Pre-Laryngeal
Plosive Loss Law
This new Indo-European phonetic law
identifies the co-existence of forms with stops vs. forms with
colored vowels. Since colored vowels (e, o, a) are known to have
derived from PIE laryngeals and a combination of voiceless stops and
laryngeals yielded voiceless aspirates in Indo-Iranian, it’s
reasonable to postulate that it’s the PIE laryngeals that are
responsible for the observed doublets. The split was apparently
conditioned by the existence of forms in which a "T+H"
sequence before V was a cluster (the ancestral state) vs. sequences
in which T+H became a consonant phoneme or H+V became a (colored)
vocalic phoneme. I hypothesize that in the pre-PIE there were no
voiced aspirates but only voiced stops. In the environment
immediately preceding a laryngeal, a voiced stop acquired aspiration
through the phonemicization of the cluster voiced stop + laryngeal.
There's some indication that palatovelars may also have gotten their
palatal articulation from a contact with a laryngeal but this
hypothesis is presently redundant as the “system” presented below
can work without it. I don't know if there was a separate line of
voiced laryngeals that may have voiced neighboring stops. I
understand that we need to know in what paradigmatic contexts the
phonemicization of a laryngeal occurred. I don't have an answer for
this yet but the minimal requirement of conditioning (namely, cluster
vs. phoneme), I think, is met.
Laryngeals were a group of phonemes,
H1, H2, H3, distributed from front to back (in terms of their place
of articulation. H1 keeps e as /e/, hence it must have been close to
this vowel from the point of view of its place of articulation. H3
colors /e/ and makes it /o/, so it must have been labialized. H2
turns /e/ into a back vowel /a/, so it must have been an uvular or
pharyngeal fricative. This is the simplest interpretation of the
identity of laryngeals and it seems to fit the data best. H₁ is
considered to have a palatal secondary articulation. This causes the
following changes: H₁ > y in some contexts and H₁a > i in
Sanskrit. This is an alternative explanation to the "schwa
indogermanicum"/"syllabic laryngeal," as I reject the
sound change H̥ > i in Sanskrit because H is not attested in any
‘father’ forms, all branches outside of Indo-Iranian (including
Pal papaz ‘father’, Toch A pa:car, B pa:cer ‘father’) display
an invariant /a/ and reconstruction *pH2-ter or *p-H2ter seems to be
too overengineered for such a widely attested baby kin term root as
*pa-.
Following many scholars, I assume the
existence of old, pre-PIE *a and *o that were not products of
laryngeal coloring. Hence, combination H1a, H1o, H2o, H3a are just as
possible as H1e (= “new” e), H2e (= “new” a), H3e ((= “new”
o).
Following A. G. E. Speirs and German
Dziebel (see
http://kinshipstudies.org/2014/07/23/indo-european-labiovelars-a-new-look/),
I consider a labiovelar split best described for Greek (telos, polos,
kyklos depending on the quality of the following vowel) of pre-PIE or
PIE age. This assumption underlies a couple of etymologies below, but
the vast majority of these etymologies don’t depend on whether one
accepts this alternative chronology of the labiovelar split or not.
Pre-PIE pH1e > PIE *pe / *e
1. *pH1ekwo-/*kwH1ekwo- (Lat coquo,
iecur).
Gk hepa:r (hepso ‘boil’), Lat
iecur, Skrt yakrt, Slav *ikra ‘liver’ ~ IE *pekwo- ‘cook, bake’
(Lith kepu ‘bake’ > kepenos ‘liver’, Slav *pesti ‘bake’,
*pesteni ‘liver’) > PIE *pH1ekw- ‘bake, cook’ >
*pH1ekwr-/n- ‘liver’. The derivation of ‘liver’ from ‘bake,
cook’ in Balto-Slavic is remarkable considering that it applies to
both *pekw- and *kwep- root variants. In Greek, an overlooked pair
hepa:r ~ hepso shows the same semantic link.
2. *pH1ek'w- (Lat pekus, equus)
IE *pek’us ‘livestock’ (including
horses) (Skrt pasu, Lat pecus, Umbrian pequo, Lith pecus) ~ IE
*H1ek’wo- ‘horse’ (Gk ‘ippos, Skrt asva, Lat equus, Toch
yakwe, etc.) < *PIE *pH1ek'u-/*pH1ek'wo-.
3. *pH1egwh- (Lat bibo, e:brius)
IE *pH1egwH3- ‘drink’ > Hitt
pa:si ‘swallows, drinks’, ekuzzi ‘drinks’, Pal ahu ‘drinks’,
Luw u ‘drinks’, Toch yok ‘drink’ (< *ye:gwh), Arm empem
'drink', Lat e:brius 'drunk' (with a long grade because it's a
"vrddhi" derivative), bibo: (< *pibo), Skrt pibati 'he
drinks', payayate 'give someone a drink', OIr ibid 'he drinks', Gk
pino: 'drink', posis 'drink', ne:pho 'be sober' (< *ne-egwho),
Slav *pijo 'I drink', Lith puota 'drinking feast'.
Typically split into two sets (*H1egwh-
and *peH3-/*piH3-), this group has traditionally posed a number of
issues. The main one is -b- in Lat bibo:, Skrt pibati. It's currently
assumed that they go to reduplicated *pipH3- and that H3 voiced the
preceding consonant. But this interpretation is completely ad hoc and
unfounded. The problem with *H1egwh-, on the other hand, is that it's
rather sketchily attested outside of Anatolian and that Pal attests
for a laryngeal -h- ostensibly corresponding to Hitt -k-. Finally,
nobody has ever figured out why PIE would have two words meaning
'drink'.
Pre-Laryngeal Plosive Loss law (and
Dziebel's hypothesis of a PIE labiovelar split) clarifies some (if
not all) of these problems. -b- in Lat bibo:, Skrt pibati is the same
-b- as in Lat e:brius going back to PIE *gwh (Gk ne:pho). *H1
reconstructed for *H1eghw- points to an earlier cluster *pH1-. Forms
with long -o- (Lith puotas, Lat po:tas) go back to cluster *-gwH3-
(see above for examples such as *mregwH2-, *mek'H2ter, *swetH2l-).
Pal ahu shows a form after the plosive loss, while Hitt ekuzzi shows
a phonemicized cluster *-gwH3-.
4. *pH1et- (Lat petere, iterare). IE
*pet- ‘fly, rush, beseech, attack, demand’: Hitt pittar ‘wing’,
Lat petere ‘rush, attack, beseech’ (hence petitio–
> Eng. petition, repetere ‘do again’),
Gk petomai ‘fly’, piptein ‘fall’, etc. ~
H1iter- ‘again’ (Lat iterare ‘repeat’,
Hitt itar ‘road’, itrani ‘messenger’ <
*pH1et-.
Pre-PIE *pH1a- > PIE *pa (InIr *i
> 0) /*a
5. PIE *pH1ater. H1 does nor color
ancestral /e/. And, now I can argue, it does not color ancestral /a/.
So that's why we find /a/ in all the 'father' forms in IE languages
(including the most divergent branches such as Pal papaz ‘father’,
Toch A pa:car, B pa:cer ‘father’, Gk pappos ‘grandfather’,
pater ‘father’) but Indo-Iranian. In Indo-Iranian we logically
find /i/ in Skrt pita: ‘father’. Because H1 had a palatalizing
effect, in Skrt sequence H1a gave /i/ and didn't turn p- into ph-.
6. PIE *pH1awo-/*pH1awH2o-
'grandfather, grandchild' (Hitt huhhas ‘grandfather’, Skrt putra
‘son’ [< *pH1autro-), Lat avus ‘grandfather’, avunculus
‘mother’s brother’, puclos ‘son, child’, ONorse afi
‘grandfather’, OIr aue ‘grandson’, amnair [< *aunater)
‘mother’s brother’, Welsh wyr ‘grandson’ (< *pwyr)
7. PIE *pH1awyo-: Gk pais ‘child,
son’, Slav *uji, Lith avynas, OPrus awis ‘‘mother’s brother’.
Sets 5-7 coalesce at pre-PIE *pH1a-
‘father, grandfather, son, grandson’ enlarged with different
affixes (Gk pappos ‘grandfather’ ~ pater ‘father’ ~ pais
‘son, child’, Toch A a:we ‘grandfather’ ~ Toch A a:p
‘father’, Toch B a:ppo ‘father’; Arm haw ‘grandfather’ ~
hayr ‘father’ (Gen. hawr); Old Irish aue ‘grandson’ ~ athir
‘father’; Old Norse afi ‘grandfather’ ~ fathir
‘father’). Hitt huhhas ‘grandfather’ actually attests
for a laryngeal long postulated as responsible for the vocalic
contrast between Gk pater and Skrt pita but never attested in forms
with a literal meaning ‘father’.
Pre-PIE *pH2e- > PIE *pa / a
8. IE *peH2ur-/n- ‘fire’ (Hitt
pahhur, Gen. pahwenas, Gk pyr, etc.) ~ *H2a-s-/t- ‘ashes, hearth’
(Hitt hassa ‘hearth’, Lat a:ra ‘fire-altar’, a:trium ‘room
with a fireplace’, Czech vatra ‘fire’ < *pvatra, etc.) <
*pH2es-/t-/*pH2eur-/-n-.
9. IE *H2ewis ‘bird’ (Lat. avis,
Gk. aetos, Skr. vis, Av. vīš, Arm. hav,
Lith. višta, Ir. aoi, Welshhwyad ‘duck’) ~ IE
*pout- ‘bird’ (Slav *рutа ‘bird’,
Lith putýtis ‘birdie’, pučiùtė ‘hen’, šìlо
pùtinas ‘quail’, Skrt рṓtаs ‘animal cub’,
Lith раũtаs ‘egg’ < PIE *pH2ow-t-. Note:
Lith раũtаs ‘egg’ corresponds to Lat ovum,
Gk oio:n, Slav *aje, Welsh wy ‘egg’, etc., which
are often derived from the ‘bird’ root *H2owis.
10. IE *per- ‘strike, split, push’
(Arm harkanem, OIr orgaid ‘he kills’, Lith periu, Slav *pereti,
Skrt sphurati) ~ IE *H2er- ‘to plow’ (Hitt hars- ‘work land for
sowing’, Toch AB a:re, Gk aroo:, Lat aro:, OIr airim ‘plow’,
etc.), *H2erH3tr- ‘plow’ (Gk arothron, Lith arklas, Slav *ralo,
etc.) < *pH2er-.
Interestingly, Slavic thundergod Perun
(< *per-) and his son Jarilo who plowed the soil may be derived
from the same root *pH2er-.
11. IE *H2enH1- ‘breathe’ (Skrt
aniti ‘he breathes’, Gk anemos ‘soul’, Lat animus ‘same’,
Toch B a:nme ‘self, soul’, Arm holm (< *honm) 'wind' ~ IE
*pneu- 'breathe' (Gk pneo: 'breathe, blow', pneuma 'breath', OEng
fne:osan 'sneeze'
(http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/etymology.cgi?single=1&basename=%2Fdata%2Fie%2Fpiet&text_number=1600&root=config)
< *pH2enH1-/*pH2nH1-.
Pre-PIE *pH3e- > PIE *po / o
12. Another example of a possible PIE
cluster *pH2- turning into phoneme *p or losing p if remaining a
cluster is PIE *peH2-s ‘protect, feed’ vs. *H2owi- ‘sheep’ :
Hitt pahs- ‘protect’, hawis ‘sheep’, Arm hoviw ‘shepherd’,
Gk poimen ‘shepherd’, po:u ‘flock of sheep’ ~ o(F)is ‘sheep’,
Lat pa:sco ‘put to graze’ ~ ovis ‘sheep’, Old Irish oi
‘sheep’. So we would reconstruct *poH2- > *pH2owi- (Hitt pahs-
but *phawis > hawis).
13. IE *H3estH1- ‘bone’ (Hitt
hastai, Gk osteon, Lat os (Gen ossis), Skrt asthi, Arm oskr, Slav
*kosti) ~ IE *pste(H)n- ‘breast’ (Gk ste:nion, Avest fstana, Skrt
stana, Toch A passam) < *pH3estH-, or *kwH3estH- ‘breastbone’.
In Slav *kosti k- has always been a puzzle, so the finding of
p-cognates is in line with this data point. Alternation p-/k- may
point to an ancient labiovelar *kw-.
14. IE *we(s)kwer- 'evening' (Gk
hesperos, Lat vesper, Lith vakaras, Slav veceru, OIr fescor), Germ.
*westi 'west' ~ IE *pos-t- 'before, late, later' (Lat post 'behind,
after, later, Skrt pacca 'same', Lith pastaras 'late', Slav *posdh-
'late') < *pH3oskwe-/*pH3weskwe-.
15. IE *H3dont- ‘tooth’
(Sanskrit dantam, Arm atamn, Lat dentis, Gk odous,
OEng tōþ, Gothic tunþus, Lithuanian dantis ‘tooth’,
Slav *desna ‘gum’, etc.) ~ IE *ped-/*pod- ‘foot, under, below’
(Hitt patas, Lyc pede-, Lu pati-, Toch A peṃ,
B paiyye, Sanskrit pāda, Arm otn, Gk podi,
Latinpēs, Alb poshtë, Slav *peši, Lith pėda) <
*pH3ed-/*pH3don-t-.
Semantically, this etymology implies
that IE *H3dont- originally meant ‘lower tooth’ (in opposition to
*gombho- ‘upper tooth’), hence the connection with ‘foot’.
Judging by its simple morphology, the concept ‘foot’ looks
primary. From it, the concept ‘under, below, bottom’ (comp. Slav
*podu ‘bottom, foundation’, Lith рãdаs ‘sole of
foot’, Latv раds ‘floor’, Skrt раdám ‘step,
footprint, place’, Gk πέδον ‘soil’,
Lat оррidum ‘place’, pessum ‘bottom’)
is derived. The forms for ‘tooth’ are most complex
morphologically and they carry an additional body-part affix –t-
(also seen in Skrt yakrt ‘liver’). This suggests that they are
tertially derived from the ‘under, below, bottom’ forms.
16. IE *H3emso- 'shoulder' (Skrt
amsa, Gk o:mos, Lat umerus) ~ IE *pemsti- (OHG fust, OEng fyst [<
*fumsti), Lith kumste, Slav *pensti 'hand, fist') <
*kwH2ems-/*pH2ems-.
Pre-PIE *tH2e- > PIE *te / a
17. IE *H2ekwеH2- ‘water’
(Lat aqua, Goth ahwo: ‘water’) ~ IE *tek(w)- ‘run,
flow’ (Lith teku ‘run, flow’, Slav *teku ‘same’,
Skrt takti ‘rushes’, Toch B cake ‘river’,
etc.) < *tH2ekw-.
18. IE *H2ek’s- ‘axis’
(Gk akso:n, Lat axis, Skrt aksas, OHG ahsa, Slav
*osi, Lith asis) ~ IE *tek’s- (Gk tekto:n ‘carpenter’,
Skrt taksati ‘he fashions, he constructs’,
Lat texo: ‘weave, build’, Slav *tesati,
Lith tasyti ‘hew’, OHG dehsala ‘axe’) <
*tH2ek’s-. Note Gk akso:n vs. tekto:n suggesting
that Proto-Greek had a normal sequence *k’s- and -t- in tekto:n is
a late, local innovation.
19. IE *Hukw- ‘cooking pot’
(Skrt ukha ‘cooking pot’, Lat aulla ‘pot’
(< *auksla), Goth auhns‘oven’, Arm akut’ ‘hearth’,
OHG ofan ‘oven’, OEng ofen ‘furnace’,
Gk ipnos ‘oven’, Myc i-po-no‘cooking bowl’) ~
IE *tep- (Skrt tapati ‘warms up’, Lat tepeo: ‘be
warm’, Slav *teplu ‘warm’, OIrish ten (< *tepn-)
‘fire’) < *tHekw-. Vocalism here still needs work under any
scenario.
Pre-PIE *kH2e- > PIE *ke/k’e /
a
20. IE *H2rtko-, *H2rkto- ‘bear’
(Hitt hartagga, Gk arktos, Skrt rksa, Lat ursus) ~ IE *k’rst-‘fur,
animal hair, bristle’ (Lith siurkstus ‘crude, hard’, serys
‘bristles’, Slav *sirsti ‘fur, animal hair’, OHG hursti
‘cristas’) < *k'H2r-kst-.
Pre-PIE *kH3e- > PIE *ke/k’e /
o
21. IE *k’er- ‘head, horn’. The
belonging of Hitt harsar to the same group as Lat cerebrum, Gk kara,
Skrt siras, etc. has been suggested multiple times. The phonetics has
been an issue. My reconstruction *k’Her- makes the phonetics
regular. It’s possible that the variant with a colored vowel is in
fact IE *H3ers- ‘buttocks’ (Hitt arras, Gk orros ‘tail, rump,
base of the spine’ < *orsos, Arm or 'rear-end'). Semantically,
the connection between head and horn parallels the connection between
rump and tail. And we've already discussed the tendency of
Indo-Europeans to equate polar body parts (thigh ~ underarm, toe ~
finger, butt cheek and face cheek, etc.) So, the resulting protoform
should be reconstructed as *k'H3er-s- or even *kH3er-s-.
22. IE *H3ekw- ‘eye’ (Gk ops ‘eye,
face’, ophthalmos ‘ eye’ [< *opth-], Lat oculus, Slav *oko –
the etymon is widely attested but many forms are contaminated, so
I'll omit them here) ~ IE *skep-/*spek'- 'look, see' (Gk skeptomai
‘observe, look carefully, consider’, skopos ‘target, purpose,
aim, spy’, Lat specio ‘I look, I see’, Skrt pasyati ‘look’,
spasa ‘spy’, Avest spasyeiti ‘look’, OHG speho:n ‘regard,
spy’) < *sk'H3ekwo-. Hitt sakuwa 'eyes' (dissimilated from
*skekuwa) supports this link. PIE *spH3ekw- is also possible. In this
case Skrt pasyati with a reflex of a palatovelar can be explained as
caused by a cluster velar + y. In Lat specio the loss of -w- is
expected before -y- (comp. socius < *sokwyos). In Greek, too, the
labial component of a labiovelar is lost before -w-.
in light of a potential Uralic
cognate/IE borrowing, namely pre-Finnic *koke 'perceive' pre-PIE
reconstruction with two labiovelars (*s-kwekw-t-) seems to be quite
possible, which suggests that s-mobile (already seen in Hitt sakuwa)
was added to the root after the action of Pre-Laryngeal Plosive Loss
Law.
23. PIE forms for 'wolf' (*wlkwo-) and
'dog' (*k'wen-) can now be brought together under the root
*k'H3we-l-/-n-. PIE *k’H3we- ‘wolf, dog’ yielded two early
affixal derivatives – *k’H3wen- ‘dog’ (Gk kuo:n, Lat canis,
Slav *senka, Arm sun, etc.) and *k’H3wel-kwo- ‘wolf’. Skrt
svaka ‘wolf’, vrka ‘wolf’ and Avest spaka ‘dog’, verka
‘wolf’ establish the possibility of the connection between the IE
sets for the dog and the wolf. Skrt svaka/Avest spaka are
morphologically archaic as they don’t have either the -n-, or the
-l- (> InAr *r) suffix. Arm skund ‘young dog’ and Gk skulaks
‘same’ show that indeed affixes -n- and -l- were in alternation.
OIr cuilen and Welsh colwyn ‘young dog’ (forms without the
difficult s-mobile) also confirm that the l-suffix alternated with
the n-suffix. (They are not product of dissimilation from *kunen, but
independent l- formations from more basic *k’we-.)
So, basically, l- in lykos and lupus
corresponds to the affixal -n- is kuo:n and canis. Gk lykos (<
*lhykos) is the same as -ulaks in Gk skulaks. On a methodological
note, if we reconstruct PIE *k'H3we- 'wolf, dog' we can easily
compare it with Uralic *kujna 'wolf' and Eskimo-Aleut qenRa 'wolf'.
Even the IE DOG form is presently compared with this "Nostratic"
set but the fact that the IE term for 'wolf' can be shown to be
related to the IE term for 'dog' makes this long-range equation quite
intriguing. Afroasiatic has a very similar root *k(w)alp- ‘wolf,
dog’ (Bomhard & Kerns, no. 319) that shows -l- where Uralic and
Eskimo-Aleut have -n-. Bomhard and Dolgopolsky still believe that
Afroasiatic is part of Nostratic. In Uralic, Eskimo-Aleut and
Afroasiatic languages the same root means both ‘dog’ and ‘wolf’.
The Indo-Europeans forms with the meaning ‘wolf’ (*wlkwko-) and
‘dog’ (*k’wo:n) are both of Proto-Indo-European age, so it
would be unusual if they were unrelated. Taking this material at face
value, the connection between PIE *wlkwko- and PIE *k’wo:n may mean
that Indo-European preserved the traces of ancient
Nostratic/Eurasiatic morphological variation, whereas Afroasiatic
generalized -l- and Uralic and Eskimo-Aleut generalized -n-.
24. IE *k'leus- 'listen, hear' (Toch A
klyos 'listen, hear', klots 'ear', B klyaus 'listen, hear', klautso
'ear', Arm lsem 'listen, hear', Gk kluo 'hear', kleo 'make famous',
Lat cluo: 'to be called, be famous', OEng hlystan 'listen', hle:or
'cheek', OIr cluo 'fame', cluas 'ear', Lith klausyti 'listen' ~ IE
*H3eus- 'ear' (Gk ous, Skrt usi, Goth auso, Lith ausis, Latin auris
'ear', audire 'listen', Slav *uxo, Arm unkn 'ear' < PIE
*k'lH3eu-s, or *klH3eu-s. Semantics cannot be better (Tocharian,
Celtic and Latin directly attest for one single root for 'hear,
listen, ear', and notably both *k’leus- and *H2eus- root-shapes can
take both meanings).
Pre-PIE *gH3e- > PIE *ge/g’e/o.
25. IE *genu- ‘knee’ (Hitt genu,
Toch kanwem, B keni, Lat genu:, Gk gonu, Skrt ja:nu, Arn cunr) ~ IE
*H3noghu- ‘leg, foot, nail’ (Skrt anghri ‘leg’, nakha ‘nail’,
Gk onuks ‘nail’, Lat unguis ‘nail’, Lith naga ‘hoof’,
nagas ‘nail’, Slav *noga ‘leg, foot’) < PIE *gH3enu-,
*gH3nogh-.
Notably, Arm elungn ‘nail’
(< *enung-) shows the same morphology and dissimilation as
OIr glun, Welsh glin, Bret glin, Gael gluin ‘knee’
(< *gnu:no < *gonu).
26. IE *gHnens-dho- ‘nest’ (Slav
*gne:zdo, Lith lizdas [< *glinzdo < *gninzdo], Skrt nīḍás,
nīḍám ‘resting place, abode’, Arm nist ‘sitting place’,
Lat nīdus, OHG nest). Currently g- in Slavic remains unexplained.
Sets 25-26 may be related if the idea
of a ‘resting place’ (from which the concept of ‘nest’ later
emerged) evolved from the notion of ‘kneeling’. Balt -l- would
then become supported by the same development as found in Arm elungen
and Celt *gluno.
27. IE *genu-, *gonHdho- ‘cheek,
chin, jaw’ (Toch A sanwem, Skrt hanu, Gk genus, gnathos ‘jaw’,
Lat gena, Goth kinnu) ~ IE *H3ens- ‘mustache’ (Slav *(w)onsu
‘mustache’, OPruss, wanso ‘first beard’, OIr fés ‘beard’,
find ‘hair’, Gk ἴονθος ‘youthful beard’ (*vi-vondho-))
< *gH3en-dh-. Note the shared morphology between Gk gnatos and
ἴονθος, OIr find.
28. IE *H3enbh- ‘hub, navel’ (Gk
omphalos, Skrt nabhi ‘hub, navel, kin’, Avest naba-nazdista ‘next
of kin’, Lat umbilicus, OHG nabalo, OPruss nabis) ~ IE *gen-/*gon-
‘beget’ (Skrt janati ‘give birth’, Gk genos, Lat gigno:
‘produce’, na:scor ‘to be born’, OEng cynn ‘race, family,
kin’, cenna ‘produce’, OHG kind ‘child’, Arm cnanim ‘be
born, bears’ < PIE *gH3en- ‘beget’, *gH3enbho- ‘kin,
navel’. This analysis makes it possible to bring Hitt ha(n)s-
(PAnatol *Ha(n)so- > hansatar, hassatar ‘family’) ‘give
birth, beget’, Luw hamsa ‘grandchild’, into the same set with
IE *gH3en-. Luw -m- may hide ancestral *-nbhs- > *mbs- (comp. Lat
umbilicus, Gk omphalos) > *mms- > *-ms-. A “directive
possessive” (Melchert, Oettinger) affix *-s(s)a- (see Puhvel’s
Hittite Dictionary, “H”, p. 227) is an Anatolian innovation.
The semantically identical derivation
of Hitt hassu- ‘king’ from *ha(n)s- and Germ. *kuningaz ‘king’
from *kun- ‘kin’ makes the connection all the more plausible.
Hitt hassa-hanzassa ‘kith and kin’ or ‘child and grandchild’
(the former translation seems to be more compelling) is a full
morphological parallel to Avest naba-nazdista.
29. IE *H3nomn ‘name’ (Hitt la:man
[< *naman], Toch A nom, B nem, Skrt naman, Avest naman, Arm anun,
Gk onoma, Lat no:men, OHG namo, Slav *enmen) ~ IE *gen- ‘know’
(Gk γνῶμα ‘sign’, Lat cogno:men ‘name’, Slav *znamen
‘sign, banner, badge’) < *g’H3nomen-. The shape of Hitt
la:man (instead of expected hanaman**) goes back to *ghnomen.
Pre-PIE *bH1a- > PIE *bha/(y)a
30. IE *bheH2g’- ‘divide,
distribute, allot’ (Gk phagein ‘eat, devour’, Skrt bhajati
‘divide, distribute’, bhaga ‘prosperity, happiness’, Avest
baz- ‘bestow, divide’, Avest baga ‘share, happy lot’, OPers
baga ‘god’, Slav *bogu ‘god’) ~ IE *yeH2g’- ‘worship’
(Skrt yajati ‘worship, sacrifice, make an offering’, Avest yaz-
‘same’, Gk hagios ‘holy’) < PIE *bH1eH2g'- or *bH1ag'-.
Pre-PIE *bH2e- > PIE *bhe/a.
31. IE *H2ener- 'man, husband' (Gk
ane:r, Gen. anthropos, Arm haner 'husband's father', ayr [< *anir]
'man, husband') ~ IE *bhendh- 'relative, husband's father' (Gk
pentheros 'husband's father', Skrt bandhu 'relative', Lith bendras
'companion' < *bH1en(dh)r)-/*bH1n(dh)r- < *bH1en-dh-. Note
affixal consistency between Gen. anthropos and pentheros. Note
precise semantic match between Arm haner and Gk pentheros.
32. IE *H2erH2mo-/*H2RH2mo- ‘arm’
(Skrt i:rma ‘arm’, Avest arema ‘forearm’, Arm armukn ‘elbow’,
Lat armus ‘arm, forearm, shoulder blade’, Goth arms, OEng earm
‘arm’, OPruss irmo ‘arm’, Slav *ramo ‘shoulder’) ~ IE
*bher-/*bherH2- ‘carry’ (Skrt bharati ‘carries’, bharitram
‘arm, shoulder’, bhari:man ‘carrying, keeping’, bharma
‘care’, Avest bereman ‘same’, Gk phero: ‘carry’, pherma
‘fetus’, Lat fero ‘carry’, offerumentum, Arm berem ‘carry’,
Goth baira ‘carry’, Slav *birati ‘take’) < *bH2er-mo-,
*bH2erH2-mo.
33. IE *bherg’- ‘white, shining,
birch tree’ (Lith bersta ‘he turns white’, berzas ‘birch
tree’, Skrt bu:rjas ‘Himalayan birch’, Goth bairhts ‘shining’,
OHG birihha ‘birch tree’, Slav *bereza ‘birch tree’, Alb
bardh, bardhe ‘white’, Lat farnus, fraxinus ‘ash tree’) ~ IE
*H2erg’- ‘white, silver’ (Hitt harki ‘white, silver’, Toch
A a:rki, B a:rkwi ‘white’, Gk arguros ‘silver’, arge:s
‘white, blinding’, Arm arcat’ ‘silver’, Skrt rajata
‘silver’, arjuna ‘white, light-colored, silver-colored’, Lat
argentum ‘silver’, OIr argat ‘silver’) < *bH2erg'-.
A laryngeal is clearly responsible for
the emergence of a voiced aspirate here. Notably Germanic, Baltic and
Slavic that doesn't have a reflex of IE *H2erg'- is rich in reflexes
of IE *bhergh'-/*bH2erg'-. Albanian bardh, bardhe 'white' is an exact
morphological and semantic match for Hitt harki- 'white'. In Latin,
argentum and fraxinus is an interesting doublet to analyze further.
Pre-PIE *dH1e- > PIE *dhe/e
34. IE *dhegho:m ‘earth’ (Hitt
tēkan [Gen. tagnās], Toch A tkaṃ [Gen. tkanis], B keṃ
‘earth’, Gk khthṓn ‘earth’, khamaí ‘on the earth’,
Skrt kṣā́ḥ (acc. kṣā́m, gen. jmáḥ) ‘earth’,
Avest zā̊ (acc. ząm, gen. zǝmō) ‘earth’, Lat humus
‘earth’, Slav *zemĭ ‘earth’, *zmiji ‘snake’, Lith
žemė ‘earth’, Alb dhe ‘earth’, dhemje ‘caterpillar’)
~ IE *H1egh(i)- ‘snake, chthonic creature’ (Gk ekhis 'viper',
ekhinos 'hedgehog', Skrt ahi ‘snake’, Arm iz 'snake, viper', OHG
egala 'leech', igil 'hedgehog', Slav *jez 'hedgehog', Lith ezys
'hedgehog') < *dH1egh-.
Pre-Laryngeal Plosive Loss Law is also
relevant to the thorny problem of IE "earth" words. Hittite
nominative and accusative singular te:kan points to *dʰ(e)ǵʰem. As
Piotr Gasiorowski wrote about the PIE state, "the paradigm of
‘earth’ included nom.-acc. *dʰéǵʰōm, loc. *ǵʰdʰsém, and
an oblique stem *ǵʰm- (in which the initial coronal was apparently
dropped), e.g. in gen. *ǵʰmées. In some daughters the stem-shape
of the locative, to which Schindler’s rules had applied, was
generalized (cf. e.g. Gk χθών /khthǫ́ːn/, Skt acc. kṣā́am);
in others the simple palatal of the oblique stem was apparently
generalized (cf. e.g. Lat. humus); Anatolian and Tocharian
generalized T(V)K- (cf. e.g. Hitt. dagān ‘on the ground’, Toch.
A tkaṃ ‘earth’)." He also noted that we don’t know if
the front consonant was an aspirate /dh/ or a voiced stop /d/. As I
pointed out, metathesis and s-epenthesis proposed by Schindler and
endorsed by Piotr are ad hoc solutions to this complex cognate set,
and they should be avoided.
Pre-Laryngeal Plosive Loss Law explains
the loss of a plosive as conditioned by the following laryngeal:
nom-acc. *dH1egho:m, oblique *dH1ghe:m > Toch A tkam, B kem, Lat
humus, Slav *zem-. Interestingly, the forms designating ‘snake,
chthonic creature’ represent the original Nom-Acc. root shape
*dH1egh-, which is otherwise lost from the subfamily of words meaning
‘earth’ outside of Hittite.
IE *H1egh- ‘snake, chthonic creature’
is usually taken to be a cognate of IE *H3egwh-/*H1ogwh- ‘snake’
(Toch B auk [< *aku-], Gk ophis). The latter suggests that PIE had
an extended form *dH1eghu- and the cluster -ghu- later phonemicized
into a labiovelar *gwh.
The extended form *dH1eghu- can also
account for Gk ikhthus, Arm jukn, Lith zuvis ‘fish’.
The comparison between Gk khtho:n,
khthamalos, khamai, ikhthus, on the one hand, and ekhis, ekhinos,
ophis, on the other, suggests that -th- in khthamalos is likely
unrelated to t- in Hitt te:kan but instead is a Greek-specific
development similar to -t- in ptolis next to polis.
Pre-PIE *dH2e- > PIE *dhe/a
35. IE *dak’ru- ‘tear’ (Hitt
ishahru-, Toch A ākär, pl. ākrunt, B akrūna (n. pl.), Skrt
áśru- `tear', Avest asrū-azan- 'Tränen vergiessend', Gk
dákru, Lat lacrima, OLat dacruma, Arm artasur (<
*drak'ur-), Germ. *táxra-z, *tagrá-z, *tráxnu- (Goth tagr, OHG
zahar, trahan), Lith ašarà).
This is a well-known cognate set but
Pre-Laryngeal Plosive Loss Law suggests reconstruction *dH2ek'Hr-.
Hittite ishahru attests for a laryngeal preceded by a later s-mobile
(PAnat *hahru > Hitt *s-hahru (s-mobile) > *ishahru (vocalic
prothesis). This is in line with current thinking. An alternative
explanation would interpret the Hitt sequence sh- as a direct
evidence for an unphonemicized cluster d + H2 (comp. Hitt siu ‘god’
with a palatalized *d- seen in Skrt dyavus). The absence of an
aspirate in Greek suggests that in some ancient forms the vowel got
colored, while d- didn't get aspiration. This may mean that the
phenomenon of vowel coloring by a laryngeal emerged earlier than the
phenomenon of the aspiration of a voiced stop by a laryngeal.
On the other hand, the form has a
separate problem, namely the second -h- in Hitt ishahru corresponding
to -k- in Gk dakru and other IE forms. Under Pre-Laryngeal Plosive
Loss Law, the pre-PIE sequence VTH (vowel+stop+laryngeal) should
manifest itself either as a long colored vowel or as VT. The vowel in
Gk dakru is short, hence we have to reconstruct *dH2ek'Hr-.
Pre-PIE *dH3e- > PIE *dhe/(w)e
36. Hitt huwantes 'winds', Gk aFent-
'blowing', Lat ventus 'wind' ~ IE *dhwes- 'blow' (Skrt dhvaṁsati
`to fall to pieces or dust, decay, be ruined, perish', ptc. dhvasta-;
dhvasmán- m. `polluting, darkening', dhvasirá- `sprinkled,
spattered', dhvasrá- `decaying, falling off', dhvasti- f. `ceasing,
destruction', Lith dvē̃sti (dvẽsia, dvē̃sē) `den Geist
aushauchen, (von Tiere) verenden, krepieren', Slav *duxnoti 'die',
*dysati 'breathe', *duxu 'spirit' < *dH3we-s.
Pre-PIE *VCH > VC/ a:, o:, e:
37. IE *meH2ter ‘mother’ (Gk
me:ter, Lat mater, etc.) < *makH2- (comp. OPruss moazo 'mother's
sister', Lith masa 'husband's sister' < *mak'- < *makH2-)
38. IE *bhreH2ter 'brother' < *mregwH2ter (comp. Lith merga 'girl', Gk parthenos 'virgin, girl').
39. IE *seH2wl- 'sun' (Lat so:l, Gk he:lios, Slav *slunice, Lith saule, etc.) ~ IE *swet- 'light' (Hitt siwatt- 'day', Skrt cvetas 'white, shining', Lith sviesti 'shine', sviteti 'glimmer', OH hwiz 'white', Slav sweteti 'shine', *swetu 'light, day', *svetilu 'shiny, bright', Russ svetilo 'sun, moon') < *sewtH2l- < *swetH2l-.
38. IE *bhreH2ter 'brother' < *mregwH2ter (comp. Lith merga 'girl', Gk parthenos 'virgin, girl').
39. IE *seH2wl- 'sun' (Lat so:l, Gk he:lios, Slav *slunice, Lith saule, etc.) ~ IE *swet- 'light' (Hitt siwatt- 'day', Skrt cvetas 'white, shining', Lith sviesti 'shine', sviteti 'glimmer', OH hwiz 'white', Slav sweteti 'shine', *swetu 'light, day', *svetilu 'shiny, bright', Russ svetilo 'sun, moon') < *sewtH2l- < *swetH2l-.
40. IE *H1enH2ter
'husband's brother's wife' (Gk einater, Lat ianitrice:s, Skrt yatr,
Lith jente, Slav *yentra, Arm niri) ~ *nepo:t 'grandson, nephew',
*nepti- 'granddaughter, niece', Gk anepsios, anepsia 'cousin' <
*H1enepH2ter.