The Collected Writings of Warren Cowgill Edited with an Introduction by Jared S. Klein with contributions by other former colleagues and students Beech Stave Press Ann Arbor « New York©2006 Becch Stave Press, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Typeset with IATEX using the Galliard typeface designed by Matthew Carter and Greek Old Face by Ralph Hancock Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Cowgill, Warren, 1929-1985. (Works, 2006] ‘The collected writings of Warren Cowgill / edited with an introduction by Jared S. Klein ; with contributions by other former colleagues and students. p.cm. Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 0-9747927-1-3 (alk. paper) 1. Indo-European languages. I. Klein, Jared S. II. Title. PS13.C69 2006 410-de2z 2006013733 Printed in the United States of America 1009080706 = 654321 ype . Anatolian bi-Conjugation and Indo-European Perfect: Instalment IT. . Evidence in Greek . Agim : ageiri: A New r/n-Alternation - . The Source of Latin vis ‘Thou Wile. . The Second Plural of the Umbrian Verb. The Collected Writings of Warren Cowgill Prelude Introduction Bibliography of Warren Cowgill. Dissertations Directed by Warren Cowgill. ..... Reminiscences Offered at the Memorial Service . Warren Cowgill As Teacher... Cowgill on Cowgill: Autobiographical Letter to the LSA Archives . Writings I. GENERAL INDO-EUROPEAN A Search for Universals in Indo-European Diachronic Morphology Indo-European Languages ...... More Evidence for Indo-Hittite: The Tense-Aspect Systems .... ‘The Personal Endings of Thematic Verbs in Indo-European . IL. INDO-[RANIAN The Aorists and Perfects of Old Persia ‘The First Person Singular Medio-Passive of Indo-Iranian On the Origin of the Indic ¢¢-Precative.........c0e sce IIL, GREEK Greek ov and Armenian oc". . Common Sense and Laryngeal Theory: A Reply to Mr. Rosén’s Rejoinder...103 . The Supposed Cypriote Optatives didnot and dékei, with Notes on the Greek Infinitive Formations Ancient Greck Dialectology in the Light of Mycenaean « IV. ITALO-CELTIC . Italic and Celtic Superlatives and the Dialects of Indo-European..........-++ 191 ‘V. ITALIC . The Source of Latin stare, with Notes on Comparable Forms Elsewhere in Indo-European...vi ‘The Collected Writings of Warren Congill VI. CELTIC 19. Old Irish teoir and cetheoirr.. .. 20. On the Fate of * in Old Irish at. A Note on Palatalization in Old Irish ......2...0000000+ sarees 5 22. The Origins of the Insular Celtic Conjunet and Absolute Verbal Endings. ...299 23, Two Further Notes on the Origin of the Insular Celtic Absolute and Conjunct Verb Endings ...... 33 24. The Etymology of Irish guidid and the Outcome of %4"b in Celtic 729 2s. On the Prehistory of Celtic Passive and Deponent Inflection 388 26, On the Origin of the Absolute and Conjunce Verbal Inflexion of Old Irish... 387 VIL. GERMANIC a7. The Inflection of the Germanic d-Presents 28. Gothic iddja and Old English code 29. The Old English Present Indicative Ending ~. 30. PLE *diuwo ‘2’ in Germanic and Celtic, and the Nom.-Acc. Dual of Non-Neuter o-Stems .. 31. Loss of Morphophonemic Alternation in Moribund Categories, As Exemplified in the Gothic Verb . 395 409 VIII. TOCHARIAN 32. Ablaut, Accent, and Umlaut in the Tocharian Subjunctive IX, BALTO-SLAVIG 33. The Nominative Plural and Preterit Singular of the Active Participles in Baltic........... X. REVIEWS AND COMMENTS 34. Review of Gordon, An Introduction to Old Norse. 35. Review of Krahe, Indagermanische Sprachwisenschaft.... 36. Review of Puhvel, Laryngeals and the Indo-European Verb . 37. Review of Mayrhofer, Sanskrit-Grammatik ......... 38. Comment on Wailes, “The Origins of Settled Farming in Temperate Europe”. vee $01 39. Review of Schmidt and Kédderitzsch (eds.), 40. Book Notice of Ethart, Indoevropske jnzyky..... : 41. Review of Arbeitman and Bomhard (eds.), Bono Homini Donum: Essays in Historical Linguistics, in Memory of J. Alexander Kerns ... XI. AUS DEM NACHLAS 42. The z-Cases of Germanic Pronouns and Strong Adjectives ....2:c.0cecceeess SID 43. The Personal Endings of Thematic Verbs in Indo-European (longer version)...... Index of Forms. Introduction I. The ocuvre Exactitude, methodological thoroughness, clarity of thought, complete command of the data, lucidity of style, common sense: these are words and phrases which come most easily to mind when one attempts to characterize the scholarly writings of War- ren Cowgill. An Indo-Europeanist par exrellence, he was one of only a few scholars since the beginning of the discipline who mastered in depth the historical grammars of all the branches of Indo-European—with the possible exception of Albanian— including, in many instances the later developments of the 25 or so older languages and closely related dialects which provide the material for Indo-European compara- tive linguistics. The breadth of Cowgill’s knowledge is immediately apparent from the topics of his articles, which focus upon data from nine of the ten subgroups of Indo-European. Particularly important within his work asa whole are his articles on Celtic, Germanic, and Greek, which together comprise 20 of his 33 published articles included in this col- lection? Reading these studics in their totality, one is i ed by their strong Indo- European focus. Thatis, the immediate problem, whatever it may be, is placed within the widest possible context of comparative Indo-European grammar, and the solution is always explicable starting from what we know about Proto-Indo-European. This characteristic is already present in the first article Cowgill wrote (1957b), in which he showed that putative stems *tior~ and. *k*ézesor- often reconsteucted as feminines for the numerals ‘3’ and ‘4? (beside masculines *treyes and *kenvores) in order to account for Old Irish téoir and cethéoér, Middle Welsh teir, pedeir, etc, are otiose. Rather, the Celtic forms can be explained starting from the same *isres (~> *tesres after the second vowel of ‘#’) and *#tesres which underlie Ske. sisrds and citasras, respectively. Simi- larly, in a paper which appeared only weeks afier his death (1985b), Cowgill showed that Germanic and Celtic forms for 2’ thought to presuppose a *dudy elsewhere re- flected only in Ske. d()niw can be accounted for easily and with great plausibility on the basis of an uninflected "duo which must be reconstructed in any case to account ant atten- “Also unrepresented, aside from Albanian, isthe Slavic branch of Balto-Slavic, although sig tion is given to Slavic evidence in both the long and short versions of his article on the endings of thematic verbs (1985¢, 2006b). Here as well his premature death has robbed us of at least one paper, on Slavic "mati ‘has? (ef. 1973:291,n. 47), which Cowgill considered to be an old aorist Yona made into a presentin a manner similar to substandard and child-English gees (notes from his class om Balto-Slavie linguistics 1971). ‘That this paper had not been produced by 198s should not necessarily be taken as evidence that it was no longer on Covgill’s agenda, He would sometimes let ideas percolate for many years before publishing them as articles, iscussion of the outcome of 9% in Celtic (1980), which had been at least rudimentarily jn Evidence for Laryngeals, p. 200, 1 = EfL*, ps 3244 1.1) Jclivered orally before the Harvard Linguistics Ci 1965 (c980:49, 1) Twenty-one, if'one adds his article on Germanic pronouns, published here for the first time. Cf. Part EL of thi An example is his d formulated as early-as 1950 (ef. Hamp's stareme: roduction, below.viii The Collected Writings of Warren Comgill for Greek diéo, Gothic ta, and (in the form *dyo) the nominative dual pronouns of Germanic (Gothic, OE, OS wit, OE, OS sit, etc.). As a result, evidence for an ending “04” beside “*-d” in forms which ate clearly o-stems is limited to Indic, where Vedic -auu (-i0) may reflect a special Indic treatment of *-0H in sandhi originally before vow- ls; and a similar mechanism (with apocope?) may underlie the otherwise refractory perfects of long-vowel roots (Skt. papniu, tasthiu, dad{b|du, etc.). In his work Cowgill provides a coherent view of his conception of the proto- language. Conservative in disposition, he espoused a version of Indo-European in some ways very close to Bragmann’s; yet he was independent enough in matters that belong essentially or entirely to the twentieth century to adopt a trilaryngealist posi- tion and to champion Indo-Hirtite, He had a clear understanding of the difference between the results of the comparative method and internal reconstruction. Hence his oft-repeated contention that perfect and mediopassive, whatever their more re- mote origins, are separate morphological and semantic categories as far back into our language family as we are able to reconstruct. This, plus his skepticism regarding Benveniste’s root theory and his eschewal of algebraic formulations of the sort of- ten posited by Kurylowicz, for example, place him within what might be termed the “German Schoo!” of Indo-European linguistics. Te was in fact his confidence in the essential correctness of the reconstructed proto- language as presented by Brugmann that led Cowgill to see problems where others did not and therefore to clear the way for either new solutions or a more general ac- ceptance of older proposals. Thus, he rejected the prevailing view that the Old Irish distinction between absolute and conjunct verb forms is based on the Proto-Indo- European distinction between primary and secondary endings (1975a,b; 1983; 19854). Such an explanation would require massive analogic extension, based on the posi- tion of a verb in its clause, of a feature which in Proto-Indo-European was virtually limited to the present system, where it marked tense and to some extent mood, but which would have possessed in Celtic no communicative function. Again, his clear conception of Indo-European grammar allowed him to see that “of the explanations devised for iddja and éade in the last ninety years, I know of only one that derives either word from a form there is any reason to believe actually existed” (1960b:483) and to reject Streitberg’s view that the Germanic é-presents (weak class II) go back to an original amalgamation of athematic forms in *-#- (PGme. *-é-) and thematic forms in *-aye-/-ayo- (PGme. * ‘dja-) (1959a). In each of the latter two instances he adopted a solution that ‘makes sense’ from an Indo-European perspective: “rela- tively banal” perfect *eoye/eypt (—> *eiynt) and original paradigm in *-ye/o-. In cach case the avatars of these forms can be accounted for through normal sound change and analogy applied to expected pre-Germanic formations. The tendency to look for solutions to problems within the various Indo-European dialects by starting from formations which we might expect to have existed on com- parative grounds is seen time and time again in Cowgill’s work. Witness, in addi- tion to the cases just cited, his treatment of supposed Cypriote diwdnoi and détoi (really éduwan ofn nu and édok? oin nu with “completely ordinary” raot aorist indica tives, 3rd pers. pl. and sg., respectively, to didimi ‘give’ followed by the equivalent of Homeric aim + mu) (1964); of Latin stare (an old stative present, the equivalent of OCS stoéti) (1973) and vis (originally *welsi, whence *vell remade as *vells, *vels with an Introduction ix otherwise unknown cluster of ‘clear ? + non-lateral consonant getting realized pho- netically as 8) (1978); of Old Irish guidtid (originally *g"bedbye-, just like Av. jaidiiemi, OP jadiyamiy, Gk. [Hesych.] shésesthai, and Goth. bidjan) (1980); and of the 2-cases of the Germanic pronouns and weak adjectives (all ultimately from *tosis, “tani, and equivalent forms of the “pronominal adjectives” of the sore seen in Skt. ndvasyas, vibasya, vigresim, etc., forms reconstructible on the ba- sis of Indo-Iranian, Balto-Slavic, and Italic) (2006a). Occasionally, as in his treatment of the personal endings of thematic verbs in Indo-European (1985¢, 2006b), solu- tions along these lines led him to daring hypotheses concerning which he was himself somewhat diffident. The differing dates of attestation of the various subgroups of Indo-European was a factor upon which Cowgill placed particular stress, so that he would not let the evidence of Baltic or, for that matter, Germanic and Celtic outweigh that of Vedic, Homeric Greek, and Hittite. This can be secn in his treatment of the evidential value of Baltic and Slavic second and third person singular endings for the reconstruction of the thematic verb endings of Proto-Indo-European (1985¢, 2006b). Itis also reflected in his discussion of Celtic #less passives of the type -berar ‘is carried’, ‘bear ‘is struck? (1983). T-less third singular mediopassives in *-0(-) are already archaisms within the Vedic verbal system of ea. 1000 8.¢., and it is therefore a priori unlikely that such forms would still be alive and functioning in the Celtic attested over 1700 years later. Their failure to show syncope of a preceding vowel as well as their unclear relationship to forms in -thVr, the possible existence in Archaic Irish of the type *beretor, and the occurrence in Old Welsh of forms such as tarmetor ‘is reckoned” all combine to raise enough suspicion about the prehistory of Old Irish passives in -ar to treat them as innovations whose origins are obscure. Finally, in an article not destined to appear in his lifetime, Cowgill adopted the same skeptical view of the persistent o-grade found in the Gothic mediopassive (bairada, bairaza, bairanda, ctc.). Rather than representing something old, such forms are said to reflect loss of morphophonemic alternation within a moribund category—the # was extended atthe expense of / because it was of wider occurrence in the verb system in general (optative, imperative, participle, infinitive) (198se). The analytical clarity which Cowgill brought to bear on the structure of Proto- Indo-European allowed him to perceive the real function of Hittite mediopassive 7 as atense marker (distinct from the r that serves as third person plural marker in the per- fect as well as in an archaic class of deponents, type Vedic duhré, adubran) and to see the implementation of this ras a pure voice marker in Italic and Celtic as an exclusively shared innovation of these dialects (1970b:142). Similarly, by showing that the only possible analysis of the ordinals ‘7th’ and ‘toth’ in Indo-European would have been *sept(op)m-o-, *dekmm-o-, respectively, with suffix -o- added to the cardinals *sepent ‘7’ and *dékm ‘10°, and by looking carefully at the semantics of both ordinals and superla- tives, he was able to refute the widely accepted view of Grimm and Benveniste that these represented the starting point of the superlative suffix *-(y2)mo- (ibid., 117). Analytical clarity, while a necessary prerequisite for good scholarly work in Indo- European, is not sufficient. One must also possess a sense of what is likely in linguistic change and what not. Cowgill was much concerned with such issues, both in. his writings and in the classroom, repeatedly asking, of some proposal or other in thex The Collected Writings of Warren Congill literature, why the events it presupposed should have occurred. This skepticism may have caused him to be viewed by some as an esprit négatif, but it also allowed him to get right to the source of problems, leading on occasion to bold new analyses. An excellent example of this is his rejection of the seemingly attractive derivation of the Hittite fi-conjugation from the Proto-Indo-European perfect (1974 and especially 1979b). Such a derivation would imply that Anatolian had inherited the perfect in the wrong tense value, to which it had, in unparalleled fashion, created a new present tense in competition with the inherited present indicative. Cawgill’s revival of Indo- Hittite and his speculative reconstruction of a verbal system from which both Proto- Indo-European Proper and Proto-Anatolian may have developed was the direct result of his looking at both morphological and semantic aspects of linguistic change. His description of the aspectual basis of Indo-European verb formation is the clearest to be found in English. Asan Indo-European phonologist Cowgill had few peers; and one of the charac- teristics of his work is his absolute command of the sound laws of the various dialects. This is seen in particular in his articles on Germanic and Celtic, in which he showed a true gift for formulating carefully worked out hypotheses concerning sound changes, especially in unstressed syllables. For Germanic, we may nore once again his dis sions of Gothic iddja and of the second weak class of verbs (19592, 1960b), both of which depend on close observation of sound laws, Even more impressive is his work ‘on Celtic, where both in his articles and in his class lectures he demonstrated mas- tery of the most detailed points of historical phonology, both in Goidelic and British. Note especially his articles on *y in Old Irish (19676) and on Old Irish palataliza- tion (1969a). In the latter he shows, among other things, that the contrast between absolute and conjunct forms of the verbs gonaid ‘wounds, slays’, con. :goins mornith ‘remains’, conj. ‘mair, and canaid ‘sings’, conj. “cain does not reflect a conflation of 4-presents and thematic ¢/o-presents, as Thurneysen thought, but rather all are simple thematic presents whose absolute forms are subject to a late Primitive Irish depalatal- ization of single consonants preceded by accented d or é and followed by ane derived from Early Primitive Irish é, This article makes in addition some important points about noun inflection, But itis in the later and longer articles on Italo-Celtic superla- tives (1970b), absolute and conjunct verb endings (1975a), the outcome of 9% i Celtic (1980), and the prehistory of Celtic passive and deponent inflection (1983) that the range of Cowgill’s control of this difficult branch of Indo-European is exhibited to its fullest extent. Finally, if the greatest accolade one can achieve in phonology is to have a law named after one, then here, too, Cowgill has taken his place among the luminaries, with the recent canonization by Andrew Siler (New Comparative Gram- mar of Greck and Latin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995], p.-42) of a“Cowgill’s Law” to describe the change of PIE *e to Greck # in words like davema ‘name’ (Doric and Acolic), ndiks ‘night’, dauks ‘nail’, and gumnds ‘naked? (196sa:156-7).* $Cowgill’s conditioning for this law is not described very precisely (“PIE *# next to labials and labiovelars has become # in a number of Greck words” [136]; then, more specifically “[the] change of no to mu was regular only before labial and labiovelar consonants.”). But in a footnote Cowgill included among forms showing a raising of o to Gk. bibles whee? and guiné woman’ (from *#ek"es and, according to him, “"end, espectively, with intermediate stages *Mol*Tos, fr"ond), as well as phil ‘leaf (187 n. 33). However, Cowgill never undertook to investigate the entire Greek lexicon to sec if there were scrious counterexamples to his Introduction xi In matters of morphology, too, Cowgill’s insights and command of the data were immense, The overwhelming bulk of his work in this area deals with the verb, both stem formation and endings. Evidence of his interest in the first, which is reflected already in his dissertation (19572), is provided in the various articles on points of Ger- manic, Celtic, Italic, and Greek verb morphology already cited. To these we may add his review (1963b) of Puhvel’s Laryngeals and the Indo-European Verb and his single for- ays into problems of Tocharian, Iranian, and Indic verbal morphology (19678, 1968, 1969b). A question that occupied Cowgill throughout his scholarly career concerned. the exact shapes of the desinences of the various tense/mood/aspect categories of Proto-Indo-European and their developments in the individual dialects. These points are dealt with specifically in his articles on the Old English present indicative ending -¢ (196sb), the first person singular mediopassive of Indo-Iranian (1969b), the vari- ous articles on the Celtic verb mentioned earlier, the posthumously appearing studies of the endings of the thematic verb (198s¢; the longer, unpublished version aus dem Nachlass is included here for the first time), and the second plural of the Umbrian verb (1987). Moreover, these questions are repeatedly raised in other publications as well. Here too, as in phonology, Cowgill’s name has been associated with a mor- phological phenomenon: the pa h is said to appear in a Wackernagel’s Law position following all clause-initial verbs except imperatives and responsives and following the first preverb of prefixed verbal lexemes in Insular Celtic. Although the original idea of this construction was first articulated by Thurneysen in 1907 (Evite 3:18-19), it was worked out to such an extent and articulated so often by Cowgill that today one frequently hears reference to “the Cowgill particle”. Nevertheless, despite his research focus on the verb, Cowgill’s most brilliant and erudite paper deals not With a problem of verb morphology, but rather with noun/adjective formation: the Italic and Celtic superlatives (197¢b).. Although Cowgill readily admitted to having no interest in syntax,* he was able on at least one occasion to solve a dialectal problem in Indo-European morphology on a syntactic basis. This was his demonstration (1970a) that the nominative plurals mas- culine (and feminine) of the active participles in East Baltic (c.g. Lith. rea ‘leading’, c, and itis by no means certain that Cowgill would have approved of Sihler’s formulation: “*o from any source > 1 in Greck between a labial and a resonant” (ibid.). Fora serious discussion taking into- accou all the evidence, see Brent Vine, *On ‘Cowgill’: Law’ in Greek,” in Heiner Bichner and Hans Christian Laschiitsky, eds, Compositiones Indagermanicae in Memoriam Jochem Schindler, Prague: Enigma Corp., 1999, pp. 565-600, who ends up essentially limiting ‘Cowgill’ Law “proper” to forms showing /noK*, Kon/ and /nom/. “Another sound law originating with Cowgill but never published by him is the regular change of final * to Proto-Tocharian * in monoyyllables. This change was first presented publicly not by Cowgill, but by Donald A. Ringe, Jr. in a paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Dec. 30, 1981. In that paper Ringe posited the rule only for Tocharian B, and in the following discussion Cowgill acknowledged that the idea was his. Subsequently, Ringe stated the rule for Proto-Tocharian, attributing its working on this level to “(Cowgill, personal communication 1980)” (“A Closer Look at Tocharian ¢ and @ and the Indo-European Mediopassive,” Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 1 [1987]:98-138 [the quotation is om p. 130, n. 33]). More recently, Joshua Katz has canvassed the entire Tocharian lexicon and has shown in explicit detail the rule to be regular (“Ein tocharisches Lautgesetz fiir Monosyllaba,” Tocharians and Indo- Exeropears Studies 7 (1997]:61-87). +Ima book notice (1984) of A. Erhart, Indocrropske jnzyky, Cowgill commends the author for “wisely” focusing on phonology, morphonology, and morphology, while banishing syntax to a three-page appendix which is a concentration of Delbrtick’s igth-century work,xii The Collected Writings of Warren Comgill teri having’, visig “going to lead”, véde ‘having led?, »isdave ‘having been leading? [the latter two also neuter singular]) are historically third plural verb forms restructured as participles, beginning with subordinate clauses in which participles were used in place of finite verbs in indirect discourse where the speaker reports something with- out vouching for its accuracy. Thus, assuming a period when third singular verbs had completely replaced third plural forms in main clauses with third plural subjects, but not in subordinate clauses, *saka (kad) jai vedan (3rd pl.) and *saka (kad) jai (esan) vedantes (ppl.) might have been in competition in the meaning “He said (that) they would come? with the old third plural form winning out on the basis of Wortumfang, (breviloquence) and perhaps also Finno-Ugric influence. In addition to his interest in phonology and morphology, Cowgill also maintained throughout his career a concern for problems of Indo-European dialectology. In par- ticular, both in his writings and his class lectures he laid great stress on problems of subgrouping and the search for exclusively shared innovations on which subgroup- ing is based. The most obvious fruits of this concer in his writings are his resur- rection of Indo-Hittite (1974b, 1979b) and his conclusion that Italo-Celtic represents a valid but short-lived subgroup of Indo-European (1970b). Note also his excellent discussion of early Greek dialectology (1966a). Furthermore, in his class discussions, he seriously considered the possibilities that Latin-Faliscan and Osco-Umbrian rep- resented two different subgroups of Indo-European rather than diverse branches of Tealic, that Indo-Iranian ought really to be Indo-Dardic-Iranian, and that East and West Baltic were separate dialect groups coordinate with Slavic. For him the most im- portant question was always whether the divergences between languages were older than their shared similarities. Ifso, one was justified in setting up separate subgroups. At the center of subgrouping, therefore, stood questions of relative chronology. Ifa given innovation exclusively shared by two or more languages can be shown to be older than any divergence between them, then the positing of a subgroup is in order. Its precisely this principle that is evoked in Cowgill’s article on the Italic and Celtic superlatives. The care with which a relative chronology is here worked out and the relevant forms subjected one after the other to the most precise and minute analy- sis represents a landmark of comparative linguistics and internal reconstruction at its finest. We come now to laryngeal theory. Cowgill had relatively little to say about laryn- geals in his published work, rarely if ever used them to solve problems, and proposed no new outcomes for laryngeals in the dialects. It is therefore all che more remarkable that he authored what is probably the most complete and lucid short treatment of the outcomes of laryngeals in any Indo-European dialect. “Evidence in Greek” (1960¢, re= vised version 196sa) is probably his most widely cited work and will very likely remain so in the future, The reason for this is the fact that the qualities which we attributed to Cowgill’s work at the beginning of this essay are preeminently reflected as a group in this article. For Cowgill laryngeals were never dei ex machina to be used in solving any and all problems of Indo-European morphology, but rather units to be reconstructed only where the broad evidence of comparative linguistics supported them and they were compatible with a general theory. Of methodological importance for laryngeal theory, in addition to “Evidence for Greek,” is the review of Puhvel (1963b) and the reply to Rosen (1961). Introduction xiii Cowgill’s work is not bereft of new etymologies, although these do not play as lange a role with him as they do in the work of some other Indo-Europeanists. Leav- ing aside his treatments of Gothic idaja and OE ode, Olr. tévir, cethévir, and, guidid, Greek (Cypriote) denednoi and dékoi, and Latin stave and vis, all of which represent not so much new (lexical) etymologies as new morphological interpretations, we arc left with his rapprochement of Greek o(ké) and Armenian of and his combination of Gk. agén + ageivo into a single family illustrating a new r/n-alternation. The first of these proposals, whereby both the Greck and Armenian forms would continue an carlier *Fhdyu: Md extracted from "¢ Hydy Rid ‘never’ (lit. ‘not an eternity soever’) with ellipsis (cf, French jamais ‘never’ from ne. . jamais), represents an idea Cowgill got carly on in his career’ and which seems now to have been generally accepted. In the second case, the fact that agan in the oldest Greck means ‘assembly, gathering’ and. that people are not normally led to a gathering persuaded Cowgill that the relation- ship with ago was not as cogent semantically as that with ageird ‘I gather, assemble’ But a morphological consequence of this is an 7/n-alternation different from the types heretofore recognized (c.g. Hitt. watar ‘water’, gen. sg. wetenas, Ske. dubré ‘they give milk vs. bitrante ‘they bear, pibaa- “fa, fem. ‘pivart), with root noun in n (agén for expected “agér) but verbal derivative in r.¢ Perhaps the most striking aspect of Cowgill’s work is its methodological thorough- ness. Almost nowhere does one find ideas set forth without discussion or careful con- sideration of alternatives. Preconceived notions are avoided, and when a reconstruc- tion is proposed, we are provided with the entire range of data on which it is based. Also characteristic is Cowgill’s attempt to command the entire history of research on a problem, extending on occasion even back beyond the Neo-Grammarian period. This is seen already in his dissertation, where references to Bopp’s Veygleichende Grammatik (ast ed. 1833-52), Grimm’s Deutsche Grammatih (1822), Schleicher’s Compendium (1st ed. 1861), and Holtzmann’s Uber den Ablant (1844) are cited and views expressed in these works discussed at first hand. In his subsequent publications it is not unusual to find in his work references such as Adolf Holtzmann, Isidor (1836), $. Th. Aufrecht *For many years Cowgill considered the development of *Hydyu to Greck ow, as well as the frst person singular present indicative active ending *0 (< *-oFl,) to represent firm cvidlence for the contention that the second laryngeal did nor color an adjacent *o to a. This led him to struggle throughout most of his carcer with the problem presented by the Greek (Arcado-Cypriote) middle voice endings -mai, -(soi, t0i, -ntoi, which he thought should have shown uniform -o- from *-H, *-i, oi, ete., with m preposed in the first person (50 also in the secondary ending -mam, but from what? *-m-Fo-2) (cf. 1966a:80, N. 135 81, 1.145 1969b:27 and notes 10, 11). In the end he scems to have accepted Kertlandt’s proposal (“Hho and oH”, Lingua Posnaniensis 23 [1980]:127-8) that PIE *Hi,o and "oF, were everywhere assimilated to "Ho, "oH, (in ‘Cowgill’s terms, *x%9, “ax”), but that in a secondary sequence *Fhe, “Hi; colored the adjacent ¢ to @ within the prehistory of Greck. This allowed him to maintain the etymology of Greek ow and first person singular present indicative active *# (*Fhéyu and *-oFf, becoming, respectively, *Hyoys and *-oFg), while seeing the Greck first person singular forms -mai and -man as containing an *H, analogically restored on the model of the perfect (ast sg. *+F{,e). But these views are only laconically set forth (1983:74-3). No doubt had he lived longer, Cowgill would have discussed Kortandt’s views in greater detail. “Another etymology which is original with Cowgill is the equation of Latin srés and Gothic bauays. 1 recall hearing this erymology from him first in the r970~71 academic year (unforcunately, I have not been successful in retrieving it from my hundreds of pages of class notes for that year). More recently, this etymol- ogy has been worked out in detail (and extended within Italic) by Joshua T. Katz, “Testimonia Ritus Iealici: Male Genitalia, Solemn Declarations, and a New Latin Sound Law,” Harvand Studies in Classical Poiology ‘98 (1998):183-217 (especially pp. 204-6).xiv The Collected Writings of Warren Congill and A. Kirchhoff, Die wmbrischen Sprachitenkmiiler (1849), Georg Curtius, Gremdziige der gricchischen Etymologie (1858), Georg, Heinrich Mahlow, Die langen Vocale A EO in den curopitischen Sprachen (1879, cited repeatedly), as well as Forcellini’s Latin Dic- tionary (1771) and Richard Bentley, Publii Terentii Afri Comoedine (1726). As a result, his solutions are artived at on the basis of the broadest possible perspective. It is not surprising, therefore, that his distinctive contribution consisted on more than one oc- casion of the resurrection and refinement of an carlier view in the context of current ideas about language change and Proto-[ndo-European. This is true, for example, of Cowgill’s derivation of both Gothic iddja and OE éode from the pre-Germanic per- fect of the Proto-Indo-European root *2y- ‘go’ (made at least as early as 1836 by Adolf Holwmann), his derivation of Latin stare as well as Oscan staft, Umbrian staberen from a preform *staé- belonging to the second conjugation (suggested by Aufrecht and Kirchhoff in 1849 and more clearly by Bréal in 1875), his equation of the OE ist person sg. present indicative ending -e with the corresponding ending of the optati (made at least as carly as 1896 by Streitberg), his detailed demonstration that the di ference between Old Irish absolute and conjunct endings depend on a particle *(c)s which originally occurred in Insular Celtic after the absolute forms (preceded in gen- eral outline, as noted above, by Thurneysen in 1907), and his view that the Germanic (and Celtic) forms for ‘2’ go back to an old uninflected *duyo (for Germanic first stated by Kluge in 1901 and reconstructed for Homeric Greek diio by Kretschmer in 1892). Cf. also the main idea of Cowgill’s dissertation, as discussed in n. 8 below. In a way, Cowgill was a historiographer of Indo-European: although he never set out to write a history of the discipline, he has left in his writings a broad outline of some of the most important ideas that antedated him. The preceding discussion has dealt almost exclusively with Cowgill’s accomplish- ments in the international arena of published scholarship, an area in which his legacy remains for all to sce and evaluate. There was, however, another side to the man’s teaching, reserved only for the fortunate few who had the opportunity to learn di- rectly from him in the classroom. Those of us who did so earry the experience with us as an indelible part of our professional training. He inspired us and taught us how to think about problems, how to argue, and how to distinguish a good idea from a bad one. He criticized our work in depth, and even when we did not agree with his views, we could not afford to ignore them. Over a period of 28 years he trained a modest number of Indo-Europeanists, many of whom now hold or have retired from positions at universities in the United States and abroad. As heirs to his doctrine, this group will continue to build upon the structure he helped erect, just as will many of those who knew him only or chiefly through his publications. No doubt not all his positions will be maintained by posterity, but what he has said and written will not be forgotten and many a rough place where he has trodden has already begun to be paved with intense scholarly debate. "In order to be as complete as possible in cataloguing Cowgill’: work, T note the following papers pre- sented by Cowgill in various settings which appear to be different from his published articles and therefore contain additional aspects of his overall doctrine. Those for which I possess handouts are preceded by an asterisk: 1) “Hittite singular intervocalie -h-” (Linguistic Society of America Winter Meeting, Dee. 28-29, 1959, Chicago); 2) “Indo-European dual personal pronouns” (Illinois Linguistic Seminar, Oct. 19, 1961); 3) "Gemnnanic wnsara-: Some unparalleled sound changes” (Linguistic Society of America Summer Meeting, Tatroduction xv Il. The edition This volume contains all of Cowgill’s published articles and reviews and a selection of previously unpublished work. In the case of two articles (“Evidence in Greek” and “A search for universals in Indo-European diachronic morphology”), only the second, revised versions (1965a and 1966b) appear here. Cowgill’s posthumously published “Einlcitung” to Mayrhofer’s phonology volume in the Indagermanische Grammatike has not been included since it forms an integral part of a larger book and is commonly available. ‘Two previously unpublished articles, “The 2-cases of Germanic pronouns and strong adjectives” and a (the?) longer version of “The personal endings of the- matic verbs in Indo-European” (1985e), are printed here for the first time as Cowgill 2006a and b, respectively. Also included is a valuable and engaging personal letter Cowgill wrote to the Linguistic Society of America archives in 1984 in response to a request for an autobiographical sketch. ‘As regards other unpublished material, only three works came up for considera- tion. Thave not included Cowgill’s dissertation The Indo-European Long-Vowel Preterits (1957a) in the present collection because Cowgill himself never felt it was publishable. Indeed, it isa singularly uninspired work and provides scarcely a hint of the extraordi- nary quality of scholarship which was to follow. (Nevertheless, it does adumbrate at ive reconstruction of the Pre-Indo-European vowel system ,, Dec. 28-36, 1968, New York City); 5) On resonant clus+ July 30-31, 1965, Ann Arbor); +) “A specu (Linguistic Soci ters in Ancient Greek” (Ling, 6) The nominative singular of m-stems in Germanic” (Yale University Indo-European Workshop, April 8, 1975); 7) “Notes on the Greek perfect optative” (Harvard University, Noy. 1978); 8) “Ihe distribu- ion of infixed and suffixed pronouns in Old Irish” (Linguistic Society of America Winter Meeting, Dec. 7-40, 1981, New York City); 9) **Intervocalic *#h and *f in Armenian and the Armenian endings of the 1st and 2nd plural pronouns" (Third East-Coast Indo-European Conference, University of Pennsylvania, 1984). This list is certainly incomplete; moreover, the amount of time which Cowgill would spend reading, carefully and commenting extensively on the work of others, primarily in the form of leters, is legendary. 1 invite readers who know of or possess handouts to other presentations by Cowgill that are not simply oral versions of his articles or who have in their possession letters from Cowgill that contain commentary on their work which may harbor additional Cowgill doctrine to contact me at jklein@uga.edu. I would be happy to receive and maintain copies of these as a kind of “Cowgill archive” which could then be shared ‘with others interested in this material. *Cowgil’s initiation into scholarship deals fundamentally wich Germanic strong preterites of Classes IV-VI (nemun they took’, gebun ‘they gave’, molun ‘they ground’), Latin forms like séaiI sat’, néniTcame’, {fod “I dug’, and scab ‘T scratched”, and Old Trish forms like midair judged” and teh ‘fied’. His primary conclusion, proposed already by Bartholomac in 1801 (BB 17.1267), is that the Germanic class V plural type lesson ‘they gathered” owed its existence t0 the coexistence, at a certain point in pre-Germanis, of pret. pl. (originally perfect) *ldswn and pret. pl. (originally saorist) "lé-ne (from ésnt). The simpler stem then spread to other verbs showing awkward consonant clusters (e.g. ‘gheghbint — “ghieolmt), The class VE type ‘molten would then have been analogical (again so already Bartholomac 1891) based on the abduced rule that the vowel of the preterite plural was formed by lengthening the vowel of the present: "ghelbi- : “ghebh- + mal- ; X, where X = *mal- (> mol-). When the perfects were dereduplicated, the singular *mal- showed no distinction from the present stem, thereby running contrary to the Germanic tendency to distinguish present and preterite stems, so the vowel of the plural spread to the singular ia class VI. Cowgill assumes a similar development in pre-Celtic, where a perfeet pl. *g"/ey"hdl ‘prayed’ would have been replaced first by tg*hedb- (assuming here as well influence of the compsting s-aorist “g"bedh-s- which, however, lives on only in the s-subjunctive seen in most of these roots) and then subsequently by "7"édb- after a partial morphological assimilation to the vowel timbre of the singular ‘g"/gg"hoil, whence Ol gdd-. But mridair never replaced #med-, because as a medliopassive perfect it had no *yneméd- stem beside it. The replacement, particularly of *2eTK: stems by *TéK-, may be a common innovation dating from a time when Celtic andxvi The Collected Writings of Warren Congill east one important idea that was given article-length treatment in the same year, his analysis of réair and cetheotr [1957b].)? Cowgill also never wanted to publish his mono- graph on Anatolian phonology. This isa very large (ca. 120-page) typescript produced around 1970 or 1972 for the projected Lauslebre of the Indagermanische Grammatik initiated by Kurylowicz and published by Carl Winter. The project was ultimately abandoned by Cowgill, possibly because its scope, calculated on the basis of just the Anatolian part, would have exceeded the Lautlebre of Brugmann’s Grundriss, which itself runs to over 1000 pages. As is well known, the task of writing a Lawtlebre was ultimately taken up by Manfred Mayrhofer, who reconceptualized it as a succinctly worded Sugmentale Phonologie des Indggermanischen, whereas Cowgill’s contribution to the volume was limited to the 61-page “Einleitung” mentioned above.'? A num- ber of the more important insights of this manuscript have been presented by Craig Melchert in his Anatolian Historical Phonology, Amsterdam-Atlanta: Rodopi, 1994. Chief among these is Cowgill’s surmise of a change of unaccented ¢ to a in open syllables (hence, the variation -weni, -meni, -teni ~ -wani, -mani, -tani, depending on whether the verbal accent was on the ending or the predesinential syllable; cf. Melchert, 1994:137-8). In addition, Cowgill anticipated Melchert’s demonstration of three distinct outcomes of dorsal stops in Luvian, pointedly remarking that this meant that Luvian was neither a centum nor a satem language; cf. Melchert’s postscript ac- knowledgment in Calvert Watkins, ed. Studies in Memory of Warren Cowgill (1929- 1985): Papers from the Fourth East Const Indo-European Conference, Cornell University, June 6-9, 1985 (Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1987), p. 204. Finally, at the time of his death Cowgill was in the process of revising a manuscript of his teacher, Paul Tedesco, on the Indo-European personal pronouns (cf. 1983:105 n. 26). Ihave never seen this manuscript, and because it is allegedly far ftom complete, Ihave not sought it out for inclusion here. One can glean some of Cowgill’s views on the topic from his Evidence for Laryngeals contribution (196s:169-70 with ns. s6-63) and from his article on the Celtic passive (1983:105 with n. 26). In making this edition, besides presenting Cowgill’s scholarly oeuvre 1 wanted to provide some idea to new generations of students who never met Cowgill what the man was like in person. To that end, I have reproduced the remarks spoken at Cowgill’s memorial service by Stanley Insler, Anna Morpurgo Davies, Henry Germanic existed in close contact with each other. On the other hand, developments in Italic leading to forms such as vent, ods, and seabi are more obscure, but such sets as rénérunt : Goth, gemuen and stdérant : Goth. setwns may after all be related within a Western Indo-European. (Italic, Celtic, Germanic) context. It should be noted, however, that at least by 1971 (and perhaps many years carlier) Cowgill had repudiated his view of Germanic 7eK¢ stems, based upon the fact that the ending *-n¢ could come from the recuplicared imperfect, rendering otiose the s-aorist as an influencing factor. In his class lectures of 1975, which T attended, he was inclined to see vowel-initial roots as the starting point for the formation, notably *e-od: : teed= > Yéd. ‘cat’, which had long since given up ies zero-grade in paradigmatic forms. The long vowel of the pretcrite plural was here maintained, once again, because of the need to distinguish the preterite stem from the present, which had invariant *ed-. The remaining major sections of Cowgill’s dissertation consist of an clegant defense of Brugmann’s Law (hence, no long-vowel perfects in Indo-Iranian) and a proposal that the type Hittite Zaks :ieken(i): Jekzen(#) was the result of an assimilation of “a to a following ¢, which he posited as a phonetic law of Hittite. Alexander Lehrman, Cowgill’s last student, who worked on Anatolian, has informed me that as far as he knows, Cowgill maintained this view to the end of is life. *Othet references to material in the dissertation may be found on pp. 140 n. 1$2, 280 1. 75 345, 415, and +18, For an assessment of this contribution, see my review in Language, vol. 63: (1987), pp- 407-10. Introduction xvii Hoenigswald, Jay Jasanoff, Alan Nussbaum, and Calvert Watkins. I also commis- sioned two of Cowgill’s former students, Stephanic Jamison and Alexander Lehrman, to contribute reminiscences of their days spent with Cowgill their teacher. It is hoped that all these pieces, tagether with Cowgill’s personal letter to the LSA archives, will serve to acquaint or reacquaine readers with Cowgill the man, A few remarks are now in order concerning presentation and editorial practice. All the articles have been retypeset to give the book a uniform (and more elegant) appearance and to allow the correction of errors."' Retypesetting also afforded us the opportunity of making this collection something of a critical edition. In particular, it seemed useful to insert some bracketed footnotes (introduced by the phrase “Edi- tor’s note”) for a variety of editorial purposes. The bulk of these notes flag points on which Cowgill was to revise his thinking in later publications, and refer the reader to the place where he made the revision. Very occasionally, I felt that a point needed clarification or amplification, and added a note for that purpose. Normally, though, I have not added any commentary, preferring for Cowgill’s voice to stand on its own. A couple of additional notes quote or summarize published reports cited by Cowgill of views he had privately expressed to other scholars. I have also added updated bib- Tiographical information in brackets where necessary. Following the practice of some similar collections where previously published ma- terial was retypeset and consequently repaginated, we have indicated the original page-breaks with a pipe (|) inserted into the text at the point of the page-break, and added in the margin the page number that followed the break in the original. Thus on p- ro this collection, the pipe indicates that there was a page-break after “reveal” in the original and that the following word was the start of p. 15. Where a page-break in the original came after the end of a paragraph or other section (e.g., a table), no pipe has been introduced into the text. Page breaks that occurred in footnotes or endnotes in the originals have not been marked. Tt would have been otiose to engage in any wholesale re-editing of the articles in the volume or to check the originals exhaustively for errors; Cowgill was a famously able proofreader. Most idiosyncrasies and inconsistencies from article to article have been left as they were, Nonetheless, it did seem usefull ro impose some modest stan- dardization on style, punctuation, and other aspects not directly affecting the content. Endnotes have been converted everywhere to footnotes and most European stylistic or typographical practices (such as Sperrdruck, guillemets, and capitalization of the names of cited authors) have been Americanized. The great variety of citational and bibliographic styles, however, has been allowed to stand,” with errors in the bibli- ographies silently corrected. The other non-stylistic errors that came to our attention were not numerous; though mostly inconsequential, where they occur in the text they have been flagged with a dagger (+) in the margin and are listed below, by page number, in the manner of an apparatus. In a few instances, we could take advantage of marginal corrections in Cowgill’s own hand that were available to us; these are labeled “corr. WCC” below. "Steve Peter at Beech Stave Press undertook the arduous task of preparing the retypeset versions, which were then carefully read against the originals by Ben Fortson and myself. It is always possible that some errors escaped our notice, but we belicys them to be extremely few. "The only bibliography that was reformatted was that of Cowgil’s one JIES article (1973).wii The Collected Writings of Warren Cowgill 1 devanampriya-| devanampriya- 15 *kl-né-w-| *hl-né-w- 24 sesera] seser-y 26 §| g 28 *stcH,-] *eteH- 40 conjunct] cojunct 41 ~sechestar| sechestar 46 “mi-conjugation] *m-conjugation 49, gamayam cakara) gamayam cakara ferent] differrent. we know] we now — 57 offered] offered 67 * 1" 73.An athematic] A athematic 77 moyen-iranicn] moyen-iranian in Middle] im Middle 81 of the] 0 the 86 é8eAaivora] eeaivoa 87 agreement] argeement kefuot|xejor 88 VIIL.91.1] VIII.80.1 turd] tuva next to] nextoto 89 beside] besice at this] athis 94 consonant] consonat 95 Patha] Patha 08 jes] jes 116 ‘Aexeheig] Aexedeig 120 Iéthd| letho an East] a East 125 id] ide 156 “evti] Gevt1 161 *évoi] *évoi 165 ifdnoGa) 72ne8a 177 chances] changes 178 Similarly] Simlarly 179 andJanh 181 labials}labilals éwedneCa] évedmesa —ana- logy] anthology 197 *dekmmo- was extended to *dekytto-| *dekmmo- was extended to *dekmto- of Celtic] of of Celtic 200 *s(w)¢éks-to-] *s(w)cks-to- — “wikentitemas) *wikentitemos — -sastama-| sastama- 201 maned] mano 214. *yun-ké-) *yun-kd- 217 Osco-Umbrian] Osco-Unbrian 227 Machtspriiche] Machtspruche 237 eestint and -stist] eestint and -stist (corm WCC) 244 *taémos, *taenti] *taémo(s),* taent (cor: WCC) said ‘sits? and -laig ‘lies’] said ‘sits? and laig ‘ies’ (corr. WOC) — 256 cannot be taken] can not be take 264anditis]andis 267 persnimu] persnimu 270 aruiojaruio 274 itIs]isis 275 had been] has been 283 im Keltischen] in Keltischen 284 béu] béri 287 inigena| iningena UG) id 208 sagitta sagit a paiter| pater caisel| enissel 296 occurred] occured — 299 rather than] rather that 301 offering] offering 306 s-stem nouns] s-stems nouns 309 hypotheses} hy: pothese 315 ‘Iefcé) -Iéci_ 316 < *ni-s karator] << ni-skarator 331 similar to] sim- ilar of — 365 varieties] varities 378 Old Irish] old Irish 382 Old Irish] old Irish yousaaimés] vousaaimé 3830 connect] to toconnect 393 *kardoi senti] *kara- toi senti 409sit}an] sitjan- 421 morphophonemic] morphonemic 429 Sievers-Brunner] Sievers Bunner gefiolgesio gefee| ese 438 metathesized] methathesized —*lni] *luni 440 *(gokténse, (2)okté2,] (g)okté2u, (a)oktés, 456 alle] all 457 been given up]givenup 470 underlie) underly 472 the treatment] that treatment 480 forms like] form like Dhatuparha’s) Dhatupatha’s 481 Dhatupatha] Dhatupatha Jaiminiya Brahmana] Jaiminiya Brahmana 4.94 developments] development s18 alternatives] alternative ULL, Acknowledgments Finally, it is my great pleasure to thank those who have contributed to the realization of this enterprise. First and foremost, my deepest gratitude must go to Ben Fortson and Steve Peter of Beech Stave Press. It is they who first approached me, asking me to let them take on a project which I had conceptualized and “packaged” as far back as December of 1987. It is not often that one has the pleasure of working with publishers who are also colleagues—in this case both Harvard-trained Indo-Europeanists. From the time I sent them the Cowgill materials, their participation in the project is best described as collaboration, so that this work can meaningfiully be said to have three editors, nor one. If, in contrast to many other volumes of collected works, the present Introduction xix book possesses the quality of a commemorative edition, celebrating a scholar’s life just over twenty years after his passing, this is largely due to the interests of Ben and Steve in configuring it in this way. The main reason this volume was so long in the making is that in 1987 I possessed no computer skills and felt personally unable to produce a word index, without which the utility of the book is considerably dimin- ished. Nevertheless, I wish to express my indebtedness to my research assistant, (now Professor) Yuki Takatori, for her careful canvassing of Cowgill’s ocuvre in 1989 in order to produce the first step toward a complete word index. In this generation of almost universal computer literacy the word index is of course implicitly generated at the same time as the text. Numerous other people contributed in important ways to this project. Karen Cow- gill transmitted to us electronically a downloadable picture of Cowgill in his prime which serves as the frontispiece. Anna Morpurgo Davies sent me many years ago a copy of the program of the Memorial Service for Cowgill held at Yale University on September 28, 198s, including the printed forms of the eulogies delivered that day. Missing only were those of Alan Nussbaum and Alexander Lehrman. The former has sent us a reconstructed form of his address and the latter has contributed instead a perspective on Cowgill as a teacher. Stephani Jamison contributed a second testimo- nial of this sort as well. The Linguistic Society of America allowed us to publish an autobiographical statement sent by Cowgill to their archive a year before he passed away. I knew of this only through the kindness of Maggie Reynolds, whe sent it to me, together with a large number of handouts of Cawgill’s LSA papers, in response to my request for Cowgill memorabilia, in 1986. Craig Melchert recently took the time to send us his evaluation of the most important new ideas contained in Cowgill’s un- published Anatolian Phonology typescript. Finally, within the past two years Patrick Stiles sent me a copy of Cowgill’s unpublished paper on the z-pronouns of Germanic, together with associated correspondence; and Cowgill himself in the last year of his life sent me a copy of the longer version of his thematic verb ending paper. Both of these have been incorporated here into a Nachlass section. All these people and insti~ tutions have contributed to the enhancement of this volume, and to all of them I'send my most heartfelt thanks."® Jared S. Klein, Athens, Georgia, June 2006 SA separate catego him in 1084 about matters of Halic phonology and morphology. Although we could not i here, it nevertheless represents one of what must be dozens of such items that exist in the scholars, living and deceased, around the world and which are sure to contain aspects of Cowgill’ doctrine which never found their way into print. Iris precisely these that 1 propose to gather for an archive which might some day itself be published. nks goes to Rex Wallace, who in 1988 sent mea letter Cowgill had written to Jude this letter - of numerousBibliography of Warren Cowgill Items preceded by * are not included in this volume; see the Introduction, Part II. *“1957a The Indo-European Long-Vowel Preterits. Yale University Ph.D. dissertation. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms. 1957b “Old Irish teoir and cetheoir.” Language 33.341-5. 1938 Review of E.V. Gordon, An Introduction to Old Norse. 2nd edition revised by A.R. Taylor. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957.) Language 34.126-30. 19594 “The inflection of the Germanic d-presents.” Language 35.1-15. 19s0b Review of Hans Krahe, Indogermanische Sprackwissenschaft: I. Einleitung und Lautlebre. 3d, revised edition. (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1958.) Language 35.90-4. 1960a “Greek o# and Armenian of.” Language 36.347-50. 1960b “Gothic iddja and Old English code.” Language 36.483-501. *y960c “Evidence for laryngeals in Greek.” In Werner Winter, ed. Evidence for La- syngeals: Work Papers. Austin: Department of Germanic Languages, University of Texas. 93-162. [See 1965a.] 1961 “Common sense and laryngeal theory: A reply to Mr. Rosén’s rejoinder.” Lingua 10.326-46. *1963a “A search for universals in Indo-European diachronic morphology.” In Joseph Greenberg, ed. Universals of Language: Report of a Conference Held at Dobbs Ferry, New York, April 13-15, 1961. Cambridge: MIT Press. 91-113. [See 1966b.] 19636 Review of Jaan Puhvel, Laryageals and the Indo-European Verb. (Berkeley: Uni- versity of California Press, 1960.) Language 39.248-70, 1964. “The supposed Cypriote optatives dumnoi and ddtoi, with notes on the Greek infinitive formations.” Language 40.344-65. 1965 “Evidence in Greek.” In Werner Winter, ed. Evidence for Laryngeals. The Hague: Mouton. 142-80. [Revised version of 1960¢.] 196sb “The Old English present indicative ending -¢.” In Symibolne linguisticac in ho- norem Georgii Kurylowicz. Wroclaw: Polska Akademia Nauk. 44-50. 196sc Review of Manfred Mayrhofer, Sanskrit-Grammatik (mit sprachvergleichenden Erlauterungen) .2nd, completely revised edition. (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1965.) Language 41.518-20. 1966a “Ancient Greek dialectology in the light of Mycenaean.” In Henrik Birnbaum and Jaan Puhvel, eds. Ancient Indo-European Dialects. Berkeley: University of Cali- fornia Press. 77-95.axii The Collected Writings of Warren Cowgill 1966b “A search for universals in Indo-European diachronic morphology.” In Joseph Greenberg, ed. Universal of Language: Report. and edition. Cambridge: MIT Press. 114-41. [Revised version of 1963a.] 1967a “Ablaut, accent, and umlaut in the Tocharian subjunctive.” In Walter W. Arndt and others, eds. Stedies in Historical Linguistics in Honor of George Sherman Lane. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 171-81. 1967 “On the fate of *v in Old Irish.” Language 43.129-38. 1968 “The aorists and perfects of Old Persian.” Zeitschrift fiir vergleichende Sprach- forschung 82.259-68. 1969a “A note on palatalization in Old Irish.” In Christian Gellinek and Herwig Zau- chenberger, eds. Festschrift fiir Konstantin Reichardt. Bern: Francke Verlag. 30-7. 1969b “The first person singular medio-passive of Indo-Iranian.” In J.C. Heester- man, G. H. Schokker, and V1. Subramoniam, eds. Pratidanam: Indian, Iranian, and Indo-Extropean Studies Presented to Franciscus Bernardus Jacobus Kuiper on His Sixtieth Birthday. The Hague: Mouton. 24-31. 1969¢ “On the origin of the Indic es-precati senschaft 15.27-38. 1970a “The nominative plural and preterit singular of the active participles in Baltic.” In Thomas F. Magner and William R. Schmalstieg, eds. Baltic Linguistics. Univer- sity Park and London: The Pennsylvania State University Press. 23-37. 1970b “Italic and Celtic superlatives and the dialects of Indo-European.” In George Cardona, Henry M. Hoenigswald, and Alfred Senn, eds. Indo-European and Indo- Ensropeans. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 113-53. .” Miinchener Studien sur Sprachwis- r970¢ “Comment 1” in Bernard Wailes, “The origins of settled farming in temper- ate Europe.” In George Cardona, Henry M. Hoenigswald, and Alfred Senn, eds. Indo-European and Indo-Europeans. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 301-2. 1973 “The source of Latin stare, with notes on comparable forms elsewhere in Indo- European.” Journal of Indo-European Studies 1.271303. 1974a “Indo-European languages.” In The New Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropedia. 1sth ed. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica. 9.431-38. 1974b' “More evidence for Indo-Hittite: The Tense-Aspect Systems.” In Luigi Heil- mann, ed. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of Linguists, Bologna- Florence, Aug. 28-Sept. 2, 1972. Bologna: Societ’ editrice i Mulino. 2.557-70. 1975 “The origins of the Insular Celtic conjunct and absolute verbal endings.” In Helmut Rix, ed. Flexion und Wortbildung. Akten der V. Fachtagung der Indogermani- sehen Gesellschaft, Regensburg, 9.14. September 1973. Wiesbaden: Reichert. 40-70. 1975b “Iwo further notes on the origin of the Insular Celtic absolute and conjunct verb endings.” Eriu 26.27-32. ‘Cowgill consistently referred to this article as having appeared in 197s, even though its copyright date is 1974. We have mace no attempt in this volume to alter the date appearing in Cowgill’s references to this work Bibliography of Warren Congill xviii 1978 “The source of Latin ris ‘thou wilt’.” Die Sprache 2425-44. 1979a “Agén + agetr6: A new r/n-alternation.” In Mohammad A. Jazayery, Edgar C. Polomé, and Werner Winter, eds. Linguistic and Literary Studies in Honor of Archibald A. Hill. Val. LIL. Historical and Comparative Linguistics. The Hague: Mou- ton, 29-32. [Written in 1971.] 1979b “Anatolian bi-conjugation and Indo-European perfect: Instalment II.” In Erich Neu and Wolfgang Mcid, eds. Hethitiscl und Indggermanisch. Vergleichende Studien ur historischen Grammatik und zur dialektgeographischen Stellung der indagermani- schen Sprachgruppe Altkleinasiens (= Innsbrucker Beitriige zur Sprachwissenschaft 25). Innsbruck: Institut fiir Sprachwissenschaft der Universitit Innsbruck. 25-39. 1980 “The etymology of Irish gafdid and the outcome of #9”) in Celtic.” In Manfred Mayrhofer, Martin Peters, and Oskar E. Pfeiffer, eds. Lautgeschichte und Etymologie. Akten der VI. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Wien, 24.29. September 1978. Wiesbaden: Reichert. 49-78. 1982 Review of Karl Horst Schmidt and Rolf Kédderitzsch (eds.), Indogermanisel und Keltisch: Kolloguium der Indagermanischen Gesellschaft am 16. und 17. Februar 1976 in Bonn. Vortriige. (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1977.) Kratylos 26 (1981) .60-4. 1983 “On the prehistory of Celtic passive and deponent inflection.” Eri 34.7311. 1984. Book notice of Adolf Erhart, Indoevropsk¢ jazyky: Srommdvact fonologie a morfolo- aie. (Praha: Academia, 1982.) Language 60.655-6. 1985a Review of Yoel L. Arbeitman and Allen R. Bomhard (eds.), Bono Homini Do- num: Essays in Historical Linguistics, in Memory of J. Alexander Kerns (= Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 16).(Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1981.) Keatylos 20 (1984).1-13. 198sb “PIE “duno 2" in Germanic and Celtic, and the nom.-ace, dual of non-neuter o-stems.” Miinchener Studien aur Sprachnvissenschaft 4.1328. 1985¢ “The personal endings of thematic verbs in Indo-European.” In Bernfried Schle- rath, ed. Grammatische Kategorien: Funktion und Geschichte, Akton der VII. Fach- tagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Berlin, 20.-25. Februar 1983. Wiesbaden: Reichert. 99-108, [Sce also 2006b,] 198d “On the origin of the absolute and conjunct verbal inflexion of Old Irish.” In Bernftied Schlerath, ed. Grammatische Kategorien: Funktion und Geschichte. Akten dey VIL. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Berlin, 20.~25. Februar 1983. Wiesbaden: Reichert. 109-18. 1985¢ “Loss of morphophonemic alternation in moribund categories, as exemplified in the Gothic verb.” In Ursula Pieper and Gerhard Stickel, eds. Studia linguistica diachvonica et synchronica. Werner Winter sexagenario anno MCMLXXXLI. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 145-9. +1986 “Einleitung.” Part 1 of Indagermanische Grammatil. Band I, ed. Manfred Mayr- hofer. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. 11-71. [Translated and bibliographically edited by Alfred Bammesberger and Martin Peters.]wai The Collected Writings of Warren Comgilt 1987 “The sccond plural of the Umbrian verb.” In George Cardona and Norman H. Zide, eds. Festschrift for Henry Hoenigswatd on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. Tiibingen: Gunter Narr. 81-90. 2006a “The z-cases of Germanic pronouns and strong adjectives.” This volume, 521— 36. 2006b “The personal endings of thematic verbs in Indo-European.” This volume, 537-69. [A longer version of 1985c.] - 2 Dissertations Directed by Warren Cowgill . George Cardona, The Indo-European Thematic Aorists, 1960. . Raimo Aulis Anttila, Proto-Indo-European Schwebeablaut, 1966. (Published version: Proto-Indo-Exsropean Schwebeablaut, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of Cali- fornia Press, 1969.) . Andrew Littleton Sihler, Proto-Indo-Enropean Post-Consonantal Resonants in Word- Initial Sequences, 1967. Eric David Francis, Greek Disyllabic Roots: The Aorist Formations, 1970. . Hans Henrich Hock, The So-Called Acolic Inflection of the Greek Contract Verbs, 1971. » Janet Elaine Gertz, The Nominative-Accusative Neuter Plural in Anatolian, 1982. Donald A. Ringe, Jr., The Perféct Tenses in Greek Inscriptions, 1984. . Alexander Lehrman, Simple Thematie Imperfectives in Anatolian and Indo-European, 1985. xxvReminiscences Offered at the Memorial Service for Warren Crawford Cowgill* I, Insler Warren Cowgill officially joined the Yale Faculty in 1957, the year in which he received his Ph.D., and remained on staff until his death in June 1985, Apart from two visiting appointments—the first at the University of Illinois in 196r and the second at the University of London in 1966—he taught at Yale for 27 years, offering instruction in historical linguistics, chiefly in the area of the ancient Indo-European languages, to almost three decades of Yale students. When Warren first began teaching, linguistics was a program organized in the then Department of Indic and Far Eastern Languages. In 1960, however, an independent Department of Linguistics was formed, and Warren was appointed one of its few fall budgetary members. He was here thus at the inception of the Department, and as the Department grew, Warren helped to shape its future and its reputation by his dedication, by his loyalty and by his uncompromising standards in teaching and scholarship. Somehow the Department will never be the same without him. Students stood in awe of Cowgill, as they listened to his learned lectures on the comparative grammar of Greck and Latin, on the Hittite verb, on Old Irish phonol- ogy. Bur they returned each semester to confront some new aspect of his knowledge, to fathom his new views on some time-worn subject, But most of all, they returned to witness Warren and his dogged determination to come as close as possible to the truth of matters. Warren’s scholarly production is not large, for he was, as he used to speak of him- self, “not a man of many words.” But his articles, which treat a variety of very different problems in almost all of the ancient Indo-European languages, are models of con- ciseness, of clarity of presentation and argumentation, and they offer results which have had and will continue to have enduring influence on the approaches to many problems. They are the work of an extraordinary craftsman, in full control of his art and science, and in fitting recognition of his unique contributions to historical lin- guistics, Warren was elected to membership in the American Academy of Arts and nces in 1980. Truth and loyalty were the two principles which motivated all aspects of his life, and these two forces were always at work in him in combination, For Warren was al- ways truc to his loyalties and loyal to his truths, He once told me that a great epiphany appeared to him when he realized that it was not immoral for someone to hold the wrong ideas or views about some linguistic problem, I wonder how forgiving he would be today. “The memorial service was held September 28, 1985 at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, The culogics are presented here in the order in which they were deliv red at the service. Insler’s contribution has nal, Nussbaum’s has been reconstructed from notes, and Lehrman’s eulogy has been rewritten as a reminiscence (pp. sii). been revised from the or XVxviii The Collected Writings of Warren Comgill Being wrong may have passed beyond the bounds of morality for him, but for Cowgill the defense against ignorance and foolishness remained an ethical force which pervaded his whole life. For this reason he spent hours tutoring students who wished to Iearn something beyond the framework of standard courses, hours in advising his dissertation students in how to properly think through a problem, hours in writing letters to colleagues who turned to him for his opinion on a subject in historical lin guistics. If he could help someone else to come closer to the truth about anything, Warren was willing to sacrifice all ends. He often said, as a result of this, “Maybe when I retire, I can get around to doing what I want to do.” But in all those hours spent, in all those days and months consumed in working for others, Warren really did what really meant the most to him: he set his students and his colleagues on that elusive path towards the truth. Warren was also fiercely loyal. Loyal to his family and its needs, loyal to his univer- sity and his department, loyal to his profession. For more than a dozen years he served as director of graduate studies in the Department of Linguistics and for more than 20 years, he served in various positions in the Linguistic Society of America. He read all the proofs of Language for several years, acted on its editorial board for almost two decades, and last served on the Executive Committee of the Linguistic Society. He belonged to several other professional societies both here and abroad. His profession was an inextricable part of his life and it impinged upon it in many ways. He read Thucydides over the breakfast table in place of the New York Times. His visit to the ancient ruins of Anatolia was the most exciting cvent of his life, he said. His discovery of a Latin sound law took place while he was cooking onc day. He even dreamed a Greek etymology one night. But Warren’s greatest demonstration of loyalty and his greatest act of courage took place the year he was dying. Despite the fact that he knew that he was gravely sick, he insisted on teaching his spring term courses and he continued to discharge his other academic commitments. He said that the only way for him to continue to live was to continue to work, And so, despite the increasing pain and weakness of his condition, Warren continued to teach his classes, he set and graded examinations for his stu- dents, completed his work on the introduction to the volume on phonology for the then new Indogermanische Grammatik, and saw his last student through the Ph.D. in May 198s. He did all this without complaint, he did this with dignity, stoically un- derstanding the inevitable outcome of his condition. And when he had fulfilled all his responsibilities, he let go—he relaxed the grip of his will on his life and he faded quickly: from life, but not from our memories. We shall always remember Warren, who sometimes shook his head in modest dis- approval or quietly said, “True, true” in his inevitable way. But most of all we shall always remember him for his gentle warmth, his sturdy dignity, his clearheaded and purposeful intellect, his loyalty to those values he held in the highest esteem. Stanley Insler, Edward E. Salisbury Professor of Sanskrit & Comparative Philology, Yale University Reminiscences Offered at the Memorial Service xxix IL. Morpurgo Davies We all remember Warren Cowgill in different ways and we all have different reasons for regret and admiration. On one point we agree: he was a great scholar and Indo- European studies will not be the same after his death. Yet here I want to speak about ‘Warren as a person; because for me his personality was more of a revelation than his scholarship. The latter I found impressive from the start; the former I came to admire and love very slowly. I first met Warren in the ’60’s when he was at University College, London. I was glad to meet someone whose work I admired, but otherwise he did not make a great impression on me. Somewhat later I found myself sitting near him at a lecture in some northern British University. The lecture was dull, the weather heavy, it was in the carly afternoon. and it was difficult to keep awake. Warren doodled or scribbled the whole time: first cuneiform signs, then Tocharian declensions, then Armenian verbal forms; eventually he shifted to the inflectional forms of a language I could not recognize. T hardly knew him then; I wondered if this was a display of knowledge put on for my own benefit, As I discovered later, I could not have been more wrong. In 1984, when describing, the debilitating effects of chemotherapy, he wrote: “Eor recreation the last few days I have been refreshing my Hebrew—I find that reviewing Hebrew paradigms gives me some of the relaxed, warm security that reviewing Latin does.” (Sept. 22, °84) The real Warren was difficult to know; he was a very private person adept at con- cealing what he felt, almost incapable of revealing his own reactions. One’s first im- pressions were bound to be mistaken; he was impressive of course, both because of his appearance and because of his learning, but he could also seem too cold and too forbidding to be likeable. It came naturally to stand in awe of him and it was not a comfortable feeling. There are at least two ways of dealing with one’s own inferior- ity to someone else. ‘The first is accompanied by respect, admiration and affection; it does not diminish, it enhances. The other way has no warmth or hope: one looks from afar at somcone infinitely superior, remote and probably unreachable. Discour- agement may follow and is sometimes accompanied by a grudging reaction: why are some people so much more talented; what have they done to deserve it? For a while I felt that my own reactions to Warren were very much of the second type—here too I was to undergo a conversion. True, Warren did not find it easy to indulge in small talk, especially with people he did not know well. He did it because he had to—but in his presence the atmosphere was sometimes strained. People felt inadequate and occasionally thought—once or twice I certainly did—that Warren deliberately set out to make them feeling so. The reverse was true. Warren himself felt inadequate. Others spoke with immediate, easy warmth which put their interlocutors at their case, he would have liked to do it but was not able to and suffered from it. This he certainly knew, and at times he said as much; what he did not always realize, I suspect, is how impressive and awe inspiring his learning and his intelligence were and consequently how frightening he could be for those who were exposed to them. I remember spending a whole day with War- ren in 1971 before a lecture I was invited to give at Yale; it was a strain because therexx The Collected Writings of Warren Cowgill was no small talk, only scholarly discussion and pauses—long pauses; I felt desper- ately ignorant. For lunch and dinner Stanley and Katy were there and the atmosphere was more relaxed, but then Warren was mostly silent—though I noticed that in their presence a smile—a warm smile—appeared on his face. started seeing a different person when Warren began to write—to thank for off: prints or arrange the odd mecting at first, then to make arrangements for the s Ispent at Yale in 1977. The letters did not seem written by the same person I knew. There was fan, lightness of touch, witticisms, and sharp but just observations; there was—even at a non-professional level—a quickness of repartee and understanding which matched that of the articles, not that of the physical person. There was also, and it was touching for me since I still felt a complete stranger, a great deal of frank- ness both about Warren himself and about others. And yet it was all accompanied by a curious type of formality, not what I associated with America. In 1976, some ten years after our first meeting, Warren succeeded, with considerable effort, to drop the “Prof. Davies” he had used until then, but he still referred to Katy as Mrs. Cowgill. In that same letter he apologized for not having written an article he intended to write: “somehow I lost energy and the cares of daily living got too much, ...1 don’t know if Pll get any work done this summer or not,” (May 17, °76) The energy cannot have been entirely in abeyance; at the same time he sent some luminous observation about an article of mine—he had found the time to read it though it was about a very recondite subject of no great importance. The four months I spent at Yale in 1977 in daily contact with Warren—and with his family, Katy and Karen—dealt another blow to my original picture. There was schol- arship of course, a most important thing, but the family was equally important. He felt that there was no purpose in going anywhere if Katy could not go too; things, he said, were never as much fun without her. Then and later he kept mentioning Karen’s school work: “Karen’s French and Latin classes are fun for me.” (Oct. 8,°79) For her achievements there was constant pride, barely concealed. Fun scemed to be associ ated with family pursuits: somewhat unexpectedly, I saw Warren spending hours on end turning the handle of an ice cream machine and observing: “it is such fun.” A later letter describes pasta making with some glee: “festoons of drying spaghetti were hanging all over their kitchen and as the dough was getting overdry the kitchen was full of guests, with wine glasses in one hand, slicing pasta into cookable strips with the other.” (Oct. 8,°79) Other family things were strongly felt and hardly ever mentioned: yet, in 1979, when his mother died, he wrote, “Preparing myself mentally for different possible illnesses and accidents meant that in a way when she really contracted a fatal illness, things were not nearly as bad as some of the worst things T had anticipated. ‘And also I have a fairly big capacity to seal myself off, on the surface at least, from unpleasant things that are happening, at least at the time they are happening. And there were friends of my mother’s ...who were very helpful and supportive. What I think is going to be most difficult will be the long haul of living the rest of my life without two people who have been very important in it, especially the first 20 years or so.” (Oct. 8, ’79) The Christmas afterwards he only observed: “it is somewhat strange not to have presents to and from my mother.” (Dec. 27,79) And equally poignantly in view of what was to happen, he wrote on another occasion: “Iam sorry to hear mester Reminiscences Offered at the Memorial Service XXXi about the condition and problems surrounding your sister in law. always say that if I should ever get an incurable disease, I would want to be told about it and I think I would try to tell anyone close to me about the real condition of their hea Ith.” (Oct. 8, °79) Politics and his strongly liberal views were also important—hardly discussed but strongly felt. This style is again typical of him: “I am of course somewhat depressed right now that my fellow citizens seem bent on mass suicide.” And after some sharp comments: “At any rate we have survived all the other dumb choices made by the ‘American electorate this century.” (Nov. 8, °84) These sentences came after a cold, objective description of the effects of chemotherapy on him where no reference is made to any form of personal depression, Work was even more important than politics. When I returned from Yale I discov- ered that one of the things I missed most was the possibility to ask Warren questions. At Yale it happened two or three times every day and the questions concerned every part of our field, It always started with: “Warren what do you think about X.” X could be a point of method, a particular instance of reconstruction, the interpretation of a text in any language. The reply was always slow—very slow —and always in the form: “[ used to think a, but now I think b” with the frequent rider “I cannot prove it and therefore I shall not write about it, though I guess there are 20, 30, 40, so percent probabilities that I am right.” The questioning, the replies —it was almost addictive. ‘Once only in four months Warren replicd—even more slowly—“I do not know; I have not thought about it.” I remember asking myself: Does he know how good he is? I still wonder. He could be both sharp and witty in speaking of others; one might have attributed it to arrogance were it not for the final disclaimer that was always present, Of a fel- low scholar: “My own view of course is that [his] idea is utterly wild. Rather like a paleontologist taking a bone of an cohippus, a bone of a brontosaurus, a bone of a pterodactyl, maybe a fossil eycad or two, and trying to construct one single prehis- toric creature out of them... But I welcome such work; only by demonstrating the impossibility of all other approaches does the correctness of mine become more clear (if indeed it is correct; and of course ventilating other possibilities may turn up a bet- ter one).” (July 7, °78) And of another: “I consider him just about smart enough to remember that when he walks it’s his left foot that he moves after the right one. He contributed a paper of his usual level.” (Oct. 9,79) But speaking of the biography of, J. Murray, the author of the Oxford English Dictionary, and one of the great scholars of the nineteenth century: “. .. it is both splendid and terrible—the labour and hard- ship he went through and at the same time the magnificence of his achievement... .But it does make me feel like a pygmy standing on the shoulders of giants.” (Jan. 22,78) Nor was the enthusiasm limited to people of a past generation. Of a younger scholar he wrote: “I first had some correspondence with him ... years ago and he did not seem outstanding then, but now he seems superb, His article. ..is one of those things where a whole batch of problems are explained— and he sees the difficulties and how to overcome them. The sort of thing which is immediately convincing, and makes me wonder why I never saw it.” (no date, but end 1982) About himself he was more cautious. He replied to some remarks of appreciation: “I am of course immenselyrout The Collected Writings of Warren Comegilt flattered and pleased ... ; a part of me, at least, would like to believe that it is true, but T have also to be careful not to let my vanity run away with me and make me careless.” (Jan. 22, ’78) The extraordinary thing about what Warren wrote or said is that it was always true, not necessarily in the sense that it was always correct, but in the sense that it s what he believed to be the truth. He was entirely incapable of telling lies, even white lies or polite lies: hence no flattery, no false modesty, no kind statements meant to make one feel better. Unpleasant truths were not always stated; he could remain silent, but I never found him—not even once—altering the truth. Probably it was not a moral decision; he simply did not think about the possibility or usefulness of deception. The academic references he wrote, in contrast with the prevailing custom, were totally straightforward: a list of merits and a list of defects. His statements about himself were equally straightforward. “In dealing with other people,” he once said, “I know where I am going wrong, but I do not seem able to do anything about it.” He was equally honest about his disease: “What is not so good, however, is that a CAT sean has revealed a couple of cancerous bits in my liver. It seems the only available treatment is chemotherapy, which will certainly slow down their spread, but has only about a 25 percent chance of completely knocking them out. So I am also using all available psychological techniques, with the idea that when one is feeling better maybe chemicals arc released in the body that fight cancer, and in any case, feeling better is worthwhile because fecling good is better than feeling bad.” (Nov. 8, °84) Later on the strongest statement he allows himself is: “I wish I had the same faith as you in my reserves, but perhaps I have more than I am aware of.” (Dec. 22, ’84) It is this absolute honesty which remains impressed in one’s mind and which one misses so desperately. Only Katy and Karen can know what the last year was like; about Karen he always wrote; of Katy he said after his operation: “(she) has been more wonderful than I can tell you.” (Aug, 20, ’84) Warren himself kept to what he said he would have wanted and was absolutely open about his health, He could make fun of himself: “As part of my own personal vanity I have measured the scar of my incision, and find it slightly over 13” (Sept. 12, °84) For the rest he gave completely factual objective accounts and moved on to other things. He reread Herodotus: “I tried Thucydides but he is too grim and single minded. Herodotus is full of good stories and I think if I had known him I would have enjoyed listening to him.” (Aug. 20, ’84) And later on: “In Herodotus [ am moving along and I find that the story of the Thermopylae still brings tears to my eyes.” (Sept. 15, 84) While waiting for the operation, he had for the first time read Candide in the original; he wanted to find the exact wording of “on ne meurt pas toujours de ces deux accidents.” (Aug. 20, °84) Warren was not only a great scholar; he had total integrity and no rhetoric, he had strong feelings but no sentimentality. I do not think he was happy, largely because he was harsher on himself than on others, and because, while he saw far too clearly where he went wrong, he did not see equally clearly how exceptional he was. Reserve was as much a part of him as was his superior intelligence. To say more about him would go against what he would have wished. When a friend dies, one looks everywhere for support—it is a fumbling search, irrational but understandable. Only once in his letters Warren described the pain of the treatment he was undergoing. He apologized for quoting Dante to me: tant’ & Reminiscences Offered at the Memorial Service road amara che poco é pit morte, “it is so bitter that death is hardly more so” and added “it is an exaggeration, no doubt, but it helps to complain.” (Sept. 15, 84} The line refers to the selva oscura, the dark and frightening wood where Dante found himself in the middle of his life; the lose wanderer was surrounded by fear, horror, wilderness. But the verse continues: ma per trattar del ben ch’ i? vi trovai, dird de Paltre cose ch? ? ¥ ho scorte, “To explain what good I found in it, I shall speak of the other things I saw there.” I hope against hope that there was some good in Warren’s disease. It is difficult to believe it— and yet Warren would never have quoted a line without full knowledge of its context. Anna Morpurgo Davies, Professor of Comparative Philology, Oxford University Ill. Hoenigswald Tcannot recall when I first met Warren, It was probably in the late fifties, when he was establishing himself here, and when it became reassuringly clear that a central facet of work at Yale, which has had so many facets and yet such powerful cohesion, was going to be in his charge. What I do recall most clearly is the clation with which the men whom I knew best—Bernard Bloch and Konstantin Reichardt—were looking forward to the prospect. ‘Then began the era of the conferences, when we met, not frequently but regularly — at Texas and at Dobbs Ferry, in Los Angeles and in Philadelphia, and elsewhere around the world; and, of course, more recently at the annual regional get-together which was his (and Stanley Insler’s) own creation. The first took place here in New Haven three years ago, the most recent only early this summer when he could no longer attend. With their disregard of outward machinery and their emphasis on in- ternal discipline and seriousness they were a congenial expression of Warren's person. Over that last meeting lay the pall of his absence. Of few people could it be said with greater justice than of Warren that the style was the man. To single out style might be pedantic in the case of others; in his, it seems entirely appropriate. His style was not an attribute, it was an essence. We all know that he said what he meant and meant what he said. Hence he could be sharp, but I am certain that the thought of a sharpness which is the expression of rancor never entered his mind. This is remarkable because his scholarly expression— his argumentation so objective and lucid, was by no means impersonal. He was pas- sionately interested in results, of course, but perhaps even more in reasoning. His ctiticism, more often than not, takes the form of saying; ‘I cannot understand how such-and-such an argument can be put forward.’ ‘This use of the first person is not superficial: as he addresses his interlocutor, he constantly introspects. Warren must have felt—even if he did not waste his time discussing it—that the impersonal dis- course which some of us go to such extremes in cultivating serves to conceal, and perhaps is arrogant in the bargain, because it states the writer’s opinion as if it were indubitable truth,xaxiv ‘The Collected Writings of Warren Comgill By the same token, Warren would consistently test himself and reconsider. His way of working, when he saw a problem, was not to force it; rather, to let it ripen before formulating it. Even then, the process was never finished, and just as he did not necessarily like to formulate his insights as if he knew they were the absolute truth, just so he could change his mind, and whenever he did, say so with all thoroughness and clarity Warren's work was always specific, From the great comparatist tradition which he refined and developed with such mastery he had taken over a good measure of the aversion to generalities and mere methodology—with a proviso, As an American lin- guist (which is what he was also, among the many other things he was) he did nor treat principles and theory with hauteur. He simply left them to others, pleading lack of interest or, incongruously, even lack of competence (just as occasionally he would disclaim an appreciation of ‘philology’ with its literary side: his Stanford teacher Her- mann Frinkel, the Hellenist, had a different story to tell). Of course there was tto lack of theoretical competence; he had a theoretical outlook which more than matched what was customary in the classical Indoeuropeanist. His observations on morpho- logical productivity, always aimed at the most concrete of questions, are among the subtlest that exist, and it is stunning to observe how undoctrinaire and how sure is his use of what attracts him in the generalist literature. In his early work (Eg. 3.9203) I find one of his rare explicit professions of faith, to the effect that ‘the application of this method [reconstruction] to any but the simplest problems is of course tremen- dously difficult; it is what makes comparative linguistics an art, refractory (so far) to codification as a set of mechanical procedures.” Just so; there have been few indeed who have seen so clearly the openendedness and partly nonmechanical nature of the comparative method, and who attained such mastery of the ‘art’, complete with its theory. I see that now and then I have lapsed into the present tense as if I had forgotten the occasion which brings us together and which devastates us. But who could forget it? We lament that Warren was not allowed to live out his life and to give us his whole work as he would have wanted to do. He left us, but the feeling that he is with us to speak to us will never quite leave those who knew him. Henry M. Hoenigswald, Professor Emeritus of Historical Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania IV. Jasanoff I first met Warren when I was a beginning graduate student —it was in 1965 I think— but I was at Harvard then, not at Yale, and he was net my Dokrorvater, It was only a few years later, when I embarked seriously on my scholarly career, that he became my teacher in every sense of the word. T wrote my first major article in 1971. I sent it to the journal Language, and the editor of Language passed it on to Warten for the normal reviewing process. Some months went by, and in early 1972 I received a letter from Warren, Deliberately casting off the normal cloak of anonymity, he wrote that my piece was a serious contribution Reminiscences Offered at the Memorial Service 2X to Germanic studies that might be printed in its existing form if I wished, but that he would like to make some suggestions about how it might be improved. And there fol- lowed ten single-spaced pages of such suggestions. It was the most searching critique my views had ever been subjected to. I rethought everything, scrapped the parts that Warten satisfied me I had been wrong about, and resubmitted it a year later. There- after there was never a serious piece that I didn’t show Warren, and hardly ever one that did not elicit a similar lengthy response. Indeed, I found that by the mid-seventies everything I wrote was composed with him in mind. His views, published or unpub- lished, were always before me; quite consciously, I think, I would try to answer the next ten-page letter before it came. ‘The relationship, strictly professional at first, gradually acquired a personal di- mension. Perhaps because he was such an awe-inspiring figure, one valued especially highly the occasional glimpses one got of the non-academic man, Warren came to give a lecture at Harvard in October, 1972: as I recall, it was for the first public unveil- ing of the revived Indo-Hittite theory. He was wearing a George McGovern button, something that lots of people were wearing that month, at least in Massachusetts, and thus not something that one generally noticed. But one noticed it in Warren, for he was nora man given to making gestures. My wife asked him if he thought his candi- date would win, and he said no, but that one might as well stand up for the right side: Ir was a small and perhaps insignificant exchange, but it left an impression because it showed that Warren’s absolute honesty and forthrightness—qualities which everyone knew from his scholarship—were also to be found in his dealings with the world at large. Tn the fall of 1981 Warren came to give a talk at Cornell and stayed as our guest for a night. I shall retain many things from that visit: Warren’s views on the third person endings in Tocharian, for example; or how to change a tire in five minutes, which he taught me by direct ostension; but most of all, I will remember the feeling that I had then for the first time that we were not only close colleagues in a very small profession, but also old friends. And I looked forward to many years of continuing our relationship on that basis Trwas not, unfortunately, to be, Warren never came to Ithaca on linguistic business again; the Indo-European conference held there late last spring found him too ill to attend. None of us ever had the benefit of his reaction to our papers; and while I cannot speak for the others, I know that for me, at feast, as I prepare the written version of mine, every sentence that I write is intended to respond to, or to avert, or to anticipate with approval, a sentence in the ten-page letter that I might have received from Warren, And it will always be that way. Jay Jasanoff, Professor of Linguistics, Cornell Universi V. Nussbaum. When I sort through the recollections P've accumulated from thirteen years of know- ing Warren Cowgill, and call up the thoughts and impressions that go with thosexxxvi The Collected Writings of Warren Comgill recollections, the thing that perhaps presents itself most immediately and vividly from all that time is a stock of maybe dozens of incidents recalled with affection, but also incidents that have come to mean something about Warren—or at least to me they have. Lots of them are simply remarks he once made that have probably stuck with me cither because they seem so characteristic of him, or because they were just so apt. I remember a day at hunch in the summer of 1972, which was when I first really met Warren. It was during the LSA Institute in Chapel Hill. This day at lunch the subject of Old Irish came up—and how it was so impossible and everything; and how you couldn’t even tell what part of speech you were looking at half the time; and how even once you got something straight it wasn’t too easy to keep it straight and so on, Well Warren suddenly said in that oracular tone that he was so good at using, “Learning Old Irish is like mowing the lawn.” I remember looking around the table to see if maybe somebody else got it. I sure didn’t. But everybody looked just as blank as I felt—which, of course, Warren enjoyed. And finally he said, “It’s not something you do just once.” I guess at the time I remembered that and a couple of other “homely analogies” like it only because I thought they were funny—and they certainly got a laugh when reported to other people. But as time went on, and especially now, I've saved up things like that not only for their own entertainment value, but also because I realized they were absolutely typical of Warren. And he brought off that kind of thing in a way that I'l always think of as peculiar to him. There were lots more when I came to Yale and gradually got to know Warren pretry well. Most of these things I associate with lunch, actually. In fact, I think of ‘one strand of my experiences at Yale as ten years of lunch with Warren. So much so that it’s casicr for me at this point to conjure up a picture of him in the Trumbull dining hall or the one in TD than anywhere else. Ar first he seemed very much the senior colleague, and I scem to recall a suspicion that I was being tested, Maybe so. Bur over the course of all those hunches he became first more of a Dutch uncle and then, I think, a friend. In any case, I can picture him sitting across the table saying, as it might be, that a certain student had “a mind like a Christmas grab bag at school,” since asking him a question was “like reaching in there without looking—and you never know what you're going to pull out.” Then there was the time he compared the formant found on some IE imperatives to “STP Oil Treatment”—then waited a beat with that tell-tale twinkle in his eye—and finally said, “It’s a useless additive.” Not all the vignettes I remember most clearly are simply remarks Warren made. And they're certainly not necessarily all amusing. Some are just touching reminders of how modest and completely unaffected he always was. Like the time he was sitting in on Anna Morpurgo Dav cenacan class and handed in the written exercises for correction along with the other students. Finally, of course, a few of the vividest things are from toward the end—and al- though I'll certainly remember them, it will be with sadness. My visit with him in the hospital last August, which I don’t think I need to describe here in any derail, is something that has come back to me again and again in the past year. But individual incidents, no matter how many and how characteristic—and how- ever fondly recalled, are probably the smaller part of what I'll keep with me from Reminiscences Offered at the Memorial Service xa knowing Warren for those years. As I wrote to Katy and Karen in June, Warren is more than someone I merely remember. For me, as for so many others, he'll remain an influential presence. He was so acute and persistent and so absolutely honest, and he taught intellectual integrity by example with such force that he’ll continue to exert an active influence on whatever we all do. 1 know with some strange certainty that in the future every time there comes that point, as it will in every case, when I have to evaluate and criticize what I've done, I'll sense that Warren is actually there, challeng- ing me to think harder and do better. And to whatever extent and however often 1 succeed in improving what P’ve been able to do, it will be at least partly because I knew Warren and the standards he expected. It’s that continued presence—in addition to the affection and gratitude J felt for him—that will keep Warren alive for me. Alan Nussbaum, Associate Professor of Classies and Linguistics, Cornell University VI. Watkins ‘The vernacular literature of Europe begins with the Irish lament for Saint Columba, who died in 597, and the words Nf discéoil duae Néill Ni huchtot denmaige ‘Not without tidings is the rampart of Niall, Iris not the tiny lament of a single plain? Warren Cowgill wrote those words to me on the death of our dearest Irish friend; 1 say them to you, and to Warren's memory, this afternoon. Let me mention some carly stations in that remembrance. Our first acquaintance was by a letter he sent me, in the summer of 1958, about a review to appear in the journal Language. Virwually from the beginning of his career Warren was an associate editor of Language, beginning under the editorship of Bernard Bloch. His scrupulous and time-consuming attention to assessing and improving submitted manuscripts was legendary. The number Dec. 1975 was the last number of Language to carry his name on the masthead. His departure meant the end of historical linguistics as we under- stand it in the journal of the Linguistic Society of America. It is the more poignant when one considers that Warren’s first publications were in Language. Warren’s letter of 1958 began “Permit me to congratulate you....,” and went on to lengthy critical detail. It would be the last accolade I would get, but the beginning of a lifetime’s worth of criticism. We met in person in December of the same year, and disagreed on large chunks of the Celtic verb. He sent me his thesis on the Indo- European long vowel preterites, the start of years of disagreement on the subject. And we had cemented a bond of friendship that would endure, In June of 1959 was the First Indo-European Conference, held at the University of Texas, the first such gathering Warren or I had participated in. His public persona and his manners of speech were fully formed, and were never to deviate. In the courseThe Collected Writings of Warren Comgill of his paper, he quietly announced, “Now I'm going to talk about the dual ...no, Pm not.” His private persona was otherwise. In the early 60's, I used to come down eve now and then to visit Yale. On an occasion when I was staying in Warren’s hous noticed a bathroom shelf with just two books: a Hungarian grammar (in Italian), and a volume of the Journal of the Idaho Historical Society. He was a man of uncommon and unexpected accomplishments; I wonder how many here know that he could fly an airplane, Warren was an ascetic; but I can still hear the wonderful childlike pleasure in his voice when he told me the joke with the punchline “Campbell’s elephant soup.” ‘The fundamental social contract of Indo-European society was the principle of ex- change and reciprocity: gift and counter-gift. Warren’s and my gifts to each other were ideas; the counter-gifts were argument and disbelief, His first expressed reac- tion to my book of 1962 was “Well, at least it’s well written.” The next year came the Second Indo-European Conference, with his profoundly original Greck dialects paper, and my Italo-Celtic revisited. Three years later was the Third Indo-European Conference, with his profoundly original paper on the superlative in Italic and Celtic, directed against the conclusion of my Italo-Celtic revisited. And so it went, from verb endings to Indo-Hittite, The summer of 1972 was Warren's Collita professorship at the Linguistic Institute at the University of North Carolina, We audited cach othei classes, not always silently. Yet what I remember most vividly are the interludes, sit- ting outside at his house, the two of us, shelling butter beans in the evening sun, and him in shorts, squatting cross-legged—something I never could manage—and talking quietly, slowly about Katy, and about Karen, and about the future. For the past 20 years each of us would send the other the manuscript of every paper wwe wrote, as a matter of course. For me, it was as if there were two audiences: Warren Cowgill, and the rest of the world. Warren once said, “The purpose of linguistics is to keep me amused.” I'm not sure I ever enlightened him, but I cherish the thought that I did afford him a modicum of amusement. For once when I said to him some: what querulously that I had never been able to convince him of anything, his reply was “Yes, but I think you're wrong for more interesting reasons.” The recollection is precious to me, for he was truly d miglior faboro. Warren was not, mind you, one to rush into print. It would usually take an ocea- sion to get him to publish something that he had meditated for years. The degree of this may be measured by his epochmaking paper on “The etymology of Trish guidid and the outcome of *q% in Celtic,” a paper which revolutionized the study of Celtic phonology. It was published in 19805 the first footnote states laconically that an ear- licr version of this paper was presented to the Harvard Linguistic Circle in 196s. One would, I think, search in vain for a comparable lag—rs years—in any other science, or for that matter, in any other branch of linguistics, Yet each one of us who was close to Warren knows of countless such revolutions, great and small, thar are hidden away, sketched, or only hinted at in his handouts, in his letters, or forever in petto. Tam not a religious man. Nor was Warren. But neither of us nor anyone else in our field could be indifferent to the simple power and the sensuous appeal of the lan- guage of ritual, With ritual phrases in one’s own culture and language, apprehension and familiarity may come long before comprehension, One of these used to puzzle Reminiscences Offered at the Memorial Service XXXIX me, though I have heard it often enough in Harvard’s Memorial Chapel. T think I understand it now. Itis simply this: We are gathered together here to give thanks for the life of Warren Crawford Cowgill Calvert Watkins, Professor of Linguistics and the Classics, Harvard University