From the analyses of the phonological developments given above it is clear that in some phonetic surroundings laryngeals survived into PIE as independent phonemes. Only on such an assumption can we explain the differing reflexes of laryngeals which are found in various dialects; PGmc. has reflexes of laryngeals in the neighborhood of /y w r l m n/ but none in the neighborhood of /p t k kʷ/. On the other hand Plnd.-Ir. shows only slight traces of reflexes of laryngeals in the neighborhood of resonants, but has aspirated stop phonemes that developed from stop and laryngeal. One cannot account simply for this variety of development by assuming that laryngeals were lost in pre-IE but left as reflexes compound phonemes in PIE; by such an assumption PIE ph th kh would have survived only in a few dialects, PIE hw and wh in another. If we were to assume for PIE compound reflexes of laryngeals we would have to draw up complicated formulae of their development in the various dialects. It is more credible to assume laryngeals as independent PIE phonemes. In some phonetic surroundings they were already lost in PIE. In the phonetic environments in which they survived into the dialects their loss or survival varies from dialect to dialect.
Although the developments investigated above have established the necessity of assuming laryngeal phonemes for PIE, they do not enable us to determine their number, whether two or more, or their allophones, whether these had laryngeal articulation, or the occurrences of these in PIE. From the contrast in development of resonants in Gk. we need only assume two pre-Gk. phonemes, one voiceless, the other voiced; the Ind.-Ir. and Gmc. developments likewise require the assumption of no more than two phonemes in any of the environments examined. Whether more than two such phonemes are to be assumed for PIE can be determined only after examination of these and whatever other developments are ascribed to laryngeals.
Examination of the reflexes of laryngeals in PIE as well as in the dialects is necessary to determine their positions of occurrence in PIE, and their allophones in PIE and pre-IE. By PIE they had been lost in various environments, e.g.
The most general reflexes of laryngeals in PIE are the ‘original long vowels’ and their unstressed forms, ‘schwa indogermanicum.’ Most of the commonly accepted evidence in favor of the laryngeal theory is based on these reflexes, as was noted in chapter 3. All long vowels which did not arise as a result of compensatory lengthening upon loss of a following vowel, that is, Dehnstufe,1 or possibly sporadic rhythmic laws,2 developed from short vowels lengthened upon loss of laryngeals.
The reconstructions of PIE long vowels and resonants have been based on various criteria: A. on the reflexes in the dialects; B. on the ablaut relationships; C. on the parallelism in PIE morphological classes. A. Since virtually all dialects have a long vowel in an adjective for ‘alive’, Skt. jīvá, Lat. vīvus, OCS živъ, a long ī has been reconstructed for PIE. B. Since the ablaut relationships of Gk. ἰτός : εἰ̑μι ‘I go’ parallel those of στατός : Dor. Gk. ἵστᾱμι ‘I stand’, for which an ‘original long vowel’ is assured by comparison with Skt.
Brugmann and Indo-Europeanists who follow him have reconstructed for PIE nine long vowels: ā ē ō ī ū ṝ ḹ ṃ̄ ṇ̄. Evidence of all three types may be adduced for the first five of these; for ṝ ḹ ṃ̄ ṇ̄ there are no similar reflexes in the dialects. Other Indo-Europeanists assume clusters rather than PIE ṝ ḹ ṃ̄ ṇ̄; thus Hirt reconstructs ırə, ılə, ımə, ınə. In seeking an answer to this and other problems of the PIE long vowels one must rely on ablaut theory as well as on the laryngeal theory; both Brugmann's (Saussure's) reconstruction ṝ and Hirt's ırə were arrived at by analysis of ablaut relationships. The laryngeal theory provides us with new interpretations of pre-IE phonology; it does not modify the theory of ablaut. The theory of ablaut is an attempt to state the pre-IE phonological relations for all PIE phonemes other than the obstruents. Because the laryngeal theory provides new conjectures about pre-IE vowels and continuants, some provisions of the ablaut theory will be modified. Among these are the relationships between the stressed vowels [a· e· o·], and the vowels [i· u· r̥· l̥· m̥· n̥·] and ə which developed in unstressed syllables. Since most of these unstressed vowels have their origin in a short vowel plus laryngeal, we must further attempt to find any possible traces of a diversity of laryngeals in their reflexes. These vowels are examined below in three groups: A. the combinations of [r̥ l̥ m̥ n̥] with laryngeals; B. [i u] plus laryngeal; C. the weakened forms of PIE /e· a· o·/.
There is general agreement on the reflexes of the vocalic allophones of the PIE resonants; the following chart is a composite one based on various handbooks. It gives the chief developments of resonants, when vocalic, in the various dialects. The IE reconstructions are those of Brugmann.
|i||i||i||i||i||i, e||i, e||ĭ(ι)||i|
|ṛ + C||ṛ||ar, ra||or, ur||ar||ri||ur, ru||rĭ, rŭ||ir̃, ur̃|
|+ V||ir, ur||ar||ar||ar||ar||ur||ĭr, ŭr||ir, ur|
|ṝ||īr, ūr||rā, rō, ara||rā, ār, ara||ar||ar/rā?||ur||rĭ, rŭ||ìr, ùr|
|ḷ + C||al, la||ol, ul||al||li||ul, lu||lĭ, lŭ||il̃, ul̃|
|+ V||see r||al||al||al||al||ul||ĭl, ŭl||il, ul|
|ḹ||lā, lō, ala||lā, āl, ala||al||al/lā?||ul||lĭ, lŭ||ìl, ùl|
|ṃ + C||a||a||em, um||am||em||um||ẹ||im̃, um̃|
|+ V||am||am||am, em||am||am||um||ĭm, ŭm||im, um|
|ṃ̄||ā, ām||mā, ama||ām, mā, ama||am||am/mā?||um||ẹ||ìm, ùm|
|ṇ + C||a||a||en, an||an||en||un||ẹ||iñ, uñ|
|+ V||an||an||en, an||an||an||un||ĭn, ŭn||in, un|
|ṇ̄||ā||nā, ana||ān, nā, ana||an||an/nā?||un||ẹ||ìn, ùn|
Examination of the reflexes shows that the evidence for assuming PIE /i· u·/ differs from that for assuming r̥̄ l̥̄ m̥̄ n̥̄. The parallelism between the reflexes of PIE /i· u·/ in the dialects leaves without question the assumption of these phonemes for PIE. The four other long vocalic resonants are posited by assumption of a complete parallelism between the vocalic resonants. Ablaut relationships supply the chief evidence. The PIE etymon of Skt. jātá, Gk. γνητός ‘born’ stands in the same ablaut relationship to
Hirt preferred reconstructions which indicated the morphological relationships of the ‘long resonants.’ ‘Long resonants’ are found primarily in the unaccented forms of laryngeal bases, e.g. Skt. jātá beside jánita, pūṛṇá beside prāti. Since for Hirt the laryngeal bases were characterized by a final long vowel, not a laryngeal consonant, he reconstructed PIE gınə, as the unstressed form of
The weakness of Hirt's reconstructions lies in the difficulty of accounting for their developments. By the usual laws Hirt's ırə, for example, should have developed to Skt. ari. Since instead it developed to īr and ūr, Hirt had to set up an additional phonetic law for the treatment of ə in combination with ır and other resonants; the aberrant developments here Hirt ascribed to accent. (See BHL 14-5.)
Both Hirt's and Brugmann's reconstructions are unsatisfactory, Hirt's for its disregard of phonological developments, Brugmann's for its disregard of morphological relationships. With Brugmann's formulation we cannot account
for the prevocalic forms of the supposed ‘long resonants,’ e.g. Gk. aor. inf.
With the laryngeal theory we analyze the seṭ-roots of the Skt. grammarians as laryngeal bases, not like Hirt, as heavy bases; we write them with final laryngeal rather than with final long vowel; instead of Hirt's
Only a few dialects have reflexes pointing to PIE long [r l· m· n·]. In Armenian, Gmc., Baltic, Slavic, and possibly Celtic3 the laryngeals were lost with no effect on the quantity of the preceding resonant. The difference in intonation in some Baltic and Slavic dialects is sometimes ascribed to a quantitative loss. The quantity is ascribed to an earlier syllabic loss. By the laryngeal theory we need only posit one stage instead of two, and this is a syllabic loss affecting intonation. The alternative theory, the assumption of PIE r̥̄ l̥̄ m̥̄ n̥̄, must hold that the laryngeals were lost in PIE with increase in quantity, that is, that pre-IE
The chief evidence for the assumption of long vocalic resonants is found in Skt. and Gk. The development of these reflexes becomes clear when we compare them with reflexes of the short vocalic resonants. The reflexes of the short vocalic allophone of the resonants, e.g. [r̥], are twofold in many dialects; we find one reflex before consonants, e.g. Skt. r̥, another before vowels, e.g. Skt. ir, ur. Other dialects, notably those with only one development of vocalic resonant plus laryngeal, have, only one development for short vocalic resonants, e.g. Arm. and Lith. I assume that such dialects preserved the original allophonic pattern; originally the vocalic allophone of resonants was limited to preconsonantal position. After this distribution was disturbed, further allophones developed in some dialects depending on the following phonemes, e.g. in Skt. I assume that one such reflex became generalized to the exclusion of others. The way to such generalization may be indicated by Gk.; here one reflex of [r̥] before consonant is the same as that before vowel, another different. One such development may have been generalized to the complete exclusion of the other.
Before laryngeals the reflexes of PIE [r̥ l̥ m̥ n̥] parallel those elsewhere. I assume that by interchange resulting from ablaut a weakened vowel was preserved before the laryngeal in some forms, e.g.
Although only one reflex of vocalic resonant plus laryngeal is usually found, I assume that we still have evidence for a twofold development of [r̥ l̥ m̥ n̥] before laryngeals, e.g. in the reflexes in Skt. of [m̥X]. Two reflexes are found in Skt. for [m̥X], the pre-consonantal reflex in Skt. dāsá ‘slave’, the pre-vocalic reflex in dāntá ‘tamed’. Since the minority of forms has ā, I assume that the prevocalic forms here too were being generalized. For
In Gk. too we find a twofold development of [r̥ l̥ m̥ n̥] before laryngeal, to ρᾱ, αρα λᾱ, αλα μᾱ, αμα νᾱ, ανα; here both reflexes are maintained for all resonants. ρω, λω correspond to the pattern of ρᾱ, λᾱ; the difference in vowel-color will be discussed below. The reflexes αρα, αλα, αμα, ανα have been the subject of much discussion, see Gdr. I.418-9, IG 2.136-8; Buck, CGLG 113-7; the reason for the twofold development has apparently been obscured by later changes. For we find such twofold developments in words similar in morphological structure, and presumably similar too in phonological structure at an earlier time: ανα in θάνατος ‘death’, νᾱ in θνητός ‘dead’. Although the original distribution can only be suggested, I assume from comparison with Skt. that Gk. ρᾱ etc. are the lengthened reflexes of [r̥] to be expected before consonant, αρα etc. the lengthened reflexes of [r̥] to be expected before vowel. I assume that
After the Gk. accent replaced the PIE accent the pattern was broken; from compounds with an accent pattern like that of *ἄθανατος were made forms like θάνατος ‘death’. We may see in their accentual patterns an indication that θάνατος, δάμασις were secondary. θάνατος like πότος ‘drink’, OHG mord ‘murder’ has root accent; θνητός ‘mortal’, like ποτός ‘drunk’, Skt. mr̥tá ‘dead’ has suffix accent; see IG 5.220-3 for further examples. Although we-do not have such doublets for all αρα : ρᾱ words, I conclude from the conformity of θνητός, δμητός with the expected accentual and semantic pattern that they developed from the PIE tó-form with suffix accent and consequent loss of
With the assumption that laryngeals were preserved into PIE after [r̥ l̥ m̥ n̥] and that [r̥ l̥ m̥ n̥] developed regularly before them, we can account for most of the developments in the dialects, e.g. Skt. īr, ūr beside ir, ur, ā beside a, ā, ām beside a, am. Gk. μᾱ and νᾱ do not show the expected developments, that is, the lengthened form of the reflex of [m̥] and [n̥]; I assume that they continue lengthened forms of [m̥] and [n̥] older than is represented by α, the usual Gk. reflex of these. In Italic too some of the developments are lengthened forms of the short resonant; others are reflexes of forms that elsewhere were lost.
The diversity of development in the individual dialects such as Gk., Ital., Celt., and even Skt. may be ascribed to the small number of words with vocalic allophone of resonant before laryngeal, and the lack of morphological patterning between them. Analogical regularization is hardly to be expected between words of such different morphological categories as παλάμη, σφαραγέομαι, and θνητός.
We cannot explain why in some dialects laryngeals were lost everywhere without compensatory lengthening, why in others they were lost without such lengthening only before vowels. Presumably in Skt., Gk., Lat., and Celt. the laryngeals were lost before consonants at a time when they still caused compensatory lengthening, as they had after [i] and [u]. Whether this lengthening was ever found in Armenian is unknown. In Baltic and Slavic the loss of laryngeals produced a modification in intonation. On the basis of the evidence of forms cited in chapter 7 I assume that in Gmc. the loss occurred at a period when there was no longer such compensatory lengthening.
The reflexes in the dialects lead us to conclude that [iX] [uX] before consonants had contracted to [i·] [u·] already in PIE. [i·] [u·] became phonemic in PIE, presumably upon loss of the following laryngeal. I assume further that this change in phonemic status was aided by coalescence with [u·], and possibly [i·], from other sources; thus Skt.
Before vowels, however, the laryngeals were lost after [i u] without lengthening. Reflexes of such prevocalic uncontracted forms are Skt. ábhuvat ‘became’ beside bhūtá, gen. sg. dhiyás or
Besides these uncontracted forms we find in Gk. nom. sg. forms of yā-stems ending in
We find such uncontracted forms also medially in reflexes of a few laryngeal bases: πρίαμαι ‘buy’ but Skt. krīṇā́ti,
Such forms then are parallel to the
For /e· a· o·/ there is no evidence of uncontracted forms. None of the dialects have reflexes of
The long PIE vowels then point to a gradual loss of laryngeals, varying according to phonetic environment. They were lost earliest between /e a o/ and consonant. The resulting long vowels became phonemes, falling together with the /e· a· o·/ that had developed in Dehnstufe.4 The raising of [i·] and [u·] to phonemic status was apparently also aided by the prior presence of long [i·] and [u·]. But there were no previous long [r̥ l̥ m̥ n̥] in PIE with which the short vocalic resonants might have fallen together; after [r̥ l̥ m̥ n̥] laryngeals were lost in the individual dialects leaving the reflexes listed in the chart given 12.3.
12.5a. Although there is general acceptance of /e· a· o·/ as PIE phonemes, the unaccented form of these is disputed. Most Indo-Europeanists assume one unaccented form, ə. By a less widely held theory there were three unaccented vowels corresponding to the three long vowels. Proponents of the schwa theory, ə, base their arguments on the presence in most dialects, and in most unstressed forms, of one reflex, i in the Ind-Ir. dialects, a elsewhere. Proponents of three unaccented vowels point to e and o which are found as reflexes of PIE unstressed vowels, especially in Gk. Proponents of the schwa theory have been unable to explain these e and o vowels except by recourse to analogy, a method which is not particularly credible for words for which no source of the analogical vowel can be discovered. On the other hand the assumption of three vowels seems unnecessarily complicated because most dialects have a uniform reflex of the three hypothetical vowels.
With the laryngeal theory this complication can be avoided. It is a statement of the ablaut theory that the unstressed vowels assumed for PIE developed
from full vowels. Although formerly, original long vowels of various colors were assumed, it is now clear that this diversity of ‘original long vowels’ is a result of contraction with laryngeals. Since we do not assume three different ‘original long vowel phonemes,’ but rather a diversity of laryngeals, we no longer assume three different unaccented vowels, but rather one
This problem can be solved only from examination of the reflexes in the dialects. The threefold reflexes in Gk. are inexplicable by the schwa theory. Yet the schwa theory has not been discarded, for the weighty evidence against it is taken primarily from one dialect. If, however, material from other dialects could be assembled that would point to PIE
12.5b. The usual forms in Gk. that are cited in favor of three unstressed vowels are στατός, cf. ἵστᾱμι ‘I stand’, θετός, cf. τίθημι ‘I put’, δοτός, cf. δίδωμι ‘I give’; for others see IG 2.34-5, 119-21, Gdr. I.174-5, Introduction 154ff. Proponents of the schwa theory explain the ε, α, ο of the unaccented syllables as analogical vowels from those of the accented syllables. Such an explanation can apply only for words beside which are found such accented forms. These are not always attested, e.g. no long e is found beside ἄνεμος ‘wind’, no long ο beside ἀρόω ‘I plough’.
Other forms with e where an unaccented vowel is expected are so wide-spread that the e has been explained as an aberrant PIE
In chapter 2 I assumed that by ablaut there was only one unaccented variant of
In addition we find unexpected vowel color o in some laryngeal bases. Such are the o in aorists, beside ρω, λω in other forms of the verbs. Examples are:
A. For most laryngeal bases we find in the s-aorist a weakened form of the base ending in α, e.g. ἐδάμασα ‘tamed’. (Schwyzer, Gr. Gr. 752.) For many of these there are cognates giving evidence for an a-colored laryngeal; cognate with ἐδάμασα are Lat. domāre and OHG zamōn.
Beside these, however, are found seven aorists with ε: ἐκάλεσα, ἐκόρεσα, ἐλόεσα, ἐστόρεσα, ἤμεσα, ἤνεσα, ὤλεσα. For some of these, we have evidence of an e-colored laryngeal in the base: Gk. καλήτωρ beside ἐκάλεσα, Lat. crēscō ‘grow’ beside ἐκόρεσα. WP find evidence for such a base also beside ἤμεσα 1.262-3, and ἐστόρεσα, 2.638-40. Cognates of the three other aorists give us no evidence to assume an e-colored laryngeal.
There are two aorists with o-vowel; for one of these, ὤμοσα, WP 1.178-9 assume a root omō; for the other, ἤροσα, they assume a root
B. We also find such threefold development of vowels in the form of laryngeal bases found in word compounds. Beside the usual α found in γέλασμα ‘laughter’,
C. For the two compounds with unaccented ε, δίεμαι and διερός, WP 1.775 assume spread of ε by analogy; but again this assumption is apparently based on the supposition that only α should be found in such an environment.
D. Aorists made from laryngeal bases generally have α in the root, which here was unaccented, e.g. ἔβαλον, cf. βέλεμνα, βλη̑το; ἔθανον, cf. τέθνηκα, θάνατος, etc. Some aorist forms, however, have ο; these have been listed above. Beside most of these are found forms with long ō. Such long ō vowels, which are reflexes of resonant plus laryngeal, are also found in:
Such reflexes of resonant plus laryngeal, in which α plus resonant would be the normal development, are found also in a number of Gk. substantives: (Schwyzer 363)
I assume that when vowels other than a are found in the neighborhood of unstressed resonants that the vowel color is a result of assimilation to the articulation of a neighboring phoneme. In some forms, e.g. μολει̑ν, the laryngeal was lost before lengthening the reflex of the resonant; in others e.g. βλώσκω, it changed both the color and the quantity of the vowel resulting from the preceding resonant.
12.5e. Assumption of such an influence of neighboring laryngeals may be supported by the Skt. development of [r̥] in the neighborhood of laryngeals. [r̥x] may develop either to ūr or īr. Only ūr is found after labials, including u, cf. Wackernagel, Aind. Gr. I.28. After other consonants and initially īr is usually found. In some forms, however, only ūr is attested after consonants other than labials; Wackernagel, Aind. Gr. I.28 lists thirteen such forms. Most of these have a labial elsewhere in the base, e.g. kūrpara, kūrmá. In kūrdati ‘leaps’ which is cognate with Gk. κόρδαξ ‘dance’ there is a development of back vowels in both languages, but we have no evidence for a labial in the base. A similar correlation of back vowels is found in Gk. ὀρθός, Skt. ūrdhvá (with labial, to be sure), ὀργή, ūrja, οὐ̑λος, ū́rnā. Since the vowel color in Skt. of [r̥] plus [X] was influenced by surrounding phonemes, I assume that here too the color was so determined. The only phoneme with such possible effect was the laryngeal.
I assume that in forms with preceding consonant other than labial the possible development was not fixed; [r̥X] developed either to īr or ūr in the same root, e.g. śīrtá and śūrtá from
Such influence of a neighboring laryngeal was not restricted to reflexes of PIE [r̥]. A relatively great number of Gk. forms have been cited above to show such influence also on reflexes of
Before i, the Ind.-Ir. reflex of these sequences, there was secondary palatalization of velars. Wackernagel, Aind. Gr. I.1.42, cites the isolated word duhitr̥ ‘daughter’ in support of the statement that such palatalization did not spread analogically from related forms in which the velar consonant stood before /e e· y i·/. Two Vedic words, however, have an unpalatalized velar before i, okivas from
If we assume on the basis of unaccented vowels PIE laryngeals of three colors, we must also describe their development in the neighborhood of stressed vowels. There is little doubt about
There are very few roots on which to base a description of the development of PIE
The reflexes of these roots are not very wide-spread in the dialects. Only Baltic and Slavic dialects give us evidence for the accented vowel of
The roots /do· ko· po·/ give unambiguous evidence for assuming a development of eγ to o·; various forms from each have been cited above. The second root
Although the evidence is small I assume that
There is thus a marked difference between the effect of
With such an analysis of the effect of laryngeals, the development of the PIE unaccented vowel,
None of the dialects has a similar contrast. In all dialects the short vowels may occur in unaccented as well as accented syllables. None of the dialects has a vowel which is restricted to unaccented syllables as was
The most frequent vowel in accented syllables was
By a comparison of the structural systems of PIE and the dialects we can understand the sharply divergent developments of PIE
I assume that originally
In Indo-Iranian, with its phonological shift in vowel system from a contrast in timbre to one of quantity, the allophones of
Because of their differing effects on vowel timbre I conclude that we must posit at least three laryngeals for PIE:
This correlates with other evidence for laryngeals. In our Hittite records
I conclude that until we have further evidence from Hittite or other Anatolian languages we can most simply account for the various reflexes of laryngeals by assuming four laryngeal phonemes in PIE.5
2 No evidence for an origin in laryngeal, like that of Skt. bhū́ <
3 The reflexes of the resonants followed by laryngeal are disputed in Celtic; see IG 2.133 and Lewis-Pedersen 4-8.—A. Vaillant has discussed the Lithuanian intonation in Le probléme des intonations balto-slaves, BSL 37.112-4.
4 Kurylowicz suggested in 1937, Mélanges de Linguistique et de Philologie offerts à Jacques van Ginneken . . . 199-206 (Paris, 1937) that ā and ō cannot be assumed for PIE because laryngeals survived into the dialects. I cannot subscribe to this suggestion. I assume that laryngeals survived into PIE in some phonetic environments and were lost in others with compensatory lengthening. The status of laryngeals in PIE may be compared with that of r in modern British English. In pre-modern British English r is attested before and after vowels; in modern British English r has been lost after vowels with compensatory lengthening, but its status elsewhere is unchanged.
5 Compare Sapir, Language 14.270: ‘If, now, we posit an IE series