bomhard - recent trends in the reconstruction of the pie consonant system

7/28/2019 Bomhard - Recent Trends in the Reconstruction of the PIE Consonant System

1/27

Sonderdruck aus

HistorischeSprachforschung

(Historical Linguistics)bisherZeitschrift fiir Vergleichende Sprachforschung

Begriindet von Adalbert Kuhn

In Verbindung mit Claus Haeblerherausgegeben vonAlfred Bammesberger und Gunter Neumann

101. Band (1988)1. Heft

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht in Gottingen und Ziirich


2/27

INHALT

A. R. Bombard, Recent Trends in the Reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European Consonant System ............................... .

H. Katz, Zu den 'r-Endungen' des indogermanischen Verbs . . . . . . . .G. E. Dunkel, Indogermanisch *dt, Vedisch dthn . ................. .E. P. Hamp, Refining Indo-European Lexical Entries ............. .R. Schmitt, Persepolitanisches. V. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E. P. Hamp, The Lydian locative in -A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .H. B. Rosen, Der griechische ,Dativus absolutus" und indogermani-

sche ,unpersonliche" Partizipialkonstruktionen ................ .M. Meier-Briigger, Zu griechisch opyta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .H. Schmeja, Randbemerkungen zu griechischen lnschriften . . . . . . . .H. Rosen, On the Plausibility of Ancient Etymologies ............ .E. B. Holtsmark, On Latin bo: sD. Weber, Die ersten Germanen am Nordufer des Schwarzen Meeres .V. Grinaveckis, Zum Wechsel der Affrikaten c, dz und der Dentale t, d

im Litauischen und seinen Mundarten ....................... .W. Thomas, Tocharisch B orotse-pacere ,Grofl.eltern"? .............. .]. Hilmarsson, West Tocharian lyauto "hole, opening" and related wordsDruckfehlerberichtigung ..................................... .

2265379818992104108116127138

151155166169

Beitriige werden an Prof Dr. Alfred Bammesberger, Richard-StrauR-Str. 48, D-8078 Eichstiitt, oderProf Dr. Gunter Neumann, Thiiringer Str. 20, D-8700 Wiirzburg, erbeten. Professor Neumann redigiert Band 101--103. Besprechungen kiinnen nur solchen Werken zugesichert werden, welche ein

Herausgeber erbeten hat.Gedruckt mit Unterstiitzung de r Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft.

Herstellung: Hubert & Co., GOttingen


3/27

,I

Vom 101. Band an fiihrt diese Zeitschrift den neuen Namen , H i s t o r ~ s c h eSprach/orschung ". Der alte Name wird als Untertitel beibehalten. AlsAbkiirzungssigle schlagen wir HS vor. Die neue Benennung soli Zielsetzung und Thematik noch klarer ausdriicken.

Fur Band 100 hatten uns Freunde und Kollegen mehr Beitrdge eingesandt, als wir in ihm - trotz erhohter Seitenzahl - unterbringen konnten.Sie erscheinen nun in diesem Band, der dadurch noch einmal die internationale Beteiligung am Centennar-]ubildum der Zeitschrift widerspiegelt.

Die Herausgeber


4/27

Recent Trends in the Reconstruction of theProto-Indo-European Consonant System1. Background

At the beginning of this century, there were two main approachesto the reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European phonologicalsystem. These two approaches were manifested in the GermanSchool on the one hand and in the French School on the other. Theapproach of the German School may be described as phoneticallybased, while that of the French School may be described as phonemically based. The work of Brugmann epitomizes the thinking of theGerman School, and the work of Meillet epitomizes that of theFrench School. Brugmann's (1904: 52) reconstruction is as follows:

Monophthongs: a ea eDiphthongs: a eia1 ei

Syllabic Liquids and Nasals:Occlusives: p pht thk kh

q qhqY qYh

shNasals: m nLiquids: rSemivowels: J. '1

0601oi

bdgggYzB.

u ;)i u;) I

rrbhdhghghgYhzhI)

IIau euau eulp I}lp ti(labial)(dental)(palatal)(velar)(labiovelar)ph 0

ou ;JU6uQ IJq

oh

Meillet's system differs from that of Brugmann in several important respects. First, Meillet (1964: 91-95) recognizes only two guttural series:

Except for "Tocharian", which has confused them, each one of the Indo-European languages has two series of phonemes derived from gutturals ...The first series of corresondences establishes the phonemes *k1 *g1 *g1h,which are represented by "gutturals" in Hittite, "Tocharian", Greek, Italic, Celtic, and Germanic, that is to say, outside of Hittite and "Tocharian", in the western group: thus Gk. x, y, z, Lat. c, g, h, etc.; and by affricates, sibilants, or palato-


5/27

..

Recent Trends in the Reconstruction 3alveolar fricatives in Indo-Iranian, Slavic, Baltic, Armenian, and Albanian, that isto say, in an eastern group, thus Arm. s, c, j ...

The second series of correspondences establishes ... [the phonemes] * w, *gw,*gwh. In Hittite and in the western group, these consonants preserve their ancient appearance ... In the eastern group, one finds simple gutturals, [whichhave] become affricates before PIE *e or *i (vowel or consonant) in some ofthe dialects ...

The Indo-European languages are not in opposition here one to one, bu tgroup to group ...

The languages of the type [represented, for example,] by Lat. quis and centumdepict the most ancient state of affairs; for *kw cannot arise from k, and, thoughit is usual to see in the type k then cor c or s r s, an altered form of k, the opposite is not true ...

In addition to these correspondences, which establish [a palatal series and alabiovelar series for Proto-Indo-European], there are other correspondences [inwhich, for example, Skt. k(c) corresponds to Lat. c] ... It has often been concluded from this that Indo-European had a series of pure velars intermediate between the two series established above. But these three types are not found in asingle Indo-European language . .. [What we have here is simply the fact that]the primitive *k of Indo-European was preserved in certain positions and palatalized in others. It is due to this that one observes the fluctuations between *kand *k ' in the so-called ' ~ a t J m " group.

Meillet (1964: 89) also points out the great rarety of *b and(1964: 90-91) of the voiceless aspirates, noting (1964: 91) in particular that the dental voiceless aspirate *th appears often to be the result of aspiration of a plain voiceless dental by a following *a: *t +*a ~ *th, at least in Sanskrit. Particularly noteworthy is Meillet's(1964: 105-26) treatment of the resonants. Here, he considers *iand *u to be the syllabic allophones of *y and *w respectively andclasses them with the resonants *rlr, */If, *mlrp, *nlr;, that is to saythat he does not consider *i and *u to be independent phonemic entities. The diphthongs are analyzed by Meillet as clusters of (A)vowel plus non-syllabic resonant and (B) non-syllabic resonant plusvowel.

As early as 1891, in a paper read before the Societe de Linguistique de Paris, the Swiss scholar Ferdinand de Saussure suggestedthat the voiceless aspirates of Proto-Indo-European might have hada secondary origin, arising from the earlier clusters of plain voicelessstop plus a following "coefficient sonantique". Current thinking onthe part of a great many linguists is that voiceless aspirates shouldnot be reconstructed for the Indo-European parent language, beingsecondarily derived in the daughter languages (cf. Allen 1976:237-47; Bomhard 1979a: 73-74 and 1984: 18-20; Burrow 1973:71-73 and 393; Hiersche 1964; Kurylowicz 1935: 46-54; Lehmann


6/27

4 Allan R. Bomhard1952: 80-84; Polome 1971: 233-51; Sturtevant 1941: 1-11 and 1942:83-86). The main opponent of this view is Oswald Szemerenyi, whohas argued for the reinstatement of the voiceless aspirates and, consequently, for a return to the four-stop system (plain voiceless -voiceless aspirated - plain voiced - voiced aspirated) of the Neogrammarians. The fact, however, that the voiceless aspirates werenot used to mark distinctive contrasts in Proto-Indo-European coupled with the fact that the reflexes of the voiceless aspirates in thedaughter languages can, to a large extent, be plausibly derived fromearlier clusters of plain voiceless stop plus a following laryngealspeak against Szemerenyi's position. In conclusion, it appears highlyprobable that voiceless aspirates were not part of the Proto-IndoEuropean phonemic inventory (cf. Bomhard 1986: 69-70).

With the reduction of the gutturals to two series, the reanalysis ofthe diphthongs as clusters of vowel plus nonsyllabic resonant andnon-syllabic resonant plus vowel, the removal of the voiceless aspirates, and the addition of laryngeals, we arrive at the system of Lehmann (1952: 99):

1. Obstruents: p t k kwb d g gwbh dh gh gwh

2. Resonants: m nw r y3. Vowels: e a 0 e! e a O U4. Laryngeals: X r h

The removal of the voiceless aspirates creates a problem from atypological point of view. Data collected from the study of a greatnumber of the world's languages have failed to turn up any systemsin which voiced aspirates are added to the pair plain voiceless -plain voiced unless there are also corresponding voiceless aspiratesin the system. This is an important point, affecting the entire structure of the traditional reconstruction. Martinet ( 1970: 115) has put itsuccinctly:

A series of the type bh, dh, gh seems only to be attested in languages wherethere also exists a series of voiceless aspirates ph, th, feb.

This is also brought home emphatically by Jakobson (1971 [ 1957]:528):

To my knowledge, no language adds to the pair I t / - !d! a voiced aspirate fdhf


7/27

Recent Trends in the Reconstruction 5without having its voiceless counterpart !thl, while It/, ldl, and lthl frequently occur without the comparatively rare !db!... Therefore, theories operating with thethree phonemes It / - ld l - !db! in Proto-Indo-European must reconsider thequestion of their phonemic essence.

In several instances, scholars have sought typological parallelswith systems such as those found, for example, in Javanese. In theserare systems, there is a three-way c o ~ t r a s t , sometimes described as(1) non-aspirated voiceless, (2) voiced, and (3) "voiced aspirated":f f l - IDI - JDhJ. However, this interpretation is based upon alack of understanding of the phonetics involved. Series (3) in suchsystems is, in reality, voiceless with breathy release- something likeJtfiJ- and not "voiced aspirated" .1)

A few more conservative linguists have questioned the proprietyof using typological data in Historical-Comparative Linguistics,their main argument running somewhat along the lines: "since wecannot possibly know all of the languages that currently exist or thathave ever existed, we cannot say that such and such a type is impossible, unnatural, or has never existed" - that is to say, our "database"of linguistic systems will always be incomplete. Of course, there is noarguing with such a stand. However, these linguists miss an important point: from all of the data that have been collected todate- from an extremely large sample of the world's languages-,there emerge consistent, regular patterns that are repeated overand over again (for examples, cf. Maddieson 1981 and 1984, Ruhlen1976, Trubetzkoy 1969; for analysis, cf. Gamkrelidze 1978). Thereare, to be sure, rare types- typological isolates, so to speak-, butthese are statistically less important. I t is the regular patterning thathas emerged from the analysis of the data from a great number oflanguages that is most important for Historical-Comparative Linguistics. These data are important in two respects: (1) they provide acontrol against which our reconstructions can be evaluated and (2),when part of a system has been reconstructed, they can provide a

1) Szemerenyi (1985 b: 13) cites Blust's description of Barrio Kelabit, which isalleged to contrast T - D - Dh, as a counter-example to Jakobson's observation that" . . no language adds to the pair It/- ld l a voiced aspirate !tit! withouthaving its voiceless counterpart !th! . ." Blust (personal conversation of 29 July1987) informs me that the sounds in question could (using the dental for illustration) be described phonetically as [!!!;h]. Blust derives these sounds from earliersequences of voiced stop plus sibilant. Compare Blust's description of the soundsin question with Ingemann-Yadav's (1978) description of voiced aspirated consonants in Maithili.


8/27

6 Allan R. Bomhardmeans to deduce what the rest of the system might have been like,that is to say, they can be used as a discovery procedure by makinguse of "implicational universals". Concerning the consistent, regularpatterning that has been observed, it should be noted that the basisfor some of this patterning is human physiology, and, in such cases,we can speak of true universals. Given this regular patterning, it isdisturbing when our reconstructions contradict it. To say merelythat "Indo-European was a unique type" or some such statement isthe safe or easy way out and only means that the person makingsuch a statement chooses not to confront the problems involved.The question must be asked "why?". It is worth citing Karl Pribramat this point (cf. Wilber 1982: 19):

Pribram recalls the remark of a pioneer memory researcher, Ewald Hering,that at some point in his life, every scientist must make a decision. "He begins tobe interested in his work and what his findings mean," Pribram said. "Then hehas to choose. I f he starts to ask questions and tries to find answers, to understand what it all means, he will look foolish to his colleagues. On the other hand,he can give up the attempt to understand what it all means; he won't look foolish, and he'll learn more and more about less and less.

"You have to decide to have the courage to look foolish."We should not hesitate to use every means at our disposal to help

us arrive at a realistic reconstruction of the phonological system ofthe Indo-European parent language. Without a doubt, we should befully cognizant of the work of our predecessors and adhere closelyto the time-honored methodologies- the Comparative Method andInternal Reconstruction- that have served Comparative-HistoricalLinguistics well since the days of Bopp, Rask, and Grimm. However,we must not stop here- we must also make full use of recent advances in phonological theory that have broadened our understanding of sound change and of new insights gained from typologicalstudies, and our proposals must be consistent with the data. And, finally, we must practice a little humility, realizing that every theoryhas its advantages and disadvantages: some theories will have oneadvantage, some will have another, some will be patently silly, and soon.

As we have seen from the preceding discussion, Lehmann's reconstruction is problematical from a typological point of view. However, from a structural point of view, it presents an accurate analysisof the Proto-Indo-European phonemic patterning. As recently as1974, such a system was posited by the late Warren Cowgill in his article on Indo-European in the 15th edition of the Encyclopaedia Bri-tannica.


9/27

Recent Trends in the Reconstruction 72. Proposed Solutions

Taking the three-stop system (voiceless unaspirated - voiced unaspirated - voiced aspirated: *t, *d, *dh) as a starting point, JerzyKuryiowicz ( 1964: 13) tried to show that the voiced aspirates werenot phonemically voiced. However, this interpretation seems unlikely in view of the fact that the daughter languages are nearlyunanimous in pointing to some sort of voicing in this series in theIndo-European parent language (for correspondences and examples,cf. Meillet 1964: 86-88). The main exceptions are Tocharian andpossibly Hittite. In each case, it is known that the voicing contrastwas eliminated and that the reflexes found in these daughter languages do not represent the original state. The Greek and Italicdevelopments are a little more complicated: in these daughter languages, the traditional voiced aspirates were devoiced, thus becoming voiceless aspirates. Then, in Italic, the resulting voiceless aspirates became voiceless fricatives:

bh dh gh gwh --+ ph th kh kwh --+ f (}X XwAccording to Eduard Prokosch (1938: 39-41), the voiced aspirates

of traditional grammar were really the voiceless fricatives *qJ, *(), *x,*zw. This interpretation seems unlikely for two reasons: (1) as notedabove, the daughter languages point to voicing in this series inProto-Indo-European, and (2) the daughter languages point to stopsas the original mode of articulation and not fricatives. This latter objection may also be raised against the theory- advocated by AloisWalde (1897:491) and Johann Knobloch (1965:163)-that the voicedaspirates may have been the voiced fricatives */3, *J, * ~ *yw.

Next, there is the theory put forth by Louis Hammerich (1967:839-49) that the voiced aspirates may have been emphatics. Hammerich does not further define what he means by the term "emphatics" but implies that they are to be equated with the emphatics ofSemitic grammar. Now, in Arabic, the emphatics have been describedas either uvularized (cf. Catford 1977: 193) or pharyngealized (cf.Al-Ani 1970: 44-58; Catford 1977: 193; Chomsky and Halle 1968:306). Such sounds are always accompanied by backing of adjacentvowels (cf. Dolgopolsky 1977: 1-13; Hyman 1975: 49; Ladefoged1971: 63-64). In Proto- Indo-European, all vowels were found in theneighborhood of the voiced aspirates, and there is no indication thatany of these sounds had different allophones here than when contiguous with other sounds. Had the voiced aspirates been emphaticssuch as those found in Arabic, they would have caused backing of


10/27

8 Allan R. Bomhardcontiguous vowels, and this would be reflected in the daughter languages in some manner. However, this is not the case. If, on theother hand, the emphatics had been ejectives such as those found inthe Modern South Arabian languages, the Semitic languages of Ethiopia, and several Eastern Neo-Aramaic dialects (such as, for instance, Urmian Nestorian Neo-Aramaic and Kurdistani Jewish NeoAramaic), the question arises as to how these sounds could havedeveloped into the voiced aspirates needed to explain the developments in Indo-Iranian, Greek, Italic, and Armenian.

Oswald Szemerenyi (1967: 65-99) was one of the first to bring typological data to bear on the problem of reconstructing the ProtoIndo-European phonological system. Taking note of Jakobson's(1971 [1957]: 528) remark that

.. . no language adds to the pair I t / - !d! a voiced aspirate !dhf without havingits voiceless counterpart !thl ...

Szemerenyi reasoned that since Proto-Indo-European had voicedaspirates, it must also have had voiceless aspirates. Though on thesurface this reasoning appears sound, it puts too much emphasis onthe typological data and too little on the data from the Indo-European daughter languages. As mentioned above, there are very cogentreasons for removing the voiceless aspirates from Proto-Indo-European, and these reasons are not easily dismissed. Szemerenyi alsotried to show that Proto-Indo-European had only one laryngeal,namely, the voiceless glottal fricative /h/. Szemerenyi's (1967: 96-97)reconstruction in as follows:

p t k' k kwb d g ' g gwbh dh g'h gh gwhph th k'h kh kwhy w I r m n

sh

Szemerenyi's reconstruction is in fact typologically natural, and hehas defended it strongly right up to the present day (cf. Szemerenyi1985 b: 3-15). His system- as well as that of the Neogrammarians, itmay be added- is merely a projection backward in time of the OldIndic phonological system. In certain dialects of "DisintegratingIndo-European", such a system no doubt existed in point of fact.Next, there are the proposals put forth by Joseph Emonds (1972).According to Emonds, the plain voiced stops of traditional ProtoIndo-European are to be reinterpreted as plain lax voiceless stops,


11/27

Recent Trends in the Reconstruction 9while the traditional plain voiceless stops are taken to have beentense and aspirated:

Lehmann Emondsb d g gw p t k kwp t k kw = ph th kh kwh

Emonds regards the voicing of the lax stops as common to a Cen-tral innovating area and the appearance of voiceless stops in Ger-manic, Armenian, and Hittite as relics.

There are other problems with the traditional reconstruction be-sides that of the typological difficulties caused by the removal of thevoiceless aspirates. Another problem, noted in most of the standardhandbooks (cf., for example, Adrados 1975.!: 108; Burrow 1973: 73;Krause 1968: 116-17; Lehmann 1952: 109; Meillet 1964:84 and 89),is the statistically low f r e q u e n ~ y of occurrence-perhaps total ab-sence-of the voiced labial stop *b. We may cite Meillet's (1964: 89)comments on this ~ a t t e r :

b is relatively rare; it does not occur in any important suffix nor in any end-ing; it is secondary in some of the words where it is found, thus Skt. p{biimi "Idrink", Oir. ibim "I drink", Lat. bibi5 (with initial b through assimilation) is anancient form with reduplication in view of Skt. piihi "drink", Gk. Jrf{h, OCS. piti"to drink", Lat. pi5culum "cup"; ... others are imitative, thus Gk. {Ja[J{Ja[Jo;, Lat.balbus, etc.; others are limited to a few languages and give the impression of be-ing recent borrowings.

The marginal status of *b is difficult to understand from a typo-logical viewpoint and is totally unexplainable within the traditionalframework. This problem was investigated in 1951 by the Danishscholar Holger Pedersen. Pedersen noted that, in natural languageshaving a voicing contrast in stops, if there is a missing member in thelabial series, it is /p/ that is missing and not /b/. This observation ledPedersen to suggest that the traditional plain voiced stops mightoriginally have been plain voiceless stops, while the traditional plainvoiceless stops might have been plain voiced stops:

Brugmann Pedersenp t k q qYbdgggY

b d0 tLater shifts would have changed the earlier plain voiced stops into

the traditional plain voiceless stops and the earlier plain voicelessstops into the traditional plain voiced stops. In a footnote in his 1953


12/27

10 Allan R. BarnhardBSL article entitled "Remarques sur le consonantisme semitique",Andre Martinet (1975 [1953]: 251-52, fn. 1) objected to this "musical chairs" rearrangement:

Since there are extremely few sure examples of the Common Indo-Europeanphoneme reconstructed "analogically" as *b, it is tempting to diagnose a gapthere also, as the late Holger Pedersen did in Die gemeinindoeuropiiischen und dievorindoeuropiiischen Verschlusslaute, pp.l0-16. But, instead of assuming, as didPedersen, the loss of a pre-Indo-European *p followed by a musical-chairs[rearrangement) of mediae and tenues, one should be able to see in the series *d,*g, *gw the result of evolution from an earlier series of glottalics, without labialrepresentative.

To my knowledge, this is the first time that anyone had proposedreinterpreting the plain voiced stops of traditional grammar as glottalics. Martinet's observation, however, seems to have influencedneither Gamkrelidze-Ivanov nor Hopper, each of whom arrived atthe same conclusion independently of Martinet as well as of eachother.

In the preceding discussion, only the more well-known counterproposals were mentioned, and only the briefest of explanations andobjections were given. More details could easily have been given. Insights gained from typological studies, for exemple, could have beenused to strengthen the arguments: no phoneme stands alone; it is,rather, an integral part of the total system. Each and every phonemeis tied to the other phonemes in the system by discrete interrelationships- to disturb one phoneme is to disturb (at least potentially) theentire system. This is basically the message that Martinet and Jakobson were trying to bring home. All too often, this message isignored. Moreover, the interrelationships are not only synchronic,they are diachronic as well.

3. The Glottalic TheoryDiscovery- perhaps "rediscovery" would be a better term since

Martinet's insightful remarks first appeared in 1953-of what hascome to be known as the "Glottalic Theory" came from two separatesources, each working independently. On the one hand, the Britishborn American Germanist Paul J. Hopper first hit upon the notionthat Proto-Indo-European may have had a series of glottalized stopswhile he was a student at the University of Texas and taking acourse in Kabardian from Aert Kuipers. Hopper went on aboutother business after graduation, waiting five years before putting his


13/27

Recent Trends in the Reconstruction 11ideas into writing. On the other hand, the Soviet Indo-EuropeanistThomas V. Gamkrelidze, a native speaker of Georgian (a languagecontaining glottalics), had been investigating the typological similarities between Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Indo-European (cf.Gamkrelidze 1966 and 1967). It did not take Gamkrelidze long torealize the possibility that Proto-Indo-European might also havehad glottalized stops. Gamkrelidze, in a joint article with the Russian Indo-Europeanist Vjaceslav V. Ivanov, was the first to make itinto print (Gamkrelidze-Ivanov 1972). Hopper might have beatthem into print had his paper on the subject not been rejected byLanguage. He was then obliged to search for another journal willingto publish his views, which finally happened in 1973. Then, in 1973,Gamkrelidze and Ivanov published a German language version oftheir 1972 paper. The new theory of Indo-European consonantismproposed by Gamkrelidze-Hopper-Ivanov has rapidly gained manyadherents (cf., for example, Birnbaum 1974, 1975 a, 1975 b, 1977;Bomhard 1975,1976,1977, 1979a, 1979b, 1981b, 1981c, 1984; Colarusso 1981; Cowgill 1984; Kortlandt 1978 a, 1978 b, 1978 c, 1980 a,1983 a; Mayrhofer 1983; Miller 1977 a, 1977b; Normier 1977;Vennemann 1984). The originators of the theory have not been idleeither but have published numerous followup works (cf. Hopper1973, 1977a, 1977b, 1981, 1982; Gamkrelidze 1976, 1979, 1981;Gamkrelidze-Ivanov 1972, 1973, and especially 1984).

In his first article, Hopper (1973: 141-66) proposed reinterpretingthe plain voiced stops of traditional Proto-Indo-European- Lehmann's *b, *d, *g. *g ..- as glottalized stops (ejectives), that is ( *p'),*t: *k: *k'w. Hopper's reason for this reinterpretation is that the traditional plain voiced stops

show many of the typological characteristics of glottalized stops (ejectives),e. g. they are excluded from inflectional affixes, they may not cooccur with another in the same root, etc.

Hopper also reinterprets the traditional voiced aspirates as murmured stops. Gamkrelidze-Ivanov (1972: 15-18 and 1973: 150-56)also reinterpret the traditional plain voiced stops as ejectives, but,unlike Hopper, they reinterpret the traditional plain voiceless stopsas voiceless aspirates. They make no changes to the traditionalvoiced aspirates. They point out, however, that the feature of aspiration is phonemically irrelevant in a system of this type. Gamkrelidze's (1976: 403) reconstruction is as follows:


14/27

12 Allan R. Bomhard

I II III(p') bh/b ph/pt' dh/d th/tk' gh/g kh/kk'!! g!!h/gl! k!!h/kl!

According to Gamkrelidze (1981 :607), such a system exists mseveral modern Eastern Armenian dialects.

Gamkrelidze (1976: 403-04) elaborates:The feature of aspiration in a system of this type is in effect phonologically ir

relevant, for the series II and III are opposed not by aspiration but by the featureof voice.The feature of aspiration in the given series emerges as a concomitant phonetic feature of these phonemes characterizing concrete combinatory manifestations of their allophones.

From a strictly phonological point of view these three series could be definedas glottalized - voiced - voiceless. However, the phonetic feature of aspirationis an essential feature of the phonemes of the series in question, accounting fortheir diachronic transformations and ultimate reflexes in historical languages.Phonetic features of phonemes play a special part in diachronic phonemic transformations, and a consideration and description of such features- along withphonologically distinctive features- should become an obligatory principle indiachronic phonology.

Incidentally, it seems to be possible to determine the distributional patterns ofallophonic variations of the phonemes of series II and III.

In particular, when phonemes of series II co-occurred in a root, one of the units was realized as an aspirate, the other as a non-aspirate. Thus, e. g., a root morpheme /*bheJ.!dh-/ would be manifested as [*beJ.!dh-] or [*bheJ.!d-] according tothe paradigmatic alternations of the morpheme. Grassmann's Law should be accordingly interpreted not as a deaspiration rule operating independently in IndoIranian and Greek, but as a rule of allophonic variations, still at the Proto- IndoEuropean level, of the phonemes of series II.The same assumption could easily, and in a natural way, account for the phenomena described by Bartholomae's Law. A morphemic sequence of /*bhudh-/and /*-tho-/ would be realized as [*budh-] + [*-tho-] ~ [*budtho-] (in accordance with the rule of non-cooccurrence in a sequence, either distant or in contact, of two aspirated allophones), this yielding Old Indian buddha, by progressive assimilation on the feature of voice.

Such a system of Common Indo-European stops reconstructed on the basis ofa comparison of the phonemic systems of historically attested Indo-Europeanlanguages with account of the frequency characteristics of universally valid relations of markedness in the phonological system appears to be- unlike the traditionally reconstructed system- in full agreement with both synchronic and diachronic typological evidence. The suggested system appears thus more probablethan the traditionally reconstructed system of Indo-European stops.

This interpretation of the three series of Common Indo-European stops af-


15/27

Recent Trends in the Reconstruction 13fords a natural phonological explanation of the functional weakness of the labialphoneme /p'/ of the glottalized series I in Indo-European, which remained unaccounted for in the traditional theory under the assumption of the feature ofvoice for series I of Indo-European stops.

Under such an interpretation a number of restrictions imposed on the structure of the Indo-European root is given a natural phonetic-typological interpretation. The absence of roots with voiced stops of the *deg-, *ged- type- a factwell known in classical comparative linguistics, but typologically eluding explanation- finds a natural phonetic explanation in the suggested system of ProtoIndo-European stops with the feature of glottalization in series I. In view oftheir articulatory-acoustic peculiarities glottalized stops do not tend to combinewith each other within a root, a phenomenon that may be illustrated on an extensive typological linguistic material (cf. the evidence of Amerindian, African, andCaucasian languages with glottalized consonants).

Many of the points discussed by Gamkrelidze were also noted byHopper, in particular the root structure constraint laws (cf. Hopper1973: 158-61). Hopper also discusses possible trajectories of the newsystem in various Indo-European daughter languages.

The system of Gamkrelidze-Hopper-Ivanov has several clear advantages over the traditional reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European stop system: (1) Their reinterpretation of the traditionalplain voiced stops as glottalics (ejectives) makes it easy to accountfor the fact that the phoneme traditionally reconstructed as *b washighly marked in the system, being characterized by an extremelylow frequency of occurrence (if it even existed at all). Such a low frequency distribution is highly uncharacteristic of the patterning ofthe voiced labial stop /b/ in natural languages having a voicing contrast in stops, but it is fully characteristic of the patterning of the labial ejective /p'/ (cf. Gamkrelidze 1981: 605-06; Greenberg 1970:127). (2) For the first time, the root structure constraint laws can becredibly explained. These constraints turn out to be a simple voicingagreement rule with the corollary that two glottalics cannot cooccurin a root. Hopper (1973: 160) cites Hausa, Yucatec Mayan, and Quechua as examples of natural languages exhibiting a similar constraintagainst the cooccurrence of two glottalics. Akkadian may be addedto this list as well if we take Geer's Law to be a manifestation of sucha constraint (cf. Bombard 1984: 135). (3) The so-called Germanicand Armenian "consonant shifts" ("Lautverschiebungen"), which canonly be accounted for very awkwardly within the traditional framework (cf. Emonds 1972: 108-22), turn out to be mirages. Under therevised reconstruction, these branches (along with the poorly-attested Thracian and Phrygian) turn out to be relic areas.


16/27

14 Allan R. BomhardIn 1984, Gamkrelidze and Ivanov published their long-awaited

joint monograph entitled Indoevropejskij jazyk i indoevropejcy: Rekonstrukcija i istoriko-tipologiceskij analiz prajazyka i protokul'tury(Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A Reconstruction and Historical Typological Analysis of a Protolanguage and a Proto-culture). Asone would expect, this massive work (2 volumes, 1328 pages) contains the most detailed discussion of the Glottalic Theory that hasyet appeared. The book also contains trajectories of the revisedProto-Indo-European phonological system in the daughter languages, an original morphological model of the Indo-European parent language, an exhaustive treatment of the Proto-Indo-Europeanlexicon, and new proposals concerning the original habitat of theIndo-Europeans. An English language verison of this work is currently in preparation. One of the most exciting proposals put forthin the book is that Proto-Indo-European may have had labializeddentals and a labialized sibilant. Gamkrelidze-lvanov also posit postvelars for Proto-Indo-European. Their complete reconstruction is asfollows (cf. Gamkrelidze-Ivanov 1984: 134):

I I I III1. (p') b[h] p[h]2. t' d[h] t[h] t'o d[h] 0 t[hr3. k' g[h] k[h] , g[h] k.[h] k'O g[h]o k[h] 0 s s so4. q' q[h]

I t is not surprising that the new look of Proto-Indo-Europeanconsonantism proposed by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov has a distinctlyCaucasian appearance about it.

The new theory of Proto-Indo-European consonantism has already been used to explain developments within Armenian (cf. Kortlandt 1978a and 1980a), Germanic (cf. Normier 1977; Vennemann1984), and Balto-Slavic (cf. Kortlandt 1978 c) and to suggest distantlinguistic relationship with the Afroasiatic languages (cf. Bomhard1975, 1977, 1981 b, and especially 1984).

There have been several attacks on the Glottalic Theory, namely,by Oswald Szemerenyi (1985b: 3-15), by Szemerenyi's former pupilMichael Back ( 1979), by the Soviet Semiticist Igor M. Diakonoff(1982a and 1982b), and by Hubert Haider (1983). Szemerenyi levelsseveral criticisms against the Glottalic Theory:

1. I t is usually asserted that the prime motive for the assumption of glottalized sounds is the critical position of the M b ... [However, even though] in-


17/27

Recent Trends in the Reconstruction 15itially b is rare, perhaps not to be acknowledged at all ... , internally it is vigorously represented. This means that the very foundation of the glottalic theorybecomes more than somewhat shaky. For even if b should be absent from theanlaut- a phenomenon whose cause would yet have to be discovered- its existence in the inlaut is sufficient to guarantee it for the stop system; and this showsup the typological argument as completely bogus.

2. . .. we must note also that the geographic distribution of glottalized stops isanything but favourable to the assumption of such sounds in Proto-IE. They appear only in the Caucasus, in Africa and in America, that is to say only in areaswhere Indo-Europeans with certainty never lived in ancient times; ...

3. Ejectives are by nature voiceless sounds, in fact strongly voicelesssounds ... And when Hopper (1973: 160) states that 'glottalic stops, being articulated with supraglottal air-stream only, are in a sense outside the voiced/voiceless contrast, and are therefore neutral as to voice' one would like to know howthese sounds were capable of undergoing the numerous changes expected ofthem.

4. The much-vaunted advantage of the new theory, i.e. that it can explainwhy root-structures of the type T-MA and MA-T are prohibited, is an advantagewe can do easily without. It has long been recognized that the simplest explanation of this constraint is in articulatory assimilation. In other words, a sequenceT-MA was assimilated to MA-MA, and MA-T also became MA-MA ...

This old explanation is supported by two further observations. First, roots ofthe structure MA-MA are found in great numbers, which suggests that they haveabsorbed roots of different types. Secondly, the restriction does not apply afterinitial s-, as is shown by, e. g., the frequent type sT-MA, cp. *sleigh- 'ascend'. Theobvious explanation is that the type T-MA which originally had also existed butin consequence of the assimilation to MA-MA disappeared from the system, wasnot assimilated after a prefixed s- (: the so-called s mobile), since the spirant sblocked the development of a second spirant (with h) ...

On close examination, these criticisms are themselves open to critICism:

1. In the first place, the occurrence of one or two or even a handful of examples of medial *b hardly matters from a typological viewpoint. The fact is, even granting the existence of several examples(and not all would agree with the evidence marshalled by Szemerenyi), this sound is still characterized by an unexpected extremelyLOW frequency of occurrence. Many more examples would have tobe adduced before one could consider the traditional *b to be morethan a marginal sound. Furthermore, there is the important observation made by Hopper (1973: 141) that the traditional plain voicedstops "are excluded from inflectional affixes". This is not the wayplain voiced stops pattern in natural languages having such sounds.It is, however, the way glottalics behave.

2. Szemerenyi's second criticism- concerning the geographicaldistribution of glottalics- actually turns out to be a plus for the


18/27

16 Allan R. BomhardGlottalic Theory. If one follows Gimbutas (1970, 1973 b, 1974, 1977,1980), for instance, and identifies the Indo-Europeans with the Kurgan culture, the original (or earliest ascertainable) homeland of theIndo-Europeans would have been to the north of and between theBlack and Caspian Seas. A quick look at a map will show that this isin direct areal contact with Caucasian languages.2) Even if onegrants that the Indo-Europeans originated in Anatolia (as Gamkrelidze-lvanov 1984. II: 895-957 have maintained), they would stillhave been in areal contact with Caucasian languages (as well as withSemitic languages, where glottalics also occur [cf. Bombard 1984:134-38; Dolgopolsky 1977: 1-13], both at the Proto-Semitic level aswell as in several of the daughter languages, including the SouthArabian languages and the Semitic languages of Ethiopia and, mostprobably, Akkadian, Eblaite , Ugaritic, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician). Moreover, Szemerenyi is using present-day geographicaldistribution and not what may have existed, say, 5000 BCE, whenProto-Indo-European was being spoken. This criticism can also beturned against the traditional reconstruction in regards to the voicedaspirates, which currently have an extremely limited geographicaldistribution, being found almost exclusively on the Indian S ~ b c o n t i -nent (although voiced aspirates have also been reconstructed forProto-Chinese). No linguist known to me entertains the thoughtthat the Indo-Europeans originated in India or even any place nearIndia.

3. The question of the development of the glottalics in the daughter languages was dealt with by Bombard (1984: 29):

There is no uniform treatment of the ejectives. The Germanic, Tocharian, andAnatolian developments are straightforward: deglottalization.

In pre-Baltic, pre-Slavic, pre-Celtic, and pre-Albanian, the ejectives may bepresumed to have passed through the following progression: glottalized ..._.creaky voice ..._. full voice:

p' t' k' ..... g ..... b d gThe resulting sounds merged with the plain voiced stops (the traditional voiced as

pirates). A progression such as that posited here for theses branches is perfectly natural and has parallels in several of the Caucasian languages (cf. Colarusso 1975: 82-83and 1981: 479-80; Gamkrelidze-Ivanov 1973: 154). Also, in the modern South Arab-

2) Particulary worthy of note here are the striking parallels in vowel gradationpatterning and root structure patterning existing between Proto-Indo-Europeanand Proto-Kartvelian (cf. Gamkrelidze 1966 and 1967). At the very least, theseparallels point to a long period of intimate contact betwen these two proto-languages.


19/27

Recent Trends in the Reconstruction 17ian languages, "the post-glottalized (ejective) consonants have partially voiced andmore rarely wholly voiced variants" (cf. Johnstone 1975: 6).

In pre-Greek, pre-Italic, pre-Indo-Iranian, and pre-Armenian, the developmentswere more complicated. First, we must assume that the voiceless aspirates becamephonemic in these branches. Next, the plain voiced stops became voiced aspirates. Finally, in pre-Greek, pre-Italic, and pre-Indo-Iranian- but not pre-Armenian- the ejectives first developed into implosives. These implosives were then deglottalized, leavingplain voiced stops as the result:

p' t' k' ~ B d' g ~ b d gThe ejectives remained in Armenian. -It should be noted that, in opposition to both Gamkrelidze-Ivanov

and Hopper, Bomhard does not posit voiced aspirates for earlierstages of Proto-Indo-European but, rather, views them as laterdevelopments, arising in pre-Indo-Iranian, pre-Greek, pre-Italic, andpre-Armenian, that is to say; they are seen as dialectal developmentsand not as pan-Indo-European. Be that as it may, the most important point made by Bomhard is that ejectives can develop into plainvoiced stops, and there are several ways in which this can happen.Moreover, such shifts must be assumed for other languages families(Caucasian, Afroasiatic, etc.) besides Indo-European, thus providingtypological parallels for the Indo-European developments.3) Regarding the changes Bomhard posits for pre-Indo-Iranian, pre-Greek,and pre-Italic, namely, ejective ....,. implosive ....,. voiced stop, noteMartinet's (1970: 113, 4.28) observation that ejectives can developinto implosives through a progressive anticipation of the voice of afollowing vowel, thus:

p' t' k' ~ 0 d' IfWithin Afroasiatic, such a shift must be posited for Chadic if

Newman (1977: 9, 2.1) is correct in his reconstruction of a series ofimplosives for Proto-Chadic.

3) To illustrate the types of changes glottalics can undergo, the developmentsfound in the Afroasiatic daughter languages may be looked at in greater detail.The following developments are attested (using the dentals for purposes of illustration): (1) deglottalization *t ' ~ t (Neo-Aramaic dialect of Tiir-'Abd'in); (2)voicing *t ' ~ *tj ~ d or *t ' ~ *t l (*rf' *rj.) ~ d (the Cushitic languagesAwngi and Galab); (3) retention *t ' t' (modern South Arabian languages andthe Semitic languages of Ethiopia); (4) pharyngealization *t ' t8 , d8 (the Berberlanguages and Arabic); (5) voicing to implosive *t' ~ *a (Proto-Chadic andProto-East Cushitic); and (6) voicing to retroflex *t' *t! *rf' rj. (Somali).For details on the Afroasiatic developments, cf. Bomhard 1984: 134-38 and Dolgopolsky 1977.


20/27

18 Allan R. Bomhard4. Szemerenyi's final criticism appears to be a misunderstanding.

The root structure constraint explained by the Glottalic Theory isthat which forbids the cooccurrence of two glottalics within a root(cf. Hopper 1973: 158-61, 3.2.6; Gamkrelidze 1976: 404-05 and1981: 608-09). Bombard (1984: 288-89) explains the root structureconstraints as follows:

Proto-Indo-European had constraints on permissible root structure se-quences. These constraint laws may be stated as follows ...

1. Each root contained at least one non-glottalic consonant.2. When both obstruents were non-glottalic, they had to agree in voicing.The Proto-Indo-European root structure constraint laws thus become simply

a voicing agreement rule with the corollary that two glottalics cannot cooccur ina root. Comparison of Proto-Indo-European with Proto-Afroasiatic indicates,however, that the forbidden root types must have once existed. Two rules maybe formulated to account for the elimination of the forbidden types:

1. A rule of progressive voicing assimilation may be set up to account for theelimination of roots whose consonantal elements originally did not agreein voicing: *T - *B - *T - *P, *B - *T - *B - *D, etc.

2. A rule of regressive deglottalization may be set up to account for the elimination of roots containing two glottalics: *K ' - *T- *T - .*K; etc.This rule finds a close parallel in Geers' Law in Akkadian ...

According to Gamkrelidze (1976: 404 and 1981: 608), Bartholomae's Law is alater manifestation of the progressive voicing assimilation rule, applied to contact sequences.

It should be noted that there are several competing theories aboutthe exact make-up of the traditional plain voiceless stops and voicedaspriated stops. Hopper (1973: 141-66), for example, reinterprets thetraditional voiced aspirated stops as murmured stops, making nochanges to the traditional plain voiceless stops. His system is as follows:

Lehmann Hopperp t k kw p k kwb d g gw p' t' k' k'wbh dh gh gwh ~ q

Gamkrelidze-lvanov (1973: 141-66), on the other hand, regardthe traditional plain voiceless stops as voiceless aspirates but makeno changes to the traditional voiced aspirates. They note, however,that the feature of aspiration is phonemically irrelevant in a systemof this type and that the aspirated series can appear either with orwithout aspiration depending upon the paradigmatic alternations ofroot morphemes.

Normier's (1977: 172) system is close to that of Gamkrelidze-lv;l-


21/27

Recent Trends in the Reconstruction 19nov in that he reinterprets the plain voiceless stops of traditionalgrammar as voiceless aspirates, while making no changes to the traditional voiced aspirates. His system is as follows:

- - - - oc5lusivesvoiceless voiced i lot- fricativesaspirated aspirated talizedlabial ph /ph/ bh Ibn! p /p'/dental th lthl dh ldnl ! It'/alveolar Is /velar kh /kh/ gh lgnl ~ /k'/ X lxllabiovelar kwh I\}hi gwh ;sFt; ~ w I!>'I xw I ~uvular qh lqhl Gh /en/ q lq'llaryngeal h In!

Kortlandt (1978 b: 107) proposes the following system:Ienisfortis

aspirateddh

He (1978b: 107-08) notes:

plain glottalicd

Though it would be more correct to write t; t' instead of t, d, dh, I will stickto the traditional transcription. A similar system must be reconstructed for thelabial, postvelar, and labiovelar orders.Bombard ( 1984: 18-20) denies the phonemic status of voiceless as

pirates, while granting that they existed phonetically at the ProtoIndo-European level as non-phonemic variants of the plain voicelessstops. He ( 1984: 31-34) reinterprets the traditional voiced aspiratesas plain voiced stops for pre-divisional Proto-Indo-European, proposing that voiced aspirates developed as a late feature in the "Disintegrating Indo-European" ancestor(s) of pre- Indo-Iranian, preGreek, pre-Italic, and pre-Armenian. He also claims that voicelessaspirates became phonemic in the ancestors of these four branchesprior to the development of a series of voiced aspirates. Finally, he(1984: 74-92) discusses in some detail trajectories of the revisedProto-Indo-European phonological system in the daughter languages.

In a later study, Bombard (1986) reexamines the evidence for thetraditional voiceless aspirates and concludes that there is no basis forreconstructing a separate series of voiceless aspirates for ProtoIndo-European. He then examines the traditional plain (that is, unaspirated) voiceless stops and concludes that Gamkrelidze-Ivanov


22/27

20 Allan R. Bomhardare correct in their reinterpretation of this series as voiceless and aspirated. Moving on to the traditional voiced aspirates, he notes thatthe assumption that this series was both voiced and aspirated at theProto-Indo-European level (at least in the latest stage of ProtoIndo-European, directly preceding the emergence of the non-Anatolian daughter languages) remains the best way to account for thereflexes found in all of the daughter languages taken together. Inthis revised interpretation, Bomhard (following Gamkrelidze-Ivanov) views aspiration as a redundant feature, noting that the phonemes in question could also be realized as allophonic variants without aspiration.

In conclusion, it may be noted that there is a growing concensus(though there are still pockets of resistance) that the plain voicedstops of traditional Proto-Indo- European were glottalics (ejectives).There is still no concensus, however, on the phonemic realization ofthe traditional plain voiceless stops and the traditional voiced aspirates, though many scholars (such as Bomhard, for example) appearto be moving closer to the views of Gamkrelidze-Ivanov here aswell.

ReferencesAdrados, Francisco R(odriguez). 1975: Lingiilstica indoeuropea. Madrid: Gredos.AI-Ani, Salman H. 1970: Arabic Phonology. The Hague: Mouton.Allen, W. Sidney. 1976: "The PIE Aspirates: Phonetic and Typological Factors inReconstruction", in Alphonse Juilland, ed., Linguistic Studies Offered to joseph

Greenberg. Vol. 2. Saratoga, CA: Anma Libri.Back, Michael. 1979: "Die Rekonstruktion des idg. Verschlusslautsystems imLichte der einzelsprachlichen Veranderungen", KZ 93. 179-95.Baldi, Philip. 1983: An Introduction to the Indo-European Languages. Carbondaleand Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Birnbaum, Henrik. 1974: "Pre-Greek Indo-Europeans in the Southern Balkans

and Aegean", JIES 2.361-83.- 1975 a: "Typology, Genealogy, and Linguistic Universals", Linguistics144.5-26.- 1975 b: "Typological, Genetic, and Areal Linguistics", Foundations ofLanguage13.267-91.- 1977: Linguistic Reconstruction: Its Potentials and Limitations in New Perspec

tive. Washington, DC: Journal of Indo-European Studies.Bomhard, Allan R. 1975: "An Outline of the Historical Phonology of Indo-European" Orbis XXIV/2. 354-90.- 1976: "The Placing of the Anatolian Languages", Orbis XXV/2. 199-239.- 1977: "The Indo-European/Semitic Hypothesis Reexamined", JIES 5/1.55-99.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ - - - - - - - - -


23/27

Recent Trends in the Reconstruction 21- 1979a: "The Indo-European Phonological System: New Thoughts about itsReconstruction and Development", Orbis XXVIII/1. 66-110.- 1979 b: "Typological Studies and the Identification of the Indo-European Laryngeals", in Bela Brogyanyi, ed., Studies in Diachronic, Synchronic and Typolog

ical Linguistics: Festschrififor Oswald Szemerenyi. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.- 1981 a: "Implications of 'Rhotacism in Hieroglyphic Luwian"', in Yoel L.Arbeitman and Allan R. Bomhard, eds., Bono Homini Donum: Essays in HistoricalLinguistics in Memory o f f Alexander Kerns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.- 1981 b: "Indo-European and Afroasiatic: New Evidence for the Connection",in Yoel L. Arbeitman and Allan R. Bomhard, eds., Bono Homini Donum: Essays in Historical Linguistics in Memory o ff Alexander Kerns. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.- 1981 c: "A New Look at Indo-European", ]IES 9. 3/4.332-37.- 1984: Toward Prato-Nostratic: A New Approach to the Comparison o f Proto-Indo-European and Proto-A/roasiatic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.- 1986: "The Aspirated Stops of Proto-Indo-European", Diachronica III/1.67-79.

Brugmann, Karl. 1904: Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischenSprachen. Reprinted 1970. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.- and Berthold Delbriick. 1897-1916: Grundri.fi der vergleichenden Grammatik derindogermanischen Sprachen. 2nd ed. Reprinted 1967. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Burrow, Thomas. 1973: The Sanskrit Language. 3rd ed. London: Faber and Faber.Catford, John C. 1977: Fundamental Problems in Phonetics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Chomsky, Noam and Morris Halle. 1968: The Sound Pattern of English. NewYork, NY: Harper and Row.Colarusso, John Joseph, Jr. 1975: The Northwest Caucasian Languages: A Phonological Survey. Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University.Colarusso, John. 1981: "Typological Parallels between Proto-Indo-Europeanand the Northwest Caucasian Languages", in Yoel L. Arbeitman and Allan R.Bomhard, eds., Bono Homini Donum: Essays in Historical Linguistics in Memoryo f f Alexander Kerns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Cowgill, Warren. 1984: Review of Yoel L. Arbeitman and Allan R. Bomhard,eds., Bono Homini Donum: Essays in Historical Linguistics in Memory off. Alex-ander Kerns, Kratylos 29.1-12.Diakonoff, Igor M. 1982 a: "0 prarodine nositelije ie. dialectov I", VDI1982/3. 3-30.- 1982 b: "0 prarodine nositelije ie. dialectov II", VDI 1982/4. 11-25.Dolgopolsky, Aharon. 1977: "Emphatic Consonants in Semitic", Israel OrientalStudies VII. 1-13.Emonds, Joseph, 1972: "A Reformulation of Grimm's Law", in Michael K.Brame, ed., Contributions to Generative Phonology. Austin, TX: University ofTexas Press.Forest, R. A. D. 1965: The Chinese Language. London: Faber and Faber.

Gamkrelidze, Thomas V. 1966: "A Typology of Common Kartvelian", Language42.69-83.- 1967: "Kartvelian and Indo-European: A Typological Comparison of Reconstructed Linguistic Systems", in To Honor Roman ]akobson. Vol. I. TheHague: Mouton.


24/27

22 Allan R. Barnhard- 1976: "Linguistic Typology and Indo-European Reconstruction", in Alphonse

Juilland, ed., Linguistic Studies Offered to Joseph Greenberg. Vol. 2. Saratoga,CA:. Anma Libri.- 1978: "On the Correlation of Stops and Fricatives in a Phonological System",

in Joseph H. Greenberg, ed., Universals ofHuman Language. Vol. 2. Stanford,CA: Stanford University Press.- 1979: "Hierarchical Relationships of Dominance as Phonological Universalsand their Implications for Indo-European Reconstruction", in Bela Brogyanyi,ed., Studies in Diachronic, Synchronic and Typological Linguistics: Festschrift forOswald Szemerenyi. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

- 1981: "Language Typology and Language Universals and their Implications forthe Reconstruction of the Indo-European Stop System", in Yoel L. Arbeitmanand Allan R. Barnhard, eds., Bono Homini Donum: Essays in Historical Linguistics in Honor of . Alexander Kerns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

- and Vjaceslav V. Ivanov. 1972: "Lingvisticeskaja tipologija i rekonstrukciasistemy indoevropejskix smycnyx", in Kon/erencija po Sravnitel'no-IstoriceskojGrammatike Indoevropejskix fazykov, Pradvaritel'nye Materialy ("LinguisticTypology and the Reconstruction of Indo-European Occlusives", in WorkingPapers of the Conference on the Comparative-Historical Grammar of the IndoEuropean Languages, Preliminary Material). Moscow: Nauka.

- and Vjaceslav V. Ivanov. 1973: "Sprachtypologie und die Rekonstruktion dergemeinindogermanischen Verschltisse", Phonetica 27.150-56.

- and Vjaceslav V. Ivanov. 1984: Indoevropejskij jazyk i indoevropejcy: rekonstrukcija i istoriko-tipologiceskij analiz prajazyka i protokul'tury (Indo-European andthe Indo-Europeans: A Reconstruction and Historical Typological Analysis of aProtolanguage and a Proto-culture). Tbilisi: Publishing House of the TbilisiState University.Georgiev, Vladimir. 1984: "Die drei Hauptperioden des Indoeuropaischen", Diachronica I/1. 65-78.

Gimbutas, Marija. 1970: "Proto-Indo-European Culture: The Kurgan Cultureduring the Fifth, Fourth, and Third Millennia B.C.", in George Cardona,Henry M. Hoenigswald, and Alfred Senn, eds., Indo-European and Indo-Europeans. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

- 1973 a: "Old Europe c. 7000-3500 B.C.: The Earliest European Civilization before the Infiltration of the Indo-European Peoples", JIES 111. 1-20.- 1973 b: "The Beginning of the Bronze Age in Europe and the Indo-Europeans", JIES 112.163-214.

- 1974: "An Archaeologist's View of PIE in 1975", f!ES 2/3.289-307.- 1977: "The First Wave of Eurasian Steppe Pastoralists into Copper Age Eu-

rope", JIES 5/4.277-338.-1980: "The Kurgan Wave #2 (c. 3400-3200 B.C.) into Europe and the Following Transformation of Culture", JIES 8. 3/4.273-315.- 1982: "Old Europe in the Fifth Millennium B.C.: The European Situation on

the Arrival of the Indo-Europeans", in Edgar C. Polome, ed., The Indo-Europeans in the Fourth and Third Millennia. Karoma Publishers, Inc.Greenberg, Joseph H. 1970: "Some Generalizations concerning Glottalic Consonants especially Implosives", IJAL 36. 123-45.

- ed. 1978: Universals ofHuman Language. 4 vols. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.


25/27

Recent Trends in the Reconstruction 23Haider, Hubert. 1983: ,Der FehlschluB der Typologie", Acten 10. Osterrei

chischen Linguistentagung (1982), 79-92.Hammerich, Louis L. 1967: "Ketzereien eines alten Indogermanisten", in To

Honor Roman fakobson. Vol. II. The Hague: Mouton.Haudry, Jean. 1979: L'indo-europeen. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Hiersche, Rolf. 1964: Untersuchungen zur Frage des Tenues Aspiratae im Indoger

manischen. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Hopper, Paul J. 1973: "Glottalized and Murmured Occlusives in Indo-Euro

pean", Glossa 7.141-66.- 1977 a: "The Typology of the Proto-Indo-European Segmental Inventory",

f!ES 5/1.41-53.- 1977 b: "Indo-European Consonantism and the 'New Look"', Orbis XXVI/

1.57-72.- 1981: '"Decem' and 'Taihun' Languages: An Indo-European Isogloss", in Yoe!

L. Arbeitman and Allan R. Bomhard, eds., Bono Homini Donum: Essays in Historical Linguistics in Memory of . Alexander Kerns. Amsterdam: John Benjamms.

- 1982: "Areal Typology and the Early Indo-European Consonant System", inEdgar C. Polome, ed., The Indo-Europeans in the Fourth and Third Millennia.Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma Publishers.

Hyman, Larry M. 1975: Phonology: Theory and Analysis. New York, NY: Holt,Rinehart, and Winston.

Ingemann, Francis and Ramawatar Yadav. 1978: "Voiced Aspirated Consonants", in Donald M. Lance and Daniel E. Gulstad, eds., Papers/rom the 1977Mid-American Linguistics Conference. Columbia, MO: University of MissouriPress.

Jakobson, Roman. 1971 (1957): "Typological Studies and their Contribution toHistorical Comparative Linguistics", in Roman Jakobson, Selected Writings.2nd ed. Vol. I. The Hague: Mouton. Originally presented as a report at thefirst plenary session of the Eighth International Congress of Linguists, Oslo,August, 1957.

Johnstone, T. M. 1975: The Modern South Arabian Languages ( = Afroasiatic Lin-guistics 115). Malibu, CA: Undena Publications.

Knobloch, Johann. 1965: "Concetto storico di proto ingua e possibilita e limiti deapplicazione ad esso dei principi strutturalisti", in Le protolingue: Atti del IVoConvegno Internazionale de Linguisti, Milano. Brescia: Paideia.

Kortlandt, Frederik. 1978 a: "Notes on Armenian Historical Phonology II (theSecond Consonant Shift)", Studia Caucasica 4. 9-16.

- 1978b: "Proto-Indo-European Obstruents", IF83.107-18.- 1978 c: "Comments on W. Winter's Paper", in Jacek Frisiak, ed., Recent Devel-

opments in Historical Phonology. The Hague: Mouton.- 1980 a: "On the Relative Chronology of Armenian Sound Changes", in John A.

C. Greppin, ed., First International Conference on Armenian Linguistics: Proceedings. Delmar, NY: Caravan Books.

- 1980 b: "Albanian and Armenian", KZ 94.243-50.- 1983 a: "Greek Numerals and PIE Glottalic Consonants", Munchener Studienzur Sprachwissenschafi 42. 97-104.

- 1983b: "Proto-Indo-European Verbal Syntax", JIES 11.3/4.307-24.Krause, Wolfgang. 1968: Handbuch des Gotischen. 3rd ed. Miinchen: C. H. Beck.


26/27

24 Allan R. BomhardKurylowicz, Jerzy . 1935: Etudes indoeuropeennes. Krakow: Polish Academy.- 1964: "On the Methods of Internal Reconstruction", in Horace G. Lunt, ed.,

Proceedings of he Ninth International Congress ofLinguists. The Hague: Mouton.

Ladefoged, Peter. 1971: Preliminaries to Linguistic Phonetics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Lehmann, Winfred P. 1952: Proto-Indo-European Phonology. Austin, TX: Univer

sity of Texas Press.Maddieson, Ian. 1981: UPSID: UCLA Phonological Segment Inventory Database

( = UCLA WPP 53). Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.- 1984: Patterns o f Sound. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Martinet, Andre. 1970: Economie des changements phonetiques. 3rd ed. Bern:

Francke Verlag.- 1975 (1953): "Remarques sur le consonantisme semitique", in Andre Martinet,

Evolution des langues et reconstruction. Vendome: Presses Universitaires deFrance. Originally published in BSL 49 (1953).Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1983: Sanskrit und die Sprachen Alteuropas: Zwei fahrhun

derte des Widerspiels von Entdeckungen und Irrtumern. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.

Meillet, Antoine. 1964: Introduction d !'etude comparative des langues indo-europeennes. Reprint of 8th edition (1937). University, AL: University of AlabamaPress.

- 1967: The Indo-European Dialects. 2nd ed. English translation by N. Rosenberg.University, AL: University of Alabama Press.

Miller, D. Gary. 1977 a: "Some Theoretical and Typological Implications of anIndo-European Root Structure Constraint", JIES 5/1.31-40.- 1977 b: "Bartholomae's Law and an IE Root Structure Constraint", in Paul J.

Hopper, ed., Studies in Descriptive and Historical Linguistics: Festschrift forWin/red P. Lehmann. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Newman, Paul. 1977: Chadic Classification and Reconstruction ( = A/roasiatic Lin-guistics 5/1). Malibu, CA: Undena Publications.

Normier, Rudolf. 1977: "Idg. Konsonantismus, germ. 'Lautverschiebung' undVernersches Gesetz", KZ 91.171-218.

Pedersen, Holger. 1951: Die gemeinindoeuropaischen und vorindoeuropiiischenVerschluj]laute. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.

Polome, Edgar C. 1971: "Reflexes of Laryngeals in Indo- Iranian with SpecialReference to the Problem of the Voiceless Aspirates", in Saga og Sprdk: Studiesin Language and Literature in Honor ofLee Hollander. Austin, TX: PembertonPress.

Prokosch, Eduard. 1938: A Comparative Germanic Grammar. Baltimore, MD:Linguistic Society of America.

Ruhlen, Merritt. 1976: A Guide to the Languages of the World. Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.

Sturtevant, Edgar H. 1941: "The Indo-European Voiceless Aspirates", Language17.1-11.- 1942: Indo-Hittite Laryngeals. Baltimore, MD: Linguistic Society of America.Szemerenyi, Oswald. 1967: "The New Look of Indo-European: Reconstruction

and Typology", Phonetica 17.65-99.


27/27

Recent Trends in the Reconstruction 25- 1970: Einfohrung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenscha/t. Darmstadt: Wissen

schaftliche Buchgesellschaft. (2nd ed. 1980.)- 1977: "Sprachtypologie, funktionelle Belastung und die Entwicklung indo

germanischer Lautsysteme", Acta lranica 7. 339-93.- 1985 a: Introduzione alta linguistica indeuropea. Revised and updated editiontranslated in to Italian by G. Boccali, V. Brugnatelli, and M. Negri. Milano:

Edizioni Unicopli.- 1985 b: "Recent Developments in Indo-European Linguistics", TPS 1985. 1-71.Trubetzkoy, N. S. 1969: Principles of Phonology. English translation by Chris

tiane A. M. Baltaxe. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of CaliforniaPress.

Vennemann, Theo. 1984: "Hochgermanisch und Niedergermanisch: Die Verzweigungstheorie der germanisch-deutschen Lautverschiebungen", PBB(T)106. 1-45.

Walde, Alois. 1897: "Die Verbindungen zweier Dentale und tOnendes z im Indogermanischen", KZ 34.461-536.Wilber, Ken, ed. 1982: The Holographic Paradigm and Other Paradoxes. Boulder,

CO and London: Shambhala.86 Waltham StreetBoston, Mass. 02118USA

Allan R. Bomhard

bomhard - recent trends in the reconstruction of the pie consonant system

Documents