to: Alutiiq Alaskan
Yupik payuxt- to take food to; Central Alaskan Yupik payuxt- to take
food to; Central Siberian Yupik payuxt- to go check on; Seward
Peninsula Inuit payuk- to bring food or supplies to; Western Canadian
Inuit payuk- to give food, clothing to those remaining; Eastern Canadian
Inuit payuk- to bring a gift to; Greenlandic Inuit payu to bring a gift
to. FortescueJacobsonKaplan 1994:253.
Buck 1949:11.21 give; 11.42 wealth, riches; 11.51 rich; 11.65 pay (vb.); 11.73
profit; 11.81 buy; 11.82 sell; 11.83 trade (vb.). BomhardKerns 1994:219
220, no. 25; Arbeitman 1987:1931.
A. Afrasian: Egyptian b-t, by-t bee, honey, bty bee-keeper; Demotic b-t
honey; Coptic ebi [ebiw] honey, ebit [ebit, ebeit] honey dealer.
Gardiner 1957:564; ErmanGrapow 1921:46 and 19261963.1:434;
Faulkner 1962:79; Hannig 1995:245; Vycichl 1983:38; ern 1976:32.
PROTO-NOSTRATIC *b 53
A. Afrasian: Egyptian b& soul (Demotic by); Coptic bai [bai] soul. Hannig
1995:237; Faulkner 1962:77; ErmanGrapow 1921:44 and 1926
1963.1:411412; Gardiner 1957:563; Vycichl 1983:25; ern 1976:20.
B. Dravidian: Tamil py devil, goblin, fiend; madness (as of a dog), frenzy;
wildness (as of vegetation), pyan demoniac, madmen, pytti, pycci,
pcci demoness, woman under possession of a demon; Malayalam p,
pyi demon; rage, madness, viciousness, pna ghost, spirit, p-nyi
mad dog; Kota pen, penm possession of a woman by spirit of the
dead, pey demon; Toda n the god of the dead; Kannaa p, h
madness, rage, viciousness; growing wild (as plants); worthlessness,
ptu, htu demon, pkui, pkui, hkui demon; madness, fury, hga
a mad, foolish man; Tuu pyi demon; Gondi pn, pen, ven, pnu god,
pe idol, god, pnvor priest; Pengo pen god; Kui pnu, vnu a god, a
spirit; Kuwi pn, pnu god, pnu devil, pne"esi deceased person;
(?) Malto peypeyre to feel fervent or animated. BurrowEmeneau
1984:393, no. 4438; Krishnamurti 2003:7 *p(y)/*p devil, 11.
C. Proto-Altaic *bye person, self, body: Proto-Tungus *beye person, man
> Evenki beye person, man; Lamut / Even bey person, man; Negidal
beye person, man; Nanay / Gold beye person; Solon bei, beye person,
man. Proto-Mongolian *beye body, person, self > Written Mongolian
beye body, physique, organism; health; Khalkha biye body, physique,
stature; Buriat beye body, person; self; Kalmyk b, by body, person;
self; Ordos biye, beye body, person; self; Dagur bey(e) body, person;
self; Dongxiang beije body, person; self; Shira-Yughur bi body,
person; self; Monguor bye, buye body, person; self. Poppe 1955:47.
Poppe 1960:66 and 126; Street 1974:9 *beye body, person; Starostin
DyboMudrak 2003:335 *bje man; self, body.
Buck 1949:4.11 body; 16.11 soul, spirit; 22.34 devil; 22.35 demon (evil spirit);
22.45 ghost, specter, phantom. Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 274, *bey body,
self ([in descendant languages] soul). The semantic development is more
likely to have been from spirit, soul, self (= life force, vital energy; living
being [same semantic range as Latin anima]) to body, person rather than the
other way around.
46. Proto-Nostratic relational marker *bi in addition to, with, together with:
bi in, within, among; Ugaritic b in, with, from; Sabaean b from, of, in,
on, at; eri / Jibbli b- at, about, by, with, in; arssi b(e)- in, with,
by; Geez / Ethiopic ba [] in, at, into, on, by, through, with (by means
of), after (kind and means), by reason of, because of, out of, on account of,
according to, concerning, against (contiguity); Harari -be with, from, by,
of, in, on, at; Gurage b with, in, at, by, out, out of, from. Klein 1987:
62; D. Cohen 1970 :3940; Leslau 1987:82; Zammit 2002:87.
Cushitic: Beja / Beawye (postposition) -b by, in, of. Reinisch 1895:38;
Appleyard 2007a:456.
B. Proto-Indo-European *(-)bi/y-, *-bo- in, with, within, among: Gothic bi
by, about, over; concerning, according to; at, bai both; Old English be,
bi; b (of place) near, in, on, upon, with, along, at, to; (of time) in, about,
by, before, while, during; for, because of, in consideration of, by, by
means of, through, in conformity with, in comparison with, -b(e) in:
ymb(e) around; Old Frisian be-, b- by, about, at, on; Old Saxon be-, b-
by, about, at, on; Dutch bij by, about, at, on; Old High German bi-, b
by, about, at, on (New High German bei); Greek (suffix) -(), - on
both sides, around, - both; Latin amb both, (pl. case ending)
-bus; Sanskrit a-bh to, towards, u-bhau both, case endings: (instr. pl.)
-bhis, (dat.-abl. pl.) -bhyas, (instr.-dat.-abl. dual) -bhym. Pokorny
1959:3435 *ambhi around, *ambh(u) both, *m bhi, *bhi; Walde
19271932.I:5455 *ambhi; *m bhi, *bhi; *ambh(u); Mann 1984
1987:1 *abhi (*bhi) both, *abhi (*bhi) round, about, 12 *abhu
(*abhudu, *abhdu ) both, 18 *ambh- (*mbh-, *m bh-) round, 1819
*ambhi (*mbhi, *m bhi) on both sides, around, 19 *ambh (*mbh,
*m bh) both, 77 *bh- by, at, 862 *obhi-, *obh- athwart, against, at;
Watkins 1985:2 *ambhi (also *m bhi) around, 2 *ambh both and
2000:3 *ambhi (also *m bhi) around, 3 *ambh both; Brugmann
1904:386, 389, 467468, and 468; Meillet 1964:298299; Meier-
Brgger 2003:197 *-bhi; Fortson 2004:106107; De Vaan 2008:3738;
GamkrelidzeIvanov 1984.I:288, I:380, I:381, I:394, I:396 *-b[]i/
*-b[]i-s, *-b[]os and 1995.I:250, I:333, I:334, I:345, I:347 *-bi/*-bi-s,
*-bos; Orl 2003:4445 Proto-Germanic *i; Feist 1939:74 and 88 *bhi;
Lehmann 1986:56 and 67; Onions 1966:131; Klein 1971:102; Boutkan
Siebinga 2005:45; KlugeMitzka 1967:61; KlugeSeebold 1989:70.
C. Etruscan pi (also pul) at, in, through.
Sumerian bi with, together with, in addition to; -bi, bi-da, -bi-(da) and.
48. Proto-Nostratic (n.) *bin-a, *ban-a younger relative: (m.) younger brother,
younger son; (f.) younger sister, younger daughter:
Buck 1949:2.41 son; 2.42 daughter; 2.44 brother; 2.45 sister; 14.14 young.
Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 212, *be| younger relative.
*bhr hn tiha- high one, and 269 *bherh-, *bhr h- high; hill, mountain;
Mayrhofer 19561980.II:445447 *berh-; Frisk 19701973.II:629
630; Boisacq 1950:829; Chantraine 19681980.II:958; Hofmann 1966:
291; ErnoutMeillet 1979:78; WaldeHofmann 19651972.I:124; Orl
2003:42 Proto-Germanic *eran ~ *eraz and 6364 *urz; Kroonen
2013:60 *berga- mountain; Feist 1939:7576 and 8586; Lehmann
1986:5758 and 6465; De Vries 1977:39 and 50; Onions 1966:108;
Klein 1971:89 *bherh-; BoutkanSiebinga 2005:39; KlugeMitzka
1967:66 and 111112; KlugeSeebold 1989:75 and 114115; Adams
1999:372373; Van Windekens 19761982.I:362 *bherg h-; Katii
1976.I:7172, 93, and 94; Georgiev 1981:99 and 100. Probable Indo-
European loans in Semitic (Arabic bur tower, castle; Aramaic burgin,
burgon tower; Syriac brg tower).
A. Dravidian: Kona pirui flute; Kui piroi flute; Kuwi prri, prui,
prui flute; Kuux p flute, pipe, whistle. BurrowEmeneau
1964:370, no. 4178.
B. Proto-Kartvelian *bir- to sing: Mingrelian bir- to sing, to play (a
musical instrument); Laz bir- to sing; Svan br- to sing, la-brjl
singing. Klimov 1964:53 *br- and 1998:1718 *br- to sing; Fhnrich
2007:6869 *bir-; FhnrichSardshweladse 1995:56 *bir-.
Sumerian bir to tear, to rip, to rend; to pull, to snatch, to yank, bir6 to tear up,
to tear to pieces, to shred; to rip apart, to sever, to break up.
Buck 1949:5.71 fruit; 9.423 use (vb. = make use of). Dolgopolsky to appear,
no. 257, *b[i][w]"a (or *b[i][uw]"a ?) edible fruit.
A. Dravidian: Tamil picai to work with the thumb and fingers in mixing, to
knead, to squeeze or mash between the palms, to crush and separate (as
kernels of grain from the ear), to rub or apply on the skin, to strike against
one another (as branches in the wind), picakku (picakki-) to press
between the fingers, to squeeze, to crush, picaru (picari-) to mingle, to
PROTO-NOSTRATIC *b 63
mix with the hand; Kota pick- (picky-) to squeeze, to pinch; Kannaa
pisuku to squeeze, to press (as a fruit), to knead, to shampoo, hisi to
squeeze (a ripe fruit) so as nearly to separate it into two pieces; Tuu
piskuni, psuni to squeeze, to press; Koraga pijaki to crush; Telugu
pisuku to squeeze, to press, to knead, to shampoo, to handle; Naiki pijg-
to knead; Parji pk- to crush; Gadba (Ollari) piskolp- (piskolt-) to
squeeze; Gondi piskn to knead flour; Pengo pc- (pcc-) to squeeze,
to milk; Kui pc- to press, to squeeze, to milk; Kuux pickan to press
and bruise, to flatten by crushing. BurrowEmeneau 1984:366, no. 4135;
Krishnamurti 2003:149 *pic-V- (~ *pi-V-) to squeeze.
B. Proto-Kartvelian *biDk- to break, to crumble: Old Georgian biD- to
crumble, participial derivatives na-bi- // na-bi-ev- crumb; Svan li-
beDkw to break (apart), to burst, li-bDkwe to split something. Klimov
1964:52 *bi - and 1998:14 *be -/*bi - to crumble, to break; Fhnrich
1994:230; FhnrichSardshweladse 1995:54 *be -/*bi -.
Buck 1949:4.56 spit; 4.57 vomit; 9.27 split (vb. tr.). BomhardKerns 1994:
379, no. 214.
Buck 1949:3.37 bear; 15.63 dark (in color). BomhardKerns 1994:224, no.
29; Illi-Svity 19711984.I:183184, no. 18, *bor'a brown, gray-brown;
Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 255, *bo[] brown, yellow.
A. Dravidian: Pengo pu- to set fire to, to kindle; Kui pupa (pu-), pupa
(put-) to roast. BurrowEmeneau 1984:377, no. 4260.
B. Proto-Kartvelian *bdw- to set fire, to catch fire: Old Georgian bdv- to
set fire, to catch fire, (participle) m-bdvin-vare- kindled; Laz d(v)- to set
fire, to catch fire; Svan bd-/bid- (li-bd-ine) to set fire to something, m-
bid combustable. Fhnrich 1994:230 and 2007:67 *bidw-; Fhnrich
Sardshweladse 1995:55 *bidw-; Klimov 1998:10 *bdw- to set fire, to
catch fire, *bdw-in- to set fire.
Buck 1949:4.47 womb; 12.34 bottom; 12.36 side. Dolgopolsky to appear, no.
270, *bu[w] lower part of the body. Note: the Afrasian material cited by
Dolgopolsky does not belong here.
61. Proto-Nostratic (n.) *buk-a (~ *bok-a) male of small, hoofed animals: he-
goat, buck:
A. Proto-Afrasian *bok- goat: Central Chadic *wak- (< *bwak-) goat >
Mafa okw goat. Cushitic: Beja / Beawye bk goat. Reinisch 1895:46.
OrlStolbova 1995:76, no. 309, *bo- goat. Proto-Afrasian *bok-ar-
cattle: Proto-Semitic *bak-ar- cattle > Akkadian buru cattle (West
Semitic word); Hebrew br [rq*B]* cattle, herd, oxen; Phoenician br
cattle; Syriac bar herd of cattle; Arabic baar cattle; Sabaean br
cattle; arssi beert cow; Mehri brt cow. Murtonen 1989:118;
Klein 1987:81; D. Cohen 1970 :7980; Zammit 2002:9899. Berber
*bukVr- one year old camel > Tawlemmet buer one year old camel.
Central Chadic *bwakVr- goat > Tera bokra goat; Bachama bogr-ey
goat. OrlStolbova 1995:76, no. 310, *boar- cattle (derived from
*bo- goat).
B. Proto-Indo-European *buk- buck, he-goat: Avestan bza- buck; Farsi
buz goat; Armenian buc lamb; Old Irish bocc buck; Welsh bwch
buck; Cornish boch buck; Breton bouch buck; Old Icelandic bokkr,
bukkr buck, he-goat, bokki buck, fellow; Old English bucc buck, male
dear, bucca he-goat; Old Saxon buck he-goat; Middle High German
boc he-goat (New High German Bock); Latin bucca he-goat (loan).
Pokorny 1959:174 *bho-s buck; Walde 19271932.II:189190
*bho-; Mann 19841987:120 *bhuos, -i os, -(n) small, animal;
Watkins 1985:10 *bhugo- and 2000:13 *bhugo- male animal of various
kinds: stag, ram, he-goat; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1984.II:586 *b[]u$o-
and 1995.I:501 *bu$o- goat; MalloryAdams 1997:229 *bhuos
PROTO-NOSTRATIC *b 69
Buck 1949:3.36 goat; 3.37 he-goat; 3.38 kid; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 185,
*bukE billy goat, ram.
Uzbek bulq spring, well; Uighur (dial.) bulaq spring, well; Tatar bolaq
spring, well; Kazakh bulaq spring, well; Noghay bulaq spring, well;
Tuva blaq spring, well. Note also Kazakh bula- to flow, to gush forth.
StarostinDyboMudrak 2003:362 *bi lo to soak, to gush forth.
Buck 1949:4.46 belly, stomach; 10.32 flow (vb.); 10.38 blow (vb. intr.).
BomhardKerns 1994:205206, no. 10; Illi-Svity 19711984.I:193
194, no. 29, *bH to blow, to inflate; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 199,
*bLa to blow, to inflate.
Buck 1949:4.49 testicle. Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 211, *bX[a] tail, penis;
Takcs 1997:374375 (Proto-Afrasian *bul-()- penis).
Buck 1949:8.56 leaf; 8.57 flower; 12.53 grow (= increase in size). Bomhard
Kerns 1994:206207, no. 11; Illi-Svity 19711984.I:181182, no. 16,
*boli to grow (of plants).
67. Proto-Nostratic (n.) *bul-a that which is dark, dark-colored; that which has
mixed colors, that which is spotted:
Derivative of:
(vb.) *bul- to mix, to mix up, to confuse;
(n.) *bul-a mixture, confusion, turbidity, blur
loans from Cushitic.) East Cushitic: Burji bull-nc-i gray; all mixed
colors; spotted; Hadiyya bula (horse) spotted: black and white; Konso
pull-a gray. Sasse 1982:43.
B. Dravidian: Tamil pul tawny color, pullai dull, yellowish color;
Malayalam pulla a yellowish color of cattle; Kota bul liver-colored;
Telugu pula yellowish, pulla brown, tawny; Gadba (Salur) pula light
brown color (loan from Telugu). BurrowEmeneau 1984:381, no. 4310.
C. Proto-Indo-European *bl-en-d-/*bl-on-d-/*bl-n -d- mixed or dark
colored: Proto-Germanic *blundaz mixed colored, gray > Old English
blonden-feax, blandan-feax having mixed colored or gray hair. Germanic
loans in: Medieval Latin blundus, blondos yellow; French blond(e) fair-
haired, blond; Italian biondo fair-haired, blond; Spanish blondo blond;
Old Provenal blon blond. Pokorny 1959:157158 *bhlendh- dim,
reddish; Orl 2003:47 Proto-Germanic *lananan.
Buck 1949:4.82 weak; 4.84 sick, sickness; 4.91 tired, weary; 14.15 old; 16.72
bad. BomhardKerns 1994:209210, no. 14; Mller 1911:2829.
Buck 1949:4.204 face; 12.63 thick (in dimension); 12.83 sphere; 13.13 whole;
13.15 much, many. BomhardKerns 1994:223224; Illi-Svity 1971
1984.I:182183, no. 17, *bong (adj.) fat; (vb.) to swell; Dolgopolsky to
appear, no. 217, *bug (adj.) thick; (vb.) to swell; Hakola 2000:148, no.
651; Takcs 2004a:198, no. 126; Fortescue 1998:157.
Buck 1949:10.26 shake (vb. tr.); 10.38 blow (vb. intr.); 16.43 rage, fury. Illi-
Svity 19711984.I:188190, no. 23, *bur (sand) storm, snowstorm;
BomhardKerns 1994:225226, no. 31; Hakola 2000:141142, no. 619;
Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 252, *buu(-U) (or *bu(-U)) to spurt, to gush
forth, to boil, to seethe.
Buck 1949:4.58 bite (vb.); 5.11 eat. Hakola 2000:150, no. 660.
Buck 1949:1.62 darkness; 12.25 shut, close (vb.); 12.26 cover (vb.). Illi-
Svity 19711984.I:191192, no. 26, *bri to cover; Dolgopolsky to
appear, no. 239, *bryi to cover; BomhardKerns 1994:225, no. 30.
77. Proto-Nostratic (n.) *bur-a (fine, soft) feathers, fur, wool, (body) hair:
A. Afrasian: Egyptian br in br n sd tuft of hair on [the end of] the tail (sd =
tail). Hannig 1995:256.
B. Dravidian: Malayalam pa down of birds, wool, fine hair; Kota kam bu
(kam- < ka eye) eyebrow; Tuu pue plume, feather; Kolami bur
eyelash, eyebrow, br fur; Naiki br down, fine feathers; Parji (pl.)
bul hair, fine feathers, down; Gadba (pl.) burgul eyebrows; Gondi
br, bura down, bur feather, biy down, buiy hair, feathers;
Kona bulus pubic hair, feathers, hair (on legs and chest), buus
feathers, down; Pengo bra small feathers, down, wool, pubic hair;
Mana bri pubic hair; Kui bri, bru hair, fur, feather, wool, puma
feather; Kuwi kanu bru eyebrow, (pl.) brka down; Malto purgu
hair on the body; Brahui pu hair. BurrowEmeneau 1984:385, no.
4358. Dolgopolsky (to appear, no. 231) has identified three distinct Proto-
Dravidian roots that have been lumped together by BurrowEmeneau in
this etymology: (1) *p- down, fine hair; (2) *pr- hair, fur, feathers;
and (3) *pur/rV- eyelash, eyebrow. In accordance with Dolgopolskys
views, the forms for eyelash, eyebrow are to be removed from this
etymology and compared instead with Proto-Indo-European *br-uH-
eyelash, eyebrow (see below).
C. Kartvelian: Proto-Georgian-Zan *burda- down, plumage > Georgian
burda- down, plumage; Mingrelian burda- down; shaggy; Laz
bunda- down, plumage. Klimov 1964:55 *burda- and 1998:2021
*burda- down, plumage; Fhnrich 2007:84 *burd-. Proto-Georgian-
88 CHAPTER TWENTY
Zan *burtql - down and plumage > Georgian burtql- down and
plumage; Mingrelian butqu- soft. Svan bintq-il- down appears to be
a loan. Klimov 1964:55 *bur"l - and 1998:21 *bur"l- down and
plumage; FhnrichSardshweladse 1995:68 *bur"l-; Fhnrich 2007:85
*bur"l-.
Buck 1949:4.14 hair; 4.393 feather; 6.22 wool; 6.28 fur. Dolgopolsky to
appear, no. 231, *b|ur[] lock of hair, down.
existence; Old Church Slavic byti to be. Rix 1998a:8385 *bu eh- to
grow, to prosper; Pokorny 1959:146150 *bheu-, *bheu - (*bhu -,
*bhu -): *bhu-: *bh- to grow, to prosper; Walde 19271932.II:140
144 *bheu-; Mann 19841987:76 *bheu to be, 116 *bh- (*bhuu -) to
be; Watkins 1985:8 *bheu- (also *bheu-) and 2000:1112 *bheu-
(also *bheu-) to be, to exist, to grow; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1984.I:178
*b[]eu - to be, I:198 *b[]eu H-, I:206 *b[]eu H-/*b[]uH- > *b[]-
and 1995.I:177 *beuH-/*buH- > *b- to be, to originate; Mallory
Adams 1997:53 *bheu(hx)- to come into being, to be; to grow; Mayrhofer
19561980.II:485487; Chantraine 19681980.II:12331235 *bh-,
*bhew--/*bhw-e-/*bhu--; Hofmann 1966:407408 *bheu -, *bheu -,
*bh-; Boisacq 1950:10431044 *bheu -, *bheu -, *bh-; Frisk 1970
1973.II:10521054; ErnoutMeillet 1979:257258; WaldeHofmann
19651972.I:557559 *bhu- (*bheu -, *bheu -); De Vaan 2008:246
247; Orl 2003:44 Proto-Germanic *ewwanan; Onions 1966:81; Klein
1971:74; BoutkanSiebinga 2005:32; Smoczyski 2007.1:83; Fraenkel
19621965.I:68.
D. (?) Proto-Uralic *puwe tree, wood: Finnish puu tree, wood, firewood;
Estonian puu tree, wood, firewood; Cheremis / Mari pu wood,
firewood; Votyak / Udmurt -pu tree, wood; Zyrian / Komi pu tree,
wood; Vogul / Mansi -p tree; Hungarian fa tree, wood; Yurak
Samoyed / Nenets pKK, peK, (accusative plural) pii wood, stick, cane,
forest; Tavgi Samoyed / Nganasan faa tree; Yenisei Samoyed / Enets
f, p, p tree; Selkup Samoyed puu, poo tree, wood, firewood, stick;
Kamassian p tree, wood, firewood, forest; Koibal pa tree, p forest;
Motor ha, hh tree; Taigi h forest; Karagas hy tree. Collinder
1955:53 and 1977:71; Rdei 19861988:410411 *puwe; Dcsy
1990:106 *punga tree, wood; Sammallahti 1988:539 Proto-Uralic
*pu/o/x/i tree, Proto-Finno-Ugrian *puxi. (?) Yukaghir (Southern /
Kolyma) pibil (< *piw-) coniferous needles, pibil-pubuki larch tree
bud. Nikolaeva 2006:353.
E. Proto-Altaic *biyu- to be, to sit: Proto-Tungus *bi- to be > Evenki bi-
to be; Lamut / Even bi- to be; Negidal b- to be; Manchu bi- to be, to
exist; Ulch bi- to be; Orok bi- to be; Nanay / Gold bi- to be; Oroch
b- to be; Udihe bi- to be; Solon bi- to be. Proto-Mongolian *byi- to
be > Classical Mongolian b- (b-) to be; Khalkha biy- to be; Buriat
b- to be; Kalmyk b- to be; Ordos b- to be; Moghol be-, bi- to be;
Dagur bie- to be. Poppe 1960:99, 111, 112, and 125; Street 1974:10 *b-
to be; Starostin 1991:280, no. 129, *bui-; StarostinDyboMudrak
2003:342 *biju to be, to sit.
Buck 1949:1.22 mountain, hill; 1.42 tree; 9.91 be; 9.92 become; 12.31 high.
Hakola 2000:151, no. 666; Illi-Svity 19711984.I:184185, no. 19, *buHi
to grow up, to arise; BomhardKerns 1994:203205, no. 9; Dolgopolsky to
appear, no. 181, *buHi to grow, to appear, to become.
20.3. PROTO-NOSTRATIC *p (> PROTO-AFRASIAN *p)
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
p- p- p- p- p- p- p- p-
Mudrak 2003:1116 *paV to open, to split up; Poppe 1960:63 and 94;
Street 1974:7 *aa- to fork; to open out, to come together.
A. Dravidian: Tamil pakku scab of a sore, dried mucus of the nose; Kannaa
hakku crusted or dried mucus or rheum, scab, hakkae an incrustation;
Telugu pakku scab; Gadba (Salur) pakku dried portion of any bodily
secretion, scab. BurrowEmeneau 1984:341, no. 3811.
B. Proto-Kartvelian *pakl- scab, pockmark: Georgian pakl-i scab; Laz
pukur-i, pukir-i, purk-i, purk-i pockmark; Svan pakr abscess, boil,
pus. Fhnrich 2007:429 *pakl-; FhnrichSardshweladse 1995:351
352 *pakl-.
85. Proto-Nostratic (n.) *pal-a (metathesized variant *lap-a in Uralic, Altaic, and
part of Afrasian) spleen:
Cushitic *fal- (vb.) to split (wood); (n.) log > Yaaku pilc- small sticks
of firewood; Galla / Oromo falat-a log, falat- to cut wood; Somali
fallii a chip of wood, splinter; Saho -fli- to split. Sasse 1979:26 and
31. West Chadic *pal- to cut off > Hausa fall to hit someone hard.
Central Chadic *pal- to cut > Zime fal- to cut. Central Chadic *pal- to
break (stone) > Mafa pal- to break (stone). East Chadic *pal- to carve,
to cut, to peel > Tumak pXl- to carve, to cut, to peel; Sokoro fal- to
carve, to cut, to peel. OrlStolbova 1995:416, no. 1937, *pal- to
break, and no. 1938, *pal- to cut, to divide. Note: The Semitic forms are
phonologically ambiguous they may belong with Proto-Afrasian *fil-
to split, to cleave instead (cf. OrlStolbova 1995:191, no. 845, *fVl-
to divide, to pierce).
B. Dravidian: Kuux palkn to cut lengthwise, to split, to crack (the earth, a
wall), to chap (the hands, etc.); Malto palke to cut up (as fruit or
vegetables); Parji palva to split a piece of wood. BurrowEmeneau
1984:355, no. 3991. Tamil pl part, portion, share, dividing; Malayalam
pl part; Kota palm portion, division; Toda polm share; Kannaa pl
division, part, portion, share; Koagu pal ma- to divide, to
distribute; Tuu plu share, portion, part, division; Telugu plu share,
portion, part, share, lot, fraction; Parji pla portion. BurrowEmeneau
1984:364, no. 4097.
C. [Proto-Kartvelian *plet-/*plit- to pull, tear, or rip apart: Georgian plet-,
plit- to pull, tear, or rip apart; Laz plat- to get worn out; to tear to
pieces; Svan pet-, pt- to pluck (wool). FhnrichSardshweladse
1995:358 *plet-/*plit-; Fhnrich 2007:437 *plet-/*plit-; Klimov 1998:202
*plet- : *plit- : *plt- to wear out.] Note: The Kartvelian material may
belong either here or with Proto-Nostratic *pil- (~ *pel-) (vb.) to split,
to cleave; (n.) split, crack.
D. [Proto-Indo-European *(s)pel-/*(s)pol-/*(s)pl -, *(s)pl- (plus various
extensions) to split, to cleave: Sanskrit phlati to split, to cleave,
sphati (< *sphalt-) to burst, to expand; Kashmiri phalun to be split,
phlawun to split, to cleave; Marathi phs to tear; Old Icelandic fl
to flay, flaska to split, flakna to flake off, to split; Old English flan
to flay; Dutch vlaen to flay; Old High German spaltan to split, to
cleave (New High German spalten); Lithuanian plti to split, to break,
to burst. Rix 1998a:525 *(s)pelH- to split (off), to cleave, 525 *(s)pelt-
to split; Pokorny 1959:834 *pl-, *pl- to split off, 835 *pl$-, *pl$-,
*pli$-, *pl$- to tear off, 985987 *(s)p(h)el- to split off, 937
*(s)p(h)elg- to split; Walde 19271932.II:93 *pli-, *pli-, *pl-,
II:9899 *pl$-, *pl$-, *pli$-, *pl$-, II:677679 *(s)p(h)el-, II:680
*sp(h)elg-; Mann 19841987:949 *plei$s- (*pleis$-), 1270 *sphlt- to
bang, to burst; MalloryAdams 1997:567 *ple$- to break, to tear off;
Watkins 1985:52 *plk- (*pleik-) to tear, 63 *spel- to split, to tear off
and 2000:68 *pl-(i)k- (also *pleik-) to tear (oldest form *ple-(i)$-),
PROTO-NOSTRATIC *p (> PROTO-AFRASIAN *p) 99
Buck 1949:9.27 split (vb. tr.); 9.28 tear (vb. tr.); 13.24 half. Brunner 1969:22,
no. 38; BomhardKerns 1994:230231, no. 35; Mller 1911:196197;
Hakola 2000:130131, no. 568; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 1703, *PlqA
half, part, no. 1717, *P[] to split lengthwise, to divide, no. 1718,
*pal[] to split; axe, and, no. 1720, *PLhE[] and/or *PLhE[c |C] to
split, to separate.
plstas expanse, space; Welsh llydan wide, broad; Old Icelandic flatr
flat, level, flet the raised flooring along the side-walls of a hall; Old
English flett floor; dwelling, house, hall; Old High German flaz flat,
level. Pokorny 1959:805807 *pel-, *pl- broad, flat; Walde 1927
1932.II:6163 *pel-; Mann 19841987:946 *plnos, -is (adj.) flat; (n.)
surface, plane, 947 *plati to smooth, to flatten, to level, 947 *pltos,
-is, -i os, -i flatness, flat object, extent, spread, 947 *pltros, -, -is, 948
*platus broad, 966 *pl thnos, -is (adj.) broad; (n.) breadth, expanse,
966 *pl thus (adj.) wide; (n.) breadth, the wide, expanse, earth; Watkins
1985:4849 *pel- (adj.) flat; (vb.) to spread, 51 *plk- (also *plak-) to
be flat, 5152 *plat- to spread and 2000:64 *pel- to spread (oldest
form *pel-, with variant [metathesized] form *ple-, colored to *pla-,
contracted to *pl-), 67 *plk- to be flat, 68 *plat- (also *plet-) to
spread; Burrow 1973:72 *pl-et-H-; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1984.II:781
*p[](e)l-H-/-t[]- and 1995.I:218 *pl -t-H-eu-, *pl -t-H-u- wide and
I:683684 *pel-H-/-t- wide, flat; MalloryAdams 1997:83 *pl th-
broad, wide, 205206 *pelhak- to spread out flat; Mayrhofer 1956
1980.II:333 and 362363; Boisacq 1950:792 *plet(h)- : *plt- : *plt- :
*plt-; Frisk 19701973.II:553554 *plet-, *pl t-; Hofmann 1966:274
*plt- (*plt-); Chantraine 19681980.II:912 *plet-, *pl t-; Ernout
Meillet 1979:512513; WaldeHofmann 19651972.II:318; De Vaan
2008:470; Kroonen 2013:144145 Proto-Germanic *flata- flat and 145
*flatja- floor; Orl 2003:105 Proto-Germanic *flataz; De Vries 1977:129
and 130131; Onions 1966:360 Common Germanic *flataz; Klein
1971:284; Sturtevant 1951:42, 65; Kloekhorst 2008b:620621: Fraenkel
19621965.I:628629; Smoczyski 2007.1:476.
D. Proto-Altaic *pla field, level ground: Proto-Tungus *pla-n meadow,
open ground; floor > Evenki hlinr meadow, open ground; Manchu
fala(n) floor, threshing floor; Negidal palan floor; Ulch pala(n) floor;
Orok plla(n) floor; Nanay / Gold pal floor. Proto-Turkic *ala-n,
*ala- level ground, plain > Karakhanide Turkic ala level ground,
plain; Turkmenian ala, la level ground, plain; Turkish alan clearing
(in a forest), open space, square (in a town); Karaim ala level ground,
plain; Tatar alan level ground, plain; Noghay ala level ground, plain;
Kazakh ala level ground, plain; Tuva alq, aland level ground, plain;
Chuvash ol level ground, plain; Yakut als, al level ground, plain;
Dolgan aln, al level ground, plain. StarostinDyboMudrak
2003:11201121 *pla field, level ground.
E. Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan *plr(ra)- flat: Chukchi n-pltr-qn
flat, pltra-t- to flatten, to bend down close to the ground, r-
pltra-w- to smooth out, to flatten; Koryak plj-at- to flatten
oneself, to huddle up in a ball; Kamchadal / Itelmen pslas-laX- flat.
Fortescue 2005:222.
102 CHAPTER TWENTY
Buck 1949:9.32 stretch; 12.61 wide, broad; 12.65 thin (in dimension); 12.71
flat. BomhardKerns 1994:243244, no. 48; Brunner 1969:23, no. 43;
Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 1708, *[p]l|q|a broad and flat.
Buck 1949:13.15 much, many; 13.16 more; 13.162 most; 13.21 full.
BomhardKerns 1994:247248, no. 54; Hakola 2000:131, no. 571;
Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 1710, *aly much, superfluous.
fortress, group of houses. At least some (possibly all) of these forms may
be loanwords (from Uralic ?) (cf. Sinor 1981).
Buck 1949:6.12 clothing, clothes; 12.26 cover (vb.); 12.27 hide, conceal.
BomhardKerns 1994:252, no. 59.
Buck 1949:1.85 burn (vb.); 4.55 sweat (sb.); 15.85 hot, warm; 15.86 cold.
BomhardKerns 1994:254255, no. 63; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 1725,
*pa|H[] to burn (intr.); to be heated on fire; Hakola 2000:131, no. 569.
finger; Dutch vinger finger; Old High German fingar finger (New
High German Finger). Orl 2003:99 Proto-Germanic *fenraz; Kroonen
2013:141 Proto-Germanic *fingra- finger; Feist 1939:150; Lehmann
1986:114; De Vries 1977:120 *penk-res; Onions 1966:357 Common
Germanic *firaz; Klein 1971:282; BoutkanSiebinga 2005:114115;
KlugeMitzka 1967:198; KlugeSeebold 1989:215 *fengra-.
D. Proto-Uralic *paka handle, shaft, grip: (?) Finnish panka pail handle;
distaff; halter for reindeer (the meaning halter for reindeer is borrowed
from Lapp / Saami), panki, pankki pail, bucket; (?) Estonian pang pail,
bucket (dial. handle, grip); (?) Lapp / Saami (Norwegian) bagge, -gg-
halter for reindeer, horse, or cow, (Lule) paggee halter; (?) Mordvin
(Erza) pago female head-dress, (Moksha) paga head-dress worn by
Mordvin women; (?) Vogul / Mansi (Lower Konda) pklj rein(s); (?)
Yurak Samoyed / Nenets pak handle of an axe; (?) Yenisei Samoyed /
Enets (Hatanga) foggo, (Baiha) poggo handle of a hatchet or a hammer;
(?) Tavgi Samoyed / Nganasan fnka handle of a hatchet or a hammer;
(?) Selkup Samoyed (Middle Tas) paq handle, (Upper Ket) paaka
handle of a knife; (?) Kamassian pa, pa, paa handle. Rdei
19861988:354355; Fortescue 1998:156 Proto-Uralic *paka, Proto-
Samoyed *pk shaft, handle; Dcsy 1990:105 *panga handle, grip.
Yukaghir (Southern / Kolyma) pe:dice (< *penti) finger. Nikolaeva
2006:350.
E. (?) Chukchi-Kamchatkan: Proto-Chukotian *(l)pr- to give out, to
hand out > Chukchi pr- to give, to provide, to hand out, a-lpr-
ln provided with; Kerek pi- to give, to provide (guest); Koryak
pj- to provide, to hand out; Ayutor (l)pr- to give out. Fortescue
2005:224. For the semantic development from to take in hand, to take
hold of, to handle to to give out, to hand out, cf. Buck 1949:11.21 give.
Buck 1949:4.33 hand; 11.14 seize, grasp, take hold of; 11.16 get, obtain; 11.21
give. Fortescue 1998:156 *paki- to grasp.
Buck 1949:4.20 head; 4.204 face; 4.205 forehead. Dolgopolsky to appear, no.
1750, *[] forehead ([in descendant languages] face, head); Hakola
2000:127, no. 550; Fortescue 1998:156.
Buck 1949:16.27 love (sb.; vb.); 16.71 good (adj.). Blaek 1992c:245, no. 2;
Bomhard 1996a:217218, no. 622; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 1785,
*paR[a]Xi (= *pa[a]Xi ?) happy, dear.
(of leprosy and like eruptions), to break open (a boil); eri / Jibbli frx
(egg) to split open; Mehri frx (girl) to throw the legs wide apart in
playing (which is punished by a slap). Murtonen 1989:347. Proto-Semitic
*par-ar- to break; to destroy > Akkadian parru to break, to destroy, to
annihilate; Hebrew prar [rr^P]* to break; to destroy; to put an end to, to
frustrate, prar to crush, to crumble, to break into crumbs; Aramaic
prar to crush, to crumble; Geez / Ethiopic farra [] to shell, to husk;
Tigrinya frrr to dissolve; Amharic fr(r) furrow. Klein 1987:533;
Leslau 1987:166; Murtonen 1989:346. Proto-Semitic (reduplicated) *par-
par- to crumble, to break > Arabic farfara to cut, to break, to tear to
pieces; Aramaic parper to break; Geez / Ethiopic farfara [] to
crumble bread, frfXr [] crumbs; Tigre frfr to be reduced to
powder; Tigrinya frfr to cut wood or a stone into small pieces, to
break into small pieces, frfar small pieces of wood; Amharic frffr
to crumble; Harari firfr to crumble into small pieces; Gurage
frfr to crumble bread, frfar bread crumbs; Argobba frffari
crumbs. Leslau 1963:64, 1979:241, and 1987:165. Proto-Semitic *par-
ac- to break through > Hebrew pra [xr^P]* to break through, to break
or burst out, pere [xr#P]# breach (in a wall); Aramaic pra to break
through; Mandaic pr to break through; Akkadian paru to break
through; Ugaritic pr to open; Arabic faraa to cut; Geez / Ethiopic
faraa [] to break open, to cut open, to split; [Tigrinya fra bl,
(with metathesis) fra bl to be torn, to burst; Harari fra to burst
(a wound from which liquid or pus comes out); Amharic frr to burst,
to smash; Argobba frra to burst, to smash; Gurage fr to burst, to
burst and make the sound of bursting, to explode]. Klein 1987:532;
Leslau 1987:167; Murtonen 1989:349. Proto-Semitic *par-am- to cut, to
split > Hebrew pram [<r^P]* to tear, to rend; Syriac pram to cut, to
split, to chop; Arabic farama to cut into small pieces (meat, tobacco), to
mince, to chop, to hash (meat). Klein 1987:529; Murtonen 1989:348.
Arabic faraza to set apart, to separate, to detach, to isolate. Proto-Semitic
*par-at- to split > Aramaic pra to split up; Mandaic prt to split up.
Proto-Semitic *par-as- to separate, to divide > Hebrew pras [sr^P]* to
break in two, to divide; Aramaic pras to divide, to break up; Akkadian
parsu to separate, to divide; Arabic farasa to kill, to tear (prey); Geez
/ Ethiopic farasa [] to be demolished, to be destroyed; Tigre frsa
to be ruined; Tigrinya frs to be ruined; Argobba (a)frrs to
demolish; Amharic frrs to be demolished; Gurage (Gogot) frrs
to be demolished, (Endege) afrs to demolish, to destroy. Klein
1987:530; Leslau 1987:167; Murtonen 1989:348. Arabic far to split
lengthwise, to cut lengthwise; to mince, to chop. Arabic faraa to open,
to part, to separate, to cleave, to split, to breach. Zammit 2002:318.
Egyptian prt, prd to separate, pr to divide, to separate, pr to break
open; Coptic pr [pwrj] to divide, to separate. Hannig 1995:287;
PROTO-NOSTRATIC *p (> PROTO-AFRASIAN *p) 115
Buck 1949:12.33 separate (vb.); 12.232 divide; 13.23 part (sb.). Bomhard
Kerns 1994:232233, no. 37; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 1775, *ri[]E (or
*pryE ?) to tear, to split, no. 1791, *PRiC to break through, to tear, and,
no. 1792, *Prga to split, to crack.
become large; Kota pard- (pardy-) to spread over large space; Kannaa
paraa to spread, to extend, to be diffused; Telugu parapu, parapu
broad, extended, expanded, paravu to spread; Parji parp- (part-) to
spread. BurrowEmeneau 1984:351352, no. 3949; Krishnamurti
2003:277 and 279 *par-a to spread.
C. Proto-Indo-European *per-/*por-/*pr - to spray, to sprinkle, to scatter
(extended forms: *per-s-/*por-s-/*pr -s-, *pr-ew-/*pr-ow-/*pr-u-,
*pr-eE- [> *pr--]): Sanskrit pruti to sprinkle, to wet, to shower,
pat- spotted, speckled, piebald, variegated; sprinkling; a drop of water,
prati to sprinkle; Greek to blow up, to swell out by blowing,
to blow up, to distend (also to burn, to burn up); Old
Icelandic fors waterfall, frsa to snort, to whinny (of a horse), frusa to
spray, to sprinkle, frau, froa froth (> English froth), freya to froth;
Old English froan to froth; Old Church Slavic para steam;
Slovenian prhati to strew; to drizzle; Hittite (reduplicated) (3rd sg. pres.)
pa-ap-pr-a-zi to sprinkle, to pour; Tocharian B prs- to sprinkle,
prsntse resplendent, speckled. Rix 1998a:441441 *preh- to blow
up, 445 *preu s- to spray; Pokorny 1959:809810 *per-, *per-, *pr-,
*preu- to spray, 823 *pers- to spray, to sprinkle; Walde 1927
1932.II:2728 *per-, (A) *per()-, (B) *pr-eu- and II:50 *pers-; Mann
19841987:986 *preus- to sprinkle, to spray, to wash, 997 *prs-
(*phrs-) to snort, to spray; MalloryAdams 1997:72 *per- to blow
(on a fire), *preus- and 540 *pers- to sprinkle; Mayrhofer 1956
1980.II:230, II:336337 and II:380381 *prus-; Boisacq 1950:784
785 *pere-, *per- to spurt out, to gush forth (fire, fluid); Frisk 1970
1973.II:538539; Hofmann 1966:270; Chantraine 19681980.II:902
903; Orl 2003:120 Proto-Germanic *fursaz; Kroonen 2013:161162
Proto-Germanic *fursa- gush (?); De Vries 1977:139, 140, 142, and 145;
Adams 1999:375 *pers- to sprinkle; Van Windekens 19761982.I:365
*pers-; Sturtevant 1951:65, 87. Proto-Indo-European *perk-/*prok-
/*pr k- spotted, speckled: Sanskrit pni- spotted; Greek
dark-colored; Old Irish erc speckled; Old High German faro colored,
far(a)wa color (New High German Farbe). Pokorny 1959:820821
*per$-, *pre$- speckled; Walde 19271932.II:4546 *per$-, *pre$-;
Mann 19841987:924 *perkos, - spot, dot; 924 *perks- to scatter, to
sprinkle, 9991000 *pr ks- speckle, spot; to sprinkle, to spray, 1000
*pr $- spot, speckle; to spray; Watkins 1985:50 *perk- and 2000:66
*perk- speckled; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1984.II:594 *p[]er$[]- and
1995.I:454 (fn. 52), I:509 *per$- spotted; MalloryAdams 1997:537
*per$- speckled; Frisk 19701973.II:515516 *per$-, *por$-, *pr $-;
Boisacq 1950:773774 *per$-, *pre$-; Chantraine 19681980.II:887;
Hofmann 1966:265 *per$-, *pre$-; Kroonen 2013:130 Proto-Germanic
*farwa- colorful (< *por#-u -); Orl 2003:93 Proto-Germanic *farxwaz;
KlugeMitzka 1967:184; KlugeSeebold 1989:202203 (German
118 CHAPTER TWENTY
Buck 1949:9.32 stretch; 9.34 spread out, strew; 10.38 blow (vb. intr.). Brunner
1969:23, no. 40, and 25, no. 62; BomhardKerns 1994:241242, no. 46;
Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 1777, *Ari[] to strew, to spread, to extend.
Buck 1949:13.34 first; 14.23 hasten, hurry (vb. intr.); 19.35 prince. Bomhard
Kerns 1994:236237, no. 41; Mller 1911:201; Blaek 2004:1518.
Buck 1949:3.64 bird; 4.292 wing; 4.393 feather; 10.37 fly (vb.); 10.51 flee;
14.21 swift, fast, quick. Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 1758, *ar to fly, to
jump; BomhardKerns 1994:242243, no. 47.
journey, 129 *farjn- ferry, 129 *farma- moving (?), and 160 *furdu-
ford; Feist 1939:142143 *per-; Lehmann 1986:108109 *per-; De
Vries 1977:112, 118, 150, and 151; Onions 1966:345, 352, and 369; Klein
1971:273 *per-, 278, and 290; BoutkanSiebinga 2005:101; Kluge
Mitzka 1967:180 *per-, *por-, 223, and 225226 *pr t-; Kluge
Seebold 1989:199 *per-, 236, and 237238 *pr tu-.
Buck 1949:10.47 go; 10.62 bring; 10.63 send; 10.64 lead. BomhardKerns
1994:260, no. 69; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 1768, *PR to cross, to pass
through.
age, par unu (par uni-), par unu (par uni-) to grow ripe, to become mellow,
to mature, to be full or perfect, par am ripe fruit; Malayalam par ukka to
grow ripe, to become well-tempered, to suppurate, to decay, par uppu
ripening of fruit, par am ripe fruit, ripe plantains; Kota pav- (pad-)
(fruits) to become ripe, (boil, sore) to open; Tuu parnduni to be ripe, to
mature, (hair) to turn gray, parndu ripeness, ripe fruit, ripe plantains;
ripe, gray; Telugu pau to ripen, to mature, to yield, to produce, to win
(in a game); Kolami pa- (pat-) to become ripe; Gadba (Salur) pa-
(hair) to become gray; Gondi panXnX, pannX to become ripe, pan-
to become ripe, (hair) to become gray; Kona pa- to ripen, (hair) to
become gray, pau fruit; Pengo pa fruit; Mana pa fruit; Kuwi
panu ripe fruit. BurrowEmeneau 1984:356357, no. 4004;
Krishnamurti 2003:192 *pa-V- to ripen.
C. Proto-Kartvelian *per- gray: Georgian per-o gray; Svan pr-w (<
*per-w < *per-o) gray. Fhnrich 2007:432433 *per-; Fhnrich
Sardshweladse 1995:354 *per-.
Buck 1949:9.26 break (vb. tr.); 9.27 split (vb. tr.); 9.28 tear (vb. tr.).
BomhardKerns 1994:245246, no. 51.
109. Proto-Nostratic (n.) *pas-a sperm, semen; male genitals, penis; descendant,
offspring:
Buck 1949:10.23 fall (vb.); 10.26 shake (vb. tr.); 10.37 fly (vb.); 16.42 anger;
16.43 rage, fury; 16.53 fear, fright. BomhardKerns 1994:240241, no. 45;
Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 1830, *e (or *E ?) to fly; bird.
A. Dravidian: Tamil patar chaff, husk, empty ears of grain; worthless person,
emptiness, worthlessness, patar (-pp-, -tt-) to become useless, patai
chaff, blighted grain, husk, futility; Malayalam patir empty corn husk,
chaff, patirikka rice to be without grain; Kannaa hadir a very young,
quite unripe fruit. BurrowEmeneau 1984:349, no. 3908.
134 CHAPTER TWENTY
Buck 1949:5.21 cook; 5.22 boil; 5.23 roast, fry; 5.24 bake; 15.85 hot, warm.
Greenberg 2000:41, no. 76; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 1679, * to heat
(on fire), to be hot ( to cook, to bake; to dry); Illi-Svity 1965:337338
*[] [] hot, warm. The Kartvelian forms cited by Dolgopolsky
are not included here the original meaning appears to have been to blow
(air, wind, breeze), to dry in the air (cf. FhnrichSardshweladse 1995:362
*pu-; Fhnrich 2007:443444 *pu-: Georgian puk-v-a to let the air out;
Svan [Lower Bal] li-pkw-e to dry [something] in the air, pukwi dry). The
Afrasian forms cited by Dolgopolsky and the Eskimo-Aleut and Chukchi-
Kamchatkan forms cited by Greenberg are not included here due to problems
with both the semantics and the phonology. Finally, the Uralic forms cited by
Illi-Svity and Dolgopolsky appear to be loanwords from North Germanic (cf.
de Vries 1977:23; FalkTorp 19031906.I:3132: Old Icelandic baka to
bake; to warm and rub the body and limbs, bakstr baking; baked bread,
especially communion bread; poultice, fermentation; warming, rubbing [of the
body]; Swedish baka to bake; Danish bage to bake Saami / Lapp [Lule]
pahkka hot; heat, [Southern] baakke hot; heat, [Norwegian] bakk heat,
bakka hot).
Note also:
(vb.) *par- to move swiftly, to hasten, to be in a hurry, to be greatly
agitated; to flutter, to fly, to flee;
(n.) *par-a flying, flight, fleeing
Buck 1949:3.64 bird; 4.292 wing; 4.393 feather; 10.37 fly (vb.); 10.51 flee;
14.21 swift, fast, quick. BomhardKerns 1994:242243, no. 47.
Buck 1949:10.12 turn (vb.); 10.13 turn around (vb.); 10.14 wind, wrap (vb.);
10.15 roll (vb.); 12.81 round; 12.82 circle. BomhardKerns 1994:257, no. 66;
Hakola 2000:139140, no. 609; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 1771,
*i[h|X|Q]RE around (the purported Egyptian and Coptic cognates included
by Dolgopolsky do not belong here and must be removed; furthermore, there is
no evidence from the daughter languages to suggest that an initial *- is to be
reconstructed at the Proto-Nostratic level).
(?) Sumerian pu-la (to be) insignificant, unimportant, mean, low, inferior.
Buck 1949:1.62 darkness; 1.63 shade; 4.82 weak; 10.23 fall (vb.); 12.32 low;
14.17 late (adv.); 16.72 bad. BomhardKerns 1994:247, no. 53; Illi-Svity
19711984.III:97106, no. 372, *p//jl to fall.
150 CHAPTER TWENTY
126. Proto-Nostratic (n.) *pul-a that which is fat, swollen, etc. (> tallow,
grease, fat, oil, blubber, etc. in the daughter languages)
Derivative of:
(vb.) *pul- to swell;
(n.) *pul-a a swelling (on the skin): blister, abscess, pimple, etc.
A. Uralic: Proto-Ugric *p[u]lt tallow, grease, fat > Ostyak / Xanty (Vah)
polt fat, (Krasnoyarsk, Nizyam) put fat, tallow; Hungarian faggy
tallow, suet, faggyaz, faggyz (to smear with) tallow, grease, faggys
tallowy, greasy. Rdei 19861988:881 Proto-Ugric *pl tallow,
grease, fat.
B. Proto-Eskimo *puya rancid residue of oil or grease: Alutiiq Alaskan
Yupik (Alaska Peninsula) puya- to be permeated by stench (or stain);
Central Alaskan Yupik puya-, puyalXt- to be rancid (oil or grease)
(Norton Sound Unaliq: to be dirty); Naukan Siberian Yupik puya fat
condensed on side of barrel; Central Siberian Yupik puya rancid residue
of oil from blubber; Sirenik pya rancid residue of oil from blubber,
puyapauX smelling of rancid oil; Seward Peninsula Inuit puya dirt,
grime; blubber dried on surface; North Alaskan Inuit puya dirt, sticky oil,
blubber used to waterproof a skin boat; Western Canadian Inuit puyaq
old oil or grease, puyaq- to get dirty; Eastern Canadian Inuit puyaq
residue of oil, rancid oil, earwax; Greenlandic Inuit puya(k) dried rancid
blubber oil (with which umiaq is greased), puya- to be rancid, to have a
layer of rancid blubber on it. FortescueJacobsonKaplan 1994:271.
Note also:
(n.) *par-a calf, heifer
A. Dravidian: Kota pory young bullock; Kannaa hri bull calf, bullcock;
Koagu pori male buffalo; Tuu bri bull, ox. (?) Tamil pori calf or
buffalo. BurrowEmeneau 1984:406, no. 4593.
B. Proto-Kartvelian *pur- cow: Georgian pur-i cow, female buffalo;
Mingrelian pu-i cow; Laz pu-i cow; Svan pur, pr, pir-w cow.
Klimov 1964:192 *pur- and 1998:206 *pur- cow; Fhnrich 1994:225
and 2007:445 *pur-; FhnrichSardshweladse 1995:363 *pur-; Schmidt
1962:136.
A. Dravidian: Kannaa bus, busu, bussu, bos a sound to imitate the puffing
or hissing of a serpent, of a pair of bellows, of the snorting of cattle, etc.;
Koagu bus ku- to hiss; Tuu busu, busubusu, bussu gasping, panting,
hissing; Telugu busa hiss of a serpent, hissing, snorting, snoring, a deep
breath, a sigh, busabus noise of the boiling of water, busabusal-u to
hiss, bussu hiss of a snake; Kolami puskarileng to hiss. Burrow
Emeneau 1984:376, no. 4246.
B. Proto-Indo-European *pus- to puff, to blow; to blow up, to inflate; to
swell, to grow: Sanskrit pyati to thrive, to flourish, to prosper; to
nourish, to be nourished, ppa-m flower, blossom, pya- vigor,
pu-, pi- fatness, prosperity, pa- growth, prosperity; Pi
pupphati to bloom, to flower, pupphita- blooming, flowering, puppha-
flower, menses, puha- nourished; Latin pustula blister, pimple; Old
Church Slavic *puxati to blow; Russian pyxtt' [] to puff, to
pant; Czech pcha pride; Latvian pst to blow. Rix 1998a:433 *peu s-
to bloom; Pokorny 1959:846848 *p-, *peu-, *pou-, *phu- to blow
up; Walde 19271932.II:7981 *p-, *peu-, *pou-, *phu-; Mann
19841987:1012 *psk (*phsk) to puff, to swell, to blow, to blow
up, to well up, to erupt, to froth forth, 1012 *pskos, -X (*phsk-) puff,
froth, fizz, swell, bulge, bubble, bladder, 1012 *pslos (*phslo-), -is, -,
-i puff, blow, fizz, gush, vacuum, air-space, bladder, 10121013 *ps
(*phs), -i to fizz, to froth, to puff, to blow, to swell; Watkins 1985:53
*p- (also *ph-) and 2000:69 *p- (also *ph-) to blow, to swell;
MalloryAdams 1997:72 *p(h)eu- to blow through an aperture so as to
make a noise; Mayrhofer 19561980.II:316318 *p(h)us- to blow, to
152 CHAPTER TWENTY
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
p- f- p- p- p- p- p- p-
fire; Old Czech p glowing ashes, embers; Armenian hur fire; (?)
Old Prussian panno fire. Pokorny 1959:828 *peu r, *pr fire, (gen.
sg.) *pu-n-s, (loc. sg.) *puu ni; Walde 19271932.II:1415 *peu r,
(gen. sg.) *pu-n-s, (loc. sg.) *puu ni; Mann 19841987:1016 *puu r
(*pu"u ur, *pr) fire; Watkins 1985:53 *pr- (contracted from *pur-,
zero-grade form of *pawr ) and 2000:61 *pawr fire (oldest form
*pewr , colored to *pawr , with zero-grade *pur, metathesized to
*pur, contracted to *pr); GamkrelidzeIvanov 1984.I:210, I:274,
II:699 *p[]H Hur and 1995.I:181, I:238239, I:605 *pH Hur fire;
MalloryAdams 1997:202 *phur fire; Benveniste 1935:169 *p-w-r
> *pur; Boisacq 1950:828829; Hofmann 1966:291 *pu r, *puns;
Chantraine 19681980.II:956957; Frisk 19701973.II:627629
*p(e)u r : *pr- : *puu en- : *pn-; Sturtevant 1951:40, 62d, Indo-Hittite
*pxwr; Orl 2003:121 Proto-Germanic *fuwer ~ *fr; Kroonen 2013:151
Proto-Germanic *fr- ~ *fun- fire (< *ph-ur; gen. sg. *ph-un-s); De
Vries 1977:147 and 149; FalkTorp 19031906.I:205; Feist 1939:158
159 *pu -er fire, (gen.) *p-ns; Lehmann 1986:120 *pex-w- fire;
Onions 1966:357 West Germanic *fir; Klein 1971:282 *pewr-, *pwer-;
Skeat 1898:209; BoutkanSiebinga 2005:115; KlugeMitzka 1967:195
*peu r; KlugeSeebold 1989:212 *pehwr , *phwnos; Adams 1999:392
393 *pehwr , *pehwr, *phur-; Van Windekens 19761982.I:382383
*peu r; Miklosich 1886:269.
E. Proto-Uralic *pwe- (vb.) to heat, to warm; (adj.) warm: Lapp / Saami
bivv-/biv- to keep warm (not feel cold), bivvl warm (mild); Zyrian /
Komi pym hot, boiling; sweaty; Ostyak / Xanty pm warmth, warm
weather, hot, (hot) steam (in a Russian bath); (visible) breath; Yurak
Samoyed / Nenets pyyw warm, dry wind (especially in the summer);
Tavgi Samoyed / Nganasan feabeme- to warm oneself; Selkup Samoyed
p warm, hot; heat; Kamassian pide- to warm. Dcsy 1990:105 *pv
warm; Collinder 1955:6, 1960:405 *pw, and 1977:27; Rdei 1986
1988:366367 *pwe; Sammallahti 1988:540 *pjw sun, warmth.
Buck 1949:9.26 break (vb. tr.); 9.27 split (vb. tr.); 9.28 tear (vb. tr.).
Buck 1949:18.31 ask (question, inquire); 18.35 ask, request; 22.17 pray; 22.23
bless. BomhardKerns 1994:258, no. 67; Illi-Svity 19711984.III:111
125, no. 373, *pir to ask, to request; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 1765,
*iRo-(K) to ask.
A. Proto-Afrasian *fut- to vomit: West Chadic *fut- to vomit > Sura fuut
to vomit; Angas fut to vomit; Ankwe fuut to vomit; Mupun fuut to
vomit. Cushitic: Werizoid *fat- (< *fut-) to vomit > Gawwada
(reduplicated) fa-fat- to vomit. OrlStolbova 1995:189, no. 837, *fut-
to vomit.
B. Dravidian: Kuux putrn (puttras) to vomit; Malto putre to vomit.
BurrowEmeneau 1984:378, no. 4276.
Buck 1949:4.51 breathe; breath; 4.64 break wind, fart (vb.); 10.38 blow (vb.
tr.). BomhardKerns 1994:229230, no. 34; Hakola 2000:146, no. 641;
Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 1673, *pu to blow; Fortescue 1998:157.
20.5. PROTO-NOSTRATIC *p
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
p- p- p- p- p- p- p- p-
-p-/
-p- -p- -pp-/-v- -p- -p- -p- -p-
-pp-
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
d- d- t- d- d- t- d- t-
-d- -d- -()- -d- -d- -t- -d- --
142. Proto-Nostratic relational marker *da- (~ *d-) along with, together with, in
addition to:
A. Proto-Afrasian *da, *di along with, together with, in addition to: Berber:
Kabyle d, yid, id- with, together with, and; Tamazight (Ayt Ndhir) d
with, and; Tuareg d, d and, with together with; Nefusa d, did and,
with; Ghadames d, did and, with; Zenaga d, id, d and with; Mzab d,
did and, with.. Central Cushitic: Bilin comitative case suffix -d together
with; Quara -d together with. Reinisch 1887:93; Appleyard 2006:23
24. Highland East Cushitic: Burji -ddi locative suffix (with absolute case)
in, for example, min-ddi in the house. Sasse 1982:54. Proto-Chadic *d-
with, and > Hausa d with; and; by, by means of; regarding, with respect
to, in relation to; at, in during; than; Kulere tu; Bade d; Tera nd; Gidar
di; Mokulu ti; Kanakuru d. Newman 1977:34. Note: Diakonoff (1988:61)
reconstructs comitative-dative case endings *-dV, *-Vd for Proto-Afrasian
on the basis of evidence from Cushitic (Agaw) and Berber-Libyan.
B. Proto-Kartvelian *da and: Georgian da and; Mingrelian do, ndo and;
Laz do and. Klimov 1964:6869 *da and 1998:3536 *da and;
Schmidt 1962:103; FhnrichSardshweladse 1995:9798 *da; Fhnrich
2007:120121 *da.
C. (?) Elamo-Dravidian: Royal Achaemenid Elamite, Neo-Elamite da (also
-da in -be-da, e-da, ku-da, etc.) also, too, as well, likewise; so, therefore,
hence, consequently, accordingly; thereby, thereupon. Note also: Middle
Elamite, Neo-Elamite tak also. Paper 1955:107 ku-ud-da and.
D. Proto-Indo-European *-de, *-di suffixed particle: Sanskrit sa-h (Vedic
sa-dha) with, i-h here (Prakrit i-dha), k-ha where?, -dhi above,
over, from, in; Avestan ia here, kud where?; Greek locative particle
-, in, for example, - at home, - where?; Old Church Slavic
k-de where?, s-de here. Burrow 1973:281; Brugmann 1904:454455
*-dhe and *-dhi; Fortson 2004:107.
E. Proto-Altaic dative-locative particle *da: Tungus: Manchu dative-locative
suffix -de. The locative suffix is -du in other Tungus languages. Common
Mongolian dative-locative suffix *-da > Mongolian -da; Dagur -da;
Khalkha -d; Buriat -da; Kalmyk -d; Moghol -du; Ordos -du; Monguor
-du. Poppe 1955:195199. Regarding the -du variant, Greenberg
(2000:156) notes: It seems probable that the vowel here has been
influenced by the dative-allative ru Common Turkic (except Yakut)
170 CHAPTER TWENTY
locative suffix -da/-d > Old Turkic locative-ablative suffix -dA; Chagatay
locative suffix -DA; Turkish locative suffix -DA; Azerbaijani locative
suffix -dA; Turkmenian locative suffix -dA; Tatar locative suffix -DA;
Bashkir locative suffix -DA; Kazakh locative suffix -DA; Noghay locative
suffix -DA; Kirghiz locative suffix -DA; Uzbek locative suffix -D$; Uighur
locative suffix -DA. Turkish da, de (also ta, te) and, also, but. Menges
1968b:110.
F. Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan instrumental case marker *-tK and the suffix
*-tK in the comitative 1 case marker *kK- -tK together with (both class
1). Fortescue 2005:426. Perhaps also Proto-Chukotian *to and > Koryak
to and; Alyutor tu (Palana to) and. Fortescue 2005:288.
143. Proto-Nostratic (n.) *da- mother, sister; (reduplicated) (n.) *da-da- mother,
sister (nursery words):
join, to unite, all from the same stem found, for example, in Greek to
make fast, to join, to fasten together (cf. Lehmann 1986:102).
Buck 1949:9.42 artisan, craftsman; 9.943 fitting, suitable; 11.14 seize, grasp,
take hold of. Brunner 1969:75, no. 407; BomhardKerns 1994:262264, no.
71.
spared; Kolami tak- (takt-) to live (in a place), to remain, to stay (for
example, silent); Naiki tak- to stay, to remain; Gondi taggn to wear
well (of clothes), to remain in ones service (of servants), tagg- to stay, to
last. BurrowEmeneau 1984:260261, no. 3014.
C. Proto-Kartvelian *deg/*dg- to stand: Georgian deg-/dg- to stand,
dg-om-a to put, to place, to set; to stand, a-dg-il place; Mingrelian dg-
to stand; Laz dg- to stand. Klimov 1964:70; *dg- and 1998:38 *deg- :
*dg- to stand (Klimov includes Svan g- to stand); Schmidt 1962:104
105; FhnrichSardshweladse 1995:104105 *deg/*dg-; Fhnrich 1994:
231 and 2007:127128 *deg/*dg-. Proto-Kartvelian *dgam-/*dgm- to
put, to place, to set; to stand: Georgian dgam-/dgm- to put, to place, to
set; Mingrelian dgum-, dgm- to put, to place, to set; Laz dgim- to put,
to place, to set. Klimov 1964:71 *dgam-/*dgm- and 1998:37 *dg-am- :
*dg-m- to put, to stand (Klimov includes Svan gem- : gm- to put);
FhnrichSardshweladse 1995:104105 *deg-/*dg-. Proto-Kartvelian
*dg-en- to put, to place, to set: Georgian dgen-/dgin- to put, to place, to
set; Mingrelian dgin- to put, to place, to set; Laz dgin- to put, to place,
to set. Klimov 1964:71 *dg-in- and 1998:37 *dg-en- : *dg-in- to put;
FhnrichSardshweladse 1995:104105 *deg-/*dg-.
D. Proto-Indo-European *deg-om-, *dg-om- earth, land, ground; human
being: Sanskrit (*dg-om- > *dham- > *ham- > *am- >) kam-
earth, ground; Greek (< *dg-m- through metathesis of the initial
consonant group) earth, ground; a particular land or country, on
the ground; Albanian dhe earth, land; Latin humus earth, ground, soil,
hom human being, man; Gothic guma man; Old Icelandic gumi man
(poetic), br-gumi bridegroom; Swedish brudgum bridegroom; Old
English guma man, hero, brd-guma bridegroom; Old Frisian goma
man, breid-goma bridegroom; Old Saxon gumo, gomo human being,
man, brdi-gomo bridegroom, Dutch bruidegom bridegroom; Old
High German gomo human being, man, gomman, gom(m)en, gamman,
goum(m)an man, brti-gomo bridegroom (New High German
Brutigam); Old Irish d place, duine person; Old Church Slavic zemlja
earth; Old Lithuanian mu human being, person; Tocharian A tka, B
kem earth, ground; Hittite te-(e-)kn earth, ground, da-ga-(a-)an to the
ground; Luwian ti-ya-am-mi-i earth; Hieroglyphic Luwian takami-
earth, land. The unextended stem *dog- may be preserved in Hittite
(dat.-loc.) ta-ki-ya as in ta-ki-ya ta-ki-ya in this place in that place,
literally, this one here that one there (not, then, connected with da-
two as suggested by Kronasser 1966.I:210). Pokorny 1959:414416
*hem-, *hom- earth, ground; Walde 19271932.I:662664
*hem-, *hom-; Mann 19841987:414 *hem- (*hm-, *hm -)
ground, earth; on the ground, on (to, in) the ground, down; Watkins
1984:14 *dhghm- earth, *(dh)ghm -on- earthling and 2000:20
*dhghem- earth; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1984.II:475 *d[]e[]om-,
II:877, and 1995.I:396, I:720 *d(e)om- earth; human, person; Burrow
174 CHAPTER TWENTY
Buck 1949:1.21 earth, land; 7.11 dwell; 9.44 build; 12.11 place (sb.); 12.12 put
(place, set, lay); 12.15 stand (vb., intr.); 12.16 remain, stay, wait. Bomhard
1996a:209210, no. 608; Blaek 1992b:131132, no. 5.
Buck 1949:4.85 wound (sb.); 8.22 dig; 9.21 strike (hit, beat). BomhardKerns
1994:268269, no. 79; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 527, *dKLb to gouge, to
dig, to cut through.
A. Dravidian: Tamil takar sheep, ram, goat, male of certain animals (yXi,
elephant, shark); Malayalam takaran huge, powerful (as a man, bear,
etc.); Kannaa tagar, agaru, agara, egaru ram; Tuu tagaru, agaru
ram; Telugu tagaramu, tagaru ram. BurrowEmeneau 1984:259, no.
3000; Krishnamurti 2003:12 *tak-ar ram.
B. Proto-Kartvelian *daq- goat (> *dq- in Georgian, Mingrelian, and Laz
through syncope; final -a in these languages is suffixal): Mingrelian tx-a
goat (initial d > t through regressive voicing assimilation); Laz tx-a
goat; Georgian tx-a goat; Svan daql goat. FhnrichSardshweladse
1995:102 *daq-; Klimov 1964:77 *dqa- and 1998:80 *tqa- she-goat;
Schmidt 1962:116; Fhnrich 2007:125 *daq-.
Buck 1949:3.25 sheep; 3.26 ram; 3.36 goat. Bomhard 1996a:227228, no.
643.
Buck 1949:9.14 bend (vb. tr.); 10.12 turn (vb.); 10.13 turn around (vb.); 10.45
walk (vb.); 10.46 run; 12.22 join, unite. BomhardKerns 1994:272273, no.
84; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 570, *doRK (~ *doRgK ?) to bend, to turn, to
wrap.
(n.) *dar-a harm, injury; (adj.) harmful, malevolent (> bad in Kartvelian
and, within Indo-European, in Celtic)
something (in a dark place), trousana lees, dregs; Middle High German
verterken, vertirken to darken; Lithuanian drgti to become dirty, derk ti
to make dirty, dargs dirty, filthy, darg dirt, filth. Pokorny
1959:251252 *dher-, *dher- dirt, 256 *dher-, *dhrei-d- dirt; Walde
19271932.I:854856 *dher-, *dher-, I:861862 *dher-, *dh(e)rei-d-;
Mann 19841987:185 *dhergos (*dhorg-) dark, discolored; grim, glum,
199 *dhorg- murk, foulness; foul; to defile, 201 *dhrabhos, -, -om, -es
dross, filth, 201 *dhrbhos, -i os, -i dross, filth, 202 *dhrh-
scourings, waste, grounds, 205 *dhrd- dirt, excrement; Mallory
Adams 1997:170 *dhregh- dregs; Watkins 1985:1314 *dher- and
2000:18 *dher- to make muddy; darkness; De Vaan 2008:238; Walde
Hofmann 19651972.I:538539; ErnoutMeillet 1979:251 *dhregh-;
Orl 2003:76 Proto-Germanic *rtanan; Kroonen 2013:103104 Proto-
Germanic *drita- shit, dirt; De Vries 1977:82 and 84; Onions 1966:244
and 271; Klein 1971:216, 229, and 230; Fraenkel 19621965.I:103;
Smoczyski 2007.1:102.
C. Proto-Eskimo *ta(-) (vb.) to be dark; (n.) darkness: Central Alaskan
Yupik (Nunivak) taalx darkness; Naukan Siberian Yupik tauq
darkness, tau- to get dark; Sirenik taa soot; Seward Peninsula Inuit
taaq darkness, taumi in the dark, taaqsi- to get dark, taaq
shadow; North Alaskan Inuit taaq darkness; to be dark; (Nunamiut) to
be black, taaqsi- to get dark; Western Canadian Inuit taaq darkness; to
be dark, taaqsi- to get dark, taaq shadow; Eastern Canadian Inuit
taaq darkness; to be dark, to make a shadow, to darken, to hide, taarsi-
to be nightfall, taaq shadow; Greenlandic Inuit taaq darkness, taa-
to be dark, taasi- to get dark, taaq, taak dark spot, taa- to lie
in half-darkness, to have a dark shadow above it. Cf. Atkan Aleut taXt- to
get dark. FortescueJacobsonKaplan 1994:333. Proto-Eskimo
*tan darkness or dark thing: Alutiiq Alaskan Yupik tannq
darkness, tann- to be dark; Central Alaskan Yupik tanq darkness,
ta- to be dark; Naukan Siberian Inuit tanq black thing, tanaq
shadow; Central Siberian Yupik tanq darkness, dark thing, tan-
to be black; North Alaskan Inuit taanq darkness; Eastern Canadian
Inuit taaniq darkness; Greenlandic Inuit taaniq darkness. Fortescue
JacobsonKaplan 1994:333.
Sumerian dar, dar-a, dar-dar colored; color, dar dark, obscure, dara
dark, dark red.
Buck 1949:9.11 do, make; 9.12 work, labor, toil (sb.); 9.13 work, labor, toil
(vb. intr.); 12.12 put (place, set, lay); 12.24 lie.
Buck 1949:12.12 put (place, set, lay). Illi-Svity 19711984.I:224, no. 75,
*d to lay; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 497, *di (~ *dHU) to put, to
place; BomhardKerns 1994:261262, no. 70.
Buck 1949:15.52 look (vb.), look at; 17.14 think (= be of the opinion); 21.16
judge (vb.). BomhardKerns 1994:264265, no. 74; Dolgopolsky to appear,
no. 507, *di[h]a to look at.
Buck 1949:10.62 bring; 10.64 lead (vb.). BomhardKerns 1994:275, no. 88.
Buck 1949:1.22 mountain; hill; 12.55 large, big (great). Illi-Svity 1971
1984.I:219, no. 66, *did big; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 501, *did large,
big.
Buck 1949:3.65 fish. Dolgopolsky 1998:6162, no. 74, *doTgiHU fish and
to appear, no. 575, *doTgi fish; Illi-Svity 19711984.I:219, no. 67,
*diga fish; BomhardKerns 1994:269, no. 80.
A. Afrasian: Southern Cushitic: Proto-Rift *del- daylight > Iraqw delo day
(as opposed to night); Kwadza deles- yellow (plural ?); Asa dili"i red.
Ehret 1980:346.
B. Dravidian: Tamil tei to become clear, limpid (as water by settling of
sediment), serene (as the mind); to be bright (as the countenance), to
become white; to disappear (as famine, epidemic); to become obvious,
evident; to consider, to investigate, to understand, teir to shine, to
sparkle; Malayalam tei cleanness, brightness, teivu clearness,
brightness, perspicuity, proof, teiyuka to become clear, to brighten up, to
please, to be decided (a matter); Kannaa tii, tai to become clear,
pellucid, pure, bright; to brighten up; to be exhilarated or pleased; to be
PROTO-NOSTRATIC *d 193
165. Proto-Nostratic (n.) *dim-a raised or elevated place; (adj.) raised, elevated:
Sumerian dih (vb.) to press, to push; (n.) (stone) slab for molding clay, stone.
Buck 1949:1.214 mud; 5.54 knead; 5.56 grind; 7.27 wall; 9.73 clay. Bomhard
1996a:209211, no. 608; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 551, *dEq earth.
Fhnrich (1994:254) compares Sumerian dih (stone) slab for molding clay,
stone with the Kartvelian forms cited above.
Buck 1949:4.41 breast (of a woman); 5.16 suck (vb.). Bomhard 1996a:205.
dwer-i (< *dwer- < *dwewr- < *dwr- < *dowr-) slow, calm, serene,
leisurely flowing. Fhnrich 2007:236 *dowr-.
D. Proto-Indo-European *dow-ks-/*du-ks- to be weary: Sanskrit dhukate
(only attested with sam-: sadhukate) to be weary (also to kindle; to
live); Bengali dhokh, dhk to pant, to be weary; Middle High German
tuschen to be quiet. Mann 19841987:217 *dhuksos blow, breath, sigh,
groan; Mayrhofer 19561980.II:106; Turner 1966.I:390, no. 6821.
Buck 1949:4.18 tail; 4.19 back. Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 499, *dub[]
back, hinder part, tail.
A. Dravidian: Tamil tui lip; Malayalam coi lip; Kota tuc lip; Kannaa
tui, toi lip; Tuu dui lip, snout of an animal; Koraga toi lip;
Gondi oi lip, toi mouth, face; Kui a lip; Malto toro mouth,
toto beak. BurrowEmeneau 1984:288, no. 3296. Semantic
development from tip, point to beak, snout to mouth to lip as in
Czech ret lip in view of Russian rot [] mouth, Serbo-Croatian rt
promontory, and Old Church Slavic rt peak. Malayalam tottu
nipple; Kannaa tou nipple, point; Tuu tou nipple of a breast.
BurrowEmeneau 1984:307, no. 3488. Semantic development as in Svan
dudl breast, nipple. Note also Proto-Dravidian *tut- tip, point, end
(assuming progressive assimilation from earlier *tu-, which is partially
preserved in the reduplicated form *tua-tut- found in Kannaa and
Telugu): Tamil tuti point, sharp edge; Kannaa tudi end, point, top, tip,
extremity, (reduplicated) tuatudi, tuttatudi the very point or end; Tuu
tudi point, end, extremity, top; Telugu tuda end, extremity, tip, tudi
termination, end, (reduplicated) tuatuda the very end or extremity;
Malto tota point, pointed. BurrowEmeneau 1964:290, no. 3314.
B. Proto-Kartvelian *dud- tip point: Georgian dud- tip, point; comb, crest
(of a bird) (Zan loan); Mingrelian dud-i head; Laz dud-i crown, top of
head; top, summit, peak; tip, point; Svan dudl breast, nipple. Klimov
1964:75 *dud- and 1998:4243 *dud- tip; FhnrichSardshweladse
1995:113 *dud-; Fhnrich 2007:137 *dud-.
Nenets tuu fire; Tavgi Samoyed / Nganasan tuj fire; Yenisei Samoyed /
Enets tuu fire; Selkup Samoyed t fire; Motor tuj fire. Collinder
1955:63 and 1977:80; Rdei 19861988:535 *tule; Dcsy 1990:109 *tula
fire; Sammallahti 1988:540 *tul fire.
C. Proto-Altaic *di lu warm: Proto-Tungus *dl- to warm > Evenki dl-
to warm, to heat up; Lamut / Even dl- to warm. Proto-Mongolian
*dulaan warm > Written Mongolian dulaan warm; Khalkha duln
warm; Buriat duln warm; Ordos duln warm; Dagur duln warm;
Kalmyk duln warm. Poppe 1955:31. Proto-Turkic *yl-g warm > Old
Turkic yl warm; Turkish lk tepid, lukewarm; Gagauz l warm;
Azerbaijani l warmish; Uzbek iliq warm; Turkmenian yl warm;
Uighur ilman warm; Karaim yl warm; Tatar l warm; Bashkir yl
warm; Kirghiz luu warm; Kazakh l warm; Noghay yl warm;
Tuva l warm; Yakut sls warm. StarostinDyboMudrak
2003:480481 *di lu warm; Poppe 1960:23 and 75; Street 1974:12
*dul- to warm.
Buck 1949:1.81 fire; 1.85 burn (vb.); 15.85 hot, warm. BomhardKerns
1994:274275, no. 87; Illi-Svity 19711984.I:221222, no. 71, *duli;
Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2273, *tu| to be bright/light.
Buck 1949:4.95 deaf; 4.96 dumb; 16.43 rage, fury; 17.22 foolish, stupid; 17.23
insane, mad, crazy. Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 525, *dUh to be mad, to be
stupid (Dolgopolsky does not include the Dravidian and Indo-European
cognates).
Buck 1949:12.19 quiet (adj.); 12.27 hide, conceal; 17.36 secret (adj.); 18.23 be
silent. Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 537, *dm to be motionless, to be silent, to
be quiet.
Buck 1949:1.62 darkness; 1.73 cloud; 15.63 dark (in color). BomhardKerns
1984:267, no. 77; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 539, *d[]hm ~ *d[]mh (to
be) dark.
177. Proto-Nostratic (n.) (*dum-k-a >) *dun-k-a darkness, cloud; (adj.) dark,
cloudy:
Derivative of:
(vb.) *dum- to cover over, to obscure; to cloud over; to become dark, to make
dark, to darken;
(n.) *dum-a darkness, cloud, fog; (adj.) dark, cloudy
Buck 1949:1.62 darkness; 1.73 cloud; 15.63 dark (in color). BomhardKerns
1994:267268, no. 78.
181. Proto-Nostratic (n.) *dur-a goat, sheep, ram (perhaps originally horned
animal):
Buck 1949:3.25 sheep; 3.26 ram; 3.36 goat. Blaek 1992a:115, no. 6; Bomhard
1996a:214, no. 614; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 572, *d[][|q] lamb, kid
(of wild ram, etc.).
Buck 1949:1.83 smoke (sb.); 3.11 animal; 4.51 breathe; breath; 10.26 shake
(vb. tr.); 10.38 blow (vb. intr.); 16.11 soul, spirit; 16.43 rage, fury.
20.7. PROTO-NOSTRATIC *t
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
t- t- t- t- t- t- t- t-
tan-) self oneself; Kuux tn- (obl. tag-) reflexive pronoun of the third
person: himself. BurrowEmeneau 1984:278, no. 3196. Tamil tm (obl.
tam-; before vowels tamm-) they, themselves; you; Malayalam tm (obl.
tam-, tamm-) they, themselves; you; Kota tam (obl. tam-) themselves;
Toda tam (obl. tam-) themselves; Kannaa tm (obl. tam-), tvu (obl.
tav-) they, themselves; you; Koagu taga (obl. taga-) themselves;
Telugu tmu (obl. tam-, tamm-), tamaru, tru they, themselves; you;
Naiki tm they, themselves; Parji tm (obl. tam-) they, themselves;
Gadba (Ollari) tm (obl. tam-) they, themselves; Kuux tm- (obl. tam-)
they, themselves; Malto tm, tmi (obl. tam-) they, themselves.
BurrowEmeneau 1984:275, no. 3162; Krishnamurti 2003:252253
reflexive pronoun: (sg.) *tn, (pl.) *tm.
C. Proto-Indo-European *to- demonstrative pronoun stem: Sanskrit td this,
that; Greek this, that; Latin (dem. pronoun or adj.) is-te, is-ta, is-tud
that of yours, that beside you; Gothic ata that; Old Icelandic (n.) at
that, it; Norwegian det that; Swedish (m. and f.) den, (n.) det the;
Danish den, det that; Old English Kt that; Old Frisian thet that; Old
Saxon that that; Old High German t(h)az, daz that (New High German
da); Lithuanian ts this, that; Tocharian A tm this, B te this one, it;
Hittite ta sentence connective; Hieroglyphic Luwian tas this. Pokorny
1959:10861087 *to-, *t-, *ti o- demonstrative pronoun stem; Walde
19271932.I:742743 *to-, *t-; Mann 19841987:1406 *tod neut. sg.
of type *tos, 1416 *tos, *t, *tod demonstrative pronoun; Watkins 1985:71
*to- and 2000:9293 *to- demonstrative pronoun; MalloryAdams
1997:457 (neuter) *td that (one); GamkrelidzeIvanov 1984.I:384
*t[]o- and 1995.I:188, I:336 *to- demonstrative pronoun; Mayrhofer
19561980.I:465; Boisacq 1950:974 *to-, *t-; Frisk 19701973.II:907
*to-, *t-; Hofmann 1966:368389 *to-, *t-; Chantraine 1968
1980.II:1123; ErnoutMeillet 1979:324; WaldeHofmann 1965
1972.I:721722 *to-, *t-; De Vaan 2008:310311; Orl 2003:417
418 Proto-Germanic *at; Kroonen 2013:530 Proto-Germanic *a- that,
those (< *to-); Feist 1939:490491 *tod; Lehmann 1986:356 (discourse
particle) *to-; De Vries 1977:606; FalkTorp 19031906.I:101; Onions
1966:914; Klein 1971:758; KlugeMitzka 1967:122; KlugeSeebold
1989:135136; BoutkanSiebinga 2005:392393; Adams 1999:303
*tod; Van Windekens 19761982.I:421422 *to-; Fraenkel 1962
1965.II:10641065; Smoczyski 2007.1:661.
D. Proto-Uralic (demonstrative pronoun stem) *ta/*t this: Finnish tm/t-
this; (?) Estonian tema, tem he, she, it; Lapp / Saami dat/da- this,
deik (< *dekki) hither; Mordvin (Erza) te, (Moksha) t this, (Erza)
tes, (Moksha) t'asa here, (Erza) tite, teke, (Moksha) tit, t'aka (just)
this; Cheremis / Mari (West) ti, (East) t, t this; (?) Votyak / Udmurt ta
this; (?) Zyrian / Komi ta this; Vogul / Mansi te, ti, t this, tet, tit, tt
here; Ostyak / Xanty temi, t- this; Yurak Samoyed / Nenets tKm"
PROTO-NOSTRATIC *t 215
this, (pl.) teew" these; Selkup Samoyed tam, tau, tap this, teda"
now, tii, tea, teka hither; Kamassian teeji hither. Rdei 1986
1988:505 *ta; Collinder 1955:62 and 1977:79; Dcsy 1990:108 *ta/*t
that, this. Yukaghir (Southern / Kolyma) ta that, ta: there, thence,
ta:t so; then, thus, ten-di here it is; here, tenda there, ti this, ti:
here, tine recently, lately; earlier, (Northern / Tundra) ta that, tadaa
there, ten this, tei here, ti-, tie this. Nikolaeva 2006:424, 428,
and 429430. Proto-Uralic (demonstrative pronoun stem) *to- that:
Finnish tuo that, yonder; Lapp / Saami duot-/duo- that (one) over there,
that over there, that; Mordvin tona, to- that; Cheremis / Mari (East)
tu that; Votyak / Udmurt tu that; Zyrian / Komi ty that; Vogul / Mansi
ton, to- that; Ostyak / Xanty tmi, tomi, tm, t- that; Hungarian tova
away, tl beyond, on the further side; exceedingly, too; Yurak Samoyed
/ Nenets taaky that, yonder, taaj there; Yenisei Samoyed / Enets
tohonoo that (one) there; Selkup Samoyed to this. Collinder 1955:64,
1965:146, and 1977:81; Rdei 19861988:526528 *to; Dcsy
1990:109 *to those; Joki 1973:330331. Yukaghir (Northern / Tundra)
tu this, tuun, tuut this. Nikolaeva 2006:437.
E. Proto-Altaic *ta (*te) that: Proto-Tungus *ta- that > Manchu tere
that; Spoken Manchu (Sibo) ter that; Evenki tar, tari that; Lamut /
Even tar that; Negidal tay that; Orok tari that; Nanay / Gold taya
that; Udihe tw, t that; Oroch t, tei that; Solon tay, tari that.
Common Mongolian (sg.) *te, *te-r-e that > Written Mongolian (sg.) tere
that, (pl.) tede those; Dagur (sg.) tere that, (pl.) tede those; Moghol
(sg.) t that; Ordos (sg.) tere that, (pl.) tede those; Khalkha (sg.) ter
that; Monguor (sg.) te that; Buriat (sg.) tere that, (pl.) tede those;
Kalmyk (sg.) ter that. Poppe 1955:225, 226, 227, and 228. Proto-Turkic
*ti(k)- that > Gagauz te bu this here, te o that there; Tatar tg that;
Bashkir tege that; Kirghiz tigi that; Kazakh (dial.) tigi that; Tuva d
that; Yakut i-ti that (pl. itiler those); Dolgan i-ti this. Starostin
DyboMudrak 2003:1389 *ta (*te) that.
E. Gilyak / Nivkh (Amur) tyd, (East Sakhalin) tud, tunt, tynt this (the nearest
to the speaker, visible and available in the present situation).
G. Etruscan ita, eta, ta (tal, tl, tei) this; ar there; ui here, now.
Buck 1949:12.65 thin (in dimension); 12.66 thin (in density). BomhardKerns
1994:295297, no. 111. Different (false) etymology in Dolgopolsky to
appear, no. 2408, *qa to melt, to decay, to get spoiled.
Buck 1949:6.33 weave; 9.14 bend (vb. tr.); 9.44 build; 9.75 plait; 12.75 hook.
Hakola 1997:85, no. 331, and 2000:184, no. 822.
Buck 1949:4.20 head; 4.205 forehead; 12.35 end. Burrow 1946:72; Caldwell
1913:620; BomhardKerns 1994:294, no. 109; Dolgopolsky to appear, no.
2357, *olA(-k) or *Al(-k) head, top, upper part, end, tip.
1402 *tl n, 1402 *tl tos, -is, -i os extended, stretched; extent, tract,
roadway, passage; Watkins 1985:69 *tel- and 2000:90 *tel- to lift, to
support, to weigh; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1984.I:176 *t[]el-, *t[]l - and
1995.I:152 *tel-, *tl - to bear, to carry; MalloryAdams 1997:352
*telh- to lift, to raise; Boisacq 1950:938939 *tel-; Frisk 1970
1973.II:848849; Hofmann 1966:350351 *tel-; Chantraine 1968
1980.II:10881090 *tel-; ErnoutMeillet 1979:693 and 694 *tel-; De
Vaan 2008:329300 and 621622 *telh-; WaldeHofmann 1965
1972.II:688689; Orl 2003:428 Proto-Germanic *ulnan; De Vries
1977:615; Feist 1939:504505 *tel-; Lehmann 1986:367; Onions
1966:918 *tol-, *tel-, *tl -; Klein 1971:762 *tel-, *tol-, *tl -; Boutkan
Siebinga 2005:402403; KlugeMitzka 1967:146 *tel-, *tl -; Kluge
Seebold 1989:159. Note: Two separate Proto-Nostratic stems have been
confused in Proto-Indo-European: (A) Proto-Nostratic *tal- (~ *tl-)
(primary meaning) to stretch, to spread, to extend, then (secondarily) to
endure, to suffer, to bear and (B) Proto-Nostratic *tul- (~ *tol-) (vb.) to
lift, to raise; to pile up, to stack (in a heap); (n.) hill, mound; stack, heap.
C. Proto-Altaic *tlV any flat, level, or open surface or space: Proto-
Mongolian *tala-, *tal-b- plain, steppe, open space > Mongolian tal-a
plain, level space, steppe, talarqa flat, level (of terrain), talbiu(n)
broad, wide, vast; gentle, calm; Khalkha tal steppe, open place,
talbiu(n) quiet, peaceful, talbay square; Buriat tala steppe, open
place, tan meadow, small lake, talmay meadow, square; Kalmyk tal
steppe, open place; Ordos tala steppe, open place; Dagur tal steppe,
open place; Monguor tal steppe, open place. Proto-Tungus *tlgi- flat
surface, open space > Manchu talgan the surface of a flat, round, or
square object, talgari the surface of a table; Nanay / Gold talga far
from the shore, open sea. Turkish tai- to carry, to transport, to bear,
tain- to be carried. StarostinDyboMudrak 2003:13961397 *tlV
(or *tV) open place, open sea (the Turkish form cited above is not in
StarostinDyboMudrak).
Buck 1949:10.22 raise, lift; 12.61 wide, broad 12.65 thin (in dimension);
12.71 flat. BomhardKerns 1994:282283, no. 98; Dolgopolsky to appear,
no. 2360, *aL flat and, no. 2370, *a[h]a to lift up, to carry.
1987:1405 *tn u is (*tnu is, -os, -i os; *tnus) stretched, taut, thin; Watkins
1984:70 *ten- to stretch: *tn -u-, *ten-u- thin; GamkrelidzeIvanov
1984.I:782 *t[]en- and 1995.I:684 *ten- thin; Mayrhofer 1956
1980.I:474475; MalloryAdams 1997:574 *tnus (gen. *tn nous) thin,
long; Boisacq 1950:941; Frisk 19701973.II:852853 *tn n-;
Chantraine 19681980.II:10911093; Hofmann 1966:352 *tens; De
Vaan 2008:613614 *tnh-(e)u-; WaldeHofmann 19651972.II:666
*ten-; ErnoutMeillet 1979:684685; Orl 2003:429 Proto-Germanic
*unnjanan, 429 *unnuz; Kroonen 2013:551552 Proto-Germanic
*unnu- thin; De Vries 1977:627; Onions 1966:917 *ten-, *ton-, *tn -;
Klein 1971:761 *ten-; KlugeMitzka 1967:148 *ten-s; KlugeSeebold
1989:160 *tenu-. Proto-Indo-European *ten-k- to stretch, to extend:
Gothic eihs time; Old English ingan to flourish, to prosper. Pokorny
1959:1067 *tenk- to pull; Walde 19271932.I:724725 *tenq-;
Watkins 1985:70 *tenk- and 2000:90 *tenk- to stretch; Orl 2003:420
Proto-Germanic *enaz ~ *enxaz; Kroonen 2013:542 Proto-Germanic
*inhan- to thrive, to prosper (< *tnk-e-); Lehmann 1986:360 *ten-,
*tenk-; Feist 1939:494495 *tegho-. Proto-Indo-European *ten-p- >
(through assimilation) *tem-p- to stretch: Lithuanian tempi, tem pti to
stretch; Latin tempus period of time. Rix 1998a:569 *temp- to stretch;
Pokorny 1959:10641065 *temp- to stretch; Walde 19271932.I:
721722 *temp-; Mann 19841987:1378 *temp, -i to stretch, to
pull; Watkins 1985:6970 *temp- and 2000:90 *temp- to stretch
(extension of *ten-, assimilated from *tenp-); MalloryAdams 1997:187
*temp- (< *ten-p-) to stretch; ErnoutMeillet 1979:681682; Walde
Hofmann 19651972.II:660661; De Vaan 2008:611; Fraenkel 1962
1965.II:10791080; Smoczyski 2007.1:669.
D. Proto-Altaic *tno- to stretch, to pull: Proto-Tungus *tn- to stretch, to
pull > Evenki tn- to stretch, to pull; Lamut / Even tn- to stretch, to
pull; Manchu tagiq a bamboo device placed in a relaxed bow to
preserve its shape, tagila- to fire a crossbow, tagilak crossbow,
tagimeliyan bent backwards, arched, bow-shaped; Orok tn- to stretch,
to pull; Nanay / Gold toan- to stretch, to pull; Ulch tan- to stretch, to
pull; Oroch tna- to stretch, to pull; Udihe tana- to stretch, to pull;
Solon tan- to stretch, to pull. Proto-Mongolian *teneyi- to stretch
(oneself), to be stretched > Written Mongolian teneyi-, teniyi- to unbend,
to become straight, to stretch, to extend; Khalkha ten- to stretch
(oneself), to be stretched; Buriat ten- to stretch (oneself), to be
stretched; Kalmyk ten- to stretch (oneself), to be stretched; Ordos
tenere-, ten- to stretch (oneself), to be stretched. StarostinDybo
Mudrak 2003:1400 *tno to stretch, to pull.
E. Chukchi-Kamchatkan: Proto-Chukuotian *tnut- to swell > Chukchi
tnut- to swell, tnot-jn swelling; Kerek tnut- to swell; Alyutor
tnut- to swell. Fortescue 2005:299.
226 CHAPTER TWENTY
Buck 1949:9.32 stretch; 12.53 grow (= increase in size); 12.65 thin (in dimen-
sion). Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2380, *an (= *an ??) to draw, to stretch,
to extend, no. 2384, *anX *anXu (or *aX ?) thin, short, and, no.
2390, *aga|o to draw, to stretch; BomhardKerns 1994:290292, no. 10.
A. Afrasian: Egyptian tn (vb.) to grow old; (n.) old age; (adj.) old, decrepit,
tn old man, elder. Hannig 1995:934; Faulkner 1962:299; Erman
Grapow 1921:206 and 19261963.5:310; Gardiner 1957:600.
B. Proto-Kartvelian *tent- to grow tired, weary, exhausted: Georgian tent-
in mo-tent-v-a to grow tired, weary, exhausted; Mingrelian tant-, tart- in
mo-tant-u-a, mo-tart-u-a to grow tired, weary, exhausted. Fhnrich
2007:193 *tent-.
C. Proto-Indo-European *tn--s stretched, thin; tired, weak, feeble: Latin
tenuis thin, fine, slight, slender; (of persons, physically) weak, feeble;
Old English ynne thin; weak, poor, ynnes thinness; weakness; etc.
See above for full etymology and references.
D. Yukaghir (Southern / Kolyma) taej- to fall down. Nikolaeva 2006:426.
Buck 1949:9.32 stretch; 9.34 spread out, strew; 12.24 open (vb.). Bomhard
Kerns 1994:298300, no. 113; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2443, *aX to
throw, to disperse, to scatter.
Buck 1949:9.26 break (vb. tr.); 9.27 split (vb. tr.); 9.28 tear (vb. tr.). Different
etymology in Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2289, *ter to tear, to burst.
Buck 1949:4.82 weak; 5.15 thirst (sb.); 15.75 soft. BomhardKerns 1994:283,
no. 99; Mller 1911:253; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2438, *[u]R| dry,
arid, hard.
taria crops; Buriat ta(n) crops; Kalmyk tarn crops; Ordos tar
crops; Dagur tar crops; Monguor tar crops. Proto-Turkic *tar- to
cultivate (ground), *tara- to comb, to cultivate (land) > Turkish tarm
agriculture, tarak comb, rake, harrow, weavers reed, crest (of a bird),
tara- to comb, to rake, to harrow; to dredge; to search minutely, taraz
combings, fibers combed out; Uighur (dial.) teri- to cultivate (ground);
Sary-Uighur tar- to cultivate (ground); Tuva tar- to cultivate
(ground). Poppe 1960:62; Street 1974:27 Proto-Altaic *tar- to till
(land); to sow, to harvest; StarostinDyboMudrak 2003:1438 *ti ora
to cultivate (earth).
Buck 1949:8.15 cultivate, till; 8.21 plow (vb.; sb.). BomhardKerns 1994:
300, no. 114.
Buck 1949:4.98 drunk; 5.13 drink (vb.). BomhardKerns 1994:300, no. 115;
Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2294, *tarH to drink.
Buck 1949:10.26 shake (vb. tr.); 16.53 fear, fright. BomhardKerns 1994:
280281, no. 97.
Sumerian tuh to be stretched out, tuh more than, tuh to produce abundantly,
in profusion.
Buck 1949:11.13 take; 11.14 seize, grasp, take hold of. Dolgopolsky to appear,
no. 2246, *t[e]K to take, to carry ([in descendant languages] to get, to
possess).
Note also:
(vb.) *tab- to be or become warm; to make warm, to heat up; to cook;
(n.) *tab-a heat, warmth; (adj.) hot, warm; cooked, baked
204. Proto-Nostratic second person pronoun stem: *ti- (~ *te-) you; (oblique
form) *ta- (~ *t-):
"at-t() [yT+a]^ you, perfect 2nd sg. endings (m.) -t, (f.) -t(i), imperfect
2nd sg./pl. prefix ti-; Ugaritic 9t you (m. *"atta, f. *"atti), perfect 2nd sg.
ending -t (m. *-ta, f. *-ti), imperfect 2nd sg./du./pl. prefix t-; eri / JibbXli
tn you; Geez / Ethiopic (m.) "an-ta [], (f.) "an-t [] you,
prefix conjugation 2nd sg./pl. prefix t- [-]. Central Cushitic: Bilin (sg.)
"en-t , "in-t you, (pl.) "en-tn, "in-tn. Reinisch 1887:43; Appleyard
2006:150151. Proto-East Cushitic (2nd sg. subj.) *at-i/u you > Gedeo
/ Darasa at-i you; Hadiyya at-i you; Kambata at-i you; Sidamo at-e/i
you; Burji i you; Saho-Afar at-u you; Somali ad-i- you; Rendille
at-i you; Galla / Oromo at-i you; Bayso at-i you; Konso at-ti you;
Gidole at-te you. Sasse 1982:29; Hudson 1989:172. Proto-East Cushitic
(2nd pl. subj.) *atin- you > Saho-Afar atin you; Burji ainu you;
Somali idin- you; Rendille atin- you; Dasenech itti(ni) you; Kambata
a"n-a"ooti you; Tsamay atun-i you. Sasse 1982:29. Proto-Highland
East Cushitic (2nd sg. voc. fem.) *tee you > Gedeo / Darasa (f.) tee
you; Hadiyya (f.) ta you; Kambata (f.) te you; Sidamo (f.) tee you.
Hudson 1989:172. Proto-Southern Cushitic (pl.) *ata- you, (sg.) *aata-
you > Iraqw aten you; Dahalo (pl.) "tta you, (sg.) "ta you. Ehret
1980:282283. Ehret (1995:363, no. 727) reconstructs a Proto-Afrasian
independent 2nd sg. pronoun *ant-/*int- you.
B. Elamo-Dravidian: Elamite (2nd sg. verb ending) -t, (2nd pl. verb ending)
-ht (h+t; in Royal Achaemenid Elamite, this becomes -t due to loss of h),
allocutive (that is, person addressed or second person) gender suffix -t.
Dravidian: Parji -t appositional marker of 2nd sg. in pronominalized nouns
and verb suffix of 2nd sg.
C. Proto-Indo-European (nom. sg.) *t you, (acc. sg.) *tw/*t, *twm/
*tm, (gen. sg.) *tewe, *tewo, (enclitic) *t(w)ey/*t(w)oy: Sanskrit
(nom. sg.) tvm you, (acc. sg.) tv m, tv, (instr. sg.) tvy, (dat. sg.)
tbhyam, te, (abl. sg.) tvt, (gen. sg.) tva, te, (loc. sg.) tvyi; Avestan
(nom. sg.) tm, t you; Greek (Doric) (nom. sg.) you, (gen. sg.) ,
(dat. sg.) , , (acc. sg.) ; Armenian (nom. sg.) du you; Albanian
(nom. sg.) ti you, (dat. sg.) ty, t, (acc. sg.) ty, t, (abl. sg.) teje; Latin
(nom. sg.) t you, (gen. sg.) tu, (dat. sg.) tib, (acc. sg.) t, (abl. sg.) t
(Old Latin td); Old Irish (nom. sg.) t you, (gen. sg.) ta; Gothic (nom.
sg.) u you, (gen. sg.) eina, (dat. sg.) us, (acc. sg.) uk; Lithuanian
(nom. sg.) t you, (acc. sg.) tav, (gen. sg.) tavs, (loc. sg.) tavyj, (dat.
sg.) tv, (instr. sg.) tavim; Old Church Slavic (nom. sg.) ty you, (acc. sg.)
t, tebe, (gen. sg.) tebe, (loc. sg.) teb, (dat. sg.) teb, ti, (instr. sg.) toboj;
Palaic (nom. sg.) ti-i you, (dat.-acc. sg.) tu-; Hittite (nom. sg.) zi-ik, zi-
ga you, (acc.-dat. sg.) tu-uk, tu-ga, (gen. sg.) tu-(e-)el, (abl. sg.) tu-e-da-
az, tu-e-ta-za; (encl. poss. nom. sg.) -ti-i, (encl. poss. acc. sg.) -ti-in, (encl.
poss. neut. sg.) -te-it, (encl. poss. gen. sg.) -ta-a, (encl. poss. dat. sg.) -ti,
(encl. poss. instr. sg.) -te-it; (encl oblique sg.) -ta (-du before -za); Luwian
(nom. sg.) ti-i you. Note: the Proto-Indo-European reconstructions given
PROTO-NOSTRATIC *t 241
personal pronoun] stem *ti; other Altaic languages have retained only the
other stem *si (*si a), with the oblique stem *nV.
F. Etruscan: In Etruscan, there is a pronoun i of unknown meaning.
However, in view of the fact that the verbal imperative endings for the 2nd
person are -ti, -, -i (cf. BonfanteBonfante 1983:86), i may be a form
of the pronoun of the 2nd person singular.
G. Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan *tur(i) you: Chukchi turi you, tur-in
your; Kerek (pl.) tjkku you, (dual) tj you, tjj your; Koryak
(pl.) tuju you, (dual) tuji you, tuc-in your; Alyutor (pl.) turuwwi
you; Kamchadal / Itelmen tuza"n you, tizvin your. Mudrak 1989b:107
*tur-, *turx- you; Fortescue 2005:291. Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan *-
in *k you: Chukchi t (Southern to) you; Kerek hnu you;
Koryak cci you; Alyutor tta, tt (Palana tte) you; Kamchadal /
Itelmen kz(z)a (Sedanka kza) you. Fortescue 2005:142143.
H. Eskimo: West Greenlandic (2nd sg. absolutive possessive suffix) -(i)t.
te, tesati to hew; Russian Church Slavic tesla carpenters tool, adze;
Hittite (3rd sg. pres.) tk-ki-(e-)e-zi to join, to build. Rix 1998a:562
563 *tek- to weave, to plait; Pokorny 1959:1058 *tek- to weave, to
plait, 10581059 *te$- to plait; Walde 19271932.I:716 *teq-, I:717
*te$-; Mann 19841987:1374 *te$slos, -, -is (*te$sl-) shape; carving;
shaper, adze, 1374 *te$smn-, *te$sme(n), (*te$sm-) shaped object, 1374
*te$s, -i (*to$s-) to shape, to carve, to form, to model, to make, 1374
*te$sos, - shaped material, carving; carver, shaper, carpenter, 1374
1375 *te$stos, -, -om shaped; shaped object, carving; *te$stis act of
shaping, 1409 *to$sei to work, to shape, to cultivate, 1409 *to$sos
gear, tackle, tool, tools, model, 1409 *to$sil (*to$sl, *to$sul-)
shaping, shape, carving, composition, 1409 *to$stos shaped, carved;
carving, shape, model; Watkins 1985:69 *teks- and 2000:8990 *teks-
to weave, to fabricate, especially with an ax; GamkrelidzeIvanov
1984.II:705706 *t[]e$[]s- and 1995.I:611, I:734, I:780 *te$s- to
manufacture, to prepare, to produce; to weave, to braid; to work
(something) (primarily wood with a sharp tool or adze); to mold, to model
(in clay); MalloryAdams 1997:3738 (?) *te$so/eha-, *te$sleha- ax,
adze, *te$s- to fabricate, 139 *te$s-(t)or/n- one who fabricates, 443
*te$steha- plate, bowl; Burrow 1973:83 *teks-tn (> Greek );
Mayrhofer 19561980.I:468; Boisacq 1950:950951 *te%-; Hofmann
1966:357 *te%-; Frisk 19701973.II:867868 and II:889890;
Chantraine 19681980.II:1100 *tekn- and II:1112; WaldeHofmann
19651972.II:678679; ErnoutMeillet 1979:690; De Vaan 2008:619;
Orl 2003:419 Proto-Germanic *exsanan, 419 *exs(a)ln; De Vries
1977:609; KlugeMitzka 1967:124; KlugeSeebold 1989:130 *teks-;
Fraenkel 19621965.II:1065 *te%n-; Smoczyski 2007.1:661 *tet#-. Note:
Two separate Proto-Nostratic roots have fallen together in Proto-Indo-
European: (1) *tik- (~ *tek-) to form, to fashion, to make, to create
and (2) *tak- (~ *tk-) (vb.) to twist, to bend; to fasten, twist, bend,
join, or hook together; to be twisted, bent; (n.) hook, peg.
C. Uralic: Proto-Finno-Ugrian teke- to do, to make > Finnish teke- to do, to
make, teko deed, act; Lapp / Saami dkk-/dg- to do, to make;
Mordvin (Erza) teje-, (Moksha) tij- to do, to make; Hungarian tv- to
do, to make, tevs doing, making, action, tett action, act, deed.
Collinder 1955:119, 1960:414 *teke-, 1965:146, and 1977:132; Joki
1973:327328; Rdei 19861988:519 *teke- to do, to make;
Sammallahti 1988:550 *teki- to do.
Buck 1949:6.33 weave; 9.11 do, make; 9.44 build; 9.75 plait; 9.81 carve; 9.84
chisel. Koskinen 1980:52, no. 178.
tkank stopped up, choked, tkz fleshy, hard, tknaz plumpish, stout;
Gagauz tqa- to stuff into, to press into; Azerbaijani t- to stuff into, to
press into; Turkmenian dq- to stuff into, to press into; Uzbek tiq- to
stuff into, to press into; Uighur tiq- to stuff into, to press into; Karaim
tq- to stuff into, to press into; Tatar tq- to stuff into, to press into;
Bashkir tq- to stuff into, to press into; Kirghiz tq- to stuff into, to press
into; Kazakh tq- to stuff into, to press into; Noghay tq- to stuff into, to
press into; Tuva t- to stuff into, to press into; Chuvash - to stuff
into, to press into. StarostinDyboMudrak 2003:14251426 *t[k]u
to stuff into, to press into; Poppe 1960:16 and 134; Street 1974:27 *tk-
to jam in; to overeat.
Buck 1949:9.342 press (vb.); 10.67 push, shove (vb.); 12.63 thick (in
dimension); 12.64 thick (in density). BomhardKerns 1994:290, no. 105.
Buck 1949:11.42 wealth, riches; 11.51 rich; 11.73 profit; 12.18 enough (adj. or
adv.); 13.21 full. BomhardKerns 1994:278279, no. 94; Mller 1911:253.
PROTO-NOSTRATIC *t 247
Buck 1949:1.213 dust; 1.82 flame (sb.); 1.84 ashes; 1.85 burn (vb.); 1.86 light
(vb.), kindle; 5.24 bake; 5.25 oven.
A. Proto-Afrasian *tul- (vb.) to lift, to raise; to pile up, to stack (in a heap);
(n.) hill, mound; stack, heap: Proto-Semitic *tal- (*tal-al-, *tal-aw/y-,
*tal-a-) (vb.) to lift, to raise; (n.) hill, mound > Hebrew tl" [al*T]* ,
tlh [hl*T]* to hang, tl [lT@] mound, tll [lWlT*] exalted, lofty;
Aramaic till mound; Arabic tall hill, elevation, talaa to rise, to
spread, tal long, outstretched, extended; high, tall; Akkadian tillu
ruin, tallu to suspend; eri / JibbXli etll to go up on to a hill, tllt
hill. Geez / Ethiopic tall [], tall" [] breast; Akkadian tul
breast. Klein 1987:703; Leslau 1987:574. Egyptian tn to raise, to
elevate; Coptic tal [tal] hill (this may be a Semitic loan). Vycichl
1983:213; ern 1976:185. Proto-East Cushitic *tuul- to pile up, to stack
250 CHAPTER TWENTY
> Somali tuul- to pile up, tuulo hunch; Burji tuul- to pile up, to stack
(grain), tuul pile, stack (grain); Gedeo / Darasa tuul- to pile up, to
stack (grain), tuula, tuulo pile, stack (grain); Sidamo tuul- to pile up, to
stack, tullo hill; Bayso tuul-e- to pile up; Galla / Oromo tuul- to pile
up, tulluu hill, hunch; Konso tuul- to pile up. Sasse 1982:179180;
Hudson 1989:79, 113, and 396. Omotic: Mocha tuullo heap; Yemsa /
Janjero tuul- to heap up. East Chadic *tul- to hang > Ndam tula to
hang; Lele tuul to hang. Diakonoff 1992:13 *tVl (> *tu l, *tlw) hill,
heap; OrlStolbova 1995:508, no. 2420, *tul- to hang and, no. 2429,
*tl- hill, heap; Ehret 1995:142, no. 172, *tuul- to rise; to form a heap,
mound.
B. Proto-Indo-European *tul-/*tl - (secondary full-grade forms: *tel-/*tol-)
to lift, to raise: Sanskrit tul balance, scale, tulayati to lift up, to raise,
to weigh; Kashmiri tulun to lift, tul weight, balance; Bengali tul to
raise, to weigh, tul scales; Greek balance, scale, (?)
any callous lump, (?) a knob or knot; Latin toll to lift up, to
raise, to elevate; to take up, to take away, to remove, to bear or carry away
(Old Latin tul to bear, to carry); Middle Irish tlenaim to take away, to
remove, to carry off, to steal, tulach hill; Tocharian A tl- to lift, to
raise, B tl- to lift, to raise; to acquire, talle load, burden. Rix
1998a:565566 *telh- to lift, to raise, to be picked up; Pokorny
1959:10601061 *tel-, *tel-, *tl(i)-, *tl- to lift up, to weigh, to
balance; Walde 19271932.I:738740 *tel-; MalloryAdams 1997:
352 *telh- to lift, to raise; Mann 19841987:1375 *tel- (*tel, -i ) to
stretch, to extend, to expand, 1401 *tltos (*tl tos, -is) suffered, borne;
suffering, 1401 *tl - (*tl ; *tl, -i ) to lift, to raise, to bear, to suffer,
1402 *tl n, 1402 *tl tos, -is, -i os extended, stretched; extent, tract,
roadway, passage, 1454 *tl- to lift, to take, to remove, 14541455
*tl- (*tlos, -, -is) lump, mass; Watkins 1985:69 *tel- and 2000:90
*tel- to lift, to support, to weigh; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1984.I:176
*t[]el-, *t[]l - and 1995.I:152 *tel-, *tl - to bear, to carry; Mayrhofer
19561980.I:516; Frisk 19701973.II:848849; Chantraine 1968
1980.II:10881090 *tel-; Boisacq 1950:938939 *tel-; Hofmann
1966:350351 *tel-; ErnoutMeillet 1979:693 and 694 *tel-; Walde
Hofmann 19651972.II:688689; De Vaan 2008:621622 Proto-Italic
*tolna/o-. Two separate Proto-Nostratic stems have been confused in
Proto-Indo-European: (A) Proto-Nostratic *tal- (~ *tl-) (primary
meaning) to stretch, to spread, to extend, then (secondarily) to endure, to
suffer, to bear and (B) Proto-Nostratic *tul- (~ *tol-) (vb.) to lift, to
raise; to pile up, to stack (in a heap); (n.) hill, mound; stack, heap.
C. Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan *tulKt- to steal: Chukchi tul"et- to steal;
Kerek tu(u)laat- to steal; Koryak tul"at- to steal. Fortescue 2005:288.
Semantic development as in Middle Irish tlenaim to take away, to remove,
to carry off, to steal cited above.
PROTO-NOSTRATIC *t 251
Buck 1949:10.22 raise, lift; 11.56 steal; 11.57 thief. BomhardKerns 1994:
282283, no. 98; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2268a, *tu tip, sprout,
something protruding, summit.
Buck 1949:1.62 darkness; 4.78 bury (the dead); 12.26 cover (vb.); 12.27 hide,
conceal. BomhardKerns 1994:284285, no. 101; Dolgopolsky to appear,
no. 2376, *um[]q dark.
Buck 1949:9.342 press (vb.); 10.67 push, shove (vb.); 13.19 multitude, crowd.
BomhardKerns 1994:294295, no. 110.
20.8. PROTO-NOSTRATIC *t
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
t- t- t- t- t- t- t- t-
-t- -t- -t(t)- -t- -t- -t- -t- -t-
Buck 1949:5.21 cook (vb.); 5.22 boil; 5.23 roast, fry; 5.24 bake; 15.85 hot,
warm. BomhardKerns 1994:314315, no. 134. Slightly different etymology
in Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2398, *K[p] to warm, to be warm.
Buck 1949:9.26 break (vb. tr.); 12.23 separate (vb.); 12.232 divide. Bomhard
Kerns 1994:312, no. 130.
Buck 1949:9.943 fitting, suitable; 16.73 right (adj., in a moral sense, vs.
wrong). BomhardKerns 1994:312313, no. 131; Dolgopolsky to appear,
no. 2255, *tAK to suit, to be appropriate, to fit.
Buck 1949:9.32 stretch; 10.25 throw (vb.); 12.57 long. Dolgopolsky to appear,
no. 2268, *tKLE(-ga) to be long; BomhardKerns 1994:306307, no. 123.
Buck 1949:12.63 thick (in dimension); 12.64 thick (in density). Bomhard
Kerns 1994:308, no. 126.
Buck 1949:6.35 sew; 9.19 rope, cord; 9.75 plait (vb.); 9.76 basket.
Buck 1949:4.12 skin; hide; 6.22 wool; 7.12 house; 12.26 cover (vb.); 12.27
hide, conceal. BomhardKerns 1994:315316, no. 135. Different (doubtful)
etymology in Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2411, *o[]"a hide, skin.
der, drti to flay; Old Church Slavic der, dr, drati to tear, to flay.
Rix 1998a:102103 *der- to tear, to rend; Pokorny 1959:206211
*der-, *der-, *dr- to skin; Walde 19271932.I:797803 *der-,
*der-; Mann 19841987:141142 *der, -i to flay, to tear, to wear,
to waste, 142 *dros, -, -is rending; rip, tear, rupture, 156 *doros, -
rip, rag, torn piece, 157 *doru os tearing, dragging, 164 *dr , -i
(*dr-) to skin, to tan, to tear; Watkins 1985:12 *der- and 2000:16 *der-
to split, to peel, to flay; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1984.II:707 *ter- and
1995.I:192, I:201, I:202, I:612, I:780 *ter- to remove bark, to skin;
MalloryAdams 1997:567 *der- to tear off, to flay; Mayrhofer 1956
1980.II:59; Boisacq 1950:178 *der-; Chantraine 19681980.I:365366;
Hofmann 1966:5556; Frisk 19701973.I:368370; Orl 2003:405
Proto-Germanic *teranan, 413 *turnjanan; Kroonen 2013:513 Proto-
Germanic *teran- to tear (< *dr(H)-e-); Feist 1939:120 and 203204;
Lehmann 1986:9192 *der- and 150 *der-; Onions 1966:906 *der-;
Klein 1971:748 *dere-, *der-; Skeat 1898:628; KlugeMitzka 1967:788
*der-, 877 *der()-, 880, and 888889 *der-; KlugeSeebold 1989:738
*der-, 807, 810 *der-, and 816; Smoczyski 2007.1:115116; Fraenkel
19621965.I:9697.
D. Chukchi-Kamchatkan: Proto-Chukotian *tKrK- to cut or break into
pieces > Chukchi tKrK- to break to pieces; Koryak tacan()- to cut
fish into pieces; Alyutor tar"a- to break or cut to pieces. Fortescue
2005:282.
Buck 1949:9.28 tear (vb. tr.); 9.29 flay, skin. BomhardKerns 1994:301
302, no. 116. Different etymology in Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2289, *ter
to tear, to burst.
section; a part of, a bit of, some. Klein 1987:251; Murtonen 1989:209;
Zammit 2002:268. Coptic trp [twrp] to seize, to rob, to carry off
(Semitic loan). Vycichl 1983:220; ern 1976:194.
B. Proto-Indo-European *trep-/*trop- to tear, to rend, to pluck: Greek
to pluck, to cull; Albanian drapr sickle (< Greek
scythe); Old Icelandic trefill tatter, rag, trefr, trf fringes; Russian
(dial.) drpat', drapt' [] to scratch, to scrape. Rix 1998a:111
*drep- to tear or pull off; Pokorny 1959:211 *drep-, *drop-; Walde
19271932.I:801802 *dre-p-; Mann 19841987:160 *drop, -i to
pluck, to tear; MalloryAdams 1997:567 *drep- to scratch, to tear;
Boisacq 1950:200 *drep-; Hofmann 1966:64 *dre-p-; Chantraine 1968
1980.I:297298 *dr-ep-; Frisk 19701973.I:417; Prellwitz 1905:121;
Orl 2003:408 Proto-Germanic *tra; Kroonen 2013:520 Proto-
Germanic *trab- fringe (< *drop-h-); De Vries 1977:597 *der-.
Buck 1949:9.28 tear (vb. tr.); 12.35 end; 12.352 point; 12.353 edge; 12.36 side;
13.23 part (sb.). BomhardKerns 1994:302, no. 117.
*d- long ago; long-standing, 144 *deu ros lasting, firm, 144 *deu
long, lasting, 144145 *du to last, 158 *dou (?), *douu to go,
169 *dros far, long-lasting, long, 170 *du ros long-lasting; Watkins
1985:12 *deu- (also *dwa-) and 2000:17 *deu- long (in duration)
(oldest form *deu-, with variant [metathesized] form *dwe-, colored to
*dwa-, contracted to *dw-); MalloryAdams 1997:349 *deuh- to
leave, to go away; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1984.I:230 *teu -, *tu -aH- and
1995.I:200 *tew-, *tw-aH- to remain; Mayrhofer 19561980.II:25,
II:26, and II:5657 *deu ()-; Boisacq 1950:183; Chantraine 1968
1980.I:274275 *dw-; Frisk 19701973.I:381382; KlugeMitzka
1967:875; KlugeSeebold 1989:806.
232. Proto-Nostratic (Eurasiatic only) (n.) *tay-a (elder) male in-law, (elder)
male relative:
Buck 1949:1.51 sky, heavens; 1.52 sun; 1.53 moon; 1.84 ashes; 1.85 burn
(vb.); 14.41 day; 14.71 month; 15.56 shine; 16.71 good (adj.); 16.81 beautiful
(also pretty). Caldwell 1913:620. BomhardKerns 1994:303304, no. 119.
Different (unlikely) etymology in Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2241, *ti to
shine, to be bright, to be seen.
Buck 1949:18.21 speak, talk; 18.22 say. Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2353,
*eL to shout, to call.
A. (?) Dravidian: Kui tlpka (< tlk-p-, tlkt-) to put out the tongue, to thrust
forth from a cavity; Kuwi tekh- in: vendri tekhm put out your tongue!.
BurrowEmeneau 1984:300, no. 3430.
B. Proto-Indo-European (*tl guA-/*tl gweA- >) *tn g-/*tn gw- tongue
(with widely different reflexes in the daughter languages due to taboo):
Gothic tugg tongue; Old Icelandic tunga tongue; Swedish tunga
tongue; Danish tunge tongue; Old English tunge tongue; Old Frisian
tunge tongue; Old Saxon tunga tongue; Dutch tong tongue; Old High
German zunga tongue (New High German Zunge); Latin lingua tongue
(Old Latin dingua); Old Irish teng(a)e tongue (a shorter form, teng, is
found only in verse); Sanskrit jihv tongue; Avestan hiz-, hizv-
tongue; Armenian lezu tongue; Lithuanian lievis tongue; Old
Church Slavic jzyk tongue; Russian jazyk [] tongue, language;
Ukrainian jazyk tongue; Polish jzyk tongue; Lower Sorbian jzyk
tongue; Czech jazyk tongue; Slovenian jzik tongue; Serbo-Croatian
jzik tongue; Macedonian jazik tongue; Bulgarian ezk tongue.
Pokorny 1959:223 *dn h, *dn hu tongue; Walde 19271932.I:792
*dn h, *dn hu ; Mann 19841987:151 *dn u h tongue; Watkins
1985:15 *dn gh and 2000:21 *dn gh tongue; GamkrelidzeIvanov
1984:II:814 *tn g[]uH- and 1995:714 *tn guH- tongue; Mayrhofer
19561980.I:436437; MalloryAdams 1997:594 *dn huha- tongue;
ErnoutMeillet 1979:360; De Vaan 2008:343; WaldeHofmann 1965
1972.I:806807 *dn hu ; Kroonen 2013:526527 Proto-Germanic
*tungn- tongue; Orl 2003:412 Proto-Germanic *tunn; Lehmann
1986:349; Feist 1939:482 *dh-u -; De Vries 1977:600; FalkTorp
19031906.II:389390; Onions 1966:930; Klein 1971:771; Kluge
Mitzka 1967:892 *dn hu -; KlugeSeebold 1989:818; BoutkanSiebinga
2005:414415; Fraenkel 19621965.I:369370; Smoczyski 2001.1:
353354; Derksen 2008:159; Winter 1982. According to Pisani, Greek
(Ionic) (also ), (Attic) tongue belongs here as
PROTO-NOSTRATIC *t 277
Buck 1949:4.26 tongue; 18.11 voice (sb.); 18.24 language. Slightly different
etymology in Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2354, *[]il(-o) ( *t- ?) tongue,
organs of speech.
(theme: *d-) to give, 152 *d- (*ddmi, ddmi) to give, 158 *du -
(theme of *d- to give), *du it-; Watkins 1985:15 *d- (contracted from
*do-) and 2000:21 *d- to give (oldest form *de-, colored to *do-,
contracted to *d-), zero-grade form *d-; GamkrelidzeIvanov
1984.I:203 *toH- > *t- and 1995.I:44, I:175, I:179, I:189, I:655, I:656,
I:658, I:660, I:781, I:835 *toH- to give; to take; to take a wife, I:147
*toH- > *toHw-; MalloryAdams 1997:224 *deh- to give; Derksen
2008:96; Schmalstieg 1980:150157; Mayrhofer 19561980.II:1314;
Boisacq 1950:186 *d-, *d-; Frisk 19701973.I:388389; Hofmann
1966:59 *d-, *d-; Chantraine 19681980.I:279281 *de-; Ernout
Meillet 1979:178180; WaldeHofmann 19651972.I:360363 *d-,
*d-; De Vaan 2008:174175; Sturtevant 1951:52, 76, compares Hittite
(3rd sg.) da-a-i takes here and reconstructs Indo-Hittite *deh- (see also
Sturtevant 1942:43, 41c; Kloekhorst 2008b:803805 *doH-); Fraenkel
19621965.I:111112 *d-; Smoczyski 2007.1:134135 *deh-; Illi-
Svity 1965:338 *deH-.
B. Proto-Uralic *toxe- to give, to bring: Finnish tuo- to bring; Estonian
too- to bring; Lapp / Saami (Southern) duok- to sell; Mordvin (Erza)
tuje-, tuva- to bring; Vogul / Mansi tuu- to bring; Ostyak / Xanty tu- to
bring (Southern pret. tw-, tKw-); Yurak Samoyed / Nenets taa- to
give, to bring; Tavgi Samoyed / Nganasan taa- to bring; Yenisei
Samoyed / Enets te-d'a- to give, to bring; Selkup Samoyed ta-da- to
bring; Kamassian de"-, de- to give, to bring. Collinder 1955:64,
1960:408 *to-, 1965:32, and 1977:81; Rdei 19861988:529530
*toe-; Dcsy 1990:109 *tonga to bring, to get, to receive; Joki 1973:331
*tke-; Sammallahti 1988:550 *toxi- to bring; Illi-Svity 1965:338
*te-.
Sumerian du to bring.
Note: used as the base for the numeral two in Indo-European and Altaic.
Buck 1949:9.21 strike (hit, beat); 9.26 break (vb. tr.). BomhardKerns
1994:316318, no. 136; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2349, *[]a to thrust,
to stab, to push.
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
d- d- c- g- d- t- - c-
-d- -d- -c(c)-/ -g- -d- -t- --/ -c-
-y- -d-
op, sp chest or shed on a tomb (to protect the coffin); Ostyak / Xanty
(N.) pam framework in the forest (to keep berries or game), timbered
superstructure on a tomb. Collinder 1977:91; Rdei 19861988:29
*app-; Sammallahti 1988:543 (?) *ppi- to hit, to cut.
E. Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan *pK(K) hammer: Chukchi rpe
hammer; Kerek ipaaip hammer; Koryak jpea hammer; Alyutor
tpaa pestle for crushing tolkua, klv-tpaa stone hammer;
Kamchadal / Itelmen spe stone pestle. Fortescue 2005:72.
Buck 1949:1.85 burn (vb.); 15.87 clean. BomhardKerns 1994:322, no. 142.
Buck 1949:4.31 arm; 4.33 hand; 4.81 strong, mighty, powerful; 11.15 hold;
17.15 believe. BomhardKerns 1994:322323, no. 143.
Buck 1949:4.66 void excrement; excrement, dung; 10.32 flow (vb.); 10.46 run
(vb.). Brunner 1969:86, no. 469; BomhardKerns 1994:324325, no. 145.
250. Proto-Nostratic indefinite pronoun stem *di- (~ *de-) this one, that one:
A. Proto-Afrasian *di- this one, that one: Proto-Semitic *d, *d this one,
that one > Arabic (m.) d, (f.) d this one, this; Hebrew (m.) zeh [hz#], (f.)
zh [hz{], (poetical) z [Wz] this; Biblical Aramaic d this; Sabaean d
(he) who, (that) which; Mehri d()- who, which, what; eri / Jibbli d-
one who, whoever; arssi ](e)- who, which, that; Geez / Ethiopic za-
[-] who, that, which (zi"a- [-] with possessive suffix pronouns), (m.
sg.) z- [-], (f. sg.) z- [-] this (adj. and pronoun); Tigrinya z he who,
that, "zu this; Gurage za that, that one, that one here, z this; Harari
zi he, who, that, -zo the. D. Cohen 1970 :324; Klein 1987:194;
Leslau 1979:701 and 1987:629630; Zammit 2002:181. Perhaps also
New Egyptian (adv.) dy here, over here; there, over there (if from *dy);
Coptic tai [tai] here, in this place, t [th] there, in that place. Hannig
PROTO-NOSTRATIC *d 291
A. Afrasian: Egyptian d& to cross over, to ferry across water, d&-t ship.
Hannig 1995:992; Faulkner 1962:318; Gardiner 1957:603; Erman
Grapow 1921:218 and 19261963.5:512513. West Chadic: Angas j to
come; Sura j to come. Foulkes 1915:201; JungraithmayrIbriszimow
1994.II:82. Takcs 2011:126 and 161 *-" to go.
B. Proto-Kartvelian *g- to exceed, to overcome, to be better than: Georgian
[-] to exceed, to overcome, to be better than; Mingrelian [(r)g-] to
exceed, to overcome, to be better than; Laz [(r)g-] to exceed, to
overcome, to be better than. As noted by Klimov (1998:342), the unbound
form of the stem is not attested. In Old Georgian, the stem is extended by
-ob-: u-m--ob-es- better. In Laz, it is extended by -in-: Laz o-rg-in-u
good, u-g-in better. Mingrelian g-ir-/g-r- good, rg-in-/rg-in-ap-
/g-un- to be better. Klimov 1964:268 *- and 1998:342 *- to exceed,
to overcome; Fhnrich 2007:712713 *-; FhnrichSardshweladse
1995:571 *-.
C. Proto-Altaic *i- (~ *i a-) to reach, to arrive at, to come to; to strive:
Proto-Tungus *i- (~ *di-) to come > Manchu i- to come, (imperfect
participle) idere coming, future, next; Ulch diwu to come; Nanay /
Gold i- to come. Proto-Mongolian *id-k- to strive > Mongolian
idk- to endeavor, to strive, to exert oneself; to pull, idkl endeavor,
effort, zeal, fervor, ardor, idkmi endeavor, effort, assiduity,
application; Khalkha tge- to strive; Kalmyk ztk- to strive; Ordos
d- to strive. Proto-Turkic *ykt- to reach > Old Turkic yet- to
reach; Karakhanide Turkic yet- to reach; Turkish yet- to suffice, to
reach, to attain, yet-i- to reach, to attain, to suffice; to attain maturity, to
grow up; to be brought up; to be ready or on hand in time, yet-er
sufficient, enough!, yet-i-kin arrived at full growth, ripe, perfected, yet-
i-mis arrived, reached maturity, grown up; Gagauz yet- to reach;
292 CHAPTER TWENTY
Buck 1949:10.48 come; 10.54 overtake; 10.55 arrive (intr.) and arrive at, reach
(tr.).
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
t- t- c- k- t- t- - c-
-t- -t- -c(c)-/ -k- -t- -t- -- -c(c)-
-y-
253. Proto-Nostratic deictic stem *ta- that over there, that yonder (not very far):
A. Proto-Afrasian *ta- that over there, that yonder (not very far): Proto-
Semitic *ta-m- that over there, that yonder (not very far) > Arabic
tamma there, yonder, tumma then, thereupon; furthermore, moreover;
and again, and once more, tammata there, there is; Sabaean tmm there;
Hebrew m [<v*] there, thither; Imperial Aramaic tmh there; Biblical
Aramaic tamm there; Phoenician m there; Ugaritic tm there. Klein
1987:664; Zammit 2002:112113. Chadic: Hausa cn (adv.) yonder,
over there (distant but visible); cn (demonstrative pronoun becomes
cn if preceeded by a word with final high tone) that, those.
B. Proto-Altaic *a- that over there, that yonder (not very far): Proto-
Tungus *- that, further (not very far) > Manchu a- over there (not
very far): ala over there, on the other side; previously, before, argi
there, over there, that side, beyond; formerly, asi in that direction,
thither, there; Evenki - that, further (not very far); Lamut / Even -
that, further (not very far); Negidal - that, further (not very far); Ulch
a- that, further (not very far); Orok - that, further (not very far);
Nanay / Gold a- that, further (not very far); Oroch - that, further (not
very far); Udihe a- that, further (not very far); Solon s- that, further
(not very far). Proto-Mongolian *a- that, beyond > Mongolian a- in:
adu, aadu situated on the other or opposite side; beyond, aaduki
lying opposite, situated on the other side; situated beyond, aaur
along or on the other side; farther, beyond, aan-a, ian-a farther,
beyond, behind, yonder, aanaan a little further or beyond; Khalkha
cna that, beyond; Buriat s- that, beyond; Kalmyk c- that, beyond;
Ordos na that, beyond; Dagur - that, beyond, i thither;
Monguor a, ta that, beyond. StarostinDyboMudrak
2003:406 *a that, beyond (not very far); Poppe 1960:26 and 139;
Street 1974:10 *ag there, further away.
C. Proto-Eskimo demonstrative stem *cam- down below, down-slope (not
visible): Alutiiq Alaskan Yupik camna; Central Alaskan Yupik camna;
Naukan Siberian Yupik samna; Central Siberian Yupik saamna; Sirenik
samna; Seward Peninsula Inuit samna; North Alaskan Inuit samna;
Western Canadian Inuit hamna; Eastern Canadian Inuit sanna;
Greenlandic Inuit sanna. Note: all of the preceding forms are cited in the
absolutive singular. FortescueJacobsonKaplan 1994:458.
294 CHAPTER TWENTY
Buck 1949:9.21 strike (hit, beat); 9.22 cut; 9.26 break (vb. trans.); 9.27 split
(vb. trans.). Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 387, *al to beat, to knock down, to
fell.
Buck 1949:9.32 stretch; 10.54 overtake; 10.55 arrive (intr.) and arrive at, reach
(tr.); 10.56 approach (vb.); 12.11 place (sb.); 12.43 near (adv.); 20.41 victory.
BomhardKerns 1994:328329, no. 149.
298 CHAPTER TWENTY
257. Proto-Nostratic (n.) *tin-a the other or opposite side; (adj.) different,
other:
A. Dravidian: Pengo homa bison; ManTa hama bison; Kui soma a wild
buffalo (= bison); Kuwi homma bison, hma sambar. Burrow
Emeneau 1984:247, no. 2849.
B. Kartvelian: Georgian (Imeruli) oma cattle.
Buck 1949:3.20 cattle. Dolgopolsky 1998:43, no. 40, *oma aurochs, wild
bovine and to appear, no. 394, *oma wild bovine.
Sumerian um to slaughter.
PROTO-NOSTRATIC *t 301
Buck 1949:4.76 kill; 4.91 tired, weary; 9.21 strike (hit, beat). Brunner 1969:91,
no. 499; BomhardKerns 1994:326327, no. 147. For the semantic
developments in the various Nostratic daughter languages, cf. Greek
to be tired, to grow weary < toil, trouble, weariness, suffering,
originally striking, beating < to strike, to beat, to smite, to slaughter,
to cut off, to chop off, to hammer, to forge, to pound, to knock; (metaphorical)
to tire out, to weary.
20.11. PROTO-NOSTRATIC *t
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
t- t- c- k- t- t- - c-
-t- -t- -c(c)-/ -k- -t- -tt- -- -c-
-y-
Buck 1949:9.21 strike (beat, hit); 9.49 hammer (sb.); 9.60 smith; 9.61 forge
(vb.). BomhardKerns 1994:335336, no. 158.
A. Dravidian: Tamil cakkai chips, small wooden peg; Kota cek chip;
Kannaa cakke, cekke, sakke, sekke chip; Tuu cakke, cekk, cekki chip,
split, splinter; Telugu cekku to pare, to cut the side or rind of, to sharpen
(pencil), to engrave, to carve, cekka piece, chip, slice, cakku-cyu to
chop, to cut to pieces, to mince; Kolami sek- (sekt-) to make pointed
(piece of wood); Naiki ekk- to chip, to scrape; Naiki (of Chanda) sek-
to plow; Parji cekk- to chip, to scrape, to plane, cekka piece, slice, chip
of wood; Gondi cekkn to cut, cekka piece; Kona sek to plane, to
fashion things out of wood; Kuwi sekali to scrape (with a hoe), seka
piece; Kuux cakt, cakt a slice, cakta"n to cut in slices, cegl
chip, splinter; Malto caka a slice, cagje to chop up (as meat).
BurrowEmeneau 1984:239, no. 2748.
B. Proto-Indo-European *tak- to cut or tear into shreds: Gothic tahjan to
tear apart; Old Icelandic tg stringy root, fiber; Norwegian (dial.) tKja
to fray (of a garment); Middle Low German tagge edge, prong; Middle
High German zch, zhe wick (New High German Zacke, Zacken
[sharp] point, peak, jag; spike, prong, tine [of a fork]; tooth [of a saw or
comb]; notch, indentation). Probably also Sanskrit d fringe of a
garment, wick. Pokorny 1959:191 *de%- (: *do%-, *d%-) to rip to
pieces; Walde 19271932.I:785 *d%-, *d%-; *de%- (: *do%-, *d%-);
Mann 19841987:131 *da$- to tear, to bite, to gnaw, 131 *da$nos, -
(*da$-) grip, bite; clamp, tongs; Watkins 1985:11 *dek- and 2000:15
*dek- referring to such things as fringe, lock of hair, horsetail; Mayrhofer
19561980.II:27; Orl 2003:398 Proto-Germanic *taaz; Kroonen
2013:504 Proto-Germanic *tagla- hair; Feist 1939:470471 *de%-;
Lehmann 1986:338; De Vries 1977:580; FalkTorp 19031906.II:349;
KlugeMitzka 1967:871; KlugeSeebold 1989:804 (origin unclear).
C. Eskimo-Aleut: Proto-Yupik-Sirenik *caki(t)- to chop or cut into >
Alutiiq Alaskan Yupik cakit- to hew, to carve; Central Alaskan Yupik
caki- to cut out a small piece, to plane (wood), cakit- to chop, to cut
into accidentally, caki(y)un chopping device; Sirenik saki(t)- to chop,
to dig with front paws (animal). FortescueJacobsonKaplan 1994:65.
Buck 1949:28 tear (vb. tr.); 12.56 small, little; 12.62 narrow. BomhardKerns
1994:336337, no. 159; Bomhard 1996a:159160, no. 159.
Buck 1949:1.42 tree; 15.74 hard; 16.65 faithful. Mller 1911:48; Bomhard
Kerns 1994:330331, no. 151.
Buck 1949:9.28 tear (vb. tr.). Illi-Svity 19711984.I:209, no. 53, * ar-;
BomhardKerns 1994:334, no. 156; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 431, * [a]r
to cut.
269. Proto-Nostratic (n.) *taw-a bad thing, evil, wickedness; (adj.) bad, evil:
A. Afrasian: Egyptian dw bad, evil, dw-t bad thing, evil, wickedness, dwy
evil; Coptic owt [joout] base, lowly, rejected. Hannig 1995:1000;
Faulkner 1962:320; Gardiner 1957:603; ErmanGrapow 1921:219 and
19261963.5:545549; Crum 1939:794; Vycichl 1983:333; ern
1976:322.
B. Proto-Indo-European *tews-/*tows-/*tus- bad, evil; (prefix) ill-, un-,
mis-: Sanskrit doa- crime, fault, vice, want, dyati to become bad,
defiled; to be wrong, (prefix) du-, dur-; Avestan (prefix) du-, du-;
Greek (prefix) -; Gothic (prefix) tuz-; Old Icelandic (prefix) tor-; Old
English (prefix) tor-; Old High German (prefix) zur-; Old Irish (prefix)
du-, do-; Armenian (prefix) t-; Old Church Slavic (prefix) d- in d-d
rain. Pokorny 1959:227 *dus- evil, bad; Walde 19271932.I:816
*dus-; Mann 19841987:144 *deus- evil, 144 *deusn-, *deusn- evil,
harm, 169 *dus-, *dusi- (prefix) ill-, mis-, hard-, un-, 170 *dusnos, -
evil, sad; evil, sadness, hate; Watkins 1985:15 *dus- and 2000:21 *dus-
bad, evil; mis- (used as prefix); GamkrelidzeIvanov 1984.II:780 *tus-
and 1995.I:683 *tus- bad; MalloryAdams 1997:43 *dus- bad (as
prefix); Mayrhofer 19561980.II:5556 and II:6768; Frisk 1970
1973.I:425 *dus-; Hofmann 1966:65; Chantraine 19681980.I:302 *dus-;
Boisacq 1950:204205 *dus-; Beekes 2010.I:359360 *dus-; Feist
1939:484; Lehmann 1986:349350; De Vries 1977:595.
Buck 1949:17.13 think (= reflect, etc.); 17.14 think (= be of the opinion); 18.21
speak, talk. Mller 1911:4344; BomhardKerns 1994:333334, no. 155.
(as water); to run quickly, to flow rapidly; to make noise, dargi- to roar
or rush noisily (of water), dargiya roaring (as water); noise; gaiety;
Khalkha dargil rapid current; Kalmyk drg rapid current. Starostin
DyboMudrak 2003:404405 *urka (~ -i o-) swift stream, current.
Buck 1949:10.32 flow (vb.); 10.46 run (vb.). Mller 1911:4546; Bomhard
Kerns 1994:335, no. 157.
20.12. PROTO-NOSTRATIC *s
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
s- s- c- k- s- s- s- s-
-s- -s- -c(c)-/ -k- -s- -s- -s- -s-
-y-
Buck 1949:1.52 sun; 14.76 summer. Brunner 1969:106, no. 580; Bomhard
Kerns 1994:342, no. 166.
A. Afrasian: Egyptian: Middle Egyptian &, &y pig, wild boar, &yt sow;
Demotic pig, sow; Coptic (Sahidic, Bohairic) e [ew] sow,
(Bohairic) eaw [eau] sow, (Sahidic) e [e], (Akhmimic) a- [a-]
pig (male). Hannig 1995:801; Faulkner 1962:260; Gardiner 1957:594;
ErmanGrapow 1921:178 and 19261963.4:401, 4:405; ern 1976:40;
Vycichl 1983:49 and 254.
B. Proto-Kartvelian *e-kw- wild boar, pig: Old Georgian ew-i wild boar
(Modern Georgian ev- tusk); Mingrelian o-sk-u (< *o-askv-u [*askv- =
pig]) pigsty. Klimov 1964:81 *ew- and 1998:48 *ew- wild boar,
pig; FhnrichSardshweladse 1995:126 *ew-; GamkrelidzeIvanov
1984.II:877 *e-w- and 1995.I:774 *e-w- boar, pig (according to
GamkrelidzeIvanov, the Kartvelian forms are borrowings from Indo-
European); Schmidt 1962:108; Fhnrich 2007:152 *ew-.
C. Proto-Indo-European (*sewH-/)*suH- (wild or domesticated) pig, sow:
Greek , (also , ) wild swine, whether boar (hog) or sow;
Avestan h (gen. sg. for *huw) pig; Sanskrit s- in skar- boar, hog,
pig, swine; Latin ss sow, swine, pig, hog, (m.) suculus, (f.) sucula
piglet, suillus of swine; Umbrian (acc. sg.) sim sow, pig; Old Irish
socc in socc sil porpoise; Old Welsh hucc pig, sow (Welsh hwch);
Cornish hoch pig, sow; Breton houch, hoch pig, sow; Albanian thi
pig, piglet; Old Icelandic sr sow; Faroese sgv sow; Norwegian s
sow; Danish so sow; Swedish so sow Old English s, sugu sow; Old
Saxon suga sow; Middle Low German soge sow; Dutch zeug sow;
Old High German s sow (New High German Sau); Latvian suvns,
sivns young pig, piglet; Tocharian B suwo pig, hog, swe
pertaining to a pig (cf. swana misa mitmpa wirot pork flesh with
honey [is] forbidden). Benveniste 1969.I:2736 and 1973:2331 *s-;
Pokorny 1959:10381039 *s-s, *suu -s pig, sow; Walde 1927
1932.II:512513 *s- (*s-s, *suu -s); Mann 19841987:13371338
*ss pig, sow; Watkins 1985:67 *s- and 2000:87 *s- (contracted from
earlier *su-) pig (suffixed form *su-no-); GamkrelidzeIvanov
1984.II:593594 *s- pig, II:597, fn. 2, II:877, and 1995.I:508 *s-
pig, I:511512, fn. 75, I:774; MalloryAdams 1997:425 *s s (possibly
better reconstructed as *shxs) pig (wild or domesticated) and 2006:139
*ss pig; Mayrhofer 19561980.III:490; Boisacq 1950:10061007
*s-s; Frisk 19701973.II:973974 *s-s; Hofmann 1966:386387
PROTO-NOSTRATIC *s 319
Buck 1949:3.31 swine; 3.32 boar; 3.33 barrow; 3.34 sow; 3.35 pig.
Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 89, *[][]H wild boar.
burn; to shoot with a gun, hali to burn; Kuux kun (kuas) to grow
warm, to become hot, to be heated; to cook (tr.) on live embers, to bake on
an open fire; Malto kue (ku-) to burn, to roast, to sear, kunare to be
hot or warm, kuni warm, hot. Krishnamurti 2003:148 *c-/*cu-V- to
be hot, to burn; BurrowEmeneau 1964:229230, no. 2654.
C. Proto-Indo-European *se- [*sa-] (unattested root) to be or become
hot, warm; to heat up, to make hot, to warm, to burn; only found with the
suffixes *-(e)l-, *-(e)n-: *se-(e)l- (> *swel-), *s-l- (> *swl-),
(*s-l- >) *su-l- (> *sl-); *s-en- (> *swen-), *s-n- >
*su-n- (> *sn-), etc. the sun: Greek (Doric , ; Epic
Greek ; Aeolian and Arcadian ; Cretan [that is,
+]) (< *+) the sun; Latin sl (< *swl- < *s-l-) the
sun; Old Irish sil eye; Welsh haul the sun; Gothic sauil (< Proto-
Germanic *swil) the sun, sugil the sun, sunn the sun (< Proto-
Germanic *sun-n, with -nn- from the gen. sg. *sunnez < *s(w)n - < *s-
n -); Old Icelandic sl the sun, sunna the sun; Faroese sl the sun,
sunna the sun; Norwegian sol the sun; Old Danish sol the sun; Old
Swedish sol the sun, sunna the sun; Old English sl the sun, sigel,
segl, sKgl, sygil the sun, sunne the sun; Old Frisian sunne the sun;
Old Saxon sunna the sun; Dutch zon the sun; Old High German sunna
the sun (New High German Sonne); Avestan hvar the sun, (gen. sg.)
xng (< *swen-s); Sanskrit svr- (svar-) the sun, (gen. sg. s ra),
s rya- the sun; Lithuanian sul the sun, svlinti to singe; Latvian
sale the sun. Pokorny 1959:881882 *s u el-, *su ol-, *suu l-, *su el-,
*sl- the sun; Walde 19271932.II:446447 *s u el-, *suu l-, *su el-,
*sl-; *su en-, *sun-; Mann 19841987:1114 *su l-, *su el- the sun
(Indo-Iranian variant: *sl-); Watkins 1985:56 *swel-, also *s(u)wel-,
*su()el-, *su()en-, *sun- and 2000:72 *sawel- (oldest form *sewel-)
the sun ([t]he element *-el- was originally suffixal, and alternated with
*-en-, yielding the variant zero-grades *s(u)wen- and [reduced] *sun-);
GamkrelidzeIvanov 1984.I:117 *su el-/*su el-, I:196 *su el- ~ *su en-,
I:210 fn. 1 *su el-, II:684 *s(a)u Hel-/n- and 1995.I:100 *swel-/*swel-
sun, I:161 fn. 30 *swel-/*swen-, I:168 *swel-/*swen-, I:181 fn. 47
*swel-, I:590 *s(a)wHel-/n-; MalloryAdams 1997:556 *shaul (gen.
*sh au -n-s) sun and 2006:128 *shaul; Mayrhofer 19561980.III:496
*sul-, *suel-, *seu el- and III:566567; Boisacq 1950:321 *su el-;
Frisk 19701973.I:631632 *su el-, *sl-; Hofmann 1966:107 *su el-;
Chantraine 19681980.I:410411 *swel-, *sl-; WaldeHofmann
19651972.II:553554 *su el-; Beekes 1969:62 *seu el-; Ernout
Meillet 1979:632 *swel-, *swol-, *swl-; De Vaan 2008:570; Sihler
1995:84 *suHel-; Kroonen 2013:463464 Proto-Germanic *sel- ~
*sunnn- sun (< *shu-l/n-); Orl 2003:361 Proto-Germanic *swelan ~
*sowel, 387 *sunnn; Lehmann 1986:297 *sexwel- *swel- sun and
330 *s wel-, *swen-; Feist 1939:412 *su el- and 460 *su en-; FalkTorp
322 CHAPTER TWENTY
or pull out slowly, to draw a sword; Mehri sl (wolf) to drag away (its
prey), sll to let (a wolf) take an animal from you, sttl to steal away
unobserved; eri / Jibbli sell (wolf) to drag away its prey. Murtonen
1989:423; Klein 1987:662; Zammit 2002:226. Proto-Semitic *sal-ab- to
rob, to plunder, to take away > Arabic salaba to take away, to steal, to
rob, to plunder; eri / JibbXli slb to take (someones gun) by force;
arssi selb to disarm; Mehri slb to disarm someone; Geez /
Ethiopic salaba [] to take off, to strip off, to take away, to remove, to
deprive, to take spoils, to plunder, to despoil; Tigrinya slb to rob
someone of his clothes; Tigre salba to rob, to snatch away; Amharic
sllb to cheat, to rob by magical means; Gurage (Soddo) slabi
cheater. Leslau 1987:498499. Proto-Semitic *sal-ap- to draw out, to
pull out > Hebrew la} [[l^v]* to draw out; Aramaic la} to draw a
sword, to pull off (shoes); Akkadian alpu to draw (a sword, a dagger)
from a sheath, to tear out, to pull out, to extricate, to rescue. Murtonen
1989:426; Klein 1987:663; Zammit 2002:225. Coptic slp [swlp] to
break off, to cut off, sloplep [sloplep], sleplp [sleplwp] to tear
apart (Semitic loans). Vycichl 1983:188; ern 1976:151. Proto-Southern
Cushitic *sil- to strip bare, to make empty > Kwadza sil- to pluck (a
bird); Maa -slo bare, naked, empty. Ehret 1980:180. Ehret 1995:158,
no. 217, *sil- to pull off, to draw off.
B. Dravidian: Kannaa see (vb.) to draw, to pull, to pull off, to rob, to pull
about; (n.) pulling, pulling off, robbing, force of a stream; Tuu se
force; Telugu celuku to pull out (as the eyes). BurrowEmeneau
1984:242, no. 2791.
C. Proto-Indo-European *sel-/*sl - (secondary o-grade form: *sol-) to take, to
seize: Greek to take, to seize; Gothic saljan to offer sacrifice;
Old Icelandic selja to give up, to sell, sal payment, installment; Old
English sellan, syllan to give, to furnish, to supply, to lend, selen, sylen
gift, grant, salu sale; Old Frisian sella to give up, to hand over, to
deliver; Old Saxon sellian to hand over, to deliver; Old High German
sellen to hand over, to deliver, sala transmission; Old Irish sellaim to
take, selb possession. Rix 1998a:479480 *selh- to take; Pokorny
1959:899 *sel- to take, to seize; Walde 19271932.II:504505 *sel-;
Mann 19841987:1125 *selu , *selu os landed property, possession;
Watkins 1985:57 *sel- and 2000:75 *sel- to take, to grasp; Mallory
Adams 1997:564 *sel- to seize, to take possession of; Chantraine 1968
1980.I:335 *swel-/*sel-; Boisacq 1950:240241 *sel- to take; Frisk
19701973.I:487488; Hofmann 1966:78; Kroonen 2013:424425
Proto-Germanic *saljan- to offer, to sell (< *selh- to take); Orl
2003:316 Proto-Germanic *saljanan, 316 *sal(n); Feist 1939:408409
*sel-; Lehmann 1986:294 *sel- to take; De Vries 1977:469 *sel-; Onions
1966:783 and 808; Klein 1971:651 and 670 *sel- to take.
PROTO-NOSTRATIC *s 325
Buck 1949:11.59 rob, robber; 11.82 sell. Brunner 1969:105, no. 576;
BomhardKerns 1994:341, no. 164; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2159, *e
(or *e) to take off, to destroy, to pull off and, no. 2194, *i[] (or *il[]
?) to take, to take away/off/up.
A. Proto-Afrasian *s[i]r- (vb.) to twist, turn, tie, or bind together; (n.) band,
cord, any cord-like object: sinew, tendon, nerve, vein: Proto-Semitic
*sar-ar- to fasten firmly, *surr- (< *srr-) band, cord, any cord-like
object: sinew, tendon, nerve, vein, umbilical cord > Akkadian ararratu
chain, fetter; Hebrew r [rv)] umbilical cord, rr [ryr!v]* sinew,
muscle, arrh [hr*v=r=v]^ chain; Aramaic rar to chain, to knot,
r umbilical cord; Arabic surr umbilical cord, surra, surar navel,
umbilicus, surur, sirar umbilical cord; Mehri r navel; eri / JibbXli
sr navel; arssi er navel; Soqori ira navel; Geez / Ethiopic
rw [], r [], r [] sinew, tendon, nerve, muscle (also
basis, root, origin, stock, tribe); Amharic sr vein, artery, nerve, tendon
(also root, bottom; under, beneath, at the foot of). Klein 1987:680 and
684; Murtonen 1989:437; Leslau 1987:535536. Ehret 1995:164, no.
231, *saraar-/*siraar- muscle, sinew; OrlStolbova 1995:484, no.
2298, *sur- rope.
B. Dravidian: Tamil cr (-v-, -nt-) to become united, incorporated, joined
together; to become mixed, blended; to have connection with, to be in
close friendship or union; to fit, to suit; to be collected, aggregated; to join,
to associate with, to be in contact with, to belong to, cr (-pp-, -tt-) to
join, to attach, to admix; to admit to ones society, to add, to insert, to
gather, to assemble, crkkai collecting, gathering, combining, mixing;
compound; fellowship, company, union, crtti combining, union,
fellowship, suitability, fitness, resemblance, equality, crvai fellowship,
association, union, mixture, compound, collection, assemblage;
Malayalam cruka to approach, to come close, to join, to belong to, to fit,
to suit, crikka to have collected, crumnam assemblage (as for a riot),
party, crkka to make to arrive or join, to collect (as men), crcca
adherence, union, harmony, fitness, crppikka to have assembled or
collected, crppu joining, mortising, assemblage, crvva mixture; Kota
cer- (ced-) to arrive, to join, to gather; Kannaa sr (srd-) to become
or be close or near, to go to, to approach, to reach, to come, to belong to, to
326 CHAPTER TWENTY
(n.) *sir-a band, cord, any cord-like object: sinew, tendon, nerve, vein
Buck 1949:4.83 well; health; 11.26 safe; 16.81 beautiful (also pretty). Brunner
1969:105, no. 574; BomhardKerns 1994:338339, no. 162; Dolgopolsky to
appear, no. 2046, *sal intact ( entire), in good condition, healthy.
spring, well > Manchu eri spring, source, siri- to wring, to squeeze out
(a liquid); to milk; Evenki sir- to squeeze, to press out; to milk; Lamut /
Even hr- to milk; Negidal siy- to milk; Ulch sr- to squeeze, to press
out; to milk; Orok sr- to squeeze, to press out; to milk; Nanay / Gold
sr- to squeeze, to press out; Oroch s- to milk; Udihe sie bay with
spring water, s- to squeeze, to press out; to milk. Proto-Mongolian
*sr- to rain in small drops, to sprinkle > Written Mongolian sri- to
spray, to strew, to sprinkle, srig sprinkling, strewing; sacrifice (made
by sprinkling or strewing); Khalkha ri-, sri-, sri- to rain in small
drops, to sprinkle; Kalmyk sri- to rain in small drops, to sprinkle; (?)
Dagur sur to pour (water). Proto-Turkic *sr- to strain, to filter; to
swim, to float; to walk in water > Old Turkic (Old Uighur) sz- to strain,
to filter; Turkish sz- to strain, to filter, szl- to be strained or filtered,
szge filter, strainer; Gagauz sz- to strain, to filter; Azerbaijani sz-
to strain, to filter; to swim, to float; Turkmenian sz- to strain, to filter;
Uzbek suz- to swim, to float; Uighur sz- to strain, to filter; Tatar sz-
to strain, to filter; (dial. also) to swim, to float; Kirghiz sz- to strain, to
filter; to swim, to float; Kazakh sz- to strain, to filter; Noghay sz- to
strain, to filter; Tuva ss- to walk in water; Chuvash sr- to strain, to
filter; to catch fish by a drag-net. StarostinDyboMudrak 2003:
12981299 *si i to flow, to drip. StarostinDyboMudrak note: A
Western isogloss. The root may in fact be the same as *si ri (reflected in
the Eastern area) q.v., but modified under the influence of a synonymous
*i u q.v.
Sumerian ur to pour out, to flow, to bubble or boil up, to gush out; to arise
from, to spring forth; to spread or stretch out, to rain.
Buck 1949:10.32 flow (vb.); 10.41 creep, crawl. Brunner 1969:104, no. 567;
Mller 1911:229230, 230, and 232; BomhardKerns 1994:339341, no.
163. Different etymology in Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2169, *a[ri]X to
stream, to flow.
B. Proto-Altaic *si bu end: Proto-Tungus *sube- end, edge; top > Lamut /
Even hre end, edge; top; Manchu subee the end of a branch, the end
of a hair from the beard; Evenki suwer end, edge; top; Negidal suwey
top; Ulch suwe top; Orok suwe top; Nanay / Gold suwe, sue top;
Oroch su-e end, edge; top; Udihe sue top; Solon sugur end, edge;
top. Proto-Mongolian *sel tail, end > Written Mongolian segl tail,
end; Khalkha sl tail, end; Buriat hl tail, end; Kalmyk sl tail, end;
Ordos sl tail, end; Moghol sl tail, end; Dagur seuli, seul tail, end;
Shira-Yughur sl tail, end; Monguor sr tail, end. Proto-Turkic *sb-ri
sharp, sharp-edged > Old Turkic svri sharp, sharp-edged; Karakhanide
Turkic svri sharp, sharp-edged; Turkish sivri sharp-pointed; Gagauz
sivri sharp, sharp-edged; Azerbaijani sivri sharp, sharp-edged;
Turkmenian syri sharp, sharp-edged; Karaim sivri, svr sharp, sharp-
edged; Kirghiz syr sharp, sharp-edged; Kazakh syir sharp, sharp-
edged; Tuva sr sharp, sharp-edged; Chuvash vr sharp, sharp-
edged; Yakut rbe sharp, sharp-edged. StarostinDyboMudrak
2003:12861287 *si bu end.
Buck 1949:9.943 fitting, suitable; 16.71 good (adj.); 16.81 beautiful (also
pretty). Illi-Svity 1965:371 *uw [] good; Dolgopolsky to
appear, no. 2177, *wA *uwE fit, good.
20.13. PROTO-NOSTRATIC *
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
- - c- - d- - - c-
-- -- -c(c)- -- -d- -- --/ -c-
-d-
Inuit savaq current, savaq- to flow (of current); North Alaskan Inuit
savaq current, savaq- to have a strong current, to be carried away by
current; Western Canadian Inuit savaq current; Eastern Canadian Inuit
savaq river rapids; Greenlandic Inuit safaq current, river rapids,
safa- to have a current (river). FortescueKaplanJacobson 1994:71.
Proto-Inuit *caat- to be moist or slippery on surface > Eastern Canadian
Inuit saat- to be lightly dampened on surface (waterproof object);
Greenlandic Inuit saat- to glisten (with moisture), saassi- to slip out of
ones hand. FortescueKaplanJacobson 1994:71.
Sumerian zar to run, flow, leak, or spill out; to spring forth, to issue (from); to
flow or gush forth; to bubble over.
Buck 1949:1.75 rain (sb.); 10.32 flow (vb.); 10.43 jump, leap (vb.). Bomhard
Kerns 1994:349350, no. 176.
Buck 1949:11.58 rob, robber; 11.13 take; 11.14 seize, grasp, take hold of.
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
c- c- c- c- t- - - c-
Buck 1949:5.56 grind; 9.21 strike (hit, beat); 9.31 rub. Bomhard 1996a:222
223, no. 633.
Buck 1949:9.22 cut (vb.); 9.26 break (vb. tr.); 9.27 split (vb. tr.); 12.23
separate (vb.).
Buck 1949:7.23 lock (sb.); 12.25 shut, close (vb.). BomhardKerns 1994:
351352, no. 177.
20.15. PROTO-NOSTRATIC *c
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
c- c- c- c- t- - - c-
-c- -c- -c(c)- -c- -t- -- -- -c-
Buck 1949:11.42 wealth, riches; 11.51 rich; 12.57 long; 12.58 tall; 12.61 wide,
broad.
Buck 1949:6.96 mirror; 15.51 see; 15.52 look (vb.), look at; 15.53 sight (subj.);
15.54 sight (obj.), look (obj.), appearance; 17.34 clear, plain. BomhardKerns
1994:354355, no. 180.
curi whirling, spiral, curve, screw, white curl on the forehead of bulls,
curiyal curling, curly hair, lock of hair, womans hair, curu (curuv-,
curu-) (vb.) to become coiled, to roll, to curl (as hair); (n.) rolling, roll,
coil, curl, womans hair curled and tied up in dressing, curual ringlet,
coil, curuai roll, curuu (curui-) (vb.) to roll up, to coil, to curl, to
fold, to twist; (n.) curling, coiling, anything rolled up, cheroot, curuai
curly hair, curly-haired boy or girl, curuai anything rolled up, cr to
revolve, to whirl around, crppu whirling, revolving; bracelet, cral
whirling (as of wind); Malayalam curiyal a round rattan basket, curuu
a roll, cheroot, a sheaf, curu scroll, roll, curuuka to be rolled up, to be
curled, curuuka to roll up (tr.); Kota cur- (cur-) to lie in coils
(snake, rope), cur- (cury-) to coil, to roll (tr.); Kannaa surui, surue,
surai a coil, rope, suruu, suruu to coil, to roll up (intr.), surku, sukku
to curl, surku, sukku, suku, sokku a curl; Koagu tur- (tur-) to be
rolled up, tur- (turi-) to roll up (tr.), tore a string that goes round,
tore (torev-, torand-) to be wound round and round (a string), tora
(torap-, torat-) to wind round and round (a string); Tuu turu a
womans hair tied in a knot, surai, surui a coil, a roll of anything; Parji
cir- to turn, cirip- (cirit-) to make to turn, ciruku circuit,
roundabout way, cirl- to revolve, cirlip- (cirlit-) to make to revolve;
Gadba (Salur) sirl- to revolve, sirl- (silr-, silir-) to rotate; Gondi
surunn to go round and round (especially in the Bhawar marriage
ceremony), surun- to roll; Pengo hr- to wind, to wind round, to roll
up; Kui sursui curly; Kuux krn to put on and tie a sri round ones
waist; Malto kuge to roll up, to wrap up; Brahui kring to roll up (tr.),
to make a clean sweep of. BurrowEmeneau 1984:232233, no. 2684;
Krishnamurti 2003:126 *cur-V-/*cr- to curl, to roll up.
C. Proto-Kartvelian *cr-ax- and *cr-ex-/*cr-ix- to twist tightly together:
Georgian crex-/crix- to twist tightly together, da-crax-n-a- to twist
tightly together (< *cr-ax-); Mingrelian cirox-/cirix- to twist tightly
together. Klimov 1998:302 *c r-ex- : *c r-ix- to twist, to weave; to
interlace; FhnrichSardshweladse 1995:510 *c r-ex-/*c r-ix-; Fhnrich
2007:635 *c rex-/*c rix-. Perhaps also: Proto-Kartvelian *cur- to filter, to
strain, to press out > Georgian cur- to filter, to strain, to press out;
Mingrelian cur-, cr- to filter, to strain, to press out; Laz (n)cor-,
(n)cir- to press, to squeeze; Svan cwr-, cur- to filter, to strain, to press
out. FhnrichSardshweladse 1995:511 *c ur-; Fhnrich 2007:637 *c ur-;
Klimov 1964:246 *c ur- and 1998:303 *c ur- to press, to squeeze out; to
flow out. Proto-Kartvelian *cr-ed-/*cr-id-/*cr -d- to filter, to strain >
Georgian cret-/crit-/crt- to filter, to strain, [cretil-] in dacretil-
filtered, strained; Mingrelian cirad-/cirid-/cird- to filter, to strain, to
be filtered, ciradil-, cradil- filtered, strained; Laz crod-/curd- to
filter, to strain. Klimov 1964:246 **c red-/*c rid-/*c erd- and 1998:301
*c r-ed-/*c r-id-/*c r-d- to filter, to strain and 302 *c red-il- filtered,
PROTO-NOSTRATIC *c 361
Buck 1949:9.16 bind (vb. tr.); 10.12 turn (vb.); 10.13 turn around (vb.); wind,
wrap (vb.); roll (vb.).
20.16. PROTO-NOSTRATIC *s
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
s- s- c- s- s- s- s-
-s- -s- -c(c)- -s- -s- -s- -s-
A. Afrasian: Egyptian s&, s& to sift (flour). Hannig 1995:657 and 664;
Faulkner 1962:209; ErmanGrapow 19261963.4:16.
B. Proto-Indo-European *se(y/i)- (vb.) to sift; (n.) sieve: Greek ,
to sift, to strain, a strainer; Welsh hidl sieve; Old Icelandic sld
sieve, sKlda to sift; Faroese sld sieve; Norwegian saald sieve,
sKlda to sift; Swedish sll sieve, (dial.) slda, slla to sift; Danish
saald, sold sieve, (dial.) sKlde to sift; Lithuanian setas sieve, sijju,
sijti to sift; Old Church Slavic *sj, *sti (*sjati) in pro-sjati to sift,
to winnow, sito sieve; Serbian sjati to sift, sto sieve. Rix
1998a:469470 *seh(i )- to sift; Pokorny 1959:889 *s(i)- to sift;
Walde 19271932.II:459 *s(i)-; Watkins 1985:56 *s- and 2000:73 *s-
to sift (contracted from earlier *se-); MalloryAdams 1997:518
*seh(i)- to sift; Boisacq 1950:315; Frisk 19701973.I:624; Hofmann
1966:105; Chantraine 19681980.I:407; Orl 2003:327 Proto-Germanic
*slan; Kroonen 2013:430 Proto-Germanic *sdla- sieve, riddle (<
*seh- to sift); FalkTorp 19031906.II:254; De Vries 1977:460 and
575; Derksen 2008:448 *sehi-; Fraenkel 19621965.II:783 and II:784
*si -; Smoczyski 2007.1:549 *sih-eh-, *sehi -.
C. Altaic: Proto-Tungus *sayi-a (~ -ga) sieve > Ulch saya sieve; Nanay
/ Gold saya sieve. StarostinDyboMudrak 2003:1198 *sjgo to
filter, to ooze. StarostinDyboMudrak also compare Proto-Mongolian
*saa- to milk and Proto-Turkic *sag- to milk.
Buck 1949:15.41 hear; 15.42 listen; 15.43 hearing (sb.); 15.44 sound (sb.);
21.16 judge (vb.); 21.162 decide; 21.17 judgment; 21.32 condemn.
hold, holder, beam, support, stay, strut, 1119 *seh to hold, to seize,
1119 *sehos, -es- hold, grip, might; mighty, firm, 1119 *sethis,
11191120 *sehuros (*soh-) strong, firm, 12391240 *sogh-
(*soghos, -, -i ) hold, holder, handle, 1240 *soghuros (*sohuros)
firm, stable, 1240 *soghlos, *soghelos (*soh-) hold, holder, 1240
*soh-; Watkins 1985:56 *segh- and 2000:74 *segh- to hold; Mallory
Adams 1997:123124 *seh- to hold fast, to conquer; Gamkrelidze
Ivanov 1984.I:155 *se[]-/*s[]- and 1995.I:134 *se-/*s- to have,
to hold; to defeat, to conquer; Boisacq 1950:302303 *seh-; Hofmann
1966:100101 *seh; Chantraine 19681980.I:392394 *segh-; Frisk
19701973.I:602604; Orl 2003:322 Proto-Germanic *seez ~ *seaz,
322 *seezjanan; Kroonen 2013:430 Proto-Germanic *segiz- victory;
Feist 1939:419 *sehos-; Lehmann 1986:302 *seh- to hold fast, to
conquer; De Vries 1977:474; KlugeMitzka 1967:707708 *seh-;
KlugeSeebold 1989:671; Van Windekens 19761982.I:416 and I:417
*seh-; Adams 1999:679680 *seg-; Mayrhofer 19561980.III:450
451 and III:452.
C. Proto-Uralic *saxe- to reach, to arrive at, to attain, to achieve, to get, to
obtain: Finnish saa- in saada to get, to obtain; to receive, saapua to
arrive (at, in), to come (to), to get (there), to approach, saavuttaa to
reach, to achieve, to attain, (causative) saatta- to accompany, to go with,
to escort; to be able (to), to be capable; to get, to induce (> Lapp / Saami
sat'te- to be able, to bring something upon someone or bring someone or
something somewhere; to make, to get to, to do something); Lapp / Saami
(Kola) sakky- to procure, to get; Mordvin (Erza) sa-, (Moksha) saj- to
come, to arrive, to become; to overtake, to find, to meet; (Erza) saje-, sai-,
(Moksha) sv-, sv-, `av- to take, to get; (Erza) sato-, (Moksha) sat-
to suffice; to attain, to come upon; to procure, to bring; (Erza) savto- to
bring; Cheremis / Mari ua-, oa- to get; to attain to, to arrive, ukte- to
complete, to finish; Votyak / Udmurt (derivative) sut- to attain to;
Zyrian / Komi su- to overtake, to reach; to come and take unawares; to
occur; (?) Yurak Samoyed / Nenets twa- to arrive, to reach, to attain;
(?) Tavgi Samoyed / Nganasan tuu"a- to attain, to reach; (?) Yenisei
Samoyed / Enets tae-, toe- to attain, to reach; (?) Selkup Samoyed t-,
ta-, twa- to come, to arrive; (?) Kamassian tu- to arrive somewhere,
to reach a destination. Collinder 1955:54 and 1977:72; Sammallahti
1988:553 Proto-Finno-Permian *sxi-to come; Rdei 19861988:429
430 *sae- and 749750 *sae-kta- (~ -tta-); Dcsy 1990:17 *sanga
(*sagha) to arrive, to reach. Yukaghir (Southern / Kolyma) egeej-,
egiej- to carry away. Nikolaeva 2006:400.
Buck 1949:11.11 have; 11.12 own, possess; 11.16 get, obtain; 11.41 property;
11.46 treasure. BomhardKerns 1994:359360, no. 185; Dolgopolsky to
appear, no. 2021, *sagK (= *sage ?) to obtain, to hold.
PROTO-NOSTRATIC *s 365
Buck 1949:11.31 seek; 13.12 number; 17.13 think (= reflect); 17.14 think (= be
of the opinion); 17.31 remember. BomhardKerns 1994:365366, no. 195.
Different (false) etymology in Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2029, *sak[a] to
search, to find, to know.
Buck 1949:9.22 cut (vb.); 9.25 ax; 9.27 split (vb. tr.). Dolgopolsky to appear,
no. 2037, *s to carve, to chisel.
Buck 1949:9.16 bind (vb. tr.); 9.19 rope, cord. Different etymology in
Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2030, *k[]U to plait, to tie, to bind; wicker.
(Muher) slll the cheese comes to the top and the whey remains at the
bottom (< to go up); Amharic mslal ladder. Murtonen 1989:301;
Klein 1987:447448; Leslau 1979:429 and 543. Semitic loan (?) in
Hadiyya salalo cheese. Proto-Semitic *sal-ak- to ascend, to climb up >
Hebrew sla [ql^s]* to ascend, to climb up (Aramaic loan); Aramaic
sl to go up, to ascend; Arabic salaa to ascend, to mount, to climb, to
scale; metathesis in: Soqori slhel high; Harari (t)sla to climb;
Amharic (Gondar) t-sl to climb. Murtonen 1989:301; Klein
1987:448; Leslau 1963:141142.
B. Proto-Kartvelian *sal- steep, high: Georgian sal- steep, high;
Mingrelian sol- steep, high. FhnrichSardshweladse 1995:294 *sal-;
Fhnrich 2007:359 *sal-; Klimov 1998:162 *sal- steep.
C. (?) Proto-Indo-European *sel-/*sol- (vb.) to go up, to lift up, to raise up;
(adj.) raised, elevated, high: Armenian elanem (< *sel- ?) to go up, to
climb, to ascend; to go out, to leave, to exit, el ascent, exit. Mann
19841987:1124 *sel- to jump, to rise; Hbschmann 1897:441, no. 120.
Perhaps also the following (assuming semantic development from raised,
elevated, high > fully grown, adult as in Latin ad-ultus): Hittite al-li-i
great, large, adult; Luwian a-al-a-a-ti great, grown, a-al-i-an-ti-in
growth, a-al-i-it-ti-i growth. Note also Tocharian A ul, B ale
mountain, hill, B lyiye parting to a mountain or hill. Adams
1999:651652 *selwo- and 669; Van Windekens 19761982.I:465
*selu-, *selo-s.
Buck 1949:10.22 raise, lift; 12.31 high; 12.53 grow; 12.55 large, big (great).
Buck 1949:12.51 form, shape; 12.91 equal; 12.92 like, similar. Brunner
1969:106, no. 580; BomhardKerns 1994:358359, no. 184; A. Dybo
2004:100.
(n.) *san-a or *an-a, *sin-a or *in-a, *sun-a or *un-a (a) that which
senses or perceives: mind, nose; (b) that which is sensed or perceived:
perception, sense, feeling
320. Proto-Nostratic (Eurasiatic only) (n.) *s[e]n-a or *[e]n-a (the root vowel is
uncertain but is probably *e) sinew, tendon:
322. Proto-Nostratic 3rd person pronoun stem *si- (~ *se-) he, she, it; him, her;
they, them; 3rd person possessive suffix *-si (~ *-se) his, her, its; their:
374 CHAPTER TWENTY
A. Proto-Afrasian *si- 3rd person pronoun stem, *-s(i) 3rd person suffix:
Egyptian -s, -sy third person singular suffix; dependent pronouns: sw he,
him, it, sy she, her, it, sn they, them, st old form of the dependent
pronoun 3rd singular f., which has been specialized for certain particular
uses, mainly in place of the 3rd plural they, them or of the neuter it.
Gardiner 1957:45, 43, 46, 44, and 98, 124; Hannig 1995:647, 674, 712,
and 777; Faulkner 1962:205, 211, 215, 230, and 252. Berber: Tamazight
3rd person indirect pronouns: (singular after preposition and possessive
with kinship) s, as, (poss. sg.) -nns or ns; (m. pl.) sn, -sn, asn, (f. pl.)
snt, -snt, asnt, (poss. m. pl.) -nsn, (poss. f. pl.) -nsnt. Penchoen
1973:2627. Tuareg (after prepositions) (m. and f. sg.) -s, -s, -s, -is, (m.
pl.) -sn, -sn, -isn, (f. pl.) -snt, -snt, -isnt; (after kinship terms)
(m. and f. sg.) -s, -s, -is, (m. pl.) -sn, -ssn, -sn, -isn, (f. pl.) -snt,
-isnt; (after nouns) (m. pl.) -(n)sn, (f. pl.) -(n)snt; Kabyle (after
prepositions) (m. and f. sg.) -s, (m. pl.) -sn, (f. pl.) -snt; (after kinship
terms) (m. and f. sg.) -s, (m. pl.) -(t-)sn, (f. pl.) -(t-)snt; (after nouns) (m.
and f. sg.) -as, (m. pl.) -asn, (f. pl.) -asnt; Ghadames (after prepositions)
(m. and f. sg.) -s, (m. pl.) -sn, (f. pl.) -snt; (after kinship terms) (m.
and f. sg.) -is, (m. pl.) (it)-sn, (f. pl.) (it)-snt; (after nouns) (m. and f.
sg.) -(nn)s, (m. pl.) -(nn)asn, (f. pl.) -(nn)snt. Chadic: Ngizim
demonstratives (previous reference): (deictic predicator) sn here/there
(it) is, here/there they are (pointing out or offering), (pronoun) snq this
one, that one; this, that (thing or event being pointed out or in question);
Hausa ii he, (direct object) i him. Proto-East Cushitic *u-s-uu he >
Burji s-i 3rd singular m. personal pronoun abs. (= obj.) him; Gedeo /
Darasa isi 3rd singular m. nom. pronoun he; Kambata isi 3rd singular m.
nom. pronoun he; Sidamo isi 3rd singular m. nom. pronoun he. Proto-
East Cushitic *i--ii she > Burji -e 3rd singular f. personal pronoun
abs. (= obj.) her; Gedeo / Darasa ise 3rd singular f. nom. pronoun she;
Hadiyya isi 3rd singular f. nom. pronoun she; Kambata ise 3rd singular f.
nom. pronoun she; Sidamo ise 3rd singular f. nom. pronoun she. Sasse
1982:106 and 107; Hudson 1989:77 and 132. Highland East Cushitic:
Kambata -si 3rd singular possessive pronoun (m.): his, -se 3rd singular
possessive pronoun (f.): her; Sidamo -si 3rd singular possessive pronoun
(m.): his, -se 3rd singular possessive pronoun (f.): her. Hudson
1989:80. Proto-Southern Cushitic *i-si- she > Iraqw, Burunge, Alagwa
-s in -os his, her, its. Proto-Southern Cushitic *-si (bound) her > Dahalo
"i she, -i her. Proto-Southern Cushitic *u-su- he > Iraqw,
Burunge, Alagwa -s in -os his, her, its. Proto-Southern Cushitic *-su
(bound) his > Maa -"u in ku-"u his, her, its; Dahalo "u he, -u
his. Ehret 1980:290 and 295. Omotic: Gamo sekki that, those; 3rd
person singular subject markers (affirmative): (m.) -es, (f.) -us; Zayse
bound 3rd person singular subject pronouns: (m.) -s, (f.) -is; 3rd person
singular independent pronouns: (subject m.) "-s-, (subject f.) "-s-,
PROTO-NOSTRATIC *s 375
(direct object complement m.) "-s-a, (direct object complement f.) "-s-a,
(postpositional complement m.) "-s-u(-ro), (postpositional complement f.)
"-s-u(-ro), (copular complement m.) "-s-te, (copular complement f.)
"-s-te.
B. Elamo-Dravidian: Elamite - (< *-si ?) 3rd singular personal suffix
(Khaikjan 1998:34; Grillot-Susini 1987:33; Reiner 1969:76).
C. Proto-Kartvelian *-s verb suffix used to mark the 3rd person singular
(subjective conjugation): Georgian -s; Mingrelian -s; Laz -s; Svan -s.
Klimov 1964:160 *-s; FhnrichSardshweladse 1995:292 *-s; Fhnrich
2007:357358 *-s.
D. Proto-Indo-European *-s- 3rd person singular verb ending: Hittite i-
conjugation 3rd singular preterit ending - (cf. J. Friedrich 1960:7679;
Sturtevant 1951:144, 270a); Sanskrit 3rd singular root aorist optative
ending -s in, for example, bh-y -s (cf. Burrow 1973:352); Tocharian A
3rd singular verb ending - (< *-se) in, for example, plk shines (cf.
Adams 1988:56, 4.212). According to Watkins (1962), it was this suffix
that gave rise to the sigmatic aorist in Indo-European. (?) Proto-Indo-
European *-s- in (m.) *ey-s-os, (f.) *ey-s-eA [-aA] (> -), *ey-s-yos a
compound demonstrative pronoun: this: Sanskrit e- (f. e ) this;
Avestan aa- (f. a) this; Oscan eses he; Umbrian erec, erek, ere,
e:ek, erse he, it. Note: the *-s- element could be from the Proto-Indo-
European demonstrative stem *so- this, that (< Proto-Nostratic *a-/*-
this, that) instead. Pokorny 1959:281283; Walde 19271932.I:96
98; Mann 19841987:235 *eisi os (*eiso-, *eito-) a compound pronoun;
Mayrhofer 19561980.I:129.
E. Proto-Uralic *-se 3rd person singular possessive suffix / 3rd person verb
suffix (determinative conjugation). Abondolo 1998:29; Hajd 1972:40 and
4344.
F. Proto-Altaic *sV (~ *-) this, that (3rd person pronoun): Proto-Turkic
*-s 3rd person possessive suffix > Old Turkic -s; Karakhanide Turkic -s;
Turkish -s; Gagauz -s; Azerbaijani -s; Turkmenian -s; Tatar -s; Bashkir
-h; Karaim -s; Uzbek -s; Kazakh -s; Kirghiz -s; Uighur -s; Noghay -s;
Oyrot (Mountain Altai) -s; Tuva -z; Chuvash -. StarostinDybo
Mudrak 2003:13201321 *sV (~ *-) this, that (3rd person pronoun).
Buck 1949:1.75 rain (sb.); 1.76 snow (sb.). Hakola 2000:180, no. 805.
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Karvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
- - c- - d- - - c-
-- -- -c(c)- -- -d- -- --/ -c-
-d-
dream, sleep; Laz (n)ir-, ni- dream, sleep. Klimov 1964:238 *il-
and 1998:287 *-il- dream, sleep.
D. Proto-Indo-European *de-/*do- > *d-/*d- to waste away; to
become exhausted, faded, withered, weak, weary: Latin fams hunger,
fatg to weary, to tire; Old Irish ded- to dwindle; Old English demm
damage, injury, loss, misfortune; Old Icelandic dsi sluggard, lazy
fellow, dasast to become weary, exhausted, dasar weary, exhausted
(from cold or bodily exertion); Swedish dasa to lie idle. Pokorny
1959:239 *dh- to pass away (?); Walde 19271932.I:829 *dh-;
Watkins 1985:13 *dh- to vanish (contracted from *dhe-); Walde
Hofmann 19651972.I:451 *dh- (: *dh-); De Vaan 2008:200 and 204
205; Orl 2003:69 Proto-Germanic *asn ~ *asaz; De Vries 1977:74;
FalkTorp 19031906.I:96.
Buck 1949:4.61 sleep (vb., sb.); 4.75 die; dead; death; 4.91 tired, weary; 5.14
hunger (sb.). BomhardKerns 1994:347, no. 172.
Buck 1949:18.41 call (vb. = summon); 18.42 call (vb. = name; b) be called,
named).
Buck 1949:12.56 small, little; 14.15 old; 14.28 cease; 16.31 pain, suffering.
BomhardKerns 1994:346, no. 171.
330. Proto-Nostratic (n.) *em-a anything that is sour, bitter, pungent, sharp;
(adj.) sour, bitter, pungent, sharp:
Buck 1949:5.81 salt (sb.); 5.83 vinegar; 15.36 salt (adj.); 15.38 acid, sour.
BomhardKerns 1994:347348, no. 173.
20.18. PROTO-NOSTRATIC *
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
- c- c- - t- - - c-
-- -c- -c(c)- -- -t- -- -- -c(c)-
Sumerian sal to set free, to release, to let loose, to let go; to leave, to abandon.
Buck 1949:5.71 fruit; 12.53 grow; 19.23 tribe, clan, family (in wide sense).
Buck 1949:9.14 bend (vb. tr.); 10.12 turn (vb.); 10.13 turn around (vb.); 10.14
wind, wrap (vb.); 10.15 roll (vb.).
20.19. PROTO-NOSTRATIC *
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
- c- c- - t- - - c-
-- -c- -c(c)- -- -t- -- -- -c-
A. Proto-Afrasian *cir- to cut, to cut off, to cut through, to cut into: Proto-
Semitic *car-am- to cut, to cut off > New Hebrew ram [<r^x]* to grate
on the ear; to injure, to split; Syriac ram to crop, to cut off (the ears), to
cut grass (for cattle); to pluck, to tear up (plants); to dare; Arabic arama
to cut off, to sever, to break, to tear, arm, urm, uram separation,
breach, rupture, arm cut off. Murtonen 1989:367; Klein 1987:557;
Zammit 2002:254. Proto-Semitic *car-ay- to cut, to cut off > Arabic
ar to cut, to cut off, to lop; Syriac r to rend asunder. Proto-Semitic
*car-ab- to cut, to hew, to carve > Arabic araba to cut, to remove;
Soqori erob to cut; Mehri mrb saw-edged knife used (by women)
to cut grass for fodder; eri / Jibbli mrb grass-cutting knife (used by
women in autumn); Geez / Ethiopic araba [] to hew, to act as a
carpenter, to do carpentry, marab [] axe, arb [] plank;
Tigrinya rb to hew, to carve; Tigre rba to hew, to carve; Gafat
rrb to hew, to carve; Gurage rrb to slice thin pieces of wood
from a surface, to plane wood, to chip stones, to tear off a leaf of the st,
to remove leaves with a stroke, to hit the edge of a whip; Amharic rrb
to carve, to hew (wood, stones), rb board, plank, lumber, beam (of
wood), mrbiya hatchet, axe, adze; Argobba rrba to carve, to
hew. Leslau 1979:630 and 1987:563. Lowland East Cushitic: Galla /
Oromo cir- to cut. Highland East Cushitic (perhaps loans from Oromo):
Burji cir- to chop, to clear forest, to gnaw; Sidamo cir- to gnaw, to
shave. Hudson 1989:71, 184, and 357; Sasse 1982:49. OrlStolbova
1995:105, no. 444, *c ir- to cut.
B. (?) Proto-Dravidian *cr- to scratch, to scrape > (vb.) to plow; (n.) plow
(with draught oxen): Tamil r (Jaffna cr) plow, plow and team of oxen,
yoke of oxen; Malayalam r a yoke of oxen, plow with draught oxen;
Kota er pair of bullocks used for plowing; Toda er plow; Kannaa
ru, r pair of oxen yoked to a plow; Telugu ru plow with draught
oxen made ready for plowing; Kolami cr plow and team of bullocks;
Parji (pl.) cereyakul pair of bullocks; Gondi sr, hr a plow; Kona
sru yoke of oxen; Pengo hr set of plow and bullocks; Kui sru a
yoke of oxen, a pair, two of cattle for plowing; Kuwi hr plow, hru
pair of plowing bullocks. BurrowEmeneau 1984:244245, no. 2815;
Krishnamurti 2003:6 *cr plow.
PROTO-NOSTRATIC * 389
Buck 1949:8.21 plow (vb.; sb.); 9.81 carve; 18.51 write. BomhardKerns
1994:356357, no. 183.
20.20. PROTO-NOSTRATIC *
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
- s- c- - s- s- s-
-- -s- -c(c)- -- -s- -s- -s-
it. Note: the *-s- element could be from the Proto-Nostratic 3rd person
anaphoric stem *si-/*se- instead. Pokorny 1959:281283; Walde 1927
1932.I:9698; Mayrhofer 19561980.I:129; Mann 19841987:235
*eisi os (*eiso-, *eito-) a compound pronoun.
D. Uralic: Proto-Finno-Ugrian *s[] he, she, it > Finnish hn (< *sn) he,
she; Lapp / Saami son he, she; Mordvin son he, she; Votyak / Udmurt
so that, yonder; he, she, it; Zyrian / Komi sy he, she, it, sija he, she, it;
that, yonder; Vogul / Mansi tu he, she; Ostyak / Xanty (Vasyugan) j h
he, she; Hungarian he, she, it. Collinder 1955:8081 and 1977:97;
Rdei 19861988:453454 *s; Dcsy 1990:107 *s he, she, it; Hajd
1972:40 Proto-Uralic *se; Abondolo 1998:25 Proto-Uralic *sF (F = front
vowel).
Buck 1949:4.85 wound (sb.); 9.21 strike (hit, beat); 9.23 knife; 9.26 break (vb.
tr.); 9.27 split (vb. tr.); 9.28 tear (vb. tr.); 11.27 destroy. BomhardKerns
1994:363364, no. 192.
Buck 1949:5.13 drink (vb.); 5.16 suck (vb.). Palmaitis 1986b:313; Bomhard
Kerns 1994:362363, no. 190; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2141, *swH to
drink.
Buck 1949:1.214 mud; 15.83 wet, damp. Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2140,
*[s][]w *[s]Euw moisture, water, wet, rain; BomhardKerns
1994:363, no. 191.
20.21. PROTO-NOSTRATIC *g
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
g- g- k- g- g- k- g- k- q-
-g- -g- -k- -g- -g- -x- -g- --
Klein 1987:89. Proto-Chadic *gab- front, front part (> breast, chest) >
Hausa gbaa front part of body (of person or animal), (adv.) gba in
front, forward, ahead, gban (prep.) in front of, before; Kera gw
breast; Tumak gu breast; Ndam gw breast. Jungraithmayr
Ibriszimow 1994.II:4647. OrlStolbova 1995:194, no. 858, *gab-
front.
B. Proto-Eskimo *qavlu() eyebrow: Alutiiq Alaskan Yupik qauluq
eyebrow; Central Alaskan Yupik qavluq eyebrow; Naukan Siberian
Yupik qavluq eyebrow; Seward Peninsula Inuit qavlu eyebrow; North
Alaskan Inuit qavlu eyebrow, qavluna(a)q brow ridge; Western
Canadian Inuit qavlu eyebrow, qavlunaq brow ridge; Eastern Canadian
Inuit qallu eyebrow; Greenlandic Inuit qaVVu eyebrow. Fortescue
JacobsonKaplan 1994:292.
Buck 1949:4.205 forehead; 4.206 eyebrow; 4.40 breast (front of chest); 12.33
top; 12.35 end. BomhardKerns 1994:383384, no. 219.
Buck 1949:4.20 head; 4.202 skull; 12.33 top; 12.35 end. BomhardKerns
1994:383384, no. 219; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 586, *gab(-|) head
( top; skull).
A. Proto-Afrasian *gab- hand, arm: Egyptian gb& (f. gbt) arm; Coptic
(Sahidic) boy [qbo(e)i], (Bohairic) phoy [jvoi] arm (of human being),
leg (of animal). Faulkner 1962:288; Hannig 1995:898; ErmanGrapow
1921:198 and 19261963.5:163; Gardiner 1957:597; Vycichl 1983:338;
ern 1976:325. Cushitic: Saho-Afar *gab- hand > Saho gabaa hand;
Afar gaba, gabaa hand. OrlStolbova 1995:194, no. 859, *gaba-
hand, arm.
B. Dravidian: Tamil kavar to seize, to grasp, to catch, to steal, to get control
of, to receive, to experience, to desire, to have sexual intercourse with,
kavarcci captivation, attraction, kavarvu captivation, attraction, desire,
kavavu (kavavi-) (vb.) to desire, to embrace, to copulate; (n.) copulation,
kavarru (kavarri-) to attract, kavai to include, to join with, to embrace;
Malayalam kavaruka to plunder, to rob, kavarcca robbery, plunder;
Kannaa kavar to take away by force, to seize, to strip, to plunder,
kavarte, kavate taking by force, seizing, plundering. BurrowEmeneau
1984:123124, no. 1326.
C. Proto-Indo-European *gab- to grab, to seize: Sanskrit gbhasti- hand,
arm; Khotanese ggot (< *gabasti-) handful; Old Irish ga(i)bid to take,
to seize; Latin habe to have, to hold; Umbrian habe to take, to receive,
to have; Gothic gabei riches; Lithuanian gbana, gaban armful. Rix
1998a:172 *geb- to take, to seize; to give; Pokorny 1959:407409
*ghabh- to take, to seize; Walde 19271932.I:344345 *ghabh-; Mann
19841987:309 *ghabh- to seize, to hold, 309310 *ghabhlos, -i ,
-i o- (*ghabhul-) hold, holder, 310 *ghabhn- (*ghabhin-, *ghabhn-)
hold, holder, container, 310 *ghabsos, - hold, grip, handful; Watkins
402 CHAPTER TWENTY
Buck 1949:4.31 arm; 4.33 hand; 11.11 have; 11.13 take; 11.14 seize, grasp,
take hold of; 11.15 hold.
Buck 1949:11.42 wealth, riches; 11.51 rich; 12.55 large, big (great); 13.15
much, many; 19.32 king.
PROTO-NOSTRATIC *g 403
Buck 1949:9.21 strike (hit, beat); 9.22 cut; 9.26 break (vb. tr.); 9.27 split (vb.
tr.); 12.23 separate (vb.).
Buck 1949:3.36 goat; 3.37 he-goat; 3.38 kid. Dolgopolsky 1998:4849, no.
49, *gadi (or *gati ?) kid, young goat. Proto-Indo-European *gayto- goat
appears to be a loan from a non-Indo-European source (cf. Gamkrelidze
Ivanov 1995.I:769 and I:862).
Buck 1949:4.58 bite (vb.); 9.26 break (vb. tr.); 9.27 split (vb. tr.); 9.28 tear (vb.
tr.); 12.23 separate (vb.). BomhardKerns 1994:392393, no. 229.
ala clear (of sky, weather). Proto-Turkic *K(i)al- (vb.) to clear up (of
sky); (n.) sky > Old Turkic (Old Uighur) qalq sky; Karakhanide Turkic
(kk) qarq sky; (?) Chuvash yl- to shine, to glitter; Yakut kiley-aley
shining, aln- to clear up (of sky), alln clear sky, good weather;
Dolgan kalln sky. StarostinDyboMudrak 2003:528 *glV clear (of
sky, weather).
Buck 1949:15.51 see; 15.52 look, look at; 17.17 know; 17.34 clear, evident.
[BomhardKerns 1994:390392, no. 228.]
359. Proto-Nostratic (n.) *gal-a blemish, fault, scar, sore on the skin:
Buck 1949:4.81 strong, mighty, powerful; 9.95 can, may (3rd sg.). Dolgopolsky
to appear, no. 868, *ka[h]l (n.) power, force; (vb.) to be able.
Buck 1949:9.14 bend (vb. tr.); 12.75 hook. Different etymology in Dolgopolsky
to appear, no. 634, *g[u]m[] to incline, to bow, to bend.
Buck 1949:13.15 much; many; 13.19 multitude, crowd; 13.21 full. Dolgo-
polsky to appear, no. 629, *g[A]m (and *g[A]m ?) altogether, full and no.
630, *g[e]m strong, firm.
363. Proto-Nostratic (n.) *ga-a (with different extensions in the various daughter
languages: *ga-s- and/or *ga-s-, *ga-t-, etc. and sporadic loss of ) a
waterfowl, an aquatic bird: goose, duck, etc.:
A. (?) Afrasian: Egyptian (*ga-s- > *gas- >) g a migratory bird. Hannig
1995:908; ErmanGrapow 19261963.5:208.
B. Dravidian: Tamil (reduplicated) kakaam a waterfowl; Telugu
kakaamu a large bustard with a red head. BurrowEmeneau 1984:
102, no. 1083.
C. Proto-Indo-European *gans- goose: Sanskrit has- goose, gander,
swan; Greek (Doric ) (< *-) goose; Latin nser (< *hnser)
goose; Old Irish gis (< *gans) swan; Old Icelandic gs goose;
Swedish gs goose; Danish gaas goose; Old English gs goose; Old
Frisian gs goose; Middle Low German gs goose; Dutch gans goose;
Old High German gans goose (New High German Gans); Lithuanian
ss goose; Russian gus [] goose; Polish g goose. Pokorny
1959:412 *han-s- goose; Walde 19271932.I:536 *hans-; Mann
19841987:411 *hansis goose, 314 *ghansis goose; Watkins
1985:21 *ghans- and 2000:28 *ghans- goose; GamkrelidzeIvanov
1984.II:542 *[]ans- and 1995.I:460 *ans- swan, goose; Mallory
Adams 1997:236 *han-s goose; Boisacq 1950:1058; Chantraine 1968
1980.II:12561257 *ghns-; Frisk 19701973.II:10941095 *hans-;
Hofmann 1966:417 *hans-; ErnoutMeillet 1979:36 *ghans-; Walde
Hofmann 19651972.I:52 *hans-; De Vaan 2008:44; Fraenkel 1962
1965.II:12921293; Smoczyski 2007.1:774; Kroonen 2013:168 Proto-
Germanic *gans- goose; Orl 2003:126 Proto-Germanic *ansz; De
Vries 1977:157; FalkTorp 19031906.I:210211; Onions 1966:406
*ghans-; Klein 1971:318; KlugeMitzka 1967:231; KlugeSeebold
1989:243244 *ghans-.
D. Proto-Uralic (*ga-t- >) *kat ~ (?) *kant wild duck: Votyak /
Udmurt kwai drake; Ostyak / Xanty (Vah) kos a kind of duck with red
legs and a pointed beak, (Upper Demyanka) os a kind of large wild duck
with a pointed beak, (Kazym) s a large aquatic bird; Selkup Samoyed
kuee wild gray duck. Rdei 19861988:111 *ka ~ (?) *ka; Dcsy
1990:100 *katja wild duck.
E. Proto-Altaic (*ga-s- > *gas- >) *gaso (~ -i) aquatic bird: Proto-
Tungus *gasa aquatic bird > Manchu asa large bird; Spoken Manchu
(Sibo) ash large bird; Negidal gasa swan; Evenki gasa crane; Ulch
414 CHAPTER TWENTY
asa duck; Orok asa duck, asawaqqu kite; Nanay / Gold asa
duck; Oroch gasa duck; Udihe gah bird, duck. Proto-Mongolian
*geske fish-eagle > Written Mongolian geske fish-eagle; Kalmyk gesk
fish-eagle. StarostinDyboMudrak 2003:532 *gaso (~ -i) crane,
aquatic bird.
F. Chukchi-Kamchatkan: Proto-Chukotian *kKu a kind of small seagull >
Chukchi kaoln (pl. keut) a kind of small seagull; Koryak kaullaq a
kind of small seagull; Alyutor kaula a kind of seabird. Note also
Kamchadal / Itelmen (Western) kennec seabird, merganser. Fortescue
2005:133.
G. Proto-Eskimo *kau snow goose: Alutiiq Alaskan Yupik (Alaskan
Peninsula) kauq snow goose, (Prince William Sound) kamuk brant;
Central Alaskan Yupik kauq snow goose; Central Siberian Yupik kaau
snow goose; Seward Peninsula Inuit kauq snow goose; North Alaskan
Inuit kauq snow goose; Western Canadian Inuit kauq snow goose;
Eastern Canadian Inuit kauq snow goose; Greenlandic Inuit kauq
snow goose. FortescueJacobsonKaplan 1994:158.
Buck 1949:9.14 bend (vb. tr.); 12.11 place (sb.); 12.353 edge; 12.36 side; 12.76
corner. Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 641, *gn side (of something), width
and no. 642, *gn[]b or *gn[]b side, edge.
theory derives the words for hand from Proto-Indo-European *ges-r- (cf.
MalloryAdams 1997:254).
C. Proto-Altaic *gara (~ -e-) hand, arm: Proto-Mongolian *gar hand, arm
> Written Mongolian ar hand, arm; Khalkha gar hand, arm; Buriat gar
hand, arm; Kalmyk ar hand, arm; Ordos ar hand; Moghol ar
hand, arm; Dagur gari, ga hand, arm; Shira-Yughur ar hand, arm;
Monguor ar hand, arm. Poppe 1955:26. Proto-Turkic *Kar arm,
forearm; cubit > Old Turkic qar arm, qar forearm; Karakhanide
Turkic qar arm; Turkish [karu-a] arm; Azerbaijani (dial.) gari shin-
bone of animal; Turkmenian ar shin-bone of animal, cubit; Uzbek qari
arm, cubit, (dial.) qara shin-bone of animal; Uighur qeri cubit, (dial.)
qaya shin-bone of animal; Tatar qar arm, (dial.) qara cubit; Bashkir
qar shin-bone of animal; Kirghiz qar, qar arm; Kazakh qar forearm,
qar forearm, shin-bone of animal; Noghay qar cubit; Tuva qr
forearm; Oyrot (Mountain Altai) qar arm; Chuvash or forearm,
cubit; Yakut ar, ara forearm, shin-bone of animal. Starostin
DyboMudrak 2003:530531 *gara (~ -e-) arm; Poppe 1960:24, 97,
and 154; Street 1974:13 Proto-Altaic *gr(a) hand, arm.
Buck 1949:4.33 hand; 11.13 take; 11.14 seize, grasp, take hold of. Bomhard
Kerns 1994:385386, no. 222; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 655, *gAr hand.
Buck 1949:9.22 cut; 9.26 break (vb. tr.); 9.27 split (vb. tr.); 12.59 short.
Buck 1949:4.81 strong, mighty, powerful; 9.95 can, may (3rd sg.); 12.53 grow;
12.55 large, big (great). BomhardKerns 1994:388, no. 225.
Identical to:
(vb.) *gar- to swell, to increase, to grow;
(n.) *gar-a swelling, increase, growth; great quantity, abundance, excess
Buck 1949:1.22 mountain; hill; 4.142 beard; 4.206 eyebrow; 12.352 point;
12.353 edge. Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 667, *goR hill, (small ?)
mountain.
Buck 1949:4.33 hand; 15.71 touch; 15.72 feel. BomhardKerns 1994:384, no.
220.
Buck 1949:4.33 hand; 11.13 take; 11.14 seize, grasp, take hold of; 11.16 get,
obtain. Illi-Svity 19711984.I:227, no. 80, *gi hand, arm; Dolgopolsky
to appear, no. 694, *g to grasp, to take, to possess; BomhardKerns
1994:388389, no. 226.
Buck 1949:2.23 male; 3.12 male (of animals); 4.492 penis. Illi-Svity
1965:362 *gnd [] and 19711984.I:226227, no. 79, *gndu
male (Proto-Dravidian *ka-; Proto-Altaic *gnd); Dolgopolsky to appear,
no. 643, *gKnd male. Note: The Afrasian forms cited by Dolgopolsky are
problematic from a semantic perspective. Consequently, they are not included
here. Semantically, this is a very attractive etymology. However, the lack of
agreement between Dravidian and Altaic in the stem vowels is problematic.
Both Illi-Svity and Dolgopolsky try to get around this problem by positing a
stem vowel *K (Illi-Svity writes *) in the Proto-Nostratic form. Rather, I
think it more likely that one or the other of the branches has innovated most
likely Dravidian. Particularly telling are forms in Dravidian such as Tamil
kean robust, stout man, kian fat man, strong person, etc. If the Dravidan
words for penis cited above are, indeed, related, they would provide further
evidence that the original stem vowel was *e.
Greenberg 2000:7781.
*eanan, 130 *e, 130 *en, 130 *eftiz, 130 *eftjanan; Kroonen
2013:172173 Proto-Germanic *geban- to give and 173 *geb- gift,
present; Feist 1939:214; Lehmann 1986:155 probably from *ghabh- to
take, to grasp; De Vries 1977:160 and 171; Onions 1966:397 Common
Germanic *iftiz and 399 Common Germanic *ean; Klein 1971:311 and
313 *ghab(h)- to take, to hold, to have; to give; KlugeMitzka 1967:227
(New High German Gabe gift), 237 *ghabh-, and 258; KlugeSeebold
1989:240 (New High German Gabe gift), 249, and 267; Boutkan
Siebinga 2005:204205; FalkTorp 19031906.I:225. Two separate
stems must be reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European: (1) *gab- to grab,
to seize and (2) *geb- to give, which is preserved only in Germanic.
Buck 1949:11.14 seize, grasp, take hold of; 12.21 collect, gather; 19.48 compel.
BomhardKerns 1994:384385, no. 221.
Sumerian gen small, genna child, genna young, small, gina heir, child,
son, gina small, weak, ginna child. (Sumerian loanword in Akkadian gin
infant, child.)
Buck 1949:4.82 weak; 12.56 small, little; 14.14 young. Bomhard 1996a:221
222, no. 630.
Buck 1949:4.58 bite (vb.); 5.56 grind; 9.26 break (vb. tr.).
Buck 1949:6.57 belt, girdle; 7.15 yard, court. BomhardKerns 1994:458, no.
303.
Buck 1949:10.11 move (vb.); 10.32 flow (vb.); 10.45 walk (vb.); 10.46 run
(vb.).
Buck 1949:1.24 valley; 1.36 river, stream, brook; 12.72 hollow; 12.76 corner;
12.85 hole. BomhardKerns 1994:501502, no. 349; Dolgopolsky to appear,
no. 620, *gowlu (or *gowl ?) deep; valley.
Buck 1949:1.85 burn (vb.); 5.21 cook; 5.23 roast, fry. Dolgopolsky to appear,
no. 592, *g[uy]b to heat ( to cook, to roast, to burn, to dry). Blaek
(1991a:362, no. 8) compares several Kartvelian forms with those given above,
and Dolgopolsky includes these as well in his Nostratic Dictionary. However,
these forms are suspect inasmuch as the root vowel of the reconstructed
Kartvelian proto-form (*gab-/*gb- to cook, to boil) does not agree with what
is found in the putative cognates in other Nostratic languages. Consequently,
the Kartvelian material is not included here.
A. Afrasian: Proto-East Cushitic *gol- enclosed space: shed, pen, stable >
Somali gol-a enclosed space, pen, stable; Burji gola wall (of house);
shed for animals; Gedeo / Darasa gola shed for animals; Sidamo golo,
gol fence, wall; cattle-pen outside house. Hudson 1987:194, 242. and
366. Cushitic loans in: Geez / Ethiopic gol [] stable, crib, manger,
cave, golms [] old pen for cattle; Tigre gol stable; Gurage
gla pen for mules or horses inside the house. Leslau 1979:271 and
1987:189, 191.
B. Uralic: Proto-Finno-Ugrian *kl dwelling > Finnish kyl village;
Estonian kla village; Lapp / Saami (Northern) galli- to visit, to pay a
visit to; Vogul / Mansi kl, kwl house, dwelling. Collinder 1955:93,
1960:412 *kl, and 1977:109; Rdei 19861988:155156 *kil
(*kl).
PROTO-NOSTRATIC *g 441
Buck 1949:7.12 house; 7.13 hut; 19.16 village. Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 617,
*gl A dwelling, house.
Buck 1949:15.11 perceive by the senses; sense (sb.); 17.13 think (= reflect);
17.14 think (= be of the opinion); 17.31 remember. Dolgopolsky to appear, no.
640, *gun[h]i *gu[h]ni (or *gun[]i *gu[]ni) to think; BomhardKerns
1994:387, no. 224.
guest; Danish gjest guest; Old English giest stranger, guest, enemy;
Old Frisian jest guest; Old Saxon gast stranger, guest; Old High
German gast enemy, guest (New High German Gast guest, visitor;
customer [at an inn], stranger); Old Church Slavic gost guest; Russian
gost [] visitor, guest. Pokorny 1959:453 *ghosti-s stranger, guest;
Walde 19271932.I:640641 *ghosti-s; Mann 19841987:332 *ghostis
stranger, guest; Watkins 1985:23 *ghos-ti- and 2000:31 *ghos-ti-
stranger, guest, host; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1984.I:168, II:754755
*g[]ost[]i- and 1995.I:144, I:657 *gosti- host, guest; Mallory
Adams 1997:249 *ghostis guest; stranger, enemy; Benveniste 1973:75
79; WaldeHofmann 19651972.I:662663 *ghostis; ErnoutMeillet
1979:301; De Vaan 2008:291 *gosti- stranger, guest; Orl 2003:127
128 Proto-Germanic *astiz; Kroonen 2013:170 Proto-Germanic *gasti-
guest; Feist 1939:202 *ghosti-; Lehmann 1986:149 *ghosti- stranger,
guest; De Vries 1977:165; Onions 1966:418 *ghostis; Klein 1971:326;
KlugeMitzka 1967:234 Common Germanic *gastiz; KlugeSeebold
1989:246; FalkTorp 19031906.I:228. Semantic development as in
Dravidian: Tamil veiyr outsiders, strangers ~ Telugu velalu to go or
come out, to start, velalucu to send out, velrincu, velr(u)cu to send or
drive out, to cast out, to make public, etc. (cf. BurrowEmeneau
1984:500501, no. 5498); or, within Semitic: Geez / Ethiopic falasa
[] to depart, to emigrate, to go over to, to be transferred, to be
removed, to be banished, to go into banishment, to go into exile, to be
transformed, to be changed, to secede, to split off, to separate oneself, to
withdraw, to sojourn aboard, fals [] an exile, stranger, alien,
pilgrim, wanderer, falsw [] stranger, falsyw []
pilgrim, stranger (cf. Leslau 1987:160).
Notes:
1. The unextended stem is preserved in Egyptian.
2. The Afrasian (Cushitic and Chadic) and Indo-European forms are dever-
batives: *guw-V-r-.
Buck 1949:3.11 animal (also wild beast); 3.79 hunt (vb.). Illi-Svity 1971
1984.I:237, no. 93, *gUjR wild (beast); BomhardKerns 1994:398399,
no. 236; Dolgopolsky 1998:41, no. 36, *gurHa antelope, male antelope and to
appear, no. 659, *gR beast.
20.22. PROTO-NOSTRATIC *k
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
k- k- k- k- k- k- k- k- q-
-k(k)-
-k- -k- -k(k)- -k- -k- -k(k)- -k- -q(q)-
A. Proto-Afrasian *kab- (sg.) foot, hoof; (pl.) shoes: Egyptian kbw sole (of
foot), tbwt, tbt sole (of foot), sandal. Hannig 1995:880 and 951;
Faulkner 1962:304; Gardiner 1957:601; ErmanGrapow 1921:208 and
19261963.5:118, 5:361363. West Chadic *kab- shoes > Angas kaap
shoes. Proto-East Cushitic *kab-/*kob- (sg./sglt.) foot, hoof, footprint;
(pl./coll.) shoes > Burji ktt-ee (< *kob-te) foot, hoof; Saho kab-ela
shoes; Afar kab-el shoes; Arbore kob-o shoes; Dasenech kob shoes;
Elmolo kop shoes; Sidamo kotte shoe; Somali kab shoes; Rendille kob
shoes; Galla / Oromo kop-ee ~ kob-ee shoes, kottee (< *kob-tee) paw,
hoof, spoor; Konso xop-ta footprint, sandal; Gidole (sglt.) hof-t
footprint, (pl.) hop-a shoe(s). Sasse 1979:12 and 1982:119; Hudson
1989:133. East Cushitic (Werizoid) *xop- shoe, sandal > Gawwada xope
shoe, sandal. OrlStolbova 1995:307, no. 1406, *kab- shoe, sandal.
PROTO-NOSTRATIC *k 455
Buck 1949:18.13 shout, cry out; 18.24 language; 18.41 call (vb. = summon).
Mller 1911:126 and 133; BomhardKerns 1994:406, no. 244; Dolgopolsky
to appear, no. 1049, *a[L] to shout, to cry, to weep, to make noise.
Buck 1949:17.24 learn; 17.25 teach; 18.45 boast (vb.). BomhardKerns 1994:
407, no. 245.
407. Proto-Nostratic (n.) *kal-a reed, stalk, stem, blade of grass, haulm:
A. Afrasian: Semitic: the following plant names in Akkadian may belong here
(though some of them may be loanwords): kalbnu (kalbannu, kulbnu) a
plant (possibly of foreign origin), kallammeu a plant, kalladi a plant,
kal a thorny plant.
B. Dravidian: Kannaa kaa name of a plant; Tuu ka a kind of grass.
BurrowEmeneau 1984:129, no. 1384.
C. Proto-Indo-European *kolH-mo-/*kl H-mo- reed, stalk, stem, haulm:
Greek reed, the stem or stalk of corn; Latin culmus a
stalk, haulm, calamus a reed (< Greek ); Old Icelandic hlmr
straw, haulm; Swedish halm straw, haulm; Norwegian halm straw,
haulm; Danish halm straw, haulm; Old English healm haulm, straw,
stem (Middle English halm); Old Saxon halm stalk, stem, straw; Dutch
halm stalk, stem, straw; Old High German halm, halam stalk, stem,
straw (New High German Halm); Old Prussian salme straw; Latvian
salms (a single) straw; Old Church Slavic slama straw; Russian solma
[] straw. Pokorny 1959:612 *$olmos, *$olm grass, reed;
Walde 19271932.I:464 *$olmos, *$olm; Mann 19841987:630
*$l m- stalk, straw, haulm, 634 *$olmos, - straw, stalk, haulm; Watkins
1985:32 *kolm- (suffixed form *kolm-o-) and 2000:43 *kol-mo- grass,
reed (oldest form *$ol-mo-); MalloryAdams 1997:542 *$lhxm
stalk, stem, straw; Boisacq 1950:397 *%lmo-s-; Frisk 1970
1973.I:760761 *%olmo-, *%olm-; Chantraine 19681980.I:483
484 *kolmo-, *kolm; Hofmann 1966:129 *%ol-mos; ErnoutMeillet
1979:155; WaldeHofmann 19651972.I:303304 *%ol-mos; De
Vaan 2008:150; Orl 2003:156 Proto-Germanic *xalmaz; Kroonen
2013:204205 Proto-Germanic *halma- blade of grass; FalkTorp
19031906.I:267; De Vries 1977:206; Onions 1966:430 *kolmos; Klein
PROTO-NOSTRATIC *k 463
Buck 1949:9.11 do, make; 9.12 work, labor, toil (sb. abstr.); work (sb. concr.);
9.13 work, labor, toil (vb. intr.). BomhardKerns 1994:416, no. 258.
kaika a stick; (?) Kuwi kandi stick (dried), twig; Kuux kak wood,
fuel, timber; Malto kanku wood. BurrowEmeneau 1984:110, no.
1165. Proto-Dravidian *kn-p- > *kmp- stem, stalk, stick: Tamil kmpu
flower-stalk, flowering branch, handle, shaft, haft; Malayalam kmpu
stem, stalk, stick of an umbrella; Kannaa kmu, kvu stalk, culm, stem,
handle; Telugu kma stem, stalk, stick, handle (of an axe, hoe, umbrella,
etc.), shaft; Gadba (Salur) k butt of an axe; Gondi km stalk of a
spoon, kme handle of a ladle; Kuwi kamba, kmba handle. Burrow
Emeneau 1984:135, no. 1454.
C. Proto-Indo-European *kent-/*kont- prick, point, spike: Greek
to prick, to goad, to spur on; to sting; to prick, to stab, any
sharp point, a pole; Latin contus a pole used for pushing a boat
along; a long spear or pike (< Greek ); Old Irish cinteir spur;
Welsh cethr nail, tip; Breton kentr spur; Cornish kenter spike; Old
High German hantag, hantg bitter, sharp (New High German hantig).
Rix 1998a:290 *$ent- to prick, to pierce; Pokorny 1959:567 *$ent- to
prick, to pierce, to stab; Walde 19271932.I:402 *$ent-; Mann 1984
1987:609 *$ent- prick, point, spike, 609 *$entrom, - (*$n tr-) point,
spike, spur; Watkins 1985:29 *kent- and 2000:40 *kent- to prick, to jab;
GamkrelidzeIvanov 1984.I:236 *$[]ent[]- and 1995.I:205 *$ent- to
stab; MalloryAdams 1997:509510 *kent- sharp; Boisacq 1950:434;
Frisk 19701973.I:820821; Chantraine 19681980.I:515; Hofmann
1966:139; ErnoutMeillet 1979:140141; KlugeSeebold 1989:293.
D. (?) Uralic: Proto-Finno-Ugrian *kanta- stump > Finnish kanta base,
stump; standpoint, kanto stump; Livonian kand tree-trunk; stump;
substructure of a hayrick; Lapp / Saami guoddo/guddu- stump (of a
tree); Mordvin kando wind-fallen tree; Vogul / Mansi knt vertical
support of a storehouse; foot of a pillar (post) of a storehouse. Collinder
1955:85 and 1977:102; Rdei 19861988:123 *kanta.
to throw the hand or claws upon in order to catch, to feel with the hand or
feet for knowing, kappar rn to feel, to touch; Malto kape to touch, to
meddle. BurrowEmeneau 1984:114, no. 1225; Krishnamurti 2003:144
*kap-, *kapp-/*kaw- to cover, to overspread.
C. Proto-Indo-European *kap- to take, to seize: Latin capi to take, to
seize; Old Irish cachtaim to take captive; Welsh caeth slave; Gothic
*haftjan to hold fast to; Old Icelandic haft bond, chain (pl. hft
fetters), haftr (f. hafta) prisoner, hapt bond, hepta, hefta to bind, to
fetter; Old English hKft bond, fetter; captivity, hKftan to bind; to
confine, to imprison, to arrest, hKften custody, hKftnian to take
captive; Old Frisian heft(e) captivity; Old High German gi-heftan to
fetter (New High German heften), haft captivity (New High German
Haft). Rix 1998a:307308 *kehp- to grasp, to seize, to grab, to snatch;
Pokorny 1959:527528 *kap- to grasp; Walde 19271932.I:342345
*qap-; Mann 19841987:471 *kapi , *kapmi to take, to seize, to lift;
Watkins 1985:27 *kap- and 2000:37 *kap- (suffixed form *kap-yo-) to
grasp; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1984.I:146 *k[]ap[]- and 1995.I:125
*kap- to have, to catch; MalloryAdams 1997:90 *kaptos captive,
*kap- to take, to seize and 563 *kap- to seize; De Vaan 2008:8990;
ErnoutMeillet 1979:9597; WaldeHofmann 19651972.I:159
160 *qap-; Orl 2003:149 Proto-Germanic *xafjanan, 149 *xaftan ~
*xaftaz, 149 *xaftaz I, 149 *xaftaz II, 149 *xaftjan, 149 *xaftjanan, 149
*xaftnjanan ~ *xaftenjanan; Feist 1939:230; Lehmann 1986:167168
and 168; De Vries 1977:209 and 222; KlugeMitzka 1967:280 and 296;
KlugeSeebold 1989:286 and 299.
D. Uralic: Proto-Finno-Ugrian *kapp- to take, to seize, to grasp > Finnish
kaappaus captive, coup, hijacking; Mordvin (Erza) kapode- to grab
quickly. Proto-Finno-Ugrian *kpp hand, paw > Finnish kpp hand,
paw, kpl paw; Estonian kpp (gen. kpa) claw, paw, hand;
Mordvin (Erza) kepe, (Moksha) kp barefooted. Rdei 1986
1988:651652 *kpp.
E. Proto-Altaic *kapV- to press, to grasp: Proto-Tungus *ap-ki- to
strangle, to throttle > Evenki apki- to strangle, to throttle; Lamut / Even
apq- to strangle, to throttle; Negidal apq- to strangle, to throttle;
Orok aqp- to strangle, to throttle. Proto-Mongolian *kab- to pinch, to
squeeze, to grasp, to hold; to join, to press together > Mongolian qabi-
to compress, to press or squeeze together, qabida- to be pressed,
squeezed, jammed, pitched, qabiu narrow, tight, constricted,
qabiurda- to compress, to squeeze, to pinch, qabila- to squeeze, to
press, to compress, qabil-a oppression, pressure, squeezing, jamming;
Khalkha avi-, avsr- to join, to press together, avt-, avtgay flat;
Buriat aba- to pinch, to squeeze, to grasp, to hold; Kalmyk ap-,
aw-, awl- to pinch, to squeeze, to grasp, to hold; Ordos abi- to
pinch, to squeeze, to grasp, to hold; gbtg flat, abt- to be flat;
PROTO-NOSTRATIC *k 471
Buck 1949:4.33 hand; 11.14 seize, grasp, take hold of; 12.62 narrow. Brunner
1969:39; Illi-Svity 19711984.I:313315, no. 190, *aba/*apa to
seize; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 1107, *ap ~ *a to seize;
BomhardKerns 1994:404405, no. 242; Hakola 2000:55, no. 201.
Buck 1949:11.11 have; 11.65 pay (vb.); 11.69 tax; 11.81 buy.
Ngizim krm to chop, to cut down, to chop off. Highland East Cushitic:
Gedeo / Darasa kar- to cut down a tree; Sidamo kar- to fell (a tree).
Hudson 1989:249 and 376. Ehret 1995:200, no. 330, *kur-/*kar- to cut
up.
B. Proto-Indo-European *ker-/*kor-/*kr - to cut off, to cut down: Hittite
(3rd sg. pres.) kar-a-zi to cut off; Sanskrit kartati, kntti to cut, to cut
off, k ti to injure, to kill; Avestan krntaiti to cut, to flay; to clean,
to dress (a slaughtered animal); Greek to cut off, to clip, to hew
down; Old Icelandic skera to cut, to shape; Faroese skera to cut;
Norwegian skjera to cut; Swedish skra to cut; Danish skjKre to cut;
Old English sceran, scieran to cut, to shear, scarra shears, scissors,
sceard notched, with pieces broken off or out, scierdan to injure, to
destroy; Old Frisian skera to cut, to shear, skra shears, scissors,
clippers; Old Saxon skerian to cut, to shear, skra shears, scissors,
clippers; Dutch scheren to cut, to shear, schaar shears, scissors,
clippers; Old High German skeran to cut, to shear (New High German
scheren), scr(a) scissors, shears, clippers (New High German Schere);
Lithuanian kerp, kir pti to cut (with scissors); Tocharian A krt-, B
krst- to cut off, to cut down, to terminate; to tear; to destroy utterly. Rix
1998a:503 *(s)ker- to cut off, to shear, to scrape (off); Pokorny
1959:938947 *(s)ker-, *(s)ker-, *(s)kr- to cut; Walde 1927
1932.II:573587 *sqer-, *qer-; Mann 19841987:491 *ker, -i to
cut, 611612 *$eri to strike, to stab, to cut, to sever; Watkins
1985:5960 *sker- (also *ker-) and 2000:7778 *(s)ker- to cut;
GamkrelidzeIvanov 1984.II:707 *sk[]er- and 1995.I:612 *sker- to
carve, to shear, to cut out; MalloryAdams 1997:143 *(s)ker- to cut
apart, to cut off; Mayrhofer 19561980.I:257 *ker- and I:260; Hofmann
1966:137 *(s)qer-; Frisk 19701973.I:810811; Chantraine 1968
1980.I:510; Boisacq 1950:427428 *(s)qer-; Orl 2003:338339 Proto-
Germanic *skeranan, 340 *skrjan ~ *skr; Kroonen 2013:443 Proto-
Germanic *skra- pair of scissors and 443444 *skeran- to cut; De
Vries 1977:490 *(s)ker-; FalkTorp 19031906.II:189 *(s)ker-; Klein
1971:678 *(s)qer-; Onions 1966:818; BoutkanSiebinga 2005:348349;
KlugeMitzka 1967:643; KlugeSeebold 1989:629 and 630 *sker-;
Adams 1999:168169 *kers- < *(s)ker- to cut; Van Windekens 1976
1982.I:207208 *(s)qer-; Fraenkel 19621965.I:257258.
Buck 1949:8.22 dig; 9.22 cut (vb.). Brunner 1969:38, no. 159; Bomhard
Kerns 1994:407408, no. 246; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 939, *kRt to cut
(off), to notch.
Buck 1949:10.12 turn (vb.); 10.13 turn around (vb.); 10.14 wind, wrap (vb.);
10.15 roll (vb.); 12.74 crooked; 12.81 round; 12.82 circle. BomhardKerns
1994:420421, no. 263; Illi-Svity 19711984.I:321323, no. 197, *r
to tie (tightly); Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 917, *kar to twist, to turn
around, to return.
Buck 1949:4.81 strong, mighty, powerful; 15.74 hard; 15.84 dry. Bomhard
Kerns 1994:425426, no. 268; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 1943, *q aH
hard, firm.
Buck 1949:15.37 bitter; 15.38 acid, sour. Hakola 2000:58, no. 218.
A. Dravidian: Malayalam kara, karu lungs and heart, liver, bowels; heart,
mind, kari heart; Kota karl heart, mind, desire; Kannaa karu,
karau, karu, kau an entrail, the bowels; love; Koagu kar intestines;
Tuu karalu , karlu the bowels, the liver. BurrowEmeneau 1984:118,
no. 1274; Krishnamurti 2003:14 *kar-V intestines, bowels. [(?) Tamil
kr (vb.) to become hard, mature; to be firm or strong in mind; to be
implacable; (n.) hardness, solidity or close grain (as of timber), core,
484 CHAPTER TWENTY
strength of mind, kr ppu close grain (as of the heart of timber), essence,
kr i great strength, toughness, hardness, kr untu heart or core of a tree;
Malayalam kar ampu pulp of fruit, pith, essence; Kannaa kr ime, kime
obstinacy, haughtiness; (?) Parji k- to expand hood (serpent).
BurrowEmeneau 1984:138, no. 1491.]
B. Proto-Indo-European *kert-/*kr t- heart: Hittite (nom.-acc. sg.) ki-ir
heart, (gen. sg. kar-ti-ya-a); Palaic (dat.-loc. sg.) ka-a-ar-ti heart;
Greek (poet. ) heart; Armenian sirt heart; Latin cor heart
(gen. sg. cordis); Old Irish cride heart; Welsh craidd center, heart;
Cornish crz middle; Gothic hairt heart; Old Icelandic hjarta heart;
Norwegian hjarta heart; Swedish hjrta heart; Danish hjerte heart;
Old English heorte heart; Old Frisian herte heart; Old Saxon herta
heart; Dutch hart heart; Old High German herza heart (New High
German Herz); Lithuanian irds heart, erds core, pith, heart; Latvian
sird s heart; Old Church Slavic srdce heart, srda center, middle,
midst; Russian srdce [] heart; Slovak srdce heart. The
following (but with a different initial consonant: *gert-/*gr t- heart)
may belong here as well: Sanskrit hdaya- heart; mind, soul; breast, chest,
stomach, interior; Avestan zrd- heart; Baluchi zird heart. Pokorny
1959:579580 (*$ered-:) *$erd-, *$rd-, *$r d-, *$red- heart; Walde
19271932.I:423424 (*$ered-:) *$rd-, *$r d-, *$red-; Mann 1984
1987:610 *$erd- (*$erdis, -, -i ) heart, core, center, 637638 *$r d-
core, center, heart; Watkins 1985:30 *kerd- and 2000:41 *kerd- heart;
Lehmann 1986:171; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1984.I:173, I:186. I:273,
II:801, II:812, II:878 *$[]er-t- and 1995.I:148, I:160, I:238, I:702, I:712,
I:775 *$er(-t)- heart, I:148, I:160, I:171 *$r -t-; MalloryAdams
1997:262263 *$rd heart; Puhvel 1984 .4:189191 *$rd(i) :
*$r d(-y)-; Kloekhorst 2008b:469471; Boisacq 1950:412413 *%rd-,
*%r d-; Frisk 19701973.I:787788 *%rd; Hofmann 1966:133 *%rd-;
Chantraine 19681980.I:497498 *krd; Fraenkel 19621965.II:986
987; Smoczyski 2007.1:638639 *#rd-; De Vaan 2008:134135;
ErnoutMeillet 1979:142; Kroonen 2013:222 Proto-Germanic *hertn-
heart; Orl 2003:170 Proto-Germanic *xertn; Feist 1939:234235;
Lehmann 1986:171 *$erd-; De Vries 1977:232 *$erd- (beside *hr d- in
Indo-Iranian); FalkTorp 19031906.I:293294; Onions 1966:433
*krd-, *kr d-; Klein 1971:338; Hoad 1986:212; KlugeMitzka 1967:306
*%rd- (*%r d-); KlugeSeebold 1989:307 *#erd-; Vercoullie 1898:105.
Buck 1949:9.22 cut (vb.); 9.27 split (vb. tr.). Brunner 1969:36, no. 142;
BomhardKerns 1994:405406, no. 243.
k}a to tie, to bind; Syriac k}a to tie into a knot. Klein 1987:285;
Murtonen 1989:237; Leslau 1987:297.
B. Dravidian: Gondi katt, ketti mat, (?) ka palmleaf mat; Kona kati
wall; Kuwi katti mat-wall, kati wall. BurrowEmeneau 1984:113,
no. 1205.
C. Proto-Kartvelian *ket-/*kt- to twist, to turn: Mingrelian rt- to turn, to
turn into; Laz kt- to twist, to turn; Svan ked- : kd- to turn. Klimov
1998:214 *ket- : *kt- to turn; Fhnrich 2007:459 *ket-/*kt-.
D. Proto-Indo-European *kat- to plait, to weave, to twist: Latin catna
chain, fetter, casss a hunters net, snare, trap; (?) Old Icelandic hadda
pot hook, pot handle; Old English heaor restraint, confinement,
heaorian to shut in, to restrain, to control; Old Church Slavic kotc
pen, coop. Pokorny 1959:534 *kat- to plait; Walde 19271932.I:338
*qat-; Mann 19841987:478479 *kat- (*kt-) to hold, to keep; hold,
holder, handle, pen, keep; De Vaan 2008:97 and 98; ErnoutMeillet
1979:103 and 105; WaldeHofmann 19651972.I:177178 *qat-; De
Vries 1977:200.
Buck 1949:6.33 weave; 9.75 plait (vb.). Dolgopolsky 1998:3031, no. 22,
*ad to wicker, to wattle (wall, building) and to appear, no. 1006, *ad
wickerwork, wattle; Bomhard 1999a:55.
A. Dravidian: Tuu kadale (n.) a rag; (adj.) ragged, tattered; Gondi gatla,
getli, getla, gette, gete, gende cloth; Mana kediya, kidiya cloth; Pengo
kadiya, kediya waistcloth, cloth. BurrowEmeneau 1964:112, no. 1190.
B. Indo-European: Proto-Germanic *ar patch, rag > Old High German
hadara patch, rag (New High German Hader). Middle High German
hader, also hadel, rag, tatter; Old Saxon hailn rag, tatter. Kluge
Mitzka 1967:280; KlugeSeebold 1989:285.
Buck 1949:3.51 hen, chicken (generic); 3.54 hen. Note: The words for hen,
chicken (Semitic and Kartvelian) may be Wanderwrter.
A. Afrasian: Proto-Southern Cushitic *kaay- to put, to set, to lay > Maa -ke
to put, to set, to lay; Dahalo kaaj- to put, to set, to lay. Ehret 1980:243.
B. Dravidian: Tamil c to dwell, to lie, to remain, to sleep, cppu (cppi-)
to abide, to remain, ckkai cot, bed, roost, dwelling place, nest;
Kannaa k (kd-) to lie down, to repose, to copulate with, kvu, kendu
copulation; Tuu kedouni to lie down, to rest, klu abode of a pariah;
Kolami kep- (kept-) to make (child) to sleep; Malto kde to lay down;
Kuux kdn, kd"n to allow or invite one to lie down to rest or sleep, to
put to bed (child), to lay in the grave. BurrowEmeneau 1984:181, no.
1990.
C. Proto-Indo-European *key-/*koy-/*ki- to lie, to be placed: Sanskrit
te to lie, to lie down, to recline, to rest, to repose, (causative) yayati
to cause to lie down, to lay down, to put, to throw, to fix on or in;
Avestan sate to lie down, to recline; Greek to lie, to be placed,
, the marriage-bed; Hittite (3rd sg. pres. mid.) ki-it-ta(-ri) to
lie, to be placed; Palaic (3rd sg. pres. mid.) ki-i-ta-ar to lie. Rix
1998a:284 *$ei - to lie, to rest, to repose; Pokorny 1959:539540 *$ei-
to lie, to camp; Walde 19271932.I:358360 *$ei-; Mann 1984
1987:606 *$ei- (*$eii -, *$-) to lie, to fall; Watkins 1985:2728 *kei-
and 2000:38 *kei- to lie; bed, couch; beloved, dear; Gamkrelidze
Ivanov 1984.I:295 *$[]ei - and 1995.I:256 *$ei- to lie; Mallory
Adams 1997:352 *$ei- to lie; Boisacq 1950:426 *%ei-; Frisk 1970
1973.I:809810; Chantraine 19681980.I:509510; Hofmann 1966:37
*%ei-; Puhvel 1984 .4:169173 *$ey-; Kloekhorst 2008b:473475;
Mayrhofer 19561980.III:303304.
492 CHAPTER TWENTY
Buck 1949:12.12 put (place, set, lay); 12.14 lie. Koskinen 1980:22, no. 64;
BomhardKerns 1994:416417, no. 259.
Buck 1949:5.21 cook (vb.); 5.22 boil; 5.23 roast, fry; 5.24 bake; 15.85 hot,
warm. BomhardKerns 1994:419420, no. 262; Hakola 2000:63, no. 242.
271; Hakola 2000:48, no. 168; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 969, *koy ~ *kay
to draw; scoop, spoon and, no. 1241, *ay[i]wa to dig.
Buck 1949:4.26 tongue; 18.21 speak, talk; 18.22 say; 18.24 language; 18.26
word. Illi-Svity 19711984.I:346347, no. 221, */lH/ language,
speech; BomhardKerns 1994:407, no. 245; Hakola 2000:6768, no. 267.
A. Proto-Afrasian *kil- to lift, to raise, to ascend: Egyptian (*kil- > *kil- >
*til- >) tn, tny to lift up, to raise. Hannig 1995:956; Faulkner 1962:305;
ErmanGrapow 1921:209 and 19261963.5:374375. Highland East
Cushitic: Gedeo / Darasa kiil- (< *kilo- ?) to weigh. Hudson 1989:165
and 249.
B. Dravidian: Tamil kiar to rise, to ascend, to emerge, to shoot up, to
increase, to shine, to be conspicuous, to be exalted, to be aroused, kiarttu
(kiartti-) to raise up, to fill; Malayalam kiaruka to rise, to grow high, to
burst, kiarttuka to raise, to make high, kiukka to grow up, to sprout;
496 CHAPTER TWENTY
439. Proto-Nostratic (n.) *kir-a uppermost part (of anything): horn, head, skull,
crown of head; tip, top, summit, peak:
*%ereu os, 140 *%er-s-, 155, 156 *%oru-bho-, and 158; Chantraine 1968
1980.I:495496, I:496 *kre-, *kr-, I:517, I:517518 *ker--s-,
I:569, I:569570, and I:577; ErnoutMeillet 1979:114115, 117, and
143 *kr w-n-; WaldeHofmann 19651972.I:203204 *%er-, *%er-,
*%er-s-, *%er-n-, etc., I:208 *%er-, I:276 *%er(-n- etc.); De Vaan
2008:136137; Kloekhorst 2008b:446447; Puhvel 1984 .4:7779
*ker-(H-) head, horn, summit; Kroonen 2013:221 Proto-Germanic
*hersan- ~ *herzan- brain and 259 *hurna- horn; Orl 2003:170 Proto-
Germanic *xersnn ~ *xersnan, 171 *xerutuz ~ *xerutaz, 195 *xurnan;
Feist 1939:251 *%r no- (> Gothic haurn), *%er-; Lehmann 1986:180 *$er-
tip, head, horn; De Vries 1977:231232 *$er-, 232, 234, and 249 *kor-
(gen. *kerns); FalkTorp 19031906.I:299300; Onions 1966:429
and 448; Klein 1971:335 *$er- the uppermost part of the body, head,
horn, top, summit and 353 *$er-; KlugeMitzka 1967:310 and 317;
KlugeSeebold 1989:311 and 316.
D. Altaic: Proto-Mongolian *kira edge, ridge > Written Mongolian kira
summit or ridge of a mountain, small mountain chain; foothills; slope; a
strip (usually of horn) attached to the front and rear edges of a saddle;
Khalkha ar edge, ridge; Buriat ara crest; Kalmyk kir mountain
pasture; Ordos kir edge, ridge; Dagur ara, kira mound. The
following Tungus forms are Mongolian loans: Evenki kira side; Nanay /
Gold #er edge, border, river-bank. Proto-Turkic *Kr isolated
mountain; mountain top, ridge; steppe, desert, level ground; edge >
Karakhanide Turkic qr isolated mountain; rising ground; Turkish kr
country (as opposed to town or city), uncultivated land, wilderness;
Gagauz qr steppe, desert, level ground; Turkmenian r steppe, desert,
level ground; Uzbek qir mountain top, ridge; Uighur qir steppe, desert,
level ground; edge; Tatar qr steppe, desert, level ground; edge; Bashkir
qr steppe, desert, level ground; edge; Kirghiz qr mountain top, ridge;
steppe, desert, level ground; Kazakh qr mountain top, ridge; edge;
Noghay qr steppe, desert, level ground; Chuvash ir steppe, desert,
level ground; Yakut krtas mountain top, ridge, krdal hill. The Turkic
forms have been contaminated by derivatives of Proto-Altaic *giru shore,
road. Poppe 1960:114; Street 1974:17 *kr mountain(side), edge;
StarostinDyboMudrak 2003:767768 *kre edge. Starostin
DyboMudrak also include Proto-Tungus *ri- border, hem. However,
the Tungus forms are separated from the Mongolian and Turkic forms in
this book and are included instead under Proto-Nostratic (n.) *kar-a
edge, side, bank.
E. Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan *krtkn top: Chukchi krtkn top of tree,
end of hair, source of river, kr-kwn, kc-kwn head scarf; Kerek
kiitn top; Koryak kjtkn tip, top of tree, bud, kjckn end;
Kamchadal / Itelmen ktxi (human) head, ktxelxen crown of head.
Fortescue 2005:152.
PROTO-NOSTRATIC *k 499
Buck 1949:1.22 mountain; hill; 4.17 horn; 4.20 head; 4.202 skull; 4.203 brain.
Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 1157, *irH (= *q [i]r ?) top, summit, crown
(of head).
A. Afrasian: Proto-Semitic *kal-, *kil- two, both > Ugaritic kl9t both,
kl9t ydh both his hands; Hebrew kil"ayim [<y]a^l=K]! of two kinds, both,
junction of two; Akkadian kilalln, (f.) kilattn both; Arabic kil, (f.)
502 CHAPTER TWENTY
kilt both of; Sabaean kl" two, both; Mehri kl(h), (f.) klyt both,
(followed by dual personal suffix, thus) klhi both of them; arssi
kel, (f.) kelyt both; eri / Jibbli kll(h) both of; Geez / Ethiopic
kall"a [kLX], kalla [kL;] (denominative) to make two, to make
another; to change, to alter, kl"e [] two, both, double, twofold, (f.)
kl"ettu [] two (with m. and f. nouns), both, double, kl" [],
(f.) kl"t [] other, another, anyone else, second, successor,
companion, friend, neighbor; Tigrinya kltte two; Tigre kl"ot two;
Harari ko"ot, kt two, both; pair; Gafat ltt two; Argobba ket two;
Amharic hultt two, hultte twice, hulttum both; Gurage (Gogot)
kett, hett, (Soddo) kitt, (Ennemor, Muher) xett, (Chaha, Gyeto,
Masqan) xet, (Wolane, Zway) hoyt two. Murtonen 1989:232; Leslau
1963:90, 1979:356, and 1987:282; Klein 1987:276; Zammit 2002:358.
B. Proto-Dravidian *ko-/*ko- (< *ko-nt-) to take, to seize, to receive, to
hold; to hook, to clasp, to fasten, to buckle: Tamil ko (kov-, ko-) to
seize, to receive, to buy, to acquire, to marry, to abduct, to contain; to
learn, to think, to regard, to esteem, kokai accepting, taking; opinion,
doctrine, kovn buyer, student, kounar buyers, learners, koai
robbery, plunder, kouttu (koutti-) (vb.) to cause to hold, apply, explain,
teach; (n.) clasp of a jewel, joint of the body, kouvu (kouvi-) to cause to
hold, to clasp, to buckle up, to hook up, kouvi, koukki hook, clasp,
koai hold (as a string in a bow); determination, koal receiving,
taking, koi getting possession of, theft, plunder; corner pin of a door on
which it swings, clamp, cleat of a doorlock, the pin that holds the share to
the plow, k taking, receiving, accepting, holding; opinion, tenet,
decision, ki receiver; Malayalam koka (ko-) to hold, to contain, to
receive, to acquire, to marry; aux. with reflexive meaning, koikka to
make to hold or receive, kouttuka to make to hold, to hook, to clasp, to
fasten a rope to a load, kouttu that which holds: hook, link, stitch, koa,
koi plunder, k holding, taking, purchase; Kota ko-/ko- (ko-) to
marry (wife), to buy (cattle), to begin (funeral), ko robbery, state of
being robbed, ko ga thief; Toda kw- (kw-) to carry (corpse), to
wear (bell); aux. with continuative-durative meaning, kw- (only in
negative) not to want, not to heed, kwy loot (in songs); Kannaa ko,
kou, kou (ko-) to seize, to take away, to take, to accept, to obtain, to
buy, to undertake; aux. with reflexive meaning, ko, kouha, kouvike
seizing, preying, taking, koi holding, seizure, koisu, koisu to cause
to seize, etc., koe pillage, plunder, koike, kolike, kulike a clasp, hook,
koi hook projecting from a wall, semicircular link of a padlock, k
seizure, pillage, plunder; Koagu ko- (kovv-, ko-) to take, kot-
(koti-) to fasten (rope on horn, loop on shoulder), koa- (koap-,
kond-) to bring; Tuu kouni (ko-) to take, to hold, to keep; aux. with
reflexive meaning, kolik a clasp, hook and eye, kolav, kolyi, kolta,
koltul a clasp, koi hook, staple that holds the latch of a door, clasp of
PROTO-NOSTRATIC *k 503
a bracelet; Telugu konu (kot-) to buy, to take, to hold, to take up, to rob,
to care for (advice); to consider, to suppose; aux. with reflexive meaning,
(inscr.) ko to take, koi a hook, catch, koliki, kolki hook or clasp of a
necklace, kolla plunder, pillage, kollari bandit, plunderer, kolupu to
cause to do, to prompt, to set on; to be agreeable, (ideas) suggest
themselves, to be inclined, koluvu an assembly; service, employment;
Kolami kor-/ko- (kott-) to bring, kos- (kost-) to carry away, to take,
kosi- (kosit-) to take and give (to someone); Naiki koy- (kor-) to bring,
kos- to take; Naiki (of Chanda) kor-/ko- (kott-) to bring; Parji konub a
hook; Kona ko- (ko-, ko-) to purchase, (dial.) kol- (ko-) to take;
Pengo ko- to buy; Mana kag- (kakt-) to buy; Kui koa- (koi-)
(vb.) to buy, to take away, to take off, to pull off, to pull up, to pluck; (n.)
buying, taking, plucking; Kuwi kdali, koinai to take, to buy, ko- to
buy, to bring; reflexive auxiliary. BurrowEmeneau 1984:194, no. 2151;
Krishnamurti 2003:9 and 95 *ko-/*ko- (< *ko-nt-) to receive, to seize,
to buy. Semantic development as in Gothic fhan to capture, to seize <
Proto-Indo-European *pk- to join, to fit, to fasten (cf. Pokorny
1959:787788 *p%- and *p-).
C. Proto-Altaic *klba (vb.) to tie, bind, or join together; to couple, to
combine; (n.) couple, pair: Proto-Tungus *ulb- to bind, to arrange >
Evenki ulbu- to bind, to arrange; Lamut / Even ulb- to bind, to
arrange; Negidal ulbul- to move in tandem; Orok ulbumi in tandem;
Nanay / Gold uelbi- to bind together, to wrap; Oroch ubbuna- to bind,
to arrange. Proto-Mongolian *kolbu- to tie, bind, or join together; to
couple, to combine, to unite; to connect, to link to; to incorporate >
Middle Mongolian qulba- to couple, to bind together; Written Mongolian
qolbu- to unite, to combine, to connect, to incorporate; to link to, to join
in marriage, qolbua(n) tie, link, combination, contact, connection;
union, junction; federation, association; alliterative words or phrases;
double, pair, qolbuda- to be united, connected, tied; to have relation to;
to depend on; to be mixed up in anothers affairs; to be involved in an
affair, qolbudal connection, relation; Khalka olbo- to join, to tie, to
bind; to unite, to connect, to link to; to combine; to incorporate; to
alliterate; Buriat olbo- to couple, to bind together; Kalmyk olw- to
couple, to bind together; Dagur olbo-, olbu-; holebe- to couple, to bind
together; Ordos olbo- to couple, to bind together; Shira-Yughur olbo-
to couple, to bind together; Monguor ul- to couple, to bind together.
Proto-Turkic *Kol- (vb.) to join, to unite; (n.) couple, pair, one of a
couple > Old Turkic (Old Uighur) qo- to join, to unite; Karakhanide
Turkic qo couple, pair, one of a couple, qo- to join, to unite; Turkish
ko- to harness, ko pair of horses, koum act of harnessing, harness;
Gagauz qo- to join, to unite; Azerbaijani o- to join, to unite;
Tukmenian o a pair of oxen or horses for plowing, oa pair, two;
double; Uzbek q couple, pair, twin, q- to join, to unite; Uighur qo
504 CHAPTER TWENTY
Buck 1949:9.16 bind (vb. tr.); 12.22 join, unite. Dolgopolsky to appear, no.
879, *ko pair, one of a pair.
Turkic *kk, *kken hinge, nail, peg, clasp; tether > Karakhanide Turkic
kk belt for fixing the saddle, kgen rope for tethering calves, foals
during milking; Turkish kk tuning-key of a stringed instrument, (dial.)
kken tether; Turkmenian kken tether; Middle Turkic kk nail;
Uzbek kukan tether; Tatar kgn hinge, nail, peg, clasp; Bashkir kgn
hinge, nail, peg, clasp; Kirghiz kgn tether; Kazakh kgen tether;
Chuvash kgan loop, (alk) kk prop of a door hinge; Yakut kgn
tether. StarostinDyboMudrak 2003:833834 *kki hinge, hook.
Buck 1949:4.22 ear; 15.41 hear; 18.26 word. Caldwell 1913:593 and 618;
Koskinen 1980:17, no. 41; BomhardKerns 1994:417418, no. 260; Hakola
2000:8687, no. 359; Fortescue 1998:154.
Buck 1949:2.1 man (human being); 2.21 man (vs. woman); 2.31 husband;
4.492 penis. Different etymology in Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 888, *km (or
*kHm) man, person.
Sumerian km(-ma) hot, km (vb.) to heat; (adj.) hot, boiling hot; (n.) heat;
fever.
Buck 1949:1.83 smoke (sb.); 1.84 ashes; 1.85 burn (vb.); 16.65 black; 15.85
hot, warm. Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 1966a, *Um black, dark.
A. Proto-Afrasian *kuwan- ~ *kun- dog: East Chadic (*kuwn- > *kwn- >)
*kanya- dog > Dangla kanya dog; Jegu kany- dog. Omotic (*kuwn-
> *kwn- >) *kan- dog > Ome kana, kanaa dog; Mao kano dog.
OrlStolbova 1995:311, no. 1425, *kan- dog. Berber *kun- dog >
Guanche cuna dog. Omotic *kunan- dog > Kefa kunano dog; Mocha
kunano dog. OrlStolbova 1995:327, no. 1498, *kun- dog. West
Chadic (*kuwan- > *kuwen- >) *kuHen- dog > Mogogodo kwehen dog;
Fyer kee dog. Omotic (*kuwan- > *kuwen- > *kuHen- >) *keHen-
dog > Dime keenu dog. OrlStolbova 1995:329, no. 1511, *kHen-
dog. Omotic: Yemsa / Janjero kana dog; Bench / Gimira kyan dog.
B. Dravidian: Tamil kuci anything small; young bird, chicken, kucu
young of birds and various animals; Malayalam kuu, kucu young,
small, infant, kuan boy; also endearingly of girls, kui = kuu,
kuan; Kota kunj children as given by god, men as children of god, kun
small; Kannaa kunni young of an animal, especially a young dog,
gunna smallness, kui a young one; Koagu kui child; Tuu kundu
young of pariahs, kui, kui small; Telugu gunna young of an
animal, kunna, kna infant, young of an animal, kunnu boy, lad,
kunnulu (pl.) sucklings, children; Kolami kuna puppy. Burrow
Emeneau 1984:150, no. 1646.
C. Proto-Indo-European *k(u)wn-/*kun- dog: Sanskrit vn- (nom. sg.
v , uv gen. sg. na) dog; Avestan span- dog; Greek (gen.
sg. ) dog; Armenian un dog (oblique an-); Latin canis dog;
Old Irish c (gen. sg. con) dog; Welsh ci dog; Cornish c dog; Breton
k dog; Gothic hunds dog; Old Icelandic hundr dog; Norwegian hund
dog; Swedish hund dog; Danish hund dog; Old English hund dog;
Old Frisian hund dog; Old Saxon hund dog; Dutch hond dog; Old
High German hunt dog (New High German Hund); Lithuanian u (gen.
sg. us) dog; Tocharian A ku (oblique kon) dog; Hittite kuwan- dog;
Hieroglyphic Luwian z-wa/i-n(i)- dog (this may be a loan from Indo-
Aryan [cf. Kronasser 1956:229, 208]). Pokorny 1959:632633 *$u on-,
*$un- dog; Walde 19271932.I:465466 *$u on-; Mann 1984
1987:653654 *$u (*$uu n), obl. *$un-; variant *$unis dog; Watkins
1985:34 *kwon- and 2000:46 *kwon- dog; MalloryAdams 1997:168
*$(u)u n- (gen. *$uns) dog; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1984.I:184
*$[]u on-s > *$[]u n- and 1995.I:158 *$won-s > *$wn- dog;
Mayrhofer 19561980.III:403; Chantraine 19681980.I:604; Boisacq
1950:540542 *%uu on-, *%u on-; Frisk 19701973.II:5859 *%u (n),
*%un-s (-s); Hofmann 1966:167168 *%uu on-, *%u on-; Ernout
Meillet 1979:92; WaldeHofmann 19651972.I:152153 *%u n; De
Vaan 2008:87; Orl 2003:193 Proto-Germanic *xunaz; Kroonen
2013:256 Proto-Germanic *hunda- dog; Feist 1939:276277 Pre-
Germanic base-form *%(u)u n -t-; Lehmann 1986:195 *$won-, *$un-; De
Vries 1977:267; FalkTorp 19031906.I:307308; BoutkanSiebinga
PROTO-NOSTRATIC *k 513
2005:184; Onions 1966:449 Common Germanic *undaz < *kwn ts; Klein
1971:354 *$won-; KlugeMitzka 1967:320321 *%u on-; Kluge
Seebold 1989:320 Proto-Germanic *hunda-; Puhvel 1984 .4:305
*$(u)wn(s); Kloekhorst 2008b:505506; Melchert 1994a:234 and 252
Proto-Anatolian *$won- dog; Mayrhofer 19561980.III:402403; Van
Windekens 19761982.I:238239 *%u on-, *%un-; Adams 1999:179
*kwn; Fraenkel 19621965.II:10331035; Smoczyski 2007.1:652
653 *#u n.
D. Uralic: Finno-Ugrian: Mordvin ky jon wolf; Cheremis / Mari kwjin wolf;
Zyrian / Komi kjin, kin wolf; Votyak / Udmurt kion, kijon, kyjon
wolf. Notes: (1) Illi-Svity (19711984.I:361362, no. 238) also cites
Lapp / Saami gidne wolf. (2) Vladimir Napolskikhs []
(2001:370371) suggestion that the Uralic forms were borrowed from
Tocharian is highly improbable, though borrowing from an unknown
source cannot be ruled out. Finally, it may be noted that several Finno-
Ugrian languages have borrowed from Indo-European at different times
and places: Estonian hunt wolf (cf. Swedish hund dog); North Lapp /
Saami won good (alert) dog (< Pre-Baltic *u on(i)- [cf. Lithuanian u
dog]).
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
k- k- k- k- k- k- k- k- q-
-k- -k- -k(k)- -k- -k- -k- -k- -k- -q-
Buck 1949:4.207 jaw; 4.24 mouth; 4.58 bite (vb.). Illi-Svity 19711984.I:
313315, no. 190, *aba/*apa to seize; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 987,
*b to bite ( to eat); BomhardKerns 1994:443444, no. 288.
A. Dravidian: Tamil kal (kar-, kan-) stone, pebble, boulder, precious stone,
milestone; Malayalam kal, kallu stone, rock, precious stone, kalla glass
beads, kallan mason; hard-hearted; Kolami kal stone, milestone; Toda
kal milestone, bead, kalr round river stone; Kannaa kal, kalu, kallu
stone; hard, stiff state of mind; Koagu kall stone; Tuu kallu stone;
Telugu kallu stone; Naiki khalbada stone slab for pounding; Parji kel
stone; Gondi kal, kall(i), kalu stone; Kona kalu stone; Pengo kal
stone; Brahui xal stone, boulder. BurrowEmeneau 1984:121, no.
1298; Krishnamurti 2003:92, 118, 179, and 196 *kal- stone.
B. Proto-Kartvelian *kl de- rock, cliff: Georgian klde rock, cliff;
Mingrelian kirde, krde, kirda, krda rock, cliff; (?) Svan ko- (<
*kde < *kl d) rock, cliff. Klimov 1964:113 *l de- and 1998:97 *lde-
rock; Fhnrich 2007:248 *lde-; FhnrichSardshweladse 1995:204
205 *lde-.
C. Proto-Indo-European *k(e)l- rock, stone: Old Icelandic kl one of the
stones used to keep the warp straight in the old upright loom, klettr rock,
crag, kleif ridge, cliff, klif cliff, klettr rock, cliff; Old English clif
cliff, rock, promontory, steep slope, cld rock, hill; Old Saxon klif
cliff; Dutch klip cliff; Low German klint rock, cliff; Old High German
klep cliff, crag, rock (New High German Klippe [< Middle Dutch
klippe]); Polish gaz stone (according to Shevelov 1964:148, < *glono-).
Pokorny 1959:357363 *gel- to form into a ball; Walde 1927
1932.I:612621 *gel-; Mann 19841987:279 *glh- spike, tip, crag;
Watkins 1985:1819 *gel- to form into a ball; Orl 2003:216 Proto-
Germanic *klifan; Kroonen 2013:292 Proto-Germanic *kliba- cliff; De
Vries 1977:315 and 316 *gel-d-; Klein 1971:142; Onions 1966:182 Proto-
Germanic *kliam, *klin-; KlugeMitzka 1967:378; KlugeSeebold
1989:377 and 378.
D. (?) Uralic: Finnish kallio rock, rantakallio cliff; Estonian kalju rock,
boulder, rannakalju cliff, crag, kaljune rocky; Lapp / Saami kallo
rock. These forms are usually considered to be loans from Germanic (cf.
Gothic hallus rock; Old Icelandic hallr big stone, hella flat stone, slab
PROTO-NOSTRATIC *k 521
Buck 1949:9.93 need, necessity; 9.94 ought, must (3rd sg.); 12.56 small, little;
12.62 narrow; 12.65 thin (in dimension); 12.66 thin (in density). Illi-Svity
19711984.I:323, no. 198, *el to be insufficient; BomhardKerns
1994:452, no. 297; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 1027, *el (or *el) to
lack, to be insufficient and, no. 1057, *a[] (to be) few, (to be) too
small/thin/light.
Buck 1949:2.27 child; 2.43 child; 4.71 beget (of father); 4.72 bear (of mother);
4.73 pregnant.
tear apart: Latin glb to peel, to take off the rind or bark; Greek
to cut, to carve out with a knife; Old Icelandic klauf the cleft (between
the toes); cloven foot, kljfa to split, to cleave, klofi cleft, rift (in a hill);
cleft stick, klofna to be cloven, to split, klyfja to split, to cleave; Old
English clofan to split, to cleave, to separate, geclyfte cloven; Old
Saxon klioan to split, to cleave; Dutch klieven to split, to cleave; Old
High German chliuban to split, to cleave (New High German klieban),
klbn to pluck, to pull out (New High German klauben). Rix 1998a:169
*gleu b- to cut off, to split, to cleave; Pokorny 1959:401402 *gleubh-
to cut, to cleave; Walde 19271932.I:661 *gleubh-; Mann 1984
1987:276 *gleubh, *gloubh- to strip, to split off, 282 *glubh- to cut
open, to split, 282 *glbh, and 282 *glubhts; Watkins 1985:23
*gleubh- and 2000:32 *gleubh- to tear apart, to cleave; MalloryAdams
1997:143 *gleubh- to cut off, to cut out and 2006:377 *gleubh- to cut
off, to cut out; Boisacq 1950:152 *gleubh-; Hofmann 1966:46 *gleubh-;
Chantraine 19681980.I:229 *gleubh-, *glubh-; Frisk 19701973.I:315;
WaldeHofmann 19651972.I:610611 *gleubh; ErnoutMeillet
1979:277278; De Vaan 2008:266; Orl 2003:216 Proto-Germanic
*kleuanan; Kroonen 2013:292 Proto-Germanic *kleuban- to cleave, to
split; De Vries 1977:315, 317, and 318; Onions 1966:180 *gleubh-; Klein
1971:141; Skeat 1898:113; Barnhart 1995:130; KlugeMitzka 1967:374
and 377 *glbh- : *gleubh-; KlugeSeebold 1989:375 and 377. The
following may ultimately belong here as well: Old Icelandic klippa, klyppa
to clip, to cut; to shear sheep (> Middle English clippen to clip, to
shear), klpa to nip, to clip, to pinch; Faroese klpa to nip, to clip, to
pinch; Norwegian klippa to cut, to clip; to shear sheep, klypa to nip, to
clip, to pinch; Swedish klippa to cut, to clip; to shear sheep; Danish
klippe to cut, to clip; to shear sheep; Low German klippen to clip, to
cut. De Vries 1977:317 and 318; FalkTorp 19031906.I:379; Onions
1966:82; Klein 1971:243; Barnhart 1995:132; Skeat 1898:115.
Buck 1949:8.34 thresh; 8.35 threshing-floor; 9.27 split (vb. tr.); 9.28 tear (vb.
tr.); 9.33 draw, pull; 12.23 separate (vb.).
464. Proto-Nostratic (Eurasiatic only) (n.) *kal-a bald spot; (adj.) bald, bare:
Derivative of:
(vb.) *kal- to separate, to remove, to strip off or away: to pluck, tear, or pull
off or out;
(n.) *kal-a separation, removal, stripping off or away, etc.
yield, 392393 *enos, -, -is creature, man, creation, 393 *enos, -es-
type, race, kind, tribe, 401 *ntis kinsman, acquaintance, 401402
*n-, 402 *n tos (*n tos) born, 402403 *n mos, - generation,
mating, 403 *n tis birth, race, 405 *onos, - child, offspring, birth;
MalloryAdams 1997:46 *enh- to beget a child, to be born; Watkins
1985:19 *gen- (also *gen-) and 2000:26 *gen- (also *gen-) to give
birth, to beget; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1984.II:748 *$en- and 1995.I:652
*$en- to give birth; kin, I:674 *$eno- clan, I:151 *$enH- to give
birth; Mayrhofer 19561980.I:415 and I:416; Boisacq 1950:144 and
147148 *en-, *en-; Frisk 19701973.I:296297 and I:306308;
Chantraine 19681980.I:221224; Hofmann 1966:43 and 4445 en-,
en-; ErnoutMeillet 1979:270273 *gen-, *gn-; WaldeHofmann
19651972.I:592 *n ts, *entis (*n tis) and I:597600 *en()-,
*en-; De Vaan 2008:358 and 260261; Orl 2003:210 Proto-Germanic
*kannjanan I, 212 *keniz, 212213 *kenan, 224 *kunjan, 224
*kunjan; Kroonen 2013:279 Proto-Germanic *kanjan- to bring forth, 288
*kindi- kind, 288 *kina- ~ *kinda- child, and 310 *kunda- born;
Feist 1939:516 *en-; Lehmann 1986:222 *en- to beget; De Vries
1977:309 and 340; Onions 1966:505 *gen-, *gon-, *gn - and 506; Klein
1971:402 *en-; Skeat 1898:315; Vercoullie 1898:158; Boutkan
Siebinga 2005:211; KlugeMitzka 1967:369 *en-; KlugeSeebold
1989:370 *en-.
Buck 1949:4.71 beget (of father); 4.72 bear (of mother). BomhardKerns
1994:431432, no. 275; Illi-Svity 19711984.I:335336, no. 211, *an
to give birth to, to be born.
Buck 1949:4.207 jaw; 4.208 cheek; 4.209 chin. Bomhard 1996a:219220, no.
626.
Buck 1949:12.63 thick (in dimension); 12.64 thick (in density); 13.15 much;
many; 13.18 enough (adj. or adv.). Bomhard 1996a:220221, no. 627.
Buck 1949:9.14 bend (vb. tr.); 9.16 bind (vb. tr.); 10.14 wind, wrap (vb.).
Note: The Altaic cognates seem to point to Proto-Nostratic *kep-a, while the
Indo-European cognates can be derived from either *kap-a or *kep-a.
Buck 1949:4.204 face; 4.207 jaw; 4.24 mouth; 4.58 bite (vb.). Bomhard
Kerns 1994:444, no. 289; Illi-Svity 19711984.I:313315, no. 190, *aba/
*apa to seize; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 914, *ke[H] (= *ke ?)
jaw, chin.
473. Proto-Nostratic (n.) *kap-a nape of the neck, back of the head:
Buck 1949:1.62 darkness; 12.25 shut, close (vb.); 12.26 cover (vb.). Dolgo-
polsky to appear, no. 1106, *[]aa to cover, to close.
476. Proto-Nostratic (n.) *kar-a blackness, darkness, obscurity; dark cloud, rainy
weather; dirt, grime; (adj.) dark, dark-colored; dirty, soiled:
Buck 1949:1.62 darkness; 1.73 cloud; 15.63 dark (in color); 14.42 night; 15.88
dirty, soiled. Bomhard 1996a:205207, no. 603.
544 CHAPTER TWENTY
Buck 1949:9.14 bend (vb. tr.); 9.16 bind (vb. tr.); 10.12 turn (vb.); 12.74
crooked. Illi-Svity 19711984.I:321323, no. 197, *r to tie (tightly),
to tighten; BomhardKerns 1994:446448, no. 293; Hakola 2000:65, no
255.
Buck 1949:2.33 marry; 12.21 collect, gather; 12.22 join, unite; 19.65 meet
(vb.). Slightly different etymology in Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 1215, *at
(or *a[]t) to mix, to adjoin, to gather. The Dravidian forms cited by
Dolgopolsky do not belong here.
A. Proto-Afrasian *kaw- (adj.) bent, curved, round; (n.) any round object: a
hole: Proto-East Cushitic *kaw- or *kaaw- a hole > Somali qaw a
hole; Gidole kaaw a hole; Konso qaawa a hole; Galla / Oromo
ka(w)a a hole; Burji kaw-a a hole. Sasse 1979:43.
B. Dravidian: Tamil kevi deep valley, cave; Kannaa gavi cave; Tuu gavi
cave, hole, cell; Telugu gavi cavern. BurrowEmeneau 1984:124, no.
1332.
C. Proto-Kartvelian *kw-er-, (reduplicated) *kwer-kwer- round object:
Georgian kver- flat cake, cookie (round), kverkver-a- round pie;
Mingrelian kvar- small round loaf, cookie (maize), kvarkvalia-
round; Laz kvar-, nkvar- cookie (round, for children), korkol-a-
curls, sheep droppings; Svan (Lower Bal) kurpi round, kwi
cornbread (< *kwl-, cf. GamkrelidzeMaavariani 1982:37, 1.2.2.3)
(Mingrelian loan). Schmidt 1962:119; Klimov 1964:110 *wer-, 110
*werwer- and 1998:92 *wer- flat cake, cookie (round), 93 *wer-
wer- round object; FhnrichSardshweladse 1995:198 *wer-; Illi-
Svity 19711984.I:326327, no. 202, Proto-Kartvelian *wer-/*wal-
round; Fhnrich 2007:239 *wer-.
D. Proto-Indo-European *kew-/*kow-/*ku-, also *kewH-/*kowH-/*kuH-
> *k- (adj.) bent, curved, round; (n.) any round object: Sanskrit gul
globe, pill, gola- globe, ball, jar in the form of a ball; Greek
vultures nest; cave, den, hole, round, ring, circle,
to run around in a circle; Old Icelandic kfttr convex, kofi
hut, shed, kla knob, ball, klu-bakr humpback; Old English cf tub,
vat, cask, bushel, cfl tub, bucket, cofa closet, chamber; Middle High
German kobe stable, pigsty (New High German Koben). Pokorny
1959:393398 *gu-, *gu-, *g- to bend, to curve; Walde 1927
1932.I:555562 *geu-; Mann 19841987:309310 *guu - to bend;
bent; Watkins 1985:20 *gu- to bend; Mayrhofer 19561980.I:341 and
I:349; Boisacq 1950:159 *eu-; Hofmann 1966:49 *geu-; Chantraine
19681980.I:243 and I:243244 *geu-/*gu-; Frisk 19701973.I:335
and I:335336 *geu-; Orl 2003:222 Proto-Germanic *kun, 222
*kun, 226 *kaz, 226 *kl(n); Kroonen 2013:308 Proto-Germanic
*kuban- shed; De Vries 1977:323324 and 333; Onions 1966:222;
550 CHAPTER TWENTY
Buck 1949:4.33 hand; 11.13 take; 11.14 seize, grasp, take hold of.
482. Proto-Nostratic (Eurasiatic only) (n.) *kel-a female in-law: husbands sister,
sister-in-law; daughter-in-law:
Note also:
(n.) *kal-a female in-law
fin, qanar fin; Chuvash onat wing, fin; Yakut knat, kat wing;
Dolgan knat wing. StarostinDyboMudrak 2003:664665 *ka
front leg, armpit, angle.
Noghay qart old; Tuva qr- to become old; Yakut kry- to become
old; Dolgan kry- to become old. Dcsy 1998:124 Proto-Turkic *qary
old. StarostinDyboMudrak 2003:671672 *kru (~ k-) old, worn
out.
people; place of assembly (like the Roman Forum); Latin grex flock,
herd; Welsh gre herd; Old Icelandic kremja to squeeze (especially of
berries, grapes, etc.); Old English crammian to cram, to stuff; Latvian
grste bundle of flax; Russian gorst [] cupped hand; Ukrainian
(pry)hortty to clasp; Polish garn to gather; Sanskrit gr ma- heap,
crowd, community. Rix 1998a:246 (?) *hger- to gather, to collect; to
come together, to assemble; Pokorny 1959:382383 *ger- to collect;
Walde 19271932.I:590591 *ger-; Mann 19841987:302 *gr t- to
gather, to assemble; MalloryAdams 1997:217 *ger- (vb.) to gather;
(n.) herd, crowd; Watkins 1985:19 *ger- and 2000:27 *ger- to gather;
Boisacq 1950:67; Frisk 19701973.I:89 and I:1314; Chantraine
19681980.I:9 and I:1213; Hofmann 1966:2; Schwyzer 1953.I:433,
note 5; Mayrhofer 19561980.I:353; De Vaan 2008:273; ErnoutMeillet
1979:283 *gre-g-; WaldeHofmann 19651972.I:622 *gre-g- < *gere-;
Derksen 2008:199 Balto-Slavic *gursti-; Orl 2003:220 Proto-Germanic
*krammjanan, 220 *krampjanan; Kroonen 2013:301 Proto-Germanic
*krammn- to squeeze; De Vries 1977:330 *ger-; Skeat 1898:140;
Onions 1966:224; Klein 1971:173 *ger- to gather together.
E. Uralic: Finnish kert- to collect, to gather together, to gather up; to pick,
keruu collection, gathering, kerys collection, kerty- to accumulate, to
pile up, kernty- to collect, to gather; to assemble; Karelian kere- to
gather, to collect.
goabmer the two curved open hands put together to receive or catch
something; Mordvin (Erza) komoro handfull, (Moksha) komor hollow
of the hand; (?) Zyrian / Komi kamr hanfull; Yenisei Samoyed / Enets
hammara hand. Collinder 1955:22 and 1977:42; Rdei 19861988:175
*kom(r); Dcsy 1990:100 *komara handfull, cupped hand.
B. Proto-Altaic *kompo fist, wrist: Proto-Tungus *komba- hand, wrist,
spoke-bone > Negidal kombo hand, wrist, spoke-bone; Orok qom
wrist, hand, spoke-bone; Nanay / Gold qombo hand, wrist, spoke-
bone; Udihe komugu hand, wrist, spoke-bone. Proto-Turkic *Kop- fist,
wrist > Kirghiz qobuq arthritis of the metacarpus; Oyrot (Mountain
Altai) qoboq wrist; Tuva qowades fist. StarostinDyboMudrak
2005:718 *kompo fist, wrist. The putative Mongolian cognates cited by
StarostinDyboMudrak are not included here.
wood, stem, base, leg, bone; Watkins 1985:32 *kost- and 2000:44 *kost-
bone; ErnoutMeillet 1979:146; WaldeHofmann 19651972.I:281;
De Vaan 2008:140 De Vaan rejects the comparison of Latin costa with
Old Church Slavic kost; Derksen 2008:239 Pre-Slavic *kosti-.
A. Dravidian: [Tamil kuu (kui-) to cuff, to strike with the knuckles on the
head or temple; Malayalam kuuka to pound, to cuff; Kota ku- (kuc-)
to pound; Toda ku- (kuy-) to knock, to pound; Kannaa kuu (vb.) to
beat, to strike, to pound, to bruise; (n.) a blow, a pulverized substance,
kuuvike, kuuha beating; Koagu ku- (kui-) to pound; Tuu kuuni
to thump, to give a blow, to strike with the fist, to pound, to bruise;
Kolami kuk- (kuukt-) to pound grain, kukeng to knock on the door;
Naiki kuk- to pound, to knock; Parji kuip- (kuit-) to punch, to knock
(door); Kona gu- to knock with the fist; Kui gu- fist. Burrow
Emeneau 1984:153, no. 1671. Tamil kou (koi-) (vb.) to beat (as a drum,
tambourine), to hammer, to beat (as a brazier), to clap, to strike with the
palms, to pound (as paddy); (n.) beat, stroke, drumbeat, time-measure,
kon, koan mallet, kou to thrash, to abuse roundly, koai blows,
round abuse; Malayalam kouka to beat so as to produce a sound (a
drum, metals, bells), to clap hands, kou beating a drum, clapping hands,
buffet, knocking of knees against each other, koi mallet, koukka to
flog; Kota kok- (koky-) to strike (with small hammer), to knock on
(door), to strike tipcat in hole in ground; Toda kwk- (kwky-) to tap (on
door, something with stick), kw f woodpecker; Kannaa koati,
koanti a wooden hammer, koaa beating the husk from paddy,
kouha beating, kuu to beat; Koagu ko- (koi-) to tap, to beat
(drum); Tuu koapuni to forge, to hammer; Telugu kou (vb.) to beat,
to strike, to knock; to strike (as a clock); (n.) a blow, stroke; Parji ko- to
strike with an axe; Gadba (Ollari) ko- to strike with an axe; Gondi ko-
to cut with an axe, koela mallet; Pengo ko- to thresh with flail; Kuwi
kooli mallet; Kuux xon (xoyas) to break, to smash, to pierce, to
break open; Malto qoe to break, to knock, to strike, qoure to knock
against. BurrowEmeneau 1984:187, no. 2063.] Either here or with
562 CHAPTER TWENTY
Alaskan Inuit (Point Hope) quliuaq first level of ice cellar; Western
Canadian Inuit (Caribou Eskimo Point) quliuaq shelf; Eastern Canadian
Inuit quliuaq shelf; Greenlandic Inuit quliuaq gunwale. Fortescue
JacobsonKaplan 1994:315. Proto-Eskimo *qulli upper-most one:
Alutiiq Alaskan Yupik quiq* upper part; Central Alaskan Yupik quiq*
topmost one, attic; Seward Peninsula Inuit qulliq highest; North
Alaskan Inuit qulliq* uppermost, lamp [the uppermost oil lamp in the
traditional house]; Western Canadian Inuit qulliq lamp; Eastern Canadian
Inuit qulliq lamp; Greenlandic Inuit quiq* uppermost, lamp.
FortescueJacobsonKaplan 1994:315. Proto-Yupik *qulqin raised
platform or shelf > Central Alaskan Yupik quqin shelf; Central Siberian
Yupik quuqin loft in a semi-subterranean house. FortescueJacobson
Kaplan 1994:315.
Buck 1949:10.22 raise, lift; 11.13 take; 12.31 high; 12.33 top; 12.35 end;
12.352 point. Different etymology in Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 1046,
*al [h]i high; to be high.
become cold; Dutch koud cold, koel cool; Old High German kalt
cold (New High German kalt), kuoli cool (New High German khl).
Pokorny 1959:365366 *gel()- cold; to freeze; Walde 1927
1932.I:622 *gel-; Mann 19841987:268 *gel- to freeze; frost; frozen,
268 *geldos, -i os cold, frost, 287 *goltis (*golt-) chill, cold, frost;
Watkins 1985:19 *gel- and 2000:2526 *gel- cold; to freeze; Mallory
Adams 1997:113 *gel- (adj.) cold; (vb.) to freeze; ErnoutMeillet
1979:268; WaldeHofmann 19651972.I:585586 *gel-; De Vaan
2008:256; Orl 2003:208209 Proto-Germanic *kalanan, 219 *klaz ~
*kliz, 219 *kljanan, 223 kuljaz; Kroonen 2013:277 Proto-Germanic
*kalan- to be cold, 278 *kalda- cold, 299 *klu- cool, and 309 *kula-
cool wind; Feist 1939:306; Lehmann 1986:214 *gel-; FalkTorp
19031906.I:398399; De Vries 1977:297298 *gel-, 298, 313 *gel-,
325, 333, 340, and 342; Onions 1966:169, 190 *gol-, *gel-, and 213; Klein
1971:131, 147 *gel-, and 165 *gel- (adj.) cold; (vb.) to freeze; Kluge
Mitzka 1976:343 and 411; KlugeSeebold 1989:349 and 417; Boutkan
Siebinga 2005:206.
C. Uralic: Proto-Finno-Permian *klm (*kilm) (adj.) cold, chilly; (n.)
frost; (vb.) to become cold, to freeze > Finnish kylm cold, chilly,
kylmyys coldness, kylmet to become colder, to become cold; Estonian
klm cold, chilly; coldness, frost, klmus coldness, klmetama to
freeze, to be freezing, to feel (or be) cold; Lapp / Saami (N.) glms-
/glbm-, (attr.) glbm frozen, glbme-/glm- to freeze, to form (intr.)
a layer of ice on, to freeze over; Mordvin (Moksha) kelm, (Erza) kelme
cold; coldness, frost; Cheremis / Mari klm frozen. Rdei 1986
1988:663 *kilm (*klm); Sammallahti 1988:552 *klm cold.
D. Proto-Altaic *koli- (~ k-; -i -, -e-) to freeze: Proto-Mongolian *kl-de-
to freeze > Mongolian kl-de-, kl-d- to freeze, to congeal, kldge-
to freeze, to congeal, kldl freezing, congealing, kldg frozen,
congealed, frosted, kldmel frozen, kl-m- to freeze over; Khalkha
ld- to freeze; Buriat lde- to freeze; Kalmyk kld- to freeze;
Ordos kld- to freeze; Dagur kude- to freeze. Proto-Turkic *Kl- to
freeze > Tatar kek- to freeze, to become stiff with cold; Bashkir kek-
to freeze; Kazakh k- to freeze; Tuva k- to freeze; Yakut khy-
to freeze. Menges 1968b:96. StarostinDyboMudrak 2003:716717
*koi (~ k-, -i -, -e-) to freeze.
Buck 1949:9.342 press (vb.); 11.13 take; 11.14 seize, grasp, take hold of; 13.19
multitude, crowd; 13.21 full. BomhardKerns 1994:434, no. 278.
499. Proto-Nostratic (n.) *kum-a a bent or curved object: hollow, cavity; knob,
lump, hump; etc.:
Identical to:
(vb.) *kum- to bend, to curve; to bend the head or body, to bow or stoop
down;
(n.) *kum-a bend, curve; the act of bending, bowing, stooping
overhanging arched edge (of earth, rock, snow, etc.); (?) Cheremis / Mari
kom in plkom sky, the vault of heaven, koman with vaulted surface;
(?) Ostyak / Xanty (Vah) kmr hollow space under ice, (Vasyugan) km
in ri tkom space under an overturned boat, km concavity, (Upper
Demyanka) m hollow space (for example, under an overturned boat);
(?) Hungarian homor concave, hollow. Rdei 19861988:227 *km
hollow.
C. Proto-Altaic *kumi (~ -o-) hollow, cavity, inner angle: Proto-Tungus
*kum- edge; hollow, cavity; precipice > Evenki kumdika edge, kuma
hollow, cavity; Lamut / Even kumtutti precipice; Manchu kumdu
empty, hollow. Proto-Mongolian *kmg edge, overhang (of a
mountain), shelter > Written Mongolian kmg, kmgei shed; roof,
especially roof over a patio; eaves; shelter; awning, canopy; overhang of a
mountain; Buriat meg canyon, ravine, hollow; Kalmyk kmg edge,
overhang (of a mountain), shelter. StarostinDyboMudrak 2005:
737738 *kumi (~ -o-) hollow, cavity, inner angle.
Buck 1949:9.14 bend (vb. tr.); 9.15 fold (vb. tr.); 9.16 bind (vb. tr.); 10.14
wind, wrap (vb.); 12.74 crooked. Bomhard 1996a:234235, replacement for
no. 311.
VOLUME 3
Allan R. Bomhard
SECOND EDITION
2015
A Comprehensive
Introduction to Nostratic
Comparative Linguistics
With Special Reference
To Indo-European
Volume 3
By
Allan R. Bomhard
CHARLESTON, SC
2015
Bomhard, Allan R. (1943 )
VOLUME ONE
Preface xvii
2.1. Indo-European . 33
2.2. Kartvelian 35
2.3. Afrasian ... 37
2.4. Uralic-Yukaghir .. 38
2.5. Elamo-Dravidian . 38
2.6. Altaic ... 40
2.7. Chukchi-Kamchatkan . 41
2.8. Gilyak . 41
2.9. Eskimo-Aleut .. 42
2.10. Etruscan .. 42
2.11. Sumerian . 43
13. The Nostratic Homeland and the Dispersal of the Nostratic Languages 265
VOLUME TWO
20.1. Introduction .. 1
20.2. Proto-Nostratic *b 7
20.3. Proto-Nostratic *p (> Proto-Afrasian *p) . 93
20.4. Proto-Nostratic *p (> Proto-Afrasian *f) 153
20.5. Proto-Nostratic *p ... 165
20.6. Proto-Nostratic *d 169
20.7. Proto-Nostratic *t 213
20.8. Proto-Nostratic *t 255
20.9. Proto-Nostratic *d .. 286
20.10. Proto-Nostratic *t . 293
20.11. Proto-Nostratic *t . 302
20.12. Proto-Nostratic *s .. 315
20.13. Proto-Nostratic * 337
20.14. Proto-Nostratic *c .. 347
20.15. Proto-Nostratic *c ... 352
20.16. Proto-Nostratic *s 362
20.17. Proto-Nostratic * 378
20.18. Proto-Nostratic * .. 383
20.19. Proto-Nostratic * 387
20.20. Proto-Nostratic * . 390
20.21. Proto-Nostratic *g 398
20.22. Proto-Nostratic *k ... 450
20.23. Proto-Nostratic *k ... 514
VOLUME THREE
VOLUME FOUR
References .. 1
VOLUME ONE
COMPARATIVE VOCABULARY
(SECOND HALF)
20.24. PROTO-NOSTRATIC *g
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
g- g- k- gw/u- g- k- g- k- q-
Buck 1949:9.21 strike (hit, beat); 11.28 harm, injure, damage (vb.). Bomhard
Kerns 1994:467468, no. 312; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 638, *g[o]in to
beat, to strike.
Buck 1949:12.53 grow (= increase in size); 12.55 large, big (great); 13.18
enough. Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 637a, *g[oa]n much, big; Bomhard
Kerns 1994:468, no. 313.
578 CHAPTER TWENTY
shut, to fasten; (?) Zyrian / Komi kr- to plait, to gather; Yurak Samoyed
/ Nenets hura- to tie up; Selkup Samoyed kura- to plait, to twist
together; Kamassian kr- to plait, to braid, to twist. Collinder 1955:29
and 1977:49; Rdei 19861988:215216 *kure-; Dcsy 1990:101 *kura
to bind. Proto-Uralic *kur basket: Votyak / Udmurt kr basket made
of the inner bark of the linden; Cheremis / Mari (Eastern) kuruk basket
made of bark; Vogul / Mansi kuri, huri sack, bag, pouch; Ostyak / Xanty
kyrg, (North Kazym) hyr sack; Yurak Samoyed / Nenets hoor keg,
receptacle, bucket, tekuse koor bucket made of birch bark; Tavgi
Samoyed / Nganasan kur vat, tub, koare box; Selkup Samoyed korome
basket made of birch bark. Collinder 1955:28 and 1977:49; Rdei 1986
1988:219 *kur (*kor); Dcsy 1990:101 *kura basket, barrel made of
bark. The Uralic forms are phonologically ambiguous they may either
belong here or with Proto-Nostratic *kir- (~ *ker-) to twist or twine
together, to tie together, to bind, to fasten.
D. (?) Proto-Altaic *gri- to tie, to bind, to plait, to twine: Proto-Tungus
*gur- (vb.) to unfasten; to tie (a band); (n.) string, cord > Manchu ran
cord for tying a bundle; Evenki gur- to unfasten, gurewu- to tie (a
band), guren string, cord; Lamut / Even gurelge- to unfasten, grn
string, cord; Ulch gure-li- to unfasten; Orok gure-li- to unfasten;
Nanay / Gold gure-li- to unfasten, gor string, cord; Oroch gue string,
cord; Udihe gue- to tie (a band). Proto-Mongolian *gr-, *gr- to
plait, to spin > Mongolian gr- to braid, to twine, to weave, grge
wickerwork, grmel braided, woven, plaited; Khalkha gr- to plait,
to spin; Buriat gre- to plait, to spin; Kalmyk gr- to plait, to spin;
Ordos gr- to plait, to spin; Monguor guru-, gur- to plait, to spin.
Proto-Turkic *gr- (vb.) to lace, to bind; (n.) part of a loom >
Turkmenian gze- to lace, to bind; Kirghiz kzk- part of a loom; Oyrot
(Mountain Altai, Northern dialect) kzg part of a loom; Chuvash kr
part of a loom. Poppe 1960:25, 107, and 126; Street 1974:13 *gre- to
weave, to twist; StarostinDyboMudrak 2003:575 *gi to unfasten,
to (un)tie.
Sumerian gur to bend (tr.), gur to wind up, to roll up, to turn, to twist, gur
basket, gr ring, circle, gr to bend, to bow (intr.), gur to wriggle, to
writhe, gurum to bend, to bow (intr.); to bend (tr.).
Buck 1949:10.12 turn (vb.); 10.13 turn around (vb.); 10.14 wind, wrap; 10.15
roll (vb.). BomhardKerns 1994:401402, no. 239.
*gu hr nos ashpit, firepit, clay oven, earthen pot, crucible; Watkins
1985:25 *gher- and 2000:35 *gher- to heat, to warm; Gamkrelidze
Ivanov 1984.I:91, I:176, II:708 *g[]er-, II:683 *g[]er-mo- and
1995.I:79, I:151, I:613 *ger- heat, warmth, I:590 *ger-mo- hot;
MalloryAdams 1997:263 *gherms warm, *ghrenss warm;
Mayrhofer 19561980.I:357358 and I:360; Boisacq 1950:341 *her-,
*hormo-, *heres-; Hofmann 1966:113114 *gher-; Frisk 1970
1973.I:664665 *hermo-, *hormo-; Chantraine 19681980.I:431
432 *gher-; Orl 1998:524525; De Vaan 2008:235; ErnoutMeillet
1979:248; WaldeHofmann 19651972.I:532534 *gher-, *ghermo-.
D. Altaic: Manchu guru- to redden, to become inflamed.
Buck 1949:1.81 fire; 1.85 burn (vb.); 15.85 hot, warm. BomhardKerns
1994:468469, no. 314; Illi-Svity 19711984.I:239, no. 95, *gUr hot
coals.
20.25. PROTO-NOSTRATIC *k
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
k- k- k- kw/u- k- k- k- k- q-
-k(k)-
-k- -k- -k(k)- -kw/u- -k- -k(k)- -k-
-q(q)-
hollow, bend, vault, arch, 1043 *qu olt- (*qu elt-, *qu olt-) turn, bend,
curve; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1984.I:220 *k[]el- and 1995.I:190, I:225,
I:622 *kel- to rotate, to move; MalloryAdams 1997:606607 *kel-
to turn; Watkins 1985:33 *kel- and 2000:45 *kel- (also *kel-) to
revolve, to move around, to sojourn, to dwell; Boisacq 1950:764 *qel-;
Hofmann 1966:260261 *qel; Frisk 19701973.II:500501 *qel,
*qolei ; Chantraine 19681980.II:877878 *kel; WaldeHofmann
19651972.I:245247 *qel-; ErnoutMeillet 1979:132133; De
Vaan 2008:125; Orl 1998:397; Adams 1999:225226; Van Windekens
19761982.I:267.
D. Proto-Altaic *kulo- to roll, to turn: Proto-Tungus *ul-, *ol- (vb.) to
dance; to climb down, to climb out; to walk around, to turn around; (n.)
bend (in a river) > Evenki olo-nm- to dance, uli-sin bend (in a river);
Lamut / Even lna bend (in a river); Ulch l- to walk around, to turn
around, olon-o- to climb down, to climb out (from a vehicle or boat);
Negidal ol-sn- to walk around, to turn around; Orok lon- to climb
down, to climb out (from a vehicle or boat), l- to walk around, to turn
around; Nanay / Gold ulun- to climb down, to climb out (from a vehicle
or boat), l- to walk around, to turn around; Oroch olon-o- to climb
down, to climb out (from a vehicle or boat) (Orok loan), uli- to walk
around, to walk about; Udihe oli- to walk around, to turn around
(Nanay loan). Proto-Mongolian *kol-ki- to be restless, to go round and
round > Written Mongolian qolkida- to move loosely, to move to and
fro; Khalkha oli- to be restless, to go round and round, oli loose,
loosened; Buriat oli shaky, wobbly; Kalmyk ogd- to be restless,
to go round and round; Ordos olido- to be restless, to go round and
round. Proto-Turkic *Kol- (vb.) to roll (down), to fall; (adj.) round >
Uzbek qul- to roll (down), to fall; Uighur qula-, ula- to roll (down), to
fall; Bashkir qola- to roll (down), to fall; Kirghiz qula- to roll (down),
to fall; Kazakh qula- to roll (down), to fall; Oyrot (Mountain Altai)
qula- to roll (down), to fall; Salar gull round. StarostinDybo
Mudrak 2003:850 *kulo to roll, to turn.
Buck 1949:9.14 bend (vb. tr.); 10.12 turn (vb.); 10.13 turn around; 10.15 roll
(vb.). BomhardKerns 1994:471473, no. 317.
511. Proto-Nostratic (n.) *kal-a that which turns, rolls, revolves, or goes round
and round (> wheel in the daughter languages):
Derivative of:
(vb.) *kal- to revolve, to go around, to roll;
(n.) *kal-a circle, circuit
[ll^K]* to complete, to perfect, kl [lK)] (n.) the whole, totality; (adj.); all
whole; Phoenician kly to end, to be complete, kl all; Aramaic kull
totality, the whole, all; Ugaritic kl every, all, *kly: (reciprocal/passive)
nkly to be spent, (factitive active) ykly, tkly, tkl to finish with, to
annihilate, klkl everything, kll whole; Mandaic kul all; Arabic kull
whole, entire, all; Sabaean kll to bring to completion, kll all, every, all
of, the whole (of); eri / Jibbli kell to be fed up, bored, k(h)l, kl-,
kal- all; arssi kal, kl, kall all; Soqori kal, kol all; Mehri kl, kali-
all; Geez / Ethiopic kll- [-] all, whole, every, kllo []
altogether, completely, kllu [] everything, everybody, anything,
all; Tigrinya kll-u all; Tigre kl all; Gurage kull-m all, whole,
every, everything; Amharic hullu all, every, everybody; Harari kullu
all; Gafat l-m all. Murtonen 1989:231; Klein 1987:276, 277, and 278;
Leslau 1963:92, 1979:341342, and 1987:281; Militarv 2010:46 Proto-
Semitic *kall-u, Proto-Afrasian *kal- all, each, much; Zammit 2002:
358. (?) Egyptian tnw, trw (*tlw) each, every (distinct from tnw number;
counting, numbering [cf. Vycichl 1983:175]). Hannig 1995:956; Erman
Grapow 1921:209 and 19261963.5:377379; Faulkner 1962:305;
Gardiner 1957:601. (?) Berber: Kabyle akk all; Tamazight akk all;
Ghadames ikk, akk each; Wargla akk everything, entirety; Nefusa ak
each; Mzab acc each, all; Tuareg ak each; Chaouia akk each. South
Omotic: Dime kull all. Ehret 1995:197, no. 317, *kal-/*kul- all.
B. Proto-Indo-European *kel-/*kol-/*kl - to bring to an end: Greek
(< *kelo-s) the fulfillment or completion of anything, that is, its
consummation, issue, result, end; the end (of life), death, having
reached its end, finished, complete; (of animals) full-grown, (of persons)
absolute, complete, accomplished, perfect, to complete, to fulfill,
to accomplish, at last, perfect, complete,
last, to complete, to finish, to accomplish, finishing,
completion, accomplishment; a termination, end; the end, extremity (of
anything); Luwian ku(wa)lana- course, (life)time, (1st sg. pres. act.)
ku-la-ni-wi to bring to an end. Pokorny 1959:640 *kel- swarm, crowd;
Walde 19271932.I:517 *qel-; Chantraine (19681980.II:11011103)
and Lejeune (1972:29, fn. 36-1) argue against deriving the Greek forms
from *kel-, but cf. Boisacq 1950:952, Hofmann 1966:358, Rix 1992:88
(Greek < *kelos), and Frisk 19701973.II:871873 (Greek
< *qel-); Puhvel 1984 .4:237238 Luwian ku(wa)lana- < *klono-.
C. Uralic: Proto-Finno-Ugrian *kul- to come to an end, to be worn (away),
to pass (by) > Finnish kulu-a to be worn, to wear (away), to pass, to go
by, to elapse, to be used up, kulu-ttaa to consume, to use, to spend,
kuluttua after, later, kulunut worn, shabby, kulutus consumption, use;
Estonian kuluma to be spent, expended; to wear out; to be worn out, kulu
cost, expenditure, kulunud worn out; Lapp / Saami goll-/gol- to go,
to pass, to pass by (of time), to decrease, to become exhausted through
being used, to get used up; Zyrian / Komi gylal- to fall off or out or
PROTO-NOSTRATIC *k 589
disperse (intr.) little by little (of leaves, hair, etc.); Vogul / Mansi hol- to
be worn, to disappear, to pass away; Ostyak / Xanty kl- to come to an
end, to pass away. Collinder 1955:92 and 1977:108; Rdei 1986
1988:199200 *kul-; Sammallahti 1988:544 *kuli- to wear.
Buck 1949:13.13 whole; 14.26 end (sb., temporal); 14.27 finish (vb.).
BomhardKerns 1994:470471, no. 315; Hakola 2000:80, no. 329.
513. Proto-Nostratic (Eurasiatic only) (adv.) (?) *kal- far off, far away, distant:
A. Proto-Afrasian (?) *kar- ~ *kur- to cut: East Chadic *kur- knife >
Somray kura knife. West Chadic: Ngizim krm to chop, to cut down, to
chop off. Proto-Southern Cushitic *kur- to mince > Kwadza kulunso
mortar; Dahalo kur- to mince. Ehret 1980:247. OrlStolbova
1995:328, no. 1503, *kur- knife; Ehret 1995:200, no. 330, *kur-/*kar- to
cut up.
PROTO-NOSTRATIC *k 591
B. Dravidian: Tamil kurai (vb.) to cut, to reap; (n.) piece, section, kuru
(kuruv-, kurr-) to pluck; Malayalam kurekka to cut off; Koagu korv-
(kort-) to make a fallen branch into a club; Toda kwarf- (kwart-) to cut;
Kannaa kore, kori to cut, to break through, to bore, to pierce, kori a
large branch cut off from a thorn-bush, kore cutting, cut-off piece,
koreyuvike cutting, etc., koreta, korata act of cutting, etc.; the piercing of
cold, korcu, koccu to cut away, to cut up, to cut to pieces; Tuu kudupuni
to cut, to reap, kud a piece of wood, kujimbu, kujumbu a chip,
fragment; Telugu kra a cut-off portion; Kui krpa (krt-) (vb.) to cut,
to saw; (n.) the act of sawing. BurrowEmeneau 1984:169170, no.
1859. Tamil kru section, division, part, share; Telugu kru a share, the
kings or governments portion; Malayalam kru, kr part, share, division
of time, party, partnership, krrn partner; Kota kur (obl. kut-) share;
Toda kur share, share inherited from father; Kannaa kru part, portion,
share in cultivation. BurrowEmeneau 1984:174175, no. 1924.
C. Proto-Indo-European *ker-/*kor-/*kr - to cut: Hittite (3rd sg. pres.
act.) ku-e-ir-zi to cut, to cut up, to cut off, (3rd pl. pres. act.) ku-ra-an-zi,
(instr. sg.) ku-ru-uz-zi-it cutter, (1st sg. pret. act.) ku-e-ir-u-un to cut
(off), (acc. sg.) ku-ra-an-na-an section, area, (nom. sg.) ku-e-ra-a,
ku-ra-a field, parcel, territory, (land) area, precinct, subdivision; Luwian
(3rd sg. pres. act.) ku-wa-ar-ti to cut (?), kursawar cut (off);
Hieroglyphic Luwian kura/i- to cut; Welsh pryd (< *kr -tu-) time;
Oscan -pert in petiro-pert four times; Sanskrit -kt time(s) in sa-kt
once. Rix 1998a:350351 *ker- to cut, to carve; Mann 1984
1987:1027 *qu er- to cut, to detach, to strip, to scrape; MalloryAdams
1997:144 *ker- to cut; Bomhard 1984:114; Kronasser 1956:65, 81;
Puhvel 1984 .4:212218; Kloekhorst 2008b:486487 *ker-/*kr-.
Note: Forms meaning to do, to make are often included here, but a more
plausible derivation is from Proto-Nostratic *kir- (~ *ker-) to twist or
twine together, to tie together, to bind, to fasten (see below).
D. Proto-Uralic *kur knife: Finnish kuras/kurakse- club, saber,
broadsword, knife; Vote kuras knife; Estonian kuurask knife; Lapp /
Saami (Southern) korr small knife, common knife; Forest Yurak
Samoyed / Forest Nenets kar knife, dagger; Yenisei Samoyed / Enets
kooru knife; Motor kuro knife. Collinder 1955:29 and 1977:48; Rdei
19861988:218219 *kur; Dcsy 1990:101 *kura knife; Sammallahti
1988:537 *kur knife.
(n.) *kar-a cut, hole, hollow, digging, excavation, pit, groove, trench
Derivative of:
(vb.) *kar- to cut;
(n.) *kar-a piece cut off; knife
Buck 1949:8.21 plow; 8.212 furrow; 8.22 dig; 9.33 draw, pull; 12.84 line.
BomhardKerns 1994:476477, no. 322; Hakola 2000:87, no. 362.
A. Afrasian: Semitic: Akkadian karpu, karpatu pot, vase, jug; Ugaritic krpn
cup, goblet.
B. Dravidian: Gondi karvi narrow-mouthed earthen vessel for oil or liquor;
Koagu karava clay pot with narrow neck. BurrowEmeneau 1984:118,
no. 1273(a). Telugu gurigi a very small earthen pot; Gondi kurvi earthen
cooking pot, kurv earthen jar, kuv pitcher (black, for cooking); Kui
kui pot. BurrowEmeneau 1984:162, no. 1797; Krishnamurti 2003:8
*kur-Vwi small pot.
C. Proto-Indo-European *ker-/*kor- vessel, pot: Sanskrit car-
vessel, pot; Old Icelandic hverr kettle, cauldron; Old English hwer pot,
bowl, kettle, cauldron; Old High German (h)wer cauldron; Old Irish
co(i)re cauldron; Middle Welsh peir cauldron. Pokorny 1959:642
*ker- dish; Walde 19271932.I:518 *qer-; Mann 19841987:1028
PROTO-NOSTRATIC *k 595
*qu ern, -is (*qu ern-) pot, shell, skull, 1028 *qu eros, -is, -us pot, pan,
vessel, cauldron; Watkins 1985:34 *ker- something shaped like a dish
or shell; MalloryAdams 1997:443 *kerus large cooking pot,
cauldron; Mayrhofer 19561980.I:377; Orl 2003:200 Proto-Germanic
*xweraz; Kroonen 2013:265 Proto-Germanic *hwera- kettle; De Vries
1977:272.
D. Proto-Altaic *kure basket, vessel: Proto-Tungus *urid- a vessel for
berries > Evenki uridk a vessel for berries; Nanay / Gold orda a
vessel for berries. Proto-Turkic *Kri- a measure of capacity; a kind of
basket for vegetables > Old Turkic (Old Uighur) kri a measure of
capacity, a peck (2 bushels); Karakhanide Turkic krin a kind of basket
for vegetables; Uighur kr a measure of capacity; Sary-Uighur kr a
measure of capacity. StarostinDyboMudrak 2003:854 *kure
basket.
Buck 1949:5.26 pot; 5.27 kettle; 5.34 pitcher, jug; 5.35 cup. BomhardKerns
1994:481, no. 327.
Buck 1949:10.25 throw (vb.); 10.26 shake (vb. tr.); 10:43 jump, leap (vb.);
15.71 touch (vb.); 15.72 feel (vb.), feel of; 15.73 touch (sb. act or sense of
touch).
Buck 1949:9.11 do, make. Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 1949, *"oy to heap up,
to build, to make; BomhardKerns 1994:474475, no. 320.
which?, ko when?; Vogul / Mansi hoo, kon who?, hoot where?, kun
when?; Ostyak / Xanty koji who?, kti what?; Hungarian hol
where?, hova whither?, hogy how?; Yurak Samoyed / Nenets hu
who?, huay which?, huna, huana where?, haa" whither?; Tavgi
Samoyed / Nganasan kua, kunie which?, kuninu where?, kuni"aa
how?; Yenisei Samoyed / Enets huju one of two, either, kuu whither?,
kune, kunne when?, kunno" how?; Selkup Samoyed kutte, kud who?,
kun where?, from where?, ku whither?, kutar how?; Kamassian kojt
what kind of?, kammn when?, kda" how?. Collinder 1955:26,
1965:139, and 1977:46; Rdei 19861988:191192 *ku- (*ko-); Dcsy
1990:100 *ko who?. Yukaghir (Southern / Kolyma) kin who, kill
whose, qadi which?, qanin when?, qondet from where?, whence?,
qaide where to?, whither?, qadung where?, qam- how much?, how
many?, qamlo:- how much?, how many?, qamlid how many times?,
qo- where, qodo, qode how, qod-a:- (interrogative verb) to do what?,
qodime:- what kind of, qodod somehow, in every possible way, qodit
why; (Northern / Tundra) kin who, kinide to nobody, kinolelk
nobody, somebody, qadu which?, qanin when?, qadudet where?,
qawde what kind of?, how?, qadaa where?, qabun how much?, how
many?, qamla- how much, how many?, qamlide how many times?,
quode- how, quodede somehow, in every possible way, qodiet why.
Nikolaeva 2006:211212, 373, 376, and 382.
D. Proto-Altaic *ka(y) interrogative pronoun: who?, what?: Proto-Tungus
*ia (*ai) who?, what? > Manchu ai, ya who?, what?, which?; Evenki
who?, kn what?; Lamut / Even q what?; Negidal un, kun
who?, what?, wa what?; Ulch ay what?; Orok ai what?; Nanay /
Gold a what?; Solon what?. Proto-Mongolian *ken, *ka- who?,
which? > Written Mongolian ken who?, which?; Khalkha en who?,
which?; Buriat en who?, which?; Kalmyk ken who?, which?; Ordos
ken who?, which?; Moghol ken who?, which?; Dagur ken, en who?,
which?, -, h- where?; Monguor ken who?, which?. Poppe 1955:45
and 229. Proto-Turkic *kem-, *ka- who?, which? > Old Turkic (Old
Uighur) kem who?, qayu, qanu which?; Karakhanide Turkic kem, kim
who?, qayu which?; Turkish kim who?; Gagauz kim who?;
Azerbaijani kim who?; Turkmenian kim who?, qay which?; Uzbek kim
who?, qay which?; Uighur kim (dial. kem) who?, qay which?;
Karaim km who?; Tatar kem who?, qay which?; Bashkir kem who?,
(dial.) qay which?; Kirghiz kim who?, qay which?; Kazakh kim
who?, qay which?; Noghay kim who?; Oyrot (Mountain Altai) kem
who?, qay which?; Tuva qm who?, qay which?; Chuvash kam
who?; Yakut kim who?, aya which?; Dolgan kim who?, kaya
which?. Menges 1968b:134135. StarostinDyboMudrak 2003:754
*ka(j) interrogative pronoun: who.
E. Proto-Eskimo *ki(na) who: Alutiiq Alaskan Yupik kinaq who; Central
Alaskan Yupik kina who; Naukan Siberian Yupik kina who; Central
PROTO-NOSTRATIC *k 603
Siberian Yupik kina who; Sirenik kin who; Seward Peninsula Inuit kina
who; North Alaskan Inuit kina who; Western Canadian Inuit kina
who; Eastern Canadian Inuit kina who; Greenlandic Inuit kina who.
Aleut kiin who. FortescueJacobsonKaplan 1994:173174. Proto-
Eskimo *kitu who or which: Alutiiq Alaskan Yupik kitu- who; Central
Alaskan Yupik kitu- who; Naukan Siberian Yupik kitu- who; Central
Siberian Yupik kitu- who; Seward Peninsula Inuit kitu which; North
Alaskan Inuit kisu which; Eastern Canadian Inuit kituuna who is that;
Greenlandic Inuit (North Greenlandic / Polar Eskimo) kihu what.
FortescueJacobsonKaplan 1994:174. Proto-Inuit *qanuq how >
Seward Peninsula Inuit qanuq how; North Alaskan Inuit qanuq how;
Western Canadian Inuit qanuq how; Eastern Canadian Inuit qanuq
how; Greenlandic Inuit qanuq how. FortescueJacobsonKaplan
1994:284. Proto-Eskimo *qaa when (in past): Sirenik qan when (in
past?); Seward Peninsula Inuit qaa when (in past); North Alaskan Inuit
qaa when (in past); Western Canadian Inuit qaa when (in past);
Eastern Canadian Inuit qaa when; Greenlandic Inuit qaa when (in
past). Aleut qana- which, where, qanayaam when, qanaa how
many. FortescueJacobsonKaplan 1994:284. Proto-Eskimo *qaku
when (in future): Alutiiq Alaskan Yupik qaku when (in future); Central
Alaskan Yupik qaku when (in future); Naukan Siberian Yupik qaku
when; Central Siberian Yupik qakun when (in future); Sirenik qaku
when; Seward Peninsula Yupik qau(n), qauun when (in future);
North Alaskan Inuit qakuu when (in future); Western Canadian Inuit
(Siglit) qaku(u) when (in future); Eastern Canadian Inuit qaku when (at
last, after lengthy waiting); Greenlandic Inuit qaquu when (in future).
FortescueJacobsonKaplan 1994:278. Proto-Yupik-Sirenik *qayu(q)
how > Alutiiq Alaskan Yupik qayu how; Central Alaskan Yupik
qayumi indeed, as expected; Naukan Siberian Yupik qay I wonder, is
that so?, qaywa really?, is that so?; Central Siberian Yupik qayuq how;
Sirenik qayun really?. FortescueJacobsonKaplan 1994:293.
Buck 1949:9.11 do, make; 9.15 fold (vb. tr.); 9.16 bind (vb. tr.); 9.44 build.
Illi-Svity 19711984.I:359360, no. 236, *ur to plait, to tie, to bind;
BomhardKerns 1994:484485, no. 331.
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
k- k- k- kw/u- k- k- k- k- q-
-k- -k- -k(k)- -kw/u- -k- -k- -k- -k- -q-
A. Dravidian: [Tamil kuu (kui-) to cuff, to strike with the knuckles on the
head or temple; Malayalam kuuka to pound, to cuff; Kota ku- (kuc-)
to pound; Toda ku- (kuy-) to knock, to pound; Kannaa kuu (vb.) to
beat, to strike, to pound, to bruise; (n.) a blow, a pulverized substance,
kuuvike, kuuha beating; Koagu ku- (kui-) to pound; Tuu kuuni
to thump, to give a blow, to strike with the fist, to pound, to bruise;
Kolami kuk- (kuukt-) to pound grain, kukeng to knock on the door;
Naiki kuk- to pound, to knock; Parji kuip- (kuit-) to punch, to knock
(door); Kona gu- to knock with the fist; Kui gu- fist. Burrow
Emeneau 1984:153, no. 1671. Tamil kou (koi-) (vb.) to beat (as a drum,
tambourine), to hammer, to beat (as a brazier), to clap, to strike with the
palms, to pound (as paddy); (n.) beat, stroke, drumbeat, time-measure,
kon, koan mallet, kou to thrash, to abuse roundly, koai blows,
round abuse; Malayalam kouka to beat so as to produce a sound (a
drum, metals, bells), to clap hands, kou beating a drum, clapping hands,
buffet, knocking of knees against each other, koi mallet, koukka to
flog; Kota kok- (koky-) to strike (with small hammer), to knock on
(door), to strike tipcat in hole in ground; Toda kwk- (kwky-) to tap (on
door, something with stick), kw f woodpecker; Kannaa koati,
koanti a wooden hammer, koaa beating the husk from paddy,
kouha beating, kuu to beat; Koagu ko- (koi-) to tap, to beat
(drum); Tuu koapuni to forge, to hammer; Telugu kou (vb.) to beat,
to strike, to knock; to strike (as a clock); (n.) a blow, stroke; Parji ko- to
strike with an axe; Gadba (Ollari) ko- to strike with an axe; Gondi ko-
to cut with an axe, koela mallet; Pengo ko- to thresh with flail; Kuwi
kooli mallet; Kuux xon (xoyas) to break, to smash, to pierce, to
break open; Malto qoe to break, to knock, to strike, qoure to knock
against. BurrowEmeneau 1984:187, no. 2063.] Either here or with
*kud- (~ *kod-) (vb.) to strike; (n.) stroke, blow, knock, cuff, thump.
PROTO-NOSTRATIC *k 609
A. Afrasian: Highland East Cushitic: Burji kud-ee (adv.) in back of, behind
(< hind-part, back, end). Sasse 1982:128; Hudson 1989:208.
B. (?) Dravidian: Tamil kti pudendum muliebre; Malayalam kti
posteriors, membrum muliebre; Toda kuy anus, region of the buttocks
in general; Tuu kdi anus, posteriors, membrum muliebre. Burrow
Emeneau 1984:172, no. 1888.
C. Proto-Kartvelian *kwad- tail: Georgian kud- tail, end; Mingrelian
kud-el- tail; Laz kud-el- tail; Svan ha-kwd, h-ked, a-wed, a-wa
tail. Klimov 1964:117 *ud- and 1998:103 *ud- (*wed-) tail; Schmidt
610 CHAPTER TWENTY
Buck 1949:1.36 river; stream; brook; 9.36 wash; 10.32 flow (vb.). Bomhard
Kerns 1994:513514, no. 362; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 877a, *ku to
flow, to gush, to leak.
Buck 1949:1.83 smoke (sb.); 1.85 burn (vb.). Bomhard 1996:213214, no.
613; Hakola 2000:87, no. 360.
Buck 1949:4.41 breast (of woman); 4.42 udder; 5.16 suck. BomhardKerns
1994:498499, no. 347.
614 CHAPTER TWENTY
Semantic development as in Latin fmina female, woman from the same root
as in fl to suck, hence, one who gives suck.
Buck 1949:2.22 woman; 2.32 wife; 4.41 breast (of woman); 4.42 udder.
BomhardKerns 1994:498499, no. 347; Illi-Svity 1965:340 *k/u/n
[] woman and 19711984.I:306308, no. 178 *kni woman;
Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 896, *koni (or *kuni) woman, wife; Greenberg
2002:187, no. 431.
346, no. 1591, *or- (n.) cold (derived from *ar- to be cold), and 353,
no. 1627, *VrVs- to freeze.
B. Dravidian: Kannaa kore, kori to pierce (as cold), koreta, korata the
piercing of cold; Kota korv- (kord-) to be cold, kor, korv coldness;
Gondi kharr frost, karng, koring cold; Toda kwar- (kwar-) to feel
cold, kwar cold, kwar- (kwar-) to be cold (in songs); Kolami korale
cold. BurrowEmeneau 1984:195, no. 2168; Krishnamurti 2003:110
*kot-ay to pierce.
C. Kartvelian: Georgian (Lexumian) krux-wa cold; Svan kwarem ice,
kwarmob frost, freezing, likwremi to freeze.
Buck 1949:12.16 remain, stay, wait; 12.19 quiet (adj.). Mller 1911:97;
BomhardKerns 1994:489490, no. 337.
A. Dravidian: Tamil kur avi grinding pestle; Malayalam kur avi small rolling
stone to grind with. BurrowEmeneau 1984:164, no. 1819. Tamil kuru
(kuruv-, kurr-) to pound in a mortar, to husk, kurru (kurri-) to pound, to
strike, to hit, to crush; Kota kur- (kut-) to pound (clay in preparation for
making pots); Gadba kurk- (kuruk-) to beat like a carpet; Gondi kurkal
stone pestle. BurrowEmeneau 1984:167, no. 1850a.
B. Proto-Kartvelian *kwerx- to break up, to split, to crush, to smash:
Georgian kvercx- to pile up; Mingrelian [kvax-] to break to pieces;
Laz kanx- (< *kvanx- < *kvarx-) to smash, to crumble. Klimov
1964:111 *wercx- and 1998:9394 *wercx- to break up, to split, to
crush, to smash; FhnrichSardshweladse 1995:199 *wercx-; Fhnrich
2007:240 *wercx-. Proto-Kartvelian *na-kwerx-al- fragment, splinter:
Georgian nakvercxal- spark; Mingrelian nakvaxir- charred log; Laz
nokanxule- charred log. Klimov 1964:145 *na-wercx-al- and
1998:137 *na-wercx-al- fragment, splinter.
C. Proto-Indo-European *kerAn-/*kr An-, *kreAn- [*kraAn-] (>
*krn-), *kreAwn - [*kraAwn -] (> *krwn -) mill, millstone:
Sanskrit gr van- stone for pressing out the Soma; Armenian erkan
(metathesized from *(e)kran) millstone; Old Irish bru, br mill; Old
Welsh breuan mill; Cornish brou mill; Breton breo mill; Gothic
(asilu-)qairnus (donkey-)mill; Old Icelandic kvern millstone, handmill;
Faroese kvrn millstone, handmill; Norwegian kvern millstone,
handmill; Swedish kvarn millstone, handmill; Danish kvern millstone,
618 CHAPTER TWENTY
Sumerian gur(-gur) to rub off, to abrade, to rub down, to grind, guru to rub,
to grate, to grind.
539. Proto-Nostratic (n.) *kar-b-a the inside, the middle, interior, inward part:
A. Proto-Afrasian (?) *karb- the inside, the middle, interior, inward part:
Proto-Semitic *kirb- (< *krb-) midst, inward part > Hebrew ere
[br#q]# inward part, midst; Ugaritic rb midst, female genitalia;
Akkadian erbu midst. Murtonen 1989:386; Klein 1987:591. Egyptian
q&b intestines, interior of the body, middle of anything. Hannig 1995:849;
Faulkner 1962:275; ErmanGrapow 1921:188 and 19261963.5:9;
Gardiner 1957:596.
B. Dravidian: Tamil karu fetus, embryo, egg, germ, young of animal,
karuppai womb, karuvam fetus, embryo; Malayalam karu embryo,
yolk; Kota karv fetus of animal, larva of bees, pregnant (of animals);
Telugu karuvu fetus, kari uterus of animals; Parji kerba egg; Gadba
(Ollari) karbe egg; Gondi garba egg. BurrowEmeneau 1984:119, no.
1279.
C. Proto-Indo-European *kerb-/*korb-/*kr b-, *kreb- the inside,
the middle, interior, inward part: Sanskrit grbha- womb, the inside,
PROTO-NOSTRATIC *k 619
Mingrelian kvat- to chop, to cut off; Laz kvat- to chop, to cut off;
Svan kwt- to cut into small pieces. Klimov 1964:111 *we(s)d- and
1998:92 *wet-/*wt- to chop, to cut off; FhnrichSardshweladse
1995:196197 *wet-; Fhnrich 2007:238 *wet-; Schmidt 1962:75 and
119. Proto-Kartvelian *kwet-il- chopped off, cut off: Georgian kvetil-
chopped off, cut off; Mingrelian kvatil- chopped off, cut off. Klimov
1998:92 *wet-il- chopped off, cut off. Proto-Kartvelian *na-kwet-
piece, cut, section; lump: Georgian nakvet- piece; lump; Mingrelian
nokvet- piece; lump. Klimov 1998:137 *na-wet- piece, cut, section;
lump.
D. Proto-Indo-European *kt-/*kat- > (with regressive deglottalization)
*ket-/*kot- to whet, to sharpen: Gothic ga-atjan to sharpen, to
incite, to entice, assaba sharply; Old Icelandic hvass sharp, keen,
hvetja to whet, to sharpen; Faroese hvassur sharp, hvtja to whet, to
sharpen; Norwegian kvass sharp, kvetja to whet, to sharpen; Swedish
vass sharp, vttja (dial. hvttia) to whet, to sharpen; Danish (dial.)
hvKde to whet, to sharpen; Old English hwKss sharp, prickly, hwKt
quick, active, brave, bold, hwettan to whet, to sharpen, to incite; Middle
Dutch wetten to sharpen; Old High German (h)waz sharp, rough,
severe, wezzan to sharpen (New High German wetzen); Latin triquetrus
(< *tri-quedros) triangular. Pokorny 1959:636 *kd-, *kd- to stab, to
bore; Walde 19271932.I:513 *qd-, *qd-, *qd- or *qd-, *qd-;
Mann 19841987:1017 *qu ads- sharp; sharpness, sharpener; Watkins
1985:33 *ked- and 2000:44 *ked- to sharpen; MalloryAdams
1997:510 *ked- to whet, to sharpen; Orl 2003:199 Proto-Germanic
*xwatjanan; Kroonen 2013:264 Proto-Germanic *hwassa- sharp, 264
*hwata- quick, and 266 *hwtan- to stab, to pierce; Feist 1939:184
185 *ku -d-; Lehmann 1986:139 *k/d- to prick, to whet; to incite; De
Vries 1977:269 and 272; Onions 1966:1002 Common Germanic *watjan
to sharpen, *wattaz sharp; Klein 1971:826 *qedo-; *qd-, *qd-,
*qd-; KlugeMitzka 1967:856; KlugeSeebold 1989:789; De Vaan
2008:630; WaldeHofmann 19651972.II:706 *qd- : *qd- : *qd-
(: *qd-); ErnoutMeillet 1979:703.
Buck 1949:3.20 cattle; 3.21 bull; 3.22 ox; 3.23 cow. BomhardKerns 1994:
498, no. 346.
548. Proto-Nostratic (Eurasiatic only) (n.) *koy-a outer covering: skin, hide,
leather; bark (of a tree), shell, crust:
weight, 372 *gu rtos heavy, big, 375 *gu r ndis heavy, bulky, 375
*gu r (*gu r u , *gu r ei ) to load, to weigh down, to burden, 376
*gu 5undh-, 376 *gu r us, *gu rus solid, heavy; Watkins 1985:25 *ger-
and 2000:34 *ger- heavy (oldest form *ger-); MalloryAdams
1997:264 *grehx-u-, *gr hx-u- heavy; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1984.I:199
*kr ru- and 1995.I:172 *kr ru- heavy; Boisacq 1950:115 *r u-s; Frisk
19701973.I:221222; Chantraine 19681980.I:165166; Hofmann
1966:33 *gereu -; WaldeHofmann 19651972.I:620621 *ger()-,
*g(e)r(u)- heavy; ErnoutMeillet 1979:282283 *grw-; De Vaan
2008:272; Orl 2003:225 Proto-Germanic *kuruz; Kroonen 2013:312
Proto-Germanic *kuru- heavy; Lehmann 1986:217; Feist 1939:310
*gr-; Adams 1999:214215; Van Windekens 19761982.I:233234
*ger-. Proto-Indo-European *krond- hard to bear, harsh, severe,
difficult: Old Church Slavic grst-ok hard to bear, grievous, painful,
harsh, severe; Latvian grts difficult. Mann 19841987:371 *gu rondh-
(?) severe, outrageous.
Sumerian gur hefty, gur, gur, gur thick; to be or make thick; gur
difficult, hard, severe, tough, burdensome, arduous.
Buck 1949:9.97 difficult; 11.87 price; 11.88 dear (= costly, expensive); 12.63
thick (in dimension); 15.81 heavy. Mller 1911:9899; BomhardKerns
1994:491492, no. 339; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 922, *ku|or thick, fat.
20.27. PROTO-NOSTRATIC *
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
- - (?) k- - g- k- g- k- q-
Buck 1949:10.47 go; 10.48 come; 10.49 go away, depart; 10.54 overtake; 10.57
enter. Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 616, *glE to go (away), to start (going
away), to set out.
Buck 1949:5.17 mix; 16.33 anxiety; 16.36 sad; 16.53 fear, fright.
Buck 1949:18.12 sing; 18.13 shout, cry out. BomhardKerns 1994:502, no.
350.
558. Proto-Nostratic (n.) *ar-a stick, staff, rod, pole, stalk, stem:
(Ollari) kasid wood for fuel, kame stick; Kona gaa pole, long
stick. BurrowEmeneau 1984:127, no. 1370.
B. Proto-Kartvelian *er- stem, stalk: Georgian er- stem; Svan r
stem. Klimov 1998:223 *er- stem, stalk; FhnrichSardshweladse
1995:388 er-; Fhnrich 2007:482 *er-.
C. Proto-Indo-European *grendo-s bar, pole, shaft: Old Icelandic grind a
gate made of spars or bars, a fence; pen, fold; haven, dock; store houses,
grind-hli barred gate; Swedish grind lattice gate; Old English grindel
bar, bolt; (pl.) grating, hurdle; Old Saxon grindil, grendil bolt, fence,
hurdle; Middle Dutch grendel, grindel supporting post, bolt; Old High
German grintil bolt, pole, post; Lithuanian grinds floorboard; Old
Church Slavic grda beam. Pokorny 1959:459460 *ghrendh- beam;
Walde 19271932.I:657 *ghrendh-; Mann 19841987:337 *ghrendhos,
-is bar, pole, shaft; Orl 2003:141 Proto-Germanic *reniz; Kroonen
2013:190 Proto-Germanic *grindi- fence; De Vries 1977:189; Derksen
2008:187188; Fraenkel 19621965.I:170171.
A. (?) Afrasian: Egyptian (pl.) gry (*grgy) a kind of bird, (New Egyptian)
grpt (gry-n-pt) pigeon, dove; Coptic re [qre] birds. Hannig 1995:902
and 903; ErmanGrapow 19261963.5:181; Vycichl 1983:346; ern
1976:335.
B. Proto-Kartvelian *arad- (wild) goose: Georgian ered- goose (Old
Georgian ered-, red-, ere-); Mingrelian oron- goose; Laz
oro- goose; Svan ard goose (Lower Bal arad). Schmidt
1962:139; Klimov 1964:201 *arad- and 1998:221 *arad- goose;
FhnrichSardshweladse 1995:400 *rad-; Fhnrich 2007:497498
*rad-.
C. Proto-Altaic *grV wild goose: Proto-Tungus *gr(u)a owl, swan >
Evenki gre owl, swan; Lamut / Even gr a big mythical bird; Negidal
gaja owl; Manchu aru swan; Jurchen gawr-un swan; Ulch oara(n)
owl; Udihe g owl; Oroch garua owl. Proto-Turkic *Kar- goose >
Old Turkic (Old Uighur) qaz goose; Karakhanide Turkic qaz goose;
Turkish kaz goose; Gagauz qz goose; Azerbaijani az goose;
Turkmenian z goose; Uighur az goose; Tatar qaz goose; Bashkir
qa goose; Kirghiz qaz goose; Kazakh qaz goose; Kumyk qaz
goose; Noghay qaz goose; Oyrot (Mountain Altai) qas goose; Tuva
qas goose; Chuvash xor goose; Yakut xs goose; Dolgan ks goose.
StarostinDyboMudrak 2003:532 *gV wild goose.
D. (?) Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan *ala (if for *aa) duck: Chukchi
atle duck, bird, but ala- in ala-mkn flock of ducks; Kerek halli
(stem hala-) duck, bird; Alyutor alli (ala-), (Palana) al duck,
PROTO-NOSTRATIC * 643
kasuru unripe fruit; Naiki (of Chanda) kayek unripe; Parji kp- (kt-) to
be sour or bitter, kay-gaa bile; Gondi kay-, kaiyn to be bitter, kaitl
bitter, kain, kaittn to taste bitter (as quinine), keyke bitter, kayle
bitter, kaymul bitter, kait, kahita, kel bitter, kayr raw, unripe;
Gadba (Salur) kmbur, keymbur bitter; Pengo ke- to be bitter; Mana
kembel bitter; Kui kappeli bitter, kasi a young, undeveloped pumpkin;
Kuwi kassa sour, kombelli bitter; Malto qase to become bitterish,
insipid, or vapid. BurrowEmeneau 1984:116, no. 1249; Krishnamurti
2003:119 and 154 *kac- (> *kay-) (vb.) to be bitter; (n.) bitterness.
C. Proto-Kartvelian *ek- to chew: Georgian e- to chew; Mingrelian
a- to chew, to cut; Laz van- to chew; (?) Svan ar- to chew.
As noted by Klimov (1998:224), the cluster -k-, expected in Mingrelian
and Laz, is simplified to -- after initial -. The Laz cognate underwent
additional changes. The Svan cognate appears to be a Mingrelian loan.
Klimov 1964:102 *e - and 1998:224 *e - to chew; Fhnrich
Sardshweladse 1995:389 *e -; Fhnrich 2007:483484 *e -. Proto-
Kartvelian *ek-wn - to gnaw: Georgian en- to gnaw; Mingrelian
xion-, xior- (x- < *-) to gnaw. Klimov 1964:204 *i wn - and
1998:230 *i -wn- to gnaw.
D. Uralic: Proto-Finno-Permian *katk bitter, sour, rotten > Cheremis /
Mari (Birsk) kaske foul, stale, rotten, sour and moldy (of drinks), kaka-
to be moldy, stale; to spoil; to become sour; Votyak / Udmurt (Sarapul)
ku al bitter. Rdei 19861988:640641 *kak.
E. Proto-Eskimo *qacali- to sting, to smart: Alutiiq Alaskan Yupik qatV- to
sting, to smart (of body part); Central Alaskan Yupik qacVi-, qatVi- to
sting, to whine; Seward Peninsula Inuit qazili- to sting, to smart; North
Alaskan Inuit qasili- to beg, to entreat, to supplicate, to smart; Western
Canadian Inuit (Siglit) qasilinaq- to be bitter; Eastern Canadian Inuit
qasili- to have a prickling sensation in the limbs; Greenlandic qasilit- to
be bitter, to be sharp tasting, to sting (of wound). FortescueJacobson
Kaplan 1994:273. Assuming semantic development as in Kannaa kaccu,
karcu to bite, to sting, to smart, to ache (as stomach).
Buck 1949:4.58 bite (vb.); 15.37 bitter. Bomhard 1996a:228, no. 644.
Buck 1949:11.31 seek; 15.52 look (vb.), look at; 15.56 shine; 15.68 green;
15.69 yellow. Koskinen 1980:28, no. 85; Illi-Svity 19711984.I:229230,
no. 84, *gi//u smooth and shiny; Hakola 2000:6869, no. 272; Bomhard
Kerns 1994:390392, no. 228; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 624, *gil[h]o to
shine, to glitter, to sparkle.
A. Dravidian: Tuu kidu kilu , kid(u )kelu , kidku lu armpit, tickling, k. pini to
be tickled, k. muni to tickle; Mana kiti ki- to tickle; Kui kitki
lombei, kti kola armpit, kti tickling, kti va to be tickled, kti giva
to tickle, kitkoroi armpit; Kuwi gidori kali to tickle, gidori knai to
titillate. BurrowEmeneau 1984:143, no. 1551(a).
B. Proto-Kartvelian *itin- to tickle: Georgian itin- to tickle; Mingrelian
xicin- to tickle; Laz xitin- to tickle. Klimov 1964:204 *iin- and
1998:229230 *iin- to tickle.
Buck 1949:9.14 bend (vb. tr.); 9.75 plait (vb.); 12.74 crooked. Bomhard
Kerns 1994:504, no. 352.
20.28. PROTO-NOSTRATIC *q
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
q- q- (?) k- q- k- k- k- k- q-
-k(k)-
-q- -q- (?) -k(k)- -q- -k- -k(k)- -k-
-q(q)-
Buck 1949:9.21 strike (hit, beat); 9.22 cut (vb.); 9.26 break (vb. tr.); 9.28 tear
(vb. tr.); 10.67 push, shove (vb.); 11.28 harm, injure, damage (vb.). Bomhard
Kerns 1994:506507, no. 354.
Buck 1949:1.62 darkness; 4.12 skin; hide; 6.44 shirt; 6.51 shoe; 7.28 roof;
12.26 cover (vb.); 12.27 hide, conceal; 15.63 dark (in color); 15.65 black.
BomhardKerns 1994:505506, no. 353.
A. Dravidian: Tamil kar uttu neck, throat; Malayalam kar uttu neck (of man,
animal, plant, vessel, etc.); Kota katl neck; Kannaa kattu neck,
throat; Tuu kaelu neck, throat; Gadba (Ollari) gali neck. Burrow
Emeneau 1984:127, no. 1366.
B. Proto-Kartvelian *qarqa- pharynx, throat: Georgian xaxa- (dialectal
variant xarxa-) pharynx, throat; Mingrelian xorxota- throat, gullet;
Svan qarq, qerq throat. Klimov 1964:264 *qarqa- and 1998:334 *qarqa-
pharynx, mouth; FhnrichSardshweladse 1995:561 *qarq-; Fhnrich
2007:700 *qarq-.
C. Proto-Indo-European *ker-/*kor-/*kr - to make a rasping sound, to be
hoarse; to creak, to croak: Greek to cry like a crow, to caw; (of a
wagon) to creak, to groan; Latin crci to caw like a crow; Old English
hrace, hracu throat, hrbcan to clear the throat, to spit; Middle Low
German rake throat; Dutch raak back part of the palate; Old High
German rahho (*hrahho) jaws, mouth (of beast); throat, cavity of mouth
(New High German Rachen), rhhisn to clear ones throat; Lithuanian
kroki, krkti to grunt. Pokorny 1959:567571 *ker-, *kor-, *kr- to
make a rasping sound, to be hoarse, to caw, to croak, etc.; Walde 1927
1932.I:413418 *ker-, *kor-, *kr-; Mann 19841987:541 *krg, -i to
caw, to croak and 542 *krk, -i to caw, to croak; Watkins 1985:29
30 *ker- and 2000:40 *ker- echoic root, base of various derivatives
indicating loud noises of birds; Boisacq 1950:511512; Frisk 1970
1973.II:31; Hofmann 1966:157; Chantraine 19681980.I:589; De Vaan
2008:145146; ErnoutMeillet 1979:151; WaldeHofrmann 1965
1972.I:293; Orl 2003:187 Proto-Germanic *xrkjanan, 187 *xrkn;
Onions 1966:743 Common Germanic *raik-; Klein 1971:633; Kluge
Mitzka 1967:576 *ker-, *kor-, *kr-; KlugeSeebold 1989:577; Fraenkel
19621965.I:299; Smoczyski 2007.1:316.
D. Eskimo: Proto-Yupik-Siberian Eskimo *qaya deep voice > Alutiiq
Alaskan Yupik qXsatu- to have a deep voice; Central Alaskan Yupik
qXsi- to have a deep voice; Central Siberian Yupik qaya- to boast, to
brag, qai deep voice; Sirenik qaya voice. FortescueJacobson
Kaplan 1994:289.
E. (?) Chukchi-Kamchatkan: Proto-Chukotian *qK(qK)t- crunching
sound > Chukchi q"eqat-, qeq"et-, qeet- crunch, creak (for example,
PROTO-NOSTRATIC *q 655
*$ati to strike, to beat, 603 *$atros, -us (?) striking, forceful, 603
*$atus, -, - battle, fight, 637 *$ot- (*$otei , *$otos) spite, anger; to
spite, to bother, to rage; Watkins 1985:27 *kat- and 2000:37 *kat- to
fight; MalloryAdams 1997:201 *katu- fight; Puhvel 1984 .4:138
140 *katu- strife; Kloekhorst 2008b:466; KlugeMitzka 1967:279
280; KlugeSeebold 1989:285; Mayrhofer 19561980.III:294; Orl
2003:165 Proto-Germanic *xauz; Kroonen 2013:214 Proto-Germanic
*haar- fight and 214215 *hau- battle; De Vries 1977:278279;
Derksen 2008:240. According to Boisacq (1950:502), Chantraine (1968
1980.I:572), and Hofmann (1966:156), Greek to bear a grudge
against, to be angry, grudge, rancor, wrath belong here as well.
However, Frisk (19701973.I:931932) questions this comparison.
D. Yukaghir qatik- to wrestle. Nikolaeva 2006:381.
E. Chukchi-Kamchatkan: Proto-Chukotian *qKtv- to stab (to death) >
Chukchi qetv- to stab (an animal) to death; Koryak (Kamen) qatv- to
stab; Alyutor qatv()- to stab, to wound. Fortescue 2005:233.
Buck 1949:16.42 anger; 20.11 fight (vb.); 20.12 battle (sb.); 20.13 war.
BomhardKerns 1994:429, no. 273; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 1224,
*[a] (or *ait ?) to kill, to wage a war.
20.29. PROTO-NOSTRATIC *q
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
q- q- (?) k- q- k- k- k- k- q-
-q- -q- (?) -k(k)- -q- -k- -k- -k- -k- -q-
572. Proto-Nostratic (n.) *qal-a sexual organs, genitals, private parts (male or
female):
A. (?) Afrasian: Semitic: Akkadian all, gall sexual organ (this is usually
considered to be a loan from Sumerian [cf. Von Soden 19651981:894]);
Geez / Ethiopic l [] testicle; Amharic la testicle. Leslau
1987:428.
B. Proto-Kartvelian *qal- penis: Georgian ql-e (< *qal-e or *qol-e)
penis; Mingrelian "ol-e (< *qol-a-i) penis; Laz qol-e, kol-e penis;
Svan [ql-] in qlaw child (male). Klimov 1964:212 *"le- and
1998:243244 *"le- penis; FhnrichSardshweladse 1995:406 *"al-;
Fhnrich 2007:505 *"al-; Schmidt 1962:141 *"al-.
PROTO-NOSTRATIC *q 659
Buck 1949:4.47 womb; 4.48 egg; 4.49 testicle; 4.492 (penis). Dolgopolsky to
appear, no. 1918a, *"U|E penis, (?) vulva; BomhardKerns 1994:509, no.
358.
Buck 1949:1.23 plain, field; 8.12 field (for cultivation). Bomhard 1996a:219,
no. 625; Hakola 2003:43, no. 128.
throat; Old High German kela throat, gullet (New High German Kehle);
Armenian ekowl devoured; Old Church Slavic gltati to swallow;
Russian glott [] to swallow; Czech hltati to swallow, to
devour; Polish (dial.) gluta to drink noisely; Slovenian gotti to
swallow, to devour, to belch; Serbo-Croatian gtati to devour. Rix
1998a:171 *gu el- to swallow, to devour, to gulp down; Pokorny
1959:365 *gel- to swallow; Walde 19271932.I:621 *gel-; Mann
19841987:287 *golos, -, -is, -i neck, throat, gullet; ErnoutMeillet
1979:284285 *gel- (and *gel-); De Vaan 2008:275 *gul-; Walde
Hofmann 19651972.I:625626 *gel- and *gel-; Orl 2003:212 Proto-
Germanic *keluz ~ *keln; Kroonen 2013:284 Proto-Germanic *keln-
throat; KlugeMitzka 1967:361 Proto-Germanic *keln-, *kelu-;
KlugeSeebold 1989:364 West Germanic *keln-; Derksen 2008:168.
Note: Sanskrit gala- throat, neck does not belong here (cf. Mayrhofer
19561980.I:330).
Buck 1949:4.28 neck; 4.29 throat; 5.11 eat; 5.12 drink (vb.). BomhardKerns
1994:508, no. 356; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 1910, *"aL neck
(Dolgopolsky includes possible Afrasian [Cushitic] cognates but incorrectly
compares Proto-Kartvelian *qel- neck, throat with Proto-Indo-European
*kol-so- neck [cf. Pokorny 1959:639 *kol-so-; MalloryAdams 1997:392
*klsos]).
A. Dravidian: Kolami kinani, kinm cold; Gondi kinan, knd cold, kinnn
wet, cool, kinnta cold. BurrowEmeneau 1984:147, no. 1601.
B. Proto-Kartvelian *qin- to freeze: Georgian qin- to freeze, qin-el-
ice; Mingrelian "in- to freeze; Laz qin- to freeze, qin- cold, frost.
Klimov 1964:212 *"in- and 1998:243 *"in- to cool, to freeze;
FhnrichSardshweladse 1995:416417 *"in-; Fhnrich 2007:517518
*"in-.
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
- g- k- w/u- g- k- g- k- q-
round, to go round, 221, no. 980, *gulul- ball; Ehret 1995:191, no. 301,
*gil- to bend, to turn (intr.); Militarv 2012:91 Proto-Afrasian *gVlVl-.
B. Dravidian: Tamil kulukkai circular earthen bin for storing grain;
Malayalam kulukka recepticle of rice, made of bamboo mats or twigs;
Kona kolki a big basket for storing grain, kept on a terrace below the
roof; Kuwi kolki recepticle for storing paddy. BurrowEmeneau
1984:163, no. 1805.
C. Proto-Kartvelian *wel-/*wl- to curve, to bend: Georgian [ul-/vl-] to
curve, to bend; Mingrelian [ul-] to curve, to bend; Laz [ul-] to curve,
to bend; Svan [ul-] to curve, to bend. Klimov 1998:226 *wel- : *wl-
to curve; to bend according to Klimov, this verb stem may be
extracted from numerous derivatives; FhnrichSardschweladse
1995:403404 *un-/*ul-; Fhnrich 2007:500 *ul-. Proto-Kartvelian
*wl- bent, curved: Georgian ul- (Old Georgian mul-) kind of sickle;
Mingrelian ula- bent, crooked; Laz ul(a)- crooked, squint, toli-ula-
squint-eyed. Klimov notes that it is unclear whether Svan ulaj knee
belongs here. Klimov 1998:227 *wl- bent, curved. Proto-Kartvelian
*wl-az- to twist, to twine, to bend: Georgian vlaz- to twist, to twine, to
bend; Mingrelian uloz- to twist, to twine, to bend. Klimov 1998:228
*wl-az- to get crooked; to bend. Proto-Kartvelian *wl-ar- to twist, to
twine, to bend: Georgian gular-n- to twist, to twine, to bend (Old
Georgian past participle ularn-il- ~ gularn-il- crooked, bent); Svan
ura-n- to twist, to twine, to bend. Klimov 1998:228 *wl-ar- to get
crooked; to bend. Proto-Kartvelian *wl-ar- to twist, to roll: Georgian
vlar-n- to twist, to roll; Mingrelian ulock- to twist, to roll. Klimov
1998:228 *wl-ar - to twist, to roll. Proto-Kartvelian *wl-ek-/*wl-ik-
to twist, to twine, to curve, to bend: Georgian [vlek-] to twist, to twine,
to curve, to bend, xvlik- (< *wlik-) lizard; Mingrelian [lik-] to twist,
to twine, to curve, to bend; Laz [velik-, lik-] to twist, to twine, to
curve, to bend. Klimov 1998:228 *wl-e-/*wl-i- to get crooked, to get
curved. Proto-Kartvelian *wl-er- earthworm: Georgian vle(r)-
spiral rod (dialectal also vlen-); Mingrelian ve(r)k-, ve(n)k-
earthworm; Svan wsq earthworm. Klimov 1998:229 *wl-er -
earthworm according to Klimov, [t]he Georgian lexeme underwent a
semantic shift.
D. Proto-Indo-European *gal-k- (vb.) to curve, to bend, to twist, to turn;
(n.) curved object: sickle: Latin falx a sickle, bill-hook, pruning-hook; a
sickle-shaped implement of war, used for tearing down stockades, flect
to bend; to alter the shape of, to bow, to twist, to curve; to change, to alter,
to influence; to turn round in a circle; (?) Greek rib (of a ship).
Mann 19841987:378 *gu halk- (?) sickle; sickle-shaped claw; Frisk
19701973.II:986987; Boisacq 1950:1012; Chantraine 19681980.II:
11741175; ErnoutMeillet 1979:214 and 239240; WaldeHofmann
19651972.I:449450 and I:514515; De Vaan 2008:200 borrowing?.
666 CHAPTER TWENTY
Buck 1949:8.33 sickle; scythe; 10.76 wheel; 12.74 crooked; 12.81 round (adj.);
12.82 circle; 12.83 sphere.
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
q- q- (?) k- qw/u- k- k- k- k- q-
-q- -q- (?) -k(k)- -qw/u- -k- -k- -k- -k- -q-
A. Dravidian: Tamil kui house, abode, home, family, lineage, town, tenants,
kuikai hut made of leaves, temple, kuical hut, kuicai, kuiai small
hut, cottage, kuimai family, lineage, allegiance (as of subjects to their
sovereign), servitude, kuiy- tenant, kuiyilr tenants, kuil hut, shed,
abode, kuakar hut, cottage; Malayalam kui house, hut, family, wife,
tribe, kuima the body of landholders, tenantry, kuiyan slaves, kuiyn
inhabitant, subject, tenant, kuiil hut, thatch, kuil hut, outhouse near
palace for menials; Kannaa gui house, temple, guil, gualu,
guisalu, guasalu, guasala hut with a thatched roof; Koagu kui
family of servants living in one hut; Tuu gui small pagoda or shrine,
guisalu , guisilu , gusilu , guicilu hut, shed; Telugu koika hamlet,
gui temple, guise hut, cottage, hovel; Kolami gu temple; Parji
gui temple, village, resthouse; Gadba (Ollari) gui temple; Kui gui
central room of house, living room. BurrowEmeneau 1984:151152,
no. 1655. (Note: According to Mayrhofer 19561980.I:222, Sanskrit
kui- cottage, hut and several similar forms are Dravidian loans.)
B. Proto-Kartvelian *qwed- house: Georgian [qude-] house in: sa-qud-
el- cloister, refuge, kva-qude- stone house, da-qud-eb-a to become
calm, quiet, tranquil, qud-r-o calm, quiet, tranquil; Mingrelian "ude-
house; Svan "wed-i calm, quiet, tranquil. Fhnrich 2007:513 *"wed-;
FhnrichSardshweladse 1995:412 *"wed-; Klimov 1998:245246
*"ud-e house.
C. (?) Uralic: Proto-Finno-Ugrian *kota tent, hut, house > Finnish kota
Lapp hut, koti, koto home; Estonian koda house, kodu home; Lapp /
Saami goatte/goae- tent, hut; Mordvin kudo, kud house; Cheremis /
Mari kudo house; Votyak / Udmurt kwa, kwala summer hut; Ostyak /
Xanty kat house; Hungarian hz house, residence, abode, home.
Collinder 1955:130131 and 1977:142; Rdei 19861988:190 *kota;
Joki 1973:272273 *kota; Sammallahti 1988:543 *kot house, hut.
These forms may be Indo-Iranian loans.
Buck 1949:7.12 house; 7.13 hut. Hakola 2000:78, no. 318, *kot teepee;
Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 1907, *"d[i] house, hut.
Buck 1949:18.13 (18.14) shout, cry out; 18.21 speak, talk; 18.41 call (vb. =
summon). BomhardKerns 1994:487, no. 333; Dolgopolsky to appear, no.
1913, *"U[] to speak, to call.
(?) Sumerian gur-ru, gur-u forest (represented by the sign for a hair-
covered head). For the semantics, note Lithuanian gr, giri forest cited
above. Note also Old Icelandic skgr woods, forest from the same stem found
in skaga to jut out, to project, skagi a low cape or ness, skegg beard (cf. De
Vries 1977:480, 487, and 497).
Buck 1949:1.22 mountain, hill; 1.41 woods, forest; 4.17 horn; 12.35 end;
12.353 edge; 12.36 side; 12.76 corner. BomhardKerns 1994:514516, no.
363.
Buck 1949:15.44 sound (sb.); 16.79 praise (sb.); 18.13 shout, cry out.
BomhardKerns 1994:516517, no. 364; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 1938,
*"ur[] to bark, to howl (of canines), to cry, to shout.
Buck 1949:18.22 say; 18.41 call (vb. = summon). Koskinen 1980:23, no. 67;
BomhardKerns 1994:496, no. 343; Hakola 2000:86, no. 356.
Buck 1949:4.28 neck; 4.29 throat; 5.11 eat; 5.13 drink (vb.). BomhardKerns
1994:512513, no. 361; Illi-Svity 19711984.I:235236, no. 91, *gur
to swallow.
20.32. PROTO-NOSTRATIC *
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
- - c- x- k- s- - V-
-- -- -k- -x- -k- -- (?) -V-
Buck 1949:3.25 sheep; 3.26 ram; 3.29 lamb; 3.36 goat; 3.38 kid. Bomhard
Kerns 1994:379, no. 213.
Buck 1949:11.28 harm, injure, damage (vb.); 16.19 misfortune; 16.31 pain,
suffering; 16.32 grief, sorrow; 16.42 anger; 16.72 bad; 19.62 strife, quarrel.
BomhardKerns 1994:373374, no. 206.
Buck 1949:5.21 cook (vb.); 5.22 boil; 5.23 roast, fry; 5.24 bake; 7.31 fireplace
(hearth); 15.84 dry. BomhardKerns 1994:374375, no. 207. Slightly
different etymology in Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2215, *[]ER to roast.
Note: The original meaning of the stem *i- (~ *e-) may have been to
scratch, to scrape (> to comb > hair); this stem may be preserved in
Cushitic: Proto-Cushitic *Vaf-/*Vif- or *laf-/*lif- to claw, to scratch (cf.
686 CHAPTER TWENTY
Ehret 1995:429, no. 891). For derivation of the word for hair from a stem
with the meaning to scratch, to scrape, cf. Old Church Slavic kosa hair,
Serbo-Croatian ksa hair, wool, etc., o-grade of the root found in Common
Slavic *esati to scratch, to comb > Russian est [] to scratch, to
comb (cf. Derksen 2008:86 and 238).
A. Afrasian: Semitic: Arabic ankala (< *ank-al-) to hook up, ankal peg,
hook.
PROTO-NOSTRATIC * 689
B. Dravidian: Tamil cuku end of cloth left hanging out in dressing, pleat or
fold of garment; Kannaa cugu, jugu end of a turban sticking out, a
small part torn and hanging to the thing, a dangling tatter; Telugu cugulu
the end(s) of a garment, cugu a skirt, the end of a cloth; Kolami jue
cloth. BurrowEmeneau 1984:229, no. 2648.
C. Proto-Indo-European *konk- (vb.) to hook up, to hang up; (n.) peg,
hook: Hittite (3rd sg. pres. act.) ga-an-ki to hang; Sanskrit ak- peg,
nail, spike, kate to waiver, to hesitate; Latin cnctor to delay, to
linger, to hesitate; Gothic hhan to hang, to keep in suspense; Old
Icelandic hanga to hang, to be suspended, hengja to hang up, to
suspend; Faroese hanga to hang; Norwegian hanga to hang, hengja to
hang up; Swedish hnga to hang; Danish hKnge to hang; Old English
hangian to hang, hengan(n) death or punishment by hanging, hanging,
torture; gallows, cross, rack; prison, confinement; Old Frisian hangia to
hang; Old Saxon hangn to hang; Dutch hangen to hang; Old High
German hangn to hang (New High German hangen, hngen). Rix
1998a:290 *$enk- to hang, to suspend; Pokorny 1959:537538 *kenk-
to dangle, 566 *$enk-, *$onk- to dangle; Walde 19271932.I:382
383 *kenk-; Mann 19841987:469 *kank- (*kanki ) to raise, to hang,
470 *kankl- hook, hanger, 601 *$ankos, -is spike, limb, branch, peg;
Watkins 1985:32 *konk- and 2000:43 *konk- to hang; Gamkrelidze
Ivanov 1984.II:927 *$[]ank[]- and 1995.I:821 *$ank- stake, peg;
MalloryAdams 1997:255 $onk- to hang; ErnoutMeillet 1979:157;
WaldeHofmann 19651972.I:307 *$enq-, *$onq-; De Vaan 2008:153;
Puhvel 1984 .4:4851 *$enke(y)-, *$n k-; Kloekhorst 2008b:437
438; Orl 2003:160 Proto-Germanic *xanjanan, 160 *xanxanan ~
*xananan, 160 *xanxnan ~ *xannan; Kroonen 2013:208 Proto-
Germanic *hangjan- ~ *hankjan- to (make) hang and 208 *hanhan- to
hand; Feist 1939:230231 *%ak-; Lehmann 1986:168 *%enk-; De Vries
1977:208 and 222; FalkTorp 19031906.I:319 *ke(n)k-; Onions
1966:426 Common Germanic *aan; Klein 1971:333 *kenq-, *konq-;
KlugeMitzka 1967:288; KlugeSeebold 1989:292 *#onk-.
D. Yukaghir (Northern / Tundra) unele- to fall down a little (of trousers).
Nikolaeva 2006:145.
Buck 1949:9.22 cut (vb.); 9.27 split (vb. tr.); 9.28 tear (vb. tr.). Bomhard
Kerns 1994:378, no. 212.
20.33. PROTO-NOSTRATIC *
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
- - t- k- k- -
-- -- -()- -k- -k- --
Buck 1949:4.27 tooth; 4.58 bite; 5.11 eat. BomhardKerns 1994:381, no. 216.
Sumerian dim band, binding; rope, cord; knot, dim-ma to tie together, to
fasten, to bind, dim-m band, rope, cord.
Buck 1949:9.342 press (vb.); 10.67 push, shove (vb.); 12.12 put (place, set,
lay). BomhardKerns 1994:382, no. 218.
20.34. PROTO-NOSTRATIC *
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
- - - - - - - -
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
607. Proto-Nostratic 1st singular personal pronoun stem *a- (~ *-), *i- (~ *e-)
I, me:
No doubt originally the same as the deictic particles *a-, *i- listed below.
Sumerian a-aA I.
Note: The Chukchi forms indicate that we are dealing with what was originally
a deictic particle here inasmuch as the same patterning is found in both
the first and second person predicative pronoun stems. Moreover, it is
the proximate deictic form *i- (~ *e-) that is represented in Chukchi-
Kamchatkan as opposed to the distant form *a- (~ *-) found in
Afrasian (the Indo-European forms are phonologically ambiguous). This
seems to indicate that independent developments were involved in each
branch, using the same basic elements.
Note: These stems regularly combined with other deictic particles: *a/i/u+na-,
*a/i/u+a-,*a/i/u+ma-,*a/i/u+ta-, *a/i/u+ka-, *a/i/u+ya-, etc.
Proto-Agaw base *+n- this > Bilin "na this; Xamir n/nin/nyn,
(f.) nn this; Kemant n/ndn this; Awngi / Awiya n this.
Appleyard 2006:136; Reinisch 1887:3233 (en, in).
Note: The Nostratic pattern *a- (distant) ~ *i- (proximate) was changed to
*a- (proximate) ~ *i- (distant) in Kartvelian.
ea, id he, she, it; this or that person or thing; Oscan eiso- this; Umbrian
(dat. sg.) esmei to this, to it; Old Irish he, they, ed it; Gothic
anaphoric pronoun is he, ita it; Old Icelandic relative particle es (later
er) who, which, what; Old Saxon et, it it; Old High German er, ir he,
ez, iz it (New High German er he, es it); Lithuanian js (< *is) he.
Pokorny 1959:281286 *e-, *ei-, *i-, (f.) *- demonstrative particle;
Walde 19271932.I:96102 *e-, *i-, (f.) *-, *-; Mann 1984
1987:235236 *ei (*i ) she, it, 236 *ei o, *eii o (*eii os) his, her(s),
427 *id it, that, 433 *is (*i , *i f.) this, he (she), 437 *i she, it; De
Vaan 2008:309310; Watkins 1985:26 *i- and 2000:3536 *i-
pronominal stem; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1984.I:291 *is, *it, I:385387
and 1995.I:253 (m./f.) *is, (n.) *it this; MalloryAdams 1997:458;
Tischler 1977 .1:12 and 1:118119; Kloekhorst 2008b:162164
and 220221; Puhvel 1984 .1/2:36 and 1/2:67; Orl 2003:203
Proto-Germanic *iz, (neuter) *it; Kroonen 2013:268 Proto-Germanic *i-
he/she, that one; Feist 1939:296; Lehmann 1986:207208; De Vries
1977:105; KlugeMitzka 1967:169170; KlugeSeebold 1989:183;
Smoczyski 2007.1:234 *Hi -; Szemernyi 1996:206207; Brugmann
1904:401402; Meillet 1964:326327. Proto-Indo-European *-i deictic
particle meaning here and now added to verbs to form so-called
primary endings (cf. Burrow 1973:314; Fortson 2004:85; Kerns
Schwartz 1972:4). Proto-Indo-European adverbial particle *-/*- near,
by, together with: Sanskrit hither, near to, towards; Greek prefixes -
and -; Old High German prefix -; Old Church Slavic prefix ja-.
G. Gilyak / Nivkh (Amur) distant demonstrative a-d that, even more distant
from the speaker but visible. Gruzdeva 1998:26; Greenberg 2000:91.
H. Etruscan i- in: i-ca this, i-n, i-nc it, i-ta this.
Sumerian ad father.
Buck 1949:3.20 cattle; 3.21 bull; 3.22 ox; 3.23 cow. Bomhard 1996a:222, no.
632.
A. Proto-Afrasian *ax- (adj.) young, tender; (n.) youth, young man, younger
brother: Proto-Semitic *ax- brother, companion, friend > Ugaritic 9
brother; Eblaite a-u-um brother; Akkadian au brother, colleague,
associate; Phoenician " brother; Hebrew " [ja*] brother, kinsman;
Syriac "a brother, friend, companion, associate; Arabic "a, "a
brother, companion, friend; Sabaean ", "w brother; Mehri
brother; Soqori "hi brother; eri / Jibbli "a brother; arssi
(h) brother; Ethiopic / Geez "w [], " [], " []
brother, blood relation, kinsman; Tigre u brother; Tigrinya aw
brother; Argobba h brother; Harari younger brother. D. Cohen
1970 :15; Klein 1987:16; Murtonen 1989:8687; Zammit 2002:70.
West Chadic *ah(ya)- uncle, brother > Kulere ahy- uncle; Warji yah-
brother (according to OrlStolbova [1995:7], Warji initial ya- is due to
the influence of the second syllable); Hausa w/yy elder brother.
Central Chadic *a- son > Musgu a son. OrlStolbova 1995:7, no.
23, *a- brother.
B. Kartvelian: Georgian ax-al-i young, new, fresh; Svan m-ax-e new,
m-ax-nd anew, again, m-ax-ew a brave man, a youth. Palmaitis
Gudjedjiani 1985:215; Schmidt 1962:94. Not related to Proto-Kartvelian
*xal-/*xl- to be near as hesitatingly suggested by Schmidt (1962:94),
Klimov (1964:260 and 1998:328), FhnrichSardshweladse (1995:544
545), and Fhnrich (2007:676677).
Buck 1949:5.11 eat. Brunner 1969:36, no. 139; BomhardKerns 1994:559, no.
420.
Buck 1949:11.28 harm, injure, damage (vb.); 16.31 pain, suffering; 16.72 bad.
BomhardKerns 1994:578579, no. 447.
Buck 1949:8.15 cultivate, till; 8.21 plow (vb.; sb.); 8.22 dig.
Buck 1949:2.22 woman; 2.24 female; 2.31ff. words for family relationship;
2.36 mother. BomhardKerns 1994:557558, no. 417; Hakola 2000:18, no.
19; Caldwell 1913:567 and 611612.
B. Dravidian: Parji akka mothers father; Gondi akk mothers father (said
by granddaughter), akko great grandfather, akko daughters son or
daughter, grandsons wife, ukko (that is, akko) maternal grandfather;
Pengo ako maternal grandfather; Kui ake grandfather, ancestor, akenja
grandfather; Kuwi akku grandfather. BurrowEmeneau 1984:4, no. 24.
C. Yukaghir (Northern / Tundra) akaa elder brother, akaadie the eldest
among brothers. Nikolaeva 2006:99.
D. Proto-Altaic *ka older male relative: Proto-Tungus *ak, *kak man;
elder brother > Evenki ak akin; elder brother; Lamut / Even aqa, aqn
elder brother; Negidal aga, aa elder brother; Manchu aa male,
man, aun elder brother; Spoken Manchu (Sibo) hah man; Ulch aa
elder brother; Jurchen aa-ay man, aun (aun-un) elder brother;
Orok aa, aqa elder brother; Nanay / Gold elder brother; Oroch aka,
akin elder brother; Udihe aga elder brother; Solon a, ain elder
brother. Proto-Mongolian *aka elder brother > Written Mongolian aqa
older brother; senior, older, elder; Khalkha a, aay term of respectful
address: aunt; Buriat aa elder brother; Kalmyk a elder brother;
Ordos aa elder brother; Dagur ak, aga elder brother; Dongxiang aa
elder brother; Shira-Yughur aGa (or aa) elder brother; Monguor aa
elder brother. Poppe 1955:88. Proto-Turkic *(i)ka elder male relative:
elder brother; elder uncle; father; grandfather > Old Turkic (Old Uighur)
aqa elder male relative: elder brother; elder uncle; father; grandfather;
Turkish aa term of respectful address: lord, master, gentleman;
Azerbaijani aa elder male relative: elder brother; elder uncle; father;
grandfather, also used as a term of respectful address; Turkmenian a
elder male relative: elder brother; elder uncle; father; grandfather; Uzbek
a elder male relative: elder brother; elder uncle; father; grandfather;
Uighur aa elder male relative: elder brother; elder uncle; father;
grandfather; Karaim aqa term of respectful address, aa elder, also used
as a term of respectful address; Tatar aa elder male relative: elder
brother; elder uncle; father; grandfather, also used as a term of respectful
address; Bashkir aay elder male relative: elder brother; elder uncle;
father; grandfather, also used as a term of respectful address; Kirghiz aa
elder male relative: elder brother; elder uncle; father; grandfather;
Kazakh aa elder male relative: elder brother; elder uncle; father;
grandfather; elder; Noghay aa elder male relative: elder brother; elder
uncle; father; grandfather, also used as a term of respectful address; Sary-
Uighur aqa elder male relative: elder brother; elder uncle; father;
grandfather, also used as a term of respectful address; Oyrot (Mountain
Altai) aqa elder male relative: elder brother; elder uncle; father;
grandfather, also used as a term of respectful address; Tuva aq elder
male relative: elder brother; elder uncle; father; grandfather; Yakut aa
father; Dolgan aga father. Poppe 1960:55, 94, 124, and 146; Street
1974:7 *aka some older male relative; StarostinDyboMudrak
2003:281282 *ka elder brother.
712 CHAPTER TWENTY
ulie; Shira-Yughur l; Monguor li, l. Poppe 1955:287, 288, 289, 290, and
291; StarostinDyboMudrak 2003:1493 *ule (~ -i) negative particle.
F. Chukchi-Kamchatkan: According to Greenberg (2000:216): In the
Koryak group reflexes of *ele form sentence negations or are equivalent to
English no!, a natural use for a negative existential. Examples are Palana
Koryak elle and Kerek ala not. Kerek has lost its vowel harmony system
through merger so that a is the expected reflex of *e. Aliutor has gone
through similar phonetic changes and has al, alla no, not. In addition, for
prohibitives, Kerek uses the imperative of a negative auxiliary verb illa,
which follows the negative infinitive Fortescue (2005:31) reconstructs
Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan *Kl(lK) not: Chukchi etl not; Kerek ala
not; Koryak [elvelin not]; Alyutor alla not (Palana el(le) not);
Kamchadal / Itelmen il- in: il-puvakax dont threaten!, il-masys dont
hinder!.
G. Gilyak / Nivkh: Greenberg (2000:215) compares the Gilyak / Nivkh verb
stem ali- to be unable, which may be considered to represent the full
form of the negative existential *ele.
Buck 1949:11.13 take; 11.14 seize, grasp, take hold of; 11.81 buy. Bomhard
Kerns 1994:563, no. 426; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 38, *em to seize, to
hold; Illi-Svity 19711984.I:270, no. 133, *em to seize, to take.
624. Proto-Nostratic (n.) *am-a time, moment, point of time; (particle) now:
zft-mm time around midnight (from zft calm). Leslau 1979:41 and
1987:21. Proto-East Cushitic *amm(-an)- time, now > Galla / Oromo
amm-a now; Somali amm-in-ka, imm-in-ka, imm-i-ka now; Hadiyya
amm-an-i time, when; Gidole amm-an-n-e now; Konso amm-a now.
Sasse 1979:25. Proto-Southern Cushitic *ami when? > Iraqw -ami in
hami now; Kwadza -ami- in hamiso then; Maa mi when?. Ehret
1980:281.
B. Elamo-Dravidian: Middle Elamite a-am, am now. Paper 1955:107.
C. Indo-European: Proto-Celtic *am-o-; *amstero-, - time, moment > Old
Irish amm (also written m) time, moment, point of time, (acc.) i n-am,
(dat.) i n-aim when, i n-m sin at this moment, aimser time, moment,
epoch; Welsh amser timely, amserach more timely; Cornish amser
(Middle Cornish anser) timely; Breton (Middle Breton amser) amzer
timely. Mann 19841987:19 *ambhmn- (*mbhmn-, *m bhmn-) circuit,
period; Vendrys 1959 :A35 and A67; LewisPedersen 1937:21.
D. Yukaghir (Southern / Kolyma) amunde (< *am-un- ?) here; soon after.
Nikolaeva 2006:103.
E. Proto-Altaic *mV on time, timely, now: Proto-Tungus *am- quick,
quickly; to be on time, to catch up; to reach > Evenki ama, ama-kn
quick, quickly, amin-, ami-ltn- to be on time, to catch up; Lamut /
Even mrq quick, quickly, mltn- to be on time, to catch up;
Manchu am-bu- to overtake and catch, am-a- to pursue, to chase, to
catch up to; to hurry, to rush, am-ana- to go to pursue, to rush (over),
am-ata- to strive to overtake, am-aga pertaining to pursuit; Spoken
Manchu (Sibo) am- to pursue, to chase, to catch up to; Nanay / Gold
am-qa-- to reach, to touch; Solon amar quick, quickly. Proto-
Mongolian *(h)am- sudden, quick; to be on time > Written Mongolian
am-i- to do something in the required time, to be on time; to be
successful, to make progress, ama-ai sudden, quick; Khalkha am-i- to
be on time; Buriat am-a- to be on time; Kalmyk am- sudden, quick;
Ordos am-i- to be on time. Proto-Turkic *(i)am- now; recent > Old
Turkic (Orkhon, Old Uighur) am-d now; Sary-Uighur am-o, am-d-ko
recent; Khakas am now, am-d-, am- recent; Tuva am now,
am-, am-d (< am-d-) the same; Yakut an (< *am-d) now; Dolgan
an now. StarostinDyboMudrak 2003:298 *mV quick, timely.
Phoenician "m mother; Hebrew "m [<a@] mother; Aramaic "m, "imm
mother; Syriac "emm mother; Arabic "umm mother; Sabaean "mm
mother; Mehri (indef.) m, (constr.) "m mother; arssi m
mother; eri / Jibbli "m() mother; Geez / Ethiopic "mm []
mother; Tigre "m mother; Argobba m mother; Gafat mit
mother; Gurage mm female, mother; Amharic mmo, mmamma,
mmyye mother!. D. Cohen 1970 :2223; Klein 1987:33; Murtonen
1989:9293; Leslau 1979:42 and 1987:22; Diakonoff 1992:86 *mm-
mother; Zammit 2002:79. Berber: Tuareg ma mother; Nefusa mmi
mother; Wargla mamma mother, mommy; Mzab mamma mother,
mommy; Ghadames ma mother, imma mommy; Tamazight imma,
mma, ma mother, mommy; Kabyle ymma mother, mommy, taymma
mother; Chaouia imma, ymma mother, mommy. Proto-Highland East
Cushitic *ama mother > Gedeo / Darasa ama mother; Burji am- ~
aam- adult woman, wife, mother; Hadiyya ama mother; Kambata
ama-ta mother; Sidamo ama mother. Sasse 1982:2526; Hudson
1989:102. Proto-Southern Cushitic *aama- female, female relative (term
of address ?) > Burunge ama sister, female cousin; Iraqw ameni
woman, ama grandmother; Kwadza ama mother; Asa "amama
grandmother, "ama"eto older girl. Ehret 1980:282. West Chadic *am-
woman > Ngizim m woman, wife; Warji m, mi, "m-y
woman; Tsagu my woman; Kariya m woman; Miya m woman;
Jimbin m woman. JungraithmayrIbriszimow 1994.II:346347.
OrlStolbova 1995:10, no. 34, *am- woman.
B. Proto-Elamo-Dravidian *amma mother: Middle Elamite am-ma mother.
McAlpin 1981:141. Dravidian: Tamil amm mother; Malayalam amma
mother; Kannaa amma, ama mother; Telugu amma, ama mother,
matron; Tuu amma mother, lady; Kolami amma mother; Kona ama
grandmother; Brahui amm mother, grandmother. Krishnamurti
2003:10 *amm-a mother; BurrowEmeneau 1984:18, no. 183.
C. Proto-Indo-European *am(m)a mother: Greek , P,
mother; Late Latin amma mom, amita fathers sister; Oscan (gen. sg.)
Amma the name of a Samnite goddess; Old Icelandic amma grand-
mother; Old Swedish amma mother, nurse; Old High German amma
mother, nurse (New High German Amme); Albanian am mother, aunt;
Tocharian B ammakki mother. Pokorny 1959:36 *am(m)a, *am
mommy; Walde 19271932.I:53 *am(m)a; Mann 19841987:18 *am
mother, nurse; Watkins 1985:2 *amma various nursery words and 2000:3
*am- various nursery words; MalloryAdams 1997:386 *hem- (or *am-)
mother; Chantraine 19681980.I:76; De Vaan 2008:3839; Walde
Hofmann 19651972.I:39; ErnoutMeillet 1979:28; Orl 1998:4 and
2003:17 Proto-Germanic *ammn; De Vries 1977:8; KlugeMitzka
1967:18; KlugeSeebold 1989:25; Van Windekens 19761982.I:621;
Adams 1999:20.
720 CHAPTER TWENTY
Buck 1949:2.22 woman; 2.24 female; 2.31ff. words for family relationship;
2.36 mother. Dolgopolsky 1998:9192, no. 116, *emA mother and to
appear, no. 37, *emA mother; BomhardKerns 1994:571572, no. 439;
Caldwell 1913:606 and 613614.
lists inu, enu). D. Cohen 1970 :25; Murtonen 1989:95; Klein 1987:38
and 688; Zammit 2002:7182. Egyptian n, ny to bring, to fetch; to
carry off, to bring away; to bring about (an event); to remove (something
bad), to overcome (trouble); to reach, to attain (a place); Coptic ine [eine]
to bring, to bear. Hannig 1995:74; Faulkner 1962:22; Gardiner 1957:554;
ErmanGrapow 1921:14 and 19261963.1:9091; Vycichl 1983:64;
ern 1976:47. Highland East Cushitic: Sidamo aan- to follow. Hudson
1989:348.
B. Dravidian: Tamil aai to approach, to come near, to touch, to come into
contact with, to copulate with, amai, aumai, aimai nearness,
proximity, avu (avi-) to approach, ai (vb.) to join with (tr.); (adv.)
near, auku (auki-) to approach, aimai nearness, aai in close
proximity; Malayalam aayuka to approach, to arrive, aavu arrival,
closeness, aekka to bring into contact, to embrace, to hug, aukuka to
approach, aaccal embracing, drawing near, aa nearness, proximity,
auka, auka, apuka to approach; Kota an- (any-) to be in the
same place with, to approach, to be in or move into place, to seize prey;
Kannaa ae, ai to come near, to come into contact, to touch, to
embrace, ae approach, ai joining, fitness, order, aisu to go near,
to approach, to resort to, to come or go to for protection, ae nearness,
approach, side of anything; Tuu aepuni to come into contact, to press;
Telugu au (vb.) to touch; (n.) touch, uncleanness, defilement by touch,
impurity, pollution; Kuux sn to reach, to arrive at, to come, to
overtake, to hear about, sta"n to make reach, to deliver, to touch
(with the help of some instrument), to overtake, strn to be brought
up in a certain place; Malto anse to arrive, anstre to cause to arrive, to
convey; Brahui haninging to copulate (of human beings). Burrow
Emeneau 1984:13, no. 120.
C. Proto-Indo-European *en-o-s (span of time >) year: Greek *
year in: - one year old; yearly, annual, year by year; for a year,
lasting a year, (acc. pl. ) (lengthened-grade) a year old, yearling,
- two years old, - three years old, etc. Perhaps also -n-
(zero-grade) in: Lithuanian pr-n-ai last year; Latvian pr-n-s in
previous years; Gothic *fair-n-s in the previous year; Middle High
German (adv.) ver-n-e in the previous year; Old Icelandic for-n old,
ancient; Old English fyr-n (adj.) former, ancient; (adv.) formerly, of old,
long ago, once upon a time. Semantic development as in Arabic "anan
(span of) time cited above. Pokorny 1959:314 *en- year; Watkins
1985:17 *en- year; Mann 19841987:925 *pernoi (*pern-) last year, of
yore, *pernos last years, ancient; MalloryAdams 1997:654 *hen-
year; Hofmann 1966:83 and 108; Chantraine 19681980.I:348349
*eno- and I:414; Frisk 19701973.I:518 and I:638; Orl 2003:100101
Proto-Germanic *fernaz (< *per- previous plus zero-grade of *eno-
year), 101 *fernjaz; Feist 1939:140141 *eno-; Lehmann 1986:106
PROTO-NOSTRATIC * 723
629. Proto-Nostratic (particle) *an-to, towards, over, for, against, upon, on:
Derivative of:
(vb.) *an- to draw near to, to approach, to come (close to);
(n.) *an-a nearness, proximity
A. Proto-Afrasian *an- to, towards, over, for, against, upon, on: Semitic:
Akkadian ana to, towards, over, for, against, upon, on. Von Soden
19651981.I:4748; D. Cohen 1970 :24. Highland East Cushitic:
Sidamo aan on (top of), aana over, above. Hudson 1989:348.
B. Proto-Indo-European *an- to, towards, over, for, against, upon, on:
Sanskrit nu with, after, along, alongside, lengthwise, near to, under,
subordinate to; Avestan ana along, on, anu toward, along; Old Persian
anuv (that is, anu) along, according to; Greek , (with dative) on,
upon, (with accusative) up, from bottom to top, up along, (in
compositions) up to, upwards, up; Latin an- on, to as in (inf.) an-hlre
to draw a heavy breath, to puff, to pant; Gothic ana in, on, upon, at,
over, to, into, against; Old Icelandic on, upon, in; Old English an, an-,
on, on- in, on, into, on to, among; Old Frisian an, ana at, on, over; Old
724 CHAPTER TWENTY
Saxon an, ana at, on, over; Old High German an, ana at, on, over (New
High German an); Lithuanian (prep. with gen.) nu from, away from;
since. Pokorny 1959:3940 *an, *anu, *an, *n over there, along;
Walde 19271932.I:5859 *an, *an, *n; Mann 19841987:21 *ana
(*n) on, upon, 27 *an (*n) upon, above, 257 *n-, *n, 258
*n, *ni upon; above, downward; Watkins 1985:2 *an and 2000:3
*an on (extended form *ana); MalloryAdams 1997:612 *haen-hae up
(onto), upwards, along, *haen-u up (onto), upwards, along; Mayrhofer
19561980.I:34; Boisacq 1950:59 *an; Frisk 19701973.I:100101;
Chantraine 19681980.I:82; Hofmann 1966:17; WaldeHofmann
19651972.I:4344 *ana, *an, *an; ErnoutMeillet 1979:30; Orl
2003:17 Proto-Germanic *ana(i); Kroonen 2013:26 Proto-Germanic *ana
on(to), to, by; Feist 1939:41; Lehmann 1986:30 *an, *anu; De Vries
1977:1; Onions 1966:627; Klein 1971:513 *an; KlugeMitzka 1967:20
*ana; KlugeSeebold 1989:27 *ana; BoutkanSiebinga 2005:21 Proto-
Frisian *ana; Fraenkel 19621965.I:511; Smoczyski 2007.1:430.
Sumerian en as far as, (up) to, with, together with, in addition to, besides,
including, en(-na), en- as far as, (up) to, en-na to, towards, near, in
addition to, besides, moreover.
(n.) *ap-a that which is more, over, above, extra, superior; (adj.) many,
more, extra, additional, numerous, teeming, superior
(particle) *ap- also, moreover, besides
Note: The CVC- patterning shows that this stem could not originally have been
a particle, though this is how it is preserved in Semitic and the other
Nostratic daughter languages. Though the original meaning is uncertain,
we may speculate that it may have been something like (vb.) to be
more, over, above, extra, superior; to surpass; (n.) that which is more,
over, above, extra, superior; (adj.) many, more, extra, additional,
numerous, teeming, superior.
A. Dravidian: Tamil ari to cut off, to nip off, arakka (arakki-) to clip off, to
prune, to cut, to sever; Malayalam ariyuka to reap corn, to cut grass, to
cut very small, to hack to pieces, arakkuka to cut, to chip off, to sever,
arauka to cut or chop off (the branches of trees or plants); Toda ark-
(arky-) to chip, to cut square (end of plank or post); Kannaa ari (arid-)
to cut or lop off. BurrowEmeneau 1984:20, no. 212. Tamil arai half;
Malayalam ara half; Kota ar half; Toda ar half; Kannaa ara half, a
little, arebar a few; Telugu ara half, a moiety, incomplete, not full, ara
half, a moiety; Tuu are half; Naiki (of Chanda) ar half in ar sla a
measure. BurrowEmeneau 1984:2122, no. 229. Tamil aru (aruv-,
arr-/[mod.] arunt-) to be severed, to break (as a rope), to cease, to become
extinct, to perish, to be decided, to be settled, aru (-pp-, -tt-) to break off,
to cut, to part asunder, to sever, to cleave, to exterminate, to determine, to
resolve; Malayalam aruka to be severed, to be cut off, to cease, arukka
to sever, to cut off, to decide; Kota arv- (art-) to cut (meat) into small
pieces for broth; Toda arf- (art-) to cut, to reap; Kannaa aru to be
severed or disjoined, to be cut asunder, to cease, arake fragment, piece;
Koagu ara- (arap-, arat-) to cut; Telugu aru to be destroyed, to
decrease; Kolami ark- (arakt-) to harvest grain by cutting. Burrow
Emeneau 1984:2930, no. 315.
B. Proto-Indo-European *er-d-/*or-d-/*r -d- to split, to divide, to
separate: Avestan ar side; Sanskrit dhak (also dhk) separately,
aside, apart, rdha- side, part, ardh- half; Lithuanian arda, ardti
to rip up, to rip open, to pull down, to dismantle, to disassemble, to take to
pieces, to disjoint; to destroy, to demolish, to break, iri, rti to rip apart;
to disintegrate. Pokorny 1959:333 *er-dh-; Walde 19271932.I:143
*er-dh-; Mann 19841987:887 *ordhos side, part, half; Mayrhofer
19561980.I:51 and I:124; Smoczyski 2007.1:22 and 1:223224.
Buck 1949:9.22 cut (vb.); 12.23 separate (vb.); 13.24 half. BomhardKerns
1994:581582, no. 451; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 67, *er to divide; one
share, one, single.
638. Proto-Nostratic root *ar- (~ *r-) (used as the base for the designation of
various horned animals):
(n.) *ar-a ram, goat, mountain-goat, chamois, ibex, gazelle, etc.
A. Proto-Afrasian *ar- used as the base for the designation of various horned
animals: Proto-Semitic *ar-w/y- originally used as the designation of
various horned animals: chamois, gazelle, mountain goat; later used as
the designation for any wild animal > Akkadian arw (also arm)
gazelle, er, ar eagle; Amorite "arwiyum gazelle; Hebrew "r
[yr!a&], "aryh [hy#r+a]^ lion; Syriac "ary lion; Arabic "arw chamois,
"urwiyya mountain goat; Sabaean "ry mountain goats; Geez / Ethiopic
"arwe [] animal, wild animal, beast, wild beast, reptile; Tigrinya
"arawit, "ar wild animal; Tigre "arw serpent, snake, "rwt female
elephant; Harari ri wild animal, beast. D. Cohen 1970 :32;
Murtonen 1989:100101; Klein 1987:55; Leslau 1963:31 and 1987:40.
Berber: Guanche ara she-goat. Lowland East Cushitic *ar- sheep >
Boni eriya sheep; Rendille ari sheep. Highland East Cushitic (pl.)
*aray- sheep > Bambala araay sheep. Proto-Rift *ar- goat > Iraqw
ari goat; Alagwa (pl.) ara goats; Burunge (pl.) ara goats; Kwadza
ali-to goat. Ehret 1980:297 *aari goat. OrlStolbova 1995:15, no. 50,
*ar- ram, goat; Militarv 2009:101.
B. Proto-Kartvelian *arkw- chamois: Mingrelian erckem-, erskem- ibex;
Georgian arv- chamois. Note: Svan jerskn chamois is a loan from
Mingrelian. Schmidt 1962:93 *arckw-; Klimov 1964:45 *arw- and
1998:34 *arw- chamois; FhnrichSardshweladse 1995:36 *arw-;
Fhnrich 2007:3839 *arw-.
C. Proto-Indo-European *er-/*or-/*r - used as the base for the designation
of various horned animals: ram, goat: Greek young goat, kid;
Armenian or-o lamb; Latin aris ram; Umbrian erietu ram; Old Irish
732 CHAPTER TWENTY
Buck 1949:3.25 sheep; 3.26 ram; 3.36 goat; 3.37 he-goat; 3.38 kid. Bomhard
Kerns 1994:570571, no. 437; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 75, *erq[i]
ruminant.
Sumerian a-te seat, stool, throne, a-ti seat, throne, e-de, e-ki throne.
Buck 1949:9.11 do, make; 12.11 place (sb.); 12.12 put (place, set, lay); 12.13
sit. Illi-Svity 19711984.I:268270, no. 132, *esA to settle a place, to be
at a place; Hakola 2000:25, no. 47; BomhardKerns 1994:567568, no. 434;
Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 84, *[][o] to stay, to be (Illi-Svity to
settle) and no. 85, *is (or *is ?) to sit, seat (the part of the body that
bears the weight in sitting) ( foundation, basis).
641. Proto-Nostratic (n.) *atta older male relative, father (nursery word):
642. Proto-Nostratic (n.) *ata older relative (male or female) (nursery word):
A. Afrasian: Proto-Semitic *aw- or > Arabic "aw or; Hebrew " [oa] or;
Syriac "aw or; Ugaritic or; Akkadian or; Sabaean "w or; arssi
"aw or; Mehri "aw or; Geez / Ethiopic "aw [] or; Tigre "aw or;
Tigrinya wy or; Harari aw or; Gurage we or; Amharic wy or;
Gafat wy or. D. Cohen 1970 :11; Murtonen 1989:8485; Klein
1987:9; Leslau 1963:37, 1979:639, and 1987:47; Zammit 2002:83. East
Cushitic: Saho oo or.
B. Proto-Indo-European *we or > Greek -(+) or; Sanskrit -v or; Latin
-ve or. Pokorny 1959:75 *u -, *u o- or; Walde 19271932.I:188189;
Mann 19841987:1496 *u e (*u , *u , *u) enclitic: and, but, or, also, so;
MalloryAdams 1997:410 *-u or; De Vaan 2008:656; ErnoutMeillet
1979:716; Boisacq 1950:313; Frisk 19701973.I:619; Chantraine 1968
1980.I:404; Hofmann 1966:104; Mayrhofer 19561980.III:180.
C. Uralic: Finnish vai or; Estonian vi or.
PROTO-NOSTRATIC * 737
pres.) ti goes, (1st pl. pres.) im we go, (3rd pl. pres.) ynti they go;
Avestan (3rd sg. pres.) aiti goes; Old Persian (3rd sg. pres.) aitiy goes;
Paelignian (imptv.) eite go!; Latin (1st sg. pres.) e I go; Old
Lithuanian (1st sg. pres.) emi I go, (3rd sg. pres.) eti goes; Old
Prussian (3rd sg. pres.) it goes, per-it comes; Old Church Slavic ido,
iti to go; Luwian (3rd sg. pres.) i-ti goes; Hittite (imptv.) i-it go!;
Tocharian A (1st pl.) yms we go, B (1st sg.) yam, ya I go. Rix
1998a:207208 *hei - to go; Pokorny 1959:293297 *ei- to go;
Walde 19271932.I:102105 *ei-; Mann 19841987:234 *eimi (*ei )
to go; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1984.I:180 *ei /i- and 1995.I:155, I:194
*ei-/i- to go, I:296 *ei-mi I go, *ei-si you go, *ei-ti he, she goes;
Watkins 1985:16 *ei- and 2000:22 *ei- to go (oldest form *ei-);
MalloryAdams 1997:227228 *hei- to go; Boisacq 1950:225226
*ei-; Frisk 19701973.I:462463; Chantraine 19681980.I:321322;
Hofmann 1966:73 *ei-; Mayrhofer 19561980.I:126; ErnoutMeillet
1979:197199 *ei-, *i-; De Vaan 2008:191192; WaldeHofmann
19651972. I:406409 *ei-. Proto-Indo-European *y-eh- [*y-ah-] (>
*y-) to go, to proceed: Sanskrit (3rd sg. pres.) y ti goes, proceeds,
moves, walks, sets out, marches, advances, travels, journeys; Avestan (3rd
sg. pres.) yiti goes, rides; Hittite (3rd sg. pres.) i-ya-at-ta(-ri) goes (so
Sturtevant 1951:34, 61, Indo-Hittite *"yehty; Puhvel 1984 .1/2:330
335, however, derives the Hittite form from *iya- < *eyo- and compares it
with Vedic yate to go); Lithuanian jju, jti to ride on horseback;
Tocharian A y- to go, to move. Rix 1998a:275 *i eh- to proceed, to
move along, to go, to travel, to ride; Pokorny 1959:294 *i - to go;
Walde 19271932.I:104 *i -; Mann 19841987:439 *i i , *i mi to go,
to ride; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1984.II:724 *i H- and 1995.I:627 *yH-
to ride (in a vehicle); MalloryAdams 1997:228 *i eha- to go, to travel;
Kloekhorst 2008b:380; Derksen 2008:216 *hei-.] Note: Two separate
Proto-Nostratic stems have fallen together in Proto-Indo-European: (A)
*ay- (~ *y-) to go, to proceed and (B) *iy- (~ *ey-) to come, to go.
C. Uralic: Proto-Finno-Ugrian *aya- to drive, to ride; to go, to travel; to
chase away, to chase off, to drive away; to pursue > Finnish aja- to drive,
to ride; to go, to travel; to run; to transport, to carry; to chase away, to
chase off, to drive away, ajaja driver, rider; Estonian aja- to drive, to
impel; Lapp / Saami vuoggje-/vuoje- to drive (tr. and intr.); Votyak /
Udmurt ujy-, uj-, j- to drive, to pursue; Zyrian / Komi voj- to bolt, to
run away; to move away, to carry away swiftly, vojl- to run away,
vojledly- to drive, to chase; Vogul / Mansi oj- to flee, to run away, ojt-
to let run, wujt- to chase, to pursue. Collinder 1955:129 and 1977:140;
Rdei 19861988:45 *aja-; Sammallahti 1988:542 *j- to drive.
The above forms are usually taken to be loans from Indo-Iranian (cf. Joki
1973:247248). Yukaghir (Southern / Kolyma) je:j- to get somewhere,
to fall; to attack, ejt- to take away, to take off, (Northern / Tundra) ejuu-
to attack. Nikolaeva 2006:152.
PROTO-NOSTRATIC * 741
Buck 1949:10.45 walk (vb.); 10.47 go; 10.48 come; 10.53 pursue; 10.65 drive
(vb. tr.); 10.66 ride (vb.). Hakola 2000:1718, no. 16; Dolgopolsky to appear,
no. 102,*[e]y to come, to arrive; Fortescue 1998:152.
A. Afrasian: Egyptian & s brain (of men and animals) (medical term).
Hannig 1995:2; Faulkner 1962:1; ErmanGrapow 19261963.1:2.
742 CHAPTER TWENTY
Buck 1949:4.203 brain. Greenberg 2002:30, no. 48, *ayu brain. Different
(false) etymology in Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2600a, *Xayo (= *|ayo) (a
variant reconstruction instead of *#ayo) marrow, brain, soft fat of animals
( to smear, to anoint).
Note the discussion above under *al- (~ *l-) (perhaps also *el-, *ul-)
(originally a negative verb stem later used in some branches as a negative
particle) to be not so-and-so or such-and-such.
A. Proto-Uralic *e- negative particle: no, not. For details, see the discussion
above (no. 622) under Proto-Uralic *el imperative of the negative
auxiliary verb (cf. Rdei 19861988:6870 *e ~ * ~ *a negative
particle; Collinder 1955:10 and 1977:26).
744 CHAPTER TWENTY
Sumerian e no.
Buck 1949:17.22 foolish, stupid; 17.23 insane, mad, crazy. Bomhard 1996a:
215, no. 617; Hakola 2000:28, no. 61.
Buck 1949:9.93 need, necessity; 11.33 lose; 11.74 loss; 16.19 misfortune;
16.45 shame (sb.); 16.72 bad. Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 760, *h|X[]k to
need, to lack.
Buck 1949:1.56 light (sb.); 15.56 shine. BomhardKerns 1994:581, no. 450.
655. Proto-Nostratic (Eurasiatic only) (n.) *ema older female relative; mother;
(older) woman (nursery word):
Note also:
(n.) *am(m)a mother
Buck 1949:2.22 woman; 2.24 female; 2.31ff. words for family relationship;
2.36 mother. BomhardKerns 1994:571572, no. 439; Dolgopolsky
1998:9192, no. 116, *emA mother and to appear, no. 37, *emA mother;
Hakola 2000:27, no. 57; Fortescue 1998:152.
Buck 1949:2.22 woman; 2.24 female; 2.31ff. words for family relationship;
2.36 mother.
Buck 1949:5.21 cook (vb.); 5.22 boil; 5.23 roast; 5.24 bake. BomhardKerns
1994:571, no. 438; Dolgopolsky 1998:56, no. 64, *PHi to bake, to prepare
food on hot stones and to appear, no. 62, *P[h]i to bake, to cook food on
hot stones.
1987:1614 *ertos, -, -is, 1614 *eru os, - land, earth, field; Watkins
1985:17 *er- and 2000:2324 *er- earth, ground (extended form *ert-);
MalloryAdams 1997:174 *her- earth; Frisk 19701973.I:546547;
Hofmann 1966:90; Boisacq 1950:270; Chantraine 19681980.I:363; Orl
2003:86 Proto-Germanic *er; Kroonen 2013:118 Proto-Germanic *er-
earth; Feist 1939:2526; Lehmann 1986:18 Proto-Germanic *er,
*er; De Vries 1977:295 Proto-Germanic *er, *er; FalkTorp 1903
1906.I:338339 Proto-Germanic *er from the root *er-; Onions
1966:298 Common Germanic *er < *er-; Klein 1971:235 *er-; Weekley
1921:491; Skeat 1898:184; KlugeLutz 1898:67; BoutkanSiebinga
2005:194195; Vercoullie 1898:4; KlugeMitzka 1967:171 *er-, *ert-,
*eru -; KlugeSeebold 1989:184 Proto-Germanic *er.
Buck 1949:1.21 earth, land. Brunner 1969:19, no. 2; Mller 1911:6869 and
72; BomhardKerns 1994:558559, no. 419; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 65,
*ar earth, land, place.
Buck 1949:1.36 river, stream, brook; 5.22 boil (vb. intr.); 9.35 pour; 10.31 boil
(vb. tr.). Different etymology in Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 7, *[a]b H
water, watercourse.
A. Afrasian: Berber: Tuareg ll to be, to exist; Siwa ili to be; Nefusa ili to
be; Ghadames ili to be; Wargla ili to be; Mzab ili to be; Tamazight ili
to be, to exist; Tashelhiyt / Shilha ili to be; Riff ili, iri to be; Kabyle ili
to be, to exist; Chaouia ili to be, to exist; Zenaga ille to be, al place.
Central Chadic *al- to be > Mofu ala- to be; Logone li-, li- to be.
OrlStolbova 1995:8 *al-/*il- to be.
B. Dravidian: Tamil il house, home, place; wife, illam house, home,
illava, ill wife, mistress of the house, illan, illi householder;
Malayalam il house, place, illam house of Nambudiri; Koagu illavn
man who is a relative; Tuu illu house, dwelling, family; Telugu illu
house, dwelling, habitation, illaamu, illaramu living in the house of
ones wifes father; Kolami ella house, iltm younger sisters
husband, iltam boy who serves for a wife in her fathers house; Naiki
ella house; Gondi il house; Kona ilu house; Pengo il house; Mana
il house; Kui iu house, dwelling, shed, hut; Kuwi ill, illu, il house.
BurrowEmeneau 1984:48, no. 494; Krishnamurti 2003:8 and 180 *il
house.
C. Proto-Uralic *el- to live: Finnish el- to live; to be alive, elm life,
lifetime, elo life; Estonian ela- to be alive; to live, to dwell, to reside,
elamu dwelling, habitation, house; Lapp / Saami Klle-/Kle- to live;
Cheremis / Mari le-, ile- to live; Votyak / Udmurt uly- to live; Zyrian /
Komi ol- to live; Hungarian l- to live; Yurak Samoyed / Nenets jiile-
to live; Tavgi Samoyed / Nganasan ile- to live; Yenisei Samoyed /
Enets (Hantai) ii-, (Baiha) jire- to live; Selkup Samoyed ela-, ila- to
live; Kamassian dili alive. Rdei 19861988:73 *el-; Dcsy 1990:98;
Collinder 1955:10 and 1977:31; Sammallahti 1988:536 *el- to live.
Buck 1949:4.74 live (= be alive); living; alive; life; 7.11 dwell; 7.12 house;
7.122 home; 7.13 hut; 9.91 be. Illi-Svity 1965:341 *el to live ()
and 19711984.I:267268, no. 131, *elA to live; Hakola 2000:2627, no.
56; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 23, *el clan, tribe ( all, pronoun of
plurality), no. 26, *il[A] to stand, to stay; place to stay, and, no. 2579, *el
to live, to dwell; Fortescue 1998:152.
A. Dravidian: Tamil iralai (< *ilar- through metathesis) stag, a kind of deer;
Kannaa erae, erale antelope, deer; Tuu erae antelope, deer; Telugu
(inscr.) iri stag, irri (< *ilri) antelope, li, li (< *ilati) antelope;
Malto ilaru the mouse deer. BurrowEmeneau 1984:46, no. 476.
B. Proto-Indo-European *el- (secondary o-grade form: *ol-) deer (and
similar animals): Greek (< *el-n -) deer, (< *) a
754 CHAPTER TWENTY
young deer, fawn; Armenian en hind, doe; Old Irish elit doe; Welsh
elain fawn; Old Icelandic elgr elk; Dutch eland elk; Old English eolh
elk; Old High German elaho elk (New High German Elch); Lithuanian
lnis deer; Old Church Slavic jelen deer; Russian oln [] deer,
los [] (< *ols) elk; Ukrainian len deer; Macedonian elen deer;
Czech jelen deer, los elk; Tocharian A yl, B yal gazelle. Pokorny
1959:303304 *el-en-, *el-n - (*eln) deer; Walde 19271932.I:154
155 *el- deer and similar animals; Mann 19841987:16 *al$is, *al$is
a horned animal, 238 *elnis (*elnis, -os; *lnis) deer; Watkins
1985:1617 *el- 2000:23 *el- red, brown (forming animal and tree
names); GamkrelidzeIvanov 1984.I:517518 *el-, *ol-: *(e)l-$[]-,
*el-en-, *el-n - and 1995.I:437 *el-, *ol-: *(e)l-$-, *el-en-, *el-n - deer;
MalloryAdams 1997:154155 *helhn (British English) red deer;
Boisacq 1950:238 *eln -bho-s and 245 *el-en-; Frisk 19701973.I:483
484 *elen- (?); Chantraine 19681980.I:333 *eln -bho-s; Hofmann 1966:
77 *el-n -bhos; Van Windekens 19761982.I:591 *el-en-; Adams 1999:
485486 *helni-; Derksen 2008:140 *hel-hen-i; Fraenkel 1962
1965.I:120; Orl 2003:14 Proto-Germanic *aliz ~ *elxaz ~ *elxn
(continuing Proto-Indo-European *ol$is ~ *el$is); Kroonen 2013:116
Proto-Germanic *elha(n)- elk; De Vries 1977:100 *el-; Onions 1966:304
*oln-, *eln- and 306 *elk-; Klein 1971:240 *eln- and 242 *elk-; Kluge
Mitzka 1967:162 *elk-, *olk-; KlugeSeebold 1989:173174 *el-;
Vercoullie 1898:70.
C. Yukaghir (Southern / Kolyma) ile, ilbe (< *ilw) domestic raindeer,
(Northern / Tundra) ilwiie pastor, ilwii- to graze, iled-iibe milk,
ilede having reindeer, ilen-nourie herdsman. Nikolaeva 2006:171 and
173.
D. Proto-Altaic *lV(-kV) deer: Proto-Tungus *()elkn deer > Evenki
elkn wild deer; Lamut / Even ilken, elken domesticated deer. Proto-
Mongolian *ili a young deer, fawn > Written Mongolian ili, eli a young
deer, fawn; Khalkha il a young deer, fawn; Kalmyk il a young deer,
fawn. Proto-Turkic *elik roebuck; wild goat > Old Turkic (Old Uighur)
elik roebuck; wild goat; Karakhanide Turkic elik roebuck; wild goat;
Turkish (dial.) elik roebuck; wild goat; Bashkir ilek roebuck; wild goat;
Kirghiz elik roebuck; wild goat; Kazakh elik roebuck; wild goat; Oyrot
(Mountain Altai) elik roebuck; wild goat; Tuva elik roebuck; wild goat.
StarostinDyboMudrak 2003:501 *lV(-kV) deer.
Buck 1949:4.21 eye; 15.51 see; 17.17 know; 17.34 clear, plain (to the mind).
Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 27, *il eye.
663. Proto-Nostratic (n.) *in-a (~ *en-a) place, location (> in, within, into in
the daughter languages):
A. Proto-Afrasian *in- in, within, into: Proto-Semitic *in- in, on, from,
by > Akkadian ina (in) in, on, from, through; Geez / Ethiopic "n-ta
[] through, by way of, by, at, into, to, in the direction of, because;
Tigre "t on, in, by, with, because of, "tta there. Leslau 1987:3233;
D. Cohen 1970 :24. Egyptian n in, to, for, because, by. Gardiner
1957:553; Hannig 1995:73; Faulkner 1962:22; ErmanGrapow 1921:13
and 19261963.1:89. Proto-Highland East Cushitic *-ni with > Burji
-na with; Gedeo / Darasa -nni with, -ni on (top of), -ni from, in;
Hadiyya -n in, -nni in, -ns from; Kambata -n with; Sidamo -nni
with. Hudson 1989:83 and 169.
B. Proto-Indo-European *en- in, into, among, on: Greek , , in, on,
among, into, and besides; Latin in (Old Latin en) in, on, among, into, on
to, towards, against; Oscan en in; Umbrian -en (-e, -em) in; Old Irish
ini-, en-, in- in, into; Gothic in in, into, among, by, inn into; Old
Icelandic in, within, among, inn in, into; Old English in in, on,
among, into, during, inn in; Old Frisian in in; Old Saxon in in; Old
High German in in (New High German in); Old Prussian en inside,
within. Pokorny 1959:311314 *en, *eni inside, within; Walde 1927
1932.I:125127 *en-; Mann 19841987:241 *en, *eni in; Watkins
1985:17 *en and 2000:23 *en in; MalloryAdams 1997:290 *hen(i)
in, into; Boisacq 1950:249 *en (*eni); Frisk 19701973.I:508509
*en, *eni; Hofmann 1966:81 *en, *eni, *eni , *n ; Chantraine 1968
1980.I:344345 *en-; ErnoutMeillet 1979:312314 *en, *n ; Walde
Hofmann 19651972.I:687688 *en, *n ; *eni; De Vaan 2008:300; Buck
1928:209, 301.2; Orl 2003:84 Proto-Germanic *en(), 84 *eni;
Kroonen 2013:269 Proto-Germanic *in(i) in; Feist 1939:292; Lehmann
1986:205 *en, *(e)ni, *ents and 206; De Vries 1977:282 and 286; Onions
1966:466 *en, *n ; Klein 1971:371 *en, *n , *eni; BoutkanSiebinga
PROTO-NOSTRATIC * 757
Buck 1949:2.25 boy; 2.26 girl; 2.27 child; 2.41 son; 2.42 daughter; 2.44
brother; 2.45 sister.
eat; Czech jsti to eat; Hittite (1st sg. pres.) e-it-mi I eat; Palaic (3rd pl.
pres.) a-ta-a-an-ti they eat; Luwian (inf.) a-du-na to eat; Hieroglyphic
Luwian at- to eat. Rix 1998a:205206 *hed- (to bite ) to eat;
Pokorny 1959:287289 *ed- to eat; Walde 19271932.I:118121
*ed-; Mann 19841987:230 *d- (*d, -om, -i , -i om, -is) food, bait,
230 *dlis, -os, -om edible; food, 230231 *dmi (*d) to eat, 231
*dmn-, *dn- food; tooth, set of teeth, 231 *ed(n) devourer,
consumer, 231 *edn t-, *edont- (*odont-) eating-; tooth, 231 *edonts
(*edont, *edon) (act. ptc.) eating, 231 *d(n) (*don-, *di os) eater,
231 *dr, -is food, 231 *ds-, *dsmn- eating, food, 231232 *edsk-
(*odsk-) foodstuff, food-crop, 232 *ds, -i , 232 *dtis (*stis) eating,
food, 862 *d- to eat; Watkins 1985:16 *ed- and 2000:22 *ed- to eat
(original meaning to bite); GamkrelidzeIvanov 1984.I:41 *et-/*ot-
and 1995.I:37 *et-/*ot- to eat, I:218 *et-mi I eat, *et-men food;
MalloryAdams 1997:175 *hdmi to eat; Mayrhofer 19561980.I:28;
Boisacq 1950:216 *d-; Chantraine 19681980.I:312313 *d-mi, *ed-;
Frisk 19701973.I:444445 *d-mi; Hofmann 1966:69 *ed-; Ernout
Meillet 1979:191192 *ed-; WaldeHofmann 19651972.I:392393
*d-mi; De Vaan 2008:185186; Orl 2003:27 Proto-Germanic *atjanan,
86 *etanan, 86 *etulaz; Kroonen 2013:39 Proto-Germanic *atjan- to
make eat and 119 *etan- to eat; Lehmann 1986:208 *ed- *"ed-; Feist
1939:296297; De Vries 1977:106 *ed-mi; Onions 1966:298 *ed-; Klein
1971:235 *ed-; KlugeMitzka 1967:175176 *ed-; KlugeSeebold
1989:190 *ed-; Kloekhorst 2008b:261263; Puhvel 1984 .1/2:315
320; Fraenkel 19621965.I:124125; Smoczyski 2007.1:148149.
C. Proto-Altaic *ite (~ *eti) to eat: Proto-Mongolian *ide- to eat >
Mongolian ide- to eat, to feed on, to gnaw, to eat up, to devour, to
consume, idegde- to be eaten, idegen food, nourishment, provisions,
idegl- to give food to, to feed (tr.), idele- to eat (something) together
with others, idei food, meals; Khalkha ide- to eat; Buriat ede- to eat;
Kalmyk id- to eat; Ordos ide- to eat; Moghol id- to eat; Dagur ide-
to eat; Dongxiang eie- to eat; Monguor ide- to eat; Shira-Yughur
ede- to eat. Poppe 1955:107. Proto-Turkic *et-mek bread > Old Turkic
(Old Uighur) tmek bread; Karakhanide Turkic etmek bread; Turkish
etmek, ekmek bread, food, ekmeki baker; Karaim ekmek, etmek, tmek
bread; Gagauz iekmek bread; Azerbaijani ppk bread (< *pmk <
*epmek); Turkmenian (dial.) ekmek, epmek bread; Tatar ikmk bread;
Bashkir ikmk bread; Noghay tpek bread; Khakas ipek bread; Oyrot
(Mountain Altai) tpk bread. StarostinDyboMudrak 2003:594 *ite
(~ *eti) to eat. StarostinDyboMudrak (2003:514) note that some of
the above Turkic forms may be from Proto-Turkic *ep-mek bread instead.
Sumerian to go out, to come out, to leave; to bring out, to get away from,
to escape, to flee, to run away, e to ride, to travel.
667. Proto-Nostratic 1st person personal pronoun stem *iya: (a) by me; (b) agent
marker of the 1st singular of verbs; (c) postnominal possessive pronoun: my:
19261963.1:25; Gardiner 1957:39 and 550. Berber: Kabyle -i, -iyi, -yi
me, to me, -i me as in: fll-i for me, yid-i with me, -i towards
me, gar-i d-bbi between me and God, wd-i me alone, zdat-i in
front of me, etc.; Tuareg -i, -iyi me, to me; Tamazight (1st sg. direct
object pronoun, placed either before or after verbs according to the
syntactic conditions) i, yi me. Proto-East Cushitic *ya/*yi me, my >
Saho yi me; Afar (poss.) yi my; Burji (1st sg. abs. [obj.]) ee me, i-ya
my; Arbore ye- me; Dasenech ye- me; Elmolo ye- me; Kambata
e(e)s me; Hadiyya e(e)s me; Sidamo -e me; Dullay ye me; Yaaku i(i)
me. Sasse 1982:67 and 104; Hudson 1989:97; Heine 1978:53. Proto-
Agaw (oblique) *y- me, my > Bilin yi- me, my; Xamir y- me, my;
Kemant y- me, my; Awngi / Awiya y-/y- me, my. Appleyard
2006:87; Reinisch 1887:365. Proto-Southern Cushitic *e/*i my > Iraqw
e my; Burunge ayi my; Alagwa i my; Kwadza -"e my; Dahalo "i
my. Ehret 1980:289. Ehret 1995:478, no. 1011, *i or *yi me, my (bound
1st sg. pronoun); Diakonoff 1988:7677.
B. Elamo-Dravidian: McAlpin (1981:112114, 531.0) reconstructs a Proto-
Elamo-Dravidian *i I. In Elamite, this became u I. McAlpin assumes
that the following developments took place in Dravidian: *i-n > *i n
[*yn] > (with vowel lengthening in accordance with Zvelebils Law) *yn
I > Tamil yn I; Kota an I; Toda on I; Kannaa n I; Tuu ynu,
ynu I; Telugu nu I; Kolami an I; Naiki n I; Parji n I; Gadba
n I; Gondi an, (emph.) ann I; Pengo n/ne I; Mana n I; Kui
nu I; Kuux n I; Malto n I; Brahui I. BurrowEmeneau
1984:468, no. 5160; Caldwell 1913:359373; Zvelebil 1990:2426 (1st
sg. nom.) *yn I, (obl.) *yan-, (1st pl. excl. nom.) *ym we, (obl.)
*yam-; Bloch 1954:3031; Steever 1998a:21 (1st sg. nom.) *yn, (obl.)
*yan-/*(y)en-; Krishnamurti 2003:245 *yn/*yan- I.
Dolgopolsky 1984:8587 *Hoy (a) by me, (b) agent marker of the 1st sg.
of verbs, (c) postnominal possessive pronoun (my) and to appear, no. 822,
*Hoy (= *hoy ?) by me, my; BomhardKerns 1994:597598, no. 470.
668. Proto-Nostratic (n.) *om-a rounded prominence at the end of a bone forming
a ball and socket joint with the hollow part of another bone, condyle (of the
lower jaw, the shoulder, the elbow, the hip, etc.):
Buck 1949:1.36 river; stream; brook; 10.11 move (vb.); 10.21 rise (vb.); 10.32
flow (vb.); 10.47 go; 10:48 come. Mller 1911:6970; BomhardKerns
1994:707708, no. 593.
Armenian orjik testicles, orj male; Old Irish uirge testicle; Hittite
(3rd sg. pres. act.) a-ar-ki to mount, to copulate (with), (nom. pl.) ar-ki-i-
e-e testicles; Old Icelandic argr unmanly, effeminate, cowardly;
passive homosexual, ergi lust, lewdness; Old English earg cowardly;
bad, depraved; Old Frisian erch (also erg, arch) angry, evil; wrong, bad,
disgraceful; severe (wounds), erg mean, cowardly; Old Saxon arug
mean, cowardly; Old High German arg, arag mean, cowardly;
Lithuanian ars lusty, er ilas (dial. ar ilas) stallion; Albanian herdh
testicle. Pokorny 1959:782 *orhi-, *r hi- testicle; Walde 1927
1932.I:182183 *orhi-, *r hi- (*erhi-); Mann 19841987:888 *orhis
testicle; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1984.II:817 *or[]-i- and 1995.I:716
*or-i- testicle; Watkins 1985:17 *ergh- and 2000:24 *ergh- to mount
(oldest form *erh-); MalloryAdams 1997:507 *hrhis testicle and
508 *hrhei- ~ *hr hr to mount, to cover; Arbeitman 1980a:7188;
Puhvel 1984 .1/2:142143 *erh-, *orh-; Kloekhorst 2008b:203
204; Smoczyski 2007.1:2425 *hori-; Fraenkel 19621965.I:123
124; Frisk 19701973.II:433434; Chantraine 19681980.II:830831;
Hofmann 1966:241 *orhi- (*r hi-); Boisacq 1950:721; Hamp 1965a:129;
Huld 1984:7374; Orl 1998:145 and 2003:23 Proto-Germanic *araz,
23 *arn, 23 *arjanan; Kroonen 2013:34 Proto-Germanic *arga-
unmanly; De Vries 1977:13 and 104; BoutkanSiebinga 2005:9091.
Buck 1949:10.11 move; 10.45 walk (vb.); 10.47 go; 10.57 enter.
laryngeal (* [= *]) between *u and *i (the long vowel found in the first
syllable of the forms attested in several of the Indo-European daughter
languages would then be due to compensatory lengthening following the loss of
this laryngeal). There may have been a non-apophonic *o (original, or
inherited, *o) in the first syllable, in which case the Proto-Nostratic form would
have been *ow--. Reconstructing a medial laryngeal (* [= *]) would also
account for the Germanic developments (cf. Jasanoff 1978a:85; Lehmann
1952:44, 4.44d; Lindeman 1964:112114, 10.2). *ow-yo-m (traditional
*ou i om) egg cannot, as is often assumed, be a derivative of the common
Proto-Indo-European word for bird, which requires an initial a-coloring
laryngeal (preserved in Armenian [cf. Winter 1965a:102 and 107]): *w-i-s
[*w-i-s], *w-y-s (cf. Pokorny 1959:86 *au ei-; MalloryAdams 1997:66
*haeu ei- [nom. *hau is, gen. *hau is]) > Armenian hav bird, hen, chicken (cf.
Hbschmann 1897:465); Latin avis a bird (De Vaan 2008:6566 *heu -i-);
Umbrian (acc.) avif bird; Sanskrit (nom. sg.) v-, (Rigveda) v- a bird
(Mayrhofer 19561980.III:265266 *u i-s, *u i-s); etc.
675. Proto-Nostratic (n.) *ul-a the bottom or lowest part of anything; the sole of
the foot; soil, earth, ground, land:
PROTO-NOSTRATIC * 773
Semantics as in Latin slum the bottom or lowest part of anything; the sole of
the foot; soil, earth, ground, land (cf. Buck 1949:1.212).
A. Afrasian: Proto-Highland East Cushitic *ulla earth, land > Hadiyya uulla,
u(u)lla country, land; Kambata ulla(-ta) earth, ulla-ta land; Sidamo
ulla earth, land. Hudson 1989:44, 55, and 88.
B. Proto-Altaic *la sole of foot or footwear; basis, foundation: Proto-
Tungus *ol-i short boots > Evenki olt, olik short boots; Lamut /
Even olq short boots; Negidal olot short boots; Ulch olma short
boots; Orok oll short boots; Oroch ol short boots; Solon alci,
olci short boots. Proto-Mongolian *ula sole of foot or footwear; basis,
foundation > Written Mongolian ula sole of foot or footwear; basis,
foundation; Khalkha ul sole of foot or footwear; basis, foundation;
Buriat ula sole of foot or footwear; foundation, basis; Kalmyk ul sole of
foot or footwear; basis, foundation; Moghol ul sole of foot or footwear;
basis, foundation; Dagur uale sole of foot or footwear; basis, foundation;
Bonan / Baoan la sole of foot or footwear; basis, foundation. Proto-
Turkic *ul foundation; sole (of foot) > Old Turkic (Old Uighur) ulta
sole (of foot); Karakhanide Turkic ul foundation, ulda sole (of foot);
Turkish oltan, (dial.) olta sole (of foot); Turkmenian olta sole (of
foot); Uzbek ultn sole (of foot); Uighur ulta sole (of foot), (dial.) l,
ul basis, foundation; Tatar ltan sole (of foot); Bashkir ltan sole (of
foot); Kazakh ltan sole (of foot); Noghay ultan sole (of foot); Oyrot
(Mountain Altai) ulta, ultan, ltam sole (of foot); Tuva uldu sole (of
foot); Yakut ullu sole (of foot). StarostinDyboMudrak
2003:14921493 *la sole, footwear.
Sumerian l field(s), cultivated land, lul field; steppe, open land, ulul
field.
Buck 1949:1.212 earth = ground, soil; 1.23 plain, field; 12.34 bottom.
Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 30, *ul soil, foundation, earth.
676. Proto-Nostratic deictic stem indicating distance farthest away from the speaker
*ul- (~ *ol-) that over there, that yonder:
ollus, olus, olla that, ultr (< *oltrd) beyond, on the far side, farther;
Umbrian ulo, ulu there, at that place; Old Church Slavic lani (< *ol-nei)
last year. Pokorny 1959:2426 *al-, *ol- demonstrative stem; Walde
19271932.I:8486 *al-, *ol-; Mann 19841987:872873 *oln then,
formerly; ErnoutMeillet 1979:309, 460, and 461; WaldeHofmann
19651972.I:679680 and II:206207; Sihler 1995:393394, 377.4
*ol- that, yonder; De Vaan 2008:298; Lindsay 1894:430 and 436437;
Buck 1933:225226. Note: The initial i- found in the later Latin forms
ille, illa, illud is usually explained as due to the influence of is that.
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
h- h- - - h- - - -
-h- -h- -- -- -h- -- -- --
Buck 1949:14.22 slow (adj.). Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 759, *hak slow,
inactive.
Buck 1949:11.28 harm, injure, damage (vb.); 16.31 pain, suffering. Bomhard
Kerns 1994:587, no. 459.
Sumerian al- to light up, to shine, to brighten up, to radiate, to beam forth.
Buck 1949:1.53 moon; 15.64 white; 16.22 joy; 16.81 beautiful. Bomhard
Kerns 1994:586, no. 457.
Buck 1949:1.24 valley; 1.31 water; 1.32 sea; 1.33 lake; 1.36 river; stream;
brook; 1.73 cloud; 1.75 rain.
to toss a piece of food in the mouth. West Chadic *ham- to eat > Paa
"m ma, ma, m to eat. East Chadic *ham- to eat > Kera hm to eat;
Somray "m- to eat. Central Chadic *ham- to eat, to chew > Buduma
ham to eat; Daba hmu to eat; Musgoy am to chew. Jungraithmayr
Ibriszimow 1994.II:120121. Ehret 1995:383, no. 781, *hom- to take
into the mouth; OrlStolbova 1995:258, no. 1157, *ham- to eat.
B. Yukaghir (Southern / Kolyma) amli:- to swallow, amldaj-, emldej- to
swallow; to embrace, amlibe digestive tract. Nikolaeva 2006:103.
C. Proto-Altaic *mo- (vb.) to taste; (n.) mouth, taste (*amo-ta, *amo-sa):
Proto-Tungus *ama mouth, *amta- to taste > Evenki ama mouth,
amta- to taste; Lamut / Even am mouth, amt- to taste; Negidal
ama mouth, amta- to taste; Manchu aga mouth; opening, hole;
Spoken Manchu (Sibo) a mouth; Jurchen am-a mouth; Ulch ama
mouth; Orok ama ~ ama mouth; Nanay / Gold ama mouth; Oroch
amma mouth; Udihe ama mouth; Solon amma, angai mouth. Proto-
Mongolian *ama- mouth, *amsa- to taste, *amta taste > Written
Mongolian ama(n) mouth, amsa- to taste, amta(n) taste, flavor;
Khalkha am mouth, amsa- to taste, amt(an) taste; Buriat aman
mouth, amha- to taste, amta(n) taste; Kalmyk am mouth, amsa- to
taste, amt taste; Ordos ama mouth, amsa- to taste, amta taste;
Moghol aman, amun mouth, amsa- to taste, amta taste; Dagur ama
mouth, anta- to taste, anta taste; Dongxiang ama mouth, amusa-
to taste, anda-tu tasty; Monguor ama mouth, amusa- to taste, amata,
amta taste. Poppe 1955:53. Proto-Turkic *um-, *um-sa- (to taste, to have
taste for >) (vb.) to hope for, to envy; (n.) an object of hope, desire; hope
> Old Turkic (Old Uighur) umu an object of hope, desire; hope;
Karakhanide Turkic um- to hope for, umdu an object of hope, desire;
hope, umdu- beggar; Turkish um- to hope, to expect, umsan- to hope
for, umma hope, expectation; Gagauz um- to hope for; Azerbaijani um-
to hope for, umsun- to be disappointed, umaa an object of hope,
desire; hope; Turkmenian mtl- to wait for food; Uzbek um- (dial.) to
hope for, umsun- to experience a flow of milk in ones beast and a desire
to feed a baby; Karaim um-, umsun- to hope for; Tatar omt-l- to hope
for; Kirghiz umu-, umsun- to hope for, umtul- to strive; Kazakh umt-
to dart, to lunge; Noghay mt- to dart, to lunge; Oyrot (Mountain Altai)
umzan- to go in a direction, umza- to make somebody to go in a
direction; Chuvash mza- to envy; Yakut umsu-gu-y- to be keen on, to
be addicted, umnaht beggar. Poppe 1960:40, 68, 94, 121, and 140;
Street 1974:7 *ama mouth, opening, *ama-gay; StarostinDybo
Mudrak 2003:296297 *mo mouth; taste (*amo-ta, *amo-sa).
Buck 1949:4.24 mouth; 5.11 eat; 15.3115.34 taste (vb.; sb.); 16.62 desire
(vb.).
(vb.) *ha- to split apart, to open (tr.); to gape, to open the mouth, to yawn;
(n.) *ha-a opening: yawn, gape, mouth; hole; crack, crevice
(krt iron); Ostyak / Xanty o opening, mouth (of a bottle, vessel, etc.);
entrance, bay; mouth, entry of a river; Yurak Samoyed / Nenets nKK",
(Forest) nKK mouth; Yurak Samoyed / Nganasan aa mouth; Yenisei
Samoyed / Enets (Hatanga) ee", (Baiha) na"/nan- mouth; Selkup
Samoyed , aa, aak mouth, aaaj, aakal bridle; Kamassian a
mouth; Koibal an mouth. Collinder 1955:6869 and 1977:85; Rdei
19861988:1112 *ae-; Dcsy 1990:97 *anga opening; Sammallahti
1988:542 Proto-Finno-Ugrian *i mouth. Yukaghir (Northern / Tundra)
aa mouth, (Southern / Kolyma) aa mouth, ail opening, mouth (of a
river). Nikolaeva 2006:106.
E. Proto-Altaic *aa hole, crack, gape: Proto-Tungus *aa- (vb.) to dig; to
open; (n.) crack, hole > Evenki aa- to dig, aa-/- to open, aa
crack, hole; Lamut / Even a- to dig, a- to open; Negidal aa- to
dig; to open, aa crack, hole; Ulch aala crack, hole; Orok a- to
dig. Proto-Mongolian *a-, *aga- (vb.) to open ones mouth, to gape;
(n.) crack, hole, gape > Written Mongolian a-a bifurcation, branch, a
crack, chink, cleft, fissure, crevice; ravine, aai- to open up, to be wide
open, aail-a opening, gap; hiatus, aala- to gape, to open and shut
the mouth repeatedly, aarqai crevice, cranny, fissure, gaping, aar
crevice, cranny, fissure, cleft, ata- to split, to crack, to cleave; Khalkha
a crack, hole, gape, agai- to open ones mouth, to gape; Buriat
ag(an) crack, hole, gape; Kalmyk a, ag crack, hole, gape; Ordos a
crack, hole, gape; Dagur xangai- to open ones mouth, to gape;
Dongxiang ai- to open ones mouth, to gape; Shira-Yughur a- to
open ones mouth, to gape; Monguor ai- to open ones mouth, to
gape. Proto-Turkic *a- (vb.) to be wide open, to have ones mouth
opened, to gape; to be perplexed, astonished; to look at with surprise; to be
faint, drowsy; (adj.) wide open, obtuse, stupid, astonished; (n.) fool,
simpleton > Karakhanide Turkic al, auq wide open; Turkish (dial.)
anuk, anz fool, simpleton; Turkmenian aal- to be perplexed,
astonished, aqar- to be perplexed, astonished; to have ones mouth
opened; Uzbek aray- to be perplexed, astonished; to have ones mouth
opened; Tatar a-mige bul- wide open, (dial.) al obtuse, stupid;
Kirghiz aqay-, aar- to be wide open; to look at with surprise, aq
fool, simpleton, ar- to be perplexed, astonished, aray- to gape;
Kazakh atar-, ar- to be perplexed, astonished, aqaw fool,
simpleton; Noghay aq-tike daffy, ara fool, simpleton, aay- to
have ones mouth opened; Tuva aada- to be perplexed, astonished;
Yakut aar- to be drowsy, faint. Poppe 1960:72; Street 1974:8 *a
crack, cleft, *a-a- to open; StarostinDyboMudrak 2003:304 *aa
hole, crack, gape.
F. Proto-Eskimo *ava- to be open: Central Siberian Yupik avanq
hollow beneath shoulder blade; Sirenik avanX hollow beneath
shoulder blade; Seward Peninsula Inuit ama- to be open, to be free of
ice (lake), amaq hole; North Alaskan Inuit ama-, (Malimiut) ama-
PROTO-NOSTRATIC *h 789
Buck 1949:4.207 jaw; 4.24 mouth; 4.52 yawn, gape; 12.24 open (vb.). Illi-
Svity 19711984.I:244245, no. 105, *Hanga to gape; BomhardKerns
1994:590592, no. 465; Hakola 2000:26, no. 52.
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
- - - x- - - - -
-- -- -- -x- -- -- -- --
Buck 1949:8.32 mow, reap; 8.41 crop, harvest; 8.42 grain. BomhardKerns
1994:355356, no. 181.
to fear, to sorrow, 3 *aghos, -es- evil, harm, grief, gain, horror; Watkins
1985:1 *agh- and 2000:1 *agh- to be afraid, to be depressed; Mallory
Adams 1997:413 *haghleha affliction; Boisacq 1950:108; Frisk 1970
1973.I:200201 and I:202203; Chantraine 19681980.I:150 and
I:151; Hofmann 1966:30; Orl 2003:3 Proto-Germanic *aez; Kroonen
2013:4 Proto-Germanic *agiz- fear; Lehmann 1986:10 *agh- to suffer in
spirit; Feist 1939:14 *agh-.
Buck 1949:16.31 pain, suffering; 16.32 grief, sorrow; 16.36 sad; 16.53 fear,
fright. BomhardKerns 1994:457, no. 302. Different etymology in Dolgo-
polsky to appear, no. 1856, *qag[]a to fear.
(vb.) *xal- to wear down, to wear out, to weaken; to be worn out, worn
down, weakened;
(n.) *xal-a weakness, exhaustion, fatigue, weariness; (adj.) weak, worn out,
tired, exhausted, weary
Buck 1949:9.36 wash. Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2578, *al (to be/become)
clean.
A. Afrasian: Highland East Cushitic: Burji hal- to fall (down), to set (of
sun); Sidamo halalla, halaalla lowland, halaalla lowland, desert,
halalla plain, halliyy deep, hala"l- to be wide, hala"l-i- to widen,
hala"lado wide. Hudson 1989:196 and 369; Sasse 1982:90.
B. Proto-Uralic *ala lower, under; below, underneath; that which is beneath
or under, lower space, underpart: Finnish ala area, territory, space, alla
(< *alna) being under, ala-, ali- sub-, lower, alta from beneath (an
object), alas, ales down; Lapp / Saami -vuolle that which lies beneath,
vuoll- lower, under-, sub-, vuollen underneath, vuold under; from
beneath; Mordvin alo under, underneath, aldo up from underneath,
under; Cheremis / Mari l-, l that which is beneath, sub-, ln
underneath, (being) under; Votyak / Udmurt ul underpart, lower space,
that which is beneath, ulyn under, underneath, ulla (going)
802 CHAPTER TWENTY
Buck 1949:10.23 fall (vb.); 12.32 low. Greenberg 2002:175176, no. 406,
*ala under; Hakola 2000:19, no. 21.
Buck 1949:4.81 strong, mighty, powerful; 4.83 well; health; 12.53 grow (=
increase in size); 14.15 old. BomhardKerns 1994:529530, no. 380.
804 CHAPTER TWENTY
A. Dravidian: Tamil aai anthill, hole in the ground, hollow in a tree, cave;
Malayalam aa hole (in trees, in the ground), appu hole, hollow;
Bea Kuruba ae hole; Kota a cave; Toda ob animals den, cave;
Telugu laga hole, burrow; Kuux alap hollow place underground,
cavern, lt hole, cavity, den. BurrowEmeneau 1984:29, no. 308.
B. Proto-Indo-European *el-wo- [*al-wo-] hollow, cavity: Latin alvus
belly, womb, alveus a hollow, cavity; Hittite (gen. sg.) al-lu-wa-a
hollow, pit, (gen. sg.) al-lu-u-wa-a hollow, deep, (denominative verb,
3rd sg. pret. act.) al-lu-wa-nu-ut to put down (deep), to lower, to let
deteriorate. Pokorny 1959:8889 *u-lo-s (*u-l-) pipe, tube; a hollow,
elongated cavity; Walde 19271932.I:2526 *aulo-s (: *ul-); Mann
19841987:18 *alu os, -i os, -i hollow, channel, cavity; Watkins 1985:4
*aulo- and 2000:6 *aulo- hole, cavity (variant [metathesized] form
*alwo-); MalloryAdams 1997:96 *helu os ~ *heulos elongated cavity,
hollow; Puhvel 1984 .3:4749; ErnoutMeillet 1979:36; Walde
Hofmann 19651972.I:3435 *aul-, *au el-; De Vaan 2008:25 *heulo-
tube, belly. Not related to: Greek any tube or pipe; flute,
a hollow way, defile, glen; a canal, aqueduct, trench; a channel, strait;
Lithuanian alas top (of a boot), auls beehive; Bulgarian lej
beehive; Norwegian (dial.) aul, aule pipe. In view of Hittite (nom. sg.)
a--li-i tube-shaped organ in the neck, throat (?), windpipe (?), without
initial a-coloring laryngeal, the Greek, Slavic, Baltic, and Germanic forms,
together with the Hittite, must be derived from Proto-Indo-European
*hewlo-s [*hawlos] (traditional *eu lo-s) pipe, tube and, by extension,
any tube-shaped object. Mann 19841987:42 *aulos, -i os hollow,
channel; Frisk 19701973.I:186187; Chantraine 19681980.I:140
141; Boisacq 1950:101; Hofmann 1966:28; Kloekhorst 2008b:229230;
Orl 2003:29 Proto-Germanic *aulaz; Kroonen 2013:42 Proto-Germanic
*aula- ~ *eula(n)- stalk (of angelica); Shevelov 1964:241; Fraenkel
19621965.I:2526; Smoczyski 2007.1:34 *heu -l-.
Buck 1949:15.36 salt; 15.37 bitter; 15.38 acid, sour. Mller 1911:89;
BomhardKerns 1994:532533, no. 385. Slightly different etymology in
Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2587, *Xom raw, sour, inedible.
A. Afrasian: Egyptian mz to sit, to sit down; to dwell, mzt seat (in the
sense of rank or position), mz m to dwell in, to occupy a place, mzw
806 CHAPTER TWENTY
Buck 1949:4.61 sleep (vb.; sb.); 12.13 sit; 12.19 quiet (adj.).
Buck 1949:16.27 love (sb.; vb.); 16.35 pity (sb.). BomhardKerns 1994:533,
no. 386. Different (false) etymology in Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2594, *in
to be happy/glad, to love.
Buck 1949:4.34 finger; 9.14 bend (vb. tr.); 16.33 anxiety. Mller 1911:12;
BomhardKerns 1994:538539, no. 395; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2599,
*|q[a]n[] (or *|q[a] ?) to bend.
narrow; Old English enge narrow; causing anxiety, painful, severe; Old
Saxon engi narrow; Dutch eng narrow; Old High German angi, engi
narrow (New High German eng narrow, cramped, tight, confined); Old
Church Slavic oz-k narrow; Lithuanian aktas narrow, cramped,
tight. Reduplication in Hittite am(m)a(n)k-, am(m)enk-, ami(n)k- to
tie (as in Tamil aaku cited above) (< *am-ang- < *an-ang-
through dissimilation). Perhaps also Greek neck, throat (if from
*+-). Rix 1998a:236 *hem- to tie up to constrict; Pokorny
1959:4243 *anh- (adj.) narrow; (vb.) to tie up, to constrict; Walde
19271932.I:6263 *anh-; Watkins 1985:2 *angh- and 2000:4 *angh-
tight, painfully restricted, painful; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1984.II:781
*Han[]-u- and 1995.I:683 *Han-u- narrow; Mann 19841987:23
*angh, -i to press, to squeeze, to strain, to confine, 24 *anh-, 24
*anhit- constraint, 24 *anh, -i to cramp, to straighten, to force, 24
*anu hstos, -is narrow, constrained; anxious; strain, anguish, 2425
*anu hn strait, stricture, 25 *anu his, *anhus narrow, thin, close,
tight, 25 *anu h to narrow, to squeeze; MalloryAdams 1997:391
*haenhus narrow; Mayrhofer 19561980.I:14; Boisacq 1950:1011
*an h-; Hofmann 1966:3 *anh- and 17; Frisk 19701973.I:1718 and
I:98 (according to Schulze, Greek < *+-); Chantraine 1968
1980.I:1617 and I:80; Puhvel 1984 .3:6468 *Aem-h-; Tischler
1977 .1:142143; Kloekhorst 2008b:278279 *hem-; Walde
Hofmann 19651972.I:47 *anh-; ErnoutMeillet 1979:33; De Vaan
2008:42 *hem-e/o- to tie, to tighten; Orl 2003:19 Proto-Germanic
*anuz ~ *anwjaz, 20 *anwjanan; Kroonen 2013:28 Proto-Germanic
*angwu- narrow (< *hem-u-); Feist 1939:1314 *ah-; Lehmann
1986:910 *anh-; De Vries 1977:687; KlugeMitzka 1967:165166;
KlugeSeebold 1989:178 *anh-; Derksen 2008:338 *hem-u-;
Fraenkel 19621965.I:11; Smoczyski 2007.1:16 *hem--.
D. Uralic: Proto-Finno-Ugrian *ake painfully constricted > (?) Estonian
angu- to curdle, to coagulate, to become stiff; (?) Finnish ankea dismal,
dreary, cheerless; Hungarian aggds anxiety, agonizing fear, aggd-
to be anxious, to worry, to feel uneasy, aggodalom anxiety, concern,
anguish, fear, uneasiness, misgiving, worry. Rdei 19861988:12 *ake
(according to Rdei, the Balto-Finnic forms may be loans from Germanic).
Buck 1949:9.943 fitting, suitable; 12.22 join, unite; 14.29 ready; 16.73 right
(adj., in a moral sense, vs. wrong). BomhardKerns 1994:531532, no. 383.
A. Proto-Afrasian *ar- arm, hand: Central Chadic *xar- hand, arm > Tera
xar hand, arm; Gaanda hea arm; Hona hara arm; Mofu hr arm,
hand. JungraithmayrIbriszimow 1994.II:178179. SahoAfar *ar-
arm > Saho ar- arm. Cushitic: Beja / Beawye hr-ka, hr-ka arm.
Reinisch 1895:126. Lowland East Cushitic *ark- arm > Galla / Oromo
harka arm, hand; Konso harga arm. Werizoid: Warazi arko arm;
Gawwada arko arm. OrlStolbova 1995:275, no. 1242, *ar- arm.
B. Dravidian: Tamil ara-kai palm of the hand; Telugu ara-cyi palm of
the hand, ara-klu sole of the foot; Kolami rankei, rungkei palm of
the hand. BurrowEmeneau 1984:29, no. 310.
C. Proto-Indo-European *erH-mo- [*arH-mo-]/*r H-mo- shoulder,
arm: Sanskrit rm- arm; Avestan arm arm; Ossetic rm hollow of
the hand; Latin armus the shoulder where it is fitted to the shoulder-
blade; Gothic arms arm; Old Icelandic armr arm; Old English earm
arm; Old Frisian erm arm; Old Saxon arm arm; Old High German
aram, arm arm (New High German Arm); Old Prussian irmo arm; Old
Church Slavic ramo, ram shoulder; Polish rami shoulder, arm.
Pokorny 1959:58 *ar-mo-, *r -mo- arm; Walde 19271932.I:73
*ar()men-; Mann 19841987:260 *rmos (*r mos, -us) arm, shoulder,
extension, branch; Watkins 1985:3 *ar()-mo- under *ar- to fit together
and 2000:5 *ar-mo- under *ar- to fit together (oldest form *ar-);
MalloryAdams 1997:26 *harhxmos or *har hxms arm, forequarter,
probably from *haer(hx)- to fit, to attach; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1984.II:
785, fn. 1, *arH-mo-/*r H-mo- and 1995.I:687, fn. 9, *arH-mo-/*r H-mo-
arm, shoulder (blade); Mayrhofer 19561980.I:96; ErnoutMeillet
1979:4748; WaldeHofmann 19651972.I:69; De Vaan 2008:55;
818 CHAPTER TWENTY
Note: The CVC- patterning shows that this stem could not originally have
been a particle, though this is how it is preserved in the daughter languages.
The original meaning is unknown.
719. Proto-Nostratic root *as- (~ *s-) (used as the base to designate various
tree names):
(n.) *as-a a tree and its fruit
A. (?) Dravidian: Tamil cc the sal tree (Shorea robusta); Kannaa su,
ca, rse the sal tree. BurrowEmeneau 1984:32, no. 343.
B. Proto-Indo-European *es- [*as-]/*s- originally a tree and its fruit
(as in Hittite), but later specialized in the post-Anatolian Indo-European
daughter languages: Hittite aik(ka)- a tree and its fruit (?); Greek
(< *[]- ?) a kind of beech-tree; Armenian hac i ash-tree; Albanian
ah (< *osk) beech-tree, ashe holly; Ligurian ash forest;
Latin ornus (< *os-en-os) mountain-ash; Old Irish (h)uinn-ius ash-tree;
Welsh onn-en ash-tree; Breton ounn-enn ash-tree; Old Icelandic askr
ash-tree, eski ashen box; Swedish ask ash-tree; Old English Ksc ash-
tree; North Frisian esk ash-tree; Dutch esch ash-tree; Old High
German ask ash-tree (New High German Esche); Old Prussian woasis
ash-tree; Lithuanian osis (< *s-) ash-tree; Russian jsen []
ash-tree. Pokorny 1959:782 *s-, *s-i-s, *s-en-, *os-k- ash-tree;
Walde 19271932.I:184185 *si-s, *sen-, *os-k-; Mann 1984
1987:893894 *sis (*snos, *sen-) ash-tree; rowan, 894 *oskos, -us
a tree, ash or beech; Watkins 1985:46 *os- and 2000:61 *os- ash-tree;
GamkrelidzeIvanov 1984.II:625 *Hos-, II:942 and 1995.I:537, I:539,
PROTO-NOSTRATIC * 823
Buck 1949:1.31 water; 1.75 rain (sb.); 4.65 urinate; urine. BomhardKerns
1994:530531, no. 382.
Buck 1949:12.53 grow (= increase in size); 12.55 large, big (great); 13.15
much, many; 13.16 more. BomhardKerns 1994:542543, no. 399.
awur nest, hole, den, lair; case, container, awun-saal cradle without
leather covering. Nikolaeva 2006:114.
Buck 1949:6.33 weave; 9.75 plait (vb.); 10.12 turn (vb.); 10.13 turn around
(vb.); 10.14 wind, wrap (vb.); 10.15 roll (vb.). Mller 1911:2021;
BomhardKerns 1994:537538, no. 394.
Buck 1949:74 live (= be alive); living, alive; life; 14.12 age. Mller 1911:4;
Illi-Svity 19711984.I:242243, no. 101, *aju to live; life force;
BomhardKerns 1994:593594, no. 466; Greenberg 2002:109, no. 247, *ayu
to live; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2613, *Xay[] to live.
(n.) *a-a that which is cut: incision, notch, nick; that which cuts: saw,
chisel, axe, hatchet
Buck 1949:9.22 cut (vb.); 9.25 ax; 9.27 split (vb. tr.).
Buck 1949:8.55 branch; 12.352 point; 12.353 edge; 15.78 sharp. Bomhard
Kerns 1994:540542, no. 398; Illi-Svity 19711984.I:251252, no. 113,
*Hoi point, spike; Greenberg 2002:18, no 18, *ok arrow, point; Hakola
2000:122, no. 527.
734. Proto-Nostratic (n.) *ur-a (and/or *er-a ?) hawk-like bird: falcon, hawk,
eagle, kite:
A. Afrasian: Egyptian r, rw the god Horus (one of the two brother hawk-
gods); Coptic hr [xwr] the god Horus. Hannig 1995:543544;
ErmanGrapow 1921:112 and 19261963.3:122124; Faulkner 1962:
173; Gardiner 1957:582; Vycichl 1983:307308; ern 1976:291.
B. Dravidian: Tamil eruvai a kind of kite whose head is white and whose
body is brown, eagle; Malayalam eruva eagle, kite. BurrowEmeneau
1984:80, no. 818.
C. Proto-Indo-European *or-/*r - eagle: Hittite ara(n)- (< *r -n-)
(nom. sg. a-a-ra-a, gen. sg. a-ra-na-a) eagle, (?) arrani- or
urrani- name of an ornithomatic bird; Palaic a-ra-a-a eagle; Greek
bird; Armenian oror kite, gull; Welsh eryr eagle; Gothic ara
eagle; Old Icelandic (poet.) ari, rn (< *arnu-) (gen. sg. arnar, acc. rnu,
pl. ernir) eagle; Old English earn eagle (Middle English ern(e), earn);
Old High German aro, arn eagle (New High German [poetic] Aar);
Lithuanian erlis (dial. arlis) eagle; Latvian rglis eagle; Old Prussian
arelie eagle; Old Church Slavic orl eagle; Russian orl []
eagle; Czech orel eagle; Polish orze eagle; Upper Sorbian worjo
eagle; Lower Sorbian jerjo, jerje eagle; Bulgarian orl eagle; Serbo-
Croatian rao eagle. Pokorny 1959:325326 *er-, *or- eagle; Walde
19271932.I:135 *er-, *or- eagle; Mann 19841987:889890 *ornis
(*ornu is ?) petulant, dashing; dasher, flier, 890891 *oros, -i os
(*"oros) eagle, hawk; Watkins 1985:46 *or- and 2000:60 *or- large
bird (earliest form *er-, colored to *or-); MalloryAdams 1997:173
*Hor- eagle; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1984.I:158 *Hor- and 1995.I:136
Hor- eagle (also I:455, I:765 *Her-, o-grade *Hor-); Sturtevant
1951:31, 58, Indo-Hittite *orn-; Kloekhorst 2008b:301302; Puhvel
1984 .3:137139 Hittite rani < *Hrones and 3:139; Tischler
842 CHAPTER TWENTY
uy- (cow) to gore; to crush (lice); Kui ubga (ugb-) to collide, to strike
against, to butt; Kuwi ur- to butt, to gore, rhali to butt. Burrow
Emeneau 1984:69, no. 706.
C. (?) Kartvelian: Georgian xrcen-/xrcn- to decompose.
Sumerian hur to hollow out, to scratch, to scrape, to dig in, to rub, to grate, to
grind.
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
- - - - - - - -
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Buck 1949:1.22 mountain, hill; 10.21 rise (vb.); 10.22 raise, lift; 10.61 carry
(bear). BomhardKerns 1994:519520, no. 367; Dolgopolsky to appear, no.
126, *Al (= *alE or *l) height, top; to climb, to go up; Illi-Svity
19711984.I:274275, no. 137, *al to cross a mountain.
Buck 1949:1.85 burn (vb.); 22.14 altar; 22.15 sacrifice, offering. Bomhard
Kerns 1994:525, no. 376; Illi-Svity 19711984.I:276, no. 140, (?) *L to
burn (sacrificial offerings); Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 127, *[a]l to burn
(especially sacrifices), to use magic means (sacrifices, magic formula, etc.) to
produce a particular result.
Buck 1949:4.203 brain; 9.51 beam; 10.22 raise, lift; 12.33 top; 12.35 end;
12.352 point. Different etymology in Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 135,
*[o]mdE to stand upright, to rise.
Buck 1949:10.25 throw (vb.); 20.25 arrow. Hakola 2000:20, no. 29.
Buck 1949:4.51 breathe; breath; 4.74 live (= be alive); living, alive; life. Illi-
Svity 19711984.I:261, no. 125, *anq to breathe; Dolgopolsky to appear,
no. 138a, *in[]q to live; BomhardKerns 1994:521, no. 369; Fortescue
1998:152.
745. Proto-Nostratic (n.) *a-a upper part; (particle) *a- up, above:
Buck 1949:1.22 mountain; hill; 4.20 head; 12.33 top; 12.41 right; 12.48 south.
Note: the Dravidian and Altaic forms are phonologically ambiguous they
may belong with Proto-Nostratic *xa- (~ *x-) (vb.) to lift, to raise; to rise,
to go upward, to ascend; (n.) that which is most prominent, visible, or
noticeable; (particle) on top of, over, above instead.
Buck 1949:9.16 bind (vb. tr.); 9.342 press (vb.); 11.13 take; 11.14 seize, grasp,
take hold of. BomhardKerns 1994:526527, no. 378; Hakola 2000:22, no.
35, *apa- to take, to carry.
eenaa- to see from afar. Ehret 1980:274. [Ehret 1995:349, no. 686,
*an- or *aan- to come into view, to appear.]
B. (?) Uralic: Finnish enne omen, augury; sign, ennustaa to predict, to
prophesy, to forecast, to foretell, ennustus prediction; prophesy;
Estonian enne omen, portent, foretoken, presage, augury, ennustama to
foretell, to predict, to forecast, to prognosticate, to prophesy, to presage, to
tell fortunes, ennustus prediction, forecast, prognosis, prophesy, presage.
C. Proto-Altaic *enu- (~ -o) (vb.) to beware; (n.) attention: Proto-Tungus
*()en-te- (vb.) to beware; (adv.) attentively, slowly > Evenki ente- to
beware, ntukukn attentively, slowly; Manchu enteeme always,
eternally. Proto-Mongolian *(h)an- (vb.) to pay attention, to beware;
(adj.) vigorous, attentive > Written Mongolian aqar- to give attention to,
to look attentively; to be attentive, to pay attention, to observe, to regard,
aqarul attention, regard, interest, anuu- vigorous, attentive, ana- to
beware, to be cautious, to take precautions; Khalkha ana- to pay
attention, anr attentive, cautious, circumspect, anan hale and hearty
(of old people), ana- to beware; Buriat anar- to pay attention, anda-,
anar- to notice, andadag very sensitive; Kalmyk ar- to pay
attention; Ordos anug- to aim at. Proto-Turkic *anu- (vb.) to get ready;
(adj.) ready, certain > Old Turkic (Old Uighur) anu- to get ready, anuq
ready, certain; Karakhanide Turkic anu- to get ready, anuq ready,
certain; Tatar anq ready, certain; Bashkir anq ready, certain; Turkish
(dial.) ank- to get ready; Turkmenian anq ready, certain; Uzbek niq
ready, certain; Uighur eniq ready, certain; Karaim anq ready, certain;
Kirghiz anq ready, certain; Kazakh anq ready, certain. Starostin
DyboMudrak 2003:508 *enu (~ -o) (vb.) to beware; (n.) attention.
D. (?) Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan *enare- to look for: Chukchi enarer- to
look for, to search, to conduct a search; Kerek inajtat- to look for;
Koryak enajej- to look for; Alyutor inarit- (Palana enaret-) to look for
(tr.); Kamchadal / Itelmen enxtzo-s, inxtzu- to look for. Fortescue
2005:79. Semantic development as in Czech hledati to search, to look for
from the same stem found in Old Church Slavic gldati to look at, Serbo-
Croatian gldati to look at, Russian gljadt [] to look (at), to
fasten ones eyes upon, to gaze (at), etc.
Buck 1949:11.31 seek; 12.84 sign (sb.); 15.51 see; 15.52 look (vb.), look at;
15.53 sight (sb.); 15.54 sight (obj.), look (obj.), appearance; 15.55 show (vb.);
22.47 omen. Hakola 2000:27, no. 58, *enn sign, omen Hakola compares
the Uralic forms cited above with Tamil eu (ei-) to think, to consider, to
determine, to esteem, to conjecture, to count, to reckon, to compute, to set a
price upon, etc. However, the original meaning of the Uralic forms was more
likely to have been something like to beware of, to notice, to see (cf. Buck
1949:12.84 sign [sb.] and 22.47 omen), which would place them here instead of
with Proto-Nostratic root *e- to think, to consider.
PROTO-NOSTRATIC * 859
Buck 1949:4.41 breast (of woman); 4.58 bite (vb.); 5.11 eat; 5.13 drink (vb.);
5.16 suck (vb.). Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 134, *im[] to suck, to swallow;
Illi-Svity 19711984.I:248, no. 109, *H/E/mi to suck, to swallow;
Greenberg 2002:159160, no. 371; Hakola 2000:39, no. 125.
Buck 1949:6.31 spin; 6.32 spindle; 6.33 weave; 6.35 sew; 9.75 plait (vb.);
10.12 turn (vb.); 10.13 turn around (vb.); 10.14 wind, wrap (vb.); 10.15 roll
(vb.).
Buck 1949:4.40 breast (front of chest); 4.41 breast (of woman). Illi-Svity
19711984.I:275, no. 138, */e/bU- breast; BomhardKerns 1994:525, no.
375; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 107, *[K]bU female breast, bosom.
864 CHAPTER TWENTY
Buck 1949:5.11 eat; 5.12 food; 5.13 drink (vb.); 5.15 thirst (sb.); 5.16 suck
(vb.). Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 719, *[] (or *) to drink, to eat.
Buck 1949:2.21 man (vs. woman); 2.23 male (of human beings); 3.12 male (of
animals); 4.81 strong; mighty; powerful; 15.74 hard; 15.76 rough; 16.52 brave.
Hakola 2000:202, no. 902.
760. Proto-Nostratic (n.) *uw-a (~ *ow-a) herd of small animals, sheep and
goats:
Buck 1949:3.25 sheep. Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 749, *[o]w wild sheep/
goats; BomhardKerns 1994:521522, no. 370.
20.38. PROTO-NOSTRATIC *x
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
x- x- - x- - - - -
Buck 1949:4.82 weak; 4.84 sick; sickness; 4.91 tired, weary; 5.56 grind; 16.31
pain, suffering. Greenberg 2002:170, no. 395, *ali tired; BomhardKerns
1984:545546, no. 404.
A. Afrasian: Proto-Highland East Cushitic *an- over, above, on (top of) >
Gedeo / Darasa hana over, above; Hadiyya hana over, above, hane
top; Sidamo aana over, above, aan on (top of). Hudson 1989:109.
The following Semitic forms probably belong here as well (see below):
Proto-Semitic *xan-at- (vb.) to stick out, to project, to protrude; (n.) that
which is most prominent, foremost, visible, or noticeable > Mehri xny
PROTO-NOSTRATIC *x 873
Buck 1949:10.21 rise (vb.); 10.22 raise, lift; 12.31 high; 12.33 top; 12.41 right;
12.48 south. BomhardKerns 1994:553554, no. 413. Note: the Dravidian
and Altaic forms are phonologically ambiguous they may belong with
Proto-Nostratic *a- (~ *-) (n.) upper part; (particle) up, above instead.
Extended form:
(n.) *xa-t-a the most prominent or foremost (person or thing), front, front
part
Derivative of:
(vb.) *xa- to lift, to raise; to rise, to go upward, to ascend;
(n.) *xa-a that which is most prominent, foremost, visible, or noticeable;
(particle) *xa- on top of, over, above
Old Frisian enda end; Old Saxon (prefix) and-, ant- opposite, against,
towards, endi end; Dutch einde end; Old High German (prefix) ant-,
int-, ent- opposite, against, towards (New High German ant-, ent-), anti,
enti end (New High German Ende); Lithuanian at (earlier ant) on,
upon; Tocharian A nt, B nte surface, forehead. Pokorny 1959:4850
*ant-s front, *anti in front of, before; Walde 19271932.I:6567
*anti; Mann 19841987:2728 *anti (*nti, *"anti, *"nti); *antis, -os,
-i os towards, against, facing; face, front, side, edge, end; Gamkrelidze
Ivanov 1984.I:158 *Hant[]-, I:203, II:814 *Hant[]-, *Hant[]i o- and
1995.I:136 *Hant- forehead, front part of face, forehead, I:175, I:713
*Hant-, *Hantyo-; Watkins 1985:3 *ant- front, forehead, inflected
form (loc. sg.) *anti against and 2000:4 *ant- front, forehead (oldest
form *ent-, colored to *ant-), inflected form (loc. sg.) *anti against,
with derivatives meaning in front of, before, also end; Mallory
Adams 1997:60 *Henti in front and 209 *Hent- forehead; Mayrhofer
19561980.I:35 and I:36; Puhvel 1984 .3:8996 *Aent- and 3:108
112; Boisacq 1950:64 (Latin ante < *ant); Frisk 19701973.I:112113
and I:113114; Chantraine 19681980.I:9192; Hofmann 1966:19;
Sihler 1995:439, 406.1, *Henti in front and facing; ErnoutMeillet
1979:3637; WaldeHofmann 19651972.I:5354 *anti, *anta;
*anti -, *nti o-; De Vaan 2008:45; Orl 2003:18 Proto-Germanic *ana,
18 *anjaz, 18 *anjjanan; Kroonen 2013:27 Proto-Germanic *andja-
end, extreme; Feist 1939:46 and 49; Lehmann 1986:34 and 36; De Vries
1977:9 and 102; Onions 1966:313 *antj-; Klein 1971:247 *anta-, *anti-;
BoutkanSiebinga 2005:88; KlugeMitzka 1967:25 *anta, *anti, 165
*antj-, and 166167; KlugeSeebold 1989:178 and 179; Smoczyski
2007.1:17 *hent-; Fraenkel 19621965.I:11; Adams 1999:43 *Hento-,
*Hent- front, forehead; Van Windekens 19761982.I:163; Sturtevant
1942:40, 37c, Indo-Hittite *xants, (dat.) *xnti; Kloekhorst 2008b:287
289. Adams (1999:14) has shown that Tocharian A mpi, B antapi ~ ntpi
both probably belong here as well, being derived from Proto-Indo-
European *ent-bo- [*ant-bo-] (Adams writes *hent-bho-). On the
basis of the Tocharian forms, which are particularly archaic, Greek
both and Latin amb both must now be derived as follows: *em-bo-
[*am-bo-] < *ent-bo- [*ant-bo-], with assimilation of original
*-nt- to *-m- before *-bo-.
C. Proto-Uralic *at horn: Ostyak / Xanty (Vah) t horn, (Upper
Demyanka) ot, (Obdorsk) at; Vogul / Mansi (Tavda) t (-t < *-nt <
*-t) horn, (Pelymka) ot horn, (Sosva) aat horn; Yurak Samoyed /
Nenets (Obdorsk) aamt horn, antler (of reindeer); Yenisei Samoyed /
Enets (Hantai) eddo horn, (Baiha) naddo; Tavgi Samoyed / Nganasan
amta horn; Selkup Samoyed (Narym) amd, aamd horn, antler;
Kamassian amno horn; Koibal amna horn; Motor amdu horn. Rdei
19861988:1213 *at (*ot); Dcsy 1990:97 *angta horn.
876 CHAPTER TWENTY
D. (?) Altaic *a[]ta hill, slope (< front slope ?): Proto-Tungus *antaga
slope of a mountain > Evenki antaa slope of a mountain; Lamut /
Even ant slope of a mountain; Negidal antaa slope of a mountain;
Manchu antu the south side of a mountain, the sunny side of a mountain;
Nanay / Gold antaa slope of a mountain; Udihe anta slope of a
mountain. Turkmenian aat sandhill, mound may belong here as well.
StarostinDyboMudrak 2003:302 *anta hill, slope.
E. Etruscan hanin in front of.
Buck 1949:4.17 horn; 4.204 face; 12.35 end. BomhardKerns 1994:554, no.
414; Dolgopolsky 2002:4546 *qan/ forehead, front and to appear, no.
1875, *qan forehead, front; Greenberg 2002:2425, no. 35, *hant
before.
Buck 1949:1.36 river; stream; brook; 8.22 dig; 18.51 write. BomhardKerns
1994:547548, no. 405.
Buck 1949:13.33 alone, only (adj.; adv.). BomhardKerns 1994:551, no. 410.
20.39. PROTO-NOSTRATIC *x
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
x- x- v-/- xw/u- - w- v-
Buck 1949:9.28 tear (vb. tr.); 9.33 draw, pull; 11.56 steal; 11.57 thief.
BomhardKerns 1994:608609, no. 485; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2480,
*[]w[A]l[iy] (or *[]wl[iy] ?) to draw, to pull (out, off).
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
- - - - - - - -
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Buck 1949:1.62 darkness; 12.26 cover (vb.); 12.27 hide, conceal;14.42 night.
A. Proto-Afrasian *il- (vb.) to give birth, to beget (of humans); (adj.) young,
immature; (n.) child, youth, young person: Proto-Semitic *il-m- youth,
young person; young man, lad, boy > Hebrew (m.) elem [<l#u]# young
man, (f.) almh [hm*l=u]^ young woman, maiden; Imperial Aramaic lym
servant, slave; Syriac laym boy, youth, young man, servant;
Phoenician lm youth, lmt young woman; Palmyrene lmt female
servant, female slave; Nabatean lym servant; Ugaritic lm boy, lmt
girl; Sabaean lm child, boy, youth; Arabic ulm (pl. ilmat) boy,
youth, lad; slave, servant, waiter, ulmat girl, slave-girl. Murtonen
1989:320; Klein 1987:473; Tomback 1978:246; Zammit 2002:308.
Cushitic: Proto-Sam *ilem small boy > Somali ilmo child, baby; Boni
le boy. Heine 1978:65. Proto-Highland East Cushitic *il- to give birth,
to beget (of humans) > Gedeo / Darasa il- to give birth, to beget, ila
generation, ildaatte fertile (of woman), ileena generation; Sidamo il-
to give birth, to beget (of humans), il-ama relative, il-aasinco fertile
(of woman), ilama generation; Kambata il- to give birth, to beget (of
humans), il-amu relative, il-mucco last born; brother, youngest.
Hudson 1989:246247, 323324, and 374.
B. Proto-Dravidian *ia- (< *ilya-) child, youth, young person: Tamil ia,
iam, iai young, tender, iai youth, tender age, iaimai youth, iaicci
younger sister, iaan younger brother, lad, young man, iaitu that
which is young and not fully developed, iaiyar youths, young men,
servants, iaiyavar, iaivr young women, iaiyavan younger person,
lad, youth, younger brother, iaiyan, iaiyn, iaiyn younger brother,
iaku (iaki-) to sprout afresh, to send forth tender shoots, iacu that
which is young or tender, iaval younger brother, lad, son, iamai
childhood, youth, tenderness, amorousness, immaturity of knowledge and
intellect, iantai youth, tender years; Malayalam ia tender, young,
weak, iappam state of being young, juvenility, tenderness, iama youth,
tender age, junior rja, iayavan young, younger; Kota e time of youth;
young; Toda e young; tipcat (the small stick hit in the game), ek time
of youth; Kannaa e, ea, ee tenderness, youth, weakness, moderation,
eaku young age, eatu, eadu, eedu that is tender, young, eetana
tenderness, youth; Koagu e youth; Tuu eatu tender, green, not
fully grown, lattu young, tender, unripe, green, imperfect, ellyye a
youth, junior, minor, lambu tender, lamb a tender fruit; Telugu lta,
l- young, tender, light, delicate, soft, lka servant, lga a sucking or
young calf, lma a woman, tender, ela young, tender, delicate, slight,
gentle, ela-nga damsel, ea tender, young, nelta, neltuka woman;
Kolami lega calf; Naiki lga calf, lta young (of infants); Parji iled
young man, youth, ile young woman, girl; Gadba (Ollari) ile bride,
iled grown-up girl, woman, ilen bridegroom; Kona la calf; Kui
886 CHAPTER TWENTY
Buck 1949:4.71 beget (of father); 14.14 young. Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 713,
*i[U] boy, young man.
20.41. PROTO-NOSTRATIC *y
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
y- y- y-/- y-/- y- y- y-
-y- -y- -y- -y- -y- -y- -y-
no. 13, *yam water body (sea, lake > pond), water and, to appear, no.
2633, *ym body of water (sea, lake) water.
779. Proto-Nostratic (n.) *yor-a set of two, group of two; a pair of (> two):
Eurasiatic
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Afrasian Dravid. Kartvel. IE Uralic Altaic Eskimo
w- w- v-/- w- w- w- v-
-w- -w- -v- -w- -w- -w- -v-
780. Proto-Nostratic 1st person personal pronoun stem *wa- (~ *w-) I, me; we,
us:
A. Proto-Afrasian *wa- 1st person personal pronoun stem: Egyptian (1st sg.
dependent pronoun) w I, me; my. Hannig 1995:179; Gardiner 1957:45,
43, and 560; Faulkner 1962:56; ErmanGrapow 1921:33 and 1926
1963.1:270271; Loprieno 1995:64. Chadic: Ngizim (1st pl. inclusive)
w we, us; our(s). Schuh 1981:170. Omotic: Hamer (general, stem-form)
wo we, (independent, a-form) wosi, wodi, (dependent, no-form) won;
(possessive, stem-form) wono ours, (possessive, a-form) wontia,
(possessive, na-form) wonna, (possessive no-form) wonno. Bender 2000:
196; Lydall 1976:414415.
B. Proto-Kartvelian *-we- in: *k-we-[na] we, *k-we-m- my, *k-we-n-
our: Georgian ven we (Old Georgian uen), em- my, ven- our;
Mingrelian ki, k we, kim- my, kin-, kn- our; Laz kun, kin,
ku we, kim-, kim- my, kun-, kin-, kun-, kin- our; Svan gwej in:
(inclusive) gu-gwej our, (exclusive) ni-gwej our; gwi, gu in:
mi-gwi, mi-gu me. Jahukyan 1967:96 *-wen we; Schmidt 1962:147
kun-, *kwen-; Klimov 1964:219 *em- my, 219220 *wen- we,
220 *wen- our and 1998:255 *(w)em- my, 256 *wen we, and
256257 *wen- our; FhnrichSardshweladse 1995:434435 *em-
and 436437 *wen-; Fhnrich 2007:539540 *em- and 541542
*wen-; GamkrelidzeMaavariani 1982:87 (1st pl. inclusive) *we-na,
(1st sg. possessive) *we-m-, (1st pl. possessive) *we-n-; Gamkrelidze
Ivanov 1984.I:254 (1st pl. inclusive) *-we-[na] we, (1st sg. possessive)
*-we-m- my, (1st pl. possessive) *-we-n- our and 1995.I:221 (1st pl.
inclusive) *-we-[na] we, (1st sg. possessive) *-we-m- my, (1st pl.
possessive) *-we-n- our. According to Dolgopolsky (1984:73), *- was
the marker of genitive and possessive in Proto-Kartvelian: *em- my (<
*(e)-+m(i)), *wen- thy (< *-+swe-n-).
C. Proto-Indo-European *we-/*wo-, *wey- 1st person dual and plural personal
pronoun stem: Hittite -i-e-e we; Sanskrit (dual) v m we two, (pl.)
vaym we; Avestan (dual) v, (pl.) vam we; Gothic (dual) wit we
two, (pl.) weis we; Old Icelandic vr we; Swedish vi we (Old
Swedish w(r)); Danish vi we; Old English w we; Old Frisian wi we;
Old Saxon wi, we we; Dutch wij we (Old Dutch wi, w, wij); Old High
German wir we (New High German wir); Old Church Slavic (dual) v
PROTO-NOSTRATIC *w 895
we two; Tocharian (pl.) A was, B wes we, us, (dual) B wene we two.
Verb endings: Luwian (1st sg.) -wi; Hieroglyphic Luwian (1st sg.) -wi;
Palaic (1st pl.) -wani; Hittite (1st pl.) -weni, -wani, -wen, -wata, -watati,
-watat; Sanskrit (1st dual) -vas, -va, -vahe, -vahi; Lithuanian (1st dual)
-va; Old Church Slavic (1st dual) -v. Brugmann 1904:407 and 593;
Szemernyi 1996:217; Fortson 2004:127 *u ei-; Burrow 1973:266 and 313;
Pokorny 1959:1114 (dual) *u -, (pl.) *u ei- we; Walde 19271932.I:220
*u e-; Mann 19841987:1505 *u ei es we, 1527 *u s (*u ei es) we;
Watkins 1985:73 *we- (suffixed variant form *wei-es) and 2000:95 *we-
we (suffixed variant form *wey-es); GamkrelidzeIvanov 1984.I:292
293 *u ei-, *u es-, *u e- and 1995.I:254 *wei-, *wes-, *we- (Gamkrelidze
Ivanov interpret *wei-, *wes-, *we- as 1st person plural inclusive);
MalloryAdams 1997:454455 *u i we; Kloekhorst 2008b:1004; Orl
2003:460 Proto-Germanic *wez ~ *wz; Kroonen 2013:590591 Proto-
Germanic *wz we; Feist 1939:560 *u ei -es; Lehmann 1986:400 *wey-;
De Vries 1977:654 *u ei-; FalkTorp 19031906.II:441; Klein 1971:822;
Onions 1966:995996 *wei; KlugeMitzka 1967:862; KlugeSeebold
1989:795 *wei-; BoutkanSiebinga 2005:446447; Adams 1999:265
266 *wei-; Van Windekens 19761982.I:547 *u ei-; Mayrhofer 1956
1980.III:147.
781. Proto-Nostratic sentence particle *wa- (~ *w-) and, also, but; like, as:
Buck 1949:18.13 shout, cry out. Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2473, *waHl to
cry, to speak; BomhardKerns 1994:605606, no. 481.
Dahalo wad-, wadat- to carry. Ehret 1980:311. [Ehret 1995:455, no. 954,
*wad- to move.]
B. Proto-Kartvelian *wed- to go away: Georgian ved-, vid- to go away;
Mingrelian id- to go away; Laz id- to go away. Schmidt 1962:108;
Klimov 1964:84 *wid- to start, to leave and 1998:51 *wed- : *wid- to
go, to walk; FhnrichSardshweladse 1995:130131 *wed-; Fhnrich
2007:158 *wed-.
C. Proto-Indo-European *wed-/*wod- to lead, to bring, to carry: Hittite
(3rd sg. pres.) -i-da-(a-)iz-zi, -wa-da-az-zi to bring, to carry; Avestan
vayeiti to lead, to draw, to pull, to drag; Old Irish fedid to lead, to
bring; Lithuanian ved, vsti to lead, to guide, to direct, to conduct, to
marry; Old Church Slavic ved, vesti to lead, to take; Russian vodt
[] to lead, to conduct; Czech vedu, vesti to lead, to conduct,
voditi to lead, to conduct. Rix 1998a:600 *u ed- to lead; Walde 1927
1932.I:255256 *u edh-; Pokorny 1959:11151116 *u edh- to lead;
Mann 19841987:1497 *u edh- to lead, to bring, to carry, 1559 *u odhos,
-; *u odhmn- lead, front; leader, head; MalloryAdams 1997:346
*hu ed(hx)- to lead, to take to wife; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1984.II:756
*Hu ed[]- and 1995.I:658 *Hwed- to lead away, to carry off a bride (by
force); Kloekhorst 2008b:10091010; Derksen 2008:517 and 523;
Fraenkel 19621965.II:12311232; Smoczyski 2007.1:743743.
D. Proto-Uralic *wet- to take, to guide, to lead, to carry: Finnish vet- to
pull, to draw, to haul, to drag; Estonian veda- to draw, to pull, to tug, to
haul; Mordvin (Erza) veda-, viti- to take, to guide, to lead; Cheremis /
Mari wde-, wide- to guide, to lead, to carry; Hungarian vezet- to lead, to
guide, vezr leader; (?) Yurak Samoyed / Nenets waada-, wada- to pull,
to drag; to train, to raise; to produce, to give birth to; to feed, to nourish; to
cultivate, waadalpi-, wadalpa- to lead; (?) Tavgi Samoyed / Nganasan
bada- to feed, to nourish (a child); (?) Yenisei Samoyed / Enets (Hantai)
bara-, (Baiha) bada- to feed, to nurture, to breed; (?) Selkup Samoyed
kuda- to breed, to nurse, to tend; (?) Kamassian bd-, bud- to feed,
to nourish. Collinder 1955:67, 1965:32, and 1977:84; Joki 1973:344
345; Rdei 19861988:569570 *wet-; Sammallahti 1988:551 *wet-
to pull.
Buck 1949:10.61 carry (bear); 10.62 bring; 10.64 lead (vb.); 12.18 leave.
BomhardKerns 1994:601, no. 474; Hakola 2000:214, no. 958; Dolgopolsky
to appear, no. 2462, *wedhA to cause to go (to drive, to lead).
Buck 1949:4.85 wound (sb.); 9.21 strike (hit, beat). Illi-Svity 1965:330
*wa// to beat (); BomhardKerns 1994:617618, no. 497;
Greenberg 2002:188189, no. 435.
Buck 1949:4.81 strong, mighty, powerful; 19.31 rule (vb.), govern. Bomhard
Kerns 1994:610611, no. 487; Illi-Svity 19711984.II:109110, no. 350,
*wol<a> big; Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2469, *wal to be strong, to be
able.
Buck 1949:9.28 tear (vb. tr.); 9.33 draw, pull. Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2480,
*[]w[A]l[iy] (or *[]wl[iy] ?) to draw, to pull (out, off); Bomhard
Kerns 1994:608609, no. 485.
Buck 1949:18.13 shout, cry out; 18.21 speak, talk; 18.41 call (vb. = summon).
BomhardKerns 1994:611, no. 488; Hakola 2000:207, no. 928.
Buck 1949:10.47 go; 10.48 come; 10.49 go away, depart. Hakola 2000:204
205, no. 915.
Buck 1949:1.72 cloud; 10.32 flow (vb.); 15.83 wet, damp. Illi-Svity
1965:333 *wi moist (); Mller 1911:265; BomhardKerns
1994:626627, no. 504.
Buck 1949:1.85 burn (vb.); 1.86 light (vb.), kindle; 5.22 boil. BomhardKerns
1994:616617, no. 495.
(vb.) *wal- to crush, to grind, to wear out; to rub, to press; to be worn out,
weak; to fade, to wither, to waste away;
(n.) *wal-a distress, pain, difficulty; weakness, hunger, starvation
Buck 1949:4.75 die; dead; death; 4.82 weak; 5.14 hunger (sb.). Bomhard
Kerns 1994:628629, no. 506.
Buck 1949:10.12 turn (vb.); 10.13 turn around (vb.); 10.14 wind, wrap (vb.);
10.15 roll (vb.). BomhardKerns 1994:609610, no. 486; Dolgopolsky to
appear, no. 2477, *wA|[][h] to turn, to roll, to revolve.
Buck 1949:1.55 lightning; 15.51 see; 15.52 look (vb.), look at; 15.53 sight
(subj.); 15.543 sight (obj.), look (obj.), appearance; 15.56 shine; 15.57 bright;
15.61 color (sb.); 15.64 white. Illi-Svity 1965:363 *w/a/l() bright, light
(); BomhardKerns 1994:614616, no. 494; Hakola 2000:208, no.
931; Pudas-Marlow 1974:158, no. 742; Dolgoplsky to appear, no. 2484,
*wal[a] to be bright/white, to shine.
Buck 1949:4.56 spit (vb.); 4.57 vomit (vb.). Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2492,
*wmH (or *hmh ?) to spit out, to vomit; BomhardKerns 1994:612, no.
490.
Buck 1949:7.11 dwell; 9.91 be. Bomhard 1996a:213, no. 612; Blaek 1992a:
141, no. 29. Different etymology in Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2495a,
*w[]N to stay.
A. Afrasian: Proto-Highland East Cushitic *wanaa first > Burji wany first-
born, wanawwa elder sister, wanay, wony elder brother; Kambata
wana(a) beetu first-born (beetu = child), wanabii first. Sasse
1982:190; Hudson 1989:225, 226, 342, and 343.
B. Dravidian: Kolami vanna brothers wife; Naiki vanna older brothers
wife; (?) Kona oni older brothers wife, maternal uncles daughter (older
than person concerned); Pengo oni older brothers wife. Burrow
Emeneau 1984:474, no. 5251.
C. Uralic: Proto-Finno-Permian *wana old > Finnish vanha old,
vanhemmat parents; Estonian vana old; Votyak / Udmurt vu old;
Zyrian / Komi va old. Rdei 19861988:813 *wana; Sammallahti
1988:554 Proto-Finno-Permian *vana old. (?) Proto-Finno-Ugrian
*wn old > Zyrian / Komi vener old; Hungarian vn old. Rdei
19861988:589590 *wn.
Buck 1949:13.34 first; 14.15 old. Bomhard 1996a:271, no. 621. Different
etymology in Dolgopolsky 1998:89, no. 112, *[|]w|n relative (of a
younger/the same generation) of the opposite exogamous moiety (>
brother/sister-in-law, son-in-law) and to appear, no. 2494, *w
*[X]w relative (of a younger/the same generation) of the opposite
exogamous moiety ([in descendant languages] brother/sister-in-law, son-
in-law).
Buck 1949:9.14 bend (vb.); 12.74 crooked; 16.68 deceit; 16.74 wrong; 16.75
sin; 16.76 fault, guilt. Illi-Svity 1965:336 *wank to bend ();
Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2505, *wka to bend; BomhardKerns
1994:618621, no. 498; Hakola 2000:208209, no. 933.
Buck 1949:4.85 wound (sb.); 9.21 strike (hit, beat); 11.28 harm, injure, damage
(vb.). Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2502, *waE to hit, to injure.
waraad-icco (pl. waraada) young man. Hudson 1989:225, 302, and 400.
West Chadic *warar- vicious bull > Hausa waaraarii vicious bull.
OrlStolbova 1995:527, no. 2527, *war- bull, cow (the Semitic and
Highland East Cushitic forms are not in OrlStolbova).
B. Proto-Kartvelian *wer- male, ram: Georgian ver- ram; Mingrelian
er- male, ram (cf. xurii eri male of sheep, er-ak-a lamb).
Schmidt 1962:109; Klimov 1964:84 *wer- and 1998:52 *wer- male,
ram; FhnrichSardshweladse 1995:133 *wer-; Fhnrich 2007:160
161 *wer-.
C. Proto-Indo-European *wers-/*wr s- man, male, male animal: Sanskrit
va- man, male, husband, bull, van- male, manly, any male animal,
bull, stallion, v- ram; Latin verrs boar; Lithuanian ver is calf;
Latvian versis ox. Pokorny 1959:81 *u r sen-, *u ers/i- male; Walde
19271932.I:269 *u er-s-; Mann 19841987:1519 *u er$s- (*u r $s-)
young animal, 1521 *u ers- young of animal, 1521 *u ersn- male of
animal; MalloryAdams 1997:363 *u rsn- male (as sire); Walde
Hofmann 19651972.II:761 *u ers-; ErnoutMeillet 1979:724; De Vaan
2008:666; Mayrhofer 19561980.III:251252; Smoczyski 2007.1:740;
Fraenkel 19621965.II:12281229.
Buck 1949:2.23 male (human); 3.12 male (animal); 3.203.24 (3.21 bull; 3.22
ox; 3.23 cow; 3.24 calf); 3.26 ram. BomhardKerns 1994:563564, no. 427;
Dolgopolsky to appear, no. 2530, *w[i]R young herbivorous animal (calf,
lamb, etc.).
giwar careful, attentive (New High German gewahr in: werden gewahr
to become aware of, to see, to perceive, to notice, to observe, to discern, to
catch sight of); Hittite -e-ri-te-ma-a anxiety; Latin vereor to have
respect for, to revere; Latvian vru, vrt to look at, to notice; Tocharian
B yrp- to oversee, to observe, to take care of. Perhaps also Hittite (nom.
sg. c.) wa-ar-ri-i helpful; help; Luwian [w]a-ar-ra-i-ta-a-i-i being
of help; Hieroglyphic Luwian wariya- to help. Rix 1998a:626 *u er- to
observe, to watch; to look after, to protect; Pokorny 1959:11601162
*u er- to observe, to watch, to notice; Walde 19271932.I:280283
*u er-; Mann 19841987:1516 *u er- to look, to watch, to observe, to care
for, 1517 *u erei to look, to watch, to observe, to care for, 1520 *u ros
watchful, watch, 1576 *u or- watch, guard, 1577 *u ori (*u orei ,
*u ori ) to watch, to observe, 1578 *u orei (*u ori , *u ori ) to watch,
to observe; Watkins 1985:77 *wer- and 2000:99100 *wer- to perceive,
to watch out for; MalloryAdams 1997:417 *u er- to perceive, to give
attention to, *u er-b(h)- to observe, to protect; GamkrelidzeIvanov
1984.II:808809 *u er- and 1995.I:709 *wer- to look, to pay attention, to
be careful, I:645, I:780 *wer- to defend (oneself), to save (oneself), to
protect (oneself); WaldeHofmann 19651972.II:757758; Ernout
Meillet 1979:723 *wer-; De Vaan 2008:665; Orl 2003:447448 Proto-
Germanic *waraz, 448 *war