Sonderdruck aus INDOGERMANISCHE FORSCHUNGEN ZEITSCHRIFT FUR INDOGERMANISTIK UND ALLGEMEINE SPRACHWISSENSCHAFT Begriindet von Karl Brugmann und Wilhelm Streitberg Herausgegeben von WOLFGANG P. SCHMID 97. BAND 1992 Dp Part. A boerbonr og Cee che ata Te Fie A- G WALTER DE GRUYTER - BERLIN - NEW YORKDie Indogermanischen Forschungen erscheinen jahrlich im Gesamtumfang von 24 Bogen. Preis des 97. Jahrganges 210,- DM. Alle fiir die Indogermanischen Forschungen bestimmten Aufsiitze und kleine- ren Beitriige (gréfiere Arbeiten nicht ohne vorherige Anfrage) sowie alle Rezensionsexemplare sind an Prof. Dr. Wolfgang P. Schmid, Schladeberg 20, 3403 Fri ind 5, OT. Niedernjesa, zu richten. Inhalt XCVIL Band I. Aufsittze: Adrados Francisco R. The new Image of Indoeuropean .. Bonfante Giuliano, Ii numerale due" in tocario . Melchert H. Craig. The third Person present in Lydi: Lillo Antonio. Thessalian nafsuve, Acoli iz, Homeric sw, ‘Dorie Knobloch’ ‘Johann. Exanégt ine sportliche Kraftprobe der Mit dem Versuch einer etymologischen Deutung in. Eine ossetisch-irische Isoglosse: der idg. Adams'J.N. The Origin an Eska Joseph F. Order reversal and suffixless preterite . + Must Gustav. Die Entstehung des Wortes deutsch Murray Robert W. Phonological Drift in Early English’. Ademollo Gagliano Maria Teresa, Le isoglosse lessicali litua- no-prussiane eae : Smoczyiiski Wojciech. AltpreuB. py Problem . 1¢ prehistory of the Old Irish “Stdost ind“ und ett. azatds + Schmidt Gernot. Indogermanische Ordinalzahlen’ IL, Besprechungsaufsatz: Schmidt Karl Horst. Zur Inschrift von Botorrita . . . III. Besprechungen: Thilo Ulrich Ch. M. Rezeption und Wirkung des Cours de linguisti- que générale (Eckhard Eggers) ........se.eese0s Seite 29 31 55 65 70 96 103 122 145 115 182 197 236 © Copyright 1992 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., D-1000 Berlin 30 Die Zeitschrift und alle in ihr enthaltenen einzelnen Beitrige und Abbildungen sind urheberrechtlich geschiitzt. Jede Verwertung aufferhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzuliissig und strafbar. Das gill insbesondere fiir Vervielfaltigungen, Ubersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. ted in Germany ISSN 0019-7262 Satz und Druck: Hubert & Co., Gdttingen Buchbinderische Verarbeitung: Th. Fuhrman KG, Berlin Indexed in Current ContentsI. AUFSATZE The new Image of Indoeuropean The History of a Revolution I. Unitary or “plain” Indoeuropean, or Indoeuropean described in Depth? 1. Unitary, “plain” Indoeuropean There is an increasingly wider acceptance of the idea that one should attempt to reconstruct not one sole type of In- doeuropean (IE, henceforth) without spatial or temporal defi- nition, but three. The most ancient of those, IE.I (also called Proto-Indoeuropean or PIE.), would not yet be inflected. Then there would come IE.II, inherited by Anatolian, some of whose archaisms, though, would be preserved in other lan- guages: in this type, there would already be inflexion, al- though merely on the basis of using endings and other re- sources, not the opposition of stems. Finally, the most recent phase would be IE. III, which is practically that of traditional reconstruction: in this type, stems were opposed to mark tenses and moods in the verb, the masc. and fem. genders, and degrees of comparison in the adjective. Two basic branches would derive from this type of Indoeuropean: IE.III A or Indo-Greek, and Western IE. In schematic form, this would be as follows: (see Fig. 1). This description of IE. is opposed to the traditional one which merely sets out to reconstruct one type of IE., a type that is of course polythematic and from which the different Indoeuropean dialectal groups and languages would have sprung. Here, we shall endeavour to map out a history of the development of the theory of IE. conceived of as a series of2 Francisco R. Adrados IE. I (pre-inflexional) IE. 11 (monothematic) - Scene Anatolian (monothematic) IE. III (polythematic) ere pee ecad eee IE.1 A IE. B (Indo-Greek) (Western) Fig. 1 successive strata: to be more precise, the theory of the three strata of IE. Before we do this, however, something has to be said about traditional reconstruction. The traditional description of reconstructed IE. is plain and simple: for Bopp or Schleicher or Brugmann, this type of In- doeuropean was “the” IE., that is, a unitary language. It would have existed as such in some place in Europe or Asia and at a specific point of time, becoming later differentiated into languages that in turn became differentiated into others or into dialects, and so on indefinitely. Evolution, according to this view, therefore has temporal depth, but Indoeuropean it- self has not and is uniform. The reconstruction of this type of IE. was carried out by recovering a series of features in the historical languages which, because they were widespread and did not show them- selves to be specific innovations of different languages or groups of languages, were projected onto the original lan- guage, “the” Indoeuropean. IE. thus consisted of the sum of such features. Internal reconstruction, that is, the dating in antiquity of such and such a feature of a given language by the mere fact of its anomalous status within this language, was used to complete the image of this original IE. Of course, all this required a series of decisions, some of them safe and easy, others not so. For example, it is clear that the difference between a and o in Gr. or Lat. is more ancientThe new Image of Indoeuropean 3 than their confusion into ain O.I. or Germ. (there is no possi- ble criterion for explaining under which circumstances a sup- posedly turned into o or o into a). It is equally clear that the velar plosives became sibilants in certain languages and not that these latter became velars in other languages (it would be an evolution of which there is no example). Or, to give a third example, it is clear that verbal inflexion on three stems in I.-I. and Gr. came before that on two stems in Lat., Germ., etc. (one cannot see how the preterite stem could have split into impf., aor. and perf.). But of course, in other instances this is not quite so easy and there are doubts as to what is archaic and what is innovating, or whether such and such a feature was merely dialectal. In any case, by the traditional method a unique IE. was obtained, or an IE. with few internal differences. In phonetics, it was almost exactly fixed once the sonants had been discovered. In morphology, a maximum of elements was preferred (eight cases, three or four “temporal” verbal stems, four moods, three numbers and three genders), which means that the model was fundamentally that of Gr. and I.-I. Elements of Western lan- guages such as semi-thematic inflexion or the endings in -r tended to be considered as a dialectal or secondary pheno- menon. The problem of dialectal differentiation then consisted of observing how this “plain”, unitary type of IE. came into the great “common languages” and later into those languages sub- ordinate to these latter and to their dialects. The serious pro- blems that this entails are well known. The very concept of “common language” is rejected by some linguists and, in any case, there are at times many generally widespread features within some of these languages and at others hardly any; the isoglosses do not coincide with the ancient limits of these “common languages” ; their chronology is variable and at times doubtful, etc. And yet, however many discrepancies there may have been, there was general consensus on at least one point: the fun- damental division of IE. created a centum and a satem group. This is agreed upon in standard works on the subject: Meillet4 Francisco R. Adrados 1908, Pedersen 1925, Bonfante 1931, Pisani 1933, Porzig 1954, Devoto 1962. 2 This classification chiefly based on facts of phonetics and vocabulary - some of which are quite recent - nevertheless did not adjust properly to the differences in morphological struc- ture of the languages. Innovations in this field establish rather the existence of the two great groups of Indo-Greek and West- ern IE,; this classification is interlaced with that of the centum and satem languages, which on the other hand displays vacil- lations, as is well known. Certain languages are included with- in one or another group according to the features taken into account: isoglosses such as the confusion of vowel timbres, the treatment of -- and satemization itself do not coincide, as is well known. This has been quite clear since Meillet 1908. What should be borne in mind here is that when Tocharian and Hittite were discovered and interpreted as Indoeuropean languages at a later date than traditional or “Brugmannian” reconstruction and the classification of the historical languages into centum and satem, a maximum effort was made to include them in the system in question. In fact, Hittite and Tocharian were in one way and another inserted into a flat view of IE. as a unique language from which different, more or less contemporary “sister” branches sprang. What Pisani 1933, p.639 has to say is a general idea: Hittite does not come from a different IE. to the one we know (the traditional or Brugmannian one). Pisani places the Hittites alongside the Greeks, the Tocharians alongside the Aryans. Before this, Pedersen 1925 (and later 1938) had related both languages to Italo-Celtic, on account of archaic features such as their centum character and the ending -r. Meid 1968 took the same view. Bonfante in turn placed the Hittites in a central position between Alb, and Ir, (to W. and E.), Slav., Gr. and Arm. (to N. and S.); Tocharian would be eccentric, situated in the NE. angle beyond Slav. and Ir. In other instances, we encounter mere silence. Thus, a promising title such as “Hittite et Indo-european” by E. Ben- veniste (an author who has so distinguished himself in in- depth reconstruction of IE., see below), is quite disappointing:The new Image of Indoeuropean 5 it deals with a series of details without ever mentioning a spe- cial status for Hittite. On the other hand, when M. Mayrhofer published a book in 1983 (“Sanskrit und die Sprachen Alteu- ropas”), in which he describes the progressive distancing of Sanskrit, in the view of many linguists, from the centre of the IE. scene, he attributes it to phonetic facts: laryngeals, glottal theory. The fact that there is a theory according to which San- skrit belongs morphologically to a more recent stage that Hit- tite is not mentioned at all. This theory, which is the one mentioned at the beginning, may be briefly summed up as follows: phenomena such as the loss of the laryngeals, the creation of oppositions of quantity in vowels and, above all, the creation of morphological opposi- tions between different stems were an innovation of IE. III. Therefore, Hittite and the other Anatolian languages, which do not have these innovations, directly depend on a more an- cient stratum, IE. II lacking these innovations. Before going any further now, one should bear in mind that this theory was explicitly contested by certain authors who pr?- ferred the traditional view: Hittite would be a “sister” lan- guage, just like the rest. For these authors, if Hittite has no masc./fem. opposition or aor. and perf. stems, or subj. and opt. moods, it is because these were lost and the system of Hittite is secondary with respect to that of the IE. of Brugmannian reconstruction. Hittite thus pays the price for having been deciphered after the work of Bopp, Schleicher and Brugmann, who reconstruct an IE. that is considered to be untouchable and who make Hittite adapt to it velis, nolis; in the same way, apart from J. Kurytowicz 1958, H.Eichner 1975 and E.Risch 1975 men- tioned above, F.Sommer 1947, K.Hoffmann 1950, A.Kam- menhuber 1961, O.Szemerényi 1970 (2nd ed. 1980), H.Eichner 1975, H. Rix 1976, 1977, B.Schlerath 1981, 1982- 83, N.Oettinger 1979, B. Barschel 1986 likewise. See criticism of these approaches in Adrados 1982a = 1988, p.391ff., and before this 1968. It is certainly been said at times that the onus probandi that the monothematic stage is the most ancient lies with the6 Francisco R. Adrados defenders (one should rather propose the opposite idea). Cf. Eichner 1975, p.73. Or that “those who advocate the Indo-Hit- tite hypothesis have not yet, as far as I know, put forward truly convincing examples of shared innovations or presuppositions in all the non-Anatolian members of our family, which are nevertheless absent from Anatolian itself (Cowgill 1975, p. 562). Now at this time, 1975, twelve years had already gone by since the appearance of my “Evolucién y Estructura del Verbo Indoeuropeo”, which expounds these innovations of non-Anatolian IE. (III) in detail and justifies their creation as from a former stage (II). 2. The In-Depth Description of Indoeuropean However, the in-depth description of 1E., that is, the aware- ness that the IE. of descriptions is the result of the evolution of other, more ancient types of IE., has always been present since Bopp himself in the minds of scholars of Indoeuropean. Syn- chronic and unitarian descriptions of IE. such as those by Brugmann, Meillet and Hirt were always accompanied by re- marks on its origins. Yet what these descriptions never dared to do was to de- scribe the most archaic stages: scholars merely made hypothe- ses on ancient phonetic or morphological features of IE. with- out fixing their chronological remoteness or their possible dialectal distribution. There was certainly no instrument for comparison like the one we have today in the Anatolian lan- guages. And although Hrozny’s deciphering of Hittite dates from 1915, it was only very gradually acknowledged. And even then the image of Hittite as a derivate of traditionally recon- structed IE. continued to dominate the scene, this idea being still maintained even today by certain scholars. We have al- ready seen this and cannot stress it enough. It was without doubt the French School, through works by Meillet (Cf. his “Essai sur la chronologie des langues indo- européennes” of 1931, among others) right from the beginning of the century, which offered the most distinguished contribu- tion to this in-depth research of IE. His work on the stems in‘The new Image of Indoeuropean 7 -s-, on the thematic vowel, on the recent nature of the masc./fem. distinction and other subjects, bear witness to this. He undoubtedly inherited this interest from F. de Saussure, whose “Mémoire” of 1879 established the bases of the laryn- geal theory. He was later followed by E. Benveniste with his truly deci- sive studies on the structure of the root, the heteroclitic stems, comparatives and superlatives (Benveniste 1935 and 1948). Kurytowicz, a student of Meillet’s in Paris, inherited these in- terests and due to him are contributions such as the confirma- tion of the existence of the laryngeals in pre-historical IE. on the strength of Hittite (1932), his books an accent, apophony, inflexion (1952, 1956, 1964 and others). We would also have to mention F. Bader and J. Haudry, among others. i Yet it is not by any means just the French school. In Ger- many, above all as from H.Hirt, whose “Idg. Grammati! (1921-37) is full of this type of speculations, there were distin- guished contributions by F. Specht with his book on the origin of nominal inflexion (1944), and a numerous group of re- searchers (B. Rosenkranz, W. Meid, F.O. Lindeman, etc.). Really, in-depth research of IE. has attained world-wide di- mensions. We could mention, above all, the Bulgarian scholar V.Georgiev, who has studied the origins of inflexion in gene- ral; in America there is G.H. Fairbanks, W.P.Lehmann, E.C.Polomé, C.Watkins, W.R.Schmalstieg, K. Shields, P. W. Brosman; in Italy, G. Bonfante, V. Pisani and others; in Czechoslovakia, A.Erhart; in other European countries, O.Szemerényi and R.S.P.Beekes. Whole schools should be added here: that of the ergativists (as from A. Vaillant), that of the supporters of the glottalized consonants (T.O.Gam- krelidze, etc.), and also certain Spanish scholars as from A. Tovar: below, I shall mention works by F. Villar, A. Bernabé and J. Mendoza, as well as my own studies. There are others, too. Before following up this point, however, we should distin- guish very carefully between in-depth descriptions of IE. with regard to such and such a feature and the organization of this depth into the three levels mentioned above. They are quite8 Francisco R. Adrados different matters. Of course, these descriptions prepared the way for the new theory. But in themselves they propose a depth that is merely vague and atemporal and offer no system or systems in which the different features termed as archaic could integrate. II. The Theory of the Three Strata 1. The first stratum Really, the first, most ancient stratum, pre-inflexional IE. (IE.I or PIE.), to the description of which I have devoted an essay (Adrados 1987 = 1988a, p.39ff.), is an addition to the central theory, that of the existence of strata II and III, or the monothematic and polythematic stages of IE. The existence of a former non-inflected stage is presupposed by all those who defend theories that suggest a secondary origin for inflexion. What I do in the above-mentioned paper is in fact systematize our knowledge as to this as yet non-inflected stage, which is also described in the corresponding chapters of this book. I shall leave the subject for the moment and now discuss strata II and III. I shall divide this discussion into several sections, for the sake of greater clarity. 2. Precedents of the Theory The chief precedent is in the theory of the American linguist Sturtevant, who proposed the existence of two branches in IE.: one that of Hittite, and the other that of traditional IE. He called the language prior to both branches Indo-Hittite in a series of publications as from 1929, which culminated in 1933 with his book “The Indo-Hittite Laryngeals”. See the details in Villar 1979, in which several precedents are given, as well as proposals by Forrer and Ungnaud on the archaic nature of Hittite. Note that this time, there was no mention of other, Indoeuropean languages of Anatolia, then barely known: Hit- tite and Anatolian were almost synonymous with each other.The new Image of Indoeuropean 9 The archaism of Hittite, for Sturtevant, centred chiefly on its preservation of the laryngeals, confirmed as phonemes of the most ancient type of Indoeuropean as from the works of Kurylowicz and Stang in 1932. In his first and later works Sturtevant proposed other Hittite archaisms: the preserving of heteroclitic inflexion, its archaic system of middle-passive endings, the m / w alternance in suffixes and endings, the existence in Hitt. of only one guttural series and little else. Note that these are archaisms that at times are not exclusive to Hittite and that are at others dubious (as is the one entailing the gutturals). The only thing of any real importance is the preservation of the laryngeals. And there is no mention any- where of common innovations in the rest of IE. on the basis of the stage of Anatolian. Really, this is only suggested in one case: that of the supposed split of the gutturals into velars and palatals. Yet Sturtevant by no means mentioned that the monothe- matic system of Anatolian (one single stem per verb, and a lack of temporal and modal stems; a lack in turn of opposi- tions of stems in the noun to mark masc./fem. and in the ad- jective to mark degrees of comparison) was more ancient than that of the rest of IE. and was its origin. He therefore did not consider the existence of two strata, but merely of two “sister” languages within the context of the “Stammbaumtheorie”. However, one of the two preserves archaisms that are lost in the other. This is quite different to the new proposal, accor- ding to which IE. III comes from II, from which Anatolian - preserving many of the archaisms of II - derives in turn. Nevertheless, a school was formed around the idea of the archaism of such and such elements of Hittite and, as from Sturtevant, diverse proposals have been put forward in this sense: above all, with respect to the inflexion of the middle voice, related to the perf. of IE. (see above on Kurytowicz and Stang); and also related to nominal inflexion. Within this con- text, names such as Pedersen, Friedrich, Kronasser, Kammen- huber, Cowgill, Rosenkranz, Neu, etc. should be mentioned. 1 would nevertheless stress the fact that these hypotheses, like Sturtevant’s, do not automatically presuppose that there10 Francisco R. Adrados were the two strata in question: an author such as Pedersen 1932 can simultaneously uphold the idea of the early separa- tion of Hittite and.at the same time that it had lost the aorist, the perfect, the dual, etc. Similarly, the new book by Th. V.Gamkrelidze and V.V. Ivanov “Indoevropejskij jazyk i indoevropejcy” of 1984 presents Anatolian as the branch of IE. that was separated at the earliest date, but makes no mention of the question of monothematism and polythematism or of the different strata. In order to establish the theory of the two strata, the exist- ence of innovations common to the non-Anatolian languages must be shown. The loss of the laryngeals does not seem suffi- cient. There was a certain progress along these lines in the work by J. A. Kerns/B.Schwarz 1946. Very briefly and schematically, these authors suggested that verbal conjugation on several stems (present, aorist, perfect, at times future) in diverse In- doeuropean languages is a development from the stage to be glimpsed through Hittite. Here, there is already an anticipa- tion of the theory of the two strata, although these authors still do not mention modal stems, or those of the fem. or the com- paratives and superlatives. Moreover, as far as the temporal stems are concerned, this is merely a suggestion. It should be pointed out that since it was observed that there was on the one hand monothematic IE. in Anatolian and pol- ythematic IE. in the other languages, there arose a need to decide on one of the two hypotheses: either that Anatolian had lost the fem., the aor., the subj., etc.: or, that the remaining languages had created them. Explicit or otherwise (it became explicit as from Eichner 1975, Risch 1975, Strunk 1984), this dilemma was present in the decisions of Kurytowicz and his followers such as Eichner and Risch, who thought that Ana- tolian had lost these second and third stems; and likewise in the decisions of those of us who have proposed the opposite theory.The new Image of Indoeuropean 11 3. Spanish publications in the sixties In 1962, the present writer published a work entitled “Hethitisch und Indogermanisch” (read in 1961 at a Fachtagung of the Indogermanische Gesellschaft), in which he pointed out a series of archaisms in Hittite, to many of which there are corresponding innovations in the other languages: its centum nature, laryngeals, no masc./fem. opposition, hetero- clites, the lack of the aor., of the subj., of the perf., the preser- vation of semi-thematic verbal inflexion, a series of archaisms in the verbal endings. In practice, this became equivalent to proposing an evolu- tion of IE. in two strata, flexional stages preceded by a non- flexional one. This is specified and enlarged upon in my “Evolucion y Estructura del Verbo Indoeuropeo” (1963 a, 2nd. ed. 1974), in “Lingiiistica Indoeuropea” (1975) and a series of later publications (collected in Adrados 1974, 2nd. ed. of 1963a; and 1988). A more elaborate schema thus comes to light in which the internal differences within Anatolian are taken into account, as are the differences it displays from IE. II and, on the other hand, the internal differences of IE. III. The resulting schema is the one that figures on the second page of this paper. The arguments for the differences between Indo-Greek and Western IE. should be added. The former has augment, creates a perf. and a middle plus perf., a fut. with -s-, etc.; the latter fuses the stems of the preterite into one. On the other hand, the table is completed with the division of Anatolian in the group of Hittite and that of Lyc.-Lyd.-Luw., which is generally accepted. The nucleus of the theory is developed in detail in the book of 1963a, which will be abbreviated henceforth as “Verbo In- doeuropeo”. The general theory is clearly formulated here: the basic innovation of IE. III after the loss of the laryngeals is polythematism in the verb and the noun. The process of the innovations is described point by point so that the allegations put forward by Eichner und Cowgill mentioned above are shown to be incorrect. Later there came the book of 1975 (“Linguistica In-12 Francisco R. Adrados doeuropea”), which worked on precedents by Villar 1974, and added an important point to the theory: the system of the no- minal inflexion of IE. II had only five cases (N., V., acc., G. and D.-L.-I.), to which an Abl. was added only in thematic nouns. This system was independently enlarged by Anatolian and certain languages of IE. III. All these works had a certain precedent in Sturtevant and in Kerns-Schwartz mentioned above: in these latter the theory that opposes monothematism to polythematism already ap- pears (although without these terms). It arose from the facts themselves: the existence of both models and the need to choose between them, granting one of the two greater anti- quity. However, it is in the two books mentioned above that the most extensive and detailed explanation so far given is to be found of the development from a monothematic inflexion into a polythematic one: of how markers that were not of the fem., aor., subj., or perf. came to mark these latter. Yet these two books have not yet obtained the widespread diffusion one might have wished for. This in the first place was because they were published in a country marginal to these studies like Spain and in a language that is not very familiar (although it is becoming increasingly so) in the world of Lin- guistics; in addition, there is the perhaps unusual extension of these works. On the other hand, they are based on a largyngeal theory that has been misunderstood and misinterpreted (cf. the an- swer to some of these attacks in Adrados 1963b, 1967, 1981b and 1982b). They also use a structurally-based theory of grammaticalization, a theory that was defended in said works and in publications in Germany such as Adrados 1965 and 1968, and which also has not many followers in the sphere of Indogermanics. In any case, both theories, which enrich and clarify the evo- lution process of IE., are not strictly necessary: the fundamen- tal hypothesis of the triple stratification of IE. holds good even without them. In the book of 1963a, which was completed by that of 1975, based on the above-mentioned precedents andThe new Image of Indoeuropean 13 the direct study of the materials from the Indoeuropean lan- guages, the main lines were laid of the theory of the two strata of IE., II and II, preceded by I. For the rest, there are reviews of the first of these books, favourable or otherwise, which expound their basic tenets and appeared soon after their publication: Cf. among others Tovar, Kratylos 9 (1964) p.204-208; Cardona, Lg. 41 (1965) p.105- 114; Untermann, Gnomon 39 (1967) p.835-837; Duchesne- Guillemin, RBPH. 45 (1967) p. 153-154; Pomaredo, Thesaurus 20 (1965) p.629-631; Meid, IF.70 (1965) p.356-350; Ruijgh, Lingua 19 (1967-68) p.405-424, There have also been reviews of the second book. Moreover, in my publications in Germany of 1965 and 1968 there are constant allusions to the theory. Later works of mine are mere complements to these general lines of study. For example, they point out that the archaisms of Anatolian also appear here and there in IE. III (Adrados 1982 = 1988a, p.391) or specify certain points. It should be added that besides my own works, there are several others by Spanish scholars. In the first place, there is F. Villar’s above-mentioned book “Origen de la flexion nomi- nal Indoeuropea” (1974), which on the basis of the above- mentioned precedents acted as a basis for my later treatments of the subject. Then there are unpublished doctoral theses by A.Bernabé on the laryngeals of Hittite and by J. Mendoza on the pronouns of IE. There are also numerous other papers in reviéws by these and other Spanish scholars. 4. The change in ideas around 1975 I think that this change in ideas - a veritable revolution - bears a direct relation to the ideas in my “Evolucién y Estruc- tura del Verbo Indoeuropeo” of 1963a, that is, twelve years beforehand; and this despite the fact that my book is only very rarely explicitly quoted in this context and was obviously not very widely read in detail. On the other hand, I hasten to say that it is not the only startingpoint. In the first place, there are the precedents: as from Meillet,14 Francisco R. Adrados certain characteristic features of IE. III (the sigmatic aorist, the masc./fem. opposition, etc.) were already considered as se- condary innovations. There is an even more detailed bibliog- raphy on the matter: above all, “A Sketch of the Indo- European finite Verb” by J.A.Kerns and B.Schwartz (1972), which clearly and schematically expounds their former idea of the antiquity of the monothematism of Hittite. As far as the perf. is concerned, one should take into ac- count the natural evolution of ideas as from the proving of the close identity of the IE. perf. in -a- -tha -e and the pres. Mid- dle Voice of Hitt. in fa -ta -a. To project the Indoeuropean perf. onto prehistoric Anatolian, as Risch and Eichner suggest, is going too far. Despite many differences of opinion as to the details, the common opinion is that both the Hitt. conjugation in -hi and the IE. perf. are two parallel and independent developments of one and the same present; in this way Adrados 1963 a, and later 1972, 1981 a, a more detailed study; and with diverse differences in details, Puhvel 1970, Meid 1971, 1979, Cowgill 1975, 1979, Neu 1968, etc. Of course, there are differences: in general terms there is a tendency to think, as does Neu, that the most ancient type of IE had two voices, an active and a perfective (the one which produced the perf.), which responded to two types of endings and stems. Others (Meid, Oettinger) speak of a stative one. In my view, these stems have a purely lexical distribution, thus being verbs with a special meaning of “Aktionsart” (meaning of state), not terms of an aspectual opposition, which only appears in IE.III (the pres./perf. opposition). See the details in my paper of 1981a (= 1988, p.329ff.). Which differs from these authors in the sense that there is no -mi / -ha opposition of the type of “active meaning” / “meaning of state or perfective”: this latter meaning belongs to some verbs in -hi /-ha_ in both their voices; the middle voice spreading secondarily to those in -mi. In any case, the stem of the perf. of IE. had now been de- fined as an innovation; and this as from 1968 onwards. From another point of view, N. van Brock 1963 had already stated that Hittite had not lost a reduplicated perfect, not even aThe new Image of Indoeuropean 15 perfect (p. 153). All this was support for working out the theory of the ancient monothematism of IE. This theory as I said before began to be accepted as from 1975. I shall now go over the approaches of a series of linguists one by one. 1. W. Cowgill: Among the theories concerning the perf. we would point out that of W. Cowgill 1975, who postulated that neither did the perf. of IE come from the Hittite inflexion in -hi, nor vice versa: they are two innovations on the strength of a basic form of the most ancient type of IE. For Cowgill, the conjugation in -hi is an important innovation of Anatolian. He moreover states that the advocates of the Indo-Hittite hypothe- sis do not offer convincing examples of the innovations of non- Anatolian IE. This, which was true as far as Sturtevant was concerned, was no longer so in 1975, for the theory of polythe- matism as an innovation had already been presented in my above-mentioned publications, which Cowgill had obviously not read. His precedents for the perf. must certainly be sought in Puhvel 1970. Besides, he totally ignores the possibility that fem., subj., aor., etc. could be innovations. 2. W. Meid: In his article of 1975, the theory that the pol- ythematic system is an innovation of IE. III appears for the first time after my earlier publications. However, at least up to 1968, as was stated above, Meid had held the traditional theses: really, Pedersen’s thesis of the Celtic-Italic-Tocharian- Hittite dialect. Consequently, he did not accept the theories of my “Verbo Indoeuropeo”, which he read shortly after its pub- lication: in 1965, he published a review of it in IF.70, p.346- 350. After attacking my laryngeal theory there, a theory he terms arbitrary, he added that the verbal system built up on it lacked any validity (“so hat auch das daraufhin ausgerichtete Ver- balsystem keinen besonderen theoretischen Wert”). He never- theless acknowledged that this laryngeal theory did not affect all parts of the theoretical construction of the verb, of which he gave a very accurate summary (p. 348 ff.). However, in 1975, Meid published the above-mentioned work in which, without giving any kind of bibliography, he16 Francisco R. Adrados moved away from his old ideas and followed others that coin- cided with those that I had already put forward in the works mentioned. Cf. also his work of 1979 and his intervention in the Tokyo Congress of 1983 (cf. Polomé 1983, p.1360). Un- doubtedly, there is a true conversion here. Our author must surely have reflected on my book (and perhaps on Adrados 1965 and 1968), for his review - which was so negative - ended on a favourable note: after stating that the Vedic injunc- tive is even more archaic than the Hittite verb, the Vedic in- junctive not distinguishing primary and secondary endings, he concluded that “the archaisms of both systems enable one to conclude an original system with one stem and one ending” (“die Archaismen beider Systeme lassen auf ein Ursystem, be- stehend aus einem Stamm, einer Endung, schlieBen”). He could have reached this conclusion from my book, in which it is suggested that the ancient endings -m, -s, -t, -nt produced the primary ones -mi, -si, -ti, -nti by adding a deictic -i (-m, -s, -t, -nt were reduced by polarization to secondary endings). My book also anticipated his later view. In actual fact, the difference between Meid’s work of 1975 and mine of 1963 consists of the former’s disregarding the laryngeals and structuralist arguments (so that he has to give up researching the creation of the polythematic system), and is a brief, schematic summary of it. The spatial and temporal model he introduces is no novelty either, but merely expresses the same ideas in words. I gave a similar schematic presentation in Adrados 1979, in which I introduced the symbols IE.I, I, If] A and B. This work (later published in German in 1981, at the suggestion of Meid himself) was written without having read Meid’s of 1975, which I heard about during the proof-reading (I mention it in note 2 on p.282 = p.28 of the German trans. of 1982). 3. O. Carruba: In 1976, he published an article entitled “Anatolico e indoeuropeo”, in which he stated (p.141) that “Anatolian displays a more archaic stage than all other In- doeuropean languages”. Among these archaisms, he pointed out the following: the non-existence of the masc./fem. opposi- tion, of the degrees of comparison and of the sigmatic aor. HeThe new Image of Indoeuropean 17 nevertheless believes that the pres. in -fi comes from an ancient perfect of state. I thank him for quoting the precedent of my work Adrados 1962 (“da ricordare per l’analogia delle conclu- sioni pur nella diversita della ricerca”). On the other hand, he does not seem to have read “Verbo Indoeuropeo” or the works of 1975 and 1976 by the German scholars mentioned above. 4. E. Neu: Neu (1968, 1976, 1985), as was stated above, started in this field with studies on the Hittite inflexion in -hi, the middle voice in -ha and the perf., and I have already given a brief outline of his conclusions. It is clear that from this point onwards, a path was opened up for him to reach similar con- clusions to my own. However, other scholars of the perf. and the inflexion in -hi and -ha did not reach the same. Neu did, as from 1975. I think that he found support in the book by Kerns/Schwartz of 1972 mentioned above, which he reviewed in IF.81 (1976) p.319ff. In his review, Neu pointed out that this book proposes ma- ximum archaism for Hittite with respect to the other In- doeuropean branch: he interpreted this in the sense of Meid 1975, whom he quoted. There is therefore a clear influence of this latter author. He also quotes Cowgill. What I do not know is exactly when Neu came across my book and whether this also influenced his work of 1976, or whether Neu reached sim- ilar conclusions merely by the above-mentioned means. He certainly knew of it when he published a very accurate review of Adrados 1982 (Germ. trans. of Adrados 1979, see above), in BNF. 81 (1983) p.459-460. In this review, he quite rightly points out that my work is much more easily under- stood (“sicher verstandlicher”) by those who know the two books of 1963 and 1975, that is “Verbo Indoeuropeo” and “Lingilistica Indoeuropea”, which he expressly mentions. He could have added Adrados 1965 and 1968. However this may be, in the same year 1976 (and later in 1984 and 1985), Neu already expounded ideas in the sense that the verbal system of Hittite represents a more ancient stage than that of the rest of IE., without tenses or moods expressed by other stems. He also supported the thesis of the three types of Indoeuropean. Nevertheless, he continued to18 Francisco R. Adrados support the old idea that a “middle-Perfect” is ancient, this being not a tense, but a voice. 5. J. Kurytowicz and C. Watkins: From his first publications Kurytowicz was concerned with the in-depth ex- ploration of IE., to which end he applied a structural method that is on the other hand very different to mine (see my criti- cism in my review in Emerita 33, 1965, p.222-224 and in Adrados 1968). However, in his book “The Inflexional Catego- ries of Indoeuropean” of 1964 (which the above-mentioned criticism refers to), there is nothing that points to the creation of a polythematic system on the basis of a more ancient, mon- othematic one preserved in Anatolian. This would have meant a radical revision of approaches which, as we have seen, Kurytowicz had adopted before. Neither then nor ever since did Kurytowicz carry out this revision up to his death in 1978. However, his ideas varied considerably in his book of 1977 “Problémes de Linguistique Indo-européenne”. He already suggested here that the radical and thematic aorist is an an- cient imperfect, which was converted into an aorist when the aor. in -s- was created; that the opt. would likewise be secon- dary and also the fem. All this coincides with the thesis of Adrados 1963 a. There are of course differences, too: Kurytowicz continues to think of a split of the Middle-passive and the perfect (which he believed to be derived from a verbal adjective); and as he identifies the -e- / -o- of the ind. and that of the subj., he does not do the same with the -é-, which in the case of the subj., he believes to have come from -ee-, as I do. Above all, in this sort of “will” that is his last book, as Meid says in Kratylos 25 (1980 [1981]) p.105, he does not mention Hittite in these con- texts. He refuses to dismantle his older theory and admit that Hittite belongs to a more ancient branch and that the rest of Indoeuropean presents common innovations. However, this theory is implicitly dismantled and the new one firmly established, although this be with original features such as those mentioned above and Kurytowicz’s own structur- alist conception, which I feel myself to be far removed from. Was he influenced by “Verbo Indoeuropeo”? I cannot prove‘The new Image of Indoeuropean 19 this. Kurytowicz does not mention it, but neither does he quote practically any sources or bibliography (this was his most usual method). I would tend to think that he was: I know from a student of Kurytowicz’s that one can still see a copy of this book with abundant annotations in Kurytowicz’s own handwriting in the University of Crakow Library. On the other hand, in a well-known book by a disciple of Kurylowicz’s, C. Watkins “Indogermanische Grammatik III: Formenlehre” (1969), there are clear coincidences with the doctrine of “Verbo Indoeuropeo”, which is quoted (although only once on p.103 to wrongly attribute to it a doctrine that is opposed to that of the book). In Emerita 38 (1970) p.452, I pointed out some of these coincidences: on the thematic vowel, the -r / -nt fluctuation in the 3rd. pl., the subjunctive with a short vowel, the origin of the endings -s, -t, the post-Hit- tite nature of the perf. They are certainly partial coincidences: Watkins did not admit the secondary nature of features belonging to non-Anatolian IE. He continued to maintain cer- tain theses of Kurytowicz’s such as the origin of the perfect in a verbal noun. 6. Other authors: Here and there, one can still find statements in the seventies in favour of the ancient nature of the Hittite verbal system and the secondary nature of the po- lythematic system of the rest of IE.; thus in B. Rosenkranz 1978, p.133 and 1979: the double system of the Hittite verb (verbs in -mi and -hi) would be a precedent of the develop- ment of the polythematic system in Gr., O.I., etc., this idea being, by the way, most interesting. Also in W.P.Schmid 1979: he suggests that the Hittites mi- grated to Asia before satemization took place and that their language did not therefore entail the innovations of Gr., I.-L, and at times Baltic. He thus rectified Kammenhuber 1961, who (on the basis of the lexicon) suggested that Greeks and Armenians migrated to Asia before Hittites, Tocharians and Aryans. He insists that Hittite coincides with the rest of IE. only in the archaisms. But Schmid did not propose the theory of the post-Anatolian creation of polythematism.20 Francisco R. Adrados Within this context, I should also like to mention K. Strunk 1984, who adopted an intermediate approach to the polemics on the subject under discussion (in relation to Schlerath 1981): he considered that the opt. would be ancient in IE., but is in doubt as to the fem. and subj. The reactions that already arose in 1975 against these theo- ries should be mentioned: reactions that really carried on traditional approaches held by authors mentioned above and by the authors of unfavourable reviews of the theories of “Verbo Indoeuropeo” (among them that of Meid). I refer the reader to my work Adrados 1982a (= 1988, p.391 ff.) for my criticism of these theories. It should be noted that works by Eichner and Risch give hardly any bibliography: they only mention Cowgill (Eichner also mentions K. Hoffmann). They merely start with the need to take a decision with regard to the antinomy of the monothe- matic inflexion of Anatolian / the polythematic inflexion of the rest, covering his guard in case anyone should support the archaism of monothematism. Perhaps they preferred to silence the spokesmen for this latter theory (Eichner speaks on p.73 of “beide Alternativtheorien”). There are also other reactions in the same sense, see bibliographic indications above p.5; also below p.22. The foregoing predominantly refers to verbal inflexion, al- though we have made certain allusions to the creation of po- lythematism in the noun and adjective, and to the develop- ment of the case-system. As far as this latter subject is concerned, the antecedents to the theory that the oblique cases (L., I. and Abl.) are secondary dates from the fifties (Fair- banks, Lehmann) and even prior to this. However, the switch in ideas that placed the origin of nom- inal inflexion within the context of the study of Hittite, whose inflexion is particularly archaic, comes in the book by F. Villar, “Origen de la flexi6n nominal indoeuropea”, 1974, which I have already mentioned above. I myself studied the subject in my book of 1975. On the other hand, studies have proliferated on the archaism of Hittite nominal inflexion: cf. Rosenkranz 1979, Carruba 1976, Meid 1979, etc., as well as a series ofThe new Image of Indoeuropean 21 papers of mine collected in Adrados 1988. The problem is to establish what the inflexion of IE.II would be: there is a ten- dency today to think that it would be the five-case inflexion preserved as an archaism in Gr., Germ. and Celtic. Anatolian on the one hand and the other languages of IE.III on the other, introduced certain innovations: splits and the creation of cases. If this is right, as I personally believe, many aspects of our manuals of Morphology and Syntax have to be modified. These latter work on the basis of “syncretisms” between the cases of an original system of eight. This would now be the innovation, I do not, however, want to go into detail in this matter here. 5. The eighties The thesis of the three strata of IE. and, specifically, of the existence of a monothematic II stage (from which Anatolian derives and of which there are traces elsewhere as archaisms) and of a stage III or a polythematic one, is constantly gaining ground, albeit still with reactions against it, as was stated above. Thus, “Indo-European Linguistics” by W.R.Schmalstieg (1980) holds that at a remote date there were no oppositions of stems within one and the same verb nor oppositions of voice. The régular system of the endings (-mi, etc.) is secondary, as is the thematic type, the semi-thematic one being more ancient. All this is an approximation to the new line of thought, al- though there are profound differences between Schmalstieg and myself, but see Kratylos 27 (1982 [1983]) p.71ff. As from a certain moment, E.C. Polomé also began to sup- port the new system; cf. for example his article of 1984, which bears the significant title of “How Archaic is Old Indian?” and in which he gave as sources for the theory of the IE. strata the articles mentioned above by Meid 1975 and Neu 1976. In his bibliography, he did not quote my “Verbo Indoeuropeo” of 1963 a, which he does not seem to have read. Neither does he quote my article “The archaic structure of Hittite: the Crux of22 Francisco R. Adrados the Problem”, which appeared in 1982 in JIES, a journal un- der his direction (an article later collected in Adrados 1988 a, p-391ff.). In this article, the history of the question was made quite clear. The same indication of sources is repeated in the comments by R. Hiersche 1984 on Polomé’s works on this sub- ject. I would also mention a new work by J.Tischler 1988, in which he accepted the theory of the three strata of IE. and the secondary nature of the polythematic verb; he added that IE.II lacked the masc./fem. opposition and a n.pl. and had only a five-case declension (although according to him, there would be the Acc., G., D., L. and I. in the neuters). Once more, the theory is made to derive from the repeatedly men- tioned articles by Meid and Neu (he certainly follows the theory of the latter as far as the origin of the perf. is con- cerned); cf. also Tischler 1989. Finally, one should mention the article by W.P.Lehmann 1989, in which he studies the most ancient stage of IE., always with reference to Meid. He stresses the thesis that the predecessor of the perf. and the middle voice, as that of the Hittite inflexion in -Ai, was an independent voice: the Indoeuropean language was emerging from an active structure into an accusative one. Of course, not all reactions are favourable: I have given a list of detractors above. Among them, I should like to mention Schlerath 1981 and 1982-83 for the echo his ideas have had. These are centred on reconstruction theory; one number of Incontri Linguistici (9, 1984) is devoted to comments on his ideas, which for the rest do not contribute any great novelty. He once more insists on his own approaches (Schlerath 1985). 6. Conclusion I believe that it is most rewarding on the one hand for ideas to be widely acknowledged that were once only accepted by a small minority and were received with the greatest hostility. And that “Brugmannian” IE. should gradually become re- duced to what it really is: “one type” of Indoeuropean (III), which resulted from the development of a series of phoneticThe new Image of Indoeuropean 23 and morphological isoglosses (the loss of the laryngeals, the system of the short and long vowels, the polythematic system in the noun and the verb, certain innovations in the inflexion of both of them). It has thus been accepted by many scholars that IE. II is the more ancient type (with laryngeals, the phonological non-dis- tinction of vowel quantity, monothematic system, etc.) and that Anatolian is a derivate of it, of course offering certain innovations, too; within Anatolian, Hittite in turn offers in- novations. And the most ancient type of all is IE. (I or PIE.), which was not yet inflected. It is nevertheless deplorable that the true history of this whole series of ideas should become more and more obscured. Even when it is criticised, only Cowgill, Meid and Neu are quoted (thus for example Schlerath 1982-83 and almost all the authors who comment on this latter in Incontri Linguistici 9). Of course, its origin is not only to be found in works of mine and of other Spanish scholars of the sixties and seventies. Yet I think that a very important source is to be found here, a source which is certainly much older than the ones usually quoted. As far as I know, only Carruba 1976 and Barschel 1986 ac- knowledge this, both quoting the short article “Hethitisch and Indogermanisch” of 1962, whilst they do not appear to have read “Verbo Indoeuropeo” of 1963 a. For his part, Strunk 1984 after quoting Meid and summing «ip the theory speaks of “diese, in ahnlicher Weise z.B. auch von Adrados mehrfach (zuletzt 1982 und 1984) vertretene Ansicht”. One could have expected reference to much earlier publications, among them the above-mentioned book, which gives in full detail what in the later articles and papers is only given as a brief outline. It is particularly surprising that certain linguists should have assumed that works which I published in German during the eighties derive from works by Meid and Neu. In fact, I pu- blished these later papers in order to combat the false history that has been created and try to spread and develop my old points of view. I have no doubt that the attribution of these recent papers of mine to a borrowing from Meid and Neu was24 Francisco R. Adrados done in all good faith: the authors I refer to have simply drawn the wrong conclusions from the fact that my works of the six- ties and seventies are hardly mentioned. They only take into account those of the eighties and misinterpret them at that; thus Tischler in his above-mentioned article of 1988, p.560, with reference to the German translation in 1982 of a work published in Emerita 1979 mentioned above, a work which quite clearly explains its antecedents in “Verbo Indoeuropeo” (cf. p.261 and 282 = p.5 and 28 of the German translation). Tischler states as follows: “the idea initiated by W.Meid and enriched by E. Neu is now widely known... similarly Adrados 1982”. He was perhaps mislead by the German title of this work (“Die zeitliche und raumliche Differenzierung des in- doeuropiischen ...”), similar to that of Meid’s article (“Pro- bleme der raumlichen und zeitlichen Gliederung des Indoger- manischen”). It should be pointed out that the Spanish title was “Arqueologia y diferenciacién del Indoeuropeo”. Thus also Lehmann in Kratylos 1987, p.29, with reference to my work “Der Ursprung der grammatischen Kategorien des Indogermanischen”, published in “Hethitisch und Indoger- manisch” 1985, who begins by referring to “Verbo In- doeuropeo”! He says: “Adrados posits three distinct stages for Proto-Indo-European, in accordance with an assumption pro- moted by others, such as Meid and Neu”. This is not the right story. At a time when communications are practically instan- taneous, there are obviously still very serious problems in our science when it comes to the communication of ideas. The scant diffusion of Spanish works and the aprioristic rejection of cer- tain theories plus the habit of some linguists of writing without quoting their sources are, I believe, the main causes of this state of affairs. The fact is that a state of dis-information has thus arisen about the history of the theory of the three strata of IE. It is growing and multiplying with the passing of time. After all, any idea that opens up a new path and finds ac- ceptance in the scientific literature is a successful idea. But it would seem logical for the origin of the new ideas to be men- tioned.The new Image of Indoeuropean 25 I believe that it was of the utmost urgency to re-trace the general outline of this history, and I have thus devoted this paper to doing just that. I therefore decline to expound other developments of the theory with regard to phonetics, the verb, the pronoun and the noun during the eighties (my own ideas are collected in Adrados 1988). They are important and it is refreshing to encounter a growing community of points of view - albeitt with marked differences - at least in the theory of verbal and nominal inflexion. Bibliography Adrados, F.R., 1962, Hethitisch und Indogermanisch, in: II. Fachtagung flr idg. und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, p. 145-151, Innsbruck. -, 1963 a (2nd enlarged ed. 1974), Evolucién y Estructura del Verbo In- doeuropeo, Madrid, C.S.1.C. -. 1963b, Loi phonétique, sonantes et laryngales, Emerita 31, p. 185-211. =, 1965, Historische und strukturelle Methode in der indogermanischen Sprachwissenschaft, Kratylos 10, p.131-154. -, 1967, Loi phonétique, phonologie et sonantes indocuropéenne, Lingua 19, p.113-144. -, 1968, Die Rekonstruktion des Indogermanischen und die strukturelle Sprachwissenschaft, IF.73, p.1-47. -, 1972, Hethitische Endungen und Indogermanisches Verb, FL.5, p.366-381. -, 1975, Linguistica Indoeuropea, Madrid, Gredos. -, 1979, Arqueologia y diferenciacién del Indoeuropeo, Emerita 47, p.261-282 = 1988, p.19ss. (german translation 1982: Die raumliche und zeitliche Dif- ferenzierung des Indoeuropaischen im Lichte der Vor- und Frithgeschichte, Innsbruck). -, 1981a, Perfect, Middle Voice and Indo-European Verbal Endings, Emerita 49, p.27-58. -, 1981b, Further considerations on the Phonetics and Morphologizations of Hand Hi’, Emerita 49, p.231-271. -, 1982a, The archaic Structure of Hittite: the Crux of the Problem, JIES.11, p.1<35. -, 1982b, More about the laryngeals with labial and palatal appendices, FLH. 2, p.191-235. -, 1985, Der Ursprung der grammatischen Kategorien des Indocuropaischen, in: Gramm, Kategorien, B.Schlerath (ed.), p.1-46 = 1988, p.211ss. ~, 1987 (1988), Ideas on the Typology of Indocuropean, JIES. 16, p.97-19. -, 1988, Nuevos Estudios de Lingtiistica Indoeuropea, Madrid, C.S.1.C. Barschel, B., 1986, Der Modusbestand des Hethitischen — eine Alterttim- lichkeit?, MSS. 47, p.5-23.26 Francisco R. Adrados Benveniste, E., 1935, Origines de la formation des noms en indoeuropéen, Paris, Maisonneuve. -, 1948, Noms d’agent et noms d'action en indoeuropéen, Paris. Bonfante, G., 1931, I dialetti Indeuropei, Napoli, Istituto Orientale. Carruba, O., 1976, Anatolico e Indeuropeo, in: Scritti Bonfante, p. 121-146, Brescia. Cowgill, W., 1975, More evidence for Indo-Hittite: the Tense-Aspect Systems, in: Proc. of the 11th Int. Congress of Linguists, II, p.557-570, Bologna, II Mulino. -, 1979, Anatolian -i-Conjugation and Indo-European Perfect: Instalment I], en: Hethitisch und Indogermanisch, E.Neu-W. Meid eds., p. 25-39, Inns- bruck. Devoto, G., 1962, Origini indeuropee, Firenze, Sansoni. Eichner, H., 1975, Die Vorgeschichte des hethitischen Verbalsystems, in: Fle- xion und Wortbildung, H. Rix (ed.), p.71-103, Wiesbaden, Reichert. Gamkrelidze, Th.V. - Ivanov, V.V., 1984, Indoevropejskij jazyk i indo- europejcy, Tbilisi, University. Hiersche, R., 1984, Indoarisch-germanische Isoglossen und die Ausgliederung des Germanischen, in: Festschrift Klaus Matzel, p.87-97, Heidelberg, Winter. Hirt, H., 1921-37, Indogermanische Grammatik, 9 vols., Heidelberg, Winter. Hoffmann, K., 1950, Das Kategoriensystem des indogermanischen Verbums, in: Hethitisch und Indogermanisch, E.Neu und W.Meid eds., p.79-90, Innsbruck. Kammenhuber, A., 1961, Zur Stellung des Hethitisch-Luwischen innerhalb der indogermanischen Gemeinsprache, KZ.77, p.31-75. Kerns, J.A. - Schwartz, B., 1946, Multiple stem conjugation: a Indo-Hittite isogloss?, hg. 22, p.57-68. -, 1972, A Sketch of the Indo-European finite Verb, Leiden, Brill. Kurylowicz, J., 1932, Les désinences moyennes de l’indoeuropéen et de l’hit- tite, BSL.33, p.1-4. ~, 1952, L’accentuation des langues indoeuropéennes, Cracovia. ~, 1956, L’apophonie en indoeuropéen, Wroclaw. ~, 1958, Le hitite, en: Proc. of the eigth Int. Congress of Linguists, p.216-243, Oslo. -, 1964, The inflectional Categories of Indoeuropean, Heidelberg, Winter. -, 1977, Probl&mes de Linguistique indo-européenne, Wroclaw, Akademia Nauk. Lehmann, W.P., Earlier Stages of Indo-European, in: Indogermanica In- doeuropaea, Graz 1989, p. 109-131. Mayrhofer, M., 1983, Sanskrit und die Sprachen Alteuropas, Géttingen, Van- denhoeck und Ruprecht. Meid, W., 1968, Indogermanisch und Keltisch, Innsbruck. -, 1971, Das germanisch Praeteritum. Indogermanische Grundlagen und Aus- breitung im Germanischen, Innsbruck. -, 1975, Probleme der riumlichen und zeitlichen Gliederung des Indoger- manischen, in: Flexion und Wortbildung, H. Rix (ed.), p.204-219.The new Image of Indoeuropean 27 -, 1979, Der Archaismus des Hethitischen, in: Hethitisch und Indoger- manisch, E. Neu und W. Meid eds., p. 159-176, Innsbruck. Meillet, A., 1908a (28 ed. 1950), Les dialectes indo-européens, Paris, Cham- pion. -, 1931, Essai sur la chronologie des langues indoeuropéennes, BSL.34, p. 1- 28. Neu, E., 1968, Das hethitische Mediopassiv und seine indogermanischen Grundlagen, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz. -, 1976, Zur Rekonstruktion des indogermanischen Verbalsystem, in: Fest- schrift ftir L.Palmer, A.Morpurgo-Davies und W.Meid eds., p.239-254, Innsbruck. -, 1984, Konstruieren und Rekonstruieren, Incontri Linguistic 9, p.101-113. -, 1985, Das indogermanische Diathesensystem. Funktion und Geschichte, i Grammatische Kategorien, B.Schlerath (ed.), p.275-295. Wiesbaden, Rei- chert. Oettinger, N., 1979, Die Stammbildung des hethitischen Verbums, Nurnberg. Pedersen, H., 1925, Le groupement des dialectes indo-européennes, Copen- haguen, Danish Academy. -, 1938, Hethitisch und die anderen indoeuropaischen Sprachen, Copen- hagen. Pisani, V., 1933, Studi sulla preistoria delle lingue indeuropee, Roma, R. Acc. dei Lincei. Polomé, E.C., 1983b, The Present State of Proto-Indo-European Studies, i Proc. of the 13th Int. Congress of Linguists, p. 1359-1362. -, 1984, How archaic is Old Indian?, in: Studia Linguistica ... Werner Winter ... oblata, Berlin, de Gruyter 1985. Porzig, W., 1954a, Die Gliederung des indogermanischen Sprachgebiets, Heidelberg, Winter. Puhvel, J., 1970, Perfect Tense and Middle Voice. An Indo-european morpho- logical Mirage. Proc. of the 10th Int. Congress of Linguists, IV, p.629-634, Bucarest. Risch, E., 1975, Zur Entstehung des hethitischen Verbalparadigmas, in: Fle- xion und Wortbildung, H. Rix (ed.), p.247-258, Wiesbaden, Reichert. Rix, H., 1976, Historische Grammatik der griechischen Laut- und For- meniehre, Darmstadt. Rosenkranz, B., 1978, Vergleichende Untersuchungen der altanatolischen Sprachen, The Hague, Mouton. -, 1979, Archaismen im Hethitischen, in: Hethitisch und Indogermanisch, E. Neu und W. Meid eds., p.219-229. Schlerath, B., 1981, Ist ein Zeit/Raum-Model fir eine rekonstruierte Sprache médglich?, ZVS.95, p.175-202. -, 1982-83, Sprachvergleich und Rekonstruieren: Methoden und Méglich- keiten, Incontri Linguistici 8, p.5: ~, 1984, Probleme der Rekonstrukt Linguistici 10, p. 11-18. Schmalstieg, W.R., 1982 (1983), Indo-European Linguistics, The Pennsylvania State University Press. SchluBwort und Ausblick, Incontri28 Francisco R. Adrados, The new Image of Indoeuropean Schmid, W.P., 1979, Das Hethitische in einem neuen Verwandtschaftsmodell, i lethitisch und Indogermanisch, E. Neu-W. Meid eds., p 231-235, Inns- bruck. ‘ Sommer, F., 1947, Hethiter und Hethitisch, Stuttgart” Specht, F., 1944, Der Ursprung der indogermanischen Deklination, Gottin- gen, Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, Stang, Chr., 1932, Perfektum und Medium, NTS.6, p.29-39. Strunk, K., 1984, Probleme der Sprachrekonstruktion und das Fehlen zweier Modi im Hethitischen. Incontri Linguistici 9, p.131-152. Sturtevant, F.H., 1942, The Indo-Hittite Laryngeals, Baltimore. Szemerényi, O., 1970 (2° ed. 1980), Einfihrung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft, Darmstadt. Tischler, J., 1988, Relative Chronology: the case of proto-indo-european, in: A Linguistic Happening in Memory of Ben Schwartz, p.559-573, Louvain la Neuve, Peters. -, 1989, Bemerkungen zum Raum-Zeit-Modell, in: Indogermanica Europaea, p. 407-429, Graz 1989. Van Brock, N., 1963, Les thémes verbaux 4 redoublement du hittite et le verbe indoeuropéen, RHA. 22, p.129-165. Villar, F., 1974, Origen de la flexion nominal indoeuropea, Madrid, C.S.1.C, ~, 1979, Hetita e Indoeuropeo, Emerita 47, p. 171-187. Watkins, C., 1966, Italo-Celtic revisited, in: H. Birnbaum (ed.), Ancient Indo- European Dialects, p.29-50. Duque de Medinaceli, 6, Francisco R. Adrados E-28014 Madrid 14