Proto-Indo-European ‘fox’ and the reconstruction of an athematic ḱ-stem (original) (raw)
Related papers
Foreign elements in the Proto-Indo-European vocabulary, 2017
A comparative loanword study The present thesis scrutinizes a number of loan etymologies (135 in total) for PIE lexical items with the aim to establish data available for further elucidation of the prehistoric speech community. Extensive methodological considerations are given in the first chapter, including sources, the problems of identifying points of tangency for extinct languages, and the trichotomy between heritage, borrowings, and chance resemblance that constitutes a central distinction in the science. The remainder of the chapter discusses other sources of information that may contribute to the identification of ancient contact situations, in particular derived linguistic approaches, archaeology, and genetics. Chapters two and three are introductions. The second chapter is a general introduction to the language families and isolates, different from Indo-European, that are treated in the paper. These are NW Caucasian, NE Caucasian, Hurro-Urartian, Kartvelian, Uralic (and Yukaghir), Semitic (and Afro-Asiatic), Sumerian, and finally a short note on isolates, extinct languages, and other language families (Altaic and Dravidian). The third chapter has two components. It first sets out to provide an overview of proposed homeland theories and their associated loanword components, treating the Pontic-Caspian Steppes, Central Asia, Anatolia, and Transcaucasia. The second half introduces affinity and adstrate theories connecting PIE with other language families. In addition to the families mentioned in chapter two, a short note on macro-families is added at the end. All of these are included to familiarize the reader with the context in which most loanword etymologies have been proposed. The next two chapters constitute the core of the thesis and discusses previously proposed evidence of borrowings and, occasionally, genetic affinity. Chapter four is a wordlist of 131 individual etymologies (4 are reserved for the treatment of numerals). Each entry provides the standard IE etymology and suggested external comparanda before a discussion attempts to establish the plausibility of external relations. Chapter five is basically an extension of the wordlist, but treats the numerals in sequence to explore their mutual relationship. Chapter six analyses the consequences of the etymologies in the previous chapters. A few correspondences are best categorized as older than PIE and are presented as possible evidence of more profound relations. While emphasis is on borrowings from external sources, a short note is also given on the stratificational implications of loanwords in the opposite direction. Borrowings are then arranged according to the internal stratification of PIE, after which discussions of the source languages follow. The items are finally divided into semantic spheres to analyze the systemic implications of borrowings into PIE. The present study concludes that PIE shows signs of extensive borrowing from neighboring languages, and further that some of these are part of broader developments in the speech community, most saliently the formation of the decimal system, the transition to agriculture and adoption of domesticated animals, and ultimately external marriage alliances. The hope is that the concise treatment of this phenomenon will contribute the increased use of borrowings and their descriptive powers as evidence of features in PIE. Download at www.loanwords.prehistoricmap.com where you’re also invited to add comments. Note that the interactive parts of the page pend further work (blame it on the day job and small children) Loanwords in PIE - a new methodological approach, including 135 proposed borrowings and semantic field analyses. Semitic, Uralic and Caucasian comparanda. MA thesis and prize paper
Hipponyms in Indo-European: using register to disentangle the etyma
Journal of Language Relationship, 2021
What was the distinction between the *márkos and *h 1 ékwo-etyma for horse in Indo-European? It is argued that the distinction could be explained by a register based hierarchy that is likely to have existed in the proto-language. There is good evidence for the *h 1 ékwo-reflex being used in Göttersprache like semantic associative networks. The *h 1 ékwo-word is associated with the divine and appears in lexically identical poetic formulae and fixed locutions. On the basis of the multiple terms for horse in a number of the IE daughter languages, it is likely there was more than one term for horse in the IE period. A differentiation on the basis of register may have been a possibility, even at this early stage.
The origin of the Proto-Indo-European comparative suffix (with Turkic and Uralic parallels)
Lingua Posnaniensis 60.2, 2018
The article deals with the origin of the Proto-Indo-European comparative suffix. It is claimed that the morpheme in question, reconstructed here as *-i̯ōs < *-i̯o-os, evolved in predicatively used *-s-stem nominals. It is also claimed that the first component of the complex *-i̯o-os is the allomorph *-i̯o- of the verbal suffix *-i̯e/o-. Both intrasystemic and typological parallels indicate that the verbal component could originate from intransitive change-of-state verbs. It is suggested that the ablaut varieties of the comparative suffix and the frequent predesinential extensions are due to independent inflectionalization in various post-Proto-Indo-European dialects.
Comments on Proto-Uralic Etymology: Derivations and Lexemes
This article consists of two sections: in the first section, I provide additional evidence of the proposition made in Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte (Aikio) 2012 that derivational suffixes prevented the secondary lengthening of low vowels in Proto-Finnic when preceded by a single voiced consonant in an e-stem word. I will argue for this restriction by discussing the etymology of Estonian mäletama 'to remember'. In the second section, I suggest a new interpretation for the etymologies of Proto-Finnic *nälvä 'slobber' and Proto-Uralic *tulka 'wing, feather' as well as new etymologies for Finnish muikea 'sour', muju 'smile', muikku 'vendace (Coregonus albula)' and muisku 'kiss' deriving from Proto-Uralic *muja 'to become happy; happiness, smile'.
The Proto-Indo-European ū-stems on the basis of Slavic, Indo-Iranian and Greek
2020
The *-uH-stems present a problematic category in Proto-Indo-European, not only in view of their scarcity, but also their derivational characteristics-or, as it turns out, lack thereof-and ablaut paradigm. This study examines the ū-stems on the basis of these three parameters in the branches in which they are best represented: Slavic, Indo-Iranian and Greek. The results of the study suggest that the ū-stems had their origin in root nouns with root-final *-uH and that they were probably a recent creation within Proto-Indo-European. In support of this conclusion, a new etymology is proposed for PIE *su̯ eḱruH-'mother-in-law', as a compound of su̯ e-'own' and *kruH-'blood'. Seen in this light, this compound may have formed the nucleus for the creation of the ū-stems in Indo-European.
FOURTEEN INDO-EUROPEAN ETYMOLOGIES IN HONOUR OF KLAUS KARTTUNEN
Pūrvāparaprajñābhinandanam. East and West, Past and Present. Indological and Other Essays in Honour of Klaus Karttunen, 2010
My academic career in comparative Indo-European linguistics began with Classical Philology (Greek and Latin) and Indo-Iranian languages (Sanskrit and Avestan). In this regard I have much common in with Klaus Karttunen, my former teacher and a supervisor of my dissertation, now celebrating his 60th birthday. It is my utmost pleasure to contribute to this volume a paper on Indo-European etymologies, related in various ways to Italo-Greek and Indo-Iranian, and dedicate it to Klaus Karttunen. 1
Proto-Indo-European *-l-stems revisited
2023
In this paper, I propose to have another critical look at a still unresolved sore spot in Indo-European nominal morphology: the possibility that Indo-European had an ablauting class of athematic *-l-stems in addition to other consonant stems. The most compelling evidence for the existence of such a class comes from Anatolian and Tocharian, the two branches believed to have split off first. However, the viability of these reconstructions has been called into question in recent years.
Sorin Paliga, Lexikon proto‑borealicum et alia lexica etymologica minora [2007]
Fundația „Evenimentul”, București, 2007
Cuvânt înainte Volumul de fa!" este al patrulea din seria ini!iat" în 2006 de Editura Funda!iei Evenimentul, cu sprijinul generos al Rosal Grup, f"r" de care nu ar fi putut vedea lumina tiparului în condi!ii grafice deosebite. Astfel, am reu#it s" adun"m, în patru volume succesive, ceea ce a# considera opera lingvistic" major": 1. Lexiconul etimologic al elementelor autohtone (traco!dace) ale limbii române, în contextul în care mo#tenirea arhaic" înc" nu #i!a g"sit locul cuvenit în lucr"rile dedicate istoriei limbii române; 2. $ influen!ele romane #i preromane (trace, ilire) asupra limbilor slave de sud; 3. aproape toate studiile majore de lingvistic" #i de antropologie, publicate-de!a lungul anilor-în diverse reviste de specialitate, din !ar" #i de peste hotare. Acest al patrulea volum cuprinde, în primul rând, lexiconul proto!boreal, elaborat pe baza materialului oferit de lingvistul rus Nikolaj Dmitrievi% Andreev, cu multe adnot"ri #i complet"ri, mai ales referitoare la mo#tenirea traco!dac" a limbii române. Acest lexicon completeaz", în fapt, primul volum al acestei serii. Ipoteza lui Andreev nu este nici nou", nici original": cândva, în preistorie, va fi fost un conglomerat etno!lingvistic, numit conven!ional proto!boreal, din care, ulterior, s!au dezvoltat limbile indo!europene, limbile uralice #i limbile altaice, probabil #i limba coreean". Bojan &op (Slovenia) #i Illi%-Svity% (Rusia, Uniunea Sovietic" pe atunci) luaser" în considera!ie o asemenea ipotez", ca s" nu mai amintesc de ipoteza lui Delitzch, avansat" pe la final de secol XIX, care sugera o înrudire primordial" dintre limbile indo!europene #i limbile semite (ipotez" neconfirmat", deocamdat" cel pu!in). Nimeni îns" nu a reu#it, în opinia noastr", s" adune un material a#a de vast #i a#a de conving"tor cum a f"cut Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 8 N. D. Andreev. Consecin!ele pentru studierea preistoriei europene sunt extraordinare: înrudirea dintre limbile indo!europene face parte dintr!o "înrudire etno!lingvistic"" mult mai ampl" a majorit"!ii limbilor vorbite în spa!iul euro!asiatic. Am prezentat lucrarea, într!o form" abreviat", la Congresul Interna!ional al Slavi#tilor, Ljubljana, august 2003; aceast" form" final" a dedic"m viitorului congres interna!ional al slavi#tilor, ce urmeaz" a fi organizat de Universitatea din Skopje, Macedonia, în septembrie 2008. Al doilea lexicon al volumului de fa!" cuprinde o list" neexhaustiv", dar ampl", a elementelor autohtone ale limbii române care fac dovada existen!ei unei spirante velare (unii lingvi#ti prefer" s" o numeasc" laringal") în limba traco-dac". Odat" acceptat" existen!a acestui fonem specific, consecin!ele pentru studierea mo#tenirii autohtone se pot modifica radical. Al treilea lexicon cuprinde ceea ce noi consider"m a fi cele o sut! de r!d!cini de baz! ale limbii proto!slave. Este, desigur, o selec!ie subiectiv". Am dorit s" subliniem aici caracterul eterogen a ceea ce se nume#te adesea "limba proto!slav"" sau, mai degrab" incorect, "slava comun"". De fapt, nucleul slav arhaic este bazat, cum încearc" s" arate #i acest lexicon, pe elementele de tip sud!baltic, c"rora li s!au ad"ugat elemente vest iranice #i nord trace (a#a numitele idiomuri proto!slave A, B #i C, respectiv, conform categoriz"rii încercate recent de Aleksandar Loma, tot la amintitul congres interna!ional al slavi#tilor de la Ljubljana) precum #i, ulterior, elemente germanice #i vechi române#ti (protoromâne#ti). În fine, lexiconul minimal al divinit!"ilor lituaniene reia lista publicat", acum ceva ani, ca addendum la traducerea lucr"rii lui Algirdas Julien Greimas, Despre zei !i despre oameni. Fiind primul #i, deocamdat", singurul lexicon mitologic lituanian ap"rut în România, apreciem c" poate fi util unei largi categorii de cititori, fie #i "rupt" de corpul traducerii amintite. Sorin Paliga, iunie 2007 Cuvânt înainte / Foreword __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 9 Foreword This volume is the fourth in the series initiated in 2006 by Evenimentul Foundation Publishers, and with the generous support of Rosal Group, without which these books could not be published in such beautiful conditions. The four volumes gather together what I may label the major linguistic and anthropological works: 1. The Etymological Lexicon of the Indigenous (Thracian) Elements in Romanian, issued at a moment when the archaic heritage of Romanian has not yet found its proper place in the history of the Romanian language; 2. Romance and Pre!Romance (Thracian, Illyrian) influences on South Slavic; 3. Almost all the major studies in linguistics and anthropology, issued over years in various scientific journals, in Romania and abroad. This fourth volume includes, first of all, the Proto!Boreal lexicon, based on the works and analysis of the Russian linguist Nikolaj Dmitrievi% Andreev, with many adnotations and additions, especially referring to the Thracian heritage of Romanian. Thus, this volume complements the first of the series. Andreev's hypothesis is not perhaps new or original: some time in prehistory there must have been an ethno!linguistic group, conventionally labelled Proto!Boreal, out of which the Indo!European, Uralic and Altaic languages later emerged, probably Korean as well. Bojan &op (Slovenia) and Illi%!Svity% (Russia, or Soviet Union at that time) considered such a hypothesis, to say nothing of Delitzch's hypothesis, advanced in the 2 nd half of the 19 th century, which assumed a primordial relationship between the Indo!European and Semitic languages (unconfirmed, at least so far). In our opinion nobody else has succeeded in gathering together such a rich and Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 10 convincing material as Andreev did; and the consequences for the study of European prehistory are outstanding: the Indo!European relationship is just a chapter in a vast and older relationhip of most Euro!Asianic languages.