CAMBRIDGE Living Archaeology ‘The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Archaeology “ancy ana ttore ‘Sich as al a Raa oS Arch Constructs ‘Ae yes ot Porta ogy fetal arti Set ay “The Cambria Pidgin and ‘Anesent History Grete Languages ——— Ene Seance conv reer Rennteam Bo Sociolinguistics Populations EAB nines, Shales Cambridge University Press INDO-EUROPEAN WORDS FOR “TONGUE? AND ‘FISH A REAPPRAISAL. saa ie one ‘Pome Lt gmt Ti ns a ptf camund wis “dh the compound gry eae whch 3 bw theo he mame to ine eps wer en” mes ah ‘pean st he compod "putty ae ora, nd wr og i cos yA won ition 0. The paper presented by Jérundur Hilmarsson is an inter: esting attempt to establish stronger tis between differing, yet tantlizingly similar, words for ‘tongue’ attested in Indo-Euro- pean languages; he tiesto show that there is more regularity to Bevobrerved thin as been recognized 0 far and that the moment when it becomes necesary to accep the inevitable and {adic unigue developments can he postponed longer than hitherto suspected Tin the following remarks, I shall adopt Jorundur Hilmarsson's Findings a8 a working hypothesis, atleast as far as ther central point is concerned, and fry to clarify issues that arise when one hooses to adopt this hypothesis rather than be content with ‘what amounts to statement of defeat as found, in Pokor fay (1999:228)+ “ofe durch Anfautswechsel und Umstellungen sages 1. The most important innovation in Jérundur Hilmarsson's168 JOURNAL OF INDO-EUROPEAN STUDIES approach i hi proposal to equate the final more or les stable, part of various Indo-European words for ‘tongue’ with one of| {he tenns for fish’ encountered in Indo-European languages, i Gk, ihhthi, Arm. jako {OPrus.suckans (accusative plural), ith, Huvis. The reasoning offered is at fies glance, to put it inildy, surprising, but the parallels adduced from a variety of| Tanguager showing the wse Of a tenn for “fish” in expressions denoting a muscular part of the body, make the proposed Equation seem not only not outrageous, Dut at the very least punible, Whether this possibility ean be eased to the level of Feasonable probability depends to a large extent on our ability to interconnect the varying attested forms as tightly as posible ‘The present paper wil explore ways to do so. 2, A very basic comment has to be made first: Ifthe final part fof = lage number of Indo-European terms for “tongue” is enticaly or ut least connected, with a word for ‘Tish’ reflexes fof which are attested in Greek, Armenian, and Balti languages, then a protorform of Gk, ikhthis, etc, must be assigned to the lexicon’ of Protorindo-European (or Common Indo-European) lind not just to that of Cental Indo-European (as suggested by Frisk 1960: 746), a islet area that cannot be supported as having a status of it own by any further iogloses (cf. Porzig 1954171172). After ally the alleged “fish’ reflex in ‘tongue’ is found. at lest in, Indorranian, Armenian, Baltic and Slavic, Tale, Germanic, Tocharian (for + Tat of forms cf. Pokorny 19592203). There is nothing that would lead us to identify the set of languages just enumerated 5 2 subgroup (in a genetic oF [ip wueal sense of the word) of Indo-European. If JOrundur ‘hlmarsson's hypothesis should be deemed acceptable in prin- ple (details obviously may sil have to be revised), our infor imation about the Pyoto-Indo-European (or Common Indo-Euto- peat) lexicon would be increased in two significant respects fre would now know atleast one term for ‘ish’, and the proba: Ditty thac Lat. putes, ete, (cf, Pokorny 1958:796) represents ZNeammon. innovation of the northwestern group of Indo European (German, Celtic Italie) grows considerably. 5. The Proto-Indo-European form thus to be postulated is best reconstructed as *dhgha- (*dhghaX). 1 shall retrain here from Feapening the discussion of Brugmann's gh and Benvenste's "Teh and all that goes with i details which matter very much in general need not concem us here ‘The initial cluster could, but didnot have to, under sine plication; thie simplification cannot be ascribed to Proto. Indouropean (note, for the moment, just the Greek form), 4nd simpifstion ned not necexarly have taken place pot {othe development of individual Indo-European languages (ote the contin forms or ‘arth in various sbgroupr of Indo-Eseopean ad even within individ languages). For purposes of reconstruction, the cluster “ahigh should be inserted in all forms thought to undesy the relexes in the ‘aston subgroups and language; if posible, attempts should te made to determine the restive chronology of the cluster Simplification, though itis of course to be expected that such attempts wll not always succeed 4, Taking the redupicated forms fit, we have to conclude that cluster reduction i kly not to have eeated ater than in Common Indo-ranan, Forms ‘with ike Olnd. jo, OPers. hizbane Av. hed may be compared with other Indo. European replicated nouns with civ the fst syllable (ef Brugmann 1906:129-150), a. anticipating the tcond vowel of (Ons até may selec an influence of ver forms 5. The Slivic and Old Prstian forms could be derived from PIE Spghi (the origin of Slavie-h- wil be ditcuste later; see 21)s ‘however, sighing the deleon of the dental component of the cluster to Common BaltoSivie soul fly sfice to explain the attested tema 6. The alteration of edupliction in one subset of forms and Sipe in another, wih preseration of an identical meaning in both compound sets of forms, s matched outside the words for “Tongue pars auch as GL gly (or gelties) ‘lowes of sal Gk ofr ’,Gk gegen Hesyeh emendation) Gkeagosd gather together, Fock, B sane “ont (pla of Boy on): B epeana itty ones’ (2 ger sisters ef. Winter 10988: IBoU87). The argument that PIE “yin ach forms should be interpreted at being a variant of PIE Yen (cbs eg Seiler 1957) canmot be ruled ovt completly (though I continte to keep the two ‘rctixer separate), but the question need not ‘Gnesi vs here. As for connections between redupicated noun fom and verb ones (ce above secuon #) it may be note ‘worthy that Tock. B udu is tented as though i were the Collective of a part participle it serves as the bai for an SGjctive BD s2huterge which requires posting an intermediate10 JOURNAL OF INDO-EUROPEAN STUDIES ‘noun in B -werf-or as found correlated with numerous Toche Fian B past participles and thereby with verbs 7, Reduplicated verb forms ar, for 2 number of reasons, best Considered old. compounds; the same interpretation applies to St Teast the older layer of Indo-European prefixed ve farms. ‘There can therefore be no objection on grounds of general principle to summing up the results ofthe divussion upto this point as follows "There isa possibility, and pethaps a fi strong one at that, of identifying at least part of the Indo-European words for longue’ old compounds containing a8 thle second lexeme the telex of a Protoundo-European word for “ish” (or a form {esived from it) and as their Grst part ether reduplication ot PIE. 8. Its important that we now tum to words for “tongue” com taining the reflex of x Prototado-Furopean dental im inital {or secondarily internal) position. Two groups of forms have to be distinguished: (a) The dental reflected is PIE “dh-: Here belong Ose. fang ‘am and, for reasons to be discussed in section 9, Tocharian B fantwo, kant Tb) The dental reflected is PIE “eh: Here Old Latin dingua as swell as Goth. fuggo, Olcel.tunga, and other Germanie forms are tobe mentioned. ‘An explanation of these divergent reflexes best proceeds from a Frotelndo-European variant with *p- and preserved consonant cluster, viz, sedhghwoe. (tar extended to" in Proto Germanic and Proto-Tocharian) A brief exeursus will be tefl ‘There is ample reason to belive that what we generally transcribe as voiced aeprates in reconstructed. Protolndar European are best identified as voieles Tens aspirates (ct Winter 1980491). sequence “agh would thus consist of two phonemes, €'/ and jg (the subscript dot signalling voiceless hess) Phonetcally, ifthe sequence Was realized as an winter rupted cluster, the aspiration would occur only once, at the point of releate of the second consonant ~ the sequence /d'f/ frould” thus be phonetic [dy]. If instead of deletion, the Inecthod used to redce the inttnal cluster was metathesis, the phonetic realization, [ds], posed a problem: the first element Uf the duster, a voices lenis unaspirated stop had no counter: part in the phonemic system — i¢ could either be interpreted as 2 Gevoiced variant of voiced lenis unarprated /dJ, or it could be taken a what it probably wat historically and morphophone- Inically, a deasirated variant ofthe voiceless lenis aspirate (2 ‘The fist interpretation could provide the basis for a metathe sized form with an initial "a, such as Old Latin ingua or Goth. tiggo, the second one, for 3 Hkewise metathesized form with Sik, such as Osc. fongoam and what undedlies Tocharian B hhantwo, Akantu. 9. A few comments concerming the Tocharian forms are in ‘order. There can be litte doubt that one ofthe forms just listed Under (a) and (b) was the source of a Proto. (or Common.) ‘Tocharian form sshich once more was subjected, for reasons We ‘cannot determine, toa metathesis (the altemative is that in Proto-Tocharian the rellex of the Proto-Inde-European cluster “ahgh was simplified by shifting its second member tothe let though not falsifiable, thi ashamption seems less attractive). If fs second metathesis’ did take place in Proto-Tocharian or ‘Common Tocharian, i eannot have been from a form matching the Germanic and Old Latin ones: the cluster “du resulting froma tansfer of intial “dco the interior of the form would have been reduced to Toch. -w- (as, ey in Bui = A wu, we ‘wo', Bwcute | A wat second’, B suserpew- “quadruped’). 1 have presented in great detal arguments for recognizing a devel ‘opment of PIE "dl different from that of "dh and" in the ‘Tocharian languages (cf. Winter 1962); even Van Windekens (1876:82) has fully accepted my observations that PIE td twas lost as a segmental phoneme before "2 "9, ete. The lose is, at the very latest, Common Tocharian the metathesis found reflected in B hanfwo, A kancu must also be ascribed at Teast to the Common Tacharian period. ‘Akough pee-Common- (oF pre-Proto)) Tocharian *éingh- tuifn)s shows close agreement with the form underlying Ose {fangoam, ie goes without saying that the specific ‘phonemic’ interpretation of the orginal consonant cluster may have been arrived atin the two language groups in question independently fof one another. 10, We are now left with three cates ofa word for ‘tongue’ with an initial 2 Lat, lingua, Attn lsu, Lith, less, For all chese forms, itis generally assumed that they were reshaped after the pattern of the verb for ick” — Lat. lingere, Arm. lize /un {JOURNAL OF INDO-EUROPEAN STUDIES lizane, Lith zt (ee. Pokorny 1959:223), The suggestion looks plausible enough, although details would seem to need further casfiation. In our context, the question s of course of particular interest whether, ifthe proto-forms for ‘tongue’ svete compounds of either reduplicatingrylable or *y- plus a em idential seth, or at least connected, with, that of she js possible to derive one oF more of the Horms from either of the two proto-forms. 11, The answer eo this question is simple for Latin. Here older dliigua is actually attested, dingua can be derived from PIE “pdhgha, and the similarity im form between dingua and all parts of the paradigm of lingere ‘ick’ (if there ever was a root youn, it would probably also have contained an 7) i such that {transfer ofan seems an easy matter — there appears to be no ince to refer to Sabinian inflzence (ef. Walde~ Hoffmann 1938: 806). 12, Amm. fesu poses more of a problem, as clearly sensed by Mei (1936:55). Millet would like ¢o take dialectal (and late) ‘A, fsw to be the original form, to derive it from eae Ann Steen ad to compare the later divetly with Lith, lett, According to him, st in Arm. lew would then be duc to Towering of before ac, Apart from the chronology, there is not very much similarity between early Arm. Meysir and what Wwould have been the contemporary reflexes of easter forms wrth reduplicaton (easly Armenian zu-/"jusw) or with *e [carly Armenia *ujue/"aru). A replacement of either "ar tr ta(n) by *ley- would seem a rather severe change ~ posible of course, but not very likely. Trwould appear to be advisable to suggest an_altemative solution. Suppose nthe prehistory of Armenian PIE *ydhght- first became "nghin, ae reflected by OPrus.fnswais and OCS yk, ete. and suppose this reduced form was subjected to the ‘hanges reflected by Arm. Dazwn “plenty” (ef. HUbschmann 18975126); then the expected Armenian form would be "axe Suppote further that this frm was combined with a root noun sociated. with PIE “Zeyghe “ck’, yielding early Armenian “lias lickingongue’ Then (and this isthe ony assumption implying iregularity in the derivational chain offered here) Slizaru- was changed by dssimilation to *fy)asu. This foom ‘would have become, by = wellknown Afmenian lowering process, “leu ef Meilet1986:45, 110), which in tum, when syncope affected Armenian vowels in prestes postion, became ‘Ari, lsu (cf, Melle’ 193663). Contrary to Meille’s bypo- thesis, medieval Armenian fsu would then be a reshaping of ‘older isu under the influence of Fzel/zanel ‘ick’ 13, While the Armenian development is thus taken to be some ‘what more complicated than the Latin one (which applies even It one chooses to reject the hypothesis just offered), the Lithua- rian form is ail more diffeale to explain in detail. Here the Old Peusian and the Slavic words force us to posit a Proto BaltoSlavic Torm corresponding to a PIE “pghi.. The distance between the reflex of this form and that of PIE ‘leygl- or PIE "ligh: in Proto-Balto-Slavic i formidable, the only shared tlement being the reflex of PIE. "fh; so simple replacement is hot likey to have taken place, Peshaps an item listed by Fraen- kel (1962:369) may prove helpful: I Russ. lun (beside en") “Zunge beim Rindveh” had svelte form with an extension not in diphehong, but in plain -x- in Lithuanian earlier than the autested language, sich a thei may have been fused with “ins, perhape even in the sense thatthe -word was influenced in ie stem formation by the inherited form Tor “tongue! and sibsequently took its place in the Lithuanian lexicon, 14. Ifthe assumptions presented here are more than just guess work (which they may well be a is, toa certain extent, the case ‘wth all postlated developments involving iregular changes), they show the influence of forms of ‘lickin all tree languages, bout the details of such influence vary greatly. If one prefers to reject the assumptions made, one ir left with the necessity of having to explain a rather tadical reshaping, across wordéclass boundaries at that, in Armenian and Lithuanian. My proposal here isa attempt to suggest intermediate steps facilitating the transition, steps which at the same time serve to tie in the ‘Armenian’ and Lithuanian forms more closely. with the type easly represented by Old Prassian and Slavic forms Stl the probability that the details of the developments in Armenian nt Lithuanian have been identiied correctly ix considerably Tower than tht to be asumed for points discussed earlier 15. A similar comment hat to be made with respect to Celtic forms. Here only OL! Ish ong has a fair chance of being Felated to other Indo-European forme discussed here, and that pethaps only by way of a borrowing from Germanic. But in fider to make that more than a marginal possibility, one as 10vm JOURNAL OF INDO-EUROPEAN STUDIES assume that of a form presumably taken over by Common Celtic, only Old Irish would show a reflex — which makes the fete argument highly tenuous. But the altematives offered, ‘ge, by Pokomy, himelt an eminent Celtologist (1989:223), te far from tempting; so here we had better be content with pointing outa mere possibility and leaving it at that. 16. A discussion of the Greck forms for ‘tongue’ will not be tempted at this moment. Whatever suggestions one might want to make concerning posible relationship between Greek tnd other Indo-European words for ‘tongue’ would involve a Careful and lengthy weighing of alternatives, far too elaborate fo be of use here, In any cate, the Basic argument presented by [Jorundur Hilmarsson and futher pursued here, i not affected bby whatever conclusion one can arrive at concerning the pre history ofthe Greek Forms. 17. We can now try to assemble the proposals made in an organ feed way. ‘Our frst conclusion was that, if JGrundur Hilmarson's proposal that forms for “tongue’ should be connected with forms for “Fsh’, the input to be reconstructed for Protolndo- European should contain a cluster "hgh. ‘With preposed "pone realiration of the term for ‘tongue’ would hive a basic shape gdhgha: (disregarding for the moment what might have to be reconstricted instead of, or ongride with, 2). This somewhat complex form was sim by deleting the dental, (b) by metathesizng i, either {b1) a5 *ah or (b2) as “a, both variants being replacements of the (phonetially) voiceless unaspirated Tenis oceurting in the Caster with Jl. The form given tinder (a) wae replaced in one tubgroup by # form with reduplicaton: a form with the devel ‘opment (b) war subjected to a second metathesis. A form of the type (b2) was changed under the influence of a form of Tick’, form of (a) was pethaps reshaped by way of com- pounding with 4 root noun associated with lick,” another form (a) even less certainly 40 to be sre, appear fo have become blended with x derivative of ick’ with a closely similar meaning. Finally, a form based on (b2) may have been borrowed by one subfamily of Indo-European from another, ut much uncertainty prevails ere 16, A stemma will serve best to display these observations vrs Tndysduad Jongaazee (crasctsni Areeases) sen) I a0) “pant cee om sagen ee a 4, (1) cas abs6 JOURNAL OF INDO-EUROPEAN STUDIES ‘The double entry on line I hat been made for practical set nia th ema cab pe te Soli ines indicate normal transmission (tanser 0 ‘EMesited’ items) a broken line signal: pontble borowing ‘locked lines call attention to the fat thatthe filing item fan only be explained aa form affected by the infuence of ‘ther frm 19, The branching in the stemma ae highly remarkable in one paticular ways the slit in ine I leads to separation of stem Ind centun languages, Since not ll subgroups are represented iis fact may be councldental i the ad seem to be that 8 not so. vs fegetable that Creck (and ADbanan) evidence can: Tot be fought in to maker come up with an even beter Founded judgment than an beaded now. “The place of Tocharian comes at no surltes only the closer alftion of what T have tentatively elle Protodtalic 2 i fo be noted. Of even greater interest the fact that Latin and scan agree in their forms with different subgroup af the Centum branch: Latin with Gertanie, Osean wth Tocharian Gar data this support the claims of those Indo-Europeans that consider Osean Uisrian and Latin representatives of wo {ferent subbranches of Protorindo European (ae, ex Porig 1954 98, 17, te). 20. We have so far nected an important question: How are the difference in stem formation to be aeounted for? Dis Tegarding forthe moment the forms refered to by parentheses inthe stemmay we have to note that we find in one data 2 dems (Indotrunan), "ck sem (OL! Prin), "ud: tems {Indodtanio, Hate 1, Nalic2}, "sab stems. ranian, Ge Inuniy Tocris roguently thought to be tod stems, but the Tocharan data provide arguments against that), "ako Stems (Slavic) It would be desirable to derive as many’ of these Stems as possible from a single underiying paradigm. “Two comments arin oder before the ain argament canbe oifered, For one thing, the Old Prusian stem can easly Breareplacement ofa consonant stm: in ProtoBato Stati, the ccusave singular fonme of both and consonant stems nded in imr and a transfer in either diecion could easly appen. For sur presoe discussion, ee ature that an caer weTracems was replaced bythe sue stem actualy attested. ‘Secondly, bath in Tacharian and in Germanic do we observe 1 FOR TONGUE’ AND "vist" To a spread of *n-stems; Yunis therefore likely to be due to independent innovation in both language groups, The same can be asumed for parallel Iranian forms ‘his leaves us with "a, "and, and “atko- to be accounted for; the latter may, of course, be a secondary thematiation of an earlier tk 21. Is there a way to combine these apparently divergent suffix ‘complexes in one paradigm? Let us use astep-by sep procedure Tn the stemma in section 18, Ihave replaced seconstructed ‘ae by *auX- for stage I that is, have analyzed ‘a a derived from a sequence *u- plus laryngeal, Thre is no particular need 1 jusiy this step. In his, discusion of the relationship between Lat. senex ‘old man’ and Lat sendrus senate’, Martin’ (1955) argues that 2 sequence "es of early Proto-Indo-European apparently was reflected by “ahs (> -ex) in Latin, and that this hardening” of 2 ryngeal before *r was not limited to Latin, but secured in Such forms as OPrus. suckans “Ssher" and Gk. hax “raven” (ith a diferent laryngeal. He explains Lat a in forme He auidix ‘daring’ as due to leveling between “aks of the nomi native and "a- of oblique eases with a consonantal ending. "Exactly the same developments can be posted to provide an ‘explanation for the occurrence side-byesie of and Uke Stems in words for Yongue"! a nominative singular *pahghuNs Should be reflected, according to Mavtinet, by *pdhghiks, an Accusative ‘singular’ “pdhghuitm by either *pdhghim or Sndhghuwom. Leveling then led to the generalization of "2. (lado-tranian), us (Old Prossian), or “Ao (Slavic) “The question arises how the stems in *sud- can be fit into the proposed pattem. A_ genitive singular of the type of Olnd Dhue (: dha ‘earth wouldbe reconstructableas “pdhghaXes, 2 form that could have contributed to the rise of “ut seme Suppore nove that the word for “tongue” (also?) had a genitive Singular of the type Olnd. sdxoh, Goth. sunous, and suppose further thatthe laryngeal in "tongue" was “4, then tis genitive form would be *gdkfhweds. Suppose finally that this genitive form originated at atime when Martine’ rule "Xv > ke ad ceased to operat, so that a collocation of nome. “ydhguks fgensg. “ndlghuds developed, A genitive in “as was found in ‘ery many paradigms with a nominative singular in 2 there fore, anew stem in *a0 could come into existence and indeed become highly productive.178 JOURNAL OF INDO-EUROPEAN STUDIES 22, Ifthe suggestions made here are acceptable, we can recom feruct een part of the Ealy PrototndoEuropean part figm of tongue Sminative singular: “eighude (> ydhghus) (ef, OCS oxy) Necumauve singular: “pdhghucn C2 pthghtm) (cf. At. he) (puny) (cE. Pes ines) itive Singular: “*ydhghuoeds (> tydgheds) (ch Ola. ‘dngua) “The nominative and accusative stems are matched by stems found in words for uh *dhghuts (> *dighuks: ct, Arm: June OPrust sickns), *dhgham © *dighim: ok. Gl Minhas, nes ibhthans > “dnghacem © ef. Ch Racha (ate eeuate singular the nominative plural ihies is attested fete) Lif), It ot posible to determin the prece Savor ‘of the laryngeal from the word for” themseves 1 Tave therefore retamed the cover symbol “Xin my recon: 25. In section O, 1 proposed to adopt Janda Hmarson's findings sa working hypothesis and to explore posibiltis for improving on details, thereby implicidy testing the working iypothess iuell I i sy impression thatthe study of forms for tongue’ has shown, on the one hand, that they are more {Gosely elated ith cach ther than hitherto believed ot the ‘ther dat the srking agreement wh forms fr ih com inucs tobe found, The fact that inthe process of investigation, Some of Jonundur Fimrsson’ suggestions were rejected, docs not afect the basi haue ~ if alteratvs are offered by Sh uthors dhose mutually exclosive cannot all be accepted. “Ths statement might well be considered aconcudingematk, sere it not for one highly important appect of the mater unde Aibeusion; this anpeet remain tobe taken up 24, The arguments presented 0 far have all been concerned Swih the form (or form) of what can be sito be the bass of ened words for tongue’, except that the replacement of“ ty eedupicaion was dened porble because didnot involve 2 change fancton (or meaning 8 the elements replaced and teplcng ary teat ong execs, Let us now rae ery Single question Tf Splighus sto be analyzed ay “p- plus “dius, andi ys means (Sele, andar Himarson) or “together With G. (Winter), and if ahghus means ‘sh’ how ie the compound two be interpreted? Obviously, neither “(that which i) inside the fish" nor ‘(that which is) together with the fish” makes any rene. Even recourse to a merely intensifying function of * Isof ltle use ~ the Fish’ ie hardly a likely eanddate fora form denoting tongue’ “Jérundur Hilmarson’s proposal to replace “ish inside’ by ‘iooth fish’ offers no way outs "dgeghae is nota good alter native to the forms reconstructed in the present paper, since ‘either “dh nor lose of the nial dental ean be explained 25. We should at least ry to explore line of argumentation ‘which agrees only in_part with that has been aceepted as a ‘working hypothesis sofa, ‘Up to this point, the clote similarity of words for fish’ and words for “tongue” hae been interpreted in rach a way chat the later were devived from the Tormer by a compounding process. The forms needed for such an assertion afe at our {sposal; the compotind reconstructed is, however, difficult if ‘ot impossible, co explain in terms of meaning. Could it be that 3 complex form for Tongue, unvelated in origin with that for “Yeh” bt showing very much agreement in shape, was Feane lyzed, by Prototndo-European folk etymology as it were, as containing a ite second part the word for Tish’ — even if such 2 teanalysis meant that although the compound consisted of what appeared to be recognizable parts this compound coud rot be derived with respect to its meaning fom the combination Sf the meanings of itt par? (The phenomenon is not unfs- nillar: Note, eg, German Grasmicke ‘hedgesparrow, creeper’ ~ the second part of the compund has nothing to do ‘with German Afueke “gnats rather is it to be associated with nnearobsolete achmucken ‘move in clore contact with sth.’ RReanalysie had taken place a early dhe cwelfth century (el Grima ~ Grimm 1938: 1989-1990), but apparently the opacity fof the compound did not make it “undesirable” aa part of the lexicon. Ie seems a pty that the explanation offered by von der Gabelents (1972:216217) of Grasmucke as ‘wey creeper’ is invalidated by the fact that ‘grey” had a diphthong in Old High German, long vowel in Middle High German, while the bird name contains a shore vowel; otherwise, the parallelism ‘with the development claimed for ‘tongue’ would be almost perfect.) The association with “Tish? would thus be secondary,180 JOURNAL OF INDO EUROPEAN STUDIES but its very existence would still einforce Jorundur Hilmarsson’s servations concerning the metaphorical use of ish" for muscular body parte, But if a deeper layer is stil to be dis Covered, do we have any indications at to what it might have been? ‘An argument of some intricacy i called for. 26. In my Collte Lecture of 1966 (Winter 1969), T used evi ence fom irregular voestives and from other case forms to feconstruct basie properties of very carly ablauting noun para gms in Protorindo-uropean. My vesuls (plus some later con ‘ltsions) may be summed up 3s follows: The oldest paradigm of the Early Protorindo-European word for “bid” contained, inter ali, these case forms: ‘Nominative singular: “Aweys (f- Olnd. oh) Genitive singular: “eyes ‘Aeeustive singular: "vim (cf. Old. 2m) Generalization of the zero gade of the accusative Ted to the development of a new nominative; this in tur criggered the introduction of anew genitive: ‘Nominative singular: “wis (cf: Ona. oh) Genitive singular: "Asoeys (ef Olnd. seh) ‘Accusative singular: "Atipt (cf. Olnd. vim) (in order not to burden che present argument, forms which Show a full grade in the first syllable, such as Arm. hav and pethaps Lat. is and related items, wil ot be discussed here.) 27, Suppose now, we try to compare the paradigm for ‘tongue’ tive i section 22 of the present paper, we find thatthe forms cconstructed for ‘tongue’ match those for “bind” inthe second paradigm, hete claimed to be mote recent. What if we go one Sep farther and look for reflexes of the older paradigm? Th order to accomplish this task, we tentatively take only the terminal sequence. "pits into consideration and ask what 3 ‘paradigm one for thie string would look like, The answer is: “The vero grade sequence gd- may be associated with two fullgrade forms, ether *ghewa- or “hed. (fora brief dis fussion of related questions ef. Winter 1968:192). Taking the fit ofthese at «starting point, we would have a paradigm: ‘Nominative singular: "ghewls Genitive singular: thes ANccusatve sngulae: *ghadm IE FOR TONGUE! AND “ISH 181 ‘The second stem would yield ‘Nominative singular: "gheAus or *gheAws Genitive singular: *ghawes Accusative singular: *fhudm ‘Ava genitive “ies ocrurs both in the postulated later para digm and in the first of the supposedly earlier one, no con tlusion can be drawn from the presence of “wed stems af “rongue’. However, stems of the types *ghedso- and “gh ‘would tip the seals in favor of an older stent "fhe ‘his seems to be an empty statement as itis precisely these variants that do not occur among the words for ‘tongue’ but the pietre changes once we ark whether the sequences “hed and haw oceurin pars of our inventory of Indo-European forme for which a connection with tongue" seems plausible 28. Let us start with the zerograde form. Itisprecsely “gh V- that i reflected in Gk, bhdos ‘empty space, gaping hole’ (fr a bbiet review of suggested “orginal” meanings cf, Frisk 1970 1075). Hesychian khanain “spake with motith wide open’ may show an -ninfix" inserted in a complex stem. Gk. houthomat ‘T'brag’ shows the sume vocals as Gk. khdor. (The forms assembled under “ghaw, “ghaws in Pokorny 19892413 reflect in part a full grade “ghewX-, presumably a back formation based on forms with "ghud-, such as Tocharian B kumar "Teal, with the zero grade characteristic of athematic presents in Tocharian and with the ~ fully expected ~ preconsonantal shape ofthe base.) Tf Gr. khadnos had originally » meaning ‘with holes! (cf. Frisk 197021075), ie would soem to. point to an underiying Sr(?h/one stem, It is precisely this stem that seems to have survived in Tocharian ‘The ‘explanation’ of B koyyn ‘mouth’ given by Van Winde kent (1976:227) can be disregarded. The comparison with A ko ‘mouth indicates that By must be paltalized “2%; B hkoym therefore requires a reconstruction. *Kawer-, and no ‘objection can he made against a formula "ghawen For A ko (according to Van Windekens a perfect match of Gk. khgos) a teconstruction “gh seems adequate. We would then have before us an old neuter stem, with tansfer of n- ofthe oblique ceases to the nominativeaceustive, with preservation ofthe full fade, and — in B ~ a generalization of the "en- of genitive and Toeativ, again without ablaut inthe oot syllable.ws JOURNAL OF INDO-EUROPEAN STUDIES 1s tempting to consider here the posibilty of adding B soto our inventory a the "stem sl msing. The word is fd to wamte both Olnd Aagihdh throat (in BAT b 3, 6,7) sl np mean FS see tas eng MRar par of the moult” (as opposed to tront par of the ‘ose forB Rey) cam be extarted. An analyse of B hor as {ested from tect ean be supported bythe parallel B stor {burl stew) sinew" from SweeBur (CAw. mater an equation evorcd by W, Schulze, SBAW 1923136); Van Windekens Tgpes438) sof couse ight in considering ora consonant Tt should be mentioned, hough that another form with & comparable Mevetue shows vocals diferent fom that of Jor tur, A tor “dust probably tobe analyzed as orginal ing from PIE "aheXea. "Seip one example in favor (Bor) and one aginst the ropoted explanation (B aur) ~some doubts bound to remain Pree Hor rear part of the moth” canbe iced among The forms derived from "fede. (Van Windskens 1976:280 ters no viable alternative) the aay way out, vz o asume Somowing fom Ay i Blocked, af no Ror is atested in that language 20. Let ws now introduce a new working hypothesis into our con hat wat feud td reed fom sand offi’, even though spats di not ad up to "tongve, tras vignally'a compound with « second member denoting Tomethine ike ‘mouth, wide-open moth” and having the shape feta (or one of the slat triations of ths bse). ‘To make this a vable hypothesis, 90 conditions must be mets One, it must be explained why the relerence 10 “open ‘out was no longer understood, so that a reinterpretation Intwodacing fab could ecome posnbles wo, ivan explanation Utibe raidue ofthe word for Hogue nov no longet "ty ut SoA Gr om i pote ei snc an aon “Bis catmot be precluded), possible? Fe canton pet of Duck (1949:226 29) ts tical The only word for mouth considered tobe of Proto ThdecBuropean origin, that represented by Lat. 0 seems 0 Teter tothe font pat of the mouth fr “hme only foe Tete tom verb stems for devout ae considered to be of Pomible ProtoindoLuropean origin (Buck 1949:299-234). ‘Thun ie might be chimed thae if there Wasa Potorndo-Faro pean term for ‘ack of the mouth’ or “oof of the mouth’ it Sid not survive or was too thoroughly nefuped fo make am $entificstion of the second part of the word for tongue with ‘foot of the mouth’ posible beyond a certain point in tne, Such. a break in comtinity between "ghedt/ "fhe fu in "tongue’ snd elated fre forms ay have happened in Ig. foucer “upper part ofthe throat, phary, larynx. ft form belongs with Gl kr (as claimed, eg, by Sommer 1948: 196, but denied by, eg, Walde Hofmann 1938:470), we ‘wot now have to'onsier thi form a blend of = nominaive Stem with fllgrade vocalsm (*fhestus > "fhaus > "haw ‘vith a nominative sem with zero grade (hue > “ghaks)sof thse, the frst stem ha no coustrpart in our inventory of swords for ‘tongue’ and therefore would met the dssiaity ‘equirement. The same contusion would apply to the Germanic ‘word for out of the mouth’ OHG goumo and guome (the featur of OHG sumo ix_problemae) show two different, Fedictions ofthe long dipkthong” ao- (= es), a8 alo Seems to be the cast for Lith. gomurss “root of the mouth’ (it the inal consonant can be explained cf. Pokorny 1959:445, Fraenkel 1962-151, whose connection of Gk. thas with Lith Hie "yan et be rejected). This takes us to the second question. If the second part of the word for tongue’ denoted some prt ofthe mouth, pba the roof of yar the wide open mouth, what could the fet part ofthe word for tongue’ bevy dic fo the like)? 1 we follow Pokorny (1989°771) and Mayrhofer (1956:31) in interpreting Olnd adhah “below ae derived fom "pd with the Old Indic form probaly’ an slatve of oot nou, we get prechely what we nec the bare stem of root noun! entering fnto a compound with an sblauting noun for which a meaning “foot of dhe mouth is wll within the range ofthe probable, and “ongue" then meaning “that which) Below the rot of the sou 530, The time sms to have come to pt the various arguments proposed in this paper together in such 3 ny that they canbe ‘stually apprised My sumptions se Very” early Protodndo-Eseopean ‘had an_sbluting noun *fhedw- denoting oot of the mouth’ le survived a an uncom pounded form in Gk. Ahdon, Lae: fcts, Fockaran Boy, Kiko, B kor 2), ONG guomo; Lith. gomurd.i {JOURNAL OF INDO-EUROPEAN STUDIES ‘his moun became pat of compound wth td he co pou cy a te) owt oto he Mot cane odo omgu “ma Stabs ih pln he second pat of the Compound cane ees tomb an eet ta a tence te ats rt of vat) asa isee fable ME complex word ong showed agement ne sigh el es one of he wd fry he word Ce TT Geto compen, ‘Sy econ pre “Seu Eomenion opt the composed taf, once sede pai ad pe wae tele “Rpeder i or ICFENSIFIER "ele orm syle on jected vas sh scan recuse ey conta eed fom Beak fice doe to pate mpcaton preset tte! anes wae coed yan nbc Pee ikon th one SIT we af fotntyone ny wonder water the eg cation of ihe werd fr tong’ to “papi war te SER a caning nt eutente ofthe wear -trn e essay Mage Dg ta tase dnt tote "Hand Nong wade nil di ar xen beyond eta tat ME yo ated oh form bece Gere JE lost ane ote nord i a nn erage seth Tome tt crkt and) bese “ph ole ee as tpn empton chem Sling he wor i hr oe cat fom of Thdsbopan pry xem 52 Tf he aumento proved ete gromo mode 26 putt ee sh at snpnation srw ter ttc Commonly ced al ipa canbe ed BPG cus af Sh detent ngage out pte ta ayy Ragen ton span ae rs eae date may bees 18 ea onde ne a pce sada he ey Sect Pate sf condone hs ape ‘wy att yl do nt comer uch ing er {Sin cing navery oxcng wey. = cea et es Ses a REFERENCES, HOG” Grands der verpechenden Grammaik der indogerman scien Sprachen 2 Lehre som dan Wortionney an cm Getch Algenciny,“Zstmmengeun. (ompotl ca.can mantis fee Ronan St abe, Eaopean language A coneibuton tothe Bory of ides renter nS Urey oC roe THE Gace cymes Worrch Meee Winer 1960" "Gachiher cymolgicher Wottbuch 1 Heir 197 Grechncer eymaogices Wontebudl 2, Heieber one San (tim, Jacob Crim ie ne: Na TSP comma, omit nn pia! ems re se ORB Le couple senea-venatus ete wulfixe’ BSL 51.42.86, Mayshofer, Manteed es 15 gee pin cy mse coe sc mt rong esd npn pti TMS Hlandboch der atcinschen Laut- und Formenlehre. Eine Ein-186 JOURNAL OF INDO-EUROPEAN STUDIES Va HSE aida contoneé vee es autres lances indo ‘ie oculaie (atu pubis Peet Eenie Inerainal de Diectologie Generale de Unt rae cen que necandase de Lowman 11) Lowale: IDG. ‘Wai, Aloe "Hotman, Johann Bape, eee ne M30 ecnches’asyclogchee Worterbuch 1, Date, eu ‘hele hafta Heidelberg: Winter. MN tndo-buopean prt My together wih Le, 2. 186 1962 Die’ Vetta indogemanicher Dense im Tock. 15 Modbtenevidene, tnx Werer Winer (et), Evidence for 196 eve Jane agar, seer mar 11). 19021) soso Seetbe'anl ampere tn Juan Fue (ey Saban and vote oFhomp ics ele pie aa oe ee tene 7 Augut 12,1960 Deicey! Riri Calon res. 208:28. 0 7080 er anti Suey se (ey Amv ean se Sa eee tier age In honor of Suen © ek Toray une: Saude, and monographs) FP, 48 ie "ARM, SHOULDER river of Cine It is all t00 often that we have to ctiticize our old friend Pokomy, but on this oeeasion (ZEW 88) it is others who must accept the blame and itis Pokomy who presents a creditable ceount witha We must begin with ‘am’, the body patt, The Indo-eanian reflexes give evidence of a zero-grade et base: Skt. rma, vest, arama, Ossetic(1) Pers. arm, Talysh am, Khotanese Saka aera(2) < *arma We would be tempted to limit the sro ade distectally to Indodanian if it were not for OPrus (Elhing 109) rmo and Lith. med ‘gout(3) These give us & clear basis for "pmo: ~ *rmo ‘On the other hand, there is ample evidence, for full grade form: OCS ramo ‘due, Rust Bulg. rimo, SCs rime rimo, Cz rnd, Pol. rami show by their accents and the Gecch lenge that we have an acuted *érmo- <"eramos Likewise Germanic ‘tarmaz may go back to Yaromo., and Lat, armas < taramos< ‘aromo- confirms the inital "a. Lith, armat and Lats, Frm do not provide separate testimony’ since, at Fraenkel points ct, they’ are borrowings from German. It is not necessary to con siler the, dubiously claimed Celtic evidence. The cleat forms Point to *aremo-= tfgortfmo~ We have, then, *HgrHlamo. and *Hyorl#mox, much as Po omy 58 represent. However, for such a formation we should expect but one orginal blaue grade [Now let us tum to the derivatives of the anit bate *er, which i supported by such derived fons as Spuerec, dedpor, and ipo ui. In Greek we have fpya et, whose rough breathing hhas been the subject of wellknown discussion, I myself favor Ghancraine and Meile’s derivation from *ars-mp, which pro vides an explicit source for the rough breathing. In such mor (1) Ye aes tone timate nr stcog yb 1988) 68 (5) Mie lt Bako Sen enh 82 (3) Stein Sempra std