THE PRECURSORS OF PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN:

THE INDO-HITTITE AND INDO-URALIC HYPOTHESES

BOOK OF ABSTRACTS

Leiden University, 9-11 July 2015

MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR THE

SCIENCE OF HUMAN HISTORY, JENA

2

This workshop is financially supported by: Leiden University Centre for Linguistics

Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena

Stichting VIET

Research project ‘Splitting the Mother Tongue: The Position of Anatolian in the Dispersal of the Indo-European Language Family’ (funded by NWO)

3

Gilles AUTHIER (Paris)

Reconstructible typological features of Proto-East Caucasian The forty-or-so East Caucasian languages, distributed across at least eight different branches, share enough common basic vocabulary, grammatical morphemes, structural features and irregular morphology to make possible the reconstruction of many aspects of a proto-language, which was probably related to Proto-North-West Caucasian. A massive typological drift in the latter, which has become polysynthetic, head-marking, and morphologically regular and homogeneous, has obscured its genetic links with East Caucasian and the probability of their relatedness is based almost only on lexical evidence. On the other hand, Proto-East Caucasian and Proto-Indo-European (or Proto-Indo-Hittite) are clearly not related – their basic vocabulary show almost no coincidences –, but both proto-languages are believed to have been spoken directly to the north or south of the Caucasus, at a time in which exchanges, including across the Caucasus, involving advances in agriculture and metallurgy, were exploding. It is thus not unlegitimate to investigate the question of contact and mutual influence. If only a couple of isolated, non-basic lexical items can be shown to be shared between both proto-languages, and no structural features at all, they were probably spoken far apart, and that would be a strong argument to place the homeland in which Proto-Indo-European developped it characteristic features farther north, or west, or east. But if some relevant typological features are in fact shared between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-East Caucasian (and they have to be typologically rare or ‘recessive’ enough to preclude mere chance and be counted as evidence of contact) then some sort of contact zone or linguistic area can be assumed, and it will (then) make sense to look for additional lexicon possibly shared by both families. We will show that the most salient features of Proto-East Caucasian (few vowells, a rich consonant inventory including ejective and labialized stops as well as a series of « intensives », a full-fledged gender system, ergative case marking (but no single marker is reconstructible and one of the origins of ergative case markers may have been in the gender-marking system), agreement of genitives and adjectives with their head, verbal aspect marked by root reduplication and introflexion, as well as apophony in nominal inflexion) are indeed, as a whole, significant enough, in particular because they do not show up in the Uralic family, and are in fact rare cross-linguistically, to substantiate a scenario of extended, maybe intensive contact

4

between Proto-Indo-European and East Caucasian. The apparent lack of shared basic vocabulary, explainable by time-depth, identity-preserving cultural factors like endogamy, will be briefly reassessed.

Stefan BAUHAUS (Berlin)

PIE *-r as a locative case marker The purpose of this lecture is to reconstruct a PIE morpheme *-r as a locative case marker. This element is shown to appear in a lot of different kinds of adverbs throughout the IE languages, most prominently in the interrogative locative pronoun *kwor “where”, which is reflected in Lat. cūr < quōr , Ved. kar-hi and ultimately Goth. ƕar and Du. waar. Although already described by Brugmann, and others, it has so far attracted little attention among IE scholars. My attempt is to consider its very origin and position within the realm of IE particles. Where else does it appear besides locative adverbs? What about its productivity as a morpheme? I assume a paradigmatic opposition between locative *-r and directive *-o at an early stage of PIE, the latter being conserved in Hittite. Furthermore, with regard to the IU topic of this symposium, its reflexes of an even older IU morpheme are to be detected. In this I follow Kortlandt (2001), who himself quotes Greenberg (2000). Kortlandt takes into account an element *-ru in IU, which in my view is a possible predecessor of PIE -*r and which according to Greenberg (2000) can be found in other language families such as Altaic as well.

Greenberg, Joseph H. (2000): Indo-European and its closest relatives: The Eurasiatic language family. Stanford UP.

Kortlandt, Frederik (2001): “The Indo-Uralic verb”. http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art203e.pdf

Harald BICHLMEIER (Erlangen)

On the history of the question of the existence of a Pre-Indo-European subtratum in Germanic

In the course of research on every (Old-)IE language it became clear soon that besides the larger parts of the lexicon inherited from PIE we also find certain parts of the lexicon that cannot be explained as inherited. These parts of the

5

lexicon are usually to be explained as loans, either from another IE language or from a Non-IE language. These ‘foreign’ lexical items usually denote things, situations or institutions (in the widest sense) for which (at least at the beginning) no words exist in one’s own language. Usually these words are taken over together with the things, institutions etc. they denote. Generally it is assumed that on average some 2% – 4% of a language’s lexicon are of subtratum origin. In the history of research done on the Germanic languages it was postulated quite early that in this language group we find a rather big portion of the lexicon, which is not of IE descent. Into this class mainly belong words concerning seafaring, fauna and flora, but also from other semantic areas. These words show up primarily in the North-Sea-Germanic languages, i.e. the languages of those Germanic peoples who had to do most with the open sea, seafaring etc. The portion of lexicon of Non-IE descent in (Proto-)Germanic was from the beginning (around 1900) said to hover at about 30-33%, although for decades no lists of such words were published that would contain more than 40, 50 presumed subtratum-words. As can be shown, the high number of presumed subtratum-words is the product of a wrong, i.e. methodologically faulty interpretation of some in themselves correct statistics. The 30% + X then became a common feature in introductions to and handbooks on the history of the Germanic languages, which was hardly ever questioned. Besides this mainly German tradition of research, which actually came to an end in the 1990ies, when for almost all of those 40-50 presumed subtratum-words IE etymologies had been proposed, two new lines of research came up, which will be shortly commented on: One is the Vennemann way of research, which is based mainly on unproven claims about prehistoric movements of peoples and thus languages, proposing that Germanic came into being as an IE supertratum on a Vasconic subtratum that was then influenced by an Atlantic/Semitidic supertratum. The other more promising way of research came up mainly among scholars from Leiden: They are primarily looking into the structure of words (e.g. synonymous pairs of nasalized vs. not-nasalized roots, where the nasalized forms show the nasal at the ‘wrong’ place etc.), claiming that nonconformity with the rules of PIE word- or root-structure points to substratum origin of a certain form. The opposite approach can be found in the Althochdeutsches etymologisches Wörterbuch, where such forms are usually explained by analogic processes etc.

6

Václav BLAŽEK (Brno)

Indo-European dendronyms in perspective of external comparison Tree-names represent an important source of information to application of linguistic archaeology. Their etymological analysis in wider perspective of neighboring dendronymical systems offer extraordinarily valuable results usable to confirm or exclude the internal influence of substratal languages, external influence of adstratal languages or the role of hypothetical distantly related languages, leading to determination of homeland of the given language entity. The following examples may illustrate various scenarios: A. Substratum; B. Borrowing: non-IE > IE; C. Borrowing: IE branch > non-IE; D. Common heritage. Finally, the problematic examples are discussed in the section E.

A. Substratum IE forms are derivable with difficulties from the only protoform, which has been more or less deviant from the standard pattern. There are similar parallels in neighboring non-IE languages which could be related to the hypothetical substratum preceding the IE protolanguage or its branch in some territory.

1. IE *H2er- “nut” (Greek, Albanian, Balto-Slavic; Hittite (GIŠ)harau n. “poplar / Populus euphratica” probably stands aside). The forms agree in the root and semantics, the suffixal extensions are more or less different. The identified cognates are limited only to Europe. It is tempting to compare it with the common Basque-North Caucasian designation of “nut” of various trees: Proto-Basque *hur “hazelnut” (Bengtson) ||| Proto-North Caucasian *ʔwǟrƛ_V ( ~ -ō-, -Ł-) “nut, walnut” (NCED 229).

B. Borrowing: non-IE > IE IE forms are derivable with difficulties from the only protoform, which has been more or less deviant from the standard IE pattern. There are similar parallels in neighboring non-IE languages which cannot be the substratum with respect to known historical & geographical facts, but may represent the donor-languages with regard to their geographical position and cultural role.

2. IE *Haeblu- “apple” versus Semitic *ʔabul- or *ʔubal- ‘various kinds of fruits and cultural trees or plants’. The semantic difference has analogy e.g. in Akkadian šerkum “a string of (dried) fruit, normally figs, less often apples” (Markey 1988, 54).

7

3. IE *H3/2urb- “willow” versus Semitic *γurab- “willow” (Militarev 1984, 16: Semitic + Egyptian) || Egyptian (Pyramid Texts) ʕɜb “a kind of a tree” (Wb. I, 167).

4. IE *Hxi l- “holm-oak, ilex” versus Semitic *ʔaly-(an-) “oak”; Canaanite > Egyptian (New) inrn “oak” (Wb. I, 98) || Egyptian (Middle Kingdom) iɜɜ “a nut-plant”, (late) iɜ.t id., (Book of Died) iɜ.t “a tree” (Wb. I, 17).

C. Borrowing: IE branch > non-IE The non-Indo-European dendronyms resemble the tree-names recon-structible in partial proto-languages of individual IE branches which themselves are derivable from the IE protolanguage. In this case it is probable to seek the sources of borrowing just in these partial protolanguages, naturally with respect to the geographical and historical circumstances.

5. IE *dóru-/*dreu- “wood, tree” > Indo-Iranian *daru- id. > East Caucasian *daro “tree; conifer” (NCED 399).

6. IE *bherH1g-/* bhrH1g- “birch” > Indo-Iranian: Vedic bhūrjá- “birch” | Nuristani: Waigali brūj id. | Iranian *barz- id. (Khotanese brumja-, Ossetic bærz / bærzæ) > (1) East Caucasian *burVzV “a kind of foliage tree” (NCED 313); (2) Proto-Permic *beriʒ- “linden” (Joki 1973, #20). On the other hand, Basque *burki “birch” (Löpelmann 1968, 239; Trask 2008, 359), is probably borrowed from an unattested, but possible, Gothic *burki or *burkja < *bhrH1gia-, the zero-grade apophonic counterpart to Northwest Germanic *berkjō(n)- > Old English birce, Old High German bircha, birihha (Kroonen 2013, 61).

D. Common heritage The dendronyms reconstructible for the IE and some non-IE proto-languages are compatible in both phonetics and semantics and borrowing of one from another is excluded for geographical reasons. In this case a common, Nostratic, heritage seems most probable.

7. IE *toko- “willow, branch”, *tokso- “yew, bow” ||| Turkic: Chaghatai taq “name for a tree which burns for a long time” || Tungusic *takti- “cedar, yew” || Middle Korean tak ‘paper mulberry / Broussonetia papyrifera’ || Old Japanese tuki ‘a tree of genus Zelkova’ ||| Kartvelian *tqe- “forest”.

E. Problematic cases with attempts to find new solutions

8. IE *bheHago- “beech/oak/chestnut/?hornbeam” versus Semitic *bak-ay- “pistachio” || Egyptian bkj “terebinthe; big fruit” || Berber *bak-aH

8

“jujubier” || Chadic *bak-aw- “fig-sycamore” ||| Dravidian *pakk-u “areca nut” or *pakk-ay “Tamarix indica”.

9. Turkic *ab(i)s(-ak) “aspen” or “poplar” < ?West Iranian.

10. Uralic *ośka “ash-tree” < ?Indo-Iranian.

11. Fenno-Ugric *śala (UEW 458-59; FUV 125) / *śiliw (Sammalahti) “elm” versus IE *selH-/*solH-/*slH- + *-ik- “willow”.

Allan BOMHARD (Charleston)

The Origins of Proto-Indo-European: The Caucasian Substrate Hypothesis

There have been numerous attempts to find relatives of Proto-Indo-European, not the least of which is the Indo-Uralic Hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic are alleged to descend from a common ancestor. However, attempts to prove this hypothesis have run into numerous difficulties. One difficulty concerns the inability to reconstruct the ancestral morphological system in detail, and another concerns the rather small shared vocabulary. This latter problem is further complicated by the fact that many scholars think in terms of borrowing rather than inheritance. Moreover, the lack of agreement in vocabulary affects the ability to establish viable sound correspondences and rules of combinability. This paper will attempt to show that these and other difficulties are caused, at least in large part, by the question of the origins of the Indo-European parent language. Evidence will be presented to demonstrate that Proto-Indo-European is the result of the imposition of a Eurasiatic language — to use Greenberg’s term — on a population speaking one or more primordial Northwest Caucasian languages.

Gerd CARLING (Lund)

Testing the Indo-Hittite-(Tocharian) hypothesis against various types of data sets: sound change, basic vocabulary, cultural vocabulary, and

grammatical typology Since the publication of the paper on computational cladistics by Ringe et al (2002), there has been a rich literature on the classification of Indo-European using computational methods. In general, the aims have been either to study

9

how computational models relate to traditional models when it comes to sub-branching of Indo-European (Ringe et al 2002, Grey & Atkinson 2003), estimations of time-depths (see Chang et al to appear), or even the location of the Proto-Indo-European homeland (Bouckaert et al 2012). An important feature of computational studies (Ringe et al 2002, Grey & Atkinson 2003) has been that most analyses apparently support the Indo-Hittite hypothesis, with Anatolian first and Tocharian as the second to branch of in the phylogenetic trees. However, most of these studies (except for Ringe et al 2002) have been based on a specific type of data set: basic vocabulary, more precisely a Swadesh 100 or 200-list. In the presentation, we will, using computational models, contrast four different types of data sets against each other. The purpose is to test the validity of the Indo-Hittite-(Tocharian) hypothesis. These data sets are:

1. a data set with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100-lists) 2. a data set with cultural vocabulary, focusing on Indo-European

inherited/reconstructed cultural artifacts with low borrowability 3. a data set of critical innovations in sound change 4. a data set with grammatical typology data.

On these data sets, we will perform multivariate analyses, creating principal component analysis scatterplots, as well as a hierarchical Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees, which uses the Markov Chain Monte Carlo method for estimating the posterior distribution of model parameters (a very frequent method used in computational cladistics). Preliminary results indicate that the data sets behave differently, not so much when it comes to subgrouping, as to the specific position of Anatolian and Tocharian. The usage of various computational methods and models, as well as the important issue of how various data types and various coding practices might change the outcome of analyses, will be in focus in the presentation.

Bouckaert, Remco, Philippe Lemey, Michael Dunn, Simon J. Greenhill , Alexander V. Alekseyenko, Alexei J. Drummond , Russell D. Gray, Marc A. Suchard, Quentin D. Atkinson 2012. Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family. Science 337, 957-960.

Gerd Carling, Sandra Cronhamn, Niklas Johansson, Joost van de Weijer submitted. Quantifying sound change for language classification: a case study on the Indo-European and Tupí language families. Submitted to Laboratory Phonology.

Chang, Will, Hall, David, Cathcart, Chundra & Garrett, Andrew to appear. Ancestry-constrained phylogenetic analysis supports the Indo-European steppe hypothesis. To appear in Language.

Gray, R. D. & Atkinson, Q. D. 2003. Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin. Nature, 426, 435-439.

10

Ringe, D., Warnow, T. & Taylor, A. 2002. Indo-European and computational cladistics. Transactions of the Philological Society 100, 59−129.

Dag HAUG (Oslo) & Andrej SIDELTSEV (Moscow)

Indo-Hittite Syntax?

A well-known feature of Hittite is the use of relative/interrogative pronouns en lieu of indefinite pronouns in conditional clauses and, more seldom, after negation marker:

MH/MS KUB 14.1+ rev. 45 nu=wa=mu man idalu-n memia-n kui-š [mema-i] “If anybody tells me a bad word”.

The use looks identical to that of other Indo-European languages:

Greek ἐάν τις περιπατῇ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ “If anyone walks in the daytime,…” (John 11.9). Avestan kat mōi uruua isē cahiiā auuaŋhō (Yasna 50.1) “Does my soul command any help?” Latin si quis “if anyone” Gothic ni manna in analaugnein ƕa taujit (John 7.4).

It is attested in all the ancient languages of all the branches1 and is reconstructed for narrow PIE as the use of relative/interrogative pronouns as indefinite pronouns under specific licensing conditions. However, Hittite attests this usage in post-OH period2. The oldest attested Hittite texts3 have only indefinite pronouns in conditional clauses and after negation markers.4 All the rest of Anatolian languages with relevant data (Luwian, Lycian) pattern with OH/OS usage.5

1 Save Armenian and Tocharian. 2 (CHD L-N: 160). 3 OH/OS originals. 4 My count of OH/OS corpus revealed 62x man kuiški/kuitki vs 0x *man kuiš/kuit. The latter only occurs in MS and NS texts and are likely to reflect MH/NH usage. As for negative pronouns, natta/UL kuiš appears only once in the NH copy of the edict of Telipinu versus OH/OS natta/UL kuiški. The statistics is impressive enough to be just a matter of coincidence. 5 I.e. they attest indefinite pronouns and not relative/interrogative ones in conditional clauses and after negation markers (Melchert 1993; Melchert 2003; Melchert 2004). The only potentially deviating case is Lycian tihe, formally genitive of the relative ti- (Melchert 2004: 66). In some contexts it is employed with indefinite tike and thus is interpreted as relative/interrogative functioning as indefinite (ibid).

11

In this light the post-OH use of relatives/interrogatives in conditional clauses and after negation marker in Hittite cannot be directly equated with the usage in narrow IE languages. Thus narrow IE attests relative/interrogative pronouns in conditional clauses and after negation whereas Proto-Anatolian attests only indefinite pronouns in these contexts. Relative/interrogative pronouns en lieu of indefinite pronouns have to be an independent innovation in historical Hittite and in narrow IE and may constitute another feature in favor of the Indo-Hittite hypothesis. Even if one adhers to the unlikely idea that Hittite usage directly goes back to the IE one, the Hittite use of interrogatives/relatives is restricted to contexts after man6 as different from much wider narrow IE one. So the development from Proto-Indo-European to Hittite would be narrowing of the sphere of usage of original interrogatives/relatives. This would contradict Haspelmath’s (1997) generalization that interrogatives/relatives become more general in use over time as indefinite pronouns and not vice versa.

Haspelmath, M. 1997, Indefinite Pronouns. Clarendon Press: Oxford. Hoffner, H. A. Jr. and Melchert, C. 2008, A Grammar of the Hittite Language, Part 1, Winona

Lake, Indiana. Melchert, H. Craig 1993, Cuneiform Luvian Lexicon, Chapel Hill, 1993. Melchert, H. Craig 2003, Language, in: C.Melchert (ed.), The Luwians, HdO 68, 170-210. Melchert, H. Craig 2004, A Dictionary of the Lycian Language. Ann Arbor/New York, 2004.

Paul HEGGARTY (Leipzig)

The Indo-Hittite and Indo-Uralic questions: Perspectives from archaeology, genetics, and Bayesian phylogenetics

More than two centuries of research on Indo-European have rarely seen such rapid strides forward as in the last few years. A series of high-profile papers have brought the Indo-European question, and in its train the more specific Indo-Hittite and Indo-Uralic hypotheses, onto the pages of leading journals not only in linguistics (Chang et al. 2015 in Language), but also in the natural sciences (Bouckaert et al. 2012 in Science; Haak et al. 2015 in Nature). These papers reflect the changes sweeping through the respective disciplines: new Bayesian phylogenetic analyses of comparative data in linguistics; the ancient DNA and genomic revolutions in genetics; and rapid advances in archaeological science, not least isotope provenience analysis. Results from these recent papers often contradict each other, however, or are open to very contrasting interpretations. Here I try to set all three questions

6 They are only sporadically attested after negations and virtually unattested in other contexts.

12

— Indo-European origins, Indo-Hittite and Indo-Uralic — into their most plausible contexts in this fast-evolving picture of Eurasian prehistory: demography, population movements, contact, societal complexity, subsistence regimes, etc.. In particular, to what extent are the Steppe pastoralism or Anatolian farming hypotheses for Indo-European origins either compatible with, or excluded by, the Indo-Hittite and Indo-Uralic hypotheses (if confirmed)? I assess the relative merits and weaknesses of Bouckaert et al. (2012) and Chang et al. (2015). Finally, I update them with a report on newer analyses by the first of those research groups, which bear directly on the ‘Indo-Hittite’ question, and also test a new methodological approach to the putative Indo-Uralic relationship.

Bouckaert, R., Lemey, P., Dunn, M., Greenhill, S.J., Alekseyenko, A.V., Drummond, A.J., Gray, R.D., Suchard, M.A. & Atkinson, Q.D. 2012. Mapping the origins and expansion of the Indo-European language family. Science 337(6097): p.957–960. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1219669

Chang, W., Cathcart, C., Hall, D. & Garrett, A. 2015. Ancestry-constrained phylogenetic analysis supports the Indo-European steppe hypothesis. Language 91(1): p.194–244. www.linguisticsociety.org/files/news/ChangEtAlPreprint.pdf

Haak, W., Lazaridis, I., Patterson, N., Rohland, N., Mallick, S., Llamas, B., Brandt, G., Nordenfelt, S., Harney, E., Stewardson, K., Fu, Q., Mittnik, A., Bánffy, E., Economou, C., Francken, M., et al. 2015. Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe. Nature advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature14317

Adam HYLLESTED (Copenhagen)

Indo-Uralic: opinions, methods, and results It is probably fair to describe communis opinio among comparative linguists regarding the Indo-Uralic hypothesis as follows: Most scholars:

a) think that the two families are probably (ultimately) related;

b) base this assumption on a general impression on superficial similarities in conjugational and inflectional morphology, as well as among the pronouns;

c) would claim that sufficient evidence for the relationship has not been found yet;

d) are generally pessimistic that this situation will ever change dramatically;

13

e) have learned that it is too easy to find possible cognates because the PIE consonant system is much larger than the Proto-Uralic one, multiplying the risk of chance resemblances;

f) judge that all proposals display typical flaws of long-lange comparisons (poor source criticism, outdated reconstructions, permitting contradictory correspondence patterns, ad hoc morphological segmentations, overly liberal semantic matches etc.), and rarely distinguish between attempts to reconstruct Indo-Uralic and Nostratic as a whole;

g) prefer to interpret lexical resemblances as old loans.

However, it is also true that most scholars have never investigated the material systematically themselves, nor do they encourage their students to do so. The general view is therefore self-supporting, and based mainly on examples first mentioned in the late 19th century. Having briefly addressed the most frequent kinds of criticism, I will try to show how a persistent use of classical methods can prove fruitful. Contrary to the majority view, I maintain that the best evidence can be found in the lexicon. Crucially, one must look not only for superficial similarities (“lookalikes”) since, in many cases, these may indeed reflect contacts. Between any two distantly related languages there are non-trivial systematic correspondences involving lexemes that are not immediately recognized as cognates. Such sets are admittedly harder to detect, but this is true for any study of language relationship. Another important point is that mere correspondences may fail to convince if the languages in question do not also reveal straightforward and unexpected solutions to family-internal irregularities which scholars have been unable to assign diachronic explanations by internal reconstruction alone. In my paper, I will present non-trivial correspondences between PIE and PU, as well as a handful of irregularities in each of the protolanguages that can be explained by yesterday’s Indo-Uralic morphology. With reference to the overall theme of the workshop, I will focus mainly on such correspondences that are particularly relevant for Indo-Hittite.

Vyacheslav IVANOV (Los Angeles)

Traces of Indo-Uralic or Nostratic in Anatolian If one accepts, on the one hand, the Nostratic hypothesis and, on the other hand, a recent reinterpretation of the Indo-Hittite concept according to which

14

Northern Anatolian (Hittite and Palaic) and then Southern Anatolian (Luwian-Lycian languages) divided from the rest of Indo-European dialects when the latter had been still unified, a chronological question may be raised. It is possible to ask whether any trace of Nostratic archaisms may be found in Anatolian. In the light of the idea of a particular link between those dialects of Nostratic that have developed into Uralic on the one side and Indo-European on the other side one might be tempted to search for specific ancient features that are shared by Northern and Southern Anatolian and Finno-Ugric, Samoyed and Yukaghir. On the base of Ugric-Samoyed correspondences found by Khelimsky and the two rows of the Indo-European verbal forms reflected in two Hittite and Luwian types of conjugation it has become possible to prove their common origin. Both for Uralic and for Indo-European an original opposition of two conjugations (1 Person Singular Uralic *-k-: Indo-European *-H-/ Uralic and Indo-European *-m-) can be suggested, the first one being subjective/ inactive/intransitive and the second one objective/active/transitive (also possessive as it is based on suffixation of pronominal elements identical to roots of personal/possessive pronouns ). Recently a similar trend of thought in respect to the Indo-Uralic comparison has been followed by Kortland (2001), although using the Uralic reconstruction by Janhunen and trying to deduce Indo-European forms directly from a supposed Proto-Uralic set of morphs he came to partly different concrete results. The Uralic opposition of a subjective series of forms and an objective one and the formally comparable difference between Hittite -hi - and -mi conjugations go back to the original Proto-Indo-Uralic (and earler Nostratic) binary distinction of similar rows of verbs. To compare to Uralic forms in -k(a) particularly important are the Southern Anatolian Past formations with the ending of the 1 Person Singular like Luwian -ha different from the analogically transformed Northern Anatolian Hittite -h(h)-un; as it was supposed already by Sapir and Sturtevant, a similar explanation might be given to the forms of the Past and/or Perfect in the other Indo-European dialects like Tocharian and Greek. But only in Anatolian (as well as in Uralic) a binary opposition has been preserved.

Petri KALLIO (Helsinki)

Internal and external evidence for the Pre-PIE conditioned sound change *t > *s

The idea of the Pre-PIE conditioned sound change *t > *s was first advocated by Bojan Čop (1970–1989), but it has barely been mentioned since apart

15

from the recent discussion by Frederik Kortlandt (2002). In any case, this sound change can be supported by both internal reconstruction and external comparative evidence. As is well-known, personal endings typically go back to personal pronouns, and while this works perfectly well as far as the PIE 1sg is concerned, the PIE 2sg is another story (Beekes & De Vaan 2011):

Personal pronouns: Possessive pronouns: Personal endings: 1sg. *h1me (acc.) *h1mos *-m(i) 2sg. *tuH *tuos *-s(i)

Hence, this fact serves as an internal evidence for the idea that Pre-PIE *t had been shifted to *s at least under some circumstances. Incidentally, the corresponding Proto-Uralic recontructions are as follows (Janhunen 1982, Honti 2012):

Personal pronouns: Possessive pronouns: Personal endings: 1sg. *min *-mə *-m 2sg. *tin *-tə *-t

Therefore, Pre-PIE *t > *s can have even further support from comparative Indo-Uralic studies. My paper will be an update to this discussion.

Beekes, R. S. P. & De Vaan, M. 2011: Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction². Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

Čop, B. 1970: Die indouralische Sprachverwandtschaft und die indogermanische Laryngaltheorie. Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti 7.

— 1989: Indouralica IX. Linguistica 29. Honti, L. 2012: Das Zeitalter und die Entstehung der Personalpronomina mit velaren

Vokalen. Per Urales ad Orientem: Iter polyphonicum multilingue [= Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 264]. Helsinki.

Janhunen, J. 1982: On the Structure of Proto-Uralic. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 44. Kortlandt, F. 2002: The Indo-Uralic Verb. Finno-Ugrians and Indo-Europeans: Linguistic

and Literary Contacts [= Studia Fenno-Ugrica Groningana 2]. Maastricht.

Simona KLEMENČIČ (Ljubljana)

Bojan Čop’s Indo-Uralic hypothesis and its plausibility In his series Indouralica, as well as in some of his other works, Bojan Čop (1923–1994) presented his view on genetic linguistic relationship between the Indo-European and Uralic language family. In his extensive work Čop meticulously built what seems by far most extensive, systematic and thus convincing approach in favour of the existence of the Indo-Uralic linguistic community.

16

The goal of this paper is a concise presentation of Čop’s purported Indo-Uralic phonetic system as well as a critical assessment of his methodological approach in light of the “cherry-picking” problem and other problems in long-range linguistic comparison.

Alwin KLOEKHORST (Leiden)

The Indo-Hittite hypothesis: methods and arguments Shortly after the decipherment of Hittite in 1915, its aberrant character in comparison to the other Indo-European languages was recognized, which prompted scholars like Forrer (1921) and Sturtevant (1933) to formulate the hypothesis that Hittite should not be viewed as a daughter of the Proto-Indo-European mother language, but rather as its sister, both deriving from an even earlier proto-stage, which was coined ‘Indo-Hittite’. For a long time, this idea was generally viewed as too radical. It was instead assumed that the aberrant character of Hittite as well as its Anatolian sister languages was due to a massive loss of categories and to other specific innovations within the Anatolian branch, which would mean that there is no need to assume a special status of Anatolian within the Indo-European language family. Yet, in the last few decades this viewpoint has shifted, and nowadays the majority of scholars seem to support the hypothesis that Anatolian did split off first from the mother language, and that the other branches at that point in time still formed a single language community that underwent some common innovations that Anatolian did not share (Kloekhorst 2008a: 7-11; Oettinger 2013/2014; Melchert fthc.; but cf. Rieken 2009 for a more cautious view). This does not mean, however, that there is at the moment any broad consensus on the number or nature of these common innovations. In this talk I will discuss the methodological issues that arise when trying to prove or disprove the Indo-Hittite hypothesis. The focus will be on what types of arguments from morphology, phonology and semantics can be used.

Forrer, 1921, Ausbeute aus den Boghazköi-Inschriften, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft 61, 20-38.

Kloekhorst, A., 2008, Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon (= Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 5), Leiden - Boston.

Melchert, H.C., fthc., The position of Anatolian, to appear in Handbook of Indo-European Studies (ed. M. Weiss & A. Garrett).

Oettinger, N., 2013/2014, Die Indo-Hittite-Hypothese aus heutiger Sicht, Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 67, 149-176.

Rieken, E., 2009, Der Archaismus des Hethitischen – eine Bestandsaufnahme, Incontri Linguistici 32, 37–52.

Sturtevant, E.H., 1933, A Comparative Grammar of the Hittite Language, Philadelphia.

17

Frederik KORTLANDT (Leiden)

Indo-European o-grade presents and the Anatolian hi-conjugation Elsewhere I have argued that the Hittite ḫi-verbs represent a merger of the original perfect and the original thematic flexion with zero grade in the root, e.g. Vedic tudáti. If the root vowel of CeC-roots was introduced in this formation between stages C and E of my chronology (2010: 385, 396), it automatically became *o, as happened in the singular forms of the perfect. Thus, we arrive at o-grade in Slavic bosti ‘to stab’ and the Germanic 6th class verbs versus zero grade in the Vedic 6th class presents. The athematic reduplicated intensive is evidently a derivative of this formation, e.g. Vedic jaṅghanti ‘strikes’. In Anatolian, the complementary distribution between o- and zero grade was brought into line with the paradigmatic alternation of the perfect. In Indo-Iranian, the reduplicated intensive similarly adopted the alternation of the root vowel from the 3rd class reduplicated presents but preserved the zero grade root vowel of the 6th class presents in the subjunctive.

Kortlandt, Frederik. 2010. Studies in Germanic, Indo-European and Indo-Uralic (Amsterdam: Rodopi).

Guus KROONEN (Copenhagen)

Indo-Uralic lookalike sets, an etymological quick scan Innovations in the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European have the potential of shedding new light on the Indo-Uralic hypothesis. Making use of three recent publications, Frederik Kortlandt’s Indo-Uralic verb (2002), Martin Kümmel’s article on the nature of the glottalized stops (forthc.), and Alwin Kloekhorst’s work on Proto-Anatalian phonology (forthc.), I have performed an etymological quick scan on Rédei’s Uralisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (1987-91) in order to evaluate the evidence for cognates. Surprisingly or not, strict application of the Comparative Method does seem to yield what could be falsifiable results. With my collection of lookalikes or hypothetical cognate sets, it appeared to be possible to establish or confirm a number of potentially regular sound correspondences, cf. PIE *ɗ, *ʄ, *ɠ, *ɠʷ = PU *n, *ŋi, *ŋ, *uŋ; PIE *h₁, *h₂ = PU *ke/æ, *ka; PIE *p, *t, *k = PU *pp, *tt, *kk, and find support for the reconstruction of a couple of dozen Proto-Indo-Uralic roots, e.g. *ɗæki ‘see’ (*deḱ- = *näki), *ɗaje ‘sun, day, sky’ (*dei- = *naje), *ikæ ‘year,

18

age’ (*ieh₁- = *ikä), *jæɠi ‘ice’ (*ie⁽ģ⁾- = *jäŋi), *kaja ‘sun, dawn, morning’ (*h₂ei- = *kaja), *kawi ‘hear, perceive’ (*h₂eu- = *kawi), *paɗe ‘put down’ (*ped- = *pane), *raɠi ‘flow, river’ (*?(H)reģ- = *raŋi), *śeppæ ‘understand’ (*sep- = *śeppä), *uɠa ‘moist’ (*uegʷ- = *uŋa), *wettæ ‘throw, hit’ (*uet- = *wettä). However, the material on which the results are based remains scarce, and many of the cognate sets are conspicuously found in the semantic periphery rather than the central parts of the Indo-European and Uralic vocabularies. These statistically bad omina add to the possibility that many if not all of the lexical matches in fact are loanwords (cf. Koivulehto, 1994), and do not bode well for Indo-Uralic as a falsifiable hypothesis.

Collinder, B., 1934. Indo-uralisches Sprachgut. Uppsala. Collinder, B., 1954. Zur indo-uralischen Frage. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis 10, pp. 79-91. Kloekhorst, A., forthc. The Anatolian stop system and the Indo-Hittite hypothesis.

Indogermanische Forschungen. Koivulehto, J., 1994. Indogermanisch – Uralisch: Lehnbeziehungen oder (auch)

Urverwandtschaft?. In: R. Sternemann, ed. Bopp-Symposium 1992 der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Akten der Konferenz vom 24.3.–26.3.1992 aus Anlaß von Franz Bopps zweihundertjährigem Geburtstag am 14.9.1991. Heidelberg, p. 133–148.

Kortlandt, F., 2002. The Indo-Uralic Verb. In: R. Blokland & C. Hasselblatt, eds. Finno-Ugrians and Indo-Europeans: Linguistic and Literary Contacts: Proceedings of the Symposium at the University of Groningen, November 22–24, 2001. Maastricht, p. 217–227.

Kümmel, M., forthc. The Distribution of roots ending in IE *nd. Rédei, K., 1987-91. Uralisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Wiesbaden.

Martin KÜMMEL (Jena)

Thoughts about Pre-Indo-European stop systems In a conference paper (Opava 2014), Alwin Kloekhorst has argued for an “Indo-Hittite” model on the basis of changes in the stop system: Starting from a Proto-Anatolian (PA) stop system *tt : t : tˀ (cf. Kloekhorst 2008) and a reconstruction of (core) PIE as something like *t : d/dʱ : ˀd/d he proposed to reconstruct the PA system for Proto-Indo-Hittite (PIH) and assume a sound shift *tt : t > *t : d for PIE. However, unconditioned sonorization of stops is not a common sound change, and even if we reconstruct PA like that, there is a good alternative to this reconstruction, namely to start from a core PIE system *t : d (: ɗ) and assume the opposite sound shift *t : d > *tt : t for Anatolian (cf. Kümmel 2007: 140, 176, 183, 350). I will argue that this kind of shift is not less or even more probable diachronically. Such a more or less glottalic reconstruction of the PIH/PIE stops is also a good basis for

19

explaining the rise of breathy voice in large parts of IE, as will be exemplified by parallels from South East Asian languages (cf. Kümmel 2014). A related but different problem arises, if we want to compare IE with Uralic: While PIE (or PIH) had three different stop series, Proto-Uralic (PU) had only one. The possible correspondence of one type to three increases the danger of finding accidental similarities and therefore weakens the possibilities to prove a genetic relation. However, the reconstruction of implosives PIE opens the possibility that one of the three series might have a different correspondence in Uralic: Since implosives tend to change to sonorants, we may consider that IE implosives correspond to PU sonorants. Interestingly, Proto-Uralic had a much richer system of nasals than PIE, exhibiting *m : n : ń : ŋ. Starting from suggestive examples like PU *jäŋi ‘ice’ = PIE/PIH *jéɠo-, *jeɠi- ‘ice’, I will investigate whether there are more possible examples of such correspondences of IE stops to PU sonorants, and what this could mean for the hypothesis of a common Indo-Uralic protolanguage.

Kloekhorst, Alwin. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden / Boston: Brill.

Kümmel, Martin Joachim. 2007. Konsonantenwandel: Bausteine zu einer Typologie des Lautwandels und ihre Konsequenzen für die vergleichende Rekonstruktion. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

‒. 2014. The role of typology in historical phonology. In: Patrick Honeybone, Joseph C. Salmons (eds.), The handbook of historical phonology, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2014 [Online edition].

Milan LOPUHAÄ (Leiden/Nijmegen)

Prehistory of the Anatolian ‘ergative’ If one wishes to prove that Anatolian is the first language to split off from Proto-Indo-European, one way to set out is to find linguistic features that are shared by all branches of Indo-European except for Anatolian. If it can be proven that the exceptional Anatolian situation is in fact archaic, this shows that the other Indo-European branches share a common innovation, which constitutes proof for the Indo-Hittite hypothesis. One morphological feature of Anatolian that is strikingly different from the rest of Indo-European is the treatment of neuter nouns as the subject of transitive sentences (the agent position). Whereas in most Indo-European languages neuter agents have the regular nominative-accusative form, in Anatolian neuter nouns in this position receive a suffix, e.g. Hittite sg. -anza, pl. -anteš. These suffixes have traditionally been given the term ‘ergative’ (Laroche 1962), but there is an ongoing discussion about how this

20

construction should be interpreted synchronically (Melchert 2011). I therefore adopt the more neutral term ‘agentive’. The discussion of the role of the agentive construction within the grammar of Anatolian has mostly focused on synchronic Hittite. More recently Goedegebuure (2013) has demonstrated that the ending -anza was originally an inflectional suffix that fossilised into a case ending in Neo-Hittite. In this talk I will discuss the role of the agentive construction in the other languages in which it has been attested, namely Hieroglyphic Luwian, Cuneiform Luwian and Lycian. Using these data we can reconstruct the agentive and its grammatical role in Proto-Anatolian. Finally, we can compare this with the other Indo-European languages to see what the PIE situation was, so that we can ascertain whether the other Indo-European languages shared a common innovation. This allows us to decide whether the Anatolian agentive constitutes an argument in favour of the Indo-Hittite hypothesis or not.

Goedegebuure, P., 2013. Split-ergativity in Hittite. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie, 102:270–303.

Laroche, E., 1962. Un ‘ergatif’ en indo-européen d’Asie Mineure. Bulletin de la Societé de Linguistique de Paris, 57:23–43.

Melchert, H.C., 2011. The problem of the ergative case in Hittite. In Michèle Fruyt, Michel Mazoyer, and Dennis Pardee, editors, Grammatical Case in the Languages of the Middle East and Europe, page 161–167, Chicago, IL, The Oriental Institute.

Alexander LUBOTSKY (Leiden)

The Indo-European suffix *-ens- and its Indo-Uralic origin

In my talk, I shall first discuss the evidence for the Proto-Indo-European suffix *-ens-, since this suffix is not listed in the major handbooks and is but rarely reconstructed, except maybe for the word for ‘moon’ (*meh1-ns-). In a series of articles (1978, 1985, 2013), F. Kortlandt has argued for the same suffix in the word for ‘goose’ (*ǵhh2-ens-), to which I would now like to add *gwhr-ens- ‘heat’, *dh1-ens- ‘dense, strong’, *trh2-(e)ns ‘across’. Furthermore, the same suffix is to be recognized in the verbal roots *dhu(h2)-ens- ‘to pulverize’, *ḱh1-ens- ‘to recite, declare’, *dh1-ens- ‘to teach, make capable’ and IIr. *sr-ans- ‘to fall down, slip off’, all of which are then likely to be of denominal origin. The suffix *-ens- has the same meaning as the IE active participle *-ent-, or, rather, as Hitt. -ant-, i.e. active when derived from intransitive verbs and passive when derived from transitive verbs. It is therefore very likely that the two suffixes, *-ens- and *-ent-, once belonged to one and the same

21

paradigm, with an alternation s/t that we also find in the suffix of the IE perfect participle *-uos-/-uot-. The IE suffix *-ens-/-ent - might be identified with the Uralic formant *nt for deverbative verbs, which “usually implies a continuative mood of action or a non-perfective aspect” (Collinder 1960: 277).

Rosemarie LÜHR (Jena)

Headedness in Indo-Uralic In substantiating the claim of the relationship between Indo-European and Uralic the literature offers some significant common elements of morphology, i.e. pronominal roots, case markings, personal pronouns, the phonological and lexical evidence seems less convincing. A linguistic domain which has not been analyzed sufficiently is syntax. That is surprising as a special word order, namely SOV, is assumed both for Uralic and for Indo-European. Furthermore, SOV belongs not only to the linguistic universals but also to the assumed implicational type, in so far as with overwhelmingly greater-than-chance frequency, languages with normal SOV order are postpositional. Also a modifier-before-headword word order is connected to the SOV type, whereby the underlying concept of all of these relations is headedness. This paper primarily aims to make a comparison on the phrases which show the different kinds of headedness in the oldest Indo-European languages Hittite and Vedic and Old Hungarian, the earliest Uralic language documented in writing. Besides the head-final type also the head-initial type and especially the mixed-headed type has to be discussed, for mixed directionality appears in Indo-European and Uralic languages, too. For example, though Hittite is regarded as a representative of the head-final type because it shows postnominal relative sentences usually being associated with OV languages and postpositions, however, in noun phrases of this language pre-nominal and post-nominal genitives are to be found. On the contrary, in the Uralic languages, where the head-final morphosyntax is fairly homogeneous in their insistence on head-final NP-internal order, the relative clause regularly manifests alternative positioning relative to the noun. If indeed Indo-European as well as Uralic were head-final types, language change must have happened. In this respect Old Hungarian can serve as a model being characterized by (i) SOV order with a morphologically unmarked object: (ii) V-auxiliary order; (iii) a clause-final complementizer; and (iv) V-final non finite embedded clauses, because these manifestations of the head-finality of VP, TP and CP layers of the Proto-Hungarian clause structure developed into

22

a structure with a V-intial VP and preverbal operator positions, and the postpositional phrase evolved a head-intial pP-layer for particles, which soon found their way into the left periphery of the sentence. The comparison of the syntax of headedness in Uralic and Indo-European will have the following impact on further research: Apart from possibly supporting the assumption that these two language branches are related the data may provide an answer to the question which mechanisms of change are the starting point for the development of mixed directionality.

Katalin É. Kiss (ed.) (2014): The Evolution of Functional Left Peripheries in Hungarian Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tom MARKEY & John COLARUSSO (Hamilton)

Supplementing the Comparative Method: Exaptation and Proto-Indo-European as a Caucasian Language

To seek remote relationships one must supplement the comparative method so that distant relationships can be explored and posited with more certainty than we can now muster. There are a number ways that this might be done. One may use typology to fine tune existing reconstructions. For example, when applied to Proto-Indo-European,(PIE), the vowel system emerges as a vertical vowel system, paralleling that still found in Northwest Caucasian languages,(NWC). Such a “typologically tuned” proto-language might then lend itself more readily to distant phyletic cognates. Once these are established through sound laws, remote loans might then be recognized. One such loan is the PIE word for ‘sun’, which seems to be a cult word that originates in South Caucasian. Most importantly, however, in long range work one must be prepared to roam through distinct linguistic “landscapes.” PIE and its daughters have a distinctive “feel”. If one tries to compare a language to PIE and finds that same feel, then one is probably reconstructing “Macro-IE.” Anatolian presents a case like this. If, however, one finds that forms with a divergent morphology have been shifted in function when they appear in PIE, then one is dealing with a true phyletic link. Such links must be accepted even though the “home environments” for the forms may feel radically different. For example, NWC prefix-verb-gerund forms have phyletic cognates in Benveniste’s PIE root-enlargement-augment nouns. Conversely, the clitic chain attested in the

23

oldest PIE daughters appears as polypersonal verb inflection in NWC. PIE is a phyletic cognate with Proto-NWC. It is exaptation,(to use Stephen Jay Gould’s and Elisabeth S. Verba’s term), shifting in function and not just in form, that in principle characterizes the majority of matches in long distance, true phyletic comparison. The classical comparative method is dominated by adaptation, the mere shifting in form most often within a functional category (for example, within {+NOUN} or {+VERB}) or among syntactically closely related categories (for example, between{+TENSE} and {+MODAL}). Because of the great time depth in phyletic efforts such morphological and syntactic function tends to become frozen and shifted causing the families to diverge, but also making life harder for the comparativist. By recognizing this process of exaptation we propose a method that will enhance the rigor of long distance comparative efforts.

Ranko MATASOVIC (Zagreb)

Clause alignment in Proto-Indo-European and the Indo-Uralic hypothesis

The hypothesis that Early PIE had ergative clause alignment (e.g. Vaillant 1936, Kortlandt 2009) cannot be proved. Rather, it is meant to explain the following, apparently unconnected facts about PIE, all of which are reconstructed independently, and none of which is very common in the languages of Eurasia: 1. That PIE has a special marker for the nominative case (most Eurasian languages have unmarked nominatives). 2. That there is a special form of the vocative (very few Eurasian languages have it). 3. That there is an unusual system of gender assignment with many inanimate nouns belonging to the common (m. or f.) gender (in most Eurasian languages with gender, only animates are m. or f.). 4. That the ending of the nominative singular is similar to the ending of the genitive singular (such syncretism is rare in Eurasia). 5. That only the o-stems and the static stems in PIE have a natural gender assignment, whereby the common gender is composed exclusively of animates, and the neuter exclusively of inanimates. 6. That there is a heteroclitic inflexion of a subset of neuter nouns. 7. That personal pronouns have very different case endings than nouns. 8. That there are two different sets of personal markers in the PIE verbal categories. 9. That the 3rd person singular personal marker in one class of verbal categories is similar to the accusative common / nominative-accusative neuter demonstrative pronoun. 10. That perfect and thematic present endings appear to go back to a single EPIE prototype.

24

It has long been observed that clause alignment is an areallys stable feature, and that languages often change their inherited clause alignment type in situations of intensive language contact. If EPIE was ergative, this fits well with several other areal features connecting it to the languages of the Caucasus (Matasović 2013). However, the Uralic languages, which are the most probable relatives of PIE, are overwhelmingly nominative-accusative. This paper will examine how the claim that PIE had ergative clause alignment can be squared with the Indo-Uralic hypothesis. Within Uralic, traces of ergativity have been discovered in Eastern Khanty (also known as Ostyak). In this language, besides the nominative-accusative construction, there is also an ergative construction with transitive subjects in the locative case and the active form of the verb. It has been argued that this construction is an archaism (Havas 2008), and it has recently been suggested (de Smit 2014) that certain participial constructions in Uralic, with agents in the genitive case, also represent archaisms, pointing to ergativity in Proto-Uralic. It will be argued that these constructions may have correspondents in the archaic syntax of PIE and that such correspondences can be used to support both the Indo-Uralic hypothesis and, indirectly, the hypothesis that Early PIE was ergative.

De Smit, Merlijn 2014. “Proto-Uralic ergativity reconsidered”, Finnisch-ugrische Mitteilungen 38: 1-34.

Ferenc Havas 2008. “Die Ergativität und die uralischen Sprachen”, Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen 59.

Kortlandt, Frederik 2009 “C.C. Uhlenbeck on Indo-European, Uralic and Caucasian”, Historische Sprachforschung 122, 39-47.

André Vaillant 1936. “L'ergatif indo-européen” Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 37: 93-108.

Ranko Matasović 2013. “Areal Typology of PIE: the case for Caucasian Connections”, Transactions of the Philological Society 110/2012: 283-310.

Veronika MILANOVA (Vienna)

The Proto-Indo-European kinship terms in *-ter and Anatolian The kinship terms in *-ter – *ph2tḗr ‘father’, *méh2ter ‘mother’, *dhugh2tḗr ‘daughter’, *bhréh2ter ‘brother’, and *Hiénh2tēr ‘husband’s brother’s wife’ – is a prominent lexical group set in the centre of the PIE kinship terminology and well-attested in most IE branches. Nevertheless, there are still many open questions regarding this group. The hypothesis I am developing in my PhD thesis and would like to present at the conference states that this lexical group did not originally denote relatives but rather social statuses (or a better definition maturity or

25

involvement statuses): mature members of a clan, precisely, the people who have passed through initiations. (Relics of (Pre-)PIE initiations could include the Hindu initiatory rites (e.g., upanayana), the Eleusinian mysteries and Männerbünde attested in some IE traditions.) Of course, these words must have been reinterpreted into kinship terms already in (Late) PIE; otherwise, they would not designate the same relatives in almost all IE branches. It might have happened because of changes in social and family structure. The prominence of the kinship terms in *-ter in the Anatolian branch lies in their absence, except for *dhugh2tḗr. In my talk I would like to discuss the question why the other kinship terms in *-ter are unattested in Anatolian. It would be logical to assume that this language branch had once possessed all five of them. However, if these words denoted social statuses (or similar) rather than kinship terms proper, Anatolian may reflect a more original state of the (Pre-)PIE kinship terminology with nursery words (e.g., atta-, anna-) referring to relatives and the terms in *-ter denoting social statues. The Hittite (or Luwian) word MUNUSduttariiata/i- referring to a female functionary (in Hittite) looks especially fascinating within my hypothesis. Although such interpretation of this word is connected with certain problems I am also going to touch upon in my talk, the possibility of using it in such a sense deserves some attention. If my hypothesis is correct, it could mean that Anatolian split from (Pre-)PIE at the time when the semantic change (maturity statuses > kinship terms) as well as formation of the reconstructed PIE kinship terminology in general had not been accomplished.

Michaël PEYROT (Berlin)

Indo-Uralic, Indo-Hittite and Indo-Tocharian In Indo-European studies there is widespread – though not universal – agreement that Anatolian was the first branch to split off from the proto-language commonly called Proto-Indo-European (cf. in particular Kloekhorst 2008: 7–11). At the same time, most scholars are reluctant to term this proto-language “Indo-Hittite”. Nevertheless, in historical linguistics, each node of a language tree is otherwise mostly referred to with a name referring to the two major branches it splits into first. Thus, if Anatolian was the first to split off, the proto-language could be called “Proto-Indo-Anatolian”, simply to make clear what the position of Anatolian in the tree is. Since “Indo-Hittite” is a term with tradition, this could be used instead. The term “Indo-Hittite” only indicates that this node is assumed; it should not in any way suggest a particularly large distance from this node to the next node down.

26

A much more controversial idea that is also frequently found in the scholarly literature is that after Anatolian Tocharian was the second branch to split off. Although such a term is not normally used, this node should logically be called “Indo-Tocharian”. As also with Indo-Hittite, the discussion about Indo-Tocharian is often centered around the reconstruction of the verbal system, in particular the position of Tocharian in the prehistory of the s-aorist on the one hand and the relationship between the perfect and the Hittite ḫi-inflexion on the other. According to Jasanoff (2003), strong evidence for both Indo-Hittite and Indo-Tocharian can be found in this domain, while others prefer different reconstructions that drastically reduce the consequences for the family tree (Ringe 1990, Kortlandt 1994, Peyrot 2013). More promising seemed evidence from the lexicon, as advanced by Winter (1997), but also this has been discarded as too uncertain to be used for the phylogeny of the Indo-European languages (Malzahn forth.), and for instance Pinault prefers to use the neutral term “Tocharian-Anatolian isoglosses” (2006). The goal of this paper is twofold. It wants to explore and help define the methodology for establishing an Indo-Tocharian node, which will result in a re-evaluation of some of the evidence. It also aims at discussing new evidence with reference not only to Indo-Hittite, but also to Indo-Uralic.

Jasanoff, Jay H., 2003, Hittite and the Indo-European verb. Oxford. Kloekhorst, Alwin, 2008, Etymological dictionary of the Hittite inherited lexicon. Leiden. Kortlandt, Frederik H.H., 1994, The Fate of the Sigmatic Aorist in Tocharian. Bernfried

Schlerath (ed.), Tocharisch, Akten der Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Berlin, September 1990. Reykjavík, 61–65.

Malzahn, Melanie, forth., The second one to branch off? The Tocharian lexicon revisited. Peyrot, Michaël, 2013, The Tocharian subjunctive. A study in syntax and verbal stem

formation. Leiden. Pinault, Georges-Jean, 2006, Retour sur le numéral “un” en tokharien. Indogermanische

Forschungen 111: 71–97. Ringe, Donald A., 1990, The Tocharian active s-preterite, a classical sigmatic aorist.

Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 51: 183–242. Winter, Werner, 1997, Lexical archaisms in the Tocharian languages. Hans H. Hock (ed.),

Historical, Indo-European, and lexicographical studies: A Festschrift for Ladislav Zgusta on the occasion of his 70th birthday. Berlin, 183–193.

Georges-Jean PINAULT (Paris)

About the “distant” relationships of Tocharian The data from Tocharian, that is from the two Tocharian languages (A and B), have been used in different genetic and areal frameworks, corresponding to various concerns of comparative linguistics in course of time. Three issues

27

can be roughly identified: 1) Do some special features of Tocharian morphosyntax require the hypothesis of contacts with non Indo-European languages, for instance Caucasian, Uralic or Altaic languages? 2) Which are the possible non Indo-European sources of loanwords at the Proto-Tocharian or Common Tocharian stage? 3) Although Tocharian seems to belong to the so-called “Core Indo-European”, it has been repeatedly claimed that it was especially archaic in some respects, so that it would have been the second language, after Anatolian, to break off from Proto-Indo-European. The latter claim has been seriously put into question during the past decade, and cannot be longer upheld in that form. However, the two former issues are still relevant. In addition to the lexicon they concern for instance the peculiar case system, the plural formations, and also the marking of transitivity in the verbal system. The Tocharian evidence has played some role in one or the other formulations of the Indo-Hittite and Indo-Uralic hypotheses. These facts are of course related to the specific geographic location of Tocharian languages in Central Asia. It is currently assumed that Proto-Tocharian has been developed in isolation from the other Indo-European languages, and that it was more subject to non Indo-European influences. The arguments that have been ventured in that field should be weighed again on the basis of recent researches.

Roland POOTH (Cologne)

Is the “tēzzi principle” a plausible inference? My presentation will provide comparative and internal evidence from Early Vedic, Old Avestan (i.e. Indo-Iranian), Greek and some other so-called “Inner Indo-European” languages pointing to a relatively recent and innovative character of the tripartite present/imperfect (imperfective) vs. aorist (perfective) vs. perfect/pluperfect (anterior) tense and aspect system, that is, the type of tense and aspect system which is well-known from the two major “Inner Indo-European” languages Vedic and Greek. In addition to a systematic comparison I will offer a brief overview of the major crosslinguistic grammaticalization paths leading to this type of tense and aspect system. The comparative and internal evidence is thus used to strengthen or weaken the inference which has been labeled the “tēzzi principle”. Within the course of my presententation it will be possible to give a proper answer to the following question: On the background of crosslinguistic, comparative and internal facts, is it really a plausible inference to assume that Hittite tēmi, tēši, tēzzi ‘say’, Lycian tadi ‘puts’, etc. are

28

innovated present tense forms which were backformed from a prior common root aorist or are these forms more plausibly archaisms going back to a common proto-category which was lost by the time of the grammaticalization of the tripartite tense and aspect system of Vedic and Greek? I will thus discuss an eventual special status of the Anatolian present indicative forms as opposed to the Greek and Vedic root aorist indicative and injunctive forms (e.g. 3rd sg. adhat, pl. adhur ‘put’) and other such forms. The discussion will finally amount to the question whether such a special status of the Anatolian forms can or cannot be used to prove or disprove a special status of the Proto-Anatolian branch within the IE language family.

Kirill RESHETNIKOV (Moscow)

Indo-European and Uralic: separated twins, children from a large family or just stepbrothers?

In our talk, we are going to discuss several basic hypotheses concerning the relationship between Indo-European and Uralic. These hypotheses are: 1) the Indo-Uralic hypothesis that implies the existence of a remote proto-language whose descendants would be Indo-European and Uralic only, 2) the claim about an even greater macrofamily including Indo-European and Uralic along with some other (commonly recognized) families such as Dravidian and Altaic, with the most advanced version of this model being known as the Nostratic hypothesis, 3) the interpretation of Indo-Uralic lexical parallels, including those found in basic vocabulary, as a result of mere borrowing, mostly from Proto-Indo-European into Proto-Uralic – an explanation which now appears the least persuasive. Although a range of comparisons link Indo-European and/or Uralic to other families, thus serving as evidence for the Nostratic hypothesis, there remain a number of remarkable pairwise parallels, not only lexical, limited merely to Uralic and Indo-European. So would it be reasonable to postulate an Indo-Uralic branch within a larger macrofamily?

Elisabeth RIEKEN (Marburg)

More on „Western Affinities” of Anatolian At the last Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft on the Indo-European lexicon in Copenhagen in 2012 Craig Melchert presented a paper

29

on „Western Affinities” of Anatolian. There he read paper proposing that Anatolian diverged from Proto-Indo-European to form a separate subgroup first, but then, at a later stage, was in contact with other branches of Indo-European normally thought to be Western. Like Puhvel (1994) before him, Melchert surveyed the Anatolian vocabulary for Anatolian-Western (i.e. Italic, Celtic, Germanic, ± Greek and Baltic) isoglosses, both root etymologies and word equations. He detected 25 cases. In addition, he found three gramaticalized particles and another lexeme that he considers to be secure cases of common innovation. As is well-known lexemes and particles, which are easily isolated and analyzed even by non-native speakers, are relatively likely to be borrowed also in situations of superficial contact. In my own paper, I shall review the Anatolian-Western isoglosses on the morpho-syntactic level, which are less prone to borrowing. Some of them have already been suggested before by Porzig (21974) and Kammenhuber (1961), but need revision after 50 years of on-going research. Others have not yet been adduced in order to answer the question of the dialectal position of Anatolian within the Indo-European language family.

Kammenhuber, Annelies (1961). „Zur Stellung des Hethitisch-Luvischen innerhalb der indogermanischen Grundsprache”, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 77, 31-75.

Porzig, Walter P. (1954). Die Gliederung des indogermanischen Sprachgebiets, Heidelberg: Winter.

Puhvel, Jaan (1994). „West-Indo-European Affinities of Anatolian”. In George Dunkel et al. (eds.), Früh-, Mittel- und Spätindogermanisch, Wiesbaden: Reichert, 315-324.

Zsolt SIMON (Munich)

The alleged Proto-Indo-European loanwords in Proto-Uralic The only piece of evidence for locating the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) homeland in the Pontic Steppe area is the assumption of PIE loanwords in Proto-Uralic (PU). In view of the importance of this problem, it is surprising that there has been no serious critical investigation of this question. This talk intends to fill this gap, based on a collection of all suggested loanwords. The first part of the talk is methodologically oriented focusing mainly on the criteria of an assured loanword. The second part presents the results of the critical analysis, and it will be shown that most of assumed loanwords can be safely discarded, since (a) they are not demonstrably of PIE/PU age; (b) their reconstruction is problematic on PIE/PU side; (c) they require ad hoc sound substitutions; or (d) are semantically distant. Even the remaining, very few

30

putative loanwords show phonological problems, not to mention that in such a case also the possibility of pure chance should be taken seriously. Assumed loanwords that represent no problems whatsoever are extremely rare (three or four cases at best), which casts serious doubts on the validity of the hypothesis of PIE – PU contacts.

George STAROSTIN (Moscow)

Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic among other proto-languages of Eurasia: a lexicostatistical evaluation

In this talk, I plan to briefly discuss the results of a recent lexicostatistical analysis, conducted by myself with the assistance of several colleagues from the Moscow school of comparative-historical linguistics, that could help shed some additional light on the prehistory of Proto-Indo-European and its position among other linguistic families of Eurasia, including, but not limited to, the Uralic family. The analysis positively differs from conventional lexicostatistical procedures in several important respects. First, in order to reduce technical complexity as well as efficiently filter out recent «noise», it takes as its starting point relatively reliable low-level reconstructions (such as Proto-Germanic, Proto-Slavic, Proto-Samoyed, Proto-Permic, etc.) rather than the entire mass of relevant forms from all modern languages. Second, analysis was restricted to 50 basic lexicon items that reveal the highest average degree of historical stability across language families all over the world (as calculated in a previous study by Sergei Starostin). Third, potential cognation was scored according to two different procedures: fully automated analysis, based on the so-called «consonant class method» of determining phonetic similarity, and manual analysis, based on additional informed knowledge about the histories of particular language groups and regular phonetic correspondences where those have been previously established. One of the most important results of this analysis is that in both versions of the procedure (automated and manual), it is the Uralic taxon that is consistently identified as the closest neighbour of Indo-European on the resulting classificatory tree, whereas all other probable connections differ significantly depending on the particular conditions of analysis. Further investigation shows that from a general typological point of view, the distribution of potential cognates between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic is more compatible with the scenario of a deep-level genetic relationship rather than that of prehistoric areal contacts. In the last part of the talk, I will explain the motivation behind such a decision, as well as

31

present some ideas on how a theory of Indo-Uralic relationship, built primarily on basic lexicon isoglosses, could be developed further without running into some of the problems typical of recent studies in «Nostratic» linguistics.

Michiel DE VAAN (Lausanne)

Proto-Indo-European *sm and *si ‘one’ The PIE morphemes *si and *sm are both attested in the meaning ‘one’ and as a constituent element of deictic pronouns. In the latter case, their distribution is partly complementary: masculine/neuter *to-sm- but feminine *to-si-. This raises the question of their mutual relationship and their original function. If the feminine gender arose at the post-Indo-Hittite stage, PIE *sm and *si did not originally have a gender connotation. In Early PIE, *si may have been the inanimate counterpart of deictic and animate *se and *sim, explaining the use of *si in the feminine (< inanimate) gender. The insertion of *sm ‘one, together’ in the pronouns may have started in the locative in *-sm-i. Altogether, the analysis of *sm and *si gives occasion to rethink some of the changes in the morphosyntax of reference from Indo-Uralic through Early PIE to Late PIE.

Christoph WENGER (Berlin)

Old, Really Old or Really, Really Old – Loan Relations between (P)IE and Uralic

Loan relations between Indo-European and Uralic languages have been known, and investigated, for a long time. What is lacking, though, is an overview and, if possible, a scrutinous analysis of the different strata: relations involving attested languages (einzelsprachlich) and contacts involving certain stages of reconstructed languages (voreinzelsprachlich, nachgrundsprachlich, grundsprachlich, possibly even vorgrundsprachlich). The paper aims to show examples for each of the aforementioned strata, concentrating on material pertaining to PIE while presenting possibilities to come to terms with notions like Early or Late PIE. The most feasible way to do this is to track traces of archaic features of PIE in Uralic loans. On a different occasion (Münster-Leiden conference 2008, also Fachtagung Salzburg 2008), I tried to establish alternations in root anlaut

32

and auslaut (h1/d and h2/m/u); assuming that in “standard” PIE this alternation is no longer in effect, it may still be seen in earlier variants of PIE. In fact, I will present several examples of Uralic roots representing with strong probability Early PIE loans featuring root alternation.

Jorma Koivulehto (1991) Uralische Evidenz für die Larnyngaltheorie. Sitzungsberichte Österreiche Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Wien.

Frederik Kortlandt (2002) The Indo-Uralic Verb. In: Finno-Ugrians and Indo-Europeans: Linguistic and Literary Contacts: Proceedings of the Symposium at the University of Groningen, November 22–24, 2001. Maastricht.

Mikhail ZHIVLOV (Moscow)

Indo-European laryngeals and their Indo-Uralic and Nostratic precursors

In the present talk we will focus on Uralic and Altaic correspondences of Indo-European inlaut laryngeals and combinations of resonant and laryngeal. Starting from the sound correspondences established by V.M. Illič-Svityč, we will try to show that instead of wholesale acceptance or rejection of these correspondences, they can and must be revised. One of the areas where such revision is needed is that of Indo-European laryngeals: a frequent criticism of Illič-Svityč’s Nostratic theory is that “Nostratic reconstructions fail to account for well-established IE laryngeals” (B. Vine). It turns out that some non-trivial Uralic and Altaic correspondences of IE laryngeals can be found. One of our conclusions is that IE combinations of nasal and laryngeal correspond to velar nasals in Uralic and Altaic. Some of the examples of this correspondence are: 1) PIE *senh2- ‘to search; to obtain’, Proto-Uralic *soŋi- ‘to wish, to want’, 2) PIE *smH- ‘summer’, Proto-Uralic *suŋi ‘summer’, 3) PIE *tnh2-eu- ‘thin’, Proto-Tungusic *taŋa ‘lean, thin’, 4) PIE *h2enh2t- ‘duck’, Proto-Turkic *aŋɨt ‘duck’.