nominal morphology

Nikolaev, A., 2011. Indo-European *dem(h2)- 'to build' and its derivatives. Historische Sprachforschung, 123, p.56-96.Abstract
nikolaev_ie_dem.pdf
The root meaning ‘to build; to amass; to grow’ is customarily reconstructed as *demh2-; this paper examines the evidence pro and contra this reconstruction. In the first part of this paper it is shown that a number of nominal offshoots from this root clearly contradict the reconstruction *demh2-: 1) Gk. δμώς ‘slave’ (not †δαμώς) < *dm-ōu̯-; 2) MIr. dét ‘disposition, habitude’ (not †dmáth / †dmath), MWelsh pl. deint ‘temper, character’ < *dmto-; 3) Hitt. dametar ‘abundance’ (not †dammetar). This paper further addresses the notorious Greek forms δέμας and perf. δεδμᾱ-. For δέμας ‘body’ a reconstruction of a secondary s-stem derivative from a stem with a suffixal *-h2- is suggested: this reconstruction is supported by HLuv. tamiḫit ‘abundance, prosperity’ which matches Hitt. dam(m)etar ‘abundance’ in the meaning and the uniqueness of the suffixal vocalism (vs. usual -atar / -ann in Hittite and -aḫit in Luvian). On the evidence of these forms a hysterokinetic stem *dm ēh2-, *dm-h2-es is reconstructed; this stem is best interpreted as an internal derivative of *dem-h2 , *dm-eh2-s (cf. *k̑er-h2 ‘horn (material)’ → *k̑er-h2-s ( > κέρας) and *k̑r-e:h2 ( > κάρη). Other nominal derivatives of the same root discussed in this paper include Indo-Iranian *dmāna-, n. ‘house, dwelling place’ (analyzed here as a substantivized Romānus-type adjective *dmeh2-no-m), Lat. māteriēs ‘timber’ (traced back to *dmeh2-tes-ih2-, a devī-derivative from *dmeh2-tes- ⇐ *dm-h2-to-) and a very unclear case of Gk. (μεσό)δμη = NPhryg. (ακρο)δμαν. Lastly, reconstruction of an acrostatic stem *domh2- (subst.) can perhaps account for the enigmatic Homeric form δῶ, Myc. do(-de) via *domh2 > *dōm (Szemerényi–Nussbaum’s law) > *dōmh2 (with restored *-h2) > *dō(h2) (Brandenstein’s law). The third part of this chapter investigates the verbal system of the root *dem- and its reflexes in Greek, where we find a confusing picture: middle perfect stem δέδμη- (Ionic-Attic) / δέδμᾱ- (Doric) speaks for *demh2-, Myc. part. fut. de-me-o-te may either be a straightforward case of a “liquid” future, derived from a root *dem-, or continue a root *demh1-, while pres. δέμω, aor. ἔδειμα present a highly atypical Averbo for a root of the structure CeRH-. It is argued that the evidence of Doric δέδμανται and -δμᾱτος in melic poetry, customarily cited as the prima facie evidence in support of a reconstruction *demh2-, is in fact not airtight: δέδμανται (Theoc.15.120) has high chances of being a hyperdoricism created in order to obtain the desired literary effect via a substitution of *dedmę̄- by *dedmā- by proportional analogy: Ionic aor. ἐρρύη (perf. ἐρρύηκα): Doric aor. ἐρρύᾱ = Ionic (δέ)δμη- : X, where Χ is resolved as (δέ)δμᾱ (cf. γεγεναμένον (Pi. O. 6, 53) or μεμενακώς in Archimedes). Lastly, this paper argues that the perfect stem δέδμη- is due to analogy to semantically close verb νέμω ‘to dispense; med. to hold land’ which goes back to a seṭ-root, as can be inferred from Gk. νέμεσις < *nemh1-ti , the accentuation of Latv. (dial.) nemt ‘he takes’ and perf. νενέμημαι from old *ne-nmē- < *ne-nmh1- (with an adjustment of the root ablaut in order to avoid a metathesis to *ne-mnē-). As a result of two analogies, pres. *neme/o-, aor. neme-s-, perf. *ne-nmē- and pres. *deme/o-, aor. *dem-s-, perf. *de-də- evolve into two similar sets of forms: δέμω, ἔδειμα, δέδμημαι and νέμω, ἔνειμα, νενέμημαι.
Nikolaev, A., 2008. Gedanken über ein neues Buch (Review of Paul Widmer, Das Korn des weiten Feldes. Innsbruck, 2004). Acta Linguistica Petropolitana, 4, p.541-570.Abstract
Nikolaev_Gedanken_ueber_ein_neues_Buch.pdf
This review article adresses a number of issues in the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European inflectional and derivational nominal morphology, raised in a recent excellent book by P. Widmer. While this book contains many important insights and astute observations, some of its claims are harder to accept. In particular, contrary to Widmer’s claim, there is no reliable evidence for Schwebeablaut in internal derivation: the reconstruction *h2u̯és-es from which familiar *h2éu̯s ōs ‘dawn’ should have been derived, lacks conviction, since W.’s two pieces of evidence (*h2u̯és-er > Vedic vasar(-hán-) and *h2u̯és-en > Tocharian А wṣe, В yṣiye) are both better explained as delocatival hypostases. Same is true for two other examples, *h3enbh-en- and *g̑héi̯m-en-. Instead, the review article argues that Schwebeablaut, descriptively a marker of PIE locatives with suffixes *-er /*-en /*-el, is in fact due to vrddhi in the root: the morphological operation that inserted an extra full-grade vowel in the root (preferably at a “wrong” place) goes hand in hand with the derivation of locative caseforms in PIE and should be viewed together with lengthened grades in such locatives as *dēm or *pēd. Several other details of morphological reconstruction are critically discussed, such as the accentual difference between Vedic vrṣṇi-, n. and vrṣṇí , m. that purportedly reflects different prehistorical accents of neuter and animate.
Nikolaev, A., 2003. Aind. abda- und Zubehör. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana, 1, p.103-117.Abstract
Nikolaev_Aind._abda.pdf
This paper discusses ἔνθεος-type compounds in Indo-European languages and presents evidence for an archaic type with a zero-grade in the first member (*n̥-): Tocharian omprotärcci, ompalskoññe, Greek ἄκαρος, ἄξυλος, ἀτρύγετος, ἀτενής, possibly Hittite andurza and antuwaḫḫa-/ antuḫša-. Old Indic evidence is discussed in detail: apvā́- ‘panic’ is traced back to *n̥-pu̯-o- (Latin pauor, Old Irish úath); for ádri- a preform *n̥-dr-i- may be suggested under the assumption that the underlying root is *der- 'to split' (cf. Latin saxum and secō); apsarás- < *n̥-pseros- ‘having exhilaration within’. Lastly, it is suggested that the word ábda- ‘year’ goes back to *n̥-pd-o- ‘having foot within’ and continues the same inherited metaphor of ‘running time’ that we find in a number of Indo-European traditions (Latin annus und Gothic Dat. Pl. aþnam vs. Old Indic atasi; Tocharian B lyakur, A lkwär vs. Lithuanian lekiù; Greek ἔτος and Old Irish fethid, etc.).
Nikolaev, A., 2005. К действию закона Рикса в древнегреческом языке (Lex Rix before nasals in Greek). In N. N. Kazansky, et al. Hr̥dā́ mánasā: Studies presented to Professor Leonhard G. Herzenberg on the occasion of his 70th birthday. St.-Petersburg: Nauka, p. 38-72.Abstract
In this paper I suggest that Rix Law was not operative before nasals; instead, a development of word-initial *h1/2/3NC- to ἀC- is advocated. This claim can be supported by quite a few etymologies, some of which were proposed before (such as ἄσις < *h2m̥s-i-, Mycenaean a-i-qe-u < *h2n̥si-, ἄττομαι < *h2n̥t-̯e/o-, ἀδήν < *hxn̥gwen-, ἄορ < *h2n̥s-r̥ or ἀθήρ as opposed to ἀνθέριξ), while others are put forth here for the first time: ἀρετή < *h2n̥r-etéh2 ‘valour, manliness’ (ἀνήρ); ἄχθος < *h1n̥k̑-dh-es- ‘burden’ (ἐνεγκεῖν); ἄτερ < *h2n̥ter (MGerm. ohne). Possible counter¬examples are discussed as well: it appears perfectly possible and even in some cases advantageous from the viewpoint of what we know about PIE morphology to explain all of alleged examples of *h1/2/3NC- > ἐ/ἀ/ὀνC- as formations with full-grade in the root (ἀμφί < *h2entbhi ; ἀμβλύς < *h2emlh2-u- ‘soft’; ἄγγελος < *h2éng̑h1lo- ‘endowed with rapidity’ derived from *h2n̥g̑h1ló- ‘fast’; ἄνθρωπος < *h2endhro-h3kw-o-; ἄμφην ‘neck’ < *h2enghu̯-en ‘what is situated in narrow part [of the body]’. Rix Law thus seems to be confined to the liquid cases only.
Nikolaev, A., 2006. О суффиксе индоевропейских и тохарских причастий (к проблеме звукового развития и.-е. *ĕ > пратох. *'æ). Acta Linguistica Petropolitana, 2(1), p.46-78.Abstract
Nikolaev_Present_participle_in_Tocharian.pdf
This paper addresses a recent proposal made by Svetlana Burlak, according to which Indo-European short /e/ before nt should yield Proto-Tocharian /'æ/ (to result in Toch. A /a/, B /e/). Two main arguments that Burlak cites in support of her sound law are Proto-Tocharian *w'ænte ‘wind’ (A want, B yente) and Tocharian nt-participles, which more often than not show palatalisation of the consonant preceding the suffix * ænt. This paper shows that there are in fact no morphological reasons to assign an e grade to either of the two formations: (1) Proto-Tocharian *w'ænte can easily go back to *h2u̯ḗnto- (after a resyllabification of the original *h2u̯éh1n̥to-); (2) Tocharian present participles reflect the pattern of Indo-European athematic participles, viz. a holokinetic paradigm: in this paradigm no ĕ-grade is involved, with an important exception of locative singular (*-ĕnti), but it is precisely in this form that one should admit the existence of a by-form *-ēnt (possibly to have spread from *h1sent > *h1sēnt with a lengthening in a monosyllabic form). But it is also possible that already in the protolanguage some nt formations with participial value were reshaped due to analogy to hysterokinetic agentive n stems that had Nom. Sg. in *-ēn, hence an apparent reflex of *-ēnt in Tocharian participles / Nomina agentis (this theory would also explain the double nature of deverbal nt-stems in Tocharian). Since a pre-Proto-Tocharian ĕ-grade in the suffix of the word for ‘wind’ or in the -nt-participles is difficult to justify and alternative explanations are available, there is no need to accept a special sound change *ĕ > *'æ / _nt. In the appendix to the paper I discuss the etymology of Tocharian B paṣe ‘hare’ : the recent treatment by Georges-Jean Pinault is critically examined against the background of the more general problem of Hoffmann’s possessive suffix.
Nikolaev, A., 2006. Ἰάονες. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana, 2(1), p.100-115.Abstract
Nikolaev_iaones.pdf
This paper puts forth a new etymology for the name of Ionians. It is suggested that this ethnicon is based on a (self-proclaimed?) assertion of a physical strength and goes back to a preform *wiH-eh2won- (with a dissimilatory loss of the first /w/, the existence of which is now confirmed by the new reading wi-ja-wo-ne KN Wm 1707). The base noun *wiH-eh2 ‘strength’ is related to the root noun *wiH- in Homeric ἶφι, Latin uīs as ἀλκή to Dat. Sg. ἀλκί. In this connection the derivational process that produces possessive nouns in *-won from *-h2- stems (of the type ὀπάων ‘companion’) is discussed. It is suggested that since both *-won-stems and *-h2- stems are substantives, one should assume an adjectival stem *sekweh2-u- ‘having companionship’ as an intermediate stage (probably indirectly reflected in Lithuanian (at)sakõvas); *sekweh2-u- ‘having companionship’ results in *sekweh2-won- ‘that one who has companionship’ by addition of the individualizing Catō-suffix.
Nikolaev, A., 2004. Die Etymologie von altgriechischem ὕβρις. Glotta. Zeitschrift für griechische und lateinische Sprache, 80, p.114-125.Abstract
Nikolaev_Die_Etymologie_von_altgr._hybris_2004.pdf
There is no compelling etymology for Greek ὕβρις (hubris) ‘wanton violence’. Earlier attempts to relate this word to the Indo-European root *gwerh2- 'heavy' are unsatisfactory, as they do not explain the inflection in short -ĭ-; moreover, a preposition ὑ- is not supported by any actual evidence. A different solution can be offered: some Homeric usages of ὕβρις suggests that the original meaning of this word may have been simply ‘physical power’. This paper argues that ὕβρις goes back directly to PIE acrostatically inflected i-stem abstract noun *Hi̯o(H2)gw-ri- ‘might’, internally derived from *Hi̯aH2gw-ro- ‘mighty’ (the root of ἥβη, lith. (pa)-jėgà), with the loss of laryngeal according to the Weather-rule and change of ο to υ in labial environment (Cowgill’s Law).
Nikolaev, A., 2010. Hittite menahhanda. Journal of American Oriental Society, 130(1), p.63-71.Abstract
nikolaev_hittite_menahhanda.pdf
This paper argues that Hitt. mē̆naḫḫanda ‘opposite, against, vis-à-vis’ should be analyzed not as a compound of mē̆na- c. ‘face, cheek’ and ḫant ‘front’, but rather as *mē̆naḫḫ-anda ‘into the face’ (compare the near-synonyms in Lycian ñtewẽ ‘opposite’ < *‘into the eye’ and especially tewe ñte (TL 44a,53) ‘facing’). mē̆naḫḫ is an athematic form made from a root noun *men- (dual *menih1 > Hitt. meni) which goes back to the root *men- ‘to protrude’ (Lat. mentum ‘chin’). It is argued that mē̆naḫḫ is a form of allative, which in Proto-Indo-European had the ending *-eh2 (cf. Lith. žmogùs < *(dh)g̑hmeh2-gwu-, as recently argued by M. Furlan). The postpositional use of anda < *endo is likely to be inherited, cf. OLat. TEDENDO (“Duenos” inscription).
Nikolaev, A., 2009. The Germanic word for ‘sword’ and delocatival derivation in Proto-Indo-European. Journal of Indo-European Studies, 37(3/4), p.461-488.Abstract
Nikolaev_The_Germanic_Word_for_Sword.pdf
There is no compelling etymology for the Germanic word for sword (OHG swert, OE sweord). This paper argues that this word is related to Cuneiform Luvian ši(ḫ)wal ‘dagger’: both words are derived from a stem *seh2u- ‘sharp’ (cf. Cuneiform Luvian šiḫwa- 'sour' < *sēh2u̯o- 'sharp (on the tongue)', Old Irish serb, Welsh chwerw 'bitter' < *s(h2)u̯er-u̯o- 'id.'). Gmc. *su̯erða-n goes back to a substantivized adjective *sh2u̯er-tó- ‘sharp’ (with a loss of the laryngeal already in the protolanguage), derived from a locative *sh2u̯er (compare *ĝhei̯m-ento- ‘wintry’ from *ĝhei̯m-en ‘in winter’).