Volume 125, Issue 1

Zusammenfassung The Homeric compound ἀρτιεπής can be understood as a possessive-compound with a case-form or an adverb in the first member. The compound can be connected to the idea of [CORRECT/RIGHT - SAY], and as such to the expression ἄρτια βάζειν ‘to tell right things’ (Hom.). A collocation [*(H)ar‑ - *u̯eku̯‑] lies at the basis of several IIr. compounds and collocations that are etymologically related to ἀρτιεπής: Ved. ṛtavāká‑, Av. arəm.uxti‑, Ved. [ṛtám - say]. Among others, some striking matches can be identified: Ved. ṛtvíya‑ vā́k‑ and YAv. raϑβiia‑ vacah‑, as well as YAv. vacah‑ - ratumant‑, where the tu‑derivatives parallel the ti‑derivatives (Gk. ἄρτι : *arti‑ or *art‑i‑); YAv. arš.uxδa‑, arš.vacah‑ (OAv. ərəš.vacah‑) which may be interpreted as structural matches, probably containing an adverb as first member of compound.

Zusammenfassung It is argued that Greek σφήξ, σφηκός ‘wasp’ may be derived from the PIE root *(s)bʰeh₁gʰ- ‘be irascible; start a fight’. The insect’s belligerent nature has been noted both in European antiquity and in various cultures around the world. The inverse of Grassmann’s Law (e.g. nom.pl. σφῆκες, not *σπῆχες) seems to be regular in paradigms with word-initial σφ-. The form σφάξ in Theocritus may be hyperdoric.

This paper presents evidence for a PIE root *u̯erp‑ ‘to attack, to force oneself onto someone’ and argues that Greek ἅρπαξ (< *u̯ǝrʰpag-) goes back to a verbal governing compound *u̯r̥p-h₂g̑- ‘driving something (e.g. cattle) away by force’.

This paper focuses on the last verse of the Phrygian epigram dated to the Early Hellenistic Period and found in Dokimeion (W-11). After some remarks on the segmentation, the verb πεννιτι is identified as the Phrygian outcome of PIE verbal root *pent- and ομνισιτου, along with its related Phrygian forms, as going back to PIE *h₃emh₃‑. It also argues in favour of Lubotsky’s identification of Phrygian κορο- as a cognate of Greek κόρος ‘boy’ and κόρη ‘girl’ with some remarks on its inflection.

In standard Albanian, there is a restricted class of three intransitive verbs (hip-, ec-, ik-) that shows a suffix ‑i/‑ën in the conjugation of the present singular. In dialects and in Old Albanian, however, this suffix is more prolific. This paper studies the history of this suffix and its function by comparing its use in a wide range of Albanian dialects. Based on the dialectal data a Proto- Albanian inchoative/imperfective function inherited from Proto-Indo-European can be reconstructed for the suffix. This function is still present in the Arbëresh dialect of San Costantino Albanese. As the suffix lost its semantic component, it became a marker for the imperfect in Tosk and southern Geg, while in northern Geg the suffix is used as a present marker in verbs where ambiguity with the imperfect could arise. The verbs hip-, ec-, and ik- were originally transitive verbs which were intransitivized by the suffix ‑i/‑ën. As their original transitive meaning was lost, the suffix was obligatory in these verbs in Proto-Albanian already, a situation that is continued in almost all present dialects.

The inherited Proto-Slavic feminine nouns in nom. sg. *‑y, oblique *‑ъvare conventionally thought to go back to one source only, namely Proto-Indo- European stems in *‑uh‑. However, a handful of previous studies have already demonstrated the possibility that other inherited items could join this paradigm by phonologically developing a nom. sg. in *‑y from other sources (particularly *‑ōs). Accordingly, in the present article, it is hypothesized that the well-known PSl. noun *ljuby *ljubъve f. ‘love’ may go back to an amphikinetic s‑stem *lewbʰ‑ōs. Such a reconstruction makes it possible to explain a number of otherwise problematic features of the complex of *ljuby, such as: 1) the enigmatic OCS acc. sg. ljuby (for expected ljubъvь) in the collocations (prě)ljuby (sъ)tvoriti or (prě)ljuby dějati ‘commit adultery’; 2) the unexpected presence of *‑s‑ in the Balt. cognate, Lith. liaupsė̃ f. ‘praise, adoration’; 3) the occurrence of PSl. *‑y as an abstract marker (a function in which PIE amphikinetic s‑stems in *‑ōs are securely, even if marginally, found, particularly in the domain of emotions and mental states - cf. Gk. αἰδώς αἰδόος f. ‘reverence, awe’, ἔρως *ἔροος m. ‘love, desire’, Ved. bhiyás‑, Av. biiah‑ m. ‘fear’ - while no such function can convincingly be reconstructed for a formation in *‑u‑h₂).

In addition to inflecting adjectives for case, number, and gender, the early Germanic languages inflect adjectives as either strong or weak. Scholarly consensus is lacking regarding what triggers this fourth inflectional category, i.e. why an adjective surfaces as either strong or weak. While the traditional school of thought held that weak adjectives surface with definite determiners, some recent scholarship has argued that a semantic force such as definiteness or classification is responsible. To evaluate the two positions, I compared attributive adjectives in the Old High German translation of Tatian’s Diatessaron with the corresponding passages in Gothic and Old English. The conclusion supports the traditional school of thought that determiners trigger weak adjectives and refutes the idea that semantics is primarily responsible for whether an adjective surfaces as strong or weak.

This article discusses the grammaticalization of the habitual auxiliaries εἴωθα, φιλέω, ἐθέλω and νομίζω in Archaic and Classical Greek. I aim to (1) provide a more complete understanding of the Ancient Greek expressions of habituality; (2) distinguish clearly between habitual aspect and (possibly diachronically) related semantic categories such as iterativity and genericity; (3) demonstrate the usefulness of grammaticalization and collocation criteria to measure the relative degree of grammaticalization of the habitual auxiliaries. I argue that their degree of grammaticalization can be measured by whether they have developed past uses, undergone a diachronic collocation shift to inanimate subjects and, subsequently, stative infinitives, and whether they have acquired an anti-present implicature. Finally, I suggest that habitual ἐθέλω occurred already in Archaic Greek and was the source for the futurity use that it developed in Classical Greek.

In Vedic Sanskrit, masculine a-stem nominals exhibit two different forms of the nom/voc.pl, a short form (ending in ‑ās) and a long form (ending in ‑āsas). In this article, we will argue that the scope of this variation is not a single nominal but the entire noun phrase. This means that whereas the short form may occur several times in a noun phrase, the long form is either absent or occurs only once. From a functional point of view, complex noun phrases containing one long form are equivalent to simple noun phrases consisting of one long form. In contrast, complex noun phrases containing only short forms are equivalent to simple noun phrases consisting of one short form. The presence or absence of the long form marks the presence or absence of a certain linguistic feature, the exact nature of which still has to be determined. We will argue that in those cases in which two long forms occur in relative proximity to each other, they either have to, or at least can be interpreted as being part of two distinct noun phrases. In order to do so, we will apply morphological, semantic, syntactic as well as stylistic and metrical criteria.

Zusammenfassung In the construction ἑκὼν εἶναι, grammars identify the function of εἶναι either with the function of an old dative or accusative. However, some scholars consider εἶναι redundant because it is difficult to ascertain its exact semantic and syntactic function. In any case, neither the original meaning of εἶναι in this construction nor the functional relationship of ἑκών with the infinitive has been described satisfactorily. The semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic differences between ἑκών and ἑκὼν εἶναι have not been determined either. This paper analyzes both ἑκών and εἶναι based on a selection of works of different chronology and genres in order to propose both a diachronic and a synchronic explanation of the construction ἑκὼν εἶναι. The data analysis supports the interpretation of εἶναι as a limitative infinitive that developed into a focusing element. In sentences with negative polarity, ἑκὼν εἶναι has regularly evolved into a parenthetical, specifically a self-correction parenthetical.

Zusammenfassung This paper contains a critical evaluation of the alleged Proto- Indo-European loanwords in Proto-Uralic and Proto-Finno-Ugric and argues that most of them cannot be upheld. It is also argued that currently it is not possible to choose between different scenarios for the remaining cases, i.e. sheer coincidence, borrowing from Proto-Indo-European, borrowing from a precursor of Tocharian, and a combination of any of these. Incidentally, this result also means that these words cannot be used for the location of the Proto-Indo-European homeland in the steppe area, which thus loses its single trustworthy linguistic argument.

The paper reevaluates the evidence for dative case marking of the direct object of the infinitive in Hittite against the Indo-European and cross-linguistic background. It provides a full corpus of relevant examples in Hittite, suggests a new taxonomy of them and proposes that a syntactic rule has to be formulated to account for the non-finite contexts where dative case marks the direct object of the infinitive in Hittite.

Middle Breton (MB) presents a singular anomaly of pronominal argument coding. Objects are accusative proclitics save in two constructions, where coding is split by person: 3rd unique enclitics ~ 1st/2nd accusative proclitics. The constructions are HAVE, from Insular Celtic mihi est, where the new coding replaces inflectional nominatives (cf. Latin mihi est ~ sunt); and imperatives, where it replaces accusative enclitics in V1 (cf. French aide-moi ~ ne m’aide pas). The evolution is traced in light of a crosslinguistic construction type that suggests its nature, noncanonical subject + 3rd nominative ~ 1st/2nd accusative object. Part I: (1) Decomposition of HAVE as dative clitic + BE from Brythonic throughout “conservative” varieties of Breton. (2) Breton-Cornish innovation of nonclitic datives for mihi est and their subjecthood. Part II: (3) Brythonic unavailibility of mesoclisis in V1 and Breton-Cornish nonagreement with nominative objects, resulting in independent > enclitic pronouns for accusative objects of imperatives and nominative objects of mihi est. (4) MB alignment of imperatives with mihi est in 3rd person, restriction on nominative enclitics, and recruitment of 1st/2nd person accusative proclitics upon loss of mesoclisis. (5) Transition to accusative objects in “innovative” varieties and subject-object case interactions.