Does tvátpitāraḥ = εὐπάτωρ? Jesse Lundquist University of California, Los Angeles
[email protected] WeCIEC XXVIII, 11/11/ 2016
§1
Does tvátpitāraḥ = εὐπάτωρ?
1. The standard comparison: Ved. tvátpitāraḥ (nom.pl. in TS) ‘having you as a father’ = Gk. εὐπάτωρ (Aesch.+) ‘having a good father/lineage’. But what does “=” mean here? 2. The standard reconstruction: At an internally reconstructed stage, based primarily on ablaut indices, pre-PIE had accent-and-ablaut templates. [Cf. Clackson (2007:79-89), Fortson (2010:119-22), Meier-Brügger (2010:336-53); on the methodology Hale (2010)]
3. Internal Derivation (i.e. without an overt suffix) would apply from accent-and-ablaut template to template: Hysterokinetic ⇒ Amphikinetic: **ph2 -tḗr ⇒ **-péh2 -tōr, **-ph2 -tr-és. A reflex of this process would be forms like Gk. εὐπάτωρ. The most detailed exposition of this process is Widmer (2004). It is widely accepted. 4. In ID we expect “the ‘promotion’ of the weak stem shape of the basis to strong stem of the derivative” (Nussbaum 2014:239). Can’t be the case here; according to Kim (2013:92-5) we have instead a “default to amphikinetic.” 5. This kind of derived AK inflection is said to be found only in compounds, cf. (Widmer 2004:70); so derivatives /**–péh2 tor, **–ph2 tr-és/ (?) feeds compounds. 6. Formally In order to get the attested stages of the languages, we need to assume the following largescale upheavals between pre-PIE and PIE: • Stage I, pristine pre-PIE: **-péh2 -tōr, **-ph2 -tr-és in compounds. • Stage II, later pre-PIE: **-p(é)h2 tōr, **-p(é)h2 tres. Bidirectional leveling: accent of the strong cases, ablaut of the weak (there is no evidence for expected e-grade root **-péh2 tōr). Desist accentual mobility. • Stage III, PIE: new system of accent assignment emerges, arguably a lexical stress system (see Kiparsky 2010, Yates 2016) • Stage IV, post breakup IE: innovations in accent systems emerge in daughter languages (laws of limitation in Greek; oxytone rule in Vedic? etc.) 7. ID theory is undoubtedly correct that the o-grade in Greek (-πάτωρ) and the process of compounding (εὐ-πάτωρ) are to be united, and it has broadened our knowledge by exploring the interactions of ablaut and compounding; it may be disputed on other grounds.
UCLA WeCIEC 2016
Lundquist ǀ 2
8. Problems in theory The reconstruction of the accent-and-ablaut templates has been seriously challenged in recent years on theoretical and empirical grounds. • Weak evidential basis (Kümmel 2014 on Indo-Iranian, Lundquist 2015, 2016 on Indic and Greek) • Insufficient theoretical underpinning: a system of morphophonology is reconstructed for pre-PIE with no heiress amongst daughter branches, possibly no parallel in languages of the world (Kiparsky 2010, fthcm.; see also Keydana 2005, 2013; Sandell 2014). 9. Fellner and Grestenberger (2016) argue that pre-PIE accent-and-ablaut paradigms should be compared to the “templatic” morphophonology of Semitic. 10. I will not attempt to support or refute the AA paradigms in toto. 20 years ago Watkins (1998:62) concluded his overview of AA paradigms: “The system has been criticized as unnatural on grounds of accent typology, and as overly rigid... the matter is still very much sub iudice.” 11. Today’s question is a different one: How do we explain accent assignment in Vedic compounds and its prehistory? How do we explain accent assignment in Greek compounds and its prehistory? How does accent interact with ablaut in these languages and in their prehistories? 12. On accentuation • I will offer an explanation for Vedic accent and its prehistory (§2) • I will argue that Greek and Vedic converge on evidence that the accent results from an accentual resolution in compounds. • This stage is preserved with greatest fidelity in Vedic, where in exocentric compounds the leftmost accentable domain wins: X́ -X́ ⇒ X́ -X (§2); it has been transformed in Greek by the Laws of Limitation (§3) 13. On ablaut • I will suggest that the comparison Ved. tvátpitāraḥ = Gk. εὐπάτωρ is more complex than the sign “=” lets on: the -ā- of tvát-pitāraḥ is at odds with every form in the chronologically older texts of Vedic, which reflect an ironclad guṇa-grade (< PIE *e-grade) in the compounded kinship terms (-pitar-, -mātar-, -bhrātar-). I will provide a systematic philological assessment of the Vedic material (§4). • I will show that the other IE languages offer only evidence for e-grade in the compounded kinship terms. This fact will allow us to reformulate the equation: How old and how extensive is the o-grade rule? (§5)
§2
Accent in Vedic
14. Accent in Vedic I am not aware of any positive evidence for AK accent in Vedic (I am also not aware of a sustained attempt to work out Vedic accentuation of this class of compounds in the Erlangen model) 15. BV accent in Vedic Pā.6.2.1: bahuvrīhau prakṛtyā pūrvapadam “In a Bahuvrīhi compound the first member (retains) its original accent” [Cf. Aufrecht 1847:11, Wackernagel 1905:§113-5; data for the RV discussed in Melazzo 2010:ch.3-4]. 16. Preserved through derivation is the first member’s accent prakr̥ tyā ‘by nature (prakr̥ ti)’ (Renou 1957: s.v. prakr̥ti, -svara, p.212-3). Behind this word stands an important analysis: the compound is made up of two (or more) words, each of which is accented at a derivational level prior to the finished compound. Arguably the culminative surface accent results from a resolution of these underlying accents; that resolution favors the leftmost domain = the “BAP” (Kiparsky and Halle 1977; Kiparsky 1984, 2010).
UCLA WeCIEC 2016
Lundquist ǀ 3
• Noun-Noun: /dákṣa- + pitár- / ⇒ dákṣa-pitar- ‘whose father is Skill’, /ádri- + mātár-/ ⇒ ádri-mātar- ‘whose mother is the stone’, /bāhú + ójas/ ⇒ bāhú-ojas- ‘whose strength is in his arms, strong-armed’ • Adj.-Noun: /dabhrá + cétas-/ ⇒ dabhrá-cetas- ‘small-witted’ • Preverb-Noun: /prá + śrávas-/ ⇒ prá-śravas- ‘of advancing fame’ • Num.-Noun: /saptá- + mātár-/ ⇒ saptá-mātar- ‘seven-mothered (priestly gift)’ 17. Leftmost resolution arguably of PIE date, since: Vedic’s morphologically governed accent appears most conservative; the same system can be shown to underlie the Greek evidence; no evidence gainsays the reconstruction.
§3
Accent in Greek
18. The Greek evidence appears non-probative for AK accent: BV compounds in Greek are recessive, with a few well defined exceptions; corresponds to first member accent in Vedic [Cf. Vendryes 1904:196-9, Wackernagel 1905:291 §113]. 19. ἀ-πάτωρ ‘fatherless’ or εὐ-πάτωρ ‘having good father(s)’ owe their surface accent in the nom.sg. ONLY to the Law of Limitation; I will argue that the stem-level accent (in stratal terms) is unaccented /a-pator-/ and /eu-pator-/. 20. Laws of Limitation [after Steriade 1988; 2014; overview in Gunkel (2014), further discussion in Probert (2010)] • Law 1: There must be an accent within the trisyllabic window at the right-edge of a word (lexical accents are lost outside this window); nom.pl. eupátores is possible, X eúpatores is not • Law 2: If the final syllable is heavy (VV, VCC, VVC), there must be an accent in the last 2 syllables (lexical accents are lost outside this window); nom.sg. eupáto:r is possible, X eúpato:r is not • Recessive accent: Accent must be located at the leftmost point inside the accentable domain; eupáto:r shows the result of rec. assignment, X eupató:r would not (N.B. there is no constraint against right-edge accent, e.g. adj. in -ρό–; cf. Probert 2006:ch. 6) 21. /-pátor/? Is ἀπάτωρ evidence for /*-pH́ tor-/ (and thereby **–péh2 tor-)? Evidence for persistent accentuation (e.g. nom./acc.sg.neut. X ἀπάτορ) could argue for UR /-pátor/, which could then be lexicalized from (pre-)PIE *-p(é)h2 tōr; but PIE *-p(é)h2 tōr cannot be read off -πάτωρ, because the paradigm is recessive. 22. A form allowing the scope of the accent to be shown undermines the AK claim: ἄπατορ* would be the neut.nom./acc.sg.. Accordingly, the nom.sg. -πάτωρ (ἀπάτωρ, εὐπάτωρ) reflects ONLY the synchronic operation of the recessive accent (leftmost) operating within the law of limitation (where there is a final heavy syllable, accent falls within the 2 syllables at the right edge). 23. Generating SR -πατορ- In the overview below, you can see what steps I am assuming in the derivation. In a stratal approach, deaccentuation of the individual constituents’ accents takes place when the two members are compounded, i.e. any lexical accent is deleted at the stem-level. The unaccented compound emerges from the stem level without an accent which is then assigned, by default, i.e. a recessive accent at the word-level. Accents assigned this way operate with word-level syllabifications (see Kiparsky (2003) for this formulation, with the refinements expressed by Probert (2010)); I will return to the UR below, I am assuming for the moment that at some point the o-grade -pator- is in the derivation. nom.sg.m./f. nom.pl. nom./acc.sg.neut.
UNDERLYING ⇒ STEM LEVEL ⇒ SURFACE /eú + patér-s / eu-pato:r eu.pá.to: εὐπάτωρ /eú + patér-es / eu-patores eu.pá.to.re εὐπάτορες /eú + patér/ eu-pator eú.pa.to εὔπατορ
UCLA WeCIEC 2016
Lundquist ǀ 4
24. Diachronically This class reflects pre-LoL *eú-patōr; to use Brugmann’s (1897:1.502) example: “εὐ-πάτορες aus *εὔπατορες (ai. tvát-pitāras).” 25. Interesting issue: Vedic and PGk. accent is assigned lexically, and the single culminative accent results from resolution, schematically: X́ -X́ > X́ -X. But once the LoL is introduced in Gk., the accent resolution must have been reinterpreted as Rec. within the LoL. How precisely this reinterpretation happened is an unanswered problem– in fact, it is almost an unasked question. [Wheeler (1885:39-55) wrestles with it, inconclusively; cf. Probert (2012) on the similar case of Rec. within finite verbs]
26. Remaining problem BV compounds in Greek are recessively accent, but there is no ancient testimony (known to me at least!) that explicitly discusses this particular class (sonorant stems in -or) – I hasten to add, no contradictory evidence either. That is, I consider the sonorant stems in final -or to be recessive because: recessive accent is regular as a general trait of BV compounds in Greek; and there is no good reason why the stems in -or should be excluded. But I concede that direct positive evidence is not known to me. What evidence I have been able to gather I collate below: • Sch.Il. Γ 182b (Erbse): the scholiast (reflecting Hdn.) only treats n-stems (not -r) like ὀλβιόδαιμον • Ioh. Alex. vel Phil. in Praec. Ton. §§57-9, pp.51-3 (ed. Xenis 2015, a c. 6 CE guide to/ treatise on accent) does discuss polysyllabic stems in -ηρ (including αἰνόπατερ), which retract (ἀναπέμπουσι) the accent; but it is not perfectly clear that his discussion generalizes to compounds in -ωρ. His examples of stems in -ωρ are all unfortunately simplicia and he says that the voc.sg. of the simplex βαρύνεται– while this word may mean “is accented recessively” here, it is not the case that that βαρύτονος (and its derivatives) in the grammatical tradition maps directly onto our concept of “recessive” (cf. Probert 2015:939-41 on the meanings of βαρύτονος) • George Choeroboscus (8/9th CE) in Canones 394 (ed. Hilgard) claims that those who use a recessive accent for the voc.sg. of compounds (just determinatives?) in -ωρ are wrong and should use persistent accent (e.g. he accents παντοκράτορ ‘o almighty God’), whose canon Lentz (1867:p.419, l.15) characteristically composes in his text of Herodian. But it is not clear that Choeroboscus’s comments refer to εὐπάτωρ’s class of compounds, since all his examples are determinative compounds, like παντοκράτωρ. Furthermore, he claims others are wrong who accent παντοκρατορ κτλ. recessively, which means that at least in the 8/9th c. CE, a recessive accent could be heard. And however we interpret this passage, it should be noted that his special doctrine applying to sonorant stems in -or cannot be traced back to antiquity (by me at least!). Consequently we may harbor reservations that it is in fact ancient.
27. Conclusion on Accent There is no direct accentual evidence from Greek, Vedic, or any IE language for the AK hypothesis; it does not prove obviously helpful for explaining the attested accentual systems of either language.
§4
Ablaut in Vedic
28. Vedic would support the Greek evidence for o-grade in the compound tvátpitār- by its long -ā-, which in turn would reflect Brugmann’s Law, so < *-ph2 tor-. But how robust is the Vedic evidence for BL in these forms? • First(?) proposal for the comparison: Leumann and Leumann (1907:101 n.). • Taken up by the magister ipse: Wackernagel (1896:13 §10b), Wackernagel (1905:100-1 §43), Wackernagel and Debrunner (1930:199-201, also 437). • Most clearly in Wackernagel (1905:100-1 §43); he formulates the derivation phonologically: “a syllable with IE *e or an *e-diphthong can get a posttonic o (resp. o-diphthong)” (verbatim “...eine Silbe mit ig. ě oder ě-Diphthong im Nachton ǒ bezw. ǒ-Diphthong erhalten kann.”)
UCLA WeCIEC 2016
Lundquist ǀ 5
29. But already by the publication of the Nachträge, Debrunner (1957a:ad 13.31) registers his discomfort: “dákṣapitārā TB 2,4,6,4 gegen RV. 7,66,2b -pitarā.” 30. And more fully in Debrunner (1957b:32 ad 101.10, 13-15) [See too Kuryl̵owicz (1956:61) and Penney (1978:340-1); already de Saussure (1879:220; but cf. his corrigenda on p.288)]
(1) -pitār- vs. -pitar- matches in Vedic (flg. Debrunner) a. dákṣa-pitāraḥ (TS 1.2.3.1 ) vs. dákṣa-pitaraḥ (MS 1.2.3, Kāṭh. 2.3 (10,3), KapS. 1.16(12, 5)) b. dákṣa-pitārā (TB 2.4.6.4 ) vs. dákṣa-pitarā (RV 7.6.2b) 31. To Debrunner’s picture I add what seems to me a significant criticism: • dákṣa-pitar- is in fact formulaically bound, exactly the same formula sudákṣa- dákṣapitar- in RV and MS vs. TS; • dákṣapitārā in TB occurs in a mantra citation from RV (dákṣapitarā) • Reformulating the AK argument The FORMULA sudákṣa- dákṣapitar-, and in TB the whole verse, was coined as Pre-Vedic *sudákṣa- dákṣapitār-, continued in an independent, parallel tradition of the Taitt. school, while RV and other BYV texts underwent change. Thus we are not dealing with the simpler case where one generally innovative dialect preserves an archaism, since the forms occur in mantra citations. In short, TS would preserve a precious archaism against the innovation of RV and MS– not an argument we are accustomed to making! 32. RV vs. BYV/TS Oldenberg (1888:ch. 3, esp. 294-321) on RV vs. mantra citations in the YV (VS, and MS, KS, TS). Conclusion on the transmission of the YV vs. RV (p. 314), “It is incomparably inferior to the transmission of the Rigveda, and unless there are the most important grounds to compel us to take a different course, it is always the latter from where the treatment of the text should take its start.” [Cf. too his text critical note on RV 7.66.2 in Oldenberg (1912:50, ad loc.); he is echoed by Keith (1914:cxl-iii, §9; and clxiii-iv)]
33. That is, although he is discussing textual criticism not linguistic chronology, his argument seems to preclude that the TS could preserve an archaism in a mantra formula independent of the RV. 34. I have compiled a list of all the kinship terms in compounds found with vr̥ddhi suffix in Vedic, and I place them against their Vedic variants; and for good measure I have compiled a full list of compounded kinship terms in -tarwithin the RV for -pitar-, -mātar-. The evidence is clear: there are NO examples of vr̥ddhi from the RV (and again, accent is on the first member). All RV translations from Jamison and Brereton (2014).
UCLA WeCIEC 2016
Lundquist ǀ 6
(2) sudákṣā dákṣapita/āraḥ (nom.pl.) a. dákṣapitāras, TS 1.2.3.1; Mantra passage in the preparation for the soma sacrifice yé devā ́ mánojātā manoyújaḥ sudákṣā dákṣapitāras té naḥ pāntu té no ’vantu tébhyo námas tébhyaḥ svā ́hā “The gods, mind-born, mind-using, the wise, the sons of wisdom, may they guard us, may they protect us, to them honour! to them hail!” (tr. Keith) b. dákṣapitaras, MS.1.2.3 [= Kāṭh. 2.4.(10.3) = KapS. 1.16.(12.5); cf. Franceschini and Bloomfield (2007:s.m. sudákṣā dákṣapitarah)]: yé devā ́ mánujātā manoyújaḥ sudákṣā dákṣapitaras té no ’vantu té naḥ pāntu | tébhyaḥ svā ́hā (3)
sudákṣā dákṣapitarā (nom.du.) a. dákṣapitārā, TB 2.4.6.4: yā ́ adhāráyanta devā ́ sudákṣā dákṣapitārā / asuryā ̀ya prámahasā // “Whom the gods uphold, the two [M-V] of good skill, whose father is Skill, whose greatness (goes) to lordship.’’ b. dákṣapitarā RV VII.66.2ab (gāy.): yā ́ dhāráyanta devā ́ḥ sudákṣā dákṣapitarā / asuryā ̀ya prámahasā // “Whom the gods uphold, the two [M-V] of good skill, whose father is Skill, whose greatness (goes) forward to lordship.” c. cf. dákṣapitaraḥ, RV VIII.63.10: tád dádhānā avasyávo yuṣmā ́bhʰir dákṣapitaraḥ / syā ́ma marútvato vr̥dhé // “Seeking help as we present this (praise hymn), through you (all) might we have skill as our father for the strengthening of the one accompanied by the Maruts [=Indra].” d. cf. dákṣapitaraḥ, RV VI.50.2: sujyótiṣaḥ sūrya dákṣapitr̥n̄ anāgāstvé sumaho vīhi devā ́n / dvijánmāno yá r̥ tasā ́paḥ satyā ́ḥ svàrvanto yajatā ́ agnijihvā ́ḥ // “O very great Sun, pursue the gods of good light whose father is skill, in (witness to our) blamelessness— they who have two births, the trusty ones who serve the truth, sunlit, worthy of worship, having Agni as their tongue.”
(4) Other example of –pitār- in Vedic a. tvát-pitāraḥ, TS.1.5.10.2 mantra passage: agnír br̥hádvayā viśvajít sáhantyaḥ śréṣṭho gandharváḥ // tvátpitāro agne devā ́s tvā ́māhutayas tvádvivācanāḥ “Irresistible is Agni, the very vigorous, all-conquering, Powerful, the best, the Gandharva. O Agni, the gods have thee for father, offer to thee oblations, and have thee as an umpire” (tr. Keith). (5)
Other compounds in –pitar– and -mātar- in the RV a. mātárā-pitárā, ‘mother-and-father’ (RV IV.6.7) b. ádri-mātaram “whose mother is the stone” (RV IX.86.3ab) c. ihéha-mātarā “with one mother here, one there” (RV VI.59.2cd) d. gó-mātaro “whose mother is a cow [=Maruts]” (RV I.85.3ab) e. pŕ̥śṇi-mātar- “whose mother is Pr̥śṇi” (10x: I.23.10c, I.85.2d, I.89.7a, V.59.6c, VIII.7.3b and VIII.7.17c, IX.34.5b; I.38.4a, V.57.2c and V.57.3c but not a repetition) f. saptá-mātaram “with seven mothers” (X.107.4cd; also saptámātr̥bhis I.34.8ab) g. sam-mātárā “two (cows) with the same mother” (X.117.9ab) h. síndhu-mātā “whose mother is the Sindhu” (VII.36.6ab; also I.46.2a, IX.61.7, X.78.6)
UCLA WeCIEC 2016
Lundquist ǀ 7
35. Do we indeed have Oldenberg’s “weightiest grounds” (“die gewichtigsten Gründe”) compelling us to treat Taitt. forms as eldest? 36. Besides the inner-Ved. chronology, neither compound is likely to represent an archaism: • dákṣa- is IIr., but “weiteres bleibt unklar” (Mayrhofer EWA s.v. dákṣa-, p.690). • tvátpitar-: compositional forms of pronouns in –t/d- are OIA innovations (tvát- AV+), and they are productive [Cf. Wackernagel and Debrunner (1930:437-8, §218e)]
37. In my opinion, the evidence strongly suggests the opposite conclusion (hinted at by Debrunner’s NT): Taitt. vr̥ddhi pro guṇa is not an archaism but a curiosum of the Taittirīya school. 38. Why? Three possible sources of influence: (I.) Inflectional features may not percolate up in exocentric compounds, moved to broader patterns (here, agent nouns in -tār-); cp. Eng. Maple Leafs, sweet-tooths etc. (homely discussion in Pinker 1999:160-7) (II.) Crossover in inflection between agent nouns and kinship terms, cf. clear cases like nápāt- » náptār-am (acc.sg.; Gotō 2013:31-2) (III.) Opacity of BL in Indo-Iran. leads to spreading of ablaut patterns (extensions of inherited ablaut system) • n-stems, e.g. RVic: vŕ̥ṣ-aṇ-am ‘bull’, ukṣ-áṇ-am ‘ox’, r̥ tā ́-vān-am ‘truthful’ vs. vŕ̥ṣ-āṇ-am, ukṣ-ā ́ṇ-am (I.164.43, but = YAv. uxš-ān-əm), OYAv. aṣǎ -uuan-əm; cf. Gotō (cf. 2013:38-42) • *tómos/tomós: bhára- ‘carrying off’, su-bhára-, sam-bhará- ‘bringing together’ vs. bhārá- ‘burden, load’, sam-bhārá- ‘a bringing together’ AV (N.B. -grābhá-, -pāvá-); cf. Tucker (2013) • long V -áya- to seṭ roots: tāráyati ‘makes cross’ (AV), párā bhāvayati ‘makes perish’ (AV) vs. short V -áya- to aniṭ: namáyati ‘makes bow’ (natá-), gamáyati ‘makes go’ (gatá-); cf. Jamison (1983:ch.10) 39. Conclusion It is in the RV, MS, et al. that we should see the inherited archaism. When we turn to the wider IE evidence, we will see that every language except for Greek agrees with the vocalism of the RV.
§5
Ablaut in Greek and IE
40. o-grades There is without doubt o-grade ablaut in early Greek’s kinship terms: • ἀφρήτωρ ‘clanless’ (Hom.Il., exocentric), μητροπάτωρ ‘mother’s father’ (Hom., determinative; see Risch (1974:214)) • εὐπάτωρ ‘having good lineage’ (Aesch.Pers.970, then LXX) • ἀπάτωρ ‘fatherless’ (Soph. and Eur.+) • ma-mo-pa-to-re ma(m)mo-patōr “aïeul maternel” (tr. Egetmeyer; ICS 277.b/c, Golgoi) • ἀμήτωρ ‘motherless’ (Soph. and Eur.+) • παμμήτωρ ‘all-mother’ ([Aesch.?]Pr.90 West, +) 41. e-grades Also fair number of e-grades, generally judged “secondary” (e.g. by Chantraine 1999: s.v. πατήρ): δύσμητερ ‘unhappy mother’ (voc.sg., Od. 23.97), ομοπατηρ... ομοματηρ ‘having the same father, having the same mother’ (IC IV.21.4, Gortyn Law, mid 7-6 BCE; ed. Guarducci), αἰνόπατερ (voc.sg. Aesch.Ch.315), etc.
UCLA WeCIEC 2016
Lundquist ǀ 8
42. Synchronically: It is likely that the variation of e-grade (αἰνοπάτηρ, ὁμοπάτηρ) vs. o-grade (ἀπάτωρ, ὁμοπάτωρ) reflects wavering fidelity to the base form. Where the noun is used as a second member of an exocentric compound, the inflectional features of the base (μήτηρ, πατήρ) may or may not percolate up to the compound. 43. Ablaut in Greek When Aesch. in the Persae (970) has the chorus ask the crushed Xerxes, “where has nobly-born (εὐπάτωρ) Lilaios gone?”, what was his UR? When in the Choephoroi he has Orestes lament Agamemnon with the voc. αἰνόπατερ, whence the e-grade? UNDERLYING ⇒ /pater/? /eú + patér-/ /pator/? /eú + pator-/ [allomorph?] SR -pater /ainó + patér-/
STEM LEVEL ⇒ /eu-pater/ [ablaut? > /eu-pator + s/ ] /eu-pator + s/ /aino-pater/ [no-ablaut?]
SURFACE eu-páto:r εὐπάτωρ, -πάτορος eu-páto:r εὐπάτωρ, -πάτορος ainó-pater αἰνόπατερ (voc.sg.)
44. I do not insist on any one derivation here; I am trying to give some possibilities, and to show that these are unanswered questions which should have a bearing on what we consider an archaic or an innovative form. 45. I am not aware of any strictly comparable data for o-grades in compounded kinship terms in other IE languages (nothing in Tremblay 2003); NIL (Wodtko et al 2008) reconstructs an o-grade in compounds, but in every instance it is entirely based on theory internal presuppositions (i.e. that the compounds are AK). To be clear, I am not saying that o-grade in the compounds is impossible, only that the evidence is more equivocal than would be seen in its usual presentation/ (6) Matches in compounded kinship terms across IE languages a. Hom. ἀφρήτωρ ‘clanless’ = RV. abhrātáraḥ ‘brotherless’ nom.pl. (see below) < *n̥ -bh reh2 terb. ὁμοπάτωρ (Isaeus, Plato+; Cret. ομοπατηρ) vs. OP hama-pitā ‘having the same father’ (indeterminate, only nom.sg., DB 130;) = ON samfeðra = TA ṣoma-pācär (?) < *somo-ph2 ter[(G-J Pinault (p.c. 10/30/16) informs me that there are several parameters which unfortunately conspire to preclude the hapax TA form– only in A 222 a6: (praca)r soma-pâcär (riṣa)kyâp “the brother of the sage (= the Buddha), having the same father (with him)”– from effective use in PIE reconstruction, “and in particular of the specific ablaut of the “suffix” of the second member,” contra NIL’s optimism (s.v. n.32). ]
c. Gk. ἀμήτωρ (Hdt.), παμμήτωρ vs. OIr. senmáth(a)ir = Lith. sénmotė < *seno-meh2 ter- (could be einzelsprachlich) 46. Since the dawn of time attempts have been made to link the o-grade to an environment (accent? presonorant?) or to a chronological age (early? late?). 47. For instance, Jasanoff (1994:164) on 3sg.mid. **-er > *-or, “This change is probably to be explained by positing an inner-IE sound law, the effect of which was to replace word-final post-tonic *-er by *-or (cf. the pattern Gk. πατήρ : εὐπάτωρ).’’ [Cf. ?:57 n.115; an early account is ?: esp. 156; a full-scale treatment is Penney (1978); see now one version in ?:307-20; a sober overview in ?:47,j]
48. de Saussure (1879:217) criticizes relating o-grade to accent: as a Neogrammarian change, no environment has ever been convincingly proposed. . 49. In the case of Greek we find too many o-grades; an ablauting vowel in a BV compounds comes out with an o-grade (φρήν : ἄφρων ‘witless’) [Cf. Penney 1978:219-221; basic data in Schwyzer (1939:355 ad 6b Zusatz 2)].
UCLA WeCIEC 2016
Lundquist ǀ 9
50. Sihler (1995:135) speaks of a “polarization” of ablaut grades as a Greek innovation: where Gk.’s basic form has ablauting -e-, the exocentric derivative will normally have o-grade. [tvátpitāras “occurs in one of the later Vedic collections; its -ā- perhaps points to *-o-, but is far from compelling evidence.”]
51. O-grade rule applied in certain formations in PIE; evidence for its application in kinship terms is limited to Greek; o-grade rule in Greek, especially in exocentric compounds, applies with near-consistent regularity (in all stem classes). 52. Putting the pieces together, I suggest: the o-grade rule was inherited into PGk., extended into all exocentric compounds, including the kinship terms (with variation reflecting synchronic derivation). 53. The conclusion for the point at hand: the accentual evidence for AK inflection from εὐπάτωρ and Ved. tvátpitāraḥ is non-existent; the ablaut evidence for o-grade in Greek is very good (too good in a sense), weak to non-existent in Indo-Iranian, apparently non-existent outside Indo-Iranian. 54. More importantly for my purposes: if we want to explain the accentual system of Vedic or of Greek, the Erlangen paradigms offer little help.
§6
Conclusions
55. Does tvátpitāraḥ = Gk. εὐπάτωρ? In what sense is this an equation? 56. Revised stages of accent and ablaut: • Stage I, PIE level: /X́ + -ph2 tér-/ ⇒ [Leftmost resolution] *X́ -ph2 ter-, *-ph2 tros • Stage II, PGk. ⇒ ehú + patér-es ⇒ /ehú-patéres/ > [Leftmost resolution] *ehú-pateres P-Ved. /dákṣa- + pHtár-as/ ⇒ [L-Res] *dákṣa-pHtar-as • Stage III, Gk. /eú + patér-es/ (or pator-?) ⇒ [Deacc.] /eu-pator-es/ > [Rec./LoL] eupátores Ved. /dákṣa- + pitár-as/ ⇒ dákṣa-pitar-as (RV) [» Taitt. dákṣa-pitār-] 57. Vedic preserves the accentual system better (no surprise: it never innovated the LoL; Probert 2006:86), but does have its own innovations (“oxytone rule”? unaccentable su-, dus-? Cf. Lundquist 2016). 58. My reconstruction does not support the ID reconstruction of HK ⇒ AK, as promulgated by the Erlangen school. 59. Proposal for a better correspondence set: RV abhrātáraḥ = Hom. Gk. ἀφρήτωρ. (7)
abʰrātáro ná yóṣaṇo vyántaḥ patirípo ná jánayo durévāḥ / pāpā ́saḥ sánto anr̥ tā ́ asatyā ́ idám padám ajanatā gabʰīrám // (RV IV.5.5) “(You) pursuing (it [=the hidden word/track]) like brotherless maidens pursuing (men), (you) of evil ways like wives cheating (on?) their husbands, though being wicked, untruthful, untrue, you [=other singers] begot this deep track [/profound word].”
(8) ἀφρήτωρ ἀθέμιστος ἀνέστιός ἐστιν ἐκεῖνος / ὃς πολέμου ἔραται ἐπιδημίου ὀκρυόεντος. (Il.9.63) “Clanless, lawless, hearthless is he / that lusts for chilling war among his own people.” (tr. Watkins 1995:113) 60. Ablaut Now working with the oldest layers, we see once again Hom. Gk. o-grade “corresponds” to RVic guṇa-grade.
UCLA WeCIEC 2016
Lundquist ǀ 10
61. Accent negative prefix *n- is a special and intriguing problem. Kiparsky (2010:172-3) posits a single rule with two realizations: • Gk.: deacc. feeds recessive accent, /a + phré:te:r/ ⇒ a-phre:to:r ⇒ a-phré:to:r (seen also in e.g. thematic σοφός ‘wise’: ἄ-σοφος ‘unwise’) • Ved.: deacc. feeds Vedic’s right-edge default, “oxytone rule” /a + bhrá:tar-/ ⇒ a-bhra:tar- ⇒ abhrātár(seen also in e.g. thematic phála- ‘fruit’ : a-phalá- ‘fruitless’). 62. Maybe. I leave it as an intriguing “correspondence problem.” 63. A broader theoretical argument to pursue: accent is relational within a word, its reconstruction is more akin to historical syntax than to segmental phonology. • Saussure (AdS 376/19, p.37), “Le sujet d’une étude d’accentuation n’est jamais l’accent, mais le rapport qui s’établit entre l’accent et le mot.” (see esp. Petit 2010:148-9) • Kiparsky (2015:82-3). “The locus of morphophonological variation and change are not the word accents themselves but the system which assigns them, comprising the lexically specified accentual properties of morphemes and the rules by which the accent is computed from them in the lexical phonology.”
64. Like historical syntax, the study of diachronic prosody is an exciting field, but in its infancy.
References Aufrecht, Theodor. 1847. De accentu compositorum sanscriticorum. Bonn: König. Brugmann, Karl. 1897. Vergleichende Laut-, Stammbildungs- und Flexionslehre der indogermanischen Sprache. Erster Band: Einleitung und Lautlehre. (2nd edn.) Strassburg: Trübner. Chantraine, Pierre. 1999. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Histoire des mots (2 edn., avec un supplément, CEG). Paris: Klincksieck. Clackson, James. 2007. Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Debrunner, Albert. 1957a. Altindische Grammatik: Nachträge zu Band I. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1957b. Altindische Grammatik: Nachträge zu Band II.1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Egetmeyer, Markus. 2010. Le dialecte grec ancien de Chypre. Berlin / New York: de Gruyter. Erbse, Hartmut. 1969-88. Scholia graeca in Homeri Iliadem (scholia vetera). Berlin: De Gruyter. Fellner, Hannes, and Laura Grestenberger. 2016. Internal Affairs: Akzent-/Ablautklassen und Interne Derivation. Presentation at “Sanskrit und die SprachRevolution: 200 Jahre Indogermanistik” May 17-20, 2016, Jena. Fortson, Benjamin. 2010. Indo-European Language and Culture: an Introduction, 2nd edn. Oxford, U.K. and Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Franceschini, Marco, and Maurice Bloomfield. 2007. An Updated Vedic Concordance : Maurice Bloomfield’s A Vedic Concordance Enhanced with New Material Taken from Seven Vedic texts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gotō, Toshifumi. 2013. Old Indo-Aryan Morphology and its Indo-Iranian Background. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Gunkel, Dieter. 2014. Accentuation. In Georgios Giannakis et al. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics. Vol. 1: A-F, 7–12. Leiden (longer version available online at http://www.indogermanistik.uni-muenchen.de): Brill.
UCLA WeCIEC 2016
Lundquist ǀ 11
Hale, Mark. 2010. Návyasā vácaḥ: To Praise with a Really Old Word. In Ronald Kim, Norbert Oettinger, Elisabeth Rieken and Michael Weiss (eds.), Ex Anatolia Lux: Anatolian and Indo-European Studies in honor of H. Craig Melchert on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, 85–97. Ann Arbor / New York: Beech Stave Press. Hilgard, Alfred. 1889. Theodosii Alexandrini Canones; Georgii Choerobosci scholia; Sophronii patriarchae alexandrini excerpta; recensuit et apparatum criticum indicesque adiecit. vol. 1. Leipzig: Teubner. Hirt, Herman. 1900. Der indogermanische Ablaut: vornehmlich in seinem Verhältnis zur Betonung. Strassburg: Trübner. Jamison, Stephanie. 1983. Function and form in the -áya-formations of the Rig Veda and the Atharva Veda. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Jamison, Stephanie W., and Joel P. Brereton. 2014. The Rigveda: The Earliest Religious Poetry of India. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jasanoff, Jay. 2003. Hittite and the Indo-European Verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jasanoff, Jay H. 1994. Aspects of the Internal History of the PIE Verbal System. In George Dunkel et al. (ed.), Früh-, Mittel-, und Spätindogermanisch. Akten der IX. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, 149–168. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Keith, Arthur Berriedale. 1914. The Veda of the Black Yajus School Entitled Taittirīya Sanhita. Part 1: Kāṇḍas I-III. Harvard Oriental. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Keydana, Götz. 2005. Indogermanische Akzenttypen und die Grenzen der Rekonstruktion. Historische Sprachforschung 118.19–47. ———. 2013. Proterokinetische Stämme, Akzent und Ablaut. In Götz Keydana, Paul Widmer and Thomas Olander (eds.), Indo-European Accent and Ablaut, 31–62. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. Kim, Ronald. 2013. Metrical Grid Theory, Internal Derivation, and the Reconstruction of PIE Nominal Accent Paradigms. In Götz Keydana, Thomas Olander and Paul Widmer (eds.), Indo-European Accent and Ablaut, 63–106. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. Kiparsky, Paul. 1984. A Compositional Approach to Vedic Word Accent. In S.D. J. Joshi (ed.), Amṛtadhārā: Professor Dandekar Felicitation Volume, 201–210. Delhi: Ajanta. ———. 2003. Accent, Syllable Structure, and Morphology in Ancient Greek. In Elizabeth Athanasopoulou (ed.), Selected Papers from the 15th International Symposium on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, 81–106. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. ———. 2010. Compositional vs. Paradigmatic Approaches to Accent and Ablaut. In Stephanie W. Jamison, H. Craig Melchert and Brent Vine (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, 137–181. Bremen: Hempen. ———. 2015. New Perspectives in Historical Linguistics. In Claire Bowern and Bethwyn Evans (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics, 64–102. London / New York: Routledge. ———. fthcm. Accent and Ablaut. In Andrew Garrett and Michael Weiss (eds.), Handbook of Indo-European Studies. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press. Kiparsky, Paul, and Morris Halle. 1977. Towards a Reconstruction of the Indo-European Accent. In Larry Hyman (ed.), Studies in Stress and Accent, 209–238. Los Angeles, CA: USC Press. Kümmel, Martin. 2014. Zum “proterokinetischen” Ablaut. In Norbert Oettinger and Thomas Steer (eds.), Akten der Arbeitstagung: Das Indogermanische Nomen, 164–179. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Kümmel, Martin J. 2012. Typology and reconstruction: The consonants and vowels of Proto-Indo-European. In Benedicte et al. Nielsen Whitehead (ed.), The Sound of Indo-European. Phonetics, Phonemics, and Morphophonemics, 291–329. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum. Kuryl̵owicz, Jerzy. 1956. L’apophonie en indo-européen. Wrocl̵aw: Polska Ak. Nauk. Lentz, August. 1867. Herodiani technici Reliquiae. Collegit, disposuit, emendavit, explicavit, praefatus est Augustus Lentz. Tomus I: praefationem et Herodiani prosodiam catholicam continens. Leipzig: Teubner. Leumann, Ernst, and Julius Leumann. 1907. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der Sanskrit-Sprache. Leipzig: Harrassowitz. Lundquist, Jesse. 2015. On the Accentuation of Vedic -ti-Abstracts. Indo-European Linguistics 3(1).42–72.
UCLA WeCIEC 2016
Lundquist ǀ 12
———. 2016. On the Accentuation of Compound s-Stem Adjectives in Greek and Vedic. In David Goldstein, Stephanie Jamison and Brent Vine (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. Bremen: Hempen. Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1986-2001. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. vol. 1-3. Heidelberg: Winter. Meier-Brügger, Michael. 2010. Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft, 9th edn. Berlin: De Gruyter. Melazzo, Roberta. 2010. I Bahuvrīhi del Ṛg Veda. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft. Nussbaum, Alan. 2014. Greek τέκμαρ ‘sign’ and τέκμωρ ‘sign’: Why both? In Norbert Oettinger and Thomas Steer (eds.), Das Nomen im Indogermanischen, 215–260. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Oldenberg, Hermann. 1888. Die Hymnen des Rigveda: Band I. Metrische und textgeschichtliche Prolegomena. Berlin: Hertz. ———. 1912. R̥ gveda. Textkritische und exegetische Noten: Siebentes biz zehntes Buch. vol. II. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung. Penney, John H.W. 1978. Problems of Greek and Indo-European Ablaut: The Origin and Development of the O-grade. Ph.D. diss., University of Oxford. Petit, Daniel. 2010. New insights on Lithuanian accentuation from the unpublished manuscripts of Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913). Baltic Linguistics 1.143–166. Pinker, Steven. 1999. Words and Rules: The Ingredients of Language. New York: Basic Books. Probert, Philomen. 2006. Ancient Greek Accentuation: Synchronic Patterns, Frequency Effects, and Prehistory. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press. ———. 2010. Ancient Greek Accentuation in Generative Phonology and Optimality Theory. Language and Linguistics Compass 4(1).1–26. ———. 2012. Origins of the Greek Law of Limitation. In Philomen Probert and Andreas Willi (eds.), Laws and Rules in Indo-European, 163–181. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press. ———. 2015. Ancient Theory of Prosody. In Franco Montanari, Stephanos Matthaios and Antonios Rengakos (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Ancient Greek Scholarship, vol. 2, 923–948. Leiden / Boston: Brill. Renou, Louis. 1957. Terminologie grammaticale du sanskrit. (reprinted in one volume). Paris: Champion. Risch, Ernst. 1974. Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache. (2nd edn.) Berlin: De Gruyter. Sandell, Ryan. 2014. Perspectives on the Reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European Accentual System. Presentation handout, Kyoto-UCLA Workshop on Indo-European. de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1879. Mémoire sur le système primitif des voyelles dans les langues indo-européennes. Leipsick: Teubner. Schwyzer, Eduard. 1939. Griechische Grammatik (auf der Grundlage von Karl Brugmanns griechischer Grammatik). Erster Band: Allgemeiner Teil. Lautlehre. Wortbildung. Flexion. München: Beck. Sihler, Andrew. 1995. New Comparative Grammar of Latin and Greek. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press. Steriade, Donca. 1988. Greek Accent: A Case for Preserving Structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19(2).271–314. ———. 2014. A Synchronic Analysis of Ancient Greek Accent. Presentation handout, Harvard University. Tremblay, Xavier. 2003. La déclinaison des noms de parenté indo-européens en -ter-. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft. Tucker, Elizabeth. 2013. Old Persian asabāra– ’horse-borne’, RV kṣirapaká– ’cooked in milk’, and the Restructuring of Vowel Quantities in IndoIranian Thematic Verbal Nouns. In Stephanie W. Jamison, H. Craig Melchert and Brent Vine (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference 2012, 229–242. Bremen: Hempen. Vendryes, Joseph. 1904. Traité d’accentuation grecque. (reprinted with updated bibliography, 1945) Paris: Klincksieck. Wackernagel, Jakob. 1896. Altindische Grammatik, Band I: Lautlehre. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
UCLA WeCIEC 2016
Lundquist ǀ 13
———. 1905. Altindische Grammatik, Band II.1: Einleitung zur Wortlehre, Nominalkomposition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Wackernagel, Jakob, and Albert Debrunner. 1930. Altindische Grammatik, Band III: Nominalflexion, Zahlwort, Pronomen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Watkins, Calvert. 1995. How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European Poetics. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press. ———. 1998. Proto-Indo-European: Comparison and Reconstruction. In Anna Giacalone Ramat and Paolo Ramat (eds.), The Indo-European Languages, 25–73. London/New York: Routledge. Weiss, Michael. 2011. Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin, 2nd (corr. repr.) edn. Ann Arbor / New York: Beech Stave Press. West, Martin L. 1998. Aeschyli Tragoediae, (editio correctior editionis primae) edn. Bibliotheca Teubneriana. Stuttgart / Leipzig: Teubner. Wheeler, Benjamin Ide. 1885. Der griechische Nominalaccent. Strassburg: Trübner. Widmer, Paul. 2004. Das Korn des weiten Feldes: Interne Derivation, Derivationskette und Flexionsklassenhierarchie. Aspekte der nominalen Wortbildung im Urindogermanischen. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft. Wodtko, Dagmar S., Britta Sofie Irslinger , and Carolin Schneider (eds.). 2008. Nomina im Indogermanischen Lexikon. Heidelberg: Winter. Xenis, Georgios (ed.). 2015. Iohannes Alexandrinus: Praecepta Tonica. Bibliotheca Teubneriana. Berlin: de Gruyter. Yates, Anthony D. 2016. Stress assignment in Hittite and Proto-Indo-European. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 1.1–15.
