On PIE. tectals.

\. The problem

1.1. The growing certainty expressed in some circles in recent years

that Luvian at least, of all the Indo-European languages, provided
direct and incontrovertible evidence of three tectal series in Proto-
Anatolian and PIE.1 has lately suifered a setback due to the simultane-
ous discovery by Melchert (1993: 247) and, with more detailed argu-
ments, Kimball (1994) that voiced tectals - specifically voiced palatalo-
velars2 - are preserved in Luvian s velars in non-palatalizing
environments. The doctrine that in its voiced tectals Luvian behaves
like a typical centum language while its voiceless tectals preserve
PIE. tritectalism is deeply unsatisfying and suggests once again3 that
there is something fundamentally wrong with the tritectal reconstruc-
tion. The purpose of the remarks offered here is to contribute to the
elucidation of this problem.
1.2. A virtually complete, phonologically sound, bitectal solution,
based on facts rather than prejudices, is in fact available. It was pre-
sented by Kortlandt (1978; reaffirmed 1994: 93 f.) in a neglected,4
perhaps because slightly mistitled, article which continued and extended
ideas developed by Meillet over a Century ago. The few inadequate
counterexamples that have been advanced against this solution cannot
be taken seriously5 beside the massive tritectal residue. This residue

1
See especially Melchert (1987: 203f.; 1988: 243 ff.; 1989: 23ff:; 1993: 238f.); Tischler
(1990: 83 ff.). .
2
There appears to be no evidence confirming this for^plain velars.
3
Two other cogent disabilities of tritectalism are summarized by Kortlandt
(1978: 237). The old complaint that no actual IE. language attested all three series
was effectively shown to be hollow by Allen (1978: 92ff.).
4
Its significance remained quite unnotice4> e. g., by Shields (1981: esp. 207, fn. 3); Tischler
(1990: 69f., fn. 28) seems to have ignored it altogether.
5
Those cited by Beekes (1995: 112f.), and which Beekes does not himself dismiss, can
be dealt with s follows: for Skt.,smasru- see Kortlandt (1978, 7); Lith. esva has the
required front vowel in Beekes' own protoform; the possible connection of Skt. sri-
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM
Indogermanische Forschungen, 103. Band 1998
 On PIE. tectals 41

and the allophonic complexity that Beekes (1995: 113) mistakenly ob-
jects to are not the only reasons for regarding the Kortlandt/Meillet
developments s 'postdispersionar, i.e. s occurring during the period
of identifiable dialectal Variation (see Kortlandt 1978, 22; also below
7.3.1). Clearly it is wrong to project back into the protolanguage par-
allel developments not shared by all dialects.
The only real objection to the Meillet/Kortlandt solution is that it
specifies the palatovelars and labiovelars s primary6 and this is feit
to infringe against typology.7 Kortlandt must himself accept some re-
sponsibility for this state of affairs since the presence of Uvular series
in all the languages he adduced in support of his bitectal reconstruction
was not nearly s irrelevant s Kortlandt (1978: 237, fn.l) tried to sug-
gest. Indeed, in view of the longstanding tradition of interpreting and
symbolizing the pure velars s uvulars, this circumstance crucially dis~
credited the very point Kortlandt intended to make.
It appears then that the most important obstacle to acceptance of
the Meillet/Kortlandt bitectal solution for PIE. is the lack of suitable
typological support.
It turns out that a perfect typological model for this cbi- to tritectaF
development is indeed available. But in order to appreciate it, it will
be necessary to dispense with the unnecessary and preemptive belief
that the two primary tectal series must be the same in all respects s
two of their descendants. It will be convenient to exhibit this model,
and indicate the hypothetical PIE. development implied by it, before
turning to an examination of some residual problems thrown up in
recefat literature.

'beauty' (*/-#,-), despite its declension, with Gk. 'beautifuP (*Jk/-wfc) (see Frisk
1954-73 s.v. on the n-o-suffix) and even 'splendid', despite the obvious alter-
native, is worth investigating; Skt rusant- beside rocate is hardly supportive of tritec-
talism if the forms are thought to be cognate (so Mayrhofer 1992-: 464); Lith. slaunis
belongs, according to Fraenkel (1962-65 s.w.), with ^-grade forms ke slia kti; Skt.
cy vate, with its delabialized labiovejar, seems^aJso not immune from the effects of
PIE. ablaut (cf. Mayrhofer 1986-1992: 551, 553; but see also Kortlandt 1980: 248).
6
This is hardly surprising: Allen (1978: 96 ff.) details sound objections to the two alter-
native bitectal hypotheses, but has nothing much to say bout tbe hazy (and untenable)
proposals of Magnusson (1967).
7
See, e.g., Mayrhofer (1986: 105, fn.42); Tischler (1990: 69, fn.27).
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM
42 Robert Woodhouse

2. The typological basisfor PIE. fbi- to tritectalism*

Two Athapaskan languages with appropriately organized occlusive

inventories. viz. Koyukon and Hupa, are sufficient to establish this.8
The dialects of Koyukon present an embryonic centum/satem-like
split. The Upper dialect has a palatal and a velar series which correspond
to a velar and a postvelar series, respectively, in the remaining dialects
(Henry et al. 1973: VUff.).9 There is no evidence that palatalization in
the Upper Koyukon dialect was triggered by front vowels: instead an
original pair of tectal series appears to have moved bodily forward in
the Upper dialect, and bodily rearward in the remainder.
The original pair of tectal series appears to be preserved in Hupa s
a prevelar and a backvelar series. Phonetically, it is noteworthy that
the prevelars in Hupa 'are followed by a palatal glide which is especially
prominent before /a, o/' and the backvelars tend to have a velar glide
before front and central vowels and to be labialized before /o/ (Wood-
ward 1964: 200 f.).
Thus the prevelars and backvelars of Hupa already show signs of
incipient development into full-blown palatals and labiovelars, respec-
tively (although they have not yet done so), while Koyukon represents
a more developed stage in which the original two series have split into
a total of three for the entire dialect family (though there are still only

8
Note that the occlusive inventory of each dialect involved in this demonstration has
only two tectal series, plus one dental series, plus a lone labial. - Glottalicists can take
comfort in the fact the three (voiceless) stops in each series comprise one unaspirated,
one aspirated, and one glottalized; also that the aspirated backvelar in Hupa is extre-
mely rare. However, the equally rare and solitary (unaspirated) labial is less encouraging
for the 'glottalic' theory. Moreover, the voicing of a: voiceless aspirated bi-occlusive
cluster that that analysis entails in order to account for Bartholomae's lw in Indo-
Iranian (cf. Beekes 1995:129) lacks badly needed empirical support; that analysis also
disregards the striking, but frequently overlooked equation: retention vs. loss of Bar-
tholomae's law = retention vs. loss of voiced aspirates (NOT = retention vs: loss merely
of three distinct occlusive series),
9
These authors do not use the terms 'palatal', 'velar' and 'postvelar' in their carefully
compiled pedagogical work but their descriptions are sufficiently transparent; I have
here deliberately chosen terms different from those used by Woodward (1964) in order
to avoid implying unwarranted identifications of the various series in the different
languages.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM
 On PIE, tectals 43

two series per dialect) and of these three the resulting 'middle' series
derives from the original back series in one dialect area and the original
front series in the other. The parallelism with IE. is obvious.

3. PIE. bitectal to IE. centum + satem development

3.1. The Athapaskan Situation described in the preceding section pro-

vides the perfect model for the split of a bitectal PIE., with prevelars
and backvelars10 and their subphonemic glides, exactly s in Hupa,
into centum + satem IE. with essentially fll mutual intelligibility be-
tween the two parts, s in Koyukon. The principal differences in the
IE. development are s follows (for details see generally Kortlandt 1978;
1980; 1994: 93; proposed modifications of some of Kortlandfs sugge-
stions are discussed below).
3.1.1. Distinctions between the two series were obliterated in certain
environments, probably prior to the centum-satem split, but with rea-
lignments with the two phonemic series proceeding differently in dif-
ferent dialects. Possible environments additional to those listed by Kort-
landt (1978, 5) are immediately following *w, *r (Steensland 1973:
88 if.) and, in my opinion, immediately before PIE, ^a.11
3.1.2. In the satem dialects the fronting of the prevelars was inhibited
in various ways depending an the particular dialect. The non-fronted
prevelars merged with the fronted backvelars in these dialects. Conse-
quently they are identified either s pure velars or s instances of Gut-
turalwechsel. In some dialects, notably Albanian and Armenian, these

10
The temptation to regularize Woodward's terminology (i.e. to either pre- and post-
velars or front- and backvelars) is here resisted in order to avoid unwarranted and
unnecessary deviations from the typological modei.
11
Cf. Allen (1978:96f.). In Steensland's material(1973:19f.; root-final tectals on p. 64f.
may have been affected by the other factors just alluded to) it is noticeable that la-
biovelar before *a occurs only in interrogatives and two forms of the 'come' root,
in all of which it clearly need not be original in the bitectal sense (thus, s in Hupa,
labiality was phonetic only before *o). The palatals are also poorly represented before
*a. Steensland (p. 18) includes essentially two bird names, which have problems of
Gutturlwechsel (perhaps due to onomatopoeicdisturbances), plus Skt stru- 'enemy1
: OCS. kowra 'fight', with the same problem. (Steensland's fourth example, *ghazdo-,
has no denionstrable palataL).

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM
44 Robert Woodhouse

processes were further obscured by other developments (Kortlandt

1980).12
3.1.3. As the two tectal series moved rearwards in the centum dia-
lects, the originally subphonemic labial glide accompanying the
backvelars before *o increased in intensity until it was levelled in para-
digms to the other positions and thus became part of the feature spe-
cification for the phonemes. This made the more posterior point of
contact of the series phonemically irrelevant and this feature was s a
consequence abandoned. Hence the rise of labiovelars alongside the
pure velars.
At this point, a reversal set in:13 precisely in the position before *o,
perhaps under the influence of incipient labiality of the pure velars
( < backed prevelars) in this environment, the labiality of the labiovelars
reverted to the Status of a mere glide, except where it was maintained
by unaffected members of the paradigm. Hence the new pure velars in
centum dialects, corresponding to velars in satem dialects, both deriving
ultimately from the backvelars.
3.2. The following is noteworthy:
3.2.1. At no stage has it been necessary to posit a single dialect with
palatals and labiovelars s its sole two tectal series.
3.2.2. The new pure velars (< delabialized backvelars) in centum
dialects are generated in the same environment before *0 s will have

12
Note that (pace Stempel 1994: 298, fn. 1) s early s 1989Mayrhofer (1986-92, Lfg. 6,
p. 469) had abandoned the view endorsed by Tischler (l 990:78 f.) that the Indic reflexes
of -RH- were diagnostic of the quality of a preceding tectal. The similar but more
plentiful -R- material of Baltic-Slavic should be regarded similarly. Kortlandt (1978:
240) is really having a bet both ways in suggesting that the different developments
depend on the preceding tectal while agreeing with Trautmann thaf they were deter-
mined largely by apophonic relationships: they cannot be determined 'largely' by
both. There would of course be no theoretical objection to positing a stage in any
of these prehistoric dialects in which the distinction between the fronted.and non-
fronted prevelars became phonemicized without the latter merging immediately with
the backvelars, - much s Sanskrit represented a rare trisibilantic stage in Indic. It
is the tritectal basis of PIE., not of any one of the daughter dialects, that is being
questioned.
13
Similar reversals can be documented in Slavic in relation to palatalization of conso-
nants before front vowels: the palatalization is retained in several lnguages only
where the vowel ceased to be front or disappeared (see Shevelov 1964: 494ff.).

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM
 On PIE, tectals 45

preserved unpalatalized backvelars in certain satem dialects, notably

Pre-Albanian and Pre-Armenian. This parallelism of development ex-
plains why the apparent pure velars identified by a rigid application
of the comparative method 'turn out' to be so extraordinarily resistant
to palatalization in these satem dialects.
3.2.3. Kortland's 'loss of the palatal feature' or 'depalatalization of
palatovelars' in satem dialects should perhaps be replaced by non-pa-
latalization or non-fronting of prevelars. On the other hand delabiali-
zation of labiovelars can remain since this was certainly the critical pro-
cess in the centum dialects.
3.2.4. On this basis the correct primary tectal can be determined for
most of the data. Everything that is 'theoretisch mglich' KI or KIII
in Steensland's (1973: 33 f.) characterizations must point to the corres-
ponding primary tectal, i.e. prevelar or backvelar, respectively. A pre-
liminary study suggests that Kortlandt's work provides the algorithm
for correctly classifying the resulting 'pure velar' residue in all but a
few doubtful cases.

4. Armeniern,

4.1. Recently, Stempel (1994) has reasserted

(1) the curious pattern of palatalization of non-palatal tectals by front
vowel in Armenian - in particular the apparent resistance of the
pure velars to palatalization before front vowel - and
(2) palatalization of pure velars, but not labiovelars, following *u
in order to suggest that both phenomena can be explained on the s-
sumption that the PIE. pure velars became postvelars or uvulars in
OkP Armenian under the influence of neighbouring Old' Georgian.
This is not a good argument. Stempel's proposed development of
uvuiars in Armenian is unnecessary (cf. Huld 1984: 144 ff.), which is
perhaps just s well, since a glance at Stempers own comparative table
(p. 304) shows that it is also seriously undermotivated: Old' Georgian
had a series of pure velars which matched the Old' Armenian series
exactly, whereas the uvular series did not; thus there would have been
no pressure for the Georgian uvulars to impose themselves on the Ar-
menian velars to the extent envisaged.14 Moreover, the tendency re-
14
Cf. the labialized 'gutturals* acquired by Ethiopic from the Cushitic Substrate: in the

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM
46 Robert Woodhouse

flected in (1) has now been explained on a bitectal basis ( 3.2.2 above);
that in (2) has, in a sense, long been held to represent a general phe-
nomenon of PIE. (Kortlandt 1978, 5). Both propositions s presented
by Stempel for Armenian appear to be factually dubious anyway, s
follows.
4.2. The significance of Stempelt point (2) (above) is disposed of by
referring to the two well known examples of labiovelars converting to
palatals following the Pre-Arm. *u that takes the place of a nasal re-
sonant, viz. awj 'snake' (Lat. anguis\ awc-anem 'anoinf (Lat. unguo)
(Jahukyan 1982: 57; Tischler 1990: 78 and fnn.58, 59). Stempel vitiates
bis entire presentation by not discussing at what point in the develop-
ment these two words acquired their palatal articulation.15
4.3. The Armenian counterevidence to Stempers point (1) (above)
helps to confirm that analogy and levelling have played a part in the
developments. This evidence is presented by Jahukyan (1982: 59-60),
who demonstrates:
(1) palatalization before front vowel of PIE.:
*k in one case (c*ilj/c*elj 'Fledermaus'),
*g in seven cases16 (e.g. cim 'bridle', ciw clower limb, paw, hoof,
wing'),
*gA in one case (ej 'descent'),
*gw in two cases (ci 6mucus', cror 'bowels, entrails, innards, tripe9);
and
(2) absence of palatalization before front vowel of PIE.:
*fcw in one case (k*im-k* 'palate; taste').

relatively few instances where these replace the non-labialized sounds in native words
their origin from a following o, u, w, etc., is usually transparent (see Moscati et al.
1969: 38; Dillmann/Bezold 1907: 51 f.). Some of the alleged native words cited by
Dillmann/Bezold are, in all probability, loans from other Semitic languages, cf. es-
pecially naqwet 'point', which is isolated in Ethiopic according to Dillmann (l 865 s. v.),
beside the richly developed Arabic root n-q-t. The labialization was probably regarded
by Speakers of Ethiopic s the hallmark of a foreign word or loan, just s end-stress
has tended to be the mark of a foreign word for Speakers of Russian (cf. /vasinkton/
'Washington') and z rather than dz has had a similar significance for (some) Speakers
of English (cf. /bei (d)ziq/ 'Beijing')
15
It is fortunate though that labiovelars turn out to be involved s well, because the
phonetics of Stempers hypothesis reqiring, e.g., [q] and [c], but not [kw], to become
allophones in the vicinity of u, does not inspire confidence.
16
Stempel (1994: 298, fn. 2) Claims there are no known examples.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM
 On PIE. tectals 47

4.3.1. The Standard view is supported (ibid.) by similarly small num-

bers of cases:
( ) palatalization by front vowel and *y, respectively, of PIE.:
*fcw by two and one independent cases,
*gwh by four and one cases; and
(2') the absence of palatalization by front vowel of PIE.:
* by two cases,
*g by two cases (ket 'point; bumblebee5, kcanem 'bite, sting')
(4no examples', accrding to Stempel, see above),
*gh by one case (imperat. gog cspeak', not geljk'),
w
*^
6 by four cases.
4.4. Why Stempel relies on geljk* cgland' is unclear: RUSS, zeleza
does not determine the initial to be a pure velar, and the various
Greek etymologies recorded by Vasmer/Trubacev (1986-87 s.v.), and
the Germanic one recorded by Suk'iasyan (1986:153) and Mann (1963:
123), all pointing to PIE, mediae, are no help at all. Beside the usual
dissimilative explanation of the Armenian initial17 is Mann's (ibid.)
shrewd Suggestion of influence by galj 4gall', of which geljk'may simply
be an ablaut variant. However, a quite diiferent alternative appears
not to have been considered, s follbws.
Since Suk'iasyan (1986: 73) has two examples of medial *-J- > Arm.
j, viz. *wel-d- > gelj cdesire'18 and khan-d- > xanj 'conflagration, smell
of burning, etc.',19 it is tempting to see a similar formation to the first
of these in geljk* and derive it from PIE. *wel- 4turn, roll' (cf. Arm.
gi7-4round stone for throwing' Pokorny 1948-59: 1141) with the same
*J-extension s in OHG. walzan, etc. (Pokorny 1948-59: 1143) and,
with similar semantic development, OHG. wulsta 'swelling' (Pokorny
1948-59: 1142) < (acc.sg.) *w\d-t(ni) (pace Kluge/Gtze 1948 s.v.
Wulst) with zero grade s in OHG. stunta (cf. Braune/Mitzka 1963:
192).20

17
See Jahukyan (1982: 216, n. 75); note that his nn, 74 and 75 should actually be inter-
changed and the superscript key for n.75 on p. 59 moved to the position occupied
by the superscript '76' at line 10 on the same page (the genuine 76 occurs further down).
18
Cf. also Jahukyan (1982: 103, 176).
19
Cf. Jahukyan (1967:110).
20
OHG. wulsta, beside MLG. walen, etc. (Pokorny 1948-59:1142), may be the source
of the HG. suffix -st- (cf. Kluge/Gtze 1948, s.v. Kunst),
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM
48 Robert Woodhouse

4.5. Finally, Stempel's (1994: 298, fn.2) criticism of Kortlandt's ex-

planation of ker^ keray s requiring 'einander widersprechende Ana-
logien' is incorrect. After the palatalization has occurred the nominal
root is */cor-, the verbal *cer~. This triggers the first levelling to (*kor-)l
ker- and the levelling process, once begun, continues until it naturally
produces the attested identity of the two root forms. Other natural
outcomes could be envisaged (e.g. both **kor-, cf. k'or 'itch', k'orem
'scratch' beside k'erem 'scrape', Jahukyan 1982: 47). Mutually contra-
dictory analogies would presumably yield different shapes for the two
forms of the root, such s ker-/**cor- vel sim.

5. Albanian

Lindeman's (1993) recent attempt to destroy the accepted etymol-

ogy of Alb. dergjem 6lie sick' on the basis of Celtic material is super-
ficially persuasive, but its author's tendency to overstate his case21
prompts a closer look. In the context of our bitectal theory the Baltic
forms suggest independently that the root-final tectal in this word re-
presents a PIE. backvelar, which in this case will correspond to a de-
labialized centum labiovelar.22 Thus in the centum dialects, prior to

21 E
-g-
(1) Vedic svabh- s the zero grade of *kwmbh- suggests that the Germanic reflex of
*swrgh- should be not **srugh (p. 51), but *swurgh, cf. Goth. swulta-wairpja) 'near
death' (L. 7.2) beside ga-swiltan (pret. ga-swalt M.9.18) 'die';
(2) the semantic change need not be from '"waste away' to 'care for,.think about'"
(p. 52) but can be the other way round, in which case there is nothing particularly
remarkable about the change from 'care for' to 'love' to long for' to cpine for'
to 'waste away';
(3) if the task is to decide whether a given protoform begins with *sV- or *swV-
then it is far from illogical or irrelevant to remark that Baltic forms in s V- are
not probative (p. 53).
22
This is also clearly what Kortlandt (1980: 247) had in mind when he compared the
palatalized labiovelar in Alb. pese '5' with the non-palatalized one in Arm. hing and
the tectal in Alb. dergjem. Lindeman's (1993: 48, fn. 1) self-confessed inability to wi-
derstand this indicates his complete failure to grasp the point of Kortlandt's analysis,
with the result that his proposed cunterexample is nothing of the kind since it contains
an original PIE. prevelar* not a palatalized backvelar. Nowhere does Kortlandt posit
loss of the palatal feature of his - PIE. palatovelars in the environment/0//0vvmg a
resonant.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM
 On PIE. tectals 49

the delabialization of the tectal, the labial resonant in a proposed root-

initial cluster *sw- will have been subject to non-obligatory dissimila-
tion,23 hence its general absence in Celtic and Germanic. Therefore
the only language in which the onset is diagnostic for the labial resonant,
if OHG. cannot be relied upon, is the satem language Albanian. On
this basis the various attested forms can be united and the etymology
upheld.24
Nevertheless this etymology offers no support at all to the tritectal
theory: indeed Lindeman's unwitting contribution has been to provide
the raw materials required to demonstrate the unexpected additional
support this item furnishes for Kortlandf s theory of delabialized la-
biovelars.25

6. Indic and Phrygian

6.1. Although Mayrhofer has abandoned the old theory of tectal

determination of the reflexes of -$H- clusters in Indic (above fn. 12)
he nevertheless clings in bis new Sanskrit etymological dictionary
(1986-1992, 1992-) to a pure velar reconstruction in a number of in-
stances. One of these, viz. Ved. giri- 'brother's wife (or husband's sister?)'
(1986-92: 487), is of some interest since it is the sole survivor of two
'certain' examples of pure velars cited earlier by this great scholar (see
Mayrhofer 1986: 104).26
Eichner-Khn (1976: 28 ff.), to whose shrewd insight we owe the
recovery of this fascinating Vedic item, proposed a pure velar initial,
believing that only the Slavic evidence was in favour of a palatal (p. 36,
n. 35). Since Eichner-Khn could only explain the initial i- of the Ar-

23
For parallel disturbances due to dissimilation see Berg/Lindeman ( 993: 181 f.); also
Schmitt's explanation of Arm. Cork* '45 cked by Stempel (1994: 299, fn. 3).
24
The fact that only Albanian authrizes the *-w- in the root-initial cluster is unimpor-
tant: cf. the *m universally reconstructed in the PIE. words for 10' and 100', solely
on the authority of Baltic, since elsewhere the character of the nasal has been obscured
by assimilation.
25
I have nothing further to add to Kortlandt's remarks on Albanian (1978: 242; 1980:
246ff.).
26
The other, viz. gfr- *song of praise', Mayrhofer (l 986-92 s. v.) now reeonstructs with
a labiovelar.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM
 BSBBESH5S

50 Robert Woodhouse

menian cognate /#/(-/) 'husband's sister' s a transfer from taygr 'hus-

band's brother\ she suggested that the initial z- of Slavic cognates came
from Slav. , which happens to be attested in the OCS. translations
only in the specifically Bulgaro-Macedonian sense 'bridegroom'.
While the proposed transfer is semantically plausible in Armenian
- e. g. a young wife living in her husband's extended family would use
these two words to refer to her husband's siblings, who would be other
members of the same family (cf. Beekes 1976: 15 for the cogent belief
that the sisters referred to would originally have been unmarried) - in
Slavic this is less easy to justify. The only meaning of Slav. z$ti common
to all Slavic dialects where the word is found is 'daughter's husband',
and this meaning appears to predominate in extra-Slavic cognates s
well (see Mayrhofer 1986-92 s.v.j matar-). In West Slavic (Pol. zi$c,
Cz. zet', Slk. zat'}, and also in Belorussian (zjac'\ this appears to be
the only meaning of the word; everywhere eise in Slavic the word also
means 'sister's husband', i.e. generally 'husband of the daughter of the
family'. Neither of these meanings suggests the possibility of close pro-
ximity in any utterance in anyone's Speech of this word and the 'hus-
band's sister' word, thus the conditions for transfer are absent.27 We
now know that Arm. t can also be the reflex of a palatal, whether
original or *u- induced28 so that the Armenian evidence complements
the Slavic, both pointing to a palatal initial.
Since in tritectal terms the Latin and various Greek cognates naturally
allow the initial to be either palatal or pure velar, it remains to be seen
whether any useful Information can be wrung from Phrygian
'brother's wife'.

27
The specifically Bulgaro-Macedonian meaning, viz. 'bridegroom', is dialectally too
restricted and hardly likely to be in use long enough in any particular real life Situation
for the posited transfer to occur. This last is not true of the peculiar semantic devel-
opment in Russian that includes also 'husband of husband's sister', since here the
two words in question would indeed be used by our hypothetical young wife in referring
to another husband -h wife combination in the family. This meaning is first recorded
c. 1800 in the Slovar' Akademii rossijskoj (1789-1794), is probably late, and is clearly
far too restricted dialectally to offer convincing support for the proposed transfer. If
anything the influence would have run the other way, the similarity of the Initials of
the two words affecting the semantic development of the 'son/brother-in-law' word.
28
Jahukyan (1982: 56-57) records six good cases for /- seven if tit, beside de, 'woman's
breast' is not excluded s a nursery or migratory word - vs. eleven for c.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM
 On PIE. tectals 51

6.2. Acceptance of the prevailing majority view that PIE. mediae

are represented in Phrygian predominantly s mediae29 is a first step
in accepting Phryg. s inherited^ rather than some kind of
Greek loan. Emendation to */ (Georgiev 1981: 130) or
* (with = J:) simply improves the connection, since the
vocalism of the first syllable is in fact sufficient to brand the word s
non-Greek.
More difficult is the lack of palatalization in the initial consonant
of , since one may fairly expect glosses in Greek authors of
the Ist millenium AD. to reflect New, not Old, Phrygian phonology.
The satem Status sometimes alleged for Phrygian (cf. Neroznak
1992: 274) clearly carniot be upheld since there is no trace of it in Old
Phrygian,30 but among the consonantal developments detectable in
Phrygian appear to be: first, early depalatalization or loss of the (den-
tal?) phoneme denoted <f> in the eafliest (8th Century BC.?) in-
scriptions,31 followed, secondly, and occurring at least prior to the
period of the New Phrygian inscriptions (c. 2nd Century AD.), by pa-
latalization of some velars under certain conditions.32 A scrutiny of
the New Phrygian material presented by Georgiev (1981: 129 ff.) and
Bednarczuk (1986: 482 f.) bears out for the most part the rule of pa-
latalization of erstwhile palatovelars bef re front vowel enunciated by
Bednarczuk (1986: 482). Inhibition by following resonant appears also

29
Cf., e.g., Bednarczuk (1986:482), Bajun/Orel (1988), Woudhuizen (1993) vs. Neroznak
(1992: 273 f.), who reaffirms the older view of an Armenian-style consonant shift (cf.
Georgiev 1981:132). Differing Views over the fate of the asperae do not directly concern
us here but it is worth observing that these may originate with OPhryg. mekas 'great':
Bajun/Orel (1988: 180), in particular, seem not to reckon with the possibility that
the protoform of this word contains a laryngeal (which, s in the case of 'bread',
may be responsible for the devoicing) and are compelled several times to ignore their
ruling (1988: 176f.) on asperae, cf., e.g., davoi (p. 181), siseio vs. vise (p. 185f.),
and bagun (p. 194).
30
The Interpretation given by Bajun/Orel (l 988:"177) for the pronominal deictic s- found
in both Old and New Phrygian seems, despite the odds against, to be the only one
possible.
3J
Cf. datirig and interpretations by Young (l 969:265f.), Bajun/Orel (l 988:185 f.), Woud-
huizen (1993: 2 ff.)
32
This palatalization could have occurred within the Old Phrygian period without ne-
cessarily affecting the orthography (cf. Romance), though it seems probable that by
the time it did occur all knowledge of the phonetic Unauthenticated
value of <T) had been lost.
Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM
52 Robert Woodhouse

to be part of the picture,33 together with a general loss of labial con-

sonantal features imraediately following any velar or tectaL34
Apart from the disputed case of OPhryg. bonok35 there seems to be
no evidence anywhere in Phrygian of any labiality associated with
tectals; on the other hand Phrygian clearly does not have assibilated
palatovelars from the beginning of its record. Since tritectalists have
perceived evidence for their three PIE. tectal series in Modern Alba-
nian, it is perhaps not too farfetched to see preservation of the origi-
nal bitectal state of PIE. in Phrygian of the 8th Century BC, i.e. with
backvelars that never actually become labialized, but nevertheless

33
Cf. Phryg. 'gold' vs. , 'vegetables' (etc., Bednarczuk 1986: 482) with
exact parallels in Slavic, e.g.; RUSS, ieltyj 'yellow' vs. zelenyj 'green' (Kortlandt 1978,
13-15).
34
Cf. Phryg. 'cart', 'water', 'someone' (*(-)fcw-) and - cdog', (*v-)
(Georgiev 1981: 130).
Phryg. 'stone' appears to represent an exception since it is cited by Bednarczuk
(1986:482) s possibly cognate with Lith. zie(g)zdra 'graveP. But according to Fraen-
kel (1962-65 s.v.) the Lithuanian word is a Prussian loan; we must therefore look
elsewhere for an etymology for . Since in tritectal terms the onset of
may be either *gw(fi) or *g(/z)w and since nothing very definite can be said about the
origin of the medial -- (cf. the uncertainty over *-kt- > -/- in otuvoi, Woudhuizen
1993: 13), connections can be entertained with Lith. gafgzdas 'gravel', (cf. girgzde'ii,
girkse'ti 'creak, squeak, crunch') and zvirgzdas 'coarse sand', both items having rieh
assemblages of variants. Slavic further responds with RUSS. dial. gversta, grestv
'coarse sand', zerstv 'graveF, etc. (Vasmer/Trubacev 1986-87 s.w.). Consequently,
either attests a backvelar or is further evidenee of non-fronting of a prevelar
before resonant.
35
Unlike /^, the New Phrygian hapax gen.sg. , apart from the questions
of whether it has been segmented properly and if it has, whether it really means
c
wife', arouses suspicion because of its almost exact correspondence, if it does mean
'wife', with a dialectal Greek genitive singular (cf. the Aeolic acc.pl. quoted
from Hesychius by Thumb/Scherer 1959: 30f.). This seems to be a huge coincidence.
The language of the inscription in which this word ccurs (Calder 1911: No. XXX)
appears to tread a fine line between graecized Phrygian and phrygified Greek - Calder
quotes for comparative purposes a much longer Greek inscription (1911: No.I) con-
taining nearly s many identifiably Phrygian elements. On the other hand it must be
admitted that if is a loan its date may need to be assessed against the fact
that the Greek portion of Calder's No. XIX has , whereas the commoner word
for 'wife' in the Greek (portions of) inscriptions of the same time and place appears
to the presumably more formal (see, e.g., Calder 1911: Nos. XXI, XXXII,
XXXIII, etc.). Thus the support can offer to the Interpretation of OPhryg.
bonok s 'wife' is (pace Calder (1911: 178); Woudhuizen (1993: 7); etc.) not strong.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM
 On PIE. tectals 53

resist palatalization, and prevelars whose assibilative shift forward

takes place during the historical period and only under the influence
of a following front vowel. The only peculiarity in this Situation is
that the two series of tectal phonemes were not distinguished in the
Old Phrygian script - s least not in any consistent or enduring way.36
But then imperfect orthographies, even ancient ones, are by no means
confined to Phrygian.37
If this view is accepted, the evaluation of Phryg. < gIh2-
is straightforward: in bitectal terms, the word can have contained a
prevelar, the palatalization of which was inhibited by the following
resonant in the protoform. In Phrygian terms this meant prehistoric
conversion to a backvelar,38 s in some satem languages.39 Thus we
can agree with the conclusion implied by Eichner-K hn (1976: 36, n. 35)
that the Phrygian word does not resolve the problem of the initial con-
sonant.
6.3. Since the derivation of the initial of this csister-in-law' word
from a prevelar is obligatory in two branches of IE. and is possible in
another three, the requirement that the Indic form derive from a back-
velar must be revised.

36
It is unfortunate that Woudhuizen, despite bis spirited defence of the priority of Phry-
gian writing over Greek (1993: 3 ff.), still feit it necessary to Interpret the Old Phrygian
sign no.26 in terms of Greek phonology (1993: 9). If (-) is indeed one of the
relatively few precious 'tectal' items found in both forms of Phrygian, it is possible
that sign no. 26 represented neither Greek /ksi/ nor /chi/, but a backvelar, and its
use was discontinued when the two series approached each other to the point of
being indistinguishable in most contexts.
37
One may cite: manner series in Mycenaean Linear B and probably in Anatoliaii; the
two Hebrew sibilants both denoted by 'shin'; the confusion in Old Russian writing
between the only partly merged phonemes /e/ and /e/; mid vowels and sibilants in
Itaiian; the abandonment by c rrent Madurese orthography of special symbols for
aspirated consonants; - the list of imperfect orthographies is essentially endless.
38
Unfortunately, OPhryg, gelavo (inscription W~10) is almost ceftainly a different word;
it is interpreted s an anthroponym by Bajun/Orel (1988: 186), and probably wisely
so, since a putative alternative Interpretation of the inscription s **'! dedicate this
to the father of my brother's wife' is highly improbable.
39
The Slavic forms of our word must have dispensed with the syllabic */ at an early
date. Serbo-Croat zaova *husband's sister' (not **zva, cf. d g 'long') testifies further
to this and, together with, e.g. RUSS, zolovka, to the genuineness of the vocalism
attested in late OCS. z l va (see also Eichner-K hn 1976: 35, n. 33); even so, the
acute in this word seems to be further confirmation of the laryngeal in the PIE. proto-
form.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM
54 Robert Woodhouse

Since Vedic g/ri* 4brother's wife* is unlikely to have acquired its g-

from elsewhere in Indic, only one conclusion now seems possible,
viz. that giri- too has a prevelar initial which was subject to the same
Inhibition of fronting by the syllabic */ s occurred in the Phrygian
word. Kortlandt (1978, 22) denies depalatalization in Indo-Iranian
before resonants other than PIE. *r; the fact that giri- argues other-
wise is consistent with the morphological Isolation of the form. The
lack of other evidence is then due to the usual Indic propensity for
eliminating the non-fronted consonants by paradigmatic levelling
(Kortlandt 1978, 7).

7. Luvian

7.1. Sources on the Luvian evidence for tritectal PIE. and the prob-
lern that has now arisen with this Interpretation of the Luvian mate-
rial have been indicated above (1.1). In his earlier articles, Mel-
chert (1987: 203 f.; 1988: 241) argued convincingly that all the non-
controversial examples of the development of the voiceless palatal in
Luvian can be explained by palatalization in definable circum-
stances, viz. before front vowel, *y and *w/*w. Melchert (1987: 190)
was nevertheless struck by the apparent constancy of the equation
PIE. *k > Luv. z and by the fact that there seemed to be at least one
example of an unpalatalized pure velar before front vowel. There is
also an example of an unpalatalized alleged pure velar before u, one
of the environments for PIE. *k > Luv. z, viz. CLuv. kup- 'plof, though
this interesting peculiarity appears to have left Melchert (1987: 190)
unmoved. The new material on voiced tectals in Luvian, despite its
paucity, shows clearly enough two things:
(1) the reflexes of palatals/prevelars in Luvian can be velar;
(2) Pre-Luvian experienced a process of palatalization of non-labialized
velars, certainly before front vowels, possibly in other environments
s well.
7.2. The problem in bitectal terms is thus twofold:
(1) to determine, if possible, the sources of the apparent pure velars
in Luvian;
(2) to determine, if possible, the conditions of palatalization of tectals
in this language.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM
 On PIE. tectals 55

7.3- Melchert's (1987:188 ff.) five examples for pure velars in L vian
can be assessed s follows:
(1) kisai- 'comb': satem cognates indicate a backvelar, zero-grade forms
occur in Greek, o-grade forms are well attested, either or both can
be responsible for the delabialization seen, e.g., in OIcel. haddr 'hair
on woman's head' (Vasmer/Trubacev 1986-87 s.v. cesat'\ The sec-
ondary, and thus late, origin of the velar is confirmed by its failure
to participate in the L vian palatalization of velars before front
vowels.
(2) kars ccut': equation with Arm. k'erem 'scratch', beside -grade
in k'or citch? points to the backvelar which occurs with preserved
labiality in CLuv. k r- ccut(?)', HLuy. REL + ra/i 'cut\ etc.
(Melchert 1987: 188). Examples like this indicate how late the
delabialization may have been - even to the point of being inde-
pendent in the various languages.
(3) kattawalli- 'plaintifF: Celtic cognates indicate PIE. *<z, before which
tectal differences were neutralized in PIE. (see 3.1.1 above). The
example is therefore non-probative.
(4) kup- 'plof: both the pr posed etymologies (Gm. hup -, Skt. kupyati)
allow for a backvelar delabialized by the u, which is attractive in
view of the possibility that prevelars were generally palatalized in
L vian before *w ( 7.4 below).
(5) kiklimai- 'plate with iron': the connections of the pr posed
Greek etymon are uncertain: it could easily contain the normal
reflex of a prevelar, in which case Inhibition of palatalization by
following resonant could be considered. On the other hand if the
'L vian word is connected with Gk. or (see. e.g.
Frisk 1954- s.w.), original backvelar becomes likely. But it is
not clear to me why kiklu- should be assigned to *kel- 'black',
rather than, metathetically, say, to Lith. gelezis 'iron', Gk.
4bronze'.
7.3.1. Thus three of Melchert's examples for pure velars can be ex-
plained unproblematically s having delabialized labiovelars. The
remaining two are indeterminate: one has PIE. *a foliowing the tectal;
the other has no certain etymology. Absence of palatalization in kisai-
shows the levelling of the delabialized velar to have been posterior to
the L vian palatalization before front vowel; kars- /k r- 'cut' suggests
the delabialization may have been postdispersionaL

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM
56 Robert Woodhouse

7.4. Conditions for palatalization of prevelars can be assessed thus.

Palatalization of prevelars before front vowels appears assured.
Although the material is currently sparse, I think it is possible to ex-
tend the palatalization before u/W demonstrable for the tenis to in-
clude the prevelar aspera. The example is CLuv. parray- 'high'. Both
Melchert (1993: 247) and Kimball (1994: 79) explain the palatalization
of the root final consonant s due to early transfer of the word from
w-stem to /-stem, but this chronological assumptionmay be unnecessary.
Both the stem transfer and the fact of palatalization already attested
in the case of the tenis are consistent with a fronted articulation of
Pre-Luv. u, such s is found later in Classical Greek, and thus the two
processes complement each other. A possible counterexample is CLuv.
kuttasra/i-, HLuv. ku-ta-sa+ra/i- 'carved stone, orthostat', but
Melchert (1993: 247) has already suggested an acceptable 0-grade in
the protoform.40
CLuv. papparkuwa- 'purify' appears to be the only example for velar
reflex of the prevelar media (the aspera indicated in Melchert 1987:
247 must be a slip, cf. Pokorny 1948-59:139f.). Tectal mediae elsewhere
seem to show a certain tendency away from palatality and towards
labiality by comparison with the tenues and asperae (which is another
factor against the theory of PIE. ejective mediae). Thus in Sanskrit the
prevelar media appears to have undergone assibilation later and there-
fore less thoroughly than the tenis and the aspera; in Armenian this
is true of the media with respect to the tenis, but not the aspera which,
s I have suggested elsewhere (Woodhouse 1995: 94; 1996, 4.7) may
here have retained its injective feature until a relatively late stage. On
the other side of the equation the greater tendency of the backvelar
media to turn up s a labial in Greek and Celtic is well known. It
therefore cannot be ruled out that the media prevelar in Luvian was
more resistant to palatalization than the tenis or the aspera and that
this is the sole circumstance in which mediae and asperae can be di-
stinguished in Anatolian (cf. Melchert 1993: 238).

40
However, the proposed connection of this item with 'pouring' and 'wall' may well
be fanciful: since the words refer to carved and even inscribed stone objects they may
be derived equally well from the 'hewing' root attested, with reference to hewing
stone, in ld English c. 900 (OED. s.v. hew, sense 3.), the initial of which in bitectal
terms is clearly a backvelar (see Pokorny 1948-59: 535), unless the laryngeal is to
be viewed s inhibiting palatalization in the satem dialects (cf. Kortlandt 1980:247 f.).

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM
 On PIE. tectals 57

It is true of course that with only one example per category, one
cannot speak of setting up rules. The best one can do is to find a con-
sistent framework into which to fit the small amount of otherwise dis-
parate data.
There remain zarsiia Oeleitbrief (Tischler 1990: 88) and the nom-
inal suffix -iz(z)a- (Melchert 1987: 201). The former has no etymology
and so there is nothing to discuss. The suffix, whose derivation is cvery
speculative' (Melchert 1987: 203), may have tectal preceded by *s
(Melchert 1987: 201,203): if so, this may be a palatalizing environment
in Luvian. If not, theplot thickens: the Slavic equivalent has a backvelar
that is widely believed to have been palatalized by the preceding. high
front vowel (Arumaa 1976: 33): perhaps Luvian underwent a similar
development.

8. Conclusions

8.1. A typologically satisfactory model for bitectal PIE. based on

prevelars and backvelars has been described s an adjunct, to the
phonologically viable theory proposed and developed by Meillet
and Kortlandt. Confirmation of the correctness of the approach
adopted by these scholars has been found in some instances in data
(e.g. Albanian) adduced for the purpose of overturning it. In other
cases (Phrygian, Indic, Luvian) I believe it has been shown that this
bitectal approach results in a substantial simplification in recon-
struction and prompts further insights into the historical phonology,
including questions of relative chronology, of the languages con-
cerned.
8.2. The question of notation remains. The current tritectal sym-
bols cannot well be adapted to a bitectal reconstruction since they
are clearly preemptive, especially since labiality was not originally a
phonemic feature of the backvelars. Meillet in his Introduction has
in a sense led the way with /r1, etc., for the prevelars; consequently,
k2, etc., seems a natural choice for the backvelars. In cases of inde-
terminacy, or to indicate an intermediate pure velar stage in a partic-
ular development, either the unadorned Symbols, s at present, or
/c0, etc., can be used. There can thus be a general similarity with
the common notation for PIE. laryngeals but without the preemptive
Suggestion of an identity of pattermng~between these two very differ-
ent sets of phonemes.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM
58 Robert Woodhouse

8.3. An urgent desideratum, for statistical puoses s much s any

other, is the reprocessing of Standard etymological reconstructions
containing tectals to reflect this new, typologically respectable formu-
lation of a venerable and unjustly neglected theory.

References

Allen, W. Sidney, 1978, The PIE velar series: Neogrammarian and other Solutions in
the light of attested parallels. Trans. Philol. Soc. p. 87-HO/
Arumaa, Peeter, 1976, Urslavische Grammatik, 2: Konsonantismus. Heidelberg, Winter.
Bajun, L.S. & Orel, V.E., 1988, Jazyk frigijskix nadpisej kak istoriceskij istocnik, I. Vestnik
drevnej istorii, No.l, p. 173-200.
Bednarczuk, Leszek, 1986, Indoeuropejskie j?zyki Balkanow. In: Jgzyki indoeuropejskie
l, ed. by Leszek Bednarczuk, p. 469-513. Warsaw, PWN.
Beekes, Robert Stephen Paul, 1976, Some Greek aRa-forms. MSS. 34: 9-20.
-, 1995, Comparative Indo-European linguistics: an introduction, tr. by UvA Vertalers/
Paul Gardiner. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins.
Berg, Nils & Lindeman, Fredrik Otto. 1993, The etymology of Greek and Od.
19.327 : Homeric metrics and linguistics - a question of priority. Glotta
70: 181-196.
Braune, Wilhelm, 1963, Althochdeutsche Grammatik, llth ed. by Walther Mitzka.
T bingen, Niemeyer.
abej, Eqrem, 1972, ber einige Lautregeln des Albanischen. Sprache 18: 132-154.
Calder, W.M., 1911, Corpus inscriptionarum neo-phrygiarum. JHellSt.31: 161-215.
Dillmann, August, 1865, Lexicon linguae aethiopicae. [Repr. 1970, Osnabr ck, Biblio.].
-, 1907, Ethiopic grammar, 2nd enlarged ed. by Carl Bezold, tr. by James A. Crichton.
London, Williams & Norgate.
Eichner-K hn, Ingrid, 1976, Vier altindische W rter. MSS. 34: 21-37.
Fraenkel, Ernst, 1962-65, Litauisches etymologisches W rterbuch. Heidelberg/G ttin-
gen, Winter/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Frisk, Hjalmar, 1954-1972, Griechisches etymologisches W rterbuch. 3 vols. Heidelberg,
Winter.
Georgiev, Vladimir L, 1981, Introduction to the history of the Indo-Eujropean languages.
Sofia, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.
Henry, David C., Hunter, Marie D., Jones, Eliza et al., 1973, Dinaak'a our language:
Koyukon Athapascan. Fairbanks (Alaska), Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Huld, Martin E., 1984, Basic Albanian etymologies. Columbus (Ohio), Slavica.
Jahukyan = Dzaukjan, Gevork Beglarovic, 1967, Ocerki po istorii dopis'mennogo perio-
da armjanskogo jazyka. Erevan, Akad. nauk Arm. SSR.
-, 1982, Sravnitel'naja grammatika armjanskogo jazyka. Erevan, Akad. nauk Arm.
SSR.
Kimball, Sara E,, 1994, Loss and retention of voiced velars in Luvian: another look.
IF. 99: 75-85.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM
 On PIE. teetais 59
Kluge, Friedrich & Gtze, Alfred, 1948, Etymologisches Wrterbuch der deutschen
Sprache, 14th ed. Berlin, de Gruyter.
Kortlandt, Frederik, 1978, I.E. paltovelars before resonants in Balto-Slavic. In: Recent
developments in historical phonology: papers prepared for the International Confer-
ence on Historical Phonology held at Ustronie, Poland 17-20 March 1976, ed. by
Jacek Fisiak, p. 237-243. The Hague, Mouton (Trends in linguistics: Studies and mo-
nographs 4).
-, 1980, Albanian and Armenian. KZ. 94: 243-251.
-, 1994, From Proto-Indo-European to Slavic. JIES. 22: 91-112.
Lindeman, Fredrik Otto, 1993, IE. *serg(h)- 'waste away, be sick'. IF. 98: 48-54.
Magnusson, Walter L., 1967, Complementary distributions among the root patterns of
Proto-Indo-European. Linguistics 34: 17-25.
Mann, Stuart E., 1963, Armenian and Indo-European (historical phonology). London,
Luzac.
Mayrhofer, Manfred, 1986> Indogermanische Grammatik, 1: 2. Halbband: Lautlehre.
Heidelberg, Winter.
-, 1986-92, Etymologisches Wrterbuch des Altindoarischen, 1. (Lfg. 1-10) Heidelberg,
Winter.
-,1992-, Etymologisches Wrterbuch des Altindoarischen, 2. (Lfg. 11-17 to date)
Heidelberg, Winter.
Melchert, H. Craig, 1987, PIE velars in Luvian. In: Studies in memory of Warren Cowgill
(1929-1985), ed. by Calvert Watkins, p. 182-204. Berlin/New York, de Gruyter
(Studies in Indo-European language and culture, New series 3).
-, 1988, Luvian lexical notes. HS. 101: 211-243.
-, 1989, New Luvo-Lycian isoglosses. HS. 102: 23-45.
-, 1993, Historical phonology of Anatolian. JIES. 21: 237-257.
Moscati, Sabatino et al., 1969, An introduction to the comparative grammar of the Semitic
languages. 2nd printing. Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz (Porta linguarum orientalium,
neue Serie 6).
Neroznak, Vladimir R, 1992, Phrygian. In: Reconstructing languages and cultures, ed.
by Edgar C.Polomo & Werner Winter, p. 271-278. Berlin/New York, Mouton de
Gruyter (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and monographs 58).
OED., 1971, The compact edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford, OUR
Pokorny, Julius, 1948-59, Indogermanisches etymologisches Wrterbuch, 1. Bern,
Francke.
Shevelov, George Y, 1964, A prehistory of Slavic: the historical phonology of Common
Slavic. Heidelberg, Winter.
Shields, Kenneth, Jr., 1981, A new look at the centum/satem isogloss. KZ. 95: 203-213.
Steensland, Lars, 1973, Die Distribution der urindogermanischen sogenannten Gutturale.
Uppsala (Studia Slavica Upsaliensis 12).
Stempel, Reinhard, 1994, Zur Vertretung der drei indogermanischen Gutturalreihen im
Armenischen, HS. 107: 288-309.
Suk'iasyan, Henrieta, 1986, Acakans hayerenum [Root determinants in Armenian]. Ere-
van, Hayjc'. SSH Gitawkf. akad.
Thumb, Albert, 1959, Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte, 2. 2nd enlarged ed. by
A. Scherer. Heidelberg, Winter.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM
60 Robert Woodhouse
Tischler, Johann, 1990, Hundert Jahre kentum-satem Theorie. IR 95: 63-98.
Vasmer/Trubacev = Fasmer, Maks, 1986-87, Etimologiceskij slovar' russkogo jazyka,
tr. and augm. by O.N.Trubacev. 2nd ed. 4vols. Moscow, Progress.
Woodhouse, Robert, 1995, Proto Indo-Eurc)]pean injective asperes [sie]. IF. 100: 92-100.
-, 1996, The origin and relative chronology of Winter's law: some observations on
Kortlandt's prehistory of Slavic and glottalic hypothesis. JIES. 24: 27-44.
Woodward, Mary F., 1964, Hupa phonemics. In: Studies in Californian linguistics, ed.
by William Bright, p. 199-216. Berkeley/Los Angeles, U. of California P.
Woudhuizen, Fred C., 1993, Old Phrygian: some texts and relations. JIES.21: 1-25.
Young, Rodney S., 1969, Old Phrygian inscriptions from Gordion: toward a history of
the Phrygian alphabet. Hesperia 38: 252-296, plates 67-74.

Department of German and Russian Studies Robert Woodhouse

University of Queensland,
Queensland 4072.
Australia

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/29/16 3:21 AM