bomhard - speculations on the prehistoric development of the pie vowel system

7/28/2019 Bomhard - Speculations on the Prehistoric Development of the PIE Vowel System

1/30

SPECULATIONS ON THE PREHISTORIC DEVELOPMENTOF THE PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN VOWEL SYSTEM

1. INTRODUCTION:

ALLAN R, BOMHARDBoston, Massachusetts

The f i r s t attempt to reconstruct the Proto-Indo-European vowel system was made by Schleicher, whose Compendiumder vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachenf i r s t appeared in 1861-62 (fourth and f inal edi t ion, 1876).Schleicher 's (1876:11) system was as follows:

Original First SecondVowel Increment IncrementA. a-grade a a+a a a a + aa == aaB. i-grade i a+ i = ai a + a i ii ic. u-grade u a+uau a + a u = a u

Even though Schleicher's system, which was based upon thatof Old Indic, was able to account for many of the developments found in the daughter languages, there remained manyunsolved problems, and his system did not endure the onslaughts of a series of br i l l ian t discoveries made in theseventies of the l as t century by a new generation of scholars , the so-called "Neogrammarians".

Perhaps the most important discovery of the Neogram-marian period was the "Law of Pala ta ls" , according to whichan original k, for example, developed into c in Old Indicunder the influence of a following *r, or *y. This discovery firmly established the primacy of the vowel systemsfound in the European daughter languages and proved that theIndo-Iranian system had resulted from an innovation in whichor iginal * ~ , *a, and *a had merged into *a. Also importantwas the demonstration that the Indo-European parent languagehad syl labic liquids and nasals .

According to the Neogrammarians (see especially Brugmann 1904:66-90 and Hubschmann 1885), Proto-Indo-Europeanhad the following vowel system:GENERAL LINGUISTICS, vol . 21 , No . 3. Publ i shed by The PennsylvaniaSta te Univer s i ty Press , Univer s i ty Park and London.

164


2/30

A. Vowels: e o a u ae o a i u

B. Diphthongs:

c. Syllabic Liquidsan d Nasals:

ei oi al aiei ol ai

I

eu ou au aueu ou au

During the past half century or so, the Neogrammarianview has been steadily attacked. I t was dealt i t s f i r s tmajor blow in 1927 with Kurylowicz's demonstration that oneof de Saussure's "coefficients sonantiques" was preservedin Hitt i te . In one fe l l swoop, the so-called "original"long vowels (as well as the long syllabic l iquids and nasals)were eliminated as were *a, which was taken to resul t from*e when next to an "a-coloring" laryngeal, and nonapophonic*o, which was taken to result from *e when next to an "a-coloring" laryngeal. The next to go were the diphthongs,which were reanalyzed as clusters of vowel plus resonantand resonant plus vowel (cf. Lehmann 1952:10-14). The independent status of *i and *u had early been questioned byMeillet (1964:118-22), who regarded them as the syllabicforms of *y and *w respectively. Finally, a s t r i c t adherence to Hirt 's ablaut and accentuation theories made i tpossible to eliminate apophonic *o, which was taken to resul t from an earl ier *e when the accent was shif ted fromthe *e to another syllable. By applying a ll of these theor ies , i t became possible to reduce the Proto-Indo-Europeanvowel system to a single member: *e.I t should be made clear that this extreme view was never universally adopted. In fact , i t was vigorously attackedby several scholars, including Jakobsen (1971:528) who soberly noted: "The one-vowel picture of Proto-Indo-Europeanfinds no support in the recorded languages of the world".

In 1967, S z e m e r ~ n y i , relying heavily on typologicaldata to support his arguments, reinstated a l l of the vowelsreconstructed by the Neogrammarians:

a e o u aa e o i c

16 5


3/3016 6

Szemerenyi (1967:97, fn. 91), however, ignores the diphthongs, "whose phonemic status is disputed". I fully support Szemerenyi's views on the vowels -- though not on thediphthongs -- and would reconstruct an identical systemfor the Indo-European antecedent of the non-Anatolian daughte r languages (cf. Bernhard 1979b:72). The following correspondences provide the basis for th is reconstruction (cf.Brugmann 1904:67; Meille t 1964:98-126):

Proto-Indo-European *e *o *a *i *u *aGothic i a i ai u au aOld Ir ish e 0 a i u 0 aLatin e 0 a i u aGreek e; 0 a L u a e:Tocharian B ya- a a e a a i u a aIndo-Iranian a i u i aAlbanian je i e a li i u a liArmenian e 0 a i u aOld Church Slavic e 0 n :C 0Lithuanian e a i u a

Proto-Indo-European *e *5 *a *T *uGothic e 5 el uOld Ir ish j a j uLatin e 5 a T uGreek n w a i: i iTocharian B ye - e a a o a a I u 0Indo-Iranian a T uAlbanian 0 e 0 i yArmenian I u a I uOld Church Slavic e a i yLithuanian e uo 5 5 y u

2. Vowel Gradation:Proto-Indo-European, as also, for example, Proto-Kart

velian, Northwest Caucasian, and Proto-Semitic, was character ized by an interchange of vocalic elements that couldoccur in any syl lable . This interchange, which is commonlycalled "ablaut" or "vowel gradation", was par t ia l ly corre-

0


4/30

lated with the posit ion of the accent and with distinc.tionsbetween grammatical categories (cf. Burrow 1973:108-17).Several gradation series are t radi t ional ly distinguished,and the general scheme may be represented as follows (cf.Brugmann 1904:138-50; Meillet 1964:153-68):

I . SHORT VOWEL GRADATION:Lengthened-Grade

A. e'\,oB. ei "'51

eu " '5uer "' 5rel "'51em"'5men "' 5nc.

D.

I I . LONG VOWEL GRADATION:E.F.G.

Normal-Grade

9"-0el "' oleu " 'ouer " ' orel " ' o lem"-ornen "' ona " ' o

alau

e " -55ii" ' 5

Reduced-Grade

l1l

ur;!gl1l

u

eee

The most common vowel was Ae, and the most common gradation pattern was the *e "' Ao contrast . The vowel Aa was ofrelat ively low s ta t i s t i ca l frequency and, at least accordingto Meillet (1964:154), did not take par t in the regular gradation patterning. I t should be pointed out, however, thatseveral rare examples of an *a "' Ao contrast are attestedin the non-Anatolian daughter languages, one probable example being:

Gk. ciyw "to lead, carry, convey, bring"O.,uos "any straight l ine: a furrow, path, etc."

3. THE LARYNGEALS AND VOWEL GRADATION:In 1878, the young de Saussure reinterpreted the origi

nal long vowels of Proto-Indo-European as sequences of short

167


5/3016 8

vowel plus a following "coeff ic ien t sonantique". Even thoughde Saussure 's theories were overwhelmingly rejected a t f i r s t ,the l a te r discovery of one of his coeff ic ien ts sonantiquesin Hit t i t e proved tha t the essence of his theory was correc t .Briefly s ta ted , the or iginal long vowels came into beingwhen a laryngeal was los t between an immediately precedingshor t vowel and an immediately following nonsyllabic, tha tis to say, the preceding vowel was lengthened to compensatefor the loss of the laryngeal (cf . Kurylowicz 1935:28; Sturtevant 1942:66-71):

e ~ 1 C > ece ~ , c > ace ~ 2 C > ace ~ 3 C > oc

Examples:

A. Hit t . 1 sg. t e - i ~ - ~ i , 3 sg. da-a-i "to put, place", Skt.d&.-dhii-ti "to place", Gk. T C ~ n J l L "to place"< PIE * d h e ~ ~ (cf. Pokorny 1959:235-39; Sturtevant 1942:55 and 66).

B. Hit t . 1 sg . ti-it-ta-mi "to cause to stand, place", Dor.~ a T C i l l t . . "to cause to stand", Lat. stO -are "to stand" *dik- , *weik- > *wik-,*deuk- > *duk-, etc . Schmitt-Brandt thus posi ts *i and *uas independent vowels in Proto-Indo-European and explainsthe full-grade forms in *ei , *eu, etc . as due to analogy.Finally, Schmitt-Brandt (1967:79-91) maintains tha t , in anea r l i e r period of Proto-Indo-European, *i and ** were consonants in thei r own r ight and differed from the independent vowels *i and *u. Somewhat similar views are expressedby Wyatt (1970:58 and fn. 24).

The parts of Schmitt-Brandt 's theories outlined in thepreceding paragraph seem to make a lo t of sense. Other partsof his theories, however, have purposely been l e f t out ofthe discussion since, a t leas t in my opinion, they are notconvincing (see here the review of Schmitt-Brandt 's book by


20/30

Kurylowicz 1969:41-49). On the basis of Schmitt-Brandt 'sarguments, we can thus consider the t radi t ional explanationas being extremely unlikely:

*ei, *oi, *ai reduced to *t*eu, *au, *au reduced to *U

The alternative would be to consider the possibi l i ty thatthe development was reversed:

r "incremented" to *ei, *oi, *ai*U "incremented" to *eu, *ou, *au

The problem is further complicated by the question ofwhat to do with the so-cal led "long diphthong" stems suchas, for example:

A. *dhiii(i)-, *dh-ei-, *dhai-, *dh'i-, *dhiii-, *dha- "to suckle,suck" (cf. Pokorny 1959: 241-42)

B. *kzeu-, *kl.o(u)-, *kl.1- "to wash, cleanse" (cf. Pokorny1959:607).

In any theory attempting to explain the origin and development of the diphthongs within Proto-Indo-European, the long.diphthongs must be taken into consideration as well.

I t has t radit ionally been assumed that pre-AnatolianProto-Indo-European had diphthongs and that these were el i -minated in Proto-Anatolian (cf. Bomhard 1976:202 and 207-08;Kronasser 1956:35-36; Sturtevant 1951:35-36 and 39):

Examples:

PIE *ei, *oi, *ai > Hitt . eliPIE *eu, *au, *au > Hitt . u

A. Hitt. eli *ei, etc. in the non-Anatolian daughter languages:a. Hitt . 3 sg. mid. ki-it-ta(-ri) "l ies"; Pal. 3 sg. mid.

ki-i-ta-ar < PAn. *kita(r) < PIE *kita. But Gk. 3 sg .x t m ~ "lies"; Skt. sete < PIE *keitoi.

b. Hitt. 2 sg. impv. e-!!u "come!"; Pal. 2 sg. impv. i-u

183


21/3018 4

"come here!"; Luw. 3 sg. pret . i- i- ta "went" < PAn.*i- "to come, go" < PIE *Ei-. But Dor. ELTL "goes";OLith. etti; Skt. eti < PIE *Eei-.

B. Hitt . u = *eu, etc. in th e non-Anatolian daughter languages:a. Hit t . 3 sg. pres. Zu-uk-zi "kindles"; Luw. Zu-u-!Ja-a8

(lJ < k [cf. Bombard 1976:204, 5.3F]) "l ight" < PAn.*Zuk- < PIE *Zuk-. But Gk. Auxcis "white" < PIE *Zeuk-.

b. Hit t . nom. sg. i-u-ga-a8 "yoked, one year old" < PAn.*yukas < PIE *yuk'as. But Gk. ~ E i l y o s "yoke, team" and Old Indic (*ei , *oi, *ai > *e and*eu, *ou, *au> *o).

In la ter post-Anatolian Proto-Indo-European, the prevocalic forms (types [c ] and [d] in the chart) were analogically extended to preconsonantal posit ions. Type (a) wasthen reinterpreted as a reduced-grade. The fact that thereis a great deal of variation both among the various non-Anatolian daughter languages as well as within each daughterlanguage seems to indicate that there was some confusionbetween competing forms in la te Proto-Indo-European -- thenewer, analogical forms had not yet completely succeeded inousting the older forms at the time when the individual nonAnatolian daughter languages began to emerge.

185


23/3018 6

I t should be clear that there is no need to reconstructlong diphthong stems for Proto-Indo-European. Stems such as

* d h ~ ( i ) - , *dh-ei- , *dhai-, *dht-, * d h ~ - . *dha- "to suckle,suck" and *kZeu-, *kZo(u)-, *kZii- "to wash, cleanse", ci tedabove, go back to *day-/*day- and * k Z a ~ - / * k Z a ~ - respect ively(in t radi t ional terms *dhei-/*dhoi- and *kZeu-/*kZou-). I tshould also be clear that laryngeals are not needed. Justbecause some original long vowels can plausibly be derivedfrom ear l ier sequences of short vowel plus preconsonantallaryngeal does not necessarily mean tha t aZZ original longvowels had to have such a source. As we have seen, someoriginal long vowels can convincingly be derived from earl i e r diphthongs.

The *a (> *e) ~ *a (> *o) ablaut pat terning must haveassumed an important role in grammatical categorization inthe emerging morphological system of post-Anatolian ProtoIndo-European -- a l l of the older non-Anatolian daughterlanguages a t tes t to this (see, for example, the many com-ments about the role of ablaut in Old Indic mentioned inBurrow 1973). In order to bring stems such as * t ' i k - , * ~ i k - ,*t 'uk- (t radi t ional * d i ~ - , * ~ i ~ - . *duk-), and the l ike intol ine with the * a ~ *a ablaut patterning, *a and *a were inserted before accented *t and

This development was restr icted to certa in specif ic gramma-t i ca l categories (such as, for example, the singular indicat ive act ive verbal forms) -- that is to say, not every accented *t and *I was affected (cf . , for example, forms suchas Skt. nom. sg. agnis "f i re" and sunus "son" or Hit t . nom.sg. 8aZ-Zi-i8 "glorious" and a-a8-8u-u8 ' 'good", which mustalways have had i a n d * ~ ) .

We cannot rule out the possibi l i ty that the creationof secondary diphthongs remained an act ive process over anextended period of time. This would mean tha t some secondary diphthongs would have been formed a t an ear l ier periodand others at a la te r period. Moreover, i t is ent irely poss ible that some of the older secondary diphthongs mighthave developed along the same l ines as the original diphthongs:


24/30

Stage I Stage I I Stage I I IA. CTc CalC CiC

calC CeCB. c5c Ca!!C cue

Ca!!C C5C

Indeed, there is evidence tha t jus t such a development didtake place.

In three roots in Old Indic , there is an apparent alternation between -a- and - t - : khad-/khrd-, 8 a s - ! 8 r ~ - . andsadh-/stdh- (these examples are from Burrow 1979:69-80).The following forms are recorded:

A. (s)khtd-khed-khad-(s)khad-

B. 8 1 : ~ -Bas-sas-

c. si:dh-sedh-sadh-*s'idh-

"to apply force to , crush, press"in various forms, including Ved. kheda"hammer""t o eat, chew"in the action noun khadana-, for example"to order, COIIDII.and, instruct""to direct , bid, order, connnand"in th e past pte. sast&-, for example"to at tain one's aim, succeed, be successful"in conjugation"to go stra ight to any goal or aim; to be successful , succeed, prosper"in Gk. C


25/30

18 8

and (2) khid- and i t s variants may have contained a laryngeal .

The picture is s t i l l not complete, however, for we mustalso consider how the laryngeals f i t into th is scheme. Ihave rel ied heavily on Greenberg (1969:183-84) for guidancein determining the probable developments here.

The loss of laryngeals in sequences such as *eHiC-,*eHuC-, and the l ike resulted in short diphthongs (*eiC-,*euC-, etc . ) -- the preceding vowel def ini te ly was not lengthened. However, the loss of laryngeals in sequences suchas *eHaxc- and the l ike did give r i se to long vowels: f i r s t ,the loss of the intervocalic laryngeal produced a sequenceof two short vowels. Then, these vowels were contracted toform a long vowel.

There is strong evidence tha t laryngeals underwent metathesis in several cases. A good example is Hit t . 3 sg. pres.

Z a - a - ~ u - i , Z a - ( a ~ - ) ~ u - u - w a - i "to pour" from PIE *ZeHw-, withlaryngeal preceding the *w, vs. the post-Anatolian PIE *ZewH-!*ZowH-, with laryngeal following the *w, tha t is needed toexplain the forms in the non-Anatolian daughter languages:Myc. adj. re-wo-te-re-yo /'AEFOTPELor;/ "for bathing", Hom.'AoETp6v "bath", Att. 'Ao6w "to wash, bathe"; Lat. Zavo "towash, bathe"; Arm. Zoganam (< *ZowHye/o-) "to wash". According to Winter (196Sb:l91-92), the sequences *HiC and *Huewere metathesized to *iHC and *uHC respectively. Wintersets up this metathesis to account for the fact tha t thereduced-grades of *eHi and *eHu are (< *iH) and *u (< *uH)respectively. While I agree with the concept of metathesis ,I cannot follow Winter 's theory tha t i t took place in thereduced-grade forms. Rather, I think tha t i t would be sequences of the type *eHyV, *eHwV, and the l ike that wouldtend toward metathesis.

The following char t i l lus t ra tes the major developmentsinvolving laryngeals:

A. eHiC > eiC eHuC > euCoHiC > oiC oHuC > ouCaHiC > aiC aHuC > auC

B. eHyV > eyHV eHwV > ewHVoHyV > oyHV oHwV > owHVaHyV > ayHV aHwV > awHV

c. iHC > uBC > uc


26/30

D. iHV > iyV uHV > uwV

E. eHa:rC > eaXc > ecoHaXC > oaXc > ocaHaXC > aaXc > ii:C

I will close this section by mentioning one l as t point.The numerous cases of vrddhied stems in Old Indic representa contamination of types *CeC- and *CoC- with types *CeyV-/*CoyV- and *CewV-/*CowV-, producing the new types Cay- andcav-. These new types were an Indo-Iranian innovation anddo not go back to Proto-Indo-European.10. NONAPOPHONIC *e AND *o:

Nonapophonic *e may be defined as an *e that does notalternate with an *o in an ablaut re la t ionship, and nonapophonic *o as an *o that does not al ternate with an *e. Nodoubt some examples of nonapophonic *e and *o are due tothe fact that the corresponding ablaut forms, which onceexisted, have simply not been preserved. In several cases ,Hit t i te even provides the missing ablaut forms for what isfound in the non-Anatolian daughter languages. Probableexamples are:

A. Hi t t . ne-ku-U11 "bed-time, evening" vs . Lat . no:r, noatis"night", Goth. nahts, Lith. naktis, e tc . (c f . Pokorny 1959:762-63).

B. Hi t t . ne-ku-ma-an-za "naked" vs. Goth. naqaps "naked", Skt.nagna-s, e tc . (c f . Pokorny 1959:769).

c. Hi t t . E ~ e - e s - t i (= ~ - a s - t i - y a - a s E) "bone 's house, sepulchre", ha-as-ta-(a-)i "bone, skeleton" vs. Gk. oon!ov "bone",Lat. os, Skt. &sthi, e tc . (cf . Pokorny 1959:783).

In each case, Hit t i te preserves the e-grade forms that aremissing in the non-Anatolian daughter languages. Even af terforms such as these are removed, however, there remain manyexamples which are unaccounted for.At leas t some examples of nonapophonic *e and *o mayhave arisen from the influence of a contiguous laryngeal ,speci f ical ly a contiguous "a-coloring" laryngeal. The most

189


27/30190

important point to remember is that a l l "a-coloring" laryngeals were character ized by the feature [low]. I t was thepresence of th is feature that was responsible for the lowering of *a to *a (cf. Colarusso 1981:504-15 for a discussion of typological para l l e l s with Northwest Caucasian developments). We should also expect *i and *u to be loweredwhen next to these laryngeals, and indeed there seems to besome evidence that th is has in fact taken place. A few possible examples are:

A. *Aink- > *Aenk- "to reach, come to , arrive at" (Pokorny 1959:316-18 reconstructs *enek-, *nek-, *enk-, * ~ k - ) : Hit t . 3 sg.

~ i - i n - i k - z i "to present, deliver, offer , al lo t" , Gk. i:vEyMELV"to bear, convey", Skt. almoti "to reach, come to , arr ive a t ,get, gain, obtain; to master, become master of; to offer" .Hit t . ~ i - i n - i k - z i may directly at tes t *Aink-.

B. *AUl- > *Aol- "to destroy" (Pokorny 1959:777 reconstructs*ol-[e]-): Hit t . 3 sg. !Ju-ul-la-a-i "to smite, destroy",Gk. li>.>.iilJL "to destroy", Lat. ab-oleo " to destroy".

C. *Aum- > *AOm- "a l l , whole": Hit t . nom. sg. !Ju-u-ma-an-za"al l , whole 11,, Lat. omnis "all , every, whole".

At a l a te r date, secondary e - or a-grade forms may havedeveloped in accordance with the regular *e ~ *o ablaut pattern (cf. Gk. OYKO(; "bulk, s ize , mass" from the same rootas that in tveyKEi:v "to bear, convey"). Where secondary eor a-grade forms did not develop, we would have examples ofnonapophonic *e or *o, as the case may be.

As in Gothic, *i and *u may also have been lowered to*e and *o respect ively before *r (cf. Colarusso 1975:392-93for a brief discussion of the Gothic developments). Exam-ples are dif f icu l t to come by, and there are even severalgood counter-examples (such as, for instance, * d h ~ ~ r - ,

* d h ~ a r - , *dhur-, * d h ~ : r : - "door" [Pokorny 1959:278-279]). Inspi te of the fact that there are several counter-examples,however, the sequences *ir and *ur were extremely rare a tbest , and this may indicate an early sh i f t of *ir to *erand of *ur to *or. Since the result ing *er and *or couldquite easi ly have been absorbed into the regular *e ~ *oablaut pat tern, i t may be next to impossible to sor t themout from *er and *or derived from other sources -- namely,from *ar and *ar respectively.


28/30

REFERENCES

Arbei tman, YolH and Ayala, Gilbert-James. 1981. "Rhotacism in Hieroglyphic Luwian", in Yoel Arbeitman andAllan R. Bernhard, eds . , Bono Homini Donum: Essays inH i s t o r i c a ~ Linguis t ics in Memory o f J . Alexander Kerns.Amsterdam.Benveniste, Emile. 1935. Origines de formation des nomsen indo-europen. Paris .Bernhard, Allan R. 1975. "An Outline of the Historical Pho-nology of Indo-European", Orbis XXIV/2.Bernhard, Allan R. 1976. "The Placing of the Anatolian Lan-guages", orbis XXV/2.Bernhard, Allan R. 1979a. "Typological Studies and the Ident i f ica t ion of the Indo-European Laryngeals", in BelaBrogyanyi, ed. , Studies in Diachronic, Synchronic, and

T y p o ~ o g i c a Z Linguis t ics: F e s t s c h r i f t for Oswald Szemerenyi . Amsterdam.Bernhard, Allan R. 1979b. "The Indo-European PhonologicalSystem: New Thoughts about i t s Reconstruction and De-velopment", Orbis XXVIII/I.Bernhard, Allan R. 1981. "Indo-European and Afroasiat ic:

New Evidence for the Connection", in Yoel Arbeitmanand Allan R. Bernhard, eds . , Bono Homini Donum: Essaysin H i s t o r i c a ~ Linguis t ics in Memory o f J. A ~ e x a n d e rKerns. Amsterdam.Brugmann, Karl. 1904. Kurze v e r g ~ e i c h e n d e Grammatik derindogermanischen Sprachen. Reprinted 1970. Berlin.Burrow, Thomas. 1973. Th e Sanskr i t Language. 3rd ed.London.Burrow, Thomas. 1979. The Problem o f Shwa in Sanskr i t .Oxford.Chomsky, Noam and Halle, Morris. 1968. The Sound Patterno f E n g ~ i s h . New York.Cohen, David. 1968. "Langues chamito-semitiques", in Le

~ a n g a g e . Encyclopedie de la Pleiade.Colarusso, John. 1975. The Northwest Caucasian Languages:A P h o n o ~ o g i c a ~ Survey. Ph.D. Dissertat ion, HarvardUniversity.Colarusso, John. 1981. "Typological Paral le ls betweenProto-Indo-European and the Northwest Caucasian Lan-guages", in Yoel Arbeitman and Allan R. Bernhard, eds . ,Bono Homini Donum: Essays in H i s t o r i c a ~ Lingu i s t i c sin Memory o f J. A ~ e x a n d e r Kerns. Amsterdam.Couvreur, Walter. 1937. De Het t i t i sche g: Een Bijdrageto t den Studie van het Indo-Europeesche V o c a ~ i s m e .Louvain.Crothers, John. 1978. "Typology and Universals of VowelSystems", in Joseph H. Greenberg, ed. , Universals o fHuman Language. Vol. 2: Phonology. Stanford.Emonds, Joseph. 1972. "A Reformulation of Grimm's Law",in Michael K. Brame, ed. , Contr ibut ions to Generat ive

P h o n o ~ o g y . Austin.Gamkrelidze, Thomas. 1976. "Linguistic Typology and IndoEuropean Reconstruction", in Alphonse Jui l land, ed . ,Lingu i s t i c Studies Offered to Joseph Greenberg. Saratoga.Gamkrelidze, Thomas. 1981. "Language Typology and LanguageUniversals and their Implications for the Reconstructionof the Indo-European Stop System", in Yoel Arbeitman andAllan R. Bernhard, eds . , Bono Homini Donum: Essays in

H i s t o r i c a ~ Linguis t ics in Memory o f J. A ~ e x a n d e r Kerns.Amsterdam.

19 1


29/30192

Gamkrelidze, T. V. and Ivanov, V. V. 1973. "Sprachtypologieund die Rekonstruktion der gemeinindogermanischen Verschliisse", Phonetiaa 27.Greenberg, Joseph. 1966. Language Universals . The Hague.Greenberg, Joseph. 1969. "Some Methods of Dynamic Comparison in Linguistics", in Jaan Puhvel, ed. , Substanae andStruature o f Language. Berkeley and Los Angeles.Greenberg, Joseph. 1970. "Some Generalizations concerningGlottal ics especially Implosives", IJAL 36.Hir t , Hermann. 1921. Indogermanisahe Grammatik I I : Derindogermanisahe Vokalismus. Heidelberg.Hockett, Charles F. 1955. A Manual o f Phonology. Chicago.Hopper, Paul J . 1973. "Glottalized and Murmured Occlusivesin Indo-European", Glossa 7.Hopper, Paul J . 1977. "The Typology of the Proto-Indo-European Segmental Inventory", JIES 5/1.Hiibschmann, Heinrich. 1885. Das indogermanisahe Voaalsystem. Reprinted 1975. Amsterdam.Jakobsen, Roman. 1971. "Typological Studies and thei r Con-t r ibut ion to Historical Comparative Linguist ics", inRoman Jakobsen, Seleated Writ ings . Vol. I , 2nd ed.The Hague. Report in the Firs t Plenary Session of theEighth Internat ional Congress of Linguis ts , Oslo, Au-gust , 1957.Jonsson, Hans. 1978. The Laryngeal Theory: A Cri t iaa l Survey . Lund.Keiler , Allan R. 1970. AEuropean LaryngeaZs.Kronasser, Heinz. 1956.re des Heth i t i sahen .Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1935.Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1956.Wroclaw.

Phonologiaal Study o f the IndoThe Hague.Vergleiahende Laut- und FormenJehHeidelberg.Etudes indoeuropeennes . Krak6w.L'apophonie en indo-europenne.Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1962. L'apophonie en s tmi t ique . Wro-claw.Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1964. The In f l ea t iona l Categories o fIndo-European. Heidelberg.Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1969. Review of Robert Schmitt-Brandt,Die Entwiaklung des indogermanisahen Vokalsys tems,

BSL 63.Lehmann, Winfred P. 1952. Proto-Indo-European Phonology.Austin.Martinet, Andre. 1970.3rd ed. Bern. Eaonomie des ahangements phont iques .Meillet , Antoine. 1964. In troduat ion d l ' t t u d e aomparat ivedes Zangues indo-europtennes . Reprint of 8th edi t ion(1937). University.Moscati, Sabatino, ed. 1964. An In troduat ion to the Com-parat ive Grammar o f the Semi t ia Languages. ~ i e s b a d e n .O'Leary, de Lacy. 1923. Comparative Grammar o f the Semi t iaLanguages. Reprinted 1969. Amsterdam.Pokorny, Jul ius . 1959. Indogermanisahes etymoZogisahesW8rterbuah. Vol. I . Bern.Puhvel, Jaan. 1965. "Evidence in Anatolian", in Werner Win-t e r , ed. , Evidenae fo r Laryngeals . The Hague.Puhvel, Jaan. 1966. "Dialectal Aspects of the AnatolianBranch of Indo-European", in Henkrik Birnbaum and JaanPuhvel, eds . , Anaient Indo-European Dia lea t s . Berkeleyand Los Angeles.Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1965.tat ive Ablaut", Word 21. "The IE Vowel System and Quali-Ruhlen, Merr i t t . 1976. A Guide to the Languages o f the World.Stanford.Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1878. Mmoire sur Ze systbme primi-


30/30

tif des voyeZZes dans Ze s Zangues i n d o - e u r o p ~ e n n e s . Re-printed 1968. Hildesheim.Schleicher, August. 1876. Compendium der vergle iahendenGrammatik der indogermanisahen Spraahen. 4th ed. , reprinted 1974. Hildesheim.Schmalstieg, William R. 1980. Indo-European Lingu i s t ias :A New Syn thes i s . University Park.Schmitt-Brandt, Robert. 1967. Die EntwiakZung des indogermanisahen VokaZsystems. Heidelberg.Sturtevant, Edgar H. 1942. Indo-Hi t t i t e LaryngeaZs. Balt imore.Sturtevant, Edgar H. 1951. A Comparative Grammar o f theHi t t i t e Language. Vol. I , 2nd ed. New Haven.Szemernyi, Oswald. 1967. "The New Look of Indo-European:Reconstruction and Typology", Phonet iaa 17.Szemerenyi, Oswald. 1970. EinfUhrung in die vergZeiahendeSpraahwissensahaft . Darmstadt.Winter, Werner, ed. 196Sa. Evidenae for LaryngeaZs. The

Hague.Winter, Werner. 196Sb. "Tocharian Evidence", in WernerWinter, ed. , Evidenae fo r LaryngeaZs.Wyatt, William F. 1970. Indo-European / a / . Philadelphia.

bomhard - speculations on the prehistoric development of the pie vowel system

Documents