Jouna PYYSALO

University of Helsinki

Does the Laryngeal Theory have a Theory?

On the Incompatibility
of a Viable Three-Laryngeal Model
with the Anatolian Data*

ABSTRACT.—More than a century after HERMANN MØLLER’s original formulation

the laryngeal theory no longer has a viable model – and a theory. This permanent emperor
has no clothes situation is a direct result of the incompatibility of the Proto-Indo-Semitic
hypothesis underlying the laryngeal theory with the Old Anatolian data. The inconsistency
can only be overcome if the assumptions of the laryngeal theory are simplified as follows:
1. The set of laryngeals LT *h1 h2 h3 is reduced to a single ‘laryngeal’ PIE *H, phonetically a
glottal fricative and coinciding with Hitt. ḫ as a segment. 2. The Proto-Indo-Semitic
morphology C1C2·C3 is abandoned. In order to continue within a framework of a
meaningful theory in Indo-European linguistics, a transition to monolaryngealism as
initiated by ZGUSTA (1951) and developed by SZEMERENYI (1996) or preferably its most
recent, completely revised and upgraded version, the glottal fricative theory (PYYSALO
2013), is recommended for the scholars in field.

1. On the history and development of the laryngeal theory

1.0. The history of the laryngeal theory (LT) can be divided into three periods. The
pioneering phase is characterized by ideas of Ferdinand DE SAUSSURE (1878) and Hermann
MØLLER (1879, 1880, 1906, 1911), the classical phase by the implementation of MØLLER’s
theory by Jerzy KURYLOWICZ (1935) and Émile BENVENISTE, and the post-classical phase

*
Abbrevations: a. = adjective, = accusative, adv. = adverb, Aegin. = Aeginan (Greek), AIWb. =
BARTHOLOMAE (1904), ao. = aorist, APrS. = TRAUTMANN (1910), Arg. = Argos (Greek), Arm. = Armenian,
ArmGr. 1 = HüBSCHMANN (1897), ASaxD. = BOSWORTH & TOLLER (1882-1898), c. = genus commune,
CHLu. = HAWKINS (2000), CLu. = Cuneiform Luwian, Cymr. = Cymrian (Welsh), DIL = MARSTRANDER
(1913), DLL = LAROCHE (1959), DLLAdd. = LAROCHE (1965), DS = SAUSSURE (1878) [Mém.], du. = dual,
EHS = KRONASSER (1962-1966), EtDiPC. = MATASOVIĆ (2009), EWA= MAYRHOFER (1986-2000), f. =
feminine, G = genitive, gAv. = gathic Avestan, GEW = FRISK (1960-1972), GKL= Glossenkeil (= Luwian),
Gr. = Greek, HED = PUHVEL (1984ff.), HEG = TISCHLER (1977f.), HHand. = TISCHLER (2001), HIL =
KLOEKHORST (2008), Hitt. = Hittite, HLu.= Hieroglyphic Luwian, HW2 = FRIEDRICH & KAMMENHUBER
(1975ff.), IEW = POKORNY (1959), inf. = infinitive, KEWA = MAYRHOFER (1956-1980), KluN = STARKE
(1990), Lat. = Latin, LAv. = Later Avestan, LEIA = VENDRYES (1959ff.), LiEtWb. = FRAENKEL (1962-1965),
Lith. = Lithuanian, LSJ = LIDDELL & SCOTT (1940), LT = laryngeal theory, LycB. = Lycian B., m. =
masculine, M. = medium, Maced. = (Old) Macedonian, MidBret. = Middle Breton, MidCymr. = Middle
Cymrian, MidIr. = Middle Irish, ModCymr. = Modern Cymrian (Welsh), Møl = MÖLLER’s laryngeal theory,
n. = neuter, N = Nominative, Neogr. = Neogrammarian, OCymr. = Old Cymrian (Welsh), OEng. = Old
English, OGaul. = Old Gaulish, Ohitt. = Old Hittite, OIcl. = Old Icelandic, OIr. = Old Irish, OLat. = Old
Latin, OPr. = Old Prussian, Oss. = Ossetic, P. = Passive, PCelt. = Proto-Celtic, pf. = perfect, PIE = Proto-
Indo-European, PItal. = Proto-Italic, pl. = plural, pr. = present, RV. = Rig-Veda, sb. = substantive noun, sg. =
singular, VKG = PEDERSEN (1909-1913), vb. = verb, WbRV = GRASSMANN (19966), WH = WALDE &
HOFMANN (1938).
196 Does the Laryngeal Theory have a Theory?

by the three models of Heiner EICHNER, Craig H. MELCHERT, and Fredrik KORTLANDT. In
addition, until its recent post-classical phase, the laryngeal theory was split into two
rivaling schools, characterized by the monovocalism and multivocalism hypotheses.

1.0.1. The monovocalism (or orthodox) school is the heir of the Paleogrammarian
monoquality hypothesis, according to which the proto-language had a single vowel quality
like Sanskrit with OInd. a/ā. This monoquality hypothesis was transformed into the
monovocalism hypothesis by means of assumed Proto-Indo-Semitic /a/ (written PIE *e by
BENVENISTE 1935) and DE SAUSSURE’s compensatory lengthening rules for *ehx → ēx by
MØLLER.†
1.0.2. The multivocalism (or revisionist) school has its origin in DE SAUSSURE, who
in 1878 postulated two distinct qualitative vowels, PIE *e ≠ PIE *o, for the proto-language.
In the classical phase of the theory KURYLOWICZ continued this view, which a generation
ago ultimately won the long-lasting conflict between the two opposing schools.

1.1. The pioneering phase of the laryngeal theory is outlined by Heiner EICHNER
(1988:123) as follows: “Die Laryngealtheorie is in ihren wesentlichen Zügen von Hermann
Möller und Albert Cuny unter Anknüpfung an Erkenntnisse Ferdinand de Saussures schon
zu einer Zeit entwickelt worden, als der anatolische Zweig der indogermanischen
Sprachfamilie für die Indogermanistik noch nicht erschlossen war.”

1.1.1. DE SAUSSURE’s (1878) reconstruction consisted only of DS *e *o *A *O and

the compensatory lengthening rules for *eA *eO *oA *oO. As such, this system was not a
laryngeal theory proper, especially due to the absence of the Semitic typology C1C2·C3.‡
1.1.2. The revisions of MØLLER (1879, 1880, 1906, 1911), earning him the title of
the father of the laryngeal theory, stand as follows:
(a) MØLLER interpreted DE SAUSSURE’s ‘coefficients’ *A *O first as guttural, then as
laryngeal consonants, equivalent to their Semitic counterparts in Proto-Indo-
Semitic.§
(b) MØLLER added the third laryngeal *E and the respective compensatory
lengthening rule LT *eE → Neogr. *ē to DE SAUSSURE’s assumptions.
(c) MØLLER presented the colouring rules *Ae → a; *Oe → o; *Ee → e.
(d) MØLLER presented the monovocalism hypothesis, according to which the proto-
language only had a single vowel, PIE *e, hence eliminating PIE *o and *a.

†
See MØLLER (1911:XIV): “Es gibt im Indogermanischen nur a-Wurzeln (oder, wenn man fürs
Indogermanische lieber will, e-Wurzeln, was für die Sache dasselbe), den semitische a-Wurzeln
entsprechend.”
‡
For this practice, see e.g. BENVENISTE (1935:152): “La ‘prothèse vocalique’ du grec et de l’arménien a
donc, au moins en partie, un fondement étymologique: c’est le reste d’une initiale ǝ-antéconsonantique dans
une racine suffixée à l’état II.”
§
MØLLER (1906: vi) explains: “Als Ferdinand de Saussure seine glänzende Entdeckung der von ihm
sogenannten ‘phonèmes’ A und Ô machte [...], sprach ich alsbald (1879) die Vermütung aus, dass diese
wurzelhaften Elemente, denen ich ein drittes hinzufügte, konsonantische und zwar Kehlkopflaute gewesen
sein [...] und behauptete (1880) ‘Es waren ... wahrscheinlich Gutturale von der Art der semitischen’.”
 Jouna PYYSALO 197

(e) Finally, and most importantly, MØLLER generalized the Proto-Indo-Semitic root
shape (or the morphology C1C2·C3-), used to justify the postulation of PIE
laryngeals ever since among the supporters of the theory.**
With these main features MØLLER’s system is isomorphic with the laryngeal theory
(three-laryngealism) in a well-known manner, namely: MØL *eE eA eO: *Ee Ae Oe ≡ LT
*eh1 eh2 eh3 : *h1e h2e h3e. The Neogrammarians discarded MØLLER’s Semitic typology as
unsound,†† and the doubts concerning both the substance and the method of the theory
remained until 1960s, witnessing the rise of the theory to today’s mainstream.‡‡

1.2. The classical laryngeal theory (1927f.) is characterized by the collision of

MØLLER’s theory with the then recently discovered Indo-European language of Anatolia,
Hittite. In a series of articles beginning in 1920s JERZY KURYLOWICZ, also a Semitic
linguist, and ÉMILE BENVENISTE, from an old family of Hebrew scholars, opted for
implementing MØLLER’s theory to the Indo-European data instead of taking an empirical
approach.§§ Their comparison of Hittite with the Semitic root form implied that no trace of
MØLLER’s *E ≡ *h1 was present in the data, which the authors interpreted as indicating its
loss.*** The split between MØLLER’s orthodox and SAUSSURE’s revisionist views was
manifested between BENVENISTE and KURYLOWICZ in a manner detailed below.

1.2.1. According to BENVENISTE’s orthodox view, presented in Origines de la

formation des noms en indo-européen I (1935), not only MØLLER’s *A, but also *O is
preserved as Hitt. ḫ. In terms of the underlying monovocalism hypothesis this was naturally
the only possibility, because the qualities of the Indo-European vowels are mechanically
transferred into properties of the laryngeals in this theory:
LT *h1es- Hitt. eš- Gr. ἐσ- (BENVENISTE 1935:149, IEW. 340-42)
LT *h2er- Hitt. ḫarg- : Gr. ἀργ- (BENVENISTE 1935:151, IEW. 64-65)
LT *h3est- Hitt. ḫaštai- : Gr. ὀστέο- (BENVENISTE 1935:149, IEW. 783)†††

**
According to MØLLER (1911:v-vi, x), many Semitic ‘triliteral’ root shapes were originally biliteral, thus
implying a root shape CC·C for Proto-Indo-Semitic.
††
Compare the summary of KOERNER (1985:336): “[MÖLLER’s] 94-page monograph on the laryngeal
consonants of Indo-European and Semitic was not regarded as sound in scholarship.”
‡‡
See KRAHE (1958:97): “Die ‘Laryngaltheorie’ kann aber weder in ihrer Substanz noch in ihrer Methodik
als gesichert gelten.”
§§
For the obvious flaws of this approach, see e.g. TISCHLER (1980: 498): “Im übrigen liegt ja die Annahme
nahe, daß Kuryłowicz selbst gar nie auf die Idee gekommen wäre, das hethitische ḫ auf mehr als einen idg.
Laut zurückzuführen, well er induktiv vom sprachlichen Material ausgegangen wäre. Kuryłowicz ging
dagegen deduktiv von den Theorien de Saussures und Cunys aus und wollte im Hethitischen nur die
Bestätigung für diese Theorie finden.”
***
For BENVENISTE’s (1935:170) continuation of MØLLER’s ideas, see especially the passage: “La racine
indo-européenne est monosyllabique, trilitère, composée de la voyelle fondamentale e entre deux consonnes
différentes. […] La racine fournit, avec un suffixe, deux thèmes alternants: I racine pleine et tonique + suffixe
zéro; II racine zéro + suffixe plein et tonique.” Thus not only the monovocalism hypothesis and the Semitic
root shape, but also BENVENISTE’s ‘thème I’ and ‘thème II’ are found already in MÖLLER (1880:506):
“Ursprünglich dreisilbige wurzeln (wie dajava s. 492, woraus daiv und djau [...].”
†††
For Hitt. ḫa-aš-ta-a-i [sgNA] (n.) ‘Knochen, usw.’, see TISCHLER (HEG 1:237f.) and for Gr.
ὀστέον [sgNA] (n.) ‘Bein’, see FRISK (GEW 2:436).
198 Does the Laryngeal Theory have a Theory?

1.2.2. In his revisionist theory, summarized in Études indoeuropéennes I (1935),

KURYLOWICZ keeps his cards very close to his chest, but in the proposed system with three
laryngeals LT *h1 h2 h3 only one is preserved: LT *h2 ≡ Hitt. ḫ.‡‡‡ KURYLOWICZ’s
unwillingness to reconstruct the data is understandable, because there were two competing
causes for the ‘o-vocalism’ in his theory, the vowel PIE *o, and the ‘laryngeal’ LT *h3. In
practice, this resulted in an ambiguity in the type Hitt. ḫaštai- : Gr. ὀστέο- for which not
only the orthodox proto-form *h3est-, but a revisionist *h2ost- can be reconstructed.§§§

1.3. The post-classical laryngeal theory developed around the new critique and
ideas of HEINER EICHNER, yet another key developer of the laryngeal theory with a Semitic
background (Assyriology). In his articles EICHNER (see especially 1973, 1978, and 1988)
presented a broad attack against all theories in the field and left Indo-European linguistics
in an unstable and unsustainable situation, not least because the unintended repercussions
shook his own position as well. After the impact of Eichner’s publications only three
models of the laryngeal theory survive, the earlier ones now being outdated or transformed
into these. The remaining candidates, all versions of three-laryngealism, which still
compete for the solution of the PIE laryngeal problem are:

1.3.1. MELCHERT’s theory, developed and/or supported by KIMBALL 1987 and

MELCHERT 1987, 1994, to be discussed in 2.1.
1.3.2. EICHNER’s theory, developed and/or supported by OETTINGER 1976 and
RIEKEN 1999, to be discussed in 2.2.
1.3.3. KORTLANDT’s theory, developed and/or supported by KLOEKHORST 2007, to
be discussed in 2.3.

2. The three post-classical models of the laryngeal theory

2.0. The tipping point of the laryngeal theory turned out to be the ‘non-ablauting o’
(Neogr. *å) in the root-initial position, i.e. the correspondence set Gr. ο- : RV. a- without
the lengthening of BRUGMANN’S LAW in Indo-Iranian open syllables (see PYYSALO, 2013:
117-121). This correspondence set creates two simultaneous problems that successively
falsify the critical assumptions of the laryngeal theory with the result that no viable model
of the theory exists.

2.0.1. Ever after the emergence of Hittite data the correspondence set Neogr. *å has
required a de facto split due to the existence of two distinct correspondence sets, one
beginning with Hitt. a- and another with Hitt. ḫa-, both corresponding to Gr. ο- (RV. a-) as
indicated in:

‡‡‡
KURYLOWICZ also had a fourth ‘a-colouring’ laryngeal *ǝ4 lost in Hittite (see 1935: 75f., 254f. and 1956:
166-71). In practice the item was defined by comparisons in which the Indo-European ‘a-vocalism’ (Neogr.
*ǝ a ā) correlates with Hitt. a (without laryngeal). However, the examples are better explained with
comparisons not requiring ǝ4 (PYYSALO 2013: 87-89).
§§§
See e.g. KURYŁOWICZ (1935: 112): “Le rapprochement Hittite ḫastai ‘ossements’ : ὀστέον, lat. ōs devient
donc possible, puisque après ǝ2 on peut attendre aussi bien o que a (< e).”
 Jouna PYYSALO 199

Hitt. a- : Gr. ο- : RV. a- ≡ PIE *o- ≡ Neogr. *å(1)

Hitt. ḫa- : Gr. ο- : RV. a- ≡ PIE *ḫo- ≡ Neogr. *å(2)****
Although initially unnoticed by KURYLOWICZ and BENVENISTE, who used very
limited data,†††† it is an undeniable fact that a single laryngeal *h3 cannot explain the
existence of the two correspondence sets with ‘o-vocalism’. Consequently the colouring of
either *å1 or *å2 must be explained with the vowel PIE *o, or a distribution explaining the
situation must be postulated.
2.0.2. The second problem was created by the characteristic postulation of the pre-
proto-language on the basis of the Semitic C1C2·C3-morphology in the laryngeal theory.
This auxiliary results in ambiguity in both correspondence sets because the transcendent
pre-proto-forms can be (and actually are) interpreted in two competing ways in the post-
classical theory as indicated in: REVISIONIST:
ORTHODOX:
PIE *o- ≡ LT *h3e- vs. LT *h1o-
PIE *ḫo- ≡ LT *h2o- vs. LT *h3e-
In other words, if the requirements of the Semitic root structure are extended to
Proto-Indo-European, the unproblematic comparative reconstruction PIE *o- and PIE *ḫo-
turns into ambiguous one.

2.1. The early orthodox theory of MØLLER, characterized by the monovocalism

hypothesis and the morphology C1C2·C3, had no other option but explain the ‘o-
quality’ with *O: Neogr. *oC + MØL C1eC2 → MØL **OeC-. Even after the emergence of
the Anatolian data BENVENISTE (1935) assumed a full preservation of *h3. In the post-
classical theory of MELCHERT (1994), however, the laryngeal *h3- is allegedly preserved
only in word-initial position as Hitt. ḫ- but otherwise lost.‡‡‡‡ In terms of examples this is
now expressed with a definition LT *h3eC2 → Hitt. ḫaC- (CLu. ḫaC-) : Gr. oC- (RV. aC-).
A classical example of this is the correspondence set LT *h3est- Hitt. ḫaštai- ‘set of bones’:
Gr. ὀστέο- ‘bone’ (BENVENISTE, 1935: 149, IEW: 783).

2.1.1. The key problem of the orthodox view, the ambiguity of Hitt. ḫ, was
understood already by KURYŁOWICZ, but to my knowledge first explicitly used to argument
in defense of his own theory by EICHNER (1978: 16277):§§§§ “Von den in der Literatur für
anatol. h- < h3- genannten Beispielen ist keines sicher, alle können auch mit *h2- angesetzt
werden (Material bei LINDEMAN, Einführung in die Laryngaltheorie, Berlin 1970, § 27).

****
For an example, compare CLu. ḫaui- (c.) ‘Schaf’ (KLuN 70, DLL 45, IEW. 784), RV. tri.ávi- (a.) ‘drei
Lammzeiten zählend’ (WbRV. 561) and Lat. oui- (c.) ‘Schaf’ (Schrijver 1991:50, WH 2:229-30).
††††
For the details of the thin material basis, see TISCHLER’s (1980:495): “Obwohl Kuryłowicz seine Theorie
auf der schmalen Basis von ledigilich 24 Wortvergleichen errichtete, von denen sich nachträglich noch dazu
eine ganze Reihe als verfehlt erwiesen, wurde schon bald klar, daß diese Theorie mit den vorliegenden Fakten
nicht in Einklang zu bringen ist.”
‡‡‡‡
For other proponents of the view, see MELCHERT (1994: 72): “I share the view of NORMIER (1980a: 58),
WATKINS (1982c: 457), BERNABÉ (1983: 39ff.), KIMBALL (1983 & 1987a) and others that */h3/ is preserved
initially as ḫ- in Hittite, Palaic and Cuneiform Luvian. (…) I now share the widespread but by no means
universal view that */h3/ is regularly lost in all other positions [except in root-initial].”
§§§§
See MELCHERT (1994: 71): “The only major controversy regarding laryngeals in Anatolian concerns the
fate of initial */h3/. For a summary of the issues see MELCHERT (1987b).”
200 Does the Laryngeal Theory have a Theory?

Hingegen ist die Vertretung von *h3- durch anatol. Ø- wegen heth. artari ‘steht’ (Wurzel
*H3er, s. H. RIX MSS 27, 1969, 92f.) m.E. gesichert.”
In terms of data, LT *h2- (≡ PIE *ḫ) can often be actually confirmed in examples of
an alleged *h3-, if the usual or dominating ‘o-vocalism’ of the root is accompanied by
ablaut variants implying ‘a-vocalism’. This is the case, for instance, in the classical
example Hitt. ḫaštai- : Gr. ὀστέο- for which an alternative in Indo-European /a-/ is
preserved in
Gr. ὀστακό- (m.) ‘Meerkrebs’ (GEW 1:169 ὀστακός [sgN])
Gr. ἀστακό- (m.) ‘Meerkrebs’ (GEW 1:169, ἀστακός [sgN])
OIr. asn- (sb.) ‘côte : rib’ (LEIA A-94-5, asnai [plN], asna [plG]).
The only way to account for such pairs is to postulate PIE *ḫ- (or ‘h2-’) with two
distinct ablaut vowels, namely PIE *e and PIE *o. Simultaneously the second ‘o-colouring’
correspondence set without laryngeal, Hitt. a- : Gr. o-, also requires the vowel PIE *o, due
to which the fate of the monovocalism hypothesis underlying the orthodox theory was
sealed by the 1980s:
(a) The type Hitt. ḫaštai- : Gr. ὀστακό-/ἀστακό- makes the vowel PIE *o necessary
in order to explain the alternation IE /a/ : /o/.
(b) Since *h3- is assumedly preserved as Hitt. ḫ- in this theory, the phoneme *h3-
cannot explain the colouring of the second correspondence set Hitt. a- : Gr. ο- (e.g.
in Hitt. argi- ‘Hode(n)’ : Gr. ὄρχι-) without Hitt. ḫ-. Therefore PIE *o- has to be
reconstructed (with initial laryngeal *h1 from C1C2·C3-) for this set as well.
Both ways, PIE *o is necessary, i.e. if MØLLER’s Semitic morphology C1C2·C3- is to
be upheld for Proto-Indo-European, the monovocalism hypothesis has to be abandoned.
Due to this fact the monovocalist versions of the theory are no longer viable, and the
informed scholars now uniformly reconstruct at least two distinct vowels, PIE *e and PIE
*o.*****
2.1.2. EICHNER’s original argument did not, however, contain a detailed case study
of the relevant data, and therefore lacked rigour. For this reason his views were soon
contested by scholars such as KIMBALL (1987: 185), according to whom “There are several
cases in which a Hittite or Luvian word with initial h can be compared with words in the
other Indo-European languages with an *o that can perhaps be derived from *h3(e).”
Under these circumstances I offer a helping hand to EICHNER and associate an Indo-
European form with unambiguous ‘a-vocalism’ to every example of alleged *h3-, thus
proving Eichner’s statement PIE *ḫ- ≡ h2- in the strong sense. The some dozen examples of
alleged Hitt. ḫa- : Gr. o- can be demonstrated to contain *h2o-, and not *h3e-, as detailed
below.†††††
(i) Hitt. ḫara- (c.) ‘eagle’ (HEG 1:157f., see Gr. ὄρνις for LT *h3er-) belongs to the
root PIE √hɑr- √ɦɑr- ‘Adler, Vogel’. The Indo-European ‘a-vocalism’ is attested in the
*****
The general acceptance of two distinct vowels PIE *e ≠ PIE *o is of course welcome news, not only
because it was confirmed by the second palatalization (see COLLINGE, 1985: 133-42) over a century ago, but
also because the revised condition of BRUGMANN’S LAW now states that the lengthening in Indo-Iranian open
syllable took place in the environment oHCV (see PYYSALO, 2013: 114-124), also necessitating PIE *o.
†††††
The discussed list is compiled on the basis of several lists of ‘non-apophonic o-’ in Indo-European,
including e.g., BEEKES (1969: 130f., 139f), KORTLANDT (2004). For a similar list, also see PYYSALO
(2013: 156f.).
 Jouna PYYSALO 201

extension PIE *ɦɑergi̯ i- (LT *h2eri-, IEW, 854-855) including Maced. ἀργιό·πουδ- ‘ἀετός’
(LSJ 235), Arm. arci·v- ‘Adler’ and LAv. ǝrǝzi·fiia- ‘Adler’ (AIWb. 354). This falsifies LT
*h3- suggested by MELCHERT (1987: 21) and KIMBALL (1987: 185), (1999: 393f.).
(ii) Hitt. ḫap- (vb1.) ‘reichlich vorhanden sein’ (HEG 1:157f., Hitt. ḫapzi [3sg], see
Lat. op- ‘Macht, Vermögen, Reichtum’ (WH 2:215) for LT *h3ep-) alternates with PIE *e in
the extension PIE *hɑep·n- (IEW. 780) with parallels in Celtic and Indo-Iranian including
Cymr. anaw- ‘richesse’ (VKG II: 585), OIr. an·oīb- (sb.) ‘great prosperity’ (DIL 40, LEIA
A-72) and RV. apna·rā́ j- (a.) ‘über Reichtum gebietend’ (WbRV. 78). Celtic initial a-
unambiguously points to PIE *hɑep- excluding LT *h3- despite MELCHERT (1994: 72) and
KIMBALL (1987: 185-9, 1999: 393f.).
(iii) Hitt. ḫaštai- ‘set of bones’ (HEG 1:202-3, ḫa-aš-ta-i [sgNA], see Gr. ὀστέο-
‘bone’ (GEW 2:436–437) for LT *h3est-) is attested with ‘a-vocalism’ e.g. in Gr. ἀστακό-
(see IEW 783 also for the Celtic and Armenian confirmation for Indo-European /a/). The
latter implies PIE *ḫ (≡ h2), i.e. the assumed LT *h3- (see MELCHERT 1987: 21 and KIMBALL
1999: 142) is unwarranted.
(iv) CLu. ḫau̯ i- ‘sheep’ (DLL 45, see Latin oui-, ouillo- (WH 2: 229-230) for LT
*h3eu̯ i-) and the related root (IEW 784) have a by-form with ‘a-vocalism’ in Lat. auillo-
(m.) ‘agnus recentis partus’ (WH 1:84) and in Lat. au·bubulco- ‘pastor ovium’ (WH 1:79).
Both forms require PIE *hɑeu̯ ·(i)- which in turn excludes LT *h3- versus MELCHERT
(1987: 21) and KIMBALL (1999: 142).
(v) Hitt. ḫalii̯ a- ‘bow down’ (HEG 1:130) and Hitt. ḫalḫaltumar ‘corner’ (HEG
1:128, see Gr. ὠλένη ‘elbow’ (GEW 2: 1146-1147) for LT *h3el-), alternate with ‘a-
vocalism’ in Gr. ἄλαξ : πῆχυς (LSJ 72 sub ἄλξ) in turn excluding LT *h3- (for which see
MELCHERT 1987: 21 and KIMBALL 1999: 393f.).
(vi) Hitt. ḫari̯ a- (vb1.) ‘vergraben : bury’ (see Gr. ὀρύσσω ‘dig’ GEW1: 430-431 for
LT *h3er-) can be both formally and morphologically better compared to Gr. ἄριζο- ‘τάφος
: Grab’ (LSJ. 239) and Gr. µαγ·αρί- ‘µικρὰ σπάθη’ (GEW 2:154). Consequently KIMBALL’s
(1999: 141, 393f.) LT *h3- is not acceptable.
(vii) Hitt. ḫarga·nau- (n.) ‘Sohle, Ferse?’ (see Gr. ὀρέγω ‘stretch out’ GEW 2:
413–414 for LT *h3re-) belongs to the root IEW. 854–857 also containing forms with
‘a-colouring’ such as Gr. ἀργό- (a.) ‘schnell beweglich : swift’ (GEW 1:132).‡‡‡‡‡ The
‘a-vocalism’ implies a root PIE *ɦɑrgi- ‘strecken, eilen’, i.e. LT *h2er- making LT *h3-
suggested by MELCHERT (1987: 21f.) and others impossible.§§§§§

‡‡‡‡‡
The meanings ‘gerade richten’ and ‘schnell bewegen’ are readily understood on the basis of the original
meaning ‘(aus)strecken’.
§§§§§
As an example of the fallibility of structural reasoning I quote MELCHERT (1994:72): “I accept the
derivation by WEITENBERG (1984: 223) of Hitt. ḫarganau- ‘palm, sole’ < virtual *h3renṓ – *‘extension’
(cf. Grk. ὀρέγω ‘stretch out (hand or foot)’). In this TRET root, the o- of the Greek word cannot be explained
as an o-grade, and hence Hitt. ḫarg- cannot reflect h2or– (see further MELCHERT, 1987b: 21, and now
Lamberterie, 1991–93).” Similarly, in MELCHERT (1987: 21): “He [WEITENBERG, 1984: 223] persuasively
relates Hitt. harg(a)nāu- ‘palm, sole’ to Grk. ὀρέγω ‘stretch out’ (especially the hand or foot) from PIE
*h3re-. This crucial etymology is semantically and morphologically impeccable. […] The main point is that
Hitt. har- = Gr. ὀρ- in this example cannot possibly continue *h2o-, since we are dealing with a TReT root.
We must conclude that *h3 is preserved as Hitt. h- before a sonant consonant.” Here it should be noted that
the interdigitations CeC·C : CC·eC of course existed but were by no means the only ones, as revealed in this
202 Does the Laryngeal Theory have a Theory?

(viii) Hitt. ḫarb- ‘separate, change one’s group’ (HW2 H: 329f., HEG 1: 182f.,
HED 3 : 176f. HIL. 364, see Arm. orb- ‘orphan’ ArmGr. 1: 482 for LT *h3erbʰ-) has been
presented as one of the examples of the initial ‘o-colouring laryngeal’ (IEW 781).
However, if STURTEVANT’s rule can be trusted, the respective iterative/imperfect Hitt. ḫar-
ap-pí[-iš-ke/a-] (see KLOEKHORST HIL. 85) points to a voiceless labial stop PIE *p. If the
rule is correct Hittite is better compared to the Greek items:
Gr. ἀν·ἀρέψα- (ao.) ‘seize, grasp’ (Gr. ἀναρεψαµένη [sgN])
Aegin. ἀρεπυια- (f.) ‘two harpies’ (Gr. ἀρεπυῖα = ἀρεπυία [du.?]).******
Together with Hittite the Greek forms imply PIE *ḫ- (h2), not LT *h3- (versus
MELCHERT, 1987:21).
(ix) Hitt. ḫarg- ‘perish’ (HW2 H: 297f. HEG 1: 175, HED 3: 167, HIL 357-458, see
OIr. orgaid ‘slays’ for LT *h3erg-), does not strike as particularly convincing, because Arm.
harkanem ‘smite, smash’ implies PIE *p-, also to applying to Celtic due to the identity of
the semantics.†††††† Under these circumstances the traditional etymology (see POKORNY,
IEW 818-819) should to be favoured, which suffices to refute the initial *h3- (see KIMBALL
(1987: 185), and MELCHERT (1987: 21).
Speaking of the absent etymology of Hitt. ḫarg- ‘perish’ one observes two key
issues:
(a) Internally the stem is an extension Hitt. ḫar·g- ‘perish’ of the plain root,
specialized in agriculture in the rest of the group (IEW 61-62):
Hitt. ḫar- (pr1A.) ‘zerstoßen, zerreiben’ (HEG 1: 169f., HIL 351)
TochA. āre- (m.) ‘aratrum’ (THED 37-, Poucha 24, areñ [plN])
(b) The segmentation and the semantics are confirmed by the related ‘-nin-class’
formation (e.g. in Hitt. ḫar-ni-in-ku-un [1sg]) directly matching with Old Icelandic in
Hitt. ḫarning- (pr.) ‘verwüsten, vernichten’ (HHand. 43)
OIcl. arning- (f.) ‘das Pflügen’ (ANEtWb. 14)‡‡‡‡‡‡
Thus, although the nature of the extension (PIE *·gʰ or *·ʰ) remains ambiguous,
there is an acceptable etymology pointing to PIE *ḫar·Gʰ- with PIE *h2 instead of *h3.
(x) Hitt. ḫapan- ‘herdfeuer’ ‘baking kiln’ (HEG 1: 165, HW2: 229-30, HED 3:
121-122, HIL. 348, see Gr. ὀπτό- ‘roasted’ GEW 2: 406 for LT *h3epto-) is not a
satisfactory example of *h3-. Against this interpretation already TISCHLER (HEG 1:165)
quoted a large number of cognates implying PIE *ḫ- (≡ *h2) on the basis of ‘a-vocalism’.
The forms, attested in various extensions, exclude *h3- as suggested by PUHVEL (HED 3:
121-2), KIMBALL (1999: 393f.) and KLOEKHORST (HIL 357):
Gr. ἀπρ·οξίδ- (f.) ‘burning bush : dictamnus albus’ (LSJ. 230)
Lat. aprīco- (a.) ‘der Sonne ausgesetzt, sonnig warm’ (WH I:59)
Lat. aprīli- (m.) ‘April’ (WH I:59)
Hitt. ḫaparnuašḫa- (c.) ‘Sonnenstrahl?’ (HEG I:162)

case by the identity Gr. ὀρέγω = Oss. arazu- (vb.) ‘errichten’ (KEWA 2: 425, arazun [inf.]) implying a base
PIE *ɦɑorégi̯- with two normal grade vowels.
******
SZEMERENYI (1964: 203-6, 209-13), and RIX (1970: 86).
††††††
For CUNY’s alternative etymology in favour of Anatolian, see (1934: 205).
‡‡‡‡‡‡
Note that the equation Hitt. ḫarning- : OIcl. arning- is the first example of an exact match of the Hittite
-nin-affix in any other Indo-European language.
 Jouna PYYSALO 203

Hitt. ḫaparnuatar- (n.) ‘Strahlenkranz’ (EHS 282, 293

Lith. opù- (a.) ‘brennend’ (LiEtWb. 517)
(xi) Hitt. ḫašduir- ‘twigs, brush’ (HEG 1:206, see Gr. ὄζο- ‘Ast, Zweig, Schößling’
GEW 2: 353 for LT *h3esd-) has been tentatively interpreted as reflecting LT *h3- due to the
absence of Indo-European /a/ in the directly related forms.§§§§§§ The reconstruction leaves
much to be hoped for, though, because the formation (IEW. 782) is an extension in PIE *·d
of the underlying shortest form of the root
PIE *ɦɑs- ‘Span, Schlachtelhalm, Spreu, Gränne, Borsten (IEW. –)
Hitt. ḫaš- (n.) ‘Span o.ä.’ (HEG 1:194-5)
Lith. asý- (f.) ‘Schlachtelhalm’ (LiEtWb. 124, asýs [sgN])
Gr. ἤϊα- (n.pl.) ‘Spreu, Getreidehalme’ (GEW 1: 625, ἤϊα, ᾖα)
Lat. aristā- (f.) ‘Granne, Ähre, Borsten’ (WH 1: 67, arista)
The identity Hitt. ḫašd- ≡ Gr. ὄζ- ≡ Arm. ost- therefore implies PIE *ɦɑos·d-, not LT
*h3esd- versus KIMBALL (1999: 142).
(xii) CLu. ḫan·ḫanei̯ a- (GKLvb.) ‘tadeln’ (DLL 39, HHand 38, HIL 332, see Gr. ὄνο-
‘schelten, tadeln, schimpfen’ GEW 2:397 for LT *h3en-). The postulation of the ‘o-
colouring’ laryngeal for the root IEW 779 cannot be correct due to the existence of root
variants with ‘a-vocalism’, well attested in Celtic:
MidIr. ana- (vb.) ‘blemish’ (DIL 41)
OCymr. anam- (sb.pl.) ‘mendae’ (IEW 779, anamou [pl])
MidBret. anaff- (sb.) Makel, Fehler’ (IEW 779)
(xiii) Hitt. ḫan- (vb2.) ‘entscheiden, richten, urteilen’ (HW2 H: 135f. HEG 1: 146-7,
HED 3: 82, see Gr. ὄνο- ‘schelten, tadeln, schimpfen’ GEW 2: 397 for LT *h3en-). This
etymology is erroneous, because the Greek stem belongs to a different semantic field: An
identical alternation between OIcl. ill- (a.) ‘böse’ and OIcl. illa- (vb.) ‘schelten, tadeln’
(ANEtWb 285) implies that the Gr. ὄνο- ‘schelten, tadeln’ belongs to CLu. ḫan·ḫanei̯ a-
(GKLvb.) ‘tadeln’ with its counterparts in Hieroglyphic Luwian appearing with the
determinative “MALUS2” = ‘böse’ (e.g. in HLu. (“MALUS2”) ha-ní-ia-ta, CHLu 1.1.12).
Although this suffices to refute the alleged LT *h3en- underlying Hitt. ḫan- (vb2.)
‘entscheiden, richten, urteilen’ I use the occasion to mention that LT *h3- is also externally
excluded due to the proper etymology attested in:
PIE *hɑn- ‘entscheiden, richten, urteilen’ (see sub IEW 615-6):
Hitt. ḫan- (vb2.) ‘entscheiden, richten, urteilen’ (HEG 1: 146-7)
Gr. κοίρ·ανο- (m.) ‘commander, ruler’ (GEW 1: 894).
(xiv) Hitt. ḫabuša- ‘shaft, penis’ (HEG 1:168, see Gr. ὀπυίω (pr.) ‘zur Frau nehmen,
heiraten’ (GEW 2: 407, for LT *h3pus-), has been quoted as an example of LT *h3- by
WATKINS (1982: 455f.). This is, however, not based on a flawless internal analysis of
Greek, for which the segmentation ὀ·πυίω (with Gr. ὀ· ‘zu’) is required.******* Externally
this makes the underlying root PIE √pus- ‘Frau’ comparable to the respective item in
RV. pupuṣ- (pf.) ‘zur Blüthe bringen, reich machen’ (WbRV 837)
RV. pusyás- (s.ao.) ‘gedeihen, blühen’ (WbRV. 836, puṣyáse [inf.])
§§§§§§
PIE *sd for Gr. ζ is confirmed by Arm. ost- (sb.) ‘branch, twig’ (ArmGr 1: 482). Also note the
existence of a long grade in OEng. ōst- (m?.) ‘knot, knob’ (ASaxD 768).
*******
For Gr. ὀ· ‘zu’ compare, e.g., Gr. ὄ·ψο- (n.) ‘Zu·kost, Zu·brot, bes. Fleisch’ (GEW 2:459).
204 Does the Laryngeal Theory have a Theory?

Therefore, contradicting MELCHERT (1987: 23), the data offers no example of LT

*h3-. In this connection it can be further noted that also the analysis of the Hittite form is
unsatisfactory, if Sturtevant’s rule is accepted. Although known to Watkins and noted by
Melchert††††††† as well, both seemingly refer to an ad hoc explanation, which is by no
means obligatory : Instead of Greek, the etymology of Hitt. ḫabuša- ‘shaft, penis’ can be
sought (with an extension PIE ·dɦ) from the direction of Celtic (IEW 485), where the
following formation has been preserved:
MidIr. bot- (m.*o-) ‘penis, tail’ (LEIA B-73)
MidCymr. both- (f.) ‘ombo, nave, boss of shield’ (EtDiPC. 85-6)
OGaul. buðð·utto- (m/n?.) ‘penis (?)’ (EtDiPC. 85-6)‡‡‡‡‡‡‡
The base PCelt. *buz·d- without the dental extension can be directly compared to
Hitt. ḫabuš- (n.) ‘Stiel, Stengel, Schaft, Penis’
if a PIE *ɦɑbus- ‘Stiel, Stengel, Schaft, Penis, usw.’ (or PIE *ɦɑbɑɦus- i.e. LT *h2ebʰus-) is
postulated for both.
2.1.3. The discussed forms complete the list of potential candidates for the initial LT
*h3-. As such the classic examples of ‘non-apophonic o’ (LT *h3- ≡ Hitt. ḫ-) are regularly
attested with by-forms with ‘a-vocalism’, and therefore contain PIE *ḫ- ≡ LT *h2- instead.
This has several remarkable consequences:
(a) SZEMERENYI’s (1970:131) observation of the existence of a single laryngeal in
Hittite, repeated by EICHNER,§§§§§§§ is verified by the comparative method applied to the
Indo-European data.
(b) The addition of the vowel PIE *o does not suffice to save MELCHERT’s and
KIMBALL’s theory of initially preserved *h3-, because no examples of such items exist.
(c) Due to these factors the proponents of the orthodox theory have to abandon their
former view and opt for one of the remaining theories discussed separately below.

2.2. In a series of articles appearing from the 1970s on, EICHNER (see especially
1973, 1978, 1980, 1988) proposed a revisionist laryngeal theory containing three laryngeals
*h1 h2 h3 (with vocalic allophones *ǝ1 ǝ2 ǝ3), of which only *h2 was preserved in Hittite. In
addition, the short *a e o and long vowels *ā ē ō are accepted, as well as the standard
colouring and compensatory lengthening rules of the laryngeal theory (for a brief summary
of this theory, see EICHNER 1988: 124).

2.2.1. Most importantly, according to EICHNER, Hitt. ḫ always reflects *h2 (≡ PIE *ḫ)
as defined in the correspondence set for the critical cluster
Hitt. ḫa- : Gr. o- : RV. a- → LT *h2o-.
In other words EICHNER agrees with the earlier conclusion of ZGUSTA and SZEMERENYI in
that Hitt. ḫ always reflects one and the same laryngeal LT *h2 ≡ PIE *ḫ.

†††††††
Watkins himself is aware of the problem of his suggestion, also mentioned by MELCHERT (1987: 23):
“Hitt. single -p- equates to Grk. p in apparent contradiction of Sturtevant’s Law.”
‡‡‡‡‡‡‡
In OGaul. moni gnatha gabi buððutton imon ‘come, o girl, take penis (that is) mine’ (for the details
and further discussion, see MATASOVIĆ, EtDiPC 86).
§§§§§§§
See EICHNER (1980: 128-941): “Als eiserne Regel ist festzuhalten, daß hethitisch h und hh in
Erbwörtern auf uridg. h2 zurückgehen”.
 Jouna PYYSALO 205

2.2.2. In EICHNER’s theory Hitt. a- reflects *h3e- with a colouring effect (→ *h3o-)
and subsequent loss of the laryngeal (→ *o-)******** , in which the ‘lost’ laryngeal is
obtained from the Semitic root axiom C1eC2·C3. In the root-initial position the respective
correspondence set is thus defined as
LT *h3e- → *h3o- → Gr. o- : Hitt. a- : RV. a- : etc.
2.2.3. The problem of EICHNER’s theory also culminates in the definition of the third
laryngeal: All examples of *h3 of EICHNER (and other proponents of this theory) are
ambiguous, because these can always reflect LT *h1o- instead LT *h3e-. This leaves also this
model without a proper definition of *h3, exactly as its orthodox equivalent à la
MELCHERT.†††††††† Consequently EICHNER’s theory is engaged in a desperate struggle for
examples of PIE *o- that would not alternate with PIE *e- or PIE Ø-, the only candidates for
*h3- that are not immediately falsified.
2.2.4. Always willing to help I offer a similar service to the supporters of
MELCHERT’s theory with regard to EICHNER as was presented earlier for EICHNER with
regard to MELCHERT, i.e. a demonstration in data that none of the alleged examples of *h3-
actually exists. In the case of EICHNER’s theory this is somewhat easier than MELCHERT’s,
because the number of potential examples for ‘non-ablauting’ Hitt. a- is considerably
smaller. At this point the following examples have been quoted in this connection:
(i) Hitt. ar- (vbM.) ‘stehen, sich stellen, dastehen’ (LT *h3er-) does not contain *h3-
against EICHNER 1978:16277, because an ablaut variant in PIE *ē is attested in a
commonplace Greek adjectival suffix exemplified here with the item‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡
Gr. ἰχθυ·ηρό- (a.) ‘aus Fisch bestehend, schuppig’ (GEW 2: 746).§§§§§§§§
(ii) Hitt. aiš- (n.) ‘Mund’ (HEG 1: 6-8, HED 1: 17, see Lat. ōs- ‘Mund’ for LT *h3-)
does not contain *h3- (thus EICHNER 1978: 16277) because the Anatolian formation belongs
to the root PIE *is- i̯ os- i̯ es- ‘Mund; sprechen, schwören’ (IEW 784-785):*********
OHitt. a·ieš- (n.) ‘Mund, Maul’ (HEG 1:6-8, OHitt. a-i-iš [sgNA])
Lat. dē·ierā- (pr1.) ‘heilig beschwören’ (WH 2:274-5, PItal. *·iesā-)
Lat. pe·ierā- (vb1.) ‘falsch schwören’ (WH 2:274-5, peierāre [inf.])
CLu. a·aša- (n.) ‘Mund’ (DLLAdd. 45, DLL. 33, a-a-aš-ša-(a-ti)
On the other hand, Lat. ōs- has PIE *ḫ- (≡ LT h2-) proven by the related forms Gr.
ἄσθµατ- ‘schweres, kurzes Atmen, Keuchen, Asthma’ GEW 1:161-2 and Gr. δι(ϝ)·αστί ‘in
the language of Zeus’ LSJ 413 (for the etymology see PYYSALO 2013:78).†††††††††

********
See also OETTINGER (1979: 5461): “Nicht nur h1 (EICHNER, MSS 31, 1973, 54 ff.), sondern auch h3
hat im Anatolischen keinen konsonantischen Reflex hinterlassen.”
††††††††
For the accuracy of this statement compare, e.g., MELCHERT (1987: 21): “[…] those who believe in
*h3- > Hitt. h- interpret the examples of Hitt. a- = o- (…) as reflecting *h1o-.
‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡
Strictly speaking the attested forms Hitt. ar-ḫa-ri [1sg], ar-ta-ri [3sg], ar-ta [3sg], (HW2 A: 194f.,
HEG 1: 49, HIL. 234-5) do not prove LT *h3- (versus Eichner), because Hitt. ar- can stand both for PIE *- or
PIE *or-. However, since RV. sam (…) ára- (aoM.) ‘zu Stande kommen’ (WbRV 98-101, rata) has a full
grade root, this also remains possible for Hitt. ar-, therefore taken to stand for PIE *or- here. Also note that
LycB. erawazije- ‘grave monument’ (TL 117 with PIE *er-) and LycB. arawazije- ‘grave monument’ (N 303
with PIE *or-) could also belong here (for the semantics, cf. Lat. statua ‘statue’).
§§§§§§§§
For the semantic alternation between Hitt. ar- ‘stehen’ and Gr ·ηρό- ‘bestehend’, compare Lat.
sistere ‘stehen’: Lat. consistere ‘bestehen’.
*********
For a more detailed description of the etymology, see PYYSALO (2013: 78).
206 Does the Laryngeal Theory have a Theory?

(iii) Hitt. argi- (c.) ‘Hode(n) : testicle(s)’ (HEG I:60, ar-ki-i-eš-kán [plN], see Gr. ὄρχις for
‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡
LT *h3erʰi-) does not contain *h3- (versus OETTINGER 1979a:5461), because both
PIE *e- and PIE *o- are preserved in
Lith. ežila- (m.) ‘Hengst’ (LiEtWb. 123, ežilas [sgN])
Lith. ažila- (m.) ‘Hengst’ (LiEtWb. 18, ažilas [sgN]).
(iv) Hitt. aniya- ‘carry out, execute’ (HEG 1:30, see Lat. onus- ‘Last, Fracht,
Ladung, Mühe, Beschwerde’ (WH 2:210) for LT *h3en-). This does not prove LT *h3- (vs.
OETTINGER 1979: 5461), because the traditional etymology (IEW 321-2), comparing Gr.
ἀνία- (f.) ‘Plage’ (GEW1:111-2) to which I would also like to add Lat. in·āni- (a.)
‘un·beladen, leer, hohl’ (WH 1: 688-9), is semantically more attractive (thus also KIMBALL
1999: 387). In order to fill the gap I use the occasion to point out that the etymology of Hitt.
aniya- ‘carry out, execute’ is preserved in an Indo-Iranian with a zero grade root:
gAv. xrū·nya- (n.) ‘Bluttat, blutige Mißhandlung’ (AIWb. 539).§§§§§§§§§
(v) Hitt. adeš- ((URUDU)n.) ‘Axt, Beil’ (HEG 1:94) is compared to OEng. adesa(n)-
(m.) ‘addice, adze, ascia’ (ASaxD. 7), and reconstructed as LT *h3edʰ- by RIEKEN (1999:
192-193). LT *h3- is, however, impossible due to the zero grade in Gr. θοό- (a.) ‘scharf,
spitz’ (GEW 1: 678), OInd. dhāsa- (m.) ‘Berg’ (EWA 3: 278), and Gr. τεθόω- (pf.)
‘zuspitzen’ (see PYYSALO 2013 :150 for the etymology).**********
2.2.5. To sum Eichner’s theory up, observe the following:
(a) The ablaut alternatives in PIE *e- and/or PIE Ø- imply that PIE *o- (without initial
laryngeal) is to be reconstructed instead of LT *h3e- for the examples discussed above, i.e.
EICHNER’s examples of LT *h3- are just as nonexistent as those of MELCHERT and
KIMBALL.
(b) As such, exactly as with the orthodox theory, only two laryngeals, *h1 and *h2,
can be defined, and even of these the former, LT *h1 is only postulated on the basis of the
Semitic root hypothesis, not the data. Consequently, LT *h1 also conflicts with the data
when a zero grade form has been preserved, and it is no better justified than *h3.
(c) Since EICHNER’s theory is unable to define LT *h3-, and the return to
MELCHERT’s theory is blocked by the non-existence of examples of LT *h3 = Hitt. ḫ, the
entire laryngeal theory depends on the single remaining version of three-laryngealism to be
discussed next.

†††††††††
Thus PEDERSEN’s (1938: 47f.) early, very tentative etymology of Hitt. iš- ‘Mund’, accepted by
POKORNY (IEW 784-785), is incompatible with the lack of glide in Lat. ōs- ‘Mund’ (RV. ā́ s- ‘id.’) and two
distinct roots have to be postulated.
‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡
Note that Hitt. argi- can also contain zero grade also attested for the root in LAv. ǝrǝzi- (m.)
‘Hodensack’ (du.) ‘Hoden’ (AIWb. 352, ǝrǝzōiš [sgG], ǝrǝzi [duN]). Strictly speaking this ambiguity would
suffice to eliminate the alleged example of *h3-.
§§§§§§§§§
For the segmentation and the first part of the compound, see LAv. xrū- ‘blutiges, rohes Fleisch’
(AIWb 539, xrūm [sgA]).
**********
For the prefix Hitt. a- = CLu. a- = HLu. a- in Old Anatolian see, e.g., Hitt. ḫula- (vb.) ‘schlagen,
bekämpfen’ (HEG 1:275, ḫu-ul-la-i) and HLu. a·ḫuli- (c.) ‘hammer’ (CHLu. 12.1.4, MALLEUSá-hu-li-na) : OPr.
ūlin- (cs.) ‘kämpfen’ (APrS. 453, ūlint [inf.], HEG 1:275). Similarly Hitt. a·meiant- (pt.a.) ‘klein, schwach’
(HEG 1:22, a-mi-ia-an-za [sgN]) : Gr. µινύ·ωρο- (a.) ‘kurze Zeit lebend’, GEW 2:242, IEW 711) and LAv.
maya- (pr.) ‘zu Grunde richten’ (AIWb. 1141, maya [3sg]) with the correct etymology of SEEBOLD in
(1988: 510).
 Jouna PYYSALO 207

2.3. The final – and last – attempt to rescue the laryngeal theory was proposed by
KORTLANDT in 1984. In a generalized version, KORTLANDT (2004) suggests a distributional
loss of both *h2- and *h3- in the following manner: “Elsewhere I have argued that initial
*H2- and *H3- yielded h- before *-e- and zero before *-o- in Armenian and Albanian and
suggested that the same development may be established for Hittite, e.g. harp- ‘separate’
< *H3erbʰ- versus ark- ‘mount’ < *H3orʰ-e-, Gr. orphanós, órkhis (cf. KORTLANDT,
1984: 42). The new monographs by KIMBALL (1999) and RIEKEN (1999) have strengthened
my view that this is indeed correct.”
Squarely KORTLANDT proposes four correspondence sets with respective outcomes
for Hittite and Greek as indicated in the table:
*h2eC → Hitt. ḫa- : Gr. α- *h3eC → Hitt. ḫa- : Gr. ο-
*h2oC → Hitt. a- : Gr. ο- *h3oC → Hitt. a- : Gr. ο-
In practice this theory treats the crux of the problem, the definition of LT *h3-, thus:
(a) The initially preserved *h3- of the orthodox theory (à la MELCHERT) reflects Hitt.
ḫ- in the environment *h3e- in the type CLu. ḫau̯ i- ≡ Lat. oui- (*h3eu̯ i-).
(b) The initially lost *h3- of the revisionist theory (à la EICHNER) reflects a lost
phoneme in the environment *h3o- (e.g. in Hitt. arta ≡ LT *h3orto).
In reality the problems of KORTLANDT’s suggestion are also insurmountable.
2.3.1 According to KORTLANDT (2004: 11), “alleged instances of [Hitt.] ha- < *H2o-
all show non-apophonic o- [i.e. LT *h3e-] in the non-Anatolian languages […]
(cf. MELCHERT 1987: 21 ; 1994: 106, 145, 235, 257)”
However, Kortlandt’s rationale for postulating LT *h3e- for this class is, as already
demonstrated in 2.1.2, incorrect: The correspondence set Hitt. ḫa- does not show ‘non-
apophonic o-’ etc., but a broader ablaut of the Indo-European vowels /a/ /ā/ /o/ /ō/. This
demonstrates that the laryngeal was PIE *ḫ (≡ LT *h2) in the type CLu. ḫau̯ i- ‘Schaf’: Arg.
ὄϝινς [plA], Lat. oui- (a.) ‘Schaf-’ (WH 2: 229, ouillus), for which PIE *hɑou̯ ·i- : *hɑeu̯ ·i- is
confirmed by OLat. auillo- (m.) ‘agnus recentis partus’ (WH 1: 84).
2.3.2. The type CLu. ḫau̯ i- ‘Schaf’ : Arg. ὄϝι- ← PIE *hou̯ i- with its vowel quality
PIE *o proves that laryngeal PIE *h (≡ LT *h2) was not lost before PIE *o-, as stated by
KORTLANDT’s distribution, which is therefore proven erroneous.
2.3.3. KORTLANDT’s (2004) suggestion that the alleged instances of Hitt. a- reflect
*h3o- (à la EICHNER) is also incorrect, because the related forms alternate with Indo-
European forms requiring PIE *e- and/or PIE Ø- and thus falsify *h3 (see 2.2.4).
2.3.4. In this manner all of KORTLANDT’s distributions fail except for the generally
accepted case LT *h2eC -› Hitt. ḫa- : Gr. α-, and further discussion is unnecessary. It
should, however, be noted that his ideas were recently put into practice by KLOEKHORST
(HIL)†††††††††† with somewhat unpleasant consequences: The application of KORTLANDT’s
distributions to pairs Hitt. ḫ- : Hitt. Ø- results in illusory connections between formally
separate PIE roots, originally with and without PIE *ḫ- Since the distributions do not exist,

††††††††††
See e.g. KLOEKHORST (HIL 273): “Although in Hittite an initial *h2 would indeed usually yield ḫ-,
in front of *o it regularly merges with *o into /ʔ/.”, KLOEKHORST (HIL. 255): “in front of *o all three
laryngeals were neutralized into *h1 (cf. KORTLANDT 2004; KLOEKHORST fthc.c)” and KLOEKHORST HIL
(passim, 94, 218, 220, 244, 277, and 313: “h2o- and *h3o- > Hitt. a-”).
208 Does the Laryngeal Theory have a Theory?

they lead to unmotivated irregular explanations exemplified here with a quote from
KLOEKHORST (HIL 273):
“This means that a paradigm. h2óu-h2ei, h2ou-th2ei, h2óu-ei, h2u-uéni, h2u-sténi, h2u-
énti would by regular sound laws yield pre-Hitt. */ʔóHe/, */ʔáute/, */ʔue/,
*/Huméni/, */Husténi/, */Huántsi/. Because an alteration between /ʔ-/ and /H-/ was
not tolerated in Hittite, one of the consonants had to be generalized. In this case,
initial /ʔ-/ apparently was leveled out (compare e.g. aans- < *h2oms-, where /ʔ-/
spread over the paradigm as well). I believe that there is still a trace left of the
outcome */Hu-/, however, namely in the verb huske/a-zi ‘to wait for, to linger’, which
in my view could go back to *h2u-ské/ó-, and therewith be a lexicalized imperfective
of *h2eu- ‘to see’.‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡

2.4. As of today, the situation in Indo-European reconstruction theory therefore

stands as follows:

2.4.1. Following the collapse of the monovocalism hypothesis all early versions of
the laryngeal theory became outdated or were reduced to the three-laryngealist models of
Melchert (2.1.), Eichner (2.2.) and Kortlandt (2.3.) All these theories in turn fail to define
*h3 (and as a matter of fact also *h1):
(a) Melchert and Kimball’s theory of initially preserved *h3- in Old Anatolian is
impossible, because the ‘a-vocalism’ of the related forms proves PIE *ḫ (≡ LT *h2) instead.
The theory lacks a definition for *h3-.
(b) Eichner’s theory of Hitt. a- ≡ *h3e- is impossible, because the examples alternate
with PIE *e- and/or Ø-, thus excluding *h3. The theory lacks a definition for *h3-.
(c) Kortlandt’s distributions for *h3e-, *h3o- and *h2o- are erroneous, because the
definition *h2e- h3e- ≡ Hitt. ḫa- stands for PIE *ḫe/o- and the definition for *h2o- *h3o- ≡
Hitt. a- stands for PIE *o.
2.4.2. Since the three remaining theories are equally impossible, and no new model
has emerged in the last 25 years of research, the laryngeal theory has no viable model, and
hence no theory. In addition, the three models represent all theoretically possible
distributions of the vowels PIE *e o, the laryngeals *h1 h2 h3 and the initials Hitt. ha- a-,
whence no further development of the laryngeal theory is possible. The laryngeal theory is
at a dead end.

3. The only option on the table: the Glottal Fricative Theory

3.0. From a developer’s point of view a theory is a sine qua non in science, and its
absence in the laryngeal theory can perhaps be seen as requiring a clarification.

‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡
PIE √u- √ou- √eu- in Hitt. u-, au- (vbA.) ‘sehen’ (vbMP.) ‘gesehen werden, sich zeigen, erscheinen’,
corresponds to Li. và- (vb.) ‘sehen’ (LiEtWb. 1208, vàt ‘siehe da’) without laryngeal. Simultaenously PIE
√hɑu- ‘sehen, bemerken, wahrnehmen; Sicht; offenbar, vor Augen; offenkundig’ (in Hitt. ḫuška- ‘warten,
erwarten, abwarten’ HIL. 425 ḫu-uš-kán-zi and CLu. ḫuaiala- ‘épith. du Soleil, dupl. ‘gutrui = témoin’, ḫu-u-
ua-ia-al-li, DLL. 49) has a laryngeal. The two Anatolian roots √u- and √ḫu- do not imply a distinction of
environment that would allow for identifying the two items, i.e. Kortlandt’s distributions would lead to
collisions of phonetically distinct roots (as here with PIE √u- ≠ PIE √hɑu-).
 Jouna PYYSALO 209

3.0.1. The eerie echo of the tale of the Emperor and his clothes is not caused by a
blurred and irregular nature of linguistic data at our disposal, but by the permanent
incompatibility of the Semitic assumptions of the laryngeal theory, the morphology
C1C2·C3 and the laryngeals *h1 h2 h3, with the Indo-European data now including Hittite,
Palaic, Cuneiform Luwian and Hieroglyphic Luwian.
3.0.2. Conversely, if the Semitic auxiliary hypotheses are removed, the underlying
comparative Indo-European definition is as consistent as ever:
PIE *o- ≡ Hitt. a- : Gr. ο- : RV. a- (DF1)
PIE *ḫo- ≡ Hitt. ḫa- : Gr. ο- : RV. a- (DF2).

This course is recommended to all scholars in Indo-European linguistics, not only

since it is the only option on the table and to restore the necessary scientific framework for
their research, but for reasons stated by SZEMERÉNYI (1967: 92-93): “[…] there is no
intrinsic reason why we should attempt to reduce all [P]IE ‘roots’ to a single tri-phonemic
pattern of the CVC-type [...]. On the contrary, it is clear that such notions were due to a
double influence from Semitic linguistics: (a) in Semitic all words begin with a consonant;
(b) in Semitic the general root-shape is tri-radical. But, of course neither feature is binding
for [P]IE.”

3.1. In the current situation the only exit for the laryngeal theory is through the
window of opportunity opened by the sole remaining reconstruction theory in Indo-
European linguistics, the monolaryngealism of Zgusta, developed into a glottal fricative
model by Szemerényi and finally into a full-fledged theory by PYYSALO from 2013 on.

3.1.1. Monolaryngealism, or the view that there was only one laryngeal in the proto-
language, was first proposed by Ladislav ZGUSTA (1951).§§§§§§§§§§ From this starting point
the theory was initially turned into an approximative glottal fricative model with a phonetic
interpretation of the laryngeal as a glottal fricative PIE *h and an Indo-European theory
largely based on the Neogrammarians by Oswald SZEMERÉNYI (1970).*********** The ideas
of ZGUSTA and SZEMERENYI soon found support from prominent Anatolian linguists like
Johann TISCHLER (1977ff.), Roberto GUSMANI (1979: 63-71), Annelies KAMMENHUBER
(1985:459) and Emmanuel LAROCHE (1986).Ultimately TISCHLER’s consistent approach in
his Hethitisches Etymologisches Glossar provided the school with a critical cornerstone and
momentum for the theory, for which the comparative method of reconstruction owes
eternal gratitude.
3.1.2. In the glottal fricative theory things are made simple: The one and only glottal
fricative PIE *h is reconstructed on the basis of Anatolian only in the position where such an
§§§§§§§§§§
See ZGUSTA (1951: 472): “Il y avait seulement un H.”.
***********
For the single glottal fricative PIE *h ≡ Hitt. ḫ, see SZEMERÉNYI (1967: 90, 1985: 593, 19904:
147), TISCHLER (1977: ix-x, 1980: 498), and BURROW (1979: vi). For Szemerényi’s argument for the glottal
fricative interpretation see SZEMERÉNYI (1996: 140): “We know, moreover, that, as R. Jakobson formulated
it, ‘languages which have the pairs voiced–voiceless, aspirated–unaspirated also have the phoneme /h/’. It
seems to follow from this that the laryngeal which we have just accepted was none other than h, the normal
glottal spirant. With its h the [P]IE system was similar to that of Latin.”
210 Does the Laryngeal Theory have a Theory?

item is actually attested.††††††††††† This, originally, so-called Szemerényi’s (laryngeal) rule

(SZEMERÉNYI, 19701: 131 = 19904:147) can be exemplified with relevant data as follows:
(a) Regarding the *e-grade Szemerényi states: “Ein heth es- ‘sein’ […] beweist also
ein [ur]idg. *es- […] ohne Laryngal, ein heth. henkan ‘Schicksal, Pest’ ein [ur]idg. Henk-
mit Laryngal.”
(b) To this the respective rule for PIE *o can be added: “Ein heth. as- ‘sein’ […]
beweist also ein uridg. *os- ‘sein’ […] ohne Laryngeal, ein heth. ḫastai- ‘Knochen’ ein
uridg. *he/ostoi- mit Laryngal.”
In other words, if there is a segmental laryngeal in Old Anatolian, Proto-Indo-
European had a glottal fricative, and if there is no segmental laryngeal in Old Anatolian,
Proto-Indo-European had no glottal fricative or any laryngeal whatsoever.‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡
3.1.3. After the publication of the initial building blocks, EICHNER (1988) criticized
the theory by pointing out that monolaryngealism has no theory independently of the
Neogrammarians. Although partly justified, Eichner’s criticism is in turn now outdated
after I completely revised the early glottal fricative theory in my dissertation System PIE:
The Primary Phoneme Inventory and Sound Law System for Proto-Indo-European
(PYYSALO: 2013). In this work not only is a theory presented independently of the
Neogrammarians, but the reconstruction is obtained as a synthesis of the correct solutions
of all four historical schools of reconstruction, the Paleogrammarians, the Neogrammarians,
the laryngeal theory and monolaryngealism. The key features of the reconstruction of the
revised glottal fricative theory, fully detailed in PYYSALO 2013, are:
(a) Proto-Indo-European had a single ‘laryngeal’, phonetically a glottal fricative
with a voiced and a voiceless variant PIE *h/ɦ.
(b) The PIE glottal fricative *h/ɦ was always accompanied by the vowel PIE *ɑ
(≈ Neogr. *ǝ) and the two items always appeared together in the diphonemic pairs PIE *hɑ
*ɑh *ɦɑ *ɑɦ (strict phonotactic selection).
(c) The primary phoneme inventory for Proto-Indo-European consists of the
fourteen phonemes (with two variants of each):
?
PIE *o/ō *e/ē *ɑ/ɑ̄ *h/ɦ *i/i̯ *k/g *l/l̥ *m/m̥ *n/n̥ *p/b *r/r̥ *s/z *t/d *u/u̯
(d) The classical Indo-European sound law system (COLLINGE 1985) has been
completely revised. The computerized versions of the Indo-European sound laws are
currently tested, verified and completed in Proto-Indo-European Lexicon in the address
http://pielexicon.hum.helsinki.fi (PIE Lexicon)

†††††††††††
TISCHLER (1980: 509): “Da es ein Ziel wissenschaftlicher Forschung sein muß, möglichst
einfache Theorien zu erstellen [...] sollte man die Lösung des Problems in der schon von ZGUSTA (1951) und
SZEMERÉNYI (1967) vorgeschlagenen Richtung suchen und sich auf nur einen idg. Laryngal, der nichts mit
Vokalfärbung zu tun hat, beschränken und diesen einen Laryngal eben nur da ansetzen, wo er im Hetitischen
als ḫ belegt ist;”
‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡
The suggested distributional/combinatory loss of PIE *ḫ (= h2) in certain environments of Old
Anatolian, originally presented by Eichner, Oettinger and others and generally accepted in the post-classical
laryngeal theory, is erroneous. Thus, e.g., the alleged loss of PIE *ḫ (= h2) before stops did not take place on
the basis of a counterexample CLu. laḫba- ‘Elfenbein’ (DLL 61) : Hitt. laḫba- ‘Elfenbein’ (HEG 2: 14,
CHD 3: 12f.), corresponding to Gr. ἐλέφαντ- (LinB. e-re-pa-to [sgG]). Due to the relatively large number of
suggested rules, I refer to the suspicious resemblance of Eichner’s rules to those of Akkadian ones and
mention that I’ve agreed with the editors to return to this issue in at least one separate article to appear in this
journal.
 Jouna PYYSALO 211

PIE Lexicon currently contains the key sound laws of more than a hundred most
ancient Indo-European languages in chronological order. Once these features have been
coded with BAULT, the University of Helsinki research community Build and use of
language technology, not only will an absolute language family tree for Indo-European be
generated on the basis of common sound laws, but the conditions will have been created for
the coding and comparison of the rules of the laryngeal theory in the future.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BARTHOLOMAE, Christian (1904), Altiranisches Wörterbuch. Straßburg: Trübner.

BENVENISTE, Émile (1935), Origines de la formation des noms en indo-européen I. Paris:
Adrien–Maisonneuve.
BOSWORTH, Joseph & TOLLER, T. Northcote (1882-1898), An Anglo-Saxon dictionary.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
BURROW, Thomas (1979), The Problem of Shwa in Sanskrit. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
COLLINGE, N. E. (1985), The Laws of Indo-European. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
CUNY, Albert (1934), “Linguistique du hittite”, Revue Hittite et asianique 2, fasc. 14,
199-220.
EICHNER, Heiner,
— (1973), “Die Etymologie von heth. mehur”, Münchener Studien zur
Sprachwissenschaft 31, 53-107.
— (1978), “Die urindogermanische Wurzel *H2reu- ‘hell machen’”, Die Sprache
24, 144-162.
— (1980), “Phonetik und Lautgesetze des Hethitischen - ein Weg zu ihrer
Entschlüssung”, in: Lautgeschichte und Etymologie. Akten der VI. Fachtagung der
Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Hrsg. Manfred Mayrhofer, Martin Peters & Oskar
E. Pfeiffer. Wiesbaden, Reichert, 120-165.
— (1988), “Anatolisch und Trilaryngalismus”, in: Die Laryngaltheorie und die
Rekonstruktion des indogermanischen Laut- und Formensystems, Hrsg. Alfred
Bammesberger. Heidelberg: Winter, 123-151.
FRAENKEL, Ernst (1962-1965), Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch I-II. Heidelberg &
Göttingen: Winter, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht
FRIEDRICH, Johannes & KAMMENHUBER, Annelies (1975ff.), Hethitisches Wörterbuch. 2.
völlig neu bearbeitete Auflage. Heidelberg: Winter.
FRISK, Hjalmar (1960-19722), Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch I-III. Heidelberg:
Winter.
GRASSMANN, Hermann (19966), Wörterbuch zum Rig-Veda. 6. überarbeitete und ergänzte
Auflage von Maria Kozianka. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
GUSMANI, Roberto (1979), “Ittito, teoria laringalistica e ricostruzione”, in: Hethitisch und
Indogermanisch. Vergleichende Studien zur historischen Grammatik und zur
dialektgeographischen Stellung der indogermanischen Sprachgruppe
Altkleinasiens, Hrsg. Erich Neu & Wolfgang Meid. (IBS, Band 25). Innsbruck:
Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck, 63-71.
212 Does the Laryngeal Theory have a Theory?

HAWKINS, John David (2000), Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions. Berlin: Walter
de Gruyter.
HÜBSCHMANN, Heinrich (1897), Armenische Grammatik I: Armenische Etymologie.
Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.
KAMMENHUBER, Annelies (1985), “Zum Modus Injunktiv und zum Drei-Genus-System im
Urindogermanischen (ca. 3000-2500)”, in: Studia Linguistica Diachronica et
Synchronica: Werner Winter sexagenario anno MCMLXXXIII, ed. Ursula Pieper &
Gerhard Stickel. Berlin & New York & Amsterdam: Mouton de Gryter, 435-466.
KIMBALL, Sara E.,
— (1987), “*H3 in Anatolian”, in: FS for Henry Hoeningswald on the occasion of
his seventieth birthday, ed. George Cardona & Norman H. Zide. Tübingen: Narr,
185-190.
— (1999), Hittite Historical Phonology. (IBS, Band 95). Innsbruck: Institut für
Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.
KLOEKHORST, Alwin (2007), The Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Dissertation, University of
Leiden. Url: https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/11996
KOERNER, Konrad (1985), “The place of Saussure’s ‘Mémoire’ in the development of
historical linguistics”, in: Papers from the 6th International Conference on
Historical Linguistics, Poznan, 22-26 August 1983, ed. Jacek Fisiak. (Current
Issues in Linguistic Theory, 34.) Amsterdam: Benjamins & Adam Mickiewicz
University Press, 323-345.
KORTLANDT, Fredrik H. H,
—(1984), “PIE *H- in Armenian”, Annual of Armenian Linguistics 5, 41-43.
— (2004), “Initial laryngeals in Anatolian”, Orpheus 13-14, Memorial Volume to
Georgi Rikov, 9-12.
KRAHE, Hans (1958), Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft I: Einleitung und Lautlehre.
(Samlung Göschen, 59.) Berlin: de Gruyter.
KRONASSER, Heinz (1962-1966), Etymologie der hethitischen Sprache. Band 1. I Zur
Schreibung und Lautung des Hethitischen. II. Wortbildung des Hethitischen.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
KURYŁOWICZ, Jerzy,
— (1935). Études indoeuropéennes I. (Polska Akademja Umiejętności. Prace
Komisji Językowej, vol 21.) Kraków: Polska Akademja Umiejętności.
— (1956) L’apophonie en indo-européen. (Prace Językoznawcze, 9.) Wrocław:
Polska Akademia Nauk. Komitet Językoznawce.
LAROCHE, Emmanuel,
— (1959), Dictionnaire de la langue louvite. (Bibliothèque archéologique et
historique de l’institut français d’archéologie d’Istamboul, vol. VI.) Paris:
Maisonneuve.
— (1965), “Dictionnaire de la langue louvite, Addenda et Corrigenda”, Revue hittite
et asianique 23/76, 44-50.
— (1986), “Les laryngales de l’anatolien: état des questions”, Comptes rendus des
séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. 130e année, N.1, 134-140.
 Jouna PYYSALO 213

LIDDELL, H. G. & SCOTT, R. 19409, A Greek-English Lexicon. Revised by Henry Stuart

Jones with the assistance of Roderick McKenzie. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
MARSTRANDER Carl J. S. et alii (1913), Dictionary of the Irish language. Dublin: Royal
Irish Academy.
MATASOVIĆ, Ranko (2009), Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic. (Leiden Indo-
European etymological dictionary series, Vol. 9.) Leiden & Boston: Brill
MAYRHOFER, Manfred,
— (1956-1980), Kurzgefaßtes etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindischen I-IV.
Heidelberg: Winter.
— (1986-2000), Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen I-III. Heidelberg:
Winter.
MELCHERT, H. Craig,
— (1987), “Reflexes of *h3 in Anatolian”, Die Sprache 33, 19-28.
— (1994), Anatolian Historical Phonology. (Leiden Studies in Indo-European 3.)
Amsterdam-Atlanta GA: Rodopi.
MØLLER, Hermann,
— (1879). “Rewiew of F. Kluge, Beiträge zur Geschichte der germanischen
Conjugation”, Englische Studien 3, 148-164.
— (1880), “Germanisch ā ē ō in den endungen des nomens und die entstehung des o
(a2)”, Beiträge zur Geschichte der dt. Sprache und Literatur 7, 482-547.
— (1906), Semitisch und Indogermanisch I (Konsonanten). Køpenhavn: Hagerup.
— (1911), Vergleichendes indogermanisch-semitisches Wörterbuch. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
OETTINGER, Norbert,
— (1976), “Der indogermanische Stativ”, Münchener Studien zur
Sprachwissenschaft 34, 109-149.
— (1979), Die Stammbildung des hethitischen Verbums. (Erlanger Beiträge zur
Sprach- und Kunstwissenschaft, 64.). Nürnberg: Carl.
PEDERSEN, Holger,
— (1909-1913), Vergleichende Grammatik der keltischen Sprachen 1-2.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
– (1938), Hittitisch und die anderen indoeuropäischen Sprachen. (Det Kongelike
Danske Videnskapbernes Selskab. Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser, 25:2.)
Køpenhavn: Levin & Munksgaard.
POKORNY, Julius (1959), Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch I. Tübingen:
Francke.
PUHVEL, Jaan (1984ff.), Hittite Etymological Dictionary. (Trends in Linguistics.
Documentation, 1.). Berlin: Mouton.
PYYSALO, Jouna (2013), System PIE: The Primary Phoneme Inventory and Sound Law
System for Proto-Indo-European. Dissertation, University of Helsinki. (Publications
of the Institute for Asian and African Studies 15.). Helsinki: Unigrafia Oy.
RIEKEN, Elisabeth (1999), Untersuchungen zur nominalen Stammbildung des Hethitischen.
(Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 44.) Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz.
214 Does the Laryngeal Theory have a Theory?

RIX, Helmut (1970), “Anlautender Laryngal vor Liquida oder Nasalis sonans im
Griechischen“, Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 27, 79–110.
SAUSSURE, Ferdinand de (1878), Mémoire sur le système primitif des voyelles dans les
langues indo-européennes. Leipsiek: Trübner.
SCHRIJVER, Peter C. H. (1991), The Reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in
Latin. (Leiden Studies in Indo-European, 2.) Amsterdam: Rodopi.
SEEBOLD, Elmar (1988), “Wissenschaftgeschichte und Theorieformulierung. Oder: Wie
nötig ist die Laryngalhypothese?”, in: Die Laryngaltheorie und die Rekonstruktion
des indogermanischen Laut- und Formensystems, Hrsg. Alfred Bammesberger.
Heidelberg: Winter, 497-525.
STARKE, Frank (1990), Untersuchung zur Stammbildung des keilschrift-luwischen Nomens.
(Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 31.) Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz.
SZEMERÉNYI, Oswald,
— (1964), Syncope in Greek and Indo-European and the Nature of Indo-European
Accent. (AIVN, Sezione Linguistica, Quaderni III.). Napoli: Instituto Universitario
Orientale di Napoli.
— (1967), “The new look of Indo-European. Reconstruction and typology”,
Phonetica 17, 67-99.
— (1970), Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft. Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
— (1985), “Recent developments in Indo-European linguistics”, Transactions of
Philological Society 1985, 1-71.
— (19904), Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft. 4., durchgesehene
Auflage 1990. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
— (1996), Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics. Translation from Einführung
in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft; 4th edition, 1990 with additional notes
and references. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
TISCHLER, Johann,
— (1977ff.), Hethitisches etymologisches Glossar. Mit Beiträgen von Günter
Neumann und Erich Neu. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, 20).
Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.
— (1980), “Hethitisch ḫ und die Rekonstruktion des indogermanischen
Phoneminventars”, in: Lautgeschichte und Etymologie. Akten der VI. Fachtagung
der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Hrsg. Manfred Mayrhofer, Martin Peters &
Oskar E. Pfeiffer. Wiesbaden, Reichert, 495-522.
— (2001), Hethitisches Handwörterbuch. Innsbruck: Institute für Sprachen und
Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck.
TRAUTMANN, Reinhold (1910), Die altpreussischen Sprachdenkmäler. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
VENDRYES, Joseph, BACHELLERY, Edouard & LAMBERT, Pierre Y. (1959ff.), Lexique
étymologique de l’irlandais ancien. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.
VRIES, Jan de (1961), Altnordisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Leiden: Brill.
WALDE, A. & HOFMANN, J. B. (1938), Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 3.,
neuarbeitete Auflage von J. B. Hofmann I-II. Heidelberg: Winter.
 Jouna PYYSALO 215

WATKINS, Calvert (1982), “A Greco-Hittite Etymology”, In: Serta Indogermanica.

Festschrift für Günter Neumann zur 60. Geburtstag, Hrsg. Johann Tischler. (IBS,
Band 40). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck,
455-457.
ZGUSTA, Ladislav (1951), “La théorie laryngale”, Archiv Orientál 19, 428-472.