Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics (PDFDrive)

Handbook of Comparative and
Historical Indo-European Linguistics
HSK 41.3
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/22/18 7:16 PM
Handbücher zur
Sprach- und Kommunikations-
wissenschaft
Handbooks of Linguistics
and Communication Science
Manuels de linguistique et
des sciences de communication
Mitbegründet von Gerold Ungeheuer

Mitherausgegeben (1985−2001) von Hugo Steger
Herausgegeben von / Edited by / Edités par

Herbert Ernst Wiegand
Band 41.3
De Gruyter Mouton
Unauthenticated
Handbook of
Comparative and Historical
Indo-European Linguistics
Edited by
Jared Klein
Brian Joseph
Matthias Fritz
In cooperation with Mark Wenthe
De Gruyter Mouton
Unauthenticated
ISBN 978-3-11-054036-9
e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-054243-1
e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-054052-9
ISSN 1861-5090
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Klein, Jared S., editor. | Joseph, Brian D., editor. | Fritz, Matthias, editor.
Title: Handbook of comparative and historical Indo-European linguistics : an international hand-
book / edited by Jared Klein, Brian Joseph, Matthias Fritz ; in cooperation with Mark Wenthe.
Description: Berlin ; Boston : De Gruyter Mouton, 2017- | Series: Handbücher zur Sprach- und
Kommunikationswissenschaft = Handbooks of linguistics and communication science, ISSN
1861-5090 ; Band 41.1- | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2017042351| ISBN 9783110186147 (volume 1 : hardcover) | ISBN
9783110261288 (volume 1 : pdf) | ISBN 9783110393248 (volume 1 : epub) | ISBN
9783110521610 (volume 2 : hardcover) | ISBN 9783110523874 (volume 2 : pdf) | ISBN
9783110521757 (volume 2 : epub) | ISBN 9783110540369 (volume 3 : hardcover) | ISBN
9783110542431 (volume 3 : pdf) | ISBN 9783110540529 (volume 3 : epub)
Subjects: LCSH: Indo-European languages--Grammar, Comparative. | Indo-European languages--
Grammar, Historical. | BISAC: LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General.
Classification: LCC P575 .H36 2017 | DDC 410--dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017042351
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Typesetting: Meta Systems Publishing & Printservices GmbH, Wustermark
Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck
Cover design: Martin Zech, Bremen
www.degruyter.com
Unauthenticated
Contents
Volume 3
XIII. Slavic
80. The documentation of Slavic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1397
81. The phonology of Slavic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1414
82. The morphology of Slavic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1538
83. The syntax of Slavic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1557
84. The lexicon of Slavic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1571
85. The dialectology of Slavic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1585
86. The evolution of Slavic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1600
XIV. Baltic
87. The documentation of Baltic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1622
88. The phonology of Baltic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1640
89. The morphology of Baltic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1651
90. The syntax of Baltic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1668
91. The lexicon of Baltic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1681
92. The dialectology of Baltic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1698
93. The evolution of Baltic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1712
XV. Albanian
94. The documentation of Albanian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1716
95. The phonology of Albanian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1732
96. The morphology of Albanian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1749
97. The syntax of Albanian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1771
98. The lexicon of Albanian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1788
99. The dialectology of Albanian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1800
100. The evolution of Albanian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1812
XVI. Languages of fragmentary attestation

101. Phrygian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1816
102. Venetic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1832
103. Messapic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1839
104. Thracian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1850
105. Siculian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1854
106. Lusitanian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1857
Brought to you by | UCL - University College London

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/22/18 2:00 AM
vi Contents
107. Macedonian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1862

108. Illyrian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1867
109. Pelasgian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1873
XVII. Indo-Iranian
110. The phonology of Proto-Indo-Iranian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1875
111. The morphology of Indo-Iranian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1888
112. The syntax of Indo-Iranian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1924
113. The lexicon of Indo-Iranian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1942
XVIII. Balto-Slavic
114. Balto-Slavic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1960
115. The phonology of Balto-Slavic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1974
116. Balto-Slavic morphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1985
117. The syntax of Balto-Slavic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000
118. The lexicon of Balto-Slavic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2012
XIX. Wider configurations and contacts

119. The shared features of Italic and Celtic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2030
120. Graeco-Anatolian contacts in the Mycenaean period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2037
XX. Proto-Indo-European
121. The phonology of Proto-Indo-European . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2056
122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2079
123. The syntax of Proto-Indo-European . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2195
124. The lexicon of Proto-Indo-European . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2229
XXI. Beyond Proto-Indo-European

125. More remote relationships of Proto-Indo-European . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2280
General index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2293

Languages and dialect index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2387

Authenticated
Contents vii
Volume 1
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
I. General and methodological issues

1. Comparison and relationship of languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Language contact and Indo-European linguistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Methods in reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4. The sources for Indo-European reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5. The writing systems of Indo-European . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6. Indo-European dialectology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
7. The culture of the speakers of Proto-Indo-European . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
8. The homeland of the speakers of Proto-Indo-European . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
II. The application of the comparative method in selected

language groups other than Indo-European
9. The comparative method in Semitic linguistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
10. The comparative method in Uralic linguistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
11. The comparative method in Caucasian linguistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
12. The comparative method in African linguistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
13. The comparative method in Austronesian linguistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
14. The comparative method in Australian linguistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics

15. Intuition, exploration, and assertion of the Indo-European language
relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
16. Indo-European linguistics in the 19 th and 20 th centuries: beginnings,
establishment, remodeling, refinement, and extension(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
17. Encyclopedic works on Indo-European linguistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
18. The impact of Hittite and Tocharian: Rethinking Indo-European in the
20 th century and beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
IV. Anatolian
19. The documentation of Anatolian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
20. The phonology of Anatolian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
21. The morphology of Anatolian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
22. The syntax of Anatolian: The simple sentence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
23. The lexicon of Anatolian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
24. The dialectology of Anatolian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298

Authenticated
viii Contents
V. Indic
25. The documentation of Indic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
26. The phonology of Indic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
27. The morphology of Indic (old Indo-Aryan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344
28. The syntax of Indic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377
29. The lexicon of Indic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409
30. The dialectology of Indic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417
31. The evolution of Indic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447
VI. Iranian
32. The documentation of Iranian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471
33. The phonology of Iranian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481
34. The morphology of Iranian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503
35. The syntax of Iranian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549
36. The lexicon of Iranian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566
37. The dialectology of Iranian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599
38. The evolution of Iranian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 608
VII. Greek
39. The documentation of Greek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 625
40. The phonology of Greek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 638
41. The morphology of Greek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 654
42. The syntax of Greek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 682
43. The lexicon of Greek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 695
44. The dialectology of Greek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 710
45. The evolution of Greek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717
Volume 2
VIII. Italic
46. The documentation of Italic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 733
47. The phonology of Italic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 743
48. The morphology of Italic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 751
49. The syntax of Italic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 804
50. The lexicon of Italic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 828
51. The dialectology of Italic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835
52. The evolution of Italic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 858

Authenticated
Contents ix
IX. Germanic
53. The documentation of Germanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875
54. The phonology of Germanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 888
55. The morphology of Germanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
56. The syntax of Germanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 954
57. The lexicon of Germanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 974
58. The dialectology of Germanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 986
59. The evolution of Germanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1002
X. Armenian
60. The documentation of Armenian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1028
61. The phonology of Classical Armenian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037
62. The morphology of Armenian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080
63. The syntax of Classical Armenian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097
64. The lexicon of Armenian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115
65. The dialectology of Armenian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1132
66. The evolution of Armenian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1146
XI. Celtic
67. The documentation of Celtic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1168
68. The phonology of Celtic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1188
69. The morphology of Celtic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1203
70. The syntax of Celtic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1218
71. The lexicon of Celtic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1250
72. The dialectology of Celtic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1264
73. The evolution of Celtic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1274
XII. Tocharian
74. The documentation of Tocharian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1298
75. The phonology of Tocharian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1304
76. The morphology of Tocharian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1335
77. The syntax of Tocharian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1352
78. The lexicon of Tocharian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1365
79. The dialectology of Tocharian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1389

Authenticated
Authenticated
XIII. Slavic
80. The documentation of Slavic

1. Proto-Slavic 4. West Slavic
2. South Slavic 5. References
3. East Slavic
1. Proto-Slavic
The early history of the Slavs is shrouded in obscurity. They do not appear in the histori-
cal record until the sixth century CE, and the earliest Slavic inscriptions and manuscripts
that still exist today are no older than the tenth century. Archaeological findings from
earlier periods are difficult to connect conclusively to the Slavic peoples, but starting in
the fifth century we find evidence of a fairly uniform material culture in the Polesie
region of Ukraine, which later spread into the same areas into which the Slavs were
migrating, according to the testimony of Latin and Greek sources (Barford 2001: 40−
43). The greatest concentration of Slavic hydronyms is found in the same general region,
north of the Carpathian mountains (Udolph 1979). The evidence of a common period of
Balto-Slavic linguistic development and of early linguistic contacts with Germanic and
Iranian, given what we know of the locations of these other Indo-European groups, also
point to the middle Dnieper river basin (roughly the area from northwestern Ukraine to
southeastern Belarus) as the most likely homeland for the Slavs (see Birnbaum 1973;
Schenker 1995: 6−8).
The Slavs were probably affected by the invasion of the Huns into Europe and the
first phase of the Great Migrations in the fourth and fifth centuries CE, but they began
to spread into territories bordering the Eastern Roman Empire only in the sixth century.
The first mention of the Slavs is by Jordanes in his history of the Goths (De origine
actibusque Getarum, ca. 550), where he describes a group of three related tribes, the
Venethi, Antes, and Sclaveni, inhabiting a large area extending from the source of the
Vistula river in the north to the Danube in the south, and reaching to the Dnieper river
in the east (Schenker 1995: 9 quotes the relevant passage). Writing at about the same
time, the Byzantine historian Procopius reports in various works on Slavic raids across
the Danube in the first half of the sixth century, and also provides a description of Slavic
customs and beliefs (see Schenker 1995: 15−16; Barford 2001: 50 ff.). The Slavs in the
region north of the lower Danube became closely connected with the Avars, a group of
Turkic nomads who arrived in this area around 560, and together they began to make
more significant incursions into the Balkans. Unlike the Avars, however, the Slavs also
began to settle south and west of the Danube in greater and greater numbers.
During the sixth century other groups of Slavs were expanding to the north and west
into the areas of present-day Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Germany, as
attested by archaeological remains and mentions in written sources, such as Fredegar’s
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-001

Authenticated
1398 XIII. Slavic
Chronicle, which provides information about battles between the Slavs and Franks and
describes the creation of a Slavic state led by a Frankish merchant named Samo in the
first half of the seventh century. The duration of this political organization and its exact
location are unclear. Barford (2001: 79) places it in the region of Vienna and questions
whether it can be properly called a “state”. Other scholars have it encompassing parts
of Lusatia, Bohemia, Moravia, or Carantania (Schenker 1995: 22). Archaeological evi-
dence also shows the expansion of cultures associated with the Slavs to the east in
Ukraine during this same period, but there are no written sources that could provide
information about the Slavs in this region.
Although there must have been some variation in the language spoken by the Proto-
Slavs, we cannot reconstruct any dialectal differentiation for the pre-migration period.
The displacement of Proto-Slavic peoples from their original homeland probably in-
volved the mixing of different groups and the leveling of any pre-existing dialectal
differences (Shevelov 1965: 2). Furthermore, the rapid expansion of Slavic speakers into
such a large geographic area probably could not have been accomplished by normal
population growth alone and must have involved the linguistic assimilation of other
groups with whom they came in contact (Nichols 1993). It has been suggested that
Slavic may have served as a lingua franca in the ethnically mixed region under the
hegemony of the Avars, which may help account for its apparently high degree of homo-
geneity during a time of rapid geographic expansion (Pritsak 1983: 420; Lunt 1985).
The assumption of the development of a more or less uniform Slavic lingua franca
during this period of expansion may also help explain the relatively long period of
common linguistic developments after the dispersal of the Slavs throughout Eastern Eu-
rope. Scholars generally agree that dialectal differences were probably not significant
enough to impede communication up to about the year 1000, so that we may still speak
of some sort of Slavic linguistic unity before this time. The last stage of parallel develop-
ments (the loss of the weak jer vowels) was completed by ca. 1200. As a result, even
though Slavic is not attested until the tenth century, the language of the earliest manu-
scripts is very close to what we may reconstruct for Proto-Slavic.
Slavic is traditionally divided into West Slavic, South Slavic, and East Slavic groups.
This division should not be understood to mean that the languages of each group neces-
sarily descend from a common intermediate ancestor, however. The complex historical
changes from proto-Slavic to the individual modern Slavic languages cannot be seen as
a strictly linear, Stammbaum-type process, but the classification into three groups gener-
ally corresponds with the majority of shared linguistic developments (see Birnbaum
1966).
2. South Slavic
2.1. Old Church Slavic
The earliest Slavic manuscripts are written in a language called Old Church Slavic (or
Old Church Slavonic) in English, abbreviated as OCS. The development of this literary
language is attributed to the brothers Constantine (who later took the name Cyril) and

Authenticated
80. The documentation of Slavic 1399
Methodius, who were chosen by the Byzantine emperor Michael III to undertake a mis-
sion to the Slavs living in Moravia around 862. Although they were from a Greek family,
the brothers were presumably bilingual in Greek and the eastern South Slavic dialect
spoken in the area of their native town of Thessaloniki. Constantine/Cyril reportedly
developed an alphabet for writing the language, and he and Methodius began translating
biblical and liturgical texts necessary for their missionary work. Additional translations
and some original texts were produced by the brothers and their disciples in Moravia,
and later by the remaining disciples and their own students in centers of learning estab-
lished in the Bulgarian Empire, after the expulsion of the Slavic missionaries from Mora-
via (see Schenker 1995 for more information on the Cyrillo-Methodian mission and its
aftermath). Although OCS is identifiably South Slavic in its main features, we must
keep in mind that it was a medium of literary production, which had to be adapted to
convey complex ideas in an elevated style, and which was used over a broad territory.
It cannot be identified with any single spoken dialect of this period. The grammar and
lexicon were never formally codified, so there is a substantial amount of variation in the
texts.
In different Slavic-speaking areas where Church Slavic continued to be used as a
literary medium, it was gradually adapted over time towards the local vernaculars, and
texts may also contain a mixture of Church Slavic and the spoken language. As a result,
it may be difficult to classify texts unambiguously as OCS, a local recension of Church
Slavic, or as “Old Russian,” “Old Serbian,” etc. We reserve the name OCS for the
language of a relatively small group of texts that are thought to have some direct connec-
tion to the original Cyrillo-Methodian mission or the subsequent work of their disciples
in Bulgaria-Macedonia, and which preserve certain archaic features. These texts were
composed and copied from the second half of the ninth century through the eleventh
century, but the majority of the surviving manuscripts date to the eleventh century.
In other languages OCS may be referred to simply as “Old Slavic” (e.g., French le
vieux slave, Russian staroslavjanskij). The language has also been called “Old Bulgari-
an,” since most of the extant manuscripts are from the territory of the medieval Bulgarian
Empire, but as noted above OCS manuscripts do not reflect a purely regional language
variety, so this term is not accurate and is no longer widely used. Note that when speak-
ing of the “Macedonian” or “Bulgarian” origin of various manuscripts, we are referring
to the western or eastern areas of the Bulgarian Empire, since the states of Macedonia
and Bulgaria in their modern forms did not exist at this time.
The original writing system developed by Constantine/Cyril is known as the Glagolit-
ic alphabet (Table 80.1). It does not appear to be modeled on a single pre-existing writing
system; rather, it seems that Constantine/Cyril wanted to create a unique alphabet for
Slavic. Some of the letters appear to be based on Greek, Hebrew, Samaritan, or Latin
characters, while for others no source can be reliably determined.
Glagolitic was used in Moravia during the time of the Cyrillo-Methodian mission and
in the Balkans in the period that immediately followed. It was maintained in Macedonia
up to the end of the 11 th c. and in Serbia until the 12 th c., but in Bulgaria was replaced
very early by the Cyrillic alphabet (Vaillant 1964: 21). The only place where Glagolitic
enjoyed a longer life was in Croatia, where scribes developed a new form of the alphabet,
known as angular Glagolitic. Liturgical books in Glagolitic continued to be used in a
few Catholic parishes on the Croatian coast and islands up into the twentieth century.

Authenticated
1400 XIII. Slavic
Tab. 80.1: The Glagolitic alphabet

letter
translit. a b v g d e ž
phoneme /ɑ/ /b/ /v/ /g/ /d/ /ɛ/ /ʒ/
number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
name azъ buky vědě glagoli dobro estъ živěte
letter
,
translit. ʒ z i (ı) i ǵ (d’) k l
phoneme /dz/ /z/ /i/ /i/ /ɟ/? /k/ /l/
number 8 9 10 20 30 40 50
name ʒělo zemlja i iže ǵervь/ kako ljudie
d’ervь
letter Ⰿ
translit. m n o p r s t
phoneme /m/ /n/ /ɔ/ /p/ /r/ /s/ /t/
number 60 70 80 90 100 200 300
name myslite našь onъ pokoi rьci slovo tvrьdo
letter
translit. u f x o (ō) št c č
phoneme /u/ /f/ /x/ /ɔ/ /ʃt/ /ts/ /ʧ/
number 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
name ukъ frьtъ xěrъ otъ šta ci črьvь
letter , ! ! " # $

translit. š ъ (ŭ) y ь (ǐ) ě ju (ü) ę (N)
phoneme /ʃ/ /ʊ/ /ɨ/ /ɪ/ /æ/ /ju/ or /y/ /ɛ̃/
number − − − − − − −
name ša erъ ery erь jatь ju

Authenticated
Tab. 80.1: (continued)

letter % & ' ( ) *
translit. ǫ ę jǫ (ǫ̈) θ i (υ, ü) x
phoneme /ɔ̃/ /ɛ̃/ /jɔ̃/ or /œ̃/ /f/ or /t/? /i/ or /u/? /x/
number − − − − − −
name fita ižica xlъmъ
Remarks on Table 80.1. The letter $ was used as the second part of digraphs to indicate nasality;
when used by itself it had the value of a front nasal vowel. The usage in manuscripts varies: the
Kiev Missal and Psalterium Sinaiticum use only & for the front nasal, while other Glagolitic
manuscripts use $ after consonants and & in initial position or after a vowel. Scholars disagree
about the phonemic values of the jotated vowel letters. Certain letters (, (, )) are used to translit-
erate Greek words; their pronunciation in Old Church Slavic is uncertain. The existence of variant
letters to represent the sounds /i/ and /ɔ/ is probably also due to the influence of Greek. The letter
* is rare, occurring only in the Paris and Munich abecedaria, in the Psalterium Sinaiticum, and
the Codex Assemanianus. The difference in usage between this letter and the more common
is not entirely clear. Some manuscripts use a diacritic mark ҄ to indicate palatal or palatalized
consonants.
The Cyrillic alphabet (Table 80.2) was created on the basis of Glagolitic by substituting
corresponding Greek letters wherever possible. The simpler and more familiar forms of
the letters no doubt played a role in the widespread adoption of this alphabet in place of
the earlier Glagolitic.
Tab. 80.2: The Cyrillic alphabet

letter + - . / 0 1 2
translit. a b v g d e ž
number 1 − 2 3 4 5 −
letter 3, 4, 5 6, 7 8, н 9, : (<) > ? @

translit. ʒ z i i (ı) k l m
number 6 7 8 10 20 30 40
letter A B, ѻ C D E F G, H
translit. n o p r s t u
number 50 70 80 100 200 300 400
letter I J K L M N, O P
translit. f x о (ō) št c č š
number 500 600 800 − 900 90 −

Authenticated
1402 XIII. Slavic

letter Q R, S, Q8 T U V W X
translit. ъ (ŭ) y ь (ǐ) ě ju ja je
number − − − − − − −
letter Y, Z [ \ ] ^ _
translit. ę ǫ ję jǫ θ i (υ, ü)
number − − − − − −
Remarks on Table 80.2. The names of the letters are the same as for the corresponding characters
in Glagolitic. The different forms for /i/ are also known as i osmeričьno (8) and i desęteričьno
(10), according to their numerical values The Russian names jus bol’šoj and jus malyj are common-
ly used to refer to the back and front nasal vowels. The numerical values for Cyrillic are generally
based on the order of the Greek alphabet, so that characters that do not have equivalents in Greek
are usually not used to represent numbers. The Greek letters ѯ and ѱ are used to represent the
numerals 60 and 700, and occasionally to spell the sequences [ks] and [ps], mainly in borrowed
words. As in the Glagolitic alphabet, different letters are used to represent the front nasal vowel.
Suprasliensis and Sava’s Book consistently use Z after consonants and Y elsewhere.
Most major OCS manuscripts have been published in several editions, not all of which
are listed here. For a more complete bibliography and additional information on early
Slavic writing, see Schenker (1995).
The Kiev Missal (Hamm 1979; Nimčuk 1983; TITUS) is probably the oldest extant
OCS manuscript, dating either to the late tenth/early eleventh century (Schenker 1995:
207) or perhaps even to the late ninth/early tenth century (Schaeken 1987: 201). It
consists of seven folia written in the Glagolitic alphabet, containing parts of a missal
according to the western rite. As it exhibits West Slavic features and is clearly a transla-
tion from Latin we may assume that it originated in Moravia or Bohemia. The Kiev
Missal is notable also for its supralinear markings, which seem to indicate prosodic
features (Kortlandt 1980; Schaeken 2008). In other OCS manuscripts such markings are
purely ornamental imitations of Greek diacritic marks (Schenker 1995: 183).
Also among the oldest manuscripts are two more or less complete fourfold Gospels
written in the Glagolitic alphabet. Like all Glagolitic OCS monuments, apart from the
Kiev Missal and possibly the Glagolita Clozianus, they are thought to be of Macedonian
origin. Codex Zographensis (Jagić [1879] 1954; TITUS) consists of 271 folia in OCS and
an additional 17 folia written in Macedonian Church Slavic, which are a later addition
to replace a missing portion of the original gospel text. The codex also includes 16 folia
containing a 13 th-century Cyrillic synaxarion (a calendar of saints’ days). The main
portion of the codex is conventionally dated to the late tenth or early eleventh century
and is phonologically closest to what we can posit as the Cyrillo-Methodian norm. Proba-
bly slightly later, but still dating to the first half of the eleventh century, is the Codex
Marianus, with 173 folia (Jagić [1883] 1960; TITUS).
The Codex Assemanianus (Vajs and Kurz 1929−1955; Ivanova-Mavrodinova and
Džurova 1981; TITUS) is probably slightly later than either Zographensis or Marianus,
perhaps from the second half of the eleventh century. It consists of 158 Glagolitic folia,
containing an evangeliary (a collection of Gospel passages to be read in the liturgy) and

Authenticated
a synaxarion. It is written in an inconsistent and somewhat innovative orthography (Lunt

2001: 8).
The major Glagolitic manuscripts also include a psalter and a prayer book, both of
which were found in the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai and date to the eleventh
century. The major part of the Psalterium Sinaiticum, 177 folia containing psalms 1−
137, was found in 1850 (Sever’janov [1922] 1954; Altbauer 1971). It appears to be the
work of several scribes and contains numerous mistakes and some phonologically newer
features (Lunt 2001: 8). The extant folia of the Euchologium Sinaiticum (Frček [1933−
1939] 1974; Nahtigal 1941−1942) represent only part of what must have been a larger
codex containing translations made at different times in the early period of OCS (Mathie-
sen 1991: 195). The main portion of the manuscript (109 folia) was found together with
the Psalterium Sinaiticum and includes prayers for various occasions and parts of the
liturgy. In 1975 a new trove of manuscripts was discovered in the monastery, which
included an additional 32 folia of the Psalterium Sinaiticum and at least 28 folia belong-
ing to the Euchologium Sinaiticum. Photographic reproductions of these folia have been
published by Tarnaidis (1988).
The Glagolita Clozianus (Dostál 1959) consists of 14 folia out of what was originally
a large codex of homilies and includes a fragment of a sermon that has been attributed
to Methodius. The language exhibits features that may indicate a Croatian or Serbian
origin for this manuscript (Schenker 1995: 189; Lunt 2001: 9). The only other Glagolitic
manuscripts that belong to the OCS canon are shorter fragments or palimpsests contain-
ing gospel or liturgical texts.
The Cyrillic OCS manuscripts are almost all of Bulgarian origin and date to the 11 th
century. The Codex Suprasliensis (Sever’janov [1904] 1956; Zaimov and Capaldo 1982−
1983; TITUS), with 285 folia, is the longest surviving OCS manuscript. It is a lectionary
menaeum for the month of March, containing 24 saints’ lives and 24 homilies, most of
which are attributed to St. John Chrysostom. The language of the text is less archaic than
that of the surviving Glagolitic OCS manuscripts. We also have part of an evangeliary
in Cyrillic, known as Sava’s Book (Ščepkin [1903] 1959; TITUS). The manuscript is so
called because of the comment поп сава ѱалъ ‘The priest Sava wrote [this]’ written at
the bottom of folio 49 by the same hand as the main text; folio 54 has another marginal
comment containing the same name. The surviving 129 folia of this manuscript are
bound together in a codex with some later Russian Church Slavic texts. The manuscript
appears to be a copy made from an earlier Glagolitic text, and the language shows
innovations that mark it as being younger than that of Suprasliensis. In addition to texts
from the gospels found in other manuscripts, we also have some readings from the Acts
and Epistles in the Enina Apostol (Mirčev and Kodov 1965). Unfortunately, only 39
poorly preserved folia of the original manuscript survive. The remaining Cyrillic manu-
scripts classified as OCS are shorter fragments.
2.2. Eastern South Slavic

The OCS manuscripts of Bulgarian or Macedonian origin, with the caveat mentioned
above, provide the main source of early evidence for Eastern South Slavic dialects. We
also have a number of early inscriptions, mostly in Cyrillic, which some scholars treat
as part of the OCS canon. However, since they differ in terms of composition, transmis-
sion, and purpose from this textual tradition, they are perhaps best considered separately.

Authenticated
1404 XIII. Slavic
The oldest ones actually predate most or all of the surviving OCS manuscripts. The
earliest dated Cyrillic inscription is from the year 921 and was found in the Krepča
monastery near Tărgovište, Bulgaria (Konstantinov 1977). This then marks the latest
possible date for the introduction of the Cyrillic alphabet. The most famous dated Cyrillic
inscription is the tombstone erected by the Bulgarian Tsar Samuel for his parents and
brother in 992/993, which was found on Lake Prespa in northern Greece. All of these
inscriptions are fragmentary, and their interpretation is sometimes uncertain (see Schaek-
en and Birnbaum 1999: 127 ff. for more information).
Beginning in the 12 th century, we have numerous texts with enough innovative re-
gional features that they are classified as Bulgarian or Macedonian recensions of Old
Church Slavic, or simply as Middle Bulgarian. Like the canonical OCS manuscripts,
they are almost exclusively translations of Biblical or other religious texts. There are a
number of evangeliaries, apostols, and psalters, including Dobromir’s Gospel (Macedoni-
an, early 12 th c.; Altbauer 1973; Velčeva 1975), Dobrejšo’s Gospel (Macedonian, 13 th
c.; Conev 1906), the Slepče Apostol (Bulgarian/Macedonian, 12 th c.; Il’inskij 1911), the
Ohrid Apostol (Macedonian, late 12 th c.; Kul’bakin 1907), and the Bologna Psalter
(Macedonian, 13 th c.; Jagić 1907; Dujčev 1968). The oldest Slavic parimeinik (a collec-
tion of readings from the Old Testament) is Grigorovič’s Parimeinik (Bulgarian, 12 th or
13 th c.; Brandt 1894−1901). Also worthy of mention is Dragan’s Menaeum, also known
as the Zograph Trephologion, which contains short saints’ lives and liturgical texts with
musical notation (Bulgarian, late 13 th c.; Sobolevskij 1913).
The famous treatise On the letters (Kuev 1967; Džambeluka-Kossova 1980), which
describes the creation of the Slavic (Glagolitic) alphabet and defends it as superior to
the Greek letters, was most likely written in Bulgaria in the late ninth or early tenth
century. It is ascribed to the monk Xrabrъ, about whom nothing certain is known. The
oldest extant version is found in a Bulgarian miscellany from 1348.
2.3. Western South Slavic

The oldest connected Slavic texts written in the Latin script are the Freising Fragments
(Pogačnik 1968; Bernik et al. 1993; TITUS; eZISS), which date to the late 10 th century.
They consist of a confessional, homily, and a prayer according to the western rite. The
phonetic features of these texts are difficult to interpret because of their ad hoc orthogra-
phy, but the language exhibits Slovenian characteristics and has been classified variously
as OCS, Slovenian Church Slavic, or Old Slovene. Like the Kiev Missal, this manuscript
also contains accentual markings. The linguistic features of the Freising Fragments have
been analyzed by Kortlandt in several publications (1975, 1996a, 1996b, 1998).
There are a number of early Glagolitic inscriptions from the territory of Croatia, the
most important of which is the Baška Tablet from the beginning of the 12 th century
(Fučić 1982; Schenker 1995: 270−271). This monument was found in the church of St.
Lucija on the island of Krk; it commemorates King Zvonimir’s donation of the land for
the church and tells of its construction. The style of lettering represents a transition from
the rounded Glagolitic of earlier OCS manuscripts to the angular Glagolitic that was
used later in Croatia.
The Vienna Fragments (Weingart 1938) are two folia from a 12 th-century Glagolitic
missal, probably of Croatian origin. We also have two fragments of Glagolitic apostols,

Authenticated
the Gršković Fragment (Jagić 1893) and the Mihanović Fragment (Jagić 1868). Both of
these appear to date to the late 12 th/early 13 th century and are possibly from southern
Bosnia and Hercegovina, according to Jagić (1893: 40). We also have some early non-
religious texts in Glagolitic, such as the Vinodol Law Code of 1288, which has come
down to us in a 16 th-century copy (Bratulić 1988).
Early Cyrillic manuscripts include the Vukan Gospel from around 1200 (Vrana 1967)
and Miroslav’s Evangeliary from the late 12 th century (Rodić and Jovanović 1986), both
in Serbian Church Slavic. We also have several texts attributed to St. Sava (1174?−
1236): three typicons, the Vita Simeonis, and a letter, most of which have come down to
us in late copies (Ćorović 1928). The oldest surviving copy of the first Slavic hexameron,
which was compiled and translated by the Bulgarian John the Exarch (active early 10 th
century), is a Serbian one from 1263 (Aitzetmüller 1958−1975).
3. East Slavic
The East Slavic linguistic area is relatively homogenous, and most scholars assume the
existence of an intermediate Common East Slavic dialect as the ancestor of all the mod-
ern East Slavic languages. The language of the oldest texts from the period of Kievan
Rus’ is often referred to loosely as Old Russian, but these documents are mostly Church
Slavic with varying degrees of influence from the vernacular, and the local features that
they exhibit are better characterized as Common East Slavic in most instances. Not until
the 13 th century or later do we really begin to see clear textual evidence of the divergence
of Russian from Ukrainian and Belarusian (see Pugh 2007: 11).
The East Slavic region is the source of a wider variety of text types than we find in
South or West Slavic in this same period. The earliest inscription that we know of
consists of seven or eight Greek or Cyrillic letters on an amphora, known as the Gnezdo-
vo Inscription (Schenker 1989), and dates to the early 10 th century. Numerous other
inscriptions, both on monuments and smaller objects, date to the 11 th and 12 th centuries.
East Slavic writing was almost exclusively in Cyrillic, but there are some Glagolitic
graffiti from the 11 th and 12 th centuries in the Church of St. Sophia in Novgorod (Schen-
ker 1995: 236−237).
There are several 11 th-century manuscripts containing the core biblical texts used in
services. Ostromir’s Gospel is an evangeliary from 1056−1057, copied for the governor
of Novgorod (Vostokov [1843] 1964). This manuscript is very close to the idealized
OCS norm, particularly in the use of the jer vowels, but also has some East Slavic
features. Another aprakos gospel is the Archangel Evangeliary of 1092 (Georgievskij
1912). Both of these were apparently based on South Slavic originals. We have two
partial exegetic psalters from the eleventh century, Evgenij’s Psalter (Kolesov 1972) and
the Čudovo Psalter (Pogorelov 1910). Slightly later, from the turn of the 11 th/12 th cen-
tury, is Byčkov’s Psalter (Altbauer and Lunt 1978). The Galician Gospel of 1144 (Le
Juge 1897) is the oldest dated East Slavic fourfold Gospel. It contains dialect features
of the southwestern East Slavic area where the manuscript was copied.
The Novgorod Menaea from 1095−1097 (Jagić 1886) contain services for saints’ days
for the months of September, October, and November, together with marginal notes by
different scribes. These texts exhibit some Novgorod dialectal features. Stories from the
lives of monks and hermits are found in the Sinai Paterikon, which exists in an East
Slavic copy from the 11 th century (Golyšenko and Dubrovina 1967).

Authenticated
1406 XIII. Slavic
The Izbornik of 1073 (Dinekov 1991−1993) is a copy made for Prince Svjatoslav of
Kiev of a miscellany translated from Greek for the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon, containing
excerpts from patristic literature. A second miscellany produced for Prince Svjatoslav,
the Izbornik of 1076 (Golyšenko et al. 1965), does not appear to be a translation or copy
of an existing miscellany; it was probably compiled in Rus’ on the basis of existing
Slavic translations of the original sources, with some changes and adaptations. The text
shows numerous East Slavic features, particularly in the portion copied by the second
scribe (Lunt 1968). The Uspenskij sbornik (Kotkov 1971) of the 12 th/13 th century con-
tains the earliest versions of some saints’ lives and homilies that represent original Slavic
compositions, rather than translations, including the Vita Methodii.
The Russian Primary Chronicle (Adrianova-Peretc 1950; Tschižewskij 1969) was
compiled from various sources by the monk Nestor of the Kiev Cave Monastery and
gives a history of Kievan Rus’ from 852−1110. The introductory section tells of the
division of the earth among the sons of Noah (based on a Byzantine chronicle) followed
by an original account of the early history of the Slavic tribes. The earliest extant version
of the Primary Chronicle is found in the Laurentian Codex of 1377; the other main
source is the Hypatian Codex from around 1425. While the language of the Primary
Chronicle is mostly Church Slavic with some Eastern Slavic features, the First Novgorod
Chronicle (Nasonov 1950) from the 13 th and 14 th centuries is much closer to the vernac-
ular.
A unique and rich source of documentation for the history of East Slavic is found in
the birchbark documents (berestjanye gramoty) that began to be discovered in the 1950s,
primarily in Novgorod. These are short texts dealing with everyday business, legal, and
personal matters, which were scratched on strips of birchbark with a stylus. More than
1,000 of these documents have now been found, with the earliest dating to the 11 th
century (Zaliznjak 1995; gramoty.ru). These documents exhibit certain linguistic features
that differ from the rest of East Slavic, and Zaliznjak argues that East Slavic originally
consisted of two distinct dialect zones, rather than representing a unified linguistic area,
as commonly assumed. Another important source that is largely free of Church Slavic
influences is the Law Code of Rus’ (Grekov 1940−1963; TITUS), which is a compilation
of East Slavic customary law. It was composed during the reign of Prince Jaroslav the
Wise (r. 1019−1054), but the earliest surviving copy is included in the Novgorod Korm-
čaja of 1280.
The Igor Tale (Grégoire, Jakobson, and Rostovcev 1948; TITUS) is an epic poem
describing the campaign led by Prince Igor against the Cumans (Polovtsy) in 1185. The
only manuscript was found in 1795, and was dated by scholars at that time to the 16 th
century. It was destroyed in the fires that burned most of Moscow in 1812 when Napo-
leon’s troops entered the city, so we possess only imperfect copies made shortly after
the manuscript was discovered. A number of scholars have argued that the Igor Tale
represents an 18 th-century forgery, but the linguistic evidence indicates that it was proba-
bly composed in the late 12 th century.
4. West Slavic
After the disbanding of the Moravian mission, Latin was the predominant language of
culture in the West Slavic lands up until the 15 th century. Consequently, the western

Authenticated
recension of Church Slavic and the vernaculars are relatively sparsely attested before
this time. The use of Church Slavic survived in Bohemia into the 12 th century, but the
majority of early texts that were presumably originally written either in Moravia or
Bohemia survive only in later copies made in the Orthodox Slavic lands (see Mareš
1979). Apart from the Kiev Missal, the only other early manuscript from this area is the
Prague Fragments, which are two 11 th-century Glagolitic folia written in Czech Church
Slavic (Mareš 1979: 41−45). From the 11 th or 12 th century we also have a significant
number of Old Czech/Church Slavic glosses in Latin manuscripts: the Vienna Glosses
(Jagić 1903) and the St. Gregory Glosses (Patera 1878). Mareš (1979: 211−216) gives
excerpts from both, transcribed directly from the original manuscripts.
Another important source of information for West Slavic is onomastic data found in
various Latin manuscripts (see Schenker 1995: 239). For Old Polish, the Bull of Gniezno
from 1136 (Taszycki 1975: 3−36) is particularly significant, with over 400 place and
personal names.
The 14 th century saw the production of a significantly greater number of West Slavic
texts. These include the earliest surviving West Slavic homilies (in Polish), the Holy
Cross Sermons (Łoś and Semkowicz 1934; TITUS) and the Gniezno Sermons (Vrtel-
Wierczyński 1953), as well as the earliest psalters. The Florian Psalter gives the text of
the psalms in parallel Latin, German, and Polish translations (Bernacki et al. [1939]
2002), while the Wittenberg Psalter is Latin with an interlinear Czech translation (Gebau-
er 1880). The first historical text written in Czech, the Dalimil Chronicle (Daňhelka et
al. 1988; TITUS) dates to the early 14 th century. The Czech hymn Hospodine, pomiluj
ny [Lord, have mercy on us] may have been composed in the 10 th century, although the
earliest manuscripts are from the late 14 th century (Mareš 1979: 208−210). The Polish
Bogurodzica (Worończak 1962; TITUS) may also be connected with the Cyrillo-Metho-
dian tradition (Schenker 1995: 221), but it is first attested in a 15 th-century manuscript.
Other West Slavic languages are attested considerably later. Czech was long used as
a written language also by the Slovaks; the earliest existing Slovak monument is the
Žilina Town Book from the late 15 th century (Ďurovič 1980: 212). Polabian died out in
the first half of the 18 th century and is attested only fragmentarily, mostly in lists of
words and phrases that were collected when the language was already moribund (see
Polański 1993). All of the extant Polabian material has been published by Olesch (1959,
1962, 1967). The oldest Sorbian text is the Bautzen Burgher’s Oath, from 1532, which
citizens of Bautzen used to swear their loyalty to Bohemia and their feudal lord (Polański
1980: 234). A translation of the New Testament into Sorbian by Miklawuš Jakubica was
completed in 1548 (Schuster-Šewc 1967), and the first Sorbian books began to be printed
in the 1570s.
5. References
Adrianova-Peretc, Varvara P.
1950 Povest’ vremennyx let [The tale of bygone years]. Moscow: Akademija Nauk SSSR.
Aitzetmüller, Rudolf
1958−1975 Das Hexaemeron des Exarchen Johannes. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Ver-
lagsanstalt.

Authenticated
1408 XIII. Slavic
Altbauer, Moshe
1971 Psalterium Sinaiticum. An 11 th century Glagolitic manuscript from St. Catherine’s Mon-
astery, Mt. Sinai. Skopje: Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts.
Altbauer, Moshe
1973 Dobromirovo evangelie. Kirilski spomenik od XII vek [Dobromir’s gospel. A Cyrillic
monument of the 12 th century]. Skopje: Makedonska akademija na naukite i umetnostite.
Altbauer, Moshe and Horace G. Lunt
1978 An early Slavonic Psalter from Rus’. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Ukrainian Research
Institute.
Barford, Paul M.
2001 The early Slavs. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Bernacki, Ludwik, Aleksander Birkenmajer, Ryszard Ganszyniec, Stefan Kubica, Władysław Pod-
lacha, and Witold Taszycki
2002 [1939] Psałterz florjański. Łacińsko-polsko-niemiecki re˛kopis Bibljoteki narodowej w
Warszawie [The Florian psalter. A Latin-Polish-German manuscript in the Warsaw Na-
tional Library]. Łódź: Archidiecezjalne Wydawnictwo Łódzkie. [Lwów: Zakład naro-
dowy imienia Ossolińskich].
Bernik, France, Darko Dolinar, Jože Faganel, Igor Grdina, Marko Kranjec, and Janez Zor
1993 Brižinski spomeniki. Znanstvenokritična izdaja [The Friesing fragments. A scholarly
critical edition]. Ljubljana: Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU.
Birnbaum, Henrik
1966 The dialects of Common Slavic. In: Henrik Birnbaum and Jaan Puhvel (eds.), Ancient
Indo-European dialects. Berkeley: University of California Press, 153−197.
Birnbaum, Henrik
1973 The original homeland of the Slavs and the problem of early linguistic contacts. Journal
of Indo-European studies 1: 407−421.
Brandt, Roman F.
1894−1901 Grigorovičev parimejnik. V slichenii s drugimi parimejnikami. Čtenija v Impera-
torskom obščestve istorii i drevnostej rossijskix pri Moskovskom universitete [Grigorov-
ič’s parimeinik. In comparison with other parimeiniks. Lectures at the Imperial Society
of History and Russian Antiquities at Moscow University]. Vol. 1−3. Moscow: Univer-
sitetskaja tipografija.
Bratulić, Josip
1988 Vinodolski zakon, 1288. Faksimil, diplomatičko izdanje, kritički tekst, tumačenje, rječnik
[The Vinodol law code, 1288. Facsimile, diplomatic edition, critical text, interpretation,
dictionary]. Zagreb: Globus.
Conev, Ben’o.
1906 Dobrejšovo četveroevangelie. Srednobălgarski pametnik ot XIII v. [Dobrejšo’s gospel.
A Middle Bulgarian monument of the 13 th century]. Sofia: Dăržavna pečatnica.
Ćorović, Vladimir
1928 Spisi Sv. Save [The writings of St. Sava]. (Zbornik za istoriju, jezik i književnost srpskog
naroda 17). Belgrade: Srpska kraljevska akademija.
Daňhelka, Jiří, Karel Hádek, Bohuslav Havránek, and Naděžda Kvítková (eds.)
1988 Staročeská kronika tak řečeného Dalimila [The Old Czech chronicle of Dalimil]. Prague:
Academia.
Dinekov, Petăr
1991−1993 Simeonov sbornik (po Svetoslavovija prepis ot 1073 g.) [Simeon’s miscellany
(according to the copy made for Svjatoslav from the year 1073)]. Sofia: Bălgarska
akademija na naukite.
Dostál, Antonín
1959 Clozianus. Staroslověnský hlaholský sborník tridentský a innsbrucký [The Clozianus. An
Old Church Slavic Glagolitic miscellany of Trent and Innsbruck]. Prague: Českosloven-
ská Akademie věd.

Authenticated
Dujčev, Ivan
1968 Bolonski psaltir. Bălgarski knižoven pametnik ot 13 vek [The Bologna psalter. A Bulgari-
an literary monument from the 13 th century]. Sofia: Bălgarska akademija na naukite.
Džambeluka-Kossova, Alda
1980 Černorizec Xrabăr. O pismenex [The Monk Hrabar. On the letters]. Sofia: Bălgarska
akademija na naukite.
Ďurovič, L’ubomír
1980 Slovak. In: Schenker and Stankiewicz (eds.), 211−228.
eZISS (Elektronske znanstvenokritične izdaje slovenskega slovstva [Digital scholarly critical edi-
tions of Slovenian literature). http://nl.ijs.si/e-zrc/index-sl.html [Last accessed 27 June
2013].
Frček, Jan
1974 [1933−1939] Euchologium Sinaiticum. Texte slave avec sources grecques et traduction
française. Paris: Firmin-Didot.
Fučić, Branko
1982 Glagoljski natpisi [Glagolitic inscriptions]. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i
umjetnosti.
Gebauer, Jan
1880 Žaltář Wittenberský [The Wittenberg psalter]. Prague: Matice česká.
Georgievskij, Grigorij P.
1912 Arxangel’skoe evangelie 1092 goda [The Archangel Evangeliary of the year 1092]. Mos-
cow: Rumjancovskij muzej.
Golyšenko, Vera S. and V. F. Dubrovina
1967 Sinajskij paterik [The Sinai patericon]. Moscow: Nauka.
Golyšenko, Vera S., Elena A. Mišina, Aleksandr M. Moldovan, and M. S. Mušinskaja
1965 Izbornik 1076 goda [The miscellany of 1076]. Moscow: Nauka.
Grégoire, Henri, Roman Jakobson, and Mixail I. Rostovcev
1948 La geste du Prince Igor’. Épopée russe du douzième siècle. New York: Rausen.
Grekov, Boris D.
1940−1963 Pravda russkaja [The law code of Rus’]. Moscow: Akademija nauk SSSR.
Hamm, Josip
1979 Das glagolitische Missale von Kiew. Vienna: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften.
Il’inskij, Grigorij A.
1911 Slepčenskij apostol XII v. [The Slepče apostol of the 12 th century]. Moscow: Tipografija
G. Lissnera i D. Sobko.
Ivanova-Mavrodinova, Vera and Aksinija Džurova
1981 Asemanievo evangelie [The Assemanianus evangeliary]. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo.
Jagić, Vatroslav
1868 Građa za glagolsku paleografiju [Materials for Glagolitic paleography]. Rad JAZU 2:
1−35.
Jagić, Vatroslav
1886 Služebnyja minei za sentjabr’, oktjabr’ i nojabr’. V cerkovnoslavjanskom perevode po
russkim rukopisjam 1095−1097 [Saints’ services for September, October, and Novem-
ber. In the Church Slavonic translation according to Russian manuscripts of 1095−1097].
Saint Petersburg: Imperatorskaja akademija nauk.
Jagić, Vatroslav
1890 Glagolitica. Würdigung neuentdeckter Fragmente. Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Aka-
demie der Wissenschaften in Wien, philosophisch-historische Klasse 38(2): 1−62.
Jagić, Vatroslav
1893 Grškovićev odlomak glagolskog apostola [The Gršković fragment of a Glagolitic apos-
tol]. Starine 26: 33−161.

Authenticated
1410 XIII. Slavic
Jagić, Vatroslav
1903 Kirchenslavisch-böhmische Glossen saec. XI−XII. Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Aka-
demie der Wissenschaften in Wien, philosophisch-historische Klasse 50(2): 1−44.
Jagić, Vatroslav
1907 Slovenskaja psaltyr’. Psalterium Bonionense [A Slavic psalter. The Bologna psalter].
Vienna: Gerold.
Jagić, Vatroslav
1954 [1879] Quattuor evangeliorum codex glagoliticus olim Zographensis nunc Petropolita-
nus [A Glagolitic codex of the four gospels formerly called Zographensis, now Petropo-
litanus]. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt. [Berlin: Weidmann].
Jagić, Vatroslav
1960 [1883] Mariinskoe četveroevangelie s primečanijami i priloženijami [The Marianus
gospels with notes and appendices]. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt.
[St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaja akademija nauk].
Kolesov, Vladimir V.
1972 Evgenievskaja psaltyr’ [Evgenij’s psalter]. Acta Universitatis Szegediensis de Attila Jós-
zef nominatae. Dissertationis Slavicae 8: 57−69.
Konstantinov, Kazimir
1977 Dva starobălgarski nadpisa ot skalnija manastir pri s. Krepča, Tărgovištki okrăg [Two
Old Bulgarian inscriptions from the cave monastery near Krepča, Tărgovište district].
Arxeologija 19: 19−28.
Kortlandt, Frederik
1975 Jers and nasal vowels in the Freising Fragments. Slavistična revija 23: 405−412.
Kortlandt, Frederik
1980 Zur Akzentuierung der Kiever Blätter. Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie 41: 1−4.
Kortlandt, Frederik
1996a The accentual system of the Freising manuscripts. In: Janko Kos, Franc Jakopin, and
Jože Faganel (eds.), Zbornik Brižinski spomeniki. Ljubljana: Znanstvenoraziskovalni
center SAZU, 141−151.
Kortlandt, Frederik
1996b On the accent marks in the First Freising Fragment. In: Adrian A. Barentsen, Ben M.
Groen, Jos Schaeken, and Rob Sprenger (eds.), Studies in South Slavic and Balkan
linguistics. (Studies in Slavic and general linguistics 23). Amsterdam: Rodopi, 167−171.
Kortlandt, Frederik
1998 Rounded nasal vowels in the Freising Fragments. In: Adrian A. Barentsen, Ben M.
Groen, Jos Schaeken, and Rob Sprenger (eds.), Dutch contributions to the 12 th Interna-
tional Congress of Slavists: Linguistics. (Studies in Slavic and general linguistics 24).
Amsterdam: Rodopi, 309−315.
Kotkov, Sergej I.
1971 Uspenskij sbornik XII−XIII vv. [The Uspenskij miscellany of the 12 th−13 th centuries].
Moscow: Nauka.
Kuev, Kujo M.
1967 Černorizec Xrabăr [The Monk Hrabar]. Sofia: Bălgarska akademija na naukite.
Kul’bakin, Stepan M.
1907 Oxridskaja rukopis’ Apostola konca XII veka [The manuscript of the Ohrid apostol from
the end of the 12 th century]. Sofija: Dăržavna pečatnica.
von Le Juge, Vasil
1897 Das galizische Tetroevangelium von J. 1144. Eine kritische-palaeographische Studie auf
dem Gebiete des Altrussischen. Leipzig: Drugulin.
Lunt, Horace G.
1968 On the Izbornik of 1076. In: Robert Magidoff, George Y. Shevelov, Jon S. G. Simmons,
and Kiril Taranovski (eds.), Studies in Slavic linguistics and poetics in honor of Boris
O. Unbegaun. New York: New York University Press, 69−77.

Authenticated
Lunt, Horace G.
1985 Slavs, Common Slavic, and Old Church Slavonic. In: Johannes Reinhart (ed.), Litterae
slavicae medii aevi: Francisco Venceslao Mareš sexagenario oblatae [Slavic literature
of the middle ages: offered for the sixtieth birthday of František Václav Mareš]. Munich:
Sagner, 185−204.
Lunt, Horace G.
2001 Old Church Slavonic grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Łoś, Jan and Władysław Semkowicz
1934 Kazania t. zw. świętokrzyskie [The holy cross sermons]. Cracow: Polska Akademia
Umiejętności.
Mareš, František
1979 An anthology of Church Slavonic texts of western (Czech) origin. Munich: Fink.
Mathiesen, Robert
1991 New Old Church Slavonic manuscripts on Mount Sinai. [Review of Tarnaidis 1988.]
Harvard Ukrainian studies 15: 192−199.
Mirčev, Kiril and Xristo Kodov
1965 Eninski apostol. Starobălgarski pametnik ot XI v. [The Enina apostol. An Old Bulgarian
monument from the 11 th century]. Sofia: Bălgarska akademija na naukite.
Nahtigal, Rajko
1941−1942 Euchologium sinaiticum. Starocerkvenoslovanski glagolski spomenik [The Eu-
chologium Sinaiticum. An Old Church Slavic Glagolitic monument]. Ljubljana: Sloven-
ska akademija znanosti in umetnosti.
Nasonov, Arsenij N.
1950 Novgorodskaja pervaja letopis’ staršego i mladšego izvodov [The first Novgorod chroni-
cle of the older and younger recensions]. Moscow: Akademija Nauk SSSR.
Nichols, Johanna
1993 The linguistic geography of the Slavic expansion. In: Robert A. Maguire and Alan
Timberlake (eds.), American contributions to the Eleventh International Congress of
Slavists. Columbus, OH: Slavica, 377−391.
Nimčuk, Vasyl V.
1983 Kyjivs’ki hlaholyčni lystky [The Kiev Glagolitic folia]. Kiev: Naukova dumka.
Olesch, Reinhold
1959 Vocabularium venedicum von Christian Hennig von Jessen. Cologne: Böhlau.
Olesch, Reinhold
1962 Juglers lüneburgisch-wendisches Wörterbuch. Cologne: Böhlau.
Olesch, Reinhold
1967 Fontes lingvae dravaeno-polabicae minores [The minor sources of the Drevani-Polabian
language]. Cologne: Böhlau.
Patera, Adolf
1878 České a starobulharské glosy XII stoleti v latinském rukopise kapitulní knihovny v Praze
[12 th-century Czech and Old Bulgarian glosses in a Latin manuscript of the Library of
the Metropolitan Chapter in Prague]. Časopis Českého musea 52: 536−557.
Pogačnik, Jože
1968 Freisinger Denkmäler. Literatur, Geschichte, Sprache, Stilart, Texte, Bibliographie. Mu-
nich: Trofenik.
Pogorelov, Valerij A.
1910 Čudovskaja psaltyr’ XI v. Otryvok tolkovanija Feodorita Kirrskago na psaltyr’ v drevne-
bolgarskom perevode [The Čudovo psalter of the 11 th century. A fragment of Theodorit
Cyrrhus’s commentary on the Psalms in an Old Bulgarian translation]. St. Petersburg.
Polański, Kazimierz
1980 Sorbian (Lusatian). In: Schenker and Stankiewicz (eds.), 229−245.

Authenticated
1412 XIII. Slavic
1993 Polabian. In: Bernard Comrie and Greville Corbett (eds.), The Slavonic languages. Lon-
don: Routledge, 795−824.
Pritsak, Omeljan
1983 The Slavs and the Avars. In: Gli Slavi occidentali e meridionali nell’alto Medioevo:
15−21 aprile 1982. Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’alto Medioevo, 353−432.
Pugh, Stefan M.
2007 A new historical grammar of the East Slavic languages. Vol. 1: Introduction and phonol-
ogy. Munich: LINCOM Europa.
Rodić, Nikola and Gordana Jovanović
1986 Miroslavljevo jevanđelje. Kritičko izdanje [Miroslav’s evangeliary. Critical edition]. Bel-
grade: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti.
Schaeken, Jos
1987 Die Kiever Blätter. (Studies in Slavic and general linguistics 9). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Schaeken, Jos
2008 Nochmals zur Akzentuierung der Kiever Blätter. In: Alexander Lubotsky, Jos Schaeken,
and Jeroen Wiedenhof (eds.), Evidence and counter-evidence. Essays in honor of
Frederik Kortlandt. Vol. 1. (Studies in Slavic and general linguistics 32). Amsterdam:
Rodopi, 489−498.
Schaeken, Jos and Henrik Birnbaum
1999 Die altkirchenslavische Schriftkultur. Munich: Sagner.
Schenker, Alexander M.
1989 The Gnezdovo inscription in its historical and linguistic setting. Russian linguistics 13:
207−220.
1995 The dawn of Slavic. An introduction to Slavic philology. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Schenker, Alexander M. and Edward Stankiewicz (eds.)
1980 The Slavic literary languages. New Haven: Yale Concilium on International and Area
Studies.
Schuster-Šewc, Heinz
1967 Das niedersorbische Testament des Miklawuš Jakubica 1548. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Sever’janov, Sergej N.
1956 [1904] Suprasl’skaja rukopis’ [The Codex Suprasliensis]. Graz: Akademische Druck-
und Verlagsanstalt. [St. Petersburg: Otdelenie russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti Imperator-
skoj akademii nauk].
Sever’janov, Sergej N.
1954 [1922] Sinajskaja psaltyr’. Glagoličeskij pamjatnik XI veka [The Psalterium Sinaiticum.
A Glagolitic monument of the 11 th century]. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsan-
stalt. [St. Petersburg: Otdelenie russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti Rossijskoj akademii nauk].
Shevelov, George Y.
1965 A prehistory of Slavic. New York: Columbia University Press.
Sobolevskij, Aleksej I.
1913 Zografskij trifologij [The Zograph trephologion]. St. Petersburg: Obščestvo ljubitelej
drevnej pis’mennosti.
Ščepkin, Vjačeslav N.
1959 [1903] Savvina kniga [Sava’s book]. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt.
[St. Petersburg: Otdelenie russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti Imperatorskoj akademii nauk].
Tarnaidis, Ioannis C.
1988 The Slavonic manuscripts discovered in 1975 at St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mount
Sinai. Thessaloniki: St. Catherine’s Monastery, Mount Sinai, and The Hellenic Associa-
tion for Slavic Studies.

Authenticated
Taszycki, Witold
1975 Najdawniejsze zabytki języka polskiego [The earliest monuments of the Polish language].
5th edn. Wrocław: Ossolineum.
TITUS (Thesaurus Indogermanischer Text- und Sprachmaterialien). http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/
indexe.htm [Last accessed 27 June 2013].
Tschižewskij, Dmitrij
1969 Die Nestor-Chronik. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz.
Udolph, Jürgen
1979 Zum Stand der Diskussion um die Urheimat der Slaven. Beiträge zur Namenforschung
14: 1−25.
Vaillant, André
1964 Manuel du vieux slave. Paris: Institut d’études slaves.
Vajs, Josef and Josef Kurz
1929−1955 Evangeliarium Assemani, Codex Vaticanus 3. Prague: Československá Akademie
věd.
Velčeva, Borjana
1975 Dobromirovo evangelie. Bălgarski pametnik ot načaloto na XII vek [Dobromir's gospel.
A Bulgarian monument from the beginning of the 12 th century]. Sofia: Bălgarska aka-
demija na naukite.
Vostokov, Aleksandr X.
1964 [1843] Ostromirovo evangelie 1056−57 goda [Ostromir's gospel of the year 1056−57].
Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz. [St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaja akademija nauk].
Vrana, Josip
1967 Vukanovo evanđelje [The Vukan gospel]. Beograd: Naučno delo.
Vrtel-Wierczyński, Stefan
1953 Kazania gnieźnieńskie [The Gniezno sermons]. Poznań: Poznańskie Towarzystwo Przy-
jaciól Nauk.
Weingart, Miloš
1938 Hlaholské listy Videňské. K dějinám staroslověnskeho misálu [The Vienna Glagolitic
folia. On the history of an old Slavic missal]. Časopis pro moderní filologii 24: 105−
129.
Worończak, Jerzy
1962 Bogurodzica [Mother of God]. Wrocław: Ossolineum.
Zaimov, Jordan and Mario Capaldo
1982−1983 Suprasălski ili Retkov sbornik [The Suprasliensis or Retkov miscellany]. Sofia:
Bălgarska akademija na naukite.
Zaliznjak, Andrej A.
1995 Drevnenovgorodskij dialekt [The Old Novgorod dialect]. Moscow: Škola “Jazyki russkoj
kul’tury”.
Keith Langston, Athens, GA (USA)

Authenticated
1414 XIII. Slavic
81. The phonology of Slavic

1. Introduction 5. Late Common Slavic (LCSl) changes
2. From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Slavic 6. Suprasegmental phonology
3. Early Common Slavic (ECSl) changes 7. Sectional references
4. Middle Common Slavic (MCSl) changes 8. References
1. Introduction
The Slavic (Sl) branch of Indo-European (IE) has three sub-branches − South (SSl),
West (WSl), and East (ESl). SSl has eastern and western divisions. E-SSl comprises
Bulgarian (Bg), Macedonian (Mc), and the Sl dialects of northern Greece; Old Church
Slavonic (OCS, 10th−11th cc.) was E-SSl in its basis. W-SSl comprises Slovenian (Sln)
and pluricentric Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian (BCS; separately Bo, Cr, Sb), also known as
Serbo-Croatian. BCS has three markedly different dialects, each with an old written
tradition: Štokavian (Što), the basis of standard Bo, Cr, and Sb; Kajkavian (Kaj) in
Croatia, historically affiliated with ESln; and Čakavian (Čak) along the Adriatic coast
and in the islands, in a continuum with WSln.
WSl is divided into three zones: southern or Czecho-Slovak (CzSlk); southwestern
or Sorbian (Sorb); and northern or Lechitic (Lech). CzSlk comprises the dialect continu-
um of Cz and Slk. Sorb, bridging CzSlk and Lech, survives in Lusatia (eastern Germa-
ny) − hence the alternative name Lusatian; Upper Sorbian (US) is spoken on the upper
reaches of the Spree River, to the south of Lower (LS). Lech comprises Polish (Po); the
Silesian ethnolect, which converges on Cz; the Pomeranian languages of the Baltic coast;
and Polabian (Pb), spoken west of the Elbe in Hanoverian Wendland until the 18th c.
Within Pomeranian, only Kashubian (Kb, also Cassubian) survives; spoken west of
Gdańsk; it is sometimes presented as a dialect of Po − a tradition spurred by the political
needs of interwar Poland. Slovincian (Slc), in a continuum with Kb, extended west to
the Parsęta River; it died out in the early 20th c. Central Pomeranian dialects, spoken as
far east as the Elbe, succumbed to germanization in the Middle Ages.
The ESl languages are Rusyn, Ukrainian (Uk), Belarusian (BR), and Russian (Ru).
Rusyn (Carpatho-Rusyn or Ruthenian) is spoken in eastern Slovakia and western
Ukraine, and in enclaves in Romania, Serbia, and Croatia, where the dialects show heavy
influence from SSl; in Uk scholarship, as in Soviet-era studies, it is usually presented as
a WUk dialect.
1.1. Common Slavic and its speakers
The reconstructed Sl protolanguage is called Common Slavic (CSl), or sometimes Proto-

Slavic (PSl). The latter term will be reserved here for the starting-point for the CSl
changes (see 2). There is a hoary tradition of presenting CSl as a single coherent, imper-
meable “language”. It is better approached as a permeable dialect continuum in which a
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-002

Authenticated
81. The phonology of Slavic 1415
set of shared changes took place. The time frame of the changes can be called the CSl
period, but it should be kept in mind that its limits are relative and floating; the CSl
changes did not come to a simultaneous end, and some overlapped with changes that
belong to the histories of the individual languages.
For brevity, the term Slavophone will be used to denote ‘speaker of CSl’. This carries
no ethnic implications. In two centuries of debates about the ethnogenesis of the Urhei-
mat of the Slavs, CSl has usually been envisioned as a distinct language from the begin-
ning of the CSl changes; its speakers have usually been essentialized as “Proto-Slavs.”
The discussions have been muddled by nationalism and essentialist notions of ethnic
identity. Scholars have dated the emergence of CSl language, and thus the ethnogenesis
of the Slavs, as early as ca. 1000 BCE and as late as ca. 400 CE. They have placed the
Slavic Urheimat in regions from the Vistula below the Danube, and from the Bohemian
Forest to southwestern Russia − often in their own homelands. Advocates of early emer-
gence have projected “Proto-Slavs” into the Bronze-Age Lusatian culture (before ca. 500
BCE) and laid claim to opaque tribal names in Herodotus (ca. 440 BCE) and an obscure
word in Aristophanes (422 BCE). Proponents of late emergence have assumed that there
was no pre-migration CSl identity because none could be proven; they have even assert-
ed that, in the 6th c., the Slavs were “a nascent ethnos with a newly consolidated lan-
guage” (Lunt 2001: 182). It is not explained how the consolidation took place when the
“nascent ethnos” was already diffused from the Baltic to the Danube and from the Elbe
to the Don.
The autonym *slau̯ɛ:n(isk)- ‘Slav(ic)’ is undoubtedly PSl. In the 6th−7th centuries,
peoples calling themselves *slau̯ɛ:nɛ were settling in quite far-flung regions − Greece,
the eastern Alps, the Carpathian Basin, the Elbe, northwestern Russia. As the various
settlers could not have had direct contacts, their self-designation must have been coined
before the Migration Period. The same is true of their shared exonym for ‘foreigner;
Teuton’ (*nɛ:mika2 s); the fact that this was derived from the adjective *nɛ:m- ‘mute;
jabbering’ shows that the various Slavophone groups distinguished themselves from
others on linguistic grounds − the use of intelligible language. The autonym *slau̯(ɛn)-
continued to be used among the Sl peoples who experienced the most intense language
contacts − the Slavs of Aegean Macedonia (with Greek), the Slovenians (with Italian
and German), the Slovaks (with Hungarian), the Slovincians (with German), and the
early medieval Slovenes of northwestern Russian (with Baltic Finnic [BFi]).
There are clear historical references to Slavophones starting in 6th-c. Byzantine texts,
when the Sclaveni (Σκλαβηνοί, from *slau̯ɛ:nɛ) began raiding, and later settling, in the
imperial territories south of the Danube. Byzantine authors linked the Sclaveni with
tribes called Veneti and Antae, who may also have been Slavophones. There were also
Slavophone Veneti in central Europe, mentioned in 7th−8th-c. Frankish texts: OHG Wini-
da ‘Slavs’; older German windisch ‘Slovenian’, Wenden ‘Sorbs’; cf. Finnish Venäjä
‘Russia’. In the Urheimat debates, the Veneti have been identified with the Venedi of the
Vistula, mentioned by Roman authors in the 1st−4th centuries. Some scholars have gone
further and have identified the Vistula region as the Slavic Urheimat. While Slavophones
may have lived on the Vistula in the 1 st c., there is no certainty that the Venedi were
ancestors of the later Veneti. Elsewhere in Iron Age Europe, a related ethnonym was
used for clearly non-Slavophone peoples, including those who gave their name to Venice;
cf. also Celtic *windo- ‘white’. There are no grounds for concluding that the Vistulan
Venedi had lived there from time immemorial (see 1.1.1), or even that they were a

Authenticated
1416 XIII. Slavic
homogeneous ethnicity. Ethnonyms are often reassigned based on proximity or alliances

rather than ethnolinguistic relatedness: Gmc gut- ‘Goth’ became gùdas ‘Belarusian’ in
Lithuanian (Li); the Turkic ethnonym Bulgar came to denote the East Balkan Slavs by
an elite transfer.
1.1.1. Localization of pre-migration CSl
Judging from shared vocabulary relating to the natural world, pre-migration Slavophones
lived primarily in inland, non-mountainous regions. They did not live close enough to a
sea to develop maritime vocabulary; their word for ‘island’ presupposed currents rather
than tides: *ab- ‘around’ + *srau̯a- ‘flow’. They had shared terms for the aspen, birch,
hornbeam, linden, and maple, all native to the parkland (forested-steppe) zone of Eastern
Europe, but not for the beech, bird-cherry, sorb, sycamore, or larch of central and south-
eastern Europe. Likewise, there was a shared word for the spotted grouse of parkland
environments, but not for the partridge of the steppes. Their alpine vocabulary was
meager. For example, they had no shared term for ‘chamois’; in the attested languages,
the animal is denoted by older ‘roe deer’, by the compound ‘wild goat’, or by Gmc
loanwords.
For negative evidence, pre-migration Slavophones evidently had little or no contact
with Celtic, Italic, or Greek (Gk); there are virtually no CSl loanwords from those lan-
guages, nor are there identifiably Sl names or words in Gk and Latin (La) sources prior
to the 6th c. This rules out pre-migration settlements in the Balkans or the Romanized
zones west of the Black Sea.
For positive evidence, the pre-migration Slavophones had significant contacts with
speakers of Iranian (Irn) languages, as shown, inter alia, by shared semantic innovations:
PIE *nebhos ‘cloud’ → ‘heaven’; *bhag- ‘good lot’ → ‘god’. The Irn ethnonym Spali
(Spalaei) may be the source of a CSl word for ‘giant’ − OCS, OESl spolъ, OESl ispolinъ,
OPo stolin (with the individuative suffix -in-). The Sl ethnonym *xuru̯a:t- ‘Croat’ is of
Irn origin, and *sirb- ‘Serb, Sorb’ may be as well. While the Irn dialects occupied a vast
domain, the Sl-Irn contact zone can be narrowed to the “Scythia” of antiquity (7th c.
BCE−2 nd c. CE), given the absence of CSl borrowings from Finno-Ugrian and the paucity
of CSl loanwords from Turkic.
The pre-migration Slavophones also had significant contacts with Germanic (Gmc).
Among the numerous loanwords are *xu:z- ‘house’ and *kuning- ‘ruler’. Gmc speakers
were the prototypical foreigners; CSl *ti̯ udi̯ - ‘foreign, alien’ is borrowed from the Gmc
autonym (Go þiuda ‘nation’); cf. also *nɛ:mika2 s ‘jabberer; German’ (1.1). The zone of
contact was probably the eastern part of the Northern European Plain and, from the 1 st
c. CE, the plains east of the Carpathians. (In those regions, the Przeworsk [3 rd c. BCE−
5th c. CE] and Wielbark [1st−4th centuries] cultures are thought to have included Gmc
speakers.) Slavophones also borrowed many words of specifically EGmc provenience,
e.g. *kau̯p- ‘buy’ and *xandag- ‘skillful’. The probable zone of contact was north of
the Pontic steppes, where the Cherniakhovo culture (2nd−5th centuries) developed after
southward migrations by EGmc speakers, including the Goths (Go) documented in Ro-
man and Byzantine sources. (Slavophones probably also had extensive contact with Bal-
tic [Ba] speakers in the mixed-forested zone of northeastern Europe, but early Ba loan-

Authenticated
words are difficult to identify because of the structural similarities between PSl and PBa
[see 2].)
The reconstructed vocabulary relating to the natural world and the evidence from
early loanwords both suggest that the pre-migration Slavophones inhabited the parklands
(forested steppe) in present-day central and northern Ukraine and southern Belarus, per-
haps extending in the west to the outer foothills of the Carpathians (now Ukraine and
Romania) and to the plains of eastern Poland. This localization triangulates with evi-
dence from reconstructed river names. In the middle Dnieper region, south of the tribu-
tary Pripiat’, the old hydronyms are predominantly CSl in origin, e.g. Berezina (PSl
*bɛrz- ‘birch’), Desna (PSl *dɛsn- ‘right’). To the north, in the forested belt, most of
the major river names have etymologies that are transparent in Ba but not in Sl, e.g.
Neman and Polota. To the northwest, in Poland, many of the hydronyms originated in
other IE dialects, e.g. Wisła (Vistula), Narew, and San. In the south and east, in the
steppes, the major rivers have etymologies that are transparent in Irn but not in Sl − e.g.
Dniester, Dnieper, Donets, and Don, all formed from Irn *danu- ‘river’.
1.1.2. CSl during the Migration Period
Slavophones spread to the outer foothills of the Carpathians in incremental waves of

advance, probably along right tributaries of the Dnieper. By the late 5th c., the CSl
linguistic domain ranged to the Danube in the south and to the Vistula, if not further, in
the northwest. The expansion of the Slavophone zone was certainly due in large part to
migrations; however, it may have also been promoted by acculturations, with CSl adopt-
ed as a lingua franca by peoples from other ethnolinguistic traditions. The migration of
Slavophones seems to have proceeded hand in hand with the spread of the Korchak
archaeological culture (first attested ca. mid-6th c. in present-day central Ukraine), which
Heather (2011: 448−449) has interpreted as “a pared-down” material culture suitable for
migration.
In the 5th−6th centuries, Slavophones advanced westward into southeastern Europe
along the Danube and its tributaries. The Sclaveni first appear in 6th-c. Byzantine sources,
which record their raids south of the Danube beginning in the reign of Justin I (518−
526). In the 530s−550s, they were migrating along the Sava and Drava rivers into the
Byzantine provinces of Pannonia and Dalmatia, as far as the Adriatic coast. By 600,
they had moved northwest into the Eastern Alps, where they threatened the Lombards
in northeastern Italy, and northward into the southern Pannonian Plain. It was in these
regions that the W-SSl dialect zone crystallized.
By the mid-6th c., Sclaveni migrating from the north overwhelmed the Byzantine
frontier on the Danube and began settling in the central and eastern Balkans; as of 581,
they were established in peninsular Greece as far south as the Peloponnesus. These were
the regions where the E-SSl dialect zone crystallized, converging with W-SSl in the
central Balkans. Only coastal regions and some inland garrisons remained under Byzan-
tine control. Some of the Slavs became imperial federates. There was no exodus of the
Gk- and Rom-speakers of the region; undoubtedly, there was extensive language contact,
and probably language shifts from Gk or Rom to Sl and vice versa. To this day, there
are still many speakers of E-SSl dialects in continental Greece (Aegean Macedonia). In

Authenticated
1418 XIII. Slavic
peninsular Greece, the Slavophones were gradually hellenized after the empire regained
control of the region (ca. 800); unassimilated Slavophones (Milingoi and Ezeritai) still
lived in the southern Peloponnesus in the 14th c.
In 679, the Turkic-speaking Bulgars invaded the eastern Balkans. In the late 7th−early
th
9 centuries, they established control over much of the region, including a large Slavo-
phone population. By the mid-9th c., the Bulgars had become slavicized in language and
culture, while the Slavophones in their domains had become identified as Bulgar(ian)s.
The Sl movements into East Central Europe are not as well documented. According
to Procopius (died ca. 560), when the Gmc Herulians migrated from the western Danube
to Denmark (508−514), the territories that they crossed were all in the hands of the
Sclaveni. If true, this indicates that Slavophones had settled in the basins of the Vltava
(Moldau) and the Elbe during the 5th c., if not earlier. There they came into contact with
residual Gmc groups, who over time acculturated to the new residents. Some Slavophone
migrations into the Carpathian Basin had proceeded westward through passes; others
came north from the Danube and the southern foothills of the Carpathians. (These migra-
tions have been linked with the westward spread of Korchak-type cultures.) P-CzSlk
crystallized in the inner foothills of the Western Carpathians; in the Pannonian Plain, it
converged with P-W-SSl to form a continuum that endured until the early 10th-c. entry
of the Magyars into the Puszta (LCSl1 *pust- ‘empty’).
In the 560s, the Avars, nomads with roots in Central Asia, established themselves
north of the Danube. Their ferocity made such an impression on the Slavophones of the
region that their ethnonym *abr- came to mean ‘giant’: Sln ober, Slk obor, OCz ober,
US hob(je)r, OPo obrzym. The Avar migration occasioned population shifts in the Carpa-
thian Basin; some Slavophone groups migrated as federates, and others as refugees.
Evidently, P-Sorb crystallized as a result of westward migrations; judging from lexical
evidence, it originally had stronger affiliations with P-SSl and P-ESl than with P-WSl.
Indeed, the ethnonyms ‘Sorb’ and ‘Serb’ have the same origin. Byzantine sources of the
8th−10th centuries mention “White Croats” in the northern reaches of the Carpathian
Basin; Constantine VII (ca. 940) relates a tradition that the Croats and Serbs emigrated
from “White Croatia” and the otherwise undocumented “White Serbia” to Dalmatia,
where they were granted lands by Heraclius (reigned 610−641). This suggests an elite
transfer rather than a mass migration: the incomers adapted to the P-SSl dialects already
established in the region, whose speakers adopted the ethnonyms of the newcomers.
Other Slavophones migrated in waves of advance across the Northern European Plain,
probably in the wake of the Gmc westward migrations (4th−6th centuries). The Preze-
worsk archaeological culture, thought to be predominantly Gmc in language, disappeared
by the early 5th c.; thereafter, the Korchak-like Mogiła (early 6th c.) and Prague (later
6th c.) cultures began to spread to the west, while a somewhat distinct culture, termed
Sukow-Dziedzice, emerged in the plains (later 6th c.); the latter may reflect interactions
between new settlers and residual peoples. Some of the Slavophone migrants passed into
the Carpathian Basin (see above); others moved along the outer foothills of the Carpathi-
ans and northward along river systems as far west as the Elbe (north of the confluence
with the Havel). This was the region in which the P-Lech dialects crystallized. The
presence of Slavic dialects between the Elbe and the Oder is well documented in medie-
val sources; while they eventually succumbed to the Ostsiedlung, they left numerous
traces in the surnames and toponyms of eastern Germany, e.g. Lübeck (‘lovely’), Rostock
(‘outward-flow’), Ribnitz (‘fishery’), Dresden (‘riverside forest’), and Leipzig (‘linden’).

Authenticated
There was a convergent wave of P-Sorb settlement from the south, which reached the
Elbe and Saale.
There is no early documentation for the migrations of P-ESl speakers, but there is
archaeological evidence that shows population movements eastward and northward from
the Dnieper Basin in the 6th−8th centuries. It can be assumed that Slavophones moved
gradually into Belarus and southwestern European Russia along the northern Dnieper
and its tributaries. To the south, the Penkovka culture, similar to the Korchak, formed
by the mid-6th c. and spread to the mid-Don basin in the 7th c. This has been connected
with Slavophone migrations into eastern Ukraine and southwestern Russia. Successor
cultures reached the mid-Volga in the 8th−9th centuries. There were undoubtedly Slavo-
phones among the settlers; this is indicated by the fact that the northeastern OESl dia-
lects, concentrated in the Oka River basin and adjacent parts of the northern Volga (the
Rostov-Suzdal’ region), had more in common with Kievan OESl than with the Novgoro-
dian (Novg) dialect to their northwest. The latter developed as Slavophones migrated
along the northern Dnieper and the Lovat’ (ca. 7th−8th centuries). The territories that
they settled were inhabited by Ba and BFi speakers, with whom they had intense lan-
guage contact. By the 9th c., P-Novg crystallized on Lake Il’men’, the northern limit of
the Lovat’, near the headwaters of the Volga. Later, there were additional waves of
migration into northern Russia and down the Volga, which ultimately converged with
the post-Penkovka settlements.
1.2. Early Slavic writing
Slavophone writing began with Cyril and Methodius’ translations into OCS. Based on
the E-SSl dialect spoken near Thessaloniki, OCS was first used in areas of CzSlk and
Sln settlements (860s−885); fragments of OCS with Moravian (Cz) features, the Kiev
Folia, have survived from the 10th c. By the 890s, OCS was established as the written
language of the Bulgarian Kingdom (central and eastern Balkans); the main manuscripts
date from the 10th−11th centuries. Later, the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition spread to other
Eastern-rite lands, where it evolved into the regional varieties (“recensions”) of Church
Slavonic (ChSl). Sb-ChSl inscriptions are known from the late 10th−11th c., and ESl-ChSl
texts from the early 11th c. The Cyrillo-Methodian written language spread separately to
Western-rite Croatia in the late 9th c.; the oldest attested Cr-ChSl texts date from the
10th−early 11th c. (During the Renaissance, a new tradition of vernacular writing devel-
oped in Croatia under Italian influence.)
In Western-rite regions, vernacular literacy was slower to take root because of the
use of La. Apart from the OSln Freising Fragments (later 10th-c.), vernacular Sl writing
in the La alphabet is first attested in autonomous states − Bohemia (OCz, from the 13th
c.) and Poland (OPo, from the 14th c.). For the stateless languages, enduring traditions
of writing began with the Reformation, in the late 16th c. (Sln, Sorb, Kb, and Slc) or
17th c. (Slk). Pb never had a written tradition; its dying breaths were recorded by anti-
quarians in the 18th c.

Authenticated
1420 XIII. Slavic
1.3. Citation conventions
1.3.1. Correspondence sets
When possible, the sets include data from SSl, ESl, CzSlk, and Lech, preferably from
the languages of oldest attestation − OCS, OESl, OCz, and OPo. Cyrillic and Glagolitic
are romanized according to the ISO 1995 standards for Cyrillic, except for the following.
(a) Cyrillic «х» → h for Mc and Sb; x for Bg and ESl. (b) «W, є/ѥ, ю» → a, e, u after
«C», but ja, je, ju initially and after «V». (c) «ѧ/ѩ» → OCS ę, OESl ja after «C», but
OCS ję, OESl ja initially and after «V». (d) «ѭ» → OCS ǫ, OESl u after «C», but OCS
jǫ, OESl ju initially and after «V». (e) «ѣ» = OCS, OESl ě, jě after «C»; OCS ja, OESl
jě initially and after «V» (see also 5.2.1). (f) OCS and OESl palatalized sonorants → r j,
n j, l j (not rj, nj, lj).
1.3.2. Reconstructed Sl forms
Sl etymological dictionaries use an anachronistic transcription for vowels, based on OCS:

i, ь, y, ъ, ě, e, a, o for *i:, *i, *u:, *u, *e:, *e, *a:, *a (see 5.1). They transcribe consonants
at various stages of development; hence many of the reconstructed lemmas are chimeri-
cal, with vocalism and consonantism that never coexisted. To avoid this problem, the
present work uses IPA transcription, with the caveat that the phonetic values are approxi-
mative. The Slavistic transcription conventions are mentioned when they differ from the
IPA. The symbols c and y, which in IPA transcribe the voiceless palatal stop and close
front rounded vowel, represent the voiceless dental affricate ts and close central vowel ɨ
in the Slavistic tradition. To avoid confusion, c̟ is used for IPA c and ü for IPA y.
Intonations are only reconstructed when suprasegmental phonology is discussed specifi-
cally (2.2, 4.9, and 6−6.4.4).
1.3.3. Glosses
Words are not grammatically glossed if cited in their lemma forms − INF for verbs;
NOM.SG for nouns; M.NOM.SG for adjectival pronouns; and M.NOM.SG.INDEF for adjec-
tives in SSl and ESl, but DEF for WSl, where short-forms are rare. Non-lemma forms
are glossed by the Leipzig rules; singular number is not glossed. The participles are
abbreviated: PRAP = present active; PRPP = present passive; PAP = past active; PPP = past
passive; and RES = resultative.
1.3.4. Slavic verbal classes
Slavic verbal classes are labeled by the Leskien ([1871] 1962) system. Roman numerals
refer to the PreSl themes: I = *e/o, II = *ne/no; III = *i̯ e/i̯ o (IIIa = Ø, IIIb = *a:); IV =
*ei̯ (IVa = *i:, IVb = *e:, IVc = *a:); V = athematic. Lower-case letters refer to the

Authenticated
infinitive classifiers: a = Ø (I and III) or *i: (IV); b = *a: (I, III) or *e: (IV); c = *a:
(IV).
1.4. Symbols and Abbreviations

> precedes Kb Kashubian
< follows L- Late
→ actualized as La Latin
⥬ borrowed as Lech Lechitic
0 reanalyzed as Li Lithuanian
†
dialect LS Lower Sorbian
!
irregular outcome Ltv Latvian
¶
different ending M- Middle
÷
normalized Mc Macedonian
«X» grapheme X N- North(ern)
AP accent paradigm Novg Novgorodian
Ba Baltic O- Old
BCS Bo-Cr-Sb (see fllg.) OCS Old Church Slavonic
BFi Baltic Finnic OHG Old High German
Bg Bulgarian OI Old Indic
Bo Bosnian OPr Old Prussian
BR Belarusian P- Proto-
C- Common Pb Polabian
Čak Čakavian BCS Po Polish
Cen Central QD see 5.1
ChSl Church Slavonic Rom Romance
Cr Croatian Ru Russian
Cz Czech S- South(ern)
DIM diminutive Sb Serbian
E- Early; East(ern) Sl Slavic
Ek Ekavian BCS Slc Slovincian
Gmc Germanic SLG Slavic Lengthened Grade
Go Gothic Slk Slovak
IE Indo-European Sln Slovene
Ik Ikavian BCS Sorb Sorbian
In Indic Što Štokavian BCS
I-Irn Indo-Iranian Uk Ukrainian
Irn Iranian US Upper Sorbian
Jek Jekavian BCS VG Vocalized Grade
Kaj Kajkavian BCS W- West(ern)

Authenticated
1422 XIII. Slavic
2. From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Slavic

The term Proto-Slavic (PSl) refers to the starting-point for the CSl changes not shared
by other IE dialects − the deepest linguistic system that can be established by compara-
tive and internal reconstruction using exclusively Sl data. The individual items thus
reconstructed may have various depths in real time. Using correspondences between Sl
and other IE languages, an earlier layer of Pre-Slavic (PreSl) changes can be established.
These were shared with neighboring PIE dialects, and especially with Baltic (Ba). Ba
and Sl are linked by major phonological, morphological, prosodic (see 6), and lexical
innovations; indeed, many scholars posit a common Balto-Slavic (BaSl) branch or clade.
However, it is unclear that Ba and Sl had severed their ties to other PIE dialects during
the period of their common developments; the changes that they share may have hap-
pened in a zone of convergence rather than a “branch” or “clade” that had conclusively
diverged from the neighboring dialects.
2.1. Reflexes of the PIE vowels and glides
The 2 x 2 x 1 vowel system of PIE evolved into a 2 x 2 system in PSl, with close *i(:),
*u(:) and open *ɛ(:), *a(:). (For the LCSl1 values, see 5.1) There were also up to 36
falling diphthongs composed of vowels plus tautosyllabic glides and sonorants. Two
features of this system differentiated PSl from the neighboring IE dialects. First, *o(:)
and *a(:) had merged as open unrounded *a(:) (1). Second, (near-)open front *ɛ(:) re-
mained distinct from *a(:) (2).
PreSl PSl LCSl1 OCS OESl OCz OPo Gloss

w
(1) *ok os *akas *ɔkɔ oko oko oko oko ‘eye’
*ak̑sis *asis *ɔsɪ MBg osь os oś ‘axle’
osь
*tu̯o:ris *tu̯a:ris *tvarɪ tvarь tvarь tvář twarz ‘creature’
*ma:term̥ *ma:tɛrim *matɛrɪ materь materь mateř macierz ‘mother
(ACC)’
(2) *bhereti *bɛrɛti *bɛrɛtɪ beretъ beretь beře bierze ‘take
(PRS.3SG)’
*u̯erHeH2 *u̯ɛ:ra: *væra věra věra viera wiara ‘faith’
In Ba, by contrast, PIE *o and *a merged as *a rather than *o, and *o: and *a: remained
distinct; in Indo-Iranian (I-Irn), *o(:), *e(:), and *a(:) merged as *a(:). The PSl vowel
system can thus be viewed as transitional between Ba and I-Irn. It has been argued
influentially (Ivanov and Toporov 1958) that the PSl vowel system originated in the Ba
model of four short and five long vowels (*a:, *e|*e:, *o|*o:, *i|*i:, *u|*u:). This is mere
conjecture in the absence of evidence that the merger of *o and *a preceded that of *o:
and *a:.

Authenticated
The PIE glides *i̯ and *u̯ (or *y and *w) persisted in PSl both as consonants and as
part of falling diphthongs. In CSl, they were lost after consonants (3.2, 3.6, 3.7) and in
codas (4.1). Where they have persisted (3), they are transcribed j (3) and v (4) in the
attested languages.
PreSl PSl LCSl1 OCS OESl OCz OPo Gloss

(3) *i̯ a:ros *i̯ a:ra2s *jarъ jarъ jarъ jako jary ‘vernal;
warm’
(4) *u̯oi̯ de:te:i̯ *u̯ai̯ dɛ:tεi̯ *vædæti věděti věděti věděti wiedzieć ‘know’
2.1.1. Irregular outcomes
In some twenty lexemes, PIE initial *e is reflected as PSl *a, sometimes with *ɛ dou-
blets (1). A parallel variation occurs in Ba dialects. According to Andersen (1996), the
back reflexes arose not by sound change but by contact with an unattested IE dialect,
then spread by cross-migrations − hence their sporadic distribution. There are more *a
outcomes in ESl because P-ESl dialects had more intensive contacts with the donor
language. (In earlier studies, the change was treated as a LCSl1 change of *ɛ > *o in
ESl only. This failed to account for the *a variants in SSl and WSl and for the *ɛ variants
in ESl.)
Other instances of *a for PreSl *e (2) are due to a posited change of *ɛ >
*a/__u̯V[+back]. If this was a regular sound change, its regularity has been much obscured
by leveling (3).
The PreSl sequence *ei̯ e was reflected as PSl *ii̯ ɛ (4). PreSl *e:i̯ e developed as ex-
pected to PSl *ɛ:i̯ ɛ.
PreSl PSl OCS Bg Sln OESl OCz OPo Gloss

(1) *edske *ɛskɛ ješte ešte ešče ješče ješče jeszcze ‘more,
still’
†
*askɛ ošte jošče ošče oszcze
(2) *k̑leu̯os *slau̯as slovo slovo slovȏ slovo slovo słowo ‘word’
j
*deu̯entis *dɛu̯ɛntis devętь devet deve˛̑t dev atь devět dziewięć ‘nine’
(3) *reu̯ants *rɛu̯ants revy revy řeva ‘bellow
(PRAP)’
(4) *trei̯ es *trii̯ ɛs trьjе trijẹ̑ trьjе třie trzé ‘three (M)’
(5) *dheHi̯ eti *dɛ: i̯ ɛti dějetъ dẹ̑je dějetь děje dzieje ‘do
(PRS.3SG)’

Authenticated
1424 XIII. Slavic
2.2. Reflexes of the PIE laryngeals
In PreSl, the PIE laryngeals became *a between consonants in initial syllables (1). They
were lost in other positions (2), but they left their traces on the neighboring syllabic
segments. Vowels, syllabic sonorants, and diphthongs were lengthened before laryngeals
(3) and developed a phonological property /+acute/ (˶̲), which eventually became a CSl
tone (see 6.1, 6.3.1). In addition, the laryngeals “colored” (affected the quality of) adja-
cent vowels in PreSl, as in other IE dialects: PIE *e was centralized to *a (4) before or
after *H2, and backed and rounded to *o before or after *H3 (5). In the first instance in
each case the vowel was lengthened, appearing as PSl *a:; in the second instance both
short reflexes merged as *a in PSl (see 2.1).
PreSl PSl OCS OESl OCz OPo Gloss

(1) *spH2ros *spara2s Bg spor sporъ sporý spory ‘plentiful’;
Bg ‘plenty’
(2) *dhugH2term̥ *duktɛrim dъšterь dъčerь dceř (córę) ‘daughter’
*H1esmi *ɛsmi (j)esmь jesmь jsem jeśm ‘be
(PRS.1SG)’
*H3nogheH2 *naga̋: noga noga noha noga ‘foot; leg’
(3) *dhuH2mo- *dű:ma2s dymъ dymъ dým dym ‘smoke’
*pr̥ H3u̯os *pı̋:ru̯a2s prъvъ pьrvъ prv pirzwy ‘first’
*bholHto- *ba̋:ltad blato bolo̍to bláto bƚoto ‘swamp’
(4) *steH2te:i̯ *sta̋:tɛ̋:i̯ stati stati státi stać ‘stand’
*H2er- *ar- orǫštь orati orati orać ‘plow’; OCS
PRAP
(5) *deH3te:i̯ *da̋:tɛ̋:i̯ dati dati dati dać ‘give’

*H3eu̯ikeH2 *au̯ika̋: ovьca ovьca ovce owca ‘sheep’
The PSl column in the table includes acuted trimoraic glide and sonorant diphthongs. It
has been hypothesized that the vocalic nuclei in such diphthongs were shortened at an
early stage, perhaps as a shared BaSl development. While there is certainly no way to
distinguish internal V:R, V:I̯ from VR, VI̯ , apart from the acute, in final syllables V:R
and VR had different outcomes (see 3.1.3−3.1.4). For present purposes, I will assume
that trimoraic diphthongs shortened, but I will indicate long vowels in the final syllables
that had distinct outcomes. (Orr [2000: 36] argues that trimoraic shortening was blocked
in final syllables to maintain morphological distinctions. Feldstein [2003: 256−257]
claims that the sonorants or glides were not moraic, i.e. parts of diphthongs, until after
the vowels shortened. Jasanoff [2004a: 250] posits that non-laryngeal long vowels in
final syllables became trimoraic.)

Authenticated
2.3. Reflexes of the PIE sonorants
In PIE, the sonorants *r, *l, *m, and *n were non-syllabic next to a vowel, and syllabic
elsewhere. In PSl, the non-syllabic sonorants were preserved without change (1). By
contrast, the PIE syllabic sonorants were replaced by vowel-sonorant sequences in PSl,
as in PBa. The standard account of this development posits anaptyxis: close vowels were
inserted, so that the sonorants ceased to be the syllable nuclei. The anaptyctic vowel
could be *i (2−4) or *u (*5−7); the same root can be attested with either vowel (8). (On
the LCSl reflexes, see 5.6)

(1) *ma:teres *ma:tɛrɛs matere matere mateře macierze ‘mother
(GEN)’
*le:n(ei̯ u̯)os *lɛ:n(ɛi̯ u̯)a2s lěn(iv)ъ lěnivъ léný leny ‘lazy’
(2) *tr̥ pe:te::i̯ *tirpɛ:tεi̯ trъpěti tьrpě trpěti cirpieć ‘endure’
*k̑r̥ dika- *si:rdikad srъdьce sьrdьce srdce si(e)rce ‘heart’
w
*k r̥ nos *kirna2s črъnъ čьrnъ č(e)rný czarny ‘black’
w
(3) *u̯l̥ k os *u̯ilka2s vlъkъ vъlkъ vlk wilk ‘wolf’
*ghl̥ tos *gilta2s OSb žьltъi žlutý żołty ‘yellow’
žlьtyi
*gwl̥ HneH2 *gilna: Bg žŭlna Ru žluna żołna ‘woodpecker’
želna
(4) *dek̑m̥tos *dɛsimta2s desętъi des jatъ desáty dziesiąty ‘tenth’
*n̥me:n *inmɛ:n imę im ja jmě jimię ‘name’
(5) *r̥ ke:te:i̯ *urkɛ:tεi̯ Bg vrŭča vъrčati vrčeti warczeć ‘grumble; be
noisy’
*bhr̥ g̑(h)o- *burza2s brъzo bъrzo brzo barzo ‘swiftly; very’
*gwhr̥ nik- *gurnik- gъrnьčarь gъrnьcь hrnec garniec ‘pot’; OCS
‘potter’
(6) *ml̥ u̯eH2 *mulu̯a: mlъva mъlva mluva mołwa ‘noise;
speech’
*stl̥ pos *stulpa2s stlъpъ stъlpъ stlup słup ‘pillar’
j j
(7) *n̥ *un vъ(n -) vъ(n -) v(ň-) w(ń-) ‘in(to)’
(8) *skr̥ bhei̯ neH2 *skirbɛi̯ n a: OSb ščьrbina ščrbina szczyr- ‘shard; dam-
štrьbina bina age’
*skr̥ bh- *skurb- skrъbь skъrbь skrbiti skarb ‘grief’; OCz
‘amass’
As shown in the table, the *iR and *uR reflexes could appear in the same environments.
Overall, roots with *iR are much more common than those with *uR. In Shevelov’s

Authenticated
1426 XIII. Slavic
(1965: 87−90) sample of 86 Sl roots, the only environment where *uR outnumbered *iR
was after velars (19 out of 33 roots); after labials, *uR occurred in 10 out of 34 roots,
and after dentals in only 3 out of 15. In Andersen’s (2003: 60) sample of 215 lexemes
shared by Ba and Sl, *iR is the outcome in 73 %, and *uR in 17 %. Of the remaining
10 %, some show *iR reflexes in Sl but *uR in Ba or vice versa; others have outcomes
of both kinds in Sl and/or in Ba.
2.3.1. Phonological explanations
There have been many attempts to explain the twofold outcomes by regular sound
change. It has been argued that the *uR outcomes were regular after velars or in low-
tonality environments (K__, P__K). These claims fail to account for doublets from the
same root or for exceptions like *u̯l̥ kwos, *ghl̥ tos (3). Alternatively, it has been posited
that *uR was regular only after labiovelars (see 2.4.2), which remained distinct from
velars until “Late BaSl.” This is dubious; the fact that labiovelars and velars merged in
all satem dialects points to an earlier stage of PIE. Again, there are exceptions, e.g.
*kwr̥nos (2), *gwl̥ HneH2 (3).
Matasović (2004) argues that the BaSl syllable sonorants did not have a single uni-
form reflex; the outcomes differed according to manner of articulation and their position
in the word. In initial syllables, the regular reflexes were *ir; *ul after velars and *il
elsewhere; and *un and *um. In non-initial syllables, the only regular reflex was *iR.
Matasović explains the numerous exceptions either as affective formations or as analogi-
cal extensions of *i based on ablaut patterns (ibid.: 351). However, as Kortlandt (2007)
observes, some of the supposed extensions of *i occur in roots without known ablaut
variation.
Some scholars posit that *iR was the only regular reflex. They plausibly explain some
of the *uR outcomes as phonaesthetic in origin, e.g., *r̥ke:te:i̯ (5), *ml̥ u̯eH2 (6), and
several other evidently onomatopoetic words, where *u conveyed low-frequency noises.
Other instances of *uR arose by analogy to the o-grade, e.g. gwhr̥nik- (5) under the
influence of *gwor-, *gwo:r. Still others entered in borrowings, typically from Gmc.
Some of the lexemes with *uR were undoubtedly borrowed: Gmc *fulka- ⥬ *pulka2 s
‘armed troop’ (with sound substitution), OESl pъlkъ, OPo pułk; Gmc *hulma- (with the
Grimm’s Law reflex of PIE *k) ⥬ *xulma2 s ‘hill’, OESl xъlmъ, OPo Chełm. The fact
that there are no instances of *uR after palatovelars, which cannot have been borrowed
from Gmc, has also been cited as evidence, but the eligible roots are too few to permit
any generalizations. PSl *suta- ‘hundred’ (OCS, OESl sъto, OCz, OPo sto) would be a
counterexample if it directly reflects PIE *dk̑m̥to-; the loss of the nasal would also be
irregular. For this reason, the word has sometimes been treated as a borrowing from Irn;
cf. Avestan satǝm. It has also been proposed that it goes back to *dk̑uto-, reflecting the
zero grade of a putative PIE *dek̑u- ‘ten’.
2.3.2. Language contact
Andersen (1996: 107; idem 2003: 60−62) argues that the *uR outcomes arose by contact
with IE dialects where it was the regular outcome; this explains why it did not occur

Authenticated
after assibilated palatovelar reflexes, in grammatical morphemes, or in “productive ablaut

alternations” (Anderson 2003: 60, following Stang 1966: 79). Once the borrowings were
assimilated, *uR became available to replace *iR in expressiva and in onomatopoeia
denoting low-pitched or indistinct sounds (Anderson 2003: 61−62). This explanation is
more cogent than the attempts to define the *iR/*uR split by regular sound change.
However, it may not explain all of the *uR outcomes − notably, the preposition *un
‘in(to)’. Moreover, the claim that *uR did not occur in grammatical morphemes is open
to question: OCS sigmatic AOR.1SG -sъ, -xъ can be reconstructed as *s-um < *-s-m̥, the
ending reflected in Gk -sa; there is no evidence that it was ever *s-im, pace Andersen
(2013: 26−27). Also debatable is the notion that *um did not participate in productive
ablaut. For PSl *gurn- (5) from PIE *gwhr̥- (10), all of the other grades are attested: *gr-,
OESl grěti ‘to warm’); *ger-, OESl žeravъ ‘heated’; *ge:r-, OESl žarъ ‘heat’; *gor-,
OESl gorěti ‘be burning’; and *go:r-, OESl razgarati s ja ‘be burning hotter [IPFV]’.
2.3.3. Perceptual ambiguity of syllabic sonorants
A more flexible approach would be to emphasize perceptual innovations rather than

sound change proper. Cross-linguistically, syllabic sonorant phonemes are often realized
with ultrashort vowels in their opening or closing phases: /R̥/ → [R̥]~[ǝR̥]~[R̥ǝ]. Assum-
ing that this kind of variation occurred in PreSl, the resulting ambiguity would have
permitted innovative language learners to reanalyze the sonorant phase as the coda of a
diphthong: [ǝR̥] 0 /VR/ → [ǝR]~[R̥]. The mechanism of the change would thus be
phonemic reanalysis rather than actual anaptyxis (vowel-insertion). While the innovative
learners could, in principle, have intuited that the vowel before the sonorant was a dis-
tinct phoneme /ǝ/, there was no supporting evidence for such a phoneme in other con-
texts. Thus they would be more likely to assign it to the adjacent vowels − to /i/, to /u/,
or to both, on a lexeme-by-lexeme basis. Neither /i/ nor /u/ had occurred before sonorant-
consonant sequences prior to the innovation, so there were no counterexamples to hinder
the innovative learners from abducing that one or both had centralized allophones.
This scenario explains how *iR and *uR outcomes could both develop in the same
speech community, and even in the same idiolect. It also salvages the distributional
patterns noted by previous scholars: whether the innovative speakers perceived [ǝ] as /i/
or /u/ could indeed be influenced by the adjacent consonants, but without the consistency
of results expected in blind sound change. The innovative learners could also have been
motivated by other factors suggested by previous scholars, including phonaesthetic asso-
ciations; other ablaut grades of the same roots; semantic connections, e.g. sigmatic
AOR.1SG *sm ̥ 0 *-sum under the influence of the back vowels in the root AOR.1SG
*-om and PRS.1SG *-o:m; and substratum or adstratum input.
Given that the innovative speakers had internalized /V[+high]R/ rather than /R̥/, they
would be likely to implement [V[+high]R] more frequently than other possible realizations:
/iR/ → [iR] (~ [ǝR]~[R̥]); /uR/ → [uR] (~ [ǝR]~[R̥]). (The phonetic symbols are purely
relational here; the output of /iR/ could have been [ɪR], [ïR], etc., without altering the
essential point.) The innovations would have mostly passed unnoticed by conservative
speakers because of phonetic proximity; their own schwas probably varied, under the
influence of the adjacent sounds, in the continua from near-back to near-front and from
near-close to mid, if the realization of syllabic sonorants in living languages is any guide.
Moreover, because their grammars lacked underlying /V[+high]R/, the conservative speak-

Authenticated
1428 XIII. Slavic
ers would tend not to perceive forms with [V[+high]R] as grammatical mistakes. New
learners would have been more likely to acquire /V[+high]R/ instead of /R̥/ because of the
increased frequency of [V[+high]R] input from the innovative speakers. Over time, the
variations within the speech community would have been sorted out by normal processes
of social accommodation. This need not have had homogeneous results; it could have led
to the relatively random distribution of *iR and *uR reflexes that we actually see.
2.4. Reflexes of the PIE stops
In PIE, stops came in voiceless, voiced, and voiced aspirate phonations and in labial,
dental, palatovelar, velar, and labiovelar articulations. The PSl inventory was much smaller,
with voiceless and voiced phonations and labial, dental, and velar articulations. Three
changes transformed the PIE 3 x 5 system into the PSl 2 x 3: loss of aspiration (2.4.1);
delabialization of labiovelars (2.4.2); and assibilation of the palatovelars (2.4.3).
Some scholars posit a radically different reconstruction of the PIE stops, with ejective
or glottalized stops for the voiced unaspirated series traditionally reconstructed. This
“Glottalic Theory” is a lynchpin of some approaches to BaSl accentology (see 6.3.3).
The present account assumes the traditional reconstruction as the one best in accord with
the Comparative Method. If PIE had ejectives, it could only have been at a very early
stage, given the uniformly voiced, pulmonic reflexes in Sl, Ba, Indo-Iranian, Albanian,
Gk, Italic, and Celtic.
2.4.1. Loss of aspiration
In PSl, as in Irn, PBa, and Albanian, the voiced aspirate stops lost their distinctive
phonation feature and merged with the voiced series: Dh > D (1). The non-aspirated
voiceless (2) and voiced stops (3) remained stable.

(1) *bhra:ter- *bra:tra2s brat(r)ъ brat(r)ъ bratr brat ‘brother’:
*dhuH2mos *du:ma2s dymъ dymъ dým dym ‘smoke’
*ghostis *gastis gostь gostь host gość ‘guest;
foreigner’
(2) *prok̑- *prasi:tεi̯ prositi prositi prositi prosić ‘ask for’
*trei̯ (e)s *trεi̯ s tri tri tři trzy ‘three’
*koseH2 *kasa: MBg kosa kosa kosa kosa ‘braid’
(3) *bamb- *bambina2s MBg bubьnъ buben bęben ‘drum’;
bǫbьnъ OPo ‘belly’
*duu̯o:(u) *dŭu̯a: dъva dъva dva dwa ‘two’
*i̯ ugo- *i̯ ugad igo igo jho Po igo ‘yoke’

Authenticated
2.4.2. Delabialization of the labiovelars
Like neighboring Indo-Iranian and PBa, PSl was a satem dialect, in which the PIE
labiovelars merged with the plain velars: Kw > K (1).

w
(1) *k oter- *kater- koter- koter- k(o)ter- ktor- ‘which’
w
*g ou̯ino- *gau̯ina- OSb govьno hovno gowno ‘feces’
govьno
*gwhor- *garɛ:tεi̯ gorěti gorěti hořeti gorzeć ‘burn’
2.4.3. Assibilation of the palatovelars
In the satem division of PIE, the reflexes of the palatovelars remained distinct from
those of the velars. In PreSl, *k̑ > *s, and *g̑(h) > *z. Thus the reflex of *ḱ merged with
the non-dorsal (non-RUKI) allophones of *s (1) (see 2.5). In PIE, *z had only existed
as an allophone of *s before voiced obstruents; in PSl, it became a distinct and wide-
spread phoneme due to the assibilation of *g̑(h) (2).

(1) *k̑eHu̯eros *sɛ:u̯ɛra2s sěverъ sěverъ sěver siewier ‘north’; OCz
‘spring’
*a:k̑rembhos *a:sremba2s OSb jastr jabъ jastřáb jastrząb ‘goshawk’
jastrěbъ
*k̑luHsa:te:i̯ *slu:xɛ:tεi̯ slyšati slyšati slyšěti sƚyszeć ‘hear’
(2) *g̑ombhos *zamba2s zǫbъ zub zub ząb ‘tooth’
*g̑neH3te:i̯ *zna:tεi̯ znati znati znati znać ‘know’
*g̑hei̯ meH2 *zεi̯ ma: zima zima zima zima ‘winter’
Presumably, in the satem dialects, the palatovelars developed into affricates with dorsal
frication; then they lost their closure to become hushers: *k̑ > *tʃ > ʃ. The husher stage
is attested in OI and non-sigmatic EBa: *dk̑́m̥to- > OI śatám, Li šim̑tas ‘hundred’. Subse-
quently, in the more central zone, the hushers became sibilants: *k̑ > *tʃ > *ʃ > *s:
Avestan satǝm, Ltv sìmts ‘hundred’, OPr tu:simtons ‘thousands (ACC.PL )’, OCS sъto
(*dk̑uto-). (Lunt [2001: 193] posits a different process : *k̑ > *ts > *s, *g̑ > *dz >* z.)
In Sl, at least 40 roots have plain velars for the PIE palatovelars instead of expected
*s, *z (3). In some cases, the same roots show both sibilant and velar outcomes (4−5).
This phenomenon, termed Gutturalwechsel, also occurs in Ba, often in the same roots
as in Sl: OLtv sirna, OPr sirvis ‘deer’, but Li kárvė ‘cow’ (4); Ltv zelts ‘gold’, but Li
gel̃tas ‘yellow’ (5). Li žąsìs ‘goose’ has the expected palatovelar development where Sl
shows Gutturalwechsel (3).

Authenticated
1430 XIII. Slavic
PreSl PSl SSl OESl OCz OPo Gloss

(3) *su̯ek̑ru:- 0
*su̯ɛkru:- OCS svekry svekry svekrev świekra ‘husband’s
mother’
0
*g̑hans- *gansis OSb gusь gusь hus gąs- ‘goose’
(4) *k̑r̥ neH2 *sirna: MBg srъna sьrna srna sarna ‘roe deer’
*k̑oru̯eH2 0
*karu̯a: OSb krava korova kráva krowa ‘cow’
0
(5) *g̑hl̥ tos *gilta2s OSb žlьtь žьltъ žlutý żołty ‘yellow’
0
(6) *g̑holtom *zaltad OCS zlato zoloto zlato złoto ‘gold’
Efforts to explain the velar outcomes by regular sound change have not been convincing.
For example, it has been argued that palatovelars regularly depalatalized before *r, *l,
*m, *n, and *u̯ in BaSl. Even allowing for analogy to other ablaut grades, this claim has
too many counterexamples to be cogent; cf. *a:k̑rembho-, *pik̑ro-s, *k̑luHsa:te:i̯ , and
*g̑neH3te:i̯ (2.4.3). Given the doublets, the most likely explanation is borrowing and/or
substratum influence from centum or, as proposed by Andersen (2003), pre-satem speak-
ers. It is phonetically plausible that *k̑, *g̑h would have been perceived as *k, *g by
speakers of dialects in which the palatovelars had already been assibilated; cf. Anglo-
phone perceptions of Cz t’ [c̟] as /k/ and d’ [ɟ] as /g/.
2.5. Reflexes of IE *s
PIE *s had two regular reflexes in PSl. In most environments, it remained a sibilant (1).
After *i, *u, *r, *k, (the “RUKI” environment), it developed back allophones (RUKI1)
(2); these later became the voiceless velar fricative *x (RUKI2). (In CSl, the velar be-
came *ʃ before front vowels; see 3.2) The triggers for RUKI included both syllabic and
non-syllabic *i, *u, and *r; the velar subsumed the reflexes of *k, *kw (see 2.4.2), and,
by devoicing (see 2.7.1), *g(h), and *gw(h).
PreSl RUKI1 PSl/ OCS OESl OCz OPo Gloss

RUKI2
(1) *sestreH2 *sestra: *sεstra: sestra sestra sestra siostra ‘sister’
(2) *u̯r̥ sus *u̯irsus *u̯irxus vrъxъ vьrxъ vrch wirzch ‘top’
*dhou̯sos *dou̯sos *dou̯xa2s duxъ duxъ duch duch ‘breath’
w
*lei̯ k sos *lei̯ ksos *lεi̯ kxa2s lixъ lixъ lichý lichy ‘poor; bad’
*stro:g-so-s *stro:ksos *stra:kxa2s straxъ straxъ strach strach ‘fear’
*moi̯ sos *moi̯ sos *mai̯ xa2s měxъ měxъ měch miech ‘sack’
RUKI also occurred in In, Irn, and Li, in the last two of which the reflex was *ʃ. It has
been argued that the *s in OPr, Ltv, and some Li dialects also developed from an earlier

Authenticated
*ʃ (Andersen 2003). As RUKI only occurred in satem dialects, it may have followed
the delabialization of labiovelars (see 2.4.2). Pre-Li and PreSl have different relative
chronologies for the change. In PreSl, as shown in (3), RUKI ceased operating before
*k̑ became *s (see 2.4.3). In Pre-Li, by contrast, *k̑ merged with the reflex of RUKI *s
in Pre-PBa: Li piẽšti ‘draw’, †pìršys ‘chest (of a horse)’. This suggests that RUKI and
satem assibilation overlapped in time in PreLi. Thus the RUKI change is one of the
earliest changes − perhaps the earliest − to have divergent outcomes in Sl and Ba.
Seeming exceptions to RUKI have several explanations. The target *s may have
followed a labial or dental stop (3), which was lost in later cluster simplifications (3.1.3).
Alternatively, the sibilant may reflect PIE *k̑ (4). Other exceptions are Post-RUKI loan-
words, e.g. Vulgar Latin mēsa ⥬ OCS misa ‘platter’; or later affective formations, e.g.
Ru plaksa ‘crybaby’.

(3) *H1rou̯dhsos *rau̯(d)sa2s MBg rusъ rusъ rusý rusy ‘reddish blond’
*aps- *a(p)s- Bg osíka osina (v)os osika ‘aspen’
(4) *pei̯ k̑a:te:i̯ *pεi̯ s2a:tεi̯ pisati pisati pisati pisać ‘write; paint’
*pr̥ k̑eis *pirs2εi̯ s prьsi pьrsi prsi pirsi ‘breasts’
In its initial phase, RUKI was a complex of assimilations: *s developed retracted allo-
phones (collectively *s2) after sounds produced deeper in the vocal tract. (Andersen
[1969] treats this as “markedness assimilation” to sounds that were marked in their
natural classes.) Some scholars posit that there was a single allophone *s2 [ʃ], as in Li
and Irn, or retroflex [ʂ]. The palatal would be natural after *i(:), but less motivated after
*u(:). The retroflex would be natural after *r, but it is unclear why the accommodation
should only involve the shape of the tongue tip or blade, as in retroflexion, especially
given that *k, *i(:), and *u(:) had dorsal articulations. To be sure, the rounding of *u(:)
could produce much the same acoustic impression as retroflexion.
Actually, there is no need to assume a single *s2; different allophones could have
developed in assimilation to different triggers: /s/ → [s]~[s]~[ʂ]~[ʃ]~[sˠ] (or other retract-
ed values). The key innovation would be the rephonologization of some or, in PreSl, all
of the backed allophones as a new phoneme /s/. The latter (ultimately rephonologized
as /x/) could likewise have had a range of realizations. Cf. Swedish sj [ɧ], whose articula-
tion has been variously described as rounded, labiodental, velarized, velar, dorsovelar,
or palato-alveolar-velar.
In PSl, the *s2 reflex did not occur before consonants (5). Though clusters of *x plus
sonorant were permitted in CSl, they only occurred over boundaries, where analogy
could operate (6), or in loanwords and expressiva; there are no cases within (synchronic)
morphemes (7). Some scholars posit that RUKI actually took place before consonants
in PreSl, as in Li and Irn. Thus, in Andersen’s view (1968), BaSl *ʂ (*s2) merged with
the reflex of *k̑ before consonants, then lost its retroflexion in the same environment in
PreSl. While this claim cannot be falsified, neither can the alternative hypothesis that
RUKI was blocked by a following consonant.

Authenticated
1432 XIII. Slavic

(5) *pr̥ stis *pirstis prъstь pьrstь prst pirst- ‘dust’
*re:kste *rɛ:kstɛ rěste rěste řěste ‘say
(AOR.2PL )’
*re:ksm̥ *rɛ:kxum rěxъ rěxъ řěch ‘say
(AOR.1SG)’
0
(6) *susnonte:i̯ *suxnantεi̯ sъxnǫti sъxnuti schnúti schnąć ‘dry out’
*sou̯so- *sau̯xa2s suxъ suxъ suichý suchy ‘dry’
(7) *poi̯ snis *pai̯ snis pěsnь pěsnь piesň pieśń ‘song’
*tei̯ sknos *tεi̯ skna2s těsnъ těsnъ těs(k)ný ciasny ‘tight;
narrow’
2.5.1. Initial *x
The only regular source for initial *x was *ks- > *kx > *x (1). Other examples may
have arisen by the extension of sandhi variants, e.g. after the prefixes *per-, *prei̯ -, and
*ou̯. This is said to be the origin of *x in *xod- ‘go (INDET )’ and the innovative zero-
grade *xid- (2). Initial *x also appeared in onomatopoeia (3) and in loanwords from
Gmc or Irn (4).
PreSl ECSl OCS OESl OCz OPo Gloss

(1) *ksou̯dos *(k)xau̯da2s xudъ xudъ chudý chudy ‘bad’
(2) *prei̯ sod *prεi̯ xadi:tεi̯ prixoditi prixoditi přichoditi przychodzić ‘come’
i:te:i̯
0
*sod i:te:i̯ *xadi:tεi̯ xoditi xoditi choditi chodzić ‘go
(INDET )’
*xidla2s šьlъ šьlъ šedl szedł ‘go
(RES.M)’
(3) *xleb-/-p- Bg xlebam xlepъtati chleptati Po chłeptać ‘slurp’
⥬*
(4) Gmc xlai̯ ba2s xlěbъ xlěbъ chléb chleb ‘bread’
*hlaiƀ-
2.5.2. Extension of *x
Once established as a phoneme, *x began to replace *s, *k, and *g in expressive lexemes
(1). In some cases, the expected forms coexisted with the innovations. The affective
value may have come from *x~*s doublets that had arisen in contacts with non-RUKI
dialects or in interactions with conservative speakers in the same dialect.

Authenticated

0
(1) *ko:p- *xa:p- xap- xap- cháp- chap- ‘grab’; OCS
‘bite’
*smaur- *smau̯r- smuryj smúriti sě Kb smura ‘grey’; ‘frown’;
‘cloud’
0
*xmau̯ra: Ru Cz chmura ‘cloud’
†
xmura chmura
In addition, *x was extended analogically in specific grammatical and derivational con-

texts. The ending *-su (nominal LOC.PL, pronominal GEN/LOC.PL ) was regularly reflected
as *-xu after the themes *-i-, *-u-, and *-o-i̯ - (with intrusive *-i-) (2). Gradually, *-xu
was extended to other inflectional classes (3). The phonologically expected *s was only
preserved in personal pronouns − 1PL.GEN/LOC and 2PL.GEN/LOC (4). Relics of the conso-
nant-stem LOC.PL in OCz toponyms, e.g. Doleass ‘in Doljane’ from *dali̯ ensu (modern
Dolánky). Thus it is not true that “š replaced every desinential s (unless a consonant
followed),” pace Lunt (2001: 191).
PreSl RUKI ECSl OCS OESl OCz Gloss

(2) *moi̯ stoi̯ su *moi̯ s- *mai̯ stai̯ xu městěxъ městěxъ městiech ‘locales
toi̯ xu (LOC.PL )’
*toi̯ su *toi̯ xu *tai̯ xu těxъ těxъ těch ‘those
(GEN/LOC.PL )’
(3) *gweneH2su *gena:su 0
*gɛna:xu ženaxъ ženaxъ ženách ‘women
(LOC.PL )’
(4) *no:su *no:su *na:su nasъ nasъ nás ‘us
(GEN/LOC/PL )’
*u̯o:su *u̯o:su *u̯a:su vasъ vasъ vás ‘you
(GEN/LOC/PL )’
By the regular sound change, PRS.2SG *-si had become *-si (*-xi) after the theme
*-ei̯ - (5). In CSl, *-xi was extended to all thematic verbs and to athematic ‘have’ (6).
The regular outcome survived only in the other four athematics − OCS jesi ‘be’, jasi
‘eat’, dasi ‘give’, and věsi ‘know’.
In the sigmatic aorist, *-x- was phonetically conditioned in the 1SG, 1DU, 1PL, and 3PL of
stems in *ī̆, ū̆, *r, *k, or *g (7). After phonetic RUKI ended, aorist *-x- and *-s- were reana-
lyzed as distinct allomorphs. By the earliest writings, -x- had displaced *-s- in all stems in
vowels, and the innovative allomorph *-ox- was spreading to all consonant stems (8).
PreSl RUKI ECSl OCS Gloss

(5) *u̯ei̯ dei̯ si *u̯ei̯ dei̯ xi *u̯εi̯ dεi̯ xi(:) vidiši ‘see (PRS.2SG)’
(6) *H1nek̑esi 0
*nesesi *nɛsɛxi(:) neseši ‘carry (PRS.2SG)’
0
*H1emeH2si *ima:si *ima:xi(:) imaši ‘have (PRS.2SG)’

Authenticated
1434 XIII. Slavic
PreSl RUKI ECSl OCS Gloss

(7) *bhuHsm̥ *bu:xum *bu:xum byxъ ‘be (PFV.AOR.1SG)’
0
(8) *bhu̯eHsm̥ *bu̯e:sum *bu̯ɛ:xum běxъ ‘be (IPFV.AOR.1SG)’
0
*u̯edhosn̥t *u̯edasint *u̯edaxint vedošę ‘lead (AOR.3PL )’
2.6. Restructuring of ablaut
Some of the roots in which syllabic sonorants were reinterpreted as /iR/ or /uR/ func-
tioned as zero grades in ablaut alternations. Consequently, *i and *u joined the repertory
of alternating vowels as what may be called the Vocalized Grade (VG). Initially, the VG
alternated with the old zero grade in certain paradigms: (C)V[+high]R occurred before
consonants, and (C)R before vowels (1−2). Thus some of the unsuffixed (Ia and IIIa)
sonorant-stem verbs had the old zero-grade in both the present (tudáti-type, with theme
vowels before the endings) and in the aorist and/or past participles (with consonant-
initial suffixes). Such phonologically conditioned alternations were eliminated by the
generalization of (C)V[+high]R, although (C)R could persist in derivationally related
forms; cf. OCS granъ ‘verse’ (*gwr̥H2-).
Pre-PSl PSl ECSl OCS Gloss

(1) *gwr̥ H2onti *granti 0
*giranti žьrǫtъ ‘sacrifice
(PRS.3PL )’
*gwr̥ te:i̯ *girtɛi̯ *girtɛi̯ žrьti ‘sacrifice’
0
(2) *-knonti *-knanti *-kinanti načьnǫtъ ‘begin (PRS.3PL )’
*-kn̥tos *-kintas *-kintas načętъ ‘begin (PPP)’
This leveling was an early instance of the tendency to replace the inherited zero-grade
with the VG wherever it alternated in paradigms. The same tendency led to the rise of
vocalized allomorphs that had not been phonologically conditioned − for example, in
the aorist/infinitive stem (3). Eventually, the VG displaced the inherited zero-grade allo-
morphs in all sonorant-final stems, even in suffixed class IV verbs like ‘be ripe’ (4),
where the sonorant had never been syllabic (cf. *g̑ r̥Hno- > PSl *zirna- > OESl zьrno
‘seed’). (CCV- roots where the zero-grade did not alternate within the paradigm were
unaffected.)
In addition, the VG spread by analogy to alternating zero-grade roots that did not end
in sonorants, e.g. ‘call’ (PIE *g̑hu-) (5) and to “vowelless” verbal roots in general. For
example, an inverted VG appeared in Schwebeablaut roots in which syllabic sonorants
had alternated interparadigmatically with other grades, e.g. *-n̥g̑h- ‘stick’ (6) alongside
o-grade causative *nog̑hi:te:i̯ ‘drive (a point) into’ (OCS vъnoziti).

Authenticated
Pre-PSl PSl ECSl OCS Gloss

(3) *bheronti *bɛranti *bɛranti berǫtъ ‘take (PRS.3PL)’
0
*bhra:te:i̯ *bra:tɛi̯ *bira:tɛi̯ bьrati ‘take’
(4) *k̑omg̑rei̯ ti *sumzrɛi̯ ti 0
*suzirɛi̯ ti sъzьritъ ‘be ripe
(PRS.3SG)’
(5) *g̑hau̯onti *zau̯anti *zau̯anti zovǫtъ ‘call (PRS.3PL)’
0
*g̑hu̯a:te:i̯ *zu̯a:tɛi̯ *zuu̯a:tɛi̯ zъvati ‘call’
0
(6) *ug̑hn̥g̑hus *uzinzus? *uznizus vъznьzъ ‘stick into’
(PAP.M)
In CSl, the VG was reinterpreted as a type of full grade. Indeed, it displaced the inherited
full grade in some paradigms; for example, OCS has present and aorist stem variants
žeg-~žьg- (PSl *geg- ‘burn’, PIE *dhegwh-). Moreover, a new lengthened grade in *i:/*u:
arose in iteratives derived from VG roots: VG *-mir-: SLG *-mi:r-, OCS umьr-: umira-
‘die (PFV: IPFV)’; VG *-zuu̯-: SLG *-zu:u̯-, OCS prizъv-: prizyva- ‘call (PFV: IPFV)’. This
paralleled the relation between the inherited full grades (*e/*a) and lengthened grades
(*e:/*a:). The Slavic Lengthened Grade was highly productive in CSl, where it was
extended to consonant-stem roots that did not end in sonorants: PSl *prasu-
pa:tεi̯ sɛ:m|*prasu:pa:tεi̯ sɛ:m > OESl prosъpati s ja|prosypati s ja ‘awaken (PFV|IPFV)’. It
remains productive in the attested languages.
2.7. PreSl changes in consonant clusters
2.7.1. Voicing assimilation
In PSl, voiced obstruents were regularly devoiced before voiceless ones and vice versa
(1). This rule, inherited from PIE, persisted throughout the CSl period.

(1) *ma:k̑tis (*g̑) *ma:stis mastь mastь mast maść ‘ointment’
*duzdi̯ εi̯ εti (*s) *duzdi̯ εi̯ ti dъžditъ dъžditь dščí dżdży ‘cause to rain
(PRS.3SG)’
2.7.2. Double dental rule
In PreSl, as in Ba, Irn, Albanian, and Gk, PIE *tt, *dd became *st, *zd, almost certainly
through a stage *tst, *dzd (1). In PSl, the results of the change were evident in stem
allomorphy before derivational suffixes and endings with initial *-t-. One supposed ex-
ception is PSl *at-(ik)- ‘father’ (2), said to correspond to Hittite attaš, Gk átta, La, Go

Authenticated
1436 XIII. Slavic
atta. Actually, none of the cognates show expected outcomes for *tt. As a nursery word,
*a(t)t- could potentially be (re)created with each first language acquisition.

(1) *kwit+ti- *kistis čьstь čьstь čest cześć ‘honor’
*u̯edh+te:i̯ *u̯ɛstεi̯ věsti věsti věsti -wieść ‘lead’
*i̯ eH2dh+dh- *i̯ a:zda: MBg jězdъ jiezda jazda ‘ride’
jazda
(2) *a(t)t- *atikas otьcь otьcь otec ociec ‘father’
2.7.3. Degemination of sibilants
PreSl was one of several PIE dialects in which *ss became *s (1). This change recurred
in the new *ss, *zz clusters (2) that developed by satem assibilation (2.4.3). In CSl, the
resulting S~Ø alternations were preserved in the sigmatic aorist of s- and z-stems (3)
and in prefixal sandhi (4).

(1) *H1essi *ɛsi(:) jesi jesi jsi jeś ‘be (PRS.2SG)’
(2) *ak̑sis (*ag̑-) *asis osь osь os Po oś ‘axle’
*sk̑eH2ini *sai̯ nis sěnь sěnь sien sień ‘shade’; OCz
‘hall’
(3) *H1ne:k̑sm̥ *-nɛ:sum vъzněsъ ‘exalt
(AOR.1SG)’
(4) *bek̑se:d- *bɛsɛ:da: besěda besěda besěda biesiada ‘chat’
(*g̑h)
*eg̑hg̑ob- *izab- izobati zobati zobać ‘eat a bit’
2.7.4. Sibilant + *r clusters
Inherited *sr became *str in PreSl (1), as in Gmc, Albanian, and most of Ba. In PreSl,
the change also applied to *sr from *k̑r (see 2.4.3), and there was a parallel change *g̑hr
> *zdr (2). It is phonetically natural for closure to develop between continuants and trills.
Andersen (1972: 38) treats the change as a “diphthongization”: *r was implemented with
“an obstruent-like initial portion,” later reidentified as *t.
The alternations that arose from this change in prefixal and prepositional sandhi were
leveled out in most CSl dialects, but they continued to operate in OCS and, to a lesser
extent, OPo (3). In Izdrail’- ‘Israel’ (4), a ca. 9th−10th-c. borrowing from Gk into OCS,
and from there to OESl, or from La into OCz and OPo, Iz- was contaminated with the
prefix iz.

Authenticated

(1) *srou̯(i̯ )- *strau̯i̯ - struja struja Strumeň strumeń ‘stream’
(2) *ak̑ro- *astr- ostrъ ostrъ ostrý ostry ‘sharp’
*pou̯g̑ro- *pau̯zdra- BCS Ru puzdro púzdro puzdro ‘pizzle;
pȕzdro sheath’
(3) *eg̑h+rank iz-d-rǫky z-d-ręki ‘from the
hand’
(4) Izdrail jь Izdrail jь Iz(d)rahel Iz(d)rael ‘Israel’
2.7.5. Glide-liquid clusters
In PreSl, as in PreBa, initial *u̯ was lost before non-syllabic *r and *l (1). If this “Lidén’s
Law” was a regular change, it must have followed the rise of the new ablaut grade (see
2.6), since *u̯r-, *u̯l- clusters that alternated as zero grades became *u̯ir-, *u̯il- (2).
Internal *u̯r, *u̯l were not affected by the change (3).

(1) *u̯rodhos *rada2s rodъ rodъ rod ród ‘kin’
(2) *u̯re:te:i̯ *u̯irɛ:tεi̯ vьr- v(ь)rěti vřieti wrzeć ‘seethe’
*u̯la:- *u̯ula:- vъla(ja)ti vъlajati Cz vlát ‘toss
(of waves)’
(3) *tau̯ros *tau̯ra2s turъ turъ tur tur ‘bull’
3. Early Common Slavic (ECSl) changes

In the ECSl period, the system of vowel phonemes remained identical to that of PSl
(2.1); in particular, it continued to allow glide and nasal diphthongs (see 4.1−4.2). The
ECSl sound changes had uniform results, without dialect differentiation. Two drifts or
conspiracies are said to have operated − the Law of Open Syllables and the Law of
Syllabic Synharmony. These labels are unobjectionable as metalinguistic descriptions of
the results. However, there is a long tradition of reifying them as causal factors (cf.
notably Jakobson [1929] 1962).
The first law, also known as the Tendency to Rising Sonority, subsumes the ECSl loss
of coda obstruents (3.1.3) and final sonorants (3.1.4); the MCSl monophthongizations of
glide and nasal diphthongs (4.1−4.2); and changes in vowel-liquid diphthongs (4.9, 5.5).
Feldstein (2003: 250) distinguishes an early “tendency to the open syllable” from a
later “tendency to rising sonority.” The first applied only to non-moraic segments, not
diphthongs; by contrast, the later tendency induced changes in falling diphthongs.

Authenticated
1438 XIII. Slavic
The second law subsumes tonality assimilations in which consonants became palatal
or coronal before front vowels and *i̯ (3.2, 3.6, 4.4) and in which back vowels were
fronted after palatal consonants (3.3). As a result, syllable onsets and nuclei had the
same basic tonality − either “soft” (palatal + front) or “hard” (non-palatal + back).
However, there are important exceptions (3.4), as well as tonality assimilations that
transgressed syllable boundaries (3.7.2, 4.5). The changes covered by the law are quotidi-
an assimilations, so there is no particular need to see an invisible hand behind them.
3.1. Changes in syllable structure
In PSl, syllable onsets could have up to four consonants (1), and syllable codas could
have up to three consonants (2). In ECSl, the canonical sequence for onsets was fricatives
> stops > liquids > glides. Medial clusters that violated the canonical sequence were
syllabified with a break before the rightmost licensed onset (3).
PSl MCSl1 OCS OESl OCz OPo Gloss

j j
(1) *i|za|stri̯ ɛ|n- *izastrɛn- izoštr en- izostr en- zostřen- zostrzon- ‘sharpen
(PPP)’
(2) *tai̯ sk|na2s *tɛ:2snu těsnъ těsnъ těs(k)ný ciasny ‘tight,
crowded’
(3) *mir|tu̯a2s *mirtu̯u mrъtvъ mьrtvъ mrtvý martwy ‘dead’
*dɛlb|tad *dɛlta Bg dleto Uk doloto dláto dłoto/dłuto ‘chisel’
3.1.1. Syncope of stops in non-canonical clusters
In ECSl, stops were elided before obstruents in onsets (1) and codas (2). In *kt, the
velar was lost, but the *t had bifurcating reflexes; see 3.6.1.

(1) *dsutad *suta sъto sъto sto sto ‘hundred’
*kxau̯da2s *xɔ:du xudъ xudъ chudý chudy ‘meager;
bad’
(2) *nɛptii̯ a2s *nɛtii̯ i OSb netii netii neć ‘nephew’
*nɛu̯ai̯ d- *nɛu̯ɛ:2galsu nevěglasъ nevěgolosъ nevěhlas ‘ignoramus’
galsa2s
*u:psakad *u̯u:saka vysoko vysoko vysoko wysoko ‘high(ly)’
*(is)plɛkstɛi̯ *(i̯ is)plɛste:2 isplesti isplesti zplésti pleść ‘weave’
Clusters of *tl, *dl were permitted in ECSl (3); later, the stops were lost in some
dialects, though they have left traces in all three branches of Sl (see 4.8). Before nasals,

Authenticated
velar stops were preserved (4), but labial and dental stops were elided (5); apparent
exceptions, like the OCz and OPo forms in (6), arose by post-CSl changes. In the
clusters *stl and *skn, the stops were lost in all dialects, and sibilants were resyllabified
as onsets (7).
PSl MCSl1 OCS Sln OESl OCz OPo Gloss

(3) *u̯ɛdla: *u̯edla: vela védla vela, vedla wiodƚa ‘lead
†
vegl- (RES.F )’
(4) *gna|i̯ a2s *gnai̯ i gnoi gnọ̑j gnoi hnój gnój ‘filth’
(5) *supna2s *sunu sъnъ sèn sъnъ sen sen ‘sleep’
*abmarki:- *amartʃi:- omračiti omrȃčiti omorȏčiti omračiti ‘darken’
j
*u:dmɛ:n *u̯u:mɛ̃: Bg vime víme vym a vymě wymię ‘udder’
¶ j 0 0
(6) *(-)u̯indn- *u̯ĩ:n:- uvęnǫti véniti v anuti vad- więd- ‘wither’
nuti nąć
(7) *ma:stlad *ma:sla maslo máslo maslo máslo masło ‘oil’
*prɛ:skna2s *prɛ:snu prěsnъ présen prěsnъ přiesný przasny ‘unleav-
ened’
While various processes could have caused the elision, the purely phonetic phase proba-
bly involved non-release of the stops, which is common cross-linguistically in clusters:
/T/ → [T˺]/__{T, S, N} (where T = stop). The non-released stops would have had a
range of articulations, including reduction of the hold phase to zero in allegro speech.
Without the burst as a cue, they would have been open to reanalysis as non-segments:
/T/ → [ T˺]0/Ø/ → [Ø].
The loss of coda stops took place after the period of shared BaSl developments − in
particular, RUKI, in which the backed allophone of *s was conditioned after velar stops
but blocked after labial and dental stops (see 2.5). Within CSl, there is no evidence to
establish the relative chronology of the changes in noncanonical clusters. However, the
fact that the simplifications had uniform results points to a time when the CSl dialects
still formed a cohesive continuum. It seems likely that the loss of syllable-final ob-
struents preceded the MCSl monophthongization of diphthongs (4.1), where the mecha-
nisms for opening syllables were different in kind and changed the articulation of the
preceding vowels.
3.1.2. Syncope in nasal + nasal clusters
Coda nasals were elided before onset nasals (1); the preceding vowel underwent no
reconstructible change. Nasals before other consonants were not affected at this stage
(see 4.2). Judging from PreSl *n̥men > *inmɛ:n, the change followed the reinterpretation
of syllabic sonorants as diphthongs (see 2.3). The basis for the change may have been a
lack of perceptible cues for the transition from the one nasal to the other. Cross-linguisti-

Authenticated
1440 XIII. Slavic
cally, nasals tend to be unreleased before other consonants; thus the continuous nasal
resonance in the sequence could have promoted the perception that only a single segment
was present.

(1) *au̯smnii̯ ad *ɔ:snii̯ ɛ OSb usnije usnije usně ‘leather’
j
*inmɛ:n *i̯ imɛ̃: imę im a jmě jimię ‘name’
3.1.3. Loss of final obstruents
Obstruents were subject to elision in word-auslaut (1), just as they were in syllable-
auslaut (3.1.1). The weakening and loss of pre-pausal consonants is a typologically wide-
spread change and can involve non-release or debuccalization. The only final obstruents
in PSl were *t, *d, *s, *z (only in the 1SG pronoun), and the clusters *st, *ts. (The final
*z and *b that occurred in certain prepositions are irrelevant for word-auslaut.)

(1) *bundai̯ s|-ai̯ t *bũ:di: bǫdi budi budi/ bądź ‘be (IMP.2SG|3SG)’
bud’
*mari̯ ad *mare mor je mor je moře morze ‘sea’
*u̯εi̯ dints *u̯e:2dĩ: vidę vid ja vidě widzę ‘see (PRAP.M)’
*a:z(a2m) *(i̯ )a:z(u) azъ jazъ/ja jáz/já ja ‘I (NOM)’
In close juncture, final obstruents were subject to the same tendencies as medial ones
(see 3.1.1), so there was no conditioning for weakening or elision if the following word
began with a vowel, sonorant, or glide. Presumably, the phase in which final weakening
or loss was sound change proper was followed by one with sandhi or stylistic variation
between elided and unelided forms; cf. French liaison. Eventually, the elided forms
were generalized, even when the final consonants were verified by other forms in the
paradigm (2).
Evidence for the sandhi variation is found in athematic verbs − in the PRS.3SG of ‘be’
(3); in the OCS AOR.2−3SG of ‘give’ and ‘eat’ (4) and unsuffixed sonorant-stems belong-
ing to the mobile accentual type (5) (see 6.3.5). In the athematic aorist (4), *-s-tu (where
*s reflected the root-final dental) was reanalyzed as a morpheme and extended to ‘be’:
OCS by~bystъ. A further relic of sandhi may occur in the suffix *-asi̯ a-, used to form
hypocoristic nouns from adjectival roots (6). This suffix has been analyzed as an early
univerbation of adjectival *-a2 s (M.NOM.SG) with the demonstrative *i̯ a2 s (M.NOM.SG).
In CSl, as in Ba, phrases of this kind developed into compound (“long”) definite adjec-
tives; cf. Li mãžas ‘little’|mažàsis (DEF ). However, in the attested compound declension,
the M.NOM.SG reflects the loss of final *-s (7). (The internal *-a2- in [6] has the expected
reflex *a; on the final *u outcome in [7], see 3.8)

Authenticated

j
(2) *a:gnɛnt *a:gnɛ̃: agnę jagn a jěhně jagnię ‘lamb (NOM/
ACC)’
*a:gnɛnt- *a:gnɛ̃:t- agnęta jagn jat- jěhnět- jagnięt- (OBLIQUE)

!
(3) *ɛst(+i) *i̯ ɛ~i̯ ɛsti je~ jestъ je~jestь je~jest je/~jeść~jest ‘be
(IPFV.PRS.3SG)
(4) *da:st(+u) *da:~da:stu da~dastъ da~dastъ ‘give
(AOR.3SG)’
(5) *imt(-u) *i̯ ɛ̃: ~i̯ ɛ̃:tu ję~ jętъ ‘take
(AOR.3SG)’
(6) *mεi̯ la2si̯ a2s *me:2laʃi OSb Miloš Miƚosz ‘Dear (name)’
Milošь
(7) *mεi̯ la2+i̯ a2 *mi:lui̯ i milъi milъi milý miły ‘dear
(M. DEF )’
3.1.4. Loss of final nasals
Final nasals were lost after short vowels (1−3), but preserved after long vowels (4) (see
further 4.2). It is unclear whether their quiescence after short vowels was a sound change
sensu stricto, since the targets of elision only occurred in endings − the ACC of (i̯ )o-,
u-, i-, and consonant-stem nouns (1); the GEN.PL of all nouns (2); and the AOR.1SG of
both the sigmatic and the root types (3). (On the N.NOM/ACC.SG, see 3.8)

!
(1) *grabam *grabu grobъ grobъ hrob grob ‘grave (ACC)’
j j
*agnim *agni ogn ь ogn ь oheň ogień ‘fire (ACC)’
(2) *lɛ:tam *lɛ:tu lětъ lětъ let lat ‘year (GEN.PL )’
(3) *bu:xum *bu:xu byxъ byxъ bych bych ‘be
(PRFV.AOR.1SG)’
(4) *sɛ:mɛ:n *sɛ:mɛ̃: sěmę sěm ja siemě siemię ‘seed’
*mɛ:m *mɛ̃: mę m ja mě mię ‘me (ACC)’
*gɛna:m *ʒɛnã: ženǫ ženu ženu żonę ‘woman (ACC)’
The same change is supposed to have affected four prepositions/prefixes: PSl *un
‘in(to)’, *sun1 ‘with’, *sun2 ‘from’, and *kun ‘toward’ (OCS vъ, sъ, sъ, and kъ). These
are traced to PIE *n̥, *s(o)m, *k̑(o)m, and *k(o)m. The change from *-m > *-n in these
items occurred in PreSl and is shared with Ba; the nasal comes out as n where pre-
served − before verbal roots with initial vowels in an archaic pattern of prefixation (5);
and before the anaphoric pronoun *i̯ - (6), where the nasal was metanalyzed, and the
resulting “n mobile” generalized after all prepositions (7).

Authenticated
1442 XIII. Slavic

j
(5) *s(o)m ei̯ - *sunεi̯ tεi̯ sъniti sę sъniti s a sníti/sjíti sě zniść ‘come
sε:m się together’
*k̑(o)m im- *sunintεi̯ sъnęti sъn jati snieti/sieti (zjąć) ‘take off’
j j
(6) *k(o)m i̯ - *kun i̯ ai̯ mus kъ n imъ kъ n imъ k nim k nim ‘to them’
j j
(7) *na: i̯ omi *na: i̯ ami na n emь na n emь na ňem na niem ‘in it/him’
*k̑(o)m *sunsɛ:da2s sǫsědъ susědъ súsěd sąsiád ‘neighbor’
se:d-
Actually, the loss of final nasals is irrelevant for these four prepositions/prefixes, as they
would never have been final in a phonological word; there is no trace of their being
postpositions in CSl (cf. La mecum). The most plausible solution lies in the generaliza-
tion of sandhi variants. In ECSl, the final nasals would had three forms: *-n/__{T, K,
V}; Ø/__(#)N (see 3.1.2); and presumably *-m/__P. The least circumscribed and thus
basic variant was *-n. With the metanalysis of *-n in certain concatenations, the Ø
variants became unpredictable and had a proportionately larger domain; they were reval-
uated as basic and generalized in new formations. The *-n- and *-m- variants were then
eliminated by morphophonemic simplification, apart from lexicalized relics (PSl *un-
antr- > OCS vъnǫtrь, OESl (vъ)nutrь, Sln nȏter ‘inside’).
3.1.5. Loss of final liquids
In PreSl, final *l and *r occurred only in the NOM of l- and r-stem nouns. In CSl, almost
all of these nouns were remade as thematics (8). The sole relics were ‘mother’ and
‘daughter’ (9). Here the final *r was lost, and the preceding *e: raised to *i: (cf. 3.8).
The elision may be PreSl; forms without *r are also found in Ba and Indo-Iranian, and
CSl permitted coda *r and *l in internal syllables. (OCz matě is probably not an archaism
but a new formation based on the i̯ ā-stem ending.)

0
(8) *bhra:te:r *bra:tra2s brat(r)ъ brat(r)ъ bratr brat ‘brother’
(9) *ma:te:r *ma:ti: mati mati máti/mátě mać ‘mother’
*dhugHte:r *dukti: dъšti dъči dci (córa) ‘daughter’
3.2. First Regressive Palatalization of Velars (1VP)
In ECSl, velars were fronted before front vowels (1) and *i̯ (2); their ultimate reflexes
were alveopalatal: *k > *tʃ, *g > *ʒ, *x > *ʃ (Slavistic č, ž, and š). This change has

Authenticated
traditionally been called the First Palatalization of Velars (1VP) or, more recently, the
First Regressive Palatalization, as there is debate over its order relative to the Progres-
sive Palatalization (4.6.2).
Before the fronted velars, sibilants underwent assimilatory backing (3): *sk > *ʃtʃ,
*zg > *ʒdʒ (Slavistic šč, žǯ). In LCSl, *ʃtʃ and *ʒdʒ were simplified to št and žd in some
dialects. When the palatalization trigger was *i̯ (2), it was ultimately reanalyzed as an
off-glide (see 3.7.1).
PSl 1VP1 OCS OESl OCz OPo Gloss

j
(1) *kistis *k isti(s) čьstь čьstь čest cześć ‘honor’
j
*palagi:tεi̯ *palag i:tεi̯ položiti položiti položiti położyć ‘put’
j
*gɛna: *g ɛna: žɛna žɛna žɛna żona ‘woman;
wife’
*xɛlma2s *x jɛlma2(s) šlěmъ šelomъ Cz †šlem szłom ‘helmet’; Cz
‘bonnet’
(2) *pla:ki̯ a2s *pla:k ji̯ a2(s) plačь plačь pláč płacz ‘lament’
j
*slu:xi̯ a:m *slu:x i̯ a:m slyšǫ slyšu slyšu słyszę ‘hear
(PRS.1SG)’
(3) *skεi̯ ta2s *sk jεi̯ ta2(s) štitъ ščitъ ščít szczyt ‘shield’
j
*drazgi̯ ens *drazg ɛ:n droždьję droždьje droždie drożdża ‘yeast’
Presumably, the 1VP began as assimilatory softening (1VP1), followed by coronalization

(1VP2), and assibilation (1VP3): *k j > *c̟ > *tʃ, *g j > *ɟ > *(d)ʒ, *x j > *ç > *ʃ, *s jk j >
*s jc̟ > *ʃtʃ, *zg j > *z jɟ > *ʒdʒ. Ultimately, the reflex of *g j lost its closure except in the
cluster *zg j. According to Andersen (1969), *g and *gj were lax (slack-voiced) and
could be implemented without closure. Eventually, the fricative realization was general-
ized except when blocked by a constraint against fricative-fricative clusters, which arose
after the loss of syllable-final obstruents (3.1.3) and persisted until the jer-shift (5.8).
The terminus a quo of the 1VP is uncertain, but its uniform results point to the pre-
Migration-Period, when CSl dialects were still relatively compact. The change ended
before the monophthongization of glide diphthongs, since it was not triggered by *ɛ:2
from *ai̯ (4.1). It was also not triggered by *i(:) in borrowings from Go (ca. 2nd−4th c.).
The assibilation phase (1VP3) was completed before the Sl settlements in the southern
Balkans (6th−8th centuries); Byzantine sources have ts for *k j and z for *g j: *kɛlinεi̯ kas
‘headman’ ⥬ τσέλνικος (cf. OSb čelьnikь); *gɛu̯pa:nas ‘clan head’ ⥬ ζουπάνος (cf.
OCS županъ).
The 1VP created numerous morphophonemic alternations between velars and palatals.
These have generally been stable in the Sl languages, as exemplified in (4−6).
PSl OCS OESl OCz OPo Gloss

(4) *bag-a2s bogъ bogъ bóh bóg ‘God’
*bag-ɛ bože bože bože boże (VOC)

Authenticated
1444 XIII. Slavic
PSl OCS OESl OCz OPo Gloss

(5) *rɛk-ɛti rečetъ rečetь řče rzecze ‘say (PRS.3SG)’
*rɛk-anti rekǫtъ rekutь řkú rzeką (PRS.3PL )
(6) *sau̯x-au̯ suxu suxu suchu suchu ‘dry (N.DAT)
*sau̯x-i̯ a: suša suša súšě susza ‘dry land’
3.3. Vowel fronting
Back vowels developed advanced allophones after *i̯ and the alveopalatals (1−2): *a >
*a̟ ([œ̞] or similar); *u(:) > *u̟(:) ([ʉ(:)] or similar). Over time, *a̟ was reinterpreted as
/ɛ/. While *u̟(:) ultimately merged with *i(:), they were still rounded during the first
phase of the Progressive Palatalization of Velars (see 4.6). This change called the First
Umlaut, and the vowel fronting after the Progressive Palatalization the Second Umlaut.
However, it is possible to treat these as two fronting episodes based on the same con-
straint, rather than separate changes.
Unlike *a, *a: was not rephonologized as a front vowel. Presumably, both *a and *a:
had fronted opening phases, assimilating to the domed tongue position of the preceding
palatal. The long vowel would typically have had time to emerge from the transitional
phase and still have a distinct phase with open tongue position; hence it would have
been less susceptible to reinterpretation. By contrast, like short vowels in general (Labov
1994: 173), *a would often fail to emerge from the transitional phase in time to have a
distinct main phase.

(1) *u̯ai̯ au̯ada: *u̯ai̯ ɛu̯ada: vojevoda vojevoda vévoda wojewoda ‘war-
(*-ai̯ ɛ-) leader’
*i̯ aga *i̯ ɛga jego jego jego jego ‘him
(GEN)’
(2) *i̯ ugad *i̯ iga igo igo jho (*i̯ i) Po igo ‘yoke’
*si̯ u:i̯ a: *ʃi:i̯ a: šija šьja šíjě szyja ‘neck’
Vowel fronting preceded the monophthongization of glide-diphthongs (4.1). If it had

followed, *i̯ ai̯ would have become *(i̯ )ɛ:2; its actual outcome was *i̯ εi̯ > *(i̯ )i:, as seen
in *i̯ ai̯ xu > OCS ixъ ‘them (GEN/LOC.PL )’; cf. *tai̯ xu > těxъ ‘those’ (reflecting *ɛ:2).
The change split the ā-stem (4) and o-stem declensions (5) into varieties with and
without fronted endings, traditionally called ā-/jā- and o-/jo-stems (Lunt’s “twofold”
declensions [2001: 54−59]). The differences between the fronted and non-fronted declen-
sional variants became opaque after the monophthongization of diphthongs (4.1). Similar
bifurcations occurred in derivational morphemes, e.g. (citing OCS) the PRPP suffix *-am-
(vědomъ|znajemъ, both ‘known’); the verbal determiner *-au̯a:- (radovati sę ‘rejoice’|
vojevati ‘make war’); the nominalizing suffixes *-at- and *-ast- (sujeta ‘vanity’|tixota

Authenticated
‘quiet’; radostь ‘joy’|dobl jestь ‘valor’); and the possessive suffix *-au̯- (gromovъ ‘thun-
der’s’| zmijevъ ‘snake’s’).
PSl Fronting MCSl1 OCS OESl OCz OPo Gloss

(4) *gɛna *ʒɛna ženo ženo ženo żono ‘woman
(VOC)’
*dau̯xi̯ a *dau̯ʃa̟ *dɔ:ʃɛ duše duše duše dusze ‘soul
(VOC)’
*gɛnai̯ *ʒɛnɛ:2 ženě ženě ženě żenie ‘woman (DAT/
LOC)’
*dau̯xi̯ ai̯ *dau̯xi̯ a̟i̯ *dɔ:ʃi: duši duši duši duszy ‘soul
(DAT/LOC)’
(5) *mai̯ stad *mɛ:2sta město město město miasto ‘place
(NOM/ACC)’
*mari̯ ad *mari̯ a̟ *marɛ mor je mor je moře morze ‘sea
(NOM/ACC)’
3.4. Merger of *i: and *a: after palatals
In ECSl, *ɛ: merged with *a: after *i̯ (1) and the alveopalatal reflexes of the 1VP (2).
Concomitantly, the alveopalatals ceased to function as allophones of velars. Unlike *a
(3.3), *a: had not been rephonologized as a front vowel after alveopalatals (3); however,
it probably had fronting in its opening phases, which would have facilitated the merger
perceptually.

(1) *stai̯ ɛ:tεi̯ *stai̯ a:te:2 stojati stojati státi stojać ‘be standing’
(*-ai̯ a-)
(2) *kɛ:sa2s *tʃa:su časъ časъ čas czas ‘time’
*pagɛ:ra2s *paʒa:ru OSb požarъ požár pożar ‘conflagration’
požarь
*slu:xɛ:la2s *slu:ʃa:lu slyšalъ slyšalъ slyšal sƚyszaƚ ‘hear (RES.M)’
(3) *dau̯si̯ a: *dɔ:ʃa: duša duša duša dusza ‘soul’
The primary impetus for the merger was phonemic reanalysis. As *ɛ: was (near-)open,
it neighbored *a: in phonetic space. Thus, innovative learners could interpret it as an
allophone of *a: after consonants with palatal (co)articulation; they would perceive its
palatality as environmental rather than inherent. Cf. the perception of foreign fronted
rounded vowels in Ru: typically, the rounding is preserved, while the frontness is
ascribed to the preceding consonant: Bonhoeffer ⥬ [bɔnx jofɛr], Flossenbürg ⥬
[flɔsɛnb jurg].

Authenticated
1446 XIII. Slavic
3.5. Glide prothesis
In ECSl, on-glides developed before word- and syllable-initial *u(:), *i(:), and *ɛ(:) (1−3).
The on-glides were homorganic − rounded before *u(:), and palatal before *i(:) and *ɛ(:).
PSl MSl1 OCS OESl OCz OPo Gloss

(1) *unεi̯ dɛti: *u̯une:2dɛti vъnidetъ vъnidetь vníde wnidzie ‘enter
(PRS.3SG)’
*u:psaka2s *u̯u:saku vysokъ vysokъ vysoký wysoki ‘high’
(2) *inzu:ka2s *i̯ ĩ:zu:ku językъ jazykъ jazyk język ‘tongue’
j
*inmɛ:n *imɛ̃: imę im a jmě jimię ‘name’
*paɛ:dla2s *paɛ:dlu poělъ [ja] poělъ [je] ÷pojiedl pojadƚ ‘eat
(RES.M)’
(3) *ɛsti *i̯ ɛsti jestъ jestь jest jest ‘be
(PRS.3SG)’
*εi̯ tεi̯ *i̯ e:2ti: iti iti jíti jici ‘go’
*daεi̯ tεi̯ *dai̯ e:2ti: doiti doiti dojíti dojć ‘go as far
as’
In previous works, prothesis has often been presented as a means of eliminating

hiatus. Actually, that was a consequence, not a cause. The initial mechanism of the
change was evidently diphthongization, followed by phonemic reanalysis. As the
speech organs moved from their rest position or, in close juncture (hiatus), from
articulating the preceding vowel, the anlaut vowels were realized with non-syllabic
opening phases: /u(:)/ → [u̯u(:)]; /i(:)/ → [i̯ i(:)], /ɛ(:)/ → [i̯ ɛ(:)]. This is a typologically
common form of “peak attenuation” (see Andersen 1972). The transitional phases
may have been more salient in slow or emphatic speech. Subsequently, innovative
learners could reanalyze the non-syllabic phases as distinct segments, phonemically
identical to the inherited glides, and inherent to the given roots: [u̯u(:)] 0 /u̯u(:)/
→ [u̯u(:)], [i̯ i(:)] 0 /i̯ i(:)/ → [i̯ i(:)], [i̯ ɛ(:)] 0 /i̯ ɛ(:)/ → [i̯ ɛ(:)]. Thus the traditional
term prothesis is misleading: the glide was not added to the vowel but developed
from the vowel. Finally, the glide could spread by the usual processes of social
accommodation and adaptation within the speech community.
The results of u̯-prothesis were uniform; this suggests that it happened before the
migrations, when CSl was still relatively compact. It ended before monophthongization
(4.1) and the rounding of *a (5.1), since it did not affect the rounded vowels that arose
in those changes, and before the delabialization of *u(:) (5.1), which removed its condi-
tioning.
While the attested results of i̯ -prothesis are not uniform (see below), it is reflected in
all three branches of Slavic, including peripheral zones; thus, like u̯-prothesis, it took
place while CSl was still relatively compact. It followed the backing of *ɛ: to *a: after
palatals (3.4), since anlaut *ɛ:, which was subject to prothesis, had a different outcome
from the *ɛ: that followed inherited *i̯ (4). (Examples with ja for anlaut *ɛ: arose by

Authenticated
later dialectal changes − the merger of *i̯ ɛ: and *i̯ a: in E-SSl, e.g. OCS jasti ‘eat’;
and the retraction of *ɛ: before unpalatalized dentals in Lech, e.g. Po jadł |jedzą ‘eat-
PST.M.3SG|PL’.)

(4) *stai̯ ɛ:tεi̯ *stai̯ a:te: stojati stojati státi (*-ai̯ a-) stojać ‘be standing’
*ɛ:stεi̯ *i̯ ɛ:ste:2 jasti jěsti jiěsti jeść ‘eat’
The regularity of i̯ -prothesis has been obscured by later dialectal tendencies to eliminate
*i̯ - of either origin before i. The reflexes of *inmɛ:n (2) and *(da)εi̯ tεi̯ (3) show that the
elision occurred consistently in SSl and most of ESl. The OSln Freising Fragments (later
10th c.) have ge- or ie- for /i̯ ɛ/, e.g. gest, iest ‘be (PRS.3SG)’; but plain i- rather than **gi
for initial i-, e.g. iti ‘go’. The OCS and OESl spellings are ambiguous, since Glagolitic
and Cyrillic had no way to distinguish ji/jь from i; the spelling krai, with «и, ι» could
convey /krajɪ/ ‘edge’ with the same ending as in otьcь ‘father’, or /kraji/ (NOM.PL ), with
the same ending as in otьci. In OCS, the PAP of *imus- ‘take’ could be written as
imъ(š-) or jemъ(š-); both of these presuppose /jɪmǝ(š)-/. Nonetheless, both OCS and
OESl provide unequivocal evidence for i̯ -prothesis before *i. In verbal roots (5), initial
*i- is reflected as i- in unprefixed forms and after prefixes ending in vowels, i.e. environ-
ments where prothesis would have been conditioned, but as ɪ (ь) after prefixes ending
in consonants, where prothesis would have been blocked. The cognate forms in OPo
(representing Lech in general) followed a similar pattern: root-initial *i was reflected as
ji in word-anlaut; as j in medial anlaut (after prefixes ending in vowels); and as zero
after consonants when it was in “weak-jer” position (see 5.8). In other WSl dialects, *i
underwent the same development after *i̯ in word-anlaut as elsewhere; cf. OCz jmě (1)
and jme, pojme (5); US jmje ‘take (PRS.3SG)’, pojmje take (PRS.3SG)’.

(5) *imɛti *i̯ i(:)mɛ(ti) imetъ imetь jme jimie ‘take
(PRS.3SG)’
*paimɛti *pai̯ i(:)mɛ(ti) poimetъ poimetь pojme pojmie ‘take
(PRS.3SG)’
*uzimɛti *u̯uzimɛ(ti) vъzьmetь vъzьmetь vezme weźmie ‘take; grasp
(PRS.3SG)’
3.5.1. Prothesis before open vowels
Throughout Sl, *i̯ developed before initial *a: in lexical roots (6). On the southeastern
periphery, in OCS and later Bg dialects (7), some of these roots are also attested without
the glide. There was never prothesis before the conjunction *a: and its compounds (8).
The adverbs *a:kad ‘as’ and *a:mas ‘to where’ show variation; the presence of the glide
may have been due to contamination with the relative root *i̯ - (9).

Authenticated
1448 XIII. Slavic
PSl OCS Bg Mc BCS Sln OCz

(6) *a:lau̯a2s jalov jalov jȁlov jálov jalový
*a:rima- jarьmъ jarem jarem járam jarem Cz jařmo
*a:i̯ (ik)ad aice jajce/†ajce jajce jáje/jájce jájce vajce
(7) *a:gada: agoda jagoda/†agudǝ jagoda jȁgoda jágoda jahoda
†
*a:gnent agnę agne/ jagnja jagne jȁgne jágnje/ jěhně
ágnje
*a:u̯εi̯ ti avitъ/ javi/†avi javi jȃvī jȃvi jěví
javitъ
(8) *a:lεi̯ ali ali ali ȁli àli ali
(9) *a:kad ako/jako ako ako ako ako ako/jako
(10) *au̯ika: ovьca ovca ovca óvca óvca ovce
*akas oko oko oko ȍko okȏ oko
PSl US OPo Pb OESl Gloss

(6) *a:lau̯- jaƚowy Po jaƚowy jolüwă jalovъ ‘barren, sterile’
*a:rima- jarzmo jarьmъ ‘ox yoke’
*a:i̯ (ik)ad jejo/wejo jaje/jajca joji jaice ‘egg’
(7) *a:gada: jahoda jagoda jod’ădåi jagoda ‘berry’; Pb
NOM.PL
*a:gnent jehnjo jagnię jogną jagn ja ‘lamb’

*a:u̯εi̯ ti LS javi jawi javitь ‘reveal’ (PRS.3SG)’
(8) *a:lεi̯ ali ali ‘or; if; really?’
(9) *a:ka ako/jako jako Slc ãk/jȧ̑k ako/jako ‘as’
(10) *au̯ika: wowca owca vücă ovьca ‘ewe’
*akas woko oko våt’ü oko ‘eye’
Outside of E-SSl, the isolated lexemes with initial *a: may have non-phonological expla-
nations. The Sln variant ágnje (7) was probably influenced by La agnus. Uk dialectal
ajo ‘egg’ is an innovation of children’s speech; Novg aje- (ajesova ‘egg-shover’, with
‘egg’ in the sense ‘testicle’) may be a taboo deformation. (See below for an alternative
explanation.)
Because i̯ -prothesis occurred before *a: but not *a (10), some scholars have dated it
to LCSl, after quantitative distinctions had given way to qualitative ones (*a > *ɔ, *a: >
*a; see 5.1); concomitantly, they have interpreted the cases of non-prothesis in E-SSl as
peripheral archaisms. This late dating seems implausible for a change attested, with the
same restriction to lexical morphemes, in all Sl dialects, including E-SSl in most of the

Authenticated
eligible roots. This distribution is comparable to that of ECSl changes, not LCSl. The
OCS and Bg exceptions need not be archaisms, since there was a tendency in E-SSl to
elide *i̯ in other environments.
Given its restriction to lexical roots, i̯ -prothesis before *a: was probably not sound
change proper. The palatal glide cannot have been a reinterpretation of the opening phase
of *a:; the transition from rest position to the full articulation of *a: would not involve
the doming of the tongue characteristic of *i̯ . A glottal consonant might be expected
instead (and may have actually developed, though it cannot be reconstructed). On the
other hand, the palatal glide could have arisen by provection rather than prothesis, from
the final phase of front vowels in transition to *a: in close juncture; once reanalyzed as
a distinct segment, it could have been generalized as a sandhi variant to other contexts.
Presumably, there would have been a parallel tendency for *u̯ to develop in the transition
from rounded vowels to *a:. This would account for certain roots in which CSl has an
unexpected *u̯ before *a: and even *a, cf. Bg vatral ‘poker’, BCS vȁtra, Cz †vatra, Uk
vatra ‘fire’, Slk vatra, Po †watra, ‘hearth’, if from PSl *a:tra: (cf. Avestan āter ‘fire’);
OCS, OESl, von ja, OCz vóně, OPo wonia ‘smell’ (*ani̯ a:). Note also OCz, Slk vajce
‘egg’ (6). Concomitantly, the loss of inherited *u̯ in PIE *u̯ops- > OSb, OESl, OPo osa,
OCz os ‘wasp’ could have been a hypercorrection. In this scenario, it would not be
surprising to find forms without any glide at all; cf. Sln ágnje ‘lamb’, Novg aje- ‘egg’
(above).
The tendency to extend *i̯ - more often than *u̯- may be linked with another change
that involved *a: but not *a − its merger with *ɛ: after palatals (3.4). In PSl, initial *i̯ a:
was limited to derivatives of the pronominal root *i̯ -. After the change of *i̯ ɛ: to *i̯ a:
(3.4), the inventory grew to include other lexical roots (11). The existence of lexemes
with semantically unmotivated (non-pronominal) *i̯ a: may have promoted the reanalysis
of sandhi off-glides as /i̯ -/ and their extension as a phonotactic pattern.
Similarly, in some LCSl dialects, there was sporadic i̯ -prothesis before anlaut *u:2
(PSl *au̯) (12) − not the u̯-prothesis that might be expected from the vowel’s articulation
per se. This was probably a sandhi phenomenon, perhaps promoted by roots with *i̯ u:2
(from PSl *i̯ au̯). This process did not occur consistently anywhere in Sl, and it generally
did not affect the preposition/prefix *u:2 (13). In ESl, there were hypercorrections in
which inherited glides were lost before u (from *u:2 and *ǫ) (14). This has been treated
as a sound change, and the exceptions as Church Slavonisms, but in fact there are many
lexemes in which the glide has been preserved.
PSl OCS Bg BCS OESl OCz OPo Gloss

(11) *i̯ ɛ:ra- jara jȁr jarъ jaro jaro/jarz ‘springtime’
(12) *au̯ga- jugъ jug jȕg (j)ugъ juh ‘south’
*au̯gɛi̯ na: južina ȕžina užina jużyna ‘dinner’
*au̯zda: uzda uzda/ ùzda uzda uzda uzda ‘bridle’
juzda
¶
*za:au̯tr- zautra zautra/ zautra zajutra zajutro ‘morrow’
zajutrě
zàjutrak zautrokъ zajutrek ‘breakfast’

Authenticated
1450 XIII. Slavic
PSl OCS Bg BCS OESl OCz OPo Gloss

(13) *au̯ u u u u u u ‘at’
(14) *iau̯na- junъ jun jùna:k unъ/junъ junoch junoch ‘young
(man)’
3.6. Dental palatalizations

Before *i̯ , dentals developed backed allophones with palatal (co)articulation: /Ti̯ / → [T ji̯ ]
or [Ti̯ ]. (The retraction diacritic T is used to cover postalveolar and dorsal articulations.)
Then the sequences were monophonemicized, and *i̯ interpreted as an offglide, which
was later eliminated in a deductive change: ECSl1 [T ji̯ ] or [Ti̯ ] 0 /T j/ or /T/ → ECSl2
[Tji̯ ~ T j] or [Ti̯ ~ T]. This complex of changes (“yodization,” Schenker 1995; “iotation,”
Lunt 2001), may have occurred at various times for the different manners of articulation.
PSl *si̯ and *zi̯ became *ʃ and *ʒ (1), thus merging with the reflexes of 1VP *x j and
*g (see 3.2). PSl *li̯ and *ni̯ became either palatal *ʎ, *ɲ or palatalized dental *l j, *n j
j
(2); *ri̯ (3) became *r j or post-alveolar *r. The reflexes will be indicated with the retrac-
tion diacritic (R).
The clusters *ti̯ and *di̯ (4) had diverse reflexes in LCSl (see 4.7). However, all the
outcomes can be derived from a stage parallel to the sonorants, with either palatal co-
articulation (*t j, *d j) or primary (alveo)palatal articulation (*c̟, *ɟ). The ECSl2 reflexes
will be indicated with the retraction diacritic (T).
PSl ECSl1 ECSl2 OCS OESl OCz OPo Gloss

i̯
(1) *na:si̯ a2s *na:s - *na:ʃi našь našь náš nasz ‘our’
i̯
*parazi̯ ɛn- *paraz ɛn- *paraʒɛn- poražen- poražen- poražen- porażen- ‘smite
(PPP)’
(2) *u̯ali̯ a: *u̯ali̯ a: *u̯ala: vol ja vol ja vólě wola ‘will’
i̯ j j
*mini̯ a:m *min a:N *mina:N mьn ǫ mьn u mňu mnię ‘think
(PRS.1SG)’
(3) *mari̯ ad *mari̯ ɛ *marɛ mor je mor je moře morze ‘sea’
The clusters *sti̯ , *zdi̯ merged with *sk j, *zg j from the 1VP (3.2). Evidently, the sibilants
backed to assimilate to *t and *d; then they merged with the alveopalatals *ʃ and *ʒ;
then the following stops *t and *d assimilated to hushers. (In some ESl and some SSl
dialects, *t and *d became alveopalatals in all positions; see 4.7)

(4) *su̯ai̯ ti̯ a: *su̯ɛ:2ta: svěšta svěča sviece świeca ‘candle’
*mɛdi̯ a: *mɛda: mežda meža mezě miedza ‘boundary’
(5) *pau̯sti̯ a:tɛi̯ *pu:ʃta:ti: puštati puščati púščěti/púštěti puszczać ‘release’
!
*duzdi̯ us *duʒdi dъždь dъždь déšč, Sk dážd’ deżdż ‘rain’

Authenticated
The palatalization of dentals and loss of the triggering *i̯ had a major impact on morphol-
ogy. In class III verbs (*i̯ e/*i̯ o themes), new root allomorphs appeared throughout the
present-tense system; the stem formant *i̯ was no longer in evidence (6). In Class IV
verbs, the theme had appeared in the e-grade *εi̯ or the lengthened grade *i: before
consonantal suffixes, and in the zero-grade *i̯ before vocalic suffixes. After dental pala-
talization, the allomorphy shifted to the root; with the loss of the *i̯ and the development
of nasal vowels (see 4.2), the old theme was no longer apparent throughout the paradigm.
Where the predesinential vowel persisted, it was necessarily reinterpreted as part of the
ending (7).

(6) *pɛi̯ sa:nad *pe:2sa:na pisano pisano pisano pisano ‘write
(PPP.N.SG)’
*pɛi̯ si̯ ɛti *pe:2ʃɛ(ti) pišetŭ pišetĭ píše pisze ‘write
(PRS.3SG)’
(7) *(pa)radɛi̯ ti *rade:2(ti) roditъ roditъ rodi porodzi ‘give birth
[dʑ] (PRS.3SG)’
*(pa)radi̯ ɛna2s *radɛnu roždenъ roženъ rozený porodzon ‘give birth
[dz] (PPP.M.SG)’
3.6.1. *kt clusters
As noted in 3.1.3, in *kt clusters the velar was lost, while the dental had bifurcating
reflexes. It persisted before non-front vowels (1), but became t (see 3.6) before front
vowels (2).
PSl MCSl1 OCS OSb OESl OCz OPo Gloss

j
(1) *pɛnkta2s *pɛ̃:tu pętъ pětъ p atъ pátý piątý ‘fifth’
*pakta2s *patu potъ potь potъ pot pot ‘sweat’
(2) *tɛktεi̯ *tɛte:2 tešti [ʃt] teći [c] teči [tʃ] téci [ts] ciec [ts] ‘run’
*naktis *nati noštь [ʃt] nokь [c] nočь [tʃ] noc [ts] noc [ts] ‘night’
*pektis *pɛti peštь[ʃt] pekь [c] pečь [tʃ] pec [ts] piec [ts] ‘oven’
The development here was presumably not *kt > *[k]ti̯ , as the drift in CSl was to
eliminate postconsonantal *i̯ (see 3.7). Rather, *t developed a non-anterior allophone [t]
in assimilation to the surrounding non-anterior segments; this merged with the phoneti-
cally similar or identical monophonemicized reflex of *ti̯ . When the preceding velar was
elided, the conditioning of *t became unpredictable. (For the LCSl development of *t,
see 4.7.)
There may have been a parallel change *n > *n between velars and *i. Here BCS
and some Sln dialects have /ɲ/: *(−)gni:da: > Sln ugnjída ‘ulcer’, BCS gnjȉda ‘nits’. In

Authenticated
1452 XIII. Slavic
OCS ogn jь ‘fire’ (PSl *agnis), the nasal is often written with the palatalization diacritic
(н̑ ); however, the word is also attested as a i̯ o-stem. Elsewhere in Sl, there is principled
uncertainty, as the reflexes of *n cannot be distinguished from those of *n before front
vowels.
3.7. Elimination of glides in clusters
3.7.1. Homorganic glides
After conditioning the 1VP (3.2) and dental palatalization (3.6), *i̯ was reinterpreted as
an off-glide of the new palatals and ceased to exist as an independent unit (1−2): /ʃi̯ / →
[ʃi̯ ] 0 /ʃ/ → [ʃi̯ ~ʃi̯ ~ ʃ]. There was a parallel reanalysis of *u̯ after labial consonants;
the given clusters occurred in zero-grade forms of ‘be’ (3) and over prefix boundaries
(4): /bu̯/ → [bu̯] 0 /b/ → [bu̯~bu̯~b]. (Counterexamples in the attested languages are
the result of post-CSl changes or leveling: OESl obiniti but Ru obvinit’ ‘accuse’, cf. vina
‘fault’.) The changes in homorganic glides are traditionally presented as elision. This is
accurate as a metalinguistic description of the outcomes, but the essential innovations
were monophonemicizations, or monophthongizations in Andersen’s sense (1972). The
changes differed from previous developments in consonant clusters in two ways: they
worked progressively, and they involved sequences that did not violate canonical syllable
structure (see 3.1).
PSl 1VP2 LCSl1 OCS OESl OCz OPo Gloss

(1) *mangi̯ a2s *manɟ i̯ a2 *mɔ̃:ʒɪ mǫžь mužь muž mąż ‘man’
*dau̯xi̯ a: *dau̯ ʃ i̯ a: *dɔ:ʃa: duša duša dušě dusza ‘soul’
(2) *pεi̯ si̯ ɛti *pεi̯ ʃ i̯ ɛti *pi:ʃɛti pišetъ pišetь píše pisze ‘write
(PRS.3SG)’
(3) *bu̯ɛ:st *bu̯ɛ: *bɛ: bě bě bě ‘be (AOR.3SG)’
u̯
(4) *abu̯ɛlktεi̯ *ab ɛltεi̯ *abɛlc̟i: oblěšti oboloči obléci oblec ‘clothe’
3.7.2. Labial + glide clusters
CSl *i̯ became *l after labials (1−2). This affected not only inherited *i̯ (1−2) but also
the *i̯ on-glide that developed in the monophthongization of *ɛu̯ (see 4.1). It is unclear
whether the change began before or after the monophthongization. The lateral has tradi-
tionally been called epenthetic l, as if it were inserted for ease of pronunciation. In fact,
the *l was a transmutation of the *i̯ , not an addition to the cluster. The phonetic mecha-
nism was target undershoot as the tongue blade retracted from the rest position character-
istic for labials to the domed position characteristic for *i̯ . The resulting not-quite-palatal
approximant was perceptually similar both to *i̯ and to *l from *li̯ sequences (see 3.6),
and hence open to rephonologization as *l.

Authenticated
PSl MCSl1 OCS BCS OESl OCz OPo Gloss

j j
(1) *pi̯ uu̯a:tεi̯ *plu̟u̯a:te:2 pl ьvati pljùvati pl ьvati plváti plwać ‘spit’
j j
(2) *bɛu̯i̯ ɛti *blɔ:i̯ ɛti bl ujetъ bljȕje bl ujetь bl’uje bluje ‘vomit
(PRS.3SG)’
(3) *tirpi̯ a:m *tirplã: trъpl jǫ ¶
tŕpi:m tьrpl ju trpiu cierz- ‘suffer
pię (PRS.1SG)’
(4) *zɛmi̯ a: *zɛmlã: zeml ja/-ja zèmlja zeml ja země ziemia ‘earth’
(5) *kɛ:pi̯ a: *tʃa:pla: Mc čapja čȁplja Uk čěpě czapla ‘heron’
čaplja
(6) *grabi̯ - *grabl- grȏblje grobl ja hróbě/ grobia/ ‘grave,
mound’;
hrobl’a grobla BCS
‘cemetery’
The *i̯ > *l change is usually treated alongside dental palatalizations [3.6], as if it in-
volved palatal (co)articulation; in fact, it was a progressive rather than a regressive
change. There are parallels from the historical period in which i̯ became l in new Pi̯
clusters: PSl mai̯ x- > LCSl1 *mæʃina > BCS mjèšina ~ †mljèšina ‘sack’. There are also
counter-parallels with ʎ being rephonologized as i̯ : Rom Mileta > LCSl1 *mɪlætǝ > BCS
Mljȅt ~ †Mjȅt (name of an Adriatic island); cf. La planus > Italian piano ‘level’; La
sclavus > Italian schiavo ‘Slav; slave’.
The change of *i̯ > *l is attested in all Sl dialects within morphemes (1−2). Over
morpheme boundaries (3−4), the lateral has been preserved consistently in ESl and W-
SSl. Elsewhere, there was a late tendency to reanalyze it as a glide, presumably by
leveling with related forms. This reversal was ongoing in OCS (10th−11th centuries), as
seen in the spelling variants Pl j~Pj~Pьj [Pj]. In WSl, *l was lost consistently in paradig-
matic alternations (3) and often elsewhere (4). However, non-alternating *l has left many
relics: OPo ‘heron’ (5), US čapla, LS capla, Kb czapla; OCz toponyms Počěplice,
Počěpli, Počapli; the doublets in OCz and OPo ‘mound’ (6), Slk hrobl’a ‘dam’, US
hrobla ‘ditch’. This variation shows that the WSl loss of the lateral was relatively late
and probably independent of the parallel tendency in E-SSl. (Alternatively, the variation
could have arisen not by a “loss” of *l but by the coexistence of conservative and
innovative forms within the same speech communities.)
The change led to morphophonemic alternations in verbs. In class IIIb, *l appeared
throughout the PRS system: OCS priimati|prieml jetъ, prieml ji, prieml jǫšt- ‘receive
(INF|PRS. 3SG, IMP.2SG, PRAP)’. In class IV, *l appeared in the 1SG, but not in other PRS
forms: OESl l jubl ju|l jubiši ‘love (PRS.1SG|2SG)’. In class IVa, *l occurred in the stems
of the imperfect, archaic PAP, PPP, and deverbal noun: BCS ljubljaše (IMPF.3SG); OESl
vъzljubl jь(PFV.PAP); BCS ljubljen (PPP); Sln ljubljenje (noun).
3.8. Vowels in final closed syllables

In certain grammatical forms, PSl *a(:) and *ɛ(:) in final syllables rose to, or were
replaced by, *u(:) and *i(:). The same happened before final sonorants; cf. *ma:ti: and

Authenticated
1454 XIII. Slavic
*dukti: in 3.1.4. There is debate about whether the raised outcomes arose in sound
changes limited to final syllables (Auslautgesetze) or in morphological substitutions.
For PSl *-aN (1−2), the expected outcome was *-a (see 3.1.4); the actual reflex was
*u, fronted to *i after palatals (see 3.4). In the (i̯ )o-stem M.ACC (1), the inherited ending
would have merged with N.NOM/ACC.SG *-ad > *-a. If the ending *-u did not arise by
sound change, it could have been imported from the u-stems (*-um); other u-stem end-
ings were coopted during the CSl period. In the nonsigmatic (root) AOR.1SG, the expect-
ed reflex of *-am (cf. Gk -on) would have been *-a; the attested *u (izidъ ‘go out’) may
have been reformed on the basis of the sigmatic AOR.1SG *-s-um (PreSl *-sm̥; cf. Gk
-sa). The sigmatic aorist became the predominant type during the CSl period, and the
two types otherwise interacted; for example, the root aorist ending was coopted to repair
the erosion of the sigmatic 2/3SG in Leskien I, II, and V.

(1) *grabam *grabu grobъ grobъ hrob grob ‘grave (ACC)’
(2) *lɛ:tam *lɛ:tu lětъ lětъ lét lat ‘year (GEN.PL )’
For PSl *-as, the expected outcome was *a, fronted to *ɛ after palatals. This occurs in
lexemes where *-as was part of the stem (3). However, in the (i̯ )o-stem M.NOM.SG (4),
*-a2 s (with the subscript signaling a divergent outcome) rose to, or was replaced by,
*-u, fronted to *-i after palatals. If *-a2 s had developed as expected, it would have been
syncretic with the N.NOM.SG *-a < *-ad (not to mention the M.ACC.SG, see above). Such
syncretism may account for seemingly “neuter” hypocoristics used for male referents,
e.g. OSb Radivoje, OESl Stoiko, OCz Tenko, OPo Zdięto. (Conversely, the syncretism
may explain why most PreSl barytone neuters became masculines.) While attempts have
been made to explain the *-a2 s reflex by sound change, it was more probably analogical
to the u-stem NOM/ACC.SG *u (< *-us/*-um). For the hypocoristics, syncretism was pro-
moted by the fact that the neuter was already used to denote baby humans and animals
(cf. *agnɛnt ‘lamb’ [6]). The directional adverbial suffix *-mas yielded both *-ma and
*mu (5). The latter may be analogical to ACC.SG *-u or DAT.PL *-mu(s); accusative and
dative both had directional meanings.

(3) *slau̯as *slava slovo slovo slovo sƚowo ‘word’
*nebas *nɛba nebo nebo nebo niebo ‘heaven; sky’
(4) *baga2s *bagu bogъ bogъ bóh bóg ‘god’
(5) *ta:mas/-a2s *ta:ma tamo tamo/tamъ tamo/tam tamo ‘thither’
*ka:mas/-a2s *ka:ma kamo kamo kamo/kam kam ‘whither’
The sequence *-Vnt (nt-stem NOM/ACC.SG ) developed like internal *VN-C (6); the
vowel and nasal monophthongized as Ṽ (see 4.2). By contrast, *-Vns (o-stem and ā-
stem ACC.PL ) had different outcomes, depending on the preceding consonant. After non-
palatals, the vowel was lengthened without being nasalized (7): *-ins > *-i:, *-uns >
*-u:, and *ans > *-u: (with raising). If this was a sound change, the lengthening was

Authenticated
compensatory for the disappearing nasal; vowels otherwise did not undergo lengthening
before final *s. (If the final *s had disappeared before the nasal, **VN > **Ṽ would be
expected; see 3.1.4) When *ans followed a palatal, the loss of the nasal was delayed,
for unclear reasons. The vowel was fronted to *ɛ, as expected (3.4). In WSl and ESl,
*-ɛns > *ɛ:, parallel to the development of *-ins. In SSl, the vowel underwent both
lengthening and nasalization, like internal tautosyllabic *ɛN (see 4.2): OCS ę [ɛ̃], OSb
e [ɛ]. If the development was regular, the outcomes may be due to different relative
chronologies: SSl *-ɛns > *-ɛ̃:ns > *-ɛ̃:, but WSl, ESl *-ɛ:ns > *-ɛ:s prior to nasalization.
In (8), *ɛ̃: would have yielded OESl a, OPo ę [ɛ̃], while *ɛ: would have given OCS -ě
[æ], OSb -ě [e]. (The WSl and ESl outcome is known as *ɛ:3, where *ɛ:1 = PSl *ɛ: [2.1]
and *ɛ:2 = PSl *ai̯ [4.1]. However, it seems likely *ɛ:3 developed prior to *ɛ:2.)

(6) *a:gnɛnt *(i̯ )a:gnɛ̃: agnę jagnje jagn ja jěhně jagnię ‘lamb’
¶
(7) *gastins *gasti: gosti gosti gosti hosti goście ‘guest
(ACC.PL )’
*su:nuns *su:nu: syny syny syny syny syny ‘son
(ACC.PL )’
*radans *radu: rody rody rody rody rody ‘kin-group
(ACC.PL )’
(8) *zɛmi̯ ans *zɛmlɛ̃:/-ɛ: zeml ję zemlje zeml jě země zemie ‘land
(ACC.PL )’
*mangi̯ ans *mã:ʒɛ̃:/-ɛ: mǫžę muže mužě mužě męże ‘man
(ACC.PL )’
The outcome of *-ants# (PRAP.M/N.NOM) also bifurcated, with the same dialect divide.
After non-palatals, the vowel was lengthened, and the nasal was lost before the develop-
ment of nasal monophthongs in MCSl1. It was raised to *-u: in SSl but remained low
*a: in WSl and ESl (6). After palatals, the loss of the nasal was again delayed; all
dialects show the expected fronting, then lengthening and nasalization (7). (There is no
way to determine if the vowel was also raised, as MCSl1 *ɛ̃: and *ĩ: merged in LCSl.)

(6) *rɛkants *rɛku:/-a: reky reky reka řka rzeka ‘say
(PRAP.M.INDEF )’
(7) *ka:zi̯ ants *ka:ʒɛ̃: kažę kaže kaža kažě każę ‘show
(PRAP.M.INDEF )’
4. Middle Common Slavic (MCSl) changes

If ECSl was the period in which the vowel system was essentially the same as in PSl,
MCSl began with a drastic restructuring of the vowel system − the monophthongization

Authenticated
1456 XIII. Slavic
of diphthongs (4.1−4.2) or First Slavic Vowel Shift (Andersen 1998), which probably
occurred ca. 4th−5th centuries (idem 2014: 59). Like the ECSl changes, the monoph-
thongizations had the same results in all the CSl dialects, but they were the preludes to
developments with dialectally differentiated outcomes (4.4−4.6). The latter are treated
as MCSl changes here if their isoglosses divide a unified WSl from SSl and ESl − that
is, if CzSlk patterns with Lech. This distribution can be interpretated as follows: P-WSl
extended into the Northern European Plain, which attenuated its contact with the other
dialects, but it was still internally cohesive because all of its dialects were on the same
side of the Carpathians. The P-ESl zone had been attenuated by northward migrations;
thus pre-Novgorodian (Novg) patterned as a periphery to the central zone represented
by P-SSl and P-ESl.
4.1. Monophthongizations of glide diphthongs
ECSl had falling diphthongs with coda *i̯ and *u̯ before consonants or the word bound-
ary. These tautosyllabic diphthongs became long/tense monophthongs: (1) PSl *ai̯ >
LCSl1 *æ (Slavistic ě2 ), merging with the reflex of inherited *ɛ: (1); PSl *εi̯ > LCSl1 *i
(Slavistic i2 ), merging with the reflex of inherited *i: (2); and PSl *au̯, *ɛu̯ > LCSl1 *u
(Slavistic u2 ) (3−4). Heterosyllabic sequences of the same vowels and glides did not
undergo monophthongization; examples from the same roots are included in the table
for comparison.
PSl MCSl1 LCSl1 OCS OESl OCz OPo Gloss

j !
(1) *kai̯ na: *k ɛ:2na: *tsæna cěna cěna cěna cena ‘penalty;
price’
*kai̯ ɛti *kai̯ ɛti *kai̯ ɛtɪ kajetъ kajetь kaje sě kaje się ‘repent
sɛ:m sɛ̃: sɛ̃ sę s ja (PRS.3SG)’
(2) *sɛi̯ tad *se:2ta *sitɔ Bg sito sito síto sito ‘sifter’
*sɛi̯ ɛti *sɛ:i̯ ɛti *sæi̯ ɛtɪ sějetъ sějеtь sěje sieje ‘sow
(PRS.3SG)’
(3) *da:rau̯i̯ ai̯ s *-ɔ:i̯ ɛ:2 *-ui̯ i darui darui daruj daruj ‘bestow
(IMP.2SG)’
*da:rau̯a:tεi̯ *-au̯a:te: *-ɔvati darovati darovati darovati darować ‘bestow’
j
(4) *rɛu̯i̯ ɛna2s *rɔ:i̯ ɛnu *rui̯ ɛnǝ MBg r ujenъ řújen ‘Septem-
r jujenъ ber’
*rɛu̯ants *rɛu̯- *rɛu̯ revy revy řeva ‘bellow
(PRAP.M)’
The split of tautosyllabic and heterosyllabic *au̯ created allomorphy in Leskien III verbs
with stems in *-au̯- (3). The resulting morphophonemic alternation is still productive
in the denominal suffix -ova-: Cz googlovat|googluje, Ru guglovat’|guglujet ‘Google
(INF|PRS.3SG)’.

Authenticated
The monophthongizations took place in several phases. First, the vowels assimilated
to the tonality of the glides, if different: before *i̯ , *a became advanced *a̟, with the
tongue slightly domed and closer to the palate; before u̯, *a, *ɛ became slightly rounded
*a̹, *ɛ̹. Second, the vowels tensed in partial assimilation to the close, peripheral articula-
tion of the glide: *a̟i̯ > *a̟ˑi̯ , *εi̯ > *εˑi̯ , *a̹u̯ > *a̹ˑu̯, and *ɛ̹u̯ > *ɛ̹ˑu̯ > *i̯ a̹ˑu̯. The breaking
of the *ɛ̹ into a high-tonality opening and a low-tonality nucleus is a well-attested type
of change. The front on-glide conditioned dental palatalization (3.6), which was not
ordinarily an effect of *ɛ. Afterwards, it was reinterpreted as an off-glide of the preceding
consonant, in accordance with the general CSl pattern (see 3.3, 3.6, 3.7.1). After labials,
it became *l (3.7.2).
The stage of monophthongizations proper is designated MCSl1. The tensed vowels
became more moved along the peripheral track: *a̟ˑi̯ > *æˑi̯ encroached on *εˑi̯ , which
rose to *eˑi̯ ; *a̹ˑu̯ > *ɔˑu̯. The glides were then revaluated as the closing phases of the
long/tense vowels: [eˑi̯ ] 0 /*e:/ → [e:(i̯ )]; [*æˑi̯ ] 0 /ɛ:/ → [ɛ:(i̯ )], merging with inherited
*ɛ: (a near-open vowel); and [a̹ˑu̯] 0 /ɔ:/ → [ɔ:(u̯)]. The dephonologized off-glides were
later eliminated by deductive changes.
The final stage, designated MCSl2, the mid- or close-mid monophthongs rose one
cardinal position. Thus *e: merged with the reflex of inherited *i:. In rising, *ɔ: en-
croached on the space of inherited *u:1, which moved into the central vowel space (see
4.3); *ɔ: then occupied the vacated close back space as *u:2.
As a result of the monophthongizations, the inherited ablaut relations ceased to be
transparent in syllables that had been diphthongal. Thus the ablaut series *i|*εi̯ |*ai̯ be-
came *i|*i:2 |* ɛ:2 (5), while *u|*ɛu̯|*au̯ became *u|*i̯ u:2 |*u:2 (6).
Grade PSl OCS OESl OCz OPo Gloss

(5) Zero *ku̯itεti cvьtetъ cvьtetь kv(e)te ‘bloom
(PRS.3SG)’
Full e *praku̯εi̯ tɛt procvite procvite prokvite ‘bloom
(AOR.3SG)’
Full o *ku̯ai̯ ta2s cvětъ cvětъ květ kwiat ‘flower’
(6) Zero *budɛ:tεi̯ bъděti bъděti bdieti ‘be alert’
j j
Full e *bɛu̯d-anti bl udǫtъ bl udutь ‘watch
(PRS.3PL )’
Full o *(au̯)bau̯di:tεi̯ ubuditi (u)buditi (u)buditi budzić ‘awaken’
4.1.1. Chronology
As the reflex of *ai̯ did not condition the 1VP (3.2), it evidently was not yet a front
vowel during that period. The reflex of *ɛu̯ was not yet a close vowel at the time of
Vowel Fronting, since it had a different fate from inherited *i̯ u: (see 3.3). (On the relative
chronology of monophthongization and the Progressive Palatalization, see 4.6)
The monophthongizations sensu stricto had not begun during the main period of
contacts with EGmc (ca. 2nd−4th cc.), since both borrowed and inherited *au̯ and *ai̯

Authenticated
1458 XIII. Slavic
underwent the same changes (5). However, the changes were at the MCSl1 stage by the
time of early contacts with WGmc and Rom (from ca. 5th c.). Foreign *ɔ: or o: (6) was
adapted as *ɔ:, the reflex of *au̯, prior to its rise to *u:2 in MCSl2. Gk toponyms of Sl
origin, dating at earliest from the late 6th−early 7th centuries, were accessed during the
MCSl1 stage, as the *au̯ reflex was rendered «ο, ω» rather than «ου»: PSl *strau̯mɛn-
‘stream’ ⥬ Στρώμην; PSl *sau̯x- ‘dry’ ⥬ Σωχός, Σοχᾶς. Similarly, early BFi borrowings
(probably 7th−8th centuries) show a MCSl1 reflex of *au̯: PSl *gau̯minad ‘threshing
floor’ ⥬ Votic kōmina, Vepsian gomin, Karelian kuomino, Eastern Finnish kuomina
(from *ō).
Source MCSl1 OCS OESl OCz OPo Gloss

⥬
(5) Go kausjan *(is)kɔ:2si:ti:2 iskusiti kusiti zkusiti kusić ‘test; taste’
⥬ j j
Go kaisar *kɛ:2sa:ri cěsar ь cěsar ь ciesař cesarz ‘king, emperor’
⥬
Go leihwan *li:xu̯a: lixva lixva lichva lichwa ‘usury’
⥬
(6) La rōsālia *rɔ:2sa:lii̯ - rusaliję rusalija ‘(pre-)Pente-
cost’
4.1.2. Alternative approaches
The monophthongizations have been interpreted in strikingly different ways. In one ap-
proach (e.g. Jakobson 1963), the vowel and glide metathesized in obedience to the Law
of Open Syllables; the vowel was lengthened and raised: *εi̯ > *i̯ e: > i:2, *ai̯ > *i̯ ɛ:2,
*au̯ > *u̯ɔ: > *u:2. However, the *εu̯ outcome cannot be explained by metathesis (**u̯e:),
so an intensity shift is posited instead (*i̯ u:2). This approach does not account for why
dentals and labials underwent iotation changes before *i̯ u:2, but not before *i̯ e: and *i̯ ɛ:2;
nor does it provide a coherent motivation for the lengthening and raising of the vowels.
Another approach (Feldstein 2003) assumes that the diphthongs were not VV̯ but VV
(“equal vocalic components”, ibid.: 249). When the components matched in tonality, the
first assimilated totally to the second: *a͡u > *u͡u; *ä͡i > *i͡i (*ä = *ɛ in the present
notation). When they differed in tonality, frontness spread from one to the other; then
one assimilated totally to the other in sonority: *a͡i > *ä͡i > *ä͡ä; *ä͡u > *ä͡ü > *ü͡ü (*ü =
*u̟ in the present notation). The notion of “total assimilation” conflicts with the evidence
that there was an intermediate stage with mid-vowels (MCSl1, 4.1.1). The author does
not explain why “total assimilation” proceeded right to left for *a͡i, but left to right
elsewhere; nor does he account for how his *ü(:) avoided merger with the front(ed)
rounded vowel *u̟: (3.3), which was still labialized at the time of the Progressive Velar
Palatalization (see 4.3, 4.6). He treats the development of *i̯ before *u̟u̟ (*üü) not as an
integral outcome of the monophthongization but as a separate (and ad-hoc) change that
“provided additional redundancy” for frontness combined with rounding (ibid.: 261).
4.1.3. Unexpected outcomes
Final *-ai̯ has the regular outcome *ɛ:2 in some endings, e.g. PSl *zei̯ mai̯ > OCS, OESl,
OCz zimě, OPo zimie ‘winter (DAT/LOC)’. However, in four endings they are said to have

Authenticated
yielded *-i:2. Of these, the DAT.SG enclitic personal pronouns − OCS mi (1SG), ti (2SG),
si (REFL ) − can be excluded. Though compared with Gk μοι, σοι, they are more likely
to be the regular outcomes of PSl *mɛi̯ , *tɛi̯ , *sɛi̯ ; the same ending occurred in the
DAT.SG of i- and consonant-stem nouns (OCS pǫt-i ‘road’, dьn-i ‘day’), cf. OPr mennei,
tebbei, sebbei, Li †manie, †tavie, †savie. The remaining endings almost certainly do go
back to *-ai̯ , since they triggered the 2VP (4.4) rather than the 1VP (3.2): o-stem
M.NOM.PL *u̯ilkai̯ > OCS vlъci, OESl vьlci, OCz vlci, OPo wilcy ‘wolves’; Leskien I−II
IMP.2SG|3SG: *mag-ai̯ -s/-t > OCS modzi, OESl, OCz mozi ‘dare’. Moreover, forms of
the imperative where the diphthong was non-final have the expected outcome *ɛ:2: OCS
modzěte, OESl mozěte, OCz mozěte (IMP.2PL ). The problematic endings can be treated
as analogical to inflection types with thematic *-i̯ - (i̯ o-stem nouns and Leskien III verbs).
Alternatively, one could posit that *-ai̯ C# regularly became *-i:2, if the o-stem NOM.PL
is reconstructed with a final *-s (cf. i-stem *-ii̯ ɛs, u-stem *-au̯ɛs, consonant-stem *-ɛs).
4.2. Monophthongization of vowel-nasal diphthongs

In MCSl, tautosyllabic vowel-nasal diphthongs became unitary nasal vowels: *aN, *un
> LCSl1 *ɔ̃ (1), and *ɛn, *in > LCSl1 *ɛ̃. These are the sounds represented by the OCS
“jusy” ѫ (ǫ) and ѧ (ę), respectively. (For their outcomes in the individual Sl languages,
see 5.2.2)
PSl MCSl1 LCSl1 OCS OESl OCz OPo Gloss

(1) *anzuka2s *ã:zu:ku *ɔ̃zɨkǝ ǫzъkъ uzъkъ úzký wąski ‘narrow’
*ranka:m *rã:kã: *rɔ̃kɔ̃ rǫkǫ ruku ruku rękę ‘hand
(ACC)’
*galumbis *galũ:bi *golɔ̃bɪ golǫbь golubь holub gołąbek ‘dove’
j
(2) *pa:mintis *pa:mĩ:ti *pamɛ̃tɪ pamętь pam atь pamět pamięć ‘memory’
j i
*zɛntis *zɛ̃:ti *zɛ̃tɪ zętь z atь zět [ e] zięć [ɛ̃] ‘son-in-
law’
(3) *za:i̯ inka2s *za:ĩ:c̟u *zaɛ̃tsɪ zajęcь zajacь zajiec Po zając ‘hare’
j
*lɛnganti *lɛ̃:gã:ti *lɛ̃gɔ̃tɪ lęgǫtъ l agutь lahú lęgą ‘lie down
(PRS.3PL )’
The development of nasal vowels took place in three phases. First, the vowels underwent
assimilatory nasalization: /VN/ → [ṼN]/__{C, #}. Second, the nasals were reinterpreted
as the closing phases of the vowels: [ṼN] → /Ṽ:/ → [Ṽ(N)]. In other words, they were
revaluated as transitions to the closure (complete or partial) of the following units. Con-
comitantly, their distinctive tonality (*m or *n) was ascribed to the following consonants.
Thus syllable-final nasals ceased to exist as phonologically independent units. The new
nasal vowels were redundantly long, preserving the mora count of the old diphthongs.
The stage that resulted from these first two phases is designated MCSl1, correspond-
ing to the monophthongization phase of vowel-glide diphthongs (see 4.1). In the next
phase, MCSl2, *ã: and *ũ: merged as mid-back rounded *ɔ̃: (Slavistic ǫ), and *ĩ: and

Authenticated
1460 XIII. Slavic
*ɛ̃: as (open-)mid-front ɛ̃: (Slavistic ę). It is not problematic that the merger involved
both lowering of the close vowels and raising of the (near-) open ones. Cross-linguistical-
ly, close nasal vowels tend to be perceived as more open, and open nasal vowels as more
close, than their oral counterparts. Presumably, the mergers were also facilitated by the
relative perceptual difficulty of distinguishing between nasal vowels, as compared with
their oral counterparts (see Ohala 1975: 294). (The existence of a separate MCSl1 stage,
with distinct *ĩ: and *ɛ̃: vowels, is indicated by the fact that the Progressive Velar Palatal-
ization occurred after *in, but not after *ɛn; see 4.6)
The monophthongization created morphophonemic alternations between VN and V ˜̄
in nasal-stem verbs (Leskien Ia and IIIa) (4−5) and in neuter n-stem nouns (6). In addi-
tion, it obscured the ablaut patterns in inceptive verbs with infixed *n in the present
system (7−8).
PSl MCSl1 MCSl2 OCS OESl OCz OPo Gloss

(4) *dumtεi̯ *dũ:te:2 *dɔ̃:ti dǫti duti dúti dąć ‘blow’
*dumɛti *dumɛti *dʊmɛti dъmetъ dъmetь dme dmie (PRS.3SG)
(5) *na:kintεi̯ *na:tʃĩ:te:2 *na:tʃɛ̃:ti: načęti načati načieti naczęć ‘begin (INF )’
*na:kinɛti *na:tʃinɛti *na:tʃinɛti načьnetъ načьnetь načne nacznie (PRS.3SG)
j
(6) *plɛdmɛ:n *plɛmɛ̃: *plɛmɛ̃: plemę plem a plémě plemę ‘tribe’
*plɛdmɛnɛs *plɛmɛnɛ *plɛmɛnɛ plemene ple- plé- ple- (GEN)
mene mene mene
(7) *bunda:m *bũ:dã: *bɔ̃:dɔ̃: bǫdǫ budu budu będę ‘be
(PRS.1SG)’
*bu:xum *bu:xu *bɨ:xʊ byxъ byxъ bych bych (AOR.1SG)
j
(8) *lɛnga:m *lɛ̃:gã: *lɛ̃:gɔ̃: lęgǫ l agu lahu lęgą ‘lie
(PRS.1SG)’
*lɛgtεi̯ *lɛte:2 *lɛc̟i: lešti leči léci lec ‘lie’
4.2.1. For Feldstein (2003), this change, like the other CSl monophthongizations, in-
volved gemination in a diphthong defined as “equal vocalic components” (Feldstein
2003: 249) − i.e. VN̥. The first portion assimilated to the nasality of the second, which
then assimilated to the sonority of the first: VN̥ > ṼN > ṼṼ (Feldstein 2003: 262−263).
However, the starting nucleus VN̥ is typologically improbable, whereas the assimilation/
monophthongization process described in 4.2 is well attested cross-linguistically.
4.3. Delabialization of *u(:)1 and *u (:)1

As mentioned in 4.1, as *ɔ: (from PSl *au̯, *ɛu̯) rose, it impinged on the phonetic space
of inherited *u:1. As a result, *u:1 centralized and delabialized, not necessarily in that
order (1): *u: > (*ɯ >) *ɨ: (Slavistic y). Short *u underwent a parallel centralization (2):
*u > MCSl2 *ʊ or *ɵ (2); however, its reflex was still somewhat rounded in LCSl, at
least in some peripheral dialects (see 5.1.1, 5.7). These developments evidently added

Authenticated
to the push-chain: *u̟(:), which had arisen after palatals (see 3.3), moved into the front
vowel space and eventually merged with *i(:) (3). This merger had not yet happened in
the early phases of the Progressive Velar Palatalization (4.6), which was conditioned by
*i(:) but not *u̟(:).
PSl MCSl2 LCSl1 OSb OESl OCz OPo Gloss

(1) *magu:la: *magɨ:la: *mogyla mogyla mogyla Cz mogiła ‘tumulus’
mohyla
(2) *supna2s *sʊnʊ *sʊnʊ sъnъ sъnъ sen sen ‘sleep’
(3) *si̯ u:tεi̯ *ʃu̟(:)ti:2 *ʃiti šiti šiti šíti szyć ‘sew’
*si̯ uu̯a2s *ʃu̟u̯ʊ *ʃiu̯ʊ šьvь šьvъ šev szew ‘seam’
Some of the Balkan Rom (post-Vulgar La) dialects with which migrating Slavophones
had contact had front rounded vowels *u̟ and *o̟. These were adapted as MCSl *u̟:
(4) or, after non-palatals, *i̯ u̟: (5), with the vowel diphthongized to accommodate CSl
phonotactics (cf. 3.4). As shown in (5), *i̯ caused dental palatalization (see 3.6); then it
was eliminated after palatals, in accordance with the usual CSl pattern (see 3.7). (Cf.
Lombard lačüga. La lactūca could not have been the direct source of MCSl *lac̟u̟ :ka:,
as *kt would be expected to yield *t; nor can the donor have been ERom: Romanian
lăptucă.)
Source MCSl2 LCSl1 OSb OESl OCz OPo Gloss

⥬
(4) Rom *ʒu̟:d- *ʒu̟:du *ʒidʊ židь židъ žid żyd ‘Jew’
⥬
(5) Rom *lac̟u̟:ka: *loc̟ika Cr Ru locika ƚocyga ‘lettuce’
*latu̟:k- loćika ločiga
⥬
Rom *cro̟:ʒ- *kru̟:ʒi *kriʒɪ križь križь kříž krzyż ‘Cross’
⥬
(6) OHG mûta *mu:1ta- *mɨto myto myto mýto myto ‘toll’
The delabialization of *u(:) had not yet taken place during early Migration-Period (prob-
ably 6th−7th-c.) contacts with Gk and La. Slavophone settlers in Byzantine Dalmatia
adapted the *u(:) of Rom toponyms as their own *u(:)1 (>*ɨ: > OCr i): Tragurium >
MCSl1 *tragu:ri- > LCSl1 *trogɨrɪ > Trogir; Scardona > *skardu:na ⥬ MCSl1 *skar-
du:nu > LCSl1 *skardɨnʊ > Skradin. Likewise, Slavophones adapted OHG u: as their
own MCSl1 *u:1 (> *ɨ:) rather than MCSl2 *u:2 (6). Conversely, Frankish sources of the
7th−8th centuries render CSl *u:1 as u rather than, say, i, oi, or ui: *u̯aldu:ka: ‘ruler’ ⥬
Walducus; *dabramu:slis ⥬ Dabramuzli. Similarly, some Gk loanwords and toponyms
of CSl provenience, presumably dating from the early period of settlements (late 6th−
7th-centuries) show u (ου) for *u(:)1 instead of ü (υ) or i (ι, ει, η): *magu:la: (1) ⥬
μαγούλα ‘hill’ (also well represented in toponyms); *buz- ‘elderberry’ ⥬ Βούζι[ον] (top-
onym), cf. Bg bŭz, BCS baz, Ru boz, Cz, Po bez.

Authenticated
1462 XIII. Slavic
4.4. Second Regressive Palatalization of Velars
The Second Palatalization of Velars (2VP) was conditioned by the reflexes of PSl *ai̯
(see 4.1) − MCSl1 *ɛ:2 (1−2), and *i: from *ai̯ C# (3−4). It was also triggered by *i(:)
in Migration-Period loanwords (5). It was the first CSl sound change to have dialectally
diverse outcomes: *k > ts, *g > (d)z, but *x > ʃ in WSl, x j in Novg, and s elsewhere.
These isoglosses suggest that the 2VP was happening as P-WSl speakers were migrating
north of the Carpathians, and as P-ESl (P-Novg) speakers moved into northwestern
Russia (see 1.1.2).
PSl 2VP1 OCS OESl Novg OCz OPo Gloss

(1) *kai̯ la2s *k jɛ:2lu cělъ cělъ kěle cělý caƚy ‘whole’
*gai̯ lad *g jɛ:2la dzělo zělo zielo ‘strongly’
*xai̯ ra2s *x jɛ:2ru MBg sěrъ šěrý szary ‘grey’
sěrъ
*xai̯ ris *x jɛ:2ri xěrь šěř ‘grey cloth’
j
(2) *rankai̯ *rã:k ɛ:2 rǫcě rucě rucě ręce ‘hand (DAT/
LOC.SG)’
*nagai̯ *nag jɛ:2 nodzě nozě nozě nodze ‘leg (NOM/

ACC.DU)’
(3) *rikai̯ s *rik ji:2 rьci rьci reki řci/rci rzec ‘say (IMP.2SG)’
j
(4) *dau̯xai̯ *dɔ:x i:2 dusi dusi duši duszy ‘spirit (NOM.PL )’
j
(5) Go ⥬*k irku: crьky cьrky crkev cierkiew ‘church’
*kiriko:
Rom *akitu ocьtъ ocьtъ ocet ocet ‘vinegar’
*acitǝ
Gmc ⥬*rɛg jina Řezno ‘Regen(sburg)’
Regin
The change proceeded in several phases. In 2VP1, velars developed fronted allophones,
probably with palatal coarticulation: *k > *k j, *g > *g j, *x > *x j. This stage is attested
in Novg, on the northeastern periphery. In 2VP2, the palatalized velars became palatals:
*k j > *c̟, *g j > *ɟ, *x j > *ç. At this stage, P-WSl *ç merged with alveopalatal *ʃ
from 1VP *x and from *si̯ (3.2, 3.6). In 2VP3, the palatals became dentals with palatal
coarticulation: *c̟ > *t j, *ɟ > *d j, and, in P-ESl and P-SSl, *ç > *s j. The dental stops
became affricates in all dialects: *t j > *ts j, *d j > *dz j (Slavistic c, dz or ʒ, and š). The
voiced affricate was preserved as such in E-SSl, Slk, and Lech; otherwise it was lenited
to *z j except when there was a preceding *z (see [11] below).
For 2VP *x j, CenSlk has twofold reflexes − WSl ʃ in non-alternating environments,
and quasi-SSl s stem-finally: šerý ‘grey’, but blcha|blse ‘flea (NOM|LOC)’; cf. OCz
blcha|blšě ‘flea’ (PSl *bluxa:). The mixed outcome may be due to language contact;
prior to the 10th c., CenSlk neighbored W-SSl, and it has SSl-like reflexes from certain

Authenticated
other changes. It is also conceivable that the *s was analogical to the velar-to-dental
mutations from *k and *g (2).
The 2VP reflexes of *sk j (6−8) and the rare *zg j (9) show a more complicated dialect
split. For SSl, WSl, and Novg, the outcomes were homorganic with the *x j reflexes.
Thus, SSl had palatalized dental *s jts j and *z jdz j; with the loss of palatal coarticulation,
these are reflected as st(s) (ts in some dialects) and zd. WSl had alveopalatal *ʃtʃ and
*ʒdʒ; these became ʃc̟ [št’] and ʒɟ [žd’] in WCz. The alveopalatal outcomes in WSl
presuppose that the sibilants first assimilated to the palatal (co)articulation of the stops:
*sk j > *s jk j (or *sc̟) > *s jc̟; *zg j >*z jg j (or *zɟ) >*z jɟ. This may also have occurred in
the other dialects; cf. the reflex ʃk that appears in a few lexemes in ESl (8), as well as
in CzSlk (OCz škieřiti~ščeřiti), if it is not affective in origin. However, only in WSl were
the palatalized sibilants identified with the pre-existing alveopalatal fricatives, which
conditioned the progressive assimilation of the stops.
PSl 2VP1 SSl OESl OCz OPo Gloss

j
(6) *-isk- *-isk i:i̯ i: OCS -ьstii -ščí -szczy ‘folk (M.NOM.PL )’
-ьscii
(7) *skai̯ g- *sk jɛ:2g- OSb scěglъ Cz szczegelny ‘alone’; Cz ‘slim’
(s)cěglь štíhlý
*skai̯ p- *sk jɛ:2p- OSb skěpanije ščiepati szczepać ‘splinter(ing)’
(s)cěpit
(8) *skai̯ r- *sk jɛ:2r- BCS Uk škieřiti szczerzyć ‘grimace’
cȅriti se škiryty się
(9) *drɛnzgai̯ *drɛ̃:zg jɛ:2 OCS dr jazdě ‘forest (LOC)’
dręzdě
*mai̯ zgai̯ *mɛ:2zg jɛ:2 míeždie Po ‘sap (DAT/LOC)’
†
miażdże
In Novg, where the palatalization halted at the 2VP1 stage, the reflex is *sk j, as expected:
proskipomъ ‘pierced through (PRPP.M.INDEF )’. Less expectedly, the same reflex is well
attested in OESl texts of non-Novg origin: rusьskěi ‘Rus’ (F.LOC.SG.DEF )’; *skai̯ p- >
skěpanije ‘splintering’, oskěpъ ‘spear’, (o)skěpišče ‘spear shaft’, poskěpaša ‘hack up
(AOR.3PL )’; *skai̯ mεi̯ m- > skěmim- ‘press (PRPP)’, cf. (7). The same outcome is attested
in the modern languages: Uk skipka ‘chip’, BR skepka ‘pinch’, SRu raskep ‘split’. How-
ever, in OESl texts, *sk j is more often reflected as sts or st, and *zg j is meagerly reflected
as zd: rusьscěi~rusьstěi; dr jazdě (9). These OCS-like reflexes appear only in alternating
(stem-final) position (6, 9); in root-initial position, st is unattested, and sts only crops
up in the rare word scěglъ (7), an element of the ChSl register borrowed from OCS. This
points to the conclusion that the alternation sk|st arose in imitation of OCS protographs;
this was probably true for sts, though that could also develop by analogy to the alterna-
tion of non-cluster k|ts.
There are also lexemes in which 2VP *sk j seems to be reflected as quasi-WSl ʃtʃ: Uk
ščemyty, BR ščemic’, Ru ščemit’ ‘press’; Uk ščepyty, BR ščepac’, Ru ščepit’ ‘splinter’.
However, these are probably e- or zero-grades with the regular 1VP reflex of *sk j; cf.
Ru ščomy ‘pincers’ (*skim- or *skem-), OPo szczmić ‘press’ (*skim-); OESl ščьpь ‘wan-

Authenticated
1464 XIII. Slavic
ing crescent moon’, ščopy ‘splinters’, OCz ščpieti ‘produce a stinging odor’ (*skip-); Uk
ščyryty ‘bare one’s teeth’ (*skεi̯ r-), contrast škiryty (8), reflecting o-grade of the same
root. These lexemes aside, the evidence points to *sk j as the pan-ESl − not just Novg −
reflex of *sk j. In ESl, as in WSl, the preceding sibilant evidently arrested the coronaliza-
tion process.
In relative chronology, the terminus a quo for 2VP1 is generally considered to be the
monophthongization of *ai̯ (4.1). In a late-6th-c. Byzantine text, Κελαγάστου (GEN), the
name of an Antae emissary, probably renders pre-2VP2 *kɛ:2 lagast-; cf. OCS cěl-
‘healthy’ and gostь ‘guest’. For E-SSl, the phonological constraints introduced by the
change were still active in the 860s, when the protographs of the OCS manuscripts were
composed − hence the perceived need for a special Glagolitic letter «`» (misleadingly
transliterated ћ) to render foreign «g» before a front vowel; the scribes sometimes re-
placed it with «g» (g̑eorgii ‘George’), or hypercorrected «g» to «ћ» (golъgota ~
ћolъћota|ћelъћota ‘Golgotha’).
The 2VP created several stem alternations: in the ā-stem DAT/LOC (2) and NOM/
ACC.DU (2); in the o-stem LOC, M.NOM.PL (4), and LOC.PL, and N.NOM/ACC. DU; and in
the IMP of velar-stem verbs (3). These alternations have been leveled out over time in
some of the Sl languages.
clusters
4.5. Ku
The 2VP (4.4) was, for the most part, blocked if there were consonants between the
velar and the potential trigger (1). However, in some dialects, palatalization seems to
have proceeded without hindrance in Ku̯ clusters. This took place in SSl and non-periph-
eral ESl dialects, but not in WSl or Novg; thus the isogloss essentially matches that of
the 2VP. The change was conditioned not only by *ɛ:2 (2) but also by inherited *i (3)
and *i:2 from *εi̯ (4) − front vowels that would have triggered the 1VP in immediately
preceding velars. However, if the target velar was preceded by *s, the palatalization was
blocked in all dialects (5).
PSl OCS OESl Novg/NRu OCz OPo Gloss

† j
(1) *gnai̯ zda- gnězdo gnězdo gn ezdo hniezdo gniazdo ‘nest’
† j
(2) *ku̯ai̯ ta2s cvětъ cvětъ kv et květ kwiat ‘flower’
*gu̯ai̯ gzda: (d)zvězda zvězda gvězdъkě hvězda gwiazda ‘star’
† j
(3) *ku̯itεti cvьtetъ cvьtetь kv et- kv(e)te kwicie ‘bloom
(PRS.3SG)’
(4) *gu̯εi̯ zd- BCS zvȋzd zvizd- Pogvizdъ hvízd- gwizd- ‘whistle’;
Novg
toponym
(5) *skvirna: skvrъna skvьrna skvrna ‘filth’
Prima facie, it is odd that the lip rounding and low tonality of *u̯ did not block the 2VP.
Rather than assuming that *u̯ was somehow “transparent” for the 2VP when *n, *r, *l

Authenticated
were not, it can be posited that *u̯ first underwent assimilatory fronting between velars
and front vowels, at least in non-peripheral zones: *u̯ >*ɥ /K__V[+front]. Thus, in (2),
PSl *ku̯ai̯ t- > *ku̯ɛ:2 t- > *kɥɛ:2 t- > *k jɥɛ:t- > *c̟ɥɛ:t- *tsɥɛ:t-. The posited labiopalatal
glide − a more natural conduit for the 2VP than *u̯ − would not be isolated in place or
manner of articulation; syllabic [u̟(:)] (IPA [y(:)]), reflecting PSl *i̯ u(:) (3.3) existed at
the time of the Progressive Palatalization (4.6). (For other changes with progressive-
regressive conditioning, see 3.6.1 and 4.6)
4.6. Progressive Palatalization
The Progressive Velar Palatalization (PVP) or Palatalization of Baudouin de Courtenay

was triggered by the reflexes of PSl syllabic *i(:)1 (1) and *in (2). The attested reflexes
are the same as those of the 2VP: *k > c , *g > dz, and *x > WSl ʃ, SSl and ESl s(j).
The affricate dz is attested in E-SSl, Slk, and Lech; elsewhere it lenited to z prior to the
historical period.
The PVP had two phases. In PVP1, the articulation changed from velar to fronted
dorsal: *k > *k j > *c̟; *g > *g j > *ɟ; and *x > *x j > *ç. In PVP2, the reflexes coronalized
and assibilated: *c̟ > *t j > *ts j; *ɟ > *d j > *dz j; *ç > *ʃ in WSl, *s j in SSl and ESl. The
voiced affricate *dz j was preserved on the NW and SE peripheries (Lech and parts of
E-SSl) but lenited elsewhere. It is sometimes posited that the PVP and 2VP were a
single change (see 4.6.2); a less controversial position is that PVP2 and 2VP2 were a
single change.
The PVP was more precisely progressive-regressive: velars were regularly affected
only before *a(:). By contrast, the 1VP reflexes (see 3.2) appear before PSl *ɛ(:), *i(:),
and *i̯ (3), and no palatalization at all occurs before PSl *u(:) (4). The blocking effect
of *u(:) is evident where the PSl velar was always followed by the same vowel, as in
(4). When the PSl velar was stem-final, before alternating desinences, there was allomor-
phy between velars and PVP reflexes. This was leveled out − not always in favor of the
PVP outcome; for *stiga: (1), cf. OSlk Prěsteg (toponym); Ru †stega; Ru zgi in ni zgi
ni vidno ‘pitch-black’ (literally, ‘the path could not be seen’).
PSl PVP1 OCS OESl OCz OPo Gloss

(1) *li:kad *li:c̟a lice lice líce lice ‘face’
*atika:d *atic̟a: otьca otьca otcě otca ‘father
(GEN)
*stiga: *stiɟa: stь(d)za stьza stzě śćdza ‘path’
*u̯ixad *u̯iça vьse vьse vše wsze- ‘all (N)’
j
(2) *mɛ:sinka:d *mɛ:sĩ:c̟a: měsęca měs ac měsiecě miesięca ‘moon
(GEN)’
⥬
*kuninga- *kunĩ:ɟa: kъnędza kъn jaza knězě księdza ‘prince
(GEN)’
⥬
*pɛ:ning- *pɛ:nĩ:ɟ- pěnędzь pen jazь peniez pieniędz- ‘penny’

Authenticated
1466 XIII. Slavic

(3) *atikɛ *atitʃɛ otьče otьče otče otcze ‘father
(VOC)
(4) *ligukad *liguka lьgъko lьgъko lehko lekko ‘light
(ADV)’
*kuningu:ni̯ i: *kunĩ:gu:ni: OSb kъn jagyn ji kněhně ¶
ksieni ‘princess’
knegyni
Two relative chronologies should be noted. First, the reflexes of *u̟(:), from PSl *u(:)
after palatals (3.3), were distinct from inherited *i(:) at the time of PVP1 (5); presumably,
they were still labialized (IPA [y(:)]) or not fully fronted (IPA [ʉ(:)]). As the PVP was
blocked before rounded *u(:), it makes sense that it should have been impeded after a
rounded vowel.
Second, PVP1 took place before MCSl2. Unlike *ĩ (from PSl *in), *ɛ̃ (from PSl *εn)
did not condition the change, so the two nasal vowels were still distinct (6) (see 4.2,
4.4). Likewise, the reflex of *εi̯ , which was not a trigger (7), was still distinct from
inherited *i:1, which was. (Apparent exceptions, e.g. OCS pomidzati, have morphological
explanations; see 4.6.1). Scholars who treat the PVP1 as an ECSl phenomenon (see
4.6.2) argue that the nasal in PSl *in had become *ɲ between *i(:) and velars; this *ɲ
was transparent or a trigger for PVP1, unlike the dental nasal in *ɛn. This ad-hoc expla-
nation fails to explain why other consonants (*l, *r *s, and *z) did not retract (e.g., *l
> *ʎ) in the same environment and remained “opaque” for PVP1. In any case, it is hard
to swallow the notion that *ɲ would be a better vector for PVP1 than *i̯ (7−8).
PSl PVP LCSl1 OCS OESl OCz OPo Gloss

(5) *i̯ ugad *i̯ u̟ga *i̯ ɪgo igo igo jho Po igo ‘yoke’
*bli:zi̯ u:ka: *bli:ʒu̟(:)ka: *bliʒika ‘neighbor’
j
(6) *tɛng-astis/-a(:) *tɛ̃:g- *tɛ̃g- tęgostь t agostь těhost cięga ‘weight’
(7) *tεi̯ xad *te:2xa *tixo tixo tixo ticho cicho ‘quiet
(8) *rai̯ ka: *rɛ:2ka: *ræka rěka rěka řěka rzeka ‘river’
Borrowings to and from Sl indicate that PVP1 was operating in the 6th−7th centuries.
Thus *pɛ:ning- (2) came from a source with WGmc umlaut (*panning- > *penning-;
from the late 5th c.); the term is attested in WGmc from the mid-7th c. (There is no
known cognate in EGmc; Go had skatts in the given meaning.) This terminus a quo
corresponds to the period of Sl settlement in ECen Europe and hence more extensive
contacts with WGmc. (For ‘shilling’, also borrowed from Gmc, Go could be the source:
OCS skъlędzъ, OESl stьl jadzь, Cr †clez.) Likewise, P-Sln borrowed the La hydronym
Longaticum before the completion of PVP1: *lãgatik- > Logatec. P-Sln settlements in
the Eastern Alps date to the late 6th−7th centuries.
P-ESSl toponyms in southern and central Greece have also been cited for absolute
chronology: *au̯arik- ‘sycamore (DIM)’ ⥬ Ἀβαρῖκος; Γαρδίκι (attested in multiple lo-
cales) from *gardika2s ‘walled town’; etc. (Vasmer 1941: 301). These loanwords, proba-
bly accessed in the 6th−8th centuries, do not necessarily show the absence of PVP1, given

Authenticated
the limitations of the Gk writing system and the possibility of leveling within Sl. The
soft declension of Γαρδίκι may perhaps be due to non-Slavophone perceptions of CSl
*k j or *c̟ as *ki. However, the loanwords may suggest that their Sl models had not
completed PVP2 at the time of accession; cf. the cognate toponyms Ἀβαρινίτσα,
Γαρδίτσα, which reflect PVP2. Vasmer (1941: 301−302) cautions that the Sl suffixes
may have been contaminated with the Gk suffix -ikeia.
It is debatable whether PVP2 tapered off on the northeastern periphery, as 2VP had (see
4.4−4.5). In Novg, *k after PVP triggers is mostly reflected as ts: otьcь ‘father (NOM)’,
věvericě ‘currency (NOM/ACC.PL )’ (*u̯ai̯ u̯eri:k-); exceptions may be analogical in origin.
For *g in the PVP environment, Novg has k(ъ)n jaz- ‘prince’ but leg (÷lьg-) ‘be permitted’
(*lig-). The former could be a borrowing from Kievan; the latter could be due to stem-
leveling. For *x, there is a near-complete paradigm of *u̯ix- ‘all’ with stem-final x and hard
type endings: voxo (÷vъxo), vъxoě, etc., corresponding to Kievan OESl vьsь (M.NOM.SG),
vьse (N.NOM/ACC.SG), vьseě (F.GEN.SG). On this basis, Zaliznjak (2004: 45−46) concludes
that P-Novg *x did not undergo the PVP. However, most of the relevant forms do not repre-
sent the PVP1 triggering environment, since they show the change of *u̯ix- > *u̯ux- (see
Zaliznjak 2004: 54−55) − hence the spellings vъx- or vox- instead of vьx- or vex-. Zaliznjak
suggests (2004) that the vowel backing did not occur when there was a front vowel in the
following syllable, based on the form vьxemo (÷vьxěmъ DAT.PL; OESl vьsěmъ). However,
this may have been a contamination from ChSl or a mistake; the token dates from the time
when “weak” ъ and ь were being lost. Cf. voxь (÷vъxe), with the early Novg hard-stem(!)
M.NOM ending -e. Until the chronology of *u̯ix > *u̯ux- is clarified, the root ‘all’ cannot be
considered secure evidence that P-Novg *x was unaffected by the PVP.
4.6.1. Leveling of stem alternants
Several suffixes are attested both with and without PVP outcomes. While some of the
variation may have arisen in the historical period, others are pan-Slavic. For example,
in the suffix *-(in)i:k-, the generalization of the unpalatalized consonant to signal mascu-
line and the palatalized one to signal feminine (or common gender) was undoubtedly
prehistoric, as in the forms for ‘sinner’ in (1).

(1) *-ini:ka:d *-ini:k ja: grěšьnika grěšьnika hřiešníka grzesznika (M.GEN)
*-ini:ka: *-ini:k ja: grěšьnica grěšьnica hřiešnicě grzesznica (F.NOM)
j 0
(2) *kli:ka:tɛi̯ *kli:k a:te:2 klicati klicati klícěti ‘shout’
0
klikati
*kli:knantɛi̯ *kli:knɔ̃:te:2 vъskliknǫti kliknuti ‘shout
(PFV)’
0
(3) *mirka:tɛi̯ *mirka:te:2 mrъcati mьrkati mrkati ‘grow
dim’
Bg †mrъka 0
mьrkati Slc
mjie̯řkac są

Authenticated
1468 XIII. Slavic
The expected outcomes have often been obscured by analogical extensions of

stem allomorphs (PVP or non-PVP). For example, the alternations k|ts and g|dz were
regular in some Leskien II−III aspectual pairs, as seen in (2). In some LCSl dialects,
the alternations were extended to Leskien II−III pairs where the PVP had not been
phonologically conditioned, e.g. when a consonant intervened between the trigger and
the velar (3); cf. also OCS blьsnǫti | bliskati (regular)/bliscati (analogical) ‘shine’
(PFV|IPFV)’ (PSl *bli[:]sk-). Alternatively, the regularly palatalized imperfective stem
could be leveled out on the model of the non-palatalized perfective, as seen in OESl
klikati (2).
One factor that promoted the leveling out of the PVP alternations was their semiotic
vacuity in noun stems. The 1VP and 2VP alternations indexed specific endings; the basic
allomorphs ended in velars. By contrast, the PVP alternations had no indexical value
within paradigms: the distribution of *g and *dz was morphologically arbitary in *sti-
dza:|*stigu:| *stidza:mu (NOM|GEN, NOM/ACC.PL|DAT.PL ), etc. as compared with unpala-
talized *darga:| *dargu:|*darga:mu ‘road’. After *ɛi̯ became *i:2, the alternations were
no longer predictable. If the basic stem ended in a PVP reflex, the direction of the
alternations (high tonality → low tonality) was the reverse of the pattern seen in the
1VP and 2VP reflexes.
4.6.2. Chronological controversy
The PVP is the most debated of the CSl changes. The main point of contention has been
its chronology relative to the regressive palatalizations. There are four main schools of
thought. In the earliest view (PVP 3 2VP), the PVP is a “special case” of the 2VP (see
4.4); the identity of reflexes points to a single event.
In a second approach (PVP < 2VP), the PVP was the “Third Palatalization.” It began
while the 2VP was in progress and continued for some some time after the 2VP ended.
The rationale is that the PVP has more exceptions than the 2VP; this is taken to indicate
that it happened when the CSl dialect continuum was less cohesive. However, this argu-
ment is not cogent; unlike the 2VP, the PVP only occurred where leveling could operate,
and there are good reasons why the alternations it produced should be unstable (see
above). In fact, there is no convincing evidence that the 2VP preceded the PVP. Whether
the 2VP and the PVP should be treated as a single regressive-progressive change or as
separate events is a moot point.
In a third view (PVP1 > 2VP), PVP1 took place before the monophthongization that
triggered the 2VP (4.1). The rationale for this claim is the fact that PSl *-ai̯ - was reflected
as OCS -i- rather than -ě- in noun endings after PVP reflexes: otьci instead of *otьcě
(LOC). This can be interpreted as a regular development, with vowel fronting conditioned
by the PVP1 reflex: *atikai̯ > *atik ja̟i̯ > *atic̟εi̯ > otьci. However, another pattern has
-ě- for PSl *-ai̯ - after the PVP reflexes (see below), and there are other facts that are
hard to reconcile with the “PVP > 2VP” approach. The crucial -i- in noun endings has
a simple morphological explanation: when the basic stem palatalized, the declension
pattern appropriate for palatal stems was adopted wholesale, except for the marginal
vocative (otьče).

Authenticated
A fourth view (PVP1 > 1VP) treats PVP1 as an ECSl phenomenon. Though
initially proposed in a functionalist framework (Martinet 1955: 366−367), this ap-
proach became widespread under the influence of generative grammar, which ordered
mutations from the PVP before those from the 1VP and 2VP. The argument goes
that, as an intersyllabic change, PVP1 would have contradicted the later CSl trend
toward syllabic synharmony (see 3.1); thus it must have occurred before the 1VP,
like the other prominent progressive change, RUKI. The reflexes of PVP1 and the
1VP, it is argued, merged before front vowels; elsewhere, they remained stable until
they merged with the 2VP reflexes. As PVP1 and vowel fronting (3.3) preceded
monophthongization (4.1), the declension of nouns like otьcь|otьci|otьče (NOM|LOC|
VOC) is phonologically expected. Vocatives like otьče and kъnęže ‘prince’ are prob-
lematic for this approach; the original masculine i̯ o-stems − i.e., those whose stem-
final consonants were affected by the 1VP or dental palatalization − adopted the u-
stem VOC in CSl, e.g. OCS vraču ‘physician’ (*u̯arki̯ -).
The PVP1 > 1VP viewpoint requires scrutiny because of its drastic ramifications
for reconstruction. The crux is the relative chronology of monophthongization. There
is consensus that the 1VP happened before *ai̯ >*ɛ:2, since the latter triggered the
2VP (4.4). Significantly, neither *ai̯ (*ɛ:2) nor *εi̯ (*e:2, MCSl2 *i:2) conditioned the
PVP (1), even though palatal glides are typologically common triggers for velar
palatalization. If *i̯ had the same tongue configuration as *i, its nonsyllabicity should
not have blocked the PVP; the velar would have been the onset of a new syllable
in any case. This suggests that PVP1 began after monophthongization, and hence
after the 1VP.
PSl PVP OCS OESl OCz OPo Gloss

(1) *tεi̯ xad *te:2xa tixo tixo ticho cicho ‘quiet’
*mεi̯ ga:tεi̯ *me:2ga:te:2 pomidzati migati míhati migać się ‘wink’
*rai̯ ka: *rɛ:2ka: rěka rěka řěka rzeka ‘river’
To circumvent this problem, the proponents of PVP > 1VP posit that the CSl diphthongs
had non-close slopes − *ae̯ and *ie̯ instead of *ai̯ and *εi̯ . This solution is entirely ad
hoc. While *i̯ can be reconstructed from other contexts, there is no such evidence for
*e̯. As an opening diphthong, *ie̯ would be isolated in the CSl vowel system, and its
glide would still have to become close at some point to yield the attested outcome *i:.
Moreover, if *e̯ is supposed to be a mid or near-close vowel, its syllabic counterpart
only arose as a consequence of monophthongization.
Further evidence that monophthongization preceded the PVP comes from the different
outcomes of the theme vowels in the pronominal-adjectival declension, PSl *-a- (2) and
*-ai̯ - (3). In ECSl, a “soft” subdeclension emerged due to the fronting of *a to *ɛ and
*ai̯ to *εi̯ after palatals, as seen in *na:si̯ - (3.3). Significantly, in the pronominal adjec-
tives *si:k- and *u̯ix-, whose stems ended in PVP targets, thematic *a was fronted, but
thematic *ai̯ was not. The resulting mixture of “hard” and “soft” endings was phonologi-
cally regular and morphologically conservative if *ai̯ monophthongized to *ɛ:2 before
PVP1 began.

Authenticated
1470 XIII. Slavic
PSl Fronting MCSl1 2VP LCSl OCS Gloss

(2) *taga togo ‘this’
(M/N.GEN)
*na:si̯ aga *na:ʃɛga našego ‘our’
(M/N.GEN)
*si:kaga *si:k ja̟ga *si:c̟ɛga MBg ‘such’
sicego (M/N.GEN)
*u̯ixaga *u̯ix ja̟ga *u̯içɛga vьsego ‘all’
(M/N.GEN)
(3) *tai̯ mi *tɛ:2mi *tɛ:2mi těmь ‘this’ (M/
N.INST )
*na:si̯ - *na:ʃεi̯ mi *na:ʃe:2mi *na:ʃi:mi našimь ‘our’

ai̯ mi (M/N.INST )
*si:k- *si:kɛ:2mi *si:k jɛ:2mi *si:c̟ɛ:2mi sicěmь ‘such’
ai̯ mi (M/N.INST )
*u̯ixai̯ mi *u̯ixɛ:2mi *u̯ix jɛ:2mi *u̯içɛ:2mi vьsěmь ‘all’
(M/N.INST )
If PVP1 had come first, *ai̯ would have been fronted to *εi̯ (LCSl *i:2); forms like
sicěmь and vьsěmъ would then be highly irregular. To salvage the PVP > 1VP chronolo-
gy, proponents have cast doubt on the antiquity of *si:k- and *u̯ix-, despite the fact that
*u̯ix- has precise cognates in Ba (Lith vìsas, Latv viss, OPr wissa-). In addition, they
argue that *si:k- and *u̯ix- adopted certain oblique “hard” endings after the PVP and
fronting: *u̯içi:mi → *u̯içɛ:mi. Such a change would undo the otherwise regular “soft”
declension pattern; it would have no motivation, unlike the wholesale adoption of soft-
declension endings by nouns. There is no reason to assume that the pronouns would be
more prone than nouns to undergo “peculiar innovations along with haphazard rearrange-
ments of old materials,” as Lunt claims (1981: 86). All in all, the PVP > 1VP view
requires too much special pleading to be credible.
4.6.3. Vowel Fronting after PVP
Following the PVP reflexes, *a was fronted to *ɛ: PSl *li:cad > PVP1 *li:k ja > OCS,
OESl, OPo lice, OCz líce (see 4.6). This is sometimes treated as a Second Vowel Front-
ing, but it probably was a new manifestation of a phonotactic constraint introduced after
the “first” Vowel Fronting that followed the 1VP (see 3.3). In a related development,
endings in *-ī̆(-) were substituted for pre-PVP *-u(:): *kuningu: 0 *kunĩ:g ji: > OESl
kъn jazi ‘prince (INST.PL )’. This change must have been morphological rather than phono-
logical in nature, given that the PVP was blocked by close back *u(:) (see 4.6).

Authenticated
4.7. Reflexes of *t, *d
As noted in 3.6, in the PSl clusters * ti̯ , * di̯ the stops developed retracted allophones
*t, *d in assimilation to the palatal glides. Subsequently, the glides were reanalyzed as
off-glides and, over time, eliminated (see 3.7). The PSl cluster *kt was also reflected as
*t before front vowels (see 3.6.1). The precise articulation of *t, *d − e.g. [c̟, ɟ] or [t j,
*d j] − was uncertain and may have differed by dialect. Their subsequent changes defi-
nitely occurred at different times in different dialects. The eventual reflexes fall into four
zones − ESl, WSl, W-SSl, and E-SSl.
By contrast, *sti̯ and *zdi̯ had uniform outcomes − *ʃtʃ and *ʒdʒ, merging with the
1VP reflexes of *sk, *zg (see 3.2). Evidently, the sibilants assimilated to *t, *d; they
became hushers directly or were identified with the hushers produced by the 1VP and
dental palatalization (see 3.6). Then retracted *t, *d developed fricative releases in assim-
ilation to the hushers and were identified with the pre-existing *tʃ and *(d)ʒ. (Later, in E-
SSl, CzSlk, and some Ru dialects, the fricative-affricate clusters dissimilated to *ʃt, *ʒd.)

(1) *pau̯sti̯ a:tɛi̯ *pɔʃtʃa:te:2 puštati puščati púščěti puszczać ‘release’
*bursti̭ a2s *burʃtʃi Sln br̀šč boršč Cz bršt’ barszcz ‘hogweed’
(2) *duzdi̯ us *duʒdʒi dъždь dъžčь Slk deżdż ‘rain’
[ʒdʒ] dážd’
Within ESl, the reflex of *zdi̯ in ‘rain’ (2) varies. The most frequent spelling žd, though
OCS-like, may reflect a vernacular pronunciation ʒd, which is widely attested in Ru
dialects. The outcome ʒdʒ is also widespread; in OESl texts of WUk origin, it is spelled
«žč», with the letter for the voiceless affricate in the absence of one for the voiced. In
OESl texts of northwestern, especially Novg, origin, the outcome was ʒg j («žg»).
In P-ESl, *t and *d became alveopalatal affricates *tʃ (3) and *ʒ (4) in all environ-
ments. Thus they merged completely with the 1VP reflexes of *k, *g (see 3.2). This
suggests that the development of fricative release was completed prior to the onset of
the 2VP in P-ESl.
PSl OESl Uk BR Ru ESl-ChSl Gloss

(3) *su̯ai̯ ti̯ a: svěča sviča sveča sveča svěšča ‘candle’
*naktis nočь nič noč noč’ noščь ‘night’
!
(4) *tɛu̯di̯ a2s čužь čužyj čužy čužoj čuždyj ‘foreign’
*mɛdi̯ a: meža meža mjaža meža mež(d)a ‘boundary’
OESl ecclesiastical (ChSl) texts tend to have ∫ t∫ «щ» for *t and either ʒ «ж» or ʒd «жд»
for *d. While ʒ was vernacular, the other spellings arose under OCS influence. In 11th-
c. texts, the voiceless reflex could be spelled «шт», in direct imitation of OCS ∫ t. The
reflex ∫ t∫ was derived from the *st reflex by analogy to OCS, where *t and *st both
came out as ∫ t (see below).

Authenticated
1472 XIII. Slavic
In P-WSl, *t, *d were assibilated and became the dental affricates *ts (5), *dz (6).
These outcomes merged with those of *k, *g in the 2VP (see 4.4) and PVP (see 4.6).
Evidently, then, the assibilation phases of the three changes overlapped in P-WSl. The
fact that CzSlk patterns with Lech rather than W-SSl may indicate that the change was
completed before LCSl (see 4.1). (In Sorb, Cz, and Kb, the reflex of *d ultimately lost
its closure.)
PSl Slk OCz US LS OPo Kb Pb Gloss

(5) *su̯ai̯ ti̯ a: svieca sviecě swjeca swjeca świeca swiéca ÷svecă ‘candle’
*naktis noc noc noc noc noc noc ÷nc ‘night’
(6) *tɛu̯d- cudzí cuzí/cizí cuzy cuzy cudzy cëzy ÷cau̯ʒě ‘foreign’
i̯ a2s
*mɛdi̯ a: medza mezě mjeza mjaza miedza miedza ÷midza ‘bound-
ary’
In W-SSl and western E-SSl dialects (7−8), MCSl *c̟, *ɟ were conserved longer than
elsewhere; their eventual resolutions belong to the post-CSl period. Unassibilated palatal
stops («k[ь]» and «g[ь]») are found in the oldest Sb texts (12th−14th centuries). (The
clusters št and žd, borrowed from OCS, [see below] were preferred in texts of the ecclesi-
astical [Sb-ChSl] register.) Unassibilated palatal stops are also preserved in some Što
and Čak dialects, in much of Mc, including the standard, and in some WBg dialects. In
other Mc and WBg dialects, the stops have advanced to dental t j and d j, but without
assibilation.
In Sln, Čak, and Kaj, *c̟ typically merged with t∫ from the 1VP («č»), while *ɟ lenited
through *ɣ j to *i̯ («j»). In the OSln Freising Fragments (later 10th c.), which were written
through the filter of OHG perceptions, the *c̟ reflex can be spelled as a stop («k») or as
an affricate («z, c, c∫, t∫, ∫»). The *ɟ reflex is rendered «g» or «i», which can be interpret-
ed as the intermediate stage *ɣ j or as the end result *i̯ . The outcomes t∫ («č») and i̯ («j,
ћ») are also attested in medieval Cr ChSl, though the quasi-OCS št and žd are more
frequent.
In most modern Što dialects, including standard Bo, Cr, and Sb, the primary palatals
assibilated. In the standard, and in many dialects, they are now palatal affricates tɕ and
dʑ (also in some Kaj dialects). In other dialects, dental tʃ, dʒ are found.
In much of E-SSl, *c̟, *ɟ became the clusters *ʃtʃ, *ʒdʒ, merging with the reflexes of
*sti̯ , *zdi̯ . These reflexes are preserved in some WBg and SMc dialects. In EBg, includ-
ing Cyrillic OCS and the modern standard, the clusters simplified to št, žd.
PSl Sln Čak OSb BCS Mc OCS Bg Gloss

(7) *su̯ai̯ ti̯ a: svẹ́ ča sviečȁ svěkja svéća sveḱa svěšta (svjašt) ‘candle’
*naktis nọ̑ č nuȏć nokь nȏć noḱ noštь nošt ‘night’
!
(8) *tɛu̯di̯ a2s tȗj tȕj- tug- tȗđ tuǵ (š)tuždь čužd ‘foreign’
*mɛdi̯ a: méja megja mèđa meǵa mežda mežda ‘border’

Authenticated
To account for the E-SSl clusters, some scholars have posited gemination followed
by lenition (*t > *tt > *ʃt; *d > *dd > *ʒd), parallel to the PreSl degeminations of
*tt > *st and *dd > *zd (see 2.7.2). According to Lunt (2001: 188), this occurred
“to fit the constraint that the first of two obstruents must be a sibilant.” The problem
is how such geminates could have arisen in the first place, given the constraint,
which was already in operation in ECSl (see 3.1.2). Velcheva (1988: 74−75) proposes
that the degeminations of {*tt, *dd} and {*tt, dd} (delayed-release consonants) were
not just parallel but actually simultaneous. This claim is anachronistic; the first
change was a PIE dialectal development, while the second was limited to a single
sub-sub-branch of LCSl. (Velcheva 1988: 74 treats the geminates as delayed-release
stops; this also seems problematic, since the husher precedes rather than follows the
stop or affricate portion.)
4.8. *tl, *dl clusters
The clusters *tl and *dl, which were permitted in ECSl syllable structure (see 3.1.1),
were subject to changes in MCSl. Their reflexes fall into two main zones: the clusters
were preserved in WSl, but lost in most of SSl and in non-peripheral ESl: *tl > *dl > l;
*dl > l. (Apparent counterexamples with tl and dl arose due to metathesis [5.5] or the
jer-shift [5.8]: OCS dlanь < *dalnis ‘palm’; Bg, Ru metla < *mɛtila: ‘broom’.) In transi-
tional CenSlk and NWSln, the stops were preserved across boundaries (2) but underwent
elision within morphemes (3); elsewhere in Sln, the clusters are only preserved across
boundaries (1 & 2).
PSl Po LS US OCz Slk CenSlk NWSln Sln

(1) *plɛtla: plotƚa platła plotƚa pletla plietla plétla plétla
(2) *u̯ɛdla: wiodƚa wjadƚa wjedla vedla viedla viedla védla védla
(3) *(s)kri:d- skrzydƚo kśidƚo křidƚo křídlo krídlo krielo kridwo krílọ
lad
*madlεi̯ ti modli modli modlí modlí modlí modli mo˛́li
się sa sa sě sa
BCS Mc Bg OCS OESl Uk BR Ru Gloss

(1) plȅo plel plel plelъ pliv plëǔ plël ‘plait
(RES.M)’
plȅla plela plela plela plela pljala plela ‘plait
(RES.F)’
(2) vȅo vel vel (sъ)velъ velъ viv vëǔ vël ‘lead
(RES.M)’
vȅla vela vela vela vela vjala vela ‘lead
(RES.F )’

Authenticated
1474 XIII. Slavic
BCS Mc Bg OCS OESl Uk BR Ru Gloss

(3) krílo krilo krilo krylo krylo krylo krylo krylo ‘wing’
mȍlī moli moli molitъ molitь molit’ malic’ molit ‘entreat
(PRS.3SG)’
In regions with Ba substrata, the dental stops became velars before *l: NEPo (Mazowi-
an): moglitwa ‘prayer’; Old Pskovian (NW Ru): sočkle s ja ‘settle accounts (RES.PL )’
(*su-kitl-), veglě ‘lead (RES.PL )’ (*u̯ɛdl-).
4.9. Initial vowel-sonorant diphthongs
Initial tautosyllabic *aR underwent metathesis, with lexicalized exceptions on the periph-
eries of Lech and E-SSl. (The handful of lexemes in which initial *εR has been recon-
structed pose great problems and will not be discussed here.)
The reflexes of the metathesis fall into two zones; the isogloss must have formed before
the late 9th−early 10th c., when the WSl-W-SSl continuum was disrupted by the Magyar
invasion of the Carpathian Basin. In the southern zone (SSl and CenSlk), *a was lengthened
in all environments, so that the bimoraicity of the old diphthongs was preserved (1−2):
*aRC > *Ra:C. In the northern zone (Sorb, CzSlk, non-peripheral Lech, and ESl), the vow-
el was only lengthened (1) if it bore an acute accent (see 6.3−6.3.4). Elsewhere, it remained
short (2): *a̋RC > *Ra:C, *aRC > *RaC. In all dialects, *Ra:C was reflected as RaC, and
*RaC as RoC, once quantitative differences yielded to qualitative ones (see 5.1).
PSl OCS Sln CenSlk OCz OPo OESl Gloss

(1) *a̋rdlad ralo rálo rálo rádlo radƚo ralo ‘plow’
*a̋lkama2s lakomъ lákom lakomý lakomý ƚakom- lakomъ ‘greedy’
(2) *aru̯inad ravьno rávno rávno rovno rowno rovьno ‘evenly’
*arzau̯ma2s razumъ razȗm razum rozum rozum rozumъ ‘reason’
*alnεi̯ MBg lani láni laňi loni/loní ƚoni loni ‘last year’
In OESl of the ecclesiastical register (ChSl), forms with ra- and la- for expected *ro-
and *lo- often appear in imitation of OCS protographs; some have become part of the
standard Ru lexicon: razum ‘reason’; raznyj|†roznyj ‘various, separate’.
Initial metathesis had not yet run its course during the Slavophone migrations into the
Balkans (ca. 6th−7th centuries). The name *ardagasta2 s (post-metathesis ‘Radogostъ’) is
attested as Ἀρδάγαστας in an early 7th-c. Byzantine source. There are also many top-
onyms in Greece that were borrowed from CSl in an unmetathesized form. In the north-
western Balkans, Slavophones were already settling near Albona in Istria and near the
Byzantine fortress of Arsa in present-day South Serbia by the late 6th or early 7th c.
Likewise, metathesis had not happened in the western Balkans in the late 6th−early 7th
centuries. Thus the name of the Istrian city of Albona, Rom *albuna was borrowed in
time to undergo metathesis: MCSl2 *albu:n- > *albɨn > OCr Labin-. The same is true

Authenticated
of the name of the Byzantine fortress Arsa in what is now southern Serbia: MCSl2 *arsʊ
> OSb Rasь. As a terminus ad quem, the change was a fait accompli for the Slavophones
near Thessalonica by the 820s−830s, when Methodius and Cyril acquired the dialect.
The sequence *ar- was still possible in P-WSl when Slavophones settled near the
Elbe, no later than the 6th c. They borrowed the name of the river from OHG or Rom;
it was later subject to metathesis, like native words: OHG Albiz, La Albis ⥬ MCSl2
*a:lb(i̯ )a: > LCSl1 *lab(i̯ )a > OCz Labě, US Łobjo, OPo Łaba, Pb ÷Lobü. (The o in US
and Pb is due to later developments.) The change was definitely finished in CzSlk by
the 9th c., as shown by proper names in La sources: Rastiz (Rastica) for *arstislāṷ as in
the Annals of Fulda (later 9c), cf. OCz Rostislav. The earliest WSl texts, the Kiev Folia
(early 10th c.), show consistent metathesis.
In the northeast, metathesis had not yet been completed in the early 9th c., when
Slavophone settlers near Novgorod borrowed the BFi toponym *aaldokas ‘wavy’ ⥬
MCSl2 *aldaga: > LCSl1 *ladɔga > OESl Ladoga. The location became important with
the founding of the Norse trading post of Aldeigja (Aldeigjuborg) in 753. Conversely,
Vepsian borrowed the name of the Slavophone settlement *a̋rdagasti̭a- prior to metathe-
sis: Arśkaht (Ru Radogošča).
By ca. 900, the metathesis was over: Old Norse Helgi ⥬ P-ESl *ɔlˠɪgʊ (with svarab-
hakti) > LCSl1 *ɔlɪgʊ > OESl Olьgъ (ruler of Rus’ from 881−912).
4.9.1. Exceptional outcomes
In OCS (10th−11th centuries, with protographs from the later 9th−10th centuries), the
change is complete for all lexemes with initial *ar- and for virtually all with initial *al-.The
exceptions are two roots that show variation between metathesized and unmetathesized
forms: *a̋lk(a:)- ‘hunger’ (6 la- vs. 19 al-, 9 alъ-, 7 al’-); *aldii̯ - ‘boat’ (10 la-, 2 al’d-,
1 ald-). These forms were lexicalized from contacts with conservative speakers. They
are also attested in MBg, along with al(ъ)nь ‘deer’ (PSl *alnis), and in some modern
dialects (Bg †alne ‘young chamois’). Some of the OCS copyists found the syllable-final
*l exotic − hence the epenthetic schwas in alъ-, al’-. Similar svarabhakti can be seen in
the loanwords for ‘altar’, borrowed in missionary contacts of ca. the later 7th−early 9th
centuries: OHG altâri ⥬ OCS olъtar j-|ol’tar j-|oltar j-; Gk ἀλτάριον ⥬ OCS al’tar j-|al-
tar j-. The centrality of the altar to religious ritual would favor preservation or restoration
of the conservative form. (The lexicalized alk-, as in ‘hungering after righteous’, spread
from OCS to other ChSl recensions.)
5. Late Common Slavic (LCSl) changes

As noted in 1.1, it is impossible to fix a precise upper time limit for the LCSl period.
Some LCSl changes were completed in some dialects before they had begun in others.
Moreover, some LCSl changes overlapped with changes that belong to the histories of
the individual languages. What defines a change as “LCSl” is thus not the “real time”
in which it was actualized but the fact that its impetus came from the structure of the
LCSl linguistic system (see Andersen 1977, 1986). For this reason, it is a moot point

Authenticated
1476 XIII. Slavic
whether the LCSl changes were “shared” or “parallel” in the various dialects, which
after the migrations (see 1.1.2) were spread out over a vast territory, albeit with contacts
in some zones. It is evident that there were still connections of some kind, given the
radiation of loanwords from west to east or south to north; however, the nature of the
connections is not fully understood.
In the present work, the LCSl period of changes begins and ends with two major
restructurings of the vowel system − Qualitative Differentiation (5.1) and the Jer-Shift
(5.8). These are also known as the Second and Third Slavic Vowel Shifts, respectively
(Andersen 1998).
The reflexes of LCSl changes typically have central vs. peripheral distributions, based
on the historically known positions of the CSl dialects after the Migration Period (see
Birnbaum 1966). The actual centers and peripheries differed from one change to another.
For the most part, CzSlk patterned with the neighboring dialects of W-SSl in the Carpa-
thian Basin rather than with Lech, with which it was bound in the MCSl changes.
5.1. Qualitative differentiation in the vowel system
In Qualitative Differentiation (QD), or the Second Slavic Vowel Shift (Andersen 1998),
the old distinctions in length gave way to differences in relative peripherality and tense-
ness. The resulting LCSl1 vowel system is attested in OCS (10th−11th centuries). The
MCSl2 short vowels became lax and non-peripheral (1): *i > ɪ; *ʊ > ʊ or ǝ (see 5.1.1);
*ɛ > ɛ; and *a > ɔ. These reflexes are transcribed ь, ъ, e, o in the Slavistic tradition.
The MCSl2 long vowels became tense and peripheral (2): *i: > i; *ɨ: > ɨ; ɔ: > u (“u2”);
*ɛ: > æ (see further 5.2.1); and *a: > a. These reflexes are transcribed i, y, u, ě, a in the
Slavistic tradition. In the nasal subsystem (3), the outcomes were mid vowels *ɛ̃: > *ɛ̃
or *æ̃; and *ɔ̃: > ɔ̃ or õ (see 5.2.2). These reflexes are transcribed ę, ǫ in the Slavistic
tradition.
PSl MCSl1 MCSl2 LCSl1 OCS OESl OCz OPo Gloss

(1) *u̯isis *u̯isi *u̯isi *u̯ɪsɪ vьsь vьsь ves wieś ‘village’
*supna2s *sunu *sʊnʊ *sǝnǝ sъnъ sъnъ sen sen ‘dream’
*gεna *ʒεna *ʒεna *ʒεnɔ ženo žono ženo żeno ‘woman
(VOC)’
(2) *u̯εi̯ dɛ:la2s *u̯e:2dɛ:lu *u̯i:2dɛ:lʊ *u̯idælǝ vidělъ vidělъ viděl wid- ‘see
ziaƚ (RES.M)’
*su:nus *su:nu *sɨ:nʊ *sɨnǝ synъ synъ syn syn ‘son’
*rau̯da: *rɔ:da: *ru:2da: *ruda ruda ruda ruda ruda ‘ore’
*lɛ:ta: *lɛ:ta: *lɛ:ta: *læta lěta lěta léta lata ‘year
(ACC.PL )’
(3) *pɛnktis *pɛ̃:ti *pɛ̃:ti *pɛ̃tɪ pętь p jatь pět pięć ‘five’
*bunda:m *bũ:dã: *bɔ̃:dɔ̃: *bɔ̃dɔ̃ bǫdǫ budu budu będą ‘be
(FUT.1SG)’

Authenticated
While QD is traditionally presented as a set of phonetic changes, it was principally a

phonological reanalysis, in which the previously redundant feature [±tense] took prece-
dence over /±length/. The MCSl2 vowels had multiple realizations in phonetic space,
which clustered around central or prototypical values; for example, *i could be realized
inter alia as [ɪ]. What QD altered was not the range of phonetic values but the underlying
relations between the long and short phonemes. The post-QD reflexes of MCSl2 long
vowels could still be long phonetically; when shortened in final position (see 5.3), they
maintained their LCSl1 articulation rather than merging with their former short counter-
parts: [a:] > [a], not [o], etc. Likewise, new long vowels developed by accentual retrac-
tions (see 6.4.3), contractions (see 5.12), and other changes, but their articulation re-
mained the same: *-ɛi̯ ɛ > *ɛ:, not *æ.
QD evidently occurred in the 8th−early 9th centuries. In loanwords accessed prior to
the 8th c., foreign a ⥬ MCSl2 *a > LCSl1 *ɔ (4); foreign o(:) ⥬ MCSl2 *ɔ: > LCSl1
*u2 (5); and foreign u: ⥬ MCSl2 *u:1 >LCSl1 *ɨ (6). In loanwords accessed after QD,
the outcomes were LCSl1 *a, *ɔ, *u2, respectively (7). Compare the pre-QD borrowing
sotona (4) with the post-QD form seen in OPo szatan, from Latin satanas, borrowed
during the Christianization of Poland in the 10th c.
Source MCSl2 LCSl1 OCS/SSl OESl OCz OPo Gloss

(4) Gk Σατανᾶς *satana: *sotona sotona sotona sotona ‘devil’
La pappa(s) *papʊ *popǝ popъ popъ pop pop ‘priest’
La Aquileia *aglɛ:i̯ - *oglɛ Sln Oglej ‘Aquileia’
(5) Gk Σα- *salɔ:ni *solunɪ Solunь Solunь ‘Salonica’
λονί(κη)
Gk *kudɔ:na: *kǝduna OSb gdunja gduńa kdúle gdula ‘quince’
κυδώνιον
WGmc *plɔ:gʊ *plugǝ OSb plugь plugъ pluh pług ‘turnplow’
*plo:g-
(6) Rom *salu:nʊ *salɨnǝ Cr Sòlīn ‘Salona’
* salunǝ
Rom *nunǝ *nu:nʊ *nɨnǝ Cr Nȋn ‘(Ae)nona’
(7) Gk ἀπόστο- *apos- apostolъ apos- apostol apos- ‘apostle’
λος, La apos- tolǝ tolъ toł
tolus
Gk Λουκάς, *lu2ka Luka Luka Luka Luka ‘Luke’
La Lucas
Several of these loanwords have clear termini a quo. Sclaveni began raiding northeastern
Italy, where Aquileia (4) was the principal city, in the final years of the 6th c. They first
besieged Thessalonica (5) in the 580s, though they presumably knew the second city of
the Empire by reputation long before. They first attacked Salona (6), on the Adriatic, in
536, and seized the town of Nona (6) in the early 7th c. (The toponyms in [6] reflect the
Dalmatian raising of La o to *u in stressed open syllables; cf. locum > Vegliote luk.)

Authenticated
1478 XIII. Slavic
The renditions of Sl names in 6th−7th-c. Byzantine texts also reflect the pre-QD stage;
*a is rendered with «α» [a] rather than the «ο» or «ω» that would have been expected
in LCSl1 (7). (Of course, the use of α need not imply that the Sl vowel was unrounded,
just that it was too open or not rounded enough for a 7th-c. Greek to perceive it as [o].)
The same reflex appears in early BFi borrowings (perhaps 7th c.): *akun- ‘window’ ⥬
Finnish, Votic akuna; *kasa:ri̯ - ‘chopper’ ⥬ Finnish, Karelian kassara, Vepsian karaŕ
‘billhook’. BFi undoubtedly had the means to distinguish open and mid-vowels at the
time.
There is good evidence for placing the terminus ad quem of QD in the early-to-mid-
9th c.
Sl names inscribed in the Cividale Gospel (late 9th−early 10th centuries) appear in
post-QD form: MCSl2 *katsilʊ ⥬ cozil (= Kocьlъ); MCSl2 *dabraʒi:zni ⥬ dobrosisne
(= Dobrožiznь). The Glagolitic alphabet (ca. 860), based on the dialect spoken around
Thessalonica, has separate letters, transliterated a and o, to render the reflexes of MCSl2
*a: and *a. For W-SSl and CzSlk, there is evidence from the rendition of Sl names in
La and OHG texts.
For ESl, the change was a fait accompli by the 940s, given how Constantine VII
renders the names of Dnieper rapids (8) with o [ɔ] for LCSl1 *ɔ (< MCSl2 *a) and η [i]
for LCSl1 *ɨ (< MCSl2 *u:1).
MCSl2 Rendition LCSl1 OCS Gloss

(7) *slau̯ɛ:ni: Σκλαβηνοί [sklaven-] *slɔu̯æni OESl slověni ‘Slav
(NOM.PL )’
*dabrai̯ ɛ:zdʊ Δαβραγέζας [dabrai̯ ɛz-] *dɔbrɔi̯ azdǝ dobr-, jazd- (name)
*pi:ragastʊ Πειράγαστος [piraɣast-] *pirɔgɔstǝ pir-, gost- (name)
(8) *astrau̯in- Ὀστροβουνι- [ɔstrɔvuni-] *ɔstrɔu̯ɪn- OESl ostrovьn- ‘island
[ADJ]’
*nɛi̯ ɛ̃su:tʊ Νεασητ [nε(i̯ )asit] ESl *nɛi̯ æsɨtʊ OESl nejasytъ ‘pelican’
5.1.1. Delabialization of *w
In LCSl1 (see 5.1), *i and *u (from PSl *i, *u, and *a2) were realized in most positions
as near-close lax *ɪ and *ʊ/ǝ. In Slavistic terminology, *ɪ is called the front jer (ь), and
*ʊ/ǝ the back jer (ъ); these terms are used for convenience in the subsequent discussion.
The rounded articulation of *ʊ was preserved in peripheral zones − ESl; southwestern
E-SSl (as seen in standard modern Mc); Sorbian; and some CenSlk dialects.
PSl OCS Bg Mc BCS Sln CenSlk Slk OCz

(1) *duzdi̭ us dъždь/ dăžd [ǝ] dožd dȁžd dèž [ǝ] doždík dažd’ déšč
doždь
*muxa2s măx mov mȃh mȃh/mèh moch mach mech
*pisa2s pьsъ/pesъ pes pes pȁs pȅs [ǝ] pes pes pos

Authenticated
US LS Pb Po OESl Uk BR Ru Gloss
(1) déšć de(j)šć ➣dåzd deszcz dъždь/ došč doždž dožd’ ‘rain’
doždь
moch mech mech mъxъ/ mox mox mox ‘moss’
moxъ
pos pjas ➣pjas pies pьsъ/ pеs pës [o] pës [o] ‘dog’
pesъ
5.2. Post-QD changes in vowel quality
5.2.1. Reflexes of LCSl1 *æ
LCSl1 *æ (Slavistic ě “jat’”), from PSl *ɛ:1 and MCSl1 *ɛ:2, had a (near-)open front
articulation. Numerous Gk toponyms and loanwords of Slavic provenience, probably
borrowed during the late 6th−8th centuries, render *æ as (ι)α rather than ε. In the histori-
cal period, open reflexes were preserved in two peripheral zones − Lech and E-SSl (also
areas in which nasal vowels persisted after CSl [5.2.2]). In Lech, *æ backed (by a
diphthongization process) to a before hard dentals (1), but rose to e elsewhere (2). In E-
SSl, the reflex æ or a persists in scattered enclaves: EBg, Aegean Mc v’æra ~ v’ara
‘faith’. In most of EBg, *æ bifurcated in assimilation to the following consonant: it
backed to a (1), with no raising of the dorsum toward the palate, before non-palatal
consonants, but rose to ɛ (2), with raising of the dorsum, in auslaut and before consonants
with palatal coarticulation (see 5.2). In auslaut, *æ became e, with raising of the dorsum
(2). In WBg, *æ became e in all positions.
PSl OCS Mc Bg EBg Po Pb Gloss

(1) *u̯ɛ:ra: věra vera vjara v’æra wiara ‘faith’
*kai̯ pa2s cep cep cap cep ÷cepoi ‘flail’
*lɛ:tad lěto leto ljato l’æto lato ÷l’otü ‘summer’
*bɛ:la2s běl- bel bjal b’æl biaƚy ÷b’olě ‘white’
(2) *lɛ:tai̯ lětě lete lete w lecie ÷vå letǎ ‘(in) summer’
*bɛ:li:tεi̯ běliti beli beli b’æli bielić ‘whiten’; Bg,
Mc 3SG
(3) *ɛ:dinti ědętъ/ja- jadat jadat jadat jedzą ÷jedě ‘eat (PRS.3PL )’;
Pb 3SG
(4) *i̯ a:kad jako/ě- jako jako jako jak(o) ‘as, how’; Mc,
Bg ‘very’
In Mc, the outcome is a after i̯ (j) (3) and e elsewhere (1, 2). The former reflects the
Central Balkan merger of LCSl1 *æ with *a after *i̯ (3−4). OCS Glagolitic, associated

Authenticated
1480 XIII. Slavic
with the central Balkans (Ohrid), has a single grapheme «a», transliterated ě, for both
*i̯ a and *æ after consonants. OCS Cyrillic, associated with the eastern Balkans (Preslav),
has separate letters «ѣ» (ě) for æ and «W» (ja) for ja; however, ja is sometimes spelled
«ѣ» due to copying from Glagolitic protographs: огнa |огнѣ (ogn ja ~ ogn jě) ‘fire (GEN)’.
Elsewhere in Slavic (5), *æ rose to *e. It has been proposed that this was due to a
push-chain: *æ rose to remain distinct from *æ̃, which was losing its nasalization (see
5.2.2). For most dialects in this zone, there actually was a merger − across the board in
P-Ek, P-Sln, and P-LS; before soft consonants in P-Cz; and in final position in P-
US. Thus the push-chain hypothesis explains nothing. In fact, tense vowels naturally
tend to rise along the peripheral track: æ > e > i. The real issue, then, is the chronology
of the raising of *æ relative to denasalization. In most of the dialects where there was
denasalization (see 5.2.2), *æ̃ went through the change before *æ began to rise or while
it was still relatively open − hence the merger. In peripheral areas (NW Sln, Slk, and
ESl), *æ̃ denasalized after *æ rose to mid-position, which preempted the merger.
The rise of LCSl1 *æ halted at the *e stage in non-peripheral Sln and in dialect
islands in WŠto, CenSlk, and Cen and NE Ru. Elsewhere, the intermediate reflex *e
took three paths − diphthongization to iɛ(:), laxing to ɛ, or raising to i. The diphthongal
outcome occurred in Jek («je» [short], long «ije»), Slk («ie»), Sorb («ě»), NUk, and
some Cen and NE Ru dialects. The laxed open mid outcome arose in Ek, including Kaj
and much of Što, Mc, WBg, BR, and most of Ru. The raised outcome merged with i(:)
(from LCSl1 *i) in Ik and some NRu dialects, but remained distinct in WUk: i > ɪ,
making room for e > i. In Cz, *e(:) had trifurcating outcomes: *e > OCz iɛ («ě») > Cz
(i̯ )ɛ («e|ě|je»); *e: > OCz ɛ: («é») after l, but OCz ie («ie») > Cz i: («í») elsewhere.
PSl Ek Jek Ik Sln Slk OCz Cz LS OESl Uk Ru

(5) *u̯ɛ:ra: vȅra vjȅra vȉra vẹ́ra viera viera víra wjera věra vira vera
*lɛ:tad lȅto ljȅto lȉto lẹ́to leto léto léto lěto lěto lito leto
*bɛ:la2s bȅo bijȇl bȋo bẹ̑ł biely bielý bílý běƚy běl bilyj belyj
*bɛ:li:tεi̯ béliti bijéliti bíliti bẹ́liti bielit’ bieliti bělit běliś běliti bilyty belit’
The open reflex is evidenced in early loanwords of P-ESl origin (ca. 7th−9th centuries)
in BFi, which had the means to distinguish between open and mid front vowels: LCSl1
*mæra ‘measure’ ⥬ Finnish määrä, Karelian meärä, Olonetsian meärü, Ludic miär,
Estonian määr; LCSl1 *xlævǝ ‘cowshed’ ⥬ E Finnish lääva, Karelian leävä, Vepsian
l’äu. In NW Ru dialects, there are isolated lexemes with a for LCSl1 *æ, which have
been interpreted as relics of the open pronunciation: jal ‘eat (RES)’ (PSl *ɛ:dla2 s); k’ap
‘flail’ (PSl *kai̯ pa2 s).
By the historical period (beginning in the 11th c.), OESl had close mid e for LCSl1
*æ. In early Novg (11th−mid-12th centuries), writers often interchanged the letters «ѣ»
(ě) [e] and «є» [ɛ], but this was due to orthographic latitude rather than a merger; e
remained distinct from ɛ and eventually merged with i.

Authenticated
5.2.2. Reflexes of LCSl1 nasal vowels
By the end of the LCSl period, the distinction between oral and nasal vowels (see 4.2,
5.1) was only preserved in peripheral dialects − Lech, E-SSl, and NSln (now only in the
Jaun Valley [Podjuna] dialect). In these dialects, *ɛ̃ had a (near-)open, front articulation
(*æ̃), distinguished from LCSl1 *æ solely by the feature /+nasal/. Elsewhere in CSl, *ɛ̃
and *ɔ̃ denasalized, for the most part merging with existing oral vowels. At the time of
their denasalization, they must have been unitary vowels /Ṽ/ → [Ṽ], since there are no
lexicalized traces of decomposition /VN/ → [ṼN]. The table gives the reflexes in the
various languages in a no-fine-print version. Among the factors that influenced the lan-
guage-specific outcomes were vowel length and the quality of the preceding or following
consonant. (The length in question developed after QD from contraction [5.12], the acute
[6.1.1], neoacute retraction [6.4.3], or compensatory lengthening before weak jers [5.8].)
LCSl1 OCS Bg Mc BCS Sln OESl

(1) *dɛsɛ̃tɪ desętь [ɛ̃] deset [ɛ] desеt [ɛ] dȅset [ɛ] desẹ̑t [e] des jatь [a]
(2) *dɛsɛ̃tɨi̯ i desętyj [ɛ̃] deseti [ɛ] desеtti [ɛ] dèsētī [ɛ] dese˛́ti [e] des jatъi [a]
(3) *mɛ̃so męso [ɛ̃] meso [ɛ] meso [ɛ] mȇso [ɛ] mesọ̑ [e] m jaso [a]
(4) *i̯ astrɛ̃bǝ jastreb [ɛ] jastreb [ɛ] jȁstrēb [ɛ] jȃstreb [e] jastr jabъ [a]
(5) *rɔ̃ka rǫka [ɔ̃] rŭka [ǝ] raka [a] rúka [u] róka [o] ruka [u]
(6) *dɔ̃bǝ dǫbъ [ɔ̃] dŭb [ǝ] dab [a] dȗb [u] dọ̑b [o] dub [u]
(7) *mɔ̃ka mǫka [ɔ̃] mŭka [ǝ] múka [u] mọ́ka [o] muka [u]
Slk OCz US LS Po Kb Gloss

(1) desat’ [a] desět [e] dźesać [a] źaseś [e] dzie- [ɛ̃ɲ] dzesãc [ã] ‘ten’
sięć
(2) desiaty [ia] desátý [a:] dźesaty [a] źasety [ɛ] dzie- [ɔ̃n] dze- [õ] ‘tenth’
siąty sąty
(3) mäso [æ/ɛ] maso [a] mjaso [a] měso [e] mięso [ɛ̃w̑] mãso [ã] ‘meat’
(4) jastrab [a] jastřáb [a:] jatřob’ [o] jatśeb [e] jastrząb [ɔ̃m] jastřib [i] ‘gos-
hawk’
(5) ruka [u] ruka [u] ruka [u] ruka [u] ręka [ɛ̃ŋ] rãka [ã] ‘hand’
(6) dub [u] dub [u] dub [u] dub [u] dąb [ɔ̃b] dãb [ã] ‘oak’
(7) múka [u:] múka [u:] muka [u] muka [u] mąka [ɔ̃ŋ] mąka [õ] ‘flour’
Nasal vowels are robustly attested in the oldest E-SSl texts in OCS; indeed, the main
diagnostic for identifying a manuscript as OCS, rather than ChSl, is that the reflexes of
*ɛ̃ and *ɔ̃ are spelled as the “jus” letters «ѧ» (ę) and «ѫ, ѭ» (ǫ, jǫ) with a high degree
of accuracy. MBg (12th−15th centuries) shows inchoate denasalization; the process has
run its course in modern Bg and Mc. In peripheral southwestern Mc, there are isolated
lexemes that show decomposition: zǝmp, zamp ‘tooth’ (OCS zǫbъ). (In Mc, besides the

Authenticated
1482 XIII. Slavic
standard reflex a, *ɔ̃ can be reflected as u [N, cf. BCS], o [SW], or ǝ [SE and Aegean,
cf. Bg].)
In prehistoric Lech, *æ̃ backed to *ã before hard dentals (2−3), just as *æ backed to
*a. In Kb and Slc, the remaining instances of *æ̃ rose and eventually denasalized (4):
*ɛ̃(:) > *ẽ(:) > *ĩ(:) > *i(:). Short *ã was preserved as ã (2, 6) («ã», earlier «ę»). Long
*ã: was raised to õ («ą») (3, 5, 7). (In ‘ten’ [1], the nasal is probably analogical to the
ordinal [3].)
In OPo, ɛ̃ and ã merged in the 14th c. as low ã («ø, φ» in some texts). Long ã: rose
and backed to ɔ̃ («ą») (3−5, 7); short ã eventually fronted to ɛ̃ («ę») (1−2, 6). As a rule
of thumb, a former front nasal can be detected from softness reflexes in the preceding
consonant (see 5.4). In many dialects, including the standard, ɛ̃ and ɔ̃ have decomposed
(diphthongized), in a counterparallel to the MCSl monophthongization: the coda is a
glide w̃ before fricatives (2) and finally, and a homorganic nasal stop before stops and
affricates. There has been denasalization before laterals.
Elsewhere in Slavic, nasal vowels were denasalized early; they became unitary vow-
els rather than vowel + nasal diphthongs. In WSln and NWSln, the denasalization took
place without changing the vowel height; thus *ɔ̃ and *ɛ̃ merged with LCSl1 *ɔ and *ɛ.
In adjacent Sln, Čak, and some areas of Kaj, *ɔ̃ and *ɛ̃ became close-mid *o and *e;
the front vowel merged with the reflex of LCSl1 *æ, which had risen on a peripheral
track. (There are also Kaj dialects in which *ɛ̃ merged with *ɛ; here the reflexes are
often near-open.)
In a vast central territory (Što, CzSlk, Sorb, and ESl), contiguous until ca. 900, *ɔ̃
rose to merge with LCSl1 *u2. In the same zone, *ɛ̃ became tense near-open *æ̃, so that
there was the possibility of a merger either with LCSl1 *æ (see 5.2.1) or with *a. In LS,
*æ̃ underwent a merger with *æ. In US, *æ̃ merged with *æ in final position and with
*a elsewhere. (In [3], the o comes from an e > o change.) In Cz, *æ̃ merged with *æ
before soft consonants (1, 5), but with *a before hard. In Slk, *æ̃ denasalized and moved
into the space formerly occupied by LCSl1 *æ. The reflex of *æ̃ is æ(:) in some dialects;
in others, æ has merged with ɛ, and æ: with a:, or else æ: became a sequence ia or i̯ a:.
In the standard, based on CenSlk, æ appears after labials (2), and ɛ elsewhere; the long
reflex is ia (3, 5).
In ESl, *æ̃ merged with *a, while *æ rose along the peripheral track, perhaps in a
push chain. (This reconstruction departs from the traditional Structuralist approach,
which rejected the possibility of a LCSl merger of *æ and *a because it would entail
inherent softness prior to the jer-shift. Instead, it was posited that *æ̃ became the distinct
vowel *ä [5.8].)
There is evidence that denasalization was not completed until the 10th c. in the
Carpathian Basin. Hungarian settlers in the Pannonian Plain (from 895) borrowed top-
onyms from Slk with intact nasalization: Molenta (LCSl1 *molɛ̃ta, a name); Dumbo
(LCSl1 *dɔ̃bǝ ‘oak’). No later than 894, monks in Cividale (northeastern Italy), recorded
the visit of the Moravian ruler Svátopluk I as Szuentiepulc (LCSl1 *su̯ɛ̃těpl̥ kǝ). In a
donation charter of 892, the name of the Croatian ruler Mutimir (LCSl1 *mɔ̃timirǝ) is
recorded as Muncimiro. However, the OSln Freising Fragments (later 10th c.) contain
only three tokens with residual nasality (en, on, un); *ɛ̃ is otherwise reflected as e and
*ɔ̃ as o or u.
Early BFi borrowings from ESl reflect nasal vowels: Finnish sunta ‘direction’, Old
Estonian sundja ‘judge’ from LCSl1 *sɔ̃d- ‘judge, court’. Mikkola (1938: 19) suggests
that these date from 9th−c. contacts, when the ESl settlers were establishing political

Authenticated
institutions. By the early 10th c., denasalization had evidently taken place in ESl; cf.
Constantine VII’s Βερούτσι for LCSl1 *uɪrɔ̃tʃi ‘seething’ (the name of a Dnieper rapid).
Norse Ingvarr, the name of an early-10th-c. prince of Kiev, was adapted as *igorɪ.
5.3. New length distinctions
Although QD eliminated length on the phonemic level (see 5.1), it is posited that the
peripheral, tense vowels *i, *ɨ, *u, *æ, and *a and the nasal vowels *ɛ̃ and *ɔ̃ remained
phonetically long. Subsequently, in a stage indicated here by LCSl2, they were shortened
in certain phonetic positions, which lay the ground for new oppositions with new long
vowels that arose by contraction (5.12), compensatory lengthening (5.10), and neoacute
retraction (6.10). The following table gives a no-fine-print summary of the long-vowel
outcomes in the Sl languages that reflect the LCSl2 length distinction.
LCSl1 BCS Sln OCz Cz Slk Sorb OPo Po Kb SWUk

*a: a: «a» a: «a» a: «á» a: «á» a: «á» a ɔ «å» a ɔ «ô» a
*ɔ: ɔ: «o» ɔ: «o, uo u: «ů» u̯o «ô» uo «ó» o «ó» u «ó» o «ó» i
ọ» «ó»
*ɛ: ɛ: «e» ɛ: «e, ɛ: «é» e: «é» i̯ ɛ «ie» ie «ě» e «é» e e «é» i
ẹ»
*u: u: «u» u: «u» u: «ú» ou, u: ú u u u u u
«ú»
*ɨ: i: «i» i: «i» ɨ: «ý» i: «ý» i: «ý» ɨ «y» ɨ ɨ i ɪ
*i: i: «i» i: «i» i: «í» i: «í» i: «í» i i i i ɪ
Final vowels were shortened in words of two or more syllables − a process completed
before contraction (see 5.12). Thus, the endings in (1) reflect shortening, while those in
(2) show length from contraction (except for Sln, which only preserves length in stressed
syllables). In addition, long vowels were shortened under or after the ictus in words of
three or more syllables (6.1.1). In (3), if the stressed vowel had been long in LCSl2, it
should have yielded **a: in N/Što BCS («ā») and OCz («á»), and a near-open rather
than open vowel in OPo and Slc; cf. also the short vowel in Čak BCS lopȁta. In (4), the
OCz root has a long vowel in the disyllabic NOM.SG, but a short in the trisyllabic forms
of the paradigm. In OPo and Slc, the length has been eliminated by stem-leveling. (The
BCS and Sln outcomes in [4] have the regular reflex of the old acute accent; see 6.1.1)
Polysyllabic shortening did not affect syllables immediately before the ictus (5). If the
nasal vowel in the first syllable had been shortened, OCz would have **u-, OPo **ę-,
and Slc **ɵ; cf. also Čak utrȍba.
MCSl2 LCSl2 N/Što Sln OCz OPo Slc Gloss

(1) *dabra: *dobra dòbra dóbra dobra dobra dʉɵ̯bră ‘good
(GEN)’

Authenticated
1484 XIII. Slavic
MCSl2 LCSl2 N/Što Sln OCz OPo Slc Gloss

(2) *dabra:i̯ a: *dobra: dòbrā dóbra dobrá dobrå dʉɵ̯brå (F.NOM)’
(3) *laˈpa:ta: *lɔˈpata lòpata lopáta lopata łopata lʉ̀ ɵ̯pată ‘shovel’
!
(4) *ˈma:tɛrɛ *matɛrɛ mȁterē mátere mateře macierze mãceřä (GEN)
! !
*ˈma:ti: *ma:ti mȁti máti máti macierz mãc ‘mother’
! †
(5) *ɔ̃:ˈtraba: *ɔ̃:ˈtrɔba ȕtroba vo˛́troba útroba wątroba vȯų̯ ‘intestines’
trǜ bă ̯
5.4. Secondary softening
In some LCSl dialects, prior to the loss of weak jers (see 5.8), labial and dental conso-
nants developed secondary softening (palatal coarticulation) before front vowels: {P, T}
> {Pj, Tj}/__ V[+front], where V[+front] = {*i, *ɪ, *e, *ɛ, *æ, * ɛ̃/æ̃}. This is a common type
of anticipatory assimilation: the blade of the tongue adopted the domed configuration
that characterized the following vowel. This secondary softening had different outcomes
from the earlier dental palatalization before *i̯ (3.6, 4.7), since the affected consonants
remained primarily dentals. (The earlier change of Pi̯ > Pl did not involve labial soften-
ing; see 3.7.2) The hard consonants may have been redundantly velarized; this is particu-
larly likely in the development of *l (see 5.5−5.6).
Secondary softening led to an opposition between hard (velarized) and soft (palatal-
ized) consonants in CzSlk, Sorb, Lech, ESl, and ESSl. Subsequent changes in articula-
tion, illustrated (with no fine print) in (1−3), belong to the histories of the individual
languages. The archaic system is best preserved in Ru: LCSl1 *polʊdɪnʊ: *polʊdɪnɪ >
*polʊd jɪnʊ: *polʊd jɪn jɪ > OESl polъd jьnъ: polъd jьnь > Ru poldën [d j]: polden’ [d j, n j]
‘midday (†GEN.PL: NOM.SG)’; LCSl1 *krou̯ʊ: krʊu̯ɪ > OESl krovъ: krъv jь > Ru krov:
krov’ [v j] ‘shelter’: ‘blood’
LCSl Slk Cz US LS Kb Po Uk BR Ru Bg
j j
(1) *P /__{C, #} P P P P P P P P P P
j j j j j j j j j j
*P /… P /Pi̯ P /Pi̯ P P P P, P P P P j/P
†
Pi̯
(2) *t j *d j c̟ ɟ c̟ ɟ tʃ j ɕʑ ts dz tɕ dʑ tj dj ts j tj dj t j/t d j/d
dʒ j dz j
*s j *z j sz sz sz sz sz ɕʑ sj zj sj zj sj zj s j/s z j/z
*n j *l j ɲʎ ɲl nj lj nj lj ɲ lj ɲl nj lj nj lj nj lj n j/n l j/l
(3) *r j/C̥__ r r̝ [-vcd] ʃ ʃ r̝ ʃ r r rj r j/r
*r j/… r r̝ ʀ ʀ r̝ ʒ r r rj r j/r
In (3), the hardening of *r j was a central LCSl development; it occurred in BCS, Slk,
Uk, and BR. On the northeastern periphery (Ru), *r j was preserved. On the northwestern

Authenticated
periphery, *r j assibilated, probably to *r̝ , an alveolar trill with lamino-palatal frication,

which was preserved in Cz, extreme SPo, Kb, and Slc; in Sorb and Po, the reflex under-
went further developments.
In SSl, softening is reflected in Bg, but not in Sln, BCS, and Mc. The Bg outcomes
of LCSl1 *æ (see 5.2.1) depended on the hardness or softness of the following consonant.
Ultimately, in most dialects, soft consonants were eliminated except before back vowels,
where they had arisen in post-CSl changes (Scatton 1993: 197).
The dialect geography of softening indicates that the assimilation and its subsequent
phonemicization was a LCSl change, which happened well before the loss of weak jers
(see 5.7). (It was also undoubtedly a LCSl change in the sense that it stemmed from the
structure of the LCSl phonological system; see 5.) Nevertheless, it has traditionally been
assumed that inherent softening developed as a consequence of, and thus subsequent to,
the loss of weak jers. That sequence of events is categorically impossible: if softness
had not already been inherent (phonemic), the soft allophones conditioned by weak *ɪ
would have hardened automatically in the absence of their trigger. Nevertheless, it is
highly probable that the reduction of *ɪ facilitated the covert rephonologization of [C j]
0 /C j/. For learners, softening was ambiguous: they could ascribe it to the following
vowel or, in a covert innovation, assess it as a feature inherent to the consonant: /dɪnɪ/
→ [d jɪn jɪ] 0 /d jɪn jɪ/ → [d jɪn jɪ]. The shorter *ɪ became, the more likely the innovative
analysis became for any given learner. Thus the jer-shift did not open the door for
learners to analyze softness as an inherent consonantal feature; it shut the door to their
interpreting it as a subphonemic, vowel-driven feature.
There was also systemic support for the reanalysis of [C j] 0 /C j/ in some LCSl
dialects. Soft *s j already existed in ESl (as well as SSl) in the reflex of *x from the 2VP
and PVP (see 4.4, 4.6). Likewise, soft *z j existed in dialects where the reflex of *g from
the same changes had lost its closure. These outcomes were distinct from inherited *s
and *z: P-ESl *kunæ̃z ja|*kunæ̃z ju ‘king (GEN|DAT )’, *u̯ɪs ja|*u̯ɪs jɔ̃ ‘all (F.NOM|F.ACC)’; cf.
*voza|*vozu ‘cart (GEN|DAT )’, *kosa|*kosɔ̃ ‘braid (NOM|ACC)’. Here, instead of softness,
the traditional Structuralist approach posits ad-hoc vowels *ü and *ä. It is unclear how
the putative *ü could have remained distinct from MCSl2 *ü: (>LCSl1 *i:, see 4.3, 5.1),
or the putative *ä from LCSl1 *æ (see 5.2.1), unless PVP2 (4.6) and the consequent
vowel fronting were later than QD (5.1). In addition, *ü and *ä entail morphological
complications (at least, for a Structuralist approach); for example, the endings in *kunæ̃-
zä |*kunæ̃zü would be allomorphs of those in voza|vozu. According to Lunt (1956: 310),
the presence and usage of «W» and «ю» in the Cyrillic alphabet corroborate the existence
of /ü/ and /ä/ in OESl. In fact, they stem from an orthographic tradition that began under
the influence of Gk perceptions (see Collins 1992).
5.4.1. Fate of the soft sonorants
The reflexes of *n, *l, *r from dental palatalization (3.6) merged entirely with new soft
*n j, *l j, *r j in the dialects in which secondary softening developed (5.4). There was no
corresponding merger in W-SSl (1−2), where *n and *l are reflected as primary palatals
ɲ, ʎ, and *r as the sequence rj (before vowels only). In Mc, *n and *r are reflected as
dentals, and *l as l j or ʎ, in contrast to the velarized lˠ from *l dental.

Authenticated
1486 XIII. Slavic
LCSl1 Bg Mc BCS Sln Slk Po Uk Gloss

(1) *u̯ola volja volja vȍlja vólja [ʎ] vol’a wola volja ‘will’
[l j] [l j] [ʎ] [ʎ] [l] [l j]
*ognɪ ogŭn ogon òganj ògenj oheň ogień ohon’ ‘fire’
[n] [n] [ɲ] [ɲ] [ɲ] [ɲ] [n j]
(3) *mоrɛ more more mȏre morjȇ more morze more ‘sea’
[r] [r] [r] [rj] [r] [ʒ] [r]
5.5. Internal open vowel-liquid diphthongs
Tautosyllabic *ar, *ɛr, *al, *ɛl (traditionally called TORT formulas) underwent changes
whose effect was to remove the liquids from the syllable coda. The reflexes fall into
three zones − southern, northwestern, and northeastern; there are two conservative pe-
ripheries. The change straddled QD (5.1) in SSl and CzSlk but postdated it elsewhere.
The dialect geography is LCSl in that it has a post-Migration-Period center/periphery,
and CzSlk patterns entirely with SSl rather than with Sorb and Lech (see 4.1).
In the southern zone, SSl and CzSlk, the sequences underwent metathesis; the vowels
were lengthened, so that the sequences remained bimoraic: PSl *ɛR > MCSl2 *Rɛ: >
LCSl1 *Ræ; PSl *aR > MCSl2 *Ra: > LCSl1 *Ra. The lengthening took place before or
at the same time as the metathesis, given that inherited (non-metathesized) *Rɛ-, *Ra-
were not affected: LCSl1 *rɛ, *rɔ, cf. OCS drevl jьn jь ‘ancient’, plešte ‘shoulder’, plodъ
‘fruit’, krovъ ‘covering’.
PSl OCS Bg Mc Ek Jek Sln Slk Cz Gloss

(1) *u̯arta: vrata vrata vrata vráta vráta vráta vráta vrata ‘gates’
(2) *bεrg- brěgъ brjag breg brȇg brijȇg brȇg breh břeh ‘bluff’
(3) *galu̯a: glava glava glava gláva gláva gláva hlava hlava ‘head’
(4) *xɛlma2s šlem šlem šlȅm šlijèm šlẹ̀ m †šlem ‘helmet’
*mɛlkad mlěko mljako mleko mléko mlijèko mlékọ mlieko mléko ‘milk’
On the southern periphery, the lengthening stage began before the metathesis. This can
be seen from isolated lexemes that reflect lengthening only: MBg baltina ‘bog’ (*balt-),
zaltarinъ ‘goldsmith’ (*zalt-), maldičie ‘youth’ (*mald-); Bg †dalta ‘chisel’ (*dalbt-). In
the same zone, the isolated lexemes with unmetathesized initial diphthongs (4.9) also
reflect lengthening.
In the northwest, in Sorb and non-peripheral Lech, the sequences underwent metathe-
sis but not lengthening: PSl *ar > LCSl1 *rɔ (5); PSl *ɛr > *r jɛ (6), PSl *al > LCSl1 *lɔ
(7), and PSl *ɛl > *l jɛ (8). In the same dialects, the reflexes of initial open-vowel-liquid
diphthongs had undergone pre-QD lengthening under the acute accent (4.9) In the inter-
nal diphthongs, the loss of bimoraicity suggests that the change followed QD (5.1); that
is, it occurred at a time when length was no longer distinctive in these dialects. The

Authenticated
vowels were sometimes lengthened in later prosodic changes − compensatory lengthen-

ing (5.10), seen in the US, Kb, and Slc forms in (6), or neoacute lengthening (6.4.3)
seen in the Kb and Slc forms for (8).
PSl US LS OPo Kb Slc Pb Gloss

(5) *barda: broda broda broda broda brʉ̀ ɵ̭ dă ÷brödǝ ‘beard’
(6) *bεrg- brjóh brjog brzeg brzég břėg ÷brig ‘bluff’
(7) *galu̯a: hłowa głowa głowa głowa glova ÷glåvă ‘head’
(8) *xɛlma2s szłom szłom ‘helmet’
*mɛlkad mloko mloko mleko mlékò mlȯ́ ko ÷mlåkă ‘milk’
(9) *bardau̯ika: brodawka brodajca brodawka bardówka bȯřdãi̯ ca ÷brödǝvai̯ - ‘wart’
ća
*karu̯a: krowa krowa krowa karva krʉ̀ ɵ̭ vǎ ÷korwò ‘cow’
Throughout Lech, tautosyllabic *ɛr, *ar, and *al are consistently reflected with metathe-
sis. However, in peripheral Lech *ar is often reflected as or ~ ar (9). Cf. also Pb
÷bordåi̯ ńǝ ‘hachet’, Kb korwińc, Slc kãrwińc ‘cow-patty’; OPo karw ‘bull’. Evidently,
there has been dialect contact in both directions: Kb bardówka ~ brodówka ‘wart’; kor-
wa|krowa ‘cow’. For Pb, *or was the norm; forms with *ro were accessed in contacts
with Sorb or CenLech.
In the northeastern zone, comprising ESl, there was neither lengthening nor metathe-
sis; instead, a matching vowel was added after the sonorant: *ar > *ɔrɔ (10); *ɛr > *ɛr jɛ
(11); *al > *ɔlˠɔ (12); and *ɛl > *ɛl(ˠ), with bifurcating reflexes: *ɛl(ˠ) > *ɛl(ˠ)ɔ after
palatals (13), but *ɔl(ˠ)ɔ elsewhere (14). This change is traditionally called pleophony.
PSl OESl Uk BR Ru ESl-ChSl Gloss

(10) *u̯arta: voro̍ta voro̍ta varo̍ty voro̍ta vrata ‘gate(s)’
(11) *bɛrga2s be̍regъ be̍rih/-eh be̍rah be̍reg brěgъ/bregъ ‘shore’
(12) *galu̯a: golova̍ holova̍ halava̍ golova̍ glava ‘head’
(13) *xɛlma2s šelo̍mъ šolo̍m (šelo̍majka) šelo̍m šlěmъ ‘helm’; BR
‘head’
(14) *mɛlkad moloko̍ moloko̍ malako̍ moloko̍ mlěko ‘milk’
For the Uk lexeme in (11), the predicted outcome is bereh; berih reflects *ɛ:, usually
ascribed to either neoacute lengthening (see 6.4.3) or compensatory lengthening before
a weak jer (see 5.10). The OESl ChSl register seen in most OESl writings typically
employed the SSl reflexes in imitation of OCS protographs. However, for *ɛr sequences,
the compromise spelling re is more common than rě, even in texts that otherwise distin-
guish e and ě.
There is abundant evidence that the changes in internal open-vowel-liquid diphthongs
did not begin until the 7th c. or later. Many Slavic proper names are cited in unmetathe-
sized form by Byzantine authors of the 7th−8th centuries: Βαλδίμερ (*u̯aldɛi̯ mɛ:ras),

Authenticated
1488 XIII. Slavic
Δαργαμηρός (*dargami:ras) − after metathesisis, Vladimirъ, and Dragomirъ. During the

same period of early contacts, pre-metathesis forms made their way into other languages
of southeastern Europe: *balta- ‘swamp’ ⥬ Albanian baltë ‘mud’, Romanian baltă
‘swamp’; *mέrgi̯ a: ‘net’ ⥬ Gk dial μέρζα. There are numerous toponyms of Slavic
provenience in central and southern Greece that show no sign of metathesis: *gardika-
‘walled town’ ⥬ Γαρδίκι; *bɛrg- ‘bank’ ⥬ Βέργος; *sálminεi̯ ka- ‘bed of straw’ ⥬
Σαλμενῖκον. (There are also toponyms that reflect metathesis: *bɛ´̄ l- + *gard- ‘white
town’ ⥬ Μπελιγράδια; *gardika- ⥬ Γραδίτσα. These are less frequent in the south,
where the hellenization of Slavophone inhabitants began ca. 800.)
In the late 6th−early 8th centuries, CSl borrowed loanwords with tautosyllabic *ar,
*ɛr, *al, *ɛl from WGmc and La; these underwent the same changes as the native sequen-
ces (15). Sl names in 7th−mid-8th-c. Frankish sources likewise reflect the pre-metathesis
stage: *u̯aldu:ka: ‘ruler’ ⥬ Walducus, *dɛru̯a:n- ⥬ Deruanus (620s−640s); *bɛrʒinik-
⥬ Bersnicha (834). It is often claimed that metathesis was still underway during the
time of Charlemagne (771−814), on the assumption that his OHG name Karl- supplied
LCSl1 *karl- ‘king’, attested in all Sl languages except Pb (16). Spellings that reflect
metathesis appear in Frankish sources from the late 8th c. and become the norm by
the mid-9th c.: LCSl1 *tɛrbɛli̯ - > P-Slk *trɛbɛʎ- ⥬ Trebel (784); LCSl1 *pɛrdǝslau̯ǝ >
*prɛ:dǝslau̯ǝ ⥬ predezlaus (late 8th−early 9th c.).; LCSl1 *sɛbædarg- > P-Sln *sɛbedarg-
⥬ sebedrago (late 8th c.), Zebedrach (864). Metathesis is reflected consistently in the
Kiev Folia (10th c.; protograph 860s−880s), in the Freising Fragments (later 10th c.), and
in the canonical OCS manuscripts (10th−11th c. with later 9th-c. protographs).
Source MCSl2 OSb OCz OPo OESl Gloss

(15) La marmor *marmarʊ mramorь mramor (marmor) moromorъ ‘marble’
OHG *karmala: kramola kramol(a) koromola ‘unrest’
karmala
Rom *skardu:n- Cr ‘Scardona’
*skarduna Skradin
(16) Gmc *karl *karli kraljь král król korol jь ‘king’
In the northeast, pleophony probably occurred in the 8th−9th centuries. BFi accessed
some loanwords from P-ESl prior to the change: *vɛrtɛnad ‘spindle’ ⥬ Votic värttänä,
Karelian värt’t’inä, Estonian värten; *talkunad ⥬ Finnish, Karelian talkkuna, Vepsian
taukun ‘oat flour’.
5.6. Tautosyllabic close vowel-liquid diphthongs

LCSl1 *ɪ and *ǝ (“jers”) have different outcomes in tautosyllabic *ɪr, *ɪl, *ǝr, *ǝl sequen-
ces than in other environments (see 5.8). The reflexes fall into southern, northern, east-
ern, and northeastern zones. In the southern zone, comprising SSl and CzSlk, the sequen-
ces became syllabic sonorants (1−2); that is, the vowels were reinterpreted as opening
phases rather than independent nuclei, in a counter-parallel to the PreSl development
(see 2.3).

Authenticated
PSl OCS Bg Mc BCS Sln Slk OCz Gloss

(1) *u̯irb- vrьbij- vŭrba vrba vŕba vŕba vŕba vrba ‘willow’
*gurst- grъst- grŭst grst grst gŕst hrst’ hrst ‘handful’
(2) *dulga2s dlъgъ dŭlg dolg dȗg dȏƚg dlh dluh ‘debt’
*u̯ilka2s vlъkъ vŭlk volk vȗk vȏlk vlk vlk ‘wolf’
In OCS, the outcomes are spelled «rъ, rь» and «lъ, lь», where the choice of the jer letter
was orthographic rather than etymological. (OCS dictionaries add to the phonological
illusion by using entry-forms with Rь for *Ri and Rъ for *Ru. In the tables here, the
most frequent variant is given.) The placement of the jer letter after the liquid was a
convention influenced by the phonological perceptions of Gk speakers. In original *rɪ,
*lɪ, *rǝ, *lǝ (see 5.10), the reflexes of *ɪ and *ǝ acted like jers in other positions (see 5.8);
they could be strengthened (krъvь > krovь) or condition the strengthing of a preceding
jer (vъ krъvi > vo krъvi). This did not happen with the reflexes of *ɪr, *ɪl, *ǝr, *ǝl,
because no jers were present.
In later Bg, R̥ became ǝR when followed by a single consonant, and Rǝ elsewhere:
vŭrba ‘willow’~vrŭbnica ‘Willow [Palm] Sunday’. In monosyllables, the ǝ could devel-
op on either side of the sonorant. The expected outcomes have often been obscured by
leveling. Elsewhere in the southern zone, r̥ (1) has generally been stable; l̥ (2) has
survived as such only in CzSlk and some WBg dialects. Slk distinguishes l̥ and l̥ :, with
neoacute lengthening (see 6.4.3). OCz preserves l̥ only after labials; elsewhere, the sono-
rant has diphthongized: *l̥ > lu, *l̥ : > lu: (lú; modern lou). Similar reflexes occur in the
northern zone (below). In Sln, BCS, Mc, and some WBg dialects, *l̥ was probably
velarized [lˠ]; its opening phase was reanalyzed as a back rounded vowel: Sln ɔlˠ > ɔw
(«ol», tonemic-system «ɔƚ»); BCS *ɔlˠ > u.
In the northern zone (Sorb and Lech), LCSl1 *ɪr, *ɪl, *ǝr, *ǝl also became syllabic
sonorants. Subsequently, they again became diphthongs − either VR or RV; the order and
the timbre of the vowel depended on the surrounding consonants, and in particular on
whether the following consonant was a hard (plain) dental. To account for this environ-
ment, scholars who view consonant softening as a consequence of the jer-shift have to
reconstruct four syllabic sonorants, with a distinction in second tonality: *ɪR > *R̥ j, *ǝR>
*R̥ˠ; then *R̥ j > *R̥ˠ/__Tˠ. This is superfluous; palatal coarticulation developed prior to
the jer-shift (see 5.2), and it can also be assumed before *ɪr and *ɪl became syllabic
sonorants.
Accordingly, northern-zone *r̥ split into new back vowel-hard sonorant sequences
after hard consonants (3); and between consonants with palatal (co)articulation and hard
dentals, *or (western), *ar (eastern), but higher-tonality *ɛr(j) elsewhere (4). For *l̥ , the
outcomes are more complex but follow the same general pattern. After hard consonants
and after consonants with palatal (co)articulation preceding hard dentals (5), *l̥ split into
back vowel and hard sonorant portions (not necessarily in that order): US *olˠ; LS *lˠu
(after dentals) and *olˠ (elsewhere); Slc and Kb *lˠu; Po olˠ or *ɛlˠ (after labials, with
variation perhaps due to dialect contacts), *lˠu (after dentals), and *ɛlˠ (after velars).
After consonants with palatal (co)articulation preceding other consonants, *l̥ had the
following reflexes: Sorb *ɛl j (after labials before consonants other than hard dentals),
*olˠ (elsewhere in US; after labials before hard dentals and after palatals in US), and

Authenticated
1490 XIII. Slavic
*lˠu (in LS after dentals); Slc and Kb *olˠ; and Po *ɛlˠ (after labials before hard dentals),
*il (after labials before other consonants), *lˠu (after dentals), and *olˠ (after palatals)
(6). Pb was an outlier, in that *r̥ , *l̥ became sequences of back vowel plus sonorant
without regard to the neighboring consonants.
PSl LCSl US LS Po Kb Slc Pb Gloss

(3) *burze *br̥ zɛ bórze bórze bar(d)zo barzo bãrzɵ ÷borz ‘quickly’
(4) *kirn- *tʃr̥ nɨ: čorny carny czarny čôrny čãrnï ÷corně ‘black’
j
*kir- *tʃr̥ u̯ ɛ- čerwje- cerwje- czer- čeř- čĕř- ÷carve- ‘red’
u̯ɛn- nɨ: ny ny wony vjony vjùɵ̯nï nĕ
*u̯irba: *v jr̥ ba wjerba wjerba wierzba wierzba vjìe̯řbă ÷varbă ‘willow’
(5) *dul- *dl̥ gǝ doƚh dƚug dƚug dƚug dlʉ̇́g ÷dåu̯g ‘debt’
ga2s
!
*kiln- *tʃl̥ nǝ čoƚm coƚn czóƚno čoƚen čɵ̀ .ʉ̭ n ÷cåu̯n ‘canoe’
*piln- *p jl̥ nɨ: połny połny pełny pełny pɵ̀ .ʉ̭ nï ÷påu̯ně ‘full’
(6) *dilg- *djl̥ gɨ: doƚhi dƚugi dƚugi dłëdzi dlʉ̇́ђï ÷dåu̯d’ě ‘long’
*u̯il- *v jl̥ kǝ wjelk wjelk wilk wóƚk vɵ̀ .ʉ̭ k ÷vauk ‘wolf’
ka2s
In ESl, coda *l developed velarized articulation [lˠ]; cf. its modern Uk and BR reflex w.
Then *ɪ backed to *ʊ before *lˠ (like *ɛ to *ɔ, see 5.5). The backing was blocked
when the *ɪ followed palatals, where, since LCSl, phonotactics did not permit *ʊ in that
environment. Later, the vowels in tautosyllabic *ɪr, *il, *ʊr, *ʊl sequences developed
like ordinary strong jers (9−10); see 5.8. In peripheral Novg, there was a “Second
Pleophony” (cf. 5.5): a copy of the vowel before the sonorant developed after it as well:
*ɪr > ɪrɪ («ьrь»), *ur > ʊrʊ («ъrъ»), *ʊlˠ > ʊlʊ («ъlъ»), and *ilˠ > ɪlʊ («ьlъ»). The
mechanism was probably the same as in the apparent metatheses in CzSlk, Lech, and E-
SSl: the sonorants were realized with schwa-like final phases, which could be rephonolo-
gized as independent units.
PSl P-ESl OESl Uk BR Ru Novg Gloss

(9) *burz- *bʊrz- bъrz- borzo borzo borzo bъrъzě ‘quickly’
*kɛtu̯irtεi̯ s *tʃɛtu̯ jɪrt ji četvьrti četverti čvèrci četverti cetvereti ‘quarter
(NOM.PL )
(10) *dulga2s *dʊlˠgʊ dъlgъ dovh dowh dolg dъlъgъ ‘debt’
*u̯ilka2s *u̯ʊlˠkʊ vьlkъ vovk vowk volk ‘wolf’
*u̯ilkika2s *u̯ʊlˠtʃɪ vovčok vawčok volčok Vъlъčьk- ‘wolf cub’;
Novg name
*giltai̯ ad *ʒɪlˠtoi̯ ɛ žьltoje žovtoje žowtaje žëltoe žьlъtoe ‘yellow
(N.DEF)’

Authenticated
5.7. Tensing of *i and *ǝ before *i
After qualitative differentiation (5.1), the “jer” vowels *ɪ and *ǝ were subject to tensing be-
fore *i̯ (1−3). As a result, they merged with the reflexes of PSl *i: and *u:1 in most dialects.
PSl LCSl1 Tense Bg Mc BCS Sln Slk OCz US OPo Gloss

(1) *bii̯ ɛ *bɪi̯ ɛ *bii̯ ɛ bie bie bȉje bȋje bije bie bije bije ‘beat
(PRS.3SG)’
*mui̯ ɛ *mǝi̯ ɛ *mɨi̯ ɛ mie mie mȉje mȋje myje myje myjе myje ‘wash
(PRS.3SG)’
In the table, Bg and Mc ie is a disyllabic sequence. In OCz, ie was a diphthong, which

arose from the contraction of *ii̯ ɛ (see 5.12).
Non-tensed reflexes were preserved in three peripheral areas − Pb, western (Ohrid)
OCS, and Ru (excluding Novg) (2). (If there had been tensing in Ru and Pb, the expected
outcomes would be **-i-, **-y-, and diphthongal **ai̯ , **åi̯ , or **oi̯ , respectively.)
PSl OCS OESl Uk BR Ru Pb Gloss

(2) *bii̯ ɛ(ti) bьetъ|-i- bьetь|-i- bij bi bej ÷bėj ‘beat
(PRS.3SG)’
*krui̯ ɛ(ti) kryjetь krъjetь|-y-|-o- kryjet’ kryjec’ kroet ÷kråjĕ ‘cover
(PRS.3SG)’
Judging from spelling variations, the tensing was still an active process in OCS (10th−
11th centuries) and Kievan OESl (11th−13th centuries). In OCS, there was graphic vacilla-
tion in the tensing position between «ь» and «и, ı» for *-ɪ- and between «ъ» and «ъı,
ъи» for *ǝ, e.g. sandhi въ истинѫ~въı истинѫ ‘in truth (ACC)’, прѣдамь и~прѣдами и
‘hand over (PRS.1SG) him (ACC)’. In manuscripts originating in the Ohrid milieu, strong-
jer reflexes (see 5.8) could appear instead: прѣдаме и. Similar variation can be seen in
OESl manuscripts.
Tensing overlapped with other changes to *ɪ and *ǝ (see 5.8). In “strong-jer” position,
the reflex is generally tense (close) rather than “strong” (mid or near-open). In “weak-
jer” or reduced position, leveling has obscured the development, but generally, the tense
reflex occurs in roots (3), the weak in suffixes (4). (For W-SSl and WSl, the change of
*ɪi̯ V to i̯ V has also been treated as a contraction, but it does not follow the usual course
of contraction [5.12].) In eastern OESl, where there was no tensing, quasi-tense spellings
of weak jers as и|ı and ъı are probably ChSl imitations of OCS protographs.
LCSl1 OCS BCS OCz LS OPo OESl Uk Gloss

(3) *bii̯ ai̯ s bii bȉj bí bij bij bii|bьi byj ‘beat
(IMP.2SG)’
*ʃɪi̯ a šija šȉja šijě šyja szyja šija šyja ‘neck’
(4) *brat(r)ɪi̯ a bratьja|-ij- brȁća bratřie bratśa bracia bratьja|-ij- brattja ‘brethren’

Authenticated
1492 XIII. Slavic
5.8. The jer-shift
LCSl1 *ɪ and *ǝ/*ʊ (“front jer” and “back jer”) underwent a complex of changes known
as the jer-shift (Isačenko 1970) or the Third Slavic Vowel Shift (Andersen 1998a). The
shift had such major consequences for phonology, syllable structure, and morphology
that it is generally, and justifiably, taken as the great divide between LCSl and the history
of the individual languages (with the provisos discussed in 5). Among the most important
consequences were the abolition of the constraint against closed syllables and the rise
of new, previously non-canonical clusters; in the history of the individual languages, this
led to new voicing assimilation and final devoicing rules. In addition, in the dialects
where consonants developed palatal (co)articulation before front vowels (5.2), the loss
of *ɪ in the jer-shift removed the possibility of interpreting them as subphonemic (vowel-
driven).
The jer-shift (JS) was not a single punctiliar change. In its first phase (JS1), there was
a tendency, traditionally known as Havlík’s Law, for *ɪ and *ǝ/*ʊ to be reduced (1.0 →
0.5 moras) unless there was an *ɪ or *ǝ/*ʊ in the following syllable: *ɪ > *ɪ̆ and *ǝ >
* ǝ̆ (breve = IPA “extra short duration”). There was a countervailing tendency to avoid
sequences of two ultrashort vowels. By Havlík’s Law, jers were “weak” (subject to
reduction) finally (1) and in syllables before non-jer vowels (2); they were “strong” (not
subject to reduction) in syllables before weak jers (1, first syllable). In sequences of
three jers, the final was weak, the penultimate strong, and the antepenultimate weak (3).
(For the further development of strong jers, see 5.8.1)
In the second phase (JS2), weak jers were subject to further reduction: {*ɪ̆, *ǝ̆} > Ø.
This process has traditionally been called the fall of the weak jers, which has the mislead-
ing implication that the process was sudden. The principal mechanism was not a sound
change proper but a phonemic reanalysis, which elapsed over multiple generations, with
a great deal of social accommodation. At any given time, LCSl1 /ɪ/ and /ǝ/ (or peripheral
/ʊ/) had a range of phonetic realizations, from short in lento speech through ultrashort
[V] to Ø in allegro speech. Presented with these ambiguities, innovative learners could
covertly reanalyze the weak jers as /Ø/. Presumably, for the sake of social continuity,
they learned to produce jer-like paragogic vowels as lento or emphatic actualizations of
consonants that were final or pre-consonantal in their grammars: /C/ → [Cǝ]; cf. Ameri-
can English emphatic sweet [sǝˈwijt], incredible [ɪnkǝˈrɛdɪbl̥ ]. Undoubtedly, the actuali-
zation was gradual and influenced by pragmatic factors such as rate of speech and style.
Overall, innovative speakers would favor null realizations as the best match to their
grammars. The null realizations would thus increase in frequency, influencing new
learners to make the reanalysis as well. Therefore, the traditional label “fall” or “loss”
of weak jers is inaccurate except as a metalinguistic description of the end result.
The adjacent consonants also played a role in the implementation. In OESl, the loss
of weak jers is first registered between voiceless consonants (LCSl1 *kʊn jazɪ >
kъn jazь|kn jazь ‘prince’). Another factor was the position of the jer in the word. Final
jers were eliminated earlier than non-final; this is very clearly evidenced in Novg, where
null spellings of final jers crop up from ca. 1075, while the main implementation took
place in the 1120s−1210s.
The data in the table come from the earliest Sl manuscripts − the Kiev Folia (10th
c.), written in OCS of Moravian (Mor) provenience; the canonical OCS codices of E-
SSl provenience (late 10th−11th c.); the earliest OESl writings (11th−early 12th c.); and

Authenticated
the Freising Fragments, hand III, written in OSln (later 10th c.). They illustrate the
spelling of weak jers in final (1) and medial position (2), as well as sequences of three
jers (3).
JS1 Mor OESl1 OCS1−2 OSln1−2 OCS2 OESl2 OSln2 Gloss

(1) *dɪnɪ̆ dьnь dьnь dьnь denь denь den ‘day’
(2) *dɪ̆nɛ dьne dьne dьne dine dne|d’ne|dъne d(’)ne (LOC)
*dɪ̆ni dьni dьni dьni dni|d’ni|dъni d(’)ni (ACC.PL )
(3) *dɪ̆nɪsɪ̆ dьnьsь dьnьsь dnesь|dъnesь d(’)nesь ‘today’
*dɪ̆nɪʃɪ̆n- dьnьšьn- dьnьšьn- dinizn- dneš’n- dneš- ‘to-
neje day’s’
At the JS1 stage, both weak and strong jers are written with jer letters, without omissions
or conflations. This is attested in Mor and in OESl1. (The occasional omissions of jers
in 11th-c. OESl manuscripts is thought to be a “bookish” imitation of OCS rather than a
sound change in progress.) At the JS2 stage, strong jers can be replaced by other vowel
letters (see 5.8.2); weak jers can be dropped, written with an apostrophe, or confused
with the other jer (ъ for ь in the OCS2 examples). This is attested in OCS2, OESl2, and
OSln2. While the canonical OCS manuscripts were all produced by JS2 scribes, the
majority of their jer spellings reflect JS1; this is due to the scribes’ copying from JS1
protographs, receiving dictation in a JS1 pronunciation, or following JS1 orthographic
rules. In the table, conservative spellings are cited under OCS1−2, and innovative under
OCS2. In the OSln1−2 spellings, weak jers («i») are omitted after the stress, but preserved
elsewhere; the strong jer («i, e») (1, 3) has not yet been conclusively identified with
another vowel. (The scribe was probably a German copying from an older text.)
5.8.1. Rephonologization of the strong jers
As weak jers grew shorter (JS2), strong jers were lengthened in proportion; ultimately,
they were rephonologized as mid- or near-open vowels. This process has traditionally,
though illogically, been called the vocalization of strong jers. The reflexes fall into a
central zone and peripheries.
In the central zone (W-SSl, WSlk and ESlk, Cz, Sorb, and most of Lech), strong *ɪ
and *ǝ (from LCSl1 *ʊ [5.1.1]), merged as *ǝ or a similar mid-central vowel. (In WSl,
*ɪ left its traces in the softness of the preceding consonant [see 5.4].) In early OSb and
OCr, ǝ was spelled with the front jer letter «ь»; the back jer letter «ъ» went into abey-
ance. During the Middle Ages, ǝ was rephonologized as a in Što and most of Čak, and
as ɛ («e») in Kaj and in the Čak dialects of a few Adriatic islands. In Sln, the merged
reflex bifurcated, depending on length: *ǝ > ǝ («e»); *ǝ: > a: in the southwest, adjoining
Čak, and close-mid e («ẹ » or «é») to the east, adjoining Kaj. In WSl, apart from Pb (see
5.8.2) and part of CenSlk, the merged reflex of *ɪ and *ǝ was identified with LCSl1 *ɛ.
In Sorb, this could change to o in US and a in LS, depending on the adjacent consonants.
In the table, Slk1 is SE CenSlk dialects, which have rounded reflexes of *u; Slk2 is
CenSlk, with forms from the standard. (Cf. WSlk déždž, pes, den.)

Authenticated
1494 XIII. Slavic
PSl BCS Sln Slk1 Slk2 OCz US LS OPo Gloss

(1) *duz- dȁžd dè ž [ǝ] dožd- dážd’ dešč déšć de(j)šć deżdż ‘rain’
di̯ us
!
*suna2s sȁn sèn [ǝ] son sen sen són soń sen ‘sleep’
(2) *pisa2s pȁs pȅs [ǝ] pes pes pes pos pjas pies ‘dog’
*dinis dȃn dȃn deň den dźeń źeń dzień ‘day’
In the other peripheral zones (Bg, Mc, ESl, and CenSlk), strong *ɪ and *ǝ /*ʊ remained
distinct, for the most part. Generally, strong *ɪ was reflected as ɛ («e»); in BR and Ru,
it bifurcated into ɔ before hard consonants and e before soft. Strong *ʊ became ɔ («o»)
in ESl, in part of CenSlk, in western (Ohrid) OCS, and in many Mc dialects, including
the standard (though a also occurs as an intrusion from BCS). In Bg, its outcome was
delabialized ǝ («ŭ»), merging with the reflex of LCSl1 *ɔ̃.
PSl OCS Preslav Ohrid Bg Mc OESl Uk BR Ru Gloss

(1) *duz- dъždь dъždь doždь dŭžd dožd dъždь došč doždž dožd’ ‘rain’
di̯ us [ǝ]
*suna2s sъnъ sъnъ sonъ sŭn son sъnъ son son son ‘sleep’
[ǝ]
(2) *pisa2s pьsъ pesъ pesъ pes pes pьsъ pеs pës pës ‘dog’
[o] [o]
*dinis dьnь denь denь den den dьnь den’ dzen’ den’ ‘day’
5.8.2. Pb outcomes
The reflexes of *ɪ and *ǝ did not follow Havlík’s Law in the northwesternmost Slavic
language, which therefore was an outlier. Weak jers in initial syllables became strong if
they were stressed or in the first pre-stress syllable: LCSl1 *kʊto > ÷kåtü ‘who’ cf. OCS
kъto|kto; LCSl1 *pɪsi > ÷pasåi, cf. OCS pьsi|psi ‘dog (nom. pl.)’. Other weak jers were
lost, as expected. Strong *ɪ and *ǝ merged as ɒ (å in normalized spelling) in some
environments, but remained distinct in others − a for front, and close-mid e (ė in normal-
ized spelling) for back: LCSl1 *dʊzɟɪ > ÷dåzd ‘rain’, cf. OCS dъždь; LCSl1 *pɪsa2 s >
÷pjas ‘dog’; LCSl1 *dɪnɪ > dan ‘day’; LCSl1 *lokʊtɪ > ÷lüt’ėt ‘elbow’.
5.8.3. Irregular outcomes
At the time of the jer-shift, conservative speakers presumably tolerated (or even pro-
duced) null implementations of weak jers as allegro forms. Conversely, innovative

Authenticated
speakers in the same community must have retained awareness of the existence of vow-
els in weak-jer position and interpreted them as paragogic vowels − that is, as potential
realizations of consonants not immediately followed by vowels in high-style or largo
speech. This natural result of generational continuity would have provided many oppor-
tunities for irregular outcomes, e.g. insertion of non-etymological vowels in inherited
clusters (1).
The regular operation of Havlík's Law created extensive allomorphy (“vowel-zero
alternations”). Thus, in the individual languages, the distribution of strong and weak jer
reflexes has often been disrupted by stem-leveling to break up complex consonant clus-
ters − though the bar for complexity is set quite high in Sl − or to eliminate multiple
vowel-zero alternations in the same stem. Thus, e.g. in ‘stalk’ (2), the ESl and SSl
languages have generalized the root allomorph that reflects the strong jer; cf. also modern
Cz steblo. In ‘light’ (3), the masculine indefinite form, in accordance with Havlík’s Law,
should have a null outcome for the rightmost jer; however, the strong-jer reflex has been
extended from forms in which it was regular.
PSl OCS BCS Sln OCz LS OPo Uk Ru Gloss

(1) *anglis ǫglь ȕgalj (v)ǫ̑gǝƚ uhel hugel węgiel vuhil’ ugol’ ‘coal’
(2) *stibl- stáblo stáblọ stblo spƚo źdźbƚo steblo steblo ‘stalk’
(3) *liguka2s lьgъk- lȁk láhǝk lehek (lekki) (lekki) (lehkyj) lëgok ‘light
(M)’
5.9. Tautosyllabic liquid-jer sequences
By Havlík’s Law (5.8), LCSl1 tautosyllabic *rɪ, *lɪ, *rǝ, *lǝ (peripheral *rʊ, *lʊ) are pre-
dicted to yield RV in strong position (1), and R in weak (2). In fact, these outcomes only
developed in WSl, excluding Slk, and in the more western dialects of ESl. In the WSl dia-
lects, the new interconsonantal sonorants did not become syllabic; the words in (2) are
monosyllabic. (By contrast, tautosyllabic *ɪr, *ɪl, *ǝr, *ǝl had become syllabic; see 5.6). In
Sorb, interconsonantal *l ultimately developed into *ɨl (2), with a different vowel from the
strong-jer reflex *e. In western ESl, both interconsonantal liquids developed a following
epenthetic ɨ, again differing from the strong-jer reflexes (2). In some words, leveling has
interfered with the outcomes, as in Uk krovi, sl’oza for expected *kryvi, *slyza.
PSl LCSl1 OCz US LS Po Uk BR Ru Gloss

(1) *kruu̯im *krǝu̯ɪ krev kréj kšej krew krov krow krov’ ‘blood
(ACC)’
*slizam *slɪzǝ slz (sylzow) (łdzow) łez sl’oz slëz slëz ‘tear
(GEN.PL )’
!
(2) *kruu̯ɛs *krǝu̯ɛ krve krwje kšwě (krwi) krovi kryvi krovi ‘blood
(GEN)’
!
*sliza: *slɪza slza sylza łdza łza sl’oza sljaza sleza ‘tear’

Authenticated
1496 XIII. Slavic
The outcomes in Ru differ from those in other ESl languages in that the strong-jer
reflexes developed even in weak position. According to Isačenko (1970), Ru actually
developed interconsonantal liquids, but they were eliminated, after a period of “trial
and error,” by a morphological rule that eliminated vowel-zero alternations adjacent to
consonant clusters.
In Slk and SSl, tautosyllabic *rɪ, *lɪ, *rǝ, *lǝ became syllabic sonorants, thus merging
with tautosyllabic *ɪr, *ɪl, *ǝr, *ǝl (see 5.6). This happened regardless of whether *ɪ and
*ǝ were strong (3) or weak (4) by Havlík’s Law. Exceptions can be found in western
(Ohrid) OCS, where the normal strong-jer reflexes are sometimes found. (Some scholars
have posited that W-OCS was a peripheral conservation of the same pattern seen in WSl
and ESl; consequently, the syllabic reflexes in Slk and in other SSl dialects was a central
LCSl innovation.)
PSl E-OCS W-OCS Bg Mc BCS Sln Slk Gloss

(3) *slizina: slьz(ь)na slez(ь)na slŭzna solzna sȕzna sółzna slzná ‘tearful
(F )’
*kruu̯im krъvь krovь krŭv krv kȓ v kȓ v krv ‘blood
(ACC)’
(4) *kruu̯a:u̯- krъvavъ krъvavъ kŭrvav krav kȑ vāv krvȃv krvavý ‘bloody’
*sliza: slьza slьza sŭlza solza sȕza sóƚza slza ‘tear’
In OCS, the syllabic sonorants of either origin were spelled «rъ, rь» and «lъ, lь»; the
jer-letter used was a matter of convention rather than phonology. In EBg dialects, syllabic
sonorants were re-diphthongized, with their opening or closing phases reanalyzed as ǝ
(«ŭr, rŭ» and «ŭl, lŭ»). The tendency was for the opening phase to be reanalyzed before
single consonants, and the closing phase before consonant clusters; however, this distri-
bution has been greatly obscured by leveling. (In [3−4], only krŭv shows an unpredicted
outcome.) Syllabic sonorants have been preserved in many WBg dialects. In Mc and W-
SSl, r̥ has been stable; *l̥ eventually re-diphthongized to olˠ, which gave Mc ou̯ («ol»),
BCS u, and Sln ou̯ («ol», tonemic-system «oƚ»).
5.10. Compensatory lengthening
Jer-strengthening (5.8.1) was a form of compensatory lengthening (CL): as the weak jer
decreased in duration, the strong jer increased. Other vowels also underwent CL before
weak jers, at least in the central dialects of LCSl; the process has left no detectable trace
in E-SSl, BR, or Ru. In the table, the first form in each set shows the reflex of a vowel
lengthened in the CL environment; the second shows the reflex when the following
vowel was not a jer. (For the reflexes of lengthened vowels, see 5.3)

Authenticated
LCSl1 LCSl2 BCS Sln Slk OCz US OPo Kb Uk Gloss

ǝ
(1) *samʊ *sa:m sȃm sȃm sám sám sam såm sóm sam ‘alone’
*samɔ *samɔ sȁmo samȏ samo samo samo samo samò samo (N)
(j) ǝ !
(2) *lɛdʊ *l ɛ:d lȇd lẹ̑d l’ad led lód lód lód lid ‘ice’
(j)
*lɛda *l ɛda lȅda ledȗ (ľadu) (ledu) loda lodu (lodu) (l’odu) (GEN)
ǝ †
(3) *bɔgʊ *bo:g bȏg bọ̑g bóh bóh bóh bóg bóg bih ‘God’
*bɔga *bɔga bȍga bogȃ boha boha boha boga bòga boha (GEN)
ǝ
(4) *lɔ̃gʊ *lɔ̃g lȗg lo˛̑g luh lúh łuh łąg łąg luh ‘fen’
! !
*lɔ̃ga *lɔ̃ga lȗga lo˛̑ga luha luha łuha łęga łãga luha (GEN)
In Sorb, post-16c Po, and Uk, the results of CL can only be seen in the outcomes of
LCSl1 *ɛ (2) and *ɔ (3). In Sorb, the reflexes are either close mid-vowels or diphthongs
ie and uo («ě» and «ó»). Similar diphthongs developed in Uk and are preserved in
northern dialects. In WUk (including the standard language), uo fronted to iü (OUk
«ю»), then lost its labialization; thus it merged with the reflex of ie, and also with the
outcome of LCSl1 *æ (*mæra: > OESl měra > Uk mira ‘measure’). (The reflex of
LCSl1 *i became lax ɪ.)
The regular distribution of CL reflexes has been disturbed by rampant analogy −
hence the irregular outcomes (marked !). In various LCSl dialects, the implementation
of new length depended on the accent type and the following consonant (see Timberlake
1983a). In WSl, another interfering factor was vowel abridgment, which occurred when
the consonant between the target vowel and the weak jer was voiceless. This explains
outcomes, especially common in peripheral Lech, where penultimate strong jers have
null (quasi-weak jer) outcomes: LCSl1 *ɔu̯ɪsʊ > Kb óws ‘oats’, cf. Po owies; LCSl1
*nɔgʊtɪ > Kb nokc, cf. Po nogieć.
5.11. Lenition of *g
In a central zone of the post-migration CSl, PSl *g was lenited to *ɣ (1). The zone
affected stretched from southern WSl (US, CzSlk) to non-peripheral ESl (Rusyn, Uk,
BR, SRu); there was a southward extension from Slk to westernmost SSl (NWSln, WSln,
and parts of Čak). The lenition also extended into proximal NRu dialects, but its effects
can only be seen between vowels: togo > toɣo (0 tovo) ‘that (M/N.GEN.SG)’, but gost’
‘guest’.
Eventually, *ɣ backed to ɦ or ʕ in US, Cz, Slk, NWSln, Rusyn, Uk, and SWBR. This
was definitely a secondary development; the reflex in those dialects was evidently still
*ɣ when new devoicing rules developed after the jer-shift: /ɦ/ and /ʕ/ devoice to /x/
rather than /h/ or /ħ/ (2). Likewise, /x/ voices to [ɣ] rather than [ɦ] or [ʕ].

Authenticated
1498 XIII. Slavic
PSl US OCz Slk WSln OUk BR SRu Gloss

j j
(1) *gra:b- hrabać hrabiti hrabat’ ɣrabiti hrabiti hrabic’ ɣrab it ‘snatch’
*naga: noha noha noha nǫɣa noha naha naɣa ‘leg’
*baga: boha boha boha boɣa boha boha boɣa ‘God (GEN/
ACC)’
(2) *baga2s bóh [x] bóh bôh [x] bux bоh boh [x] box (NOM)
† j
(3) *mai̯ zga: mjezha miezha miazga mezga mjazha m azɣa ‘pulp’
Given its dialect geography, the lenition of *g was undoubtedly a LCSl change. For
absolute chronology, it can be noted that the southward extension must have developed
while WSl and W-SSl still formed a continuum, i.e. probably before the early 10th c.
Nevertheless, some scholars treat it as post-CSl because of names spelled with «g»
instead of «h» in La sources and the earliest La-alphabet Sl texts (prior to the 13th c.):
early OCz bogu ‘God (DAT.SG)’. The rationale is that lenition could not be CSl if it
happened after the jer-shift (5.8). This is a weak argument. First, «g» is a plausible way
of rendering /ɣ/, especially when there is no contrast with /g/, and when «h» was used
to render voiceless /x/, along with ch. (In Hebrew-alphabet Knaanic [Judeo-Czech] gloss-
es from the same period, the *g reflex is spelled as velar gimel instead of he or heth.)
Second, the argument is predicated on the false view that the end of LCSl was a punctili-
ar event. Granted that the jer-shift was the last “common” change, it took place over an
extended period; its actualization ended in some dialects before beginning in others. The
lenition of *g may have had a different chronology relative to the jer-shift in some
dialects than others, but it was a development rooted in the laxness of CSl *g, reflected
in the lenited reflexes of the velar palatalizations (3.2, 4.4−4.6.; see Andersen 1969,
1977).
As shown by Andersen (1969), the lenition began at a time when the CSl constraint
against fricative-fricative clusters was still in force (see 3.1) − that is, before the jer-shift
(5.8). This explains why *zg remained zg rather than becoming *zh in ECz, Slk, Uk,
and SW BR (3), the dialects most central for − and hence first affected by − the change.
(BR zh is pronounced [zg].) As the change radiated outward, it affected dialects where
the fricative-fricative constraint had been lifted by the jer-shift; thus the reflex is zɦ in
WCz and US dialects (but cf. US mjezga, Cz †mízga), and zɣ in the SSl and more
peripheral ESl dialects in the lenition zone.
5.12. Contraction
Following QD (5.1), there was a tendency for Vi̯ V sequences, found only over bounda-
ries, to contract to V:. This was one of the changes that created new distinctions in
length/tenseness, along with neoacute retraction (6.4.3) and compensatory lengthening
(5.10). Contraction occurred throughout Sl, from Pb to Novg; it was most intensive in
CzSk and W-SSl, and least in ESl. Nowhere did it reach its ultimate extent; variation
between contracted and uncontracted forms still occurred in the historical period, to
varying degrees in different grammatical categories. Some of the uncontracted forms

Authenticated
may have been resurrected by stem-leveling, but others were probably original lento
forms that persisted as stylistic variants.
In OCS (1−2), four stages of contraction can be observed: 1. pre-contraction; 2. glide
loss; 3. assimilation of the second vowel to the first; and 4. monosyllabification (contrac-
tion proper). Not every sequence went through all the stages. For example, the assimila-
tion phase could not happen in *-ǝi̯ i- or *ɨi̯ i, since ǝ and ɨ could not follow other vowels.
PSl LCSl1 OCS1 OCS2 OCS3 OCS4 Gloss

(1) *-ɛ:+a:s+ɛt *-æaʃɛ -ěaše -ěěše -ěše IMP.3SG
*-a:+i̯ +a: *-ai̯ a -aja -aa -a F.NOM
*-au̯+i̯ +amau̯ *-ui̯ ɛmu -ujemu -uemu -uumu -umu M/N.DAT
*-a:m+i̯ +a:m *-ɔ̃i̯ ɔ̃ -ǫjǫ -ǫǫ -ǫ F.INST
(2) *-a2m+i̯ + *-ǝi̯ ixǝ -ъixъ|-yixъ? -ъixъ|-yixъ? -yxъ HARD

ai̯ sa2m GEN/.PL
*i̯ + a2m+i̯ + *-ɪi̯ ixǝ -ьixъ|-iixъ? -ьixъ|-iixъ? -ixъ SOFT

ai̯ sa2m GEN.PL
The forms in (2) are ambiguous, like other definite adjective endings formed on the
bases *-ǝ- and soft *-ɪ-. As discussed in 3.5, OCS did not have the graphic means to
differentiate *i and *i̯ i. While the spellings «ъıи», «ии» are clearly disyllabic, they could
convey either /ɨi̯ i/, /ii̯ i/ (OCS1, with tense-jer reflexes) or /ɨi/, /ii/ (OCS2). Because /ɨ/
was spelled with digraphs («ъı» or «ъи», transliterated y), «ъı, ъи» can be read as
disyllabic [ǝi̯ i] or monosyllabic [ɨ]. The sequence -ii- («ии») could have arisen by jer-
tensing (5.7) as well as assimilation (OCS3).
The reflexes of contraction were long. If the first vowel was LCSl1 *ǝ or *ɪ (2), it
tensed prior to contraction (see 5.7). When the two vowels were identical, they simply
monosyllabified (3). The sequence *ɔjɛ (4) contracted as *ɔ: in SSl, but *ɛ: in WSl (with
no secondary softening of the preceding consonant). When the two vowels differed in
height, the reflex of contraction matched the more peripheral vowel, regardless of its
order in the sequence, according to the following hierachy: close-mid > (near-)open >
open-mid (5). The sequence *ii̯ V2 (6), insofar as it contracted at all, became *i̯ V2 or, in
WSl, V2 with preceding secondary softening.
LCSl1 BCS Sln Slk OCz LS OPo Kb Gloss

(3) *ai̯ a dòbrā dȏbra dobrá dobrá dobra dobra dobrô ‘good
(F.NOM)’
*õi̯ õ dȍbrū dȏbro dobrú dobrú dobru dobrą dobrą (F.ACC)
*ɛjɛ tùđē túje cudzie cuzé cuze cudze cëzé ‘foreign
(N.NOM/ACC)’
*ii̯ i dȍbrī dȏbri dobrí dobří dobri dobrzy dobrzi (M.NOM.PL )
(4) *ɔjɛ dȍbrō dȏbro dobré dobré dobre dobre dobré (N.NOM/ACC)
(5) *ei̯ ɛ sȅje sẹ̑ je seje sěje sejo sieje seje ‘sow
(PRS.3SG)’

Authenticated
1500 XIII. Slavic
LCSl1 BCS Sln Slk OCz LS OPo Kb Gloss

*ei̯ a siat’ sieti seś siać sôc (INF )
*ai̯ ɛ znȃš znȃš znáš znáš znaš znasz znôsz ‘know
(PRS.2SG)’
*ɔi̯ a pȃs pȃs pás pás pas pas pas ‘belt’
*-ɔi̯ a- stȃti státi stát’ státi stać stac ‘stand’
(6) *-ii̯ a brȁća brȃtja bratia bratřie bratśa braća bracô ‘brethren’
*-ii̯ u brȁću brȃtjo bratřú bratśu braćę (ACC.SG)
Uncontracted forms are also attested: BCS sȅjati, Sln sejáti ̣ ‘sow’; BCS pȍjās, Sln
†
pojȃs ‘belt’; BCS †stójati, LS stojaś, OPo stojać, Kb stojec ‘stand’. These, plus the
lacunae in the table, show the varying extent of implementation or morphological inter-
ference in the various dialects.
The contraction *ai̯ ɛ > *-a:- in Leskien III verbs like *znati, *znai̯ ɛ- ‘know’ opened
the door to a major morphological development − the exaptation of the athematic
PRS.1SG *mi. The contracted stem in *-a:- was reanalyzed as a theme comparable to the
long vowel in athematic *da- ‘give’, *jima- ‘have’; then the thematic PRS.1SG *-ɔ̃ was
replaced by *-mi. The innovation spread to other classes, to differing extents, in SSl and
WSl (see Janda 1996). (The endings are given in their LCSl1 form; the actual spread
happened in historical times.)
6. Suprasegmental phonology
BaSl accentology has been characterized as the “most complex problem of IE historical
grammar” (Watkins 1965: 117). The present account for the most part presents the ap-
proach of the Moscow Accentological School (Dybo, Illič-Svityč, and Zaliznjak). For
brevity, Ba outcomes are only discussed if shared with Sl. BaSl was a dialect continuum;
there is no warrant for assuming that PreSl accentual developments always marched in
lockstep with Pre-Ba.
In the tables, API gives the accent paradigm (AP) reconstructed for PIE: 1 = barytone
(fixed on the stem); 1s = fixed on a suffix; 2 = oxytone (fixed on the ending). APII
gives the accent pattern reconstructed for CSl (see 6.7−8): a = fixed on the stem; A =
fixed on a suffix; b = fixed on the post-root syllable; B = fixed on the post-suffix
syllable; c = mobile stress. Forms given in [ ] are supplied from other dialects. The
glosses for the meaning of the protoform are based on the majority of attested forms.
For BCS, the data come from NŠto (Neo-Štokavian), the BCS standard, cited in its Ek
variety; and from Čak (Čakavian) (Čak1 = Orbanići [Kalsbeek 1998]; Čak2 = Orlec
[Houtzagers 1985]; Čak3 = other).

Authenticated
6.1. Sl accentual correspondences
CSl had mobile ictus with distinctive tones under stress. The place of the ictus can be
reconstructed from correspondences among the four zones that have preserved accentual
mobility: W-SSl, E-SSl (Bg, some EMc), ESl, and peripheral Lech (Cen/NKb, Slc, and
Pb). The earliest texts (MBg, OSb, MRu) that indicate ictus by supralinear marks date
to the 14th−15th centuries. Elsewhere in Slavic, the stress has been bound to a non-final
syllable − initial in Sorb, Cz, W/CenSlk, far SPo, and SKb; penultimate in Po, SWCz,
NECz, and ESlk, and separately in peripheral WMc; and antepenultimate in most of Mc.
In LCSl, there were two tones − the acute (V̋), and the non-acute, traditionally known
as the circumflex when long (V̑) and the short falling when short (V̏). A new accent, the
neoacute (V́), arose in LCSl2 (see 6.4.3). These tones can be reconstructed from the
intonational distinctions preserved in BCS and Sln, with supplementary data from length
or stress correlations in the non-tonemic languages.
6.1.1. Acute
The acute accent appeared on syllables with long vowels or diphthongs that reflected
laryngeal length (see 2.3), regardless of the stress. While it was originally non-prosodic
(see 6.3.1, 6.3.3, 6.3.4), by LCSl it had become a low-high tone with a fall in the
subsequent syllable. In the Slavic languages with accentual mobility, lexemes recon-
structed with the CSl acute regularly have stress fixed on the root (1−3) or on a deriva-
tional suffix (5−6).
CSl LCSl1 Čak1 NŠto Sln OCz MRu Gloss

(1) V̋|V# *ʒa̋bɨ žȁbi žȁbe žábe žáby ˈžaby ‘frog
(NOM.PL )’
*mæ̋ra mȅra mȅra méra miera ˈměra ‘unit’
*dı̠̋ ma dȉma ¶
dȉmovā díma 0
dýma ˈdymъ ‘smoke
(GEN)’
(2) V̋|ɪ/ǝ# *dı̠̋ mʊ dĩm dȉm dìm dým ˈdymъ ‘smoke’
¶ 0
*mæ̋rʊ mjȇrā mér měr měrъ ‘unit
(GEN.PL )’
(3) CA̋R|CV SSl *bla̋to blȁto blȁto bláto bláto boˈloto ‘swamp’
SSl *kra̋u̯a krȁva krȁva kráva kráva koˈrova ‘cow’
¶
(4) CA̋R|Cɪ/ǝ# SSl *kra̋u̯ʊ krȃf krȃvā kráv krav koˈrovъ (GEN.PL )
¶ ¶
(5) V̋|V|V# SSl *kra̋u̯- krȁvami krȁv- kráv- kravami koˈrov- (INST.PL )
ami ama ama ami
¶ ¶ ¶ ¶
*ka̋mɛnɛ kȁmena kȁmena kámna kamene ˈkameni ‘stone
(GEN)’
(6) V|V̋|V *boga̋ta bogȁta bògata bogáta bohata boˈgata ‘rich (F )’

Authenticated
1502 XIII. Slavic
The acute does not have a distinct reflex in Lech, LS, most of Slk, and E-SSl. In W-
SSl, lexemes reconstructed with root acutes have the same tone throughout the paradigm,
though its length may differ in open (1, 3) and closed syllables (2, 4). Sln has a low-
high accent: long V́, or short V̀ in closed syllables. BCS has a high-low accent V̏, or
long V̑ in closed syllables (2). In Čak dĩm [2], the accent is a rising tone of post-CSl
origin. In NŠto bògata (6), the place of the ictus reflects the definitional NŠto change:
non-initial stresses shifted leftwards, and the receiving syllables developed low-high
tones − long V́, short V̀ .
In P-Cz and P-WSlk, root acutes were reflected as length in disyllabic forms (1, 3),
but not in polysyllables (5−6); cf. OCz ¶ kámen ‘stone (NOM)’, žabami ‘frog (INST.PL )’.
In forms that became monosyllabic by the jer-shift (5.8), acuted vowels were also short-
ened (2, 4); cf. OCz blat ‘swamp (GEN.PL )’. In the history of Czech, the resulting root
allomorphy was usually leveled out in one direction or the other: OCz 0dým (2), but
0
mier alongside regular měr (2).
In ESl, the acute has a distinct reflex only in internal open-vowel-sonorant diphthongs
(see 5.5). The pleophonic outcome is stressed on the second syllable (COˈROC) when
the root vowel had been acuted in CSl (3), but on the first (ˈCOROC) when it had been
circumflexed (see 6.1.2). In the same environment, US has tense-vowel reflexes lě, rě,
ló, ró: bƚóto, wróna.
6.1.2. Non-acute
In LCSl, initial stressed syllables with non-acute accents had high-low tone if long (V̑),
and high-low or level if short (V̏). On internal and final non-acuted syllables, only the
ictus can be reconstructed. Lexemes reconstructed with non-acute belonged historically
to mobile accent paradigms.
CSl LCSl1 Čak1 NŠto Sln MBg MRu Gloss

(1) #ˈV|V *sɨ̑na sȋna sȋna sȋna ˈsyna ˈsyna ‘son
(GEN)’
(2) #ˈV|V *rȍda rȍda rȍda rodȃ/rȏda ˈroda ˈro̍da ‘kin
(GEN)’
¶
*u̯ɛ̏tʃɛra vȅčera vȅčeri večȇra ˈvečera ˈve̍čera ‘evening
(GEN)’
(3) #ˈV |ɪ/ǝ# *rȍdu ruȏt rȏd rȏd ˈrodъ ˈro̍dъ ‘kin’
(4) ˈCARC- SSl brȃdo brȃdu bradọ̑ ˈbradǫ Ru ˈbo- ‘beard
*brȃda rodu (ACC)’
In W-SSl, non-acute accents are reflected as high-low tones − long V̑, and short V̏ (1−
2). In Sln, the ictus has tended to shift rightwards from circumflexed syllables; though
analogy has wreaked havoc on the distribution, generally the presence of a circumflex
on a suffix or ending points to an original root circumflex. Similar rightward shifts
occurred in Kaj in trisyllabic forms, and Bg in disyllabic. In BCS, short non-acute sylla-
bles were lengthened when closed by the jer-shift (3). In ESl, the only distinct reflex of

Authenticated
the non-acute accents occurs in disyllabic roots from CSl open vowel-liquid diphthongs,
where the stress falls on the first syllable (4) rather than the second (see 6.1.1). In WSl,
the non-acute accents do not have distinct reflexes.
6.2. Prosodic features inherited from PIE

PreSl and PreBa shared several major innovations in prosody, as compared with other
IE dialects (see 6.3). Early scholarship on BaSl accentology tried to reconstruct common
BaSl acute and circumflex tones and to trace them back to PIE; hence the use of the
terms acute and circumflex, coopted from Gk. These efforts were unavailing, as the acute
proved to be a purely BaSl innovation that was non-tonal in its origin (see 6.3.1, 6.3.3,
6.3.4). Moreover, the tones sensu stricto evidently developed independently in CSl and
Ba; the LCSl circumflex has a different history from its Li namesake (see 6.4.2). How-
ever, even if the PreSl and PreBa tones cannot be traced back to PIE, there were several
crucial prosodic features that can − ictus patterns (6.2.1), lengths (6.2.2), and accent
valencies (6.2.3).
6.2.1. Ictus patterns
PreSl inherited two lexically specified ictus patterns from PIE − barytone (API = 1),
with stressed root or derivational suffix, and oxytone (API = 2), with stressed desinence.
(There is no clear trace of the PIE mobile pattern.) In the PSl oxytones, the stress
originally fell on the final syllable of the desinence (1); later there was retraction if there
was a laryngeal in the first syllable (see 6.3.2) or if the final syllable consisted solely of
a jer. Relics of end-stressed desinences are found in various Sl languages: PSl *-ɛi̯ ˈma
> Čak1 držimȍ ‘hold (PRS.1PL )’, Uk bižymoˈ ‘run (PRS.1PL )’, prynesemoˈ ‘bring
(PRS.1PL )’; PSl *-ɛˈtɛ > MRu prineseˈte ‘bring (PRS.2PL )’. Similarly, PSl *-ɛˈmɛ, *-ɛˈtɛ
> Slk nesieme ‘carry (PRS.1PL )’, nesiete ‘carry (PRS.2PL )’, where the penultimate ie
reflects *ɛ lengthened by neoacute retraction (see 6.4.3).
PSl LCSl2 Sln MBg MRu Slc Gloss

(1) *da:ruˈmi *darǝˈmi darъˈmi darъˈmi darmḯ ‘gift’
(INST.PL )
*lɛu̯diˈmi *ludɪˈmi ljudmí ljudьˈmi lĕʒmḯ ‘people
(INST.PL )’
*damaˈu̯am *-oˈvǝ > *-ˈo:vǝ domọ́ v domôvъ dɵmȯ́ u̯ ‘house
(GEN.PL )’
6.2.2. Length
PreSl inherited PIE length from several sources. One was the lengthened grade in ablaut,
seen in the root in (1−2) and the suffix in (6). Another was contraction in PreSl V.V,

Authenticated
1504 XIII. Slavic
VHV, and Vi̯ V sequences, as in the endings in (1, 3, 4, 7). A third source was lengthening
before tautosyllabic laryngeals (see 2.2, 6.3.1). In other cases, PIE lengths do not have
reconstructible origins; these are often ascribed to laryngeals as well. However, some of
the roots in question originated in babbling (5−6), so it is doubtful a priori that they
began as closed syllables. Other roots with obscure length may have been borrowed
from non-IE languages (7). In any event, PreSl syllables with obscure length developed
like those with laryngeal length (see 6.3.1), in contrast to those with length from ablaut
or contraction.
PreSl API PSl APII Čak1 NŠto Sln MRu OCz Gloss
w
(1) *ˈg he:ra:d 1 *ˈgɛ:ra:d c žȃra žȃra žȃra ˈžara Cz ‘heat
žár (GEN)’
(2) *gwo:ˈsi̯ eti 1s 0
*ga:si:ˈti c gȃsi gási gasí gaˈsitь hasí ‘extin-
guish
(PRS.3SG)’
(3) *ˈu̯l̥ kwa:d 1 *ˈu̯ilka:d c ȗka vȗka vȏlka ˈvolka vlka ‘wolf
(GEN)’
(4) *g̑hei̯ meˈH2i 2 *zεi̯ ˈma:i̯ c zīmȉ zími zími ziˈmě zimě ‘winter
(LOC)’
(5) *ˈba:beH2 1 *ˈba̋:ba̋: a bȁba bȁba bába ˈbaba bába ‘granny’
(6) *ma:ˈte:r 2 *ˈma̋:tɛ:r a mȁt mȁti máti ˈmati máti ‘mother’
(7) *ˈma:ka:d 1 *ˈma̋:ka:d a/b mȁka máka ˈmaka máka ‘poppy
(GEN)’
6.2.3. Accent valency
In the reconstruction of the Moscow Accentological School (influenced by Jakobson’s

1963 concept of enclinomena), every BaSl morpheme had an inherent valency − higher
{+}, also known as dominant; or lower {−}, also known as recessive. The valencies are
hypothesized to be morphologizations of PIE suprasegmental features. Roots and suffix-
es that occurred solely in barytone lexemes were dominant and thus inherently stressable;
whether they were actually stressed in a given lexeme depended on the concatenation of
morphemes. Roots and suffixes that were stressless in oxytone forms were recessive and
thus inherently unstressed. Prefixes, theme vowels, and endings were also recessive; they
were only stressed by default, in forms where there was no dominant root or suffix. If a
lexeme contained at least one dominant morpheme, it was inherently stressed (orthoton-
ic); if not, it was an enclinomenon with variable stress, depending on other elements in
the phonological word.

Authenticated
6.3. Development of the acute and related changes in PreSl
6.3.1. Acuting before tautosyllabic laryngeals
In PreSl, as in PBa, syllables became /+acute/ if their nuclei directly preceded tautosyl-
labic laryngeals; when the laryngeals disappeared (2.2), they underwent compensatory
lengthening: VH > V̋:/__C. This first wave of acuting affected full-grade vowels (1) and
zero-grade *i, *u, and syllabic sonorants (2). Vowels with length of obscure origin in
non-ablauting roots also became /+acute/ (3), unlike those with length from ablaut or
contraction. As the feature /+acute/ arose by assimilation to a laryngeal consonant, it is
posited that it was initially a feature of phonation or voice quality reflecting assimilation
to radical articulation − e.g. laryngealized or glottalized/checked. Some scholars argue
that it was a glottal stop, which persisted in defiance of the usual treatment of coda stops
(see 3.1.3).
PreSl API PSl APII Čak1 NŠto Sln MRu OCz Gloss
(1) *ˈbhageH2t- 1 *baˈ-ga̋:ta̋: c/A bo- bò- bo- boˈgata bo- ‘rich
gȁta gata gáta hata (F )’
*ˈseH1me:n 1 *ˈsɛ˝mɛ:n
̄ a sȅmen sȅme séme ˈsěm ja siemě ‘seed’
(2) *ˈu̯l̥ HneH2 1 *ˈu̯ı̋lna̋: a (v)ȕna vȕna vóƚna ˈvolna vlna ‘wool’
*ˈsuHra:d 1 *ˈsű:ra:d a sȉra sȉra síra ˈsyra sýra ‘cheese
(GEN)’
(3) *ˈbhra:tra:d 1 *ˈbra̋:t(r)a:d a brȁta brȁta bráta ˈbrata bratra ‘brother
(GEN)’
6.3.2. Retraction of the ictus to acuted syllables
In PreSl, as in PBa, the ictus in oxytone lexemes retracted to preceding acuted syllables
(1−2): V̋(H)ˈCnV > ˈV̋CnV. This change is known as Hirt’s Law. As originally formulat-
ed, the retraction was conditioned by “non-apophonic length” − in modern terms, com-
pensatory length before laryngeals, as well as acutes of obscure origin, for which some
scholars posit otherwise unreconstructible laryngeals (3).
Pre-Hirt API PSl APII Čak1 NŠto Sln MRu OCz Gloss
(1) *bhűH2ˈtei̯ 2 *ˈbű:tεi̯ 1 bȉt bȉti bíti ˈbyti býti ‘be’
*de̋H2i̯ ˈu̯er- 2 *ˈda̋i̯ u̯eris a dȅver dȅver dẹ́ ver ˈdě- deveř ‘brother-
verь in-law’
*dl̥˝Hˈghe̋H2 2 *ˈdı̋lga̋: a dȕga dȕga dóƚga ˈdolga dlhá ‘long
(F )’
(2) *grı̋Hˈu̯e̋H2 2 *ˈgrı̋:u̯a̋: a grȉva gríva ˈgriva hříva ‘mane’
*pH3ii̯ - 2 *piˈi̯ a̋:nas A pijãn pìjan pijȁn pьˈjanъ Cz ‘drunk
e̋H2ˈnos pján (M)’

Authenticated
1506 XIII. Slavic
Pre-Hirt API PSl APII Čak1 NŠto Sln MRu OCz Gloss
*pH3ii̯ - 2 *piˈi̯ a̋:na̋: A pi- pìjana pi- pьˈjana Cz (F )
e̋H2ˈne̋H2 jȁna jána pjána
(3) *ma̋:ˈterm̥ 2 *ˈma̋:tɛrim a mȁter mȁtēr máter ˈma- mátě ‘mother
terь (ACC)’
¶
*pű:ˈra:d 2 *ˈpű:ra:d a pȉra pȉra píra ˈpyra pýru ‘spelt
(GEN)’
According to Illič-Svityč (1963), the retraction did not happen if the originally stressed
syllable had its own tautosyllabic laryngeal; however, this hypothesis, based on Ltv
outcomes, lacks Sl evidence and runs afoul of examples like (2).
While Hirt’s Law changed accent contours, it did not cause oxytone paradigms to
become barytone (API = 1). Ultimately, some lexemes did develop constant root stress
by stem-leveling (1−4). Others remained oxytone (API = 2), to become mobile in CSl
(APII = c) (5). This implies that some of the disyllabic endings had final stress at the
time of the change; otherwise, the given words would have become barytone across the
board: **CVHCV̍CV > **CV̍HCVCV.
Post-Hirt PSl Čak1 Sln MBg MRu Gloss

(4) *ˈdhűH2ma:d *ˈdű:ma:d dȉma díma ˈdyma ‘smoke
(GEN)’
0
*dhűH2moˈmi *ˈdű:mami dȉmom dímom ˈdymom (INST )
0
*grı̋Hˈu̯e̋H2su *ˈgrı̋:u̯a̋:xu grívah Ru ‘mane
ˈgrivax (LOC.PL )’
¶
(5) *de̋H3roˈu̯om *da:raˈu̯am dãri darọ́ v daˈrovъ daˈrȏvъ ‘gift
(GEN.PL )’
0 ¶
*sűHˈnuns *su:ˈnuns sȋni sȋne ˈsyny ˈsyny (ACC.PL )
(6) *ranˈke̋H2mus *ranˈka̋:mus rokãn rokȁm rǫˈkamъ ruˈkamъ ‘hand
(DAT.PL )’
*ranˈke̋H2mi *ranˈka̋:mi: rokȁmi rokȃmi rǫˈkami ruˈkami (INST.PL )
In (5), the use of the graphemes «ȏ» and «ω» in MRu, signifying o instead of ɔ, point
to neoacute retraction from a stressed final jer (see 6.4.3); cf. Slc sïnóu̯ ‘son (GEN.PL )’,
with the reflex of *o: from retraction.
The penultimate stress in disyllabic endings of the (i̯ )ā-stem declension (6) is a regular
product of Hirt’s Law, since the -eH2 theme attracted the ictus. In the approach of the
Moscow Accentological School, themes with laryngeals acquired {+} valencies, i.e. be-
came inherently stressable. However, there are many exceptions, u-stem nouns with
CVHC roots like *deH3ru̍s (5), *suHnu̍s (5), *piH3ru̍s ‘feast’, *steH2 nu̍s ‘camp’. Here
the absence of the root acute is difficult to explain by analogy, since Hirt’s Law should
have affected most of the paradigm, including all of the singular.

Authenticated
6.3.3. Acuting before voiced stops
According to Winter’s Law, syllable nuclei immediately before PIE voiced non-aspirates
became long and acuted in PreBa and PSl: V > V̋:/__(R)D (1). This change occurred
after Hirt’s Law, since it did not condition any retraction of the ictus.
PreSl API PSl APII Čak1 NŠto Sln Uk OCz Gloss

(1) *ˈH1edle- 1 *ɛ̋dla̋: a jȅla jȅla jéla ˈjila jiedla ‘eat
H2 (RES.F )’
*ˈml̥ g̑leH2 1 *ˈmı̋l- a mȕ- mȕ- móƚ- ˈmol- ‘milk
zla̋: zla zla zla zla (RES.F )’
!
*ˈmog̑i̯ esi *ˈma̋:zi̯ ɛxi a mȃžeš mȁžeš mȃžeš ˈmažeš mažeš ‘anoint
(PRS.2SG)’
!
*ˈsedleH2 1 *ˈsɛ̋dla̋: a sȅla sȅla séla ˈsela sědla ‘settle
(RES. F )’
Sln mȃžeš shows the W-SSl “neocircumflex,” which replaced old acutes in thematic
presents and certain other categories. Of the OCz forms, only jiedla is regular; mažeš
has undergone shortening by analogy, but sědla for expected **siedla is a true exception
to Winter’s Law.
Winter’s Law is much honored in the breech. Many exceptions show lengthening
without acuting (2), including cognates of forms cited above (3); the only evidence for
the acute in these words comes from Ba. There are also counterexamples with short,
non-acute vowels (4).

w
(2) *bheˈg ei̯ te 1s *bɛ:gεi̯ ˈtɛ c bežitȅ bèžite bežíte bižyˈte běžíte ‘run
(PRS.2PL )’
*ˈdodH3n̥ti 1 *da:dinˈti c dadie ‘give
(PRS.3PL )’
*da:dunˈti c dāduõ dádū dadȏ daˈdut’
*ˈk̑r̥ dika- 1 *si:rdiˈkad c sȑ ce sȑ ce sȓ ce ˈserce srdce ‘heart’
w ¶
*noˈg eH2 2 *na:ˈga̋: c nága nága naˈha ‘naked
nahá (F )’
(3) *ˈH1edn̥ti 1 * ɛ:dinˈti c jiˈdjat’ jědie ‘eat
(PRS.3PL )’
i
* ɛ:dunˈti c eduõn jédū jedó
*mog̑oi̯ *ma:ˈzai̯ c mȃzu maza ‘grease
(LOC)’
*mog̑ei̯ *ma:ˈzɛi̯ c mazȋ maˈzi

Authenticated
1508 XIII. Slavic

(4) *ˈstogou̯ 1 *stagau̯ b/c/d stȏgu stȏgu stoˈhu stohu ‘rick
(LOC)’
*u̯oˈdeH2 2 *u̯aˈda̋: c vodȁ vòda vóda voˈda voda ‘water’
To explain the irregularities, it has been argued that Winter’s Law was blocked when
the triggering consonant was followed by a nasal (5), a voiced stop, or a liquid (Dybo);
however, there are also examples with the expected outcomes in these environments, as
seen in (1). For other recalcitrant roots, it has been argued, often on shaky grounds, that
they actually had aspirated stops (6) or else were later loanwords (7). Some of the
argumentation has been casuistic, as when the *d in *-pod- (6) is declared to have arisen
after Winter’s Law because it contradicts Winter’s Law (Derksen 2008: 180), despite the
fact that it also occurs in Gk δεσπóζω ‘I rule’ [*di̯ ], νέποδες ‘descendants’. Given the
many exceptions and the difficulties in explaining them, it might be worthwhile to ex-
plore the possibility that Winter’s Law was not pan-BaSl but the result of substratum
interference or dialect changes that spread by (cross-)migrations.

!
(5) *ˈH1ed- 1 *ɛ:d- c (j)īmȍ jémo jémo jiˈmo jieme ‘eat
mos ˈmas (PRS.1PL )’
*ˈsebdmos 1 *ˈsɛb- b siẽdmi sȇdmī sédmi ˈs’omyj sedmý ‘seventh
dm- (M)’
(6) *ghost- 1 *ˈgas- c gos- gȍs- gos- ˈhos- hos- ‘lord
ˈpod- pad- podȉn po:di pọ̑ da poda podi (GEN)’
(7) *ˈbhaga:d 1 *ba- c bȍga bȍga bogȃ ˈboha boha ‘God
ˈga:d (GEN)’
*sedi- 2 *sɛdi- b sȅdlo sèdlo sédlọ sidˈlo sedlo ‘saddle’
ˈlom ˈlad
Winter’s Law is claimed to provide evidence for the Glottalic Theory (2.4). Putatively,
the PIE egressives (the theory’s version of *b, *d, *g̑, *g, *gw) split into glottal and
buccal portions, e.g. *t’ > *ʔd; the first part was identical to the *ʔ that the theory posits
as the laryngeal reflex. In LCSl, the laryngealized quality in Vʔ was reinterpreted as the
acute accent. In this approach, forms lengthened before devoiced stops are regular:
*H1e̍ste ‘eat [PRS.2PL]’ from *H1ed-; *pe:tsios ‘on foot’ from *ped-. In Winter’s formu-
lation, such lengthening would have been blocked by PIE cluster assimilations and voic-
ing rules; the irregular long vowels can be explained by morphological factors. In gener-
al, the idea that there were glottalic stops in PIE flies in the face of the compelling
evidence for voiced unaspirated stops in all branches of IE; thus it conflicts with the
Comparative Method in general. If glottalic stops were still present to condition BaSl
prosodic changes, it is necessary to assume that they changed to voiced stops indepen-
dently in every branch of PIE (see Jasanoff 2004b: 172).

Authenticated
6.3.4. Acuting before heterosyllabic laryngeals
Another wave of acuting, sometimes called “Bezzenberger’s Law,” affected syllables

with coda sonorants or glides followed by laryngeals (1): V > V:/+acute/ /__{R, J}HC.
These sequences were originally disyllabic, so they did not attract the ictus by Hirt’s
Law (see 6.3.2). It has been posited that the the vowels were also lengthened, since
acuteness and length were coupled elsewhere; however, there must be principled uncer-
tainty about this if non-final trimoraic diphthongs were shortened (see 2.2).
PreSl API PSl APII Čak1 NŠto Sln Ru OCz Gloss

(1) *ˈbherHg̑eH2 1 *ˈbɛ̋rza̋: a brȅza brȅza bréza beˈreza břieza ‘birch’
*ˈbherHme:n 1 *ˈbɛ̋rmɛ:n a brȅme brȅme bréme beˈremja bři- ‘bur-
emě den’
¶
*ˈH2erH3dhlo- 1 *ˈa̋:rdla- a rȁl- rȁlo rálọ ˈralo rádlo ‘plow’
ice
*ˈmelH2tei̯ 1 *ˈmɛ̋ltεi̯ a mlȅt mlȅti mlẹ́ ti moˈlot’ mlieti ‘grind’
For Slavic, this phase of acuting is only well established for lexemes that were barytone
(API = 1), where the target syllable was stressed at the time of the change. Lexemes
known to have been oxytone (API = 2), where the target syllable was unstressed, belong
to the CSl mobile pattern (APII = c); they have non-acuted roots (2) or stressed suffixes
(3). In other cases, the PIE ictus pattern is unknown. The supposition that PreSl oxytones
underwent Bezzenberger acuting rests solely, and therefore shakily, on Ba evidence. In
(4), the most cited CVRH root, the sole evidence for acuting or, indeed, for a PIE
laryngeal is the acute in Li galvà, gálvą (AP-3). (Some scholars posit that the root was
not *gal- ‘bald’ but *gho:lu-; cf. Armenian glux ‘head’.)
PreSl API PSl APII Čak1 NŠto Sln OCz Ru Gloss

w
(2) *g ei̯ H3ˈu̯om 2 *gεi̯ ˈu̯ad c žȋvo žȋvo žȋvo živo ˈživo ‘alive
(N)’
*tou̯Hˈka:d 2 *tau̯ˈka:d c tȗka tuka ˈtuka ‘fat
(GEN)’
*H2i̯ ou̯H1- 2 *i̯ au̯ˈnad c junọ̑ Cz ˈjuno ‘young
ˈnom juný (N)’
(3) *H2i̯ ou̯H1- 2 *i̯ au̯nˈı̋:ka: A junȉca jùnica juníca juˈnica ‘heifer’
ˈno-
(4) *galHˈu̯eH2 2 *galˈu̯a̋: c glāvȁ gláva gláva hlava golo- ‘head’
ˈva
*galHˈu̯eH2m 2 *galu̯ˈa̋:m c glȃvo glȃvu glavọ̑ hlavu ˈgolovu (ACC)’

Authenticated
1510 XIII. Slavic
6.3.5. Root acutes in oxytones
In PreSl, some lexemes affected by Hirt’s Law (6.3.2) became barytone (API = 1; APII =
a); in forms with disyllabic desinences, the non-root stress was leveled out (1). Other
lexemes that had been eligible for Hirt’s Law remained oxytone (API = 2). In CSl, they
became accentually mobile (APII = c), but they preserved no trace of the acute in forms
with root stress (2), unlike their cognates in Li (AP-3, mobile with acuted roots: stónas
‘status’). Likewise, PreSl oxytones whose roots were eligible for the other waves of
acuting (6.3.3−6.3.4) also became mobilia with non-acuted roots (3−4), again in contrast
to Li AP-3 (péntis ‘axe poll’).
Acuting PSl APII Čak2 NŠto Sln Cz Ru Gloss

¶
(1) *ı̋Hˈlus *ˈı̋:lus a jȉlo ìl (¶ ȉlo) íƚ (¶ ílo) jíl il ‘silt’
*ı̋Hluˈmi *ˈı̋:lumi a ȉlom ílom jílem ˈilom (INST )
(2) *ste̋H2ˈnus *sta:ˈnus c stȃn stȃn stȃn stan stan ‘camp’
†
*ste̋H2ˈnou̯ *sta:ˈnau̯ c stanȕ stánu stȃnu stanu staˈnu (LOC)
(3) *ksőu̯ˈde̋H2 *xau̯ˈda̋: c húda húda (chudá) xuˈda ‘bad
(F )’
*ksőu̯ˈdod *xau̯ˈdad c hȗdo hudọ̑ (chudé) ˈxudo ( N)
*smőrˈda:d *smarˈda:d c smrȃda smrȃda smrȃda smrada ˈsmo- ‘stink
roda (GEN)’
(4) *ˈg̑hőlH3tom *zalˈtad c zlȃto zlȃto zlatọ̑ zlato ˈzoloto ‘gold’
*ˈpe̋nHteH2 *pɛnˈta̋: c pētȁ péta péta pata pjaˈta ‘heel’
For (1), cf. the non-acuted root in Čak1 ilovȁčka, Čak2 ilovãčka ‘clayey soil’; Sln ilováča
‘bog’, ilovàt ‘silty’; Ru †iˈlovyj,ˈilovyj ‘silty’. For (3), cf. the non-acuted root in Čak1
hudȁ, hȗdo.
To explain the mismatch between the acute in Li AP-3 and the non-acute in CSl AP-
c, Meillet proposed that V̋ underwent metatony to V̑ in CSl by analogy to other oxytones
(“Meillet’s Law”). Skeptical that an analogical change would been so consistent, Dybo
(1979: 39) posits that root acutes in mobilia were eliminated by a general morphophone-
mic rule that assigned non-acute accents to all {−} morphemes: ROOT{−} → V/−acute/
(see 6.2.3, 6.4.1).
Other scholars have explained the discrepancy by sound changes plus analogy. Ac-
cording to Kortlandt (1975: 10−11), the heterosyllabic laryngeals that triggered Bezzen-
berger acuting (6.3.4) were lost earlier in pretonic than in post-tonic syllables: VRHCV-
> (a) V:RˈCV-; (b) ˈVRHCV-. In barytone lexemes, the laryngeal was always posttonic
(b), so there was consistent acuting. In oxytones, the loss of the pretonic laryngeal (a)
created allomorphy; consequently, the post-tonic laryngeal was eliminated by stem-level-
ing before it could condition the acute. According to Jasanoff (2004a: 251−252), the
glottalized (“acuted”) length that had developed before laryngeals lost its glottalization
to become the CSl acute accent, but only under stress. Subsequently, in AP-c, the acutes
in stressed root syllables were leveled out.

Authenticated
While these explanations are feasible, they all take it for granted that unstressed
syllables were subject to acuting by the operation of Winter’s Law and Bezzenberger’s
Law. However, the only evidence for this comes from Ba, which is insufficient reason
to assume it for PreSl. Indeed, if pretonic syllables are excluded, Bezzenberger acuting
is regular in PreSl, and there is no need to appeal to analogy: V > V̋/'__{R, J}HC.
Oxytones would not have been affected, as they would not yet have had any stem-
stressed forms (see 6.4.1).
6.4. CSl changes in suprasegmental phonology
In CSl, /+acute/ ceased to be a distinctive voice quality or phonation (see 6.3.1) and
became a suprasegmental feature − rising tone in bimoraic syllables. In the absence
of a rising tone, initial stressed syllables are reconstructed with level or falling tones
(“circumflex” or “short falling”). Elsewhere in the word, the tonal quality of stressed
non-acute syllables is unknown.
The development of the accent in CSl can be divided into three periods. In the first
stage (CSl1, 6.4.1), the ictus became linked with the presence or absence of an acute
accent. In the second (CSl2, 6.4.2), the inherited barytone paradigm (API = 1) split into
stem-stressed and post-stem-stressed varieties (APII = a and b, respectively). In the third
stage (6.4.3−6.4.4), the ictus was shifted from weak jers, with concomitant prosodic
changes.
6.4.1. Development of marginal accents
CSl1 saw the rise of the acute as a rising tone − that is, low on the first mora and high
on the second in bimoraic syllables. In a given phonological word, the rising tone − or
the leftmost one, if there were several − became the focus of the intonational contour.
Over time, acutes in syllables to the right of the intonational focus became less prominent
and were eliminated. Non-acuted initial or medial syllables, which occurred in some
words of the barytone paradigm, probably had level intonation.
In the oxytone paradigm, the ictus was, as expected, assigned to a rising tone if there
was one in the desinence (1). In the absence of a rising tone, the word was phonological-
ly unstressed. The ictus, which had been final in PreSl, was assigned by default to one
of the marginal syllables in the phonological word − to the rightmost, if the desinence
was disyllabic (2) (see also 6.2.1) or if there was an enclitic (3); and otherwise to the
leftmost, which could be the first syllable of the lexeme (4) or a proclitic (5). The tone
associated with marginal ictus was falling − that is, high on the first mora of a bimoraic
sequence. The given pattern is known as AP-c.
In the approach of the Moscow Accentological School, these changes are presented
as a morphological rule, according to which the ictus was fixed on the leftmost {+}
morpheme. In enclinomena, which had no {−} morphemes, the ictus was assigned by
default to one of the marginal syllables, as described. (In the table, the CSl1 segmental
units are given at the PSl stage, as the relative chronology of the ictus shifts is unknown.)

Authenticated
1512 XIII. Slavic
CSl1 Čak1 NŠto Sln MBg MRu Slc Gloss

(1) *u̯aˈda̋: vodȁ vòda vóda voˈda voˈda vʉ̀ ɵdă ‘water’
*u̯aˈda̋:s vodȉ vòde vodẹ́ voˈdy voˈdy vʉ̀ ɵdä (GEN)
¶
*u̯aˈda̋:xu vòdama vodȁh voˈdaxъ voˈdaxъ vɵdãχ (LOC.PL )
¶ u ¶
(2) *u̯adai̯ a:N vod õn vòdom vodó vodoˈju vɵdȯ́ų̯ (INST )
(3) *u̯ada:m vodǫˈže vo- (ACC + PC)
ˈgɛ duˈže
(4) *ˈu̯ada:m vȍdo vȍdu vodọ̑ ˈvodǫ ˈvodu vʉ̀ ɵdą (ACC)
*ˈu̯ada:ns vȍde vodẹ̑ ˈvody ˈvody vʉ̀ ɵdä (NOM.PL )
¶
(5) ˈna: nȁ vodo nȁ vodu na ˈna vodu nã ‘to’ +
u̯ada:m vodọ̑ vɵdą (ACC)
¶
*ˈ u̯u ȕ vodu v ˈvь vъ ˈvodu vȇ ‘in’ +
u̯ada:m vodọ̑ vodǫ vɵdą (ACC)
The CSl1 pattern is preserved in Čak, MBg and MRu. For LOC.PL (1), cf. Čak2 vodãh;
for NOM.PL (2), cf. Čak2 võdi. MRu vъ vo̍du is not an exception, as there was no vowel
in the preposition; the letter «ъ» was an orthographic convention. In NŠto, the forms
with stressed root ò in (1−2) reflect the leftward shift from non-initial syllables, which
occurred in that dialect from the 14th c.; prior to that, the accent had been on the first
syllable of the desinence. The NŠto forms with stressed initial ȍ or stress on the preposi-
tion reflect an unshifted circumflex accent. In Sln, non-initial rising tones regularly re-
tracted from open final syllables (vóda), while the initial falling tones moved right; stress
shifts onto prepositions were eliminated. In Slc, the stress retracted from final open
syllables, but remained on endings that had been disyllabic (vɵdãχ).
The shift of the stress onto proclitics, functioning as the leftmost syllables, is some-
times known as Šaxmatov’s Law; the shift onto enclitics, functioning as the rightmost
syllables, is called the Law of Vasil’ev-Dolobko. The alternations created by these
changes are well attested in medieval SSl and ESl manuscripts: MRu ˈpočalъ ‘begin
(RES.M)’, but počalъˈsja REFL.ACC). The Vasil’ev-Dolobko pattern is preserved in Bg
mobile-stress nouns with enclitic definite articles (glas ‘voice’~glaˈsŭt [DEF]; ˈesen ‘au-
tumn’~esenˈta [DEF]) and in lexicalized relics, e.g. adverbs with the particle *si (5).
ECSl Čak2 NŠto Bg Ru Gloss

†
(4) *ˈɛsɛnim jȅsēn ˈesen ˈosen’, ˈesen’ ‘autumn
(ACC)’
†
*ɛsɛnim ˈsi jesènas eseˈnes oseˈnjas’, †eseˈnes’ ‘last autumn’
(5) *ˈnaktim nȏć nȏć nošt noč’ ‘night (ACC)’
†
*naktimˈsi noćȅs nòćas ˈnoštes noˈčes’ ‘last night’

Authenticated
6.4.2. Law of Dybo-Illič-Svityč
In CSl2, the barytone pattern, consisting of lexemes with {+} roots or derivational suffix-
es, was split into two AP’s. If the stressed syllable was acuted, the ictus stayed put (1).
The lexemes with this pattern formed CSl AP-a (usually corresponding to Li AP-1, with
acute on the stem). However, if the stressed syllable was non-acuted, the ictus advanced
to the following syllable (2); this created AP-b, with columnar post-stem stress − not to
be confused with fixed final ictus, since the stress fell on the penultimate in disyllabic
desinences.
PSl Dybo APII Čak1 NŠto Sln MBg MRu Gloss

(1) *ˈra̋:na̋: *ˈra̋:na̋: a rȁna rȁna rána ˈrana ˈrana ‘wound’
*ˈra̋:na:ns *ˈra̋:na:ns a rȁni rȁne ráni ˈrany ˈrany (ACC.PL )
¶
*ˈra̋:na̋:mi: *ˈra̋:na̋:mi: a rȁnami rȁ- ránami ˈra- ˈra- (INST.PL )’
nama nami nami
(2) *ˈgɛna̋: *gɛˈna̋: b ženȁ žèna žéna žeˈna žeˈna ‘wife’
*ˈgɛna:ns *gɛˈnans b ženȉ žène ženẹ́ žeˈny žeˈny (ACC.PL )
¶
*ˈgɛna̋:mi: *gɛˈna̋:mi: b ženȁmi žèn- ženámi žeˈnami žeˈnami (INST.PL )
ama
6.4.3. Neoacute retraction
The neoacute accent in LCSl arose in tandem with leftward shifts of the ictus. Such
retraction regularly occurred in AP-b when the stressed vowel was a weak jer (see 5.8) −
a change called Stang’s Law (1−2): VˈCn{ɪ̆, ǝ̆} > ˈVCn. As a result, in AP-b the intonation
alternated between forms with the neoacute in the final stem syllable and forms with
stressed non-reduced vowels in the post-stem syllable (2). In addition, the neoacute
developed when the ictus was retracted from long vowels that had arisen by contraction
(3), or when the initial syllable was contracted (4) (see 5.12). Retractions also occurred,
for reasons that are not clear, in specific morphological contexts − e.g. in AP-b feminine
nouns with the suffix i̯ -a:- (5); and in the present of AP-b e- and i̯ e-theme verbs (Leskien
I and III), apart from the 1SG, which retained post-root stress (6).
MCSl2 LCSl2 Čak2 NŠto Sln OCz Slk Slc Ru† Gloss
ǝ ! u
(1) *galˈu̯ʊ *gɔ́lu̯ glãf glávā gláv hláv hláv glȯ́ u̯v ˈgol of ‘head
(GEN.PL )’
*gɛˈnʊka: *ʒɛ́nǝka †
žȇn- žénka žénka žienka žȯ́ u̯nkă ˈžonka ‘woman
ka (DIM)’
(2) *kaˈni *kɔ́nɪ †
kõnj kȍnj kònj kóň kôň kȯ́ u̯n kuon j ‘horse’
j
*kaˈna: *kɔˈna̍ konjȁ kònja kónja koně koňa kʉ̀ ø̭ńă kɔˈn a (GEN)
! ! ! u
(3) *aˈstra:i̯ a:- *óstra- ȍštra ȍštra: ọ́ stra ostrá ostrá vʉ̀ ø̭- v ostrɨj ‘sharp
i̯ ɪa strï (M.DEF )’

Authenticated
1514 XIII. Slavic
MCSl2 LCSl2 Čak2 NŠto Sln OCz Slk Slc Ru† Gloss
! j
(4) *staˈi̯ a̋:ti: *stɔ- stãt stȃti státi státi stát’ stʉ̀ ø̭- stojat ‘stand’
ˈi̯ -a̋:ti jĕc
(5) *starˈʒa: *stɔ́rʒa stráža strȃža stráža strážě stráža stɔru- ‘guard’
o̍ža
(6) *maˈʒɛʃi *mɔ́ʒɛʃɪ !
mȍ- mȍžeš mọ́ - mó- mô- mȯ́ u̯- muo̍- ‘can
reš reš žeš žeš žĕš̍ žeš (PRS.2SG)’
*maˈʒɔ̃̄ *mɔˈgõ !
mȍ- mògu mọ́ - mohu !
mô- mʉ̀ ø̭gą mɔgu̍ (PRS.1SG)’
ren rem žem
The reflexes of the neoacute fall into several zones. In Sln, the neoacute merged with
the acute, a rising tone − long V́, or short V̀ in final closed syllables. Neoacuted mid-
vowels have close-mid reflexes in old bimoraic syllables (ę́, ó ,̣ ǫ́).
In Čak, Kaj, and some archaic Što dialects, the neoacute became a distinct long rising
tone (V́ or Ṽ) on syllables that were bimoraic at the time of the retraction (1). In other
dialects of Što, it merged with the circumflex as long falling V̑ on old bimoraic syllables
(1). Throughout BCS, the neoacute on monomoraic syllables merged with the acute as
short falling V̏ (2). The regular outcomes in BCS have been somewhat obscured by the
tendency for short vowels to lengthen before sonorants: Čak kõnj (2), NŠto žȇnka (1).
In WSl, the neoacute is reflected as a long vowel in syllables that were bimoraic at
the time of the retraction. In Cz and Slk, long vowels are written as V́; the neoacuted
midvowels yielded the diphthongs ie and uo (Cz í /i:/ and ů /u:/; Slk ie and ô /uo/). In Slc,
where stressed vowels generally became bimoraic, the neoacute reflex became trimoraic
(written Ṽ or V́V̯).
In ESl, length reflexes have generally been lost. However, in some MRu and isolated
modern Ru dialects, neoacuted (lengthened) *ó is reflected as a falling diphthong [uo]
or as a close-mid vowel [o] (written as ȏ, ω in some MRu manuscripts).
6.4.4. Advancement of stress from reduced vowels
Some AP-c lexemes had stressed jers in their initial syllables. When these jers were
reduced (5.8), the ictus shifted to the right, with preservation of the falling accent (1).
By contrast, in AP-b final accents were reflected as short acutes − BCS V̏, Sln V̀ (2).
MCSl2 LCSl2 Čak2 NŠto Sln OCz Slk Slc Ru Gloss

ɪ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶
(1) *ˈdinɛ *d nɛ̏ dȃna dȃna dnę̑ dne dňa dńã dnja ‘day
(GEN)’
*ˈsʊta *sǝtɔ̑ stȏ stȏ stọ̑ sto sto stʉ̀ ɵ̭ sto ‘hundred’
ǝ
(2) *dʊˈna *d nɔ̏ dnȍ dnȍ dnǫ̀ dno dno dnʉ̀ ɵ̭ dno ‘bottom’
ǝ
*sʊˈna: *s nȁ snȁ snȁ snà sna sna snã sna ‘dream
(GEN)’

Authenticated
7. Sectional references
1. Languages: see also the chapter introductions in Comrie and Corbett (1993). Silesian:
see Hannan 1996. Kb as a Po dialect: e.g. Topolińska 1974. Slc: Lorentz 1925; Topoliń-
ska 1974. Rusyn: see Birnbaum 1983, Kushko 2007, and Pugh 2007. Novg: Zaliznjak
2004.
1.1. CSl and PSl: Birnbaum 1975: 1−5; 1987b; Andersen 1986; 1996: 183−184. The
term Proto-Slavonic is used for ‘CSl’ in the chapters in Comrie and Corbett 1993. Lower
limit: ca. 1000 BCE: Van Wijk (1956: 7); ca. 300 CE: Lunt (2001: 182). Upper limit:
Birnbaum 1975: 3; Andersen 1985: 78−80. Urheimat debate: for overviews, see Filin
1962: 83−151. Stanislav 1967: 110; Birnbaum 1975: 5−7; Schenker 1995: 1−8; Barford
2001: 15, 22; Heather 2011: 12−21, 388−392; Pronk-Tiethoff 2013: 59−64. See also the
map in Barford 2001: 332. Lusatian culture: Dvornik 1956: 8−13; rebutted by Schenker
1995: 2. Herodotus and Aristophanes: Dvornik 1956: 13; Mareš 1965: 20. Term
*slau̯ɛ:n(isk)-: Filin 1962: 55−57; Vasmer 1986 slavjanin. Exonym ‘German’: Vasmer
1986 nemec; ÈSSJa *němьcь. Byzantine sources: Filin 1962: 53−55; Schenker 1995: 9,
15−18. Veneti and Venedi: Filin 1962: 50−53; Schenker 1995: 3−5. Venäjä: Mikkola
1938: 13; Xaburgaev 1980: 61. Elite-transfer model: Heather 2011: 23.
1.1.1. Localization: see also 1.1.2 on the Urheimat debate. See the cautionary words in
Barford 2001: 14−15. No maritime terms: Filin 1962: 117−118. Tree terms: Filin 1962:
143−147; Friedrich 1970; Gołąb 1992: 272−280 (map 306). ‘Hazel grouse’ and ‘par-
tridge’: Andersen 1998b. Limited alpine vocabulary: Filin 1962: 119−121; Lenček 1982:
34. Chamois (Rupicapra): denoted by a term derived from ‘goat’ in Po; ‘wild’ + ‘goat’
in Bg, Mc, BCS, and Uk; by a German loanword in Sln, Slk, and Cz; and by the inherited
Sl (including OESl) word for ‘roe deer (Capreolus capreolus)’ in BR and Ru. Language
contacts: Filin 1962: 134−143; Shevelov 1965: 613−622; Kiparsky 1975: 54−61; Gołąb
1992: 310−414; Pronk-Tiethoff 2013. Gmc autonym > ‘foreign’: Vasmer čužoj. ‘Spali’
> ‘giant’: Dvornik 1956: 22−23; Filin 1962: 58. Ethnonyms ‘Serb’ and ‘Croat’: Dvornik
1956: 26−27; Xaburgaev 1980: 67, 68; Vasmer 1986 serb, xorvat; Barford 2001: 15;
Heather 2011: 406. Borrowing of *xu:z- and ‘ruler’: ÈSSJa *chyzina, *chyzъ, *chyža,
*chyžina; Vasmer xižina. Przework, Wielbark, and Cherniakhovo cultures: Barford 2001:
24−25, 38−42, 332. Hydronyms: Toporov and Trubačev [1962] 2009; Xaburgaev 1980:
55−57; Gołąb 1992: 236−267.
1.1.2. Migration Period: Wave of advance model: Heather 2011: 22. Adoption of CSl:
Barford 2001: 49. Korchak Culture: J. Hermann in Hermann (ed.) 1985: 21−32; Barford
2001: 47−49, 53−56, 63, 65−66; Heather 2011: 448−449. Migrations: Menges 1953;
Dvornik 1956: 3−45; Trubačev 1991; Gołąb 1992: 236−309; Schenker 1995: 1−60; Bar-
ford 2001: 45−88; Curta 2001; Heather 2010: 386−451. SE Europe: Vasmer 1941; Dvor-
nik 1956: 34−36, 40−45; Vlasto 1970: 3−12, 185−186; Schenker 1995: 15−18; Heather
2011: 399−406, 423−424. Eastern Alps: Lenček 1982: 27−30; Schenker 1995: 22−25.
Milingoi and Ezeritai: Vasmer 1941: 16−18; Heather 2011: 404, 423. Bulgars: Dvornik
1956: 70−72; Schenker 1995: 19−21; Heather 2011: 403−404. Central Europe: Dvornik
1956: 32−34; Schenker 1995: 21−22, 46−48; Andersen 1999: 56−59. Sclaveni and Heru-
lians: Dvornik 1956: 34; Barford 2001: 53 (with caution). Slavophones in Eastern Ger-

Authenticated
1516 XIII. Slavic
many: Jeżowa 1961; Hermann (ed.) 1985: 7−65. Avars: Dvornik 1956: 36−40; Schenker
1995: 10−11; Heather 2011: 400−401. ‘Avar’ > ‘giant’: Schenker 1995: 11. Occidentali-
zation of the Sorbs: Andersen 1999: 59. Serbs and Croats: Dvornik 1956: 27−28, 62−
63; Vlasto 1970: 185; Schenker 1995: 19; Barford 2001: 73−75; Heather 2011: 404−
406. P-Lech migrations: Barford 2001: 53−55, 63; Heather 2011: 410−414. Mogiła and
Sukow-Dziedzice cultures: Barford 2001: 53−55, 65−66; Heather 2011: 412−413. PreESl
migrations: Schenker 1995: 53−54; Barford 2001: 96−101.
1.2. Traditions of writing: see the chapters in Schenker and Stankiewicz (eds.) 1980.
Cyril and Methodius: Vlasto 1970: 25−82; Schenker 1995: 25−43; Tachiaios 2001. Kiev
Folia: Schaeken 1987; Freising Fragments: Kolarič 1968; Bernik 1993. Pb: Olesch
1967; Polański 1993.
1.3. Correspondence sets: the data have been culled from the following sources: OCS −
SJS, SS; OESl − Srez; OCz − VW; OPo − SJP, SP16; BCS − Rječnik, HJP; Bg − Gerov,
RBE; BR: TSBM; Cz − PřSJČ; Kb − Gołąbek, Ramułt; LS: Muka; MBg − Miklosich;
Mc − DRMJa; Novg: Zaliznjak 2004; OSb − Daničić, Miklosich, Rječnik; Pb − Olesch;
Po − SJP; Ru: Vasmer 1986; Slc: Lorentz; Slk − Slovníky; Sln − Pleteršnik, SSKJ;
Hrinčenko, SUM; US: Kral. Uk. The main etymological dictionaries used to corroborate
reconstructions were ÈSSJa, IEW, and Vasmer 1986. Also consulted: AHD (for PIE
laryngeals), Derksen 2008, BER, Bezlaj, Boryś, Brückner, ESUM, Machek, SEJDP, and
Skok.
2. PSl and PreSl: Andersen 1986; 1996: 183−184. BaSl branch or clade: Meillet [1922]
1967: 59−67; Vaillant 1950: 13−15; Szemerényi 1957; Ivanov and Toporov 1958; Bräuer
1961: 14−20; Shevelov 1965: 613−614; Birnbaum 1970; 1975: 18−21; Beekes 1995:
22−23; Schenker 1995: 70; Andersen 1996: 62−63, 187−188; Fortson 2004: 364.
2.1. PSl vowels and glides: Vaillant 1950: 106−122; Shevelov 1965: 22−26, 150−152,
164−166; Schenker 1993: 63−64, 66−67; 1995: 77−78, 81−82; Lunt 2001: 192. Baltic
vocalism: Endzelīns 1971: 32−33, 51. PSl from Ba model: see also Xaburgaev 1980:
49−50. (1d) SJS, Srez mati; VW matě; SP16 macierz; (2a) SJS bьrati, Srez brati, VW
bráti, SP16 brać.
2.1.1. Initial *e ~ *a: Andersen 1996. *ed-sk-e: ibid.: 117−118. Backing of *ɛ before
*u̯: Shevelov 1965: 357−359. Sequence *ei̯ e: Shevelov 1965: 359−360; Lunt 2001: 202.
2.2. Laryngeal reflexes: Shevelov 1965: 28−31; Schenker 1995: 77−78; Lunt 2001:
190−191. Trimoraic shortening: Shevelov 1965: 24; Jasanoff 1983a, 1983b, 2004a,
2004b, 2011; Feldstein 2003: 251. See also Collinge 1985: 127−131 on “Osthoff’s Law.”
Length in final syllables: Jasanoff 2004a: 249−251. Alternative approaches: Mareš 1965;
Shevelov 1965: 24; Lunt 2001: 193; Orr 2000: 36−37. (2a−b) OPo: BZ córy, jeśm;
(4) OCS: SJS, SS orati.
2.3. Syllabic sonorants: Vaillant 1950: 167−177; Shevelov 1964: 96−98; Stang 1966:
77−82; Lunt 2001: 191; Collins forthcoming. (1a) OCS: SJS, SS mati; OESl: Srez mati;
OCz: VW matě; OPo SP16 macierz.

Authenticated
2.3.1. *uR after velars: e.g. Kuryłowicz 1956: 235. *uR adjacent to low tonality: Shev-
elov 1965: 90. *uR after labiovelars: Vaillant 1950: 172; Kortlandt 1994, 2007, 2008;
Beekes 1995: 136, n. 1. *iR after palatovelars: Kuryłowicz 1956: 235; Andersen 2003:
60.
2.3.2. Language contact: Andersen 2003: 59−62. Expressiva: Stang 1966: 79; Andersen
2003: 60. Sl ‘hundred’: see IEW *dek̑m̥; Vasmer 1986 sto; Shevelov 1965: 90−91.
2.3.3. Perceptual ambiguity: see Collins forthcoming. Phonetics of syllabic sonorants:

Wiese 1996; Toft 2002; Fougeron and Ridouane 2008.
2.4. Glottalic approaches: see e.g. Kortlandt 1978, 1985, 2006; Derksen 2008.
2.4.1. Aspirates: Vaillant 1950: 24−26; Bräuer 1961: 164−166, 167−169; Shevelov
1964: 32−34; Schenker 1993: 65; 1995: 79−80; Lunt 2001: 190. (3c) ÈSSJa *jьgo.
2.4.2. Labiovelars: Vaillant 1950: 24−26; Bräuer 1961: 165, 168, 169; Shevelov 1965:
123−126; Schenker 1993: 65; 1995: 80; Lunt 2001: 190.
2.4.3. Palatovelars: Vaillant 1950: 34−35; Bernštejn 1961: 151, 154; Bräuer 1961: 165,
167, 168; Shevelov 1965: 139−141; Endzelīns 1971: 50−51, 56; Schenker 1993: 65;
1995: 80; Lunt 2001: 193; Andersen 2003: 53. Gutteralwechsel: Andersen 1996: 106−
107; 2003: 54−58; 2009: 25. See also Vaillant 1950: 36−38; Bernštejn 1961: 152−154;
Bräuer 1961: 169−172; Shevelov 1965: 141−145; Beekes 1995: 112. Depalatalization
before sonorants: e.g. Beekes 1995: 112.
2.5. RUKI: Andersen 1968, 2003: 58−59. See also Vaillant 1950: 28−32; Meillet 1951:
26−28; 80−81; Bernštejn 1961: 160−165; Bräuer 1961: 178−181; Shevelov 1965: 127−
131; Schenker 1993: 65−66; 1995: 80−81; Lunt 2001: 191, 194. Articulation of *s2 :
Palatal: Meillet 1951, Vaillant 1950, Bräuer 1961, Lunt 2001, Schenker 1993: 65. Retro-
flex: Andersen 1968; 2009: 24; Schenker 1995. Swedish sj: Ladefoged and Maddieson
1996: 171−172, 330.
2.5.1. Initial *x: Bräuer 1961: 183−184; Shevelov 1965: 134−136.
2.5.2. Affective extension: Vaillant 1950: 31; Shevelov 1965: 132−134; Priestly 1978.
Analogical extension: Vaillant 1950: 30−31; Shevelov 1965: 131−132; Sławski 1974−
1979, 2: 31−32, 34, 71. Consonant-stem LOC.PL: We˛glarz 1933; Čornejová 2007.
2.6. New ablaut grades: Vaillant 1950: 299−300; Shevelov 1965: 96−98; Schenker
1993: 64−65; 1995: 79; Lunt 2001: 209. (1) žьrǫtъ: SJS žrьti; (2) načьnǫtъ, načętъ:
SJS načęti; (3a) berǫtъ: SJS bьrati; (4) sъzьritъ: SJS sъzrěti; (5) zovǫtъ: SJS zъvati;
(6) vъznьzъ: SJS vъznisti.
2.7.1. Double-Dental Rule: Vaillant 1950: 101−102; Shevelov 1965: 182; Fortson 2004:
69.

Authenticated
1518 XIII. Slavic
2.7.2. Degemination: Vaillant 1950: 80−81, 98−99; Meillet 1951: 108; Bräuer 1961:
202−203; Shevelov 1965: 181−183; Fortson 2004: 69−70. (3) OPo: BZ jeś.
2.7.3. Sibilant + *r: Vaillant 1950: 76−77; Meillet 1951: 109−111; Bräuer 1961: 292;
Shevelov 1965: 200−201; Endzelīns 1971: 73. (2b) Ru: Vasmer 1986 puzdro; (4) OPo:
SSP (Izdraelski). *zark: BER zdrak; DRMJa zdrak.
2.7.4. Lidén’s Law: Lidén 1899; Vaillant 1950: 94−95; Bräuer 1961: 201; Shevelov
1965: 196−197; Endzelīns 1971: 67.
3. Early Common Slavic: Andersen’s (1986: 72) “Early Slavic I, the period of tautosyl-
labic vowel chains.” Schenker (1993) calls this period “Early Proto-Slavonic.” Law of
Open Syllables: see Lunt 1956: 309; Birnbaum 1975: 139−141; 1987a: 105−108; Schen-
ker 1993: 67−68; 1995: 82. Law of Syllabic Synharmony: Jakobson 1962; Lunt 1956:
309; Birnbaum 1975: 140, 141−142; 1987a: 106, 108−109; Schenker 1993: 67; 1995:
82.
3.1. Syllable structure: (1) OCS: SJS izostriti; OESl: Srez izostriti.
3.1.1. Syncope of stops: Vaillant 1950: 79−80, 81−85; Shevelov 1965: 187−196; Schen-
ker 1993: 68; 1995: 91−92. (4d) OCS: SJS dati; OESl: Srez dati; OCz: VW dáti; OPo
BZ dam.
3.1.2. Nasal + nasal clusters: Shevelov 1965: 323; Lunt 2001: 198. (1) OPo jimię: SSP.
3.1.3. Coda obstruents: Vaillant 1950: 200−202; Bernštejn 1961: 184−185; Shevelov
1965: 226−227; Schenker 1995: 82; Lunt 2001: 197. 1SG pronoun: Hamp 1983; Ander-
sen 1996: 148−149. Sandhi: Aorist: Lunt 2001: 103; Andersen 2013: 26−27, 29. Suffix
-oš-: Shevelov 1965: 228; Sƚawski 1974−1979, 1: 78. (1a) OCS: SJS byti. OESl: Srez
byti. OCz: VW budi; OPo: BZ bądź. (1c) OCS: SJS viděti; OESl: Srez viděti; OCz: VW
procútiti; OPo: Klemenszewicz, Lehr-Spławiński, and Urbańczyk (eds.) 1964: 381. (3)
OCS: Lunt 2001: 137−138; OESl: Zaliznjak 2004: 715; OCz: VW býti; OPo: Klemens-
zewicz, Lehr-Spławiński, and Urbańczyk (eds.) 1964: 363. (4−5) Lunt 2001: 103, 138
(6) OSb: Daničić.
3.1.4.−3.1.5. Final sonorants: Shevelov 1965: 225; Lunt 2001: 200. Sandhi variants:
Orr 1988: 57, 2000: 172−174. (2a−b) OPo: BZ; (3) OCS: SJS lěto; OESl: Srez lěto;
OCz: VW léto; OPo: BZ.
3.2. 1VP: Vaillant 1950: 48−49; Meillet 1951: 72−74; Bernštejn 1961: 168−172; Bräuer
1961: 186−189; Shevelov 1965: 249−263; Schenker 1993: 68; 1995: 83−84; Lunt 2001:
194−195. Lenition of *g j: Andersen 1969, 1977. Byzantine sources: Vasmer 1941: 232,
276. (1d) Cz: Vasmer 1986 šelom. (4) OPo: BZ.
3.3. Fronting: Shevelov 1965: 264−270; Schenker 1993: 70; 1995: 86; Lunt 2001: 196.
(4−5) OPo: Piesni.

Authenticated
3.4. Backing of *ɛ: after palatals: Shevelov 1965: 257−263; Schenker 1995: 88; Lunt
2001: 196. Ru perceptions of front rounded vowels: Andersen 1972: 22−23.
3.5. Prothesis: Vaillant 1950: 140−144, 178−182, 184; Meillet 1951: 65−68; Bräuer
1961: 99−103; Shevelov 1965: 235−238. 240−242; Schenker 1995: 83; Lunt 2001: 203−
204. Peak attenuation: Andersen 1972: 28−32.
3.5.1. Prothesis before *a: Shevelov 1965: 240−244. Prothesis before *u2 : Shevelov
1965: 241−242; Zaliznjak 2004: 53−54. ‘Egg’: ÈSSJa *aje, *ajьce; Shevelov 1965: 243;
Zaliznjak 2004: 54, 335.
3.6. Dental palatalization: Vaillant 1950: 62−67, 70−72, 292−293; Bernštejn 1961:
166−172; Shevelov 1965: 207−219; Schenker 1993: 69, 76; 1995: 84−85; Lunt 2001:
187−189. Hardening of *r: see also Bräuer 1961: 208−210. (1b) OPo: BZ. (6) OCS,
OESl: SJS, Srez pisati; OCz: VW pisano, píše; OPo: BZ pisano, Piesni pisze. (7) OCS,
OESl: SJS, Srez roditi; OCz rodi, rozený; OPo: EwZam porodzi, SP16 porodzony.
3.6.1. *kt outcomes: Vaillant 1950: 65−66; Shevelov 1965: 191, 212−213; Lunt 2001:
188. *Kn: Vaillant 1950: 92; Shevelov 1965: 209. (1−2) OSb: Daničić. (2b−c) OPo: BZ.
3.7.1. Homorganic glides: Vaillant 1950: 67, 86−88; Meillet 1951: 73, 115; Bräuer 1961:
196−198, 202; Shevelov 1995: 197−198, 210−211; Velcheva 1988: 69−70; Schenker
1995: 84; Lunt 2001: 195. (2) SJS, Srez napisati; VW napsati; BZ napisze. (3) SJS,
Srez byti, VW běch.
3.7.2. Pi̯ : Vaillant 1950: 67−70; Bernštejn 1961: 170; Shevelov 1965: 218−222; Shenker
1993: 69; 1995: 84−85. Bg: RBE. BCS: Rječnik. (3c) see ÈSSJa *čapia; (3d) see ÈSSJa
*grobja.
3.8. Auslautgesetze: Orr 2000. See also Jasanoff 1983a, 1983b. *-aN#: Phonological:
Shevelov 1965: 332−333; Lunt 2001: 196. Morphological: Orr 1988, 2000. Barytone
neuters > masculines: Dybo, Zamjatina, and Nikolaev 1990: 40; Kortlandt 1994; Derk-
sen 2008: 20 (presented as a sound change). *-Vns: Phonological: e.g. Lunt 2001: 19.
Morphological: Orr 2000: 153−157. Extension of u-stem endings: Schenker 1995: 125.
*-Vnts: (4c) OPo: BZ. (5) OPo: BZ.
4. MCSl: Andersen’s (1986: 73) “Early Slavic I” ends with the monophthongizations
(4.1−4.2), which are here classified as MCSl1; his “Early Slavic II” shows raising of the
new monophthongs and delabialization of *u(:) − my MCSl2 (see 4.1−4.3). Lunt (2001:
182) posits a late emergence of “Early Common Slavic” (ca. 300 CE) and uses the term
“Middle Common Slavic” for the period that is “virtually without dialects” − the “Early
Common Slavic” of the present work. However, the “Middle Common Slavic” vocalism
that he posits is post-Qualitative Differentiation (see 5.1), i.e. follows a period in which
there have already been major changes with isoglosses (see especially 4.9).
4.1. Glide diphthongs: Meillet 1934/1951: 47−49; Vaillant 1950: 115, 117−118, 121−
122; Bräuer 1961: 70−75; Mareš 1965: 15−20; Shevelov 1965: 271−282, 285−287, 288−

Authenticated
1520 XIII. Slavic
292; Andersen 1972: 25; 1998a: 240; Schenker 1995: 86−88; Lunt 2001: 202; Feldstein
2003; Vermeer 2008: 548−553. (1b) OPo: BZ. (2b) OPo: BZ. (3) OPo: SPJ 17−18 siać.
(5a) OCS: SJS cvisti; OESl: Srez cvisti; OCz: VW kvísti; (5b) VW prokvísti. (6) OCS:
SJS bljusti; OESl: Srez bljusti.
4.1.1. Gk loanwords: Vasmer 1941: 239. BFi: Kiparsky 1975: 56; Mikkola 1938: 31,
56.
4.1.2. Metathesis: Jakobson 1962: 25−26; 1963: 158; Vaillant 1950: 115, 118, 121;
Shevelov 1965: 285, 298. Critique: Schenker 1995: 86−88; Vermeer 2008: 551−552.
4.2. Nasal diphthongs: Bräuer 1961: 84−85; Shevelov 1965: 311−316, 326−333; Schen-
ker 1995: 92−93, 99; Lunt 2001: 192−193, 201−202; Feldstein 2003.
4.3. Delabialization: Vaillant 1960: 49−55; Bernštejn 1961: 200−202, 204; Bräuer 1961:
189−191; Shevelov 1965: 294−301, 302−307; Schenker 1995: 89−90; Lunt 2001: 205−
206. Novgorodian: Zaliznjak 1986: 111−119; 1993: 195−197, 2004: 41−45. Balkan Rom
front vowels: Bartoli 1906, 2: 337−338. ‘Lettuce’: ÈSSJa *loktika; Vasmer 1986 ločika.
Frankish sources: Shevelov 1965: 379. Gk contacts: Vasmer 1941: 62, 91, 143, 151,
311.
4.4. 2VP: Vaillant 1960: 55−56; Bernštejn 1961: 202−204; Bräuer 1961: 191−192;
Shevelov 1965: 301−302; Schenker 1995: 90; Lunt 2001: 205−206. Novgorodian: Zal-
iznjak 1986: 112−114; 1993: 197, 2004: 45. Novg/NRu: Zaliznjak 1986: 112−113. Kela-
gast-: Moravcsik 1958: 158. Glagolitic «ћ»: Collins 1992.
4.5. Ku̯ clusters: Birnbaum 1956. See also Vaillant 1950: 55−56; Bräuer 1961: 191−
192; Shevelov 1965: 301−302; Schenker 1995: 90. Novg/NRu: Zaliznjak 1986: 112−
114, 2004: 45.
4.6. PVP: Bräuer 1961: 193−196; Mareš 1965: 32−38; Shevelov 1965: 338−365; Vel-
cheva 1980: 31−37; Schenker 1995: 89−92; Lunt 2001: 193−195; Vermeer 2003, 2008.
Blocking action of close back vowels: Vermeer 2008: 526−528. Loanwords: Shevelov
1965: 349−350; Schenker 1995: 92. Gmc ‘penny’: Grierson and Blackburn 2007: 15.
Greek toponyms: Vasmer 1941: 301−302; Shevelov 1965: 350−351; Schenker 1995: 92.
Novgorodian: Zaliznjak 2004: 45−47; Vermeer 2008: 543−545. Vocalism of ‘all’: Ver-
meer 2008: 517, n. 27.
4.6.1. Leveling: Shevelov 1965: 340−343; Vermeer 2008: 513−518, 527−528, 546−547.
4.6.2. Controversy: Channon 1972; Birnbaum and Merrill 1983: 27−29; Schenker 1995:
90−92; Vermeer 2003, 2008. PVP 3 2VP: Baudouin de Courtenay 1894: 49−50; Vaillant
1950: 53−55. PVP < 2VP: Shevelov 1965: 353. PVP1 > 2VP: Pedersen 1905; Mareš
1965: 34−36. Criticism: Vermeer 2008. PVP > 1VP: Martinet 1955: 366−367; Channon
1972; Velcheva 1980: 32−33; Lunt 1987, 2001: 193−195. Criticism: Kortlandt 1984,
1989; Schenker 1995: 91−92; Vermeer 2008: 554−561. Generative grammar: Chomsky

Authenticated
and Halle [1968] 1991: 420−426, 428−430. Pronouns: Vermeer 2008: 519−525. Voca-
tives: Vermeer 2008: 521, 528.
4.6.3. Vowel Fronting after PVP: Shevelov 1965: 347−349; Lunt 2001: 196; Vermeer
2008: 505.
4.7. Reflexes of *t, *d: Vaillant 1950: 65−67; Shevelov 1965: 212−215; Andersen 1969;
1977: 9−10; Schenker 1993: 76; 1995: 95−96; Lunt 2001: 187−189; Zaliznjak 2004:
47−49. Freising Fragments: Kolarič 1968: 32−33; Bernik et al. 1993: 145−146 (tige,
toie, tomuge).
4.8.*tl, *dl: Andersen 2006. See also Vaillant 1950: 88−90; Shevelov 1965: 202, 370−
375; Schenker 1995: 92. Sln: Lenček 1981: 86−87. CenSlk: Stanislav 1967: 366−370;
Krajčovič 1975: 38. Pskovian: Zaliznjak 2004: 49.
4.9. Initial diphthongs: Vaillant 1950: 158−160; Shevelov 1965: 391−399. See Feldstein
2003 for an attempt to subsume this under a “uniform” diphthongization rule. CenSlk:
Stanislav 1967: 324−328; Krajčovič 1975: 37−38. Early loanwords: Shevelov 1965:
395−396; Bezlaj 1955−1961: 142; Vasmer 1985 oltar’. Gk borrowings: Vasmer 1941:
290. Rostislav: Stanislav 1967: 326, 330. Ladoga: Vasmer 1986 s.v. Vepsian: Vasmer
1941: 290. (2) OPo: PsFƚ.
4.9.1. *a̋lk(ā)- and *aldii̯ -: OCS: SJS. MBg: Miklosich. See also Vaillant 1950: 161.
5. Late Common Slavic: As periodized here, LCSl is Andersen’s (1986: 73−74), between
the Second and the Third Vowels Shifts (QD, 5.1, and Jer-Shift, 5.8). Lunt (2001: 182)
uses “Late Common Slavic” for the “dialect continuum that existed c800−c1100” and
assigns QD to “Middle Common Slavic.” There is quite clear evidence that QD was
going on in the 8th−early 9th centuries in much of the Slavophone domain.
5.1. QD: Andersen 1998a. See also Jakobson 1962: 33−36; Bräuer 1961: 86−94; Shevel-
ov 1965: 376−386, 388−390, 422−431; Schenker 1993: 79; 1995: 99; Lunt 2001: 192−
193, 201−202. Absolute chronology: Andersen 2014: 59. Byzantine texts: Mikkola 1938:
21; Vasmer 1941: 11−19; Bräuer 1961: 87; Vlasto 1970: 24; Heather 2011: 424. Cividale
Gospel: Stanislav 1968: 382. BFi borrowings: Mikkola 1938: 20−21, 25−26, 30−31;
Kiparsky 1979: 77−87. Dnieper Rapids: Kiparsky 1979: 77; Schenker 1995: 58−59.
5.1.1. *ʊ: Shevelov 1965: 434; Flier 1998. Slk outcomes: Krajčovič 1975: 44−48;
Greenberg 1988.
5.2.1. *æ: Vaillant 1950: 113−117; Samilov 1964; Shevelov 1965: 164−166; Schenker
1993: 79. OCS: Diels 1963: 25, 31−36, 42−43; Lunt 2001: 25. Bg: Scatton 1993: 244.
Mc: Friedman 1993: 301. BCS: Browne 1993: 308−309. Kaj: Browne 1993: 382. Sln:
Lenček 1981: 99, 103−104; Priestly 1993: 448−449. Slk reflexes: Krajčović 1975: 69−
72. OCz: Komárek 1962: 49−51. Merger avoidance: Feldstein 2003: 261. Novg: Zal-

Authenticated
1522 XIII. Slavic
iznjak 2004: 52−53. BFi borrowings: Mikkola 1938: 30, 83. NRu relics: Shevelov 1965:
173; Nikolaev 1990: 60; Zaliznjak 2004: 52.
5.2.2. Nasal vowels: Vaillant 1950: 144−154; Shevelov 1965: 164−171; Stankiewicz
1986: 25, Schenker 1993: 79−80. Mc: Friedman 1993: 301. Bg: Scatton 1993: 244. NW-
Sln. Lech backings: Andersen 1978; Topolińska 1974: 33; Stone 1993: 764. Kb and Slc
outcomes: Topolińska 1974: 33−34; Stone 1993: 764. Sln reflexes: Lenček 1981: 100−
101. Kaj reflexes: Browne 1993: 382. Slk reflexes: Krajčovič 1975: 44−47. Cz reflexes:
Komárek 1962: 49−50. Putative ESl *ä: e.g. Jakobson 1962, Lunt 1956. Hungarian
borrowings: Krajčovič 1975: 45. Cividale Gospel: Krajčovič 1975: 44−45. Muncimiro:
Mužić 2007: 205. Freising Fragments: Kolarič 1968: 24−25. Contact evidence for ESl:
Mikkola 1938: 19, 28−29, 30, 83; Kiparsky 1979: 77−78, 83.
5.3. New length distinctions: Shevelov 1965: 507−520; Krajčovič 1975: 58−61. Čakavi-
an: Kalsbeek 1998.
5.4. Secondary softening: Shevelov 1965: 488−505, 588−590; Flier 1998. Cz: Komárek
1962: 51−54. Traditional approach: e.g. Jakobson 1962; Lunt 1956: 309, 311.
5.4.1. Soft sonorants: Komárek 1962: 52−53; Shevelov 1965: 208−209.
5.5. Internal open-vowel diphthongs: Vaillant 1950: 156−158; Shevelov 1965: 399−420;
Schenker 1993: 74−76; Andersen 1998: 241−243; Lunt 2001: 189; Zaliznjak 2004: 39−
41. Peripheral SSl: Vaillant 1950: 161−162; Shevelov 1965: 406, 409; Stanislav 1967:
338. OPo: Klemenszewicz, Lehr-Spławiński, and Urbańczyk (eds.) 1964: 124−127. Pb:
Polański 1993: 803. CenLech: Jeżowa 1961: 78−81. Compensatory lengthening: Stang
1957: 36; Timberlake 1983a−b. Uk long reflexes: for an alternative interpretation, see
Andersen 1998: 242−243. Foreign adaptation: Bethmann 1876; Mikkola 1938: 25−27;
Vasmer 1941: 287−290; Shevelov 1965: 415, 417; Stanislav 1967: 337−338. Kiev Folia:
Schaeken 1987. Freising Fragments: Bernik 1993. ‘King’: ÈSSJa *korljь; Vaillant 1950:
165−166; Shevelov 1965: 415−416; Lunt 1966; Stanislav 1967: 338; Schenker 1995: 11.
5.6. Internal close vowel diphthongs: Shevelov 1965: 466−486; Schenker 1993: 74−75;
Feldstein 2003. OCS: Diels 1963: 61−63; Lunt 2001: 28−39. Bg: Shevelov 1965: 477−
478. Po: Klemenszewicz, Lehr-Spławiński, and Urbańczyk (eds.) 1964: 118−122. Ru:
Isačenko 1970: 100−102; Zaliznjak 2004: 49−52.
5.7. Tense jers: Shevelov 1965: 439−440; Schenker 1993: 81; Schenker 1995: 101.
OCS: Diels 1963: 64−69; Lunt 2001: 34−35. OESl: Zaliznjak 1985: 116−118; Flier 1988.
5.8. Jer-Shift: Havlík 1889; Shevelov 1965: 432−464; Stanislav 1967: 383−384; Isačen-
ko 1970: 73−77; Schenker 1993: 78; Andersen 1998a; Flier 1998. Paragogic vowels:
Andersen 1972: 35−36. Kiev Folia: Schaeken 1987: 93−94. OCS: Diels 1963: 54−55,
96−97; Lunt 2001: 24−25, 36−40. OESl: Kiparsky 1979: 97−111; Shevelov 1979; Isa-
čenko 1970. Novg: Zaliznjak 2004: 58−67. Omissions imitating OCS: Isačenko 1970:

Authenticated
74; Gribble 1989; Zaliznjak 2004: 60. Freising Fragments: Kolarič 1968: 25−26. Czech:
Komárek 1962: 47−49.
5.8.1. Strong jers: Shevelov 1965: 434; Stanislav 1967: 384−387; Isačenko 1970: 74−
77. CenSlk: Stanislav 1967: 381−387; Krajčović 1975: 50−55; Greenberg 1988. Sorb:
Timberlake 1988. Vowel abridgment: Andersen (1970); Timberlake (1983b).
5.8.2. Pb: Polański 1982 (arguing that the strong reflexes in initial syllables were mor-
phological in origin); 1993: 801−802; Timberlake 1988.
5.8.3. Vowel-zero alternations and stem-leveling: Isačenko 1970: 77−124.
5.9. Liquid-jer sequences: Shevelov 1965: 466−486; Lunt 2001: 28−39; Isačenko 1970:
111−112.
5.10. Compensatory lengthening: Timberlake 1983a, 1983b; Andersen 1970: 70−71. Re-
flexes: Shevelov 1965: 446−448. Vowel abridgment: Andersen 1970.
5.11. Lenition of *g: Andersen 1969, 1977. See also Vaillant 1950: 32−34; Lunt 2001:
188. Ru dialects: Flier 1983. Slovenian: Lenček 1981: 111−113. Post-CSl phenomenon:
e.g. Shevelov 1965: 593−595; Komárek 1962: 67−70; Krajčovič 1975: 81−86; Kiparsky
1979: 131−133. Knaanic: Ulična 2006: 70; 2014: 146−147.
5.12. Contraction: Shevelov 1965: 524−528; Marvan 1979; Andersen 2014: 55−58. See
also Vaillant 1950: 193−199; Bräuer 1961: 153−154; Shevelov 1965: 524−530; Stanislav
1967: Schenker 1993: 81; 1995: 101. OCS: Diels 1963: 191−198. Cz: Komárek 1962:
45−47.
6. Suprasegmental phonology: In the correspondences below, the non-Slavic data are

cited from Pokorny 1959, Illič-Svityč 1963, Vasmer 1986, and Derksen 2008; the com-
parisons are based on the most widely accepted etymologies, but often there are no exact
correspondences for the Sl formations. Moscow School: see especially Dybo 1981; Dybo,
Zamjatina, and Nikolaev 1990; Zaliznjak 1985; and articles by the same authors listed
in the References. Criticism: Vermeer 2001; Derksen 2004. Alternative approaches: see
Kortlandt (1975, 1994), Stankiewicz (1993), Derksen (2008), Jasanoff (2004, 2008,
2011), and Olander (2009).
6.1. Sl accentual correspondences: Stang 1957: 20−21, 179; Bogatyrev 1995: 6−7, 9−
11. Acute not tied to ictus: Jasanoff 2011. Dated manuscripts: Illič-Svityč 1963: 91−92.
Accent paradigms: Stang 1957: 56−154; Illyč-Svityč 1963: 4, n. 1, 157−161; Dybo 1979;
Zaliznjak 1985: 125−127, 131−140; Dybo, Zamjatina, and Nikolaev 1990: 7−16, 34−
47; Bogatyrev 1995: 5, 7−9; Andersen 2009: 4−5; Pronk-Tiethoff 2013: 30−38. Neoacu-
te: see 6.4.3.
6.2. Reconstruction attempts: for surveys, see Illič-Svityč 1963: 10−17, 93−96; Bogatyr-
ev 1995: 12−17; Derksen 2004. BaSl innovations: see, e.g., Dybo, Zamjatina, and Niko-

Authenticated
1524 XIII. Slavic
laev 1990: 107; Derksen 2004: 81. Separate origins of the circumflex in Ba and Sl:
Dybo 1979: 43. Inherited features: Stang 1957: 5, 173−179; Illič-Svityč 1963: 162−164;
Bogatyrev 1995: 1−4.
6.2.1. Ictus patterns: Stang 1957: 21; Illič-Svityč 1963: 8−10, 89−161; Derksen 2004:
87−88.
6.2.2. Length: Kortlandt 1975: 20−24; Jasanoff 2004a: 247−248. Babbling: (3a) Li bóba
(AP-1), Ltv bãba; (3b) Li móteris ‘woman’ (AP-1), Ltv mâte, OI mātár-, ‘mother’, Gk
μητρός − μητέρος ‘mother (NOM − GEN). Borrowings from non-IE: (4) Gk μήκων ‘pop-
py’, OHG māho (*x instead of *ɣ); ÈSSJa makъ.
6.2.3. Accent valencies: Zaliznjak 1985: 118−127, 140−146; Dybo 1989: 7−10; Dybo,
Zamjatina, and Nikolaev 1990: 85, 98−99, 107−108; Bogatyrev 1995: 2−4. Criticism:
Vermeer 2001: 155−156; Derksen 2004: 86, 87. PIE suprasegmentals: Dybo 1989, 2003;
Nikolaev 1989; Dybo, Zamjatina, and Nikolaev 1990: 107−108. Orthotonic words and
enclinomena: Jakobson 1963.
6.3.1. Acuting before tautosyllabic laryngeals: Jasanoff 2004a, 2011. Acuting as glottali-
zation: Stang 1966: 137. Acute as glottal stop: Kortlandt 1975: 16; Derksen 2008; for
criticism, see Jasanoff 2004b: 172−173. Acute as checked length: Jasanoff 2004a: 251−
252; Jasanoff 2011.
6.3.2. Hirt’s Law: Hirt 1895: 95, 165−166; Shevelov 1965: 49−55; Illič-Svityč 1963:
78−82; Kortlandt 1975: 2−4, 22−23, 52−54; Dybo, Zamjatina, and Nikolaev 1990: 50;
Derksen 2004: 83−85; Jasanoff 2011. MRu: Zaliznjak 1978, 1979.
6.3.3. Winter’s Law: Winter 1978; Collinge 1985: 225−227; Derksen 2004: 82−83; Jasa-
noff 2004a. Neocircumflex: Stang 1957: 23−35; Dybo, Zamjatina, and Nikolaev 1990:
16−31.
6.3.4. Bezzenberger’s Law: Bezzenberger 1891; Dybo, Zamjatina, and Nikolaev 1990:
7, 71; Jasanoff 2004a: 251.
6.3.5. Meillet’s Law: Meillet 1902; Kortlandt 1975: 10−12, 27−29, 54−55; Dybo 1979:
43; Collinge 1985: 117−118; Jasanoff 2004a: 254; Andersen 2009: 5.
6.4.1. CSl ictus placement: Dybo, Zamjatina, and Nikolaev 1990: 85; Dybo 2000: 94.
MBg: Dybo 1971, 1975. MRu: Dybo 1971, 1975; Kolesov 1972. Šaxmatov’s Law: Šax-
matov 1915; Zaliznjak 1989; Andersen 2009: 5. Vasil’ev-Dolobko: Dolobko 1927; Vas-
il’ev 1929; Dybo 1971, 1975, 1977; Kortlandt 1975: 38−40; Collinge 1985: 29−30; Dybo,
Zamjatina, and Nikolaev 1990: 54; Bogatyrev 1995: 3, 14−15; Andersen 2009: 5.
6.4.2. Law of Dybo-Illič-Svityč: Dybo 1962; Illič-Svityč 1963: 157−161; Collinge 1985:
31−33; Bogatyrev 1995: 4−5; Jasanoff 2004a: 254; Andersen 2009: 4−5. MBg: Dybo
1971, 1975. MRu: Dybo 1971, 1975; Kolesov 1972.

Authenticated
6.4.3. Neoacute: Stang 1957: 20−23, 167−173; Jakobson 1963: 164−173; Collinge
1985: 179; Bogatyrev 1995: 10−11; Schenker 1995: 98. Ru dialects: Illič-Svityč 1963:
91; Schenker 1995: 98. MRu: Vasil’ev 1929; Illič-Svityč 1963: 91−92; Zaliznjak 1978,
1979.
6.4.4. Ictus advancement from weak jers: Shevelov 1965: 443−445.
8. References
AHD = Calvert Watkins. (ed.)
2000 The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots. 2nd edn. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Andersen, Henning
1968 IE *s after i, u, r, k in Baltic and Slavic. Acta Linguistica Hafnensia 11: 171−190.
Andersen, Henning
1969 Lenition in Common Slavic. Language 45: 553−574.
Andersen, Henning
1970 Kashubian dobëtk ‘dobytek’ and its Kind. Die Welt der Slaven 15: 61−76.
Andersen, Henning
1972 Diphthongization. Language 48: 11−50.
Andersen, Henning
1977 On Some Central Innovations in the Common Slavic Period. In: Franc Jakopin (ed.),
Slovansko jezikoslovje [Slavic linguistics]. Ljubljana: Univ. v Ljubljani, Filozofska fa-
kulteta, 1−13.
Andersen, Henning
1978 Perceptual and Conceptual Factors in Abductive Innovations. In: Fisiak (ed.), 1−22.
Andersen, Henning
1985 Protoslavic and Common Slavic. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics
31−32: 67−80.
Andersen, Henning
1996 Reconstructing Prehistorical Dialects. Initial Vowels in Slavic and Baltic. Berlin: Mou-
ton de Gruyter.
Andersen, Henning
1998a The Common Slavic Vowel Shifts. American Contributions to the International Con-
gresses of Slavists 12: 239−248.
Andersen, Henning
1998b A Glimpse of the Homeland of the Slavs. In: Angela della Volpe (ed.), Proceedings of
the Seventh UCLA Indo-European Conference. Washington, D. C.: Institute for the Study
of Man, 1−67.
Andersen, Henning
1999 The Western South Slavic Contrast Sn. sah-ni-ti || SC sah-nu-ti. Slovenski jezik 2: 47−
62.
Andersen, Henning
2003 Slavic and the Indo-European Migrations. In: Henning Andersen (ed.), Language Con-
tacts in Prehistory. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 45−76.
Andersen, Henning
2006 On the Late Common Slavic Dialect Correspondences Kl−Tl−l. International Journal
of Slavic Language and Poetics 44/45: 37−48.

Authenticated
1526 XIII. Slavic
Andersen, Henning
2009 The Satem Languages of the Indo-European Northwest. In: Angela Marcantonio (ed.),
The Indo-European Language Family: Questions about its Status. Washington, D.C.:
Institute for the Study of Man, 1−31.
Andersen, Henning
2013 On the Origin of the Slavic Aspects. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 21: 17−43.
Andersen, Henning
2014 Early Vowel Contraction in Slavic. Scando-Slavica 60: 54−107.
Barford, Paul M.
2001 The Early Slavs. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Bartoli, Matteo G.
1906 Das Dalmatische. 2 vols. Vienna: Hölder.
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan
1894 Einiges über Palatalisierung (Palatalisation) und Entpalatalisierung (Depalatalisation).
Indogermanische Forschungen 4: 45−57.
Beekes, Robert S. P.
1995 Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. An Introduction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
BER = Vladimir I. Georgiev, Ivan Galabov, Iordan Zaimov, and Stefan Ilcev (eds.)
1962− Bălgarski etimologičen rečnik [Bulgarian etymological dictionary]. 6 vols. to date. Sofia:
BAN.
Bernik, France, Jože Faganel, Kajetan Gantar, Igor Grdina, Franc Jakopin, Janko Kos, Marko
Kranjec, Tine Logar, Klaus Detlef Olof, Božo Otorepec, Boris Paternu, and Marijan Smolik
1993 Brižinski spomeniki [The Freising literary monuments]. Ljubljana: Slovenske akademije
znanosti in umetnosti.
Bernštejn, Samuil B.
1961 Očerk sravnitel’noj grammatiki slavjanskix jazykov [An outline of the comparative
grammar of the Slavic languages]. Moscow: Akademija Nauk SSSR.
Bethmann, Conrad L.
1876 Die Evangelienhandschrift zu Cividale. Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere Deut-
sche Geschichtskunde 2: 113−128.
Bezlaj, France
1956−1961 Slovenska vodna imena [Slovenian river names]. 2 vols. Ljubljana: Slovenska
Akademija znanosti i umetnosti.
Bezlaj, France
1976−2007 Etimološki slovar slovenskega jezika [Etymological dictionary of the Slovenian
language] 4 vols. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga.
Bezzenberger, Adalbert
1891 Zum baltischen Vocalismus. Beiträge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen 17:
213−227.
Birnbaum, Henrik
1956 Zu urslav. Kv-. Scando-Slavica 2: 29−40.
Birnbaum, Henrik
1966 The dialects of Common Slavic. In: Henrik Birnbaum and Jaan Puhvel (eds.), Ancient
Indo-European dialects. Proceedings of the Conference on Indo-European Linguistics
Held at the University of California, Los Angeles April 25−27, 1963. Berkeley: Universi-
ty of California Press, 153−197.
Birnbaum, Henrik
1970 Four Approaches to Balto-Slavic. In: Velta Rūk̦ e-Dravin̦ a (ed.), Donum Balticum. To
Professor Christian S. Stang on the occasion of his seventieth birthday 15 March 1970.
Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 69−76.
Birnbaum, Henrik
1975 Common Slavic: Progress and problems in its reconstruction. Cambridge, MA: Slavica.

Authenticated
Birnbaum, Henrik
1983 Language families, linguistic types, and the position of the Rusin microlanguage within
Slavic. Die Welt der Slaven 28: 1−23.
Birnbaum, Henrik
1987a Praslavjanskij jazyk: Dostiženija i problemy v ego rekonstrukcii [Proto-Slavic: Achieve-
ments and problems of its reconstruction]. Translated by Vladimir A. Dybo. Moscow:
Progress.
Birnbaum, Henrik
1987b Some Terminological and Substantive Issues in Slavic Historical Linguistics. Interna-
tional Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 35/36: 299−332.
Birnbaum, Henrik and Peter T. Merrill
1983 Recent Advances in the Reconstruction of Common Slavic (1971−1982). Columbus, OH:
Slavica.
Bogatyrev, Konstantin K.
1995 Akcentuacija severolexitskix govorov s istoričeskoj točki zrenija. [The accentuation of
Northern Lechitic dialects from a historical perspective]. Munich: Sagner.
Boryś, Wiesław
2005 Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego [Etymological dictionary of Polish]. Cracow:
Wydawnictwo literackie.
Bräuer, Herbert
1961 Slavische Sprachwissenschaft. Vol. 1. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Browne, Wayles
1993 Serbo-Croat. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 306−387.
Browning, Timothy
1989 The Diachrony of Proto-Indo-European Syllabic Liquids in Slavic. Doctoral Disserta-
tion. University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Brückner, Aleksander
1993 [1927] Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego [Etymological dictionary of Polish]. Re-
print. Warsaw: Wiedza Powszechna.
Bulatova, Rimma V. and Vladimir A. Dybo (eds.)
1989 Istoričeskaja akcentologija i sravnitel’no-istoričeskij metod [Historical accentology and
the comparative-historical method]. Moscow: Nauka.
BZ = Biblia królowej Zofii [The Queen Sofia Bible]
2015 www.ijp-pan.krakow.pl/publikacje-elektroniczne/korpus-tekstow-staropolskich [Last ac-
cessed 26 June 2017].
Channon, Robert
1972 On the Place of the Progressive Palatalization of Velars in the Relative Chronology of
Slavic. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, Noam and Morris Halle
1991 [1968] The Sound Pattern of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Collinge, Neville E.
1985 The Laws of Indo-European. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Collins, Daniel E.
1982 Front rounded vowels and the phoneme /j/ in Proto-Church Slavonic. Die Welt der
Slaven 37: 1−32.
Collins, Daniel E.
forthcoming The Proto-Slavic Reflexes of the PIE Syllabic Sonorants.
Comrie, Bernard and Greville G. Corbett (eds.)
1993 The Slavonic Languages. London: Routledge.
Čornejová, Michaela
2007 Studie k dokladů m českých mı́stnı́ch jmen na -any v 11.−13. Stoletı́ [Studies in the
documentation of Czech place names in -any in the 11th−13th centuries]. Linguistica

Authenticated
1528 XIII. Slavic
ONLINE. http://www.phil.muni.cz/linguistica/art/cornejova/cor-003.pdf [Last accessed

26 June 2017].
Curta, Florin
2001 The Making of the Slavs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Derksen, Rick
2004 Balto-Slavic Accentuation: An Update. Histoire Épistémologie Langage 26: 81−92.
Derksen, Rick
2008 Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon. Leiden: Brill.
Daničić, Đura
1962 [1863−1864] Rječnik iz književnih starina srpskih [Dictionary of Serbian literary antiq-
uities]. 2 vols. Reprint. Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt.
Diels, Paul
1963 Altkirchenslavische Grammatik. Vol. 1. 2nd edn. Heidelberg: Winter.
Dolobko, Milij G.
1927 Noč’-nočés’, ósen’-osenés’, zimá-zimús’, léto-létos’. Slavia 5: 678−717.
DRMJa = Digitalen rečnik na makedonskiot ezik [Digital dictionary of the Macedonian language]
2015 http://www.makedonski.info [Last accessed 26 June 2017].
Dvornik, Francis
1956 The Slavs: Their Early History and Civilization. Boston: American Academy of Arts
and Sciences.
Dybo, Vladimir A.
1962 O rekonstrukcii udarenija v praslavjanskom glagole [On the reconstruction of Proto-
Slavic word-accent]. Voprosy sovetskogo jazykoznanija 6: 3−27.
Dybo, Vladimir A.
1971 Zakon Vasil’eva-Dolobko i akcentuacija form glagola v drevnerusskom i srednebolgar-
skom [Vasil’eva-Dolobko’s Law and the accentuation of verb forms in Old Russian and
Middle Bulgarian]. Voprosy jazykoznanija 20: 93−114.
Dybo, Vladimir A.
1975 Zakon Vasil’eva-Dolobko v drevnerusskom [Vasil’eva-Dolobko’s Law in Old Russian].
International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 18: 7−81.
Dybo, Vladimir A.
1977 Imennoe udarenie v srednebolgarskom i zakon Vasil’eva-Dolobko [Nominal accentua-
tion in Middle Bulgarian and Vasil’eva-Dolobka’s Law]. In: Leonid A. Gindin and Gali-
na P. Klepikova (eds.), Slavjanskoe i balkanskoe jazykoznanie [Slavic and Baltic linguis-
tics]. Moscow: Nauka, 189−272.
Dybo, Vladimir A.
1979 Rekonstrukcija sistemy akcentnyx paradigm v praslavjanskom [Reconstruction of the
system of accentual paradigms in Proto-Slavic]. Zbornik za filologiju i lingvistiku 22:
37−71.
Dybo, Vladimir A.
1980 Balto-slavjanskaja akcentnaja sistema s tipologičeskoj točki zrenija i problema rekon-
strukcija indoevropejskogo akcenta [The Balto-Slavic accentual system from a typologi-
cal perspective and the problem of the reconstruction of the Indo-European accent]. In:
Tamara M. Sudnik (ed.), Balto-slavjanskie ètnojazykovye kontakty. [Balto-Slavic ethno-
linguistic contacts]. Moscow: Nauka, 91−150.
Dybo, Vladimir A.
1981 Slavjanskaia akcentologija: Opyt rekonstrukcii sistemy accentnyx paradigm v praslav-
janskom [Slavic accentology. An attempt at a reconstruction of the system of accentual
paradigms in Proto-Slavic]. (Akademija Nauk SSSR, Institut Slavjanovedenija i Balkan-
istiki). Moscow: Nauka.

Authenticated
Dybo, Vladimir A.
1989 Tipologija i rekonstrukcija paradigmatičeskix akcentnyx system [Typology and the re-
construction of paradigmatic accent systems]. In: Bulatova and Dybo (eds.), 7−45.
Dybo, Vladimir A.
2000 Morfonologizovannye paradigmatičeskie akcentnye sistemy. Tipologia i genezis [Mor-
phophonologized paradigmatic accent systems. Typology and genesis]. Vol. 1. Moscow:
Jazyki russkoj kul’tury.
Dybo, Vladimir A.
2002 Balto-Slavic Accentology and Winter’s Law. Studia Linguarum 3: 295−515.
Dybo, Vladimir A.
2003 Balto-slavjanskaja akcentologičeskaja rekonstrukcija i indoevropejskaja akcentologija
[Balto-Slavic accentual reconstruction and Indo-European accentology]. In: Viktor M.
Živov and Tat’jana Mixajovna Nikolaeva (eds.), Slavjanskoe jazykoznanie: XIII Meždun-
arodnyj Sъezd Slavistov, Ljubljana, 2003 g. Doklady rossijskoj delegacii [Slavic linguis-
tics: 13th international session of slavists, Ljubljana, 2003. Reports of the Russian dele-
gation]. Moscow: Indrik, 131−161.
Dybo, Vladimir A., Galina I. Zamjatina, and Sergej L. Nikolaev
1990 Osnovy slavjanskoj akcentologii [Principles of Slavic accentology]. Moscow: Nauka.
Dybo, Vladimir A., Galina I. Zamjatina, and Sergej L. Nikolaev
1993 Osnovy slavianskoj akcentologii: Slovar’ [Principles of Slavic accentology: dictionary].
Vol. 1, part 1. Moscow: Nauka.
Endzelīns, Jānis
1971 Jānis Endzelīns’ Comparative Phonology and Morphology of the Baltic Languages.
Trans. William R. Schmalstieg and Benjamin̦ š Jēgers. The Hague: Mouton.
ÈSSJa = Trubačev, Oleg N. (ed.)
1974− Ètimologičeskij slovar’ slavjanskix jazykov [Etymological dictionary of the Slavic lan-
guages]. 36 vols. to date. Moscow: Nauka.
ESUM = Mel’nyčuk, Oleksander S. (ed.)
1982−2006 Etymolohičnyj slovnyk ukraïns’koï movy [Etymological dictionary of the Ukraini-
an language]. 7 vols. Kiev: Naukova Dumka.
EwZam = Ewangeliarz Zamoyskich [Zamoyski’s Gospel]
Fasmer, Max (= Max Vasmer)
1986 Ètimologičeskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka [Etymological dictionary of the Russian lan-
guage]. Translated from German with comments by Oleg N. Trubacëv. 4 vols. Moscow:
Progress.
Feldstein, Ronald F.
2003 The Unified Monophthongization Rule of Common Slavic. Journal of Slavic Linguistics
11: 247−281.
Filin, Fedot P.
1962 Obrazovanie jazyka vostočnyx slavjan [The formation of the language of the Eastern
Slavs]. Moscow: Akademija Nauk SSSR.
Fisiak, Jacek (ed.)
1978 Recent Developments in Historical Phonology. The Hague: Mouton.
Flier, Michael S.
1982 The Origin of the Desinence -ovo in Russian. In: Markov and Worth (eds.), 85−104.
Flier, Michael S.
1988 Morphophonemic consequences of the development of tense jers in East Slavic. Ameri-
can Contributions to the International Congresses of Slavists 10: 91−105.

Authenticated
1530 XIII. Slavic
Flier, Michael S.
1998 The Jer Shift and Consequent Mechanisms of Sharping (Palatalization) in East Slavic.
American Contributions to the International Congresses of Slavists 12: 360−374.
Fortson, Benjamin W. IV.
2004 Indo-European Language and Culture. Oxford: Blackwell.
Fougeron, Cécile and Rachid Ridouane
2008 On the Phonetic Implementation of Syllabic Consonants and Vowel-Less Syllables in
Tashlhiyt. Estudios de Fonética Experimental 18: 139−175.
Friedrich, Paul
1970 Proto-Indo-European Trees. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Friedman, Victor A.
1993 Macedonian. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 249−305.
Garde, Paul
1976 Histoire de l’accentuation slave. 2 vols. (Collection de manuels de l’Institut d’Études
Slaves 7). Paris: Institut d’Études Slaves.
Gerov, Naĭden
1975−1978 [1895−1904] Rěčnik na bŭlgarskyj jazyk [Dictionary of the Bulgarian language].
I−V. Reprint. Sofia: Bŭlgarski Pisatel.
Gołąbek, Eugeniusz
2010−2012 Słownik polsko-kaszubski: Słowôrz pòlskò-kaszëbsci [A Polish-Kashubian dic-
tionary]. http://www.skarbnicakaszubska.pl/slownik-polsko-kaszubski [Last accessed 26
June 2017].
Greenberg, Marc L.
1988 On the vocalization of jers in Slovak. Die Welt der Slaven 33: 43−62.
Gribble, Charles E.
1989 Omission of the Jer Vowels in Early East Slavic Manuscripts. Russian Linguistics 13:
1−14.
Grierson, Philip and Mark Blackburn
2007 Medieval European Coinage. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hamp, Eric P.
1983 Ja = Runic ek. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 27: 11−13.
Hannan, Kevin.
1996 Borders of Language and Identity in Teschen Silesia. New York: Lang.
Havlík, Antonín.
1889 K otázce jerové v staré češtině [On the jer-question in Old Czech]. Listy filologické 16:
45−51, 106−116, 342−353.
Heather, Peter
2010 Empires and Barbarians. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hermann, Joachim (ed.)
1985 Die Slawen in Deutschland. 2nd edn. Berlin: Akademie.
Hirt, Hermann
1895 Der indogermanische Akzent: Ein Handbuch. Strassburg: Trübner.
HJP = Hrvatski jezični portal [Croatian language portal]
2015 http://hjp.znanje.hr/index.php?show=main [Last accessed 26 June 2017].
Houtzagers, H. Peter
1985 The Čakavian Dialect of Orlec on the Island of Cres. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Hrinčenko, Borys
1958−1959 [1907−1909] Slovar’ ukrajins’koji movy [A dictionary of the Ukrainian lan-
guage]. Reprint. 4 vols. Kiev: Naukova Dumka.
IEW = Pokorny, J.
1959 Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 2 vols. Bern: Francke.

Authenticated
Illič-Svityč, Vladislav M.
1963 Imennaja akcentuacija v baltijskom i slavjanskom [Nominal accentuation in Baltic and
Slavic]. Moscow: Akademija Nauk SSSR.
IPA = International Phonetics Association
2005 The International Phonetic Alphabet and the IPA Chart. https://www.
internationalphoneticassociation.org/content/ipa-chart [Last accessed 26 June 2017].
Isačenko, Aleksandr. V.
1970 East Slavic Morphophonemics and the Treatment of the Jers in Russian. International
Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 13: 73−124.
ISO = International Standards Organization
1995 Transliteration of Cyrillic Characters into Latin Characters. https://www.iso.org/
standard/3589.html [Last accessed 26 June 2017].
Ivanov, Vjačeslav Vs. and Vladimir N. Toporov
1958 K postanovke voprosa drevnejšix otnošenijax baltijskix i slavjanskix jazykov [On the
status of the question concerning the oldest relationships of the Baltic and Slavic lan-
guages]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo A. N. SSSR.
Jakobson, Roman
1962 [1929] Remarques sur l’évolution phonologique du russe comparée à celle des autres
langues slaves. In: Roman Jakobson, Selected writings 1. The Hague: Mouton, 7−116.
Jakobson, Roman
1952 On Slavic diphthongs ending in a liquid. Word 8: 306−310.
Jakobson, Roman
1963 Opyt fonologičeskogo podxoda k istoričeskim voprosam slavjanskoj akcentologii: Poz-
dnij period slavjanskoj jazykovoj praistorii [An attempt at a phonological approach to
the historical questions of Slavic accentology: The late period of Slavic linguistic prehis-
tory]. American Contributions to the International Congresses of Slavists 5 1: 153−178.
Janda, Laura A.
1996 Back from the Brink. Munich: LINCOM.
Jasanoff, Jay
1983a A rule of final syllables in Slavic. Journal of Indo-European Studies 11: 139−149.
Jasanoff, Jay
1983b A reply to Schmalsteig and Kortlandt. Journal of Indo-European Studies 11: 187−190.
Jasanoff, Jay
2004a Acute vs. Circumflex. In: Adam Hyllested, Anders Richardt Jørgensen, Jenny Helena
Larsson, and Thomas Olander (eds.), Per aspera ad asteriscos: Studia indogermanica
in honorem Jens Elmegård Rasmussen sexagenarii idibus Martiis anno MMIV. (Inns-
brucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, Band 112). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen
und Kulturen der Universität, 247−255.
Jasanoff, Jay
2004b Balto-Slavic Accentuation: Telling News from Noise. Baltistica 39: 171−177.
Jasanoff, Jay
2008 The Accentual Type *vèdō, *vedetí and the Origin of Mobility in the Balto-Slavic Verb.
Baltistica 43: 339−379.
Jasanoff, Jay
2011 Balto-Slavic Mobility as an Indo-European Problem. In: Roman Sukač (ed.), From
Present to Past and Back. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 52−74.
Kalsbeek, Janneke
1998 The Čakavian dialect of Orbanići near Žminj in Istria. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Kiparsky, Valentin
1975 Russische Historische Grammatik. Vol. 3. Heidelberg: Winter.
Kiparsky, Valentin
1979 Russian Historical Grammar. Vol. 1. Translated by J. Ian Press. Ann Arbor, MI: Ardis.

Authenticated
1532 XIII. Slavic
Klemensiewicz, Zenon, Tadeusz Lehr-Spławiński, and Stanisław Urbańczyk (eds.)

1964 Gramatyka historyczna języka polskiego [Historical grammar of the Polish language].
Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Nauk.
Kolarič, Rudolf
1968 Sprachliche Analyse. In: Jože Pogačnik (ed.), Freisinger Denkmäler, Brižinski spomeni-
ki, Monumenta Frisingensia. Munich: Trofenik, 18−120.
Kolesov, Vladimir V.
1972 Istorija russkogo udarenija [A history of Russian accent]. Leningrad: Leningrad Univer-
sity Press.
Komárek, Miroslav
1962 Historická mluvnice česka [Historical grammar of Czech]. Vol. 1. Hlaskosloví [Phonet-
ics]. Prague: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství.
Kortlandt, Frederik H. H.
1975 Slavic Accentuation. Lisse: de Ridder.
1978 Proto-Indo-European Obstruents. Indogermanische Forschungen 83: 107−118.
1984 The Progressive Palatalization of Slavic. Folia Linguistica Historica 5: 211−219.
1985 Proto-Indo-European Glottalic Stops. Folia Linguistica Historica 6: 183−201.
1989 On methods of dealing with facts and opinions in a treatment of the progressive palatali-
zation of Slavic. Folia Linguistica Historica 9: 3−12.
1994 From Proto-Indo-European to Slavic. Journal of Indo-European Studies 22: 91−112.
2007 The Development of the Indo-European Syllabic Resonants in Balto-Slavic. Baltistica
42: 7−12.
2008 Balto-Slavic Phonological Developments. Baltistica 43: 5−15.
Krajčovič, Rudolf
1975 A Historical Phonology of the Slovak Language. Heidelberg: Winter.
Kral, Jurij
1927 Serbsko-němski słownik hornjołužiskeje rěče [A Sorbian-German dictionary of the Up-
per Sorbian language]. Bautzen: Domowina.
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy
1956 L’apophonie en indo-européen. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk.
Kushko, Nadiya
2007 Literary Standards of the Rusyn Language: The Historical Context and Contemporary
Situation. Slavic and East European Journal 51: 111−132.
Labov, William
1994 Principles of Language Change: Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ladefoged, Peter and Ian Maddieson
1996 The Sounds of the World’s Languages. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lencek, Rado L.
1982 The Structure and History of the Slovene Language. Columbus, OH: Slavica.
Leskien, August
1962 [1871] Handbuch der altbulgarischen (altkirchenslavischen) Sprache. 8th edn. Heidel-
berg: Winter.
Lidén, Ewald
1899 Ein baltisch-slavisches Anlautgesetz. (Göteborgs Högskolas Årsskrift 5). Gothenburg:
W. Zachrissons.

Authenticated
Lorentz, Friedrich
1908−1912 Slovinzisches Wörterbuch [Slovincian dictionary]. 2 vols. St. Petersburg: Vtoroe
Otdelenie Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk.
Lorentz, Friedrich
1925 Geschichte der pomoranischen (kaschubischen) Sprache. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Lunt, Horace G.
1966 Old Church Slavonic “*kraljь”? In: Dietrich Gerhardt (ed.), Orbis scriptus. Munich:
Fink, 483−489.
Lunt, Horace G.
1981 The Progressive Palatalization of Common Slavic. Skopje: MANI.
Lunt, Horace G.
1987 The Progressive Palatalization of Early Slavic. Folia Linguistica Historica 7: 251−290.
Lunt, Horace G.
2001 Old Church Slavonic Grammar. 7th edn. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Machek, Václav
1968 Etymologický slovník jazyka českého [Etymological dictionary of the Czech language].
Prague: Československé akademie věd.
Mareš, František
1965 The Origin of the Slavic Phonological System and its Development up to the End of
Slavic Language Unity. (Michigan Slavic Materials 6). Translated by J. F. Snopek and
A. Vitek. Ann Arbor, MI: Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, University
of Michigan.
Markov, Vladimir and Dean S. Worth (eds.)
1983 From Los Angeles to Kiev. Columbus, OH: Slavica.
Martinet, André
1955 Économie des changements phonétiques. Berne: Franke.
Marvan, Jiri
1979 Prehistoric Slavic Contraction. Translated by Wilson Gray. University Park, PA: Penn-
sylvania State University Press.
Matasović, Ranko
2004 The Proto-Indo-European Syllabic Resonants in Balto-Slavic. Indogermanische For-
schungen 109: 337−354.
Meillet, Antoine
1902 O nekotoryx anomalijax udarenija v slavjanskix imenax. Russkii filologičeskii vestnik
48: 193−200.
Meillet, Antoine
1934 Le slave commun. 2nd edn. revised by André Vaillant. Russian trans. by Peter S. Kuzne-
cov 1951. Obščeslavjanskij jazyk. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo inostrannoj literatury.
Meillet, Antoine
1967 [1922] The Indo-European Dialects. Translated by S. N. Rosenberg. University, AL:
University of Alabama Press.
Menges, Karl H.
1953 An Outline of the Early History and Migrations of the Slavs. New York: Department of
Slavic Languages, Columbia University.
Mikkola, Josef J.
1938 Die älteren Berührungen zwischen Ostseefinnisch und Russisch. Helsinki: Suomalais-
ugrilainen seura.
Miklosich, Franz
1963 [1862−1865] Lexicon palaeoslovenico-graeco-latinum. Reprint. Aalen: Scientia.
Moravcsik, Gyula
1958 Byzantinoturcica. Vol. 2. Berlin: Akademie.

Authenticated
1534 XIII. Slavic
Muka, Ernst
1926 Wörterbuch der nieder-wendischen Sprache und ihrer Dialekte. 3 vols. Prague: Czech
Academy of Sciences.
Mužić, Ivan
2007 Hrvatska povijest devetoga stoljeća [A History of 9th-century Croatia]. 2nd edn. Split:
Muzej hrvatskih arheoloških spomenika.
Nikolaev, Sergei L.
1989 Balto-slavjanskaja akcentuacionnaja sistema i ee indo-evropejskie istoki [The Balto-
Slavic accentual system and its Indo-European sources]. In: Bulatova and Dybo (eds.),
46−109.
Nikolaev, Sergei L.
1990 K istorii plemennogo dialekta krivičej [On the history of the tribal dialect of the Krivi’s].
Sovetskoe slavjanovedenie 4: 54−63.
Ohala, John J.
1975 Phonetic Explanations for Nasal Sound Patterns. In: Charles A. Ferguson, Larry M.
Hyman, and John J. Ohala (eds.), Nasalfest: Papers from a Symposium on Nasals and
Nasalization. Stanford: Language Universals Project, 289−316.
Olander, Thomas
2009 Balto-Slavic Accentual Mobility. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Olesch, Reinhold
1967 Fontes linguae dravaenopolabicae minors [Minor sources of the Polabian language].
Cologne: Böhlau.
Orr, Robert
1988 A Phantom Sound-Change. Canadian Slavonic Papers 30: 41−61.
Orr, Robert
2000 Common Slavic Nominal Morphology. Bloomington, IN: Slavica.
Piesni = Polskie zabytki wierszowane do końca XV wieku [Polish literary monuments in verse to
the end of the 15th century]
Pleteršnik, Maks
2010 [1894] Pleteršnikov Slovensko-nemški slovar [Pletersnik’s Slovenian-German dictio-
nary]. http://bos.zrc-sazu.si/pletersnik.html [Last accessed 26 June 2017].
1982 Some Remarks on the Development of Jers in Polabian. International Journal of Slavic
Linguistics and Poetics 25/26: 379−381.
1993 Polabian. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 795−824.
Priestly, Tom M. S.
1978 Affective Sound Change in Early Slavic. In: Zbigniew Folejewski, Edmund Heier,
George Luckyj, and Gunter Schaarschmidt (eds.), Canadian Contributions to the VIII
International Congress of Slavists. Ottawa: Canadian Association of Slavists, 143−166.
Priestly, Tom M. S.
1993 Slovene. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 388−451.
Pronk-Tiethoff, Saskia
2013 The Germanic Loanwords in Proto-Slavic. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
PřSl = Oldrich Hujer, Emil Smetánka, Miloš Weingart, Bohuslav Havránek, Vladimír Šmilauer,
and Alois Získal (eds.)
1935−1957 Příruční slovník jazyka českého [A reference dictionary of the Czech Language].
8 vols. Prague: Česká Akademie Věd a Uměni.
Pugh, Stefan M.
2009 The Rusyn Language. Munich: LINCOM.

Authenticated
Ramułt, Stefan
1893 Słownik języka pomorskiego cyzli kaszubskiego [A dictionary of the Pomeranian or Ka-
shubian language]. Cracow: Akademii umiejętności.
RBE = Rečnik na bŭlgarskija ezik [A dictionary of the Bulgarian language]
2015 http://rechnik.chitanka.info [Last accessed 26 June 2017].
Rječnik = Đura Daničić et al. (eds.)
1880−1976 Rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika [A dictionary of the Croatian or Serbian
language]. 23 vols. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska Akademija Znanosti i Umetnosti.
Samilov, Michael
1964 The Phoneme Jat’ in Slavic. The Hague: Mouton.
Šaxmatov, Aleksej A.
1915 Očerk drevnejšego perioda istorii russkogo jazyka. [A sketch of the oldest period of the
history of the Russian language]. Petrograd: Otd-nīe russkago i︠a︡zyka i slovesnosti Imp.
Akademīi nauk.
Scatton, Ernest A.
1993 Bulgarian. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 188−248.
Schaeken, Jos
1987 Die Kiever Blätter. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
1995 The Dawn of Slavic. New Haven: Yale Concilium on International and Area Studies.
Schenker, Alexander M. and Edward Stankiewicz (eds.)
1980 The Slavic Literary Languages. Columbus: Slavica.
SEJDP = Lehr-Spławiński, Tadeusz and Kazimierz Polański
1962−1994 Słownik etymologiczny języka Drzewian połabskich [Etymological dictionary of
the Polabian language]. 6 vols. Wrócław: Ossolineum.
Shevelov, George Y.
1965 A Prehistory of Slavic: The Historical Phonology of Common Slavic. New York: Colum-
bia University Press.
Shevelov, George Y.
1979 A Historical Phonology of the Ukrainian language. Heidelberg; Winter.
SJP = Słownik języka polskiego [A dictionary of the Polish language]
1997−2014 http://sjp.pwn.pl [Last accessed 26 June 2017].
SJS = Kurz, Josef (ed.)
1958−1997 Slovník jazyka staroslověnského [A dictionary of Old Czech]. 5 vols. Prague:
Československá akademie vĕd. Slovanský ústav / Euroslavica.
Skok, Petar
1971−1974 Etimologijski rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika [Etymological dictionary of
the Croatian or Serbian language]. 4 vols. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i
umjetnosti.
Sławski, Franciszek
1974−1979 Zarys słowotwórstwa prasłowiańskiego [Outline of Proto-Slavic word-formation].
In: Franciszek Sławski (ed.), Słownik prasłowiański [Proto-Slavic dictionary], Vol. 1:
43−141, Vol. 2: 13−60, Vol. 3: 11−19. Wrocław: Ossolineum
Sławski, Franciszek (ed.)
1961−2001 Słownik prasłowiański [Proto-Slavic dictionary]. 8 vols. Wrocław: Ossolineum.
Slovníky = Slovenské slovníky [Slovak dictionaries]
2009−2015 http://slovnik.juls.savba.sk [Last accessed 26 June 2017].
SP16 = Słownik polszczyzny XVI wieku [A dictionary of 16th-century Polish]
2010−2015 https://spxvi.edu.pl/indeks/ [Last accessed 26 June 2017].
SP17−18 = Elektroniczny słownik języka polskiego XVII i XVIII wieku [An electronic dictionary of
17th and 18th-century Polish]
2015 http://xvii-wiek.ijp-pan.krakow.pl/pan_klient/ [Last accessed 26 June 2017].

Authenticated
1536 XIII. Slavic
Srez = Sreznevskij, Izmail I.

1989 [1893−1912] Slovar’ drevnerusskogo jazyka [A dictionary of Old Russian]. Reprint.
6 vols. Moscow: Kniga.
SS = Ralja M. Cejtlin, Radoslav Večerka, and Emilie Bláhová (eds.)
1994 Staroslavjanskij slovar’ [Old Church Slavonic dictionary]. Moscow: Russkij jazyk.
SSKJ = Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika [Dictionary of the Slovenian literary language]
2000 http://bos.zrc-sazu.si/sskj.html [Last accessed 26 June 2017].
SSP = Słownik staropolski [Old Polish dictionary]
2002−2014 http://staropolska.pl/slownik/ [Last accessed 26 June 2017].
Stang, Christian S.
1957 Slavonic Accentuation. (Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo, Hist.-Fil. Klasse,
No. 3). Oslo: Aschehoug W. Nygaard.
Stang, Christian S.
1966 Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Stanislav, Ján
1967 Dejiny slovenského jazyka [History of the Slovak language]. Vol. 1. 3rd edn. Bratislava:
SAV.
Stankiewicz, Edward
1986 The Historical Phonology of Common Slavic. In: Edward Stankiewicz, The Slavic Lan-
guages: Unity in Diversity. Berlin: De Gruyter, 21−34. [Originally 1973 in International
Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 16: 179−192.]
Stankiewicz, Edward
1993 The Accentual Patterns of the Slavic Languages. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Stone, Gerald
1993 Cassubian. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 759−794.
SUM = Bilodid, Ivan K. (editor-in-chief) et al. (eds)
1970−1980 Slovnyk ukrajins’koji movy [Dictionary of the Ukrainian language]. 11 vols. Kiev:
Naukova Dumka.
Szemerényi, Oswald
1957 The Problem of Balto-Slav Unity − A Critical Survey. Kratylos 2: 97−123.
Tachiaos, Anthony-Emil
2001 Cyril and Methodius. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.
Timberlake, Alan
1983a Compensatory Lengthening in Slavic, 1. In: Markov and Worth (eds.), 207−235.
Timberlake, Alan
1983b Compensatory Lengthening in Slavic, 2. American Contributions to the International
Congresses of Slavists 9, 1: 293−319.
Timberlake, Alan
1988 The Fall of the Jers in West Slavic. Die Welt der Slaven 33: 225−247.
Timberlake, Alan
1995 Mechanisms and Relative Chronology of Polabian Sound Changes. Wiener Slawistischer
Almanach 35: 281−296.
Toft, Zoe
2002 The Phonetics and Phonology of Some Syllabic Consonants in Southern British English.
ZAS Papers in Linguistics 28: 111−144.
Topolińska, Zuzanna
1974 A Historical Phonology of the Kashubian Dialects of Polish. The Hague: Mouton.
Toporov, Vladimir N. and Oleg N. Trubačev
2009 [1962] Lingvističeskij analiz gidronimov verxnego Podneprov’ja [A linguistic analysis
of hydronyms of the upper Dnieper area]. Reprinted 2009 in Oleg N. Trubačev, Trudy
po ètimologii [Works on etymology], Vol. 4. Moscow: Akademija Nauk, 9−380.

Authenticated
Trubačev, Oleg N.
1991 Ètnogenez i kul’tura drevnejšix slavjan: Lingvističeskie issledovanija [Ethnogenesis and
culture of the oldest Slavs: linguistic investigations]. Moscow: Nauka.
TSBM = Kandrat K. Atraxovič (ed.)
1977−1984 Tlumačal’ny sloŭnik belaruskaĭ movy [An explanatory dictionary of the Bela-
rusian language]. 5 vols. Minsk: Belaruskaja Saveckaja Encyklapedyja.
Uličná, Lenka
2006 Staročeské glosy ve spisech Or zarua a Arugat ha-bosem [Old Czech glosses in the Or
zarua and Arugat ha-bosem]. Unpublished rigorosum thesis, The Charles University of
Prague.
Uličná, Lenka
2014 Staročeské glosy ve středověkých hebrejských rabínských spisech [Old Czech glosses in
medieval rabbinic Hebrew writings]. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, The Charles University
of Prague.
Vaillant, André
1950 Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Vol. 1. Paris: Lyon: IAC.
Vasil’ev, Leonid L.
1929 O značenii kamory v nekotoryx drevnerusskix pamjatnikax XVI−XVII vekov [On the
significance of the kamora in some Old Russian literary documents of the 16th−17th
centuries]. Leningrad: Akademija Nauk.
Vasmer, Max
1941 Die Slaven in Griechenland. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Vermeer, Willem
2001 Critical Observations on the Modus Operandi of the Moscow Accentological School.
In: Werner Lehfeldt (ed.), Einführung in die morphologische Konzeption der slavischen
Akzentologi. 2., verbesserte und ergänzte Auflage. Mit einem Appendix von Willem
Vermeer. (Vorträge und Abhandlungen zur Slavistik, Band 42). Munich: Sagner, 131−
161.
Vermeer, Willem
2003 Comedy of Errors or Inexorable Advance? In: Jos Schaeken, H. Peter Houtzagers, and
Janneke Kalsbeek (eds.), Dutch Contributions to the Thirteenth International Congress
of Slavists. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 397−452.
Vermeer, Willem
2008 Pedersen’s Chronology of the Progressive Palatalization. Studies in Slavic and General
Linguistics 34: 503−71.
Vlasto, Alexis P.
1970 The Entry of the Slavs into Christendom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
VW = Vokabulář webový [Web vocabulary]
2006−2015 vokabular.ujc.cas.cz/default.aspx [Last accessed 26 June 2017].
Watkins, Calvert
1965 Evidence in Balto-Slavic. In: Werner Winter (ed.), Evidence for Laryngeals. 2nd edn.
The Hague: Mouton, 116−122.
We˛glarz, W
1933 Staroczeski loc. plur. na -as w nazwach miejscowych na -any [The Old Czech loc. plur.
in -as in place-names in -any]. Slavia occidentalis 12: 34−41.
Wiese, Richard
1996 The Phonology of German. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
van Wijk, Nicolas
1956 Les langues slaves: De l’unité à la pluralité. The Hague: Mouton.
Winter, Werner
1978 The Distribution of Short and Long Vowels in Stems of the Type Lith. ésti: vèsti: mèsti
and OCS jasti: vesti: mesti in Baltic and Slavic. In: Fisiak (ed.), 431−446.

Authenticated
1538 XIII. Slavic
Xaburgaev, Georgij A.
1980 Stanovlenie russkogo jazyka [The making of the Russian language]. Moscow: Vyssaja
Skola.
1978 Novye dannye o russkix pamjatnikax XIV−XVII vekov s različeniem dvux fonem “tipa
o” [New data concerning Russians literary documents of the 14th−17th centuries from
the distinction of two phonemes “of the type o”]. Sovetskoe slavjanovedenie 3: 74−96.
1979 Akcentologičeskaja sistema drevnerusskoj rukopisi XIV veka “Merilo pravidnoe” [The
accentological system of the 14th-century old Russian manuscript “Merilo pravidnoe”].
In: Evgenija I. Demina (ed.), Slavjanskoe i balkanskoe jazykoznanie [Slavic and Baltic
linguistics]. Moscow: Nauka, 47−128.
1985 Ot praslavjanskoj akcentuacii k russkoj [From Proto-Slavic to Russian accentuation].
Moscow: Nauka.
1986 Novgorodskie berestjanye gramoty s lingvističeskoj točki zrenija [Novgorod birchbark
documents from a linguistic perspective]. In: Valentin L. Janin and Andrej A. Zaliznjak,
Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste [Novgorod birchbark documents]. Moscow: Nauka,
89−219.
1989 Perenos udarenija na proklitiki v starovelikorusskom [The transfer of accent onto proclit-
ics in Old Great Russian]. In: Bulatova and Dybo (eds.), 116−134.
1993 K izučeniju jazyka berestjanyx gramot [Toward the study of the language of the birch-
bark documents]. In: Valentin L. Janin and Andrej A. Zaliznjak, Novgorodskie gramoty
na bereste [Novgorod birchbark documents]. Moscow: Nauka, 191−343.
2004 Drevnenovgorodskij dialect [The Old Novgorod dialect]. 2nd edn. Moscow: Škola “Jaz-
yki russkoj kul’tury”.
Daniel Collins, Columbus, OH (USA)
82. The morphology of Slavic

1. Introduction 5. Non-personal pronouns
2. Nouns 6. Personal pronouns
3. Adjectives 7. Verbs
4. Numerals 8. References
1. Introduction
The Slavic system of nominal inflection is relatively conservative, with 7 cases and
singular, dual, and plural numbers. However, in many instances the grammatical endings
cannot be transparently derived from standard reconstructions of IE forms according to
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-003

Authenticated
1538 XIII. Slavic
Xaburgaev, Georgij A.
1980 Stanovlenie russkogo jazyka [The making of the Russian language]. Moscow: Vyssaja
Skola.
1978 Novye dannye o russkix pamjatnikax XIV−XVII vekov s različeniem dvux fonem “tipa
o” [New data concerning Russians literary documents of the 14th−17th centuries from
the distinction of two phonemes “of the type o”]. Sovetskoe slavjanovedenie 3: 74−96.
1979 Akcentologičeskaja sistema drevnerusskoj rukopisi XIV veka “Merilo pravidnoe” [The
accentological system of the 14th-century old Russian manuscript “Merilo pravidnoe”].
In: Evgenija I. Demina (ed.), Slavjanskoe i balkanskoe jazykoznanie [Slavic and Baltic
linguistics]. Moscow: Nauka, 47−128.
1985 Ot praslavjanskoj akcentuacii k russkoj [From Proto-Slavic to Russian accentuation].
Moscow: Nauka.
1986 Novgorodskie berestjanye gramoty s lingvističeskoj točki zrenija [Novgorod birchbark
documents from a linguistic perspective]. In: Valentin L. Janin and Andrej A. Zaliznjak,
Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste [Novgorod birchbark documents]. Moscow: Nauka,
89−219.
1989 Perenos udarenija na proklitiki v starovelikorusskom [The transfer of accent onto proclit-
ics in Old Great Russian]. In: Bulatova and Dybo (eds.), 116−134.
1993 K izučeniju jazyka berestjanyx gramot [Toward the study of the language of the birch-
bark documents]. In: Valentin L. Janin and Andrej A. Zaliznjak, Novgorodskie gramoty
na bereste [Novgorod birchbark documents]. Moscow: Nauka, 191−343.
2004 Drevnenovgorodskij dialect [The Old Novgorod dialect]. 2nd edn. Moscow: Škola “Jaz-
yki russkoj kul’tury”.
Daniel Collins, Columbus, OH (USA)
82. The morphology of Slavic

1. Introduction 5. Non-personal pronouns
1. Introduction
The Slavic system of nominal inflection is relatively conservative, with 7 cases and
singular, dual, and plural numbers. However, in many instances the grammatical endings
cannot be transparently derived from standard reconstructions of IE forms according to
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-003

Authenticated
82. The morphology of Slavic 1539
regular sound changes, and there is no consensus about the origin of certain Slavic
forms. The adjective developed a new opposition between indefinite and definite forms,
the latter created by the addition of the relative pronoun to the basic declined form. The
verbal system of Slavic is considerably simpler than that reconstructed for IE. A number
of grammatical categories were lost with little or no trace, while others were replaced
with new formations. Another innovation characteristic of the Slavic verb is the develop-
ment of aspect as a regular grammatical category.
The earliest attested Slavic language, Old Church Slavic (OCS), exhibits a morpho-
logical system that is very close to what can be reconstructed for late Proto-Slavic. In
some instances a single Proto-Slavic desinence cannot be reconstructed, so the tables
below primarily present forms that are attested in OCS, occasionally abstracting away
from specific phonological and orthographical features of this language. Unless other-
wise noted, all attested forms in the following text are cited from OCS (or occasionally
later recensions of Church Slavic), and PIE reconstructions are generally given as in
Derksen (2008).
2. Nouns
2.1. Noun derivation
Slavic does not exhibit any direct continuations of PIE root nouns; these have all been
adapted into various suffixed types, although traces of the original non-suffixed inflec-
tion may be seen in forms such as kry ‘blood’ < *kruh2-, reinterpreted in Slavic as a
suffixed y-stem (see below), or the dual forms oči ‘eyes’ < *h3ekw-, uši ‘ears’ < *h2eu̯s-,
which are generally understood as representing suffixless formations (Birnbaum 1972:
146), although these nouns have otherwise been adapted to the s- and ultimately the o-
stem declension in Slavic; e.g. uxo ‘ear’, GEN.SG ušese/uxa. The expected phonological
reflexes of some endings of the root nouns overlapped with those of the i-stems in Slavic,
so many of the original root nouns were reinterpreted as belonging to this declension;
e.g. myšь ‘mouse’ < *muHs-i-; cf. Lat. mūs. However, as already illustrated, these nouns
could also be adapted to either consonantal stem declensions or the productive (j)o- and
(j)a-stem types, with or without additional suffixes.
A number of IE consonantal suffixes are reflected as distinct inflectional types in
Slavic, although these nouns also tended to be assimilated into the productive vocalic
declensions; e.g. korenь/korę ‘root’ (M) < *kor-en-, kamy ‘rock’ (M), GEN.SG kamene <
*h2ek̑-men-, imę ‘name’ (N), GEN.SG imene < *h1n̥h3-men-, nebo ‘sky, heaven’, GEN.SG
nebese < *nebh-es-. One should note in particular the productive use in Slavic of the
*-nt suffix to derive words for young people/animals; e.g. agnę ‘lamb’, GEN.SG *agnęte;
cf. Lat. agnus. Stems in -y/-ъv < *-uH also enjoyed a certain degree of productivity, as
shown by the adaptation of loanwords and the creation of new compounds belonging to
this type; e.g. smoky ‘fig’, GEN.SG smokъve < Goth. smakka or *smakkō̃, ne-plod-y ‘bar-
ren woman’ < ne ‘not’ + plod- ‘fruit’. Nouns formed with the productive agentive suffix
-teljь, presumably a variant of the PIE agentive suffix *-ter (but cf. also Vaillant 1958:
222−223) followed the consonantal stem declension pattern in the plural and the jo-stem
declension in the singular; e.g. dělateljь ‘doer’, NOM.PL dělatele. Only two of the original

Authenticated
1540 XIII. Slavic
kinship terms in -r clearly preserved their original declension in Slavic: mati ‘mother’,
GEN.SG matere, dъšti ‘daughter’, GEN.SG dъštere. The nouns bratrъ ‘brother’, *děverь
‘husband’s brother’, sestra ‘sister’, and *nestera ‘niece’ have been adapted into the o-/
jo- and a-stem declensions, while jętry ‘husband’s brother’s wife’ has become an y-stem.
The etymon *ph2ter- ‘father’ is unattested in Slavic, except for a possible derivative
*stryjь, ChSl. stryi ‘paternal uncle’, if this reflects *ph2tr- > str- (against this hypothesis,
see Kortlandt 1982: 26). Heteroclitic stems are not attested as such in Slavic, but traces
can be found in the different shapes of cognate forms; e.g. voda ‘water’ < *u̯odōr, vědro
‘bucket’ (< *u̯ēdr-o), Russ. dial. zavon’ ‘inlet’ < *za-vodn-ь, from an original r/n-stem
(Birnbaum 1972: 149).
One of the most common productive suffixes in Slavic is the formant -k, which occurs
in combination with other suffixes and in various guises due to phonological changes.
These complex suffixes are used to derive diminutive, agentive, and other types of nouns
(in all three genders) from nouns, verbs, and adjectives; e.g. ablъko, ORuss. jablъkъ, S./
Cr. jabuka ‘apple’ from PSl. *ablo/*ablъ (cf. Sln jablo/jabel); Russ. vdovec < *vьdovьcь
‘widower’, vdovica < *vьdovica ‘widow’, from *vьdova ‘widow’ (OCS vъdova);
srьdьce ‘heart’ < *k̑r̥d-, etc. Deadjectival abstract nouns are productively derived with
the suffix -ostь, which is attested in Hittite and in isolated forms in a number of other
languages; e.g. dlъgostь ‘length’, Hitt. dalugašti- ‘length’. A competing formation in
-ota (< PIE *-teh2) has parallels in other IE languages; e.g. dlъgota, Skt dīrghatā
‘length’; nagota ‘nudity’, Lith. nuogatà, Skt nagnatā (see Vaillant 1974: 372; Witczak
2002).
Slavic exhibits compounds that were probably inherited from PIE (e.g. medvědь
‘bear’ < *medhu-h1ed-, cf. Skt madhvád- ‘honey-eater’), and compounding continued to
be used as a productive word-formation process. The different types of compounds posit-
ed for PIE are attested to a greater or lesser degree: copulative (rarely; e.g. bratъsestra
‘brother and sister’, declined as a masculine dual form in OCS), dependent determinative
(e.g. bratu-čędъ ‘brother.DAT.SG’ + ‘child’ = ‘nephew’), descriptive determinative (e.g.
lixo-klętva ‘bad, evil’ + ‘oath’ = ‘perjury’), possessive (e.g. malo-moštь ‘little’ + ‘power,
strength’ = ‘cripple; poor person’), and governing compounds (e.g. vodo-nosъ ‘water’ +
‘carry’ = ‘vessel for water’; see Pohl 1977 for a discussion of these and other examples).
As can be seen here, most compounds have a linking element which reflects the thematic
vowel. The most common type of verbal governing compound in PIE had the verb as
the second element, but in Slavic compounds with an imperative verb form as the first
element were productive; e.g. Rosti-slavъ ‘(make) grow’ + ‘glory’ (personal name),
ORuss. and ChSl. Daž(d)ь-bogъ ‘give’ + ‘god’ (name of a pagan god), S./Cr. kaži-prst
‘show’ + ‘finger’ = ‘index finger’ (Vaillant 1974: 765−767). Reduplication is attested in
a few forms; e.g. glagolъ ‘speech, word’ < PSl. *gol-gol-.
For a recent survey of Slavic nominal word-formation, see Matasović (2014), which
appeared after this chapter was written.
2.2. Noun inflection
In many instances the morphological markers of the various grammatical categories in

Slavic do not correspond with what one would expect from the PIE system reconstructed

Authenticated
on the basis of other languages and the regular sound laws of Slavic. Many scholars
have posited special phonological changes in final syllables (Auslautgesetze) to explain
these forms, but some of these proposals lack a clear phonetic motivation and may be
inconsistent with other forms or create problems of relative chronology. Other linguists
rely more on analogical changes of varying degrees of plausibility to account for the
anomalous endings. A third possibility is the reconstruction of different dialectal IE
endings as a starting point for the forms in question. Orr (2000) and Halla-aho (2006)
give comprehensive surveys of previous scholarship and arguments for and against these
different approaches (for both nominal and verbal inflection, see also Olander 2015,
which appeared after this chapter was written).
Slavic also developed variant forms of endings due to the fronting of vowels after j
(or palatal consonants derived from C+j sequences), resulting in a differentiation of the
inherited paradigms into so-called “hard” and “soft” declensional types. These forms are
separated by slash marks in Table 82.1. The a/ě alternation in the hard and soft patterns
seen in some early OCS mss. is ignored, since it is not consistently represented in these
texts and can be considered a phonetic or orthographic feature by the time of OCS. OCS
regularly has i for original ь before or after j, so the endings given as -ьjǫ, -ьje, -ьju,
-ьjь appear most often as -ijǫ, -ije, -iju, -ii. Note also that there is no separate letter in
either the Glagolitic or early Cyrillic alphabet for j.
Tab. 82.1: Noun endings

o/jo-stem a/ja-stem i-stem u-stem C-stem
SG M N M F
NOM ъ/ь о/е a, i ь ъ y, ę, o, i

ACC ъ/ь о/е ǫ ь ъ ь, = NOM
GEN a y/ę i u e
LOC ě/i ě/i i u e
DAT u ě/i i ovi i
INS omь/emь ojǫ/ejǫ ьmь ьjǫ ъmь ьmь, ьjǫ
VOC e/u = NOM o/e i u = NOM

PL M N M F
NOM/VOC i a y/ę ьje i ove e, a, i

ACC y/ę a y/ę i y i, a
GEN ъ/ь ъ/ь *ьjь ovъ ъ
LOC ěхъ/iхъ axъ ьxъ ъxъ ьxъ, еxъ
DAT omъ/emъ amъ ьmъ *ъmъ ьmъ, еmъ
INS y/i ami ьmi ъmi ьmi, y

Authenticated
1542 XIII. Slavic

DU M N
NAV a ě/i ě/i i y i, ě

GEN/LOC u u ьju ovu u
DAT/INS oma/ema ama ьma ъma ьma
2.2.1. Endings that correspond regularly to reconstructed PIE forms
Fewer than half of the endings given above can be transparently derived from standard
reconstructions of IE protoforms by regular sound changes. Such processes include the
Slavic loss of final consonants (e.g. NOM.SG i-stem -ь < *-is, u-stem -ъ < *-us, GEN.SG
o-stem -a < ABL.SG *-ōd), including the loss of a final nasal after ĭ, ŭ (e.g. ACC.SG i-
stem -ь < *-im, ACC.SG u-stem -ъ < *-um), and the monophthongization of diphthongs
(e.g. LOC.SG o-stem -ě < *-oi̯ , *-oṙ̯; jo-stem -i < *-(i̯ )ei̯ < *-(i̯ )oi̯ ; G sg. u-stem -u <
*-ou̯s). These correspondences can be found in all standard handbooks and require no
further discussion here. Note that the NOM.SG ending -i found with some soft-stem femi-
nine nouns is from the original -ih2/-i̯ eh2 type; the rest of the inflection is identical to
the ordinary (j)a-stems, apart from the VOC.SG, which was identical to the NOM.SG.
2.2.2. Endings that may reflect special sound changes in final position
The vowels *a, *ā, *o, *ō merged in Slavic as *a˘̄ , with a subsequent change of short
*a to *o in late PSl. The majority of scholars assume that PSl. *a was raised before a
nasal consonant in final position, with subsequent loss of the nasal: *-aN# > *-uN# >
-ъ. This development would account for the o-stem ACC.SG ending -ъ and the GEN.PL
-ъ, -ov-ъ of the consonantal and u-stem declensions. It has been argued that Slavic,
Umbrian, and Old Irish point to short *-om in part of IE for the o-stem GEN.PL, rather
than the expected *-ōm (e.g. Kortlandt 1978). However, the o-stem GEN.PL in Slavic
could also reflect a later shortening of the inherited ending, as is generally assumed for
the GEN.PL ending of a-stems, *-oHom, *-eh2om > *-ōm > *-om, resulting in the attested
form -ъ in both of these declensions. The jo- and ja-stems show the expected fronting
to -ь.
The neuter o-stem NOM.SG ending -o then poses a problem, since IE *-om would also
be expected to yield -ъ here. Some linguists suggest that this may reflect an original
endingless NOM.SG neuter form (see Halla-aho 2006: 117−118; Arumaa 1985: 131−132
for a discussion and references), but the -o is more often explained as a borrowing from
the pronominal declension (*tod > to) and/or analogy to the s-stem neuters. In either
case, it appears that barytone neuters kept the nasal ending and merged with masculine
nouns in Slavic (e.g. darъ ‘gift’, Gk δῶρον; dvorъ ‘court, courtyard’, if this form consti-
tutes an exact match for Skt. dvā́ram, which is first attested in late Vedic. See Hirt 1893:
348−349; Illič-Svityč 1963: 131; and Kortlandt 1975: 45).

Authenticated
A parallel development of long *-āN# > *-ūN# > -y has been posited to explain the
NOM.SG of the masculine n-stems in -y (kamy ‘stone’, plamy ‘flame’), although this is
incompatible with the development commonly posited for the 1SG present tense *-ōm >
*-āN > -ǫ. To avoid this problem, other scholars suggest that -y here reflects *-ons
(Halla-aho 2006: 166−172), *-ōns (Matasović 2008: 124), or a circumflex *-ō̃ (Jasanoff
1983; cf. also the proposed derivation of smoky < *smakkō̃ cited above). Other masculine
n-stems are attested with final -ę in the NOM.SG, probably reflecting the lengthened grade
suffix *-ēn. In OCS the NOM.SG is already being replaced by the ACC.SG form in -en-ь;
e.g. NOM.SG korę/korenь ‘root’, kamy/kamenь.
The masculine o-stem ACC.PL ending may reflect *-ōns > *-āns > *-ūns > *-ūs > -y
(Arumaa 1985: 141), although it is not necessary to reconstruct an original long vowel
here. One could also posit *-ons > *-ans > *-uns > *-ūs > -y, with lengthening in
compensation for the loss of the nasal consonant, parallel with the i- and u-stem ACC.PL
endings: *-ins > *-īs > -i, *-uns > *-ūs > -y. Most scholars derive the a-stem ACC.PL
ending in the same manner from an original *-āns or *-ans.
The development of vowel + nasal sequences in grammatical endings is obviously a
complex problem. There is a wide range of opinions about the relative chronology and
outcomes, and any coherent analysis of the phonological developments will entail differ-
ent assumptions about the original forms of some of the endings. The raising of original
o to u could arguably be seen as phonetically more likely before the Slavic merger of o
and a, and the reflexes of vowel + nasal sequences in other endings would also seem to
require a distinction between the treatment of *ăN/āN and *ŏN/ōN; e.g. a-stem ACC.SG
*-ām (> *-am) > -ǫ. Kortlandt (1979a) dates the raising of *oN# to the early Balto-
Slavic period, but treats the raising before *-Ns# as a separate process that occurred after
the merger of o and a. Matasović (2008: 123−126), on the other hand, dates the raising
after the merger of o and a, with outcomes determined by length and the presence or
absence of a following consonant: *-an > *-un > -ъ; *-ān > *-ūn > *-ą; *-āns > *-ūns
> -y. The soft declension endings also raise questions. South Slavic (including OCS) has
jo- and ja-stem ACC.PL -ę, which could be explained as the fronting of *-jūns > *-jīns, but
inexplicably without the subsequent loss of the nasal element that occurred in original
*-ūns, *-uns, and *-ins. North Slavic has -ě, which does indicate some type of denasali-
zation, but the sequence of developments resulting in this ending is unclear. Although
some of the nominal endings explained by the raising of vowels before a final nasal
could possibly be attributed to analogy to the u-stem declension, the development of
*-om > *-un > -ъ in isolated forms, such as *h1eg̑Hom > azъ ‘I’, root aorist 1SG -ъ <
*-om, and possibly the prepositions kъ(n), sъ(n), vъ(n), suggests a regular phonological
process.
Less widely accepted in the literature is the hypothesis that o was also raised to u
before s in final position, which has been proposed to account for the masculine o-stem
NOM.SG, *-os# > *-us# > -ъ. This ending has often been explained instead as the result
of analogy to the u-stem declension, where -ъ is the regularly expected outcome in both
the NOM.SG and ACC.SG. Traces of an earlier masculine NOM.SG ending *-o may be seen
in names such as OPol. Boglo, Cr. Ivo, etc. Vermeer (1991) assumes a regular develop-
ment of *-os > *-o as part of his explanation of the old North Russian NOM.SG ending
-e and the Common Slavic adoption of the u-stem VOC.SG ending -u by the jo-stems, for
which it is otherwise difficult to provide a plausible motivation. Raising of *-ōi̯ s to
*-u̯oi̯ s or *-ūi̯ s > -y would still seem to be the most plausible explanation for the o-stem

Authenticated
1544 XIII. Slavic
INS.PL ending -y. However, Mareš (1969: 116) reconstructs INS.PL *-oi̯ ns, with the nasal
reflecting a contamination of the nominal ending *-oi̯ s with the pronominal *-oi̯ mī(s).
Hujer (1910: 160−164) sees this instead as a generalization of the regularly fronted
ending of the jo-stems: *-ēi̯ s > -i, but using the corresponding back vowel -y after a hard
consonant.
Olander (2012) offers a convincing reappraisal of the idea that the masculine o-stem
NOM.SG ending -ъ represents a phonologically regular outcome of *-os#. Drawing on
several individual proposals that have been made by different scholars, he posits a gener-
al phonological rule *a˘̄ > *ə˘̄ /__ (R)s# (2012: 337), with *ə, *ǝ̄ > e, ě in the Old
Novgorod dialect and ъ, y in the rest of Slavic. The corresponding development for soft
stems would be *i̯ ə, *i̯ ǝ̄ > *jь, *jě (probably in all of Slavic; see Olander 2012: 333−
334). This rule allows us to account for a number of otherwise problematic endings; see
Olander (2012) for details.
2.2.3. Analogical replacements and innovations
If one assumes that the normal phonological outcome of *-eh2(e)s in Slavic is -a, then
the most likely explanation for the a-stem NOM.PL ending -y/ę is that it was taken from
the ACC.PL, by analogy to the syncretism of the NOM/ACC.PL for the u-stems and feminine
i-stems. Some scholars derive the a-stem GEN.SG -y/ę from an earlier *-āns, with -n
added to the inherited ending by analogy to feminine n-stems, but the fact that no femi-
nine n-stems are attested in Slavic makes this proposal unconvincing. A borrowing of
the NOM/ACC.PL ending to avoid the overlap with the NOM.SG, again by analogy to the
syncretism of these cases in the i-stems, would perhaps be a more likely explanation.
However, the idea that *-ās in these endings regularly became -y in Slavic, first proposed
by Hirt (1893: 353−355), has been accepted by a number of scholars (see Olander 2012:
331−332), and these endings would be phonologically regular according to Olander’s
rule cited above.
The origin of the o-stem DAT.SG ending -u is unclear. Proposals to account for this
include special phonological developments, *-ōi̯ > *-u̯ōi̯ > -u (Vaillant 1958: 31) or
*-ōi̯ > *-ōu̯ > -u (Kortlandt 1983: 175; Matasović 2008: 181), or the extension of a
hypothetical u-stem DAT.SG ending *-u to the o-stems (Halla-aho 2006: 208−209).
The u-stem LOC.SG -u reflects an endingless LOC.SG form *-ōu̯, with lengthened grade
of the affix (Vaillant 1958: 109; Arumaa 1985: 126).
Slavic, like Baltic and Germanic, has -m- endings in DAT and INS forms (see Darden,
this handbook, 2.2): DAT.PL endings -omъ, -аmъ, -ьmъ, -ъmъ < *-V-mus or possibly
*-V-mos; INS.PL -ami, -ьmi, -ъmi < *-V-mīs; INS.SG -omь, -ьmь, -ъmь < *-V-mi, DAT/
INS.DU -oma, -ama, -ьma, -ъma < *-V-mā.
The Slavic GEN.DU could theoretically reflect *-ou̯s > -u (-ьj-u, -ov-u in the i- and u-
stems), but Balto-Slavic more likely had a syncretic GEN/LOC.DU *-au, based on the very
limited evidence from Baltic and comparison with other IE languages (Vaillant 1958:
38−39). It is not possible to reconstruct PIE oblique dual forms because of the limited
evidence.
A few endings (in addition to the neuter o-stem NOM.SG discussed above) have been
adopted from the pronominal declension. The masculine o-stem NOM.PL ending -i reflects

Authenticated
pronominal *-oi, apparently with generalization of the expected reflex after palatals in
the jo-stems (but see Olander 2012: 332 for another explanation). The a-stem INS.SG
-ojǫ is also taken from the pronominal declension (with a nasal vowel from the character-
istic -m-), and the i-stem feminine INS.SG -ьjǫ is modeled on this.
Slavic developed a new gender distinction within o-stem masculine nouns, marked
by the replacement of the inherited ACC.SG ending by the GEN.SG -a in nouns denoting
persons. This personal/non-personal distinction was already well established by the time
of OCS, and was gradually expanded to include animals and extended to the plural and
dual in some areas. The other Slavic languages all have the animate/inanimate gender
distinction in nouns, with additional personal/non-personal distinctions in some instan-
ces.
3. Adjectives
3.1. Adjective derivation
Adjectives in Slavic are almost exclusively (j)o-stems (M, N) and (j)a-stems (F). Traces
of i-stem adjectives can be seen in a few indeclinable forms in OCS (e.g. isplьnь ‘full,
fulfilled’). Original u-stem adjectives were regularly adapted to the o- and a-stem declen-
sions by the addition of the suffix *-k; e.g. lьgъkъ ‘light, easy’, cf. Skt laghú-, Gk
ἐλαχύς; tьnъkъ ‘thin’, cf. Skt tanú-, Lat. tenuis. The most productive suffixed types are
relational adjectives in *-in- and *-isk- and possessive adjectives in *-j- and *-ov-. OCS
has a large number of compound adjectives, not all of which are calques from Greek;
e.g. maločismenьnъ ‘small in number’. Compound adjectives, particularly of the posses-
sive type, are also common in the other Slavic languages, e.g. S./Cr. gologlav ‘bare-
headed’.
3.2. Adjective inflection
Adjective forms were originally declined like nouns, and this pattern is preserved in
Slavic. The absence of any original sharp distinction between these two classes can still
be seen in a number of stems that function as either noun or adjective; e.g. zъl-ъ, -o, -a
‘evil, bad, wicked’ and zъlo ‘evil, harm, wickedness’. Slavic and Baltic developed new
definite adjective forms by adding the pronoun j- to the basic (indefinite) adjective form.
In Slavic this developed very early into a distinct declension, with a fusion of the enclitic
pronoun and the original grammatical ending into a single desinence in several of the
more complex forms, by replacing the original adjective ending with -y-/-i-; compare
masculine GEN.SG.DEF nov-a-jego ‘new’, where the two components are still transparent
in OCS, with INS.SG.DEF nov-yimь. Already in OCS we also see a tendency to contract
or further simplify these endings; e.g. novaago, novago, novymь.

Authenticated
1546 XIII. Slavic
3.3. Comparative and superlative

For the origin of the comparative forms, see Darden, this handbook, 3.4. By the time of
OCS, all but a small number of adjectives formed their comparative with the productive
suffix -ěiš-, which is a Slavic innovation. The *-ē- used to extend the inherited compara-
tive suffix is generally thought to be adverbial in origin (see Arumaa 1985: 98−99). We
cannot reconstruct a synthetic superlative form for Proto-Slavic. OCS texts typically use
just the comparative form, with the comparative or superlative reading determined by
the context. However, there are a few instances of comparative forms with the prefix
nai- < na ‘on’ + the particle i, and practically all of the modern Slavic languages form
superlatives regularly in this manner (e.g. OCS naivęšte ‘the most’, S./Cr. najveći ‘big-
gest’, Cz. největší, Pol. największy). The exception is Russian, where the few prefixed
forms in nai- are borrowings from OCS. The regular Russian superlative formation is
samyj ‘the very, itself’ + the positive degree of the adjective (Vaillant 1958: 593−595).
4. Numerals
4.1. Cardinal numerals
Slavic *(j)edin- ‘one’ can be most easily explained as representing an ablaut variant *ei̯ -
no- ‘one’ augmented by a prefix *ed- of uncertain origin; cf. (j)edъva ‘scarcely’. It is
inflected according to the pronominal declension pattern. The unprefixed form of this
numeral survives as the pronoun inъ ‘other’, but in its original meaning appears only as
the initial member of a few compounds; e.g. inorogъ ‘unicorn’. The other IE root with
the meaning ‘one’, *sem-, is the basis for the pronoun samъ ‘oneself’. Slavic dъva (M),
dъvě (N, F) derive straightforwardly from IE *duu̯oh1, *duu̯oi̯ h1, originally with oblique
pronominal dual forms: GEN/LOC dъvoju, DAT/INS dъvěma.
IE *trei̯ es ‘three’ was originally inflected as a plural i-stem, and this pattern is pre-
served in OCS. Masculine *trьje, OCS trije may represent the normal phonological de-
velopment of heterosyllabic *ei̯ , of which there are few examples, or analogy with the
zero grade of other forms. Feminine tri is presumably the extension of ACC.PL *trins >
tri to the nominative, as seen in other feminine i-stems, and neuter tri reflects original
*tri-h2. The numeral ‘four’, originally a consonantal stem, shows a similar opposition
of četyre (M) vs. četyri (N, F) in OCS. The Slavic forms point to an original *ū, which
must be a substitution for the vowel alternations *kwetu̯ōr-/*kwetu̯or-/*kwetur- in different
cases that are reconstructed on the basis of other languages.
The numerals from ‘five’ to ‘nine’ are feminine i-declension nouns with the same
stem as the corresponding ordinals, which replaced the indeclinable forms of these nu-
merals reconstructed for PIE: OCS pętь, šestь, sedmь, osmь, devętь. The form for ‘eight’
has final -m by analogy to the form for ‘seven’. In sedmь the cluster -dm- would not be
expected to survive in Proto-Slavic, and may represent a contamination of a possible
cardinal form *setь < *septm̥ and ordinal *semъ; cf. ORuss. semь ‘seven’, semъ ‘sev-
enth’ (Comrie 1992: 756−757). For ‘six’ and ‘nine’, see Darden, this handbook, 4.1.3−
4.1.4. Unlike ‘one’ through ‘four’, which were treated like modifiers, judging by the
evidence of OCS, the numerals ‘five’ through ‘nine’ were quantifiers with a following
noun in the GEN.PL.

Authenticated
The numeral ‘ten’ was a consonantal stem in -t in Balto-Slavic, probably masculine

(see Darden, this handbook, 4.1.2.). The original declensional pattern is seen most clearly
in OCS in the forms for the teens, which are formed on the pattern X-on-ten.LOC.SG
(e.g. dъva na desęte ‘12’), and in the tens, which are formed on the pattern X tens.GEN.PL
(e.g. pętь desętъ ‘50’). Already in OCS, desętь was shifting to the feminine i-stem
declension, like the numerals ‘five’ through ‘nine’.
The numeral sъto ‘100’ is a neuter noun, as in PIE, but the initial vowel of the stem
is not the expected reflex of the syllabic nasal in *k̑m̥tóm. It may represent the reflex of
an allegro form *sutom from a variant *sumtom, beside expected *simtom (see Comrie
1992: 784). For ‘1000’, see Darden, this handbook, 4.1.1.
4.2 Ordinal numerals

For the formation of the ordinal numerals ‘first’ through ‘tenth’ and ‘hundredth’, see
Darden, this handbook, 4.2. The ordinal forms of complex numbers are rarely attested
in OCS, and the modern Slavic languages have created new ordinal forms based on the
corresponding cardinals. The earliest pattern for the teens was presumably with the ordi-
nal form of the first component (e.g. pętoje na desęte ‘15 th’), and for the tens with the
ordinal form of both components (e.g. Cr. ChSl. sedmoe desetoe ‘70 th’; Vaillant 1958:
658). For ‘11 th’ OCS has jedinyi na desęte, with a definite form of jedinъ ‘one’ instead
of prъvyi ‘first’. OCS also has compound forms, either with the linking vowel o or with
an invariable NOM.SG form of the first component, and typically with the addition of the
adjectival suffix -ьn-; e.g. osmonadesęt- ‘18 th’, devętьnadesętьn- ‘19 th’, dъvadesętьn-
‘20 th’ (see Vaillant 1958: 657−659; Comrie 1992: 771−772).
4.3. Collective numerals and other forms

The Slavic collective numerals for groups of two, three, or four reflect thematic IE
formations with o-grade of the root in dъvoje, troje, and both e- and o-grade in četvero/
četvoro (in OCS proper only o-grade forms are attested, according to Comrie 1992: 809).
The higher collective numerals in Slavic are formed in analogy to the latter; e.g. pętero/
pętoro, etc. Slavic also formed derivatives of collective numerals in -ica; e.g. OCS troica
‘group of three, the Trinity’. In addition to the numerals proper, we can also mention
oba ‘both’, which has forms parallel to those of dъva ‘two’; the second component is
identical to that of Gk ἄμφω, Lat ambō, etc. < *-bhō. The word for ‘half’ is the u-stem
noun polъ, which is a Slavic innovation.
5. Non-personal pronouns
5.1. Demonstrative pronouns
Slavic originally had a three-way system of deixis, which is preserved in OCS: proximal
sь < *k̑i-, medial tъ < *to-, and distal onъ < *h2en-o-. The inherited distinction between

Authenticated
1548 XIII. Slavic
o- and i-inflection is preserved, but there are a number of innovations in individual

forms.
Tab. 82.2: Demonstrative pronouns

SG PL DU
M N F M N F M N F
NOM tъ to ta ti ta ty
ta tě tě
ACC tъ to tǫ ty ta ty
GEN togo toję těxъ
toju
LOC tomь to(j)i těxъ
DAT tomu to(j)i těmъ
těma
INS těmь tojǫ těmi
SG PL DU
M N F M N F M N F
NOM sь se si si(j)i si siję

sija si si
ACC sь se sijǫ siję si siję
GEN sego seję sixъ
seju
LOC semь se(j)i sixъ
DAT semu se(j)i simъ
sima
INS simь sejǫ simi
In the NOM.SG of the medial demonstrative, Slavic does not exhibit the s- (M, F), t- (N)
suppletion seen in other IE languages. The masculine NOM.SG form has the same ending
as o-stem nouns. The masculine/neuter LOC.SG and DAT.SG forms have -m- instead of
*-sm-, and the final -u of the DAT.SG presents the same problems as the ending of the o-
stem nouns. The masculine/neuter GEN.SG is a Slavic innovation, a remaking of an earlier
GEN or ABL form reinforced with the particle -go (Vaillant 1958: 369; Arumaa 1985:
175). The masculine/neuter INS.SG is based on the plural stem *toi-. The oblique femi-
nine singular forms are based on a stem toj-, which has also been interpreted as an
extension of the plural stem to the singular (Arumaa 1985: 176−177), but it could also
reflect a change of *-sj- > j, like *-sm- > -m- (Darden, this handbook, 5.4). Slavic has
eliminated gender distinctions in the oblique plural forms. The GEN.PL těxъ could reflect
either *toisōm or *toisom (see the discussion of the o-stem GEN.PL above), and the
DAT.PL and INS.PL have the characteristic -m-, as in the noun.
The proximal demonstrative generally exhibits the historically expected forms, apart
from the innovations seen also in the o-stem pronominal declension. The neuter NOM.SG
has se rather than historically expected *sь. The masculine NOM.PL reflects a remade
*sьji in place of expected *sьje, and the ACC.PL is based on the NOM.PL. The feminine
forms are secondary, following the same pattern as feminine nouns in -ī/-ii.

Authenticated
5.2. The anaphoric and relative pronouns

Because of the fronting of back vowels after j and the development of prothetic j before
front vowels, in Slavic the forms of the anaphoric (3 rd person) pronoun *i- and the
relative *i̯ o- fell together. The relative is distinguished from the anaphor in OCS by the
addition of the particle že. The nominative forms of the anaphoric pronoun (SG *i, *je,
*ja, PL *i, *ja, *ję, DU *ja, *i, *i) are replaced by the demonstratives tъ or onъ, with
the historically expected forms attested only as a component of the relative pronoun (e.g.
M.NOM.SG i-že ‘who, which’). The corresponding accusative forms (SG i, je, jǫ, PL ję,
ja, ję, DU ja, i, i) were enclitic. After a preposition the anaphoric/relative pronoun has a
prefixed n-; this represents the final n of the prepositions *vъn, *kъn, *sъn, which was
reanalyzed as part of the pronoun and generalized to occur after all prepositions. Other-
wise, the anaphoric/relative pronoun forms follow the same pattern as sь above.
5.3. Interrogative pronouns

Slavic also distinguishes an o- and i-stem declension for the pronominal stem *kw-, the
former used for animates and the latter for inanimates. The interrogative pronouns in
Slavic have only singular forms, with no gender distinctions. The interrogative ‘who?’
has adopted the GEN form for the ACC, like animate masculine nouns. The NOM of ‘who?’
was reinforced by the addition of -to already in Proto-Slavic, while for the interrogative
‘what?’ this does not appear to have been a common Slavic development, since a number
of languages have reflexes of the shorter form *čь; e.g. OPol. we-cz ‘in what?’, Cr.
čakavian dialects ča ‘what?’. The oblique forms of ‘what?’ are the only pronominal
forms in Slavic that retain the original GEN ending and the *-sm- of the DAT and LOC
forms, although the latter have been reshaped by analogy to the GEN česo as well as
other pronominal forms.
Tab. 82.3: Interrogative pronouns

‘who’ ‘what’
NOM kъ-to
čь-to
ACC
kogo
GEN česo
LOC komь česomь
DAT komu česomu
INS cěmь čimь
6. Personal pronouns
Forms attested in early Slavic texts are given in Table 82.4; clitic forms are listed after
the comma. Those with cognates in other IE languages and for which a Balto-Slavic
form can be reasonably reconstructed are discussed in Darden, this handbook, 6.

Authenticated
1550 XIII. Slavic
Tab. 82.4: Personal pronouns

‘I’ ‘you.SG’ ‘oneself’
NOM (j)azъ (ja) ty −
ACC mene, mę tebe, tę sebe, sę
GEN mene tebe sebe
LOC mьně/mъně tebě/tobě sebě/sobě
DAT mьně/mъně, mi tebě/tobě, ti sebě/sobě, si
INS mъnojǫ tobojǫ sobojǫ
‘we’ ‘you.PL’ ‘we two’ ‘you two’

NOM my vy vě
va/vy
ACC nasъ, ny vasъ, vy na/ny
GEN nasъ vasъ
naju vaju
LOC nasъ vasъ
DAT namъ, ny vamъ, vy
nama, na vama, va
INS nami vami
1SG ja is attested in ORuss. and is the form used in most of the modern Slavic languages
and dialects, so it is likely that this shorter form already existed as a variant in Proto-
Slavic. The forms of the genitive for the various pronouns were adopted as stressed
forms for the accusative, parallel to the development of the animate accusative forms in
nouns, while the inherited (originally tonic) accusative forms became clitics. The inherit-
ed GEN.PL and LOC.PL forms were apparently reanalyzed as na-sъ, va-sъ and these stems
were combined with the nominal endings for the DAT.PL and INS.PL. Since the latter
forms look like a-stem nouns, this may explain the final -ě, -ojǫ in the DAT.SG and INS.SG
forms (Vaillant 1958: 450). The oblique dual forms also follow the same patterns as
nouns and demonstrative pronouns, using the stems na-, va- of the plural.
The possessive pronouns 1SG *mojь, 2SG *tvojь, REFL *svojь reflect IE *mo-, *tu̯o-,
*su̯o- with the addition of a suffix *-i̯ o. The plural possessives našь, vašь are more
recent formations, built on the genitive forms with the addition of the *-jь (< *-i̯ o) suffix
used to form possessive adjectives (Vaillant 1958: 465). There were no possessive forms
for the dual 1 st/2 nd persons or for the 3 rd person pronoun; possession was indicated by
using the genitive case.
7. Verbs
7.1. Verb derivation
The inflectional system of the Slavic verb is based on the relationship between a present
stem and an infinitive/aorist stem. Only four old athematic present tense formations are

Authenticated
attested in OCS, and the corresponding INF/AOR stems are built in different ways. For
the copula jesmь (1SG) < *h1es-, the INF/AOR stem is suppletive: by-ti (INF) < *bhuH-.
The verb věmь ‘know’ < *u̯oi̯ d- has an INF/AOR in *-ē-, věd-ě-ti. Both damь ‘give’ and
ěmь/jamь ‘eat’ use the bare root for the INF/AOR: da-ti < *deh3-, ěs-ti/jas-ti < PSl.
*ēd-. There are only traces of reduplicated forms. Apart from a few verbs with expressive
reduplication of the entire root, we have only (1SG) deždǫ (thematic, with the suffix -je),
dě-ti ‘do, say, put’ < *dheh1-, and probably damь, 3PL dadętъ ‘give’ (see Arumaa 1985:
210−211).
There are a number of thematic presents based on a bare root, which use either the
root or root + *-ā- for the INF/AOR; e.g. nes-e-, nes-ti ‘carry’ < *h1nek̑- and ber-e-, bьr-
a-ti ‘take’ < *bher-. Other primary verbs derived with unproductive suffixes and the few
verbs with a nasal infix also have the bare stem for the INF/AOR; e.g. ži-ve-, ži-ti <
*gwih3- and sęd-e-, sěs-ti < *sed-. Slavic has a productive type of present with the suffix
-ne, which is used to form inchoatives, verbs which indicate the gradual acquisition of
a certain quality (derived from adjectives), or semelfactives, and which can be related
to several different nasal suffix formations in IE (see Birnbaum and Schaeken 1997: 87−
88). These verbs typically have infinitive stems with the suffix -nǫ, the origin of which
is not entirely clear (see Arumaa 1985: 225−226), but lack the nasal suffix in the aorist;
e.g. dvig-ne-, INF dvig-nǫ-ti, AOR.1SG dvig-ъ/dvig-oxъ ‘move’. Roots ending in a vowel
have the -nǫ in the aorist as well; e.g. mi-ne-, mi-nǫ-ti, mi-nǫ-xъ ‘pass’. The most wide-
spread present suffix is -je, which is used to form a number of different types of verbs,
with different corresponding INF/AOR stems. The oldest group is based on (mainly) e-
grade roots, like the primary thematic present forms above, and also have either the root
or root + *-ā- for the INF/AOR stem; e.g. zna-je-, zna-ti ‘know’ < *g̑neh3- and češ-e- <
*kes-je, čеs-a-ti ‘scratch, comb’. The INF/AOR in -a- corresponding to a present in -je-
is also characteristic of denominal verbs and various expressive forms; e.g. glagol-je-,
glagol-a-ti ‘speak’ < glagolъ ‘speech, word’. There are also productive types in -a-je
(deverbal imperfectives, usually iterative), -ě-je (denominal/deadjectival intransitives),
and u-je (denominal/deadjectival), with corresponding INF/AOR stems in -a-, -ě-, and -ov-
a, respectively; e.g. pad-a-je-, pad-a-ti ‘fall’ < pad- ‘fall’; um-ě-je-, um-ě-ti ‘know (how
to do something)’ < umъ ‘mind’; věr-u-je-, věr-ov-a-ti ‘believe’ < věra ‘faith, belief’.
The -a-je- and -u-je- types were also used to adapt many borrowings.
In addition to the thematic present tense forms, Slavic has a present formation with
1SG -jǫ and a suffix -ī in the other forms, which is sometimes referred to as “half-
thematic” in the literature. The corresponding INF/AOR stems are built either with the
suffix -ī or -ě. For the origin of these types, see Darden, this handbook, 7.4.2 and 7.5.2.
Derivational morphology is used to express aspectual relationships, as already men-
tioned for certain suffixes above. Slavic has a rich system of verbal prefixes, which in
addition to modifying the lexical meaning also typically change an imperfective verbal
stem to perfective. Corresponding imperfectives with the same meaning are then derived
by suffixation; e.g. perfective otъ-vratiti ‘to turn away’, imperfective otъ-vraštati.
7.2. Verb inflection

The verbal system of Slavic is considerably simpler than that reconstructed for PIE.
There is no middle voice or synthetic perfect conjugation. Of the modal forms, only the

Authenticated
1552 XIII. Slavic
optative survives (as the imperative). The aorist became a simple past tense and the
original imperfect was replaced by a new formation. Slavic developed new periphrastic
forms for some categories, as well as a new system of grammatical aspect, in which
every action is characterized as perfective or imperfective, using two derivationally relat-
ed verbs.
7.2.1. Present tense
The present tense endings follow the general pattern reconstructed for the primary end-
ings in PIE, although a few forms do not correspond exactly to the traditional reconstruc-
tions of these endings. The latter can be more easily explained with the revised picture
of the thematic declension developed by some linguists since the 1960s (see Beekes
1995: 252 for a summary of this newer reconstruction in tabular form), but not all
scholars accept this view (e.g. Cowgill 1985, 2006). In most instances a single desinence
has been generalized for both athematic and thematic verbs, the only difference being
the presence or absence of the original thematic vowel. Where distinct forms do exist,
the verbs with present tense stems in -ī behave like thematic verbs.
For the first person singular, Slavic has athematic -mь < *-mi and thematic -ǫ, which
most likely reflects *-oH plus a nasal consonant, either from the primary or secondary
athematic 1SG (for a different view, see Kortlandt 1979b: 56−57). For the verb věděti
‘know’, there is also a unique 1SG form vědě, representing an original perfect *u̯oi̯ da + i.
OCS has athematic 2SG -si, thematic -ši, which cannot come from *-si. Some scholars
have explained these as reflexes of the mediopassive ending *-soi̯ (see Cowgill 2006:
553−554), but this seems unlikely. Based on the newer reconstruction of the thematic
endings, the OCS endings could be interpreted as a contamination of athematic *-si with
the thematic ending *-eh1i. In either case, the thematic ending must reflect a generaliza-
tion of the “ruki” reflex -š (cf. Collins, this handbook, 2.5) after all stems ending in a
vowel (including athematic imamь, imaši ‘have’). There is a single instance of athematic
-sь < *-si in the Kiev Fragments (podasь ‘give’). Тhe Freising Fragments appear to have
some instances of thematic -š(ь) and there is fairly early attestation of 2SG -šь in ORuss.
Given that all of the modern Slavic languages also have thematic 2SG -š < -šь, it is
reasonable to posit a variant form *-šĭ for Proto-Slavic.
For the 3SG and 3PL, OCS has forms ending in -tъ for both athematic and thematic
verbs (e.g. dastъ, dadętъ ‘give’; beretъ, berǫtъ ‘take’). ORuss. has -tь < *-ti for both
types, while 3 rd person endings with no final consonant are also attested for thematic
verbs in OCS and in many other Slavic languages (e.g. Marianus bǫde ‘be.FUT.3SG’,
Suprasliensis xъšte ‘want.PRS.3SG’; Vaillant 1966: 227). In the traditional reconstruction,
the ORuss. form would represent the inherited ending, with -tъ and -Ø as secondary
developments within Slavic. If one accepts the newer reconstruction, the 3SG forms
without a final consonant could reflect the original endingless thematic form, with the
addition of pronominal -tъ in OCS and extension of athematic *-ti in ORuss. The nasal
vowel in the 3PL points to original *-nti or *-nt in Slavic, with the various attested forms
remade by analogy to the 3SG.
Slavic has a variety of 1PL forms, which are the same for both athematic and thematic
verbs. OCS normally has -mъ, with a newer ending -my that began to appear first in

Authenticated
athematic verbs, then spread to other types. The other Slavic languages have -m < -mъ,
as well as -my, -me, and -mo. The form -mъ can be interpreted as a reflex of *-mos, with
the same special phonological development of *-os# posited for the o-stem NOM.SG by
some scholars, but a development from the more recent reconstruction of a thematic 1PL
*-mom would also be phonologically plausible. 1PL -me and -mo could also reflect
*-mes/-mos or possibly the secondary ending without the final consonant, while -my is
undoubtedly a Slavic innovation, by analogy to the 1PL pronoun my. Note that Slavic
generalized the thematic vowel -e- for the 1PL (and 1DU) present tense in place of -o-;
e.g. 1PL beremъ.
The 2PL ending is -te < *-th1e. The dual forms are similar to those attested for other
IE languages: OCS 1DU -vě , 2DU -ta, 3DU -te, -ta. The 1DU ending seems to have been
modeled on the corresponding pronoun vě. Other old Slavic languages also have -va,
which corresponds with Lith. -va and Skt -vas.
7.2.2. Aorist
OCS has three types of aorist forms: a (thematic) root aorist, which is attested for only
a small number of verbs, a sigmatic aorist, and a newer productive aorist based on the
sigmatic type. There is no evidence for an augment vowel in any of these forms. The
personal endings reflect the PIE secondary endings, with some mixing of the athematic
and thematic types, as seen above for the present tense.
The root aorist is the most archaic type and represents a continuation of either the IE
thematic aorist or imperfect (Arumaa 1985: 297). The endings are mostly a straightfor-
ward continuation of the secondary thematic verbal endings; e.g., 1SG pad-ъ < *-om
‘fall’, 2/3SG pad-e < *-es, *-et, 2PL pad-ete < *-ete, 3PL pad-ǫ < *-ont. 1PL pad-omъ
and 1DU pad-ově have the same ending as the present tense, but with the original o-
grade of the theme vowel. The other dual forms also have the same endings as the
present tense. Stems ending in a vowel have athematic 2/3SG forms; e.g. 2/3SG da ‘give’.
Verbs with alternating stress patterns appear fairly regularly with final -tъ in the 2/3SG,
as in the 3SG present tense (e.g. 2/3SG umьrě-tъ ‘die’). Athematic verbs have -stъ, which
can be explained as the regular change of the stem final -d > s before t or as a continua-
tion of an athematic sigmatic aorist form (Vaillant 1966: 56).
The original formation of the sigmatic aorist, with lengthened grade of the root + s
+ athematic endings, is still discernible in OCS, and there are direct correspondences
with Indo-Iranian; e.g. Skt a-vākṣ-am, OCS věs-ъ ‘carry, transport’ < *(h1e-)u̯ēg̑ h-s-. The
first person forms in Slavic are thematic, and we see the regular development of s > x/
š after r, u, k, i and before a vowel; e.g. rek- ‘say’, 1sg rěxъ, 1PL rěxomъ, 2PL rěste, 3PL
rěšę < *rēk-s-n̥t. The 2/3SG is based on the root aorist, with no lengthening; e.g. rečе.
Slavic created a new productive aorist formation on the basis of the “ruki” variants
of the s-aorist, but without any ablaut in the stem; e.g. děla- ‘make, do’, děla-xъ, děla,
děla-xomъ, děla-ste, děla-šę. Stems ending in a consonant insert a theme vowel: rek-
oxъ, reče, rek-oxomъ, rek-oste, rek-ošę. Some of the other Slavic languages have differ-
ent endings for the 1PL, as in the present tense, and may exhibit an athematic formation;
e.g. OCz. vedechme ‘we led’.

Authenticated
1554 XIII. Slavic
7.2.3. Imperfect
Slavic replaced the PIE imperfect with a new formation, based on a suffix -ax- added to
a stem in -ě or -a, with secondary thematic endings (see Darden, this handbook, 7.7 for
a discussion of the origin of these forms); e.g. nes- ‘carry’, nesěaxъ, nesěaše, nesěaxomъ,
nesěašete, nesěaxǫ. The verb ‘to be’ has aorist-like forms with a stem bě- (1SG běxъ,
3PL běšę) for the imperfect, as well as the pattern seen in other verbs (1SG běaxъ, 3PL
běaxǫ).
7.2.4. Imperative
The Slavic imperative continues the PIE optative in *-i̯ eh1/-ih1, although there are a
number of unresolved questions about the development of certain forms. As an example
of the thematic declension, we may cite 2SG beri ‘take’ < *bheroi̯ h1s, 3SG beri <
bheroi̯ h1t, 1PL berěmъ < *bheroi̯ h1me (with -mъ as in other forms with original secondary
endings), 2PL berěte < *bheroi̯ h1te. As in the NOM.PL of o-stem nouns and pronouns, we
seem to have an irregular development of *-ōi̯ (< *-oi̯ h1) to -i in the 2/3SG, as indicated
by the reflexes of the second palatalization of velars; e.g. rьci ‘say’ (but cf. also Olander
2012: 332). Verbs with a present in -je regularly have *-ōi̯ > *-ēi̯ > -i because of the
palatal consonant, and the verbs with a present in -ī and the athematic verbs reflect the
zero grade *-ih1. The athematic singular forms daždь ‘give’, jaždь ‘eat’, věždь ‘know’
must reflect a final sequence of *-djĭ, but athematic verbs in other IE languages had the
full grade of the optative suffix in the singular, and the development of these forms
remains unclear (see Vaillant 1966: 34; Arumaa 1985: 311). The only 3PL imperative
form attested in OCS, bǫdǫ ‘be’, is unlikely to reflect the original optative ending
*-oi̯ h1nt and may instead continue an injunctive *bhundont (Arumaa 1985: 311). Apart
from the imperative, the original optative is the most likely origin for the conditional
paradigm of ‘be’: bimь, bi, bi, bimъ, biste, bišę/bǫ (the latter again perhaps an original
injunctive), rather than reflecting an original preterite as proposed by some scholars; but
the ablaut of the singular and the 1SG ending cannot be original (Vaillant 1966: 34;
Arumaa 1985: 318). Other 1SG forms attested in OCS (e.g. bǫděmь ‘may I be’, priměmь
‘may I receive’) are likewise newer formations.
7.2.5. Periphrastic forms
Slavic developed a new periphrastic perfect and pluperfect, using the auxiliary verb ‘be’
plus the l-participle (see below); e.g. (j)esi vъzęlъ ‘(you) have taken’, běaxǫ prišьli
‘(they) had come’. A future perfect formed with the future of ‘be’ plus the l-participle
is also attested rarely in OCS. The conditional mood is expressed by the conditional
(later aorist) forms of ‘be’ plus the l-participle. No distinct future tense can be recon-
structed for Proto-Slavic. OCS texts use present tense verb forms with future meaning,
or form periphrastic futures with načęti/vъčęti ‘begin’ or, more commonly, iměti ‘have’.
Constructions with xotěti ‘want’ also occur, but not with a purely future meaning accord-
ing to Vaillant (1966: 107). Some modern Slavic languages regularly use the present

Authenticated
tense forms of perfective verbs for the perfective future. Otherwise, the modern Slavic
languages form the future with the auxiliaries ‘want’, ‘have’, or the future of ‘be’.
7.3. Nominal forms
Slavic has a number of participial and other non-finite forms with cognates in other IE
languages. The present active participle is formed with the suffix *-nt-, *-nt-i̯ - and has
a mixture of athematic and thematic endings; e.g. NOM.SG M/N nesy ‘carrying’, F nesǫšti.
The NOM.SG -y reflects a special phonological development of original *-onts, possibly
different from final *-ons, judging by the occurrence of NOM.SG -a in North Slavic (e.g.
ORuss., OCz. bera ‘taking’). A variety of different explanations have been proposed for
these forms; see, for example, Kortlandt (1979a, 1983: 179−180); Holzer (1980); Orr
(2000: 174−184); Halla-aho (2006: 172−173); and Olander (2012: 333). The je- and i-
presents regularly have -ę from *-i̯ ents < *-i̯ onts and *-īnts. The past active participle
continues the perfect active participle in *-u̯es-. Slavic has zero grade *-us-, *-us-i̯ - and
the same declension as for the present active participle; e.g. nesъ, nesъši. The past
passive participles reflect verbal adjectives with the suffixes *-to-, *-no-; e.g., prostrъtъ
‘stretched’, viděnъ ‘seen’, and neuter verbal substantives are formed from the same stems
with the addition of -ьj-e. Slavic also has a present passive participle formed with the
suffix *-mo-, as in Baltic (e.g. nesomъ ‘being carried’) and a participle in *-lo- used to
form the perfect (e.g. neslъ). Apart from Slavic, forms in *-lo- became part of the verbal
system only in Armenian and Tocharian, and purely adjectival forms also exist in Slavic;
e.g. teplъ ‘warm’, obilъ ‘abundant’. The infinitive ending -ti reflects the LOC.SG of an
abstract verbal noun in *-ti, and the supine -tъ reflects the ACC.SG of an abstract verbal
noun in *-tu.
8. References
Arumaa, Peeter
1985 Urslavische Grammatik. Einführung in das vergleichende Studium der slavischen Spra-
chen. III. Band. Formenlehre. Heidelberg: Winter.
1995 Comparative Indo-European linguistics. An introduction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Birnbaum, Henrik
1972 Indo-European nominal formations submerged in Slavic. In: Dean Worth (ed.), The
Slavic word: Proceedings of the International Slavistic Colloquium at UCLA, September
11−16, 1970. The Hague: Mouton, 142−163.
Birnbaum, Henrik and Jos Schaeken
1997 Das altkirchenslavische Wort. Bildung-Bedeutung-Herleitung. Munich: Sagner.
Comrie, Bernard
1992 Balto-Slavonic. In: Jadranka Gvozdanović (ed.), Indo-European numerals. Berlin: Mou-
ton de Gruyter, 717−833.
Cowgill, Warren
1985 The personal endings of thematic verbs in Indo-European. In: Bernfried Schlerath (ed.),
Grammatische Kategorien: Funktion und Geschichte. Akten der VII. Fachtagung der

Authenticated
1556 XIII. Slavic
Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Berlin, 20.−25. Februar 1983. Wiesbaden: Reichert,

109−118.
Cowgill, Warren
2006 The personal endings of thematic verbs in Indo-European (longer version of Cowgill
1985). In: Jared S. Klein (ed.), The Collected writings of Warren Cowgill. Ann Arbor:
Beech Stave, 535−567.
Derksen, Rick
2008 Etymological dictionary of the Slavic inherited lexicon. Leiden: Brill.
Diehls, Paul
1963 Altkirchenslavische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter.
Halla-aho, Jussi
2006 Problems of Proto-Slavic historical nominal morphology. Helsinki: Dept. of Slavonic
and Baltic Languages and Literatures, University of Helsinki.
Hirt, Hermann
1893 Zu den slavischen Auslautsgesetzen. Indogermanische Forschungen 2: 337−364.
Holzer, Georg
1980 Die urslavischen Auslautgesetze. Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch 26: 7−27.
Hujer, Oldřich
1910 Slovanská deklinace jmenná [Slavic nominal declension]. Prague: Náklad České akade-
mie.
1963 Imennaja akcentuacija v baltijskom i slavjanskom [Nominal accentuation in Baltic and
Slavic]. Moscow: Akademija Nauk SSSR.
Jasanoff, Jay
1983 A rule of final syllables in Slavic. Journal of Indo-European Studies 11: 139−149.
Kortlandt, Frederik
1975 Slavic accentuation. A study in relative chronology. Lisse: de Ridder.
Kortlandt, Frederik
1978 On the history of the genitive plural in Slavic, Baltic, Germanic, and Indo-European.
Lingua 45: 281−300.
Kortlandt, Frederik
1979a On the history of the Slavic nasal vowels. Indogermanische Forschungen 84: 259−272.
Kortlandt, Frederik
1979b Toward a reconstruction of the Balto-Slavic verbal system. Lingua 49: 51−70.
Kortlandt, Frederik
1982 IE *pt in Slavic. Folia linguistica historica 3: 25−28.
Kortlandt, Frederik
1983 On final syllables in Slavic. Journal of Indo-European Studies 11: 167−185.
Mareš, František
1969 Diachronische Phonologie des Ur- und Frühslavischen. Munich: Sagner.
Matasović, Ranko
2008 Poredbenopovijesna gramatika hrvatskoga jezika [A comparative historical grammar of
the Croatian language]. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska.
Matasović, Ranko
2014 Slavic nominal word-formation: Proto-Indo-European origins and historical develop-
ment. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.
Olander, Thomas
2012 Proto-Indo-European *-os in Slavic. Russian linguistics 36: 319−341.
Olander, Thomas
2015 Proto-Slavic inflectional morphology: A comparative handbook. Leiden-Boston: Brill
Orr, Robert
2000 Common Slavic nominal morphology. A new synthesis. Bloomington, IN: Slavica.

Authenticated
83. The syntax of Slavic 1557
Pohl, Heinz Dieter

1977 Die nominalkomposition im Alt- und Gemeinslavischen. Ein Beitrag zur slavischen, in-
dogermanischen und allgemeinen Wortbildung. Klagenfurt: Klagenfurter Sprachwissen-
schaftliche Gesellschaft.
Vaillant, André
1958 Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Tome II. Morphologie (Flexion nominale,
Flexion pronominale). Lyon: IAC.
Vaillant, André
1966 Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Tome III. Le verbe. Paris: Klincksieck.
Vaillant, André
1974 Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Tome IV. La formation des noms. Paris:
Klincksieck.
Vermeer, Willem
1991 The mysterious North Russian nominative singular ending -e and the problem of the
reflex of Proto-Indo-European *-os in Slavic. Die Welt der Slaven 36: 271−293.
Witczak, Krzysztof
2002 Indo-European abstracta ending with -osti. The Ossetic evidence. Lingua Posnaniensis
44: 175−179.
83. The syntax of Slavic

1. Introduction 5. Word order
2. Word classes 6. Sentence syntax
3. Nominal morphosyntax and adpositional 7. References
phrases
4. Verbal morphosyntax and periphrastic
formations
1. Introduction
This chapter will analyze the syntax of Slavic languages, taking into account their dia-
chronic development from Proto-Slavic to the current stages. Proto-Slavic was not re-
corded; therefore all forms coming from this language are reconstructed. Since syntactic
patterns are much more difficult to reconstruct than morphological forms, the empirical
basis for the investigation pursued in this chapter will be Old Church Slavonic (OCS),
which is the first literary and liturgical Slavic language. The manuscripts written in Old
Church Slavonic come from the end of the 10 th century; they are translations of Greek
ecclesiastical texts made by two monks from Salonika, Constantine (Cyril) and Methodi-
us. The monks’ native dialect was presumably South-Eastern Macedonian, but since they
had been delegated by the Byzantine Emperor Michael III to go to Moravia, the texts
may have been influenced by local Moravian varieties as well.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-004

Authenticated
Pohl, Heinz Dieter

1977 Die nominalkomposition im Alt- und Gemeinslavischen. Ein Beitrag zur slavischen, in-
dogermanischen und allgemeinen Wortbildung. Klagenfurt: Klagenfurter Sprachwissen-
schaftliche Gesellschaft.
Vaillant, André
1958 Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Tome II. Morphologie (Flexion nominale,
Flexion pronominale). Lyon: IAC.
Vaillant, André
1966 Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Tome III. Le verbe. Paris: Klincksieck.
Vaillant, André
1974 Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Tome IV. La formation des noms. Paris:
Klincksieck.
Vermeer, Willem
1991 The mysterious North Russian nominative singular ending -e and the problem of the
reflex of Proto-Indo-European *-os in Slavic. Die Welt der Slaven 36: 271−293.
Witczak, Krzysztof
2002 Indo-European abstracta ending with -osti. The Ossetic evidence. Lingua Posnaniensis
44: 175−179.
83. The syntax of Slavic

2. Word classes 6. Sentence syntax
3. Nominal morphosyntax and adpositional 7. References
phrases
4. Verbal morphosyntax and periphrastic
formations
1. Introduction
This chapter will analyze the syntax of Slavic languages, taking into account their dia-
chronic development from Proto-Slavic to the current stages. Proto-Slavic was not re-
corded; therefore all forms coming from this language are reconstructed. Since syntactic
patterns are much more difficult to reconstruct than morphological forms, the empirical
basis for the investigation pursued in this chapter will be Old Church Slavonic (OCS),
which is the first literary and liturgical Slavic language. The manuscripts written in Old
Church Slavonic come from the end of the 10 th century; they are translations of Greek
ecclesiastical texts made by two monks from Salonika, Constantine (Cyril) and Methodi-
us. The monks’ native dialect was presumably South-Eastern Macedonian, but since they
had been delegated by the Byzantine Emperor Michael III to go to Moravia, the texts
may have been influenced by local Moravian varieties as well.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-004

Authenticated
1558 XIII. Slavic
Slavic languages show remarkably lax word order patterns, which often reflect the
ordering of information presented in a clause: constituents representing old information
come first, whereas those carrying new information come last. However, the unmarked
order is consistently Subject-Verb-Object. Traditionally, Slavic languages are divided
into three subgroups: East, West, and South Slavic. West and South Slavic languages are
pro-drop languages, which means that they allow subject omission, unless the subject is
focused or topicalized. East Slavic languages are not pro-drop, and the subject cannot
be normally omitted, unless it is a topic. In subject-less structures the clause-initial posi-
tion is usually occupied by the verb (a participle in periphrastic tense constructions) or
an adverbial. South Slavic languages have pronominal and auxiliary clitics, which are
either adjacent to the verb (as in Bulgarian and Macedonian) or always occur in a uni-
form order after the first syntactic constituent in a sentence (as in Serbian, Croatian,
Slovene, as well as in Czech and Slovak, which belong to the West Slavic group).
Contemporary East Slavic languages do not have pronominal or auxiliary clitics.
Given space limitations, the focus of this chapter is placed on those elements of
Slavic syntax that are not commonly found in other Indo-European languages and there-
fore deserve special mention. Consequently, it examines at some length the properties
of the Slavic periphrastic tense, which is formed with the auxiliary ‘be’ as the unique
auxiliary in all contexts, as well as multiple wh-movement, which involves fronting all
the wh-elements (that is, question words such as what and who in English) to clause-
initial position. Moreover, this chapter will also concentrate on those properties of syntax
that are assumed to be typical of Proto-Indo-European, but which were lost in most
languages that subsequently evolved with the notable exception of Slavic. Hence, it
contains a detailed discussion of the development of second position cliticization, which
according to Wackernagel (1892) was a basic syntactic pattern of Proto-Indo-European,
and which is currently found in some South and West Slavic languages.
2. Word classes
Word classes in Slavic include nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs, pronouns, adpositions,
conjunctions, and interjections. Old Church Slavonic had a rich system of participles;
they were all specified for voice (active or passive) and tense (present or past). This
system has been preserved to various degrees in contemporary Slavic languages. All
Slavic languages except Bulgarian and Macedonian lack articles.
3. Nominal morphosyntax and adpositional phrases

Nominal categories in Slavic are specified for number, gender, and in some instances,
also for definiteness. Most Slavic languages have seven morphological cases including
vocative. The only exceptions are Bulgarian and Macedonian, which have lost case on
nouns and currently only show some case distinctions on pronouns. The case system in
Proto-Slavic was inherited from Late Proto-Indo-European with slight modifications: the
forms covered by ablative syncretized with the genitive (Stieber 1971: 9; Schenker 2002:
85). There were three numbers (singular, dual, and plural) in Old Church Slavonic, on

Authenticated
a par with other Indo-European languages, but the dual form fell out of regular use in
all contemporary Slavic languages apart from Slovene and Upper and Lower Sorbian.
3.1. Articles
Bulgarian and Macedonian, the only two Slavic languages that have lost morphological
case are also the only ones that have the definite article. The article occurs as an enclitic
after the first element in a noun phrase. Thus, if the noun is the only element in an NP,
the article cliticizes on it; if there are more elements in the NP, the article follows the
first one, such as the adjective in (1b).
(1) a. momce-to
boy-the
b. goljamo-to momce
big-the boy
(Bulgarian, Giusti 2002)
There were no articles in Old Church Slavonic per se, but the demonstratives j- and tъ
were used as pronouns and formed part of the adjectival declension. These demonstra-
tives declined for gender, number, and case, and tъ was the source of the article in
Bulgarian and Macedonian. It is difficult to establish when the demonstrative tъ gram-
maticalized into the article, and the topic is a matter of some controversy. Dimitrova-
Vulchanova and Vulchanov (2012) observe that the Codex Suprasliensis, an Old Church
Slavonic manuscript from the 11 th century, contains a homophonous element which may
function either as a demonstrative or an enclitic article. When used as an article, this
element lacks the deictic function of the demonstrative and may cliticize on different
categories within the nominal expression. Moreover, in relics from the 10 th−12 th century
the article and the demonstrative occur in complementary distribution. The article may
also appear in contexts in which it is absent in the Greek texts that were the source for
the Slavic translation, so it seems it may have emerged as an independent category
already at that stage.
There are a number of syntactic differences between those Slavic languages with
articles and those which lack the article. For example, only the latter permit Left-Branch
Extraction, exemplified in (2). See Bošković (2005) for a discussion of more syntactic
contrasts between the two types of languages.
(2) a. *Kakvai prodade Petko [ti kola]?

what-kind-of sold Petko car
‘What kind of a car did Petko sell?’
a’. Kakva kolai prodade Petko ti?
(Bulgarian)
b. Kakvai si kupio [ti kola]?
what-kind-of beAUX.2SG buyPART.M.SG car
‘What kind of a car did you buy?’
(Serbian, Bošković 2005: 2−3)

Authenticated
1560 XIII. Slavic
3.2. Pronominal forms
Pronouns appeared in six morphological cases in Old Church Slavonic. The dative and
the accusative also had clitic variants. The chart in (3) gives a paradigm for the 1st and
2 nd person forms with clitic forms to the right of their corresponding full forms. As was
noted in the preceding section, for the 3 rd person, suppletive variants of the demonstra-
tive j- and tъ were used (cf. Lunt 1974: 65; Schmalstieg 1983: 62−65). Contemporary
South Slavic languages have full and clitic forms of the dative and the accusative pro-
nouns, on a par with Old Church Slavonic (the clitic forms usually need to appear in a
special syntactic configuration, either verb-adjacent or in the second position, the full
forms have a freer distribution). Polish has weak pronouns instead of clitics, which may
not appear clause-initially and avoid clause-final position. East Slavic languages have
only full pronouns, whose distribution in the clause largely parallels the distribution of
other nominals.
(3) Pronominal clitics in Old Church Slavonic

(Huntley 2002: 144)
1SG 2SG 1DUAL 2DUAL 1PL 2PL REFL

ACC mene/mę tebe/tę na/ny va/vy nasъ/ny vasъ/vy sebe/sę
DAT mьně/mi tebě/ti nama/- vama/- namъ/ny vamъ/vy sebě/si
3.3. Adjectives
There were two declensions of adjectives and passive participles in Old Church Slavonic:
the nominal declension (which produced the so-called “short forms”) and the pronominal
declension (which had the so-called “long forms”). The pronominal declension contained
the demonstrative pronoun j, which functioned like a postpositional definite article
(Klemensiewicz, Lehr-Spławiński, and Urbańczyk 1965: 323−326; Stieber 1971: 76 ff.).
The division between the two declension classes of adjectives is reflected in their syntax
in contemporary West and East Slavic languages. Adjectives and participles of the
“short” declension (such as zdrów in [4]) are restricted to predicative contexts, whereas
“long” declension adjectives (such as zdrowy in [4]) occur in the attributive or the predi-
cative position.
(4) a. Jestem zdrów/zdrowy.

be1SG.PRES healthyM.SG
‘I am healthy’
b. Zdrowy/*zdrów chłopiec.
healthyM.SG boy
‘A healthy boy’ (Polish)

Authenticated
In South Slavic (e.g. in Serbian and Croatian) the two declensions may appear in
either position. In general, adjectives in Slavic appear prenominally, but the occur-
rence of some forms in postnominal position may give rise to a classifying interpreta-
tion, in which the adjective specifies a category or a type that the modified noun
belongs to (e.g. in Polish, Serbian, and Croatian, cf. Rutkowski 2006); in languages
such as Russian, adjectives optionally occur postnominally in scientific terminology
(cf. Trugman 2007).
4. Verbal morphosyntax and periphrastic formations.

Verbal formations deserve a more detailed treatment, because they display properties not
found in many other Indo-European languages. These properties include rich aspectual
distinctions and a special set of periphrastic tenses, which consist of the verb ‘be’ as the
exclusive auxiliary and the so-called l-participle, which always agrees with the subject
in φ-features.
4.1. Aspectual oppositions
Aspectual oppositions are morphologically marked on virtually all verbs in Slavic, as

well as on nominalizations. Almost all verbs form aspectual pairs, in which each mem-
ber describes the same kind of event, but one of them appears in the non-perfective
aspect (such as czytać ‘to read’; kupować ‘to buy’ in Polish), whereas the other member
occurs in perfective aspect (such as przeczytać ‘to have read’; kupić ‘to have bought’
in Polish).
The origin of the aspectual oppositions is related to the presence of aspectual tenses
and morphological changes in aspect marking in Proto-Indo-European. Old Church Sla-
vonic inherited two aspectual tenses from Proto-Indo-European: aorist and imperfect.
Inflected verbs in Proto-Indo-European had a three-element structure: the stem was
formed by a root followed optionally by a suffix and obligatorily by an inflectional
ending. The suffix assigned a stem to an inflectional paradigm and expressed aspectual
information, often associated as well with action type (Aktionsart). The inflectional end-
ings specified the inflectional categories, such as φ-features; and in the case of nominal
forms of the verb, they specified such grammatical categories as supine or infinitive
(Schenker 2002: 83). In the prehistoric stages of most Indo-European dialects a particular
suffix type, involving a simple vowel alternation *e/o often preceded by *-i̯ -, termed
“thematic”, tended to become productive; and in this type the vocalic suffix in certain
persons, notably 1st sg. and 3 rd pl., blended with the inflectional endings. As a result,
verbs acquired a two-element structure. The modification is exemplified in (5), showing
the Proto-Slavic paradigm of the verb *nesti ‘to carry’, with modifications of the forms
of the 1st person singular and the 3 rd person plural that have acquired a two-element
structure.

Authenticated
1562 XIII. Slavic
(5) The modification of the paradigm of *nesti ‘to carry’ in the present tense in Proto-
Slavic
SINGULAR DUAL PLURAL

1 nes-ō-mь > nes-ǫ nes-e-vě nes-e-mъ
2 nes-e-šь nes-e-ta nes-e-te
3 nes-e-tь nes-e-te nes-o-nti > nes-ǫtъ
(Proto-Slavic, Długosz-Kurczabowa and Dubisz 2001: 265)
The fusion of the two verb-final morphemes in late-Proto-Indo-European had semantic

consequences. Due to the weakening of the distinction between the aspect-marking the-
matic suffix and the inflectional endings, it was becoming increasingly difficult to mark
aspectual oppositions. The change was taking place slowly, but the aspectual system of
Late-Proto-Indo-European started to show gaps. In most Indo-European languages the
inconsistencies were remedied through the development of new aspectual tenses, such
as the Imparfait and Passé Simple in French. However, Proto-Slavic was in this respect
the most conservative language in the Indo-European family, because it retained the
original ways of marking aspect. Still, the aspectual system it had inherited from Proto-
Indo-European was irregular, because sometimes there were no systematic aspectual
pairs of verbs. Therefore, Proto-Slavic had to reconstruct and regularize the whole verbal
system. At the same time, it further developed the aspectual tenses, the aorist and the
imperfect, inherited from Proto-Indo-European. In this way aspect was doubly marked
in Slavic: through the aspectual tenses and through the perfective/imperfective mor-
phemes on aspectual pairs, as shown in (6), which presents four different tenses and
independent perfective/imperfective distinctions.
(6) Tense and aspect distinctions in Old Church Slavonic as exemplified by (po)nesti
‘to carry’
TENSE/ASPECT Imperfective Perfective

3sg present nesetъ ponesetъ
3sg aorist nese ponese
3sg imperfect nesěaše ponesěaše
3sg perfect neslъ jestъ poneslъ jestъ
(OCS, cf. Schooneveld 1951: 97)
The coexistence of the aspectual tenses and the perfective and imperfective aspectual
forms was a weak point of the Slavic tense system. It led to the decline of the aorist and
the imperfect in all Slavic languages except for Bulgarian and Macedonian. The present
perfect tense, which is discussed in the next section, was adopted as the default past
tense.

Authenticated
4.2. Periphrastic formations

Slavic languages have developed a compound tense which is formed with the verb ‘be’
as the exclusive auxiliary in all contexts, irrespective of the transitivity of the main verb.
This is a very uncommon pattern outside Slavic. In Germanic and Romance languages,
it is found only in the dialect of Terracina (Italo-Romance) and Shetlandic (a variety of
Scots English, cf. Bentley and Eythórsson 2004). In other Germanic and Romance lan-
guages, the verb ‘be’ is selected as the auxiliary only in unaccusative and passive struc-
tures.
The auxiliary ‘be’ is accompanied by the so-called “l-participle”, which is used as
the main verb (cf. 7). In contrast to the Germanic and Romance languages, the participle
in the compound tense is morphologically different from that in the passive construction.
(7) Ivan e čel knigata.

Ivan bePRES.3SG readPART.M.SG book-the
‘Ivan has read/been reading the book.’
(Bulgarian)
The l-participle is not a past participle, because in some Slavic languages it is used to
express future meanings, as shown in (8a) for Polish and in (8b) for Serbian. Example
(8b) represents the so-called Future II construction, which existed also in Old Church
Slavonic, and is used to denote future events that in turn precede some other future
events.
(8) a. Jan będzie pisał list.

Jan bePRF.1SG writePART.M.SG letterACC
‘Jan will be writing a letter.’
(Polish)
b. Kad budemo govorili s Marijom…
when bePRF.1PL speakPART.PL with Marija
‘When/if we speak with Marija …’
(Serbian)
In both Old and Modern Slavic, the auxiliary ‘be’ shows aspectual distinctions, which
determine the temporal interpretation of the whole construction. For instance, when ‘be’
is used in the imperfective aspect in Old Church Slavonic (cf. běaxǫ in 9a), the complex
tense is interpreted as the pluperfect. When the verb ‘be’ occurs in the perfective (cf.
bǫdemъ in 9b), it gives rise to the future perfect interpretation. The l-participle usually
appears in the perfective form in Old Church Slavonic, but imperfective forms are also
frequently found.
(9) a. i mъnoзi že otъ ijudei běaxǫ prišьli kъ Martě i

and many FOC from Jews beIMP.3PL comePART.PL to Martha and
Marii.
Mary
‘And many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary.’
(OCS, J 11.19)

Authenticated
1564 XIII. Slavic
b. … vъskǫjǫ sę i rodili bǫdemъ.

why REFL even bearPART.PL bePRF.1PL
‘Why will we even have been born?’
(OCS, Schmalstieg 1983: 159)
Diachronically, the l-participle is a Slavic innovation. It derives from a class of Indo-

European adjectives ending in *-lo, which signified someone’s likelihood to perform a
certain action or referred to a characteristic feature of the person involved. The *-lo
forms also served as nomina agentis (agent participles) and proper names in many Indo-
European languages. Examples of such forms include discipulus ‘student’ or legulus
‘gatherer of fallen olives’ in Latin, tuphlós ‘blind’ in Ancient Greek (cf. Damborský
1967), and slaha/uls ‘brawler’ in Gothic. At some point some of the *-lo adjectives
were reanalyzed as participles in compound tenses in three Indo-European subgroups:
Armenian, Slavic, and Tocharian, and to a lesser extent in Umbrian (only in future
perfect forms) and Indic (Middle Indo-Aryan in active perfective participles; cf. Hewson
and Bubenik 1997: 74). It is remarkable that the forms found in Armenian and Tocharian
are not only morphologically similar to the Slavic l-participle, but that they may occur
in compound tenses with the copula ‘be’ as well. The l-participle in Slavic has adjectival
morphology, and agrees with the subject of a clause in gender and number, but is virtual-
ly not found outside the compound tenses. In this respect, it differs from the correspond-
ing categories in many other Indo-European languages, which can be used as adjectives
outside the compound tense paradigm.
As was noted in the previous subsection, due to the abundant aspect marking on
verbal forms the aspectual system of Old Slavic and Old Church Slavonic was unstable
and prone to modifications. The modifications are reflected in the decline of the aspectu-
al tenses in all Slavic languages apart from Bulgarian and (in part) Macedonian and in
the selection of the present perfect formed with the l-participle as the default past tense.
The semantic modification was accompanied by the morphophonological weakening of
the auxiliary ‘be’. As shown in chart (10) for Old Church Slavonic, initially only the 3 rd
person variants had clitic counterparts, je and sǫ.
(10) The paradigm of byti ‘to be’ in the present tense (OCS, cf. Schmalstieg 1983:
138)
Singular Dual Plural

1 jesmь jesvě jesmъ
2 jesi jesta jeste
3 jestъ (je) jeste sǫtъ (sǫ)
In contemporary South Slavic languages (exemplified by Serbian in 11a), all the

present perfect auxiliaries are clitics. In Czech and Macedonian, the 3 rd person
auxiliary is null. In Polish, the auxiliary has been reduced to an affix, especially in
the singular paradigm (cf. 11b). East Slavic languages had lost the perfect auxiliaries
by the 16 th−17 th century.

Authenticated
(11) a. Čitao sam knjigu.

readPART.M.SG beAUX.PRES.1SG book
(Serbian)
b. Czytał-em książkę.
readPART.M.SG+AUX.PRES.1SG book
‘I have read the book.’
(Polish)
Kashubian and Macedonian are two Slavic languages that in addition to the compound
tense constructed with the auxiliary ‘be’ and the l-participle have fully grammaticalized
a periphrastic tense formed with the auxiliary ‘have’ and a form of the passive participle
used as the main verb.
(12) a. Imame kupeno knigi.

have1PL buyPASS.N books
‘We have bought books.’
(Macedonian, cf. Tomić 1996: 856)
The morphological form of the passive participle does not depend on the feature specifi-
cation of the subject of the clause and always appears in the singular neuter form (the
masculine form is also an option in Kashubian). In this way the ‘have’-perfect differs
from the ‘be’-perfect, in which the l-participle obligatorily agrees with the subject in φ-
features.
In Kashubian unaccusative participles (such as jidzenô in 13a) agree with the subject
and occur with the auxiliary ‘be’. The auxiliary ‘have’ selects transitive and unergative
participles (cf. 13b), which do not agree with the subject or the object in φ-features.
(13) a. Ta białka je precz jidzenô

this womanF.SG beAUX.3.SG away goPTP.F.SG
‘This woman has gone away.’
(Kashubian, Stone 2002: 777)
b. Të măš to wszétko zrob’iõné/zrob’iõny
you havePRES.2SG this all doPTP.N.SG/doPTP.M.SG
‘You have made all of this.’
(Kashubian, Migdalski 2006: 130)
The periphrastic tense formed with the auxiliary ‘have’ is a recent innovation, not found
in Old Church Slavonic. It was first attested in written Macedonian in 1706, and is
assumed to have emerged under the influence of neighbouring languages, such as Aruma-
nian and Greek, or, in the case of Kashubian, under the influence of German. A number
of Slavic languages, such as Polish (cf. 14), Czech, Bulgarian, Serbian, and Croatian,
display structures that resemble the periphrastic tense formed with the auxiliary ‘have’.
However, these languages never use ‘have’ as a true auxiliary, as the construction is not
possible in all contexts and the passive participle agrees with the object (see Migdalski
2007 for a detailed discussion).

Authenticated
1566 XIII. Slavic
(14) Mam już upieczone ciasto

havePRES.1SG already bakePASS.N.SG cakeACC.N.SG
‘My cake is already baked.’
(Polish, Migdalski 2006: 58)
5. Word Order
As was noted in the introduction, word order in Slavic languages is relatively free and
is often dictated by discourse requirements rather than by a need to mark grammatical
relations. Clitics, which occur in the Wackernagel position after the clause-initial con-
stituent in languages like Czech, Serbian, Croatian, and Slovene, are an exception to this
freedom of word order (Bulgarian and Macedonian have clitics as well, but they are
verb-adjacent and they do not need to appear in the second position). Moreover, the
clitics cluster with each other and observe the rigid sequence presented in (15). The
cluster opens with the particle li, which is often termed the “interrogative complementiz-
er”. It occurs in questions and/or focus constructions. Li can be followed by a clitic
expressing modality. The dative clitic precedes the accusative clitic, while the auxiliary
clitics show an intriguing split concerning the positions of the 3 rd person singular form,
which in most South Slavic languages appears as the last member in the cluster.
(15) li > Modal > AUX (except 3 rd SG) > REFL > DAT > ACC > 3 rd SG AUX
(Tomić 1996; Franks and King 2000: 45)
Placement of the clitics in any other position than the second or splitting them from each
other results in ungrammaticality.
(16) a. Mi smo ga dali Marijinoj prijateljici.

we beAUX.1PL itCL.ACC givePART.M.SG Marija’s friend
‘We gave it to Mary’s friend.’
b. *Mi smo Marijinoj prijateljici ga dali.
c. *Mi Marijinoj prijateljici smo ga dali.
(Serbian, Stjepanović 1998: 528)
Importantly, even though clitics are phonologically deficient and their placement in this
position was sometimes attributed to the requirement of a host that provides phonological
support to them, their host must be a syntactic constituent, that is an element that is
syntactically mobile. For example, since the first conjunct in coordinate structures is not
syntactically mobile in Serbian and Croatian, clitics may not appear after it, in spite of
the fact that it is a legitimate phonological host, as it is stressed.
(17) a. Sestra i njen muž će mi ga pokloniti

sister and her husband will meDAT itACC give
‘My sister and her husband will give it to me.’
b. *Sestra će mi ga i njen muž pokloniti
(Serbian, Progovac 1996: 419)

Authenticated
It is commonly assumed that the placement of clitics reflects the pattern of cliticization
in early Indo-European languages described by Wackernagel (1892) and now generally
known as Wackernagel’s Law. However, the generalized cliticization involving all types
of clitics occurring in second position is a relatively recent development. Only three
clitics uniformly appeared in second position in Old Church Slavonic: the question/focus
particle li, the complementizer clitic bo ‘because’, and the focus particle že (note that
these clitics form a natural class, as they all express Illocutionary Force of a clause, see
Radanović-Kocić 1988 and Migdalski 2013). As shown in (18), they did not need to
cluster with pronominal clitics.
(18) Elisaveti že isplъni sę vrěmę roditi ei…

Elizabeth.DAT FOC fulfillPAST REFL.ACC time give-birthINF herDAT
‘When it was time for Elizabeth to have her baby …’
(OCS, Pancheva et al. 2007)
As a rule, pronominal clitics in Old Church Slavonic were postverbal. On the basis of
the history of Serbian, we can conclude that the shift of the pronominal clitics to second
position was a gradual process: around the 14 th century they appeared in second position
when they were accompanied by the regular Wackernagel clitics li and že mentioned
above; subsequently, they came to occupy second position in the absence of these parti-
cles, but it took several centuries before the rule was generalized to all contexts, as
examples of sentences with non-clustering clitics occurring in different positions are still
found in 19 th century Serbian texts (Radanović-Kocić 1988: 174).
Bulgarian and Macedonian clitics are verb-adjacent (these two languages differ in the
direction of cliticization, see Bošković 2001 for details), on a par with contemporary
Romance languages. Thus, they largely preserve the pattern of pronominal cliticization
in Old Church Slavonic, although Pancheva (2005) observes that at least some clitics
targeted second position in Bulgarian between the 9 th and the 14 th−15 th centuries.
6. Sentence Syntax
One of the recurring observations of this chapter is that Slavic syntax is often determined
by information structure requirements; thus, sentence word-order frequently depends on
a need to focus or topicalize a certain constituent, which is then moved to the left
periphery of a clause. Let us consider some word order permutations and the interpreta-
tions that they trigger on the basis of Serbian and Croatian. The basic word order is
SVO, so the sentence in (19b) represents the most neutral pattern and is the most natural
answer to the question in (19a).
(19) a. Šta se desilo?

what REFL happenPART.N.SG
‘What happened?’
b. Mačka je uhvatila miša
cat beAUX.3SG catchPART.F.SG mouse
‘A cat caught a mouse.’
(Serbian, Migdalski 2006:89)

Authenticated
1568 XIII. Slavic
The subject mačka can be dropped if it has been previously mentioned and its referent
is presupposed. In such a scenario the most unmarked word order involves the clause-
initial placement of the l-participle.
(20) Uhvatila je miša

catchPART.F.SG beAUX.3SG mouse
‘[The cat] caught a mouse.’
(Serbian)
OVS order is possible, but it always occurs in semantically marked contexts. According
to Stjepanović (1999: 92, 97), it may arise when both the verb and the object are presup-
posed, while the subject receives the main sentence stress and constitutes new informa-
tion focus.
(21) a. Ko je udario Petra?

who beAUX.3SG hitPART.M.SG PeterACC
‘Who hit Peter?’
b. Petra je udario MARKO.
PeterACC beAUX.3SG hitPART.M.SG Marko
‘Marko hit Peter.’
(Serbian, Stjepanović 1999: 97)
Like other elements placed at the beginning of a sentence, initial adverbs represent old
information. Thus, the sentence in (22b) is a felicitous reply to the question What hap-
pened yesterday?
(22) a. Šta se desilo juče?

what REFL happenPART.N.SG yesterday
‘What happened yesterday?’
b. Juče JE PETAR KUPIO KNJIGU.
yesterday beAUX.3SG Peter buyPART.M.SG book
‘Yesterday Peter bought a book.’
(Serbian, Migdalski 2006: 90)
The event time of the predicate in (22b) is presupposed, so the temporal adverb juče
‘yesterday’ appears at the beginning of the clause. However, the string that follows it
constitutes “new information” and correspondingly receives new information focus.
Summarizing, it has been shown that constituents whose referents are presupposed
are placed at the beginning of a clause, while new information foci are located in the
right periphery. However, it is not correct to attribute all the properties of Slavic syntax
to discourse considerations. This chapter will conclude with a presentation of a feature
of Slavic sentence syntax which is completely independent of information structure re-
quirements and which has attracted considerable attention since Rudin (1988). This fea-
ture involves the so-called multiple wh-movement. As exemplified in (23), Slavic, unlike
many other Indo-European languages, permits fronting of all wh-words in questions.

Authenticated
(23) a. Koj kogo vižda?

(Bulgarian)
b. Ko koga vidi?
who whom see3SG
‘Who saw whom?’
(Serbian, Franks 2005)
It has been observed that there are typological differences concerning this movement.
For instance, whereas the ordering of the wh-elements with respect to each other is free
in most Slavic languages, in Bulgarian and Macedonian they form a unit and move as a
constituent. This typological division corresponds to a number of other properties of wh-
movement, such as the superiority effect (that is, the ordering restriction that specifies
that the wh-element referring to the subject must precede the wh-element referring to the
object in multiple wh-questions), the impossibility of splitting the wh-sequence with any
lexical material, and the availability of island extraction, which largely hold for Bulgari-
an, but which are not observed in the other languages (see Bošković 1999 for details
and challenges to these generalizations).
Summarizing, this chapter has presented some properties of Slavic syntax and exam-
ined the way it has changed over time. For recent crosslinguistic overviews of the topic
the reader is referred to Franks (1995, 2005), Franks and King (2000), Bošković (2001),
Migdalski (2006), as well as to the volumes published in the Formal Approaches to
Slavic Linguistics and Formal Description of Slavic Languages series.
7. References
Bentley, Delia and Thórhallur Eythórsson
2004 Auxiliary Selection and the Semantics of Unaccusativity. Lingua 114: 447−471.
Bošković, Željko
1999 On multiple feature checking: multiple Wh-fronting and multiple head-movement. In:
Sam Epstein and Norbert Hornstein (eds.), Working Minimalism. Cambridge MA: MIT
Press, 159−187.
Bošković, Željko
2001 On the Nature of the Syntax-Phonology Interface. Cliticization and Related Phenomena.
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Bošković, Željko
2005 Left Branch Extraction, Structure of NP, and Scrambling. Studia Linguistica 59: 1−45.
Compton, Richard, Magdalena Golędzinowska, and Ulyana Savchenko (eds.)
2007 Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 15: The Toronto Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michi-
gan Slavic Publications.
Damborský, Jiri
1967 Participium l-ove ve slovanštine [The l-participle in Slavic]. Warsaw: Państwowe Wy-
dawnictwo Naukowe.
Dimitrova, Mila Vulchanova and Valentin Vulchanov
2012 An article evolving: The case of Old Bulgarian. In: Dianne Jonas, John Whitman, and
Andrew Garrett (eds.), Grammatical Change: Origins, Nature, Outcomes. Oxford: Ox-
ford University Press, 160−178.

Authenticated
1570 XIII. Slavic
Długosz-Kurczabowa, Krystyna and Stanisław Dubisz

Warsaw: University of Warsaw Press.
Franks, Steven
1995 Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax. New York: Oxford University Press.
Franks, Steven
2005 Slavic Languages. In: Guglielmo Cinque and Richard Kayne (eds.), Handbook of Com-
parative Syntax. New York: Oxford University Press, 373−419.
Franks, Steven and Tracy Holloway King
2000 A Handbook of Slavic Clitics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Giusti, Giuliana
2002 The Functional Structure of Noun Phrases: A Bare Phrase Structure Approach. In: Gu-
glielmo Cinque (ed.), Functional Structure in DP and IP. New York: Oxford University
Press, 54−90.
Hewson, John and Vit Bubenik
1997 Tense and Aspect in Indo-European Languages: Theory, Typology, Diachrony. Amster-
dam: Benjamins.
Huntley, David
2002 Old Church Slavonic. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 125−187.
Klemensiewicz, Zenon, Tadeusz Lehr-Spławiński, and Stanisław Urbańczyk
Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Lunt, Horace G.
1974 Old Church Slavonic Grammar. The Hague: Mouton.
Migdalski, Krzysztof
2006 The Syntax of Compound Tenses in Slavic. Ph.D. dissertation, Tilburg University.
Utrecht: LOT Publications.
2007 On the Grammaticalization of the ‘have’-perfect in Slavic. In: Compton, Golędzinowska
and Savchenko (eds.), 228−244.
2013 Diachronic Source of Two Cliticization Patterns in Slavic. In: Christine M. Salvesen
and Hans P. Helland (eds.). Challenging Clitics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 135−158.
Pancheva, Roumyana
2005 The Rise and Fall of Second-Position Clitics. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
23: 103−167.
Pancheva, Roumyana, Agnieszka Łazorczyk, Jelena Krivokapić, and Yulia Minkova
2007 Codex Marianus. In: U(niversity of) S(outhern) C(alifornia) Parsed Corpus of Old South
Slavic.
Progovac, Ljiljana
1996 Clitics in Serbian/Croatian: Comp as the Second Position. In: Aaron Halpern and Arnold
Zwicky (eds.), Approaching Second: Second Position Clitics and Related Phenomena.
Stanford: CSLI Publications, 411−428.
Radanović-Kocić, Vesna
1988 The Grammar of Serbo-Croatian Clitics: A Synchronic and Diachronic Perspective.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana.
Rudin, Catherine
1988 On Multiple Questions and Multiple Wh-Fronting. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 6: 445−501.
Rutkowski, Pawel
2007 The syntactic properties and diachronic development of postnominal adjectives in Pol-
ish. In: Compton, Golędzinowska, and Savchenko (eds.), 326−345.

Authenticated
84. The lexicon of Slavic 1571
2002 Proto-Slavonic. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 60−124.
Schmalstieg, William R.
1983 An Introduction to Old Church Slavic. Columbus: Slavica.
van Schooneveld, Cornelius H.
1951 The Aspectual System of the Old Church Slavonic and Old Russian verbum finitum
byti. Word 7: 93−103.
Stieber, Zdzisław
1971 Zarys gramatyki porównawczej języków słowiańskich. Fleksja imienna [An outline of
the comparative grammar of the Slavic languages. Nominal inflection]. Warsaw: Pańs-
twowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Stjepanović, Sandra
1998 On the Placement of Serbo-Croatian Clitics: Evidence from VP Ellipsis. Linguistic In-
quiry 29: 527−537.
1999 What do Second Position Cliticization, Scrambling, and Multiple wh-fronting have in
Common? Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Stone, Gerald
Tomić, Olga
1996 The Balkan Slavic Clausal Clitics. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 811−
872.
Trugman, Helen
2007 Rudiments of Romance N-to-D movement in Russian. In: Peter Kosta, Gerda Hassler,
Lilia Schürcks, and Nadine Thielemann (eds.), Linguistic Investigations into Formal
Description of Slavic Languages. Potsdam Linguistic Investigations, volume 1. Frank-
furt am Main: Lang, 411−426.
Wackernagel, Jakob
1892 Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung. Indogermanische Forschungen 1:
333−436.
Krzysztof Migdalski, Wrocław (Poland)
84. The lexicon of Slavic

1. Inherited vocabulary 4. Word formation
2. Loan-words 5. Abbreviations
3. Specific vocabulary 6. References
Many Slavic words of widespread occurrence related to fundamental natural and human
concepts have reliable PIE etymologies and may, therefore, be considered as PIE
inheritance. Others are particular to Balto-Slavic or Proto-Slavic (PSl), representing local
innovations or borrowings from the languages with which the Slavs came into contact.
Slavic reconstructions are given below in their late Proto-Slavic (also called Common
Slavic) form, mainly according to Trubačev (1974−2013). In the following discussion,
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-005

Authenticated
2002 Proto-Slavonic. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 60−124.
1983 An Introduction to Old Church Slavic. Columbus: Slavica.
van Schooneveld, Cornelius H.
1951 The Aspectual System of the Old Church Slavonic and Old Russian verbum finitum
byti. Word 7: 93−103.
Stieber, Zdzisław
1971 Zarys gramatyki porównawczej języków słowiańskich. Fleksja imienna [An outline of
the comparative grammar of the Slavic languages. Nominal inflection]. Warsaw: Pańs-
twowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
1998 On the Placement of Serbo-Croatian Clitics: Evidence from VP Ellipsis. Linguistic In-
quiry 29: 527−537.
1999 What do Second Position Cliticization, Scrambling, and Multiple wh-fronting have in
Common? Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Stone, Gerald
Tomić, Olga
1996 The Balkan Slavic Clausal Clitics. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 811−
872.
Trugman, Helen
2007 Rudiments of Romance N-to-D movement in Russian. In: Peter Kosta, Gerda Hassler,
Lilia Schürcks, and Nadine Thielemann (eds.), Linguistic Investigations into Formal
Description of Slavic Languages. Potsdam Linguistic Investigations, volume 1. Frank-
furt am Main: Lang, 411−426.
Wackernagel, Jakob
333−436.
Krzysztof Migdalski, Wrocław (Poland)
84. The lexicon of Slavic

2. Loan-words 5. Abbreviations
3. Specific vocabulary 6. References
Many Slavic words of widespread occurrence related to fundamental natural and human
concepts have reliable PIE etymologies and may, therefore, be considered as PIE
inheritance. Others are particular to Balto-Slavic or Proto-Slavic (PSl), representing local
innovations or borrowings from the languages with which the Slavs came into contact.
Slavic reconstructions are given below in their late Proto-Slavic (also called Common
Slavic) form, mainly according to Trubačev (1974−2013). In the following discussion,
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-005

Authenticated
1572 XIII. Slavic
Russian, Ukrainian, and Belorussian adjectives are quoted in their long (attributive)
forms.
1. Inherited vocabulary
In relation to the common PIE lexical stock, Slavic appears both conservative and inno-
vative (Meillet 1934). On the one hand, many important PIE stems and roots are well
preserved in their form and meaning. On the other hand, a PSl term of PIE origin may
present significant modifications (e.g. enlargements by suffixation, cf. the word for ‘sun’,
1.2) and semantic peculiarities (cf. PSl *moldŭ, 1.2).
Moreover, while the lexicon of the modern Slavic languages is rightfully reputed to
be remarkably homogeneous in denoting core concepts, Slavic languages and dialects
use, in several instances, particular words of PIE origin which differ from the primary
signifier of such concepts or are borrowed from non-IE languages.
Sometimes a word in a Slavic language may be quite different from the word having
the corresponding sense in another Slavic language, cf. R gorod and Cz město ‘city,
town’; but these items are actually based on two common Slavic roots both existing in
Russian and Czech, cf. R mesto ‘place, position’ and Cz hrad ‘castle, citadel’. The
semantic relations are generally clear in such cases: the latter is PSl *gordъ, from PIE
*ghordhos ‘hedge; enclosure’ showing the semantic development ‘enclosed place’ >
‘citadel’ and ‘town’ (cf. G Zaun ‘fence’ cognate with E town); the former is PSl *mēsto
‘place’ < *mēt-t-o from the PIE root *mei- ‘support, sustain’ (Černyx 1993: 1. 526)
showing the semantic change ‘place’ > ‘town’ (cf. E place in sense of ‘village, settle-
ment, town’).
1.1. Kinship terms
Most Slavic kinship terms are clearly IE:

PSl *dŭkt’i, gen. -ere (feminine) ‘daughter’; PIE *dhug(h2)tēr, gen. *dhug(h2)tros;
cf. G Tochter, E daughter, etc. Slavic forms descended from this item include OCS dŭšti
gen. dŭštere; OR doči, gen. dočere; R doč’, gen. dočeri; Ukr doč; Bulg dăšterja; Slovn
hči, SCr kći; Cz dcera; Pol cora.
PSl. *žena ‘woman, wife’; Balto-Slavic *genā < PIE *gwenh2, gen. gwneh2s ‘woman’.
Cognates of this item are seen in Gr gunḗ ‘woman, wife’, E queen, etc. Cf. OCS žena
‘woman, wife’; R žena ‘wife’, ženščina ‘woman’ (derived by suffixation); Bulg žena
‘woman, wife’, Sorb žona; Pol żona ‘wife’, but ‘woman’ is niewiasta, also (archaic)
‘wife’ (see below *nevesta, 4) or kobieta, from a different root: perhaps from a phrase
such as *kobita žena ‘ill-tempered, irritable, stubborn woman’, from *kobĭ ‘divination;
fate; wickedness, evil; stubbornness’ (Trubačev 1974−2013: 10. 88−91). For ‘wife’,
Ukrainian uses žinka (derived by suffixation) and družyna ‘spouse’ − female or male
(сf. druh ‘friend’); Slovene, beside žena, uses soproga ‘spouse’, while Czech and Slovak
use, beside žena, a derivative of manžel (see below): manželka + specific words for
‘spouse’: Cz chot’ ‘spouse, husband or wife’, OCS chotĭ ‘lover, beloved’, chotěti ‘wish’.

Authenticated
PSl. *mǫžĭ ‘man, husband’ from *man-g-i-os (Schenker 1993: 114), which seems to
be closely related to PIE *mVnus ‘man’ (often derived from *men- ‘think’), with the
addition of a suffixal element *g. But *man-g-i-os is perhaps from a different root signi-
fying virility, which is also seen in Alb mëz ‘colt’, PIE Transponat *men-d-ios ‘horse’
(Mallory and Adams 1997: 274) and may be the basis of Gr amazṓn (if from *n̥-mn̥-
g(w)-iōn ‘man-less, without husbands’, Mallory and Adams 1997: 367). Cf. also Rom
mînz ‘foal, colt’, L dial. mannus ‘small horse’ (borrowed from an unidentifiable source),
perhaps Slovn mánih ‘gelding’ (Trubačev 1960: 56). Cf. Ukr muž ‘man’, Maced maž,
SCr muž, Pol mąż, Cz and Slovk muž ‘man’, but ‘husband’ is usually manžel (< PSl
*malŭžena ‘spouse, wife’, OCS mal[ŭ]žena dual ‘husband and wife’, R dial. malžonki
‘spouses’, probably partially calqued on OHG *mâlkona ‘spouse, wife’, cf. mahal ‘con-
tract’, gimahala ‘bride, wife’, G Gemahlin ‘wife, spouse’, or from malŭ ‘little’, as a
prefix of affection, or even from *mǫžĭžena ‘husband + wife’ with dissimilation (Vasmer
1987: 2. 562); but cf. also R molodožëny (plural) ‘couple just married’, from *moldŭ
‘young’ + *žena ‘wife’). Modern Russian uses muž mostly in the sense ‘husband’ (al-
though the meaning ‘man’ is retained in high style), and mužčina ‘man’ was built later
by suffixation. Some Slavic languages use other words for ‘husband’: Slovene has mož
and soprog ‘spouse’ and Ukrainian čolovik (cf. R čelovek ‘man, human being’), Bulgari-
an uses suprug (and other Slavic languages use a similar word in the sense ‘spouse’, cf.
R suprug).
The Slavic word for ‘father’ goes back to PIE *at- ‘father’, an informal and probably
affective word derived from the language of children (cf. L atta, Gr átta, Goth atta),
which may have signified ‘foster-father’, the meaning found in Old Irish (Mallory and
Adams 1997: 195). It may explain L atavus ‘great-great-great-grandfather’ if one sup-
poses a compound atta ‘father’+ avus ‘grandfather’. Alternatively, at-avus would repre-
sent avus together with a prefix at- (*h2et-) ‘beyond, further’, almost certainly related
to the at- of atque, which no doubt means literally ‘and further’ (cf. Mallory and Adams
1997: 156). Turkic languages have a similar term ata ‘father’. Moreover, PSl *otĭcĭ (<
*ot-ĭk-os) was built with a suffix -ĭk- probably having a diminutive sense (‘little father,
daddy’); or -ĭk- is rather an adjectivizing suffix (‘one of the father, paternal’, cf. French
colloquial mon paternel ‘my father’). According to Trubačev (1974−2013: 39. 168−
173), PSl *otĭcĭ may be compared with the Gr ethnic name Attikos. Cf. R otec, Pol ojciec,
Cz otec, Slovk otec, SCr otac, Slovn oče, Upper Sorb wótc ‘father (rare); ancestor’.
The other PSl word for ‘father’ is *tata, from a PIE Transponat *t-at-, with sound
repetition seen in other nursery terms. Cf. R (old and rural) tjatja, (dial. only) tata
‘daddy’; Ukr tato, tatko; Pol tata, tatko; Cz and Slovk táta; Bulg tato, tatko, tate; Maced
tatko.
Besides, ‘father, daddy’ can be denoted by a different lexical item, PSl *bata / *bat’a /
*batja (perhaps from *brat[r]ŭ ‘brother’, which is semantically somewhat symmetrical
to *strŭjĭ ‘paternal uncle’ = ‘father’s brother’): R (colloquial and affective) batja, bat’ko,
dial. also ‘(eldest) brother, uncle, father-in-law, wife’s father’; Ukr bat’ko; Bulg bašta
‘father’. But Cz bát’a means ‘brother, relative, friend’, Bulg bate, SCr bata ‘(eldest)
brother’, R. dial. bat ‘brother’. According to Trubačev (1974−2013: 1. 163−164), PSl
*bata ‘father, daddy, uncle, elder man’ is a very archaic form similar to reduplicated
formations such as *baba, *mama (cf. It babbo ‘daddy’ related to padre ‘father’, with
voicing of p to b), and the association with *brat[r]ŭ ‘brother’ is only secondary. Cf.
semantically Bengali stri ‘wife’ from PIE *swesōr ‘sister’.

Authenticated
1574 XIII. Slavic
In Upper Sorbian, the usual word for ‘father’ is nan, also a nursery term, cf. SCr
nana ‘mother’; Slovk ňaňo, ňaňa ‘aunt’; R njanja ‘nurse’ (cf. Gr nénnos [variant nónnos
beside nánnas (Hesych.)] ‘uncle’; L nonnus ‘father > monk’; It nonna ‘grandmother’; E
nan ‘grandmother’, nanny ‘nurse who cares for a baby’, etc.).
Apart from the Slavic divine name *Stribogŭ = Stri-bogŭ, taken to be ‘father-god’,
PIE *ph2tēr, gen. *ph2tros ‘father’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 195), seems to be repre-
sented only in PSl *strŭjĭ, *stryjĭ ‘paternal uncle’. Cf. OLith strūjus ‘old man, grandfa-
ther’, Lith strujus ‘father’s brother, mother’s sister’s husband’, L patruus ‘paternal un-
cle’. PIE *ph2trōus ‘male paternal relative; father’s brother’ (Mallory and Adams 1997:
609). Cf. OR stryj, R dial. stroj, Pol stryj, Cz strýc, Slovk strýc, SCr stric, Slovn stric
‘paternal uncle’. However, according to Gippert (2002), this form is derived from a
different etymon having the original meaning ‘old man’ and not related to R staryj ‘old’
(see 3).
Other kinship terms of wide occurrence are the following:
PSl *bratrъ ‘brother’, PIE *bhreh2tēr; cf. OCS bratrŭ, R Ukr BelR Bulg Slovk Pol
brat, Cz Upper Sorb bratr, Lower Sorb bratš, etc.
PSl *mati, gen. *matere ‘mother’, PIE *meh2tēr. Cf. OCS mati, gen. matere; R mat’,
gen. materi; Ukr mati, gen. materi; BelR maci, matka; Bulg majka; Slovn mati, gen.
matere; Pol matka; Cz máti; etc.
PSl *sestra ‘sister’, PIE *su̯esōr; cf. R Ukr Bulg sestra, BelR sjastra, OCS Cz Slovk
Polab sestra, SCr sèstra, Slovn séstra, Pol siostra, Upper Sorb sotra, Lower Sorb sotša.
PSl *synŭ ‘son’, PIE *suhxnus; cf. OCS synŭ, R Ukr BelR Cz Slovk Pol Sorb syn,
Bulg Slovn sin, SCr sîn, etc.
PSl *svekry ‘husband’s mother’, gen. *svekrŭve, PIE *su̯ek̑ruh2s. Cf. OCS svekry,
gen. svekrŭve; R svekrov’, gen. svekrovi; Ukr svekruxa; BelR svjakrou; Bulg svekărva;
Pol świekra; etc.
1.2. Terms denoting fundamental natural and human concepts
‘Sun’ is PSl *sŭlnĭcе (neut.), from *sulnĭko- / *sulniko-, a stem based on PIE *seh2u̯l̥ ,
gen. *sh2ṷ-en-s (Mallory and Adams 1997: 556) ‘sun’, extended by diminutive suffix
-ĭk- / -ik- (hypocoristic sense: ‘little sun’), which is analogous to the origin of Fr soleil
‘sun’. As is well known, the latter is derived not from L sōl ‘sun’ but from a Vulgar
Latin diminutive form of the latter: soliculus. Cf. OCS slŭnĭce, R solnce, Ukr sonce, Pol
słońce, Cz slunce, Bulg slănce, SCr sûnce, Slovn sonce, Slovk slnce, Sorb słyńco, etc.
Among its IE cognates, cf. Lith sáulė ‘sun’, Goth sauil (beside sunno) ‘id.’, etc.
‘Moon’ is PSl *luna (Trubačev 1974−2013: 16. 173), from *louksnā, PIE *louksneh2-
‘moon’ (cf. L lūna etc.), from the root *leuk- ‘light’, and PSl *mēsęcĭ (masc.) ‘moon;
month’, from *mēs-n̥-ko- (with extension by a suffix *k), PIE *meh1-nōt- / *meh1-n(e)s-
‘moon’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 385) (cf. L mēnsis ‘month’, E moon, month, etc.),
from the root *meh1- ‘measure’. Attested Slavic forms for ‘moon’ include OCS R Bulg
Slovn Cz (poet.) Slovk (poet.) luna ‘moon’, while forms meaning both ‘moon’ and
‘month’ include OCS měsęcĭ, R mesjac, Ukr misac, Bulg mesec, SCr mjesec, Cz měsíc,
Slovk mesiac, Pol miesiąc, Sorb mjasec. But OCS luna ‘moon’ may be a Lat loan,
whereas Slavic *louksnā could mean ‘any light (in the sky)’ (Černyx 1993: 1. 495), cf.

Authenticated
Pol łuna ‘glint, light’, Cz luna ‘light, glow’, R dial. ‘light (in the sky), glow’, Ukr luna
‘echo’ (< ‘light reflection’).
The term for ‘house; household’ is PSl. *domŭ, PIE *dóm(h2)os (Mallory and Adams
1997: 281). External comparanda are L domus ‘house; family’ and Gr dómos ‘house,
household, family’. Within Slavic cf. OCS domŭ, R dom ‘house, household’, Pol dom,
Cz dům, Bulg dom ‘house; household, family’. But Bulg ‘house’ is usually kăšta, cf.
OCS kǫšta, probably related to Bulg kătam, R kutat’ ‘to hide’, or to OCS kǫtŭ, Bulg
kăt, R kut ‘angle, corner’; the latter is in turn related to Gr kanthós ‘(corner of the) eye’.
Also SCr kuća, Slovn koča, but Slovn hiša ‘house’ (an old Germanic loan < *hūs, cf. R
xižina ‘hut’).
PSl *moldŭ ‘soft’ and ‘young’, from PIE *melh1- ‘soft’, with extension by a suffix
*-d(h)-, is seen in OCS mladŭ ‘soft, new, fresh; young, babyish, childish, juvenile’, R
molodoj ‘young’, Ukr molodyj, BelR malady, Bulg mlad, Cz mladý, etc.; cf. OPr maldai
‘young’, L mollis ‘soft’, E melt, G E mild, etc. The semantic shift to ‘young’ is peculiar
to Balto-Slavic. The meaning ‘soft’ is still partly maintained in phrases such as OCS iz
mladŭ nogtii ‘new, freshly made’ and ‘since earliest age, since childhood’, R ot / s
molodyx nogtej ‘since soft nails’ > ‘since early youth’. Cf. R mladenec ‘baby’, OPr
maldenikis ‘child’.
Nevertheless, the older etymon in this value, PIE *h2i̯ eu- ‘young’ is well preserved:
PSl *(j)unŭ ‘young’, OR unŭ / unyi, R junyj, Ukr junyj, BelR juny ‘young’; but in
Southern Slavic this item appears mostly with derivative suffixes, cf. Slovn junec ‘young
calf’; also in Western Slavic, Pol junak ‘young brave man’.
Some additional terms of wide currency within Slavic are the following:
PSl *dŭva ‘two’: OСS dŭva, R Ukr Bulg Cz Slovk dva, SCr Slovn dvâ, Pol Sorb
dwa;
PSl *jĭmę ‘name’: OCS imę, R imja, Ukr im’ja, BelR imja, Bulg ime, SCr imē, Slovn
imê, Cz jméno, Slovk meno, Pol imię, Sorb mě, Polab jeima;
PSl *voda ‘water’: OCS voda, R Ukr BR Bulg voda, SCr vòda, Slovn vóda, Cz Slovk
voda, Pol Sorb woda;
PSl *vētrŭ ‘wind’: OСS větrŭ, R veter, Ukr viter, Bulg vetăr, SCr vjetar, Slovn vêter,
Cz vítr, Slovk vietor, Pol wiatr, Sorb wjetš;
PSl *sēdēti ‘sit’: OCS sěděti, R sidet’, Ukr sydaty, BelR sidzec’, Bulg sedja, SCr dial.
sjèditi, Slovn sedéti, Cz seděti, Slovk sediet’, Pol siedzieć, Sorb sejźeś;
PSl *stojati ‘stay’: OCS stojati, R stojat’, Ukr stojaty, Bulg stajati, Slovn Cz státi,
Slovk stát’, Pol stać, Sorb stojaś;
PSl *šiti ‘sew’: R šit’, Ukr šyty, BelR šyc’, Bulg šija, SCr šiti, Slovn Cz Slovk šit’,
Pol szyć, Sorb šyś, Polab. sait;
PSl *živŭ ‘alive’: OCS živŭ, R živoj, Ukr žyvyj, Bulg Cz Slovk živ, SCr Slov. žîv, Pol
żywy, Sorb žywy;
PSl *novŭ ‘new’: OCS novŭ, R Ukr novyj, Bulg nov, SCr nôv, Slovn nòv, Cz nový,
Pol Sorb nowy.
1.3. Lexical isoglosses with other IE subgroups

A huge number of terms are common to Slavic and Baltic, some of which have no
direct matches or only remote etymological links with the assumed cognates in other IE

Authenticated
1576 XIII. Slavic
languages. Cf. PSl *rǫka ‘hand’, OCS rǫka and Lith rankà ‘hand’, Latv rùoka, OPr
rancko. This term is probably a deverbative from a Balto-Slavic verb similar to Lith
riñkti ‘to gather, pick, collect’. R ruka, Bulg răka, Pol ręka, Cz ruka, etc. For more see
Dini, this handbook.
1.3.1. Slavic-Germanic lexical isoglosses
PSl *voldēti ‘to rule, possess’. Cf. OR voloděti ‘id.’, R vladet’ ‘to possess’, Lith valdýti
‘to rule, possess’, Goth waldan, OE wealdan ‘to rule’ > E wield, from a PIE root *u̯al-
‘rule, be strong’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 490) related to L valēre ‘be healthy’, Toch
A wäl, B walo ‘king’. Slavic (+ Balt) and German present the same extension in *-d(h)-.
PSl *tysętja / *tysǫtja ‘thousand’. Cf. OCS tysęšta; R tysjača; Pol tysjąc, tysiąc; Cz
tisíc; SCr tisuća; Slovn tisoč; etc.; Lith tū́kstantis, OIcel þúsund, OHG thūsund, Goth
þusundi (þū-) < Gmc *thūs-hundī ← < PIE *tuh2s-k̑m̥to- ‘fat hundred, strong hundred’,
cf. G Tausend, E thousand. This term is generally considered to be a Germanic loan in
Balto-Slavic. The first part of the compound is from PIE *teuh2- ‘swell, grow fat’, cf.
R tučnyj ‘fat, obese’. But Bulg and SCr employ usually xiljada (tisešta is archaic or
dialectal). Tocharian has a similar term: A tmaṃ, B tumane ‘ten thousand’.
PSl *čĭmeljĭ / *čĭmela ‘bumble-bee’. Cf. OHG humbal, MHG hummen, Swed humla,
E hum etc.; R šmel’ ‘bumble-bee’, Lith kimstu ‘become hoarse’, Latv kamines ‘bee,
bumble-bee’, OPr camus, Slovn čmelj, Pol czmiel ‘bumble-bee’ < PIE *kem/*kom ‘hum’
(possibly of onomatopoeic origin). Cognate with R komar ‘mosquito’(cf. *komonĭ below,
3).
PSl *gre(s)ti < *grebti ‘dig’, PIE *ghrebh- ‘dig’. Cf. R pogrebat’ ‘bury’, grob ‘coffin’
(< ‘grave’); OHG, Goth graban, OE grafan (> E grave), G graben ‘dig’, Grab ‘grave’;
Latv grebt, OCS pogresti ‘bury’, SCr grèpsti, Pol grzebać ‘dig, excavate’. Although R
gresti, grebu ‘paddle, rake; row’ is sometimes said to be linked to a different, homopho-
nous PIE root *ghrebh- ‘seize forcibly, grasp, take, enclose’ (Mallory and Adams 1997:
159), both can be related via a chain of semantic shifts such as ‘rake together’ > ‘plunder,
seize’. Cf. OCS grabiti ‘snatch up’, R grabit’ ‘plunder’, MHG grabben ‘seize’, E (bor-
rowed) grab.
1.3.2. Slavic-Italic lexical isoglosses
PSl *gospodĭ / *gospodinŭ ‘master, lord’, from *gostĭpodĭ. Cf. R gospod’ ‘Lord’, gospo-
din ‘master’; Bulg gospod, gospodin; Cz hospodín; and L hospes, hospitis < PIE *ghost-
pot- (Trubačev 1974−2013: 7. 60−63). However, this term may be an Iranian loanword,
cf. OIran *wispati ‘master of the clan’ < PIE *u̯ik̑potis ‘master of the clan’, cf. Avest
vīspaitiš ‘master of the clan’, OInd viśpáti- ‘head of the household’, Lith viẽšpatis ‘mas-
ter’, with a change of *wis- to *gus-, then to *gas- pronounced *γas-. Russian has a
variant without initial [γ] : Ospodi ! ‘My Lord!’ (perhaps from *wispati > *spati >
*aspati > *aspadi). A closely related term is R (g)ospodar’, Pol gospodarz ‘prince’,
etc., perhaps from OIran *wispuθra- ‘son of the clan or of the king’s family, prince’ >
MIran *guspuθra, later *gaspadar in Middle Western Scytho-Sacian (Cornillot 1994:

Authenticated
85). Otherwise, a Germanic (Scandinavian) influence is not excluded, according to Le

Feuvre (2002−2003): ORus (Novgorodian dialect) ospodinŭ ‘master’ may be explained
by OSwed husponde < husbonde ‘master of the house’, cf. E husband.
PSl *pola voda ‘flood (of a river)’. Cf. R polovod’e or (inverted, rarely) vodopol’e
‘flood’ and L palūs, palūdis ‘marsh, swamp’; (Trubačev 1985: 216). PSl *polŭ ‘open
(space)’ related to *polje ‘field’, PIE *pleth2- ‘broad and flat, wide, open, plane’. Cf. L
palam ‘openly’, Gr pélagos ‘sea’.
Many parallels can be observed between Slavic and Latin in the meanings of preposi-
tions such as L ob, prō / PSl *ob, *pro and in derivational models involving correspond-
ing prefixes L ob-, pro- / PSl *ob-, *pro-, cf. L ob-sidēre ‘sit near, haunt, frequent,
besiege’/ob-sīdere ‘blockade, besiege’ (> E obsess, Fr obséder) and R o-saždat’/о-sadit’
‘besiege’ from < PSl *ob-saditi ‘set about’, L prō-movēre ‘move forward, promote’, R
pro-dvigat’ (from dvigat’ ‘move’) in the same sense. Cf. also the L prefix po- (in po-
situs ‘placed, put’) and Slavic po- (cf. R po-stavit’ ‘put, set’ [more in Toporov 1974;
Sakhno 2002]). Another matching pair is L com-edere, a “perfective” of edere ‘eat’ (>
Sp comer ‘eat’, E comestible) and R sŭ-est’, perfective of est’ ‘eat’ (< PSl *jēdti), the
prefixes L com- and R s(ŭ)- (< PSl *sŭn-) having the same basic sense (‘with’). See
*obvlako below, 4.
1.3.3. Slavic-Indo-Iranian lexical isoglosses
Among many examples two may be cited here:

PSl *griva ‘mane (of animals)’. Cf. OInd, Avest grīvā ‘neck’, Latv grīva ‘river
mouth’, PIE *gwrihxu̯-eh2 ‘neck’.
PSl *črĭnŭ ‘black’. Cf. OCS črĭrnŭ, R čërnyj, OPr kirsnan ‘black’, OInd kṛṣṇá-
‘black’. PIE *kwr̥ snos ‘black’.
2. Loan-words
2.1. Iranian loans
The earliest borrowings were from the North Iranian languages of the Scythian, Sarma-
tian, and Alanic tribes. It has also been suggested that the Slavs derived their Iranian
vocabulary from the Avars whose ruling family is identified as Turkic but, it has been
speculated, was primarily composed of Iranian-speakers (Mallory and Adams 1997:
525). Many of the Iranian loans are linked to religious and social concepts.
PSl *bogŭ ‘god’. Cf. Avest baga- ‘god’ and bag- ‘apportion; lot, luck, fortune’, OCS
bogŭ, R bog (Trubačev 1974−2013: 2. 161), PIE *bhag- ‘divide, distribute; receive,
enjoy’, Gr phágein ‘eat’ < *‘enjoy, share’. An important derivative is PSl *bogatŭ ‘rich’
(< ‘well imparted’). The often assumed Slavic descendant from PIE *deiu̯os ‘god’ is
*divŭ ‘demon’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 230), but according to Trubačev (1974−2013:
5. 29, 35) the etymology of *divŭ / *divo ‘miracle’ (hence ‘demon’), related to PSl
*divŭ(jĭ) / *dikŭ(jĭ) ‘wild’, is different, and is to be compared with OInd dhī- ‘observe,

Authenticated
1578 XIII. Slavic
contemplate’. Cf. R divo ‘miracle’, divnyj ‘astonishing, wonderful, splendid’, udivljat’sja

‘be surprised, to wonder’, etc.
PSl *rajĭ ‘paradise’. Cf. Avest rāy- ‘wealth’. The Slavic borrowing here is analogous
to the borrowing of Gr ‘paradise’ from OIran pairidaēza- ‘enclosure, garden’.
PSl *svętŭ ‘holy, sacred’. Cf. Avest spənta ‘holy’ < PIE *k̑wen(to)- ‘holy’, originally
*‘swollen (with force)’, from *k̑eu(h1)- ‘swell’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 493); but a
PIE origin without Iranian mediation is possible if one brings into the picture Goth hunsl
‘sacrifice’, Toch B känts ‘right, correct, firm’. Attested Slavic forms of this lexical item
include OCS svętŭ, svętyi, R svjatoj, Bulg sveti, svet, Cz svatý, and Pol święty ‘holy’,
etc.
PSl *gospodĭ ‘master, lord’ (unless properly Slavic, see 1.3.2).
However, some Iranian terms do not belong to the religious sphere:

PSl *sobaka ‘dog’ < MIran sabāka-, cf. Avest spā ‘dog’, spaka- ‘of a dog, doggish’;
only R, Ukr sobaka, BelR sabaka (probably an Eastern Slavic loan from Iranian, not
known in other Slavic languages, except for Pol dial and Kashub sobaka). According to
Trubačev (1960: 29), this term may be a loan from Turkic köbäk ‘dog’. But PSl *suka
‘bitch’ (less likely *sǫka) may go back to PIE *k̑(u)won- ‘dog’ (Mallory and Adams
1997: 168) without Iranian mediation. Note that Slavic developed a specific term for
‘dog’: PSl *pĭsŭ < *‘spotted’, probably related to *pĭstrŭ ‘variegated’, from *pĭsati
‘paint’ and (later) ‘write’ < PIE *peik̑- ‘paint, mark’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 414),
cf. L pingere ‘paint, color’, etc., R pës, Pol pies ‘dog’, etc.
2.2. Celtic loans

A few words may have originated in Celtic:
PSl *sluga ‘servant’. Cf. OIr slōg, slūag ‘army, host; crowd, company’ < PIE *slou-
gos ‘servant, one performing service’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 506). The Proto-Slavic
form is manifested in R sluga ‘servant’, but Lith slaugà ‘service’ indicates that the
borrowing most likely reaches back into the period of Proto-Balto-Slavic, with a seman-
tic shift from a military context to one of service. Mallory and Adams (1997: 285)
suggest that Balto-Slavic may have derived the term independently of Celtic, from PIE
*sel- ‘move quickly’, cf. OE sellan ‘deliver, sell’ (> E sell), OCS sŭlŭ ‘messenger’, R
posol ‘messenger, ambassador’ (for a semantic analogy cf. E. ambassador < Fr < L
< Celtic *ambaktos, see jabeda below, 2.3), slat’ ‘send’; however, the morphological
complexities required by this assumption make it a far less attractive scenario.
PSl *jama / *ama ‘cave’. Cf. OIr huam ‘cavern, specus’ (Trubačev 1974−2013: 1.
70−71); but one may also compare this form to Gr ámē ‘shovel, spade’ (< PIE *sem-
‘gather’).
2.3. Germanic loans

Slavic possesses numerous loans from Germanic, mostly related to everyday life, hand-
craft, power, etc.:

Authenticated
PSl *buky ‘writing’, gen. *bukŭve < Goth bōka ‘written document’, cf. R bukva
‘letter’. Gmc *bōks is related to *bōkō ‘beech’ (< PIE *bheh2g̑os ‘beech’, cf. R buzina,
buz ‘elder, Sambucus’), cf. G. Buch, Buche, E book, beech. The PSl name of the beech
tree, *bukŭ, is also Gmc, cf. R buk ‘beech’. But it has been suggested that Gmc *bōks
may be linked to the family of PIE *bhag- ‘allot, deal, distribute’ (Pfeifer 2004: 179),
see *bogŭ above in 2.2.
PSl *bl’udo ‘dish’ < Goth biuþs, biud- ‘table’, cf. R bljudo ‘dish’.
PSl *korl’ĭ ‘king’ < OHG Kar(a)l, name of Charlemagne, R korol’, etc. Surprisingly,
this explains the Polish name for ‘rabbit’: królik (whence R krolik, Ukr krilyk), which is
a recent folk-etymological calque (‘little king’) after G dial. Küningl and Königshase
‘king-hare’ < MHG küniklīn / künglīn, from L cunīculus ‘rabbit’, due to confusion be-
tween küniklīn and MHG künig, MLG Könink ‘king’.
PSl *myto ‘tax’ < OHG mûte ‘tax’, OR myto ‘tax’. But G Miete < OHG mieta ‘loan,
gift’ is different, related to Gmc *mizdō, Goth mizdō, cf. OCS mĭzda R mzda ‘recom-
pense, reward’.
PSl *kusiti ‘try’ < Goth kausjan, E choose, Fr choisir, akin to L gustus ‘taste’. Cf.
Ukr kusyty ‘tempt’ Bulg. kusja ‘try (a food)’, Pol kusić ‘tempt’; in modern Slavic lan-
guages this form is usually prefixed: R iskušat’ ‘tempt’, iskusstvo ‘art’, vkus ‘taste’
(Trubačev 1974−2013: 13. 135).
PSl *kŭnędzĭ < *kŭnęg’ĭ ‘prince’ < Goth kuningaz, cf. R knjaz’ ‘prince’, etc.
PSl *pŭlkŭ ‘host’ < Gmc *fulkaz, OHG folk ‘host’, G Volk ‘people, nation’, R polk
‘troop, regiment’, akin to L plēbēs ‘the common people’, Gr plēthús ’throng, crowd,
(common) people’, PIE root *pleh1- ‘fill’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 417).
PSl *t’ud’ĭ / *tjudjĭ ‘foreign’; cf. OCS tuždĭ, štuždĭ; OR čudĭ, čužĭ ‘foreign’; R čužoj,
čuždyj < Goth þiuda ‘folk’, OHG diot ‘people, heathen’ (> G deutsch, E Dutch). PIE
*teuteh2 ‘the people’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 417). This term bears no relationship
to OCS OR R čudo ‘miracle’.
PSl *xǫdogŭ ‘wise, skillful’ < Goth handugs ‘handy, dexterous’ (E handy), cf. OCS
xǫdožĭnikŭ ‘creator, maker’, xǫdožĭstvo ‘wiseness, sagacity; ruse, perfidy’, R xudožnik
‘artist, painter’.
PSl *xlēbŭ ‘bread’ < Goth hlaifs, cf. G Laib, E loaf. Attested Slavic forms include
OCS xlěbŭ, R xleb, Ukr xlib, Bulg xljab, etc. But a properly Slavic origin (akin to
Germanic) is possible, if PIE *kloibo- ‘a mold of pottery used to bake bread’ > ‘bread
baked in a pottery mold’, cf. Gr klíbanos / kríbanos ‘baker’s oven’ (Trubačev 1974−
2013: 8. 27−29).
There are debatable cases: PSl *čędo / *čęda / *čędŭ ‘child’, cf. R čado, etc., may be an
early Germanic loan (k > č, 1st palatalization), from OHG kind. But a Slavic origin may be
admitted (Trubačev 1974−2013: 4. 102−104), from PSl *čęti ‘begin’ < PIE *ken- ‘begin-
ning; end’, cf. R načalo < PSl *na-čęlo < *na-ken-lo, L recēns ‘recent, young’, etc.
Germanic also served as an intermediary: some loans from Germanic are actually of
Latin, occasionally Greek, origin.
PSl *dŭska ‘board’ < OHG tisc (cf. G Tisch ‘table’, E dish) < L discus < Gr dískos,
cf. R doska ‘board’. This may explain R stakan ‘(drinking) glass’, from *dŭstŭkanŭ
‘wooden holder (of drink)’.
PSl *kupiti ‘buy’ < Goth kaupōn (the Germanic word was itself borrowed from L
caupō, caupōnis ‘petty tradesman, huckster, innkeeper’). This word is not to be con-

Authenticated
1580 XIII. Slavic
founded with its PSl homonym *kupiti ‘gather’, from PSl *kupa ‘mound, heap’, cf. R
sovokupnyj ‘gathered, summarized’ < PIE *koupo- ‘heap’, cf. OHG houf ‘heap’, E heap.
PSl *kotĭlŭ ‘kettle’ < Goth *katils / *katilus, from L catillus ‘kettle’ (Trubačev 1974−
2013: 11. 217−218), R kotël ‘kettle’, etc.
PSl *cĭrky / *cĭrĭky ‘church’ < Gmc *kiriko < Gr (do˜ma) ̄ kūriakón ‘(house) of the
Lord’. OCS crĭky, R cerkov’ ‘church’, etc. A different but very unconvincing etymology
(Gunnarsson 1937): from Romanian beserică, biserică < L basilica < Gr. basileús. Ac-
cording to Le Feuvre (2002−2003), in ORus (Novgorodian dialect) kĭrku, the initial
(unpalatalized) k is due to OSwed kirkio / kirko.
Some loans are limited to a particular Slavic subgroup. These include especially some
North Germanic (Scandinavian) terms borrowed only by Eastern Slavic: OR jabednikŭ
‘official, administrator, judge’ < *ębeda < ON embætti ‘office’, cf. OHG ambahti ‘id.’,
G Amt, from Celt *ambaktos ‘highly ranked servant’ (with a different suffix) < *h2entbhi
‘around’ + the participle of the verbal root *h2eg̑- ‘be active’ (Mallory and Adams 1997:
506). With semantic pejoration cf. R Ukr jabeda, jabednik ‘libeller, slanderer; sneak,
telltale’ (for a similar debasement, cf. R fiskal ‘sneak’, from Pol fiscał ‘lawyer, procura-
tor’ < L fiscālis ‘fiscal’, cf. Scots E Procurator Fiscal).
Many Germanic loans are more recent, as Pol rynek ‘market’, Cz rynk ‘ring, town
square’ (whence R rynok ‘market’), from MHG rinc ‘ring, circle, town square’, cf. G
Ring, E ring. Inversely (and much earlier), PSl *tŭrgŭ ‘market’ (of unclear etymology),
seen in R torg ‘market, bargaining’, Cz trh, etc., was borrowed by Scandinavian, cf.
Swed Norw Icel torg, Dan torv ‘market’.
2.4. Loans from non-PIE languages
Most of these are from Asian languages (Altaic, Chinese, etc.)

PSl *kapĭ ‘appearance, figure, idol’, OCS kapĭ ‘id.’, kapište ‘pagan temple’ < Proto-
Bulgarian (Turkic) *käp, cf. Uigur kep ‘shape, form, figure, picture’.
PSl *kŭniga ‘written document, book’ < OTurkic *küinig < Chinese küen ‘roll, vol-
ume’, the same source as for Hung könyv ‘book’. Cf. R kniga ‘book’, etc. Other etymolo-
gies have also been suggested for this term, e.g., from Akkadian kunukkum ‘(cylindrical)
seal, stamp, document’.
Some Slavic terms for ‘horse’ are of Altaic (Turkic, Mongol) origin: cf. OR *loša, R
lošad’ (fem.), now the usual word for ‘horse’ (cf. kon’ : ‘charger, steed’, 3), Ukr loša
‘colt’, Pol łoszę ‘id.’, a loan from Turkic (a)laša ‘horse, gelding’. More recent is R Ukr
merin (attested since 1500) ‘gelding’, borrowed from Mong mörin, morin (Trubačev
1960: 58) and therefore having no direct link with ON merr ‘mare’. But the Mongol
term is probably related to PIE *markos ‘horse’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 274) seen
in Ir marc, Bret marc’h, ON marr ‘horse’, merr ‘mare’, OHG meriha ‘mare’, E mare,
etc.; Chinese mǎ, Korean mal (opinion is divided on whether the PIE word is a borrowing
from pre-Mongol, which would also be the source of the Chinese word and that in turn
the source of the Korean, or the Mongol, Chinese, etc., words are ultimately borrowed
from PIE). See other terms for ‘horse’ below, 3.

Authenticated
3. Specific vocabulary
Many Slavic word can be related to PIE terms having a different meaning, although the
link is semantically justifiable.
PSl *dobrŭ ‘good, kind’ is related to PIE *dhabros ‘craftsman’, L faber, etc., from
PIE *dhabh- ‘put together’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 139). Cf. OCS dobrŭ ‘good, kind,
well-famed, beautiful’, R dobryj ‘good, kind’, etc. The meaning in Slavic may be ex-
plained as coming from ‘fitting, becoming’, cf. G tapfer ‘bold, solid, brave’, OE ge-
dæfte ‘mild, gentle’ > E daft, from the same PIE root, which also explains PSl *doba
‘time period, season’, cf. Ukr doba ‘time’, Cz ‘time, period, epoch’, Pol ‘period of 24
hours’. For the meaning ‘fitting’ cf. R udobnyj ‘fitting, convenient’, from the same root.
Semantically, the latter PSl term is analogous to PSl *godŭ (see next item).
PSl *godŭ ‘fitting / convenient / favorable time’, from PIE *ghedh- ‘join, fit together’
(whence E together) (Mallory and Adams 1997: 64). Cf. OCS godŭ ‘appointed time,
period; year’, godina ‘hour’, R god ‘year’, pogoda ‘weather’ (< ‘fine, favourable weath-
er’), from which is derived R godnyj ‘fitting’, Pol gody ‘feast’, godzina ‘hour’, Cz hod
‘time; feast’, hodina ‘hour’, Slovk god ‘fitting / favourable time / moment’, related to
Lith guõdas ‘honour, respect’, OHG gi-gat ‘fitting’, G gättlich ‘fitting’, Gatte ‘spouse,
husband’, gut ‘good’, E good, etc.
PSl *starŭ ‘old’ (Slavic has no word derived from PIE *senos, unlike Lith sẽnas
‘old’), hypothetically from PIE *(s)terh1- ‘stiff’ ON starr ‘stiff’, OE starian ‘look at,
stare’ > E stare or, more plausibly, from PIE *sth2ei- ‘become hard, fixed’ (an extension
of *steh2- ‘stand’) (Černyx 1993: 2. 199; Vasmer 1987: 3. 747), cf. Lith. stóras ‘thick,
wide, large’, L stīria ‘icicle’ ON stórr ‘big, strong, important’.
Other Slavic words have more questionable Indo-European etymologies.
The PSl term for ‘oak’ is *dǫbŭ / *dǫbrŭ, R dub, etc., of unclear etymology, hypothet-
ically from *dheubh- (with inclusion of a nasal infix *n, cf. E dump ‘deep hole in a
pond’) ‘deep, hole’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 154). The sense would originally have
been ‘tree growing in a valley, a low / deep place’ (Trubačev 1974−2013: 5. 95−97), cf.
OCS dŭno, R dno ‘ground, floor’ < PIE *dubno as well as OCS dŭbrŭ ‘ravine, valley’
and R dubrava ‘oak wood’, R duplo ‘tree hole’, Pol dub, dziub ‘tree hole’. However,
other etymologies have been suggested, including *dem-bh-os / *dom-bh-os ‘timber,
building wood used to build houses’ or *dheubh- / *dhoubh- ‘dark’ (oak timber / wood
becomes dark if it remains in water). If one supposes *dhan-bh-os (Černyx 1993: 1.
272), then a link would be possible between PSl *dǫbŭ and Gmc *danwō, cf. G Tanne
‘pine’ (if so derived). In any event, the Slavic word differs from such Germanic words
as ON fura ‘pine’, OHG for(a)ha ‘pine’, E fir, which seem to derive from a dialectal
PIE *pr̥ kweh2 cognate with *perkwus ‘oak’. The latter word was not preserved in Slavic,
except for the divinity name *Perunŭ ‘thunder god’, from *perkwu-hxn- ‘the oaken one’
(cf. the mythological link between oak and thunder).
PSl *konĭ, *komonĭ ‘horse’, R kon’, Ukr kin’ < *komni̯ o-, OR komonĭ < *komon-
‘hornless one’ (as opposed to cattle); cf. R komolyj ‘hornless’, from PIE *k̑em- / *kem-
‘hornless’; cf. OInd śáma- ‘id.’, Lith šmùlas ‘id.’, ON hind ‘hind’, OE hind ‘id.’ > E
hind, OPr camstian ‘sheep’, camnet ‘horse, hornless’, Lith kumė̑lė ‘mare’, kumelỹs, Latv
kumeļš ‘colt’, Gr kemás ’young deer’(Mallory and Adams, 273). Cf. SCr konj ‘horse;
castrated horse’, Cz kůň, Pol koń ‘horse’. Trubačev (1960: 51) suggests for *konĭ a
derivation from *kopni̯ o- ‘male animal’, from *kap-n- < PIE *kapro- ‘male’, cf. L caper;

Authenticated
1582 XIII. Slavic
but later (1974−2013: 10. 197) he claims that *komonĭ may have a different, onomatopo-
etic etymology: ‘the neighing one’, cf. ON humre ‘neigh’ < *kom- / *kim-, and PSl
*čĭmelĭ ‘hum’ (see above, 1.3.1.). He proposes (1974−2013: 10. 197) that *konĭ is from
*konikŭ / *konĭkŭ borrowed from Celt *konko / *kanko ‘horse’ (akin to G Hengst
‘stallion’, etc.). Note that PSl *kobyla ‘mare’, probably related to L (< Celt) caballus,
perhaps originated in an Asian language, cf. Turkish käväl(at) ‘swift (horse)’, Persian
kaval, or from “Pelasgian” *kabullēs < PIE *ghabheli- < *ghabh(o)lo- ‘fork’, ‘Gabel-
pferd’, cf. G Gabel ‘fork’ (Trubačev 1960: 52, 1974−2013: 10. 93).
PSl *skotŭ ‘livestock’ is specific to Slavic, unlike such Baltic forms as Lith pekus,
(PIE peḱu- ‘livestock’) borrowed from some western IE group (Mallory and Adams
1997: 23), and gyvulỹs ‘beast’ < PIE *gwih3-w- ‘live’. It is often considered to be a
Germanic loan (Goth skatts ‘wealth, treasure’, G Schatz; ON skatts ‘tribute, treasure’ is
a loan from West Germanic), see discussion in Trubačev (1960: 99−105). However,
Martynov (apud Trubačev 1960: 101) has etymologized this word as PSl *sŭkotŭ ‘young
animals, brood, offspring, progeny’ from *kotiti sę ‘procreate, give birth, drop’.
4. Word Formation
Slavic is rich in various compounds and derivatives by prefixation and suffixation.
PSl *nevēsta ‘bride’ < *neu̯-u̯edh-t-a, from PIE *neu̯- ‘new’ and *u̯edh- ‘lead’ (Ma-
llory and Adams 1997: 369): ‘the one who has been newly led’, i. e. the newcomer in
the husband’s family, R nevesta ‘bride’, etc. Cf. L dūcere uxōrem ‘lead a wife’, E wed,
wedding (< *u̯edh-). Different, because of its *d, is PIE *u̯edmo- ‘bride-price’, whence
PSl *vēdnom, OCS věno ‘bride-price’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 82), although the PIE
term has often been taken as derived from *u̯edh- ‘lead’, a root frequently used in
connection with marriage. But a common PIE form *hxu̯ed- has been suggested by
Szemerényi (apud Mallory and Adams 1997: 82). PSl *nevēsta has also been explained
as *ne-vēst-a ‘the unknown’ to věstŭ ‘known’.
PSl *medvēdĭ ‘bear’ is a bahuvrīhi ‘whose food is honey’ from *medv- ‘honey’ (cf.
*medŭ ‘honey’, adj. *medvĭnŭ) and *ēdĭ ‘food’ (from the root *ēd- ‘eat’), hence ‘honey-
eater’ (Černyx 1993: 1. 519). OCS medvědĭ, R medved’, Ukr medvid’, vedmid’ (with
inversion of members), Cz medvěd, etc. This form, together with its Germanic counter-
part G Bär, E bear, originally ‘brown one’, is a tabu substitution for PIE *h2r̥ tk̑os ‘bear’
in an area (Northern Europe) where bears have been hunted since antiquity.
PSl *obvolko / *obvolka / *obvolkŭ ‘cloud’ (R oblako [< OCS], BelR voblak Bulg
Maced oblak, SCr Slovn voblak) is from *obvelkt’i ‘envelop’ < *ob- ‘about, around’ +
*velkt’i ‘pull, draw’ > ‘veil, cover’. The same combination of root and prefix had the
meaning ‘garment, clothing’ (the Slavic k precludes any connection to G Wolke, which
is rather related to PSl *volga > OCS vlaga ‘moisture’). The Slavic term is semantically
analogous to ON Swed sky ‘cloud’ (borrowed as E sky), L ob-scūrus, both presumably
from a root *skeu- ‘cover’. For the semantics, cf. also Fr nuage < L nūbes ‘cloud; veil,
shroud, covering’ and for the prefix (on which see also 1.3.2 above) cf. L ob-nubilāre
‘cover with clouds’. Other Slavic languages form their word for ‘cloud’ from different
etyma: Ukr xmara, Pol Cz Slovk chmura presuppose a *xmur- ‘gloomy’, while Cz Slovk
mrak ‘cloud’ is from *morkŭ ‘darkness’, related to G Morgen ‘dawn’ < ‘dusk’.

Authenticated
An identical notion can be denoted in Slavic languages by derivatives involving a

common prefix but different roots. Thus, *otŭ- ‘away’ appears in the following Slavic
verbs meaning ‘to answer’ (cf. also E reply, respond, rejoin, all of Latinate origin):
OCS otŭvěštati, R otvečat’, root *vět- ‘tell, say (solemnly)’; cf. PIE *u̯ōt- ‘seer, poet’;
OCS otŭrěšti, root *rěk- ‘say’ < *‘lead, arrange, indicate’; cf. PIE *rek- ‘speak’;
Bulg otgovorjam, Maced odgovori, SC Slovn odgovoriti, root *govor- ‘speak’;
BelR adkazvac’, root *kaz- ‘say’ < ‘show, indicate’;
Ukr vidpovidati, Pol odpowiedać, Cz odpověděti, from *pověd- ‘tell’, prefix *po- +
*věd- ‘know’; cf. PIE *u̯eid- ‘see, know as a fact’.
5. Abbreviations
Alb − Albanian, Avest − Avestan, BelR − Belorussian, Bret − Breton, Bulg − Bulgarian,
Celt − Celtic. Cz − Czech, Dan − Danish, E − (New) English, Fr − French. G − German,
Gmc − Germanic, Goth − Gothic, Gr − Greek, Hung − Hungarian, Ir − Irish, Iran −
Iranian, It − Italian, Kashub − Kashubian, L − Latin, Latv − Latvian, Lith − Lithuanian,
Maced − Macedonian, MHG − Middle High German, Mong − Mongol, Norw − Norwe-
gian, OCS − Old Church Slavonic, OHG − Old High German, OIcel − Old Icelandic,
OInd − Old Indic, ON − Old Norse, OPr − Old Prussian, PIE − Proto-Indo-European,
Pol − Polish, Polab − Polabian, PSl − Proto-Slavic, R − Russian, Rom − Romanian,
SCr − Serbian-Croatian, Slovk − Slovakian, Slovn − Slovene, Sorb − Sorbian, Sp −
Spanish, Swed − Swedish, Toch − Tocharian, Ukr − Ukrainian. In general, O before any
of the above designates ‘Old’ and M denotes ‘Middle’. Also, it should be noted that the
rubric SCr is employed in its “traditional” value. The items in question are, at least
diachronically, inherent to both Serbian and Croatian, as well as to Bosnian and Monte-
negrin (BCMS).
6. References
Avanesov, Ruben Ivanovič (ed.)
1988−1991 Slovar’ drevne-russkogo jazyka XI−XIV vekov [Dictionary of the Old Russian
language of the XI−XIV centuries]. Vol. 1−4. Моscow: Nauka.
Birnbaum, Henrik
1975 Common Slavic: Progress and problems in its reconstruction. Cambridge, MA: Slavica.
Cejtlin, Ralâ Mihajlovna, Radoslav Večerka, and Emilie Bláhová
1994 Staroslavjanskij slovar’ (po rukopisjam X−XI vekov) [Old Slavic dictionary (based on
manuscripts of the X−XI centuries)]. Moscow: Russkij Jazyk.
Černyx, Pavel Jakovlevic
1993 Istoriko-etymologičeskij slovar’ sovremennogo russkogo jazyka [Historical and etymo-
logical dictionary of the modern Russian language]. Vol. 1−2. Moscow: Russkij Jazyk.
Cornillot, François
1994 L’aube scythique du monde slave. Slovo 14: 77−259.
Derksen, Rick
2008 Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic inherited lexicon. Leiden: Brill. Web database
Dictionary of the Slavic inherited lexicon: http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/slavic [Last
accessed 28 June 2017].

Authenticated
1584 XIII. Slavic
Feuillet, Jack
1999 Grammaire historique du bulgare (ch. 12: Formation du lexique). Paris: Institut d’études
slaves.
Gamkrelidze, Tamaz V. and Vyacheslav V. Ivanov
1984 Indoevropejskij jazyk i Indoevropejcy. Vol. 1, 2. Tbilisi: Izdatel’stvo Tbilisskogo Univer-
siteta. [Translated as Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans. A reconstruction and his-
torical analysis of a proto-language and a proto-culture. 2 vols. 1995. Berlin: De Gruy-
ter.]
Gippert, Jost
2002 Neues zu ‘Slavisch st aus älterem pt’? In: Peter Anreiter, Peter Ernst, and Isolde Hausner
(eds.), Namen, Sprachen und Kulturen. Vienna: Praesens, 239−256.
Gunnarsson, Gunnar
1937 Das slavische Wort für Kirche. Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksell.
Herman, Louis J.
1975 A Dictionary of Slavic word families. New York: Columbia University Press.
Le Feuvre, Claire
2002−2003 Deux exemples d’interférences linguistiques dans les textes novgorodiens an-
ciens: l’église et le maître. Revue des études slaves 74: 431−440.
Le Feuvre, Claire
2009 Le vieux slave. Leuven: Peeters.
Lehmann, Volkmar
1995 Die Rekonstruktion von Bedeutungsentwicklung und -motiviertheit mit funktionalen
Operationen. Slavistische Linguistik 21: 255−289.
Mallory, James P. and Douglas Q. Adams
1997 Encyclopaedia of Indo-European culture. London: Fitzroy Dearborn.
Meillet, Antoine
1934 Le slave commun. Paris: Champion.
Schenker, Alexander
1993 Proto-Slavonic. In: Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett (eds.), The Slavonic lan-
guages. London: Routledge, 60−124.
Patrick, George Z.
1989 Roots of the Russian language: An Elementary Guide to Wordbuilding. Lincolnwood
(Chicago): Passport Books.
Pfeifer, Wolfgang
2004 Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Deutschen. 7th edn. Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch
Verlag.
Sakhno, Serguei
2001 Dictionnaire russe-français d’étymologie comparée: Correspondances lexicales histori-
ques. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Sakhno, Serguei
2002 Autour des prépositions russes O(B) et PRO: Problème des parallèles lexico-sémantiques
slavo − latins. Slavica Occitania 15: 157−178.
Toporov, Vladimir N.
1974 Neskol’ko drevnix latinsko-slavjanskix parallelej [Several ancient Latin-Slavic paral-
lels]. In: Oleg N. Trubačev (ed.), Etimologija 1972. Moscow: Nauka, 3−19.
Trubačev, Oleg N.
1960 Proisxoždenie nazvanij domašnix životnyx v slavjanskix jazykax [The origin of the names
of domestic animals in the Slavic languages]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk
SSSR.
Trubačev, Oleg N. (ed.)
1974−2013 Ètimologičeskij slovar’ slavjanskix jazykov. Praslavjanskij leksičeskij fond [Ety-
mological dictionary of the slavic languages. The Proto-Slavic lexical stock]. Vol. 1−
39. since 2002 ed. by O. Trubačev and A. Žuravlev. Moscow: Nauka.

Authenticated
85. The dialectology of Slavic 1585
Trubačev, Oleg N.
1985 Linguistics and Ethnogenesis of the Slavs: The Ancient Slavs as Evidenced by Etymol-
ogy and Onomastics. Journal of Indo-European Studies 13: 203−256.
Vaillant André
1974 Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Vol. 4: La formation des noms. Paris:
Klincksieck.
Vasmer, Max
1987 Etimologičeskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka [Etymological dictionary of the Russian lan-
guage]. Vol. 1−4. Moscow: Progress.
Serguei Sakhno, Rueil-Malmaison (France)
85. The dialectology of Slavic

1. Introduction 6. West Slavic
2. Early Proto-Slavic 7. East Slavic
3. Late Proto-Slavic 8. Morphology
4. The dialectal disintegration of Proto-Slavic 9. Lexical differences
1. Introduction
All Slavic languages have been derived from their common ancestor, Proto-Slavic. The
majority of scholars consider Proto-Slavic to have developed from yet an earlier interme-
diate proto-language, Proto-Balto-Slavic. This larger entity belonged in turn to the satem
group of Indo-European languages. Both Slavic and Baltic harbor some irregular traces
of features found in centum dialects, e.g. OCS kamy, Russ. kamenĭ ‘stone’, Lith. akmuõ
‘id.’ : ašmuõ ‘blade’, cf. Gk. ákmōn ‘anvil’, ON hamarr ‘hammer, crag, precipice’ : Skt.
áśman- ‘stone’; OCS slušati ‘hear’, Skt. (Vedic) śroṣantu ‘let them hear’ : Lith. klausýti
‘hear’, OIr. -cloathar (subj.) ‘would hear’, Toch. A klyoṣ- ‘heard (3sg.)’, OHG hlosên
‘hear’; OCS svekrŭ ‘father-in-law’, Gk. hékuros, Lat. socer, OHG swêhur : Lith. šẽšuras,
Skt. çváçuras, Av. xvasura- ‘id.’, etc. Some irregular correspondences reflect probably
dialectal differences within Proto-Balto-Slavic. These are usually neglected in compara-
tive grammars but are presented in etymological dictionaries, e.g. OCS večerŭ ‘evening’ :
Lith. vãkaras, Latv. vakars ‘id.’; OCS redŭkŭ ‘seldom’ : Lith. rẽtas ‘id.’; OCS devętĭ,
Lith. devynì, Latv. deviņi ‘9’ : Pr. newīnts ‘9 th’, cf. Gk. ennéa, Lat. novem, Skt. náva,
Goth. niun ‘9’; OCS domŭ ‘house’ : Lith. nãmas ‘id.’ but dimstis ‘yard, domain’, cf.
Skt. dámas, Gk. dómos, Lat. domus ‘house’; OCS dlŭgŭ ‘long’ : Lith. ìlgas, Latv. il̃gs
‘id.’ but Dùlgas, Dulgẽlė (place-names in Lithuania of Yotvingian origin), cf. Hitt. dalu-
ga-, Gk. dolikhós, Skt. dīrghás, etc.
In the development of Proto-Slavic, there were two stages: Early Proto-Slavic (Germ.
Frühurslavisch) and Late Proto-Slavic (Germ. Späturslavisch).
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-006

Authenticated
Trubačev, Oleg N.
1985 Linguistics and Ethnogenesis of the Slavs: The Ancient Slavs as Evidenced by Etymol-
ogy and Onomastics. Journal of Indo-European Studies 13: 203−256.
Vaillant André
1974 Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Vol. 4: La formation des noms. Paris:
Klincksieck.
Vasmer, Max
1987 Etimologičeskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka [Etymological dictionary of the Russian lan-
guage]. Vol. 1−4. Moscow: Progress.
Serguei Sakhno, Rueil-Malmaison (France)
85. The dialectology of Slavic

1. Introduction 6. West Slavic
2. Early Proto-Slavic 7. East Slavic
3. Late Proto-Slavic 8. Morphology
4. The dialectal disintegration of Proto-Slavic 9. Lexical differences
1. Introduction
All Slavic languages have been derived from their common ancestor, Proto-Slavic. The
majority of scholars consider Proto-Slavic to have developed from yet an earlier interme-
diate proto-language, Proto-Balto-Slavic. This larger entity belonged in turn to the satem
group of Indo-European languages. Both Slavic and Baltic harbor some irregular traces
of features found in centum dialects, e.g. OCS kamy, Russ. kamenĭ ‘stone’, Lith. akmuõ
‘id.’ : ašmuõ ‘blade’, cf. Gk. ákmōn ‘anvil’, ON hamarr ‘hammer, crag, precipice’ : Skt.
áśman- ‘stone’; OCS slušati ‘hear’, Skt. (Vedic) śroṣantu ‘let them hear’ : Lith. klausýti
‘hear’, OIr. -cloathar (subj.) ‘would hear’, Toch. A klyoṣ- ‘heard (3sg.)’, OHG hlosên
‘hear’; OCS svekrŭ ‘father-in-law’, Gk. hékuros, Lat. socer, OHG swêhur : Lith. šẽšuras,
Skt. çváçuras, Av. xvasura- ‘id.’, etc. Some irregular correspondences reflect probably
dialectal differences within Proto-Balto-Slavic. These are usually neglected in compara-
tive grammars but are presented in etymological dictionaries, e.g. OCS večerŭ ‘evening’ :
Lith. vãkaras, Latv. vakars ‘id.’; OCS redŭkŭ ‘seldom’ : Lith. rẽtas ‘id.’; OCS devętĭ,
Lith. devynì, Latv. deviņi ‘9’ : Pr. newīnts ‘9 th’, cf. Gk. ennéa, Lat. novem, Skt. náva,
Goth. niun ‘9’; OCS domŭ ‘house’ : Lith. nãmas ‘id.’ but dimstis ‘yard, domain’, cf.
Skt. dámas, Gk. dómos, Lat. domus ‘house’; OCS dlŭgŭ ‘long’ : Lith. ìlgas, Latv. il̃gs
‘id.’ but Dùlgas, Dulgẽlė (place-names in Lithuania of Yotvingian origin), cf. Hitt. dalu-
ga-, Gk. dolikhós, Skt. dīrghás, etc.
In the development of Proto-Slavic, there were two stages: Early Proto-Slavic (Germ.
Frühurslavisch) and Late Proto-Slavic (Germ. Späturslavisch).
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-006

Authenticated
1586 XIII. Slavic
2. Early Proto-Slavic
Since for every prehistoric language writings are absent, Proto-Slavic has been recon-
structed via the comparative method. Early Proto-Slavic had split off from Proto-Balto-
Slavic and initially differed little from the latter. Its main structure was in general the
same as that of Proto-Baltic, as reflected best in Lithuanian and to some extent Old
Prussian and Latvian. Lithuanian in many cases preserves structures and forms that
Proto-Slavic once possessed. Syllables in Early Proto-Slavic possessed consonant clus-
ters inherited from Proto-Indo-European and could be open or closed. There was a
phonological opposition of long and short vowels inherited from Proto-Indo-European
and Proto-Balto-Slavic. It had a simple tone system, often called pitch accent, as evi-
denced by paradigmatic stress mobility in East Slavic languages, e.g. nom. : acc. sg.
ruká : rúku ‘hand’, golová : gólovu ‘head’, zimá : zímu ‘winter’. Such mobility can be
explained only by the former existence of a tonic system of the sort seen also in the
corresponding Lithuanian items rankà (< *rañkā́ < *rañ́kā ) : rañką, galvà : gálvą,
žiemà : žiẽmą. Cases like Lith. rankà : rañką, Russ. ruká : rúku attest also the Law of
Fortunatov/de Saussure. The Lithuanian accent paradigm with fixed high intonation on
the first syllable (immobile) finds many correspondences in the East Slavonic languages
in words with fixed stress on the first syllable, e.g. Lith. líepa : Russ. lípa ‘lime tree’,
Lith. kriáušė : Russ. grúša ‘pear’, Lith. šiáurė : Russ. séver ‘north’, etc.
3. Late Proto-Slavic
By this stage of its development, the whole system of Proto-Slavic had undergone exten-
sive modifications. The main accelerant of structural changes was the tendency for in-
creasing sonority within all syllables, which affected both inherited Indo-European vo-
cabulary and loan words. One manifestation of this tendency was the law of open sylla-
bles, which caused fundamental changes in the structure of words:
1. All consonant clusters were changed or simplified, e.g. *ss, *zs (> *ss), *ts (> *ss),
*ds (> *ts > *ss) > s: aor. *nēssŭ > OCS něsŭ ‘I carried’; *izsouxiti > OCS isušiti
‘dry out’; aor. *čĭtsŭ > *čīsŭ, OCS čisŭ ‘I read’; aor. *vĕdsŭ > *vĕtsŭ > *vēsŭ, OCS
věsŭ ‘I led’; *ps > s: *opsa > OCS osa ‘wasp’ : Lith. (dial.) vapsà.
2. The combination of vowel + nasal changed into a nasalized vowel, e.g. *ronka >
OCS rǫka ‘hand, arm’ : Lith. rankà, *imti > OCS (vŭz)ęti ‘take’ : Lith. im̃ti.
3. The combination of vowel + liquid became syllabic sonorants [r̥ ], [l̥ ], written <rĭ>,
<lĭ>, respectively, e.g. *virs- > OCS vrĭxŭ ‘above, up’ : Lith. viršùs, *vilkos > OCS
vlĭkŭ ‘wolf’ : Lith. vil̃kas or underwent liquid metathesis to RV; *korvā ‘cow’ > Blg.
kráva, S.-Cr. krȁva, Cz. kráva, Slvk. krava, Pol. krowa (on Russ., Ukr. koróva, see
7) : Lith. kárvė; *bolto > OCS blato ‘swamp’ : Lith. báltas ‘white’.
4. Consonants at the end of closed syllables were dropped, e.g. *tos, *tod > OCS tŭ, to
‘that, this’, *stolos > OCS stolŭ ‘table’ : Lith. stãlas, *ognis > OCS ogn̑ĭ ‘fire’ : Lith.
ugnìs; *sūnus > OCS synŭ ‘son’ : Lith. sūnùs, etc. In some cases, a change of syllabic
boundaries took place or anaptyctic vowels could appear, e.g. Gk. psalmós > OCS
pŭsalŭmŭ ‘Psalm’, Gk. Aíguptos > OCS egüpĭtŭ ‘Egypt’, Gk. Paũlos > OCS pavŭlŭ
‘Paul’, etc.

Authenticated
Fig. 85.1
The new phonemic arrangement of syllables could have the sequence (1) fricative +
(2) occlusive(/affricate) + (3) sonorant (nasal, liquid) or v + (4) vowel. (In a reduced
variant one or more members of the chain could be absent, e.g. 1 + 4, 2 + 4, 3 + 4, etc.)
The previous phonological opposition of long and short vowels was modified into a
new qualitative opposition (see Fig. 85.1).
The disappearance of the phonological opposition of long and short vowels automati-
cally caused the loss of the relevant pitch accent. The reduced vowels ĭ and ŭ (‘jers’)

Authenticated
1588 XIII. Slavic
could be in a strong or weak position. The strong position of jers was in stressed syllables
(e.g. OCS sŭnŭ ‘dream’, tŭ ‘this, that’, dĭnĭ ‘day’, vĭsĭ ‘all’) and in syllables followed
by other syllables with jers (e.g. šĭpŭtati ‘to whisper’, kŭ mŭně, Russ. ko mne ‘to me’).
The weak position of jers was in unstressed endings and in unstressed syllables before
normal vowels, e.g. OCS synŭ ‘son’, dĭnĭ ‘day’; dŭva ‘two’; sŭborŭ ‘council’, dĭni
‘days’. Later on in Slavic dialects, all jers in weak position disappeared and in strong
position changed into normal vowels. The modification of the vowel system took place
separately in early Slavic dialects that later gave rise to modern Slavic languages.
The system of consonants was immensely modified after palatalizations of velars.
There were three Slavic palatalizations − two regressive before the front vowels i and e
and one progressive that took place after these vowels. After the first Slavic palataliza-
tion k’ > č’, g’ > ž’, x’ > š’, e.g. OCS živŭ ‘alive, lively’ : Lith. gývas, Skt. jīvás, Lat.
vīvus; OCS četyre (m.), četyri (f.) ‘four’ : Lith. keturì, OIr. ceth(a)ir; OCS tixŭ ‘still’,
tišina ‘stillness’. This process took place prior to the monophthongization of diphthongs.
The appearance of new front monophthongs from former diphthongs gave rise to the
second palatalization: k’ > c’, g’ > dz’ > z’, x’ > s’, e. g. OCS cěna ‘price, value’ : Lith.
káina, Gk. poinḗ ‘price, penalty’, Av. kaēnā- ‘punishment’, Ir. cin ‘guilt, debt’; OCS
vlĭkŭ ‘wolf’ (: Lith. vil̃kas), nom. pl. vlĭci (: Lith. vilkaĩ); OCS dzělo ‘very, much’ : Lith.
gailùs ‘sharp, harsh, revengeful’, Goth. gailjan ‘make glad, happy’; OCS f. naga ‘nude’,
dat. sg. nadzě : Lith. núogai ; OCS suxŭ ‘dry’ (: Lith. saũsas), dat., loc. sg. susě (: Lith.
sausaĩ), suša (< *suxii̯ a) ‘land’. The third palatalization had the same results but took
place only after the vowels ĭ, i, and ę.
The appearance of open syllables exercised a profound influence upon the whole
morphological system of Proto-Slavic, causing the deletion of all final consonants, reduc-
tion of vowels in endings, and the appearance there of the reduced jer vowels (ŭ and
ĭ). As a result, the differences between many forms in distinct paradigms of nouns and
verbs were lost, many endings coming to coincide with each other and thereby causing
a mixture and simplification of paradigms. In the system of declension, e.g., nom. and
acc. sg. of *o- and *u- stems as well as of *i̯ o- and *i- stems became identical, cf. nom.
and acc. sg. (*o-stems) OCS vlĭkŭ ‘wolf’ (: Lith. vil̃kas [nom.], vil̃ką [acc.] < *-os, *-om)
and (*u-stems) OCS synŭ ‘son’ (: Lith. sūnùs [nom.], sū́nų [acc.] < *-us, *-um); and
nom. and acc. sg. (*i̯ o-stems) OCS nožĭ ‘knife’ (cf. Lith. kẽlias [nom.], kẽlią [acc.] <
*-i̯ os, *-i̯ om, ‘road’) and (*i-stems) OCS noštĭ ‘night’ (: Lith. naktìs [nom.], nãktį [acc.]
< *-is, *-im,), etc. In spite of the loss of IE verbal endings in Late Proto-Slavic, its
complicated temporal system continued to exist.
4. The dialectal disintegration of Proto-Slavic

The 7 th century marks the beginning of the gradual breakup of Proto-Slavic, leading to
the appearance of huge dialectal zones. These at first presented a common dialectal
continuity until it was broken by the movement of Hungarians into Pannonia in the 10 th
century. As a result, West Slavs were separated from South Slavs rendering direct contact
between them impossible. The break-up of the Slavic dialectal continuity produced three
dialectal groups: East Slavic, West Slavic, and South Slavic, which were, however, con-
nected by numerous common isoglosses, many of which are still preserved in modern

Authenticated
Slavic languages and their dialects. It is supposed that South Slavs came to the Balkans
in two streams and that between them there was a large non-Slavic population of Vlachs.
Although East and South Slavic have been separated by vast territories for many centu-
ries, they share slightly more isoglosses in common than they do with West Slavic. We
regard only the main dialectal features that are common to all groups of Slavic languages.
For the appearance of the three Slavic dialect groups, the most important develop-
ments were the following modifications of the Common Slavic language system. The
jer vowels ĭ and ŭ in strong position changed into different vowels. The nasal vowels ǫ
and ę underwent variant developments, as did ě and y, jery, and the vowels ĭ and ŭ in
weak position disappeared. In separate South and West Slavic dialects new oppositions
of long and short vowels appeared, as did changes in the place of stress as well as the
development of pitch accent. For the consonant system the most important changes were:
modification of oppositions of hard and soft consonants; changes of rĭ [r̥ ], lĭ [l̥ ]; of
clusters *kv-, *gv-; *tj, *kt’, *gt’, and *dj; *(T)orT, *(T)olT, and *(T)erT, *(T)elT (T =
any obstruent); and labial consonant + [j].
5. South Slavic
It is supposed that Slavs migrated to the South of Europe in two waves which took place
at different times and via different routes. As a result, Slavs came to inhabit almost the
entire Balkan region as well as some adjacent territories. Earlier these territories had been
occupied by various tribes who spoke different languages. Their assimilation exercised
a significant influence upon the ethnogenesis of the South Slavs and the formation of
ancient dialects. These facts explain why the South Slavs had been split into two
groups − Eastern and Western. The latter group gave rise to Slovenian, Serbian, and
Croatian and the former to Bulgarian and Macedonian. Serbian and Croatian were further
subdivided into three dialect groups: Štokavian, Čakavian, and Kajkavian based on the
form of the interrogative pronoun ‘what?’, which is pronounced što in the first, ča in
the second and kaj in the third group. In historical times the South Slavs were subjugated
by different conquerors, and their states were split. Slovenian, Croatian, and parts of
Serbian lands were for a long time incorporated into Austria, Hungary, and their common
state Austro-Hungary, whereas Serbia, Bulgaria, and Macedonia became part of the Otto-
man Empire. These historical events, with the attendant linguistic contacts which they
produced, have influenced all South Slavic dialects. We first examine the features that
were inherited from the time of the split of Proto-Slavic and are common to all South
Slavic dialects.
5.1. Stress and vowels

The development of the vowel systems in eastern and western areas of South Slavic was
different. In Bulgarian and Macedonian the vowel system lacks an opposition of short
and long vowels. In Eastern Bulgarian dialects (the basis of the literary language), there
are six vowel phonemes (i, u, ŭ, e, o, a). Western Bulgarian and its neighbor Macedonian
have a five-vowel system, lacking ŭ. (The Bulgarian vowel transcribed ŭ in this article

Authenticated
1590 XIII. Slavic
is the historical back jer ŭ; however, in modern synchronic treatments of Bulgarian it is

usually transliterated as ă, better reflecting its pronunciation in the modern language.)
In addition, eastern and western dialects differ principally in two aspects. First, in the
former the accent is free and vowels are reduced in unstressed position. In the latter, the
stress in words of three or more syllables is fixed on the third syllable from the end and
in words of two syllables it is fixed on the first syllable, and unstressed syllables do not
show vowel reduction. In Eastern Bulgarian dialects these restrictions on the position of
the accent do not apply, and the place of stress is phonologically relevant: Bulg. vŭ̀ lna
‘wool’ : vŭlnà ‘wave’, pàrа ‘vapor’ : pаrà ‘coin’, ìmа ‘has’ : (аоr.) imà ‘had’.
A new phonological opposition of long and short vowels has developed in western
areas of South Slavic. Besides that, in Slovenian there is in addition an opposition of
long close ó, é and open ȏ, ȇ that is also relevant for lexical and grammatical differentia-
tion (Slvn. kùp ‘haystack, crowd’ : kúp ‘buy’; bràt ‘brother’ : brát ‘to read’; vèč ‘more’ :
g. pl. véč [< véčа] ‘assembly, gathering’; péti ‘to sing’ : dat.-loc. sg. pȇti [< pȇtа ‘heel’];
téle ‘these’ : tȇle ‘calf’; 3. sg. vódi : 2. sg. imper. vȏdi [< voditi] ‘conduct’; vòd ‘wire’ :
g. pl. vȏd [< vȏdа] ‘water’). The accent in Slovenian is free and mobile and can be
dynamic or tonal. Most of the tonal dialects have the following intonations: (1) an irrele-
vant short (marked with the grave `): bòb ‘bean’, ràk ‘cancer’; (1a) short and rising ( `)
and (1b) short and falling (marked with the double grave ˋˋ): brȁt ‘brother’, krȕh ‘round’,
sȉr ‘cheese’. (2) long and falling (marked with the inverted breve ̑ or the circumflex ͡ ;
close o and e have a dot below): dȃn ‘day’, dȗh ‘spirit, breath’, sȋn ‘son’ and (3) long
and rising (marked with the acute ´): žéna ‘wife’, člóvek ‘man, human being’, zíma
‘winter’. The intonations are phonologically relevant: gràd ‘hail’ : grȃd ‘castle’ (: g. sg.
gráda), pót ‘way, road’ : pȏt ‘sweat’; g. sg. goré : nom. pl. gorȇ (< góra) ‘hill’; 2. pl.
ind. kosíte ‘you eat’ : 2. pl. imper. kosȋte, etc. The place of stress in many instances has
been changed. In some circumstances it could be retracted onto the previous syllable
(similar to Serbian and Croatian): Slvn. (tonic stress) róka / (dynamic stress) rȏka : Srb.-
Cr. rúka : Russ. ruká ‘hand, arm’; Slvn. gláva : Srb.-Cr. gláva : Russ. golová ‘head’;
Slvn. žéna / žȇna : Srb.-Cr. žéna : Russ. žená ‘wife’. In other instances it was shifted
onto the following syllable: Slvn. nebȏ / nebó : Srb.-Cr. nȅbo : Russ. nébo ‘sky’; Slvn.
zlatȏ / zlató : Srb.-Cr. zlȃto : Russ. zóloto ‘gold’; Slvn. srcȇ / srcé : Srb.-Cr. sȑce : Russ.
sérdce ‘heart’. In some forms of paradigms, the shift can be absent: g. sg. Slvn. žené −
Russ. žеný : Srb.-Cr. žènē; loc. sg. Slvn. sŕcu − Srb.-Cr. sȑcu, Russ. sérdce. Short vowels
in syllables with retracted stress could become long: Slvn. ókno / ȏkno : Srb.-Cr. òkno :
Russ. оknó ‘window’; Slvn. vóda / vȏda : Srb.-Cr. vòda : Russ. vodá ‘water’, but Slvn.
gràd : Srb.-Cr. grȁd : Russ. grad ‘hail’; Slvn. lùk : Srb.-Cr. lȕk : Russ. luk ‘onion’, etc.
In Serbian and Croatian, pretonic vowels are usually short, and reduction of un-
stressed vowels is absent. The stressed syllabic r̥ also has an intonation. As in Slovenian,
four intonations are marked:
1. short falling: Srb.-Cr. pȁs ‘dog’, lȉpa ‘lime tree’;
2. short rising: žèna, ìgra ‘play’;
3. long falling: dȃn ‘day’, mȇd ‘honey’;
4. long rising: rúka, gláva.
The intonations are also phonologically relevant: Srb.-Cr. grȁd ‘hail’ : grȃd ‘castle’, pȁs
‘dog’ : pȃs ‘belt’, lȕk ‘onion’ : lȗk ‘bow’; Srb.-Cr. mláda : Russ. molodá ‘young’ [pred.
adj.], Srb.-Cr. f. mlȃdā : Russ. molodája [attrib. adj.] f. Accent in Serbian and Croatian

Authenticated
is free and mobile, but there are some restrictions on its place and usage of intonations.
As a rule, a final syllable is unstressed. Monosyllabic words have only one of two falling
intonations: Srb.-Cr. grȁd ‘hail’, grȃd ‘castle’, lȕk ‘onion’, lȗk ‘bow’, pȁs ‘dog’, dȃn
‘day’. In disyllabic and polysyllabic words intonation of the first syllable can vary: Srb.-
Cr. zlȃto ‘gold’, vȏjna ‘war’, acc. sg. glȃvu ‘head’ : gláva ‘head’, rúka ‘hand’, ȉstina
‘truth’, 1. pl. pȋšemo ‘we write’, nòsiti ‘carry’, písati ‘write’. In words having more than
two syllables, accented internal syllables can have only one of two rising intonations:
dovèsti ‘carry’, nogári ‘easel’. The place of intonation has often been changed. In most
cases it has been retracted onto the previous syllable: Srb.-Cr. rúka, Slvn. róka : Russ.
ruká; Srb.-Cr. gláva, Slvn. gláva : Russ. golová; Srb.-Cr. žèna, Slvn. žéna : Russ. žená
‘woman’; Srb.-Cr. vòda, Slvn. vóda : Russ. vodá ‘water’. We must pay attention to the
fact that the appearance of the new opposition of long and short vowels has developed
independently not only in West Slavic and South Slavic, but also in various South Slavic
dialects, cf. Slvn., Srb.-Cr. grȃd : Cz. hrad : Pol. gród, LSorb. hród, ‘castle’; Slovn.,
Srb.-Cr. mláda (mlȃd) : Cz. mladá ‘young’; Slvn. lȏk, Srb.-Cr. lȗk : Cz. luk ‘bow’; Slvn.
ókno / ȏkno : Srb.-Cr. òknо ‘window’; Slvn. zlatȏ / zlató : Srb.-Cr. zlȃto ‘gold’; Slvn.
nebȏ / nebó : Srb.-Cr. nȅbo ‘sky’.
The jers in a strong position have often merged in South Slavic. In Slovenian ĭ and
ŭ become ə/e [ə] and in some cases a (ĭ : Slvn. pɘ̀s / pès ‘dog’, vès ‘village’, but dȃn /
dán ‘day’; ŭ: sɘ̀n (sàn) / sèn ‘dream’, lèž ‘lie’, but mȃh / máh ‘moss’). The latter develop-
ment was usual for Serbian and Croatian (Srb.-Cr. pȁs ‘dog’, òvas ‘oat’; sȁn, lȃž). The
vowel ĭ becomes e and in some cases ŭ (ă) in some western dialects of Bulgarian, e in
Macedonian (Bulg. pŭs / pes, Macd. pes, den; Bulg. tŭ̀ men − Macd. temen ‘dark’. The
vowel ŭ <ъ> remains as such orthographically in Bulgarian and becomes o in Macedoni-
an (Bulg. sŭn − Macd. son ‘sleep’, Bulg. mŭ̀ x − Macd. mov ‘moss’).
In Slovenian the difference between e and ě has been lost and a new long ē has
appeared from both vowels (e: rébro / rȇbro ‘rib’, mȇd ‘honey’; ē: réka ‘river’, lȇs
‘wood’). The same is true of Macedonian, where, however, only short e is possible
(Macd. med, reka). In Bulgarian this process involved some peculiarities. ě becomes e,
merging with the latter, when stressed before a soft consonant or in unstressed position
(OBulg. běl- ‘white’ > Bulg. bèlene ‘whitening’, rekà ‘river’ beside med ‘honey’, vèčer
‘evening’, both with original e). However, stressed ě becomes ja if it was followed by
a hard consonant (Bulg. bjal, djado ‘grandfather’). The development of e and ě was
very complicated in Serbian and Croatian. In particular instances e could become long
(Srb.-Cr. mȇd but g. sg. mȅda, Srb.-Cr. jéla ‘fir’ but ChSl. jela, cf. Latv. egle, Lith. ẽglė;
Srb-Cr. jȇž ‘hedgehog’, g. sg. jéža, but ChSl. ježĭ, cf. Lith. ežỹs). The vowel ě underwent
various changes which have become very important for the classification of Serbian and
Croatian dialects, splitting them into three groups: Ekavian (ě > e), Ikavian (ě > i ), and
Ijekavian (ě > ije / je): Srb.-Cr. delo, dilo, djelo ‘work’; telo, tilo and tijelo ‘body’.
Literary Croatian is based on the Ijekavian norms, whereas literary Serbian allows
Ekavian and Ijekavian ones.
The nasalized ę has undergone denasalization to e in Slovenian, Serbian, and Croatian
(Slvn. svȇt / svét ‘holy’, Srb.-Cr. svȇt; Slvn. desȇt / desét, Srb.-Cr. dȅset ‘ten’). The
nasalized ǫ has undergone a parallel denasalization to o in Slovenian and to u in Serbian
and Croatian (Slvn. mȏž / móž − Srb.-Cr. mȗž ‘husband’; Slvn. róka / rȏka − Srb.-Cr.
rúka ‘hand, arm’). The development of the nasalized vowels in the Eastern dialects of
South Slavic was complicated. In Macedonian ę becomes e and (in rare cases) а (Macd.

Authenticated
1592 XIII. Slavic
svet, deset, but jazik ‘tongue’). Nasalized ǫ becomes a and (as in Serbian and Croatian,
but in rare cases) u (Macd. maž, raka, kuḱa ‘house’. In Middle Bulgarian ǫ and ę have
merged to ǫ, which becomes ŭ (ă), falling together with the old ŭ. In some Bulgarian
dialects ę becomes е, resulting in ŭ / e variation: Bulg. žŭ̀ tva and žètva ‘reaping’, ezìk,
svet / svjat, dècet.
5.2. Consonants and clusters
In general the Proto-Slavic system of consonants does not undergo much modification
in South Slavic. All dialects have maintained the former opposition of voiceless and
voiced consonants. Voiced consonants usually become voiceless before voiceless conso-
nants and in final position; and vice versa, voiceless consonants become voiced before
voiced consonants. Similar phenomena are seen in Serbian and Croatian dialects: Srb.-
Cr. bȇg / bijȇg ‘flight’ but bèkstvo / bjèkstvo ‘running’; Srb.-Cr. rédak / rijédak ‘seldom,
fluid’ but rétkost / rijétkost ‘rarity’; Srb.-Cr. svȁt ‘marriage broker’ but svȁdba ‘mar-
riage’. However, as is the case in Ukrainian, voiced consonants have not undergone
devoicing in final position, and therefore stand in phonological opposition to correspond-
ing voiceless consonants: Srb.-Cr. rȃd ‘work, labour’ : rȁt ‘war’, sȃd ‘planting, implanta-
tion’ / sȁd(а) ‘now’ : sȁt ‘clock, hours’.
The opposition of hard and soft consonants is manifested strongly in Bulgarian, where
it is reflected by 16 pairs before non-front vowels: b − b’‚ p − p’ ‚ v − v’‚ f − f’‚ d − d’‚
t − t’‚ z − z’, s − s’‚ c − c’, g − g’, k − k’‚ h − h’‚ m − m’‚ n − n’‚ l − l’, r − r’. In other
South Slavic areas this opposition has been severely reduced or even lost. In Bulgarian,
soft consonants in final position have been depalatalized: bojàzŭn ‘fear’, zvjar ‘animal,
beast’, vòpŭl ‘cry’, pet ‘five’, kon ‘horse’. In other South Slavic areas in final position,
one finds n’ (< *nj) and less frequently l’ (< *lj): Slvn. kònj, Srb.-Cr. kȍnj, Macd. konj
‘horse’; Srb.-Cr. vȍnj, ‘smell’; Slvn. prijátelj : Bulg. prijàtel, Srb.-Cr. prȉjatel ‘friend’;
Srb.-Cr. gòmolj ‘bulb’. Before consonants and in final position, l becomes [u̯] in Slo-
venian and o in Serbian and Croatian: Slvn. délal [-u̯] sem ‘I made’, ozŕl [-u̯] sem se
‘I looked around’, vól[-u̯]k ‘wolf; Srb.-Cr. m. nòsio ‘carried’ but f. nòsila; m. spásio
‘saved’ but f. spásila; Bèograd ‘Belgrade’ but Srb. bȇli grȃd / Cr. bijȇli grȃd ‘white city
or town’.
The exclusive South Slavic isoglosses were changes of *(T)orT and *(T)olT (T =
any obstruent) to (T)rаT/(T)laT, contrasting with the outcomes of these sequences in
most other Slavic dialects (a notable exception is Czech, where the innovation is likely
to be independent). In this regard, as generally in others, OCS shows South Slavic
features: Slvn. grȃd / grád, Srb.-Cr. grȃd, OCS gradŭ ‘town’ : Cz. hrad : Pol. gród (<
*grod) ‘town, castle’ : Russ. gorod ‘town’; Slvn. bráda, Srb.-Cr. bráda, Bulg. bradà,
Macd. brada, OCS brada : Cz. brada : Pol. broda : Russ. borodá ‘beard’; Slvn. glȃs /
glás, Srb.-Cr. glȃs, Bulg., Macd. glas, OCS glasŭ : Cz. hlas : Pol. głos : Russ. gólos
‘voice’. For raT-, laT- cf. Slvn. rabȏta / rabóta, Srb.-Cr. ràbota ‘work’ : German Arbeit
‘id.’; Slvn. rаtȃj / ratáj, Srb.-Cr. rȁtār ‘ploughman’, Bulg. ràtaj ‘field-hand’, Macd. orač :
Lith. artójas ‘ploughman’; Slvn. ládjа, Srb.-Cr. lȃđa, Bulg. làdija, Macd. laǵa ‘boat’ :
Lith. (dial.) aldijà ‘id.’. The Proto-Slavic clusters *(T)erT and *(T)elT changed in South
Slavic to (T)reT, (T)lеT, respectively, here in part agreeing with their outcomes in West

Authenticated
Slavic but differing from those of East Slavic: Slvn. brȇg / brég, Srb. brȇg / Cr. brijȇg,
Bulg. bregŭ̀ t, Macd. breg, OCS brěgŭ : Cz. břeh, Pol. brzeg, USorb. brjóh : Russ. béreg
‘shore’; Slvn. bréza, Srb.-Cr. brȅza, Bulg. brezà, Macd. breza : Cz. bříza, Pol. brzoza :
Russ. berjoza ‘birch’ : Lith. béržas ‘id.’; Slvn. mléko, Srb. mléko / Cr. mlijèko, Macd.
mleko, Bulg. mljàko (but mlèkomer ‘lactometer’), OCS mlěko : Cz. mléko, Pol. mleko :
Russ. molokó ‘milk’ : Lith. mélžti ‘to milk’; Slvn. pljéva, Srb. plȅva / Cr. pljȅva, Macd.
pleva, Bulg. pljàva (but plevrìt ‘pleurisy’), OCS plěva : Cz. pleva / plíva, Pol. plewa :
Russ. polová ‘chaff’ : OPruss. pelwo ‘id.’.
A commonly shared isogloss of South and East Slavic is the modification of the
clusters *kv-, *gv- to cv-, zv- (Slvn. cvȇt / cvét, Srb-Cr. cvȉjet, Bulg. cvjat, Macd. cvet :
Russ. cvet : Pol. kwiat ‘flower’; Slvn. zvézda, Srb.- Cr. zvijèzda, Bulg. zvezdà, Macd.
dzvezda : Russ. zvezdá : Pol. gwiazda ‘star’) and *dl‚ *tl to l (Slvn. jélka, Srb.-Cr. jéla,
Bulg. elà, Macd. ela : Russ. elĭ : Cz. jedle ‘fir’; Slvn. plèl, Srb.-Cr. f. plȅla, Bulg. plel,
Macd. plel : Russ. plel ‘knitted’ : OCS pletǫ ‘I knit’). Palatalized labial consonants in
non-initial syllables develop a following epenthetic l’, as in East Slavic, whereas in West
Slavic this change was absent; (later l’ > j in Bulgarian and Macedonian): Slvn. zémlja /
zȇmlja, Srb.-Cr. zèmlja, OCS zemlja, Bulg., Macd. zemja : Russ. zemljá : Cz. země, Pol.
ziemia ‘earth, ground’; Slvn. káplja, Srb.-Cr. kȁplja, OCS kaplja : Russ. káplja : Cz.
kápě, Pol. kapia ‘drop’; Slvn. grȃblje / gráblje, Srb.-Cr. grȁblje : Russ. grábli : Cz.
hrábě, Pol. grabie ‘rake’.
The Proto-Slavic syllabic *rĭ [r̥ ] has been maintained in Serbian, Croatian, and Mace-
donian, whereas in Slovenian and Bulgarian it has been changed into sequences consist-
ing of either a preceding (Slvn.) or a following (Bulg.) vocal (Srb.-Cr. gȓd, Macd. grd :
Slvn. gȓd / gŕd [gərd], Bulg. (dial) grŭ̀ d (gord is from Russian) : OCS grŭdŭ ‘proud’;
Srb.-Cr. vȓh, Macd. vrv : Slvn. vȓh / vŕh [vərh], Bulg. vrŭ̀ x : OCS vrĭxŭ ‘summit’. The
Proto-Slavic syllabic *lĭ [l̥ ] has been subject to prevocalization with o or u: Slvn. (l̥ >
[ou̯]) vȏlk / vólk, Srb.-Cr. vȗk, Bulg. vŭlk, Macd. volk : OCS vlĭkŭ ‘wolf’; Slvn. pȏln /
póln, Srb.-Cr. pȕn, Bulg. pŭ̀ len, Macd. poln : OCS plĭnŭ ‘full’).
The clusters *tj, *kt’, *gt’ on the one hand and *dj on the other underwent different
changes: in Slovenian they yielded č and j, in Serbian and Croatian ć and đ, in Bulgarian
št and žd, and in Macedonian ḱ and ǵ, respectively (Slvn. svéča, Srb. svéća / Cr. svijèća,
Bulg. svešt, Macd. sveḱa ‘candle’ : cf. Vedic śvetyá- ‘white’; Slvn. nȏč / nóč, Srb.-Cr.
nȏć, Bulg. nošt, Macd. noḱ ‘night’, cf. Lith. naktìs; Slvn. mȇja / méja, Srb-Cr. mèđa,
Bulg. meždà, Macd. meǵa ‘border’, cf. Lat. medius ‘middle’).
6. West Slavic
The classification of the historical dialects of West Slavic is somewhat problematic. They
are traditionally divided into three large groups: Lechitic, Sorbian (Upper and Lower),
and Czech together with Slovak. Lechitic consists of Polish, Pomeranian (Kashubian and
Slovincian) and Polabian. Slovincian and Polabian are extinct and not well known. The
status of Kashubian is disputable. Lower Sorbian is a dying language, and Upper Sorbian
is spoken only in a small area of Saxony near Bautzen.

Authenticated
1594 XIII. Slavic
6.1. Stress and vowels
In West-Slavic the old mobile stress was lost and became fixed, but its fixation developed
differently depending on dialect. In Czech, Slovak, and Sorbian, the stress was fixed on
the first syllable, whereas in Polish it was fixed mainly on the penultimate syllable.
Common to West Slavic was the appearance of a new opposition of short and long
vowels, lost in Polish and Sorbian dialects (with some traces of former long vowels still
observable). In Czech and Slovak the quantitative opposition of vowels is phonologically
distinct (except in some E. Slovak dialects under the influence of Polish and Ukrainian
dialects): Cz. žila ‘she lived’ − žíla ‘vein’, nesu ‘I carry’ − inf. nést, drahá ‘dear’ −
dráha ‘road’; Slvk. sud ‘barrel’ − súd ‘trial‘, delo ‘cannon’ − dielo ‘affair, work’, dom
‘house‘ − dóm ‘Cathedral‘. In Czech and Polish ĭ and ŭ become e (but consonants before
the old ĭ are soft in Polish): Cz. den, Pol. dzień ‘day’, Cz. pes, Pol. pies ‘dog’, but Cz.,
Pol. mech ‘moss’, Cz., Pol. sen ‘dream’. In Slovak ĭ becomes e, ’a, o (deň, l’ahký ‘light’,
orol ‘eagle’ : OCS dĭnĭ, lĭgŭkŭ, orĭlŭ); ŭ becomes e, o, a (sen, zámok ‘castle’, mach). In
Sorbian the jers have merged and changed into e, o, or were lost (USorb. dźeń, LSorb.
źeń; USorb. worjoł, LSorb. jer’eł ‘eagle’; USorb. rožka − LSorb. rež ‘rye’ : ORuss. rŭžĭ;
USorb. wótc − LSorb. wóśc ‘father’ : OCS otĭcĭ). In Polish e before consonants (t, d, s,
z, n, r, v, ł) becomes ’о (> ’ó) and ě yields ’а: (siostra ‘sister’ miód ‘honey’, wiatr
‘wind’ : OCS sestra, medŭ, větrŭ, respectively); in other cases е and ě merge to (’)е
(niebo ‘sky’, chleb ‘bread’ : OCS nebo, xlěbŭ, respectively). In Czech and Slovak е
remains as such (Cz. nebe, Slvk. nebo ‘sky’; Cz. řebro, Slvk. rebro ‘rib’ : OCS rebro);
In Czech ě becomes í in a new long syllable (dílo ‘case’, víra ‘faith’ : OCS dělo, věra,
respectively), e/ě/é in a new short syllable (les ‘forest’, měřit ‘measure’, témě ‘bregma’ :
OCS lěsŭ, měriti, ORuss. těmja, respectively); in Slovak ě becomes ie / ia in a new long
syllable or е in a new short syllable (Slvk. viera ‘faith’, biely : Cz. bílý ‘white’ : OCS
bělŭ, lěsŭ ‘forest’). In Sorbian dialects the changes of e and ě fluctuate between those
seen in Polish and Czech. The former quantitative opposition of e : ē has been trans-
formed into the qualitative opposition of е (open): ě (close) (USorb. lesny ‘nice’ : lěsny
‘forest’, jednica ‘unit’ : jědnica ‘throat’). Slavic ǫ and ę in Old Polish dialects merged
to ą, and later in historically new short syllables (usually open) ą becomes ę, whereas
in historically new long syllables (usually closed) ą remained without changes. This is
reflected in alternations such as dąb ‘oak’ − pl. dęby : OCS dǫbije ‘trees’; ząb ‘tooth’ −
pl. zęby : OCS zǫbŭ ‘id.’. In Czech and Slovak in a new short syllable and in Sorbian
generally, ǫ becomes u (Cz., Slvk., USorb., LSorb. dub ‘oak’, ruka ‘hand, arm’); in a
new long syllable ǫ becomes ou in Czech and ú in Slovak (Cz. mouka, Slvk. múka :
OCS mǫka ‘flour’; Cz. louka, Slvk. lúka ‘meadow’ : OCS lǫgŭ ‘grove’ − Cf. Lith. lankà
‘water-meadow’. For the voicing alternation between the Lith. and OCS forms, cf. OCS
redŭkŭ ‘seldom’ : Lith. rẽtas ‘id.’ [1. above]. In the current instance it is found even
within Slavic itself.). The nasal ę becomes Czech e, í, á, and a depending upon the
syllabic quantity and quality of the following consonants (devět ‘nine’ [ě here is a repre-
sentation of e with a preceding palatalized v’ ]/ devíti / devátý ‘ninth’/devadesát ‘ninety’:
OCS devętĭ ‘nine’); in Slovak ę becomes ä (Slvk. mäso ‘meat’, svätý ‘holy’ : OCS męso,
svętŭ, respectively), in Sorbian (’)a, (’)е /ě (USorb. swjaty − LSorb. swěty ‘holy’, USorb.
dźesać − LSorb. źaseś : OCS desętĭ ‘ten’). In the older stages of West Slavic dialects,
o could become long in a new closed syllable and later be changed into ū (Czech <ů>,
Slovak <ô>[uo]). This change shows some peculiarities depending on dialect. In Polish

Authenticated
and Sorbian the length of such a vowel was later lost, and as a rule it often alternates
with o in an open syllable: Cz. stůl − (g. sg.) stolu ‘table’, Slvk. stôl − stolu, Pol. stół −
stołu : USorb., LSorb. stoł − stola; Pol. dwór ‘yard’ − dworu, Cz. dvůr − dvora, USorb.,
LSorb. dwór − dwora, Slvk. dvor − dvora).
A new feature in West Slavic dialects was the appearance of new diphthongs ou, au,
and eu in Czech and ô [uo], ie, ia, and iu in Slovak. A peculiarity of West Slovak
dialects that is present in the literary language is the law of three moras. In a sequence
of two long syllables, the second syllable loses one mora and becomes short: Cz. krásný
‘beautiful’, chválíš ‘you praise’ : Slvk. krásny (but pekný ‘baked’), chváliš (but vidíš
‘you see’).
6.2. Consonants and clusters
Opposition of soft and hard consonants is reflected best of all in Polish: p − p’, b − b’,
f − f’, v −v’, k − k’, g − g’, m − m’‚ n − n’‚ l − l’ (final b’‚ p’‚ f’‚ v’ and m’ have become
hard). In Sorbian it is reduced to p − p’, b − b’, c − c’‚ m − m’, n − n’, r − r’‚ ł [u̯] − ł’
[u̯’] and in Slovak to t − t’, d − d’, n − n’, l − l’. In Czech it is maintained before i (j)
and ě, but has disappeared before e, é; furthermore, the opposition l − l’ has been lost.
The Slavic sound g is a velar occlusive [g] in Polish and Lower Sorbian and fricative
[γ] in Czech, Slovak, and Upper Sorbian. The lateral l is velarized to ł and realized as a
bilabial glide [u̯] under specific conditions mainly in Polish and Sorbian (thereby paral-
leling developments in Belorussian and Ukrainian): Pol. głodny ‘hungry’, czytał ‘read’;
USorb., LSorb. mydło ‘soap’, małki ‘little’, perf. mjetł ‘swept’. In many West Slavic
dialects (a general exception is Slovak), r’ is realized as an affricate ř that can be either
voiced or voiceless, depending on position. It is present as such in Czech and was
simplified to [ž] / [š] in Polish <rz> and to [š] (in př, kř, tř) in Upper Sorbian and [ś] in
Low Sorbian (Cz. řeka, Pol. rzeka : Slvk. rieka, USorb., LSorb. rěka ‘river’; Cz. tři,
Pol. trzy, USorb. tři, LSorb. tśi : Slvk. tri ‘three’).
The West Slavic dialects retain some Proto−Slavic features which were lost in other
Slavic dialects. They maintain Proto-Slavic *kv-, *gv- (Pol. kwiat, Cz. květ, Slvk. kvеt,
USorb., LSorb. kwět : Russ. cvet : Bulg. cvjat, etc. ‘flower’; Pol. gwiazda, Cz. hvězda,
Slvk. hviezda, USorb. hwězda, LSorb. gwězda : Russ. zvezdá : Macd. dvezda. etc. ‘star’)
and *dl‚ *tl (Pol. radło, Cz. rádlo, Slvk. radlo, USorb. radło, LSorb. radlica : Russ.
rálo : Srb.-Cr. rȁlo, etc. ‘ploughshare’; Pol. plótł, Cz. pletl, Slvk. pletоl, USorb., LSorb.
pletł : Russ. plel, etc. ‘knitted’). Czech and Slovak have maintained the Proto-Slavic
syllabic *rĭ [r̥ ], *lĭ [l̥ ] (Cz., Slvk. trh ‘market’; vlna ‘wool, wave’). In Slovak dialects
syllabic [r̥ ] and [l̥ ] can become long in particular positions (vlna ‘wave’ − [gen. pl.] vĺn,
zrno ‘grain’ − [gen. pl.] zŕn); vrch ‘hill’ − vŕšit’ ‘pile up’. In Polish and Sorbian dialects
they have changed into sequences of vowel + consonant (Pol. targ, USorb. torhośćo
‘market’; Pol. wełna, USorb. wołma, LSorb. wałma : ORuss. vŭlna ‘wool’). West Slavic
is characterized by the absence of the change j > l’ following labials in non-initial
syllables that took place in other Slavic dialects (Pol. ziemia, Cz. země, Slvk. zem,
USorb., LSorb. zemja : Russ. zemljá : Srb.-Cr. zèmlja, etc. ‘earth, ground’; Pol. kapia,
Cz. kápě : Russ. káplja : Srb.-Cr. kȁplja, etc. ‘drop’; Pol. grabie, Cz. hrábě, USorb.
hrabje, LSorb. grabje : Russ. grábli : Srb.-Cr. grȁblje, etc. ‘rake’). The clusters *tj, *kt’,

Authenticated
1596 XIII. Slavic
*gt’ on the one hand and *dj on the other become c and dz in Polish and Slovak dialects,
respectively, whereas in other West Slavic dialects dz was simplified to z (Pol. świeca,
Cz. svíce, Slvk. svieca, USorb, LSorb. swěca ‘candle’; Pol. noc, Cz. noc, USorb, LSorb.
nóc ‘night’; miedza, Cz. mez, Slvk. medza, USorb. mjeza, LSorb. mjaza ‘boundary’).
The clusters *TorT and *TolT become TroT (TróT) and TłoT (TłóT) in Polish and
Sorbian (Pol. broda, USorb., LSorb. broda ‘beard’; Pol. głos, USorb. hłos, LSorb. głos
‘voice’) but TrаT/TlaT in Czech and Slovak (Cz., Slvk. brada, hlas). The clusters *TerT
and *TelT become TrzeT and TleT in Polish (brzeg ‘shore’, mleko ‘milk’, plewa ‘chaff’)
but TrěT/TrjaT (TrjóT/TrjoT) and TloT/TluT in Sorbian (USorb. brjoh, LSorb. brjog;
USorb., LSorb. mloko; OSorb pluwizna, LSorb. plowa) and TřeT/TréT/TříT and TleT/
TlieT in Czech and Slovak (Cz. břeh, Slvk. breh; Cz. mléko, Slvk. mlieko; Cz. pleva /
plíva, Slvk. pleva). Initial *orT-‚ *olT- become raT/roT, laT/loT in West Slavic, depend-
ing on their presumed former intonations (Pol. rataj, Cz. rataj, USorb. ratar, LSorb.
rataj ‘ploughman’, but Pol.‚ Cz., Slvk, USorb., LSorb. robota ‘work’; Pol. łakomy, Cz.,
Slvk. lakomý, USorb. łakomny ‘delicious’, but Pol. łodź, Cz. lod’, Slvk. lodka, USorb.
łodź, LSorb. łоź ‘boat’) (cf. Collins, this handbook, 5.5). A common West Slavic and
South Slavic feature is the initial jе that corresponds to o in East Slavic (Pol. jezioro,
Cz. jezero, Slvk. jazero, USorb. jezor, LSorb. jazor : Russ. ózero ‘lake’; Pol. jeden, Cz.,
Slvk. jeden, USorb. jedyn, LSorb. jaden : Russ. odín ‘one’).
7. East Slavic
The modern East Slavic dialects are outgrowths of a single Old Russian language, which
existed until at least the 12 th century. The emergence of these dialects is the direct result
of colonization of new territories by East Slavs, who subsequently became separated
from each other. The discovery of birchbark manuscripts in and around Novgorod in
recent years has led to the postulation of an Old Novgorod dialect with some surprising
features (Birchbark writing was also used for a Finnic dialect of Old Novgorod. For
example, the birchbark letter no. 292 is regarded to be the oldest known document in
any Finnic language, dated from the beginning of the 13 th century.). These have often
been taken to constitute archaisms but are more likely to reflect a Finnic substratum;
however, the apparent absence of Old Church Slavic influence may well be an archaic
feature. A characteristic phonological feature of Baltic-Finnic languages is an abundance
of occlusives and a restriction in the number of fricatives (in Finnish and Estonian there
are only two native fricatives − s and h). Forms seeming to show the absence of the
second palatalization in birchbark writing of Novgorod can be regarded as rather involv-
ing a substitution of occlusives for affricates, a phenomenon which is very common in
Estonian and Finnish speech. One can find such substitution even in the modern Pskov
dialects. Another characteristic feature of the Old Novgorod dialect (and some other
dialects) was the lack of a distinction of the sounds [č] and [c] (Russian tsokanĭe). Most
scholars recognize this as reflecting a Finnic substratum. In some writings of Pskov and
Novgorod of the 14 th−16 th centuries, we find clusters kl, gl (< *tl, *dl), e. g. čĭkli <
[č’tli] ‘they read’, povegli < [povedli] ‘they led’; and these are thought to reflect an
East-Baltic substratum. Old Russian has given rise to modern Russian, Belorussian, and
Ukrainian.

Authenticated
Common to all East Slavic dialects is free and mobile stress that has been inherited
from Proto-Slavic. The nasalized vowels ǫ and ę were changed into u and ja, respectively
(ORuss. ruka ‘hand, arm’, pjatĭ ‘five’ : OCS rǫka, pętĭ). The reduced sounds ĭ and ŭ in
a strong position become e and o, respectively (ORuss. denĭ ‘day’, sonŭ ‘dream’). A
purely East Slavic phenomenon was the appearance of “polnoglasie” − the change of
the sequences *er, *or, *el, *ol to ere, oro, ele, olo, respectively (ORuss. beremja ‘load’,
voronŭ ‘crow’, želesti ‘pay for’, golova ‘head’). The clusters *kv-, *gv become cv, zv,
respectively (ORuss. cvětŭ ‘flower’, zvězda ‘star’); *tj, *kt’, *gt’ > č and *dj > ž; *dl‚
*tl > l (Russ. elĭ ‘fir’, ORuss. plelŭ ‘knitted’). Labial consonants develop following
epenthetic l’ before [j] (ORuss. bljudo ‘dish’, kaplja ‘drop’, zemlja ‘earth, ground’).
Initial jе of West and South Slavic corresponds in East Slavic to o (ORuss. ozero ‘lake’,
odinŭ ‘one’).
Among the important phonological features of East Slavic dialects was “akanje”, a
weakening of unstressed a and o to [ʌ] or [ə] which appears in Belorussian and South
Russian dialects but is absent in Ukranian and North Russian dialects. In Belorussian
dialects there is a variant with e becoming a after soft consonants in pretonic syllables:
bjadá ‘harm’, njasú ‘I carry’, pjasnjár ‘singer’. It is absent in other unstressed syllables:
vesnavý ‘spring (adj.)’ − vyasná ‘spring (noun)’, velikán ‘giant’ − vjalíki ‘great’, vósenĭ
‘autumn’.
Slavic ě was in Old Russian dialects close and prolonged, whereas e was shorter and
open. In Russian and Belorussian dialects the two have merged to e. In Ukrainian ě > i:
ORuss. lěto > Ukr. lito (Russ. leto) ‘summer’, ORuss. na stolě > Ukr. na stoli (Russ. na
stole) ‘on the table’. In Ukrainian o and e from late Common Slavic *o and *e become
i in new closed syllables, especially when the following syllable originally contained a
front jer: kin’ ‘horse’ − gen. sg. konja, nič ‘night’ − gen. sg. noči, pič ‘oven’ − gen. sg.
peči, osin’ ‘autumn’ − gen. sg. oseni. In all syllables Ukrainian consonants have become
hard before e (which must therefore have undergone lowering), whether of late Common
Slavic origin, resulting from a strong jer, or pleophonic: temnij ‘dark’ (< *tĭmĭnĭjŭ),
bereza ‘birch’ (< *berza). In Ukrainian, East-Slavic y (the vowel written <ы> in Russian)
and i have merged to i <и>, often transliterated as y, a vowel very close in place of
articulation to e. All consonants before this i are hard, e.g. Ukr. biti = Russ. bytĭ ‘be’
and bitĭ ‘strike’, Ukr. milo = Russ. mylo ‘soap’ and milo ‘dear’. In Ukrainian dialects
initial i and o could vanish: grati < igrati ‘play’, goród < ogoród ‘vegetable garden’,
whereas i could materialize before sonants: iržati < rŭzati ‘neigh’, imla < mgla ‘mist’.
In Russian dialects there was a change of e > o (written <ë> when stressed) after soft
consonants and before hard consonants: Russ. berëza ‘birch’, nës ‘carried’, vesëlyj ‘mer-
ry’. In Ukrainian dialects this change has taken place after sibilants, where the resultant
vowel is written <o>: Russ. žëltyj ‘yellow’ − Ukr. žóvtij, Russ. čërnyj ‘black’ − Ukr.
čórnij (both of these words with Russian <ë> despite the fact that ž is synchronically
hard in Russian), Russ. šestój ‘the sixth’ − Ukr. šóstij, Russ. ščeká − Ukr. ščoká ‘cheek’
(š is synchronically hard in Russian, and the status of šč is unclear).
East Slavic dialects show an opposition of soft and hard consonants. As is the case
in Polish, soft final labials have become hard in Belorussian and Ukrainian: Russ. golubĭ
‘pigeon’ − Blr. golub, Ukr., holub; Russ. semĭ ‘seven’ − Blr. sem, Ukr. sim; Russ. sypĭ
‘spot’ − Blr. syp, Ukr. visip. Voiced consonants in final position and before voiceless
consonants are devoiced except in Ukrainian dialects: dub [-b] ‘oak’, rid [-d] ‘kin’‚ ridkij
[-dk-] ‘seldom’, etc. The letter g is pronounced as a voiced velar fricative in Belorussian

Authenticated
1598 XIII. Slavic
and South Russian, as a voiced glottal fricative (normally transliterated h) in Ukrainian,

and as a voiced velar occlusive in North Russian dialects and standard Russian.
The peculiar features of Belorussian dialects are:
1. the change of the soft [t’] and [d’] to affricates ts’ and dz’, respectively: tsjapér <
tepérĭ ‘now’, batsĭka ‘father’, dzitsjá ‘child, kid’, dzíki ‘wild’;
2. the soft labial [r’] has merged with the hard one: Blr. rad − Russ. rjad ‘row’ and rad
‘charmed’.
In Belorussian and Ukrainian prothetic v or g can appear before an initial vowel: Russ.
už ‘grass snake’ − Blr., Ukr. vuž, Russ. us ‘moustache’ − Blr., Ukr. vus; Russ. ostryj
‘sharp’ − Blr. vostry, Ukr. ostrij, gostrij; Russ. etot ‘this’ − Blr. gety. A common feature
of these dialectal zones was the change of l to ў [u̯] before a consonant or in final
position in Belorussian and to v [u̯] in Ukrainian: Russ. dolg ‘duty’ − Blr. daўg, Ukr.
dovg; Russ. dal ‘gave’ − Blr. daў, Ukr. dav. In both dialectal zones clusters of the
consonants t, d, n, l, s, z, ts, č + [j] have changed into soft geminates: Russ. platĭe
‘clothes’ − Blr. platstse, Ukr. plattja; Russ. sudĭja ‘judge’ − Blr. suddzja, Ukr. suddja,
etc.
Numerous phonetic changes took place independently later in individual Slavic lan-
guages, leading to the appearance of new Slavic dialects. Their number varies from
several in Russian, Ukrainian, and Slovak to about fifty in Slovenian. Modern Slavic
languages have a complicated system of dialects that needs to be treated separately.
8. Morphology
The morphological system of Slavic had seven cases (nominative, vocative, genitive,
dative, accusative, instrumental, and locative), three genders (masculine, feminine, neu-
ter), and old declensional stems and complicated past tenses (imperfect, aorist, present
perfect, past perfect). After the disappearance of reduced vowels, many declensional
stems merged and have given rise to three main declensional paradigms in the individual
Slavic dialects. Many cases have lost their formal differences, producing grammatical
homonymy. The seven-case system has been maintained in Ukrainian, Polish, Czech,
Serbian, and Croatian. Bulgarian and Macedonian have become analytical languages and
have lost the old case system except for some relics of the vocative. In other Slavic
dialects the category of vocative has been lost and the number of cases has been reduced
from seven to six. In Belorussian and Slovak the vocative exists only for individual
words for god, kin, and close friends. In Russian and Slovenian, too, only a few forms
of the vocative survive. The category of dual has been maintained only in Slovenian and
Sorbian. In most Slavic areas the complicated I.E. system of past tenses has been simpli-
fied and the old present perfect tense has become the principal past tense. The old system
of past tenses is best retained in Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbian, Croatian, and Sorbian.
The past perfect as a relic tense is present also in Slovak. Grammatical differences
between individual Slavic dialects are generally very small but numerous. Nevertheless,
they are often intelligible to speakers of other dialects.

Authenticated
9. Lexical differences
Lexical differences among the Slavic dialects are also numerous but less intelligible.
They have appeared during the individual developments of the dialects and can be ex-
plained by the influence of different neighboring languages and dialects.
Despite the changes we have described, the differences between various Slavic lan-
guages are often less distinct than what one frequently finds between dialects of some
other Indo-European languages, e.g. those of Lithuanian or German. For this reason
communication is often possible between speakers of the different Slavic dialectal
groups.
10. References
Andersen, Henning
1998 Slavic. In: Anna Giacalone Ramat and Paolo Ramat (eds.), The Indo-European Lan-
guages. London: Routledge, 415−453.
Arumaa, Peeter
1964−1985 Urslavische Grammatik. 3 vols. Heidelberg: Winter.
Bidwell, Charles E.
1963 Slavic Historical Phonology in Tabular Form. The Hague: Mouton.
Birnbaum, Henrik
1966 The Dialects of Common Slavic. In: Henrik Birnbaum and Jaan Puhvel (eds.), Ancient
Indo-European Dialects. Proceedings of the Conference on Indo-European Linguistics
Held at the University of California, Los Angeles April 25−27, 1963. Berkeley: Univeri-
ty of California Press, 153−197.
Browne, Wales
1993 Serbo-Croat. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 306−387.
Entwhistle, William. J. and Walter A. Morison
1964 Russian and the Slavonic Languages. 2nd edn. London: Faber and Faber.
Friedman, Victor A.
1993 Macedonian In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 249−305.
Mayo, Peter
1993 Belorussian. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 887−946.
Meillet, Antoine
1934 Le slave commun. 2nd edn. Revised by André Vaillant. Paris: Champion.
Priestly, Tom M. S.
1993 Slovene. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 388−451.
Rothstein, Robert A.
1993 Polish. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 686−758.
Scatton, Ernest A.
1993 Bulgarian. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 188−248.
1995 The Dawn of Slavic Philology. An Introduction to Slavic Philology. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Shevelov, George Y.
1965 A Prehistory of Slavic: the Historical Phonology of Common Slavic. New York: Colum-
bia University Press.

Authenticated
1600 XIII. Slavic
Shevelov, George Y.
1993 Ukrainian. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 947−998.
Short, David
1993a Czech. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 455−532.
Short, David
1993b Slovak. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 533−592.
Stone, Gerald
1993 Sorbian (Upper and Lower). In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 593−685.
Timberlake, Alan
1993. Russian In: Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett (eds.), The Slavonic Languages,
827−886. London: Routledge..
Vaillant, André
1950−1958 Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Vols. I−II. Paris: IAC.
Vaillant, André
1966−1977 Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Vols. III−V. Paris: Klincksieck.
Vasmer, Max
1953−1958 Russisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 3 vols. Heidelberg: Winter.
Oleg Poljakov, Vilnius (Lithuania)
86. The evolution of Slavic

1. Introduction 4. Balkan developments
2. Medieval Slavic sound changes 5. Conclusion and prospects
3. Morphology and morphosyntax 6. References
1. Introduction
Over the four to five millennia from the Indo-European disintegration to the beginnings
of Slavic written history in the ninth century, the Slavic languages underwent notably
few phonological and morphological changes relative to the other branches, so that medi-
eval Slavic languages are distinctly more conservative than their contemporaries. The
rate of changes has picked up since the Slavic dispersal in the mid-first millennium CE,
but even so the modern non-Balkan Slavic languages are (with Baltic) morphologically
the most conservative of the contemporary Indo-European languages. Especially con-
servative is noun and adjective declension. The inherited verb morphology is also fairly
conservative in form, though innovative in functions and paradigmatic organization, and
much IE verb morphology has been lost.
As of the late centuries BCE Proto-Slavic was probably not a discrete language but
a segment of the southwestern part of the sizable Proto-Balto-Slavic range that extended
from the middle Dnieper to the Baltic Sea and west probably to at least the Vistula. The
ancestral Slavic (i.e. southwestern ancestral Balto-Slavic) presence in this area had prob-
ably been continuous since the initial Indo-European expansion or shortly thereafter.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-007

Authenticated
1600 XIII. Slavic
Shevelov, George Y.
1993 Ukrainian. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 947−998.
Short, David
1993a Czech. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 455−532.
Short, David
1993b Slovak. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 533−592.
Stone, Gerald
1993 Sorbian (Upper and Lower). In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 593−685.
Timberlake, Alan
1993. Russian In: Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett (eds.), The Slavonic Languages,
827−886. London: Routledge..
Vaillant, André
1950−1958 Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Vols. I−II. Paris: IAC.
Vaillant, André
1966−1977 Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Vols. III−V. Paris: Klincksieck.
Vasmer, Max
1953−1958 Russisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 3 vols. Heidelberg: Winter.
Oleg Poljakov, Vilnius (Lithuania)
86. The evolution of Slavic

1. Introduction 4. Balkan developments
2. Medieval Slavic sound changes 5. Conclusion and prospects
3. Morphology and morphosyntax 6. References
1. Introduction
Over the four to five millennia from the Indo-European disintegration to the beginnings
of Slavic written history in the ninth century, the Slavic languages underwent notably
few phonological and morphological changes relative to the other branches, so that medi-
eval Slavic languages are distinctly more conservative than their contemporaries. The
rate of changes has picked up since the Slavic dispersal in the mid-first millennium CE,
but even so the modern non-Balkan Slavic languages are (with Baltic) morphologically
the most conservative of the contemporary Indo-European languages. Especially con-
servative is noun and adjective declension. The inherited verb morphology is also fairly
conservative in form, though innovative in functions and paradigmatic organization, and
much IE verb morphology has been lost.
As of the late centuries BCE Proto-Slavic was probably not a discrete language but
a segment of the southwestern part of the sizable Proto-Balto-Slavic range that extended
from the middle Dnieper to the Baltic Sea and west probably to at least the Vistula. The
ancestral Slavic (i.e. southwestern ancestral Balto-Slavic) presence in this area had prob-
ably been continuous since the initial Indo-European expansion or shortly thereafter.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-007

Authenticated
86. The evolution of Slavic 1601
Tab. 86.1: The consonant system of the late Proto-Slavic period

Labial Dental/ Palatal Velar
alveolar
Stops p t tˊ k
b d dˊ g
Affricates c č
dz ? dž ?
Fricatives s š x
z ž
Nasals m n nˊ
Other resonants r rˊ
l lˊ
Glides v [w] j
Proto-Slavic had never been in contact with any but Indo-European languages. The be-
ginning of the Great Migrations brought major ethnolinguistic changes: intensification
on the steppe and westward expansions of steppe kingdoms to the Danube plain; forma-
tion of the syncretic steppe/trading/farming Gothic state, partly on Slavic territory; exten-
sion of the Roman Empire to Dacia and the genocide and cultural destruction of the
Dacians; incursions of the Huns, who spoke the first non-Indo-European language to be
heard in central Europe for several millennia; the shift of the major intake for the south-
ern European slave market to eastern Europe; formation of the Avar state, whose elite
were probably speakers of Alanic (East Iranian) but soon shifted to Slavic. The formation
and expansion of the Gothic and Avar states, the considerable depopulation of the Balkan
peninsula in the Plague of Justinian (542 CE and later episodes), and the westward
retreat of Germanic speakers provided the background for the remarkably rapid spread
of late Proto-Slavic across much of eastern Europe. Whatever its exact mechanism (see
e.g. Timberlake 2013), this spread shuffled and largely effaced previous dialect develop-
ments (Andersen 1996, 1999) and absorbed much of the former Balto-Slavic continuum,
so that surviving Baltic is now phylogenetically discrete from Slavic.
The last sound changes to affect all of Proto-Slavic were the palatalization of velars
before front vowels, palatalizations resulting from resolutions of *Cj sequences, fronting
of vowels after palatal consonants, and monophthongization of diphthongs (see Collins,
this handbook). Proto-Slavic at this stage (the early centuries CE) had a consonant sys-
tem with a four-way distinction in places of articulation (much like that of modern Czech
or Hungarian), shown in Table 86.1.
The above is presented in conventional Slavistic transcription (except that *tˊ, *dˊ
have no single standard transcription). The voiced affricates *dz, *dž may or may not
have existed (see Andersen 1969). Note that, here and below, tˊ, dˊ, nˊ, etc. (acute accent
following consonant letter) render Proto-Slavic palatals; ć, ś, ń (acute accent over the
consonant) are orthographic in some languages using the Latin alphabet; and t’, p’, n’,
r’, etc. (consonant followed by apostrophe) transcribe phonemic (or sometimes only
phonetic) palatalization, found chiefly in East Slavic languages.

Authenticated
1602 XIII. Slavic
Tab. 86.2: The vowel system of the late Proto-Slavic period (conventional Slavistic transcriptions
with phonetic clarifications)
i iː u uː / y
ę [ɛːn] ǫ [ᴐːn]
e [æ] ě [ɛː] or [æː] o [ᴐ] aː
The language of the period from the early centuries CE to about the ninth century is
usually called Common Slavic or Late Proto-Slavic. The present chapter deals with
changes several of which had their root conditions in Common Slavic but which played
out in the subsequent centuries. I will call this later period, from about the ninth century
to about the thirteenth or fourteenth, the “Medieval Slavic” period. It is reflected in
documents and inscriptions dated from about the eleventh to fourteenth or fifteenth cen-
turies, and is reconstructed in some detail by the comparative method.
The family tree of the Slavic languages is shown in Table 86.3. The earliest written
Slavic language, Old Church Slavic (OCS), does not fit into any one branch but is a
written tradition comprising early West and South Slavic documents. (Most of the docu-
ments reflect Old Bulgarian phonology, and this is the conventional normalization in
reference works. But the spelling system shows a predominance of West Slavic and
specifically Moravian pronunciation in some diagnostic respects: Shevelov [1957] 1971.)
Russian, uniquely, has much admixture (lexical, morphological, syntactic) from Russian
Church Slavic, the phonologically Bulgarian-influenced sacral language of Orthodox
Slavs and the high language in a diglossic situation that persisted into late medieval
times (Uspenskij 2002). Russian Church Slavic has been naturally transmitted only
among some Old Believer communities, where as of the mid-20 th century it retained an
extremely archaic pronunciation (Uspenskij 1968).
In the above display, listing within branches is from east to west and from north to
south. * = pairs of very closely related sister languages, with good mutual intelligibility.
Rusyn is not usually classified as a separate language by linguists, but there is a distinct
national consciousness especially among western Rusyns (see e.g. Magocsi 2004; Vaňko
Tab. 86.3: The Slavic languages

East Slavic (Northern) Russian*
Belarusian*
(Southern) Ukrainian/Rusyn (Ruthenian)
West Slavic Lechitic Polish*
Cashubian, † Slovincian*
† Polabian
Sorbian Lower Sorbian*
Upper Sorbian*
Czechoslovak Czech*
Slovak*
South Slavic Eastern Bulgarian
Macedonian
Western Slovene
Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian (BCS)

Authenticated
2000). Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian are a single language in linguistic terms but with
separate national identities and status. The branches are formed as much by subsequent
accommodation to cultural and political norms as to divergence, and few early sound
changes coincide neatly with the major branches.
2. Medieval Slavic sound changes

Conventionally, the jer shift (discussed just below) marks the end of Common Slavic
(though it eventually spread across the entire Slavic territory). The Magyars entered the
Carpathian region in 896 and severed Slavic geolinguistic unity, marking the beginning
of the end of Slavic linguistic unity. The Life of Constantine/Cyril indicates that in the
mid-9 th century the Slavic dialects of today’s Greece and Moravia were mutually intelli-
gible while that of northern Rus' was not intelligible in the south (Nichols 1993a). At this
point the branches and individual languages (in their ancestral stages) began developing
separately. Lechitic became relatively isolated early (Vermeer 2000: 21−22 with further
references; Andersen 1969).
The jer shift or fall of jers. Proto-Slavic short *i and *u had, by later Common Slavic
times, become schwa-like vowels susceptible to positional weakening, compensatory
lengthening, and vowel-zero alternations. In historical Slavistics, these vowels and the
Cyrillic letters for them are known as jers (a term based on their spelling names). The
mechanism is the following (Timberlake 1983a, 1983b, 1988, 1993): the universal ten-
dency of high vowels to be phonetically shorter than non-high vowels began to be exag-
gerated in late Common Slavic, with each short high vowel ceding a small increment of
its length to the preceding syllable. That tendency increased over time. The eventual
outcome was that (with somewhat different conditions in different dialects) a preceding
short vowel gained enough length to cross a perceptual boundary and be reanalyzed as
long; the jer itself lost all of its audible duration and was reanalyzed as zero; a jer before
this lost jer was lengthened enough to be reanalyzed as a mid vowel. As a result, to this
day all Slavic languages have vowel-zero alternations in some of their most basic vo-
cabulary and most frequent derivational affixes, and many have length and/or quality
alternations of vowels in inflectional paradigms. Examples are provided in Table 86.4.
In this table differences in genitive endings (-a, -e, -u) are morphological, not phono-
logical. Plural or adverb is given when a genitive is not attested or does not exist. Words
are written in standard transliteration (OCS, Russian, Belarusian, Bulgarian, Macedoni-
an) or orthography (Croatian orthography represents BCS), except that Cyrillic ё, я are
written ’o and ’a. Diacritics over vowels mark length in Czech (orthographic), tone and
length in BCS and Slovene (non-orthographic), and quality elsewhere (orthographic).
Subsequent changes in the vowel system, such as loss of length distinctions, raising
of some long vowels, etc. have turned what were originally simple length alternations
in pre-jer vowels into less transparent alternations. The Cashubian forms in Table 86.5
(Stone 1993: 768) illustrate vowel alternations caused by lengthening in the nominative
singular (whose ending was a jer in Common Slavic). Length was subsequently lost, so
the distinctions are now purely qualitative.
These alternations are extensive in Cashubian, where vowels of all heights were
lengthened before voiced consonants; Polish has them in fewer vowels and fewer con-

Authenticated
1604 XIII. Slavic
Tab. 86.4: Nominative and genitive cases of selected words illustrating jers, compensatory length-
ening, and vowel-zero alternations
‘dog’ ‘day’ ‘sleep’ ‘house’
LPS pĭsŭ pĭsa dĭnĭ dĭne sŭnŭ sŭna domŭ domū
OCS pьsъ pьsa dьnь dьne sъnъ sъna domъ domu
Russian p’os psa d’en’ dn'a son sna dom doma
Belarusian p’os psa dz’en’ dn’a son snu dom doma/-u
Ukrainian pes psa den’ dn’a son snu dim domu
Polish pies psa dzień dnia sen sna dóm domu
Cashubian p'es psa dzėń dnia sen snu dóm domu
Polabian p’ås p’åsĕ dan dańo düm adv. dümo
L. Sorbian pjas psa źeń dńa soń sni dom doma
U. Sorbian pos psa dźeń dnja són sona dom doma/-u
Slovak pes psa deň dňa sen sna dom domu
Czech pes psa den dne sen sna dům domu
Slovene pə̏ s psȁ dân dnệ sə̏ n snȁ dóm dóma
BCS pas psa dān dne san sna dōm doma
Bulgarian păs den adv. de- săn dom adv. doma
nem
Macedonian pes pl. pci/ den pl. denovi/ son dom adv. doma
pesovi dni
texts, so they are found only in the last two words of this list: dóm : domu; ksiądz :
księdza.
In synchronic morphophonology, the vowel-zero alternations and the vowel quality/
quantity alternations before a lost jer, when the jer was word-final (as in Tables 86.4,
86.5), can be described as alterations of the basic or underlying form that occur before
a zero ending. Word-internally, they can be described variously as conditioned by certain
consonant sequences or as morphologically conditioned. Abstract underlying representa-
tions of modern languages have often represented the former jers as segments.
Especially in the more northerly parts of the Slavic range, front vowels, including the
front jer, phonetically palatalized a preceding consonant. In the most extreme outcome,
when weak jers were lost the palatalization was isolated, unconditioned, and therefore
became phonemic. This effect is the most far-reaching in Russian, where most of the
consonants participate in phonemic oppositions of plain vs. palatalized; it is nonexistent
or nearly nonexistent in South Slavic. In East Slavic the two jers remained distinct (and
the front jer remained capable of palatalizing a consonant) until the weak jers were lost.
At the same time the mid vowels *e and *o (with which the strong jers had merged)
merged into a single vowel phoneme, their phonetic [e] vs. [o] quality entirely condi-
tioned by the preceding and following consonants (Andersen 1978). Only some centuries

Authenticated
Tab. 86.5: Cashubian vowel alternations

Nom. Gen.
brzôd brzadu ‘fruit’
pón pana ‘master’
chléb chleba ‘bread’
syn sëna ‘son’
lud lëdu ‘people’
dóm domu ‘house’
ksądz ksędza ‘priest’
later, when length was lost and *ě merged with the [e] allophone of the mid vowel, did
front vs. back mid vowels become phonemically distinct again. Developments were simi-
lar in Belarusian; in standard Ukrainian, *e shifted to /o/ in more limited contexts (with
irregularities).
In West Slavic languages, the strong jers have merged as /e/ (falling in with inherited
*e). Prior to the merger, in all Lechitic languages to different degrees, mid vowels were
backed before hard (i.e. non-palatalized) dentals: *e > o, *ě > a, * ę > ǫ. (Andersen
1978 shows that these and the East Slavic mergers of *e and *o were a single pan-Slavic
phonetic innovation whose local phonemic realization depended on the progress of pro-
sodic changes that were spreading from the Slavic center.) Prior to the merger, conso-
nants were palatalized before front vowels. Polish has retained the palatalization, but
most consonants have depalatalized in Czech, leaving palatalization only in *t, *d, *n
and only before *ě and *i. In both Polish and Czech, some or all of palatalized *t *d *s
*z *n are not (as in East Slavic) palatalized counterparts to plain dentals and alveolars
but now make up a separate palatal place of articulation: Polish ć dź ś ź ń (spelling
before vowel: cia dzia sia zia nia) are palatalized palatals contrasting with retroflex,
non-palatalized palatals cz dż sz ż (no change in spelling before vowels) which reflect
LPS *č (d)ž š ž; Czech t’ d’ ň (spelling before *ě reflex: tě dě ně) are palatal (all
palatalized). Thus the Czech consonant system is similar to that of Table 86.1, but Polish
is quite different.
In South Slavic the two jers tended to merge before the weak ones were lost. This
has been total in BCS, where all strong jers are /a/ and there are no oppositions in
palatalization. BCS also has a palatal series, with stops spelled ć đ and sonorants nj, lj,
but it originated not in palatalization before front vowels but from Proto-Slavic *tj, *dj,
*nj, *lj sequences. In Bulgarian the two jers are reflected differently: the front jer as /e/
and the back jer as /ǝ/ (Cyrillic ъ, transliteration ă or ŭ). There is palatalization of
consonants before the reflex of *ě under stress (the reflex is /a/; spelling я after palatal-
ized consonant) but not before the reflex of the front jer.
Havlík’s law. Compensatory lengthening entailed that, in a sequence of syllables each
containing a jer, every other jer was weak and eventually lost: a final jer was weak, the
one before it strong, the one before that weak, and so on. This meant that in medieval
Slavic the stem shapes of such words varied greatly depending on whether the inflection-
al ending contained a jer or not (and most paradigms had at least one ending with a jer).

Authenticated
1606 XIII. Slavic
Tab. 86.6: Effects of the jer shift on three-jer sequences

‘shoemaker’ gen. ‘day’ ‘today’ (day=this)
nom.
Common Slavic šьv-ьc-ь šьv-ьc-a dьn-ь dьn-ь=sь
Medieval Slavic švec-Ø ševc-a den’ dnes’
Russian švec švec-aa den’ dnes’ (RChSl)
Belarusian šavec šawc-ab dzen’
Ukrainian švec’ švec’-aa den’ dnes
Polish szewc szewc-ab dzień dziś < dzińś
Cashubian ševc ševc-ab dzėń dzis < *dzins
Polabian dan dans
L Sorbian šejc šejc-ab źeń źins
U Sorbian šewc šewc-ab dźeń dźens
Czech švec ševc-e den dnes
Slovak švec ševc-a deň dnes
Slovene dan dánəs
BCS dân dànas
Bulgarian den dnes
Macedonian den denes
Medieval forms are shown with the /e/ reflex of a strong front jer, as this is its most common
spelling. ‘Shoemaker’ has a derivational suffix -ьc- and an inflectional ending. ‘Today’ has a clitic.
RChSl = Russian Church Slavic. No entry = no attested cognate in this language. a = oblique stem
has been generalized to nominative; b = nominative stem has been generalized to oblique.
Modern languages have generally leveled out such alternations in different ways, leaving
vowel-zero alternations mostly near the right edges of stems or words (Table 86.6) (a
detailed survey for Russian is Isačenko 1970).
A jer adjacent to r or l is strong in East Slavic, often strong in Lechitic, and often
weak in South Slavic and Czechoslovak − regardless of the following syllable, i.e. inde-
pendent of compensatory lengthening. A weak jer adjacent to a sonorant yields a modern
syllabic sonorant. These are now found in Czech, Slovak, and BCS.
Status of *i and *y. Several Slavic languages have a high, back or at least nonfront,
unrounded vowel spelled or transliterated ‘y’. CS *y descends from IE *ū. It was a high,
nonfront, long vowel, likely an [ui]-like diphthong in CS (Mošinskij 1972). Now in East
Slavic *i and *y are phonemically merged but phonetically distinct since [i] follows a
palatalized consonant while [y] follows a non-palatalized consonant. In Ukrainian pala-
talization was lost before *i, so the two have also merged phonetically as [y]. A new /i/
arose from *ě and from *o, *e under compensatory lengthening (see ‘house’ in Table
86.4).

Authenticated
In Lechitic *i and *y are phonemically merged but phonetically distinct due to palatal-
ization, much as in East Slavic. In Czech and Slovak they are completely merged though
distinguished in the orthography; Czech bil ‘(he) beat’ and byl ‘(he) was’ are entirely
homophonous. (In colloquial Common Czech /y/ is usually pronounced /ej/, a sound
change that began before the merger and shows that /y/ and /i/ were distinct at the time.)
In South Slavic, *y and *i merged early, leaving no evidence of a distinction.
West Slavic *ř. In West Slavic, *r' (before front vowel) and *rj merge to yield a very
rare and perhaps unique sound. In Czech /ř / is a “post-alveolar [trill] with considerable
friction” (Short 1993: 457), “typically made with the laminal surface of the tongue
against the alveolar ridge” and often involving a sequence of trill followed by frication
(Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996: 228). It is absent in Slovak. In Sorbian, where /r/ is
uvular, /ř/ is uvular and palatalized. In Polish, *ř (spelled rz) has merged with /ž/ (spelled
ż). Cashubian preserves /ř/ to some extent, but is shifting to the Polish pronunciation.
Lenition of *g. In a contiguous set of central Slavic languages, CS *g underwent
lenition, eventually turning into [h] or [ɦ] in most of the languages but with a narrow
band along the edge of the inner isogloss where the pronunciation is [γ]. This dialect
geography shows that the change proceeded [g > γ > h / ɦ]. Further evidence is the fact
that, in languages with /h/ and word-final devoicing, final h is pronounced /x/. The [ɦ]
reflex, in languages that have it, has a certain amount of murmur and is sometimes
described as voiced. Languages exhibiting lenition of *g are Ukrainian, southern Rus-
sian, Belarusian, Slovak, Czech, Upper Sorbian, northwestern dialectal Slovene, and
northwestern dialectal Croatian. Languages in the central part of this area preserve origi-
nal [g] in -zg- clusters: Ukrainian, Belarusian, Slovak. Those closer to the periphery
have [h] even in these clusters. Andersen (1969) shows that this can be explained by the
chronology of lenition relative to the jer shift. Prior to the jer shift Common Slavic had
a very simple syllable structure with few permissible consonant sequences, among them
fricative + stop clusters. Where lenition began before the jer shift, *g in these clusters
was not changed because the syllable canon required that the sequence be fricative +
stop (where *g filled the stop slot). Where lenition began after the jer shift, many more
clusters were possible and *g in *-zg- sequences was free to change into a fricative
without violating the (new) syllable canon. Thus, e.g., Ukr. mizka, Slovak miazga vs.
Upper Sorbian mjezha ‘sap, pulp’ (Andersen 1969: 559). On this evidence lenition began
probably in western Ukraine to eastern Slovakia, not long before the jer shift and thus
probably in about the ninth century; its isogloss spread outward slowly and was overtak-
en by the more rapidly spreading isogloss for the jer shift. Lenition halted along an east-
west line in southern Russia, along the southern border of Polish, and largely along the
northern boundary of South Slavic with small extensions into northwestern Slovene and
Croatian dialects. For lenition, see Andersen (1969).
Prosody. Proto-Slavic inherited from Proto-Balto-Slavic a prosodic system involving
a contrast of what is reconstructed as circumflex vs. acute accent on long vowels (proba-
bly circumflex = stress or tone peak on first mora, acute = on second mora) and mobile
vs. fixed root or stem vs. fixed word-final (desinential) stress paradigms. In words with
long vowels, circumflex was associated with mobile stress and acute with fixed stress.
Words with short vowels exhibited all three kinds of stress paradigms.
A tone opposition, basically of high (or high fall) vs. low (or low rise) on long
vowels, is preserved in dialects of Slovene and dialects of BCS. Standard Slovene has
lost tones entirely. Standard BCS (and its dialect base) has lost the original tone opposi-

Authenticated
1608 XIII. Slavic
Tab. 86.7: Differing degrees of *j loss in the Slavic languages

CS *pojasъ ‘belt’ *stojati ‘stand’ *zajęcь ‘hare’
Russian pojas stojat' zajac
Belarusian pojas stajac' zajac
Ukrainian pojas stojaty zajec'
Polish pas stać zając
Cashubian pas stojec zajc
Polabian stüje-nĕ VN zojąc
L Sorbian pas staś zajec
U Sorbian pas stać zajac
Czech pás stát zajíc
Slovak pás stat' zajac
Slovene pás stati zájec
BCS pâs stajati zêc
Bulgarian pojas stoja (Pres.) zaek
Macedonian pojas stoel (Past ppl.) zajak
tion but created a new one as the result of a stress shift: all stresses shift forward one
syllable toward the beginning of the word, and original initial stress remains initial;
original (initial) stress is now falling tone (long or short) and moved stress has rising
tone (long or short). Most languages without tones nonetheless preserve stress, quantity,
and/or quality phenomena that reflect the former tones.
The opposition of fixed to mobile stress, and the specific stress paradigms of many
individual words, are preserved in most of South and East Slavic and in dialects of
Cashubian. Fixed stress systems have developed in most of West Slavic and dialectally
in Ukrainian, BCS, and Macedonian. Baerman (1999) shows that fixation of stress is
not a contact phenomenon but an internal Slavic development and evolves as a result of
constraints against final stress and regularization of stress patterns within word classes.
For much of its history Proto-Slavic had an opposition of pure length in vowels, but
by late Proto-Slavic to early medieval Slavic times quality distinctions had come to
accompany quantity distinctions, and the subsequent history is one of loss of length −
in individual words, in phonological or morphological contexts, or across the entire
vowel system. Length was lost word-finally (i.e. in desinences) in all languages; in initial
syllables of trisyllabic or longer words but not immediate pretonic syllables; and in
acute syllables (BCS) or circumflex syllables (Czech, Slovak). The peripherally located
languages no longer have length: Lechitic, Sorbian, East Slavic, Macedonian, Bulgarian.
Those that have it (Czech, Slovak, Slovene, BCS) have gone farthest in the loss of
intervocalic *j, which resulted in contraction of the two newly adjacent vowels into one
long vowel. This provided new long vowels that kept phonemic length alive. Loss of
intervocalic *j is a tendency that is stronger in some languages than others and in some
words than others. Marvan (1979: 19) gives a table of frequencies for selected words.
Table 86.7 shows a word highly susceptible to *j loss (‘belt’), one resistant to it (‘hare’),
and one intermediate (‘stand’). VN = verbal noun.
Loss of nasalization. CS had two nasal vowels, *ę and *ǫ, from sequences of vowel
+ nasal + consonant or word boundary. These survived in Old Church Slavic, but in
modern Slavic languages they survive only in Cashubian and Polish (also in Polabian
until its death). In Polish the main allophones are vowel plus nasalized rounded offglide

Authenticated
0.1
Polish
LSorbian
USorbian
Ukrainian
Belarusian
Czech Russian
Slovak
Bulgarian
Macedonian
Slovene
BCS
Fig. 86.1: Splitstree (Huson and Bryant 2006) neighbor net diagram of the Slavic languages after the
application of 12 post-Proto-Slavic sound changes that spread easily between branches:
Reflex of *x in the second velar palatalization
*tl, *dl reflexes
*tˊ reflex
*ORT resolution
*TORT resolution
Reflexes of strong jers (e/o, e, a, etc.)
*TuRT resolution
*TRuT resolution
Lenition of *g
Retention/loss of tones
Retention/loss of vowel length
Retention/loss of free stress
[ᴐwn], [ɛwn] or sequence of oral vowel plus homorganic nasal plus stop. Nasalization
survived for at least a century or two after the CS dispersal in East Slavic, as shown by
Slavic loanwords into Finnic, first contacted in about the sixth century (Kiparsky 1979:
82−84).
Positional vowel neutralizations. Several languages have some neutralization of un-
stressed vowels. In Bulgarian, unstressed high and mid vowels tend to merge. In Polabian
there is a final two-syllable window for stress and a three-syllable non-reduction win-
dow: a stressed vowel and the first pretonic vowel are unreduced, and more distant
pretonic and all post-tonic vowels are reduced to a minimal opposition of ĕ and ă.

Authenticated
1610 XIII. Slavic
In south and central Russian and in Belarusian, there is far-reaching neutralization

and reduction of unstressed vowels. All vowels but /u/ neutralize entirely or considerably
in unstressed syllables, the phonetic output being either [i/i] or [ǝ/ʌ] depending on such
factors as the palatalization or non-palatalization of the preceding consonant and the
height of the following vowel. In standard Russian the neutralized vowels preserve a
phonemic distinction of /i/ vs. what might be phonemicized as either /e/ or /a/. In Beloru-
sian and some of central Russian including the younger generations of Muscovites, a
first pretonic [a] is not reduced and remains a clear /a/. In younger Moscow speech (and
some nearby dialects: Čekmonas 1987), this first pretonic /a/ is undergoing a latter-day
round of compensatory lengthening, appropriating an increment of length from an adja-
cent following higher vowel and/or preceding phonetic schwa.
Figure 86.1 is a neighbor net diagram showing an unrooted tree of the Slavic lan-
guages as of the high middle ages, the end of the time when sound changes could still
spread readily between branches and across most of the Slavic speech community. The
webbing between languages and branches shows indeterminacy of subgrouping, due to
inter-branch sharings. Despite the considerable indeterminacy, the modern Slavic family
tree has clearly begun to take shape: West Slavic, separated by several unique reflexes,
is coherent and at some distance from the rest, and East and South Slavic are both
discernible though less discrete.
3. Morphology and morphosyntax

In several areas of grammar, morpheme forms inherited from Indo-European were assem-
bled into entirely new inflectional, derivational, and morphosyntactic paradigms.
Two-stem verb inflectional system. Proto-Slavic lost the IE perfect stem and perfect
tense, but inherited present and past stems. The present stem forms the nonpast tense,
present and future participles, and the imperfect where that exists (OCS, modern South
Slavic). The past stem forms the aorist, infinitive, and -l participle (a perfect participle
in OCS, used to form a periphrastic perfect tense; now used with an auxiliary to form a
past tense or even functioning alone as a finite past tense verb form). In CS and OCS
the present and past stems often had different ablaut grades. Often one or both were
suffixed, and certain pairings of present and past stem morphology became common.
Table 86.8 shows the traditional classification of OCS verbs based on the two stems
(Leskien [1871] 1962: 121−122).
Tab. 86.8: Leskien’s verb classes for OCS (subtypes not shown)
Class Present Past stem Example (3sg present, infinitive)
I -e- / -o- none or-a- nes-e-tъ nes-ti ‘carry’
II -n-e- / -n-o- -nǫ- dvig-ne-tъ dvig-nǫ-ti ‘move’
III -je- none or-a- zna-je-tъ zna-ti ‘know’
IV -i- -i- xval-i-tъ xval-i-ti ‘praise’
V athematic athematic das-tъ < *dad-t- da-ti ‘give’

Authenticated
There has been some regularization in all languages (especially Macedonian), but the
two-stem principle is evident everywhere.
Switch in valence derivation type from transitivizing to detransitivizing. Proto-Slavic
used causative or factitive suffixes extensively to produce many regular pairs consisting
of an intransitive and a (derived) transitive verb. In CS, probably late CS, the clitic
accusative form of the reflexive pronoun came to be used as a detransitivizing device
and rapidly became a regular part of CS derivational morphology. Hence OCS has a
number of sets like the following (Gołąb 1968; Nichols 1993):
(1) vyknǫti ‘learn’ (PS *u:k-noN-; intransitive inchoative)

učiti ‘teach’ (*ouk-ei-; causative; transitive or ditransitive)
učiti sę ‘learn’ (reflexive; intransitive or oblique object)
In the daughter languages the relationships between original intransitives and original
causatives (like vyknǫti: učiti) have become more etymological than derivational, and
they have drifted apart semantically. Reflexivization is the productive means of deriving
intransitives, so that now it is the transitives that are basic in transitive-intransitive pairs.
This is the case in most continental European languages, and it came to affect Common
Slavic as it entered the European cultural sphere.
In Macedonian and Bulgarian many intransitive verbs can be used transitively as well
(in Macedonian, if the object is definite) (Macedonian: go=zaspav him=sleep-1sg
‘I put him to sleep’, Friedman 2002: 34). This too has the effect of making transitives
formally basic in such verbs (although it does not make intransitives derived).
In the medieval and modern languages, reflexivization of verbs can be both syntactic
(in passives and a special diathesis with dative subject) and lexical (derived intransi-
tives). Reflexive passives coexist with participial passives. In Russian they are neatly
complementary: participial passives are perfective and reflexive passives imperfective.
(2) Èto pis’mo bylo napisano dekanom.

this letter was written.PF dean-INSTR
‘This letter was written by the dean.’
(3) Takoe pis’mo obyčno pišetsja dekanom
such letter usually write.IMPF-REFL dean-INSTR
‘This kind of letter is usually written by the dean.’
Dative-subject reflexives usually have a modal force: ‘is inclined to’, ‘feels like’, ‘can’.
(4) Russian
Segodnja mne ne čitaetsja
today me.DAT not read-3sg-REFL
‘Today I just don’t feel like / can’t get down to reading.’
(5) Slovene (Marušič and Žaucer 2006: 1098)
Včeraj se= mi= ni= šlo jutri domov
yesterday REFL me.DAT NEG go-PAST-NEUT tomorrow home
‘Yesterday I didn’t feel like going home tomorrow.’

Authenticated
1612 XIII. Slavic
In Russian (and probably most Slavic languages), these constructions are monoclausal,
but Marušič and Žaucer (2006) analyze the Slovene example as having a null modal
predicate which včeraj applies to while jutri applies to ‘go’.
Some lexical reflexives are plausibly semantic developments of literal reflexives,
where the reflexive clitic was originally a literal direct object; but some are not. Table
86.9 shows three verb glosses that are almost always reflexive in modern Slavic lan-
guages. ‘Laugh’ is from an IE root *smei- with cognates including Engl. smile. The
cognates (including the Lithuanian one) are basically intransitive, making it unlikely that
PS ever had a transitive *sm(e)i- ‘laugh at, mock; make laugh’. No unprefixed non-
reflexive is attested in any Slavic language. (Russian has transitive o-smeivat’ ‘mock,
ridicule, laugh at’ and vy-smeivat’ ‘id.’, but these have applicative prefixes and the
transitive valence is their derivational effect rather than an inherited property of the root.)
Thus the most parsimonious reconstruction is an intransitive nonreflexive *sm(e)i-
‘laugh, smile’ to which existing middle morphology was extended (this is an emotion
speech verb in the middle voice typology of Kemmer 1993), rather than detransitiviza-
tion of a transitive. This implies that *sę was already well installed in the derivational
morphology of the verb and associated with intransitivity by the time this clearly CS
verb was formed.
*bojati sę, 3sg pres.*bojitъ sę has the suffix paradigm of intransitive and generally
non-agentive verbs such as OCS bъděti, 3sg pres. bъditъ ‘be awake’ (Birnbaum and
Schaeken 1997: 91) and is therefore very unlikely to result from detransitivization of an
earlier transitive. It must result from extension of middle morphology as *smejati sę did
(it is an emotion verb in the typology of Kemmer 1993).
The onomasiological slot ‘seem’ is diachronically less stable. It is filled by several
different verbs, most of them reflexive and all of those arguably literal reflexives:
*kazati sę, lit. ‘show oneself’, a literal reflexive. (OCS, East Slavic)
*jьz-da(ja)ti sę ‘give oneself off (as), present oneself (as)’, a literal reflexive (West
Slavic, Slovene, western East Slavic)
*učiniti sę (South Slavic including OCS): ‘position oneself’, a literal reflexive
as well as nonreflexive *jьz-ględěti ‘out + look’, i.e. ‘appear, look like’ (South Slavic).
That is, the most common source of fillers for this onomasiological slot is a metaphor
like ‘show/present oneself (as ...)’ using literal reflexivization. Of these only *jьz-da(ja)ti
sę is attested in all three branches and can plausibly be reconstructed for CS (however,
only nonreflexive izda[ja]ti ‘give out’ is attested in the OCS canon).
Note that the reflexive element *sę is a clitic in South and West Slavic and an affix
in East Slavic. The citation form of the Polabian verb for ‘fear’ (from Polański 1993:
803) does not have the reflexive clitic, but this does not mean that the verb was not
reflexive.
Other valence issues. CS and the modern languages have a number of valence pat-
terns: intransitive (nominative subject), transitive (nominative subject, accusative direct
object), ditransitive (nominative, accusative, dative indirect object), dative subject with
one or two arguments (dative only; dative + nominative object), oblique object (nomina-
tive subject, one or another oblique case or preposition on the object). Canonical transi-
tives and intransitives are lexically the most frequent. The set of patterns has been quite

Authenticated
Tab. 86.9: Reflexive verbs

‘laugh’ ‘fear’ ‘seem’
CS *smijati sę *bojati sę ? *jьz-da(ja)ti sę ‘present oneself’,
? *kazati sę ‘appear’
OCS smьjati sę bojati sę ? kazati sę
? *izda(ja)ti sę
Russian smejat’-sja bojat’-sja kazat’-sja
Belarusian smejac-ca bajac-ca zdavac-ca
Ukrainian smijaty-sja bojaty-sja zdavaty-sja
Polish śmiać się bać się wydawać się, zdawać się
Cashubian smiôc sę bojec sę, zdôwac sę
miec strach ‘have fear’
Polabian bet [să]
L Sorbian smjaś se bojaś se zdaś se
U Sorbian smjeć so bojeć so zdać so
Czech smát se strachovat se, bát se zdát se
Slovak smiat’ sa bát’ sa zdat' sa
Slovene smejati se bati se zdeti se; meniti
BCS smejati se plašiti se, bojati se učiniti se, izgledati
Bulgarian smeja se straxuvam se, izgleždam; struva mi se
boja se, opasjavam se
Macedonian se smee se plaši izgleda, se čini
stable, and the valence types of individual verbs and semantic classes of verbs are also
fairly stable. In the Balkan languages, prepositions have replaced cases entirely, and in
the other languages (especially West Slavic) there has been some diachronic tendency
to expand prepositions at the expense of bare cases on objects.
Verb derivational pairings. CS preserved many inherited suffixal forms of verb
stems but reassembled them into new derivational sets. Most salient and thoroughgo-
ing was the pairing of plain verbs with iteratives, which in earliest medieval Slavic
was turning into the systematic pairing of perfective and imperfective verbs that
distinguishes modern Slavic languages. Iteratives were mostly suffixed with *-a-j-
and often had lengthened root vowels. Verb prefixes often added a sense of telicity
that was grammaticalized as perfective. Other lexical and morphological forms were
also recruited to provide perfective or imperfective partners, with the result that
modern Slavic aspectual pairings are formally disparate but grammatically and func-
tionally equivalent within languages. Examples of pairings from Russian (only aspect-
relevant morphemes are segmented):

Authenticated
1614 XIII. Slavic
(6) Imperfective Perfective

pisat’ na-pisat’ ‘write’ (prefixed perfective)
pere-pis-yv-at’ pere-pisat’ ‘rewrite’ (suffixed imperfective)
po-kupat’ kupit’ ‘buy’ (prefix and suffix)
govorit’ skazat’ ‘say’ (suppletion)
pryg-at’ pryg-nut’ ‘jump’ (both forms suffixed)
The meaning of aspect depends on the Aktionsart of the verb (Maslov 1948): most
commonly, a verb of activity or ongoing potentially telic action, when perfectivized,
becomes telic; a perfective that is punctual (e.g. ‘sneeze’, ‘jump’) becomes pluractional
when imperfective. In addition, an overarching distinction in the fundamental meaning
of aspect divides the more eastern languages (East Slavic, Bulgarian, to some extent
Polish and BCS) from the western ones (other West and South Slavic): in the east,
perfective means temporal definiteness while in the west it means totality (Dickey
2000).
Medieval Slavic began to develop, and most modern languages have developed, a set
of about a dozen paired verbs of motion, where the members of the pair are determinate
(motion in a particular direction or toward a goal) and indeterminate (iterative, undirect-
ed, or multidirectional motion). In early medieval Slavic the indeterminates were goalless
manner verbs and/or iteratives. For the history, see Dickey (2010) and Greenberg (2010).
Slovene examples (Herrity 2000: 226):
(7) Det. Indet. Gloss

nêsti nosíti ‘carry’
peljáti vozíti ‘lead, drive’
jáhati jézditi ‘ride’
gnáti goníti ‘drive, chase’
têči tékati ‘run’
letéti létati ‘fly’
bežáti bégati ‘run’
lésti lazíti ‘climb’
íti hodíti ‘go (on foot)’
vléči vlačíti ‘drag’
brêsti brodíti ‘wade’
vêsti vodíti ‘lead’
Second-position clitic strings. Medieval Slavic varieties have a second-position clitic

string whose elements follow a template with dative preceding accusative, reflexive
sometimes specially positioned, and any clitic having scope over only one word immedi-
ately following that word (which was usually clause-initial) and preceding the rest of
the string. Clitic strings are preserved in South and West Slavic, and are present in Old
Russian (Zaliznjak 2008) but lost in modern East Slavic except for Rusyn. In Macedoni-
an and Bulgarian the strings have migrated headward to become ad-verbal (mostly pre-
verbal). Clitic strings are found in other European languages, chiefly Romance, but
second-position clitic strings are unique in Europe to Slavic and Ossetic (Iranian, north
central Caucasus), which also has the dative-accusative order. Clitics are italicized in
(8−10).

Authenticated
(8) Czech (Franks and King 2000: 110 citing Fried 1994: 173)
On ti se mi ani neomluvil
he 2s.DAT REFL 1sg.DAT not.even apologized
‘(I’m telling) you, he didn’t even apologize to me.’
Here the first clitic ti is an ethical dative, a pragmatic function captured in the gloss
‘(I’m telling) you’.
(9) Macedonian (Friedman 1993: 285)

da ne kˊe sum si mu go dal
SUB NEG EXP NONCONF.2 RFL.DAT 3s.DAT 3s.ACC give
‘(They didn’t say) that I won’t have given it to him (did they)?’
Here the gloss EXP stands for ‘Expectative’, and NONCONF stands for ‘Non-confirma-
tive’.
(10) OCS (Mt. 17:17, cited in Vaillant 1963−1964: 378)

priveděte mi i
bring-IMPV.2p me.DAT him.ACC
‘Bring him to me.’
Simplification of tense system. CS and medieval Slavic distinguished present, aorist,

imperfect, and perfect tenses. Future meaning could be expressed with the present tense
or modal auxiliaries. Most modern languages have added a future but otherwise simpli-
fied the tense system to a single past tense, letting aspect take over the work of the
aorist/imperfect distinction and losing the perfect entirely. In East Slavic, Polish, Czech,
Slovak, and Slovene, the past tense is formed from the old perfect. Cashubian has inno-
vated a new perfect using ‘have’ plus past passive participle, doubtless under German
influence. Sorbian preserves all three medieval tense forms, but aorist and imperfect are
now in complementary distribution based on aspect. BCS preserves all three in the writ-
ten language but for the most part replaces the aorist and imperfect with the old perfect;
aorist and imperfect are in almost entirely complementary distribution by aspect. Polabi-
an preserved all three. Bulgarian and Macedonian, in somewhat different ways, have
recruited and expanded the old perfect morphology to make an evidentiality distinction,
often called renarrated mood, opposing indicative to a form indicating that the speaker
does not vouch for or has not witnessed the event.
Dual. CS had a dual number separate from singular and plural. The case paradigm
of the dual was more syncretized than those of the singular and plural. The dual is used
regularly in OCS and medieval Slavic but gradually drops out of use, supplanted by the
plural, in all but Slovene, Sorbian, the recently extinct Slovincian dialect of Cashubian,
and Polabian. Traces of the dual remain in most languages: e.g., in Russian the usual
masculine nominative plural is -y/-i, but in some words referring to natural pairs the
ending is -á: beregá ‘riverbanks’, rukavá ‘sleeves’, glazá ‘eyes’. The old dual endings
are frozen on the word for ‘two’ in all the languages.
Gender and animacy. Slavic preserves the three IE genders. Genitive-accusative syn-
cretism, replacing an inherited accusative ending with one identical to the genitive,
spreads through masculine nominal declension and agreement paradigms following the

Authenticated
1616 XIII. Slavic
referential (animacy) hierarchy. In CS the genitive form replaced the accusative in tonic
personal pronouns. In OCS masculine singular nouns referring to adult human males
also took this ending. The category expands to include human and most higher animate
masculine nouns in the modern languages (except Bulgarian and Macedonian, which
have no noun cases). West Slavic languages distinguish human from non-human in plural
masculines; East Slavic (which makes no formal gender distinctions in the plural) ex-
tends animacy to human and higher animate referents of all genders. Corbett (1991:
161−168) considers Slavic animacy a subgender since animate paradigms differ from
inanimate ones in only one or two endings.
Morphosyntax of numerals. The morphosyntax of phrases containing numerals is fa-
mously complex for modern Russian and several other languages (Mel’čuk 1985; Corbett
1993; Franks 1995: 93−129). In CS and OCS, ‘one’ was an adjective of the regular and
open o/a-stem declension, agreeing in gender, number, and case with the quantified noun,
which was singular and in the case required by its own syntax. ‘Two’ was a similarly
regular adjective in the dual form and taking a noun in the dual. ‘Three’ and ‘four’ were
adjectives of irregular or minor declensions, agreeing with a noun that was plural. ‘Five’
and above governed the genitive plural of the quantified noun, since they were morpho-
logically i-stem nouns and nominalized forms of old ordinals. (Most of them end in
*-t- cognate to the regular IE ordinal suffix: OCS pętь ‘five’, desętь ‘ten’.) In numeral
expressions it is the last digit of the numeral (i.e. the last word in the numeral) that
agrees and/or determines case and number.
The loss of the dual number led to changes in this system. In East Slavic the old dual
was mostly identified with the genitive singular and this case was extended from 2 to 3
and 4. In BCS the old dual survives as a special counting form, also used with 2−4. In
West Slavic plural endings were extended from 3−4 to 2. In Macedonian and Bulgarian
the system has been simplified: ‘one’ is an agreeing adjective; all others take the plural
(except that for masculine nouns there is a choice between plural and a counting form
that continues old dual morphology, used with some of the numerals).
4. Balkan developments
Macedonian and Bulgarian are the two Slavic languages included in the Balkan Sprach-
bund (together with Albanian, Romanian, Greek, and Romani). Of the standardly recog-
nized Balkan areal features − postposed definite article, variant preposed future tense
marker derived from verb of volition, clitic doubling for objects, noun case mergers and
losses, mid central vowel, lack of an infinitive (finite subordinate clauses where most
European languages use infinitives) − the most distinctive relative to the typical Slavic
grammar are the presence of a definite article (postposed or otherwise), lack of cases,
and use of clitics in verb agreement. Those standardly recognized Balkan areal features
are categorical, i.e. present in all the Sprachbund members and no other nearby lan-
guages, but on a less categorical approach what is striking in the Balkan profile as it
affects Slavic is the development of analytic or at least non-affixal morphology and the
development of a head-marking clause (no cases, verb agreement with three arguments,
an ad-verbal and chiefly preposed clitic string instead of a second-position one) and the
beginnings of head-marked possession (adnominal clitics with kin terms, e.g. Bulgarian,

Authenticated
Macedonian brat=mi ‘my brother’). The literature on the Balkan area is vast (see e.g.
Sandfeld 1930; Joseph 1983; Lindstedt 2000; Alexander 2000; Rivero and Ralli 2001;
Vermeer 2005; Tomić 2006).
5. Conclusion and prospects

Some of the grammatical properties that are most distinctive in Slavic − regular reflexi-
vizing detransitivization, second-position clitic strings, new verb derivational connec-
tions including aspect pairings − arose late in the Common Slavic period and probably
marked the entry of Common Slavic into the European cultural sphere. Polabian, the
westernmost Slavic language, went extinct in the 18 th century, its speakers gradually
shifting to German after the German Drang nach Osten. Cashubian has the sociolinguis-
tic status, in Poland, of one more dialect of Polish. Cashubia is a major tourist destination
in Poland, but though this brings much contact the language appears to be stable. Sorbian
has been a linguistically conservative island surrounded by German, but is now rapidly
losing ground to German (Comrie and Jaenecke 2006). Belarusian should probably be
regarded as endangered, its speakers shifting to Russian (Zaprudski 2007). Ukrainian
was threatened as of 1991, with most of the urban population and many others predomi-
nantly or exclusively Russian-speaking, but a combination of policy and national consen-
sus have strengthened its position. Rusyn is losing ground in Slovakia but apparently
not in Ukraine. Apart from Belarusian and perhaps Ukrainian, the national languages are
all in strong sociolinguistic positions and not threatened.
Recent overviews of synchronic grammar include Comrie and Corbett (1993) and
Sussex and Cubberley (2006). The series Historical Phonology of the Slavic Languages
(Universitätsverlag Winter Heidelberg) has produced a number of monographs on the
histories of individual languages.
6. References
Alexander, Ronelle
2000 Tracking Sprachbund boundaries: Word order in the Balkans. In: Gilbers, Nerbonne,
and Schaeken (eds.), 9−27.
Andersen, Henning
1969 Lenition in Common Slavic. Language 45: 554−574.
Andersen, Henning
1978 Perceptual and conceptual factors in abductive innovations. In: Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Recent
developments in historical phonology. The Hague: Mouton, 1−22.
Andersen, Henning
1996 Reconstructing Prehistorical Dialects: Initial Vowels in Slavic and Baltic. Berlin: Mou-
ton de Gruyter.
Andersen, Henning
1999 The western South Slavic contrast Sn. sah-ni-ti / SC sah-nu-ti. Slovenski jezik / Slovene
Linguistic Studies 2: 47−62.
Baerman, Matthew
1999 The Evolution of Fixed Stress in Slavic. Munich: Lincom Europa.

Authenticated
1618 XIII. Slavic
Birnbaum, Henrik and Jos Schaeken

1997 Das altkirchenslavische Wort: Bildung-Bedeutung-Herleitung. Munich: Sagner.
Čekmonas, Valery
1987 Territorija zaroždenija i ètapy razvitija vostočnoslavjanskogo akan’ja v svete dannyx
lingvogeografii [The area of origin and stages of development of East Slavic akanje in
the light of the data from linguistic geography]. Russian Linguistics 11: 335−349.
Comrie, Bernard and Greville G. Corbett
Comrie, Bernard and Paulina Jaenecke
2006 Idiosyncratic factors in language endangerment: The case of Upper Sorbian. Linguistic
Discovery 4(1) (online journal without pagination published by Dartmouth College).
Corbett, Greville G.
1993 The head of Russian numeral constructions. In: Greville G. Corbett, Norman M. Fraser,
and Scott McGlashan (eds.), Heads in Grammatical Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 11−35.
1991 Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dickey, Stephen M.
2000 Parameters of Slavic Aspect: A cognitive approach. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Dickey, Stephen M.
2010 Common Slavic ‘indeterminate’ verbs of motion were really manner-of-motion verbs.
In: Driagina-Hasko and Perelmutter (eds.), 67−109.
Driagina-Hasko, Viktoria and Renee Perelmutter (eds.)
2010 New Approaches to Slavic Verbs of Motion. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Franks, Steven
1995 Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Franks, Steven and Tracy Holloway King
2000 A Handbook of Slavic Clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fried, Mirjam
1994 Second-position clitics in Czech: Syntactic or phonological? Lingua 94: 155−175.
Friedman, Victor A.
1993 Macedonian. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 249−305.
Friedman, Victor A.
2002 Macedonian. Munich: Lincom Europa.
Georgiev, Vladimir I. (ed.)
1971 Bŭlgarski etimologičen rečnik [Bulgarian etymological dictionary]. Sofia: Bŭlgarska
akademia na naukite.
Gilbers, Dicky G., John Nerbonne, and Jos Schaeken (eds.)
2000 Languages in Contact. (Studies in Slavic and general linguistics 28). Amsterdam:
Rodopi.
Gołab, Zbigniew
1968 The grammar of Slavic causatives. In: Henry Kučera (ed.), American Contributions to
the Sixth International Congress of Slavists. The Hague: Mouton, 71−94.
Greenberg, Marc L.
2010 PIE Inheritance and Word-Formational Innovation in Slavic Motion Verbs in -i-. In:
Driagina-Hasko and Perelmutter (eds.), 111−121.
Herrity, Peter
2000 Slovene: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.
Huson, Daniel H. and David Bryant
2006 Application of phylogenetic networks in evolutionary studies. Molecular Biology and
Evolution 34: 254−267.

Authenticated
Isačenko, Alexander V.
1970 East Slavic morphophonemics and the treatment of the jers in Russian: A revision of
Havlík’s law. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 13: 73−124.
Joseph, Brian
1983 The Synchrony and Diachrony of the Balkan Infinitive. Cambridge: Cambridge Universi-
ty Press.
Kemmer, Suzanne
1993 The Middle Voice. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Kiparsky, Valentin
1979 Russian Historical Grammar, Volume 1: The development of the sound system. Ann
Arbor: Ardis.
Ladefoged, Peter and Ian Maddieson
1996 The sounds of the world’s languages. Oxford: Blackwell.
Leskien, August
1962 [1871] Handbuch der altbulgarischen (altkirchenslavischen) Sprache. Heidelberg: Win-
ter [Weimar: Böhlau].
Lindstedt, Jouko
2000 Linguistic Balkanization: Contact-induced change by mutual reinforcement. In: Gilbers,
Nerbonne, and Schaeken (eds.), 231−246.
Magocsi, Paul Robert (ed.)
2004 Rusin'skyj Jazyk [The Rusyn language]. Opole: Uniwersytet Opolski.
Maguire, Robert and Alan Timberlake (eds.)
1993 American Contributions to the Eleventh International Congress of Slavists. Columbus,
OH: Slavica.
Marušič, Franc and Rok Žaucer
2006 On the intensional FEEL-LIKE construction in Slovenian: A case for a phonologically
null verb. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24: 1093−1159.
Marvan, Jiri
1979 Prehistoric Slavic Contraction. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University
Press.
Maslov, Jurij S.
1948 Vid i leksičeskoe značenie glagola v sovremennom russkom literaturnom jazyke [Aspect
and the lexical meaning of the verb in the modern Russian literary language]. Izvestija
AN SSSR, Otdelenie literatury i jazyka 7: 303−316.
Mel'čuk, Igor'
1985 Poverxnostnyj sintaksis russkix čislovyx vyraženij [The surface syntax of Russian numer-
ical expressions]. Vienna: Gesellschaft zur Forderung Slawistischer Studien.
Mošinskij, Leszek
1972 O vremeni monoftongizacii praslavjanskix diftongov [On the time of monophthongiza-
tion of Proto-Slavic diphthongs]. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 1972: 53−67.
Nichols, Johanna
1993a The linguistic geography of the Slavic expansion. In: Maguire and Timberlake (eds.),
377−391.
Nichols, Johanna
1993b Transitive and causative in the Slavic lexicon: Evidence from Russian. In: Bernard Com-
rie and Maria Polinsky (eds.), Causatives and Transitivity. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 69−
86.
Polański, Kazimierz and James Allen Sehnert
1967 Polabian-English Dictionary. (Slavistic Printings and Reprintings 61). The Hague: Mou-
ton.
Rivero, Maria Luisa, and Angela Ralli (eds.)
2001 Comparative Syntax of Balkan Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Authenticated
1620 XIII. Slavic
Sadnik, Linda and Rudolf Aitzetmüller

1955 Handwörterbuch zu den altkirchenslavischen Texten. The Hague: Mouton.
Sandfeld, Kristian
1930 Linguistique balkanique: Problèmes et résultats. Paris: Klincksieck.
Shevelov, George Y.
1957 Trъt-type Groups and the Problem of Moravian Components in Old Church Slavonic.
Slavonic and East European Review 35 (No. 85, June): 379−398. [Reprinted 1971 in
Teasers and Appeasers. (Forum Slavicum 32). Munich: Fink, 94−112.]
Short, David
1993 Czech. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 455−532.
Stone, Gerald
Sussex, Roland and Paul Cubberley
2006 The Slavic Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Timberlake, Alan
1983a Compensatory lengthening in Slavic, 1: Conditions and dialect geography. In: Vladimir
Markov and Dean S. Worth (eds.), From LA to Kiev: Papers on the Occasion of the
Ninth International Congress of Slavists, Kiev, September 1983. Columbus, OH: Slavica,
207−235.
Timberlake, Alan
1983b Compensatory lengthening in Slavic, 2: Phonetic reconstruction. In: Michael S. Flier
(ed.), American Contributions to the Ninth International Congress of Slavists, 1: Lin-
guistics. Columbus, OH: Slavica, 293−319.
Timberlake, Alan
1988 The fall of the jers in West Slavic (Kashubian and Upper Sorbian). Welt der Slaven 33:
225−247.
Timberlake, Alan
1993 Isochrony in Late Common Slavic. In: Maguire and Timberlake (eds.), 425−439.
Timberlake, Alan
2013 Culture and the spread of Slavic. In: Balthasar Bickel, Lenore A. Grenoble, David A.
Peterson, and Alan Timberlake (eds.), Language Typology and Historical Contingency.
Amsterdam: Benjamins, 331−356.
Tomić, Olga M.
2006 Balkan Sprachbund morphosyntactic features. Dordrecht: Springer.
Uspenskij, Boris A.
1968 Arxaičeskaja sistema cerkovnoslavjanskogo proiznošenija. (Iz istorii liturgičeskogo pro-
iznošenija v Rossii) [The archaic system of Church Slavic pronunciation. (From the
history of liturgical pronunciation in Russia)]. Moscow: Moscow University Press.
Uspenskij, Boris A.
2002 Istorija russkogo literaturnogo jazyka (X−XVII vv.) [The History of Russian literary
language (X‒XVII c.)]. Moscow: Aspekt.
Vaillant, André
1964 Manuel du vieux slave. Paris: Institut d'études slaves.
Vaňko, Juraj
2000 The Language of Slovakia’s Rusyns. New York: Carpatho-Rusyn Research Center.
Vermeer, Willem
2000 On the status of the earliest Russian isogloss: Four untenable and three questionable
reasons for separating the progressive and the second regressive palatalization of Com-
mon Slavic. Russian Linguistics 24(5): 5−29.
Vermeer, Willem
2005 The rise of the Balkan linguistic type: Preliminary considerations for private consump-
tion only. MS, University of Leiden.

Authenticated
2004 Drevnenovgorodskij dialekt [The Old Novgorod dialect]. Moscow: Škola “Jazyki russkoj
kul’tury”.
2008 Drevnerusskie ènklitiki [Old Russian enclitics]. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskix kul’tur.
Zaprudski, Siarhiej
2007 In the grip of replacive bilingualism: The Belarusian language in contact with Russian.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language 183: 97−118.
Johanna Nichols, Berkeley, CA (USA)

Authenticated
XIV. Baltic
87. The documentation of Baltic

1. Introduction 4. Latvian
2. Old Prussian 5. References
3. Lithuanian
1. Introduction
The Baltic languages have a relatively short written tradition that is intimately connected
to the Christianization of the Baltic region. Besides the well attested Old Prussian, Lithu-
anian, and Latvian, there is evidence of a number of extinct Baltic languages or dialects.
For Galindian, Selonian, and Semigallian, our linguistic knowledge is based exclusively
on onomastic material and on certain features of modern dialects spoken in the regions
of their historical extension. For Curonian and Yatvingian, however, there are some
additional attestations. In the case of Curonian, it should be noted that Simon Grunau’s
Preussische Chronik (1526) contains a version of the Lord’s Prayer which has been
demonstrated by Schmid (1962) to be not Old Prussian as previously thought, but Old
Latvian, with possible traces of Curonian. Concerning Yatvingian, the glossary Pagańske
gwary z Narewu must be mentioned. The glossary was acquired in 1978 by V. Zinov,
who made a personal copy of it in his notebook. The original version of the glossary
was later destroyed, before it was ever made public, for which reason the authenticity
of the glossary unfortunately cannot be verified. The glossary contains about 200 Polish
words with correspondences in a presumed peripheral Baltic language or dialect. Some
scholars consider it to be Yatvingian (Zinkevičius 1985a, 1985b; Chelimskij 1985; Orël
1986; Orël and Chelimskij 1987), but it has also been suggested that it might be Lithua-
nian with a strong Yiddish influence (Schmid 1986).
In this chapter, we will present an overview of the texts written in Old Prussian,
Lithuanian, and Latvian, starting from the earliest attestations up until the end of the
17 th century. The list of early Lithuanian and Latvian texts will not be exhaustive, but
will include the most interesting documents from a linguistic point of view. Most of the
texts have been edited and published several times, but due to limitations of space only
a small selection of the available editions will be included here. We also wish to make
the reader aware of the fact that most of the early Baltic texts have now been made
available in online databases and corpora, such as the sites Senieji raštai provided by
the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, SENIE (Latviešu valodas seno tekstu korpuss)
created by the University of Latvia, and a database Prūsų kalbos paveldo duomenų bazė
containing Old Prussian texts prepared by Vilnius University.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-008

Authenticated
87. The documentation of Baltic 1623
2. Old Prussian
The Old Prussian corpus is not very voluminous, the major documents being the Elbing
vocabulary, Simon Grunau’s vocabulary, and the 1st, 2 nd, and 3 rd Catechisms. The 3 rd
Catechism is also referred to as the Enchiridion and this text is unique in that it includes
accent marks. In addition to these documents there are also some fragments, cf. Mažiulis
(1981: 62−64), Schaeken (2002−2003), Kessler and Mossman (2013a). The Old Prussian
personal names have been analyzed by Trautmann (1925), and an annotated collection
of the Old Prussian place names was published by Gerullis (1922a). The Old Prussian
place names have recently been treated by Blažienė in two monographs (2000, 2005).
Mažiulis has published annotated editions of the Old Prussian texts, along with facsimi-
les of the texts (1966, 1981). An edition with facsimiles has also been published by
Palmaitis (2007). Older editions of the texts include Berneker (1896) and Trautmann
(1910). These editions do not include facsimiles, but are merely transcriptions of the
texts. Note that Trautmann uses his own page and line numbers when referring to a
given line in the texts and that these numbers differ from the original pagination. A
complete etymological dictionary of Old Prussian has been published by Mažiulis
(1988 ff./2013), and parts of the Old Prussian vocabulary have also been treated by
Toporov (1975 ff.).
2.1. Elbing Vocabulary
The Elbing Vocabulary is part of the so-called Codex Neumannianus, which dates from
around 1400. It has long been recognized that the extant copy of the vocabulary is most
likely to be a copy of another copy or a misrepresentative copy of the original, due to
many inconsistencies and obvious mistakes, cf. Trautmann (1910: XXII−XXV). Based
on the fact that the Elbing Vocabulary must be a copy, Trautmann (1910: XXIV) makes
the following assumption: “Wir haben demnach die Entstehungszeit um einige Genera-
tionen heraufzurücken und kommen etwa bis zum Anfang des 14. oder sogar 13. Jh.
[We have therefore pushed back the time of origin by a few generations and arrive at
about the beginning of the 14 th or even the 13 th c.]”. This conclusion is often quoted in
the secondary literature; cf. Eckert et al. (1994: 47) and Forssman (1995: 8). There is,
however, no absolute time that must pass between the making of one copy of a text and
the next one, and the question of when the vocabulary was compiled therefore remains
open. In fact, it is difficult to date the text more precisely than somewhere between 1230
(when the German orders arrived in Prussia) and 1400 (Codex Neumannianus).
The vocabulary consists of 802 entries in German and their Old Prussian translations.
The lexical items are arranged in semantic groupings, e.g. cosmology, body parts, plants,
animals, etc. The material is not significantly influenced by German, and it is likely that
it was provided by native Old Prussian speakers (or skilled Prussian-speaking Germans).
It is possible that different informants were used during the compilation of the vocabu-
lary, and some variation within the document may hence be explained as reflecting
different dialectal traits within the Pomesanian dialect area. The place of the stress is
not marked in the vocabulary, but it is sometimes possible to draw some conclusions
concerning the accent when indirect evidence is included, cf. Endzelin (1944: 44 ff.),

Authenticated
1624 XIV. Baltic
Larsson (2005, 2010: 17−24). The Elbing Vocabulary is a handwritten document and the
extant copy contains numerous copyist’s errors. The phonological significance of the
orthography used in the Elbing Vocabulary has been questioned by many scholars, e.g.
Burwell (1970), Schmalstieg (1976), but, as pointed out by Levin (1974: 2), the criticism
is based on the premise that there is no phonemic reliability in the spelling system used.
Levin points out that although the mistakes are plenty, they can generally be understood
as textual errors and argues (1976: 11) that the Elbing Vocabulary in fact incorporates a
good orthography − but that it was poorly copied.
2.2. Simon Grunau’s vocabulary
Simon Grunau’s vocabulary comprises about 100 Old Prussian and German words, and
it is a part of Grunau’s Preussische Chronik that was written between 1517 and 1526.
Unfortunately, the original manuscript of Grunau’s vocabulary has not been preserved,
but several copies of the original have been found, i.e. GrA, GrC, GrF, GrG, GrH. The
GrG text differs from the rest since it is a German-Old Prussian vocabulary, whereas the
others are copies of an Old Prussian-German vocabulary.
2.3. The Old Prussian Catechisms
The three Catechisms from the mid-16 th century are from the Samlandian area of Prussia.
The language of these documents differs quite a bit from the language of the Elbing
Vocabulary. It is often assumed that the differences are due to the fact that the Catechisms
are written in the Samlandian dialect, although it is difficult to distinguish dialect traits
from phonological changes due to language development. The 1st Catechism was pub-
lished in 1545 in Königsberg. The 2 nd Catechism was published later in the same year
(also in Königsberg) and in the introduction to the 2 nd Catechism, it is stated that this is
a corrected version (presumably of the 1st Catechism). The 3 rd Catechism (the Enchiridi-
on) was published in 1561. It is a translation of Martin Luther’s Small Catechism, pre-
pared by Abel Will (and his translator Paul Megott). A detailed survey of the differences
between the three Catechisms is presented by Kortlandt (1998), who also argues that the
language of the Enchiridion is a further development of the language of the earlier
Catechisms.
The Enchiridion is the only Old Prussian document where the accent is denoted
explicitly. In this text, long stressed vowels are indicated by a macron. There seems to
be no difference in notation between acute and circumflex accentuation on monoph-
thongs, but in diphthongs the macron can be placed either on the first or the second
element, marking the prominent part of the stressed diphthong. In such cases, it is there-
fore possible to distinguish between falling and rising accentuation, e.g. ēit ‘to go’ (Lith.
eĩti), aīnan Asg. ‘one’ (Lith. víeną Asg.). It has furthermore been suggested that the
double consonants in the Enchiridion may also denote stress, although opinions on the
matter differ, e.g. Trautmann (1910: 185), Endzelin (1944: 27 ff.), Kortlandt (1974).

Authenticated
3. Lithuanian
The oldest known texts in Lithuanian are the handwritten prayers inscribed at the end
of the book of Tractatus Sacerdotalis (1503), cf. Lebedys and Palionis (1963, 1972),
Zinkevičius (2000). In 2006, 20 anonymous Lithuanian glosses (~1520−1530) were dis-
covered in a rare incunabulum at the National Museum of Poland in Kraków, cf. Suba-
čius, Leńczuk, and Wydra (2010). It has been argued that the prayers and the glosses
share specific orthographic features, although they were written in different dialects, cf.
Subačius, Leńczuk, and Wydra (2010: 36 ff.). The prayers show dialectal traits character-
istic of the East Aukštaitian dialect with features of dzūkai (cf. Lebedys and Palionis
1972: 45−48), while the glosses have traits belonging to the West Aukštaitian dialect.
The printed texts originate from three different areas, in which three variants of writ-
ten Lithuanian emerged. In the printings issued in Prussian Lithuania, the western variant
close to the modern West Aukštaitian dialect was used. Two variants of the written
language were formed in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, one in the central area and
another in the eastern area around Vilnius.
3.1. Documents from Prussian Lithuania

The first book printed in the Lithuanian language was Catechismvsa Prasty Szadei pub-
lished by Martynas Mažvydas (†1563) in Königsberg in 1547. The text is a translation
of a Polish catechism by Jan Seklucjan from 1545, but the book also contains a short
primer, a small hymnal and prefaces written in Latin and Lithuanian. The rhymed Lithua-
nian preface is considered to be the first original text written in the Lithuanian language.
Although the author’s name is not written on the title page of the catechism, it is revealed
in an acrostic, i.e. the first letters of lines 3−19 in the Lithuanian preface. A few years
later, in 1549, Mažvydas also issued the hymn Giesme S. Ambraszeijaus bey S. Augustina
and the Forma Chrikstima (1559). He also prepared two collections of hymns, Gesmes
Chriksczoniskas, that were published only after his death by his cousin Baltramiejus
Vilentas (1566 and 1570). The language of these texts reflects Mažvydas’ own native
Žemaitian dialect, but it has been somewhat adapted to the West Aukštaitian dialect of
Prussian Lithuania. The language of Mažvydas’ texts was first investigated in detail by
Stang (1929), and has subsequently been further studied by several other scholars, for
example, Grinaveckis (1963, 1975), Zinkevičius (1977, 1978a, 1978b, 1979, 1998:
103 ff.), and others. A useful recent edition of Mažvydas’ works containing facsimiles
as well as texts of the Polish, Latin, and German originals is Michelini (2000). Other
editions and dictionaries: Bezzenberger (1874), Gerullis (1922b, 1923), Ročka (1974),
Subačius (1993), Dini (1994), Urbas (1998).
A few more religious books in Lithuanian were prepared by Baltramiejus Vilentas
(†1587). In 1575 he translated Martin Luther’s Small Catechism (Enchiridion), although
only the 2 nd edition from 1579 has been preserved. He also translated pericopes (Euange-
lias bei Epistolas). Editions: Bechtel (1882), Ford (1965, 1969).
Another important document from Prussian Lithuania is the anonymous book of ser-
mons, the Wolfenbütteler Postille, for which the extant copy of the original manuscript
dates from 1573. This is the oldest known collection of sermons in Lithuanian. For
editions, cf. Karaciejus (1995), Gelumbeckaitė (2008).

Authenticated
1626 XIV. Baltic
One of the most significant writers of Lithuanian religious works from Prussian Lithu-
ania was Jonas Bretkūnas (†1602). In 1589 he published a hymnal Giesmes Duchaunas
together with another hymnal Kancionalas and the first separate prayer book in Lithua-
nian Kollectas, where he also added Mažvydas’ Paraphrasis (edition: Michelini 2001).
Bretkūnas also prepared and issued an extensive two-volume book of sermons (1591),
which was not merely a translation, but included original sermons written in the Lithua-
nian language (edition: Aleknavičienė 2005). Bretkūnas wrote in the West Aukštaitian
dialect of Prussian Lithuania, but his language has many elements from other dialects,
including Žemaitian (Zinkevičius 1996: 238). His most important work was the prepara-
tion of the translation of the entire Bible into Lithuanian: Biblia tatai esti Wissas Schwen-
tas Raschtas (1579−1590). The surviving manuscript of his Bible translation has recently
been published, cf. Range and Scholz (1991a, 1991b), Scholz (1996, 2002a), Scholz and
Range (2002b), Kessler (2013b). The only part of Bretkūnas’ Bible which was printed
at that time was edited by Jonas Rėza (†1629); in 1625 he published the psalms of David
(Psalteras Dowido). Edition: Scholz (2002a).
Simonas Vaišnoras (†1600), another writer from this area, was a protestant reformer
who came to Prussian Lithuania from the Grand Duchy. His Zemczuga Theologischka
(1600) was a translation of the tract Margarita Theologica (edition: Michelini 1997).
Although Vaišnoras was Žemaitian, his written language is Aukštaitian, with only a few
traces of the Žemaitian dialect, cf. Witte (1931), Zinkevičius (1988: 79 ff.).
The first Lithuanian grammars also appeared in Prussian Lithuania; in 1653 Danielius
Kleinas (†1666) published Grammatica Litvanica, written in Latin. The next year he
issued a shorter grammar which was written in German: Compendium Litvanico-
Germanicum (1654). Kleinas applied his linguistic principles to his publication Naujos
giesmju knygos (1666), which was a collection of hymns and prayers, written by different
authors, including Kleinas himself. Editions: Kruopas (1957), Michelini (2009). Another
grammar, also written in Latin, was prepared by Kristupas Sapūnas (†1659): Compendi-
um grammaticae Lithvanicae (edition: Eigminas and Stundžia 1997). It was issued in
1673 by Teofilis Šulcas (†1673).
Two handwritten dictionaries were also compiled in this area during the 17 th century;
the German-Lithuanian dictionary Lexicon Lithuanicum (edition: Drotvinas 1987) and
the more extensive Clavis Germanico-Lithvana, which also contains a list of Lithuanian
proverbs (edition: Drotvinas, Marcinkevičius, and Ivaškevičius 1995−1997). The now
extinct conservative dialect spoken in the former Prussian Lithuania was later also de-
scribed by Friedrich Kurschat (1870, 1876, 1883).
3.2. Documents from the central area of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania
The linguistically most valuable documents from the central area of the Grand Duchy
of Lithuania are the texts written by Mikalojus Daukša (†1613). He published a transla-
tion of the Polish version of Jacob Ledesma’s catechism (Kathechismas, 1595) and a
book of sermons (Postilla Catholicka, 1599). These publications are unique among the
Old Lithuanian texts in having complete and systematic accent marks, and although only
the place of the stress is marked, the extent of the material often makes it possible to
determine the original accentual paradigm of a word, cf. Skardžius (1935), Kudzinowski

Authenticated
(1977), Larsson (2002). The language in Daukša’s translations is influenced by the fact
that Daukša came from a Central Aukštaitian area, but lived and worked in the South
Žemaitian dialectal area (Varniai) during the latter half of his life. His accentuation often
reflects the archaic accentuation of the dialect of Prussian Lithuania, but accentual varia-
tion does occur within the documents, cf. Skardžius (1935: 182). Editions: Biržiška
(1926), Sittig (1929), Jakštienė and Palionis (1995), Palionis (2000).
Other Old Lithuanian texts from this area are Merkelis Petkevičius’ (†1608) Re-
formist catechism from 1598 (edition: Balčikonis 1939), and the Book of Sermons pub-
lished by Jokūbas Morkūnas (†~1611) in 1600, as well as the Catholic hymnal book
issued in 1646 by Saliamonas Mozerka Slavočinskis (†~1660) (edition: Lebedys 1958).
One of the most significant and extensive publications of the Reformists’ literature was
Kniga Nobaznistes issued in Kėdainiai in 1653. The book consists of 3 parts: the collec-
tion of hymns, sermons, and prayers together with the catechism (edition: Pociūtė 2004).
Finally, the translation of the Bible by Samuelis Boguslavas Chilinskis (†1668) must be
mentioned here. The printing of this Bible began in 1660 in London, but publication
was stopped and only a few pages of the printed edition have survived along with the
manuscript of the New Testament. Editions of the text (and a word index) have been
published by Kudzinowski and Otrębski (1958), Kudzinowski (1964, 1984), Kavaliūnaitė
(2008).
3.3. Documents from the eastern area of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania
The first book published in the eastern variant was an anonymous catechism of 1605
which was translated from the Polish version of Jacob Ledesma’s catechism. The transla-
tion was likely influenced by Daukša’s translation of the same text; for example, the
place of the stress is marked with the same symbols ˊ and ^ as used by Daukša, cf.
Zinkevičius (1975: 6 ff.). Edition: Sittig (1929).
The most important author from this area is Konstantinas Sirvydas (†1631), who set
the norms of the eastern variant of the written language. His book of sermons published
in 1629 (Vol. I) and 1644 (Vol. II) was the first substantial original text in Lithuanian,
later translated into Polish. Sirvydas also prepared a trilingual Latin-Polish-Lithuanian
dictionary (Dictionarium trium lingvarum). The title page is missing from the oldest
surviving copy, but it is likely to have appeared around 1620, cf. Pakalka (1973), Balašai-
tis and Pakalka (1976). Later he prepared a new and more voluminous edition of the
dictionary which was first published in 1631, but unfortunately no copies of this edition
have survived. Three successive later editions appeared in 1642, 1677, and 1713. Edi-
tions: Specht (1929), Lyberis (1979), Pakalka (1997).
Jonas Jaknavičius (†1668), another writer from this area, edited and prepared some
editions of Sirvydas’ works. His most important work was the translation of pericopes
into Lithuanian: Ewangelie Polskie y Litewskie. The oldest known edition is the one
from 1647 and the book was re-issued many times, e.g. 1674, 1679 and 1690. Edition:
Lučinskienė (2005).

Authenticated
1628 XIV. Baltic
4. Latvian
The oldest surviving published book in the Latvian language dates back to the late 16 th
century, although there are indications of a much earlier book (from 1525) with Latvian
text which unfortunately has not been found, cf. e.g. Vanags (2008: 174). One can also
mention several early inscriptions in Latvian, such as a few Latvian words and personal
names inscribed into handwritten documents in German dated from the 15 th century
onwards, cf. e.g. Arbusow (1921), Blese (1929). Moreover, a few variants of the Lord’s
Prayer from this early period have survived, cf. Draviņš (1965: 19−43), Ozols (1965:
57−62).
In the beginning of the 16 th century, Latvian started to be used for church services
and the earliest writings were hence religious texts, mostly translations from German.
The first books were written in the Latvian language spoken in Riga, and they were
notably influenced by the German language, since the writers of these texts were mainly
of German origin seeking to keep their translations close to the original texts, cf. Vanags
(2008: 193−196). In this context, the Latvian theologian and pastor Johannes Eck
(†1552?) must be mentioned; it is believed that he translated the Lutheran Church hand-
book into Latvian already in the 1520s or 1530s, and that it was, at that time, circulating
in manuscript form, cf. Vanags (2000: 21 ff.). The handbook was published only in
1586−1587 in Königsberg and consists of three parts: Martin Luther’s small catechism
Enchiridion. Der kleine Catechismus, the pericopes Evangelia vnd Episteln, and the
hymnal Vndeudsche Psalmen vnd geistliche Lieder oder Gesenge. Editions: Bezzenber-
ger (1875), Bezzenberger and Bielenstein (1886).
Alongside the Lutheran works translated into Latvian during this early period, a num-
ber of Catholic works were also prepared as a result of the Counter-Reformation move-
ment. In fact, the oldest surviving published book in Latvian is the translation of Petrus
Canisius’ Catechismus Catholicorum issued in Vilnius in 1585. Judging from the lan-
guage in the book, it seems that the translator did not know Latvian well; it has been
suggested that the translation might have been prepared by the Catholic priest Ertmann
Tolgsdorf (†1620), cf. Kučinskis (1983: 65−83). Edition: Günther (1929).
Another Catholic writer was the Jesuit Georg Elger (†1672) from Valmiera/Wolmar.
He compiled a hymnal, Geistliche Catholische Gesänge, which was printed in Brauns-
berg (now Branevo, Poland) in 1621. It is also probable that Elger prepared and pub-
lished a Catholic catechism and pericopes around this time, cf. Kučinskis (1986: 149).
Only the pericopes in manuscript form have been preserved: Evangelien und Episteln,
dated 1640. In 1672, a few more books appeared: Catechismus sev Brevis Institutio
doctrinae Christianae and Evangelia toto anno singulis Dominicis. A new edition of the
hymnal Cantiones spirituales was published in 1673, one year after his death. For edi-
tions and a word index, cf. Günther (1929), Draviņš (1961), Draviņš and Ozola (1976).
Moreover, Elger prepared a three-language dictionary, Dictionarium Polono-Latino-Lot-
tavicum, which was issued in Vilnius in 1683. The dictionary was based on the Latin-
Polish section of the Lithuanian author Konstantinas Sirvydas’ Dictionarium trium ling-
varum (editions from 1642, 1677), to which the Latvian vocabulary was added, cf. Zem-
zare (1961: 64), Judžentytė and Zubaitienė (2015, 2016). It has been suggested that in
the hymnal of 1621, the Latvian tones were marked orthographically, albeit inconsistent-
ly (Karulis 1984, 1986a), but this idea has been criticized, cf. Grabis (1985).

Authenticated
The most significant scholar from this early period was Georg Mancelius (†1654)
who was born in Semgallen. He started a new period of written Latvian by creating a
new systematic orthography and choosing Latvian spoken in Semgallen and Livland as
the basis for the written language, cf. Vanags (2008: 188 ff.). Mancelius revised and
improved the earlier Lutheran Church handbook and added new texts to it, i.e. the Book
of Sirach from the Old Testament and Johannes Bugenhagen’s tale on the destruction of
Jerusalem. The handbook Lettisch Vade mecum was printed in Riga in 1631 (re-issued
in 1643−1644, 1671−1673, 1685, etc.). As a separate edition Mancelius also issued the
Book of Proverbs: Die Sprüche Salomonis (1637). His most important work was, how-
ever, the 3-volume book of sermons Lang = gewünschte Lettische Postill (1654), since
it was the first substantial original text written in the Latvian language. Mancelius also
compiled the first German-Latvian dictionary: Lettus, Das ist Wortbuch (1638), which
also included a thematically organized collection of sentences and expressions alongside
their German translation (Phraseologia Lettica) and 10 parallel conversations. For edi-
tions and a word index, cf. Günther (1929), Mancelius (1954), Fennell (1988, 1989).
During the second half of the 17 th century, a few more dictionaries and the first
grammars of Latvian appeared. A student of Georg Mancelius, Christophor Fürecker
(†~1685), a local-born German from Courland, wrote a manuscript of the Latvian gram-
mar (Draviņš 1943: 58−59) and compiled a Latvian-German dictionary (Lettisches und
Teutsches Wörterbuch), surviving in two copied manuscripts, which was later included
in dictionaries compiled by other authors. For editions and a word index, cf. Fennell
(1997, 1998, 2000). He also authored around 180 hymns printed in several hymnals
published from 1671 onwards (Bērziņš 1928) and translated some fragments of the New
Testament (1685).
Another pastor from Courland, Johann Langius (†1690), prepared a manuscript of a
Lettisch−Deutsches Lexicon (1685), which also included a handwritten Latvian grammar
eine kurtze Lettische Grammatica (1685). Editions: Blese (1936), Fennell (1987, 1991).
Other dictionaries from this period are an anonymous multilingual four-language dictio-
nary Vocabularium Wie Etzliche gebräuchliche Sachen Auff Teutsch/ Lateinisch/ Pol-
nisch Und Lettisch Auszusprechen Seynd, issued in Riga in 1688, and an anonymous
manuscript Manuale Lettico−Germanicum. Edition: Fennell (2001).
The first grammar of Latvian, Manuductio ad linguam lettonicam facilis et certa, was
published by Johann Georg Rehehusen (†before 1650) in Riga in 1644 (edition: Fennell
1982a) but was heavily criticized for its simplicity and imprecision by the superintendent
of Courland Paul Einhorn (edition: Fennell 1982b: 1−45). It seems this grammar never
gained much popularity and could in fact have been forgotten or ignored, because the
next Latvian grammar (1685, Jelgava/Mitau), published by the superintendent of Cour-
land Heinrich Adolphi (†1686), was titled as the first Latvian grammar: Erster Versuch
einer kurtz verfasseten Anleitung zur Lettischen Sprache (editions: Haarmann 1978; Fen-
nell 1993). This grammar proved to be very influential and was the basis for most
Latvian grammars up until the second half of the 18 th century, cf. Vanags (2008: 181).
In the same year, another grammar was also published: Gantz kurtze Anleitung zur Let-
tischen Sprache by the pastor Georg Dressel (†1698) (edition: Fennell 1984). The source
of these two grammars was the aforementioned Fürecker’s manuscript (Draviņš 1965:
83−114), which was also the basis for fragments of a grammar written in an album by
Martin Büchner. Edition: Fennell (1982b: 81−233).

Authenticated
1630 XIV. Baltic
The entire Bible was translated into Latvian during the second half of the 17 th century.
First attempts to translate some parts were in fact made as early as the 16 th century,
when the first Latvian books were written and published. In 1664, the Livland sinod
issued a resolution stating that ten pastors would translate the Book of Psalms as a model
for a translation, although no one had actually submitted a proposal, cf. Vanags (2008:
179 ff.). A Livland pastor, Jānis Reiters (Johannes Reuter, †1695 or 1697), an ethnic
Latvian, had however translated a few parts of the Bible on his own initiative: Eine
Übersetzungs Probe, which was published in 1675. It is furthermore known that Reiters
translated the Gospel of Matthew and that this translation was published in Riga in 1664,
but unfortunately, this publication has not survived. He also published a collection of
the Lord’s Prayer in a number of languages, including Latvian: Oratio Dominica XL
Linguarum (1675). Perhaps due to his controversial personality and conflicts with the
church leadership, he was never assigned to translate the whole Bible. Editions: Jēgers
(1954, 1975), Karulis (1986b).
In 1681, Sweden’s King Carl XI approved a resolution to support the translation of
the entire Bible into Latvian, and Ernst Glück (†1705) was subsequently appointed for
the task. He was not a native speaker of Latvian, but had come to Latvia from Germany.
In 1681−1682, Glück translated the New Testament and worked on the Old Testament
until 1690. It took nearly 10 years for the entire Bible to be issued (1685−1694). Edition:
Bībele (1974). The translation of the Bible was approved by the commissioned reviewers
from both Courland and Livonia (1682−1683) and it became the most influential work
of the entire period, setting the norms for the standardization of the written language.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to express their thanks to Professor Pēteris Vanags for his kind
advice and valuable comments on the manuscript.
5. References
5.1. Editions of Old Prussian texts

Berneker, Erich Karl
1896 Die preussische Sprache. Texte, Grammatik, etymologisches Wörterbuch. Strassburg:
Trübner.
Kessler, Stephan and Stephen Mossman
2013a Ein Fund aus dem Jahre 1440: Ein bisher unbekannter Text in einer baltischen Sprache.
Archivum Lithuanicum 15: 511−534.
Mažiulis, Vytautas
1966 Prūsų kalbos paminklai [Literary documents of the Prussian language], Band 1. Vilnius:
Mokslas.
Mažiulis, Vytautas
1981 Prūsų kalbos paminklai [Literary documents of the Prussian language], Band 2. Vilnius:
Mokslas.

Authenticated
Palmaitis, Letas
2007 Old Prussian written monuments: Text and comments. Kaunas: Lithuanians’ World Cen-
ter for Advancement of Culture, Science and Education.
Schaeken, Jos
2002−2003 Observations on the Old Prussian Basel Epigram of Basilea. International Journal
of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 44−45: 331−342.
Trautmann, Reinhold
1910 Die altpreußischen Sprachdenkmäler. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
5.2. Editions of Old Lithuanian texts

Aleknavičienė, Ona
2005 Jono Bretkūno Postilė. Studija, faksimilė ir kompaktinė plokštelė [Jonas Bretkūnas’ Book
of Sermons. Study, facsimile, and compact disc]. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto lei-
dykla.
Balčikonis, Juozas
1939 1598 metų Merkelio Petkevičiaus katekizmas [Merkelis Petkevičius’ Catechism of the
year 1598]. Kaunas: Švietimo ministerijos Knygų leidimo komisija.
Bechtel, Fritz
1882 Bartholomäus Willent’s litauische Übersetzung des Luther’schen Enchiridions und der
Episteln und Evangelien, nebst den Varianten der von Lazarus Sengstock besorgten
Ausgabe dieser Schriften. Göttingen: Robert Peppmüller.
1874 Litauische und Lettische Drucke des 16. Jahrhunderts. Heft I. Der litauische Katechis-
mus vom Jahre 1547. Göttingen: Robert Peppmüller.
Biržiška, Mykolas
1926 Daukšos Postilė [Daukša’s Book of Sermons]. Kaunas: Lietuvos universiteto leidinys.
Dini, Pietro Umberto
1994 L’inno di S. Ambrogio di Martynas Mažvydas. Studio filologico − linguistico del testo
antico lituano (1549) e delle sue fonti latine e polacche. Rome: La Fenice Edizioni.
Drotvinas, Vincentas
1987 Lexicon Lithuanicum. Rankraštinis XVII a. vokiečių-lietuvių kalbų žodynas [Lexicon
Lithuanicum. A handwritten German-Lithuanian dictionary of the 17 th century]. Vilnius:
Mokslas.
Drotvinas, Vincentas, Juozas Marcinkevičius, and Adolfas Ivaškevičius
1995−1997 Clavis Germanico-Lithvana. Rankraštinis XVII amžiaus vokiečių-lietuvių kalbų
žodynas [Clavis Germanico-Lithvana. A handwritten German-Lithuanian dictionary of
the 17 th century], vols. 1−4. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.
Eigminas, Kazimieras and Bonifacas Stundžia
1997 Sapūno ir Šulco gramatika [The grammar of Sapūnas and Šulcas]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir
enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.
Ford, Gordon B., Jr.
1965 The Lithuanian catechism of Baltramiejus Vilentas, 1579. Louisville, Kentucky: Pyramid
Press.
Ford, Gordon B., Jr.
1969 The old Lithuanian catechism of Baltramiejus Vilentas (1579). A phonological, morpho-
logical and syntactical investigation. The Hague: Mouton.
Gelumbeckaitė, Jolanta
2008 Die litauische Wolfenbütteler Postille von 1573, vols. 1−2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Authenticated
1632 XIV. Baltic
Gerullis, Jurgis
1922b Mažvydas. Seniausieji lietuvių kalbos paminklai iki 1570 metams [Mažvydas. The oldest
Lithuanian literary documents up to the year 1570]. Kaunas: Švietimo ministerijos
leidinys.
Gerullis, Georg
1923 Mosvid: die ältesten litauischen Sprachdenkmäler bis zum Jahre 1570/ Catechismusa
prasty szadei, makslas skaitima raschta yr giesmes del kriksczianistes bei del berneliu
iaunu nauiey sugulditas. Heidelberg: Winter.
Jakštienė, Vida and Jonas Palionis
1995 Mikalojaus Daukšos 1595 m. Katekizmas [Mikalojus Daukša’s Catechism of the year
1595]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.
Karaciejus, Juozas
1995 Wolfenbüttelio Postilė, 1573 [Wolfenbüttel Book of Sermons, 1573]. Vilnius: Žara.
Kavaliūnaitė, Gina
2008 Samuelio Boguslavo Chylinskio Biblija. Senasis Testamentas, I tomas. Lietuviško verti-
mo ir olandiško originalo faksimilės [Samuelis Boguslavas Chylinskis’ Bible. The Old
Testament, Vol. 1. Facsimiles of the Lithuanian translation and the Dutch Original].
Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.
Kessler, Stephan
2013b Die Bibel, das ist die ganze Heilige Schrift Litauisch übersetzt von Johannes Bretke,
Litauischer Pastor zu Königsberg 1590. Faksimile der Handschrift, Band 4 und 5. Unter
Mitarbeit von Bettina Bergmann, Anastasija Kostiučenko, and Katja Racevičius. Pader-
born: Schöningh.
Kruopas, Jonas
1957 Pirmoji lietuvių kalbos gramatika, 1653 metai [The first grammar of Lithuanian, from
the year 1653]. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.
Kudzinowski, Czesław and Jan Otrębski
1958 Biblia Litewska Chylińskiego. Nowy Testament 2. Tekst [The Lithuanian Bible of Chylin-
skis. New Testament 2. Text]. Poznań: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich we Wro-
cławiu.
Kudzinowski, Czesław
1964 Biblia Litewska Chylińskiego. Nowy Testament 3. Indeks [The Lithuanian Bible of
Chylinskis. New Testament 3. Index]. Poznań: Państwowe wydawnictwo naukowe.
1977 Indeks-słownik do “Daukšos Postilė”, vol. 1−2. [Index-Dictionary to “Daukša’s Book
of Sermons”, vols. 1−2]. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama
Mickiewicza.
1984 Biblia Litewska Chylińskiego. Nowy Testament 1. Fotokopie. [The Lithuanian Bible of
Chylinskis. New Testament 1. Photocopy]. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersy-
tetu im. Adama Mickiewicza.
Lebedys, Jurgis
1958 Giesmės tikėjimui katalickam priderančios, 1646 [Songs appropriate to the Catholic
faith, 1646]. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.
Lučinskienė, Milda
2005 Jono Jaknavičiaus 1647 metų “Ewangelie polskie y litewskie” [Jonas Jaknavičius’ “Pol-
ish and Lithuanian Gospel” of 1647]. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla.
Lyberis, Antanas
1979 Pirmasis lietuvių kalbos žodynas [The first dictionary of Lithuanian]. Vilnius: Mokslas.
Michelini, Guido
1997 Simono Vaišnoro 1600 metų Żemczuga Theologischka ir jos šaltiniai. [Simonas Vaišno-
ras’ Żemczuga Theologischka of 1600 and its sources]. Vilnius: Baltos lankos.

Authenticated
Michelini, Guido
2000 Martyno Mažvydo raštai ir jų šaltiniai [The works of Martynas Mažvydas and their
sources]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.
Michelini, Guido
2001 Giesmes Duchaunas ir kitos 1589 metų liturginės knygos. Tekstai ir jų šaltiniai / Jonas
Bretkūnas [Giesmes Duchaunas and other liturgical books of the year 1589. Texts and
their sources / Jonas Bretkūnas] Vilnius: Baltos lankos.
Michelini, Guido
2009 D. Kleino “Naujos giesmju knygos”. Tekstai ir jų šaltiniai / D. Kleins “Naujos giesmju
knygos”. Die Texte und ihre Quellen. Vilnius: Versus Aureus.
Pakalka, Kazys
1997 Senasis Konstantino Sirvydo Žodynas [The old dictionary of Konstantinas Sirvydas].
Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.
Palionis, Jonas
2000 Mikalojaus Daukšos 1599 metų Postilė ir jos šaltiniai [Mikalojus Daukša’s Book of
Sermons of 1599 and its sources]. Vilnius: Baltos lankos.
Pociūtė, Dainora
2004 Knyga nobažnystės krikščioniškos, 1653. Faksimilinis leidinys [The Knyga Nobažnystės
krikščioniškos of 1653. Facsimile edition]. Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos
institutas.
Range, Jochen Dieter and Friedrich Scholz
1991a Psalter in die litauische Sprache übersetzt von Johannes Bretke, Pastor zu Labiau im
Jahre Christi 1580. Faksimile der Handschrift, Band 6. Paderborn: Schöningh.
Range, Jochen Dieter and Friedrich Scholz
1991b Das Neue Testament in die litauische Sprache übersetzt von Johannes Bretke, Pastor zu
Labiau 1580. Faksimile der Handschrift, Band 7 und 8. Paderborn: Schöningh.
Ročka, Marcelinas
1974 Pirmoji lietuviška knyga / Martynas Mažvydas [The first Lithuanian book / Martynas
Mažvydas]. Vilnius: Vaga.
Scholz, Friedrich
1996 Die Bibel, das ist die ganze Heilige Schrift, Litauisch übersetzt von Johannes Bretke,
Litauischer Pastor zu Königsberg i. Pr. 1590. Faksimile der Handschrift, Band 1. Pader-
born: Schöningh.
Scholz, Friedrich
2002a Textkritische Edition der Übersetzung des Psalters in die litauische Sprache von Johan-
nes Bretke, Pastor zu Labiau und Königsberg i. Pr., nach der Handschrift aus dem Jahre
1580 und der überarbeiteten Fassung dieses Psalters von Johannes Rehsa, Pastor zu
Königsberg i. Pr., nach dem Druck aus dem Jahre 1625. Unter Mitarbeit von Friedemann
Kluge. Paderborn: Schöningh.
Scholz, Friedrich and Jochen Dieter Range
2002b Die Bibel, das ist die ganze Heilige Schrift, Litauisch übersetzt von Johannes Bretke,
Litauischer Pastor zu Königsberg 1590, Faksimile der Handschrift. Band 2 und 3. Pad-
erborn: Schöningh.
Sittig, Ernst
1929 Der polnische Katechismus des Ledesma und die litauischen Katechismen des Daugßa
und des Anonymus vom Jahre 1605 nach den Krakauer Originalen und Wolters Neu-
druck interlinear herausgegeben. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Specht, Franz
1929 Šyrwids Punktay sakimų (Punkty kazań), Teil I: 1629; Teil II: 1644; litauisch und pol-
nisch: mit kurzer grammatischer Einleitung. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Authenticated
1634 XIV. Baltic
Subačius, Giedrius
1993 Katekizmas ir kiti raštai / Martynas Mažvydas [Catechism and other works / Martynas
Mažvydas]. Vilnius: Baltos lankos.
Urbas, Dominykas
1998 Martyno Mažvydo raštų žodynas [A dictionary of the works of Martynas Mažvydas].
Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.
5.3. Editions of Old Latvian texts

1875 Litauische und Lettische Drucke des 16. Jahrhunderts II. Göttingen: Robert Peppmüller.
Bezzenberger, Adalbert and August Bielenstein
1886 Undeutsche Psalmen und geistliche Lieder oder Gesenge: welche in den Kirchen des
Fürstenthums Churland und Semigallien in Liefflande gesungen werden. Mitau-Ham-
burg: Behre.
Bībele
1974 = Bībele. Vecās un Jaunās Derības Svētie Raksti. Pirmās latviešu Bībeles jauns iespie-
dums [The Bible. The Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testament. The new edition
of the first Latvian Bible]. Minneapolis: Latviešu Evaņģeliski-Luterisko Draudžu Apvi-
enība.
Blese, Ernsts
1936 Nīcas un Bārtas mācītāja Jāņa Langija 1685. gada latviski-vāciskā vārdnīca ar īsu
latviešu gramatiku [A Latvian-German dictionary with a short grammar from the year
1685 by Johannes Langius, pastor of Nīca and Bārta]. Riga: Latvijas universitāte.
Draviņš, Kārlis
1961 Evangelien und Episteln. Ins Lettische übersetzt von Georg Elger. Nebst einem Register
seiner geistlichen Lieder aus der Zeit um 1640. Band 1. Texte. Lund: Slaviska institutio-
nen vid Lunds universitet.
Draviņš, Kārlis and Mirdza Ozola
1976 Evangelien und Episteln. Ins Lettische übersetzt von Georg Elger. Band 2. Wortregister.
Lund: Slaviska institutionen vid Lunds universitet.
Fennell, Trevor G.
1982a The First Latvian Grammar. J. G. Rehehusen’s “Manuductio ad linguam lettonicam …”.
A facsimile text with annotated translation & commentary. Melbourne: Latvian Tertiary
Committee.
Fennell, Trevor G.
1982b Seventeenth century Latvian grammatical fragments. Melbourne: Latvian Tertiary Com-
mittee.
Fennell, Trevor G.
1984 Georg Dreszell’s Gantz kurtze Anleitung zur Lettischen Sprache. Text. Translation. Com-
mentary. Concordance. Melbourne: Latvian Tertiary Committee.
Fennell, Trevor G.
1987 The Grammatical Appendix to Johannes Langius’ Latvian-German Lexicon. Melbourne:
Latvian Tertiary Committee.
Fennell, Trevor G.
1988 A Latvian-German Revision of G. Mancelius’ Lettus (1638). Melbourne: Latvian Tertiary
committee.
Fennell, Trevor G.
1989 A Latvian-German Revision of G. Mancelius’ Phraseologia Lettica (1638). Melbourne:
Latvian Tertiary committee.

Authenticated
Fennell, Trevor G.
1991 An Alphabetical Re-organization of Johannes Langius’ “Lettisch-deutsches Lexicon”
(1685). Melbourne: Latvian Tertiary Committee.
Fennell, Trevor G.
1993 Adolphi’s Latvian Grammar. Melbourne: Latvian Tertiary Committee.
Fennell, Trevor G.
1997 Fürecker’s dictionary: the first manuscript. Riga: Latvijas Akadēmiskā bibliotēka.
Fennell, Trevor G.
1998 Fürecker’s dictionary: the second manuscript. Riga: Latvijas Akadēmiskā bibliotēka.
Fennell, Trevor G.
2000 Fürecker’s dictionary: a Concordance. I (A−M), II (N−Ž). Riga: Latvijas Akadēmiskā
bibliotēka.
Fennell, Trevor G.
2001 Manuale Lettico-Germanicum. I (A−O), II (P−Ž). Riga: Latvijas Akadēmiskā bibliotēka.
Günther, August
1929 Altlettische Sprachdenkmäler in Faksimiledrucken, Band 1−2. Heidelberg: Winter.
Haarmann, Harald
1978 Erster Versuch einer kurtz-verfasseten Anleitung zur lettischen Sprache. Hamburg:
Buske.
Jēgers, Benjamiņš
1954 Tēvreižu krājums. 1675. gada Rostokas izdevuma faksimiliespiedums [A collection of
the Lord’s Prayers. A facsimile printing of Rostock’s edition from the year 1675]. Co-
penhagen: Imanta.
Jēgers, Benjamiņš
1975 Jānis Reiters. Tulkojuma paraugs. 1675. gadā Rīgā iznākušo latviešu bībeles tekstu
faksimiliespiedums [Jānis Reiters. A model for a translation. A facsimile printing of
texts of the Latvian Bible printed in Rīga in 1675]. Stockholm: Daugava.
Karulis, Konstantīns
1986b Jānis Reiters un viņa tulkojums [Jānis Reiters and his Translation]. Riga: Liesma.
Mancelius, Georgius
1954 Sprediķu izlase [Selected sermons]. Copenhagen: Imanta.
5.4. Online text editions

Old Prussian: http://www.prusistika.flf.vu.lt/paieska/paieska/ [Last accessed 13 February 2017].
Lithuanian: http://www.lki.lt/seniejirastai/home.php [Last accessed 13 February 2017].
Latvian: http://www.korpuss.lv/senie/ [Last accessed 13 February 2017].
5.5. General references

Arbusow, Leonid
1921 Studien zur Geschichte der lettischen Bevölkerung Rigas im Mittelalter und 16. Jahrhun-
dert. Latvijas augstskolas raksti I: 76−100.
Balašaitis, Antanas and Kazys Pakalka
1976 Dar dėl K. Sirvydo defektinio žodyno leidimo datos [More on the date of the edition of
the defective dictionary of K. Sirvydas]. Baltistica 12(2): 171−175.
Bērziņš, Ludis
1928 Kristofors Fürekers un viņa nozīme latviešu literatūrā [Kristofor Fürecker and his
significance to Latvian literature]. Filologu Biedrības Raksti 8: 145−224.

Authenticated
1636 XIV. Baltic
Blažienė, Grasilda
2000 Die baltischen Ortsnamen im Samland. Stuttgart: Steiner.
Blažienė, Grasilda
2005 Baltische Ortsnamen in Ostpreußen. Stuttgart: Steiner.
Blese, Ernests
1929 Latviešu personu vārdu un uzvārdu studijas I. Vecākie personu vārdi un uzvārdi (XIII−
XVI g.s.) [Studies in Latvian personal names and surnames I. The oldest personal names
and surnames (XIII−XVI centuries)]. Riga: A. Gulbis.
Burwell, Michael L.
1970 The vocalic phonemes of the Old Prussian Elbing Vocabulary. In: Thomas F. Magner
and William R. Schmalstieg (eds.), Baltic Linguistics. University Park, PA: The Pennsyl-
vania State University Press, 11−21.
Chelimskij, Evgenij Arnoldovič
1985 Fenno−Ugrica в ятвяжском словарике? [Finno-Ugric elements in the Yatvingian lexi-
con?]. In: Zigmas Zinkevičius (ed.), Tarptautinė baltistų konferencija [International Con-
ference of Baltists]. Vilnius: Vilniaus valstybinis universitetas, 234−235.
Draviņš, Kārlis
1943 Fīrekeru grāmata Tartu Universitātes bibliotēkā [The grammar of Fürecker at the library
of Tartu University]. Izglītības Mēnešraksts 3 (marts): 58−59.
Draviņš, Kārlis
1965 Altlettische Schriften und Verfasser. I. Lund: Håkan Ohlssons boktryckeri.
Eckert, Rainer, Elvira-Julia Bukevičiūtė, and Friedhelm Hinze
1994 Die baltischen Sprachen. Eine Einführung. Leipzig: Langenscheidt.
Endzelin, Jan
1944 Altpreussische Grammatik. Riga: Latvju grāmata.
Forssman, Bernhard
1995 Die baltischen Sprachen im Überblick. In: Gertrud Bense, Maria Kozianka, and Gott-
fried Meinhold (eds.), Deutsch-litauische Kulturbeziehungen. Kolloquium zu Ehren von
August Schleicher. Jena: Universitätsverlag Druckhaus Mayer, 7−20.
Gerullis, Georg
1922a Die altpreussischen Ortsnamen gesammelt und sprachlich behandelt. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Grabis, Rūdolfs
1985 Vai tiešām viss ir tik drošs? [Is everything really so trustworthy?]. Latviešu valodas
kultūras jautājumi 21: 72−77.
Grinaveckis, Vladas
1963 Dėl Mažvydo katekizmo tarmės lokalizacijos [On the localization of the dialect of Maž-
vydas’ catechism]. Kalbotyra VI: 65−71.
Grinaveckis, Vladas
1975 Kuria tarme parašyta pirmoji lietuviška knyga [In what dialect is the first Lithuanian
book written?]. Mokslas ir gyvenimas 11: 35−36, 59.
Judžentytė, Gintarė and Vilma Zubaitienė
2015 Konstantino Sirvydo “Dictionarum trium linguarum” (1642) ir Georgo Elderio “Diction-
arium Polono-Latino-Lottaucium” (1683) jų santykis ir leksikografinų metodų skirtybės
[Konstantinas Sirvydas’ “Dictionarum Polono-Latino-Lottaucium” (1683): Connections
and Differences between Lexicographical Methods]. Baltu filoloģija XXIV (1): 82–141.
Judžentytė, Gintarė and Vilma Zubaitienė
2016 Dar dėl Georgo Elderio “Dictionarium Polono-Latino-Lottaucium” (1683) registro šalti-
nio [On the Source of Georg Elger’s “Dictionarum Polono-Latino-Lottaucium” (1683)
Register]. Baltu filoloģija XXV (1): 37–58.
1984 Pirmo latviešu valodnieku pieminot. Georga Elgera 400. dzimšanas gadā [Commemorat-
ing the first Latvian linguist. On the occasion of the 400 th anniversary of Georg Elger’s
birthday]. Latviešu valodas kultūras jautājumi 20: 48−52.

Authenticated
1986a Vēl par G. Elgera valodu 1621. gada dziesmu grāmatā [More about the language of G.
Elger’s hymnal book from the year 1621]. Latviešu valodas kultūras jautājumi 22: 20−
23.
Kortlandt, Frederik
1974 Old Prussian accentuation. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 88: 299−306.
Kortlandt, Frederik
1998 The development of the Prussian language in the 16 th Century. In: Alfred Bammesberger
(ed.), Baltistik: Aufgaben und Methoden. Heidelberg: Winter, 55−76.
Kučinskis, Staņislavs
1983 Sirmais kungs, Latvijas tēvs Ertmanis Tolgsdorfs 1550−1620 [The grey-haired man, the
father of Latvia Erdmann Tolgsdorf 1550−1620]. In: Kazimirs Vilnis (ed.), Dzimtenes
kalendārs 1984. gadam. Västerås: Trīs zvaigznes, 45−86.
Kučinskis, Staņislavs
1986 Juris Elgers, latvis [Juris Elgers, the Latvian]. In: Kazimirs Vilnis (ed.), Dzimtenes kalen-
dārs 1987. gadam. Västerås: Trīs zvaigznes, 130−156.
Kurschat, Friedrich
1870 Wörterbuch der Littauischen Sprache, Erster Theil, Deutsch-littauisches Wörterbuch.
Halle: Waisenhaus.
Kurschat, Friedrich
1876 Grammatik der Littauischen Sprache. Halle: Waisenhaus.
Kurschat, Friedrich
1883 Wörterbuch der Littauischen Sprache, Zweiter Theil, Littauisch-deutsches Wörterbuch.
Halle: Waisenhaus.
Larsson, Jenny Helena
2002 Nominal Compounds in Old Lithuanian Texts: the Original Distribution of the Composi-
tion Vowel. Linguistica Baltica 10: 105−122.
2005 The Orthographic Variants <oa> and <ea> − Traces of Accent in the Elbing Vocabulary.
In: Günter Schweiger (ed.), Indogermanica. Festschrift Gert Klingenschmitt. Indische,
iranische und indogermanische Studien dem verehrten Jubilar dargebracht zu seinem
fünfundsechzigsten Geburtstag. Taimering: VWT, 359−376.
2010 Nominal compounds in Old Prussian. Stockholm: Memento.
Lebedys, Jurgis and Jonas Palionis
1963 Seniausias lietuviškas rankraštinis tekstas [The oldest Lithuanian handwritten text]. Bib-
liotekininkystės ir bibliografijos klausimai 3: 109−135.
Lebedys, Jurgis and Jonas Palionis
1972 Seniausias lietuviškas rankraštinis tekstas [The oldest Lithuanian handwritten text]. In:
Jurgis Lebedys, Lituanistikos baruose 1. Studijos ir straipsniai. Vilnius: Vaga, 21−54.
Levin, Jules F.
1974 The Slavic Element in the Old Prussian Elbing Vocabulary. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Levin, Jules F.
1976 Toward a graphology of Old Prussian monuments: the Enchiridion. Baltistica 12(1): 9−
24.
Mažiulis, Vytautas
1988 Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas A−H [Etymological dictionary of the Prussian lan-
guage, A−H]. Vilnius: Mokslas.
Mažiulis, Vytautas
1993 Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas I−K [Etymological dictionary of the Prussian lan-
guage, I−K]. Vilnius: Mokslas.

Authenticated
1638 XIV. Baltic
Mažiulis, Vytautas
1996 Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas L−P [Etymological dictionary of the Prussian lan-
guage, L−P]. Vilnius: Mokslas.
Mažiulis, Vytautas
1997 Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas R−Z [Etymological dictionary of the Prussian lan-
guage, R−Z]. Vilnius: Mokslas.
Mažiulis, Vytautas
2013 Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas [Etymological dictionary of the Prussian language],
2 nd edn. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras.
Orël, Vladimir E.
1986 Marginalia to the Polish-‘Jatvingian’ Glossary. Indogermanische Forschungen 91: 269−
272.
Orël, Vladimir E. and Evgenij Arnoldovič Chelimskij
1987 Наблюдения над балтийским языком польско-‘ятвяжского’ словарика [Observations
on the Baltic language of the Polish-‘Yatvingian’ glossary]. Балто-славянские исследо-
вания 1985: 121−134.
Ozols, Arturs
1965 Veclatviešu rakstu valoda [The language of the Old Latvian writings]. Riga: Liesma.
Pakalka, Kazys
1973 Apie defektinį trikalbį K. Širvydo žodyną [On the defective trilingual dictionary of K.
Sirvydo]. LTSR MA darbai, A serija 4 (45): 131−142.
1976 Studies in Old Prussian. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Schmid, Wolfgang P.
1962 Zu Simon Grunaus Vaterunser. Indogermanische Forschungen 67: 261−273.
Schmid, Wolfgang P.
1986 Die ‘Germanismen’ im sog. Polnisch-Jatvingischen Glossar. Indogermanische For-
schungen 91: 273−286.
Skardžius, Pranas
1935 Daukšos akcentologija [The accentology of Daukša]. Kaunas: Spindulio sp.
Stang, Christian S.
1929 Die Sprache des litauischen Katechismus von Mažvydas. Oslo: Dybwad.
Subačius, Giedrius, Mariusz Leńczuk, and Wiesław Wydra
2010 The Earliest Known Lithuanian Glosses (~1520–1530). Archivum Lithuanicum 12: 31−
70.
1975 Prusskij jazyk, A−D [The Prussian Language, A−D]. Moscow: Nauka.
1979 Prusskij jazyk, E−H [The Prussian Language, E−H]. Moscow: Nauka.
1980 Prusskij jazyk, I−K [The Prussian Language, I−K]. Moscow: Nauka.
1984 Prusskij jazyk, K−L [The Prussian Language, K−L]. Moscow: Nauka.
1990 Prusskij jazyk, L [The Prussian Language, L]. Moscow: Nauka.
Trautmann, Reinhold
1925 Die altpreußischen Personennamen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Vanags, Pēteris
2000 Luterāņu rokasgrāmatas avoti. Vecākā perioda (16. gs.−17. gs. sākuma) latviešu teksti
[Sources of the Lutheran Church handbook. Latvian texts of the oldest period (16 th c.−
beginning of the 17 th c.)]. Stockholm: Memento.

Authenticated
Vanags, Pēteris
2008 Latvian texts in the 16 th and 17 th centuries: beginnings and development. In: Kristiina
Ross and Pēteris Vanags (eds.), Common Roots of the Latvian and Estonian Literary
Languages. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 173−197.
Witte, Wilhelm
1931 Der Übersetzer Simon Waischnoras d. Ae. Inaugural Dissertation. Braunschweig.
Zemzare, Daina
1961 Latviešu vārdnīcas (līdz 1900. gadam) [Latvian dictionaries (up to the year 1900)]. Riga:
Latvijas PSR Zinātņu akadēmijas izdevniecība.
Zinkevičius, Zigmas
1975 Iš lietuvių istorinės akcentologijos. 1605 m. katekizmo kirčiavimas. [Of the historical
accentology of Lithuanian. The stress of the 1605 catechism].Vilnius: Vilniaus V. Kapsu-
ko universiteto Leidybinis skyrius.
1977 M. Mažvydo raštų kalba [The language of the works of M. Mažvydas]. Baltistica 13(2):
358−371.
1978a M. Mažvydo raštų kalba [The language of the works of M. Mažvydas]. Baltistica 14(1):
38−44.
1978b M. Mažvydo raštų kalba [The language of the works of M. Mažvydas]. Baltistica 14(2):
139−146.
1979 M. Mažvydo raštų kalba [The language of the works of M. Mažvydas]. Baltistica 15(1):
16−22.
1985a Lenkų-jotvingių žodynėlis? [A Polish-Yatvingian glossary?]. Baltistica 21(1): 61−82.
1985b Lenkų-jotvingių žodynėlis? [A Polish-Yatvingian glossary?]. Baltistica 21(2): 184−194.
1988 Lietuvių kalbos istorija. III. Senųjų raštų kalba [A history of the Lithuanian language.
III. The language of the old writings]. Vilnius: Mokslas.
1996 The History of the Lithuanian Language. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.
1998 Linguistic sources of Martynas Mažvydas’ writings, and manuscript texts before Mažvy-
das. In: Domas Kaunas and Regina Koženiauskienė (eds.), Martynas Mažvydas and old
Lithuania. Vilnius: Pradai, 101−123.
2000 Lietuvių poteriai. Kalbos mokslo studija [Lithuanian prayers. A linguistic study]. Vil-
nius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.
Jenny Helena Larsson, Stockholm (Sweden)

Kristina Bukelskytė-Čepelė, Stockholm (Sweden)

Authenticated
1640 XIV. Baltic
88. The phonology of Baltic

1. Introduction 4. Accent
2. Vowels 5. Consonants
3. Resonants and diphthongs 6. References
1. Introduction
1.1. In order to describe the phonological system of the Baltic languages, it is worth
proceeding, as in the case of reconstructed Proto-Indo-European (PIE), with three types
of phonemes: vowels, resonants, and consonants, the reflexes of which present different
phonetic behaviors. Unlike PIE, however, beside vowels and consonants, defined by
their ability and inability, respectively, to form a syllable, resonants may be defined, in
Baltic, mainly by the criterion of intonability, which they in some contexts share with
vowels. As a result, the Proto-Baltic sound system must be reconstructed, according to
the intrasyllabic arrangement of phonemes, as follows: the phonemes with the lowest
sonority are consonants, then follow the resonants, and finally the phonemes with the
highest sonority are vowels.
2. Vowels
2.1. Vowel quantity is phonemic and independent of stress in East Baltic, e.g. Lith. pùsti
‘to swell’ / pū̃sti ‘to blow’, Latv. sveru ‘I weigh’ / svēru ‘I weighed’, in both cases with
initial stress. But, in West Baltic, at least in the Old Prussian Enchiridion (1561), it is
possible that unstressed vowels were short (or shortened); this could explain why OPr.
has saddinna ‘puts (vb.)’ with a geminate pointing to *sădìna, while Lith. has sodìna
‘seats’ with o from long *ā (< *sādìna). This does not imply, however, that in Old
Prussian every stressed vowel was, in turn, long (or lengthened).
2.2. The Proto-Baltic vowel system might be reconstructed in two different ways. Tradi-
tionally (e.g. Stang 1966), one ascribes to Proto-Baltic an unbalanced triangular system
with four short vowels (*i, *u, *e, *a) and five long vowels (*ī, *ū, *ē, *ō, *ā), this in
accordance with Latvian (the only innovation there being the further change of *ō to uo)
or Lithuanian (with *ō > uo and *ā > o in the standard language). The most striking
feature of Proto-Baltic in comparison with Slavic and Germanic thus seems to have been
the preservation of the inherited distinction between *ō and *ā (> Latv. uo / ā, Lith. uo /
o), as opposed to the merger of PIE *ŏ and *ă to *ă (> Latv. a, Lith. a). Examples:
− Lith. uo, Latv. uo < Proto-Baltic *ō < PIE *ō : Lith. dúoti, Latv. duôt (written dot in
the standard language) ‘to give’ (< Proto-Baltic *dō- < PIE *deh3 -, Gr. δίδωμι ‘I
give’).
− Lith. o, Latv. ā < Proto-Baltic *ā < PIE *ā : Lith. stóti, Latv. stât ‘to stand up’
(< Proto-Baltic *stā- < PIE *steh2 -, Gr. ἵστημι ‘I set up’).
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-009

Authenticated
88. The phonology of Baltic 1641
− Lith. a, Latv. a < Proto-Baltic *ă < PIE *ă : Lith. ašìs, Latv. ass ‘axle’ (< Proto-
Baltic *aś- < PIE *ak̑s- < *h2 ek̑s-, Lat. axis).
− Lith. a, Latv. a < Proto-Baltic *ă < PIE *ŏ : Lith. akìs, Latv. acs ‘eye’ (< Proto-Baltic
*ak- < PIE *ok u̯- < *h3 ek u̯-, Lat. oculus).
2.3. Proto-Baltic *ă may also come from PIE *ə (i.e. *H in a vocalization context), but
only in a word-initial syllable (e.g. Lith. stãtas ‘millstone’, Latv. stats ‘stake, post’ < PIE
*sth2 -tom); elsewhere, it disappears either completely after a consonant (e.g. Lith. duktė̃
‘daughter’ < *dug-tē < PIE *d hug̑h2 -tēr) or with compensatory lengthening and acute
tone after a resonant (e.g. Lith. árklas, Latv. ar̂kls ‘plough’ ← < *ārtlan < PIE *arH-
tlom < *h2 erh3 -tlom; note the later shortening of *ār to ar by Osthoff’s law).
2.4. The other vowels reflect more directly PIE prototypes:

− Lith. i, Latv. i < PBaltic *ĭ < PIE *ĭ : Lith. lìkti ‘to leave’, Latv. likt ‘to put’ (< Proto-
Baltic *lik- < PIE *lik u̯-, Lat. relictus ‘left’).
− Lith. y, Latv. ī < PBaltic *ī < PIE *ī : Lith. gývas, Latv. dzîvs ‘alive’ (< Proto-Baltic
*gīva- < PIE *g u̯ih3 -u̯o-, Lat. uīuus).
− Lith. u, Latv. u < PBaltic *ŭ < PIE *ŭ : Lith. GSg. šuñs, Latv. NSg. suns ‘dog’
(< Proto-Baltic *śun- < PIE *k̑un-, Gr. GSg. κυνός).
− Lith. ū, Latv. ū < PBaltic *ū < PIE *ū : Lith. bū́ti, Latv. bût ‘to be’ (< Proto-Baltic
*bū- < PIE *b huH-, Gr. ἔφῡν ‘I was’).
− Lith. e, Latv. e < PBaltic *ĕ < PIE *ĕ : Lith. medùs ‘honey’, Latv. medus (< Proto-
Baltic *medu < PIE *med hu, Gr. μέθυ ‘wine’).
− Lith. ė, Latv. ē < PBaltic *ē < PIE *ē : Lith. dė́ ti ‘to put’, Latv. dêt ‘to lay (eggs)’
(< Proto-Baltic *dē- < PIE *d heh1 -, Gr. τίθημι ‘I place’).
2.5. This traditional reconstruction, however, does not fit particularly well for West Bal-
tic. In Old Prussian, judging both from the Elbing Vocabulary (EV) and the Catechisms
(C), it seems that PIE *ā and *ō had fallen together as *ā. The Enchiridion presents <ā>
for both inputs, e.g. brāti ‘brother’ (< *brātē) and dāt ‘to give’ (< *dō-t-). After a labial,
this *ā gave *ū, e.g. mūti ‘mother’ (< *mātē) and pūton ‘to drink’ (< *pā-t- < PIE
*pō-t-). In the EV, the same undifferentiated vowel *ā secondarily yielded *ō, written
<o>, e.g. in brote ‘brother’ (< *brātē), mothe ‘mother’ (< *mātē) or podalis ‘pot’
(< *pōd-elis). For PIE *ă and *ŏ, Old Prussian generally has <a> (e.g. assis ‘axle’ <
PIE *ak̑s- or ackis ‘eyes’ < PIE *ok u̯-), but in some instances this may appear as <o>
(e.g. enkopts ‘buried’ < *kap- < PIE *kop-). Further features of the Old Prussian vowel
system are the following: 1. Proto-Baltic *ē was probably pronounced as an open vowel
*/e:/ in the EV and therefore written <e> (e.g. semen ‘seed’ < *sēmen-) or <ea> (e.g.
geasnis ‘woodcock’ < *gēsnis), while in the Catechisms it was probably a closed vowel
*/e:/, which gave */i:/, written <ī>, in the Enchiridion (e.g. turrītwey ‘to have’ <
*turē-t-). 2. For Proto-Baltic *ī and *ū, the Enchiridion shows a tendency for diphthongi-
zation, hence *ī > *ei (e.g. geīwan ‘life’ beside gijwan < *gīva-) and *ū > *ou (e.g. soūns
‘son’ < *sūnu-). As in East Baltic, PIE *ĭ, *ŭ, and *ĕ remained basically unchanged in
Old Prussian.
2.6. The difference between West and East Baltic, combined with indirect evidence from
the Baltic loanwords in the Finnic languages, has led some scholars (e.g. Kazlauskas

Authenticated
1642 XIV. Baltic
1962; Mažiulis 1963) to propose a different reconstruction of the Proto-Baltic vowel

system, assuming a distinction between *ō1 (< PIE *ō) and *ō2 (< PIE *ā) and in East
Baltic a secondary correlation of *ō1 (< PIE *ō) with *ē1 (< PIE *ei, *ai), the result of
which was, in both cases, a diphthong (*ō1 > East Baltic uo, *ē1 > East Baltic ie). Under
this view, *ō2 would have become a rounded *ā̊, which merged with *ō1 in West Baltic,
but split to *ā in Latvian and to *ō in Lithuanian. This hypothesis remains, however,
controversial.
2.7. A few contextual modifications of the vowel system described above are to be
mentioned. The most important is the treatment of vowels in word-final position. In
Lithuanian, final vowels are generally preserved, except for original long acute vowels,
which are shortened by Leskien’s law (Leskien 1881), hence e.g. NSg. of ā-stems *źiemā́
(< PIE *-eh2 ) > žiemà ‘winter’, 1st Sg. *neśúo (< PIE *-oH) > nešù ‘I carry’, but without
shortening Gsg. *źiemā̃s (< PIE *-eh2 es) > žiemõs, NSg. *akmuõ (< PIE *-ōn) > akmuõ
‘stone’. In Latvian, vowels in word-final position have undergone a systematic change,
which can be basically defined as a one-mora shortening: bimoric (i.e. long) vowels
became short, unimoric (i.e. short) vowels disappeared (except u), e.g. NSg. * źiemā́ >
zìema, GSg. * źiemā̃s > zìemas (in both cases with short a), Nsg. *dievas > dìevs ‘God’
(cf. Lith. diẽvas), NSg. *medus > medus ‘honey’ (cf. Lith. medùs). In Old Prussian, final
long vowels seem to have been preserved (e.g. menso, mensā ‘flesh’ with -o, -ā < *-ā),
while final short vowels tend to disappear (e.g. deiws ‘god’ < *deivas, but note deywis
in the EV).
3. Resonants and diphthongs

3.1. From a structural point of view, one may ascribe to Proto-Baltic six resonants: two
nasals (*m and *n), two liquids (*l and *r) and two semi-vowels (*i̯ and *u̯). The main
feature of resonants in Baltic as opposed to consonants is their intonability; in this re-
spect, tautosyllabic sequences like /an/ or /ar/ have to be treated as diphthongs, in the
same way as /ai̯ / or /au̯/, inasmuch as they may carry a syllable toneme, e.g. Lith. lañkas
‘handle’ or var̃gas ‘poor’ like laĩkas ‘time’ or laũkas ‘field’.
3.2. When they act as consonants, resonants are generally stable in Baltic; the only
change worth mentioning is that of PIE *u̯ to the fricative v. Examples in word-initial
position may suffice to illustrate this point:
− Proto-Baltic *m < PIE *m: Lith. m, Latv. m, OPr. m, e.g. Lith. medùs, Latv. medus,
OPr. meddo ‘honey’ (< Proto-Baltic *medu < PIE *med hu, Gr. μέθυ ‘wine’).
− Proto-Baltic *n < PIE *n: Lith. n, Latv. n, OPr. n, e.g. Lith. nósis ‘nose’, Latv. nãss
‘nostril’, OPr. nozy ‘nose’ (< Proto-Baltic *nās- < PIE *nās-, Lat. nārēs ‘nostrils’).
− Proto-Baltic *l < PIE *l: Lith. l, Latv. l, OPr. l, e.g. Lith. lãbas, Latv. labs, OPr. labs
‘good’ (< Proto-Baltic *lab- < PIE *lab h-, Gr. λάφυρον ‘spoils’).
− Proto-Baltic *r < PIE *r: Lith. r, Latv. r, OPr. r, e.g. Lith. romùs, Latv. rãms, OPr.
rāms ‘quiet’ (< Proto-Baltic *rā̆m- < PIE *rom-, Goth. rimis ‘rest’).
− Proto-Baltic *j < PIE *i̯ : Lith. j, Latv. j, OPr. j, e.g. Lith. jáunas, Latv. jaûns ‘young’,
OPr. anthroponym Jawne (< Proto-Baltic *jāunas < PIE *[h2 ]i̯ eu̯-h3 n-o-, Lat. iuuenis).

Authenticated
− Proto-Baltic *v < PIE *u̯ : Lith. v, Latv. v, OPr. w [v], e.g. Lith. vė́ tra, Latv. vẽtra,
OPr. wetro ‘wind’ (< Proto-Baltic *vētrā < PIE *[h2 ]u̯eh1 -, Gr. ἄησι ‘blows’).
One should note, however, that the Proto-Baltic resonant *j (< PIE *i̯ ) usually disappears
in non-initial position before front vowels (*e or *i), e.g. in the Lith. comparatives like
ger-èsnis ‘better’ (with -es- < PIE *-i̯ es-). This change did not occur in word-initial
position, where the resonant was preserved, as shown e.g. by Lith. jėgà ‘strength’ (< PIE
*[H]i̯ ēg u̯-ā, Gr. ἥβη ‘youthful strength’). Analogy may obscure the issue, and one actual-
ly finds e.g. OLith. ASg. enti ‘going’ (participle *[h1 ]i̯ -ónt-) with loss of initial *j- by
analogy with instances where the verb was preceded by a preverb, such as iš-enti ‘going
out’, or conversely the OPr. imperative form pergeis /per-jeis/ ‘may he come!’ (originally
an optative *-[h1 ]i̯ -oi̯ [h1 ]-) with restoration of internal *-j- before *-e- due to analogy
with the simple ieis ‘go!’ (optative *[h1 ]i̯ -oi̯ [h1 ]-).
3.3. Another change to be mentioned is the fact that PIE *-m in word-final position
became *-n in Proto-Baltic (as e.g. in Greek), as shown by OPr. ASg. deiwan ‘God’
(< PIE *-om).
3.4. When they act as second elements of diphthongs, resonants may undergo significant
changes in Baltic. One must distinguish between 1. liquid diphthongs (e.g. /al/, /ar/, or
the like), 2. nasal diphthongs (e.g. /am/ or /an/) and 3. semi-vowel diphthongs (e.g. /ai̯ /
or /au̯/). Liquid diphthongs are stable in Baltic (e.g. Lith. pìrmas, Latv. pìrmais, OPr.
pirmois ‘first’ or Lith. vil̃kas, Latv. vìlks, OPr. wilks ‘wolf’). Nasal diphthongs remain
unchanged in Old Prussian (e.g. penckts ‘fifth’, sansy ‘goose’, naktin ASg. ‘night’). In
Lithuanian, they are usually preserved, unless they stand before a sibilant (s, z, š, ž) or
in word-final position; in these cases, the nasal disappeared and produced nasalization
of the preceding vowel, written with the cedilla (e.g. *an-S- > ą-S-). After the 18 th
century, nasal vowels became long oral vowels, which they still are in the standard
Lithuanian language. Examples: penkì ‘five’, but žąsìs ‘goose’ /ža:sis/ (< *žans-i-), nãktį
ASg. ‘night’ /na:kti:/ (< *-in). In Latvian, nasal diphthongs usually became in all contexts
long oral vowels or diphthongs: *am, *an > uo written <o> in the standard language
(e.g. rùoka / roka ‘hand’ < *rankā, cf. Lith. rankà), *em, *en > ie (e.g. pìeci ‘five’ <
*penkíe, cf. Lith. penkì), *im, *in > ī (e.g. pît ‘to plait’ < *pinti, cf. Lith. pìnti), *um,
*un > ū (e.g. jûgs ‘yoke’ < *jungas, cf. Lith. jùngas).
3.5. Semi-vowel diphthongs are well preserved in Old Prussian, e.g. snaygis ‘snow’
(< PIE *snoi̯ g u̯h-o-), deiws ‘God’ (< PIE *dei̯ u̯-o-), laucks ‘field’ (< PIE *lou̯k-o-), keuto
‘skin’ (< PIE *keu̯Ht-). In East Baltic, they underwent radical changes, which, as a
result, considerably obscured ablaut contrasts. For the *-i̯ - series, one may suppose a
confusion of *ei̯ and *ai̯ to a long vowel *ē1 , which at a later stage was diphthongized
to ie in Lithuanian and Latvian: compare e.g. Lith. sniẽgas, Latv. snìegs ‘snow’
(< *snaigas) and Lith. diẽvas, Latv. dìevs ‘God’ (< *deivas) with OPr. snaygis and
deiws. However, the issue is obscured by two facts. Sometimes, East Baltic unexpectedly
preserves original *ei̯ , e.g. in Lith. deivė̃ ‘goddess’ (beside diẽvas); even within East
Baltic, discrepancies are to be found, e.g. Lith. eĩti / Latv. iêt ‘to go’ (both from PIE
*h1 ei̯ -). Based on such contrasts as eĩmu ‘I go’ / iêt ‘to go’ in some Latvian dialects,
compared with Old Lith. eimì ‘I go’ / eĩti ‘to go’, Stang (1935) has convincingly argued
that preservation of *ei̯ was regular in (originally) unstressed syllables.

Authenticated
1644 XIV. Baltic
3.6. The case of *ai̯ is different. One might assume that, in East Baltic, Proto-Baltic *ai̯
yielded *ē1 > ie in isolated forms, i.e. by a regular phonetic process (e.g. Lith. kiẽmas
‘courtyard’, Latv. cìems ‘village’ < *kaimas, cf. OPr. caymis), whereas its preservation
(or restoration) as ai took place only in motivated forms, where an a-grade (< PIE *o)
was required by an ablaut contrast (e.g. in causative-iterative verbs of the type Lith.
maišýti, Latv. màisît ‘to stir, mix’ beside Lith. miẽšti). But there are many counterexam-
ples that do not fit this view, e.g. isolated words with *ai such as Lith. maĩšas ‘bag’ (cf.
Skt. meṣá- ‘ram’) or káimas ‘village’ (the relationship of which to kiẽmas ‘courtyard’
remains obscure), or motivated words with *ie such as Lith. sniẽgas, Latv. snìegs ‘snow’
(obviously derived from Lith. snìgti, Latv. snigt ‘to snow’).
3.7. For the *-u̯- series, West and East Baltic show divergent treatments. The opposition
of Proto-Baltic *eu̯ (< PIE *eu̯) and *au̯ (< PIE *ou̯, *au̯) is usually preserved in Old
Prussian, but East Baltic changed *eu̯ to *iau (hence Lith. kiáutas ‘shell’ compared with
OPr. keuto ‘skin’), whereas *au remained unaltered (hence Lith. laũkas ‘field’ compared
with OPr. laucks). The original vowel contrast (*eu̯, vs. *au̯) thus became in East Baltic
a consonant contrast (palatalized *iau, vs. unpalatalized *au), which was, in most cases,
eliminated: the variant iau is much more scantily preserved than au, generally only in
semantically isolated words such as Lith. liaukà ‘gland’ (< PIE *leu̯k-) beside laũkas
‘with a white spot on the forehead’ (< PIE *leu̯k-o-, cf. Gr. λευκός ‘white’).
3.8. Vocalization of PIE resonants in Baltic usually produces a sequence /i + resonant/,

e.g. Lith. mirtìs ‘death’ (< PIE *mr̥-ti-), vil̃kas ‘wolf’ (< PIE *u̯l̥ k u̯-o-), šim̃tas ‘hundred’
(< PIE *k̑m̥tom, note the preservation of *-m- before dental), mintìs ‘thought’ (< PIE
*mn̥-ti-). But, in some words, it appears as /u + resonant/ (ur, ul, um, un). Some scholars
have argued that u-vocalism is regular after velar (i.e. original labiovelar), e.g. Lith.
gurklỹs ‘throat’ (< PIE *g u̯r̥h3 -tl-), but this is unlikely, cf. Lith. gìrtas ‘drunk’ (< PIE
*g u̯r̥h3 -to-); compare also Lith. giñti and OPr. guntwei ‘to drive’, both from PIE *g u̯hn̥-.
Interestingly, Stang (1966: 79−80) has drawn attention to the fact that u-vocalism is
often to be encountered in expressive words denoting physical shortcomings (e.g. Lith.
gurdùs ‘slow’, kum̃pas ‘bent’).
4. Accent
4.1. As an inherited feature, stress was free and mobile in Proto-Baltic. This is still well
preserved in the Lithuanian standard language, where any syllable may carry the stress,
e.g. lìkime ‘let us stay!’ (imperative 1st plural of lìkti ‘to stay’) / likìme ‘O fate!’ (vocative
of likìmas ‘fate’) / likimè ‘in fate’ (locative of likìmas). Moreover, stress can move within
a paradigm, e.g. NSg. galvà ‘head’, ASg. gálvą, GSg. galvõs, etc. The position of the
stress depends on the accentual and tonal properties of syllables, which may be by nature
accented or unaccented, acuted or not acuted. In nominal stems, for example, one has to
distinguish four accentual patterns, which follow different accentual rules:
− Accentual paradigm 1: stem accent + acuted stem (e.g. líepa, GSg. líepos, InstrSg.
líepa ‘lime’)
− Accentual paradigm 2: stem accent + non-acuted stem (e.g. rankà, GSg. rañkos,
InstrSg. rankà ‘hand’)

Authenticated
− Accentual paradigm 3: end accent + acuted stem (e.g. galvà, GSg. galvõs, InstrSg.
gálva ‘head’)
− Accentual paradigm 4: end accent + non-acuted stem (e.g. žiemà, GSg. žiemõs,
InstrSg. žiemà ‘winter’)
As can be seen from these examples, the stem syllable is accented in 1 and 2, but
unaccented in 3 and 4 (the genitive being the decisive indicator), acuted in 1 and 3, but
non-acuted in 2 and 4. The accentual patterns present the result of the combination of
these two parameters − stem accent and stem intonation.
4.2. Stress freedom was probably also preserved in Old Prussian, as presupposed by
alternations of the type gīwu ‘you are living’ (2 nd Sg. with stem accent) and giwīt ‘to
live’ (infinitive with end accent); but this is a much debated issue. In Latvian, perhaps
due to linguistic contact with Balto-Finnic languages, accentual mobility was lost: the
stress usually falls on the word-initial syllable, except in some compound forms such as
ikviens ‘everybody’ /ikˈviens/ or vislielākais ‘the greatest’ /visˈliela:kais/. However, the
Latvian broken tone reflects an earlier stage with the same stress mobility as elsewhere
in Baltic (e.g. Latv. pêda ‘sole’ < *pēˈdā, cf. Lith. pėdà).
4.3. Beside a pitch accent, the Baltic languages are characterized by the existence of
tonal oppositions, which basically rest on underlying moraic structures: every long vowel
(e.g. /ū/) or diphthong (e.g. /au/) may be defined as a bimoric sequence, in which each
component may be emphasized, the first one (e.g. /ū/ = /Uu/, /au/ = /Au/), in which case
one speaks of initial or falling intonation, or the second one (e.g. /ū/ = /uU/, /au/ = /aU/),
in which case one speaks of final or rising intonation. For Proto-Baltic, one has to assume
two intonations, acute (written < ˊ >) and circumflex (written < ~ >). Their realizations
in the individual Baltic languages are as follows (figures indicate accentual paradigms):
Tab. 88.1: Reflexes of Proto-Baltic acute and circumflex intonations
Lithuanian Latvian Old Prussian
(Enchiridion 1561)
acute initial or falling final or rising intonation final or rising intonation
intonation (1) intonation
<ˊ> <~> <¯>
e.g. mótė ‘mother’ 1, e.g. mãte ‘mother’, (on 2 nd component)
káulas ‘bone’ 1 kaũls ‘bone’ e.g. kaūlins ‘bones’ APl.
acute initial or falling broken intonation final or rising intonation
intonation (2) intonation
<ˊ> <^> <¯>
e.g. plónas ‘thin’ 3, e.g. plâns ‘thin’, (on 2 nd component)
ráugas ‘leaven’ 3 raûgs ‘leaven’ e.g. pogaūt ‘to get’
gáuti ‘to get’ gaût ‘to get’
circumflex final or rising intonation initial or falling initial or falling
intonation intonation intonation
<~> <`> <¯>
e.g. prõtas ‘mind’ 2, e.g. pràts ‘mind’, (on 1st component)
draũgas ‘friend’ 4 dràugs ‘friend’ e.g. āusins ‘ears’ APl.
ausìs, ASg. aũsį ‘ear’ 4 àuss ‘ear’

Authenticated
1646 XIV. Baltic
4.4. As can be seen from the data given above, the Proto-Baltic acute and circumflex
tonemes are realized almost conversely: what is a falling tone in Lithuanian is a rising
tone in Latvian, and vice-versa; Old Prussian here agrees with Latvian. In addition,
Latvian has a third intonation (written < ^ >), the so-called “broken tone”, a kind of
glottalization (like the Danish stød), that arose from an acute tone in originally unstressed
stem syllables (= Lith. accentual paradigm 3). It is generally assumed to be an innovation
of Latvian, but some scholars (e.g. Kortlandt 1985) have argued that it could reflect the
very nature of the Proto-Baltic acute intonation as an originally glottalized intonation.
The origin of the tonal system of Proto-Baltic is in itself a much debated issue. The
majority of scholars agree that acute intonation has to be connected with original PIE
laryngeals in tautosyllabic position, at least in some contexts (e.g. Lith. draũgas ‘friend’
< PIE *d hrou̯g ho-, vs. Lith. gáuti ‘to get’ < PIE *gou̯H-ti-), but there is no broad consen-
sus on the question of whether PIE morphological Dehnstufen are expected to present
acute or circumflex intonation in Baltic: speaking for acute intonation is e.g. Lith. žvėrìs,
ASg. žvė́ rį, Latv. zvȩ̂rs ‘wild beast’ (< PIE *g̑ hu̯ēr-, compared with Lat. fĕrus), but a
circumflex has been presupposed by some scholars, e.g. in Latv. dùore ‘hole in a tree
for bees’ (< PIE *dōr-ii̯ ā ‘wooden’, if it is a vr̥ ddhi-formation to PIE *dŏr-u ‘wood’, cf.
Gr. δόρυ).
4.5. In Lithuanian, stress and intonation are combined together insofar as only stressed
syllables present tonemes; this was perhaps also the case in Old Prussian. Latvian has
preserved an earlier stage, in which there was no interdependence between suprasegmen-
tal and prosodic features: every syllable, stressed or unstressed, is intrinsically provided
with a toneme. Even in Lithuanian, there is some evidence that unstressed syllables
originally possessed tonemes, especially Saussure’s Law (Saussure 1894), which may be
defined as an attraction of the stress from a circumflex to a following acute syllable (e.g.
*ˈsam̃dýti > *sam̃ˈdýti > Lith. samdýti ‘to hire, to employ’ with attraction, compared
with *ˈlámdýti > Lith. lámdyti ‘to rumple, crumple’) and therefore implies intonability
of unstressed syllables.
4.6. In some cases, individual forms of the same stem may display different intonations,
e.g. Lith. šókti ‘to dance’ / šõkis ‘dance’. Such prosodic variation, generally connected
with derivational processes, is called “metatony”. One may distinguish, since de Saussure
(1896), a métatonie douce (acute → circumflex, e.g. Lith. verb šókti → derivative šõkis)
and a métatonie rude (circumflex → acute, e.g. Lith. adjective sveĩkas ‘healthy’ →
derivative svéikinti ‘to greet’); see Derksen (1996) for a full treatment.
5. Consonants
5.1. The consonant inventory of Proto-Baltic may be reconstructed as follows:
− 6 stops: 2 labials (voiceless /p/ and voiced /b/), 2 dentals (voiceless /t/ and voiced
/d/), 2 dorsals (voiceless /k/ and voiced /g/).
− 5 spirants: 1 labial (voiced /v/), 2 dental sibilants (voiceless /s/ and voiced /z/), 2 pala-
tal sibilants (voiceless /ś/ and voiced /ź/).

Authenticated
5.2. The Proto-Baltic stop system underwent two major changes. Within the Indo-Euro-
pean family, the Baltic languages belong to the satǝm group, characterized by 1. the
fusion of PIE velars (*k, *g, *g h) and labiovelars (*k u̯, *g u̯, *g u̯h) to velars stops (> *k,
*g) and 2. the development of PIE palatals (*k̑, *g̑, *g̑ h) to spirants (> palatals *ś, *ź).
In Latvian and Old Prussian (as in Slavic), the Proto-Baltic palatal sibilants *ś and *ź
(< PIE *k̑, *g̑, *g̑ h) merged with original dental sibilants to s and z; in standard Lithua-
nian, they remained distinct as š and ž (but some Lithuanian dialects have s and z).
Examples:
− PIE velars:
− Lith. k, Latv. k, OPr. k < Proto-Baltic *k < PIE *k: Lith. kraũjas ‘blood’, Latv.
kreve ‘bloody scab’, OPr. crauyo ‘blood’ (< Proto-Baltic *kreu̯(H)- < PIE *kreu̯h2 -,
Gr. κρέας ‘flesh’).
− Lith. g, Latv. g, OPr. g < Proto-Baltic *g < PIE *g : Lith. ger̃bti ‘to honour’, Latv.
gārbât ‘to care for’, OPr. girbin ‘number’ (< Proto-Baltic *gerb- ‘to count’ < PIE
*gerb h- ‘to gash’, Gr. γράφω ‘I write’).
− PIE labiovelars:
− Lith. k, Latv. k, OPr. k < Proto-Baltic *k < PIE *k u̯ : Lith. kàs, Latv. kas, OPr. kas
‘who, which’ (< Proto-Baltic *kas < PIE *k u̯os, Skr. káḥ).
− Lith. g, Latv. g, OPr. g < Proto-Baltic *g < PIE *g u̯ : Lith. gãlas, Latv. gals ‘end’,
OPr. gallan ‘death’ (< Proto-Baltic *galas ‘end, top’ < PIE *g u̯olH-o- ‘tip, prick’,
OHG quëlan ‘to hurt’).
− PIE palatals:
− Lith. š, Latv. s, OPr. s < Proto-Baltic *ś < PIE *k̑: Lith. širdìs, Latv. sir̂ds, OPr.
seyr ‘heart’ (< Proto-Baltic *śēr /*śīrd- [length guaranteed by the intonation of
Lith. A Sg šìrdį] ← PIE *k̑ēr /*k̑r̥d-, Gr. κῆρ, καρδία).
− Lith. ž, Latv. z, OPr. z (often written s) < Proto-Baltic *ź < PIE *g̑: Lith. žinóti,
Latv. zinât ‘to know’, OPr. posinnat ‘to recognize’ (< Proto-Baltic *źin- < PIE
*g̑n̥h3 -, Gr. ἔγνων ‘I perceived’).
There is, however, a large set of examples that present a centum-like treatment, i.e.
Baltic *k, *g from PIE palatal stops *k̑, *g̑, *g̑ h, e.g. Lith. klausýti, Latv. klàusît, OPr.
klausiton ‘to listen’ (< PIE *k̑leu̯s-, OCS slyšati ‘to hear’). Variations between cognate
forms are not infrequent, as shown by such doublets as Lith. akmuõ ‘stone’ / ašmuõ
‘cutting edge’ (both from PIE *h2 ek̑-mōn, Skr. áśmā ‘stone’) or Lith. kleĩvas / šleĩvas
‘bow-legged’ (both from PIE *k̑lei̯ - ‘to lean, bend oneself’). An explanation for this
phenomenon, known in the scholarly literature as “Gutturalwechsel”, is still lacking. One
might assume that such centum forms in Baltic belong to a different dialectal layer
(anterior to the satemization?). Or, more convincingly, one might remember that Baltic
lies precisely on the border between centum and satem languages; it is well known that
border languages sometimes take part only to a small extent in linguistic innovations
more consistently represented in central languages.
5.3. The second major change characteristic for Proto-Baltic (as well as for Proto-Slavic)
is the merger of voiced (PIE *b, *d, *g̑, *g, and *g u̯) and voiced aspirated stops (PIE
*b h, *d h, *g̑ h, *g h, and *g u̯h) to a single series of voiced stops (Proto-Baltic *b, *d, *ź,
*g). Examples:

Authenticated
1648 XIV. Baltic
− PIE labials:
− Lith. b, Latv. b, OPr. b < Proto-Baltic *b < PIE *b: Lith. dubùs ‘hollow’, Latv.
dubt ‘to become hollow’ (< Proto-Baltic *dub- < PIE *d hub-, Goth. diups ‘deep’).
− Lith. b, Latv. b, OPr. b < Proto-Baltic *b < PIE *b h: Lith. bū́ti, Latv. bût, OPr.
būton ‘to be’ (< Proto-Baltic *bū- < PIE *b huH-, Skr. ábhūt ‘came into existence’).
− PIE dentals:
− Lith. d, Latv. d, OPr. d < Proto-Baltic *d < PIE *d: Lith. dẽšimt, Latv. desmit ‘ten’,
OPr. dessimts ‘tenth’ (< Proto-Baltic *deśimt- < PIE *dek̑m̥-t-, Gr. δέκα).
− Lith. d, Latv. d, OPr. d < Proto-Baltic *d < PIE *d h: Lith. dė́ ti ‘to put’, Latv. dêt
‘to lay (eggs)’ (< Proto-Baltic *dē- < PIE *d heh1 -, Gr. τίθημι ‘I place’).
− PIE palatals:
− Lith. ž, Latv. z, OPr. z (often written s) < Proto-Baltic *ź < PIE *g̑: Lith. žinóti,
Latv. zinât ‘to know’, OPr. posinnat ‘to recognize’ (< Proto-Baltic *źin- < PIE
*g̑n̥h3 -, Gr. ἔγνων ‘I perceived’).
− Lith. ž, Latv. z, OPr. z (often written s) < Proto-Baltic *ź < PIE *g̑ h: Lith. žiemà,
Latv. zìema, OPr. semo ‘winter’ (< Proto-Baltic *źeimā- < PIE *g̑ hei̯ m-, Gr. χεῖμα).
− PIE velars:
− Lith. g, Latv. g, OPr. g < Proto-Baltic *g < PIE *g: Lith. ger̃bti ‘to honour’, Latv.
gārbât ‘to care for’, OPr. girbin ‘number’ (< Proto-Baltic *gerb- ‘to count’ < PIE
*gerb h- ‘to gash’, Gr. γράφω ‘I write’).
− Lith. g, Latv. g, OPr. g < Proto-Baltic *g < PIE *g h: Lith. miglà, Latv. migla ‘mist,
fog’ (< Proto-Baltic *miglā < PIE *h3 mig hleh2 , Gr. ὀμίχλη).
− PIE labiovelars:
− Lith. g, Latv. g, OPr. g < Proto-Baltic *g < PIE *g u̯: Lith. gãlas, Latv. gals ‘end’,
OPr. gallan ‘death’ (< Proto-Baltic *galas ‘end, top’ < PIE *g u̯olH-o- ‘tip, prick’,
OHG quëlan ‘to hurt’).
− Lith. g, Latv. g, OPr. g < Proto-Baltic *g < PIE *g u̯h: Lith. gãras, Latv. gars ‘steam,
vapor’, OPr. gorme ‘heat’ (< Proto-Baltic *gar- < PIE *g u̯hor-, Skr. gharmá-
‘heat’).
This merger is usually considered to have taken place in an early stage of Proto-Balto-
Slavic. But it has been proposed by Winter (1978) that, in Baltic and Slavic, vowels
were lengthened (with the acute tone) before a PIE voiced stop, but not before a PIE
voiced aspirated stop, which implies their merger to be a recent process. Examples of
Winter’s Law:
− Lith. ė́ sti ‘to eat, to devour’, Latv. êst, OPr. īst ‘to eat’ (< Proto-Baltic *ēd-ti- < PIE
*h1 ĕd-, Skr. ádmi ‘I eat’).
− Lith. ū́dra, Latv. ûdrs, OPr. udro ‘otter’ (< Proto-Baltic *ūd-rā < PIE *ŭd-reh2 , Gr.
ὕδρα ‘water serpent’).
Admittedly, the evidence for Winter’s Law still remains controversial, since there is a
large number of counter-examples (e.g. Lith. dubùs ‘hollow’, Latv. dubt ‘to become
hollow’ < Proto-Baltic *dub- < PIE *d hub-, cf. Goth. diups ‘deep’). This is still a much
debated issue; recent attempts at reformulating the law have been proposed by Shintani
(1985) and Matasović (1995).

Authenticated
5.4. Except for *s, spirants are, for the most part, recent developments in Baltic. We
have to ascribe to Proto-Baltic a voiced labial spirant /v/, going back to the PIE resonant
*u̯, but no voiceless counterpart */f/, which does not exist in early stages of any of the
three major Baltic languages. In ancient borrowings, /f/ was systematically replaced by
/p/, e.g. Lith. ar̃pas ‘winnowing-machine’ (< German Harfe), OPr. pastauton ‘to fast’
(< German fasten). Only recent loans have introduced a phoneme /f/ in the Baltic lan-
guages, e.g. Lith. fìlmas, Latv. fil̃ma ‘film’.
5.5. Proto-Baltic preserved the unique PIE dental spirant *s, which remained unchanged
in most contexts, e.g. Lith. sėdė́ ti, Latv. sêdêt ‘to sit down’, OPr. sīdons ‘sitting’ (< PIE
*sed-). A voiced counterpart exists only as an allophone, e.g. Lith. lìzdas ‘nest’ (< *niz-
do- < PIE *ni-sd-o-).
5.6. The Baltic languages have developed a secondary series of palatal spirants, with at
least 2 sibilants (š, ž) and in some languages 2 affricates (č, dž). In chronological order,
one might first mention the so-called “ruki-rule”, according to which a PIE sibilant *s
after r, u, k, or i, yielded in Proto-Baltic a palatal spirant *ś that merged with the outcome
of PIE *k̑, the result of which therefore was /š/ in Lithuanian, /s/ in Latvian and Old
Prussian. Examples are quite limited in number:
− after r: Lith. viršùs, Latv. vìrsus ‘top’ (< PIE *u̯r̥s-) ; cf. OCS vrŭchŭ, Skr. varṣmán-
‘height’.
− after u: Lith. jū́šė, OPr. iuse ‘fish soup’ (< PIE *i̯ ūs-) ; cf. Pol. jucha, Lat. iūs ‘soup’.
− after i: Lith. maĩšas, Latv. màiss ‘bag’, OPr. moasis ‘bellows’ (< PIE *moi̯ so-); cf.
Skr. meṣá- ‘ram’.
(We do not have any reliable example after k). It should be noted that the “ruki-rule” is
less regular in Baltic than it is in Slavic or Indo-Iranian. There is a large number of
counter-examples, e.g. Lith. ausìs ‘ear’ (< PIE *h2 eu̯s-), vìsas ‘all’ (< PIE *u̯is-o-), some
of which might be due to analogy, e.g. Lith. akysè ‘in the eyes’ (Loc.Pl.), instead of
*akyše, with the same ending as rañkose ‘in the hands’.
5.7. In Lithuanian, the palatal sibilants (š, ž) thus have two sources (PIE palatal stops
or − in the case of š − PIE *s in ruki-contexts). In addition, there exists a series of
affricates that appears to be a recent innovation resulting from the palatalization of PIE
dental stops before the resonant *i̯ : Proto-Baltic *tj (< PIE *ti̯ ) and Proto-Baltic *dj
(< PIE *d [h]i̯ ) yielded respectively či /tš’/ and dži /dž’/ (i marking here merely the
softness of the affricate), e.g. Lith. svẽčias ‘guest’ (< *svetja- ‘stranger’ < PIE *su̯e-
ti̯ o-), Lith.dial. mẽdžias ‘forest’ (< *medja- ‘standing in the middle’ < PIE *med hi̯ o-).
Hard affricates (č or dž) are rare and always secondary (e.g. Lith. giñčas ‘quarrel’
< *gint-šas). In Old Prussian, Proto-Baltic *tj and *dj remained unchanged (e.g. OPr.
median ‘tree’ < *medja-).
5.8. In Latvian, palatalizations are a relatively complex issue. One has to distinguish
two different processes. First, in an early stage of the language, Proto-Baltic velar stops
*k and *g became affricates *c /ts/ and *dz /dz/ before front vowels (e or i), e.g. *kēlti
‘to raise’ (cf. Lith. kélti) > Latv. cel̂t, *gērti ‘to drink’ (cf. Lith. gérti) > Latv. dzer̂t. As
a result, a large number of consonant alternations appeared, e.g. Latv. sâku ‘I begin’ (1st

Authenticated
1650 XIV. Baltic
Sg.), but sâc ‘you begin’ (2 nd Sg. < *sâk-i). Secondly, we have to deal with various
palatalizations of consonants before the original resonant *i̯ (> Baltic *j). They can be
summarized by the following (simplified) alternation rules:
Tab. 88.2: Latvian palatalization before *j

Consonant Consonant + *j Examples
p, b pļ /pl’/, bļ /bl’/ (word initially) pļaũt ‘to mow’ (< *pjauti, cf. Lith. pjáuti)
pj, bj (otherwise) bļaũrs ‘nasty’ (< *bjauras, cf. Lith. bjaurùs)
upju, GPl. of upe ‘river’ (cf. Lith. ùpjų)
gùlbju, GPl. of gùlbis ‘swan’ (cf. Lith. gul̃bjų)
t, d š, ž svešs ‘stranger’ (< *svetja-, cf. Lith. svẽčias)
mežs ‘forest’ (< *medja-, cf. Lith.dial. mẽdžias)
k, g c, dz sàucu ‘I shout’ (< *sàukju, cf. Inf. sàukt)
lùdzu ‘I beg’ (< *lùdju, cf. Inf. lùgt)
s, z š, ž plêšu ‘I tear’ (< *plês-ju, cf. Inf. plêst)
laûžu ‘I break’ (< *laûz-ju, cf. Inf. laûzt)
n ņ zir̃ņu, GPl. of zir̃nis ‘pea’ (< *zir̃nju)
l ļ meļu, GPl. of melis ‘liar’ (< *melju)
5.9. A few combinatory changes are worth mentioning. First, a sequence of

/dental+dental/ as a rule yields /s+dental/ in Baltic, e.g. Lith. ė́ sti ‘to eat, devour’, Latv.
êst, OPr. īst ‘to eat’ (< Proto-Baltic *ēd-ti-).
5.10. Finally, according to a tendency variously attested in the Baltic languages, a velar
stop *k sometimes appears before sibilants, e.g. Lith. tū́kstantis, Latv. tũkstuôtis ‘thou-
sand’ (< *tūstant-), Lith. bókstas ‘tower’ (< Pol. baszta). This so-called “epenthetic *k”
is by no means a phonetic rule, as many counter-examples exist, e.g. Lith. pir̃štas ‘finger’
(but Latv. pìrksts), Lith. áuksas ‘gold’ (but OPr. ausis); there are also some doublets,
e.g. Lith. plúokštas / plúoštas ‘handful’, Latv. sviêksts / sviêsts ‘butter’. Whatever may
be its origin, this tendency must be connected, at least partially, with the fact that a
sequence *sk (or *šk) is not tolerated in Baltic before a consonant, where it yields *ks
(or *kš), e.g. Lith. tróško ‘feels thirsty’, but Inf. trókšti.
6. References
Derksen, Rick
1996 Metatony in Baltic. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Kazlauskas, Jonas
1962 K razvitiju obščebaltijskoj sistemy glasnyx [On the development of the Common Baltic
vowel system]. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 4: 20−24.
Kortlandt, Frederik
1985 Long vowels in Balto-slavic. Baltistica 21: 112−124.

Authenticated
89. The morphology of Baltic 1651
Leskien, August
1881 Die Quantitätsverhältnisse im Auslaut des Litauischen. Archiv für slavische Philologie
5: 188−190.
Matasović, Ranko
1995 A Re-examination of Winter’s Law in Baltic and Slavic. Lingua Posnaniensis 37: 57−70.
Mažiulis, Vytautas
1963 Zametki po prusskomu vokalismu [Notes on Prussian vocalism]. Voprosy teorii i istorii
jazyka. Leningrad: Leningrad University Press, 191−197.
de Saussure, Ferdinand
1894 À propos de l’accentuation lituanienne. Mémoires de la société de linguistique de Paris
8: 425−466 = 1970 [1922]: 490−512.
1896 Accentuation lituanienne. Indogermanische Forschungen VI. Anzeiger: 157−166 = 1970
[1922]: 526−538.
1970 [1922] Recueil des publications scientifiques. Geneva: Slatkine [Geneva: Société ano-
nyme des éditions Sonor].
Shintani, Toshihiro
1985 On Winter’s Law in Balto-Slavic. Arbejdspapirer udsendt af Institut for Lingvistik, Kø-
benhavns Universitet 5: 273−296.
Stang, Christian S.
1935 Die Flexion des Verbs iet im Lettischen und das Problem vom Ursprung des Diphthongs
ie. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap 8: 257−262.
Stang, Christian S.
1966 Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen. Oslo: University Press.
Winter, Werner
1978 The distribution of short and long vowels in stems of the type Lith. ė́ sti : vèsti : mèsti
and OCS jasti : vesti : mesti in Baltic and Slavic Languages. In: Jacek Fisiak (ed.),
Recent Developments in Historical Phonology. The Hague: Mouton, 431−446.
Daniel Petit, Paris (France)
89. The morphology of Baltic

1. Noun formation 5. Personal pronouns
2. Adjective formation 6. Verb formation
3. Numerals 7. Abbreviations
4. Pronouns 8. References
1. Noun formation
In the Baltic languages, there are relatively few compound words (Skardžius 1943:
393 ff.; Urbutis 1965: 252, 437 f.). Particularly old is Li. viešpatìs ‘lord’ (cf. OInd. viś-
pátiḥ ‘chief of a settlement or tribe’). The absolute majority of derived nouns and adjec-
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-010

Authenticated
Leskien, August
1881 Die Quantitätsverhältnisse im Auslaut des Litauischen. Archiv für slavische Philologie
5: 188−190.
Matasović, Ranko
1995 A Re-examination of Winter’s Law in Baltic and Slavic. Lingua Posnaniensis 37: 57−70.
Mažiulis, Vytautas
1963 Zametki po prusskomu vokalismu [Notes on Prussian vocalism]. Voprosy teorii i istorii
jazyka. Leningrad: Leningrad University Press, 191−197.
1894 À propos de l’accentuation lituanienne. Mémoires de la société de linguistique de Paris
8: 425−466 = 1970 [1922]: 490−512.
1896 Accentuation lituanienne. Indogermanische Forschungen VI. Anzeiger: 157−166 = 1970
[1922]: 526−538.
1970 [1922] Recueil des publications scientifiques. Geneva: Slatkine [Geneva: Société ano-
nyme des éditions Sonor].
Shintani, Toshihiro
1985 On Winter’s Law in Balto-Slavic. Arbejdspapirer udsendt af Institut for Lingvistik, Kø-
benhavns Universitet 5: 273−296.
Stang, Christian S.
1935 Die Flexion des Verbs iet im Lettischen und das Problem vom Ursprung des Diphthongs
ie. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap 8: 257−262.
Stang, Christian S.
Winter, Werner
89. The morphology of Baltic

1. Noun formation 5. Personal pronouns
2. Adjective formation 6. Verb formation
3. Numerals 7. Abbreviations
4. Pronouns 8. References
1. Noun formation
In the Baltic languages, there are relatively few compound words (Skardžius 1943:
393 ff.; Urbutis 1965: 252, 437 f.). Particularly old is Li. viešpatìs ‘lord’ (cf. OInd. viś-
pátiḥ ‘chief of a settlement or tribe’). The absolute majority of derived nouns and adjec-
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-010

Authenticated
1652 XIV. Baltic
tives in Baltic are suffixal and ending derivatives. Various derivational affixes have been
studied for a long time (cf. particularly Leskien 1891; Endzelīns 1943, 1948, 1951;
Skardžius 1943; Otrębski 1965). Vincas Urbutis (1965, 1978) began to apply modern
methods to the study of noun formation and, relying on these, exhaustively described
the system of noun formation in contemporary Lithuanian, distinguishing thereby the
various semantic derivational categories. A derivational category is a class of derivatives
which have a common derivational meaning and special derivational affixes. Recent
research shows that Baltic distinguishes three old categories of nouns derived from verbs
[1.1−1.3] (Ambrazas 1993) and five old categories derived from nouns [1.4−1.8] (Am-
brazas 2000a).
1.1. Nomina actionis
Originally in the Baltic languages (just as in PIE; cf. Benveniste 1948), in this derivation-
al category, derivatives with *-ti- and *-tu- predominated (cf. Li. būtìs and Sl. *bytĭ,
OInd. bhūtís ‘existence, being’; Li. lietùs, Latv. liêtus ‘rain’). Forms of the infinitive and
supine developed from these. Later in the Baltic languages, derivational endings became
more widespread, particularly with *-o- (cf. Li. miẽgas, Latv. mìegs ‘sleep’) and *-ā (cf.
Li. snaudà, Latv. snaũda ‘somnolence’).
During the independent development of Lithuanian, derivatives with the suffix -imas/
-ymas (< *-ī̆-mo-), e.g. piešìmas ‘drawing’, and in Latvian derivatives with the suffix
-šana (< -sjo-nā), e.g. bûšana ‘existence’, which came from another adjective suffix
*-no-/-nā, were created. Close to the latter are derivatives in -s-na, which are productive
in Old Prussian, e.g. billīsna ‘sayings’ (see further Bammesberger 1973: 87 ff.; Schmal-
stieg 1974: 64 ff.; Parenti 1998). Derivatives of similar origin in Lithuanian with -s-e-na
are productive only in the Lower Lithuanian dialect (Urbutis 1965: 295), spoken in an
area where at one time the Curonians lived; cf. Low. Li. eĩsena ‘going, walking’.
1.2. Nomina agentis
In the Baltic languages, derivatives of adjectival character with the suffixes *-tā-jo-, *-ē-
jo-, e.g. Li. artójas, Latv. arājs (< *artājs), OP artoys ‘plowman’; Li. siuvė́ jas, Latv.
šuvējs ‘tailor’ play the most important role in this derivational category. Here they have
completely ousted the names of actors with the old suffixes *-tel-/-ter-/-tor-, cf. Sl.
*datel’ĭ and OInd. dā́tar-, dātár-, Gk. dṓtōr, dōtḗr beside Li. davė́ jas ‘giver, donor’
(Sɫawski 1976: 50).
1.3. Nomina instrumenti
The basis of this derivational category consists of derivatives with *-tlo- which have
cognates in many related languages; cf. Li. árklas, Latv. ar̂kls, Gk. árotron, etc. ‘plough’.
However, in the Baltic languages, they began to use suffixes derived from the nomen

Authenticated
actionis suffix *-tu- very widely to form the names of tools or instruments. These include
the suffixes *-tuv-/*-tov-/*-tev-; cf. Li. sėtùvas, sėtuvė̃ and Latv. sȩ̄tuvs, sȩ̄tuve, sȩ̄tuva,
sȩ̄tuvis, sȩ̄tava, sȩ̄tave, sȩ̄teve ‘bast basket’; káištuvė/kaištùvė ‘scraper, shaving knife’,
kaištùvas ‘scraper, knife for scraping hides or skin’, and OP coestue ‘brush’, etc.
1.4. Nomina qualitatis
At one time, the nomina qualitatis were formed essentially with the same derivational
suffixes as the nomina actionis (Ambrazas 1994). These categories were better distin-
guished in the Baltic languages when derivatives with the suffix *-ībā became more
widespread; cf. Li. dial. lýgyba, Latv. līdzība ‘equality’.
1.5. Nomina collectiva
In OP, there is a whole group of collective derivatives with the old derivational ending
in *-ā; cf. slayo ‘sled’ (cf. Li. šlãjos ‘sled’) : slayan ‘sled runner’ (for more about these
see Mažiulis 1981; Degtjarev 1994). In Lithuanian and Latvian, these are very rare; cf.
Li. álksna/alksnà ‘alder grove’, Latv. álksna ‘swampy place’. Nevertheless, the deriva-
tional ending *-ā most likely serves as the basis for the collective plural ending -ai (cf.
Li. dial. liepaĩ ‘lime grove’, siuvėjaĩ ‘tailor’s family’; see Stundžia 1981, 1992). The
rather old affix *-ij-ā appears in Li. brolijà ‘brothers and sisters’ and Sl. bratrĭja ‘broth-
ers’, Attic Gk. phratría vs. Homeric phrḗtrē ‘clan, tribe’, and there are also some newer
suffixes (Ambrazas 1992a, 2004a: 50−51).
The Balts also use collective nouns with the adjective suffix *-ī-no- (cf. Li. šeimýna,
OP seimīns ‘domestic servants’ as well as Li. beržýnas and Sl. *berzina ‘birch grove’)
(Sɫawski 1974: 121, 123), which is also encountered partially in the Italic languages and
perhaps also in German and Albanian (Jokl 1963: 133−134; Butler 1971: 27−28) and
Thracian (Duridanov 1969: 57).
1.6. Nomina feminina
Particularly old are the nomina feminina with the derivational ending *-ā (which earlier
had been characteristic of nomina collectiva); cf. OLi. ašva, OInd. áśvā, Av. aspā, Lat.
equa ‘mare’. In the Baltic languages, these were ousted by derivatives with *-(j)ē; cf.
Li. draugà ‘company, circle, society’ → draũgė (for more see Ambrazas 2000a: 71 ff.,
79 ff.). Differently from Indo-Iranian (but similarly to the Italic and Celtic languages),
in the Baltic languages, the corresponding nomina feminina with *-ī /-(i)jā- are rare (for
more see Ambrazas 2000a: 74 ff., 2004a: 67 ff.).

Authenticated
1654 XIV. Baltic
1.7. Diminutives
In the Baltic languages (as in other related languages; cf. Jurafsky 1996: 565 ff. and lit.),
the suffix *-ko- played an important role in the creation of diminutives. Old Prussian
nominal derivatives with the suffix *-iko- were productive (e.g., malnijkix ‘small child’).
Diminutives are formed in Lithuanian with the suffix *-u-ko- (e.g. berniùkas ‘boy, lad’),
in East High Lithuanian dialects also with *-ā-ko- (e.g. berniõkas ‘boy, lad’) and in
some Latvian dialects with *-ē-ko- (e.g. sunȩ̄ks ‘small dog’).
It is true that in the course of time Lithuanian diminutives with -elis- became common
(e.g. vaikẽlis ‘small child’), and Latvian derivatives with -iņš (-iņa) and -ītis (-e) ap-
peared. The latter two suffixes are connected with a special kind of complementary
distribution; cf. brālītis ‘little brother’, saulīte ‘little sun’, but dēliņš ‘little son’ (for more
see Rūķe-Draviņa 1959: 22 ff., 168 ff.)
1.8. Nomina attributiva

Diminutives with *-ko- and nominalizing adjectives with *-(i)-jo-, *-no-, *-en-, *-ro-,
*-uo-, *-isko-, and *-mo- furnish the basis for this derivational category (Ambrazas
2000a: 113 ff., 2000b). In the Baltic languages, the nomina attributiva compound suffix
with *-in-īko-/*-in-eiko- is especially productive (cf. Li. laukinỹkas ‘farmer’, OP laukini-
kis ‘landholder’, Latv. laũcinieks ‘farmer’), perhaps in the distant past borrowed from
Proto-Slavic (cf. Ambrazas 2000a: 118 ff., 2004a: 57).
1.9. Noun declension

The inherited case system of Baltic is comparable to that of Slavic, retaining seven of
the eight cases reconstructed for PIE − all but the ablative, which has merged with the
genitive, as in Greek, except that the syncretic form is the inherited ablative rather than
the genitive. This system is manifest in East Baltic, but the limited corpus of Old Prus-
sian renders its case system uncertain. East Baltic languages have lost the neuter gender
in nouns, although Lithuanian retains it in predicate adjectives in clauses without nomi-
nal subjects (cf. Holvoet, this handbook, 1.2) as well as in substantive use: gẽra ‘the
good’. Generally, neuter nouns are transferred to masculine gender, most famously in
the word for ‘100’, šim̃tas. Old Prussian does retain a few neuter forms, notably assaran
‘lake’ (< PIE *-om); cf. OCS jezero (which, however, has the old pronominal ending
*-od). The dual is retained only in Lithuanian, and even there it is in retreat, having
been lost in many dialects. Baltic descendants of the PIE *-(j)o- (= Baltic *-[j]a-) and
*-(j)ā-stem declensions are still productive, whereas the Baltic descendants of the PIE
*-i-, *-u-, and especially the consonant stem declensions are not. Nouns of these unpro-
ductive categories are gradually shifting to the productive categories. In Lithuanian, old
adjectives of the Baltic *-u-stem declension and old nouns of the Baltic *-ju-stem declen-
sion are passing into the *-ja-stem declension, whereas new words are appearing in the
Baltic *-u-stem and *-ju-stem declensions. One encounters also perhaps a few remnants
of the *-ī- and *-ū-stem declensions in specific forms of other stems.

Authenticated
1.9.1. The PIE *-(j)o-stem = Baltic *-(j)a-stem: SgN Li. (tė́ v)-as, Latv. (tȩ˜̄ v)-s ‘father’,
OP (Deiw)-as, (Deiw)-s, and (Deiw)-is ‘God’ (< *-os); G Li. (tė́ v)-o, Latv. (tȩ˜̄ v)-a < *-ād
(Abl), OP (Deiw)-as < *-os (Gen: cf. Hitt. N G antuḫšaš ‘man’ and ON dagr ‘day’, G
dags, probably with secondary differentiation of the same original form); D Li. (tė́ v)-ui,
OP (wird)-ai ‘word’, (grīk)-u ‘sin’ < *-ōi (the last of these perhaps with a special devel-
opment following velars), Latv. (tȩ˜̄ v)-am is of pronominal origin; A Li. (tė́ v)- ą, Latv.
(tȩ˜̄ v)-u, OP (Deiw)-an < *-oN; I Li. (tė́ v)-u, Latv. (tȩ˜̄ v)-u < *-ṓ; L Li. (tė́ v)-e < *-en
(postposition) (the original locative ending *-ei is seen in the adverb namiẽ ‘at home’),
OP bītai ‘in the evening’ < *-oi (Latv. [tȩ˜̄ v]-ā is taken from the -ā-stems); V Li. (tė́ v)-e,
Latv. (tȩ˜̄ v)-Ø , OP deiwe < *-e; PlN Li. (tė́ v)-ai, Latv. (tȩ˜̄ v)-i, OP (grīk)-ai < *-oi; G Li.
(tė́ v)-ų, Latv. (tȩ˜̄ v)-u , OP (grec)-on < *-ōN [all Baltic nouns regardless of stem have the
same GPl ending, so this ending will not be analyzed again]; D Li. (tė́ v)-am(u)s
(< *-om[u]s [the long form is OLith.]), Latv. (tȩ˜̄ v)-iem(s) (< adjective or pronoun [the
longer form is OLatv. and dial.]), OP (waika)-mmans ‘children’ (contamination with PlA
-ans); A Li. (tė́ v)-us, Latv. (tȩ˜̄ v)-us; OP (deiw)-ans (< *-ō̆[n]s); I Li. (tė́ v)-ais, Latv. (tȩ˜̄ v)-
is [dial. and in adverbs; the modern language uses the PlD for this case](< *-ōis); L
Li. (tė́ v)-uose (OLith. -uosu), Latv. (tȩ˜̄ v)-uôs (< *-ōs-u with subsequent replacement in
Lithuanian of -u by -e from the SgL); Li. Du NAV (tė́ v)-u (< *-ṓ); GL (pusi)-aũ ‘in
half’ (*-ou). Otherwise, Lithuanian uses (tė́ v)-am (< *-omV) for both DuD and I. The
-ja-stem endings are the same as the above but may have the Sg N Li. (bról)-is, Latv.
(brāl)-is, ASg Li. (bról)-į, Latv. (brāl)-i ‘brother’. In Lithuanian nouns of accent classes
3 and 4, the SgN is -ỹs, as in (dag)-ỹs ‘thistle’. In addition to the inherited cases noted
above, Lithuanian and most likely OLatvian created three more cases (illative, allative,
and adessive) through the addition of certain postpositions to the inherited PIE endings.
Thus the Li. Il derives from the addition of the postposition *-nā to the original A
ending: Sg *-an+nā > -añ (Rosinas 2005: 164), Pl *-ṍs + *-nā > -úosna; the OLi. Ad
ending derives from the addition of the postposition *-pi < *-p(r)ē ̣ to the old L ending:
Sg *-ie (< *-ē ̣ < *-oi [Rosinas 2005: 165]) + *-pi > -íep(i), Pl *-ṍsen + *-pi > -uosemp(i);
and the OLi. Al derives from the addition of the same postposition to the G ending: Sg
-óp(i), Pl -ump(i). Similar forms were created for other stems. But in the modern lan-
guage it is only the illative which can be said to be a living case, functioning as a
directive.
1.9.2. The IE *-(j)ā-stem declension = Baltic *-(j)ā-stem: SgN Li. (líep)-a, (definite Adj
-ó-ji), Latv. (liẽp)-a ‘linden tree’, OP (mens)-ā ‘flesh’ (< *-ā́) (exceptionally SgN < *-ī́,
e.g. Li. patn-ì ‘wife’); G Li. (líep)-os, Latv. (liẽp)-as (< *-ā̃s); D Li. (líep)-ai, Latv.
(liẽp)-ai (from monosyllabic pronouns; OLatv. -i is original), OP (alkīnisqu)-ai ‘hungry’
(< *-ā̃i); A Li. (líep)-ą, Latv. (liẽp)-u, OP gennan ‘woman’ < *-ā̃n (analogical replace-
ment of the original acute of the ASg by the circumflex in order to distinguish it from
the ISg *-ā́n, see Rosinas [2005: 175]); I WLi. (líep)-a, ELi. (liẽp)-u; Latv. (liẽp)-u
(< *-ā́n; cf. Li. def. adj. -ą́-ja); L Li. (líep)-oje, Latv. (liẽp)-ā (< *-āj + en [postposition]);
V Li. (líep)-a, Latv. (liẽp)-Ø (< *-ă); PlN Li. (líep)-os, Latv. (liẽp)-as < *-ā̃s; G Li.
(líep)-ų, Latv. (liẽp)-u; D Li. (líep)-oms, OLi. (líep)-omus, Latv. (liẽp)-ām, OLatv. -āms
(< *-āmōs), OP (genn)-āmans ‘wives’ (< *-āmans); A Li. (líep)-as, Latv. (liẽp)-as, OP
(genn)-ans ‘wives’ < *-ā́(N)s, but see Rosinas (2005: 177); I Li. (líep)-omis, Latv. dial.
-āmis (< *-āmī́s); L Li. (líep)-ose (OLi. -asu), Latv. (liẽp)-âs (< *-āsu; for the replace-
ment of -u by -e, cf. discussion of -[j]a-stems above), but see Rosinas (2005: 175−177);

Authenticated
1656 XIV. Baltic
Du NAV Li. (líep)-i (< *-íe [cf. def. adj. -íe-ji] < *-ai [PIE *-eh2 -ih1 ]); D Li. (líep)-om
< *-āmō; I (líep)-om < *-āmī (Rosinas 2005: 175−178; Mažiulis 1970: 160−162;
Schmalstieg 2004).
1.9.3. The Baltic *-ē-stem declension, which appears for the most part to result from
the contraction of *-ijā-, is completely parallel to the Baltic *-ā-stem declension. Thus
SgN Li. (gérv)-ė, Latv. (dzērv)-e, OP (gerw)-e ‘crane’, (semm)-ē ‘land’ (also [kurp]-i
‘shoe’), < *-ē; G Li. -ės, Latv. -es, OP -is < *-ēs; D Li. -ei, Latv. -i, OP -ey < *-ei <
*-ēi; A Li. -ę, Latv. -i, OP -ien < *-en < *-ē̃n; I Li. -e, Latv. -i < *-én < *-ḗn; L Li. -ėje,
Latv. -ē < *-ējén; V Li. -e < *-e; PlN Li. -ės, Latv. -es, OP -es < *-ē̃s; the G ending -ų
is always preceded by a palatalized stem consonant; cf. G Li. (gérvi)-ų̃, Latv. (dzērvj)-
u; D Li. -ėms, (OLith. -ēmus) Latv. -ēms < *-ḗmōs; The APl originally = the NPl (Latv.
-es) but under acute stress Li. APl kat-ès vs. NPl kãt-ės ‘cats’; I Li. -ėmis, Latv. dial.
-emis < *-ēmīs (Rosinas 2005: 180); L Li. -ėse (OLi. -esu), Latv. -ês < *-ēsu; Du NAV
Li. -i < *-íe < *-ei < *-ēi; D Li. -ė́ m < *-ēmō; I -ė̃m < *-ēmī, with an intonational
difference in accent classes 3 and 4; but see Mažiulis (1970: 160−162).
1.9.4. The Baltic *-i-stem declension contains nouns, overwhelmingly feminine, inherit-
ed as such from CB or PIE, and words which have been transferred to this class from
consonant stems: SgN Li. (av)-ìs, Latv. (av)-(i)s ‘sheep’, OP -is (< *-is); G Li. (av)-iẽs,
Latv. (av)-(i)s (< *-eis); D Li. dial. -ie, Latv. -i(j), OP -ei < PIE *-ēi (FD Li. -iai < *-jā-
stem declension and MD -iui < *-ja-stem declension); A Li. (ãv)-į, Latv. (av)-i, OP -in
(< *-in); I Li. (av)-imì (< *-imī́ ), Latv. (av)-i, L Li. (av)-yjè, Latv. (av)-ī with vowel *-ī
by analogy with the LPl (see below) (Lith. dial. -ie and OLith. -eie [-ė-] are older and
presuppose *-ēi + en); V Li. (av)-iẽ (< *-ei); PlN Li. (ãv)-ys, Latv. (av)-is. OP -is
(< *-ijes < *-ejes [Kazlauskas 1968: 198; Schmalstieg 1973: 199−200]); G Li. (avi)-ų̃,
Latv. (avj)-u with preceding palatalized stem consonant); D Li. (av)-ìms, OLi. -imus,
Latv. (av)-ī̆ms (< *-īmṓs); APl Li. -is, Latv. -is < CEB *-īs, but OP -ins < *-ins. IPl Li.
(av)-imìs, Latv. dial. -imis < CEB *-imī́s; LPl Li. (av)-ysè, but dial. -isu < *-isu is more
original (Rosinas 2005: 189). The Li. NAVDu -ì suggests a reconstruction *-ī́. Possibly
the DDu Li. -ìm < *-īmṓ and the IDu Li. -im̃ < *-īmí, but see Mažiulis (1970: 160−162).
1.9.5. The Baltic *-u-stem declension is overwhelmingly masculine, although Old Prus-
sian retains some old neuters, notably meddo ‘honey’, pecku ‘cattle’. In Latvian, a few
feminine pluralia tantum exist, and it is only these which retain the original *-u-stem
inflection. In all other instances, Latvian u-stems are inflected in the plural as *-o-stems:
SgN Li. (tur̃g)-us, Latv. (tìrg)-us ‘market’, OP (dang)-us ‘heaven’ (< *-us); G Li. (tur̃g)-
aus, Latv. (tìrg)-us (< *-aus, PIE *-ous); D Li. -ui (< -u + -i from other stems [Mažiulis
1970: 272]), Latv. (tìrg)-um (with stem vowel -u- + pronominal DSg ending -m); A Li.
(tur̃g)-ų, Latv. (tìrg)-u, OP -un (< *-un); I Li. (tur̃g)-umi (< *-umī́ ), Latv. (tìrg)-u (like
A); L Li. (tur̃g)-uje, Latv. -ū (< *-ōjen or *-ujen [Rosinas 2005: 192]), Lith. dial. -uo
recovers an older form in *-ōu; V Li. (tur̃g)-au, Latv. Mik-u ‘O Michael’ (< *-ou); PlN
Li. (tur̃g)-ūs, Latv. (pęl)-us ‘chaff’ (< *-uwes or by analogy with other stems with identi-
cal NPl and APl [Rosinas 2005: 193] or by the addition of *-s to the NDu *-ū?) (Schmal-
stieg 1973: 199−200), but Lith. dial. -aus shows a more original form of the ending
(< *-au̯es, earlier *-ou̯es ← *-eu̯es?); D Li. (tur̃g)-ums, OLi. -umus (< *-umṓs), Latv. D
and I (pęl)-ūm are old dual forms, but the -ū- is peculiar (< *-ū-stem form or by analogy

Authenticated
with other stems?); A Li. (turg)-ùs, Latv. -us (< *-ūs or *-uns); I Li. (tur̃g)-umis
(< *-umī́s [Rosinas 2005: 194]); L OLi. (dang)-usu ‘in heaven’ < *-usu or may have
been pronounced -ūsu (< *-ū-stems) (-ūse, -uose, and -use are all secondary, based on
-i-stems, *-o-stems, and a contamination of -use and -usu, respectively); Du Li. NA
(dang)-ù ‘two skies’ (< *-ū́); D Li. (dang)-ùm < *-umṓ; I Li. (dang)-um̃ < *-umī́ (Rosinas
2005: 195).
1.9.6. The Baltic consonant stem declension is nowhere represented intact throughout
an entire paradigm. The original SgN is seen in the n-stem Li. (akm)-uõ ‘stone’ (< *-ōn)
and the r-stems Li. (ses)-uõ ‘sister’ (< *-ōr) and Li. (dukt)-ė̃ ‘daughter’ (< *-ēr) (but for
a different view see Schmalstieg 1980: 59−60). The Lithuanian stem of these nouns for
all cases other than the SgN is akmen-, dukter-, seser-. Latvian has for the most part
reshaped the NSg according to the rest of the paradigm, thus, e.g. N (akmen)-s ‘stone’;
G Li. (akmeñ)-s, OLi. (ákmen)-es, Latv. (akmen)-s (< *-es); D OLi. (ãkmen)-ie (< *-ei),
(ãkmen)-iui (borrowed from *-ja-stems), Latv. (akmen)-im (borrowed from *-i-stems);
A Li. (ãkmen)-į, Latv. (akmen)-i (< *-in < PIE vocalic *-m̥. The phonological merger of
*-in < PIE vocalic *-m̥ with *-in < PIE *-im set the stage for large scale adoption of other
-i-stem endings by the etymological consonant stems); I OLi. (akme)-mi (< *akmen-mi),
suggesting that the ending -mi (< *-mī) was originally added directly to the nominal
stem (Rosinas 2005: 197), but cf. contemporary Li. (akmen)-imì (-i-stem); L Li. (akmen)-
yjè, -ije, -iy, Latv. -ī < *-ījen (Rosinas 2005: 198); PlN Li. (ãkmen)-s, dial. (ãkmen)-es,
(< *-es), Latv. (akmen)-is (i-stem), (akmeņ)-i (-ja-stem) (Endzelīns 1971: 164); G Li.
(akmen)-ų̃, Latv. (akmeņ)-u (-ja-stem); D contemporary Li. (akmen)-ìms, OLi. -imus (-i-
stem), Latv. (akmeņ)-iem (< pronoun or adjective declension); A Li. (ãkmen)-is, OLatv.
-is < *-n̥s (which merged with the APl -i-stem ending); I OLi. (akme)-mis (< *akmen-
mis [Rosinas 2005: 199; Kazlauskas 1968: 248]), contemporary Li. (akmen)-imìs (-i-
stem), Latv. (like D); L Li. (akmen)-ysè, -isu (-i- stem with the lengthened variant -īsu),
Latv. (akmeņ)-uôs (-ja-stem). OLi. NDu du (žmûn)-e ‘two men’. Li. Sg N mė́ nuo ‘moon,
month’ is the only -s-stem retaining an apparent etymological form, although the -i-stem
mė́ nesis or the *-ja-stem mėnesỹs also occur. The stem mėnes- occurs in all other cases.
2. Adjective formation
In the Baltic languages adjective formation has been investigated less than the formation
of nouns. Still, it seems that here it makes sense to distinguish three old, but closely
related derivational categories (for more see Ambrazas 2005a, 2007).
2.1. Adjectives of action or result
In the Baltic languages, there are old verbal Adjs with the suffixes *-lo-, *-no-, *-ro-,
*-uo-, *-u-, *-o-. Of these, the last two show an interesting relationship: in general, -u-
stem adjectives in the Baltic languages partially replace old oxytone *-o-stem adjectives
(the type seen in Gk. phorós ‘carrying’ [cf. Hamp 1984, 1994]); and in Lithuanian -u-

Authenticated
1658 XIV. Baltic
stems adjectives ousted *-o-stems from use (Skardžius 1943: 33 ff.; Zinkevičius 1981:
20 ff.; Vanags 1989, 1990).
2.2. Attributive adjectives

Adjectives inherited from late PIE with the suffix *-(i)jo- have almost disappeared in
the Baltic languages, often becoming nouns, e.g. Li. vasãris ‘summer, spring’, Latv.
galējs, galījs ‘ultimate extreme, last’ (for more see Skardžius 1998b: 433 ff.; Ambrazas
2005b: 131 ff.). The nominalization of this type of derivative (e.g. the aforementioned
nomina agentis with *-tā-jo-, *-ē-jo-) created the conditions for the spread of the (i)jo-
stems in the Baltic languages (cf. Ambrazas 1992b).
On the other hand the derivational suffixes *-i-no-/-in-jo- (also *-īn-go-, which devel-
oped from -īno- on Baltic soil; see Skardžius 1998a: 100 ff.; Ambrazas 2003; Kaukienė
2004: 90 ff.), *-is-ko-, *-ā-to-, *-ō-to-, *-ē-to-, *-ī-to- are widely used to create nominal
Adjs.
2.3. Diminutives
Adjective diminutives with the suffix *-ā-ko- are very productive in Lithuanian. In Latvi-
an, the comparative degree of adjectives has developed from them; cf. Li. mažókas
‘rather small’ and Latv. mazâks ‘smaller’. Lithuanian diminutives of archaic formation
with -int-elis(-e) have developed from ancient nouns with *-nt- (for more see Ambrazas
2004b).
2.4. Originally the adjective declension did not differ from the noun declension. The
*-o-stem (= Baltic *-a-stem) pairs with the IE *-ā-stem declension (= Baltic *-ā-stem)
to furnish M and F adjectives, respectively; thus, Sg N M Li. gẽr-as ‘good’, F ger-à.
Baltic *-ja-stem adjectives with the Sg N M -is pair with F *-ē, thus Sg N M Li. dìdel-
is ‘big’, F dìdel-ė. The Lithuanian and Latvian M adjective declension has adopted some
endings of the demonstrative pronouns; thus Sg D Li. ger-ám, L ger-amè, PlN ger-ì D
ger-íem(us), Du D ger-íem, I ger-iẽm (Endzelīns 1971: 167). Baltic *-u-stem adjectives
with the NSg -us pair with *-ī-/-jā-stems to furnish M and F adjectives, respectively;
thus Li. Sg N M plat-ùs, G plat-aũs, ‘wide’, etc., N F plat-ì, G plačiõs, etc. The definite
adjective is formed in principle (with various phonetic adjustments) by the addition of
the corresponding case and number form of the 3 rd person pronoun to the inflected
adjective, thus Li. Sg N M mažàs-is ‘the small’ < -as + jìs ‘he’, G mãžo-jo < -o + jõ,
etc. Latv. Sg N M mazaĩs < -a + -ìs, G mazã, etc.
3. Numerals
The cardinal numerals are usually declined. Sg N M/F pairs Li. víenas / vienà, Latv.
viens / viena, OP ains / aina ‘one’, etc. are all declined like -a-/-ā-stem adjectives. The
Du M/F NA Li. dù / dvì ‘two’ share the same G dvejų̃, D dvíem, and I dviẽm, but the

Authenticated
Li. L M is dviejuosè and the F is dviejosè. Latv. divi ‘two’ is uncharacterized as to

gender and case and the only occurring Old Prussian form is dwai. The other numerals
from ‘3’−‘10’ are: ‘3’ Li. trỹs, Latv. trîs (-i-stem); ‘4’ Li. keturì, Latv. četri (with č from
the influence of Ru. četyre); ‘5’ Li. penkì, Latv. pièci; ‘6’ Li. šešì, Latv. seši; ‘7’ Li.
septynì, Latv. septiņi; ‘8’ Li. aštuonì, Latv. astuôņi; ‘9’ Lith. devynì, Latv. deviņi; ‘10’
Li. dešimtìs, dẽšimt (indecl.), Latv. desmit, dial. desimt. The numerals ‘4’−‘9’ have corre-
sponding F’s in -ios. ‘10’− ‘20’ are all built with the suffix -lika (cf. Goth. ainlif ‘11’,
twalif ‘12’) to a base which represents, in the case of ‘13’−‘19’, an original Neut. Pl (as
is -lika itself) in -ió- (keturiuólika ‘14’, etc.). Similarly neuter is trý- (trýlika ‘13’). But
vienúolika ‘11’ and dvýlika ‘12’ must be analogical. All these forms are inflected as *-ā-
stems, but with accusative in -a, reflecting the original neuter status of -lika. The colloca-
tion would originally have meant ‘X left over (after 10)’. In Latvian, the corresponding
forms viênpadsmit, divpadsmit, trîspadsmit, etc. mean literally ‘X after 10’. The decads
are formed either by prefixing the unit digit to the indeclinable -dešimt (dvìdešimt ‘20’,
trìsdešimt ‘30’, etc.) or by syntagms consisting of two congruent words (trỹs dẽšimtys,
kẽturios dẽšimtys ‘three, four tens’, etc.). Latvian utilizes a compound with desmit
(četrdesmit ‘40’, pìecdesmit ‘50’, etc.). Li. šim̃tas, Latv. sìmts ‘hundred’ is an -a-stem
noun, whereas Li. tū́kstantis ‘thousand’ and Latv. tũkstuotis ‘thousand’ are both -ja-
stems (although the former was earlier declined like a F -i-stem). Old Prussian attests
only the APl tūsimtons.
3.1. Ordinal numerals

These are ordinary -a-/-ā- adjectives: Sg M N Li. pìrmas, OP pirmas ‘first’ (however,
Latv. pìrmais is a definite adjective, and Old Prussian as well shows the definite declen-
sion outside the Sg M N, e.g. Sg A pirmannien); Li. añtras, Latv. ùotrs ‘second’ (most
likely also OP antars; cf. ASg āntran); Li. trẽčias, Latv. treš(ai)s ‘third’; ketvir̃-t-as,
‘fourth’ (this and subsequent ordinals, with the original exception of ‘seventh’ [Li. arch.
sẽkmas] and ‘eighth’ [Lith. arch. ãšmas], with t-suffix, including the teens in -liktas and
the decads in -dešimtas, both with the same first member as the cardinal). Latvian uses
the cardinal + -padsmitais for the teens and + -desmitais for the decads.
4. Pronouns
4.1. The pronominal system of Baltic includes demonstrative pronouns with both proxi-
mal and neutral reference as well as, archaically, a distal deictic demonstrative. As else-
where in IE, pronominal inflection differs in part from that of nouns, especially in the
Sg D L and in the dual. As noted in 2.4, these differences have been adopted as well in
adjectival inflection. As a proximal deictic, Baltic utilizes a heteroclitic stem in *ši-/
*šja-, the first of these variants appearing in the Sg N A and the second elsewhere: Sg
M N Li. šìs, Latv. šis, OP schis ‘this’ (generalization of the stem *šja- in the latter two
languages); G Li. šiõ, Latv. šà; D Li. šiãm(ui), Latv. šam, šim, OP schism; A Li. šĩ˛, Latv.
šùo, OP sch(i)an, schien; I Li. šiuõ, earlier šiúo, Latv. šùo (= A) or, with instrumental
intonation, šuõ; L Li. ši(a)mè, Latv. šamī, šimī; PlN Li., Latv. šiẽ, OP schai, G Li. šių̃,

Authenticated
1660 XIV. Baltic
Latv. šùo (both nominal forms), OP schiēison; D Li. šíems, older šíemus, Latv. šiẽm(s),
A Li. šiuõs, Latv. šuõs, OP schans, schins; I Lith. šiaĩs, Latv. dial. šiẽs with vocalism
of the D; L Li. šiuosè, Latv. šuõs. The Lithuanian dual of pronouns is rather fuller than
that of nouns, adding a G and L to the usual NA, D, I via both internal inflection as well
as suffixation of the relevant forms of the numeral ‘2’: NA šiẽdu, šiuõdu, G šių̃dviejų̃,
D šíemdviem, I šiẽmdviem (or, with generalization of the stem form of the NA, šiẽdviem
in both D and I), L šiuõdviese. To these were paired a F in *-ī/-jā-, e.g. Li. šì, G šiõs.
In addition, Baltic shows the form Li. tàs/tà, Latv. tas/tã, OP stas/sta (but more
frequently F stai)/Neut. sta (< *-at, PIE *-od, and contrast asseran ‘lake’ < PIE *-om,
the old nominal neuter ending), SgG M stesse(i) in the neutral deictic value ‘that’; and
in many Lithuanian dialects, a third degree of (distal) deixis is distinguished by the form
anàs/anà ‘yon’. Moreover, Old Prussian shows an enclitic anaphoric pronoun *di-, *dja-
which finds its closest match in Iranian.
4.2. The Lithuanian interrogative, relative pronoun N kàs ‘who, what’ is declined: G kõ
(with possessive meaning kienõ ‘whose’), D kám, A ką̃, I kuõ, L kamè, Latv. N kàs, G
kà, D kam, A kùo, I kùo. The Latvian L does not exist, but the Adverb kur ‘where’ or
the L kurā of kurš ‘which, who’ may be used in this value. Old Prussian has Sg N kas,
D kasmu, PlN quai = /kai/, A kans. Li. Sg N M kurìs, F kurì ‘which, who’ < kur ‘where’
+ jìs ‘he’, jì ‘she’ is declined like the corresponding pronouns. The Latvian cognate NSg
kuŗš ‘which, who’ is declined like a regular soft stem adjective.
The stem of the nominative in the 1st and 2 nd Sg. and 1st Pl differs from that of the other
cases, thus:
1st Sg 1st Pl
N Li. aš, Latv. es, OP as ‘I’ Li., Latv. mẽs, OP mes
G Li. manę̃s, Latv. manis, mani Li. mū́sų, Latv. mūsu, OP noūson
2 nd Sg 2 nd Pl
N Li., Latv. tu, OP tu (also toū) Li., Latv. jũs, OP ioūs
G Li. tavę̃s, Latv. tevis (dial. tavi), etc. Li. jū́sų, Latv. jūsu, OP iouson, etc.
Other cases include 1st Sg D Li. mán, Latv. man, OP mennei; A Li. manè, Latv. mani,
OP mien; I Li. manimì, Latv. manim, OP mā̆im; L Li. manyjè, Latv. manĩ; 1st pl. D Li.
mùms, Latv. mums, OP noūma(n)s; A Li. mùs, Latv. mũs, OP mans; I Li., Latv. = D; L
Li. (with various analogies operative) mūsuosè, mūsyjè, mumysè, Latv. mūsuôs. 2 nd Sg.
D Li. táu, Latv. tev, OP tebbei; A Li. tavè, Latv. tevi, OP tien; I Li. tavimì, Latv. tevim;
L Li. tavyjè, Latv. tevĩ; 2 nd pl. D. Li. jùms, OLi. jùmus, Latv. jums, OP ioūmans; A Li.
jùs, Latv. jũs, OP wans; I Li. jumìs, Latv. = D; L (with various analogies operative)
jūsuosè, jūsyjè, jumysè, Latv. jūsuôs. In addition, Baltic possesses dual forms 1st pers.
NA Lith. mùdu (m), mùdvi (f.), etc. 2 nd pers. NA jùdu (m), jùdvi (f.), etc. A more

Authenticated
original form of the 1st dual is preserved in the dialectal form vèdu (cf. Gothic wit). The
unusual (for personal pronouns) gender distinction is a product of the addition of the
relevant gender forms of the numeral ‘two’ to the pronominal bases. In the first person
plural and dual, the u-vocalism of the corresponding second person forms has manifestly
exercised a great influence.
The reflexive pronoun Sg G Li. savę̃s, Latv. sevis are declined like the corresponding
2 nd Sg pronouns Li tavę̃s, Latv tevis, respectively. The Li. G forms màno ‘my’, tàvo
‘your (sg)’, (reflexive) sàvo ‘one’s own’ are used as possessive pronouns and in agentive
function. The Li. 3 rd person pronoun Sg M N jìs ‘he’ is declined much like the corre-
sponding *-ja-stem Adj: G jõ, D jám(ui), A jį, etc., F N jì, G jõs, etc. Latvian has the
3 rd person pronoun Sg M N viņš ‘he’ (F viņa ‘she’) declined as a *-ja-/*-jā- stem
adjective. The OP 3 rd person pronoun is Sg M N tāns, G tennessei, D tennesmu, A
tennan, etc.
6. Verb formation
In the Baltic languages, the formation of verbs, which is intertwined with inflectional
and syntactic characteristics, has not yet been systematically investigated. From the syn-
chronic point of view, there are only the first attempts to classify the Lithuanian verbs
into certain semantic groups or derivational categories (cf. Jakaitienė 1994; J. Pakerys
2005). Still, historical investigations lead one to suspect that a large number of these
may be of nominal origin; cf. Li -inti, -auti, -uoti, -yti, -oti (Fraenkel 1938; Stang 1942;
Endzelīns 1951: 803 ff.; Schmid 1963; Otkupščikov 1967: 78 ff.; Georgiev 1960, 1982;
Karaliūnas 1980; Zinkevičius 1981: 91 f. and literature).
6.1. Verb inflection

The apparent etymologically 3 rd person singular form of the Baltic verb functions with
Sg, Pl, and Du subjects. Baltic retained, however, the PIE difference between athematic
and thematic verbal endings. The etymological present tense archaic athematic endings
of OLi. bū́ti ‘to be’ are: (3 person) es-ti, Sg 1 es-mi, 2 esi < *es-si, Pl 1 es-me, 2 es-te
(Zinkevičius 1981: 99). The Latv. 1 Sg ęs-mu ‘I am’ (like Li. dial. esmù and probably
OP asmu, etc.) shows a contamination of the etymological ending *-mi with the thematic
1 Sg ending -u (Endzelīns 1951: 704). OP shows the 3 person ast, æst, est, asti-ts, hest,
asth, asch (this last surely a misprint), 1 Sg asmai, asmau, asmu, 2 essei, assai, asse,
æsse, Pl 1 asmai, 2 astai, estei, asti (Trautmann 1910: 304; Smoczyński 2005: 17−28).
In the contemporary Baltic languages, the Pres tense verb is completely thematic, e.g.,
1 Sg Li. es-ù, etc., Latv. es-u ‘I am’, etc. The athematic endings differ from the thematic
endings only in the 1 singular and the 3 rd person. The thematic 1 Sg ending Li., Latv.
-uo retained in the reflexive -uo-s(i)-, < PIE *-ō is ordinarily shortened to -u. The Li.
2 Sg ending -i (in Latvian reconstructed as *-i) may derive from thematic *-ei > *-ie >
-i or athematic *-i, in which case the diphthong observed in the reflexive -ie-s(i) is
analogical to the diphthong in the 1 Sg, i.e., -u : -uo-s(i) :: -i : -ies(i), (Schmalstieg 2000:

Authenticated
1662 XIV. Baltic
47). The 1 Pl ending Li. -me, Latv -m < *-me, the 2 Pl ending Li. -te, Latv. -t < *-te,
the Li., 1 Du ending -va < *-va, and the Li. 2 Du ending -ta < *-ta. The long vowels or
diphthongs encountered in the various reflexive forms, e.g., Li. 1 Pl -mės, Latv. -mies,
etc. are all probably analogical (Schmalstieg 2000: 49). The thematic 3 person ending
Li. -a (< PIE *-o) shows only the thematic vowel, with no trace of the *-t(i) familiar
from other IE languages. In the thematic paradigm the -a has been generalized to all
persons (except 1, 2 Sg); cf., e.g. Sg 1 Li. ved-ù, Latv. vęd-u ‘I lead’, 2 Li. ved-ì, Latv.
vęd, 3 person Li. vẽd-a, Latv vęd; Pl 1 Li. vẽd-ame, Latv. vęd-am, 2 Li. vẽd-ate, Latv.
vęd-at; Li. Du 1 vẽd-ava, 2 vẽd-ata (Schmalstieg 2000: 45−46, 137). (It is a general
principle of the indicative forms of the Lithuanian verb, outside of the future, that the
Pl and Du can be formed by the addition of 1st Pl -me, 2 nd Pl -te, 1st Du -va, 2 nd Du -ta
to the 3 rd person.) A sample “half-thematic” conjugation (i.e. with 1 Sg -u, other present
forms without evidence of the etymological thematic vowel) is Li. žin-óti, Latv. zin-ât
‘to know’: Sg 1 Li. žin-aũ, Latv. zin-u < *-āu, 2 Li žin-aĩ, Latv zin-i < *-āi, 3 person
Li. žìn-o, Latv. zin-a < *-ā, etc. A sample “half-thematic” verb with *-i-stem present
and *-ē-stem infinitive is Li. gul-ė́ ti, Latv. dial. gul-êt ‘to lie’: Sg 1 Li. gul-iù, Latv. guļ-
u < *-ju, 2 Li. gul-ì, Latv. gul-i < *-ie < *-ei(?), 3 person Li. gùl-i, Latv. gul < *-i, etc.
(Endzelīns 1951: 792). The type may also be represented in OP turrettwey ‘to have’ =
Li. turė́ ti, see Schmalstieg (1974: 201−202), Smoczyński (2005: 372−381). The Baltic
preterit is formed with either the suffix *-ā- or *-ē- plus the personal endings. An exam-
ple of the *-ā-preterit: Li. jùsti, Latv. just ‘to feel’: Sg 1 Li. jut-aũ, Latv. jut-u < *-āu,
2 Li. jut-aĩ, Latv. jut-i < *-āi, 3 person Li. jùt-o, Latv. jut-a < *-ā, etc. An example of
the *-ē-preterit: Li. nèšti, Latv. dial. nest ‘to carry’: Sg 1 Li. neš-iaũ, Latv. neš-u < *-ēu,
2 Li. neš-eĩ, Latv. nes-i < *-ēi, 3 person Li. nẽš-ė, Latv. nes-e < *-ē (Endzelīns 1971:
234; Schmalstieg 2000: 288). The future tense is formed by adding -s- to the infinitive
stem which in turn becomes a stem for the future conjugation, thus Li. tàpti, Latv. tapt
‘to become’: Sg 1 Li. tàp-siu, Latv. tapš-u < *-sju, 2 Li. tàp-si, Latv. tap-si < *-si, 3
person Li. tàp-s, Latv. tap-s < *-s, Pl 1 Li. tàp-sime, Latv. tapsim < *-sime, etc. (Endze-
līns 1971: 231). Athematic forms such as Li. dial. Pl 1 eis-me ‘we shall go’, 2 eis-te are
probably more original than standard eĩs-i-me, eĩs-i-te. There are various explanations
for the connecting vowel -i-, see Kazlauskas (1968: 366−367) and Schmalstieg (2000:
262−276). Lithuanian has a frequentative past tense formed with the suffix -dav-, e.g.
Sg 1 tàp-dav-au, 2 -dav-ai, 3 -dav-o ‘I/you/(s)he used to become’, etc. In Latvian, a
special debitive mood is formed by prefixing the element jā- to the 3 rd person verb form,
e.g., jā-mãca ‘must teach’. The Old Prussian morpheme -ai- < PIE optative *-oi- ex-
presses the imperative; cf., e.g., 2 Pl id-ai-ti ‘eat!’. The old optative in -ai may also be
attested in such Lithuanian dialect imperatives as rãš-ai ‘write’; see Zinkevičius (1966:
370−371); Schmalstieg (2000: 240−241). Similarly for the Li. 3 person optative (“per-
missive”) te-dirb-iẽ (< *-oi-) ‘may he/she work’, the same PIE optative morpheme may
be posited. The Li. dialect imperative 2 Sg duõ ‘give!’ may reflect an old root imperative
(Zinkevičius 1981: 131). The usual contemporary Lithuanian imperative is formed by
adding the morpheme -k- to the infinitive stem, e.g. 2 Sg dúo-k(i), 2 Pl dúo-k-ite ‘give!’,
1 Pl dúo-k-ime ‘let us give’ (or perhaps to the old etymological root imperative, here
with acute intonation according to the infinitive stem, see Zinkevičius 1981: 130). The
Latvian imperative is usually identical with the 2 nd person of the indicative. With the
exception of the 1 Sg, the Lithuanian conditional (“subjunctive”) was apparently origi-
nally formed by the addition of personal endings (etymologically from the 3 preterit
bit[i]) to the etymological supine -tų (<-tum). At an early time, there was a paradigm

Authenticated
Sg 1 rašyčia (-io, -iau) ‘I would write’, 2 rašytumbei, -i, 3 person rašytų, Pl 1 rašytum-
bime, 2 rašytumbite, etc. The origin of the 1 Sg ending -čia < *-tjā is a mystery, but
probably on the basis of other forms of the conjugation the 1 Sg rašytumbiau was
formed. With the simplification of -mb- to -m- such forms as 1 Sg rašytumiau, 2 rašytu-
mei, Pl 1 rašytumime, 2 rašytumite came into existence. On the basis of the 1 and 2 Sg,
the 1 and 2 Pl and dual adopted the ē-stem conjugation giving Pl 1 rašytumėme, 2
rašytumėte, etc., now usually reduced to Pl 1 rašytumė, 2 rašytutė, etc. (Schmalstieg
2000: 216−232; Zinkevičius 1981: 122−128). Today, the most widely distributed para-
digm of this heavily-refashioned category is built to the infinitive stem with endings Sg
1 -čiau, 2 -tum, 3 pers. -tų, Pl 1 -tume, 2 -tute, etc.
The present active participle is formed by the addition of the formant -nt- to the
present stem of verbs in *-(j)a, *-(j)ā giving a stem -ant- to which the adjective endings
may be added (verbs with a present stem in *-i have -int-). The NSgM may be illustrated
by Li. ved-ą̃-s, Latv. dial. vęd-u-s ‘leading’, OP sīd-an-s ‘sitting’ < *-ant-s, the NSgF
by Li. vẽd-ant-i, Latv. dial. vęd-uot-i ‘leading’. An alternative *-(j)a-stem NSgM is repre-
sented in Li. vẽd-ant-is. The Li. NPlM participles ved-ą̃ < *-an and vẽd-ant-ys are both
encountered. Otherwise the declension parallels that of the *-ja-/*-jā-stem adjective. The
future active participle is formed on the Fut stem *-sj-; cf. Li. bū́-sią-s ‘future, which
will be’, Latv. bû-šu-s < *-sj-ant-s and it is declined like the pres. active participle. The
past active participle NSgM Li. lìk-ę-s ‘having left’, Latv. lic-is ‘having put’, derives
from *-en-s, NPlM Li. lìk-ę < *-en. All the other cases are derived with a formant -us-
the declension of which parallels that of the *-ja-/*-jā-stem adjective, thus GSgM Li.
lìk-us-io, Latv. lik-uš-a, NSgF Li. lìk-us-i, Latv. lik-us-i, GSgF Li. lìk-us-ios, Latv. lik-
uš-as, etc. Note, however, OP NSgM īd-uns ‘having eaten’. The pres. passive participle
is derived from the present stem by means of the EB suffix -m-, e.g. NSgM Li. dãro-m-
as, Latv. darã-m-s ‘being done’. The commonly quoted OP present passive participle
poklausī-man-as ‘being heard’ should probably be read as *poklausīna-m-as, see Smo-
czyński (2000: 166−170, 2005: 197−198). The future passive participle is formed by the
addition of the suffix -m- to the future stem, e.g., Li. bū́si-m-as ‘future’, Latv. būša-m.
A special Li. adverbial active participle in -dam-as, Latv. -dam-s, is formed on the
present stem, e.g. Li. eĩ-dam-as, Latv. ie-dam-s ‘going’. The past passive participle is
formed by the addition of -t- to the infinitive stem, e.g., Li. dúo-t-as, Latv. duô-t-s, OP
dā-t-s ‘given’. All participles with the formants -m- or -t- are declined like regular *-a-/
*-ā-stem adjectives. Finally, the infinitive is in Lithuanian -ti, in Latvian -t, and in Old
Prussian either -t, -ton, or -twei. All go back to old action nouns in *-ti or *-tu. Old
Prussian -ton is the old supine in -tum utilized, as we have seen above, in the constitution
of the Lithuanian subjunctive.
7. Abbreviations
A accusative Adv adverb(ial)
Abl ablative Al allative
Act active arch. archaic
Ad adessive; B Baltic
Adj adjective, adjectival C Common

Authenticated
1664 XIV. Baltic
D dative Low. Lower

dial. dialectal M masculine
Du dual N nominative
E east Neut. neuter
EV (OP) Elbing vocabulary OInd. Old Indic
(end of 13 th−beginning ON Old Norse
of 14 th century) OP Old Prussian
F feminine (P)IE (Proto-)Indo-European
Fut future Pst past
G genitive Pl plural
Gk. Greek Pres present
I instrumental Prt participle
Il illative Psv passive
L locative Rus. Russian
Lat. Latin Sg singular
Latv. Latvian Sl Slavic
Li. Lithuanian W West
8. References
Ambrazas, Saulius
1992a On the development of nomina collectiva in the Baltic languages. Linguistica Baltica 1:
35−48.
Ambrazas, Saulius
1992b Baltų ir slavų kalbų vardažodžių daryba (senosios bendrybės ir skirtybės) [The formation
of nouns in the Baltic and Slavic languages (the oldest commonalities and differences)].
Baltica 27: 15−34.
Ambrazas, Saulius
1993 Daiktavardžių darybos raida. Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodiniai vediniai [The evolution
of noun formation. The deverbal derivatives of Lithuanian]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklo-
pedijų leidykla.
Ambrazas, Saulius
1994 Zur Entwicklung der Abstraktbildungen im Baltischen. Indogermanische Forschungen
99: 277−300.
Ambrazas, Saulius
2000a Daiktavardžių darybos raida II. Lietuvių kalbos vardažodiniai vediniai [The evolution
of noun formation II. The deverbal derivatives of Lithuanian]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir encik-
lopedijų leidybos institutas.
Ambrazas, Saulius
2000b Zur Entwicklung der Nomina attributiva in den baltischen Sprachen. In: Jochen D.
Range (ed.), Aspekte baltistischer Forschung. Essen: Die blaue Eule, 7−20.
Ambrazas, Saulius
2003 Būdvardžių su priesagomis -ingas(-a), -inis(-e) ir -iškas(-a) istoriniai ryšiai. [Historical
relationships of adjectives with the suffixes -ingas(-a), -inis(-e), and -iškas(-a)]. Baltisti-
ca 37: 17−22.
Ambrazas, Saulius
2004a Baltique oriental et baltique occidental, baltique et slave: le problème de leurs relations
anciennes du point de vue de la formation des mots. Histoire Épistémologie Langage
26: 43−79.

Authenticated
Ambrazas, Saulius
2004b Dėl būdvardžių su priesaga -intelis(-ė) kilmės [On the origins of adjectives with the
suffix -intelis(-ė)]. Baltistica 38: 71−76.
Ambrazas, Saulius
2005a Dėl lietuvių kalbos būdvardžių darybos kategorijų ir jų istorinių ryšių [On the categories
of adjective formation in Lithuanian and their historical relationships]. Baltu filologija
14: 5−24.
Ambrazas, Saulius
2005b Dvi Zeitelos šnektos būdvardžių darybos ypatybės istorinių požiurių: dėl o ir (i)ᐇo ka-
mienų mišimo [Two peculiarities of adjective-formation of the dialect of Zeitela from a
historical perspective: On the mixture of o- and (i)jo-stems]. Kalbos istorijos ir dialek-
tologijos problemos 1: 117−139.
Ambrazas, Saulius
2007 Lietuvių kalbos būdvardžių darybos tyrimai [Studies on Lithuanian adjective-formation].
Kalbos istorijos ir dialektologijos problemos 2: 99−127.
Bammesberger, Alfred
1973 Abstraktbildungen in den baltischen Sprachen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Benveniste, Émile
1948 Noms d’agent et noms d’action en indo-européen. Paris: Maisonneuve.
Būga, Kazimieras
1958 Rinktiniai raštai [Collected writings] 1. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės litera-
tūros leidykla.
Butler, Jonathan L.
1971 Latin -īnus, -īna, -ínus and -íneus. From Proto-Indo-European to the Romance Lan-
guages. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Degtjarev, Vladimir I.
1994 Reflexy indoevropejskoj formy sobiratel’nosti na *-ā- v baltijskix i slavjanskix jazykax
[Reflexes of the Indo-European collective in *-ā- in the Baltic and Slavic languages].
Baltistica 4 (Supplement): 29−41.
Duridanov, Ivan
1969 Thrakisch-dakische Studien 1. Sofia: Verlag der bulgarischen Akademie der Wissen-
schaften.
Endzelīns, Jānis
1943 Senprūšu valoda [A grammar of Old Prussian]. Riga: Universitātes apgāds.
Endzelīns, Jānis
1948 Baltu valodu skaņas un formas [Sounds and forms of the Baltic languages]. Riga: Latvi-
jas valsts izdevniecība.
Endzelīns, Jānis
1951 Latviešu valodas gramatika [A grammar of Latvian]. Riga: Latvijas valsts izdevniecība.
Endzelīns, Jānis
1971 Jānis Endzelīns’ Comparative Phonology and Morphology of the Baltic Languages. The
Hague: Mouton. [English translation of Jānis Endzelīns’ Baltu valodu skaņas un formas
(Riga, 1948) by William R. Schmalstieg and Benjamiņš Jēgers].
Fraenkel, Ernst
1938 Zur Herkunft der litauischen Verba auf -inti und Adjektiva auf -intelis. Archivum Philo-
logicum 7: 17−39.
Georgiev, Vladimir I.
1960 Die griechischen Nomina auf -έυς und die baltisch-slavischen Verba auf -áujo/-újǫ.
Lingua Posnaniensis 8: 17−20.
Georgiev, Vladimir I.
1982 Die Entstehung der indoeuropäischen Verbalsuffixe -ān/n- und -ew/u-. Linguistique Bal-
kanique 25: 5−12.

Authenticated
1666 XIV. Baltic
Hamp, Eric P.
1984 On the development of oxytone o-grade Adjectives to -ú-stems. Baltistica 27: 141−142.
Hamp, Eric P.
1994 On Baltic and Indo-European u-stems. Baltistica 31: 139−140.
Jokl, Norbert
1963 Die Verwandschaftsverhältnisse des Albanischen zu den übrigen indogermanischen
Sprachen. Die Sprache 9: 113−155.
Jurafsky, Daniel
1996 Universal tendencies in the semantics of the diminutive. Language 72: 533−578.
Karaliūnas, Simas
1980 On the formation of -auja and -uoja verbs in Baltic. In: Aina Blinkena (ed.), IV Vissavi-
enības baltistu konference 1980 g. 23−25. Sept. Referātu tēzes. Riga: Zinātne, 36−37.
Kaukienė, Audronė
2004 Prūsų kalbos tyrinėjimai [Studies on Old Prussian]. Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universitetas.
Kazlauskas, Jonas
1968 Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika [A historical grammar of Lithuanian]. Vilnius: Mintis.
Mažiulis, Vytautas
1970 Baltų ir kitų indoeuropiečių kalbų santykiai [The relationships of Baltic and other Indo-
European languages]. Vilnius: Mintis.
Mažiulis, Vytautas
1981 Prūsų kalbos paminklai [Old Prussian texts] 2. Vilnius: Mokslas.
Otkupščikov, Jurij V.
1967 Iz istorii indoevropejskogo slovoobrazovanija [On the history of Indo-European word-
formation]. Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Leningradskogo universiteta.
Otrębski, Jan
1965 Gramatyka języka litewskiego [A grammar of Lithuanian] 2. Warsaw: Panstwowe
Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Pakerys, Jurgis
2005 XVI a. Mažosios Lietuvos spaudinių mišriųjų ir priesaginių veiksmažodžių daryba [The
formation of printed mixed and prefixed verbs in Lithuania Minor in the 16 th century].
Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Vilnius.
Parenti, Alessandro
1998 Old Prussian abstract nouns in -sna, -senna, -sennis. In: Alfred Bammesberger (ed.),
Baltistik: Aufgaben und Methoden. Heidelberg: Winter, 129−142.
Rosinas, Albertas
2005 Latvių kalbos daiktavardžio linksniavimo sistema. Sinchronija ir diachronija [The inflec-
tional system of nouns in Latvian. Synchrony and diachrony]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enci-
klopedijų leidybos institutas.
Rūķe-Draviņa, Velta
1959 Diminutive im Lettischen. Lund: Ohlsson.
1973 Lithuanian Nominative Plurals in -ys and -ūs. In: Arvids Ziedonis, Jaan Puhvel, Rimvy-
das Šilbajoris, and Mardi Valgemae (eds.), Baltic Literature and Linguistics. Columbus,
OH: Association for the Advancement of Baltic Studies, 197−201.
1974 An Old Prussian Grammar. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
1980 Indo-European linguistics: A new synthesis. University Park: Pennsylvania State Univer-
sity Press.
2000 The historical morphology of the Baltic Verb. (Journal of Indo-European Studies mono-
graph 37). Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man.

Authenticated
2004 The common origin of the *-o stem dative, accusative and instrumental cases. Baltistica
39: 5−11.
Schmid, Wolfgang P.
1963 Studien zum baltischen und indogermanischen Verbum. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Skardžius, Pranas
1943 Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba [Lithuanian word-formation]. Vilnius: Lietuvos mokslų
akademija.
Skardžius, Pranas
1998a−1998b Rinktiniai raštai [Collected writings] 3−4. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų
leidybos institutas.
1974−1976 Zarys słowotwórstwa prasłowiańskiego [Sketch of Proto-Slavic word-formation].
Słownik prasłowiański 1−2. Wrocław: Wydawnietwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk.
Smoczyński, Wojciech
2000 Untersuchungen zum deutschen Lehngut im Altpreussischen. Krakow: Wydawnictwo
Universytetu Jagełłońskiego.
2005 Lexikon der altpreussischen Verben. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der
Universität.
Stang, Christian S.
1942 Das slavische und baltische Verbum. Oslo: Dybwad.
Stundžia, Bonifacas
1981 Daugiskaitiniai asmenvardiniai oikonimai ir jų reikšmė linksniavimo bei kirčiavimo sis-
temų rekonstrukcijai [Plural nouns denoting place names derived from personal names
and their significance for the reconstruction of the inflectional and accentual systems].
Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 21: 185−198.
Stundžia, Bonifacas
1992 The category of collective and development of nominal accentuation in East Baltic
languages. In: Wojciech Smoczyński and Axel Holvoet (eds.), Colloquium Pruthenicum
primum. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 151−156.
Trautmann, Reinhold
1910 Die altpreussischen Sprachdenkmäler. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.
Urbutis, Vincas
1965 Daiktavardžių daryba [Noun formation]. In: Kazys Ulvydas (ed.), Lietuvių kalbos gram-
atika [Lithuanian grammar] 1. Vilnius: Mintis, 261−473.
Urbutis, Vincas
1978 Žodžių darybos teorija [A theory of word-formation]. Vilnius: Mokslas.
Vanags, Peteris
1989 On the history of Baltic u-stem adjectives. Baltistica 25: 113−122.
Vanags, Peteris
1990 u-kamieno būdvardžių likimas lietuvių kalboje [The history of u-stem adjectives in Lith-
uanian]. Lituanistica 3: 75−83.
1966 Lietuvių dialektologija [Lithuanian dialectology]. Vilnius: Mintis.
1981 Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika [Historical grammar of Lithuanian] 2. Vilnius: Mok-
slas.
† Saulius Ambrazas and William Schmalstieg, Cape Coral, FL (USA)

Authenticated
1668 XIV. Baltic
90. The syntax of Baltic

0. Introductory remarks 5. Periphrastic formations
1. Word classes 6. Word order
2. Nominal morphosyntax 7. Sentential syntax
3. Adpositional phrases 8. Source texts
4. Verbal morphosyntax 9. References
0. Introductory remarks
The history of Baltic syntax is difficult to reconstruct because of the late beginnings of
its written tradition. Baltic texts from the 16 th−18 th centuries are mostly translations; the
Old Prussian and Old Latvian translations, made by Germans with a rudimentary or at
best imperfect command of the language, are of such poor quality that, in the case of
Old Prussian, their value for syntax is nil, and for Old Latvian, their evidence must be
used with caution and confronted with the modern language. For these reasons, Old
Prussian will not be dealt with in this chapter. Old Lithuanian translations, though often
slavish as well, are more reliable, but many genuinely Lithuanian constructions are not
reflected in them because of the character of the mostly religious texts and the influence
of the source texts.
1. Word classes
1.1. The main word classes in Baltic are verb, noun, adjective, preposition, and adverb,
each with clear syntactic properties of its own.
1.2. In Lithuanian, neuter forms of adjectives are not used adnominally as a result of
the loss of neuter nouns; they are used as default agreement forms in clauses without
nominative subject or with inanimate pronouns as subjects, e.g. te n’est tey pikt akyse
tawo ChB Gen. 21.12 ‘let it not be evil in thine eyes’ (pikt < pikta, neuter form of piktas
‘evil’); but they may also express the main predicate in the clause, e. g. jog pikt buwo
su jeys ChB Ex. 5.19 ‘that they were in evil case’, lit. ‘that it was bad with them’. They
may further shift to semi-verbal status, as in Lith. baisu man ‘I am afraid’, baisu being
neuter form of baisus ‘terrifying’. The class of quasi-verbal predicators also comprises
nominal forms, as in (man) gėda ‘(I feel) ashamed’ (gėda) ‘shame’, and words of unclear
categorial status such as (man) gaila ‘(I feel) sorry’.
1.3. There are no articles, though slavish translation from the German leads to the use
of demonstrative pronouns in the function of definite articles in Old Latvian and Old
Prussian texts; Latvian residually retains this in Biblical expressions like tas Kungs ‘the
Lord’. On the expression of definiteness by definite adjectives arising from enclitic ana-
phoric pronouns, cf. 6.4.2.
1.4. Derived (relational) adjectives exist but are relatively infrequent; instead, modifier
(non-determiner) genitives are used in striking contrast to neighboring Slavic, cf. OLith.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-011

Authenticated
90. The syntax of Baltic 1669
aukso jostomis ‘with golden girdles’ ChB Apc 15.6 (though auksinė juosta ‘golden gir-
dle’, with an adjective, also exists), OLatv. ar selta Johstahm ‘id.’ GlB Apc. 15.6; Lith.
lietuvių kalba ‘Lithuanian language’, lit. ‘language of the Lithuanians’.
1.5. Numerals and quantifiers in general are a heterogeneous class oscillating between
noun-like and adjective-like behaviour; higher numerals are more noun-like and (even
when having no substantival endings) tend to govern the genitive of the noun, e.g. Lith.
dešimt vaikų ‘ten children:GEN’, whereas lower numerals are adjective-like in agreeing
with the noun, e.g. Lith. penki vaikai ‘five:NOM.PL.MASC children:NOM.PL’; morphosyn-
tactic interdependence is observed in phrases like Latv. desmitām reižu ‘tens of times’
as against desmitiem logu ‘tens of windows’, where the numeral, being itself in the
dative-instrumental plural to express approximative number, agrees with the noun in
gender while itself assigning genitive case to the noun.
1.6. Through univerbation, Latvian has developed a class of genitivi tantum, i.e. com-
pound words having only a genitive, such as divzaru (dakšas) ‘two-pronged (fork)’, by
univerbation of the genitival modifier divu zaru ‘with (of) two prongs’.
1.7. Whereas Lithuanian uses mainly typical prepositions and postpositions, Latvian
makes ample use of relational nouns and adverbs. Relational nouns are nouns with a
spatial meaning, placed after the genitive of the noun they refer to, e.g. durvju priekšā
‘door:GEN front:LOC’ ‘in front of the door’. This genitive may, however, be replaced
with a dative of external possession whose position with regard to the relational noun is
free, e.g. durvīm priekšā, priekšā durvīm, durvīm … priekšā, etc. ‘in front of the door
(often with an idea of obstruction)’. Relational adverbs govern nouns in the dative but
have no fixed position with regard to them and are not necessarily contiguous to them,
e.g. pāri ielai, ielai pāri and ielai … pāri ‘across the street’. These relational adverbs
may also be used as verbal particles, as in lidot pāri ‘fly over’, palikt pāri ‘be left over’
etc.
1.8. Preverbs have retained traces of their previous autonomy in Lithuanian and Latvian:
enclitics obeying Wackernagel’s Law could be inserted between them and the verbal
stem, e.g. Parmidok [par-mi-dok, from par-duoti ‘sell’] ßą dien pirmgimdistę tawo ChB
Gen 25.31 ‘Sell me this day thy birthright’. In modern Lithuanian (and Latvian dialects),
only the reflexive -si- can be used in this fashion. As these units continue to behave like
clitics even though the prefixes have actually lost their autonomy, the notion of “Wacker-
nagel affixes” has been introduced to describe this phenomenon (Nevis and Joseph
1993).
2. Nominal morphosyntax
2.1. Baltic has a nominative-type alignment system, using the nominative for intransitive
subjects and transitive agents. Nominative and accusative function as structural cases
whereas the remaining cases (dative, instrumental, locatives) are used for oblique objects
and adverbials. The following features of case marking should be noted.

Authenticated
1670 XIV. Baltic
2.2. Subject and direct object marking show variation enabling a quantitative characteri-
zation; forms of marking alternating with the nominative or accusative are a) the geni-
tive of indefinite quantity, less aptly called partitive genitive: OLith. Ir dawe Jokubas
Ezawuy donos, ir liszu wirało ‘then Jacob gave Esau bread:GEN and pottage:GEN of
lentils’ ChB Gen 25.34; OLatv. teem buhs schehlastibas dabbuht ‘they shall obtain
mercy:GEN’ GlB Mt 5.7; the same occurs in intransitive subject position with existential
verbs, e.g. ira ir kitu be skayćiaus smułku dayktu SzPS 129,11 ‘there are countless
(lit. ‘without number’) other small things:GEN’; Latv. ja tev ir vaļas ‘if you have
time:GEN’; b) the marking of distributive meaning with the preposition Lith. po, Latv.
pa, e.g., OLith. koznas eme pa graßy ChB Mt 20.9 ‘they received every man a penny’;
noris koznam iß ju tektu po truputi ChB Jn 6.7 ‘that every one of them may take a little’;
c) the marking of approximate number by putting the numeral in the dative-instrumental
plural governing a genitive noun, e.g. Latv. rodas desmitiem māju ‘tens of houses ap-
pear’, uzcēla desmitiem māju ‘built tens of houses’ (this construction involves the re-
analysis of an adverbial instrumental as a quantifier within the noun phrase, e.g. lasa
simtiem grāmatas ‘reads book by the hundred’ → lasa simtiem grāmatu ‘reads hundreds
of books’).
2.3. The object of negated verbs is usually in the genitive. This genitive of negation has
become dissociated from the partitive genitive (mentioned in 2.2), of which it was origi-
nally a subtype. In Lithuanian, the accusative has completely been ousted with negated
verbs, e.g. OLith. sułaußtos nęndres nedałauzs ‘a bruised reed:GEN shall he not break’
ChB 12.20; in OLith. the accusative is, however, partly retained, especially when the
object precedes the verb: tus ßadzius nepapeiksit ‘you will not rebuke these words:ACC’
MC 4, 30. The subjects of negated intransitive verbs and passives are also occasionally
in the genitive, e.g. jemus to nedota ‘to them it:GEN is not given’ ChB Mt 13.11. In
Latvian, the accusative has ousted the genitive, but this process was not completed until
the second half of the 20 th century. In Common Baltic, genitive and accusative probably
co-occurred, their use being driven by syntactic and semantic factors (as in modern
Russian). The subsequent generalization of the genitive in Lithuanian and the accusative
in Latvian was probably driven by Polish and German influence respectively.
2.4. The genitive, traditionally used for the object with the supine (Isziaio seieias setu
sekłos sawa ‘A sower went out to sow his seed’ MP 9739), has been transferred also to
infinitives of purpose with verbs of motion: notejau ißryßt bet ißpildit jo ‘I am not come
to destroy but to fulfill it:GEN [sc. the Law]’ ChB Mt 5.17, and is used adverbially to
express purpose with a motion verb without an infinitive as well, e.g. wáisto tawę́sp
atâimi DC 1594–5 ‘I come to thee for remedy:GEN’. These features are fully alive in
Lithuanian but obsolete in Latvian.
2.5. Baltic makes widespread use of oblique marking for predicate nouns. The predica-
tive instrumental is frequent and is traditionally said to be opposed to the nominative as
conveying the notion of a temporary state, e.g. buvo sodininku ‘was a gardener, (tempo-
rarily) did a gardener’s job’ as against buvo sodininkas ‘was a gardener’. This distinction
seems to be a broader areal feature also encompassing neighboring non-IE languages
(cf. Stassen 2001). In Lithuanian, however, the semantic difference has become neutral-
ized, the instrumental being used as a default agreement case in instances where there

Authenticated
is neither a nominative subject nor another readily accessible agreement controller. So,
e.g., we have agreement with a main clause nominative subject in gatawas esmi … but
surißtas ‘I am ready … to be bound:NOM’ ChB Acts 21.13, but the instrumental in
liepe ios linksmais būti ‘bade them be cheerful:INSTR’ BP I 83.15. This spread of the
instrumental as a default agreement case is probably due to Slavic influence. Latvian,
which has lost the instrumental completely, has replaced the predicative instrumental
with prepositional phrases containing the preposition par, e. g. Tas Akmins irr par Stuh-
ŗa-Akmini tappis GlB Mt 21.42 ‘the stone … is become the head of the corner’. This
expression, however, has not acquired the function of a default agreement case but is
opposed to the nominative as a marked predicative case, used for nouns, secondary
predicates and with verbs denoting change of state.
2.6. The dative of external possession is used in both Baltic languages; whereas in
Lithuanian, as in most IE languages, it is mostly restricted to animates and conveys a
nuance of affectedness (ta szalczui sutrins galwa ‘she shall bruise the serpent’s:DAT
head’ BrP II 7.17–18), in Latvian all restrictions have been lifted; thus, virtually any
adnominal possessive genitive (also inanimate) can be replaced with a dative, a device
usually applied in order to extract the possessor from its fixed position before the noun,
e.g. tas Zirwis irr jau teem Kohkeem pee Śakni peelikts GlB Mt 3.10 ‘the axe is laid
unto the root of the trees [lit. the trees:DAT unto the root]’.
2.7. Nominal agreement (in gender, number, case) is quite regular within the noun
phrase but across noun phrases there are numerous instances of neuter agreement even
if an agreement controller is present. The inherited neuter singular forms of adjectives
and participles (not used adnominally) are often used as default agreement forms in
predicative position, e.g. Lith. buvo šalta:NEUTR ‘it was cold’, but also jau ir bulvės
kasama ‘the potatoes:NOM.PL are already being dug:NEUTR’, pradalgiai suvelta ‘the
swaths:NOM.PL are tangled:NEUTR’. This fact should perhaps be viewed in conjunction
with the lack of verbal agreement leading to the loss of 3pl. finite verb forms (4.1).
3. Adpositional phrases
3.1. Baltic has both prepositions and postpositions; at several stages of its development,
areal links with Finnic seem to have given rise to the creation of postpositional phrases.
The first wave was common Baltic, and has given rise to a quaternary system of locative
cases: the inessive has PIE *-en postposed to the inherited PIE locative which it eventual-
ly replaced; the illative has *-nā postposed to the accusative, the adessive has -pi post-
posed to the locative and the allative has -pi postposed to the genitive. The process
comprised several stages, as the adessive postposition -pi is sometimes added to the new
inessive rather than to the original locative, cf. OLith. žmonėsemp < *žmonėsu + -en
+ -pi. By the time of the oldest Lithuanian texts, these postpositional phrases had already
become cases, as suggested by the fact that the original postposition is repeated in every
component of the noun phrase, cf. Storasteyp Sergiußiep Powilep zmogumpi ißminting-
ampi ChB Acts 13.7 ‘with the deputy:ADESS of the country, Sergius:ADESS Paulus:ADESS,
a prudent:ADESS man:ADESS’; still, in the case of the adessive (which consists of inessive

Authenticated
1672 XIV. Baltic
+ -pi), the affix -pi need not be repeated in every component, cf. źmonese bediewiůsemṗ
‘among godless:ADESS people:INESS’ DP 4452.
3.2. Prepositions can govern all oblique cases. In the modern languages, the locative
(inessive) can no longer be governed by prepositions, but it is attested with prepositions
in Old Lithuanian and it could evidently also be governed by the postposition -pi, yield-
ing the adessives mentioned in 3.1. In Lithuanian, prepositions can govern prepositional
phrases, e.g., iš po stalo ‘from under the table’, while in Latvian relational nouns must
be used in such instances: no galda apakšas ‘from (the place) under the table’.
3.3. In Latvian, the phonetic coalescence of the instrumental with the accusative in the
singular and the dative in the plural has given rise to a unique pattern of adpositional
government: all prepositions, regardless of the case they govern in the singular, govern
the dative (originally instrumental) in the plural, e.g. ap māju ‘around the house:ACC’ :
ap mājām ‘around the houses:DAT’. This was a consequence of prepositions governing
the instrumental being reanalyzed as governing the accusative in the singular and the
dative in the plural, a pattern then carried over to prepositions governing the accusative
and finally also to prepositions governing the genitive (some dialects have not reached
this final state and retain the gen. pl. with prepositions). This pattern has not extended
to postpositions, which govern the genitive regardless of number, e.g. drauga / draugu
dēļ ‘for the sake of one’s friends(s):GEN’.
4. Verbal morphosyntax
4.1. Baltic is characterized by lack of number agreement in the 3 rd person: the original
3 rd person singular forms of finite verbs have ousted plural and dual forms. Though
morphological explanations for the loss of a distinct 3 rd pers. pl. ending have been
advanced, a syntactic explanation (generalization of the τὰ ζῷα τρέχει rule) seems more
plausible especially in view of a similar lack of nominal agreement in predicative posi-
tion in Baltic (cf. 2.7). The former 3 rd pers. pl. form seems to be preserved in the nom.
pl. masc. form of active present participles (Lith. dirbą). The identity of present 3pl. and
plural present participle forms has a striking parallel in Finnic, cf. Est. elavad
‘live:PRS.3PL’ and ‘living:NOM.PL’ (Cowgill 1970), but the exact nature of the parallelism
is still unclear, as it is hard to distinguish cause from result. Modern Baltic retains the
non-differentiation of finite 3 rd person verb forms but in compound tense forms the
participle agrees in number with the subject, e.g. Lith. jos yra mačiusios, ‘they:FEM.PL
have seen:FEM.PL’.
5. Periphrastic formations
5.1. A system of periphrastic forms expressing anteriority is based on active past partici-
ples combined with the auxiliary ‘be’, cf. koki tulima warga esmi regeyes ‘what great
misery have I seen’ VE 1,14; Manna Stunda wehl ne irr nahkuśi ‘mine hour is not yet
come’ GlB Jn 2,4. The formation is structurally parallel to the Slavic formations of the

Authenticated
type esmь vidělъ, though the participles used are different; the structural correspondence
to Balto-Finnic formations (Finnish olen mennyt ‘I have gone’) is also striking. A nascent
system of progressive tenses composed of the auxiliary ‘be’ and the present active parti-
ciple is observed in Old Lithuanian, e.g. kur Jônas bů kriksztiiąs ‘where John was
baptizing’ DP 2134–35, but it never fully developed; in modern Lith., its only relic is the
“preterite of interrupted action”, e.g. buvo beišeinąs ‘was about to go out’ (referring to
an event that was not completed).
5.2. Probably connected (in its oldest shape) with this periphrastic tense system was the
Lithuanian-Latvian irrealis, variously called subjunctive, optative, or conditional (wheth-
er it existed in Old Prussian as well cannot be ascertained). Probably the oldest form,
vestigially preserved in Old Lithuanian, consisted of a preterite of the auxiliary būti ‘be’
and a past active participle, as in jei-b negimęs ‘if he hadn’t been born’ (Mažvydas),
with the auxiliary enclitically attached to the conjunction (as in Russian čto-by, Polish
gdy-by etc.). This formation has a parallel in OCS bi dělalъ. This oldest attested forma-
tion was subsequently replaced with a new form based on the supine in PIE *-tum and
the auxiliary ‘be’; this formation was explained by Stang (1966) as having originated in
purpose clauses with subjects coreferential with those of the main clause; the construc-
tion was, in these conditions, contaminated with that containing the supine, which in
itself expressed purpose, e. g. *išėjo jei-bi sėjęs X išėjo sėtų ‘went out to sow’ would
have yielded *išėjo jeibi sėtų, with subsequent finitization of the purpose clause and rise
of a new 3 rd person form -bi sėtų. For details, cf. Holvoet (2003).
5.3. An exclusively Latvian periphrastic formation is the debitive, which expresses ne-
cessity. In its present form, it consists of an uninflected form containing the marker jā-
prefixed to the 3 rd person indicative present, and a form of the auxiliary ‘be’. In the case
of ‘be’, the form is jābūt, which suggests that the form was originally based on the
infinitive. As established by Prellwitz (1904), the debitive arose from an infinitival rela-
tive purpose close, the element jā being a reflex of the PIE relative pronoun *ye/o-. In
Old Latvian, the original meaning is partly retained, cf. newa jums kas ja ehd? GlB Jn
21.5) ‘have ye [anything] which to eat’. In such constructions, several case forms of
the relative pronoun must originally have been used, but the shape generalized in modal
meaning was the genitive jā- (a genitive of negation), which suggests that the exact
source construction was something like *nav jāsaka ‘there is nothing to say’ → ‘there
is no need to say’, with subsequent introduction of an affirmative form jāsaka ‘one must
say’. For further details, cf. Holvoet (1998).
5.4. Combinations of the copula ‘be’ with passive participles yield a periphrastic passive
in Lithuanian; the oldest variety has past passive participles (continuing the PIE verbal
adjective in *-to-): kas neintykies bus papeyktas ChB Mk 16.16 ‘he that believeth not
shall be damned’; in part of the Lith. dialects, an imperfective passive based on the
present passive participle in -mo- has arisen: Sunus zmogaus izdodamas est ChB Mk
14.41 ‘the Son of man is (being) betrayed’. In Latvian, combinations of the copula with
the passive participle in *-to- are used as a resultative passive, whereas the dynamic
passive (Vorgangspassiv) requires a copula with the meaning ‘become’ (tikt, tapt) rather
than ‘be’, which seems to reflect German influence: tas Wihns tohp isgahsts GlB Mk
2.22 ‘the wine is (lit. ‘becomes’) spilled’. Latvian has not shared in the introduction of

Authenticated
1674 XIV. Baltic
a passive based on the participle in -mo-; the corresponding constructions have the modal
meanings of possibility or necessity, e.g. labība ir pļaujama ‘the corn must/can be
reaped’.
5.5. Baltic frequently uses syntactic reduplication in the verb phrase to convey a categor-
ical claim or demand. The finite verb form can be echoed by a participle, as in Latv.
nāc nākdams ‘be sure to come’; cf. OLatv. GlB Gen. 2.17 mirdams mirsi ‘thou shalt
surely die (lit. ‘dying shalt thou die’)’ (echoing Hebr. môt tāmût, Lat. morte morieris).
Lithuanian uses special deverbal adverbs in -te for this purpose: prašyte prašė ‘urgently
begged’. Reduplication involving infinitives alongside finite verb forms is used to bring
out topic-comment structure, e.g., žadėti žadėjo ‘promise (s)he did’.
6. Word order
6.1. Sentential word order is subject to considerable variation: it is now predominantly
SVO, but Ambrazas (most recently 2006: 66−76) assumes SOV to have been widespread
in Common Baltic on the basis of Lithuanian folk texts, proverbs, etc. This would be in
keeping with other instances of dependent-head order such as genitive order and the
tendency towards noun-adposition order manifesting itself in Common Baltic.
6.2. Unlike sentential word order, word order in the noun phrase is subject to strict rules.
Adjectives always precede nouns, except for special stylistic purposes. The same holds
for demonstrative and possessive pronouns. The adnominal genitive is preposed in Lith
and Latv, though the OLith. and OLatv. translations often slavishly follow the word
order of the German or Polish originals, e.g. wisoki krumą łauko ‘every plant of the
field’ ChB Gen 2.5 alongside padare Diewas łauko źwery ‘God made the beast of the
earth’ ibid. 1.25; OLatv. tahs Paśaules Gaiśchums ‘the light of the world’ Mt 5.14, but
also ta Kahriba śchihs Dsihwośchanas Mt 13.22 ‘the care of this world’. Actual usage
was probably close to what it is now, i.e., the genitive was probably anteposed in most
cases.
Modern Lithuanian deviates from the anteposition rule if the genitive is accompanied
by a heavy modifier such as a relative clause, e.g. žmonių įpročiai ‘people’s habits’ but
įpročiai žmonių, kuriuos pažįstu ‘the habits of people I know’. Latvian, on the other
hand, sticks to the rule with exceptionless regularity, which is perhaps to be connected
with the Finnic substratum, as Finnic regularly has anteposition; if word order has to be
changed, the possessive dative (Pertinenzdativ) is used, e.g. norauj pavedienu pasakai,
kuras turpinājumu karalis vēlas dzirdēt ‘she breaks off the thread of the tale [lit. to the
tale:DAT], whose continuation the King wishes to hear’ (with the genitive, only pasakas
pavediens is possible).
The partitive genitive is the only adnominal genitive to be regularly postposed, which
evidently reflects the shift of the head word to the status of quantifier, e.g. sudelu ßałto
tykt wandenia ChB Mt 10.42, ar weenu Biķķeri śalta Uhdens GlB Mt 10.42 ‘(with) a
cup of cold water only’.
6.3. Adposition order. Inherited PIE prepositions retain their prepositional status, e.g.
Lith. į namą ‘into the house’. A marked predilection for postpositional phrases can be

Authenticated
noted at several stages of the history of Baltic: first, in common Baltic (cf. 3.1), and
later on in Latvian; this is consistent with the dependent-head order in the noun phrase.
Lithuanian, where the Finnic adstratum influence was ousted by that of Slavic, has in
most instances abandoned the postpositional pattern; Lith. dėl, which, like Latvian dēļ,
seems to be a borrowing from Old Russian dělja, appears as a postposition in the fossil-
ized todėl ‘therefore’, but has now become a preposition (dėl ligos ‘because of illness’),
whereas Latvian dēļ is still a postposition. Reversal of the “dependent genitive-head
noun” order is also symptomatic of the development of a relational noun into an adposi-
tion, as in Lith. gale stalo ‘at the end of the table’, vidury kiemo ‘in the middle of the
courtyard’ (alongside stalo gale, kiemo vidury). In Latvian, this is exceptional (vidū jūras
‘in the middle of the sea’ is attested in the dialects): here prepositions encounter the
competition of postpositional expressions provided by relational nouns (cf. 1.7); these
function as species of postpositions, e.g., priekšā ‘in front of’, locative of priekša ‘front’,
in lai juhśo Gaiśchiba śpihd Ļauscho preekścha GlB Mt 5.16 ‘let your light shine
before men’; this can be regarded as an instance of Finnic influence.
6.4. Loss of clitics

6.4.1. Both Lithuanian and Latvian have lost the enclitic forms of personal and reflexive
pronouns; they are vestigially attested in Old Lithuanian, unattested in Latvian: OLith.
reykia mi eÿt ‘I must go’ ChB Lk 14.18 as against modern Lith. man reikia eit, where
man is orthotonic. Only the enclitic reflexive pronoun, also originally a sentential clitic
(wisesi tur ischpaßinti MT 2a, 5−6 ‘all should confess’, where -si is attached to the
sentence-initial subject; MLith. visi turi išsipažinti), through entering into a closer rela-
tionship with the verb, eventually became attached to it, either word-finally as in
rengiuo-si ‘I get dressed’ or (now only in part of the Lithuanian and Latvian dialects)
inserted between preverb and verbal stem as in Lith. ap-si-rengti ‘get dressed’ alongside
ap-rengti ‘dress’. This probably passed through the stage of a phrasal clitic, as shown
by instances like delsi rangianćiu zmoniu ‘because of the thronging people’ SE 178.15,
with si in Wackernagel position after the preposition dėl (modern Lithuanian would have
dėl be-si-rangiančių žmonių, with the continuative particle be- prefixed to the verb form
in order to enable insertion of the reflexive marker). This process is connected with a
functional shift: the original (suffixal or infixal) reflexive pronoun has become an inflec-
tional (middle voice) marker, whereas reflexive function has been taken over by the
orthotonic reflexive pronoun as in mato save ‘sees himself/herself’. In general, the loss
of pronominal clitics is parallelled by a similar development in East Slavic.
6.4.2. Another clitic that has shifted to morphology, probably through the intermediate
stage of a phrasal clitic, is the anaphoric-relative pronoun *ye/o-, which has acquired the
function of a definiteness marker in combination with adjectives (geras-is žmogus ‘the
good man’ as against geras žmogus ‘a good man’) but is still residually attested in Old
Lithuanian as a phrasal clitic functioning in phrases of different types as a marker of their
functioning as definite descriptions, e.g. widurįięio nuraminimo ‘of inner appeasement’
(viduryje ‘inside:LOC’ + jo ‘REL:GEN’ nuraminimo ‘appeasement:GEN’); Tewas jusu dan-
guis ‘your heavenly Father’ (dangų ‘heaven:GEN.PL’ + jis ‘REL:NOM’).

Authenticated
1676 XIV. Baltic
6.4.3. Non-pronominal clitics are well attested in Old Lithuanian and Latvian, cf. the
OLith. interrogative -gu, as in walgiey-gu iß ano medzia ChB Gen. 3.11 ‘hast thou eaten
of the tree’ or the preposition -drinag ‘because of’, as in to-drinag mêßło smírdincżio
‘because of this stinking filth’ DP 15.43. They have completely disappeared in the mod-
ern languages.
7. Sentential syntax
7.1. Impersonal sentences
Two types will be distinguished here: sentences with zero subjects and sentences based
on verbs with oblique marking for all noun phrases.
7.1.1. Null subjects with active verb forms in indefinite but referential function (as Eng-
lish they, German man etc.) occur in Lithuanian and Latvian, cf. OLith. Sunu zmogaus
izdoda ing rąkas grießniku ‘the Son of man is betrayed (lit. ‘[they] betray the Son of
man’) into the hands of sinners’ ChB Mt 26.45; owing to the homonymy of 3 rd pers.
sg. and pl. forms this construction is completely undifferentiated in number; Latvian has,
however, introduced a number differentiation that becomes manifest when the verb form
contains an agreeing participle; the pl. variety has an indefinite specific subject, e.g.
mani meklējuši ‘they (reportedly) looked for me’, whereas the sg. variety (with the parti-
ciple and predicate noun in the nom. masc. sg.) implies an indefinite non-specific subject,
e.g. ja nav ēdis ‘if one has not eaten’. The latter construction seems to have arisen under
Finnic influence (cf. Holvoet 1995).
7.1.2. Many verbs, especially describing mental and physical states, have oblique (usual-
ly dative) marking for the experiencer and consequently cannot combine with nominative
subjects, e.g. gayli mi tos mines ChB Mt 15.32 ‘I (DAT) have compassion on the multi-
tude (GEN)’; śwehtigi irr tee … kam ślahpst pehz tahs Taiśnibas GlB Mt 5.6 ‘Blessed
are they which [lit. ‘whom:DAT’] do […] thirst after righteousness’; cf. also modern
Lith. man skauda galvą ‘my head aches’ (man ‘1SG.DAT’ skauda ‘ache:PRS.3’ galvą
‘head:ACC’).
7.2. Evidential marking

Participles are often used instead of finite verb forms as the main predicative form of
the sentence with an evidential meaning: Lith. čia žmonės gyvenę [žmonės:people:NOM
live:PART.ACT.PRET.NOM.PL.MASC] ‘people have reportedly / evidently been living here’.
They are also often used in complement clauses after verba dicendi, e.g. OLatv. Ko
śakka tie Ļaudis / ka es tha Zilweka Dehls eśśohts? ‘Whom do men say that I the Son
of man am:PART.PRES.NOM.SG.MASC?’ GlB Mt 16.13. Though the origin of this feature
is disputed, the most likely explanation is that it originated from the analytic perfect
through deletion of the auxiliary ‘be’, e.g. Lith. jis gyvenęs ‘he reportedly/evidently
lived’ from jis yra gyvenęs ‘he has lived’; the construction, originally restricted to past

Authenticated
participles, subsequently spread to other participles (an explanation advanced by Litvin-

ov 1989). Lithuanian and Latvian evidentials show diverging developments: whereas the
Lithuanian evidential shows a meaning cluster consisting of inferential, mirative, and
quotative, the Latvian evidential is exclusively a hearsay marker. Typological parallels
suggest that the Lithuanian state of affairs is older and that Latvian narrowed the mean-
ing of the evidential.
In Lithuanian, evidential constructions also contain passive participles, and they are
then formally similar to passives; such evidential pseudo-passives are derived mostly
from intransitive verbs, e.g. čia vagies būta [thief:GEN.SG be:PART.PRET.PASS.NEUTR] ‘a
thief has been at work here’; such constructions may contain several passive participles,
i.e. both the auxiliary ‘be’ and the main verb may be in the participial form, e.g. mano
būta užmigta [me:GEN be:PART.PRET.PASS.NEUTR fall-asleep:PART.PRET.PASS.NEUTR)] ‘I
must have dozed off’. The fact that these constructions violate many typological general-
izations about passives (e.g., they may be derived from non-accusative verbs) suggests
that they must be set apart from the passive proper.
7.3. The possessive construction and modal constructions evolved from it
For Common Baltic, a possessive construction of the type mihi est can probably be
reconstructed (cf. Vykypěl 2000); it is still the only possessive construction in Latvian,
whereas Lithuanian has it only residually (e.g. in expressing age: Zmoguy nes anamuy
buwo daugiaus neyg kiaturios deßymtis metu ‘that man was more than forty years old’
ChB Acts 7.23). Old Prussian and Lithuanian have introduced the verb OPr. turritwei,
Lith. turėti, originally ‘hold’ for ‘having’, perhaps under the influence of Slavic iměti.
The original use of a Common Baltic possessive construction mihi est is attested indirect-
ly by the existence of modal constructions which it underlies. Expanded with an infini-
tive, it yields a necessitive construction, as in OLith. buwa taw důti mana pinnigus
Maininikamus ‘Thou oughtest … to have put my money to the exchangers’ BrB
Mt 25.27, OLatv. kur Kristum bij dsimt ‘where Christ should be born’ GlB Mt 2.4. The
construction is now obsolescent in both Lithuanian and Latvian; in Lithuanian, it has
been superseded by turėti ‘have’ and ‘must’. In Latvian, it has been replaced with the
debitive, also based on the possessive construction mihi est (cf. above).
7.4. Nominative objects
Nominative objects originated in the necessitive ‘be’ + DAT. + INF. mentioned in 7.3.
The infinitive was originally an adverbial infinitive of purpose, e.g. [man yra javai]
pjauti ‘I have corn to reap’ yielded man yra [PRO javai pjauti] ‘I have to reap corn’.
After having lost its subject status, the nominative was replaced with the accusative in
part of the Lith. dialects (man javus pjauti), but Eastern High Lithuanian retained it
(man javai pjauti). In the dialects retaining the nominative, this pattern was extended to
embedded clauses with impersonal (not only modal) verbs. The nominative object has
been discussed in the context of the Finnic construction with nominative object; though

Authenticated
1678 XIV. Baltic
it can be explained as an indigenous development, the areal context could certainly have
contributed to the retention of the nominative.
7.5. Rise of the passive construction
Passives may be personal (ziankłas nebus ieÿ dotas ChB Mt 12.39 ‘there shall no sign
be given to it’) or impersonal (tuskiankit ó bus jums atadarijta ‘knock, and it shall be
opened unto you’ ChB Mt 7.7). The agent phrase in the passive construction originated
as a possessive genitive originally functioning as a modifier to the noun phrase: in Lith.
tėvo pastatyti namai ‘the house built by father’, we must postulate an original constituent
structure [tėvo [pastatyti namai]] ‘father’s built house’. The possessive character of the
genitive is evident from the use of otherwise specifically adnominal genitive forms in
the case of certain pronouns in Lithuanian: mano pastatyti namai ‘the house built by
me’ (with the adnominal genitive as in mano namai ‘my house’ as opposed to the
adverbal genitive in bijo manęs ‘fears me’).
Subsequently a reanalysis must have taken place that drew the originally possessive
genitive into the adjectival (participial) phrase, with a concomitant shift from the original
possessive meaning to agentive meaning: Latv. [[tēva celta] māja] ‘the house built by
father’. The shift of the participial phrase to the position of predicate nominal gives
rise to an agentive construction, i.e. a sentence pattern used to identify the agent of an
accomplished action: māja ir [tēva celta] ‘the house is built by father’ (‘father-built’).
To this day, the Latvian agentive genitive may not be extracted from the participial
phrase to become directly dependent on the verb, so that Latvian has no real agented
passive, but only an agentive construction (until the 19 th century, an agented passive
with an agent phrase introduced by no ‘from’ was used under German influence, but it
was ousted from the standard language in the 20 th century). This extraction has occurred
in Lithuanian, where the genitive can now occupy any position and is used not only in
the stative (resultative) passive, but also in the dynamic passive, as in Tėvo buvo pastaty-
tas namas ‘By father a house was built.’ This construction has been extended to intransi-
tive verbs, yielding the passive-like evidential mentioned in 7.2.
7.6. Double dative construction
In Lithuanian, both subject and object of an adverbial or adnominal infinitive of purpose

(which is itself originally the dative of a verbal noun) are in the dative; this construction
is comparable to the Sanskrit construction áhaye hántavaí RV V.31.4 ‘for destroying the
dragon’, e.g. Lith. tinklas žuvims gaudyti ‘a net to catch fish:DAT’, OLith. Lawonus kitus
ing wandeni mete Szuwims walgijti Mž 42712–13 ‘threw the corpses into the water for
the fish:DAT to eat’. Ambrazas has convincingly argued (against the attraction theory,
which assumes the object case to have been attracted by the dative infinitive) that two
co-ordinated datives of purpose are involved. In Latvian, the double dative construction
is attested only with the dative in subject function: OLatv. Kur pirkam mehs Maises
ścheem ehst? ‘Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat [i.e. for them to eat]?’
GlB Jn 6.5, and even this variety has been largely eliminated though insertion of a

Authenticated
relative pronoun, yielding an infinitival relative clause, e.g. galotne kur putnam uzmes-
ties ‘a tree-top for a bird to alight on’ instead of galotne putnam uzmesties.
7.7. Rise of embedded infinitival clauses
Infinitival clauses arise as a result of reanalysis of constructions with an infinitive of

purpose. A dative complement belonging to the main clause is interpreted as an embed-
ded clause subject, which is reflected in word order and manifest from the semantic
interpretation of the sentence. Cf. OLith. neger žmogui būti vienam ‘It is not good that
man should be alone (non est bonum esse hominem solum)’, where the dative is original-
ly a main clause complement (‘to be alone is not good for man’) and is subsequently
reanalyzed as an infinitival clause subject: neger [žmogui būti vienam] ‘for man to be
alone is not good’. The functional equivalent of the Greek and Latin accusativus cum
infinitivo is thus, in principle, the dativus cum infinitivo, but the scope of this construction
is quite restricted; usually the syntactic status of the dative in constructions with infiniti-
val clauses is ambiguous between main clause complement and subject of the infinitive.
Whether or not the subject of the infinitive is explicitly expressed, all nominals expected
to agree with it were originally in the dative, and this has been retained in Latvian:
OLatv. kas aiskawe manni kristitam tapt ‘what doth hinder me (ACC) to be baptized
(PART. PRET. PASS. DAT. SG. MASC)?’ ChB Acts 8.36; MLatv. lūgsim viņu būt mūsu
viesim ‘let us ask him (ACC) to be our guest (DAT)’. Lithuanian has abandoned this
agreement pattern, retaining the datives only when the implicit subject of the infinitive
is coreferential with a main clause complement in the dative, e.g. Diewas prisake mums
Mielaschirdingiems buti BrP II 253,4 ‘God bade us (DAT) be merciful (DAT.PL.MASC)’;
in other cases the instrumental was substituted for the original dative, e.g. liepe ios
linksmais buti ‘bade them (ACC.PL.MASC) be cheerful (INSTR.PL.MASC)’.
7.8. Participial clauses
Lithuanian and Latvian have an abundance of participial constructions, part of them

absolute. The absolute construction has a subject in the dative, if it is overtly expressed,
and the participle is also in the dative, sometimes truncated: OLith. Ir iszejo Izaokas
mełstis łaukań, besiartynańt wakaruy ‘And Isaac went out to meditate in the field at
eventide (lit. ‘at the approach of the evening’)’ ChB Gen 24,63; OLatv. wiņņam śehjot,
kritte zitta Zeļļmalî GlB Mt 13.4 ‘And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the wayside’;
the indeclinable forms are also used without overt subjects, as in MLith. auštant ‘at
daybreak’.
The accusativus cum participio, though most frequent with verbs of perception, ex-
tends to cognition verbs and verbs of saying (corresponding to the AcI of other lan-
guages; the Baltic dativus cum infinitivo is not used with such verbs): OLith. ko mane
sant sakote ‘whom say ye that I am’ ChB Mt 16.15 (with a truncated present active
participle), OLatv. Saduzzeeŗi kas śakka Augścham zelśchanu ne eśśam GlB Mt 22.23
‘the Sadducees, who say that there is no resurrection’ (with a truncated accusative of
the present passive participle).

Authenticated
1680 XIV. Baltic
Participles may also replace the finite verb in relative clauses and certain (interroga-
tive) complement clauses if the subjects are coreferential, e.g. OLith. ne żinóio ką bîłąs
‘he did not know what he said [lit. ‘what saying’]’ DP 594.50, OLatv. tas Wehjśch
puhśch kur gribbedams ‘the wind bloweth where it listeth [lit. where wishing]’ GlB Jn
3.8.
7.9. Finite complement and adverbial clauses
In Lithuanian, complementation types are distinguished by mood and sometimes also

by specialized complementizers: in OLith. we have jog + indicative for truth-valued
complements, e.g., zynojau jog esi zmogus kietas ‘I knew that thou art an hard man’
ChB Mt 25.24, and kad (idant) + subjunctive for state-of-affairs complements: praße
kad ißeytu iß ju rubezu ‘they besought him that he would depart out of their coasts’
ChB Mt 8.34. In MLith, only mood distinguishes truth-valued from state-of-affairs com-
plements, the same complementizer kad being used for both. Kad also introduces final,
conditional, temporal, and other adverbial clauses, though alternative subordinators are
also available.
Latvian has changed this system by introducing the hortative adverb lai (older form
laid, the imperative of laist ‘let’, used in hortative constructions of the type lai nāk ‘let
him/her/them come’) as a deontic complementizer (as opposed to ka, which is used
mainly in epistemic complements): OLatv. śacki teem Bährneem Jsrael Lai tee eet ‘tell
the children of Israel that they should go’ (where lai tie iet originally meant ‘let them
go’); here the choice of the mood form is no longer used to mark the type of complement
clause but may be used to mark a greater or lesser degree of likelihood of the event
occurring. On the other hand, lai has also become a conjunction in final, consecutive,
concessive, and other meanings (also with indicative or subjunctive according to the
degree of reality), e.g. lai viņš nāk / nāktu ‘in order that he should come:IND/SUBJ’.
8. Source texts
BrB Bretkūnas’ Bible MC Mažvydas’ Catechism
BrP Bretkūnas’ Postil MP Morkūnas’ Postil
ChB Chylinski’s Old MT Margaritha Theologica
Lithuanian Bible SE Suma Evangelijų (part of the
DC Daukša’s Catechism Knyga nobažnystės)
DP Daukša’s Postilla SzPS Szyrwid’s Punktay sakimu
GlB Glück’s Old Latvian Bible VE Wilent’s Enchiridion
9. References
Ambrazas, Vytautas
2006 Lietuvių kalbos istorinė sintaksė [Historical syntax of the Lithuanian language]. Vilnius:
Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Authenticated
91. The lexicon of Baltic 1681
Cowgill, Warren
1970 The nominative plural and preterite singular of the active participles in Baltic. In: Thom-
as F. Magner and William R. Schmalstieg (eds.), Baltic Linguistics. University Park:
Pennsylvania State University Press, 23−37.
Holvoet, Axel
1995 Indefinite zero subjects in Latvian. Linguistica Baltica 4: 153−161.
Holvoet, Axel
1998 Notes on the rise and grammaticalisation of the Latvian debitive. Linguistica Baltica 7:
101–118.
Holvoet, Axel
2002 Notes on the development of the Lithuanian and Latvian conditional. Linguistica Baltica
10: 39–49.
Litwinow, Wiktor P.
1989 Der Modus relativus baltischer Sprachen aus typologischer Sicht. Baltistica 25: 146−
155.
Nevis, Joel and Brian Joseph
1993 Wackernagel affixes: Evidence from Balto-Slavic. Yearbook of Morphology 1992: 93−
111.
Prellwitz, Walther
1904 Zur Entstehung des lettischen Debitivs. Bezzenbergers Beiträge 28: 319.
Stang, Christian S.
Stassen, Leon
2001 Nonverbal predication in the Circum-Baltic languages. In: Östen Dahl and Maria Kopt-
jevskaja-Tamm (eds.), Circum-Baltic languages. Vol. 2. Grammar and typology. Amster-
dam: Benjamins, 569–590.
Vykypěl, Bohumil
2000 Zwei lettonistische Bemerkungen. In: Ondřej Šefčík and Bohumil Vykypěl (eds.), Gram-
maticus. Studia linguistica Adolfo Erharto quinque et septuagenario oblata. Brno: Mas-
aryk University Press, 211−223.
Axel Holvoet, Vilnius (Lithuania)
91. The lexicon of Baltic

2. Loanwords 5. References
3. Specifically Baltic vocabulary
The common Indo-European vocabulary has been well preserved in Baltic. Below is a
list of selected Baltic inherited words alongside an approximate reconstruction of the
PIE stem. For larger collections of material, cf. Sabaliauskas (1966, 1990); Lanszweert
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-012

Authenticated
Cowgill, Warren
1970 The nominative plural and preterite singular of the active participles in Baltic. In: Thom-
as F. Magner and William R. Schmalstieg (eds.), Baltic Linguistics. University Park:
Pennsylvania State University Press, 23−37.
Holvoet, Axel
1995 Indefinite zero subjects in Latvian. Linguistica Baltica 4: 153−161.
Holvoet, Axel
1998 Notes on the rise and grammaticalisation of the Latvian debitive. Linguistica Baltica 7:
101–118.
Holvoet, Axel
2002 Notes on the development of the Lithuanian and Latvian conditional. Linguistica Baltica
10: 39–49.
Litwinow, Wiktor P.
1989 Der Modus relativus baltischer Sprachen aus typologischer Sicht. Baltistica 25: 146−
155.
111.
Prellwitz, Walther
1904 Zur Entstehung des lettischen Debitivs. Bezzenbergers Beiträge 28: 319.
Stang, Christian S.
Stassen, Leon
2001 Nonverbal predication in the Circum-Baltic languages. In: Östen Dahl and Maria Kopt-
jevskaja-Tamm (eds.), Circum-Baltic languages. Vol. 2. Grammar and typology. Amster-
dam: Benjamins, 569–590.
Vykypěl, Bohumil
2000 Zwei lettonistische Bemerkungen. In: Ondřej Šefčík and Bohumil Vykypěl (eds.), Gram-
maticus. Studia linguistica Adolfo Erharto quinque et septuagenario oblata. Brno: Mas-
aryk University Press, 211−223.
91. The lexicon of Baltic

2. Loanwords 5. References
The common Indo-European vocabulary has been well preserved in Baltic. Below is a
list of selected Baltic inherited words alongside an approximate reconstruction of the
PIE stem. For larger collections of material, cf. Sabaliauskas (1966, 1990); Lanszweert
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-012

Authenticated
1682 XIV. Baltic
(1984); and Ademollo Gagliano (1995). The Baltic material is mainly quoted from the
following sources: LKŽ, Mühlenbach and Endzelin (1923−1932), and Mažiulis 1988−
1997.
1.1. Kinship terms and terms for persons
MOTHER Lith. mótė ‘mother’, later ‘wife’, Latv. mãte, OPr. Cat. mūti, EV mothe (PIE
*máh2 ter-); DAUGHTER Lith. duktė̃, OPr. EV duckti (PIE *d hugh2 tér-); SON Lith. sūnùs,
OPr. Cat. soūns (PIE *suHnú-); SISTER Lith. sesuõ, OPr. EV swestro ‘sister’ (PIE *su̯é-
sor-); BROTHER Lith. brólis, dim. broterė̃lis, Latv. brãlis, dim. brātarītis, OPr. Cat. brāti,
EV brote ‘brother’ (PIE *b hráh2 ter-); BROTHER-IN-LAW Lith. díeveris, Latv. diẽveris
(PIE *dah2 iu̯ér- or *dai̯ h2 u̯ér-); MAN Lith. výras, Latv. vĩrs, OPr. Cat. wijrs (PIE
*u̯iHró-); WOMAN OPr. EV genno, Cat. genna ‘woman, wife’ (PIE *g wénh2 -).
1.2. Body parts

EAR Lith. ausìs, Latv. àuss, OPr. EV ausins, Cat. āusins Apl. (PIE *h2 óu̯s-/*h2 áu̯s-); EYE
Lith. akìs, Latv. acs, OPr. Cat. ackis Npl. (PIE *h3 ók w-); NOSE Lith. nósis, Latv. nãss
‘nostril’, OPr. EV nozy (PIE *(H)nā́s-); TOOTH Lith. dantìs, OPr. EV dantis (PIE
*h1 dónt-); HEART Lith. širdìs, Latv. sir̂ds, OPr. EV seyr (PIE *k̑érd-); LIVER Lith. dial.
jẽknos, Latv. aknas, dial. jęknas, OPr. EV lagno (recte: iagno) (PIE *i̯ ék wr̥/n-).
1.3. Fauna
SHEEP Lith. avìs, Latv. avs ‘sheep’, OPr. EV awins ‘ram’ (PIE *Hóu̯i-); WOLF Lith.
vil̃kas, Latv. vìlks, OPr. EV wilkis (PIE *u̯ĺ̥ k wo-); COW Latv. gùovs (PIE *g wṓu̯-); HORSE
Lith. ašvà ‘mare’, OPr. EV aswīnan ‘mare’s milk’ (PIE *h1 ék̑u̯o-); DOG Lith. šuõ, Latv.
suns, OPr. EV sunis (PIE *k̑[u]u̯ón-); BEAR Lith. irštvà ‘bear’s den’ (PIE *h2 r̥ ́ tk̑o-; cf.
Karaliūnas 1993); FISH Lith. žuvìs, Latv. zivs, dial. zuvs, OPr. EV suckis (PIE *d hg̑ húH-);
GOOSE Lith. žąsìs, Latv. zùoss, OPr. EV sansy (PIE *g̑ háns-); BEAST Lith. žvėrìs, Latv.
zvę̂rs, OPr. Cat. swīrins Apl. (PIE *g̑ hu̯ḗr-); DUCK Lith. ántis, OPr. EV antis (PIE
*h2 ánh2 ti-).
1.4. Natural objects and phenomena

SUN Lith. sáulė, Latv. saũle, OPr. EV saule (PIE *sáh2 u̯l̥ /n-); MOON Lith. mė́ nuo ‘moon,
month’, Latv. mẽness ‘id.’, OPr. EV menig ‘moon’ (PIE *méh1 nōt-); STONE Lith. akmuõ
‘stone’, ašmuõ ‘edge, blade’, Latv. akmens ‘stone’, asmens ‘edge, blade’ (PIE
*h2 ák̑men-); WATER Lith. vanduõ, Latv. ûdens, OPr. EV wundan, OPr. Cat. unds (PIE
*u̯ódr̥/n-); CLOUD, SKY Lith. debesìs, Latv. debess (PIE *néb hes-); SMOKE Lith. dū́mai,
Latv. dũmi, OPr. EV dumis (PIE *d huh2 mó-); SNOW Lith. sniẽgas, Latv. snìegs, OPr.

Authenticated
EV snaygis (*snói̯ g who-); NIGHT Lith. naktìs, Latv. nakts, OPr. Cat. naktin Asg. (PIE
*nók wt-).
1.5. Adjectives
FULL Lith. pìlnas, Latv. pil̃ns, OPr. Cat. pilnan Asg. (PIE *pl̥ h1 nó-); OLD Lith. sẽnas,
Latv. sens (PIE *séno-); LONG Lith. ìlgas, Latv. il̃gs, OPr. Cat. ilga, ilgi adv. (PIE
*dl̥ h1 g hó-); RED Lith. raũdas, Latv. raũds ‘red, reddish-brown’ (PIE *h1 rou̯d hó-).
1.6. Verbs
TO BE Lith. bū́ti, Latv. bût, OPr. Cat. būton ‘to be’ (PIE *b hu̯ah2 -), Lith. esù, Latv. ęsmu,
OPr. Cat. asmai ‘I am’ (PIE *h1 es-); TO SIT Lith. sėdė́ ti, sė́ sti Latv. sêdêt, OPr. Cat.
sīdons past act. ptc. (PIE *sed-); TO STAND Lith. stóti, Latv. stât ‘to stand’, OPr. Cat.
postāt ‘to become’, stānintei gerund ‘standing’ (PIE *stah2 -); TO PUT Lith. dė́ ti ‘to put’,
Latv. dêt ‘to lay eggs’ (PIE *d heh1 -); TO GIVE Lith. dúoti, Latv. duôt, OPr. Cat. dāt (PIE
*doh3 -); TO GO Lith. eĩti, Latv. iêt, OPr. Cat. ēisei 2sg. prs. (PIE *h1 ei̯ -); TO COME Lith.
giti, Latv. dzìmt ‘to be born’, OPr. Cat. gemmons past act. ptc. ‘born’, gimsenin ‘birth’
(PIE *g wem-; the semantic development from ‘to come’ through ‘to come into the world’
to ‘to be born’ is common Baltic); TO EAT Lith. ė́ sti, Latv. êst, OPr. Cat. īst (PIE *h1 ed-);
TO DRINK Lith. puotà ‘feast, drinking orgy’, OPr. Cat. pūton ‘to drink’ (PIE *poh3 [i̯ ]-);
TO SWALLOW Lith. gérti, Latv. dzer̂t ‘to drink’, OPr. EV gurcle ‘throat’ (PIE *g werh3 -);
TO THINK Lith. miñti ‘to think, to remember’, minė́ ti ‘to mention, to remember’, Latv.
minêt ‘to mention’, OPr. Cat. menentwey ‘id.’, menissnan Asg. ‘memory’ (PIE *men-);
TO SEE, TO KNOW Lith. veizdė́ ti, Latv. viedêt ‘to see’, OPr. Cat. waist ‘to know’ (PIE
*u̯ei̯ d-); TO BURN Lith. dègti, Latv. degt (PIE *d heg wh-); TO PLOUGH Lith. árti, Latv. ar̂t
‘to plough’, OPr. EV artoys ‘ploughman’, cf. Lith. artójas ‘id.’ (PIE *h2 arh3 -); TO RUN
Lith. bė́ gti, Latv. bêgt, OPr. frag. begeyte 2pl. imp. (PIE *b heg w-); TO DIE Lith. mir̃ti,
Latv. mir̃t, dial. mìrt (PIE *mer-).
2. Loanwords
The majority of older loanwords in the Baltic languages are from Slavic and Germanic.
Many of the words imported into Baltic are themselves already borrowings, mainly from
Latin and, less frequently, Byzantine Greek. Furthermore, many Germanicisms have been
borrowed through Slavic intermediaries, and it can be difficult to determine the exact
route of a given word. A few words have been borrowed from the neighboring Balto-
Finnic languages, but more significantly, an archaic stage of Baltic is preserved in the
form of loanwords in these languages.

Authenticated
1684 XIV. Baltic
2.1. Slavic
The Slavic languages have influenced the Baltic lexicon at different stages in time, and
it is often difficult to decide which Slavic language is the donor language of a given
word. From around the 4 th or 3 rd c. BCE down to the present, the Slavs and the Balts
have remained in constant contact. For collections and studies of Slavic loanwords, cf.
Brückner (1877); Skardžius (1931); Sabaliauskas (1990: 227−257); and Kardelis (2003).
The Slavic loans in Old Prussian are mainly from West Slavic, i.e. Old Polish (perhaps
better labelled “Proto-Polish”); cf. Levin (1974) for a detailed treatment of the Slavic
element in the Elbing Vocabulary.
The oldest Slavic loanwords preserved in East Baltic have been analyzed by Būga
(1912, 1924); Kiparsky (1948); Guild (1978); Seržant (2006) and Young (forthcoming).
These loans display certain archaic traits; for example, jers are preserved as high vowels
in both strong and weak position, e.g. Lith. kùrtas, Latv. kurts ‘greyhound’ < *хŭrtŭ (cf.
Ru. хоrt); OLith. and dial. tùlkas, Latv. tul̃ks ‘translator’ < *tŭlkŭ (cf. Ru. tolk); OLith.
and dial. bìrkavas, Latv. bir̃kavs, bir̃kava ‘unit of weight equal to 10 poods’ < *bĭr-
kovŭ(skŭ pǫdŭ) ‘Birka (pood)’ (originally an adjective formed to *Bĭrka, the Viking-age
trading center in Sweden; cf. Ru. bеrkоvеc). A few loans seem to predate the East Slavic
pleophony. One such example is Lith. čérpė (dial. čer̃pė) ‘tile to cover the roof, to build
an oven; a type of clay dish or a fragment thereof’ from Slav. *čerpŭ ‘fragment, splinter’
(cf. Ru. čerep ‘skull’, čerepok ‘splinter, fragment’). The possibility that čérpė may be a
shortened form of *čerepē can, however, not be ruled out; cf. OLith. čerpyčia ‘oven,
stove’ which could be a loan from Slav. *čerpica, but could equally be a shortened form
of the also attested čerepyčia (Belo-Ru. čerepica), as suggested by Skardžius (1931: 55).
An example from Latvian is kal̃ps ‘servant; farm hand’ < *хоlpŭ (cf. Ru. хоlоp). This
may, however, also reflect a syncopated form (i.e. kal̃ps < *kalaps), given the high
frequency of syncope of internal short open syllables in Latvian; cf. Endzelin (1923:
46 f.). There are also some examples of early loans with a diphthong uo (< *ō) for Slav.
u, which seems to indicate that the Slavic vowel was still *ō at the time these words
were borrowed (in later borrowings this vowel is represented by ū, and still later as u),
e.g. Latv. duõma ‘thought’ (cf. Ru. duma); Latv. kàpuôsts, dial. kàpuõsts ‘cabbage’ (cf.
Ru. kapusta); Latv. puõkaiņš ‘wire-haired, fletched’. Lithuanian has only a very few
examples of this kind, however; cf. Žemaitian puõkas ‘down, fluff’ (cf. Ru. puх), as
opposed to the later Aukštaitian pū̃kas. Another example from Lithuanian is kruõpos pl.
‘groats’ (cf. Ru. krupa). Examples which go back to an original Slavic nasal vowel *ǭ
may represent the same phenomenon: Latv. kuodeļš, kùodaļa, kùodeļa, Lith. kuodẽlis
‘tow (of flax)’ (cf. ORu. kudelja Ru. kudelĭ; note that the same word was borrowed into
Finnish as kuontalo; cf. Kiparsky 1948: 36); Latv. muõka ‘torment, torture’ (cf. Ru.
muka, Pol. męka); Latv. rùobeža ‘border, boundary’ (cf. Ru. rubež). Another point of
view is represented by Guild (1978: 428), who argues that Old Russian still possessed
nasal vowels at this stage and that Latv. uo in these words reflects earlier *an. It should
be pointed out that the same solution is not possible for the few instances in Lithuanian.
In a recent article, Seržant (2006) has suggested that these early Slavic loans entered
Latvian through Proto-High-Latvian, and that the vocalism may simply reflect the regular
substitution of Middle Latv. uo for Proto-High-Latv. *ū. Since the reflex uo for Slavic
*ō occurs almost exclusively in Latvian, whereas the same loans in Lithuanian mostly

Authenticated
have ū or u (cf. Kiparsky 1948), an inner-Latvian explanation may be preferable in this

case.
It is rather difficult to estimate when the earliest loanwords from East Slavic first
appeared in Baltic. The fact that some loans seem to predate pleophony suggests that
these may have entered Baltic before the 10 th c., and the preservation of the jers as high
vowels indicates a date before the 12 th c.; cf. Būga (1924). In Latvia, the political and
cultural dominance shifted by the 13 th century with the conquest of Livonia by the
Germans and the incorporation of Riga in the Hanseatic league in 1282. From this time
German loans begin to appear in Latvian, whereas the borrowing of Slavic words be-
comes much less common. On the other hand, the Slavic influence on Lithuanian contin-
ued. In the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the West Russian (Old Belorussian) chancellery
language was used for administrative purposes (cf. Stang 1935). With the marriage be-
tween Grand Duke Jogaila of Lithuania and Queen Jadwiga of Poland in 1386, the Polish
influence on the Lithuanian language increased considerably. The major part of the Slav-
ic loans in the Old Lithuanian texts are accordingly from Belorussian and Polish; cf. the
large collection made by Skardžius (1931). It is often claimed that the 16 th−17 th c. texts
have at least twice as many loanwords from Polish as from Belorussian. However, this
notion is based on a simple wordcount of the loans listed by Skardžius. For example,
Palionis (1967: 269 ff.) and Sabaliauskas (1990: 229) both highlight the fact that of the
2950 words in the collection only about 760 words are classified as Belorussian as
compared to about 1500 words with a Polish origin. In addition, about 630 words may
be from either Belorussian or Polish. Unfortunately, this method does not give a correct
picture of the situation. Skardžius did not have access to many of the studies concerning
Old Belorussian, and was therefore frequently unable to quote the relevant Old Belorus-
sian forms. In fact, a re-evaluation by Urbutis (1992) of part of the collected material
revealed that almost three-quarters of the examined loanwords might just as well be
from Belorussian as from Polish. In the remaining quarter, the Belorussian loans seem
to be in the majority.
2.2. Germanic
Most of the German loanwords in Baltic stem from a variety of Middle Low German
used in the domain of the Teutonic Order, though it can be difficult to determine the
exact dialectal form; cf. Čepienė (1995, 2006). Some examples: Lith. ãmatas, Latv.
amats ‘handicraft’ (MLG am[m]et); Lith. blánka, Latv. blànka ‘plank’ (MLG blanke);
Lith. bùdelis, Latv. budelis, budẽlis ‘hangman’ (MLG boddel, EPr. Germ. bodel); Lith.
rùngas, Latv. ruñga ‘stake’ (MLG runge); Lith. rū́mas, Latv. rũme ‘mansion, chamber’
(MLG rūm). The most widespread loanwords are those associated with government, the
military and economics as well as construction and building terms, although words be-
longing to other semantic areas are not uncommon; cf. Senn (1925); Alminauskis (1934);
Sabaliauskas (1990: 257−268); Palionis (1967: 286 ff.); Giriūnienė (1975) for loans in
Lithuanian and Sehwers (1936); Jordan (1995) for Latvian. A discussion of the oldest
layer of Germanic loanwords is offered by Otrębski (1966). For a summary of previous
research and further references, cf. Čepienė (1992). In Lithuanian, most loanwords are
found in the dialects along the Prussian border, i.e. West Aukštaitian, and to some extent

Authenticated
1686 XIV. Baltic
in the Žemaitian dialects. In the other dialects, there are relatively few German loan-
words, and according to Sabaliauskas (1990: 259) the German loanwords constitute only
0.5 % of the literary language. In the Latvian literary language, there are about 500 loans
from German; cf. Zemzare (1961: 416).
The Old Prussian language, at least in the form that has been transmitted to us, has
numerous German loanwords; cf. Smoczyński (2000). Although the Prussians are likely
to have been in contact with the Goths, the evidence for Gothic loans in Old Prussian is
very slim; cf. Būga (1922) for a discussion of possible examples. Some examples of
German loans in Old Prussian are Cat. predickerins ‘priest, preacher’ (MLG prediker);
Cat. penningans ‘money’ (MLG peninge); EV broakay ‘breeches’ (MLG brôk). It is
often difficult to decide how well integrated the loans were. This is especially true for
the language of the Catechisms, being basically word-for-word translations from Ger-
man. Old Prussian also displays a large number of calques of German compounds, e.g.
EV lauca-gerto ‘partridge’, lit. ‘field-hen’ (laucks ‘field’ + gerto ‘hen’), cf. MHG velt-
huon, MLG velt-hôn; EV pausto-caican ‘wild horse’ (pausto ‘wild’ + *caican ‘horse’),
cf. MHG wilt-pfert; Cat. labba-segīsnan ‘benefaction’ (labs ‘good’ + segisna ‘deed’),
cf. MHG wol-tât. Although Cat. pra-madlin Asg. f. “fuͤrbit” ‘intercession’ is clearly a
calque consisting of the prefix pra- translating the Germ. “fuͤr-” and maddla ‘prayer’,
the addition of the compositional suffix *-ii̯ o- (OPr. Asg. -in) shows that it was adjusted
to the productive compositional system; cf. 4.4 below.
2.3. Balto-Finnic
Due to contacts between the Balts and the neighboring Balto-Finnic speaking peoples
we find a few Balto-Finnic loanwords in Baltic, e.g. Lith. bùrė, Latv. bura ‘sail’ (cf.
Fin. purje, Est. puri); Lith. laĩvas, Latv. laĩva ‘ship, boat’ (cf. Fin. laiva, Est. laev). In
later times, the Latvians were in close contact with Livonian and Estonian, which is
reflected in loans like puĩka ‘boy’ (Liv. *pùo̯i̯ ga > *pùo̯ga, Est. poeg); vajag ‘is necessa-
ry’ (Liv. vajag, vajāg, Est. vaja); Latv. maksa ‘payment’ (Liv., Est. maks). Most of the
loanwords, however, went in the opposite direction, from Baltic into Balto-Finnic. For
further examples and discussion cf. Thomsen (1890); Kalima (1936); Nieminen (1957,
1959); Steinitz (1965); Suhonen (1988); Larsson (2001); and Kallio (2008). Liukkonen
(1999) introduces a large number of possible loans from Baltic to Balto-Finnic, not all
equally evident; cf. the negative review by Rédei (2000).
The fact that many of the loanwords from Baltic have been affected by inner-Balto-
Finnic sound changes shows that the words were borrowed at a fairly early point in the
history of Balto-Finnic. For example, PBalt. *ti developed into BFen. si (Fin. silta <
*tilta, cf. Lith. tìltas ‘bridge’), PBalt. *ln > BFen. ll (Fin. villa, Est. vill, cf. Lith. vìlna
‘wool’), and PBalt. *ś, *ź developed into BFen. h (Fin. halla, Est. hall, cf. Lith. šalnà
‘frost’). The oft-quoted development of PBalt. *ei̯ to PBFen. *ai̯ deserves special com-
ment. The treatment of this problem has been unnecessarily complicated by the assump-
tion that East Baltic ie cannot reflect PBalt. *ai̯ . Therefore, it must first and foremost be
clarified that PBalt. *ai̯ can, indeed, yield East Baltic ie (e.g. Lith. dieverìs ‘brother-in-
law’ and ORu. děverĭ, Gk. δᾱήρ, Lat. laevir, Arm. taygr; cf. Mathiassen (1995) for a
full discussion). Hence, an example like Fin. paimen ‘shepherd’ (Lith. piemuõ ‘id.’) is

Authenticated
not an instance of PBalt. *ei̯ being represented by PBFen. *ai̯ , but has simply preserved
the Baltic diphthong *ai̯ (cf. Gr. ποιμήν). Another key example is Fin. taivas ‘heaven,
sky’ which is generally said to be a borrowing from Balt. *dei̯ u̯as (Lith. diẽvas, Latv.
dìevs, OPr. EV deiwis ‘god’); cf. the comprehensive survey by Suhonen (1988: 608):
“taivas (< balt. *deivas)”. However, this example is better explained otherwise: Fin.
taivas must reflect an early loan from Indo-Iranian, i.e. IIr. *dai̯ u̯as; cf. also Katz (2003:
81) for further discussion. In effect, the material in support of PBalt. *ei̯ being represen-
ted by PBFen. *ai̯ is extremely meager. (The fact that Fin. ei sometimes corresponds to
ai in certain South Estonian dialects and Livonian is an inner-Balto-Finnic problem that
must be treated separately; cf. Laanest [1982: 325] for discussion.)

Presented below is a sample of specifically Baltic vocabulary; cf. Stang (1966a: 7−9);
Lanszweert (1984: V−VI); Zinkevičius (1984: 229 f.); and Sabaliauskas (1990: 142−193)
for further examples. Note, however, that the list of words presented by Sabaliauskas
also includes lexical items that occur exclusively in East Baltic. The words listed below
are attested in both East and West Baltic. Sometimes connections to PIE roots can be
made, for example the Baltic word for ‘shoulder’ is probably connected to the root
*peth2 - ‘fly, spread out (the wings)’, but in most cases the etymological connections are
unclear. In a few cases, only the semantic development is specific to Baltic, for example
the Baltic word for ‘forest’ continues PIE *méd hi̯ os ‘middle’.
The Baltic languages furthermore share a range of unique lexical correspondences
with Germanic and Slavic; cf. Trautmann (1923); Stang (1972) for examples and discus-
sion.
Terms for persons: Lith. mergà ‘girl, maiden’, Latv. dial. mȩ̄rga ‘girl of marriageable
age’, OPr. EV mergo ‘maiden’; Lith. vaĩkas ‘child’, OPr. Cat. waix ‘farm servant’. Body
parts: Lith. petỹs ‘shoulder’, OPr. EV pettis ‘shoulder-blade, shovel’, pette ‘shoulder’.
Flora and fauna: Lith. ą́žuolas, Latv. uôzuols, OPr. EV ansonis ‘oak’; Lith. bríedis, Latv.
briêdis, OPr. EV braydis ‘elk’; Lith. žìrgas ‘horse, steed’, Latv. zir̂gs ‘horse’, OPr. EV
sirgis ‘stallion’; Lith. slíekas, Latv. sliêks 2, sliêka, OPr. EV slayx ‘rainworm’; Lith. ge-
nỹs, Latv. dzenis, OPr. EV genix ‘woodpecker’; Lith. lydekà, lydỹs, Latv. lîdaka, -eka,
OPr. EV liede ‘pike’; Lith. pémpė, OPr. EV peempe ‘peewit, lapwing’; Lith. vãnagas,
Latv. vanags ‘hawk’, OPr. EV sperglawanag ‘sparrowhawk’, gertoanax ‘hawk’, lit. ‘hen-
hawk’. Miscellaneous nouns: Lith. lángas, Latv. luôgs, OPr. EV lanxto ‘window’; Lith.
mẽdis, dial. mẽdžias ‘tree, wood’, Latv. mežs ‘forest’, OPr. EV median ‘forest’; Lith.
rýkštė, Latv. rĩkšte, OPr. EV riste ‘rod’; Lith. pliẽnas, Latv. pliẽns, OPr. EV playnis
‘steel’; Lith. vãris, dial. vãrias, Latv. varš, dial. vaŗš, OPr. EV wargien ‘copper’. Adjec-
tives and adverbs: Lith. ˛ísas, Latv. îss, OPr. Cat. īnsan Asg. ‘short’; Lith. lãbas, Latv.
labs, OPr. Cat. labs ‘good’; Lith. tolùs, Latv. tâls ‘far, distant, remote’, OPr. Cat. tālis,
tāls comp. adv. ‘further’; Lith. dãžnas, Latv. dažs ‘common’, OPr. Cat. kudesnammi,
kodesnimma ‘so often’. Verbs: Lith. globóti ‘to take care of, to protect’, glóbti ‘to em-
brace’, Latv. glabât ‘to keep’, glâbt ‘to save, to protect’, OPr. Cat. poglabū 3sg. past
‘caressed’; Lith. tráukti ‘pull, drag’, OPr. Cat. pertraūki 3sg. past ‘closed up’. Personal
names: There are several compound names that are common to Prussian and Lithuanian;

Authenticated
1688 XIV. Baltic
cf. Trautmann (1925: 131−157); Stang (1966: 4): OPr. Algard − Lith. Algirdas; OPr.
Arbute − Lith. Arbutas; OPr. Butigede − Lith. Butgeidas; OPr. Butrimas − Lith. Butri-
mas; OPr. Masebuth − Lith. Mažbutas; OPr. Wissebute − Lith. Visbutas; OPr. Barkint −
Lith. Barkintas; OPr. Wissebar − Lith. Visbaras; OPr. Daukant − Lith. Daukantas, OPr.
Eygayle − Lith. Eigaila; OPr. Eymant − Lith. Eimantas; OPr. Eytwyde − Lith. Eitvidas;
OPr. Clawsigail − Lith. Klausigaila.
4. Word formation
Among the most important works concerning Baltic noun formation, the following may
be mentioned: Leskien (1884, 1891); Skardžius (1943); Otrębski (1965); Bammesberger
(1973); Ambrazas (1993, 2000). The Baltic verb has been studied by Stang (1942);
Schmid (1963); Schmalstieg (2000); and Smoczyński (2005). Below, some of the most
archaic stems preserved in Baltic will be discussed, and a selection of specifically Baltic
suffixes will be presented. In addition, the Baltic system of nominal composition will be
briefly described.
4.1. Athematic stems

The inherited vocabulary, as presented in 1. above, has to a large extent preserved the
inherited stem class. For example, many of the inherited athematic verbs have preserved
their inflection, e.g. OPr. 1sg. asmai, 2sg. assei, essei, 3sg. ast, OLith. 1sg. esmi, 2sg.
essi, 3sg./pl. esti, Latv. 1sg. ęsmu, 2sg. esi (*h1 es- ‘be’) and OPr. 2sg. ēisei, 3sg. ēit,
OLith. 1sg. eimi, 2sg. eisi, 3sg./pl. eiti, OLatv. 1sg. eῖmi, iêmu, Latv. 3sg. iêt (*h1 ei̯ -
‘go’). The athematic stem formation became moderately productive in East Baltic, and
hence verbs like álkti ‘to starve’, bárti ‘to scold’, snìgti ‘to snow’, čiáudėti ‘to sneeze’,
giedóti ‘to sing’, mė́ gti ‘to like’ have athematic forms in Old Lithuanian, although there
are no indications that these verbs continue inherited athematic verbs; cf. Specht (1935:
82 ff.); Stang (1966a: 310 f.).
The continuants of root nouns in Baltic are generally based on the PIE accusative
stem, both with respect to ablaut grade and stem marker. The small group of root nouns
that can be reconstructed with certainty have, in most cases, partially preserved the
consonantal inflection, e.g. Lith. naktìs (Gpl. naktų̃), Latv. nakts (Gpl. naktu), OPr. Cat.
naktin Asg. ‘night’ (*nok wt-); Lith. žąsìs (Gpl. žąsų̃), Latv. zùoss (Gpl. dial zùosu), OPr.
EV sansy ‘goose’ (*g̑ hans-); Lith. žvėrìs (Gpl. dial. žvėrų̃), Latv. zvȩ̂rs (Gpl. zvȩ̂ru), OPr.
Cat. swīrins Apl. ‘beast’ (*g̑ hu̯ēr-); Lith. žuvìs (Gpl. žuvų̃), Latv. zivs (Gpl. dial. zivu),
dial. zuvs (Gpl. zuvu), OPr. EV suckis ‘fish’ (*d hg̑ huH-). The consonantal inflection must
have enjoyed some degree of productivity at an early stage, as witnessed by, for example,
the OLith. ti-stem išmintis ‘reason, intelligence’ with consonantal endings Gsg. išmintes
and Gpl. išmintų beside ti-stem endings Gsg. išminties and Gpl. išminčių; cf. Kazlauskas
(1957: 5 ff.). Therefore, the mere fact that a noun has consonantal endings in Baltic is
not enough to warrant the reconstruction of a root noun in Proto-Indo-European. Among
original s-stems with preserved consonantal endings, we find Lith. ausìs (Gpl. ausų̃),
Latv. àuss (Gpl. ausu), OPr. EV ausins, Cat. āusins Apl. ‘ear’; Lith. debesìs (Gpl. de-

Authenticated
besų̃) ‘cloud’, Latv. debess (Gpl. debesu) ‘sky’. A few r-stems and ter-stems have pre-
served their consonantal character, e.g. Lith. sesuõ, Gsg. seser(e)s ‘sister’; Lith. duktė̃
(Gsg. dukter[e]s) ‘daughter’; Lith. mótė (Gsg. móter[e]s) ‘woman, mother’; OLith. jentė
(Gsg. jenters), Latv. ietere (dial. iẽtaļa) ‘sister-in-law’ (PBalt. *i̯ ēnter- < PIE *[H]i̯ énh2 -
ter-). The consonantal character of the n-stem inflection is also maintained, e.g. Lith.
augmuõ, -meñs ‘plant, swelling’; Lith. akmuõ, -meñs ‘stone’, Latv. akmens (OLatv. Nsg.
akmuons); Lith. ašmuõ, -meñs, Latv. asmens ‘edge, blade’; Lith. piemuõ, -meñs ‘shep-
herd’; OPr. Cat. emmens (Asg. emnen) ‘name’; OPr. Cat. kērmens (Gsg. kermenes)
‘body’; OPr. EV semen ‘seed’ (< *seh1 -mn̥; cf. also OLith. sėmuõ, -meñs ‘id.’). Conso-
nant-stem inflection has generally not become productive, but n- and men-stems seem
to have enjoyed a certain degree of productivity in Baltic, as they did in Slavic, e.g.
Lith. ruduõ, -eñs, Latv. rudens ‘autumn’; Lith. tešmuõ, -meñs, Latv. tesmens ‘udder’;
Lith. rėmuõ / rė́ muo, -mens Latv. rẽmens ‘heartburn’; Lith. kirmuõ, -meñs ‘worm’; Latv.
zibens ‘lightning’. A few original heteroclitic stems have been preserved in variously
remodelled forms, e.g. Lith. vanduõ, -eñs, Latv. ûdens, OPr. EV wundan n., Cat. unds m.
‘water’ (*u̯odr̥/n-). The extra nasal of the Baltic stem may be due to a metathesis in the
weak cases, e.g. Gsg. *ud-n-és > *un-d-és (cf. Smoczyński 1997: 198), or, as suggested
by Stang (1966: 160), to influence from a verb with nasal infix (cf. Ved. unátti). Another
example is Latv. asins ‘blood’ (PIE *h1 ésh2 r̥/n-). The initial a- of the Baltic reflex may
be explained by the well-attested phonetic interchange between initial e- and a-; cf.
Stang (1966a: 31 f.); Andersen (1996). The word for ‘liver’ is another example. Here
the Baltic languages display a range of dialectal forms; cf. Lith. dial. (j)ẽknos, (j)ãknos,
Latv. aknas, dial. jęknas, OPr. EV iagno. However, a Proto-Baltic *i̯ ekna- may suffice
to explain all of the dialectal variants; when the initial *i̯ was lost (Arumaa 1964: 109),
it gave rise to the dialectal forms with initial ek-, and the variant ak- is the result of
the aforementioned interchange of initial e- and a-. Finally, the variant *i̯ ak- reflects a
contamination of *i̯ ek- and *ak-. For a different view, cf. Petit (2004: 100 ff.), who
reconstructs two different ablaut grades for Proto-Baltic. PIE *u̯esr̥/n- (cf. OCS vesna
‘spring’, Gr. ἔαρ, Lat. vēr ‘id’, etc.), surfaces as a thematic stem in Baltic: Lith. vãsara,
Latv. vasara ‘summer’. The unexpected vocalism of the root is probably to be explained
by a kind of vocalic assimilation, as suggested by Skardžius (1938); cf. however Eckert
(1969) and Petit (2004: 116), who consider reconstructing an original o-grade. The origi-
nal l/n-stem *sah2 u̯l̥ /n- is preserved in the PBalt. ii̯ ā-stem *sāulē (Lith. sáulė, Latv. saũle,
OPr. EV saule ‘sun’). Note that OCS slŭnĭce etc. < *suln- indicates that this noun still
retained its ablaut and heteroclisis in Proto-Balto-Slavic.
4.2. Thematic stems and derivatives
Thematic stems are common in Baltic, both in nouns and verbs. Some inherited thematic
verbs are Lith. degù, Latv. dęgu ‘I burn’ (PIE *d heg wh-e/o-); Lith. vedù, Latv. vędu ‘I
lead’ (PIE *u̯éd h-e/o-); Lith. vežù ‘I drive’ (*u̯eg̑ h-e/o-); Lith. sekù, Latv. sęku ‘I follow’
(PIE *sek w-e/o-). PIE thematic deverbal action nouns (and agent nouns) usually had o-
grade in the root, which, in its various modern reflexes, is still the most frequent root-
structure, e.g. Lith. dãgas ‘harvest, (summer) heat’, OPr. EV dagis ‘summer’ (Lith. dègti
‘to burn’); Lith. tãkas, Latv. taks ‘path’ (Lith. tekė́ ti ‘to flow, to run’); cf. Leskien (1891:

Authenticated
1690 XIV. Baltic
159–233). Deverbal nouns are also commonly formed with the suffix *-ii̯ o-/*-ii̯ ā- (OPr.
-is / -e, Lith. -is, -ys / -ė, Latv. -is / -e), as in Lith. šókti ‘to jump’ → šõkis 2 (= accent
paradigm [AP] 2; for details on Lithuanian accent paradigms, see Petit, The phonology
of Baltic, this handbook, 4.1) ‘a jump’, Lith. mèsti ‘to throw’ → mė̃tis 2 ‘a throw’, Lith.
gérti ‘to drink’ → gė̃ris 2 ‘drink’, Latv. dzer̂t ‘to drink’ → Latv. dial. dzìres ‘feast’ etc.
Some examples from the Old Prussian Elbing Vocabulary are OPr. loase ‘coverlet, blan-
ket’ (Lith. lõžė 2 ‘place where corn or grain lies, lying grain’, Lith. iš-lèžti ‘to lodge’);
OPr. soalis ‘grass’ (Lith. žolė̃ 4 ‘id.’, žélti ‘to become green’); OPr. toaris ‘mow, hayloft’
(Latv. tvāre, Lith. tvorà 4 ‘fence’, Lith. tvérti ‘to fence in’); OPr. boadis ‘a thrust’ (OPr.
Cat. em-baddusisi ‘stuck in’, Lith. bèsti ‘stick [into], sting’). In Lithuanian, all deriva-
tives belong to AP 2 (sometimes with secondary spread of mobility, i.e. AP 2 → 4), and
the Latvian derivatives show the corresponding long falling tone. Whether the Old Prus-
sian examples also reflect falling tone is a matter of debate; cf. Larsson (2005). When
derived from a verb with underlying acute intonation the derivative has métatonie douce,
and when the base verb has a short vowel in the root, the root-vowel of the derivative
is lengthened to a long circumflex vowel. According to Stang (1966b) and Derksen
(1996: 36 f., 44 ff., 59 ff.), these originally end-stressed disyllabic deverbatives have mé-
tatonie douce due to a rule by which a sequence *-ìi̯ - in medial stressed position lost its
ictus to the preceding syllable, causing this syllable to change an original acute tone into
a circumflex. As I have argued elsewhere, this rule should be extended to include length-
ening of original short vowels in the same position; cf. Larsson (2004a), Villanueva
Svensson (2011: 12). For a different explanation of the lengthening, cf. Kuryłowicz
(1956: 293 f., 1968: 319).
The suffix *-ii̯ o- is also used to derive nouns from adjectives, e.g. Lith. júodas ‘black’
→ juõdis 2 ‘blackness’, júodis 1 ‘a black horse, a black animal’; Lith. bė́ ras, Latv. bȩ̃rs
‘bay, reddish brown’ → Lith. bė̃ris 2 ‘bayness, darkness’, bė́ ris 1, Latv. bẽris ‘bay horse’;
Lith. sū́ras ‘salt’ → sū̃ris 2 ‘saltiness’, sū́ris 1 ‘cheese’; Lith. seklùs ‘shallow’ → sė̃klis
2 ‘shallowness’, sẽklis 2 ‘a shallow place’; Lith. žìlas ‘grey’ → žỹlis 2 ‘greyness’, žìlis
2 ‘grey-haired man’. Here we find a remarkable difference in both accentuation and
ablaut. The accentual opposition between abstract and concrete deadjectival formations
of the type Lith. gỹvis ‘liveliness’, as opposed to Lith. gývis ‘living things’ (both derived
from the basic adjective Lith. gývas ‘alive’), reflects an original accentual opposition
between root-stressed concrete nouns (e.g. Lith. gývis < *gī́vii̯ as) and the suffix-stressed
abstract nouns (e.g. Lith. gỹvis < *gīvìi̯ an); cf. Stang (1966a: 146); Kuryłowicz (1958:
287, 295). In the latter case, the suffix lost the ictus to the preceding syllable in accor-
dance with the rule described above. The same accentual opposition may also account
for the difference in ablaut in derivatives from adjectives with short vowel in the root.
In such derivatives we find that the short vowel is kept unchanged in the originally root-
stressed concrete nouns, e.g. Lith. žìlis (< *źìlii̯ as) ‘grey-haired man’, whereas we find
lengthening of the root vowel in the originally suffix-stressed abstract nouns, e.g. Lith.
žỹlis 2 (< *źilìi̯ as) ‘greyness’; cf. Larsson (2004a: 311 ff.).
The Baltic derivational system is unusually rich in ablaut variation, often accompa-
nied by a difference in accentuation. In many cases, the unexpected ablaut can be ex-
plained by phonological developments, as argued above. Another example of a phono-
logical development that has generated new lengthened-grade ablaut in Baltic is Winter’s
law (Winter 1978). With the acceptance of Winter’s law, the amount of inexplicable
“secondary” ablaut variation in Baltic is significantly reduced.

Authenticated
4.3. Derivational suffixes specific to the Baltic languages
Some derivational suffixes are specific to the Baltic languages, and the following collec-
tion may with a high degree of certainty be projected back to a Common Baltic stage;
cf. Stang (1966a: 3 f.). In both East and West Baltic, we find action noun suffixes con-
taining the consonants -s- and -n-, *-s(i̯ )en-, *-s(i̯ )an-; cf. the productive Latvian action
noun suffix -šana e.g. Latv. iêšana ‘walking’, lasîšana ‘reading’, skrìešana ‘running’
and the much less common Lithuanian suffix -sena, e.g. ė̃sena ‘eating; food’, jósena
‘riding’, kratýsena ‘shaking’. In Old Prussian, we have -senna / -sennis and more rarely
-sanna and -sna; cf. Parenti (1998) for the suggestion of an original distribution related
to accentuation, and Benveniste (1935: 101) for the further connection to the PIE suffix
*-ser-/-sen-. Another noun suffix clearly of Common Baltic age is the noun-forming
suffix *-ūna-, e.g. Lith. malū̃nas, OPr. EV malunis ‘mill’; Lith. gėrū̃nas ‘drinker, drunk-
ard’, Latv. dial. mirūnis ‘corpse’, OPr. Cat. waldūns ‘heir’; cf. also the less transparent
Lith. perkū́nas, Latv. dial. pȩ̄rkūns, OPr. EV percunis ‘thunder, Perkunas’. An adjectival
suffix that can be traced back to Common Baltic is -inga- which primarily forms adjec-
tives denoting ‘having a great quantity or degree of something’, e.g. Lith. laimìngas,
Latv. laĩmîgs ‘happy’; Lith. píeningas ‘rich in milk’, Latv. piẽnîgs ‘giving much milk’;
Lith. gė́ dingas ‘modest, shameful’, OPr. Cat. nigīdings ‘shameless’, OPr. labbīngs
‘good’. Derivatives from verbs denote the inclination or ability to perform an action,
e.g. Lith. baringas ‘inclined to quarrel’; Latv. tìepîgs ‘stubborn, OPr. Cat. aulāikings
‘abstinent’. In addition, the Baltic languages have a rich and productive tradition of
forming diminutives. Some Common Baltic diminutive suffixes are *-ē̆lii̯ a-, e.g. Lith.
tėvẽlis ‘dear father, daddy’, dukterė̃lė ‘dear little daughter’ (in Lithuanian, the variant
with long vowel occurs in words where the nominative has four syllables or more), Latv.
vĩrelis ‘insignificant man’, OPr. EV patowelis ‘step-father’, *-ulii̯ a-, e.g. Lith. mažiùlis
‘little fellow’, tėtùlis ‘daddy’, Latv. jȩ̃rulis ‘lambkin’, OPr. PN Mattulle, *-uź-, e.g. Lith.
mergùžė ‘dear little girl’, OPr. Gr. merguss ‘maid’, *-ut-, e.g. Lith. mažùtis ‘tiny’, vilkùtis
‘small wolf, wolf-cub’, vaikùtas ‘kid, boy’, OPr. EV nagutis ‘nail’, PN Marute ‘Mary’,
OPr. PN Geruthe, Waykutte, Masutte, *-ai̯ t-, e.g. Lith. langáitis ‘small window’, vilkáitis
‘small wolf, wolf-cub’, mergáitė ‘girl’, PN Valáitis, OPr. Place names Norrayte, Wan-
gaiten.
4.4. Nominal compounds
Nominal compounds are found in both East and West Baltic, and although many of them
seem to be recent formations or calques, the underlying system clearly continues the
inherited PIE system; cf. Larsson (2002) for discussion. Previous studies concerning Bal-
tic nominal compounds include Aleksandrow (1888); Amato (1992, 1996); and Larsson
(2010). For a recent treatment of the Old Latvian nominla compounds, cf. Bukelskytė-
Čepelė (2017).
Examples of possessive compounds are abundant in East Baltic, e.g. Lith. didžia-
nõsis/-ė ‘having a large nose’; Lith. juoda-bar̃zdis/-ė ‘having a black beard’; Lith. juoda-
rañkis/-ė ‘having black hands’; Lith. tri-dañtis/-ė ‘three-toothed’; Latv. bal̃t-galvis/-e
‘blond’; Latv. mȩl̃n-ace ‘dark-eyed (girl)’; Latv. trij-zaris ‘three-pronged fork’, although

Authenticated
1692 XIV. Baltic
they are rare in the small Old Prussian corpus. These compounds are originally ad-
jectives, sometimes with a substantivized meaning, and the compositional suffix
*-ii̯ o-/*-ii̯ ā- (Lith. -is, -ys/-ė, Latv. -is/-e, OPr. -is/-e) is added to the second member
(SM).
Determinative compounds are common in both East and West Baltic, where we find
dependent determinatives like Lith. šón-kaulis, Latv. sãn-kaũls ‘rib’, lit. ‘side bone’; OPr.
EV daga-gaydis ‘summer wheat’; OPr. EV maluna-kelan ‘mill-wheel’; OPr. Cat. dijla-
pagaptin ‘tool’, lit. ‘work-spit’, where the first member is in a case relationship with the
second member, and also attributive determinatives like Lith. júod-varnis ‘black raven’;
Latv. gàiš-pęlę̂ks ‘light-grey’; OPr. Cat. grēiwa-kaulin Asg. m. ‘rib’, lit. ‘curved bone’.
There are also a few descriptive determinatives consisting of two nouns expressing a
comparison, e.g. Lith. jáut-karvė ‘ox-cow, cow without a calf’. In most cases, the first
member (FM) of determinative compounds consists of the bare stem, although juxtaposi-
tions where the FM is a case-form also occur. When the FM consists of the bare stem,
the stem vowel is dropped as a rule in Latvian, whereas in Modern Lithuanian it is
sometimes dropped, sometimes retained, producing doublets like bról-vaikis / broliã-vai-
kis nephew’ and šón-kauliai / dial. šonã-kauliai ‘rib’; cf. Otrębski (1965: 25). The original
distribution of the stem vowel is still preserved in Old Lithuanian; cf. Larsson (2004b).
The second member of determinative compounds may be enlarged with the compositional
suffix *-ii̯ o-/*-ii̯ ā-, but variants without the suffix are common in older texts and in the
dialects, e.g. Lith. dial. kir̃va-kotas ‘handle of an axe’ (next to Standard Lith. kir̃va-kotis);
OLith. vor-tinklas ‘cobweb, spider’s web’ (next to Standard Lith. vór-tinklis); Latv. lin-
sȩ̃kla ‘flaxseeds’ (next to Latv. lin-sēkles). A few of the Old Prussian determinatives have
seemingly added the compositional suffix to the SM, e.g. grēiwa-kaulin Asg. m. ‘rib’
(caulan EV ‘bone’) and nage-pristis (recte: nage-pirstis) ‘toe’, lit. ‘foot-finger’ (pirsten
N/Asg. n. EV ‘finger’), although most Old Prussian determinatives do not have this
suffix. It is likely that the compositional suffix, which was originally restricted to adjecti-
val compounds (i.e. possessives), was analogically extended to other types of compounds.
This extension most probably dates back to the Common Baltic period.
Governing compounds are also well-represented in both East and West Baltic. The
verbal governing compounds often function as agent nouns, e.g. Lith. rank-pelnỹs, Latv.
rùok-pelnis ‘manual worker’; Lith. avìn-vedis ‘shepherd’; Lith. akì-plėša ‘insolent per-
son’, lit. ‘eye-tearer’; Lith. vasar-augis, OPr. EV dago-augis ‘shoot of a plant as it
grows in one summer’; OPr. EV crauya-wirps ‘leech’; OPr. EV pele-maygis ‘kestrel’,
lit. ‘mouse-grabber’; OPr. Gloss. kelle-wesze ‘wagon driver’. Some examples of preposi-
tional governing compounds are Lith. añt-akiai, Latv. uz-ači ‘eyebrows’; Lith. pa-daubỹs
‘valley’, OPr. EV pa-daubis ‘id.’; OPr. EV po-corto ‘threshold’; OPr. EV no-lingo ‘rein’.
In the governing compounds, the compositional suffix has also attained a certain produc-
tivity. Finally, there are a few copulative compounds, although this is not a particularly
productive category, and the degree of univerbation varies, e.g. Lith. kója-galviai ‘dish
of calves’ feet’, lit. ‘feet and head’; OLith. vyr-moterių Gpl. ‘married couple’; Latv. kùrl-
mȩ̄ms ‘deaf and dumb’.
There is a basic opposition in the accentuation of nominal compounds in Lithuanian
between determinative compounds (nouns) with accent on the FM, and possessive com-
pounds (adjectives) with accent on the SM, e.g. vìšt-kiaušis ‘hen’s egg’ vs. višta-gal̃vis/-ė
‘hen-headed’; júod-strazdis ‘blackbird’ vs. juoda-rañkis/-ė ‘having black hands’; júod-
varnis ‘black raven’ vs. juoda-bar̃zdis/-ė ‘having a black beard’. Additionally, the accent

Authenticated
paradigm of the individual members of the compound is a decisive factor in the accentua-
tion; cf. Larsson (2002: 211 ff.). In Old Prussian, determinative compounds also have
the accent on the FM; cf. grēiwa-kaulin ‘rib’, dijla-pagatin ‘instrument’. Although most
Old Prussian compounds are calques from German, both East and West Baltic share
some common traits and innovations in the compositional system: the compositional
suffix *-ii̯ o-/*-ii̯ ā- has become productive in both branches, and the position of the accent
seems to follow similar rules (cf. Larsson 2010: 99 f.).
5. References
Ademollo Gagliano, Maria Teresa
1995 Arcaismi lessicali in lettone. In: Carlo Alberto Mastrelli, Alberto Nocentini, and Fioren-
za Granucci (eds.), Studi linguistici per i 50 anni del circolo linguistico fiorentino e i
secondi mille dibattiti 1970−1995. Florence: Olschki, 1−8.
Aleksandrow, Alexander
1888 Litauische Studien I. Nominalzusammensetzungen. Dorpat: Hermann.
Alminauskis, Kazimieras
1934 Die germanismen des Litauischen. Teil 1: Die deutschen Lehnwörter im Litauischen.
Diss. Leipzig. Kaunas: Sv. Kazimiero D-jos Knygynas.
Amato, Serafini Loredana
1992 Morfologia dei composti nominali del prussiano antico. Europa orientalis 11: 197−222.
Amato, Serafini Loredana
1996 Contributo allo studio dei composti nominali nell’antico lettone. In: Rosanna Benacchio
and Luigi Magarotto (eds.), Studi slavistici in onore di Natalino Radovich. Padova:
Cooperative Libraria Editrice Universita di Padova, 285−305.
Ambrazas, Saulius
1993 Daiktavardžių darybos raida. Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodiniai vediniai [The evolution
of noun formation. The deverbal derivatives of Lithuanian]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklo-
pedijų leidykla.
Ambrazas, Saulius
2000 Daiktavardžių darybos raida II. Lietuvių kalbos vardažodiniai vediniai [The evolution
of noun formation II. The deverbal derivatives of Lithuanian]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enci-
klopedijų leidybos institutas.
Andersen, Henning
1996 Reconstructing Prehistorical Dialects. Initial vowels in Slavic and Baltic. (Trends in
Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 91). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Arumaa, Peeter
1964 Urslavische Grammatik, Band I. Heidelberg: Winter.
Bammesberger, Alfred
1973 Abstraktbildungen in den baltischen Sprachen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Benveniste, Émile
1935 Origines de la formation des noms en indo-européen. Paris: Maisonneuve.
Brückner, Alexander
1877 Die slawischen Fremdwörter im Litauischen. Weimar: Böhlau.
Būga, Kazimeras
1912 Lituanica. St. Petersburg: Tipografiâ Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk. [Reprinted in: Zink-
evičius 1958. Vol. I, 339−383].

Authenticated
1694 XIV. Baltic
Būga, Kazimeras
1922 Visųsenieji lietuvių santykiai su germanais. Kalba ir senovė. I dalis [The oldest relation-
ships of Lithuanian with Germanic. Language and antiquity. Part I]. Kaunas: Švietimo
Ministerijos leidinys. [Reprinted in: Zinkevičius 1958. Vol. II, 80−98].
Būga, Kazimeras
1923/1924 Die Metatonie im Lettischen und Litauischen. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende
Sprachforschung 51: 109−142; 52: 91−98, 250−302.
Būga, Kazimeras
1924 Die litauisch-weissrussischen Beziehungen und ihr Alter. Zeitschrift für slavische Philo-
logie 1: 26−55.
Bukelskytė-Čepelė, Kristina
2017 Nominal Compounds in Old Latvian Texts in the 16 th and 17 th Centuries. (Stockholm
studies in Baltic languages 11). Stockholm: Stockholm University Press.
Čepienė, Nijolė
1992 Die deutschen Lehnwörter im Litauischen und ihre Erforschung. Zeitschrift für Slawistik
37: 452−457.
Čepienė, Nijolė
1995 Lietuvių kalbos germanizmų fonetiniai variantai [Phonetic variants of Germanisms in
Lithuanian]. Baltistica 30: 77−80.
Čepienė, Nijolė
2006 Historische deutsch-litauische Kontakte in der Lexikographie. Annaberger Annalen über
Litauen und Deutsch-Litauische Beziehungen 14: 178−188.
Derksen, Rick
1996 Metatony in Baltic. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Eckert, Rainer
1969 Zu einigen Kontinuanten indoeuropäischer Heteroklita im Baltischen. Baltistica 5: 7−15.
Endzelin, Janis
1923 Lettische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter.
Giriūnienė, Stasė
1975 Rytų prūsijos XVI−XVIII a. lietuviškų raštų leksikos germanizmų fonetinė adaptacija
[Phonetic adaptation of East Prussian Germanisms of the lexicon of Lithuanian texts of
the 16 th−18 th centuries]. Kalbotyra 26: 83−94.
Guild, David G.
1978 Russian loanwords in Latvian. The Slavonic and East European Review 56: 427−430.
Jordan, Sabine
1995 Niederdeutsches im Lettischen − Untersuchungen zu den mittelniederdeutschen Lehn-
wörtern im Lettischen. Bielefeld: Verlag für Regionalgeschichte.
Kalima, Jalo
1936 Itämerensuomalaisten kielten balttilaiset lainasanat [Baltic loanwords in the Balto-Finn-
ic languages]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden seuran kirjapainon oy.
Kallio, Petri
1995 Suomen kielen kivikautisista lainasanakerrostumista [Stone Age loanword strata in Finn-
ish]. Virittäjä 99: 380−389.
Kallio, Petri
2008 On the ‘Early Baltic’ Loanwords in Common Finnic. In: Alexander Lubotsky, Jos
Schaeken, and Jeroen Wiedenhof (eds.), Evidence and Counter-Evidence: Essays in
Honour of Frederik Kortlandt 1. Balto-Slavic and Indo-European Linguistics. (Studies
in Slavic and General Linguistics 32). Amsterdam: Rodopi, 265−277.
Karaliūnas, Simas
1993 Reflexes of IE *h2 r̥tk̑o- “bear” in Baltic. Journal of Indo-European Studies 21: 367−372.

Authenticated
Kardelis, Vytautas
2003 Rytų aukštaičių šnektų slavizmų [On Slavisms in eastern Aukštaitic dialects]. Vilnius:
University Press.
Katz, Hartmut
2003 Studien zu den älteren indoiranischen Lehnwörtern in den uralischen Sprachen. Heidel-
berg: Winter.
Kazlauskas, Jonas
1957 Lietuvių kalbos daiktavardžių priebalsinio linksniavimo tipo nykimas [The loss of con-
sonant-stem inflection of nouns in Lithuanian]. In: Kai kurie lietuvių kalbos gramatikos
klausimai. Vilna Universiteta. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros lei-
dykla, 5−20.
Kiparsky, Valentin
1948 Chronologie des relations slavobaltiques et slavofinnoises. Revue des Études slaves 24:
29−47.
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy
1956 L’apophonie en indo-européen. Wrocław: Polska Akademia Nauk.
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy
1958 L’accentuation des langues indo-européennes. Wrocław: Polska Akademia Nauk.
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy
1968 Indogermanische Grammatik. Band II: Akzent. Ablaut. Heidelberg: Winter.
Laanest, Arvo
1982 Einführung in die ostseefinnischen Sprachen. Hamburg: Buske.
Lanszweert, René
1984 Die Rekonstruktion des baltischen Grundwortschatzes. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
2002 Nominal Compounds in the Baltic Languages. Transactions of the Philological Society
100: 203−231.
2004a Metatony and Length in Baltic. In: Adam Hyllested, Anders Richardt Jørgensen, Jenny
Helena Larsson, and Thomas Olander (eds.), Per aspera ad asteriscos, festschrift in
honour of Jens E. Rasmussen. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Uni-
versität, 305−322.
2004b Nominal Compounds in Old Lithuanian Texts: the Original Distribution of the Composi-
tion Vowel. Linguistica Baltica 10: 99−104.
2006 The Orthographic Variants <oa> and <ea> − Traces of Accent in the Elbing Vocabulary.
In: Günter Schweiger (ed.), Indogermanica: Festschrift Gert Klingenschmitt. Indische,
iranische und indogermanische Studien dem verehrten Jubilar dargebracht zu seinem
fünfundsechszigsten Geburtstag. Taimering: VWT, 359−376.
2010 Old Prussian Nominal Compounds. Stockholm: Memento.
Larsson, Lars-Gunnar
2001 Baltic influence on Finnic languages. In: Östen Dahl and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm
(eds.), The Circum-Baltic Languages: Typology and Contacts. Volume 1: Past and
Present. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 237−253.
Leskien, August
1884 Der Ablaut der Wurzelsilben im Litauischen. Leipzig: Hirzel.
Leskien, August
1891 Die Bildung der Nomina im Litauischen. Leipzig: Hirzel.

Authenticated
1696 XIV. Baltic
Levin, Jules F.
1974 The Slavic Element in the Old Prussian Elbing Vocabulary. Los Angeles: University of
California Press.
Liukkonen, Kari
1999 Baltisches im Finnischen. Helsinki. (Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 235).
Helsinki: Finnisch-Ugrische Gesellschaft.
LKŽ: Lietuvių kalbos žodynas [A Dictionary of the Lithuanian language]
1941−2002 Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos ir literatūros institutas (Lietuvos TSR Mokslų akadem-
ija).
Mathiassen, Terje
1995 Nochmals zum ie-Komplex im Ostbaltischen. Linguistica Baltica 4: 41−53.
Mažiulis, Vytautas
1988−1997 Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas [Etymological dictionary of Old Prussian].
Vilnius: Mokslas. [2 nd edn. 2013. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras.]
Mühlenbach, Karl and Jan Endzelin
1923−1932 Lettisch−deutsches Wörterbuch. Riga: Lettisches Bildungsministerium.
Nieminen, Eino
1957 Über einige Eigenschaften der baltischen Sprache, die sich in den ältesten baltischen
Lehnwörtern der ostseefinnischen Sprachen abspiegelt. Sitzungsberichte der finnischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften 1956. Helsinki: Verlag der finnischen Akademie der Wis-
senschaften, 185−206.
Nieminen, Eino
1959 Beiträge zu den baltisch-ostseefinnischen Berührungen. In: Ēvalds Sokols (ed.), Rakstu
krājums, akadēmiķim veltījums profesoram Dr. Jānim Endzelīnam viņa 85 dzīves un 65
darba gadu atcerei. Riga: Latvijas PSR Zinātnų Akadēmijas izdevniecība, 201−210.
Otrębski, Jan
1965 Gramatyka języka litewskiego, II [A grammar of the Lithuanian language, II]. Warsaw:
Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Otrębski, Jan
1966 Die ältesten germanischen Lehnwörter im Baltischen und Slavischen. Die Sprache 12:
50−64.
Palionis, Jonas
1967 Lietuvių literaturinė kalba XVa−XVIIa [The Lithuanian literary language of the 15 th−
17 th centuries]. Vilnius: Mintis.
Parenti, Alessandro
1998 Old Prussian Abstract Nouns in -sna, -senna, -sennis. In: Alfred Bammesberger (ed.),
Baltistik: Augaben und Methoden. Heidelberg: Winter, 129−142.
Petit, Daniel
2004 Apophonie et catégories grammaticales dans les langues baltiques. Leuven: Peeters.
Rédei, Károly
2000 Review of Liukkonen 1999. Linguistica Uralica 3: 223−229.
Sabaliauskas, Algirdas
1966 Lietuvių kalbos leksikos raida [The evolution of the Lithuanian lexicon]. Lietuvių kalbo-
tyros klausimai 8: 5−141.
1990 Lietuvių kalbos leksika [The lexicon of Lithuanian]. Vilnius: Mosklas.
2000 The Historical Morphology of the Baltic Verb. (Journal of Indo-European Studies, mono-
graph 37). Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man.
Schmid, Wolfgang P.
1963 Studien zum baltischen und indogermanischen Verbum. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Authenticated
Sehwers, Johann
1936 Sprachlich-kulturhistorische Untersuchungen vornehmlich über den deutschen Einfluss
im Lettischen. Leipzig: Harrassowitz.
Senn, Alfred
1925 Germanische Lehnwortstudien. Heidelberg: Winter.
Seržant, Ilja A.
2006 Die Vermittlungsrolle des Hochlettischen bei den altrussischen und litauischen Entleh-
nungen im Lettischen. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 55: 89−106.
Skardžius, Pranas
1931 Die slavischen Lehnwörter im Altlitauischen. Kaunas: Spindulio.
Skardžius, Pranas
1938 Dėl balsių asimiliacijos [On vowel assimilation]. Archivum Philologicum 7: 40−44.
Skardžius, Pranas
1943 Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba [Lithuanian word-formation]. Vilnius: Lietuvos mokslų
akademija.
1997 Il ruolo della lingua lituana per la linguistica indoeuropea. Ponto-Baltica 7: 53−82.
[Reprinted 2001. In: W. Smoczyński, Język litewski w perspektywie porównawczej. Cra-
cow: University Press, 179−208.]
2000 Untersuchungen zum deutschen Lehngut im Altpreussischen. Cracow: Jagellonian Uni-
versity Press.
2005 Lexikon der Altpreussischen Verben. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen
der Universität.
Specht, Franz
1935 Zur Geschichte der Verbalklasse auf -ē. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung
57: 276−296.
Stang, Christian S.
1935 Die Westrussische Kanzlersprache des Grossfürstentums Litauen. Oslo: Dybwad.
Stang, Christian S.
1942 Das slavische und baltische Verbum. Oslo: Dybwad.
Stang, Christian S.
1966a Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen. Oslo: University Press.
Stang, Christian S.
1966b “Métatonie douce” in Baltic. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 10:
111−119.
Stang, Christian S.
1972 Lexikalische Sonderübereinstimmungen zwischen dem Slavischen, Baltischen und Ger-
manischen. Oslo: University Press.
Steinitz, Wolfgang
1965 Zur Periodisierung der alten Baltischen Lehnwörter im ostsee-finnischen. In: Adam
Heinz, Mieczysław Karaś, Tadeusz Milewski, Jan Safarewicz, and Witold Taszycki (ed.),
Symbolae Linguisticae in honorem Georgii. Kuryłowicz. Wrocław: Polska Akademia
Nauk, 297−303.
Suhonen, Seppo
1988 Die Baltischen Lehnwörter der Finnish-ugrischen Sprachen. In: Denis Sinor (ed.), The
Uralic Languages. Description, History and Foreign Influences. Leiden: Brill, 596−615.
Thomsen, Vilhelm
1890 Beröringer mellem de finske og de baltiske (litauisk-lettiske) Sprog. En sproghistorisk
Undersøgelse [Contacts between the Finnic and the Baltic (Lithuanian-Latvian) lan-
guage. A historical linguistic study]. Copenhagen: Lunos.

Authenticated
1698 XIV. Baltic
Trautmann, Reinhold
1923 Baltisch-Slavisches Wörterbuch. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Trautmann, Reinhold
Urbutis, Vincas
1992 Senosios lietuvių kalbos slavizmai [Slavisms of the oldest Lithuanian language]. Baltisti-
ca 27: 4−14.
Vaillant, André
1958 Grammaire comparée des langues slaves, II. Morphologie. Paris: IAC.
Villanueva Svensson, Miguel
2011 Indo-European long vowels in Balto-Slavic. Baltistica 46: 5−38.
Winter, Werner
1978 The Distribution of Short and Long Vowels in Stems of the Type ė́ sti : vèsti : mèsti and
OCS jasti : vesti : mesti in Baltic and Slavic Languages. In: Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Recent
Developments in Historical Phonology. The Hague: Mouton, 431−446.
Young, Steven
2009 Tone in Latvian borrowings from Old Russian. In: Thomas Olander and Jenny Helena
Larsson (eds.), Stressing the Past − Papers from the Second international Workshop on
Balto-Slavic accentology, University of Copenhagen, 1−3 September 2006. Amsterdam:
Rodopi, 177−192.
Zemzare, Daina
1961 Latviešu vārdnīcas [Latvian dictionary]. Rīga: Latvijas PSR Zinātnų Akadēmijas izdev-
niecība.
1984 Lietuvių kalbos kilmė I [The origin of the Lithuanian language I]. Vilnius Mokslas.
Zinkevičius, Zigmas (ed.)
1958 K. Būga. Rinktiniai raštai I, II [The collected writings of K. Būga I, II]. Vilnius: Valstyb-
inė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.
Jenny Helena Larsson, Copenhagen (Denmark)
92. The dialectology of Baltic

1. Proto-Baltic and its disintegration 4. Abbreviations
2. Lithuanian 5. References
3. Latvian
1. Proto-Baltic and its disintegration

The PBalt. area stretched from the Vistula River in the West, to the Pripet, Sejm, and
Desna Rivers in the South and South-East, to the upper Oka River in the East, to the
upper Volga in the North-East, and to the Daugava River up to the border of present-
day Latvia and Estonia in the North-West. PBalt. began splitting into dialects around the
6 th−5 th c. BCE. No later than in the 5 th−4 th c. BCE, two main dialectal groups of PBalt.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-013

Authenticated
1698 XIV. Baltic
Trautmann, Reinhold
Trautmann, Reinhold
Urbutis, Vincas
1992 Senosios lietuvių kalbos slavizmai [Slavisms of the oldest Lithuanian language]. Baltisti-
ca 27: 4−14.
Vaillant, André
1958 Grammaire comparée des langues slaves, II. Morphologie. Paris: IAC.
2011 Indo-European long vowels in Balto-Slavic. Baltistica 46: 5−38.
Winter, Werner
1978 The Distribution of Short and Long Vowels in Stems of the Type ė́ sti : vèsti : mèsti and
OCS jasti : vesti : mesti in Baltic and Slavic Languages. In: Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Recent
Developments in Historical Phonology. The Hague: Mouton, 431−446.
Young, Steven
2009 Tone in Latvian borrowings from Old Russian. In: Thomas Olander and Jenny Helena
Larsson (eds.), Stressing the Past − Papers from the Second international Workshop on
Balto-Slavic accentology, University of Copenhagen, 1−3 September 2006. Amsterdam:
Rodopi, 177−192.
Zemzare, Daina
1961 Latviešu vārdnīcas [Latvian dictionary]. Rīga: Latvijas PSR Zinātnų Akadēmijas izdev-
niecība.
1984 Lietuvių kalbos kilmė I [The origin of the Lithuanian language I]. Vilnius Mokslas.
Zinkevičius, Zigmas (ed.)
1958 K. Būga. Rinktiniai raštai I, II [The collected writings of K. Būga I, II]. Vilnius: Valstyb-
inė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.
Jenny Helena Larsson, Copenhagen (Denmark)

1. Proto-Baltic and its disintegration 4. Abbreviations
2. Lithuanian 5. References
3. Latvian
1. Proto-Baltic and its disintegration

The PBalt. area stretched from the Vistula River in the West, to the Pripet, Sejm, and
Desna Rivers in the South and South-East, to the upper Oka River in the East, to the
upper Volga in the North-East, and to the Daugava River up to the border of present-
day Latvia and Estonia in the North-West. PBalt. began splitting into dialects around the
6 th−5 th c. BCE. No later than in the 5 th−4 th c. BCE, two main dialectal groups of PBalt.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-013

Authenticated
92. The dialectology of Baltic 1699
emerged: Proto-West-Baltic (from the peripheral PBalt. dialects), and Proto-East-Baltic

(from the central PBalt. dialects) (Mažiulis 1987: 82 ff.; Girdenis and Mažiulis 1994:
11). The area east of the PBalt. region was Slavified during the period from the 5 th to
the 14 th c. CE, when Slavonic tribes separated it from the western PBalt. area, i.e. from
the ethnic lands of the later Prussians, Lithuanians, and Latvians (Zinkevičius 1996: 24).
Thus the so-called Dnieper Baltic became a substratum to various phonetic and syntactic
properties of East Slavic (Dini 2014: 84 f.). The final PBalt. dialectal differentiation
can be dated to around the 7 th c. CE, when the East-Baltic languages emerged (see
Table 92.1).
The essential difference between West- and East-Baltic is the reflex of the PBalt.
diphthong *ei (also of *ai/*oi). It was retained in WBalt., e.g. OPr. deiw(a)s, deywis
‘God’ (< PBalt. *deiv-a- < PIE *dei̯ u̯-o-, cf. OPr. snaygis ‘snow’ < PBalt. *snaig-a-
< PIE *snoi̯ g u̯h-o-). One of the earliest EBalt. innovations was its monophthongization
into *ē ̣ in a stressed position and its secondary diphthongization into ie in Lith. and Latv.
at a later stage, e.g. Lith. diẽvas, Latv. dìevs ‘God’ (cf. Lith. sniẽgas, Latv. snìegs
‘snow’). In Lith., however, one finds ei in unstressed syllables (e.g. deivė̃ ‘goddess,
spirit’). Within paradigms, the alternation ei/ie was later levelled, cf. Lith. NPl. dievaĩ <
*deivaĩ. Yet discrepancies are found both between Lith. and Latv., e.g. Lith. eĩti : Latv.
iêt ‘to go’ and within Lith., e.g. šveĩsti ‘to polish’ : šviẽsti ‘to shine’, teisùs ‘right’
: tiesùs ‘upright’ (cf. Petit, “Phonology of Baltic”, this handbook, 3.5−3.6).
1.1. West-Baltic
No WBalt. language has survived to the present. Yotvingian, sometimes treated as a

dialect of OPr. (Schmid 1976: 16R), became extinct at the end of the 16 th c. North
Curonian was finally absorbed by Latvian and South Curonian by the Žemaitian dialect
of Lithuanian around the 17 th c. OPr., which died out completely in the 18 th c., is the
Tab. 92.1: Dialectal differentiation of the Baltic languages

Dialectal differentiation of Proto-Baltic (ca. 6 th−5 th c. BCE)
peripheral dialects central dialects
th
Proto-West-Baltic (ca. 5 c. BCE) Proto-East-Baltic (homogeneous until ca. 3 rd
c. CE, differentiation ca. 5 th−7 th c. CE)
South-West-Baltic North-West-Baltic
Old Prussian Curonian (easternized WBalt.)
Yotvingian Lithuanian
(alias Sudovian Latgalian
or Dainavian) Semigalian
Selonian
East-Baltic languages (ca. 7 th−8 th c. CE)
South-East-Baltic North-East-Baltic
Lithuanian Latvian

Authenticated
1700 XIV. Baltic
only WBalt. language documented through written sources. The five known OPr. docu-
ments possibly attest some dialectal differences. The three Catechisms (I, II 1545, III
1561) are written in Sambian and the Elbing Vocabulary (E ca. 1400) testifies to the
Pomesanian dialect (Gerullis 1922: 266−274). Considering the lack of linguistic data for
OPr., its dialectal variation is exceedingly problematic.
1.2. East-Baltic
The EBalt. tribes were probably split due to a Balto-Finnic substratum in the north and
east of the EBalt. area, i.e. in the north Curonian territory up to the Abava River, at the
Riga shore, and in the Latgalian territory north of the Daugava River. The disintegration
of PEBalt. into dialectal groups of (later) Lithuanian, Latgalian, Semigalian, and Seloni-
an is likely to have begun after the 3 rd c. CE. The fusion of the Latgalians with the north
Semigalians, Selonians, and easternized Curonians gave rise to Latvian. The southern
EBalt. region, where Lithuanian emerged, was for a long time surrounded by other Baltic
tribes and therefore remained almost free from non-Baltic influences. Around the 7 th−
8 th c. two EBalt. languages − Lithuanian (south EBalt.) and Latvian (north EBalt.),
which are spoken up to the present time, finally diverged. The foremost phonetic iso-
glosses which caused the division of EBalt. are as follows:
− PBalt. *ś, *ź are preserved in Lith. and became s, z in Latv. (as in OPr.), e.g. Lith. NSg.
šuõ, GSg. šuñs ‘dog’, žẽmė ‘earth’, Latv. NSg. suns, zeme (cf. OPr. sunis, semmē).
− PBalt. *k, *g before front vowels developed to /ts/ <c>, /dz/ <dz> in Latv., e.g. Latv.
cits ‘(an)other’, dzẽrve ‘crane’, cf. Lith. kìtas, gérvė.
− PBalt. *tj, *dj developed to /tʃ’/ <či>, /dʒ’/ <dži> in Lith. and became /ʃ/ <š>, /ʒ/ <ž>
in Latv., e.g. Lith. NSg. mẽdžias (dial.), NPl. mẽdžiai ‘forest, tree’, GPl. f. bìčių ‘bee’,
GPl. m. bríedžių ‘moose’, Latv. NSg. mežs, GPl. bišu, briêžu ‘elk’ (< PBalt. *medja-
s, *bit-jōn, *breid-jōn).
− PBalt. *sj is preserved in Lith. and developed to /ʃ/ <š> in Latv. (as in OPr.), e.g. Lith.
siū́ti ‘sew’, Latv. šũt ‘sew, tailor’ (< PBalt. *sjū-, cf. OPr. schuwikis ‘shoemaker’).
− PBalt. *an, *en, *un, *in are usually preserved in word-internal position in Lith.
(except before sibilants) and were changed into the diphthongs or long vowels uo
<o>, ie, ū, ī in all positions in Latv. (except the Cur. subdialects), e.g. Lith. NSg.
rankà, ASg. rañką ‘hand, arm’, penkì ‘five’, Pres. 3 siuñčia ‘send’ (cf. Inf. sių̃sti),
giñti ‘chase’, Latv. NSg. rùoka, pìeci, Inf. sùtīt, dzìt.
2. The Lithuanian language

The dialectal split of the Lith. language area into western (later Žemaitian) and eastern
(later Aukštaitian) dialects began around the 9 th−10 th c. The oldest phonetic isoglosses
which set the Lith. dialects apart are as follows:
− the long nasal vowels /a·/ <ą>, /æ·/ <ę> were narrowed to /u·/ <ų>, /i·/ <į> and the
nasal diphthongs /am/, /an/, /em/, /en/ to /um/, /un/, /im/, /in/ in the east.

Authenticated
Map 92.1: Lithuanian dialects (compiled by the working group on the Atlas of Baltic languages of
the Latvian Language Institute at the University of Latvia).
− palatalization and affrication of dental stops /t/, /d/: the EBalt. clusters *-tja-, *-dja-
developed to te, de in the west and to /tʃ’a/ <čia>, /dʒ’a/ <džia> in the east.
− /l/ was not palatalized before the mid and low front vowels /æ/, /ei/, /æ·/, /e·/, and
/en/ in the east.
The modern structural classification of Lith., which assumes two main dialects, Aukštai-
tian and Žemaitian, as well as various subdialects, based on the previous atomistic de-
scriptive grouping of Antanas Baranauskas and Kazimieras Jaunius, was proposed by
Aleksas Girdenis and Zigmas Zinkevičius (1966). The major criterion in setting Žem.
apart from Aukš. is the pronunciation of the diphthongs /ie/ and /uo/ in stressed position.
They are preserved in Aukš. but are treated differently in Žem. (see Table 92.4). The
classification of the Lith. dialects according to their geographical distribution and of
subdialects according to town names is as follows (see Map 92.1):
1. The Aukštaitian dialect (aukštaĩčiai, High Lithuanian):
− West Aukštaitian (WA) subdialects (vakarų̃ aukštaĩčiai):

Authenticated
1702 XIV. Baltic
− Kaũnas region and Klaĩpėda region (kaunìškiai, southern subgroup),

− Šiauliaĩ region (šiaulìškiai, northern subgroup);
− South Aukštaitian (SA) subdialect (pietų̃ aukštaĩčiai), alias Dzūkian (dzū̃kai);
− East Aukštaitian (EA) subdialects (rytų̃ aukštaĩčiai):
− Panevėžỹs region (panevėžìškiai),
− Šìrvintos region (širvintìškiai),
− Anykščiaĩ region (anykštė́ nai),
− Kùpiškis region (kupiškė́ nai),
− Utenà region (utenìškiai),
− Vìlnius region (vilnìškiai);
2. the Žemaitian dialect (žemaĩčiai, Low Lithuanian):
− South Žemaitian (SŽ) subdialects (pietų̃ žemaĩčiai):
− Raséiniai region (raseinìškiai),
− Var̃niai region (varnìškiai);
− North Žemaitian (NŽ) subdialects (šiáurės žemaĩčiai):
− Telšiaĩ region (telšìškiai),
− Kretingà region (kretingìškiai);
− West Žemaitian (WŽ) subdialect (vakarų̃ žemaĩčiai).
2.1. The Aukštaitian dialect
The main criterion for the subdivision into WA, SA, and EA is the pronunciation of
/am/, /an/, /em/, /en/, and of /a·/, /æ·/ (see Table 92.2).
Common features of Aukštaitian:
− /l/ remains non-palatalized before the mid and low front vowels /æ/, /ei/, /æ·/, and
/e·/ <ė>, except for the major part of the Kaunas region and the west of the Šiauliai
region, e.g. NSg. la̾.das ‘ice’ (SL lẽdas).
− initial /æ/ and circumflexed /eĩ/ are changed into /a/, /aĩ/ in SA, EA (/æ/ > /a/ only in
the east), and partly in WA, e.g. EA, WA Inf. aĩt ‘go’ (SL eĩti), SA ažỹs ‘hedgehog’
(SL ežỹs).
− the prothesis of initial <v> before back vowels and /uo/, and of /j/ before front vowels
is distinctive for WA and SA, e.g. NSg. vùpė ‘river’ (SL ùpė), Pret. 3 jė̃mė ‘take’ (SL
ė̃mė).
− the conditional stress retraction from a short final syllable to: a) a long vowel or the
diphthongs /ie/, /uo/ in the penultima (in the south of the Šiauliai region and in the
Širvintos region), e.g. NSg. žmo̾·na (SL žmonà), but APl. laukùs ‘field’ (= SL);
b) any long penultima (in the middle south of the Šiauliai region and EA), e.g. APl.
lau̾kus, but PresSg. 1 nešù ‘carry’ (= SL); c) any long or short penultima (in the
middle north of the Šiauliai region and the north-east of the Panevėžys region), e.g.
APl. vaı̾kus (WA) / vaı̾k ъs (EA) ‘child’ (SL vaikùs), PresSg. 1 nèšu (WA) / nèš ъ (EA).
− the Aukš. universal stress retraction law which implies stress retraction from a short
or circumflexed final syllable to any penultima (in the north of the Šiauliai region and
the north-west of the Panevėžys region), e.g. NSg. šàka (WA) / šàk ъ (EA) ‘branch’
(SL šakà), gèrαi ‘well’ (SL geraĩ).

Authenticated
Tab. 92.2: Aukštaitian dialectal outcomes of nasal vowels and diphthongs

Nasal diphthongs WA SA EA
and nasal vowels
/am/, /an/, /em/, /am/, /an/, /em/, /en/ /um/, /un/, /im/, /in/
/en/
ram̃stis ‘buttress’, Pres. 3 kánda ‘bite’, rum̃stis, kúnda, pímpė,
pémpė ‘peewit’, šveñtė ‘feast’ šviñtė
majority of the
Panevėžỹs region
/ọm/, /ọn/, /ẹm/, /ẹn/
rọ́m̃ˈ.st ьsˈ,
kọ́nd ъ,
pẹ́mˈpe,
šˈvẹñ.te
/a·/ <ą>, /æ·/ <ę> /a·/, /æ·/ /u·/, /i·/
ką́snis ‘bit’, kų́snis, tĩ˛sia
Pres. 3 tę̃sia ‘distend’
north of the Panevėžỹs
region /ọ·/, /ẹ·/
kọ̾·sˈnis, tˈẹ̃·sia
2.1.1. West Aukštaitian is closest to SL, which is based on the Kaunas region (alias
suvalkiẽčiai) subdialect. Such innovations of the Šiauliai region subdialect as stress re-
traction, vowel reduction, and apocope of unstressed final vowels originated due to Curo-
nian and Semigalian substratum influence.
2.1.2. South Aukštaitian (Dzūkian). Word-final narrowed nasal vowels of (j)ā-, ē- and
o-stems (< PBalt. *-ā́n, *-ḗn) were shortened to /u/, /i/, e.g. ISg. rankù ‘hand, arm’ (SL
rankà), ISg. katì ‘cat’ (SL katè), LSg. laukì ‘field’ (SL laukè). Peculiar to SA is the high
frequency of the affricates /ts/ <c>, /dz/ <dz> (the so-called dzūkãvimas) which occur
under two conditions with one exception:
− /ts(’)/, /dz(’)/ are used instead of /tʃ’/ <či>, /dʒ’/ <dži> (< PBalt. *tj, *dj), e.g. NPl.
jáuciai ‘ox’ (SL jáučiai), NPl. me̾dziai ‘tree’ (SL mẽdžiai), GPl. me̾dzių (SL mẽdžių).
Perhaps due to paradigmatic analogy, there is no affrication in the GPl. and in the
PretSg. 1 of the ē-stems, e.g. NSg. bìtė ‘bee’, GPl. bìt’ų (SL bìčių), Pret. 3 mãtė,
PretSg. 1 mat’aũ ‘see’ (SL mačiaũ).
− /t/, /d/ as well as /tv/, /dv/ are changed into the affricates /ts(v)/ <c(v)>, /dz(v)/ <dz(v)>
before the high front vowels /i/, /i·/ <į, y>, and /ie/, e.g. Inf. aĩc(’) ‘go’ (SL eĩti),
NSg. kecvir̃tas ‘fourth’ (SL ketvir̃tas), NSg. dziẽvas ‘God’ (SL diẽvas). No affrication
occurs before /i/ or /i·/ < *ę < *en (see Table 92.2), e.g. ASg. ka̾t’i. ‘cat’ (SL kãtę),
LSg. púod’i ‘pot’ (SL púode).
− /ts(’)/, /dz(’)/ become assimilated into /tʃ(’)/, /dʒ(’)/ due to adjacent š, ž, e.g. NSg.
pir̃ščinė ‘glove’ (SL pir̃štinė), Inf. vèšč’ ‘convey’ (SL vèžti).

Authenticated
1704 XIV. Baltic
Tab. 92.3: Outcomes of unstressed ė, ie, o, uo in East Aukštaitian

East Aukštaitian /e·/ /ie/ /o·/ /uo/
Panevėžys /ı/ (south) /æ/ (/ı/) (south) /υ/ (south)
region tıve̾.lıs pæne̾.lıs žmυge̾.lıs, pυde̾.lıs
(pıne̾.lıs)
/ẹ/ (north) /ọ/ (north)
tẹve̾.l ьs, pẹne̾.l ьs žmọge̾.l ьs, pọde̾.l ьs
/a/ (easternmost)
žmage̾li.s, pade̾li.s
Širvintos region /æ/ /a/
tæve̾.lis, pæne̾.lis žmage̾.lis, pade̾.lis
Anykščiai region /æ(.)/ /a(.)/
tæ( .)vẹ̾.li.s, pæ(.)nẹ̾.li.s žma(.)gẹ̾.li.s, pa(.)dẹ̾.li.s
Kupiškis region /ẹ./ /ɔ./
tẹ.vẹ̾.li.s, pẹ.nẹ̾.li.s žmɔ.gẹ̾.li.s, pɔ.dẹ̾.li.s
Utena region /æ./ /a./
tæ.ve̾.li.s, pæ.ne̾.li.s žma.ge̾.li.s, pa.de̾.li.s
Vilnius region /æ./ (north) /ie/ /a./, /å./ (north) /uo/
tæ.ve̾.li.s, piene̾.li(.)s žma.ge̾.li.s, puode̾.li(.)s
pæ.ne̾.li.s žmå.ge̾.li.s
/ẹ./, /ie/ /ɔ./ (south)
tẹ.ve̾.li.s / žmɔ.ge̾.li.s
tieve̾.li.s,
pẹ.ne̾.li.s,
piene̾.li.s
2.1.3. East Aukštaitian differs most of all Aukš. dialects from SL (see Table 92.2). Three
grades of vowel length − short, half-long (= V.) and long (= V·) − are distinctive for the
Anykščiai, Kupiškis, and Utena regions. The reflexes of unstressed ė, ie, o, uo in EA
can be shown by the examples of NSg. tėvẽlis ‘little father’, pienẽlis ‘little milk’,
žmogẽlis ‘little human being’, and puodẽlis ‘little pot’ (see Table 92.3).
Panevėžys region: the largest and most complicated subdialect of EA (also see Table
92.2). The reduction of short final syllables becomes more thorough from South to North.
Due to a Semigalian substratum, short final vowels developed into murmured / ъ/ and / ь/
in the north, e.g. ASg. píevυs / píev ъs ‘meadow’ (SL píevas), APl. katìs / kàt ьs ‘cat’ (SL
katès). The Kupiškis region subdialect perhaps originated due to a Selonian substratum.
The vowels /æ/ and /e·/ are changed into /a/ (lengthened in stressed position) word-
finally and before non-palatalized consonants, e.g. PresSg. 1 našù ‘carry’ (SL nešù). The
Utena and Vilnius region subdialects display no stress retraction; they have maintained
long open /a·/ (< PBalt. *ā), e.g. NSg. žã·di.s / žɔ̃·di.s (Utena), žã·d(z)i.s / žɔ̃·d(z)i.s
(Vilnius) ‘word’ (SL žõdis).

Authenticated
Tab. 92.4: Žemaitian reflexes of /ie/ and /uo/

Standard Lithuanian WŽ NŽ SŽ
/ie/ /e·/ /ẹi/ /i· i̯ /
píenas ‘milk’ pê̤·ns pệins pí· i̯ ns
/uo/ /o·/ /ọu/ /u· u̯/
dúona ‘bread’ dô·n (a) dôuna dú· u̯na
2.2. The Žemaitian dialect perhaps originated due to a Curonian substratum. According
to the reflexes of the diphthongs /ie/ and /uo/, Žem. is divided into three subdialects (see
Table 92.4). The WŽ subdialect of the Klaipėda region is almost extinct.
Common features of Žemaitian:
− stressed /o·/, /e·/ are changed into /uo/, /ie/, e.g. NSg. kûoj ẹ ‘leg, foot’ (SL kója), Inf.
dîet (ẹ) ‘put’ (SL dė́ ti).
− originally short unstressed vowels in final syllables are apocopated, e.g. NSg. vî·rs
‘man’ (SL výras). Final long unstressed vowels are shortened.
− short /i/, /u/ (also /il/, /ir/, /ul/, /ur/) and /ui/ are broadened into /ẹ/, /ọ/, e.g. Inf. lẹ̾.kt ẹ
‘remain’ (SL lìkti), Pret. 3 bọ̾.v a ‘be’ (SL bùvo).
− the final diphthongs /ai/, /ei/ are monophthongized to /a·/, /e·/, e.g. blò ̣gã·‘badly’ (SL
blogaĩ), NPl. pã.ukštê· ‘bird’ (SL paũkščiai).
− no affrication of /t/, /d/ before front vowels (te, de < PBalt. *tjă, *djă) in the east,
e.g. NPl. já.utê·‘ox’ (SL jáučiai) (< *jaut-j-ai), NPl. mèdê·‘tree’ (SL mẽdžiai)
(< *med-jai), but GSg. já.učẹ, me̾.džẹ (SL jáučio, mẽdžio). In NŽ and WŽ, no affrica-
tion occurs before back vowels either.
− conditional stress retraction from a short final syllable to: (a) a long penultima (SŽ),
e.g. NSg. plĩ·tà ‘brick’ (SL plytà), but NSg. šakà ‘branch’ (= SL); (b) any penultima
(NŽ and SŽ partly), e.g. šàkà, but GSg. šakuõs (SL šakõs).
− the Žem. universal stress retraction law: Stress retraction from a short or circumflexed
final syllable to the first syllable, e.g. GSg. šàkũos (SL šakõs), NSg. pàvàžà ‘runner
of a sledge’ (SL pavažà).
− the character of the acute and circumflex tones differs from Aukš. The acute tone
(falling in Aukš.) is broken (^) in Žem. The circumflex tone (even or rising in Aukš.)
makes the first part of a vowel or diphthong more prominent in Žem.
The Raseiniai region (SŽ) subdialect is transitional between Aukš. and Žem. Old nasal se-
quences /an/, /en/ (SL ą, ę) and nasal diphthongs /am/, /em/ are maintained, e.g. NSg. žansìs
‘goose’ (SL žąsìs). The diphthongs /ai/, /ei/ are maintained, except for the suffix -áit-, e.g.
NSg. mergá·ti̱ ‘girl’ (SL mergáitė). Varniai region (SŽ): /am/, /an/, /em/, /en/ are narrowed
to /ọm/, /ọn/, /ẹm/, /ẹn/, e.g. Pres. 3 kộ.nd ‘bite’ (SL kánda). Long vowels are changed into
half-long in pretonic syllables in the Kretinga region (NŽ): e.g. Pres. 3 gi.vê.n ‘live’ (SL
gyvẽna); and into short in pretonic syllables in the Telšiai region, e.g. Pres. 3 givê.n.

Authenticated
1706 XIV. Baltic
3. The Latvian language

In the second half of the 16 th c., Latv. spread to its present-day territory. Possibly due
to contact with Balto-Finnic languages (particularly Livonian), the mobile accent was
lost and stress was retracted to the initial syllable in Latv. As a result, final syllables
were reduced. Latv. today has a system of three tones: the drawn tone (~ stieptā intonāci-
ja), the falling tone (` krītošā intonācija), and the broken tone (^ lauztā intonācija). The
classification of the Latv. dialects into 3 groups, based primarily on prosodic characteris-
tics, vowel quantity and quality, as well as morphological innovations, was undertaken
by August Bielenstein in the middle of the 19 th c. and is still used with small modifica-
tions (see Map 92.2).
1. The Central dialect (C, vidus dialekts):
− the Central Livonian subdialects (CLiv., Vidzemes vidus izloksnes),
− the Semigalian subdialects (Sem., zemgaliskās izloksnes),
− the Curonian subdialects (Cur., kursiskās izloksnes):
− deep Curonian,
− non-deep Curonian;
− the Semigalian-Curonian subdialects (SemCur., zemgaliski kursiskās izloksnes, ali-
as kuršu valodas substrāts);
2. the Tamian or Livonian dialect (T, tāmnieku / lībiskais dialekts):
− the Tamian subdialects of Courland (TCur., Kurzemes lībiskās izloksnes):
− deep Tamian of Courland (dziļās Kurzemes izloksnes),
− non-deep Tamian of Courland (nedziļās Kurzemes izloksnes);
− the Tamian subdialects of Livonia (TLiv., Vidzemes lībiskās izloksnes):
− deep Tamian of Livonia (dziļās Vidzemes izloksnes),
− non-deep Tamian of Livonia (nedziļās Vidzemes izloksnes);
3. the High Latvian dialect (HL, augšzemnieku dialekts):
− the Selonian subdialects of East Semigalia and South-East Livonia (Sel., sēliskās
izloksnes):
− deep or East Selonian (dziļās sēliskās izloksnes),
− non-deep or West Selonian (nedziļās sēliskās izloksnes);
− the Latgalian subdialects of Latgalia and North-East Livonia (Latg., latgaliskās
izloksnes):
− deep Latgalian or strong High Latvian (dziļās latgaliskās izloksnes),
− non-deep Latgalian (nedziļās latgaliskās izloksnes).
The C and T dialects are close to each other. Hence they are occasionally called Low
Latvian (lejzemnieku izloksnes) as opposed to the HL dialect. An important factor in the
development of the Latv. dialects was the territorial division of Latvia throughout its
history. The incorporation of the Duchy of Livonia into the Polish-Lithuanian Common-
wealth in 1629−1772 caused the separation of Latgalian from other Latv. dialects and
contributed to the development of HL. Corresponding to the former limits of parishes or
estates, the three Latv. dialects are subdivided into more than 500 local dialects.
3.1. The Central dialect has maintained the original phonetic system of Latv. SLa. is
based on this dialect. Closest to SLa. are the Sem. subdialects around Jelgava (Mitau)

Authenticated
Map 92.2: Latvian dialects (compiled by the working group on the Atlas of Baltic languages of the Latvian Language Institute at the
University of Latvia)

Authenticated
1707
1708 XIV. Baltic
and Dobele. Some parts of the CLiv. (around Valmiera and Cēsis) and of the Sem.
(around Blīdene and Jaunpils) subdialects have retained all three original tones, e.g. ASg.
vĩli ‘file’, ASg. vìli ‘seam’, PretSg. 2 vîli ‘deceive’; and /ir/ and /ur/ before consonants,
e.g. Inf. cìrst ‘fell’, kùrls ‘deaf’. The main morphological innovations of CLiv. and Sem.
are the following:
− preterite ē-stems are replaced by ā-stems, e.g. PretPl. 1 nesām ‘carry’ (= SLa., cf.
Lith. nẽšėme).
− /i·/ is inserted in the future tense of monosyllabic infinitive stems in /s/, /z/, /t/, /d/,
e.g. Inf. mest ‘throw’, FutSg. 1 metîšu (= SLa.). This is also a distinctive feature of
CLiv.
− the reflexive verbal marker -s(i)- in prefixed verbs occurs according to the type PVR,
e.g. Inf. piecelties ‘get up’ (= SLa.).
The Semigalian subdialects are distinguished by anaptyxis between the liquid diph-
thongs /V+r/ (sometimes also /V+l/) and a following consonant, the vowel remaining
short, e.g. NSg. star aks ‘stork’ (SLa. stārks). In the Curonian subdialects, the falling
tone (`) and the broken tone (^) have merged into a broken tone (^ 2), e.g. PresSg. 1
lū̂dzu 2 ‘beg’ (cf. CLiv. lū̀dzu). The main characteristics of Cur. are:
− /V+n/ were maintained, perhaps due to a Curonian substratum, e.g. NSg. bezdelinga
‘swallow’ (SLa. bezdelīga). /V+r/ are lengthened, whereas /ir/, /ur/ can be diphthong-
ized into /ie/, /uo/.
− /u/ was maintained before /v/ and /b/, e.g. NSg. dubȩns ‘bottom’ (SLa. dibens, cf.
Lith. dùgnas), NSg. zuve ‘fish’ (SLa. zivs, cf. Lith. žuvìs).
− /v/ was lost after /l/, e.g. NSg. pagālis ‘pillow’ (SLa. pagalvis).
− no insertion of /i·/ in the future tense of monosyllabic infinitive stems in /s/, /z/, /t/,
/d/, e.g. Inf. vest ‘lead’, Fut. 3 ves (SLa. vedīs).
− the reflexive verbal marker -s(i)- (-s[a]-) in prefixed verbs occurs according to the
type PRV, e.g. PresSg. 2 nuosaraudi ‘weep’ (SLa. nuoraudies). Also the type PRVR
can occur, e.g. Pres. 3 atsamuôstas ‘wake up’ (SLa. atmuostas).
− substantival i-stems merged with ē-stems, e.g. NSg. ugune ‘fire’ (SLa. uguns).
3.2. The Tamian or Livonian dialect developed due to a Livonian substratum. The vo-
cabulary includes a great number of Livonian loanwords. The falling tone (`) and the
broken tone (^) have merged into a broken tone (^ 2), e.g. NSg. kuôks 2 ‘tree’ (C kùoks).
T presents mainly quantitative vowel changes. Short final vowels are regularly apocopat-
ed, which is often explained as a substratum feature. Thus homonymy is wide-spread in
verbal inflection, and the 3 rd person forms are generalized for the 1st and the 2 nd person.
Substantival i-stems partially merged with ē-stems as well as ē-stems with ā-stems. U-
stems merged with (j)o-stems and were thus mostly lost. Other characteristics of T are
the following:
− unstressed non-initial long vowels and diphthongs are shortened, and in TCur. com-
pletely lost, e.g. Inf. sacit (TLiv.) / sać·t (TCur.) ‘say’ (SLa. sacīt); /ie/ and /uo/ are
monophthongized to /e/ and /a/ (or /o/), e.g. Inf. sāktes ‘start oneself’ (SLa. sākties).
− short vowels are often lengthened before voiced stops of apocopated syllables, e.g.
NPl. gād’ ‘year’ (SLa. gadi), lāb’ ‘well’ (SLa. labi).

Authenticated
− /ir/, /ur/ are lengthened or diphthongized into /ie/, /uo/ in TCur., e.g. NSg. zîrks 2
‘horse’ (SLa. zir̂gs).
− /au/ is changed into /åu/ or /ou/ and /av/ into /åv/ or /ov/, e.g. Inf. roût 2 ‘tear up’
(SLa. raut), NSg. sovādaks ‘different’ (SLa. savādāks).
− /u/ is preserved before /v/, /b/ in TCur., e.g. NSg. dubans ‘bottom’ (SLa. dibens).
− the reflexive verbal marker -s(i)- (-s[a]-, -z[a]-) in prefixed verbs occurs according
to the two types PVR and PRVR in TCur., e.g. Inf. sazrū̀ntȩs/sarū̀ntȩs ‘converse’
(SLa. sarunāties). Only the type PVR is known in TLiv., e.g. Inf. uscel̂tes 2 ‘get up’
(SLa. uzcelties).
/d/, e.g. Inf. sist ‘beat’, FutSg./Pl. 1 (= 2,3) siz (SLa. sitīšu, sitīsi, sitīs, sitīsim, sitīsit
[sitīsiet]).
− the feminine gender has extensively merged with the masculine (also in pronouns and
adjectives), probably also due to a Livonian substratum, e.g. NSg. m. mas siẽviš
(< mazs sieviņš) ‘little wife’ (SLa. f. maza sieviņa).
− the old substantival DPl. endings -Vms are preserved in TCur., e.g. siẽvams ‘wife’
(SLa. sievām).
3.3. The High Latvian dialect. Written HL (the so-called Latgalian language) is based
on the dialects of south Latgalia. HL reveals mainly qualitative sound changes, but it
has preserved a more archaic morphological and syntactic system. The drawn tone (~)
and the falling tone (`) have merged into a falling tone (` 2), e.g. vìejš 2 ‘wind’ (cf. SLa.
vẽjš). The Sel. subdialects have maintained the rising tone (ˊ) which elsewhere has
merged with the broken tone (^), e.g. NSg. naúda ‘money’ (SLa. naûda), NSg. luógs
‘window’ (SLa. luôgs). The main characteristics of HL are the following:
− /æ/ and /e·/ are changed into /a/ and /a·/, e.g. NSg. vātra ‘storm’ (SLa. vētra).
− /e·/ has developed into /æ·/ <ȩ̄> or was diphthongized into /ie/, e.g. Pres. 3 vȩ̄rp ‘spin’
(SLa. vērpj).
− /a/ is changed into /o/ when the following syllable contains a low vowel (the so-called
velar vowel shift), and sometimes also in stressed position (/a/ remains unchanged in
final syllables), e.g. NSg. vosara/vosora ‘summer’ (SLa. vasara), but NSg. gal̂vinieks
‘warranter’.
− /i·/ and /u·/ are diphthongized into /ei/ and /ou/ (resp. /eu/, /yu/, /iu/ in deep HL), e.g.
Rèiga 2 (SLa. Rīga), NSg. còuka 2/cèuka/cyuka ‘pig’ (SLa. cūka).
− all consonants are palatalized before front vowels, e.g. NSg. ćèiruļś 2 ‘lark’ (SLa.
cīrulis).
− preterite ē-stems are partly maintained, e.g. PretPl. 1 aûd’ȩ̀m 2 ‘weave’ (SLa. audām).
− the reflexive verbal particle -s(i)- (-s[a]-, -z[a]-) in prefixed verbs occurs according
to the type PRV, e.g. Inf. abzarauduôt’ ‘fall into tears’ (SLa. apraudāties). Also the
type PRVR and PVR are known, e.g. Inf. pazaśḿìtîś 2 ‘deride’ (SLa. pasmieties),
nùopirktiês 2 ‘purchase’ (SLa. nuopirkties).
/d/, e.g. Inf. iêst ‘eat’, FutSg. 1 iêššu (SLa. ēst, ēdīšu), Inf. nest ‘bring’, FutSg. 1 neššu
(SLa. nesīšu).
− the old LSg. forms in -ie (for i-stems) and -uo (for u-stems) are maintained, e.g. LSg.
àusié 2 ‘ear’ (SLa. ausī), maduó ‘honey’ (SLa. medū).

Authenticated
1710 XIV. Baltic
The main characteristics of the deep (or eastern) HL subdialects are the following:
− /ie/ and /uo/ are monophthongized to /i·/ and /u·/, e.g. pìci ‘five’ (SLa. pieci), NSg.
lûgs 2 ‘window’ (SLa. luôgs).
− /i/ is velarized to /ы/ <y>, e.g. NSg. myza ‘bark’ (SLa. miza).
− the endings -as and -es can appear changed into -ys /ыs/ and -is, e.g. GSg./N/APl.
mùosys 2 ‘sister’ (SLa. māsas), mùot’iś 2 ‘mother’ (SLa. mātes).
− the personal pronoun forms of the 3 rd person are different from other Latv. dialects:
NSg. m. jis/jys ‘he’, NPl. jì 2 (SLa. viņš, viņi); NSg. f. jèi 2 ‘she’, NPl. jùos 2 (joâs,
jòs 2) (SLa. viņa, viņas). Cf. Lith. jìs, jiẽ; jì, jõs.
4. Abbreviations
Language and dialect names:
PBalt. Proto-Baltic NŽ North Žemaitian
PEBalt. Proto-East-Baltic WŽ West Žemaitian
WBalt. West-Baltic SLa. Standard Latvian
EBalt. East-Baltic C Central
SL Standard Lithuanian CLiv. Central Livonian
OPr. Old Prussian Sem. Semigalian
Lith. Lithuanian Cur. Curonian
Latv. Latvian SemCur. Semigalian-Curonian
Aukš. Aukštaitian T Tamian (Livonian)
WA West Aukštaitian TCur. Tamian of Courland
SA South Aukštaitian TLiv. Tamian of Livonia
EA East Aukštaitian HL High Latvian
Žem. Žemaitian Sel. Selonian
SŽ South Žemaitian Latg. Latgalian
Grammatical terminology:
P Preverb V Verb
R Reflexive
5. References
Bacevičiūtė, Rima, Audra Ivanauskienė, Asta Leskauskaitė, and Edmundas Trumpa (eds.)
2004 Lietuvių kalbos tarmių chrestomatija [A chrestomathy of Lithuanian dialects]. Vilnius:
Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla.
Balode, Laimute and Axel Holvoet
2001 The Latvian language and its dialects, The Lithuanian language and its dialects. In: Östen
Dahl and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), The Circum-Baltic Languages. Typology
and Contact 1. Past and Present. (Studies in Language Companion Series [SLCS], 54).
Amsterdam: Benjamins, 3–40, 41–79.

Authenticated
Būga, Kazimieras
1923 [1961] Upių vardų studijos ir aisčių bei slavėnų senovė [Studies of river names and the
antiquity of the Balts and the Slavs]. Tauta ir žodis 1: 1–44. [Reprinted 1961 in K(azi-
mieras) Būga, Rinktiniai raštai 3: 493−550. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės
literatūros leidykla.]
Dini, Pietro U[mberto]
2014 Foundations of Baltic Languages. Translated by Milda B. Richardson, Robert E. Richard-
son. Vilnius: Vilnius University.
Endzelin, Jan
Gāters, Alfrēds
1977 Die lettische Sprache und ihre Dialekte. The Hague: Mouton.
Gerullis, Georg
1922 Die altpreußischen Ortsnamen. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Gerullis, Georg
1930 Litauische Dialektstudien. Leipzig: Markert and Petters.
Girdenis, Aleksas and Vytautas Mažiulis
1994 Baltų kalbų divergencinė chronologija [The divergent chronology of the Baltic lan-
guages]. Baltistica 27: 4−12.
Girdenis, Aleksas and Zigmas Zinkevičius
1966 Dėl lietuvių kalbos tarmių klasifikacijos [On the classification of Lithuanian dialects].
Kalbotyra 14: 139–148.
Mažiulis, Vytautas
1987 III. Vakarų, rytų ir Dnepro baltai [West, East, and Dnieper Balts]. 1. Baltų prokalbės
irimas [The disintegration of the Baltic proto-language]. In: R. Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė,
J. Jurginis, V. Mažiulis, and A. Vanagas (eds.), Lietuvių etnogenezė [The ethnogenesis of
the Lithuanians]. Vilnius: Mokslas, 82−85.
Petit, Daniel
2010 Untersuchungen zu den baltischen Sprachen. (Brill’s Studies in Indo-European Lan-
guages & Linguistics 4). Leiden: Brill.
Rudzīte, Marta
1964 Latviešu dialektoloģija [Latvian dialectology]. Rīga: Latvijas Valsts izdevniecība.
Schmid, Wolfgang P.
1976 Baltische Sprachen und Völker. In: Heinrich Beck, Dieter Geuenich, Herbert Jankuhn,
Hans Kuhn, Kurt Ranke, Heiko Steuer, and Reinhard Wenskus (eds.), Reallexikon der
Germanischen Altertumskunde. 2 nd edn. Vol 2. Berlin: De Gruyter, 14−20.
Toporov, Vladimir N. and Oleg N. Trubachev
1962 Lingvisticheskij analiz gidronimov verkhnego podneprov’ja [Linguistic analysis of the
hydronyms of the upper Dnieper area]. Moscow: Izdatelstvo Akademii Nauk SSSR.
Vanagas, Aleksandras
1981 Lietuvių hidronimų etimologinis žodynas [Etymological dictionary of Lithuanian hydro-
nyms]. Vilnius: Mokslas.
2006 Lietuvių tarmių kilmė [The origin of Lithuanian dialects]. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institu-
tas.
Jolanta Gelumbeckaitė, Frankfurt am Main (Germany)

Authenticated
1712 XIV. Baltic
93. The evolution of Baltic

1. Proto-Baltic 4. Differences between Lithuanian and Latvian
2. Lithuanian 5. Abbreviations
3. Latvian 6. References
1. Proto-Baltic
The study of hydronyms has shown that the Proto-Baltic area was about six times larger
than the ethnic territory of the present-day Balts, i.e. Lithuanians and Latvians, who
alone have maintained the continuity of PBalt. The Baltic languages are among the most
recently attested written languages in Europe. The development of written Lithuanian
and Latvian started only in the 16 th c. The sparse written tradition of Old Prussian ended
in the second half of the 16 th c. Thus the reconstruction of the Baltic protolanguage is
impeded by the late documentation of the Baltic languages (OPr., Lith., Latv.), the insuf-
ficiency of the West-Baltic (OPr.) linguistic data, and a rather large difference between
West- and East-Baltic (Lith., Latv.). Yet, traditionally Proto-Baltic is defined as a north-
ern dialect of PIE which underwent a specific peripheral satemization (Dini 2014: 120 f.;
also Petit, “The Phonology of Baltic”, this handbook, 5.2). The foremost features which
distinguish the Baltic languages from other IE language groups, are as follows (Stang
1966: 2−10; Dini 2014: 77 f.):
− free and mobile stress.
− merger of PIE *ă and *ŏ into PBalt. *ă.
− maintenance and extension of PIE ablaut.
− preservation of *-m- before dental stops, e.g.: Lith. šim̃tas, Latv. sìmts ‘hundred’.
− high frequency of substantival ē-stems (< *-[i]i̯ ā-), e.g. Lith. žẽmė (dial. žemė̃), Latv.
zeme, OPr. same / semmē ‘earth’ (< PBalt. *źemē < *źemi̯ ā < PIE *dhg̑hem-).
− identical person endings in all verbal tenses and moods.
− absence of a numerical opposition in the 3 rd person forms of the verb.
− absence of any traces of the PIE perfect and aorist tenses.
− formation of the preterite tense with the suffixes *ē and *ā.
− a large variety of diminutive suffixes.
− specifically Baltic vocabulary (Stang 1966: 7 ff.; Zinkevičius 1984: 229−234; also
Larsson, “The Lexicon of Baltic”, this handbook, 3).
The split of East-Baltic from the original PBaltic community was caused in large meas-
ure by contacts with Balto-Finnic and Slavic, which, particularly during the period from
ca. the 7 th to the 10 th c., affected north East-Baltic (Latvian) much more than south East-
Baltic (Lithuanian) and led to innovations in the former. On the other hand, the most
important contacts of south East-Baltic in the early period were with Indo-European
languages, notably East Slavic, which fostered the retention there of features of archaic
Indo-European provenience. In phonetics, morphology, and syntax, Lithuanian remained
considerably more conservative than Latvian. Lithuanian thus shows a closer proximity
to common East-Baltic and even common Baltic and, at least in the morphological and
phonological shape of its nouns (the classical example being Lith. diẽvas : Ved. devás
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-014

Authenticated
93. The evolution of Baltic 1713
vs. Lat. deus, OIr. día ‘god’, OE Tīw [name of deity]), may fairly be said to be the most
conservative of the living IE languages.
2. Lithuanian
The early Lithuanian language area bordered on the Curonians in the West, the Semigali-
ans in the North-West, the Latgalians in the North, the Selonians in the North-East, and
the Prussians as well as Yotvingians in the South-West. The eastern boundaries, where
the Lithuanian tribes came into direct contact with East Slavic (Krivichians and Dregovi-
chians), extended perhaps along the Minsk−Polock−Pskov line. With the formation of
the Lithuanian state in the middle of the 13 th c. (the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, alias
Lithuania Maior or Lithuania propria) the eastern and northern boundaries of Lithuanian
were also extended. Prior to the 16 th c. the Curonians were Lithuanianized, and the
Lithuanian language area expanded westwards to the Baltic sea. The Semigalians and
the Selonians were Lithuanianized up to the present Latvian border in about the 15 th c.
In the south and south-west, the Lithuanian language area grew into the lands of the
Yotvingians and partly of the Prussians. The areas of former East Prussia which were
Lithuanian-speaking up to World War II are known as Lithuania Minor or Prussian
Lithuania. The written Lithuanian tradition and the process of standardization of Lithua-
nian started in the Duchy of Prussia in the 16 th c. under the influence of the Reformation
with its promotion of vernaculars. There Lithuanian experienced several foreign stimuli,
e.g. from Latin, (High) German, and Polish. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania existed from
1385 until 1569 in personal union (i.e. cemented by marriage ties) with the Kingdom of
Poland, and the two became subsequently aligned in parliamentary union (the Polish−
Lithuanian Commonwealth) until 1795 (the beginning of the occupation by the Russian
Empire). The official language of state communication was the so-called ducal chancery
style, which was Ruthenian compounded with Lithuanisms (in lexicon and phraseology)
and with Polonisms (in technical terminology and abstract vocabulary). Thus Lithuanian
was exposed to the strong influence of Ruthenian, Belorusian, Polish, and certainly Latin.
The Lithuanian national revival movement secured the foundations of standard Lithuani-
an, purified of redundant Slavic loanwords, in the middle of the 19 th c. Lithuanian was
codified on the basis of the southern subgroup (Kaunas region) of West Aukštaitian at
the beginning of the 20 th c. In the period of Sovietization and the renewed Russification
from 1944 to 1990, Lithuanian was again endangered. In 1990, the Commission on the
Lithuanian Language (founded in 1961) became state approved. Since 1992, the status
of Lithuanian as the state language of the Republic of Lithuania has been ensured consti-
tutionally. Lithuanian is now spoken by approximately 3,000,000 people in Lithuania
and 620,000 abroad.
3. Latvian
The Latvian language arose as the fusion of the expanding Latgalians with the north
Semigalians, Selonians, and easternized Curonians. The Latvian-speaking community
also absorbed speakers of Livonian, a Balto-Finnic language spoken in western Vidzeme

Authenticated
1714 XIV. Baltic
and in north-western Kurzeme along the coast of the Gulf of Riga. Modern Standard
Latvian is the result of this linguistic contact. By the second half of the 16 th c., Latvian
had spread to its present-day territory, which consisted of four regions − Kurzeme (Cour-
land proper, west of the former Duchy of Courland), Vidzeme (west Livonia, formerly
Swedish Livonia), Latgale (Latgalia, east Livonia, formerly Polish Livonia, alias Inflanty
Voivodeship), and Zemgale (Semigalia, east of the former Duchy of Courland). In the
period from the 16 th to the 19 th c., a written Latvian based on the Central dialect was
developed, mostly by German Lutherans. Starting with the 18 th c., Latgalian as well
began to be written. The Latvian national revival (Latv. jaunlatvieši) movement purged
written Latvian of superfluous Germanisms in the second half of the 19 th c. The High
Latvian dialect (Latgalian) was historically influenced by Slavic (Polish, Belorusian,
Russian). Through the occupation by the Russian Empire in the 18 th c., Latvian was
exposed to Russification, which was repeated from 1940 to 1990. Since 1989, Latvian
has been granted the status of the state language of the Republic of Latvia. Latvian is
now spoken by approximately 1,300,000 people in Latvia and 350,000 abroad.
4. Differences between Lithuanian and Latvian

As Lithuanian and Latvian evolved in their own separate ways, a number of changes
occurred, leading to the following differences between standard Lithuanian and Latvian
(for dialectal varieties, see Gelumbeckaitė, “The Dialectology of Baltic”, this handbook):
− retention of the free and mobile stress in Lithuanian vs. the fixed initial stress in
Latvian.
− maintenance of final vowels in Lithuanian vs. the shortening and reduction of final
syllables (except u) in Latvian.
− palatalization of almost all consonants in Lithuanian before front vowels or j (innova-
tion or influence of a Slavic adstratum) vs. a more restricted occurrence of this phe-
nomenon in Latvian.
− retention of neuter forms of adjectives, ordinal numerals, and partly of pronouns in
Lithuanian vs. their loss in Latvian.
− better retention of the inherited PIE declension classes in Lithuanian vs. simplification
of nominal declension (loss of the heteroclita, change of u- and i-stems into o-stems)
and the complete loss of distinctions among the adjectival declension classes in Lat-
vian.
− more widespread use of case forms (also of postpositional cases) in Lithuanian vs.
the prevalence of prepositional phrases in Latvian.
− the existence of three present stems (*a-, *ā-, *i-) and two preterite stems (*ā-, *ē-)
in Lithuanian vs. simplification of verbal inflection in Latvian.
− morphological innovations unique to Lithuanian are: 1. a special past frequentative
tense with the suffix -dav-, 2. formation of an imperative with the suffix -k(i)- and of
a permissive involving the prefix te-.
− a morphological innovation unique to Latvian is a special verbal form expressing
necessity with the particle jā- (the so-called debitive).
− the preservation of an older syntactic system in Lithuanian.

Authenticated
93. The evolution of Baltic 1715
5. Abbreviations
Balt. Baltic OIr. Old Irish
EBalt. East-Baltic OPr. Old Prussian
IE Indo-European PBalt. Proto-Baltic
Lat. Latin PEBalt. Proto-East-Baltic
Latv. Latvian PIE Proto-Indo-European
Lith. Lithuanian Ved. Vedic
OE Old English WBalt. West-Baltic.
6. References
Dini, Pietro U[mberto]
2014 Foundations of Baltic Languages. Translated by Milda B. Richardson and Robert E.
Richardson. Vilnius: Vilnius University.
Eckert, Rainer
2002 6. Baltische Sprachen. Altpreußisch. Lettisch. Litauisch. In: Milos Okuka (ed.), Lexikon
der Sprachen des europäischen Ostens. (= Wieser Enzyklopädie des europäischen Ostens,
10). Klagenfurt: Wieser, 589−631. http://wwwg.uni-klu.ac.at/eeo/Altpreuszisch.pdf,
http://wwwg.uni-klu.ac.at/eeo/Litauisch.pdf, http://wwwg.uni-klu.ac.at/eeo/Lettisch.pdf
[Last accessed 2 February 2017].
Morkūnas, Kazys
2008 Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija [Encyclopedia of the Lithuanian language]. 2 nd edn. re-
vised by Vytautas Ambrazas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų institutas.
Palionis, Jonas
1995 Lietuvių rašomosios kalbos istorija [A history of the written Lithuanian language]. 2 nd
edn. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.
Rūķe-Draviņa, Velta
1977 The Standardization Process in Latvian. 16 th Century to the Present. Stockholm:
Almqvist & Wiksell.
Stang, Chr[istian] S.
1966 Vergleichende Grammatik der Baltischen Sprachen. Oslo: University Press.
1984 Lietuvių kalbos istorija [A history of Lithuanian] 1. Lietuvių kalbos kilmė [The origin
of Lithuanian]. Vilnius: Mokslas.
Jolanta Gelumbeckaitė, Frankfurt am Main (Germany)

Authenticated
XV. Albanian
94. The documentation of Albanian

1. The earliest evidence of the Albanian 3. The modern period
language 4. References
2. Albanian writing traditions
1. The earliest evidence of the Albanian language
1.1. Mere mentions of the existence of the language
The first known mention of Albanian as a separate language is found in a legal document
from a Raguza (Dubrovnik) archive dated 1285: Audivi unam vocem clamantem in monte
in lingua Albanesca ‘I heard a voice in the mountain crying out in the Albanian lan-
guage’ (Thallóczy, Jiricek, and Šufflay 1913: N527; Kastrati 2000: 39, 47; Elsie 1995a:
21).
At the beginning of the 14 th century Albanian is mentioned in at least three texts as
a distinct language spoken by a particular nation: 1) the 1308 testimony in Anonymi
Descriptio Europae Orientalis (Górka 1916: 29; Elsie 1990; Demiraj 2013); 2) the nota-
tion in Symonis Semeonis ab Hybernia ad Terram Sanctam dated to 1322 (Esposito
1960: 36−37; Elsie 1991); 3) the Directorium ad passagium faciendum (1332) of Guillel-
mus Adam (or perhaps rather Raymond Etienne or Brocardus Monachus), where we
read: licet Albanenses aliam omnino linguam a latina habeant et diversam, tamen litter-
am latinam habent in usu et in omnibus suis libris ‘Although Albanians have a language
which is completely different from Latin, they nevertheless use Latin littera in all their
books’ (Recueil 1906: 484). This passage can be interpreted in two different ways: as
evidence of the existence at that time of “Albanian-language books written in Latin
script” or simply “books written in Latin” (Elsie 1991b: 103). The latter reading is more
plausible.
1.2. The earliest actual records of the Albanian language
At least seven records of Albanian have reached us from the 15 th through the first half
of the 16 th century (the text from the so-called Bellifortis manuscript, 1405, may hardly
be interpreted as a genuine Albanian text; cf., however, Elsie 1986). Among these
records are some short insertions (consisting of one to three words) in texts written in
other languages (cf. Shuteriqi 1976: 33−42; Kastrati 2000: 39−56)
Three texts of this period are of great linguistic and cultural interest. The first is the
baptismal formula (Unte paghesont premenit Atit et birit et spertit senit ‘I baptize you
in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost’) of 1462 included in the
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-015

Authenticated
94. The documentation of Albanian 1717
Latin pastoral letter of the Archbishop of Durrës, Pal Engjëlli (Paulus Angelus), a close
associate of the Albanian folk hero Scanderbeg (Iorga 1915: 194−197; for a detailed
analysis see Matzinger 2010). The second text is a small vocabulary (26 single words,
8 phrases, and 12 numerals) compiled by the German traveler Arnold von Harff in the
spring of 1497 in Durrës during his journey to the Holy Land (von Groote 1860; Roques
1932b; Ashta 1996: 51−66). This Albanian language material, in the Geg dialect, was
recorded by Harff in a very amateurish way, but it contains some interesting details for
the history of the Albanian language. The third text, the Easter Gospel (Lambros 1906:
481−482; Borgia 1930; cf. also Ashta 1996: 71−109) is a rather poor translation (with
many Greek borrowings) of five Gospel verses (Matth 27, 62−66) and the beginning of
the Easter hymn. This text, written in the South Tosk dialect with Greek letters, has been
preserved as a separate sheet in a Greek manuscript from the 14 th century. However, the
Albanian text is dated by the majority of researchers to the end of the 15 th or beginning
of the 16 th century.
The first records of Albanian are reproduced and analyzed in Roques (1932a); Ressuli
([1941] 2007); Ismajli (2000); Hysa (2000); a full bibliography of Albanian writings
before 1850 can be found in Shuteriqi (1976); cf. also Elsie (1995).
2. Albanian writing traditions

2.1. Beginning with the time of the Schism, the territory of Albania was divided into
Catholic (North) and Orthodox (South) zones. The first known substantial written texts
in Albanian appeared after the Ottoman conquest. As a consequence, the earliest Albani-
an writing and literature developed in the framework of variant traditions, religious in
their base but strongly correlated with other important features − dialectal, geographical,
and cultural (Çabej 1938−1939 [2002]).
2.2. The Catholic tradition of North Albania
2.2.1. The “Meshari” (Missal) of Gjon Buzuku (1555).
This most important early Albanian text was written by a catholic priest, about whose
life we know almost nothing. The book is written in the Northwest Geg dialect and
contains “the combination of Breviary, Cathechism, Ritual, and Missal” (Matzinger
2012: 287, translation mine [A.R.]) as well as a short original text − an Afterword in
which the author explicitly characterizes his book as the first one written in Albanian.
Buzuk used the Latin script with some additional Cyrillic letters borrowed, it seems,
from bosančica (the kind of Cyrillic script which was widely used in Bosnia and on the
Dalmatian coast). The book is printed in Blackletter (a kind of Italian rotunda). The
single known copy of the “Meshari” was discovered in the Bibliotheca Vaticana in 1743
by the Albanian priest Gjon Kazazi (Demiraj 2006: 119−128), was promptly forgotten,
and became the object of scientific investigation only at the beginning of the 20 th cen-
tury. Buzuk’s book is never mentioned in the works of other authors belonging to the

Authenticated
1718 XV. Albanian
old Albanian Catholic tradition (with the exception, perhaps, of Bogdani). The existing
copy of Buzuk’s work is incomplete: only 94 of the original 110 two-page sheets have
been preserved. The title-page is absent, so we do not know where the book was printed
(Venice seems a likely guess; the year is known from the Afterword).
Despite some alphabetic inconsistencies and lapsus calami, Buzuk’s book is a good
quality translation with an elaborated syntax and a rich lexicon (according to Ashta
1996: 231 the text contains 2,127 different words).
There are two full scholarly editions of Buzuk’s work (Ressuli [1958] 2013: photo
facsimile and transcription; Çabej [1968] 2013: photo facsimile, transliteration, transcrip-
tion, and detailed scientific description; Buzuk’s lexicon is provided in Ashta 1996; for
a concordance of verb forms cf. Fiedler 2004). A searchable text of the “Meshari” is
available now on the Internet at http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/etcs/alban/Buzuku/
Buzuk.htm (data entry by W. Hock, TITUS version by J. Gippert). A photocopy of
the “Meshari” is accessible on the website of the National Library of Albania (http://
www.bksh.al/gsdl/cgi-bin/library.exe) and on the website of the Public Library “Marin
Barleti”, Shkoder (http://www.bibliotekashkoder.com/digital/buzuku_meshari/).
2.2.2. The works of Pjetër Budi (1566–1622)
Budi (at the end of his life a Catholic Bishop in North Albania) is the author of Dottrina
Christiana (Rome [1618/1636/1664] 1868) and Rituale Romanum et Speculum Confes-
sionis (Rome 1621), together more than one thousand printed pages. These books contain
mainly translations of various Italian and Latin religious writings (Catechism of Robert
Bellarmine, Specchio di Confessione by Emerio de Bonis, and others; see the thorough
survey in Budi [1986] 2006) but also include original prose fragments (mostly commen-
taries on spiritual texts) and some 3,300 lines of spiritual poetry (partly translations from
Italian amd Latin).
Budi uses the Latin script (antiqua) with three Cyrillic letters (used already by Buz-
uk). His graphic conventions are like those of Buzuk but are more consistent. Budi wrote
in a form of the Geg dialect which does not admit of any precise localization and used
rather complicated “baroque” syntax.
There are difficult-to-access mimeographed editions of Budi’s works with concordan-
ces (Svane 1985a, 1985b, 1986a, 1986b, 1986c, 1986d) as well as a scientific edition of
Budi’s verses by Rexhep Ismajli (Budi 2006: photo facsimile and transcription); for the
vocabulary of Budi’s works, cf. Ashta (1998). A photocopies of Budi’s books are acces-
sible on the website of the National Library of Albania (http://www.bksh.al/gsdl/cgi-bin/
library.exe). The text of the Dottrina Christiana (1664 and 1868 editions) is available
as a Google Book as well as on the website of the Public Library “Marin Barleti”,
Shkoder (1664 edition: http://www.bibliotekashkoder.com/digital/dott christiana/); also
available on this website is a photocopy of the Speculum Confessionis (http://www.
bibliotekashkoder.com/digital/budi_specvlvm_confessionis/).
2.2.3. The Dictionarium latino-epiroticum (Rome 1635) by Frang Bardhi (Franciscus

Blanchus, 1606−1643) is the first Albanian dictionary. It contains 2,492 words (Ashta
2000: 91) and besides the main Latin-Albanian alphabetical part has also lists of numer-

Authenticated
als, kinship terms, names of Albanian cities, adverbs, prepositions, interjections, a very
valuable list of 113 proverbs, and some examples of dialogue. The level of Bardhi’s
philological competence was rather low; nevertheless, his dictionary constitutes a unique
source for the Geg dialect of Albanian in the 17 th century.
Bardhi’s alphabet and spelling conventions are similar though not identical to those
of Budi.
There are several scientific editions of Bardhi’s dictionary (Roques 1932b: photo
facsimile and scientific introduction; Bardhi 1983 by E. Sedaj: photo facsimile and Alba-
nian index; Blanchus 2006: photo facsimile; Demiraj 2008: photo facsimile, translitera-
tion, transcription, detailed scientific commentary, and concordance; see also Ashta
2000: Albanian index to Bardhi’s dictionary with commentaries). A searchable text of
the Dictionarium is now available on the Internet at http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/
etcs/alban/blanchus/blanc.htm (data entry by M. de Vaan, TITUS version by J. Gippert).
The original edition is also available as a Google Book and on the website of the Nation-
al Library of Albania (http://www.bksh.al/gsdl/cgi-bin/library.exe).
2.2.4. The theological treatise Cuneus Prophetarum (Padua 1685, Venice 1691, 1702)
by Pjetër Bogdani (Pietro Bogdano, ca. 1630−1689, archbishop of Skopje) “is considered
to be the masterpiece of early Albanian literature and is the first work in Albanian of
full artistic and literary quality” (Elsie 2005: 30). The book, written in the Geg dialect
(with clear East Geg features) and using the script traditional for Geg catholic writers,
has an accompanying Italian translation and contains, besides the main prose text, some
verses written by the author (both originals and translations) and by two other North
Albanian writers (Luca Bogdani and Luca Suma). Bogdani’s work is characterized by a
very rich lexicon and flexible and developed syntax.
Modern editions of Bogdani’s text include Bogdani (1940−1943): transcription of the
first part of Bogdani’s book by Mark Harapi; Bogdani (1977): photo facsimile with a
short commentary by G. Valentini and M. Camaj; Bogdani (1989, 1997): photo facsimile
and translation into modern Albanian by E. Sedaj; Bogdani (2005): photo facsimile and
transcription with commentary by A. Omari. For Bogdani’s vocabulary cf. Ashta (2002).
Cuneus Prophetarum is also available as a searchable document on the Internet at http://
titus.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/etcs/alban/bogdani/bogda.htm (data entry by M. de Vaan,
TITUS version by J. Gippert). The 1685 edition is also available as a Google Book
and on the website of the National Library of Albania (http://www.bksh.al/gsdl/cgi-bin/
library.exe). For a full concordance of verb forms used in Budi’s and Bogdani’s works
as well as in the works by Matranga and Variboba (discussed in 2.5. below), see Schuma-
cher and Matzinger (2013).
On some minor texts of the North Albanian Catholic tradition see Elsie (1995); Shut-
eriqi (1976: 55−92).
2.2.5. The North Albanian catholic tradition in the 18th century
An important text written at the beginning of this period is Kuvendi i Arbenit

(‘Albanian Council’, Rome 1706, 1868; translation from Latin into Albanian by E.
Radoja 1872; reedited in 2003; scientific edition in Demiraj 2012: photo facsimile,

Authenticated
1720 XV. Albanian
transcription, concordance, commentary, and an additional CD containing the Albanian

texts of the 1706, 1868, and 1872 editions, together with the original Latin text;
word list in Ashta 2009), a collection of materials from the Albanian church council
held in North Albania in 1703, edited in Latin and Albanian versions (in separate
volumes). The following texts are usually treated as belonging to the North Albanian
Catholic tradition: 1) Osservazioni Grammaticali Nella Lingua Albanese (Roma 1716)
by the Franciscan missionary Francesco Maria da Lecce. This text represents the first
published Albanian grammar (da Lecce is also the author of the unpublished Italian-
Albanian dictionary dated 1702; scientific edition by G. Gurga: da Lecce 2009). 2)
the so-called Manuscript from Grottaferatta (1710, possibly by Diego da Desios)
containing a short Italian-Albanian dictionary, a short grammatical description, and
some translations from a Catechism (grammar by Ismajli 1982 and dictionary by
Landi 1988). 3) This period of the development of the Catholic tradition ends with
the Breve compendio della Dottrina Christiana (Rome 1743) by Gjon Nikollë Kazazi
(scholarly edition by Demiraj 2006: photo facsimile, transliteration, transcription,
concordance). Kazazi’s book is also available as a searchable document on the
internet at http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/etcs/alban/casasi/casas.htm (data entry by
B. Demiraj, TITUS version by J. Gippert) and on the website of the National Library
of Albania (http://www.bksh.al/gsdl/cgi-bin/library.exe).
A renewed flourishing of the North Albanian Catholic tradition is observed in the
second half of the 19 th century in the context of the Albanian National Awakening.
2.3. The Orthodox tradition of Central and South Albania
Whereas the Vatican encouraged in a limited way the development and the study of
the Albanian language, the Orthodox Church considered the use of Albanian to be
a threat to its influence. This circumstance conditioned the weak and relatively late
development of the Albanian Orthodox writing tradition. Except for the Easter Gospel
(1.2), all Orthodox texts belong to the period after the second third of the 18 th
century. There were two main urban centers of this tradition: Elbasan (situated in
the southern part of the Geg area) and Voskopoja (Moschopolis), a large city with a
mixed Aroumanian-Greek-Albanian population, which experienced a short period of
culture flourishing in the middle of the 18 th century. This included in Voskopoja a
printing facility (Peyfuss 1996) and the “New Academy”, a kind of middle school.
The Albanian Orthodox writing tradition used both Greek script and various original
alphabets invented by educated Albanians for their particular language needs (seven
such alphabets, showing Greek and Slavic, especially Glagolitic, influences are known
[see Shuteriqi 1950, 1976; Elsie 1995b]). The main texts of this tradition are: 1) the
so-called Elbasan Gospel Manuscript (Anonimi i Elbasanit mid-18 th cent.), attributed
without certainty to Gregory of Durrës (other possible authors are Papa Totasi and
Theodoros Bogomilos) and written using two different original alphabets in the South
Geg dialect with Tosk elements, contains 59 pages of Bible translations as well as
an original religious text. A transliteration of this text is published in Zamputi 1951
(cf. also Elsie 1995b); 2) the so-called Codex of Berat (1764−ca. 1800), written in
the Tosk dialect using Greek script with some specimens of an original alphabet,

Authenticated
contains 154 pages of various, mostly religious, texts in Albanian and Greek, among
them two glossaries and the Albanian poem Zonja Shën Mëri përpara kryqësë, the
author of which is possibly Konstantin Berati (see Hetzer 1981a, 1982); 3) various
texts, mostly of a religious character, written by Theodor Haxhifilipi or Dhaskal
Todhri from Elbasan (ca. 1730−1805) in the South Geg dialect with some Tosk
elements using an original alphabet widely current in the Elbasan district until the
1930’s, partly published in Nosi (1918) and Shuteriqi (1949, 1954, 1959). Two
multilingual dictionaries originated within the framework of the Voskopoja cultural
tradition. These are the dictionary of Theodor Kavalioti (ca. 1718−1789), which is
part of his Prôtopeiria (1770, Venice) and contains 1,170 Greek-Aroumanian-Albanian
lexical parallels (reprinted in Thunmann 1774: 181−238; Meyer 1895; new critical
edition by Hetzer 1981b) and the dictionary of Daniel of Voskopoja (1754−1825),
which is part of his Eisagôgikê didaskalia (1802, most likely Venice) and contains
1,170 tokens in Greek, Aroumanian, Bulgarian, and Albanian (modern editions by
Kristophson 1974; Stylos 2011). On other texts belonging to the Orthodox tradition
see Shuteriqi (1976); Elsie (1991c); Kastrati (2000); Lloshi (2008). The Old Albanian
tradition of Orthodox writing ends with the New Testament translation of Vangjel
Meksi (died ca. 1823), published in 1827 by Grigor Gjirokastriti (see Lloshi 2012).
The works of the great South-Albanian linguist and writer Kostandin Kristoforidhi
(1827−1895), author of an Albanian grammar and dictionary and Bible translator,
belong to the period of the Albanian National awakening (see Fiedler 2006: 79−81,
110−113).
2.4. Islamization and the Muslim tradition of Old Albanian Writings
The process of islamization of the Albanian population began just after the Ottoman
conquest and reached its peak in the 17 th century, at which point more than half of the
Albanian population became Muslim. The main zones of the spread of Islamic culture
in Albanian territory were the cities of Central Albania, first of all, Elbasan. One of the
consequences of this process was the development of an Albanian literature, above all
poetry, written in Arabic script. This poetry (which is to be viewed in the larger context
of the so-called aljamiado literature) is referred to in the Albanian tradition as “the
poetry of the bejtexhinjt” (cf. Albanian beytexhi ‘the author of beyts’, the latter word a
borrowing from Arab. bajt, Turk. beyit ‘distich’). The poetry of the bejtexinjt (strongly
influenced by the Middle Eastern literary tradition and filled with oriental lexical borrow-
ings) was first composed at the beginning of the 18 th century (the first known text being
the “Coffee-Prayer” by Muçi Zade, 1725), flourished from the middle of the 18 th until
the first half of the 19 th century, and survived until the middle of the 20 th century (mainly
in Kosovo). The best representatives of this poetic tradition are Nezim Frakulla (or
Nezim Berati, ca. 1680−1760), Sulejman Naibi (died 1771), Hasan Zyko Kamberi (ca.
1740−1800), Muhamed Kyçyku (1784−1844), and Zenel Bastari (first half of the 19 th
cent.). Despite the relatively high literary level of these poets, the bejtexinjt poetry was
to a great extent rejected (because of its pronounced oriental character) by the main-
stream of Albanian literary criticism. A consequence of this is the almost complete
absence of critical editions of this material (the only exception is a critical edition of

Authenticated
1722 XV. Albanian
the Divan by Nezim Berati: Nezim Berati 2009; see also Hamiti 2008). The texts of
bejtexinjt are known mainly thanks to some philological articles and anthologies (see
Myderrizi 1951, 1954, 1955; Hysa 1997−2000, 2000; Salihu 1987; cf. also Shuteriqi
1976).
2.5. The Italo-Albanian (Arbëresh) writing tradition

The fourth major tradition of old Albanian writing developed in Albanian settlements in
Southern Italy. The influx of Albanians into the territory of the Kingdom of Naples
began in the first half of the 15 th century, continued on a substantial scale until well
after Skanderbegs death (1468). After the capture of Morea by Ottomans in the first half
of the 18 th century, the new influx of an Albanian-speaking population from the Pelo-
ponnese into Southern Italy took place. Albanians founded villages in Sicily, Calabria,
Apulia, Molise, and Basilicata. Albanians − mostly Tosk-speaking former inhabitants of
the southern part of Albania and Greece (Epirus and Morea) − were partly converted to
Catholicism, but some retained the Orthodox rite and formed the Italo-Albanian Catholic
church (one of the Eastern Catholic churches). They firmly preserved their cultural tradi-
tions and their language − an amalgam of various Tosk dialects.
The first Italo-Albanian written text (and the second Albanian printed book), E mbsu-
ame e krështere (Christian Doctrine) by Luca Matranga (Lekë Matrënga, an Arbëresh
from Hora e Arbëresheve, Sicily), is a translation from Italian of a very widely used
short catechism by Jacob Ledesma. The book was published in 1592 in Rome. Two
published copies are known (one of them is lost and is now available only as a photo-
copy), and three remaining manuscript variants are extant. The book, written using Latin
script (with mostly Italian spelling conventions), represents a good example of an older
stage of the Tosk dialect. It contains 28 pages and 479 different words (Ashta 1998: 44).
In the beginning of one of the manuscripts, there is an eight-line rhyme translated from
Latin − the first Albanian written poem. There are four scholarly editions of Matranga’s
Work (La Piana 1912; Sciambra 1964; Sulejmani 1979; Mandalà 2004; for Matranga’s
lexicon see Ashta 1998; see also Matzinger 2006). A searchable text is available on the
Internet at http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/etcs/alban/matranga/matra.htm (data entry by
M. de Vaan, TITUS version by J. Gippert). A photocopy of Matranga’s book is acces-
sible on the website of the National Library of Albania (http://www.bksh.al/gsdl/cgi-bin/
library.exe).
Subsequent important Italo-albanian texts belong to the 18 th century. Among these,
the so-called Codex of Chieuti, dated from 1736, should be mentioned. This manuscript
(210 pages), compiled by the Italo-Albanian poet and priest from Sicily, Nicolò Figlia
(1682?−1769), contains Arbëresh folk songs, poems of Italo-Albanian poets (Figlia him-
self, Nilo Catalano, and Nicolò Brancato), as well as a short Albanian catechism (see
the scholarly edition by Matteo Mandalà 1995).
The greatest work of old Italo-Albanian literature is the Ghiella e S. Mëriis Virghiër
(1762, Rome) by the Calabrian priest Giulio Variboba (1724−1788), a religious poem
(or collection of poems) describing the life of the Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ. Varibo-
ba’s rich and vivid language reflects the Albano-Calabrian dialect of this period. Two
prefaces to the poem are good examples of Italo-Albanian prose (see the critical edition:
Variboba 2005; see also Variboba 1984).

Authenticated
The period from the 1830’s until the second decade of the 20 th century marks the
zenith of the flourishing of Italo-Albanian written culture. The writers of this time (Giro-
lamo De Rada, Gabriele Dara, Giuseppe Serembe, Francesco Santori, Giuseppe Schirò)
raised Italo-Albanian literature to unprecedented heights. At the same time, scholars
such as Demetrio Camarda and Vincenzo Dorsa made important contributions to the
development of the nascent field of scientific Albanology (cf. Elsie 1995; Kastrati 2000:
543−622).
In our time the Italo-Albanian written tradition has been reshaped as a regional litera-
ture with its writers using mostly modern standard Albanian.
2.6. Other parts of the large Albanian diaspora had no particular writing traditions. We
know of only a few attempts on the part of patriotically oriented Albanians from the
diaspora to educate their compatriots. Notable among these were the efforts of the Athe-
nian Anastas Kullurioti (1822−1887), who published some educational school-books
reflecting his own Greek-Albanian dialect (cf. Elsie 1995). The Cyrillic dictionaries
by Gjorgji Pulevski (1875) and by the monk Arkádïi (manuscript, 1864) representing,
respectively, the Albanian dialects of west Macedonia and of Eastern Thrace, should be
considered attempts at language (dialect) description rather than the manifestations of
any real written tradition (cf. Friedman 1994, 2003a, 2003b).
3. The modern period

The period since the middle of the 19 th century is characterized by two important pro-
cesses relevant to both the development of the Albanian language and the enrichment of
its documentation. First, in this period Albanian becomes the subject of scientific linguis-
tic study. Second, the ideological and cultural movement known in Albanian history as
Rilindje kombëtare (National Renaissance) makes the development of a common stan-
dard Albanian language one of its main objectives.
3.1. Within this period the systematic work of gathering folklore texts, compiling Alba-
nian dictionaries, and engaging in research on Albanian grammar and dialectology be-
gins, thanks to the efforts of both foreign and Albanian scholars (on the history of
Albanology cf. Jokl 1917; Hamp 1972; Gosturani 1999; Kastrati 2000; Fiedler 2006).
3.2. Two major goals which were to be achieved in the context of the creation of a
standard Albanian language were the elaboration of a national alphabet and the choice
of a dialect base (or bases).
3.2.1. The decisive step in the achievement of the first goal was made in 1908 after the
success of the Young Turks’ revolution, when at the so-called Congress of Monastir the
modern Albanian alphabet (created in the main on the basis of the North Albanian
“Bashkimi”-alphabet) was adopted. In several years, this alphabet became the only Alba-
nian alphabet in use; after the creation of the Albanian state (1912), it became the official
alphabet of Albanian.

Authenticated
1724 XV. Albanian
3.2.2. The second task was more difficult. In the period from 1917 until the communist
take-over in 1944, the official standard Albanian language was based on the South Geg
(Elbasan) dialect. Besides this, many texts (literary, public, and scientific) were published
in (more or less standardized dialect variants of) Tosk and North Geg. After the commu-
nist victory, a new standard language was created based on Tosk but with some Geg
elements. After 1967−1968 (until the fall of communism), the publication of Geg texts
ceased (cf. e.g. Lafe 2008). In 1968, Albanians of Yugoslavia (Kosovo, Macedonia, and
Montenegro) adopted Standard Albanian (from 1941 until 1968 the majority of Yugosla-
vian Albanians utilized the Geg variant). On the problems of standard language develop-
ment cf. Byron (1976, 1979); Beci (2000); Fiedler (2006: 104−140); and Ismajli (2003).
3.3. The annotated Albanian language corpus, an ongoing project being carried out by
linguists from Saint Petersburg and Moscow, is now available on the Internet at http://
web-corpora.net/AlbanianCorpus/search/?interface language=en. Regarding Albanian
texts available in digital form, the following resources should be mentioned: Archivio
Letterario (directed by Francesco Altimari, University of Calabria), a collection of Italo-
Albanian literary texts on CD-roms; old Albanian texts in digital form (mainly in the
framework of the Titus-Projects, cf. above: 2.2; 2.4); some Albanian texts represented
as lexical hypertexts in the IntraText Digital Library (http://www.intratext.com/SQI/), as
well as the text of Ismail Kadare’s novel Koncert në fund të dimrës in the European
Corpus Initiative Multilingual / Corpus I CD-rom (ECI/MCI) (Kabashi 2007: 141).
4. References
Ashta, Kolë
1996 Leksiku historik i gjuhës shqipe I: Tri dokumentet e para të gjuhës shqipe e leksiku
përkatës (gjysma e dytë e shekullit XV). Gjon Buzuku e leksiku i plotë, nxjerrë nga vepra
e tij “Meshari” (1555) [Albanian historical lexicon I. Three documents before the rele-
vant lexicons of the Albanian language (second half of the XV century). John Buzuku,
the full lexicon derived from his work “Missal” (1555)]. Shkodra: Shtëpia Botuese e
Universitetit të Shkodrës “Luigj Gurakuqi”.
Ashta, Kolë
1998 Leksiku historik i gjuhës shqipe II: Lekë Matrënga dhe leksiku, nxjerrë nga vepra e tij
(1592); Pjetër Budi dhe leksiku, nxjerrë nga vepra e tij (1618−1621) [Albanian histori-
cal lexicon II: Lekë Matrënga and vocabulary derived from his work (1592); Peter Budi
and vocabulary derived from his work (1618−1621)]. Tirana: Toena.
Ashta, Kolë
2000 Leksiku historik i gjuhës shqipe III: Pjetër Mazrreku dhe leksiku, nxjerrë nga vepra e
tij (1633); Frang Bardhi dhe leksiku, nxjerrë nga vepra e tij (1635) [Albanian historical
lexicon III: Peter Mazrreku and vocabulary derived from his work (1633); Frang Bardhi
and vocabulary derived from his work (1635)]. Shkodra: Shtypshkronja “Volaj”.
Ashta, Kolë
2002 Leksiku historik i gjuhës shqipe IV: Pjetër Bogdani: Leksiku i plotë i shqipes, nxjerrë
nga vepra “Cuneus Prophetarum”. [Albanian historical lexicon IV: Peter Bogdani: the
full Albanian lexicon derived from the work “Cuneus Prophetarum”]. Shkodra: Camaj −
Pipa.

Authenticated
Ashta, Kolë
2009 Leksiku historik i gjuhës shqipe V: Kuvendi i Arbënit (1706), Da Lecce (1716) [Albanian
historical lexicon V: Albanian Council (1706), Da Lecce (1716)]. Shkodra: Camaj-Pipa.
Bardhi, Frang
1983 Fjalor Latinisht-Shqip 1635. Përgatiti Engjëll Sedaj [Latin-Albanian dictionary of 1635.
Prepared by Engjëll Sedaj]. Prishtina: Rilindja.
Beci, Bahri
2000 Probleme të politikës gjuhësore dhe të planifikimit gjuhësor në Shqipëri [Problems of
language policy and language planning in Albania]. Pejë: Dukagjini.
Blanchus, Franciscus
1635 Dictionarivm latino-epiroticvm, vna cum nonnulis vsitatioribus loquendi formilis. ... [A
Latino-Albanian dictionary together with some more frequently used phrases]. Rome:
Sac. Congr. de Propag. Fide.
Blanchus, Franciscus
2006 Dictionarium Latino Epiroticum [A Latin-Albanian dictionary]. Tirana: Çabej.
Bogdani Pjetër
1940−1943 Cuneus prophetarum, a se Çeta e profetëve. Pjesa 1. Qitë në alfabetin e soçem e
kthiellue me vrojtime prej Át Mark Harapit S. J. [Cuneus Prophetarum, or The Band of
Prophets. Part 1. Set in a clear modern alphabet with the observations of Fr. Mark
Harapit S. J.]. Shkodra: Shtypshkronja “Zoja e paperlyeme”.
Bogdani, Pjetër
1977 Cuneus Prophetarum a Pietro Bogdano. Patavii MDCLXXXV. Beiträge zur Kenntnis
Südosteuropas und des Nahen Orients. Vol. 24. Munich: Trofenik.
Bogdani, Pjetër
1989 Çeta e Profeteve I (Cuneus Prophetarum).Transliterimi në gjuhën e sotme, përkthimet
dhe parathënia nga dr. E. Sedaj [The Band of Prophets I (Cuneus Prophetarum). Translit-
eration in today’s language, translation, and preface by Dr. E. Sedaj]. Prishtina: Rilindja.
Bogdani, Pjetër
1997 Çeta e Profeteve II (Jeta e Jezu Krishtit). Transliterimi në gjuhën e sotme, hyrja, përk-
thimet dhe shënimet nga dr. E. Sedaj [The Band of Prophets II (The Life of Jesus
Christ). Transliteration in today’s language, introduction, translation, and notes by Dr.
E. Sedaj]. Prishtina: Rilindja.
Bogdani, Pjetër
2005 Cuneus Prophetarum (Çeta e profetëve). Botim kritik me një studim hyrës, faksimile të
origjinalit, transkriptim e shënime përgatitur nga Anila Omari [Cuneus Prophetarum
(The Band of Prophets). Critical edition with an introductory study, facsimile of the
original, transcript , and notes prepared by Anila Omari]. Tirana: Akademia e shkencave
të Shqipërisë. Instituti i Gjuhësisë dhe i Letërsisë.
Bogdano, Pietro
1685 Cunevs Prophetarum de Christo Salvatore Mvndi et eivs evangelica veritate, italice et
epirotice contexta... [The Band of Prophets of Christ the Savior of the World and his
true gospel in Italian and Albanian]. Padua: Typographia Seminarii. [2nd edn.: L’infabil-
ite verità della Cattolica Fede. Venice: Girolamo Albrizzi, 1691; 3rd edn.: 1702.]
Borgia, Nilo
1930 Pericope Evangelica in lingua albanese del secolo XIV da un manoscritto greco della
Biblioteca Ambrosiana. Grottoferrata: Tip. Italo-Orientale S. Nilo.
Budi, Pjetro
1621 Ritvale Romanvm et Specvlum Confessionis... [The Roman rite and a mirror for confes-
sion]. Rome: Bartolomeo Zanetti.
Budi, Pjetro
1868 Dottrina Christiana... 4th edn. Rome: Stamperia della S. C. di Propaganda Fide. [3rd edn.
1664. 2nd edn. 1636. First published 1618. Rome: Bartolomeo Zanetti.]

Authenticated
1726 XV. Albanian
Budi, Pjetër
2006 Poezi (1618−1621). Parathënia, tejshkrimi, komentet: Rexhep Ismajli [Poetry (1618−
1621). Preface, transcription, commentary: Rexhep Ismajli]. 2nd edn. Prishtina: ASHAK.
[First published 1986. Prishtina: Rilindje.]
Byron, Janet
1976 Selection among alternates in language standardization. The case of Albanian. (Contri-
butions to the sociology of language 12). The Hague: Mouton.
Byron, Janet
1979 Language planning in Albania and in Albanian-speaking Yugoslavia. Word 30: 15−44.
Çabej, Eqrem
1938−1939 Për gjenezën e literaturës shqipe [On the genesis of Albanian literature]. Hylli i
Dritës 14(12): 647−661. [Reprinted 2002 in Eqrem Çabej, Shqiptaret midis Perëndimit
dhe Lindjes. Tirana: Çabej, 9−62.]
Çabej, Eqrem
2013 Meshari i Gjon Buzukut [The “Missal” of Gjon Buzuku]. Vol. I−II. 3rd edn. Tirana:
Çabej. [2nd edn. 1987. Prishtina: Rilindja. First published 1968. Tirana: Universiteti
Shtetëror i Tiranës. Instituti Historisë e i Gjuhësisë.]
Daniel of Voskopoja
1802 Eisagôgikê didaskalia [Pedagogical introduction]. sine loco.
Demiraj, Bardhyl
2006 Gjon P. Nikollë Kazazi dhe “Doktrina” e tij [Gjon P. Nikollë Kazazi and his “Doktri-
na”]. Prishtina: Akademia e Shkencave dhe e Arteve. Botime të veçanta LXIX. Seksioni
i gjuhësisë dhe i letërsisë. Libri 30.
Demiraj, Bardhyl
2008 Dictionarium Latino-Epiroticum (Romae 1635). Per R. D. Franciscum Blanchum [A
Latin-Albanian dictionary (Rome 1635). By R. D. Franciscum Blanchum]. Shkodra:
Françescane.
Demiraj, Bardhyl
2012 Conciλi provintiaaλi o Cuvendi i Arbenit [The Provincial council or Kuvendi i Arbenit].
Shkodra: Françescane.
Demiraj, Bardhyl
2013 Kumte domethënëse dhe kundërthënëse mbi albanët e dy Albanive në “Anonymi De-
scriptio Europae Orientalis” (1308) [Significant and controversial messages on Albania
and Albanians in “Anonymi Descriptio Europae Orientalis” (1308)]. Hylli i Dritës 33:
204−215.
Elsie, Robert
1986 The Bellifortis text and early Albanian. Zeitschrift für Balkanologie 22: 158−162.
Elsie, Robert
1990 Albania in the ‘Anonymi Descriptio Europae Orientalis’ (1308 A.D.). Zeitschrift für
Balkanologie 26: 24−28.
Elsie, Robert
1991a Two Irish travellers in Albania in 1322. In: Klaus-Detlev Grothusen (ed.), Albanien und
Vergangenheit und Gegenwart. Internationales Symposium der Südosteuropa-Gesell-
schaft in Zusammenarbeit mit der Albanischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Winter-
scheider Mühle bei Bonn, 12.−15. September 1989. (Südosteuropa Studien 48). Munich:
Südosteuropa-Gesellschaft, 24−27.
Elsie, Robert
1991b The earliest references to the existence of the Albanian language. Zeitschrift für Balkan-
ologie 11/12: 101−105.
Elsie, Robert
1991c Albanian literature in Greek script. The eighteenth and early nineteenth century Ortho-
dox tradition in Albanian writing. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 11: 20−34.

Authenticated
Elsie, Robert
1995a History of Albanian Literature. 2 Vols. (East European Monographs 379). Boulder: So-
cial Science Monographs. Distributed by Columbia University Press, New York.
Elsie, Robert
1995b The Elbasan Gospel manuscript (Anonimi i Elbasanit), 1761 and the struggle for an
original Albanian alphabet. Südost-Forschungen 54: 105−159.
Esposito, Mario
1960 Itinerarium Symonis Semeonis ab Hybernia ad Terram Sanctam [The itinerary of Symon
Semeon from Ireland to the Holy Land]. Scriptores Latini Hiberniae, Vol. 4. Dublin:
Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.
Fiedler, Wilfried
2004 Das Albanische Verbalsystem in der Sprache des Gjon Buzukuu (1555). Prishtina: Aka-
demia e shkencave dhe e arteve e Kosovës.
Fiedler, Wilfried
2006 Einführung in die Albanologie. Meissen. http://www.albanologie.uni-muenchen.de/
downloads/einfuehrung-in-die-alb-fiedler.pdf [Last accessed 4 December 2016].
Figlia, Nicolò
1995 Il Codice Chieutino. Edizione critica e concordanca a cura di Matteo Mandalà. Mezzoiu-
so: Comune di Mezzoiuso.
Friedman, Victor A.
1994 Slavic-Albanian Contacts and Early Polyglot Lexicons: The Albanian Lexicon of the
monk Arkádïi, a mid-nineteenth century manuscript from the Hilendar Monastery on
Mount Athos. Slavia meridionalis: Studia linguistica, Slavica et balcanica 1: 139−156.
Friedman, Victor A.
2003a The Albanian language in its Eastern Diaspora: A unique witness. In: Friedman (ed.),
59−155.
Friedman, Victor A.
2003b On national conceptions in the trilingual dictionary of Gjorgji Pulevski. In: Friedman
(ed.), 479−484.
Friedman, Victor A. (ed.)
2003c Studies on Albanian and other Balkan Languages. Pejë: Dukagjini.
Górka, Olgierd (ed.)
1916 Anonymi descriptio Europae orientalis. Imperium Constantinopolitanum, Albania, Ser-
bia, Bulgaria, Ruthenia, Ungaria, Polonia, Bohemia. Anno MCCCVIII exarata [Anon-
ymi descriptio Europae orientalis. The Byzantine Empire, Albania, Serbia, Bulgaria,
Ruthenia, Hungary, Poland, Bohemia. Written in the year 1308] Cracow: Sumptibus
Academiae Litterarum.
Gosturani, Xheladin
1999 Historia e albanologjisë [The history of albanology]. Tirana: Albin.
von Groote, Eberhard
1860 Die Pilgerfahrt des Ritters Arnold von Harff von Cöln... . Cologne: J. M. Heberle.
Hamiti, Abdullah
2008 Nezim Frakulla dhe Divani i tij shqip [Nezim Frakulla and his Albanian Divan]. Shkup:
Logos A.
Hamp, Eric
1972 Albanian. Current trends in Linguistics. Vol. 2(1). The Hague: Mouton, 1627−1692.
Hetzer, Armin
1981a Der sogenannte Kodex von Berat. Teil 1. Balkan-Archiv. Neue Folge. 6: 125−195.
Hetzer, Arnim
1981b Das dreisprachige Wörterverzeichnis von Theodoros Anastasiu Kavalliotis aus Mo-
schopolis, gedruckt 1770 in Venedig. Balkan-Archiv. Neue Folge. Beiheft 1.

Authenticated
1728 XV. Albanian
Hetzer, Armin
1982 Nachlese zu: Der sogenannte Kodex von Berat 1 (BA 6. 125−195). Balkan-Archiv. Neue
Folge. 7: 57−75.
Hysa, Mahmud
1997−2000 Alamiada shqiptare. Studime letrare [Albanian aljamiada. Literary studies]. Vol.
I−II. Skopje: Logos A.
Hysa, Mahmud
2000 Hyrje në letërsinë shqiptare [Introduction to Albanian literature]. Prishtina: Enti i tek-
steve dhe i mjeteve mësimore i Kosovës.
Iorga, Nicolae
1915 Notes et extraits pour servir à l’histoire des Croisades au XVe siècle. 4e série (1453−
1476). Bucharest: Leroux.
Ismajli, Rexhep
1982 Gramatika e parë e gjuhës shqipe. Botim kritik me studim e transkriptim [The first
grammar of Albanian. Critical edition with a study and a transcription]. Prishtina: Ril-
indje.
Ismajli, Rexhep
2000 Tekste të vjetra [Ancient texts]. Pejë: Dukagjini.
Ismajli, Rexhep
2003 Standarde dhe identitete. Histori, procese dhe lëvizje standardizuese në fushë të gjuhës
[Standards and identities. History, processes, and movements in the field of language
standardization]. Peje: Dukagjini.
Jokl, Norbert
1917 Albanisch. In: Wilhelm Streitberg (ed.), Geschichte der indogermanischen Sprachwis-
senschaft 3(2). Strassburg: Trübner.
Kabashi, Besim
2007 Zeichen für Gjon Buzukuu. Die zusammenarbeit zwischen der albanischen Linguistik
und der Computerlinguistik. In: Bardhyl Demiraj (ed.), Nach 450 Jahren. Buzukuus
“Missale” und seine Rezeption in unserer Zeit. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 139−146.
Kastrati, Jup
2000 Historia e albanologjisë (1497−1997) [The history of albanology (1497−1997)]. Vol. I.
Tirana: Argeta-LMG, 1497−1853.
Kavalioti, Theodor
1770 Prôtopeiria para tu sofologiôtatu kai aidesimôtatu didaskalu, hierokêrykos kai prôtopa-
pa kyriu Theodôru Anastasiou Kaballiôtu tu Moschopolitu ksyntetheisa... [Rudimentary
glossary ... compiled by Theodor Kavalioti of Voskopoja]. Venice: Antôniô tô Bortoli.
Kazazi, Gjon Nikolla
1743 Breve Compendio della Dottrina Cristiana. Rome: Stamp. della S. Congr. de Propaganda
Fide.
Kristophson, Jü
1974 Das Lexikon Tetraglosson des Daniil Moschopolitis. Zeitschrift für Balkanologie. 10: 7−
128.
(Kuvendi i Arbenit)
1706 Conciλi provintiaaλi o Cu(n)vendi i Arbenit [Provincial council or Kuvendi i Arbenit].
Rome: Typ. Sac. Congr. de Propaganda Fide. [2nd edn. 1868. Rome. 3rd edn. Translated
by E. Radoja, 1872. Rome. 4th edn. 2003. Prishtina: Ed. Konferenca Ipeshkvore Shqip-
tare.]
Lafe, Emil
2008 Gjuha standarte si përgjegjësi shjoqërore dhe intelektuale [The standard language as a
social and intellectual responsibility]. Gjuha Jone 28: 1−4.

Authenticated
Lambros, Spyridôn
1906 To Christos anestê albanisti [The Easter Gospel in Albanian]. Neos Hellênomnênôn 3:
481−482.
Landi, Addolorata
1988 Il dizionario Italiano e Albanese per Alfabeto della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata. (Qua-
derni / Università degli studi di Salerno, Istituto di linguistica, Cattedra di glottologia.
2). Salerno: Università degli studi di Salerno.
La Piana, Marco
1912 Il catechismo albanese di Luca Matranga da un manoscritto Vaticano. Roma e l’Oriente
4(19): 23−32.
da Lecce, Francesco Maria
1716 Osservazioni grammaticali nella lingua Albanese. Rome: Stamp. della Sag. Conf. di
Prop. Fede.
da Lecce, Francesco Maria
2009 Dittionario italiano-albanese (1702). Botim kritik me hyrje dhe fjalësin shqip përgatitur
nga Gëzim Gurga [Critical edition with an introduction and Albanian word-list prepared
by Gëzim Gurga]. Shkodra: Françescane.
Lloshi, Xhevat
2008 Rreth alfabetit të shqipës [On the Albanian alphabet]. Shkup: Logos A.
Lloshi, Xhevat
2012 Përkthimi i V. Meksit dhe redaktimi i G. Gjirokastritit (1819−1827) [The translation of
V. Meksi and the redaction of G. Gjirokastritit (1819−1827)]. Tirana: Onufri.
Mandalà, Matteo
1995 Nicolò Figlia. Il Codice Chieutino. Edizione critica e concordanca. Mezzoiuso: Comune
di Mezzoiuso.
Mandalà, Matteo
2004 Luca Matranga. E mbsuame e krështëre [Luca Matranga. Christian Doctrine]. (Albanica
21). Caltanissetta: Sciascia.
Matranga, Luca
1592 Embsvame e chræsteræ... [Christian Doctrine ...]. Rome: Presso Guglielmo Facciotto.
Matzinger, Joachim
2006 Der altalbanische Text [E] Mbsuame e Krështerë (Dottrina Cristiana) des Lekë Matren-
ga von 1592, eine Einführung in die albanische Sprachwissenschaft. Dettelbach: Röll.
Matzinger, Joachim
2010 Die albanische Sprache im Zeitalter Skanderbegs, Teil 2: Verschriftung des Albanischen
mit Schwerpunkt auf Paulus Angelus und Gjon Buzuk. In: Bardhyl Demiraj (ed.), Wir
sind die Deinen. Studien zur albanischen Sprache, Literatur und Kulturgeschichte, dem
Gedenken an Martin Camaj (1925−1992) gewidmet. (Albanische Forschungen 29).
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 421−486.
Matzinger, Joachim
2012 Die Heiligenfeste, oder wie sich das Proprium de Sanctis und das Commune Sanctorum
im Seelsorgehandbuch des Gjon Buzuku (1555) darstellen. In: Bardhyl Demiraj (ed.),
Akten der 4. Deutsch-Albanischen kulturwissenschaftlichen Tagung “50 Jahre Albanolo-
gie an der Ludwig-Maximillians-Universität Munchen”. (Albanische Forschungen 32).
Meyer, Gustav
1895 Albanesische Studien IV. Das griechisch-südrumänisch-albanesische Wörterverzeichniss
des Kavalliotis. Sitzungsberichte der k. Akademie der wissenschaften in Wien. Phil.-hist.
Klasse 132 (12).
Myderrizi, Osman
1951 Erveheja dhe Muhamet Çami [Erveheja and Muhamet Çami]. Buletin i Institutit të
Shkencavet 1: 72−82.

Authenticated
1730 XV. Albanian
Myderrizi, Osman
1954 Nezim Frakulla (1690 ?−1750). Buletin për shkencat shoqërore 4: 56−75.
Myderrizi, Osman
1955 Hasan Zyko Kamberi. Buletin për shkencat shoqërore 1: 93−109.
Nezim Berati
2009 Divani shqip. Edicioni tekstual kritik, hyrja, shënimet, fjalori dhe indeksi G. Abazi-Egro
[The Albanian Divan. Critical edition of the text, introduction, notes, vocabulary, and
the index of G. Abazi-Egro]. Tirana: Toena.
Nosi, Lef
1918 Dhaskal Todhri. Kopështi letrar (Elbasan) 1: 13−14; 2: 13; 3: 8; 4: 11; 5: 2.
Peyfuss, Max Demeter
1996 Die Druckerei von Moschopolis. 1731−1769. Buchdruck und Heiligenverehrung im Erz-
bistum Achrida. 2., verbesserte Auflage. Vienna: Böhlau.
Pulevski, Gjorgji
1875 Rechnik od tri jezika [Dictionary of three languages]. Belgrade: U državnoj štamparnji.
(Recueil)
1906 Recueil des Historiens des Croisades. Documents arméniens. Tome second. Documents
latins et français relatifs à l’Arménie. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.
Ressuli, Namik
2007 Shkrimtarët shqiptarë. Pjesa I (1462−1878). Botim i Ministris s’Arsimit. [Albanian writ-
ers. Part I (1462−1878), Edition of the Ministry of s’Arsimit]. 2nd edn. Tirana: PAKTI.
[First published 1941. Tirana: Shtypshkroja Gurakuqi.]
Ressuli, Namik
2013 Il «Messale» di Giovanni Buzukuu. (Studi e testi 199). 2nd edn. London: Centre for
Albanian Studies. [First published 1958. Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vati-
cana.]
Roques, Mario Louis
1932a Recherches sur les anciens textes albanais. Avec huit facsimilés. Paris: Geuthner.
Roques, Mario Louis
1932b Le dictionnaire albanais de 1635, édité avec introduction et index complet. Paris: Geuth-
ner.
Salihu, Hajdar
1987 Poezia e bejtexhinjve [Bejtexhi poetry]. Prishtina: Rilindja.
Schumacher, Stephen and Joachim Matzinger
2013 Die Verben des Altalbanischen Belegwörterbuch, Vorgeschichte und Etymologie. Unter
Mitarbeit von Anna-Maria Adaktylos. (Albanische Forschungen 33). Wiesbaden: Har-
rassowitz.
Sciambra, Matteo
1964 La ‘Dottrina cristiana’ albanese di Luca Matranga. Riproduzione, trascizione e com-
mento del Codice Barberini Latino 3454. (Studi i testi 240). Città del Vaticano: Bibliote-
ca Apostolica Vaticana.
Shuteriqi, Dhimitër S.
1950 Anonimi i Elbasanit. Shkrimi shqip në Elbasan në shekujt XVIII−XIX dhe Dhaskal
Todhri [Anonimi i Elbasanit. Albanian writing in Elbasan in the 18th−19 th centuries and
Dhaskal Todhri]. Buletin i Institutit të Shkencavet 1: 33−54.
1954 Dhaskal Todhri. Buletin i Institutit të Shkencavet për Shkencat Shoqërore 4: 35−55.
1959 Shkrime të Dhaskal Todhri dhe të pasardhësve të tij elbasanas, shoqëruar me fjalorin e
shkrimeve të Todhrit [The writings of Dhaskal Todhri’s and his Elbasan successors with
a dictionary of Todhri’s writings]. Buletin për shkencat shoqërore 1: 165−198.

Authenticated
1976 Shkrimët shqipe në vitet 1332−1850 [Albanian writings in the years 1332−1850]. Tirana:
Akademia e Shkencave të RPS të Shqipërisë − Instituti i Gjuhësisë dhe i Letërsisë.
Stylos, Niko
2011 Fjalor katërgjuhësh i Daniil Voskopojarit [The quadrilingual dictionary of Daniel of
Voskopoja]. Tirana: Universiteti Kristal.
Sulejmani, Fadil
1979 E mbusuame e krështerë e Lekë Matrëngës [Lekë Matrëngë’s Christian Doctrine]. Prish-
tina: Rilindje.
Svane, Gunnar
1985a Pjetër Budi, Dottrina Christiana (1618). With a transcription into modern orthography
and a concordance. Text. (Sprog og Mennesker 9). Aarhus: Institut for Lingvistik.
Svane, Gunnar
1985b Pjetër Budi, Dottrina Christiana (1618). Concordance 1−2. (Sprog og Mennesker 10).
Aarhus: Institut for Lingvistik.
Svane, Gunnar
1986a Pjetër Budi, Speculum Confessionis (1621). With a transcription into modern orthogra-
phy and a concordance. Text. (Sprog og Mennesker 11). Aarhus: Institut for Lingvistik.
Svane, Gunnar
1986b Pjetër Budi, Speculum Confessionis (1621). Concordance 1−3. (Sprog og Mennesker
12). Aarhus: Institut for Lingvistik.
Svane, Gunnar
1986c Pjetër Budi, Rituale Romanum (1621). With a transcription into modern orthography
and a concordance. Text. (Sprog og Mennesker 13). Aarhus: Institut for Lingvistik.
Svane, Gunnar
1986d Pjetër Budi, Rituale Romanum (1621). Concordance 1−2. (Sprog og Mennesker 14).
Aarhus: Institut for Lingvistik
de Thallóczy, Ludovicus, Constantinus Jiricek, and Emilianus de Šufflay
1913 Acta et Diplomata res Albaniae mediae aetatis illustrantia. I. Vienna: Holzhausen.
Thunmann, Johann
1774 Untersuchungen über die Geschichte der östlichen europäischen Völker. 1. Leipzig:
Lebrecht Grusius.
Variboba, Giulio
1762 Ghiella e S. Mëriis Virghiër… [The life of the Holy Virgin Mary]. Rome: P. Maistrit.
Variboba, Giulio
1984 La vita di Maria. Prolegomeni, trascrizione, traduzione, glossario e note di Italo Cos-
tante Fortino. Cosenza: Brenner.
Variboba, Giulio
2005 Vita della Beata Vergine Maria. Edizione critica e traduzione italiana a cura di Vincenco
Belmonte. Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino.
Zamputi, Injac
1951 Disa shënime rreth alfabetit të dorëshkrimit të Anonimit elbasanas [Some notes on the
alphabet of the manuscript of the Anonimi i Elbanasit]. Buletin i Institutit të Shkencavet
1: 55−57.
Alexander Rusakov, St. Petersburg (Russia)

Authenticated
1732 XV. Albanian
95. The phonology of Albanian

1. Preliminaries 4. Obstruents
2. Vowels 5. Accent
3. Resonants 6. References
1. Preliminaries
The reconstruction of prehistoric stages of Albanian should ideally be based on the
phonological system of Old Tosk, Old Geg, and a number of Modern Albanian (MoAlb.)
dialects. This aim is difficult to realize for two reasons: the graphic systems of the Old
Albanian (OAlb.) texts still present us with some unsolved problems; and the OAlb.
texts do not contain all the relevant vocabulary. Like most scholars, I use Modern Stan-
dard Albanian as the base for the reconstruction, adding information from OAlb. wherev-
er relevant. Modern Albanian shared the developments of the Tosk dialects unless stated
otherwise.
Internal comparison between the Tosk and Geg dialects allows us to reconstruct a
Proto-Albanian stage (PAlb.; in German Uralbanisch; see Hock 2005; Klingenschmitt
1994: 221; Matzinger 2006: 23; B. Demiraj 1997: 41−67; Hamp 1992: 885−902). Addi-
tional external information on the development of the phonology is provided by different
layers of loanwords, of which those from Slavic (from ca. 600 CE onward) and from
Latin (ca. 167 BCE−400 CE) are the most important. Since the main phonological dis-
tinction between Tosk and Geg, viz. rhotacism of n, is found in only a few Slavic
loanwords in Tosk (Ylli 1997: 317; Svane 1992: 292 f.), I assume that Proto-Albanian
predated the influx of most of the Slavic loanwords. Following the authors cited above,
I will call the hypothetical stage of Albanian before the start of the Latin influence “Pre-
Proto-Albanian” (PPAlb.) (German Voruralbanisch or Frühuralbanisch).
Two other, less conclusive reference points are the borrowing of Ancient Greek loan-
words (only a few of which are ascertained) which preceded the Latin period, and the
comparison with Rumanian, the surviving Balkan Romance language which has adopted
a number of loanwords from PPAlb. or a closely related Indo-European language. It
would therefore in theory be possible to distinguish a Late PPAlb. stage (after the first
Greek words entered, but before contact with Latin) and an Early PAlb. stage (after the
Roman era but some time before the split into Tosk and Geg). In this chapter, however,
I confine myself to the stages PIE, PPAlb., PAlb., and MoAlb.
A number of surveys of the historical phonology of Albanian have appeared. In recent
years, we find Huld (1984), Beekes (1995: 260−268), S. Demiraj (1996), B. Demiraj
(1997: 41−67), Orel (2000: 1−151), Hock (2005), Matzinger (2006), Vermeer (2008),
and Schumacher (2013). Most of these start on the PIE side of the reconstruction and
deduce the different Albanian descendants of every PIE phoneme. In accordance with
the format of this handbook, I reverse the direction here. The origin of the Albanian
phonemes is presented in three steps: from MoAlb. back to PAlb., from PAlb. back to
PPAlb., and from PPAlb. back to PIE.
For each linguistic stage, the phonological system must be established. This question
has been addressed explicitly by Ölberg (1972, for the vowels) and subsequently by
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-016

Authenticated
95. The phonology of Albanian 1733
Hock (2005), Matzinger (2006: 85−92) and Vermeer (2008, vowels). I trace back the
main sources for each reconstructed phoneme for each of the three stages. In addition,
it would be desirable to establish a complete relative chronology for the changes that
occurred between PIE and Albanian; yet the present article does not leave room for such
an endeavour. See Hock (2005) for a first attempt.
In treating phonological change, I use the following symbols to indicate the develop-
ment of sounds and words: Y < X means ‘Y has arisen from X by sound law’, X > Y
means ‘X has become Y by sound law’, Y ← X and X → Y both mean ‘Y has been
borrowed from X’ or ‘Y is found in borrowings from X’.
2. Vowels
2.1. From MoAlb. to PAlb.
The following are the stressed and unstressed vowels of MoAlb. (Buchholz and Fiedler
1987: 28; Gjinari and Shkurtaj 2003: 178−185):
i y u
e ə o
a
Origins:
i < PAlb. *i
< PAlb. *ĩ
< PAlb. *y in many (mainly Tosk) dialects
y < PAlb. *y
e < PAlb. *e
< PAlb. *ẽ (Standard MoAlb. does not follow the Tosk dialects, which have /ə/
here: MoAlb. brenda, dial. brënda ‘inside’, MoAlb. pe, dial. pë ‘thread’,
MoAlb. emër, dial. ëmër ‘name’)
a < PAlb. *a
< PAlb. *o/u_ (-ua-)
ə < PAlb. *ã (dhëmb ‘tooth’, këmbë ‘foot’, këngë ‘song’)
u < PAlb. *u
< PAlb. *vë- (ungjill ← Lat. evangélium, ushqen ‘to feed’ ← Lat. vēscō)
< PAlb. *ũ
o < PAlb. *o
zero < pretonic -ë- in many dialects
< word-final -ë in many dialects
The following are the main systemic changes between PAlb. and MoAlb. (Ölberg 1972:
149−154; Gjinari and Shkurtaj 2003: 178−195; Fiedler 2004: 21−56; Matzinger 2006:
55):

Authenticated
1734 XV. Albanian
1. Long vowels arise through:

− internal contraction (OAlb. and dialectal vē ‘widow’ < *h1 u̯id hh1 eu̯eh2 -; bēkon
‘to bless’ ← Lat. benedicāre, djāll ‘devil’ ← Lat. diabolus, kūt ‘elbow’ ← Lat.
cubitus).
− contraction in final position with *-ë or *-i (abstract suffix -ī́ < *-í[j]ë, OAlb. dial.
prē ‘booty’ < *predë ← Lat. praeda, kȳ ‘this’ < *ku-i [Kortlandt 1987: 224], dȳ
‘two’ < *duï [?; cf. B. Demiraj 1997: 152]). The sequences -aë and -oë, preserved
in Buzuku, yield new vowels ǣ and ȫ in certain (Geg) dialects. The northwestern
Geg dialects show the largest number of vowel phonemes in modern Albanian
dialects; they have the following stressed long vowels: ī, ȳ, ū, ē, (ȫ), ō, ǣ, ā (Behci
1995: 101−166, 169−172; Gjinari and Shkurtaj 2003: 182−185).
− compensatory lengthening of short vowels in open syllables after the loss of -ë in
the post-tonic syllable.
− lengthening before certain consonants (nasals, liquids, sibilants).
2. Tosk dialects lose distinctive nasalization: PAlb. *ĩ > i, PAlb. *ũ > u, PAlb. *ẽ > ë,
PAlb. *ã > ë (Bonnet 1998: 117 f.).
3. Tosk dialects except those in southern Labëria (the southernmost part of the Republic
of Albania) lose the quantity distinction: long vowels merge with their short counter-
parts.
4. pretonic and posttonic ë are lost in many forms, starting before the period of the
OAlb. texts.
5. In dialects, unstressed ë often becomes another vowel a, e, i, u, o, y, depending on
the surrounding consonants and the vowel in the next syllable (Topalli 1995: 177−
187).
2.2. From PAlb. to PPAlb.
2.2.1. Stressed vowels
The short vowels of PAlb.: Nasalized vowels: Diphthongs:

i y u ĩ ũ ie ye uo
e o ẽ ã
a
Origins:
(Here and elsewhere below, in the case of Latin third-declension loanwords showing i-
mutation in MoAlb., the Latin source is given in the accusative singular; the precise
process leading to i-mutation is a vexed question of Albanian historical linguistics.)
PAlb. *i < PPAlb. *i
< PPAlb. *ī
< PPAlb. *e, Lat. e with i-mutation (vit ‘year’, shtigje ‘paths’, piqni ‘you
bake’; qind ‘100’ ← Lat. centum (with i-mutation based on the PAlb.
plural, which must at some point have been -ī), grigj ‘flock’ ← Lat. gre-
gem)

Authenticated
< PPAlb. *e, Lat. ē/_sh (mish ‘meat’; kishë ‘church’ ← Lat. ecclēsia) [some-
times]
← Lat. i with i-mutation where applicable (këshill ‘advice’ ← cōnsilium, qift
‘red kite’ ← accipiter, fëmijë ‘child’ ← familia)
← Lat. ī (mik ‘friend’ ← Lat. amīcus, ishull ‘island’ ← īnsula, mijë ‘1000’
← mīlia)
PAlb. *e < PPAlb. *e, Lat. e, ae/Cl_, Cr_ (kle ‘was’, dredh ‘to turn’; pre ‘booty’ <
*predë ← Lat. praeda)
< PPAlb. *e, Lat. e, ae in /je/ (mjeshtër ‘master’ < *maester ← Lat. magis-
ter, mjek ‘doctor’ ← Lat. medicus, vjetër ‘old’ ← Lat. veterem, pjeshkë
‘peach’ ← persicum)
< PPAlb. *ē
< PPAlb. *a, Lat. a, ā + i-mutation (net ‘nights’, pleq ‘old men’, eshtra
‘bones’, del ‘goes out’, troket ‘knocks’; shëndet ‘health’ ← Lat. sānitātem,
qytet ‘town’ ← Lat. cīvitātem, qelq ‘glass’ ← Lat. calicem, gjelbër ‘green’
← Lat. galbinus, qen ‘dog’ ← Lat. canem)
< PPAlb. *a, Lat. a, ā/j_ (kërshterë ‘Christian’ ← Lat. christiānus, pëlqen
‘to please’ ← Lat. placeō via the inherited class of presents in *-iān-)
< *ø < PPAlb. *ā + i-mutation (vegjël ‘small’ [pl.m.], sheh ‘sees’, present
stems in -en)
< *ø < PPAlb. *ō
< *ø < Lat. ō (herë ‘time’ ← [h]ōra, pemë ‘fruit’ ← pōmum, tërmet ‘earth-
quake’ ← terrae mōtus)
< PPAlb. *ai
← Lat. ē (qetë ‘silent’ ← quiētus, femër ‘female’ ← fēmina, vërer ‘venom’
← venēnum)
← Lat. i (peshk ‘fish’ ← piscis, shërbes ‘service’ ← servitium, verdhë ‘yel-
low, green’ ← viridis, meshë ‘mass’ ← missa)
PAlb. *a < PPAlb. *a
< PPAlb. *e/_$a(m) (de Vaan 2004: 78−83)
< PPAlb. *au, Lat. au (than ‘to dry’; ar ‘gold’ ← Lat. aurum, gaz ‘joy’ ←
Lat. gaudium)
← Lat. a, ā (aftë ‘suitable’ ← aptus, shtrat ‘bed’ ← strātum, larg ‘far’ ←
lārgus, paq ‘peace’ ← pācem)
← Lat. e/q,sh_rr,l (shalë ‘saddle’ ← sella, sharrë ‘saw’ ← serra; qarr ‘oak’
← cerrus)
PAlb. *o < PPAlb. *ā
← Lat. o (shok ‘friend’ ← socius, kofshë ‘hip’ ← coxa)
← Lat. ō (shëndoshë ‘healthy’ ← sānitōsus, kurorë ‘wreath’ ← corōna)
PAlb. *u < PPAlb. *u
← Lat. u (gusht ‘August’ ← augustus, kut ‘elbow’ ← cubitus, pulë ‘chicken’
← pulla)
← Lat. vo- (umb ‘ploughshare’ ← vōmer)
← Lat. o/_N (murg ‘monk’ ← monachus, kundër ‘against’ ← contrā)
← Lat. ō (krushk ‘relative by marriage’ ← cōnsocer, urdhër ‘order’ ←
ōrdō)

Authenticated
1736 XV. Albanian
PAlb. *y < PPAlb. *ū (cf. Bonnet 1998: 96 f.)

< PPAlb. *u, Lat. u with i-mutation (shtyp ‘to press’; kryq ‘cross’ ← Lat.
crucem)
← Lat. ū (brymë ‘hoar-frost’ ← brūma, këshyrë ‘pass, gorge’ ← clausūra,
pyll ‘forest’ ← palūs)
PAlb. *ã < PPAlb. *a/_N (mëz, Geg mãz ‘foal’, zã ‘voice’)
← Lat. a/_N (Geg kãmbë ‘leg’ ← camba, kãngë ‘song’ ← canticum, dãm
‘damage’ ← damnum)
← Lat. e, ē/_N (occasionally: rërë, Geg rãnë ‘sand’ ← arēna, Geg argjãnd
‘silver’ ← argentum, qãndër ‘center’ ← centrum)
PAlb. *ẽ < PPAlb. *e/_N (pesë, Geg pẽs ‘five’, rẽ ‘cloud’)
← Lat. i, e, ē/_N (fre ‘rein’ ← frēnum)
PAlb. *ĩ < PPAlb. *i/_N (Geg hĩ ‘ashes’, -ĩ, -ĩni nom.sg.m.)
← Lat. ī/_N (Geg lĩ ‘flax’ ← līnum, fqĩ ‘neighbor’ ← vicīnus)
PAlb. *ũ < PPAlb. *u/_N (gju, Geg gjũ ‘knee’ < *glun-, ũ ‘I’ < *un-; mbush ‘to fill’?)
PAlb. *ie < PPAlb. *e, Lat. e, ae/_*ɫ,r # (Geg piell ‘brings forth’, MoAlb. bie ‘to fall’;
qiell ‘sky’ ← Lat. caelum)
PAlb. *uo < PPAlb. *ō, Lat. o, ō/_*ɫ,n,r,j # (duar ‘hands’, muaj ‘month’; shuall ‘sole’
← Lat. solum, ftua ‘quince’ ← Lat. cotōneus, drangua ‘dragon’ ← Lat.
dracō)
← Lat. o/#_r,lj (vaj ‘oil’ ← oleum, varfër ‘poor’ ← orfanus)
PAlb. *ye < PPAlb. *ō + i-mutation, Lat. jō/_*ɫ,n,r # (dyer ‘doors’, pëlqyer ‘pleased’
ptc. to pëlqen; arësye ‘reason’ ← Lat. rātiō)
The main systemic changes between PPAlb. and PAlb:
In the period between PPAlb. and PAlb., phonemic vowel length as it was inherited
from PIE disappeared. Like in the Romance languages, vowel quality became the deter-
mining factor in the distribution of the vowels. The quantity collapse may have been
caused by the fronting of rounded back vowels in the early Roman period (Ölberg 1972:
147 f.). The restructuring of the system was accompanied by different vowel mutations
and the subsequent reduction or loss of unstressed vowels. Nasalized vowels arose but
were preserved only in Geg, whereas Tosk denasalized them. The most important vowel
changes between PPAlb. and PAlb. can be subsumed in the following relative chronology
(see also Hock 2005: 264−267):
1. Long back vowels are fronted: *ō > *ȫ, *ū > *ȳ
2. PPAlb., Lat. *ai > *ē
3. PPAlb. *ā > *ɔ:
4. Loss of distinctive vowel length leads to the following system (the PPAlb. antecedents
are in parentheses):
(*ī >) /i/ /u/ > /y/ (< *ū)

(*i >) /ɪ/ /ʊ/ (< *u, Lat. u)
(*ai, *ē >) /e/ /o/ > /ø/ (< *ō, Lat. o, ō)
(*e >) /ɛ/ /ɔ/ > /o/ (< *ā, Lat. o, ō)
/a/ (< *a)
5. a) *ɛ > jɛ
*ɛ > ja/_*a(m) (a-mutation)
i-mutation: *a > *e; *ɛ and *e > *i; *o > *ø, *u > *y

Authenticated
b) *e, *ɛ > *ie before word-final *-ɫ, *-r

*ø > *ye, *o > *uo before word-final *-ɫ, *-n, *-r
*o > *uo/#_r,lj, *ø > *ye/_(w)V
6. *ø > *e
7. Unstressed word-internal vowels > */ə/, unstressed initial vowels > zero
8. Rise of phonemic nasalization
2.2.2. The unstressed vowels of PAlb
i y u
e ə o
a
Unstressed vowels were reduced in distinctiveness or were lost altogether in the last
phase of the PAlb. period, after the operation of a-mutation and i-mutation. According
to their position in the word, we can distinguish the following categories (Topalli 1995:
139−282; Matzinger 2006: 61−63):
a. In absolute initial position, all vowels are reduced to zero (tetë ‘eight’, rërë ‘sand’
← Lat. arēna, mik ‘friend’ ← Lat. amīcus, shtëpi ‘house’ ← Lat. (h)ospitium) except
before -RC-, where a vowel is retained in Buzuku (Enduo ‘Anthony’; elter ‘altar’ ←
Lat. altāre; ënbë- ‘on, around’).
b. Internal pretonic vowels, including *au, are either lost at a stage preceding PAlb.
(mbesë ‘grand-daughter, niece’ ← *nepṓtia, shtatë ‘seven’ < *septḿ̥to-, ftua ‘quince’
← *cotṓneus), or merge to */ə/ (e.g. gëzon ‘to enjoy’ to gaz ‘joy’, kërpin ‘to eat a
snack’, vëllezër ‘brothers’, kërshterë ‘Christian’, këshill ‘advice’, vërtet ‘truth’, shën-
det ‘health’ ← sanitā́tem, këndoj ‘to sing’, OAlb. lëfton ‘to fight’ to luftë ‘fight [n.]’).
If a word contained two pretonic syllables, the first one usually retains its original
vowel (mallëkon ‘to curse’ ← Lat. maledicāre, Buz. sherbëtuor ‘servant’), except o,
which turns into u (ngushëllon ‘to console’ ← Lat. cōnsolāre, vullëndet ‘will’ ← Lat.
voluntātem). These reductions have also affected the oldest layers of loanwords from
Middle Greek, Italian, and Slavic.
c. Internal posttonic vowels are either lost at an early stage (shelg ‘willow’ ← Lat.
sálicem, emtë ‘aunt’ ← Lat. ámita, mëngë ‘sleeve’ ← Lat. mánica, shpirt ‘spirit’ ←
Lat. spī́ritus), or merge in */ə/ (Buz. sonëte, MoAlb. sonte ‘tonight’ < *so nate, varfër
‘poor’ ← Lat. όrfanus, tjetër ‘other’ < *te-étero-, upeshkëp ‘priest’ ← Lat. episcopus,
kundër ‘against’ ← Lat. contrā).
d. Word-final vowels in MoAlb. which reflect pre-Slavic final sequences are -i, -u, -ë,
-e, -a; the vowel -o occurs only in borrowings from Slavic, Italian, etc. The PAlb.
word-final vowels which could occur in unstressed position before their reduction to
*-ə or loss probably included *-a, *-i, and perhaps *-e, but the form of many nominal
and verbal endings is too unclear to give a reliable overview of the system. The only
certain information is provided by i-mutation and a-mutation, and by palatalization
of word-final consonants in certain morphological categories (the m.pl., the aorist and
imperfect). The data suggest that Latin nouns and adjectives were mostly adopted in
their accusative form, and, similarly, inherited stock from PIE has sometimes been

Authenticated
1738 XV. Albanian
preserved in the form of the acc.sg. or pl. But in some endings the nominative form
apparently won out, as shown by the nom.pl. with palatalization and i-mutation.
A selected number of endings can be traced back to inflectional endings of Early PAlb.,
PIE, and Latin:
zero < PIE -V#, -Vs, Lat. -us; PIE *-oi (or -ī ?)
-ë < Lat. -a, PPAlb. *-a [sg.f.], PPAlb. *-a(:)m [sg.n., f.], *-ans [acc.pl.m.],
*-a(:)(n)s [nom./acc.pl.f.]; ← Lat. -e(m), -um, Gr. -on (mollë ‘apple’ ← Gr.
mãlon), Ital. -o (pjatë ‘plate’ ← Ital. piatto), Slav. -o (karrutë ‘fermenter’ ←
Slav. *koryto ‘trough’, sanë ‘hay’ ← Slav. *sěno)
-e < PPAlb. *-ja [sg.f.], [pl.n/f.], *-jas [gen.sg.f.]?
-a < *-a-ja (cf. Kortlandt 1987: 225; Topalli 1995: 279) [nom.sg.f. def.]
-i < *-ís / *éi (originally stressed; in the def. art. m.sg.)
-u < -i after velars
2.3. From PPAlb. to PIE

The short vowels of PPAlb.: Long vowels: Diphthongs:
i u i: u: ai au
e ?e: o:
a a:
Origins:
PPAlb. *i < PIE *i (lig ‘bad, ill’, bind ‘convince’, mbi ‘on’, ndih ‘to help’)
< PIE zero/r̥_ (dritë ‘light’, trim ‘strong’)
PPAlb. *e < PIE *(h1 )e (mbledh ‘to gather’, pesë ‘five’, pjek ‘to cook’, jashtë ‘out-
side’, vit ‘year’, diell ‘sun’)
PPAlb. *a < PIE *(H)o (natë ‘night’, asht[ë] ‘bone’, gjak ‘blood’, zë, G. zã ‘voice’)
< PIE *h2 e (athët ‘bitter’)
< PIE *RHV (parë ‘first’)
< PIE *h2 -, *h3- /_R- (arë ‘field, emër ‘name’ < *h3n̥h3-mn̥)
< PIE *H/C_C (thënë ‘said’, bëj, G. bãn ‘to do, make’ < *bh2 -n-, kap ‘to
seize’)
< PIE *H/CR_C (plak ‘old’ < *plHko-, OAlb. glatë ‘long’, bredh ‘fir’; cf.
Schumacher 2007: 229)
< PIE *m̥ (shtatë ‘seven’ < *septḿ̥to-)
< PIE *n̥ (mat ‘bank’ if from *mn̥to- ‘elevation’; e-sëll ‘sober’ < *a- <
privative *n̥- plus *sillë ‘breakfast’)
< PIE zero / C_C (madh ‘big’ < *m̥g̑-, though Schumacher 2013: 238 sus-
pects paradigmatic leveling between *medʝ- < *meg̑- and *adʝ- < *m̥g̑-)
PPAlb. *u < PIE *u (gjumë ‘sleep’, dru ‘wood’, shtyn ‘to thrust’)
< PIE *u-/#_LT- (ujk ‘wolf’ < *ulkwo-, Schumacher 2013: 229)
PPAlb. *ī < PIE *iH (tri [f.] ‘three’, pi ‘to drink’, ditë ‘day’)
< ?PIE *ei, *h1 ei, *eh1 i (dimër ‘winter’, ikën ‘to go’ − but these could also
have single *i)
PPAlb.*ē < ?PIE *eu, *h1 eu, *eh1 u (nëndë, Geg nãndë ‘nine’, hedh ‘to throw’, len
‘to be born’; cf. Hock 2005: 265, fn. 11; Matzinger 2006: 57). Alterna-

Authenticated
tively, the PIE eu-diphthongs yielded PPAlb. *au > PAlb. *a, whence the
nasalized vowel in Geg nãndë, and with i-mutation of *a the verbs hedh
and len (Schumacher 2013: 228).
← OGr. loanwords (shpellë ‘cave’ ← spēlaion)
PPAlb. *ā < PIE *ē, *eh1 (zot ‘Lord’, mot ‘weather’, mos ‘not’, plotë ‘full’; aor. -o-)
< PIE *eh2 (motër ‘sister’, shton ‘to add’)
< PIE *-as- and *-es-/_l,n,r (krua ‘spring, fountain’ < *k̑rh2 (e)s-n-, dorë
‘hand’ < *g̑ hesr-)
← OGr. *ā (mokër ‘millstone’ ← Doric *mākhānā)
PPAlb. *ō < PIE *ō, *oH, *eh3 (tetë ‘eight’, pelë ‘mare’, derë ‘door’, blerë ‘green’,
ngjesh ‘to gird’)
PPAlb. *ū < PIE *uH (mi ‘mouse’, thi ‘pig’, ti ‘you’, gjysh ‘grandfather’)
< PIE *-us-/_l,r (yll ‘star’)
PPAlb. *ai < PIE *oi (shteg ‘path, Geg vẽnë ‘wine’)
< PIE *h2/3ei, *eh2/3i (edh ‘kid’, [h]ethe ‘fever’)
PPAlb. *au < PIE *ou (desh ‘wanted’ [aor.], lashtë ‘old’?)
< *h2/3eu, *eh2/3u (pron. atë ‘s/he’ [acc.], ajo ‘she [nom.]’ < PIE *h2 eu-,
than ‘to dry’, qan ‘to weep’, ag ‘dawn’)
3. Resonants
3.1. From MoAlb. to PAlb.
The resonants of MoAlb.
m n ɲ
l ɫ
r r:
Origins:
MoAlb. m < PAlb. *m
< PAlb. *β/_VN$ (mëngjill/ vëngjill ‘vigil’ ← Lat. vigilia, mëshikë ‘bubble,
blister, bladder’ ← Lat. vē(n)sīca ‘bladder’, cf. Orel 2000: 55)
MoAlb. n < PAlb. *n (except intervocalic *n)
< PAlb. *n:
< PAlb. *nd
MoAlb. ɲ < PAlb. *ɲ
MoAlb. l < PAlb. *l
MoAlb. ɫ < PAlb. *l:
MoAlb. r < PAlb. *r
Tosk r < PAlb. < *n/V_V (rërë ‘sand’, Geg rãnë ‘sand’ ← Lat. arēna, gjiri ‘the
breast’, Tosk armik ‘enemy’ ← Lat. inimīcus; dated between 800−1000
CE, Janson 1986: 190−211)
MoAlb. r: < PAlb. *r:
< PAlb. *-rn- (zorrë ‘intestine’; ferr ‘hell’ ← Lat. infernum; post-Slavic,
Janson 1986: 97 f.)

Authenticated
1740 XV. Albanian
3.2. From PAlb. to PPAlb.
The resonants of PAlb.
m n n: ɲ
l l: ʎ
r r:
Origins:
PAlb. *m < PPAlb. *m
← Lat. m
PAlb. *n < PPAlb. *n
← Lat. n
PAlb. *n: < PPAlb. *-Tn- (lënë ‘let’)
< PPAlb. *-Kn-
< PPAlb. *-sn- (thënë ‘said’ < PPAlb. *ʨasno- < *k̑h1 s-no-)
< PPAlb. *-nd-
< PPAlb. *-nt- (3pl., acc.sg.) in posttonic syllable (?) or retention of the
cluster (Janson 1986: 96, 154)
PAlb. *ɲ < PPAlb. *nj (bëj ‘I make’, mëdhenj ‘big’ [m.pl.])
< PPAlb. and Lat. *gn-, *-gn- (njoh ‘know’ < *g̑n̥h3-sk̑-, Schumacher 2013:
231; shenjë ‘sign’ ← Lat. insignia and signum, Bonnet 1998: 188)
← Lat. ni, ne/_V (gështenjë ‘chestnut’ ← castanea, linjë ‘line’ ← līnea,
kunj ‘peg’ ← cuneus)
← Lat. *-ng(u)-/_V[+front] (njilë ‘eel’ ← anguilla; Bonnet 1998: 188)
PAlb. *l < PPAlb. *ln (diel ‘Sunday’ < acc. *diel-në, Bonnet 1998: 205)
< PPAlb. *l/T_ and /_T (plot ‘full’, kulm ‘top’, OAlb. ulk ‘wolf’, OAlb.
klān ‘to cry’, OAlb. glunjë ‘knees’)
← Lat. ll
← Lat. l-
PAlb. *l: < PPAlb. *l, *sl/V_V[−front] (kollë ‘cough’, yll ‘star’ < *h2 us-l- ‘spark’)
< PPAlb. and Lat. *lR, *Rl (shtjell ‘to throw’ < *stel-[n]e/o-, gjallë ‘alive’
< *sólu̯o-; përrallë ‘tale, story’ ← Lat. parabola)
← Lat. l/V_V
PAlb. *ʎ < PPAlb. *-l-/V_V[+front]
< PPAlb. and Lat. *lj (shtijë ‘spear’ ← Lat. hastīlia, Arvan. biʎë ‘daugh-
ter’, miʎë ‘1000’)
< PPAlb. *-rj- (Bonnet 1998: 208 ff.; Matzinger 2006: 74)
PAlb. *r < PPAlb. and Lat. -r- (arë ‘field’ < *h2 erh3-o/h2 -)
< PPAlb. and Lat. *rC, *Cr (ter ‘to dry’ < *torsei̯ e-, sorrë ‘crow’ < *ʧornë
< *kers-[e]n-)
PAlb. *r: < PPAlb. and Lat. *r- (rreth, rrath ‘wheel; circle’, rrjedh ‘to flow’)
< PPAlb. *wr- (rrënjë, Geg rrã[n]jë ‘root’ < *urad-n-, rrunjë ‘lamb’ <
*urH-n-?)
← Lat. -rr- (turrë ‘pile’ ← turris)

Authenticated
3.3. From PPAlb. to PIE
The resonants of PPAlb.
m n
l
r
Origins:
PPAlb. *m < PIE *m
< PIE *Tm (gjumë ‘sleep’ < PIE *súpnos/m, Geg amë ‘smell’ < PIE
*h3 e/od-m-)
< PIE *sm (mjekër ‘chin, beard’ < *smek̑-[u]r, thom ‘I say’ < *k̑eh1 s-mi)
< PIE *Pn (lumë ‘happy’ < *lub h-n/m-)
PPAlb. *n < PIE *n
PPAlb. *l < PIE *l
PPAlb. *r < PIE *r
4. Obstruents
4.1. From MoAlb. back to PAlb.
The obstruents of MoAlb. (Buchholz and Fiedler 1987: 37; similarly for Buzuku, cf.
Fiedler 2004: 59.)
p t c k
b d ɟ g
ʦ ʧ
ʣ ʤ
f θ s ʃ h
v ð z ʒ
j
Origins:
MoAlb. p < PAlb. *p
MoAlb. b < PAlb. *b
< PAlb. zero/m_# (shkëmb ‘rock’ ← Lat. scamnum, Bonnet 1998: 195)
PAlb. zero/m_V[−stress] in Tosk (Bonnet 1998: 193)
MoAlb. t < PAlb. *t
MoAlb. d < PAlb. *d
MoAlb. c < PAlb. *c
OAlb. kl- (quhet ‘is called’ < kluhet ; kishë, qishë ‘church’, qartë ‘clear’
← Lat. clārus, shqa, shkla ‘Slav’ ← Lat. Sclavus, shqep ‘lame, limping’
← Lat. *excloppus)

Authenticated
1742 XV. Albanian
MoAlb. ɟ < PAlb. *ɟ

< OAlb. gl- (gjuhë ‘tongue, language’ < gluhë; gjëndër ‘gland’ ← Lat.
glandula, etc.)
MoAlb. k < PAlb. *k
< q < OAlb. kl-/_Vsh (këshyrë ‘mountain trail’ ← clausūra, kishë ‘church’)
MoAlb. g < PAlb. *g
MoAlb. ʦ < OAlb. clusters d+s, d+th; loanwords
MoAlb. ʣ < PAlb. z/ n_ (rënxon ‘to cause a hernia’, nxë, Geg nxã ‘to take’ < *n-zë)
MoAlb. ʧ < OAlb. sh/_C (çmon ‘to estimate’ < *shmoj ← Lat. aestimāre)
< PAlb. *d(ë) + sh(q)- (çan ‘to split, cleave’ besides shan, çjerr ‘to tear
up’ besides shqerr ‘to tear’)
< OAlb. q- (çimkë, qimkë ‘bug’, që, çë ‘that, which’)
← loanwords
MoAlb. ʤ ← loanwords from Italian, Turkish
MoAlb. f < PAlb. h (dial. njef < njeh ‘knows’)
< PAlb. *θ (Geg ufull, Tosk uthull ‘vinegar’; fjeshtër / thjeshtër ‘stepson’
← Lat. fīliaster)
OAlb. f < PAlb. *θ-/ C_ (OAlb. rrëfyen ‘to tell’ < *rrë-θyen < *rrë-θø̄:n to thom;
OAlb. ënfle ‘to sleep’ < *n-θle < *k̑loi̯ -eie-, Matzinger 2006: 71)
MoAlb. v < PAlb. *β
MoAlb. θ < PAlb. *θ
MoAlb. ð < PAlb. *ð
MoAlb. s < PAlb. *s
PAlb. *-z# (mes ‘middle’ ← Lat. medius)
← Slav. ç (porosit ‘to request’, sul ‘small boat’, Svane 1992: 88)
MoAlb. z < PAlb. *z
MoAlb. ʃ < PAlb. *ʃ
← Slav. s (krashit ‘to prune’, leshë ‘wickerwork’, shuk ‘globe’; Svane 1992:
292)
MoAlb. ʒ < PAlb. *ʃ (zhur, shur ‘sand’ ← Lat. saburra)
< PAb. ʃ- in zh- ‘un, dis-’ /_C[+voiced] (zh-bën ‘to undo’, zh-duk ‘destroy’)
MoAlb. j < PAlb. *j
PAlb. *ʎ
PAlb. *l/_k (bujk, bulk ‘peasant’, ujk ‘wolf’; fajkua ‘falcon’ ← Lat. falcō)
PAlb. *l in the f. suffix *-ëlë (vdekje ‘death’ < vdekëlë, Topalli 1995:
250)
PAlb. *ɲ often between vowels and in final position
PAlb. *c, *ɟ, *ɲ/_ C (OGeg aor. 3pl. hojnë [< *hoq-në] ‘they took’, zoj-
të [< *zogj-të] ‘the birds’, aor. 3sg. bûjti [< *bunj-ti] ‘spend the night’;
cf. Schumacher 2013: 275−76)
MoAlb. h < PAlb. *h
PAlb. #V- (hark ‘curve’, harmëshor ‘stud horse’, harron ‘to forget’, herë
‘time’, etc., Orel 2000: 107)

Authenticated
4.2. From PAlb. back to PPAlb.
The obstruents of PAlb.
p t c k
b d ɟ g
ʦ ʧ
ʣ ʤ
f θ s ʃ h
β ð z (ʒ)
j
Origins:
PAlb. *p < PPAlb. *p
← Lat. p (pak ‘little’ ← paucus, prind ‘parent’ ← parentem, turp ‘shame’
← turpis)
PAlb. *b < PPAlb. *b
< PPAlb. m-/_l (bluan ‘to grind’ < *mleh1 -, bletë ‘bee’ < *m[e]lit-?)
← Lat. b (bishë ‘wild animal’ ← bēstia, bukë ‘bread’ ← bucca, gjelbër
‘green’)
← Lat. w/l,r_ (korb ‘raven’ ← corvus, shërben ‘to serve’ ← servīre, shëlbon
‘to save’ ← salvāre)
< Lat. p/m_ (shembull ‘example’ ← exemplum, mbret ‘king’ ← imperātor)
PAlb. *t < PPAlb. *t
← Lat. t (shëndet ‘health’, qetë ‘quiet’ ← quiētus, kultër ‘cushion’ ← cul-
citra)
PAlb. *d < PPAlb. *d
< PPAlb., Lat. *t/n_ in a pretonic or stressed syllable (dhëndër ‘bride-
groom’, ndjek ‘to follow’; Ndue ‘Anthony’, kundër ‘against’, ndëgjon ‘to
hear’ ← Lat. intellegere; cf. Matzinger 2006: 74 f.)
← Lat. d (denjë ‘worth’ ← dignus, dëm, dam ‘damage’)
PAlb. *c < PPAlb. *k, Lat. c, qu/_i,e,ae,y (pleq ‘old men’, qeth ‘to cut’; qetë ‘quiet’,
qind ‘hundred’, iriq ‘hedgehog’ ← Lat. ērīcius, faqe ‘face’, qiell ‘sky’,
qelq ‘glass’, qen ‘dog’ ← Lat. canem)
PAlb. *ɟ < PPAlb. *ʒ-
< PPAlb. *j before a stressed vowel (n-gjesh ‘to squeeze’)
< PPAlb. *g, Lat. g(u)/_i,e,y (gjet- ‘found’ < PIE *g hed-; grigj ‘flock’,
shëgjetë, shigjetë ‘arrow’ ← Lat. sagitta, gjind ‘people’ ← Lat. gentem,
ngjyen ‘to dye’ ← Lat. unguere, ungjill ‘gospel’)
← Lat. i- (gjymtyrë ‘limb’ ← iūnctūra, [për]gjëron ‘to beseech’ ← iūrāre)
← Lat. -c(u)l- (ungj ‘uncle’ ← avunculus, sheqe ‘sickle’ ← sic[u]la <
situla)
PAlb. *k < PPAlb. *k
← Lat. c, qu/_C,a,o,u (kërkon ‘to search’ ← *circāre, kreshmë ‘Lent’ ←
quadrāgēsima, kuq ‘red’ ← cocceus; qëron ‘to clear away’ ← quaerere,
katër ‘four’ ← quattuor, ndrikullë ‘godmother’ ← matricula, kë- in deic-
tic pronouns ← Lat. eccum)

Authenticated
1744 XV. Albanian
PAlb. *g < PPAlb. *g

← Lat. g(u)/_C,a,o,u (grigj ‘flock’, gusht ‘August’, dërgon ‘to send’ ←
dirigere; lëngon ‘to pine away’ ← languēre, ngënjen ‘to deceive’ ←
ingannāre)
← Lat. c/n_ (mëngë ‘sleeve’ ← man[i]ca, mëngon ‘to get up early’ ←
manicāre, tingë ‘tench’ ← tinca, këngë ‘song’ ← cantica)
PAlb. *f < PPAlb. *f
← Lat. f (fëmijë ‘child’, tërfurk ‘hayfork’ ← triforca)
← Lat. p/_t (aftë ‘suitable’, prift ‘priest’ ← *praebiter)
← Lat. k/_s (kofshë ‘hip’, lafshë ‘crest’ ← laxa)
← Lat. k/_t, esp. initially and after back-vowels (ftua ‘quince’ ← cotōneus,
luftë ‘battle’ ← lucta, troftë ‘trout’ ← tructa, dëfton, dial. difton ‘to
show’ ← digitāre?, gjymtyrë ‘limb’ < *gjymftyrë)
← Lat. w/_C[−voice] (fqi ‘neighbor’ ← vīcīnus, fton ‘invite’ ← invītāre)
PAlb. *β ← Lat. w- (ves ‘vice’ ← vitium, verdhë ‘yellow’ ← viridis, vjetër ‘old’ ←
veterem)
< zero/_PPAlb. *ā-, /_Lat. ō-. Without i-mutation in vote ‘he went’; ve,
NW-Geg vø, OAlb. *voë [cf. Fiedler 2004: 52] ‘egg’ ← Lat. ōva; vaj,
Old Geg voj ‘oil’ ← oleum. With i-mutation in vesh ‘ear’; verbër ‘blind
person’ ← Lat. orbus, vepër ‘deed’ ← Lat. opera [ō? cf. Sp. obra, not
*uebra]; cf. Bonnet (1998: 77); Matzinger (2006: 76); Schumacher
(2013: 254).
PAlb. *θ < PPAlb. *ʨ
PAlb. *ð < PPAlb. *dʝ
< PPAlb. *d/r_, _# (pjerdh ‘to fart’, gardh ‘fence’ < *g hord[h]o-, h[j]edh
‘to throw’ < *skeD-) [after the loss of intervocalic Lat. d]
< PPAlb. *d/V_V (dha ‘gave’, after the augment or preverbs; lodhet ‘to be
tired’ < *leh1 d-)
← Lat. d/r_ (shurdhër ‘deaf’ ← surdus, verdhë ‘yellow’)
PAlb. *s < PPAlb. *ʧ
← Lat. tj (mars ‘March’ ← Martius, pus ‘well’ ← puteus, ves ‘vice’ ←
vitium, pëson ‘to endure’ ← patior)
PAlb. *z < PPAlb. *ʤ
← Lat. z (pagëzon ‘to baptize’ ← baptizāre. Bonnet 1998: 353)
← Lat. dj (zanë ‘mountain fairy’ ← Diāna, gaz ‘joy’)
PAlb. *ʃ < PPAlb. *ʃ
← Lat. s (shurdh ‘deaf’, këmishë ‘shirt’ ← camīsia, shkëmb ‘rock’, gusht
‘August’, fushë ‘plain’ ← fossa, peshë ‘weight’ ← pēnsum, ishull ‘is-
land’)
← OGr. s (presh ‘leek’ ← Gr. prason)
← Slavic s in the oldest loanwords (grusht ‘fist’, shkrap ‘scorpion’)
PAlb. *h < PPAlb. *x
PAlb. *j < PPAlb. *j before an originally unstressed vowel (a-jo, kë-jo ‘she’ < PIE
*i/ei̯ éh2 , ju ‘you’ [pl.] < *iu)
< *ð < PPAlb. *d/V_V (ujë ‘water’; aor. -jt-)
← Lat. k/_t, originally perhaps conditioned by preceding or following
front vowels and a (kujton ‘to think’ < *kokto- ← cogitāre, drejt

Authenticated
‘straight’ ← directus, pajton ‘to reconcile’ ← pactāre, shenjtë ‘holy’ ←

sanctus)
< zero /_*e (ep/jep ‘gives’, jashtë ‘outside’, t-jetër ‘other’)
PAlb. zero ← Lat. w/V_V (qytet ‘city’ ← cīvitātem, njerkë ‘stepmother’ ← noverca)
← Lat. b/V_V (buall ‘buffalo’ ← bubalus, djall ‘devil’ ← diabolus, lirë
‘free’ ← liber, kut ‘elbow’)
← Lat. b/_r (via *β) (farkë ‘smithy’ ← fabrica, OGeg fëruor ‘February’
← februārius, kushëri ‘cousin’ ← cōnsobrīnus, harron ‘to forget’ ←
aberrāre?)
< *ð ← Lat. d/V_V (gjyq ‘trial’ ← iūdicium, bekon ‘to bless’ ← benedi-
cāre, mjek ‘doctor’ ← medicus, fe ‘belief’ ← fidem). Exceptions such as
adhëron ‘to adore’ ← adorāre (Bonnet 1998: 169) may have been bor-
rowed from a later variety of Romance.
4.3. From PPAlb. back to PIE
The obstruents of PPAlb.
p t k
b d g
ʨ ʧ
dʝ ʤ
f ʃ x
β j ʒ
Origins:
PPAlb. *p < PIE *p (plotë ‘full’, pesë ‘five’, gjalpë ‘butter’, shtyp ‘to press’, [j]ep
‘gives’, pi ‘to drink’)
< PIE *b(h)/_# (lyp ‘to ask for’ < *lub[h]-)
PPAlb. *b < PIE *b(h) (bie ‘carries’, gjerb ‘to sip’, bardhë ‘white’, blertë ‘green’ <
*b hloh1 -ro-?, dhemb ‘to hurt’ < *g̑emb h-). The fate of *b(h)/V_V is dis-
puted: det, dial. dēt ‘sea’ is often explained as *deub-eto- ‘depth’, but this
is basically a guess. Schumacher (2013: 233) also rejects the etymology.
PPAlb. *t < PIE *t (motër ‘sister’, vit ‘year’, mot ‘time’, tre ‘three’)
PPAlb. *d < PIE *d(h)/#_, n_ (dy ‘two’, darkë ‘evening meal’, derë ‘door’, djeg ‘to
burn’, d[ë]- ‘apart, away’ < *dwi-; bind ‘to convince’ < *b hi-n-d h-).
< PIE *g̑ h/#_ (dorë ‘hand’ < *g̑ hesr-, dimër ‘winter’, derr ‘pig’)
< PIE *su̯/_V[+stress] (diell ‘sun’ < *su̯él-, dergjem ‘am ill’ < *su̯órg h-, dirsë
‘sweat’)
PPAlb. *k < PIE *k̑/_R (quaj ‘to call’ [√k̑leu̯], mjekër ‘beard’)
< PIE *k (kohë ‘time’, nduk ‘to pinch’ < *-duk-, kap ‘to grab’)
< PIE *kw/_C,a,o,u,# (kush ‘who’, pjek ‘to bake’, ujk ‘wolf’, ndjek ‘to
follow’, krimb ‘worm’, kam, ka ‘to have’)
PPAlb. *g < PIE *g̑/_R (gju, OAlb. glu ‘knee’)
< PIE *g̑ h/n_ (ankth ‘nightmare’)
< PIE *g(h) (gardh ‘fence’, ag ‘dawn’, lig ‘weak, ill’, shteg ‘path’)

Authenticated
1746 XV. Albanian
< PIE *gw(h)/_C,a,o,u,# (ngroh ‘to warm’ < *n-gwhreh1 -, djeg ‘to burn’,
gur ‘stone’)
PPAlb. *ʨ < PIE *k̑ (thom ‘I say’ < *k̑eh1 s-, thërí ‘nit’, athët ‘bitter’, thjerr[ë] ‘lentil’)
< PIE *s (dissimilation before -Vs-: thi ‘pig’ < *suHs, thaj ‘to dry’ < *sou̯s-)
PPAlb. *dʝ < PIE *g̑ (dhëmb ‘tooth’, dhëndër ‘son-in-law’, edh ‘goat’, mbledh ‘to col-
lect’, madh ‘big’; dhallë ‘buttermilk’?)
< PIE *-g̑ h- (udhë ‘road’, erdh ‘s/he came’, vjedh ‘to steal’)
< PIE *d hg̑ h- (dhe ‘earth’)
PPAlb. *ʧ < PIE *ti̯ (mas/t ‘to measure’, flas/flet ‘to speak’, etc.; sot ‘today’, sonte
‘tonight’, sivjet ‘this year’ < *tio-, abl. pl. kë-si, kë-so ‘these [m., f.]’ <
-ti-; cf. Kortlandt 1987: 223)
< PIE *k(w)/_ i̯ , i, ī, e, ē (sjell ‘to bring’ < *kwel-, sy ‘eye’, si ‘how’ <
*kwih1 , pesë ‘five’, ndër-sej ‘to set on, incite’ <* -kwi̯ eu-, sorrë ‘crow’ <
*k̑u̯ērn-?)
< PIE *Tt (pasë ‘had’ < *pot-to-?)
PPAlb. *ʤ < PIE *di̯ , *d hi̯ (zot ‘lord’ < di̯ ēu-?, pl. suffix -z-)
< PIE *g(w)(h)/_ i̯ , i, ī, e, ē? (zjarm ‘fire’ < *gwhermo-, ndez ‘to light a fire’
< -d hogwhei̯ e-, ziej ‘to boil’)
< PIE *g̑ hu̯- (zë / zã ‘sound, voice’ < *g̑ hu̯on-)
PPAlb. *f < PIE *sp- (farë ‘seed’ < *spor-, fjalë ‘word’ < *spel-n-)
< PIE *p / t_V (ftoh ‘to cool down’ < *t[e]peh1 -)
PPAlb. *β < PIE *u̯ (vesh ‘to put on’, vjerr ‘to hang’, gjallë ‘alive’ < PPAlb. *ʒalβo-)
< PIE *su̯-/_V[−stress]? (vetë ‘self’, vjehërr ‘father-in-law’, vëlla ‘brother’ <
*su̯e-loud h-?)
PPAlb. *ʃ < PIE *s-/_V[−stress], V_V (shi ‘rain’, mish ‘meat’, vesh ‘ear’, dhashë ‘I
gave’) (The development of PIE single *s in Albanian is much disputed.
The interpretation given here is based on Kortlandt 1987. An extensive
discussion, with partly different views, is provided by Schumacher 2013:
258−265.)
< PIE *s/_T (shtrij ‘to spread’, shtatë ‘seven’, asht ‘bone’)
< PIE *ks/_t (jashtë ‘outside’, gjashtë ‘six’)
PPAlb. *ʒ < PIE *s-/_V[+stress] (gjak ‘blood’ < *sókwos, gjalpë ‘butter’ < *sélpos-,
gjerb ‘to sip’ < *sórb h-ei̯ e-, gjumë ‘sleep’ < *súpnom)
PPAlb. *x < PIE *sk (njeh ‘knows’, hie ‘shade’, hënë ‘moon’ < *skond-)
PPAlb. *j < PIE *i̯ -
PPAlb. zero < PIE *i̯ / V_V (as ‘not’ < *h2 oi̯ u-kwid, tre ‘three’ [m.] < *trei̯ es)
< PIE *u̯/ V_V (ve ‘widow’ < *h1 u̯id hh1 eu̯eh2 )
< PIE *T/_t (shtatë < *septm̥[to-], tetë < *Hok̑toH, natë < *nokwt-)
< PIE *H/_V (Kortlandt 1998 has suggested that *h2/3e- yield Alb. ha-; but
h- has arisen secondarily in words such as hark ‘curve’ ← Lat. arcus,
which renders h- non-probative; cf. Schumacher 2013: 267)
< PIE *s/_l,m,n,r ([h]yll ‘star’, mjekër ‘beard’, thënë ‘said’, dorë ‘hand’)
5. Accent
The synchronic accentuation of Albanian is described as preferring penultimate stress
(Buchholz and Fiedler 1987: 53) or as stressing “the last non-reduced vowel of the word-

Authenticated
formative stem” (Topalli 1995: 433). By non-reduced vowels are meant all vowels but
ë. Topalli’s formulation more correctly predicts most of the extant forms and allows the
inclusion of end-stressed forms such as f. nouns in -í, def. -ía, present stems with stress
on the suffix such as punón ‘works’, përkét ‘belongs’, and nouns and adjectives in a
stressed suffix: -tór, -tár, -sór, -úes, etc. Albanian usually shows no paradigmatic shift
in the place of the stress in inflection or conjugation.
Latin loanwords retain the accent on the same syllable as in Classical Latin, and the
same goes for loanwords from later layers of borrowing, such as from South Slavic,
Italian, Middle and Modern Greek, and Turkish. This probably implies that the ancestor
of Albanian around the Roman Era allowed the stress to fall on the penultimate or
antepenultimate syllable of a word; but the stress system of PPAlb. may of course have
been more complicated. If the system of stressing the last predesinential syllable of the
stem was in place in the Roman Era, the Latin loanwords must have been incorporated
into this system. This would have been facilitated by the fact that in many Latin words
the stress fell on the last syllable before the ending (-us, -a, -i, etc.) − which came to be
identified with existing PPAlb. endings − or on the penultimate syllable before the end-
ing − often causing the last stem-syllable to develop to ë in Albanian. The present stems
of Latin verbs, too, have been incorporated into existing Albanian verb patterns, viz.
mainly into suffix-stressed conjugations (Bonnet 1998: 297 f.). Even if the long vowels
of the Latin conjugations in -ā-, -ē-, -ī- were unstressed in many persons of many tense
forms, they were apparently characteristic enough to be associated with suffix-stressed
Albanian conjugations (Bonnet 1998: 302).
Opinions differ on the place of the accent in the period preceding contact with the
Romans. Jokl (1923: 7) assumes a general penultimate accent in PPAlb., but there are
too many counterexamples for this to have been the case (see Matzinger 2006). Orel
(2000: 20−23, 123−138) reconstructs barytone and mobile/oxytone nouns on the basis
of the nominal endings of the plural (-a, -e, -ë, zero), which would be due to development
under stress. Yet the latter assumption is unwarranted, and the plural endings may be
explained differently. If we start counting at the beginning of the word, we can say that
the large majority of the (possibly) inherited Albanian words have initial stress, especial-
ly words which were probably disyllabic in PPAlb. (thus also Matzinger 2006: 64).
There is one main category of exceptions to the generally columnar accent of Albani-
an paradigms: a number of nouns and adjectives which show a stressed ending or suffix
in the plural. Examples are dhë́ ndër ‘son-in-law, bridegroom’ − pl. dhëndúre, kopsht
‘garden’ − (dial.) pl. kopshtínje, lúmë ‘river’ − pl. luménj, i madh ‘big’ − pl. të mëdhénj,
i keq ‘bad’ − pl. të këqíj, gjarpër ‘snake’ − pl. gjarp(ër)ínj, (t)jetër ‘other’ − pl. (të)
tjerë ‘(the) others’. Since this group mainly contains inherited words (or, at least, words
from a pre-Latin layer), some of which show vowel weakening in the initial syllable
(mëdhénj, këqíj, tjérë), they may be survivals of plural forms with a stressed root in the
singular and a stressed suffix in the plural. To this group of suffix-stressed plural forms
we may add those present suffixes which probably go back to pre-Latin conjugations of
Albanian: stems in *-(i)ā/ēnj-, *-anj-, *-enj-, *-ī̆nj-, and *-atj-. Both groups may be due
to a rightward shift of the stress from the prevailing word-initial position to the nominal
or verbal suffix. The cause would probably have been a phonetic one: an original long
vowel in these suffixes, their original intonational quality, or the presence of an extra
syllable to their right. It is striking that the large majority of these suffixes have the
structure *-V(:)n-, and that all of them end in *-tj- or *-nj-.

Authenticated
1748 XV. Albanian
6. References
Beekes, Robert
1995 Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. An Introduction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
Benjamins.
Behci, Bari
1995 Të folmet veriperëndimore të shqipes dhe sistemi fonetik i së folmës së Shkodrës [The
northwest Albanian dialects and the phonetic system of the Shkodra dialect]. Tirana:
Akademia e Shkencave e Republikës së Shqipërisë.
Bonnet, Guillaume
1998 Les mots latins de l’albanais. Paris: l’Harmattan.
Buchholz, Oda and Wilfried Fiedler
1987 Albanische Grammatik. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie Verlag.
Demiraj, Bardhyl
1997 Albanische Etymologien. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Demiraj, Shaban
1996 Fonologjia historike e gjuhës shqipe [Historical phonology of Albanian]. Tirana: Akade-
mia e Shkencave e Republikës së Shqipërisë.
Fiedler, Wilfried
2004 Das albanische Verbalsystem in der Sprache des Gjon Buzuku (1555). Prishtina: Akade-
mia e Shkencave dhe e Arteve e Kosovës.
Gjinari, Jorgji and Gjovalin Shkurtaj
2003 Dialektologjia (ribotim) [Dialectology (reprint)]. Tirana: Shtëpia Botuese e Librit Uni-
versitar.
Hamp, Eric P.
1992 Albanian. In: Jadranka Gvozdanović (ed.), Indo-European Numerals. Berlin: De Gruy-
ter, 835−922.
Hock, Wolfgang
2005 Zur Vorgeschichte des albanischen Lautsystems. In: Gerhard Meiser and Olav Hackstein
(eds.), Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel. Akten der XI. Fachtagung der Indogermanis-
chen Gesellschaft; 17.−23. September 2000, Halle an der Saale. Wiesbaden: Reichert,
261−274.
Huld, Martin
1984 Basic Albanian Etymologies. Columbus, Ohio.
Janson, Bernd
1986 Etymologische und chronologische Untersuchungen zu den Bedingungen des Rhotazis-
mus im Albanischen unter Berücksichtigung der griech. und lat. Lehnwörter. Frankfurt
am Main: Lang.
Klingenschmitt, Gert
1994 Das Albanische als Glied der indogermanischen Sprachfamilie (Tischvorlage). In: Jens
E. Rasmussen and Benedicte Nielsen (eds.). In honorem Holger Pedersen. Wiesbaden:
Reichert, 221−233.
Kortlandt, Frederik
1987 PIE *s in Albanian. Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 10: 219−226.
Kortlandt, Frederik
1998 Reflexes of Indo-European consonants in Albanian. Orpheus 8 (Georgiev Memorial
Volume): 35−37.
Matzinger, Joachim
2006 Der Altalbanische Text Mbsuame e Kreshterë (Dottrina cristiana) des Lekë Matrënga
von 1592. Eine Einführung in die albanische Sprachwissenschaft. Dettelbach: Röll.

Authenticated
96. The morphology of Albanian 1749
Ölberg, Hermann
1971 Fragen der Albanischen Sprachgeschichte. Grundsätzliches zur Nasalierung. In: Peter
Bartl (ed.), Dissertationes Albanicae in honorem Josephi Valentini et Ernesti Koliqi
septuagenariorum. Munich: Trofenik, 176−206.
Ölberg, Hermann
1972 Untersuchungen zum indogermanischen Wortschatz des Albanischen und zur diachronen
Phonologie auf Grund des Vokalsystems. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der
Universität.
Orel, Vladimir
2000 A concise historical grammar of the Albanian language. Leiden: Brill.
Schumacher, Stefan
2007 Kontinuanten urindogermanischer Wurzelaoriste im Albanischen. Teil 1: Wurzelaoriste
mit frühuralbanischem Stamm auf Vokal oder auf *ś. International Journal of Diachron-
ic Linguistics and Linguistic Reconstruction 4: 207−280.
Schumacher, Stefan
2013 Historische Phonologie. In: Stefan Schumacher and Joachim Matzinger. Die Verben des
Altalbanischen. Belegwörterbuch, Vorgeschichte und Etymologie. Unter Mitarbeit von
Anna-Maria Adaktylos (= Albanische Forschungen, Band 33). Wiesbaden: Harrasso-
witz, 205−276.
Svane, Gunnar
1992 Slavische Lehnwörter im Albanischen. Aarhus: University Press.
Topalli, Kolec
1995 Theksi në gjuhën shqipe [The accent in Albanian]. Tirana: Shtëpia Botuese Enciklope-
dike.
de Vaan, Michiel
2004 PIE *e in Albanian. Die Sprache 44: 70−85.
Vermeer, Willem
2008 The prehistory of the Albanian vowel system: A preliminary exploration. In: Alexander
Lubotsky, Jos Schaeken, and Jeroen Wiedenhof (eds.), Evidence and Counter-Evidence.
Essays in honour of Frederik Kortlandt. Volume 1: Balto-Slavic and Indo-European
Linguistics. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 591−608.
Ylli, Xhelal
1997 Das slavische Lehngut im Albanischen. Teil 1: Lehnwörter. Munich: Sagner.
Michiel de Vaan, Lausanne (Switzerland)
96. The morphology of Albanian

1. Preliminaries 3. Verbal morphology
2. Nominal morphology 4. References
1. Preliminaries
The morphology of Albanian as presented in the following chapter is exclusively based
on the evidence of Old Albanian, more precisely on that of its Old Geg dialect. After
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-017

Authenticated
Ölberg, Hermann
1971 Fragen der Albanischen Sprachgeschichte. Grundsätzliches zur Nasalierung. In: Peter
Bartl (ed.), Dissertationes Albanicae in honorem Josephi Valentini et Ernesti Koliqi
septuagenariorum. Munich: Trofenik, 176−206.
Ölberg, Hermann
1972 Untersuchungen zum indogermanischen Wortschatz des Albanischen und zur diachronen
Phonologie auf Grund des Vokalsystems. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der
Universität.
Orel, Vladimir
2000 A concise historical grammar of the Albanian language. Leiden: Brill.
Schumacher, Stefan
2007 Kontinuanten urindogermanischer Wurzelaoriste im Albanischen. Teil 1: Wurzelaoriste
mit frühuralbanischem Stamm auf Vokal oder auf *ś. International Journal of Diachron-
ic Linguistics and Linguistic Reconstruction 4: 207−280.
Schumacher, Stefan
2013 Historische Phonologie. In: Stefan Schumacher and Joachim Matzinger. Die Verben des
Altalbanischen. Belegwörterbuch, Vorgeschichte und Etymologie. Unter Mitarbeit von
Anna-Maria Adaktylos (= Albanische Forschungen, Band 33). Wiesbaden: Harrasso-
witz, 205−276.
Svane, Gunnar
Topalli, Kolec
1995 Theksi në gjuhën shqipe [The accent in Albanian]. Tirana: Shtëpia Botuese Enciklope-
dike.
de Vaan, Michiel
2004 PIE *e in Albanian. Die Sprache 44: 70−85.
Vermeer, Willem
2008 The prehistory of the Albanian vowel system: A preliminary exploration. In: Alexander
Lubotsky, Jos Schaeken, and Jeroen Wiedenhof (eds.), Evidence and Counter-Evidence.
Essays in honour of Frederik Kortlandt. Volume 1: Balto-Slavic and Indo-European
Linguistics. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 591−608.
Ylli, Xhelal
1997 Das slavische Lehngut im Albanischen. Teil 1: Lehnwörter. Munich: Sagner.
Michiel de Vaan, Lausanne (Switzerland)
96. The morphology of Albanian

1. Preliminaries 3. Verbal morphology
2. Nominal morphology 4. References
1. Preliminaries
The morphology of Albanian as presented in the following chapter is exclusively based
on the evidence of Old Albanian, more precisely on that of its Old Geg dialect. After
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-017

Authenticated
1750 XV. Albanian
all, the bulk of the oldest literary documents of Albanian, the books of Buzuku (1555),
Budi (around 1620) and Bogdani (1685) were written in Old Geg, whereas the only Old
Tosk book, the catechism of Matrënga (1592), is much shorter than any of the aforemen-
tioned three. However, this bias in favor of Old Geg is unproblematic, since Old Geg
and Old Tosk, although they differ phonologically and syntactically, have very similar
morphologies. Examples are usually taken from Buzuku, but supplementary examples
from other authors are indicated in brackets, e.g. [Budi]. All examples provided have
been tacitly transcribed into modern orthography, and readers should therefore be aware
that they are presented with interpretations of differing and altogether deficient orthogra-
phies. While the Old Geg consonant system was virtually identical with the modern
system (and can thus be rendered using the modern orthography), it had a much richer
vowel system than the Modern Standard language. The additional vowel phonemes and
the graphic representations we use are /a:/ = )ā*, /e:/ = )ē*, /i:/ = )ī*, /o:/ = )ō*, /u:/ =
)ū*, /y:/ = )ȳ*, /ã/ = )â*, /ẽ/ = )ê*, /ĩ/ = )î*, /ũ/ = )û*, /ỹ/ = )ŷ*, /ã:/ = )ã*, /ẽ:/ = )ẽ*, /ĩ:/ =
)ĩ*, /ũ:/ = )ũ*, /ỹ:/ = )ỹ*. Furthermore, the so-called articulated adjectives (cf. 2.2) are
cited with a preceding (i), e.g. (i) mirë ‘good’. And verbs are cited in the 3sg pres. ind.
act., e.g. ban (only deponents are cited in the 3sg pres. ind. mid., e.g. gjegjetë). With
the exception of 3.1, such citations are glossed with English prepositionless infinitives,
e.g. ban ‘do’, because the infinitive is the appropriate citation form in English.
2. Nominal morphology
An up-to-date diachronic investigation of the Old Albanian nominal system as a whole
or in its parts is still in its early stages (for a first attempt, see Matzinger 2006: 93−107;
the most recent treatment in Albanian is Topalli 2011: 165−695). For the nominal system
of Tosk-based Modern Standard Albanian, see Newmark, Hubbard, and Prifti (1982:
120−178) and Buchholz and Fiedler (1987: 202−274).
2.1. Nouns
Old Albanian nouns are characterized by the categories of number, gender, and case.
The category of number distinguishes between singular and plural, the PIE dual having
been abandoned completely (its only remnants are the nominatives of the numeral
‘two’, m. dy, f./n. dȳ, see 2.4). Fritz (2011) argues for some remnants of PIE nominal
dual forms, but due to massive changes in old final syllables, this cannot be proven. The
PIE three-gender system is still preserved, e.g. gjumë m. ‘sleep’ (< *súpnos, cf. Gk.
ὕπνος), farë f. ‘seed’ (< *sporáh2, cf. Gk. σπορά), ujë n. ‘water’ (< a Proto-Albanian
reshaped form *uda/udan, cf. Gk. ὕδωρ). On a synchronic level, there is no convenient
rule to predict a noun’s gender; gender is therefore inherent in the noun (cf. the examples
given above, all ending in -ë; for some handy rules to distinguish gender in Modern
Standard Albanian, see Newmark, Hubbard, and Prifti 1982: 131−132). The neuter gen-
der is still vital in Old Albanian, even with animate nouns, cf. nom. sg. def. djalë-të
‘the boy’. However, from the oldest sources onward, neuters are being converted into
masculines, as in nom. sg. def. djal-i, a by-form already found in Buzuku. In Modern

Authenticated
Standard Albanian, the neuter gender has been restricted to substantivized participles
and adjectives (see Newmark, Hubbard, and Prifti 1982: 133−134; Buchholz and Fiedler
1987: 209−211). In some instances, we find gender changes between singular and plural:
while the singular is masculine, the plural is feminine (this gender shift − labeled Hetero-
genie in the terminology of German Albanology and ambigjeni in the Albanian litera-
ture − is associated with certain plural morphemes, such as -e, cf. nom. sg. m. kȳ mundim
‘this pain’ vs. abl. pl. f. ën së idhunashit mundime ‘from the bitter pains’; a similar
phenomenon can be observed in Rumanian). Old Albanian has five cases: (i) nominative
(< PIE nom.), (ii) a case indicating both possession and the indirect object (but see
2.3.1), here labeled “genitive-dative” (< PIE gen.), (iii) accusative (< PIE acc.), (iv)
ablative (< PIE gen. in the sg., and < PIE locative in the pl.), (v) instrumental (< PIE
inst.); this case appears often after prepositions such as ëmbë ‘on’, which is why it is
also called prepositional or locative. There is no overtly marked vocative case in Albani-
an, the nominative being used instead (often with interjections such as o, cf. o zot ‘o
Lord’). In Modern Standard Albanian, the instrumental has been abandoned, and its
functions were taken over either by the accusative or the ablative. A peculiarity of Alba-
nian is the fact that the nominative can be governed by certain prepositions, e.g. tek ‘at/
to the location of’, cf. dërgoi shërbëtorëtë e tī tek punëtorëtë ‘he sent his servants to the
husbandmen’. This can be explained from the fact that tek originally introduced relative
clauses (Proto-Albanian *tō ku ‘there where’); if the verb of the relative clause was a
form of ‘to be’, it could be deleted, thus creating a nominal relative clause that was then
reinterpreted as a prepositional phrase.
Albanian nouns and noun phrases are either indefinite or definite; indefinite singular
forms are usually marked by the indefinite article një (< ‘one’, see 2.4), which is always
preposed, cf. hinje se një virgjënë të zanë e të parturonjë një bīr ‘behold, a virgin shall
conceive and bear a son’; indefinite plural forms are unmarked. On the other hand,
definiteness is marked by the definite article (< PIE *so-/to-), which is always postposed.
The definite article is inflected for gender, case, and number (cf. for the nom. sg. m.
-i/-u < *-hʉh [on the vowel ʉ, an intermediate stage in the special development of *o in
the *o-stem endings *-os and *-osi̯ o, cf. Schumacher and Matzinger 2013: 213], f. -a <
*-hā, n. -të < *-tad, pl. of all genders -të < *-tai̯ , *-tāh, *-tā). It is always attached to
the first element of the noun phrase and is added both to appellatives and to proper
nouns: e Jakob-i leu Jozef-në, burrë-në e Mërī-së ‘and Jacob begat Joseph, the husband
of Mary’; for an attempt at a diachronic explanation of the forms of the definite article,
see Matzinger (2006: 95−96); here, this account has been updated according to the histor-
ical phonology adopted by Schumacher and Matzinger (2013: 205−276).
In Old Albanian noun inflection, PIE accent/ablaut classes are not continued. The
PIE system was first replaced by a stem class system (a-stems, ā-stems, i-stems, etc.;
cf. Klingenschmitt 1994: 223−225), which in a later development was replaced by a
uniform inflection with two sets of endings, one for masculines and neuters, the other
for feminines (the endings actually continuing PIE o- and ā-stem endings). Consonant-
stem forms are occasionally reflected by plurals, e.g. nom. pl. net ‘nights’ < *noku̯t-es
(see below). In the singular, PIE feminine consonant stems were regularly remodeled to
ā-stems by proportional analogy, which can be demonstrated using the forms of the
Proto-Albanian ā-stem *pharā ‘seed’ (> Old Albanian farë) and the original consonant
stem *nakt- ‘night’: acc. sg. *phar-an : nom. sg. *phar-ā = acc. sg. *nakt-an (< PIE
*noku̯t-m̥) : nom. sg. X 0 *nakt-ā (> Old Albanian natë ‘night’).

Authenticated
1752 XV. Albanian
Every Albanian noun has two stems (a singular stem and a plural stem), to which the
respective case endings are attached. The formation of the plural stem is complex (for
Modern Standard Albanian, see Fiedler 2007). Basically, there are at least eight different
ways of deriving the plural stem: (i) zero plural, i.e. both stems are identical (e.g. sg.
farë ‘seed’ − pl. farë; sg. lule ‘flower’ − pl. lule [Bogdani]); (ii) vowel change (e.g. sg.
anë ‘direction’ − pl. enë); (iii) vowel change plus deletion of a final vowel (e.g. sg. natë
‘night’ − pl. net); (iv) palatalization (e.g. sg. zog ‘bird’ − pl. zogj); (v) a combination of
vowel change and palatalization (e.g. sg. plak ‘old man’ − pl. pleq); (vi) addition of a
plural ending (e.g. sg. prift ‘priest’ − pl. priftënë); (vii) a combination of vowel change
and the addition of a plural ending (e.g. sg. ashtë ‘bone’ − pl. eshtëna); (viii) a combina-
tion of vowel change, palatalization and the addition of a plural ending (e.g. sg. breg
‘river bank’ − pl. brigje [Bogdani]). In rare cases, plural formation is accompanied by
rightward accent shift (e.g. gjárpënë ‘snake’ − pl. gjërpánjë). There are also plurals that
do not match these patterns (e.g. sg. gruo ‘woman’ − pl. grā; sg. njerī´ ‘person’ − pl.
njérëz, with leftward accent shift), and a few suppletive plurals, e.g. sg. vend ‘place’ −
pl. vise. Patterns (i)−(v) reflect various PIE plural nominatives, e.g. farë < PIE *spo-
rah2as; net < PIE *noku̯t-es. In masculines, umlaut and palatalization of the final conso-
nant reflect PIE pronominal *-oi̯ > Proto-Albanian *-ai > *-i, as in pleq < Proto-Albanian
*plak-ai. The endings occurring in patterns (v)−(viii) also reflect PIE plural nominatives,
e.g. -ënë < PIE *-e/on-es, -e < PIE *-e/ou̯-es (for their prehistory see Matzinger 2006:
101−103, and Matzinger 2007).
Tab. 96.1: Paradigm of the indefinite masculine/neuter inflection.

singular plural
case morpheme m./n. morpheme m./n.
nom. -: shpīrt, gjak, ujë -: miq, kusarë
acc. -: shpīrt, gjak, ujë -: miq, shërbëtorë
gen.-dat. -i, -u shpīrti, gjaku, uji -(v)e miqe, kusarëve
abl. -i, -u shpīrti, gjaku, uji -sh miqsh, kusarësh
inst. -: shpīrt, gjak, ujë -: miq
Tab. 96.2: Paradigm of the definite masculine/neuter inflection, i.e. with postposed definite article.
singular plural
case morpheme m. n. morpheme m./n.
nom. m. -i/-u, n. -të mali, gjaku ujëtë -të miqtë
acc. m. -në, n. -të malnë, gjaknë ujëtë -të miqtë, shërbëtorëtë
gen.-dat. -it/-ut malit, gjakut ujit -(v)et miqet, shërbëtorëvet
abl. -it/-ut malit, gjakut ujit -shit shërbëtorëshit
inst. -t malt, gjakt ujët -t shërbëtorët

Authenticated
Tab. 96.3: Paradigm of the indefinite feminine inflection.

singular plural
nom. -: farë -: farë
acc. -: farë -: farë
gen.-dat. -e fare -ve farëve
abl. -e fare -sh farësh
inst. -: farë -: farë
Example: farë (plural stem farë) ‘seed’.
Note that when endings are attached to the singular stem a final -ë is dropped, hence e.g. gen.-dat.
far-e to the nom. farë.
Tab. 96.4: Paradigm of the definite feminine inflection, i.e. with postposed definite article.
singular plural
nom. -a fara -të farëtë
acc. -në farënë -të farëtë
gen.-dat. -së farësë -vet farëvet
abl. -et faret -shit farëshit
inst. -t farët -t farët
Note that in the nom. sg. the def. article -a replaces a final -ë, similarly abl. sg. -et.
Tab. 96.5: Singular paradigm of the feminine qytet inflection.

indefinite sg. definite sg.
nom. -: qytet, gjind, gjeth -ja qytetja, gjindja, gjethja
acc. -: qytet, gjind -në qytetnë, gjindnë, gjethnë
gen.-dat. -je qytetje, gjindje -së qytetsë, gjindsë
abl. -je qytetje, gjindje -jet qytetjet, gjindjet
inst. -: qytet, gjind -t qytet < /qytet-t/, gjint, gjetht
Examples: qytet ‘town’, gjind ‘folk’ (< Lat. nom. sg. *gentis), gjeth ‘leaf, foliage’ (< PIE *gu̯osdis).
All examples in the tables are taken from Old Geg authors: shpīrt ‘spirit’, gjak ‘blood’,
mal ‘mountain’, mik (plural stem miq) ‘friend’, kusār (plural stem kusarë) ‘thief’, shër-
bëtuor (plural stem shërbëtorë) ‘servant’. For the neuter, ujë ‘water’.
Note that when endings are attached to the singular stem a final -ë is dropped, hence
e.g. gen.-dat. uj-i to the nom. ujë. In the plural, the gen.-dat. ending is -ve only if the
plural stem ends in a vowel. The same applies to the corresponding definite -(v)et.
For the masculine/neuter inflection, see Tables 96.1, 96.2. For the predominant femi-
nine inflection, see Tables 96.3, 96.4. There are also feminines with indefinite singular

Authenticated
1754 XV. Albanian
nominatives in -e and in -ī. Apart from that, there are also feminine nouns with a conso-
nantal final, which go back to PIE and Proto-Albanian i-stems (e.g. Mat, the name of a
central Albanian highland, attested in antiquity as Mathis < *mn̥-ti-, cf. Lat. mōns) as
well as to loanwords from Latin (e.g. qytet ‘town’ < Lat. nom. sg. *cīvitātis, reshaped
from classical cīvitās); see Klingenschmitt (2004: 225), for a list see Topalli (2011: 332−
334).
The original i-stem inflection is reflected by the ending of the definite nom. sg. -ja
< *°i +a and evidenced by umlaut e < *a (-tet < Proto-Albanian *-tatih; gjeth < *gadih
< PIE *gu̯osdis). In Modern Standard Albanian, these nouns have become masculines,
hence nom. sg. qyteti.
2.2. Adjectives and adverbs
There are two classes of adjectives in Albanian: (i) the so-called articulated adjectives,
which bear an inflected proclitic element that, like the definite article, goes back to PIE
*so-/to- (and is often called an “adjective article”) but has nothing to do with definiteness
and is a mere word-class marker, e.g. (i) mirë ‘good’; (ii) the non-articulated adjectives,
which closely resemble nouns; many adjectives of this class are overtly derived, e.g.
kurv-ār ‘adulterous’ from kurvë ‘whore’. On the adjective system of Modern Standard
Albanian, see Newmark, Hubbard, and Prifti (1982: 179−209) and Buchholz and Fiedler
(1987: 314−348).
The inflection of adjectives differs from the inflection of nouns in various ways. With
articulated adjectives, the proclitic element is fully marked for gender, case, and number,
e.g. nom. sg. m. shërbëtori i mirë ‘the good servant’, nom. sg. f. pema e mirë ‘the good
fruit’ [Budi], nom. sg. n. drithë të mirë ‘good grain’, acc. sg. f. venënë e mirë ‘the good
wine’, acc. pl. f. ditë e mira ‘the good days’ (cf. Newmark, Hubbard, and Prifti 1982:
181). However, the adjectives themselves are not marked for case (except if they are
attributive adjectives preceding the noun they qualify; see below); they can only be
marked for number, as in ditë e mira (with plural marker /-a/ in mira), and some (such
as [i] madh ‘big, great’) are also marked for gender, e.g. nom. sg. m. njerī i madh ‘a
great man’, nom. sg. f. qytet e madhe ‘a big town’, nom. pl. m. njerëz të mëdhenj ‘great
men’ [Budi], acc. pl. f. kafshë të mëdhā ‘great things’. Non-articulated adjectives are
marked for gender, e.g. nom. sg. m. engjëlli shtrazëtār ‘the guardian angel’ [Bogdani]
vs. nom. sg. f. fara kurvare ‘the adulterous generation’ (with feminine ending -e), and
partly for number, e.g. nom. pl. m. engjītë shtrazëtarë ‘the guardian angels’ [Budi].
The aforementioned rules apply to predicative adjectives as well as to attributive
adjectives following the noun they qualify. If, however, an attributive adjective precedes
its referent, it is fully inflected (including the postposed article, if the noun phrase is
definite), while the following noun is only marked for number but not otherwise inflect-
ed. Even in this context, articulated adjectives retain their prefix, which is fully inflected,
e.g. nom. sg. f. indef. një e madhe ushtërī ‘a big army’, nom. sg. m. def. i madhi zot
‘the Great Lord’, nom. pl. m. def. të mëdhejntë priftënë ‘the chief priests’. Substantivized
articulated adjectives are also inflected this way, e.g. inst. pl. m. def. përëmbī të mirët e
përëmbī të këqīt ‘on the just and on the unjust’ (të mirë, pl. m. of i mirë ‘good’; të këqī,
pl. m. of i keq ‘bad’). By contrast, non-articulated adjectives inflect exactly like nouns,

Authenticated
e.g. nom. pl. def. shenjtitë patriarkë ‘the Holy Patriarchs’; in their substantivized form,
they are indistinguishable from nouns, e.g. nom. pl. m. def. shenjtitë ‘the Saints’.
Gradation of adjectives is expressed analytically using the particle mã ‘more’
(< Proto-Albanian *maihana-, cf. Proto-Germanic *maizan- ‘more’). In the comparative,
mã is simply placed in front of the adjective, e.g. mã i madh ‘bigger, greater’. The
reference term to which comparison is made is introduced by the particle se, e.g. a
mundë jēsh ti mã i madh se përindi ynë Abraami ‘can you be greater than our father
Abraham?’ The superlative is distinguished from the comparative by the fact that the
adjective itself always bears the postposed definite article, e.g. E kȳ anshtë i pari e mã
i madhi ordhënë ‘and this is the first and the greatest commandment’; Mjeshtrë i silli anshtë
ordhëni i ligjsë mã i madhi? ‘Master, which is the greatest commandment of the Law?’
When forming adverbs, articulated adjectives simply drop the proclitic element, e.g.
hinje sā mirë e desh ‘behold how well he loved him’. Gradation of adverbs is also
expressed by mã, cf. a më do mã mirë se këta ‘do you love me more than these?’ There
are no adverbial superlatives.
2.3. Pronouns
Due to limitations of space, only a selection of pronouns can be given here. For a
thorough presentation of the Modern Standard Albanian pronominal system, see New-
mark, Hubbard, and Prifti (1982: 261−288) and Buchholz and Fiedler (1987: 274−314).
2.3.1. Personal pronouns
The Old Albanian personal pronouns of the first and second persons continue the respec-
tive PIE pronouns. Here, reconstructions are given wherever the development is straight-
forward:
Tab. 96.6: Personal pronouns of the first and second person.

1sg 2sg 1pl 2pl
nom. u ← *eg̑(-) ti < *tū na < *nos ju
acc. muo < *mēm tȳ < *tuu̯ēm nē < *nōs jū
dat. = acc. = acc. neve juve
abl. meje teje nesh jush
There is no genitive; possession is expressed by possessive pronouns (see 2.3.3). In the

singular, the indirect object is expressed by the accusative, and in the plural by a case
of its own, which is here labeled ‘dative’, because it can only be used for the indirect
object but not for possession. The 1sg u continues Proto-Albanian *uȷ́(-) ← PIE *eg̑(-)
with a vocalism reshaped after the 2sg (in other varieties of Albanian, an extended form
u-në is used). The 2pl ju must go back to the same form as Old Avestan yūš, etc., but

Authenticated
1756 XV. Albanian
details are unclear. The forms of the abl. sg. and the dat. pl. have been created by analogy
to the nominal inflection. A full diachronic discussion of the personal pronoun is found
in Matzinger (1998); for the personal pronouns in Modern Standard Albanian, see New-
mark, Hubbard, and Prifti (1982: 261−265) and Buchholz and Fiedler (1987: 274−281).
Furthermore, there is a reflexive pronoun, which has one shape for all persons of sg.
and pl.: dat. vetī, acc. vetëhenë, abl. vetëhej. All forms can be reduplicated: vetëvetī,
vetëvetëhenë, vetëvetëhej. Ultimately, this pronoun is based on the same pronominal stem
as the reflexive pronouns of Latin, Germanic, etc., but details are unclear (it is clear,
though, that ve- continues PIE *su̯oi̯ -).
For reference to the 3sg and 3pl, Albanian uses the demonstrative pronoun ai (see
2.3.4).
2.3.2. Object markers and the middle-voice marker
There are also pronominal elements which go back to enclitic pronouns. Their forms are
1sg më (< *mē̆ and/or *moi̯ ), 2sg të (< *tu̯ē̆ and/or *tu̯oi̯ ), 1pl na (< *nos), and 2pl u
(< *u̯os). Additionally, there are third-person forms, namely 3sg dat. i (< *[h1]esi̯ o and
*[h1]esi̯ ah2s), 3sg acc. e (< Proto-Albanian *ii̯ an, cf. Latin eum, eam), 3pl dat. u
(< *[h1]ei̯ soHom), 3pl acc. i (< *[h1]īms). As can be seen, these reflect various case
forms of the PIE anaphoric pronoun *(h1)e-/(h1)ei̯ -, which is otherwise lost in Albanian
(cf. Matzinger 2006: 108−109). Usually all these elements are described as clitic oblique
pronouns. However, they are always accentually bound to the verb and cannot be placed
elsewhere in the sentence. Moreover, the first- and second-person forms often co-occur
with the direct-object and indirect-object pronouns mentioned in 2.3.1, and the third-
person forms equally often co-occur with demonstratives and nouns functioning as direct
and indirect objects, e.g. zot u tȳ të lus, ep-ja djalëtë e gjallë asaj ‘Lord, I beg you, give
her the living child’. Here, të co-occurs with the direct object tȳ, and -ja (< i + e) co-
occurs with the direct object djalëtë e gjallë ‘the living child’ and the indirect object
asaj ‘to her’. This phenomenon is often referred to as ‘clitic doubling’, but it is preferable
to describe these pronominal elements as verbal affixes, i.e. as agreement markers be-
longing to the verb. In other words, Albanian has a polypersonal verb which optionally
marks direct and indirect objects. Accordingly, we will henceforth use the term ‘object
markers’ for these items.
Similarly, enclitic forms of the inherited reflexive pronoun have turned into the verbal
affix u marking middle voice (u < *su̯ē̆ and/or *su̯oi̯ , see 3.3).
2.3.3. Possessive pronouns
Old Albanian has fully inflected possessive pronouns for the first and second persons
(the third-person possessives are genitives of the demonstrative pronoun ai, see 2.3.4).
The singular possessive pronouns are univerbations of the preposed definite article and
a possessive adjective: 1sg nom. sg. m. em, f. eme, n. tem (< *hʉh-/hā-/tad- + *mii̯ a-,
cf. Lat. meus); 2sg nom. sg. m. yt, f. jote, n. tat (< *hʉh-/hā-/tad- + *tV-; the vocalism
of the possessive adjective proper is difficult to reconstruct). By contrast, in the plural

Authenticated
possessive pronouns the preposed definite article is univerbated with enclitic pronouns:
1pl nom. sg. m. ynë, f. jonë, n. tanë (< *hʉh-/hā-/tad- + *nah); 2pl nom. sg. m. ȳj, f.
juoj, n. tāj ‘your’ (< *hʉh-/hā-/tad- + *i̯ uh). As can be guessed, the underlying 1pl
enclitic *nah directly continues PIE *nos, while the shape of underlying 2pl enclitic *i̯ uh
was heavily influenced by the nominative (Old Albanian ju, see 2.3.1). For an overview
of the paradigms attested in Buzuku, see Demiraj (1986: 481−484), and some diachronic
remarks are given in Matzinger (2006: 111). Possessive pronouns usually follow their
referent, which appears with the definite article, e.g. bīri em i dashuni ‘my beloved son’,
fēja jote ‘thy faith’. When connected with kinship terms (e.g. atë ‘father’, amë ‘mother’,
etc.) and with zot ‘God, Lord’, the possessive pronouns usually precede the noun, which
here bears no definite article, e.g. em atë ‘my father’. There is also a third-person posses-
sive pronoun i, which is restricted to kinship terms; here, the kinship term must have
the definite article, e.g. i ati ‘his/her/their father’, e ama ‘his/her/their mother’. This
pronoun goes back to the singular genitives of the PIE anaphoric pronoun (*[h1]esi̯ o and
*[h1]esi̯ ah2s) but is inflected like the proclitic element of articulated adjectives (see 2.2);
it does not specify gender, number, and case of the possessor but those of the possessed.
Finally, Old Albanian has a reflexive possessive pronoun (i) vet for the third person,
e.g. e ëngriti Mojzeu dorënë e vet e rā gūrit me portekët të vet dȳ herrë ‘and Moses
raised his hand and hit the stone twice with his staff’. This is clearly related to the Old
Albanian reflexive pronoun (cf. 2.3.1).
For possessive pronouns in Modern Standard Albanian, see Newmark, Hubbard, and
Prifti (1982: 268−275) and Buchholz and Fiedler (1987: 284−292).
2.3.4. Demonstrative pronouns
Old Albanian has two demonstratives, both fully inflected: proximal kȳ m., këjo f., këta
n. ‘this’ and distal ai m., ajo f., ata n. ‘that, he/she’. They can appear on their own or
with a referent; they usually precede their referent, which rarely bears the definite article
(e.g. kȳ nierī or kȳ nieriu, both ‘this man’). The distal pronoun ai, etc. also serves as a
third-person personal pronoun. Both demonstratives are compounds with PIE *so-/to- as
their second member (which in its uncompounded form has furnished the definite article,
cf. 2.1.): gen.-dat. sg. m. këtī, atī < PIE *-tosi̯ o; nom. pl. f. ato, këto < PIE *-tah2as, etc.
The first member a- either reflects *so-u- as in Gk. οὗτος or is related to Avestan auua-;
the first member kë- is strongly reminiscent of PIE proximal *k̑o-/k̑i- (cf. Hittite kāš ),
but such a connection would presuppose an irregular development of PIE *k̑. A first
attempt to trace the diachronic history of the demonstratives can be found in Matzinger
(2006: 109−110). For Modern Standard Albanian, see Newmark, Hubbard, and Prifti
(1982: 262−264) and Buchholz and Fiedler (1987: 292−297).
2.3.5. Interrogative pronouns
kush ‘who?’ reflects a PIE nominal sentence *ku̯ós só ‘who (is) this?’ (cf. similarly
Tocharian B ͡ kuse, Old Church Slavonic kъto). It inflects for case only, e.g. nom. Kush
anshtë emë amë, e kush jane të mī vëllazënë? ‘who is my mother, and who are my

Authenticated
1758 XV. Albanian
brothers?’; its other case forms are gen.-dat. kuj < *ku̯osi̯ o and acc. kâ [Bogdani] <
*ku̯om. Its counterpart is qish ‘what?’ (allegro variant ç), which continues a heavily
reshaped *ku̯id (cf. Matzinger 2006: 112−113), while its gen.-dat. sej quite faithfully
reflects PIE *ku̯esi̯ o (cf. Schumacher 2004: 763). Apart from these two there are adjecti-
val interrogatives such as (i) silli ‘which (one)?’ and various adverbial ones such as ku
‘where?’ For the interrogative pronouns of Modern Standard Albanian, see Newmark,
Hubbard, and Prifti (1982: 278−281) and Buchholz and Fiedler (1987: 300−302).
2.3.6. Indefinite pronouns
kush can also serve as an indefinite pronoun ‘somebody’; in this value, its oblique cases
bear an n-suffix (gen.-dat. kujnaj, acc. kana). The inanimate indefinite pronoun is gjã
‘something’ (< gjã f. ‘thing’), which is often preceded by the indefinite particle kun
(possibly < ku ‘where’ + the -n- of kujnaj and kana). They often form compounds with
the negation as-: askush ‘nobody’, asgjã ‘nothing’ (on as-, see Joseph, this handbook,
5.1). ‘Everyone’ is gjithëkush, ‘everything’ gjithëqish.
2.3.7. Relative particles and pronouns
Albanian has two relative markers. In Buzuku, we only find the invariable particle qi,
but from Budi onward the fully inflected pronoun (i) cilli occurs as a relative pronoun.
Historically, (i) cilli is identical with Buzuku’s interrogative (i) silli (cf. 2.3.5) and can
still be used as an interrogative in Budi’s variety of Old Albanian. The initial c- is
derived from allegro accusative forms of (i) silli: të sillë > t’ sillë > cillë → të cillë (in
Bogdani, the pronoun has retained its original shape [i] silli and is used both as a relative
pronoun and as an interrogative). Headless relative clauses are introduced with kush
‘(he) who’ and qish ‘what’, and with kushdo ‘whoever’ and qishdo ‘whatever’.
2.4. Numerals
The Albanian cardinals from ‘1’ to ‘10’ continue the respective PIE cardinals more or
less faithfully; above ‘10’, the system was rebuilt; and qind m. ‘hundred’ as well as
mijë f. ‘thousand’ are loanwords from Latin centum and mīlle respectively. The cardinal
numerals from ‘1’ to ‘5’ have the following forms and prehistories: ‘1’ is një (< Proto-
Albanian *mi̯ a- m./n. and *mi̯ ā- f., rebuilt from *mii̯ ā- f. ← PIE *smih2 ; a similar
development has to be assumed for Old Armenian mi); ‘2’ is dy m., dȳ f./n. (< PIE
*duu̯o m., *duu̯ah2-ih1 f., *duu̯o-ih1 n.); ‘3’ is tre m., trī f./n. (< Proto-Albanian *trei̯ eh
m., *trii̯ āh f., *trii̯ ā n.), ‘4’ is katërë (< PIE *ku̯etu̯ores vel sim.), ‘5’ is pêsë (< PIE
*penku̯e). The corresponding ordinals are (i) parë ‘1st’ (< *por-u̯o- vel sim.); (i) dytë
‘2nd’; (i) tretë ‘3rd’; (i) katërtë ‘4th’; (i) pêstë ‘5th’.
The cardinals from ‘6’ to ‘10’ are identical to the respective ordinals: gjashtë ‘6’,
shtatë ‘7’, tetë ‘8’, nandë ‘9’ and dhjetë ‘10’ (for the ordinals, cf. [i] gjashtë ‘6th’, etc.);

Authenticated
this identity is possibly due to the fact that ‘10’ was originally a feminine consonant
stem Proto-Albanian *dećat- (< PIE *dek̑m̥t-, cf. Vedic daśát- ‘decad’), which was re-
shaped into an ā-stem *dećatā- according to the analogy sketched in 2.1; once that had
happened, the cardinal formally merged with the feminine forms of the ordinal *dećata/
ā- (< PIE *dek̑m̥to/ah2-). Subsequently, the preceding cardinals down to ‘6’ were analogi-
cally based on their ordinals, which can be reconstructed as follows: (i) gjashtë ‘6th’ <
PIE *sek̑s-to/ah2-; (i) shtatë ‘7th’ < PIE *septm̥-to/ah2-; (i) tetë ‘8th’ (< *Hok̑toH-to/ah2-),
(i) nandë ‘9th’ (< *h1neu̯n̥-to/ah2-). Alternatively, the cardinals from ‘6’ to ‘10’ could go
back to collective abstracts, e.g. gjashtë < *sek̑s-tah2- (cf. similar Old Church Slavonic
šestъ).
The teens are formed with the synchronically transparent prepositional phrase ‘numer-
al on ten’. This construction, whose origin is clearly to be sought in Slavic, is also found
in Rumanian and constitutes one of the so-called Balkanisms (see Friedman 2006: 664−
665). Therefore, Old Albanian ‘eleven’, një ëmbë dhjetë (cf. ëmbë ‘on’) and the other
teens copy Old Church Slavonic jedinъ na desęte etc. ‘20’ is njëzet and must ultimately
be related to Lat. vīgintī etc., but details are very unclear. The further decads have the
structure ‘numeral + ten’, cf. trī dhjetë ‘30’, etc., the hundreds are një qind ‘100’, dy
qind ‘200’, etc., and the thousands are një mijë ‘1000’, dȳ mijë ‘2000’, etc.
The ordinal numerals from ‘second’ onward are simply derived from the cardinal
numerals by adding the suffix -të (< *-to-), as can be seen in ‘2nd’ to ‘5th’ above.
Cardinals precede their referent, which from ‘2’ onward is in the plural. Ordinals also
precede their referent. However, while noun phrases with ordinals behave exactly like
other noun phrases with attributive adjectives preceding their referent, noun phrases with
cardinals show a different behavior.
The Albanian numerals are dealt with by Hamp (1992), Demiraj (1997), and Matzing-
er (2006: 113−117). A lengthy description is also contained in a hitherto unpublished
manuscript by Klingenschmitt (unpubl.). For the numerals in Modern Standard Albanian,
see Newmark, Hubbard, and Prifti (1982: 248−260) and Buchholz and Fiedler (1987:
349−360).
2.5. Prepositions
Old Albanian prepositions mostly govern two cases, rarely only one case. Case differen-
ces do not seem to reflect semantic differences, but the whole matter has not been well
investigated. With the ablative only: ën ‘from; to, towards’; prej ‘from; to, towards’.
With the accusative or the ablative: pā ‘without’. With the accusative or the instrumental:
ëmbë ‘in, on’; ëndë ‘in, at’; me ‘with’. With the nominative (see 2.1): tek ‘at/to the
location of’, kaha ‘from’ [Matrënga]. On the etymologies of some prepositions, see
Matzinger (2006: 105−107). For prepositions in Buzuku from a Balkanological point of
view, see Genesin (1994−1995). The prepositions of Modern Standard Albanian are dealt
with by Newmark, Hubbard, and Prifti (1982: 289−300) and by Buchholz and Fiedler
(1987: 373−384).

Authenticated
1760 XV. Albanian
3. Verbal morphology
The following is a condensation of Schumacher and Matzinger (2013: 25−197, 965−
1010), and readers are referred to this work for any details not dealt with here. For the
verbal system of Buzuku, see also Fiedler (2004). For the verbal system of Tosk-based
Modern Standard Albanian, see Newmark, Hubbard, and Prifti (1982: 21−119) and
Buchholz and Fiedler (1987: 60−121).
3.1. Classes of verbs

The classification of verbs in Albanian (whether Old Albanian or Modern Standard
Albanian) is very difficult. Classifications by historical principles (e.g. primary vs. non-
primary verbs) are impossible, and most other classifications adopted so far (e.g. those
based on present-stem inflection alone) are unhelpful. The classification adopted here
uses as a guiding principle an abstraction we call the verb-base. Every Albanian verb
(primary or non-primary) has a verb-base, which can be deduced from the synopsis of
3sg pres. ind. act., 2sg iptv. act., and 3sg aor. act. (in deponent verbs, the corresponding
middle forms can be used). Verb-bases can be monosyllabic or polysyllabic, and, impor-
tantly, they end in either a consonant or a vowel. Only verb-bases with final vowel plus
/n/ behave ambiguously, as they can be treated either as consonant-final or as vowel-
final verb-bases (in the latter case, the vowel is a nasal vowel). However, it is preferable
to place verb-bases with vowel plus /n/ among the consonant-final verb-bases. Based on
the phonological shape of the final segment of the verb-base and the morphological
relationship between the verb-base and the present stem, three major verb classes (each
with two sub-classes, here called types) can be defined: (i) Class di/djeg: In this class,
there is no synchronically visible element intervening between the verb-base and the
present-stem endings. Type di ‘knows’ (< PIE *dhiH-(i̯ )eti, root *dhei̯ H-, LIV² 141−142)
represents verbs with vowel-final verb-bases (verb-base di-), while type djeg ‘causes to
burn’ (< PIE *dheg u̯h-e-ti, root *dheg u̯h-, LIV² 133−134) represents consonant-final verb-
bases (verb-base djeg-). As can be seen, this class contains various primary verbs, but
primary verbs are also found in other classes. (ii) Class kujton/ecën: In the present stem,
the verb-base is enlarged by an n-suffix. Again, the verb-base can be vowel-final, as in
type kujto-n ‘thinks’ (with -o being the final vowel of the verb-base), or consonant-final,
as in type ec-ën ‘goes’ (here, the final consonant is -c, and the unstressed -ë- is part of
the suffix). Note that the verbs with verb-base ending in -o- constitute the only fully
productive verbal class of Albanian, the -o- going back to denominative verbs in *-ah2-
i̯ e/o- and factitive verbs in *-ah2- (however, this class also includes some primary verbs,
such as shton ‘adds’, which ultimately goes back to a post-PIE *stah2-i̯ e/o-, root *steh2-,
LIV² 590−592). (iii) Class vret/përket: In this class, the verb-base is enlarged with a t-
suffix. In the vowel-final verb-bases (type vret), the t-suffix is attached immediately to
the stressed final vowel of the verb-base, as in vret ‘kills’ (verb-base vra-); in the conso-
nant-final verb-bases (type përket), a stressed vowel intervenes between the verb-base
and the t-suffix, as a result of which the vowel of the verb-base is often weakened or
syncopated, e.g. in përket ‘touches’ (verb-base prek-). This class is quite small and not
productive. Apart from these three classes, there is a fourth residual class of some twenty
verbs that are either suppletive or have some other feature not found elsewhere, which
is why these verbs − most of them going back to primary verbs − are best called irregular.

Authenticated
Finally, it must be kept in mind that each of the six types sketched above has various
sub-types; for instance, type kujton shows the sub-types kujton (with monophthongal -o-
as the final vowel of the verb-base), shkruon ‘writes’ (with diphthongal -uo- in verb-
base-final position), and lyen ‘anoints’ (with diphthongal -ye- in verb-base-final posi-
tion), to mention just a few.
3.2. Person and number
Albanian verbs have the usual three persons and two numbers (singular and plural) in
each tense or mood category. In the active present indicative, the second and third per-
sons are homonymous; in some verbs of the type djeg, the 1sg is also homonymous with
the 2/3sg. Everywhere else, all six persons are distinct from each other.
3.3. Voice
Albanian has two voices, active and middle, both continuing the respective PIE catego-
ries. Middle voice is expressed morphologically in several ways. (i) In the present-stem
system (cf. 3.6) the middle is expressed synthetically by its own set of endings: The
present-tense middle endings go back to the same set of endings as the Greek middle
endings, including the change of the 1sg from *-h2ai̯ to *-mai̯ . On the other hand, the
imperfect middle endings are clearly innovative, deriving analogically from the imperfect
of the verb ‘be’ (see 3.6). (ii) In the 2sg imperative (3.7), the aorist (3.8), the optative
(3.9), the admirative (3.10), non-finite forms (3.11), and periphrastic forms derived from
the latter (3.12), the middle is expressed by the middle-voice marker u, which historically
derives from enclitic forms of the inherited reflexive pronoun (u < *su̯ē̆ and/or *su̯oi̯ )
but is no longer attached to the pronominal system (cf. 2.3.2). (iii) In the perfect system,
except for the admirative, the middle is expressed by the choice of the auxiliary (3.10).
The functions of the two voices are reminiscent of early-attested IE languages. In
fact, however, a major reshuffling has taken place, whereby numerous intransitive verba
activa tantum first became verba media tantum (deponents) and then developed second-
ary factitive active forms.
3.4. Moods; remarks on aspect
Apart from the indicative, Albanian has the following moods: (i) the imperative, which
requires no further explanation; (ii) the subjunctive, which is found in the present-stem
system and the perfect system. It has its nucleus in the PIE subjunctive of the present
stem but has been fully integrated into the tense systems of the present-stem system and
the perfect system, as a result of which most tenses have an indicative and a correspond-
ing subjunctive. The scopes of the various subjunctives thus cover a wide range of
meanings but the primary PIE scope of the subjunctive (expression of the expectation
of the speaker) can still be retrieved; (iii) the optative, which has its own stem and

Authenticated
1762 XV. Albanian
expresses wishes and curses of the speaker. Note that the optative can refer only to
events wished for in the present or the future but not to past events; (iv) the admirative
(3.10). Apart from this, one must not forget that even the Old Geg future has modal
forms (3.12). However, not all these formations are well-attested, and it remains unclear
which of them can be thought of as fully grammaticalized. To sum up, it is very difficult
to obtain a general view of the modal system in its totality.
Note that in Albanian all moods (apart from the imperative) are more or less linked
to the tense system. This is consistent with the fact that aspect contrasts are not an
overall feature of the verbal system − it is only the indicatives of past tenses that are
marked for aspect: there is an aspectual contrast (imperfective vs. perfective) between
the imperfect and the aorist, and there may be a similar difference between the pluperfect
and the aorist-pluperfect (cf. 3.10). However, there is no distinction between imperfectiv-
ity and perfectivity in imperatives, subjunctives, optatives, futures, or anywhere else.
3.5. The five synthetic stem forms of the Albanian verb
Every Albanian verb paradigm has five synthetic stem forms: the present stem, the 2sg
imperative, the aorist stem, the optative stem, and the participle, which is the only syn-
thetic non-finite form of the verbal system. Three of these stem forms (the aorist and
optative stems, and the 2sg imperative) have only one function, whereas the other two
(the present stem and the participle) are the basis of elaborate sub-systems, namely the
present-stem system and the perfect system.
Morphologically, the inflection of the finite verbal forms has several characteristics.
(i) Inflection is usually characterized by inflectional endings. In some places, endings
have given way to zero morphemes, but these are rare enough to be regarded as mor-
phemes in their own right. (ii) Inflection can be accompanied by morphophonological
changes of the rightmost vowel of the verb-base, regardless of whether the verb-base is
vowel-final or consonant-final. These changes comprise raising, monophthongization or
diphthongization, and lengthening or shortening of that vowel. Additionally, in present
stems of the type ecën, the vowel of the ën-suffix can be raised or syncopated, and in
present stems of the types vret and përket, the vowel of the stem-final syllable -Vt can
be raised. Most vowel changes are due to phonological processes in the history of Alba-
nian, such as umlaut or palatalization. Only in aorist stems do we find verb-base-vowel
changes that represent reflexes of PIE ablaut (cf. 3.8). (iii) Inflection can be accompanied
by morphophonological changes of verb-base-final consonants. These changes comprise
palatalization (g → gj, k → q, n → nj/j), and a change t → s, which historically also
reflects palatalization. Finally, in present stems of the classes kujton/ecën and vret/përket,
the final consonant of the present-stem suffix regularly undergoes the morphophonologi-
cal changes n → nj/j and t → s, respectively, in certain forms.
3.6. The present-stem system

The present stem continues PIE present-stem formations. The main change that can be
observed is that n/nj-suffixes (< *-ni̯ e/o-) have spread, yielding the kujton/ecën verbal

Authenticated
class. Almost all extant present stems reflect thematically inflected stems, the two major
exceptions being anshtë ‘be’ (← *h1esti, root 1.*h1es-, LIV² 241−242) and thotë ‘say’
(← *k̑eHs-toi̯ , root *k̑eHs-, LIV² 318−319). The present stem has two tenses, present
and imperfect. The present is a continuation of the PIE present stem with primary
endings, while the imperfect is a continuation of the PIE present stem with secondary
endings, i.e. the PIE injunctive. It also has two moods, indicative and subjunctive. The
present subjunctive continues the PIE subjunctive of the present stem; however, it is
only in the active 2sg and 3sg and the middle 2sg that the morphology of the subjunctive
has not merged with the morphology of the indicative. Nevertheless, all subjunctive
forms can be recognized by the fact that they are marked with preceding particles:
positive subjunctive forms are marked with të, and negative forms are either marked
with the modally marked negation particle mos or the particle combination të mos (very
rarely mos të). The fact that the subjunctive is primarily marked by particles has also
entailed the development of an imperfect subjunctive. The following table shows exam-
ples from all six classes: class di/djeg: di ‘know’ (< PIE *dhiH-(i̯ )e/o-, cf. Schumacher
and Matzinger 2013: 969), hjek ‘pull’ (ultimately < PIE *selk-e/o-, cf. Schumacher and
Matzinger 2013: 976−978); class kujton/ecën: kujton ‘think’, ecën ‘go’; class vret/për-
ket: përket ‘touch’ (the type vret inflects exactly like përket: 1sg vras, etc.) (see Tab.
96.7).
For a prehistory of these forms, see Schumacher and Matzinger (2013: 51−52).
The middle-voice inflection has the following forms (for semantic reasons di ‘know’
has been replaced by ëmba ‘hold’ and ecën by ënveshën ‘provide with clothes’ < PIE
*u̯os-éi̯ e/o-) (see Tab. 96.8).
For the prehistory of the endings, cf. Schumacher and Matzinger (2013: 127−131);
as mentioned above (3.3), this set of endings reflects the same set of endings as the
Greek thematic present middle endings (e.g. -em < *-a-mai̯ ← *-a-h2ai̯ , cf. Gk. -ομαι).
As can be seen, both hjek (type djeg) and përket (type përket) select the same present-
stem allomorph as the one that appears in the active 2pl, and the same applies for type
vret presents. In type di presents, an -h- intervenes between the final vowel of the verb-
base and the endings (e.g. ëmba-h-etë). In type kujton presents, the -n- of the active
Tab. 96.7: Present active inflection.

type di djeg kujton ecën përket ending
verb-base di- hjek- kujto- ec- prek-
1sg dī hjek kujtonj ecnj përkas -:
2sg di hjek kujton ecën përket -:
3sg di hjek kujton ecën përket -:
1pl dīmë hjekmë kujtojmë ecnjëmë përkasmë -(ë)më
2pl dini hiqëni kujtoni ecëni përkitëni -(ë)ni
3pl dīnë hjekënë kujtonjënë ecnjënë përkasënë -(ë)në
2sg subj. dīsh hjeksh kujtojnsh ecnjësh përkaç -(ë)sh
3sg subj. dijë hjekë kujtonjë ecnjë përkasë -ë

Authenticated
1764 XV. Albanian
Tab. 96.8: Present middle inflection.

verb-base ëmba- hjek- kujto- ënvesh- prek-
1sg ëmbahem hiqem kujtonem ënvishem përkitem -em
2sg ëmbahē hiqē kujtonē ënvishē përkitē -ē
3sg ëmbahetë hiqetë kujtonetë ënvishetë përkitetë -etë
1pl ëmbahemi hiqemi kujtonemi ënvishemi përkitemi -emi
2pl ëmbahī hiqī kujtonī ënvishī përkitī -ī
3pl ëmbahenë hiqenë kujtonenë ënvishenë përkitenë -enë
2sg subj. ëmbahēsh hiqēsh kujtonēsh ënvishēsh përkitēsh -ēsh
voice is retained if the final vowel of the verb-base is monophthongal -o- (as in kujton);
however, if the final vowel is diphthongal (as in shkruon ‘write’), the -n- is replaced by
-h-, and the diphthong is monophthongized, which yields forms like shkru-h-etë. In type
ecën presents, the n-suffix is deleted, which is why the middle counterpart of active
ënveshën is ënvishetë.
The active imperfect has the following morphology (see Tab. 96.9).
Tab. 96.9: Imperfect active inflection

verb-base di- hjek- kujto- ec- prek-
1sg dijë hjekë kujtonjë ecnjë përkasë -ë
2sg dinje hiqnje kujtonje ecnje përkisnje -një
3sg dī hiq kujton ecën përkit -:, -j
1pl dinjīm hiqnjīm kujtonjīm ecnjīm përkisnjīm -njīm
2pl dinjītë hiqnjītë kujtonjītë ecnjītë përkisnjītë -njītë
3pl dinjīnë hiqnjīnë, kujtonjīnë, ecnjīnë përkisnjīnë, -njīnë,
hiqnë kujtojnë përkisnë -në
This set of endings, particularly the 1sg -ë and the 3sg -:, ultimately reflects the PIE
thematic secondary endings; therefore, the Albanian imperfect can be traced back to the
PIE injunctive of the present stem (there are no traces whatsoever of an augment). For
details see Schumacher and Matzinger (2013: 132−140). The element -njī- which is
found in 1pl, 2pl, and 3pl in Buzuku (but is lacking in some archaic Tosk dialects) must
have spread from the class kujton/ecën. Note also that the -m part of 1pl -njīm reflects
PIE secondary *-me or *-mo, while present-tense -më reflects PIE primary *-mes or
*-mos.

Authenticated
The middle imperfect has the following morphology :
Tab. 96.10: Imperfect middle inflection.

type di djeg kujton ending
verb-base ëmba- hjek- kujto-
1sg ëmbaheshë hiqeshë kujtoneshë -eshë
2sg ëmbahishnje hiqishnje kujtonishnje -ishnje
3sg ëmbahe hiqe kujtone -e
1pl ëmbahishnjim hiqishnjim kujtonishnjim -ishnjim
2pl ëmbahishtë hiqishtë kujtonishtë -ishtë
3pl ëmbahishnë hiqishnjinë, kujtonishnë -ishnjinë,
hiqishnë -ishnë
The set of endings found here originates in the imperfect of ‘be’: the Late Proto-Albanian
1sg pres. ind. of ‘be’ was *i̯ em (ultimately < *h1es-mi), and the ending of the 1sg pres.
ind. mid. was -em. Since both forms ended in -em and the verb ‘be’ could be reinterpret-
ed as a medium tantum, the imperfect of ‘be’ furnished a template for the inflection of
the imperfect middle. In this context, it is useful to cite the full present-stem paradigm
of ‘be’. The table below shows the paradigms of both ‘be’ and ‘have’ (whose etymology
is unclear), since the two, often used as auxiliaries, heavily influenced each other (for
instance, the 1sg pres. ind. of ‘be’ has been changed from *i̯ em to jam under the influ-
ence of 1sg kam) (Tab. 96.11).
Tab. 96.11: Inflection of ‘be’ and ‘have’

‘be’ present subjunctive imperfect ‘have’ present subjunctive imperfect
1sg jam jēm jeshë 1sg kam kēm keshë
2sg je jēsh ishnje 2sg kē kēsh kishnje
3sg anshtë, ë jetë ish 3sg kā ketë kish
1pl jemi jemi ishnjīm 1pl kemi kemi kishnjīm
2pl ini ini ishnjītë 2pl kini kini, keni kishnjītë
3pl janë jenë ishnjīnë, 3pl kanë kenë kishnë
ishnë
While most forms of the present indicative of ‘be’ have undergone various transforma-
tions, the 3sg pres. ind. anshtë quite faithfully continues PIE *h1esti; its only innovation
is the preverb *an- < PIE *on- ‘in’, which is due to the influence of Koiné Greek, where
the 3sg ἐστι and the 3pl εἰσι have been replaced by ἔνι, a third-person form of the
compound of the verb ‘be’ with the preverb ἐν(ι)- ‘in’. The short form ë goes back to
the bare preverb *an, a form that is even more similar to Koiné Greek ἔνι (see also
Hamp 1980). For the imperfect, see Schumacher and Matzinger (2013: 145, note 16). In

Authenticated
1766 XV. Albanian
Old Geg, the expected 3sg *je has been altered to ish, but je is actually attested in
archaic Tosk dialects in Greece (Sasse 1991: 151).
3.7. Imperatives
Old Albanian has imperatives of the 2sg, the 1pl, and the 2pl. While the imperatives of
the 1pl and 2pl (both active and middle) are homonymous with the corresponding indica-
tive forms, the 2sg imperatives are derived directly from the verb-base. Active 2sg im-
peratives can consist of the bare verb-base (e.g. ban ‘do!’ from ban ‘do’, ëmba ‘hold!’
from ëmba ‘hold’); alternatively, they can bear an ending, namely -j if the verb-base
ends in a vowel (e.g. mos druoj ‘fear not!’ from dro ‘fear’), but -ë if the verb-base ends
in a consonant (e.g rrjedhë ‘run!’ from rrjedh ‘run’). Whether the endings -j or -ë appear
or not is only partly predictable. Additionally, in all types of 2sg imperatives the verb-
base can undergo the morphophonological changes described in 3.5 (ii) and (iii).
Middle 2sg imperatives are derived from their active counterparts by adding the mid-
dle-voice marker u (cf. 3.3). This is postposed if the imperative is clause-initial but
preposed if anything precedes it, e.g. kujto-u ‘remember!’ but mos u kujto ‘do not re-
member!’, both from kujton ‘think’ (verb-base kujto-).
In Buzuku, there are also active imperative forms of the 3sg, e.g. ëndjekë ‘let him
follow!’ from ëndjek ‘follow’. Genetically, these continue PIE present subjunctive forms;
however, since the Albanian subjunctive is synchronically defined by preposed particles,
such forms are best described as imperative forms.
3.8. The aorist
As the term aorist suggests, this category is a perfective preterite (it has only an indica-
tive; there are no other moods attached to it). It must be kept in mind, though, that the
aorist is syncretic in nature with three different categories underlying it: (i) original aorist
formations (root aorist, s-aorist, eh1-aorist); (ii) original perfect formations, some of them
dating back to PIE, others post-PIE; (iii) a periphrastic construction involving the verbal
adjective in *-to-. Synchronically, there are three different aorist formations in Old Alba-
nian: the v-aorist, the t-aorist, and the suffixless aorist. The v-aorist is found with vowel-
final verb-bases only; in the 2sg and the active 1sg, a v-suffix is inserted between the
verb-base and the endings, whereas in most other forms the verb-base-final vowel is
lengthened or diphthongized. The t-aorist is found with both vowel-final and consonant-
final verb-bases and is characterized by a suffix that has the shape -ti- or -të- (< older
*-tə-); frequently, -j- is inserted between the verb-base and the t-suffix. Finally, the
suffixless aorist is found with consonant-final verb-bases only. In some verb-bases going
back to PIE primary verbs, the rightmost vowel is changed, which reflects PIE ablaut
(zero grade or lengthened grade), but usually the suffixless aorist can only be recognized
by its aorist endings.
The aorist has no synthetic middle, the middle being indicated by the prefixed middle
marker u; in this case, the 1sg middle forms have a different ending -shë (taken from
the imperfect middle), and the middle 3sg is frequently distinguished from its active

Authenticated
Tab. 96.12: Aorist inflection.

type kujton di djeg ending
aorist type v-aorist t-aorist suffixless aorist
verb-base kujto- ëmba- djeg- ven-
1sg act. kujtova ëmbajta dogja vuna -a
2sg kujtove ëmbajte dogje vune -e
3sg act. kujtou, -oi ëmbajti dogj vũ -i/-:
1pl kujtuom ëmbajtim dogjm vūm -m
2pl kujtuotë ëmbajtëtë dogjtë vũtë -të
3pl kujtuonë ëmbajtinë dogjnë vūnë -në
1sg mid. u kujtuoshë u ëmbajtëshë u dogjshë u vũshë u…-shë
3sg mid. u kujtuo u ëmbajti, -të u dogj u vũ u…-:
counterpart by having a zero ending. The following table shows the inflection of all
three aorist types (kujton ‘think’, verb-base kujto-; ëmba ‘hold’, verb-base ëmba-; vê
‘put’, verb-base ven-; djeg ‘cause to burn’, verb-base djeg-):
These aorists have the following background: the v-aorists go back to s-Aorists, which
had become “alpha-thematic” when the vowel *-a- spread from the 1sg *-san and the 3pl
*-sand to the whole paradigm. When suffixed to vowel-final verb-bases, the *-s- became
*-h- and then zero, as a result of which the two newly adjacent vowels either contracted
to a long vowel (which could later be diphthongized) or developed a hiatus-filling -v-.
The point of departure of these aorists must have been s-aorists of primary verbs with
laryngeal-final roots; for instance, shtou ‘(s)he added’ from shton ‘add’ (cf. 3.1) goes
back to Proto-Albanian *stā-s- ‘placed’, a formation parallel to but independent of Gk
ἔστησε. From forms like these, the -s- was transferred to non-primary factitive and denom-
inative verbs, whose verb-base ended in *-ā-. The t-aorists have their origin in a periphras-
tic construction involving the verbal adjective in *-to-. Originally, this construction must
have belonged to the middle, but active forms with -t- arose when deponents developed
secondary factitive active forms (cf. 3.3). The suffixless aorists, finally, have various
origins: there is a group of some 40 verbs with a special vocalism in the aorist, like
dogj ‘(s)he caused to burn’ (present stem djeg < *dheg u̯h-eti, root *dheg u̯h-,
cf. 3.1) or vũ ‘(s)he put’ (present stem vê < *h1u̯en-eti, root *h1u̯en-, cf. Schumacher
and Matzinger 2013: 1006−1007). These aorists belong to PIE primary verbs, and their
vocalism (which cannot be traced back to phonological or morphophonological processes
within Albanian) reflects Indo-European ablaut. On the one hand, there are aorist stems
with lengthened grade of the root (here termed o-aorists), as in dogj (virtually **dhēg u̯h-),
and this formation is best traced back to weak stems of PIE and post-PIE perfects (weak
perfect stems of T1eT2- roots changed from T1eT1T2- to T1ēT2- already in PIE; see now
Schumacher and Matzinger 2013: 161−172). On the other hand, there are aorist stems
with zero grade of the root, as in vũ ← *h1u̯en-/h1u̯n̥-; these are best traced back to the
weak stems of PIE root aorists. PIE root aorists are also frequent among verbs here
classified as irregular (cf. 3.1). Some of these belong to etymologically unitary para-

Authenticated
1768 XV. Albanian
digms, e.g. la ‘(s)he left’ ← *leh1-/l̥ h1- (root *leh1-, LIV² 399; present stem
lê < Proto-Albanian *lane/a- ← *l̥ h1-neu̯/nu-); others belong to suppletive paradigms,
e.g. dha ‘(s)he gave’ ← *deh3-/dh3- (root *deh3-, LIV² 105−106; present stem ep <
*h1op-éi̯ e/o-, LIV² 237). Finally, there are two thematized root aorists, both with an exact
counterpart in Greek: kle ‘(s)he was’ < post-PIE *ku̯l-e/o-, cf. Gk. ἔπλετο, Old Armenian
ełew (root *ku̯elh1-, LIV² 386−388; present stem anshtë ← *h1esti, cf. 3.6); and u ngre
‘rose (from the dead), arose’ [Budi, Matranga] < post-PIE *h1gr-e/o-, cf. Homeric Greek
ἔγρετο (root *h1ger-, LIV² 245−246; present stem ëngrihetë < *h1gr̥-sk̑e/o-). However,
the bulk of the suffixless aorists show no traces of ablaut and belong to non-primary
verbs of various origins. Probably, the first non-primary verbs to develop such aorists
were denominatives with a *-i̯ e/o-suffix. These developed an aorist in Proto-Albanian
by behaving analogically to primary verbs with present-stem suffix *-i̯ e/o- and a root
aorist, and eventually this way of deriving an aorist stem from a present stem must have
spread to all sorts of non-primary verbs (except for those in -o- < *-ah2-i̯ e/o- and *-ah2-).
3.9. The optative
The optative has a stem of its own, but it is easy to see that this stem is mostly linked
to the aorist stem. For instance, v-aorists have an optative stem in -f-, (e.g. 2sg kujtofsh
[Budi]); t-aorists have an optative stem in -të- (e.g. 2sg ëmbajtësh); and the optatives of
suffixless aorists are mostly derived from the aorist stem (e.g. 1sg lasha), the only excep-
tion being the perfect-based o-aorists, where the optative has the same vocalism as the
1sg pres. act. (e.g. 3sg djektë). The optative has no synthetic middle, middle forms being
indicated by the prefixed middle marker u. The optative has the following set of endings:
1sg -sha, 2sg -sh, 3sg -të, 1pl -shim, 2sg -shi, 3sg -shinë. Apart from the 3sg (which is
an analogical form), these endings derive from the optative of the s-aorist (1sg *-sih1-m̥
etc.; see Schumacher and Matzinger 2013: 177−182). However, since in Albanian the
PIE present-stem optative has been lost, the optative is no longer a category marked for
aspect.
3.10. The participle and the perfect system
The participle is the fourth synthetic stem form of the Albanian verb. It is a past partici-
ple but, since there is no present participle, the term “participle” is sufficient. Morpho-
logically, the participle is mostly dependent on the aorist stem except in the case of an
o-aorist. In Old Geg, the participle can be formed by means of several different allomor-
phic suffixes: -në and -unë (< PIE *-nó-), -të (< PIE *-tó-), and -m (< PIE *-mh1no-?).
These suffixes have no clear-cut distribution; their occurrence seems to be governed by
the individual dialects of the Old Geg authors, but occasionally each author uses more
than one suffix with a given verb-base. For instance, pi ‘to drink’ (verb-base pi-) has
the participles pīnë, pītë and pīm in Buzuku. The participle can be used as a deverbal
resultative adjective (active with intransitive verbs, passive with transitive verbs), in
which case it is used as an articulated adjective, e.g. (i) ënvrām ‘killed’ (ënvret ‘kill’).
The substantivized neuter of this adjective serves as a verbal abstract, e.g. të ënvrām ‘act

Authenticated
of killing’. However, much more often the participle serves as a basis for periphrastic
constructions: the non-articulated, invariable form of the participle combines with the
auxiliary verbs ‘have’ and ‘be’, thus forming a perfect. Transitive verbs form their active
perfects with ‘have’ plus participle and their middles with ‘be’ plus participle, whereas
perfects of verba activa tantum mostly vacillate between taking ‘be’ and ‘have’ as their
auxiliaries. Deponents always form their perfects with ‘be’.
The perfect system is an important component of the verbal system in that practically
all tenses and moods (apart from the imperative) enumerated so far have counterparts in
the perfect system. Thus, there is not only a present of the perfect and a pluperfect
(indicative and subjunctive), but also an aorist-pluperfect and an optative; in rare cases,
even a perfect and a pluperfect of the perfect can occur.
In Budi, we also find perfects with a clipped form of the participle, e.g. kā ardh ‘has
come’ beside kā ardhunë. This form of clipping is an innovation; it is not found with
other Old Geg authors but is the rule in Modern Geg. Note that the participle is only
affected by this in finite perfect-system forms and in the non-finite forms mentioned in
3.11. but not if it is used as a verbal adjective or abstract.
A further derivative of the perfect system is the so-called admirative, which has
developed from a univerbated reverse-order perfect. That is, in the admirative the auxilia-
ry (which is always ‘have’) follows the participle, which in turn often loses its final
syllable or parts thereof. Thus, the 2sg perf. act. of ruon ‘guard’ is kē ruojtunë, while
the corresponding admirative form is ruojtëkē. The admirative is also differentiated from
the rest of the perfect system by the fact that the middle is indicated by the prefixed
middle marker u. The exact function and scope of the admirative in Old Albanian still
needs to be defined.
3.11. Non-finite forms
Several non-finite categories are produced by fully grammaticalized combinations of

preposition + participle: the infinitive (me ‘with’ + participle), e.g. me kujtuom ‘to think’;
the so-called gerundive (tue + participle), e.g. tue kujtuom ‘while thinking’; and the
privative, a negative counterpart of the gerundive (pā ‘without’ + participle), e.g. pā
kujtuom ‘without thinking’. The gerundive and the privative are converbs, comparable
to the French gérondif (e.g. en pensant ‘while thinking’). Middle-voice forms use u, e.g.
infinitive me u kujtuom ‘to remember’. Historically, the function of the participle in these
constructions was that of a verbal abstract (cf. Lat. factum ‘a deed’). All three non-finite
forms have perfect-tense counterparts with me/tue/pā + participle of the auxiliary +
participle, e.g. tue pasunë salutuom ‘having greeted’ (saluton ‘greet’). Note that, apart
from petrified phrases, Tosk lost the infinitive before it was committed to writing.
3.12. Periphrastic tenses derived from the non-finite forms in 3.11

Old Geg has a future, consisting of the present of the auxiliary ‘have’ plus infinitive.
This is continued in Modern Geg. Additionally, Old Geg also has corresponding past
tenses best described as conditional moods, and there is even a subjunctive of the future.

Authenticated
1770 XV. Albanian
3.13. Polypersonality in the verbal system
As mentioned in 2.3.2, Albanian has a polypersonal verb which optionally encodes direct
and indirect objects. The object markers used for this go back to enclitic pronouns but
are best described as a part of the verbal morphology.
4. References
1987 Albanische Grammatik. Leipzig: VEB Enzyklopädie.
Demiraj, Bardhyl
1997 Sistemi i numerimit të gjuhës shqipe [The Albanian system of numerals]. Tirana: Akade-
mia e Shkencave.
Demiraj, Shaban
1986 Gramatikë historike e gjuhës shqipe [Historical grammar of Albanian]. Tirana: “8 Nën-
tori”.
Fiedler, Wilfried
2004 Das albanische Verbalsystem in der Sprache des Gjon Buzuku (1555). Prishtina:
ASHAK.
Fiedler, Wilfried
2007 Die Pluralbildung im Albanischen. Prishtina: ASHAK.
Friedman, Victor A.
2006 Balkans as a linguistic area. In: Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language & linguis-
tics. 2nd edn. Vol. 1. Oxford: Elsevier, 657−672.
Fritz, Matthias
2011 Der Dual im Indogermanischen. Genealogischer und typologischer Vergleich einer
grammatischen Kategorie im Wandel. Heidelberg: Winter.
Genesin, Monica
1994−1995 Il sintagma preposizionale n̥ + ablativo nel “Mëshari” del più antico scrittore
albanese: Gjon Buzuku. Con particolare riguardo alle espressioni locali nelle lingue
balcaniche. Balkan Archiv. Neue Folge 19/20: 351−377.
Hamp, Eric P.
1980 Albanian është. American Indian and Indoeuropean Studies. In: Kathryn Klar, Margaret
Langdon, and Shirley Silver (eds.), Papers in Honor of Madison S. Beeler. The Hague:
Mouton, 337−346.
Hamp, Eric P.
1992 Albanian. In: Jadranka Gvozdanović (ed.), Indo-European numerals. Berlin: De Gruyter,
835−922.
1994 Das Albanische als Glied der indogermanischen Sprachfamilie. In: Jens E. Rasmussen
and Benedicte Nielsen (eds.), In honorem Holger Pedersen. Kolloquium der Indoger-
manischen Gesellschaft vom 26. bis 28. März in Kopenhagen. Wiesbaden: Reichert,
221−233.
unpublished The Albanian numerals. 116 pp.
LIV²
2001 Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen.
Zweite, erweiterte und verbesserte Auflage bearbeitet von Martin Kümmel und Helmut
Rix. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

Authenticated
97. The syntax of Albanian 1771
Matzinger, Joachim
1998 Albanisch unë ‘ich’ im System der albanischen Personalpronomina. Indogermanische
Forschungen 103: 185−201.
Matzinger, Joachim
2006 Der altalbanische Text [E] Mbsuame e Krështerë (Dottrina cristiana) des Lekë Matrën-
ga von 1592. Eine Einführung in die albanische Sprachwissenschaft. Dettelbach: Röll.
Matzinger, Joachim
2007 Altalbanisch <ȣieh> /ujë/ „Wasser“ und die Kategorie der Massennomina bei Buzuku.
In: Bardhyl Demiraj (ed.), Nach 450 Jahren. Buzukus »Missale« und seine Rezeption in
unserer Zeit. 2. Deutsch-Albanische kulturwissenschaftliche Tagung in München vom
14. bis 15. Oktober 2005. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 169−190.
Newmark, Leonard, Philip Hubbard, and Peter Prifti
1982 Standard Albanian. A reference grammar for students. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen
1991 Arvanitika. Die albanischen Sprachreste in Griechenland, Teil 1. Wiesbaden: Harrasso-
witz.
Schumacher, Stefan
2004 Die keltischen Primärverben. Ein vergleichendes etymologisches und morphologisches
Lexikon. Unter Mitarbeit von Britta Schulze-Thulin und Caroline aan de Wiel. Inns-
bruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität.
Schumacher, Stefan and Joachim Matzinger
2013 Die Verben des Altalbanischen. Belegwörterbuch, Vorgeschichte und Etymologie. Unter
Mitarbeit von Anna-Maria Adaktylos. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Topalli, Kolec
2011 Gramatikë historike e gjuhës shqipe [Historical grammar of Albanian]. Tirana: Albano-
logjike.
Joachim Matzinger, Vienna (Austria)

Stefan Schumacher, Potzneusiedl (Austria)
97. The syntax of Albanian

2. Nominal morphosyntax and 5. Sentential syntax
adpositional phrases 6. References
3. Verbal syntax
1. Introduction
Albanian is the stepchild of Indo-European linguistics, being perhaps the least investigat-
ed and least understood of the separate major branches of Indo-European. Moreover,
within Indo-European historical investigations, syntax is perhaps the least explored com-
ponent of grammar, and less is known about the syntax of Proto-Indo-European (PIE)
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-018

Authenticated
Matzinger, Joachim
1998 Albanisch unë ‘ich’ im System der albanischen Personalpronomina. Indogermanische
Matzinger, Joachim
2006 Der altalbanische Text [E] Mbsuame e Krështerë (Dottrina cristiana) des Lekë Matrën-
ga von 1592. Eine Einführung in die albanische Sprachwissenschaft. Dettelbach: Röll.
Matzinger, Joachim
2007 Altalbanisch <ȣieh> /ujë/ „Wasser“ und die Kategorie der Massennomina bei Buzuku.
In: Bardhyl Demiraj (ed.), Nach 450 Jahren. Buzukus »Missale« und seine Rezeption in
unserer Zeit. 2. Deutsch-Albanische kulturwissenschaftliche Tagung in München vom
14. bis 15. Oktober 2005. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 169−190.
Press.
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen
1991 Arvanitika. Die albanischen Sprachreste in Griechenland, Teil 1. Wiesbaden: Harrasso-
witz.
Schumacher, Stefan
2004 Die keltischen Primärverben. Ein vergleichendes etymologisches und morphologisches
2013 Die Verben des Altalbanischen. Belegwörterbuch, Vorgeschichte und Etymologie. Unter
Mitarbeit von Anna-Maria Adaktylos. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Topalli, Kolec
2011 Gramatikë historike e gjuhës shqipe [Historical grammar of Albanian]. Tirana: Albano-
logjike.

Stefan Schumacher, Potzneusiedl (Austria)
97. The syntax of Albanian

2. Nominal morphosyntax and 5. Sentential syntax
adpositional phrases 6. References
3. Verbal syntax
1. Introduction
Albanian is the stepchild of Indo-European linguistics, being perhaps the least investigat-
ed and least understood of the separate major branches of Indo-European. Moreover,
within Indo-European historical investigations, syntax is perhaps the least explored com-
ponent of grammar, and less is known about the syntax of Proto-Indo-European (PIE)
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-018

Authenticated
1772 XV. Albanian
than about its phonology or morphology. Putting these two facts together means that
obtaining a clear picture of Albanian historical syntax and the emergence of Albanian
syntactic structures out of PIE is especially challenging.
This task is complicated by another factor, one that, at the same time, offers some
important opportunities for insights into the extent and mechanisms of contact-induced
language change. This factor is Albanian’s involvement in the Balkan Sprachbund. That
is, due to intense and sustained bi- and multi-lingual contact among speakers of various
languages in the Balkans − most notably Aromanian, Bulgarian, Daco-Romanian, Greek,
Macedonian, Romany, to a lesser extent Turkish, and of course Albanian (both major
dialects, Geg and Tosk) − these languages have converged on common structures and
common characteristics at all linguistic levels: phonology, morphology, lexicon, seman-
tics, and syntax. Moreover, the syntactic parallels extend to nominal, verbal, and senten-
tial syntax. Therefore, careful analysis is needed to differentiate those features of Albani-
an syntax inherited from PIE from those acquired by contact with neighboring languages;
it is therefore always crucial to take the Balkan Sprachbund, and thus the possibility of
contact-induced characteristics, into account whenever any discussion of Albanian is
undertaken, especially when historical concerns are paramount.
In many ways, Albanian syntax is unremarkable from an Indo-European perspective,
since among the key areas to consider, such as nominal case usage, subject-verb agree-
ment, noun-adjective agreement, behavior of weak pronouns (“clitics”), presence of pre-
verbs, occurrence of prepositions, the use of middle voice verb forms for reflexives and
passives, impersonal verb forms, and the like, many represent, for the most part, familiar
syntactic properties found in other branches of the family. Moreover, some aspects of
Albanian syntax look rather like those found in “standard average European” languages,
for instance several of the periphrastic tenses, and in that way they do not seem particu-
larly “exotic” or unusual even if not dating to PIE.
Still, there are interesting and important characteristics to note about Albanian syntax,
both synchronically and diachronically, with a mix of inherited elements from PIE usage
and innovative constructions and uses involving both internally motivated and externally
caused change. In what follows, various properties of Albanian nominal, verbal, and
sentential syntax are surveyed, and what is interesting both from a general and from an
Indo-European perspective is highlighted.
2. Nominal morphosyntax and adpositional phrases

Within the sphere of the syntax and internal structure of the Albanian noun phrase,
especially noteworthy are the various “little words” or “particles” that occur with nomi-
nal forms and within the noun phrase. They are mostly found with various modifying
elements, whether other nouns in possessive structures, markers of definiteness and spec-
ificity, or adjectives.
2.1. Modifiers within nominal phrases

To start with modifiers, they typically follow the noun, and with genitive case forms
indicating a possessor of the head noun, there is an obligatory connective element linking

Authenticated
them to the noun they follow. This linking element is referred to variously as a “connec-
tive particle”, “adjectival article”, “nyje particle” (from the Albanian for “knot”), among
other labels. The nyje element has either the form i, e, të, or së, depending on the case,
gender, number, and definiteness of the modified noun (though të versus së is based on
the final sound of the noun form, with së occurring after the noun ending -s[ë]). Some
examples are given in (1):
(1) a. libr-i i Çimit

book-the/NOM NYJE Çimi/GEN
‘Çimi’s book / the book of Çimi’s’
b. mora libr-in e Çimit
took/1SG book-the/ACC NYJE Çimi/GEN
‘I took Çimi’s book / the book of Çimi’s’
c. mora një libër të Çimit
took/1SG a book/ACC NYJE Çimi/GEN
‘I took a book of Çimi’s’
With adjectives, the connective element may or may not occur, with its presence or
absence being a matter of morphological and lexical idiosyncrasy, depending on the
derivation of the adjective: most basic adjectives are “articulated” (i.e., require the nyje)
and certain suffixes always yield articulated adjectives while others (especially but not
exclusively, those of foreign origin) always yield unarticulated ones. Some examples of
each type are given in (2) and (3) respectively:
(2) a. libr-i i madh

book-the/NOM NYJE big
‘the big book’
b. mora libr-in e madh
took/1SG book-the/ACC NYJE big
‘I took the big book’
c. mora librat të mëdhenj
took/1SG books/ACC NYJE big/MASC.PL
‘I took the big books’
(3) a. libr-i edukativ
book-the/NOM educational
‘the educational book’
b. kam një mik djaloshar
have/1SG a friend/ACC youthful
‘I have a youthful friend’.
The occurrence of the connective with basic adjectives and its general absence with
forms of foreign origin suggest that this is an old trait within Albanian, but it is not one
that predates Common Albanian.

Authenticated
1774 XV. Albanian
Diachronically, the nyje forms continue old demonstrative elements (the t/s alternation
from a formal standpoint, though not a distributional one, reflecting in some way the
t/s alternation found for instance in Sanskrit sa ‘this/MASC’ vs. tad ‘this/NTR’, though
other demonstrative elements might be involved), so that the original syntagm may have
involved multiple markings for deixis and definiteness, reinterpreted as a linking
element.
2.2. Definiteness within the nominal phrase
Definiteness is signaled by means of a postpositive marker, e.g. katund ‘village (NOM)’ /

katund-i ‘the village (NOM)’, vajzë ‘girl (ACC)’ / vajzë-n ‘the girl (ACC)’. The definite-
ness marker, usually called an article, is actually postpositive (enclitic) within the noun
phrase as a whole, attaching to the noun itself when the modifier has its usual position
after the noun, e.g. vajzë-n të shkretë ‘the miserable girl (ACC)’, but attaching to the
adjective when it precedes the noun, for emphasis or contrast, e.g. të shkretë-n vajzë ‘the
miserable girl (ACC)’.
The postpositive article, like the connective, has its origins in PIE demonstrative
elements (the -n of the accusative singular, for instance, probably reflects the outcome
of the PIE accusative *-m with a postposed demonstrative, that is *-m=tom > =n=tom
> -nnV > -n[ë]). It is a feature shared with other Balkan languages, in particular Macedo-
nian, Bulgarian, Aromanian, and Daco-Romanian, though each language uses its own
native material. Although it is likely to have diffused into these languages through con-
tact, in this case, the postpositive placement may be a substratum feature of an autochtho-
nous Balkan language predating Albanian (so Hamp 1982: 79, based on an analysis of
the place name Drobeta as “a Latin misunderstanding or misparsing in Moesia Inferior
of *druṷā−tā, a definite noun phrase with postposed article”).
2.3. Nominal cases
As the examples above with a variety of nominal cases show, thematic and grammatical
relations are indicated by case-forms of nouns. Besides the nominative, accusative, geni-
tive, and dative exemplified above, there is also an ablative case, e.g. zogj pulash ‘birds
from-hens (i.e. chicks)’. The ablative is distinct from the dative only in the indefinite
plural forms, and it is used somewhat infrequently now, being increasingly replaced in
many of its functions by various prepositional phrases or by the dative case.
In Old Albanian (e.g. in the 1555 Buzuku text) and dialectally in contemporary Alba-
nian, there is also a form that is sometimes referred to as a locative case (so Newmark,
Hubbard, and Prifti 1982), e.g. malt from mal ‘mountain’ with the preposition në ‘in,
on’, thus në malt ‘in/on the-mountain’ (where accusative malin is found with në in other
dialects and in the standard language now). This case is referred to as “instrumental” in
Matzinger and Schumacher (this handbook, 2.1.).

Authenticated
2.4. Prepositions
In addition, Albanian has prepositions that govern nominals in different case forms and
signal various adjunct and oblique grammatical relations within the clause. From an
Indo-European standpoint, these are not all that remarkable, as all modern Indo-European
languages have adpositions of some sort, even though older stages of some of them
show adverbial elements (especially Vedic Sanskrit and Homeric Greek) that do not
govern object nominals per se, suggesting that PIE may not have had any adpositions.
If so, then the occurrence of prepositions in Albanian is an innovation away from PIE
syntax but it is one that all the Indo-European languages took part in, a “drift”-like
phenomenon.
Two Albanian prepositions, nga ‘from, by’ and tek ‘at/to the location of’, show the
trait − unusual both from an Indo-European perspective and more generally cross-lin-
guistically − of governing nouns in the nominative case. In the case of tek, this trait is
explainable via its etymology, since this preposition apparently compresses within it
traces of PIE correlative syntax, being originally ‘there where NOMINATIVE is’ (so
Mann 1932: 72; see also Hamp apud Joseph and Maynard 2000), with the t- of tek
reflecting the PIE *to- demonstrative and the -k the relative stem *kw- (and with suppres-
sion of the copula, as is usual for PIE). The etymology of nga is more obscure, but one
might expect a similar sort of explanation for its nominative “object”.
3. Verbal syntax
Several features of the Albanian verb qualify as noteworthy from the point of view of
historical syntax, including the internal syntax of how certain verbal constructs are com-
posed. Thus mention is made here of the way in which PIE preverbs are realized in
Albanian, the formation of various multi-word periphrastic tenses, and the uses of the
non-active (mediopassive) voice. Note too that the discussion of weak object pronouns
below in 4.2. treats an aspect of Albanian verbal syntax in that the co-occurrence of
such pronouns with full objects can be taken as a means of expressing transitivity and
thus registering a verb’s argument structure.
3.1. Preverbs
Like all other Indo-European subgroups, Albanian shows the accretion onto a verbal
root of prefixal elements generally referred to as “preverbs” that once (in PIE) were
independent adverbial modifiers within the clause or verb phrase, as in dialectal des
‘die’ versus standard vdes ‘die’. In this regard, therefore, Albanian participated in the
same “drift” as other Indo-European languages involving these original adverbials (see
2.4. on prepositions for another aspect of drift involving these elements). Many of these
have traceable Indo-European pedigrees (e.g., regarding the form of v-, compare the
Sanskrit preverb ava, and for the function of v-, compare Ancient Greek θνήσκω / ἀπο-
θνήσκω ‘die).

Authenticated
1776 XV. Albanian
For the most part, just one preverb occurs on a verb at a time, so that in this way
Albanian is unlike Indo-Iranian, Greek, Celtic, and Balto-Slavic. However, there are a
few forms with multiple preverbs, at least from a diachronic perspective, since it is
unclear that they could be so identified synchronically due to the degree of fusion be-
tween preverbs and verbal root. For instance, the stem hëngër-, which forms the supple-
tive past tense to the present ha- ‘eat’, derives from a sequence of multiple preverbs
attached to a root: *Ho-en-gwrō-, where *Ho corresponds to the initial element in Greek
ὀ-κέλλω ‘I run (a ship) aground’ and *en to Greek ἐν- as in ἐν-τρέπω ‘I turn in, and
*gwrō- is the verbal root seen in Greek βι-βρώ-σκω ‘I eat’, Latin vorō ‘I devour’, etc.
A similar phenomenon is seen with some preverbs and the PIE verbal past tense prefixal
marker, the so-called “augment”, otherwise not overtly observable in Albanian. In partic-
ular, the verb marr ‘take’ is from a preverb *me plus the root and nasal-present formation
seen in Greek ἄρνυμαι ‘I gain’, with the -rr- reflecting *-rn-; to explain the vocalism in
the past stem, mor-, one can posit *me with the augment *e, and just the root (with no
nasal outside of the present system), with a fused (contracted) *mē yielding Albanian
mo-. The “interior” positioning of the augment parallels its placement with respect to
preverbs in Greek and Sanskrit and thus may reflect an old feature, even if the univerba-
tion took place at the level of the individual branches of Indo-European.
3.2. Periphrastic formations
Two-word syntactic combinations that fill paradigmatic slots, so-called “periphrastic”

formations, are a key feature of Albanian morphosyntax. The future tense, the perfect
system forms, and the modal category known as the “admirative” − indicating (among
other modalities) a speaker’s surprise at some unexpected aspect of an event or situa-
tion − all now involve, or historically did involve, periphrasis, as does the expression of
progressive aspect. In addition, various nonfinite formations are multiword periphrases
based on the Albanian participle.
3.2.1. Future tense
There is a major dialectological split within Albanian between a periphrastic future based
on ‘have’, found in Geg dialects, and one based on ‘want’, found in Tosk dialects (though
the dialect distribution is somewhat more complicated). The Geg future uses an infinitive
(marked by a prefixal element me) introduced by an inflected ‘have’ auxiliary, whereas
the Tosk future uses a finite subjunctive, introduced by a fixed invariant form do, the
third person singular form of ‘want’ (but with its volitional meaning depleted):
(4) a. (Tosk)
do të shkoj / do të shkosh
want/3SG SUBJ go/1SG go/2SG
‘I will go’ / ‘you will go’

Authenticated
b. (Geg)
kam me shkue / ke me shkue
have/1SG INF go/PPL have/2SG
‘I will go’ / ‘you will go’
Both formations represent innovations away from the PIE monolectal (synthetic) future,
and both must be considered in the context of the Balkan Sprachbund. The ‘want’-based
future, especially with an invariant future marker involved, is found in Greek, Aromani-
an, Daco-Romanian, Macedonian, Bulgarian, and Romani, whereas a ‘have’-based future
is found in Macedonian and Bulgarian (where the distribution is grammatically deter-
mined, with ‘have’ found mainly in negative forms, and ‘want’ elsewhere) as well as in
Daco-Romanian (competing with the ‘want’ future, with some nuanced meaning differ-
ences) and some dialects of Aromanian (in negated forms, probably calqued on Macedo-
nian). The exact source of the Albanian futures may well thus lie in contact with one
(or more) of those languages, though Vulgar Latin, an important contact language for
prehistoric Albanian in the Balkans, may have played a role (note the ‘have’ futures of
modern Romance languages, for instance, and there are future-like uses of volō ‘I want’
in late Latin). Moreover, given the existence of parallels outside of Indo-European to
both types of future formation, independent emergence of each within Albanian cannot
be discounted. But the periphrastic composition of each type historically is clear.
3.2.2. Perfect system
Replacing the synthetic perfect of PIE, Albanian developed a periphrastic perfect, with
the verb ‘have’ as an auxiliary for active forms and ‘be’ as an auxiliary for non-active
forms; in each case, the main verb is expressed as a participle. Examples are given in (5):
(5) a. kam larë / kemi larë

have/1SG wash/PPL have/1PL
‘I have washed’ / ‘we have washed’
b. jam larë / jemi larë
be/1SG wash/PPL be/1PL
‘I have been washed’ / ‘we have been washed’
A full set of forms is possible, covering all verbal categories of tense and mood; for
instance, a pluperfect active and perfect subjunctive active are given in (6a), and an
optative perfect non-active in (6b):
(6) a. kishim larë ‘we had washed’

të kemi larë ‘that we have washed’
b. qofsha larë
be/OPT.1SG wash/PPL
‘may I have been washed’

Authenticated
1778 XV. Albanian
The innovation of an analytic periphrastic perfect is found in the later stages of several
branches of Indo-European (compare English and German, for instance, and Romance),
so in that sense, here again, Albanian is taking part in a development that may be
associated with another characteristic Indo-European drift, in this case towards analytic
structures. At the same time, periphrastic perfects with ‘have’ are found in most of the
languages of the Balkan Sprachbund (in Macedonian, for instance, such a formation has
developed and has come to occupy a different niche in the verbal system from that of
the inherited Slavic ‘be’-based perfect), with the pluperfect being a key point of conver-
gence among the languages (it was the point of entry for the whole ‘have’-based perfect
of Modern Greek, for instance).
3.2.3. Admirative
Although the use of the admirative is connected with pragmatics and discourse factors,
its form clearly reflects an origin in a syntactic combination akin to a perfect formation,
consisting of a truncated participle with a postposed inflected form of ‘have’ fused to
the participle. There are admirative forms in all tenses and moods, active and non-active;
(7) has a sampling (see 3.3. on the non-active formation in [7c]) with glosses that are
inadequate as they are not in a suitable discourse context:
(7) a. paskam ‘I might have’ (cf. participle pasur ‘had’)

qenke ‘are you really?’ (cf. participle qenë ‘been’)
b. paskam larë ‘I might have washed’ (PERF.ADM)
c. u lakam ‘I might wash myself, I might be washed’ (cf. participle larë)
Although built with native Albanian material, the admirative is clearly an innovation,
constituting a category that could not have been a part of the PIE verbal system (inas-
much as it is absent from every ancient Indo-European language). It shows affinities
with similar categories in Macedonian and Bulgarian that were built on their perfect
formations; in the emergence of this category, all of these languages may have been
influenced by Turkish, a language with an inherited category marking a speaker’s episte-
mic stance towards a narrated event.
3.2.4. Nonfinite formations
Albanian inherited a participle, generally ending in -r in Tosk, reflecting a PIE *-no-

suffix, that, like analogously formed participles in Sanskrit (and cf. Hittite *-nt-
participles), generally has a passive value when formed from transitives and an active
value when formed from intransitives, e.g. shkruar ‘(having been) written’, shëtitur
‘(having) strolled’. From this participle, a variety of periphrastic nonfinite formations
are made, all innovative, vis-à-vis PIE, in form and to a large extent in function;
following the terminology of Newmark, Hubbard, and Prifti (1982: 64−65), these are
given in (8):

Authenticated
(8) a. Privative: pa larë ‘without washing’

b. Gerundive: duke larë ‘while washing’
c. Infinitive: për të larë ‘(in order) to wash’
d. Absolutive: me të larë ‘upon washing’
Note too that Geg has an infinitive formed with me and a shortened form of the partici-
ple, e.g. me punue ‘to work’, as opposed to the widespread Tosk për të punuar. Still,
there are traces of a Geg-like infinitive with me in some dialects of Tosk.
The composition of these formations is fairly clear and suggests a relatively recent
development; most of the relevant formative elements occur otherwise as prepositions
with nominal objects (see 2.4.) − cf. pa ‘without’, për ‘for’, me ‘with’. It is likely
moreover that the të of the Tosk infinitive is a nominalizing element (perhaps to be
identified with the nyje particle) that combines with participles; cf. të dhënat ‘data’, from
the participle of ‘give’ (see also 4.3.). In that regard, inasmuch as infinitives in other
Indo-European languages typically are formed from deverbal nouns, and the *-no- suffix
of the participle that figures in the Albanian infinitival formation also occurs in the
Germanic infinitive (cf. Gothic bairan ‘to bear’, from *bheronom) and forms a deverbal
derivative in Sanskrit (Ved. bháraṇam ‘[an act of] bearing’), the Albanian infinitive may
be a replacement for a PIE infinitival prototype rather than a wholly innovated category
and formation. Further, if the occasional me formations in some Tosk dialects are taken
seriously as relics, and not as borrowings from Geg, that proto-Albanian infinitive may
well have been of the Geg type.
3.2.5. Progressive aspect
One further periphrasis with grammatical value is seen in the two ways in which the
indication of progressive aspect in the present and past can be realized. The marker po
can occur with present and imperfect tense forms, as in (9ab).
(9) a. Ç’ po bën tani?

what PO do/2SG now
‘What are you doing now?’
b. Po të vështroja
PO you/ACC watch/1SG.IMPF
‘I was watching you’
c. Jam duke të vështruar
be/1SG PROG you/ACC watch/PPL
‘I am watching you’
The second type seen (9c), being built on a relatively new nonfinite formation, most
likely itself represents a recent development, but the type with po is surely an old feature
of Albanian, as it is found in both major dialects, even if innovative from the standpoint
of PIE. Newmark, Hubbard, and Prifti (1982: 36) identify this verbal po with the “em-
phatic particle” po meaning ‘yes, indeed, exactly so!’, though perhaps in a different way;

Authenticated
1780 XV. Albanian
Hamp (apud Joseph 2011) has derived po from *pēst, a combination of an asseverative
particle *pe (cf. Latin quip-pe why so?; of course’ [from *kwid-pe]) with a 3sg injunctive
form of *H1es- ‘be’, so that po is etymologically ‘[it is] just [now] so’, and this “just-
now” meaning is the basis for the emergence of a temporal progressive sense for po.
Interestingly, this usage has no counterpart in any of the other Balkan languages.
3.3. Non-active voice
Albanian has a categorial distinction between active and non-active voice, where the
non-active corresponds to what is also called “middle” or “mediopassive”. There is a
distinct set of endings added to a special stem in the present non-active system (taking
in the present, imperfect, and future tenses and the subjunctive mood), and in other
forms (taking in the past tense, the optative, admirative, and imperative moods, and
nonfinite forms) the non-active is formed from the combination of active forms with a
voice marker u, that is generally a prefix (but postposed in the imperative). Returning
to the theme of 3.2.3., there is a periphrastic non-active in the perfect, consisting of ‘be’
plus the participle. Some examples of all of these formations are given in (10):
(10) laj ‘I wash’ / lahem ‘I am washed, I wash myself’

lava ‘I washed’ / u lava ‘I was washed, I washed myself’
lafsha ‘may I wash’ / u lafsha ‘may I be washed, may I wash myself’
për të larë ‘(in order) to wash’ / për t’u larë ‘(in order) to be washed; to wash
myself’
kam larë ‘I have washed’ / jam larë ‘I have been washed, I have washed myself’
As the glosses in (10) indicate, the uses of non-active forms include passive and reflexive
meanings; in plurals, a reciprocal sense is possible too, e.g. lahemi ‘we wash each other’.
Some verbs are deponent, occurring only in the non-active, even if their meaning is
active, e.g. kollem ‘I cough’. In addition, there is an impersonal use of the third person
non-active forms, most often negated, to indicate a generalized activity, even with intran-
sitives, e.g. s’shkohet ‘there’s no going’ (cf. shkon ‘it goes’).
These uses are familiar and widespread across Indo-European (cf. the Greek and
Sanskrit middle voice), and thus they surely continue PIE uses of non-active. From the
standpoint of form, it is noteworthy that Albanian is one of the two modern Indo-Euro-
pean languages, along with Greek, that has an inherited distinct monolectal (synthetic)
verbal form for the non-active. For Albanian, though, the synthetic form is restricted to
the present system and related forms; in the aorist (and other categories, especially the
nonfinite forms) one encounters the analytic formation, as in (10), employing the particle
u, which derives (in a somewhat complicated way) from the PIE reflexive element *swe.
4. Word order
The order of elements in the Albanian clause is typically subject − verb − object, when
full nominals are involved as subject and object. Still, case-marking and the use of weak

Authenticated
object pronouns to register arguments on the verb (see 5.2.) allow for greater freedom
of order for the major constituents of a clause, in some instances associated with prag-
matic factors such as topicality. Moreover, it is quite common in discourse for full nomi-
nals to be replaced by pro-forms, in particular weak object pronouns for direct and
indirect objects, and “zero” (the absence of an overt form altogether) for the subject.
The freedom of constituent order in Albanian parallels what is found in other Indo-
European languages with similar morphological cues for identifying arguments.
5. Sentential syntax
In the area of clausal syntax, there are three main phenomena to consider: negation,
weak object pronoun (“clitic”) behavior, and complementation.
5.1. Negation
Albanian has a distinction between what may be called “modal” and “nonmodal” nega-
tion, roughly equivalent to nonindicative versus indicative negation. Thus, as in (11), the
present, imperfect, aorist, perfect, and future tenses are negated with s’ or nuk, whereas
imperative, subjunctive, and optative forms (as well as nonfinite formations), as in (12),
are negated with mos:
(11) a. Unë nuk e njoh ‘I do not know him’ (PRES)

b. S’ke para ‘You do not have money’ (PRES)
c. Nuk do të vijë atje ‘He won’t come here’ (FUT)
d. Nuk lexonte ‘He was not reading’ (IMPF)
e. S’lexuam një libër ‘We did not read a book’ (AOR)
f. S’e kanë parë ‘They haven’t seen him’ (PERF)
(12) a. Përpiqet të mos qeshë ‘He tries not to laugh’ (SUBJ)
b. Mos shko në Tiranë ‘Don’t go to Tirana’ (IMPV)
c. Mos vdeksh kurrë ‘May you never die’ (OPT)
d. Erdha ne Tiranë për të mos u mërzitur ‘I came to Tirana (in order) not to be
bored’ (NONFINITE)
This differential usage of nuk/s’ and mos continues an old distinction, one that is inherit-
ed from Proto-Indo-European. Greek, Armenian, and Indo-Iranian show essentially this
same distinction: Ancient Greek − οὐ versus μή (Modern Greek đen [from Ancient
Greek οὐδέν, built with the οὐ negator] versus mi); Armenian − očʿ versus mi; Sanskrit/
Avestan − na versus mā. μή/mi/mā negate modal forms and οὐ/očʿ/na negate indicatives.
They reflect a PIE distinction of indicative *ne versus modal *mē (Greek οὐ and Armeni-
an očʿ indirectly so, being from a truncation of *ne H2oyu kwid ‘not ever at-all’ [Cowgill
1960], to which Albanian as- ‘no-’ [as in ‘no one’ or ‘nothing’ or ‘nowhere’] may
belong, just as s’ represents a trunction of *né kwid, with the same extension as in mos,
from *mḗ kwid).

Authenticated
1782 XV. Albanian
At the same time, mos shows some innovative uses that in part go beyond negation,
and, interestingly, are shared by Greek and in some instances other Balkan languages.
One such use is in dubitative questions, as in (13):
(13) mos e njihni atë?

mos him know/2PL him/ACC
‘Do you perhaps know him?’
which is matched functionally by such questions with μή in Ancient Greek, and, as in

(14), mi in Modern Greek, but is found in no other Indo-European languages:
(14) Min iđes to peđi?

mi saw/2SG the child
‘Did you perhaps see the child?’
Thus, this may well be an early Greek innovation that was borrowed (calqued) into
Albanian, but still represents a new usage that entered Albanian post-PIE.
Another such innovation with mos is an independent use as a one-word prohibitive
utterance (15a), also found in Modern Greek (15b) and Romani (15c), but interestingly,
not in Ancient Greek nor in any other Indo-European language:
(15) a. Mos! ‘Don’t’

b. Mi! ‘Don’t!’
c. Ma be, Ismet! ‘Hey you, Ismet, don’t [ma]!’
Given the absence of this usage from Ancient Greek, it quite possibly reflects an Albani-
an innovation that spread into Modern Greek (and Romani).
Both the question use and the independent prohibition use of mos may reflect exten-
sions within Albanian of simple prohibitive *mḗ, inasmuch as the usage in (15) is clearly
related to the expression of verbal prohibitions (possibly, therefore, through elision of a
now-only-implicit verb), and the uses in (13)/(14) are associated with weak negation of
a modal type. However, given the chronological and geographical distribution of clear
parallels in Indo-European outside of Albanian, they seem to represent innovations af-
fecting Albanian that took place on Balkan soil, whether emanating from Albanian itself
or finding their way into Albanian from some other Balkan language.
5.2. Clitics
Another important aspect of Albanian clausal syntax is the occurrence of weak (so-called
“clitic”) forms of personal pronouns, e.g. accusative/dative më ‘me’ (versus “strong”
mua), accusative/dative e ‘him, her’ (versus strong atë), or dative u ‘to them’ (versus
strong atyre). The presence of such forms in the grammar of Albanian is surely a reflex
of a PIE strong/weak distinction, given that similar alternations are found in Greek,
Hittite, Indo-Iranian (especially Vedic and Avestan), Old Church Slavonic, and Old Irish,
among other languages, and to some extent, the forms of the weak pronouns match up

Authenticated
well (m- in first person singular, t- in second person singular, n- in first person plural,
etc.).
The positioning of the weak pronouns, however, is probably not old but shows affinity
with the innovative positioning of parallel elements in Greek (innovative vis-à-vis An-
cient and Medieval Greek, cf. Pappas 2003) and Macedonian (innovative vis-à-vis South
Slavic, as a comparison with Old Church Slavonic and Bulgarian shows) and is thus
probably tied in some way to contact among these languages. In Albanian, the weak
pronouns precede all verb forms, though with imperatives they may show postpositive
placement:
(16) a. Unë nuk e njoh

I/NOM NEG him know
‘I do not know him’
b. Më njihni mirë
me/ACC know/2PL well
‘You know me well’
c. Mund të ju ndihmojmë
can SUBJ you help/1PL
‘We can help you’
d. Pa e pare ikën
without him see/PPL left/3PL
‘Without seeing him, they left’
e. C’ ju paska ngjarë
what you have/ADM.3SG happen/PPL
‘What on earth happened to you?’
f. Na shkruaj! Shkruaj na!
us/DAT write/IMPV
‘Write to us!’
Assuming some sort of “Wackernagel” placement of weak pronouns for PIE, that is, in
second position within their governing unit (phrase or clause), as proposed by Wackerna-
gel (1892), the Albanian placement shows two innovations: it is verb-centered (always
adjacent to the verb), rather than positioned relative to some element in the clause or
phrase, and it involves (nearly) constant pre-positioning (proclisis) of the weak form.
The postpositive (enclitic) placement in the imperative could, however, reflect an inherit-
ed trait, since imperatives typically would be initial within their clause (as the lone verb
with the subject suppressed), and thus an enclitic element would actually be in second
position.
One striking fact about the placement of weak pronouns is their positioning in the
imperative plural, where the pronoun can be interior to the person/number marker, thus
an apparent “endoclitic” (a word-internally positioned clitic):
(17) Shkruamëni ‘Write to me!’ (vs. Më shkruani ‘idem’).

Authenticated
1784 XV. Albanian
Admittedly, this placement may say more about the nature of the 2PL ending -ni than
about the pronoun, since -ni shows other signs of having a “freer” status than that of
other person/number endings. In particular, it can occur as a “plural” marker with a
number of interjections, adverbials, particles, and even greetings, forms that would not
ordinarily be thought of as being compatible with a verbal plural ending; a few such
cases are given in (18), from Newmark, Hubbard, and Prifti (1982: 324):
(18) a. Mosni ‘Don’t (you all)!’ (cf. Mos! ‘Don’t’ [15a] )

b. Forcani ‘Heave ho (you all)!’ (cf. forca ‘heave ho!’ [from forca ‘powers’])
c. Mirëmëngjesni ‘Good morning (you all)!’ (cf. Mirëmëngjes ‘good morning’)
These suggest that -ni may have once had greater freedom than an ending like -(j)më
for first person plural, and if so, then diachronically shkrua-më-ni might reflect a later
accretion of a once-independent “ending” onto an imperative form with a postpositive
weak pronoun object.
Interestingly, there is a parallel in Modern Greek to this seemingly unusual pronoun
placement in imperatives; in Thessalian Greek (see Tzartzanos 1909), one finds interca-
lated -m- for a first person singular object between the root and the second plural impera-
tive ending, with a few verbs, e.g. do-m-ti ‘(You all) give me!’ (literally: “give-me-PL!”).
The shkrua-më-ni placement, therefore, may represent a contact-induced innovation in
Albanian, though it is as likely that Greek borrowed this construction from Albanian
(specifically, from Arvanitika, the Tosk Albanian dialect spoken in Greece for the past
600 years or so, with a heavy concentration of speakers in central Greece), and indepen-
dent innovation cannot be ruled out.
A further innovative aspect of Albanian syntax involving weak pronouns is that they
can co-occur with full object forms, either strong forms of pronouns or full noun phrases,
as in (19):
(19) a. E pashë Gjonin ‘I saw John’ (literally: “him I-saw the-John”)

b. Të pamë ty ‘We saw you’ (literally: “you we-saw you”)
c. I dha Gjonit një libër ‘He gave John a book’ (literally: “to-him he-gave to-
the-John a book”)
This “clitic doubling” (also called “object reduplication”) has a largely pragmatic func-
tion, having to do with information flow, topicality, focus, and the like (see Friedman
2008). However, in certain contexts, it has a purely grammatical (i.e. syntactic) function,
occurring obligatorily when co-indexing a dative case-marked indirect object, so that
(19c) without the cross-indexing I doubling the object, is ungrammatical (*Dha Gjonit
një libër).
Clitic doubling occurs throughout the Balkan languages. In Greek, it is entirely prag-
matically linked, whereas in Macedonian, a grammatical use parallel to that in Albanian
is found, with obligatory doubling of full indirect objects. Given the distribution of this
phenomenon and its relatively late appearance in Greek (i.e., it is not part of Ancient
Greek syntax) and in other Indo-European languages (e.g. in Spanish, but not in Latin),
clitic doubling seems to be a Balkan innovation that has entered Albanian. Most likely
its emergence is to be tied to the need for communicative clarity, as expressed through

Authenticated
redundancy and emphasis, in cross-language interactions among speakers of different

languages with less-than-native command of the other language.
One final use of a subset of the weak pronouns that is noteworthy is for marking
the speaker’s emotional involvement in the action expressed in the clause. There is
no doubling, since there is no formal object, and the only forms possible here are
the first and second person singular and first person plural weak dative pronouns.
The function is essentially that of the so-called “dative of interest” or “ethical dative”,
and as such, given that there are parallels for this usage in non-Balkan Indo-European
languages (e.g. Latin and Germanic), it most likely represents an archaism in Albanian
grammar. Some of the more complicated combinatory possibilities that result, as with
the 1SG + 2SG + 3PL in (20) (from Newmark, Hubbard, and Prifti 1982: 27),
indicating here both speaker and hearer involvement and a doubled object, may well
be an Albanian innovation.
(20) ai fiku … më t’ i bënte

this-fig/NOM me/DAT you/DAT them/ACC made
ato kokrrat na … sa një ftua
these bits/ACC behold as-big-as a quince
‘That fig tree produced (“for me for you them”) figs, wow … the size of a quince’.
5.3. Complementation
One further striking feature of Albanian syntax that aligns it with Balkan Sprachbund
languages and differentiates it from most other Indo-European languages is the prepon-
derance of subordinate clauses with finite verbs − most typically subjunctives marked
with të − inflected for person and number. This finite complementation means, from a
structural standpoint, that all verbs in a sentence are fully “specified” as to person and
number and in some instances, tense. This is a feature which links Albanian to the Balkan
Sprachbund, as it is found, to varying degrees throughout the region, most thoroughly
in Greek and Macedonian, and fairly intensely in Bulgarian, Aromanian, and Daco-
Romanian. Presumably, therefore, this phenomenon is not all that old in Albanian, and
dates to the period of intense contact with other Balkan languages in the Middle Ages
(especially the Ottoman period). Like clitic doubling (5.2.), the use of finite complements
instead of infinitives may have been a function of a desire on the part of speakers for
clarity of communication via redundancy in a multi-lingual contact situation. (See Joseph
1983 on this Balkan trait, and Chapter 4 on Albanian specifically.)
The extensive use of finite complementation is actually more a feature of the Tosk
dialect of Albanian (and thus of the standard language, which is generally based on
Tosk) than of the Geg dialect. As noted in 3.2.4., Geg has an infinitive, consisting of
the marker me with the participle, and it is used in complementation in contexts in which
Tosk uses a finite complement. Some Tosk examples of finite complements, governed
by verbs, adjectives, and nouns, are given in (21), and some Geg examples of infinitival
subordination, governed by verbs, nouns, and a subordinating conjunction, are seen in
(22).

Authenticated
1786 XV. Albanian
(21) a. dua të shkruaj

want/1SG SUBJ write/1SG
‘I want to write’ (literally: “I want that I write”)
b. do të vazhdojmë të ulemi atje
FUT continue/1PL SUBJ sit/1PL here
‘We will continue to sit here’ (literally: “We will continue that we sit here”;
note that the future is formed by placing the particle do before the present
subjunctive)
c. mund të shkoni në Tiranë
can SUBJ go/2PL to Tirana
‘You (all) can go to Tirane’ (literally: “It-can that you go to Tirana”)
d. është e vështirë të qeshin
be/3SG difficult SUBJ laugh/3PL
‘It is difficult for them to laugh’ (literally: “It is difficult that they laugh”)
e. propozimi të shkojmé në Shqipëri
proposal-the SUBJ go/1PL to Albania
‘the proposal for us to go to Albania’ (literally: “the proposal that we go to
Albania”)
f. vijmë në shkollën që të mësojmë
come/1PL to school in-order SUBJ learn/1PL
‘We come to school in order to learn’ (literally: “We come to school in order
that we learn”)
(22) a. dëshiroj me të pa
desire/1SG INF you/ACC see/PPL
‘I desire to see you’
b. puna me e shue këtë politike
task-the INF it wipe-out/PPL this-policy/ACC
‘the task of wiping out this policy’
c. shkoi përjashta me mësue filozofi
went/3SG abroad INF study/PPL philosophy
‘He went abroad (in order) to study philosophy’
d. sado me u kujdesue …
despite INF REFL worry/PPL
‘Despite (his) worrying,…’
Interpreting these facts historically is even further complicated by the fact that Tosk also
has an infinitive, as seen above in 3.2.4., with the form për të + Participle. The infinitive
in Tosk has rather limited uses, mainly occurring in the expression of purpose, though
it can be used in complementation, as in (23).
(23) a. ata folja shërben për të emërtuar një veprim

these verbs serve/3PL INF designate/PPL an action
‘These verbs serve to designate an action’

Authenticated
b. është e vështirë për të thënë

be/3SG difficult INF say/PPL
‘It is difficult to say’
c. propozimi për të vënë në funksionin artilerinë
proposal-the INF put/PPL in function artillery
‘the proposal to put artillery into place’
The për të + participle formation has the appearance of being a relatively recent creation.
Importantly, a formation that is somewhat similar, but at the same time different in a
significant way, is found in Old Albanian. In the Buzuku text, për të occurs with a true
nominalized element, clearly so since it shows marking for definiteness and case, e.g.
për të lutunit ‘for the prayer’ (with definite dative case marking on the participle lutun-
from lus ‘invoke’). Moreover, non-active voice marking as illustrated in 3.3., (10), seems
not to occur with these early për të formations (and is not allowed in the ostensibly
parallel Arvanitika formation). The passage from a nominal formation to a verbal one,
capable of marking voice distinctions, is thus an innovation that took place within histori-
cally documented Albanian.
6. References
Cowgill, Warren
1960 Greek ou and Armenian oč’. Language 36: 347−350.
Friedman, Victor A.
2008 Balkan object reduplication in areal and dialectological perspective. In: Dalina Kallulli
and Liliane Tasmowski (eds.), Clitic Doubling in the Balkan Languages. Amsterdam:
Benjamins, 35−63.
Hamp, Eric P.
1982 The Oldest Albanian Syntagma. Balkansko ezikoznanie 25: 77−79.
Joseph, Brian D.
1983 The Synchrony and Diachrony of the Balkan Infinitive: A Study in Areal, General, and
Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Joseph, Brian D.
1989 Η ερμηνεία μερικών βορείων τύπων της προστακτικής κατά τη σημερινή μορφολογική
θεωρία [The Interpretation of Several Northern Forms of the Imperative According to
Current Morphological Theory]. Ελληνική Διαλεκτολογία 1: 21−26.
Joseph, Brian D. and Kelly Maynard
2000 Hamp Lectures on the Albanian Language, Ohio State University 11/29−12/4, 1999.
Indo-European Studies Bulletin (University of California at Los Angeles) 9(1): 25−27.
Mann, Stuart
1932 A Short Albanian Grammar with vocabularies, and selected passages for reading. Lon-
don: David Nutt.
Press.
Pappas, Panayiotis
2003 Variation and Morphosyntactic Change in Greek: From Clitics to Affixes. New York:
Palgrave MacMillan.

Authenticated
1788 XV. Albanian
Tzartzanos, Achilleus
1909 Περὶ τοῦ συγχρόνου Θεσσαλικῆς διαλέκτου [On the modern Thessalian dialect]. Athens:
P. A. Petrakou.
Wackernagel, Jacob
333−436.
Brian D. Joseph, Columbus, OH (USA)
98. The lexicon of Albanian

1. Introduction 5. Word-formation
2. Inherited vocabulary 6. Future perspectives and desiderata
3. Loan-words 7. References
1. Introduction
1.1. Fundamentals of Albanian lexicology
Apart from some scarce evidence (proper names, single words, and single phrases), the
literary documentation of Albanian begins with theological texts in the mid-16 th century
CE. Mostly translations of Latin originals, these texts were written by representatives of
the Catholic clergy. The first author known to us is Gjon Buzuku (“Missal” of 1555), a
priest from the Geg dialect area. Literature in the Tosk dialect begins with the work of
the Italo-Albanian priest Lekë Matrënga (Dottrina cristiana of 1592). After the Ottoman
conquest of the Balkans − some one hundred years before the aforementioned first writ-
ten Albanian records − Albania became an integral part of the Ottoman empire for 500
years. As a consequence of this long-lasting Ottoman rule Albanian literary production
came to a standstill. The theological documents of the 16 th and 17 th centuries thus
constitute the Old Albanian literature. It was only in the second half of the 19 th century
that Albanian literature outside and − to a smaller extent − inside Albania began anew.
This fact was caused by the so-called National Awakening (Rilindja [kombëtare]), the
struggle of the Albanians against Ottoman domination leading to the independence of
the emerging Albanian state in 1912. With respect to literature, this comprises the very
fruitful period of the great Albanian classical writers culminating in the works of Father
Gjergj Fishta (1871−1940). During the time of the Rilindja, the Albanian lexicon in-
creased impressively because of the great number of neologisms and calques created by
the Rilindja writers (see Buchholz and Fiedler 1979). Albania’s best known contempo-
rary author is Ismajl Kadare (born 1936).
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-019

Authenticated
1788 XV. Albanian
Tzartzanos, Achilleus
1909 Περὶ τοῦ συγχρόνου Θεσσαλικῆς διαλέκτου [On the modern Thessalian dialect]. Athens:
P. A. Petrakou.
Wackernagel, Jacob
333−436.
Brian D. Joseph, Columbus, OH (USA)
98. The lexicon of Albanian

1. Introduction 5. Word-formation
2. Inherited vocabulary 6. Future perspectives and desiderata
1. Introduction
1.1. Fundamentals of Albanian lexicology
Apart from some scarce evidence (proper names, single words, and single phrases), the
literary documentation of Albanian begins with theological texts in the mid-16 th century
CE. Mostly translations of Latin originals, these texts were written by representatives of
the Catholic clergy. The first author known to us is Gjon Buzuku (“Missal” of 1555), a
priest from the Geg dialect area. Literature in the Tosk dialect begins with the work of
the Italo-Albanian priest Lekë Matrënga (Dottrina cristiana of 1592). After the Ottoman
conquest of the Balkans − some one hundred years before the aforementioned first writ-
ten Albanian records − Albania became an integral part of the Ottoman empire for 500
years. As a consequence of this long-lasting Ottoman rule Albanian literary production
came to a standstill. The theological documents of the 16 th and 17 th centuries thus
constitute the Old Albanian literature. It was only in the second half of the 19 th century
that Albanian literature outside and − to a smaller extent − inside Albania began anew.
This fact was caused by the so-called National Awakening (Rilindja [kombëtare]), the
struggle of the Albanians against Ottoman domination leading to the independence of
the emerging Albanian state in 1912. With respect to literature, this comprises the very
fruitful period of the great Albanian classical writers culminating in the works of Father
Gjergj Fishta (1871−1940). During the time of the Rilindja, the Albanian lexicon in-
creased impressively because of the great number of neologisms and calques created by
the Rilindja writers (see Buchholz and Fiedler 1979). Albania’s best known contempo-
rary author is Ismajl Kadare (born 1936).
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-019

Authenticated
98. The lexicon of Albanian 1789
1.2. Problems of Albanian lexicology and works on the Albanian lexicon

Work on Albanian lexicological subjects is complicated by the total lack of any compre-
hensive codification of the Albanian lexicon so far. This fact makes it sometimes difficult
if not impossible to find out e.g. the first attestation of a given word and to survey its
history. Nevertheless, some minor dictionaries are at our disposal. The Old Albanian
lexicon is collected in the works of Ashta (1998, 2000a, 2000b, 2002), which unfortu-
nately do not fulfill serious philological criteria and are far from complete. The diction-
ary of Mann (1948) covers the Old and New Albanian lexicon, including some Rilindja
authors, and gives very limited information on the sources of its entries. The lexicon of
the modern (Tosk-based) standard language has been collected in the Academy Diction-
ary edited by Kostallari (1980). Composed during the Albanian Communist era, it does
not cover the entire Albanian lexicon. Items not convenient to the Communist ideology −
this includes dialectal forms − have intentionally been left out. A good many of the
words omitted by Kostallari have meanwhile been included in the dictionary of Elezi
(2006). Other sources of reference are the dictionaries of Buchholz, Fiedler, and Uhlisch
(1981) and Newmark (1998), the latter of which covers non-standard forms. Furthermore
Eqrem Çabej’s etymological dictionary (Çabej 1976−2006) is a highly valuable source.
Finally, a useful collection of various articles on modern Albanian lexical matters is
found in a three-volume edition by Kostallari (1972−1989). On Albanian lexicology in
general, see Hetzer (1991) and Fiedler (2011).
Where necessary, the Albanian examples cited in the following sections are differenti-
ated with respect to their dialectal origin either as Geg (Northern dialects of Albania and
Kosovo) or as Tosk (Southern dialects of Albania and Albanian dialects of the diaspora
in Italy and Greece).
2.1. The Indo-European lexical stock of Albanian
As a consequence of massive borrowing from other languages (see 3.), Albanian has
lost a great part of the inherited Indo-European lexical stock. Nevertheless, many Indo-
European items have been preserved: motërë ‘sister’(!) < IE */māter-/ (cf. Latin māter
‘mother’), dorë ‘hand’ < */g̑ hēr-/ (< IE */g̑ hesr-/, cf. Hittite keššar, Greek χείρ), (i) madh
‘big, great’ < IE */meg̑h2-/ (cf. Greek μέγας), ti ‘you’ (2 nd sg.) < IE */tū/ (cf. Latin tū),
dy (m.) ‘two’ < IE */duu̯o/ (cf. Greek δύο), bie ‘bring, carry’ < IE */b her-/ (cf. Latin
ferō), njeh ‘know’ < IE */g̑neh3-/ (cf. Latin nōscō), and many others. Remodelled to ā-
stems, a good part of the Indo-European stock of feminine consonant stems has been
preserved in Albanian (cf. e.g. Albanian natë ‘night’ < Proto-Albanian */nakt-ā/ com-
pared with Latin nox, -ctis). One former IE root noun is of special interest. The IE
lexeme */ped-/pod-/ ‘foot’ (cf. Latin pēs), replaced in its primary value by the Latin
loan-word camba ‘ankle’ (cf. Italian gamba), whence Old Geg kâmbë, and Old Tosk
[Variboba] këmb, has been fossilized in a special context: the adverb përposh (also posh-
të) ‘below, down’, which is based on the locative plural *pēd-si (the Proto-Albanian
ending */-si/ is an innovation comparable to Greek -σι). A similar formation can be
found in Old Irish ís ‘below’ < *pḗd-su.

Authenticated
1790 XV. Albanian
The inherited Indo-European components of the Albanian lexicon are for the most
part collected in the etymological dictionaries of Meyer (1891), Çabej (1976−2006),
Huld (1984), Demiraj (1997), and Orel (1998).
2.2. The question of Illyrian components in Albanian

Although it is widely believed that Albanian goes back to Illyrian or even Thracian, this
view cannot be seriously upheld from the linguistic point of view (see Matzinger 2009).
None of the ancient personal or local names ascribed to Illyrian are continued in Albani-
an without interruption (e.g. the place-name Shkodra is merely a loan from Latin Scod-
ra). Consequently, Albanian cannot be regarded as an offspring of Illyrian or even Thra-
cian but must be considered to be a modern continuation of some other undocumented
Indo-European Balkan idiom. However, Albanian is closely related to Illyrian and also
Messapic (a language spoken in Southern Italy in antiquity but originally of Balkan
origin), which is why Albanian in some instances may shed some light on the explana-
tion of Messapic as well as Illyrian words (see Matzinger 2005): (Messapic-)Oenotrian
ῥινός ‘clouds’ ~ Old Geg rẽ, Old Tosk rē ‘cloud’, the Messapic gloss βρένδο- ‘stag’ and
the place-name Brundisium (Italian Bríndisi) ~ Old Geg brĩ, or the name of the Illyrian
tribe of the Taulantioi ~ Albanian dallëndyshe ‘swallow’ (see Eichner 2004: 10 f.).
2.3. Correspondences of the Albanian lexicon with Rumanian

Albanian shares a considerable number of words in common with Rumanian (see Solta
1980: 3 f., 125 f. and Vătăşescu 1997). Some of them are remnants of an old inherited
vocabulary (e.g. Albanian thark ‘pen for young livestock’ ~ Rumanian ţarc ‘id.’), while
others comprise a younger category of Latin words attested in some cases only in Albani-
an and Rumanian (e.g. Albanian mëngon ‘get up very early’ ~ Rumanian mâneca ‘id.’
← Latin *mānicāre ‘id.’). Both classes emerged from old and intensive contacts between
the Proto-Albanians and the ancestors of the Rumanians. A widespread opinion regards
the older category of the Albano-Rumanian common lexicon as the reflex of an ancient
substratum of Thracian, Dacian, or unknown origin (a collection of these words is Brân-
cuş 1983). Aside from a few single words of perhaps non-Indo-European origin (Albani-
an modhullë ‘yellow vetchling [Lathyrus aphaca]’ ~ Rumanian mazăre ‘pea’), the largest
part of this alleged substratum common to both Albanian and Rumanian consists simply
of loan-words in Rumanian from Proto-Albanian, e.g. Rumanian ţarc ‘pen for young
livestock’ from Proto-Albanian */tsárka-/ (Modern Albanian thark). The derivational
base of this noun is continued in the Old Albanian verb thurën ‘interweave’ (< IE
*/k̑erH-/ ‘weave’, cf. Latin crātis ‘pen’; see details in Schumacher 2009: 43−45).
2.4. Albanian in comparison to other Indo-European languages

With respect to quantity, there is a fundamental difference in the Albanian lexicon be-
tween the inherited components of Indo-European origin (2.1) and the loans from various

Authenticated
sources (3). While the inherited items are not very numerous at all (e.g. Demiraj 1997
lists about 572 items), the loan-words are extremely numerous. Within the Indo-Euro-
pean languages, a similar situation can be found in Armenian, whose Indo-European
lexical stock is very limited, while the loan-words from mostly (Middle-)Iranian sources
predominate. The loans in Albanian have been perfectly integrated so that no difference
between inherited components and borrowed ones is discernible on a pure synchronic
level. Only a diachronic approach is able to clarify the differential sources of these words
(e.g. the inherited ter ‘bull’ < *tau̯ro- beside the borrowed qen ‘dog’ ← Latin canis
‘id.’; the e of both words is the result of Albanian umlaut).
3. Loan-words
3.1. Loan-word phenomena in Albanian
It is a characteristic feature of the Albanian language to be open to loan-words from

various sources. The oldest stratum is found in Ancient Greek loans, which result from
contacts between Greeks and speakers of Proto-Albanian from about 600 BCE onward.
Subsequent to the Roman occupation of the Balkans, Proto-Albanian was heavily influ-
enced by Latin. Single words as well as a good many derivational suffixes were taken
over. After the breakdown of the Western Empire, Albanian borrowed from Middle
Greek as a consequence of Byzantine rule over Albania. Later on, from about 600 CE,
Slavic farmers invaded the Balkans in large numbers, cultivating the plains, while the
Albanians withdrew to the higher mountainous regions, retaining their traditional pastor-
al life. Separated but not isolated, Slavs and Albanians were in contact, and loan-words
of Slavic origin entered Albanian. Conflicts between the Republic of Venice and the
Byzantine empire in the Middle Ages led to a temporary Venetian supremacy over the
Albanian coast causing the first Italian influences on Albanian. After the Ottomans had
successfully occupied Albania, a multitude of Turkish loan-words penetrated Albanian
during the almost 500 years of Turkish domination. After the independence of Albania
in 1912, the Albanian language adopted many loan-words from German, French, and
Italian, the most prestigious European languages of that time. Of these, Italian heavily
enhanced its influence on Albanian after the Second World War because of television
broadcasting. During the period of the Albanian Communist regime, Italian televison
was Albania’s window to the world, and this window remains open still today. Beside
Italian, current foreign influence on Albanian is mostly of English provenance. Addition-
ally, the German language still holds a special position in Kosova/Kosovo (cf. e.g. Ko-
sova-Albanian shrafciger ‘screw driver’ ← a dialectal counterpart of German Schrau-
benzieher ~ Albanian kaçavidë ‘screw driver’ ← Italian cacciavite ‘id.’, Kosova-Albani-
an hendi ‘cellular [phone]’ ← German Handy ~ Albanian celular ‘cellular [phone]’ ←
American English cellular [phone]). The Kosova-Albanian variant is also subject to
particular Serbian lexical influences, since Kosova/Kosovo was until recently an autono-
mous province of Serbia.

Authenticated
1792 XV. Albanian
3.2. Latin loan-words
Latin loan-words are represented in Albanian in large numbers. They were taken over
from all semantic fields and without any restrictions (cf. the semasiological arrangement
in Haarmann 1972: 39 f.), The following examples may serve as a selection: qiell ‘heav-
en’ ← caelum ‘id.’, ar ‘gold’ ← aurum ‘id.’, qen ‘dog’ ← canis ‘id.’, faqe ‘face’ ←
*facia for classical faciēs ‘id.’ (cf. Rumanian faţă), kujton ‘think, recall’ ← cōgitāre
‘id.’, shërben ‘serve’ ← servīre ‘id.’, pëlqen ‘like, please’ ← placēre ‘id.’. There are
various investigations dealing with the Latin loan-words in Albanian, e.g. Çabej (1962),
Stadtmüller (1966: 77 f.), Haarmann (1972), Landi (1989), and Bonnet (1998). Latin
loans entered Albanian through the entire period of spoken Latin and thus reflect differ-
ent chronological layers (cf. pemë ‘fruit [tree]’ ← pōmum, pōmus ‘id.’ revealing the
same change of ō to e that can also be observed in inherited items like pelë ‘mare’ <
*/pōlnā-/, cf. Greek πῶλος ‘foal’; the ō of Latin loans of later periods is instead replaced
by o or u, cf. (i) shëndoshë ‘healthy’ ← sanitōsus ‘id.’). As even the basic terms of
the Christian sphere are of Latin origin (e.g. kungon ‘to give/receive communion’ ←
communicāre ‘id.’, bekon ‘bless’ ← benedīcere ‘id.’, elter/lter ‘altar’ ← altāre ‘id.’; see
Demiraj 1999), it is evident that the Albanians were christianized under Roman Catholic
influence.
3.3. Greek loan-words

The Greek loan-words are of various chonological origins. The oldest are of Ancient
Greek (Doric) provenance, mostly designations of vegetables, spices, fruits, animals, and
tools (cf. Old Geg drapënë, modern Albanian drapër ‘sickle’ ← δρέπανον ‘id.’, Old
Geg lakënë, modern Albanian lakër ‘cabbage’ ← λάχανον ‘potherbs’, presh ‘leek’ ←
πράσον ‘id.’). These loans resulted from the earliest contacts between Greeks − either
colonists of the Adriatic coastal regions or more probably Greek merchants in the Balkan
hinterland − and Proto-Albanians from the 8 th century BCE on. After the split of the
Roman empire in 395 and the following Byzantine rule over Albania, Albanian took up
Greek loans again and continued borrowing up to the Modern Greek period. For geo-
graphical reasons, the number of Greek loans in the Southern Tosk dialect area is greater
than that in the Northern Geg region. On the Greek loans in Albanian, see e.g. Thumb
(1909), Uhlisch (1964), Ölberg (1972), and Jokl (1984).
3.4. Slavic loan-words

As a consequence of contacts between Albanians and farming Slavs, a number of South
Slavic loan-words are found in Albanian. Some of them have been perfectly integrated,
constituting now an integral part of the Albanian lexicon (cf. trup ‘body’ ~ Serbo-Croa-
tian trûp ‘id.’, zakon ‘habit, custom’ ~ Serbo-Croatian zákon ‘law’, terms of housing
and agriculture, e.g. oborr ‘courtyard’ ~ Serbo-Croatian òbor ‘pen’, modern Albanian
plug ‘plough’ ~ Serbo-Croatian plȕg ‘id.’, or modern Albanian kastravec ‘cucumber’ ~
Serb-Croatian krȁstavac ‘id.’). However, the majority of Slavic loans in Albanian are

Authenticated
restricted to certain regions. This component of the Albanian vocabulary has been inves-
tigated by Miklosich (1870), Seliščev (1931), Stadtmüller (1966: 135 f.), Svane (1992),
Ylli (2000), and Omari (2012).
3.5. Italian loan-words
As the oldest Italian loan-words are of Venetian origin, they exhibit typical Venetian
phonetic features (cf. e.g. modern Albanian lexon ‘read’ ← Venetian lezer ‘id.’, modern
Albanian kajnacë ‘latch’ ← Venetian caenazzo ‘id.’, modern Albanian kornizë ‘frame’
← Venetian cornise ‘id.’; contrast the Standard-Italian words leggere, catenaccio, and
cornice, respectively). At the beginning of the 20 th century, Italy again played a promi-
nent role in Albania, and from 1939 until 1943 Albania was even occupied by the Fascist
Italian troops. In recent times, Italian television broadcasting − easy to receive through-
out Albania − is the most prominent source of Italian influence on Albanian (cf. e.g.
modern Albanian televizor ‘televison set’ ← Italian televizore ‘id.’, modern Albanian
makinë ‘vehicle, car’ ← macchina, modern Albanian konsumator ‘consumer’ ← consu-
matore ‘id.’, and many others). The Italian loans are the subject of Helbig (1903), Vicario
(1992−1993), Lafe (1998−1999, 2000), and Jorgaqi (2001).
3.6. Turkish loan-words
Dominated by the Ottomans for almost 500 years, the Albanians borrowed several hun-
dred Turkish words (e.g. akshan[d] ‘dawn, morning’ ← akşam ‘sunset, evening’, bajrak
‘flag, banner’ ← bayrak, haramī ‘thief’ ← haramî, and many others). After the inde-
pendence of Albania in 1912, successful attempts were made to replace the Turkish
elements by newly coined native words or loans from European sources (e.g. modern
Albanian dritare ‘window’ derived from dritë ‘light’ instead of penxhere ‘window’ ←
Turkish pencere ‘id.’). Nevertheless, loans of Turkish origin are still very common in
Albanian, representing a typical feature of the spoken language. The most comprehensive
and detailed collections of Turkish loans in Albanian are Boretzky (1975−1976) and the
posthumous edition of Dizdari (2005).
3.7. Modern loan-words and calques
During the 20 th century, Albanian borrowed and adopted many internationalisms, e.g.
the category of the so called ‘-isms’ (in Albanian -izëm), or other words like modern
Albanian taksi, telefon, kompjuter, etc. Apart from these loan-words, Albanian − particu-
larly in the second half of the 19 th and the beginning of the 20 th century − created a
great number of calques (e.g. modern Albanian dorëshkrim ‘manuscript’ < dorë ‘hand’
+ shkrim ‘writing’, cf. Italian manoscritto ‘id.’, hekurudhë ‘railway’ < hekur ‘iron’ +
udhë ‘way’, cf. Italian ferrovia ‘id.’, etc.). Though these calques are numerous, they are
not so extensively and rigorously created as is the case in some other Indo-European

Authenticated
1794 XV. Albanian
and Non-Indo-European languages like Modern Icelandic or Finnish. On international-

isms and their integration into Albanian, see Maksuti (2009).
4.1. The theological vocabulary of Old Albanian
In translating Latin theological texts, the Old Albanian writers were forced to render
specific theological expressions in Albanian. One way to cope with this task was to
borrow expressions from Latin or Italian (cf. shpīrt ‘spirit, soul’ ← Latin spiritus, pur-
gatuor ‘purgatory’ ← Italian purgatorio ‘id.’, etc.). However, a different way of creating
theological terms was at hand. In Old Albanian, the neuter of verbal participles and
adjectives could function as an abstract noun, cf. e.g. të shelbuom(-itë) (n.). ‘redemption,
salvation’ from the participle (i) shelbuom (to the verb shelbon ‘save’). This process of
syntactic transformation is a typical feature of the Old Albanian language. However, as
the neuter gender was given up step by step in the history of Albanian, this type com-
pletely lost its productivity. Although it is still preserved as a relic in Albanian (see
Newmark, Hubbard, and Prifti 1982: 133−134), the modern language prefers overtly
derived nouns like shëlbesë ‘redemption, salvation’ (see Matzinger 2016).
4.2. The pastoral vocabulary of Albanian
As Albanian society in ancient times was a pastoral one marked by stock-breeding (par-
ticularly of sheep and goats), transhumance was widely practiced. The Albanians there-
fore possess a very rich and elaborated vocabulary related to all subjects of stock-breed-
ing (cf. dhallë ‘buttermilk’, shtrungë ‘narrow runway in a sheep/goat pen into which
animals are guided for individual handling’). Some of these lexemes have exact counter-
parts in Rumanian (cf. zară ‘id.’, strungă ‘id.’; on the common Albano-Rumanian lexi-
con see 2.3.).
5. Word-formation
5.1. Principles of Albanian word-formation
In general, Albanian follows the same lines of derivation found in all the other Indo-
European languages (see Matzinger 2016). While some patterns are prevalent (suffixa-
tion), others are not used at all (suprasegmental features). Beside the inherited, synchro-
nically opaque Indo-European lexical stock, synchronic Albanian nominal and verbal
derivation is based on already existing lexemes. The concept of the root − common to
some early attested Indo-European languages − has been completely lost in Albanian.

Authenticated
5.2. Prefixation
While the process of prefixation is common in Modern Albanian with nouns and verbs
(see Xhuvani and Çabej 1975 and Hysa 2004: 63 f.), it is used in the older language to
a much lesser extent. The only productive prefixal derivation to be found e.g. in the
pastoral handbook of Gjon Buzuku (“Missal” of 1555) is the nominal word negation
built with the prefix pā- ‘un-, in-’ (Modern Albanian pa-), cf. (i) besuom ‘faithful’ →
(i) pābesuom ‘incredulous’.
5.3. Suffixation
Suffixation is the most productive pattern of deriving verbs or nouns (abstract nouns,
agent nouns, feminine nouns, adjectives) in Albanian (see Xhuvani and Çabej 1962 and
Hysa 2004: 107 f.). In verbal derivation, the most productive class is that of the verbs
with 3rd/2 nd sg. -on, 1 st sg. -oj (cf. besë ‘pledge; belief’ → beson ‘believe’), which is
the Albanian reflex of IE derivatives in */-ah2-i̯ e/o-/ (denominative verbs) as well as in
*/-ah2-/ (factitive verbs as in the type of Hittite newahh-; on the pre-history of Albanian
-on see Klingenschmitt 1981: 102 f.; on Albanian verbal formation in general see Gene-
sin 2005). Some common nominal derivational formants include, for deverbal abstracts,
the suffix -im (cf. kujton ‘think, recall’ → kujtim ‘remembering’) and for denominal
abstracts, the suffix -ī (cf. gjakës ‘murderer’ → gjakësī ‘murder’) borrowed from Latin
-ia (← Greek -ία). A formant used to derive both deverbal and denominal agent nouns
is the suffix -ës (cf. gjak ‘blood’ → gjakës ‘murderer’), and a strictly denominal agent
suffix is -tuor (cf. punë ‘work’ → punëtuor ‘worker, husbandman’). The first of these
is related to the Armenian noun of agent suffix -ičc, the latter is simply a loan from
Latin -tor. The most prominent feminine motion suffix is -eshë ← Latin -issa (cf. mik
‘friend’ → mikeshë ‘female friend’). There are numerous suffixes serving for the deriva-
tion of adjectives, among which the suffix -shëm is the most productive (cf. dritë ‘light’
→ [i] dritshim ‘bright, shiny’).
5.4. Composition
In the period of the Old Albanian language, nominal composition is used to rather lesser
extent (see Matzinger 2016: 283 f.). Nevertheless, all IE types of composition are attest-
ed, among them possessive compounds like (Buzuku) zêmërëdëlirë ‘pure’ < zêmërë
‘heart’ + (i) dëlirë ‘pure’, or verbal governing compounds like (Buzuku) bãmirë ‘benefi-
cent’ < bân ‘do, make’ + (i) mirë ‘good’. With respect to the order of the constituents
in compounds it is to be noted that Albanian places the modifier after its head (so-called
reverse bahuvrīhis; see e.g. Uhlich 1997: 33 f. and Genesin and Matzinger 2005: 424 f.).
However, from the time of the Rilindja on (see 1.1), the number of compounds increases
due to foreign influence (cf. kryeqytet ‘capital’ < krye ‘head’ + qytet ‘city’, probably
built after Turkish başşehir). In these nominal compounds, the modifier precedes its
head. On the other hand, a peculiar subtype of genuine nominal composition is represen-
ted by items like vajgur ‘kerosene; petroleum’ < vaj ‘oil’ + gur ‘stone’ (cf. Ressuli 1985:

Authenticated
1796 XV. Albanian
176 f.). Being the result of a univerbation (vaj guri lit. ‘oil of stone’), the modifier is
here placed after its head. In Modern Albanian, nominal composition is in any case a
common way of deriving new lexical units. Finally, verbal composition is still moderate-
ly productive in Albanian.
5.5. Minor phenomena
To a much slighter degree Albanian uses some other patterns of word formation. One of
these is conversion, as can be seen in the Albanian verb shëndoshën ‘make healthy’
from the adjective (i) shëndoshë ‘healthy’ (on conversional phenomena in Albanian, see
Ressuli 1985: 137 f.). Sometimes a metonymic use can be found, as is the case with the
noun lajm ‘message’, used in Old Albanian also as an agent noun ‘messenger’. Finally,
Albanian makes no use of suprasegmental phenomena in word formation (a contrastive
accent is rarely employed, occurring only in nominal morphology to distinguish number).
6. Future perspectives and desiderata

The most urgent need in the field of Albanian lexicology is to collect and codify the
Albanian lexicon from its earliest attestations up to the modern and most recent vocabu-
lary. Special attention must be payed to the numerous neologisms of the Rilindja-writers.
Only a comprehensive tool occupying the same role that Grimm’s Wörterbuch once did
in Germanic will facilitate future work on Albanian lexicology.
7. References
Ashta, Kolë
1998 Leksiku historik i gjuhës shqipe II: Lekë Matrënga dhe leksiku, nxjerrë nga vepra e tij
(1592); Pjetër Budi dhe leksiku, nxjerrë nga vepra e tij (1618−1621). [The historical lexi-
con of Albanian II: Lekë Matrënga and the vocabulary derived from his work (1592 ); Peter
Budi and the vocabulary derived from his work (1618−1621)]. Tirana: Toena.
Ashta, Kolë
2000a Leksiku historik i gjuhës shqipe I: Gjon Buzuku e leksiku i plotë, nxjerrë nga vepra e tij
“Meshari” (1555) [The historical lexicon of Albanian I: John Buzuku and the full lexi-
con derived from his work “Missal” (1555)]. 2nd edn. Shkodra: Shtëpia Botuese e Uni-
versitetit të Shkodrës “Luigj Gurakuqi”.
Ashta, Kolë
2000b Leksiku historik i gjuhës shqipe III: Pjetër Mazrreku dhe leksiku, nxjerrë nga vepra e
tij (1633); Frang Bardhi dhe leksiku, nxjerrë nga vepra e tij (1635). [The historical
lexicon of Albanian III: Peter Mazrreku and the vocabulary derived from his work
(1633); Frang Bardhi and the vocabulary derived from his work (1635)]. Shkodra:
Shtypshkronja “Volaj”.
Ashta, Kolë
2002 Leksiku historik i gjuhës shqipe IV: Pjetër Bogdani: Leksiku i plotë i shqipes, nxjerrë
nga vepra “Cuneus Prophetarum”. [The historical lexicon of Albanian IV: Peter Bogda-

Authenticated
ni: the full Albanian lexicon derived from the work “Cuneus Prophetarum”]. Shkodra:
Camaj-Pipa.
Ashta, Kolë
2009 Leksiku historik i gjuhës shqipe V: Kuvendi i Arbënit (1706), Da Lecce (1716) [The
historical lexicon of Albanian V: Albanian Council (1706), Da Lecce (1716)]. Shkodra:
Camaj-Pipa.
Bonnet, Guillaume
1998 Les mots latins de l’albanais. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Boretzky, Norbert
1975−1976 Der türkische Einfluß auf das Albanische. Teil 1: Phonologie und Morphologie
der albanischen Turzismen. 1975; Teil 2: Wörterbuch der albanischen Turzismen. 1976.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Brâncuş, Grigore
1983 Vocabularul autohton al limbii române. [The Rumanian autochthonous vocabulary]. Bu-
charest: Editura Științ ifică ș i Enciclopedică.
1979 Zur Herausbildung des modernen gesellschaftlichen Wortschatzes im Albanischen. Lin-
guistische Studien des Zentralinstitut für Sprachwissenschaft der DDR. 58 (Zur Heraus-
bildung des modernen gesellschaftlichen Wortschatzes in Südosteuropa). (Beiträge zur
Balkanlinguistik IV), 102−178.
Buchholz, Oda, Wilfried Fiedler, and Gerda Uhlisch
1981 Wörterbuch Albanisch−Deutsch. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie.
Çabej, Eqrem
1962 Zur Charakteristik der lateinischen Lehnwörter im Albanischen. Revue de Linguistique
(Bucureşti) 7: 161−199.
Çabej, Eqrem
1976−2006 Studime etimologjike në fushë të shqipes [Etymological studies in the field of
Albanian], Vol. II (A−B) 1976, Vol. III (C−D) 1987, Vol. IV (Dh−J) 1996, Vol. VI (N−
Rr) 2002, Vol. VII (S−Zh) 2006. Tirana: Akademia e Shkencave e Republikës së Shqi-
përisë, Instituti i Gjuhësisë dhe i Letërsisë.
Demiraj, Bardhyl
1997 Albanische Etymologien. Untersuchungen zum albanischen Erbwortschatz. Amsterdam:
Rodopi.
Demiraj, Bardhyl
1999 Historisch-linguistischer Überblick der christlichen Terminologie in der albanischen Li-
teratur des 16.−17. Jhs. (Anfänge und Fortdauer des albanischen Christentums). Zeit-
schrift für Balkanologie 35: 132−138.
Dizdari, Tahir N.
2005 Fjalor i orientalizmave në gjuhën shqipe [A dictionary of orientalisms in Albanian].
Tirana: Instituti Shqiptar i Mendimit dhe i Qytetërimit Islam.
Eichner, Heiner
2004 Illyrisch − die unbekannte Sprache. In: Lorenc Bejko (ed.), Die Illyrer. Archäologische
Funde des 1. vorchristlichen Jahrtausends aus Albanien. Katalog der Ausstellung
Asparn a.d. Zaya (= Katalog des Niederösterr. Landesmuseums N. F. 448). St. Pölten:
Amt der Niederösterreichischen Landesregierung, Abteilung Kultur und Wissenschaft,
92−117.
Elezi, Mehmet
2006 Fjalor i gjuhës shqipe [Dictionary of the Albanian language]. Tirana: Enti Botues
“Gjergj Fishta”.
Fiedler, Wilfried
2011 Zur historischen Lexikographie des Albanischen. Lexicographica 27: 183−194.

Authenticated
1798 XV. Albanian
Genesin, Monica
2005 Studio sulle formazioni di presente e aoristo del verbo albanese. Cosenza: Università
degli Studi della Calabria, Centro Editoriale e Librario.
Haarmann, Harald
1972 Der lateinische Lehnwortschatz im Albanischen. Hamburg: Buske.
Helbig, Robert
1903 Die italienischen Elemente im Albanesischen. Leipzig: Barth.
Hetzer, Armin
1991 Albanische Lexikographie. In: Franz J. Hausmann, Oskar Reichmann, Herbert E. Wie-
gand, and Ladislav Zgusta (eds.), Wörterbücher − Ein internationales Handbuch zur
Lexikographie 3. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2361−3267.
Huld, Martin E.
1984 Basic Albanian Etymologies. Columbus, OH: Slavica.
Hysa, Enver
2004 Formimi i emrave me ndajshtesa në gjuhën shqipe [The formation of nouns with affixes
in Albanian]. Tirana: Akademia e Shkencave e Republikës së Shqipërisë, Instituti i
Gjuhësisë dhe i Letërsisë.
Jokl, Norbert
1984 Sprachliche Beiträge zur Paläo-Ethnologie der Balkanhalbinsel (Zur Frage der ältesten
griechisch-albanischen Beziehungen). Posthumous edition by Oskar Pfeiffer. Vienna:
Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Jorgaqi, Kristina
2001 Ndikimi i italishtes në letërsinë e vjetër shqipe (XVI−XVII) [The influence of Italian on
the Old Albanian literature (16 th and 17 th centuries)]. Tirana: Toena.
1981 Albanisch und Urindogermanisch. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 40: 93−
131.
Kostallari, Androkli (ed.)
1972−1989 Studime mbi leksikun dhe mbi formimin e fjalëve në gjuhën shqipe [Studies on
the vocabulary and word-formation of Albanian]. Vol. 1−2. 1972, Vol. 3. 1989. Tirana:
Akademia e Shkencave e Republikës së Shqipërisë, Instituti i Gjuhësisë dhe i Letërsisë.
Kostallari, Androkli (ed.)
1980 Fjalor i gjuhës së sotme shqipe [A dictionary of modern Albanian]. Tirana: Akademia
e Shkencave e Republikës së Shqipërisë, Instituti i Gjuhësisë dhe i Letërsisë.
Lafe, Genc
1998−1999 Der italienische Einfluss auf das Albanische. Erster Teil: Allgemeine Erörterun-
gen. Ponto-Baltica 8−9: 47−172.
Lafe, Genc
2000 Der italienische Einfluss auf das Albanische. Zweiter Teil: Wörterbuch der Italianismen
im Albanischen. Ponto-Baltica 10: 31−120.
Landi, Addolorata
1989 Gli elementi latini nella lingua albanese. Naples: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane.
Maksuti, Izer
2009 Internationalismen im Albanischen. Eine kontrastive Untersuchung unter besonderer
Berücksichtigung des Alltagswortschatzes − Albanisch, Deutsch, Englisch, Französisch.
Saarbrücken: Südwestdeutscher Verlag.
Mann, Stuart E.
1948 An Historical Albanian−English Dictionary. London: Longmans, Green & Co.
Matzinger, Joachim
2005 Messapisch und Albanisch. International Journal of Diachronic Linguistics and Linguis-
tic Reconstruction 2: 29−54.

Authenticated
Matzinger, Joachim
2009 Die Albaner als Nachkommen der Illyrer aus der Sicht der historischen Sprachwissen-
schaft. In: Oliver Jens Schmitt (ed.), Albanische Geschichte. Stand und Perspektiven der
Forschung. Munich: Oldenbourg, 13−36.
Matzinger, Joachim
2016 Die sekundären nominalen Wortbildungsmuster im Altalbanischen bei Gjon Buzuku. Ein
Beitrag zur altalbanischen Lexikographie. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Meyer, Gustav
1891 Etymologisches Wörterbuch der albanesischen Sprache. Strassburg Trübner.
Von Miklosich, Franz
1870 Albanische Forschungen 1. Die slavischen Elemente im Albanischen. Vienna: Kaiserli-
che Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Newmark, Leonard
1998 Albanian−English Dictionary. Oxford: University Press.
Press.
Ölberg, Hermann
1972 Griechisch-Albanische Sprachbeziehungen. In: Robert Muth (ed.), Serta Philologica
Aenipontana 2. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 33−64.
Omari, Anila
2012 Marrëdhëniet gjuhësore shqiptaro-serbe [Serbian-Albanian linguistic relations]. Tirana:
Botimet albanologjike.
Orel, Vladimir
1998 Albanian Etymological Dictionary. Leiden: Brill.
Ressuli, Namik
1985 Grammatica albanese. Bologna: Pàtron.
Schmitt, Oliver Jens (ed.)
2009 Albanische Geschichte. Stand und Perspektiven der Forschung. Munich: Oldenbourg.
Schumacher, Stefan
2009 Lehnbeziehungen zwischen Protoalbanisch und balkanischem Latein bzw. Romanisch.
In: Oliver Jens Schmitt (ed.), Albanische Geschichte. Stand und Perspektiven der For-
schung. Munich: Oldenbourg, 37−60.
Seliščev, Afanasij M.
1931 Slavjanskoe naselenie v Albanii [Slavic settlement in Albania]. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo.
Solta, Georg R.
1980 Einführung in die Balkanlinguistik mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Substrats und
des Balkanlateinischen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Stadtmüller, Georg
1966 Forschungen zur albanischen Frühgeschichte (2nd rev. edn.). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Svane, Gunnar
Thumb, Albert
1909 Altgriechische Elemente des Albanischen. Indogermanische Forschungen 26: 1−20.
Uhlich, Jürgen
1997 Der Kompositionstyp „Armstrong“ in den indogermanischen Sprachen. Historische
Sprachforschung 110: 21−46.
Uhlisch, Gerda
1964 Neugriechische Lehnwörter im Albanischen. Typescript. Berlin.
Vătăşescu, Cătălina
1997 Vocabularul de origine latină din limba albaneză în comparaţie cu româna [The vocabu-
lary of Latin origin in Albanian in comparison with Rumanian]. Bucharest: Vavila Edinf.

Authenticated
1800 XV. Albanian
Vicario, Federico
1992−1993 L’influsso lessicale veneto in albanese. Balkan-Archiv N. F. 17/18: 187−232.
Xhuvani, Aleksandër and Eqrem Çabej
1962 Prapashtesat e gjuhës shqipe [Suffixes in Albanian]. Tirana: Universiteti Shtetëror i
Tiranës, Instituti i Historisë e Gjuhësisë.
1975 Parashtesat e gjuhës shqipe. Çështje të gramatikës së shqipes së sotme [Prefixes in
Albanian. Issues of modern Albanian grammar]. 2nd edn. by Mahir Domi. Tirana: Uni-
versiteti Shtetëror i Tiranës, Instituti i Historisë e Gjuhësisë, 5−55.
Ylli, Xhelal
1997 Das slavische Lehngut im Albanischen. 1. Teil: Lehnwörter. Munich: Sagner.
99. The dialectology of Albanian

1. Introduction 4. Peripheral dialectal differences
2. Albanian language communities 5. Conclusion
and dialects 6. References
3. Features distinguishing Geg and Tosk
dialects
1. Introduction
The Albanian language is spoken natively by approximately 6 million speakers in south-
eastern Europe, particularly in Albania and Kosovo where it is an official language, but
also in Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, and Italy where it has the status of a minority
language. Beyond this, it is spoken by many Albanians in Greece and is the native
language of a few isolated communities in Turkey, Bulgaria, Croatia, and Ukraine; in
addition, there are significant Albanian émigré communities in other parts of Europe and
in North America. Although an accurate count is difficult to obtain, if these groups are
taken into consideration, the number of native Albanian speakers could reach as high as
7.5 million.
With its wide geographical and sociolinguistic distribution, the Albanian language
also has important formal differences in its varieties. Given the late attestation of the
language in writing (see Rusakov, this handbook), the dialects of Albanian provide the
surest basis for diachronic studies of the language, whether from the perspective of Indo-
European linguistics, Balkan linguistics, or the history of Albanian itself.
Albanian is divided into two main dialects, Geg and Tosk, on the basis of a handful
of isoglosses. The traditional geographical corollary to these isoglosses is the Shkumbin
River in central Albania, with Geg encompassing dialects north of the river in Albania
and Montenegro, Kosovo, and Serbia, as well as most of those in Macedonia, while
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-020

Authenticated
1800 XV. Albanian
Vicario, Federico
1992−1993 L’influsso lessicale veneto in albanese. Balkan-Archiv N. F. 17/18: 187−232.
1962 Prapashtesat e gjuhës shqipe [Suffixes in Albanian]. Tirana: Universiteti Shtetëror i
Tiranës, Instituti i Historisë e Gjuhësisë.
1975 Parashtesat e gjuhës shqipe. Çështje të gramatikës së shqipes së sotme [Prefixes in
Albanian. Issues of modern Albanian grammar]. 2nd edn. by Mahir Domi. Tirana: Uni-
versiteti Shtetëror i Tiranës, Instituti i Historisë e Gjuhësisë, 5−55.
Ylli, Xhelal
1997 Das slavische Lehngut im Albanischen. 1. Teil: Lehnwörter. Munich: Sagner.
99. The dialectology of Albanian

1. Introduction 4. Peripheral dialectal differences
2. Albanian language communities 5. Conclusion
and dialects 6. References
3. Features distinguishing Geg and Tosk
dialects
1. Introduction
The Albanian language is spoken natively by approximately 6 million speakers in south-
eastern Europe, particularly in Albania and Kosovo where it is an official language, but
also in Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, and Italy where it has the status of a minority
language. Beyond this, it is spoken by many Albanians in Greece and is the native
language of a few isolated communities in Turkey, Bulgaria, Croatia, and Ukraine; in
addition, there are significant Albanian émigré communities in other parts of Europe and
in North America. Although an accurate count is difficult to obtain, if these groups are
taken into consideration, the number of native Albanian speakers could reach as high as
7.5 million.
With its wide geographical and sociolinguistic distribution, the Albanian language
also has important formal differences in its varieties. Given the late attestation of the
language in writing (see Rusakov, this handbook), the dialects of Albanian provide the
surest basis for diachronic studies of the language, whether from the perspective of Indo-
European linguistics, Balkan linguistics, or the history of Albanian itself.
Albanian is divided into two main dialects, Geg and Tosk, on the basis of a handful
of isoglosses. The traditional geographical corollary to these isoglosses is the Shkumbin
River in central Albania, with Geg encompassing dialects north of the river in Albania
and Montenegro, Kosovo, and Serbia, as well as most of those in Macedonia, while
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-020

Authenticated
99. The dialectology of Albanian 1801
Tosk is found to its south in Albania, Greece, and the southwestern corner of Macedonia
(Beci 2002: 18). Nearly all of the pre-twentieth century Albanian diaspora communities
migrated from Tosk dialect areas; thus varieties of Tosk are spoken in diaspora communi-
ties in Italy, Greece, Bulgaria, and Ukraine. However, some diaspora communities have
come from Geg-speaking areas. These include dialects in Arbanasi, Croatia (transplanted
from Krajë, Montenegro), Peshteri, Serbia (originally from Malësia e Madhe, Albania),
and some dialects in Turkey that originated from southern Serbia near Niš. Dialectolo-
gists have further classified Geg into Northern (Northwestern and Northeastern), Central,
and Southern Geg and Tosk into Northern, Central, and Southern (Çam and Lab) Tosk
(Gjinari and Shkurtaj 2003), and much of the fieldwork in Albanian dialectology has
treated individual varieties and placed them within these divisions. In Albanian linguistic
nomenclature, the term dialekt (dialect) refers to major division of Geg or Tosk, whereas
varieties within these dialects are called nëndialekt (subdialects), and the varieties of a
particular area within one of these subdialects is called e folmja (speech [variety]). In
accordance with the usual English terminology, I refer to any of these levels of varieties
with the term ‘dialect’ by labeling which dialect I am referring to, e.g. Tosk dialect,
Northern Tosk dialect, Lushnjë dialect, etc. While not exhaustively describing these divi-
sions and subdivisions of Albanian dialects, the following sections of this article give
an overview of the current state of Albanian dialectology by discussing the most impor-
tant features distinguishing Geg and Tosk as well as dialectal features from the peripher-
ies, all from the perspective of Indo-European. More than most Indo-European languages
with accepted standard norms, outside of the Republic of Albania the persistence of
dialectal Albanian speech is common in all but the most formal register. Thus, under-
standing the dialectal differences of Albanian is important not only for an understanding
of language history or geography; it is also essential for practical, everyday uses, particu-
larly with speakers from outside of Albania.
2. Albanian language communities and dialects

The spread of Albanian speakers across Albania, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Ser-
bia, and Greece reflects the political division of state boundaries after the retreat of the
Ottoman Empire from the Balkans in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries rather
than the migration of Albanian speakers from Albania to neighboring countries. Accord-
ing to the most recent census data from these countries, the Albanian-speaking popula-
tion is as follows: Albania−2,765,000 (INSTAT 2011), Kosovo−1,600,000 (REKOS
2011), Macedonia−509,000 (Popis 2002: 34), Serbia−60,000 (est.) (Pekušić 2011), Mon-
tenegro−30,491 (MONSTAT 2011: 46), Greece−480,824 (ELSTAT 2011). In some in-
stances these figures are at best estimates, however; for example, in Macedonia a popula-
tion census in 2011 was suspended because of concerns over how it was being conducted
in Albanian areas (Lutovska 2013), and in Serbia the Albanians in large part boycotted
both the 2002 and 2011 censuses. In the latter only 5,809 were recorded (Pekušić 2011),
although an estimated figure from 2002 had put the Albanian population at 59,952 (Pe-
kušić 2011; Barlovac 2011). Finally, the figure given for Greece refers only to the num-
ber of Albanian citizens in Greece and does not include some 50,000−150,000 speakers
of Arvanitika (Lewis, Simons, and Fennig 2014) or naturalized Albanian immigrants.

Authenticated
1802 XV. Albanian
Although official recognition of minority languages and minority communities varies

considerably among these countries (see, for example Wolff et al. 2008), the de facto
presence of language contact has concretely influenced the development of languages in
the region and is surely the main cause of language convergence in the Balkan Sprach-
bund, of which Albanian is a principal member. With the exception of the Albanian
diaspora community in Italy (Arbëreshë) which has 100,000−260,000 speakers (Lewis,
Simons, and Fennig 2014) (The Italian statistical office estimates 380,000 Albanian-
speaking foreigners [ISTAT 2014]. As with the figures from Greece, this does not include
Arbëresh or naturalized Albanian-speaking citizens.), Albanian diaspora communities
elsewhere outside of the Western Balkans are much smaller: there is a small community
in Arbanasi (Zadar), Croatia; Mandrica, Bulgaria, is a village of about 200 households,
(Shuteriqi 1965, cited in Gjinari and Shkurtaj 2003: 390); and Zhovetnjevoje, Devnjen-
skoe, Gamkova, and Georgievka, all in Ukraine, have some 4400 Albanians (Gjinari and
Shkurtaj 2003: 401). There are also Albanian communities in Turkey (cf. Maynard’s
work [2009] on the Albanian variety in the province of Samsun). The dialectology of
Albanian in Turkey, however, remains an area that needs to be further explored. Accord-
ing to one Turkish newspaper, Miliyet, a 2008 report prepared for the UN Security
Council included a section on the demographics of Turkey which claimed that there
were between 500,000 and 1,300,000 Albanians in Turkey (Miliyet 2008). Since these
groups have long been separated from other Albanian-speaking communities, their great-
est utility in Albanian dialectology is the comparative basis they give for understanding
earlier periods of the diachronic development of Albanian, although like all language
varieties, they are interesting in their own right and have also undergone further changes
over the course of transmission through subsequent generations and contact with other
languages.
3. Features distinguishing Geg and Tosk dialects

Geg and Tosk dialects typically differ in a few morphosyntactic constructions, in particu-
lar the use of G(eg) nonfinite verb forms ~ T(osk) conjugated forms in infinitival, sub-
junctive, future, and conditional constructions (e.g. G me shkue ‘go-INF’ ~ T të shkoj
‘go-1SG’. However, although the morphosyntactic differences are very salient for users
and often cited in order to typify the two dialects, the geographical spread and verbal
semantics of these constructions is not nearly as clean as the phonological differences
discussed below (see Friedman 2008). Moreover, as the morphosyntactic differences
between Geg and Tosk have largely arisen through contact with other Balkan languages,
these intriguing features may be explained better by external language contact than by
language-internal differentiation and thus pertain more to treatments of the dialects from
a viewpoint of language contact (see Joseph, this handbook; Friedman and Joseph, To
appear; Friedman 2008; Beci 2002; Demiraj 1998). A similar conclusion may be war-
ranted for lexical variation, as only a small proportion of lexemes with regional variation
are distributed along the lines of the Geg/Tosk division, like T gjalpë ~ G tlymë ‘butter’
(ADA II. 329/554) (Albanian Dialect Atlas, Gjinari et al. 2007−2008). Of the ADA’s
approximately 400 words, only ~ 3 % are divided along these lines. However, only a
portion of the dialects’ vast lexical variation can be explained by language contact, as
in Seliščev (1931), Svane (1992), and Curtis (2012).

Authenticated
On the phonological level, space limitations constrain us to discuss only the most
significant isoglosses separating Geg and Tosk. These are four in number and include:
(1) T VrV sequences ~ G VnV sequences, (2) T stressed schwa ~ G nasalized vowels,
(3) word-initial sequences T va- ~ G vo-, and (4) T ua diphthongs ~ G ue or u. Diachroni-
cally speaking, the first two features both involve inherited sequences of adjacent vowels
and nasals and may originate from a single change rather than two separate changes,
while the third and fourth differences derive from distinct outcomes of the sequence
*#(v)o-. All four of these features have isoglosses that approximate the Shkumbin River.
Other features that have been claimed to distinguish Geg from Tosk, such as the corre-
spondence G p- ~ T mbas in T pas ~ G mbas ‘after’ and the loss of h phonetically in
Geg or its change to f do not hug the same terrain (see Beci 2002: 21−45) and to a large
part seem to be the result of more localized language changes, including, but not limited
to contact-induced change (Curtis 2012: 226−228, 234−239).
3.1. T VrV ~ G VnV
The correspondence of T r with G n is perhaps the most salient phonological isogloss

dividing Geg and Tosk. It can be seen in examples such as T zëri ~ G zâni ‘voice-DEF’,
and T i gjerë ~ G i gjânë ‘wide’. The isogloss for these variants runs quite close to the
Shkumbin River, although there is a narrow transitional area where both variants are
found south of the river (ADA I. 64/129). The original conditioning environment of the
change that precipitated this variation was V_V, although now many of the words affect-
ed by the change no longer have vowels on both sides of the n/r because some unstressed
vowels underwent deletion, as in T emër, emri ~ G emën, emni ‘name-DEF, INDEF’ <
(PAlb *emen-i) < PIE e.g. *H1nmen- (Hamp 1965: 138). Based on the evidence of
loanwords, the Tosk rhotacism definitely occurred after contact with Ancient Greek and
Latin (e.g. T lakër ~ G lakën ‘cabbage’ < Gk. λάχανον ‘vegetable, greens’; T verë ~ G
venë ‘wine’ < Lat. vīnum); while contact with Slavic and Italian in the second half of
the first millennium CE gives very little solid evidence of the rhotacism (Çabej [1963]
2008: 115; Beci 2002: 49). The most commonly cited example of rhotacism from Slavic,
tërsirë (Tosk), tërsinë (Geg) ‘rope’ < PSl *torčina (cf. Bg trŭsina) (Jokl 1916: 106−107)
has rightly been questioned (Orel 2000). In any case, the vast majority of borrowings
from Slavic show no sign of the rhotacism, as in branë ‘harrow’ from Srb brana (Curtis
2012: 102). As an innovation from the middle of the 1 st millennium CE limited to Tosk,
this isogloss is not diachronically connected to similar developments in other IE bran-
ches. More specifically, although some have linked Tosk rhotacism to an analogous trend
in Balkan Romance, neither the phonetic environment nor the geographic distribution
convincingly support a language-contact explanation (Friedman and Joseph To appear).
3.2. T V[-NASAL] ~ G V[+NASAL]
As seen in examples like T zëri ~ G zâni from 2.1, above, stressed schwa in Tosk
corresponds with nasalized vowels in Geg. Additional instances with Tosk schwa include

Authenticated
1804 XV. Albanian
T bëj ~ G bâj ‘do-1SG.PRES’ and më ~ mâ ‘more’, among numerous others, and with
other vowels, compare T dru ~ G drû ‘wood’, T gji ~ G gjû ‘bosom’. In these, an
inherited VN sequence has yielded a simple oral vowel in Tosk, and a nasal vowel in
Geg. In Common Albanian, nasality was transferred from the consonant to the vowel
and, except when followed by another vowel (as in zëri/zâni above), the consonant
disappeared (as in bëj/bâj, dru/drû, etc.). This change is the main source of the differen-
ces in the vowel systems of the two dialects, as Geg ended up with a series of nasal
vowels (counterparts to all oral vowels besides o) but no stressed schwa, whereas Tosk
gained a stressed schwa phoneme (albeit one which shows, as a matter of internal devel-
opment, great variety in the dialects [ADA I. 38a−b2/64−66]) without preserving nasal
vowels (Gjinari and Shkurtaj 2003: 176−183; Beci 2002: 46−49). As with Tosk rhota-
cism, evidence from lexical borrowings shows that this change arose after contact with
Ancient Greek and Latin, while the evidence from Slavic and Italian borrowings shows
a process that was still active at the time, and Turkish borrowings show no signs of the
change (Topalli 1996: 48−53; Beci 2002: 46−47; Curtis 2012: 103−104). The dialectal
spread of this correspondence is roughly the same as the previous one, although the
isogloss of the schwa/nasal correspondence runs a little to the south of the rhotacism
isogloss (Gjinari and Shkurtaj 2003: 167; ADA I. 2a−2d/8−12). The emergence of nasal
vowels from vowel plus nasal sequences is very common cross-linguistically (see de
Vaan, this handbook, for the fate of nasal vowels developed from PIE VN sequences);
however, given the relative chronology emerging from the loanwords, this Albanian
dialectal development is unrelated to parallel phenomena in other IE languages, except
for a possible contact-induced denasalization of adjacent South Slavic dialects through
direct contact (Hamp 1981: 781−782). Nevertheless, the broad geographic scope of the
schwa in Balkan languages differs from the tendency for phonological convergences to
be limited in geographic scope (Sawicka 1997; Curtis 2012; Friedman and Joseph To
appear). A more likely explanation taking into account the wide spread of the schwa in
the Balkans is the possibility of substrate influence (see Beci 2002: 49 and references
therein).
A final point worth bearing in mind, relative to the isogloss just discussed, is that
both Geg and Tosk have unstressed schwas from Proto-Albanian. This is most easily
illustrated in Latin loanwords, as in the second syllable of Buzuku (Geg) sherbëtuor ~
Tosk shërbëtor ‘servant’, based on Latin servitor. However, Geg has a greater tendency
to delete unstressed vowels. Another phonemic vowel distinction in some Albanian dia-
lects, that of length, has also been used to typify Geg and Tosk; however, the distribution
of phonemic length distinctions can hardly be reduced to the Geg~Tosk paradigm be-
cause such distinctions are typical not only of Geg but also Southern Tosk as well (ADA
I. a−e/1−7).
3.3. T va- ~ G vo-
The variation between initial sequences of vain Tosk and vo- in Geg affects some seven
lexemes, including T vaj ~ G voj ‘oil’ < Lat. oleum (Orel 1998: 492, etc.), T i varfër ~
G i vorfën/vorfûn ‘poor, desolate’ < Late Lat. (ultimately Gk.) orphanus, T varr ~ G
vorr ‘grave’ < late Roman orna < Lat. urna ‘cinerary urn’ and T vatra ~ G votra

Authenticated
‘hearth’, (Demiraj 1996: 238−239; Beci 2002: 51). The first three words were borrow-
ings beginning with o-; other words that show the va~vo variation, like T vatër ~ G
votër ‘hearth’, are inherited from PIE with an initial *ā which turned into *ō in Alb,
thus the va- ~ vo- correspondence is the result of dialectally differing outcomes of the
diphthongization of Common Albanian o- (Topalli Forthcoming; Hamp 1976: 201−209;
Beci 2002: 51). The geographic distribution of this variation is similar to the two features
discussed already, with its isogloss falling between them in the east and a little south of
them in the west (ADA I. 56/113), once again supporting the traditional dialect boundary.
Based on loanwords, this dialectal difference appears to come from the time of contact
with Latin and to precede contact with Slavic, thus likely being earlier than the corre-
spondences discussed to this point. Parallels to this prothetic glide can also be found
elsewhere in IE languages (e.g. Russian vosem’ ‘eight’, Italian uomo ‘man’, English one,
etc.), but these are individual, phonetically natural changes.
3.4. T ua ~ G ue
T ua regularly corresponds with G ue, ua, or u, depending on the region. The reflex ue
is the most common in Geg dialects, particularly in the northwest (Beci 2002: 52−53).
The other forms, ua and u, are found in southern Geg and northeastern Geg, respectively.
For parsimony, only forms with ue are given in the examples, although this variety
should still be kept in mind for all of the pertinent examples. The sequences are found
in many words such as T buall ~ G buell ‘(water) buffalo’ and T grua ~ G grue ‘woman,
wife,’ but its most common locus of occurrence is in the participle suffix T -uar ~ G
-ue as in T shkuar ~ G shkue ‘gone’. Historically these correspondences originate in IE
*o in a closed syllable ending in n, evolving to its current state by way of nasalized
vowels, which were later denasalized and diphthongized, although there is disagreement
about the path of development from the diphthongized form uo to the current forms
(Jokl 1931: 277; Jokl 1932: 58; Demiraj 1996: 96−100, see discussion in Beci 2002:
52−53). There is likewise disagreement on when these developments happened and what
possible relation they might have to the changes that brought about the correspondence
of T va ~ G vo. As Latin borrowings underwent these changes, they must have happened
after contact with Latin; Slavic loanwords do not show the change, although this may
be due to the general absence of diphthongs in Slavic, particularly diphthongs beginning
with u-. At the very latest, ue and ua forms were present in the first writings from each
dialect (Demiraj 1996: 100; Beci 2002: 52). Although the Geg variants of ue, ua, and u
have a complex geographical distribution (ADA I. 51a−c/100−102), the isogloss separat-
ing ua from other forms is slightly south of the Shkumbin River (Gjinari and Shkurtaj
2003: 167).
3.5. Diachronic implications of evidence from Geg and Tosk
Although morphosyntactic and lexical features can be used to typify Geg and Tosk, only
the phonological isoglosses discussed above show the precise division between the dia-

Authenticated
1806 XV. Albanian
lects at the approximate geographic corollary of the Shkumbin River. Each of the four
phonological isoglosses developed independently of other Indo-European languages; on
the basis of loanwords, each developed after contact with Ancient Greek and Latin and
before contact with Turkish. Furthermore, the changes leading to these divisions had
been completed before the emigration of Tosk speakers to Southern Italy and Greece in
the 15 th century and the first attestations of the dialects in the 16 th and 17 th centuries.
4. Peripheral dialectal differences

Of the many differences in peripheral dialects of Albanian, some are important only for
Albanian-internal developments (like diphthongization of /ī/ and /ū/ in Eastern Central
Geg), while others are most relevant for discussing language contact with other Balkan
languages (like the loss of a phonemic distinction between /y/ and /i/ in parts of Southern
Tosk). A few, however, have implications for a proper characterization of Albanian
among the Indo-European dialects. These include the phonological distinctions among
Albanian’s laterals, possible reflexes of PIE laryngeals, reflexes of IE velars, and the
dialectal near-preservation of the syllable-count in many words relative to their PIE
etyma. These features from peripheral Albanian dialects are just as important for the
dialectology of Albanian as for the dialectology of Indo-European.
4.1. Laterals
Although most dialects of Albanian have two lateral phonemes, both synchronic and
diachronic evidence point to a historical reconstruction of three laterals, as originally
proposed by Pedersen (1895) and further supported by Hamp (2002) (see also De Vaan,
this handbook). The Arvanitika dialect of Salamina (an island east-southeast of Athens)
has preserved a three-way distinction of laterals ([l], [ʎ], and [ɬ]) (Häbler 1965; Gjinari
and Shkurtaj 2003: 373−374), but in all other dialects besides some Southern Tosk dia-
lects, such as Çam, Arbëresh, and Arvanitika dialects, the palatal lateral *lj (from Latin
l before high front vowels) has been changed to a palatal approximant j as in fëmijë
‘child’ (cf. Arb. fëmilë) < Lat familia, mijë (cf. Arb. mila) ‘thousand’ < Lat milia (Hamp
2002; Pedersen 1895; Ajeti 1998; Gjinari and Shkurtaj 2003: 204). Although most Alba-
nian dialects distinguish between the two other laterals, orthographic < l > and < ll >,
opinions differ on their phonetic realizations in particular dialects; the ADA and other
sources record little variation in the pronunciation of < l > or < ll > in different Albanian
dialects, although there are possible influences of contact with Slavic in the phonetics
of laterals in Northern Geg. (Hamp 2002: 249, on the other hand, argues that West South
Slavic’s rich system of lateral distinctions and alternations comes from its contact with
Albanian, see also Curtis 2012: 246−247.) Although the role of language contact in the
laterals of Albanian and Slavic is uncertain, the presence of a three-way lateral distinc-
tion at some point in Albanian’s history is cross-linguistically uncommon and a charac-
teristic found elsewhere in Indo-European only in some dialects of Irish.

Authenticated
4.2. h ~ γ < IE H4
Albanian dialects exhibit considerable allophony in common Albanian /h/. This variation
is typically treated either as contact influence or as a result of natural phonological
developments within individual dialects of Albanian. However, there is one aspect of
Albanian /h/ that Hamp (1965) has pointed out as particularly relevant for Indo-European
linguistics: an initial /h/ in certain Albanian lexemes as evidence of a fourth IE laryngeal.
Among the many examples he gives are (T) Alb. hap ‘to open’ ~ Hit. appan(a) ‘back,
again’, Skt. ápa ‘away’, Gk. ἀπό, Lat. ab ‘from’ < PIE *Hép- and S Alb. γíń (Std. Alb.
hyj) ‘to enter’ ~ Hitt. u-, we-, wa- ‘hither’, Skt. ava ‘off’, Slav. u- Lat. au- ‘away’ < PIE
*H(V)wV- (1965: 125−126). In typical fashion, Hamp cites forms from Albanian dialects
in southern Italy and Greece. These dialects show a variation of [h]~[γ]~[x], and seem
to indicate that the consonant resulting from the laryngeal would have merged with the
/h/ inherited from PIE *sk̑ in common Albanian. Although Hamp’s proposal for IE has
not been accepted unanimously, mainly due to skepticism about the correspondences he
proposes and the fact that the bulk of his evidence originates from Albanian, his work
presents a consistent phonological basis for the proposal and thus should not be dis-
missed out of hand. Although this difference is not a core concern of Albanian dialectolo-
gy, it is yet another point on which Albanian material has possible implications for the
reconstruction of PIE.
4.3. kl > ki, [c] and Albanian reflexes of PIE gutturals
Another claim about Albanian’s uniqueness within IE has been that Albanian shows
distinct reflexes of each of the three proposed guttural series for PIE. Thus, to take only
the voiceless stops as examples, the PIE palatals normally developed to dentals, as in
thom ‘I say’ < PIE *k̑eHsmi, cf. OAv. sāstī ‘instructs’. However, the plain velars and
labiovelars originally developed differently before a front vowel, only the latter undergo-
ing palatalization, as in si ‘how’, cf. Lat. quī ‘id.’ < PIE *kwiH1 (instr.). At a later time,
after the period of intense borrowing from Latin, plain velars underwent a less radical
form of palatalization before front vowels, becoming palatal stops spelled, in the case
of original voiceless *k, < q > (phonetically [c]), as in pleq ‘elderly’ < *plak-i (PIE
*plH2-ko-) and qen ‘dog’ < *ken < Lat. canis (Jokl 1963: 129−156; Çabej 1976: 63−74;
Orel 2000: 250−256; Fortson 2010: 449−450). In most Albanian dialects, velar pho-
nemes have undergone a more recent palatalization in inherited *kl and *gl clusters. In
Southern Tosk (including Arbëresh and Arvanitika) the laterals are generally preserved
(Gjinari and Shkurtaj 2003: 205−206), while in the north the lateral is jotated, first
yielding -ki- and -gi-, as found in Northwestern Geg, and then the jotation was lost in
Northeastern Geg, leaving -k- and -g-. In the central dialects, however, these became
palatal stops spelled < q > (see above) and < gj > (phonetically) [ɟ]. Thus Arv. klaj, NW
Geg kianj, NE Geg kaj, qaj ‘cry’, cf. Gk. κλαίω. Many of the best examples of this
change are likely borrowings, such as qumësht ‘milk’ < Romance *clomostrum < Lat
colostrum (Orel 1998: 363; Meyer 1891: 229) (cf. Arv klumësh[t]). The Arvanitika form
makes the reconstruction of Proto-Albanian *gl- secure. The jotation of the lateral most
likely happened during the 16 th century, since it is not found in Arbëresh or Arvanitika

Authenticated
1808 XV. Albanian
or the earliest Albanian texts but it is attested in writings from the 17 th century (Topalli
Forthcoming). The rest of the change may be part of an ongoing palatalization found in
the central dialect areas of Albanian (Kolgjini 2004) a change strictly limited to Albani-
an, but adding yet further variety to the already rich history of Albanian’s development
of IE inherited material, and simultaneously further obscuring the evidence of Albanian’s
support for the three-way distinction of gutturals in IE.
4.4. Preservation of syllables from PIE
One final feature from peripheral Albanian dialects of interest for IE is the near-preserva-
tion of the syllable count of words of Indo-European origin in certain Southern Tosk
dialects. More specifically, Hamp (1973) records that dialects of Albanian in Southern
Greece (Southern Arvanitika dialects) have undergone no apocope or syncope; thus, if
we leave out of account the loss of initial unstressed syllables from PIE, these dialects
preserve intact the remaining syllables of their PIE etyma (see also Friedman and Joseph
To appear). For a language where apocope and syncope has been very common, to the
point of obscuring what would otherwise be more transparent etymologies (see Hamp
1965: 124), at least one peripheral dialect is noteworthy for its preservation of all non-
initial PIE syllables.
5. Conclusion
By way of conclusion, the dialects of Albanian are important in the study of the history
of the language’s developments, particularly the role of contact with other languages in
the Balkans. In the context of Indo-European, the dialects of Albanian help clarify the
position of Albanian within Indo-European, and to a small extent also help shine light
on some intriguing features of Proto-Indo-European.
6. References
Ajeti, Idriz
1998 Tipat e l-së në dialektet shqiptare të Brisk-Shestanit të Krajës [Types of l in Albanian
dialects of the Brisk-Shestan of Kraja]. In: Idriz Ajeti, Vepra II. Botime të veçanta
XXXI, Seksioni i Gjuhësisë dhe i letërsisë 15. Prishtinë: Akademia e Shkencave dhe e
Artëve e Kosovës, 141−148.
Barlovac, Bojana
2011 Ethnic Albanians and Bosniaks to Boycott Census over Language. 30 Sep. 2011. Avail-
able online at http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/ethnic-albanians-and-bosniaks-to-
boycott-census-over-language [Last accessed 1 November 2013].
Beci, Bahri
2002 Dialektet e shqipes dhe historia e formimit të tyre [Albanian dialects and the history of
their formation]. Tirana: Dituria.

Authenticated
Çabej, Eqrem
[1963] 2008 Hyrje në historinë e gjuhës shqipe [Introduction to the history of the Albanian
language]. Tirana: Çabej.
Çabej, Eqrem
1976 Mbi disa izoglosa të shqipes me sllavishten [On some Albanian isoglosses with Slavic].
Studime Filologjike 2: 63−74.
Curtis, Matthew C.
2012 Slavic-Albanian Language Contact, Convergence, and Coexistence. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, The Ohio State University.
Demiraj, Shaban
1996 Fonologjia historike e gjuhës shqipe [Historical phonology of the Albanian language].
Tirana: Toena.
Demiraj, Shaban
1998 Albanian. In: Anna Giacalone Ramat and Paolo Ramat (eds.), The Indo-European Lan-
guages. New York: Routledge, 480−501.
ELSTAT (Hellenic Statistical Authority)
2013 Announcement of the demographic and social characteristics of the Resident Population
of Greece according to the 2011 Population-Housing Census. Piraeus, Greece: Division
of Population and Labour Market Statistics.
2010 Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction, 2nd edn. (Blackwell Textbooks
in Linguistics Vol. 19). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Friedman, Victor
2008 Macedonian Dialectology and Eurology: Areal and Typological Perspectives. Sprach-
typologie und Universalienforschung 61: 139−146.
Friedman, Victor and Brian Joseph
To appear The Balkan languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gjinari, Jorgji, Bahri Beci, Gjovalin Shkurtaj, and Xheladin Gosturani (eds.)
2007−2008 Atlasi dialektologjik i gjuhës shqipe [Albanian language dialect atlas], 2 Vols.
Naples: Univ. degli Studi di Napoli l’Orientale.
Gjinari, Jorgji and Gjovalin Shkurtaj
2003 Dialektologjia [Dialectology]. Tirana: Shtepia Botuese e Librit Universitar.
Häbler, Claus
1965 Grammatik der albanischen Mundart von Salamis. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz.
Hamp, Eric
1965 Evidence in Albanian. In: Werner Winter (ed.), Evidence for Laryngeals. The Hague:
Mouton, 123−141.
Hamp, Eric
1966 The Position of Albanian. In: Henrik Birnbaum and Jaan Puhvel (eds.), Ancient Indo-
European Dialects. Berkeley: University of California Press, 97−121.
Hamp, Eric
1973 Albanian words for ‘liver’. In: Braj B. Kachru, Robert B. Lees, Yakov Malkiel, Angelina
Pietrangeli, and Sol Saporta (eds.), Issues in Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Henry and
Renée Kahane. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 310−318.
Hamp, Eric
1981 On the Distribution and Origin of (h)urda. Linguistique Balkanique 24(3): 47−50.
Hamp, Eric
1992 Albanian. In: Jadranka Gvozdanović (ed.), Indo-European Numerals. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter, 835−921.
Hamp, Eric
2002 On Serbo-Croatian’s historic laterals. In: Victor A. Friedman and Donald Dyer (eds.),
Of all the Slavs my favorites: Studies in honor of Howard I. Aronson on the occasion
of his 66 th birthday. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Slavic Studies, 243−250.

Authenticated
1810 XV. Albanian
Hamp, Eric
2007 Studime krahasuese për shqipen [Comparative studies in Albanian]. Prishtina: Akademia
e Shkencave dhe e Arteve e Kosovës.
INSTAT (Republic of Albania Institute of Statistics)
2011 Census 2011. Available online at http://www.instat.gov.al/en/census/census-2011/census-
data.aspx [Last accessed 1 January 2015].
ISTAT (Italian National Institute of Statistics)
2014 Linguistic Diversity among Foreign Citizens in Italy: Years 2011−2012. Available online
at http://www.istat.it/en/archive/129304 [Last accessed 29 August 2014].
Jokl, Norbert
1916 Beiträge zur albanesischen Grammatik. Indogermanische Forschungen 36: 98−162.
Jokl, Norbert
1931 Zur Geschichte des alb. Diphthongs -ua-, -ue-. Indogermanische Forschungen 49: 274−
300.
Jokl, Norbert
1932 Zur Geschichte des alb. Diphthongs -ua-, -ue- (Fortsetzung zu Bd. 49, S. 274 ff.). Indo-
germanische Forschungen 50: 33−59.
Jokl, Norbert
1935 Slaven und Albaner. Slavia 13: 281−325, 609−645.
Jokl, Norbert
1963 Die Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse des Albanischen zu den übrigen indo-germanischen
Sprachen. Die Sprache 9: 113−156.
Karadaku, Linda
2011 Kosovo Census: 1.8 million people, 1.6 million voters. South East European Times, June
11, 2011. Available online at http://setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/
setimes/blogreview/2011/06/11/blog-03 [Last accessed 3 April 2012].
Kolgjini, Julie M.
2004 Palatalization in Albanian: An Acoustic Investigation of Stops and Affricates. Unpub-
lished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Arlington.
Lewis, M. Paul, Gary F. Simons, and Charles D. Fennig (eds.)
2014 Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Seventeenth edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL Interna-
tional. Available online at http://www.ethnologue.com/ [Last accessed 29 August 2014].
Lutovska, Klaudija
2013 Council of Europe urges Macedonia to conduct a census. South East European Times,
23 July 2013. Available online at http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/
features/setimes/features/2013/07/23/feature-01 [Last accessed 1 November 2013].
Maddieson, Ian
2013 Lateral Consonants. In: Matthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The World
Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary
Anthropology. Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/8 [Last accessed 23 November
2013].
Maynard, Kelly
2009 The Aspect Marker pe in Samsun Albanian. Papers from the Annual Meeting of the
Chicago Linguistics Society 45(1): 429.
Meyer, Gustav
1891 Etymologisches Wörterbuch der albanesischen Sprache. Strassburg: Trübner.
Miliyet
2008 Türkiye'deki Kürtlerin sayısı! [The number of Kurds in Turkey] 06 June 2008. Available
online at http://www.milliyet.com.tr/default.aspx?aType=SonDakika&Kategori=yasam&
ArticleID=873452&Date=07. 06. 2008 [Last accessed 27 August 2014].

Authenticated
MONSTAT (Montenegrin Statistical Office)

2011 Statistical Yearbook 2011. Available online at http://www.monstat.org/userfiles/file/
publikacije/godisnjak%202011/GODISNJAK%20 %202011-%20new.pdf [Last accessed
1 January 2015].
Orel, Vladimir
1998 Albanian Etymological Dictionary. Leiden: Brill.
Orel, Vladimir
2000 Concise Historical Grammar of Albanian: Reconstruction of Proto-Albanian. Leiden:
Brill.
Pedersen, Holger
1895 Die Albanischen l-Laute. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 33: 535−551.
Pedersen, Holger
1900 Die Gutturale im Albanischen. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 36: 277−
340.
Pekušić, Biljana
2011 Serbian Bosniak and Albanian minorities to boycott census South East European Times,
8 Oct. 2011. Available online at http://setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/
features/setimes/features/2011/10/08/feature-02 [Last accessed 11 January 2013].
Popis na Naselenieto, Domaќinstvata i Stanovite vo Republika Makedonija
2002 [List of the population, households and dwellings in the Republic of Macedonia]. Skop-
je: Republic of Macedonia State Statistical Office. Available online at http://
www.stat.gov.mk/publikacii/knigaX.pdf [Last accessed 1 January 2015].
Rekos
2011 (Regjistrimi i popullsisë, ekonomive familjare dhe banesave në Kosovë 2011: Rezultatet
paraprake [Census of Population, Households and Dwellings in Kosovo 2011: Prelimi-
nary results]). Prishtina: Enti Statistik i Kosovës. Available online at http://esk.rks-gov.
net/rekos2011/ [Last accessed 3 April 2012].
Sawicka, Irena
1997 The Balkan Sprachbund in the light of phonetic features. (Studia humanitatis 2). War-
saw: Energia.
Seliščev, Afanasii M.
1931 Slavianskoe naselenie v Albanii [Slavic settlement in Albania]. Sofiia: MNI.
1965 Fshati shqiptar i Bullgarisë, Mandrica, studim dhe tekste [Mandrica, the Albanian village
of Bulgaria, study and texts]. Studime Filologjike 1: 103−141.
Svane, Gunnar
1992 Slavische Lehnwörter im Albanischen. (Acta Jutlandica LXVIII Humanistische Reihe
67). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Topalli, Kolec
1996 Për historinë e hundorësisë së zanoreve në gjuhën shqipe [On the history of the nasality
of vowels of Albanian]. Tirana: Shtëpia Botuese “Enciklopedike”.
Topalli, Kolec
Forthcoming Phonetic History of Albanian.
Wolff, Stefan, Pieter van Houten, Ana-Maria Anghelea, and Ivana Djuric
2008 Minority Rights in the Western Balkans. Report for the European Parliament. Brussels
and Strasbourg: European Parliament.
Matthew C. Curtis, Brussels (Belgium)

Authenticated
1812 XV. Albanian
100. The evolution of Albanian

One of the latest attested of all Indo-European languages, with just traces before the 16 th
century and the first full text only in 1555 (see Rusakov, this handbook), Albanian is
also one of the most evolved, having undergone continuous and far-reaching changes in
all areas of its linguistic system, including even its name. The Albanians call themselves
shqiptar (= [ʃciptár]), a derivative of shqip denoting their native language. But before
the 15 th century they generally called themselves arbënesh / arbëresh (= [arbənéʃ /
arbəréʃ], showing effects of the southern [Tosk] dialect sound change of n > r intervocali-
cally), a derivative of Arbën / Arbër, which owes its origin to a Southern Illyrian tribal
name that was early generalized to all the Illyrian tribes speaking the same idiom. This
denomination was also adopted by foreigners: compare Italian Albania ~ albanese, Greek
’Αλβανός, ’Αρβανός, ’Αρβανίτης (showing the effects of two Greek sound changes, l >
r before a consonant and b > v), Serbian Arban / Raban (with Slavic metathesis of VR
to RV), Arbanas, Bulgarian albanec, Turkish arna(v)ut (via a metathesized form of the
Greek term), etc. Albanian is now the official language of two nations (Albania and the
Republic of Kosovo) and is spoken in five other countries (Greece, Italy, Macedonia,
Montenegro, and Serbia), with enclaves in yet others (especially Bulgaria, Croatia, and
Turkey) and a more recent diaspora population in the United States and Western Europe.
The numerous changes characterizing the evolution of the Albanian language cover
all the Albanian-speaking areas, including those of the Albanian settlements in Greece
and Italy, which took place not later than the 15th−16 th centuries CE. The phonological
system of Albanian has been almost entirely reorganized compared to that of reconstruct-
ed Proto-Indo-European. It suffices to mention that, with the exception of short (late)
PIE */a/ and short IE */i/ and */u/, all the other IE reconstructed long and short vowels
have undergone change in Albanian. Thus, as in Germanic, the IE long vowels */ā/ and
*/ō/ have evolved to /o/, whereas */a/ and */o/ have merged to /a/. Remarkably, PIE
long */ē/ has become /o/ and long */ō/ shows up as /e/, a pair of developments seen
nowhere else in Indo-European. Albanian has also developed a front rounded vowel /y/
common to all dialects as well as an unstressed /ə/ which, however, may be stressed in
southern Albanian (Tosk). The northern dialects (Geg) retain nasalized vowels that de-
veloped in Proto-Albanian, and were systematically denasalized in Tosk dialects. Finally,
it is to be noted that Albanian has replaced the free PIE accent by a fixed one, which
generally falls upon the penultimate stem syllable in substantives and the final stem
syllable in verbs. All such changes took place prior to the contacts between Albanian
and Balkan Slavonic, i.e. before the 7 th century CE. Moreover, Albanian has lost not
only the IE reconstructed long ~ short vowel opposition, but also the new long ~ short
vowel opposition which appeared in the course of its own development.
Similar remarks can be made for the consonantal system as well. Thus, the three-way
IE reconstructed voiced ~ voiceless ~ voiced aspirated system of obstruents has been
reduced, as in many IE dialects, to a double opposition: voiced ~ voiceless; and the
outcomes of the three dorsal series suggest that Albanian, like Luwian, may have origi-
nally retained this three-way opposition intact and therefore is neither centum nor satem,
despite the clear satem-like outcome of its palatal dorsals in most instances. The evidence
for this is the palatalization of original PIE labiovelars, but not plain velars, before front
vowels (as in si ‘how’ < *kwi-, compare Latin quia, and kohë ‘time’ < *kēsk̑ā, compare
OCS časъ). Other satem groups like Indo-Iranian and Slavic also show palatalization of
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-021

Authenticated
100. The evolution of Albanian 1813
velars before front vowels, but in these instances both plain velars and labiovelars under-
go this development together. Even in its satem-like treatment of PIE palatal dorsals,
Albanian shows an original feature found elsewhere in Indo-European only in Old Per-
sian: the development of voiceless palatal *k̑ to th [θ] and palatal *g̑( h) to dh [ð]~ d.
Other peculiarities of Albanian are its possession, on an apparently ancient level, of a
set of voiceless ~ voiced palatal plosives /c/ ~/ɟ/ (<q> ~ <gj> in the modern orthography),
without exact parallels in other IE languages. On the other hand, its opposition of voice-
less and voiced hissing and hushing affricates [ts] ~ [dz] (<c> ~ <x> in the modern
orthography), and [tʃ] ~ [dʒ] (<ç> ~ <xh> in the modern orthography), is reminiscent of
Armenian as well as many Slavic languages.
The grammatical structure of Albanian has also undergone ancient profound changes
compared to that of reconstructed PIE. It suffices to mention here that both its nominal
and verbal inflections have been entirely reorganized. Like some other IE languages,
Albanian has developed a double (indefinite ~ definite) substantive declension by oppos-
ing indefinite case forms to definite ones, the latter having been created by the postposi-
tion of a definite article, as in Rumanian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Armenian, and Danish
together with the other Scandinavian languages. Its case forms have been reduced by
the ever-growing use of prepositions. Albanian has also created an inflected prepositive
“article” used particularly to form a class of adjectives opposed to another class of
article-less adjectives (compare i mirë ‘good’ ~ trim ‘brave’). Something similar has
occurred in Rumanian as well, where, however, each adjective may be pre-articulated in
certain syntactic contexts. In both of these languages, the adjectives usually follow their
head nouns.
A general reorganization has also characterized the Albanian verbal conjugation. Like
most IE languages, Albanian has developed new tense and modal oppositions and has
gradually moved away from the ancient aspectual oppositions. Its tense system distin-
guishes present ~ imperfect ~ aorist ~ analytical perfect, and analytical past perfect (the
last two by means of the have ~ be auxiliaries). Moreover, Albanian, like the other
Balkan languages, has created an analytical future by means of the prepositive particle
do, which is in origin the third person singular form of the modal verb dua ‘will’,
followed by the present subjunctive. A second analytical future of necessity is also used
in Albanian, formed by the auxiliary have followed by the infinitive in the northern
dialect (Geg) or by the subjunctive present in both Geg and Tosk.
Albanian has also developed a modal form having no parallel in other Indo-European
languages. This is the so-called admirative mood, expressing astonishment or any action
not vouched for by the speaker. The admirative present has been formed through an
inversion and univerbation of the components making up the analytic perfect (cf. admira-
tive qenkam < qenë kam ‘one says that I am’ vs. perfect kam qenë ‘I have been’) and
has parallels in Macedonian and Bulgarian, as well as Turkish, among Balkan languages.
Like Indo-Iranian and Greek, Albanian possesses both an optative and a subjunctive;
and like Latin, it has developed a formal subjunctive tense opposition of present ~ imper-
fect ~ perfect ~ past perfect (the same may be said of the admirative). All of its subjunc-
tive tense forms are preceded by a particle (të ‘that’), as in the other Balkan languages.
It is to be noted that Albanian, like the other Balkan languages, has developed the
tendency to use subjunctive forms instead of the infinitive. In fact, Albanian has no
infinitive formed by means of special suffixes, as in all the other IE languages with the
exception of the Celtic branch. Formally its attested infinitive coincides with its past

Authenticated
1814 XV. Albanian
participle preceded by the prepositional particle me ‘with’. Such an infinitive has been
securely attested only in the northern Geg dialect, this being the most striking grammati-
cal difference between that dialect and the southern dialect Tosk. The other differences
between these two dialects of Albanian are mostly of a phonetic character, the most
remarkable of which is the rhotacism of (-n- > -r-) in Tosk noted above regarding Ar-
bën(ë) > Arbër(ë). Denasalization of vowels in Tosk also differentiates the two dialects,
again as noted above. The northern ~ southern dialectal separation within Albanian dates
back to its pre-Slavonic stage of development.
The convergence with other Balkan languages in such grammatical features as the
future tense, the admirative, and a preference for the subjunctive in place of an infinitive
surely involves contact of a particularly intense and sustained kind between Albanian
speakers and speakers of the other languages in the Balkans. Such convergences extend
into the nominal system, as the postpositive marking for definiteness mentioned above
shows, and are seen as well in the merger of case-marking for genitive and dative func-
tions, a trait also found in Greek and Romanian in their case marking, and in Bulgarian
and Macedonian through prepositional usage (na for both functions).
Of course, still more remarkable is the evolution of the Albanian lexicon with its
numerous loanwords from various languages, specifically ancient Greek, Latin, Slavic,
and Turkish (as well as recent loans from Italian and now English), dating to various
known periods of contact with these other languages in the Balkans. Moreover, these
loans can be shown to fit into an orderly chronology not just by extralinguistic informa-
tion concerning periods of contact but by their interaction as well with known sound
changes. Thus, mokërë ‘millstone’, from ancient Greek μᾱχανᾱ́ ‘instrument’, shows the
effects of rhotacism, and mjek ‘doctor’, from Latin medicus, shows the effects of the
loss of medial voiced stops, a change which inherited words also underwent (e.g. erë
‘smell’ < *ōd-ro-, cf. Latin odor); however, Slavic loanwords, coming after the arrival
of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6 th century, show the effects of neither change, and
neither do Turkish loans, borrowed during the period of Ottoman rule. A further telling
point lexically is the fact that in the reconstruction of the PIE word for ‘100’, every
Indo-European dialect has input to offer except for Albanian and Armenian. In the latter
case, the term hariwr is of unknown (but surely foreign) origin, whereas the Albanian
term (një)qind (Tosk [nji]qind) (një/nji ‘one’) is manifestly a borrowing from Latin
centum.
Thus in its evolution over the many millennia since Proto-Indo-European, Albanian
shows significant effects from language contact as well as numerous internally motivated
changes, in both instances leading it away from the prototype of PIE.
References
Bopp, Franz
1855 Über das Albanesische in seinen verwandtschaftlichen Beziehungen (gelesen in der Kö-
nigl. Akad. der Wissenschaften am 18. Mai 1854). Abhandlungen der preußischen Aka-
demie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Kl. Berlin.
Demiraj, Bardhyl
1997 Albanische Etymologien. Untersuchungen zum Albanischen Erbwortschatz. Amsterdam/
Atlanta: Rodopi.

Authenticated
100. The evolution of Albanian 1815
Demiraj, Bardhyl
2001 Das Meyersche Gesetz über den Schwund der intervokalischen Media im Albanischen.
Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 61: 57−93.
Demiraj, Bardhyl
2012 Umsiedler oder Alteingesessene? Fragen zur Urheimat der Albaner im Frühmittelalter.
Südost-Forschungen 71: 382−392.
Demiraj, Shaban
1986 Gramatikë historike e gjuhës shqipe [Historical grammar of Albanian]. Tirana: SHBLU.
Demiraj, Shaban
2006 The origin of the Albanians (linguistically investigated). Tirana: Academy of Sciences
of Albania.
Fiedler, Wilfried
2003 Albanisch. In: Thorsten Roelcke (ed.), Variationstypologie. Ein sprachtypologisches
Handbuch der europäischen Sprachen in Geschichte und Gegenwart / Variation Typolo-
gy. A Typological Handbook of European Languages Past and Present. Berlin/New
York: De Gruyter, 749−797.
Hamp, Eric P.
1966 The Position of Albanian. In: Henrik Birnbaum and Jaan Puhvel (eds.), Ancient Indo-
European Dialekts. Proceedings of the Conference on IE linguistics held at the Universi-
ty of California Los Angeles, April 25−27, 1963. Los Angeles, 97−121.
Hamp, Eric P.
1972 Albanian. In: Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Linguistics in Western Europe. (Current Trends
in Linguistics, Vol. 9). The Hague/Paris: Mouton, 1626−1692.
Hock, Wolfgang
2005 Zur Vorgeschichte des albanischen Lautsystems. In: Gerhard Meiser and Olav Hackstein
(eds.), Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel. Akten der XI. Fachtagung der Indogermani-
schen Gesellschaft; 17.−23. September 2000, Halle an der Saale. Wiesbaden: L. Reich-
ert, 261−274.
Huld, Martin E.
1984 Basic Albanian Etymologies. Columbus OH: Slavica.
1981 Albanisch und Urindogermanisch. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 40: 93−
131.
1994 Das Albanische als Glied der indogermanischen Sprachfamilie. In: Rasmussen (ed.),
221−233.
Ölberg, Herman
1987 Sprachlicher Kontakt und Lautchronologie. In: Dona slavica aenipontana. In honorem
Herbert Schelesniker. München: R. Trofenik, 135−145.
Orel, Vladimir
1994 Albanian and Indo-European. In: Rasmussen (ed.), 349−364.
Rasmussen, Jens Elmegård (ed.)
1994 In honorem Holger Pedersen. Kolloquium der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 25.
bis 28. Marz 1993 in Kopenhagen. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert.
2013 Die Verben des Altalbanischen. Belegwörterbuch. Vorgeschichte und Etymologie. Unter
Mitarbeit von Anna-Maria Adaktylos. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz.
Solta, Georg Renatus
1980 Einführung in die Balkanlinguistik mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Substrats und
des Balkanlateinischen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft
Bardhyl Demiraj, Munich (Germany)

Authenticated
XVI. Languages of fragmentary attestation
101. Phrygian
1. Introduction 5. Morphology
2. Phonemic inventory 6. Syntax
3. Morphonology 7. References
4. Historical development
1. Introduction
Phrygian is an extinct Indo-European language of West and Central Anatolia, the written
sources of which span the period between the 8 th century BCE and 3 rd century CE.
1.1. Greek sources refer to Phrygians either as Βρίγες (Herodian, Strabo, Stephanus
Byzantinus), Βρύγες (Strabo), Βρῦγοι (Strabo), Βρίγαντες (Herodian) or as Φρύγες (Ho-
mer). According to Herodotus (VII 73), the Phrygians originally were neighbors of the
Macedonians and were called Βρίγες as long as they dwelt in Europe. When they
changed their home to Asia, they also changed their name. A similar account is also
given by Strabo (VII 3, 2).
1.2. The time of the Phrygian migration to Anatolia is heavily debated, as is also the
question of whether we can identify the Muški of Assyrian sources with the Phrygians.
Homer has the young king Priam aiding the Phrygians against the Amazons (Il. III 189);
in return, Phrygians come to Trojan aid (II 862 ff.). If true, these two facts would place
the Phrygian migration before the collapse of the Bronze Age, i.e. the 12 th c. BCE; but
the Homeric account can easily be anachronistic. At any rate, in the 8 th c. BCE, Phrygi-
ans established a powerful kingdom with the capital Gordion (Gk. Γόρδιον, now Yassıhü-
yük) at the river Sangarios (now Sakarya), where Alexander the Great famously severed
the knot on his way to Egypt. Other ancient sites include the so-called Midas city (near
Yazılıkaya in Eskişehir province), Daskyleion (near Bandırma), and Dorylaion (now
Eskişehir).
Thriving under the legendary king Midas, the Kingdom of Phrygia was sacked by
the Cimmerians around 695 BCE and then frequently changed hands: it was first a part
of Lydia (7 th−6 th c. BCE), then of the Persian Empire (6 th−4 th c. BCE) and of the Empire
of Alexander (4 th c. BCE). Later, Phrygia was ruled by the Kingdom of Pergamum (2 nd
c. BCE), until it was added to the Roman province of Asia during the late Republic.
During the Roman period, Phrygia, lying to the east of Troas, bordered on its northern
side with Galatia, on the south with Lycaonia, Pisidia, and Mygdonia and on the east, it
touched upon Cappadocia.
1.3. Phrygian is most closely related to Greek. The two languages share a few unique
innovations, such as the vocalization of the laryngeals (4.3), the pronoun auto- (5.2) and
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-022

Authenticated
101. Phrygian 1817
the 3sg. imperative middle ending (5.3). It is therefore very likely that both languages
emerged from a single language, which was spoken in the Balkans at the end of the
third millennium BCE.
1.4. Written in two distinct scripts − one native and the other Greek − Phrygian inscrip-
tions can on the whole be divided into two corpora: the Old Phrygian (OPhr.) corpus
written in the native script, and the New Phrygian (NPhr.) corpus written in the Greek
script. Old Phrygian, as opposed to New Phrygian, is customarily romanized with the
exception of the disputed signs ↑, Φ and Ψ.
1.5. The native script is an alphabet consisting of 21 characters:
A B G D E V I J K L M N O P R S T U C F X
a b g d e v i y k l m n o p r s t u ↑ Φ Ψ
Similar to the archaic Greek alphabets, the native script is essentially distinguished by
the arrow and the yod. The last two letters of the table above, which look like Greek
phi and psi, are very rare. Φ occurs only once as a variant of the arrow, while Ψ (ten
occurrences) most probably stands for /ks/. The yod does not appear in the oldest OPhr.
inscriptions and was introduced somewhere during the 6 th c. BCE (Lejeune 1969), first
in prevocalic and word-final positions (e.g., areyastin, kuryaneyon, yosesait; tedatoy,
aey, materey, avtay, etc.), later also as a second element of i-diphthongs (ayni, ktevoys,
etc.; Lubotsky 1993). Most inscriptions from the North-West of Phrygia (Vezirhan,
Daskyleion, etc.) show some deviations from the usual OPhr. alphabet. The yod has a
different shape, and there are two types of s, usually transcribed as s and ś (for an
overview and discussion of these peculiarities, see Brixhe 2004: 26−32). Since these
inscriptions normally lack the arrow sign, it seems reasonable to assume that ś and the
arrow indicated the same sound. Words are often separated by a colon consisting of 2,
3, or more vertical dots and occasionally by spaces.
About two thirds of the OPhr. inscriptions run from left to right (dextroverse) and
one third from right to left (sinistroverse); a few are written boustrophedon. In North-
West Phrygia, however, the proportion is exactly the opposite, two thirds of the inscrip-
tions being sinistroverse.
The OPhr. corpus currently comprises more than 400, unfortunately mostly very short
and fragmentary, inscriptions and dates from the 8 th to the 4 th c. BCE; ca. one fifth of
the inscriptions are on stone and the rest on pottery or other small objects. The inscrip-
tions are found across a huge area, far outside Phrygia proper: as far east as Boğazköy
and Tyana (Hittite Tuwanuwa), as far south as Bayındır (near Antalya) and as far west
as Daskyleion. The largest number of inscriptions comes from Gordion (ca. 80 %).
The standard edition of the OPhr. corpus is Brixhe and Lejeune (1984). The inscrip-
tions are cited by the region where they are found and by a number. Each inscription is
hence assigned a siglum: B − Bithynia; G − Gordion; P − Pteria; M − Midas City; T −
Tyana; W − West Phrygia; HP (i.e. hors de Phrygie) − from outside of Phrygia; NW −
North West Phrygia (Dorylaion); Dd (i.e. documents divers) − of unknown origin. The
corpus continues to be updated by means of supplements (Brixhe 2002, 2004).

Authenticated
1818 XVI. Languages of fragmentary attestation
1.6. NPhr. inscriptions are written in the Greek alphabet, of which only 21 characters
are used: <α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, ι, κ, λ, μ, ν, ξ, ο, π, ρ, σ, τ, υ, ψ, ω>. Greek aspiratae are
notably absent, except for Greek names (e.g., Αδιθρερακ, dat.sg. Κλευμαχοι) and loan-
words (e.g., dat.sg. θαλαμειδη ‘sepulchral chamber’). The letters ξ and ψ are very rare
(found only in the name Ξευν- and υψοδαν ‘above’, respectively), while eta and omega
are practically confined to final syllables. New Phrygian by default does not practice
word separation.
Dating from the 2 nd−3 rd c. CE, the NPhr. corpus currently comprises 113 inscriptions,
all of them found in the highlands roughly between Eskişehir and Konya. They are
numbered from 2 to 129: occasionally, a number is skipped since certain inscriptions are
in the meantime considered Greek. A new edition of NPhr. inscriptions is a desideratum.
The largest collection (up to No. 110) is presented in Haas (1966: 114−129); editions of
Nos. 111−129 are scattered across various publications (Nos. 111−114 = Brixhe 1978a:
3−7; No. 115 = Brixhe and Waelkens 1981; No. 116 = Brixhe and Neumann 1985;
No. 117 = Laminger-Pascher 1984: 35; No. 118 = Mitchell 1993: 186, fig. 33; Nos. 119−
125 = Brixhe and Drew-Bear 1997; Nos. 126–128 = Drew-Bear, Lubotsky, and Üyümez
2008; No. 129 = Brixhe and Drew-Bear 2010; cf. also an overview in Brixhe 1999).
Typically opening with ιος νι σεμουν κνουμανει κακουν αδδακετ ‘whoever inflicts
harm upon this grave’, NPhr. inscriptions usually consist of a curse following a Greek
epitaph, but there are a few Phrygian epitaphs, too.
1.7. As expounded in the preceding sections, the chronological difference between the
OPhr. and the NPhr. corpora is normally matched by the use of different alphabets: the
native alphabet in the case of OPhr. inscriptions and the Greek alphabet in the case of
NPhr. inscriptions. There is, however, one exception: the Dokimeion inscription from
the 4 th century BCE, which most probably represents an epigram, is written in the Greek
alphabet. This must no doubt be due to the increased influence of Greek during Alexan-
drian times.
1.8. Apart from the inscriptions, Phrygian words are known from Greek sources as well.
Plato (Kratylos 410a) quotes πῦρ ‘fire’, ὕδωρ ‘water’ and κύνες ‘dogs’ as shared lexical
items. The dictionary of Hesychius quotes some forty words and names with a remark
like Φρύγες οr παρὰ Φρυξί, e.g. γλούρεα· χρύσεα. Φρύγες; ζέμελεν· βάρβαρον ἀνδράπο-
δον. Φρύγες; Μαζεύς· ὁ Ζεὺς παρὰ Φρυξί, etc. These glosses are of questionable value,
however. The remark “Φρύγες” does not guarantee Phrygian provenance of the gloss,
because it could also refer to Anatolians, or even to foreigners in general. Of these
glosses, βέκος ‘bread’ (also mentioned by Herodotus II 2) is arguably the most famous
one.
2. Phonemic inventory
2.1. Vowels
− OPhr. /a/, /e/, /o/, /i/, /u/ /ā/, /ō/, (/ī/, /ū/ ?);
− NPhr. /a/, /e/, /o/, /i/, /u/ (/ē/, /ō/ ?)

Authenticated
101. Phrygian 1819
Although vowel length is not expressed in writing, Old Phrygian must have had long
vowels, at least /ō/, as follows from the fact that OPhr. <o> has two different reflexes
in NPhr.: ο or ου, depending on its origin. OPhr. o that goes back to Proto-Indo-European
(PIE) *o corresponds to NPhr. ο: OPhr. yos, ios, relative pronoun < PIE *ios ~ NPhr.
ιος; OPhr. 3sg. med. ending -toi, -toy < PIE *-toi ~ NPhr. -τοι. On the other hand, OPhr.
o that goes back to PIE *ō corresponds to NPhr. ου: OPhr. 3sg. med. imperative ending
-do < *-sdhō (cf. Gk. -σθω) ~ NPhr. -δου; OPhr. dat.sg. ending -oi, -oy < PIE *-ōi (cf.
Gk. -ῳ) ~ NPhr. -ου.
Presumably, there was no OPhr. phoneme /ē/, since PIE *ē and *eh1 merged with
*eh2 into OPhr. a, cf. OPhr. matar nom.sg. ‘mother’ < PIE *meh2tēr, NPhr. αναρ ‘man’
< *-ēr, OPhr. daΨet ‘to place, make’ < *deh1-k-, etc. There are no certain examples of
OPhr. /ī/, /ū/, so that their existence remains hypothetical.
During the NPhr. period, short and long vowels of OPhr. apparently merged and gave
rise to a vowel system without a length opposition: /a/, /e/, /o/, /i/, /u/, at least in initial
syllables (thus already Brixhe 1990: 98). The absence of long vowels is further indicated
by the use of the hexameter in New Phrygian, where we only find dactylic rhythm and
where the function of long vowels was taken by vowels which are long per positionem
and by diphthongs (Lubotsky 1998). The status of NPhr. η and ω, which mostly occur
in final syllables, is unclear, but they might have represented close long [ẹ̄] and [ọ̄].
NPhr. η most often appears in the final syllable: in the dat.sg. ending of the consonant
stems, where it varies with -ε/-ι and -ει, cf. κνουμανη dat.sg. ‘grave’ ~ κνουμανε(ι),
κνουμανι, Τιη dat.sg. ‘Zeus’ ~ Τι(ε), Ξευνη PN ~ Ξευνε; in the ending -αης, cf. δεκμου-
ταης ~ δεκμουταις; in the ending -ης, cf. πατερης (No. 98) nom.pl. ‘parents’ (< *-eies),
for NPhr. μανκης (No. 86) see 5.1; the function and meaning of δ[α]κερης (No. 116)
and παρτης has not yet been clarified. A few times NPhr. η is found in prevocalic
position: μαιμαρηαν, τιηιον, εκατηας. For a discussion of this grapheme, see Lubotsky
(1998). In contemporary Greek, η had already merged with ι. NPhr. ω is confined, with
very few exceptions, to the dat.pl. ending -ως, which goes back to PIE *-ōis (this ending
is spelled with <ο> only three times). It typically occurs in the formula με ζεμελως κε
δεως κε ‘among men and gods’.
The Phr. short diphthongs are: /ey/ = <ey, ei, ει >, /ew/ = <ev, ευ>, /oy/ = <oy, oi,
οι >, /ay/ = <ay, ai, αι >, and /aw/ = <av, αυ>. The existence of the diphthong /ow/ is
uncertain. In NPhr., it would at any rate be indistinguishable from ου = /u/. In OPhr.,
we find it once in the nom.sg. Vasous PN (P-03), next to Vasus (P-05) < *u̯asōus (?),
and once in final position in otekonov (B-01). This enigmatic ending -ov is reminiscent
of forms like tubetiv and derạliv (B-05) or apelev (B-07) and is likely to be due to a
dialectal North-Western development.
Besides short diphthongs, there must have been at least two long diphthongs in OPhr.,
that is, /ōy/, cf. OPhr. o-stem dat. sg. -oi, NPhr. -ου < PIE *-ōi (see above), and /āi/, cf.
OPhr. ā-stem dat.sg. -ai, NPhr. -α (see further 4.1).
2.2. Consonants
− /p/ = <p, π>; /t/ = <t, τ>; /k/ = <k, κ>
− /b/ = <b, β>; /d/ = <d, δ>; /g/ = <g, γ>

Authenticated
− /z/ or /dz/ = <↑, ζ>

− /s/ = <s, σ>
− /m/ = <m, μ>; /n/ = <n, ν>
− /l/ = <l, λ>; /r/ = <r, ρ>
− /w/= <v, ο(υ)>; /y/ = <y, i, ι >
The phonological interpretation of the OPhr. arrow <↑>, which is probably identical
with <ś> (see 1.5), and of NPhr. <ζ> remains controversial. Since OPhr. <↑> only
occurs before front vowels (i, e), it is likely that this letter represents a sound which
arises through palatalization. In NPhr. inscriptions, <ζ> appears in two words, ζεμελως
dat.pl. ‘men’ (< PIE *dhǵ(h)emelo-, cf. Gk. χθαμαλός, Lat. humilis ‘low, humble’) and
ζειρα(ι) of unknown meaning and function. If OPhr. śirạy = ↑irạy of the Vezirhan inscrip-
tion is the same word as NPhr. ζειραι, we have to assume that NPhr. <ζ> and the OPhr.
arrow indicated the same sound, presumably a voiced affricate or /z/.
For a possible voiceless geminate nn, see 4.2.
In the Greek alphabet, /w/ is written either <ου> or simply <ο> in prevocalic position,
cf. ουεναουιας, ουανακταν (No. 88), οαν οε αυται (No. 116), κοροαν (W-11).
3. Morphonology
Morphemes, both suffixes and roots, show ablaut. In nominal inflection of the consonant
stems, the suffix changes its vocalism, e.g. nom.sg. -tar (<*-tēr) vs. obl. -ter- in matar,
materey, materan ‘mother’; nom.sg. -an (< *-ēn) vs. obl. -en- in ορουαν, ορουενος,
ορουεναν ‘warden’; iman, i(n)meney, imenan ‘monument’; nom.sg. -ōu- vs. obl. -u- in
Vas(o)us, Vasos (< *u̯asu̯os). Examples of ablaut in the root are: da- < *dheh1- ‘place,
do’ (t-e-da-toy, e-daes, αδδακετ) vs. de- <*dhh̥1- (δετο(υ)ν ‘monument’, a to-participle);
teik- < *deik̑- ‘show’ (ιστεικετ, thus to be read in No. 88, cf. Brixhe 1999: 304, fn. 46
~ Gk. ἐκ-δείκνυμι) vs. tik- < *dik̑- (τιτ-τετικμενος ‘condemned’ ~ Gk. δια-δικάζω ‘I
judge’).
In Phrygian, word final *-on is raised to -un, for instance, in the acc.sg. ending of o-
stems, cf. OPhr. acc.sg. akaragayun (M-02) ‘part of the monument’, avtun ‘himself’ (W-
01b), NPhr. κακουν ‘damage, wrong’. The latter word often appears as κακον in NPhr.
inscriptions and sometimes as κακιν, κακων. A parallel raising of e to i before nasals is
possibly attested in OPhr. iman, imen- ‘monument’, if we assume with Vine (2010) that
it goes back to *en-mēn, en-men-os (~ Gk. ἐμμενές ‘continuously’), and in NPhr. πινκε
(No. 116), if it means ‘five’, PIE *penk we. Further, o was raised to u in the position
before ri̯ , li̯ , cf. OPhr. kuryaneyon (W-01c), which was borrowed from Gk. κοιρανέων
‘giving orders; ruling’ < *kori̯ - in Mycenaean times (Lubotsky 1988: 23).
Another development in word-final position is *-ans > -ais, which follows from the
inflection of titles or patronymics in -evais (arkiaevais, memevais, kanutievais): nom.sg.
-evais, gen.sg. -evanos < *-evans, -evanos, most probably going back to *-eu̯ants,
*-eu̯antos < *-eu̯n̥ts, *-eu̯n̥t-os (for the development of *-nt- see 4.2). For a parallel, cf.
Greek Lesbian ταις < *τανς. It is further attractive to assume that the ending OPhr. -ais,
NPhr. -αης, -αις is acc.pl. in some contexts and reflects PIE *-ns (Brixhe 2004: 41−42);
similarly, OPhr. -ois can go back to *-ons.

Authenticated
101. Phrygian 1821
Final clusters are reduced, cf. OPhr. °vanak nom.sg. ‘king’ < *-kts, cf. OPhr. dat.sg.
vanaktei, NPhr. acc.sg. ουανακταν, Gk. ἄναξ, -κτος ‘lord, master’; Βας nom.sg. (name
of a deity) < *-ts (acc.sg. Βαταν), ας prep. ‘to, towards’ < *-ts (= αδ + s, cf. Gk. εἰς
beside ἐν and ἐξ beside ἐκ); NPhr. δακαρεν 3pl. ‘they made erect’ (No. 98) < *-nt; 3sg.
aor. ending OPhr. -es, NPhr. -ες < *-est.
The vowels /e/ and /i/ show some vacillation, presumably in pretonic position, both
in Old and New Phrygian, cf. kubeleya (B-01) and kubileya (W-04) ‘Cybele’ (epithet of
the Mother Goddess), δεως (passim) and διως (Nos. 4, 5, 39), δυως (No. 113) dat.pl.
‘gods’; αββερετορ (Nos. 73, 75) and αββιρετο (No. 25).
In clusters consisting of a dental and a stop, the dental becomes completely assimilat-
ed to the stop. The resulting geminate is often simplified in NPhr., cf. α(β)βερετ (αδ°)
‘bring’, τιγ-γεγαριτμενος (τιτ°) ‘devoted’. Also other geminates are regularly simplified,
cf. α(δ)δακετ (αδ°) ‘inflict’, τι(τ)-τετικμενος (τιτ°) ‘condemned’. In external sandhi, in
prepositional phrases, we encounter the same results, cf. NPhr. α(κ) κε οι and α(τ) τιε
(for αδ). This loss of contrastive gemination has led to hypercorrect spellings like κνουμ-
μανει, κνουνμανει for κνουμανει or αινι μμυρα for αινι μυρα.
More controversial is the assimilation of word-final -s to a following velar, but there
are a few good examples in NPhr., cf. -s k- > -k k-: αδιθρερακ ξευνεοι (No. 31), ικ
κναικαν (No. 116); -s g- > -k g-: ποκ γονιον (No. 116), presumably via -h k-, -h g-.
4. Historical development
4.1. Vowels
The Indo-European vowels seem to be well preserved, except for the changes already
mentioned in the preceding sections. Here are a few more examples of vocalic phonemes.
− *i : OPhr. kin, NPhr. κιν ‘which’ < PIE *k wim; NPhr. γεγαριτμενος ‘devoted’ < PIE
*g̑hrHit- (Gk. ἐν-κεχαρισμένος);
− *e : OPhr. ke, NPhr. κε ‘and’ < PIE *k we; NPhr. αββερετ, μεβερετ < PIE *bher-;
− *o : OPhr. -os, NPhr. -ος, nom.sg. m. of the o-stems < PIE *-os;
− *u : NPhr. (ο)υψοδαν adv. ‘above; on the top’ < PIE *(H)upsodhn̥ (cf. Gk. ὑψόθε[ν]
‘[from] above’); NPhr. κνουμαν- n. ‘grave’ < PIE *knu- (cf. Gk. κνύω ‘I scratch’);
− *a (*h2e): NPhr. αδ preverb ‘to, at, by’ < PIE *h2ed (cf. Lat. ad ‘id.’);
− *ē : NPhr. ορουαν nom.sg. ‘father, guardian’ (gen.sg. ορουενος; acc.sg. ορουεναν) <
PIE *soru̯ēn (cf. Gk. οὖρος ‘watcher, guardian’);
− *eh1 : NPhr. (αδ)δακετ 3sg. ‘inflicts’ < PIE *dheh1-k- (cf. Gk. aor. ἔθηκα);
− *eh2 : NPhr. βρατερε dat.sg. ‘brother’ < PIE *bhreh2-ter- (cf. Skt. bhrā́tar-, Lat. frā-
ter);
− *eh3 : NPhr. acc.sg. μουρου[ν] (No. 100), acc.pl. n. μμυρα (No. 25) ‘stupidity’, cf.
Gk. μῶρος, μωρός ‘stupid’.
As far as we can see, the diphthongs remain unchanged in Old Phrygian, but in New
Phrygian the long diphthongs /āi/ and /ōi/ often lose their second element in final posi-
tion, while word-final /ei/ gradually becomes monophthongized and is then written as
<-ε, -ι, -η>. PIE *-ōis shows a special development to NPhr. -ως:

Authenticated
− *h2ei/*eh2 i : OPhr. ai, NPhr. αι ‘if’< PIE *h2ei (cf. Gk. Aeol., Dor. αἰ ‘if’); OPhr.
ayni, NPhr. αινι ‘and/or’ < PIE *h2ei-ni; NPhr. κναικαν acc.sg. f. ‘wife’ < PIE
*g wneh2 ikm̥ (cf. Gk. γυναῖκα);
− *h2eu : OPhr. avtoi dat.sg.m., NPhr. αυτος ‘self’ < PIE *h2euto- (cf. Gk. αὐτός ‘self’);
− *ei : NPhr. γεγρειμεναν acc.sg. f. ‘written’ < PIE *ghreiH- (cf. Gk. χρίω ‘I touch’);
OPhr. dat.sg. ending of the consonant stems, e.g., materey ‘mother’, Tiei ‘Zeus’ (NW-
101), NPhr. Τιε, Τι, Τιη dat.sg. ‘Zeus’, κνουμανει, -ε, -ι, -η dat.sg. ‘grave’ < PIE *-ei
(cf. Lat. -ei, -ī);
− *eu : OPhr. bevdos acc.sg. n. ‘statue, image’ (B-01) < PIE *bheudhos;
− *oi : OPhr. 3sg. med. ending -toi, -toy, NPhr. -τοι < PIE *-toi; NPhr. τετικμενοι
nom.pl. m. ‘condemned’ < PIE *-oi;
− “*āi” : OPhr. ā-stem dat.sg. -ai (Midai, Atai), dat.sg. f. pron. °esai-t (W-01b), NPhr.
dat.sg. f. dem. pron. σα(ι), pron. αυται, dat.sg. f. μανκα(ι) ‘stele’ < PIE *-eh2ei, cf.
Gk. -ᾱι, -ηι, Lat. -ae;
− *ōi : OPhr. o-stem dat.sg. ending -oi, -oy, NPhr. -ου < PIE *-ōi (cf. Gk. -ῳ); NPhr. o-
stem dat.pl. ending -ως < PIE *-ōis.
4.2. Resonants
Consonantal resonants have undergone few changes. Word-final /m/ and /n/ have merged
into /-n/ in Phrygian, just as in Greek, cf. OPhr. o-stem acc. sg. ending -un, NPhr. -ουν,
-ον < PIE *-om. Possibly,*u̯ was lost before a following*o in Phrygian, cf. OPhr. nom.sg.
vas(o)us PN (P-03, P-05), gen.sg. vasos (P-02) < *u̯asu̯os (Brixhe 1990: 65). The appar-
ent counterexamples, OPhr. tovo and devos, go back to *toho < *toso and *dehos <
*dhh̥1sos, respectively, where -v- is a Hiatustilger.
The development of the cluster *nt in Phrygian is unclear. First of all, it is remarkable
that this cluster is very rare in Phrygian texts: among well-attested words we find only
the possible borrowings OPhr. panta (B-05.4), παντης (W-11), NPhr. παντα (No. 35) ~
Gk. πᾶς, παντ- ‘all, every’ and NPhr. Πουντας (No. 48) ~ Gk. Πόντος ‘Pontic region’
(Lubotsky 1997: 123 with refs.). On the other hand, the ending of the 3pl. imperative,
which presumably goes back to *-ntō (parallel to 3sg. impv. ειτου < *-tō), is spelled in
NPhr. as -ττνου (αδειττνου No. 12) and -ννου (ιννου Nos. 35, 71). These spellings may
point to a voiceless geminate nn, IPA [n̥n̥]. Also the OPhr. spellings tn, ntn, found in
apaktneni (B-01.8), ẹventnoktoy (B-06), seem to point in this direction (cf. Lubotsky
1997: 121−122). However, Annelies Hämmig points out to us (p.c.) that αδειττνου in
No. 12 must rather be read αδειννου, which would mean that *-nt- > -nn- in Phrygian.
See further 3 on OPhr. -evanos < *-eu̯antos < *-eu̯n̥tos.
The vocalic nasals have become aN, cf. OPhr. onoman acc.sg. n., NPhr. ονομαν-
‘name’ < PIE *h̥3nh̥3mn̥ (cf. Gk. ὄνομα ‘id.’); NPhr. κναικαν acc.sg. f. ‘wife’ < PIE
*g wneh2 ikm̥.
The reflexes of vocalic *r̥ and *l̥ are less certain. OPhr. por, NPhr. πουρ prep. ‘for’
< PIE *pr̥ (cf. Gk. πάρ, Goth. faur ‘id.’) seems to indicate that *r̥ has developed into
*or, but this is the only example. For NPhr. γεγαριτμενος ‘devoted, at the mercy of ’ <
PIE *g̑hr̥Hit- see the next section.

Authenticated
101. Phrygian 1823
4.3. Laryngeals
Vocalization of the Indo-European laryngeals shows the same “triple representation” as

in Greek and, being a common innovation of the two branches, it is an important indica-
tion of the dialectal position of Phrygian. Initial laryngeals develop a prothetic vowel,
i.e. *h1C- > eC-, *h2C- < aC-, *h3C- > oC-: OPhr. eu- ‘well’ (?) < PIE *h̥1su- (cf. Gk.
εὐ-, Skt. su- ‘id.’); NPhr. αναρ m. ‘husband’ < PIE *h̥2nēr (cf. Skt. nár-, Gk. ἀνήρ ‘id.’);
OPhr. onoman acc.sg. n., NPhr. ονομαν- ‘name’ < PIE *h̥3nh̥3mn̥ (cf. Gk. ὄνομα, Skt.
nā́man- ‘id.’). In a similar fashion, interconsonantal laryngeals are vocalized to e, a, o,
respectively: NPhr. δεως instr.pl. m. ‘god’ < PIE *dhh̥1so- (cf. Gk. θεός ‘id.’); NPhr.
δετουν m./n. ‘monument’ < PIE *dhh̥1to-; OPhr. -meno-, NPhr. -μενο- middle ptc. < PIE
*-mh̥1no- (cf. Gk. -μενο-); NPhr. πατερης nom.pl. ‘parents’ < PIE *ph̥2ter- (cf. Gk. πατήρ
‘id.’); NPhr. τιτ-τετικμενα nom.pl. n. ‘condemned’ < PIE *-h̥2 (cf. Gk. -α, Lat. -a, Skt.
-i); OPhr. onoman, NPhr. ονομαν- ‘name’ < PIE *h̥3nh̥3mn̥.
Also in other positions, the development of the laryngeals in Greek and in Phrygian
is identical, cf. NPhr. γεγαριτμενος ‘devoted, at the mercy of’ < PIE *g̑hr̥Hit- (cf. Gk.
ἐν-κεχαρισμένος ‘id.’, χάρις, χάριτος ‘love’); NPhr. γλουρεος ‘golden (?)’ (for the mean-
ing, cf. the above-mentioned gloss by Hesychius γλούρεα· χρύσεα, Φρύγες ‘golden items
[Phrygian]’) < PIE *g̑hl̥ h3-ro- (cf. Gk. χλωρός ‘green’).
4.4. The single Phr. fricative /s/ is practically restricted to word-final position and to
clusters with a stop, cf. OPhr. o-stem nom.sg. -os, NPhr. -ος < PIE *-os, NPhr. 3sg. s-
aor. εσταες ‘established’, OPhr. 3sg. subj. daΨet /dakset/ ‘will do’. In other positions,
word-initially and intervocalically, it was lost, cf. NPhr. ορουαν ‘warden’ < PIE *soru̯ēn;
OPhr. egeseti, NPhr. εγεσιτ, εγεδου ‘hold, experience’ < PIE *seg̑h-; NPhr. dat.pl. δεως
‘god’ < PIE *dhh̥1so-.
PIE *s was further lost in the clusters *su̯- and *-sdh-, cf. OPhr. ven- ‘self’, NPhr.
nom.pl. n. ουα ‘own’ < PIE *su̯e/*su̯o- and impv. ending -do, -δου < PIE *-sdhō. The
intervocalic /s/ in the s-subjunctives OPhr. egeseti, NPhr. εγεσιτ, mentioned above, has
probably been generalized from postconsonantal positions, just like in Greek.
4.5. Stops
It is clear that PIE tenues are reflected as Phrygian tenues, and mediae aspiratae as PIE
mediae, cf. OPhr. 3sg. primary act. -ti, NPhr. -τι < PIE *-ti; NPhr. πατερης nom.pl.
‘parents’ < PIE *ph̥2ter-; NPhr. dat.pl. δεως ‘god’ < PIE *dhh̥1so-; NPhr. acc. sg. γεγρειμ-
εναν ‘written’ < PIE *ghreiH-; NPhr. βρατερε dat.sg. ‘brother’ < PIE *bhreh2ter-, etc.
The fate of PIE mediae is more controversial, but there is a growing body of evidence
that they have become Phrygian tenues (cf. Lubotsky 2004 for more examples and a
discussion of the counterevidence), cf. NPhr. acc.sg. Τιαν, gen. sg. Τιος, dat.sg. Τι(ε),
OPhr. Tiei ‘Zeus’ < PIE *diēm, *diu̯os, *diu̯ei; NPhr. acc.sg. κ̣ναικαν ‘wife’ < PIE
*g wneh2 ikm̥ (cf. Gk. γυναῖκα); OPhr. torv- (B-05) ‘wood’ < PIE *doru̯-/*dr̥u̯-; NPhr.
(τιτ-)τετικμενος ‘condemned’ < PIE *deik̑-, cf. Gk. δια-δικάζω ‘I judge’, κατα-δικάζω ‘I
condemn’. PIE labiovelars have lost their labial feature, cf. OPhr. ke, NPhr. κε ‘and’ <
PIE *k we, NPhr. acc. sg. κ̣ναικαν ‘wife’ (116) < * g wneh2 ikm̥.

Authenticated
In view of the close relationship of Phrygian and Greek, it is likely that Phrygian is
a centum language, too, cf. OPhr. egeseti, NPhr. εγεσιτ, εγεδου ‘hold, experience’ < PIE
*seg̑h-; NPhr. (τιτ-)τετικμενος ‘condemned’ < PIE *deik̑-; NPhr. γεγαριτμενος ‘devoted,
at the mercy of’ < PIE *g̑ hr̥Hit-; NPhr. γλουρεος ‘golden (?)’ < PIE *g̑hl̥ h3-ro-. This
implies that ζεμελως dat.pl. ‘men’ (< PIE *dhg̑(h)emelo-) must be due to a special devel-
opment of the initial cluster and that the Phrygian demonstrative pronoun s- (OPhr.
acc.sg.n. si, acc.sg.m. sin; NPhr. gen.sg. f. σας, dat.sg. σα(ι), dat.sg.n. σεμουν, see 5.2)
must reflect PIE *k̑i̯ - with palatalization (as indicated above, 4.4, PIE initial *s- shows
a zero-reflex in Phrygian).
5. Morphology
5.1. Nouns
Phrygian nouns are inflected for case, gender and number. There are at least 4 cases:
nominative, accusative, genitive and dative; other cases, possibly unidentified, could
have existed as well; cf., for instance, the puzzling NPhr. κναικο ‘wife’ (No. 116) or
kạṿarmọyo (B-01) next to acc.sg. kavarmoỵun in the same inscription. There are three
genders (masculine, feminine, neuter) and two numbers (singular and plural). Nominal
stems can be divided into o-stems, ā-stems and consonant stems (C-stems). Poorly attest-
ed stems include i-, u- and “e”-stems (i.e. Anatolian names in -es, like Ates, Bateles,
Iktes). We make no distinction between substantives and adjectives, since their inflection
is identical.
When we cite the actually attested forms and inscriptions, we use brackets as follows:
[ ] = reconstructed portion of the text, < > = omitted portion of the text, ( ) = mistake
of the engraver. Damaged letters are indicated by a subscript dot.
singular
o-stems ā-stems C-stems
OPhr. NPhr. OPhr. NPhr. OPhr. NPhr.
Nom. -os -ος -a f., -a(s) m. -α f. -s, -0̸ -ς, -0̸
Gen. ? -ovo -ου − -ας -os -ος
Dat. -oi, -oy -ου -ai, -ay -αι, -α -ei, -ey -ε(ι), -ι, -η
Acc. -un -ουν, -ον -an -αν -an, -0̸ [n.] -αν, -0̸ [n.]
plural
Nom. -oi -α [n.] − -ας -a [n.] -ης
Gen. − -ουν − − − −
Dat. ? -oys -ως − − − −
Acc. ? -oys, -a [n.] α [n.] − -αις, -αης ? -ais ? -αης, -αις
Nominative singular:
− o-stems: akenanogavos title (M-01a), τιττετικμενος ‘condemned’ (passim) < PIE *-os;

Authenticated
101. Phrygian 1825
− ā-stems: Kubeleya ‘Cybele’ (B-01), OPhr. μανκα ‘stele’ (W-11) < PIE *-eh2; Midas
(M-01d), the name of the second king of Phrygia, most probably of Anatolian origin;
other Anatolian names appear both with and without -s in the nominative, cf. Baba
(M-01b) next to Babas (G-06), Kaliya (B-05), but Kuliyas (G-127), etc.; PN in -es
always have a sigmatic nominative: Ates (M-01a), Bateles (W-08), Eies (G-108), Iktes
(G-02), etc.;
− C-stems: the sigmatic nominative is attested with the i- and u-stems Ṭuvatis PN (G-
133), Alus PN (W-09), Vasous PN (P-03) next to Vasus (P-05) < *u̯asōus; with stems
in stops: Manes PN (B-07), Βας ‘Bat (name of deity)’ (No. 99) < *-ts, Modrovanak
‘king of Modra’ (M-04) < *-kts and with OPhr. patronymics in -evan-: arkiaevais (M-
01a), kanutievais (P-03) < *-u̯ans < *-u̯n̥ts; the regular r- and n-stems have an asigmat-
ic nominative: matar ‘mother’ (W-04), αναρ ‘man’ (No. 15) < *-ēr; iman ‘monument’,
ορουαν ‘father, warden’ (No. 48) < *-ēn; kuryaneyon ‘commander’ (W-01c) is bor-
rowed from Greek.
Genitive singular:
− o-stems: ?αργου ‘because of’ (No. 30); the ending is pronominal, cf. OPhr. tovo (G-
02c), NPhr. του (No. 87); Atevo PN (W-10) is probably gen.sg. of Ates, with an ending
analogical to o-stems;
− ā-stems: Ουεναουιας PN (No. 88) < PIE *-eh2es; the interpretation of μανκης ‘stele’
(No. 86), which is used in the function of a dative, is uncertain: genitive (pro dat.) or,
rather, dat.pl.?;
− C-stems: Τιος ‘Zeus’ < PIE *diu̯os (with loss of -u̯- before o); Vasos PN (P-02)
< *u̯asu̯os (idem); kanutiievanoṣ title/patronymic (P-02), ορουενος ‘father, warden’
(No. 106); Aṛtimitos ‘Artemis’ (B-05), Manitos ‘Manes’ (B-07) < PIE *-os.
Dative singular:
− o-stems: adoikavoi PN (G-02a); κορου ‘ground for the grave’ (No. 92), a loanword
from Gk. χῶρος; σορου ‘sarcophagus’ (Nos. 21, 124), probably borrowed from Gk.
σορός < PIE *-ōi;
− ā-stems: dumeyay adj.f. ‘of the religious community’ (G-01a); μανκα(ι) ‘stele’ < PIE
*-eh2ei; cf. also midai ‘Midas’ (M-01a);
− C-stems: Tiei (NW-101), Τι(ε), Τιη dat.sg. ‘Zeus’ < PIE *diu̯ei (with analogical loss
of *-u̯- due to leveling with other cases); materey ‘mother’ (W-01b), inmeney (B-05)
‘monument’, βρατερε ‘brother’ (No. 31); μα̣τ̣[ε]ρε (thus to be read in No. 129, instead
of μα̣γ̣ρε of the edition); κνουμανε(ι), -η, -ι ‘grave’, δουμ(ε) ‘religious community’
(No. 48); vanaktei ‘king’ (M-01a) < PIE *-ei.
Accusative singular:
− o-stems: akaragayun ‘part of the monument’ (Μ-02), δετον̣ (No. 116) and δετουν
(No. 31) ‘monument’ < PIE *-om;
− ā-stems: ạkinanogavaṇ title (M-04), κοροαν ‘girl’ (W-11), μανκαν ‘stele’ (No. 15) <
PIE *-eh2m;
− C-stems: areyastin epithet of Cybele (W-01a), ευκιν ‘vow’ (No. 30), possibly a loan-
word from Gk. εὐχή ‘id.’ < PIE *-im; Τιαν ‘Zeus’ < PIE *diēm; materan ‘mother’
(W-01a) < PIE *-er-m̥; imenan (B-05) ‘monument’, ορουεναν ‘warden’ (No. 128) <
PIE *-en-m̥; Batan (T-02b), Βαταν (No. 33) ‘Bat’, duman ‘religious community’ (B-
01), ουανακταν ‘king’ (No. 88), κ̣ναικαν ‘wife’ (No. 116) < PIE *-m̥. The neuters

Authenticated
keneman ‘niche (?)’ (M-01), κνουμαν ‘grave’ (No. 31); bevdos ‘image, statue’ (B-
01), βεκος ‘bread’, have a zero ending.
Nominative plural:
− o-stems: τετικμενοι ‘condemned’ (No. 71) < PIE *-oi of pronominal origin; n.pl.
τετικμενα (No. 12) < PIE *-h̥2;
ā-stems: ουελας ‘relatives (?)’ (No. 120) < PIE *su̯el-eh2-es;
− C-stems: πατερης ‘parents’ (No. 93), most probably reflecting PIE *-eies. Neuter kena
‘generation’ (No. 35), if correctly analyzed, < PIE *g̑enh1es-h̥2.
Genitive plural:
− o-stems: τετουκμενουν (No. 28) < PIE *-ōm, although the interpretation of the final
part of this inscription (ιος νι σεμουν κνουμανε κακουν αδακετ ιος τιτετουκμενουν
ειτου) is far from certain.
Dative plural:
− o-stems: δεως ‘god’ (No. 40) < PIE *-ōis.
Accusative plural:
− o-stems: kṭevoys ‘property (?)’ (B-01), pạtriyiọis ‘paternal (?)’ (B-04) < PIE *-ons;
neuters kạka ‘harm’ (B-05), μμυρα ‘stupidity’ (No. 25) < PIE *-h̥2;
− ā-stems: δεκμουταις ‘?’ (No. 9), δεκμουταης (No. 31);
− C-stems: ḅṛạterạis ‘brother’ (B-04) < *-ans < PIE *-n̥s.
5.2. Pronouns
The proximal demonstrative pronoun (‘this here’) has the stem *se-/si- in masculine and
neuter, and *sa- in feminine. Since initial PIE *s- seems to disappear in Phrygian, the
stem is likely to go back to PIE *k̑i̯ - (Goth. hi-, Lith. ši-, Gk. σήμερον ‘today’ < *κi̯ -
άμερον, etc.) + *e-/i- (Lat. is, ea, id). The Phrygian demonstrative pronoun is often
followed by an emphatic particle appearing in the inscriptions as OPhr. t, NPhr. του, το,
τι, τ. The attested forms are:
− acc.sg. m. sin-t (B-05) < PIE *-im, n. si (M-01b, B-01) < PIE *-id; NPhr. σεμουν
(No. 31) in the function of acc. must be due to generalization of the oblique stem.
− dat.sg. m./n. σεμουν, with the variants σεμον, σεμυν, σεμιν < PIE *-smōi + n (reminis-
cent of Greek νῦ ἐφελκυστικόν);
− gen.sg. f. (pro dat.) σας, dat.sg. f. σαι or σα, acc.sg. (pro dat.) f. σαν (No. 60).
In OPhr. inscription W-01b, we encounter dat.sg. f. e-sai-t (materey) ‘to this very (moth-
er)’, with yet another pronominal stem e- added (type French celui-ci). If NPhr. ειαν
(No. 31) is to be read ε(σ)αν with Neumann (1986: 81), the same pronoun is also attested
in NPhr.
In enclitic position, we find NPhr. dat. sg. ιοι/οι and, possibly, OPhr. yọỵ (B-05). The
distribution among the two NPhr. forms is determined by the phonological context. In
clear cases, οι always appears after a vowel, whereas ιοι is found after consonants. This
means that we have to start with *ioi, which presumably is an enclitic dative of the type
Skt. me, te <*h1moi, toi (cf. Lubotsky 1997: 126), built on the stem of the*e-/i- pronoun.

Authenticated
101. Phrygian 1827
The pronoun to-/ta- < PIE *to- seems to have an anaphoric function, which is most
clear in relative clauses, where we often find ιος νι …, τος νι … in NPhr. malediction
formulae. Other forms are less clear, cf. gen.sg. m. tovo (G-02c), του (No. 87), dat.sg. f.
ται (No. 116), acc.sg. f. ταν (No. 15), acc.pl. n. ta (B-01). If the gen.sg. tovo, του
is correctly identified, it probably goes back to *toso > *toho > *to-o, with v as a
Hiatustilger.
The relative pronoun is *io- from PIE *(h1 )io-: nom.sg. m. yos (W-01), ios (P-04a),
ιος (passim), acc.sg. f. ιαν (No. 31). It also once occurs reduplicated: yosyos (B-03).
The pronoun *auto- ‘self’ (< PIE *h2euto-, cf. Gk. αὐτός) inflects like a thematic
adjective: nom.sg. m. αυτος (No. 33), dat.sg. avtoi (T-03); dat.sg. f. avtay (W-01b). It
can be reinforced by a reflexive pronoun /we-/ < PIE *su̯e (cf. also Gk. ἑαυτόν):
acc.sg. m. ven-avtun (W-01b), dat.sg. f. οε-αυται (No. 116). The same possessive pro-
noun may be found in OPhr. acc.sg. n. ove-vin (W-01b) < PIE *su̯in, cf. also Phr. kin
below; NPhr. ουα ‘his own’ nom.pl. n. < *su̯eh2.
Finally, the interrogative pronoun in indefinite function is acc.sg. n. kin (B-01), κιν
(No. 100: [αι]νι κακουν κιν ‘or whatever harm’) < PIE *k wim (cf. Skt. kím).
5.3. Verbs
Phrygian verbs are marked for tense, voice, and mood. Identified categories include 3
tenses (present, perfect, aorist), 2 voices (active, middle), and 4 moods (indicative, im-
perative, optative, subjunctive). Since the stem formation and the function of the majority
of verbal forms are still unknown, they are grouped below in accordance with their
endings.
− 3sg. -es: edaes (passim), εδαες (2 × No. 116) ‘put, placed’; eneparkes (G-125, M-
01d), ενεπαρκες (No. 31) ‘engraved’; εσταες ‘erected’ (No. 31); εκανες (No. 116)
‘dug (?)’; unclear are εγ̣δ̣αες (No. 18) and δδικες (No. 31). These forms are character-
ized by an augment e-, which immediately precedes the root, and appear in preterital
contexts, except for εγ̣δ̣αες (No. 18), but the reading of this inscription is uncertain.
The ablaut of the root is ambiguous in edaes and εσταες (full or lengthened grade),
but the lengthened grade is probable in eneparkes (<*pērḱ-) and εκανες (< *kēn-). It
is obvious that this category goes back to the sigmatic aorist (-es < *-es-t), but details
are far from clear (cf. for a discussion Lubotsky 1988: 17−18, Gorbachov 2005).
− 3sg. -toi: edatoy ‘put, placed’ (B-05.2), t-edatoy (W-01a), tit-edaṭ[oy] (B-05.1); eger-
toy ‘?’ (W-01c); ektetoy ‘possessed’ (B-01.3); epaktoy ‘?’ (B-01.9); estatoi ‘erected’
(G-144). The augment and the preterital contexts make it probable that we are dealing
with a middle counterpart of the -es-forms. The root usually has full grade, but zero-
grade in ektetoy (< *h1e-tk̑h1-toi). However, the ending *-toi is primary in Greek
dialects and in Indo-Iranian, and its appearance in the aorist is unexpected. See further
below on -etor.
− 3sg. -et: dạket (B-05.11), (αδ)δακετ ‘do, inflict’, αββερετ ‘bring’ in the protasis of
NPhr. maledictions ‘whoever will inflict/bring harm upon this grave’. There are two
cases of με-βερετ (Nos. 86, 111), which occur in an apodosis Βας ιοι βεκος μεβερετ
‘Bat will take away his bread’. Maybe, βρειτ ‘break (?)’ in the protasis ιος κε βρειτ
περβεδαν (No. 114) belongs to the same category. Because of the contexts, the -et-

Authenticated
forms are usually considered subjunctives, but it is by no means certain that they are
morphological subjunctives. Once, in a NPhr. quasi-bilingue No. 48, αδδακετ seems
to be used in parallel to the Greek aorist παρεθέμην.
− 3sg. -etor: αδδακετορ (Nos. 40, 63, 121) and αββερετορ (Nos. 73, 75) appear in
exactly the same contexts as αδδακετ and αββερετ. Moreover, we also find three times
αββερετοι (Nos. 91, 113, 129) there. The difference between forms in -et and those
in -etor/-etoi is generally interpreted as a difference of voice (active vs. middle), but
this leaves unexplained why active and middle forms are used in the same contexts.
Probably, we must rather assume that all these forms, i.e. -et, -etor, -etoi, belong to
the middle paradigm, which is further confirmed by the forms in -seti/-set.
− 3sg. -seti/-siti: egeseti ‘will hold, experience’ (P-04a); dedạsitiy ‘will do’ (B-05.9;
thus to be read with A. Hämmig, p.c., instead of dedạpitiy of the edition); με-τοτοσσει-
τι ‘will give away (?)’ (No. 99) are likely to be subjunctives. These forms show that
final -i has not disappeared in Phrygian.
− 3sg. -set/-sit: daΨet /dakset/ ‘will do’ (W-01b), εγεσιτ ‘will hold’ (No. 58) are very
similar in form and function to the preceding group, and are likely to be their middle
counterpart.
− 3sg. -oi: kakoioi (G-02c), kakuioi (P-04b) are often considered optatives to a denomi-
native verb ‘to go bad’ (< *oit), but the syntactic analysis of these inscriptions is
uncertain.
− 3sg. impv. act. ειτου ‘let become!’ (passim) < PIE *-tō(t), cf. Gk. -τω, Skt. gachatāt.
− 3sg. impv. med. lakedo (W-01b, B-03), εγεδου ‘let hold!’ (passim). The ending has a
close parallel in Gk. -σθω (cf. Rix 1992: 265) and represents a common innovation
of the two languages.
− 3pl. impv. act. αδ-ειττνου (No. 12), ιννου (Nos. 35, 71) < PIE *-ntō(t), cf. Gk. -ντω
(Rhod. γραφόντω, Lac. ἀναθέντω, γραψάντω, cf. Rix 1992: 265).
− 3pl. ind. perf. act. δακαρεν ‘put, placed’ (No. 98) < PIE *-ēr (cf. Lat. -ēre) + an
additional 3pl. ending *-ent.
− 3sg. -ei: aey ‘be (?)’ (W-01), etitevtevey ‘?’ (B-03) might be perfects (for a discussion
see Lubotsky 1988: 17−18).
Perfect middle participles are athematic and reduplicated, nom.sg. γεγαριτμενος ‘devot-
ed, condemned’, τιτ-τετικμενος ‘id.’, acc.sg. f. γεγρειμεναν ‘written’, acc.sg. f. οπεστα-
με̣να̣ν̣ ‘erected’ (No. 9; cf. also σεσταμεναν in No. 15 with restored reduplication);
possibly also αργμενα ‘?’ (No. 116). For this reason, αιδομενου (No. 116) probably
belongs to the system of the thematic present.
6. Syntax
6.1. Word order
The unmarked word order seems to be SOV, cf. with a direct object: OPhr. baba … si-
keneman edaes (M-01b) ‘Baba has established this niche (?)’; with an indirect object:
OPhr. ates … midai … edaes (M-01a) ‘Ates has established for Midas’. An indirect
object normally precedes a direct object, cf. OPhr. yos-esai-t materey … onoman daΨet
‘whoever would make … name for this very Mother’ or NPhr. ιος νι σα του μανκα

Authenticated
101. Phrygian 1829
κακουν αδδακετ ‘whoever inflicts harm upon this very monument’, ιος νι σεμουν κνου-
μανει κακουν αδδακετ ‘whoever inflicts harm upon this grave’. On the whole, word
order in NPhr. seems to be less strict, possibly because many inscriptions are metrical,
or at least go back to a metrical original (cf. Lubotsky 1998).
In OPhr. inscriptions, we also encounter OSV order with topicalization, e.g., sin-t
imenan kaliya titedat--- ‘this very monument Kaliya has established’ (B-05), materan
areyastin bonok akenanogavọṣ vrekun tedatoy ‘Bonok, the high priest, has established
Mother Areyasti as an image’ (W-01); cf. further si-bevdos adi[---] kạṿarmọyo imroy
edaes etovesniyo (B-01), ạkinanogavaṇ tiyes moḍroṿanak avarạ (M-04).
Attributives follow their heads, cf. OPhr. materan areyastin (W-01a ), matar kubeleya
ibeya (B-01), but pronouns usually precede them, cf. OPhr. si-keneman ‘this niche’ (M-
01b), avtay materey ‘to the Mother herself’ (W-01b), σεμουν κνουμανει ‘to this grave’
(incidentally, this consideration may be used as an argument for considering OPhr. -vin
in ovevin onoman W-01b as a pronoun, presumably meaning ‘(his) own name’, rather
than an adjective; ove- may be a conjunction ‘or’). An exception is κακουν κιν ‘whatever
harm’ (No. 100), for which cf. the Gk. postposed enclitic τις ‘someone’. In the NPhr.
protases with μανκα, the pronoun and the noun are often separated, probably for metrical
reasons, cf. ιος νι σαι κακουν αδδακεμ μανκαι (No. 35; for more examples see 6.2) as
opposed to the regular ιος νι σα του μανκα κακουν αδδακετ (No. 82).
Clitics (particles, conjunctions, enclitic pronouns) obey Wackernagel’s Law and ap-
pear after the first accented word of the sentence, e.g., the particle ni in OPhr. ios ni
ạḳenan egeseti (P-04a) or NPhr. ιος νι σεμον κνουμανει κακον αδ̣δακετ (No. 3). An
interesting pattern is found with the sentence conjunction κε ‘and’. It normally stands in
second position, even if the sentence begins with a preposition, e.g. … τιτετικμενος ας
τιαν ε̣ιτου, με κε οι τοτοσσειτι Βας βεκος (No. 99) ‘… let him be condemned by Zeus,
and Bat will deprive him of his bread’; … τιττετικμενος ατ Τι αδειτου, ακ κε οι βεκος
ακκαλος τιδρε<γ>ρουν ειτου (No. 76) ‘‘… let him be condemned by Zeus, and let his
bread be uneatable’. Here, the prepositions με and ακ (= αδ) are followed by the sentence
conjunction κε and then by a clitic pronoun of the 3 rd person. If, however, prepositions
are construed with a noun rather than with a clitic, the conjunction κε stands after the
noun, cf. … Βα[ς] ιοι βεκος μεβερε[τ], α̣τ Τιη κε τιτετικμ[ε]νος ειτου (No. 86) ‘… Bat
will deprive him of his bread, and let him be condemned by Zeus’; … γεγαριτμενο<ς>
ειτου, πουρ ουανακταν κε ουρανιον ιστεικετ (~ Gk. ἐκδείκνυμι) Διουνσιν (No. 88) ‘…
let him be devoted, and he will be exposed to the heavenly king Dionysos’. When used
as a word conjunction, κε appears either after each member (X κε Y κε: δεως κε ζεμελως
κε), or after the second word only (X Y κε: δεως ζεμελως κε) (cf. Brixhe 1978b: 1 ff.).
Incidentally, asyndetic δεως ζεμελως is also attested several times.
Preverbs generally stand immediately before the verb, but tmesis is also attested. For
instance, in με κε οι τοτοσσειτι Βας βεκος (No. 99) ‘Bat will deprive him of his bread’,
με and τοτοσσειτι are separated, in contrast with β̣ε<κ>ος ιοι με-τοτοσσειτι σαρναν
(No. 18; to be read thus with A. Hämmig, p.c., rather than as τοτοσσ’ ευγισαρναν with
Haas 1966: 100). A slightly different case is the apodosis ‘let him be condemned by
Zeus (and by gods)’, e.g., ατ Τιε τιτετικμενος ειτου (No. 94), α̣τ Τιη κε τιτετικμ[ε]νος
ειτου (No. 86), ατ Τιη κε δεως κε τιττετικμενος ειτου (No. 62), even ατ Τιε ειτου
(No. 56), where αδ was felt by the speakers to belong to the verb, as follows from many
occurrences of the formulaic (τιττετικμενος) ατ Τιε αδ-ειτου with preverb repetition.

Authenticated
6.2. Agreement
In NPhr., we witness progressing case syncretism in ā-stems, probably triggered by the
change of final *-āi to -ā and thus by a merger of nom. and dat.sg., cf. the following
examples of the protasis ‘whoever will inflict harm upon this stele’: No. 35. ιος νι σαι
κακουν αδδακεμ μανκαι with “correct” endings vs. No. 69. ιος σαι κακον αδδακετ μαν-
καν and No. 60. ιος νι σαν κακουν αδ[δα]κε μανκαι, which show an accusative ending
instead of a dative.
If the subject of the sentence is “A and B”, the predicate adjective agrees in gender
and number with the first member. For instance, in the apodosis of No. 33. αυτος κε
ουα κ εροκα γεγαριτμενος ας Βαταν τευτους ‘he himself and his progeny (?) will be
condemned by Bat’, γεγαριτμενος agrees with αυτος. Similarly, in No. 12. ζειρα κε οι
πειες κε τιττετικμενα ατ Τιε αδειττνου, we see that nom.pl. n. τιττετικμενα agrees in
gender with ζειρα.
7. References
Brixhe, Claude
1978a Études néo-phrygiennes I. Verbum 1/1: 3−21.
Brixhe, Claude
1978b Études néo-phrygiennes II. Verbum 1/2: 1−22.
Brixhe, Claude
1990 Comparaison et langues faiblement documentées: l’exemple du phrygien et de ses voyel-
les longues. In: La reconstruction des laryngales. (Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philoso-
phie et Lettres de l’Université de Liège, fascicule CCLIII). Liège: Les Belles Lettres,
59−99.
Brixhe, Claude
1999 Prolégomènes au corpus néo-phrygien. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique 94: 285−
315.
Brixhe, Claude
2002 Corpus des inscriptions paléo-phrygiennes. Supplément I. Kadmos 41: 1−102.
Brixhe, Claude
2004 Corpus des inscriptions paléo-phrygiennes. Supplément II. Kadmos 43: 1−130.
Brixhe, Claude and Thomas Drew-Bear
1997 Huit inscriptions néo-phrygiennes. In: Gusmani et al. (eds.), 71−114.
Brixhe, Claude and Thomas Drew-Bear
2010 Inscription phrygienne hellénistique de Prymnessos. Kadmos 49: 161−168.
Brixhe, Claude and Michel Lejeune
1984 Corpus des inscriptions paléo-phrygiennes. 2 vols. Paris: Recherche sur les civilisations.
Brixhe, Claude and Günter Neumann
1985 Découverte du plus long texte néo-phrygien: l’inscription de Gezler Köyü. Kadmos 24:
161−184.
Brixhe, Claude and Marc Waelkens
1981 Un nouveau document néo-phrygien au musée d’Afyon. Kadmos 20: 66−75.
Drew-Bear, Thomas, Alexander Lubotsky, and Mevlüt Üyümez
2008 Three New Phrygian inscriptions. Kadmos 47: 109−116.
Gorbachov, Yaroslav
2005 The origin of the Phrygian aorist of the type edaes. In: Karlene Jones-Bley, Martin E.
Huld, Angela Della Volpe, and Miriam Robbins Dexter (eds.), Proceedings of the Six-

Authenticated
101. Phrygian 1831
teenth Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, Los Angeles, November 5−6, 2004.
(Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series No. 50). Washington, DC: Institute
for the Study of Man, 191−217.
Gusmani, Roberto, Mirjo Salvini, and Pietro Vannicelli (eds.)
1997 Frigi e frigio, Atti del 10 Simposio Internazionale, Roma, 16−17 ottobre 1995. Rome:
Consiglio nazionale delle ricerche.
Haas, Otto
1966 Die phrygischen Sprachdenkmäler. Sofia: Akadémie bulgare des sciences.
Laminger-Pascher, Gertrud
1984 Beiträge zu den griechischen Inschriften Lycaoniens. (Österreichische Akademie der
Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, Denkschriften 173). Vienna: Osterreichische Akade-
mie der Wissenschaften.
Lejeune, Michel
1969 Discussions sur l’alphabet phrygien. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 10: 19−47.
Lubotsky, Alexander
1988 The Old Phrygian Areyastis-inscription. Kadmos 27: 9−26.
Lubotsky, Alexander
1993 Word boundaries in the Old Phrygian Germanos inscription. Epigraphica Anatolica 21:
93−98.
Lubotsky, Alexander
1997 New Phrygian inscription No. 48: Palaeographic and linguistic comments. In: Gusmani,
Salvini, and Vannicelli (eds.), 115−130.
Lubotsky, Alexander
1998 New Phrygian metrics and the δεως ζεμελως formula. In: Jay Jasanoff, H. Craig
Melchert, and Lisi Oliver (eds.), Mír curad. Studies in honor of Calvert Watkins. Inns-
bruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 413−421.
Lubotsky, Alexander
2004 The Phrygian Zeus and the problem of the “Lautverschiebung”. Historische Sprachfor-
schung 117: 229−237.
Mitchell, Stephen
1993 Anatolia. Land, Men and Gods in Asia Minor, I. The Celts in Anatolia and the Impact
of Roman Rule. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
Rix, Helmut
1992 Historische Grammatik des Griechischen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesell-
schaft.
Vine, Brent
2010 Old Phrygian iman. In: Ronald Kim, Norbert Oettinger, Elisabeth Rieken, and Michael
Weiss (eds.), Ex Anatolia Lux: Anatolian and Indo-European Studies in Honor of H.
Craig Melchert. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave, 343−355.
Orsat Ligorio and Alexander Lubotsky, Leiden (The Netherlands)

Authenticated
102. Venetic
1. Documentation 5. Lexicon
2. Phonology 6. Dialectology
3. Morphonology 7. References
4. Syntax
1. Documentation
The Venetic language was spoken in pre-Roman Italy in territory that is today the modern
province of Veneto. The main centers of Venetic culture were located in the southern
Veneto at Este and Padova, but Venetic settlements have been discovered to the north as
far as Làgole di Calalzo. And recently, important archaeological remains have come to
light at Altino, a settlement located on the eastern boundary of Venetic territory (Prosdo-
cimi 2009: 421−450).
The Venetic language is attested by 450 documents ranging in date from the 6 th to
the 1st century BCE. The documents in the corpus are inscriptions incised on durable
material: stone, metal, pottery and bone. Over 75 % of the total are votive dedications;
the remainder, apart from two or three that might be public in nature, consists of epitaphs.
The inscriptions are short − usually no more than six or seven words − and they are
formulaic in structure. Most of the word-forms are names and patronymics. The number
of lexemes is less than 100.
The Tavola da Este, an inscribed bronze plaque, is the only document in the corpus
of substantial length (Marinetti 1998: 58−97). Unfortunately, less than half of the plaque
survives. In antiquity, it was cut into the shape of a shield and reused as part of a votive
offering. Not a single sentence survives intact.
Venetic inscriptions are divided into chronological periods based on features of pale-
ography and orthography.
(1) Chronology of Venetic inscriptions

Old Venetic, ca. 550−300 BCE (syllabic punctuation; h spelled by heta)
Recent Venetic, ca. 300−150 BCE (syllabic punctuation; h spelled by < . | . >)
Latino-Venetic, after 150 BCE (Venetic written in a Republican Latin alphabet)
For all but the last stage of the language, Venetic was written in an alphabet that had
been borrowed from Etruscans who settled in the southern Veneto at the beginning of
the 6 th century BCE (Marinetti 2002: 43). The Venetic writing system had the following
distinctive features:
(i) Dental stop consonants /t, d/ were spelled in regionally distinct ways; at Este /t/ =
<x> (an X-sign) and /d/ = <z> (zeta); at Padova /t/ = <θ> and /d/ = <t>; and at
Vicenza /t/ = <x> (an X-sign) and /d/ = <t>.
(ii) Voiced stop consonants /b, d, g/ were represented by the letters <φ>, <z> (at Este),
and <χ> respectively.
(iii) The fricative /f/ was spelled by means of the digraph vh. Near the end of the Recent
Venetic period, following the loss of the glottal fricative /h/, the spelling of /f/
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-023

Authenticated
102. Venetic 1833
changed from vh to h at sites located in the northern Veneto. For example, this
orthographic change is reflected in the spelling of /f/ in inscriptions from Làgole di
Calalzo. The first sound in the name fo.u.va, for example, is spelled by heta.
(iv) Venetic inscriptions were written scriptio continua. Words were not separated by
punctuation. However, in all but a few inscriptions, Venetic scribes did employ a
system of syllabic punctuation. Orthographic syllables that did not have the struc-
ture CV or CRV (where R = resonant) were typically, though not consistently,
marked by means of periods or short lines typically positioned on both sides of the
final letter(s) of the syllable. For example, the personal name Voltiomnos was writ-
ten as follows (reversing its original right-to-left direction): vo.l.tio.m.no.s. Venetic
scribes working at the sanctuary of the goddess Reitia at Este adopted this style of
writing from itinerant Etruscan scribes/artisans who had worked at the Portonaccio
sanctuary at Veii in southern Etruria.
(v) The direction of writing was predominantly right-to-left, but left-to-right is also
common. Several documents were written in boustrophedon style (as the ox plows).
2. Phonology
The Venetic vowel system is set out in (2). The vowels are listed beginning at the high
front position and then moving toward the high back position. It is generally assumed
that there was a contrast in length at all five vowel positions, but the writing system does
not reflect this. Identification of long vowels is conjectured on the basis of etymological
comparison, e.g. Sanskrit dā́nam ‘gift’ vs. Venetic dono.n. ‘gift’ = /doːnon/.
(2) Venetic Vowel System

letters: i e a o u
sounds: /i, iː e, eː a, aː o, oː u, uː/
Venetic diphthongs are: /aj/ (a.i.), /aw/ (a.u.), /ej/ (e.i.), /oj/ (o.i.), /ew/ (e.u.), and /ow/
(o.u.). Long diphthongs may have existed in a few inflectional endings, e.g., dative
singular: re.i.tia.i. /aːj/ ‘Reitia’; .e.ge.s.tiio.i. /oːj/ ‘(son) of Egests’. However, such a
distinction, if it did exist, was not captured by the writing system.
The Venetic sound system had six resonants: two nasals /m, n/ (m, n), two liquids
/l, r/ (l, r), and two approximants /j, w/ (i, v). The bilabial nasal *m merged with *n in
word-final position, e.g, *ek̑wom ‘horse’, acc. sg., > .e.kvo.n.. The replacement of word-
final -n by -m in the word ‘gift’, dono.m., which is attested in inscriptions recovered at
Làgole di Calalzo, is late and perhaps due to Latin influence.
The inventory of obstruent phonemes consisted of seven stops, three fricatives, and
a sound whose manner of articulation is unclear. Stop consonants were distinguished at
the labial, dental, and velar points of articulation by the feature [voice] (see Rix 1997).
There was also a voiceless velar stop with labial co-articulation /kw/ (kv). A voiced
labiovelar stop is not attested; in word-initial position PIE *gw changed to /w/ (v), e.g.,
PIE *gwih3-wo- ‘living’ > vivo.i. dat. sg. It is possible that the voiced labiovelar survived
in other environments, such as after nasals, as it did in Latin, but there is no evidence
to support this idea. Old Venetic had three fricatives. The articulatory features are reason-

Authenticated
ably secure: labiodental /f/ (vh), dental /s/ (s), and glottal /h/ (h). The manner of articula-
tion of the sound spelled by the letter san and transcribed by ś is not certain. The fact
that ś represents the outcome of *-tj- in many cases where the etymological origin is
clear suggests that the letter may have stood for a voiceless dental affricate. In Recent
Venetic the glottal fricative /h/ was lost. There is also some evidence to suggest that the
sound spelled as ś merged with /s/ at this time.
With the exception of *gw the voiceless and voiced stop consonants passed unchanged
from PIE to Venetic. The major phonological development concerned the PIE voiced
aspirated stops. In word-initial position these consonants developed either to /f/ (vh) (<
*bh, *dh) or to /h/ (h) (< *g̑h/*gh), as happened in other Italic languages, e.g. ṿḥratere.ị.
/fraːterej/ ‘brother’, dat. sg., cf. Latin frāter, nom. sg., Umbrian fratrum ‘brothers (of a
religious organization)’, gen. pl., etc. In medial position PIE *bh, *dh, and *g̑h/*gh
developed to voiced stop sounds /b/, /d/, and /g/, which were spelled as -b-/-f-, -d-,
and -g- respectively, e.g., lo.u.derobo.s. /lowderobos/ ‘children’, dat. pl., < *lowd hero-
b hos.
Nothing is known about the nature of the word-accent in Venetic.
3. Morphology
Venetic nouns and adjectives belong to the major Indo-European stem classes: ā-stems
(re.i.tia.n. ‘Reitia (theonym)’, acc. sg.); o-stems (dono.n. ‘gift’, acc. sg.); and C-stems
(stop-stems va.n.t.s. ‘Vants’, nom. sg.; n-stems pupone.i. ‘Pupo’, dat. sg.; r-stems leme-
to.r. ‘Lemetor’, nom. sg.). In prehistoric Venetic, stems ending in the suffix -io appear
to have lost the thematic vowel -o in the nominative singular, e.g., ve.n.noni.s., patro-
nymic, ‘son of Venno’ < *vennōn(i)yos. In Recent Venetic inscriptions from Este, the i-
vowel of the nominative ending -is was also lost so that personal names and patronymics
can only be distinguished by context, e.g., iiuva.n.t.s., patronymic, ‘son of Iuvants’ <
*yuvant(i)yos (Untermann 1980: 146−147). S-stems appear to have shifted to e-declen-
sion; compare the nominative singular form enogenes ‘Enogenes’ to the dative singular
.e.nogene.i.. The locative singular of the word ‘day’, die.i., which bears a striking resem-
blance to Latin diēs ‘day’, may also belong to e-stem inflection. A few nouns inflect as
i-stems, e.g. trumusijati.n. ‘Trumusijatis (theonym)’, acc. sg. The noun .a..i.su.n., ‘sa-
cred object (?)’, acc. sg., is the only u-stem attested in inscriptions.
Venetic nouns were assigned to one of three grammatical gender classes. ā-stems
were feminine (re.i.tia.n.); o-stems were masculine (.e.kvo[.]n[.]) or neuter (dono.n.);
i-stems and C-stems were masculine (ṿḥratere.ị.), feminine, or neuter (.a.uga.r.).
Four cases are securely attested: nominative, accusative, dative, and ablative/instru-
mental. The locative singular is represented by the phrase decime.i. die.i. ‘on the 10 th
day’, but this is the only clear example and the syntactic context in which it is found is
incomplete. The ablative/instrumental is the result of the merger of PIE ablative and
instrumental cases. In C-stem and e-stem inflection dative forms ending in -e.i. are found
alongside those ending in -i. This variation in the form of the dative was the result of
dative/locative syncretism (see Eska and Wallace 2002). Most scholars believe that Ve-
netic had an o-stem genitive singular in -i, but the status of this ending is the subject of
scholarly debate (see Agostiniani 1995−1996 and Eska and Wallace 2001).

Authenticated
102. Venetic 1835
Venetic nominal forms inflected for singular and plural. Two unpunctuated word-
forms, horvionte and alkomno, most likely present active and middle participles respec-
tively, are generally interpreted as having dual inflection. Unfortunately, the meanings
of these words are unknown. Paradigms for Venetic noun classes are presented in (3).
(Names and patronymics are not glossed in the notes that follow the paradigms.)
(3) Venetic nominal forms

stem class -ā -o -io -e -C
nom. sg. fu.g.siia vo.l.tio.m.no.s. .e.ge.s.t.s. enogenes va.n.t.s.
1 2
acc. sg. re.i.tia.n. dono.n.
1
dat. sg. re.i.tia.i. vo.l.tiomno.i. .e.ge.s.tio.i. .e.nogene.i. va.n.te.i.
3 4
abl./inst. sg. leno vo.l.tio
5
gen. sg. (?) lo.u.ki (?)
loc. sg. decime.i.6 die.i.7
nom. pl. [-]edio.s.8 an.śores.9
acc. pl. de.i.vo.s.10 te.r.monio.s.11
dat./abl. pl. lo.u.derobo.s.12
Note: 1. ‘Reitia [divinity]’; 2. ‘gift’; 3. ‘?’; 4. ‘voluntary’; 5. ‘grove, clearing’; 6. ‘tenth’;
7. ‘day’; 8. ‘?’; 9. ‘augurs (?)’; 10. ‘gods’; 11. ‘of the boundary’; 12. ‘children’
The ordinal decime.i. ‘tenth’ is the only number that is securely attested. Numbers func-
tioning as personal names, e.g. kvito ‘Quintus’, are best treated as borrowings from
Latin (Marinetti 1995).
Personal pronouns are represented by the 1st person forms ego ‘I’, nom. sg., and
mego ‘me’, acc. sg. The accusative mego is a rhyming form based on the nominative.
The reflexive pronoun SELBOISELBOI ‘himself’, dat. sg., brings to mind forms attested
in Germanic, cf. OHG selb selbo, Gothic silba. Demonstrative pronouns are represented
by .e.i.k. ‘this’, neut. acc. sg., and .e.m. ‘this’, masc./fem. acc. sg. (Prosdocimi 1988:
308, 360; Marinetti 2003: 394).
The verb forms in the corpus are 3 rd person, indicative mood. Four verbs, doto
‘gave’, dona.s.to/donasan ‘gave’, vha.g.s.to /faksto/ ‘dedicated’, and tole.r. (tola.r. 1x)
‘brought (?)’ are predicates in votive inscriptions. atisteit ‘stands/stood by (?)’ appears
in a funerary inscription.
From an Indo-European point of view, doto is a root aorist. The sigmatic aorist is
represented by dona.s.to, donasan, and vha.g.s.to. atisteit could be a present tense form
based on the root *steh2- ‘be standing’, but the form is not particularly transparent and
none of the pre-forms suggested in the literature (*atistai̯ eti, *atistāei̯ eti, *atistaīt) seem
likely in view of the ad hoc changes required to yield the Venetic. The verb tole.r.
appears in votive inscriptions and thus in a context in which past tense verbs are the
norm. tole.r. is usually treated as a perfect tense form *tetolh2e- of the root *telh2- with
loss of the syllable of reduplication (de Bernardo Stempel 2000: 61; Untermann 2000:
743).
kvido.r., which appears once in a votive inscription from Làgole di Calalzo, may also
be a verb of dedication. It is in construction with dono.m. ‘gift’ and thus could have a

Authenticated
meaning similar to dona.s.to or tole.r.. Unfortunately, the etymological analyses offered

thus far are not convincing.
The person and number endings are represented by -t, -to, -an, and -r. -t is the
Venetic reflex of the 3 rd singular primary active ending *-ti. The secondary endings are
3 rd singular -to, which is the PIE secondary middle voice ending, and 3 rd plural -an,
which is the regular development of PIE secondary active *-n ̣t via a series of changes
(*-n ̣d > *-and > *-ann > *-an). The 3 rd singular and 3 rd plural verbs dona.s.to and
donasan appear to belong to the same paradigm. If so, it is not particularly clear how
forms with middle and active endings came to be yoked together. For the verb tole.r.,
which governs an accusative object, the 3 rd singular ending -r has middle function. In
Umbrian, the r-ending in verbs such as ferar ‘shall be carried’, if comparable to the
Venetic, is passive.
4. Syntax
As is to be expected of an ancient IE language, noun phrases inflected in the nominative
case filled the syntactic role of subject. Phrases functioning as direct object or as goal
of an action were in the accusative case. Indirect objects and benefactive phrases were
dative. Noun phrases governed by prepositions were dative, e.g. eni <pr>eke.i. data.i.
‘for a prayer granted’, accusative, e.g. u. teu.ta[n.] ‘on behalf of the community’ or
ablative/instrumental, e.g. .o.p iorobos ‘because of ?’. Phrases specifying a point in time
were in the locative case, e.g. decime.i. die.i. ‘on the 10 th day’.
Modifiers agreed with nouns in gender, number and case, e.g., te.r.monio.s. de.i.vo.s.
‘gods of the boundaries’, masc. acc. pl. Verbs agreed with subjects in person and num-
ber. In the inscription cited in (4) the personal names vo.l.tio.m.no.s., ḅḷadio, and
ke[− −]e[−]un.s., which are linked asyndetically, triggered plural agreement on the verb
donasa(.n.).
(4) mego vo.l.tio.m.no.s. ḅḷadio ke[− −]e[−]un.s. donasa(.n.) | heno[---]to.i.

‘Voltiomnos, Bladio, and Ke[− −]e[−]uns gave me to (the divinity) Heno---tos.’
Only two subordinate clause types are attested: a relative clause introduced by kude
‘where’ and a temporal clause introduced by kva.n. ‘when’. Nothing more can be said
about these constructions because the syntactic contexts in which they are found are
incomplete.
Adjectives and numbers were placed before the nouns they modified, e.g., te.r.mo-
nio.s. de.i.vo.s. ‘gods of the boundaries’, but patronymic adjectives in onomastic phrases
followed their personal names, e.g., va.n.t.s. .e.ge.s.t.s. ‘Vants, (son) of Egestos’.
Votive inscriptions recovered from Este and Làgole di Calalzo are the primary source
for Venetic syntax. The order of the major constituents in votive inscriptions from Este
varied from OSV, as shown by inscription (4) above, to OVS and SVO, as shown by
inscriptions (5) and (6). OVS is the most frequent order, but it would be unwise to make
too much of this fact. Most of the languages of ancient Italy adopted this order for votive
inscriptions of the titulus loquens-type. At Làgole di Calalzo, where scribes did not adopt
the titulus loquens form of inscription, the order of constituents is predominantly SVO,
as in inscription (7).

Authenticated
102. Venetic 1837
(5) mego dona.s.to re.i.tiia.i. nerka lemeto.r.na

‘Nerka, (daughter) of Lemetor, gave me to (the divinity) Reitia.’
(6) vhu.g.siia vo.l.tiio.n.mnin.(a) dona|.s.to r(e).i.tiia.i. mego
‘Fuksia, (daughter) of Voltiomnos, gave me to (the divinity) Reitia.’
(7) fovo fouvoniko.s. doto dono.m. trumusijate.i.
‘Fovo, (son) of Fouvo, gave a gift to (the divinity) Trumusijatis.’
5. Lexicon
Fewer than 100 lexemes have been extracted from the corpus of inscriptions. Of these,
some were inherited from PIE; others were loanwords from Latin. Words of IE patrimo-
ny are: -kve ‘and’, cf. Latin -que, Greek -τε, Sanskrit -ca; dono.n. ‘gift’, acc. sg., cf.
Latin dōnom, nom.-acc. sg., Skt. dā́nam nom.-acc. sg.; ṿḥratere.ị. ‘brother’, dat. sg., cf.
Latin frāter, nom. sg., Greek φράτηρ ‘member of a brotherhood’, nom. sg., Sanskrit
bhrā́tā, nom. sg.; de.i.vo.s. ‘gods’, acc. pl., cf. Archaic Latin deivos, acc. pl., Sanskrit
deváḥ, nom. sg.; ekvo[.]n[.] ‘horse’, acc. sg., cf. Latin equus, nom. sg., Sanskrit áśvaḥ,
nom. sg.; teu.ta[m.] ‘community, people’, acc. sg.; cf. Oscan touto, ‘community’, nom.
sg.; Old Irish túath ‘tribe, people’; Gothic þiuda ‘people’; etc. Loanwords from Latin
include: MILES ‘soldier’, nom. sg., FILIA ‘daughter’, nom. sg., and LIBERTOS ‘freedman’,
nom. sg.. Several words, all of uncertain meaning, have IE morphological structure but
lack comparable forms in other IE languages, e.g., .a.k.lo.n. ‘memorial (?)’, acc. sg.;
metlon ‘memorial offering (?)’, acc. sg. (possibly from *men-klom); magetlo.n. ‘offer-
ing (?)’, acc. sg.; .a.ugar. ‘?’, acc. sg.; ma.i.s.terato.r.fo.s. ‘the magisteratores (divini-
ties) (?)’, dat. pl., etc.
Patronymic formations were built from personal names by means of adjective suffixes
with good PIE pedigrees, e.g. *-yo-, *-iko-, and *-no-. Personal names provide one
source for compound formations. ho.s.θi-havo.s. ‘Hostihavos’, nom. sg., is thought to
be a compound of the stems *ghosti- ‘guest, host’ and *g̑hewHo- ‘inviting’, although
the a-vocalism of the final member is difficult to explain (Marinetti 2007: 441). The
compound .ekvopetari[.]s., .e.kupetari.s., etc., which is found on a series of epitaphs
from Padova, has generated considerable scholarly interest. The word refers to a type of
funerary offering or ritual. The nominal stems .ekvo-/.e.ku- ‘horse’ and petari ‘riding
(?)’ suggest that the funerary practice was associated with the burial customs of equestri-
an classes (see Marinetti 2005: 219−222).
6. Dialectology
Linguistic evidence does not permit the division of Venetic into regional dialect areas.
The position of Venetic within Indo-European continues to be debated (see de Bernar-
do Stempel 2000; Euler 1993; Lejeune 1974: 171−173; Meiser 1998: 26; Untermann
1980: 315−316; and Weiss 2009: 15−16; 471−472). Some consider Venetic a branch of
Italic; others consider it unaffiliated within Indo-European. As is often the case with

Authenticated
languages of limited attestation, insufficient evidence makes a decision one way or the
other difficult, if not impossible.
7. References
de Bernardo Stempel, Patrizia
2000 Kernitalisch, Latein, Venetisch: ein Etappenmodel. In: Michaela Ofitsch und Christian
Zinko (eds.), 125 Jahre Indogermanistik in Graz. Festband anläßlich des 125 jährigen
Bestehens der Forschungsrichtung ‘Indogermanistik’ an der Karl-Franzens-Universität
Graz. Graz: Leykam, 47−70.
Eska, Joseph F. and Rex E. Wallace
2001 Remarks on the Thematic Genitive Singular in Ancient Italy and Related Matters. Incon-
tri Linguistici 24: 77−97.
2002 Venetic Consonant-stem Dative Singulars in -i? Studi Etruschi 65−68: 261−273.
Euler, Wolfram
1993 Oskisch-Umbrisch, Venetisch und Lateinisch. In: Helmut Rix (ed.), Oskisch−Umbrisch.
Texte und Grammatik. Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft und der Socie-
ta Italiana di Glottologia vom 25. bis 28. September 1991 in Frieburg. Wiesbaden:
Reichert, 96−105.
Lejeune, Michel
1974 Manuel de la langue vénète. Heidelberg: Winter.
Marinetti, Anna
1995 Su alcuni aspetti dei numerali nell’Italia antica. AION-L 17: 171−192.
Marinetti, Anna
1998 Il venetico: bilancio e prospettive. In: Anna Marinetti, Maria Teresa Vigolo, and Alberto
Zamboni (eds.), Varietà e continuità nella storia linguistica del Veneto. Atti del Conve-
gno della Società italiana di glottologia (Padova-Venezia, 3−5 ottobre 1996). Rome: Il
Calamo, 44−99.
Marinetti, Anna
2002 Caratteri e diffusione dell’alfabeto venetico. In: AKEO. I tempi della scrittura. Veneti
antichi: alfabeti e documenti, Catalogo della Mostra (Montebelluna, dicembre 2001−
maggio 2002). Cornuda: Tipoteca Italiana Fondazione, 39−54.
Marinetti, Anna
2003 Venetico: rassegna di nuove iscrizione (Este, Altino, Auronzo, S. Vito, Asolo). Studi
Etruschi 69: 389−408.
Marinetti, Anna
2005 Cavalli veneti. In: Ettore Cingano, Antonella Ghersetti, and Lucio Milano (eds.), Animali
tra zoologia, mito e letteratura nella cultura classica e orientale. Atti del Convegno
(Venezia, 22−23 maggio 2002). Padua: S.A.R.G.O.N., 211−231.
Marinetti, Anna
2007 Sulla presenza di ‘frateres’ (?) nel santuario paleoveneto di Reitia (Este): rilettura dell’is-
crizione. In: Giovannella Cresci Marrone and Antonio Pistellato (eds.), Studi in ricordo
de Fulviomario Broilo. Atti del convengo (Venezia, 14−15 ottobre 2007). Padua:
S.A.R.G.O.N., 437−450.
Meiser, Gerhard
1998 Historische Laut- und Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache. Darmstadt: Wissenschaft-
liche Buchgesellschaft.

Authenticated
103. Messapic 1839
Prosdocimi, Aldo Luigi

1988 La lingua. In: Giulia Fogolari and Aldo Luigi Prosdocimi (eds.), I Veneti antichi. Lingua
e cultura. Padua: Programma, 225−420.
2009 Veneto. REI nos. 1−35. Studi Etruschi 73: 421−450.
Rix, Helmut
1997 Germanische Runen und venetische Phonetik. In: Thomas Birkmann, Heinz Klingen-
berg, Damaris Nübling, and Elke Ronneberger-Sibold (eds.), Vergleichende germanische
Philologie und Skandinavistik. Festschrift für Otmar Werner. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 231−
247.
Untermann, Jürgen
1980 Die venetische Sprache. Glotta 58: 281−317.
Untermann, Jürgen
2000 Wörterbuch des Oskisch-Umbrischen. (Handbuch der italischen Dialekte 3). Heidelberg:
Winter.
Weiss, Michael
2009 Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave.
Rex E. Wallace, Amherst, MA (USA)
103. Messapic
1. Name, geographic localization, 4. Linguistic affinities
time period 5. Phonology
2. Alphabet 6. Morphology
3. Documentation 7. References
1. Name, geographic localization, time period

The name “Messapic” traditionally designates the pre-Roman language of the 2 nd Augus-
tan region, Apulia et Calabria. But, according to the current state of our knowledge, this
name (“Messapic language”) is better confined to the inscriptions of the actual Salento
peninsula, i.e. south of a hypothetical line connecting Brindisi-Taranto: only in this re-
gion is the name of the Messapians (Messāpii, Mεσσάπιοι: the “genuine” Messapians;
cf. de Simone 1984 on the Daunia) found in ancient sources (Krahe 1937: 20−27, 1955:
14−15; de Simone 1979; Lombardo 1991: 52−53; on the sources in general: Lombardo
[ed.] 1992), and indigenous inscriptions (about 600 texts of differing lengths) are attested
here since about the middle of the 6 th century BCE (cf. now MLM I−II; Marchesini
1999). A relatively homogeneous linguistic community, which we may designate by the
traditional name “Iapygian” (Nenci 1978), can be considered to have existed in this
region at that time. The recent discovery of a Greek incised inscription on a “Laconic”
vessel (dated to the 1st half of the 6 th century BCE) from Tsakona near Sparta, which
testifies to the cult of a “Messapic Zeus”, is especially remarkable (Lombardo 1991:
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-024

Authenticated
103. Messapic 1839

1988 La lingua. In: Giulia Fogolari and Aldo Luigi Prosdocimi (eds.), I Veneti antichi. Lingua
e cultura. Padua: Programma, 225−420.
2009 Veneto. REI nos. 1−35. Studi Etruschi 73: 421−450.
Rix, Helmut
1997 Germanische Runen und venetische Phonetik. In: Thomas Birkmann, Heinz Klingen-
berg, Damaris Nübling, and Elke Ronneberger-Sibold (eds.), Vergleichende germanische
Philologie und Skandinavistik. Festschrift für Otmar Werner. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 231−
247.
Untermann, Jürgen
1980 Die venetische Sprache. Glotta 58: 281−317.
Untermann, Jürgen
Winter.
Weiss, Michael
2009 Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave.
Rex E. Wallace, Amherst, MA (USA)
103. Messapic
1. Name, geographic localization, 4. Linguistic affinities
time period 5. Phonology
2. Alphabet 6. Morphology
1. Name, geographic localization, time period

The name “Messapic” traditionally designates the pre-Roman language of the 2 nd Augus-
tan region, Apulia et Calabria. But, according to the current state of our knowledge, this
name (“Messapic language”) is better confined to the inscriptions of the actual Salento
peninsula, i.e. south of a hypothetical line connecting Brindisi-Taranto: only in this re-
gion is the name of the Messapians (Messāpii, Mεσσάπιοι: the “genuine” Messapians;
cf. de Simone 1984 on the Daunia) found in ancient sources (Krahe 1937: 20−27, 1955:
14−15; de Simone 1979; Lombardo 1991: 52−53; on the sources in general: Lombardo
[ed.] 1992), and indigenous inscriptions (about 600 texts of differing lengths) are attested
here since about the middle of the 6 th century BCE (cf. now MLM I−II; Marchesini
1999). A relatively homogeneous linguistic community, which we may designate by the
traditional name “Iapygian” (Nenci 1978), can be considered to have existed in this
region at that time. The recent discovery of a Greek incised inscription on a “Laconic”
vessel (dated to the 1st half of the 6 th century BCE) from Tsakona near Sparta, which
testifies to the cult of a “Messapic Zeus”, is especially remarkable (Lombardo 1991:
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-024

Authenticated
106−109; de Simone 1991a). But the question remains whether this cult had been taken
over from actual Messapia (in this case probably through the medium of the Laconic
city of Tarentum); the other possibility is that this “Messapic Zeus” was indigenous to
Laconia in the first place (Mεσσαπέαι is the name of a place in Laconia: Krahe 1937:
21, 1955: 14−15; see also Valmin 1939; Stanco 1987).
2. Alphabet
The alphabet of the Messapic inscriptions has been derived from a “red” Greek model
and altered expressly for the purpose of adaptation to the language. The precise source
alphabet is likely to have been the Laconian-Tarentinian alphabet, with the letters H
(consonantal, not [ē]) and F; the letter X/+ of the “red” alphabets ( = [ks]) is used to
denote the sound [š] in Messapic, which stands in phonological opposition to [s]; the
letter z normally has the phonetic value of a voiced counterpart to s (de Simone 1972:
185−186), but in some cases it might also denote a dental affricate, while the Greek
letter Φ (=[p h]) was superfluous in Messapic and hence has not been borrowed. But the
Greek letter Θ, which denotes a dental affricate and/or spirant in Messapic is regularly
used (de Simone 1972, passim; de Simone 1983b; Lejeune 1991; for the phonetic value
of Θ in Laconia and Tarentum, cf. especially de Simone 1972: 172). This sound is
secondary in Messapic, where it arose partly from a palatalization of the original sound
sequence *ty (de Simone 1972: 156−159); in more recent inscriptions, Θ is also used
before ao- or o-, where it is most likely a replacement for the older letter  (see below).
The main feature of the Messapic alphabet is probably the absence of the letter u, as
only o is used (de Simone 1972: 133−138; MLM I: 6−18; see below). Furthermore, the
Messapic alphabet has some “special characters”. These include, first of all, the letter ᛉ
(with its variants 넀 and ), which occurs almost exclusively in Archaic inscriptions (6 th−
5 th century BCE; de Simone 1972: 177−180; MLM I: 6−10); it seems likely that ᛉ has
been borrowed from a “red” Greek alphabet (with the original sound value [k h]) and has
partly been functionally remodeled. The function of this sign in Messapic is not clear in
all cases: but there are undoubtedly examples where ᛉ is used in combination with -i-
in intervocalic position, such as in Haivaias (MLM II: 159, 12 Bal; 1st half of the 6 th−
1st half of the 5 th century BCE); in later inscriptions, the same sound combination is
denoted with the grapheme sequence -hi-, such as in Haivahias (MLM II: 159, 3 Car),
which can only be the younger counterpart to Haiva넀 ias. In these examples, the se-
quence -VᛉiV- or -VhiV- must denote the phonetic realization of a -y- in intervocalic
position (approximately -VyyV-). Probably only a simple graphic variant of -VhiV- is the
sequence -Vh(h)V-, such as in Kabahas (MLM II, s. v.) and Andirah(h)o (dat.; MLM II,
see below): -VyyV- > -VhhV- ? A second Messapic “special character” is , which is
likely to represent a graphemic innovation (modification of ᛉ ?) (de Simone 1972: 172−
177; MLM I: 18). This letter occurs almost exclusively at the beginning of a word, a
position in which it denotes a dental aspirate, affricate, or spirant which developed from
*t. Cf., for instance, aotor- (MLM II: 341−342). In later inscriptions, - is often re-
placed by θ-: θ(a)otor-. It is important to note that  cannot represent the result of a
palatalization of the group *ty, which is usually expressed by -(t)θ-; furthermore, a graph-
eme sequence *-es (< *-tyos) is not attested (de Simone 1972: 175−176). But the

Authenticated
103. Messapic 1841
Laconian-Tarentinian alphabet is not the only signary used in writing Messapic: in the
archaic period, other Greek influences can be identified (Marchesini 1999); it is certainly
no coincidence that the verb meaning ‘to write, incise’ in Messapic is of Greek origin
(see below). So far there are almost no Messapic abecedaria (the only attested example,
from Vaste, is in bad condition and can only partly be interpreted: MLM II: 115, 2 Bas).
The epigraphic record of the two regions north of the line Brindisi-Taranto (i.e. Dau-
nia and Peucetia) begins much later (not before the 4 th century BCE), and involves only
a modest number of texts. Moreover, these texts are not written in the actual Messapic
alphabet but rather in a local variant of the Hellenistic alphabet (the so-called “Apulian
alphabet”) with the two letters o and u, as well as H with the phonetic value [ē] (de
Simone 1988a).
3. Documentation
Today, the Messapic inscriptions are easily accessible in Monumenta Linguae Messapi-
cae (= MLM). This work offers not only an edition of all texts which were available at the
time of its compilation, but also a complete list of the lemmata which can be identified
in the Messapic inscriptions, i.e. a complete Index Verborum. This word list, which
serves as a general orientation into Messapic, offers as well a linguistic commentary
with bibliographical notes on the individual lemmata. An enclosed CD-Rom facilitates
access to the sources and the individual words and will make it possible to continually
supplement the book with new texts and lemmata. It also offers the opportunity to retro-
actively correct mistakes or inaccuracies. Hence, MLM is not just a “complete” book but
a “dynamic” corpus, which can be continually extended and kept up to date. Another
important innovation offered by MLM is an electronically generated chronological listing
of Messapic inscriptions, which has been carried out using the program BASP Seriate
(The Bonn Archaeological Software Package; cf. MLM I: 1 f.; for details and the theoreti-
cal background see Marchesini 2004): this enables scholars to systematically investigate
the letter types (types) used in each unit (= inscription), i.e. the determination of the
regular distributional affinities of the individual letter forms in the Messapic inscriptions.
It can be observed that certain groupings of letter types always or predominantly occur
together (are distributionally related), in contrast to others, so that the relevant groups
of letters stand in complementary distribution to each other. By applying the program
BASP Seriate it has become possible to identify certain phases in the development of
the Messapic alphabet, which correspond in a principled way to the relative chronology
of the individual texts (units). On the other hand, archaeologically datable inscriptions
provide the basis for establishing an absolute chronology of the individual developmental
stages of the Messapic alphabet so determined.
The Messapic inscriptions are mostly short and have for the most part been found in
burial sites; this is why the Messapic corpus mostly consists of personal names, which
have been investigated by Jürgen Untermann in a masterly monograph (Untermann 1964;
de Simone 1972: 192−201; Untermann 1995; Aletium: de Simone 1983a; de Simone
2013, passim). The main result of Untermann’s work has been its demonstration that the
Messapic masculine family names at the time of the texts were names of gentes, while
the female names were partly still patronyms. Some examples (Untermann 1995; note

Authenticated
especially: biles, -ihi ‘son’, biliva ‘daughter’): Staboos Šonetθihi Dazimaihi beileihi (‘of
Stabuas Šonetius, son of Dazimas’); Dazoimihi Balehi Daštas bilihi (‘of Dazimas Bales,
son of Dazet’); Dazes Blatθeias Plastas (‘Dazet Blatteius, of Plazet [son]’). A female
name formula is Lahona Θeotoridda … Θeotoridda Θaotoras Keošorrihi biliva (MLM
I, Cae 22): in this text Lahona Θeotoridda (as the donor of the dedication to Aprodita)
carries a family name (Θeotoridda) derived from the father’s first name (Θaotor), but
which differs from the nomen gentile of the father (Keošorres, -ihi) (Untermann 1964:
188; de Simone 1972: 199−200). Especially relevant for cultural history are the cases of
“hieronymic” designations: under certain circumstances, the deceased could suppress the
“true” and official name in their burial inscriptions and have themselves named as
“priest/priestess” of Demeter or of Aphrodite (de Simone 1975, 1983c, 1988b, 1993a:
mysteriosophic cults of Demeter-Aphrodite). The appellative used for this purpose in
Messapian was tabaras (fem. tabarā) (see below), for instance in the formulas tabarā
Damatras (‘priestess of Demeter’) or tabarā Aproditia (‘priestess of Aphrodite’); a male
formula is tabaras Mahharaos, although here the exact function of the name Mahharaos
(gen.) is disputed. This special Messapic way of “hieronymic” naming has cultural paral-
lels in the Greek area, such as θεοδούλη δημήtria (Syracuse), but also in Italic: Sacracrix
Cerria (‘priestess of Ceres’; cf. MLM II, s. v. tabarā; for Ceres: Untermann 2000: 386−
387; Widmer 2004: 32). It is remarkable that part of the Messapic nomina gentilia (such
as Blas(s)ius, Tutorius, Tutoria, Τουτώριος, etc.) have direct continuations in Latin and
Greek (cf. the Indices in Musca 1996, furthermore de Simone 1964: 27−28; Messapian
names in Dyrrhachion and in Greece: de Simone 1993c: 38−39). In a few instances in
Messapic, family cults (“teonimi famigliari”) are attested, as in the case of Totor Dazin-
nes (name of a deity + gentilic derivation), cf. cases in Latin such as Dea Hostia, Lares
Hostilii, and in Etruscan Uni Ursmnei, Selvans Sanχuna, etc. (de Simone 1991c).
But there are also a few longer texts (from Basta, Brindisi, Monopoli), which have
not been found in burial sites and hence have a different content and which do not
consist only of personal names. Only a small part (as few as 22 texts) of the very
important complex of inscriptions from the Grotta della Poesia near Lecce could be
published in MLM (de Simone 1998a). The grotto contains a so far undetermined number
of Messapic inscriptions in addition to Latin inscriptions and at least one Greek text.
Scholars of Messapic keep eagerly awaiting the publication of this very important epi-
graphic complex, which could significantly expand our knowledge of Messapic. In the
Grotta della Poesia lies buried, so to speak, a thesaurus of the Messapic language.
According to its current attestation, Messapic is a typical “fragmentary language” (a
so-called “lingua di frammentaria attestazione/Trümmersprache”), the investigation and
linguistic evaluation of which are subject to certain methodological limitations (for a
basic presentation of the relevant complex of problems, cf. Vineis 1983). In particular,
the “etymological method” has to be treated with special caution (for a paradigmatic
negative Messapian example, see de Simone 1993b). But the status of “fragmentary
languages” keeps evolving over time, and this must always be kept in mind.
4. Linguistic affinities
At the present time, realistically speaking, it is not possible to situate Messapic within
the framework of the Indo-European language family (cf. the approaches by Milewski

Authenticated
103. Messapic 1843
1965; Orioles 1991; Radulescu 1994; and Matzinger 2005; de Simone 2013, passim).
The question of whether Messapic is a dialect of “Illyrian” (on “Illyrian” see de Simone
1972: 127−131, 1985: 45−46, and this handbook), much less the Illyrian language, is in
my view an issue belonging to the history of scholarship and is no longer current. The
fact that Messapic is a “fragmentary language” does not necessarily mean that it can
yield no etymologies and that we do not know anything about its phonology. Of primary
interest is the fact that Messapic shows many and numerous derivations of the predomi-
nantly western Indo-European appellative *teutā ‘people, community’ as the basis for
several personal names (MLM II: Taotinahiaihi, Taotorres, Taoteθθes; de Simone 1991b:
302) as well as in the function of a divinity name (Taotor/Θautour/otori [dat.]: MLM
II, 172−173, 325, 344). From this point of view Messapic appears to be a constituent of
the western Indo-European languages. A securely etymologized appellative in Messapic
is biles, fem. biliā (-io[v]a; MLM II, s. v.) ‘son, daughter’, which is likely to be cognate
with Latin fīlius,-a (: *b hū-lyo-/yā; Untermann 2000: 271−272); another important appel-
lative is the divinity name Venas <*wenos- (MLM II, s. v.; cognate with the place name
Venusia), which is therefore an inherited word and the exact correspondent of Latin
Venus and Oscan Ƒενζηι [dat.] (: Old Indic vánas ‘desire’; Untermann 2000: 837−838;
Janda 2005: 11, 53; see also the newly attested Ƒε(ν)ζηι in Caulonia: Ampolo 2004); in
syntactic connection with Venas, often Zis (= Ζεύς) < *dyēs is found (MLM II, s. v.): both
divinity names appear together in the “invocation formulas” (“formule di invocazione”)
kla(o)hi Zis Venas ‘listen, Zeus (and) Venus’ (de Simone 1988a, 1991b: 308−312); the
divinity name Venas is also invoked in connection with Θautour (de Simone 1988a,
1991b: 308−312). Tarentine Δίς = Zεύς in Rhinton is probably borrowed from Messapic
(de Simone 1972: 160); most likely also borrowed from Greek are the divinity names
Damatra (with variants; MLM II: 98−100) < Δᾱμᾱ́τηρ and Aprodita (MLM II: 20−21) <
Ἀφροδίτᾱ. For an overview of Greek borrowings in Messapic, cf. Giacomelli (1979).
An appellative lacking an assured explanation is Andirah(h)o (dat.; with variants: MLM
II, 14−15; de Simone 1991b: 305−307; Poetto 1997), which appears as a determining
attribute of the divinity name Taotor. Part of the sacral vocabulary are the following
lexemes: Damai (dat.) (MLM II, s. v.); Id(d)i (dat.) (MLM II, s. v.); logeti-bas (: Greek
Λάγεσις, Λάχεσις; MLM II, s. v.; note -bas [dat.-abl.] < *-bhos ); ana (MLM II, s. v);
aol(n)e/Taolne (dat.; MLM II, s. v.). Further note the appellative deiva/diva (: di-
van[ov]a), which (in its various forms) is likely to be the Messapic continuation of PIE
*deiwós. An appellative which has not yet been interpreted is daranθoa/deranθoa (MLM
II, s. v.). The lexeme vinaihi/vunaihi (gen.; MLM II, s. v.) probably means ‘wine’ and
hence is likely to be a “Mediterranean” loan. Lexemes which have not yet been interpret-
ed are: daos/daus, eiteui, vastei/vasti (‘civitas’?), veteui (all MLM, s. v.).
5. Phonology
Messapic phonology is also no terra incognita, as some of its features can be stated with
confidence (de Simone 1964, 1965, 1972 [passim]; outdated research report: de Simone
1962). The most important phonological feature is the treatment of PIE *o, which regu-
larly appears as a (de Simone 1972: 133−144). A paradigmatic example is the form
tabaras,-ā ‘priest/-ess’ (with the variant -o[v]a: MLM II: 317−320, 339 [-]) mentioned

Authenticated
above. The best etymology for this form is *to-bhoros/-ā (: *bher-) ‘offerer’, the closest
semasiological relative of which is Umbrian ařfertur (Untermann 2000: 48−49). Further-
more, the original phonological opposition ō/o can also be seen in Messapic, e.g. in the
inflection of n-stems, which regularly show -ō (nom.), -ōnas (gen.; ō : o [> a]). Corre-
sponding to this sound change is also the development of the diphthong *ou (<*ou and
*eu) to ao, as in Taot-/aotor (de Simone 1972, 49−53). This newly formed ao further
evolves in the history of the Messapic language to ō (cf. Θotor; for the multiple monoph-
thongizations in Messapic see de Simone 1964, 1965, 1972: 149−156). The abandonment
of the original phonological opposition o/a in Messapic is likely to be connected to the
fact that during the reformation of the Greek standard alphabet the (superfluous) letter
U was not taken over (de Simone 1972: 140−144). Hence, the Messapic language only
has an o/u phoneme, and not a phonological opposition u : o. Further important phono-
logical features of Messapic are multiple palatalizations, such as Bla(t)θes < *Blatyos,
Zis <*dyēs, Artorres < *Artōryos etc.; the grapheme/graphemic sequence (t)θ in
Bla(t)θes (: Latin Blattius/Blassius) seems to denote a dental affricate or spirant [(t)s] or
[(t)š] (for details cf. de Simone 1972: 156−168; Orioles 1972; 1978; Gusmani 1976:
134−141). A new datum of importance for historical phonology is provided by the parti-
cle anda ‘and, as well’ (MLM II, s. v.), which most likely can be traced back to PIE
*n̥dó and therefore provides evidence for the outcome of the syllabic nasal in Messapic.
The same feature can be found in Italic, cf. for instance Oscan fangvam (fancua) ‘tongue’
< *dhn̥g̑wā (Untermann 2000: 264), anter ‘between, within’ < *h1n̥-tér (Untermann:
2000: 108−109). But it would be premature on this basis alone to claim a close relation
between Messapic and the Italic dialects. Similar in function to anda is the enclitic
particle -θi (-si after -s) (de Simone 1972: 158−159; MLM II, s. v.).
The question of the development of the PIE system of occlusives in Messapic is at
present still unclear. The only thing certain is that the series of voiced aspirates *bh and
*dh are represented by the simple unaspirated voiced obstruents (de Simone 1972: 169−
170), cf. for instance berain, beran, (ta-)baras, -ā (: *bher-), (hipa-)des (: *dheh1-) (see
below; on the contrasting developments of these sounds in “Italic” cf. Stuart-Smith
2004); but no clear evidence is available for the treatments of the velar and palatal series.
An example of the outcome of a labiovelar is provided by the personal names Penka-
he[e?] and Penkeos (gen.; MLM II, 274), so long as the suggested etymology from
*penk we can be maintained; but it must be admitted that as of this point the evidence
for the treatment of labiovelars in Messapic is exceedingly slender. In contrast, the reali-
zation of PIE*s, which initially and in intervocalic position has become h, is rather clear
(de Simone 1972: 181−182: hipa-; klaohi/klohi; Venas). Finally, it should be noted that
chiefly in initial position the voiceless dental t represents a dental aspirate or affricate
(> spirant?) under still unclear conditions (see above).
6. Morphology
In the realm of morphology, the attested examples and the relevant inflectional paradigms
of the noun have been compiled and discussed by myself (de Simone 1978; see also
Prosdocimi 1989, 1990). The question of how to reconstruct the predecessor of the
genitive case of the Messapic -a- and -ya-stems is still heavily disputed, i.e. (in normal

Authenticated
103. Messapic 1845
orthography) -aihi and -hiaihi (following a consonant -[K]Kihi). The author repeatedly
has argued for the traditional opinion (for details see de Simone 1992, 2013; an agreeing
opinion: Eska-Wallace 2001: 87−88; contra: Matzinger 2005, see de Simone 2013, pas-
sim), according to which the ending -ihi should be understood as -ī. According to the
paradigmatic scheme Dazimas (nom.) ~ *Dazimī (gen.) (cf. Latin lupus, -ī ; on the Celtic
-ī-genitive cf. de Bernardo-Stempel 2003: 39, 45) ~ *Daziman (acc.), the paradigm
would have been analogically leveled to Dazimas ~ Dazimaī ~ *Daziman. A structural
parallel to this development is seen in the Messapic -ya-stems (following a consonant),
which in some cases also show leveling: -(K)Kes (nom.) ~ -(K)Keihi (gen.) ~ -(K)Ken
(acc.). Here -(K)Keihi (-ehi) is likely to have replaced an older attested form -(K)Kihi
(cf. Dazihi : Daz[z]es). Examples of this phenomenon are Balehi, beileihi, Kazareihi/
Kezareihi, Klatθeihi, Korθeihi, Kraθeheihi, Otθeihi, Šoranneihi [unpublished inscrip-
tion]; furthermore, note Bostahi : -a-hi. A comparable case in Latin would be the genitive
singular of -a-stems, as in the case of Duelonai, where -ai was originally disyllabic
(Balehi [:Bostahi] : Duelonai). Most Messapic family names in -e- are constructed on
the basis of -e-stems (< *Kya-) (such as Dazehias : Daz(z)es, etc.), which are surely a
late development of Messapic itself. A contrary opinion is expressed by Orioles (1991:
165−167), Gusmani (2006) and Prosdocimi (1989, 1990, 2006). According to these au-
thors, the Messapic ending -aihi is likely to go back to *-oiso or *-oisyo. The hypothesis
of Gusmani-Prosdocimi basically is a partly modified reissue of the old opinion of Pisani,
according to which -ī (: lupī) goes back to *-osyo. This hypothesis had already been
unanimously rejected by Pisani’s contemporaries. In any event there is to this day not
the slightest shred of evidence that the ending *-oiso/*-oisyo may have been present in
an early stage of Messapic (de Simone 2013, passim). Even if Celtic and Venetic are
taken to provide evidence for *-oiso (<*-osyo?: de Bernardo-Stempel 2003: 37, 45;
for the morphological explanation that *-osyo has been refashioned as*-oisyo after the
pronominal genitive plural *-oisom see Eska-Wallace 2001: 80), this does not mean that
this must have been the case in Messapic as well, especially insofar as Messapic is not
especially closely related to either Celtic or Venetic. Furthermore, there is no evidence
in any Indo-European language for an attested ending *-oisyo. As if this were not bad
enough, the hypothesis of Gusmani-Prosdocimi is also subject to substantial phonologi-
cal difficulties in Messapic, which cannot be investigated more closely here.
Through the evidence of the Messapic inscriptions, we now know some verbal forms,
including the following (all to be found in MLM II, s. v.): apistaθi: (de Simone 1991b:
312−315) 3 rd person singular present (verbum dedicationis) from*opi-steh2-ti (: *steh2-);
berain: 3 rd person plural optative from *bher-oi-nt (: *bher-, cf. Gothic bairain-a); be-
ran: 3 rd person plural subjunctive from *bher-ā-nt (:*bher-; ma beran ‘ne ferant’); dareti
(?); hadive ‘sat’: *sod-i-v-e, 3 rd person singular perfect of the causative *sodéye/o-, cf.
Gothic satjan. A remarkable feature is the -v- morpheme of the perfect tense, which also
occurs in other texts (see below); hipades (= Lat. dedicavit) ‘(s)he/it dedicated’: 3 rd
person singular s-aorist from *supo-dhē-s-t (: *dheh1-); (in)kermaθi (?); klaohi (klohi)
‘hear!’: 2 nd person singular imperative from *k̑leus- (: *k̑leu-; Peters 2006); kraapati [?];
(ni)ligaves ‘set down’: stem liga-v-e-, 3 rd person singular perfect (:*leg̑h-?; de Simone
1991b, 315); no (= Lat. sum) ‘I am’ (de Simone 1987; contra: Prosdocimi 1988); pido
‘handed over’ (?); preve (?); stahan (?); stihati (?). The verbal form which was formerly
read dupave (‘made’?) is actually to be read as aupave (Poetto 2003). The initial syllable
of this verb can be interpreted as a-u(pave) (with a preverb?) or au-(pave) (< *ou-).

Authenticated
Finally, the verbal form eipeigrave/ipigrave (MLM II: 122, 189; epig[ra]van: 124)
‘wrote, incised’ is a “mixed form”, as the stem ipigra- surely has been borrowed from
Greek (loanword: ἐπιγράφω; but the morphological ending -ā-v-e is clearly Messapic. It
has to be noted that Messapic shows two other important cultural loans from Greek:
argorian (MLM II, s. v.) < ἀργύριον and argora- (MLM II, s. v.) < ἄργυρος (in the
compound argora-pandes [‘coin officials’]).
7. References
Ampolo, Carmine
2004 Iscrizioni greche dal santuario di Punta Stilo (con addendum: nota preliminare sulla
nuova iscrizione osca). In: Maria Cecilia Parra (ed.), Caulonía, Caulonia, Stilida (e
oltre). Contributi storici, archeologici e topografici, vol. 2. Annali della Scuola normale
superiore di Pisa. Serie IV. Annali della Classe di Lettere e Filosofia Quaderni 17: 50−
54.
de Bernardo Stempel, Patrizia
2003 Der Beitrag des Keltischen zur Rekonstruktion des idg. Nomens. In: Eva Tichy, Dagmar
S. Wodtko, and Britta Irslinger (eds.), Indogermanisches Nomen. Derivation, Flexion
und Ablaut. Akten der Arbeitstagung der indogermanischen Gesellschaft. Freiburg, 19.
bis 22. Sept. 2001. Bremen: Hempen, 31−50.
2001 Remarks on the Thematic Genitive Singular in Ancient Italy and Related Matters. Incon-
tri Linguistici 24: 77−97.
Giacomelli, Roberto
1979 I Grecismi del Messapico. Brescia: Paideia.
Gusmani, Roberto
1976 Note messapiche. In: Vittore Pisani and Ciro Santoro (eds.), Italia linguistica nuova ed
antica. Studi linguistici in memoria di O. Parlangèli. Galatina: Congedo, 127−145.
Gusmani, Roberto
2006 Ancora sul genitivo messapico in -(A)IHI. In: Laporta (ed.), 199−205.
Huld, Martin E.
1995 Grassmann’s Law in Messapic. Journal of Indo-European Studies 23: 147−161.
Janda, Michael
2005 Elysion. Entstehung und Entwicklung der griechischen Religion. Innsbruck: Institut für
Sprachwissenschaft der Universität.
Krahe, Hans
1937 Die Ortsnamen des antiken Apulien und Kalabrien. Zeitschrift für Ortsnamenforschung
13: 20−31.
Krahe, Hans
1955 Die Sprache der Illyrier. Erster Teil: Die Quellen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Laporta, Maria Teresa (ed.)
2006 Studi di antichità linguistiche in memoria di Ciro Santoro. Bari: Cacucci.
Lejeune, Michel
1991 Sur la translitération du Messapien. AION (Sezione Linguistica) 13: 211−231.
Lombardo, Mario
1991 I Messapi: aspetti della problematica storica. In: Stazio (ed.), 35−109.
Lombardo, Mario (ed.)
1992 I Messapi e la Messapia nelle fonti letterarie greche e latine. Galatina: Congedo.

Authenticated
103. Messapic 1847
Marchesini, Simona
1999 La situazione alfabetica: l’Italia meridionale e la Sicilia. In: Attilio Stazio and Stefania
Ceccoli (eds.), Confini e frontiera nella Grecità d’Occidente, Atti del XVIII Congresso
Internazionale di Studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto 8−13 ott. 1997. Naples: Istituto
per la Storia e l’Archeologia della Magna Grecia, 173−212.
Marchesini, Simona
2004 Seriazione ed epigrafia: l’impiego di BASP (The Bonn Archaeological Software Pack-
age) nello studio di iscrizioni. Archeologia e Calcolatori 15: 257−266.
Matzinger, Joachim
2005 Messapisch und Albanisch. International Journal of Diachronic Linguistics 2: 29−54.
Milewski, Tadeusz
1965 The Relation of Messapic within the Indo-European family. In: Adam Heinz, Mieczys-
ław Karaś, Tadeusz Milewski, Jan Safarewicz, and Witold Taszycki (ed.), Symbolae
linguisticae in honorem Georgii Kuryłowicz. Wrocław: Zakład narodowy imienia Osso-
lińskich, 204−219.
MLM : see de Simone and Marchesini, 2000.
Musca, Dora Alba
1966 Apuliae et Calabriae latinarum inscriptionum Lexicon. Bari: Dedalo Litostampa.
Nenci, Giuseppe
1978 Per una definizione della IΑΠΥΓΙΑ. Annali della Scuola normale superiore di Pisa 3,
8: 43−58.
Orioles, Vincenzo
1972 Su alcuni fenomeni di palatalizzazione e di assibilazione nelle lingue dell’Italia antica.
Studi Linguistici Salentini 5: 69−100.
Orioles, Vincenzo
1978 Messapico senna. Incontri Linguistici 4: 244.
Orioles, Vincenzo
1991 Il Messapico nel quadro indoeuropeo: tra Innovazione e Conservazione. In: Enrico Cam-
panile (ed.), Rapporti linguistici e culturali tra i popoli dell’Italia antica. Pisa, 6−7 ott.
1989. Pisa: Giardini, 157−175.
Peters, Martin
2006 Zur morphologischen Einordnung von messapisch klaohi. In: Laporta (ed.), 329−353.
Poetto, Massimo
1997 Messapico AND/ORAH(H)A- nel contesto della grotta della poesia: una nuova prospet-
tiva ermeneutica. In: Riccardo Ambrosini, Maria Patrizia Bologna, Filippo Motta, and
Chatia Orlandi (eds.), Scríbthair a ainm nogaim. Scritti in memoria di E. Campanile.
vol. 2. Pisa: Pacini, 787−799.
Poetto, Massimo
2003 Una verifica dell’epigrafe peuceta MI 196. In: Simona Marchesini and Paolo Poccetti
(eds.), Linguistica è storia − Sprachwissenschaft ist Geschichte. Scritti in onore di Carlo
de Simone − Festschrift für Carlo de Simone. Pisa: Giardini, 157−161.
1988 messapico no “sum”. Studi Etruschi 54: 197−204.
1989 Sulla flessione nominale messapica, parte prima. Archivio glottologico Italiano 74: 137−
174.
1990 Sulla flessione nominale messapica, parte seconda. Archivio glottologico Italiano 75:
32−66.
2006 Il genitivo messapico in -ihi. In: Raffaella Bombi, Guido Cifoletti, Fabiana Fusco, Lucia
Innocente, and Vincenzo Orioles (eds.), Studi linguistici in onore di R. Gusmani III.
Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 1421−1432.

Authenticated
Radulescu, Mircea-Mihai
1994 The Indo-European Position of Messapic. Journal of Indo-European Studies 22: 329−
344.
de Simone, Carlo
1962 Forschungsbericht: die messapische Sprache (seit 1939). Kratylos 7: 113−135.
de Simone, Carlo
1964 Zur Geschichte der messapischen Sprache: die Diphthonge. Indogermanische Forschun-
gen 69: 20−37.
de Simone, Carlo
1965 Zur Geschichte der messapischen Sprache: die Diphthonge II. Indogermanische For-
schungen 70: 191−199.
de Simone, Carlo
1972 La lingua messapica: tentativo di una sintesi. In: Attilio Stazio (ed.), Le genti non greche
della Magna Grecia. Atti dell’ XI Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia. Taranto, 10−
15 ott. 1971. Naples: Arte tipografica, 125−201.
de Simone, Carlo
1975 Intervento. In: Pietro Romanelli (ed.), Orfismo in Magna Grecia. Atti del quattordicesi-
mo Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia. Taranto, 6−10 ott. 1974. Naples: Arte
tipografica, 159−160.
de Simone, Carlo
1978 Contributi per lo studio della flessione nominale messapica. Parte Prima: l’evidenza.
Studi Etruschi 46: 223−251.
de Simone, Carlo
1979 Il Messapico. In: Giuliano Bonfante (ed.), Le iscrizioni pre-latine in Italia. Atti dei
Convegni dei Lincei, Roma, 14−15 marzo 1977. Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lin-
cei, 105−117.
de Simone, Carlo
1983a Onomasticum aletinum: considerazioni generali. In: Atti dell’VIII Convegno dei Comuni
Messapici, Peuceti e Dauni. Alezio, 14−15 nov. 1981. Bari: Grafica Bigiemme, 215−
263.
de Simone, Carlo
1983b L’evidenza messapica: tra grafematica e fonologia. AION (Sezione Linguistica.) 5: 183−
195.
de Simone, Carlo
1983c Su tabaras (femm. -a) e la diffusione di culti misteriosofici nella Messapia. Studi Etrus-
chi 50: 178−197.
de Simone, Carlo
1984 La posizione linguistica della Daunia. In: Aldo Neppi Modona (ed.), La civiltà dei
Dauni nel quadro del mondo italico. Atti del XIII Convegno di studi etruschi ed italici.
Manfredonia, 21−27 giugno 1980. Florence: Olschki, 113−127.
de Simone, Carlo
1985 La posizione linguistica dell’Epiro e della Macedonia. In: Attilio Stazio and Maria Luisa
Napolitano (eds.), Magna Grecia Epiro e Macedonia. Atti del ventiquattresimo Conve-
gno di studi sulla Magna Grecia. Taranto, 5−10 ottobre 1984. Naples: Istituto per la
Storia e l’Archeologia della Magna Grecia, 45−83.
de Simone, Carlo
1987 Messapisch no “sum”. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 100: 135−145.
de Simone, Carlo
1988a Iscrizione messapiche della grotta della poesia (Melendugno, Lecce). Annali della Scuo-
la normale superiore di Pisa 3/18, 2: 325−415.

Authenticated
103. Messapic 1849
de Simone, Carlo
1988b Messapico tabaras “sacerdote”: tra significato e designazione. In: Jörn Albrecht (ed.),
Energeia und Ergon. Sprachliche Variation-Sprachgeschichte-Sprachtypologie. Studia
in honorem E. Coseriu. Tübingen: Narr, 481−483.
de Simone, Carlo
1991a Intervento. In: Stazio (ed.), 121−122.
de Simone, Carlo
1991b La lingua messapica oggi: un bilancio critico. In: Stazio (ed.), 297−317.
de Simone, Carlo
1991c Totor Dazinnes. Culti gentilizi presso i Messapi? AION (Sezione Linguistica) 13: 203−
210.
de Simone, Carlo
1992 Sul genitivo messapico in -ihi. Annali della Scuola normale superiore di Pisa 3/12, 1:
1−42.
de Simone, Carlo
1993a Messapisch tabaras, -ā “Priester, -in”. In: Frank Heidermanns, Helmut Rix, and Elmar
Seebold (eds.), Sprachen und Schriften des antiken Mittelmeerraums. Festschrift für J.
Untermann zum 65. Geburtstag. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Univer-
sität, 445−454.
de Simone, Carlo
1993b Messapico ha(z)zavas − ant. ind. juhōmi: un miraggio. Studi Etruschi 58: 201−207.
de Simone, Carlo
1993c L’elemento non greco nelle iscrizioni di Durazzo ed Apollonia. In: Pierre Cabanes (ed.),
Grecs et Illyriens dans les inscriptions en langue grecque d’Epidamne-Dyrrachium et
d’Apollonia d’Illyrie. Actes de la Table ronde internationale (Clermont-Ferrand, 19−21
octobre 1989). Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 35−75.
de Simone, Carlo
2013 Jürgen Untermann gewidmet: 46 Jahre nach dem Erscheinen des Beitrags “Die messa-
pischen Personennamen” (1964). In: José Luis García Ramón, Daniel Kölligan, and
Paolo Poccetti (eds.), Sprachkontakt und Kulturkontakt im alten Italien. 10 Jahre nach
Jürgen Untermanns “Wörterbuch des Oskisch-Umbrischen”. (= Linguarum Varietas. An
International Journal 2). Pisa: Fabrizio Serra Editore, 53−64.
de Simone, Carlo and Simona Marchesini
2000 Monumenta Linguae Messapicae. vols. 1−2. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Stanco, Josef
1987 Étymologie du thème Messap-. Godišniak, Akademija Nauka i Umjetenosti Bosne i
Hercegowine 25: 23−36 (non vidi).
Stazio. Attilio (ed.)
1991 I Messapi. Atti del trentesimo Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia. Taranto-Lecce,
4−9 ottobre 1990. Tarento: Istituto per la Storia e l’Archeologia della Magna Grecia.
Stuart-Smith, Jane
2004 Phonetics and Philology. Sound Change in Italic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Untermann, Jürgen
1964 Die messapischen Personenamen. In: Hans Krahe (ed.), Die Sprache der Illyrier. Zweiter
Teil. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 159−213.
Untermann, Jürgen
1995 Die vorrömischen Personennamen der Randzonen des alten Italien. In: Ernst Eichler,
Gerold Hilty, Heinrich Löffler, Hugo Steger, and Ladislav Zgusta (eds.), Namenfor-
schung. Ein Internationales Handbuch zur Onomastik. 1. Teilband. (Handbücher der
Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 11.1). Berlin: De Gruyter, 732−738.

Authenticated
Untermann, Jürgen
Winter.
Valmin, Matthias Natan
1939 Messapisches in Messenien. In: Cristel Hanell, Erik J. Knudson, and Matthias Natan
Valmin (eds.), ΔPAΓMA: Martino P. Nilsson A. D. 4. id. Iul. Anno 1939 dedicatum.
Lund: Ohlssons, 491−499.
Vineis, Edoardo
1983 Le lingue indoeuropee di frammentaria attestazione. Die indogermanischen Restspra-
chen. Atti del Convegno della Società Italiana di Glottologia e della Indogermanische
Gesellschaft, Udine, 22−24 settembre 1981. Pisa: Giardini.
Widmer, Paul
2004 Das Korn des weiten Feldes. Interne Derivation, Derivationskette und Flexionsklassen-
hierarchie: Aspekte der nominalen Wortbildung im Urindogermanischen. Innsbruck: In-
stitut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität.
Carlo de Simone, Rome (Italy)
104. Thracian
1. Settlement and expansion 4. Evidence for historical developments
2. Documentation in Thracian
3. Limits on the reconstruction 5. Dialectology and classification
of Thracian grammar 6. References
1. Settlement and expansion

The population groups which in the future were to become the Thracians arrived in the
Balkans in the same wave of migrations (late 3 rd−early 2 nd millennium BCE) as those
who were to become the Greeks and Phrygians. They were to occupy a vast territory
which fluctuated continuously from prehistoric to historic times: from the Haliacmon
basin to the Black Sea, from north of the Aegean Sea to the Carpatian mountains. They
even dispersed into Asia Minor (Mysia, Bithynia) and made incursions accompanied
with settlements in central Greece. This area was very soon confined by the Greek
colonization (north of the Aegean, the coasts of the Sea of Marmara, and of the Black
Sea) and above all by the Macedonian expansion, which pushed the Thracians eastward
during the period from Alexander I to Philip II. Divided into a huge number of tribes,
they never achieved political unity, apart from partial attempts under the Odryses in the
5 th to 4 th century BCE in the area of present-day Bulgaria and under the Getae on both
sides of the Danube in the 1st century BCE. Θρᾷξ/Θρῇξ, the etymology of which is
unknown, could possibly have designated one of the tribes, before it was extended to
the entire ethnic group (Brixhe and Panayotou 1997: 182−187).
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-025

Authenticated
Untermann, Jürgen
Winter.
Valmin, Matthias Natan
1939 Messapisches in Messenien. In: Cristel Hanell, Erik J. Knudson, and Matthias Natan
Valmin (eds.), ΔPAΓMA: Martino P. Nilsson A. D. 4. id. Iul. Anno 1939 dedicatum.
Lund: Ohlssons, 491−499.
Vineis, Edoardo
1983 Le lingue indoeuropee di frammentaria attestazione. Die indogermanischen Restspra-
chen. Atti del Convegno della Società Italiana di Glottologia e della Indogermanische
Gesellschaft, Udine, 22−24 settembre 1981. Pisa: Giardini.
Widmer, Paul
2004 Das Korn des weiten Feldes. Interne Derivation, Derivationskette und Flexionsklassen-
hierarchie: Aspekte der nominalen Wortbildung im Urindogermanischen. Innsbruck: In-
stitut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität.
104. Thracian
1. Settlement and expansion 4. Evidence for historical developments
2. Documentation in Thracian
3. Limits on the reconstruction 5. Dialectology and classification
of Thracian grammar 6. References
1. Settlement and expansion

The population groups which in the future were to become the Thracians arrived in the
Balkans in the same wave of migrations (late 3 rd−early 2 nd millennium BCE) as those
who were to become the Greeks and Phrygians. They were to occupy a vast territory
which fluctuated continuously from prehistoric to historic times: from the Haliacmon
basin to the Black Sea, from north of the Aegean Sea to the Carpatian mountains. They
even dispersed into Asia Minor (Mysia, Bithynia) and made incursions accompanied
with settlements in central Greece. This area was very soon confined by the Greek
colonization (north of the Aegean, the coasts of the Sea of Marmara, and of the Black
Sea) and above all by the Macedonian expansion, which pushed the Thracians eastward
during the period from Alexander I to Philip II. Divided into a huge number of tribes,
they never achieved political unity, apart from partial attempts under the Odryses in the
5 th to 4 th century BCE in the area of present-day Bulgaria and under the Getae on both
sides of the Danube in the 1st century BCE. Θρᾷξ/Θρῇξ, the etymology of which is
unknown, could possibly have designated one of the tribes, before it was extended to
the entire ethnic group (Brixhe and Panayotou 1997: 182−187).
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-025

Authenticated
104. Thracian 1851
2. Documentation
Our current knowledge of Thracian is based on the following sources:
a) A small series of inscriptions (5 th−4 th century BCE; Brixhe and Panayotou 1997:
187−189) written in Greek characters and originating in the Plovdiv area (Φιλιππó-
πολις/Pulpudeva), including the famous Ezerovo ring. To these may be added one
inscription (6 th−5 th century BCE) found in the northeast of Bulgaria (Kjolmen; Bri-
xhe and Panayotou 1997: 189) which also uses the Greek alphabet but with some
unidentifiable symbols, raising the question of whether this is really a Thracian text.
There is also a mutilated stele (5 th−4 th century) from the sanctuary of the Great Gods
in Samothrace, as well as 75 graffiti on vases (6 th−5 th century BCE), most of which
have been heavily damaged (Brixhe and Panayotou 1997: 189−190). There are as
many interpretations of these as there are investigators; and as a result, these monu-
ments have not contributed anything to our knowledge of the language.
b) 80−90 glosses said by the ancients to be Thracian, to which may be added about 60
Dacian glosses (plant names) (Brixhe and Panayotou 1997: 190).
c) Onomastic material (anthroponyms, theonyms, toponyms, etc.) which has been trans-
mitted in Greek and Latin sources (cf. Detschew 1957). This corpus has served as
the basis of countless articles dealing with Thracian and includes Greek inscriptions
beginning with the second half of the 5 th century BCE, the era when Attic Greek
became the language of culture. Cf. the engraved graffiti on silver vases from the
Rogozen treasure (see Mihailov 1987 and SEG 37: 618). It also encompasses material
found in Greek coin inscriptions beginning with the final third of the 5 th century
BCE, as well as Greek and Latin authors.
It is this last category of evidence, together with some glosses, most often dating from
after the beginning of the common era, which has served as the primary basis for a
reconstruction of Thracian.
3. Limits on the reconstruction of Thracian grammar

The forms which have been thus used have not been directly transmitted by the speakers
but have been conveyed to us through Greek or Latin, with “deformations” that a phono-
logical and morphological integration into one of these languages presupposes. This is
therefore an extremely unstable territory, which one tries to access with the help of
etymology. To be sure, for certain glosses the incertitude is reduced, as a meaning is
given, e.g. βρία meaning πóλις or κώμη according to Strabo, Stephanus of Byzantium,
and Hesychius, or δέβα meaning πóλις according to Hesychius (Brixhe and Panayotou
1997: 196 and n. 58 and 60). But what should be made of the etymology proposed for
a theonym (Σαβάδιος/Σαβάζιος, for example) based on supposed attributes or properties
of the deity? Or what should one say about a toponym or a hydronym etymologized
according to a presumed feature of a place or of a course of water? Cf. Brixhe and
Panayotou (1997: 193−194).
Fortunately, using the combinatory method, far more secure results can be achieved.
This method leads one to establish a series of toponymic lexemes: -para, -diza, -bria

Authenticated
(or their variants) (Brixhe and Panayotou 1997: 196), and clarifies the bi-thematic com-
position of many anthroponyms: Δια-ζενις is typologically and etymologically identical
to Greek Διο-γένης, and Βρια-ζενις may be typologically compared to Ἀστυ-γένης (cf.
Georgiev 1978). The uncertainty grows if one tackles etymology: does Διζα-/-διζα come
from *dheigh- (Greek τεῖχος, Detschew 1957: 132) or from *dheso- (Greek θεóς, Geor-
giev 1978: 17)?
It is clear how dangerous it is to build a grammar on such a fragile basis. In the
anthroponymic doublet Σατοκος/Σαδοκος it is usually said that Σαδοκος is the primary
form, and it has been widely assumed that the change from d to t is the result of a
consonant mutation (Lautverschiebung): reduction (most likely) of *bh/dh/gh to b/d/g,
but also *b/d/g > p/t/k and *p/t/k > ph/th/kh (see Brixhe and Panayotou 1997: 200 as
well as 4 below).
One should no longer place much faith in the notion that the languages of the region
fall into two linguistic groups: proper Thracian and Daco-Moesian or Daco-Getian
(Georgiev 1978; cf. Brixhe and Panayotou 1997: 195−196). And in the light of new
findings, the hypothesis of a prehistoric Thraco-Phrygian unity, which had been proposed
by Kretschmer in 1896, and which has been generally abandoned today, must be recon-
sidered (cf. 5).
4. Evidence for historical developments in Thracian

These new findings come from Zone (on the continent, opposite Samothrace). They
render obsolete a good part of the literature cited in the preceding lines.
Documentation from this region, particularly that from Samothrace cited in 2, has
been known for some time. But in 1988, 220 dedicatory vase inscriptions, for the most
part mutilated and dating mostly to the 6 th century BCE, were discovered at Zone,
around and in the sanctuary to Apollo. They are written in an archaic form of the Greek
alphabet with two additional letters, one of which represents y and is found in the same
value on Lemnos and in Phrygia. In Samothrace itself, in a sanctuary dedicated to Ben-
dis, three similar dedications have been found (see Brixhe 2006a: 124, 138). From Zone
and Maroneia we possess several inscribed stones (Thracian unilinguals or Greco-Thraci-
an bilinguals dating to the 5 th−4 th century BCE). The newly discovered graffiti are
currently our major tool for penetrating Thracian: their nature is known (dedicatory);
their stereotypical character facilitates restorations; the sporadic employment of inter-
punction and the combinatory method in general assure their segmentation. Some exam-
ples taken from 4 inscriptions will suffice to illustrate their exceptional contribution to
our knowledge: 1. Zone No. 5 Aβολο υνεσο (dative of the honored deity + epithet)
Πιλαyε (nominative of the one doing the dedication) καιε (verb). 2. Zone No. 281 [---]
Aπολοδορε καε. 3. Samothrace, sanctuary to Bendis, No. 1 [Βεν]δει υνεσο : Πορκ[---].
4. Samothrace No. 3 Βενζι υνεσοy [---]. Aβολο (see Brixhe 2006a: 131−132), corre-
sponding to Greek Ἀπóλλωνι, with its β for π, shows that in the pair Σατοκος/Σαδοκος
(see 3) the first form is primary and that the variation τ/δ has nothing to do with a
Lautverschiebung but rather reflects simply a conditioned voicing of voiceless stops
(attested from Thessaly to Thrace). In the light of Πιλαyε (= Greek Φιλαῖος) it is clear
that the language lacks an aspirate (*bh > b) and that it shows a banal assimilation of

Authenticated
104. Thracian 1853
the Greek aspirates to simple voiceless stops. One can see as well that it has lost final
consonants. Βενζι for Βενδι teaches us (a) that the spirantization attested in the anthropo-
nyms in -ζενις (Greek -γένης) given by Greek sources is old, but that it has not been
generalized or that the memory of the original form is still present (cf. [Βεν]δει) and (b)
that this phenomenon is highly unlikely to illustrate the satem character of this language.
Rather, it may represent simply a palatalization (at least of *d/g) before a front vowel.
One can also perceive various vowel changes: raising of mid-vowels (if υνεσο is a
borrowing from Ionic *ὀνήσῳ = ὀνησίμῳ[?], Brixhe 2006a: 132−133); reduction of final
unaccented o to ə (?), represented by epsilon (Πιλαyε, Aπολοδορε), a feature attested in
Thessaly, at Thessalonike and at Thasos (Brixhe 2008); loss of the second element of
diphthongs in -i, cf. the doublets καιε/ καε and υνεσο/ υνεσοy. If καιε/καε is indeed a
verb form in the preterite, the absence of the augment is worth noting (Brixhe 2006a:
134−136, 2006b: 41).
5. Dialectology and classification

The size, geographical fragmentation, and political division of the Thracian area lead
one to expect a comparable linguistic fragmentation, at least on the dialectal level. The
language observed in 4 is therefore not to be understood as representing a form of
Thracian spoken over the entirety of the area where this language was used but rather
that spoken in the region of Zone-Samothrace.
In the 6 th century this language is surprisingly close to Greek. And, since the particu-
larly close relationship of Greek and Phrygian has been long since proven, it is not
toward a prehistoric Thraco-Phrygian unity (cf. 3) that these new documents point.
Rather, in the period between Proto-Indo-European and the emergence of Greek, Thraci-
an, and Phrygian, it is probably necessary to posit a linguistic conglomerate to which
the populations which were later to develop into Greeks, Phrygians, and Thracians be-
longed. They must have arrived in the Balkans in the same migratory wave at a period
when they were linguistically still relatively undifferentiated (Brixhe 2006a: 141−142,
2006b: 57). From this it appears that Thracian may well not have belonged to the satem
group of Indo-European languages (4).
6. References
Brixhe, Claude
2006a Zôné et Samothrace: lueurs sur la langue thrace et nouveau chapitre de la grammaire
comparée? Comptes Rendus des Séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Let-
tres: 121−146.
Brixhe, Claude
2006b Préhistoire et début de l’histoire des dialectes grecs. Incontri Linguistici 29: 39−59.
Brixhe, Claude
2008 Un phénomène aréal : la substitution de <E> à <Ο> en finale en Thrace, à Thasos et
en Thessalie. In: Maria Theodoropoulou (ed.), ΤΗΕΡΜΗ ΚΑΙ ΦΩΣ. Licht und Wärme
(in Memory of A.-F. Christidis). Thessaloniki: Centre for the Greek Language, 215−223.

Authenticated
Brixhe, Claude and Anna Panayotou

1997 Le thrace. In: Françoise Bader (ed.), Langues indo-européennes. Paris: CNRS, 181−205.
Detschew, Dimiter
1957 Die thrakischen Sprachreste. Vienna: R. M. Rohrer. [2 nd edition 1976 by Živka Velkova.
Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences.]
Georgiev, Vladimir
1978 L’anthroponymie thrace. L’état actuel des recherches. Pulpudeva: Semaines philippopo-
litaines de l’histoire et de la culture thrace 2, Sophia, 7−19.
Mihailov, Georgi
1987 Les inscriptions dans le trésor de Rogozen. Linguistique Balkanique 30: 5−19.
SEG = Chaniotis, A., T. Corsten, N. Papazarkadas, and R. A. Tybout (eds.)
1923 ff. Supplementum epigraphicum graecum. Leiden: Brill.
Claude Brixhe, Nancy (France)
105. Siculian
1. Introduction 4. Grammatical characteristics
2. Glosses 5. References
3. Inscriptions
1. Introduction
Siculian (or Sicel) was the language spoken by the inhabitants of central and eastern
Sicily, documented from the end of the 6 th century to the 4 th century BCE. According
to historical sources (among others Hellanikos FGrH 4 F 79b 3; Philistos FGrH 556 F
46,4; Thuc. 6,2,4 f.; Diod. 5,2,1; 5,6,1−4), the Siculians (or Sicels) are believed to have
entered the island either around the 13 th century or in the middle of the 11th century BCE
(or in two waves) (de Simone 1999: 500, 2006: 690), leaving their ancient settlements
in Italy (stretching from Cisalpine Gaul to Etruria and Picenum and on to southern Italy)
and thus driving the prior inhabitants, Sicanians and Elymians, to the west of Sicily.
The Siculian language is widely believed to be of Indo-European, Italic origin, per-
haps even belonging more closely to the Latino-Faliscan, Sabellian, or Ausonian bran-
ches (cf. Pisani 1953: 5, 18; Zamboni 1978: 954, 956). It is attested in less than thirty
inscriptions on stone, brick, ceramic, and metal. The scripts used are Greek as well as
“Siculian”, a specific alphabet borrowed from West Greek, probably of the Euboic-
Chalkidic type. The direction of writing is sinistroverse, dextroverse, boustrophedic
(Centorbi), or spiral (Sciri Sottano). To this inscriptional corpus may be added around
twenty-five glosses (judged the most reliable among the total of ca. 100 supposedly
Siculian glosses) (Whatmough 1933: 449−474). Both types of documentation present
great difficulties in interpretation.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-026

Authenticated

1997 Le thrace. In: Françoise Bader (ed.), Langues indo-européennes. Paris: CNRS, 181−205.
Detschew, Dimiter
1957 Die thrakischen Sprachreste. Vienna: R. M. Rohrer. [2 nd edition 1976 by Živka Velkova.
Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences.]
Georgiev, Vladimir
1978 L’anthroponymie thrace. L’état actuel des recherches. Pulpudeva: Semaines philippopo-
litaines de l’histoire et de la culture thrace 2, Sophia, 7−19.
Mihailov, Georgi
1987 Les inscriptions dans le trésor de Rogozen. Linguistique Balkanique 30: 5−19.
105. Siculian
1. Introduction 4. Grammatical characteristics
2. Glosses 5. References
3. Inscriptions
1. Introduction
Siculian (or Sicel) was the language spoken by the inhabitants of central and eastern
Sicily, documented from the end of the 6 th century to the 4 th century BCE. According
to historical sources (among others Hellanikos FGrH 4 F 79b 3; Philistos FGrH 556 F
46,4; Thuc. 6,2,4 f.; Diod. 5,2,1; 5,6,1−4), the Siculians (or Sicels) are believed to have
entered the island either around the 13 th century or in the middle of the 11th century BCE
(or in two waves) (de Simone 1999: 500, 2006: 690), leaving their ancient settlements
in Italy (stretching from Cisalpine Gaul to Etruria and Picenum and on to southern Italy)
and thus driving the prior inhabitants, Sicanians and Elymians, to the west of Sicily.
The Siculian language is widely believed to be of Indo-European, Italic origin, per-
haps even belonging more closely to the Latino-Faliscan, Sabellian, or Ausonian bran-
ches (cf. Pisani 1953: 5, 18; Zamboni 1978: 954, 956). It is attested in less than thirty
inscriptions on stone, brick, ceramic, and metal. The scripts used are Greek as well as
“Siculian”, a specific alphabet borrowed from West Greek, probably of the Euboic-
Chalkidic type. The direction of writing is sinistroverse, dextroverse, boustrophedic
(Centorbi), or spiral (Sciri Sottano). To this inscriptional corpus may be added around
twenty-five glosses (judged the most reliable among the total of ca. 100 supposedly
Siculian glosses) (Whatmough 1933: 449−474). Both types of documentation present
great difficulties in interpretation.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-026

Authenticated
105. Siculian 1855
2. Glosses
(1) HESYCH: βατάνια· τὰ λοπάδια. ἡ δε λέξις Σικελική.
With regard to the glosses, the fundamental problem is evaluating their linguistic status.
Are the supposedly Siculian words really Siculian? Is their similarity to Latin, Sabellian,
or Italic in general due to a genetic relationship or are they simply borrowings into or
out of Siculian? Do they perhaps go back to a Mediterranean stratum whose traces
are found in other neighboring languages also? Thus Hesychius’ βατάνια might not be
genetically related to Lat. patina ‘dish’ and thus not prove a close linguistic relationship
between Latin and Siculian. Rather, both words more probably are borrowings from a
non-Indo-European Mediterranean language (*bat-/*pat-) correspondences of which
might also be found in Minoan (pa-ta-qe ‘drinking vessel’) and even in Iranian (*bāti-
aka- ‘drinking vessel’ > Modern Persian bād(i)yah; borrowed into Greek as βατιάκη)
(Campanile 1969: 310 f., Beekes 2010: 206).
3. Inscriptions
(2) stele from Sciri Sottano (c. 600 BCE, around 55 letters):
nendas ˌ puṛẹṇọṣ ˌ tebeg ˌ praarei ˌ en ˌ bo?renai ˌ vide ˌ pagostike ˌ aite?ṇ?ụbe.
(cf. Morandi 1982: 168)
Of the fewer than thirty inscriptions in total, only six appear to be at least in part intelligi-
ble and to be Siculian (i.e., most certainly neither Greek nor belonging to some other
Italic or pre-Italic language). They are: a block of sandstone from Mendolito (end of the
6 th century BCE, ca. 50 letters: 1iam ˌ akaram ˌ e?p??as ˌ kaag?es ˌ gẹpẹḍ 2te?to ˌ veregai-
es? ˌ eka ˌ doara[ịẹạḍ]; cf. Morandi 1982: 166, Agostiniani 1992: 146, Manganaro 1998:
254−257), a guttus from Centorbi (first half of the 5 th century BCE, ca. 100 letters:
nunus ˌ teṇti ˌ mím ˌ arustainam ˌ íemitom ˌ esti ˌ durom ˌ nanepos ˌ durom ˌ íemitom ˌ esti ˌ
velíom ˌ ned ˌ emponitantom ˌ eredes ˌ vịino ˌ brtome[; cf. Morandi 1982: 169), an amphora
from Montagna di Marzo (end of the 6 th /beginning of the 5 th century BCE, 92 letters:
1
tamuraabesakedqoiaves ˌ eurumakes ˌ agepipokedḷutimbe 2levopomanatesemaidarnakei-
buṛeitaṃomịaetiurela; cf. Manni Piraino 1978: 11−13, Prosdocimi 1978: 26, Agostiniani
1992: 152, Martzloff 2011), a kylix from Aidone (6 th century BCE, 4 letters: pibe; cf.
Lejeune 1990: 28, Watkins 1995: 40), a cup from Castiglione (ca. 600 BCE, 6 letters:
nendas; cf. Agostiniani 1992: 149), and the above example from Sciri Sottano.
Here, the fundamental difficulty is that of understanding the content. This is caused
mainly by the scriptio continua, making word boundaries merely guesswork. Regarding
the stele from Sciri Sottano, this means that, supported by nendas on the cup of Casti-
glione, only the first six letters seem to be identifiable as a personal name (although
even this assumption is contestable, cf. Agostiniani 1992: 141). All further words cannot
be proven to really exist. Then there is the linguistic problem: e.g., although Aidone’s
pibe almost certainly seems to invite someone to ‘drink’, its linguistic characteristics
don’t allow for any closer identification with Latin, Sabellian, or even Italic. The mor-
phological structure is clearly Indo-European *pi-ph3-e, but it could be even Proto-Indo-
Iranian, cf. Ved. píba, or Proto-Celtic, cf. OIr. ib (Watkins 1995: 40).

Authenticated
4. Grammatical characteristics
Due to the rather doubtful character of Siculian documentation, the presentation of its
phonology must remain very basic: Corresponding to the vowel graphemes, one can
assume five phonemes /a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, /u/, about the length of which nothing can be said,
as well as the diphthong /ai/ (perhaps also /ei/, /oi/, /au/). In the group of nasals and
liquids /m/, /n/, /r/, /l/ appear. Voice seems to have been distinctive, as seen from the
respective plosive pairs /p/, /t/, /k/ and /b/, /d/, /g/. Perhaps /k w/ can be added here. The
fricatives included /s/ and /v/ (and possibly /h/). Nothing is known about the Siculian
system of accentuation.
From the scarce data it may be gleaned that the Siculian nominal system had a nom.
sg. in -s (neuter in -m) (Castiglione, Centorbi, Mendolito, Sciri Sottano) − or are (some
of) the s-forms rather gen. sg.? −, an acc. sg. in -m (Centorbi, Mendolito), and apparently
a dat. pl. in -pos (Centorbi), as well as a thematic gen. sg. in -oio (Licodia Eubea, c.
600 BCE, 13 letters: 1adiomis 2raroio, cf. Agostiniani 1992: 150). The only two sure
verb forms seem to be 3 rd sg. ind. prs. act. of ‘to be’: esti (Centorbi), again in its
character too Indo-European to be of help in establishing any further linguistic relation-
ship, and the 2 nd sg. impv. prs. act. of ‘to drink’: pibe (Aidone).
Hardly anything reliable and non-commonplace can be said about Siculian syntax
and lexicon.
5. References
Agostiniani, Luciano
1992 Les parlers indigènes de la Sicile prégrecque. LALIES. Actes des sessions de linguistique
et de littérature 11: 125−157.
2010 Etymological Dictionary of Greek. Vol. 1. (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Diction-
ary Series 10). Leiden: Brill.
Campanile, Enrico
1969 Note sulle glosse sicule e sui rapporti linguistici fra siculo e latino. In: Studia Classica
et Orientalia Antonino Pagliaro Oblata. I. Rome: Herder, 293−322.
Lejeune, Michel
1990 Notes de linguistique italique. XL. « Bois! » disait ce Sicule; « Je boirai » répond ce
Falisque. Revue des Études Latines 68: 28−30.
Manganaro, Giacomo
1998 Modi dell’alfabetizzazione in Sicilia (dall’Arcaismo all’Ellenismo). Mediterraneo Anti-
co 1: 247−270.
Manni Piraino, Maria Teresa
1978 Una nuova iscrizione anellenica da Montagna di Marzo. Kōkalos 24: 10−15.
Martzloff, Vincent
2011 Variation linguistique et exégèse paléo-italique. L’idiome sicule de Montagna di Marzo.
In: Gilles van Heems, (ed.), La variation linguistique dans les langues de l’Italie préro-
maine. Actes du IVe Séminaire sur les langues de l’Italie préromaine organisé à l’Uni-
versité Lumière-Lyon 2 et la Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, 12 mars 2009.
Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, 93−129.

Authenticated
106. Lusitanian 1857
Morandi, Alessandro
1982 Epigrafia italica. Rome: Bretschneider.
Pisani, Vittore
1953 Sulla lingua dei siculi. Bollettino del Centro di Studi Filologici e Linguistici Siciliani 1:
5−18.
De Simone, Carlo
1999 L’epigrafia sicana e sicula. Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Serie IV,
Quaderni 2: 499−507.
De Simone, Carlo
2006 Ancora su Siculo e Sicano. In: Chiara Michelini (ed.), Guerra e pace in Sicilia e nel
Mediterraneo antico (VIII−III sec. a.C.). Arte, prassi e teoria della pace e della guerra.
Vol. II. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore, 689−692.
Watkins, Calvert
1995 Greece in Italy outside Rome. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 97: 35−50.
Whatmough, Joshua
1933 The Prae-Italic Dialects of Italy. Vol. II. Part III. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Zamboni, Alberto
1978 Il siculo. In: Aldo Luigi Prosdocimi (ed.), Lingue e dialetti dell’Italia antica. (Popoli e
civiltà dell’Italia antica 6). Rome: Biblioteca di Storia Patria. 949−1012.
Markus Hartmann, Erfurt (Germany)
106. Lusitanian
2. Phonology 6. The position of Lusitanian within
3. Morphology Indo-European
4. Syntax
1. Documentation
Lusitanian (Lus.), also Lusitano-Galician, is the modern exonym for a fragmentarily
attested IE language in the West of the Iberian Peninsula, extending from the Atlantic
Coast to the western borders of Castilia and from the Douro in the north to the Guadiana
and the lower Tajo in the south. The name is derived from the ancient Lusitani in whose
area the inscriptions were found. For the historical background see Pérez Vilatela (2000).
Five short inscriptions (Arroyo de la Luz I and II − a single text, now lost; the
fragmentary Arroyo de la Luz III; Lamas de Moledo; Cabeço das Frágoas; Ribeira da
Venda near Arronches, Portalegre; altogether around 100 words) have been found so far
(Untermann 1997: 747−758; Villar and Pedrero 2001; Carneiro et al. 2008). To these
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-027

Authenticated
Morandi, Alessandro
1982 Epigrafia italica. Rome: Bretschneider.
Pisani, Vittore
1953 Sulla lingua dei siculi. Bollettino del Centro di Studi Filologici e Linguistici Siciliani 1:
5−18.
De Simone, Carlo
1999 L’epigrafia sicana e sicula. Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Serie IV,
Quaderni 2: 499−507.
De Simone, Carlo
2006 Ancora su Siculo e Sicano. In: Chiara Michelini (ed.), Guerra e pace in Sicilia e nel
Mediterraneo antico (VIII−III sec. a.C.). Arte, prassi e teoria della pace e della guerra.
Vol. II. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore, 689−692.
Watkins, Calvert
1995 Greece in Italy outside Rome. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 97: 35−50.
Whatmough, Joshua
1933 The Prae-Italic Dialects of Italy. Vol. II. Part III. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Zamboni, Alberto
1978 Il siculo. In: Aldo Luigi Prosdocimi (ed.), Lingue e dialetti dell’Italia antica. (Popoli e
civiltà dell’Italia antica 6). Rome: Biblioteca di Storia Patria. 949−1012.
Markus Hartmann, Erfurt (Germany)
106. Lusitanian
2. Phonology 6. The position of Lusitanian within
3. Morphology Indo-European
4. Syntax
1. Documentation
Lusitanian (Lus.), also Lusitano-Galician, is the modern exonym for a fragmentarily
attested IE language in the West of the Iberian Peninsula, extending from the Atlantic
Coast to the western borders of Castilia and from the Douro in the north to the Guadiana
and the lower Tajo in the south. The name is derived from the ancient Lusitani in whose
area the inscriptions were found. For the historical background see Pérez Vilatela (2000).
Five short inscriptions (Arroyo de la Luz I and II − a single text, now lost; the
fragmentary Arroyo de la Luz III; Lamas de Moledo; Cabeço das Frágoas; Ribeira da
Venda near Arronches, Portalegre; altogether around 100 words) have been found so far
(Untermann 1997: 747−758; Villar and Pedrero 2001; Carneiro et al. 2008). To these
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-027

Authenticated
can be added a number of “quasi-Lusitanian” texts (short Latin inscriptions containing

isolated Lus. forms; Witczak 2005: 183−198), onomastic material (Vallejo Ruiz 2005)
and divine names and epithets on Roman inscriptions (Prósper 2002: 89−354), place-
names, words transmitted in external sources, and lexical material in Ibero-Romance
languages that is suspected of having been borrowed from Lus. (Witczak 2005: 295−
390).
All documents are written in the Roman script. The possible time-frame for the in-
scriptions extends from the 1st c. BCE to the 2 nd c. CE, but due to the lack of archaeo-
logical contexts the chronology remains conjectural; dating the texts on linguistic
grounds is circular.
The limited corpus creates several methodological problems: there probably never
existed a written literary standard for Lus.; the inscriptions reflect independent attempts
at putting the vernacular into writing on the basis of Latin school education. So far no
consensus has been reached on the interpretation of the texts, and the situation is aggra-
vated by their insecure readings. Due to Lus.’s lamentable state of preservation, anything
said about its synchronic and historical grammar is necessarily conjectural only.
2. Phonology
2.1. Vowels
The vocalism exhibits relatively conservative traits. Partly divergent treatments of long
and short vowels suggest a length opposition (not indicated in writing) for Lus., or for
an earlier stage of the language. The observable vowel changes are largely isolated
phenomena and do not transform the inherited system as a whole:
− e is raised to mid-high ı <i, e> before tautosyllabic nasals, perhaps sporadically in
other contexts as well.
− i in hiatus (or i̯ ) before back vowels is frequently written e.
− o may be syncopated in final syllables between i̯ and a consonant.
− e (= ē) < *ei̯ at least in final syllables.
Both i̯ - and u̯-diphthongs are frequent. The i̯ -diphthongs display great variation in spell-
ing (e.g. ae, ai, aei). Beside one good example for ou < *eu̯, there are several words
with written eu.
Occasional further vowel variation is suspect of being morphologically conditioned
(cf. 3.1).
2.2. Resonants
r, l, m, n, and i̯ remain largely unchanged. The inherited distinction between m and n is

retained in auslaut. u̯ is lost between o and i/e; in a few cases the rare grapheme f stands
in initial position of words that are compared to etyma with u̯ outside Lus.

Authenticated
2.3. Consonants
There is an opposition between plain and geminated stops and resonants. An original
opposition between voiced and voiceless stops has been partly transformed, because
word-internally the obstruents have undergone a sound-shift. Variant spellings with let-
ters for voiceless and voiced stops side by side indicate that inherited voiceless stops
had become phonetically voiced (“lenited”) between vowels and after resonants, but that
this distributional allophony had not yet attained phonemic status. There is the potential
for inverse spellings in such a situation. It is likely that the development was caused by
a pull chain from a previous, analogous “lenition” (probably fricativization) of voiced
stops, which is not indicated in spelling.
It is unclear whether the PIE voiced and voiced aspirated obstruent series had merged
or had stayed separate. The examples adduced by Witczak (2005: 255−257, 267−274)
for a separate treatment of the two series (i.e. Lus. f, b, p < *b h, but b < *b; Lus. 0̸ <
*h < *g h and *g̑ h, but g/0̸ < *g and *g̑; Lus. r < *d, but d < *d h) rest on doubtful
etymologies.
Lus. has undergone the same kentum-development as all Western IE languages (e.g.
porcom < *pork̑om). The evidence for the fate of the labiovelars is ambiguous. It has
been suggested that unlike in other kentum-languages PIE *k u̯ and *ku̯/k̑u̯ did not merge,
but rather that *k u̯ became Lus. p and *ku̯/k̑u̯ remained as Lus. <qu> (Prósper 2002:
396−397; Witczak 2005: 274−276).
s generally remains in Lus. but is occasionally lost in final position (Stifter 2010−
2011: 189−190).
2.4. Accent
Nothing positive can be said about the accent in Lus. But it is noteworthy that the vowels
seem to have undergone more reductions in final syllables than in other positions, which
indicates that the accent was not word-final.
3. Morphology
3.1. Nouns
Inherited IE inflectional categories are retained. All three genders seem to be attested.
Only singulars and plurals are found. Attested cases are: nominative, accusative, dative,
genitive, and possibly locative; the instrumental and ablative are uncertain. Of the inflec-
tional classes, thematic (o-, i̯ o-stems) and athematic nouns (ā-, i̯ ā-, u-, consonant stems)
are found; other classes (ī-stems) are uncertain.
The endings are generally the expected ones. Noteworthy are: the thematic gen. sg.
in -o, unless the forms are instrumentals; the thematic dat. sg., which vacillates between
-oi, -ui, -u, -o; one inscription possibly has ā-stem dat. sg. -a instead of -ai elsewhere.
If isaiccid and puppid are ablatives, the ending -d has spread outside thematic nouns
(but cf. 3.4).

Authenticated
3.2. Adjectives
The evidence consists mainly of theonymic epithets. Adjectives inflect like nouns. In
several instances, o-stem adjectives agree with ā-stem nouns. A superlative in -tamo- <
*-tm̥Ho- is found.
3.3. Numerals
If autochthonous, the personal name Petraṇio- could be derived from ‘4’, those in
Pi/ent- from ‘5’.
3.4. Pronouns
Several candidates for demonstratives have been cited (e.g. ṭadom, etom), but none is
undisputed. Isaiccid and puppid (if < *k u̯odk u̯id) could be correlatives, unless they are
nouns in the ablative. Iom is either a relative pronoun (perhaps correlative with demon-
strative etom) or has some other subordinating function.
3.5. Verbs
By their endings, rueti and doenti are securely identifiable as 3sg. and 3pl. verbal forms,
probably present indicative, although the root (*d heh1 or *doh3) and the stem formation
of the latter is unclear. Verbal forms have also been suspected in praisom (1sg.?), prae-
sondo (middle 3pl.?), singeieṭo (middle 3sg.), and loiminna/ḷoemina (middle participle?)
but none of this can be proven.
4. Syntax
4.1. Word classes

In addition to the word classes discussed in 3, one function word has been securely
identified: conjunctive indi.
4.2. Word order

The small corpus of Lus. yields only weak evidence for SVO. Other surface configura-
tions are probably marked word orders in dedicatory contexts.
Adjectives follow their head noun. There are two possible cases of postpositions
(Carlae en, praeson=do), but both can also be analyzed in other ways.

Authenticated
4.3. Sentence syntax
One inscription contains a sequence of nine elements coordinated by the conjunction

indi. One example of a subordinating pronoun, iom, gives evidence of a hypotactic
structure, but lacks any context.
5. Lexicon
5.1. Vocabulary
Despite the limited corpus, the inscriptions are linked by several recurring words, a fact
that helped establish Lusitanian as a linguistic entity. The number of semantically clear
words is extremely small. Three words for sacrificial animals are securely identified
(porcom, taurom, oilam). One inscription may contain a series of terms for social or
family relations.
5.2. Word formation
Like in neighbouring Celtiberian, adjectival formations in -k- (-iko-, -aiko-, -tiko-) enjoy
great productivity, e.g. teucaecom ← teucom, lamaticom ‘belonging to L.’ ← placename
*Lama. Derivatives in -i̯ o/ā- are also frequent (e.g. usseam < *ups-ii̯ ā- or *uts-ii̯ ā-?).
There are compounds that consist of two nominal elements; others are made up of
preverb + nominal element, but the exact formal and semantic types cannot be deter-
mined.
6. The position of Lusitanian within Indo-European
The IE character of Lus. is immediately apparent from the inflectional endings. It clearly
belongs to the Western IE linguistic area and represents a rather typical “old-IE” lan-
guage, but its genetic relationship to other IE languages remains disputed. Divine names
are shared with the Gallaeci, north of the Lusitani.
A special relationship to Celtic has been suggested, but cannot be substantiated: simi-
larities with Celtiberian in derivational morphology could reflect mutual influence (the
potentially shared thematic gen. sg. in -o is remarkable, unless the Lus. forms are instru-
mentals); lexical correspondences with Celtic (Lus. Crougeai ~ OIr. crúach ‘hill’) rest
on etymological speculation. More recently, similarities of Lus. with Italic have been
stressed.
Although the few sources exhibit some variation in phonology and morphology, the
evidence is too meager for secure inferences about diachronic or dialectal divergences.

Authenticated
7. References:
Carneiro, André, José d’Encarnação, Jorge de Oliveira, and Cláudia Teixeira
2008 Uma inscrição votiva em língua lusitana [A votive inscription in the Lusitanian lan-
guage]. Palaeohispanica 8: 167−178.
Pérez Vilatela, Luciano
2000 Lusitania. Historia y etnología. Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia.
Prósper, Blanca Maria
2002 Lenguas y religiones prerromanas del occidente de la Península Ibérica, Salamanca:
Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.
Stifter, David
2010–11 Schwund von auslautendem s als westeuropäische areale Erscheinung. Die Sprache
49/2: 187−193.
Untermann, Jürgen and Dagmar Wodtko
1997 Monumenta Linguarum Hispanicarum. Band IV. Die tartessischen, keltiberischen und
lusitanischen Inschriften. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Vallejo Ruiz, José María
2005 Antroponimia indígena de la Lusitania romana. Vitoria−Gasteiz: Servicio Editorial Uni-
versidad del Pais Vasco.
Villar, Francisco and Rosa Pedrero
2001 Arroyo de la Luz III. Palaeohispanica 1: 235−274.
Witczak, Krzysztof Tomasz
2005 Język i religia Luzytanów. Studium historyczno-porównawcze [Lusitanian language and
religion. A historical-comparative study]. Lodz: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
David Stifter, Maynooth (Ireland)
107. Macedonian
1. Origin of the Macedonians and 3. Linguistic features of Macedonian
their language 4. Probable member of the Greek family
1. Origin of the Macedonians and their language

The Macedonians correspond to a group of tribes who, according to legend, were united
by the Temenides in the 7 th century BCE, and who started to occupy valleys and plains
progressively after having descended from the Pindos mountains. For a long time, their
core area was the Haliacmon basin, where their first capital Aigeai was located. During
the reign of Alexander I (ca. 498−454 BCE), they reached the Strymon river; in the time
of Philip II they could be found near the Nestos river. Their northern border never spread
much further than the current border of Greece (Brixhe and Panayotou 1997: 207−208).
An originally heterogeneous country, Macedonia partly remained this way owing to
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-028

Authenticated
7. References:
Carneiro, André, José d’Encarnação, Jorge de Oliveira, and Cláudia Teixeira
2008 Uma inscrição votiva em língua lusitana [A votive inscription in the Lusitanian lan-
guage]. Palaeohispanica 8: 167−178.
Pérez Vilatela, Luciano
2000 Lusitania. Historia y etnología. Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia.
Prósper, Blanca Maria
2002 Lenguas y religiones prerromanas del occidente de la Península Ibérica, Salamanca:
Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.
Stifter, David
2010–11 Schwund von auslautendem s als westeuropäische areale Erscheinung. Die Sprache
49/2: 187−193.
Untermann, Jürgen and Dagmar Wodtko
1997 Monumenta Linguarum Hispanicarum. Band IV. Die tartessischen, keltiberischen und
lusitanischen Inschriften. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Vallejo Ruiz, José María
2005 Antroponimia indígena de la Lusitania romana. Vitoria−Gasteiz: Servicio Editorial Uni-
versidad del Pais Vasco.
Villar, Francisco and Rosa Pedrero
2001 Arroyo de la Luz III. Palaeohispanica 1: 235−274.
Witczak, Krzysztof Tomasz
2005 Język i religia Luzytanów. Studium historyczno-porównawcze [Lusitanian language and
religion. A historical-comparative study]. Lodz: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
David Stifter, Maynooth (Ireland)
107. Macedonian
1. Origin of the Macedonians and 3. Linguistic features of Macedonian
their language 4. Probable member of the Greek family
1. Origin of the Macedonians and their language

The Macedonians correspond to a group of tribes who, according to legend, were united
by the Temenides in the 7 th century BCE, and who started to occupy valleys and plains
progressively after having descended from the Pindos mountains. For a long time, their
core area was the Haliacmon basin, where their first capital Aigeai was located. During
the reign of Alexander I (ca. 498−454 BCE), they reached the Strymon river; in the time
of Philip II they could be found near the Nestos river. Their northern border never spread
much further than the current border of Greece (Brixhe and Panayotou 1997: 207−208).
An originally heterogeneous country, Macedonia partly remained this way owing to
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-028

Authenticated
107. Macedonian 1863
isolated groups of Phrygians and Thracians living there (Brixhe 2006b: 41). And, of
course, in the west, north, and east, it constantly remained in contact with non-Greek
peoples, such as Illyrians, Peonians, or Thracians.
Questions about the origins of this people and implicitly their language had already
been asked in antiquity. They were taken up again at the beginning of the 19 th century
and, owing to their regional implications, they also gained a political dimension. Regard-
ing the language of Macedonia, scholars have in modern times suggested several diver-
gent theories: from a non-Greek language to several Greek dialects (see Brixhe and
Panayotou 1997: 208−209; Hatzopoulos 2006: 35−36).
2. Documentation
To appreciate this language, we can draw on an important series of glosses (mostly
compiled by Hesychius) and perhaps on one verse (transmitted by Athenaeus) by Strattis
(Brixhe and Panayotou 1997: 212; Hatzopoulos 2006: 46), an Athenian poet of the 4 th
century. Both the economic situation in Macedonia (agricultural and pastoral activities,
often nomadism) and the political regime were at first unfavorable for the issuing of
epigraphic documents, public or private, and when a Macedonian epigraphy finally emer-
ges (late 5 th−early 4 th century BCE), it uses Attic Greek, which is in the process of
becoming the Greek Koine. Progressively vernacularized, it was for this reason later
associated with Macedonians to the point where μακεδονίζειν, μακεδονικός, and Μακε-
δόνες referred not to the Macedonian dialect but to the Koine itself (Brixhe and Panayo-
tou 1997: 210). These documents written in Koine are interesting for our inquiry owing
to the dialectal traces and features which they preserve (Brixhe and Panayotou 1988:
passim, 1997: 215−216) and owing to the countless anthroponyms and toponyms which
they transmit. Although in the last few decades some dialectal texts have finally been
found, only two of them are really pertinent: two defixiones, one from Pella (380−350
BCE; SEG 43: 434, cf. Brixhe 1997: 43−52, and Hatzopoulos 2006: 33, 36, 47−48) and
the other from Arethousa (end of the 4 th /beginning of the 3 rd century, cf. BE 1998. 263).
3. Linguistic features of Macedonian

The Koine of Macedonia presents a situation comparable to that seen in the areas where
the Koine has replaced a Doric dialect: one finds in particular <A> instead of expected
<H> in anthroponyms (Ἀντιγόνα, Φιλώτας, etc.) as well as the orthographic representa-
tion <ΟΥ> for inherited */u(:)/ (Κουναγίδας, epithet of Heracles) (Brixhe and Panayotou
1988), etc. The overwhelming majority of anthroponyms (Ἀλέξανδρος, Λαοδίκα, and
Λᾶγος) and most of the toponyms (Αἰγεαί, Πέλλα, and Αἰανή), divine epithets, and
names of months can be interpreted through Greek (Brixhe and Panayotou 1997: 214−
215, corrected and completed for the calendar by Hatzopoulos 2006: 45). Even though
one must not overestimate them, the two above-mentioned dialectal defixiones permit
one to go a bit further. In these texts, features appear which are common to Thessalian
and North-West Greek: apocope, contraction of a: + o: to a: (πασᾶν, Arethousa) and an
indication of the spirantization of aspirates (γενέσται for γενέσθαι, Pella, see 4). A fea-

Authenticated
ture shared with North-West Greek is the treatment of the group -sm- (cf. ὑμῶμ for
ὑμῶν, Pella) and the particle -κα (ὁπόκα, Pella). Features shared with Thessalian include
the raising of mid-vowels (cf. in Pella διελέξαιμι and ἀνορόξασα, inverse spellings for
διελίξαιμι and ἀνορύξασα, respectively), an areal phenomenon which characterized a
vast arc of a circle from Attica to Thrace; the voicing of unvoiced consonants under
certain conditions (cf. δαπινά, probably for ταπεινά, Pella), and other areal features (see
4); finally, one finds patronymic adjectives in -ειος/-εία (two examples in the Koine
inscriptions provided in Hatzopoulos 2006: 45−46).
Without using these data, hence without real linguistic foundation, Hammond (cf.
Hatzopoulos 2007: 168) suggested the coexistence of two dialects, one close to North-
West Greek and the other close to Thessalian. Hatzopoulos (2006: 51) suggested that the
Temenides spoke a north-western dialect, which as they progressed eastwards “degraded
the old Aeolic dialect to the status of a dialectal substratum.” This implies the previous
existence of an Aeolic dialect in the region. However, in the 7 th century, the Aeolic of
Thessaly was only in an emergent state (Brixhe 2006c: 49−55). More likely, while them-
selves speaking what was effectively a form of Northwest Doric, the conquerors encoun-
tered Achaean Greeks mixed with groups speaking other languages as they descended
from the Pindos mountains to the plains (Brixhe 2006c: 50, cf. the patronymic adjective).
To put it differently, it is very likely that the components of the linguistic situation in
Macedonia were about the same as in Thessaly (Brixhe 2006c: 52−55). We are unfortu-
nately not fully able to completely identify or evaluate the traces of these components
in the regional language, which undoubtedly was Greek, but a form of Greek with nu-
merous variations.
4. Probable member of the Greek family

I have until now left aside one feature which had already attracted the attention of ancient
authors and which in modern times has weighed heavily in the debate over whether
Macedonian was Greek or not: the employment of the sign for the voiced occlusive
instead of the sign for the voiceless aspirated one, symbolized here by Β for Φ. It is
found in certain glosses (cf. κεβαλήν, κεβλήν for κεφαλήν ‘head’), some divine epithets,
two names of months, and one toponym (Βεροία for Φεροία according to Etym. Mag-
num) but is most frequently represented in numerous anthroponyms (Brixhe and Panayo-
tou 1997: 218; Hatzopoulos 2006: 38 ff., 2007: 160 ff.). This feature was manifestly a
marker of regional identity: in Macedonia, all personal names having as first position
member the root *bher- start with Β, never with Φ (Βερ[ε]νίκα, Βερεννώ, etc.). Pointing
in the same direction is the fact that the inverse, representation of Β by Φ, is totally
absent (proof of the symbolic value attached to β).
Negri and Rocca (2006: 209−213) suggested that the devoicing of PIE aspirates in
Greek lost its intensity as it moved northwards. Hence, Macedonian would have retained
*bh and subsequently lost the aspiration, perhaps under Illyrian influence. This hypoth-
esis is very insufficiently founded, and it depends on a highly doubtful chronology. The
defixio from Pella shows that in the lexicon the orthographic norm is φ (cf. καταγράφω
or φίλων), and thus the Macedonian treatment is identical to that found in the rest of
Greece. Far more worthy of consideration is the view adopted by Hatzopoulos (most

Authenticated
107. Macedonian 1865
recently 2006: 41−46), who supposes a Greek development *bh > ph > f > v. Actually,
these changes could have proceeded in the following fashion: a) conditioned voicing of
all voiceless obstruents (ph > bh), b) spirantization of aspirates (bh > v), c) spirantization
of voiced stops (b > v). Once ph and b merged to [v], Β could be employed for Φ. Stage
(a) is an areal phenomenon attested north of Thessaly, in Macedonia, and in Thrace (in
the last of these from the 6 th century [Brixhe 2006a: 132]). As a consequence of b) and
c) the aspirated and plain voiced series would have merged in Macedonian, and the
former borrowed its graphic realization from the latter. Even though there is no direct
evidence for spirantization of aspirates before the defixio of Pella (see above), the phe-
nomenon is ancient in the neighboring Greek regions: there is written evidence from
about 450 in Thessaly, and in Boeotia it occurs in the 6 th to 5 th century BCE. It can be
equally found precociously in Pamphylia, in Crete, and in Laconia (Brixhe 2006c: 60−
61). For the spirantization of voiced occlusives (c), the most ancient evidence in the
region is provided by the coins of Bisaltia: Τραιλίōν for Τραγιλίων (2 nd half of the 5 th
century); and later, cf. βεφαίως for βεβαίως (middle of the 4 th century) and probably
Ζειδυμαρχίς for Διδυμαρχίς (4 th to 3 rd century) (Brixhe and Panayotou 1988: 255). It
seems that there is almost no early evidence for this in Thessaly, but cf. Βράμις for
Ϝράμις in Boeotia in about 424 BCE. The change is attested as early as the 5 th century
in Gortyn, and it is found in Pamphylia as of the beginning of the 4 th century. Hence,
the chronology does not seem to contradict the hypothesis of Hatzopoulos. If, as he wants
to put it (Hatzopoulos 2006: 39), Βρίγες/Βρύγες is the name given by the Macedonians
to the Phrygians of Europe, the first example for the substitution of φ by β would have
been provided by Herodotus (VII 73), at the latest towards the middle of the 5 th century:
it would have to be admitted, owing to the two implied changes in the word (a and c),
that Βρίγες represents the graphic adaptation of [vriyes].
As one might expect in a zone which was an ethnic conglomerate in constant contact
with peoples speaking different languages living in the west, the north, and the east, the
corpus of attested personal names also contains Thracian names such as Ἀμάδωκος and
others, the origin of which we do not know (Ἀρραβαῖος and Ἀρριδαῖος, etc.). May the
same also be said for a certain number of words from the lexicon (of pan-Macedonian
use?) represented in the glosses? θάνος for θάνατος (Plutarch) or θανῶν· κακοποιῶν,
κτείνων. Μακεδόνες (Hesychius) probably had the same radical as their Greek corre-
spondents, but neither *θάνος nor *θανόω exist in Greek. Is it a coincidence that with
the application of Thracian sound laws as revealed in the corpus of Zone-Samothrace
(Brixhe 2006a: 134−135) ἀδή (οὐρανός. Μακεδόνες, Hesychius) is identical to the exact
Thracian correspondent of Greek αἰθήρ? And Βρίγες/Βρύγες could be the name the
Phrygians used for themselves or what they were called by the Thracians. Hence, it is
possible that Macedonian shows a sporadic intrusion of terms or anthroponyms belong-
ing originally to a language where the PIE aspirates lost their aspiration (*bh > b).
Previously studies had considered an influence of Phrygian tribes that had not migrated
to Asia (Brixhe and Panayotou 1997; Brixhe 1997). But perhaps we are rather dealing
with Thracian, which we know is very close to Greek (Brixhe 2006a: 142, 2006b: 40).
Considering names such as Βίλιστος (Φίλιστος), M. Hatzopoulos (1999: 236, 2006: 44)
was astonished that the language evidenced here was so strangely close to Greek even
in its derivations. But weren’t the Greeks themselves aware of the extreme proximity of
the Greek and the Phrygian language (Brixhe 2006b: 40)? And the deciphering of the
corpus of Zone-Samothrace reveals that Thracian was also as close to Greek as one

Authenticated
Romance language is to another (2006a: 142). In the hypothesis set forth here, not all
words replacing φ by β have been borrowed from or transmitted through Thracian or
Phrygian: some terms, mostly anthroponyms, became popular among the aristocracy and
were adopted as a model to mark regional identity. This would also explain the evidence
of graphic hybrids (partial “macedonization”) such as in Βιλιστίχη or Φυλομάγα
(= -μάχη) or the mechanical formation of Βέτταλος (“The Thessalian”) for *Φέτταλος,
the initial labiovelar (*g wh) of which could only evolve to /g/ in Thracian or Phrygian.
A parallel to this is seen in the onomastic evidence of Pamphylia, another multicultural
territory, where old Greek, indigenous, and hybrid names exist side by side (Ἐχιμούας,
Ϝεχιμούας, Тρεσαμούwας). The existence in Macedonian of names having a Thracian or
Phrygian form no more makes Macedonian a Thracian or Phrygian dialect than the
presence of many French terms in English makes the latter a Romance language.
β for φ: Greek or, at least partially, foreign origin? The debate remains open.
5. References
This section includes uncited articles appearing after this chapter was written.
BE: Bulletin épigraphique, Revue des études grecques, cited according to the year and notice
number.
Brixhe, Claude
1997 Un “nouveau” champ de la dialectologie grecque: le macédonien. In: Albio Cesare
Cassio (ed.), Katà diálekton (Atti del III Colloquio Internazionale di Dialettologia Greca,
Napoli − Fiaiano d’Ischia, 1996 [= AION XIX]). Naples: Istituto Universitario Orienta-
le, 41−71.
Brixhe, Claude
2006a Zôné et Samothrace: lueurs sur la langue thrace et nouveau chapitre de la grammaire
comparée? Comptes Rendus des Séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-
Lettres: 121−146.
Brixhe, Claude
2006b Préhistoire et début de l’histoire des dialectes grecs. Incontri Linguistici 29: 39−59.
Brixhe, Claude
2006c Situation, spécificités et contraintes de la dialectologie grecque. À propos de quelques
questions soulevées par la Grèce centrale. In: Claude Brixhe and Guy Vottéro (eds.),
Peuplements et genèses dialectales dans la Grèce antique. Nancy: Association pour la
diffusion de la recherche sur l’antiquité, 39−69.
Brixhe, Claude
In press Représentation de soi et comportement linguistique: le cas de la Macédoine. In:
Paschalis Paschidis (ed.), Βορειοελλαδικά. Tales from the lands of the ethne. Essays in
honor of Miltiades B. Hatzopoulos. Athens: KERA, Meletemata Series.
1988 L’atticisation de la Macédoine: l’une des sources de la koiné. Verbum 11: 245−260.
1997 Le macédonien. In: Françoise Bader (ed.), Langues indo-européennes. Paris: CNRS,
207−222.
Crespo, Emilio
2012 Langues et dialectes dans la Macédoine antique. In: Giorgios K. Giannakis (ed.), Ancient
Macedonia: Language, History, Culture. Thessaloniki: Centre for the Greek Language,
189−200.

Authenticated
108. Illyrian 1867
Hatzopoulos, Miltiades B.
1999 Le macédonien: nouvelles données et théories nouvelles. In: Ancient Macedonia VI
(Papers read at the Sixth International Symposium held in Thessaloniki, 15−19 October
1996). Vol. 1. Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, 225−239.
2006 La Macédoine. Géographie historique − Langues − Cultes et croyances − Institutions.
Paris: de Boccard.
2007 La position dialectale du macédonien à la lumière des découvertes épigraphiques récen-
tes. In: Barbara Stefan and Ivo Hajnal (eds.), Die altgriechischen Dialekte. Wesen und
Werden (Akten des Kolloquiums Freie Universität Berlin, Sept. 2001). Innsbruck: Insti-
tut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität, 157−176.
Méndez Dosuna, Julián
2012 L’ancien macédonien en tant que dialecte grec: une étude critique des travaux récents.
In: Giorgios K. Giannakis (ed.), Ancient Macedonia: Language, History, Culture. Thes-
saloniki: Centre for the Greek Language, 201−214.
Negri, Mario and Giovanna Rocca
2006 Considerazioni sulla posizione linguistica del macedone rispetto al greco: il trattamento
delle Medie Aspirate. In: Pierluigi Cuzzolin and Maria Napoli (eds.), Fonologia e tipolo-
gia lessicale nella storia della lingua greca (Atti del VI Incontro Internazionale di
Linguistica Greca, Bergamo settentrionale. 2005). Milan: Franco Angeli, 201−215.
108. Illyrian
1. Krahe’s “Illyrian theory” 4. The southeastern Dalmatian onomastic area
2. The collapse of the “Illyrian theory” 5. References
3. The notion of an “onomastic region”
1. Krahe’s “Illyrian theory”

According to the present state of our knowledge it seems impossible to give a plausible
characterization of the “Illyrian” language as a linguistically definable entity. As a collec-
tive designation, “the Illyrian language” has often been used to denote the indigenous
language(s) spoken in the Balkan peninsula in classical times, excluding Greek. Accord-
ing to Hammond and Wilkes (1996; cf. also Wilkes 1992; on literary sources relating to
the Illyrians, see Krahe 1955: 3) the Illyrians were “a large group of related Indo-Euro-
pean tribes, who occupied in classical times the western side of the Balkan range from
the head of the Adriatic Sea to the hinterland of the Gulf of Valona and extended north-
wards as far as the eastern Alps and the Danube and eastwards into some districts beyond
the Balkan range.”
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-029

Authenticated
108. Illyrian 1867
1999 Le macédonien: nouvelles données et théories nouvelles. In: Ancient Macedonia VI
(Papers read at the Sixth International Symposium held in Thessaloniki, 15−19 October
1996). Vol. 1. Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, 225−239.
2006 La Macédoine. Géographie historique − Langues − Cultes et croyances − Institutions.
Paris: de Boccard.
2007 La position dialectale du macédonien à la lumière des découvertes épigraphiques récen-
tes. In: Barbara Stefan and Ivo Hajnal (eds.), Die altgriechischen Dialekte. Wesen und
Werden (Akten des Kolloquiums Freie Universität Berlin, Sept. 2001). Innsbruck: Insti-
tut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität, 157−176.
Méndez Dosuna, Julián
2012 L’ancien macédonien en tant que dialecte grec: une étude critique des travaux récents.
In: Giorgios K. Giannakis (ed.), Ancient Macedonia: Language, History, Culture. Thes-
saloniki: Centre for the Greek Language, 201−214.
Negri, Mario and Giovanna Rocca
2006 Considerazioni sulla posizione linguistica del macedone rispetto al greco: il trattamento
delle Medie Aspirate. In: Pierluigi Cuzzolin and Maria Napoli (eds.), Fonologia e tipolo-
gia lessicale nella storia della lingua greca (Atti del VI Incontro Internazionale di
Linguistica Greca, Bergamo settentrionale. 2005). Milan: Franco Angeli, 201−215.
108. Illyrian
1. Krahe’s “Illyrian theory” 4. The southeastern Dalmatian onomastic area
2. The collapse of the “Illyrian theory” 5. References
1. Krahe’s “Illyrian theory”

According to the present state of our knowledge it seems impossible to give a plausible
characterization of the “Illyrian” language as a linguistically definable entity. As a collec-
tive designation, “the Illyrian language” has often been used to denote the indigenous
language(s) spoken in the Balkan peninsula in classical times, excluding Greek. Accord-
ing to Hammond and Wilkes (1996; cf. also Wilkes 1992; on literary sources relating to
the Illyrians, see Krahe 1955: 3) the Illyrians were “a large group of related Indo-Euro-
pean tribes, who occupied in classical times the western side of the Balkan range from
the head of the Adriatic Sea to the hinterland of the Gulf of Valona and extended north-
wards as far as the eastern Alps and the Danube and eastwards into some districts beyond
the Balkan range.”
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-029

Authenticated
But there are no “Illyrian” inscriptions whatsoever. Hence, linguists today are unable
to confirm the above-mentioned picture or to add any actual language(s) to it; the main
traits of the Illyrian language have been extracted from etymologizing and genealogically
defining personal names and place names. The most prominent of “illyricists” was the
Tübingen-based comparative linguist H. Krahe, who, beginning as early as the 1920s
(Krahe 1925, 1929), tried to define Illyrian in numerous articles as a unified onomastic
complex, which de facto was widespread in the Balkan peninsula; according to Krahe,
the Iapyges in Southern Italy should be counted as “Illyrians”, too (Krahe 1955; a tradi-
tional compilation of Illyrian linguistic remains is Mayer 1957, 1959; a compilation of
the entire “Dalmatian” onomasticon is Alföldy 1969). Krahe’s construction (1955) did
not withstand strict criticism, cf. the penetrating comments by Kronasser (1962, 1965),
as well as the reviews by Pisani (1956) and Polomé (1961). But it must be emphasized
that at the end of his life, Krahe himself acknowledged the very fragile character of his
“Illyrian theory”, clearly admitting it honestly and frankly; he explicitly states (1964:
V): “daß man damit [mit der Illyriertheorie] zumindest erheblich über das Ziel hinaus-
geschossen hatte, wurde allmählich immer deutlicher. [it gradually became ever clearer
that thereby (with the Illyrian theory) the target had at the very least been significantly
overshot.]” Krahe thus earns the lasting honor of having cleared the way for further
research on this topic using other principles.
2. The collapse of the “Illyrian theory”

The main reason for the collapse of Krahe’s Illyrian theory was most likely the gradual
realization by scholars that a language that is not directly attested cannot be reconstructed
solely on the basis of etymology. The younger generation of researchers consistently
abstained from positing Illyrian etymologies and instead worked out and consistently
applied the principle of “naming regions” (see below). The chief contributors to this
notion have been Untermann (e.g. 1961, 2006), Katičić (1961, 1962, 1963, 1964a−c,
1965ab, 1966, 1968, 1976 passim), and de Simone (1993, cf. also 1996). The new
method has an important predecessor in Rendić-Miočević (1948, 1955, 1956, 1960,
1961, 1964ab, 1971, 1972). Individual papers of value have also been contributed by
Masson (1968, 1993). According to the purely theoretical principles of “onomastic geog-
raphy”, three onomastic regions must be distinguished in the Balkan peninsula: the Li-
burnian region (Rendić-Miočević 1955; Katičić 1968), the central Dalmatian region
(Katičić 1963), and the southeast Dalmatian region (Katičić 1962, with a map of distribu-
tion; de Simone 1993). The last of these reached as far northwards as the river Nάρων; its
southern border was defined by the Greek-Thesprotian region. Hence, the southeastern
Dalmatian onomastic region has its core in today’s Albania.

Let us now try to explain explicitly and substantiate the nature and the specific range of
the term “onomastic region” (or “onomastic repertoire”). It can often be stated that
certain onomastic sets (“onomastic taxa”: e.g. names in gent-; see below) show a clear

Authenticated
108. Illyrian 1869
“areal” distribution; hence they are “rooted” in a certain region, in contrast to other
regions, where other onomastic taxa occur (“complementary distribution” of onomastic
taxa). Hence, there are areas where the relevant names are predominantly or only attest-
ed; thus, these names are to be considered characteristic for these regions. If other ono-
mastic taxa collectively show the same mostly matching areal distribution, we may then
speak of a complex “onomastic area.” The onomastic taxa occurring in a certain onomas-
tic area can be furthermore characterized by certain morphemes (e.g. -ανος/-anus; see
below). To be sure, often the mutual areal relationships of single onomastic taxa in the
framework of a complex onomastic area are not of an exclusive (“clean”) character; in
these cases, the differentiation of a “core area” and a “dispersed area” in the distribution
of the relevant onomastic groups has turned out to be useful (Katičić 1964b: 35). It must
be emphasized that the identification of an onomastic area is a predominantly “aseptic”
operation, which in itself, strictly speaking, does not allow a historical-comparative re-
construction on an etymological basis. The fact is that one cannot state a priori that a
certain onomastic area necessarily corresponds to a historically attested language and
that its onomasticon belongs even partially to the etymological pool of appellatives of
this language and must therefore be systematically analyzed and interpreted on such a
basis. It would be thinkable, for example, that two onomastic areas cover a single lan-
guage (or the reverse). The question of whether an onomastic area actually matches the
area of a historical language can only be decided on an ad hoc basis from case to case
using specific arguments and in numerous cases will end up remaining sub iudice.
4. The southeastern Dalmatian onomastic area

It is now clear that the “southeastern Dalmatian onomastic area” seems to offer the best
concrete chance of containing names that belong to the indigenous language. Because
in historic times the Illyrii proprie dicti can be localized in the area around Durrës
(Dyrrhachion) (Pomponius Mela, II 56, Pliny, N.H. III 144: proprie dicti Illyrii et Taulan-
tii et Pyraei; cf. Katičić 1964c, 1966; Papazoglu 1965; de Simone 1993: 36), it seems
justified to consider the names found in this region to belong to “the actual Illyrians”. It
cannot be doubted that there are well-founded Indo-European etymologies for some
names of this onomastic area (see below); but it must be clearly stated that individual
etymologies of names cannot form a basis for the comparative reconstruction of a histori-
cal language: an “Illyrian” language can neither be reconstructed in this way nor can it
be genealogically fitted into an overall framework of Indo-European languages.
I will present here a selection of names from the southeast Dalmatian onomastic area
(de Simone 1993: 51−56): Αβα, Αβαιoς; Βρευκoς, Βρυγoς, Βρειγoς, Βρικεν(ν)α;
Γενθιoς/Gentius, Gentilla, Γενθεας, Γενθεις (-ις) [fem.], Γενθιανoς/ Γενθιανη, Genthena
[fem.]; Γραβος, Γραβων, Grabaei (gentilic name); Εορταιoς, Ἐορδάια, Ἐορδαικός; Επι-
καδoς/Epicadus; Λαιδων, Λαιδιας, Λαιδα/Λειδα [fem.], Σκερδι-λαΐδας/Scerdilaedus;
Μαλλικα, Dimallum (place name) (Doçi 1995: 718; on the basics: Katičić 1972); Μο-
νουνιoς; Πλαιoς, Πλαια [fem.], Plaianus; Πλευρατoς, Πλευρίας; Πρευρατoς, Πρευραδoς;
Τατα/Tata, Ταταια, Τατω [fem.], Tattaia, Tato [masc.?], Tata [masc.]; Τευτιoς, Τεμi-τευ-
τα, Τευταια (-εα), Teuticus, Τρι-τεύτα, Teuta(na), Τευτάμης, Τευταμίδης, Τευτί-απλoς,
Teut-meitis; Τραυζoς, Τραυζινα; Τριτoς, Τριτω [fem.], Et-Tritus, Τριτύ-μαλλoς. Note the
suffix -ανoς, -ανη: Γενθιανoς/ Γενθιανη, Plaianus, Teuta(na).

Authenticated
It can hardly be questioned that good Indo-European etymologies exist for at least
three of the above-mentioned onomastic taxa, and these are in fact generally accepted:
gent-, Teut-, and Trit-. The taxon gentis likely to be connected with the appellative
*g̑énh1-ti-s ‘lineage, descent’ (gen. *g̑n̥h1-téi-s; “proterodynamic inflection”; de Simone
1999) (Γενθιoς/Gentius ‘celui de la lignée’ [Benveniste]). Teut- is surely connected to
the well-known Indo-European appellative *teutā ‘people, community’ (de Simone
1999: 71). Finally, Trit- is likely to be the ordinal number *tri-to-s and hence the zero-
grade to-formation of the cardinal number *tréyes (Vedic tráyas, Greek [Cretan] τρέες,
Lesb. τρῆς, Att.-Ion. τρεῖς, Lat. trēs). Even though Greek shows a twofold outcome of
this form (Att.-Ion. τρίτος : Aeol. τέρτος), this is merely the result of independent dialec-
tal treatments of the same original word. The onomastic taxon of Trit- is clearly well-
grounded in the southeastern Dalmatian onomastic area. But it would be pointless to try
to find a fitting etymology for the names Аβα, Аβαιος or Τραυζος, Τραυζινα, which
belong to the same onomastic area.
It should be clear that the picture drawn here of the southeastern Dalmatian onomastic
area can be extended or even in part altered by new findings. It is only by such new
information that we can ever hope to come to a better understanding of “the Illyrian
language.”
5. References
Alföldy, Géza
1969 Die Personennamen in der romischen Provinz Dalmatia. Beiträge zur Namenforschung,
N.F., Beiheft 4. Heidelberg: Winter.
Cabanes, Pierre (ed.)
1993 Grecs et Illyriens dans les inscriptions en langue grecque d’Épidamne-Dyrrhachion et
d’Apollonia d’Illyrie. Actes de la Table ronde internationale (Clermont-Ferrand, 19−21
octobre 1989). Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
Doçi, Rexhep
1995 Some Historical Toponyms of Illyrian-Albanian Origin. In: Ernst Eichler, Gerold Hilty,
Heinrich Löffler, Hugo Steger, and Ladislav Zgusta (eds.), Namenforschung. Ein inter-
nationales Handbuch zur Onomastik. Vol. 1. Berlin: De Gruyter, 718−719.
Hammond, Nicholas G. L. and John J. Wilkes
1996 Illyrii. In: Hornblower and Spawforth (eds.), 748.
Hornblower, Simon and Antony Spawforth (eds.)
1996 The Oxford Classical Dictionary. 3 rd edition. Oxford: University Press.
Katičić, Radoslav
1961 Veselia Felicitas. Beiträge zur Namenforschung 12: 271−279.
Katičić, Radoslav
1962 Die Illyrischen Personennamen in ihrem südöstlichen Verbreitungsgebiet. Živa Antika
12/1: 95−120.
Katičić, Radoslav
1963 Das mitteldalmatische Namengebiet. Živa Antika 12/2: 255−292.
Katičić, Radoslav
1964a Namengebiete im römischen Dalmatien. Die Sprache 10: 23−33.
Katičić, Radoslav
1964b Suvremena istraživanja o jeziku starosjedilaca ilirskih provincija [Die neuesten For-
schungen über die einheimische Sprachgeschicht in den illyrischen Provinzen]. Godiš-
njak. Centar za Balkanološka Ispitivanja. Knjiga 1. Sarajevo, 9−58.

Authenticated
108. Illyrian 1871
Katičić, Radoslav
1964c Illyrii proprie dicti. Živa Antika 13−14: 87−98.
Katičić, Radoslav
1965a Πεδίον μηλόβοτον. Živa Antika 15/1: 61−62.
Katičić, Radoslav
1965b Zur Frage der keltischen und pannonischen Namengebiete im römischen Dalmatien.
Godišnjak. Centar za Balkanološka Ispitivanja. Knjiga III. Sarajevo, 53−76.
Katičić, Radoslav
1966 Nochmals Illyrii proprie dicti. Živa Antika 16: 241−244.
Katičić, Radoslav
1968 Liburner, Pannonier und Illyrier. In: Manfred Mayrhofer, Fritz Lochner-Hüttenbach, and
Hans Schmeja (eds.), Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft und Kulturkunde. Gedenkschrift
für Wilhelm Brandenstein (1898−1967). Innsbruck: AMŒ, 363−368.
Katičić, Radoslav
1972 L’anthroponymie illyrienne et l’ethnogenèse des Albanais. Studia Albania 26: 77−82.
Katičić, Radoslav
1976 The Ancient languages of the Balkans. Volume 1. Trends in Linguistics. State-of-the-Art
Report 4. The Hague: Mouton.
Krahe, Hans
1925 Die alten balkanillyrischen geographischen Namen. Heidelberg: Winter.
Krahe, Hans
1929 Lexikon altillyrischer Personennamen. Heidelberg: Winter.
Krahe, Hans
1955 Die Sprache der Illyrier. Erster Teil. Die Quellen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Krahe, Hans (ed.)
1964 Die Sprache der Illyrier. Zweiter Teil. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Kronasser, Heinz
1962 Zum Stand der Illyristik. Linguistique balkanique 4: 5−23.
Kronasser, Heinz
1965 Illyrier und “Illyricum”. Die Sprache 11: 155−183.
Masson, Olivier
1968 Les rapports entre les Grecs et les Illyriens d’après l’onomastique d’Apollonie, d’Illyrie
et de Dyrrhachion. In: Vladimir Georgiev, Nikolai Todorov, and Vasilka Tapkova-Zai-
mova (eds.), Actes du 1 er-Congrès international des Études balkaniques et Sud-Est euro-
péennes. VI. Sofia: Académie bulgare des sciences, 233−239.
Masson, Olivier
1993 Encore les noms grecs et les noms illyriens à Apollonia et Dyrrhachion. In: Cabanes
(ed.), 77−87.
Mayer, Anton
1957 Die Sprache der alten Illyrier. Band I: Einleitung, Wörterbuch der illyrischen Sprach-
reste. Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Mayer, Anton
1959 Die Sprache der alten Illyrier. Band II: Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Illyrischen.
Grammatik der illyrischen Sprache. Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissen-
schaften.
Papazoglu, Fanoula
1965 Les origines et la destiné de l’état illyrien: Illyrii proprie dicti. Historia 14: 143−79.
Pisani, Vittore
1956 Review of Krahe 1955. Gnomon 28: 442−451.
Polomé, Edgar
1961 Review of Krahe 1955. Latomus 20: 139−145.

Authenticated
Rendić-Miočević, Duje
1948 Ilirska Onomastika na latinskim natpisima Dalmacije [Illyrian onomastics in Latin in-
scriptions of Dalmatia]. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Split.
1955 Onomastičke studije sa teritorije liburna [Onomastic studies from the Liburnian region].
Zbornik Instituta za historijske Nauke u Zadru: 125−145.
1956 Illyrica. Zum Problem der illyrischen onomastischen Formel in römischer Zeit. Archaeo-
logia Jugoslavica 2: 39−51.
1960 Ilirske onomastičke studije (I). Porodična i rodovsna imena u onomastici Balkankih Ilira
[Études d’onomastique illyrienne (I). Noms de famille et de clan dans l’onomastique
des Illyriens des Balkans]. Živa Antika 10: 163−171.
1961 Onomastique illyrienne de la Dalmatia ancienne. In: Carlo Battisti and Carlo Alberto
Mastrelli (eds.), Atti e Memorie del VII. Congresso Internazionale di Scienze Onomas-
tiche. III. Florence: Istituto di glottologia dell’Università degli studi, 273−277.
1964a Ilirske onomastičke studije (II) [Illyrian onomastic studies (II)]. Živa Antika 13−14:
101−110.
1964b Problemi romanizacije Ilira s osobitim obzirom na kultove i onomastiku [Problèmes de
la romanisation des Illyriens avec un regard sur les cultes et sur l’onomastique]. In:
Alojz Benac (ed.), Simpozijum o teritorijalnom i hronološkom razgraničenju Ilira u
praistorijsko doba. Sarajevo: Naučno društvo SR Bosne i Hercegovine, 139−156.
1971 Ilirske onomastičke studije (III) [Illyrian onomastic studies (III)]. Živa Antika 21/1: 159−
174.
1972 Ilirske onomastičke studije (IV) [Illyrian onomastic studies (IV)]. Živa Antika 21/2:
381−397.
de Simone, Carlo
1993 L’elemento non greco nelle iscrizioni di Durazzo ed Apollonia. In: Cabanes (ed.), 35−
75.
de Simone, Carlo
1996 Illyrian Language. In: Hornblower and Spawforth (eds.), 747.
de Simone, Carlo
1999 Ancora sull’ “illirico” genti-. In: Pierre Cabanes (ed.), L’Illyrie méridionale et l’Épire
dans l’antiquité III. Paris: de Boccard, 71−72.
Untermann, Jürgen
1961 Die venetischen Personennamen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Untermann, Jürgen
2006 Ligurisches. In: Raffaella Bombi, Guido Cifoletti, Fabiana Fusco, Lucia Innocente, and
Vincenzo Orioles (eds.), Studi linguistici in onore di R. Gusmani III. Alessandria: Edi-
zioni dell’Orso, 1759−1769.
Wilkes, John J.
1992 The Illyrians. Oxford: Blackwell.

Authenticated
109. Pelasgian 1873
109. Pelasgian
In 1941 Georgiev presented the idea that Greek possessed a substratum based on a form
of Indo-European which he called Illyrian but which soon became known as Pelasgian.
He assumed the following developments to have taken place in this language: 1. a conso-
nant shift similar to that seen in Armenian: *p *t *k became ph th kh; *b *d *g became
p t k; *bh *dh *gh became b d g. 2. labiovelars became delabialized: *k w *g w *g wh
became kh k g. 3. palatals became sibilants or interdental spirants: *k̑ became s, *g̑ and
*g̑h became z (δ). 4. syllabic resonants *r̥, *l̥ , *m̥, *n̥ became ur (ru), ul (lu), um (om),
un (on) or ir il im in, respectively. 5. intervocalic s was preserved. 6. sequences of
aspirates underwent dissimilation as in Greek; and this preceded the consonant shift. A
good introduction to these developments may be found in Katičić (1976: 71−87).
One of the most enthusiastic defenders of Georgiev’s theory was A. J. van Windekens
(1952), and others who soon followed include (with representative references) Carnoy
(1955), Haas (1951), and Merlingen (1967 with his Psi-Greek).
Nevertheless, the forms thought to belong to the Pelasgian substratum do not always
follow the phonological rules given above; and to explain this, local variation is assumed.
But because the number of relevant words is small, such irregularities diminish consider-
ably the probability of the theory. Although Katičić remained positive, scholars in gener-
al adopted a cautious wait-and-see attitude toward the theory. Meanwhile, many faults
had already been recognized, as documented especially in Hester’s review (1965). De-
spite these, however, Hester (1965: 384) remained optimistic.
In addition to purely phonological difficulties, defenders of Pelasgian often were not
critical enough in their semantic or morphological analyses. Thus the word asáminthos
‘bathtub’ was taken to be from *ak̑men-to-, a derivative of the word for ‘stone’. Whatev-
er the merits of this etymology from the point of view of material culture, it fails to
recognize in this word the frequent pre-Greek suffix -(i)nth-. Consequently, its proper
morphological analysis is likely to be asam-inthos, and it would therefore have nothing
to do with the ‘stone’-word.
In his Praegraeca (1961: 19) Heubeck had already rejected the consonantal sound
shift and the satem character of Pelasgian, thereby removing the underpinnings of the
theory. He further reduced the number of retained pre-Greek words of IE origin to six
(Heubeck 1961: 58−70). Among these is ástu, which is a normal Greek development of
an IE word (*wh2stu). In the case of púrgos there is an attested variant phúrkos, which
shows that the word is non-IE (root *bh … k/k̑ ), hence not Pelasgian.
In a very thorough discussion that includes the presumed Pelasgian material, Furnée
(1972) demonstrated that the pre-Greek words in question do not distinguish between
unvoiced, voiced, and aspirated consonants and show traces of pre-nasalization. Al-
though the first of these phenomena is also seen in Tocharian, the second is nowhere a
feature of Indo-European languages. The conclusion to be drawn is that the language
from which these words were taken was not Indo-European, thereby eliminating the
basis of the Pelasgian theory. The fact that Furnée’s book has been generally rejected by
scholars has unfortunately obscured his contributions to the issue of pre-Greek words
attested in Greek. I myself have just completed a new version of Frisk’s etymological
dictionary (ed. note: now published as Beekes 2009), for which I collected all the Pre-
Greek material (it is much larger than is usually recognized). I shall shortly publish a
study of this material (ed. note: now published as Beekes 2014). One of the demerits of
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-030

Authenticated
Georgiev’s Pelasgian theory was that it drew attention away from the Pre-Greek material
itself. In general the study of Pelasgian has not led to any progress in our understanding
of this material. Consequently, the search for Pelasgian was an expensive and useless
distraction. We must now conclude with García-Ramón (2004, 5: 1000): “The attempt
to determine phonological rules for an Indo-European pre-Greek language (‘Pelasgian’)
… is considered a complete failure today.”
References
2009 Etymological Dictionary of Greek. 2 vols. (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Diction-
ary Series 10). Leiden: Brill.
2014 Pre-Greek. Phonology, Morphology, Lexicon. Ed. By Stefan Norbruis. Leiden: Brill.
Carnoy, Albert
1955 Etyma Pelasgica. L’antiquité classique 24: 5−22.
Furnée, Edzard J.
1972 Die wichtigsten konsonantischen Erscheinungen des Vorgriechischen. The Hague: Mou-
ton.
García-Ramón, José Luis
2004 Greece, Languages. In: Hubert Cancik and Helmut Schneider (eds.), Brill’s New Pauly,
vol. 5. Leiden: Brill, 999−1000.
Georgiev, Vladimir
1941−1945 Vorgriechische Sprachwissenschaft. 2 vols. (Godišnik na Universiteta Sveti Kli-
ment Ochridski 37, 41). Sofia: University Press.
Haas, Otto
1951 Substrats et mélanges de langues en Grèce ancienne. Lingua Posnaniensis 3: 63−95.
Hester, David A.
1965 ‘Pelasgian’ − a new Indo-European language? Lingua 13: 355−384.
Heubeck, Alfred
1961 Praegraeca. Erlangen: Universitätsbund Erlangen.
Katičić, Radoslav
1976 Ancient Languages of the Balkans. Volume 1. Trends in Linguistics. State-of-the-Art
Report 4. The Hague: Mouton.
Merlingen, Weriand
1967 Fair Play for “Pelasgian”. Lingua 18: 144−167.
Van Windekens, Albert J.
1952 Le Pélasgique, essai sur la langue indo-européenne préhellénique. (Bibliothèque du
Muséon 29). Louvain: Publications Universitaires et Institut Orientaliste.
Robert S. P. Beekes, Leiden (The Netherlands)

Authenticated
XVII. Indo-Iranian
110. The phonology of Proto-Indo-Iranian

1. Phoneme inventory 6. Laryngeal
2. Vowels 7. Consonant clusters
3. Resonants 8. Accent
4. Stops 9. Relative chronology
5. Sibilants 10. References
1. Phoneme inventory
The Proto-Indo-Iranian phonological system can be represented as follows:
Vowels: a ā
Consonants
voiceless voiced / voiced sibilants nasals glides liquids

glottalic [aspirates]
Labial p [b] bh m u̯
h
Dental t d d s, [š] n r, [l]
h
Palato-alveolar ć ȷ́ ȷ́
Palatal č ȷ̌ ȷ̌ h i̯
h
Velar k g g
Laryngeal H
2. Vowels
PIIr. had only two vowels: a and ā. Most probably, they were distinguished not so much
by length, but rather by timbre, a being more closed ([ə] or [ʌ]) than ā ([ɐ(:)]), which is
still the situation found in Sanskrit (Hoffmann 1976: 552−554; Cardona, this handbook).
On a phonetic level, there also were [i] and [u], but these vowels were allophones of the
phonemes /i̯ / and /u̯/, respectively, and their role in morphophonological alternations was
very different.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-031

Authenticated
1876 XVII. Indo-Iranian
2.1. PIIr. *a
2.1.1. PIIr. *a first of all reflects PIE *e (including *h2 e and *h3 e) in all positions and
*o in closed and word-final syllables:
− PIIr. *daća ‘ten’ (Skt. dáśa, OAv. dasā) < PIE *dek̑m̥ (Gr. δέκα, Lat. decem);
− PIIr. *marta- m. ‘mortal, man’ (Skt. márta-, OAv. marəta- [< *martá-], MP mard) <
PIE *mor-to- (Gr. [Kallimachos] μορτοί pl. ‘id.’);
− PIIr. *Haȷ́ra- (Skt. ájra- ‘field’) < PIE *h2 eg̑-ro- (Gr. ἀγρός, Lat. ager, Goth. akrs
‘field’);
− PIIr. *HastH(i)- (Skt. ásthi- n. ‘bone’, YAv. ast- n. ‘bone, body’) < PIE *h3 estH-
(Hitt. /hastai-/, Gr. ὀστέον ‘bone’).
2.1.2. Further, PIIr. *a reflects PIE *n̥, *m̥ (i.e. *n, *m between two consonants CNC;
a word boundary is counted as a consonant, so that #NC and CN# are included):
− PIIr. *mati- (Skt. matí- f. ‘thought’) < PIE *mn̥-ti- (Lat. mēns, mentis f. ‘mind’, Lith.
mintìs f. ‘thought, idea’);
− PIIr. *a- (Skt. a-pútra-, YAv. a-puϑra- adj. ‘without a son’) < *n̥- (Gr. ἄ-ϑεος adj.
‘without a god’, Lat. in- ‘un-’, Goth. un- ‘id.’);
− PIIr. *gata- ‘gone’ (Skt. gatá-, Av. gata-) < PIE *g wm̥to- (Gr. ἀνα-βατός, Lat. in-
ventus);
− PIIr. *sapta ‘seven’ (Skt. saptá, YAv. hapta) < PIE *septm̥ (Gr. ἑπτά, Lat. septem
‘seven’).
There is one exception: *m remains consonantal in word-initial position before resonants
(#mnV-, #mrV-, etc.), cf. PIIr. *mlaHta- ‘softened, tanned (leather)’ (Skt. mlātá-; YAv.
mrāta-) < PIE *mleh2 -to- (OIr. mláith ‘soft, weak’; Gr. μαλακός ‘id.’), Skt. mnā- ‘to
mention’ < PIE mneh2 - (Gr. μιμνῄσκω ‘I care for, make mention’).
The development of PIE *n̥, *m̥ to PIIr. *a went through a nasalized schwa [ə̃]
(denasalized after the loss of intervocalic laryngeals, 6.4). The nasalization of [ə̃] was
realized as oral occlusion if *n̥, *m̥ were followed by a resonant or a laryngeal, i.e. PIE
*n̥R, *m̥R > PIIr. anR, *amR (where R = a resonant or a laryngeal):
− PIIr. 3sg. middle *mani̯ atai (Skt. mányate ‘thinks, considers’, OAv. mańiietē ‘under-
stands’) < PIE *mn̥i̯ e- (Gr. μαίνομαι ‘I am furious’);
− PIIr. *-tamHa- suff. of the superlative (Skt. -tama-, Av. -təma-) < PIE *-tm̥Ho- (Lat.
in-timus ‘inner’).
2.2. PIIr. *ā

2.2.1. PIIr. *ā reflects PIE *ē, *ō:
− PIIr. nom.sg. *maHtā f. ‘mother’ (Skt. mātā́, Av. mātā) < PIE *meh2 tēr (Gr. μήτηρ,
Lat. māter);
− PIIr. *u̯āks nom.sg. f. ‘speech, voice’ (Skt. vā́k; OAv. vāxš) < PIE *u̯ōk ws (Lat. vōx).
2.2.2. Furthermore, PIIr. *ā reflects PIE *o in an open syllable, except for absolute
auslaut. This development (PIE *o > PIIr. *ā /__CV) was first proposed by Karl Brug-
mann in 1876 and is known as Brugmann’s Law.

Authenticated
110. The phonology of Proto-Indo-Iranian 1877
− PIIr. *ȷ́ānu- (Skt. jā́nu-, YAv. zānu°, MP d’nwg /dānūg/ ‘knee’) < PIE *g̑ónu- (Gr.
γόνυ ‘knee’);
− PIIr. *-tāram, acc.sg. of nomina agentis in -tar- (Skt. dā́tāram ‘giver’, OAv. dātārəm
‘creator’) < PIE *-tor-m̥ (Gr. δώτορα) vs. *-taram, acc.sg. of kinship terms (Skt.
pitáram, YAv. pitarəm ‘father’) < PIE *-ter-m̥ (Gr. πατέρα); the final *-m in these
PIIr. forms is analogical after the acc.sg. of the o-stems.
− PIIr. 3sg.pf. *C1 a-C1 āC2 -a (type Skt. jagā́ma ‘came’, YAv. daδāra ‘held’) < PIE
*C1 e-C1 oC2 -e (type Gr. μέμονε ‘has in mind’).
Final *-o remains unchanged:
− PIIr. *pra (Skt. prá ‘forward’; Av. frā is ambiguous) < PIE *pro (Gr. πρό), but possi-
bly Skt. prā-tár adv. ‘early, in the morning’ < *pro-ter.
− PIIr. *sa demonstr. pron. (Skt. sá) < PIE *so (Gr. ὁ).
Hale (1999) has argued that the final *-o of particles could be lengthened if they formed
an accentual unity with the following word, cf. Skt. ghā (< PIE *g ho) vs. Skt. ha (< PIE
*g he), but since ghā is an enclitic particle, this solution seems improbable (ghā can also
reflect *g hoH).
Brugmann’s Law is one of the earliest Indo-Iranian developments. It evidently preced-
ed the merger of short IE vowels *e and *o into IIr. *a. As demonstrated by Kuryɫowicz
(1927), it was also anterior to the loss of antevocalic laryngeals. In other words, the
laryngeal in the sequence *oCHV closed the preceding syllable and the vowel remained
short. The presence of a laryngeal accounts for the short vowel in the root of PIIr. 1sg.pf.
(type Skt. jagáma < *g we-g wom-h2 e, cf. Gr. μέμονα) vs. long vowel in 3sg.pf. (type
Skt. 3sg. jagā́ma < *g we-g wom-e, OAv. nə̄nāsā < *ne-nok̑-e, cf. Gr. μέμονε), in the root
of causatives like Skt. jaráyati ‘makes age’ (PIE *g̑orh2 -ei̯ e-), janáyati ‘begets’ (PIE
*g̑onh1 -ei̯ e-), śamáyati ‘appeases’ (PIE *k̑omh2 -ei̯ e-) vs. Skt. vāsáyati ‘clothes’ (PIE
*u̯os-ei̯ e-), Skt. śrāváyati ‘makes heard’, Av. srāuuaiieiti ‘announces’ (PIE *k̑lou̯-eie-),
etc. and in the root of the 3sg. passive aorist Skt. (á)jani ‘has been/is born’ (PIE
*g̑onh1 -i) vs. Skt. śrā́vi, OAv. srāuuī ‘is known, heard’ < (PIE *k̑lou̯-i), etc.
Likewise, Brugmann’s Law was anterior to the loss of intervocalic laryngeals (see
6.4 and Lubotsky 1995: 220), as appears from the 3sg. pass. aor. Skt. (á)dāyi, (á)dhāyi,
(á)jñāyi, ápāyi, ámāyi < *doh3 -i, *d hoh1 -i, etc.
Brugmann’s Law further did not apply to PIE *h3 e (Lubotsky 1990), cf. PIIr. *Hau̯i-
(Skt. ávi- m.f. ‘sheep’) < PIE *h3 eu̯i- (Gr. ὄ[ϝ]ις, Lat. ovis ‘sheep’); PIIr. *Hanas- (Skt.
ánas- n. ‘cart’) < PIE *h3 en-es- (Lat. onus n. ‘burden’); PIIr. *Hapas- (Skt. ápas- n.
‘work’, YAv. huu-apah- adj. ‘doing good work’) < PIE *h3 ep-es- (Lat. opus n. ‘work’),
and thus was anterior to the merger of the three laryngeals. This chronology is compre-
hensible, since the merger of laryngeals was triggered by the merger of the vowels.
There is only one development which seems to be anterior to Brugmann’s Law, i.e.
vocalization of interconsonantal laryngeals in the final syllable (see also below, 6.3).
From Skt. compounds like tvátpitāraḥ nom.pl. ‘having you as father’ < PIE *-ph2 tores
(cf. Gr. -πάτορες), we know that the second members contained o-grade, cf. AiGr. II/1:
100 f. This fact may provide us with an explanation for the long vowel of Skt. bahuvrīhi
compounds bhádra-jāni- ‘having a beautiful wife’, yúva-jāni- ‘having a young wife’,
etc., which reflect PIE compounds in *-g wonh2 - > *-g woni- > *-gāni-, later analogically
replaced by PIIr. *-ȷ̌āni- after the simplex *ȷ̌ani- ‘wife’ (< *g wenh2 -, cf. OIr. ben f.
‘woman’; OCS žena f. ‘woman’).

Authenticated
3. Resonants
The PIIr. phonemes /i̯ /, /u̯/, /r/ have vocalic and consonantal allophones, depending on
their environment. In the position between two consonants (CRC) as well as in #RC and
CR# they are vocalic [i], [u], [r̥]; otherwise they are as a rule consonantal [i̯ ], [u̯], [r].
The same holds true for the unclear phoneme /l/, for which see below, 3.3. Combi-
nations of the resonants give various results in the daughter languages: PIIr. *aiuV >
Skt. evV (devá-), Av. aēuuV (daēuua-); PIIr. *auiV > Skt. avyV (savyá-), Av. aoiiV
(haoiia-); PIIr. *Cur# > Skt. Cur (dhánur), Av. Cuuarə (ϑanuuarə). The difference be-
tween the vocalization of /iu/ and /ui/ is also reflected in word-initial position: PIIr. *iua
> Skt. iva, but PIIr. *uiaH- > Skt. vyā-, Av. viiā- ‘to envelop’. Also Sievers’ Law, which
is responsible for the distribution of [i̯ ], [u̯] after a light syllable (V̆C) vs. [ii̯ ], [uu̯]
after a heavy syllable (V:C or VCC), was subphonemic in Indo-Iranian and was only
phonemicized in the separate languages after the loss of the laryngeal in the sequence
CIHV. In the following treatment I will write *i̯ , *u̯, and *r in Indo-Iranian reconstruc-
tions where these are unambiguously consonantal and *i, *u, and *r (here eschewing a
syllabification marker) in all other circumstances.
3.1. PIIr. *i and *u usually go back to PIE *i and *u, respectively.

− PIIr. 3sg. *Haiti, ptc.pres. Hi̯ ant- ‘go’ (Skt. éti, yánt-; OAv. āitī = ā + aēitī, YAv.
aiiaṇt- = *ā-iiaṇt-, OP 3sg. aitiy) < PIE 3sg. *h1 eiti, ptc. *h1 i̯ ent- ‘go’ (Gr. εἶσι,
ἰόντες);
− PIIr. 1sg. pres.act. *u̯aćmi, 1pl. *ućmasi ‘wish’ (Skt. váśmi, uśmási; OAv. vasəmī,
usə̄mahī /vasmi, usmahi/) < PIE *u̯ek̑-mi, uk̑-mes (Hitt. 1sg.pres.act. ú-e-ek-mi ‘I wish,
desire’).
3.2. PIIr. *i can also reflect a PIE vocalized laryngeal in the final syllable (-CH[C]#),
for which see 6.3.
3.3. The situation with the IIr. liquids /r/ and /l/ is complicated. Iranian has only *r. A
few words with l in modern Iranian languages like MoP āluftan ‘to rage, grow mad
(with love)’ vs. Parth. pdrwb- ‘throw into confusion’ or MoP lištan, Wa. lix̌-, Par. līs-/
lušt, Orm. las- ‘lick’ vs. Pahl. ls- /ris-/ (or /lis-/?) ‘lick’ constitute a notable exception,
which has found no explanation. Sanskrit has both phonemes, albeit their distribution
does not perfectly match that of the PIE phonemes. Nevertheless, Skt. /l/, which is
relatively rare in the RV and becomes more prominent in later texts (e.g., RV áram, AV
álam adv. ‘fittingly, accordingly, enough’ < PIE *h2 erom; RV reh-, AVP+ leh- ‘lick’ <
PIE *lei̯ g̑ h-; RV+ palitá- ‘grey’ < PIE *pelit-; RV+ prav-/plav- ‘swim’ < PIE *pleu̯-;
RV+ rep-/lep- ‘smear’ < PIE *lei̯ p-, etc.), for the most part corresponds to PIE *l. This
suggests that PIIr. inherited this phoneme, but the distribution of /l/ and /r/ in Sanskrit
remains an unsolved problem.
3.4. The PIIr. diphthongs *ai, *au, *āi, *āu must be considered combinations of
*ā˘ + i,u, respectively.

Authenticated
4. Stops
PIIr. had three series of stops: voiceless T, (voiced) glottalic ’D, and voiced (aspirated)
Dh. As was argued by Kortlandt 2003: 259 and 2007a: 150, aspiration of the “aspirates”
may be an Indic innovation; if so, the third series was simply voiced. The glottalic
articulation follows from specific reflexes in laryngeal clusters (see below 6.1 and 6.2),
from the distribution of the -na-participles in Sanskrit (see Lubotsky 2007) and from
glottalic pronunciation of these stops in Sindhi (see Kortlandt 1981). In the following,
however, I shall stick to the traditional notation.
In my opinion, PIIr. did not have a fourth series of voiceless aspirates Th. It is usually
assumed that already in the PIIr. period, the combination of T + laryngeal yielded voice-
less aspirates, which later developed into Skt. voiceless aspirates Th and Iranian voiceless
spirants (*f, *ϑ, *x). There are several arguments against this idea. First, T becomes a
spirant before any consonant in Iranian (see Cantera, this handbook), and it is more
economical to assume that this also happened before a laryngeal (e.g., *tHa > *ϑHa >
PIr. *ϑa just like *tra > *ϑra or *tua > *ϑu̯a). Second, Iranian sometimes shows paradig-
matic alternation between *t and *ϑ (Av. nom.sg. pantā̊ < PIIr. *pantā̆Hs, gen.sg. paϑō
< *patHas ‘way, path’; YAv. mitaiiatu /mitāiatu/ < *mitaHi̯ a- < PIE *mitn̥Hi̯ e- ‘dwell’
belonging to the root miϑ-), which suggests a relatively recent character of ϑ. Third, if
we assume a PIIr. system T Th D Dh, it is incomprehensible why Th yielded spirants in
Iranian, whereas Dh yielded stops.
Bartholomae’s Law, which is most probably of IE date (see Mayrhofer 1986: 115 for
an overview), was still operative in PIIr., so that PIIr. clusters Dh+T and Dh+s were
voiced and aspirated (i.e. DhDh, Dhzh, or DD, Dz, if aspiration is an Indic innovation;
in Sanskrit, -z- in these clusters was later replaced by -s-, which yielded voiceless clusters
ps, ts, kṣ.).
− PIIr. *Ha(H)ug hž ha,*Ha(H)ug hd ha 2,3sg.inj.med. ‘announce’ (OAv. pairiiaoɣžā,
aogədā, in YAv. with a restored ending aoxta) < PIE *h1 e-h1 ug h- (Gr. εὖκτο
3sg.impf.med. ‘asked’, a reduplicated present to PIE *h1 u̯eg wh-, Lat. voveo ‘I vow’,
cf. Lindeman 1972: 1967). In Iranian, the clusters were for the most part restored,
except for a few non-transparent formations, like PIIr. *Haddhā (Skt. addhā́ adv.
‘certainly, truly’) > OAv., OP azdā adv. ‘known’, Sogd. (Chr.) ’zd’ ‘known, informed’.
− PIIr. *d hi[d h]b hz ha-, desiderative to the root *d hab h- ‘deceive’ (Skt. dípsati, OAv.
diβžaidiiāi inf.) < PIE *d hid hb h-se- (cf. Hitt. tepnu- ‘diminish, despise’).
Also the clusters where Dh and T are separated by s or a laryngeal (DhsT, DhHT) undergo
Bartholomae’s Law, cf. PIIr. *-g hžd h < PIE *-g hst- (Skt. ápi gdha 3sg.inj.med. ‘devours’
< PIE *g hs-to, sá-gdhi- f. ‘communal meal’ < PIE *sm̥-g hs-ti- with subsequent loss of
s in this position); PIIr. *d hug hHd har- ‘daughter’ < *d hug hHtar- (see 6.2) < PIE
*d hugh2 ter- (OAv. dugədar-). In Sanskrit, at a later stage, it was probably due to the
intervening laryngeal that the cluster could be restored in the forms of the root dhā- (e.g.
3sg. mid. *d hed hh1 toi > PIIr. *d had hHd hai (OAv. dazdē) >> Skt. dhatté).
It must be borne in mind that Bartholomae’s Law has always remained subphonemic
in the sense that assimilation in voice (and aspiration, if any) in these clusters was
automatic.
4.1. The PIIr. labials *p *b *b h (*b is extremely rare) continue PIE *p *b *b h and the
PIIr. dentals *t *d *d h continue PIE *t *d *d h.

Authenticated
4.2. The PIIr. velars *k *g *g h continue various kinds of PIE velars, if they did not
stand before /ē̆/ and /i/ (for palatalized velars see 4.3).
First, they continue the PIE labiovelars *k w *g w *g wh:
− PIIr. *kad (Skt. kád nom.acc.sg.n. interr. pron., YAv. kat̰ id.) < PIE *k wod (Lat. quod,
OHG hwaz id.);
− PIIr. *gati- (Skt. gáti- f. ‘going, motion’, YAv. aiβi.gaiti- f. ‘coming towards’) < PIE
*g wm̥ti (Gr. βάσις f. ‘step, basis’, Goth. gaqumþs f. ‘gathering’);
− PIIr. *g hnanti (Skt. ghnánti 3pl.pres. ‘they slay’) < PIE *g whnenti (Hitt. ku-na-an-zi
3pl. ‘they kill’).
Second, they continue the late-PIE velars *k *g *g h, which primarily are the result of
depalatalization of palatovelars in the position after *s (for which see below, 7) and of
delabialization of labiovelars in the position after (and, possibly, also before) *u.
− PIIr. *lauk- (Skt. ruc- ‘shine’, loká- m. ‘free space, light space, world’; YAv. ruc-
‘shine’) < PIE *leuk- (Gr. λευκός ‘light, white, bright’; Lat. lūx f. ‘light’);
− PIIr. *b haug- / b hauǰ- (Skt. bhuj- ‘enjoy, consume’; OAv. būj- f. ‘atonement, expia-
tion’) < PIE *b heug- (Lat. fungor ‘I enjoy, suffer, get rid of’);
− PIIr. *d haug h- (Skt. dugh- ‘give milk’; NP dōxtan ‘to milk’; Sh. δůɣ ‘buttermilk’) <
PIE *d heug h- (Gr. τυγχάνω ‘I reach a goal’, Goth. daug ‘is good for smth., fits’).
Third, they continue the PIE palatovelars *k̑ *g̑ *g̑ h which were depalatalized in Indo-
Iranian in the position before consonantal r (Weise’s Law; for which, cf. Kloekhorst
2011). Most likely, this depalatalization is a common trait of all satəm languages, cf.
Meillet 1894: 297 f.
− PIIr. *kruH-ra- (Skt. krūrá-, Av. xrūra- ‘bloody, cruel’) < PIE *k̑ruh2 -ro- (cf. Lat.
cruor m. ‘raw, thick blood’, OPol. kry ‘blood’);
− PIIr. *krau̯is- (Skt. kravíṣ- n. ‘raw, bloody meat’, YAv. xruuīšiiaṇt- adj. ‘blood-
thirsty’) < PIE *k̑reuh2 -s- (Gr. κρέας n. ‘meat’);
− PIIr. *gras- (Skt. gras- ‘devour, digest’; ?OAv. grə̄hmō, grə̄hmā PN) < PIE *g̑res-
(Gr. γράω, Cypr. γράσ-ϑι 2sg.impv.act. ‘eat!, gnaw!’).
4.3. PIIr. palatal stops

PIIr. had two series of palatal stops: *ć ȷ́ ȷ́ h and *č ȷ̌ ȷ̌ h. The former continue the PIE
palatal stops *k̑ g̑ g̑ h, while the latter are the reflex of PIIr. palatalization of velars. The
phonetic nature of these two series cannot be exactly determined, but it seems reasonably
clear that *č ȷ̌ ȷ̌ h were palatal stops, whereas *ć ȷ́ ȷ́ h must have been pronounced with
the tongue in a position closer to the teeth, something like palato-alveolar [t’ d’ d’h] =
[tś dź dźh]. When Indo-Iranian palatalization led to the rise of new palatal stops *č ǰ ǰ h,
the old palatals had to move more to the front in order to remain distinct (see Lubotsky
2001: 45 f. for a discussion).
Examples of the palato-alveolar stops:
− PIIr. *daća ‘ten’ (Skt. dáśa, OAv. dasā, OP *daϑa o, Bactr. λασο) < PIE *dek̑m̥ ‘ten’
(Goth. taihun, Gr. δέκα, Lat. decem);
− PIIr. *ȷ́uš- (Skt. juṣ- ‘like, be pleased’; YAv. zuš- ‘like’; OP dauštar- m. ‘friend’)
< PIE *g̑us- (Gr. γεύομαι ‘I taste’; Lat. gustus m. ‘taste, enjoyment’; Goth. kiusan
‘test’);

Authenticated
− PIIr. *ȷ́ hasta- m. ‘hand’ (Skt. hásta-; Av. zasta-; OP dasta-; Bactr. λιστο) < PIE
*g̑ hes-to- (Lith. pa-žastìs ‘armpit’).
Examples of the palatal stops:
− PIIr. *čarman- n. ‘hide, skin’ (Skt. cárman-, YAv. carəman-, OP carman-, Khot.
tcārman-) < PIE *(s)ker-men- (OHG scirm ‘screen’; OPr. kērmens ‘body’);
− PIIr. *ǰani- f. ‘wife’ (Skt. jáni-; OAv. jə̄ni-; Parth. jn) < PIE *g wenh2 - (OIr. ben f.
‘woman’);
− PIIr. *ǰ hanti 3sg.pres.act. ‘slays’ (Skt. hánti; YAv. jaiṇti; OP ja ntiy) < PIE *g whenti
(Hitt. ku-[e-]en-zi).
5. Sibilants
PIIr. had only one sibilant phoneme /s/, which was retracted to š after *r, u, K, i (the so-
called RUKI-rule). The retracted pronunciation of *s was a phonetic feature, probably
common to the satəm group, which was phonemicized in the separate branches. This is
the reason why, for instance, RUKI was operative in Indo-Iranian also after *i < *H̥ or
*r < *l, i.e. in the position after sounds which have only arisen as the result of specific
Indo-Iranian sound changes, cf. PIE *k̑reuh2 -s-, *teuh2 -s- > Skt. kravíṣ- n. ‘raw meat’,
OAv. təuuiš- n. ‘violence’; PIE *k̑h2 s- > Skt. (a-)śiṣat 3sg.them.aor., OAv. sīšōit̰
3sg.opt.them.aor. ‘instruct, command’; PIE *k wels- > Skt. karṣ-, Av. karš- ‘draw furrows,
plough’. Before voiced stops, PIIr. */s/ was realized as [z] or, in the RUKI context, as
[ž], but both [z] and [ž] were allophones of the phoneme */s/.
In PIIr., /š/ presumably was a marginal phoneme, found word-initially only in *šu̯aćš
‘six’ (Skt. sạ́ s-,̣ Av. xšuuaš), if the assimilation of the initial *s- in PIE *su̯ek̑s was a
common feature of the satəm languages (cf. Lubotsky 2000), and possibly in the cluster
*tš < PIE *k̑s (see 7 below).
6. Laryngeal
PIIr. had one laryngeal phoneme /*H/, which is the result of the merger of the three
Indo-European laryngeals. The phonetic nature of this phoneme is not absolutely assured,
but, most probably, it was a glottal stop [ʔ]. The PIIr. laryngeal shows a variety of
reflexes, which can be conveniently presented together (see Mayrhofer 2005 for a recent
overview).
6.1. The laryngeal was dropped in the position before a cluster of a voiced unaspirated
stop D plus any consonant (*H > Ø /_DC, cf. Lubotsky 1981), cf.
− PIIr. *paȷ́ra- vs. *paHȷ́as- (Skt. pajrá- adj. ‘firm’ : Skt. pā́jas- n. ‘side, surface’, Oss.
faz / fazæ ‘half, side; back, buttocks’) < PIE *peh2 g̑- (Gr. εὐ-πηγής ‘well-built’, etc.);
− PIIr. *su̯ad- vs. *su̯aHd- (Skt. svádati ‘is sweet’; the short reflex is possibly due to
the position before a consonant in the originally athematic verb *su̯ad-ti < *su̯eh2 d-
ti; in Skt. saṃ-súde inf. ‘for pleasure’, the short reflex is either taken from the nom.
*-suHd-s or is analogical after the present), OAv. hudəma- ‘sweetness’: Skt. svādate

Authenticated
‘is glad, tastes’, svādú- ‘sweet’, sūdáyati ‘makes acceptable’, havyasū́d- ‘sweetening
the oblation’) < PIE *su̯eh2 d- (Gr. ἡδύς ‘sweet’, ἥδομαι ‘I am glad’, Toch.B swāre
‘sweet’);
− PIIr. *i̯ aȷ́- ‘worship’ (Skt. yájyu- ‘devout, pious’; yajñá- m. ‘worship’; Av. yasna- m.
‘worship’) < *(H)i̯ eh2 g̑- ( Lat. iāiūnus ‘fasting’; Gr. ἁγνός ‘holy, pure’).
This development is only phonetically comprehensible if *H in IIr. was indeed a glottal
stop, which disappeared before glottalized stops, i.e. ʔʔDC > ʔDC. In a series of articles
(1996, 1999), de Lamberterie applied this Law also to Greek and Latin, arguing that this
must have been an IE development. The number of examples is very limited, however,
and they are not all equally convincing. Moreover, the phonetic justification given above
then loses its explanatory power.
6.2. In the position after a voiced unaspirated stop D, the laryngeal causes “aspiration”
of the preceding stop. Here is the evidence:
− PIIr. *Haȷ́ ham (Skt. ahám, Av. azə˘ˉ m, OP adam ‘I’ < PIE *h1 eg̑H-om (OCS azъ, cf.
Gr. ἐγώ, Lat. ego˘ˉ < *h1 eg̑-oH);
− PIIr. nom.sg.n. *maȷ́ hi, gen.sg. *maȷ́ has (Skt. nom.sg. máhi, gen.sg. mahás ‘great’;
OAv. gen.sg. mazəˉ, instr.pl. mazbīš ‘big, spacious’) < PIE *meg̑h2 , *meg̑h2 -os (Gr.
μέγα n. ‘big’; Hitt. mēk n. ‘much’);
− PIIr. *sad his- (Skt. sádhiṣ- n. ‘seat, abode’, YAv. hadiš- ‘name of god of the dwelling
place’; OP hadiš- n. ‘residence, palace’) < PIE *sedh1 -s (cf. Lat. sēdēs f. ‘seat, dwell-
ing-place’);
− PIIr. *d huȷ́ hitar- / d hug hHd har- (Skt. duhitár- f., OAv. dugədar- f. ‘daughter’) < PIE
*d hugh2 -ter- (Gr. ϑυγάτηρ ‘daughter’).
In the case of PIIr. *maȷ́ hi, *sad his-; *d huȷ́ hitar-, the laryngeal shows a double reflex: it
is responsible for the aspiration of the preceding stop, on the one hand, and it is vocalized
to *i, on the other (for the vocalization see 6.3). This means that the laryngeal was not
lost in the process of aspiration, but was later vocalized. This problem, which was never
explained, receives a straightforward explanation if we assume that aspiration is essen-
tially the same development as the one dealt with in the preceding section, viz. the loss
of glottalization. Whereas in the case of PIIr. *paȷ́ra-, etc., a glottal stop was lost before
a glottalized stop (ʔʔDC > ʔDC), here we find a glottalized stop losing its glottalic feature
before a glottal stop (ʔDʔ > Dʔ) and thus merging with Dh. As pointed out above (4),
aspiration of the so-called aspirated mediae Dh is likely to be an Indo-Aryan innovation.
6.3. Vocalization
In the final syllable between two consonants (and in absolute auslaut -CH#), the larynge-
al was vocalized to *i (in Sanskrit, the interconsonantal laryngeal was later vocalized on
a large scale, also to i, so that the Iranian evidence is decisive here):
− PIIr. *-i (ending n.pl. Skt. -i, Av. -i) < PIE *-h2 (Gr. -α, Lat. -a);
− PIIr. *ȷ̌ani- (Skt. jáni- f. ‘wife’, OAv. jaini- f. ‘id.’) < PIE *g wenh2 - (OIr. ben ‘wife’);
− PIIr. *-mad hi, sec. ending 1pl.med. (Skt. -mahi, OAv. -maidī) < PIE *-med hh2 (Gr.
-μεϑα);

Authenticated
− PIIr. *krau̯is- (Skt. kravíṣ- n. ‘raw meat’, cf. OAv. təuuiš- n. ‘violence’ of the same
type) < PIE *k̑reu̯h2 -s- (Gr. κρέας n. ‘meat’).
The same vocalization is also occasionally found in other positions, although the condi-
tions are unclear. In a word-initial syllable, the vocalization took place in the following
cases (for a discussion see also Beekes 1981a; Tichy 1985):
− PIIr. *p(i)tar- (Skt. pitár- m. ‘father’, OAv. nom.sg. [p]tā, acc.sg. patarəˉm /ptaram/,
dat.sg. piϑrē, fəδrōi, OP pitar- ‘id.’) < PIE *ph2 -ter-;
− PIIr. *ćiša- them.aor. (Skt. aśiṣat 3sg., OAv. sīšōit̰ 3sg. opt. and sīšā 2sg. impv. ‘in-
struct, command’) < PIE *k̑h2 s- (zero-grade of *k̑eh2 s-, Skt. śās-, Av. sāh-).
In a medial syllable, only the palatalized -h- of Skt. duhitár- ‘daughter’ (OAv. dugədar
< PIE *d hugh2 -ter-) indicates that the laryngeal must have been vocalized to -i- already
in PIIr., causing palatalization of *g h. Kortlandt (apud Beekes 1981a: 282) suggested
that the laryngeal was vocalized in a group of four consecutive consonants (cf. gen. sg.
PIE *d hugh2 -tr-es). Normally, however, Iranian shows no vocalization in this position;
cf. Skt. támisrā- f. ‘dark night’, but YAv. tąϑra- pl. ‘darkness’ < PIE *temHs-ro-. Cf.
also an important article by Werba (2006).
6.4. Intervocalic laryngeal (Beekes 1981b; Lubotsky 1995)
In intervocalic position (i.e. aHa, aHi, aHu), the laryngeal was phonologically lost in
PIIr., but if there was a transparent morpheme boundary, the laryngeal could be restored
(since it was still extant in most other positions). As the meter of the Gāthās shows, this
restored laryngeal is faithfully preserved in Avestan. In the R̥gveda, however, we find
hiatus only in a part of the cases, which indicates that the poets used the hiatus as a
metrical device, while this laryngeal was again lost in their regular speech. Here are a
few examples:
No hiatus in Skt. dhenú- f. ‘cow’ < *d heh1 i-nu-; devár- m. ‘husband’s younger broth-
er’ < *deh2 i-ur-; stená- m. ‘thief’ < *steh2 i-no-; revánt- adj. ‘rich’ < *Hreh1 i-u̯ent-.
Occasional hiatus in the RV vs. constant hiatus in the Gāthās:
− PIIr. *-i̯ aH-am 1sg. athem. opt. (Skt. deyā́m, dheyā́m, aśyā́m, yāyām; OAv. diiąm,
h́iiə̄m);
− PIIr. *-aH-am acc.sg., *-aH-as nom.pl., etc. of root-nouns in -aH- and of laryngeal
stems (Skt. opā́m, opā́s ‘protecting’; gnā́m, gnā́s f. ‘lady’; pánthām, pánthās m. ‘way’;
OAv. mazda˛m, gen.sg. mazdā̊ m. ‘Mazda’);
− PIIr. s-stems of the type *daH-as- n. ‘gift’ (Skt. dā́s- in dā́svant- and sudā́s-; OAv.
dāh-);
− PIIr. gen.pl. ending -aHam (Skt. -ām, OAv. -a˛m; cf. Kortlandt 1978, 2007b; Beekes
1982b: 58 f.);
− PIIr. appurtenance suffix *-Han- after a thematic vowel, e.g. *sauma-Hān-am > Skt.
somā́nam acc.sg. ‘presser of Soma’; *mantra-Hā > OAv. nom.sg. mąϑrā ‘poet, mantra
specialist’ (cf. Hoffmann 1955 = 1976: 378−383);
− PIIr. verbs in -aH- (Skt. 3pl. pres. pā́nti, 3sg. subj. pā́t, 3pl. impv. pres. pāntu, nom.pl.
ptc. pā́ntas < *paH-anti, *paH-a-t, etc.; OAv. subj. išāt̰ , išā̊n ̣ti).

Authenticated
There are two words with the same reflex, viz. *maHas- m. ‘moon’ (Skt. mā́s-, OAv.
mā̊) and *HuaHata- m. ‘wind’ (Skt. vā́ta-), where the second a goes back to a PIE
nasal, *meh1 n̥s- and *h2 ueh1 -n̥t-o-, respectively. Although here, too, there is a morpheme
boundary between the root in -aH and the suffix beginning with n̥-, a model for restora-
tion of the laryngeal is lacking. Both formations were not productive in Indo-Iranian,
and if *meh1 n̥s- > *maHas- would have yielded *mās- and *h2 ueh1 n̥to- > *HuaHata-
would have yielded *Huāta- in Indo-Iranian already, the intervocalic laryngeal could
hardly have been restored. We must therefore assume that the development of PIIr.
*-aHn̥- was different from that of -aHa-: while in the latter sequence the laryngeal was
lost, in the former it was retained. This means that at the time of the loss of intervocalic
laryngeals, n̥ had not yet coincided with a.
6.5. Laryngeal metathesis

In the sequences CHiC and CHuC, the laryngeal swapped places with the resonant.
− PIIr. *piHta- ‘drunk’ (Skt. pītá-, MoP nabīd ‘wine, date-wine’ < PIr. *ni-pīta-) < PIE
*ph3 i-to- (cf. Gr. ποτόν n. ‘drink, beverage’ < *ph3 -to- without i-extension);
− PIIr. *suHr n. ‘sun’ (Skt. svàr, OAv. huuarəˉ, cf. also Skt. sū́rya- m. ‘deity of the sun’)
< PIE *sh2 ul- (Gr. ἠέλιος < PGr. *hāu̯el < *seh2 -u̯el- m. ‘sun’);
− PIIr. *b huHta- ‘become, grown’ (Skt. bhūtá-, YAv. būta-) < PIE *b hh2 u-to- (for the
position of the laryngeal cf. Skt. bodhí 2sg.impv.aor. < *b heh2 u-d hi, Lubotsky 1995:
224−225).
In a similar way, *C1 iHuC2 > *C1 i̯ uHC2 (C2 ≠i̯ ), cf. PIIr. *si̯ uHta- ‘sewn’ (Skt. syūtá-;
Oss. x wyd / xud) < *siHuto- (Skt. sī́vyati, Goth. siujan, Lith. siū́ti ‘to sew’). It is probable
that this root is connected with PIE *seh2 - ‘to bind’, pres. *sh2 -ei-, so that the original
order of the consonants was *sh2 iu-. For more examples of this kind, see Lubotsky 2011.
The metathesis *C1 iHuC2 > *C1 i̯ uHC2 did not occur in case of C2 =i̯ (cf. Skt. sī́vyati,
dī́vyati) because u was consonantal before i̯ , see 3. The rule must have been operative
for a long time, as it is also responsible for the desiderative Skt. jújyūṣati (Ś B), derived
from jī́vati ‘to live’.
7. Consonant clusters
The development of PIIr. clusters of stops is rather complicated in detail. Here I mention
just a few of the most frequent clusters which have undergone some changes within PIIr.
− PIIr. *-ćt- [*-tśt-] > *-śt- (≠ -št-) > Iranian -(x)št-, Skt. *-ṣt- > -ṣt-.̣ Kellens (1976:
60 ff.) has presented strong arguments in favor of the view that the reflex of PIIr. *ćt
had not yet merged with št after RUKI in Proto-Iranian. While the reflex of the RUKI
št is always št in Avestan, PIIr. *ćt also appears as xšt, e.g. paiti.fraxštar- ‘interrogator’
o
< PIIr. *prać-tar- (cf. Skt. prasṭar-),
̣ yaxšti- ‘branch’ < PIIr. *i̯ aćti- (cf. Skt. yaṣṭí-),
spaxšti- ‘vision’ < PIIr. spać-ti-, etc. Since we find the same reflex in Sogdian and
Bactrian, we must assume East Iranian dialectal preservation of the difference between
*ćt and the RUKI št.

Authenticated
− PIIr. *-ćs- [*-tśs-] > *-t śś- > *-t śš- > *-tš- and then > Iranian *š, Skt. *-tṣ- > *-tṣ-̣ >
-kṣ-, cf. PIIr. *daćš-i-na- ‘right, southern’ (Skt. dákṣiṇa-, YAv. dašina-) < PIE *dek̑s-
i-no- (Lith. dẽšinas, OCS desnъ ‘right’);
− PIIr. *-tć- [*-ttś-] > *-t śś- > *-t śš- > *-tš- (thus merging with the reflex of PIIr. *-ćs-
< PIE *-k̑s-), cf. PIIr. *tatćan- (Skt. tákṣan- m. ‘wood-cutter, carpenter’; Av. tašan- m.
‘creator (of cattle)’) < PIE *tetk̑on- (Gr. τέκτων m. ‘carpenter, artist’).
− PIIr. *sč > *sć in word-initial position and after a vowel (Lubotsky 2001). This is
essentially the same kind of development as, for instance, OCzech tiščen > Czech
tištěn [tišt’en] ‘pressed’. Cf. PIIr. *sćid- < *sčid- ‘to split, break’ (Skt. chid-; YAv.
siδ-; MP wsstn’ /wisistan/) < PIE *skid- (Gr. σχίζω ‘I split, cut’; Lat. scindō ‘I cut
open’); PIIr. *ga-sća- < *ga-sča- pres.stem ‘go’ (Skt. gáchati, YAv. jasaiti 3sg.pres.)
< PIE *g wm̥-ske- (Gr. βάσκε 2sg.impv.act. ‘go!’). In the position after a stop, the
development *sč > *sć did not take place, cf. PIIr. *udsčā ‘high, up’ (Skt. uccā́, YAv.
usca) < PIE *udsk (w)eh1 (Lat. ūsque ‘up to’); PIIr. *Hubzȷ̌ ha- (Skt. ubjánt- ptc.pres.
‘keeping under, subduing’, YAv. ubjiiāite 3sg. pass. ‘is pressed down’) < PIE *h1 ub h-
ske-, an sk-present to PIE *h1 ueb h- (Skt. vabh- ‘bind, fetter’; YAv. ubdaēna- adj. ‘of
woven texture’; Gr. ὑφαίνω ‘I weave, undertake’; OHG weban ‘weave’).
8. Accent
Our knowledge about PIIr. accentuation is almost exclusively based on Vedic Sanskrit,
since the Iranian evidence is scant, being limited to some indirect indications in Avestan
(cf. Beekes 1988: 55−69; de Vaan 2003: 577−602). For apparent traces of Indo-European
accentuation in Pashto and other modern Iranian languages, see Lubotsky 1988: 16 ff.
The Sanskrit i- and u-stems derived from roots with a final laryngeal (the set-roots) ̣
are predominantly oxytone, which suggests an Indo-Iranian accent shift from the root to
the suffix (Lubotsky 1987), cf. kav-í-, gir-í-, dhruv-í-, ray-í-, san-í-; ā-tí-, ū-tí-, kṣā-tí-,
gūr-tí-, jñā-tí-, dhī-tí-, rā-tí-, rī-tí-, vī-tí-, sā-tí-, sphā-tí-; jūr-ṇí-; ūr-mí-, jā-mí-, ne-mí-;
dhā-sí-; ur-ú-, gur-ú-, tan-ú-, pur-ú-, pr̥th-ú-, van-ú-, śay-ú-; gā-tú-, jan-tú-; vā-yú-;
ū-rú-, bhī-rú-, etc. Similarly, the i- and u-stems derived from roots with a medial larynge-
al in the full grade, i.e. roots of the type (C)CeHC-, are mostly oxytone, cf. āp-í-, āś-ú-,
tāy-ú-, pāy-ú-, bāh-ú-, svād-ú-, etc.
The accent shift did not operate in two groups of roots with a medial laryngeal: those
of the type *C(R)eHD- (for which see 6.1), e.g. íṣ-ti-̣ f. ‘worship, sacrifice’, yájyu-
‘devout, pious’, and those of the type *CHUC- (for which see 6.5), e.g. bhū́-mi- f.
‘earth’, bhū́-ri- ‘abundant’. This means that the accent shift was posterior to the loss of
the laryngeal in the first group, on the one hand, and anterior to laryngeal metathesis in
the second group, on the other.
9. Relative chronology
We can establish the following relative chronology of the major phonological develop-
ments in Proto-Indo-Iranian:

Authenticated
Dialectal Indo-European (“satəm”):

A. RUKI-rule (only phonetically, phonemicization took place in the separate languages)
(5)
B. Depalatalization of palatovelars in the position before *r (4.2)
Proto-Indo-Iranian:
1. IIr. vocalization of the laryngeals (6.3)
2. Brugmann’s Law (2.2.2) [POST 1, ANTE 4,9]
3. Palatalization of the velars (4.3)
4. *e,o > PIIr. *a (2.1.1) [POST 2, ANTE 5] Note that palatalization as a phonemic
process is simultaneous with the merger of e, o in PIIr. *a [i.e. 3=4]. In other words,
we cannot know when the phonetic palatalization started, but it became phonemic
at the moment when the conditioning factor, i.e. the difference between *e and
*o/*a, disappeared.
5. Merger of the three laryngeals in PIIr. *ʔ (6) [POST 4, ANTE 6]
6. ʔʔDC > ʔDC; ʔDʔ > Dhʔ (6.1, 6.2) [POST 5, ANTE 7]
7. Laryngeal accent shift (8) [POST 6, ANTE 8]
8. Laryngeal metathesis (6.5) [POST 7]
9. Loss of intervocalic laryngeals (6.4) [POST 2, ANTE 10]
10. n̥ > a (2.1.2) [POST 9] The exact chronological position of developments 9 and 10
cannot be further specified. It seems attractive to assume that the loss of intervocalic
laryngeals [9] was posterior to the merger of the three laryngeals [5].
10. References
AiGr. II/1: see Wackernagel.
1981a The neuter plural and the vocalization of the laryngeals in Avestan. Indo-Iranian Journal
23: 275−287.
1981b Intervocalic laryngeal in Gatha-Avestan. In: Yoël L. Arbeitman and Allan R. Bomhard
(eds.), Bono homini donum: Essays in historical linguistics, in memory of J. Alexander
Kerns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 47−64.
1988 A Grammar of Gatha-Avestan. Leiden: Brill.
Hale, Mark
1999 ha: so-called ‘metrical lengthening’ in the Rigveda. In: Heiner Eichner and Hans
Christian Luschützky (eds.), Compositiones indogermanicae, In memoriam Jochem
Schindler. Prague: Enigma, 143−151.
Hoffmann, Karl
1955 Ein grundsprachliches Possessivsuffix. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 6:
25−40.
Hoffmann, Karl
1976 Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik, Edited by J. Narten. Volume 2. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Kellens, Jean
1976 Un prétendu présent radical. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 34: 59−71.
Kloekhorst, Alwin
2011 Weise’s Law: Depalatalization of palatovelars in Sanskrit. In: Thomas Krisch and Tho-
mas Lindner (eds.), Indogermanistik und Linguistik im Dialog, Akten der XIII. Fachta-

Authenticated
gung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 21. bis 27. September 2008 in Salzburg.
Wiebaden: Reichert, 261−270.
Kortlandt, Frederik
1978 On the history of the genitive plural in Slavic, Baltic, Germanic, and Indo-European,
Lingua 45. 281−300.
Kortlandt, Frederik
1981 Glottalic consonants in Sindhi and Proto-Indo-European. Indo-Iranian Journal 23: 15−
19.
Kortlandt, Frederik
2003 An Indo-European substratum in Slavic? In: Alfred Bammesberger and Theo Venne-
mann (eds.), Languages in prehistoric Europe. Heidelberg: Winter, 253−260.
Kortlandt, Frederik
2007a Italo-Celtic origins and prehistoric development of the Irish language. Amsterdam:
Rodopi.
Kortlandt, Frederik
2007b Gothic gen.pl. -e. Historische Sprachforschung 120: 237−240.
de Lamberterie, Charles
1996 Latin pignus et la théorie glottalique. In: Hannah Rosén (ed.), Aspects of Latin. Inns-
bruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 135−150.
1999 L’adjectif grec ἑδανός ‘suave’. In: Jürgen Habisreitinger, Robert Plath, and Sabine Zieg-
ler (eds.), Gering und doch von Herzen. 25 indogermanistische Beiträge Bernhard
Forssman zum 65. Geburtstag. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 153−166.
Lindeman, Fredrik Otto
1972 Zu dem sog. “protero-dynamischen” Medium im Indogermanischen. Norsk Tidskrift for
Sprovigdenskap 26: 65−79.
Lubotsky, Alexander
1981 Gr. pḗgnumi: Skt. pajrá- and loss of laryngeals before mediae in Indo-Iranian. Münche-
ner Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 40. 133−138.
Lubotsky, Alexander
1988 The system of nominal accentuation in Sanskrit and Proto-Indo-European, Leiden. Brill.
Lubotsky, Alexander
1990 La loi de Brugmann et *H3 e-. La reconstruction des laryngales. (Bibliothèque de la
Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l’Université de Liège, fascicule CCLIII). Liège-
Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 129−136.
Lubotsky, Alexander
1992 The Indo-Iranian laryngeal accent shift and its relative chronology. In: Robert Beekes,
Alexander Lubotsky, and Jos Weitenberg (eds.), Rekonstruktion und relative Chronolo-
gie. Akten der VIII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Leiden, 31. Au-
gust−4. September 1987. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität,
261−269.
Lubotsky, Alexander
1995 Reflexes of intervocalic laryngeals in Sanskrit. In: Wojciech Smoczyński (ed.), Kuryɫo-
wicz Memorial Volume. Part One. Cracow: Universitas, 213−233.
Lubotsky, Alexander
2000 Indo-Aryan ‘six’. In: Michaela Ofitsch and Christian Zinko (eds.), 125 Jahre Indoger-
manistik in Graz. Festband anlässlich des 125jährigen Bestehens der Forschungsrich-
tung “Indogermanistik” an der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz. (Arbeiten aus der Ab-
teilung “Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft” Graz 15). Graz: Leykam, 255−261.
Lubotsky, Alexander
2001 Reflexes of Proto-Indo-European *sk in Indo-Iranian. Incontri linguistici 24: 25−57.

Authenticated
Lubotsky, Alexander
2007 Sanskrit na-participles and the glottalic theory. In: Alan J. Nussbaum (ed.), Verba Do-
centi. Studies in historical and Indo-European linguistics presented to Jay H. Jasanoff
by students, colleagues, and friends. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press, 231−235.
Lubotsky, Alexander
2011 The origin of Sanskrit roots of the type sīv- ‘to sew’, dīv- ‘to play dice’, with an
appendix on Vedic i-perfects. In: Stephanie W. Jamison, H. Craig Melchert, and Brent
Vine (eds.), Proceedings of the 22 nd Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. Bremen:
Hempen, 105−126.
Mayrhofer, Manfred
2005 Die Fortsetzung der indogermanischen Laryngale im Indo-Iranischen. (Sitzungsberichte
der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse 730). Vienna: Ver-
lag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Mayrhofer, Manfred
1986 Indogermanische Grammatik. Vol 2. Lautlehre. Heidelberg: Winter.
Meillet, Antoine
1894 De quelques difficultés de la théorie des gutturales indo-européennes. Mémoires de la
Société de Linguistique de Paris 8: 277−304.
Tichy, Eva
1985 Avestisch pitar-/ptar-. Zur Vertretung interkonsonantischer Laryngale im Indoiranischen.
Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 45 [1985] (Festgabe für Karl Hoffmann,
Teil II), 229−244.
Wackernagel, Jakob
1905 Altindische Grammatik II,1. Einleitung zur Wortlehre. Nominalkomposition. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Werba, Chlodwig H.
2006 Sanskrit duhitár- und ihre (indo-)iranischen Verwandten: Zur ‘Vokalisierung’ der Laryn-
gale im Ur(indo)arischen. In: Günter Schweiger (ed.), Indogermanica. Festschrift Gert
Klingenschmitt. Taimering: VWT-Verlag, 699−732.
Alexander Lubotsky, Leiden (The Netherlands)
111. The morphology of Indo-Iranian

0. Preliminaries 4. Gendered pronouns
0. Preliminaries
Proto-Indo-Iranian (PII) morphology is easily reconstructible from the extant Old Indo-
Iranian languages, since the morphology of these languages is very similar (cf. Gotō
and Skjærvø [morphology], this handbook). In spite of (or perhaps because of) this
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-032

Authenticated
Lubotsky, Alexander
2007 Sanskrit na-participles and the glottalic theory. In: Alan J. Nussbaum (ed.), Verba Do-
centi. Studies in historical and Indo-European linguistics presented to Jay H. Jasanoff
by students, colleagues, and friends. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press, 231−235.
Lubotsky, Alexander
2011 The origin of Sanskrit roots of the type sīv- ‘to sew’, dīv- ‘to play dice’, with an
appendix on Vedic i-perfects. In: Stephanie W. Jamison, H. Craig Melchert, and Brent
Vine (eds.), Proceedings of the 22 nd Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. Bremen:
Hempen, 105−126.
Mayrhofer, Manfred
2005 Die Fortsetzung der indogermanischen Laryngale im Indo-Iranischen. (Sitzungsberichte
der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse 730). Vienna: Ver-
lag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Mayrhofer, Manfred
1986 Indogermanische Grammatik. Vol 2. Lautlehre. Heidelberg: Winter.
Meillet, Antoine
Société de Linguistique de Paris 8: 277−304.
Tichy, Eva
1985 Avestisch pitar-/ptar-. Zur Vertretung interkonsonantischer Laryngale im Indoiranischen.
Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 45 [1985] (Festgabe für Karl Hoffmann,
Teil II), 229−244.
Wackernagel, Jakob
1905 Altindische Grammatik II,1. Einleitung zur Wortlehre. Nominalkomposition. Göttingen:
Werba, Chlodwig H.
2006 Sanskrit duhitár- und ihre (indo-)iranischen Verwandten: Zur ‘Vokalisierung’ der Laryn-
gale im Ur(indo)arischen. In: Günter Schweiger (ed.), Indogermanica. Festschrift Gert
Klingenschmitt. Taimering: VWT-Verlag, 699−732.
Alexander Lubotsky, Leiden (The Netherlands)
111. The morphology of Indo-Iranian

0. Preliminaries 4. Gendered pronouns
0. Preliminaries
Proto-Indo-Iranian (PII) morphology is easily reconstructible from the extant Old Indo-
Iranian languages, since the morphology of these languages is very similar (cf. Gotō
and Skjærvø [morphology], this handbook). In spite of (or perhaps because of) this
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-032

Authenticated
111. The morphology of Indo-Iranian 1889
circumstance, an explicit and exhaustive systematic reconstruction of PII morphology

has yet to be undertaken.
As regards phonology, I (now) assume that laryngeals were partly dropped in late
PII, partly only later within the prehistory of the individual branches. They left the
following traces: in PII they caused compensatory lengthening of preceding vowels; at
least one of them aspirated preceding stops (at least in Indic); aspirating laryngeals are
here given as PII *h, otherwise *H is written. Proto-Indo-Iranian may still have had
clusters instead of aspirated tenues, and so these are written as *th etc. in this chapter.
Prevocalically, laryngeals were possibly preserved until late PII so that we still find
hiatus between vowels in Old Avestan and partly in Vedic; between non-syllabics they
could be vocalized. In some cases, especially in final syllables and possibly in some
initial syllables, the result of the vocalization fell together with *i and was preserved in
Iranian. Elsewhere (including some instances in final syllables) vocalization is only
found in Indo-Aryan but not in Iranian; in such cases it is here written *ь (although it
is unclear whether the vocalization really was PII in these cases). The secondary vowel
that arose between a consonant and a liquid followed by a laryngeal is reconstructed as
*ə. The “secondary” palatals are written *ḱ, *ǵ, ǵ h, which better captures the fact that
these were palatal sounds still alternating with velars than the traditional writing č, etc.
(as used by Lubotsky in the preceding chapter).
In describing the morphological structure of words, I will basically use the terminolo-
gy of Tichy (2006b: 48 ff.). When discussing PII “athematic” paradigms, we will often
have to refer to ablaut and accentuation. In many words, a “strong” stem and a “weak”
stem, which may be associated with “strong” and “weak” cases, respectively, differed in
ablaut and, partly, in accentuation. In ancient Indo-Iranian, ablaut was very well pre-
served (maybe better than anywhere else in IE), but it was practically confined to the
rightmost element of the stem, i.e. the root in root stems, otherwise the suffix (Wackerna-
gel and Debrunner 1930: 4 f.). Only in very few instances was ablaut preserved in an
element further to the left (e.g., *āt-mā́n- ~ *t-mán-, *dā́r-u- ~ *dr-áu̯-, *pánt-ā- ~
*pat-hь-); normally ablaut in these elements had been abolished (e.g.*dȷ́ h-ā́m- :
*dȷ́ h-ám-i vs. Hittite tēkan : tagān ‘earth’). We may distinguish the following types of
alternations in the ablauting element (strong vs. weak cases):
1. (no alternation): a) Ø-grade, b) a-grade, c) ā-grade
2. (proterodynamic) Ø-grade ~ a-grade (cf. Kümmel 2014a)
3. (hysterodynamic) a-grade ~ Ø-grade
4. (amphi-/holodynamic) ā̆-grade ~ a) a-grade; b) Ø-grade
This “ā̆-grade” is the reflex of PIE *o-grade; the quantitative variation depends on sylla-
ble structure: ā in an open syllable, but a in a closed syllable (Brugmann’s Law). Thus,
it is not always clearly distinct from invariable a-grade (PIE *e-grade) or ā-grade (PIE
*ē/ō-grade).
5. (acrodynamic) strong ā-grade ~ a) a-grade; b) Ø-grade
With respect to accentuation, evidence from Iranian is very limited, and faute de mieux,
we will mostly have to rely on Vedic alone. It seems that only three types were regularly
and productively distinguished in PII:
A. Fixed accent on the root (or reduplication).

Authenticated
B. Fixed accent on the suffix, shifting to the ending in some special cases.
When an ending beginning with a vowel was attached to a suffix ending in a short high
vowel, the accent shifted from this − originally non-syllabic − vowel to the ending, cf.
*Hag-ni̯ -ā́ vs. *Hag-nái̯ -ai̯ , *Hag-ní-šu (Wackernagel and Debrunner 1930: 14); origi-
nally, this rule probably also applied in the gen. pl. (*Hagni̯ -áHam), and the resulting
accentuation was preserved when this form was remade to *HagnīnáHam (likewise in
u-stems, Wackernagel and Debrunner 1930: 20). Since this remaking was PII, the accent
rule must also be PII.
C. Oxytone mobile accent, normally alternating between the penultimate element in the
strong forms and the last element in the weak forms.
In weak nominal stems of this type, the place of the accent could also alternate between
the ending and the penultimate element: before endings beginning with a consonant, the
suffix was accented in monosyllabic stems in -i/u/r- and all polysyllabic stems; therefore,
we find *mā-tr-ás, *hukš-n-ás, *diu̯-ás but *mā-tŕ̥-b hiš, *hukš-á-b hiš, *di̯ ú-b hiš instead
of otherwise expected *mā-tr̥-b híš, *hukš-a-b híš, *di̯ u-b híš (cf. *pad-b híš, *dad-b híš).
Two other mobile types were rather exceptional. A fourth type D with alternation
between the root and the suffix only survived in a few u-stem neuters of type 2 with
preserved root ablaut: *dā́r-u ~ *dr-áu̯-š ‘wood’ (phonologically, this might be classified
as type A, since the accent always is on the first syllable). Otherwise this kind of mobility
had been given up in PII, but we find some extraparadigmatic relics. We might also set
up a type E where alternation between the first element and the ending was the rule; it
was preserved unchanged in some of the few words of type 4b that also preserved root
ablaut, e.g. *pánt-ā- ~ pat-h(ь)- ‘path’. But in words of type 1a, initial stress was pre-
served only when the suffix was non-syllabic; when it was syllabic, the accent was
shifted to the suffix as in type C (at least in Vedic).
Tab. 111.1: Ablaut types and accentuation in PII

1a 1b 1c 2 3 4a 4b 5a 5b
A + + + + (+) + + + −
B + + + + − (+) − − −
C + + − − + + + − (+)
The possible combinations of the common ablaut and accentuation types are displayed
in Table 111.1. The combinations 1aC, 1bC, 3A, 4aB and 5bC seem to be innovations:
1aC could develop from 3C or 4bC when ablaut was given up, or from 1aE by regulariza-
tion. Last but not least, 1bC and some other cases of 1b developed from 3 by leveling
of ablaut. This was regular in all roots of the type *(H)aC-, if C was not a semivowel;
here paradigmatic ablaut survived only in the substantive verb *Hás-/*(H)s- ‘be’. 3A
developed from 4bA, when ā̆ grade became unclear in the verbal system of presents and
aorists (cf. 6.2). 4aB was transformed from 4bC by generalizing the ablaut and accent
of the locative (cf. Tremblay 1996b: 32 on *tmán-). 5bC (mostly in verbs) may be post-
PII and was achieved by contamination of the strong stem of 5aA by the weak of 3C or
4bC.

Authenticated
1. Nouns
1.1. Categories
Nouns were inflected for three numbers: singular, dual, plural, and eight cases: vocative,
nominative, accusative, instrumental, dative, ablative, genitive, and locative. These two
categories were marked together by fusional endings. Nouns were assigned to one of the
three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter.
The numbers were always distinctly represented, except in some cases where neuter
plurals in long vowels had short vowel variants falling together with the singular, e.g.
*u̯ásū ~ *u̯ásu ‘goods’.
Vocative, nominative, and accusative were always uniformly represented in the dual
and all numbers of the neuter. The ablative did not have a separate form except in the
singular of “thematic” stems; otherwise it coincided with the genitive in the singular or
the dative in the dual and plural. The vocative dual and plural (sometimes even singular)
were always formed like the nominative, but could differ in accentuation.
As in other IE languages, masculine and feminine gender largely correlated with
natural sex, wherever this could be assignable. Words for living beings could be ambisex-
ual, so that their gender assignment depended on reference (e.g., *gā́u̯š was feminine, if
meaning ‘cow’; if males were included or not excluded, the word was masculine). But
in contrast to some other old IE languages, derived feminines were the rule (e.g., *Háću̯ā
‘mare’, *u̯r̥ḱī́š ‘female wolf’, *dai̯ u̯ī́ ‘goddess’). Otherwise, the gender assignment could
not be predicted from the meaning. Even if neuters were still mostly (but not necessarily)
inanimate, there were many inanimate words of the other two genders. Thus, gender was
mainly an agreement category.
1.2. Stem formation
In ablauting stems, the normal distribution of stem variants was as follows: The strong
stem was used in the vocative and nominative throughout, and in the accusative singular
and dual of non-neuter stems, and sometimes in the nominative-accusative plural of
neuters. In all other cases, the weak stem was used (incl. the nom.-acc. du. neuter). In
the locative singular, Ø-grade is always replaced by a-grade or (regularly in i-stems) ā-
grade, and the ending was never accented. Thus it may resemble forms of the strong
stem.
Generally, this distribution seems to be identical to that seen in other ancient IE
languages but for one case: The accusative plural of non-neuters (“weak” in PII) should
be a “strong” case, if we consider the ending **-ms that never shows full-grade variants.
Neither in Hittite nor in Greek nor in the evidence retrievable from other families is
there any clear evidence for the accusative plural showing a different stem variant than
the nominative (except for i- and u-stems, on which see below). Nevertheless, the PII
situation has often been claimed to be PIE. However, as Hock (1974) has convincingly
shown, the “weak” status of the accusative plural in PII could be an innovation. It was
motivated by the fact that only in this branch did the endings of the nominative *-es and
of the accusative**-m̥s fall together in *-as, if a consonant preceded them. Thus, the

Authenticated
important distinction of these primary grammatical cases was in danger of being lost,
and it was re-established by introducing the stem and/or accent of the weak cases in the
accusative. The accusative plural of i- and u-stems could provide a starting point, since
here nearly all IE languages reflect a difference in ablaut between nominative and accu-
sative plural. In these stem classes, another strong deviation from the normal distribution
was preserved in PII: In the most common ablaut type 2, singular and plural show an
inverse distribution of stem variants in the suffix: *-i- : *-ai̯ - in the singular (although
the vocative agrees with the weak cases), but *-ai̯ - : *-i- in the plural (in the dual, forms
with a full-grade suffix of the strong cases are exceptional). A slightly different deviation
from the normal distribution is attested in the ablauting ī-stems: here only the oblique
cases of the singular show the weak stem with suffix *-i̯ ā- in contrast to *-ī- in all other
forms; it is not clear whether or not this distribution was already PIE. In any case, this
special kind of variation was extended to ā-stems in PII only (see 1.4.8 below).
Tab. 111.2: Nominal endings of PII

Sg. Du. Pl.
Vocative *-Ø *-ā(u̯) ~ -(:)Ø *-as ~ -S / -asas
Nominative *-S ~ -Ø *-ā(u̯) ~ -(:)Ø *-as ~ -S / -asas
Accusative *-am ~ -m *-ā(u̯) ~ -(:)Ø *-ás ~ -(:)nS
NAV neuter *-Ø / -m *-ī *-Ø ~ -:/-i
h h
Instrumental *-ā́ ~ -: *-b i̯ ā́ (m) / -i̯ b i̯ ā(m) *-b híš / -:i̯ š
Dative *-ái̯ *-b hi̯ ā́ (m) / -i̯ b hi̯ ā(m) *-b hi̯ ás / -i̯ b hi̯ as
Ablative *-ás ~ -S / -ad *-b hi̯ ā́ (m) / -i̯ b hi̯ ā(m) *-b hi̯ ás / -i̯ b hi̯ as
Genitive *-ás ~ -S *-Hā́ s / -i̯ ās *-áHam ~ -:náHam
Locative *-Ø ~ -i *-Háu̯ / -i̯ au̯ *-Sú / -i̯ šu
1.3. Endings and terminations
The nominal endings of PII are given in Table 111.2, where -S indicates an underlying
voiceless sibilant subject to variant sandhi realizations. Variation depending on stem
class or ablaut (first variant more frequent or more basic, typically that of consonantal
stems with mobile stress) is marked by ~. Variants following the / belong to thematic
stems only. These special terminations of thematic stems were normally identical with
(the shorter forms of) pronominal terminations, mostly by insertion of *-i/i̯ - before the
normal ending (gen.-loc. du., abl.-dat. and loc. pl., see 4.1 for discussion of these special
endings). In the instr. and loc. pl., these special variants seem to be late PIE; no IE
language clearly presupposes “regular” forms like *-o-b hi(s) and *-o-su (or *-o-si): Old
Irish -aib could continue *-obis as well as *-oi̯ bis (and in any case, it could have been
influenced by the dative *-obos attested for Celtic by Gaulish). It is not clear whether
the Anatolian dative-locative plural *-os (> Hitt. -as, Lycian -e) continues a thematic
form *-o-s(u/i) since an older athematic ending *-os (cf. PIE *-b h-os) is equally possible.

Authenticated
But in the instr.-dat.-abl. du. and abl.-dat. pl., other IE languages do not show this
insertion, cf. Goth. -am, Lith. -am̃/-ám, -áms, OCS -oma, -omъ vs. pronominal Goth.
-aim, Lith. -iẽm/-íem, -íems, OCS -ěma, -ěmъ. Thus it seems that in Indo-Iranian the
influence of pronominal inflection had increased.
Old Iranian is the only branch of IE that preserved a difference between the gen. du.
and loc. du. (contaminated to *-au̯š in Indic). An initial laryngeal in the genitive is
assured by the syllabic value of preceding suffixes both in the RV and in OAv. (cf.
Hoffmann 1976: 561 n. 2; Beekes 1988: 113, 127); for the locative it can neither be
confirmed nor disproved by an attested OAv. form (cf. Malzahn 2000: 219 n. 31).
Innovations typical for PII include: 1. the dative-ablative endings *-b hi̯ ā(m), *-b hi̯ as
instead of *-b hō and *-b hos of other languages; apparently, the *i of the instrumental
plural has been introduced in these cases. 2. the disyllabic ending of the gen. pl. (on
which see Kümmel 2013); in the gen. pl. of the *aH-stems this led to *-aHaHam which
was subject to haplology and was therefore felt to be undercharacterized; the form was
then remade to *-aHnaHam by analogy after stems in *-(m/u̯)an-: loc. pl. *-(m/u̯)asu :
gen. Pl. *-(m/u̯)anaHam = *-aHsu : X. Then this new ending with its long vowel was
analogically extended to the a-stems, so that a vowel-lengthening rule could be abduced
by reanalysis, and this was taken over by the other vocalic stems (where relic n-less
forms survived). 3. In the non-neuter nom.-acc. du., the thematic ending *-ā(u̯) seems
to have been extended to consonantal stems − at least in Indic: however, the *-ā̆ of
Iranian could theoretically go back to the old athematic ending *-h1e or *-eh1 (cf. Mal-
zahn 2000: 205 ff.), so we cannot strictly prove that this innovation was PII. 4. The PII
deictic vowel *-u in the loc. pl. *-S-u as against *-i in the loc. sg. is in agreement with
Balto-Slavic in contrast to Greek and Albanian *-s-i; since*-i may have been taken from
the singular, it is probably an innovation, so PII and Balto-Slavic preserve the original
situation.
1.4. Stem classes and paradigms
In order to show every stem variant, the following case forms are normally given in the
overview which follows: sg. voc., nom., acc., gen., loc.; pl. nom., and instr. If their
formation is not directly evident from the gen. sg., also instr. sg., acc., gen., loc. du.,
and loc. pl. may be given. The vocative is only given when different from the nominative
(other than by its recessive accent). Ablaut and accentuation types are given according
to the classification at the beginning of this chapter, e.g., 4aC = ablaut type 4a, accent
type C.
1.4.1. Root nouns
Archaic root nouns most often belonged to type 4a or 4b, mostly with mobile accent:
*pā́d- ~ pad- m. ‘foot’ (4aC): sg. nom. *pā́t-s, acc. *pā́d-am ~ gen. *pad-ás, loc. *pád-i;
pl. nom. *pā́d-as ~ instr. *pad-b híš; *di̯ ā́u̯- ~ *diu̯- m. ‘sky; day’ (4bC): sg. nom. *di̯ ā́u̯-
š, acc. *di̯ ā́-m ~ gen. *diu̯-ás, loc. *di̯ áu̯-i; pl. nom. *di̯ ā́u̯-as ~ acc. *di̯ ú-nš, instr. *di̯ ú-
b hiš; likewise *dȷ́ hā́(m)- ~ ȷ́ hm- f. ‘earth’ (4bC): sg. nom. *dȷ́ hā́-s, acc. *dȷ́ hā́-m ~ gen.

Authenticated
*ȷ́ hm-ás, loc. *dȷ́ hám-i, du. nom. *dȷ́ hā́m-ā(u̯), etc. Fixed initial accent was certainly
inherited sometimes: *gā́u̯- ~ *gáu̯- m. f. ‘cow, ox, bull, cattle’ (4aA): sg. nom. *gā́u̯-
š, acc. *gā́-m ~ gen. *gáu̯-š, loc. *gáu̯-i; pl. nom. *gā́u̯-as ~ acc. *gā́-s, instr. *gáu̯-b hiš.
But in other cases, it must be a PII innovation: *ću̯ā́n- ~ ćún- m. ‘dog’ (4bA): sg. voc.
*ć(ú)u̯án, nom. *ću̯ā́, acc. *ću̯ā́n-am ~ gen. *ćún-as, loc. *ću̯án-i; pl. nom. *ću̯ā́n-as ~
instr. *ću̯á-b hiš. Type 3 inflection is rarer; before a consonant cluster, it could be second-
ary from 4b, as in *dánt- ~ dat- m. ‘tooth’ (3C): sg. nom. *dánt-s, acc. *dánt-am ~ gen.
*dat-ás, loc. *dánt-i; pl. nom. *dántas ~ instr. *dad-b híš, loc. *dat-sú. But some old
cases also exist, e.g. *nár- ~ nar-/nŕ̥- m. ‘man (male)’ (3C): sg. nom. *nā́ ~ gen. *nar-ás
(Vedic náras, etc. is probably secondary); pl. nom. *nár-as ~ instr.*nŕ̥-b hiš. Verbal root
nouns partly belonged to this type, too (e.g. *-ǵ hán- ~ *-g hn- ‘beating, killing’ 3C), but
normally had given up ablaut and gone over to type 1a or 1b: *u̯íć- f. ‘settlement, clan’
(1aC): sg. nom. *u̯íć-š, acc. *u̯íć-am ~ gen. *u̯ić-ás, etc.
1.4.2. s-stems
The most productive subtype were neuters of type 1b like *Háp-as- n. ‘work’ (1bA):
sg. nom.-acc. *Hápas, instr. *Hápas-ā, gen. *Hápas-as, loc. *Hápas-i; pl. nom.-acc.
*Hápās, instr. *Hápaz-b hiš, loc. *Hápas-u. Much rarer were non-neuters of type 3 or 4:
*b hih-ás- ~ b hī-š- ‘fear’ f. (3C): sg. nom. *b hihā́s, acc. b hihás-am ~ instr. b hīš-ā; *huš-
ā́s- ~ huš-[š]-/huš-ás- f. ‘dawn’ (4bC): sg. voc. *húšas, nom. *hušā́s, acc. *hušā́s-am ~
gen. *huš-ás, loc. *hušás-i; pl. nom. *hušā́s-as ~ instr. *hušáz-b hiš, etc.
1.4.3. n-stems
Non-neuter stems preferred type 4, as *rā́ȷ́-ān- ~ -n- m. ‘king’ (4bA): sg. voc. *rā́ȷ́an,
nom. *rā́ȷ́ā, acc. *rā́ȷ́ān-am ~ gen. *rā́ȷ́n-as, loc. *rā́ȷ́an(-i); du. loc. *rā́ȷ́an-Hau̯ (*-an-
from *-n̥-); pl. nom. *rā́ȷ́ān-as ~ instr. *rā́ȷ́a-b hiš; likewise *háć-mān- ‘stone’ (4bA) and
the possessive derivatives in *-(H)ān-, e.g. *i̯ ú-Hān- ~ *i̯ ú-Hn- >*i̯ úH-ān- ~ *i̯ ū́-n-
‘young’ (4bA): sg. acc. *i̯ úHān-am ~ gen. *i̯ ū́n-as. But for stems in *-mān- mobile
accent was more usual: *prath(ь)-mā́n- ~ -mn- m. ‘width’ (4bC): sg. voc. *-man, nom.
*prath(ь)-mā́, acc. *prath(ь)-mā́n-am ~ gen. *prath(ь)-mn-ás, loc. *prath(ь)-mán(i); pl.
nom. *prath(ь)-mā́n-as, instr. *prath(ь)-má-b hiš. A special case of 4aC/B with preser-
ved root ablaut is represented by *(H)aHt-mā́n- ~ *(H)Ht-mán- >*(H)āt-mā́n- ~
(H)t-mán- m. ‘breath’: sg. voc. *(H)ā́tman, nom. *(H)ātmā́ , acc. *(H)ātmā́n-am ~ gen.
*(H)tmán-s/(H)tman-ás, loc. *(H)tmán(-i), etc. Much rarer was type 3, e.g. *hukš-án- ~
-n- m. ‘young bull’ (3C): sg. voc. *húkšan, nom. *hukšā́, acc. *hukšán-am ~ gen.
*hukšn-ás etc., likewise *(H)ari̯ a-mán- m. ‘(god of) hospitality’ (3C). Neuters inflected
after type 2 and were always barytone: *nā́-man- n. ‘name’ (2A): sg. nom.-acc. *nā́ma,
gen. *nā́man-s, loc. *nā́man-i; pl. nom.-acc. *nā́mān, instr. *nā́ma-b hiš.
Stems in *-ín- are well established in Indic but poorly attested in Iranian. Their suffix
did not ablaut, e.g. *parn-ín- ‘having wings’ (1aB): sg. nom. *parnī́, acc. parnín-am,
etc.

Authenticated
1.4.4. r/n-stems
This archaic class of heteroclitic nouns included only neuters: On the one hand, we
find non-ablauting paradigms: *(H)ás-r/n- ‘blood’ (1aC): sg. nom.-acc. *(H)ásr̥(-k), gen.
*(H)asn-ás; likewise *rā́ȷ́-r-/-n- n. ‘command’ (1aA). But especially with a more com-
plex suffix, also type 2 inflection existed: *d hán-u̯r̥-/-u̯an- n. ‘bow’ (2A): sg. nom.-acc.
*d hánu̯r̥, gen. *d hánu̯an-s, loc. *d hánu̯an(-i); pl. nom.-acc. *d hánu̯ān. Other stem types
with a heteroclitic n-stem are attested in Indic, but not supported by Iranian.
1.4.5. r-stems
These were normally non-neuters and were influenced by vocalic stems in some forms.
A class of nouns for relatives belonged to type 3: *mā-tár- ~ -tr- f. ‘mother’ (3C): sg.
voc. *mā́tar, nom. *mātā́, acc. *mātár-am ~ gen. *mātr-ás, loc. *mātár(-i); du. loc.
*mātər-(H)áu̯; pl. *mātár-as ~ acc. *mātŕ̥-nš, instr. *mātŕ̥-b hiš; likewise *dahi-u̯ár- m.
‘husband’s brother’ (3C) etc. and *b hrā́-tar- m. ‘brother’ (3A). But type 4b inflection
was more common, especially for the productive agent nouns in *-tār-: *ȷ́ háu̯-tār- ~
-tr- m. ‘*pourer > main priest’ (4bA): sg. voc. *ȷ́ háu̯tar, nom. *ȷ́ háu̯tā, acc. *ȷ́ háu̯tār-am
~ instr. *ȷ́ háu̯tr-ā, gen. *ȷ́ háu̯tr̥-š, loc. *ȷ́ háu̯tar(-i); du. loc. *ȷ́ háu̯tər-(H)au̯; pl. *ȷ́ háu̯tār-as
~ acc. *ȷ́ háu̯tr̥-nš, instr. *ȷ́ háu̯tr̥-b hiš; likewise, *su̯á-sār- f. ‘sister’ (4bA). Oxytone nomi-
na agentis like *ȷ́anH(ь)tā́r- ‘progenitor’ (4bC) normally inflected alike, but relic forms
point to a secondary transition from type 3C (cf. Tichy 1995: 57 f.). An isolated type
without suffixal ablaut is represented by the Iranian word *(h)ā́tr̥- ~ (h)ātr- m. ‘fire’
(1aC; cf. Tremblay 2003: 20 ff.): sg. voc. *(h)ā́tr̥, nom. *(h)ā́tr̥-š, acc. *(h)ā́tr̥-m ~ gen.
*(h)ātr-ás. It is often assumed that this word was secondarily “masculinized” from a
neuter nom.-acc. **(h)ā́tr̥, but we have no evidence for such a neuter, and old masculines
with zero-grade suffix need not have been confined to vocalic stems. Non-heteroclitic
neuters in *-r- are non-existent in Indic and very rare in Avestan (aodr- ‘cold’ seems to
be the only clear example).
1.4.6. i- and u-stems
The “standard” inflection was type 2 for both classes alike: *(H)ag-ní- ~ -nái̯ - m. ‘fire’
(2B): sg. voc. *(H)ágnai̯ , nom. *(H)agní-š, acc. *(H)agní-m ~ instr. *(H)agnī́, gen.
*(H)agnái̯ -š, loc. *(H)agnā́i̯ ; du. loc. *(H)agnii̯ -áu̯; pl. nom. *(H)agnái̯ as ~ acc.
*(H)agní-nš, instr. *(H)agní-b hiš, gen. *(H)agnī-náHam, and likewise *sū-nú- ~
-náu̯- m. ‘son’ (2B): sg. voc. *sū́nau̯, nom. *sūnú-š, acc. *sūnú-m ~ instr. *sūnū́, gen.
*sūnáu̯-š; du. loc. *sūnuu̯-áu̯; pl. nom. *sūnáu̯-as ~ acc. *sūnú-nš, instr. *sūnú-b hiš, gen.
*sūnū-náHam. Fixed accent was equally possible: *Háǵ h-i- m. ‘snake, dragon’ (2A) or
*ȷ́ánH(ь)-tu- m. ‘birth; living being’ (2A). Other types were rarer, but occurred in some
frequent words. Type 1 is the most common among these: *(H)ar-í- ~ -i̯ - m. ‘foreigner’
(1bC): sg. nom. *(H)arí-š, acc. *(H)arí-m, instr. *(H)ari̯ -ā́, gen. *(H)ari̯ -ás, loc. *(H)arā́i̯
(?); pl. nom. = acc. *(H)ari̯ -ás, instr. *(H)arí-b hiš, gen. *(H)ari̯ -áHam; likewise
*raH-í-/rā́-i̯ - ~ *rā-i̯ - ‘possession, wealth’ (1bE) and *pát-i- m. ‘husband’ (1bA, but in

Authenticated
the meaning ‘lord, master’ it had a regular 2A inflection), *háu̯-i- f. ‘sheep’. *pać-ú- ~
-u̯- m. ‘(head of) livestock’ (1bC): sg. nom. *paćú-š, acc. *paćú-m ~ instr. *paću̯-ā́,
gen. *paću̯-ás; pl. nom. = acc. *paću̯-ás ~ instr. *paćú-b hiš, gen. *paću̯-áHam; likewise
*náh-u-/nā́-u̯- ~ nā-u̯- ‘boat’ (1bE) and *krát-u- ‘mental force (?)’ (1bA). Even rarer is
type 4 (in Indic, it survived only in the following word): *sákh-āi̯ - ~ -i̯ - m. ‘fellow,
companion, friend’ (4bA): sg. voc. *sákhai̯ , nom. *sákhā, acc. *sákhāi̯ -am ~ instr.
*sákhi̯ -ā (?), gen. *sákhi̯ -as, loc. *sákhāi̯ ; pl. nom. *sákhāi̯ -as ~ acc. *sákhi-nš, instr.
*sákhi-b hiš, gen. *sákhi̯ -aHam. *dás-i̯ āu̯- ~ -i̯ u(u̯)- m. ‘foreign people/country’ (4bA,
oxytone accent cannot be deduced from OAv. forms with dax́ii°, cf. de Vaan 2003: 571 f.,
575 f.): sg. voc. *dási̯ au̯, nom. *dási̯ āu̯-š, acc. *dási̯ ā-m ~ instr. *dási̯ ū, gen. *dási̯ uu̯-
as; pl. nom. *dási̯ āu̯-as ~ acc. *dási̯ u-nš, instr. *dási̯ u-b hiš, gen. *dási̯ ū-naHam. OAv.
hiθąm (to hiθāuš ‘companion’, cf. Geldner 1890: 532) and vaiiąm to vaiiu- (Remmer
2011: 15 f.) show that the PIE formation of the acc. sg. of stems in *-ā̆u̯- had survived
not only in the root nouns *di̯ áu̯-, *gā́u̯- but also in other words (cf. Cantera 2007).
A type 3C in *-ái̯ -/*-áu̯- has been discussed but is not assured for PII; it may have
existed in Pre-PII. E.g., Tichy (2006b: 79) reconstructs *pk̑-éu̯- ‘head of livestock’,
which was remodeled to PII *pać-ú- 1bC. A type 3C strong stem *kau̯H-ái̯ - < *kou̯H-éi̯ -
is often reconstructed for *kau̯Hí- ‘seer’ (cf. Hoffmann 1976: 488 f.), but Tremblay
(1996a: 104 f. with n. 30) reconstructs *kau̯-ā́i̯ - < *kou̯h2-ói̯ - (4bC). Everything depends
on whether YAv. acc. sg. kauuaēm presupposes *-ai̯ am in contrast to *-āi̯ am in OAv.
huš.haxāim, which cannot be considered certain. Even if the distinction of āi : aē is far
more consistent in the manuscripts than in the case of āu : ao (cf. de Vaan 2003: 377),
shortening of original *āi̯ am to aēm is attested by YAv. aēm ‘egg’ (de Vaan 2003:
120). An original *kauuāim might additionally have been influenced by near-identical
kauuaēm, nom.-acc. sg. n. of the adjective kauuaiia- occurring in the very same text
(Yt. 19).
i-stem neuters were very rare, but neuters in *-u- were well established. Beside the
“standard” type 2 inflection, there was also an archaic subtype with preserved root ab-
laut: *dā́r-u-/ dr-áu̯- ‘wood’ (2D): sg. nom. *dā́ru, gen. *dráu̯-š (likewise *hā́i̯ u ‘life’,
*ȷ́ā́nu ‘knee’, and *sā́nu ‘back’). Also type 1 inflection is found: *mád h-u- ‘honey,
mead’ (1bA): sg. nom. *mád hu, gen. *mád hu̯-as, etc.
1.4.7. ı̄ - and ū -stems (mostly f.)
These stems inflected like root nouns of type 1, the only difference being that their
accent was never mobile, but fixed on the suffix (except in compounds): *u̯r̥k-ī́/íH- f.
‘female wolf’ (1B): sg. nom. *u̯r̥kī́-š, acc. *u̯r̥kíH-am, gen. *u̯r̥kíH-as, loc. *u̯r̥kī́; pl.
nom. = acc. *u̯r̥kíH-as, instr. *u̯r̥kī́-b hiš, gen.*u̯r̥kī́-naHam; likewise*rathī́- m. ‘chariot-
eer’ 1B. *tan-ū́/úH- f. ‘body’ (1B): sg. nom. *tanū́-š, acc. *tanúH-am, gen. *tanúH-as,
loc. *tanū́; pl. nom. = acc. *tanúH-as, instr. *tanū́-b hiš, gen. *tanū́-naHam. In one spe-
cial case, a different strong stem and inflection after type 3 is attested: *ȷ́iȷ́ hu̯áH- ~
ȷ́iȷ́ húH- m. ‘tongue’ (3B/C): sg. nom. *ȷ́iȷ́ hu̯ā́-s, acc. *ȷ́iȷ́ hu̯áH-am, gen. *ȷ́iȷ́ húH-as (pre-
served in Avestan but split into two paradigms jihvā́-, juhū́- in Vedic; for the original
inflection of this word and its development see EWAia I: 591 f. with references).

Authenticated
1.4.8. *ı̄-/i̯ ā -stems and *ā -/ai̯ ā -stems (always f.)
Two classes of feminines differ from all others by special endings in the nominatives
(sg. *-Ø, du. *-ī, pl. *-S), a peculiar distribution of strong and weak stems, and fixed
accent. First, there were ī-stems very different from the preceding and showing inflection
after type 2: *dai̯ u̯-ī́/íh- ~ -i̯ ā́- f. ‘goddess’ (2B): sg. voc. *dái̯ u̯-i, nom. *dai̯ u̯-ī́, acc.
*dai̯ u̯ī́-m ~ gen. *dai̯ u̯i̯ ā́-s, loc. *dai̯ u̯i̯ ā́; du. nom. *dai̯ u̯ī́, loc. *dai̯ u̯ih-áu̯; pl. nom. =
acc. *dai̯ u̯ī́-š, instr. *dai̯ u̯ī́-b hiš, gen.*dai̯ u̯ī́-naHam. Likewise *nā́r-ī- f. ‘woman’ (2A).
Second, the old PIE *ah2-stems inflected in a similar way: *Haȷ́-ā́- ~ -ái̯ ā- ‘female goat’
(1B): sg. voc. *Háȷ́ai̯ , nom. *Haȷ́ā́, acc. *Haȷ́ā́-m ~ instr. *Haȷ́-ā́/Haȷ́-ái̯ ā, gen. *Haȷ́ái̯ ā-
s, loc. *Haȷ́ái̯ ā; du. nom. *Haȷ́ái̯ (i̯ ), loc. *Haȷ́ái̯ -Hau̯; pl. nom. = acc. *Haȷ́ā́-s, instr.
*Haȷ́ā́-b hiš, gen.*Haȷ́ā́-naHam. Likewise *(H)áć-u̯ā- ‘mare’ (1A). Originally these had
a uniform suffix *-ā-/*-ah-, but a peculiar analogical remodeling after the ī/i̯ ā-stems had
disturbed the original inflection of the singular (in the genitive and locative dual, *-ai̯ -
is rather taken from the nominative). The inflection of the PII ā-stems can be obtained
in a very straightforward way from that of the ī/i̯ ā-stems by simply replacing long *-ī-
by *-ā- and short or non-syllabic *-i/i̯ - by *-ai̯ - (which implies *-i̯ ā- → *-ai̯ ā-); for an
account of the details see Lühr (1991: 175−182). In Indic and Old Persian, *-ai̯ ā- was
analogically replaced by *-āi̯ ā-, wherever the pronominal termination had *-asi̯ ā-. In the
instrumental this did not happen, because here *-ai̯ ā was directly supported by the pro-
nominal termination.
1.4.9. a-stems (thematic stems, m. or n.)
Last but not least there was the very productive class of “thematic” stems. They belonged
to type 1 and had fixed accent: *dai̯ u̯á- m. ‘heavenly, god’ (1bB): sg. voc. *u̯ī́ra, nom.
*dai̯ u̯á-s, acc. *dai̯ u̯á-m, gen. *dai̯ u̯á-si̯ a, loc. *dai̯ u̯á-i̯ ; du. nom. *dai̯ u̯ā́(u̯), loc.
*dai̯ u̯á-i̯ -(H)au̯; pl. nom. *dai̯ u̯ā́s(as), acc. *dai̯ u̯ā́-ns, instr. *dai̯ u̯ā́i̯ š, gen. *dai̯ u̯ā́naHam,
loc. *dai̯ u̯á-i̯ šu. Likewise *(H)áć-u̯a- m. ‘horse’ (1bA). In the neuter, the special forms
if made from *i̯ ug-á- n. ‘yoke’ (1aB) would be sg. *i̯ ugá-m, du. *i̯ ugá-i̯ (i̯ ), pl. *i̯ ugā́;
likewise *dā́-tra- n. ‘sickle’ < *dáH-tra- (1bA).
2. Adjectives
2.1. Categories
In addition to the categories of nouns, adjectives could be inflected in three genders and
in the three grades positive, comparative, and superlative. Otherwise, their inflection was
identical to noun inflection; there were no special adjectival endings or terminations.
Typically, masculine and neuter forms coincided in all cases but in the nominative,
accusative, and vocative, while feminine forms were taken from a derived stem formed
by means of the suffixes *-ī- (from thematic ordinals, secondary comparatives and super-
latives in -[t]ara-, -[t]ama-), *-ī-/-i̯ ā- (from all athematic stems, including primary com-
paratives and superlatives, and some thematic adjectives) and *-ā- (from all other the-

Authenticated
matic stems). But at least in many compounds, the feminine was not derived, and its
forms were identical with the masculine.
2.2. Inflection
Since there is no difference in principle from noun inflection, only some types confined
to adjectives shall be mentioned:
nt-stems: Active participles belonged to type 1a or 3: *s-ánt- ~ -at- ‘being’ (3C): sg.
nom. *sánt-s, acc. *sánt-am ~ gen. sat-ás → fem. sg. nom. *sat-ī́ ~ gen. sat-i̯ ā́-s. Posses-
sive adjectives in *-u̯ant- were inflected in the same way.
s-stems: Simple adjectives in -ás- belonged to 1b (thus they differed only in accentua-
tion from neuter abstracts): *Hap-ás- ‘working, active’ (1bB). Another type is represen-
ted by perfect participles, e.g. *u̯id-u̯ā́s- ~ -úš- ‘knowing’ (4bB): sg. voc. *u̯ídu̯as,
nom. m. *u̯idu̯ā́s, acc. m. *u̯idu̯ā́s-am, nom. acc. n. *u̯idu̯ás ~ gen. *u̯idúš-as, loc.
*u̯idu̯ás-i → fem. sg. nom. *u̯idúš-ī ~ gen. u̯idúš-i̯ ā-s.
A group of “pronominal” thematic adjectives could use pronominal endings, e.g.
*(H)ani̯ á- ‘other’ or *u̯íću̯a- ‘all, every’. But since the Old Indo-Iranian languages dis-
agree in details, the PII state is difficult to reconstruct (cf. de Vaan 2003: 9 f.).
2.3. Gradation
There were two ways of forming the higher grades:
1. From the (full-grade) root by means of the suffixes *-i̯ ās-/-i̯ as- (4aA) and *-išthá-
(1bA/B) respectively, e.g. *háu̯ǵ-i̯ ās- ‘stronger’, *háu̯ǵ-ištha- ‘strongest’ to *hug-rá-
‘strong’, formed directly from the root *hau̯g-. These formations still look derivation-
al rather than inflectional, and they could also be used as comparatives or superlatives
to other derivatives of the root (e.g. verbal nouns and even finite verbs). They could
only be used for primary adjectives and are certainly inherited (as derivational suffix-
es). In PII, the original ablaut of the comparative suffix was simplified: zero grade
*-iš- was replaced by full grade *-i̯ as- (4b → 4a), but it remained in the derived
superlative *-iš-tha-.
Inflection of *u̯ás-i̯ ās- ~ -i̯ as- ‘better’ (4aA): sg. voc. *u̯ási̯ as, nom. m. *u̯ási̯ ās,
acc. m. *u̯ási̯ ās-am, nom. acc. n. *u̯ási̯ as ~ gen. *u̯ási̯ as-as, loc. *u̯ási̯ as-i; pl. nom.
*u̯ási̯ ās-as, instr. *u̯ási̯ az-b hiš, loc. *u̯ási̯ as-u. → fem. sg. nom. *u̯ási̯ as-ī ~ gen.
*u̯ási̯ as-i̯ ā-s.
2. From the stem of the positive by means of the secondary suffixes *-tara- and *-tama-
(both 1A), e.g. *u̯idúš- ‘knowing’ → *u̯idúš-tara- ‘knowing better’. This type was
the only one possible for all more complex adjectives (i.e. secondary derivatives,
compounds, perfect participles). Normally, it was not used for primary adjectives that
could form their grades directly from the root. The suffixes are inherited, too, but it
is only in Greek that we find a similarly extended use of *-tero- and *-tm̥-to- >
*-tato-. In the other IE languages, *-tero- and *-tm̥Ho- (and shorter *-ero-, *-m̥Ho-)
are confined to derivations of pronouns and particles, a usage also well established
in PII. Thus, the expansion into adjectival gradation seems to be a common innovation
of Greek and Indo-Iranian.

Authenticated
3. Numerals
3.1. Cardinals
For obvious semantic reasons, cardinal numerals could not normally be inflected for
number (the plural of ‘one’ was used only in the non-numeral meaning ‘some [individu-
als]’). Otherwise, ‘1−4’ were inflected like adjectives, all others were inflected like
nouns (i.e., they do not show a gender distinction); ‘5−19’ could be uninflected.
Of the PIE words for ‘1’, *sém- had disappeared as an independent lexical item in
PII, as in many other branches, and from the different derivatives of *ai̯ -, the stem
*Hai̯ u̯a- became the regular numeral (preservation of *Hai̯ na- as a demonstrative pro-
noun is disputed). In Indic, *Hai̯ u̯a- was replaced by *Hái̯ ka- as a numeral but survived
in some adverbial forms. All these words inflected like ordinary adjectives in -a/ā- (but
could take pronominal endings like some adjectives, cf. 2.1.0). *d(u)u̯á- ‘2’ inflected
likewise as an ordinary thematic dual with a feminine *d(u)u̯ā́-.
*trí- (2C) ‘3’ and *ḱatu̯ā́r- ~ ḱatur- (4bB) ‘4’ inflected like regular athematic plurals
in -i- and -r-, respectively. However, the genitive of ‘3’ seems to have been *trai̯ -áHam
(not *trīnáHam). Their feminine was formed with a peculiar suffix *-(a)Sr- (1aC):
nom. = acc. *tišr-ás, *ḱátasr-as, instr. *tišŕ̥-b hiš, *ḱatasŕ̥-b hiš, gen. *tišr-áHam, *ḱatasr-
áHam. The only comparanda of these feminines within IE are Celtic forms like *tisres,
*kʷetesres > Old Irish nom. teoir ‘three’, cetheoir ‘four’ etc. (cf. Cowgill 1957; Kim
2008). The mobile accent (type E) of *ḱatasr- is peculiar.
The numbers ‘five’ to ‘ten’ could remain uninflected and had no nominative endings.
When inflected, all forms exhibited final/mobile accentuation. *šu̯áćš ‘6’ (cf. Lubotsky
2000) behaved like an ordinary consonant stem, and while *(H)aštā́(u̯) ‘8’ itself looks
like a dual, its inflected forms were ordinary ā-stem plural forms. All the others ended
in *-á/-a: *pánḱa ‘5’, *saptá ‘7’, *náu̯a ‘9’, *dáća ‘10’; they were inflected like neuter
n-stems except in the gen. pl.: *daćá-b hiš, *daćā-náHam, etc.
*u̯inćatī́ ‘20’ (for the nasal cf. Vedic viṁśatí- which is supported by Ossetic Digor
insæj, while the nasal was regularly lost elsewhere in Iranian) seems to have been an
old neuter dual form, but an inflected noun *u̯inćánt- could perhaps also be used (ti-
stem inflection in Vedic is secondary).
From ‘30’ on, the cardinals were always inflected as singular nouns that could form
a dual and plural. The tens were feminine nouns with the suffixes **-dćánt-/-dćat- >
*-nćá(n)t-/-(H)ćá(n)t- (3C; 30−50): *tri-nćánt-, *ḱatu̯r̥-(H)ćánt-, *panḱā-ćánt- and *-tí-
(2B; 60−90): *šu̯aš-tí-, *sapta-tí-, *(H)aćH(ь)-tí- (< **HaćtH-tí-), *nau̯a-tí-. The words
for ‘100’ and ‘1000’ were neuters: *ćatá-m, *saȷ́ hásra-m.
3.2. Ordinals
All ordinals were inflected like thematic adjectives of the a-class, for 1−4 the feminine
was an ā-stem, from 5 on it was an ī-stem: For ‘1st’, a suppletive pronominal adjective
was used; we find three variants: *pə́r(H)u̯a-/*pər(H)u̯ii̯ á-/*pr̥thamá- (cf. Pkt. puḍhama-
and analogically modified Vedic prathamá-). For ‘2nd’, PIE likewise had a suppletive
word, but in PII this was replaced by *du̯i-tíi̯ a-, formed by analogy to inherited *tr̥-tíi̯ a-
‘3rd’. A shorter form of the same suffix was preserved in *(k)tur-íi̯ a- ‘4th’. The next two

Authenticated
took a suffix *-thá- < *-t-h2ó- attached to the weak “root” of the cardinal: *pak-thá-
‘5th’ and *šuš-thá- ‘6th’ (cf. Hoffmann 1975: 190; Iranian *puxθa- ‘5th’ > av. puxδa-,
khot. pūha- owes its vowel to the preceding and following numeral). For ‘7th’, the
earliest Old Indo-Iranian texts present *saptá-tha- formed with the same suffix, but the
variant *saptam(h)á- attested in all later texts could be inherited < *saptm̥há- < *septm̥-
h2ó-. Together with *daćm̥-há- > *daćam(h)á- ‘10th’, this allowed a reanalysis of *°am-
á- → *°a-má-, providing the basis for the abstraction of a new suffix *-má-, that was
used for the numbers in between: *(H)ašta-m(h)á- ‘8th’ and *nau̯a-m(h)á- ‘9th’ (in later
stages it was extended to other numbers). From 20 on, the superlative suffix *-tam(h)á-
was used: ‘20th’ *u̯īnća(n)ts-tam(h)á-, ‘100th’ *ćata-tam(h)á-, etc. Since the use of
*-tm̥h2ó- for the higher ordinals seems to recur in Latin, it has been reconstructed for
PIE, too. But most other languages disagree, and we might assume a parallel introduction
of the regular superlative suffix in both branches.
3.3. Other numerals

Adjectives with possessive and distributive meaning were formed at least from ‘2’ and
‘3’ by a suffix *-á-: *du̯ai̯ á-, *trai̯ á-. For higher numbers, a PII suffix is difficult to
reconstruct. A distributive adverb could be formed by adding *-ćás to the cardinal num-
ber: *nau̯a-ćás ‘nine each’.
For the first four numbers special iterative adverbs existed: 2 *du̯íš ‘twice’, 3 *tríš
‘thrice’, 4 *ḱatrúš ‘four times’ were inherited, but 1 *sakŕ̥t ‘once’ is a specific innovation
of PII: *sa- ‘one’ + *-kr̥t- ‘turn, time’. Otherwise, iterative adverbs were formed peri-
phrastically with words for ‘time, turn’.
4. Gendered pronouns
4.1. Categories and terminations
Pronouns were inflected like adjectives, though without gradation. The terminations dif-
fered from those of nouns in some cases, and stem extensions were inserted before the
oblique endings more often than in nominal a-stems: *-smin the singular m./n., *-si̯ -
in the singular f., *-i̯ - in the plural m./n. and in the dual. Some of these extensions had
also been taken over by thematic nouns and adjectives (cf. 1.3).
For the b h-cases of the thematic dual, Indic and Iranian generalized different stem
extensions: Indic shows *-ā-b hi̯ ā-m (identical with the form of the ā-stems), while Irani-
an shows *-ai̯ -b hi̯ ā (the YAv. forms dōiθrābiia, pāšnābiia given by Hoffmann and Forss-
man 1996: 120 have to be dismissed, since they can represent regular ā-stem formations).
The Indic variant seems to show the influence of the masculine nom./acc., while the
Iranian could show the influence of the neuter and/or the dative/ablative plural. It is
difficult to reconstruct the PII or PIE state of affairs, since both forms could be innova-
tions and the evidence of other IE languages is limited. Perhaps, masculines originally
had *-āb hi̯ ā but neuters had *-ai̯ b hi̯ ā (cf. Wackernagel and Debrunner 1930: 98), both
influenced by the nom.-acc. as in the plural, where most case forms can be interpreted
as derived from the masculine nom. in *-ai̯ .

Authenticated
4.2. Stem formation
As is the case with many nouns, some pronouns distinguished between “strong” cases
(i.e. nominative and accusative) and the rest. But there is an additional tendency to create
a major difference between the nom. sg. alone (sometimes without the neuter) and all
other forms. This tendency was inherited (at least in the case of *só vs. *tó-) but it was
reinforced in PII: whenever new stems were created for strong cases, they were not
transferred to the forms of the nom. sg. (nor, consequently, to those of the acc. sg. n.,
which were identical to the nominative).
4.3. Demonstratives
Here the nom. sg. m. was formed without the ending *-s. For non-spatial deixis in dis-
course, pronouns with a peculiar alternation of s- and t- were used. The most basic
pronoun of this kind was *sá-/tá-, f. *sā́-/tā́- ‘that’ (cf. Table 111.3), the inflection of
which was matched by two other, more emphatic demonstratives: *si̯ á-/ti̯ á-, f. *si̯ ā́-/ti̯ ā́-
‘this, that’ and *ai̯ šá-/ai̯ tá-, f. *ai̯ šā́-/ai̯ tā́- ‘this, that’ (on the function of which see
Kümmel 2014b).
Tab. 111.3: PII inflection of demonstratives

Sg. Du. Pl.
m. n. f. m. nf. m. n. f.
Nom. *sá tá-d sā́ tā́ (u̯) tá-i̯ (H) tá-i̯ tā́ tā́ -s
Acc. *tá-m tá-d tā́ -m tā́ (u̯) tá-i̯ (H) tá-ns tā́ tā́ -s
h h
Instr. *tā́ tā́ tái̯ -ā tā́ -b i̯ ā tā́ -b i̯ ā tā́ -i̯ š tā́ -i̯ š tā́ -b hiš
Dat. *tá-sm-āi̯ tá-sm-āi̯ tá-si̯ āi̯ tā́ -b hi̯ ā tā́ -b hi̯ ā tá-i̯ -b hi̯ as tá-i̯ -b hi̯ as tā́ -b hi̯ as
Abl. *tá-sm-ād tá-sm-ād tá-si̯ ā-s tā́ -b hi̯ ā tā́ -b hi̯ ā tá-i̯ -b hi̯ as tá-i̯ -b hi̯ as tā́ -b hi̯ as
Gen. *tá-si̯ a tá-si̯ a tá-si̯ ā-s tá-i̯ -Hās tá-i̯ -Hās tá-i̯ -š-aHam tá-i̯ -š-aHam tā́ -s-aHam
Loc. *tá-sm-i tá-sm-i tá-si̯ ā tá-i̯ -Hau̯ tá-i̯ -Hau̯ tá-i̯ -šu tá-i̯ -šu tā́ -su
Nom. *ai̯ -ám id-ám ih-ám imā́ (u̯) imá-i̯ (H) imá-i̯ imā́ imā́ -s
Acc. *imá-m id-ám imā́ -m imā́ (u̯) imá-i̯ (H) imá-ns imā́ imā́ -s
Instr. *a-n-ā́ a-n-ā́ a-i̯ -ā́ ā-b hi̯ ā́ ā-b hi̯ ā́ ā́ -i̯ š ā́ -i̯ š ā-b híš
Dat. *a-sm-ā́ i̯ a-sm-ā́ i̯ a-si̯ ā́ i̯ ā-b hi̯ ā́ ā-b hi̯ ā́ a-i̯ -b hi̯ ás a-i̯ -b hi̯ ás ā-b hi̯ ás
Abl. *a-sm-ā́ d a-sm-ā́ d a-si̯ ā́ -s ā-b hi̯ ā́ ā-b hi̯ ā́ a-i̯ -b hi̯ ás a-i̯ -b hi̯ ás ā-b hi̯ ás
Gen. *a-si̯ á a-si̯ á a-si̯ ā́ -s a-i̯ -Hā́ s a-i̯ -Hā́ s a-i̯ -š-áHam a-i̯ -š-áHam ā-s-áHam
Loc. *a-sm-í a-sm-í a-si̯ ā́ a-i̯ -Háu̯ a-i̯ -Háu̯ a-i̯ -šú a-i̯ -šú ā-sú

Authenticated
Concrete spatial (and temporal) deixis was expressed by a two-term system. For proxi-
mal deixis the stem *(H)i-/(H)a-, f. *(H)ī-/(H)ā- ‘this (here)’ was used (cf. Table 111.3).
Originally the stem of the strong cases was *(H)i-/(H)ai̯ -, f. *(H)ih- throughout, but in
the singular, the forms were reinforced by the particle -ám in deictic usage. The extended
form of the acc. sg. m. *(H)im-ám was reanalyzed as *(H)imá-m, implying immediately
a new acc. sg. f. *(H)imā́-. This newly created stem*(H)imá-/(H)imā́- was then general-
ized to all strong cases other than the nom. sg. The old unextended forms of the accusa-
tive survived as anaphoric pronouns of the third person (cf. 5.2). The peculiar instr. sg.
*(H)anā́ might originally have belonged to a different pronoun *(H)aná-, but other forms
of such a stem are clearly secondary in Indo-Iranian (cf. Wackernagel and Debrunner
1930: 526 f.).
Another stem *(H)ai̯ ná- cannot be reconstructed, since Vedic ená- and Persian īn are
secondary formations (Klingenschmitt 1972: 94−103).
For remote deixis a PII pronoun is difficult to reconstruct, since the branches disagree
in all forms except the nom. sg. m. and f. *sá(h)-u. Indic has *ad-áu̯ in the nom.-acc.
sg. n. and a stem *amú- elsewhere, but Iranian has a stem *au̯a- in all forms; since
Vedic gen. du. avóṣ is best taken with Klein (1977: 166−171) as secondary for *ayóṣ,
there is no evidence for *au̯á- in Indic. As Klein (1977: 163 ff.) has argued, originally
a combination of *sá- and *a- might have been used that was reinforced by a particle
of remoteness *u/*au̯. The further development of this system seems to have been inde-
pendent in the individual branches. In Iranian, *au̯ was prefixed to forms of *a-, so that
a stem *au̯a- resulted. In Indic, *-u was suffixed to the forms of *a-. In the nom.-acc.
sg. *ad-u was then reshaped to *ad-áu̯ by analogy to *sáu (< *sá(h)u) reanalysed as
*sa-áu̯. In the acc. sg. m., *am-u was recharacterized to *am-ú-m, and a new stem amú-,
f. amū́- was abstracted from this (*amú-i̯ - was regularly changed to *amíi̯ - > amī́-,
cf. EWAia I 99), similar to the PII creation of *(H)imá-. Thus, the distal pronouns give
us no new information except for the fact that the stem *a- was not confined to proximal
deixis. This is not surprising since this stem (and partly also *i-), is normally non-
deictic and anaphoric in other languages. When these two stems became isofunctionally
associated in PII, the addition of a remoteness particle could have been used as a way
of maintaining a deictic distinction. The PII suppletive nucleus for the reshaping would
have looked like this: Nom. sg. m. *sá-u, f. *sáh-u, n. *(au̯-)ád(-u), acc. sg. m.
*(au̯-)ám(-u). In the nominative, Vedic added a- from the other cases.
A further stem *(H)āna- is not attested in Indo-Iranian: Persian (h)ān is secondary
(*hāu̯-na, Klingenschmitt 1972: 95−107).
4.4. Other pronouns
All these took the regular ending *-s in the nom. sg. m. The relative pronoun was
*(H)i̯ á-, f.*(H)i̯ ā́-, inflected like *sá-/tá- but for the nom. sg. m. The interrogative pro-
nouns were also used as indefinite pronouns, especially when combined with indefinite
particles like *-ḱa or *-ḱid. As Iranian shows, there were three stems: *ḱí- ‘who?, what?,
someone, something’ (only nom. acc., of which only single forms survived in Indic),
*ḱá- ‘someone, something(?)’ (never nom. acc., not attested in Indic), and *ká-, f. *kā́-

Authenticated
‘which?, who?, what?’. Only the last had special feminine forms and could be used
attributively. Since this difference corresponds to Early Latin quis, quid ‘who?, what?’
vs. quoi, quod ‘which?’, it was probably PIE. Less clear is the distribution of *ḱa-. Since
its occurrence (only “weak” cases) is supplementary to *ḱi-, the most natural interpreta-
tion would be that it belonged to it, as *a- belonged to *i-. But since Avestan forms of
ca- are never used in interrogative function, it seems to differ from ci- (it has even been
assumed that *ḱa- was an unaccented variant of *ká-, Tichy 2006b: 51 f.). On closer
inspection, this difference becomes rather thin. For ci-, the tendency to indefinite func-
tion is strong, too: it is obligatory in this function after the negative particle naē-, and
in interrogative function ka- dominates strongly, ci- occurring mainly in formulaic sen-
tences. That interrogative ci- survived better than ca- may simply be due to its occurrence
in the more frequent grammatical cases. Thus *ḱá- may well have belonged to *ḱí-, and
we can assume that already in PII *ká- had started to dominate in interrogative function
even when used as a substantive, thus restricting *ḱí-/ḱa- mainly to indefinite function.
For the formation of adverbs, a third stem *kú- existed.
4.5. Adverbs
Pronominal adverbs could be formed by the following suffixes: static local *-tra (*tátra
‘there’, *kútra ‘where?’, *yátra ‘where’, *átra ‘[t]here’), *-d ha (*id há ‘here’, *ád ha
‘then’, *kúd ha ‘where?’), and ablatival *-tás (*itás ‘from here’, *tátas ‘from there’,
*kútas ‘from where?’); temporal *-dā́ (*idā́ ‘now’, *tadā́ ‘then’, *kadā́ ‘when?’, *yadā́
‘when’), *-di (*i̯ ádi ‘when’); modal *-thā (*táthā ‘like that’, *kathā́ ‘how?’,*itthā́ ‘like
this’, *áthā ‘in this way’); quantifying *-ti ‘much/many’ (*ḱá-ti ‘how many?’, *íti ‘so
[*much]’). A suffix *-H and *-(H)a are attested only in the interrogative: *kú-H > *kū́,
*kúu̯a ‘where?’.
5.1. First and second person
Specific personal pronouns did not exist except for the first and second person; in addi-
tion there was an enclitic dative of the third person. These pronouns were inflected for
case only, number being expressed by the stem alone. Often the nominative was supple-
tive, and the other cases often were formed in a peculiar way. For the accusative and
genitive-dative, there were special enclitic forms. For details see Table 111.4.
In the nominative and accusative, forms enlarged by the particle *ám (note external
sandhi in the 2 nd plural nominative) have largely ousted the shorter simple forms which
are only (partly) preserved in Iranian (most of these are disputed, and only OAv. yūš is
generally accepted). Acc. pl. *asmá+am, *ušmá+am are probably reflected by Vedic
asmā́n, yuṣmā́n.
In the dual and plural, the oblique stem is based on an old acc. consisting of the
“zero-grade root” and a particle, *u̯á in the dual and *má in the plural.

Authenticated
Tab. 111.4: PII personal and possessive pronouns

Sg. Du. Pl.
st nd rd st nd st
1 2 3 1 2 1 2nd
Nom. *(H)áȷ́ h? *túH? − *u̯áH? *i̯ úH? *u̯ái̯ ? *i̯ ū́ š

*(H)aȷ́ h-ám *tuH-ám *u̯aH-ám *i̯ uH-ám *u̯ai̯ -ám *i̯ ūž+ám
Acc. − − − *ā-u̯á *i̯ u-u̯á* *as-má *uš-má

*ma-(H)ám *tu̯a-(H)ám *ā-u̯a-(H)ám *i̯ u-u̯a-(H)ám *as-ma-(H)ám *uš-ma-(H)ám
Instr. *mā́ *tu̯ā́ − *ā-u̯ā́ *i̯ u-u̯ā́ *as-mā́ *uš-mā́

h h h h h
Dat. *má-ȷ́ i̯ a *tá-b i̯ a − *ā-u̯á-b i̯ a *i̯ u-u̯á-b i̯ a *as-má-b i̯ a *uš-má-b hi̯ a
Abl. *má-d *tu̯á-d − *ā-u̯á-d *i̯ u-u̯á-d *as-má-d *uš-má-d
Gen. *mána *táu̯a − *ā-u̯ā́ -ka-m? *i̯ u-u̯ā́ -ka-m? *as-mā́ -ka-m *uš-mā́ -ka-m
Loc. *má-(i̯ )i *tu̯á-(i̯ )i − *ā-u̯á-i̯ *i̯ u-u̯á-i̯ *as-má-i̯ *uš-má-i̯
Encl. *mā *tu̯ā − *nā *u̯ā *nās *u̯ās

Acc.
Encl. *mai̯ *tai̯ *sai̯ *nā *u̯ā *nas *u̯as

DG.
Pos- *má- *tu̯á- *su̯á- *au̯ā́ ka-? *i̯ uu̯ā́ ka-? *asmā́ ka- *ušmā́ ka-
sessive
Possessive pronouns other than reflexive *su̯á- are lacking in Indic, Old Persian, and
later Iranian, but in Avestan, analogous formations exist for all persons of the singular
and may therefore be reconstructed for PII. They show pronominal inflection in Avestan
and sometimes (in the case of *su̯á-) in Vedic. In the dual and plural, adjectives in *-ka-
could be used as possessive pronouns, and their acc. sg. n. was used as a genitive of the
personal pronoun.
Reflexive *s(u̯)á- is not attested as a personal pronoun in Indo-Iranian: The alleged
Avestan attestations are either illusory or can be interpreted as secondary formations (cf.
de Vaan 2005: 705 f.). The isolated enclitic third-person dative-genitive *sai̯ , attested in
Iranian but totally absent from Indo-Aryan (Prakrit se is an independent innovation, see
von Hinüber 1987: 163), looks like a form of the reflexive but has to be distinguished
because of its non-reflexive usage (paralleled by Hittite -sse/-ssi, Greek hoi).
5.2. Third person
Except for the enclitic dative-genitive *sai̯ , unaccented forms of the demonstrative
*(H)i-/(H)a- (cf. 4.3) were used for anaphoric reference to the third person, but in the
accusative there were shorter (more original) forms than the accented forms with proxi-
mal deixis: acc. sg. m. *im, n. *id, f. *īm; du. mnf. *ī ; pl. mf. *īnš, n. *ī. In a similar
way, some forms of a stem *si- could be used, especially the acc. sg. *sim, f. *sīm. In
Indic, the accusatives of *i- (sg. īm only preserved as a particle) were replaced by forms

Authenticated
of a stem ena- < *ai̯ na- which may be old and go back to the distal demonstrative *no-
with prefixed *(H)ai̯ -, as *(H)ai̯ -tá- from *tá- (cf. Klingenschmitt 1987: 175; Dunkel
2014: 370 fn. 41). It is not clear whether such a stem is also presupposed for Iranian by
the Khotanese 3 pl. enclitic nä.
6. Verbs
6.1. Categories
The three persons 1−3 and the numbers singular, dual, plural were distinguished in the
usual way. The 3 pl. could also be used impersonally.
The main voice distinction was between active and middle, but in the middle there
was an additional distinction between a “passive” (or rather fientive/anticausative, often
called “stative”) and a “non-passive” that could be made at least in the 3 sg. and 3 pl.
of athematic non-perfect forms (for details, see 6.3). Otherwise, this distinction was
expressed by derivation or periphrasis. Forms belonging to the “passive” subcategory
could only be used if the subject was not an agent, but rather the undergoer of an action
(independent of the presence of an agent, thus differing from a pure passive).
On a purely temporal level, there were only two tenses: the preterit referred to the
past, while the present could refer to all other times, including extra-temporal reference.
The so-called future in *-si̯ a- had not yet become a real tense, but was an Aktionsart
designating preparation or intention. Tense was only distinguished in the indicative
mood: the present was marked by special (longer, so-called “primary”) endings, and the
past was formed from the injunctive by means of a prefix *á- (the “augment”, cf. 6.2.2).
There were five moods: indicative, injunctive, imperative, optative, and subjunctive.
The first three were distinguished by different endings, but the last two had special
(secondary) suffixes (see 6.2.2). The indicative and the injunctive stated the action as
factual but differed in their illocutionary function: the indicative marked it as “reported”
(and potentially new), while the injunctive just recalled a known fact (Hoffmann 1967a;
Tichy 2006a: 190 ff.: “Erwähnung”; Mumm 1995 “verbal definiteness”). The imperative
marked the will of the speaker that the action should take place, the optative marked it
as possible (and by pragmatic implication, as desirable or prescribed), and the subjunc-
tive marked the action as expected, (cf. Tichy 2006a: 193 ff., 198 ff., 2006b: 96−106).
The injunctive had originally been an “extratemporal” tense category rather than a spe-
cial mood, and this was still reflected in PII by its “basic” morphology (bare stem +
most basic “secondary” endings). But in PII, the indicative present had acquired an
extratemporal usage (stating general facts), and thus, the injunctive lost its “negative”
temporal value and became confined to special illocutionary functions (Tichy 2006a:
192 f.).
The categories of the dimension aspectuality/relative tense were distinguished by stem
formation alone. Beside the prototypical distinction of imperfective (“present” stem) and
perfective (“aorist” stem) aspect, there was the somewhat intermediate perfect: While
originally a derived imperfective resultative, in PII it already had acquired the special
status of an anterior relative tense − at least in its original present indicative that became
an anterior present indicative. For the other categories of the perfect stem, this is not
totally clear since they disappeared too early (for details cf. Kümmel 2000: 82−90).

Authenticated
The distinction between imperfective and perfective aspect is moribund outside the
indicative mood of the past in Vedic and Avestan, but formal reflexes presuppose a
former functional opposition which might have been present in PII (and perhaps still
was in Old Avestan). Even in the indicative, the functional difference was transformed
into a temporal one: in Vedic, the use of the imperfect was extended to narration in
perfective contexts of the more remote past, while the aorist was confined to the recent
past (Tichy 1997: 591 f.). This change can already have happened in PII, since we have
no clear Iranian evidence to the contrary (real augmented past tense forms are rare in
Avestan, and Old Persian has completely lost the aorist) − in fact, of the few attested
augmented indicatives in Avestan, all the imperfects refer to the remote past (Kellens
1984: 244−249), and all the aorists refer to the recent past (Tichy 1997: 596 n. 14).
However, Dahl (2010) has recently argued for a longer survival of the basic aspectual
function of the aorist and imperfect into Vedic.
6.2. Stem formation
Secondary stems (or affixes) are those that may not take further affixes and to which
endings can directly be added; they generally are markers of tense-aspect and mood.
Primary stems (or affixes) are those that may serve as a basis for secondary affixes
(tense-mood affixes); they generally signal aspectuality/Aktionsart. Zero affixation was
possible in both cases for the more basic categories (i.e. indicative, injunctive, and imper-
ative; present and aorist stems).
In ablauting stems (their subjunctives, being thematic, always aside), there is a general
principle governing the choice of strong or weak stem variants: The active singular is
stronger than the dual, plural and the whole middle, with the exception of the 2 sg.
imperative in *-d hi. But there are some special cases, where the stronger stem is used in
the domain of the weaker: a) In the 2 plural imperative. b) In the dual and plural of the
root aorist injunctive and indicative, except in the 3 pl. c) Likewise in all optatives.
d) In the whole indicative and injunctive of sigmatic aorists (the weaker stem is confined
to the moods and the participle). Kortlandt (1987) assumes that the lengthened grade
was originally confined to monosyllabic forms; in his view, Vedic injunctives like stóṣam
represent the old state of affairs. But these forms are too isolated to constitute valid
counterevidence against all attested Old Indo-Iranian forms of the indicative; they always
stand beside well-attested subjunctives and might be influenced by them (cf. Narten
1964: 276 f.; Kümmel 2012). e) In Vedic this holds also for the injunctive and preterit
plural of reduplicated presents and perfects, but the evidence is not sufficient to recon-
struct this for Indo-Iranian, let alone PIE, because the Avestan data are very limited. On
the one hand, 3 pl. present injunctive daidiiat̰ seems to show that reduplicated presents
were not treated as in Vedic. On the other hand, OAv. cikōitər əš has been interpreted as
a perfect injunctive (or “pluperfect”, Jasanoff 1997: 119 ff., 2003: 39 f.), but even its
character as a finite verb form has been disputed (cf. Kümmel 2000: 635 f.). f) In “pas-
sive” aorists, only the 3 sg. exhibits a strong stem with ā̆-grade, otherwise the normal
zero-grade of middle root aorists is used.
In PII ā̆-grade (i.e. PIE o-grade) had a limited distribution in the verbal system: it is
present only in reduplicated stems, especially perfects (in non-reduplicated *u̯ái̯ d-

Authenticated
‘know’ it cannot be recognized any more), the 3 sg. of the “passive” aorist, and the
causative in *-ái̯ a-. This means that all other possible PIE ablauting types with o-grade
(cf. Jasanoff 2003: 64 ff.; Kümmel 2004: 147 ff.) must have been lost, which is easy to
understand, since in any case they would have fallen together with other types in all or
most forms (especially in the weak stem that often had zero-grade ablaut). When *o fell
together with *e in all closed syllables, the differences became minimal, being confined
to strong stems ending in one consonant when a vocalic suffix or ending was added (i.e.
in the 1 sg. injunctive/preterit in -am). Therefore, we would not expect these ablaut
patterns to have survived in cases where they were not functionally motivated. Most
often such stems were replaced by other formations in PII, but sometimes they seem to
have been thematized (e.g. *i̯ át-a-, *sphər-á-, *tud-á-, cf. Kümmel 2004: 150 ff.).
Reduplication was well preserved as a means of stem formation (for a special discus-
sion cf. Kulikov 2005: 431 ff.). Normally, the first consonant of the root was reduplicat-
ed, followed by either *i (in the present) or *a (in some present stems and elsewhere).
Velars were replaced by the respective (secondary) palatals. When a root began with a
laryngeal, this led to a lengthening of the reduplication vowel and other irregularities,
e.g. *ha-hnánć- > *hānánć- ‘reach’; *Hǵa-Hgar- > *ǵāgár- ‘be awake’. The reduplica-
tion vowel was assimilated to the root vowel, if the weak stem contained syllabic *ī̆ or
*ū̆. Thus, the original difference between *i and *a could not be upheld everywhere.
This “simple” reduplication had been strongly grammaticalized in PII. Therefore
iconicity was strengthened by “full” reduplication in the so-called “intensive” with its
strong repetitive function: Here not only the first consonant of the root was copied, but
also the first consonant of the root coda appeared after the reduplication vowel *a, e.g.
*dai̯ ć- → *dái̯ -dai̯ ć- ~ *dái̯ -dić- ‘to show’. When the root ended in a plosive or affricate,
the resulting cluster was simplified with lengthening of the reduplication vowel, e.g. *kać-
→ *ḱáć-kać- → *ḱā́-kać-.
In PII, athematic stems could easily be thematized because of the formal identity of
some terminations, esp. the 3 pl. active *-an(ti) < *-ent(i) = *-ont(i). This led to an
increase of simple thematic stems, esp. in the aorist, but also to secondary thematic stem
types, e.g. nasal-infixed *kr̥-n-t-á-. This younger tendency should not be confused with
the older, pre-PII thematization claimed by Jasanoff (2003: 96 ff., 122 ff., 128 ff.) for a
large number of cases, e.g. some presents in *-i̯ a- vs. athematic i-stems in Anatolian, or
the thematic reduplicated type as a whole.
6.2.1. Primary stems
The present stem was used for the following categories: present indicative, imperfect
indicative (= present preterit), present injunctive, present subjunctive, present optative,
present imperative.
The traditionally defined secondary categories “future”, “desiderative” (rather a pro-
spective according to Heenen 2006), “intensive”, “causative”, and “passive” were in fact
special, productive present stems that did not have an aorist or perfect of their own
(except the “passive” aorist). Even in the “normal” present, the variation in stem forma-
tion was great. In the following presentation, the classification according to Bartholomae
(1894: 67−84) and Emmerick (1968: 178) is given in brackets:

Authenticated
1. Athematic, root with mobile accent (B1, E-Ia):

3C *CáRC- ~ CR̥C-: *(H)ás- ~ (H)s- ‘be’ (cf. Table 111.6), *(H)ái̯ - ~ (H)i-/i̯ - ‘go’,
*ǵ hán- ~ g hn-/g ha(n)- ‘beat, kill’, *mráu̯H- ~ mrū- ‘speak’; middle *sū́- ‘give birth’;
“passive” *d huǵ h- ‘yield (milk)’, *ćru- ‘be heard’.
1bC *Cā́- ~ Cā-: *pā́- ~ pā- ‘protect’, *u̯ā́- ~ u̯ā- ‘blow’
2. Athematic, root with fixed accent (B4, E-Id; “Narten present”):
5aA *Cā́RC- ~ CáRC- (later → Cā́RC- ~ CR̥C-): *tā́tć- ~ tátć- ‘fashion’, *stā́u̯- ~
stáu̯- ‘praise’, *krā́mH- ~ *krámH- ‘step, walk’ (cf. Kümmel 1998: 193 f.); middle
*Háuǵ- ‘speak (solemnly)’; “passive” *Hā́s- ‘sit’, *ćái̯ - ‘lie’ (cf. Table 111.7), *stáu̯-
‘be praised’, *u̯ás- ‘wear’.
1bA *ćā́s- ‘instruct’ (< *ćā́Hs- ~ *ćáHs-)
3. Thematic, root in a-grade (B2, E-Ib):
1bA *CáRC-a-: *b hár-a- ‘bring, bear’, *háȷ́-a- ‘drive’, *ḱár-a- ‘move around’,
*nái̯ -a- ‘lead’ (cf. Table 111.9).
4. Thematic, root in ā-grade (B4, E-Id)?:
1cA *Cā́RC-a- (?): doubtful, since all cases might be based on post-PII thematiciza-
tion (cf. Kümmel 1998: 193 f. on *krā́m-a-).
5. Thematic, root in Ø-grade (B3, E-Ic; “aorist present”):
1aB *CR̥C-á-: *u̯ić-á- ‘enter, settle’, *sphər-á- ‘kick’, *sr̥ȷ́-á- ‘let go’.
6. Athematic, reduplicated (B5, E-IIa):
3C/3A *Ci-CáRC- ~ Ci-CR̥C- (→ *Cí-°): *b hib hár- ~ *b hib hr̥-/*b hib hr- ‘bear’;
*Hii̯ ár- ~ *Hii̯ ər-/Hīr- ‘rouse, move’; “passive” *HiHić- ‘be master’.
3A *Cá-CaC- ~ Cá-CC-: *d hád hā-/d hád haH- ~ d hád hH(ь)- ‘put’, *sásaḱ- ~ sásḱ-
‘follow’. The distinction between these two subtypes (LIV2: 16; Tichy 2006b: 113 f.)
is controversial (cf. Jasanoff 2003: 66 f.; Kulikov 2005: 437 f.); in any case, the
latter seems to have been confined to roots in °ā- or °aT- in PII.
7. Thematic, reduplicated, root in Ø-grade (B6, E-IIb):
1aA *Cí-CR̥C-a-: **sí-zd-a- > *sī́d-a- ‘sit down’, *stí-šth-a- ‘stand (up)’, *pí-b-a-
‘drink’.
8. Athematic, full reduplication (B7, E-IIc; “intensive”):
3A *CáR-CaRC- ~ CáR-CR̥C-: *ḱár-kar- ~ ḱár-kər- ‘celebrate, praise’, *dár-dar- ~
dár-dr̥- ‘burst’; *dái̯ -dai̯ ć- ~ *dái̯ -dić- ‘show’
*Cā́-CaT- ~ Cā́-CaT-: *ḱā́-kać- ‘appear’.
9. Thematic suffix *-i̯ á-, full reduplication, root in Ø-grade (B29; “intensive”)
1aB *CaR-CR̥C-i̯ á-: *nai̯ -niȷ́-i̯ á- ‘wash’.
10. Athematic, nasal infix (B8, E-IIIa):
3C *CR̥-ná-C-/CR̥-n-C-: *i̯ u-ná-ǵ- ~ i̯ u-n-ǵ- ‘yoke’, *u̯i-ná-d- ~ u̯i-n-d- ‘find’,
*ri-ná-ḱ- ~ ri-n-ḱ- ‘leave’.
11. Thematic, nasal infix (B9, E-IIIa):
1aB *CR̥-n-C-á-: *kr̥-n-t-á- ‘cut’, *si-n-ḱ-á- ‘pour’. Thematicized from preceding,
but in contrast to the other nasal presents, this was already PII.
12. Athematic, nasal infix → suffix (B11, E-IIIb):
3C **CR̥C-ná-H- ~ CR̥C-n-H- > *CR̥C-nā́- ~ CR̥C-n(ь)H-: *gr̥b h-nā́- ~ gr̥b h-n(ь)H-
‘seize’; *ȷ́ā-nā́- ~ ȷ́ā-n(ь)H- ‘recognize, know’ (originally from roots in final *H,
but sometimes extended). Cf. type (26).
13. Athematic, nasal suffix *-nu- (B10, E-IIIc):
3C *CR̥C-náu̯- ~ CR̥C-nu-: *kr̥-náu̯- ~ kr̥-nu- ‘make’, *Hać-náu̯- ~ Hać-nu- ‘reach’,
*ma-náu̯- ~ ma-nu- ‘remember, think of’.

Authenticated
14. Thematic suffix *-sćá-, root in Ø-grade (B14, E-IVa):

1aB *CR̥(C)-sćá-: *ga-sćá- ‘come’, *Hi(š)-sćá- ‘seek’, *pr̥(ć)-sćá- ‘ask’.
15. Thematic suffix *-i̯ a-, root in a-grade (B26, E-Vb):
1bA *Cá(R)C-i̯ a-: *Hás-i̯ a- ‘throw, shoot’, *náć-i̯ a- ‘disappear’, *pád-i̯ a- ‘fall’,
*gā́-i̯ a- ‘sing’, *mán-i̯ a- ‘think’.
16. Thematic suffix *-i̯ a-, root in Ø-grade (B27 f., E-Vc):
1aA *CŔ̥C-i̯ a-: *d hrúǵ h-i̯ a- ‘deceive’, *u̯ŕ̥ȷ́-i̯ a- ‘work’, *b húd h-i̯ a- ‘awake, notice’.
1aB *CR̥(C)-i̯ á- (passive): *kr̥-i̯ á- ‘be made’.
17. Thematic suffix *-ai̯ a-, root in Ø-grade (B24, E-Va):
1aB *CR̥C-ái̯ a-: *sćad-ái̯ a- ‘seem, appear’, *kš-ái̯ a- ‘rule’.
18. Thematic suffix *-ai̯ a-, root in ā̆-grade (B30, E-Ve; iterative/causative):
1bB/1cB CaRC-/Cā̆C-ái̯ a-: *d hār-ái̯ a- ‘hold’, *u̯ād h-ái̯ a- ‘lead’
→ productive causative: *gām-ái̯ a- ‘let come’, *b haud h-ái̯ a- ‘wake’, *rauḱ-ái̯ a-
‘make shine’, *sćand-ái̯ a- ‘make appear’, *ćrāu̯-ái̯ a- ‘make hear’.
19. Thematic suffix *-u̯a-, root in Ø-grade (B20):
1aA *CŔ̥C-u̯a-: *ǵī́-u̯a- ‘live’, *tə́r-u̯a- ‘overcome’.
20. Thematic suffix *-Sa-, root in a-grade (B15; “voluntative”, cf. Tichy 2006a: 311 ff.):
1bA *CáRC-Sa-: *b hák-ša- ‘distribute’, *náć-ša- ‘reach’.
21. Thematic suffix *-Sa-, reduplication, root in Ø-grade (B16; “desiderative”):
1aA *Cí-CR̥C-/-CəR-Sa-: *ǵí-ǵī-ša- ‘wish to win’, *ćú-ćrū-ša- ‘wish to hear’.
1aA *Cí-CC-Sa- > CíC-Sa-: *tí-k-ša- ‘wish to run’.
22. Thematic suffix *-Si̯ á-, root in a-grade (B17; “preparative” > future, cf. Tichy 2006a:
307 f.):
1bB *Ca(R)C-/CaRH(ь)-Si̯ á-: *u̯ak-ši̯ á- ‘be about to say’, *kar-H(ь)ši̯ á- ‘be about
to make’.
23. Thematic suffix *-āi̯ á-, root in Ø-grade (B23):
1aB *Cr̥C-āi̯ á-: *gr̥b h-āi̯ á- ‘seize’, *dam-āi̯ á- ‘tame’. This type seems to be derived
from type (15) above: *-n̥H-i̯ á- > *-aHi̯ á- > *-āi̯ á- (cf. Schrijver 1999: 115 ff.).
24. Thematic suffix *-ani̯ á-, root in Ø-grade (B13):
1aB *Cr̥C-ani̯ á-: *(H)iš-ani̯ á- ‘impel’. This type has been explained as a by-form
to the preceding, and both have been compared to Hittite -anni- (Jasanoff 2003:
122 ff.).
The aorist stem was used for the following categories: aorist indicative (= preterit), aorist
injunctive, aorist subjunctive, aorist optative, aorist imperative. The variation in stem
formation was much more limited than in the present. In PII, the most notable develop-
ment was the thematization of root aorists that could easily have begun with the 3 pl. in
*-án reanalyzed as *-á-n, particularly if there were additional reasons not to preserve
the root inflection (cf. Kümmel 1998: 201 ff.).
1. Athematic, root with mobile accent (B1):
3C CáRC- ~ CR̥C-: *ḱár- ~ kr̥-/kr- ‘make’ (cf. Table 111.8), *ǵám- ~ gm-/ga(m)-
‘come’, *d hā́-/d háH- ~ d hH- ‘put’, *dárć- ~ dr̥ć- ‘see’, *ćráu̯- ~ ćru- ‘hear’, *i̯ áu̯ǵ-
~ i̯ uǵ- ‘yoke’, *g hráb hH- ~ *g hr̥b hH- ‘seize’; middle *dr̥- ~ dár- ‘hold’, *mn-/ma(n)-
~mán- ‘get an idea, think of’, *u̯ər- ~ u̯ár- ‘choose’
1aC *b hū́-/b húu̯- ~ b hū- ‘become’
1bC *krámH- ~ kram(H)- ‘stride’; middle *Har- ~ Hár- ‘move’ (for accent cf. Vedic
arāṇá-).

Authenticated
2. Athematic, root with fixed accent (B4, E-Id; “Narten aorist”)?:

5aA *Cā́RC- ~ CáRC-: *i̯ ā́m- ~ *i̯ ám- ‘extend, hold’?
The reconstruction of this type for the aorist (cf. Peters 1980: 313 f.; Tremblay 2003:
152 f. n. 176, 2005: 637 ff.) is very controversial (cf. Harðarson 1993: 72 ff.). The stem
mentioned here may be considered the best case for it within Indo-Iranian, since no
single attested form (except for the accentuation of the Vedic imperative yandhí) clearly
points to a “normal” root aorist; but even here, all these forms might be explained
differently (Narten 1964: 204 ff.). The existence of such a type would facilitate the expla-
nation of “acrostatic” root aorist optatives like *u̯anīt > Av. vainīt̰ (cf. Tremblay 1996c:
216 n. 10).
3. Athematic, root with mobile accent, “passive” (B1):
4bC CR̥C- with 3s CáRC/Cā́C- (ā̆-grade!): *ćrā́u̯- ~ ćru- ‘be heard’, *u̯ā́ḱ- ~ uḱ- ‘be
said, be called’, *ȷ́án(H)- ~ ȷ́an-/ȷ́ā- ‘be born’.
4. Thematic, root in Ø-grade, rarely a-grade (B3):
1aB CR̥C-á-: *u̯id-á- ‘find’, *ćH(i)š-á- ‘instruct’, *kć-á- ‘look’, *kš-á- ‘rule’.
1bB CaC-á-: *sad-á- ‘sit down’, *san-á- ‘conquer’, *Har-á- ‘reach, go to’, *tatć-á-
‘fashion’ (Vedic root accent in these cases may be secondary).
5. Athematic suffix -S-, fixed accent (“sigmatic”):
5aA Cā́RC-S- ~ CáRC-S-: *nā́i̯ -š- ~ nái̯ -š- ‘lead’ (cf. Table 111.10), *prā́ć-š- ~ práć-š-
‘ask’, *u̯ā́n-s- ~ u̯án-s- ‘win’, *sā́u̯H(ь)-š- ~ sáu̯H(ь)-š- ‘impel’; middle *mán-s-
‘think’.
In Vedic and Old Avestan, an active optative of this type does not occur; instead, root
aorist optatives are used; it is therefore not clear whether such optatives had the S-suffix
in PII or not (cf. the different positions of Hoffmann 1967b: 32 = 1976: 472 f.; Jasanoff
1991, 2003 vs. Harðarson 1993: 109−112).
6. Thematic, reduplicated, root in Ø-grade:
1aA Cá-CR̥C-a-: *u̯á-u̯ḱ-a- ‘say’, *ná-nć-a- ‘disappear’ (?).
An athematic reduplicated aorist is attested only in Indic, and all cases can go back to
older imperfects or pluperfects (cf. Kümmel 2000: 85 f.); thus, it seems to be an Indic
innovation.
The perfect stem was used for the following categories: perfect indicative, pluperfect
indicative (= perfect preterit), perfect injunctive, perfect subjunctive, perfect optative,
perfect imperative. Here there was only a single lexical exception from the one produc-
tive type:
1. Athematic, root with mobile accent:
*u̯ái̯ d- ~ *u̯id- ‘know’ (functionally a present stem!)
2. Athematic, reduplicated, mobile accent:
4bC Ca-CáRC- (ā̆-grade in 3s!) ~ Ca-CR̥C-: *ḱakár-/ḱakā́r- ~ *ḱakr- ‘have/has
made’, *dadárć- ~ dadr̥ć- ‘have/has seen’, *ǵigái̯ -/ǵigā́i̯ - ~ ǵiǵi- ‘have/has won’ (cf.
Table 111.11), *ćućráu̯-/ćućrā́u̯- ~ *ćućru- ‘have/has heard’.
In the regular perfect, Indic shows a systematic redistribution of the “binding” vowel -i-
that originally arose from the vocalization of a laryngeal in certain roots (cf. Kümmel
2000: 24, 42 f., 50 f.). Since this vowel is generally missing in Iranian, we cannot say
whether this redistribution was already PII.

Authenticated
6.2.2. Secondary stems and affixes (tense-mood)
Indicative, Injunctive, Imperative: no affix (distinguished only by different endings).

Preterit (imperfect, aorist, pluperfect): Prefix (“augment”) *á-, attached to the injunc-
tive.
Optative: ablauting suffix *-i̯ ā́-/-ī- from ablauting stems with mobile accent, non-
ablauting *-ī- elsewhere after consonants, *-i̯ - after vowels (= from thematic stems).
Subjunctive: thematic vowel suffix *-a-/-ā- (ablauting stems took the variant with
full-grade root, though reduplicating stems partially took zero-grade). In Old Avestan,
thematic stems show hiatus between the stem vowel and the subjunctive suffix (since
the reconstruction of a laryngeal is not certain here, this hiatus is written with < ’ > in
the tables).
6.2.3. Participles
Present/aorist active: ablauting suffix *-ánt- ~ -at- (3C) from ablauting stems with mo-
bile accent, elsewhere non-ablauting *-at- (1aA) after consonants, *-nt- (1aA) after vow-
els (= from thematic stems).
Perfect active: ablauting suffix *-u̯ā́s-/*-u̯ás- ~ -úš- (4bB)
Middle: thematic suffix *-āná- (1aB) from ablauting stems with mobile accent, else-
where *-āna- (1aA) after consonants, *-mH(ь)na- (1aA) after vowels (= from thematic
stems); both go back to Pre-PII *-mHna- < PIE *-mh1no- (cf. Klingenschmitt 1975:
159−163).
6.2.4. Other nominal forms of the verb
PII had not yet developed a fully grammaticalized infinitive, but case forms (esp. datives)
of various verbal abstracts could be used in similar functions (as quasi-infinitives accord-
ing to García-Ramón 1997: 48), sometimes with formal peculiarities showing their extra-
paradigmatic status (e.g. Vedic śobháse instead of a regular dative *śóbhase). Two for-
mations may be mentioned as exhibiting the greatest similarity to an infinitive, since
they are derived from verbal stems and not directly from the root, and no other case
forms of the same stem are found: 1. *-d hi̯ āi̯ (a PII innovation, cf. García-Ramón 1997:
58 f.). 2. *-Sáni (not attested in Iranian but comparable to Greek *-sen and therefore
perhaps inherited, García-Ramón 1997: 62 ff.).
The verbal root itself could be used as a verbal noun, as could many derivative
formations. Of these, the two agentive noun suffixes *-tā́r- and *ˊ-tār- (on the distinction
cf. Tichy 1995: 220 ff.) are remarkable for being rather closely connected to the verb.
Verbal adjectives could be formed directly from the root. The most important was
the resultative in *-tá- or (much rarer) *-ná- that later became the basis of the periphras-
tic past tenses. Adjectives of necessity and possibility were formed by the suffixes
*-(t)i̯ a- and *-ii̯ a- (cf. Rubio Orecilla 1995).

Authenticated
6.3. Personal endings (see Table 111.5)
As in other IE languages, beside the special imperative endings, two sets of endings
were used: “primary” (PE) and “secondary” (SE). The first set was employed in the
present indicative (including the future indicative as an old present), the other every-
where else. In the subjunctive, both sets were mixed, and in some forms both were
possible. Perhaps these alternatives indicated some functional differences, but we cannot
recognize these any more from the texts (cf. Tichy 2006a: 191 f.).
6.3.1. Active
The active endings closely correspond to those of other IE languages. The 2 pl. PE *-thá
might be explained as an analogical innovation that took its aspiration from the 2 du.
(perhaps motivated by the desire to distinguish the present from the injunctive), but since
the PIE form of this ending is disputed, it might be old. In the 3 pl., there was an ablaut
difference: the stressed form in *-án(ti/u) was used in stems with mobile stress; other-
wise, *-at(i/u) was used after consonants and *-n(ti/u) after vowels.
In the 3 sg. active SE, the normal ending in Vedic and Avestan is *-t/d, but Old
Persian has only -š and probably also *-h, and such an ending is also found in the
Rigvedic root aorist optative (“precative”) in -yā́s (from which a suffix -yās- was creat-
ed). This is normally explained as taken over from the 2 sg. by analogy to instances
where both forms fell together. However, this type of analogy appears to be unmotivated
and even counter to the general trend in Vedic where a distinction between 2 sg. and 3
sg. was frequently reintroduced, e.g. 3 sg. -īt for expected *-īṣ in s-aorists to roots ending
in laryngeals or 2 sg. forms like ayās ‘you have sacrificed’ for ayāṭ; after the Rigveda,
also “precative” 3 sg. -yās was replaced by -yāt.
The perfect had special endings for its indicative and the 3 pl. non-present only, but
elsewhere it took the ordinary endings of the active (for details, see Kümmel 2000:
42 ff.). Most of these endings are inherited. The 1 du. and pl. seem to agree with the
respective non-perfect SE, but the frequent 1 pl. -mā́ in Vedic has been taken as old and
reflecting a special perfect ending *-meH (see, e.g., Jasanoff 2003: 32) − but contrary
to other claims, the distribution of long vowel variants points to a general phenomenon
not confined to this form: the preponderance of lengthening in perfect forms of the 1
sg., 1+2 pl. (Arnold 1905: 112) could have a rhythmical basis, since the preceding
syllable often was short in these forms in contrast to other verbal forms ending in °a
(cf. Wackernagel 1896: 312), including the 2+3 sg. perfect, the 1 pl. optative, and most
forms of the 1 pl. imperfect and aorist. A 2 pl.*-á is not directly supported anywhere
else, but it can hardly be an innovation (Kümmel 2000: 56; Jasanoff 2003: 32).
In the 3 pl., *-r̥ is clearly reflected by Avestan -ar < *-r̥, and, according to Kümmel
(2000: 44−47), also by Vedic -ur. But the latter is widely held to presuppose *-r̥š (cf.
Jasanoff 2003: 32 f.); if so, Vedic would have generalized *-r̥š. According to Jasanoff
(2003: 33 with fn. 13) a former 3 pl. PII *-ar (as reflected in Avestan) was also the
source of the “union vowel” *-a- in the 3 du. and 2 du. But *-a- could have been taken
from any other perfect ending, esp. from the 2 pl. *-á. A “secondary” ending without
*-š is attested only once by 3 pl. YAv. hiiār ə vs. normal -iiār əš, but this form cannot

Authenticated
Tab. 111.5: PII verbal endings

“Primary” “Secondary” Imperative
(present) (non-present)
Active
Sg. 1. *-mi / -:(mi) *-(a)m −
2. *-Si *-S *-Ø ~ -d hí
3. *-ti *-d ~ *-S *-tu
Du. 1. *-u̯ás(i) *-u̯á −
2. *-thás *-tám *-tám
3. *-tás *-tā́ m *-tā́ m
Pl. 1. *-más(i) *-má −
2. *-thá(na) *-tá(na) *-ta ~ -tá
3. *-ánti ~ -ati/-nti *-án ~ -ad/-n *-ántu ~ -atu/-ntu
Perfect active
Sg. 1. *-a −
2. *-tha −
3. *-a *-S?
Du. 1. *-u̯á −
2. *-áthr̥ −
3. *-átr̥ −
Pl. 1. *-má −
2. *-á −
3. *-ŕ̥ *-ŕ̥(š)/-ā́ r?
Middle
Sg. 1. *-ái̯ /-i̯ *-í ~ -á −
2. *-Sái̯ *-thā́ s ~ -Sá *-Su̯á
3. *-tái̯ *-tá *-tā́ m
3. “passive” *-ái̯ *-á(d) ~ -i *-ā́ m
Du. 1. *-u̯ád hai̯ *-u̯ád hi −
2. *-ā́ thai̯ /-i̯ thai̯ *-ā́ thām/-i̯ thām *-ā́ thām/-i̯ thām
3. *-ā́ tai̯ /-i̯ tai̯ *-ā́ tām/-i̯ tām *-ā́ tām/-i̯ tām
Pl. 1. *-mád hai̯ *-mád hi −
2. *-d hu̯ái̯ *-d hu̯á(m) *-d hu̯á(m)
3. *-atái̯ /-ntai̯ *-atá/-nta *-atā́ m/-ntām
3. “passive” *-(ā)rái̯ *-(ā)rá(m) *-(ā)rā́ m

Authenticated
easily be explained away (de Vaan 2003: 563 f.). Thus, the evidence for a specific func-
tional contrast between “primary” *-r̥ and “secondary” *-r̥š, as assumed by Jasanoff
(2003: 33 f., 39 f.; cf. Kümmel 2000: 57) is not as clear-cut as we might wish. However,
the probable existence of a 3 sg. “secondary” ending -S (see above) lends support to a
3 pl. *-r-S.
According to Tremblay (2006: 265), a variant *-ār is attested by the Avestan optatives
in -ii-ār ə, -ii-ār əš from *-ii̯ -ār(š) (cf. Kellens 1984: 188, 296) from PIE *-ih1-eh1r(s).
The longer variant *-ār(š) in Iranian would then be parallel to middle *-āra(i̯ ) (cf. 6.3.2),
and the ending could be compared with Hittite -ēr. But normally, -iiār ə(š) is analysed as
*-i̯ ā-r(š) with secondary full-grade of the suffix (see, e.g., Harðarson 1993: 122 with fn.
102; Jasanoff 2003: 186 n. 26), just as in the by-form -iiąn < *-i̯ ān where an old ending
variant is impossible and the intrusion of the full grade suffix into the 3 pl. is thus
proven. Tremblay (2006: 265 with fn. 21) derives -iiąn from *-ii̯ ən < *-ii̯ -an (as in
thematic -aiiən) and cites two forms in -iiə̆n to support this. But vasō.x́iiəˉn is not a finite
verb (de Vaan 2003: 563), and alleged +baβriiən is a conjecture certainly inferior to
+
baβriiąn (for baβriiąm mss.). An athematic form in *-ii̯ an is actually attested for the
perfect in YAv. +daiδīn (Hoffmann 1976: 606 f. n. 1), but this does not prove that -iiąn
must equally go back to *-ii̯ ən. So it still presupposes an intrusion of the full-grade
suffix into the 3 pl., and likewise, we might explain -iiā-r əš.
6.3.2. Middle
The endings labelled “passive” were used only in non-transitive uses or in the perfect,
esp. in the “passive” aorist and present forms (mostly or exclusively from root stems)
sometimes called “statives” (cf. Kümmel 1996; Bruno 2005: 45 ff.; Kulikov 2006). Opin-
ions about the interpretation of these variant endings are divided: Some consider them
just archaic variants of the ordinary middle endings (perhaps secondarily exploited for
“non-primary” functions according to Kuryłowicz’s 4 th law of analogy, cf. Watkins 1969:
88), others assume an original functional difference similar to that between the perfect
and the “ordinary” active (see, e.g., Kümmel 1996: 9 ff.; Tremblay 2006: 260 ff.). In any
case, it is clear that the whole set of 3 rd person endings varied, at least lexically. The
same contrast may be reflected by the variation between Indic *-thās and Iranian *-Sa
in the 2 sg. SE, but obviously here the distinction was no longer functionally alive in
late PII.
PII used the active primary marker *-i also in the middle, in agreement with Greek,
Albanian, Armenian, and Germanic, while others (esp. Anatolian and Tocharian) have
an independent middle primary marker *-r. The question of which of these served as the
original PIE marker of this category is a matter of great dispute, but in any case the
respective innovation would be dialectal IE. In PII, the dual and the 1 and 2 pl. PE’s
were remodelled from the SE’s and took over *-ai̯ from the other PE’s; a similar innova-
tion seems to have happened in Albanian (cf. Klingenschmitt 1994: 226). The secondary
ending *-i of the 1 sg. middle and 3 sg. “passive” presents some problems. Both have
been explained as continuing a PIE ending *-h2 (cf. Kortlandt 1981; García-Ramón 1985
or, resp., Schmidt 1997: 557 f.), but the evidence for such an ending in the middle is not
really compelling, and the expected ending *-a (from *-h2e/*h2o or, resp.,*-o) is attested

Authenticated
in II for other categories. In the 1 sg., *-i might have been created by analogy after 1 pl.
*-mad hai̯ : *-mad hi = *-ai̯ : X → X = *-i (Harðarson 1993: 51), replacing older *-a that
only remained for phonetic reasons after *ī/i̯ in the optative. In the 3 sg. “passive”, this
analogy would not work, since *-i is used in the aorist only where an analogy with PE’s
is not possible. But a transfer from the 1 sg. to the 3 sg. might be explained by analogy
after the older system with a SE *-a for both persons which was preserved in the opta-
tive − in the present the transfer was blocked by the presence of the PE *-ai̯ in analogy
to non-passive *-tai̯ : *-ta.
In the 2 pl. and in the 3 pl. “passive” SE, the variants without an added nasal are not
attested in Avestan and Early Vedic, but a 3 pl. in -ra occurs in Middle Vedic (Kümmel
1996: 6 f.), and Choresmian -ββa, -(ā)ra seem to presuppose *-du̯a, *-ra (Tremblay
2006: 278, 281).
The 2 and 3 du. endings constitute a special system in which the *-th-/*-t- correspond
to the active PE, and *-am/-ām correspond to the active SE. But the vowel preceding
the dental is enigmatic: in the athematic endings *-ā- does not fit thematic *-i̯ - (while
the opposite distribution *-i- / *-ā- might be explained by a laryngeal suffix).
In the athematic 3 pl. non-passive, the variation differed from the active: while the-
matic stems had *-nta(−), athematic stems normally had *-ata(−). The accentuation of
*-ata(−) is not altogether clear: while -áte is regular in later Vedic, in the RV -até is
more frequent and looks like an archaism, so it has a better chance to represent the PII
accentuation. This points to an older ending *-n̥t-ó(i̯ ) with accented *-ó as in all other
forms containing that middle sign, and this could explain why we find the zero grade
*-n̥t-. In contrast to Avestan, Vedic injunctives of athematic aorists and perfects show a
different ending -ánta (Hoffmann 1976: 362 f.) which has been taken as an archaism
attesting older *-ént-o for end-stressed paradigms; consequently, PII would have general-
ized *-at(−) from paradigms with initial stress except in the injunctive (Harðarson 1993:
50, 53). But such a generalization is difficult to motivate (esp. since nothing comparable
happened in the active), and the distribution is not explained. Thus, we might envisage
a Vedic innovation, and in fact, it is clear that -anta was the only 3pl middle subjunctive
termination in Early Vedic and ousted all other variants (cf. Tichy 2006a: 193 f.). There-
fore, inj. -anta might be rebuilt or influenced from active *-an.
In Iranian only, the “passive” 3rd-person endings can have longer forms *-ārai̯ (cf.
YAv. -ā ire, Khot. -āre, Chor. -’r ~ -’ry- /-āri/, Yaghn. -or) and *-āra(m) (cf. Chor.
imperfect -’r /-āra/, Yaghn. -or [Tremblay 2006: 278], Khot. subj. -āru [Emmerick 1968:
203; 205 f.]). In fact, the shorter variants *-rai̯ , *-ra(m) are attested only in *ćai̯ rai̯ ‘they
lie’ (YAv. sōire/+saēre, Kümmel 1996: 151 f.), perfect *āfrai̯ (Khot. byaure, Emmerick
1968: 200; Kümmel 2000: 9, 622) and the optatives in *-ī-ra(m)/ *°ai-ra(m) (YAv.
vaozirəm, Khot. -īru, Chor. -yr /-īra/; cf. Emmerick 1968: 203, 209 f.). In Middle Iranian,
*-ā- might represent the thematic vowel generalized in nearly all paradigms. Certainly
it does so in the subjunctive. In the indicative, *-ā- would be regular from old *-o-ro(−),
but as younger replacements of *-anta(−) we would rather expect *-ara(−). Such the-
matic forms with short a are attested in Early Middle Indo-Aryan -are, probably a young-
er replacement of -ire (Kümmel 1996: 5 n. 23). But in Avestan (as in Vedic), there seem
to be no cases of “passive” endings used with thematic stems, and the three attested
forms definitely belong to athematic stems (cf. Kümmel 1996: 144 f., 147 f., 149). The
younger intrusion of *-ārai̯ into thematic paradigms could well have originated in cases
where athematic middles became thematic, but the 3 pl. of such forms already looked

Authenticated
very much like it contained the thematic vowel; and thus, a new type sg. *-atai̯ ~ pl.
-ārai̯ arose and could provide a basis for the generalization of *-ārai̯ (Tremblay 2006:
281 ff.). Therefore *-ārai̯ cannot contain the thematic vowel; it has been interpreted as
containing a stative suffix *-eh1- (cf. Kümmel 1996: 6) otherwise not clearly attested in
Indo-Iranian or − more likely − as a blending of older active *-ār (= Hitt. -ēr) and
“middle” *-rai̯ , thus providing indirect Indo-Iranian evidence for PIE *-ēr (cf. Kümmel
2000: 58; Jasanoff 2003: 32 and cf. 6.3.1).
6.4. Paradigms of selected verb stems

Tab. 111.6: PII inflection of *(H)ás- ‘be’, root present
Active indicative imperfect imperative optative subjunctive
Sg. 1. *(H)ás-mi *(H)á(H)as-am *s-i̯ ā́ -m *(H)ás-ā(ni)
h
2. *(H)ás-i *(H)á(H)as-Ø *s-d í *s-i̯ ā́ -s *(H)ás-a-s(i)
3. *(H)ás-ti *(H)á(H)as-t *(H)ás-tu *s-i̯ ā́ -t *(H)ás-a-t(i)
Du. 1. *s-u̯ás(i) *(H)ā́ s-u̯a *s-i̯ ā́ -u̯a *(H)ás-ā-u̯a
2. *s-thás *(H)ā́ s-tam *s-tám *s-i̯ ā́ -tam *(H)ás-a-thas
3. *s-tás *(H)ā́ s-tām *s-tā́ m *s-i̯ ā́ -tām *(H)ás-a-tas
Pl. 1. *s-más(i) *(H)ā́ s-ma *s-i̯ ā́ -ma *(H)ás-ā-ma
2. *s-thá *(H)ā́ s-ta *s-tá *s-i̯ ā́ -ta *(H)ás-a-tha
3. *s-ánti *(H)ā́ s-an *s-ántu *s-iH-án *(H)ás-a-n(ti)
Tab. 111.7: PII inflection of *ćái̯ - ‘lie’, root present

Middle indicative imperfect injunctive imperative optative subjunctive
Sg. 1. *ćái̯ -ai̯ *á-ćai̯ -i *ćái̯ -i *ćái̯ -ī-Ha *ćái̯ -a-Hai̯
2. *ćái̯ -šai̯ *á-ćai̯ -thās *ćái̯ -thās *ćái̯ -šu̯a *ćái̯ -ī-thās *ćái̯ -a-sai̯
3. *ćái̯ -ai̯ *á-ćai̯ -a *ćái̯ -a *ćái̯ -ām *ćái̯ -ī(i̯ )-a *ćái̯ -a-tai̯
Du. 1. *ćái̯ -u̯ad hai̯ *á-ćai̯ -u̯ad hi *ćái̯ -u̯ad hi *ćái̯ -ī-u̯ad hi *ćái̯ -ā-u̯ad hai̯
2. *ćái̯ -āthai̯ *á-ćai̯ -āthām *ćái̯ -āthām *ćái̯ -āthām *ćái̯ -ī(i̯ )-āthām *ćái̯ -a-i̯ thai̯
3. *ćái̯ -ātai̯ *á-ćai̯ -ātām *ćái̯ -ātām *ćái̯ -ātām *ćái̯ -ī(i̯ )-ātām *ćái̯ -a-i̯ tai̯
Pl. 1. *ćái̯ -mad hai̯ *á-ćai̯ -mad hi *ćái̯ -mad hi *ćái̯ -ī-mad hi *ćái̯ -ā-mad hai̯
2. *ćái̯ -d hu̯ai̯ *á-ćai̯ -d hu̯a(m) *ćái̯ -d hu̯a(m) *ćái̯ -d hu̯a(m) *ćái̯ -ī-d hu̯a(m) *ćái̯ -a-d hu̯ai̯
3. *ćái̯ -rai̯ *á-ćai̯ -ra(m) *ćái̯ -ra(m) *ćái̯ -rā(m) *ćái̯ -ī-ra(m) *ćái̯ -a-nta(i̯ )

Authenticated
Tab. 111.8: PII inflection of *ḱár-/kr̥- ‘make’, root aorist

Active indicative injunctive imperative optative subjunctive
Sg. 1. *á-ḱar-am *ḱár-am *kr̥-i̯ ā́ -m *ḱár-ā(ni)
h
2. *á-ḱar-š *ḱár-š *kr̥-d í *kr̥-i̯ ā́ -s *ḱár-a-s(i)
3. *á-ḱar-t *ḱár-t *ḱár-tu *kr̥-i̯ ā́ -s *ḱár-a-t(i)
Du. 1. *á-ḱar-u̯a *ḱár-u̯a *kr̥-i̯ ā́ -u̯a *ḱár-ā-u̯a
2. *á-ḱar-tam *ḱár-tam *ḱár-tam/*kr̥-tám *kr̥-i̯ ā́ -tam *ḱár-a-thas
3. *á-ḱar-tām *ḱár-tām *ḱár-tām/*kr̥-tā́ m *kr̥-i̯ ā́ -tām *ḱár-a-tas
Pl. 1. *á-ḱar-ma *ḱár-ma *kr̥-i̯ ā́ -ma *ḱár-ā-ma
2. *á-ḱar-ta *ḱár-ta *ḱár-ta/kr̥-tá *kr̥-i̯ ā́ -ta *ḱár-a-tha
3. *á-kr-an *kr-án *kr-ántu *kr-ii̯ -án *ḱár-a-n(ti)
Middle indicative injunctive imperative optative subjunctive

Sg. 1. *á-kr-i *kr-í *kr-ī-Há *ḱár-a-Hai̯
2. *á-kr̥-ša *kr̥-šá *kr̥-šu̯á *kr-ī-šá *ḱár-a-sai̯
3. *á-kr̥-ta *kr̥-tá *kr̥tā́ m *kr-ī-tá *ḱár-a-tai̯
Du. 1. *á-kr̥-u̯ad hi *kr̥-u̯ád hi *kr-ī-u̯ád hi *ḱár-ā-u̯ad hai̯
2. *á-kr-āthām *kr-ā́ thām *kr-ā́ thām *kr-ī(i̯ )-ā́ thām *ḱár-a-i̯ thai̯
3. *á-kr-ātām *kr-ā́ tām *kr-ā́ tām *kr-ī(i̯ )-ā́ tām *ḱár-a-i̯ tai̯
Pl. 1. *á-kr̥-mad hi *kr̥-mád hi *kr-ī-mád hi *ḱár-ā-mad hai̯
2. *á-kr̥-d hu̯a(m) *kr̥-d hu̯á(m) *kr̥-d hu̯á(m) *kr-ī-d hu̯á(m) *ḱár-a-d hu̯ai̯
3. *á-kr-ata *kr-atá (?) *kr-atā́ m *kr-ī-rá(m) *ḱár-a-nta(i̯ )
“passive” indicative injunctive imperative

Sg. 3 *á-kār-i *kā́ r-i *kr-ā́ m?
Pl. 3 *á-kr̥-ra(m) *kr̥-rá(m) *kr̥-rā́ m
Tab. 111.9: PII inflection of *nái̯ -a- ‘lead’, thematic present

Active indicative imperfect injunctive imperative optative subjunctive
Sg. 1. *nái̯ ā-mi *á-nai̯ a-m *nái̯ a-m *nái̯ a-(i̯ )i̯ -am *nái̯ a-’ā(ni)
2. *nái̯ a-si *á-nai̯ a-s *nái̯ a-s *nái̯ a-Ø *nái̯ a-i̯ -š *nái̯ a-’a-s(i)
3. *nái̯ a-ti *á-nai̯ a-t *nái̯ a-t *nái̯ a-tu *nái̯ a-i̯ -t *nái̯ a-’a-t(i)
Du. 1. *nái̯ ā-u̯as(i) *á-nai̯ ā-u̯a *nái̯ ā-u̯a *nái̯ a-i̯ -u̯a *nái̯ a-’ā-u̯a
2. *nái̯ a-thas *á-nai̯ a-tam *nái̯ a-tam *nái̯ a-tam *nái̯ a-i̯ -tam *nái̯ a-’a-thas
3. *nái̯ a-tas *á-nai̯ a-tām *nái̯ a-tām *nái̯ a-tām *nái̯ a-i̯ -tām *nái̯ a-’a-tas

Authenticated

Active indicative imperfect injunctive imperative optative subjunctive
Pl. 1. *nái̯ ā-mas(i) *á-nai̯ ā-ma *nái̯ ā-ma *nái̯ a-i̯ -ma *nái̯ a-’ā-ma
2. *nái̯ a-tha *á-nai̯ a-ta *nái̯ a-ta *nái̯ a-ta *nái̯ a-i̯ -ta *nái̯ a-’a-tha
3. *nái̯ a-nti *á-nai̯ a-n *nái̯ a-n *nái̯ a-ntu *nái̯ a-(i̯ )i̯ -at *nái̯ a-’a-n(ti)
Middle indicative imperfect injunctive imperative optative subjunctive

Sg. 1. *nái̯ a-i̯ *á-nai̯ a-i̯ *nái̯ a-i̯ *nái̯ a-(i̯ )i̯ -a *nái̯ a-’a-Hai̯
2. *nái̯ a-sai̯ *á-nai̯ a-sa *nái̯ a-sa *nái̯ a-su̯a *nái̯ a-i̯ -ša *nái̯ a-’a-sai̯
3. *nái̯ a-tai̯ *á-nai̯ a-ta *nái̯ a-ta *nái̯ a-tām *nái̯ a-i̯ -tá *nái̯ a-’a-tai̯
h h h
Du. 1. *nái̯ ā- *á-nai̯ ā-u̯ad i *nái̯ ā-u̯ad i *nái̯ a-i̯ -u̯ad i *nái̯ a-’ā-
u̯ad hai̯ u̯ad hai̯
2. *nái̯ a-i̯ thai̯ *á-nai̯ a-i̯ thām *nái̯ a-i̯ thām *nái̯ a-i̯ thām *nái̯ a-i̯ -āthām *nái̯ a-’a-i̯ thai̯
3. *nái̯ a-i̯ tai̯ *á-nai̯ a-i̯ tām *nái̯ a-i̯ tām *nái̯ a-i̯ tām *nái̯ a-i̯ -ātām *nái̯ a-’a-i̯ tai̯
h h h
Pl. 1. *nái̯ ā- *á-nai̯ ā-mad i *nái̯ ā-mad i *nái̯ a-i̯ -mad i *nái̯ a-
mad hai̯ ’ā-mad hai̯
2. *nái̯ a-d hu̯ai̯ *á-nai̯ a-d hu̯a(m) *nái̯ a-d hu̯a(m) *nái̯ a-d hu̯a(m) *nái̯ a-i̯ -d hu̯a(m) *nái̯ a-’a-d hu̯ai̯
3. *nái̯ a-ntai̯ *á-nai̯ a-nta *nái̯ a-nta *nái̯ a-ntām *nái̯ a-i̯ -ra(m) *nái̯ a-’a-nta(i̯ )
Tab. 111.10: PII inflection of *nā́ i̯ -š- ‘lead’, sigmatic aorist

Active indicative injunctive imperative optative subjunctive
Sg. 1. *á-nāi̯ -š-am *nā́ i̯ -š-am *nái̯ -(š)-ī-m *nái̯ -š-ā(ni)
2. *á-nāi̯ -š-Ø *nā́ i̯ -š-Ø *nái̯ -š-i *nái̯ -(š)-ī-š *nái̯ -š-a-s(i)
3. *á-nāi̯ -š-t *nā́ i̯ -š-t *nái̯ -(š)-ī-š *nái̯ -š-a-t(i)
Du. 1. *á-nāi̯ -š-u̯a *nā́ i̯ -š-u̯a *nái̯ -(š)-ī-u̯a *nái̯ -š-ā-u̯a
2. *á-nāi̯ -š-tam *nā́ i̯ -š-tam *nái̯ -(š)-ī-tam *nái̯ -š-a-thas
3. *á-nāi̯ -š-tām *nā́ i̯ -š-tām *nái̯ -(š)-ī-tām *nái̯ -š-a-tas
Pl. 1. *á-nāi̯ -š-ma *nā́ i̯ -š-ma *nái̯ -(š)-ī-ma *nái̯ -š-ā-ma
2. *á-nāi̯ -š-ta *nā́ i̯ -š-ta *nái̯ -(š)-ī-ta *nái̯ -š-a-tha
3. *á-nāi̯ -š-at *nā́ i̯ -š-at *nái̯ -(š)-ii̯ -at *nái̯ -š-a-n(ti)

Sg. 1. *á-nai̯ -š-i *nái̯ -š-i *nái̯ -š-ī-Ha *nái̯ -š-a-Hai̯
2. *á-nai̯ -š-ša *nái̯ -š-ša *nái̯ -š-[š]u̯a *nái̯ -š-ī-ša *nái̯ -š-a-sai̯
3. *á-nai̯ -š-ta *nái̯ -š-ta *nái̯ -š-ī-ta *nái̯ -š-a-tai̯

Authenticated

h h h
Du. 1. *á-nai̯ -š-u̯ad i *nái̯ -š-u̯ad i *nái̯ -š-ī-u̯ad i *nái̯ -š-ā-u̯ad hai̯
2. *á-nai̯ -š-āthām *nái̯ -š-āthām *nái̯ -š-ī(i̯ )- *nái̯ -š-a-i̯ thai̯
āthām
3. *á-nai̯ -š-ātām *nái̯ -š-ātām *nái̯ -š-ī(i̯ )-ātām *nái̯ -š-a-i̯ tai̯
Pl. 1. *á-nai̯ -š-mad hi *nái̯ -š-mad hi *nái̯ -š-ī-mad hi *nái̯ -š-ā-
mad hai̯
2. *á-nai̯ -š-d hu̯a(m) *nái̯ -š-d hu̯a(m) *nái̯ -š-ī- *nái̯ -š-a-d hu̯ai̯
d hu̯a(m)
3. *á-nai̯ -š-ata *nái̯ -š-ata *nái̯ -š-ī-ra(m) *nái̯ -š-a-nta(i̯ )
Tab. 111.11: PII inflection of *ǵigái̯ -/ǵiǵi- ‘win’, perfect

Active indicative pluperfect injunctive imperative optative subjunctive
Sg. 1. *ǵigái̯ -a *á-ǵigai̯ -am *ǵigái̯ -am *ǵiǵi-i̯ ā́ -m *ǵigái̯ -ā(ni)
h
2. *ǵigái̯ -tha *á-ǵigai̯ -š *ǵigái̯ -š *ǵiǵi-d í *ǵiǵi-i̯ ā́ -s *ǵigái̯ -a-s(i)
3. *ǵigā́ i̯ -a *á-ǵigai̯ -t *ǵigái̯ -t *ǵigái̯ -tu *ǵiǵi-i̯ ā́ -t *ǵigái̯ -a-t(i)
Du. 1. *ǵiǵi-u̯á *á-ǵiǵi-u̯a *ǵiǵi-u̯á *ǵiǵi-i̯ ā́ -u̯a *ǵigái̯ -ā-u̯a
2. *ǵiǵi̯ -áthr̥ *á-ǵiǵi-tam *ǵiǵi-tám *ǵiǵi-tám *ǵiǵi-i̯ ā́ -tam *ǵigái̯ -a-thas
3. *ǵiǵi̯ -átr̥ *á-ǵiǵi-tām *ǵiǵi-tā́ m *ǵiǵi-tā́ m *ǵiǵi-i̯ ā́ -tām *ǵigái̯ -a-tas
Pl. 1. *ǵiǵi-má *á-ǵiǵi-ma *ǵiǵi-má *ǵiǵi-i̯ ā́ -ma *ǵigái̯ -ā-ma
2. *ǵiǵi̯ -á *á-ǵiǵi-ta *ǵiǵi-tá *ǵiǵi-tá *ǵiǵi-i̯ ā́ -ta *ǵigái̯ -a-tha
3. *ǵiǵi̯ -ŕ̥ *á-ǵiǵi̯ -r̥ *ǵiǵi̯ -r̥ ́ *ǵiǵi̯ -ántu *ǵiǵi̯ -ii̯ -ŕ̥š *ǵigái̯ -a-n(ti)
Middle indicative pluperfect injunctive imperative optative subjunctive

Sg. 1. *ǵiǵi̯ -ái̯ *á-ǵiǵi̯ -i *ǵiǵi̯ -í *ǵiǵi̯ -ī-Há *ǵigái̯ -a-Hai̯
2. *ǵiǵi-šái̯ *á-ǵiǵi-ša *ǵiǵi-šá *ǵiǵi-šu̯á *ǵiǵi̯ -ī-šá *ǵigái̯ -a-sai̯
3. *ǵiǵi̯ -ái̯ *á-ǵiǵi̯ -a *ǵiǵi̯ -á *ǵiǵi̯ -ā́ m *ǵiǵi̯ -ī(i̯ )-á *ǵigái̯ -a-tai̯
Du. 1. *ǵiǵi- *á-ǵiǵi-u̯ad hi *ǵiǵi-u̯ád hi *ǵiǵi̯ -ī-u̯ád hi *ǵigái̯ -ā-
u̯ád hai̯ u̯ad hai̯
2. *ǵiǵi̯ -ā́ thai̯ *á-ǵiǵi̯ -āthām *ǵiǵi̯ -ā́ thām *ǵiǵi̯ -ā́ thām *ǵiǵi̯ -ī(i̯ )-ā́ thām *ǵigái̯ -a-i̯ thai̯
3. *ǵiǵi̯ -ā́ tai̯ *á-ǵiǵi̯ -ātām *ǵiǵi̯ -ā́ tām *ǵiǵi̯ -ā́ tām *ǵiǵi̯ -ī(i̯ )-ā́ tām *ǵigái̯ -a-i̯ tai̯
h h
Pl. 1. *ǵiǵi- *á-ǵiǵi-mad i *ǵiǵi-mád i *ǵiǵi̯ -ī-mád hi *ǵigái̯ -ā-
mád hai̯ mad hai̯
2. *ǵiǵi-d hu̯ái̯ *á-ǵiǵi-d hu̯a(m) *ǵiǵi-d hu̯á(m) *ǵiǵi-d hu̯á(m) *ǵiǵi̯ -ī-d hu̯á(m) *ǵigái̯ -a-d hu̯ai̯
3. *ǵiǵi-rái̯ *á-ǵiǵi-ra(m) *ǵiǵi-rá(m) *ǵiǵi-rā́ m *ǵiǵi̯ -ī-rá(m) *ǵigái̯ -a-nta(i̯ )

Authenticated
7. References
Arnold, E. Vernon
1905 Vedic metre in its historical development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bartholomae, Christian
1894 I. Vorgeschichte der Iranischen Sprachen. In: Wilhelm Geiger and Ernst Kuhn (eds.),
Grundriß der iranischen Philologie. 1. Band, 1. Abteilung. Straßburg: Trübner, 1−151.
1988 A Grammar of Gatha-Avestan. Leiden: Brill.
Bruno, Carla
2005 Forme della sintassi media. Due studi sulla lingua del R̥gveda. Perugia: Guerra.
Cantera, Alberto
2007 The accusative of the i- and u-stems with presuffixal full or large grade in Avestan. In:
Maria Macuch, Mauro Maggi, and Werner Sundermann (eds.), Iranian languages and
texts from Iran and Turan, Ronald E. Emmerick memorial volume. (Iranica 13). Wies-
baden: Harrassowitz, 9−20.
Crespo, Emilio and José Luis García Ramón (eds.)
1997 Berthold Delbrück y la sintaxis indoeuropea hoy. Actas del Coloquio de la indogermani-
sche Gesellschaft Madrid, 21−24 septiembre de 1994. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Dahl, Eystein
2010 Time, Tense and Aspect in Early Vedic Grammar. Exploring inflectional semantics in
the Rigveda. (Brill’s Studies in Indo-European Languages & Linguistics 5). Leiden:
Brill.
Debrunner, Albert
1954 Altindische Grammatik. Band II, 2: Die Nominalsuffixe. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht.
Dunkel, George
2004 Particles and Personal Pronouns: Inclusive *me and Exclusive *u̯e. In: John H. W.
Penney (ed.), Indo-European Perspectives. Studies in Honour of Anna Morpurgo Davies.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 18−29.
Dunkel, George
2014 Lexikon der indogermanischen Partikel und Pronominalstämme. Band 1: Einleitung,
Terminologie, Lautgesetze, Adverbialendungen, Nominalsuffixe, Anhänge und Indices,
Band 2: Lexikon. (Indogermanische Bibliothek, 2. Reihe: Wörterbücher). Heidelberg:
Winter.
Emmerick, Ronald E.
1968 Saka Grammatical Studies. London: Oxford University Press.
EWAia: Mayrhofer, Manfred
1992−1996 Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. 3 vols. Heidelberg: Winter.
1985 Die Sekundärendung der 1.Sg. Medii im Indogermanischen. In: Bernfried Schlerath
(ed.), Grammatische Kategorien. Funktion und Geschichte. Akten der VII. Fachtagung
der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft Berlin, 20.−25. Februar 1983. Wiesbaden: Reichert,
202−217.
1997 Infinitive im Indogermanischen? Zur Typologie der Infinitivbildungen und zu ihrer Ent-
wicklung in den älteren indogermanischen Sprachen. Incontri Linguistici 20: 45−69.
Geldner, Karl F.
1890 Aus dem Avesta. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 30: 514−534.
Harðarson, Jón Axel
1993 Studien zum urindogermanischen Wurzelaorist und dessen Vertretung im Indoiranischen
und Griechischen. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität.

Authenticated
Heenen, François
2006 Le désideratif en védique. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Hock, Hans Henrich
1974 On the Indo-Iranian Accusative Plural of Consonants Stems. Journal of the American
Oriental Society 94: 73−95.
Hoffmann, Karl
1967a Der Injunktiv im Veda. Heidelberg: Winter.
Hoffmann, Karl
1967b Der vedische Prekativtyp yeṣam, jeṣma. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 20:
25−37 [= 1976: 465−474].
Hoffmann, Karl
1975 Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik, ed. Johanna Narten. Vol. 1. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Hoffmann, Karl
1976 Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik, ed. Johanna Narten. Vol. 2. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Hoffmann, Karl and Bernhard Forssman
1996 Avestische Laut- und Flexionslehre. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Uni-
versität.
Jamison, Stephanie W.
1979 Voice Fluctuation in the Rig Veda: Medial -anta in Active Paradigms. Indo-Iranian
Journal 21: 149−169.
Jasanoff, Jay H.
1991 The Ablaut of the Root Aorist Optative in Proto-Indo-European. Münchener Studien zur
Sprachwissenschaft 52: 101−122.
Jasanoff, Jay H.
1997 Gathic Avestan cikōitərəš. In: Alexander Lubotsky (ed.), Sound law and analogy. Papers
in honor of Robert S. P. Beekes on the occasion of his 60 th birthday. Amsterdam: Rodopi,
119−130.
Jasanoff, Jay H.
2003 Hittite and the Indo-European verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Katz, Joshua T.
1998 Archaische keltische Personalpronomina aus indogermanischer Sicht. In: Wolfgang
Meid (ed.), Sprache und Kultur der Indogermanen. Akten der X. Fachtagung der Indo-
germanischen Gesellschaft, Innsbruck, 22.−28. September 1996. Innsbruck: Institut für
Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 265−291.
Kellens, Jean
1984 Le verbe avestique. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Kim, Ronald I.
2008 The Celtic feminine numerals ‘3’ and ‘4’ revisited. Keltische Forschungen 3: 143−167.
Klein, Jared S.
1977 The Indo-Iranian prehistory of the Sanskrit asáu/amúm pronoun. Journal of Indo-Euro-
pean Studies 5: 161−176.
1972 Die mittelpersischen Pronomina ‘yn und h’n, neupersisch īn und ān. Münchener Studien
zur Sprachwissenschaft 30: 93−110.
1975 Tocharisch und Urindogermanisch. In: Helmut Rix (ed.), Flexion und Wortbildung. Ak-
ten der V. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Regensburg, 9.−14. Septem-
ber 1973. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 148−163.
1987 Erbe und Neuerung beim germanischen Demonstrativpronomen. In: Rolf Bergmann,
Heinrich Tiefenbach, and Lothar Voetz (eds.), Althochdeutsch, Band I, Grammatik.
Glossen und Texte. Heidelberg: Winter, 169−189.

Authenticated
1994 Das Albanische als Glied der indogermanischen Sprachfamilie. In: Jens E. Rasmussen
(ed.), In honorem Holger Pedersen. Kolloquium der indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom
25. bis 28. März 1993. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 221−233.
1981 1 sg. middle *-H2. Indogermanische Forschungen 86: 123−136.
1987 Archaic Ablaut Patterns in the Vedic Verb. In: George Cardona and Norman H. Zide
(eds.), Festschrift for Henry Hoenigswald On the occasion of his Seventieth Birthday.
Tübingen: Narr, 219−223.
Kulikov, Leonid
2005 Reduplication in the Vedic verb. In: Bernhard Hurch (ed.), Studies on reduplication.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 431−454.
Kulikov, Leonid
2006 Passive and middle in Indo-European: Reconstructing the early Vedic passive paradigm.
In: Werner Abraham and Larisa Leisiö (eds.), Passivization and Typology: Form and
function. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 62−81.
Kümmel, Martin [Joachim]
1996 Stativ und Passivaorist im Indoiranischen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Kümmel, Martin Joachim
1998 Wurzelpräsens neben Wurzelaorist im Indogermanischen. Historische Sprachforschung
111: 191−208.
2000 Das Perfekt im Indoiranischen. Eine Untersuchung der Form und Funktion einer ererb-
ten Kategorie des Verbums und ihrer Weiterentwicklung in den altindoiranischen Spra-
chen. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
2004 Zur o-Stufe in der idg. Verbalstammbildung. In: James Clackson and Birgit A. Olsen
(eds.), Indo-European Word Formation. Proceedings of the Conference held at the Uni-
versity of Copenhagen, October 20th−22 nd 2000. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum,
139−158.
2012 Monosyllabic lengthening in Vedic aorists? International Journal of Diachronic Linguis-
tics and Linguistic Reconstruction 9: 51−63.
2013 Zur Endung des Genitivs Plural im Indoiranischen und Indogermanischen. Indogermani-
sche Forschungen 118: 193−211.
2014a Zum „proterokinetischen“ Ablaut. In: Norbert Oettinger and Thomas Steer (eds.), Das
Nomen im Indogermanischen. Morphologie, Substantiv vs. Adjektiv, Kollektivum. Akten
der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Erlangen, 14.−16. September
2011. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 164−179.
Kümmel, Martin [Joachim]
2014b Pāṇini 5,3,5 and the function of Sanskrit etád. In: Hans Henrich Hock (ed.), Proceedings
of the 15 th World Sanskrit Conference, Session I: Veda. Delhi: DK Printworld, 39−56.
LIV2: Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen.
Zweite, erweiterte und verbesserte Auflage bearbeitet von Martin Kümmel und Helmut
Rix. 2001. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Lubotsky, Alexander
2000 Indo-Aryan ‘six’. In: Michaela Ofitsch and Christian Zinko (eds.), 125 Jahre Indoger-
manistik in Graz. Festband anläßlich des 125jährigen Bestehens der Forschungsrich-

Authenticated
tung “Indogermanistik” an der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz. Graz: Leykam, 255−

261.
Lühr, Rosemarie
1991 Analogische “formae difficiliores”. Historische Sprachforschung 104: 170−185.
Malzahn, Melanie
[1999] 2000 Die nominalen Flexionsendungen des idg. Duals. Historische Sprachforschung
112: 204−226.
Mumm, Peter-Arnold
1995 Verbale Definitheit und der vedische Injunktiv. In: Heinrich Hettrich, Wolfgang Hock,
Peter-Arnold Mumm, and Norbert Oettinger (eds.), Verba et structurae. Festschrift
für Klaus Strunk zum 65. Geburtstag. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der
Universität, 169−193.
Narten, Johanna
1964 Die sigmatischen Aoriste im Veda. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Peters, Martin
1980 Untersuchungen zur Vertretung der indogermanischen Laryngale im Griechischen.
Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Remmer, Ulla
2011 The Avestan paradigm of vaiiu- ‘air, wind’ in the context of irregular accusative singular
forms of vowel stems with °ąm and °əm. Indo-Iranian Journal 54: 1−18.
Rubio Orecilla and Francisco Javier
1995 El sufijo de derivación nominal *-ii̯ o-/*-i̯ o- en los gerundios y gerundivos del RG-
Veda y el Avesta: un estudio histórico-comparativo. Zaragoza: Institución “Fernando el
Católico”.
Schmidt, Klaus T.
1997 Ex oriente lux II: Untersuchungen zum Fortleben der indogermanischen Wurzel *k̑leu̯
‘hören’ im Tocharischen. In: Crespo and García Ramón (eds.), 541−569.
Schrijver, Peter
1999 Vedic gr̥bhṇā́ ti, gr̥bhāyáti and the semantics of *ye-derivatives. Münchener Studien zur
Tichy, Eva
1995 Die Nomina agentis auf -tarim Vedischen. Heidelberg: Winter.
Tichy, Eva
1997 Vom indogermanischen Tempus/Aspekt-System zum vedischen Zeitstufensystem. In:
Crespo and García Ramón (eds.), 589−609.
Tichy, Eva
2006a Der Konjunktiv und seine Nachbarkategorien. Studien zum indogermanischen Verbum,
ausgehend von der älteren vedischen Prosa. Bremen: Hempen.
Tichy, Eva
2006b A Survey of Proto-Indo-European. Translated by James E. Cathey in collaboration with
the author. Bremen: Hempen.
Tremblay, Xavier
1996a Un nouveau type apophonique des noms athématiques suffixaux de l’Indo-européen.
Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique 91: 97−145.
Tremblay, Xavier
1996b Zum suffixalen Ablaut o/e in der athematischen Deklination. Die Sprache 38: 31−70.
Tremblay, Xavier
1996c Addenda et Corrigenda à Sprache XXXVIII, p. 99−131. Die Sprache 38: 213−217.
Tremblay, Xavier
2003 La déclinaison des noms de parenté indo-européens en -ter-. Innsbruck: Institut für
Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität.

Authenticated
Tremblay, Xavier
2005 Zum Narten-Aorist. Apophonica IV. In: Günter Schweiger (ed.), Indogermanica.
Festschrift Gert Klingenschmitt. Indische, iranische und indogermanische Studien dem
verehrten Jubilar dargebracht zu seinem fünfundsechzigsten Geburtstag. Taimering:
VWT, 637−664.
Tremblay, Xavier
2006 Ist die Aktivendung 3Pl -āra in einigen ostiranischen Sprachen inneriranische Entwick-
lung oder indogermanisches Erbe? (mit einem Exkurs über die athematischen Endungen
des Chwaresmischen). Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 62 [2002]: 259−287.
de Vaan, Michiel
2003 The Avestan Vowels. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
de Vaan, Michiel
2005 Old Avestan xva- and Young Avestan hauua- ‘own’. In: Gerhard Meiser and Olav Hack-
stein (eds.), Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel: Akten der XI. Fachtagung der Indoger-
manischen Gesellschaft, Halle an der Saale, 17.−23. September 2000. Wiesbaden:
Wackernagel, Jacob
1896 Altindische Grammatik. Band I: Lautlehre. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Wackernagel, Jacob and Albert Debrunner
1930 Altindische Grammatik. Band III: Nominalflexion − Zahlwort − Pronomen. Göttingen:
Watkins, Calvert
1969 Geschichte der indogermanischen Verbalflexion. (Indogermanische Grammatik III/1).
Heidelberg: Winter.
Martin Joachim Kümmel, Jena (Germany)
112. The syntax of Indo-Iranian

1. Introduction 5. Wackernagel’s so-called Law
2. What is “configurational” syntax? 6. “Normal” word order and S, O, V
3. The basic structure of the clause 7. Conclusions
4. WH-movement 8. References
1. Introduction
It might seem that this chapter of the Handbook could be constructed by the reader him/
herself, by a process of simply comparing the valuable insights to be found in the chapter
of “Indic Syntax” with those found in the “Iranian Syntax” contribution. However, there
are considerations which make this chapter necessary, in my view. For example, the
strong focus of the chapters treating Indic and Iranian syntax was on what I would call
the morphosyntax of those languages − the “syntax” of accusative morphology, or of the
causative marker, for example. This use of the term “syntax” has a long tradition in
Indo-European studies, particularly for the classical languages (but also for archaic Indo-
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-033

Authenticated
Tremblay, Xavier
2005 Zum Narten-Aorist. Apophonica IV. In: Günter Schweiger (ed.), Indogermanica.
Festschrift Gert Klingenschmitt. Indische, iranische und indogermanische Studien dem
verehrten Jubilar dargebracht zu seinem fünfundsechzigsten Geburtstag. Taimering:
VWT, 637−664.
Tremblay, Xavier
2006 Ist die Aktivendung 3Pl -āra in einigen ostiranischen Sprachen inneriranische Entwick-
lung oder indogermanisches Erbe? (mit einem Exkurs über die athematischen Endungen
des Chwaresmischen). Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 62 [2002]: 259−287.
de Vaan, Michiel
2003 The Avestan Vowels. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
de Vaan, Michiel
2005 Old Avestan xva- and Young Avestan hauua- ‘own’. In: Gerhard Meiser and Olav Hack-
stein (eds.), Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel: Akten der XI. Fachtagung der Indoger-
manischen Gesellschaft, Halle an der Saale, 17.−23. September 2000. Wiesbaden:
Wackernagel, Jacob
1896 Altindische Grammatik. Band I: Lautlehre. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Wackernagel, Jacob and Albert Debrunner
1930 Altindische Grammatik. Band III: Nominalflexion − Zahlwort − Pronomen. Göttingen:
Watkins, Calvert
1969 Geschichte der indogermanischen Verbalflexion. (Indogermanische Grammatik III/1).
Heidelberg: Winter.
Martin Joachim Kümmel, Jena (Germany)
112. The syntax of Indo-Iranian

1. Introduction 5. Wackernagel’s so-called Law
2. What is “configurational” syntax? 6. “Normal” word order and S, O, V
3. The basic structure of the clause 7. Conclusions
4. WH-movement 8. References
1. Introduction
It might seem that this chapter of the Handbook could be constructed by the reader him/
herself, by a process of simply comparing the valuable insights to be found in the chapter
of “Indic Syntax” with those found in the “Iranian Syntax” contribution. However, there
are considerations which make this chapter necessary, in my view. For example, the
strong focus of the chapters treating Indic and Iranian syntax was on what I would call
the morphosyntax of those languages − the “syntax” of accusative morphology, or of the
causative marker, for example. This use of the term “syntax” has a long tradition in
Indo-European studies, particularly for the classical languages (but also for archaic Indo-
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-033

Authenticated
112. The syntax of Indo-Iranian 1925
Iranian ones), so I will refer to it henceforth as “traditional syntax”. Given the strength
of this tradition, and its duration, there is a great deal which can be said with confidence
regarding the “traditional syntax” of archaic Indo-Iranian languages, making a treatment
of those issues excellent material for a Handbook. However, many a linguist trained in
the contemporary linguistic landscape will not recognize the field of “syntax” as pursued
by modern syntacticians in this traditional work. Fundamental questions of a modern
syntactic nature (e.g., how does question formation take place? Does the language have
wh-movement, or is it wh-in-situ?, etc.) are not asked in the traditional pursuit. For this
reason, I will focus in this chapter on what I will call the “configurational syntax” (in a
sense to be made clear below) of Indo-Iranian.
Several caveats are in order at this juncture. First, handbook chapters are generally
intended to reflect some kind of scholarly communis opinio on the matters under discus-
sion and provide a guide to the wealth of scholarly literature in that domain. This chapter
cannot do that, since there cannot be said to be any communis opinio in the scholarly
community regarding the configurational syntax of Indo-Iranian − not because there is
such a diversity of opinions that none can be accurately labeled communis, but because
there is a dearth of expressed scholarly opinion on the issues at hand. This will be seen
from the sparseness of the scholarly literature that may be cited. The most important
works from a contemporary perspective include the following: for Vedic, Klein (1985)
and Hale (ms.), for Old Persian, Klein (1988) and Hale (1988), for Old Avestan, West
(2011), and for Iranian generally, Skjærvø (2009). See also the excellent bibliography,
covering traditional and more contemporary approaches to Sanskrit syntax, in Hock
(1991).
There are, of course, reasons for this lack. First, the kinds of issues covered by the
term “configurational syntax”, while they have some tradition in Indo-European studies,
have not received the same degree of attention as the issues arising from what I have
labeled “traditional syntax”. Some of the issues were not addressed at all in the pre-
generative literature. Without the kind of careful, philologically-informed establishment
of the facts regarding these issues for individual archaic Indo-Iranian daughter languages,
no reconstruction of the Indo-Iranian situation was possible. The literature which does
address “configurational” syntactic issues in, e.g., Vedic Sanskrit (the most extensively
studied of the archaic Indo-Iranian languages) often does so with reference to parallels
in Greek or Latin, or, in some cases, other Indo-European branches, rather than invoking
explicit comparison within the Iranian branch, and thus fails to give a clear indication
of the Indo-Iranian situation. On the Iranian side, West (2011) presents an analysis of
Old Avestan syntax which addresses many “configurational” issues, but it is difficult to
achieve analytical clarity when one absolutely limits all attention to the very small Old
Avestan corpus. Obviously one would not want to randomly intermix observations from
Young Avestan with those from Old Avestan, but an establishment of a set of identities
and divergences between the languages could help clarify matters. Skjærvø (2009)
presents a survey of the Old Iranian facts, which, due to the limitations of publication
in a “handbook” volume, is broader than it is deep, covering a wide range of phenomena,
but only rarely actually establishing the claims made on an empirical basis. This does not
mean the claims are not valid, only that their validity must in each case be independently
established by the interested scholar.
It should be noted in this regard that the Indo-Iranian branch fares no worse than
the other major branches of Indo-European: there is no detailed reconstruction of the

Authenticated
configurational syntax of Proto-Greek, Proto-Italic, Proto-Anatolian, etc. The effect of

the almost total absence of reconstruction of the relevant properties for the branches of
Indo-European means that we do not have good information − in sharp contrast to the
situation regarding phonology and, to a large extent, morphology − about what the Indo-
European properties were in the relevant respect. Thus, while establishing the nature of
Indo-Iranian phonology or morphology could be described as locating the place of Proto-
IIr. on a continuum along a line extending from the PIE situation to what we find in the
individual archaic daughter languages, in the case of configurational syntax, the situation
at the PIE end of that line is quite unclear at present.
In short, this chapter concerns matters which are probably the least clear of any being
treated in this handbook. One might wonder, indeed, whether it is appropriate to even
attempt a characterization of the configurational syntax of Indo-Iranian given our general
ignorance on the matter. There are, I think, two reasons why such an exercise is useful
at this point. First, ignorance can, in some sense, be conceived of as a pointer towards
potentially exciting domains for new research undertakings. There are dozens of major
issues in the configurational syntax of Indo-Iranian about which I can write nothing:
each represents a new frontier for research towards an understanding of the configura-
tional syntax of PIE itself. Second, while there is much we do not know, there are, I
think, some things about which a certain degree of confidence would be justified even
at this early stage. Documenting these for Indo-Iranian may serve as an impetus for
parallel work on the other branches, and then on the proto-language itself.
One final proviso: because of the lack of established results regarding the configura-
tional syntax of Indo-Iranian, it will be necessary to present more of the argumentation
and evidence for the positions taken here than is generally necessary in a handbook − I
cannot simply point the interested reader to the scholarly literature which establishes
that such-and-such is the case. Given the space limitations imposed on the chapter,
then, it follows that only a relatively small number of phenomena can receive serious
treatment.
2. What is “configurational” syntax?

I will use the label “traditional syntax” to refer to investigations into the syntactic condi-
tions on the appearance of particular morphological categories. Such investigations at-
tempt to answer questions such as: what triggers the appearance of a locative case, or
causative marker, or plural agreement morphology in a given language? The importance
of developing answers to such traditional concerns cannot be overstated: it has been the
correspondences in the syntax of particular morphological markers across the daughter
languages which have allowed us such deep insight into the morphology of the proto-
language. Such concerns interact with other significant issues for the study of archaic
Indo-European languages: semantic considerations, for example, as well as the concerns
of what I will call “configurational” syntax.
But there are syntactic issues which do not fall within the scope of such questions. For
example, there are Indo-Iranian languages which require that interrogative and relative
pronouns occupy a position at (or very near) the start of their clause (i.e. languages
which show so-called “wh-movement”) and there are Indo-Iranian languages which do

Authenticated
not impose such a requirement on those elements (i.e. so-called “wh-in-situ” languages).
There is no semantic difference between interrogatives in the two kinds of languages,
nor is there any necessary morphological distinction between the “wh-words” in the two
types. This is a purely syntactic contrast, and, as such, falls outside the scope of “tradi-
tional syntax” as defined above. There are other processes of “syntactic displacement”
(or “movement”): topicalization, focusing, clitic-displacement, etc. Except for the well-
known work by Wackernagel (and his predecessors) on clitics in Indo-European, tradi-
tional syntax has not produced precise characterizations of these phenomena.
It is important to be clear about the use of the term “movement” for these types of
relations − the term is historical, rather than technically precise. “Movement” is the label
for whatever process establishes a relationship between two “positions” in a syntactic
representation. Thus, in the English question who did John see? the word who simulta-
neously satisfies the requirement that wh-elements occupy clause-initial position and the
requirement that transitive see have a direct object. Since the expected position for direct
objects is immediately postverbal, there is a connection between that position and the
position in which who actually surfaces − quite far from the post-verbal position. I will
call this connection “movement”, in keeping with long-standing generative tradition.
Also included within the scope of “configurational syntax” are matters of so-called
“word order”, such as the positioning of major constituents (subjects, objects, verbs)
relative to one another, as well as the ordering of elements within smaller phrasal do-
mains (adpositional phrases, noun or determiner phrases, etc.). While there is a long
tradition which concerned itself with “word order” phenomena in archaic Indo-European
languages, the goals (and thus methods) of such pursuits differ widely from modern
approaches, as we will see below.
3. The basic structure of the clause

It would be wrong to assert that earlier approaches to Indo-Iranian syntax did not consid-
er, e.g., word order issues as a significant aspect of their research activity. Both in the
Delbrück era (late 19th-early 20 th century) and again in the 1970’s word order was a
central concern of much of Indo-Europeanist syntactic investigation, including, of
course, the word order of archaic Indo-Iranian languages. It is of some interest to consid-
er these earlier approaches from the modern perspective on Indo-European syntax, which
holds fairly uniformly that, whereas work on the reconstruction of phonology and mor-
phology has been quite successful, syntactic research lags significantly. Why, if Indo-
Europeanists have regularly considered matters such as word order, do most contempo-
rary scholars in this field feel there is little they can assert with confidence on the matter?
In my view, there is a connection between the shortcomings of the work of the
Delbrück era and that of “word order” studies in the 1970’s, and by identifying their
common, and apparently non-productive, assumptions, we can learn something signifi-
cant about how to approach the study of the syntax of Indo-Iranian, and how not to.
Although this is a handbook article, given the little we can say with confidence about
the configurational syntax of Indo-Iranian, it may be worthwhile to expend some energy
on exploring why this might be the case. We will do that after our survey of some of
the basic structural properties of the Indo-Iranian clause.

Authenticated
Let us examine first the distribution of some deictic elements which appear, generally,
to have well-defined semantics. Ickler (1973) has shown that the topic-marking pronoun
represented by IIr. *tá- “that (one) [weak deixis]” has a highly restricted distribution in
Vedic Prose, and her results have been confirmed by Verpoorten (1977). That the strong
preference she identified for either initial or “second” position for this element in Vedic
also holds for Iranian can be seen from Bartholomae’s Altiranisches Wörterbuch (1904:
column 1718), where substantival ta- is given two major subentries: sentence-initial
placement (“an der Spitze”), and after the first word, not counting any relevant clitics
(“hinter dem ersten Wort, auch durch ein Enklitikum davon getrennt”). It seems clear
that this distribution was highly favored in Indo-Iranian itself. But why should this be
the case? The syntax of human languages often reveals special principles for the place-
ment of interrogative and relative elements (so-called wh-movement phenomena), or
distributional restrictions on clitics (e.g. Wackernagel’s Law), but IIr. *tá- is neither a wh-
element nor a clitic. Hale (1991) presents an analysis for the widely-recognized discourse
distinction between an element such as *tá- and its “stronger” sister form *aytá- (Skt.
etá-, Av. aēta-, OPers. aita-). Note that the contrast in degree of force has been known
for a long time, Delbrück labeling Indic etá- “ein stärkeres tá-” [a stronger tá-] (1888:
219), and for Iranian, Caland (1891: 11) says that Av. aēta- is a deictic similar to ta- but
“mit mehr emphase” [with greater emphasis]. In the analysis of Hale (1991), the element
*tá- is taken to be a “topicalized” pronominal, whereas *aytá- is analyzed as a “focused”
pronominal. Statistically, in Vedic Prose (e.g.), tá- shows “initial position” placement
more frequently than etá-, and, when both appear, etá- regularly follows tá-. The follow-
ing passage from Vedic Prose is typical:
(1) asā́v ādityó ná vyàrocata

yonder-NomSg sun-NomSg NEG shined out
‘Yonder sun was not shining out.
tásmai devā́ḥ prā́yaścittim aichan
him-DatSg gods-NomPl atonement-AccSg sought
For him the gods sought an atonement.
tásmā etā́ malhā́ ā́labhanta ...
him-DatSg these-AccPlF dew-lapped-AccPlF they offered
For him they offered these dew-lapped (beasts) ...
tā́bhir evā́smin rúcam adadhur
them-InstPlF indeed+this-LocSg brilliance-AccSg they placed
By means of these (beasts) indeed they placed in him brilliance.’
(TS 2.1.2.4)
What we see in this example is that an entity (the sun) is introduced into the discourse
using a strong deictic element (asáu). It becomes the “entity under discussion”, and is
picked up in subsequent clauses by a “topic” demonstrative (tá-), in clause-initial posi-
tion. I have underlined its first appearance, and the relevant subsequent references to it,
in the text above. In the third clause, a new entity is introduced (which I track through
the clauses above by bolding references to it), ‘these dew-lapped (beasts)’, using the
focusing element etá-; subsequently, it is ‘the dew-lapped ones’ which are the topic, and

Authenticated
they are thus referred to in the fourth clause with the “topic” demonstrative (tá-), again
in initial position.
Given the difference in semantics between the two elements (tá- and etá-), Hale
(1991) proposes that the restriction on the distribution of these deictic elements is to be
sought in their connection to the particular discourse functions of “topic” (for *tá-) and
“focus” (for *aytá-). It follows, then, from the fact that when both appear in Vedic Prose
(which we take, for the time being, to be representative) tá- precedes etá- (as in the third
clause in the example above), that the start of the Indo-Iranian sentence may have includ-
ed a structure such as:
(2) TOPIC FOCUS ...
neither element being obligatory, of course. Since *tá- normally represents the “topic”,
it will normally occupy the TOPIC position, and since *aytá- normally represents more
strongly focalized material, it will normally occupy the FOCUS position. Of course,
focused material need not be pronominalized by *aytá- and when a full NP is focused,
e.g., it may likewise occupy this FOCUS position. The same is certainly true for dis-
course topics and the TOPIC position. The restricted distribution of *tá- is thus attributed
not to some special tá-placement “rule” of the syntax, but to a general phenomenon of
“topic fronting”, which tá- is, given its semantics, particularly prone to undergo. Similar
arguments hold for *aytá- and the FOCUS position.
It is well known that there are a number of phenomena in addition to topicalization
and focusing which implicate the beginning portion of the clause in archaic Indo-Iranian
languages. As demonstrated for Iranian by Bartholomae (1882−1887), and by Wackerna-
gel (1892) for Vedic Sanskrit, clitics tend to occur in “second position” in their clause.
But where is “second position”, and how does it relate to the clause-initial FOCUS and
TOPIC positions posited in (1)? In addition, Hale (1987) demonstrated that wh-move-
ment was obligatory in Indo-Iranian for interrogative and relative markers. In modern
grammatical analysis, such movement is thought to involve placing the elements in a
position at or near the start of the clause which is called C (originally standing for
COMPLEMENTIZER). But where is C relative to the FOCUS and TOPIC positions?
How does C interact with clitic placement, to which it is often thought to be related?
The following sections attempt to address, in a necessarily provisional manner, some of
these questions, and thereby provide us with greater detail regarding the structure of the
clause in Proto-Indo-Iranian.
4. WH-movement
Hale (1987) demonstrated that the cross-linguistically common (though not invariant)
phenomenon of wh-fronting, whereby interrogative and relative elements are moved into
a high (generally left) position in the so-called C-domain, is active in both archaic Indic
and archaic Iranian languages, and thus should be reconstructed for Proto-Indo-Iranian
(and most likely for PIE itself). Since we have now claimed that in Indo-Iranian there
was a TOPIC and a FOCUS position also at or near the clause-initial position, the natural
question arises as to whether or not we can be precise about where, in Indo-Iranian, the

Authenticated
wh-movement landing site sat relative to these “discourse” positions. As a shorthand,

we will simply call the landing site for wh-movement “C” in what follows. So, if we
find a clause with focused material (presumably in FOCUS), a wh-element (presumably
in C) and topic material (presumably in TOPIC), what is their position relative to one
another in our most archaic Indo-Iranian texts? We have to recognize, of course, that
finding all three elements in a single clause may be difficult (the sentence would have a
lot “going on” in it pragmatically if all three positions were filled). It is sufficient, of
course, to establish an ordering between these elements if there are cases of FOCUS and
wh-movement, and cases of TOPIC and wh-movement (we presumably already know
the ordering of FOCUS and TOPIC themselves, as sketched in 2. above), as long as
these cases show relatively consistent ordering relations.
The ordering between wh-elements (the relative *yá- and the interrogative *ká-) and
topics marked with *tá- is clear in both Indic and Iranian: the wh-word precedes the
TOPIC element. Illustrative examples include:
+ +
(3) at̰ yas tə̄m nōit̰ / nā isǝmnō āiiāt̰
then REL-NomSg him-AccSg NEG / man-NomSg able-NomSg shall approach
‘then which man shall not approach him, though being able’
(Y 46.6: OAv)
(4) kvà r̥tám pūrvyáṃ gatáṃ kás tád
where pious work-NomSg earlier-NomSg gone-NomSg who-NomSg it-AccSg
bibharti nū́tano
bears current-NomSg
‘Where has my earlier pious work gone? Who bears it, as the current one?’
(RV 1.105.4cd: Vedic)
That *tá- shows up frequently in such structures is part of the reason why Ickler and
Verpoorten identify two common positions for this element in Vedic Prose − initial and
“second”. In wh-clauses (and in those to be discussed below, with EMPHASIS elements),
the TOPIC position, and the *tá- which occupies it, will be somewhat removed from
clause-initial position.
It is rarer to find focused elements (e.g. marked by *aytá-) in interrogative and rela-
tive clauses, the wh-element itself doubtless bearing a certain degree of focus, but the
large corpus of the Rigveda does provide the following:
(5) girā́ yá etā́ yunájad dhárī te

song-InstrSg REL-NomSg these-AccDu would yoke bay steeds-AccDu your
‘who would yoke these two bays of yours by means of a (praise-)song’
(RV 7.36.4a: Vedic)
(6) dvír yád eté trír bhávanti ū́māḥ
twice when-WH these-NomPl thrice are helpers-NomPl
‘when these helpers become twice (as many) [or] thrice (as many)’
(RV 10.120.3b: Vedic)
These examples reveal another interesting property of Indo-Iranian wh-clauses: as Hale

(1987) demonstrated in some detail, all of the archaic Indo-Iranian languages allow the

Authenticated
fronting of a constituent to a position to the left of a fronted wh-element (i.e. to the left
of C). Examples for each of the major daughters are:
(7) áśmānaṃ cid yé bibhidúr vácobhiḥ

rock-AccSg Emph.Ptcl RelPro-NomPl split-IIIPl words-InstPl
‘who split even rock with (mere) words ...’
(RV 4.16.6c: Vedic)
(8) devā́ vaí yéna híraṇyena sómam ákrīṇan
gods-NomPl Ptcl. REL-InstrSg gold-InstrSg soma-AccSg bought-IIIPl
tád abhīṣáhā púnar ā́dadata
that-AccSg by force back they took
‘with which gold the gods bought the soma, that (gold) they took back by force’
(TS 6.1.10.3: Vedic Prose)
(9) naēnaēstārō yaθənā vohunąm mahī
non-scorners since+Ptcl good-GenPl we are
‘since we are non-scorners of the good’
(YH 35.2: OAv)
(10) martiya tya patiy martiyam θātiy ava mām
man-NomSg REL-AccSg against man-AccSg says that-NomSg me-AccSg
naiy varnavataiy
NEG convince
‘what one man says against (another) man, that does not convince me’
(DNb 22: OP)
The pragmatics associated with the material fronted around C is clearly “emphatic” in
some sense − indeed, fronting for reasons of emphasis as a mechanism of syntactic
displacement has been recognized by all previous scholarship on IIr. syntax, although, it
must be said, no systematic attempt to distinguish between fronting to this initial posi-
tion, fronting via wh-movement, fronting to the TOPIC-slot or fronting to the FOCUS
position has ever been ventured in previous scholarly work. I will not attempt here to
establish a standard label for this position, but will simply label it EMPHASIS, after its
only clearly established function. (It is worth pointing out, however, that this is not in
my view the position for what is usually called “left dislocation”, there being no resump-
tive element in the main clause. For “left dislocation” in Sanskrit, see Oertel’s discussion
[1923, 1926] of nominativus pendens and related phenomena.) The data taken as a whole,
then, would seem to favor a Proto-Indo-Iranian clause-initial surface sequence of the
type:
(11) EMPHASIS Cwh TOPIC FOCUS ...
While one should not accept the characterization of the Indo-Iranian clause I have pre-
sented up to this point on the basis of the evidence cited − necessarily brief, given the
space allotted this handbook chapter − the references cited do provide fairly good reasons
to believe that the reconstruction is on the right track. However, wh-movement, focusing,
and topicalization do not exhaust the processes which are responsible for placing el-

Authenticated
ements in particular positions early in the Indo-Iranian clause: if the object argument is
a clitic, it may be placed by what has come to be called “Wackernagel’s Law”, to which
we now turn.
5. Wackernagel’s so-called Law

Wackernagel (1897) provides a wealth of evidence in support of the earlier observations
of Delbrück and Bartholomae that enclitic elements show restricted distribution in archa-
ic Indo-Iranian languages, extending their claim to other branches of the Indo-European
language family, and, indeed, to the protolanguage itself. His statement of the generaliza-
tion, which holds that clitics “tend to occur in second position” in their clause, is now
known as “Wackernagel’s Law”. Given the importance of this syntactic generalization
in discussions of Indo-European syntax, and the key role of the Indo-Iranian languages
in providing evidence regarding the relevant set of phenomena, it will be worthy of some
attention here.
The first matter we might try to understand concerns the nature of WL-type phenome-
na: are they essentially phonological or syntactic, or are they some combination of the
two? I will first examine a clitic with a good Indo-European pedigree, well reflected in
the archaic Indo-Iranian languages, and thus confidently present in Proto-Indo-Iranian:
*ca ‘and’ (< IE *kwe “id.”). We will focus initially, for non-controversial matters, on
data from the archaic corpus offering the richest attestation: Mantra Vedic.
It seems clear that we would have two options, if we wanted to say ‘and oblation-
conveying Agni’ (RV 2.41.19c) in Vedic: one involving the tonic conjunction utá, one
the enclitic conjunction ca. (For extensive discussion of the syntax of ca and utá in the
Rigveda, see Klein 1985, for cā in Old Persian see Klein 1988, and for a briefer survey
of cā in Old Avestan, West 2011: § 287−294. Note that other archaic IE languages simi-
larly offer a tonic and an enclitic conjunction: Greek καί beside τε, Latin et beside -que,
etc., with similar “ordering” effects.) Since the syntactic function of these elements ap-
pears to be identical, we might expect them to have the same syntax, something like:
O utá S
(12) [ Q T [ DP agním havyavā́hanam ] ]
R ca U
As is well known, whereas utá may surface in the position it occupies in the syntactic
representation above, ca will not: being enclitic, it is subject to a requirement that it
have a “prosodic host” on its left. Since, within its phonological phrase (φ) − built from
the syntactic structures above − it does not, it will undergo minimal rightward movement
to find an appropriate host, a so-called “prosodic inversion” (Halpern 1992; for extensive
discussion of the Vedic facts in this regard, see Hale 1996). The conjunctive utá need
not undergo such movement: (I have suppressed external sandhi in these examples.)
(13) [ ___ agním ca havyavā́hanam ] φ
(14) [ utá agním havyavā́hanam ] φ
Under this conception of things, widely accepted at this point, the placement of ca is
due to an operation of the phonology, not the syntax. The syntax places ca just where it

Authenticated
places utá − it undergoes “prosodic inversion” to satisfy a prosodic requirement, not a

syntactic one. Strong support for this way of understanding the behavior of clitics comes
from the coordination of postpositions following bare nouns, such as víśa ā́ ‘into the
settlements’ or vána ā́ ‘in the wood’. Such PPs display a close prosodic connection
between the postposition and its complement (the preserved final s of phrases such as
divás pári ‘from heaven’ arises, rather than visarga, because of the same close prosodic
connection). As a result, when a clitic like ca conjoins such a PP, it treats the PP as a
single “prosodic word”, flipping around the entire PP (rather than just around the first
morphosyntactic word):
(15) [ ca [ PP víśa ā́] → víśa ā́ ca (*víśaś ca-ā́) ‘to (the) settlements’

(RV 4.2.3d)
(16) [ ca [ PP vána ā́] → vána ā́ ca (*váne ca-ā́) ‘in the wood’
(RV 9.89.1d)
We see then that “prosodic inversion” normally triggers second position placement of
the affected clitic (as in [13]), but may, under the right prosodic conditions, trigger a
slightly postponed positioning (as in [15] and [16]).
The important fact about ca is that we have reason, both from the behavior of the
tonic conjunction utá and from our understanding of how coordination works cross-
linguistically, to place ca in a certain position in the string syntactically. It is from that
syntactically-justified position that “prosodic inversion” takes place. The “Wackernagel’s
Law” distribution of ca thus has two components: 1) the syntactic positioning of the
element (which, in the case of ca, has nothing to do with its clitichood) and 2) the
phonological positioning, or “prosodic inversion” (which arises because ca is prosodical-
ly deficient and requires a host on its left). In trying to understand the syntax of the
pronominal clitics (also regulated by WL), we need then to ask two questions: what
governs their initial syntactic positioning, and under what conditions do they undergo
“prosodic inversion”? As we did in the case of ca above, we can to a certain extent
follow the cross-linguistic evidence here, which seems to favor placing pronominal clit-
ics in a position immediately following what I have been calling C. Note that, assuming
this holds for IIr. as well, we can then posit our final structuring for the IIr. clause-initial
string:
(17) EMPHASIS Cwh clpro TOPIC FOCUS ...
The first prediction we might derive from this representation is that pronominal clitics
will not normally surface to the left of a wh-element, since if C is filled, the clitic will
be properly hosted within its domain (CP) on its left, and will not undergo inversion.
Note that this entails that there will be a systematic exception to Wackernagel’s Law: if
we get a constituent in the EMPHASIS slot, and a wh-element, the clitic will not appear
second in its clause, as Wackernagel predicted. That this is the case in both archaic Indic
and Iranian was demonstrated by Hale (1987). Typical examples include:

Authenticated
(18) idhmáṃ yás te jabhárac

kindling-AccSg REL-NSg you-DatSgcl will bear-IIISg
chaśramāṇáḥ
exerting himself-NomSg
‘who, exerting himself, will bear the kindling to you ...’
(RV 4.12.2a: Vedic)
(19) prá yé me bandhveṣé / gā́m vócanta
PV REL-NomPl me-DatSgcl family inquiry-LocSg / cow-AccSg call-IIIPl
sūráyaḥ
lords-NomPl
‘who, as lords, proclaim the cow to me at the family inquiry ...’
(RV 5.52.16ab: Vedic)
(20) utā maṛtiyā tyai=šaiy fratamā anušiyā āhatā
and men-NomPl REL-NomPl=his foremost-NomPl supporters-NomPl were
avaiy Hagmatāṇạiỵ ạṭạṛ didām frājaham
those-AccPl Hagmatāna-LocSg inside fortress-AccSg I hanged
‘and the men who were his foremost supporters, those I hanged inside the forest
at Hagmatana’
(DB 2.77: OP)
Of course, if C is filled, but there is nothing in EMPHASIS, we also need no “prosodic

inversion”, since C provides an appropriate host for the clitic. Interestingly, even though
the placement principles in such examples are identical to those in the examples we
have just seen, because the EMPHASIS slot is empty, the following examples appear to
comply with Wackernagel’s Law (while the earlier examples appeared to be exceptions!).
Examples abound in the texts:
(21) hiiat̰ hōi vohū vaxšat̰ manaŋhā

so that himcl good-InstrSg one might increase thinking-InstrSg
‘so that one might increase (it) for him through good thinking’
(Y 31.6: OAv) (Old Avestan hiiat̰ , being a complementizer, is in C.)
(22) yó me pṛṇād ...
REL-NomSg me-DatSgcl would grant in abundance-IIISg
‘Who would grant to me in abundance ...’
(RV 2.30.7c: Vedic)
A second prediction also follows relatively straightforwardly. Imagine that we have an

element in the FOCUS position (e.g. a form of *aytá-, which, as we have seen, typically
occupies such a position), and nothing in EMPHASIS or TOPIC, and, finally, nothing
in C (i.e. no wh-element). Here’s an example, followed by its presumed input structure:
(23) eṣá me deváḥ savitā́ cachanda

this-NomSg me-DatSgcl god-NomSg Savitar-NomSg resembled
‘This (one) seemed to me like the god Savitar.’
(RV 7.63.3c: Vedic)

Authenticated
(24) [EMPHASIS __ [C ___ me [TOPIC __ [FOCUS eṣá [ deváḥ savitā́ cachanda
We can see that the me had nothing to lean on to its left, having been placed after C by
the syntax. It thus underwent “prosodic inversion” around the first element to its right −
the eṣá in FOCUS. It follows that should we have a postposition with a bare N object
in “initial” position in the clause (someplace lower than C), and a pronominal clitic in
C, the “prosodic inversion” should respect the “close connection” between the postposi-
tion and its object, as ca did in the cases discussed earlier. This seems to be the case
(RV 4.51.10cd):
(25) syonā́d ā́ vaḥ pratibúdhyamānāḥ

couch-AblSg PostP you-AccPlcl awakening in response-NomPl
suvī́ryasya pátayaḥ syāma
good hero-troop-GenSg lords-NomPl we would be
‘Awakening from our couch in response to you, we would be lords of a good
hero-troop.’
While we can’t know for sure without further analysis just where the phrase syonā́d ā́
pratibúdhyamānāḥ sits in the structure (perhaps it is just in normal subject position,
below FOCUS), it is below C; and vaḥ starts out to its left and “flips in” for hosting,
but it does not intervene between syonā́d and ā́, which form a tight prosodic connection.
In other cases, we can use the machinery we have constructed, which appears to hold
for the most archaic IIr. languages (though it has been best studied in Vedic, which thus
provides the bulk of our data), to diagnose the structural position of certain elements.
Examine the following two examples:
(26) amr̥tatváṃ rákṣamāṇāsa enaṃ devā́ agníṃ

immortality-AccSg protecting-NomPl him-AccSgcl gods-NomPl Agni-AccSg
dhārayan draviṇodā́m
preserved giver of goods-AccSg
‘Protecting [their] immortality, the gods preserved him as Agni, giver of goods.’
(RV 1.96.6cd: Vedic)
(27) víśveṣv enaṃ vr̥jáneṣu pāmi
all-LocPl him-AccSgcl places-LocPl I protect
‘I protect him in all places.’
(RV 10.28.2c: Vedic)
If we ignore the clitic enam for a moment, both clauses start out with a constituent: the
former with the participial phrase amṛtatváṃ rákṣamāṇāsaḥ ‘protecting (their) immortal-
ity’, the latter with víśveṣu vṛjáneṣu ‘in all places’. How are we to explain the fact that
enam appears to take a position after the entire constituent amṛtatváṃ rákṣamāṇāsaḥ
but inside the constituent víśveṣu vṛjáneṣu? Imagine that the participial clause has been
fronted into the EMPHASIS position, but the víśveṣu vṛjáneṣu occupies some position
below C. The inputs to the “prosodic inversion” process would be:
(28) [Emphasis amṛtatváṃ rákṣamāṇāsaḥ [C __ enam [ ...

Authenticated
and
(29) [Emphasis __ [C __ enam [ víśveṣu vṛjáneṣu ...
In the former example, it seems clear that elements in the EMPHASIS position are
“close enough” to C to allow the clitics in that position to lean on them as their host.
The enam in the former example is thus properly hosted, and need not undergo “prosodic
inversion”. In the latter case, by contrast, the EMPHASIS position is empty, as is C
(except for the clitic). There is nothing to the left of enam for it to lean on; it thus must
undergo “prosodic inversion”, which places it after the first phonological word to its
right, víśveṣu. (It cannot, of course, be excluded that víśveṣu has been fronted to EM-
PHASIS and is thus able to host enam from that position. What can be excluded, how-
ever, is that amṛtatváṃ rákṣamāṇāsaḥ is any lower than EMPHASIS [since otherwise,
enam would “flip” into it]. We can also exclude the possibility that the phrase víśveṣu
vṛjáneṣu is as high as EMPHASIS, since if it were, enam could not end up “inside” it.)
If this type of approach to Wackernagel’s Law phenomena in Indo-Iranian, and Indo-
European generally, is on the right track (for more comprehensive discussion, see Hale,
forthcoming), we can draw a rather startling conclusion: there is no process which we
could call “Wackernagel’s Law” which accounts for the data usually attributed to the
action of that “law”. We have identified two mechanisms as relevant to the phenomenon:
the syntactic placement of the affected element in some appropriate position and the
“prosodic inversion” triggered if that element is, at the end of the syntactic derivation,
not properly hosted on its left. The syntactic placement aspect of the phenomenon cannot
be “Wackernagel’s Law”, since it affects utá every bit as much as ca and, indeed, is
responsible for the positioning of all elements, enclitic or not, in the syntactic tree. On
the other hand, the “prosodic inversion” cannot be “Wackernagel’s Law”, since many
elements which have been standardly cited as examples of the “law” never underwent
any such inversion: see examples (18)−(22), and (26) above, for examples. Thus
“Wackernagel’s Law” appears to be the epiphenomenal by-product of the interaction of
two distinct processes, one syntactic, one phonological, both processes applying outside
the domain of cases traditionally treated by the “law”. These processes appear to be of
IIr. date − indeed, they are probably of IE vintage. But “Wackernagel’s Law” was not;
indeed, it probably never existed as a linguistic operation.
6. “Normal” word order and S, O, V

Having surveyed some of the basic structural aspects of the IIr. clause, we may now
return to the question of why most earlier approaches failed to generate a body of schol-
arship which have had a lasting impact on the field. Delbrück’s work on Indo-Iranian
“word order” syntax (e.g. Delbrück 1878, 1888) was centered around the syntax of Vedic
Prose texts. Modern work which follows in this tradition (e.g. Verpoorten 1977) shares
this focus. The choice was a motivated one: Delbrück quite clearly believed that the
syntax of the more archaic metrical texts (which had, because of their early date, the
potential a priori for greater value in comparative work) was in the end not as useful as
the syntax of later (prose) texts, the influence of the meter, and the greater range of

Authenticated
rhetorical flourish found in such texts representing “distortions” of the basic facts he
was seeking to uncover. In the word-order portion of his monumental Altindische Syntax
(1888), Delbrück makes clear that his goal is the description of the normal (“traditional”)
word order of “calm prose exposition”. (In his earlier work [1878], he had explored a
few simple aspects of more marked word order [“occasionelle Stellung” (occasional
positioning)] as well.) The conception of syntax he invokes is one in which there is
some basic order − that of rhetorically neutral prose description − from which deviations
arise via well-defined perturbations of that neutral order (usually simple fronting).
In the same way, much “word order” syntax work on Indo-European (and thus early
Indo-Iranian) languages in the 1970’s concerned which ordering of the “magic letters”
S, O, and V (for subject, object, and verb, respectively) should be assumed as “basic”
or “underlying” for PIE, where, once again, “basic” or “underlying” was taken to be an
ordering from which more “marked” orders could be derived. In both cases, more
“marked” orders were those which were statistically less common. It is also clear that,
at least in the 19th-century research, this statistical infrequency was a function of the
strong rhetorical or expressive needs of the particular genre.
This approach does not seem inherently misguided, yet it has failed to yield a reliable
result. Why? First, it turns out that the statistically most frequent order and the “basic”
order (in the sense of “order from which all observed orders can be most readily de-
rived”) do not target the same phenomenon. The most common word order of a modern
German transitive clause, e.g., is SVO, but it turns out that this is a derived order (under
most analyses, the S has been fronted and the V has moved from “final” to “second”
position). Second, as the German example makes clear, surface linear order may be a
less than fully insightful manner of characterizing the syntax of a language. In the SVO
order of a modern German main clause, e.g., we have a derivation from underlying SOV
order, but, crucially, that characterization of the ordering makes it appear that the subject
is in the same syntactic position in underlying and surface syntax (“initial”, let’s say),
but, again, under all modern analyses of German, this is not the case. Linear order
description hides the fact that we went from [ S O V ] to [ S [ V [ __ S O __ V] ] ] (where
the under-lines mark the original locus of the S and V elements). Finally, as it turns out,
it is not the case that SOV sentences are “rhetorically neutral” in archaic Indo-Iranian
(and Indo-European) languages. In a normal discourse-neutral context, the subject of the
transitive clause will have already been mentioned in previous discourse (it is unusual
to introduce new material into the discourse in this position), and will thus be pronomi-
nalized. However, the normal pronominal for an unemphatic subject in Indo-Iranian is
null, i.e. has no phonological content. Again, in the case of a direct object known from
previous discourse (statistically the norm, as well), we expect an unemphatic object
pronoun. In Indo-Iranian, such unemphatic object pronouns were realized either as an
enclitic or as a form of some “weak” pronominal, such as the topic-marker *tá-. Neither
of these elements is freely positioned by the syntax. Thus the expected form of an
unmarked transitive clause in Indo-Iranian is not SOV; it is either V=Ocl or (assuming
a masculine singular object) *tám V. But the surface linear order will not reveal where
the null subject (pro) is at all. Moreover, the enclitic object has been moved in the
phonology (“prosodic inversion”) in such an example (and thus does not represent a
“default” position for objects), and, as discussed in detail above, the placement of topic-
marking tá- is also highly constrained. Transitive sentences which actually contain overt,

Authenticated
non-pronominal subject and object arguments are on the whole rare and do not represent
“neutral” expressions at all.
What these considerations reveal is that the most effective method for discovering
the structure of the Indo-Iranian clause lies not in trying to find the most neutral expres-
sion one can and exploring, to the extent possible, the linear order of arguments in such
structures, but rather in trying to understand the rich evidence provided by the archaic
languages for the role that discourse phenomena such as “topic” and “focus”, as well as
more narrowly syntactic (or even prosodic) considerations such as wh-element, clitic,
etc., play in the determination of syntactic structure. From such a perspective, limiting
ourselves to the case of transitive clauses, e.g. to those which have full NP arguments
(rather than restricted-distribution pronominals) in a “default” (most frequent) order,
simply robs us of all the evidence which might reveal the principles which determine
order in all sentences of our texts − including these allegedly “neutral” ones.
Note that the start of the IIr. clause that we have reconstructed in (17) says nothing
about the traditional focus of syntactic discussions sketched above: S, O, and V. We can
see this from an examination of relatively simple clause types. We will leave to one side
the position of V (which we will treat as final for the time being), sentences involving
clitic objects or wh-element arguments, and sentences involving more constituents than
the three elements S, O, and V. The multiple “discourse”-related positions at the start of
the clause provide us with a clear reason for the lack of insight the field has gleaned
from scholarship which takes S, O, and V as its analytical primitives. A clause with
SOV order may have its S in the EMPHASIS position, with its object in TOPIC position,
FOCUS position, or in situ. Or it may have its S in the TOPIC position, with its object
either in FOCUS position or in situ. Or it may have its S in situ and its O in situ as
well. A table will clarify the possibilities (we include OSV order, to give a more com-
plete picture of what word-order variation looks like under such assumptions):
EMPHASIS TOPIC FOCUS in situ

SOV-1 S O ... V
SOV-2 S O ... V
SOV-3 S O V
SOV-4 S O ... V
SOV-5 S O V
SOV-6 S O V
SOV-7 SO V
OSV-1 O S ... V
OSV-2 O S ... V
OSV-3 O S V
OSV-4 O S ... V
OSV-5 O S V
OSV-6 O S V

Authenticated
In these simple clause types, the subject occupies the EMPHASIS position in SOV-1,
SOV-2, and SOV-3, but the O in these three rows occupies a distinct position in each
case. The subject occupies the TOPIC position in SOV-4 and SOV-5 orders, as well as
in OSV-1 order, but in spite of this structural similarity, the first two are counted under
traditional studies as “the same” (as well as, of course, being counted as the same as all
other SOV orders), but the latter is treated as totally distinct. The object occupies the
FOCUS position in SOV-2, SOV-4, and OSV-6 orders! Matters become massively more
complex, as can easily be imagined, if we make space in our table for subject and
object wh-elements (which would come between EMPHASIS and TOPIC, regardless of
grammatical function) and clitic direct objects. In short, the problem with traditional
“word order” studies of Indo-Iranian (and Indo-European) syntax is that they are looking
at word order, instead of trying to see through the superficial linear order of a particular
clause to the syntactic structure which underlies it.
To return briefly to our earlier point, it is not only the case that counting “the wrong
things” (S’s in EMPHASIS, TOPIC, or FOCUS as “the same” as long as they precede
O, e.g.) creates problems. A probabilistic approach to IIr. sentence structure is in general
misguided. Knowing that a given order (e.g. OSV) is statistically “rare” or “marked”
does not tell us why the sentence we are looking at has that order: probabilistic claims
are claims about sets of sentences. As such, they provide no explanation for any individu-
al structure, rare or common. Since we must develop an analysis of the structure of the
clause we are examining, once we understand why it has the order it has, what good
does the statistical argument do us? One hundred percent of clauses with that particular
type of meaning combinations have that structure! Put another way, observe that one
could write an entire Neo-Rigveda or Neo-Avesta using only OSV clauses without
changing the syntax of Vedic Sanskrit at all, because the syntax doesn’t tell you how
often to express particular meanings, only how to express them, once you have decided
you want to. Of course, the text would be pragmatically odd, but its sentences would be
grammatical. Determining the syntax of the language involves knowing how licit senten-
ces are constructed. It is only when we have made progress on this prior question that
we can ask how licit structures are put to use to serve pragmatic and discourse func-
tions − also structurally encoded, as we have seen above. An approach which seeks the
explanations for “word order” not in general markedness or frequency domains but by
trying to discover what structural properties are present in the strings, acknowledging
that structural properties exist to express meanings, will definitely help with what I take
to be the primary goals of research into the syntax of archaic IIr. languages: 1. the
exploitation of syntax to assist with text interpretation (which will in turn increase the
sophistication of our understanding of the syntax of the language in question) and 2. the
leveraging of the syntactic facts of the daughter languages thus uncovered to understand
the structure of the Proto-Indo-Iranian clause, and, ultimately that of PIE (and, of course,
the diachronic development of these structures over time).
7. Conclusions
It will be apparent to the reader that much remains opaque regarding the configurational
syntax of Proto-Indo-Iranian. While clarifying some of these issues will certainly require

Authenticated
enhancing our knowledge of the antecedent PIE situation with respect to the phenomenon
in question (to the extent that is possible without clear input to the process from an
understanding of the Indo-Iranian data), it is largely dependent on simple, non-superficial
analyses of syntactic phenomena in the most archaic daughter languages, particularly the
Vedic Sanskrit of the mantras and the language of the extensive Young Avestan texts.
I will use an important, but still quite opaque, issue as a representative problem for
discussing some of the important difficulties which persist: the position of the finite
verb. In the most archaic daughter languages of the family, the language of the Vedic
mantras and that of both the Old Avestan Gāθās and the “Great” Yašts of Young Avestan,
we find a great deal of variation: clause-final verbs, clause-initial verbs, and verbs in a
variety of clause-internal positions all abound in the texts. I note this in spite of the
assertions of West (2011: § 338, but see the weakening of the claim in § 341 and § 344)
and Skjærvø (2009: 94) that the “basic” Old Iranian word order is SOV. (It must also
be pointed out that all of the criticism leveled above against using superficial linear order
as a primitive hold equally well of verb position: a “clause-initial” verb may be in any
of a relatively large number of actual syntactic positions, as may a “clause-final” verb −
this fact hardly need be mentioned with respect to the “variety of clause-internal posi-
tions”, of course.) In the generally less-archaic daughters represented by the Old Persian
and Vedic Prose corpus, it is indeed correct to label verb-finality as the norm, the attested
deviations from that order being highly constrained. Unfortunately, this characterization
of things (exceedingly rough and uninsightful for the earliest daughters) leaves many
possible explanations on the table. Are we observing − when looking at the difference
between the diversity of verb placement in our most archaic daughters (Mantra Vedic
and Avestan) and our less archaic ones (Old Persian and Vedic Prose) − the effects of
diachronic change in the syntactic system? Or does the more expansive “expressive
range” of the more archaic texts indicate that we should expect greater deviation from
the “basic” SOV order even if the underlying syntactic system remained constant across
this time span? Or are metrical considerations alone responsible? These questions would
be difficult to answer even if we had a rich and insightful characterization of verb
distribution in the most archaic branches − without such a foundation, they are not within
range of serious scholarly discussion.
The good thing about acknowledging our ignorance on these matters, as I noted
above, is that we see just how much fascinating research there is to do − an exciting,
as well as daunting, project. The reconstruction of the syntax of the Indo-European
protolanguage simply cannot make meaningful progress without the development of a
firm understanding of the Proto-Indo-Iranian situation. Having moved aside some of the
hurdles of earlier approaches, we may finally be in a position to pursue the development
of this understanding.
8. References
1882−1887 Arische Forschungen. 3 vols. Halle: Niemeyer.
1904 Altiranisches Wörterbuch. Strassburg: Trübner.

Authenticated
Caland, Willem
1891 Zur Syntax der Pronomina im Avesta. Amsterdam: Müller.
Delbrück, Berthold
1878 Die altindische Wortfolge aus dem Śatapathabrāhmaṇa dargestellt. (Syntaktische For-
schungen 3). Halle: Waisenhaus.
Delbrück, Berthold
1888 Altindische Syntax. (Syntaktische Forschungen 5). Halle: Waisenhaus.
Delbrück, Berthold
1900 Vergleichende Syntax der Indogermanischen Sprachen. 3. Theil. Strassburg: Trübner.
Deshpande, Madhav and Hans Hock
1991b A bibliography of writings on Sanskrit syntax. In: Hock (ed.), 219−244.
Hale, Mark
1987 Studies in the Comparative Syntax of the Oldest Indo-Iranian Languages. Ph.D. disserta-
tion, Harvard University.
Hale, Mark
1988 Old Persian word order. Indo-Iranian Journal 31: 27−40.
Hale, Mark
1991 Some observations on intersentential pronominalization in the language of the Taittirīya
Saṃhitā. In: Joel P. Brereton and Stephanie W. Jamison (eds.), Sense and Syntax in
Vedic. Leiden: Brill, 2−18.
Hale, Mark
1996 Deriving Wackernagel’s Law: prosodic and syntactic factors determining clitic place-
ment in the language of the Rigveda. In: Aaron Halpern and Arnold Zwicky (eds.),
Approaching Second. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information,
165−197.
Hale, Mark
ms. Wackernagel’s Law: Phonology and Syntax in Vedic Sanskrit.
Halpern, Aaron L.
1992 Topics in the Placement and Morphology of Clitics. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford Univer-
sity.
Hock, Hans (ed.)
1991 Studies in Sanskrit Syntax. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Ickler, Ingeborg
1973 Untersuchungen zur Wortstellung und Syntax der Chāndogyopaniṣad. (Göppinger Aka-
demische Beiträge 75). Göppingen: Kümmerle.
Klein, Jared S.
1985 Toward a Discourse Grammar of the Rigveda. Vol 1. Parts 1 and 2. Heidelberg: Winter.
Klein, Jared S.
1988 Coordinate conjunction in Old Persian. Journal of the American Oriental Society 108:
387−417.
Oertel, Hans
1923 Zum disjunkten Gebrauch des Nominativs in der Brāhmaṇaprosa. In: Antidōron:
Festschrift Jakob Wackernagel. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 45−50.
Oertel, Hans
1926 The Syntax of Cases in the Narrative and Descriptive Prose of the Brāhmaṇas. Heidel-
berg: Winter.
Skjærvø, Prods Oktor
2009 Old Iranian languages. In: Gernot Windfuhr (ed.), The Iranian Languages. London:
Routledge, 43−195.
Verpoorten, Jean-Marie
1977 L’ordre des mots dans l’Aitareya-Brāhmaṇa. (Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie
et Lettres de l’Université de Liège 216). Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

Authenticated
Wackernagel, Jakob
333−436.
West, Martin L.
2011 Old Avestan Syntax and Stylistics. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Mark Hale, Berkshire, VT (USA)
113. The lexicon of Indo-Iranian

1. Introduction 4. Specific vocabulary
2. Inherited vocabulary 5. Phraseology
1. Introduction
The lexicon of the Proto-Indo-Iranian linguistic unity has been registered in a systematic
manner only once, by Fick (1890: 155−342). But Fick himself (1890: VII) in the absence
of a specialist collaborator was aware of the book’s weaknesses in Iranian matters (cf.
the devastating criticism of Bartholomae 1894). Moreover, Fick took into account not
only the words that are actually attested in both branches of Indo-Iranian in ancient
times, but also material that occurs in only one of them (normally Old Indo-Aryan) but
has a counterpart outside Indo-Iranian (as *ái̯ ma- ‘course, way’ [V. éma- ] = Gk. οἶμος;
V. ū́dhar/n- ‘udder’ ~ Gk. οὖθαρ or even *ću̯anta- ‘beneficent’ [Av. spəṇta-] = OCS. svętъ
‘holy’); for every Indo-Aryan lexeme with an ascertained equivalent in the cognate
languages (like the phrase-based V. iṣirá- ‘vital, powerful’ = Gk. ἱερός [cf. 5.] or the
verbal root V. oṣ, oṣati ‘burn, scorch’ = Gk. εὕω, Lat. ūrō) must of course have passed
through the stage of Proto-Indo-Iranian. Fick included also (anthrop)onomastic equations
(e.g. *Gau̯tama- [V. Gótama-, YAv. Gaotəma-], *B hāsa- [OIA. Bhāsa- = YAv. Bā̊ŋha-])
for which I refer to Schmitt (1995a: 645b, 1995b: 678b). Because Fick (1890) is entirely
obsolete and in nearly all respects outdated now, it could not be used as the basis of the
present outline.
To prove that some word was part of the Proto-Indo-Iranian lexicon is not an easy
task even in the case of inherited IE words, since Iranian evidence often is lacking owing
to the limited text corpora. The relevant material, however, can be surveyed now without
difficulty in Mayrhofer (1992−1996; which should always be consulted), where the en-
tire vocabulary of the Vedas is recorded together with the essential (Old) Iranian cog-
nates, though a comparative Indo-Iranian (or even Iranian) dictionary was not intended
by that author. In principle, it is nevertheless indispensable that every Indo-Iranian word
be based on the evidence of both branches − Nuristani being left aside here as indeci-
sive − and, if possible, on evidence in the Old Iranian languages. In order to illustrate
the problems, it may be sufficient to quote two words of undoubted PIE origin which
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-034

Authenticated
Wackernagel, Jakob
333−436.
West, Martin L.
2011 Old Avestan Syntax and Stylistics. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Mark Hale, Berkshire, VT (USA)
113. The lexicon of Indo-Iranian

1. Introduction 4. Specific vocabulary
2. Inherited vocabulary 5. Phraseology
1. Introduction
The lexicon of the Proto-Indo-Iranian linguistic unity has been registered in a systematic
manner only once, by Fick (1890: 155−342). But Fick himself (1890: VII) in the absence
of a specialist collaborator was aware of the book’s weaknesses in Iranian matters (cf.
the devastating criticism of Bartholomae 1894). Moreover, Fick took into account not
only the words that are actually attested in both branches of Indo-Iranian in ancient
times, but also material that occurs in only one of them (normally Old Indo-Aryan) but
has a counterpart outside Indo-Iranian (as *ái̯ ma- ‘course, way’ [V. éma- ] = Gk. οἶμος;
V. ū́dhar/n- ‘udder’ ~ Gk. οὖθαρ or even *ću̯anta- ‘beneficent’ [Av. spəṇta-] = OCS. svętъ
‘holy’); for every Indo-Aryan lexeme with an ascertained equivalent in the cognate
languages (like the phrase-based V. iṣirá- ‘vital, powerful’ = Gk. ἱερός [cf. 5.] or the
verbal root V. oṣ, oṣati ‘burn, scorch’ = Gk. εὕω, Lat. ūrō) must of course have passed
through the stage of Proto-Indo-Iranian. Fick included also (anthrop)onomastic equations
(e.g. *Gau̯tama- [V. Gótama-, YAv. Gaotəma-], *B hāsa- [OIA. Bhāsa- = YAv. Bā̊ŋha-])
for which I refer to Schmitt (1995a: 645b, 1995b: 678b). Because Fick (1890) is entirely
obsolete and in nearly all respects outdated now, it could not be used as the basis of the
present outline.
To prove that some word was part of the Proto-Indo-Iranian lexicon is not an easy
task even in the case of inherited IE words, since Iranian evidence often is lacking owing
to the limited text corpora. The relevant material, however, can be surveyed now without
difficulty in Mayrhofer (1992−1996; which should always be consulted), where the en-
tire vocabulary of the Vedas is recorded together with the essential (Old) Iranian cog-
nates, though a comparative Indo-Iranian (or even Iranian) dictionary was not intended
by that author. In principle, it is nevertheless indispensable that every Indo-Iranian word
be based on the evidence of both branches − Nuristani being left aside here as indeci-
sive − and, if possible, on evidence in the Old Iranian languages. In order to illustrate
the problems, it may be sufficient to quote two words of undoubted PIE origin which
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-034

Authenticated
113. The lexicon of Indo-Iranian 1943
are attested only in modern Iranian languages: PIE *deh2iu̯ér- ‘husband’s brother’
(V. devár-, cf. Gk. δᾱήρ, Lith. dieverìs) in Pašto lewar etc.; PIE *bhr̥Hg̑ó- ‘birch-tree’
(V. bhūrjá-, cf. OHG. birka, Lith. béržas) in Oss. bærz/bærzæ etc.
2.1. Verbs
In the IE languages the verbal root, as is known, is the central means of denoting events
and states. Thus the majority of PIE verbal roots have been preserved in Indo-Iranian,
even if in phonetically altered form. Since in Indo-Iranian all word-formation starts from
the root (as already the ancient Indian grammarians had recognized for their mother-
tongue), a list of the most important Proto-Indo-Iranian primary verbal roots (attested in
both Old Indo-Aryan and [Old] Iranian) shall be given here. But secondary, as a rule
denominative, stem-formations like PIIr. *u̯ái̯ na- (V. véna- = Av. vaēna- = OP. vaina-)
‘look at, track down’ or PIIr. *páti̯ a- (V. pátya- = Av. paiθiia-) ‘be master of ’ are passed
over on principle. This list impressively shows the conservatism of Indo-Iranian and the
close affinity of its two branches to one another. It follows the sequence of the Latin
alphabet in a form modified as required and disregards the varying manner and means
of stem-formation (ablaut, suffixes, etc.) even in the cases of specific formations:
PIIr. *b hag/ǰ ‘assign’, *b haH ‘shine’, *b hai̯ H ‘be afraid’, *b(h)and h ‘bind, tie’, *b(h)anȷ́h
‘strengthen’ (V. baṃh = OAv. dəbąz), *b har ‘carry, bring’, *b (h)arȷ́ h ‘make strong/great’,
*b (h)au̯d h ‘notice’, *bhau̯H ‘become’ (V. bhav i = Av. bauu, OP. bav), *bhraHȷ́ ‘shine,
sparkle’, *bhrai̯ H ‘wound, hurt’;
*ćaHs ‘command, advise’ (V. śās = Av. sāh), *ćai̯ H ‘lie’ (V. śay(i) = YAv. saii),
*ćak/č ‘be able’, *ćans ‘pronounce, praise’ (V. śaṃs = OAv. səˉngh, YAv. saŋh, OP.
θanh), *ćau̯H ‘swell, thrive’, *ćau̯k/č ‘glow’, *ćnathH ‘kick, knock down’, *ćrai̯ ‘lean’
(V. śray = YAv. sraii, OP. çay), *ćrau̯ ‘hear (words)’, *ćrau̯š ‘obey’, *ćšai̯ ‘dwell, live’
(V. kṣay = Av. šaii); *čaćš ‘look’ (V. cakṣ = YAv. caš), *čai̯ 1 ‘stack’, *čai̯ 2 ‘punish,
avenge’, *čai̯ t ‘perceive’, *čar(H) ‘wander, move’, *či̯ au̯ ‘set in motion, move’ (V.
cyav = Av. š́ (ii)auu = OP. šiyav);
*daH 1 ‘give’, *daH 2 ‘bind, tie’, *dai̯ ć ‘show’, *dakš ‘be able’, *darć ‘see’, *dar(H)
‘pierce, split’, *dram ‘run’, *drau̯ ‘run’, *du̯ai̯ š ‘hate’ (V. dveṣ = OAv. d aibiš, YAv.
t̰ baēš); *d (h)abh ‘deceive’, *d haH ‘put’, *d hai̯ H ‘look’, *d (h)ai̯ ȷ́ h ‘smear, mould’ (V. deh =
YAv. daēz), *d har ‘hold’, *d (h)arȷ́ h ‘make firm’ (V. darh = Av. darəz), *d harš ‘dare’ (V.
dharṣ = OP. darš), *d (h)rau̯g h/ǰ h ‘deceive’;
*gaH ‘go’, *gam/ǰam ‘go’ (V. gam = Av. jam/gam), *garH ‘welcome, praise’, *gau̯ȷ́ h
‘hide’ (V. goh = YAv. gaoz, OP. gaud), *gž har ‘flow’ (V. kṣar = YAv. γžar); *g (h)rab hH
‘seize, gain’;
*Had h ‘say’ (V. ā˘h = YAv. ā˘d), *HaHp ‘obtain’, *HaHs ‘sit’, *Hai̯ ‘go’, *Hai̯ ć ‘be
master, command’ (V. eś = Av. aēs), *Hai̯ š 1 ‘seek, desire’, *Hai̯ š 2 ‘drive, move’ (V.
eṣ = Av. aēš, OP. aiš), *Haȷ́ ‘drive’, *HanH ‘breathe’, *Har 1 ‘(start to) move’, *Har 2
‘reach, arrive’, *Hard h ‘let thrive’, *Harg h/ǰ h ‘be worth’, *Has 1 ‘be’, *Has 2 ‘throw’,
*Hau̯g h/ǰ h ‘pronounce’ (V. oh = Av. aog/j), *Hau̯H ‘help, support’, *Hi̯ aȷ́ ‘offer, worship’
(V. yaj = Av. yaz, OP. yad), *Hi̯ au̯d h ‘fight’, *Hǰar ‘wake’, *Hmai̯ ȷ́ h ‘urinate’ (V. meh =

Authenticated
YAv. maēz), *Hnać ‘obtain’, *Hnai̯ d ‘revile, rebuke’, *HraHd h ‘succeed’ (V. rādh =
Av. rād), *Hram ‘rest’, *Hranǰ h ‘hasten, run’ (V. raṃh = YAv. raṇj), *Hrau̯d h ‘grow’,
*Hu̯ab h ‘weave’, *Hu̯aH ‘blow’, *Hu̯akš ‘increase’, *Hu̯ard h ‘grow, increase’, *Hu̯arš
‘rain’, *Hu̯as 1 ‘shine’, *Hu̯as 2 ‘dwell’;
*i̯ am ‘hold, keep’, *i̯ as ‘boil’, *i̯ at ‘stand’, *i̯ au̯ 1 ‘unite’, *i̯ au̯ 2 ‘separate, keep away’,
*i̯ au̯g/ǰ ‘harness, join’;
*ȷ́amb h ‘crush, smash’, *ȷ́anH ‘give birth, generate’, *ȷ́au̯š ‘taste, like, enjoy’, *ȷ́i̯ aH
‘rob, deprive’ (pres. V. jinā́- = YAv. zinā-, OP. dinā-), *ȷ́naH ‘perceive, know’; *ȷ́ haH
‘leave’ (V. hā = Av. zā), *ȷ́ harH ‘be angry’ (V. har i = Av. zar), *ȷ́ hau̯H/*ȷ́ hu̯aH ‘call’ (V.
hav i/hvā = Av. zauu/zbā, OP. zbā), *ȷ́ hu̯ar ‘stagger, totter’; *ǰai̯ ‘win, conquer’; *ǰ han/
g han ‘smite, kill’ (V. han = Av. jan, OP. jan);
*kać ‘appear, see’, *kaH ‘be pleased, desire’, *kanH 1 ‘enjoy’ (V. kan i = Av. kan),
*kanH 2 ‘dig’ (V. khan = YAv. kan, OP. kan), *kar ‘make, do’, *karH 1 ‘praise’, *karH 2
‘scatter’, *karš ‘plough’, *kart ‘cut’, *krau̯ć ‘cry, shout’ (V. kroś = Av. xraos), *krau̯d h
‘be angry’, *kšaH ‘rule’ (pres. V. kṣáya- = Av. xšaiia-, OP. xšaya-), *kšau̯b h ‘quake,
sway’, *kšnau̯ ‘whet, sharpen’;
*mad ‘enjoy, become exhilarated’, *maH ‘measure, allot’, *man 1 ‘think’, *man 2
‘wait’, *mar ‘die’ (pres. V. mriya- = YAv. miriia-, OP. mariya-), *mard h ‘neglect’,
*mark/č ‘injure, damage’, *maržd ‘have mercy’ (V. marḍ= Av. maržd), *mi̯ au̯H ‘push’
(V. mīv = YAv. mīuu), *mraH ‘soften’ (V. mlā = YAv. mrā), *mrau̯H ‘say’ (V. brav i =
Av. mrauu), *mrau̯k/č ‘vanish, disappear’;
*nać ‘vanish, die’ (V. naś = Av. nas, OP. naθ), *nad ‘roar, scream’, *nai̯ H ‘lead’,
*nai̯ ǰ ‘wash’, *nam ‘bend, bow’;
*pač ‘cook’, *pad ‘step, go’, *paH ‘protect’, *pai̯ ć ‘engrave, adorn’ (V. peś = YAv.
paēs, OP. paiθ), *pai̯ H ‘swell’, *pai̯ š ‘crush’, *par ‘cross, take across’, *parH ‘fill’,
*pat ‘fly, fall’, *prać ‘ask’, *prai̯ H ‘please’, *prau̯ ‘slide, swim’ (V. plav = YAv. frauu),
*prau̯t h ‘snort’, *puH ‘rot, spoil’;
*raH ‘give’, *rai̯ ȷ́ h ‘lick’ (V. reh = YAv. raēz), *rai̯ k/č ‘leave’, *rai̯ š ‘suffer, be hurt’,
*rau̯d(H) ‘weep’ (V. rod(i) = Av. raod), *rau̯d h ‘hinder, hamper’, *rau̯k/č ‘shine’, *rau̯p
‘be in pain’;
*sad ‘sit’, *saHd h ‘succeed’ (V. sādh = YAv. hād), *saH(i̯ ) ‘bind’ (V. sā, pres. syá- =
Av. hā, hiia-), *sai̯ k/č- ‘pour out’, *sak/č ‘follow, accompany’, *sanH ‘gain, win’, *sap
‘care for’, *sarȷ́ ‘let go, release’, *sas ‘sleep’, *sau̯ ‘press (out)’, *sau̯H 1 ‘give birth,
generate’, *sau̯H 2 ‘drive, move’, *sau̯š ‘dry’ (V. śoṣ < *soš = YAv. haoš), *sćaH ‘cut
up’ (V. chā = OAv. sā), *sćand ‘seem, please’ (V. chand = YAv. saṇd, OP. θand),
*skamb hH ‘fix, prop’, *smar ‘remember’, *snaH ‘bathe’, *snai̯ g h/ǰ h ‘stick, snow’, *spać
‘see’ (V. (s)paś = Av. spas), *spard h ‘compete, contend’, *sparȷ́ h ‘crave for, be eager’
(V. sparh = OAv. sparz), *sp (h)arH ‘jerk, kick’ (V. sphar i = YAv. spar), *staH ‘stand’,
*star ‘knock down’, *starH ‘strew, spread’, *stau̯ ‘praise’, *su̯ai̯ d ‘sweat’ (V. sved =
YAv. xvaēd), *su̯anH ‘sound’, *su̯ap ‘sleep’;
*taćš ‘shape, fashion’ (V. taks ̣ = Av. taš), *tak ‘run, rush’, *tan ‘stretch’, *tap ‘heat,
burn’, *tarH ‘get across, overcome’, *tau̯H ‘be strong/able’, *traH ‘save, rescue’, *tras
‘tremble, shake’;
*u̯ać ‘be eager, want’, *u̯ai̯ ć ‘settle, be ready’, *u̯ai̯ d ‘find, know’, *u̯ai̯ g/ǰ ‘swing,
shoot’, *u̯ai̯ H ‘follow up’, *u̯ai̯ p ‘tremble, be ecstatic’, *u̯aȷ́ h ‘draw, drive’, *u̯ak/č
‘speak’, *u̯amH ‘vomit’, *u̯an ‘overcome, win’, *u̯ank/č ‘waver, stagger’, *u̯ar ‘cover,

Authenticated
enclose’, *u̯arH ‘choose’, *u̯art ‘turn’, *u̯as ‘clothe’, *u̯at ‘be acquainted/familiar’,
*u̯rag/ǰ ‘walk, proceed’, *u̯raHd h ‘be glad, be proud’ (V. vrādh = YAv. uruuād).
2.2. Nominals (nouns and adjectives)
A large number of Proto-Indo-Iranian nouns are inherited from the proto-language, as is

true also for the most archaic types of word-formation (esp. root-nouns, stems in conso-
nants [in -s, -r, -n, etc.] together with ablaut). Several semantic groups may be differenti-
ated and illustrated here succinctly:
Man: *Hi̯ úu̯an- ‘young (man)’ (V. nom. sg. yúvā, gen. yū́n-as = YAv. nom. yauua,
gen. pl. yūn-ąm); *Hnár- ‘man’; *Hu̯id háu̯ā- ‘widow’; *Hu̯r̥ ́ šan- ‘manly, male, man’;
*ȷ́ánH-a- ‘man, creature, race’; *ȷ́anH-tú- ‘creature, man, tribe’; *ǰánH-/*gnā́ ‘wife’ (V.
jáni- = OAv. jəˉni-, YAv. ja ini- and V. gnā́- = OAv. g ənā-, YAv. γənā-, both based on a
single paradigm); *kau̯í- ‘wise man, seer’; *mánu(š)- ‘man, father of mankind’; *mári̯ a-
‘young man’; *márta- ‘mortal, man’ (V. márta- = OAv. maša-, ̣ mar əta-); *páti- ‘master,
lord, husband’ with fem. *pátniH- ‘mistress, wife’; *sákH-āi̯ - ‘friend, companion’ (V.
nom. sákhā, acc. sákhāy-am, dat. sákhy-e = OAv. °haxā, °haxāim, YAv. haxa, haš́ e);
*u̯īrá- ‘man, hero’.
Kinship terms: *bhrā́tar- ‘brother’; *d hugHtár- ‘daughter’ (V. duhitár- ~ OAv.
dug ədar-, YAv. duγδar- with different developments within Indo-Aryan and Iranian);
*mātár- ‘mother’; *nápāt- ‘grandson’ and *napt-íH- ‘granddaughter’; *pHtár- ‘father’;
*putrá- ‘son’ (V. putrá- = Av. puθra-, OP. puça-; over time this term more and more
displaced PIE *suHnú-, which is missing in New Indo-Aryan as well as in Middle
and New Iranian languages); *suH-nú- ‘son’; *su̯áćura- ‘father-in-law’ (V. śváśura- <
*sváśura- = YAv. xvasura-); *su̯ásar- ‘sister’.
Parts of the body: *ákš(i)- ‘eye’ (V. akṣ-, ákṣi- = Av. aš-); *ást hi- ‘bone’;
*ā́s- ‘mouth’; *b (h)āȷ́ hú- ‘(fore-)arm’ (V. bāhú- = YAv. bāzu-); *b hrúH- ‘eyebrow’;
*ćráu̯ni- ‘hip, buttocks’; *ćr̥ ́ H-as- ‘head, top’ (V. śíras- = YAv. sarah-); *ćúpti- ‘shoul-
der’; *čárman- ‘skin’; *dánt- ‘tooth’; *dáu̯š- ‘arm’; *grīu̯ā́- ‘neck’; *i̯ ákar- ‘liver’ (V.
yákr̥-/yakn- = YAv. yākar ə); *ȷ́ā́nu-/*ȷ́nu- ‘knee’; *ȷ́ hánu- ‘jaw’ (V. hánu- = YAv. zanu-);
*ȷ́ hás-ta- ‘hand’ (V. hásta- = Av. zasta-, OP. dasta-); *kákša- ‘armpit’; *masg hán-
‘marrow (of bones)’ (V. majján- [< *-jjh-] ~ YAv. mazga-); *nā́s- ‘nose’; *pád- ‘foot’;
*páru̯an- ‘knot, joint’; *pr̥štHá- ‘back’; *pstána- ‘female breast’ (V. stána- = YAv.
fštāna-, °fšna-); *r̥Hmá- ‘arm’ (V. īrmá- = YAv. ar(ə)ma°); *sákt hi- ‘thigh’; *snā́u̯ar/n-
‘sinew’; *spl̥ȷ́ hán- (?) ‘spleen’ (with taboo changes V. plīhán- ~ YAv. spər əzan-); *udára-
‘belly’; *u̯álća- ‘hair’ (V. válśa- ‘shoot’ = YAv. var əsa-).
Human sphere: *áćru- ‘tear’; *ánȷ́ has- ‘anxiety, distress’ (V. áṃhas- = YAv. ązah- =
Lat. angor); *áu̯ǰas- ‘strength, vigor’ (V. ójas- = OAv. acc. sg. aogō, instr. aojaŋhā,
YAv. aojah-, cf. Lat. augus-tus); *b hága- ‘welfare, happiness’ (originally ‘distribution’);
*ćráu̯-as- ‘glory, fame, praise’ (V. śrávas- = Av. srauuah- = Gk. κλέος); *dai̯ u̯á- ‘heav-
enly, divine; god’ with fem. *dai̯ u̯-íH-, which originally is an independent formation
based on *di̯ áu̯- ‘heaven’; *dám- ‘house’ with *dám-s *páti- ‘lord of the house’ (V.
pátir dán and, with secondary univerbation, dámpati- = OAv. dəˉṇg pa iti- ~ Gk.
δεσπότης); *dánsas- ‘marvelous skill’ (V. dáṃsas- = YAv. daŋhah- = Gk. δήνεα); *di̯ áu̯-
‘heaven, sky’; *g (h)r̥d há- ‘house’; *Hnā́man- ‘name’; *ćšití- ‘abode, settlement’ (V. kṣi-

Authenticated
tí- = YAv. °šiti- = Gk. κτίσις); *krátu- ‘mental ability, strength of will’; *mánas- ‘mind,
intellect, thought’ (cf. esp. V. su-mánas- ‘well-minded’ = YAv. hu-manah- = Gk. εὐ-
μενής); *maní- ‘necklace’ (V. maṇí- with secondary spontaneous -ṇ-); *matí- ‘thought,
idea, opinion’; *misd há- ‘prize, reward’ (V. mīḍhá- = Av. mīžda- = Gk. μισθός); *na-
Hu̯āȷ́á- ‘boatman’ (V. nāvājá- = YAv. nauuāza- ~ Lat. *nāvago- in nāvigāre); *námas-
‘adoration, reverence’; *padá- ‘step, footstep, trace’; *pitú- ‘food’; *raH-í- ‘property,
possession, wealth’ (V. rayí-, acc. sg. rayím, gen. rāyás = Av. raii-, acc. YAv. raēm, gen.
OAv. rāiiō); *sád-as- ‘seat, residence’ (V. sádas- = Gk. ἔδος, cf. YAv., OP. had-iš-);
*sáȷ́ h-as- ‘power, force, superiority’ (V. sáhas- = Av. hazah- = Got. sigis); *sám-ā- ‘half-
year, summer’; *su̯ápna- ‘sleep(ing), dream(ing)’ (V. svápna- = Av. xvaf (ə)na-); *táćšan-
(?) ‘carpenter’ (V. tákṣan- = Av. tašan- = Gk. τέκτων); *tāyú- ‘thief ’; *tr̥šnā˘- ‘thirst’;
*u̯ačas- ‘speech, word’ (V. vácas- = Av. vacah- = Gk. ἔπος); *u̯ā́č- ‘speech, voice’ (V.
vā́c- = Av. vāc- = Lat. vōx); *u̯íć- ‘settlement, homestead, village, court’ (V. víś- = YAv.
vīs-, OP. viθ-) with *u̯ić-páti- ‘chief of settlement’.
Fauna: *áću̯a- ‘horse’ (V. áśva- = YAv. aspa-, OP. asa-); *aȷ́á- ‘he-goat’; *áǰ hi-
‘snake’ (V. áhi- = YAv. aži-); *ćasá- ‘hare’ (V. śaśá- < *śasá- = YAv. saŋha-); *ću̯án-
‘dog’; *gáu̯- ‘ox, cow’; *Hu̯ái̯ - ‘bird’; *kr̥ ́ mi- ‘worm’; *mai̯ šá- ‘ram’ and *mai̯ šíH-
‘ewe’; *mū́š- ‘mouse, rat’; *páću-/*paćú- ‘cattle’; *r̥ ́ kša- ‘bear’ (V. r̥ ́ kṣa- = YAv. arša-);
*udrá- ‘otter’; *ukšán- ‘ox, bull’; *u̯r̥ ́ ka- ‘wolf ’ (V. vr̥ ́ ka- = YAv. vəhrka-).
Natural phenomena: *ab hrá- ‘rain, cloud’; *áćman- ‘stone’ (V. áśman- = YAv., OP.
asman- ‘heaven’, which meaning is problematic as to its age); *agní- ‘fire’ (in Iranian
attested only in anthroponyms); *ái̯ as- ‘useful metal (copper, ore)’ (= Lat. aes); *áȷ́ra-
‘field, plain’; *áȷ́ har/n- ‘day’ (V. áhar/n- = Av. asn-, e.g. gen. pl. áhn-ām = asn-ąm);
*áp- ‘water’ (V. nom. pl. ā́p-as, acc. ap-ás = YAv. nom. sg. āfš, OAv. acc. pl. apas°);
*ćap há- ‘hoof ’ (V. śaphá- = YAv. safa-); *dā́ru-/*dru- ‘wood, timber’; *dȷ́ hám- (?)
‘earth’ (V. kṣám- [< PIE *d hg̑ hém-] ~ Av. zam- with simplified initial *g̑ h- as in
Gk. χαμαί vs. χθών); *gr̥H-í- ‘mountain, hill’ (V. girí- = YAv. ga iri-); *Hstár- ‘star’;
*Hu̯áHata- ‘wind(-god)’ (V. vā́ta- = Av. vāta-, both often trisyllabic); *i̯ áu̯a- ‘barley,
corn’; kšáp- ‘night’; *mád hu- ‘sweet drink, honey’; *máHas- ‘moon, month’ (V. mā́s- =
Av., OP. māh-; cf. esp. disyllabic OAv. nom. sg. mā̊ < *maHah); *náb has- ‘vapour,
cloud’; *nákt- ‘night’; *parná- ‘feather, leaf, wing’; *prátH-as- ‘width’; *sćāyā́- ‘shad-
ow’ (V. chāyā́- = YAv. °saiia- ~ Gk. σκιᾱ́ ); *sć (h)idrá- ‘pierced; hole’; *súHar/n- ‘sun’
(V. svàr, gen. sg. sū́r-as = Av. huuarə˘ˉ , gen. YAv. hūrō, etc.); *támHsrā˘- ‘darkness’ (V.
támisrā˘- = YAv. tąθra- = Lat. tenebrae); *ušás- ‘dawn’; *u̯ā́r- ‘water’; *u̯r̥ ́ Hnā- ‘wool’
(V. ū́rṇā = YAv. var ənā- = Lat. lāna).
Various instruments: *čakrá- ‘wheel’; *du̯ā˘r- ‘door’ (V. dvā́r/dur- = YAv. duuar-, OP.
duvar(a)- with secondary *d- < PIE *d h-); *íšu- ‘arrow’; *īšā́- ‘pole (of a carriage or
plough)’ (V. īṣā́- ~ YAv. du. aēša); *i̯ ugá- ‘yoke’; *ǰi̯ ā́- ‘bow-string’.
Adjectives: *ád hara- ‘inferior’; *ántama- ‘next, nearest’ (= Lat. intimus); *ántara-
‘interior’; *āćú- ‘fast, quick’ (= Gk. ὠκύς; cf. superl. V. ā́śiṣṭha- = YAv. āsišta- = Gk.
ὤκιστος); *āmá- ‘raw’; *b (h)r̥ȷ́ hánt- ‘high’ (V. br̥hánt- = YAv. bərəzaṇt-); *ći̯ āu̯á- ‘dark
(brown)’; *ćúHra- ‘strong, heroic’ (V. śū́ra- = YAv. sūra-, with superl. *ćáu̯Hišta- > V.
śáviṣṭha- = Av. səuuišta-); *ću̯ai̯ tá- ‘white, bright’ (V. śvetá- = YAv. spaēta-); *čitrá-
‘conspicuous, bright’; *dáćsina- ‘right; [in Indo-Iranian also:] southern’ (V. dákṣiṇa- =
YAv. dašina-); *dr̥Hg há- ‘long’ (V. dīrghá-, comp. drā́ghīyas- = OAv. darəga-, YAv.
darəγa-, drājiiah-, OP. darga-); *gr̥Hú- ‘heavy’ (V. gurú- = YAv. gouru°); *g harmá-
‘hot, warm; heat’; *Hrag hú- ‘quick’ (V. raghú-, fem. raghvī́- = YAv. rəuuī- = Gk.

Authenticated
ἐλαχύς); *Hsat-i̯ á- ‘true, real’ (V. satyá- = Av. ha iθiia-, OP. hašiya-; < PIE *h1s-n̥t-i̯ ó-);
*Hu̯ásu- ‘good’; *ȷ́ hári- ‘pale, yellow’ (V. hári-, hárita- = YAv. za iri-, za irita-); *ǰīu̯á-
‘living’; *krūrá- ‘bloody, raw [flesh]’; *mád hi̯ a- ‘middle’; *nagná- ‘naked’ (V. nagná-
~ YAv. maγna-); *náu̯a- ‘new’; *prii̯ á- ‘dear’ (< PIE *priH-ó-; with superl. *prái̯ H-išta-
> V. préṣṭha- = OAv. fraēšta-); *pr̥Hná- ‘full’ (V. pūrṇá- = Av. pərəna-; cf. esp. V.
pūrṇá-mās(a)- ‘full moon’ = YAv. pərənō.mā̊ŋha-); *pr̥Hú-, fem. *pr̥Hu̯-íH- ‘much,
many’ (V. purú-, pūrvī́- = Av. pouru-, pao irī-, OP. paru-; < PIE *pl̥h1-ú-, cfr. Gk. πολύς);
*pr̥ ́ Hu̯a- ‘being in front; eastern’ (V. pū́rva- = YAv. pa(o)uruua-, pouruua-); pr̥tHú-,
fem.*pr̥tHu̯-íH- ‘broad, wide’ (V. pr̥thú-, pr̥thvī́- = Av. pərəθu-, pərəθβī-); *r̥ȷ́rá- ‘shin-
ing; quick’; *sam-a- (atonic) ‘any’; *samH-á- ‘same, equal’; *sána- ‘old’; *sáru̯a-
‘whole, entire, every’; *sau̯i̯ á- ‘left; southern’ (V. savyá- = YAv. haoiia-); *tr̥šú- ‘dry’;
*upamá- ‘uppermost’; *úpara- ‘superior’; *ūná- ‘wanting, lacking’ (~ Lat. vānus);
*u̯íću̯a- ‘all, every’ (V. víśva- = Av. vīspa-, OP. visa-); *u̯r̥Hd hu̯á- (?) ‘upright’ (V.
ūrdhvá- ~ YAv. ərəduua-, ərəδβa- ~ Gk. ὀρθός < *ϝορθϝός: cf. Mayrhofer 1996: 244 f.);
*u̯r̥Hú- ‘wide, broad’ (V. urú- = Av. vouru°).
2.3. Pronouns
Most of the stems of Indo-Iranian demonstrative, relative, and interrogative-indefinite

pronouns are inherited: PIIr. *sá-/*tá- ‘this, that’ (the forms with s- being restricted to
nom. sg. masc./fem.; cf. V. sá, sā́, tád = Av. hā/hō, hā, tat̰ < ~ Gk. ὁ, ἡ, τό); *ai̯ -/*i-
‘this one’ in nom. masc. V. ayám = OAv. aiiəˉm, Av. aēm, nom. fem. V. iyám = YAv. īm,
OP. iyam, etc. (cf. Lat. is, ea, id) in suppletion with the stem *a- ‘this one’ (V. a- = Av.
a-, OP. a-) in abl. masc. V. asmā́t = Av. ahmāt̰ < etc.; relative *Hi̯ á- ‘who, which’ (V.
yá- = Av. ya-); *ká- ‘who? what?’ (V. ká- = Av. ka-, but OAv. gen. sg. cahiiā); *čí-
‘who?’ (Av. ci-, whereas V. kí- is influenced by ká-).
Likewise, most of the personal pronouns have exact counterparts in some of the
cognate languages, though the extension in *-ám is a typical feature of Indo-Iranian:
*aȷ́ h-ám ‘I’ (V. ahám = Av. azə˘ˉ m, OP. adam) with *má- ‘me’ (e.g. acc. V. mā́m = Av.
mąm, OP. mām); *u̯ai̯ -ám ‘we’ (V. vayám = Av. vaēm, OP. vayam) with *asmá- < PIE
*n̥smé in the oblique cases (e.g. abl. V. asmát = OAv. *ahmat̰ , gen. V. asmā́kam = YAv.
ahmākəm, OP. amāxam) and enclitic *nas ‘us, our’; *tuu̯-ám ‘thou’ (V. tuvám = OAv.
tuuəˉm, YAv. tūm, OP. tuvam) with *tu̯á- ‘thee’ (e.g. acc. V. tvā́m = Av. θβąm, OP.
θuvām); enclitic *u̯as ‘you’ (V. vah̥ = OAv. vəˉ, YAv. vō).
Several series of modal, local, and other adverbs belong to these stems, too (only
those based on *tá- being mostly Indo-Aryan innovations), e.g. PIIr. *i-d há ‘here’ (V.
ihá, but Pāli idha = OAv. idā, YAv. iδa, OP. idā), *i-dā́ ‘now’ (V. idā́ = YAv. iδa), *á-
tra ‘here’ (V. átra = Av. aθrā˘), *á-t hā ‘so’ (V. áthā = Av. aθā˘), *á-d ha ‘then’ (V. ádha =
OAv. adā, YAv. aδa, OP. ada°), *Hi̯ á-tra ‘where’ (V. yátra = Av. yaθrā˘), *Hi̯ á-di ‘when’
(V. yádi = YAv. ye[i]δi, OP. yadiy), *ka-t hā́ ‘how?’ (V. kathā́ = Av. kaθā˘), *ka-dā́ ‘when?’
(V. kadā́ = OAv. kadā, YAv. kaδa), *kú-d ha ‘where?’ (V. kúha = OAv. kudā), *kú-tra
‘where?’ (V. kútra = Av. kuθrā˘).

Authenticated
2.4. Numerals
The lower cardinal numbers are inherited, albeit with some peculiarities. They may be
illustrated by the following Proto-Indo-Iranian forms: ‘2’ *du̯á- (cf. esp. nom.-acc. du.
ntr. V. duvé = OAv. duuaē, YAv. duiie) with compositional *du̯i- (and *du̯íš ‘twice’), ‘5’
*pánča, ‘7’ *saptá, ‘9’ *náu̯a, ‘10’ *dáća (cf. esp. V. dáśa-māsi ya- = YAv. dasa.māhiia-
‘ten-month [pregnancy]’), ‘12’ *du̯ā́-daća, ‘15’ *pánča-daća, ‘20’ *u̯īćatí- (YAv. vīsa iti,
whereas V. viṃśatí- is secondary), ‘50’ *pančāćát-, ‘100’ *ćatám.
2.5. Indeclinables
A short selection of inherited forms includes: *ča ‘and’; *čid indefinite and emphatic
particle (V. cid = Av. cī̆t̰ , OP. -ciy); *Hsu° ‘good, well’ (< PIE *h1su- = Gk. εὐ-); *maćšū́
‘quickly, soon’ (V. makṣū́ = Av. mošu, cf. Lat. mox); *mā́ prohibitive particle; *nū̆ ‘now’;
*pr̥Hás ‘in front, before’ (V. purás = YAv. parō).
3. Loan-words
3.1. The lexical stock of Proto-Indo-Iranian contains a considerable number of words
that are apparently not inherited from Proto-Indo-European, since they lack cognates
outside Indo-Iranian as well as convincing IE etymologies. These words must reflect
contacts between Proto-Indo-Iranians and other peoples speaking non-IE languages dur-
ing the 3 rd and early 2 nd millennium BCE when the Proto-Indo-Iranians were still in
Central Asia and had not yet lost contact with each other. The words so borrowed typical-
ly show phonological, morphological, or even semantic peculiarities or otherwise unusu-
al word-structure. Since the Proto-Indo-Iranians, though forming a speech community in
the broadest sense, perhaps spoke slightly different dialects, it seems likely that phono-
logical or other differences in borrowed words reflect the migration of these words first
to the later Indo-Aryans, who passed them on to the Iranians (Lubotsky 2001: 306). But
the number of instances where borrowing can be proven with certainty or at any rate
can be rendered plausible is not large; and as a rule we must leave open whether we are
dealing with substratum or adstratum. A thorough study of the material in question based
on Mayrhofer (1992−1996) is Lubotsky (2001), which deals with the various pecularities
of the Indo-Iranian isolates in general. Cf. also Witzel (1999: 54−56), Windfuhr (2006:
378−379), and Pinault (2006; who enriched the discussion by adding Common Tocharian
as a further language that has borrowed from some Central Asiatic substratum).
3.2. The main semantic categories seen in the borrowed portion of the Indo-Iranian
lexicon show the stimuli which the Indo-Iranians received from their new homeland
(the region of the so-called Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex culture) and its
advanced urban civilization:
1. animals: *úštra- ‘camel’ (V. úṣṭra-, Av. uštra-, OP. uša-), *k hara- ‘donkey’ (V. khara-,
YAv. xara- [Semitic?]), *mr̥gá- ‘game, wild animal’ (V. mr̥gá-, YAv. mərəγa-; but see

Authenticated
now García Trabazo 2016 for a proposed IE etymology), *kaći̯ ápa- ‘tortoise’ (V.
kaśyápa-, YAv. kasiiapa-), *kapáu̯ta- ‘pigeon’ (V. kapóta-, OP. kapauta-ka- ‘blue’),
*mátsi̯ a- ‘fish’ (V. mátsya-, YAv. masiia-);
2. farming and cattle breeding: *kšīra- ‘milk’ (V. kṣīrá-, YAv. °xšīra- [?], NP. šīr),
*paršá- ‘sheaf, bundle’ (V. parṣá-, YAv. parša-), *bī́ǰa- ‘seed, semen’ (V. bī́ja-,
BSogd. byz’k);
3. irrigation and water-management: *i̯ au̯i̯ ā́- ‘channel’ (V. yavyā́-, OP. yauviyā-), *k hā́-
‘well’ (V. khā́-, YAv. xā-);
4. building activity: *išta-, *išti- ‘brick’ (V. íṣṭakā-, iṣṭikā-, YAv. ištiia-, OP. išti-),
*mai̯ ū́k ha- ‘wooden peg’ (V. mayū́kha-, OP. mayūxa-), *ć/síkatā- ‘gravel’ (V. síkatā-
, OP. θikā-, Khot. siyatā-);
5. clothing: *átka- ‘cloak’ (V. átka-, YAv. aδka-, at̰ .ka-), *ć/sūčī́- ‘needle’ (V. sūcī́-,
YAv. sūkā-);
6. body parts etc.: *k/gái̯ ća- ‘hair of the head’ (V. kéśa-, YAv. gaēsa-), *púsća- ‘tail’
(V. púccha-, YAv. pusa-), *ću̯ái̯ pa- ‘tail’ (V. śépa-, YAv. xšuuaēpā- ‘backside’),
*u̯r̥tká- ‘kidney’ (V. vr̥kká-, YAv. vərəδka-);
7. religious terms: *anćú- ‘Soma plant’ (V. aṃśú-, YAv. ąsu-), *mag há- ‘offering, sacri-
fice’ (V. maghá-, OAv. maga-), át haru̯an- ‘priest’ (V. átharvan-, YAv. āθrauuan- [cf.
Pinault 2006: 171−175]),*r̥ ́ ši- ‘seer, bard’ (V. r̥ ́ ṣi-, OAv. ərəši-);
8. perhaps even names of mythical beings and deities like *g (h)and haru̯/b (h)á- (V.
gandharvá-, YAv. gaṇdərəβa-) or *ćaru̯á- (V. śarvá-, YAv. sauruua-, cf. Pinault 2006:
179−181).
3.3. The source language(s) of these foreign terms more often than not remain(s) un-
clear. Partly they may have come from Mesopotamia or the Fertile Crescent, but the
earlier stages of some isolated languages in remote mountain regions like Burushaski
are possible candidates, too: Thus the obviously foreign word V. godhū́ma-, YAv.
gaṇtuma-, etc. ‘wheat’ with all its formal differences (owing to some remodeling) comes
from Proto-Burushaski (cf. Bur. gur, guriŋ) according to Berger (1959: 39−43; who
rejected a Near Eastern origin, because we find there only shorter forms of the word).
There are also several other somewhat unclear cases of words that are very much alike
in their form, but are not in accordance with phonetic laws: e.g. V. sarṣapa- ‘mustard
(seed)’ vs. Khot. śśaśvāna-, Parth. šyfš-d’n /šifš-δān/ ‘grain of mustard’, etc.; V. siṃhá-
‘lion’ vs. Parth. šrg /šarγ/, Khwar. sarγ, etc.; or V. pr̥ ́ dāku- ‘snake’ vs. NP. palang ‘leop-
ard’ (< *pard°). In any case, we are dealing here with foreign words; but we are unable
to decide whether we should class them as substrate elements or migratory terms, be-
cause the formal differences they frequently show are typical for repeated borrowing.
3.4. Whereas (Proto-)Indo-Iranian has bequeathed a large number of loan-words to Fin-

no-Ugric (many hundreds according to Katz 2003), the list of Finno-Ugric borrowings
identified within Proto-Indo-Iranian is rather short (cf. Katz 2003: 348). Even the most
likely candidates call forth some hesitation. These include some terms for ‘hemp, canna-
bis’: *b hangá- (V. bhaṅgá-; but YAv. baŋha- is not reliable) from Proto-Uralic *paŋká-;
*k̑aná- (V. śaṇá-, MP. šan; but cf. V. khana-, Khot. kaṃha- with initial *k-) from Proto-
Finno-Ugric *kənä (Katz 2003: 143, who left aside, however, other words belonging
here, like Gk. κάνναβις); *ganǰā- (OIA. gañjā-, but without an Iranian equivalent) from
Proto-Finno-Permian *kančá.

Authenticated
In addition, it may be mentioned explicitly that only the substrate influences on Proto-
Indo-Iranian are dealt with here, so that the manifold substrata from which Old Indo-
Aryan obviously has borrowed on Indian soil from the time of the Rigveda onward
(cf. esp. Witzel 2000) are not included in this survey.
4.1. Verbs
A significant number of verbal roots, though common to the (ancient) Indo-Iranian lan-
guages and without morphological peculiarities, have no parallels in the cognate lan-
guages and thus are isolates lacking an Indo-European etymology (see Lubotsky 2001:
314 f.). They include *bhai̯ š ‘heal’ (in Vedic derived bhiṣaj- only), *b haru̯ ‘chew’, *ći̯ aH
‘coagulate, congeal’ (V. śyā), *g has ‘eat, consume’, *g hau̯š ‘sound’ (V. ghoṣ = Av. gaoš
‘hear [sounds]’), *Hu̯i̯ ad h ‘pierce, hurt’ (V. vyadh), *ȷ́ hai̯ ‘impel, incite’ (V. hay = Av.
zaii), *kau̯č ‘bend, shrink’, *kramH ‘stride’, *nard ‘bellow, growl’, *srans ‘dissolve,
fall’, *u̯ai̯ k/č ‘separate, sift’, *u̯andH ‘praise, greet’, *u̯ap ‘strew, scatter’, *u̯i̯ ak/č ‘en-
compass, enclose’, *u̯i̯ at h ‘sway, totter’, *u̯rai̯ H ‘press, crush’ (V. vlay i = Av. uruuaii),
but also the unclear present stem *išud hi̯ a- ‘strive for’.
4.2. Nominals (nouns and adjectives)

This group includes Indo-Iranian isolates that are not borrowed from some other lan-
guage, but have a plausible Indo-European etymology. These instances generally involve
formations based on a PIE root but differing from cognate words in other subgroups by
a special suffix. A number of semantic groups may be differentiated here, too. We begin
with Indo-Iranian theonyms and other religious terms, a category not treated in 2.2.
Theonyms: V. Apā́ṃ nápāt- = YAv. Apąm napāt- ‘descendant (lit.: grandson) of the
waters’; V. Arámati- = Av. Ārma iti- (four-syllable form) ‘right thought’; V. Aryamán- =
Av. A iriiaman- ‘hospitable’; V. Ásura- = Av. Ahura- ‘lord’ (esp. in Ahura- Mazdā- =
OP. Auramazdā- ‘Lord Wisdom’); V. Āptyá- (in Tritá- Āptyá-) ~ YAv. Āθβiia- (cf. Mayr-
hofer 1992: 168); V. Dāsá- a demon ~ YAv. Dahāka- a dragon; V. Índra- (cf. Near
Eastern early IA. dIn-da-ra, dIn-tar) = YAv. Iṇdra- a daēvic being; V. Mitrá- = YAv.
Miθra- ‘(god) Contract’; V. Nárā-śáṃsa- epithet of Agni, lit. ‘praise of men’ ~ YAv.
Na iriiō.saŋha-; V. Nā́satya- name of the divine twins (cf. Near Eastern early IA. dNa-
ša-at-ti-i̯ a-an-na) = YAv. Nā̊ŋha iθiia-; V. Vāyú- = YAv. Vaiiu- ‘wind’; V. Sóma- the
Soma plant, its juice and its deification = YAv. haoma- (the plant only); V. Tváṣṭar-
‘Creator’ = Av. θβōr əštar-; V. Vivásvant- = YAv. Vīuuaŋ vháṇt-, the father of V. Yamá- =
Av. Yima- the primordial twin.
Religious or mythical terms: PIIr. ā́ȷ́ huti- ‘offering, oblation’ (V. ā́huti- = Av. āzu iti-);
*āpríH- ‘invocation, blessing, curse’ (V. āprī́- = YAv. āfrī-; from *ā́ + *prai̯ H); *Hi̯ aȷ́-
atá- ‘worthy of worship, adorable’ (V. yajatá- = Av. yazata-); *Hi̯ aȷ́-ná- ‘worship, offer-
ing’ (V. yajñá- = Av. yasna-); *Hr̥tá- ‘true; truth(fulness), R̥ta’ (V. r̥tá- = OP. r̥ta° ~ Av.
̣ and *Hr̥táH-u̯an- ‘blessed with R̥ta’ (V. r̥tā́van- = OP. r̥tāvan- ~ Av. ašauuan-
aša-) ̣ with

Authenticated
fem. V. r̥tā́varī- ~ YAv. ašāuuạ i

riiā̊s°); *ȷ́ háu̯-tar- ‘offering priest, sacrificer’ (V. hótar- =
Av. zaotar-); *ȷ́ áu̯-trā- ‘libation, offering’ (V. hótrā- = YAv. zaoθrā-); *mag há-u̯an-
h
‘munificent; giver, sacrificer’; *mii̯ ázd ha- ‘sacrifice, offering of food’ (V. miyédha- =
Av. miiazda-); *satstrá- ‘session (of a sacrifice)’. Cf. also V. uśíj- = OAv. usij- an offer-
ing priest, whose title cannot be etymologized.
Man: *agrū́-, fem. ‘unmarried’ (lit. ‘not pregnant’; ~ PIIr. *gr̥Hú- ‘heavy’); *ari̯ a-/
*ā́ri̯ a- ‘Aryan’ (V. ā́ri ya- ~ YAv. a iriia-, OP. ariya- as name of the Aryans); *átHt hi-
‘guest’ (V. átithi- = Av. asti-); *b hiš-áȷ́- ‘healer, physician’ (V. bhiṣáj-, bheṣajá-, °jyà- =
YAv. baēšaza-, °ziia-, cf. the denominative verb bišaz-iia-); *(H)i̯ amá- ‘twin’ (V.
yamá- = OAv. yəˉma-; cf. the name of the primordial twin Yama); *(H)i̯ áu̯asa- ‘pasturage,
fodder’ (V. yávasa- = YAv. yauuaŋha-); *íš- ‘refreshment’ (V. íṣ- = Av. īš-; cf. V. íḍ-,
íḍā-/íḷā- and írā- ‘refreshment’ = Av. ī̆ža-); *ȷ́anH-tra- ‘origin, birthplace’; *kaniH(a)n-
‘girl, maiden’ (whose original n-stem, which is still seen in V. gen. pl. kanī́n-ām, YAv.
gen. sg. kainīn-ō etc., is remodelled to the ā-stem V. kanyāˋ- = YAv. kaniiā-); *man-áu̯-
tar- ‘inventor, thinking, considering’ (V. manótar- ~ OAv. fem. manaoθr-ī-); *mártii̯ a-
‘mortal, man’ (V. mártiya- = Av. maš ̣iia-, OP. martiya-); *pāi̯ ú- ‘guard, protector’;
*stríH- ‘woman’; *u̯ad hū́- ‘bride, young wife’ (derived from PIE *[H]u̯ed h ‘lead [home
in marriage]’); *u̯ai̯ ć-á- ‘inmate, resident, settler’ (V. veśá- = YAv. vaēsa-); *u̯anHtā-
‘(beloved) wife’ (OIA. vanitā- = YAv. vaṇtā-).
Kinship terms: *bhrā́tr̥u̯ii̯ a- ‘brother’s son’ (V. bhrā́tr̥vya- = YAv. brātruiia-,
brātū̆ iriia- (Indo-Iranian new formation in analogy to *pHtr̥u̯ii̯ a-); *Hnā́r-iH- ‘woman,
wife’ (V. nā́rī- = Av. nā irī-; based on *Hnár- ‘man’); *ȷ́ā́mātar- ‘son-in-law’ (with sec-
ondary PIIr. *-tar-); *náptar- ‘grandson, descendant’ (transformation of inherited *ná-
pāt- [cf. above 2.2.] after the kinship terms in -tar-); *pHtr̥u̯ii̯ a- ‘father’s brother’ (V.
pitr̥vya- ~ YAv. tū iriia-).
Parts of the body: *angúri- ‘finger, toe’ with *angušt há- ‘thumb, great toe’; *áni-Hk-
a- ‘face’ (V. ánīka- = YAv. a inika-); *aratní- ‘elbow’; *áu̯št ha- ‘lip’; *dánć-tra- ‘tooth,
fang’ (V. dáṃṣṭra- = YAv. °dąstra-); *ȷ́iȷ́ hu̯áH-/*ȷ́iȷ́ huH- ‘tongue’ (Indo-Iranian remodel-
ing of PIE *dn̥g̑ hu̯eh2-, that developed in different ways to V. jihvā́-, juhū́ and Av.
hizuuā-, hizū- respectively); *gr̥da- ‘penis’; *ȷ́ang hā˘- ‘shank’ (V. jaṅghā- ~ YAv. zaṇga-
‘ankle’); *ȷ́ hā˘rd-/*ȷ́ hr̥d-, *ȷ́ hr̥ ́ d-ai̯ a- ‘heart’ (V. hr̥ ́ d-, hr̥ ́ daya- = OAv. zər əd-, YAv.
zər əδaiia); *kárna- ‘ear’ (V. kárṇa- = YAv. kar əna-; and cf. V. karṇá- ‘with long ears,
with some defect in the ears’ = YAv. kar əna- ‘deaf ’); *mastr̥g han-’brain’ (V. mastr̥han- =
YAv. mastər əγan-); *mr̥Hd hán- ‘(fore)head, skull, top’ (V. mūrdhán- ~ YAv. ka-mər əδa-);
*muští- ‘(clenched) fist’; *párću- ‘rib’ (V. párśu- = YAv. par əsu-, pər əsu°); *tanū́- ‘body,
person, self (in place of reflexive pronoun)’; *u̯r̥ ́ H-as- ‘chest, breast’ (V. úras- [with
strange zero-grade] = YAv. varah-).
Human sphere: *áćtrā- ‘whip’; *ái̯ nas- ‘crime, sin’; *apu̯ā́- ‘panic, fear of death’ (V.
apvā́- = OP. afuvā-); *árd ha- ‘half, part’; *árt ha- ‘aim, purpose’; *ásta- ‘home, place of
return’; *ásu- ‘life’; *au̯a-i̯ ā́- ‘apology, expiation’; *áu̯as- ‘furtherance, assistance’;
*au̯asá- ‘refreshment, provision’; *au̯a-sā́-na- ‘resting place’; *b (h)arȷ́ h-íš- ‘straw [esp.
at the sacrificial ground], cushion’ (V. barhíṣ- = YAv. bar əziš-); *bhāg-á- ‘part, portion’;
*b hiH-ás- ‘fear’ (V. bhiyás- = YAv. instr. biiaŋha; from the root *b hai̯ H); *b húǰ- ‘enjoy-
ment, profit’ (V. bhúj- = OAv. būj- ‘fine’); *ćánsa- ‘praise, saying, order’ (V. śáṃsa- =
OAv. səˉṇgha-, YAv. saŋha-); *ćarad-/*ćard- ‘autumn, year’ (V. śarád- ~ YAv. sar əd-,
OP. θar(a)d-); *ćárd ha- ‘strength, troop’ (V. śárdha- = YAv. sar əδa- ‘kind’); *ćáu̯H-as-
‘power, strength, profit’; *čakš-áni- ‘viewer, looking’; *čánH-as- ‘delight’ (V. cánas- =

Authenticated
Av. °cinah-, OP. °canah-); *či̯ āu̯-tn-á- ‘enterprise, action’ (V. cyautná- ~ YAv.
š́ iiaoθ[a]na-); *dm-āna- ‘house, building’ (V. mā́na- = OAv. d əmāna-, YAv. nmāna-);
*dráu̯H-nas- ‘movable property, share’ (V. dráviṇas- = Av. draonah-); *d hā́i̯ -as- ‘refresh-
ment, care’; *gaH-tú- ‘going, way, course’ (lit. ‘step’); *gaH-t hā́- ‘song’; *gárb ha-
‘womb’; *gáu̯-Hi̯ (a)uH-ti- ‘pasture’ (V. gávyūti- ~ YAv. gaoiiao iti-); *gr̥ ́ H- ‘praise,
verse’ (V. gír- = Av. gar-); *HámH-a- ‘attacking force, aggressiveness’ (V. áma- = OAv.
əˉma-, YAv. ama-); *i̯ áćas- ‘renown, fame’ (V. yáśas- = Av. yasah-); *i̯ ātú- ‘sorcery,
witchcraft’; *ȷ́áu̯H-as- ‘speed, rapidity’; *ȷ́ harmii̯ á- ‘solid house, palace’ (V. harmyá- =
YAv. za irimiia°); *ǰarH-tár- ‘singer’; *kćúd h- (?) ‘hunger’ (V. kṣúdh- = YAv. šuδ-); *kr̥ ́ p-
‘appearance, figure’ (V. kr̥ ́ p- = Av. kəhrp-); *kšatrá- ‘dominion, sovereignty’ (V. kṣa-
trá- = Av. xšaθra-) and *kšátra- ‘realm, kingdom’ (OP. xšaça-; cf. Schmitt 1998: 643)
with *kšatr-íi̯ a- ‘endowed with/belonging to sovereignty’; *maghá- ‘gift, reward’;
*mái̯ (H)as- ‘refreshment, enjoyment’ (V. máyas- = YAv. maiiah-); *mai̯ ní- ‘revenge,
punishment’ (V. mení- = OAv. maē ini-, OP. °maini-); *man-i̯ ú- ‘mind, spirit, ardour’;
*mán-tra- ‘thought, saying’; *mán-tu- ‘advice; adviser’; *mas-d háH- ‘intelligence, wis-
dom’ (V. medhā́- = OAv. mazdā-, cf. the theonym Ahura- Mazdā- and the adjective
*mas-d hH-rá- > V. médhira- = YAv. mązdra-); *māi̯ á- ‘supernatural, wonderful power’;
*mitrá- ‘contract’; *mr̥t-i̯ ú- ‘death’ (a contamination of inherited PIIr. *mr̥tí- and *ǰi̯ áH-
tu- ‘life’); *múH-tra- ‘urine’ (V. mū́tra- = Av. mū̆θra-); *pāmán- a skin disease, ‘sca-
bies’; *prá-ćasti- ‘praise, fame’; *pr̥ ́ Hand hi- ‘beneficence, munificence’ (V. púrandhi- =
OAv. parəṇdi-, YAv. pār°); *pr̥ ́ t-, *pr̥ ́ tanā- ‘battle, contest’ (V. pr̥ ́ t-, pr̥ ́ tanā- = YAv.
pər ət-, pəšanā-, OP. pr̥tanā-); *raH-tí- ‘gift, favour’; *rái̯ k-nas- ‘bequest, wealth’ (V.
rékṇas- = OAv. raēx ənah-); *rákšas- ‘damage, harm’; *rána- ‘delight, fight, battle’ (V.
ráṇa-); *sái̯ nā- ‘army’ (V. sénā- = YAv. haēnā-, OP. hainā-); *sam-árana- ‘meeting,
battle’ (V. samáraṇa- = YAv. hamarəna-, OP. hamarana-); *stúH-nā- ‘post, pillar’ (V.
sthū́ṇā- with secondary sth- and -ṇ-); *táu̯HsiH- ‘power, strength’ (V. táviṣī- = Av. təuui-
šī-); *ti̯ áǰ-as- ‘abandonment, desolation’ (V. tyájas- = OAv. iθiiejah-, YAv. iθiiajah-);
*tu̯ákš-as- ‘energy, vigour’; *u̯ái̯ ć-man- ‘house, dwelling’; *u̯ái̯ das- ‘property, wealth’;
*u̯ratá- ‘instruction, order, rule’ (V. vratá- = OAv. uruuata-); *u̯r̥ȷ́-ána- ‘community,
village’, lit. ‘enclosure’ (V. vr̥jána- = OAv. vər əzəˉna-, YAv. var əzāna-, OP. vr̥dana-; with
V. vr̥janyà- = OAv. vər əzəˉniia- ‘belonging to a community’); *u̯r̥trá- ‘obstacle, resist-
ance, enemy; also personified as a demon’ (V. vr̥trá- = YAv. vər əθra-) and *u̯r̥tra-ǰ hán-
‘breaking resistance’).
Fauna: *á-g hn-i̯ ā- ‘cow’ (lit. ‘not to be killed’); *aȷ́ híH- ‘cow (in milk)’ (V. ahī́- =
Av. azī-, though with different inflection); *ći̯ ai̯ ná- ‘hawk, falcon’ (V. śyená- = YAv.
saēna-); *d hai̯ nú- ‘(milch) cow, female animal’; *mákš- ‘fly’ (V. mákṣ- ~ YAv. maxšī-);
*r̥ȷ́ipi̯ á- epithet of the eagle (V. r̥jipyá- = YAv. ər əzifiia- ‘eagle’; cf. *r̥ȷ́rá- [2.2.]);
*u̯arāȷ́ há- ‘(wild) boar’ (V. varāhá- = YAv. varāza-).
Natural phenomena: *ádri- ‘stone, rock’; *arnau̯á- ‘wave, flood, waving sea’; *b háH-
ma- ‘light, splendour’; *b haH-nú- ‘brightness, light’; *b húH-mi- ‘earth’ (with secondary
ī-stem forms); *dić-ti- measure of length, lit. ‘instruction’ (V. diṣṭi- = YAv. dišti-);
*di̯ u-mná- ‘splendour, magnificence’; *du̯i-Hp-á- ‘island’ (V. dvīpá- ~ YAv. duuaēpəˉ ‘on
the island’); *gái̯ a- ‘life, vitality; wealth, property’; *Hmai̯ g há- ‘cloud’ (V. meghá- =
YAv. maēγa-); *Hráȷ́-as- ‘space’ (V. rájas- = YAv. razah-); *Hu̯aH-i̯ ú- ‘wind, air; god
of wind’ (V. vāyú- = Av. vaiiu-); *i̯ aští- ‘stick, club, branch’ (V. yaṣṭí- = YAv. °yaxšti-);
*ȷ́rái̯ -as- ‘expanse, space’ (V. jráyas- = YAv. zraiiah-, OP. drayah- ‘sea’); *ȷ́ hr̥ ́ Hani̯ a-
‘precious metal, gold’ (V. híraṇya- = YAv. zarańiia-, OP. daraniya-); *kap ha- ‘phlegm,

Authenticated
foam’; *kćái̯ tra- ‘landed property, land, soil’ (V. kṣétra- = Av. šōiθra-); *máȷ́ h-as- ‘great-
ness, power, wealth’ (V. máhas- = YAv. mazah-); *naHu̯-íi̯ a- ‘to be crossed only by
boat, not fordable’ (V. nāvyà- = YAv. nāuuaiia-, OP. nāviya-, whereas the customary
translation ‘navigable’ is incorrect); *pái̯ as- ‘milk’; *pánt-ā-s, gen. *pat h-ás ‘way, path’
(V. nom. sg. pánthās, acc. pánthām, gen. pathás, loc. pathí, etc. = YAv. nom. paṇt-ā̊,
acc. paṇt-ąm, OAv. abl. paθ-ō, loc. pa iθ-ī, etc., a highly archaic paradigm which only
in Indo-Iranian exhibits this *t/t h-alternation caused by a laryngeal); *párH-nas- ‘plenty,
abundance’ (V. párīṇas- ~ YAv. par ənaŋvhan ̣t- ‘available in plenty’); *paršá- ‘sheaf,
bundle’; *pau̯ástā˘- ‘cover, cloth’ (V. pavásta- ~ OP. pavastā-); *píHu̯as- ‘fat’ (V. pī́-
vas- = YAv. pīuuah-); *sái̯ -tu- ‘bond, fetter, dam, bridge’; *srak-tí- ‘edge’; *súrā- ‘intox-
icating drink, spirituous liquor’; *támH-as- ‘darkness, gloom’; *tištrii̯ a- name of a fixed
star, the Sirius (V. Tiṣyà- [by dissimilation] = YAv. Tištriia-; originally *tri-štr-ii̯ a- ‘three-
star constellation’); *u̯ánā˘- ‘tree, wood’; *u̯ará- ‘enclosure, cave’ (V. valá- = YAv.
vara-); *u̯árčas- ‘brilliance, splendour, figure’; *u̯árna- ‘covering, colour’; *u̯ítasti-
measure of length, lit. ‘span’; *u̯r̥ćsá- ‘tree’ (V. vr̥kṣá- = YAv. var əša-). Cf. also the
inherited hydronym PIIr. *Sáras-u̯at-iH-, lit. ‘rich in puddles or lakes’ (> V. Sárasvatī- =
PIr. *Harahu̯atī-; cf. Schmitt 2001).
Instruments: *ćámi̯ ā- ‘yoke-pin, plug, wedge’ (V. śámyā- ~ YAv. (yugō.)səmī-, simā-);
*d hán-u̯ar/n- ‘bow’ (V. dhánvan- [and remodelled dhánus-]̣ ~ YAv. θanuuarə/°uuan-
with secondary θ-); *d hā́rā- ‘blade, edge’; *gadā- ‘mace, club’; *kánH-tra- ‘spade’ (V.
khanítra- ~ YAv. kąstra-); *kšádman- ‘(carving-)knife’; *k humb há- (?) ‘jar, pitcher’ (V.
kumbhá- ~ YAv. xumba-); *matíi̯ a- ‘club (as an agricultural tool)’ (V. matyà- = YAv.
°ma itiia-); *rát ha- ‘(war-)chariot’ (cf. also V. rathe-ṣṭhā́- ‘(warrior) standing on a chari-
ot’ = YAv. raθaē-/raθōi-štā-); *r̥ští- ‘spear’; *u̯ád har- ‘(murder) weapon’; *u̯áȷ́ra- ‘thun-
derbolt, club, mace’ (including a number of similar, though not identical phraseologies).
Adjectives: *á-di̯ u- ‘not damaging/hurting’ (V. ádyu- = OAv. a idiiu-); *ágra- ‘fore-
most; uppermost part’ (with *agrii̯ á- ‘foremost, first’); *ag há- ‘bad, dangerous’; *ái̯ ta-
‘coloured, iridescent’; *áka- ‘bad, evil’; *and há- ‘blind’; *ani̯ á- ‘other’; *aruná- ‘red-
dish-brown’ (V. aruṇá-); *arušá- ‘red(dish)’; *áru̯an-, *áru̯ant- ‘running, quick; racer’
(V. árvan-, árvant- = Av. auruuaṇt-, YAv. auruua-); *asrá- ‘painful, evil’ (V. asrá- =
OAv. aṇgra-, YAv. aŋra-); *á-u̯it hura- ‘not staggering, unshakeable’ (V. ávithura- =
YAv. a iβiθūra-, i.e. +auuiθura-); *b hadrá- ‘blessed, auspicious’; *b húH-ri- ‘much, many,
abundant’; *ćriH-ra- ‘beautiful’ (OIA. śrīla- [but V. a-śrīrá- ‘unpleasant’] = Av. srīra-
with *ćrái̯ H-i̯ as-, *ćrái̯ H-išta-); *ćuk-rá- ‘bright, clear, coloured’ (V. śukrá- = Av. suxra-
‘red’, OP. pr. n. Θuxra-); *ću̯itrá-, *ću̯iti-°- ‘white, whitish’ (V. śvitrá-, śviti° = YAv.
spiti°); *das-má- ‘wonderful, miraculous’; *das-rá- ‘accomplishing wonderful deeds’ (V.
dasrá- = Av. daŋra-, with superl. V. dáṃsiṣṭha- = YAv. dąhišta-); *d (h)ā́d hr̥ši- ‘coura-
geous, bold’ (V. dā́dhr̥ṣi- = OP. pr. n. Dādr̥ši-); *dūrá- ‘far, long’; *d hruu̯á- ‘firm, fixed,
certain’ (V. dhruvá- = YAv. druua-, OP. duruva-); *ga(m)b h(H)rá- ‘deep’ (V. ga(m)bhīrá-
~ YAv. jafra-); *(H)i̯ aȷ́ hú- ‘young, youthful’, fem. *(H)i̯ aȷ́ hu̯-íH- (V. yahú-, yahvī́- = OAv.
yazu-, yezuuī-); *Hi̯ ā́u̯ant- ‘as great, as large’ (V. yā́vant- = YAv. yauuaṇt-); *ȷ́áu̯H-išta-
‘quickest’ (V. jáviṣṭha- ~ OAv. zəuuīštiia-); *ȷ́ hrás-i̯ as- ‘smaller’ (V. hrásīyas- ~ YAv.
fem. zraheh-ī-); *ǰiH-rá- ‘lively, quick, active’; *kádru- ‘(reddish-)brown’; *kr̥ćá- ‘thin,
slim, lean’ (V. kr̥śá- = YAv. kər əsa°); *kšu̯iprá- ‘flying, swift, quick’ (V. kṣiprá- ~ YAv.
xšuuiβra-, for which phraseological equations [cf. 5 (1)] prove the identity of origin
despite the formal differences); *k haru̯á- ‘mutilated, crippled’ (V. kharvá- ~ YAv. kauruua-);
*maȷ́ (h)aH-ánt- ‘great, large, big’ (V. mahā́nt- = YAv. mazā̊ṇt-, an enlargement of inherit-

Authenticated
ed *maȷ́ (h)aH- after *b hr̥ȷ́ h-ánt- ‘high’); *mā́-u̯ant- ‘like me’; *mūrá- ‘stupid, foolish’;
*nái̯ ma- ‘one, half ’; *nam-rá- ‘bowing, submissive, humble’; *názd-ii̯ as- ‘nearer’,
*názd-išta- ‘nearest, next’ (V. nédīyas-, nédiṣṭha- = YAv. nazdiiah-, Av. nazdišta-, which
are the comparative and superlative, respectively, to Av. as-na-, OP. aš-na- ‘near’ < PIE
*n̥sd-no-); *parušá- ‘grey, dirty-coloured’; *pr̥Hu̯ii̯ á- ‘former’ (V. pūrvi yá- = OAv.
pouruuiia-, YAv. pao iriia-, OP. paruviya-) with V. á-pūrvi ya- ‘unprecedented’ ~ OAv.
apaouruuīm ‘as never before’; *pr̥ ́ šant- ‘spotted, speckled’ (V. pr̥ ́ ṣant- = YAv. paršat̰ .°);
*ráu̯d hita- ‘red(dish)’ (V. róhita-, lóh° = YAv. rao iδita-); *rūkšá- ‘rough, dry, thin’;
*r̥ȷ́ú- ‘straight, right’ (V. r̥jú- = Av. ər əzu-, with superl. *ráȷ́-išta-); *r̥šu̯á- ‘elevated,
high’; *súš-ka- ‘dry’ (V. śúṣka- < *súṣka- = YAv. huška-, OP. uška-); *tap-nú- ‘burning’;
*táruna- ‘young, tender’ (V. táruṇa-); *táu̯H-i̯ as- ‘stronger’ (V. táv(ī)yas- = OP. tauvi-
yah-); *tu̯ā́-u̯ant- ‘like you’; *ub há- ‘both’ (the initial *u- being restricted to Indo-
Iranian); *ug-rá- ‘powerful, strong’; *utstāná- ‘outstretched’ (V. uttāná- = Av. ustāna-);
*u̯íp-ra- ‘trembling, (ecstatically) excited’ (V. vípra- = YAv. vifra-, ōifra-).
4.3. Pronouns
Specific Indo-Iranian pronominal formations include the following stems: demonstrative

PIIr. *imá- (V. imá- = Av. ima-, OP. ima-), that has been created by metanalysis of the
inherited acc. sg. masc. *i-m-ám (cf. 2.3) as *imá-m; demonstrative *ai̯ šá-/*ai̯ tá- ‘this
one here’ (V. eṣá-/etá- = YAv. aēša-/aēta-, OP. aita-), a fusion of the inherited stems
*ai̯ - and *sá-/tá- (cf. 2.3); interrogative *katamá- ‘who/which of several?’ (V. katamá- =
YAv. katāma-) in analogy to inherited *katará- ‘who/which of two?’ (V. katará- = YAv.
katāra-; cf. Gk. πότερος). Among the personal pronouns the oblique case-stem PIIr.
*i̯ ušmá- ‘you’ (2 nd p. pl.) in, e.g., abl. V. yuṣmát = Av. yūšmat̰ is a blending of inherited
PIIr. *ušmá- < PIE *usmé (cf. Gk. Lesb. ὔμμε, Dor. ὑμέ) with the nominative stem *i̯ ū-.
4.4. Numerals
Specific Indo-Iranian formations are to be found in the word ‘1000’ (PIIr. *saȷ́ hásra-)
and particularly among the ordinal numbers: e.g. PIIr. *du̯itī̆i̯ a- ‘second’ (V. dvitī́ya- =
OAv. d aibitiia-, YAv. bitiia-, OP. duvitī̆ya-, formed after the inherited *tr̥tī̆i̯ a- ‘third’),
*(k)tur(ī)i̯ a- ‘fourth’ (V. turī́ya- = YAv. tū iriia-; cf. also ā-xtū irīm ‘four times’), *aštama-
‘eighth’ (new formation after *saptamá- ‘7th’, *daćamá- ‘10th’), *nau̯amá- ‘ninth’
(V. navamá- = YAv. naoma-, nāuma-, OP. navama-, replacing older *nau̯aná-).
4.5. Adverbs, conjunctions, etc.
A large number of Indo-Iranian adverbs, particles, and other mots accessoires are new
formations without parallels in the cognate languages. The following may be cited: PIIr.
*adzd hā́ ‘in this (obvious) way’ (V. addhā́ = OAv., OP. azdā), *ai̯ u̯á ‘thus’, *áram
‘rightly, appropriately’, *au̯ár ‘down(ward)’, *āu̯íš ‘evidently’ (V. āvíṣ = Av. āuuiš),

Authenticated
*čái̯ d ‘if ’ (V. céd = YAv. cōit̰ ), *du̯i-tā́ ‘another time, as always’, *d hr̥šát ‘boldly’ (V.
dhr̥ṣát = OAv. dar əšat̰ °, cf. OP. daršam with secondary -m as elsewhere), *ȷ́ hí ‘for,
because’ (V. hí = Av. zī), *mit hás ‘in contrast’, *nái̯ d ‘not’ (V. néd < *ná-id = Av. nōit̰ ,
OP. naiy), *nā́nā ‘in various ways, here and there’, *nūnám ‘now’ (V. nūnám ~ Av.
nūrə˘̄ m, OP. nūram with secondary -r-), *parás ‘beyond, off ’, *párā ‘away’, *pas-čā́
‘behind, after’ (V. paścā́ = YAv. pasca, OP. pasā), *sáčā ‘together (with)’, *sádā ‘al-
ways’, *sad há ‘together with’ (V. sahá, sadha° = OAv., OP. hadā, YAv. haδa), *sa-kr̥ ́ t
‘once, at once’ (V. sakr̥ ́ t = YAv. hakərət̰ , cf. OP. hakaram°), *satrā́ ‘(al)together’, *smát
‘together, at the same time’ (V. smát = YAv. mat̰ ), *tr̥Hás ‘across, over’ (V. tirás = YAv.
tarō), *u̯ā́i̯ ‘truly, indeed’ (V. vái = OAv. vōi).
This is the proper place for also mentioning adjectives in *-anč- based primarily on
preverbs and adverbs such as PIIr. *ápānč- ‘situated behind’ (V. ápāñc- = YAv. nom.
sg. masc. apąš), *párānč- ‘averted’, *prā́nč- ‘directed forwards, facing’, *p(r)ati̯ anč-
‘facing’ (V. pratyáñc- ~ YAv. nom. sg. masc. pa iti.yąš, as always with the contrast of
Ved. práti vs. Iran. *pati), *níi̯ anč- ‘directed downwards’ (V. nyàñc- = YAv. niiāṇc-),
*satrā́nč- ‘(al)together, throughout’ (V. satrā́ñc- = YAv. haθrāṇc-), *u̯íšu̯anč- ‘directed
toward different directions’ (V. víśvañc- = YAv. vīžuuan ̣c-); cf. also instr. sg. V. tiraś-c-
ā́ ‘crosswise, widthwise’ = YAv. tarasca.
5. Phraseology
The most striking feature among the linguistic similarities between the two branches of
Indo-Iranian is the great number of corresponding idiomatic phrases and compounds that
lived on particularly in the poetic tradition of both the Vedas and the Avesta. The most
extensive systematic survey of this material is found in Schlerath (1968: 148−164), but
it is also fully taken into account, where appropriate, by Mayrhofer (1992−1996; cf.,
moreover, inter alia Duchesne-Guillemin 1962: 33−36; Benveniste 1968). The main
methodological problem is to rule out random parallels; how this is possible (by showing
that one is dealing with a fixed formula with archaic traits, not commonplace expres-
sions) is discussed in Schlerath (1996: 379 f.).
We can here list only a selection of the closest non-trivial correspondences; parallels
in content only and instances like V. áṃhas- tar i ‘get over distress’ ~ YAv. vī-tar-ązah-
or V. ádbhuta-kratu- ‘with undeceivable intelligence’ ~ YAv. aδaoiiō.xratu- must be left
aside notwithstanding their etymological affinity. Any more detailed classification being
arbitrary, only a rough assignment based on grammatical structure with many varieties
in every category is followed:
1. noun + adjective (often fused into a compound): V. átithi- ‘guest’ + priyá- ‘dear’, +
vásu- ‘good’ = YAv. asti- friia-, Vohuuasti-; V. áśva- ‘horse’ + árvant- ‘running’, +
āśú- ‘swift’, + r̥jrá- ‘quick’, + kṣiprá- ‘swift’ (in kṣiprāśva-), + víṣita- ‘untied’ =
YAv. auruuat̰ .aspa-, āsu- aspa- (and āsu.aspa-) [but cf. Gk. ὠκέες ἵπποι as proof of
PIE origin], YAv. Ǝrəzrāspa-, Xšuuiβrāspa-, Av. Vīštāspa-, OP. Vištāspa-; V. ā́yu-
‘life’ + dīrghá- ‘long’ (and dīrghā́yu[ṣ]- ‘long-lived’) = OAv. āiiu- darəga- (and
darəgāiiu-); V. íṣu- ‘arrow’ + kṣiprá- ‘swift’ (in kṣipréṣu-) ~ YAv. xšuuiβi.išu-; V.
uṣás- ‘dawn’ + ucchántī- ‘shining out’, + vibhātī́- ‘becoming bright’ = YAv. ušah-
usaitī-, viuuaitī-; V. ójas- ‘vigour’ + dhruvá- ‘firm’ = YAv. aojah- druua-; V. kṣám-

Authenticated
‘earth’ + pr̥thivī́- ‘broad’ = YAv. zam- pərəθuuī-; V. cárman- ‘leather’ + mlātá- ‘made
soft, tanned’ = YAv. carəman- mrāta-; V. nár- ‘man’ + tvā́vant- ‘like you’ = OAv.
nar- θβāuuaṇt-; V. nā́man- ‘name’ + asuryà- ‘Asurian’ = OAv. nāman- āhūiriia-; V.
mántra- ‘formula’ + satyá- ‘true’ = OAv. mąθra- haiθiia-; V. Mitrá- ‘(god) Mitra’ +
revánt- ‘splendid’ = YAv. Miθra- raēuuaṇt-; V. vácas- ‘word’ + sūktá- ‘well-spoken’ =
YAv. vacah- hūxta-; V. vīrá- ‘man’ + revánt- ‘splendid’ = YAv. vīra- raēuuaṇt-; V.
Sóma- ‘(god) Soma’ + vr̥trahán- ‘victorious’, + sukrátu- ‘of good intelligence’ =
YAv. Haoma- vərəθrajan-, huxratu-; possessive compounds formed from shared syn-
tagms: V. ugrá-bāhu- ‘strong-armed’ = YAv. uγra.bāzu; V. uttāná-hasta- ‘with hands
outstretched’ = OAv. ustāna-zasta- (both being combined in a remarkable way with
námasā [RV 6.16.46d etc.] = nəmaŋhā ‘in reverence’ [Y. 28.1a]); V. urú-gavyūti-
‘having (or: providing) wide pastures’ = YAv. vouru.gaoiiaoiti-; V. citrá-rāti- ‘grant-
ing bright gifts’ ~ OAv. ciθra- + rāti-; OIA. dīrgha-bāhu- ‘long-armed’ = OAv.
darəgō.bāzu-; V. pr̥thu-jráyas- ‘widely extended’ = YAv. pərəθu.zraiiah-; V. pr̥thú-
śroṇi- ‘with large buttocks’ = YAv. pərəθu.sraoni-; V. viśva-píś-, viśvá-peśas- ‘with
all (kinds of) adornments’ = YAv. vīspō.pis-, vīspō.paēsah-; V. su-kṣatrá- ‘of good
rule’ = OAv. hu-xšaθra-; V. híraṇya-cakra- ‘gold-wheeled’ = YAv. zaraniiō.caxra-;
2. two nouns coordinated: *krátu- + *mánas- (V. krátvā mánasā ~ OAv. xratəˉuš mana-
ŋhas-cā); *kšatrá- + *áu̯ǰas- (V. kṣatrám … ójaḥ ~ OAv. aogō … xšaθrəm-cā), +
*ćáu̯as- (V. kṣatrā́ya śávase ~ YAv. xšaθrəm-ca sauuas-ca); *ȷ́ánHtar- + *pHtár- (V.
pitā́ janitā́ ~ OAv. ząθā ptā; cf. Gk. γενέτωρ πατήρ); *táu̯HsiH- + *sáȷ́ has- (V. táviṣīm
… sáhaḥ ~ OAv. təuuīšīm … hazō); *ti̯ áǰas- + *ánȷ́ has- (V. tyájasā … áṃhaḥ ~ YAv.
ązaŋhat̰ … iθiiajaŋhat̰ ); *Hi̯ aȷ́ná- + *u̯áčas- (V. yajñám … vácaḥ ~ OAv. vacaŋhā …
yasnā); *súrā- + *mád hu- (V. súrām mádhu ~ YAv. huraiiā̊ vā maδəˉuš); *ȷ́ hr̥ ́ d- +
*mánas- (V. hr̥dā́ mánasā = OAv. zərədā-cā manaŋhā-cā);
3. noun + dependent genitive: V. khā́- r̥tásya ‘the source of Truth’ = YAv. xā- ašahe ̣
(this being the only completely matching phrase containing r̥tá-/aša-); ̣ V. dātár- vásū-
nām ‘donor of goods’ = YAv. dātar- vohunąm (despite the formal agreement, no
inherited formula according to Hoffmann 1976: 593−604); V. páti- kṣétrasya ‘lord of
the soil’ = YAv. paiti- šōiθrahe; V. padá- ílāyās ̣ ‘footprint(s) of the Libation’ = OAv.
pada- … īžaiiā̊; V. padá- paśváḥ ‘footprint(s) of the cattle’ = YAv. paδa- pasəˉuš; V.
máda- sómasya ‘the intoxication/intoxicating drink of Soma’ = YAv. maδa- haomahe;
V. viś-páti- viśā́m ‘lord of the clans’ = YAv. vīspaiti- vīsąm; V. hantár- druhó ‘destroy-
er of Falsehood’ = YAv. jaṇtar- drujō; as special cases cf. also compounds consisting
of two cognate nouns like V. droghavā́c- ‘making lying speeches’ = YAv. draoγō.vāxš °
(in draoγō.vāxš.draojišta- ‘the most mendacious of liars’), V. bāhv-òjas- ‘strong-
armed’ = YAv. bāzuš.aojah- as well as superlative expressions like V. ójiṣṭha-
ugrā́ṇām ‘the mightiest of the mighties’ = YAv. aojišta- uγranąm; V. devátama- devā́-
nām ‘the most divine of the gods’ = YAv. daēuuō.təma- daēuuanąm ‘the arch daēva
of the daēvas’;
4. polyptoton (cf. the famous example of that stylistic figure in RV 1.1.1a−5a agním,
agníḥ, agnínā, ágne, agnír): V. sákhā sákhye ‘a friend to a friend’ = YAv. haxa haš́ e;
also the reciprocal V. anyó anyám ‘the one the other’ etc. = OAv. aniiō ainīm = OP.
aniya aniyam (cf. Schmitt 1998: 636−638);
5. nominal-verbal phrases and compounds (arranged by the roots of the verbs): V. aj +
pr̥ ́ tanā- ‘rush into battle’ (and pr̥tanā́j-) = YAv. az pəšanā̊; V. as ávase ‘be in sup-
port’ = OAv. ah auuaŋ́hē; V. āp kṣatrám ‘obtain rule’ = OAv. āp xšaθrəm; V. oh

Authenticated
vā́cam ‘pronounce a speech of praise’ = YAv. aog vācim; V. kar mitrám ‘make a
contract’ = YAv. kar miθrəm; V. goh tanvàm ‘hide oneself ’ = YAv. gaoz tanūm; V.
jambh hánū ‘smash the jaws’ = YAv. zamb zanuua; (V. joṣ in) devá-juṣṭa- ‘darling
of the gods’ = OAv. daēuuō.zušta-; V. takš mántram ‘fashion a formula’ = OAv.
taš mąθrəm; V. takṣ vácas- ‘fashion speech’ ~ YAv. vacas-tašti- ‘word-crafting [i.e.
strophe]’; V. tar i vr̥trám ‘overcome resistance/obstacles’ (and vr̥tra-túr-) = YAv. tar
vərəθrəm etc.; V. dā ásum ‘grant existence’ = OAv. dā ahūm; V. dā íṣam ‘grant
vigour’ = OAv. dā īšəm; V. drogh mitrám ‘deceive a contract’ (and mitra-drúh-) =
YAv. draog miθrəm (and miθrō.drug-); V. dhar kṣā́m ‘hold (up) the earth’ = OAv.
dar ząm; V. dhā kṣatrám ‘grant rule’ = OAv. dā xšaθrəm; V. dhā gíras ‘offer prais-
es’ = OAv. dā garō; V. dhā táviṣīm ‘put on might’ = OAv. dā təuuīšīm; V. dhā
nā́man- ‘bestow a name’ = OAv. dā nāman-; V. dhā várcas- ‘bestow splendour’ (and
varco-dhā́-) = OAv. dā varcah-; V. dhā sáhas- ‘put on power’ = OAv. dā hazō; V.
ni-dhā padó ‘put down the feet’ = YAv. ni-dā pāδa; V. nay i baddhám ‘lead captive’ =
YAv. nay bastəm = OP. basta anayatā ‘he was led in fetters’; V. prá-pat + váyah ̣ ‘the
birds fly up’ = YAv. frā-pat vaiiō; V. par i kā́mam ‘grant a wish’ = OAv. par kāməm;
V. bhar námas- ‘offer reverence’ = YAv. bar nəmō; V. bhar vā́cam ‘raise one’s
voice’ = OAv. bar vācəm; V. bhar stómam ‘offer a praise’ = YAv. bar + staoma-; V.
yaj r̥tám ‘worship Truth’ = OAv. yaz aš ̣əm; V. yaj devā́n ‘worship the gods’ (and
deva-yáj-) = YAv. daēuua-iiaz-; V. yaj yajñám ‘worship’ (figura etymologica) = YAv.
yaz yasnəm; V. vakṣ kṣatrám ‘let power grow’ = OAv. vaxš xšaθrəm; V. vac mántram
‘pronounce a formula’ = OAv. vac mąθrəm; V. vardh ójasā ‘increase in strength’ =
OAv. vard aojaŋhā; V. vardh kṣatrám ‘increase power’ = OAv. vard xšaθrəm; V. vas
vástrāṇi ‘put on clothes’ = YAv. vah vastrā̊; (V. vah in) vā́to vahati ‘the wind blows’ =
YAv. vātō vazaiti (cf. Schlerath 1996); V. ved gáv- ‘find cows’ = OAv. vaēd gąm (and
YAv. pr. n. Vīdat̰ .gu-); V. śaṃs vácaḥ ‘pronounce a word’ = OAv. səˉṇgh vacah-; V. sthā
+ ūrdhvá- ‘stand upright’ = YAv. stā ərəδβa-; (V. han gáv- in) go-hán- ‘killing cat-
tle’ = YAv. gao-jan-; V. (han in) jahí vádhar ‘hit the weapon!’ = YAv. vadarə jaiδi;
(V. han + vīrá- in) vīra-hán- ‘killing men’ = YAv. vīra-jan-; V. hav i ávase ‘invoke
for assistance’ = YAv. zbā auuaŋ́he; V. hav i ukthébhiḥ ‘call with verses’ = OAv. zbā
uxδāiš; V. hav i nā́man- ‘invoke the name (of someone)’ = YAv. zbā nāman-; cf. also
the particular case of figurae etymologicae like V. súbhr̥tam bhar = YAv. hubərətąm
bar = OP. ubr̥tam bar ‘treat well’ (as substitutes for the non-existent adverbs ‘well’
and ‘badly’);
6. two verbs coordinated: PIIr. *Hi̯ aȷ́ h + *prai̯ H ‘worship and appease (some deity)’ in
RV 8.39.9d yákṣac ca pipráyac ca etc. ~ OAv. yazamaidē … friiąnmahī etc.; PIIr.
*Hi̯ aȷ́ h + *stau̯ ‘worship and praise’ in RV 6.47.15a stavat … yajāte ~ OAv.
yazəmnas-cā … stauuas; PIIr. *ćrau̯ + *maržd ‘hear and have mercy’ in RV 1.25.19ab
śrudhī … mr̥ḷaya ~ Y. 33.11c sraotā mōi mərəždātā mōi; cf. the two coordinated
adverbs V. ā́ ca párā ca ‘to and fro’ (with car ‘move’) = YAv. ā-ca para-ca;
7. other phrasal expressions: RV 8.28.4a yáthā váśanti devā́s táthéd asat ‘just as the
gods may desire, so shall it be’ ~ Y. 29.4c aθā nəˉ aŋhat̰ yaθā huuō vasat̰ ‘so shall it
be for us, as he may desire’; RV 3.18.3c yā́vad ī́śe ‘as much as I am able’ = Y. 43.9e
etc. yauuat̰ isāi; Y. 44.1a−19a tat̰ θβā pərəsā ‘this I ask you’ ~ RV 1.164.34a.c
pr̥cchā́mi tvā; RV 10.150.1d mr̥ḷīkā́ya na ā́ gahi ‘come to us for mercy!’ ~ Yt. 10.5d
ā-ca nō jamiiāt̰ marždikāi ‘and may he come to us for mercy’; RV 3.33.8d námas
te = Y. 58.7 nəmasə.tōi etc. ‘reverence to you!’.

Authenticated
6. References
1894 Zum arischen Theil in Fick’s vergleichendem Wörterbuch I, 4. Auflage. Zeitschrift der
Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 48: 504−531.
Benveniste, Émile
1968 Phraséologie poétique de l’indo-iranien. In: Mélanges d’indianisme à la mémoire de
Louis Renou. Paris: de Boccard, 73−79.
Berger, Hermann
1959 Die Burušaski-Lehnwörter in der Zigeunersprache. Indo-Iranian Journal 3: 17−43.
Duchesne-Guillemin, Jacques
1962 L’étude de l’iranien ancien au vingtième siècle. Kratylos 7: 1−44.
Eichler, Ernst, Gerold Hilty, Heinrich Löffler, Hugo Steger, and Ladislav Zgusta (eds.)
1995 Namenforschung. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Onomastik. 1. Teilband. Berlin: De
Gruyter
Fick, August
1890 Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der Indogermanischen Sprachen. Vierte Auflage. Erster
Theil. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
García Trabazo, José Virgilio
2016 Sobre indio antiguo mr̥gá- ‘animal salvaje’ y el texto hitita KUB 43.60+ (‘El gran
camino del alma’). In: Andrew Miles Byrd, Jessica DeLisi, and Mark Wenthe (eds.),
Tavet Tat Satyam. Studies in Honor of Jared S. Klein on the Occasion of His Seventieth
Birthday. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave, 65–75.
Hoffmann, Karl
1976 Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik. II. Edited by Johanna Narten. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Katz, Hartmut
2003 Studien zu den älteren indoiranischen Lehnwörtern in den uralischen Sprachen. Heidel-
berg: Winter.
Lubotsky, Alexander
2001 The Indo-Iranian Substratum. In: Christian Carpelan, Asko Parpola, and Petteri Koskik-
allio (eds.), Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeo-
logical Considerations. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura, 301−317.
Mayrhofer, Manfred
1992−1996 Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. I−II. Heidelberg: Winter.
Pinault, Georges-Jean
2006 Further links between the Indo-Iranian substratum and the BMAC language. In: Bertil
Tikkanen and Heinrich Hettrich (eds.), Themes and Tasks in Old and Middle Indo-Aryan
Linguistics. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 167−196.
Schlerath, Bernfried
1968 Awesta-Wörterbuch. Vorarbeiten II: Konkordanz. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
1996 Indo-iranisch *vātaz *vag̑hati ‘der Wind weht’ und idg. *u̯eg̑ h- ‘schweben’. Studien zur
Indologie und Iranistik 20: 379−387.
Schmitt, Rüdiger
1995a Alt- und mittelindoarische Namen. In: Eichler et al. (eds.), 645−657.
Schmitt, Rüdiger
1995b Iranische Namen. In: Eichler et al. (eds.), 678–690.
Schmitt, Rüdiger
1998 Tradition und Innovation. Zu indoiranischen Formeln und Fügungen im Altpersischen.
In: Jay Jasanoff, H. Craig Melchert, and Lisi Oliver (eds.), Mír curad. Studies in honor
of Calvert Watkins. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 635−644.

Authenticated
Schmitt, Rüdiger
2001 Der Name Arachosien. Ein Streifzug durch seine Überlieferung in Ost und West. In:
Maria Gabriela Schmidt and Walter Bisang (eds.), Philologica et Linguistica. Historia,
Pluralitas, Universitas. Festschrift für Helmut Humbach. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Ver-
lag, 68−92.
Windfuhr, Gernot
2006 Iran. vii. Non-Iranian Languages of Iran. In: Ehsan Yarshater (ed.), Encyclopædia Irani-
ca. Vol. XIII. New York: Encyclopaedia Iranica Foundation, col. 377−410.
Witzel, Michael
1999 Substrate Languages in Old Indo-Aryan (R̥gvedic, Middle and Late Vedic). Electronic
Journal of Vedic Studies 5(1): 1−67.
Witzel, Michael
2000 Die sprachliche Situation Nordindiens in vedischer Zeit. In: Bernhard Forssman and
Robert Plath (eds.), Indoarisch, Iranisch und die Indogermanistik. Arbeitstagung der
Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 2. bis 5. Oktober 1997 in Erlangen. Wiesbaden:
Rüdiger Schmitt, Laboe (Germany)

Authenticated
XVIII. Balto-Slavic
114. Balto-Slavic
1. History of the question 5. External connections
2. Balto-Slavic common features 6. Balto-Slavic: a conclusion
3. Balto-Slavic divergences 7. References
4. Internal Baltic and Slavic divergences
1. History of the question

The existence of shared innovations in Baltic and Slavic has led many scholars since the
first part of the 19th century to suppose a “Balto-Slavic” common stage between Indo-
European and both the Baltic and Slavic families. Leaving aside pre-scientific descrip-
tions which all too often failed to distinguish Baltic from Slavic (see especially Dini
2010 for more details), a first step towards a “Balto-Slavic” common stage was made in
1837 by August Friedrich Pott (De Lithuano-Borussicae in Slavicis Letticisque Linguis
principatu commentatio, Göttingen). Pott was soon followed by August Schleicher
(1861: 7), who in his famous genealogical tree of the Indo-European languages drew a
sub-branch Slawolitauisch (= Balto-Slavic) as a common ancestor of both Litauisch
(= Baltic) and Slawisch (= Slavic). This view was also endorsed by the Neogrammarian
school. In the first edition of his Grundriss (1886: 12), Karl Brugmann used the name
baltisch-slavischer Zweig ‘Baltic-Slavic branch’. In his 1897 edition, in order to support
the reconstruction of Balto-Slavic, he provided a list of innovations supposed to be
common to Baltic and Slavic and to reflect divergences from the other Indo-European
languages (1897: 20−21). This list includes the following features:
1. treatment of liquid and nasal syllabic sonants *r̥, *l̥ , *m̥, *n̥ > *ir, *il, *im, *in (in
some cases *ur, *ul, *um, *un).
2. lack of geminate consonants.
3. formation of “definite adjectives” by means of an agglutinated pronoun *-(j)is, e.g.
Lith. geràsis, OCS dobryjь ‘the good one’.
4. shift of active masculine participles to the *-i̯ o-inflection, e.g. Lith. vẽžančio ‘lead-
ing’(Gsg.), OCS vezǫštą ‘id.’(Gsg.).
5. influence of -i-stems on consonant stems, e. g. Lith. akmenimì ‘stone’(Isg.), OCS
kamenьmъ ‘id.’(Isg.).
6. loss of suppletion between *so- and *to- by generalization of *to-, e.g. Lith. tàs, OCS
tъ ‘that one’.
7. first person pronoun dative Lith. mán, OP mennei, OCS mьně.
8. merging of genitive and ablative in thematic inflections, e.g. Lith. diẽvo ‘of
God’(Gsg.), OCS boga ‘id.’(Gsg.).
At the end of the 19th century, “Balto-Slavic” was considered as firmly established as
Indo-Iranian for example, and nobody questioned its validity seriously until Antoine
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-035

Authenticated
114. Balto-Slavic 1961
Meillet (1908: 40−48) in a seminal book on the Indo-European dialects raised objections
against the existence of a “Balto-Slavic” stage. A few years earlier Meillet (1905: 201−
202) had already written that “it does not seem legitimate to speak of a period of Balto-
Slavic unity” (il ne semble pas légitime de parler d’une unité balto-slave). Meillet’s
objections were of a threefold nature. First, according to Meillet, the common innova-
tions on which the reconstruction of Balto-Slavic is based are often too trivial to exclude
the possibility of independent evolutions in Baltic and Slavic. Second, some of the inno-
vations listed by Brugmann, or their prodromes, are found in other Indo-European lan-
guages so that their presence in both Baltic and Slavic does not necessarily imply the
reconstruction of a common stage. Third, some of these features might be inherited from
PIE or at least reflect tendencies already existing in PIE. Meillet’s heterodox views on
Balto-Slavic gave rise to heated discussions. While some scholars still adhered to “Balto-
Slavic” seen as a uniform proto-language (e.g. Porzeziński 1911), others tried to recon-
cile Meillet’s views with the existence of undeniable isoglosses shared by Baltic and
Slavic. Endzelīns (1911) proposed that Baltic and Slavic originally belonged to different
sub-dialects within the Indo-European family, but due to secondary geographical contacts
developed a wide range of common features. On the contrary, Rozwadowski (1912)
argued that Baltic and Slavic were from the outset closely related dialects, but went their
own way through the course of their prehistory and thus developed profound divergences
before coming into renewed contacts at a later stage. The debate on the existence of
Balto-Slavic continued throughout the 20th century, dividing the scholarly community
into strong supporters (Trautmann, Vaillant, Kuryłowicz) and staunch opponents (Senn,
Salys, Klimas). The arguments of the supporters are summarized by Vaillant (1956) and
Szemerényi (1957), those of the opponents by Senn (1966). In the fifties, two Russian
linguists, Ivanov and Toporov (1958), proposed a model in which Slavic was seen as a
peripheral Baltic dialect. In the second part of the 20th century, a certain fatigue seemed
to emerge from the Balto-Slavic debate, probably due to the endless repetition of the
same arguments. A new piece of evidence, however, was adduced in 1978, when Winter
proposed his law of vowel lengthening before voiced stops (Winter’s law) for both Baltic
and Slavic. Many supporters of the new law (e.g. Kortlandt, Derksen) are at the same
time supporters of Balto-Slavic as the most convenient theoretical framework to account
for what is obviously a common innovation shared by Baltic and Slavic. This is not to
say, however, that the majority of scholars believes without reserve in the 19th century
conception of Balto-Slavic as a uniform language. Most scholars would probably agree
with a more dynamic dialectological model involving internal divergences and therefore
requiring a more fine-grained description.
2. Balto-Slavic common features

According to the well-known “Leskien principle” (Leskien 1876) any genealogical clas-
sification of languages must be based on shared innovations distinguishing a sub-branch
from all the other sub-branches (see Hock 2000: 121−132). In the case of Balto-Slavic,
there is a considerable array of common features obviously pleading in favor of a com-
mon prehistory. The probative value of these features depends on three principles already
defined by Meillet (1908: 10). First, the shared feature must necessarily be traceable to

Authenticated
1962 XVIII. Balto-Slavic
the proto-language of each group (Baltic and Slavic) and cannot reflect a later innova-
tion; this implies that every language of the sub-group must possess that feature, or at
least be likely to have possessed it in its prehistory. Another requirement is that the
shared feature must be salient enough to preclude trivial or parallel developments. To be
sure, it is difficult to determine to what extent a given feature can be qualified as “salient
enough”. Intuitively, one might think for example that the loss of forms or categories is
less salient than the creation of forms or categories, since in the case of a loss the
alternative is limited to two possibilities (retention or loss), which leaves much place for
parallel developments, whereas in the case of a creation the alternative is open to many
more possibilities and the choice is therefore more significant. The third preliminary
requirement presented by Meillet is that shared features are probative only if there was
at some stage a geographical proximity of the two languages; this implies that language
affinity must be supported, if possible, by historical or archeological evidence.
The features usually ascribed to Balto-Slavic cover all areas of linguistic reconstruc-
tion. Traditionally, the lion’s share has involved phonology, morphology, and lexicon,
but common syntactic structures have also been reconstructed and even anthroponymy,
phraseology, or mythology have sometimes been advocated.
2.1. Phonology
Among the most striking isoglosses shared by Baltic and Slavic are phonological fea-
tures. Some of these have to do with stress and syllable tones to such an extent that one
may speak of Balto-Slavic accentology as a special field of research. In what follows, a
selective list of shared phonological features is provided with illustrative examples from
both Baltic and Slavic (see Endzelīns 1911: 3−128).
1. Hirt’s law (Hirt 1895: 94): retraction of the ictus from a final vowel if the vowel of
the preceding syllable was followed by a tautosyllabic laryngeal, e.g. PIE *d huh2 -
mó- ‘smoke’ (cf. OInd. dhūmá-) > Balto-Slavic *dū́ma- > Lith. dū́mai, Latv. dũmi
and SCr. dȉm (Gsg. dȉma).
2. Winter’s law (Winter 1978): vowel lengthening before original voiced stops, e. g. PIE
*udreh2 ‘otter’ (cf. Gr. ὕδρα) > Lith. ū́dra, Latv. ûdrs (masc.), OP udro and Russ.
výdra, SCr. vȉdra.
3. development of a tone system, with exact correspondences such as e.g. Lith. kárvė /
SCr. krȁva ‘cow’, Lith. bóba / SCr. bȁba ‘old woman’ and Lith. saũsas / SCr. sȗh
‘dry’, Lith. kreĩvas / SCr. krȋv ‘crooked, curved’.
4. vocalization of *r̥, *l̥ , *m̥, and *n̥ to *ir, *il, *im, and *in (sometimes *ur, *ul, *um,
and *un), e.g. PIE *u̯l̥ k u̯os ‘wolf’ (cf. OInd. vr̥ ́ ka-) > Lith. vil̃kas, Latv. vìlks, OP
wilkis and OCS vlьkъ, Russ. volk, Pol. wilk, SCr. vȗk, vs. PIE *g u̯r̥H-tlo- ‘throat’ (cf.
Gr. βάραθρον ‘gulf, pit’) > Lith. gurklỹs, Latv. gurklis, OP gurcle and Slav. *gъrlo
> ORuss. grъlo, Russ. gorlo, Pol. gardło, SCr. gȑ lo.
5. evolution of PIE *eu̯ to *iau (> Baltic *iau, Slavic *iu), vs. PIE *ou̯ > *au (Baltic
*au, Slavic *u), e.g. PIE *h1 leu̯d h- ‘people’ > Lith. liáudis, Latv. ļàudis and OCS
ljudije, SCr. ljȗdi, vs. PIE *b hou̯d h- ‘to awaken’ > Lith. báudinti, Latv. bàudît ‘to
awaken’, OP etbaudints ‘awaken’ and OCS buditi, Russ. budit’, SCr. búditi ‘to awak-
en’. But Old Prussian does not seem to take part completely in this evolution: OP

Authenticated
keuto ‘skin’ (cf. Lith. kiáutas ‘shell’ < *keu̯-t-), vs. laucks ‘field’ (cf. Lith. laũkas,
Latv. laũks < PIE *lou̯kos, cf. Lat. lūcus). Note also that Baltic loanwords in Finnish
preserve *eu, e.g. Finn. reuna ‘edge’ (< Baltic *breunā, cf. Lith. briaunà ‘edge’).
2.2. Morphology
Morphological isoglosses shared by Baltic and Slavic are numerous, and many of them
are so specific that parallel developments are precluded. In what follows, a synthetic
picture of morphological Balto-Slavic features is given, without any claim to be exhaus-
tive; this list is based on Endzelīns (1911: 128−190).
1. formation of “definite adjectives” by means of an agglutinated pronoun *-(j)is, e.g.
Lith. gẽras ‘good’ (Gsg. gẽro) → geràsis ‘the good one’ (Gsg. gẽrojo), Latv. labs
‘good’ (Gsg. laba) → labais ‘the good one’ (Gsg. labā), OP dengenennis ‘heaven-
ly’ → dengnennissis, and OCS dobrъ ‘good’ (Gsg. dobra) → dobryi ‘the good one’
(Gsg. dobrajego), SCr. dȍbar ‘good’ (Gsg. dȍbra) → dȍbrȋ ‘the good one’ (Gsg.
dȍbrȏga).
2. syncretism of the genitive and ablative cases and use of the original ablative as geni-
tive in the thematic inflections, e.g. PIE Ablsg. *-ōd > Gsg. Lith. -o, Latv. -a (e.g.
Lith. diẽvo, Latv. dìeva ‘of God’) and OCS -a , SCr. -a (e.g. OCS boga, SCr. bȍga
‘of God’). Old Prussian, however, has a different ending -as (e.g. deiwas ‘of God’),
either from PIE *-oso or *-os (cf. Hitt. antuḫsas ‘man’ [nom., gen.] as well as ON
nom. dagr ‘day’, gen. dags, which looks like secondary differentiation of a single
original case ending). Note that East Baltic seems to suppose an ending *-ā (not
*-ō), for which different explanations have been proposed.
3. influence of *-i-stems on consonant stems, based on the reanalysis of their Asg. *-m̥
> Balto-Slavic *-in as *-i-n, e.g. Lith. akmenimì ‘stone’ Isg., Latv. akmenim ‘stone’
Dsg., and OCS kamenьmъ ‘stone’ Isg. (< *-men-i-m-). In Lithuanian and OCS, the
original consonant inflection is still partly preserved, e.g. Nsg. Lith. akmuõ, OCS
kamy ‘stone’ (< *-mōn), Gsg. Lith. akmeñs, OCS kamene (< *-men-es). In Latvian
and in most modern Slavic languages, the shift to *-i-stem inflection is more ad-
vanced, e.g. Nsg. Latv. akmens, Russ. kamen’, Pol. kamień (< *-men-i-s).
4. first person pronoun dative *men-ei (instead of *meg̑ hei, cf. Lat. mihī, OInd. máhy-
am), e.g. Lith. mán (< OLith. mani), Latv. man, OP mennei, and OCS mьně, Russ.
mne, SCr. mèni. Note, however, the zero grade of OCS mьně, which looks similar
only to Low Lith. mô ̣n (< *muni).
5. formation of an infinitive from an abstract *-ti-formation, e.g. Lith. bū́ti, Latv. bût,
OP boūt and OCS byti, Russ. byt’, SCr. bı̏ ti ‘to be’. (The Tocharian infinitive AB -tsi
is probably from *-d hi̯ ōi, not from *-ti-).
2.3. Syntax
Syntactic isoglosses are more difficult to detect, not only because the Baltic literatures
were from their beginning strongly influenced by some Slavic languages (Polish, Old

Authenticated
Belorussian, Russian), but also because of the difficulty in reconstructing PIE syntax.
Examples of shared isoglosses presumably going back to a Balto-Slavic stage:
1. genitive as the case of the direct object after negation, e.g. OLith. (Chyliński 1664)
notneßa giara wayʃiaus and OCS ne tvoritъ ploda, Pol. nie wydaje dorodnych owo-
ców ‘it bringeth not forth good fruit’ (Mt 7, 19). In Latvian, the construction is rare
(it is preserved in some folk songs: BV 3725 tās vietiņās nezināju ‘I did not know
that place’), and the accusative is most commonly used after negative verbs. The
accusative construction is the only construction attested in Old Prussian.
2. double negation, e.g. Lith. jìs niẽko nežìno, Latv. viņš nekā nezin and Russ. on ničego
ne znajet, Pol. on nic nie wiem, SCr. on ne zna ništa ‘he does not know anything’
(Dini 1997: 126).
3. predicative use of the instrumental after verbs of ‘being’, ‘becoming’, e.g. OLith.
(Bretkūnas 1579−1590) Wieschapts ira Karaliumi ‘God is king’ and OCS sirotojǫ
dětištь ne bǫdetъ ‘the child shall not be an orphan’, Russ. oni byli tvorcami ‘they
were creators’, Pol. on jest dobrym nauczycielem ‘he is a good teacher’. In Latvian
and Old Prussian, the instrumental case has disappeared, but relics are found in Latvi-
an folksongs, e.g. kundziņami kungu būt ‘the lord has to be lord’ (Gāters 1993: 181).
The Balto-Slavic origin of the predicative instrumental has been rejected by Fraenkel
(1926).
2.4. Lexicon
Both from a quantitative and a qualitative point of view the lexical stock shared by
Baltic and Slavic is usually seen as a strong argument pleading for the hypothesis of a
Balto-Slavic proto-language. In many cases it is even possible to reconstruct the common
prototype with a high degree of precision; a classical Balto-Slavic dictionary is Traut-
mann (1923), see also Endzelīns (1911: 192−200) and Dini (1997: 138−141). Examples
of lexemes shared by Baltic and Slavic:
1. Balto-Slavic *eźeran ‘lake’ > Lith. ẽžeras, Latv. ezers, OP assaran and OCS jezero,
Russ. ozero, SCr. jȅzero, Pol. jezioro.
2. Balto-Slavic *gālvā ‘head’ > Lith. galvà, Latv. gal̃va, OP galwo and OCS glava,
Russ. golova, SCr. gláva, Pol. głowa.
3. Balto-Slavic *rankā ‘hand’ > Lith. rankà, Latv. rùoka, OP rancko and OCS rǫka,
Russ. ruka, SCr. rúka, Pol. ręka.
4. Balto-Slavic *vārnā ‘crow’ > Lith. várna, Latv. vãrna, OP warne and OCS vrana,
Russ. vorona, SCr. vrȁna, Pol. wrona.
5. Balto-Slavic *lenk-, *lonk-ī- ‘to bend’ > Lith. leñkti ‘to bend’, lankýti ‘to visit’, Latv.
lìekt, lùocît ‘to bend’ and OCS lęšti ‘to bend’, lǫčiti ‘to separate’, Russ. razlučit’,
SCr. lúčiti, Pol. łączyć ‘to separate’.
Some of the shared items look non-Indo-European and may be old borrowings from
unknown languages:
1. Balto-Slavic *gelē̆ź- ‘iron’ > Lith. geležìs, Latv. dzèlzs, OP gelso and OCS želězo,
Russ. železo, SCr. žèljezo, Pol. żelazo (The etymological connection with Gr. χαλκός
‘bronze’ is dubious).

Authenticated
2. Balto-Slavic *lēipā ‘lime-tree’ > Lith. líepa, Latv. liẽpa, OP lipe and Russ. lipa, SCr.
lı̏ pa, Pol. lipa.
Many suffixes are found exclusively in Baltic and Slavic (see Dini 1997: 126):
1. Balto-Slavic *-ī̆-bā (abstract) > Lith. draugỹbė, Latv. draudzĩba ‘friendship’, OP pa-
gonbe ‘paganism’ and OCS družьba, Russ. družba ‘friendship’, SCr. drùžba ‘society’,
Pol. drużba ‘best man’.
2. Balto-Slavic *-uk- (dimin.) > Lith. tėvùkas ‘little father’, Latv. večuks ‘old man’, OP
wosux ‘he-goat’ and OCS synъkъ, Russ. synok, SCr. sı̏ nak, Pol. synek ‘little son’.
3. Balto-Slavic *-neik- / *-ni(n)k- (agent) > Lith. darbiniñkas ‘worker’, Latv. dar̂binieks,
OP maldenikis ‘child’ and OCS mladenьcь, Russ. mladenec, SCr. mlȁdjenac, Pol.
młodzieniec ‘infant, child, youth’.
It is not rare that a lexical innovation shared by Baltic and Slavic has preserved its
etymological motivation only in one branch and lost it in the other branch. Most fre-
quently the archaism lies on the Baltic side, while Slavic appears more advanced:
1. Balto-Slavic *rankā ‘hand’ > Lith. rankà, Latv. rùoka, OP rancko and OCS rǫka,
Russ. ruka, SCr. rúka, Pol. ręka. Cf. Baltic *renk-, *rink- ‘to grasp, to gather’ > Lith.
riñkti ‘to gather’, OP senrīnka ‘he gathers’ (the ‘hand’ as the ‘grasping one’, the
‘gathering one’).
2.5. Anthroponymy
Anthroponymical isoglosses between Baltic and Slavic have been supposed by some
scholars. More specifically they consist of the use of similar elements to form proper
names, albeit with different linguistic material:
1. Lith. But- / Sl. Domo- (< ‘house’); Lith. Vaiš- / Sl. Gost(i)- (< ‘guest’); Lith. Ei- /
Sl. Chodi- (< ‘to go’); Lith. Taut- / Sl. Ljud- (< ‘people’), etc. (Stang 1966: 20).
According to Stang (1966: 20), such isoglosses illustrate “an old, profound cultural link”
(eine alte tiefgreifende kulturelle Verbindung). Some of them, however, could reflect
more recent contacts of Baltic with Slavic languages or even could be interpreted, at
least partly, as loan translations.
2.6. Phraseology
Even phraseological correspondences between the Baltic and the Slavic languages have
been sometimes supposed. Some of them have been identified in a series of seminal
works by Rainer Eckert (e.g. 1991, 2007). For instance, a phraseologism ‘to put on / off
one’s shoes’ > ‘to serve’ has been shown by Eckert (2007: 61−99) to be shared by
Latvian (aut kājas) and ORussian (rozuti robičiča). The use of the adjective ‘white’ with
an affective meaning (‘dear’) is also characteristic of Lithuanian (Lith. balta mamužėlė
‘dear mummy’), Latvian (OLatv. balta mahmulite ‘dear mummy’) and Slavic (Russ.

Authenticated
belaja barynja ‘dear girl’). It is not always clear whether such correspondences go back
to Balto-Slavic or result from more recent linguistic contacts.
2.7. Mythology
The existence of common elements shared by the Baltic and the Slavic pagan traditions
is a much debated issue and goes far beyond the purely linguistic aspect, involving the
intricate problem of the transmission of cultural content as well, not to mention the
reconstruction of PIE mythology, which is one of the trickiest fields of research. Most
striking is the similarity of the name of the ‘Thunder God’ in Baltic and Slavic, Lith.
Perkū́nas, Latv. Pērkuons, OP Percunis and Sl. *Perun (Russ. Perun); despite some
phonetic differences, it could point to a common Balto-Slavic deity. Even common myth-
ological narratives have been sometimes supposed; for a general discussion see Mikhail-
ov (2000: 206−225).
3. Balto-Slavic divergences
The evidence produced so far is usually seen as definitively conclusive. The reconstruc-
tion of a Balto-Slavic proto-language thus seems to be as secure as that of any other
proto-language. Even if Meillet’s objections against Balto-Slavic may weaken some of
the features used as pieces of evidence, there remains a considerable array of striking
similarities shared by Baltic and Slavic, and no one could seriously deny their existence.
Divergences nevertheless do exist between Baltic and Slavic, some of which seem to
jeopardize the reconstruction of a common proto-stage. The question, of course, is what
value can be ascribed to such features in comparison with the bulk of shared convergen-
ces; in this regard we must avoid one-sided answers and be open to more fine-grained
models. In what follows, some of the most striking divergences opposing Baltic and
Slavic will be presented. A list of these divergences is provided in a paper by Erhart
(1958: 123−130); other facts have been added by Pohl (1992: 155−159). They will be
first listed in the same way as in Erhart’s and Pohl’s papers, then their relevance will be
discussed.
1. the first Slavic palatalization of velars (e.g. OCS žena ‘woman’ < PIE *g u̯enā) has
a striking parallel in Indo-Iranian (e.g. OInd. jáni ‘wife’). According to Erhart it
could represent a common tendency going back to the most remote prehistory. Baltic
is not affected by this palatalization (e.g. OP genna ‘woman’).
2. the PIE vowels *ō and *ā merged to *a in Slavic (e.g. OCS dati ‘to give’ < *dō-,
stati ‘to stand’ < *stā-), but they are kept distinguished in Baltic, Latv. uo / ā, Lith.
uo / o (e.g. Latv. duôt, vs. stât; Lith. dúoti, vs. stóti).
3. the (indefinite) adjectival declension has in Baltic pronominal endings, as in Ger-
manic (e.g. Dsg. Lith. gerám ‘good’ like tám ‘that one’ ≠ miẽstui ‘city’). In Slavic,
it has the same endings as nominal inflections (e.g. Dsg. in OCS dobru ‘good’ like
gradu ‘city’).
4. the Lithuanian comparative formation in -esnis is old (cf. Goth. -izan), but nothing
similar is found in Slavic (cf. OCS comparatives in -ějь).

Authenticated
5. there are differences in word formation: Slavic, for instance, has agent nouns in
-telь, which do not exist in Baltic (Lith. has -ėjas or -tojas).
6. the numerals between 5 and 9 are formed in different ways: they are *-io-stems in
Baltic (e.g. Lith. penkì ‘five’, šešì ‘six’, etc.), whereas Slavic has a suffix *-ti- (OCS
pętь ‘five’, šestь ‘six’ as if from *penk u̯-ti-, *s[u̯]eks-ti-), which finds a striking
parallel in Albanian (Alb. gjashtë ‘six’ < *s[u̯]eks-ti-, but pesë ‘five’ is not clear)
and in Old Indic (OInd. paṅktí- ‘group of five’, ṣaṣṭí- ‘group of six’).
7. the formation of the numerals 11 to 19 in Baltic (e.g. Lith. vienúolika ‘eleven’ <
lìkti ‘to be left’) is strikingly similar to that of 11 and 12 in Germanic (e.g. Goth.
ainlif ‘eleven’ < -lifnan ‘to be left’); Slavic has a different formation (e.g. OCS
jedinъ na desęte ‘eleven’ < ‘one over ten’).
8. many differences in verbal formations: presents with a suffix -sta- are found in
Baltic (e.g. Lith. vir̃sta, Latv. vìrst, OP wīrst ‘becomes’ < *virt-sta-) but not in
Slavic (the formation of OCS rastǫ ‘I grow’ is obscure); stative verbs have a short
-i- in Baltic (e.g. Lith. sė́ dime ‘we sit’) but a long -ī- in Slavic (e.g. OCS sědimъ
‘we sit’).
9. the sigmatic aorist, still found in Slavic (e.g. OCS věsъ ‘I conducted’ < *u̯ēd h-s-
om), has left no trace in Baltic.
10. the third person of thematic verbs has a short ending -a in Baltic (e.g. Lith. nẽša
‘carries’), going back to *-o, whereas Slavic has a long ending -etъ (e.g. OCS
nesetъ) or a short ending -e (e.g. OCS nese), both with e-grade of the thematic
vowel.
11. the first person singular of thematic verbs has preserved the old ending *-ō in Baltic
(e.g. Lith. nešù ‘I carry’ < *-úo < *-ō), whereas Slavic has a nasalized ending *-ō-m
(e.g. OCS nesǫ), similar to OInd. -āmi.
12. Slavic has participles in -l- (e.g. OCS neslъ in neslъ jestъ ‘has carried’), Baltic does
not have these (unless in adjectival formations, e.g. Lith. ãklas ‘blind’ from àkti ‘to
grow blind’).
13. the category of aspect is far less relevant in Baltic than it is in Slavic.
14. lexical divergences, e.g. Lith. výras, Latv. vĩrs, OP wijrs (< Baltic *u̯īro-), vs. OCS
mǫžь, Russ. muž, SCr. mȗž ‘man, husband’ (< Slavic *mon-), see Fraenkel (1950:
108). Many Baltic and Slavic words display a different ablaut, e.g. Lith. dienà, Latv.
dìena, OP deinan ASg. (< Baltic *dei̯ -n-), vs. OCS dьnь, Russ. den’, SCr. dȃn ‘day’
(< Slavic *di-n-) and/or show suffix heteroclisy, e.g. Lith. pavãsaris, Latv. pavasaris
(< *u̯os-er-), vs. OCS vesna, Russ. vesna, SCr. vèsna ‘spring’ (< *u̯es-n-).
Most of the divergences listed by Erhart and Pohl are obviously inconclusive, since they
can be accounted for by assuming recent innovations on one side or on both sides. In
some cases, Baltic seems to be more archaic than Slavic (e.g. in the distinction of *ā
and *ō); in other cases, it is Slavic which appears more conservative (e.g. in the retention
of the sigmatic aorist); finally there are cases in which both sub-groups are equally
innovative and may reflect independent innovations (e.g. in the formation of agent nouns
in -telь in Slavic, in *-[t]ājas in Baltic). None of these features seriously precludes the
reconstruction of a Balto-Slavic stage. Erhart’s most crucial methodological flaw is his
reconstruction of PIE. According to Erhart, features attested in languages other than
Baltic and Slavic (e.g. the palatalization of velars in Slavic and Indo-Iranian) must neces-
sarily go back to PIE and thus contradict the hypothesis of a specifically Balto-Slavic

Authenticated
innovation, but Erhart does not seriously take into account the possibility of independent
developments. With the Slavic palatalization of velars this is obviously the case.
Among the Balto-Slavic divergences only one seems really problematic for the recon-
struction of a common proto-stage and was already mentioned as such by Meillet (1908:
47−48), the difference of ablaut in reflexes of the same designation. In the name for
‘day’, for instance, Baltic has *dei̯ -n-, Slavic *di-n- (for more examples see Petit 2012:
186−187). In some cases it could be assumed that Balto-Slavic still had an ablauting
paradigm, with both forms (e.g. strong stem *dei̯ -n-, vs. weak stem *di-n-), and that each
sub-group later generalized one of the two variants. But the reconstruction of ablauting
paradigms, even if very much in vogue, cannot explain every such divergence between
Baltic and Slavic: the word for ‘arm, shoulder’, for instance, is *h2 r̥H-m- in Baltic (> OP
irmo), *h2 erH-m- in Slavic (> OCS ramo), both of which might be suspected to be old
(cf. OInd. īrmá-, vs. Lat. armus), but no ablauting paradigm can be reasonably posited
for an originally thematic formation. In some cases, it could be argued that one form is
old, the other innovative, i.e. analogical, but all too often no viable analogy can be
established.
Such divergences must, of course, not be overestimated. It would be unwise to use
them as pieces of evidence against the reconstruction of a Balto-Slavic common proto-
stage. What they tell us is only that Balto-Slavic cannot be seen as a uniform language,
free from any internal variation; it must have been affected by dialectal divergences,
some of which might even go back to previous linguistic stages. There is nothing surpris-
ing about that: the same holds true for any proto-language.
4. Internal Baltic and Slavic divergences

Another difficulty is the existence of the constituents of the Balto-Slavic unity. A com-
mon Slavic proto-language is unanimously recognized and its existence seems to be
beyond question; the main features of its grammatical structure and lexicon can be safely
reconstructed (see Meillet 1924 and Derksen 2008 for reference books). On the other
hand, a common Baltic proto-language is in many respects a problematic notion, and
even in Slavic internal divergences can be found which make the reconstruction of a
common prototype sometimes difficult. The question is whether internal divergences
within Baltic or within Slavic are such as to cast a negative light on the existence of
Balto-Slavic itself. In this section, we shall not be concerned with secondary divergences,
but with more essential divergences presumably going back to the proto-languages them-
selves, i.e. Baltic and Slavic. We shall begin with those divergences in which one of the
Baltic sub-branches agrees with Slavic, while the other sub-branch has its own profile.
It has long been noticed that there is a special affinity between East Baltic (Lithua-
nian, Latvian) and Slavic and that West Baltic is more distant. Examples are given by
Stang (1966: 10):
1. East Baltic and Slavic have a thematic genitive *-ā or *-ō (going back to a PIE
ablative) > Gsg. Lith. -o, Latv. -a and OCS -a. Old Prussian has a different ending
-as.
2. East Baltic and Slavic have a dative singular pronominal ending with *-m- > Dsg.
Lith. tám, Latv. tam and OCS tomъ ‘that’ (demonstrative pronoun). Old Prussian has

Authenticated
an older ending with *-sm- (Dsg. of the demonstrative pronoun stesmu), going back
to PIE (cf. OInd. tásmai, Umbr. esmei).
3. lexicon: ‘evening’ East Baltic *vakaras (Lith. vãkaras, Latv. vakàrs) and Slavic
*večerъ (OCS večerъ, Russ. večer, SCr. vȅčēr), vs. West Baltic *bītas (OP bītas
GSg.); ‘stone’ East Baltic *akmōn/-men- (Lith. akmuõ, Latv. akmens) and Slavic
*kamy/-menь (OCS kamy, Russ. kamenь, SCr. kȁmen), vs. West Baltic *stabas (OP
stabis).
The opposite situation, where West Baltic goes with Slavic against East Baltic, is much
rarer:
1. the dative of the second person and reflexive pronouns is *tebei, *sebei (< PIE
*teb hei̯ , *seb hei̯ , Lat. tibī, sibī) in West Baltic (OP tebbei, sebbei) as in Slavic (OCS
tebě, sebě). East Baltic has a different stem (Lith. táu, sáu, Latv. tev, sev < *teu̯ei̯ ,
*seu̯ei̯ ).
2. the possessive adjectives are built on *moi̯ o-, *tu̯oi̯ o-, *su̯oi̯ o- (cf. Lat. meus < *mei̯ o-)
in West Baltic (OP mais, twais, swais) as in Slavic (OCS moi, tvoi, svoi); East Baltic
has a different formation (Lith. mãnas, tãvas, sãvas, Latv. màns, tàvs, sàvs).
3. lexicon: ‘whole, healthy’ West Baltic *kailas (OP kails) and Slavic *cělъ (OCS cělъ,
Russ. célyj, SCr. cı̏ jel), vs. East Baltic *sveikas (Lith. sveĩkas, Latv. svèiks). The West
Baltic and Slavic word is paralleled in Germanic (Goth. hails ‘healthy’).
Most of these facts might be explained by usual innovative processes assuming that one
sub-branch followed a separate path from the other. The same holds true for most of the
divergences involving only one sub-branch of Slavic going with Baltic, whereas the rest
of Slavic is different. Special isoglosses have been supposed in the lexical field by some
scholars between Baltic and North Slavic (cf. Nepokupnyj 1976) or between Baltic and
South Slavic (cf. Boryś 1992), but it is not always clear whether these isoglosses reflect
shared innovations rather than common retentions of inherited lexemes. Such partial
divergences do not weaken the existence of Balto-Slavic as a common proto-language.
5. External connections
Another problem is the existence of different linguistic connections with other languages.
It has been long noticed that there are special affinities of Baltic and Slavic with German-
ic, sometimes shared by the three sub-branches, sometimes limited to two of them. In
this section we are concerned only with those isoglosses in which Baltic goes with
Germanic, but not with Slavic, or vice versa. Examples of Balto-Germanic isoglosses
excluding Slavic (cf. Porzig 21974: 145−147):
1. suffixation of the ordinal ‘first’: *pr̥H-mo- in Baltic (Lith. pìrmas, Latv. pìrmaĩs, OP
pirmas) and in Germanic (Goth. fruma, OEng. forma), vs. *pr̥H-u̯o- in Slavic (OCS
prьvъ, Russ. pérvyj, SCr. pȓ vī) as in Indo-Aryan (OInd. pū́rva-, Avest. pauruua-,
OPers. paruva-) and Albanian (Alb. parë).
2. formation of the numerals 11 to 19 in Baltic (e.g. Lith. vienúolika ‘eleven’ < lìkti ‘to be
left’) and of the numerals 11 and 12 in Germanic (e.g. Goth. ainlif ‘eleven’ < -lifnan ‘to
be left’), vs. Slavic (e.g. OCS jedinъ na desęte ‘eleven’ < ‘one over ten’). Latvian has
copied the Slavic formation (e.g. Latv. viênpadsmit like Russ. odinnadcatь).

Authenticated
3. lexicon: *deru̯- > ‘pitch, tar’ in Baltic (Lith. dervà, Latv. dar̃va) and Germanic (OIc.
tjora OEng. teoru, MLG tere, borrowing in Finn. terva), vs. ‘tree, wood’ in Slavic
(OCS drěvo, Russ. dérevo, SCr. drı̏ jevo). For the semantic relationship see OInd.
pitudāru- ‘Pinus Deodora’.
Examples of Slavo-Germanic isoglosses (Porzig 21974: 143−145):
1. lexicon: ‘pine-tree’ in Slavic (ORuss. borъ, SCr. bȏr ‘pine-tree’, Pol. bór ‘forest’)
and Germanic (OIc. bǫrr, OEngl. bearu ‘tree’), vs. Baltic (Lith. pušìs, OP peuse);
‘swan’ in Slavic (Russ. lebedь, SCr. lȁbȗd, Pol. łabędź) and Germanic (OIc. elptr,
OEngl. aelbitu, ielfetu, OHG albiz, elbiz), vs. Baltic (Lith. gul̃bė, Latv. gùlbis, OP
gulbis).
In a broader context, special affinities have been found between Baltic and “Balkan
Indo-European” (Albanian, Greek, Armenian, or even Illyrian and Thracian), and some
scholars have even put forward the hypothesis of “Ponto-Baltic” linguistic convergences;
Slavic does not always play a role in these convergences.
1. common suffixes: e. g. abstract nouns in *-i-mo- in Baltic (Lith. bėgìmas ‘running’
from bė́ gti ‘to run’) and Albanian (Alb. kujtím ‘memory’ from kujtój ‘to remember’);
see also Dini (1997: 158). Slavic has only traces of this formation (e.g. OCS pisьmo
‘letter’ = Lith. piešìmas ‘drawing’). Further cognates might be found, however, e.g.
Hitt. tetḫima- ‘thunder’ (from tetḫ- ‘to thunder’).
2. lexicon: Lith. jėgà ‘strength’ / Gr. ἥβη ‘youth’ ; Lith. pievà / Hom. Gr. ποιή ‘mead-
ow’ (Schmid 1992: 213); Lith. ligà / Alb. ligë ‘illness, disease’; Lith. lentà / Alb.
landë ‘board, plank’.
3. toponymy: Thracian Κύψελα, vs. Lith. Kupšẽliai, Latv. Kupseļi; Dacian Bersovia,
Berzobis, vs. Lith. Béržuvis; Illyrian Arsia, vs. OP Arse (see Duridanov 1992: 15−
17). Most of these comparisons might, however, be mere coincidences.
Strickly speaking, most of the facts listed above are of little value, since they can always
be ascribed either to a special archaism or to a recent innovation of the diverging sub-
branch. In some cases, this divergence is only superficial, and reflexes of the absent
feature might have left traces in peripheral forms. For example, even if the ordinal ‘first’
*pr̥h3 -u̯o- is limited to Slavic, as opposed to *pr̥h3 -mo- in Baltic and Germanic, a trace
of the former can also be identified in Germanic (OEngl. forwost, forwest ‘first’). In
other cases, we are probably dealing with independent developments, as in the formation
for the numeral 11 in Baltic and Germanic, where the verbal basis is different.
6. Balto-Slavic: a conclusion
All the evidence discussed in the previous sections does not fundamentally preclude the
existence of a “Balto-Slavic” common stage. The only lesson that we can draw from it
is simply that one must allow for the possibility of dialectal variations in proto-languages
as we do in any historical language and that absolute linguistic uniformity is certainly
as great a fiction as the idea of a common “Balto-Slavic” people occupying a narrow
area bounded by intangible frontiers. Linguistic communities have to be seen more in

Authenticated
terms of geographical networks open to multiple interactions with their environment than
as completely airtight units. Linguistic geography has shown already long ago that the
spread of isoglosses may considerably vary in extent and that absolute coherence is not
to be expected over the whole area affected by these isoglosses.
In the case of Balto-Slavic, there is today a general consensus that Baltic and Slavic
go back to the same proto-language; Meillet’s objections would now hardly find any
supporters. This is not to say, however, that every Baltic feature must necessarily have,
or have had, an exact correspondence in Slavic, or vice versa. Here we come to a crucial
point whose disregard might create considerable distortions in the assessment of the
facts. Given the possibility of internal divergences, Balto-Slavic must be seen as a work-
ing hypothesis, not as a heuristic straitjacket isolating Baltic and Slavic from their broad-
er context and compelling us to adapt existing data to a common pattern. No scholar
would today seriously reconstruct a proto-language as free of internal variation as
Schleicher did for Indo-European, and no scholar, not even the staunchest supporters of
a proto-language common to Baltic and Slavic, would dare to write a tale in Balto-
Slavic.
7. References
Barschel, Bernd, Maria Kozianka, and Karin Weber (eds.)
1992 Indogermanisch, Slawisch und Baltisch. Materialien des vom 21.−22. September 1989
in Jena in Zusammenarbeit mit der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft durchgeführten Kol-
loquiums. Munich: Sagner.
Boryś, Wiesław
1992 Zu den südslavisch-baltischen lexikalischen Verknüpfungen. Linguistica Baltica 1: 193−
200.
Bretkūnas, Jonas
1579−1590 Biblia tatai esti wissas Schwentas Raschtas Lietuwischkai pergulditas per Jana
Bretkuna [The Bible, that is the entire Holy Scripture in Lithuanian translated by Jonas
Bretkūnas]. Königsberg. [Reprinted 1996. Paderborn: Schöningh].
Brugmann, Karl
1886 Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen 1. Band I.
Strassburg: Trübner.
Brugmann, Karl
1897 Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen 2. Band I.
Strassburg: Trübner.
BV = Krištjānis Barons and Henrijs Vissendorfs
1894−1915 Latwju dainas. [Latvian folksongs]. 6 vols. Jelgawa: Drawin-Drawneeks.
Chyliński, Samuel
1664 Biblia Litewska, Nowy Testament [The Lithuanian Bible: New Testament]. London. [Re-
printed 1984. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza].
Derksen, Rick
2008 Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon. Leiden: Brill.
1997 Le lingue baltiche. Florence: La Nuova Italia.
2010 ALILETOESCUR: Linguistica baltica delle origini. Livorno: Books & Company.

Authenticated
Duridanov, Ivan
1992 Die Beziehungen des Baltischen zu den alten Balkansprachen. In: Barschel, Kozianka,
and Weber (eds.), 13−20.
Eckert, Rainer
1991 Studien zur historischen Phraseologie der slawischen Sprachen (unter Berücksichtigung
des Baltischen). Munich: Sagner.
Eckert, Rainer
2007 Studien zur Sprache der lettischen Volkslieder. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
Endzelīns, Jānis
1911 Slavjano-baltiïskie etjudy [Balto-Slavic studies]. Chark’ov: Zil’berberg.
Erhart, Adolph
1958 Zum Problem der baltisch-slavischen Spracheinheit. Sbornik praci filosofické fakulty
Brněnské University, Ročnik, VII, Rady jazykovědne (A), Č. 6: 123−130.
Fraenkel, Ernst
1926 Der prädikative Instrumental im Slavischen und Baltischen und seine syntaktischen
Grundlagen. Archiv für slavische Philologie 40: 77−117.
Gāters, Alfrēds
1993 Lettische Syntax. Die Dainas. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
Hirt, Hermann
1895 Der indogermanische Akzent: Ein Handbuch. Strassburg: Trübner.
Hock, Wolfgang
2000 Balto-Slavisch, Indo-Iranisch, Italo-Keltisch. Kriterien für die Annahme von Sprachge-
meinschaften in der Indogermania. In: Range (ed.), 119−145.
Hock, Wolfgang
2004 Baltoslavisch. I. Teil: Phonologie. Kratylos 49: 1−32.
Hock, Wolfgang
2005 Baltoslavisch. II. Teil: Morphonologie, Stammbildung. Kratylos 50: 1−39.
Hock, Wolfgang
2006 Baltoslavisch. III. Teil: Die baltoslavische Sprachgemeinschaft, Nachträge. Kratylos 51:
1−24.
Ivanov, Vyacheslav V. and Vladimir N. Toporov
1958 K postanovke voprosa o drevnejšix otnošenijax baltijskix i slavjanskix jazykov [On the
status of the question concerning the oldest relationships of the Baltic and Slavic lan-
guages]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo A. N. SSSR.
Karaliunas, Simas
1968 Kai kurie baltų ir slavų kalbų seniausiųjų santykių klausimai [Some issues concerning
the oldest relationships of the Baltic and Slavic languages]. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausi-
mai 10: 7−100.
Leskien, August
1876 Die Declination im Slavisch-Litauischen und Germanischen. Leipzig: Hirzel.
Meillet, Antoine
1905 Études sur l’étymologie et le vocabulaire du vieux slave. Paris: Champion.
Meillet, Antoine
1908 Les dialectes indo-européens. Paris: Champion.
Meillet, Antoine
1924 Le slave commun. Paris: Champion.
Mikhailov, Nikolai
2000 Einige Anmerkungen zum Begriff “Baltisch-Slavische Mythologie”. In: Range (ed.),
206−225.
Nepokupnyj, Anatolij G.
1976 Balto-severnoslavjanskie jazykovye svjazi [Baltic-North Slavic linguistic contacts]. Kiev:
Naukova Dumka.

Authenticated
Petit, Daniel
2004 Les langues baltiques et la question balto-slave. Histoire Epistémologie Langage 26(2):
7−41.
Petit, Daniel
2012 Balto-slavische Unterschiede im Bereich des nominalen Ablauts: apr. pintis ‘Weg’,
panno ‘Feuer’ und ihre slavischen Entsprechungen. In: Velizar Sadovski and David
Stifter (eds.). Iranistische und indogermanistische Beiträge in memoriam Jochem
Schindler (1944−1994). Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissen-
schaften, 185−203.
Pohl, Heinz Dieter
1992 Die baltoslavische Spracheinheit − areale Aspekte. In: Barschel, Kozianka, and Weber
(eds.), 137−164.
Porzeziński, Viktor
1911 Die baltisch-slavische Sprachgemeinschaft. Rocznik Slawistyczny 4: 1−26.
Porzig, Walter
1974 Die Gliederung des indogermanischen Sprachgebiets 2. Heidelberg: Winter.
Pott, August Friedrich
1837 De Lithuanico-borussicae in slavicis lettisque linguis cum vicinis nexu commentatio
[A reflection concerning the connection of Lithuano-Prussian with its neighbors among
the Slavic and Lettic languages]. Halle: Gebauer.
Range, Jochen (ed.)
2000 Aspekte baltistischer Forschung. Essen: Die blaue Eule.
Rozwadowski, Jan
1912 O pierwotnym stosunku wzajemnym języków bałtyckich i słowiańskich [On the original
mutual relationship of the Baltic and Slavic languages]. Rocznik Slawistyczny 5: 1−36.
Schleicher, August
1861 Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Weimar:
Böhlau.
Schmid, Wolfgang P.
1992 Die Stellung des Baltischen im Kreise der indogermanischen Sprachen. In: Barschel,
Kozianka, and Weber (eds.), 201−222.
Senn, Alfred
1966 Relationships of Baltic and Slavic. In: Henrik Birnbaum and Jaan Puhvel (eds.), Ancient
Indo-European Dialects. Proceedings of the Conference on Indo-European Linguistics
Held at the University of California, Los Angeles April 25−27, 1963. Berkeley: Univer-
sity of California Press, 139−151.
Stang, Christian R.
Szemérényi, Oswald
1957 The problem of Balto-Slav unity. A critical survey. Kratylos 2: 97−123.
Trautmann, Reinhold
Vaillant, Andrė
1956 Communications. Séance du 5 mars 1954. Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris
51: XXI−XXIII.
Winter, Werner
1978 The distribution of short and long vowels in stems of the type Lith. ė́sti : vèsti : mèsti

Authenticated
115. The phonology of Balto-Slavic

1. Introduction: the Balto-Slavic languages 3. Vowels and diphthongs
and Proto-Balto-Slavic 4. Prosodic phenomena and syllable structure
2. Consonants 5. References
1. Introduction: the Balto-Slavic languages and Proto-Balto-Slavic

This chapter assumes a Balto-Slavic subgroup of Indo-European, as detailed in Petit,
Balto-Slavic, of this handbook. Nevertheless, the internal subgrouping of Balto-Slavic
has itself not yet been fully clarified. Thus, there are some indications that the Baltic
languages themselves do not constitute a separate subgroup of Balto-Slavic, in opposition
to or excluding Slavic. Rather, it appears that the three branches West Baltic, East Baltic,
and Slavic have developed from a dialect continuum which gradually became differenti-
ated during the last centuries BCE and the first half of the 1st millennium CE. Most of
the relevant dialectological factors have been provided in the previous chapter, to which
a few additional isoglosses, one from each of the three possible bilateral relationships
within the continuum, may be added: West and East Baltic share the generalization of
the 3sg. verb forms to the dual and plural and of *-a- (< PIE *-o-) as the thematic vowel.
Slavic and East Baltic share the replacement of the initial n- of ‘nine’ with the d- of
‘ten’ (OCS devętŭ, Lith. deviñtas vs. OP newīnts ‘ninth’), while Slavic and West Baltic
share the 1pl. pronoun gen. OCS nasŭ, OP noūson vs. Lith. mū́sų, Latv. mũsu with m-
from the nominative. In our present state of knowledge, the best approximate Stamm-
baum for Balto-Slavic would look something like this:
Proto-Balto-Slavic
West Baltic East Baltic

Old Prussian Lithuanian Latvian
Slavic
The following presentation assumes a PIE phonological system that corresponds in all
fundamentals to that of Mayrhofer (1986), to which the reader is referred.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-036

Authenticated
115. The phonology of Balto-Slavic 1975
2. Consonants
Proto-Balto-Slavic had the following reconstructible system of obstruents:
p t k
b d g
s ś š
[z] ź
The phoneme *s had an allophone [z] before voiced stops, as already in PIE: cf. PIE
*mosgo- > PBS *masgas [-zg-] > Lith. mãzgas ‘knot, node’, OCS mozgŭ ‘brain’. PBS
inherited the PIE rule of regressive voicing assimilation, as in PBS inf. *deg-téi > Lith.
dègti [-kt-], PSl. *žet’i ‘burn’ (with assimilation of the root-initial to the root-final conso-
nant and regular Slavic reduction and palatalization of [kt] before a front vowel; OCS
žešti) to the root *deg- < PIE *d hegwh-. PIE voiceless dental clusters *t+t, *d+t [t st]
yielded PBS *st, as also in Greek and Iranian: cf. PIE pres. 3sg. *h1 ḗd-ti [t st] > PBS
*ḗsti > OLith. ė́ sti, PSl. *jěstĭ (OCS jastŭ) ‘eats’.
The PIE stops traditionally labeled “voiced” and “voiced aspirated” merged as voiced
stops in Balto-Slavic, as also in Anatolian, Iranian, and Celtic. Thus PIE *b and *b h
merged as PBS *b in PIE *d hub-u- > PBS *dubu- > Lith. dubùs ‘deep’ and PIE *b huH-
> PBS inf. *bū́- > Lith. bū́ti, OCS byti ‘be’; PIE *d, *d h > PBS *d in PIE *deh3 - > PBS
inf. *dṓ- > Lith. dúoti, OCS dati ‘give’ and PIE *d hugh2 tḗr > PBS *duktē (with regular
loss of laryngeal in a medial syllable followed by regressive voicing assimilation) >
Lith. duktė̃, PSl. *dŭt’i (OCS dŭšti) ‘daughter’; PIE *g̑, *g̑ h > PBS *ź in PIE *g̑r̥Hno-
> PBS *źírna- >→ Lith. žìrnis ‘pea’, PSl. *zĭrno (OCS zrŭno) ‘corn’ and PIE *g̑ hwḗr-
>→ PBS *źwḗri- > Lith. žvėrìs, OCS zvěrĭ ‘wild animal’; PIE *g, *g h > PBS *g in PIE
*yugóm > PBS *jugan > PSl. *jĭgo (OCS igo) ‘yoke’ (Lith. jùngas with secondary -n-)
and PIE *g hordos ‘enclosed area’ > PBS *gardas > Lith. gar̃das, PSl. *gordŭ (OCS
gradŭ) ‘enclosure, fort; town’; and PIE *g w, *gwh > PBS *g in PIE *g wén-h2 ~ *g wn-
éh2 - ‘woman’ → *g weneh2 > PBS *genā́ > OP genna, OCS žena ‘wife’ and PIE gwhén-
e-ti ‘will strike’ > PBS *genet(i) >→ Lith. gẽna, OCS ženetŭ ‘drives’. This merger may
have been preceded by a conditioned sound change, Winter’s Law (see 3).
The PIE velar and labiovelar stops merged in PBS, as in Indo-Iranian. In addition to
the examples immediately above for PIE *g w and *gwh, cf. PIE *k w > PBS *k in masc.
nom. sg. *k wós ‘which (rel.)’ > PBS *kas > Lith. kàs, OCS kŭ(-to) ‘who’, falling together
with PIE *k > PBS *k in *kruh2 -s- ‘blood(y gore)’ > PBS *krū́s > PSl. *kry ‘blood’
(OCS kry, Slovenian krî), adj. *krewh2 -yó- > Lith. kraũjas ‘blood’.
The PIE palatal stops *k̑ and *g̑, *g̑ h developed into anterior sibilants, probably alveo-
palatal; they are represented here by *ś and *ź. Balto-Slavic also has several examples
of velars continuing PIE palatals (“Gutturalwechsel”). Cases like Lith. akmuõ ‘stone’
beside Lith. ašmuõ ‘(sharp) edge’ < PIE *h2 ék̑-mōn (cf. OCS kamy, acc. kamenĭ ‘stone’)
or Lith. klausýti ‘listen’ beside OCS slyšati ‘hear’ (to the PIE root *k̑lew-) suggest that
pre-PBS exhibited some variation in this regard; perhaps the palatalization of PIE palatal
stops began in the east of the (Late) IE-speaking area, in the dialects ancestral to Indo-
Iranian, and spread to most but not all pre-PBS dialects. (For recent literature on this
and other controversial issues in BS phonology, see Hock 2004, 2006: 11−12.)

Authenticated
In addition, *s was retracted (probably to a palatoalveolar sibilant, here denoted *š)

when preceded by *i, *u, *k, or *r. The operation of this sound change (the famous
“ruki-rule”, also known from Indo-Iranian) is consistent in Slavic, where it accounts for
alternations such as locative pl. o-stem *-ěxŭ, i-stem *-ĭxŭ, u-stem *-ŭxŭ vs. ā-stem
*-asŭ (Old Czech -as; replaced elsewhere by *-axŭ) < *-oy-su, *-i-su, *-u-su, *-eh2 -su,
or OCS s-aorist 1sg. rěxŭ ‘I said’, PSl. *u-merxŭ ‘I died’ (OCS umrěxŭ) < *rēk-s-, *mer-
s- vs. OCS věsŭ ‘I led’, ęsŭ ‘I took’ < *wēd-s-, *ēm-s-. It is much less regular in
Lithuanian, especially after *i and *u, but examples do exist, e.g. maĩšas ‘sack’, jū́šė
‘(fish) soup’ (OCS měxŭ ‘bag, animal skin’, Russ. juxa ‘soup’). The exact historical and
dialectological interpretation of these facts, along with the treatment of sequences such
as *sk̑, remains controversial.
The subsequent development of PBS *s, the “ruki” product *š, and *ś, *ź (the reflexes
of the PIE palatals) is given below.
PIE PBS Lithuanian Latv., OP Slavic

*s *s s s s
*s / {ruki}__ *š š s x
*k̑ *ś š s s
*g̑, *g̑ h *ź ž z z
In other words, Lithuanian merges PBS *š and *ś, whereas Slavic merges *s and *ś,
and in Latvian and Old Prussian all three voiceless sounds fall together as s. Lith. z in
native vocabulary is thus confined to the position before a voiced stop, where it reflects
the PIE voiced allophone of *s (e.g. mãzgas ‘knot’ or lìzdas ‘nest’ ← *nisdas < PIE
*ni-sd-ó-); it has become a phoneme through numerous borrowings from Polish, Ger-
man, and other languages.
PIE word-final *-s survived, but word-final [-d] (underlyingly *-t or *-d) was lost in
PBS, as in most other IE languages: cf. PIE neut. nom./acc. sg. *tod > PBS *to (OCS
to), PIE 3sg. secondary ending *-d > PBS * -Ø (e.g. in OCS thematic aorist reč-e ‘s/he
said’ < *-e-d), PIE o-stem ablative sg. *-e-ad > PBS *-ā (Lith. -o, OCS -a). PIE *-m
merged with *-n in word-final position, as in Anatolian, Greek, and Celtic: cf. o-stem
acc. sg. *-om > PBS *-an > OP -an in e.g. rikij-an ‘Lord’ (Lith. -ą, OCS -ŭ).
Syllabic *i, *u and nonsyllabic *y, *w were probably already separate phonemes in
PIE (Mayrhofer 1986: 160−161); the same may have been true for the liquids and nasals.
The sonorants *m, *n, *r, *l, *w, and *j generally continue their PIE counterparts *m,
*n, *r, *l, *w, and *y.
Balto-Slavic languages are known for yodization and palatalization effects, but none
of these can be securely dated back to the PBS stage. Lithuanian and especially Latvian
and Slavic have undergone numerous developments of consonant + j sequences, which
have resulted in new phonemes and paradigmatic alternations. After the breakup of Pro-
to-Slavic, many Slavic languages also acquired contrastive palatalization in the conso-
nant system. Among the modern languages, Polish and Russian show the most extensive
range of contrasts; in others, such as Czech or Serbo-Croatian, palatalization plays a
much smaller role.

Authenticated
3. Vowels and diphthongs

Proto-Balto-Slavic had the following reconstructible system of vowels and diphthongs.
(On sequences of vowel + sonorant [i.e. *ir, *il, *im, *in, *ar, *al, etc.], which also
behave as diphthongs, see 4.)
i u ī ū
e ē ō ei eu
a ā ai au
Post-PIE *o and *a merged in PBS as *a, e.g. PIE *h3 ék w- > *ok w- > PBS *ak- >→
Lith. akìs, OCS oko ‘eye’, PIE *pótis > PBS *patis > Lith. (viẽš-)pats ‘master’ like PIE
*h2 ek̑s- > *ak̑s- >→ PBS *aśi- > Lith. ašìs, OCS osĭ ‘axle’, PIE *sal- → PBS *sali- >
OCS solĭ ‘salt’. The Slavic raising and rounding to PSl. *o appears to be a late develop-
ment of the mid- to late 1 st millennium CE: cf. Byzantine Gr. Σκλαβηνοί ‘Slavs’ ← pre-
PSl. *slavěn- or the borrowing of Σαλον(ίκη) ‘Salonica’ as *salunŭ > OCS Solunŭ.
While the former shows that pre-PSl. still had an *a, the latter strongly suggests that it
lacked *o.
The two non-high short vowels *a and *e remained distinct in PBS, but were con-
fused and merged under certain (not always clear) conditions in the separate languages.
Word-initial *a- and *e- exhibit complex geographic and diachronic variation in Slavic
and Lithuanian (e.g. OLith. eš vs. modern standard àš ‘I’, general Slavic (j)e- vs. Russ.
o- in e.g. odín ‘one’, olén’ ‘deer’), some of which may go back to the PBS period
(Andersen 1996). Before *w, *e > *a in Slavic, as in PIE *néwo- > PBS *newa- > OCS
novŭ ‘new’ or PIE non-neuter u-stem nom. pl. *-ew-es > OCS -ove, and in some cases
in East Baltic, e.g. Lith. tãvas, Latv. tavs ‘your (sg.)’ < *tewas. East Baltic shows several
instances of assimilation of *e to *a, e.g. Lith. vãkaras, Latv. vakars vs. OCS večerŭ
‘evening’. There is no evidence for regular syncope of short vowels in PBS, although
variable syncope is attested in numerous Lithuanian forms, e.g. dial. dvéitas, tréitas <
dvẽjetas, trẽjetas ‘group of two, three’, OLith. élnis ~ elenis ‘deer’ (modern élnias).
As in all other non-Anatolian branches, sequences of vowel + laryngeal before conso-
nants and word boundaries yielded long vowels. Word-initial laryngeals disappeared
without reflex, e.g. in PIE *h3 b hrúHs >→ PBS *bruwi- > Lith. bruvìs, OCS brŭvĭ ‘eye-
brow’. In phrase-final position, laryngeals appear to have been lost without compensato-
ry lengthening already in PIE, which accounts for the contrast between eh2-stem nom.
sg. PIE *-eh2 > PBS *-ā́ > Lith. -a ~ -o- (with shortening in final syllables by Leskien’s
Law, see below), OCS -a and voc. sg. PIE *-eh2 > PBS *-a > Lith. -a, OCS -o (cf. Lith.
rankà, OCS žena vs. Lith. rañka, OCS ženo). Intervocalic laryngeals were also lost, and
the resulting sequence of vowels underwent contraction, except that *iHV, *uHV > *ijV,
*uwV (Smoczyński 2003). On the prosodic effects of laryngeals in Balto-Slavic, see 4.
Laryngeals between obstruents in an initial syllable yielded PBS *a, as elsewhere in
IE apart from Anatolian, Indo-Iranian, and in part Greek, although examples are few:
cf. Lith. stãtas ‘line of sheafs of grain in a field’, Latv. stats ‘stake, post’ < PBS *stata-
‘stood (up)’ < PIE *sth2 -tó- to *steh2 - ‘stand’. They were lost in non-initial syllables,
e.g. PIE *d hugh2 tḗr → PBS *duktē > Lith. duktė̃, OCS dŭšti ‘daughter’ (see above) or
PIE *h2 érh3 tro- → PBS *ártlo- > Lith. árklas, PSl. *órdlo (OCS ralo) ‘plow’ (with
acute intonation on the preceding diphthong, see 4).

Authenticated
Post-PIE *ō and *ā remained distinct in PBS and East Baltic, as shown by Lith.
dúoti, Latv. dôt (duôt) ‘give’ < PBS *dṓtéi vs. Lith. móteris ‘lady’ (older mótė), Latv.
māte ‘mother’ < PBS *mā́tē, Lith. stóti, Latv. stât ‘stand up’ < PBS *stā́téi. The fate of
*ō and *ā in Old Prussian is more complicated: the two vowels apparently merged, but
the product is usually written o in the Elbing Vocabulary of c. 1400 (e.g. brote ‘brother’)
and a in the 16th-century Catechisms (e.g. brāti ‘id.’), except after nasals, where we
find u (mūti ‘mother’). In Slavic, PBS *ō and *ā merge as *a [ā]: cf. OCS dati < PBS
*ō, OCS mati, stati < PBS *ā.
Winter (1978) proposed that PIE short vowels were lengthened in pre-PBS when
immediately followed by voiced unaspirated stops, but not when followed by voiced
aspirates. Cf. e.g. PIE *ud-r-eh2 > PBS *ū́drā́- > Lith. ū́dra, OCS vydra ‘otter’ and
(post-)PIE *nog wo- > PBS *nṓgas > Lith. núogas, OCS nagŭ ‘naked’ vs. PIE
*néb hos > PBS *nebas > OCS nebo ‘sky’, → Lith. debesìs ‘cloud’ and PIE *méd hu
> PBS *medu > Lith. medùs, OCS medŭ ‘honey’ (but note PIE *wód-r̥ ~ *wéd-n-
→ pre-PBS *wad-n- → Lith. vanduõ, OCS voda ‘water’, without the predicted
lengthening). Probably most specialists today believe in Winter’s Law, but there is
widespread disagreement over the precise conditioning environments; see the referen-
ces in Hock (2004: 4−6).
The PIE syllabic sonorants *r̥, *l̥ , *m̥, *n̥ became *iR in most cases: cf. PIE
*mér-ti- ~ *mr̥-téy- → *mr̥-ti- > PBS *mirti- > Lith. mirtìs, PSl. *sŭ-mĭrtĭ (OCS sŭ-
mrŭtĭ) ‘death’, PIE *wĺ̥ k wos > PBS *wilkas > Lith. vil̃kas, PSl. *vĭlkŭ (OCS vlŭkŭ)
‘wolf’, PIE *k̑m̥tóm > PBS *śimtan → Lith. šim̃tas ‘hundred’ (OCS sŭto), PIE *mén-
ti- ~ *mn̥-téy- ‘mind, thought’ → *mn̥-ti- > PBS *minti- > Lith. mintìs ‘mind’, OCS
pa-mętĭ ‘memory’. In the case of *m̥ and *n̥, this development had widespread
implications in the nominal system, as the development of PIE acc. sg. *-m̥, pl.
*-n̥s to *-im, *-ins led to the transfer of root-nouns to i-stem inflection (e.g. PIE
*nók wt- ~ *nék wt- → PBS *nakti- > Lith. naktìs, PSl. *not’ĭ [OCS noštĭ] ‘night’)
and the generalization of suffixal *-i- in consonant-stem endings (e.g. pl. dat. *-i-
mus, instr. *-i-mī́s, loc. *-i-su). A second, less frequent outcome *uR occurs largely
in words of obscure etymology, without good cognates in other IE languages. Stang
(1966: 77−82) points out that many examples of *uR have expressive and/or pejora-
tive value, e.g. Lith. kum̃pas ‘crooked’, pur̃vas ‘dirt’.
Along with the merger of PIE *o and *a, the diphthongs *oi and *ai merged as
*ai, and similarly *ou and *au merged as *au. PBS thus inherited *ei, *eu and *ai,
*au, and the distinction between front and back diphthongs is reflected in Old
Prussian, e.g. deiwas, deiws ‘god’ vs. snaygis ‘snow’. In East Baltic, *eu became
*jau, while both *ai and *ei were monophthongized under as yet unclear conditions
to a tense higher-mid vowel, usually noted *ē1 (in contrast to *ē < PBS *ē). This
*ē1 then developed into a falling diphthong ie in Lithuanian and Latvian; likewise,
*ō became the falling back diphthong uo (cf. Petit, The phonology of Baltic, this
handbook, 2.6, with references). Later changes restricted to Lithuanian include the
raising of *ā to [oː] and denasalization of *in, *un, *en, *an to [i:], [u:], [ɛ:], [ɑ:]
in word-final position and before sibilants; the latter change created two new long
vowel phonemes, spelled ę and ą. Latvian has eliminated tautosyllabic nasal diph-
thongs (*iN, *eN > ie; *uN, *aN > o [uo]) and created a new contrast between e
and ę, originally allophones of *e.

Authenticated
Proto-East-Baltic vowel system
i u ī ū
ē1 ō
e ē ei eu
a ā ai au
Old Prussian preserves the four semivowel diphthongs, as just noted, but shows a tenden-
cy in the 16th century toward diphthongization of the PBS long high vowels: ī [i:] > ij
[ĭj] > ei [ej] (e.g. *gī́wa- > gijwan, geīwan ‘living’), and ū [u:] > [ŭw] > ou [ow] (e.g.
*sū́nus > soūns ‘son’). The Enchiridion also attests raising of ē to ī, e.g. inf. turrītwey
‘have’ < *tur-ē- (Lith. turė́ ti). These changes, like those affecting East Baltic, are consis-
tent with a division of phonological space into peripheral and nonperipheral tracks, with
mid long vowels rising and high long vowels turning into diphthongs and falling, much
as in the history of English or German, or in modern eastern Latvian dialects (Levin
1975, 1976; Labov 1994: 131−132, 133−135).
In pre-Proto-Slavic, *eu apparently also became *(j)au, followed by the mono-
phthongization of *ei > *ī and of *au > *ū; inherited PBS *ū was unrounded and
perhaps fronted to *ȳ ([ɯ:] or [ɨ:]). A later change merged *ai with the reflex of
PBS *ē as PSl. *ě, almost certainly a tense low front vowel [æ:]. Sequences of
tautosyllabic vowel + nasal yielded nasalized vowels, with *iN, *eN > *ę and *uN,
*aN > *ǫ. The merger of PBS *ā and *ō as PSl. *a has been referred to above.
The inherited short vowels were centralized, with *a raised and rounded to *o (see
above), and *i and *u becoming hypershort vowels, the “jers”; many of the latter
were lost after the PSl. period (see 4 ad fin.). Because the PSl. long and short
vowels were thus distinct in quality, the former are traditionally written without
length marks, so that *i, *ǫ, etc. stand for *ī, *ǭ, etc.
Proto-Slavic vowel system
i y u
ĭ ŭ ę ǫ
e o
ě a
Aside from the loss of final *-d and *-m > *-n, few distinctive Auslautgesetze may be
projected back to the PBS stage. Word-final *-i apparently underwent early apocope in
the ā-stem instr. sg. ending: pre-PBS *-eh2 -mi (cf. i-stem *-i-mi, u-stem *-u-mi) > PBS
*-ā́n > Lith. -à, adj. -ą́- (e.g. baltà, definite baltą́-ja), OCS -oj-ǫ (originally pronominal).
The same apocope later occurred in the Slavic 1sg. present ending: PIE *-o-h2 > PBS
*-ṓ (Lith. -ù, -úo-) → *-ṓmi > *-ōm > OCS -ǫ. Other thematic present endings may also
have been variably affected as early as the PBS stage, e.g. PIE 3sg. *-eti > PBS *-eti ~
*-et > pre-PSl. *-etĭ ~ *-et → PSl. *-etĭ ~ *-etŭ ~ *-e (OCS -etŭ, ORuss. -etĭ, OCz. -e),
PBS *-eti ~ *-et → *-at > Lith. -a. Following the PBS stage, Lithuanian shortened
word-final acute long vowels and diphthongs (Leskien’s Law), while Latvian and Slavic
independently underwent a whole range of special developments in final syllables. Old
Prussian generally preserves PBS final syllables, as far as the evidence reveals, except

Authenticated
that final *-as was weakened to [-ĭs] and even [-s], e.g. in PBS *deiwas > deywis (1x,
Elbing Vocabulary), deiws ‘god’, PBS *snaigas > snaygis ‘snow’; cf. also PBS *sū́nus
> soūns ‘son’, seen above.
4. Prosodic phenomena and syllable structure

The reconstruction of BS prosodic history is unquestionably the most complex and con-
troversial area in all of BS historical linguistics. I present here only the essential facts
on which there is general agreement, and point out some major points of continuing
controversy. For further details, see Stang (1957, 1966: 120 ff.); Garde (1976); Dybo
(1981); Dybo, Zamjatina, and Nikolaev (1990); and Lehfeldt (2001); as well as the
articles of Kortlandt (e.g. 1977, 1978, 1985), Derksen (1991), and Jasanoff (2004, 2008),
among many others.
According to the traditional conception, PBS long vowels and diphthongs could carry
one of two underlying intonations, “acute” (Fr. rude, Ger. Stoßton) and “circumflex” (Fr.
douce, Ger. Schleifton). However, acuteness is better understood as a privative feature:
the two types of syllable heads, acute and nonacute, were distinguished by the presence
or absence respectively of certain phonetic properties characteristic of acute syllables.
The main such property was probably glottalization, comparable to the Danish stød and
apparently preserved in the broken tone of modern Latvian, which reflects the PBS acute
in certain environments (see below). In addition, acute syllables may have had rising
pitch and nonacute syllables rising-falling pitch (cf. the situation in ancient Greek, where
an intonational contrast has arisen independently from PIE), but these tonal contours
themselves were phonologically redundant. Balto-Slavic is unique among IE branches
in treating not only vowel + glide combinations, but also sequences of vowel + liquid
or nasal as diphthongs for prosodic purposes. Short vowels patterned phonologically
with nonacute long vowels and diphthongs, likewise lacking the glottalization which
marked acuteness.
The two-way opposition of acute and nonacute (circumflex) is directly reflected
in the Baltic languages. In the Old Prussian Third Catechism, many stressed diph-
thongs are printed with a macron over the first or second vowel; the latter correspond
to PBS acute diphthongs, the former to circumflex, e.g. inf. boūt ‘be’ vs. inf. ēit
‘go’ (cf. Lith. bū́ti vs. eĩti). The same pattern must also have held for vowel +
sonorant diphthongs, but only circumflex examples are attested, e.g. acc. sg. rānkan
‘hand’ (Lith. rañką), doubtless because macrons over m, n, r, l were beyond the
range of Abel Will’s typesetter. Standard Lithuanian has famously “reversed” the
phonetics of the two intonations, so that historically acute and circumflex syllables
stress the first and second mora respectively. Some Žemaitian dialects of the coastal
lowland maintain intonations on unstressed long vowels and diphthongs, but other
dialects and the standard language have restricted the surface contrast to stressed
syllables. In Latvian, where almost all words carry initial stress, PBS circumflex long
vowels and diphthongs have become falling (V̀), e.g. in dràugs ‘friend’, rùoka ‘hand’
(cf. Lith. draũgas, acc. sg. rañką); the reflexes of old acutes have either “sustained”
(V́) or “broken”, i.e. glottalized intonation (V̂), depending on the original accentual
paradigm of the form (see below). This system is preserved only in some central

Authenticated
Latvian dialects; those of eastern and western Latvia have reduced the three-way
opposition to a binary contrast.
The acute-nonacute contrast is also securely reconstructible for Proto-Slavic, al-
though none of the present-day Slavic languages continues it as such; intonations
must be recovered from the accentual paradigm of the form in question, as well as
vowel length and place of stress. Free (lexical) stress is preserved in East Slavic,
most South Slavic dialects, and the now extinct Slovincian, spoken until the early
20th century just west of Danzig. Phonemic vowel length was lost relatively early in
East Slavic and eastern South Slavic, but survives in western South Slavic, Czech,
and Slovak; it was lost in early modern Polish, but has left important reflexes in the
contemporary standard language and dialects. Contrastive surface intonations are
attested across most of the western South Slavic area, but no dialect directly reflects
the Proto-Slavic system described immediately below. Based on the modern languages,
as well as medieval documents which mark stress (e.g. the Čudov New Testament
of 1354), we may postulate three intonations for the period immediately following
Proto-Slavic: acute, circumflex, and neoacute, which arose through retraction of stress
from a jer to the preceding syllable. Standard examples are: acute PSl. *'lípa > Russ.
lípa, SC lȉpa, Cz. lípa ‘linden’; circumflex PSl. *zî'ma > Russ. zimá, SC zíma,
čakavian zīmȁ, Cz. zima ‘winter’; and neoacute (Old High German Karl →) PSl.
*kor'l’ĭ > *kõrl’ > Russ. koról’, SC krâlj, čakavian králj, Cz. král, Pol. król ‘king’
(cf. gen. *kor'l’a > Russ. korol’á, SC králja, čakavian krāljȁ).
Acute intonation in PBS usually reflects the prior existence of a tautosyllabic
laryngeal in PIE: cf. PIE *b huh2 - ‘be’, *deh3 - ‘give’ > PBS inf. *'bū́téi, *'dṓtéi >
Lith. bū́ti, dúoti, PSl. *'býti, *'dáti (SC bȉti, dȁti) or, in word-final position, the
primary 1sg. ending PIE *-oh2 > PBS *-ṓ > Lith. -ù, refl. -úo-s(i). In sequences of
the type *VRHC, the laryngeal was lost in PBS, but left its trace in the acute
intonation of the preceding diphthong, so that *VRHC > PBS *V́RC contrasts with
*VRC > PBS *VRC. Cf. PIE *g̑énh1 -to- ‘relative’ > PBS *'źéntas > Lith. žéntas,
PSl. *'zé˛tŭ (SC zȅt) ‘son-in-law’, PIE *pl̥ h1 -nó- > PBS *'pílna- > Lith. pìlnas, PSl.
*'pĭ́ lnŭ (SC pȕn) ‘full’ (both showing Hirt’s Law, whereby stress was shifted to a
preceding acute syllable in pre-PBS) vs. PIE *g̑ héy-ōm ~ *g̑ hi-m- ́ → PBS *źei'mā́ >
Lith. žiemà, PSl. *zî'ma (SC zíma) ‘winter’, PIE *wĺ̥ k wos > PBS *wilkas > Lith.
vil̃kas, PSl. *vîlkŭ (SC vûk) ‘wolf’. On the other hand, sequences *VHV contracted
to circumflex long vowels and diphthongs in PBS (in the following examples un-
marked), as in PIE eh2-stem gen. sg. *-eh2 -es > PBS *-ās > Lith. -õs. The outcome
of PIE lengthened grades (i.e. original long vowels not followed by a laryngeal) is
debated; most scholars going back to de Saussure have assumed that they too became
acute, but Kortlandt (1985) has proposed that they became circumflex. They do seem
to have yielded circumflex long vowels in final position, judging from n-stem *-ō >
PBS *-ō (Lith. akmuõ; OCS kamy ‘stone’) and r-stem *-ō, *-ē (with loss of *-r
after the n-stems, as in Indo-Iranian) > PBS *-ō, *-ē (Lith. sesuõ ‘sister’, duktė̃,
OCS dŭšti ‘daughter’; Jasanoff 1983). Proto-Slavic seems to have shortened all word-
final long vowels, although scholars have posited intonationally conditioned rules to
account for endings such as the infamous Serbo-Croatian gen. pl. -ā. These develop-
ments are summarized in the table below, along with the reflexes in Indo-Iranian,
Greek, and Germanic (final syllables only; V: = bimoric, V:: = trimoric, the latter
proposed by Jasanoff 2002).

Authenticated
PIE PBS Lith. PSl. Indo-Iranian Greek Germanic

*VH *V́ : V́ *V́ *V: V́ : *-V:
*V: *V́ : V́ *V́ *V: V́ : *-V:: (?)
*VHV *V: V̂ *V̂ *VHV V̂: *-V::
*VR *VR V̂R *V̂R *VR VR
*VRH *V́ R V́ R *V́ R *VRə VRe/a/o
The BS languages, particularly East Baltic, contain numerous examples of derivatives

with the opposite intonation to their corresponding base forms. This phenomenon, tradi-
tionally called metatony, was first described by de Saussure (1896): cf. with “métatonie
douce” Lith. áukštas ‘high’ : aũkštis ‘height’, stóti ‘stand up’ : stõtas ‘shape, stature’;
and with “métatonie rude” vil̃kas ‘wolf’ : vìlkė ‘she-wolf’, var̃nas ‘raven’ : várna ‘crow’
(likewise PSl. *vôrnŭ ‘black, raven’ : *vórna ‘crow’, cf. SC vrân, vrȁna). Such alterna-
tions appear to have arisen inter alia through retraction of stress from certain short
vowels, principally prevocalic *i and word-final *-a(s), but they have become morpholo-
gized in complex ways (see Stang 1966: 144−169; Derksen 1996).
Scholars of BS accentology distinguish accentual paradigms (APs) in Lithuanian and
those Slavic languages which retain lexical stress, e.g. Russian and Serbo-Croatian. De
Saussure (1894) brilliantly discovered that the four accentual classes of Lithuanian may
be derived from two underlying APs, columnar and mobile; the stress was shifted right-
wards in pre-Lithuanian from a nonacute syllable (i.e. a short vowel, or a circumflex
long vowel or diphthong) to an immediately following acute. The same contrast of bary-
tone vs. mobile may be assumed for pre-Latvian, and is reflected in the distribution of
sustained and broken intonations on old acute initial syllables: cf. vĩrs ‘man’, liẽpa ‘lin-
den’ (Lith. výras, líepa) vs. gal̂va ‘head’, sir̂ds ‘heart’ (Lith. galvà, širdìs, acc. gálvą,
šìrdį).
In contrast, Proto-Slavic had three APs, generally labeled a (columnar on the stem),
b (postaccenting, i.e. columnar on the first syllable after the stem), and c (mobile) after
the classification of Stang (1957). Dybo and Illič-Svityč showed that APs a and b are in
complementary distribution depending on the prosodic properties of the presuffixal sylla-
ble, and proposed a forward stress shift from nonacute vowels (“Dybo’s Law”). How-
ever, the exact relation between the East Baltic and Slavic systems, and their evolution
from PIE, are still far from clarified; see Illič-Svityč (1963) and the works cited above.
The evidence of the OP Third Catechism is unsurprisingly sparse, and its interpretation
encounters numerous difficulties, but there are indications that Old Prussian may have
preserved archaic features lost in the other Baltic languages, e.g. a postaccenting type in
the noun, equivalent to Slavic AP c, or alternating stress in the simple thematic presents
(Stang 1966: 287 ff., 451−453).
The synchronic analysis of the BS accentual system has attracted much attention
over the last generation. According to one popular theory, syllable nuclei in PBS words
(excepting the so-called enclinomena, see below) were underlyingly specified as accent-
ed or unaccented, in addition to acute or nonacute intonation for long vowels and diph-
thongs. The prosodic domain for stress computation consisted of a nominal or verbal
form with any associated preposed and postposed modifiers, e.g. prepositions, the nega-
tor *ne, or enclitic particles like PSl. *že. Within each domain, the first underlyingly
accented syllable received surface stress; if no syllable heads were accented − i.e. the
domain as a whole was underlyingly unaccented, or an “enclinomenon” − stress was

Authenticated
automatically assigned to the first syllable. This system survives today, with various
restrictions and modifications, in Slavic languages such as Russian or Serbo-Croatian,
as well as Lithuanian: thus e.g. Russian contrasts nom. sg. /gor á/ gorá ‘mountain’ (with
underlyingly accented ending) with acc. sg. /gor u/ góru and the (fixed) prepositional
phrase /na gor u/ ná goru, in which all morphemes are unaccented. For further discus-
sion, see Halle and Idsardi (1995), Halle (1997) and the references cited there.
The syllable structure of PBS appears to have been much the same as that of PIE,
and is largely preserved in Old Prussian and (except for the denasalization of some nasal
diphthongs) modern Lithuanian. Latvian has eliminated nasal diphthongs and lost most
short vowels in final syllables, but is otherwise not radically different in its phonotactics
from the more conservative Baltic languages. In contrast, pre-Proto-Slavic during the 1 st
millennium CE evolved toward a system in which nearly all syllables were open; in
addition to the loss of word-final consonants (see 2) and elimination of PBS vowel +
glide and vowel + nasal diphthongs, word-internal consonant clusters were simplified,
e.g. (post-)PIE *pok w-tos > PBS *paktas > OCS potŭ ‘sweat’, post-PIE *supnos > PBS
*supnas > OCS sŭnŭ ‘sleep’. The subsequent loss of many jers drastically altered this
situation, and gave rise to the complex consonant clusters typical of many modern Slavic
languages: cf. Russ. mgla, Pol. mgła ‘fog’ < *mĭgla, Pol. Gdańsk < *Gŭdanĭskŭ, Cz.
čtvrt ‘quarter’ < PSl. *čĭtvĭrtĭ, Pol. spadł, Cz. spadl ‘he fell (down)’ < *jĭzŭpadlŭ.
5. References
Andersen, Henning
1996 Reconstructing Prehistoric Dialects. Initial Vowels in Slavic and Baltic. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Derksen, Rick
1991 An introduction to the history of Lithuanian accentuation. Studies in Slavic and General
Linguistics 16 (Studies in West Slavic and Baltic Linguistics): 45−84.
Derksen, Rick
1996 Metatony in Baltic. (Leiden Studies in Indo-European 6). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Dybo, Vladimir A.
1981 Slavjanskaja akcentologija. Opyt rekonstrukcii sistemy akcentnyx paradigm v praslav-
janskom [Slavic accentology. An attempt at a reconstruction of the system of accentual
paradigms in Proto-Slavic]. (Akademija Nauk SSSR, Institut Slavjanovedenija i Balkan-
istiki). Moscow: Nauka.
Dybo, Vladimir A, Galina I. Zamjatina, and Sergei L. Nikolaev
1990 Osnovy slavjanskoj akcentologii [Fundamentals of Slavic accentology]. Moscow:
Nauka.
Garde, Paul
1976 Histoire de l’accentuation slave. (Collection de manuels de l’Institut d’Études Slaves
7). Paris: Institut d’Études Slaves.
Halle, Morris
1997 On stress and accent in Indo-European. Language 73: 275−313.
Halle, Morris and William Idsardi
1995 General properties of stress and metrical structure. In: John Goldsmith (ed.), The Hand-
book of Phonological Theory. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 403−443.
Hock, Wolfgang

Authenticated
Hock, Wolfgang
1−24.
1963 Imennaja akcentuacija v baltijskom i slavjanskom. Moscow: Institut Slavjanovedenija,
Akademija Nauk SSSR. (English edition: Nominal Accentuation in Baltic and Slavic.
Translated by Richard L. Leed and Ronald F. Feldstein. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
1979.)
Jasanoff, Jay H.
Jasanoff, Jay H.
2002 The nom. sg. of Germanic n-stems. In:. Alfred R. Wedel and Hans-Jörg Busch (eds.),
Verba et Litterae: Explorations in Germanic Languages and German Literature
(Festschrift for Albert L. Lloyd). Newark, DE: Linguatext, 31−46.
Jasanoff, Jay H.
2004 Acute vs. circumflex: Some notes on PIE and post-PIE prosodic phonology. In: Adam
Hyllested, Anders Richardt Jørgensen, Jenny Helena Larsson, and Thomas Olander
(eds.), Per aspera ad asteriscos: Studia indogermanica in honorem Jens Elmegård Ras-
mussen sexagenarii idibus Martiis anno MMIV. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissen-
schaft, Band 112). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Kulturen der Universität Inns-
bruck, 247−255.
Jasanoff, Jay H.
2008 The accentual type *vèdō, *vedetı̍ and the origin of mobility in the Balto-Slavic verb.
Baltistica 43: 339−379.
Kortlandt, Frederik
1977 Historical laws of Baltic accentuation. Baltistica 13: 319−330.
Kortlandt, Frederik
1978 On the history of Slavic accentuation. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 92:
269−281.
Kortlandt, Frederik
1985 Long vowels in Balto-Slavic. Baltistica 21: 112−124.
Labov, William
1994 Principles of Linguistic Change. Volume I: Internal Factors. (Language in Society, Vol.
20). Oxford: Blackwell.
Lehfeldt, Werner
2001 Einführung in die morphologische Konzeption der slavischen Akzentologie. 2., verbes-
serte und ergänzte Auflage. Mit einem Appendix von Willem Vermeer: Critical Observa-
tions on the modus operandi of the Moscow Accentological School. (Vorträge und Ab-
handlungen zur Slavistik, Band 42). Munich: Sagner.
Levin, Jules F.
1975 Dynamic linguistics and Baltic historical phonology. General Linguistics 15: 144−158.
Levin, Jules F.
1976 Toward a graphology of Old Prussian monuments: the Enchiridion. Baltistica 12: 9−24.
Mayrhofer, Manfred
1986 Indogermanische Grammatik. Band I, 2. Halbband: Lautlehre (Segmentale Phonologie
des Indogermanischen). Heidelberg: Winter.
1894 À propos de l’accentuation lituanienne. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de
Paris 8: 425−446.
1896 Accentuation lituanienne. Indogermanische Forschungen 6, Anzeiger: 157−166.

Authenticated
116. Balto-Slavic morphology 1985
Senn, Alfred
1966 The relationships of Baltic and Slavic. In: Henrik Birnbaum and Jaan Puhvel (eds.),
Ancient Indo-European Dialects: Proceedings of the Conference on Indo-European Lin-
guistics Held at the University of California, Los Angeles, April 25−27, 1963. Berkeley
and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 139−151.
2003 Hiat laryngalny w językach bałto-słowiańskich [Laryngeal hiatus in the Balto-Slavic
languages]. (Analecta Indoeuropaea Cracoviensia 4). Cracow: Wydawnictwo Uniwersy-
tetu Jagiellońskiego.
Stang, Christian S.
1957 Slavonic Accentuation. (Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo, Hist.-Fil. Klasse
No. 3). Oslo. [Republished 1965. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.]
Stang, Christian S.
Szemerényi, Oswald
1957 The problem of Balto-Slav unity − a critical survey. Kratylos 2: 97−123.
Winter, Werner
and OCS jasti : vesti : mesti in Baltic and Slavic languages. In: Jacek Fisiak (ed.),
Recent Developments in Historical Phonology. (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and
Monographs 4). The Hague: Mouton, 431−446.
Ronald I. Kim, Sośnie (Poland)
116. Balto-Slavic morphology

1. Introduction 5. Gendered pronouns
4. Numbers 8. References
1. Introduction
The reconstructed morphology of the Balto-Slavic nominal system is essentially that of late
Indo-European. It looks like Sanskrit with an admixture of features shared with Germanic.
The problem for Balto-Slavic has always been verbal morphology − both reconstructing
the Balto-Slavic verbal system and deriving it from that of late Indo-European.
1.1. Overlapping morphological isoglosses

The dialect divisions of Slavic are irrelevant to the discussion of Balto-Slavic morpholo-
gy, but the division between East Baltic (Lithuanian and Latvian) and West Baltic (Old
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-037

Authenticated
Senn, Alfred
1966 The relationships of Baltic and Slavic. In: Henrik Birnbaum and Jaan Puhvel (eds.),
Ancient Indo-European Dialects: Proceedings of the Conference on Indo-European Lin-
guistics Held at the University of California, Los Angeles, April 25−27, 1963. Berkeley
and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 139−151.
2003 Hiat laryngalny w językach bałto-słowiańskich [Laryngeal hiatus in the Balto-Slavic
languages]. (Analecta Indoeuropaea Cracoviensia 4). Cracow: Wydawnictwo Uniwersy-
tetu Jagiellońskiego.
Stang, Christian S.
1957 Slavonic Accentuation. (Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo, Hist.-Fil. Klasse
No. 3). Oslo. [Republished 1965. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.]
Stang, Christian S.
Szemerényi, Oswald
1957 The problem of Balto-Slav unity − a critical survey. Kratylos 2: 97−123.
Winter, Werner
and OCS jasti : vesti : mesti in Baltic and Slavic languages. In: Jacek Fisiak (ed.),
Recent Developments in Historical Phonology. (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and
Monographs 4). The Hague: Mouton, 431−446.
Ronald I. Kim, Sośnie (Poland)
116. Balto-Slavic morphology

1. Introduction 5. Gendered pronouns
4. Numbers 8. References
1. Introduction
The reconstructed morphology of the Balto-Slavic nominal system is essentially that of late
Indo-European. It looks like Sanskrit with an admixture of features shared with Germanic.
The problem for Balto-Slavic has always been verbal morphology − both reconstructing
the Balto-Slavic verbal system and deriving it from that of late Indo-European.
1.1. Overlapping morphological isoglosses

The dialect divisions of Slavic are irrelevant to the discussion of Balto-Slavic morpholo-
gy, but the division between East Baltic (Lithuanian and Latvian) and West Baltic (Old
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-037

Authenticated
Prussian) is not. For some features, Slavic agrees with one branch but not the other.
Most of the clear innovations are shared by Slavic and East Baltic against archaisms in
Old Prussian.
2. Nouns
2.1. Grammatical categories
Balto-Slavic had singular, plural, and dual number. Since the dual is well preserved,
Balto-Slavic is useful for the reconstruction of the late Indo-European forms of this
number.
Balto-Slavic had masculine, feminine, and neuter gender. This system is preserved in
Slavic and Old Prussian. Balto-Slavic had all the cases of Indo-Iranian except the abla-
tive, of which formal traces remain. Both Baltic and Slavic have athematic stems, o-
stems, u-stems, i-stems, ā-stems, and a residue of ī-stems. Slavic has ū-stems, and Baltic
shows historical descendants of such stems. Baltic has feminine ē-stems, which are not
found in Slavic.
2.2. Features shared with Germanic
Balto-Slavic and Germanic share the use of -m- forms of the dative and instrumental
where other languages have -bh-. The Germanic “dative” represents semantically a
merger of the dative, locative, instrumental, and ablative. In some instances, a
Germanic dative is cognate with a Balto-Slavic instrumental. Whether the endings
are innovations, preservations, or a mixture of both will not concern us here. They
occur in both the noun and the pronoun, so it is useful to combine the discussions
of these.
2.2.1. Instrumental singular
Baltic has -mi in the instrumental singular of i-stems, u-stems, and athematic stems, and
in nonpersonal pronouns. In Slavic, *-mi in the instrumental singular is limited to mascu-
line and neuter gender. Stang (1966: 209) points out that the north-western Lithuanian
dialects which differentiate between a shortened long acute ī and an original short i
indicate an original *-mī. Zinkevičius (1966: 230) confirms this, but suggests that the
vowel quality might be from the influence of the plural. Prokosch (1938: 269) recon-
structs the ending of the masculine dative singular of the non-personal pronouns in Old
English and Old Norse as *-mi. The dative of *to-, Old English þǣm, Old Norse þeim,
is cognate with OCS instrumental singular těmĭ. The crucial evidence is the i-umlaut in
Old English.

Authenticated
2.2.2. Dative plural
Lithuanian has -ms, Old Lithuanian and modern dialects, -mus. OP has -mas alongside
obviously secondary -mans. Slavic has -mǔ, which could come from *-mos or *-mus.
Germanic has *-ms, which should not come from *-mus, but might reflect an instrumen-
tal in *-mis (cf. Skt. -bhis) or (less likely) a dative in *-mos (cf. Latin -bus).
2.2.3. Instrumental plural
Lithuanian has -mis, with dialectal evidence that this is a shortened *-mīs (Zinkevičius
1966: 231). Slavic has -mi, which could come from *-mīs, but not *-mis. Prokosch
reconstructs the dative plural of Germanic pronouns as *-mis, reflecting an instrumental
plural.
2.2.4. Dative/instrumental dual
For this case, there are no dual forms in Germanic. The ending for all stems in Slavic
is -ma. Lithuanian has -m. Vaillant (1958: 39) notes that the vowels found in Old Lithua-
nian are -i and (once) -a. He further argues that the dual pronominal possessives mùma
‘our’ and jùma ‘your’ are old forms of the dative, providing evidence that the original
form was -ma. The only vowel that could give Slavic a and Lithuanian a in final position
is acute ā < *eH2 .
2.3. Balto-Slavic innovations
2.3.1. The sole purely Balto-Slavic innovation is in the instrumental singular of the ā-
stems. This is found in the nominal and pronominal system. The original ending should
have been *-eH1 . That, added to the stem in -ā- < *-eH2 , eventually yielded acute long
ā, identical to the nominative singular. Baltic and Slavic added a nasal at the end of the
ending. One possible attestation in Old Prussian is rānkān ‘hand’ (Schmalstieg 1974:
59). In Slavic and in East Baltic, the original ending is clear in the definite adjective.
Lith. ger-ą́-ja has an orthographic nasalized a which reflects the pronunciation in Old
Lithuanian. The normal ā-stem instrumental singular in OCS is -ojǫ. It has the nasalized
vowel, but the ending is from the pronominal system. The original -ǫ from *-āN can be
found in the definite adjective ending mlad-ǫ-jǫ.
2.3.2. Both families show a tendency to replace athematic endings with those of i-stems,
especially with consonant-initial endings. The motivation for this was the phonological
change of syllabic nasals to i plus nasal in the accusative singular and plural (*-im, *-ins).
Since the motivation exists in both families, there is no guarantee that the process was
Balto-Slavic, particularly since both families have residues of consonant-initial endings
added directly to consonant-final stems.

Authenticated
2.3.3. A few other endings are specific to Balto-Slavic but not unique. The genitive
singular of the athematic paradigm has the variant *-es rather than *-os (Old Lith. dukte-
res, akmenes, OCS dŭštere, kamene). For the nominative plural of the o-stems, Balto-
Slavic has *-ai from the original pronominal ending *-oi. This gives Slavic -i, with
special phonology for the end of the word. Lith. -i < -íe, found in the adjective, is pro-
bably the regular reflex.
2.4. Slavic-East Baltic innovations
2.4.1. In the neuter nominative singular of o-stems, Slavic and East Baltic have a zero
ending (Slavic -o; Lith., Latv. -a), opposed to OP -an, the reflex of *-om. The East Baltic
forms are only adjectives used as predicates of phrases and the pronouns kas ‘something,
anything’, and vìsa/vìsas ‘all’ and could well represent a different process. For Slavic,
the most likely explanation is that the pronominal neuter ending in *-od has been coopted
for nominal use.
2.4.2. Genitive singular of o-stems: Old Prussian has -as, while East Baltic and Slavic
have *-ā, the reflex of the old ablative (*-o-ad). The OP ending is shared with Hittite
and most likely Germanic, judging from ON Sg N dagr ‘day’, G dags, which looks like
Verner’s Law has been utilized to distinguish two originally identical endings.
2.5. For the rest of the inflectional endings, the Proto-Balto-Slavic forms are generally
those reconstructed for classical Indo-European.
3. Adjectives
3.1. Adjectival inflection was originally no different from noun inflection. That pattern
is preserved in old Slavic, and in the feminine inflection of East Baltic.
The basic adjectival inflection preserved in both branches is that with *o-stem inflec-
tion for masculine and neuter, ā-stem inflection for feminine.
Baltic has productive u-stem inflection for adjectives. The corresponding feminines
are ī/jā -stems. In Baltic, the ī/jā -stem inflection simply replaces the u-inflection, rather
than being added to a non-syllabic u, as in Indo-Iranian, e.g. Lith. saldùs, saldì, gen.
saldžiõs ‘sweet’. Slavic extends u-stem adjectives with a suffix -k-o/ā, as in OCS sla-
dŭkŭ, sladŭka ‘sweet’. Both Baltic and Slavic show evidence of having had i-stem adjec-
tives. Old Lithuanian has traces of i-stem inflection (Stang 1966: 260−261) as in daugime
[locative] ‘many’, didime and, in the comparative, didęsnime ‘bigger’. OP arwi [neuter
nominative singular] ‘true’ is probably an i-stem. OCS has a few indeclinable adjectives
ending in -ĭ (Vaillant 1958: 539): svobodĭ ‘free’, različĭ ‘various’.
3.2. The masculine/neuter of active participles had athematic inflection (Stang 1966:
262−267). Distinctive athematic forms are found in the masculine/neuter nominative
singular, the accusative singular, and in Slavic, the nominative plural masculine. Else-
where, in both Baltic and Slavic, one finds a stem extension in *-jo-. In dative absolutes,

Authenticated
the old athematic dative/locative in *-i is found in East Baltic, and in Old Lithuanian
the original athematic dual form in -e is still attested. Feminines have ī/jā-stem inflection
in both Baltic and Slavic. Examples are: OCS present active participle, nominative singu-
lar masculine bery < *beronts, feminine berǫšti (with analogical -j- in the nominative),
nominative plural masculine berǫšte (once again with -j-extension); past active participle
masculine/neuter singular nesŭ < *nesus(s), feminine nesŭši < *nesusī. Lithuanian has
masculine reñkąs < *renkants, feminine renkantì < *renkantī, gen. renkančiõs. The Old
Prussian inflection has merged with i-inflection outside of the nominative singular.
3.3. Baltic and Slavic added the pronoun j- to adjectives to form definite noun phrases.
This may be an areal feature, or it may have been inherited from Balto-Slavic. It
is technically syntax. The j- pronoun was still a clitic with flexible position in Old
Lithuanian (Zinkevičius 1996: 119).
3.4. Comparison
The Indo-European comparative suffix *-j(e/o)s- is used in Slavic in unproductive com-
paratives. These forms had athematic inflection similar to that of the participles, with
ī/jā-inflection in the feminine. OCS bol’e < *boljes ‘better’. The rest of the forms have
zero-grade, which in Slavic is realized as*-jĭs-. The feminine nominative singular is
bol’ĭši. The rest of the paradigm has a stem bol’ĭš- from *boljisj-(o/ā). The productive
comparative suffix has an ě < *ē preceding the *-jes-/-jis-, as in starěiš- ‘older’.
Old Prussian has a suffix spelled -is- (often losing the vowel) in adverbs tālis/ tāls
‘farther’, toūls ‘more’, mijls ‘lieber’ (Endzelīns 1971: 174). Endzelīns also cites the
Latvian adverbs labis ‘better’ and vairs ‘more’ as possibly from the same source.
The comparative suffix in Lithuanian is -esnis, which may reflect *-jes-n-.
4. Numerals
4.1. Cardinal Numbers
For the most part, Baltic and Slavic start from the system of cardinal numbers in PIE,
and innovations belong to the histories of the individual families.
4.1.1. Thousand: Gothic þūsundi and Slavic (OCS) tysǫšti, and tysęšti (probably reflect-
ing o-grade and zero-grade ablaut) are feminine ī/jā-stems. OP accusative tūsimtons has
probably been influenced by a presumed *simtan ‘100’. Lith. tū́kstantis, Latv. tũkstuôt(i)s
go back to *tūkstant-. Endzelīns (1971: 183) cites an Old Latvian form without the k,
which indicates that k was inserted before the st, a typical but not regular Baltic sound
change. Zinkevičius (1996: 136) points out attested forms in Old Lithuanian with athe-
matic endings (tūkstantes). This would indicate an East Baltic *tūstant-. The East Baltic
forms are still deviant. Stang (1966: 282), citing Kalima, argues that an older East Baltic
*tūšant- is indicated by early Finnic borrowings. Trubachëv (1973) has suggested that
st is a variant reflex of PIE palato-velar k̑.

Authenticated
The older etymology *tūs-k̑m̥tom has difficulties: 1. The expected reflexes of *sk̑ are
not found. This could be eliminated with the assumption that the reflex of *k̑ was re-
stored at the morpheme-boundary. Then Germanic *s-h > s, while in Baltic and Slavic
the *s could disappear before the continuant from the palato-velar. 2. Baltic *m does not
normally assimilate to a following *t (Lith. šim̃tas ‘100’, samda ‘hire’). 3. The o-grade
ablaut in East Baltic and (optionally) in Slavic is in need of an explanation. Vaillant
(1958: 647−648) accounts for the lack of m and the ablaut by assuming an old -nt-
participle from a stem *tū-st- ‘fatten’ (with the common -st- present suffix). Endzelīns
assumes a secondary confusion with a participle. Any argument for an original participle
must explain the failure of Slavic *s to change to x after the ū. If it is not a borrowing,
the Slavic s should reflect a palato-velar. To get a confusion with a participle, the form
should end in *nt, rather than *mt. The participial solution is attractive, at least as a
reinterpretation. It allows for both an athematic -nt- stem and a derived feminine -ī/jā-
stem with zero grade ablaut. One way to get an *nt is to assume that the compound was
originally indeclinable, and that *mt > nt in word-final position. There are no exceptions
that could not be due to analogy. The second element of the compound could have been
*-k̑omt, as in the Greek words for the decads. If the m assimilated, this could easily have
been taken as a neuter participle.
4.1.2. Ten: The closest thing to a purely Balto-Slavic innovation in the number system
is the use of the athematic *dek̑m̥t- for ten, replacing the indeclinable *dek̑m̥. The -t-
stem exists in Indo-Iranian as well, in the meaning ‘group of ten.’
4.1.3. Six: Balto-Slavic, like Indo-Iranian, shows the reflex of the “ruki” rule in the
initial continuant (Lith. šešì, OCS šestĭ, Sanskrit. ṣaṭ, Avestan xšvaš), which indicates a
proto-form *kswek̑s. A variant form *w(e)k̑s is indicated by the Lithuanian derivative
ušės ‘six-week confinement for childbirth’, which is related to a similar zero-grade form
in the OP ordinal uschts/usts. The Lithuanian form may be borrowed from Old Prussian.
4.1.4. East Baltic and Slavic, as opposed to Old Prussian, apparently share a change of
the initial consonant of ‘nine’ from n to d, e.g. OCS devętĭ, Lith. devynì. OP newīnts
‘ninth’.
4.2. Ordinal Numbers

The Baltic and Slavic words for ‘first’ show different suffixes (OCS prŭvŭ, Lith. pìrmas:
*pr̥H-wo-, *pr̥H-mo- ). For ‘second’, Proto-Baltic has *anteras (Lith. añtras/añtaras,
Latv. ùotrs/uotars, OP antars; cognate with Sanskrit ántaraḥ Gothic anþar). Slavic
(OCS) vŭtorŭ is presumably a distortion of the same form (Vaillant 1958: 654).
The other ordinals were originally formed by adding the theme vowel -o- (-ā- for
feminine) with zero grade in the preceding syllable (Szemerényi 1996: 227). There was
a later spread of a suffix -tó-, and a secondary tendency to make the ablaut agree with
the cardinal. Balto-Slavic shows both tendencies but never added the -to- suffix to a
stem that ended in -t-.
Three ordinals assume different forms in Old Prussian as opposed to Slavic and East
Baltic. For ‘third’ Slavic *tretĭjĭ (OCS tretii), Lith trẽčias, and Latv. trešais share the

Authenticated
initial sequence *tret- at least, and may share the entire stem *tretij-. They are opposed
to OP tirtis, from *tr̥tijas. The latter form has a Sanskrit cognate tr̥tī́yaḥ. For ‘sixth’ OP
has uschts/usts, as opposed to OCS šestǔ, Lith. šẽštas. For ‘ninth’ Slavic and East Baltic
have replaced the initial *n by d: OP newīnts, OCS devętǔ, Lith. deviñtas.
The Balto-Slavic stems for ‘fourth’ and ‘fifth’ are *ketvr̥t- (Lith. ketvir̃tas, Old East
Slavic četvĭrtŭ) and *penkt- (Lith. peñktas, OCS pętŭ). For ‘seventh’, PIE *septmos
yields Old Prussian sep(t)mas, Old Lith. sekmas, and OCS sedmŭ. The word for ‘eighth’
has m from ‘seventh’: Balto-Slavic *ak̑(t)mas, Old Lith. ašmas, OP asmas, OCS osmŭ.
This could be a Balto-Slavic innovation, although Indo-Iranian also has *-m-: Sanskrit
aṣṭamáḥ, Avestan astəma-.
From dialectal IE *dek̑m̥tos we find OP dessīmts, Lith. dešim̃tas, OCS desętŭ; cf.
Greek dékatos.
For ‘hundredth’ Lithuanian normally uses šim̃tas (no different from the cardinal). But
an alternative form šimtàsis is a formal match for Latv. sìmtais, Rus., Ukrainian sotyj,
Belorussian soty, Czech sty (Slavic *sŭt-ŭ-jĭ) ‘hundredth’.
4.3. Collective numerals

Both Baltic and Slavic have extensive sets of collective numerals, used for groups
and with pluralia tantum. For numbers ‘two’ to ‘four’, Lithuanian and Slavic have
similar stems, but they may differ in ablaut. Insofar as the Sanskrit forms are
legitimate cognates, the lack of Brugmann’s Law indicates e-ablaut. We find Lith.
dvejì, OCS dŭvojĭ ‘two’, Sanskrit dvayáḥ ‘twofold’; Lith. trejì, OCS trojĭ ‘three
each’, Sanskrit trayáḥ ‘threefold’; Lith. ketverì, OCS četvorŭ ‘fourfold’, Sanskrit
catvaram ‘quadrangular area’.
5. Gendered pronouns
5.1. Interesting archaisms
The inflectional system of demonstrative, interrogative/indefinite, and relative pro-
nouns in Indo-European was a single system with two variants − sometimes called
o-stem and i-stem inflection. The notion of “stem”, however, is not as clear in
pronouns as it is in nouns. Both types exist in Slavic. Example paradigms (for onŭ
and sĭ) can be found in Diels (1963: 206−209). The Slavic stem variation is very
close to the proto-system postulated by Szemerényi (1996: 205−207), except for the
merger of gender in the oblique plural. A presumed original *o/e-ablaut has been
reduced to a unified -o- in the o-stem pronouns, but the i-stem pronouns, which
always seem to have been suppletive *i/e-stems (cf. Skt. imam but asmai), maintain
this distinction, while the non-singular is characterized by an extension in *-o-i-. The
i-stems have ablaut variants in *-i- and -ei-. Outside of the nominative and accusative
cases, -e- and -ei- correspond to -o- and -oi- in distribution.
In Indo-European, the anaphoric pronoun *is and the interrogative-indefinite *k wis
were “i-stems.” In Slavic, the demonstrative sĭ < *k̑is ‘this’ has this inflection. The

Authenticated
interrogative/indefinite has i-inflection in the neuter čĭ-to. There is no plural of čĭ-to,

and the anaphor *is merged with the relative *jos, so the only complete example of the
Slavic -i-/-e-/-ei- inflection is that of sĭ.
Modern East Baltic has lost the -i-/-e-/-ei- paradigm outside of the nominative/accusa-
tive. The interrogative *k wi- was replaced everywhere by the competing form *k wo-, and
*k̑i- was inflected as k̑jo-. The anaphor *is merged with *jos. Old Prussian has no
descendant of is, has only kas, ka as interrogative, and has the reflex of *k̑j- in schis
‘this’. This, along with the archaic look of the Slavic paradigm, might lead us to view
the Slavic paradigm as reflecting the oldest Balto-Slavic stage. However, Stang (1966:
233) points out that Daukša’s Postilla (from 1599) has iime seven times for the locative
of jìs, versus 77 times for the regular iame. There is also a dialectal šimè for the locative
of šìs. Old Latvian has dative šim in competition with šam. If we trust Old Prussian
orthography, we find i in masculine dative singular schismu, feminine dative singular
schissai, and genitive singular schisses. These are all forms which in Slavic have je-,
se-, and for which Indo-Iranian has -a-. If there is no internal Baltic explanation for
these forms, they complicate the reconstruction of the paradigm.
5.2. Balto-Slavic-Germanic innovations
5.2.1. For -m- endings, see (2.1)
5.3. Possible Balto-Slavic Innovations
5.3.1. The merger of the relative jo-/jā - and the -i-/-e-/-ei- anaphoric pronoun
Although the Slavic forms are ambiguous, both Slavic and East Baltic can be said to
have masculine nominative, accusative singular *jis, *jim; feminine nominative singular
*jī, with the rest of the forms for the masculine and neuter from *jo-, the feminine from
*jā.
5.3.2. The suppletion in the demonstrative *so, sā, tod has been eliminated and replaced
with consistent to-. This pronoun is not directly attested in Old Prussian, but the third
person singular verbal ending -ts is surely from tas (Stang 1966: 232).
5.3.3. A lexical innovation in Balto-Slavic pronouns is the word for ‘all’, which has
pronominal inflection, as it does, for example, in Sanskrit: OCS vĭsĭ, Lith. vìsas, Latv.
viss, OPr. wissa.
5.4. Slavic and East Baltic eliminated the s of the -smin the dative-locative of the
masculine and neuter pronominal declension. Slavic also eliminated the s from the -sj-
in the corresponding feminine forms. East Baltic generalized the noun endings in the
feminine, so it is impossible to tell if it once shared this change.

Authenticated
The history of the personal pronouns is difficult, and the proto-forms for Balto-Slavic
are uncertain. The following forms have cognates outside of Balto-Slavic and are thus
good candidates for Balto-Slavic forms:
6.1. Singular
In the nominative, OCS first person jazŭ is phonologically regular from *eg̑-Hom, found
in Sanskrit aham. Old Lith. eš, OP and Latv. es are phonologically regular from *eg̑
found in Gothic ik, if we assume that final devoicing preceded Winter’s law in Balto-
Slavic. OCS second person ty, Lith. tù, Latv. tu, and OP tōu all come from PIE *tū.
For the accusative, OCS mę, tę, and reflexive sę are cognate with OP mien, tien, sien.
Sanskit mā́m and tvā́m are potentially cognate, indicating *mēN, tēN, sēN.
OCS genitive mene, Lith. dialectal manè, Avestan mana are potentially cognate, if
we ignore the leveling of /a/ in the Lithuanian stem. In the second person and reflexive,
OCS shows secondary b in tebe, sebe, while Lith. tavè, savè, Latv. dialectal tev, standard
tevis have the expected v found in Sanskrit táva, Avestan tauua. The Slavic b can be
from the dative. The Balto-Slavic forms are probably *teve, seve.
In the dative, the OCS clitics are mi, ti, si. Old Lith. mi, ti, Modern Lith. si, Latv. si
are almost certainly cognate, indicating Balto-Slavic *mei, tei, sei. Sanskrit me, te, and
Prakrit se are potential cognates, but the vowel in the Sanskrit diphthong is ambiguous.
Greek has an o in moi, soi, hoi.
For tonic datives, there is no good candidate for a first person Balto-Slavic form. For
the second person and the reflexive, we find OCS (South Slavic) tebě sebě, Old East
Slavic (North Slavic) tobě sobě, OP sebbei, Old Lith. tevi, tevie, savie, Latv. sev < *sevi,
cf. Latin sibī, Oscan sífeí. The East Baltic v is clearly secondary. We can reconstruct the
consonants as *tVbh-, *sVbh-, but the vowels are unclear.
6.2. Plural
Szemerényi (1996: 217) makes the interesting suggestion that *mes is the original
first plural nominative, and Greek ámmes < *ṇs-mes is a reduplicated *ms-mes.
Whether Szemerényi is correct or not, the best candidates for Balto-Slavic nominatives
are the Baltic forms mes (Lith. mẽs, Latv. mẽs, dialectal mes, OP mes), and jūs
(Lith., Latv. jū̃s, OP ioūs). The Slavic my and vy must be secondary. Vy is from the
accusative (cf. OP wans, which would correspond to Slavic vy) and my has been
influenced by vy.
In the oblique cases, Slavic shows the closest relationship to other Indo-European
languages. Like Latin, it used the stems *nōs, *wōs. The genitive plurals *nōs-som,
*wōs-som and the locatives *nōs-su, *wōs-su yielded nasŭ, vasŭ, which were parsed as
na-sŭ, va-sŭ. The oblique paradigms were then built on the stems na-, va-. Old Prussian
has an oblique stem nou- < *nū-, perhaps originally the same as Slavic, but influenced

Authenticated
by the second plural (iou-, iū-). The Old Prussian second plural, and the East Baltic first
and second plural paradigms were rebuilt, influenced by the nominative cases in process-
es that belong to the history of Baltic.
7. Verbs
7.1. The verbal system was reorganized, so that the aorist-present opposition became a
past-present opposition. Stem-formants associated with the present/imperfect stem, such
as the n-infix or the *-je/o- suffix, came to signify a present stem. The s-aorist, preserved
in Slavic, came to signify a simple past.
7.2. Baltic morphology has been crucially used to argue for a new reconstruction of the
thematic paradigm, beginning with Toporov (1961). Watkins (1969) continued with an
integrated view of the thematic paradigm, the middle, and the Hittite ḫi-conjugation.
This view has been accepted to the point that the reconstructed thematic paradigm in
Beekes (1995: 232) is essentially identical to the Lithuanian thematic inflection in the
singular, except for the fact that Lithuanian has generalized *-o- as the thematic vowel.
Crucially, the third singular of the thematic inflection is reinterpreted as having a zero
ending. The second singular in *-ei < *eHi is also accepted as original. The zero ending
in the third person is attested in Slavic as well, but it had previously been interpreted as
secondary.
7.3. Both Baltic and Slavic preserve athematic presents: Old East Slavic estĭ, Old Lith.
esti ‘is’; Old East Slavic ěstĭ, Old Lith. ėsti (*ēd- from Winter’s Law) ‘eats’; Old East
Slavic dastĭ, Old Lith. dúosti ‘gives’. Old Lith. dẽsti ‘puts’, probably reflects a Balto-
Slavic form. Old Lithuanian and dialectal Lithuanian have many athematic presents
which have no counterparts in other Indo-European languages (Stang 1966: 310). Some
of these may come from old perfects.
7.4. Balto-Slavic-Germanic features

7.4.1. Indo-European had a class of n-infixed athematic verbs, which are best preserved
in Sanskrit. Most commonly these verbs are associated with root aorists without the
infix. In the active these verbs are transitive, generally factitive verbs indicating a change
of state of the object. Most Indo-European languages have reflexes of the active verbs.
In Germanic, Slavic, and Baltic, however, they are primarily intransitive change-of-state
verbs. East Baltic has a large class of verbs with an n-infix in the present, but with
thematic inflection. Slavic has a few forms with n-infixed presents, again with thematic
inflection. Most of the Slavic forms have an -n- suffix with thematic inflection. The
associated Slavic aorists are typically thematic with no infix. With a few unobvious
exceptions, Germanic has only suffixed forms, and Gothic is the only language that
preserves (surface-level) thematic inflection. The most archaic forms, with cognates in
more than one language, have zero-grade vocalism. Several scholars have suggested that
one could account for both the ablaut and the meaning by assuming that the Balto-Slavic

Authenticated
and Germanic forms developed from the middle voice (Jasanoff 1973, 1978: 85 fn. 57;
Darden 1996; Praust 1998: 79, 126). Watkins (1969: Chapter 8) provides a possible
mechanism. He argues that the original ending of the third singular middle was -e, like
that of the perfect. He further accepts the hypothesis that the third singular of the themat-
ic inflection was -e with a zero ending. Using the identity in the third singular as the
basis for analogy, he proposes a shift from athematic middle to thematic inflection. He
uses this to derive thematic aorists, but the same arguments may apply to present stems.
This process, applied to the athematic n-infixed class and to the associated root aorists
attested in Sanskrit, could produce the thematic n-infixed presents of Baltic and the
thematic zero-grade aorists of Slavic, which are the most likely Balto-Slavic forms.
Gorbachev (2007) accepts the middle solution for Balto-Slavic, which has no surviv-
ing middle, but he points out that the similar meaning and ablaut in Germanic cannot be
easily explained, since Germanic does have an overt reflex of the middle − the Gothic
passive (third singular *-toi). His alternative solution is to start from what Jasanoff
(2003) calls a “proto-middle”, with *-e as the third singular, and allow for a dialectal
bifurcation between the proto-middle and the middle in the dialects underlying Balto-
Slavic and Germanic. One could also propose that a third singular passive in *-toi sepa-
rated from a middle in *-e in Proto-Germanic.
7.4.2. Balto-Slavic has a class of factitive-iteratives with infinitive/past-tense stems in

*-ī-, e.g. (Rus./Lith.) prosit'/prašýti ‘ask’; gonit' ‘drive’/ganýti ‘take care of cattle’; bro-
dit'/bradýti [dialectal] ‘wade’. The present tense forms differ. The Baltic forms have a
present stem with *-ā- ([3rd. sing.] Lith. prãšo < *prošā-), while Slavic has a present in
*-ī- ( Rus. prosit). Neither present-stem suffix can be derived from the other, nor can
either be derived phonologically from the *-eje- found in other Indo-European languages.
Most research has focused on the present in -ī- (see Schmalstieg 2000: 130−136 for a
survey). However, if we believe that this is a Balto-Slavic class, and we take as original
the present stem that could not be derived by paradigmatic analogy, we would normally
pick the Baltic present. Germanic Class II weak verbs, with an *-ā- suffix, are normally
denominal, but have a few deverbal formations (Guxman et al., Vol IV: 180). Several of
them have Balto-Slavic cognates or parallel formations among the factitive iteratives.
These include: Old Saxon frâgon (denominal), Lith. prašýti, Rus. prosit' ‘ask’; Old Sax-
on giwaldon, Lith. valdýti ‘rule’; Old High German lehhôn, Gothic bilaigōn, Lith. laižýti
‘lick’; Old Norse vaga, Old English wagian, Old High German wagōn, Rus. vozit' ‘trans-
port’; Old High German sagōn ‘say’ (from de Vries 1977), Lith. sakýti ‘say’, Rus. sočit'
‘seek’; Old High German manōt ‘understands’, Lith. manýti ‘think of’, Latv. manît ‘take
note of’. There is also Slavic kupiti ‘buy’, apparently borrowed from Gothic kaupōn
‘conduct business’.
If the Baltic present formation is original, then it is the past/infinitive stem in -ī- that
needs explanation.
7.5. Balto-Slavic innovations
7.5.1. Balto-Slavic formed past active participles with the suffix *-us-, which is used to
form the perfect participle in Indo-Iranian and Greek (cf. also Gothic ber-us-j-os ‘par-

Authenticated
ents’, originally ‘those having borne’, which is built to the weak stem of the preterite,
i.e. the PIE perfect). Aside from the exclusive employment of the zero-grade of the
original suffix *-wos-/-us-, the Balto-Slavic innovation consists of the emancipation of
this form from the perfect and its implementation as a general past participle.
7.5.2. Balto-Slavic has a set of verbs with infinitive/past-tense stems with the suffix *-ē-
and present tense with the suffix *-ī- in Slavic, short -i- in Baltic. Examples are (Old
East Slavic : Lith.) bŭděti / bŭditŭ : budė́ ti / bùdi ‘be awake’, sěděti : sėdė́ ti ‘sit’. They
are primarily stative. The infinitive stem can easily be related to the statives formed with
-ē- in Germanic and Latin (Old High German habēn, Latin sēdēre ‘sit’) and perhaps to
the suffix forming the Greek aorist passive. The present tense of these verbs has been
claimed to come from the Indo-European perfect (Kurylowicz 1964: 80−84; Jasanoff
1978: 101−112; Darden 1998). Jasanoff (2003: 158−159), however, now traces them to
athematic middles.
The clearest example in Slavic of an inherited perfect is vědě from *woida-i ‘I know’.
It has the present-marking particle -i added, as does Latin vīdī. In Slavic, the rest of the
paradigm is that of a regular athematic active. The infinitive věděti has a suffix -ě-. The
forms of this verb in Old Prussian (Stang 1966: 313) show a mixture of athematic and
-i- conjugation forms: second singular waisei, first plural waidimai, second plural waiditi.
Endzelīns (1928) suggested that the /i/ in this case comes from the third plural *-int
from -n̥t as is apparently the case in the Slavic 3 rd plural vědętǔ. We could assume that
Balto-Slavic, like Greek and Germanic, generalized -nt- to replace the original ending
with r. For Baltic, we simply assume that the short i spread throughout the paradigm.
For Slavic, we have evidence from vědě that the particle i was added in the present.
Starting from the third person singular and plural, we get singular *-e-i, plural *-inti.
After Slavic ei > ī, we have -ī, -inti. Since long vowels were shortened before sonorant
plus stop (Osthoff’s Law), -inti could be morphophonemically interpreted as -ī-nt-i, and
the paradigm could be rebuilt based on a suffix-vowel -ī-.
Many of the verbs in this class have prototypical perfect meaning − a state resulting
from previous action. In modern Lith., many can be glossed with the modern Lithuanian
perfect − ‘be’ plus the past active participle. Other than resultant state, the range of
meanings includes verbs of perception (Old East Slavic viděti ‘see’, sŭmotrěti ‘look’,
slyšati < *slūx-ē- ‘hear’, Lith. paveiždė́ ti ‘look’, girdė́ ti ‘hear’), emotional state (Old
East Slavic bojati ‘fear’, Lith. mylė́ ti ‘love’), and verbs for the production of sounds and
visual sensations (Old East Slavic zvĭněti ‘ring’, svĭtěti ‘shine’, Lith. spindė́ ti ‘shine’).
This is the same range of meanings as we find in the Greek perfect.
The ablaut of the roots in Balto-Slavic cognates is predominantly zero-grade. Between
obstruents, as in sěděti, sėdė́ ti, we find *ē, but the length here could be due to Winter’s
law, which lengthens vowels before simple voiced stops. In an analogous formation with
a voiced aspirate, Slavic has no length: ležati (*legh-ē-) ‘lie’. If these are indeed old
perfects, the dearth of o-grade of the root is surprising.
In Old Lithuanian and in dialects, we find evidence that many of these verbs were
inflected as athematic active verbs (Stang 1966: 310−318; Schmalstieg 2000: 88−103).
Stang suggests that some of these verbs come from perfects, primarily because of their
meaning. He also points out (1966: 315) that many of the athematically inflected forms
cannot be phonologically old: stovmi ‘I stand’, sėdmi ‘I sit’, girdmi ‘I hear’, žydmi ‘I
bloom’ all have consonants that would not be allowed before m. If -mi had replaced a

Authenticated
vocalic ending, these configurations could make sense. It would also make sense to think
that the original paradigm might have contained some forms that were identical to those
of the athematic active. The perfect was athematic, and it had a vocalic ending in the
first singular.
Since the parent language had neither short nor long -i- as a theme vowel, it makes
sense to think that the original paradigm was athematic. Given the lack of cognates
elsewhere, it is unlikely to have been an athematic active paradigm. It could have been
an athematic middle, perfect, or the middle of the perfect.
Ultimately, it is the meaning that makes the perfect hypothesis attractive, and it is the
ablaut that makes the middle origin attractive.
7.5.3. Slavic and East Baltic have a present passive participle in *-(o)m-os/-ā. The -m-
is added to the present tense stem when there is a vocalic suffix. Athematic verbs take
*-om-. Examples are: OCS nesomŭ, xvalimŭ, vědomŭ; Lith. nẽšamas, gir̃dimas, sãkomas,
ẽsamas; Latvian lìekams, darãms, dialectal gulims. Old Prussian has one attested form
with -manas: poklausīmanas (Stang 1966: 445−446) (but see Ambrazas and Schmalstieg,
this handbook, 6.1). The Old Prussian form has cognates in Sanskrit -māna-, Greek
-menos (normally reconstructed as *-mh̥1 no-). Vaillant (1966: 114) suggests a sound
change *mn > m for Balto-Slavic, where medial laryngeals were regularly lost, but there
is no other evidence for this sound change.
7.6. One of the problems for the claim of Balto-Slavic unity is the fact that in some
cases the same form that represents an s-aorist in Slavic can represent an s-future in East
Baltic. Both had athematic inflection. Brugmann (1888: Vol. 4, 365−366) argues that the
Baltic future comes from the injunctive of the s-aorist. The aorist was an aspect, not a
tense. The aorist indicative could only be used with past reference. However, the aorist
injunctive could be used with various modal meanings, some with future reference.
Kuryłowicz (1964: 111), who firmly believed that a formal distinction was necessary to
separate the modal from the indicative uses, proposed that lengthening applied to the
aorist indicative, but not to the injunctive, creating the formal distinction that he wanted.
Kuryłowicz’s hypothesis is supported by evidence from Indo-Iranian, and it may fit the
facts of Balto-Slavic. However, in general, the older the s-aorist looks, the more likely
the Slavic stem is to be distinct from the stem of the Baltic s-future. This is discussed
in detail in Darden (1995).
The overwhelming majority of the stems for which the Baltic s-future has potentially
the same shape as the Slavic s-past belong to two classes. One huge class includes
suffixed stems − denominals, iteratives, factitives − that in Indo-European had no aorists,
much less s-aorists. There is, however, a small class of verbs that originally had root
aorists, verbs like *dō- ‘give’, *dhē- ‘put’, *bhū- ‘be’. One member of this group,
* bhū-, is the only stem that has a reflex of the s-future in Slavic: the Church Slavic
future participle byšęštĭ/byšǫšti.
This may be a reasonable account for the development of Baltic and Slavic, but it
does not solve the whole problem for Balto-Slavic. If the s-future really started as an
injunctive use of the s-aorist, we still need an explanation for the initial differentiation
of the stems.

Authenticated
7.7. The Baltic past and the Slavic imperfect
The Baltic past tense system was totally reorganized. There are two past tense suffixes,
*-ē- and *-ā- (Lith. -ė- and -o-). In the formation of the Slavic imperfect, the element
-ax- < *-ās-, followed by thematic inflection, is added to a stem that ends in -a- < *ā or
-ě- < *ē. One view of the Slavic imperfect is that it is formed with preterite iterative
suffixes -ājā-, -ējā-, and thus has nothing necessarily to do with Baltic (Kuryłowicz
1959). Stang (1942: 81−85) argued that the *as- was once a separate word. In early texts
that show no tendency to lose j between vowels, there was no j between the vowel of
the stem and the -aš-. Vaillant (1966: 63−68) slightly improves the argument. Once the
aše is treated in this way, there is an obvious temptation to relate the Slavic stems in
*-ē- and *-ā- to the past-tense suffixes in Baltic. This is an attractive idea, but it is very
difficult to prove. Nevertheless, Slavic does have a suffix -ě- that specifically derives an
imperfective stem, and there is an -a- that differentiates the past-infinitive stem from the
present stem in a substantial class of verbs.
Lithuanian cognates for the Slavic verbs with the apparent suffix -a- in the past-
infinitive stem lack the suffix in the infinitive. The present tense of these stems is most
often directly cognate with the Slavic present. Examples are Lith. [infinitive] piẽšti,
[present] piẽšia (*peišjo) ‘draw’; OCS [infinitive] pĭsati, [aorist] pĭsax-, [present] pišetŭ
(*peisjetu) ‘write’; Lith. giñti, gẽna, OCS gŭnati, gŭnax-, ženetŭ ‘drive’; Lith. denominal
suffix -auti, -auja, OCS -ovati, -ovax-, -ujetŭ.
With only two suffixes, we would expect fifty percent agreement with random distri-
bution. We get considerably less than that − primarily because of the verbs discussed in
the previous paragraph. Lithuanian regularly has *-ē- pasts associated with -C-ja-
presents. Lithuanian is the only language with reliable information, and it seems to have
undergone a reorganization to make the past suffixes predictable.
7.8. Common losses
Similar losses are not good arguments for common development, but are certainly pos-
sible results of common development. Along with Germanic, Baltic and Slavic lost the
subjunctive, but retained the form of the optative. Both Baltic and Slavic lost the middle
voice. A similar function is expressed through reflexive verbs in both families, but that is
typologically so common that it cannot be argued that this was a common development.
8. References
1995 Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Brugmann, Karl
1888 Elements of the Comparative Grammar of the Indo-Germanic Languages. New York:
Westerman.
Darden, Bill J.
1995 The Slavic s-aorist and the Baltic s-future. Linguistica Baltica 4: 217−223.

Authenticated
Darden, Bill J.
1996 The Evolution of the Balto-Slavic Verb. Linguistic Studies in the Non-Slavic Languages
of the Commonwealth of Independent States and the Baltic Republics 8: 107−138.
Diels, Paul
1963 Altkirchenslavische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter.
Endzelīns, Jānis
1923 Lettische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Endzelīns, Jānis
1928 Sikūmi [Minutiae]. Filologu Biedrības Raksti 8: 107. [Reprinted in Endzelīns 1979:
461.]
Endzelīns, Jānis
1948 Baltu valodu sklaņas un formas [Phonology and morphology of the Baltic languages].
Riga: Latvijas v lasts izdevnieciba
Endzelīns, Jānis
1971 Comparative Phonology and Morphology of the Baltic Languages. Translated by Wil-
liam Schmalstieg and Benjamiņš Jēgers (slightly revised version of Endzelīns 1948).
The Hague: Mouton.
Endzelīns, Jānis
1979 Darbu izlase [Collected works]. Vol III, 1. Riga: Zinatne.
Fasmer, Max (=Vasmer)
1964−1973 Ètimologičeskij slovar' russkogo jazyka [Etymological dictionary of the Russian
language]. Translated from German with comments by Oleg N. Trubačëv. 4 vols. Mos-
cow: Progress. [Translation of Max Vasmer. 1950. Russisches Etymologisches Wörter-
buch. 3 Bde. Heidelberg: Winter.]
Gorbachev, Yaroslav
2007 Indo-European Origins of the Nasal Inchoative Class in Germanic, Baltic, and Slavic.
Unpublished Dissertation, Department of Linguistics, Harvard University.
Guxman, Mirra M., Viktor M. Žirmunskij, Ènver A. Makaev, and Viktoria N. Jarceva
1962−1966 Sravnitel'naja grammatika germanskix jazykov [Comparative grammar of the
Germanic languages]. 4 vols. Moscow: Akademia Nauk SSSR.
Jasanoff, Jay
1973 The Germanic Third Weak Class. Language 49: 850−870.
Jasanoff, Jay
1978 Stative and Middle in Indo-European. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der
Universität.
Jasanoff, Jay
2003 Hittite and the Indo-European Verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy
1959 Réflexions sur l’imparfait et les aspects en v. slave. International Journal of Slavic
Linguistics and Poetics 1: 1−8.
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy
1964 The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Winter.
Praust, Karl
1998 Studien zu den indogermanischen Nasalpräsentien. Unpublished Diplomarbeit zur Er-
langung des Magistergrades der Philosophie, Geisteswissenschaftliche Fakultät der Uni-
versität Wien.
Prokosch, Eduard
1938 A Comparative Germanic Grammar. Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America.
Schmalstieg, William
1959 The Slavic Stative Verb in ī. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 1:
177−183.

Authenticated
2000 The Historical Morphology of the Baltic Verb. (Journal of Indo-European Studies Mono-
graph No. 37). Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man.
Smyth, Herbert W.
1956 Greek Grammar. Revised by Gordon M. Messing. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Stang, Christian S.
1942 Das Slavische und Baltische Verbum. Oslo: Dybwad.
Stang, Christian S.
1966 Vergleichende Grammatik der Baltischen Sprachen. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Szemerényi, Oswald J. L.
1996 Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
1961 K voprosu ob evolucii slavjanskogo i baltijskogo glagola [On the question concerning
the evolution of the Slavic and Baltic verb]. Voprosy slavjanskogo jazykoznanija 5: 35−
70.
Trubačëv, Oleg N.
1973 Leksikografija i ètimologija. Slavjanskoe jazykoznanie [Lexicography and etymology.
Slavic linguistics]. In: Samuil B. Bernshtejn, Viktor I. Borkovskij, Nikita I. Tolstoj, Oleg
N. Trubachëv, and TatianaV. Popova (eds.), VII meždunarodnyj sŭjezd slavistov. Varsha-
va [VIIth International Congress of Slavists. Warsaw]. Moscow: Nauka, 294−313.
Vaillant, André
1958 Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Vol. II. Lyon: IAC.
Vaillant, André
1966 Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Vol. III. Lyon: IAC.
Vasmer (see Fasmer)
de Vries, Jan
1977 Altnordisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Leiden: Brill.
Watkins, Calvert
1969 Indogermanische Grammatik III: Formenlehre. Part One: Geschichte der Indogerma-
nischen Verbalflexion. Heidelberg: Winter.
1966 Lietuvių dialectologija [Lithuanian dialectology]. Vilnius: Mintis.
Bill J. Darden, Estes Park, Co (USA)
117. The syntax of Balto-Slavic

1. Introductory remarks 6. Subordinate clauses
2. Argument marking and case syntax 7. Word order
3. Other aspects of case syntax 8. Source texts
4. Structure of the noun phrase 9. References
5. The verb
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-038

Authenticated
2000 The Historical Morphology of the Baltic Verb. (Journal of Indo-European Studies Mono-
graph No. 37). Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man.
Smyth, Herbert W.
1956 Greek Grammar. Revised by Gordon M. Messing. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Stang, Christian S.
1942 Das Slavische und Baltische Verbum. Oslo: Dybwad.
Stang, Christian S.
1966 Vergleichende Grammatik der Baltischen Sprachen. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
1996 Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
1961 K voprosu ob evolucii slavjanskogo i baltijskogo glagola [On the question concerning
the evolution of the Slavic and Baltic verb]. Voprosy slavjanskogo jazykoznanija 5: 35−
70.
Trubačëv, Oleg N.
1973 Leksikografija i ètimologija. Slavjanskoe jazykoznanie [Lexicography and etymology.
Slavic linguistics]. In: Samuil B. Bernshtejn, Viktor I. Borkovskij, Nikita I. Tolstoj, Oleg
N. Trubachëv, and TatianaV. Popova (eds.), VII meždunarodnyj sŭjezd slavistov. Varsha-
va [VIIth International Congress of Slavists. Warsaw]. Moscow: Nauka, 294−313.
Vaillant, André
1958 Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Vol. II. Lyon: IAC.
Vaillant, André
1966 Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Vol. III. Lyon: IAC.
Vasmer (see Fasmer)
de Vries, Jan
1977 Altnordisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Leiden: Brill.
Watkins, Calvert
1969 Indogermanische Grammatik III: Formenlehre. Part One: Geschichte der Indogerma-
nischen Verbalflexion. Heidelberg: Winter.
1966 Lietuvių dialectologija [Lithuanian dialectology]. Vilnius: Mintis.
Bill J. Darden, Estes Park, Co (USA)
117. The syntax of Balto-Slavic

1. Introductory remarks 6. Subordinate clauses
2. Argument marking and case syntax 7. Word order
3. Other aspects of case syntax 8. Source texts
4. Structure of the noun phrase 9. References
5. The verb
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-038

Authenticated
117. The syntax of Balto-Slavic 2001
From the start of the discussion on Balto-Slavic unity, lists of common features testifying
to close ties between the two branches have included syntactic and morphosyntactic
features such as the predicative instrumental and the genitive of negation. Also from the
start, opponents of the idea have pointed to areal links (e.g. to Finnic) as a factor contrib-
uting to parallel development in Baltic and Slavic. However strong the evidence of
phonological and morphological convergences between Slavic and Baltic might be, we
would probably prefer nowadays to see the syntactic convergences as a problem of areal
rather than of historical-comparative linguistics.
Areal isoglosses may also cut across the Balto-Slavic domain: Baltic shares a number
of areal features with Finnic which oppose it to Slavic; and a number of characteristic
Slavic features, such as the replacement of animate adnominal genitives with possessive
adjectives, have no counterpart in Baltic. In what follows, I will briefly discuss a number
of interesting convergences and divergences between the two branches, pointing out
possible areal links, but without addressing the issue of Balto-Slavic “unity”, which
should center around phonology, morphology, and the lexicon.
2. Argument marking and case syntax
2.1. Alignment
With regard to argument marking, both Baltic and Slavic show consistent nominative-
accusative alignment, but with numerous constructions diverging from the canonical case
marking pattern. This seems to be connected with the fact that both Baltic and Slavic
have retained rich case systems, which leads to arguments in the zone of lower semantic
transitivity being encoded by semantic cases rather than with the canonical nominative
and accusative. Dative experiencers often come close to the status of quasi-subjects, as
in OLith. gayli mi tos mines ChB Math 15.32 ‘I:DAT have compassion on the multi-
tude:GEN’, OLatv. tad eeschehlojahs tam Kungam tha Kalpa ‘then the master:DAT
took pity on his servant:GEN’ GlB Mt 18.27, OCS izbyvaetъ imъ chlěba ‘they:DAT
have enough bread:GEN’, OPol. zzalilo szø gemu, isze czlowyeka vczynyl ‘it repented
Him:DAT that He had made man’ BZ Gen. 6.6. In both Slavic and Baltic, such construc-
tions can be found from the earliest texts and they have remained stable, with no notable
tendency to transform them into canonical nominative-accusative patterns as in English,
cf. Lith. man pagailo to vaiko, Latv. man kļuva žēl tā puiša ‘I:DAT felt sorry for the
boy:GEN’ etc.
A factor contributing to this situation is that both Baltic and Slavic have developed
a wide range of non-verbal predicators − neuter adjectival forms, adverbs, nouns, and
words of unclear categorial nature − combining with experiencer datives, less often
accusatives, to form a characteristic clause-type in which one is tempted to interpret the
dative (accusative) as an oblique subject. These are present from the earliest texts and
have remained a constant feature in both branches, e.g. ORuss. žalь mi svojeja o[čь]ciny
‘I:DAT feel sorry for my patrimony:GEN’, OLith. reykia jumus tu wisu dayktu
‘you:DAT need all these things:GEN’ ChB Mt 6.32 (reikia is a word of unclear origin,

Authenticated
subsequently transformed into an impersonal modal verb reikėti); modern Russ. mne
bol’no ‘I:DAT feel pain’, Lith. man jo gaila ‘I:DAT feel sorry for him:GEN’.
2.2. Possessive constructions

In both Baltic and Slavic, the oldest construction for predicative possession was ‘be’
with the dative. In most Slavic languages and in Lithuanian, it was superseded by ‘have’,
but Latvian has retained the original construction whereas Russian has developed the
local construction u menja est’ ‘(sth.) is with me’, perhaps under adstratal (Uralic?)
influence. ‘Be’ with the dative is found in Old Church Slavic alongside iměti ‘have’, the
distribution being apparently regulated by the Greek original as in ne bě ima čęda οὐκ
ἦν αὐτοῖς τέκνον lit. ‘there was no child to them:DAT’ Lk 1.7, as against iže imě běsy
otъ lětъ mъnogъ ἔχων δαιμόνια καὶ χρόνῳ ἱκανῷ ‘who had devils for a long time’ Lk.
8.27. Both Lithuanian and the modern Slavic languages have sporadically retained the
original construction ‘be’ + dative in special uses, cf. Russ. emu dvadcat’ let, Lith. jam
dvidešimt metų ‘he:DAT is twenty years old’ (lit. ‘has twenty years’). That the construc-
tion ‘be’ with the dative is the oldest Baltic and Slavic construction can be seen from
the fact that it provided the source for a number of other constructions also of consider-
able age, notably the necessitive modal construction ‘be’ + DAT expanded with an infini-
tive of purpose, where we have the typologically very common shift from possession to
necessity: OCS ašte mi jestь sъ tobojǫ umrěti ἐάν με δέῃ συναποθανεῖν σοι ‘if I must
die with thee’, něstь bylo byti životu tomu ἔδει μὴ πραχθῆναι ζῷον ‘this life was not to
be’. OLith. mumus ... buwa amßinai mirti ‘we would have had to die for ever’ BrP I
425.3, iem bus mirti ‘he will have to die’ BrB Ez. 17.16. In Slavic as well as in Lithuani-
an, these constructions have undergone a structural shift: whereas the original construc-
tion contained a syntactic position for the verb ‘be’, which could appear in different
tense and mood forms, its position has been lost, and what is left is a predicative infini-
tive, without variation in tense and mood: cf. Russian byt’ bede ‘there’s bound to be
trouble’, Lithuanian ne tau kalbėti ‘it’s not for you to speak’. The same construction,
but with the meaning of possibility, has led to the rise of lexicalized predicative infini-
tives, especially from verbs of perception. The object (originally the subject of ‘be’)
must originally have been in the nominative, but Slavic and Baltic texts have the accusa-
tive from the start, cf. OCS otъ sego … viděti estъ silǫ xristosovǫ ‘from this Christ’s
power:ACC can be seen’ Supr. 73a, 15−16; OLith. skidągu teypag buwo regiet arba
rahotynę ‘was there a shield or a spear seen?’ ChB Jud. 5.8. Lithuanian dialects, how-
ever, also have a nominative: jau dugnas matyt ‘the bottom:NOM can already be seen’
(Ambrazas 2006: 333), which can be viewed in the light of areal links with Finnic,
where the object of an infinitive is in the nominative if there is no nominative subject.
3. Other aspects of case syntax

3.1. General remarks
Baltic and Slavic case syntax presents a general similarity, as both branches have largely
resisted tendencies toward reduction of the case system, but there are many divergences

Authenticated
in detail. Of the IE cases, only the genitive and the ablative coalesced, leading to the
rise of an ablatival genitive manifesting itself, e.g., in the case governance of verbs of
fearing and avoiding, such as OCS bojati sę, Lith. bijoti ‘fear’ + GEN. The details differ:
only Slavic has the genitive for the standard of comparison (Russian deševle gribov
‘cheaper than mushrooms, very cheap’); the Baltic genitive of agent is not an old ablative
but was originally adnominal, cf. below. To what extent the coalescence of ablative and
genitive contributed to the expansion of the partitive genitive and the genitive of negation
is hard to establish.
The instrumental shows a common feature: the spectacular expansion of the predica-
tive use, on which below. The instrumental of agent (OCS roždenychъ ženami ἐν
γεννητοῖς γυναικῶν ‘among those borne by women:INS’ Lk 7:28) is only Slavic. Baltic
has, instead, introduced a genitive of agent originating as a possessive genitive, as in
Latv. svešu ļaužu bildināmas ‘asked in marriage by strangers:GEN’ (Endzelin 1923:
416).
The locative has survived in Baltic and Slavic, but in Slavic it has lost the character
of a local case and is now always governed by (not necessarily local) prepositions. In
Baltic, on the other hand, its local character has been retained, though it was strengthened
by accretion of postpositions: original locative + *-en yields an inessive: *namie-j-en >
name ‘in the house’, locative + -pi yields an adessive: Jonie-pi ‘at John’s, with John’.
Analogous lative cases − inessive and allative − were created on the basis of the accusa-
tive and genitive respectively. Among these cases, the inessive is the only one extant in
all Baltic dialects; it is still a purely local case that does not combine with prepositions.
In Latvian, it also serves as a lative case (iet skolā ‘go to school’); the causes of this
development are not clear.
Generally speaking, the similarities between Baltic and Slavic case syntax rest on
common retention of features of IE case syntax, with the notable exception of the predi-
cative instrumental and the partitive genitive together with its offshoot, the genitive of
negation.
3.2. The predicative instrumental

The expansion of the predicative instrumental is easier to follow in the Slavic languages
as their written tradition is older. Weakly represented in Old Church Slavic, its use
increases in the separate Slavic languages to become highly frequent in East and West
Slavic. In Lithuanian, the predicative instrumental is certainly indigenous, but it has
considerably expanded its use under Slavic influence. Latvian has lost the instrumental
as a separate case but has retained the tendency to use special marking (prepositional
phrases with par) in cases of “time instability”, i.e., with reference to temporary states
or changes in state; as Stassen (2001) observes, the use of special case forms for such
marked types of predicate nominals seems to be an areal feature also seen in a number
of Uralic languages.
Two cases of the use of the predicative instrumental can be distinguished: (i) a seman-
tically motivated use, often associated with temporal instability, but also with a diver-
gence between the predicated state and the basic, true or permanent state of the subject
(object); and (ii) a syntactically motivated use, in syntactic contexts where there is no
readily accessible agreement controller, especially in infinitival constructions.

Authenticated
In Old Church Slavic, the predicate instrumental was still virtually nonexistent − it
originates in adverbial constructions meaning ‘in the shape of’, as in blǫdnyimъ jemu
napade běsomъ ‘attacked him in the shape of a malicious devil’ Supr. 127a.5−6,
whence it extends to secondary (depictive) predicates, as in roždьšjǫjǫ tę děvojǫ ‘who
gave birth to thee as a virgin (being a virgin)’ Euch. Sin. 86,26. Thence it shifts, in
younger times, to the function of primary predicate nominal, which is now its principal
function. The initial phase of development seems to have been parallel in Baltic, cf.
OLith. sedeio ... pas kielį ubagu melsdams BrB Mk 10.46 ‘sat by the side of the road
begging (lit. as a poor man begging)’, Latvian kalpu gāja ‘I went (served) as a farm-
hand’; this was probably an indigenous development in Baltic. But contacts with Slavic
have certainly contributed to the spread of the instrumental as a case for marking (prima-
ry) predicate nominals. In finite sentences, the frequency of instrumentals in older Lithu-
anian texts seems to reflect Polish influence and their authenticity is doubtful, cf. ó Kain
buwo Hukiniku ChB Gen. 4.2 ‘but Cain was a tiller of ground:INS’. In non-finite
contexts (with infinitives), the instrumental has become a default agreement case in the
living language as well. Old Lithuanian has the dative only when the implicit subject of
the infinitive is controlled by a dative in the main clause, e.g., prisake mums miela-
schirdingiems buti ‘commanded us:DAT to be merciful:DAT’ BrP II 253,4 (which means
that the dative was reinterpreted as agreeing with the main clause complement) while
the instrumental is used elsewhere, as in liepe ios linksmais buti ‘bade them (ACC) be
cheerful (INS)’ BrP II 8,15. In Latvian, where the instrumental has disappeared as a
separate case, the function of the predicative instrumental has been taken over by the
preposition par, but only in the “time instability” use, not in the function of default
agreement form, where the dative has been retained.
3.3. The partitive genitive
The partitive genitive is well attested in both branches, possibly reinforced by the coales-
cence of the genitive and the ablative, which is a frequent source for partitives. The
genitive of negation, to be discussed below, is a subtype of the partitive genitive. There
are striking similarities between the Balto-Slavic partitive genitive and the Balto-Finnic
partitive, and Larsson (1983) even ascribes the rise of a partitive case in Finnic to Baltic
influence. Several basic uses coincide: the Balto-Slavic partitive and the Balto-Finnic
partitive are used to mark intransitive subjects and transitive objects for indefinite bound-
ed quantity (OCS prijętъ chlěba ‘took bread’ Jn 21.13 Mar.; OLith. dotu tau giwoja
wandenia ChB Jn 4.10 ‘would have given thee living water’) and negation (OCS
nikъtože ne možaaše otъvěštati emu slovese Mt 22.46 Mar., OLith Jr negałejo jam niekas
atsakit neÿ zodzia ChB ibid. ‘no man was able to answer him a word’); both language
groups also use their partitive cases for superficial affectedness or incomplete action,
and for short duration of the result of the action, cf. Finnish anna kirvestä ‘hand me an
axe:PART (for a while)’, Lith. duok peilio, Polish daj noża ‘lend me a knife:GEN (for a
while)’, Finnish avasi ikkunaa ‘slightly opened the window:PART’, Polish uchylił okna
‘(slightly) opened the window:GEN’ etc. There are also differences between Finnic and
Balto-Slavic: in Finnic, the partitive marks incremental quantification of the object with
imperfective telic verbs, while the partitive genitive is never used in this function in

Authenticated
Baltic and Slavic; and in generic meaning the partitive genitive is impossible in Baltic
and Slavic while Finnic has the partitive here, e.g., Finnish juo olutta (PART) ‘drinks
beer / is drinking beer’ vs. Polish pije piwo (ACC) ‘id.’. This probably rests on differen-
ces in markedness: in Finnic, the accusative marks total affectedness and the partitive
covers the remaining types of quantification, which are quite heterogeneous; in Baltic
and Slavic, the partitive genitive marks vague quantification and is incompatible with
generic meaning and incremental quantification; these functions are taken over by the
accusative, which also marks quantized objects. Baltic and Slavic are further differentiat-
ed in that Slavic allows this vague quantification only with perfective verbs, probably a
consequence of the grammaticalization of aspect in Slavic. Seržant (2014) speculates
that, against a general IE background, both Baltic and Slavic have innovated in making
the partitive genitive, originally a marker of nominal quantification, into a VP quantifier,
denoting also quantification of the action.
3.4. The genitive of negation

The genitive of negation, also figuring in Brugmann’s list of Balto-Slavic features, is a
subtype of the partitive genitive, but has emancipated itself from it in both Baltic and
Slavic. Originally the genitive of negation occurred only within the scope of the partitive
genitive, e.g., it was restricted to unbounded noun phrases: OCS ne bě imъ města vъ
obitěli οὐκ ἦν αὐτοῖς τόπος ἐν τῷ καταλύματι ‘there was no room for them in the inn’
is parallel to Gothic ni was im rumis in stada þamma Lk 2.7, but in both Baltic and
Slavic, in accordance with Finnic, this genitive has spread to bounded and definite ob-
jects, as in OCS brъvъna eže estъ vъ ocě tvoemь ne čjueši ‘thou dost not see the beam
in thine own eye’ Mt 7.5. Consistent use of the genitive for the objects of negated verbs
is noted in two languages of the Circum-Baltic area: Polish and Lithuanian. Latvian and
the rest of Slavic have inconsistent use of this genitive, the accusative being often used
for highly individuated (bounded and definite) objects. In recent times, German influence
seems to have contributed to the almost complete demise of the genitive of negation in
Latvian and Czech. Latvian does, however, retain the genitive with the negated substan-
tive verb: tēva nav mājās ‘father:GEN is not at home’.
4. Structure of the noun phrase

4.1. Definiteness marking
A remarkable common innovation of Baltic and Slavic is the rise of definite adjectives,
e.g. the adjectival marking of the definiteness of the noun phrase through the accretion
of the anaphoric prounoun IE *ye/o- to the adjective. This accretion occurred indepen-
dently in Baltic and Slavic, as witnessed not only by phonetic facts (Lith. geràs-is and
Sl dobrъ-jь show the word-final sound changes characteristic of the separate branches
internally before the suffixed pronoun) but also by Old Lithuanian constructions where
the pronoun is added to case forms of nouns lacking agreement with it, mostly locatives
as in sîłomis szirdiięiomis DP 62631 ‘with the powers of the heart’ (from loc. širdyje

Authenticated
‘in the heart’), showing that the pronoun had retained its syntactic autonomy and could
act as a determiner head making definite descriptions out of adjectivals and nominal
case forms. Old Lithuanian also retains traces of the original status of the pronoun as a
phrasal clitic: in forms like wisi sugiespausti PK 65 (i.e. su-jie-spausti, modern Lith.
suspaustíe-ji) ‘all the oppressed ones’, the original clitic is inserted between the preverb
and the verbal stem, testifying to the former autonomy of the preverb. In Slavic and
Latvian, the accretion of the pronoun to the adjective is already completed at the stage
of the oldest texts, and the degree of phonological integration is much greater, pointing
to an earlier date of accretion. In Slavic, the definite forms tend to oust the indefinite
ones (in East Slavic the indefinite forms have survived only in predicative position), and
only South Slavic has residually retained a definiteness opposition. In Lithuanian, the
definite forms are becoming increasingly restricted to set phrases, where they express
generic definiteness (rudoji lapė ‘the red fox’). The most consistent use of definite
adjectives can be observed in Latvian.
4.2. Syntax of quantifiers

Both Baltic and Slavic have morphosyntactically complex quantifier phrases, with sever-
al syntactic patterns for different numerals. Numerals from 5 upward in Slavic and from
9 upward in Baltic are basically nouns, cf. OCS sedmь tǫ chlěbъ ‘the:ACC.SG.F sev-
en:ACC.SG loaves:GEN.PL’, OLith atmayne ałgą mano deßimti kartu ChB Gen. 31.7
‘changed my wages ten:ACC.SG times:GEN.PL’; but in the course of their history a split
arises whereby the numeral governs a genitive only when the noun phrase has the value
of a nominative or accusative but is unable to govern case (and usually agrees with the
noun) elsewhere, cf. Russian desjat’ devoček ‘ten little girls:GEN’ but desjati devočkam
‘to ten girls:DAT’, Latvian desmit gadu ‘ten years:GEN’ but pēc desmit gadiem ‘after ten
years:DAT’. This pattern developed separately in Baltic and Slavic but closely resembles
the Finnic pattern.
5. The verb
5.1. The middle voice
Baltic and East Slavic participate in a process of much wider scope consisting of the
replacement of the middle voice with reflexive constructions. An undifferentiated catego-
ry combining reflexive and middle meanings is retained, e.g., in Polish, cf. otworzyć się
‘open (intr.)’ and widzieć się ‘see oneself’. Within Balto-Slavic, there is an area compris-
ing Lithuanian and Latvian and the East Slavic languages where the middle voice was
differentiated from reflexive constructions through accretion of the reflexive pronoun to
the verb. Lithuanian distinguishes a middle voice matyti-s ‘see each other, meet; be
visible’ from a properly reflexive matyti save ‘see oneself’. In Lithuanian (and residually
in Latvian), the reflexive enclitic has become an affix, but it can still appear in two
different positions, viz. word-finally, as in renka-si ‘gather’, or inserted between a pre-
verb and the verbal root, as in su-si-rinko ‘gathered’, which has led the Lithuanian

Authenticated
reflexive marker to be described as a Wackernagel affix (Nevis and Joseph 1993). Old
Prussian seems not to have shared in this process, cf. OP audāst sien 518−9 ‘geschieht
[happens]’ alongside turri sien ... audāt 5722−23 ‘soll... geschehen [should happen]’,
where sien is apparently an enclitic (as against Lith. nu-si-duoti ‘id.’). As this accretion
of the reflexive clitic to the verb has also occurred in Scandinavian, one might speculate
to what extent this might be an areally determined feature.
Semantically the development of the reflexive has proceeded at an uneven pace: in
Slavic, it has evolved into a mediopassive from the earliest texts onwards, e.g., prosite
i dastъ sę vamъ … tlъcěte i otvrъzetъ sę vamъ ‘Ask and it will be given to you ... knock
and it will be opened for you’ Mt 7.7. Mar. In Baltic, the development has been much
slower: reflexives have retained their middle voice functions and have usually not
achieved passive function.
5.2. Passives
In Slavic, the reflexive passive (OCS dastъ sę vamъ ‘it will be given to you’) is comple-
mented by a participial passive (zakonъ Mosěomь danъ bystъ ‘the Law was given by
Moses’ Jn 1.17). Baltic has only the latter. In Old Lithuanian and Old Latvian, all exam-
ples of agent phrases with passives are calques from German or Polish, e. g. Zokonas
nes dotas ira per Mayʒießiu ‘the Law was given by (lit. ‘through’, echoing Pol. przez)
Moses’ ChB Jn 1.17. In the living languages, agent phrases arose from adnominal pos-
sessive genitives, and in Latvian they have remained exclusively adnominal, e.g. mātes
doti lakatiņi ‘kerchiefs given by mother:GEN’ (as in Finnic, cf. Finn. dial. hiiren syötyä
leipää ‘bread eaten by a mouse’, lit. ‘mouse:GEN eaten bread’), while in Lithuanian
they have been extended to sentential passives.
5.3. Compound tenses
Compound tenses expressing anteriority are based on the model ‘be’ + past active partici-
ple (a model also used by Finnic), though the participles used for this purpose are differ-
ent: Slavic uses its participle in -l- for this purpose: OCS zgyblъ bě i obrěte sę ἀπολωλὼς
[ἦν] καὶ εὑρέθη ‘had been lost and was found’. Baltic, on the other hand, uses the
participle in *-wes-/-wos-/-us-, cf. OLith. kada tu mana Szmones busi isch Egypto isch-
wedens BrB Ex. 3.12 ‘when you will have brought forth my people from Egypt’, OLatv
ka tas Kungs leelu Schehlastibu pee tahs darrijis bija ‘how the Lord has showed great
mercy upon her’ GlB Lk 1.58. Similarly OP isrankīuns ast ‘has redeemed’ 4314.
5.4. Irrealis
The irrealis (also called conditional, optative, etc.) seems to be, in both Baltic and Slavic,
an offshoot from the system of relative tenses, viz. a pluperfect. In Slavic, we have the
participle in -l- combined, in part of the dialects, with an aorist of the auxiliary byti,

Authenticated
and, in part of the dialects underlying OCS, a special and unexplained form bimь: by /
bi dělalŭ. For OLith., Stang (1957) has pointed out that the oldest texts preserve traces
of an analogous irrealis consisting of the auxiliary ‘be’ and an active participle: jei-b ne-
gimęs ‘if he had not been born’, probably from a form like *gimęs bi, where bi was
enclitic and could attach to the subordinator, yielding OLith. jei-b (and probably also
High Latvian ka-b). This is exactly parallel to developments in Slavic, where we find
irrealis subordinators like Polish gdy-by przyszedł ‘if he came/had come’ and Russ. čto-
by prišel ‘in order that he should come’. In Baltic, the irrealis was subsequently renewed
on the basis of the supine, yielding forms like eitum-bime ‘we would go’ instead of a
putative *ėję bime, in a development outlined by Stang (1958). The form of the auxiliary
in the Baltic irrealis is traditionally explained as an old optative, but Smoczyński (1999)
calls this into doubt and argues it is an old preterite. If he is right, the Baltic irrealis was
originally a pluperfect, an explanation also proposed for Slavic by Sičinava (2004).
6. Subordinate clauses
6.1. Clauses with the supine
The supine combines with a genitive in Baltic and Slavic, cf. OCS pride ... vidětъ groba
Mt 28.1 ‘she came ... to see the sepulchre:GEN’, OLith isch tę ateis suditu giwu ir
numirusiu ‘thence he will come to judge the living:GEN and the dead:GEN’ VE 18.8.
In Slavic, the construction has disappeared even in those languages where the supine
has survived. In Baltic, on the other hand, this genitive has not gone out of use. Though
in most Lithuanian and Latvian dialects the supine has fallen into disuse, the genitive
has been carried over to the infinitive that has replaced it: the object of an infinitive with
a verb of motion may optionally be in the genitive, as in ko ius ischeiote ... regeti? Er
nendres nůg weya schwilůienczios? ZEE 6.5 ‘What:GEN did you go forth to see? A
reed:GEN shaken by the wind?’. In Lithuanian (and formerly in Latvian), the genitive is
also used to signify the purpose of motion in constructions without an infinitive, e.g.
išėjo maisto (pirkti) ‘went out (to buy) food’, but whether this genitive was carried over
from constructions with the supine or infinitive or whether it is an independent develop-
ment is not clear.
6.2. Participial constructions

Both Baltic and Slavic have the dative absolute. It is now defunct in Slavic, and Old
Church Slavic has it mostly when the Greek original has an absolute genitive, as in pride
za utra ešte sǫšti tъmě ἔρχεται πρωῒ σκοτίας ἔτι οὔσης ‘came early when it was yet
dark’ Jn. 20.1 Zogr., utru že abie byvъšju πρωΐας δὲ ἤδη γενομένης ‘as soon as the
morning had come’ Jn. 21.4 Mar. The Slavic dative absolute is often suspected to be
an imitation of Greek, but the Baltic languages attest to its authenticity. It is present
from the oldest texts without dependence on the originals, cf. OLith. bet uzejus saułey,
nudegie ‘but the sun:DAT having risen:GERUND, it was scorched’ ChB Mk4.6;
OLatv. kad nu wiņśch wiśśus śawus Wahrdus teem Ļaudim dsirdoht bija pabeidsis

Authenticated
‘when he had ended all his sayings in the audience of the people’, lit. ‘the people:DAT
hearing:GERUND’ GlB Lk 7.1 (with different orders of gerund and dative in each lan-
guage). The construction has remained fully alive in modern Baltic: Lith. man girdint
‘in my hearing’, lit. ‘me:DAT hearing’, Latv. acīm redzot ‘visibly’, lit. ‘the eyes:DAT
seeing’.
6.3. Infinitival clauses
The Balto-Slavic dativus cum infinitivo, a counterpart to the Greek and Latin accusativus
cum infinitivo, has been an object of controversy since Miklosich (1883: 619 ff.). This
is mainly because most of its uses in OCS are obvious imitations of the Greek, cf.
glagoljušte vъskrěšeniju ne byti ἀντιλέγοντες ἀνάστασιν μὴ εἶναι ‘(the Sadducees) who
affirm there to be no resurrection:DAT’ Lk 20.27, neplodvi li ne věruješi roditi τὴν
στεῖραν ἀπιστεῖς γεννῆσαι ‘do you disbelieve that a barren woman:DAT could give
birth?’ etc. (Miklosich 1883: 916). Yet it was probably only the extension of the con-
struction beyond its proper scope that was dependent on Greek originals. Throughout
the history of the Baltic and Slavic languages, we find occasional instances of reanalysis
where a dative originating as a matrix clause complement is reinterpreted as an infinitival
clause subject, e.g. OPol. nye gest dobrze czlowyeku bicz samemu ‘it is not good for
man to be alone’ BZ Gen. 2.18. (reflecting non est bonum hominem esse solum), where
the dative originates as a matrix clause complement (‘not good for man’) but is reana-
lysed as subject of the embedded clause (‘for man to be alone’). Neither in Baltic nor
in Slavic have infinitival constructions with overt datival subjects been grammaticalized
to the same extent as in English (where infinitival clauses regularly have for-PP sub-
jects), but this reanalysis occurs in a sporadic fashion, cf. Polish miano sobie za nic
uczyć się języka ojczystego urodzonym Polakom ‘it was held to be a thing of no conse-
quence for true-born Poles to learn their native tongue’ (18th c., Pisarkowa 1984: 32);
modern Latvian Tagad jau tas ir modē − katram blēdim izlikties par revolucionāru
‘nowadays it’s fashionable for every scoundrel to pose as a revolutionary’.
Though an overt dative subject appears rarely, the predicate nominal with an infinitive
agrees with a dative subject in older stages of Baltic and Slavic. Latvian still has this
dative agreement − it is not controlled by any matrix clause noun, cf. un wiņśch pawehle-
ja teem kristiteem tapt ‘he ordered them:DAT to be christened:DAT’ GlB Act 10.48 but
also kas aiskawe manni kristitam tapt? ‘who prevents me:ACC from being chris-
tened:DAT?’ GlB Act 8.36. The same pattern is found in older Slavic texts, cf. ORuss.
ona že učaše syna svoego byti xristijanu ‘but she taught her son:ACC to be a Chris-
tian:DAT’ (Borkovskij 1978: 138). Slavic has since replaced the dative with the instru-
mental, which has developed into a default agreement case in constructions without an
easily accessible agreement controller, cf. modern Russian naučil ego byt’ nezavisimym
‘taught him to be independent’; the same development has taken place, probably under
Slavic influence, in Lithuanian, cf. 3.2.

Authenticated
6.4. Infinitival purpose clauses
Both Slavic and Baltic have datives marking the subject or the object of an infinitive of
purpose: Old Czech kúpichu pole pútníkóm hřésti ‘they bought a field to bury travel-
ers’; OCS jakože se polje sъtvoreno bě konjemъ tešti ‘as this field had been created for
horses to run on’. This construction, which has a parallel in Sanskrit, seems to consist
of a double dative of purpose, the infinitive being also historically the dative of a verbal
noun. This analysis is proferred by Ambrazas (2006: 319−320) against the attraction
view advocated by Brugmann and others. Now defunct in Slavic, this construction is
still fully alive in Lithuanian, but only residually retained in Latvian.
7. Word order
Both Baltic and Slavic have free word order. Where strong tendencies are observed, they
diverge: possessive genitives are overwhelmingly postposed in Slavic but anteposed in
Baltic, the latter in agreement with Balto-Finnic (the partitive genitive, like the Finnic
adnominal partitive, is postposed). Prepositions predominate in Slavic but postpositions
were frequent in the prehistory of Baltic, as witnessed by the rise of new case forms
from accretion of postpositions (see above); in Latvian, new noun-based adpositions
are still predominantly postpositional. Slavic preverbs never host clitics (or affixes origi-
nating as clitics), which points to earlier integration with verbal forms compared with
Baltic.
8. Source texts
BrB Bretke’s OLith. Bible Mar OCS Codex Marianus
BrP Bretke’s OLith. Postilla PK Pietkiewicz’s OLith.
BZ Queen Sophia’s OPol. Bible Catechism
ChB Chyliński’s OLith. Bible Supr OCS Codex Suprasliensis
DP Daukša’s OLith. Postilla VE Wilent’s OLith. Enchiridion
Euch. Sin. OCS Euchologion ZEE Lazarus Sengstock’s OLith.
Sinaiticum Gospels and Epistles
GlB Glück’s OLatv. Bible, New Zogr OCS Codex Zographensis
Testament
9. References
Ambrazas, Vytautas
2006 Lietuvių kalbos istorinė sintaksė [Historical syntax of the Lithuanian language]. Vilnius:
Lietuvių kalbos institutas.
Borkovskij, Viktor I. (ed.)
1978 Istoričeskaja grammatika russkogo jazyka. Sintaksis. Prostoe predloženie [Historical
grammar of the Russian language. Syntax. The simple sentence]. Moscow: Nauka.

Authenticated
Endzelin, Jan
Holvoet, Axel
2004 On the marking of predicate nominals in Baltic. In: Philip Baldi and Pietro Umberto
Dini (eds.), Studies in Baltic and Indo-European Linguistics in Honor of William R.
Schmalstieg. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 75−90.
Holvoet, Axel
2010 Reanalysis or endemic ambiguity? Infinitival clauses with overt datival subjects in Sla-
vonic and Baltic. In: Jasmina Grković-Major and Milorad Radovanović (eds.), Theory
of Diachronic Linguistics and the Study of Slavic Languages. Belgrade: Srpska Akadem-
ija Nauka i Umetnosti, 265−278.
Larsson, Lars-Gunnar
1983 Studien zum Partitivgebrauch in den Ostseefinnischen Sprachen. (Studia Uralica et Alta-
ica Upsaliensia 15). Uppsala: University of Uppsala Press.
Miklosich, Franz
1883 Vergleichende Grammatik der slavischen Sprachen. Vierter Band: Syntax. Vienna:
Braunmüller.
111.
Pisarkowa, Krystyna
1984 Historia składni języka polskiego [A history of Polish syntax]. Wrocław: Ossolineum.
Seržant, Ilya A.
2014 The independent partitive genitive in Lithuanian. In: Axel Holvoet and Nicole Nau
(eds.), Grammatical Relations and Their Non-Canonical Encoding in Baltic. Amster-
dam: Benjamins, 257−299.
Sičinava, Dmitrij V.
2004 K probleme proischoždenija slavjanskogo uslovnogo naklonenija [On the problem of
the origin of the Slavic conditional mood]. In: Jurij A. Lander, Vladimir A. Plungjan,
and Anna J. Urmančieva (eds.), Irrealis i irreal’nost’. Moscow: Gnosis, 292−312.
1999 Geneza starolitewskiego conditionalis na -biau, -bei-, -bi- [On the origin of the Old
Lithuanian conditional in -biau, -bei-, -bi-]. Acta Baltico-Slavica 24: 13−18.
Stang, Christian S.
1958 Die litauische Konjunktion jeib und der lit.-lett. Optativ. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogviden-
skap 18: 348−356.
Stassen, Leon
2001 Non-verbal predication in the Circum-Baltic languages. In: Östen Dahl and Maria Kopt-
jevskaja-Tamm (eds.), Circum-Baltic Languages. Vol. 2: Grammar and Typology. Am-
sterdam: Benjamins, 569−590.

Authenticated
118. The lexicon of Balto-Slavic

1. Introductory remarks 6. A thematic approach
2. The Balto-Slavic-Germanic context 7. Onomastics
3. Balto-Slavic lexical isoglosses 8. Phraseology
4. Old and new Balto-Slavic dictionaries 9. Final remarks
5. An areal approach 10. References
On the basis of the many common features of the Baltic and Slavic languages, an inter-
mediate linguistic stage (Zwischenursprache) has been posited between the beginning of
the Indo-European dispersion and the 2nd millennium BCE. The linguistic relationship
between Slavic and Baltic (the so-called Balto-Slavic question) is notoriously one of the
most discussed in all of Indo-European comparative linguistics, and a matter which is
of course closely related to the question of the Slavic-Baltic-Germanic linguistic relation-
ships (cf. 2).
During the prescientific period of linguistics (the so-called Palaeocomparativism), pri-
or to the 19th century, the Baltic languages were only sporadically considered to be an
autonomous linguistic family, and the most frequent question asked concerned the linguis-
tic group to which they belonged. Thus, on the one hand, authors like Aenea Sylvius
Piccolomini [1405−1464] and his followers considered them simply as Slavic (Dini 2010:
50−144, 2014a: 23−30), on the other hand, the so-called Philoglotts (Conradus Gessnerus
[1516−1565], Angelo Rocca [1545−1620], Hieronymus Megiser [1554/5−1619]) and
many others up to the time of Lorenzo Hervás y Panduro [1735−1809] assigned them to
the Illyrian group of languages (Dini 1997, 2010: 571−618, 2014a: 31−44).
With the advent of Indo-European comparative linguistics, the main question was
whether there existed a Balto-Slavic proto-language and how to understand it (Lötzsch
1986, 1990; Petit 2004). During the last two centuries, as a consequence of the different
interpretations and evaluation of the linguistic facts, some explanatory models have been
proposed. The best known are those of Schleicher (1861), Meillet (1908), Rozwadowski
(1912), Endzelīns (1952), Ivanov and Toporov (1961), and Schmid (1978). Details are
available in the histories of the question (Safarewicz 1945; Szemerényi 1948; Toporov
1958ab, 1962; Bogoljubova and Jakubaitis 1959; Meriggi 1965; Karaliūnas 1968; Dini
2014b: 204−216), in the huge number of specific contributions on this subject (e.g.
Endzelīns 1911; Brückner 1914; Otrębski 1949, 1954; Gornung 1959; Devoto 1962:
352−359; Shevelov 1964: 613−614; Birnbaum 1970, 1975: 223−228 and 315−338;
Schmid 1976a; Martynov 1982; Trubačëv 1982; Birnbaum and Merrill 1983: 61−64;
Inoue 1986; Schenker 1995: 70 f.; Hock 2004, 2005, 2006; Anikin 2014), and in special-
ized bibliographies (e.g. Szemerényi 1957; Hood 1967; Zav’jalova and Civ’jan 2014).
2. The Balto-Slavic-Germanic context

Several common features of Baltic, Slavic, and Germanic had already been observed by
the Neogrammarians (Jacob Grimm, August Leskien, Johann Caspar Zeuss, and August
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-039

Authenticated
118. The lexicon of Balto-Slavic 2013
Schleicher). In nominal morphology, the best known are the -m- ending for Dat. and
Instr. pl. (Lith. vilk-áms [< OLith. -amus] ~ OSl. vlьk-omъ ~ Goth. wulf-am ‘to wolves’;
for further development cf. Schmalstieg 2003) or the creation of a double flexion of
adjectives and the formation of the numerals (‘1000’: OP tūsimtons, Lith. tūkstantis, Lat.
tūkstotis ~ Goth. Þūsundi ~ OSl. tysęšta or tysǫšta; ‘11’ and ‘12’: Lith. vienúo-lika, dvý-
lika ~ Goth. ain-lif, twa-lif). After a relatively long period of unpopularity as a result of
Hirt’s (1892) negative criticism and by the importance given to von Bradke’s centum vs.
satem criterion, the idea of a close Baltic-Slavic-Germanic (and also only Baltic-German-
ic) relationship has recently regained importance (Schmid 1986). On the weight of hy-
dronymy for the Balto-Slavic-Germanic question cf. Udolph (2005a, 2005b). Some well-
known examples of Balto-Slavic-Germanic lexical correspondences are the following:
− ‘beer’ − Blt.: OP [E 392 ‘Mete’] Alu, Lith. alùs ‘beer’, Latv. alus ≈ Sl.: OCS olъ,
Russ. dial. olovina ‘mead’ ≈ Germ.: OIc. ol ‘beer’, Engl. ale (cf. LEW 8 f., LEV I:
68).
− ‘friend’ − Blt.: Lith. draũgas ‘friend’, Latv. draugs ≈ Sl.: OCS drugъ, ORuss. družina
‘army’ ≈ Germ.: Goth. ga-draúhts ‘soldier’, OIc. drótt ‘army’ (cf. BSW 59, LEW
102, ÈSRJa I: 543, GED 94).
− ‘rye’ − Blt.: OP [E 258 ‘Rocke’] rugis, Lith. rugys ‘rye’ ≈ Sl.: Russ. rožь ~ Germ.:
OHG roggo (cf. BSW 246, LEW 745 f., ÈSRJa III: 493 f.).
− ‘bread’ − Blt.: Lith. kliẽpas ‘loaf of bread’, Latv. klaips ≈ Sl.: OCS chlěbъ, Russ.
chleb, Pol. chleb ≈ Germ.: Goth. hlaifs, OIc. hleifr (cf. LEW 271, ÈSRJa IV: 241 f.;
Otkupščikov 1973; differently in GED 186).
− ‘govern, rule’ − Blt.: Lith. valdýti, Latv. valdīt ≈ Sl.: OCS vladǫ / vlasti ≈ Germ.:
Goth. waldan ‘rule a household’ (cf. BSW 340, LEW 1188 f., ÈSRJa I: 344).
There are a number of studies, especially of the Balto-Slavic-Germanic lexicon. Stang
(1972) compiled 68 Baltic-Slavic-Germanic lexical isoglosses. Nepokupnij (1989) limit-
ed the exclusive isoglosses to 25. Both Nepokupnij and Stang studied groups of words
in specific semantic fields and hypothesized that they emerged at a time when the ances-
tors of Balts, Slavs, and Germanic peoples lived close to each other and the differences
among their languages were of a dialectal nature. According to Mažiulis (1994), close
ethnic contacts between Balts, Slavs, and Germanic peoples existed probably even in the
3 rd millennium BCE, when they divided into two groups: the first (allegedly, Balto-
Slavs) moved to the northeast, and the second (Germanic peoples) to the northwest.
3. Balto-Slavic lexical isoglosses

The affinity between Baltic and Slavic has always been most evident in the lexicon. The
lexical relationships between Lithuanian and Slavic were noticed already during the
epoch of linguistic Palaeocomparativism, and also at the beginning of Indo-European
Comparative Linguistics. The lexical aspect has been the most frequently adopted criteri-
on to determine the possibility of an intermediate Balto-Slavic proto-language (cf. Brück-
ner 1914). Endzelīns (1911: 192−200) emphasized especially the importance of the lexi-
con. Interestingly enough, the similarities in the lexicon have been recognized even by
scholars (e. g. Machek 1934 or Trubačëv 1966) who were not inclined to accept a Balto-

Authenticated
Slavic subgroup. The lexicon is, however, notoriously unreliable in supporting kinship
relations (cf. Toporov 1962: 15) although Mańczak (1990) thinks differently, and Polja-
kov (1995: 30) partially agrees with him.
In considering Balto-Slavic lexical correspondences, the adequacy of the proposed
comparisons is of prime importance. Those correspondences which can effectively be
traced back to the Balto-Slavic lexicon are innovations from the prehistoric epoch, com-
mon to the two language groups. However, the number of lexical isoglosses increased
significantly in the historical period, so for a preliminary diachronic definition at least
three important features must be considered: (i) the action of the Baltic substratum on
Slavic territory; (ii) the historical connection of the territory of the Grand Duchy of
Lithuania with a large portion of Ukrainian, Russian, as well as Polish lands, which
promoted extended contacts with pagan Lithuanian tribes; (iii) the reciprocal influence
among neighboring peoples in border areas which produced typical border Baltisms
distributed in a clearly defined area and exhibiting specific formal characteristics.
In the present instance, however, only the common Baltic and Slavic innovations
preceding the historical period must be considered. From this perspective, we can count
over 1,000 words whose form and meaning is very close and no fewer than 200 common
lemmas (cf. Sławski 1970; Sabaliauskas 1990).
3.1. Specimina
The Balto-Slavic lexical stock, as established through a comparison of the vocabularies

of both Baltic and Slavic languages, is often not exclusive. It has been determined that
the words do not necessarily all belong to the same period. The Balto-Slavic lexical
stock has been divided into some primary semantic fields (e.g. Sabaliauskas 1990: 112−
141). Here are several examples (cf. Dini 2014b: 216−220) with a brief commentary:
1. Body parts
− ‘head’ − Blt.: Lith. galvà, Latv. galva, OP [E 68 ‘Houpt’] Galwo ≈ Sl.: OCS glava,
Russ. golova, Pol. głowa, Bulg. glava. A connection with Arm. glux ‘head’ (<
*gholu-kho-) has been proposed. The Balto-Slavic words are perhaps related to
*gal- ‘naked’ (cf. BSW 77, LEW 131 f., ÈSRJa I: 424, LEV I: 284 f.).
− ‘hand and arm’ − Blt.: Lith. rankà, Latv. roka, OP [Gr 21 ‘handt’] Rancko ≈ Sl.:
OCS rǫka, Russ. ruka, Pol. ręka, Bulg. rъka; cf. Koleva-Zlateva (1994). Other
explanations have been proposed (cf. BSW 237, LEW 697, ÈSRJa III: 515, LEV
II: 128 f.).
− ‘palm of the hand’ − Blt.: Lith. délnas, Latv. delna ≈ Sl.: OCS dlanь, Russ. ladónь
(< dolonь), Bruss. dalònь, Ukr. dalónja, Pol. dłoń, Bulg. dlan. A connection within
the Indo-European languages has been proposed (cf. BSW 51, LEW 87 f., ÈSRJa
II: 448, LEV I: 208).
− ‘finger’ − Blt.: Lith. pirštas, Latv. pirksts and pirsts, OP [E 115 ‘Vinger’] Pirsten
≈ Sl.: OCS prьstъ, Russ. perst, Ukr. perst; Pol. parst, Cz. and Slovak prst, Upper
Sorb. porst; SCr. pȑst, Slov. pȓst, Bulg. prъst. There may be a formal connection
with OInd. pṛṣṭhám ‘peak’, Avestan paršta- ‘back’ (cf. BSW 220, LEW 598,
ÈSRJa III: 244, LEV II: 54; Machek 1934: 58−65).

Authenticated
2. Kinship terms
− ‘uncle’ − Blt.: Lith. strùjus ‘uncle; old fellow’ ≈ Sl.: ORuss. strъi ‘uncle’, Russ.
stroj, Pol. stryj, Bulg. striko. A connection with OIrish sruith ‘elder, venerable
person’ has been proposed (cf. BSW 290, LEW 926, ÈSRJa III: 780).
− ‘son-in-law’ − Blt.: Lith. žéntas, Latv. znots ≈ Sl.: OCS zętь ‘bridegroom’, Russ.
zjatь ‘son-in-law’, Pol. zięć, Bulg. zet. The word is further related to Lat. nōtus
‘known’, Gr. γνωτός ‘relative’, and OInd. jñātíḥ (cf. BSW 370, LEW 1301, ÈSRJa
II: 112, LEV II: 566).
3. Fauna
− ‘crow’ − Blt.: Lith. várna, Latv. varna, OP [E 722 ‘Kro’] Warne ≈ Sl.: OCS vrana,
Russ. voróna, Pol. wrona, Cz. vrána, Bulg. vranъ. A comparison with Toch. B
wrauña ‘crow’ has been proposed (cf. BSW 343, LEW 1201, ÈSRJa I: 353, LEV
II: 489).
− ‘horn’ − Blt.: Lith. rãgas, Latv. rags, OP [E 705 ‘Horn’] Ragis ≈ Sl.: OCS rogъ,
Russ. rog, Ukr. rig, Bruss. rog, Pol. rog, Cz. and Slovak roh; Upper Sorb. roh,
Lower Sorb. rog; SCr. rôg, Slov. rôg, Bulg. rog (cf. BSW 235, LEW 684, ÈSRJa
III: 489, LEV II: 99).
4. Flora
− ‘berry’ − Blt.: Lith. úoga, Latv. oga ≈ Sl.: OCS agoda ‘fruit’, Russ. jagoda ‘berry’,
Pol. jagoda. Connections with other languages, e.g. Goth. akran ‘fruit’, Welsh
aeron ‘id.’ (cf. BSW 202, LEW 1165, ÈSRJa V: 545 f., LEV I: 634).
− ‘lime’ − Blt.: Lith. líepa, Latv. liepa, OP [E 601 ‘Linde’] Lipe and place names
Leypein, Leypiten ≈ Sl.: Russ. lipa; Pol. lipa, Bulg. lipa. There is a dubious parallel
with Welsh llwyf ‘lime’ (cf. BSW 155, LEW 366, ÈSRJa II: 499, LEV I: 525 f.).
5. Natural objects and phenomena

− ‘lake’ − Blt.: Lith. ežeras (dial. ažeras), Latv. ezers, OP [E 60 ‘See’] Aſſaran,
(?Selonian) lake-name Zarasas ≈ Sl.: OCS jezero and jezerъ, Russ. ozero, Ukr.
ozero, Bruss. vozera; Pol. jezioro, Cz. jezero, Slovak jazero, Upper Sorb. jezor,
Lower Sorb. jazor; SCr. jȅzero, Slov. jêzer(o), Bulg. ezero. There are dubious paral-
lels with Lat. Egeria, Illyrian Οσεριάτες, and with Gr. Ἀχέρων (cf. BSW 73, LEW
125, ÈSRJa III: 125, LEV II: 274; Hamp 1998; further discussion in Andersen
1996).
− ‘ice’ − Blt.: Lith. lẽdas, Latv. ledus, OP [E 56 ‘Js’] Ladis ≈ Sl.: OCS ledъ, Russ.
lëd, Pol. lód, Bulg. led. Connections with OIrish ladg ‘snow’, Gr. λίθος ‘stone’
have been proposed (cf. BSW 154, LEW 350, ÈSRJa II: 474, LEV I: 512).
6. Activities and conditions

− ‘hunger’ − Blt.: Lith. álkti, Latv. alkt, OP [III 87,2 ‘Nuͤchtern’] Alkīns ≈ Sl.: OCS
alkati, alъkati, and lakati ‘hunger; desire’, Russ. lakatь, Pol. łaknąć, Cz. lákati
‘attract, fascinate’. Connections with OHG ilgi ‘hunger’, OIrish elc ‘mischievous,
bad’ have been proposed (cf. BSW 6 f., LEW 8, ÈSRJa II: 452, LEV I: 67).

Authenticated
− ‘plunge’ − Blt.: Lith. nérti and nìrti, Latv. nirt ≈ Sl.: OCS vъnrĕti, Russ. nyrját’,
Bulg. nirna, SCr. ponirati ‘flow underground’ (cf. BSW 156 f., LEW 495, ÈSRJa
III: 91 f., LEV I: 629).
− ‘sleep’ − Blt.: Lith. miẽgas ‘sleep’ and miegóti ‘to sleep’ (< *‘to close the eyes’),
Latv. miegs, OP [III 101,12 ‘Schlaff’] maiggun ≈ Sl.: Russ. mig ‘blink (of an eye);
instant’ and migat’ ‘blink; wink’, Pol. mig, Bulg. mig (cf. BSW 174, LEW 447,
ÈSRJa II: 618, LEV I: 589).
7. Instruments et alia
− ‘hammer’ − Blt.: Lith. kū̃jis, Latv. kūja ‘stick’, OP [E 518 ‘Hamer’] Cugis ≈ Sl.:
ORuss. kyjĭ; Russ. kij, Pol. kij, Bulg. kijak ‘weight’ (cf. BSW 123, LEW 232,
ÈSRJa II: 231, LEV I: 435).
− ‘butt’ − Blt.: Lith. péntis ‘butt (of an axe)’, Latv. pietis ‘heel’, OP [E 147 ‘Ver∫e’]
Pentis ≈ Sl.: OCS pęta; Russ. pjatá, Pol. pięta, Bulg. peta (cf. BSW 214, LEW
571, ÈSRJa III: 424).
4. Old and new Balto-Slavic dictionaries

The classical collection of the Balto-Slavic lexical correspondences is the dictionary of
Trautmann (= BSW). This work reflects the neogrammarian approach to this topic and
shows the imprint of the time when it was created, both from the point of view of the
material collected and the theoretical principles behind it. It is clear that a deeper analysis
of the material would dictate changes in the selection of many of the isoglosses included
there. According to Sławski (1970), the 888 words contained in this dictionary are to be
analyzed as follows: 30 % (265 words) belong to the old Indo-European lexical stratum;
37.5 % (334 words) are characteristic only of the Baltic and Slavic languages; 32.5 %
(289 words) are Balto-Slavic innovations.
Inoue (1986, 1989) investigated Trautmann’s dictionary statistically and divided the
correspondences into two main types based on the notions of “divergence” and “conver-
gence”; since, sharing the highest degree of commonality, the latter type is more likely
to represent Balto-Slavic lexemes.
Since Trautmann’s pioneering work (originally printed in 1923, reprinted in 1970),
lexicographic investigation in the field of both Baltic and Slavic languages has made
considerable progress. Monumental works like the Latviešu valodas vārdnīca (Dictionary
of the Latvian language, 6 vols., 1923−1932) or the academic Lietuvių kalbos žodynas
(Dictionary of the Lithuanian language, 20 vols., 1941−2002) have been finally complet-
ed. The lexicographic project of a Proto-Slavic dictionary (cf. Sławski 1974−; Trubačëv
1974−1999) has been equally important. Many etymological dictionaries of individual
Baltic languages have been published (Lithuanian, cf. Fraenkel 1962−1965; Smoczyński
2007; Latvian, cf. Karulis 1992; Old Prussian, cf. Toporov 1975−1990; Mažiulis 1989−
1997) and Slavic (Russian, cf. Vasmer 1953−1958; Czech and Slovak, cf. Machek 1957;
Slovene, cf. Bezlaj 1976−1995; Sorbian, cf. Schuster-Šewc 1978−1989; Croatian, cf.
Skok 1971−1972).
All these works have produced a huge harvest of new lexical entries and have led
to new interpretations of known facts. Many contributions dealing with specific word

Authenticated
correspondences between Baltic and Slavic have been published in the last century; they
cover many different aspects of the investigation in this field and deal both with dialec-
tology and with onomastic (especially hydronymic) issues (cf. Udolph 1990 and 2005a,
2005b with further bibliography).
The Baltisms of the Slavic languages have also been intensively investigated by Lau-
čiūtė (1982). According to Laučiūtė (1985), one can classify the Baltisms of the Slavic
languages as follows: (i) forms which were borrowed directly into Slavic from the Baltic
languages; (ii) forms of Baltic origin which entered into Slavic as indirect borrowings
through other languages (e.g. through Finnic into Northeastern Slavic); (iii) forms of
non-Baltic origin which entered into Slavic through Baltic languages.
Utilizing the lexicostatistical method, Zeps (1984) explained Slavic as a West Baltic
dialect; therefore he questioned the label “Baltic” and proposed that what was traditional-
ly called Baltic, Slavic, and Balto-Slavic should “evolve an alternative nomenclature”.
Smoczyński (1986) showed how one could revise Trautmann’s dictionary and offered
as well several theoretical principles overlooked by Trautmann: a) the entries should be
limited only to common innovations; b) the reconstruction of Balto-Slavic should always
rely on the comparison between the historic forms of the languages of the two groups;
c) any lexeme suspected of being borrowed should be eliminated; d) the lexical corre-
spondences of Balto-Slavic are not always absolute, with frequent oscillations in the root
vocalism and in the suffixes; it would, therefore, be useful in certain cases to reconstruct
two equivalent protoforms (which Trautmann systematically avoided). Applying these
principles, Smoczyński corrected many of Trautmann’s doubtful correspondences. Al-
though this work was conceived of as a sketch (on the same topic also, cf. Smoczyński
1989, 2003), its methodological value is important since priority has been given to inter-
nal reconstruction within the two different groups prior to making a comparison of them.
In this context, Anikin’s (1998) work must be mentioned. The author has analyzed
about one thousand(!) lemmata from *A to *G. His aim has been to collect systematically
the currently established Balto-Slavic lexical correspondences. Therefore, he used mate-
rial from dictionaries of both Baltic and Slavic languages, and of Proto-Slavic. He rightly
laments that a Proto-Baltic dictionary does not yet exist (there have only been incomplete
attempts, cf. Steinbergs 1996−1997; Lanszweert 1984). Anikin is a scholar who is truly
capable of revising Trautmann’s classical book at a higher level and according to updated
theories. He is working intensively in this field, as one can see from his recent dictionary
of Balticisms in the Russian language (Anikin 2003, 2005).
5. An areal approach
The analysis of lexical correspondences may unite various data chronologically, for ex-
ample, the reflexes of Indo-European words and Balto-Slavic innovations. In reality, it
is not easy to distinguish borrowings, parallel developments, and common innovations.
In the last case, specific Northern, Southern, and kindred Balto-Slavic lexical isoglosses
are particularly interesting, since a list of these is never complete and is always open to
additional corrections as research in the area of dialectology develops. Details of the
areal distribution differ from case to case and no strict criteria exist for adequately
determining the greater or lesser degree of diffusion of specific forms within the Balto-

Authenticated
Slavic area. This type of research, directed toward the identification of isoglosses con-
necting the Baltic languages with a particular group of Slavic languages, and vice versa,
began in the 1960s and has continued to develop until the present. This research is a
part of the more general problems of linguistic relationships in the so-called Ponto-Baltic
region (i.e. the area between the Baltic and the Black seas, cf. Dini 2014b: 238−245).
These proposals, examining the special relations of Baltic with North Slavic and with
South Slavic languages independently are, admittedly, open to further development and
refinement. The systematic study of Russian dialects on the one hand and of the dialects
of South Slavic languages on the other should produce new material necessary for the
elaboration of the linguistic aspect of the problem.
Another direction in Balto-Slavic research is developing around the ideas of W. P.
Schmid (1992, 1993), whose aim is to clarify the prehistoric spatio-temporal differences
in specific dialectal areas.
5.1. Baltic and North Slavic
Nepokupnij’s research (1964 and 1976) relative to a group of lexical isoglosses connect-
ing Baltic and North Slavic (severnoslavjanskij) is very instructive. Nepokupnij has iden-
tified three types of lexical and semantic isoglosses: those common for the two areas as
a whole and those which connect North Slavic (i.e., West and East Slavic languages)
either with West Baltic or with East Baltic. He relies on the fact that Baltic as a whole
has features common to all the Slavic languages in the inherited Indo-European lexicon,
while common borrowings are limited to North Slavic alone. Special attention is devoted
to certain specific lexical fields (fauna, flora, names of mountains, birds, fish, body
parts), material which was collected according to dialect and often analyzed with new
and original conclusions which clarify many details. Widely used were the Balto-Slavic
lexical data of Polessia which enriched the Trautmann inventory. According to Nepoku-
pnij, the most important evidence of contacts between Baltic and North Slavic are the
extant onomastic data in the Jatvingian settlements in the Carpathian region and the
traces of dialectal separation among the Eastern Balts found in the lower course of the
Berezina. Nepokupnij concludes that the contribution of the Baltic languages to the
North Slavic lexicon was larger than commonly thought. The southern border of distribu-
tion of toponyms from Baltic anthroponyms also should be relocated from Belorussia to
Ukraine, the explanation of which is probably connected with the politico-administrative
division of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
The specific concordances between East Baltic and Slavic have been investigated by
Reķēna (1975), between Baltic and East-Slavic, particularly with Russian, by Anikin
(1995, 2003, 2005).
5.2. Baltic and South Slavic

Bezlaj (1966−1968, 1974, 1977, 1981), Boryś (1992) and Nepokupnij (2000) have inves-
tigated the specific lexical isoglosses connecting the Baltic and South Slavic languages.
Bezlaj has paid special attention to Slovenian data for comparing Slavic languages with

Authenticated
each other and with Baltic. Bezlaj cites an impressive series of examples which would
serve for a more systematic study of the question than the present stage of irregular
comparisons of isolated South Slavic dialectal forms with forms corresponding in struc-
ture and meaning to those of Baltic.
Bezlaj looks at the complicated etymological relations between Slavic and Baltic,
which he eloquently labels as Sprachmischung ‘language mixture’ (but without provid-
ing a more specific theoretical definition of this phenomenon). Boryś’s research in this
area is concerned with the lexical relations between the Baltic vocabulary and the folk
vocabulary of South Slavic languages, which contains occasional archaic forms. Thus,
as a result of analyzing extensive South Slavic material, an exclusive comparison of
adjectives is proposed, e.g. Slovenian végrast ‘oscillating, irregular’, the hydronym
Vjagr, attested in Ukrainian (Polish Wiar), Lith. vingrùs ‘winding’, and Latv. viñgrs
‘elastic; agile, quick’; or a comparison of two such forms extending over limited territo-
ries, thus, e.g., SCr. dial. jȅža ‘flower bed’ and Slov. dial. jéža ‘boundary (between a
field and road)’ can be compared, on the one hand, with Lith. ežià ‘boundary’ and, on
the other, with Latv. eža ‘flower bed’, all of which in his opinion derive from a recon-
structed Balto-Slavic agricultural term *eža.
Baltic and South Slavic relationships have also been investigated by Duridanov (1969,
1970, 1971, 2006) who puts the accent primarily on the concordances with Bulgarian,
e.g. Bulg. bъrna ‘mouth’ and Lith. burnà ‘id.’, Bulg. gragor ‘gravel (of a river)’ and
Lith. gargždas ‘gravel’, Bulg. brъkam and bъrkam ‘shove (the hand)’, SCr. brknuti
‘grasp’ and Lith. brùkti ‘poke, shove’, Latv. brukt ‘wipe off’.
Also the comparative study of folkloristic and mythological traditions (cf. Mikhailov
1996) permit the establishment of interesting parallels between Baltic and South Slavic.
6. A thematic approach
A different way of studying Balto-Slavic lexical relations is based on their classification
by thematic criteria correlated with their areal distribution.
The importance of the thematic approach was already mentioned by Endzelīns (1911:
199) who emphasized among other points the large number of concordances in the names
of body parts. Such an approach is presented in the works of Trubačëv (1966), Nepoku-
pnij (1976), Otkupščikov (1971, 1986, 1989, 1993), Laučiūtė (1980, 1985) and Sędzik
(1995, 2002). Here one is concerned with concrete semantic spheres (e.g. the terminolo-
gy for handicrafts, agricultural tools, animal husbandry, and the like). The advantage
here is the study of more or less complete lexical subsystems and not just casual and
isolated examples related to various lexical strata.
Moreover, the analysis of circumscribed lexical phenomena brings together facts
which show the varied areal distribution of the items in the semantic sphere under study.
Two case-studies will illustrate this approach.
(i) Affecting the entire area of the Slavic languages and the entire area of the Baltic
languages: All the Slavic languages preserve the reflex of Indo-European names for
‘domestic pig’. Cf. Russ. svinьja (< *su̯-īn-) and Russ. (regional) porosja ‘piglet’
(< *porsę); similar differing terms also occur in Baltic but are distinguished by area,

Authenticated
cf. Lith. paršas, OP [E 686 ‘Ferkel’] Prastian (corrected to *parstian) compared

with OP [E 682 ‘Swin’] Swintian, Latv. sivēns, suvēns ‘pig’.
(ii) Affecting only a part of the area of the Slavic languages or only a part of the Baltic
languages: Thus the Indo-European name for ‘tooth’ in all the Slavic languages
derives from Slavic *zǫbъ which has correspondences in the other Indo-European
languages and also in Latv. zobs ‘tooth’. The Lith. cognate žambas ‘sharp edge,
corner’ also has other correspondences in the Indo-European languages. The forms
Lith. dantìs ‘tooth’ and OP [E 92 ‘Czan’] Dantis, however, do not have correspon-
dences in Latvian, but evidence of a probable cognate is encountered in Proto-Slavic
*dęsn-, cf. ORuss. djasna ‘gum’, Russ. desná, Pol. dziąsło, Cz. dáseň, Scr. desna,
Slov. dlésna (ÈSRJa I: 506).
7. Onomastics
It is well known that the territory on which one can trace Baltic (especially hydronymic)
elements was considerably larger than that inhabited by the Balts during historical times
(for general information, cf. Dini 2014b: 46−61 with further bibliography). Therefore
one could expect that a Balto-Slavic stage would have left important onomastic traces.
On the contrary, the investigations in this sector have not confirmed this expectation.
Neither has the study of the hydronyms of the individual Slavic and Baltic languages,
nor the analysis of the most ancient pre-Slavic stratum in Poland (cf. Schmid 1976ab,
1978; Vanagas 1983; Udolph 1990). Onomastic evidence (hydronymy and toponymy)
speaks against the existence of a Balto-Slavic subgroup.
8. Phraseology
Some correspondences of textual fragments (phraseologisms) have also been identified
in the (East) Baltic and Slavic languages (Eckert 1991, 1993). Some areas have proven
particularly fruitful for phraseological research, such as:
a) Dialectal and folkloric language (poetry), e.g. ‘berry and girl’. This phraseologism
occurs in Eastern Slavic expressions: Ukr. Divka, jak jagidka ‘a girl like a berry’,
Bruss. Njavestka, jak jagatka u lese ‘the bride like a forest berry’, cf. Russ. jagodka
‘berry’ a sobriquet for a girl; an analogous use is found in Lith. (kaip uoga ‘very
beautiful’, literally ‘like a berry’, or in folk songs: aš mergelė kaip uogelė ‘I am a
girl like a berry’).
b) Technical language concerning the fabrication of beverages, e.g. ‘sweet drink and
bitter drink’. This phraseologism occurs in formulaic expressions like OSl. *medъ
olъ ‘mead beer’ ≈ olъ medъ (also *medovina olovina) and Lith. alùs medùs ‘beer
honey’, alùs midùs ‘beer mead’; Latv. alus medus ‘beer honey’.
c) Technical language of apiculture, e.g. ‘to place a beehive’. This phraseologism occurs
with exact genetic correspondence of the lexical components in Latv. dēt dori and in
Polish dziać drzewo.

Authenticated
9. Final remarks
The evidence encountered in the Balto-Slavic lexical correspondences cannot of course
offer any definitive answer to the Balto-Slavic question. Nevertheless, it is also clear
that in certain cases the Baltic data may be satisfactorily explained without the help of
the Slavic languages, but the contrary is not true. This conclusion seems to be valid both
for common and proper nouns. Note the following examples:
(i) Lith. rankà ‘hand ~ arm’ is derived from the verb riñkti ‘gather, collect’ (rankioti,
intensive), cf. also Latv. roka ‘hand ~ arm’ and OPr. ſen-rīnka [III 45,16 ſamlet
‘collects’], whereas Russ. rukà and its Slavic cognates cannot be directly derived
from any Slavic verbs (cf. Bernštejn 1961; Safarewicz 1976);
(ii) the river-name Laukesà in Lithuania (Laucesa in Latvia) is certainly derived from
Lith. laũkas ‘open air, field’ (cf. Vanagas 1981: 183), but the Slavic cognate Lučesa
in Russia cannot be explained on the basis of Slavic data.
In many cases, the Baltic data may be explained by means of internal reconstruction but
such internal reconstruction is sometimes not possible for the Slavic languages. This
situation suggests that the Slavic term can be derived from the Baltic but not vice-versa;
i.e., the Baltic data may be directly derived from Indo-European, but the Slavic data
require an intermediate stage. The investigation of the lexicon confirms the Balto-Slavic
model of a (very probably “baltoid”) dialectal continuum advocated primarily by Topo-
rov and Ivanov.
10. References
Andersen, Henning
1996 Reconstructing Prehistorical Dialects. Initial Vowels in Slavic and Baltic. Berlin: De
Gruyter.
Anikin, Aleksandr E.
1995 Iz slavjansko-vostočnobaltijskich leksičeskich parallelej [Some Slavic-East Baltic lexical
parallels]. Slavia 64: 289−296.
1998 Ètimologija i balto-slavjanskoe leksičeskoe sravnenie v praslavjanskoj leksikografii. Ma-
terialy dlja balto-slavjanskogo slovarja. Vyp. 1. (*a- − *go-) [Etymology and Balto-
Slavic lexical comparison in Proto-Slavic lexicography. Materials for a Balto-Slavic
dictionary]. Novosibirsk: Sibirskij chronograf.
2003 Iz baltijskogo vklada v russkich govorach [On the Baltic contribution to Russian dia-
lects]. Novosibirsk: Sibirskij chronograf.
2005 Opyt slovarja leksičeskich baltizmov v russkom jazyke [An attempt at a dictionary of
lexical Baltisms in the Russian language]. Novosibirsk: Sibirskij chronograf.
2014 O diskussii V. N. Toporova s O. N. Trubačevym po balto-slavjanskoj problematike [On
the discussion between V. N. Toporov and O. N. Trubačev concerning the Balto-Slavic
problem]. In: Civ’jan, Judžentis, and Zav’jalova (eds.), 60−71.

Authenticated
Beck, Heinrich, Dieter Geuenich, Rosemarie Müller, and Heiko Steuer (eds.)
2005 Reallexicon der germanischen Altertumskunde, begrundet von Johannes Hoops. Zweite
Auflage. Bd. 29. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Bernštejn, Samuil B.
1961 Očerk sravnitel’noj grammatiki slavjanskich jazykov. Čast I [A sketch of the compara-
tive grammar of the Slavic languages. Part I.]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo A.N. SSSR.
Bezlaj, France
1966−1968 Einige slovenische und baltische lexikalische Parallelen. Linguistica 8: 63−81.
Bezlaj, France
1974 Spuren der baltoslawischen Wortmischung. Baltistica 10: 21−30.
Bezlaj, France
1976−1995 Etimološki slovar slovenskega jezika [Etymological dictionary of the Slovenian
language]. 3 vols. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti.
Bezlaj, France
1977 Slovensko-baltijskie leksičeskie paralleli [Slovenian-Baltic lexical parallels]. Baltistica
2: 15−19.
Bezlaj, France
1981 Sloveno-Baltica. Jezik in Slovstvo 2: 51−53.
Birnbaum, Henrik
1970 Four Approaches to Balto-Slavic. In: Rūķe-Draviņa (ed.), 69−76.
Birnbaum, Henrik
1975 Common Slavic. Progress and Problems in its Reconstruction. Columbus, OH: Slavica
[Reprint 1979].
Birnbaum, Henrik and Peter T. Merrill
1983 Recent Advances in the Reconstruction of Common Slavic (1971−1982). Columbus, OH:
Slavica.
Bogoljubova, Nina D. and Tamara A. Jakubaitis
1959 Istorija razrabotki voprosa o balto-slavjanskich jazykovych otnošenijach [The history of
the study of Balto-Slavic linguistic relationships]. In: Sokols et al. (eds.), 331−375.
Boryś, Wiesław
1992 Zu den südslavisch-baltischen lexikalischen Verknüpfungen. Linguistica Baltica 1: 193−
200.
Brückner, Aleksandr
1914 Die lituslavische Spracheinheit. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 46: 217−
239.
BSW: See Trautmann
Civ’jan Tatjana, Marija Zav’jalova, and Artūas Judžntis (eds.)
2014 Baltai ir slavai: dvasinių kultūų sankirtos [Balts and Slavs: intersections of spiritual
culture]. Vilnius: Versmė.
Devoto, Giacomo
1962 Origini indeuropee. Florence: Sansoni.
DI = Jānis Endzelīns
1994 Darbu izlase [Collected Works]. 3 vols. Riga: Zinātne.
Dini, Pietro U.
1997 Der Werdegang der Auffassung über die baltischen Sprachdomäne bei Lorenzo Hervás
y Panduro. Ein Beitrag zur Historiographie der baltischen Linguistik. Indogermanische
Dini, Pietro U.
2010 Aliletoescvr. Linguistica baltica delle origini. Teorie e contesti linguistici nel Cinquecen-
to. Livorno: Books & Company.

Authenticated
Dini, Pietro U.
2014a Prelude to Baltic Linguistics: Earliest theories about Baltic languages (16th century).
Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Dini, Pietro U.
2014b Foundations of Baltic languages. Vilnius: Eugrimas.
Duridanov, Ivan
1969 Thrakisch-dakische Studien. Erster Teil: die thrakisch- und dakisch-baltischen Sprach-
beziehungen. Sofia: Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Duridanov, Ivan
1970 Baltico-bulgarica. In: Rūķe-Draviņa (ed.), 107−109.
Duridanov, Ivan
1971 Südslaw. *brъkati, *brъknąti und seine baltischen Entsprechungen. Baltistica 7: 49−51.
Duridanov, Ivan
2006 Baltisch-südslawische lexikalische Parallelen. In: Laimutis Bilkis, Alma Ragauskaitė,
and Daiva Sinevičiūtė (eds.), Baltų onomastikos tyrimai [Baltic onomastic studies]. Vil-
nius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 145−149.
Eckert, Rainer
1989 Forschungsansätze zur Erhellung der baltisch-slawischen Sprachbeziehungen am Materi-
al der Lexik und Phraseologie. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 34: 560−569.
Eckert, Rainer
1991 Studien zur historischen Phraseologie der slawischen Sprachen (unter Berücksichtigung
des Baltischen). (Slavistische Beiträge 281). Munich: Sagner.
Eckert, Rainer
1993 Slawisch-baltische Phrasementsprechungen in der Sprache der Folklore. In: Karl
Gutschmidt, Helmut Keipert, and Hans Rothe (eds.), Slavistische Studien zum XI. inter-
nationalen Slavistenkongreß. Cologne: Böhlau, 85−98.
Endzelīns, Jānis
1911 Slavjano-baltijskie ètjudy [Slavo-Baltic studies]. Char’kov: Zil’berberg [= DI II, 338−
345].
Endzelīns, Jānis
1952 Drevnejšie slavjano-baltijskie jazykovye svjazi [The oldest Slavo-Baltic linguistic con-
tacts]. Latvijas Zinātņu Akadēmijas Vēstis [Communications of the Latvian Academy of
Sciences] 3: 33−46 [= DI III 2, 429−445].
ÈSRJa: See Vasmer.
Fraenkel, Ernst
1950 Die baltischen Sprachen. Heidelberg: Winter.
Fraenkel, Ernst
1962−1965 Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 2 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Rup-
recht; Heidelberg: Winter.
GED: See Lehmann.
Gornung, Boris V.
1959 Iz istorii izučenija baltijsko-slavjanskich jazykovych otnošenij [On the history of the
study of Balto-Slavic linguistic relationships]. In: Sokols et al. (eds.), 109−132.
Hamp, Eric P.
1998 Greek Ἀχέρων, Balto-Slavic *eģherǫn. Linguistica Baltica 7: 75−76.
Hirt, Hermann
1892 Die Stellung des Germanischen im Kreise der verwandten Sprachen. Zeitschrift für deut-
sche Philologie 29: 289−305.
Hock, Wolfgang
Hock, Wolfgang
2005 Baltoslavisch. II. Teil: Morphonologie, Stammbildung, Flexion. Kratylos 50: 1−39.

Authenticated
Hock, Wolfgang
1−24.
Hood, Gary A.
1967 A bibliography of works dealing with the relationship between Baltic and Slavic. Litua-
nus 13: 38−46.
Inoue, Toshikazu
1986 Investigations on the lexical correspondences between Baltic and Slavic languages (in
Japanese). Kobe: University Press.
Inoue, Toshikazu
1989 Leksičeskie ‘divergencija’ i ‘konvergencija’ meždu baltijskimi i slavjanskimi jazykami:
statističeskij analiz materialov slovarja R. Trautmana [Lexical ‘divergences’ and ‘con-
vergences’ among the Baltic and Slavic languages: a statistical analysis of the materials
of the dictionary of R. Trautmann]. Baltistica 25: 24−43.
Ivanov, Vjačeslav V. and Vladimir N. Toporov
1961 K postanovke voprosa o drevnejšich otnošenijach baltijskich i slavjanskich jazykov [On
the status of the question concerning the oldest relationships of the Baltic and Slavic
languages]. In: Nikita. I. Tolstoj (ed.), Issledovanija po slavjanskomu jazykoznaniju [In-
vestigations in Slavic linguistics]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo A.N. SSSR, 273−305.
Karaliūnas, Simas
1968 Kai kurie baltų ir slavų kalbų seniausiųjų santykių klausimai [Some questions concern-
ing the oldest relations of the Baltic and Slavic languages]. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai
[Issues in Lithuanian linguistics] 10: 7−187.
1992 Latviešu etimoloģijas vārdnīca [Latvian etymological dictionary]. 2 vols. Rīga: Avots.
Koleva-Zlateva, Živka
1994 Za etimologijata na baltoslavjanskoto nazvanie za ‘răka’ [On the etymology of the Balto-
Slavic word for ‘hand’]. In: Todor Balkanski (ed.), Onomastično i etnolingvistično pros-
transtvo na ezika v čest na prof. N. P. Kovačev [The Onomastic and ethnolinguistic area
of language in honor of Prof. N. P. Kovačev]. Vol. 2. Veliko Tărnovo: Znak, 134−142.
Lanszweert, René
1984 Die Rekonstruktion des baltischen Grundwortschatzes. Frankfurt: Lang.
Laučiūtė, Juratė
1980 Balto-slavjanskie lingvističeskie kontakty v areal’nom osveščenii [Balto-Slavic linguis-
tic contacts from an areal perspective]. In: Melitina A. Borodina (ed.), Vzaimodejstvie
lingvističeskich arealov [The Interaction of linguistic areas]. Leningrad: Nauka, 161−
187.
1982 Slovar’ baltizmov v slavjanskich jazykach [A dictionary of Baltisms in the Slavic lan-
guages]. Leningrad: Nauka.
1985 O metodike issledovanija i interpretacii obščej balto-slavjanskoj leksiki [On the method-
ology of investigation and interpretation of the common Balto-Slavic vocabulary]. In:
Aina Blinkena (ed.), Baltu valodas senāk un tagad [Baltic languages then and now].
Rīga: Zinātne, 25−31.
Lehmann, Winfred P.
1986 A Gothic Etymological Dictionary. Leiden: Brill.
LEV: See Karulis.
LEW: See Fraenkel 1962−1965.
Lötzsch, Ronald
1986 Franz Bopp über das Baltoslawische und dessen Stellung innerhalb der indoeuropäischen
Sprachfamilie. Letopis B 33: 18−22.

Authenticated
Lötzsch, Ronald
1990 Die These von der baltoslawisch-germanischen Spracheinheit in der Geschichte der
Slawistik, Baltistik und Indoeuropäistik. In: Hans-Josef Niederehe and Konrad Koerner
(eds.), History and historiography of linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 737−746.
LSC = Joachim Bekker, Eckhard Eggers, Jürgen Udolph, and Dieter Weber (eds.)
1994 Linguisticae Scientiae Collectanea. Ausgewählte Schriften von Wolfgang P. Schmid an-
läßlich seines 65. Geburtstages. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Machek, Václav
1934 Recherches dans le domaine du lexique balto-slave. Brno: Vydává filosofická fakulta.
Machek, Václav
1957 Etymologický slovník jazyka českého [Etymological dictionary of the Czech language].
Prague: Československé akademie vĕd.
Mańczak, Witołd
1990 La communauté balto-slave a-t-elle existé? Baltistica 26: 29−38.
Martynov, Viktor V.
1982 Baltijskij leksičeskij ingredient praslavjanskogo jazyka [The Baltic lexical component
of the Proto-Slavic language]. Acta Baltico-Slavica 14: 175−187.
Mažiulis, Vytautas
1994 On Balto-Slavic and Germanic ethnogenesis. In: Vytautas Mažiulis (ed.), International
Conference “The Indo-Europeanization of Northern Europe: in memoriam M. Gimbu-
tas”. Vilnius: The University of Vilnius, 20−22.
Mažiulis, Vytautas
1989−1997 Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas [Etymological dictionary of the Prussian lan-
guage]. 4 vols. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.
Meillet, Antoine
1908 Les dialectes indo-européens. Paris: Champion.
Meriggi, Bruno
1965 I rapporti fra le lingue baltiche e le slave e la costituzione di un tipo baltico e uno slavo.
In: Le protolingue. Atti del IV convegno internazionale di linguisti, tenuto a Milano nei
giorno 2−6 settembre 1963. Brescia: Paideia, 57−89.
Mikhailov, Nikolai
1996 Baltico-Slovenica. Alcuni paralleli mitologici. Res Balticae 2: 151−178.
Nepokupnij, Anatolij P.
1964 Areal’nye aspekty balto-slavjanskich jazykovych otnošenij [Areal aspects of Balto-Slavic
linguistic relations]. Kiev: Naukova dumka.
1976 Balto-severnoslavjanskie jazykovye svjazi [Baltic-North Slavic linguistic contacts]. Kiev:
Naukova dumka.
Nepokupnij, Anatolij P. (ed.)
1989 Obščaja leksika germanskich i balto- slavjanskich jazykov [The common lexicon of the
Germanic and Balto-Slavic languages]. Kiev: Naukova dumka.
2000 Serbsko-litovskaja izoglossa lìpār ‘lipnjak’ / Lìpār − Liẽporas i prusskij oronim Lepare
[The Serbian-Lithuanian isogloss lìpār ‘lipnjak’ / Lìpār − Liẽporas and the Prussian
oronym Lepare]. Baltistica 35: 91−101.
1971 Iz istorii balto-slavjanskich leksičeskich otnošenij [On the history of Balto-Slavic lexical
relationships]. Baltistica 7: 119−128.
1973 O drevnem nazvanii chleba v baltijskom, slavjanskom i germanskom [On the old term
for ‘bread’ in Baltic, Slavic, and Germanic]. LPSR Zinatņu Akadēmijas vēstis [Commu-

Authenticated
nications of the Latvian Academy of Sciences] 2(307): 84−89 [= Otkupščikov 2001,

177−184].
1986 O mnimych slavizmach v baltijskich jazykach [On supposed Slavisms in the Baltic
languages]. Balto-slavjanskie issledovanija [Balto-Slavic Investigations] 1984: 89−102
[= Otkupščikov 2001, 184−199].
1989 Balto-slavjanskaja remeslennaja leksika (nazvanija metallov, metallurgija, kuznečnoe
delo) [The Balto-Slavic vocabulary dealing with handicrafts (terms for metals, metallur-
gy, smith-work)]. In: Aleksandr S. Gerd and Gleb S. Lebedev (eds.), Slavjane: Ètnogen-
ez i etničeskaja istorija [Slavs: ethnogenesis and ethnic history]. Leningrad: Izdatelʹstvo
Leningradskogo universiteta, 44−52 [= Otkupščikov 2001, 200−209].
1993 Baltijskie i slavjanskie nazvanija ovcy i barana [Baltic and Slavic designations of the
sheep and ram]. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai [Issues in Lithuanian linguistics] 30: 63−
68 [= Otkupščikov 2001, 209−215].
2001 Očerki po ètimologii [Essays on etymology]. St. Petersburg: Isdatel’stvo Sankt-Peter-
burgskogo universiteta.
Otrębski, Jan
1949 Les mots d’origine commune dans les langues slaves et baltiques. Lingua Posnaniensis
1: 121−151.
Otrębski, Jan
1954 Slavjano-baltijskoe jazykovoe edinstvo [The Slavo-Baltic linguistic unity]. Voprosy Ja-
zykoznanija 5: 27−42; 6: 28−46.
Petit, Daniel
2004 Les langues baltiques et la question balto-slave. Histoire Épistémologie Langage 26: 7−
41.
Poljakov, Oleg
1995 Das Problem der balto-slavischen Sprachgemeinschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
Reķēna, Antoņina
1975 Amatniecības leksika dažās Latgales dienvidu izloksnes un tās sakari ar atbilstošajiem
nosaukumiem slāvu valodās [Craft vocabulary in some southern Latgalian dialects and
its relationship to corresponding terms in the Slavic languages]. Rīgā: Zinātne.
Rozwadowski, Jan
1912 O pierwotnym stosunku wzajemnym języków bałtyckich i słowiańskich [On the original
mutual relationship of the Baltic and Slavic languages]. Rocznik Slawistyczny [Slavic
Yearbook] 5: 1−36.
Rūķe-Draviņa, Velta (ed.)
1970 Donum Balticum. To Professor Christian S. Stang on the occasion of his seventieth
birthday 15 March 1970. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
1990 Lietuvių kalbos leksika [A lexicon of the Lithuanian language]. Vilnius: Mokslas.
Safarewicz, Jan
1945 Przyczynki do zagadnienia wspólnoty bałto-słowiańskiej [Contributions to the problem
of the Balto-Slavic linguistic community]. Sprawozdania Polskiej Akademii Umięjetnoś-
ci [Communications of the Polish Academy of Sciences] 46: 199−205.
Safarewicz, Jan
1961 Ze słownictwa bałto-słowiańskiego (innowacje czasownikowe) [On the lexicon of Balto-
Slavic (innovations in the verbal system)]. Slavia Antiqua 8: 11−24.

Authenticated
Safarewicz, Jan
1976 Archaizm słowotwórczy w języku litewskim [A derivational archaism in Lithuanian].
Rocznik naukowo-dydaktyczny [Yearbook of research and teaching] 5: 55−64.
1995 The Dawn of Slavic. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Schleicher, August
1861 Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Weimar:
Böhlau.
2003 An isogloss uniting Baltic, Slavic, Germanic. In: Alfred Bammesberger and Theo Venne-
mann (eds.), Languages in prehistoric Europe. Heidelberg: Winter, 261−278.
Schmid, Wolfgang P.
1976a Baltoslawische Spracheinheit. In: Heinrich Beck, Dieter Geuenich, Herbert Jankuhn,
Hans Kuhn, Kurt Ranke, Heiko Steuer, and Reinhard Wenskus (eds.). 1968−2007. Real-
lexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde, begrundet von Johannes Hoops. Zweite Au-
flage. Bde. 2, 20−22 [= LSC 211−215].
Schmid, Wolfgang P.
1976b Baltisch und Indogermanisch. Baltistica 12: 115−122.
Schmid, Wolfgang P.
1978 Indogermanische Modelle und osteuropäische Frühgeschichte. Abhandlungen der Geist-
es- und Sozialwissenschaft. Klasse 1, Akademie der Wissenschaft und der Literatur,
Mainz, 3−24 [= LSC 226−247].
Schmid, Wolfgang P.
1986 Bemerkungen zum Werden des ‘Germanischen’. In: Karl Hauck, Karl Kroeschell, Stefan
Sonderegger, Dagmar Hüpper, and Gabriele von Olberg (eds.), Sprache und Recht. Bei-
träge zur Kulturgeschichte des Mittelalters. Festschrift für R. Schmitt-Wiegand zum 60.
Geburtstag. Berlin: De Gruyter, 711−721 [= LSC 347−357].
Schmid, Wolfgang P.
1992 Die Stellung des Baltischen im Kreise der indogermanischen Sprachen. In: Bernd Bar-
schel, Maria Kozianka, and Karin Weber (eds.), Indogermanisch, Slawisch und Baltisch.
Materialien des vom 21.−22. September 1989 in Jena in Zusammenarbeit mit der Indo-
germanischen Gesellschaft durchgeführten Kolloquiums. (Slavistische Beiträge 285.)
Munich: Sagner, 201−222.
Schmid, Wolfgang P.
1993 Zwischen Baltikum und Balkan. Sprachwissenschaftliche Bemerkungen zu einer alten
Grenzzone. Sitzungsberichte der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig
132, 5: 1−19.
Schuster-Šewc, Heinz
1978−1989 Historisch-etymologisches Wörterbuch der ober- und niedersorbischen Sprache.
6 vols. Bautzen: Domowina.
Sędzik, Władysław
1995 On Baltic and Slavic agricultural terminology. In: Wojciech Smoczyński (ed.), Analecta
Indoevropaea cracoviensia Ioannis Safarewicz memoriae dicata. Cracow: Universitas,
365−370.
Sędzik, Władysław
2002 Bałtosłowiańskie nazwy narzędzi [Balto-Slavic names for tools]. In: Jerzy Rusek, Wies-
ław Boryś, and Leszek Bednarczuk (eds.), Dzieje Słowian w świetle leksyki: pamięci
Profesora Franciszka Sławskiego [The history of the Slavs from a lexical perspective:
in memory of Professor Franciszek Sławski]. Cracow: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagi-
ellońskiego, 187−190.
Shevelov, George Y.
1964 A Prehistory of Slavic. The Historical Phonology of Common Slavic. Heidelberg, Winter.

Authenticated
Skok, Petar
1971−1972 Etimologijski rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika [Etymological dictionary of
the Croatian or Serbian language]. 2 vols. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska Akademija znanosti i
umjetnosti.
1970 Lexikalische Neuerungen im Baltisch-Slavischen. In: Rūķe-Draviņa (ed.), 501−506.
Sławski, Franciszek (ed.)
1974− Słownik prasłowiański [A dictionary of Proto-Slavic]. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Polskiej
Akademii Nauk.
1986 Uwagi o słowniku bałtycko-słowiańskim [Remarks on the Balto-Slavic lexicon]. In:
Jadwiga Majowa (ed.), Język i jego odmiany w aspekcie porównawczym [Language and
its varieties in comparative perspective]. (Slavica 53). Wrocław: Ossolineum, 17−45 [=
Smoczyński 2003: 62−84].
1989 Studia bałto-słowiańskie. I. Wrocław: Ossolineum.
2003 Studia bałto-słowiańskie. II. Cracow: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
Smoczyński Wojciech
2007 Słownik etymologiczny języka litewskiego, 2 vols., I (A-Ž), II (Index). Wilno: Uniwersy-
tet Wileński Wydział filologiczny.
Sokols, Ēvalds, K. Graudiņš, E. Šmite, S. Raģe, V. Dambe, D. Zemzare, and M. Saule-Sleine (eds.)
1959 Rakstu krājums veltījums Akadēmiķim Dr. Jānim Endzelīnam viņa 85 dzīves un 65 darba
gadu atcerei [A collection of articles dedicated to the Academician Prof. Dr. Jānis End-
zelīns on his 85th birthday and in honor of 65 years of scholarly work]. Rīga: Latvijas
PSR Zinātņu Akadēmijas izdevniecība.
Stang, Christian S.
1972 Lexikalische Sonderübereinstimmungen zwischen dem Slavischen, Baltischen und Ger-
manischen. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Steinbergs, Aleksandra
1996−1997 The reconstruction of Proto-Baltic body parts. Linguistica Baltica 5−6: 21−31.
Szemerényi, Oswald
1948 L’unité linguistique balto-slave. Études Slaves et Roumaines 1: 65−85, 159−173.
Szemerényi, Oswald
1957 The Problem of Balto-Slavic Unity. A critical Survey. Kratylos 2: 97−123.
1958a Očerk istorii izučenija drevnejšich balto-slavjanskich jazykovych otnošenij [An outline
of the history of scholarship on the oldest Balto-Slavic linguistic relations]. Učenye
zapiski instituta slavjanovedenija [Scholarly Proceedings of the Institute of Slavistics]
17: 248−274; 18: 3−43.
1958b Novejšie raboty v oblasti izučenija balto-slavjanskich jazykovych otnošenij [The most
recent works in the area of the investigation of Balto-Slavic linguistic relations]. Voprosy
slavjanskogo jazykoznanija [Issues of Slavic Linguistics] 3: 134−161
1962 Iz istorii izučenija drevnejšich balto-slavjanskich jazykovych otnošenij [On the history
of scholarship on the oldest Balto-Slavic linguistic relations]. Učenye zapiski instituta
slavjanovedenija [Scholarly proceedings of the Institute of Slavistics] 23: 3−43.
1975−1990 Prusskij jazyk (A−L) [The Prussian language (A−L)]. 5 vols. Moscow: Nauka.
Trautmann, Reinhold
1923 Baltisch-Slavisches Wörterbuch. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht [2nd edn. 1970].

Authenticated
Trubačëv, Oleg N.
1966 Remeslennaja terminologija v slavjanskich jazykach (Ètimologija i opyt gruppovoj re-
konstrukcii) [Handicraft terminology in the Slavic languages (etymology and an attempt
at group reconstruction)]. Moscow: Nauka.
Trubačëv, Oleg N.
1974−1999 Ètimologičeskij slovar’ slavjanskich jazykov [Etymological dictionary of the Slav-
ic languages]. vols. 1−25. Moscow: Nauka.
Trubačëv, Oleg N.
1980 Iz balto-slavjanskich ètimologij [Some Balto-Slavic etymologies]. Ètimologija 1978:
179−181.
Trubačëv, Oleg N.
1982 Jazykoznanie i ètnogenez slavjan. Drevnie slavjane po dannym ètimologii i onomastiki
[Linguistics and ethnogenesis of the Slavs. The ancient Slavs as evidenced by etymology
and onomastics]. Voprosy jazykoznanija 4: 237−240; 5: 3−17.
Udolph, Jürgen
1990 Die Stellung der Gewässernamen Polens innerhalb der alteuropäischen Hydronymie.
Heidelberg: Winter.
Udolph, Jürgen
2005a Slawisch-Baltisch-Germanische Übereinstimmungen in Toponymie und Hydronymie.
In: Beck et al. (eds.), 64−67.
Udolph, Jurgen
2005b Germanisch-Slawische Sprachbeziehungen. In: Beck et al. (eds.), 69−73.
1981 Lietuvių hidronimų etimologinis žodynas [Etymological dictionary of Lithuanian hydro-
nyms]. Vilnius: Mokslas.
1983 Problema drevnejšich balto-slavjanskich jazykovych otnošenij v svete baltijskich gidron-
imičeskich leksem [The problem of the oldest Balto-Slavic linguistic relations in the
light of Baltic hydronymic terms]. Vilnius: LTSR Mokslų akademija.
Vasmer, Max
1950 Russisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. 3 Bde. Heidelberg: Winter. [Translated with
comments into Russian as Ètimologičeskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka by Oleg N. Trubačëv.
4 vols. Moscow: Progress (1986−1987)].
Zav’jalova, Marija V. and Tatjana V. Civ’jan
2014 Balto-Slavica v naučnom nasledi V. N. Toporova: perspectivy [Balto-Slavica in the sci-
entific heritage of V. N. Toporov: perspectives]. In: Civ’jan, Zav’jalova, and Judžentis
(eds.), 13−32.
Zeps, Valdis
1984 Is Slavic a West Baltic Language? General Linguistics 24: 213−222.
Pietro U. Dini, Pisa (Italy)

Authenticated
XIX. Wider configurations and contacts
119. The shared features of Italic and Celtic

1. Introduction 4. Shared morphological features
2. Shared lexemes 5. Conclusion
3. Shared phonological features 6. References
1. Introduction
In the historical period, speakers of Celtic and Italic languages were in close proximity.
Lepontic inscriptions are attested in Northern Italy from the sixth century BCE, and
Celts sacked Rome in the 4 th century BCE. The expansion of the Roman empire led to
closer contact between Latin and Celtic languages. Some of the latter were eventually
altogether replaced by Latin, while Celtic loanwords can be identified in Latin, especially
in the semantic field of horses and chariots (e.g. Lat. uerēdus ‘breed of horse’, cf. W.
gorwydd ‘horse’). In addition to this contact, there is a longstanding hypothesis that the
Italic and Celtic languages shared a prehistoric linguistic unity (i.e. an “Italo-Celtic”
subgroup in the Indo-European family tree. It will be assumed here that Latin-Faliscan
and the Sabellic languages, consisting primarily of Oscan, Umbrian, and South Picene,
descend from a shared proto-language called Proto-Italic). However, unlike some other
Indo-European subgroups such as Indo-Iranian or Balto-Slavic, the existence of Italo-
Celtic has never reached the status of established fact. Compare, for example, Ringe,
Warnow, and Taylor (2002), who posit an Italo-Celtic subgroup (although they admit the
evidence is slender), with the criticisms of Isaac (2004: 54 ff.), who calls the Italo-Celtic
hypothesis obsolete. The only yardstick for the sub-grouping of languages is the exis-
tence of shared innovations which are unusual enough not to have been parallel develop-
ments, but must reflect an earlier linguistic unity. The basic list of innovations put for-
ward as evidence for the proposed Italo-Celtic subgroup has changed remarkably little
since the discussion of Watkins (1966; with earlier literature), although approaches have
differed in the light of new evidence and new theoretical perspectives.
2. Shared lexemes
Shared lexemes are the least reliable evidence for a proto-family, since the possibility of
borrowing between languages is so high (especially when the languages were in close
physical proximity in historical times). Collections of the (relatively few) lexemes unique
to Italic and Celtic can be found in Meillet (1922: 37 f. and 1977: 34 ff.) and Weiss
(2009: 466). The most significant are the prepositions discussed by Stüber (2012): *dē̆
with ablatival rather than directive function (Lat. dē, OIr. dí- ‘from’, Lat. in-de ‘thence’,
OIr. dé ‘from him’) and *trāns (Lat. trāns ‘across’, MW. tra ‘beyond’).
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-040

Authenticated
119. The shared features of Italic and Celtic 2031
3. Shared phonological features

Phonological evidence for Italo-Celtic is slight (for examples see Meillet 1922 and 1977,
Watkins 1966, and Schrijver 2006: 48 ff. − note that Schrijver’s proposed Italo-Celtic
sound change *CRHi̯ V- > *CRīi̯ V- cannot be accepted: Zair 2009: 214). Most of the
sound changes are too trivial to be considered evidence for shared development. The
distant assimilation *p … kw- > *kw… kw- (*penkwe > Lat. quīnque, OIr. cóic ‘five’) is
phonetically unsurprising, and may have taken place independently in Italic and Celtic:
*perkwu- gave Lat. quercus ‘oak’, in which *-kwu- > *-ku- took place after the assimila-
tion, while the presumably Celtic name of the Hercynian forest (preserved in Greek
authors as Ἑρκύνια) suggests that *-kwu- gave *-ku- before the assimilation in Celtic
(but see Weiss 2009: 465 f.). Another sound change which has sometimes been taken as
evidence for Italo-Celtic (e.g. Kortlandt 1981) is the shortening of long vowels in some
words in Italic and Celtic (Lat. uĭr, OIr. fer ‘man’ < *u̯ĭros, cf. Ved. vīrá-). But this
occurs also in Germanic (Goth. wair ‘man’ < *u̯ĭros), and Italic and Celtic do not always
agree in the forms which show shortening (Lat. uīuus ‘alive’ < *gwīu̯os, OIr. béu ‘alive’
< *gwĭu̯os). The conditioning environment for the change remains unclear (for one sug-
gestion see Schrijver 1991: 225 ff., 334 ff., 512 ff.; but compare Zair 2012a: 132 ff., Ma-
tasović 2012), and it has been argued that it is analogical rather than phonological (Ringe
1988: 420). A more plausible isogloss is the development of *CR̥HC- to *CRāC- (Lat.
plānus ‘flat’ < pl̥ h2no-, OIr. lán ‘full’ < *pl̥ h1-no-). But again the process does not seem
to be exactly the same in Italic and Celtic (cf. the difference in vowel length between
Lat. strātus ‘strewn’, OIr. srath ‘grass, valley’ < *str̥h3to-; Zair 2012a: 69 ff.). Even
leaving this aside, *CR̥HC- to *CRāC- could be a parallel development rather than a
shared innovation, because a similar result is found in Greek (στρωτός ‘spread’ <
*str̥h3to-), although with colouring of the epenthetic vowel by the following laryngeal.
4. Shared morphological features

The main evidence for Italo-Celtic consists of shared morphology. There are four major
similarities between Italic and Celtic which might be considered to imply a relationship:
the superlative in *-is-m̥mo-, the ī-genitive of o-stem nouns, the “ā-subjunctive”, and the
medio-passive verbal endings in *-r. Despite the superficial similarities, a direct connec-
tion between the Latin future in -bō (originally a periphrastic construction formed with
the aorist subjunctive of the root *bhuH- ‘be, become’) and the Irish f-future is very
unlikely (despite Bammesberger 1979; for recent attempts to explain the f-future, see
McCone 1991: 176 ff., Jasanoff 1994: 215 ff.). By far the most plausible of these is the
first. Both Italic and Celtic inherited a superlative suffix *-(t)m̥mo-, restricted to pronom-
inal and adverbial stems (Lat. ultimus, Osc. últiumam acc. sg. ‘farthest’ < *ol-tm̥mo-,
W. eithaf ‘farthest’ < *eks-tm̥mo-). But the productive suffix in both families comes from
*-is-m̥mo- (Lat. pigerrimus ‘laziest’ < *pigr̥samo- < *pigr-is-m̥mo-, OIr. sinem, OW.
hinham ‘oldest’ < *sen-is-m̥mo-). The reason for the geminate *-s- in -issimus, the most
common reflex of this suffix in Latin, is obscure (“expressive” gemination?). Cowgill
(1970) compares the Old Irish double superlatives in -i/a/e/mem in the Milan Codex.
The superlative suffix found in Germanic, Indo-Iranian, and Greek is *-is-to-: OE. swēt-

Authenticated
2032 XIX. Wider configurations and contacts
est, Gk. ἥδιστος, Ved. svā́diṣṭha- < *su̯eh2d-is-to-. This *-is-m̥mo- suffix is a clear-cut
isogloss between Italic and Celtic, although in principle it could be a shared archaism,
having been replaced by *-is-to- in the other three languages (the remaining Indo-Euro-
pean subgroups do not have morphological superlatives). For this reason Ringe, Warnow,
and Taylor (2002: 105) do not include the superlative in their computation of Indo-
European trees. What is more probable is that Proto-Indo-European did not have a mor-
phological superlative category, and that some (proto-)languages created superlative end-
ings (transparently based on the zero grade of the comparative suffix *-i̯ ō̆s-). The Italic
and Celtic superlatives could then be parallel creations, since *-(t)m̥mo- was already
available (it appears in all the languages which show morphological superlatives). But
*-is-m̥mo- stands a good chance of being a shared innovation.
The o-stem genitive in *-ī is rather more doubtful. It is found in Latin, Faliscan (e.g.
Louci Teti), Gaulish, Lepontic, Irish, and the Brittonic languages (Gaul. Segomari, Lep.
aśKoneTi, Ogam Irish MAQQI, OIr. maicc ‘of a son’, W. Dineirth (place name) ‘Bear’s
Retreat’ < *dūnom artī). To posit *-ī for Proto-Celtic is plausible, but not certain, since
Celtiberian shows a gen. sg. in -o, of debated origin, and early Lepontic also has a gen
sg. in -oiso, perhaps from *-osi̯ o (on the Celtiberian and Lepontic genitive singulars, see
Eska 1995). Similarly it cannot be definitively reconstructed for Proto-Italic, since the
Sabellic languages have generalized the i-stem genitive singular in *-ei̯ s in the o-stems:
Osc. sakarakleís, U. katles, SP. kaúieis. A problem with positing an Italo-Celtic innova-
tion is that the ī-genitive may not be restricted to Italic and Celtic, but may be a Western
European areal feature. It is probably found also in Venetic (e.g. .u.r.k.li), which may,
however, be an Italic language. The poorly-understood Messapic, attested in ancient
Italy, but neither Italic nor Celtic, has genitive singulars in -ihi (i.e. /-ī/?). However, in
the o-stem gen. sg. -aihi the *-ī seems to be added to the thematic vowel rather than
replacing it.
It has also been suggested (e.g. Klingenschmitt 1994: 375 ff.) that the Italic and Celtic
gen. sg. in *-ī should be compared with the Tocharian A and B gen. sg. in -i found only
in nouns referring to family-members (Toch. A. pācri, B. pātri ‘of a father’), personal
and demonstrative pronouns, and personal names borrowed from Sanskrit with nom. sg.
in -e. A similar system may persist in Albanian, where o-stem words for family members
preceded by possessive pronouns perhaps preserve traces of an original ī-genitive, e.g.
Old Geg timett ‘of my father’ < *tosi̯ o mei̯ osi̯ ’ attī. If correct, the Tocharian forms would
show that the preform of the i-genitive was *-ih1. However, the Tocharian i-genitive is
found only in athematic forms, and should perhaps be better traced back to the athematic
dat. sg. in *-ei̯ (Pinault 2008: 487 ff. with references).
If the connection with Tocharian and Albanian is not maintained, a plausible source
for the *-ī genitive is the so-called “vr̥kī́ḥ” suffix *-ih2, which is used to derive nouns
with the meaning ‘belonging to, pertaining to’ from o-stems, e.g. Ved. rathī́- ‘charioteer’
← rátha- ‘chariot’. The same suffix is probably the basis of the genitival adjective
*-ii̯ o- < *-ih2-o- (Ved. pítriya- ‘paternal’). If this derivational origin of the ī-genitive is
correct, it would explain why we still find traces of the inherited o-stem gen. sg. *-osi̯ o
(cf. Ved. -asya) in early Latin and Faliscan inscriptions (Lat. Popliosio Valesiosio, Fal.
Kaisiosio) and in Lepontic (χosioiso).
With this picture in mind, it should be noted that the shared innovation between Italic
and Celtic cannot be said to be the creation de nihilo of the ī-genitive, but rather the re-
interpretation of forms in -ī as genitival alongside inherited *-osi̯ o (but the eventual

Authenticated
complete integration of *-ī into the o-stem paradigm occurred only within the recorded
history of Latin, Faliscan, and Lepontic). Although it is striking that this happened only
in Celtic and Italic, the possibility of a parallel rather than shared development becomes
more plausible: indeed, it is possible that it occurred only in Latin and Faliscan, and that
the Sabellic languages never possessed a gen. sg. in *-ī; the same may perhaps be true
of Irish, British, Gaulish, and Lepontic, leaving out Celtiberian.
Yet more uncertain is the status of the so-called “ā-subjunctive”. A formant *-ā- is
the usual subjunctive marker in the 2nd, 3 rd, and 4 th conjugations of the regular verb in
Latin (2.sg. moneās, regās, audiās), and is found in Faliscan (douiad ‘may [s]he give’),
Oscan (pútíans ‘may they be able’) and Umbrian (habia ‘[s]he should hold’). Other
subjunctive formations in Latin and Oscan can be traced back to the Indo-European
optative (OLat. siet < *h1s-i̯ eh1- ‘[s]he should be’, Lat. amet ‘[s]he should love’, Osc.
deiuaid ‘let him/her swear’ < *-āē- < *-eh2-i̯ eh1-), so it is usually assumed that the
suffix *-ā- is originally optative, replacing the thematic optative suffix *-o-i̯ h1- (e.g. Gk.
φέροιμι).
In the Celtic languages, an “ā-subjunctive” is attested primarily in Irish (e.g. OIr.
·bera ‘[s]he should carry < *bher-ā-). It is the usual subjunctive marker in weak verbs
and in primary verbs is in complementary distribution with the s-subjunctive, which is
largely restricted to stems ending in a dental or velar obstruent (e.g. geiss ‘[s]he should
pray’ < *gwed-se/o-). There are possible cases of “ā-subjunctives” in Celtiberian (aseka-
ti, sistat), but the context and meaning of these forms is too uncertain for them to be
strong evidence. Gaulish has one possible example of an “ā-subjunctive” in lubiías ‘you
should love (?)’ (but see Schumacher 2004: 53 fn. 46). The Brittonic languages, however,
have a different system. Relic forms in Welsh such as MW. gwnech ‘(s)he may do’ <
*u̯reg-se/o point to the existence of an s-subjunctive identical to that of Irish, but the
productive formation is the “h-subjunctive” in forms like MW. carho ‘(s)he should love’,
dycko ‘(s)he should bring’ (where *-h- has caused devoicing of the preceding voiced
stop, cf. present dwg), MB. maruhynt ‘they will die’. This is traceable to a sequence
*-Vse/o-, which would also give the Irish “ā-subjunctive” if the first vowel were *-ā̆-,
because intervocalic *-h- < *-s- would be lost and *-ā̆e/o- would contract to *-ā-. This
possibility was observed by Rix (1977), who compared the Insular Celtic *-se/o- and
-ā̆se/o- suffixes to the desiderative suffix *-h1se/o- seen in forms like Gk. τενέω ‘I will
stretch’. This suffix is added only to roots ending in a liquid or nasal, *-se/o- being
added after an obstruent. Alternatively, McCone (1991: 55 ff.) derives both Insular Celtic
subjunctive suffixes from the subjunctive of s-aorists; the suffix *-ā̆se/o- is due to re-
analysis of the sequence *CeRH-se/o- in laryngeal-final roots: thus *CeRH-se/o- > *CeR-
ăse/o- → *CeR-ăse/o-. The expected result of both Rix’s and McCone’s theories would
be a Celtic *-ăse/o- subjunctive; the only evidence for *-āse/o- is found in the Brittonic
paradigm of the verb ‘to be’, where e.g. MW. bwyf ‘I should be’, points to *bu̯āse/o-.
The lengthening of *-ăse/o- to *-āse/o- must be explained analogically.
Although McCone’s explanation in particular has gained support, the case for a shared
Italic and Celtic “ā-subjunctive” has been taken up by Jasanoff (1994), who argues that
the Brittonic suffix *-ā̆se/o- is the result of a secondary addition of the s-aorist subjunc-
tive suffix *-se/o- to original *-ā-. Jasanoff points out serious flaws in McCone’s treat-
ment of the Brittonic evidence, but it is nonetheless still possible to derive the Brittonic
forms from an original rather than secondary *-āse/o- (Schumacher 2004: 49 ff.; Zair
2012b). A major plank in Jasanoff’s argument is MW. el ‘(s)he should go’, which cannot

Authenticated
go back to *elā̆se/o-, but could come from *elā-. However, some old root aorist subjunc-
tives are preserved in Celtic (McCone 1991: 115 ff.; Schumacher 2004: 48 f., 413 ff.). It
is therefore possible that MW. el is also by origin the subjunctive of a root aorist, from
*pelh2-e/o- (for the root see LIV 470 f.). Alternatively, Peter Schrijver (p.c.) suggests a
way to derive el from *pel-ā̆se/o-. According to him, Celtic subjunctives took the sec-
ondary endings, final *-t was lost early in the dialects which became Gaulish, Irish, and
Brittonic, and subsequently final *-e fell together with final *-i, which was then also
lost (Schrijver 2007). If all this is correct, original *pelh2-se-t would give *elaset >
*elase > *elas > MW. el with regular loss of final syllables.
The existence of a shared Italo-Celtic “ā-subjunctive” cannot be discounted, but the
apparent similarities may be merely an historical accident.
Both Italic (Lat. amātur ‘[s]he is loved’, Osc. sakarater ‘[s]he is consecrated’, U.
herter ‘[s]he should’) and Celtic (OIr. pass. léicthir ‘[s]he is left’, dep. ·labrathar ‘[s]he
speaks’, OW. cephitor ‘it is obtained’, Celtib. ne-bintoṛ ‘let them not be struck [?]’,
Gaul. nitixsintor ‘[?]’) have mediopassive verbal endings characterized by final -r. This
is not a shared innovation, since Hittite (artari ‘[s]he stands) and Tocharian (klyauṣtär
‘[s]he is heard’) also have forms in -r. This suffix is found only in primary endings in
Hittite and Tocharian, and was probably originally a primary marker equivalent to the
*-i found in active primary endings, and generalized also to middle endings, by the other
Indo-European languages, e.g. Arcadian Gk. -τοι , Ved. -te < *-to-i (for a summary of
the Indo-European mediopassive endings see Weiss 2009: 387 ff.). Although the -r end-
ings per se are not an innovation, there has been a tendency to look for shared Italo-
Celtic aspects in their development. Cowgill (1970: 142) considers the spread of *-r as
a voice marker into originally secondary endings to be a shared innovation. But in fact
the only possibly shared secondary verbal category is the “ā-subjunctive”, so this is
hardly a strong argument. Furthermore, if the Irish and British imperfect endings reflect
the original secondary mediopassive endings (for which see Schrijver 1992), it seems
likely that the distinction between primary and secondary mediopassive endings lasted
as far as Proto-Celtic. The creation of 1pl. mediopassive *-mor in place of *-me(s)dhh2
(Ved. -mahe, Gk. -με[σ]θα) is a better possibility, if it in fact took place in both Proto-
Italic and Proto-Celtic (it is only actually attested in Latin -mur and Irish abs. -m[m]ir,
conj. -m[m]ar). But the spread of *-r throughout the paradigm is unsurprising (note
a similar process in Toch. 1pl. -mtär), and the similar basis in 1pl. indicative
*-mos → *-mor may be coincidental.
Jasanoff (1997) has argued for an Italo-Celtic 3pl. primary mediopassive ending
*-ntro, formed by blending the two 3pl primary mediopassive endings in *-ro(r) and
*-ntor posited by Jasanoff for PIE. The Italic evidence for such a form comes primarily
from the Sabellic languages. In Umbrian, beside the secondary passive endings in
*-(n)tor found in the subjunctive (emantur ‘they should buy’) are also found primary
endings in the present/future/future perfect (herter ‘it is appropriate’). In Oscan, the
primary endings have been generalized (uincter ‘is convicted’, sakraitír ‘it should be
consecrated’). In Old Irish, the 3 rd person deponent endings differ from the passive in,
among other things, never undergoing syncope of the preceding vowel (gainithir ‘is
born’, gainitir ‘they are born’; cf. léicthir ‘is left’, suidigtir ‘they are placed’). One way
to explain the Irish facts is to reconstruct 3sg. and pl. endings *-(n)tro, which may also
explain the Oscan and Umbrian endings, if these reflect *-(n)tro > *-(n)tr̥ > *-nter.
However, the Sabellic evidence is more likely to reflect *-(n)tir, as suggested by the

Authenticated
spelling variation in U. herter, herti, hertei (thus Meiser 1992, who proposes an inde-
pendent development in Sabellic). The sequence of analogical changes required by Jasa-
noff to get from his proposed starting point to the attested Sabellic and Irish facts is in
any case so complex as to require pre-existing faith in the existence of Italo-Celtic rather
than to be evidence for it.
5. Conclusion
This concludes the possible cases of Italo-Celtic isoglosses. Despite the continuing de-
bate, the question of whether there was ever a single Italo-Celtic language family remains
open. Although there are a number of apparent similarities, very few can be shown
reliably to reflect shared innovations. Only the *-is-m̥mo- superlative seems nearly unas-
sailable; in the next rank of plausibility are the striking reinterpretation of *-ī as an o-
stem-genitive, and perhaps the 1pl. passive ending *-mor. Whether this is enough to
posit an Italo-Celtic subgroup is uncertain; if such a family did exist, it may best be seen
as a “drowned” subgroup, the result of “a rather short period of common development
followed by a long period of divergence” (Cowgill 1970: 114).
6. References
Bammesberger, Alfred.
1979 On the origin of the Irish f-future. Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 28: 395−398
Cowgill, Warren
1970 Italic and Celtic superlatives and the dialects of Indo-European. In: George Cardona,
Henry M. Hoenigswald, and Alfred Senn (eds.), Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 113−153.
Eska, Joseph F.
1995 Observations on the thematic genitive singular in Lepontic and Hispano-Celtic. In: Jo-
seph F. Eska, R. Geraint Gruffydd, and Nicolas Jacobs (eds.), Hispano-Gallo-Brittonica:
Essays in honour of Professor D. Ellis Evans on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday.
Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 32−46.
Isaac, Graham
2004 The nature and origins of the Celtic languages: Atlantic seaways, Italo-Celtic and other
paralinguistic misapprehensions. Studia Celtica 38: 49−58.
Jasanoff, Jay H.
1994 The Brittonic subjunctive and future. In: Jens E. Rasmussen (ed.), In Honorem Holger
Pedersen: Kolloquium der indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 25. bis 28. März 1993
in Kopenhagen. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 199−220.
Jasanoff, Jay H.
1997 An Italo-Celtic isogloss: the 3pl. mediopassive in *-ntro. In: Douglas Q. Adams (ed.),
Festschrift for Eric P. Hamp. Vol. 1. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man,
146−161.
1994 Das Tocharische in indogermanisticher Sicht. In: Bernfried Schlerath (ed.), Tocharisch:
Akten der Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft Berlin, September 1990. Rej-
kjavík: Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands, 310−411.

Authenticated
1981 More evidence for Italo-Celtic. Ériu 32: 1−22.
LIV = Helmut Rix and Martin Kümmel.
2001. Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. 2nd edn. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Matasović, Ranko
2012 Dybo’s Law in Proto-celtic. Zeitschrift für Celtische Philologie 59: 129−41
McCone, Kim
1991 The Indo-European Origins of the Old Irish Nasal Presents, Subjunctives and Futures.
Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität.
Meillet, Antoine
1922 Les dialectes indo-européens. 2nd edn. Paris: Champion.
Meillet, Antoine
1977 Esquisse d’une histoire de la langue latine. Paris: Klincksieck.
Meiser, Gerhard
1992 Die sabellischen Medialendungen der 3. Person. In: Robert Beekes, Alexander Lubotsky,
and Jos Weitenberg (eds.), Rekonstruktion und Relative Chronologie. Akten der VIII.
Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft Leiden, 31. August−4. September 1987.
Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 291−305.
2008 Chrestomathie tokharienne: textes et grammaire. Leuven: Peeters.
Ringe, Donald A., Jr.
1988 Laryngeal isoglosses in the Western Indo-European Languages. In: Alfred Bammesber-
ger (ed.), Die Laryngaltheorie und die Rekonstruktion des indogermanischen Laut- und
Formensystems. Heidelberg: Winter, 415−441.
Ringe, Don, Tandy Warnow, and Ann Taylor
2002 Indo-European and computational cladistics. Transactions of the Philological Society
100: 59−129.
Rix, Helmut
1977 Das keltische Verbalsystem auf dem Hintergrund des indo-iranisch-griechischen Rekon-
struktionsmodells. In: Karl Horst Schmidt (ed.), Indogermanisch und Keltisch. Kolloqui-
um der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft am 16. und 17. Februar 1976 in Bonn. Wies-
baden: Reichert, 132−158.
Schrijver, Peter
1991 The Reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Latin. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Schrijver, Peter
1992 The chronology of the loss of post-posttonic vowels between identical consonants and
the origin of the Celtic first person singular imperfect. Münchener Studien zur Sprach-
wissenschaft 53: 179−196.
Schrijver, Peter
2006 Review of Gerhard Meiser. 2003. Veni Vidi Vici. Die Vorgeschichte des lateinischen
Perfektsystems. Kratylos 51: 46−64.
Schrijver, Peter
2007 Some common developments of Continental and Insular Celtic. In: Pierre-Yves Lambert
and Georges-Jean Pinault (eds.), Gaulois et Celtique Continental. Geneva: Droz, 357−
371.
Schumacher, Stefan
2004 Die keltischen Primärverben: ein vergleichendes, etymologisches und morphologisches
Stüber, Karin
2012 Zur Frage des Italo-Keltischen: Erkentnisse aus der Erforschung der Partikeln. In: Veli-
zar Sadovski and David Stifter (eds), Iranistische und indogermanistische Beiträge in

Authenticated
120. Graeco-Anatolian contacts in the Mycenaean period 2037
memoriam Jochem Schindler (1944−1994). Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der

Wissenschaften, 403−417.
Watkins, Calvert
1966 Italo-Celtic revisited. In: Henrik Birnbaum and Jaan Puhvel (eds.), Ancient Indo-Euro-
pean Dialects: Proceedings of the Conference on Indo-European Linguistics held at
the University of California, Los Angeles, April 25−27, 1963. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 29−50.
Weiss, Michael
2009 Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin. Ann Arbor: Beechstave.
Zair, Nicholas
2009 OIr. biid < *bhuH-ye/o- and ‘hiatus’ verbs. In: Stephanie Jamison, Craig Melchert, and
Brent Vine (eds.), Proceedings of the 20 th UCLA Indo-European Conference: Los Ange-
les 2008. Bremen: Hempen, 213−220.
Zair, Nicholas
2012a The Reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Celtic. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
Zair, Nicholas
2012b Reconstructing the Brittonic future/present subjunctive. Journal of Celtic Linguistics 14:
87−110.
Nicholas Zair, Cambridge (UK)
120. Graeco-Anatolian contacts in the Mycenaean

period
1. Background 4. Structural borrowings (phonology,
2. Methodological questions morphology, syntax)
3. Lexical and phraseological borrowing 5. Assessment
relations 6. References
1. Background
Were the Mycenaean Greeks in contact with the Anatolian population of Asia Minor?
The question is difficult to answer for the periods preceding the late Bronze Age. The
hypothesis that Anatolians would have settled on the Greek mainland in the early Bronze
Age is not sufficiently proved. It is based only on the so-called “Pre-Greek substrate”:
specifically on Greek place names in /-sso-, -tto-/ (e.g. Παρνασσός in the Phocis, respec-
tively Locris regions) and /-nt ho-/ (e.g. Ἀμάρυνθος on Euboea). These are said to corre-
late with Anatolian place names in -ssa and -anda (see the material in Duhoux 2007:
225 f., the research report in Renfrew 1998: 253 ff., and the summary in Finkelberg 2005:
42−64). As there are no other arguments, this hypothesis remains controversial (see the
very constructive criticism in Chadwick 1969: 84 ff. as well as Morpurgo Davies 1986:
111 ff.).
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-041

Authenticated
memoriam Jochem Schindler (1944−1994). Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der

Watkins, Calvert
1966 Italo-Celtic revisited. In: Henrik Birnbaum and Jaan Puhvel (eds.), Ancient Indo-Euro-
pean Dialects: Proceedings of the Conference on Indo-European Linguistics held at
the University of California, Los Angeles, April 25−27, 1963. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 29−50.
Weiss, Michael
2009 Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin. Ann Arbor: Beechstave.
Zair, Nicholas
2009 OIr. biid < *bhuH-ye/o- and ‘hiatus’ verbs. In: Stephanie Jamison, Craig Melchert, and
Brent Vine (eds.), Proceedings of the 20 th UCLA Indo-European Conference: Los Ange-
les 2008. Bremen: Hempen, 213−220.
Zair, Nicholas
2012a The Reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Celtic. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
Zair, Nicholas
2012b Reconstructing the Brittonic future/present subjunctive. Journal of Celtic Linguistics 14:
87−110.
Nicholas Zair, Cambridge (UK)
120. Graeco-Anatolian contacts in the Mycenaean

period
1. Background 4. Structural borrowings (phonology,
2. Methodological questions morphology, syntax)
3. Lexical and phraseological borrowing 5. Assessment
relations 6. References
1. Background
Were the Mycenaean Greeks in contact with the Anatolian population of Asia Minor?
The question is difficult to answer for the periods preceding the late Bronze Age. The
hypothesis that Anatolians would have settled on the Greek mainland in the early Bronze
Age is not sufficiently proved. It is based only on the so-called “Pre-Greek substrate”:
specifically on Greek place names in /-sso-, -tto-/ (e.g. Παρνασσός in the Phocis, respec-
tively Locris regions) and /-nt ho-/ (e.g. Ἀμάρυνθος on Euboea). These are said to corre-
late with Anatolian place names in -ssa and -anda (see the material in Duhoux 2007:
225 f., the research report in Renfrew 1998: 253 ff., and the summary in Finkelberg 2005:
42−64). As there are no other arguments, this hypothesis remains controversial (see the
very constructive criticism in Chadwick 1969: 84 ff. as well as Morpurgo Davies 1986:
111 ff.).
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-041

Authenticated
But the question raised above can clearly be answered with “yes” for the late Bronze
Age from an archaeological, historical, philological, and onomastic point of view, taking
the evidence together in a cumulative way (cf. the short summary of the entire argumen-
tation in Schuol 2002: 345 ff.):
a) From an archaeological perspective, Milet is a center of Mycenaean presence in Asia
Minor in the construction phases V and VI − i.e. from LH IIA to LHIIC (about 1450
to 1100 BCE). With Milet as its center the zone of intense Mycenaean settlement
extends as far as Bodrum/Halicarnassus. Further to the north of this zone − north of
the peninsula of Mykale/Samsun Dağ − Mycenaean presence seems to be less inten-
sive, as it is limited there to trade contacts and trading colonies (see the summary in
Niemeier 1998: 25 ff., 2005a: 10 ff., 2007: 51 ff.).
b) From a historical point of view, the place name Millau̯a(n)da, found in Hittite texts
of the late Bronze Age, is no doubt identical with Greek Milet (for a detailed discus-
sion see Niemeier 1998: 43 ff., 2005a: 16 ff., 2007: 60 ff.). In the written sources,
Millau̯a(n)da/Milet is repeatedly mentioned as situated in an area of conflict between
the Hittite (Ḫatti) and the region Aḫḫii̯ a(u̯a). By process of elimination, Aḫḫii̯ a(u̯a)
cannot be an area in the South-West of Asia Minor because there is simply not
enough space for it there. This leaves room for the assumption that Aḫḫii̯ a(u̯a) could
be localized on the Greek mainland (but see also the critical remarks in Hajnal 2011).
Thus, the question has come full circle: Millau̯a(n)da (= Milet), which was populated
by Greek settlers, served as a bridgehead in Asia Minor of a mainland Greek empire
with the name Aḫḫii̯ a(u̯a).
c) The picture outlined under a) and b) is complemented by a philological and onomastic
analysis of the Mycenaean texts respectively, which show clear references to late
Bronze Age Asia Minor (see also Hajnal 2014a: 106 f.):
− The toponym Aḫḫii̯ a(u̯a), mentioned above under b), is usually associated with the
ethnic name Ἀχαιοί< */Ak haiu̯-oi/, which is the term by which the Homeric Greeks
designate themselves in the Trojan war. This association implies that the equivalent
place name */Ak haiu̯-iā/ of the late Bronze Age refers to a Mycenaean state on the
Greek mainland. An isolated reference from Crete may confirm this: The tablet
KN C 914 lists a hecatomb of sacrificial animals. In this context, an indication of
a direction is given: a-ka-wi-ja-de /Ak haiu̯ia-de/. This could refer to the name of
a feast in the sense of ‘for the Ak haiu̯ia’. If this were the case, we may assume
that the feast (ntr. Pl.) Ak haiu̯ia was established by mainland Mycenaeans, who
had immigrated to Crete. The name of the feast can be seen as a reminiscence of
their mainland Greek origins (see Killen 1994: 78 and Weilhartner 2005: 75 f. and
99).
− The Mycenaean tablets document a series of ethnic names from Asia Minor and
the South- East Aegean: The Pylian A-series lists a group of female textile workers
from Milet (mi-ra-ti-ja /Milātiai/) or, possibly, Halicarnassus (ze-pu2-ra3 /D zep hurai/).
These women may be prisoners of war. Elsewhere, they are referred to as
a-*64-ja / a-swi-ja /Asu̯iai/, an ethnic name for a heterogeneous group (see Parker
1999). The toponym */Asu̯iā/, which underlies /Asu̯iai/, in early Greek literature
denotes a region in the northwest of central Asia Minor, in the linguistic form
Ἀσίη. Myc. */Asu̯iā/ is unmistakably identical to the Hittite toponym Aššuu̯a, apart
from the form of the suffix (for Aššuu̯a see Niemeier 2007: 73 ff., and from a

Authenticated
linguistic point of view Watkins 1998: 202 ff.). At the beginning of the Neo-Hittite
empire, Aššuu̯a is a state bordering on Hittite territory in the northwest, which is
broken up by the Hittite King Tudḫalii̯ a I (about 1420−1400 BCE). Also Aḫḫi-
i̯ a(u̯a) is involved in the conflict over Aššuu̯a.
− The Linear B tablets from Knossos show series of syllables which can be associat-
ed with names found in Asia Minor: There are names containing <pi-ja°> as pi-
ja-ma-so or pi-ja-mu-nu, which seem to correspond to the frequent Luwian names
with a first verbal component */pi-i̯ o°/ ‘give’ (see Houwink ten Cate 1965: 175 ff.).
Further personal names which relate to Asia Minor are i-mi-ri-jo (KN Db 1186)
/Imrios/ (cf. Graeco-Lyc. Ιμβρας et al.), as well as ru-ki-jo (PY Jn 415.11, Gn
720.2) ru-ki-jo may be interpreted as /Luk-ios/ and can be related to the toponym
Luqqa, a region mentioned in Hittite documents. According to Widmer (2007), the
Mycenaean personal name ru-wa-ni-jo (KN X 7706+8108) /Luu̯anios/ is based on
a toponym */Lū̆u̯ano-/, which appears as a word for ‘Luwia’ in Egyptian secondary
sources. */Lū̆u̯-ano-/ in this case is an alternative formation to Hitt. lu-ú-(i)-i̯ a-
/Luu̯-ii̯ a-/. If Widmer is correct, ‘Luwia’ is indirectly attested in Mycenaean texts.
Widmer’s interpretation of ru-wa-ni-jo is doubted, however, by Yakubovich (2010:
112). Further possible Mycenaean-Anatolian correspondences of names are men-
tioned in the summary in Milani (2001).
The arguments given in a) to c) combine to complete a picture: Mycenaean Greeks are
in contact with people of southwestern Asia Minor. From the point of view of cultural
history, this fact is hardly surprising: Archaic Greek mythology and the Greek epics
show similarities to Bronze Age sources from the Near East (summary in Burkert 2005:
292 f.). Although cultural parallels of this type date mostly from the first millennium
BCE, in Mycenaean Pylos, the ethnic name /Asu̯iā/ is used as an eponym of a goddess
po-ti-ni-ja a-si-wi-ja /potnia Asu̯iā/ (PY Fr 1206). Apparently the pantheon of Pylos was
already familiar with a mother-goddess whose origins are in Asia Minor. This fact shows
that there must have been intensive cultural exchange between mainland Greece and
Asia Minor in the Bronze Age (cf. Morris 2001).
This situation suggests that the Greek language group was in contact with the Anatoli-
an language group, producing the language-contact phenomena to be discussed below.
Greek and Luwian contacts are to be expected in the first place, as the main zone of
contact (the south-western Aegean coastline) was Luwian speaking (cf. Starke 1997:
459). However, contacts between the Greek and Hittite language group are not to be
excluded. In fact, Greek and Hittite contacts are documented by the existence of a diplo-
matic correspondence between Aḫḫii̯ a(u̯a) and Ḫatti attested in the Hittite language.
2. Methodological questions
Language contact is manifested in borrowings of different intensity. The term “borrow-
ing” is used in a broad sense in the following discussion, including language change that
is caused by contact (a typology of language change triggered by language contact is
presented in Aikhenvald and Dixon 2001b: 16 f.). Lexical borrowings are possible even
if there is only limited contact between two speech communities. On the other hand,
structural borrowings on a phonological, morphological, or syntactic level require intense

Authenticated
Tab. 120.1
(i) borrowing scenario (ii) substratum/adstratum scenario
lexicon numerous borrowings no borrowings (at most isolated
loanwords)
phonology no interferences (at most isolated numerous interferences
interferences with a high number of
bilingual speakers)
morphology possibly morphological borrowings borrowings on the level of
(via loanwords in the lexicon) morphology generally scarce
syntax no interferences numerous interferences
contact or a bilingual situation. The following Table 120.1 outlines the types of borrow-
ings which are likely to occur in varying situations of languages in contact (cf. Thomason
and Kaufman 1988: 35 ff.).
This is only a very simplified account of the multitude of possible relations and
backgrounds of borrowings (an overview of the diversity of borrowing relations is found
in Curnow 2001: 417 ff. and Thomason 2001: 59 ff.). But it is sufficient for the purpose
of the present study. In the following, lexical interferences are separately treated in 3 as
opposed to possible structural interferences (phonology, morphology, syntax), which are
discussed in 4.
Apart from the complex sociolinguistic situation, Greek-Anatolian language contacts
in the Bronze Age raise a methodological question which requires extensive discussion:
Which are the comparanda, or what are the linguistic documents to be compared? −
There is sufficient documentation of Anatolian in the second millennium BCE, because
of the cuneiform texts from the Hittite archives. There are also inscriptions in the Luwian
hieroglyphic script which have an early date. For Greek, one can draw on the Mycenaean
texts. However, these allow only limited insight into Bronze-Age Greek. For this reason,
records from the Homeric epics (and, sporadically, also other archaic poetry from the
first millennium BCE) are consistently introduced in the discussion about Mycenaean-
Anatolian language contacts. In this context, it is pointed out that the Homeric epics,
and their linguistic formulae, in particular, have their origins in (pre-)Mycenaean times.
It is assumed that in this way fossilized language relics from the late Bronze Age were
passed on in Homeric poetic language into the first millennium BCE (see the summary
in West 1988: 156 ff.). This opinion, however, can hardly be considered unquestionable
in the light of new research on linguistic formulae in Homer. There are valid arguments
that the roots of the Homeric Epic should not be dated before the Post-Mycenaean phase,
that is at the turn of the second to the first millennium BCE (cf. Hajnal 2003: 61 ff.).
Consequently, in the following discussion linguistic evidence from the Homeric epics −
as well as from other archaic Greek sources − should be viewed with some reservations
for the purpose of comparison.
The same holds true for documents in the Greek dialects of Asia Minor dating from
the first millennium BCE: Aeolic, East-Ionic, and Pamphylian. Onomastic evidence −
for example the deity names Διϝια und Ͷαναψσσα − suggests that Pamphylian Greek
either dates back as far as the second millennium BCE or that it has an old substratum

Authenticated
as its basis (see Brixhe 2002: 50 ff.). For Lesbian and East-Ionic, an early origin which
has its roots in the late Bronze Age, or an older substratum, cannot be shown on the
basis of the linguistic data. On the other hand, it cannot be excluded that the first Ionians
or Aeolians reached their homelands in Asia Minor already in Post-Mycenaean times. If
this was the case, language contact in the last stage of the Bronze Age is a possibility.
For this reason, in analogy to the Greek language of the Homeric epics, evidence from
Lesbian and East-Ionic is not excluded from the discussion.
A final preliminary remark: The following discussion is limited to the influence of
Anatolian languages on Bronze-Age Greek as there is no clear indication of Bronze Age
Greek influence on Anatolian languages. To mention just three examples of alleged
Greek influences:
− The assumption that there are traces of Greek influence in the Hittite letter KUB
XXVI 91 is convincingly rejected by Melchert (To appear).
− kurutau̯ant is sometimes mentioned as a lexical borrowing from Greek in Hittite. It
functions as an attribute of a priest or an idol. The basis of the word kuruta- resembles
Greek κόρυς/Myc. (gen.sg.) ko-ru-to /korut h-os/ ‘helmet’. More precisely, though,
kurutau̯ant- means ‘with a crown adorned by horns’ rather than ‘with a helmet’ (see
Hoffner, 2000: 74). Thus it is not a valid element for comparison.
− The Hittite theonym [ Da-]ap-pa-li-u-na-aš could be an onomastic borrowing if it
corresponds to Greek (dial.) Ἀπέλλων < */Apeli̯ ōn/, and if */Apeli̯ ōn/ is of truly Greek
origin (from Dor. ἀπέλλα ‘male society’). But this is not assured (see the discussion
in Beekes 2003).
Thus, the question of early Greek influences on Anatolian languages can be left open in
this study.
3. Lexical and phraseological borrowing relations
3.1. Lexical borrowings
Loanwords from Anatolian can no doubt be found in Greek − apart from onomastic
borrowings which shall not be discussed here. There is, however, no recent compilation
of probable loanwords: The listings in Gusmani (1969: 508 f.) and Szemerényi (1974)
are in part outdated; at least a short, up-to-date summary is given by Yakubovich (2010:
146 f.). Furthermore, the lexical comparison proves to be very difficult in general. This
is because not every parallel between the Greek and the Anatolian lexicon is based on
a borrowing. Thus, “migrant” cultural words, as well as inherited words of common
origin, are to be excluded from comparison. Among these migrant cultural words, there
are terms for materials and metals such as ἐλέφᾱς ‘ivory’ (besides Hitt. laḫpa- also
Phoen. ’lp, Egypt. 3bw), κύανος ‘dark blue glaze; enamel’ (besides Hitt. (NA4 )kuu̯annan-
‘copper ore; azurite’ also Sumer. kù-an ‘a valuable metal’), or ὄβρυζα ‘vessel for refining
gold’ (besides Hitt. ḫuprušḫi- ‘vessel’, also Ugarit. ḫptr or ḫbrṯ).
The remaining Greek lexemes can be identified as loanwords from the Anatolian
languages if they fulfill at least three of the following four conditions:

Authenticated
a) Their phonological form precisely equals the phonological form of the Anatolian
source language − or, if different, can be plausibly justified by the inaccurate repro-
duction of foreign phonemes in Greek.
b) Their meaning corresponds to the meaning in the Anatolian source or can be deduced
from it.
c) No other source language can be identified to which they could be attributed.
d) They show traces of the phonology or morphology of the Anatolian source language.
These conditions can be illustrated by the following two examples:
− Gr. μόλυβδος/myk. mo-ri-wo-do ‘lead’ completely meets the conditions: There is an
underlying adjective */morku̯-io-/ ‘dark’, as in the Lydian theonym mariwda(ś)-k ‘the
dark ones’. The phonological development */morku̯-io-/ > */maru̯ido-/ > */mariu̯do-/
with a transition from */°Vi̯ V°/ > /°VdV°/ proves μόλυβδος / mo-ri-wo-do to be a
loanword from Lydian; the semantic development from ‘blue, dark (sc. Metal)’ to
‘lead’ is unproblematic (cf. Melchert 2008).
− However, the common equation of Gr. θύρσος ‘staff entwined with vine or ivy’ with
H-Luw. tuu̯arsa/i- ‘vine; vineyard’ must be rejected: Neither the difference in the
initial sound nor the semantic difference can be justified by the conditions of transfer.
Thus, it is better to assume a “migrating” cultural word at the basis of both lexemes.
If one applies the above criteria consistently, there remain only a small number of Greek
lexemes which can be considered as Anatolian borrowings apart from μόλυβδος:
− δέπας/myk. di-pa ‘cup; pot; vessel’, possibly from H-Luw. (CAELUM)ti-pa-s° ‘sky’.
Regarding the semantics of this word it should be added that the H-Luw. ideogram
CAELUM depicts a bowl. Furthermore, the Hittite equivalent nēpis ‘sky’ occasionally
also denotes a ‘cup’ (cf. Neu 1999 and Watkins 2007: 319 ff.).
− κύμβαλον ‘cymbal’, possibly from Hitt. GIŠḫuḫupal ‘(a wooden percussion instru-
ment)’ Gr. /°mb°/ can function here − as well as in κύμβαχος below − as a (pre-)
Mycenaean realization of a foreign /°b°/ (see Hajnal 1993).
− κύπελλον ‘cup’, possibly from the Hitt. term for cup DUGkukupalla-. Additionally,
κύπελλον can be compared with C-Luw. ḫupalla/i- (and Hitt. (UZU)ḫupallaš-) ‘skull’.
Anatol. */ḫ/ is realized as Gr. <K> in the Greek of the first millennium. For the
semantic development, cf. Lat. testa ‘potsherd, pot’ vs. Fr. tête ‘head’.
− κύμβαχος ‘helmet’ perhaps from Hitt. kupaḫi- ‘headgear’ (from Hurrian ku-(-ú)-u̯a4-
ḫi). Regarding /°mb°/ see the remark on κύμβαλον.
− τολύπη ‘ball of wool’, possibly from Hitt. taluppa- (or C-Luw. taluppa/i-) ‘lump’ (see
Joseph 1982 and Melchert 2000).
Hence, the results are very insubstantial. This picture would not change if one or the
other problematical lexeme was added to the list above, or removed from it. The list
consists mainly of Hittite cultural words − whereas opposed to the expectation mentioned
in 1, there are almost no Luwian words.
3.2. Phraseological borrowings in a narrow and in a wide sense

The relevant literature of the last two decades leads to the impression that the Homeric
epic, in particular the Iliad, contains numerous phraseological borrowings from Anatoli-

Authenticated
an languages. These borrowings seem to be conditioned by the “Anatolian” theme of

the Iliad − the fight for Troy − and could, as argued in 2, hint at a Bronze Age legacy.
The following examples may illustrate the broad spectrum of phraseological borrowings:
1. Translated borrowings, e.g., in Hom., Il. A 290 f.: Agamemnon comments on Achil-
leus to Nestor as follows: εἰ δέ μιν αἰχμητὴν ἔθεσαν θεοὶ αἰὲν ἐόντες | τοὔνεκά οἱ
προθέουσιν ὀνείδεα μυθήσασθαι; ‘Even if the eternal gods have made him a chariot
fighter − do they support him uttering blame?’. The translation of the word προθέουσ-
ιν is problematic, because normally it does not mean ‘they support’ but rather ‘they
hurry on ahead’. Puhvel (1988) points out a parallel to this otherwise unusual meaning
in Greek with a reference to the Anatolian languages: In these, the equivalents of
προθεῖν such as Hitt. parā/piran ḫuu̯āi- ‘hurry ahead’ are indeed found in the above
meaning of ‘help, support’.
Further examples of translated borrowings are: Hom. διέτμαγεν ‘they went’ (to
διατμήγειν ‘cut through’) from Hitt. šarra- ‘cut; leave’ (Puhvel 1988: 592 f.); Hom.
ἐν δέ μιν αὐτὸν εὗρε ‘he found him there’ from Hitt. anda ... u̯emii̯ a- ‘get together,
meet’ (Puhvel 1993); Hom. κυάνεαι ὀφρύες ‘dark eyebrows’ analogous to C-Luw.
kuu̯annani- ‘eyebrow’ (Högemann 2000b: 29). According to Watkins (1998: 206 ff.)
also the twofold naming of the Trojans in the Iliad belongs to the broader context of
translated borrowings. On the one hand, Homer uses the native name, on the other
hand the corresponding Greek epiclesis: see Il. Ζ 402 f. τόν ῥ᾽ ῞Εκτωρ καλέεσκε
Σκαμάνδριον, αὐτὰρ οἱ ἄλλοι | Ἀστυάνακτ᾽ · οἶος γὰρ ἐρύετο ῎Ιλιον ῞Εκτωρ. ‘Him
(sc. his son) Hektor called Skamandrios, but others called him Astuanax; because
Hector alone had saved Ilios’.
2. Adoption of foreign phrasemes; e.g., if fortune turns against a person, Homer speaks
of fortune ‘lying down on the ground’: see Il. Θ 73 f. αἳ μὲν Ἀχαιῶν κῆρες ἐπὶ χθονὶ
πουλυβοτείρῃ | ἑζέσθην, Τρώων δὲ πρὸς οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν ἄερθεν. Puhvel (1983:
221 ff.) compares this with Hittite phrases such as KBo VI 13 18 GIŠelzi-mit-u̯a taknā
aršikkit ‘he lay my scales of fortune on the ground’ (actually ‘planted them in the
ground’).
A further example for the adoption of a foreign phraseme (see Oettinger 1989/
90): Hom. γαῖα μέλαινα ‘black soil’ from Hitt. (Nom.) dankuiš daganzipaš, (Dat.)
dankui daganzipi/taknī, etc. In fact, the expression ‘dark earth’ is attested in a Hurrian-
Hittite bilingual document: Hurr. timerrē ešeni dūri (KBo XXXII 13 I 10), corre-
sponding to Hitt. kattanta tankuu̯ai táknī (ib. II 10). In this case, the Anatolians were
not the creators of the phraseme but the transmitters.
3. Reflexes of a foreign ritual, economic, or socio-cultural practice, which normally is
accompanied with phraseological parallels as in 2), e.g.: In Il. Γ 276 ff., Agamemnon
calls upon Zeus and Helios as his divine witnesses before a ritual (Ζεῦ πάτερ ῎Ιδηθεν
μεδέων κύδιστε μέγιστε, | Ἠέλιός θ’). Puhvel (1991: 9 ff.) sees in this an Anatolian
practice, because in Hittite texts often the storm god and the sun god are called upon
as witnesses when swearing an oath.
Further examples for reflexes of a foreign ritual, economic, or socio-cultural prac-
tice: The contract between the Trojans and the Acheans, as described in Il. Γ 94 as
well as 276−301, is modeled on Hittite oaths of allegiance, according to Starke (1998:
483). According to Watkins (1998: 204 ff., 2002: 167 ff.) the four terms κασίγνητοι,
γαμβροί, λαοί, and ἐπίκουροι used in the Iliad to denote social stratification are based

Authenticated
on an Anatolian pattern. Watkins (2000a, 2002: 169) also sees the model of the Greek
αἰγίς (in Homer as well as in Pindar) in the Hittite cult object KUŠkuršaš ‘hunting
pouch’. There are also stylistic parallels: see Hitt. našta anda ... kitta and Il. Ε 740
ἐν δ’ ῎Ερις..., in each case for ‘in it (sc. in the kuršaš or the αἰγίς) were ...’.
These three types of borrowing situations vary in their linguistic relevance for predicting
the probability of direct language contact:
− Translated borrowings (calques) normally indicate direct language contact. However,
the assumption that a word is a translated borrowing is only justifiable if the word in
the target language is not sufficiently motivated etymologically or morphologically.
An example may illustrate these facts: Watkins (1995: 39) sees in Gr. ἔμπορος
‘merchant’ (perhaps also in the Myc. name [Gen.Sg.] e-po-ro-jo KN Ch 897) a trans-
lated borrowing from Hitt. unatallaš (agent noun to unna- ‘send so./sth. here’). Within
Greek, however, ἔμπορος does not represent a verbal relational compound from πορεῖν
‘to deliver’ as Watkins suggests. It is rather a prepositional relational compound from
ἐν πόρῳ ‘on a journey’. Thus, ἔμπορος is sufficiently motivated within Greek, and
therefore the assumption of a translated borrowing does not seem to offer any advan-
tage.
− The significance of the adoption of foreign phrasemes and, to a higher degree, the
significance of reflexes of foreign cults, as well as economic and socio-cultural prac-
tices is limited with regard to their relevance for sociolinguistic conclusions bearing
on the situation of language contact. Foreign elements of this type may have been
spread via literary subjects and genres in the globalized Aegean world of the Bronze
Age (see 1 for cultural contacts). This is why they can hardly be associated with a
specific instance of contact or a specific source language. In addition to these facts, a
certain cultural continuity in the southwest of Asia Minor is to be reckoned with.
Such continuity is undisputed for the southeast (Northern Syria) due to the existence
of “Neo-Hittite” city states in this area. An analogous situation in the southwest is
postulated by Starke (1997) and Högemann (2000a, 2000b.) According to them, also
in the southwest of Asia Minor Luwian culture and social structure was preserved until
the first century BCE. Thus, the Trojan society as described in the Iliad is assumed
to be a direct reflex of a Bronze Age Anatolian social structure. This “continuity
hypothesis” may be doubted in various respects. However, these limitations play only
a marginal role for the present study. It is far more decisive that, as a rule, phrasemes
which are assumed to have been borrowed, as well as reflexes of foreign cults and
foreign economic and socio-cultural practices in the texts can hardly be assigned to a
certain era.
An example may illustrate this: The contract between Trojans and Achaeans, al-
ready mentioned above, includes the following curse directed against themselves (Il.
G 298 ff): Ζεῦ κύδιστε μέγιστε καὶ ἀθάνατοι θεοὶ ἄλλοι| ὁππότεροι πρότεροι ὑπὲρ
ὅρκια πημήνειαν| ὧδέ σφ’ ἐγκέφαλος χαμάδις ῥέοι … ὡς ὅδε οἶνος ‘Glorious Zeus
and all you other immortal gods: may the brain (ἐγκέφαλος) of those who first break
the oaths flow to the ground like this wine.’ Starke (1998: 483) interprets this to be a
direct phraseological analogy to a Hittite instruction for low-rank palace servants: nu-
u̯a-kán apēl ZI-an DINGIR.MEŠ úu̯i5tanaš | iu̯ar arḫa lāḫḫuu̯atén (KUB XIII 3 III 1−
2) ‘(He who commits an impure act and gives the king foul water,), oh gods!, pour
out his substance of life (ZI = ištanzana-) like water.’ However, there is no exact

Authenticated
analogy between the Homeric and the Hittite phrases, because Homer does not use
the abstract ‘substance of life’ (Hitt. ZI = ištanzana-) but the concrete word ‘brain’
(ἐγκέφαλος). However, the Hittite metaphor of ‘pouring out the substance of life’ has
exact Neo-Assyrian parallels (cf. Rollinger 2004). Haas (2007: 6), referring to this
curse and similar incidences, cautiously suggests the existence of a “Fluch- und Eid-
tradition im Vorderen Orient, die sich punktuell noch im homerischen Zeitalter in
Ionien erhalten (haben könnte)”. For these reasons, the Homeric curse can neither be
traced back with certainty to an Anatolian source language, nor can the Bronze Age
be postulated to be the only time possible when the phraseme could have been taken
over.
All this goes to show that possible phraseological borrowings in the Homeric epics are
not conclusive as to the question of Greek-Anatolian language contacts: Apart from the
doubts raised in 2 with regard to the use of the Homeric epics (and other literary sources
of the Archaic period) as documents for Bronze-Age Greek, most of these borrowings
cannot be placed in time nor traced back to a specific source. Even if one accepts, not
being over-critical, one or the other parallel as a Bronze-Age borrowing: the number of
parallels is very small compared to the mass of borrowings from the Middle and Near
East which enter the Greek language during the oriental era in the first millennium BCE
(and which are collected in West 1997: 220 ff.).
4. Structural borrowings (phonology, morphology, syntax)
4.1. Borrowings on the phonological level
The Greek dialects of Asia Minor − the East-Ionic dialect as well as the Aeolic dialect
of the Island of Lesbos − show “psilosis”: the reduction of initial, antevocalic /# hV°/ to
/# V°/. Oettinger (2002) interprets this development as a result of contact with the sur-
rounding languages of Asia Minor (see Högemann 2003: 8 and Yakubovich 2010: 148).
He refers to the Anatolian phonemes which had developed from the old inherited laryn-
geals. These phonemes seem to be reduced in some Anatolian languages of the first
millennium − especially in Lydian. According to Oettinger, this reduction started in the
Bronze Age and also affected /# hV°/ in the surrounding Greek dialects.
However, the interpretation of psilosis in the Greek dialects of Asia Minor as a phe-
nomenon of contact is uncertain for two reasons:
− First, the loss of reflexes of the inherited laryngeals in Anatolian affects original
/# h3V°/ in both Lycian and Lydian. The reflex of original */# h2V°/ is affected in
Lydian only. It is improbable that these languages went through a stage with an aspi-
rate /# hV°/ which could have influenced the surrounding Greek dialects. Original
*/# h2V°/ results in velar reflexes, in Lycian in all positions, and in Lydian in word
interior position (cf. Melchert 1994: 64 ff., in general, and for Lydian, in particular,
Melchert 2004: 142 ff.). Thus, original */# h3V°/ remains as the only possible source,
on the development of which nothing exact can be said because of a lack of evidence.
− Second, Greek psilosis is not a phenomenon that is limited to the Greek dialects of
Asia Minor at the end of the second millennium BCE. In fact, it seems to appear

Authenticated
independently and well before the first intense Greek-Anatolian contacts in Mycenae-
an Greek of the Aegean region. An indication for this development is, among others,
the infrequency of the sign <a2> /ha/ on the Linear B tablets of Knossos (cf. Risch
1983: 386 and 390 fn. 63). A further argument for the assumption that psilosis in the
Mycenaean dialects of the Aegean has emerged without external influence can be
found in the Greek dialect of Crete in the first millennium BCE. In Crete, those
regions, in particular, are psilotic in which evidence for an “Aegean substrate” can be
found (see Bile 1988: 101 f.).
Thus, psilosis in the Greek dialects of Asia Minor cannot be taken as a language-contact
phenomenon. This does not mean, however, that Mycenaean-Anatolian language contact
could not have lead to phonological changes. For example, the dialect of Pamphylia
shows phonological developments in the first millennium that may have been triggered
by the impact of a Bronze Age adstratum. These include rhotacism /°VdV°/ > /°VδV°/
> /°VrV°/, as in Επιτιμιραυ < * Επιτιμιδαυ or aphaeresis, as in Θαναδωρυς < Αθαναδ-
ωρυς (see Brixhe 1976: 83 f. on rhotacism and 43 on aphaeresis). Both phenomena are
attested for the Luwian languages as early as the end of the second or the beginning of
the first millennium BCE (see Melchert 1994: 237 on rhotacism and 276 on aphaeresis).
4.2. Borrowings on the morphological level
Mycenaean Greek uses possessive adjectives ending in /-io-/ as patronymica: cf. Myc.
a-re-ku-tu-ru-wo e-te-wo-ke-re-we-i-jo /Alektruōn Eteu̯okleu̯e hios/ (PY Ad 654.8 f.). This
archaic usage continues in the Lesbian dialect, among others, a fact which is attributed
to interference from the Anatolian languages by Watkins (2001: 58). The Luwian lan-
guages, however, display a widespread and diversified use of the inherited suffix *-io-
(cf. Melchert 1990). It is hardly plausible, due to three facts, that there is a direct relation
between Anatolian adjectives and the archaic usage of the Lesbian patronymicon:
− Greek io-adjectives that denominate belonging or possession of objects (cf. Thessal.
Ανφιονεια α σταλα τουφρονε̄τος) are not attested in Lesbian (cf. Hodot 1990: 228),
but are common usage in the Anatolian languages. This discrepancy could hardly be
explained if Lesbian had been influenced by the Anatolian languages.
− In the Luwian languages, the possessive adjective originally ending in */-io-/ appears
in “i-mutated” form as */-ii̯ o/ī-/. Thus, its Proto-Luwian paradigm can be reconstruct-
ed as: nom.sg.comm. */-īs/ < */-ii̯ is/, acc.sg.comm. */-īn/ < */-ii̯ in/, nom./acc.sg.ntr.
*/-ii̯ on/ < */-ion/ etc. (cf. Melchert 1990). If there is an actual influence from the
Anatolian languages on Greek, this morphological change should also become visible
in Greek. This is actually the case − but only from the late Hellenistic period onward,
when the boundaries of stems in -ιος and -ις are beginning to be blurred: cf. for
example the personal name Ταρασις versus Ταρασιος (Pisidia, Lycia, etc.; see Brixhe
1987: 67).
− From the Mycenaean period onwards, there are strong interferences between posses-
sive adjectives ending in /-io-/ and material adjectives in /-ei̯ o-/ (summary in Hajnal
1994). As in Mycenaean (cf. Myc. wi-ri-ni-jo along with wi-ri-ne-jo /u̯rīn-io- ≈ u̯rīn-
ei̯ o-/ ‘made from leather’) so also in Lesbian material adjectives in /-io-/ instead of

Authenticated
*/-e(i̯ )o-/ are attested: cf. Lesb. χρυσιος, χαλκιος (instead of *χρυσεος, *χαλκεος) and
see Hodot (1990: 233 ff.) This suggests that the Lesbian usage of /-io-/ should in any
case be viewed as an independent archaism, also in regard to patronymica.
In addition, Watkins (1998: 203 f.) refers to Hom. Ἀσ(ϝ)ίῳ ἐν λειμῶνι Il. B 641, which,
according to him, shows an Anatolian usage of -ιος (“the morphology and syntax of
Ἄσϝιος is both Aeolic and Luwian”; ibid. 204). In fact, the Luwian languages show an
analogous usage of adjectives in /-ii̯ o/ī-/ with place names (see Hajnal 2014b: 156 f.):
Cf. Lyc. tuminehija kumezija χãkbija kumezi[j]a (TL 44b, 54 f.) ‘holy district of Tymnes-
sos and holy district of Kandyba’. This usage, however, is common to Mycenaean as
well: Cf. ke-re-si-jo we-ke /krēsio-u̯ergēs/ ‘of Cretan origin’ (PY Ta 641.1+), with adj.
/Krēsios/, derived from the toponym Κρήτα. Therefore, also the use of /-ii̯ o-/ in Greek
derivations of place names does not suggest any foreign influence.
Another possible phenomenon of contact, this time in the domain of verbal morpholo-
gy, is suggested by Puhvel (1991: 13 ff.) and Watkins (2001: 58): the East Ionic and epic
iterative preterits in /-ske/o-/, e.g. Il. Ρ 225 ff. ἔνθα δέ οἱ δέπας ἔσκε τετυγμένον, οὐδέ
τις ἄλλος | οὔτ’ ἀνδρῶν πίνεσκεν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ αἴθοπα οἶνον, | οὔτέ τεῳ σπένδεσκε θεῶν,
ὅτε μὴ Διὶ πατρί ‘Inside there was a uniquely crafted chalice for him (sc. Achilleus). No
other man drank dark wine from it, nor did he make an offering from it to any of the gods
other than father Zeus.’ Puhvel compares this to the Hittite šk-iteratives/distributives and
assumes a “Sprachbund” phenomenon: “If indeed the East Ionic epic -σκε- conjugation
is of Anatolian inspiration it may be less due to conscious copying than to a kind of
‘Sprachbund’ effect cutting across contiguous or overlapping linguistic boundaries …”
(Puhvel 1991: 20).
First of all, it should be pointed out that only the Hittite šk-iteratives/distributives
may serve as elements for comparison. In Luwian, the underlying verbal suffix */-sk̑e/o-/
develops into palatal */-(s)t se/o-/: e.g. C-Luw. ḫalu̯atna-zza- ‘get angry’. Furthermore,
Luwian shows a preference for the suffix */-se/o-/, in the same function (cf. C-Luw.
pipišša- ‘give’). Therefore, we have to rule out any Luwian influence. If we concentrate
on Hittite, there are in fact parallels between Hittite and East Ionic epic usage: As in
Greek, the Hittite šk-iteratives/distributives appear frequently in a series and may occur
in epic mythological narratives: cf. GÌR.MEŠ-aš-šaš GAM-an ḫinkiškitta NAG-na-šši-kan
GAL.Ḫ I.A-uš ŠU-i-šši zikkizzi ‘at his feet he (sc. Kumarbi) bowed and put drinking vessels
in his hand’ (KUB XXXIII 120 I 17). This may indicate an Anatolian interference on a
literary level. However, the assumption of an Anatolian interference is not necessary,
because there is a plausible explanation for the East Ionic epic σκ-iteratives within the
Greek language itself. A typical feature of the preterites of the type ἔσκε, πίνεσκεν or
σπένδεσκε (as in the example given above) is their lack of the augment. Recent hypoth-
eses suggest that the Greek augment */(h1)e-/ originally was an actualizing particle with
hic-et-nunc deixis (see Pagniello 2007: 116 ff. with references). If so, the missing aug-
ment in the iterative preterites is well motivated: A timeless past as expressed by iterative
preterites cannot be combined with a particle that is limited to personal accounts with a
topical aspect. Thus, the East Ionic epic σκ-iterative preterites represent an archaism,
which is neither unusual for archaizing poetic language nor for a region at the fringe of
the Greek linguistic community.

Authenticated
4.3. Borrowings on the syntactic level
Watkins (1995: 150 f. and 1997: 618) points out a striking parallel in the area of particles:
The Homeric particle -ταρ − which is mistaken as τ’ ἄρ in numerous editions (cf. Katz
2007) − corresponds in usage to the Cuneiform Luwian particle -tar.
Cf. Greek-Anatolian parallels …
− */k u̯is-tar/ as in Il. A 8 τίς τάρ σφῶε θεῶν ἔριδι ξυνέηκε μάχεσθαι; ‘Who of the gods
has brought these two together in strife for fighting?’ or C-Luw. kuiš-tar malḫaššaš-
šanza EN-i̯ a ādduu̯ala ānniti … (KUB IX 6 III 12) ‘Whoever acts evil against the
lord of this ritual …’;
− */#Verb + -tar/ as in Il., Λ 254 ῥίγησεν ταρ (τ’ ἄρ) ἔπειτα ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν Ἀγαμέμνῶν:
or C-Luw. DTarḫunza mammanna-tar (KUB XXXV 43 II 36) ‘Tarḫunt, be weighed’.
As Hom. -ταρ and C-Luw. -tar have no close parallels in the remaining Indo-European
languages, Watkins (1995: 150 f. and 1997: 618). suggests an areal linguistic common
element. However, the particle */-tar/ is elusive in both languages: C-Luw. -tar function-
ally corresponds to the Hittite sentence particle -šan and has a locative connotation (cf.
the summary in Yakubovich 2010: 141−145). Hittite -šan, as well as C-Luw. -tar take
the final position in the sentence-initial string of particles. Thus, they seem to be of
adverbial origin. The Homeric particle -ταρ, however, regularly appears in second posi-
tion. This position is typical of discourse particles in Homer (see Hajnal 2004). Thus, it
seems obvious to take -ταρ as a discourse particle. In this case Hom. -ταρ can hardly be
linked to C-Luw. -tar, which always takes the last position in the string of particles,
as pointed out before. In addition, Katz (2007) points out that C-Luw. -tar always shows
lenis writing − which may be an indication of an underlying form with an initial */# d°/ −
or possibly */-d( h)r̥ /. In this case a connection with Hom. -ταρ is anyway out of the
question. Thus, neither an etymological nor an areal linguistic connection can at present
be postulated.
On the level of case syntax, Högemann (2003: 8 f.) assumes Anatolian influence in
the case of the Greek accusative of relation − the so-called “accusativus Graecus”. This
accusative is found in Greek poetry and is used only to express inalienable possession,
as is the case with body parts: e.g. (Ἀγαμέμνῶν) ὄμματα καὶ κεφαλὴν ἴκελος Διὶ τερπικ-
εραύνῳ ‘regarding eyes and head like Zeus delighting in the thunderbolt’ Il. B 478 (cf.
Jacquinod 2006). In fact, there are analogies to this in Hittite and in Luwian texts: Cf.
Hitt. tákku LÚ .ULÙ LU-an EL-LAM KAxKAK-šẹt kuiški u̯āki KBo VI 3 Vs. I 33 ‘if someone
bites the nose of a free man’; H-Luw. u̯a/i-tá VIR-ti-i-zi-i (‘PES’) pa-ti-zi | ARHA
(‘MANUS+CULTER’) REL+ra/i-ḫa-' ‘I cut off the men’s feet’ (see Garrett and Kurke
1994: 77 ff.). It is worth noting that the context of usage remains unchanged since
Homer − the Greek accusative of relation is not touched by poetic innovation and appears
alien to the system (see Jacquinod 2006: 93 ff.); on the other hand, there is a striking
parallel to the Tamyīz-construction in Semitic, in which a functionally comparable accu-
sative signifies an inalienable possessum, which is specified by a predicative (cf. Wasser-
man 2003: 29 ff. with references). Both observations, in combination, suggest the tenta-
tive conclusion that the Greek accusative of relation − as well as its counterpart attested
in Hittite − is a syntactic instrument that entered poetic language by adoption of certain
literary themes from the Middle East (cf. Burkert 2005: 295 ff.).

Authenticated
5. Assessment
There is no doubt that Mycenaean Greeks and Anatolians were in close contact toward
the end of the Bronze Age. Linguistically, however, this contact can only be proven
within limits:
− Loan words, which are of Anatolian origin, on the one hand, and which, on the other
hand, have been adopted as early as the second millennium, can be found in Greek
only in a very limited number (see 3.1). Generally speaking, these are cultural terms
which probably have made their way into Greek through trade connections.
− Phraseological parallels between the Anatolian languages of the second millennium
and Greek seem to be somewhat more common than loan words (see 3.2). However,
those phrasemes are by their very nature only attested in the Homeric epic rather than
in Mycenaean − in which context the methodological objections pointed out in 2
should be taken into account. An additional difficulty is provided by the fact that in
Asia Minor the transition from the second millennium to the first millennium did not
involve a cultural discontinuity (cf. the section on cultural continuity 3.2). The
phraseme Hitt. parā/piran ḫuu̯āi- ‘hurry ahead’ in the sense of ‘help, support’, for
example, survives in Hieroglyphic Luwian in the first millennium: Cf. e.g. H-Luw.
KARKAMIS A11b, § 11: u̯a/i-ma-tà-´ PRAE-na PES2(-)REL2-i̯ a-ta ‘they (sc. the gods)
ran before me’ in the sense of ‘they support me’. Thus, the analogous semantic devel-
opment of ‘hurry ahead’ to ‘help’ in Hom. προθεῖν could also be explained through
Anatolian influence in the first millennium BCE.
− Most of the typological borrowings postulated in the specialist literature cannot be
confirmed if analyzed more closely (cf. 4). The “accusativus graecus” used in the
early poetic language is perhaps the only case of early interference. In this case,
however, the interference is hardly to be attributed to living language contact but
rather to poetic imitation of a literary model.
The following conclusion can be drawn from these data: The linguistic interferences
between Mycenaean Greek and the Anatolian languages of the late Bronze Age are
scarce. They point to a moderate borrowing scenario, according to the typology given
in 2. There is no evidence for the existence of a virtual “Sprachbund” − as suggested,
e.g., by Watkins (2000b: 1143 ff.).
These results are not unexpected if one looks at the historical sources: In the Tau̯aga-
lau̯a-letter Ḫattušili III (1264−1240 BC) addresses the sovereign of Aḫḫii̯ au̯a as an equal
high king. In the earlier and the later sources, however, no sign of an equal rank of the
ruler of Aḫḫii̯ au̯a can be found. Thus, at least diplomatic contacts seem to be limited to
a very short period of time. As pointed out in 1, the Mycenaean sphere of influence in
Asia Minor is also relatively restricted geographically. Intense Mycenaean settlement is
to be found in the archaeological records only for the region between the Peninsula of
Halicarnassus in the south and Milet in the north as well as in the islands off this
coastline, between Rhodes in the south and Kos − possibly also Samos − in the north
(cf. Mountjoy 1998 and Niemeier 2005b). In this sense, an intense Mycenaean-Anatolian
contact can only be assumed for a limited period of time and for a limited geographical
region. This is not sufficient for having an impact on Mycenaean Greek on the Greek
mainland as well as in the Aegaean islands. The presence of workers from Asia Minor

Authenticated
and/or prisoners of war (cf. 1c) in the Mycenaean empire is also not sufficient to leave
traces in Mycenaean Greek.
Another important factor to be taken into consideration is the fact that, for the present,
the only contacts proved by the records are on a diplomatic, i.e. elitist, level (cf.
Heinhold-Krahmer 2007 and in particular p. 203). It is to be doubted that both royal
houses were able to speak each other’s languages. In particular, there is no actual evi-
dence in support of the hypothesis of Bryce (1999) that Hittite scribes were engaged at
the Mycenaean court. Correspondence orally transmitted by messengers makes more
sense (see Melchert, To appear). Phenomena of intense language contact, however, −
e.g. an adstratum/substratum scenario as in 2 − presuppose an active interpenetration of
linguistic communities as well as a certain degree of bilingualism on all social levels of
society.
Our conclusions can be summarized in short (see also Hajnal 2014a: 113 f.): Mycenaean-
Anatolian language contacts can be assumed with certainty for the Late Bronze Age.
Their range and their intensity, however, are not sufficient to have left substantial traces
in Mycenaean or in the Anatolian languages.
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. and R. M. W. Dixon (eds.)
2001a Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance. Problems in Comparative Linguistics. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
2001b Introduction. In: Aikhenvald and Dixon (eds.), 1−26.
2003 The Origin of Apollo. Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 3: 1−21.
Bile, Monique
1988 Le dialecte crétois ancien. Étude de la langue des inscriptions. Receuil des inscriptions
postérieures aux IC. Paris: Geuthner.
Blum, Hartmut
2001 Homers Troia und die Luwier. In: Hilmar Klinkott (ed.), Anatolien im Lichte kultureller
Wechselwirkungen. Akkulturationsphänomene in Kleinasien und seinen Nachbarregio-
nen während des 2. und 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr. Tübingen: Attempto, 41−51.
Blum, Hartmut
2002 Anatolien, die Ilias und die sogenannte ‘Kontinuitätsthese’. Klio 84: 275−318.
Brixhe, Claude
1976 Le dialecte grec de Pamphylie. Documents et grammaire. Paris: Maisonneuve.
Brixhe, Claude
1987 Essai sur le grec anatolien au début de notre ère. Nancy: Presses Universitaires de
Nancy.
Brixhe, Claude
2002 Achéens et Phrygiens en Asie Mineure: approche comparative de quelques données
lexicales. In: Matthias Fritz and Susanne Zeilfelder (eds.), Novalis Indogermanica.
Festschrift für Günter Neumann zum 80. Geburtstag. Graz: Leykam, 49−73.
Bryce, Trevor R.
1999 Anatolian Scribes in Mycenaean Greece. Historia 48: 257−264.
Burkert, Walter
2005 Near Eastern connections. In: John M. Foley (ed.), A Companion to Ancient Epic. Mald-
en, MA: Blackwell, 291−301.

Authenticated
Chadwick, John
1969 Greek and Pre-Greek. Transactions of the Philological Society [1970]: 80−98.
Curnow, Timothy J.
2001 What language features can be ‘borrowed’?. In: Aikhenvald and Dixon (eds.), 412−436.
Duhoux, Yves
2007 Pre-Greek languages: indirect evidence. In: A.-F. Christidis (ed.), A History of Ancient
Greek. From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
223−228.
Finkelberg, Margalit
2005 Greeks and Pre-Greeks. Aegean Prehistory and Greek Heroic Tradition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Garrett, Andrew and Leslie Kurke
1994 Pudenda Asiae Minoris. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 96: 75−83.
Gusmani, Roberto
1969 Isoglossi lessicali Greco-Ittite. In: Giancarlo Bolognesi and Ciro Santoro (eds.), Studi
linguistici in onore di Vittore Pisani. Vol. 1. Brescia: Paideia, 503−514.
Haas, Volkert
2007 Zwei Verfluchungen im hethitischen Schrifttum und in der Ilias. Journal of Ancient Near
Eastern Religions 7: 1−6.
Hajnal, Ivo
1993 Neue Aspekte zur Rekonstruktion des frühgriechischen Phonemsystems. Indogerma-
nische Forschungen 98: 108−129.
Hajnal, Ivo
1994 Die frühgriechische Flexion der Stoffadjektive und deren ererbte Grundlagen. In: George
E. Dunkel, Gisela Meyer, Salvatore Scarlata, and Christian Seidl (eds.), Früh-, Mittel-,
Spätindogermanisch. Akten der IX. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom
5. bis 9. Oktober 1992 in Zürich. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 77−109.
Hajnal, Ivo
2003 Troia aus sprachwissenschaftlicher Sicht. Die Struktur einer Argumentation. Innsbruck:
Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität.
Hajnal, Ivo
2004 e-ke-qe oder e-ke? − Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit in den mykenischen Palastarchi-
ven, In: Thomas Krisch, Thomas Lindner, and Ulrich Müller (eds.), Analecta Homini
Universalis Dicata. Arbeiten zur Indogermanistik, Linguistik, Philologie, Politik, Musik
und Dichtung. Festschrift für Oswald Panagl zum 65. Geburtstag. Vol. 1. (Stuttgarter
Arbeiten zur Germanistik 421. 2 vols.). Stuttgart: Heinz, 233−251.
Hajnal, Ivo
2011 Namen und Etymologien − als Beweisstücke nur bedingt tauglich? In: Christoph Ulf
and Robert Rollinger (eds.), Lag Troia in Kilikien? Der aktuelle Streit um Homers Ilias.
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 241−263.
Hajnal, Ivo
2014a Die griechisch-anatolischen Sprachkontakte zur Bronzezeit − Sprachbund oder loser
Sprachkontakt? In: José Luis García Ramón and Daniel Kölligan (eds.), Strategies of
Translation: Language Contact and Poetic Language (Akten des Workshops, Köln, 17.−
18. Dezember 2010). Pisa/Roma: Fabrizio Serra editore (fascicoli monografici di «Lin-
guarum Varietas», 3, 2014−4, 2015), 105−116.
Hajnal, Ivo
2014b Beobachtungen zum Suffixsystem hethitischer und luwischer Toponyme. In: Gerhard
Rampl, Katharina Zipser, and Manfred Kienpointner (eds.), Fontibus Veritas. Festschrift
für Peter Anreiter zum 60. Geburtstag. Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press, 147−162.

Authenticated
Heinhold-Krahmer, Susanne
2007 Zu diplomatischen Kontakten zwischen dem Hethiterreich und dem Land Aḫḫiyawa. In:
Eva Alram-Stern and Georg Nightingale (eds.), Keimelion. Elitenbildung und elitärer
Konsum von der mykenischen Palastzeit bis zur homerischen Epoche. Akten des interna-
tionalen Kongresses vom 3. bis 5. Februar 2005 in Salzburg. Vienna: Österreichische
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 191−208.
Hodot, René
1990 Le dialecte éolien d’Asie. La langue des inscriptions, VII e s. a. C.−IV e s. p. C. Paris:
Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
Högemann, Peter
2000a Der Iliasdichter, Anatolien und der griechische Adel. Klio 82: 7−39.
Högemann, Peter
2000b Zum Iliasdichter − ein anatolischer Standpunkt. Studia Troica 10: 183−198.
Högemann, Peter
2003 Das ionische Griechentum und seine altanatolische Umwelt im Spiegel Homers. In:
Markus Witte and Stefan Alkier (eds.), Die Griechen und der Vordere Orient. Beiträge
zum Kultur- und Religionskontakt zwischen Griechenland und dem Vorderen Orient im
1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 191). Freiburg/Schweiz: Universitäts-
verlag, 1−24.
Hoffner, Harry A., Jr.
2000 Thoughts on a New Volume of a Hittite Dictionary. Review of Jaan Puhvel, Hittite
Etymological Dictionary, Vol. 4: Words Beginning with K. Journal of the American Ori-
ental Society 120: 68−75.
Houwink ten Cate, Philo H. J.
1965 The Luwian Population Groups of Lycia and Cilicia Aspera During the Hellenistic
Period. Leiden: Brill.
Jacquinod, Bernard
2006 Le domaine de l’accusatif de relation. In: Emilio Crespo, Jesús de la Villa, and Antonio
R. Revuelta, (eds.), Word Classes and Related Topics in Ancient Greek. Proceedings of
the Conference on ‘Greek Syntax and Word Classes’ held in Madrid on 18−21, June
2003. Louvain-La-Neuve: Peeters, 59−68.
Joseph, Brian D.
1982 The Source of Ancient Greek τολύπη. Glotta 60: 230−234.
Katz, Joshua T.
2007 The epic adventures of an unknown particle. In: George H. Coulter, Matthew McCullagh,
Benedicte Nielsen, Antonia Ruppel, and Olga Tribulato (eds.), Greek and Latin from an
Indo-European Perspective. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, Supple-
mentary Volume 32. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society, 65−79.
Killen, John T.
1994 Thebes sealings, Knossos tablets, and Mycenaean state banquets. Bulletin of the Institute
of Classical Studies 39: 67−84.
Melchert, H. Craig
1990 Adjective Stems in *-iyo- in Anatolian. Historische Sprachforschung 103: 198−207.
Melchert, H. Craig
1994 Anatolian Historical Phonology. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Melchert, H. Craig
2000 Once more Greek τολύπη. Orpheus-Journal of Indo-European and Thracian Studies 8
[1998, Memorial Volume of V. I. Georgiev]: 47−51.
Melchert, H. Craig
2004 Second thoughts on PIE *y and *h2 in Lydian. In: Michel Mazoyer and Olivier Casa-
bonne (eds.), Studia Anatolica et Varia. Mélanges offerts au Professeur René Lebrun.
Vol. 2. Paris: L’Harmattan, 139−150.

Authenticated
Melchert, H. Craig
2008 Greek mólybdos as loanword from Lydian. In: Billie Jean Collins, Mary R. Bachvarova,
and Ian C. Rutherford (eds.), Anatolian Interfaces: Hittites, Greeks and their Neigh-
bours. Proceedings of an International Conference on Cross-Cultural Interaction,
September 17−19, 2004, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 153−
157.
Melchert, H. Craig
To appear Mycenaean and Hittite diplomatic correspondence: Fact and fiction. In: Annette
Teffeteller (ed.), Mycenaeans and Anatolians in the Late Bronze Age: The Ahhiyawa
Question, Proceedings of the Workshop Held on January 4−5, 2006, at Concordia Uni-
versity.
Milani, Celestina
2001 Onomastica micenea e onomastica anatolica. In: Onofrio Carruba und Wolfgang Meid
(eds.), Anatolisch und Indogermanisch. Anatolico e Indoeuropeo. Akten des Kolloquiums
der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Pavia, 22.−25. September 1998. (Innsbrucker Bei-
träge zur Sprachwissenschaft 100). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Uni-
versität, 273−290.
Morpurgo Davies, Anna
1986 The linguistic evidence: Is there any? In: Gerald Cadogan (ed.), The End of the Early
Bronze Age in the Aegean. Leiden: Brill, 93−123.
Morris, Sarah P.
2001 Potnia Aswiya: Anatolian contributions to Greek religion. In: Robert Laffineur and Rob-
in Hägg (eds.), Potnia. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. Liège: Université
de Liège (= Aegaeum 22), 423−434.
Mountjoy, Penelope A.
1998 The East Aegean-West Anatolian Interface in the Late Bronze Age: Mycenaeans and
the Kingdom of Ahhiyawa. Anatolian Studies 48: 33−67.
Neu, Erich
1999 Altanatolien und das mykenische Pylos: Einige Überlegungen zum Nestorbecher der
Ilias. Archív orientální 67: 619−627.
Niemeier, Wolf-Dietrich
1998 The Mycenaeans in Western Anatolia and the Problem of the Origins of the Sea Peoples.
In: Seymour Gitin, Amichai Mazar, and Ephraim Stern (eds.), Mediterranean Peoples
in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries B.C.E: In Honor of Professor Trude
Dothan. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 17−65.
2005a Minoans, Mycenaeans, Hittites and Ionians in Western Asia Minor: New Excavations
in Bronze Age Miletus-Millawanda. In: Alexandra Villing (ed.), The Greeks in the East.
London: The British Museum, 1−36.
2005b The Minoans and Mycenaeans in Western Asia Minor: Settlement, Emporia, or Accultu-
ration? In: Robert Laffineur and Emanuele Greco (eds.), Emporia: Aegeans in the Cen-
tral and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10 th International Aegean Confer-
ence, Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14−18 April 2004. Liège: Université de
Liège (= Aegaeum 25), 199−203.
2007 Westkleinasien und Ägäis von den Anfängen bis zur Ionischen Wanderung: Topogra-
phie, Geschichte und Beziehungen nach dem archäologischen Befund und den hethiti-
schen Quellen. In: Justus Cobet, Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier, and Volkmar von Graeve
(eds.), Frühes Ionien. Eine Bestandsaufnahme. Panionion-Symposion Güzelçamlı,
26. September−1. Oktober 1999. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 37−96.

Authenticated
Oettinger, Norbert
1990 Die ‘dunkle Erde’ im Hethitischen und Griechischen. Welt des Orients 20/21 [1989/90]:
83−98.
Oettinger, Norbert
2006 Die griechische Psilose als Kontaktphänomen. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissen-
schaft 62 [2002]: 95−101.
Pagniello, Frederick J.
2007 The past-iterative and the augment in Homer. Indogermanische Forschungen 112: 105−
123.
Parker, Victor
1999 Die Aktivitäten der Mykenäer in der Ostägäis im Lichte der Linear B Tafeln. In: Sigrid
Deger-Jalkotzy, Stefan Hiller, and Oswald Panagl (eds.) unter Mitarbeit von Georg
Nightingale und Thomas Lindner, Floreant Studia Mycenaea II. Akten des X. Interna-
tionalen Mykenologischen Colloquiums in Salzburg vom 1.−5. Mai 1995. Vol. 2. Vienna:
Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 495−502.
Puhvel, Jaan
1983 Homeric questions and Hittite answers. The American Journal of Philology 104: 217−
227.
Puhvel, Jaan.
1988 An Anatolian turn of phrase in the Iliad. The American Journal of Philology 109: 591−
593.
Puhvel, Jaan
1991 Homer and Hittite. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, Vorträge und Kleinere
Schriften 47). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität.
Puhvel, Jaan
1993 A Hittite calque in the Iliad. Historische Sprachforschung 106: 36−38.
Renfrew, Colin
1998 Word of Minos: the Minoan contribution to Mycenaean Greek and the linguistic geogra-
phy of the Bronze Age Aegean. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 8: 239−264.
Risch, Ernst
1983 Probleme bei der Schreibung von Hiat und Kompositionsfuge im Mykenischen. In:
Alfred Heubeck and Günter Neumann (eds.), Res Mycenaeae. Akten des VII. Interna-
tionalen Mykenologischen Colloquiums in Nürnberg vom 6.−10. April 1981. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 374−390.
Rollinger, Robert
2004 Hethiter, Homer und Anatolien. Erwägungen zu Il. 3, 300 f. und KUB XIII Nr. 3, III 1 f.
Historia 53: 1−21.
Schuol, Monika
2002 Zur Überlieferung homerischer Epen vor dem Hintergrund altanatolischer Traditionen.
In: Monika Schuol, Udo Hartmann, and Andreas Luther (eds.), Grenzüberschreitungen.
Formen des Kontakts zwischen Orient und Okzident im Altertum. Stuttgart: Steiner, 331−
362.
Starke, Frank
1997 Troia im Kontext des historisch-politischen und sprachlichen Umfeldes Kleinasiens im
2. Jahrtausend. Studia Troica 7: 447−487.
Szemerényi, Oswald
1974 The origins of the Greek lexicon: ex Oriente lux. Journal of Hellenic Studies 94: 144−
157.
Thomason, Sarah G.
2001 Language Contact. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press [reprinted 2007].

Authenticated
Thomason, Sarah G. and Terrence Kaufman

1988 Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of Cali-
fornia Press.
Wasserman, Nathan
2003 Style and Form in Old-Babylonian Literary Texts. Leiden: Brill.
Watkins, Calvert
1995 How to Kill a Dragon. Aspects of Indo-European Poetics. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Watkins, Calvert
1997 Delbrück and the syntax of Hittite and Luvian: predictive power. In: Emilio Crespo and
José Luis García Ramón (eds.), Berthold Delbrück y la sintaxis indoeuropea hoy. Actas
del Coloquio de la Indogermanische Gesellschaft, Madrid, 21−24 de septiembre de
Watkins, Calvert
1998 Homer and Hittite Revisited. In: Peter Knox and Clive Foss (eds.), Style and Tradition:
Studies in honor of Wendell Clausen. Stuttgart: Teubner, 201−211.
Watkins, Calvert
2000a A distant Anatolian echo in Pindar: the origin of the Aegis again. Harvard Studies in
Classical Philology 100: 1−14.
Watkins, Calvert
2000b L’Anatolie et la Grèce: Résonances culturelles, linguistiques et poétiques. Comptes Ren-
dus des Séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres: 1143−1158.
Watkins, Calvert
2001 An Indo-European linguistic area and its characteristics: Ancient Anatolia. Areal diffu-
sion as a challenge to the comparative method? In: Aikhenvald and Dixon (eds.), 44−
63.
Watkins, Calvert
2002 Homer and Hittite revisited II. In: K. Aslihan Yener and Harry A. Hoffner, Jr. (eds.)
with the assistance of Simrit Dhesi, Recent developments in Hittite Archaeology and
History. Papers in Memory of Hans G. Güterbock. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 167−
176.
Watkins, Calvert
2007 The Golden Bowl: Thoughts on the New Sappho and its Asianic Background. Classical
Antiquity 26: 305−324.
Weilhartner, Jorg
2005 Mykenische Opfergaben nach Aussage der Linear B-Texte. (Österreichische Akademie
der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, Denkschriften 330, Veröffentlichungen der
Mykenischen Kommission 22, Mykenische Studien 18). Vienna: Österreichische Akade-
West, Martin L.
1988 The Rise of the Greek Epic. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 108: 151−172.
West, Martin L.
1997 The East Face of Helicon. West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth. Oxford:
The Clarendon Press.
Widmer, Paul
2007 Mykenisch ru-wa-ni-jo “Luwier”. Kadmos 45: 82−84.
Yakubovich, Ilya S.
2010 Sociolinguistics of the Luvian Language. Leiden: Brill.
Ivo Hajnal, Innsbruck (Austria)

Authenticated
XX. Proto-Indo-European
121. The phonology of Proto-Indo-European

0. Introduction 4. Prosody
1. Vowels 5. Conspiracies
2. Resonants 6. Explanation of symbols
3. Obstruents 7. References
0. Introduction
The following presents a concise but comprehensive synchronic and diachronic sketch
of what I believe late PIE to have sounded like, both at the surface and below.
I will make a clear notational distinction between the underlying (phonological) form,
written between slanted lines (e.g., */h2 eg̑tos/ ‘driven’), and the reconstructed surface
(phonetic) form written in italics (e.g., *h2 ak̑tos). The former will not always be provid-
ed, but, as illustrated in this example, the two representations need not be the same.
Sound laws and certain important concepts will be referenced by Greek letters in paren-
theses, such as (α).
There are a number of works which examine the phonology of PIE but very few that
devote themselves exclusively to this topic. Students should begin with the more recent
abridged treatments in introductory textbooks (such as Szemerényi 1996, Clackson 2007,
Meier-Brügger 2010, Fortson 2010, and Beekes 2011), supplemented by more detailed
discussions in Vennemann (1989), Nielsen Whitehead et al. (2012), Sukač (2012), Coop-
er (2015), and (Byrd 2015). For discussion of the laryngeal theory, see Winter (1965),
Lindeman (1997), and Kessler (n. d.). The older literature is still quite useful, in particu-
lar Brugmann and Delbrück (1897), Meillet (1937), and Lehmann (1952). Collinge
(1985) is a handy guide to the many sound laws of PIE and its daughter languages
and is supplemented by Collinge (1995) and Collinge (1999). Undoubtedly the most
comprehensive synopsis of IE phonology is Mayrhofer (1986).
Let us begin with a look at the complete phonemic inventory of PIE, as it is typically
reconstructed. Most Indo-Europeanists today continue to follow the traditional Neogram-
marian reconstruction with minor alterations. Thus, for the consonants one usually as-
sumes three distinct series of stops (voiceless, voiced, and voiced aspirated), three sets
of dorsal consonants (palatal, velar, and labiovelar), six sonorants, and a single sibilant,
with the most significant change being the addition of three distinct postvelar fricatives,
known as “laryngeals” (*/h1 /, */h2 /, */h3 /).
(α) Proto-Indo-European consonants
labial dental palatal velar labiovelar postvelar

voiceless stop *p *t *k̑ *k *k w
voiced stop *b *d *g̑ *g *gw
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-042

Authenticated
121. The phonology of Proto-Indo-European 2057
labial dental palatal velar labiovelar postvelar

h h h h wh
voiced aspirate *b *d *g̑ *g *g
fricative *s *h1 , *h2 , *h3
nasal *m *n
liquid *r, *l
glide *i̯ *u̯
For the vowels, one usually reconstructs the typologically common five-vowel inventory
with a correlation of length (*ā̆, *ē̆, *ī̆, *ō̆, *ū̆). However, this set may be characterized
more accurately as the surface vocalic inventory, as the phonological details are much
more complicated.
(β) Proto-Indo-European vowels
*i, *ī *u, *ū
*e, *ē *ǝ *o, *ō
*a, *ā
In the pages that follow, these traditional views will be maintained as the most likely
state of affairs for a late stage of PIE, though it is probable that the system looked quite
different at an earlier point in time.
1. Vowels
There were five distinct full vowels that surfaced in PIE, of which at least three made
contrasts in length. The reduced vowel *ə, an allophone of zero, was utilized to repair
illicit syllable structures and will be discussed in 3.3 and 5.3.
1.1. Short vowels
The short mid vowels */e/ and */o/ are universally accepted; cf. *dék̑m̥ ‘10’ (Gk. δέκα,
Lat. decem) and *pódm̥ ‘foot (acc.sg.)’ (Gk. πόδα, Arm. otn). The high vowels *i and
*u were not phonemically vocalic, but rather syllabic allophones of the glides */i̯ / and
*/u̯/, respectively; cf. the zero-grade variants of */di̯ eu̯-/ ‘shine’: *diu̯és ‘sky (gen.sg.)’
vs. *di̯ ut- ‘shining’. While most present-day Indo-Europeanists reconstruct *a as a pho-
neme for late PIE, some (most famously the “Leiden School” [LS]; see Beekes 2011)
do not, eschewing typical reconstructions such as */sals/ ‘salt’ (Ved. salilá- ‘salty’, Gk.
ἅλς, Lat. sal-, etc.) in favor of laryngealistic reconstructions: *sh2 als (← /*sh2 els/). Thus,
for the LS, *a was always a surface allophone of */e/, colored by an adjacent */h2/ (3.3).
It is, however, very difficult to avoid the reconstruction of certain forms with *a vocal-
ism. For example, Hitt. apa, Gk. ἀπό, and Lat. ab ‘away, off’ may only be traced back

Authenticated
2058 XX. Proto-Indo-European
to */apó/, not */h2 epó/, and it is quite difficult to derive Skt. nas-, OCS nosъ ‘nose’
from */nh2 es-/, as one would expect the syllabification*n̥h2 es- (4.2), though perhaps one
may explain these latter forms through sound law (Beekes 1988: 43) or analogy. See
Fritz (1996), however, for the derivation of ‘nose’ from the root *h2 anh1 -, with deletion
of *h1 in the environment *R̥._V. Cf. rule (φ).
1.2. Long vowels

The long mid vowels */ē/ and */ō/ are also uncontroversially reconstructed as phonemes.
These vowels are often derived through the contraction of adjacent vowels to resolve
hiatus; cf. *-ōs ‘anim. *o-stem nom. pl.’ < */-o-es/ and *-ēti ‘3 rd sg. them. subj.’ <
*/-e-eti/:
(γ) V1 + V2 → V:1 (Vowel Contraction)
Not all *ē and *ō were phonologically derived, for the long vocalism of forms such as
*h3 rēg̑- ‘rule’ (Lat. rēx, OIr. rí, Skt. rā́j-) and *su̯ésōr ‘sister’ (Ved. svásā, Lat. soror,
OIr. siur) must have been lexicalized or morphologized in late PIE. Long high ī and ū
are well attested in the daughter languages, but most derive from a sequence of glide +
laryngeal in PIE (3.3; *pih2 u̯erih2 > Skt. pī́varī ‘fat (fem.)’, *puh2 rós > Lat. pūrus
‘pure’). There are certain isolated forms which may have possessed */ī/ and */ū/: *u̯īs-
‘poison’ (Av. vīš, Lat. vīrus) beside *u̯is- (Ved. viṣá-, Av. viša-), PIE *mūs ‘mouse’ (OE
mūs) beside *mus- (Lat. musculus ‘muscle’). Were one to reconstruct *u̯ihx s- and
*muhx s, the short vowel variants could not be explained. (Such instances of long high
vowels are likely due to monosyllabic lengthening; see [ω] below.) Likewise, while
*nās- ‘nose’ (Lat. nārēs ‘nostrils’) may be mechanically derived from */neh2 s-/, it would
be difficult to connect this form with the short-vowel variant *nas- cited above. Addi-
tional instances of *ā were also derived by (η): */-eh2m/ > *-ām (Skt. sénām ‘army’).
These facts allow us to postulate a more precise phonemic inventory of vowels for late
PIE:
(δ) PIE vowel phonemes
*e, *ē *o, *ō
*a, *ā
1.3. Diphthongs
In PIE, all diphthongs were “falling”, meaning that the vowel always preceded the glide.
There were three */Vi̯ / diphthongs, seen in *k̑ei̯ - ‘lie’ (Gk. κεῖμαι ‘I lie’), *u̯ói̯ de ‘knows’
(Ved. véda), and *kai̯ kos (LS */kh2 ei̯ kos/) ‘blind’ (Lat. caecus, Goth. haihs ‘one-eyed’),
and three */Vu̯/ diphthongs, cf. *sréu̯mn̥ ‘river’ (Gk. ῥεῦμα), *h2 k̑ou̯s- ‘hear’ (Gk.
ἀκούω), and *sau̯so- (LS */sh2 eu̯so-/) ‘dry’ (Gk. αὖος, Lith. saũsas). Long diphthongs
also appeared in certain morphological categories, some underlying (*/dēi̯ k̑-s-/ ‘showed
[s-aorist]’), some derived (*-ōi̯ ‘o-stem dative sg.’ ← */-o-ei̯ /).

Authenticated
1.4. Ablaut
Ablaut, also known as vowel gradation and apophony, was the grammatical alternation
of vowels in timbre and length in PIE. The most basic series involved the interchange
of *e, *o, and *Ø, called e- (or full-) grade, o-grade, and Ø-grade, respectively, with the
former two grades complemented by lengthened-grades, *ē and *ō. All five grades may
be reconstructed for the root *ped- ‘foot’:
e-grade: *ped- (Lat. ped-) ē-grade: *pēd- (OIr. ís ‘beneath’)

o-grade: *pod- (Gk. ποδ-) ō-grade: *pōd- (Eng. foot)
Ø-grade: *bd- (Av. +fra-bd-ǝm ‘clatter of feet’ [Kellens 1974: 375])
Presumably, ablaut came into existence at an early stage of PIE through various phono-
logical processes (cf. Kümmel 2012: 306 ff.), most of which were lost as productive
rules in late PIE. However, we may still reconstruct a morphophonological rule of vowel
syncope (see Byrd 2015: 38), which targeted most (but not all) underlying unaccented
vowels: cf. */h1 és-tei̯ / → *h1 ésti ‘is’ (Ved. ásti) but */h1 es-énti̯ / → *h1 sénti ‘they are’
(Ved. sánti).
(ε) V → 0̸ / in certain morphological environments (Syncope)

[−stress]
2. Resonants
There were six resonants in PIE: two glides */i̯ / and */u̯/, two liquids */r/ and */l/, and
two nasals */m/ and */n/. */n/ likely assimilated in place before stops, a rule maintained
by all of the ancient IE languages, thus Lat. quī[ŋ]que, Skt. páñca, Gk. πέντε (Aeol.
πέμπε), and Goth. fi[ɱ]f, all from PIE *peŋk we ‘five’ (← */penk we/). Each resonant had
(at least) two allophones, one that occurred in syllable margins, another in nuclei. All
resonants were underlyingly non-syllabic; syllabic allophones were derived by (Μ).
*u̯ ~ *u *u̯os ‘you (pl.)’ (Lat. vōs ‘you’) ~ *us- (Aeol. Gk. ὔμμε ‘you [acc.]’)
*i̯ ~ *i *h1 ei̯ - ‘go’ (Ved. émi ‘I go’) ~ *h1 i- (Ved. imáḥ ‘we go’)
*r ~ *r̥ *b her- ‘carry’ (Eng. bear) ~ *b hr̥- (Eng. born)
*l ~ *l̥ *g̑ hel- ‘yellow’ (Av. zairi- ‘yellow’) ~ *g̑ hl̥ - (Eng. gold)
*m ~ *m̥ *sem- ‘one, same’ (Gk. ἕν ‘one [nt.]’) ~ *sm̥- (Gk. ἀ-δελφός ‘brother’)
*n ~ *n̥ *ne ‘not’ (Hitt. na-tta, Lith. nè ‘not’) ~ *n̥- ‘un-’ (Lat. in-)
One notable peculiarity: it appears that (unlike all other resonants) PIE */r/ could not
occur in absolute word-initial position. Thus, while *prō ‘forward’ (Hitt. p[a]rā, Av.
fra-), *h3 reg̑- ‘reach, rule’ (Gk. ὀρέγνυμι), and *sreu̯- ‘flow’ (OIr. srúaim) were possible
forms, **rō, **reg̑-, and **reu̯- were not. It is possible that this was due to a constraint
on the prosodic word (4.3), as onset */r/ was permitted in word-medial position
(*b he.re.ti ‘carries’, *h2 n̥.rés ‘man [gen.sg.]’).

Authenticated
There were a number of phonological processes which targeted resonants or sequen-

ces containing resonants. The first describes the deletion of a nasal within the sequence
*-mn-, which occurs after long vowels, diphthongs, and sequences of short vowel plus
consonant, each denoted by VX (Schmidt 1895).
(ζ) */n/ → 0̸ / -VXm __ V́ - (The Asno Law)

*/m/ → 0̸ / -V́ X __ nV-
Thus, */h2 ék̑mnes/ → *h2 ák̑nes ‘anvil (gen.sg.)’ (Skt. áśnaḥ, Av. asnō) but
*/gwhe/ormnós/ → *gwhe/ormós ‘warmth’ (Lat. formus, Skt. gharmá-, and Gk. θερμός).
Note that the sequence *-mn- was maintained after short vowels: Gk. πρύμνος ‘promi-
nent’, Hitt. šaramna- ‘fore’. Nasal loss also occurred in *tosi̯ o ‘this (gen.sg.)’ (←
*/tosmi̯ o-/) and related forms, though it is unclear exactly how these two processes were
connected, if at all.
Certain word-final sequences ending in */-m/ defied the expected syllabification rules
(ψ) and were simplified instead, with compensatory lengthening (CL) of the preceding
vowel; */di̯ éu̯m/ → *di̯ ḗm (Skt. dyā́m, Gk. ζήν), */-ah2m/ > *ām (Skt. -ām), */dom-m/
→ *dṓm ‘house (acc.sg.)’ (Arm. tun).
(η) */u̯/, */h2 /, */m/ → 0̸ / V __ m # (with CL) (Stang’s Law)
Another rule, which was no longer productive in late PIE, deleted coda fricatives (*/s/
and */hx/) in the sequence *VRF]σ , with CL occurring only in word-final position (Byrd
2015: 105): */ph2 térs/ > p(ǝh2 )tḗr ‘father (nom.sg.)’ (Gk. πατήρ), */u̯erh1 -d hh1 -o-/ >
*u̯erd hh1 -o- (Lat. verbum).
(ι) */F/ → 0̸ / VR __ ]σ (Szemerényi’s Law)
There also appears to have been a rule of word-final n-deletion, though only after *ō;
cf. */k̑u̯ṓn/ → *k̑u̯ṓ ‘dog (nom.sg.)’ (Ved. ś[u]vā́, OIr. cú). Greek κύων has restored the
*-n by analogy to other forms in the paradigm.
(κ) */n/ → 0̸ / ō __ # (Post */ō/ n-Deletion)
Lastly, there is at least one reconstructible example of the loss of */d/ after */r/ with CL
of the preceding vowel, as seen in */k̑érd/ ‘heart’ → *k̑ḗr (Gk. κῆρ, Hitt. ker). It is
unclear if this deletion was lexically restricted or should be considered to be symptomatic
of a broader phonological process (such as Szemerényi’s Law [ι]).
(λ) */d/ → 0̸ / r __ # (Post Rhotic d-Deletion)
3. Obstruents
There were a number of obstruents in PIE, most of which were stops. Unlike the reso-
nants, obstruents were never syllabic (Cooper 2013).

Authenticated
3.1. Stops
The PIE stops had the most complex phonemic distribution of all the consonants, con-
trasting five places of articulation. Two are universally reconstructed: labials (*ped-
‘foot’ > Lat. ped-, Gk. ποδ-, *bel- ‘strength’ > Ved. bála-, and *b her- ‘carry’ > Eng.
bear) and dentals (*tréi̯ es ‘three’ > OIr. trí, *d(u)u̯oh1 ‘two’ > OCS dъva, and *d heh1 -
‘put, make, do’ > Skt. dhā-). As for the three remaining series (referred to as tectals or
dorsals), it was originally believed that all ancient IE languages merged at least two
series into one. Some were satem languages, containing velar stops (*/K/) and coronal
fricatives / affricates, the latter derived from palatal stops (*/K̑/). Others were centum
languages, possessing */K/ and labiovelar stops (*/K w/). While at first glance it might
seem reasonable to reconstruct only two series of dorsals for PIE, say */K̑/, */K w/, where
*/K w/ > */K/ (satem) and */K̑/ > */K/ (centum), this hypothesis is untenable, for there
are a number of reconstructible forms with */K/ continued by all IE languages, such as
*kreu̯h2 - ‘flesh, blood, gore’ > Ved. kravíṣ-, Lith. kraũjas (both satem), Lat. cruor, OIr.
crú (both centum). We therefore must reconstruct three series of dorsals in PIE: */K̑/,
*/K/, */K w/. In the satem languages, */K/, */K w/ > */K/; in the centum languages, */K̑/,
*/K/ > */K/.
From very early on, however, it was argued that the consonants traced back to */K̑/
in the satem languages should rather be derived from PIE */K/ by a conditioned split
(Meillet 1894), with original */K/ maintained only after *s (*skei̯ d- ‘split’) and *u̯
(*i̯ eu̯g- ‘join’) and before *a (*kand- ‘shine’) and *r (*kreu̯h2 -). But if this were true,
the conditioning sounds would have formed a strange natural class indeed. There are
also instances of Gutturalwechsel in Balto-Slavic, a satem branch, which Meillet consid-
ered to be archaisms: *h2 ak̑mō(n) ‘stone’ > OCS kamy, Lith. akmuõ. But while no IE
language continues the three dorsal series in its entirety, some do maintain the original
three-way contrast, at least in part. For example, *k and *k w may have different outcomes
in the satem languages Albanian (*kert- > qeth- ‘cut’ vs. *pénk we > pesë ‘five’) and
Armenian (*ker- ‘shear’ > k‘erem ‘I cut’ vs. *k wetu̯óres > č‘ork‘ ‘four’), and Anatolian
beautifully maintains a threefold distinction in Luv. ziyari, karš-, and kui-, from PIE
*k̑ei̯ or ‘lies (down)’, *kers- ‘cut’, and *k wi- ‘who’, respectively (Melchert 1987).
The PIE stops also contrasted two types of laryngeal features (LFs). By LF I do not
mean the properties of the PIE laryngeals (3.3) but rather the distinctive features [±voice]
(voicing) and [±spread glottis] (aspiration). The manipulation of both allowed for a
three-way phonemic contrast for each place of articulation: voiceless unaspirated stops
(*/T/), voiced unaspirated stops (*/D/), and voiced aspirated stops (*/d h/), the last of
which may be more accurately described as “breathy-voiced” or “murmured”. While it
is likely that in PIE voiceless aspirates (*T h) were allophones of (*/d h/) (5.1), a new
series of phonemic */t h/ was added in Indo-Iranian (cf. Ved. prathimán- ‘width’), which
by and large may be traced back to stop + *h2 (PIE *pleth2 món- > prathimán-).
As with many of our reconstructions, the stop series envisaged for PIE are not contin-
ued by any attested IE language. But according to Jakobson (1958: 528), the classic
reconstruction of the PIE stop series faces another, more troubling problem: the system
reconstructed for PIE does not seem to be attested in any other language in the world.
This claim led many scholars to look for alternative reconstructions of LF contrast, the
most popular being the Glottalic Theory (GT), which was independently proposed by
Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1972) and Hopper (1973). According to the GT, voiceless

Authenticated
ejectives replace the voiced stops of the classic reconstruction, such that */tréi̯ es/ ‘3’,
*/du̯oh1/ ‘2’, */d heh1/ ‘put’ ought to be reconstructed as */t(h)réi̯ es/, */t’u̯oh1/, */d(h)eh1/,
resulting in a system that is more common cross-linguistically. Thus, according to the
GT, the classically reconstructed Proto-Indo-European stop system represented on the
left below is replaced by the system on the right:
*p *t *k̑ *k *k w *p(h) *t(h) *k̑(h) *k(h) *k w(h)

(*b) *d *g̑ *g *gw → (*p’) *t’ *k̑’ *k’ *k’w
*b h *d h *g̑h *gh *gwh *b(h) *d(h) *g̑(h) *g(h) *gw(h)
There are many advantages to the GT over the classical reconstruction. First, it provides
a straightforward explanation for the enigmatic paucity of PIE */b/, for in languages
containing ejectives, */p’/ is the rarest of them all, given its difficulty of articulation
(Fallon 2002). Second, since sequences with multiple ejectives are avoided in many
languages, the GT also explains why roots of the shape */DeD/ and */DD/ consonant
clusters were strikingly absent (Clackson 2007: 46). Third, the GT is claimed to provide
good phonetic motivation for a number of sound laws in PIE and its daughter languages
(see Vennemann 1989); one such example is Lubotsky’s Law (cf. 3.3), posited for Indo-
Iranian, where *hx → 0̸ / V __ DCV (*/peh2g̑-ro-/ [i.e. */peh2k̑’-ro-/] > *paʔg̑ro- >
*pag̑ro- > Skt. pajrá-), with laryngeal deletion via dissimilation of the feature [constrict-
ed glottis] (Lubotsky 1981). For further discussion in favor of the GT, see Vennemann
(1989) and Beekes (2011).
While still maintaining a small group of ardent followers (particularly in Leiden), the
GT has lost much of its support today. There are many reasons for this. To begin with,
since Jakobson’s famous claim, scholars have documented languages with stop systems
identical or nearly identical to the classical PIE system, such as Kelabit in northern
Borneo (Blust 2006). Second, if ejectives had been phonemes in PIE, then it is quite
surprising that no IE language has inherited them, as they tend to be quite stable dia-
chronically. Third, there are certain loan words present in Armenian (arcat‘ ‘silver’ <
Iran. *ardzata- ) and Germanic (*rīk- ‘king’ < Celt. *rīg- < *PIE h3 rēg̑-) that demand
consonant shifts from voiced to voiceless, which are not possible in the GT framework.
Lastly, perhaps the strongest argument against the GT comes from Armenian, where in
certain dialects initial-syllable vowels are fronted after inherited voiced aspirates by
Adjarian’s Law: Kar-evan ben ‘speech’ (< *b han-), Karabagh telar (< *d hal-) but Kar-
evan tun ‘house’ (< *dom-), Karabagh kov ‘cow’ (< *g wou̯-). As Garrett (1998) convin-
cingly shows, fronting makes no sense if these segments had been simple voiced stops
inherited from PIE voiced aspirates, but does if they were breathy-voiced, triggered by
the spread of the feature [+ATR]. (Weitenberg [this handbook] takes Adjarian’s Law to
have been triggered by the lateral /l/ and voiced fricatives in addition to inherited voiced
aspirates. If this is indeed the case, then Garrett’s analysis loses its explanatory power.
However, it is true that the most widely cited examples of Adjarian’s Law all involve pre-
ceding voiced stops and *j, which according to Garrett had become a voiced */ɦ/ before
the time of the fronting.)
But demonstrating the GT to be false does not entail that the classical reconstruction
of the PIE stops is true for all periods of the proto-language, especially for early PIE.
For how does one explain the rarity of */b/, the absence of */D(e)D/ sequences, or, more
generally, the existence of such a typologically odd system in the classical reconstruc-
tion? While the second of these questions remains unanswered, it has been surmised that

Authenticated
the phoneme */b/ (as was in part the case with voiceless aspirated stops) may have been
restricted in occurrence to “expressive or affective words and in onomatopoetic forms”
(Joseph 1985: 7). Moreover, I believe that Weiss (2009) has found a solution to the third,
showing that in Cao Bang, a northern Tai language, original voiced stops (e.g. */d/)
developed into breathy-voiced stops (*/dɦ/), while original voiced implosives (e.g.*/ɗ/)
became voiced stops. It is thus possible that late PIE */t/, */d/, */dɦ/ derived from an
earlier */t/, */ɗ/, */d/, a system which occurs in roughly 16 % of languages containing
three series of obstruents (Kümmel 2012: 294).
3.2. Fricatives and affricates
There was a single sibilant */s/ in PIE with an allophone *z, which surfaced before
voiced obstruents; cf. */sed-/ > *sed- (Arm. hecanim, Lat. sedeō) but */-sd-/ > *ni-zd-
ó- (OCS gnězdo, Lat. nīdus, Eng. nest). It is quite possible that */s/ was a prepalatal
hushed spirant (Vijūnas 2010).
The segment known as thorn (*/þ/) was actually not a fricative at all, but rather a
complex consonant cluster of underlying dental stop plus dorsal stop (Schindler 1977a).
The classic example is the word for ‘earth’: nom.sg. *d h(e)g̑ hōm (Hitt. tekan, Gk. χθών),
oblique *d hǝg̑ hm- (Hitt. taknaš), with schwa secundum (Ξ), and oblique g̑ hm̥m- (Lat.
humus, Gk. χαμαί), a Lindeman variant (Τ). Thorn clusters were reduced when preceding
a syllabic nasal; for an additional example, cf. *k̑m̥tóm ‘100’, from */dk̑mtóm/, a deriva-
tive of *dék̑m̥ ‘10’.
(μ) *T → 0̸ / __ KN̥ (Thorn Cluster Reduction)
This reduction makes good phonological sense, as nasals are not as sonorous as vowels
(4.2) and are therefore unable to license multiple obstruents in an onset. There was also
a rule of *-s- epenthesis in onset thorn clusters: *[h2 ar]σ[tk̑os]σ → *h2 artsk̑os ‘bear’
(Ved. r̥ ́ kṣas, with analogical zero-grade) but *[h2r̥ t]σ[k̑os]σ → *h2 r̥tk̑os (Hitt. ḫartaggaš).
(ν) 0̸ → *s / σ[ T __ K (Thorn Cluster Epenthesis)
Epenthesis may have resulted in an affricate [t͡s] (*[h2 ar]σ[t͡skos]σ ), though I prefer to
parse *h2 artskos as *[h2 art]σ[skos]σ , following (ψ), and satisfying the MST (χ). For
another rule of s-epenthesis, see (Ι).
3.3. Laryngeals
Perhaps the most wonderful discovery in all of Indo-European phonology was made by
Saussure (1879), who at the age of nineteen hypothesized the existence of a new class
of segments, called “laryngeals” (*hx ). This name, first used by Möller (1917), is actually
a misnomer, for it is unlikely that the larynx was the primary articulator of all three
members of this class.

Authenticated
After a contentious century of research, scholars now with few exceptions posit three
laryngeals for PIE (*/h1 /, */h2 /, */h3/), each corresponding to a different vocalic reflex
in Greek: θετός (< *d həh1 tó- ← */d hh1 -tó-/ ‘placed’), στατός (< *stəh2 tó- ← */sth2 -tó-/
‘standing’), and δοτός (< *dəh3 tó- ← */dh3 -tó-/ ‘given’). Note that each vowel derives
from a sequence of *ə (Ν) + *hx and was unlikely to have been an instance of true
vocalization (i.e. *h̥x ), despite the frequent use of this term here and elsewhere. Although
*hx was vocalized in a variety of environments in the prehistory of many IE languages,
it appears that in PIE this was only the case in word-initial sequences of the shape
*CHC(C), as seen in */d hh1 s-/ → *d hǝh1 s- ‘divine’ > Gk. θεός ‘god’, Lat. fānum ‘shrine’
(< *fasno-), Skt. dhíṣṇya- ‘pious’, and HLuv. tasan-za ‘votive stele’. In all other environ-
ments, daughter languages treat */hx/ in different ways − word-medially (*/h2 enh1mV-/
‘soul, breath, wind’ > Gk. ἄνεμος, Lat. animus, but GAv. ąnman-), word-finally
(*/még̑h2/ ‘great’ > Ved. máhi, Gk. μέγα, but Hitt. mēk), and in other word-initial sequen-
ces (*/h2 ster-/ ‘star’ > Gk. ἀστήρ, Arm. astɫ, but Lat. stēlla, Ved. str̥ ́ bhis). Similarly, the
loss of coda */hx/ with compensatory lengthening was not a PIE process: */peh2 s-/
‘protect’ → *pah2 s- > Hitt. paḫs-, but Lat. pās-tor ‘shepherd’.
The aforementioned presence of Gk. ε, α, and ο, continuing a contrast which was
present in PIE, illustrates a fundamental property of the laryngeals: */h2/ and */h3/
change the quality of an adjacent e-vowel. */h2/ + */e/ → *a (*/steh2 -/ ‘stand’→ *stah2 -
> Gk. [Dor.] ἔ-στᾱ-ν); */h3/ + */e/ → *o (*/deh3 -/ ‘give’ → *doh3 - > Lat. dōnum). /
*h1/ had no such “coloring” effect: cf. /*h1 esti/ → *h1 ésti. Moreover, at least in Greek,
all three laryngeals had a coloring effect on a preceding *ǝ: */d hh1 -tó-/ → *d həh1 tó- >
Gk. θετός; */sth2 -tó-/ → *stəh2 tó- → stăh2 tó- > Gk. στατός; */dh3 -tó-/ → *dəh3 tó- →
*dŏh3 tó- > Gk. δοτός. While these three structurally reduced vowels remain distinct
from each other in Greek, merging with the structurally full vowels e, o, and a, respec-
tively, they show a merged unitary outcome in all other branches: in Indo-Iranian,*ǝhx
> i (Skt. hitá-, sthitá-, -di- [rare]); everywhere else, *ǝhx > a (cf. Lat. factus, status,
datus). No other vowels were colored by an adjacent laryngeal: cf. *h2 óg̑mos (Gk. ὄγμος
‘furrow’) and *mḗh2 u̯r̥ (Hitt. meḫur ‘time’); lack of coloring of a long vowel in the
latter example is referred to as Eichner’s Law (Eichner 1973).
Though continued exclusively as vowels in many of the daughter languages, the
laryngeals were phonemically consonants in PIE. We know this for two main reasons.
First, laryngeals pattern like consonants in our reconstructions: they were more sonorous
than stops but less sonorous than resonants (4.2), occupied the same position as */s/
within roots, and (at least) */h3/ participated in voicing assimilation (a process restricted
to obstruents; see 5.1), most famously in */pi̯ -ph3 -e-ti̯ / → *pibh3 eti ‘drinks’ > Ved.
píbati, OIr. ibid, Lat. bibit, Arm. əmpē. Second, and more importantly, two of the laryn-
geals are directly continued in Anatolian as dorsal (likely uvular) fricatives, written as
< ḫ(ḫ) > (Melchert 1994: 55; Weiss 2016): Hitt. ḫant- ‘front’, Lyc. xñtawa- ‘rule’ (< IE
*h2 ant-), Hitt. ḫappariye-, Lyc. epirije- ‘sell’ (< *h3 op-). According to Kloekhorst
(2004), *h1 was also continued as a glottal stop in Hieroglyphic Luvian (á-ma/i- ‘my’ <
*h1 me, á-sú- ‘horse’ < *h1 ek̑u-), though this view is not universally held.
Let us now summarize the facts presented thus far. */h1/ was a non-coloring conso-
nant and is perhaps continued by [ʔ] in Anatolian. */h2/ lowered */e/ and *ə and aspirated
stops in Indo-Iranian (see 3.1). *h3 rounded and backed */e/ and *ə and was voiced. All
three were typologically “marked”, resulting in their frequent deletion in both PIE (see
below) and the daughter languages. Lastly, all three were more sonorous than stops, but

Authenticated
less sonorous than resonants and patterned like */s/ in roots, which suggests that they
were most likely fricatives. The vowel coloration effects point to a post-velar place of
articulation (uvular or pharyngeal), leading us to the most common reconstruction:
*/h1/ = /h/ or /ʔ/, */h2/ = /ħ/, a voiceless pharyngeal or uvular fricative, and */h3/ =
/ʕ(w)/, a voiced pharyngeal or uvular fricative with possible rounding coarticulation.
(Weiss 2016 sets forth a number of convincing arguments that the Anatolian reflexes of
PIE *h2 and *h3 were not pharyngeals, but rather uvulars. As uvulars more easily devel-
op into pharyngeals, it is likely that *h2/3 were originally uvular in PIE.) Many prefer to
view */h1/ as /h/, a phoneme which is present in most languages with aspirated stops.
There were a number of phonological processes that targeted laryngeals in PIE.
(ξ) *ChxUC → *CUhxC (Laryngeal Metathesis)

2 3 32
*/ph3i̯ -tó-/ → *pih3 tó- ‘drunk’ > Ved. pītá-, OCS pitъ; cf. Gk. πῖθι ‘drink!’
(ο) */hx/ → 0̸ / C __ CC (Lex Schmidt-Hackstein)
*/d hu̯gh2 trés/ → *d huktrés ‘daughter (gen.sg.)’ > NPers. duxtar-, Arm. dowstr (see Byrd
2015: 85 ff., with references). Rule discussed in (Ο) below.
(π) */hx/ → 0̸ / σ[ __ i̯ - (Pinault’s Law)
*/sok wh2 -i̯ o-/ → *sok wi̯ o- ‘friend’ > Lat. socius, cf. Skt. sakhyá- ‘friendship’ (with kh
by analogy to the root allomorph seen in the paradigm of sákhā/sákhāyam), Gk. *ἄοσσος
(base of ἀοσσέω ‘I help’) (Pinault 1982). This rule is not operative in word-initial posi-
tion. According to Byrd (2015), PL only targeted *h2 and *h3.
O $_Ro S
(ρ) */hx/ → 0̸ / Q T (The Saussure Effect)
R oR_$ U
*/solh2 -u̯o-/ → *solu̯o- ‘all’ > Skt. sárva-, Gk. ὅλος, Lat. sollus; */h3moi̯ g̑hó-/ →
*moi̯ g̑ hó- > Gk. μοιχóς ‘adulterer’ (Cf. Gk. ὀμείχω, Lat. meiō, Ved. méhati ‘urinate’)
(de Saussure 1905; Nussbaum 1997)
(σ) */hx/ → 0̸ / V __ PRV (The Weather Rule)
*/h2 u̯eh1 -tró-/ → *h2 u̯etró- > PGmc. *weðra- (Germ. Wetter, Eng. weather; Neri 2011).
Given the structural similarities to Lubotsky’s Law (3.1), some scholars suspect both to
have been the same rule.
(τ) */hx/ → 0̸ / V __ RV́ (Dybo’s Law)
*/u̯i̯ h1 -ró-/ → *u̯iró- ‘hero, man’ > Lat. vir, OIr. fer, Goth. wair, but *u̯ih1 ró- > Ved.
vīrá-, Lith. výras. (τ) appears to have been a rule of Western Indo-European, though the
details are murky (Zair 2006, with references).
(υ) */hx/ → 0̸ / __ # (?) (Kuiper’s Law)

Authenticated
Laryngeals appear to have been lost when occurring at the end of some phonological
domain (likely phonological phrase; see 4), most notably in the vocative of certain forms:
*/-eh2/ → *-a > Gk. νύμφ-ᾰ ‘O nymph!’
(φ) */hx/ → 0̸ / CR __ V (?) (The neognós Rule)
*/neu̯o-g̑nh1 -o-/ → *neu̯og̑no- ‘newborn’ (**neu̯og̑n̥h1 o-) > Gk. νεογνός; cf. Lat. prīvi-
gnus ‘stepson’. In certain compounds and reduplicated formations (e.g., *k we-k wl̥ h1ós),
a laryngeal was lost in the zero-grade of */CVRH/ roots.
The precise phonetic and phonological motivations for many of these rules − especial-
ly (σ)−(φ) − are an absolute mystery. But recent work has begun to shed some light
upon why many of these processes may have occurred. For instance, in Byrd (2015), I
argue that (ο) was driven by violations of syllable structure (see 4.2 and 5.3 below) and
that (π) occurred due to the impossible articulation of a palatalized pharyngeal consonant
(*ħy). (Though not explicitly stated in Byrd 2015, palatalized uvular fricatives are also
dispreferred cross-linguistically, and so this analysis would stand should one choose to
identify *h2/3 as uvular [cf. Weiss 2016].) Pronk (2011) and van Beek (2011) have argued
against (ρ) as a PIE process, claiming it to have been a phonetically impossible rule,
though both Weiss (2012) and Byrd (2013) have independently suggested that the inter-
action of the low and back features of */o/ and */hx/ triggered deletion. Steer (2012),
basing himself on Fritz (1996), identifies (φ) as the simplification of a word-medial
onset sequence *σ[RH-: *[ne]σ[u̯og̑]σ[nh1o-]σ → *[ne]σ[u̯og̑]σ[no-]σ . While ingenious, I
find his analysis questionable, as there is no good reason for *RH to have ever been
parsed as a tautosyllabic onset in the first place. While I myself can offer no solution, it
is curious that deletion occurs immediately following a prosodic word (4.3) boundary.
4. Prosody
Up until this point we have discussed only the individual segments (phonemes and
allophones) of PIE. But these segments were never uttered in isolation: they appeared
together with other segments to form syllables, which in turn produced words. Syllables
and words are considered to be two constituents of the much larger prosodic hierarchy
(see Figure 121.1; Selkirk 1986), where features such as tone, stress, and intonation are
assigned.
There are two other categories located above the PhP in the hierarchy, the intonational
phrase and the utterance. Given the nature of reconstruction, I am skeptical of our ability
to say anything interesting about these two categories; the remaining five, however, are
well within our reach. I will not address the PhP or φ in the discussion below, for at the
moment there is very little to say about these, and thus will only focus on μ, σ, and ω.
4.1. Morae
A mora (abbreviated as μ) is a unit of syllabic weight (Hayes 1989). While all vowels
are inherently moraic (V̆ = μ, V: = μμ), languages differ on which consonants may be

Authenticated
PhP Phonological Phrase
ω ω Prosodic Word
φ φ Foot
σ σ Syllable
μ μ Mora
X X X X Segment
Fig. 121.1: Prosodic hierarchy
moraic and where (if at all). In PIE, all consonants were assigned a mora if they occurred
in coda position. Thus: */oμi̯ noμ s/ → *[oμi̯ ]σ[noμ s]σ → *[oμi̯ μ ]σ[noμ sμ ]σ ‘one’. This
property may be directly observed in the meter of many ancient IE languages:
RV 1.1: agním īḷe puróhitaṁ yajñásya devám r̥tvíjam

Iliad B.1–2 : ἄλλοι μέν ῥα θεοί τε καὶ ἀνέρες ἱπποκορυσταὶ
εὗδον παννύχιοι, Δία δ᾽ οὐκ ἔχεν ἥδυμος ὕπνος
Aeneid 1.6 : inferretque deos Latio, genus unde Latinum
In the excerpts cited above, the <j> of Ved. yajñásya, the <π> of Gk. ὕπνος, and the <t>
of Lat. inferretque render their respective syllables heavy (consisting of 2μ), and thus
each of these consonants carries a mora.
4.2. Syllables
Syllables (abbreviated as σ) are the beats of language. All σs contain a sonority peak
called the nucleus (usually a vowel), which may be surrounded by consonants in the σ
margins; those occurring before the nucleus are called the onset, those following it the
coda. It is very likely that in PIE the σs of all lexical (vs. grammatical) words required
onsets: contrast *h1 es- ‘be’ with *en ‘in’.
The syllable structure of PIE was quite complex. Word-initial onsets could consist of
one, two, three, or perhaps even four consonants (*teg- ‘cover’, *stah2 - ‘stand’, *streu̯-
‘strew’, *g̑ hz(h)d hi̯ és ‘yesterday’). Curiously, */s/ always occurred in the first or second
position (cf. *h2 ster- ‘star’) of triconsonantal onsets. Word-finally, syllables were open
or closed by one, two, or three consonants (*k̑u̯ṓ ‘dog’, *b héred ‘carried’, *u̯ṓk ws ‘voice’,
*nók wts ‘night’). All complex word-final codas ended in either a dental obstruent (*/s/,
/t/, /d/) or */h2 / (cf. *még̑h2 ‘great’). Many of these complex margins were banned word-
medially; thus while *u̯ḗk̑st ‘carried by vehicle’ and *h2 ster- contained licit sequences
at word’s edge, there is no evidence for a word of the shape **u̯ḗk̑sth2 ster- in PIE. In
fact, a maximum of two consonants was allowed in word-medial σ margins (cf.
*/i̯ éu̯gtrom/ → *[i̯ éu̯k]σ[trom]σ ‘cord’ > Ved. yóktram). This discrepancy between word-
edge and word-medial margins makes it likely that Cs in certain sequences at word’s

Authenticated
edge were extrasyllabic (see Byrd 2010, 2015 and Keydana 2012), such that they were
not syllabified at the level of the σ, but were rather adjoined to a higher node of the
prosodic hierarchy (the ω). Thus, we may claim that in both onsets and codas, a maxi-
mum of two Cs was permitted. But while onsets permitted violations of the Sonority
Sequencing Principle (SSP; cf. *[su̯ek̑]σ[stos]σ ‘sixth’ > Goth. saihsta), which states that
‟between any member of a syllable and the syllable peak only sounds of higher sonority
rank are permitted” (Clements 1990: 284 ff.), codas did not, a generalization captured
by the MAXIMUM SYLLABLE TEMPLATE (MST), first proposed in Byrd (2010) and ex-
panded upon in Byrd (2015).
(χ) CCVCC (MST)

The maximum PIE syllable consists of two consonants in the onset and two conso-
nants in the coda. The onset may violate the SSP; the coda may not.
We may broadly identify the sonority hierarchy in PIE as follows: V [ R [ F [ P.

Thus, the medial coda of *[h2 arh3 ]σ[trom]σ ‘plow’ (OIr. arathar) was permitted, since
*h3 was less sonorous than *r, but the same may not be said of the reverse sequence
**-oh3r]σ . The MST motivated a number of phonological processes in PIE; see 5.3
below.
In PIE, vowels always occupied the σ nucleus, but as we discussed in 2, resonants
could as well, generated by a rule of sonorant syllabification where a non-syllabic reso-
nant becomes syllabic; see (Μ) below. Thus, if a resonant was surrounded by obstruents
or word boundaries, it syllabified: */tntós/ → *[tn̥][tós] ‘stretched’, */dék̑m/ →
*[dé][k̑m̥] ‘ten’, */nputlós/ → *[n̥][put][lós] ‘sonless’. Facts were more complicated if
multiple resonants stood next to each other. As Schindler (1977b) noted, in such sequen-
ces the rightmost resonant always syllabified (*/k̑u̯nb his/ → *[k̑u̯n̥][b his] ‘dogs
[instr.pl.]’) if not immediately adjacent to a vowel (*/k̑u̯nés/ → *[k̑u][nés] ‘dog
[gen.sg.]’). Although Schindler’s rule is the standard description of resonant syllabifica-
tion today, he himself noted multiple exceptions: 1. roots of the shape *RR-, not **R̥R-
(*u̯i̯ eth2 - > Skt. vyáthate ‘rolls’), 2. */-Cmn-/ → *-CN- (ζ), not *-Cm̥n- (/h2 ek̑mnés/ →
[h2 ak̑]σ[nés]σ ‘stone [gen.sg.]’), 3. isolated instances of */CR1R2V/ → *[CR1R̥2 ]σ[V-
(*[tri]σ[ōm]σ ‘three [gen.pl.]’, not **[tr̥ ]σ[i̯ ōm]σ ), 4. accusatives of the shape *-R̥m(s)
(*/menti̯ m/ → *[mén]σ[tim]σ ‘mind [acc.sg.]’, not **[mén]σ[ti̯ m̥]σ ), and 5. the
weak stems of the nasal-infix presents (*/i̯ u̯ngénti/ → *[i̯ un]σ[gén]σ[ti]σ , not
**[i]σ[u̯n̥]σ[gén]σ[ti]σ ). Various fixes to each individual exception have been put forth in
the past, but as I argue in Byrd (2015: 167−178), these exceptions all but disappear if
we envision ablaut (ε) as a synchronic phonological process in PIE, which necessarily
follows syllabification in the derivation. Let us consider the derivation of *[mén]σ[tim]σ ,
for which I assume */méntei̯ m/ to be the underlying form. The full-grade of the root
surfaced in *[mén]σ[tim]σ , the full-grade of the suffix occurred in gen.sg. *[mn̥]σ[téi̯ s]σ ,
and the accusative marker *-m always appeared in the zero-grade, hence */-m/.
In (ψ) below, syllabification first parsed segments into syllables and assigned all coda
segments a mora (cf. 4.1). At this point ablaut (ε) deleted targeted vowels, which were
nearly always unaccented. Lastly, the syllable *-[ti̯ μmμ ]σ was repaired by (Μ), as all
syllables require a nucleus. *i is chosen as the nucleus of *-[ti̯ μmμ ]σ in order to maintain
its assigned mora.

Authenticated
(ψ) a. Syllabification: */méμ nteμi̯ m/ → *[méμ nμ ]σ[teμi̯ μmμ ]σ (Syllabification Algorithm)

b. (ε): *[méμ nμ ]σ[teμi̯ μmμ ]σ →
*[méμ nμ ]σ[ti̯ μmμ ]σ
c. (Μ): *[méμ nμ ]σ[ti̯ μmμ ]σ →
*[méμ nμ ]σ[tiμmμ ]σ
The implications of this analysis are far-reaching. If (ε) may be reconstructed as a syn-
chronic rule of PIE and may be ordered before or after other (morpho-)phonological
processes, perhaps there was further interaction between (ε) and other known rules.
4.3. Prosodic words

All lexical words consist of (at least) one prosodic word (abbreviated as ω), which cross-
linguistically acts as the domain of word-stress assignment, syllabification, and certain
segmental rules. Not much is known yet about the ω in PIE; though since the ω is the
domain of syllabification, we may utilize this knowledge as a metric to identify the
boundaries of ωs in a non-circular fashion. Thus, it is likely that the privative prefix *n̥-
constituted its own ω, as it was syllabified independently of the stem to which it was
affixed: cf. */[n]ω[udro-]ω/ → *n̥(n)udro- ‘waterless’ (Gk. ἄνυδρος, Skt. anudrá-), not
**nudro-. It is possible that a minimal-word requirement targeted the ω in PIE, which
demands that any stress-bearing (i.e. lexical) word contain at least two μs (McCarthy
and Prince 1986). While there are indeed exceptions to this rule (cf. PIE *só ‘this’, not
**sṓ ), Kapović (2006) argues that the short/long vowel alternations reconstructible for
pairs such as *nu : *nū́ ‘now’ (Gk. νυ : Skt. nū́), *ne : *nḗ (OCS ne : Lat. nē) ‘not’, and
*tu : tū́ ‘you (sg.)’ (Latv. tu : OE þū) may be explained in this way, with lengthening
occurring in stressed variants. This rule may also account for certain instances of *ū and
*ī of non-laryngeal origin; see 1.2.
(ω) V → V: / # (C0 ) __ # (Monosyllabic Lengthening)
4.4. Accent
It is generally agreed that PIE was a language with mobile pitch accent, continued to a
greater or lesser extent by Vedic Sanskrit, Ancient Greek, Proto-Germanic, and Balto-
Slavic. The utilization of pitch-accent entails two basic properties of a language’s accen-
tual system (Hayes 2009: 292−293). First, pitch is phonemic, and therefore contrasts in
pitch may result in minimal pairs: cf. the famous *tómh1 os ‘a cutting’ (Gk. τόμος ‘a cut,
slice’) vs. *tomh1 ós ‘sharp’ (Gk. τομός). Second, only one σ per ω may be accented; thus
*b héreti ‘carries’, but no **b héréti. In PIE, an accented σ was phonetically prominent
and carried a high pitch, very similar to the accentual properties of modern Swedish. At
least one phonological rule of accent shift has been reconstructed for PIE:
(A) /é C0 o/ → e C0 ó / # C0 __ C0 V (C0 ) # (The *k wetu̯óres Rule)
As Rix (1985) discusses, this rule explains why expected PIE */k wétu̯ores/, */su̯ésores/,
and */h2 áusosm̥/ surface as *k wetu̯óres ‘four (nom.pl.)’ (Ved. catvā́raḥ), *su̯esóres ‘sis-

Authenticated
ters (nom.pl.)’ (Ved. svasā́raḥ), and *h2 ausósm̥ ‘dawn (acc.sg.)’ (Ved. uṣā́sam), respec-
tively. But were there other such rules of accentual shift? The answer to this question
underlies perhaps the most exciting prospect of future work in PIE morphophonology:
the alternation of accent within PIE paradigms (see 1.4), for which I refer the reader to
Kiparsky (2010), with references.
5. Conspiracies
Indo-Europeanists typically describe phonological change in terms of rules or laws: X >
Y / Z. However, it is sometimes beneficial to conceive of certain processes as being
driven by important phonological constraints, which define which segments and sequen-
ces may or may not occur in a language. Such constraints may create phonological
conspiracies, where two or more rules “conspire” to ensure that a particular marked
structure does not surface in the language (Kisseberth 1970).
5.1. Laryngeal feature neutralization
In PIE, there was an assortment of phonological rules that neutralized underlying laryn-
geal features (LFs). Recall the various allomorphs of PIE ‘sit’ (3.2): *sed- (Gk. ἕζομαι),
but *ni-zd-ó- (Eng. nest). *z, an allophone of */s/, arose only by voicing assimilation
when */s/ preceded a voiced obstruent. The assimilation of aspiration (the feature
[±spread glottis (sg)]) occurred as well: */u̯eg̑h-/ ‘carry by vehicle’ + */-s-/ → *u̯ek̑s-
(Skt. vakṣ-, Cyp. éwekse, Lat. vēxī). Both are cases of regressive (R → L) assimilation.
I
J −sonorant L
I L M
(B) [−sonorant] → J
J
J
J
α voice M
M
M
M
/__ JJJJJJ α voice MMMMMM
J β sg M J
J
J M
M
M (LF Assimilation)
K J
N J
K β sg MMN
While the examples above show obstruents neutralized in codas, it appears that LF
assimilation was not restricted to any particular position within the syllable. There are
many instances where word-initial s-mobile + */d h/ surfaced as *sT h- (Siebs’ Law), such
as Ved. sphuráti ‘jerks, kicks’, OE spurnan ‘spurn’ beside Ved. bhuráti ‘jerks, moves
rapidly’, with progressive (L → R) assimilation. In Indo-Iranian, LF assimilation was
continued as a productive process, but a minor change was added: the underlying LFs
of roots were prioritized over affixes, resulting in progressive assimilation in certain
cases. Thus, while PIE */b hu̯d h-tó-/ → *b hutstó- ‘awakened’, PIIr. */b hu̯d h-tá-/ →
*b(h)ud(h)z(h)d há- (Skt. buddhá- ‘awakened’).
I
J −sonorant LMM
I α voice L J
J M
(Γ) [−sonorant] → J
J
J
J
M
M
M
M
/ J
J
J
J α voice MMMMMM
J β sg M J
J __ (Bartholomae’s Law)
K N J M
J
K β sg MMN
It is likely that Bartholomae’s Law operated on some level in early PIE (but to what
extent is unclear), as we find doublets of certain suffixes, which could only have arisen

Authenticated
in this way: *-tro- (Gk. λέκτρον ‘bed’), *-tlo- (Lat. perīculum ‘danger’) beside *-d hro-
(Gk. βάθρον ‘base, step’) and *-d hlo- (Lat. stabulum ‘stable’).
Stops were also neutralized to voiced unaspirated in word-final position after a sono-
rant (V or R): PIE */-t/ → *-d > Hitt. pa-i-ta-aš [páyd−as] ‘went he’, Old Lat. feced
‘(s)he made’. Though typologically unexpected, this type of neutralization also occurs
synchronically in the Northeast Caucasian language Lezgian (Yu 2004).
I
J −sonorant MML I + voice L
(Δ) J
J → J
J M
M / [+sonorant] __ # (Final Voicing)
J −continuantM
J M
M J
J
J − sg M
M
M
K N K N
5.2. *GEMINATE
Some languages tolerate geminate sequences freely (Ital. ratto ‘rat’, fatto ‘made’ ←
/fak/ ‘make’ + /to/), while others do not. English has a strict ban on monomorphemic
geminates but allows heteromorphemic ones: contrast penny /pεni/ with penknife /pεn-
naɪf/. PIE was the opposite of English; while monomorphemic sequences were tolerated
in certain “expressive” words (Watkins 2012) such as *atta ‘daddy’ (Lat. atta, Goth.
atta), *kakka ‘poo-poo’ (MIr. caccaim, Russ. kákata), and *anna ‘momma’ (Hitt. annaš),
heteromorphemic geminates were strictly banned (Meillet 1938). This ban was the result
of the high-ranking constraint *GEMINATE, which spurred a number of important phono-
logical changes within the proto-language. Note that, curiously, compensatory lengthen-
ing (CL) occurs word-finally, but never word-medially in the processes below. This
appears to be true of all certain instances of word-medial consonant deletion in PIE.
(One exception to this statement may lie in the possible derivation of PIE *tḗk̑ti ‘fash-
ions’ from an earlier, reduplicated */té-tk̑-ti̯ /.)
(Ε) */VmmV/ → *VmV (Medial */mm/ Simplification)
Examples are sparse: */ném-men/ → *némn̥ ‘gift’ (OIr. neim ‘poison’; Rasmussen 1999:
647) and perhaps */stómh1men/ → *stómn̥ (Hitt. ištaman, Gk. στόμα ‘mouth’), with
geminate simplification after loss of */h1/ via the Saussure Effect (ρ) (C. Melchert, p.c.).
(Ζ) */Vmm#/ → *V:m# (Stang’s Law)
This is a subtype of Stang’s Law; most examples consist of roots or suffixes in *-m
+ acc.sg. *-m (*/dóm-m/ → *dṓm ‘house (acc.sg.)’ (Arm. tun); */d hég̑hom-m/ →
*d hég̑ hōm ‘earth (acc.sg.)’ (Hitt. tēkan), but cf. /gwém-m/ → *g wḗm ‘I came’ (Lat.
vēnī; Kim 2001).
(Η) */VssV/ → *VsV (Medial */ss/ Simplification)
Secure examples include */h1 és-si/ → *h1 esi ‘you are’ (Ved. ási, Lat. es) and */h2 u̯s-s-
és/ → *h2 usés ‘dawn (gen.sg.)’ (Ved. uṣás).
(Θ) */Vss#/ → *V:s# (Final */ss/ Simplification)

Authenticated
Here geminate simplification is universally accepted, but CL is not. The long vocalism
of */h2 éu̯s-os-s/ → *h2 áu̯sōs ‘dawn (nom.sg.)’ is typically explained by analogy with
forms such as *d hég̑ hōm (← */d hég̑h-om-s/ via [ι] above). However, should CL have
occurred in this environment, it would provide a straightforward phonological explana-
tion for many (but not all) of the enigmatic long high vowels discussed in 1.2, whereby
*/mu̯ss/ → *mūs ‘mouse (nom.sg)’ (Szemerényi 1970: 109).
(Ι) */VTTV/ → *VTsTV (The Double Dental Rule)
While the previous geminate sequences were reduced to singletons, a geminate dental
sequence was fixed by *-s- epenthesis. Simplified in most of IE (*/u̯i̯ d-tó/ → *u̯itstó-
‘known’ > Germ. ge-wiss, Lat. vīsus, Gk. ἄ-ϊστος, Ved. vittá-), *-TsT- was maintained
in Anatolian (*/h1ḗd-ti/ → h1 ḗtsti ‘eats’ > Hitt. ēzzazzi [ēt͡st͡si]). However, if a geminate
dental sequence was followed by a sonorant + vowel, a dental was deleted with no CL.
(Κ) */VTTRV/ → *VTRV (The métron Rule)
The attested evidence presents a conflicting picture of which dental was lost. While
*sed-tlo- → *sedlo- ‘seat’ (Goth. sitls, Lat. sella, Gaul. sedlon) shows *-t- loss, the
Paradebeispiel *méd-tro- → *métro- ‘measure’ (Gk. μέτρον) exhibits *-d- loss, if not
from *méh1 -tro- with loss by the Weather Rule (σ).
In Sanskrit, there are two additional rules motivated by *GEMINATE: */ap-b hi̯ s/ →
adbhís ‘water (instr.pl)’ and */vas-sya-/ → *vatsya- ‘will get dressed’. While it remains
unclear if PIE treated such forms in the same way as Sanskrit, it is certain that the
expected heteromorphemic surface geminates would not have been tolerated. Lastly,
while not a geminate sequence per se, one may also compare the dissimilation of labiality
found in */gwou̯k wólos/ → *g wou̯kólos (OIr. búachaill, Gk. βουκόλος), */(ne) h2ói̯ u̯
k wi̯ d/ (Cowgill 1960) → *(ne) h2 ói̯ u kid (Gk. οὐ[κί], Arm. oč‘ ‘not’), and */h2i̯ u̯-gwi̯ h3-
/ ‘life everlasting’ (Weiss 1995) → *h2 i̯ ugih3 - (Gk. ὑγιής ‘healthy’).
(Λ) */k w/ → [−round] / u__ (The boukólos Rule)
5.3. The MAXIMuM SYLLABLE TEMPLATE (MST)

If a violation of the MST (χ) occurred in PIE, then one or more consonants could not
be syllabified. If such consonants could not be realized as extrasyllabic, the illicit se-
quence in question was repaired. A PIE speaker could do so in one of three ways. First,
(s)he could vocalize a syllabifiable consonant, which was always a resonant: */tntós/ →
*tn̥tós ‘stretched’ (Gk. τατός). This was the most common fix.
(Μ) *R → *R̥ (Sonorant Syllabification)
If the strategy in (Μ) was unavailable, the speaker could epenthesize a schwa in one of
two environments in word-initial position. The first effectively “vocalized” an unsyllabi-
fiable laryngeal: */d hh1 sós/ → *d həh1 sós ‘divine’ (Gk. θεός, Luv. tasan-za). As argued in
3.3, all other cases of laryngeal vocalization should be conceived of as einzelsprachlich.

Authenticated
(Ν) *0̸ → ə / # C0 __ hx C0 (Schwa Primum)
Schwa was also inserted in the word-initial sequence stop + stop + resonant (where R ≠
*i̯ ; cf. *g̑ h(z)d hi̯ és ‘yesterday’); excellent examples include */k wtu̯or-/ → *k wətu̯or- ‘four’
(Lat. quattuor, Aeol. Gk. πίσυρες) and */d hg̑hmés/ → *d həg̑ hmés ‘earth (gen.sg.)’ (Hitt.
taknaš).
(Ξ) *0̸ → ə / # P __ P R (Schwa Secundum)
In all other instances, the speaker would delete the unsyllabifiable consonant in question.
Thus, a laryngeal was lost and not vocalized in Lex Schmidt-Hackstein : */d hu̯gh2 trés/
→ *[d hug]σh2[trés]σ → *d huktrés ‘daughter (gen.sg.)’.
(Ο) *hx → 0̸ / P ]σ __ [ CC (Lex Schmidt-Hackstein, revised)
This is also why *-s- was not epenthesized in the sequence */-VTTRV-/ (Κ): should
epenthesis have occurred a violation of the MST would have arisen: */médtrom/ →
[mét]σ s[trom]σ . Deletion was the only possible solution: */médtrom/ → [mét]σ[rom]σ .
5.4. *SUPERHEAVY
There is a cross-linguistic tendency for languages to avoid syllables with more than two
morae. This syllable shape, called superheavy or overlong, is shortened in the prehistory
of many IE languages in the (non-final) sequence *-V:R]σ:
(Π) * V: → V / __ R ]σ (Osthoff’s Law)
This was not a rule of PIE, as shortening does not occur in Tocharian (*h2 u̯eh1 ntó-
‘wind’ > *u̯ēnto- > TA want, TB yente but *u̯ĕnto- > Lat. ventus, Goth. winds) and Indo-
Iranian (*pērsn- ‘thigh’ > Ved. pā́rṣni- but Gk. πτερνή, Lat. perna); but note that su-
perheavy syllables are systematically avoided in the Rig Veda (Hoenigswald 1989).
As in Vedic, there appears to have been a strong tendency to avoid superheavy syl-
lables in PIE. It is likely for this reason that we find certain (but not all) instances of
Schwebeablaut (Anttila 1969), in which a resonant metathesizes from coda to onset:
*[h2 au̯]σ[gV- ‘grow, become strong’ (Skt. ójīyas-, Lat. augeō, Goth. aukan) ~
*[h2 u̯ek]σ[s- (Ved. vakṣáyati, Gk. ἀ(ϝ)έξω, Eng. wax).
(Ρ) *CVRC]σ → CRVC]σ (Schwebeablaut)

23 32
A process of high V epenthesis (followed by resyllabification) repaired certain sequences

containing a derived superheavy syllable (Byrd 2010, following Hoenigswald and many
others): */mert-i̯ o-/ → *[mert]σ[i̯ o]σ → *mertii̯ o- ‘mortal’ (Ved. mártiya-). X may stand
for either V or C.

Authenticated
(Σ) *0̸ → *U1 / …V X C]σ[ __ U̯1 V… (Sievers’ Law)

[…V X C]σ[ U U̯1 V…] → [… V X]σ[C U]σ[ U̯1 V…]σ
It has been long believed by many (following Schindler 1977b) that Sievers’ Law (SL)
should be collapsed together with Lindeman’s Law (LL; see Lindeman 1965), with both
being processes of syllabic resonant epenthesis in the onset of a word-final syllable.
(Τ) *0̸ → *R̥1 / #C __ R1 V (C0 )# (Lindeman’s Law)
There are key differences, however, between the two rules, casting doubt on Schindler’s
analysis. First, there are attested instances of SL targeting non-final sequences, such as
Ved. poṣiyā́vant- ‘creating thrivance’ and kā́viyasya ‘having the quality of a seer
(gen.sg.)’. Second, while it is unlikely that SL extended beyond glides in PIE, LL clearly
targeted all resonants: */du̯óh1/ → *duu̯óh1 ‘two’ (Gk. δύω), */di̯ éu̯s/ → *dii̯ éu̯s ‘sky’
(Ved. diyáuḥ), */krṓn/ → *kr̥rṓ ‘piece of meat’ (Lat. carō), /d hg̑hmṓn/ → g̑ hm̥mṓ ‘earth-
ling’ (Lat. homō), and */gwnéh2/ → *g wn̥náh2 (Gk. γυνή). While SL was utilized to
repair superheavy syllables, the precise phonological motivation for LL is unclear,
though I suspect that it arose to satisfy the aforementioned requirement for bimoraic
prosodic words, and thus was an alternative to Monosyllabic Lengthening (ω).
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank Jessica DeLisi, the editors, and especially Jesse Lundquist for their
thoughtful comments and suggestions. All errors are my own.
6. Explanation of symbols
C consonant F fricative
P stop H or hx laryngeal
T dental stop R resonant
(unless otherwise noted) N nasal
K dorsal stop U high vowel
(unless otherwise noted) V vowel
kw labiovelar stop
7. References
Anttila, Raimo
1969 Proto-Indo-European Schwebeablaut. Berkeley: University of California Press.
van Beek, Lucien
2011 The ‟Saussure effect” in Greek: a revision of the evidence. Journal of Indo-European
Studies 39: 129−175.
1988 PIE. RHC- in Greek and Other Languages. Indogermanische Forschungen 93: 22−45.

Authenticated
2011 Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction. 2nd edn. edited by Michiel de
Vaan. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Blust, Robert A.
2006 The origin of the Kelabit voiced aspirates: a historical hypothesis revisited. Oceanic
Linguistics 45: 311−338.
Brugmann, Karl and Berthold Delbrück
1897 Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen, Vol. I/1.
Einleitung und Lautlehre. Strassburg: Trübner.
Byrd, Andrew Miles
2010 Reconstructing Indo-European Syllabification. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.
Byrd, Andrew Miles
2013 A Crazy Rule in PIE? A Closer Look at the Saussure Effect. Talk given 19 January
2013 at the 10 th Annual Ohio State Linguistics Symposium, Columbus, Ohio.
Byrd, Andrew Miles
2015 The Indo-European Syllable. Leiden: Brill.
Clackson, James
2007 Indo-European Linguistics. An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clements, George N.
1990 The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In: John Kingston and Mary E.
Beckman (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology 1: Between the grammar and the
physics of speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 283−333.
1985 The Laws of Indo-European. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
1995 Further Laws of Indo-European. In: Werner Winter (ed.), On Languages and Language.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 27−52.
1999 The Laws of Indo-European: The State of the Art (1998). Journal of Indo-European
Studies 27: 355−377.
Cooper, Adam I.
2013 The Typology of PIE Syllabic Sonorants. Indo-European Linguistics 1: 3−67.
Cooper, Adam I.
2015 Reconciling Indo-European Syllabification. Leiden: Brill.
Cowgill, Warren
1960 Greek ou and Armenian oč‘. Language 36: 347−350.
Eichner, Heiner
1973 Die Etymologie von heth. meḫur. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 31: 53−
107.
Fallon, Paul D.
2002 The Synchronic and Diachronic Phonology of Ejectives. New York: Routledge.
2010 Indo-European Language and Culture: an Introduction. 2nd edn. Chichester, UK: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Fritz, Matthias
1996 Das urindogermanische Wort für ‘Nase’ und das grundsprachliche Lautgesetz *RHV >
*RV. Historische Sprachforschung 109: 1−20.
Gamkrelidze, Tamaz and Vyacheslav V. Ivanov
1973 Sprachtypologie und die Rekonstruktion der gemeinindogermanischen Verschlüsse. Pho-
netica 27: 150−156.

Authenticated
Garrett, Andrew
1998 Adjarian’s Law, the glottalic theory, and the position of Armenian. In: Benjamin K.
Bergen, Madelaine C. Plauché, and Ashlee C. Bailey (eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-
Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 14−16, 1998:
Special Session on Indo-European Subgrouping and Internal Relations. Berkeley:
Berkeley Linguistics Society, 12−23.
Hayes, Bruce
1989 Compensatory Lengthening in Moraic Phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 253−306.
Hayes, Bruce
2009 Introductory Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell/Wiley.
Hoenigswald, Henry M.
1989 Overlong Syllables in Ṛgvedic Cadences. Journal of the American Oriental Society 109:
559−563.
Hopper, Paul J.
1973 Glottalized and murmured occlusives in Indo-European. Glossa 7: 141−166.
Jakobson, Roman
1958 Typological studies and their contribution to historical comparative linguistics. In: Eva
Sivertsen, Carl H. Borgstrøm, Arne Gallis, and Alf Sommerfelt (eds.), Proceedings of
the Eighth International Congress of Linguists. Oslo: University Press, 17−25.
Joseph, Brian D.
1985 Proto-Indo-European Consonantism: Methodological and Further Typoological Con-
cerns. In: Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Papers from the 6 th International Conference on Historical
Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 313–321.
Kapović, Mate
2006 Reconstruction of Balto-Slavic Personal Pronouns, with emphasis on accentuation.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Zagreb.
Kellens, Jean
1974 Les Noms-Racines de l’Avesta. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Keydana, Götz
2012 Evidence for non-linear phonological structure in Indo-European: The case of fricative
clusters. In: Nielsen Whitehead, Olander, Olsen, and Rasmussen (eds.), 223−242.
Kessler, Brett
n. d. On the phonological nature of the Proto-Indo-European laryngeals. http://spell.
psychology.wustl.edu/PIE-laryngeals/ [Last accessed January 2016].
Kim, Ronald I.
2001 Tocharian B śem ≈ Latin vēnit? Szemerényi’s Law and *ē in PIE root aorists. Münchener
Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 61: 119−147.
Kiparsky, Paul
2010 Compositional vs. Paradigmatic Approaches to Accent and Ablaut. In: Stephanie W.
Jamison, H. Craig Melchert, and Brent Vine (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual
UCLA Indo-European Conference. Bremen: Hempen, 45−67.
Kisseberth, Charles W.
1970 On the functional unity of phonological rules. Linguistic Inquiry 1: 291−306.
Kloekhorst, Alwin
2004 The Preservation of *h1 in Hieroglyphic Luwian: Two Separate a-Signs. Historische
Kümmel, Martin
2012 Typology and Reconstruction. In: Nielsen Whitehead, Olander, Olsen, and Rasmussen
(eds.), 291–330.
Lehmann, Winfred P.
1952 Proto-Indo-European Phonology. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Authenticated
Lindeman, Frederik Otto

1965 La loi de Sievers et le début du mot en indo-européen. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogviden-
skap 20: 38−108.
Lindeman, Frederik Otto
1997 Introduction to Laryngeal Theory. 3rd edn. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft
der Universität.
Lubotsky, Alexander
1981 Gr. pḗgnumi: Skt. pajrá- and the loss of laryngeals before mediae in Indo-Iranian.
Mayrhofer, Manfred
1986 Indogermanische Grammatik: I-2 Lautlehre. Heidelberg: Winter.
McCarthy, John J. and Alan Prince
1986 Prosodic morphology. [Updated 1996. ms. Brandeis University and U. Mass., Amherst,
108 pp].
Meier-Brügger, Michael
2010 Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft. 9th edn. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Meillet, Antoine
Société de Linguistique 8: 277−304.
Meillet, Antoine
1937 Introduction á l’étude comparative des langues indo-européennes. 8th edn. Paris:
Hachette.
Melchert, H. Craig
1987 Proto-Indo-European Velars in Luvian. In: Calvert Watkins (ed.), Studies in Memory of
Warren Cowgill. Papers from the Fourth East Coast Indo-European Conference Cornell
University, June 6−9, 1985. Berlin: De Gruyter, 182−204.
Melchert, H. Craig
1994 Anatolian Historical Phonology. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Möller, Hermann
1917 Die semitisch-vorindogermanischen laryngalen Konsonanten. Copenhagen: Høst.
Neri, Sergio
2011 Wetter: Etymologie und Lautgesetz. Ph.D. Dissertation, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität
Jena.
Nielsen Whitehead, Benedicte, Thomas Olander, Birgit Anette Olsen, and Jens Elmegård Rasmuss-
en (eds.)
2012 The Sound of Indo-European: Phonetics, Phonemics, and Morphophonemics. Copenha-
gen: Museum Tusculanum.
Nussbaum, Alan J.
1997 The “Saussure Effect” in Latin and Italic. In: Alexander Lubotsky (ed.), Sound Law and
Analogy: Papers in honor of Robert S. P. Beekes on the occasion of his 60 th birthday.
Amsterdam: Rodopi, 181−203.
1982 A neglected phonetic law: The reduction of the Indo-European laryngeals in internal
syllables before yod. In: Anders Ahlqvist (ed.), Papers from the 5 th International Con-
ference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 265−272.
Pronk, Tijmen
2011 The “Saussure effect” in Indo-European Languages Other Than Greek. Journal of Indo-
European Studies 39: 176−193.
Rasmussen, Jens
1999 Miscellaneous problems in Indo-European Languages VII. Selected Papers on Indo-
European Linguistics, Part 2. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 644−654.

Authenticated
Rix, Helmut
1985 Sūdor und sīdus. In: Hermann M. Ölberg, Gernot Schmidt, and Heinz Bothien (eds.),
Sprachwissenschaftliche Forschungen: Festschrift für Johann Knobloch zum 65. Ge-
burtstag am 5. Januar 1984 dargebracht von Freunden und Kollegen. Innsbruck: Institut
für Sprachenwissenschaft der Universität, 339−350.
1879 Mémoire sur le système primitif des voyelles dans les langues indo-européennes. Leip-
zig: Teubner.
1905 D’ὠμήλυσις à Τριπτόλεμος. Remarques étymologiques. In: Paul Moriaud, Edouard Na-
ville, and Paul Oltramare (eds.), Mélanges Nicole. Geneva: Kündig et Fils, 503 ff.
Steer, Thomas
2012 Die Lautentwicklung des schwachen Stamms indogerm. Kollektiva. Münchener Studien
zur Sprachwissenschaft 66: 81−112.
Schindler, Jochem
1977a A Thorny Problem. Die Sprache 23: 25−35.
Schindler, Jochem
1977b Notizen zum Sieversschen Gesetz. Die Sprache 23: 56−65.
Schmidt, Johannes
1895 Kritik der Sonantentheorie. Weimar: Böhlaus.
Selkirk, Elizabeth O.
1986 On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3: 371−405.
Sukač, Roman (ed.)
2012 The Sound of Indo-European 2: Papers on Indo-European Phonetics, Phonemics and
Morphophonemics. Munich: Lincom.
Szemerényi, Oswald
1996 Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vennemann, Theo (ed.)
1989 The New Sound of Indo-European. Essays in Phonological Reconstruction. Berlin: Mou-
ton de Gruyter.
Vijūnas, Aurelijus
2010 The Proto-Indo-European Sibilant */s/. Historische Sprachforschung 123: 40−55.
Watkins, Calvert
2012 Aspects of the ‘Expressive Dimension’ in Indo-European: toward a Comparative Gram-
mar of Speech Registers. Talk given 26 October 2012 at the 24 th Annual UCLA Indo-
European Conference, Los Angeles, CA.
Weiss, Michael
1995 Life everlasting: Latin iūgis ‘everflowing’, Greek ὑγιής ‘healthy’, Gothic ajukdūþs ‘eter-
nity’, and Avestan yauuaējī- ‘living forever’. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft
55: 131−156.
Weiss, Michael
2009 The Cao Bang Theory. Talk given 13 June 2009 at the 28 th East Coast Indo-European
Conference, Reykjavik, Iceland.
Weiss, Michael
2012 Uvulars Ubiquitous in PIE. Talk given 30 November 2012 at Concordia University,
Montreal, Canada.
Weiss, Michael
2016 The Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals and the Name of Cilicia in the Iron Age. In: An-
drew Miles Byrd, Jessica DeLisi, and Mark Wenthe (eds.), Tavet Tat Satyam: Studies in
Honor of Jared S. Klein on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. Ann Arbor: Beech
Stave, 331−340.

Authenticated
122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European 2079
Winter, Werner (ed.)

1965 Evidence for Laryngeals. The Hague: Mouton.
Yu, Alan C. L.
2004 Explaining Final Obstruent Voicing in Lezgian: Phonetics and History. Language 80:
73−97.
Zair, Nicholas A. S.
2006 Dybo’s Law: Evidence from Old Irish. Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics,
Philology, and Phonetics 7: 215−226.
Andrew Miles Byrd, Lexington, KY (USA)
122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

1. Introduction 4. PIE verbal morphology
2. Nominal morphology 5. Conclusions
3. Morphophonology of PIE 6. References
1. Introduction
This chapter aims to provide an updated overview of Proto-Indo-European (PIE) mor-
phology, broadly establishing the typological properties of the reconstructible system,
and offering some new perspectives on certain controversial aspects of this reconstruc-
tion. In this respect, we hope to make this chapter both relevant and accessible to several
audiences: to students of IE languages looking to understand which categories are recon-
structed for the proto-language and what their formal exponents looked like, so that they
may see the daughter languages in the light of their diachronic developments; to special-
ists in IE linguistics, who may be interested in a “state-of-the-art” assessment of long-
standing issues in PIE morphology and, to a lesser extent, the proposals we advance
here; and to general linguists pursuing typological, historical, or theoretical questions
who wish to see what kinds of morphological categories are reconstructed for the IE
languages, on what basis they are reconstructed, and what types of analyses have been
proposed.
Considerations of length prohibit a comprehensive survey of PIE morphology, a sub-
ject which, even more than phonology and much more than syntax, has received tremen-
dous attention in the long history of the field. In a treatment of this size, we simply
cannot do justice to the wealth of reconstructed PIE morphology; consider that as of
2017 the projected coverage of morphology in the series “Indogermanische Grammatik”
(gen. ed. Lindner; see www.winter-verlag.de) encompasses six volumes! Similarly, we
cannot provide full discussion of the breadth of vigorous and informed controversy that
envelops certain areas of PIE morphology; only salient features will be examined, with
in-depth treatment reserved for areas of particularly great controversy. Readers looking
for an introduction to the state of the field may consult Fortson (2010) and Clackson
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-043

Authenticated
Winter, Werner (ed.)

1965 Evidence for Laryngeals. The Hague: Mouton.
Yu, Alan C. L.
2004 Explaining Final Obstruent Voicing in Lezgian: Phonetics and History. Language 80:
73−97.
Zair, Nicholas A. S.
2006 Dybo’s Law: Evidence from Old Irish. Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics,
Philology, and Phonetics 7: 215−226.
Andrew Miles Byrd, Lexington, KY (USA)
122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

1. Introduction 4. PIE verbal morphology
2. Nominal morphology 5. Conclusions
3. Morphophonology of PIE 6. References
1. Introduction
This chapter aims to provide an updated overview of Proto-Indo-European (PIE) mor-
phology, broadly establishing the typological properties of the reconstructible system,
and offering some new perspectives on certain controversial aspects of this reconstruc-
tion. In this respect, we hope to make this chapter both relevant and accessible to several
audiences: to students of IE languages looking to understand which categories are recon-
structed for the proto-language and what their formal exponents looked like, so that they
may see the daughter languages in the light of their diachronic developments; to special-
ists in IE linguistics, who may be interested in a “state-of-the-art” assessment of long-
standing issues in PIE morphology and, to a lesser extent, the proposals we advance
here; and to general linguists pursuing typological, historical, or theoretical questions
who wish to see what kinds of morphological categories are reconstructed for the IE
languages, on what basis they are reconstructed, and what types of analyses have been
proposed.
Considerations of length prohibit a comprehensive survey of PIE morphology, a sub-
ject which, even more than phonology and much more than syntax, has received tremen-
dous attention in the long history of the field. In a treatment of this size, we simply
cannot do justice to the wealth of reconstructed PIE morphology; consider that as of
2017 the projected coverage of morphology in the series “Indogermanische Grammatik”
(gen. ed. Lindner; see www.winter-verlag.de) encompasses six volumes! Similarly, we
cannot provide full discussion of the breadth of vigorous and informed controversy that
envelops certain areas of PIE morphology; only salient features will be examined, with
in-depth treatment reserved for areas of particularly great controversy. Readers looking
for an introduction to the state of the field may consult Fortson (2010) and Clackson
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-043

Authenticated
(2007), and for a more extensive overview Meier-Brügger (2010), the last with rich
bibliography. The most extensive handbook of PIE morphology to date remains Brug-
mann and Delbrück (1906), although it is necessarily antiquated (especially in lacking
evidence from Anatolian and Tocharian) and is currently in the process of being replaced
by the volumes of the aforementioned “Indogermanische Grammatik”; note finally that
a massive collection of bibliography on IE morphology has been assembled by Heider-
manns (2005).
1.1 Methodological preliminaries
In this chapter, we aim to describe the morphology of the last stage of the proto-language
that is the ancestor of all the IE languages (including the Tocharian and Anatolian bran-
ches of the family), and that is thus directly reconstructible by application of the Compar-
ative Method (e.g., Meillet 1925; Weiss 2014). We reserve the label PIE for this directly
reconstructible stage, thereby distinguishing it from the common ancestor of the non-
Anatolian IE languages (including Tocharian), an entity referred to here as Proto-Nucle-
ar-Indo-European (PNIE), whose inner articulation remains difficult to define (our PNIE
is equivalent to what other scholars call “core PIE,” Germ. Restindogermanisch). We
distinguish the label PIE from the still earlier stage of the language reached via internal
reconstruction on PIE data, which we refer to as pre-PIE. We will repeatedly have occa-
sion to consider the evidence for a given reconstruction on which almost all IE languages
converge, with the persistent exception of the Anatolian branch and, in some cases, the
Tocharian languages as well. Some major examples discussed below include, in the
nominal system, the reconstruction of grammatical number and gender distinctions, and
in the verbal system, the status of many fundamental PNIE verbal categories, including
the *s- aorist, the optative, and (perhaps above all) the perfect. These divergences may
indicate that Anatolian was the earliest branch to “hive off” (in Watkins’ [1998: 31]
memorable phrase) from the ancestor of the other IE languages, whose period of common
unity after the departure of Anatolian allows for the possibility of shared innovations that
can thus be reconstructed for PNIE. This position amounts to a version of the “Indo-
Hittite” hypothesis, first proposed by Sturtevant (1929, 1933) and later championed
by Cowgill (1974, 1979). It is usually held that Tocharian was, in turn, first to depart
from PNIE; this assumption will be broadly followed here, although the view is less
universally held (see the discussions by Ringe and Jasanoff, both in this handbook).
1.2 Conventions
We employ in this chapter the linguistic conventions and abbreviations standardly used
in Indo-European scholarship, which can be found in any of the handbooks listed in 1
above; we note here only a few terms and symbols whose usage is not uniform across
the field or which we use in a way that may depart from standard practice. The most
significant difference relates to the use of slant brackets (/…/). In some IE languages −
in particular, those which are attested in non-alphabetic scripts (e.g., Mycenean Greek,
Hittite) − it is customary to cite linguistic forms in transliteration together with a “phono-

Authenticated
logical transcription” enclosed in slant brackets. We do not follow this practice here,
instead reserving slant brackets for indicating underlying phonological representations
(in the generative sense; cf. Byrd, this handbook); when forms cited in ordinary translit-
eration require further clarification (as often with these non-alphabetic orthographies),
approximate IPA transcriptions enclosed in square brackets ([…]) are also provided. The
symbols “→” and “←” indicate phonological mappings between underlying and surface
forms; the distinction between these two levels of representation becomes important,
especially, in the discussion of PIE morphophonology in 3 below. Synchronic word-
formation processes are indicated by the symbols “0” and “*”; “>>” and “<<” denote
that a combination of phonological and analogical changes have occurred between two
historical stages. The symbol “x” marks a following form or meaning that never existed
at any historical stage but which might be expected under a different phonological or
morphological analysis. Finally, we use a preceding asterisk “*” to mark reconstructed
word forms, a preceding doubled asterisk “**” for word forms in internally reconstructed
state(s) of the proto-language (i.e. pre-PIE), and an asterisk following a word (i.e. “x*”)
to indicate that the particular form is not attested, but its existence is securely inferred
from other attested forms.
2. PIE nominal morphology

This section outlines the reconstructed morphology of the PIE noun as well as related
nominal categories, such as adjectives, pronouns, and adverbs. It is broadly organized
as follows. We begin with the noun itself, discussing inflectional morphology in 2.1.
Pronouns are addressed in 2.2, and numbers, adverbs, and other related nominal topics
in 2.3. We discuss the derivational morphology of the PIE noun in 2.4, then turn in 2.5
to the closely-related topic of PIE adjectives. The section concludes in 2.6 by examining
nominal compounds.
2.1. PIE nominal inflection

The PIE nominal system was characterized by rich inflectional morphology. All nouns
and adjectives were grammatically specified for number, gender, and case. Number and
case were expressed by fusional inflectional case endings in which no separate markers
for number or case can be distinguished. These case endings (or “desinences”) were
sensitive to the grammatical gender of the nominal stem to which they were suffixed;
for instance, grammatically neuter nouns selected different endings from animate nouns
in a subset of case forms. Adjectives modifying nouns generally exhibit concord with
respect to all three nominal inflectional features, and in the same vein nominal subjects
trigger number agreement on verbs. As will become clear below, this type of agreement
plays a significant role in assessing certain difficult questions about the grammatical
status of number and gender distinctions in PIE.
PIE inflectional endings are also an important locus of morphophonological alterna-
tions: in certain nominal classes, inflectional suffixes may induce changes in word-final
segments (e.g., assimilation), in stem-internal vowels (ablaut), and in the position of the

Authenticated
(single) surface word accent. Throughout this section we offer brief remarks on these
issues when they arise; a fuller discussion − especially of word accent and its relationship
to ablaut (or “apophony”; see also Byrd, this handbook) − is presented in 3 below.
2.1.1. Case
PIE nouns inflected for case, the case ending of a noun denoting its grammatical role in
the sentence − e.g., subjects are marked with nominative case. Eight cases are standardly
reconstructed for PIE, primarily on the basis of Vedic Sanskrit where they remain formal-
ly distinct. These cases (and their basic functions) are: nominative (subject); accusative
(direct object); instrumental (means, accompaniment, agent); dative (recipient, benefici-
ary, goal); ablative (source, separation); genitive (possessor); locative (in-/adessive, illa-
tive); and vocative (direct address). All case endings are fusional exponents of case and
number, e.g., athematic genitive singular *-(o/e)s vs. plural *-oh1/3 om, which show no
morpheme segmentable as an exponent of case [genitive] or of number [singular, plural].
The nominative, accusative, and vocative are generally referred to together as the
“strong” (or “direct”) cases, in contrast to the rest, which are termed “weak” (or “ob-
lique”); this terminology is useful for describing noun classes in which the strong cases
share a single “strong stem” allomorph that differs from the “weak stem” allomorph in
accent or ablaut, and is thus standardly employed in analyses of PIE morphophonology
(see 3 below).
PIE noun inflection is characterized by a formal opposition between “thematic” stems
(i.e. ending in the theme vowel *-e/o-) and “athematic” stems (not ending in the theme
vowel *-e/o-). Examples include athematic nominative singular *gwów-s ‘cow’ (Ved.
gaú-s, Gk. boũ-s) vs. thematic *h2 r̥tk̑-o-s ‘bear’ (Hitt. ḫart[a]gg-a-š, Ved. r̥kṣ-a-s, Gk.
árkt-o-s). Thematic case endings are often transparently derived from athematic, such as
nominative singular *-os from *-o- + *-s, but there are some instances in which they
diverge. For instance, the neuter nominative-accusative singular in thematic nouns was
realized by an ending *-om (e.g., Gk. zug-ón, Ved. yug-ám, Hitt. yuk-an ‘yoke’), while
in athematic nouns, this case was zero-marked (Gk. dóru, Ved. dā́ru, Hitt. tāru ‘wood’).
However, it is worth emphasizing that this distinction was purely formal: both athematic
singular *-0̸ and thematic *-om have the same function despite their phonological differ-
ences. Conversely, although ablative and genitive singular are marked identically in athe-
matic stems (*-o/es), these cases remain functionally distinct. This point is clearly shown
by the separate formal mergers of the ablative in the daughter languages, e.g., with the
genitive in Greek, but more unexpectedly, with the instrumental and locative in Latin;
in the latter, a continuant of the thematic ablative ending (likely *-oh1 ad; see discussion
below) marks all three functions in thematic stems (athematic dative *-ey functions
similarly in athematic stems), while the genitive has its own marker. Nouns containing
the PNIE “feminine” suffixes *-ih2 /yeh2 - or *-(e)h2 exhibited unique inflectional pat-
terns, similar but not identical to other athematic nominal classes; their inflection is
discussed separately in 2.1.3.
Table 122.1 provides reconstructed PIE athematic and thematic inflectional paradigms
for those case endings whose status is relatively uncontroversial. Thematic inflection is
presented with case endings joined to the thematic vowel. As a cursory glance shows,

Authenticated
Tab. 122.1 Athematic and thematic nominal endings

Athematic Thematic
Animate Neuter Animate Neuter
Singular Nominative *-s *-os
*-0̸ *-om
Accusative *-m *-om
Instrumental *-h1 , *-eh1 *-oh1
Dative *-ei *-ōi
Ablative *-s, *-es, *-os; *-ti? *-oh1 ad
Genitive *-s, *-es, *-os *-os, *-osyo, *-oso
Locative *-i, *-0̸ *-oi
Vocative *-0̸ *-e
Plural Nominative *-es *-ōs
*-h2 *-eh2
Accusative *-ms *-oms
Genitive *-oh1/3 om, *-om? *-oh1/3 om
there is significant agreement on the reconstruction of singular case endings and the
plural endings of the structural cases (nominative, accusative, genitive), although each
has problematic or controversial aspects which are discussed below. The remaining plural
endings are more uncertain; these too are discussed below.
The PIE athematic animate nominative singular ending must be reconstructed as *-s,
which is also the source of thematic singular *-o-s (e.g., Gk. hípp-os, Ved. áśv-as ‘horse’;
Hitt. išḫ-aš, Lat. er-us ‘master’; Lith.vil̃k-as, Goth. wulf-s ‘wolf’) and appears to be
continued in certain obstruent-final stems in several archaic IE languages, e.g., Lat. rēx
‘king’ (< PIE *h3rḗg̑-s); Gk. klṓps ‘thief’ (< *klṓp-s); Hitt. šīwaz ‘day’, CLuw. Dtiwaz
‘Sun-god’ (< *díw-ot-s). However, the ending has a phonologically restricted distribu-
tion − in particular, it is generally absent in sonorant-final (or *s-final) stems, where the
only case marker is a lengthened suffixal vowel: Gk. patḗr, Ved. pitā́, OLat. patēr
< *ph2 tḗr ‘father’; Gk. kuṓn ‘dog’, Ved. ś(u)vā́ < *k̑(u)wṓn ‘dog’; Ved. uṣā́s, Aeol. Gk.
aúōs < *h2 (é)us-ōs. This lengthened vowel is due to Szemerényi’s Law, which is tradition-
ally understood as a pre-PIE phonological rule deleting *s in word-final vowel + sonorant
(or *s) + *s sequences with compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel, i.e. pre-
PIE **-V{R, s}s# > PIE *-V:{R, s} (cf. Szemerényi 1996: 113−119 with references).
The PIE athematic nominative plural ending is straightforwardly reconstructible as
*-es (never zero-grade x-s, despite the consistent lack of surface accent). It is found after
obstruents, e.g., Gk. pód-es ‘feet’, Ved. pā́d-as* (< PIE *pód-es; cf. 3.1 below) and
sonorants, e.g., Gk. patér-es, Ved. pitár-as ‘fathers’ (< *ph2 tér-es); Hitt. arki-eš ‘testi-
cles’ (<< *h1 org̑ h-ey-es). The thematic plural ending is *-ōs, the long vowel likely aris-
ing from a prehistoric contraction of **-o-es; it is reflected in e.g., Ved. vīr-ā́s ‘men’;
Goth. hund-os ‘dogs’; Osc. Núvlan-ús ‘men of Nola’; Pal. mārḫ-aš ‘guests’. This ending
has been replaced in many IE languages by the pronominal nominative plural ending
*-oi, e.g., Gk. hípp-oi, TB yakw-i ‘horses’; Lat. vir-ī ‘men’; OCS grad-i ‘cities’. This
replacement is just one example of the interplay between nominal and pronominal inflec-
tion that is characteristic of the development of the IE languages.
The PIE athematic animate accusative singular ending is also securely reconstructed as
*-m, which is evident in nouns with stem-final glides *i or *u, e.g., Ved. matí-m ‘mind’ (<

Authenticated
PIE *mn̥-tí-m ‘thinking’), Ved. gántu-m, Lat. (ad)ventum (< PIE *g w[e]m-tu-m ‘going’),
although the original state is partly obscured by the regular sound change of *m > [n]
in word-final position observed in several IE branches (Greek, Anatolian, Germanic).
After an obstruent, it surfaced as vocalic *-m̥, e.g., Gk. póda, Lat. ped-em ‘foot’ (< PIE
*pó/éd-m̥). The corresponding thematic marker was *-om, e.g., Ved. áśv-am, OLat. equ-
om, Gk. hípp-on ‘horse’ (< PIE *h1 ék̑w-om); Hitt. išḫ-ān ‘master’.
The thematic animate accusative plural ending is typically reconstructed as *-oms (or
*-ons, although the Anatolian accusative plural forms appear to require unassimilated
*m), which would thus be a surface exception to Szemerényi’s Law (and is therefore
used as evidence for situating this rule in pre-PIE). Yet the (non-)assimilation issue is
just one question that complicates the reconstruction of this ending’s phonetic realization
in PIE. A more significant problem is that, while *-oms appears to be directly continued
in dialectal (Gortynian Cretan) Gk. -ons and Goth. -ans with retained *s, as well as in
Dor. Gk. -ōs/Att. Gk. -ous and Lat. -ōs with further simplification of this phonotactically
problematic cluster, the long vowel in Ved. -ān points to a pre-form *-ōm, which looks
like an effect of Szemerényi’s Law (and does not easily submit to analogical explana-
tion). The difficulty in reconciling these disparate outcomes with a single PIE surface
form may in fact stem from the relatively transparent morphophonemic analysis of the
ending as a composite of the thematic vowel + accusative marker *-m + pluralizing *-s
(in other words, internally reconstructed **-o-m-s). If this ending were still synchronical-
ly analyzable as such within the history of the daughter languages (in generative terms,
underlyingly */-o-m-s/), it is possible that the attested endings that appear to continue
*-oms are post-PIE innovations, while the lengthened vowel in the pre-form *-ōm reflect-
ed by Ved. -ān is due to the synchronic operation of Szemerényi’s Law in PIE (cf.
Sandell and Byrd 2014), and the Vedic ending’s sandhi variant -āṃs derived by further
recharacterization with pluralizing *-s. The surface form of the ending in any case de-
pends on what phonological processes can be reconstructed for PIE, which itself calls
for further research.
The PIE athematic animate accusative plural ending was *-ms, in all likelihood a
composite of accusative *-m + pluralizing *-s, and by further addition of the thematic
vowel *-o-, the source of thematic *-oms discussed above. It is usually assumed that
this ending is directly continued (via assimilation) in glide-final stems in Germanic, e.g.,
Goth. gasti-ns ‘guests’; Goth. sunu-ns ‘sons’. Yet like its thematic counterpart, accusative
plural *-ms is more frequently eliminated as a surface sequence, e.g., Hitt. ḫašš-uš*
(LUGAL.MEŠ-uš) ‘kings’; Lat. hostīs ‘strangers, enemies’; Ved. agnī́n ‘fires’; Lat. ma-
nūs ‘hands’; Ved. sūnū́n ‘sons’. After a consonant, the ending was realized as *-m̥s, the
diverse reflexes of which include Ved. pad-ás, Lat. ped-ēs (via *-ens) ‘feet’; Gk. kún-
as, Lith. šun-įs ‘dogs’; and Goth. broþr-uns ‘brothers’.
Nominative and accusative were not formally distinguished in PIE neuter nouns; both
are zero-marked in the singular of athematic noun classes, e.g., Ved. jā́nu, Gk. gónu,
Lat. genū, Hitt. gēnu ‘knee’ (< PIE *g̑ó/én-u-0̸), and marked by *-om in thematic nouns,
e.g., Lat. iug-um, Ved. yugám ‘yoke’ (< PIE *yug-óm). Nominative and accusative simi-
larly shared a (“collective”/set; cf. 2.1.2) plural ending *-h2 . This ending yielded a long
vowel in glide-final stems, e.g., OHitt. āššū ‘goods’, Ved. madhū ‘sweet’ (adj.)
(< *-uh2 ); Ved. śúcī ‘shining’ (adj.) (< PIE *-ih2 ). In sonorant- and s-final stems, the
original situation is probably reflected in Hitt. widār ‘waters’ (< *wed-ṓr; cf. synchroni-
cally sg. Gk. húdōr ‘water’) and OAv. manā̊ ‘thoughts’ (< *men-os-h2 ); the long vowel

Authenticated
in the final syllable of these words can then be ascribed to Szemerényi’s Law just as in
the animate nominative singular, the environment for the change unified by the assump-
tion that *h2 was − like *s − a fricative (per Kümmel 2007: 227−236, probably [χ]). In
PNIE, at least, the neuter plural of obstruent stems was subject to “laryngeal vocaliza-
tion” (i.e. vowel epenthesis; see Byrd, this handbook), which yielded -i in Indo-Iranian,
and -a in Greek, e.g., prs.act.ptcpl. Ved. -ant-i, Gk. -ent-a (< PIE *-ent-h2 ). However,
reconstructing a single PIE (surface) form is in this case difficult, since Anatolian proba-
bly deleted final *h2 after an obstruent (see Byrd 2015: 96); as always, this split between
PNIE and Anatolian raises questions about the PIE-level reconstruction. No such prob-
lems arise in the reconstruction of the thematic nominative-accusative neuter plural end-
ing, which was *-eh2 . This ending is directly continued in Ved. yugā́, OCS iga ‘yokes’
(< PIE *yug-eh2 ); Hitt. kunn-a ‘right-hand’ (adj.). In Greek and Latin, the case ending
unexpectedly surfaces with a short vowel -ă, which is usually assumed to reflect its
replacement by the athematic ending (see further Weiss 2011: 211).
Outside the nominative and accusative, case endings were the same for animate and
neuter nouns. Most of the evidence for the reconstruction of the instrumental comes
from Indo-Iranian, where the instrumental is productively continued as a distinct paradig-
matic case form. An athematic singular ending *-h1 is generally reconstructed to account
for the long vowel observed in Indo-Iranian glide-final stems, e.g., Ved. matī́ ‘with
thought’, OAv. rāitī ‘with liberality’ (< PIE *-ih1 ); OAv. xratū ‘with wisdom’ (< PIE
*-uh1 ). However, the much more common athematic ending was *-eh1 , e.g., (anim.)
Ved. pad-ā́ ‘with the foot’, OAv. zərədā(-cā) ‘with heart’ (< PIE *-eh1 ); (neut.) Ved.
mánas-ā, OAv. manaŋh-ā ‘with thought’ (< PIE *mén-es-eh1 ). This ending, moreover,
is diachronically ousting the *-h1 instrumental ending − compare Ved. krátv-ā (< *-eh1 )
with OAv. xratū (< *-h1 ). The corresponding thematic ending was *-oh1 , which is re-
flected directly by archaic Indo-Iranian forms like Ved. yajñ-ā́ ‘with sacrifice’, OAv.
yasn-ā ‘with sacrifice’ (< PIE *h1 yag̑n-oh1 ); Lith. výr-u ‘with (a) man’; OSax. word-u,
OHG wort-u ‘with (a) word’. Instrumental singular *-eh1 is also likely to be continued
elsewhere in certain adverbs, e.g., Lat. vald-ē ‘very’, dialectal (Elean) Greek taut-ē
‘here’, and is according to Jasanoff (1978, 2003b) the pre-PIE source of the formally
identical PIE stative suffix *-eh1 (-ye/o)- (cf. 4.3.1).
The PIE athematic dative and locative singular endings are uncontroversially recon-
structed as *-ei and *-i, respectively, e.g., dative VOLat. REC-EI ‘for the king’ (= Lat.
rēg-ī), Ved. mātr-é ‘for the mother’, OCS synov-i ‘for the son’ (< PIE *-ey); and locative
Ved. pad-í ‘at the foot’ (< *-i). These two cases often underwent formal syncretism, as
in Greek, where all first millennium dialects use -i (< *-i) to express dative (e.g., Di[w]í
‘for Zeus’) and locative (pod-í ‘for/at the foot’) functions, although traces of the old
dative ending are preserved in Mycenean (cf. di-we [diwéi] ‘for Zeus’). The same exact
syncretism has occurred in Hittite, where -i (< PIE *-i; never x-e in Old Hittite) continues
both dative (e.g., Hitt. šiun-i ‘for the deity’) and locative functions (Hitt. nēpiš-i ‘in
heaven’); however, this development must also be recent, since CLuw. -ī < *-ei (e.g.,
tappaš-ī ‘id.’) points to an independent merger of dative and locative with the case
ending of the former as exponent. Italic also continues locative *-i, but in yet another
functional role: it has become the marker of the ablative singular in consonant stems,
e.g., Lat. -e, Umbr. -e (see Vine, this handbook). The PIE athematic locative singular
could also be realized with a zero-ending, the so-called “endingless locative”. This type
is best represented in Anatolian, e.g., Hitt. šīwat (< PIE *-ot-0̸) ‘on the day’, and in

Authenticated
Indo-Iranian, e.g., Ved. nā́m-an ‘in name’ (< *-men-0̸); OAv. dąm ‘in the house’ (< *dṓ/
ém-0̸). In some cases, endingless locatives show a lengthened vowel in their stem-final
syllable, as in the Avestan form cited above.
The PIE thematic dative and locative singular endings were *-ōi and *-oi, respective-
ly. Dative *-ōi − with long diphthong via prehistoric contraction from **-o-ei, as in the
thematic nominative plural (see above) − is continued in e.g., Gk. hípp-ōi ‘for the horse’;
VOLat. DVEN-OI ‘for a good (man)’ (= Lat. bon-ō); OAv. ahur-āi ‘for the lord’; Lith.
výr-ui ‘for a man’, while locative *-oi is reflected in Ved. yajñ-é, OAv. yesn-ē ‘in the
sacrifice’; OCS grad-ě ‘in the city’; (adv.) Gk. oík-oi ‘at home’. The fact that the themat-
ic locative ending was transparently derived by adding the athematic ending *-i to the
thematic vowel -o- is crucial to its subsequent development in Greek and Balto-Slavic,
both of which require that the ending was disyllabic in the shallow prehistory of these
languages (Jasanoff 2009).
Several allomorphs are reconstructible for the PIE athematic genitive singular: *-s,
*-es, and *-os. The last − arguably an intrusion from thematic nouns − is observed in
Greek, e.g., patr-ós ‘of the father’, while certain Balto-Slavic forms require *-es, e.g.,
OLith. szird-es ‘of the heart’; OPr. kermen-es ‘of the body’. Both of these endings are
attested in archaic Latin inscriptions, e.g., APOLON-ES ‘of Apollo’ (< *-es); NOMIN-
US ‘of name’ (< *-os), although only *-es is continued (as -is) in the classical language
(cf. Apollōn-is, nōmin-is) (see Vine, this handbook). Due to the Indo-Iranian merger of
*e and *o, Ved. -as and OAv. -as(-cā) could reflect either *-es or *-os. The distribution
of the zero-grade *-s ending in the daughter languages is more limited, and generally
confined to sonorant-final stems. It is best established in *i-stems (e.g., Ved. agné-s ‘of
the fire’, OPers. cišpai-š ‘of Teispes’; OCS kosti ‘of the bone’; Osc. aet-eis ‘of part’ <
*-ey-s) and *u-stems (Ved. sūnó-s, Goth. sunau-s, OCS synu ‘of the son’ < *-ew-s). Zero-
grade *s is also found in *r-stems in Indo-Iranian and Germanic (e.g., YAv. žaotar-š,
Ved. hótur ‘of the offerer’; Ved. pitúr, Anglian OE fadur, ON fǫður ‘of the father’ <
*-r̥s); some Avestan *n-stems (e.g., OAv. rāzə̄ṇg ‘of the ruler’ < *-on-s; cf. Ved. rā́jñ-
as) and Hittite verbal nouns in -waš (< *-wen-s); and to an *m-final root noun in the
likely PNIE collocation *dém-s páti- ‘master of the house’ (OAv. də̄ṇg paiti-, Ved. dán
páti-, Gk. despótēs). For the possibility that these zero-grade forms reflect a PIE syncope
rule that applied in the final syllable of sonorant stems, see Kümmel (2014). The single
example of *s in an obstruent-final stem is Hitt. neku-z [nek wt-s] (cf. Lat. noct-is, Gk.
nukt-ós ‘of the night’), which occurs only in the fixed phrase nekuz mēḫur ‘time of
evening; twilight’ (Schindler 1967); the fact that it is not attested in any other Anatolian
obstruent-final stems suggests that it is a pre-PIE archaism, and argues against recon-
structing it as a PIE allomorph in obstruent-final stems.
The PIE thematic genitive singular also has multiple reconstructible allomorphs:
*-os, *-osyo, and *-oso. Plain *-os − homophonous with thematic nominative singular
*-os and clearly formed by the addition of athematic genitive singular *-s to the thematic
vowel − is found only in Anatolian, e.g., Hitt. išḫ-āš ‘of the master’. The ending *-osyo
is continued in HLuw. [-asi] (e.g., DEUS-na-si-i [mas:an-asi] ‘of the deity’) as well as
probably Car. -ś (pleq-ś ‘of Peldēkos [PN]’; on both points, see Melchert 2012a with
references); *-osyo is also well-represented in the NIE languages: Gk. -oio (e.g., Myc.
i-qo-jo, Hom. hípp-oio ‘of a horse’); PIIr. *-asya (Ved. áśv-asya, OP aspahyā ‘id.’; OAv.
ahur-ahiiā ‘of the Asura’), PItal. *-osyo (VOLat. VALESIOSIO ‘of Valerius [PN]’; Fal.
kaisi-osio ‘of K− [PN]’), Arm. -oy (mard-oy ‘of a man’). As for the ending *-oso, its

Authenticated
reflexes can be seen in Germanic (OSax. dag-as, OE dæg-æs ‘of the day’), perhaps
Balto-Slavic (OPr. deiw-as ‘of god’ [for an alternative view see Olander 2015: 134−
136]), as well as Anatolian, cf. Lyc. -Vhe, e.g., Xerig-ahe ‘of Xeriga (PN)’; Car. -s,
ntro-s ‘of “Apollo” ’ (see Melchert 2002, 2012a). Since Germanic nominal forms cited
in support of an ablaut variant *-eso (Goth. dag-is, OHG tag-es ‘of the day’) are more
likely analogical (Ringe 2006: 201−202), there is no positive evidence for its reconstruc-
tion in the nominal system. An innovative thematic genitive ending *-ī is found in Italic
(e.g., Lat. equ-ī ‘of the horse’) and Celtic (e.g., Ogam Ir. MAQQ-I ‘of a son’); this
ending may be historically related to the derivational suffix *-ih2 - (the so-called vr̥kī́-
suffix), on which see Nussbaum (1975) and the discussions in 2.1.3. and 2.4. below.
The athematic ablative singular and genitive singular were formally syncretic in
PNIE. However, the Anatolian languages show instead a formal merger of instrumental
and ablative, one exponent of which is the ending (undifferentiated for number) *-ti
(> Hitt. abl.-instr. -z; Hitt. -az, CLuw. -ati, HLuw. -adi/-ari, Lyc. -edi < *-o-ti with inner-
Anatolian thematization). Melchert and Oettinger (2009) argue that this ending was the
marker of ablative singular and plural in PIE, and that this situation was inherited into
Anatolian, while the syncretism of ablative and genitive singular was a PNIE develop-
ment (see also Oettinger, this handbook); however, it is just as plausible that the
PNIE situation is archaic and Anatolian innovative, with a new formal marker of the
ablative(-instrumental) developing independently in Anatolian just as it likely did in
Armenian (e.g., i get-oy ‘from a river’) and perhaps also in Tocharian (e.g., TA āsān-äṣ
‘from the throne’).
The PNIE ablative singular of thematic nouns, in contrast, had a distinctive ending,
which has traditionally been reconstructed as *-ōd (OLat. -ōd, Ved. -āt). Yet this recon-
struction is problematized by the Lithuanian genitive singular -o, which requires Proto-
Baltic *-ād (thus likely also OCS -a < PBS *-ād; see Olander 2015: 134−136). In order
to reconcile these outcomes, it is generally assumed that the ending was disyllabic, with
the pre-PIE agglutination of an element reconstructed as either *h2 ed or *ad that is also
the source of various prepositions, adverbs, and local particles in the daughter languages
(e.g., Lat. ad ‘to’; Goth. at ‘at’; see Dunkel 2014: II.8−18). Of these possibilities, the
Hittite (singular/plural) instr. ending -(i)d is phonologically straightforward only from
the latter: Melchert and Oettinger (2009: 55) derive this ending via resegmentation of
PIE *-oh1 -ad − i.e. the thematic instrumental ending plus postpositional *ad − whence
Pre-Hitt. *-ad (PIE *-o[h1 ]-h2 ed would have yielded x-aḫ[ḫ]ad); *-ad was then reana-
lyzed as Hitt. /-a-d/, a combination of thematic vowel + -d (alternatively, *-d may come
directly from pronominal inflection; cf. 2.2.1). The development of PIE thematic ablative
*-oh1 ad − perhaps indifferent to number as in Hittite − would thus follow a cross-
linguistically well-established trajectory whereby new case endings emerge via accretion
of adverbial elements (see generally Kulikov 2009; and on the Tocharian “secondary”
cases, Kim 2013b and Pinault, this handbook).
The PNIE athematic instrumental plural ending is typically reconstructed as *-b his,
for which Indo-Iranian (Ved. -bhis, OAv. -bīš) provides both formal and functional sup-
port; this ending is also directly continued in Celtic (Gaul. -BI, OIr. dat. pl. -ib). Possible
further reflexes of the ending include Arm. instr. pl. -bk‘/-ovk‘/-(a/i/o)wk‘ (beside instr.
sg. -b/-v/-w; see Olsen, this handbook) and Myc. Gk. instr. -pi [-p hi(s)], although these
may rather be traced back directly to the adverb-forming suffix *-b hi (Hom. Gk. -p hi,
e.g., [w]ĩ-p hi ‘by force’), which is historically contained in the ending *-b his and which

Authenticated
must be reconstructed for PIE (Hitt. kuwa-pi ‘when; where’). Germanic *-mis (> Goth.
dat. pl. -m, ON -m[r]) and (with unexpected long vowel) Balto-Slavic *-mīs (> Lith.
instr. pl. -mì, OCS -mi; secondarily Lith. instr. sg. -mì, OCS -mĭ) are also generally
derived from *-b his via the so-called “Northern IE” substitution of *b h by *m (itself
likely an adverbial suffix, e.g., Lat. ill-im ‘from there’; HLuw. abl.-instr. pron. zin ‘from/
with this’). The absence of Anatolian evidence for any *b h-initial case endings strongly
suggests that *-b his is a PNIE innovation, and Jasanoff (2008) has argued that the PIE
instr. pl. was rather *-is. He identifies this suffix in a set of adverbs (e.g., Gk. móg-is
‘with toil; hardly’; Ved. āv-ís, YAv. āuu-iš ‘manifest’) and, more significantly, in the
PNIE pronominal instr. pl. ending *-ōis (see below), and derives PNIE -b his by its
addition to adverbial *-b hi. This scenario has a plausible parallel in the development of
the PNIE dative-ablative plural ending *-b h(y)as (see below), but is complicated by the
lack of external support from Anatolian for this *-is suffix itself.
The PNIE thematic instrumental plural ending is straightforwardly reconstructible
as *-ōis, e.g., Indo-Iranian (Ved. hást-ais, OAv. zast-āiš ‘with the hands’); Gk. dat. pl.
t he-oĩs ‘for/by the gods’ (unless from loc.pl. *-oisu; see below); Italic (VOLat. dat./abl.
pl. SOKI-OIS ‘for the friends’ (> Cl. Lat. soci-īs); Osc. Núvlan-úis ‘for the men of
Nola’); PBS *-ōis (Lith. výr-ais ‘with men’; OCS grad-y ‘with cities’). This ending
appears to contain a post-thematic i-element original to the pronominal declension (cf.
2.2.1) just like the PNIE thematic locative plural and (arguably) dative plural (on both,
see below); to this base in *-oi- was added, according to Jasanoff (2008), a suffix *-is,
which may have been the PIE athematic instrumental ending (see above). In Anatolian,
the instrumental plural was syncretic with the ablative, both formally marked by a histor-
ical exponent of the ablative; it thus presents no evidence for or against the PIE status
of *-ōis.
The PIE dative plural ending is likely reconstructible as *-os, which is directly reflect-
ed in Anatolian (e.g., Hitt.-aš, CLuw. -aš, Lyc. -e), but whether this ending was original
to thematic or athematic nouns is uncertain. It is also highly probable that the PNIE
athematic dative-ablative ending generally reconstructed as *-b h(y)as is derived by addi-
tion of this *-os to the adverb-forming suffix *-b hi. The phonologically expected out-
come of their fusion is -b hyas, which is continued in Indo-Iranian (e.g., Ved. viḍ-bhyás,
OAv. vīži-biiō ‘to/for/from the clans’) and usually held to be the basic PNIE form of
this syncretic ending. The functionally equivalent yod-less ending *-b hos is found in
Italic (e.g., Lat. dat. pl. rēg-ibus ‘for the kings’ [with intervening i analogically spread
from *i-stem paradigms]) and Celtic (Gaul. matrebo ‘for the [divine] mothers’). Corre-
sponding thematic endings were formed by adding the athematic ending either to the
thematic vowel (e.g., Ven. louderobos ‘for the children’) or − less likely at the PIE
stage − to stem-final *-oi- under the influence of the pronouns (cf. 2.2.1 below), as in
Indo-Iranian (Ved. ukth-ébhyas, OAv. uxð-ōibiiō ‘to/for chants’). PBS shows athematic
*-mos and thematic *-omos with *m instead of *b h just as in the athematic instrumental
plural (see above), e.g., (athematic) OLith. dat. pl. sunú-mus ‘to/for sons’, OCS kostĭ-
mŭ ‘to/for bones’; (thematic) Lith. výr-ams ‘to/for men’, OCS grad-omŭ ‘to/for cities’.
The same -(o)mos may occur in PGmc. *-(a)mz (Goth. -am, ON -mr), although it may
instead reflect PGmc. instr. pl. -miz (see above).
The PNIE ablative plural was, as noted above, syncretic with the dative plural in both
thematic and athematic nouns. For the possibility that in PIE ablative case was marked by

Authenticated
number-indifferent endings − athematic *-ti and thematic *-oh1 ad − see the discussion
of the ablative singular above.
The PIE genitive plural ending in athematic nouns is much disputed, either *-om or
*-oh1/3 om (as in thematic nouns; see below). The Anatolian languages (Hitt. -an, Lyc.
-ẽ) are uninformative, as they could reflect either ending. Within PNIE, there is incontro-
vertible evidence for *-oh1/3 om in athematic nouns in Indo-Iranian (e.g., Ved. padā́m ‘of
the feet’, frequently with disyllabic scansion of the ending), as well as in Greek and
Baltic (e.g., Gk. pod-ō̃n ‘id.’; Lith. akmen-ų̄ ‘of stones’, both with circumflex accent).
Nevertheless, on structural grounds the disyllabic ending -oh1/3 om is aberrant in athemat-
ic nominal inflection, and is thus reasonably assumed to originate historically in thematic
paradigms; the question, then, is whether there was wholesale replacement of the “short”
ending *-om (or possibly *-h1/3 om) by the “long” ending *-oh1/3 om already in P(N)IE,
in which case there should be no definitive trace of *-om in the daughter languages,
or if instead athematic *-oh1/3 om is an innovation in the shallow prehistory of those
branches in which it is attested. The answer to this question depends largely on the
interpretation of the Slavic evidence. Jasanoff (1983) has contended that PS *-ŭ (e.g.,
OCS dŭšter-ŭ ‘of daughters’) can be derived from *-oh1/3 om (via *-ōm); however,
Olander (2015: 255−259) maintains the older view of Meillet (1922) that PS *-ŭ must
continue “short” *-om. The matter remains unresolved at present.
The PIE thematic genitive plural ending was *-oh1/3 om. Besides its possible Anatoli-
an outcomes mentioned above (which likely rule out *h2 for the medial laryngeal by
their lack of a consonantal reflex), it is productively continued in this nominal class in
Greek (e.g., hípp-ōn ‘of horses’), Sabellic (SPic. raeli-om ‘of the Raelii [PN]’; Umb.
pihakl-u ‘of the purification rites’), and Baltic (Lith. lang-ų̄ ‘of windows’; Latv. tȩ̄vu
‘of fathers’). In several languages, the inherited ending has been analogically remodeled,
e.g., Latin de-ōrum ‘of the gods’ on the basis of the feminine genitive plural (Pre-Lat.
*-āsōm) (see Weiss 2011: 208, 224; cf. 2.2.1 below) and PIIr. *-ānaam (Ved. yajñ-ā́nām,
OAv. yasnanąm ‘of the sacrifices’) on the basis of *n-stems (cf. Kümmel, this hand-
book); yet PIE *-oh1/3 om survives in both Latin and Vedic in relic forms: Lat. de-um;
Ved. devā́ñ (jánma) (RV VI.11.3b) ‘(race) of the gods’.
The PNIE athematic locative plural is generally reconstructed as *-su, which is con-
tinued in Indo-Iranian (e.g., Ved. vik-ṣú ‘among the clans’; OAv. naf-šu ‘among the
descendants’) and Balto-Slavic (dial. Lith. aki-sù ‘in [the] eyes’; OCS gostĭ-xŭ ‘among
guests’). Greek dat. -si (e.g., nau-sí[n] ‘to/for/on the ships’) likely reflects the same
ending with analogical *-i from the locative singular. Adding *-su to the pronominally
influenced base *-oi- (cf. 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 below) yielded the thematic ending *-oisu, e.g.,
Ved. márt(i)y-eṣu, OAv. maš ̣ii-aēšu ‘among mortals’; OCS grad-ěxŭ ‘in cities’; and with
the same analogical development, Gk. dat. t he-oĩsi ‘to/for/among the gods’. This ending
-oisi may also be the source of the shorter Greek thematic dat. pl. ending -ois (via
apocope), unless it instead reflects thematic instr. pl. *-ōis (see above). The only alleged
trace of *-su in Anatolian is as an adverb in the Luwic languages (CLuw. 3-šu, HLuw.
ta-ra/i-su ‘thrice’; perhaps also Milyan trisu); thus if the PA syncretic dat.-loc. ending
*-os was originally a dative marker, it would be possible to reconstruct a distinct PIE
locative plural ending *-su.
The PIE athematic vocative singular was zero-marked (*-0̸), e.g., Hitt. dKumarbi ‘(O)
Kumarbi’; Gk. páter, Ved. pitar, Lat. (iup)-piter ‘(O) (sky-)father’; Ved. sūno, Goth.
sunau, Lith. sūnaũ, OCS synu ‘(O) son’ (< *-ew-0̸, with full-grade of the derivational

Authenticated
suffix in glide-final stems). The vocative of PIE thematic nouns was marked by *-e, e.g.,
Gk. lúk-e, Lat. lup-e, Lith. vil̃k-e ‘(O) wolf’; Ved. dev-a, OPr. deiw-e ‘(O) god’; OCS
bož-e ‘id.’. The use of nominative singular for vocative singular − very likely by analogy
to the plural (see below) − is also found to various degrees in many languages (especially
in athematic nouns).
The PIE vocative plural was identical to the nominative plural in both athematic and
thematic nouns. This situation is continued into all of the daughter languages except Old
Irish, where the distinctive vocative (e.g., [á] ḟir-u ‘[O] men’) reflects the inherited PIE
nominative plural ending *-ōs, which has been replaced qua nominative by innovative
*-ī from the pronouns (see above).
Some scholars argue for the reconstruction of a ninth PIE case, the allative (or “direct-
ive”), which signified movement in a direction or toward a goal. The status of this case
is disputed, as is its formal marker (possibilities include *-e/oh2 , *-h2 e, and *-o). Evi-
dence for the reconstruction of the allative comes principally from Old Hittite, where it
is a productive case ending, while in the PNIE languages there are certain adverbs that
could be relic case forms, e.g., Gk. k hamaí ‘to the ground’. Most regard this evidence
as insufficient to justify the reconstruction of an additional PIE case, which implies its
synchronic status in Hittite reflects an innovation (for arguments in support of this sce-
nario, see Melchert forthcoming c).
Similar attempts have been made to reconstruct another case form attested exclusively
in the Anatolian languages, the ergative. In Anatolian, when a neuter noun is the subject
of a transitive verb, it receives ergative case. Singular and plural endings are securely
reconstructible for PA in view of agreement between Hittite and the Luwic languages:
(sg.) Hitt. -anza [-ant͡s], CLuw. -antiš, HLuw. -antis, Lyc. pre-nasalizing -ti; (pl.) Hitt.
-anteš, Luw. -antinzi [-antint͡si]. However, at least since Garrett (1990) it has been gener-
ally agreed that these endings − and the Anatolian syntactic feature, split-ergativity, that
they would imply − are post-PIE innovations (cf. Melchert 2011b), and according to
most recent hypotheses, the ergative endings have grammaticalized from an animacy-
increasing (or “individuating”) derivational suffix, perhaps PIE *-e/ont- (see Goedege-
buure 2013 and Oettinger, this handbook).
In addition to the case endings associated with singular and plural number, a limited
reconstruction of dual markers is possible. For the athematic animate dual, a syncretic
nominative-accusative(-vocative) ending *-h1 e is plausibly reconstructed on the basis of
Greek (e.g., pód-e ‘two feet’) and Lithuanian (OLith. žmũn-e ‘two men’) evidence, al-
though this reconstruction is somewhat complicated by the fact that glide-final stems
appear to continue just *-h1 , e.g., Ved. kav-ī́ ‘two poets’, OCS gost-i ‘two guests’; Ved.
sūnū́, OCS syn-y, Lith. sū́n-u ‘two sons’. More formally secure is an athematic neuter
dual ending *-ih1 , for which there is at least one lexical match between these two bran-
ches (Gk. ósse = Lith. akì ‘two eyes’), as well as agreement within Indo-Iranian (e.g.,
Ved. vácasī, OAv. vacahi[-cā] ‘two words’). Thematic forms were produced by addition
of the athematic endings to thematic vowel *-o-, thus likely neuter *-o-ih1 (e.g., Ved.
yug-é ‘two yokes’; OCS měst-ě ‘two places’), and animate *-oh1 e which, according to
Jasanoff’s (1988: 73−74) proposal, would have yielded accent-conditioned variants
*ˊ-oh1 (e.g., Gk. hípp-ō, Ved. áśv-ā ‘two horses’) and *-óh1 u (e.g., Ved. dev-aú). On the
possible Anatolian reflexes of these endings, see 2.1.2 below.
Very little can be said with certainty about the reconstruction of the oblique case
forms of the dual, yet two points are fairly clear. First, the oblique cases of the dual were

Authenticated
also almost certainly syncretic: in Vedic, instrumental, dative, and ablative functions are
marked by -bhyām, while genitive and locative share the marker -os; but even within
Indo-Iranian there are differences, since Avestan has distinct genitive (OAv. -ā̊) and
locative (OAv. -ō) endings. Similarly, PBS probably had one case ending for dative and
instrumental, and another for genitive and locative (see Olander 2015: 205−220 for discus-
sion). It is also clear that the oblique dual endings were built out of adverbial elements
just like the non-structural plural case markers (in some cases, the same elements, e.g.,
*-b hi), but the details of their reconstruction are even more uncertain. On the more general
question of the status of the dual as a PIE category, see again 2.1.2 below.
2.1.2. Number
A three-way nominal contrast for number (singular, dual, plural) is securely reconstructi-
ble for PNIE. This number system − a cross-linguistically common type (Corbett 2000:
20) − is synchronically operative in the oldest stages of Indic, Iranian, Greek, Baltic,
Slavic, Tocharian, Celtic, and to a lesser extent in Germanic (mainly Gothic); the other
PNIE languages have lost the dual as a living category, retaining traces in the numeral
system (e.g., *dwoh1 > Lat. duo ‘2’) or elsewhere. The reconstruction of number in PIE
is problematized, on the one hand, by the absence of the dual as a living number category
in Anatolian, and on the other, by the vexed question of the neuter plural. Many scholars
would trace the neuter plural back to an original singular “collective” − in part because
of the formal affinity between its marker *-(e)h2 and the suffix *-eh2 that primarily
marks feminine nouns in the NIE languages (cf. 2.1.3. below), and in part because of
the singular verbal agreement patterns observed with neuter plural subjects in several
ancient IE languages. We take up these issues in turn below.
As discussed in 2.1.1, formal markers for the (nominative-accusative) dual are secure-
ly reconstructible for PNIE. Nouns marked with dual number refer to exactly two distinct
real-world entities (and by implication, the plural to three or more such entities). In the
IE branches in which the dual is preserved (Indo-Iranian, Greek, Celtic, Balto-Slavic,
Gothic, Tocharian), it is most frequently used with naturally occurring pairs − one wide-
spread example is Gk. ósse, Ved. akṣī́, YAv. aši, Lith. akì, OCS oči, TB eśane ‘two
eyes’ − as well as with items at the highest end of the animacy hierarchy (see Corbett
2000: 55 ff.), thus especially when a noun’s referents are human, e.g., Gk. ant hrṓpō ‘two
men’, OLith. žmũn-e ‘id.’. In addition, it appears that the IE dual had certain idiosyncrat-
ic uses − for instance, as an associative marker in the “elliptic dual”, e.g., Ved. Mitrā́
‘Mitra and his companion Varuṇa’; Hom. Gk. Aíante ‘Ajax and his companion Teucer’
(Wackernagel 1877 [= 1953b: 538−545]).
The dual was lost in many IE languages, in some cases within the historical period
(e.g., post-classical Greek). This extensive loss may be easier to explain if it is assumed
that in P(N)IE the use of the dual for two referents was optional − or more standardly
“facultative” − as already observed in Homeric Greek, which regularly allows the plural
in these contexts. However, since facultative use of the dual is found in many languages
in which the category remains productive (Corbett 2000: 42−53), this need not in itself
be viewed as an indication of the incipient loss of the grammatical category.
Projecting the dual back from PNIE to PIE itself is complicated by the limited evi-
dence for dual number in the Anatolian nominal system. The dual exists as a synchronic

Authenticated
grammatical category in none of the Anatolian languages. Possible support for PIE inher-
itance is restricted to lexicalized relics, forms denoting natural pairs that may have es-
caped the loss of the dual by reanalysis as set (or “collective”; see further below) plurals
due to their (synchronic) formal identity with members of this productive category
(Rieken 1994: 52−53). Potential traces of the dual in animate nouns include CLuw. tāwa
‘eyes’, iš(ša)ra ‘hands’, and pāta* (GÌR.MEŠ-ta) ‘feet’ (< *-oh1 [e]), while the neuter
dual ending in *-ih1 may be continued in Hitt. GIŠēlzi ‘scales’, mēni- ‘face’, and a few
other lexical items; see Melchert (forthcoming a) with references. It is generally thought
that additional evidence for the dual in Anatolian comes from the verbal system − in
particular, the PA 1st plural ending *-wen(i) − but see further discussion in 4.2.2 below.
A separate, much-discussed question concerns the PIE status of number in neuter
nouns: did plural number exist as a grammatical category in neuter nouns, or did neuter
nouns instead form only a grammatically singular “collective”? Advocates of the latter
position typically point to the formal affinity between the marker of the neuter plural
*-(e)h2 and that of the PNIE feminine-forming suffixes *-ih2 /*-yeh2 -, *-ih2 , and in par-
ticular *-eh2 (see 2.1.3. below), whose derivatives have a (remarkably *s-less) nomina-
tive singular, e.g., PNIE *h2 wid héw-eh2 > Ved. vidhávā, Lat. vidua ‘widow’ (cf. LIV 2 :
294). This ending is phonologically identical to the ending which characterizes neuter
plurals in the daughter languages (e.g., PIE *yug-éh2 > Ved. yugā́, Lat. iuga ‘yokes’).
There is a consensus, then, that this formal agreement reflects a prehistoric connection
between neuter plural and feminine, but the exact nature of this relationship is much
disputed − in particular, whether the neuter played a role in the genesis of the feminine
(see 2.1.3 below) − and has given rise to an enormous literature (for a range of recent
opinions, see the papers collected in Neri and Schuhmann 2014). However, the question
for the directly reconstructible stage of PIE amounts to a simpler one: Is there any
compelling evidence that neuter nouns marked with *-(e)h2 were grammatically singular
in the IE languages?
That the PNIE descendants of neuter *-(e)h2 nouns are synchronically plural is undis-
puted: they regularly refer to multiple individuated entities, and except for the nomina-
tive-accusative case, have the same plural inflectional endings as animate nouns. The
analysis of the Anatolian evidence is more often called into question − for instance, it
has repeatedly been claimed (e.g., Harðarson 1987, 2015; Matasović 2004: 156) that
neuter *-(e)h2 nouns show singular agreement with predicate adjectives and pronouns.
However, this claim is false for Old Hittite, and the New Hittite examples cited in
support are demonstrably innovations (van den Hout 2001). Moreover, even Anatolian
pluralia tantum of this type in which an original singular value might be detected − e.g.,
Hitt. warpa ‘enclosure’, Lyc. arawazija ‘memorial’ − are grammatically plural, as shown
by their resumption in discourse with unambiguously plural case forms (dative-locative
plural Hitt. warpaš, Lyc. arawazije; see Melchert 2011: 396).
The remaining alleged evidence for the erstwhile singular status of IE neuter plurals
comes from verbal agreement patterns in Anatolian, Greek, and, on a more limited basis,
Indo-Iranian: in contrast to animate plurals, neuter plural subjects in these languages take
singular verbal agreement morphology. This phenomenon − now generally (although
anachronistically) referred to as the “tà zō̃i-a trék h-ei rule” − was recognized for Greek
already by the ancient grammarians; for its parallel operation in Hittite, see Hoffner and
Melchert (2008: 240). The singular verb marking in this type is held to reflect a stage
at which these neuter nouns were grammatically singular, and thus singular verb agree-
ment was appropriate. Yet there is no need for recourse to such a prehistoric stage to

Authenticated
explain this agreement pattern, since it is typologically common that low animacy nouns
morphologically marked as plural fail to trigger plural agreement on verbs (cf. Comrie
1989: 190−191); outside of IE itself, such patterns are observed in Georgian (Smith-
Stark 1974) and Turkish (Bamyacı, Haussler, and Kabak 2014), as well as Muna (Austro-
nesian) and Ngalakan (Australian) (see Corbett 2000: 71, 188−189 with references). Per
Patri (2007: 62), Anatolian verbs may therefore “default” to singular in the absence of
an (animate) plural controller; the same analysis could account for Greek and, in turn,
be extended to PIE, in which case there is no need to assume that neuter *-eh2 nouns
were singular in PIE, nor necessarily at any earlier period (see Melchert 2011a for argu-
ments to this effect).
Yet in contrast to the evidence for their singularity, there is strong support for the
notion that *-(e)h2 marked “collectives”, or perhaps more precisely, “set plurals” (cf.
Eichner 1985: 142; Melchert 2014c: 257−258; on the problematically “variegated” usage
of the term “collective,” see Gil 1996: 66−70). It has long been known that there are a
number of cases in the NIE languages of three-way splits in animate nouns, where a
continuant of *-(e)h2 is attested beside ordinary singular and plural forms, e.g., Gk.
kúklos ‘wheel’, kúkloi ‘wheels’, kúkla ‘wheel-set’; Gk. mērós ‘thigh’, mēroí ‘thighs’,
mḗra ‘(sacrificial) thigh-pieces’ (on the accentual variation, see Probert 2006b: 158−
163); Lat. locus ‘place’, locī ‘places’, loca ‘literary passages’ (although the distinction
between the latter two is debatable; cf. Weiss 2011: 196; Clackson 2007: 101−103).
These examples − most clearly, Greek kúkla − are consistent with the idea that animate
*-eh2 nouns denoted multiple distinct entities that were conceptualized as constituting a
set. Eichner (1985: 148) identified similar Hittite examples, e.g., alpaš ‘cloud’, alpēš
‘clouds’, alpa ‘cloud-bank’. Supplementing the Hittite data collected by Eichner (e.g.,
Hitt. palšaš ‘path,’ palšeš ‘paths’, palša ‘path composed of ritual materials’) and adding
Lycian and Luwian comparanda, Melchert (2000: 62−67) argues that the relatively robust
Anatolian evidence is indicative of a productive grammatical process; thus in contrast to
the NIE languages, where the marginality and generally specialized meaning of animate
set plurals allows them to be plausibly analyzed as lexicalized relics (cf. Harðarson 1987;
Tichy 1993), the Anatolian situation is best explained by assuming that PIE animate
nouns could regularly form either a count plural (marked with *-es/-ōs) or a set plural
(marked with *-[e]h2 ), whereas neuter nouns lacked the grammatical category of count
plural.
PIE would thereby distinguish at least two grammatical numbers, singular and plural,
and according to most researchers, a third, the dual; in addition, the plural had two
distinct sub-classes (Melchert 2000: 62, 67 n. 38), count plural and set plural (cf. Eich-
ner’s [1985] Komprehensiv, though reconstructed as a fourth category), although only in
animate nouns was the morphological distinction realized. This system is outlined in
Table 122.2 with the nominative case endings reconstructible for each category:
Tab. 122.2 Animate and neuter singular, dual, and plural endings
SINGULAR DUAL PLURAL
SET COUNT
ANIMATE *-s / *-os *-h1 e *-h2 / *-eh2 *-es / *-ōs
NEUTER *-0̸ / *-om *-ih1 *-h2 / *-eh2 –

Authenticated
This reconstruction gives rise to a number of questions. There are, for instance, neuter
nouns reconstructible for PIE for which the notion of count plural was semantically
appropriate (e.g., *pédom ‘place’; cf. 2.1.3 below) − how was this expressed by PIE
speakers? Moreover, while it is clear that by PNIE the morphological contrast between
set and count plural had been eliminated and that the resulting undifferentiated category
was marked by an exponent of the original count plural for animate nouns and of the
set plural for neuter nouns, the details of the diachronic pathway that led to this situation
remain to be worked out. In addition, the hypothesized number system in Table 122.2 −
with its morphological gap for neuter count plural − merits further consideration from a
typological perspective. Still more uncertain are questions about the deeper prehistory
of this system − in particular, about the development of the PIE set plural suffix *-eh2 ,
which must ultimately be traced back to a pre-PIE derivational suffix that also yields
the PNIE feminine suffix of the same shape (see 2.1.3 below). For intriguing discussion
of how the pre-PIE suffix **-(e)h2 may have separately grammaticalized as the marker
of both set plural and of feminine gender, see Melchert (2000, 2014c), Luraghi (2009a, b,
2011), and Nussbaum (2014b). For more traditional opposing views, see the references
in 2.1.3 below.
2.1.3. Gender
Just as for number, a three-way grammatical gender split is securely reconstructible for
PNIE: masculine, feminine, and neuter. Yet even before the discovery of Hittite and
the other Anatolian languages, the gender system of PNIE displayed numerous features
suggesting that this three-way gender division might have replaced an older bipartite
system that distinguished only between animate and neuter (cf. Brugmann 1891). When
it eventually became clear that Hittite attests just animate and neuter genders (see further
below), it seemed all but confirmed that Anatolian reflects the older PIE situation, and
that the diachronic development of the feminine gender was a crucial innovation of
PNIE. Such a position is now the majority view; see Ledo-Lemos (2000: 41−94) and
Matasović (2004: 36−41 with references). However, concerning the details of the femi-
nine’s development, there is very little agreement − in particular, it is disputed how the
formal affinities between the feminine suffixes *-ih2 /*-yeh2 -, *-ihx -, and *-eh2 - and the
set plural suffix *-(e)h2 (cf. 2.1.2) should be reconciled. In this section, we outline the
principal evidence for the PNIE innovation of the feminine, and discuss some recent
hypotheses about its origin.
The PNIE three-gender system − a cross-linguistically common type, occurring in
approximately 23 % of the languages surveyed by Corbett (2013) that have grammatical
gender (more common is two) − is observed intact in the oldest stages of most of its
language branches: Albanian, Celtic, Greek, Indo-Iranian, Italic, Germanic, and Slavic.
All nouns are specified for masculine, feminine, or neuter gender, and trigger gender
agreement on attributive and predicative modifiers (adjectives, pronouns). In adjectival
agreement, PIE gender exhibits inflectional character (cf. Luraghi 2014: 199): agreement
is obligatorily realized on adjectives with inflectional endings − for masculine and neuter
adjectives, by the addition of PIE animate and neuter nominal case endings respectively
(cf. 2.1.1), and for feminine adjectives, by suffixes that generally combine a marker of

Authenticated
the feminine with PIE animate case endings, e.g., feminine accusative singular *-eh2 -m
(Ved. -ām, dialectal Gk. -ān, Lat. -am, Goth. -a, OCS -ǫ, Lith. -ą).
Grammatical gender assignment in PNIE was sensitive, on the one hand, to the anima-
cy and individuation of a noun’s referent (cf. Ostrowski 1985: 316; Matasović 2004:
196−203), and on the other, to its sex (Luraghi 2009a). Prototypical neuter nouns referred
to inanimate and weakly individuated entities, thus especially mass nouns, e.g.*h1 ésh2 -r̥
‘blood’ (> Gk. éar, TB yasar); *mélit ‘honey’ (> Gk. méli, Goth. miliþ, Alb. mjaltē);
that these nouns often have exact cognates in Anatolian (CLuw. āšḫar ‘blood’; Hitt. milit
‘honey’) suggests they belonged to the inherited core of PIE neuter nouns (cf. 2.4.3
below). Still, neuter nouns referring to countable entities are reconstructible for PNIE,
e.g., *w(e)rd hom ‘word’ (> Lat. verbum, Goth. waurd); *h2 erh3 trom ‘plow’ (> Gk. áro-
tron, OIr. arathar, OCS ralo); and in a number of cases, likely further back to PIE, e.g.,
*pédom ‘place’ (> Hitt. pēdan, Gk. pédon); *yugóm ‘yoke’ (> Gk. zugón, Ved. yugám,
Lat. iugum, Hitt. yukan).
In contrast, highly animate and individuated entities like human beings and large
animals were generally assigned to either masculine or feminine gender depending on
the sex (or “natural gender”) of the referent, e.g., masculine *ph2 tḗr ‘father’ (see 2.1.1
above); *wĺ̥ k wos ‘(he-)wolf’ (> Ved. vr̥ ́ kas, Goth. wulfs, Lat. lupus) vs. feminine
*méh2 tēr ‘mother’ (> Ved. mātā́, OIr. máthair, TB mācer); *wl̥ k wíhx s ‘she-wolf’ (> Ved.
vr̥kī́s, ON ylgr). Yet the non-neuter genders also take in less prototypically animate
members − e.g., masculine *pód- ‘foot’ (acc.sg. in Gk. pód-a, Ved. pā́dam, Lat. pedem);
feminine *nók wt- (acc.sg. in Gk. núkta, Lat. noctem, Goth. naht) − while excluding
others that refer to living beings, but are weakly individuated: for instance, *pék̑u ‘live-
stock’ (> Ved. páśu, Goth. faihu, Lat. pecū) is neuter. Examples of this kind suggest that
referential (or “natural”) animacy and grammatical animacy were partially independent,
and that factors like individuation (and relatedly, topic-worthiness; see Comrie 1989:
189−195) played a role in gender assignment (cf. Luraghi 2011). Similarly, the fact that
words for ‘child’ in the daughter languages are often neuter (e.g., Gk. téknon, OHG
kind, OCS dětę) shows that referential animacy is not a sufficient condition for grammat-
ical animacy.
Although some feminine nominal formations in the PNIE languages are formally
indistinguishable from masculines (e.g., *méh2 tēr ‘mother’ cited above), the majority
contain a suffix *-ih2 /*-yeh2 -, *-ihx -, or *-eh2 - (referred to as Motion suffixes in German
scholarship). Words containing these suffixes are overwhelmingly feminine in the NIE
languages, and in many cases, appear to be derived from masculine nominals − in partic-
ular, from masculine *o-stem nouns, where the feminine suffix is traditionally analyzed
as replacing the thematic vowel. Exact word equations support the reconstruction of
this process for PNIE, e.g., *wĺ̥ k wos ‘(he-)wolf’ 0*wl̥ k wíhx s ‘she-wolf’ (cited above);
*h1 ék̑wos ‘horse’ (Ved. áśvas, Lat. equus) 0 *h1 ék̑w-eh2 (Ved. áśvā, Lat. equa, OLith.
ašvà). In view of its productivity, however, it is possible that some of these words were
formed independently in the daughter languages, especially in a case such as *h1 ék̑weh2 ,
where an older strategy is likely reconstructible (see below). The basic strong and weak
stem inflection of these suffixes is illustrated in Table 122.3 with their outcomes in Vedic
Sanskrit; note that the long vowel of the accusative singular is due to Stang’s Law (see
Byrd, this handbook):

Authenticated
Tab. 122.3 Stem-type inflection of *deiw-íh2 , *wl̥ k w-íhx , and *h1 ék̑w-eh2
‘goddess’ ‘she-wolf’ ‘mare’
PNIE Vedic PNIE Vedic PNIE Vedic
F.NOM.SG. *deiw-íh2 > devī́ w
*wl̥ k - > vr̥kī́s *h1 ék̑w-eh2 > áśvā
íhx -s
F.ACC.SG *deiw-ī́m > devī́m *wl̥ k w-ī́m > vr̥kī́m *h1 ék̑wām > áśvām
F.GEN.SG *diw- >> devyā́s *wl̥ k w- > vr̥kíyas *h1 ék̑w- >> áś-
yéh2 -e/os íhx -e/os eh2 -e/os vāyās
As is evident in Table 122.3, feminine nouns derived with these suffixes broadly resem-
ble athematic non-neuter nouns, adding the same animate inflectional endings (e.g.,
acc.sg. *-m) to the suffixed stem (cf. 2.1.1). The only major point of departure is in the
nominative singular of the *-ih2 /*-yeh2 - and *-eh2 - paradigms, which strikingly lacks
the characteristic final *-s of other athematic non-neuter nouns. The accentual patterns
shown by the *-ih2 /*-yeh2 - suffix is further discussed in 3.2 below.
The suffixes *-ih2 /*-yeh2 - and especially *-eh2 - are also associated with the forma-
tion of PNIE feminine adjectives. The reconstruction of *-ih2 /*-yeh2 - in adjectival for-
mation is supported by trigeneric (m./f./n.) cognate sets like (nom.sg.) Ved. pr̥thús,
pr̥thvī́, pr̥thú; Gk. platús, plateĩa, platú ‘broad’ (< PIE *pl̥ th2 ús, *pl̥ th2 wíh2 , *pl̥ th2 ú);
in this set, suffixing *-ih2 /*-yeh2 - to the masculine stem forms the feminine stem, to
which are added athematic animate inflectional endings, as in the noun. Even more well-
established are cognate sets in which the feminine adjectival stem appears to be derived,
again as in the noun, by substitution of *-eh2 - for the thematic vowel of a masculine
*o-stem, e.g., Ved. návas, návā, navam; Gk. né(w)os, né(w)ā, né(w)on; Lat. novus, nova,
novum ‘new’ (< PNIE *néwos, *néweh2 , *néwom); this pattern is productively continued
in most NIE branches that preserve the PNIE three-gender system intact, including Celt-
ic, Greek, Indo-Iranian, Italic, and Slavic.
Yet while adjectival inflection confirms that PNIE had a fully grammaticalized gender
system distinguishing masculine, feminine, and neuter, it also gives one important clue
that this three-way division does not reflect the oldest situation. Evidence for its non-
antiquity comes from certain NIE branches that have, in addition to the three-way adjec-
tival sets cited above, other adjective classes that exhibit only a two-way split, making
no formal distinction between masculine and feminine, while neuter is differentiated
from both (in strong case forms) by its characteristic inflectional endings. This situation
is not infrequently observed in athematic noun classes across the NIE languages − for
instance, in compound *s-stem adjectives in Vedic and Greek (m./f. nom. sg. Ved. su-
mánās, Gk. eu-menḗs; n. Ved. su-mánas, Gk. eu-menés ‘good-minded; kindly’) and in
most adjectives of the 3 rd declension in Latin (e.g., m./f. immortālis; n. immortāle ‘im-
mortal’) − but also, more strikingly, in Greek “two termination” thematic adjectives,
where the endings canonically associated with masculines marks both masculine and
feminine gender. Greek has a number of simplex two-termination adjectives, e.g., m./f.
p horós, n. p horón ‘bearing’; m./f. pátrios, n. pátrion ‘hereditary’, and most o-stem com-
pound adjectives are two-termination, e.g., m./f. á-dikos, n. á-dikon ‘unjust’; m./f.
k hrusó-t hronos, n. k hrusó-t hronon ‘having a golden throne’. Some regularly two-termina-
tion adjectives are also attested with distinctive feminine forms (e.g., Att. Gk. patríā),
but these forms are demonstrably innovative in Greek; this innovation further recom-

Authenticated
mends the possibility that the corresponding Latin and Sanskrit adjective classes, which
regularly have distinct feminine forms, have independently undergone the same develop-
ment in their shallow prehistory (see Wackernagel 1926−1928 [2009]: 460−463). More-
over, the pronominal systems of these languages likely show parallel developments: in
Greek, the interrogative pronoun has one form for masculine and feminine (tís < PIE
*k wís), another for neuter (tí < PIE *k wíd), while Latin and Sanskrit have developed
distinct feminine forms: m./f./n. Lat. quis, quae, quid; Skt. kás, kā́, kím.
A similar situation is also observed in thematic nouns. Although canonically associat-
ed with masculine gender in PNIE, thematic nouns nevertheless may be grammatically
feminine in Greek and, to a lesser extent, Latin (on the latter, see Vine, this handbook).
Numerous feminine thematic nouns are attested in Greek, e.g., (nom.sg.) hodós ‘road’;
kópros ‘excrement’; p hēgós ‘oak’ (cf. Lat. fāgus ‘beech’, also feminine), as well as
thematic nouns that are grammatically feminine when the sex of their referent is female,
e.g., (hé) trop hós ‘nurse’; (hē) aoidós ‘female singer’. Just as in two-termination adjec-
tives, there is a tendency in Greek to create new overtly marked feminine forms (in
-ā/-ē < *-eh2 ) for these female entities; as a result, some dialects use innovative (hē)
theā́ ‘goddess’ (e.g., Hom. Il.1.1) against the older situation observed in, e.g., thḗleia
theós ‘female god’ (Il.8.7; for an analogous usage in Old Latin, cf. Ennius’ lupus fēmina
‘female wolf’ [Ann. 65, 66 Skutsch]). If the same tendency were occurring in the prehis-
tory of the other NIE languages, it might explain how the congenitor of Gk. (hē) híppos
‘mare’ (< PNIE *h1 ék̑wos ‘id.’) was replaced by *-eh2 -characterized *h1 ék̑weh2 in these
languages.
In nouns, adjectives, and pronouns, then, there is an observed tendency in the NIE
languages for feminine forms to be secondarily differentiated, often via further character-
ization of the masculine stem with one of the PNIE feminine suffixes. This pattern
suggests that the largely sex-based division between masculine and feminine in PNIE
was subordinate to a primary split between animate and neuter genders. When it was
eventually established that the Anatolian languages have a two-gender system of this
kind, opposing just animate (traditionally “common”) and neuter genders, two possible
diachronic scenarios presented themselves: either PIE had a skewed system similar to
PNIE and the relatively less entrenched feminine gender was lost as a grammatical
category in Anatolian; or the two-gender animate-neuter opposition attested in Anatolian
reflects the original PIE system, and the emergence of the feminine gender is an innova-
tion of PNIE (possibly excluding Tocharian; see below). The issue has long been a
source of significant debate, although over the last decade, a general consensus has
emerged that the Anatolian situation is archaic (see Melchert forthcoming a; Jasanoff,
this handbook).
This conclusion stems from a reassessment of evidence previously held to indicate
that the feminine gender was lost in the prehistory of Anatolian. Earlier scholarship had
identified apparent traces in Anatolian of the formal markers associated with the PNIE
feminine, which were taken as support for the category’s inheritance (similar to the relic
forms held to show inheritance of dual number; cf. 2.1.2). However, some of these
alleged traces were later shown to be spurious. A case in point is “i-mutation,” a phenom-
enon observed in Luwian, Lycian, and to a lesser degree Lydian and Carian, in which
some noun and adjective classes have common gender nominative and accusative forms
that, in contrast to other paradigmatic forms, show an -i- inserted between stem and
inflectional endings (Starke 1990: 54−85). This feature was argued to be either a reflex

Authenticated
of *-ihx - (Starke 1990: 85−89) or of *-ih2 /*yeh2 - (Oettinger 1987; Melchert 1994b);
however, it has now been demonstrated by Rieken (2005) that “i-mutation” likely has
nothing to do with either of these suffixes, and instead reflects the analogical influence of
ablauting *i-stem paradigms. Other traces of the PNIE feminine suffixes were correctly
identified, but in functions that give little reason to identify them with an erstwhile
feminine gender (cf. Hajnal 1994; Melchert 2014c). The suffix *-ihx - is likely contained
in the Hittite adjective nakkī- ‘heavy; weighty’ (< PIE *h1 nok̑-íhx - ‘burdensome’ *
*h1 nók̑-o- ‘burden’; cf. Widmer 2005), but nakkī- is an ordinary adjective with no special
synchronic association with any particular gender or sex, and its derivation can in any
case be explained by assuming that *-ihx - was used in its original function as an appurte-
nance suffix (e.g., Lohmann 1932: 67−70, 81−83; Balles 2004) rather than as a feminine
marker.
The suffix *-eh2 is much better attested in Anatolian, but clearly absent is the PNIE
sex-based semantic correlation with female referents. This suffix is found, especially, in
Lycian (Melchert 1992a; Hajnal 1994), where it forms concrete and abstract nouns of
animate gender (e.g., χupa- ‘tomb’; arawa- ‘freedom’), and is also contained in the
productive complex suffix -(a)za- (< PIE *-tyeh2 ) that marks animate nouns referring to
professions (asaxlaza- ‘governor’, wasaza- ‘[kind of priest]’, zxxaza- ‘fighter’). Al-
though some Lycian *-eh2 nouns do have female referents (e.g., Lyc. lada- ‘wife’, χñna-
‘grandmother’), still more refer to (primarily male) professions or else to naturally inani-
mate entities (i.e. concrete objects or abstract concepts). The other Anatolian languages
present a similar picture. The same *-tyeh2 suffix may be attested in Luwian, e.g., CLuw.
urazza- ‘great’; wašḫazza- ‘sacred’ (the latter potentially a direct cognate of Lyc.
wasaza-; see Sasseville 2014/2015: 108−109, but for a different view, Yakubovich 2013:
159−161). A few animate concrete and abstract derivatives of *-eh2 are also attested in
Hittite, e.g., ḫišša- ‘hitch-pole’, ḫāšša- ‘hearth’; wārra- ‘help’. Although the derivation
of these Hittite nominals is partly obscured by various morphophonological develop-
ments, the *eh2 -origin of wārra- ‘help’ is assured by CLuw. warraḫit- ‘id.’ (a derived
neuter abstract in -it- preserving the final *h2 of its base) and for the other two cited
forms by (near) word equations within Anatolian or with PNIE feminine nouns: Hitt.
ḫāšša- ‘hearth’ = Lyc. (abl-instr.) χaha-di ‘id.’; Lat. āra, Osc. aasa- ‘altar’ (< PIE
*h2 ó/éh1/3 s-eh2 ); Hitt. ḫišša- ‘hitch-pole’ = Ved. īṣā́ ‘id.’ (<PIE *h2 ih1/3 s-eh2 ).
Two final arguments speak against inheritance of the feminine into Anatolian. First,
Hittite and Luwian show clear evidence of a different, perhaps even more archaic strate-
gy for deriving nouns that refer exclusively to female entities, viz., use of a derivational
suffix based on PIE *sor ‘woman’ (on the development of which, see recently Harðarson
2014). While PIE *sor is attested only in traces in the NIE languages − with further
characterization, as a word for ‘woman’ (Ved. strī́, OAv. strī), in terms for females, e.g.,
PNIE *swésor- ‘sister’ (> Ved. svásar-, Lat. soror-), and in feminine case-forms of
certain numerals (see 2.3 below) − it appears to have developed in Anatolian into a
somewhat productive suffix, which is attested in oppositional male-female pairs such
as Hitt. išḫā- ‘lord’ : išḫa-ššara- ‘lady’ and (derived adjectives) CLuw. nāni(ya)-
‘brotherly : nāna-šr-i(ya)- ‘sisterly’. The other, still more important, point is that inherit-
ance of morphemes used to derive nouns with female referents does not imply inherit-
ance of the feminine gender as a grammatical category (cf. Hajnal 1994; Melchert
2014c). Grammatical gender is defined by syntactic agreement (e.g., Corbett 1991: 4−5),
and there is no synchronic evidence for uniquely feminine agreement in the Anatolian

Authenticated
languages. Noticeably absent is adjectival agreement of the productive PNIE type

*néw-os, *néw-eh2 , *néw-om (except possibly as a marginal innovation in Lycian; see
Melchert 1994b: 236−237); rather, Anatolian *-eh2 -nouns as well as *sor-suffixed fe-
male nouns behave just like other animate stem classes with respect to adjectival and
pronominal agreement patterns, which therefore provide no evidence that these nouns
were grammatically feminine.
Both the Anatolian and PNIE-internal facts are therefore best explained by the hy-
pothesis that PIE had a two-gender animate-neuter opposition, and that the feminine
gender was a PNIE innovation, or perhaps even later, during the period of NIE unity
subsequent to the departure of Tocharian (in support of this hypothesis, see Kim 2009
and Hackstein 2011, and against, Fellner 2014; cf. Pinault, this handbook). Setting aside
the issue of Tocharian, most recent scholarship has adopted the position that the three-
gender system was an innovation. Accordingly, more attention has been paid to the
vexed question of the origin of the feminine gender (see the papers collected in Neri and
Schuhmann 2014). In this respect, opinions fall principally into two camps: (i) the femi-
nine developed (primarily) via the reanalysis of PIE neuter “collectives” (i.e. set plurals;
see 2.1.2); or (ii) the feminine arose (primarily) from within the animate gender.
The first view is driven, above all, by the formal affinity between the the PIE set
plural suffix *-(e)h2 and the markers of the PNIE feminine, (arguably) all of which
contain *-h2 . In particular, the phonological identity of the *s-less nominative singular
of PNIE feminine *-(e)h2 -nouns and PIE neuter “collectives” (noted above) was taken
already by Schmidt (1889) to indicate the historical relatedness of these formations, and
subsequent scholars (e.g., Harðarson 1987, 2015; Tichy 1993; Matasović 2004; Litscher
2014) have argued that the former developed directly via reanalysis of the latter. Under
this view, the core of the feminine gender was constituted by a subset of erstwhile *-h2 -
marked neuter “collectives” that became semantically specialized with reference to fe-
males, e.g., PNIE *h2 wid héw-eh2 ‘widow’ (cited above) from an original meaning
**‘(set of) dead person’s relatives (Tichy 1993: 16); the suffix *-eh2 in these nouns was
then reinterpreted as the formal marker of feminine gender.
Yet while this hypothesis has the virtue of explaining the remarkable phonological
shape of PNIE feminines, it suffers from a number of serious issues (see Luraghi 2009b,
2011; Melchert 2014c). First, only a few words with any claim to antiquity are plausible
candidates for the semantic development from “collective” to feminine, and in each
case, the original collective meaning for these nouns is entirely conjectural: the daughter
languages provide no evidence that (e.g.) PNIE *h2 wid héw-eh2 meant anything other
than ‘widow’. It is therefore questionable whether such a development occurred (repeat-
edly), and if so, whether the number of items affected was sufficiently robust to consti-
tute the core of a new grammatical category. Even more problematic, however, is that
these accounts generally assume that the reanalysis of these neuter “collectives” as femi-
nine singulars was facilitated by the fact that they were grammatically singular, and so
exhibited singular agreement patterns; however, as discussed in 2.1.1, these “collectives”
were grammatically plural already in PIE.
The alternative account assumes that the PNIE feminine arose primarily out of the
animate gender. This hypothesis − strongly advocated already by Meillet (1931) − ex-
plains the close affinities between the PNIE masculine and feminine gender discussed
above, especially their formal identity in some stem classes, via their common descent
from PIE animate nouns; grammatically feminine nominals belonging to the undifferenti-

Authenticated
ated classes were archaisms in the grammar of PNIE, and predictably, were subject to
re-characterization in the daughter languages, a pattern that, as noted above, is observed
within the attested period of several NIE languages. Also explained under this hypothesis
are the word equations between Anatolian animate singular and PNIE feminine singular
nouns cited above (e.g., Lat. āra ‘altar’ = Hitt. ḫāšša- ‘hearth’), the latter of which
developed from original animates when the suffix *-eh2 − together with *-ih2 /yeh2 - and
*-ihx - − became associated with the feminine gender after the separation of the Anatolian
branch. Luraghi (2009a, 2011) has adduced typological support for such a gender-based
split at the high end of the animacy hierarchy, as well as for Meillet’s (1931: 19) proposal
that a crucial step in the grammaticalization of the feminine gender was the extension
of feminine marking (*-eh2 ) to the animate demonstrative pronominal stem *so/to- (i.e.
the creation of *seh2 /*teh2 -; see 2.2.2). Exactly how the PNIE feminine suffixes came
to be associated with the feminine gender is uncertain. Luraghi (2011) and Melchert
(2014c) present detailed proposals, both of which posit a core of PIE *-(e)h2 -marked
animate nouns with female referents as the starting point; however, numerous open ques-
tions remain − such as which nouns played a pivotal role, or what mechanisms gave rise
to agreement (cf. Luraghi 2014) − that call for further research.
Significantly, this latter account departs from the former by situating the historical
connection between the PIE set plural suffix and the PNIE feminine markers in pre-PIE.
Although all the markers involved likely originate from a unitary (probably derivational)
suffix *-h2 , already by PIE this suffix had become an inflectional marker of neuter (set)
plural, and given rise to the (animate) derivational suffixes that eventually developed
into the major exponents of the PNIE feminine gender. On the chronology of these
developments, see especially Melchert (2014c), and generally on the prehistory of *-h2 ,
Nussbaum (2014b).
2.2. PIE pronouns
2.2.1. PIE pronominal inflection
“Pronominal inflection” refers to the distinct inflectional properties of the pronouns

(personal and deictic/anaphoric), as well as determiners, wh-words (interrogative and
relative), and (some) quantifiers as opposed to nouns and adjectives. A number of formal
peculiarities motivate a special treatment of pronominal inflection: the neuter nom./acc.
singular case ending *-d, e.g., deictic/anaphoric *tó-d (e.g., Lat. istud ‘that’, Hitt. apāt
‘that’); the affix *-smin masc. and neut.sg. forms, e.g., dat.sg. *tó-sm-ōi ‘to that one’
(> Ved. tásmai, Goth. þamma), and its feminine counterpart in *-sy-, e.g., dat.sg.
*to-sy-eh2 -ei (> Ved. tásyai, cf. Goth. þizai); nom.pl.masc. in *-oi instead of nominal
*-es, e.g., deictic/anaphoric *toi (> Ved. té, Goth. þai, or Hitt. anim. nom.pl. kē ‘these’);
a segment *-s- appears in the gen.pl., e.g., gen.pl.f. *teh2 -s-ōm (> Ved. tā́sām, Hom. Gk.
tā́ōn). These inflectional features are all peculiar to pronominal inflection, although later
in the development of the IE languages the interaction of nominal and pronominal inflec-
tion led to a diffusion of forms (see, e.g., 2.1.1 above on nom.pl.). For some of these
idiosyncrasies internal reconstructions have been proposed: the affix *-sm- might be the
numeral ‘one’ *sem-, and on that basis (and with more daring) fem. *-sy- might have
arisen via deletion of *m in pre-PIE **-sm-y- (Ringe 2006: 55).

Authenticated
2.2.2. Deictic/anaphoric pronouns
A number of deictic/anaphoric stems can be reconstructed for PIE; we illustrate in Table

122.4 some points of pronominal inflection with the *so/to- pronoun (deictic/anaphoric;
cf. Jamison 1992, Klein 1996) using masculine, feminine, and neuter, singular and plural
forms (omitting the dual, whose reconstruction is highly uncertain). Note that we give
the oblique cases with hesitation between *o- and *e-grades; Cowgill (2006a: 524−527)
held that only *o-grade was found in the paradigm, but this is not certain. For further
details see Weiss (2011: 335−354) and on the evidence from Indo-Iranian − a key source
for this reconstruction − see Gotō (2013: 67−73).
Tab. 122.4 Inflection of the *so/to- demonstrative

SINGULAR PLURAL
M. F. N. M. F. N.
NOM. *só *séh2 *tód *tói *téh2 es *téh2

ACC. *tóm *téh2 m *tód *tóms *téh2 ms *téh2
h
INSTR. *tó/éh1 *té(h2 )ih2 eh1 *tó/éh1 *tṓis *téh2 b i(s) *tṓis
h h
DAT. *tó/ésmōi *tó/ésyeh2 ei *tó/ésmōi *tóib os *téh2 b os *tóib hos
ABL. *tó/ésmōd *tó/ésyeh2 es *tó/ésmōd *tóib hos *téh2 b hos *tóib hos
GEN. *tó/ésyo *tó/ésyeh2 es *tó/ésyo *tóisōm *téh2 sōm *tóisōm
LOC. *tó/ésmi *tó/ésyeh2 i *tó/ésmi *tóisu *téh2 su *tóisu
The absence of the *so/to- pronoun in Anatolian is a puzzle: the pronoun might have
originated as an innovation of PNIE (n.b. the paradigm is found in Tocharian, e.g., TB
se, sā, te; oblique ce, tā te, etc.). However, the persistent idea that the source of the
PNIE *so/to- pronoun is to be localized in the clause initial conjunctions seen in Old
Hittite (not elsewhere in Anatolian) šu, ta is untenable (see Jasanoff, this handbook;
Melchert forthcoming a). Within the history of numerous daughter languages deictic/
anaphoric pronouns became articles (see esp. Wackernagel 1926−1928 [2009]: 555−588
on their development); for PIE we reconstruct a language with no article.
2.2.3. Relative pronoun
A division in the formal exponence of the relative pronoun splits the IE world: there are
languages that mark their relative clauses with reflexes of *hx yo- (Greek, Indo-Iranian,
Phrygian, Celtiberian, etc.); and languages with reflexes of *k wi-/*k wo- (Italic, Anatolian,
etc.). This division reflects a diachronic change in the latter set: *hx yo- was the formal
exponent of the PIE relative pronoun, while *k wi-/*k wo- was an indefinite and interroga-
tive pronoun that came to mark relative clauses in Italic, Anatolian, and elsewhere.
The development of relative markers from interrogative pronouns − more typologically
plausible than from indefinites − is especially well-attested in languages of Europe

Authenticated
(Probert 2014: 146−149). Probert (2015: 444−448) reconstructs the following prehistoric
system underlying relative clauses in Ancient Greek: free and semi-free relative clauses;
relative-correlative sentences; restrictive postnominal relative clauses; “paratactic” rela-
tive clauses. It is highly likely that this range of relative clauses was in place in PIE and
was marked by the relative pronoun *hxyo-: the same system, albeit marked with innova-
tive *k wi-/*k wo-, underlies Old Hittite (Probert 2006c) and Anatolian (Melchert 2016c),
as well as other IE languages. For further discussion of relative clause morphosyntax,
see the helpful summary by Clackson (2007: 173−176), as well as Hale (this handbook)
on Indo-Iranian and Huggard (2015) on Hittite. The inflection of the relative pronoun
was the same as that of the *so/to- pronoun (minus stem suppletion), as witnessed by
the Ved. paradigm yás, yā́, yád, with pronominal inflection fully intact (e.g., masc. dat.sg.
yá-sm-ai, loc. yá-sm-in, nom.pl. yé etc.), for which Gotō (2013: 74−75) presents a dia-
chronic overview.
A number of languages reflect the formal marker of the relative but in changed roles:
for instance, Baltic and Slavic have a suffixed pronoun built on the stem *hx yo- used in
marking definite adjective declension; Insular Celtic has forms of *hx yo-, continued as
the relative endings of the simple verb (cf. Watkins 1994: 22−30 [= 1963: 24−32]) (of
Celtic languages, only Celtiberian attests an inflected relative pronoun, io- < *hx yo-);
and in Germanic (as well as Baltic and Slavic) are found complementizers and other
subordinating conjunctions built to the relative stem, e.g., Goth. jabai ‘if’.
2.2.4. Interrogative-indefinite pronoun
The stem *k wi-/*k wo/e- (just mentioned) had two uses in PIE: as an interrogative when
accented (*k wís > Gk. tís ‘who?’) and as an indefinite when enclitic (Gk. tis ‘someone’,
Lat. sī quis ‘if someone’). Robust evidence may be quoted for both an *o-stem, e.g.,
Goth. ƕ-a-s, fem. ƕ-o, neut. ƕ-a < *k wo-, and an *i-stem, e.g., Gk. t-í-s, t-í ‘who?,
what?’, Lat. qu-i-s, Hitt. ku-i-š, ku-i-n, neut. ku-i-d < *k wi/e-. It is likely that the formal
distinction overlays an older functional one: perhaps the *o-stem was originally adnomi-
nally used, the *i-stem as a full nominal, an idea rooted in the teaching of Warren
Cowgill: see Sihler (1995: 395−400) and Ringe (2006: 56). Note that in a number of
traditions the interrogative takes over the function of the relative pronoun (for reasons
why, see just above on relatives); such a transfer occurred in Italic, Baltic, Slavic, Iranian,
Hittite, and Tocharian. An indefinite use marked by a doubling of the pronoun is familiar
from Lat. quisquis ‘whoever’, Hitt. kuiš kuiš (further uses may be found in Weiss 2011:
350−353).
2.2.5 Personal pronouns
Personal pronouns have been well characterized as the “Devonian rocks” of PIE mor-
phology (Watkins 2011: xxii), and they tend to be repositories for linguistic archaisms
in the IE languages. The reconstruction of the personal pronouns poses many unique
problems, which cannot be addressed within a treatment of this scope: pronominal topics
are most fully dealt with by Katz (1998), which remains unpublished; overviews repre-

Authenticated
sentative of different schools of thought may be found in Sihler (1995: 369−382), Meier-
Brügger (2010: 361−364), Beekes and de Vaan (2011: 232−236), and Dunkel (2014).
The personal pronouns show stem suppletion of nominative vs. oblique cases (cf.
Eng. I vs. me) that recalls the *so/to- pronoun; furthermore, the singulars, duals, and
plurals are formed from different elements (Eng. I vs. we). Case marking is realized
idiosyncratically in the personal pronouns − for instance, the nom.sg. of the first person
pronoun is reconstructed as *(h1 )eg̑oh2 (e.g., Gk. egṓ) with no recognizable marker of
[nominative], and the gen.sg. *méne (> OCS mene) has no clear exponent of [genitive].
Pronouns were not distinctively marked for gender, a feature already noted by the ancient
grammarians (see Wackernagel 1926−1928 [2009]: 405 with references); a notable ex-
ception is Tocharian A, which does distinguish between masculine and feminine in the
1sg., i.e. m.nom./obl. TA näṣ, f.nom./obl. ñuk (see the explanation of Jasanoff 1989).
As is common cross-linguistically, PIE had tonic and clitic forms of the pronouns
outside the nominative singular. A special development is the inner-Anatolian creation
of subject enclitic pronouns for unaccusative verbs (i.e. intransitive verbs whose argu-
ment is not semantically agentive), as proposed by Garrett (1990, 1996) and recently
maintained by Goedegebuure (2013). On the development of clitics in Vedic (and cross-
linguistically), see Hale (2007: 255−288). PIE probably did not have third person person-
al pronouns, but rather employed demonstratives. A reflexive pronoun *swe- (and/or
*se) is often reconstructed (cf. Lat. acc.sg. sē, etc.), and is seen as the basis for the
reflexive adjective *swo- ‘one’s own’. Kiparsky (2011) argues that PIE had no reflexive
pronoun, but *swe- was an adjective meaning ‘own’ (grammaticalized to a possessive
reflexive in certain languages), *se- was a referentially independent demonstrative pro-
noun (weakened to an anaphoric pronoun and then in certain languages grammaticalized
to a reflexive). The pronominal stems of the first and second person pronouns form the
basis for inflecting the reflexives of these persons in Greek, Germanic, Latin, and Slavic
(Petit 1999).
We provide in table 122.5 a representative sample of first and second singular and
plural forms to illustrate the suppletion and unique forms characteristic of this area of
IE morphology (clitic forms are preceded by “=”):
Tab. 122.5 Representative first and second person pronouns

(Hom.) Gk. Ved. Hitt. Goth.
1 SG.NOM egṓ(n) ahám ūg ik
1 SG.ACC emé, =me mā́m, =mā ammuk, =mu mik
2 SG.NOM sú, tū́nē t(u)vám zik þū
2 SG.ACC sé, =se tvā́m, =tvā tuk þuk
1 PL.NOM hēmeĩs vayám wēš weis
1 PL.ACC hēméas asmā́n, =nas anzās, =nas unsis
2 PL.NOM hūmeĩs yūyám šumēš jūs
2 PL.ACC hūméas yuṣmā́n, =vas šumāš, =šmaš izwis

Authenticated
2.3. Other PIE nominal categories
2.3.1. Numerals
In PIE, the cardinal numbers ‘1’ to ‘4’ were declined, higher numbers ‘5’ to ‘10’ were
indeclinable. The IE languages offer evidence for at least two candidates for ‘1’. One
root is *(h1 )oi- seen in *(h1 )oi-no- (Lat. ūnus, Goth. ains, OCS inŭ ‘a certain one’, Gk.
oínē ‘the ace on dice’), to which some languages add a different suffix − for instance,
Ved. é-ka- and Very Old Indic ai-kain the Kikkuli-tracts reflect *(h1 )oi-ko-, while OAv.
aē-uua-, OP ai-va- and Gk. oĩos ‘alone’ continue *(h1 )oi-wo-. Another root is *sem-,
whose outcomes include Gk. heĩs, hen- ‘1’, fem. mía (*sm-ih2 ), TA sas, TB ṣe, Lat. adv.
semel ‘once’, etc. Whatever nuances these different formations bore in PIE do not seem
recoverable (but cf. Dunkel 2014: 2.588−589, 673). Recent research indicates that a stem
*syo- ‘1’ should also be reconstructed, since it has been identified in Hittite (Goedege-
buure 2006), Tocharian (Pinault 2006b), and now Indo-Iranian (Kümmel 2016).
The number ‘2’ is unsurprisingly inflected in the dual: m. *d(u)woh1 e (> Gk. dúō,
Ved. dváu/ā́, Lat. duo etc.), f. *d(u)weh2 -ih1, n. *dwo-ih1. This numeral had a form
*dwi- used in compounds, e.g., Gk. dí-pod-, Ved. dvi-pad-, Lat. bi-ped- all ‘two-footed’.
Cowgill (1985b) raises the possibility that there existed as well an uninflected form
*duwó for at least PNIE. A stem *b ho- ‘both’ can also be reconstructed (cf. Goth. bai,
etc.), and within a compound of *h2 ent- ‘face’ it occurs as TA masc. āmpi, TB antapi
‘both’, Gk. ámp hō ‘both’, Lat. ambō (Jasanoff 1976).
The number ‘3’ clearly inflected as an *i-stem, cf. Hitt. teri-, Ved. tráy-aḥ, n. Ved.
trī́, Gk. tría, etc. < anim. *tréy-es, n. *trí-h2 . The *i-stem basis is seen clearly too in the
combining form *tri- (Gk. trí-pod- ‘tripod’, etc.). Interestingly, ‘3’ (and ‘4’) show an
archaic feminine derivation in Indo-Iranian and Celtic, where a morpheme *-sr- appears
instead of the common feminine-deriving *-h2 formants: Ved. ti-sr-áḥ (via dissimilation
from *tri-sr-es) and OIr. téoir (cf. Wackernagel 1905: 349−351; Cowgill 1957). The
suffix *-sr- likely derives from the lexeme *ser- ‘woman’, identifiable within Hittite (and
elsewhere in Anatolian) as a suffix -(š)šara- for deriving feminines from nouns denoting
human (or divine) males (Hoffner and Melchert 2008: 59), e.g., ḫaššuš ‘king’ >
ḫaššuššaraš ‘queen’. On the Celtic evidence, see Kim (2008).
‘4’ shows a similarly archaic inflection, the masc. and neut. *k wetwores, *k wetworh2,
respectively, but the feminine again suffixes *-sr-: Ved. cáta-sr-aḥ and OIr. cethéoir,
both < *k wéte-sr-es.
Subsequent numerals up to ‘10’ were indeclinable (though daughter languages often
introduce plural inflection). The reconstructed items are *pénk we ‘5’, *swék̑s ‘6’, *septḿ̥
‘7’, *ok̑tṓ(u) ‘8’,*(h1 )néwn̥ ‘9’, *dék̑m̥ ‘10’.
The higher cardinals ‘11’ to ‘17’ were dvandva compounds based on the uninflected
numeral plus ‘10’, so Ved. dvā́-daśa ‘two-ten, 12’. Diverse methods of forming certain
cardinals were employed in the daughter languages, so e.g., Gk. hek-kaí-deka ‘six-and-
ten, 16’, subtraction in Lat. un-dē-vīgintī ‘one-from-twenty, 19’ or multiplication in
Welsh deu-naw ‘two-nine, 18’.
PIE derived “decads” (‘20’, ‘30’, etc.) with the neuter plural of the numeral plus a
decad-deriving suffix based on ‘10’, probably *-dk̑omth2 (cf. Gk. -konta). The cardinal
number ‘100’ is a neuter derivative of ‘ten’, *dék̑m̥ ‘10’ 0 **dk̑m̥-tó-m > *k̑m̥tóm (with
onset cluster reduction) ‘100’ (e.g., Lat. centum, Gk. he-katón with added he- from the

Authenticated
stem hen- ‘1’). A numeral ‘1000’ may be reconstructed as *(sm̥)-g̑ heslo-, which is re-
flected in Ion. Gk. k heílioi, Ved. sa-hásra-, Lat. mīlle.
Ordinals were inflected adjectives. The adjectives expressing ‘first’ and ‘second’ are
not based on the cardinals ‘1, 2’ − for instance, Lith. pìrmas, Goth. fruma, Eng. fore-most
continue PIE *pr̥h2 -mo- ‘first’. The ordinals ‘third’ and above are based on the cardinals,
e.g., *tri- ‘3’ provides the base for *tri-tiyo- ‘third’, Umb. terti- ‘third’, Av. θritiia-, Goth.
þridja, Eng. third, etc. Other similar derivations are also found, e.g., Gk. trítos < *tri-to-.
For further works on numerals, see the collection of papers in Gvozdanović (1992);
handbook treatments include Ringe (2006: 52−55), Weiss (2011: 364−376), Meier-
Brügger (2010: 368−373) and Beekes and de Vaan (2011: 237−242). Rau (2009a: 9−64)
is an extensive treatment of decads.
2.3.2. Adverbs
In the oldest IE languages, inflected nouns and adjectives could be used adverbially (cf.
Delbrück 1888: 184−188 on the accusative so used). Additionally, one could form adverbs
with distinct adverbial morphology. Denominal adverbial suffixes include instrumental-
locatival *-b hi, allatival *-e/oh2?, and ablatival *-m; the formal and functional differences
between adverbs derived with these suffixes and “adverbial” inflected case forms were
probably minimal, as suggested by the subsequent grammaticalization of each of these
suffixes as a fully productive (pro)nominal case ending in one or more of the daughter
languages (see 2.1.1 above). Two more local adverb-forming suffixes plausibly recon-
structed for PIE are ablatival *-tos (e.g., Ved. hr̥t-tás ‘from the heart’, Lat. caeli-tus ‘from
heaven’, Gk. en-tós ‘from within’) and locatival *-en (Ved. jmán ‘on the earth’).
In some cases, inflected nominal case forms “petrify” in these adverbial functions,
surviving synchronically in the individual languages as adverbs even after the loss of
their nominal stem (e.g., Ved. mr̥ ́ ṣā ‘in vain’ < PIE instr.sg. *-eh1 ), of the case itself as
a distinct inflectional category (Gk. oíkoi ‘at home’ < PIE loc.sg. *-oi), or even of both
(OIr. ís ‘underneath’ < PIE loc.pl. *pēd-su ‘at the feet’). Erstwhile case endings can also
be the source of productive adverbial morphology: for instance, it is likely that the Latin
deadjectival adverbial suffix -ē (e.g., Cl. Lat. rēct-ē ‘correctly’ : rēctus ‘straight’; cf.
Umb. rehte ‘id.’) continues the PIE instr.sg. suffix*-eh1 , although the instrumental case
itself is no longer synchronically distinct in the Italic languages.
Adverbs expressing degree or quantity in the daughter languages are often identical
to − or else closely resemble − neuter nom./acc. adjectival forms, e.g., Lat. multum, Ved.
máhi, Gk. méga, Hitt. mekki ‘much’; Lat. paulum, Hitt. tēpu ‘a little’; the usage is
inherited. Temporal and spatial adverbs are frequently indistinguishable from nominal
case forms, of which locative and ablative are especially frequent. It is likely, too, that
PIE speakers could use full repetition of such case forms − āmreḍitas, in the terminology
of the Sanskrit grammarians − to form quantificational adverbs that signal unlimited
iteration of an event or action, e.g., Ved. divé-dive, Cyp. Gk. [āmati-āmati], Cl. Arm.
awur awur, Hitt. šiwat šiwat* (UD-at UD-at) ‘on day after day; every day’. Iteration of
this kind is reasonably well attested in Vedic (see Klein 2003), but fairly limited else-
where, with few lexical matches across languages; yet in view of the (near) cross-linguis-
tic universality of the type (e.g., Stolz, Stroh, and Urdze 2011), it is plausibly assumed
for PIE.

Authenticated
The evidence of the daughter languages does not converge in the reconstruction of a
suffix used to derive manner adverbs. PIE speakers probably used the instrumental singu-
lar of an abstract noun (e.g., Ved. sáhas-ā ‘with might; mightily’), or else possibly neuter
accusative case-forms of adjectives (e.g Ved. drav-át; Lat. facile ‘easily’). The oldest-
attested languages tend to retain these strategies, but also innovate new denominal suffix-
es specific to manner adverbs. The development of Cl. Lat. -ē was noted above; similarly,
Greek developed deadjectival -ōs, e.g., sop h-ō̃s ‘wisely (: sop hós ‘wise’), while Hittite
speakers created the denominal suffix -ili, e.g., ḫaran-ili ‘eagle (ḫaran-)-like; swiftly’ or
luwili ‘in the Luwian (URUluwiya-) language/way’. It appears to be characteristic of the
ancient IE languages that such new adverbial morphology coexists with inherited adverb-
forming processes.
2.3.3. Adpositions
Adpositions occur as pre- and post-positions in the oldest daughter languages and such
usage is reconstructible for PIE. In some cases, the etymology is obvious. One particular-
ly interesting example is *h2 enti ‘in front of’. It is clearly related to the noun seen in
Hitt. ḫant- ‘forehead’ (whose adverb is ḫanta ‘in front’), but in PNIE forms, an adverb
derived from the loc.sg. *h2 ent-i > Gk. antí ‘over against, facing’ (governing gen. case)
and Lat. ante ‘before’ (a prep. governing acc., as well as an adv.), adv. Ved. ánti ‘before,
facing’. This use of *h2 ent-i may represent a common innovation of PNIE.
2.3.4 Particles
Finally, we note a motley collection of items loosely labeled “particles,” such as Gk. ge,
Hitt. =kan, etc. The meanings of these items are hard to pin down in the ancient (and
indeed modern) languages, their reconstructible semantics elusive. At least one interjec-
tion is securely reconstructible, an expression of pain and suffering: Lat. vae, Hitt. uwai,
Eng. woe; its expressive meaning (and the issue of reconstructing registers) is discussed
by Watkins (2013). For a comprehensive collection of forms with etymological interpre-
tations, see now Dunkel (2014).
2.4. Nominal derivation: Overview
IE nominal derivation is highly affixing. The majority of affixes are derivational suffixes
added between the root/stem and inflectional endings, yielding a canonical shape that
is schematized R(oot)-S(uffixes)-E(nding). There is no theoretical limit on how many
derivational suffixes may be added, and it is not uncommon to find more than one in
the formation of a given nominal. Traditionally, a distinction is made between so-called
“primary” derivational suffixes, which are added directly to the root, and “secondary”
suffixes, which are added to an already derived stem. The distinction is widely employed
in IE studies, and we maintain it here. An example of a primary derivative is Ved. śráv-

Authenticated
as- ‘fame, report’, derived by adding the primary suffix -as- (< PIE *-o/es-) to the root
śrav- ‘hear, listen’ (< PIE *k̑lew-). To this stem could be further added a secondary
suffix like -yá- (< PIE *-yé/ó-), which forms denominative verbs, to produce Ved. śravas-
yá-ti ‘is seeking fame.’
The majority of derived nouns in PIE represent lexical nominalizations of verbal
roots. In a cross-linguistic survey, Comrie and Thompson (2007) identify two major
types of nominalizations: those of event nouns, forming nouns of action or state from
active or stative verbal roots or adjectives respectively, and those nominalizing semantic
arguments of the verb, such as agent, instrument, or location. We follow this syntactic-
semantic distinction in our survey of nominal suffixes. Besides these nominalizations,
PIE had a core stock of concrete referential nouns, which are analyzable to varying
degrees. This situation is typologically common: languages commonly (always?) have a
class of underived nouns at the core of the lexicon which refer to concrete, everyday
entities, such as humans, body parts, flora, fauna, and celestial or man-made objects (cf.
Dixon 2004: 3−4).
Besides affixes, a few other types of derivation may be mentioned. There is (limited)
evidence in the IE languages for nominal reduplication. One widespread example is
*k we-k wl-o- ‘wheel’ (to PIE *k wel[hx ]- ‘turn’), which is seen in Gk. kúklos, Ved. cakrám,
TA kukäl ‘chariot’. Much better is the evidence for nominal compounding, and we devote
space below to a discussion of the main types of compounds (2.6). No infixes are found
in nominal derivation (but there is one in the verbal system; see 4.3.1 below). In addition
to affixal morphology, PIE had non-concatenative (or “transformational”) processes of
derivation. In particular, new formations could be derived through changes only in mor-
pheme-internal vowels (i.e. ablaut) or in accent. For instance, certain types of derivatives
were associated with particular vowel grades: deverbal event/result nouns could be
formed with an *o-grade root and a thematic vowel suffix − for instance, to the
root *g̑enh1 - ‘to engender’ was formed a result noun *g̑ónh1 -o- ‘what is begotten, child’
(> Gk. gónos). Another non-concatenative process may be analyzed as conversion, where
derivation operates with a shift in accent but no overt affixation. Vedic attests pairs
like the neuter noun bráhman-, bráhmaṇas ‘sacred formulation’ beside m. brahmán-,
brahmáṇas ‘one possessing the sacred formulation, sacred formulator’ or neuter noun
yáśas- ‘glory’ beside adj. yaśás- ‘glorious’. Such pairs appear broadly comparable to
English diatonic pairs like (noun) cónvert : (verb) convért (on conversion see the collec-
tion of papers in Bauer and Valera 2005). This process is known in the literature as
“internal derivation” (viz. as opposed to being derived with an “external” affix); although
it clearly existed as a derivational process in Vedic and Greek, its status in the proto-
language is controversial and competing assessments have been advanced, e.g., by
Widmer (2004) and Rau (2009a), and in a similar vein Kim (2013a), differently
Kiparsky (2010a).
Some scholars reconstruct an additional word-formation process for PIE whereby
new nouns and adjectives were derived directly from inflected nominal case forms (e.g.,
the proposal by Nikolaev 2009). The process is referred to in the literature as “decasuat-
ive” derivation (from Lat. cāsus ‘case’). For example, Ved. dámya- ‘domestic’ (in RV
metrically dámiya-) would derive from a loc.sg. *dóm-i ‘located at/belonging to the
home’. However, none of the ancient IE languages show compelling evidence for pro-
ductive “decasuative” derivation; rather, commonly adduced examples are drawn from
reconstructed stages of these languages, as is the case for Ved. dámya- (no direct reflex

Authenticated
of PIE *dóm-i is attested in the RV). More problematically, “decasuative” derivation in

its strong formulation directly challenges the proposed typological universal that inflec-
tion does not feed derivation (Greenberg’s [1963] Universal 28). Some proposed exam-
ples of decasuative derivation are more likely derived directly from adverbs, for example
the Ved. adjective purā-ṇá- ‘old’ from the adverb purā́ ‘formerly’ (itself historically the
petrified instr.sg. of a root noun). Deadverbial derivation is found in the history of many
IE daughter languages − for instance, Lat. intrāre, OE innian ‘enter’ from Lat. intrā,
OE inne ‘within’ or Gk. heōt hi-nó- ‘early, in the morning’, an adjective from the adverb
ēō̃t hi ‘at dawn’ (Probert 2006b: 273). As a synchronic process, deadverbial derivation is
typologically paralleled in languages such as Khalka Mongolian (see Aikhenvald 2011:
240 for examples and further references). Unless comparable cross-linguistic parallels
for synchronic “decasuative” derivation can be identified, it may be necessary to limit
the “decasuative” hypothesis to forms that could plausibly have passed through an inter-
mediate historical stage in which the inflected case-form had grammaticalized as an
adverb (and whose derivation would thus be deadverbial). Further typological and dia-
chronic research addressing this issue is required.
To date no comprehensive treatment of PIE nominal derivation exists. Perhaps the
fullest treatment of PIE is still Brugmann and Delbrück (1906); more up-to-date surveys
with bibliography include Meier-Brügger (2010: 321−373, 416−436) and Lühr and
Balles (2008); Lühr and Matzinger (2008). The reconstructed PIE noun is agglomerated
into a (non-comprehensive) lexicon by Wodtko, Irslinger, and Schneider (2008). Of the
older IE languages, see Wackernagel and Debrunner (1954) on Old Indic, Chantraine
(1933) on Ancient Greek, Weiss (2011: 266−324) on Latin, Casaretto (2004) on Gothic,
Bernardo Stempel (1999) on Old Irish, and Matasović (2014) on Slavic. Incorporating
Hittite and Tocharian into the PIE picture remains an ongoing project. Rieken (1999)
treats many aspects of Hittite noun formation (cf. Hoffner and Melchert 2008: 51−63),
and on Luwian, see Melchert (2003: 194−200); a monograph on Tocharian nominal
derivation remains a desideratum. The chapters of Lieber and Štekauer (2014) offer
diverse theoretical perspectives on derivational morphology; and on nominal derivation
note especially the chapter therein by Alexiadou.
2.4.1. Action/state nominalization
One common way to form deverbal event/result nouns was via the thematic vowel added
to an o-grade root, schematically *R(ó)-o- (action or result noun, of masc. gender). This
type is known in the literature as tómos nouns after the eponymous Gk. tómos ‘a thing
cut, a slice’ (to the verbal root in Gk. tem- ‘cut’ < PIE *temh1 -). It is securely recon-
structible for PIE: in Tocharian, the type remains productive, e.g., TB traike ‘confusion’
(to AB root trik-, TB pres. triketär ‘is confused’), TB pautke ‘a share, tribute’ (to the
Tocharian root putk- ‘divide’ < *put-sk̑é/ó-). Within Anatolian, examples include Hitt.
ḫarga- ‘destruction’ (< *h3 órg-o-, to ḫarg- ‘perish’), ḫarpa- ‘heap, pile’ (< *h3 órb ho-,
to ḫarp- ‘separate’). Beside these *o-grade forms, a number of archaic-looking neuter
nouns with e-grade are found, e.g., *wérg̑-o-m neut. ‘work’ (> Gk. [w]érgon, ON verk,
Av. varǝzǝm), and *péd-o-m neut. ‘ground, place’ (> Gk. pédon, Hitt. pēda- ‘place’,
Umb. peřum, etc.).

Authenticated
tomós agent nouns (schematically *R[o]-ó-) are found beside (and may be derived
from) the tómos action nouns. Out of context, it is often unclear whether they are nouns
or adjectives: for instance, in Gk., where the type is strongly represented, p horós ‘bearer,
bearing’ (to p hérō ‘I bear’) or trop hós ‘nurse, rearing’ (m. and f. in early Gk., to trép hō
‘I rear, nourish’) could be agent nouns or adjectives. Some further likely examples of
the type are the BS cognates OCS drugŭ ‘companion’, Lith. draũgas, Latv. dràugs
‘friend’ (all from *d hrough-ó-, cf. verbal root in Goth. driug-an ‘to serve [militarily]’),
and in Italic there is Lat. coquus ‘cook’ (*pok w-ó- with assimilation) and procus ‘suitor’
(< *prok̑-ó-). The Indo-Iranian data is complicated by the (non)-operation of Brugmann’s
Law, by derivatives being attested with both active and passive meanings (e.g., OP asa-
bāra- ‘horse-borne’), and by the lack of direct accentual data in ancient Iranian lan-
guages; compare examples like Av. aēša- ‘powerful’ to the root is- ‘rule’, probably from
earlier *aik̑-á- (on the evidence, see Tucker 2013). A possibly related type has zero-
grade root (*R[0̸]-ó-), e.g., *yug-ó-m neut. ‘yoke’, Hitt. iukan, Ved. yugám, Gk. zugón,
Lat. iugum, OCS igo (see Malzahn 2013 for further discussion of the type and its Tochar-
ian reflexes).
Derivationally related to tómos nouns are the tomḗ nouns, named after the Greek
eponym tomḗ ‘thing cut off, stump’, schematically *R(o)-éh2 (feminine event/result
nouns). The type is widely found and remained productive in certain branches. Examples
include Gk. p horā́ ‘tribute, thing borne’, Lat. toga ‘covering; toga’ (to the root teg-),
mola ‘ground-grain’ (to the root mol-), OCS pa-toka ‘flowing’ (tek- ‘run, flow’). Wheth-
er this formation existed in Anatolian is disputed: the strongest candidate is Hitt. ḫāssa-
‘hearth’ and Lyc. xaha-di- ‘altar’ beside Osc. aasa ‘altar’, Lat. āra ‘id.’ (< PIE *h2 ó/
éh1 seh2 ), but the form is not the feminine counterpart of any identifiable masculine noun
or adjective. Two related subtypes are built with the suffix *-eh2: (i) zero-grade forms
like Gk. p hug-ḗ ‘flight’ (p heúg-ō ‘I flee’), Lat. fuga ‘id.’, or Goth. wulw-a ‘robbery’
(wilwan ‘to rob’); (ii) lengthened-grade forms such as Gk. kṓmē ‘unwalled village’ (the
origin of the lengthened grade in these formations is disputed; see Vine 1998b for one
analysis).
*-ti- formed deverbal action (or process) nouns of feminine gender, e.g., *men- + -tí-
→ *mn̥-tí- ‘thinking’ (> Ved. ma-tí- f. ‘thinking, thought’) or *b her- + -tí- → *b hr̥-tí-
‘bearing’ (> Ved. bhr̥-tí- f. ‘bearing; gift’). In Vedic, this formation regularly shows zero-
grade of the root (matched by Greek, e.g., dó-si-s ‘giving, delivery’ < *dh3 -tí-s) and, in
the earliest Vedic texts, consistent suffixal accent. The suffix *-ti- has been internally
reconstructed as inducing mobile accent and vowel reductions (e.g., Rix 1992: 146), but
the evidence for this reconstruction has been questioned in recent years; see the discus-
sion of the Vedic evidence with references in Lundquist (2015) (and 3 below). In some
languages, reflexes of *-tí- were incorporated into the verbal paradigm − for instance,
the Balto-Slavic infinitive reflects PIE *-tēi, the locative singular case (Olander 2015:
171−172). However, distinguishing between event nominalization and infinitive is often
difficult (see 4.4.2). One noteworthy extension of this suffix was to -ti-ōn- in Latin,
which gives a highly productive class of process nouns in all periods of Latin, e.g., nā-
tiōn- ‘birth, origin’.
A suffix *-i- formed nouns especially to thematic adjectives, e.g., Lat. ravus ‘hoarse’ >
ravis ‘hoarseness’. Its productivity is currently a subject of research; cf. Vine (2013) and
Grestenberger (2014b) for one approach. Likewise, the suffix *-ti- (just discussed) may

Authenticated
be a derivative of adjectival *-tó-; for which possibility, see Schindler (1980: 390),
Nussbaum (1999: 399−400), and Jasanoff (2003b: 148n.36).
*-men- formed deverbal neuter nouns, e.g., Ved. dhā́-man-, dhā́-man-e (dat.sg.) ‘es-
tablishment’ (< *d héh1 -m[e]n-), Lat. agmen, agminis ‘course, progression; battle-line’
(< *h2 ég̑-men-). The suffix’s inflectional allomorphs are conditioned by syllable struc-
ture: before endings beginning with consonants and word-finally the suffix is in the zero-
grade (e.g., Ved. instr.pl. dhā́-ma-bhis < PIE *d héh1 -mn̥-b his) and before vowels in the
full-grade (e.g., Ved. dat.sg. dhā́-man-e < *d héh1 -men-ey); cf. de Saussure (1879: 187−
188, 205) and recently Kümmel (2014: 169−170). The prehistory of this suffix has been
internally reconstructed as showing intraparadigmatic accent alternations (Schindler
1975b: 263−264, differently Nussbaum 1986: 280−281); however, within the IE lan-
guages (and by extension within PIE), this class regularly shows fixed root accent, just
as in neuter *-es- stems (on which type see the following paragraph and 3.1. below).
Most scholars also treat the widespread word for ‘name’ as a *-men-stem (Gk. ónoma,
Lat. nōmen, TB ñem, Hitt. lāman- with dissimilation, etc.), although no verbal root can
be unambiguously identified, and it is difficult to derive all reflexes from a single PIE
paradigm.
*-es-stem neuter event nouns represent a type with numerous cross-familial compa-
randa, e.g., Gk. génos-, géne-os ‘race, stock, kin’, Ved. jánas-, jánas-as*, Lat. genus-,
gener-is (all from PIE *g̑énh1 -os-, g̑énh1 -es-e/os, deverbal to the root *g̑enh1 - ‘generate,
become’). The suffix *-es- nominalizes especially “property-concept” roots (see 2.5
below), so (e.g.) in Vedic the root pr̥th- ‘be broad, expansive’ has a stative nominaliza-
tion n. práth-as- ‘breadth, extension’ (beside the adjective pr̥th-ú/áu- ‘broad, expan-
sive’). Two recent works have been devoted entirely to this suffix (and related phenome-
na), Meissner (2005) and Stüber (2002). Schindler (1975b) is a celebrated internal recon-
struction of the pre-PIE forebear of the *s-stems (cf. 3.3 below).
*t-stems are abstract nouns in the parent language. A very old example is *nók w-t-, a
primary t-stem to the root *nek w/gw- ‘get dark’ (Hitt. nekuzzi), whose reflexes are seen in
e.g., Lat. nox, noctis ‘night’, Hitt. gen.sg. nekuz (mēhur) ‘(time) of evening’ (< *nék w-t-s)
(cf. 2.1.1 above). The (same?) t- may be seen in complex suffixes such as deadjectival
*-tāt- (< *-teh2 -t-?), e.g., Lat. līber-tāt- ‘liberty’, Hom. Gk. andro-tḗt- ‘manhood’ (Pike
2011). Comparable is denominal *-tūt- (< *-tuhx -t-?), e.g., Lat. senec-tūt- ‘old age, elder-
liness’. Noteworthy is the t-suffix in determinative compounds with a root-noun second
member, regular in Indo-Iranian following a resonant (e.g., Ved. -kr̥-t- ‘doer’), but seen
only in trace quantities elsewhere, e.g., Lat. sacer-dō-t- ‘priest’ < (OLat.) sakro- ‘holy,
sacred’ + the root noun *deh3 -t- ‘giver’ (or *d heh1 -t- ‘placer’. A recent work devoted
to the t-stems of IE is Vijūnas (2009).
*-tu- is another deverbal nominalizer, e.g., *men-tu- ‘advice; advisor’ to the PIE root
*men- ‘think’ (> m. Ved. mán-tu-, OAv. maṇtu-). Vedic attests an infinitive built to this
suffix in -tavaí (a dat.sg. historically) as well as the gerund -tvā́ (historically an instr.sg.)
and the Cl. Skt. inf. -tum (acc.sg.); moreover, in a number of languages the acc.sg. has
been specialized as a complement with verbs of motion (directive use of the accusative),
traditionally a “supine.” Comparable are the Italic supine reflected in Lat. -(t)um (Weiss
2011: 444−445) and Balto-Slavic in Lith. -tų, OCS -tŭ.

Authenticated
2.4.2. Participant nominalization
Besides the various event nominalizing suffixes outlined in 2.4.1, PIE possessed various
means to derive “participant” nouns, traditionally “nomina agentis” but “participant”
more accurately reflects their range of syntactic-semantic roles (Alexiadou 2014). Root
nouns are formed by adding an inflectional ending directly to the root without the addi-
tion of an overt derivational suffix. The term “root noun” is thus a solely formal one.
Root nouns derived from active verbal roots display agentive meaning, such as Gk. p hṓr
‘thief, one who carries off’ < PIE *b hór-s to the root *b her- ‘carry (off)’. This derivation
was common when root nouns served as second members of determinative compounds,
e.g., Ved. -(g)han- ‘smasher’ (e.g., vr̥tra-hán- ‘Vr̥tra-smasher’) to the root han- ‘smash’
(< PIE *gwhen-). Other root nouns are formally identical but are less clearly agentive,
e.g., Gk. poús ‘foot’ < *pod- ‘foot’ (< **‘the goer’?); still others are not obviously
agentive and may belong in the lexical field of underived “basic stock.” Some roots
show instead object/result readings, such as *dom-/dem- ‘building, house’ to *dem-
‘build’ (Arm. nom.sg. tun < *dōm, gen.sg. in OAv. də̄ṇg < *dém-s). A few formal
subtypes of root nouns may be mentioned here, following the reconstructions proposed
by Schindler (1972b) (cf. 3.3). One type appears to have had *o-grade in the strong
cases, *e-grade in the weak. Although no IE language synchronically preserves these
intraparadigmatic alternations, the fact that a given lexeme shows up with *e-grade in
one language and *o-grade in another suggests a once unified paradigm with alternating
*o/e (*dom-/dem- above is a case in point). What conditions the ablaut grades of the
root is not known, although a direct causal connection with accent can be excluded since
root nouns are reconstructed with accented *ó and accented *é (as well as *ḗ; see further
3.3 below). Studies devoted to root nouns include Schindler’s (1972a) unpublished but
influential dissertation on Indo-Iranian and Greek, Kellens (1974) on Avestan, and Grie-
pentrog (1995) on Germanic.
*-tér- and *-tor- agent nouns are found in a number of IE languages. Two varieties
are reconstructed for PIE and may be distinguished on formal and functional grounds,
as accented *-tér- (e.g., Gk. dotḗr, dotḗros ‘giver’), vs. unaccented *-tor- (e.g., Gk. dṓtōr,
dṓtoros ‘id.’). Precisely what functional difference underlies this formal dichotomy has
been much disputed. It has recently been proposed by Kiparsky (2016) − following the
ancient Sanskrit grammarian Pāṇini − that the Indo-Iranian reflexes of *-tor- express
present/habitual agency, while accented *-tér- expresses unrestricted agency. According
to this proposal, present agency *-tor- would be more verb-like in inheriting transitivity
from its verbal root (it assigns structural accusative case to objects) and in being modi-
fied by adverbs vs. unrestricted agency *-tér-, which behaves nominally and takes an NP
complement in the genitive case. However, the semantic and morphological properties
of this class in Vedic and PIE have not been settled (cf. the different account by Tichy
[1995]). Derivatives of this suffix may be used as adjectives, as (e.g.) in the Latin phrase
exercitus victor ‘victorious army’. The feminine of agent nouns was derived via the devī́-
suffix (*-ih2 -/*-yeh2 -), e.g., Ved. -trī, Gk. -teira < *-ter-ih2 , Lat. -trīx (with k-extension).
A number of *-n-suffixes form animate participant nouns (denominal and deadjecti-
val). One such suffix is *-on-, e.g., *gwreh2 w-on- ‘pressing stone, millstone’ > (e.g.)
Ved. grā́v-an- m., Eng. quern, OIr. brau, broon (gen.sg.), Lith. gìrnos (pl.) (from the
adj. *gwr̥h2 -u- ‘heavy’ > Ved. gurú-, Gk. barús, etc.). For the suffix *-en-, cf. Ved. vr̥ ́ ṣ-
aṇ-am acc.sg. ‘bull’ < *-en-m̥ = Gk. acc.sg. (w)árs-en-a ‘male’ and Ved. ukṣā́, ukṣ-áṇ-

Authenticated
am acc.sg. ‘ox’ = OE nom.pl. œxen ‘oxen’ < *-en-es. Another -n-suffix, *-hxon-, formed
denominal possessive adjectives. This suffix is known as the “Hoffmann suffix”, after
its discoverer (see Hoffmann 1955 in 1976: 378−383). An example is *h2 óyu n. ‘life-
force’ (Ved. ā́yu) 0 *h2 yu-hxon- ‘one full of life, youth’ (Ved. yúvan-), weak cases with
zero-grade of the suffix *h2 yu-hx n-es (Ved. yū́nas). Another example is PIIr. *mantra-
Han- ‘possessing a religious formulation, a mantra’ (OAv. mąθrān-). A notable use of
this suffix was to derive deadjectival and denominal adjectives from thematic and athe-
matic base forms, exemplified by Lat. caput, capitis ‘head’ 0 capit-ōn- ‘having a big
head, Capitō (PN)’ or Gk. gastḗr ‘paunch, belly’ 0 gástrōn ‘pot-bellied’. The suffixed
adjectives often referred to individuals and so became popular in onomastic use (in Latin
terms, cognōmina). At least some examples of an *n-stem suffix *-mon- appear to
be animate derivatives to deverbal neuter nouns in *-men-, e.g., Gk. térma ‘boundary’
(< *-men-) beside térmōn, térmonos ‘boundary’ (for one explanation of these pairs, see
Nussbaum 2014a). Other examples of *-mon- are less clear, such as the widespread
*h2 ek̑-mon- ‘stone; sky’ > Ved. áś-mān-am acc.sg.m. ‘stone’, OP as-mān-am acc.sg.m.
‘sky’, Gk. ák-mōn ‘anvil, meteoric stone’, Lith. akmuõ, -eñs ‘stone’, etc. (on the semantic
discrepancy see Mayrhofer 1986−2001: I.137−138).
Instrument nouns, traditionally “nomina instrumenti,” were formed via the “tool suf-
fix,” which built primary neuter nouns. Neuter gender was likely correlated with the
inanimate nature of the objects. A number of forms are reconstructible: *-tro-m, *-d hro-
m, *-tlo-m, *-d hlo-m. In part, these suffixes may be reconciled under the assumption
that they represent allomorphs conditioned by assimilation of laryngeal features (i.e.
Bartholomae’s Law; see Byrd, this handbook, 5.1). This assimilation would not, however,
account for *-r- vs. *-l-. One widespread example is *h2 erh3 -tro-m > Gk. áro-tro-n
‘plough’, OIr. arathar, Arm. (h)arawr, Lat. arā-tru-m (rebuilt to the verb arāre), Lith.
ár-kla-s. Feminine derivatives to these suffixes are made with *-eh2 , i.e. *-tr-eh2, etc.
(cf. exemplification in Weiss 2011: 281−284).
2.4.3. Concrete Nouns
Besides the event and participant nominalizations treated above, the PIE lexicon in-
cluded a core stock of referential nouns (cf. Kölligan, this handbook). These nouns are
analyzable to varying degrees. For instance, *-r/n-stems form an archaic inflectional
class in PIE whose declension is known as “heteroclitic,” meaning they decline with an
*-r in the strong cases but are suppleted by a stem in *-n- in the weak cases. A number
of neuter *-r/n-stems constitute the basic stratum of the lexicon: words for body parts,
‘water’, ‘fire’, etc. These archaic words appear to be built directly to roots often no
longer recognizable as such. Examples include Hitt. wātar, witen-aš ‘water’ (to a weakly
attested root *wed-), paḫḫur, paḫḫwen-aš ‘fire’, ēšḫar, išḫ(a)n-āš ‘blood’. Beyond deriv-
ing nouns that are neuter in gender, it is unclear what semantics the derivational suffix
adds. Evidence for secondary *r/n-stems comes especially from Hittite, where there are
a variety of suffixes of the shape *-Cer/n-: *-mer/n-, *-ter/n-, *-wer/n-. All such stems
are neuter in gender; no adjectives belong to this class (Hoffner and Melchert 2008:
124−130). At least one *-l/n-stem heteroclite existed beside *-r/n-, namely the word for
‘sun’, as in OAv. nom.sg. huuarə̄, gen.sg. xvə̄ṇg (< *sh2 wen-s), etc.; the *l may be seen

Authenticated
more clearly in languages which have not merged PIE *r and l, e.g., Goth. sauil (neut.)
beside the n-stem sunno (fem.) (on the complicated evidence for this word, see Wodtko,
Irslinger, and Schneider 2008: 606−611).
Kinship terms include *ph2 tḗr, ph2 tr-ó/és ‘father’ (Lat. pater, patr-is, Ved. pitā́, pitúr
with remade gen.sg.), *b hréh2 tēr, b hréh2 tr-o/es ‘brother’ (Ved. bhrā́tā, bhrā́tur),
*méh2 tēr, méh2 tr-o/es ‘mother’ (Gk. mḗtēr, mētrós, Ved. mātā́, mātúr, with secondary
final accent after ‘father’), and *swésōr, swésr-o/es (Ved. svásā, svásre dat.sg.; Lat.
soror, sorōris, TA ṣar, TB ṣer) and *d hugh2 tḗr, d hugh2 tr-ó/és (Ved. duhitā́, Gk. t hugátēr,
t hugatrós, TA ckācar, TB tkācer, tkātre). The word for ‘daughter’ is the only kinship
term with clear Anatolian cognates: Lyc. kbatra, CLuw. duttariyata/i-, HLuw. tuwatra/i-.
Efforts to etymologize and morphologically segment kinship nouns have been attempted
since the dawn of IE studies but have not met with notable success (compare the very
different analyses in Tremblay 2003 and Pinault 2006a). One common analysis segments
the word ‘father’ as an agent noun to the root *peh2 - ‘protect’, but no such analysis is
available for *b hréh2 tēr ‘brother’ or méh2 tēr ‘mother’; another analysis would separate
a kinship suffix *-h2 ter- (Sihler 1995: 289) but this leaves the awkward “stem” *p- for
‘father’. In our view, the kinship terms are best treated as underived formations in PIE.
Notice that *ph2 tḗr, ph2 tr-ó/és ‘father’ and *b hréh2 tēr, b hréh2 tr-o/es ‘brother’ show
identical vowel reduction in the pre-desinential syllable, although the surface accent can
be securely reconstructed respectively on the stem-final syllable (*ph2 tḗr) vs. on the
stem-initial syllable (*b hréh2 tēr).
A number of terms for fauna follow familiar inflectional types and are again analyza-
ble to different degrees. For instance, the word for ‘sheep’ *h2ówis (CLuw. ḫāwī-, Ved.
ávi-, ávyaḥ, Lat. ovis, etc.) could contain a suffix *-i-, but the function of the suffix is
not clear, nor is a root identifiable. Thematic inflection may be represented by *h2r̥tk̑-os
‘bear’ in Anatolian (Hitt. ḫart[a]gga-) and PNIE (Gk. árktos, OIr. art, etc.); formally
the noun is thematic, though again it cannot be decomposed further into root and suffix.
For some items, an analysis has been proposed: *gwów-s ‘cow’ is a widely attested root
noun (e.g., Ved. gáuḥ, Gk. boũs, OIr. bó, TA obl.sg. ko) and may go back to a root
*gweh3 - ‘feed’ (cf. Gk. bó-skō ‘I feed, tend’). This example and the other terms for
fauna were presumably once segmentable.
PIE lexical items that may be early borrowings from non-IE sources get adapted to
PIE inflectional categories rather than showing anomalous non-IE morphology. For in-
stance, *pelek̑u- ‘axe’ (> Gk. pélekus, Skt. paraśú-) has a non-canonical root shape and
is all but certainly a borrowing, but it behaves like an ordinary PIE *u-stem noun.
2.5 Adjectives
Adjectives prototypically attribute qualities (deverbal adjectives) and/or relations with an

entity (denominal adjectives) to a referent. PIE adjectives differ from nouns in showing
dependency (they agree with a head noun), in their morphology (they are gradable), and
in their complements (adverbial modification), but the dividing line between noun and
adjective is not always clearly drawn − for instance, it was observed in 2.4.2 that the
agentive *-tor- suffix, seemingly anchored in nounhood, can nevertheless show clear
adjectival usage. We offer here a brief, annotated inventory of salient adjectival suffixes,

Authenticated
first of qualitative then of relational adjectives. Just as for the PIE noun, no comprehen-
sive treatment of the PIE adjective exists: Meier-Brügger (2010: 353−360) provides an
up-to-date survey, Rau (2009a: 65−186) touches on many aspects of the PIE adjective.
Balles’ (2006) claim that PIE was underspecified in nominal word-formation and knew
no categorical distinction between noun and adjective has not won acceptance.
An important subset of PIE adjectives are those whose roots denote “property-con-
cepts” in the terminology of Dixon (2004), such as psychological states (‘be thirsty,
drunk, happy’), physical properties (‘be heavy, thick, strong’), values (‘be good, bad’)
and internally conditioned changes of state (‘bloom’). These property-concept roots
formed qualitative adjectives in PIE and continue to do so in the daughter languages.
Cross-linguistically this is the most basic adjectival class, i.e. if a language has only one
class of adjectives, this will be it. Qualitative adjectives are prototypically gradable, and
this is also the case in PIE; we treat gradation of adjectives below. Dixon’s (2004)
classification of adjectives has been applied to PIE by Balles (2008) and Rau (2009a,
2013); the derivational relationships between qualitative adjectives and change of state
morphology have been examined from a typological perspective by Koontz-Garboden
(2006). As this class of adjectives occupies an important position in PIE and a central
place in current studies of the PIE adjective under the rubric of “Caland suffixes” or
“the Caland system,” we expand on the history of research in this domain before continu-
ing with our survey of suffixes.
Named after its discoverer Willem Caland (1859−1932), “Caland’s Rule” refers to the
suffix substitution observed by Caland between derivatives like compounds with a first
member ending in -i- such as YAv. xruu-i-dru- ‘with a bloody (xruu-i-) spear (dru-)’
and related adjectival forms lacking the -i- element, viz. YAv. xrū-ra-, xrū-ma- ‘bloody’.
Caland demonstrated that the use of -i- in these compounds of xruu-i- vs. the adjectives
without it represents a recurring pattern; another example is YAv. dǝrǝz-ra- ‘strong’
beside the exocentric compound dǝrǝz-i- + raθa- ‘whose chariot is strong’ (Caland 1892:
266−268, 1893: 592). Wackernagel (1897 [= 1953a: 769−775]) then showed that parallel
formations exist in Greek, and so the rule of derivation by suffix “substitution” should
be reconstructed for PIE. His prime example was a compound with a first member with
-i-, Gk. arg-i- ‘shining’, beside an adjective lacking the -i- in argós ‘shining, glistening’
< *arg-ró-s (via dissimilation), matched in the Vedic compound (a personal name)
r̥jí-śvan- ‘who has swift dogs’ and the adjective r̥j-rá- ‘shining, glistening’. Wackernagel
referred to this pattern of suffix substitution as a “rule” (Germ. Regel), though it was −
and often still is − called “Caland’s (or Caland’s and Wackernagel’s) Law” (Germ. Gesetz).
Lively and informed debate continues in the field concerning the nature of “Caland”
morphology, which now extends far beyond the analyses of Caland and Wackernagel,
thanks largely to two important works produced in the 1970’s, Risch (1974) and Nuss-
baum (1976). The latter work is an unpublished but widely disseminated dissertation in
which the author proposes to consider the relationships holding between the Caland
suffixes as part of a greater system of root-based derivational morphology. He defines
the “Caland system” as a set of parallel derivatives “... all equally primary and derived
more or less simultaneously (in the most remote synchrony which we can actually recov-
er) as an immediately possible set, one formation implying the others, whatever the
starting point of this implication” (Nussbaum 1976: 5). He illustrates the parallel deriva-
tives with the root *d heb h- ‘small’, which forms an adjectival derivative in *-ro- as
reflected by Ved. dabh-rá- ‘small’ but also a derivative in *-ú seen in Hitt. tēp-u- ‘small’

Authenticated
(and in Ved. ádbhuta- ‘unharmed; uncanny’ < *n̥-d hb hu-to-). Rau (2009a) follows Nuss-
baum’s approach and has sought to augment the Caland system to encompass more
verbal material (see esp. Rau 2013); a recent work with extensive bibliography is
Dell’Oro (2015). Readable overviews on the history of research in this domain (with a
number of different points of view) may be found in Meissner (1998) and Meissner
(2005: 14−26). Although Nussbaum’s dissertation remains unpublished, one can read his
treatments of Caland material in more recent papers, e.g., Nussbaum (1999).
One widespread athematic suffix used to derive qualitative adjectives is *-u-/-ew-,
universally considered central to “Caland” morphology (a detailed study of this suffix is
de Lamberterie 1990). Typical examples of *u-stems include Ved. gur-ú-s, gur-áv-
‘heavy, weighty’ = Gk. bar-ú-s, bar-é(w)- ‘id.’ = Goth. kaur-u-s < *gwr̥h2 -éw-, and Ved.
ur-ú-s, -áv- ‘wide, broad’ = Gk. eur-ú-s, -é(w)- ‘id.’ This suffix is well attested in Anato-
lian: Hitt. park-aw- ‘tall, high’, dašš-aw- ‘heavy; strong’. The Greek and Vedic evidence
align in showing regular zero-grade of the root and accented suffix (see further 3.2.
below). Feminines to these stems are formed with the “devī-́ suffix” (discussed above),
at least incipiently in PNIE. An equation is (e.g.) Ved. ur-v-ī́ ‘wide’, Gk. eureĩa (< PGk.
*eur-éw-ya, with full-grade of the suffix likely analogical after the adjective’s masculine
forms); another example is Ved. pr̥thi-v-ī́ ‘broad (earth)’, Gk. Plataiaí toponym
(< *pl̥ th2 -[e]w-yéh2 -, beside the regularized fem.adj. plateĩa). A number of old examples
show the same form for the masculine and the feminine (so-called “epicene” adjectives),
such as Old Lith. platus ‘broad’ and at least one example in Gothic, þaursus ‘withered’
(Luke 6.6), apparently relics predating the introduction of derived feminines (cf. de
Lamberterie 1990: 886−888).
The thematic suffix *-ro- is closely allied to *-u-/-ew-, since it also derives qualitative
adjectives to property-concept roots, e.g., Gk. erut h-ró-s ‘red’, Lat. ruber, TB rätre (all
< *h1 rud h-ró-s ‘red’). Both Greek and Vedic provide strong evidence for an inherently
accented suffix */-ró-/ as proposed by Probert (2006b: ch. 6, 289−294). It is not uncom-
mon to find one language reflecting *-ú-/-éw-, another language *-ró-, both built to the
same root: beside Ved. svād-áv- ‘sweet’ and Gk. hēd-é(w)- ‘id.’ is found Pre-Toch.
*swād-ro- as TA swār, TB swāre (in general *-ró- appears in place of *-éw- in Tochari-
an). Assigning priority to *-ró- or *-ú-/-éw- in such cases is not always feasible; what-
ever original distinction(s) might have existed between these two adjectival suffixes
remains unclear. Rau (2009a: 161−178, 183) discusses the material at length and suggests
(Rau 2009a: 173 with n.132) that “originally” (in pre-PIE) both suffixes were denomina-
tive to different classes of nouns and were then reinterpreted as deverbative. Two related
*-ro- formations may be mentioned here. Nussbaum (1976: 105−110) argues that there
was additionally a category of *-ró- nouns in the proto-language distinct from the adjec-
tives, an example of which would be Gk. ksu-ró-n n. ‘razor’. Secondly, Vine (2002) has
argued that some of the attested full-grade formations in fact reflect a suffix *-reh2 which
derived collectives, of which Gk. mḗra ‘(heap of) thigh-pieces’ and Gk. ágrā ‘the hunt;
quarry’ (< *h2 ég̑-r-eh2 ) would be examples.
The status of (pre-)PIE *i-stem adjectives is less clear. -i-stem adjectives are well
attested in the individual IE languages, especially Anatolian and Italic, and known else-
where in the family (e.g., Indo-Iranian, Greek). Many of these adjectives are made to
roots with primary verbal forms, hence are deverbative *i-stem adjectives. Examples
include Ved. śúc-i- ‘gleaming’, Hitt. ḫark-i-š, gen.sg. ḫark-ay-aš ‘white, bright’. Accord-
ing to some scholars (e.g., Meissner 2005: 20−25), these adjectives may be connected

Authenticated
to first compound members in -i-, so Hitt. ḫarkiš ‘bright’ to Gk. arg-i- ‘bright, shining’
and Ved. r̥j-i- (see above on “Caland morphology”). Other scholars, however, categori-
cally exclude deverbal *i-stem adjectives from PIE: Rau (2009a: 177n.143) finds that
“there is no coherent deverbative i-stem adjectival type reconstructible for the proto-
language” (so too Grestenberger 2009: 8−10).
A series of thematic, deverbal adjectives are best considered together: *-to-, * -lo-,
*-no-, *-mo-. The function of these suffixes may be reconstructed as building resultative
adjectives connected to their verbal bases; in the individual languages they may become
participles (see Lowe 2015 on the status of adjective vs. participle). An example is
*-to-: Ved. śru-tá- ‘heard, famed’ (to the root śrav- ‘hear’), Av. sru-ta-, Gk. klu-tó-s,
Lat. in-clu-tu-s, OIr. ro-cloth (< *[pro]-klu-ta-s), all from *k̑lu-tó-s to the root *k̑lew-).
In a number of traditions, *-tó- is integrated into the verbal system as the past participle,
such as Lat. -tus/-sus (cf. Weiss 2011: 437−443). Usually (though not exclusively) an
intransitive or passive reading is available. One also finds adjectives with modal-passive
meaning, which express the possibility or necessity of undergoing a particular event (like
Eng. adjectives in -able), e.g., Gk. tlē-tó-s (< *tl̥ h2 -tós) may be both active ‘enduring’
and potential ‘endurable’. The deverbal suffix *-tois surprisingly absent from Anatoli-
an; probably deverbal *-to- flourished after Anatolian’s departure from PIE. In its place,
Anatolian uses a suffix -nt- which everywhere else in IE forms active participles: the
significance of this distribution and the diachronic developments it entails are not fully
understood. Within PIE, a denominal suffix *-tois also found, known as the barbātus
type, from Lat. barbātus ‘bearded’; the adjective is built to the noun barba ‘beard’ (there
is no verb xbarbāre). This denominal type does occur in Anatolian. One noteworthy
extension of *-tois deverbal *-eto-, studied by Vine (1998a), who finds that it was used
in negative compounds and had modal meaning, e.g., Gk. á-sp-eto-s ‘unspeakable’ from
*n̥-sk w-eto-s. The other suffixes in the set also became participles in the daughter lan-
guages; for instance, in Slavic and Armenian *-lo- becomes a past participle.
Denominal relational (or “referential”) adjectives express that a semantic relation
holds between the base noun of the adjective and its head noun; such adjectives are not
usually gradable because they denote relations between entities, not gradable properties
(Booij 2012: 209−215; Fábregas 2014: 279−286). One subclass is qualitative possessive
adjectives, which describe an entity as possessing the notion of the base noun, as in Ved.
mádhu- ‘honey’ 0mádhu-mant- ‘having honey, honeyed’ or YAv. raii- ‘wealth’ 0
YAv. raē-uuaṇt- ‘wealthy’ (athematic suffix *-ment-, *-went-). Another subclass is adjec-
tives of material, e.g., Att. Gk. k hrūsoũs ‘golden’ (< PGk. *k hrūs-éyos) from k hrūsós
‘gold’, Ved. hiraṇy-áya- ‘golden’ from híraṇyam ‘gold’ (inherited thematic suffix
*-éye/o-). Another subclass is relational possessive (or “genitival”) adjectives, which
express relations also marked by the genitive, e.g., Lat. patr-ius ‘paternal’ from pater,
likewise Ved. pítr(i)ya- from pitár- (thematic suffix *-yo-/*-iyo-, also *-ihx -o-, cf. Meier-
Brügger [2010: 417−420]). A suffix *-i(hx )no- makes denominal genitival adjectives
from thematic stems, for instance Lat. dīvīnus ‘divine’, Osc. deivinais. Within the history
of many IE languages relational adjectives compete with genitive nouns, since relational
adjectives themselves may express genitival meaning (illustration in Wackernagel 1926−
1928 [2009]: 485−493).
The thematic vowel could derive denominal possessive adjectives and in this role is
accented. An important reflection of the possessive use of the thematic vowel is a process
known by the Sanskrit name vr̥ddhi “strengthening” (sc. of vowel grades). Descriptively,

Authenticated
an adjective is derived by “strengthening” the ablaut grade of the base and adding an
accented thematic vowel. An example from within Ved. is the athematic neuter noun
bráh-man- ‘sacred formulation’ 0 brāh-maṇ-á- ‘one relating to the sacred formulation,
Brahmin’. Vr̥ddhi is certainly a derivational process in Old Indic and examples from
Iranian (de Vaan 2003: 86−90) demonstrate Indo-Iranian inheritance, but fewer examples
can be drawn from other IE languages. The best examples include reflexes of *deyw-ó-
‘skyling, sky-god’, derived from the weak-grade *diw- ‘sky’; cognates include Arch.
Lat. deivōs (acc.pl.) ‘gods’, Ved. devá-, OAv. daēuua-, Lith. diẽvas (Mayrhofer 1986−
2001: s. v. devá-, I.742 f.). One possible inner-Balto-Slavic example is Lith. várna ‘crow’
beside Lith. var̃nas ‘raven’ (< PBS *wornós), though the example is disputed (pro:
Pedersen [1933: 55] and e.g., Jasanoff [2011]; contra: Kortlandt apud Derksen 2014: s. v.
varna). The status of vr̥ddhi as a PIE process has been disputed, especially by scholars
from Leiden (cf. Beekes and de Vaan 2011: 181−182), primarily on the grounds that
word equations across IE languages are too few for PIE reconstruction. Vr̥ddhi remains,
however, accepted by most scholars today as a synchronic morphological process in PIE;
see e.g., Fortson (2010: 130), Meier-Brügger (2010: 420), and for one analysis of
vr̥ddhi’s historical antecedents, see Ringe (2006: 13−14).
Gradable adjectives formed comparative and superlative stems by adding suffixes
directly to the adjectival root. The comparative was made with an s-stem suffix *-yos-/
-is-, probably of elative or intensified meaning in PIE, i.e. “is exceptionally X” (Cowgill
1970: 114). This suffix is added to the root (not the stem), e.g., Ved. svād-ú/-áv- m./n.
‘sweet’ 0 svā́d-īyas- ‘sweeter’, matched by Gk. hēd-ú/-éw- and its comparative hēdíō
acc.sg.m. < PGk. *swā́d-(i)yos-m̥ (the usual Cl. Gk. form, hēd-íon-a, shows innovative
n-stem inflection). In Vedic, the accent surfaces on the root (usually in its full-grade)
corresponding to leftmost accent in Greek. Both Vedic and Greek show variation be-
tween forms reflecting *-yos and *-iyos (and Vedic also -īyas- with a long vowel): the
variation may be due to Sievers’ Law (see Byrd, this handbook), though the details have
proven elusive (full discussion in Barber 2013: 145−186). Both Meier-Brügger (2010:
356) and Rau (2014) seek to explain the deeper prehistory of the primary comparative
via a further segmentation of the suffix into a nominal *-i- + denominative *-os-.
The most widespread superlative was formed with the suffix *-isto-, whose witnesses
include Ved. svā́d-iṣṭha- ‘sweetest’ = Gk. hḗd-istos ‘id.’, Goth. reik-ists ‘mightiest’
(< PGmc. *-istaz). Its disyllabic shape strongly suggests that the suffix is composite, and
it could be segmented as an agglutinative comparative *-is- + adjectival *-to- (the aspi-
rated stop in Ved. -iṣṭha- suggests *-isth2 o-, but there is little other evidence to recom-
mend this reconstruction).
The PIE suffix *-(t)eros- was contrastive, e.g., *dek̑si-teros ‘right side (opposed to
left)’ (> Gk. deksi-terós, Lat. dexter) and was used with adverbs and pronominal stems,
e.g., Gk. póteros ‘which of two’ (< *k wo-teros). The suffix’s use as a comparative to
adjective stems becomes productive only in certain IE dialects, e.g., Gk. díkaios ‘just’ 0
dikaió-tero- ‘more just’ (Dieu 2011: 680−684). Other formations of the secondary superla-
tive are also found in the daughter branches, such as Gk. -tatos (< PGk. *-tm̥-to-) and
Italic and Celtic *-is-m̥mo-, but are not reconstructible for the proto-language (Cowgill
1970: 115−119).
The primary comparative and superlative are not found in Anatolian, Tocharian, Ar-
menian, or Albanian. While the situation in the latter two branches may be easily attribut-
ed to loss, their absence in Anatolian and Tocharian is more striking, and raises the

Authenticated
possibility that the primary comparative and superlative were not only post-PIE innova-
tions, but were created within NIE after the departure of Tocharian. Both Anatolian and
Tocharian express comparison by employing the positive degree of the adjective plus
the “yard-stick” (or “standard”) of the comparison inflected in an appropriate case-form
(cf. Hoffner and Melchert 2008: 271−276 for Hittite; Carling, this handbook for Tochari-
an). This strategy for expressing comparison is common cross-linguistically (Stassen
2013). Given that gradation with affixes is rarer among the world’s languages (Cuzzolin
and Lehmann 2004: 1215), the development of the primary comparative and superlative
affixes would represent a significant innovation of PNIE.
Finally, we note that numerous IE languages attest suppletion of comparative and
superlative adjectives, familiar enough from English examples like good, better, best.
Suppletion in the forms of gradation is widespread in the IE languages, but specific
lexical matches appear to be lacking; see further the overview of Meier-Brügger (2010:
355−360) with references, to which may now be added the full-scale treatment by Dieu
(2011).
2.6. Compounds
PNIE is reconstructed as rich in compounds based in the first place on agreements in

productive compound types (rarely lexical matches) principally between Ancient Greek
and Indo-Iranian. The compounds in the earliest stages of these two branches usually
consist of two lexemes, although recursion in compounds (structurally [A (B, C)]) was
clearly possible and becomes well evinced in the notoriously enormous compounds of
the Classical Sanskrit language. Compounding is much more restricted in other IE lan-
guages, such as Latin and Old Irish. More seriously complicating the picture of a proto-
language rich in compounds is Anatolian’s poverty in this regard (cf. Oettinger, this
handbook, 2.2.2); and while Tocharian texts abound in nominal compounds (see Adams,
this handbook 5.2), many are thought to represent loan translations from Sanskrit; and
Pinault (this handbook) finds that nominal composition does not seem to have been
common as a “genuine Tocharian feature.” The extent to which nominal composition
was a productive process at the PIE level is accordingly hard to ascertain. The topic of
compounding is a highly complex one and we can only survey here some prominent
types likely to be reconstructible for the proto-language. The deeper origins of nominal
compounding lie beyond our present focus; we seek to outline the major types of nominal
composition found in the ancient IE languages and to reconstruct the morphology of com-
pounds in the PIE period. Further treatments include Lindner (2011−2016), a discursive
and (to date) unfinished treatment of the history of research on IE compounds which
attempts to provide an encyclopedic point of reference; cf. Meier-Brügger (2010: 427−
430) and Tribulato (2015: 13−130) with special reference to Ancient Greek. A helpful
survey of compounding from a number of different theoretical perspectives (though lack-
ing much discussion of ancient IE languages) may be found in Lieber and Štekauer (2009).
Before beginning our survey, we note a few limitations. Linguists working with an-
cient languages are always at the mercy of written evidence and this fact may hamper
what is counted as a compound, since vital prosodic data has often been lost. In the
best of circumstances, ancient writing systems can actually illuminate the morphological

Authenticated
segmentations made by native speakers (for one such case, see Morpurgo Davies 1987:
268−269), but this is the exception that proves the rule. The question of how to classify
types of compounds is a topic of considerable debate in the linguistics literature. With
regard to IE studies the problem of classification is exacerbated by the bewildering
diversity of terminology in the literature. For present purposes, we adopt a classification
based on syntactic and semantic criteria (following Scalise and Bisetto 2009) and take
the basic compound types to be subordinated (where one member is subordinate to
another) vs. coordinated compounds. These two macrotypes may be subdivided into the
morphological/semantic types based on headedness: endocentric (containing a head) vs.
exocentric (not containing a head). To facilitate use of secondary literature, we cross-
reference terminology as much as possible.
Compounds in which one member is syntactically/semantically subordinated to anoth-
er (“determinatives” of various stripes) are attested across the IE languages and may be
reconstructed for PIE. Determinative compounds are mostly right-oriented endocentrics
(i.e. the category-determining head is one constituent of the compound) with a nominal
or adjectival head, cf. the classic Vedic example rāja-putrá- ‘king-son, son of a king’ or
with an adjectival head Gk. t heo-eíkelos ‘god-like’. When the first member is a noun
modifying the second member in the role of an oblique case, the type is often known
by the Sanskrit name tatpuruṣa, for instance Ved. dyu-kṣá- ‘dwelling in heaven’, Gk.
oinó-pedon ‘lit. wine-land’ (‘land for wine’), vineyard’. Determinative compounds
where the first member attributes a property to the second member, i.e. modifies the
head element adjectivally (or with a deverbal head adverbially), are often known by
the Sanskrit name karmadhāraya (also “attributive” or “descriptive”), although many
theoretical models do not include this as a special type. Examples include [AN] com-
pounds like Ved. kr̥ṣṇa-śakuní- ‘black-bird, crow’, Gk. akró-polis ‘high-city, citadel’,
Gaul. (Latinized) medio-lānum ‘middle-plain, Milan’, or [A/Adv.-N] as Ved. āśu-pátvan-
‘swift(ly)-flying’. On determinative compounds in Hittite, see Brosch (2010: 266−272).
One important type of determinative compound is “synthetic” (“verbal-nexus” or
“verbal governing,” Germ. “Verbale Rektionskomposita,” Skt. upapada). The head is a
deverbal noun, either a root noun or an action noun. Root noun examples include Ved.
havir-ád- ‘oblation-eating’, vr̥tra-hán- ‘Vr̥tra-smashing’, etc. (cf. Scarlata 1999); action
noun examples include Ved. amitra-dámbhana- ‘foe-belittling’. Examples with a second
member formed by *o-grade root and the thematic vowel include Gk. andro-p hónos
‘man-slaying’ or psūk ho-pompós ‘soul-conductor’; on the complicated evidence for
*o-grade in Indo-Iranian, see Tucker (2013). Structurally comparable are Eng. truck-
driver, church-goer or Germ. Macht-haber ‘power-holder, ruler’. “Synthetic” compounds
derive their deverbal head in the process of compounding. For instance, the aforemen-
tioned havir-ád- ‘oblation-eating’ is based on a potential but not established lexeme (a
root noun) ad- ‘eater’, or go-ghná- ‘cow-slaying’ on a potential lexeme ghn-á- ‘slayer’
which is not established (i.e. it does not exist as a simplex so far as extant records allow).
Two main analyses have been proposed to understand these compounds synchronically:
they could be understood as related to “noun-incorporation,” i.e. a detransitivizing,
syntactic process where the patient argument of the verb is compounded (“incorporated”)
with the verb. On this analysis the compounds would be of the structure [(NV) -er]N
([truck-drive]er ). However, such an analysis would predict unattested and grammati-
cally questionable [NV] structure for finite verbs such as Eng. xtruck-drives or Ved.
x
havir-átti ‘oblation-eats’. An alternative and perhaps preferable analysis would treat the

Authenticated
compounds as [NN] adjunction where the deverbal noun inherits the transitive argument
structure of the base verb, so [N + (deverbal)Ner ]. One problem with the latter option
is that it would predict possible but not established words such as Eng. goer in church-
goer or a root noun in Ved. ad- ‘eater’. It appears that synthetic compounds show a
simultaneous use of compounding and derivation, but the issue is not resolved in a wider
theoretical context (cf. Olsen 2014: 41−43). See further the clear and influential accounts
of Vedic by Wackernagel (1905: 174−232), of Ancient Greek by Risch (1974: 189), and
note Uhlich (2002) for discussion and examples from compound-poor Old Irish/Celtic.
“Bahuvrīhis” (in older literature “relativa”) are exocentric possessive compounds.
Exocentricity is not an inherent property of the compound (thus not a prime for analysis)
but may arise from use in context. As Whitney (1889: 501) well put the matter: “A
compound having a noun as its final member very often wins secondarily the value of
an adjective, being inflected in the three genders to agree with the noun which it quali-
fies, and used in all the constructions of an adjective.” Eng. knuckle-head could be
understood as an endocentric compound (‘a head that is like a knuckle’), but it is used
only as an exocentric ‘who has a knuckle-like head’. Examples of bahuvrīhis include
Ved. [A-N] ugrá-bāhu- ‘strong-armed’, [N-N] bāhú-ojas- ‘whose strength is in his arms’
or [prefix-N] su-mánās ‘good-minded, kindly’, with a numeral first member Lat. bi-dēns
‘having two teeth’. In other bahuvrīhis, an adjectival suffix may be added to the nominal
stem, e.g., Gk. agrió-p hōnos ‘rough-voiced’, whose second member -phōn-os is based
on the noun phōnḗ ‘voice’. Because the second member “changes”, earlier scholars
sometimes called them “mutata” compounds (e.g., Debrunner 1917: 54−56). Although
there are examples of [AN] compounds, Schindler (1986) argued that PIE had a further
morphological restriction and did not allow material or denominal adjectives as first
members. Instead, the nominal stem was used: Gk. k hrūsó-thronos ‘gold-throned’, where
the stem k hrūso- is used in place of the adjective of material Hom. Gk. k hrū́seos ‘golden’,
would be an example of an inherited morphological restriction. Functionally, bahuvrīhis
are adjectives, attributing a property to a referent outside the compound. The term “pos-
sessive” is a common one, but inadequate: many bahuvrīhis do not express possession,
or express more fine-grained nuances (see the treatment by Schindler [1986]), such as
‘who has a B that has A’ (“double possessives”) or ‘who makes/provides XY’ (in the
literature “factitive bahuvrīhis”; more generally, see Scalise, Fábregas, and Forza [2009]
on types of exocentricity). In general, the semantics may be thought of as “R[elationship
holds in] (B, A),” whose precise delineation of meaning would be guided by speakers’
interpretations (Booij 2012: 210−215). It is sometimes held that the IE languages show
trends towards exocentricity and, projecting this trend back, PIE exocentrics would be
considered older than endocentric compounds. The Greek evidence for this position has
been challenged by Tribulato (2015: 80−81), who argues that both types are old: they
have the same structure but may be used as determinative nouns or as exocentric adjec-
tives.
In “dvandva” compounds (or “copulative,” “co-ordinating,” or “co-compounds”), nei-
ther member is subordinate, and its constituents are linked by a conjoining “and” rela-
tionship. Dvandvas may refer to the aggregate of two coordinated elements, as in numer-
als like Gk. duṓ-deka ‘two-ten, twelve’ or [AA] compounds like Gk. glukú-pikros ‘bitter-
sweet’ where two adjectival properties are attributed to one entity. Dvandvas may refer
to a superordinate term: Ved. mātárā-pitárā- ‘lit. mother (du.)-father (du.); parents’ asso-
ciates two terms without reference to either one and means ‘parents’ (not x‘two fathers

Authenticated
and two mothers’). Dvandvas where each member is marked with dual inflection (like
Ved. mātárā-pitárā-) may have arisen from the associative/elliptic dual, i.e. where Ved.
mitrā́ in the dual number was used for Mitra and his conventional associate Varuṇa (cf.
2.1.2 above), and this construction was then transferred to the dual dvandvas like Ved.
mitráyor-váruṇayoḥ (gen.dual) ‘of Mitra and Varuṇa as a pair’ (not x‘of two Mitras and
two Varuṇas’); see further Corbett (2000: 228−231) and Kiparsky (2010b). Dvandvas
may also be endocentric (in which case splitting them from determinatives becomes
tricky), e.g., Gk. iatró-mantis ‘physician-seer (of Apollo)’. On the endocentric type in
Ancient Greek and IE, see Tribulato (2015: 63−67), and for further discussion of dvand-
va compounds and their cross-linguistic analysis, cf. Olsen (2001).
3. Morphophonology of PIE
At the heart of PIE nominal morphophonology is the relationship between “ablaut” −
i.e. morpheme-internal alternations in vowel quantity (*Vː : *V : *0̸) and quality (*o :
*e) − and “accent,” a term traditionally used to refer to the single word-level accentual
peak, whose primary phonetic correlate in PIE was probably high pitch as in Vedic
Sanskrit and Ancient Greek (cf. Byrd, this handbook). The collective evidence of the
oldest daughter languages shows a correlation between these variables − in particular,
between *e : *0̸ vowel alternations and the presence or absence of accent; in none of
these languages, however, can these qualitative or quantitative vowel alternations be
explained by a purely phonological process conditioned by the position of the accent.
The attempt to understand the opaque relationship between accent and ablaut in the IE
languages, and in turn, what should be reconstructed for the proto-language has exercised
scholars since the beginning of IE studies. In this section, we begin by situating the
PIE accentual system in typological perspective and discussing the morphophonological
principles by which word accent in PIE was determined. The core features of this accen-
tual system are outlined in 3.1, while 3.2 turns to issues that arise in complex derivation,
where more open questions remain. Finally, 3.3 takes up the still more difficult problem
of the relationship of accent and ablaut.
Readers should be aware that the analysis of PIE word accent laid out in 3.1−3.2
diverges from the traditional “paradigmatic” approaches to this problem that are present-
ed in most standard handbooks of the field (Fortson 2010: 119−123; Weiss 2011: 257−
262; Meier-Brügger 2010: 336−353; i.a.). One important way in which our discussion
differs is that it does not take ablaut patterns as evidence for word accent at the PIE
stage as reached by the comparative method; rather, it assumes that accent and ablaut
were independent variables already at this stage (cf. Watkins 1998: 62). We thus focus
instead on the position of word accent and the principles by which it is determined in
the ancient languages and as it can be reconstructed for their immediate ancestor. These
issues are discussed more extensively in 3.3 below.
3.1. PIE lexical accent: The basic system

The principal languages generally held to contribute to the reconstruction of PIE accent −
Ancient Greek, Lithuanian, Russian, Proto-Germanic, Hittite, and above all, Vedic San-

Authenticated
skrit − all have prototypical lexical accent systems (on this term, see van der Hulst 2014,
and in more detail, Revithiadou 1999 and Alderete 2001a). The definitive feature of
word-prosodic systems of this kind, which have also been identified and studied in such
diverse languages as Thompson Salish (Salishan; Revithiadou 1999: 250−277), Tokyo
Japanese (Japonic; e.g., Poser 1984; Kubozono 2011), Chamorro (Austronesian; Chung
1983), and Cupeño (Uto-Aztecan; Alderete 2001c; Yates 2017), is that a word’s accent is
not determined by its purely phonological properties (such as syllable weight or metrical
structure), but is rather dependent on what morphemes it contains and how they are
combined. In these systems, certain lexically specified morphemes may “attract” the
accent, either to themselves or to an adjacent syllable, while others may be “neutral,”
exerting no effect on the position of the accent. Three such typologically well-established
accentual features are securely reconstructible for PIE: inherently accented morphemes,
which prefer to host the word’s single surface accentual peak (per above, high tone in
PIE); preaccenting morphemes, which prefer the accentual peak to fall on the immediate-
ly preceding syllable; and inherently unaccented morphemes, which neither attract nor
repel the accentual peak. For the sake of consistency with previous scholarship, we
employ the term “underlying accent” or “inherent accent” for this abstract lexical feature,
and maintain the traditional use of unmarked accent to refer to the single surface accentu-
al peak (more common in the theoretical literature is “accent” for the lexical feature and
“stress” for its surface realization; cf. van der Hulst 2014: 4−6).
An example of an inherently accented morpheme is the PIE adjectival suffix *-nó-,
whose derivatives regularly bear suffixal accent in Vedic and Greek, e.g., Gk. hag-nó-s
‘holy’, Ved. yaj-ñá-s ‘sacrifice’ (< PIE *h1 yag̑-nó-s). The idea that the accentuation of
this and other thematic adjectival classes (e.g., -ro-, -to-) should be attributed to some
accentual property of the suffixes themselves was suggested already by Bopp (1854:
163−168); generative frameworks formalize this insight by treating this property as a
lexical feature on the suffix marking it as accent-preferring (i.e. /-nó-, -ró-, -tó-/). Such
PIE adjectives would therefore have been derived as in (1):
(1) PIE */h2 erg̑-ró-(o)s/ → *h2r̥g̑-ró-s ‘shining’ (shine-ADJ-M.NOM.SG)

PIE */k̑lew-tó-(o)s/ → *klu-tó-s ‘heard (of); famous’ (shine-ADJ-M.NOM.SG)
The PIE forms in (1) develop into attested Ved. r̥j-rás, Gk. argós (via dissimilation of
*r; cf. 2.5 above), and Ved. śrutás, Gk. klutós. Note that the derivations in (1) assume
that quantitative ablaut (i.e. *e/0̸) is to some extent operative as a synchronic phonologi-
cal process in PIE: the verbal roots have underlying full-grade (*/h2 erg̑/, */k̑lew/), but
suffixal accent causes their /e/ vowel to be deleted on the surface (*h2r̥g̑-, *k̑lu-). The
IE languages provide relatively robust evidence for a rule deleting /e/ in syllables imme-
diately preceding the surface accent as in (1) (according to Kiparsky’s [2010a] proposal,
preceding underlying accents). However, even this restricted formulation of the ablaut
rule has exceptions in the very same morphological categories − some likely reconstructi-
ble (e.g., Gk. gnō-tós, Ved. jñā-tá- < PIE *g̑neh3 -tó- ‘known’; cf. Vine 2004: 360−366),
others uncertain due to mismatches in the daughter languages (e.g., Dor. Gk. dā-rós vs.
Ved. dū-rá- < PIE *dw[e]h2 -ró- ‘long’) − as well as elsewhere in the system (e.g.,
acc.sg. Ved. dhar-tā́r-am ‘supporter’ * /dhar/ ‘hold, support’). Further complicating
the issue is evidence for *e/0̸ ablaut in non-pretonic environments (see, e.g., the discus-

Authenticated
sion of the 3pl. ending */-énti/ in 4.2.5). Additional research is required to determine
under what phonological and morphological conditions quantitative − as well as qualita-
tive − ablaut applied at the PIE stage (Kiparsky [2010a, forthcoming] provides one in-
depth synchronic treatment). Ablaut problems are discussed more fully in 3.3 below.
As in (1), inherently accented morphemes generally receive the surface accent; how-
ever, since morphologically complex words may contain multiple inherently accented
morphemes, or alternatively, no inherently accented morphemes, lexical accent systems
have language-specific (morpho)phonological principles that determine which underly-
ing accent will receive surface accent or else assign a “default” accent in the absence of
underlying accents. Such principles are employed in analyses of lexical accent systems
to model synchronic accentual variation within morphological categories and across lex-
emes. In the IE languages, an important locus of such variation is the class of root nouns,
some of which are accented on their inflectional endings in their oblique case forms (e.g.,
Ved. pad-ā́ ‘with the foot’), while others show persistent root accent (cf. Ved. gáv-ā
‘with a cow’). While the surface accent of the former is straightforwardly analyzed as
in (2a) as resulting from attraction to the inherently accented instrumental case ending
(Ved. /-ā/́ < PIE /-éh1/), the latter can be treated as containing an inherently accented
nominal root /gáv/ (an idea foreshadowed by de Saussure 1879: 199 and further devel-
oped by Kiparsky 2010a: 141−144); the virtual competition between the lexical accents
of the root /gáv/ and the weak case inflectional suffixes is then decided by a phonological
principle of “accent resolution.” Similar principles of accent resolution are standardly
assumed to be operative in Tokyo Japanese and Cupeño, where they account for the
contrast between (e.g.) Jap. yon-dára ‘if (he) calls’ vs. yón-dara ‘if (he) reads’ and
between (e.g.) Cu. max-qáʔ ‘(he) gives’ and ʔáyu-qa ‘(he) wants’ (see Alderete 2001a:
49−51, 99). Analyses of accent resolution in all three languages are laid out in parallel
in (2b):
(2) a. Ved. /pad-ā/́ → pad-ā́ ‘with the foot’ (foot-INSTR.SG.)

Jap. /yob-tára/ → yon-dára ‘if (he) calls’ (call-COND.)
Cu. /max-qá/ → max-qáʔ ‘(he) gives’ (give-PRS.SG.)
b. Ved. /gáv-ā/́ → gáv-ā ‘with the cow’ (cow-INSTR.SG.)
Jap. /yóm-tára/ → yón-dara ‘if (he) reads’ (read-COND.)
Cu. /ʔáyu-qá/ → ʔáyu-qa ‘(he) wants’ (want-PRS.SG.)
However, not all surface accents correspond to underlyingly accented morphemes. For
instance, it is evident from (2a) that roots like Ved. /pad/ ‘foot’ and Cu. /max/ ‘give’
have no underlying accent, since the inherent accent of the inflectional ending attracts
the surface accent; nevertheless, these roots receive the surface accent in other paradig-
matically related forms, e.g., Ved. nom.pl. pā́d-as* ‘feet’ (cf. attested acc.sg. Ved. pā́d-
am), Cu. máx-wənə ‘(they) give’. The accentuation of such forms is generally assumed
to be the result of a phonological principle of “default” accentuation, a grammatical
process that operates when a word contains no inherently accented morphemes, assigning
an accent to a phonologically unmarked position in order to fulfill the typologically
common requirement that all words bear an accent (the “obligatoriness” parameter; see,
e.g., Hyman 2006). In Vedic (and Cupeño), default accent surfaces on the word’s leftmost
syllable as in (3a) (cf. Kiparsky 2010a: 144; Yates 2017), while (3b) shows that this

Authenticated
default accentual pattern does not arise in words containing the same suffixes if there is
already an accented morpheme present:
(3) a. Ved. /pad-as/ → pā́d-as* ‘feet’ (foot-NOM.PL.)

Cu. /max-wənə/ → máx-wənə ‘(they) give’ (give-CUST.PL.)
b. Ved. /marút-as/ → marút-as ‘Maruts’ (Marut-NOM.PL.)
Cu. /təwáʂ-wənə/ → təwáʂ-wənə ‘(they) lose’ (lose-CUST.PL.)
One important Vedic accentual phenomenon that emerges from (2−3) is the synchronic
distinction between “mobile” root nouns − i.e. those showing surface accent on the root
in the strong cases, on inflectional suffixes in the weak − like pā̆d- ‘foot’, and those
with “fixed” (i.e. consistent) root accent like gā̆v- ‘cow’ (on the strong/weak case distinc-
tion, cf. 2.1.1 above). Root nouns with mobile accent are the dominant type (e.g., nāv-
‘boat’, pur- ‘stronghold’, yudh- ‘fight’), while the minority fixed accent pattern is instan-
tiated by a handful of other lexical items in addition to gā̆v-, including nar- ‘man’ (dat.sg.
nár-e) and raṇ- ‘pleasure’ (dat.sg. ráṇ-e). By applying the same tools used to model
similar accentual alternations in Tokyo Japanese and Cupeño, it is possible to arrive at
an explanatory account of the different accentuation of these classes, which falls out
directly from a minimal contrast in the underlying accentedness of the relevant roots
(/gáv/ ‘cow’ vs. /pad/ ‘foot’) and affixes (instr.sg. /-ā/́ vs. nom.pl. /-as/). If Vedic here
largely preserves the PIE situation (as is generally assumed), the PIE derivation of root
nouns with mobile vs. fixed accent can be represented as in Table 122.6:
Tab. 122.6 Root Nouns in PIE

FIXED MOBILE
w w
NOM.PL */g ów-es/ → *g ów-es ‘cows’ */pod-es/ → *pód-es ‘feet’
w w
INSTR.SG */g éw-éh1/ → *g éw-eh1 */ped-éh1/ → *ped-éh1
‘with the cow’ ‘with the foot’
Under this analysis, accentedness and unaccentedness, respectively, are properties of the
Vedic roots /gáv/ (< PIE */gwów/) and /pad/ (< PIE */pod/), not properties of their
basic (i.e. root noun) inflectional paradigms. In contrast to the paradigmatic approaches
discussed in 3.3, which reify the status of intraparadigmatic accentual (im)mobility, this
analysis takes the respective fixed and mobile accentual patterns of these nouns to be
emergent from the lexical properties of their roots. It thus predicts that the underlying
accentual contrast between these roots will recur in derivation, resulting in differences
in the surface accentuation of certain morphologically related forms. In this case, the
prediction is borne out: when /gáv/ and /pad/ are further suffixed by Ved. -mant- or
-vant- (< PIE *-ment-/*-went-) − two possessive adjectival suffixes with similar accentu-
al behavior that probably descend from a single morpheme at some stage of the proto-
language (cf. Debrunner 1954: 781−782) − the resulting complex forms show a minimal
contrast in surface accent: root-accented gómant- vs. suffix-accented padvánt-. Similarly,
the peninitial accent of /marút/ is retained in its derivative marútvant-. One potential
analysis of these derivatives is presented in (4) below (for an alternative, see Sandell
2015: 184−189):

Authenticated
(4) /gáv-mánt-am/ → gómantam

‘possessing cattle’
(cow-ADJ.ACC.SG.)
/pad-vánt-am/ → padvántam ‘possessing feet’
(foot-ADJ.ACC.SG.)
/marút-vánt-am/ → marútvantam ‘accompanied by the M.’
(Marut-ADJ.ACC.SG.)
Ved. gáv-ā in (2b), as well as gómantam and marútvantam in (4), show a consistent
pattern of accent resolution: when multiple inherently accented morphemes compete for
the single surface accent in Vedic, accent falls on the inherently accented morpheme
closest to the word’s left edge (also cf. dat.sg. Ved. pad-vát-e ← */pad-vánt-é/). Combin-
ing this generalization about accentual resolution with the pattern of leftmost “default”
accentuation observed in (3a), Kiparsky and Halle (1977) proposed that Vedic accentua-
tion is governed by the Basic Accentuation Principle (BAP), which can be stated as in
(5) (cf. Kiparsky 2010a):
(5) Basic Accentuation Principle (BAP):

If a word has more than one accented syllable, the leftmost of these receives word
stress. If a word has no accented syllable, the leftmost syllable receives word
stress.
Kiparsky and Halle (1977) present evidence from the accentual systems of Balto-Slavic
and Ancient Greek in support of the BAP and, on the basis of their convergence, argue
that it should be reconstructed for PNIE. This hypothesis is now corroborated by evi-
dence from Anatolian, where Yates (2016) contends that the BAP is synchronically
operative, accounting (e.g.) for the Hittite contrast in the mi-conjugation between primary
verbs that are accentually mobile (i.e. show accent on the root in the singular and on
inflectional endings in the plural) and those with fixed root accent. Mobile accent is the
majority pattern in this category, instantiated by common verbal roots like šeš- ‘sleep’,
while a few roots − such as wek- ‘demand’ − exhibit fixed root accent. Just as in the
root nouns in Table 122.6 above, the accentual contrast between these verbs can be
derived by assuming: (i) the singular verb endings are inherently unaccented (e.g., Hitt.
3sg.npst. /-zi/); (ii) the plural endings are inherently accented (3pl. /-ánzi/); (iii) the roots
differ underlyingly in accentedness (/wék/ vs. /šeš/); and (iv) the operation of the BAP.
This derivation is represented in Table 122.7:
Tab. 122.7 Primary Verbs in Hittite

FIXED MOBILE
3SG.NPST.ACT. /wék-zi/ → wēk-zi [wéːkt͡si] /šeš-zi/ → šēš-zi [séːst͡si]

‘demands’ ‘sleeps’
3PL.NPST.ACT. /wék-ánzi/ → wek-anzi [wé(ː)kant͡si] /šeš-ánzi/ → šaš-anzi [sasánt͡si]
‘demand’ ‘sleep’
Vedic attests an identical contrast in primary verbs between mobile and fixed accentual
types. Mobile accent is observed in most Vedic root presents, including Ved. 3sg.act

Authenticated
sás-ti / 3pl. sas-ánti ‘sleep(s)’, which is directly cognate with the Hittite forms of šeš-
cited in Table 122.7. This perfect equation suggests that their PIE congenitors were
derived in exactly the same way as in Hittite − in other words, that the corresponding
PIE morphemes had the same accentual properties (*/ses/ ‘sleep’; 3sg.prs. */-ti/; 3pl.
*/-énti/) and underwent the same interaction with the BAP, i.e. (6) (for the accentuation
of Ved. sas-ánti*, cf. imp. sas-ántu):
(6) PIE */ses − ti/ → *sés-ti ‘sleeps’ (3SG.PRES.ACT.) > Hitt. šēš-zi [séːst͡si],
Ved. sás-ti
PIE */ses − énti/ → *sə s-énti ‘they sleep’ (3PL.PRES.ACT.) > Hitt. šaš-anzi [sasánt͡-
si],
Ved. sas-ánti*
The fixed accent type in Table 122.7 also has a parallel in Vedic, where it is similarly a
minority pattern. An example is the Vedic root takṣ- ‘fashion’ with fixed accent, as in
the 3pl. tákṣ-ati (the accent of the 3sg.act. tāṣ-ṭi is unattested, but would be tā́ṣ-ṭi*). The
fixed root accent can be derived by assuming that the root itself is inherently accented
(i.e. /tákṣ/), like Hitt. /wék/ ‘demand’.
The existence of inherently accented (verbal) roots in Vedic and Hittite raises the
question of whether they should also be reconstructed for PIE. In this respect, it is
notable that Hitt. wēk-zi and Ved. 3pl. tákṣ-ati are verbal forms analyzed by LIV 2 as
“Narten presents,” a type of PIE root present characterized by lengthened grade of the
root in singular active forms and fixed root accent (see 4.3.1 below). If the special
phonological behavior of this type is due to the fact that they are formed from “Narten
roots” (Schindler 1994; Jasanoff 2012b; Villanueva Svensson 2012, i.a.), it may be the
case that lexical accent was one property of these exceptional roots. An alternative possi-
bility − consistent with Kümmel’s (1998) and Melchert’s (2014b) arguments that “Narten
presents” were a derived category in PIE − is that all PIE verbal roots were inherently
unaccented, and that fixed accent in “Narten presents” was due to the presence of an
additional derivational morpheme (albeit one with no segmental content), much as in
thematic presents (see below), *s-aorists, and other verbal categories with fixed accent.
If so, the emergence of accented roots in the daughter languages might be attributed to
the loss of Narten derivation as a productive morphological process, at which point the
fixed accent associated with this category was reanalyzed as a lexical feature of the
verbal root. Further research may shed light on these questions.
In addition to accented and unaccented morphemes, PIE also had preaccenting mor-
phemes, which place a lexical accent on the final syllable of the preceding morpheme.
Strong candidates for PIE preaccenting morphemes include the neuter event noun-form-
ing suffix *-o/es- (cf. 2.4.1 above) and, in the verbal system, the *-e/o- suffix that forms
PIE simple thematic presents (cf. 4.3.1 below). Nouns and verbs derived with these
suffixes show fixed root accent and (generally) full-grade of the root (see further discus-
sion of *-o/es- in 3.3 below). Under the preaccenting analysis, the accent on the root in
these items is the surface realization of a lexical accent sponsored by the immediately
following suffixes, PIE */-ˊo/es-/ and */-ˊe/o-/. This analysis of several securely recon-
structible nominal and verbal examples is given in (7a) and (7b), respectively:

Authenticated
(7) a. PIE */wek w-ˊes-é/ós/ → *wék w-es-e/os ‘of speech’ (n.gen.sg.)

> Ved. vác-as-as, Gk. (w)ép-e-os
PIE */men-ˊes-é/ós/ → *mén-es-e/os ‘of thought’ (n.gen.sg.)
> Ved. mán-as-as, Gk. mén-e-os
b. PIE */h2 eg̑-ˊe-té(-)/ → *h2 ág̑-e-te(-) ‘you drive’ (2pl.prs.act.ind)
>> Ved. áj-a-tha
PIE */b her-ˊe-té(-)/ → *b hérete(-) ‘you bear’ (2pl.prs.act.ind)
>> Ved. bhár-a-tha
In (7), the lexical pre-accent “wins” over the lexical accent of the athematic genitive
ending */-é/ós/ and of the 2pl.act. ending */-té(-)/ due to the BAP, which assigns surface
accent to the lexical accent that is closer to the left edge of the word. Certain other
potential analyses of these forms are not tenable. For instance, surface accent on the root
cannot emerge by default, since athematic gen.sg. */-é/ós/ and 2pl. */-té(-)/ must be inher-
ently accented: gen.sg. */-é/ós/ − like instr.sg. /-éh1/ − attracts the surface accent in mobile
root nouns (e.g., Ved. pad-ás ‘of the foot’ ← /pad-ás/), and similarly, 2pl. */-té(-)/ in
mobile root presents (e.g., Ved. ha-thá ‘you smash’ ← /[g]han-thá/). Nor can surface
root accent in (7) arise because the roots are themselves inherently accented, since the
action/process-noun forming suffix *-ti/tey- regularly attracts the surface accent when
suffixed to these roots, i.e. PIE *mn̥-tí- ‘thinking; thought’, *b hr̥-tí- ‘bearing’ (> early
Ved. matí-, bhr̥tí-; see further discussion of this class in 3.2 below).
However, just like the lexical accent of accented morphemes, the lexical accent spon-
sored by a pre-accenting morpheme does not always receive the surface accent. Vedic
shows a clear synchronic contrast between examples like (7), where the lexical pre-accent
“wins,” and those like (8b), where the principles of accentual resolution prefer a different
accented morpheme. The same contrast is observed with preaccenting morphemes in (e.g.)
Cupeño and Japanese; examples that parallel the Vedic data are laid out in (8a) and (8b),
respectively (Japanese data from Kawahara 2015; Cupeño from Hill 2005):
(8) a. Ved. /śrav-ˊas-ás/ → śráv-as-as ‘of fame’

Jap. /yosida-ˊsi/ → yosidá-si ‘Mr. Yoshida’
Cu. /pə-tama-ˊŋa/ → pə-tamá-ŋa ‘in his mouth’
b. Ved. /prá-[śrav-ˊas]-ás/ → prá-śrav-as-as ‘of him whose fame is
advancing’
Jap. /nisímura-ˊsi/ → nisímura-si ‘Mr. Nishimura’
Cu. /pə-sáʔi-ˊŋa/ → pə-sáʔi-ŋa ‘in his belly’
As is evident from (8b), the accentuation of bahuvrīhi compounds (cf. 2.6 above) like
Ved. práśravasas is consistent with the BAP. The inherent accent of the first member
(1M) − in this case, the preverb Ved. /prá/ − is assigned surface accent because its lexical
accent is closer to the word’s left edge than that of 2M /śrávas-/, whose initial accent is
due to the preaccenting neuter event noun suffix /-ˊas-/. First member accent is the inherit-
ed rule in Greek’s exocentric compounds as well. In its cognate class of *s-stem adjectives,
Greek has a number of relic formations that reflect first member accent, thus making it
plausible to reconstruct PIE compounds like *pró-k̑lewes- (> Ved. prá-śravas-) with 1M

Authenticated
surface accent due to the BAP (cf. with details and references Lundquist 2016). Produc-
tively formed Greek s-stem compounds have suffixal accent (nom.sg.m./f. -ḗs), which
reflects a historical change from denominal to deverbal derivation in this class of adjec-
tives (cf. Meissner 2005: 161−215).
More generally, an analysis along these lines can be extended to other types of
bahuvrīhi compounds which, even more clearly than in other categories, require a princi-
ple of accent resolution to determine which of the accents that their members bear as
free-standing words will receive the single surface accent of the compound. In Vedic −
and in all likelihood, in PIE − the surface accent of these compounds is that of their 1M
(cf. Wackernagel 1905: §113−115), provided that the 1M contains an inherently accented
morpheme. This pattern is again predicted by the BAP; simplified derivations for Vedic
bahuvrīhi compounds of several structural types are given in (9) below (stem-stem com-
pounding is assumed here, but see Kiparsky [2010a: 170−176, forthcoming] for more
detailed analysis with extension to other compound types):
(9) a. Noun + Noun:

/bāhú + ójas/ → bāhú + ojas- ‘having strength in one’s arms’
(arm + strength)
/kaví + krátu/ → kaví +kratu- ‘having the will of a poet’
(poet + will)
/sóma + kām
́ a/ → sóma + kāma- ‘desirous of soma’
(soma + desire)
b. Adjective + Noun
/ugrá + bāhú/ → ugrá + bāhu- ‘mighty-armed’
(mighty + arm)
/dabhrá + cétas/ → dabhrá + cetas- ‘small-witted’
(small + perception)
/sahásra + dákṣiṇa/ → sahásra + dakṣiṇa- ‘having a priestly gift of
a thousand (cows)’
(priestly.gift + thousand.ADJ)
c. Preverb + Noun
/ádhi + rukmá/ → ádhi-rukma- ‘having bright ornaments upon oneself’
(upon + ornament)
/abhí + krátu/ → abhí-kratu- ‘whose will is set against’
(against + will)
The Vedic evidence in (9) is again corroborated by “recessively” accented Greek bahu-
vrīhi compounds, e.g., klutó-toksos ‘famed for the bow’ (on Greek’s recessive accent,
see Gunkel 2014). The equation of Greek and Vedic accentuation suggests that this
analysis of compound accent can be extended at least to PNIE, and that bahuvrīhis with
1M accent like *h2 ugró-b heh2 g̑ hu- (> Ved. ugrá-bāhu-) can be reconstructed for this
stage. The more complicated case of bahuvrīhis with 2M accent is discussed further in
3.2 below.

Authenticated
3.2. PIE lexical accent: Expanding the analysis
It was shown in 3.1 that morphemes in PIE were lexically specified for one of three
accentual features: accented, unaccented, or pre-accenting. In addition, PIE accentuation
was governed by the BAP, which assigns the surface accent to the leftmost of several
inherently accented morphemes, or in their absence, assigns a default initial accent.
These three accentual features as well as the BAP have strong typological parallels in
Japanese and other languages with lexical accent; however, it is all but certain that the
PIE accentual system was of a more complex type than (e.g.) Cupeño, where the interac-
tion between the same three accentual features and a BAP-like phonological principle is
sufficient to account for (effectively) all of the accentual contrasts in the language (cf.
Yates 2017). To account for the accentual patterns attested in the oldest IE daughter
languages, it appears to be necessary to enrich the PIE system with additional properties,
although exactly how it must be enriched is very much open for debate at present. In
the remainder of this section, we lay out some of the data that complicate the analysis,
and discuss a few recent proposals that may offer a way forward.
One accentual phenomenon that does not easily submit to the tools developed in 3.1
is the “intermediate” behavior of several athematic suffixes, which appear to attract the
surface accent in simplex forms, but yield the accent in further derivation. Two suffixes
with this property − both traditionally analyzed as “proterokinetic” under paradigmatic
approaches to IE accent and ablaut (cf. 3.3) − are the deverbal action/process noun-
forming suffix *-ti/tey- (cf. 2.4.1) and the qualitative adjective suffix *-u/ew- (2.5). For
instance, in (earliest) Vedic *ti-stem nouns like jū-tí- ‘speed’ (to the root jū- ‘hasten’)
or vr̥ṣṭí- ‘rain’ (to vr̥ṣ- ‘rain’) regularly show attraction of the surface accent to the
derivational suffix (cf. Lundquist 2015), thus non-default accent in their strong case-
forms (e.g., acc.sg. jū-tí-m, vr̥ṣ-ṭí-m); the suffix also retains the surface accent in weak
case forms (e.g., dat.sg. jū-táy-e; instr.pl. vr̥ṣ-ṭí-bhis) in preference to the inherently
accented inflectional endings to its right (dat.sg. /-é/; instr.pl. /-bhís/; cf. paḍ-bhís ‘with
the feet’ to /pad/ in Table 122.6 and [4] above). At first glance, this accentual pattern
recommends analyzing the suffix as inherently accented (i.e. “*/-tí/téy-/”), in parallel to
the thematic adjective suffixes (/-nó-/, /-ró-/); fixed suffixal accent would then be correct-
ly predicted, since the suffix would be the only accented morpheme in strong case forms
and preferred by the BAP in weak case forms (i.e. “leftmost wins”).
The problem with this analysis, however, is that it makes incorrect predictions about
the accentuation of derivationally related forms. Issues arise in (e.g.) adjectives derived
from Vedic ti-stems by addition of the suffix -mant- (/-mánt-/), which consistently at-
tracts the accent away from these stems, thus (e.g.) jūtimánt- ‘swift’, vr̥ṣṭimánt- ‘rainy’.
This pattern would be unexpected if the noun-forming suffix Ved. -ti/tay- were inherently
accented; rather, like Ved. gó-mant- ‘possessing cattle’ in (4) above and similarly (e.g.)
Ved. mánas-vant- ‘thoughtful’ (to the neuter as-stem in [7] mánas-), a stem containing
an inherently accented morpheme should receive the surface accent in preference to an
accented suffix to its right as a direct consequence of the BAP.
This issue is not unique to *ti-stems nor is it specific to the suffix(es) *-ment-/
*-went-. The same kind of accentual behavior is also observed in *u-stem qualitative
adjectives, which show fixed accent on the ablauting suffix *-u/ew- throughout their
inflectional paradigm in both Vedic and Greek, e.g., Ved. svād-ú-, svād-áv- = Gk.
hēd-ú-, hēd-é(w)- ‘sweet’ (< PIE *sweh2 d-ú-, *sweh2 d-éw-); Ved. pr̥thú-, pr̥th-áv- = Gk.

Authenticated
plat-ú-, plat-é(w)- ‘broad’ (< PIE *pl̥ th2 -ú-, *pl̥ th2 -éw-); Ved. āśú-, āś-áv- = Gk. ōkú-,
ōk-é(w)- ‘swift’ (< PIE *h1 ōk̑-ú-/*h1 ōk̑-éw-). Once again, the derivational suffix is super-
ficially amenable to treatment as an inherently accented morpheme (“*/-ú/éw-/”), but
such an analysis is problematized by the accentual behavior of the suffix in further
derivation − for instance, in combination with the “devī́ ” feminine suffix P(N)IE
*/-íh2 /yéh2 -/ (> Ved. /-ī/́ yā-́ /).
The feminine suffix does not generally attract the surface accent when there is an
inherently accented morpheme to its left, as shown (e.g.) by its interaction with the
accented PNIE perfect participle suffix *-wos/us- (*/-wós/ús-/), whose Greek and Vedic
masculine reflexes bear suffixal accent, e.g., nom.sg.m. Ved. vid-vā́ṁ-s, gen.sg.
vid-úṣ-as; Gk. eid-(w)ṓ-s, eid-ót-os ‘knowing’ (< PIE *w[e]id-wṓs, *w[e]id-ús-). Signifi-
cantly, the corresponding feminine forms exhibit persistent accent on the perfect partici-
ple suffix − e.g., nom.sg.f. Ved. vid-úṣ-ī, Gk. eid-uĩa (< PGk. *-ús-ya) − as expected
under the BAP: PIE */-ús-íh2/ → *-ús-ih2 . However, when the same suffix is used in
Vedic to form feminine *u-stem adjectives, it unexpectedly attracts the surface accent,
thus nom.sg.f. Ved. svād-v-ī́ ‘sweet’, pr̥th-v-ī́ ‘broad’. This pattern is corroborated by
archaisms in Greek − in particular, feminine plural forms in -eiaí, -aiaí with synchroni-
cally irregular oxytone accent; this class includes the Greek toponym Plataiaí (< PGk.
*pl̥ th2 -[e]w-yéh2 -), whose accent matches its cognate Ved. pr̥th-v-ī́ ‘broad’ and therefore
likely resisted the analogical leveling of suffixal accent that produced the synchronic
feminine adjective Gk. plateĩa ‘broad’ with the regular accent of its morphological class
(cf. de Lamberterie 1990: 644−645, 2002; contra: Sihler 1995: 349−350 et al.).
The exceptional “intermediate” accentual behavior of *u-stem adjectives in combina-
tion with the feminine suffix recurs in other derivationally related forms. First, there are
cases in which these *u-stems are further suffixed by adjectival *-ment- (*/-mént-/) and −
as in the *ti-stems − this suffix attracts the surface accent, e.g., Ved. āśu-mánt- ‘speedy’.
Moreover, Vedic bahuvrīhi compounds with 1M *u-stem adjectives generally have
surface accent on the accented syllable of their 2M, e.g., svādu-kṣádman- ‘(lit.) having
a sweet carving knife (kṣádman-); serving sweet food’; āśu-héṣas- ‘having swift missiles
(héṣas-)’; pr̥thu-pā́jas- ‘whose surface (pā́jas-) is broad’. While such compounds show
some accentual variation − e.g., both pr̥thu-budhná- and unexpected pr̥thú-budhna-
‘having a broad foundation (budhná-)’ are attested in the Rigveda − the dominant pattern
in this class is 2M accent, which contrasts with the 1M accent pattern observed in the
structurally comparable bahuvrīhi compounds in (9b) above. In each case, the *u-stem
adjective is predicted by the BAP to receive the surface accent if it were an accented
morpheme, but these predictions are not borne out; rather, the systematic failure of
the *-u/ew- suffix − and similarly, *-ti/tey- − to attract surface accent in secondary
derivatives suggests that these suffixes are in fact underlyingly unaccented (i.e. PIE
*/-u/ew-/, */-ti/tey-/), and that their secondary derivatives can be analyzed as in (10):
(10) PIE */g̑euhx -t(e)y-mént-s/ → *g̑uhx -ti-mént-s

> Ved. jū-ti-mā́n ‘swift’ (M.NOM.SG.)
PNIE */pleth2 -(e)w-íh2 -0̸/ → *pl̥ th2 -u-íh2
> Ved. pr̥th-v-ī́ ‘broad’ (F.NOM.SG.)
PIE */pleth2 -(e)w-peh2 g̑-ˊes-s/ → *pl̥ th2 -u-páh2 g̑-ēs
> Ved. pr̥thu-pā́jās ‘having a broad surface’
(M.NOM.SG.)

Authenticated
An important implication of this analysis is that the fixed suffixal accent observed in
primary *ti-stem nouns and *u-stem adjectives must arise as the result of some other
grammatical process that does not apply in further derivation. The exact nature of this
process is controversial and a topic of ongoing research. According to Kiparsky (2010a:
144), it is the “Oxytone Rule,” which places a lexical accent on the rightmost syllable
of a polysyllabic word’s inflectional stem. Because it applies only to a fully formed
inflectional stem, the Oxytone Rule assigns a lexical accent to *-ti/tey- and *-u/ew- when
immediately followed by inflectional endings, but does not target these suffixes when
there is intervening morphological material, since they do not stand at the right edge of
the stem. The suffix accented via the Oxytone Rule then attracts surface accent (in
preference to accented weak case endings) due to the BAP.
An alternative hypothesis is advanced by Sandell (2015: 176−214), who argues that
PIE affixes may be assigned lexical accent by virtue of being a word’s morphological
head − in effect, the part of the word that determines certain of its fundamental morpho-
syntactic properties (e.g., whether it is a noun or adjective; cf. Zwicky 1985; Dresher
and van der Hulst 1998). Thus a derivational suffix like *-ti/tey-, which selects a verbal
root (e.g., *men- ‘think’) and forms an abstract noun (nom.sg. *mn̥-tí-s ‘thought’), is
the word’s head and would consequently receive a lexical accent; however, in the (hypo-
thetical) derived adjective *mn̥ti-mént-, the head of the word is the adjectival suffix
*-ment-, so no lexical accent would be assigned to the *-ti/tey- suffix. This analysis
would align PIE with a range of other languages in which morphological structure plays
a direct role in determining word accent; included among these languages are two of
PIE’s living descendants, Modern Greek and Russian (Revithiadou 1999), which are
arguably conservative in this respect. However, adjudicating between this account and
Kiparsky’s (2010a) Oxytone Rule requires further systemic analysis of Vedic word ac-
cent, and still more research in the other daughter languages is needed to establish the
accentual properties of the “intermediate” suffixes at the PIE level.
Another problem encountered by the basic analysis laid out in 3.1 is the accentual
behavior of certain suffixes which appear to “override” the accentual features of the
stem to which they attach. The existence of such morphemes with this property − termed
dominance by Kiparsky and Halle (1977) − was established in Balto-Slavic linguistics
already in the 1970s (see, in particular, Garde 1976, and for a conceptual overview with
reference to Ancient Greek, Petit 2016: 11−14). Such morphemes are also found in non-
IE languages with lexical accent systems like Tokyo Japanese (see Kawahara 2015 with
references). Dominant morphemes flout the language’s phonological accent resolution
pattern (in PIE, the BAP), imposing their accentual properties on the stem to which they
attach; in the IE languages, this effect can be observed most clearly when a dominant
accented morpheme is suffixed to a stem that itself contains an inherently accented
morpheme.
An example of a dominant morpheme in Vedic is the adjective-deriving suffix -in-
(/-ín-/; cf. Kiparsky 2010a: 170). When it combines with nouns that have fixed surface
accent (due to their underlying accented stems), the resulting derived forms systematical-
ly exhibit fixed surface accent on the -in-suffix; this pattern is shown in (11) below,
where the same accented (thematic) noun stems that retain their accent in combination
with non-dominant accented suffixes like Ved. -vant- (/-vánt-/) or as the 1M in bahuvrīhi
compounds always cede the surface accent to the dominant suffix -in-:

Authenticated
(11) Ved. áśva- ‘horse’ 0 aśvín- ‘horseman; Aśvin’

cf. áśva-vant- ‘possessing horses’
rátha- ‘chariot’ 0 rathín- ‘charioteer’
cf. rátha-vant- ‘possessing chariots’
dyumná- ‘brilliance’ 0 dyumnín- ‘brilliant’
cf. dyumná-vant- ‘possessing brilliance’
putrá- ‘son’ 0 putrín- ‘having a son’
cf. putrá-kāma- ‘desirous of sons’
Dominance effects can also be found in the verbal system. In Vedic, verbal adjectives
may be formed by suffixing -ta- /-tá-/ (< PIE *-to-; cf. 2.5 above) directly to the verbal
root. Whether the root is unaccented (the majority type, e.g., /[g]han-/ ‘smash; kill’) or
accented (/tákṣ-/ ‘fashion’), the suffix -ta- consistently attracts surface accent (ha-tá-
‘smashed; killed’, taṣ-ṭá- ‘fashioned’). Dominant accented /-tá-/ thereby contrasts with
the non-dominant accented present participle suffix /-(a)nt-/, which receives surface ac-
cent when added to unaccented roots (e.g., ghn-ánt- ‘smashing’) but not to accented
roots (tákṣ-ant- ‘fashioning’).
The nature of accentual dominance in the PIE lexical accent system is a topic of
ongoing research. Kiparsky (2010a) treats dominance as an arbitrary lexical property of
morphemes (i.e. [+/− dominant]), but observes that there is a strong tendency for (proto-
typical) derivational suffixes to be dominant. In Greek, in fact, it appears that all deriva-
tional suffixes are dominant (Steriade 1988; and cf. Probert 2006b: 146; Gunkel 2014);
several examples of Greek’s inherently accented derivational suffixes are given in (12),
where their accentual dominance can be observed:
(12) /-ikó-/ hellád-os ‘Greece’ (gen.sg.) 0 hellad-ik-ós ‘Greek’

adelp h-ós ‘brother’ 0 adelp h-ik-ós ‘brotherly’
/-ísko-/ aspíd-os ‘shield’ (gen.sg.) 0 aspid-ísk-os ‘small shield’
kratḗr ‘mixing bowl’ 0 kratēr-ísk-os ‘small bowl’
/-éu-/ hípp-os ‘horse’ 0 hipp-eú-s ‘horseman’
k halk-ós ‘copper’ 0 k halk-eú-s ‘coppersmith’
Given that Vedic appears to have both dominant and non-dominant derivational suffixes,
the Greek situation likely reflects an innovation with respect to PIE. Nevertheless, the
strong correlation in both languages between an affix’s morphosyntactic properties and
its (non-)dominant status suggests that accentual dominance effects are in some way a
consequence of morphological structure − i.e. the accent of the (last) derivational suffix
is privileged because it is the morphological head (as in the *ti-stems discussed above;
see Sandell 2015: 182−192 for a proposal and formal implementation to this end). Yet
how accentual dominance should be formally implemented in PIE (and cross-linguisti-
cally) is far from a settled question; see generally Revithiadou (1999) and Alderete
(2001b), and for specific application to (pre-)PIE word accent, Frazier (2006), Keydana
(2013b), and Kim (2002, 2013a).
The cross-linguistically well-established analytic tools introduced in 3.1 − i.e. the
distinction between inherently accented, unaccented, and preaccenting morphemes to-
gether with the BAP − make empirically testable predictions about PIE accentuation that
correctly account for the distribution of surface accent in many securely reconstructible

Authenticated
PIE words and morphological categories. However, it is also clear that there are morpho-
logical conditions under which these predictions are systematically violated − i.e. when
a word contains an accentually “intermediate” or dominant morpheme. One possibility
would be to take the behavior of these morphemes as evidence that the analysis laid out
in 3.1 − in particular, the BAP − is incorrect; yet in view of the far-reaching accentual
generalizations that are correctly derived by the BAP, we have proposed instead that the
theory should be refined. Specifically, we have suggested that the PIE accentual system
had additional morphophonological properties relevant to the accentuation of words con-
taining accentually “intermediate” and dominant morphemes. We have also discussed
several promising hypotheses about what these properties might be and how they should
be integrated into a general analysis of PIE word accent.
Under this view, the PIE lexical accent system is of a complex type similar to that of
Thompson Salish, Tokyo Japanese, and Chamorro (cf. 3.1 above): surface accent is in
some cases determined by a purely phonological computation over the inherent accentual
properties of morphemes (i.e. the BAP), but there is also an additional “layer” associated
primarily with derivational suffixes in which a word’s morphological structure may influ-
ence the computation of the surface accent. Further research in this vein on the accentual
systems of the ancient IE daughter languages − in particular, Vedic, Greek, Balto-Slavic,
and the Anatolian languages − will continue to shed light on the synchronic principles
governing the distribution of surface accent in PIE, on the reconstructible accentual
properties of individual morphemes, and in turn, on what forms constitute real archaisms
already at this stage of the proto-language − i.e. reconstructible words whose accent
cannot be generated by productive morphophonological processes, and so must have
been learned on an item-by-item basis. A still broader issue is the extent to which accent
and ablaut are related at the PIE stage (and at the earlier pre-PIE stage), an issue we
take up immediately below (3.3).
3.3 Reconstructing PIE ablaut
The relationship between accent and ablaut in PIE has been a major topic of research
since the beginning of IE studies. Accent and ablaut correspond only partially in the
daughter languages and so too at the stage of PIE that is accessible by the comparative
method. In PIE, every kind of vowel may surface with or without surface accent:
*b hér-e-ti ‘carries’ and *mn̥-téy-es ‘thought’ (nom.pl.) surface with two full-grades each
(the nom.pl. *-es- never has a reduced allomorph); *septm̥ ́ ‘7’ (> Ved. saptá, Gk. heptá)
bears an accented zero-grade and an unaccented e-grade; *b hór-o-s ‘burden’, *pód-s
‘foot’ and *kéy-(t)or ‘lies’ have accented and unaccented *o-grades. These examples are
easily multiplied. However, there are also strong indices to suggest a relatively tight
connection between surface accent and full-grade, as seen in (e.g.) verbal paradigms like
*h1 éy-ti ‘goes’, 3pl. *h1 y-énti or *h1 és-ti ‘is’, 3pl. *h1 s-énti. Accordingly, it is widely
thought that these quantitive ablaut alternations (i.e. *e : *0̸) were once purely phonologi-
cally conditioned − in its strongest formulation, that an *e vowel would surface only if
it bore the surface accent, and all other morphemes would thus appear in their zero-
grade forms (see Szemerényi 1996: 111−112, who traces this view back to the 1860s;
cf. Weiss [2011: 47] for a recent, skeptical formulation). Viewed in generative terms,

Authenticated
these alternations would reflect an accent-conditioned syncope process deleting all unac-
cented */e/ vowels at the relevant stage of the proto-language. Similarly, a link has long
been suspected between surface accent and *o-grade, i.e. qualitative ablaut (e.g., Hirt
1900: esp. 156, but see the doubts voiced earlier by de Saussure 1879: 134, 235, et
passim). For this view, however, one finds even less consensus, since it has not yet been
demonstrated just what that link would be (see Penney 1978 for an extensive treatment
and the concise overview by Weiss [2011: 47]; Kümmel [2012: 307−320] gives one
recent attempt to explain the origin of *o-grades). Quantitative ablaut especially has
often been treated as a shortcut to accent − i.e. if a word contains an *e-grade morpheme,
it should once have been accented, and a zero-grade morpheme should have been unac-
cented − but at the PIE level such a shortcut is clearly not tenable.
A major program of research, developed principally in the 1960s and 1970s (but with
older roots, esp. Pedersen 1926 and Kuiper 1942), has focused on reconstructing the
formal patterns of athematic nominal formations at this pre-PIE stage when the relation-
ship between accent and ablaut would have been more transparent. For instance, in a
foundational paper Schindler (1975b: 261) proposed that neuter *-es-stem nouns of the
type PIE nom./acc. *wék w-os, gen.sg. *wék w-es-os (> Ved. vácas, vácasas, etc.; cf. 3.1
above), looked substantially different at a pre-PIE (“vorindogermanisch”) stage. He ar-
gued that, although no attested language exhibits synchronic accent shifts or ablaut alter-
nations of the root in this nominal class, it is nevertheless possible to reconstruct pre-
PIE accentual mobility between root and derivational suffix. In support of this hypoth-
esis, Schindler cites lexicalized compounds with 1M reflecting *mén-s- ‘thought’ (e.g.,
OAv. mazdā-) where the apparent zero-grade of the suffix would reflect the predicted
nom./acc.sg.n. form (**men-s + d heh1 -; cf. PIE *mén-os > Ved. mán-as, Gk. mén-os).
At this pre-PIE stage, all unaccented morphemes would surface in their zero-grade forms,
since accent and full-grade would be directly dependent on one another (“… die Ablaut-
stufen im Wort akzentabhängig waren”, p. 261). Provided that this assumption is correct
for pre-PIE, the PIE paradigm *wék w-os, *wék w-es-os would continue pre-PIE
**wék w-s, **uk w-és-s, whose accent was assigned morphologically and whose ablaut
resulted predictably from the pre-PIE syncope rule.
Under this approach, the hypothesized formal patterns are reified as a set of “paradig-
matic” classes; all PIE athematic nominals of the structure R(oot) + S(uffix) + (E)nding
would belong (historically) to one of these classes. Thus pre-PIE **wék w-s, **uk w-és-s
would instantiate the “proterokinetic” class, structurally R(é)-S(0̸)-E(0̸) in the strong
cases (e.g., **wék w-s, nom./acc.sg.n.) and R(0̸)-S(é)-E(0̸) in the weak (**uk w-és-s
gen.sg.). In the most widely accepted model, developed in particular by Schindler
(1972a, 1975a, b) and the “Erlangen School” (e.g., also Rix 1992: 122−124), four or
five “kinetic” (/“dynamic”) and “static” classes are posited. The “Leiden School” reduces
the model to three such classes (see Beekes 1985; Beekes and de Vaan 2011: 190−191
et passim; Kloekhorst 2013), while other scholars have posited additional accent and
ablaut paradigms − for instance, Tichy (2004: 75−81) and Neri (2003: 37−39) allow a
“mesokinetic” paradigmatic class. This body of research has clarified especially which
forms could be relics already in PIE (such as the isolated *men-s- mentioned above) and
offers a possible starting point for analyzing the subsequent development of many PIE
athematic nominal formations. Overviews of the paradigmatic classes can be found in
all recent IE handbooks: see Watkins (1998: 61−62, skeptical), Clackson (2007: 79−89),

Authenticated
Fortson (2010: 119−223), Weiss (2011: 257−262); Meier-Brügger (2010: 336−353) of-
fers the fullest history of research.
Despite its widespread acceptance, a rapidly growing body of scholarship has ex-
pressed dissatisfaction with the conceptual and empirical limits of this theory (cf. in
general Kiparsky 2010a, forthcoming; Keydana 2013b; Kümmel 2014 with reference to
Indo-Iranian; and Yates 2016 on Anatolian); we outline some of these criticisms here.
One issue concerns the extent of the changes that separate reconstructible PIE forms
from the pre-PIE paradigmatic classes. Early work within the paradigmatic framework
recognized that this approach, which relies extensively on internal reconstruction, yields
paradigms whose patterns of accentual mobility and ablaut grades display numerous
mismatches with the patterns observed in the daughter languages, some of which are
directly reconstructible for PIE by application of the comparative method (cf. Pedersen
1933: 21). To obtain PIE morphophonology, further diachronic assumptions are therefore
required: the pre-PIE paradigmatic classes would be transformed by a series of analogical
processes whose combined operations eliminated intraparadigmatic allomorphy by ana-
logical leveling of accent, ablaut, or both (sometimes referred to with the descriptive
label “columnarization”). The morphological upheavals here envisaged must have oc-
curred in the internal history of the proto-language, i.e. prior to PIE as accessible by the
comparative method, since no daughter language organizes its morphology into produc-
tive paradigmatic classes (cf. the methodological discussion by Hale 2010, as well as
Stüber 2002: esp. 211−216, both with reference to *es-stems). Because the hypothesized
changes are situated deep in prehistory, their plausibility is difficult to evaluate, either
within individual classes or collectively, at the systemic level.
Beyond these uncertainties, a problematic consequence of the focus on the internally
reconstructed pre-proto-language is that much of the morphophonology of PIE and its
daughter languages is left unexplained, since the theory was not designed to handle
material at this chronological level. For instance, numerous bedrock formations of PIE
have no clear position in the paradigmatic classes. The classes refer only to athematic
nominal formations of the structure R(oot) + S(uffix) + E(nding), thus excluding themat-
ic nouns and adjectives, athematic nominal formations with multiple derivational suffixes
(i.e. of the structure R + S + S (+ S …) + E), and even root nouns. The fact that the
paradigmatic approach does not address these PIE formations is not a criticism per se,
since this is not strictly the goal of the theory; however, it does mean that this theory,
with its pre-PIE focus, sheds little light on the distribution of the accent (discussed in
3.1−3.2 above) or its synchronic relationship to ablaut at the “shallow” chronological
stage of PIE which we are reconstructing here and which was inherited directly into the
daughter languages.
A further criticism relates to the evidential basis for the paradigmatic reconstructions,
which in a number of cases has been called into question. For instance, in a widely
followed thesis, Kuiper (1942: 221) proposed that the different accentuation of Vedic
matí- ‘thought’ beside máti- ‘id.’, coupled with indirect evidence elsewhere, showed a
trace of erstwhile intraparadigmatic alternations in an accent and ablaut paradigm,
i.e.**mén-ti-,**mn̥-téy- and therefore would be another proterokinetic paradigm (Rix
1992: 146; Schaffner 2001: 436−440). In this case, the zero-grade ablaut of the root in
the weak cases would have been leveled throughout the paradigm in Vedic, but with a
bifurcating accentual leveling: leveled accent of the strong cases would be preserved in
some Vedic traditions (i.e. *má-ti- > máti-), while the leveled accent of the weak cases

Authenticated
would be preserved in others (i.e. leveled *mn̥-tí- > matí-). It has proven difficult to
explain why the directions of leveling have taken the apparently arbitrary courses they
have; in this case, however, the quest to do so is in fact a red herring, since the two
accentual patterns stand in a clear chronological relationship: accented -tí-stems occur
in the oldest textual layers, unaccented -ti- in the younger. Thus early Ved. matí- and
later Ved. máti- do not provide evidence for independently leveled bits of a prehistoric
paradigm, but instead reflect a Vedic-internal diachronic accentual change that can be
otherwise explained (Lundquist 2015; see further below). More generally, Kümmel
(2014) has shown that the accent and ablaut of “proterokinetic” nominals in Indo-Iranian
is better explained without reference to paradigmatic class, thereby undercutting an im-
portant source of evidence for the paradigmatic approach.
In assessing accentual change, it has become common practice to treat two attested
accentual patterns associated with one suffix as reflecting independent analogical level-
ings of an alternating paradigm (as in the case of Ved. matí- vs. máti-). However, it has
now become clear that (pre-)PIE intraparadigmatic accentual mobility is not a necessary
condition for this situation to arise. This point has been conclusively demonstrated by
Probert (2006a,b), who investigates the diachronic development in Greek of two morpho-
logical categories that are by general agreement reconstructed with fixed word-final
surface accent, thematic adjectives (formed with the suffixes *-ro-, *-no-, *-to-, and
*-lo-; cf. 2.5) and feminine event/result nouns (formed with *-eh2 ; cf. 2.4.1). While most
attested reflexes of these categories show the historically expected pattern, some instead
show “recessive” accentuation, thereby arguably exhibiting an accentual change. Probert
attributes this change to a process termed “demorphologization” whereby morphological-
ly complex words lose their compositionality due to semantic or formal opacity and
come to be treated as monomorphemic (“demorphologized”). As a further consequence,
words affected by this morphological change strongly tend to adopt the language’s de-
fault accentual pattern (whether or not this occurs depends on word frequency and other
factors; cf. Sandell 2015: 192−214) − in Greek, recessive accentuation, which ultimately
reflects the BAP in modified form (i.e. leftmost within the accentable domain). The
differing surface accents of (e.g.) Gk. ek ht hrós ‘enemy’ and Gk. gū̃ros ‘circle’ thus do
not reflect a fundamental difference in the historical formation of each item; rather, the
connection between reconstructible *gū-rós ‘circle’ (substantivized from the adj. gū-rós
‘round’) and other *-ro- adjectives became opaque and, as a result, the word was eventu-
ally subject to default accentuation, whence *gūr-ós > gū̃ros (on this example see Probert
2006b: 232−233). Cases of this kind show definitively that two accentual patterns can
emerge diachronically without an earlier synchronic intraparadigmatic accentual alterna-
tion. Furthermore, such cases provide evidence for a type of prosodically optimizing,
non-proportional analogical change that can also be observed within the historical record
of English (cf. Kiparsky 2015: 82−83). Within the ancient IE languages, the Greek evi-
dence for this type of change finds further support in Vedic, where a similar analysis
can account for the development of Vedic *-ti-stems (like Ved. matí- > máti-), as well
in the Anatolian languages, where it can explain a variety of forms (such as PIE nasal-
infix presents; cf. 4.3.1) that unexpectedly exhibit initial surface accent (i.e. leftmost, in
accordance with the PIE default pattern; see Yates 2015). A broader implication of this
finding is that the existence of more than one accentual pattern associated with a single
suffix is not a sufficient condition to reconstruct an alternating accentual paradigm at any

Authenticated
historical stage. To the extent that individual paradigmatic reconstructions are founded
on this premise (as in “proterokinetic” *-ti-stems), their (pre-)PIE status must be viewed
as uncertain.
Finally, taking a still wider perspective, Kiparsky (2010a, forthcoming) in particular
has also challenged the typological naturalness of the paradigmatic classes. Although it
is true that the typological pool of known morphophonological properties is not compre-
hensive (see however van der Hulst [1999] on the word prosodic systems of the lan-
guages of Europe, as well as the StressTyp2 database site [http://st2.ullet.net//]), no clear
parallel for the pre-PIE system has yet been brought forward. Part of the uncertainty
here is terminological: before comparing the pre-PIE system to that of another language
family, the linguistic claim needs to be formulated more precisely − in what sense do
paradigms “exist” in pre-PIE morphology? Are they prosodic templates associated with
certain derivational categories, and if so, which ones? Or are they intended to be the
surface result of a pre-PIE lexical accent system, perhaps not dissimilar to the one we
have reconstructed above? Given the real gaps in knowledge currently facing researchers
who reconstruct PIE morphophonology (as outlined above) − in particular, the fact that
it is not yet fully clear what determines the surface accent of derivationally complex
forms − the amount that can be said confidently about pre-PIE accent and its relation to
ablaut is limited. Reconciling the results of research on pre-PIE paradigms with the
morphophonology of PIE and its daughter languages will likely remain a major project
for years to come.
4. PIE verbal morphology

This section provides an overview of the reconstructed morphology of the PIE finite
verb and associated non-finite verbal categories such as participles and infinitives. The
structure and early history of the PIE verb continues to be one of the most hotly contested
areas in IE studies today. While some consensus concerning the reconstruction of the
PNIE verb was reached in the early 20 th century, the advent of Anatolian and Tocharian
called into question many of the generally accepted features of this traditional reconstruc-
tion (see Jasanoff, this handbook). Consequently, much of our discussion focuses, first,
on the reconstructible features of the PNIE verb, then we proceed to address the more
controversial PIE verb, as well as the issues that problematize its reconstruction. While
we attempt to flag serious points of contention and offer critical discussion of the major
competing views, non-specialists in particular need to be aware that there is little una-
nimity in the field on these topics and that, due to limitations of space, not all views can
be considered here. Further discussion can be found in recent general overviews of the
IE verb, which include Clackson (2007: 90−113), Fortson (2010: 88−112), Weiss (2011:
377−398), and Meier-Brügger (2010: 295−321). The standard reference work in the field
is Rix and Kümmel (2001) (=LIV 2 ), a comprehensive collection of reconstructed PIE
verbal roots and their verbal formations in the individual languages. Jasanoff (2003a) re-
examines the foundations of the IE verb, especially in light of the Anatolian (and to an
extent Tocharian) evidence (see too Jasanoff forthcoming b). The collection of papers in
Melchert (2012b) is representative of recent research on the IE verb.

Authenticated
4.1. Structure of the PIE verb
As in the nominal domain, PIE verbal morphology was highly affixal. This property is
observed in PIE verb inflection where five grammatical categories were distinguished:
person, number, voice, tense and mood (we treat aspect [below] as a derivational catego-
ry). Fusional inflectional suffixes encoded grammatical agreement with the subject (nom-
inative-accusative syntactic alignment; see Keydana, this handbook) for person (1st, 2nd,
3rd) and number (singular, dual, plural), as well as voice (or “diathesis”), either active
or middle; for example, *-m is an exponent of the features [1st person, singular, active],
while *-o expresses [3 rd person, singular, middle]. Separate segmentable suffixes are
reconstructible as markers of tense (non-past; past is unmarked) and mood (subjunctive;
optative; imperative; indicative is unmarked). These inflectional categories are discussed
individually in 4.2 below.
Verbal inflectional suffixes were added to the verbal stem, which was specified with
certain grammatical features. In PNIE, verbal roots canonically formed three morpholog-
ically distinct verbal stems, traditionally and here referred to as “present,” “aorist,” and
“perfect” (see further 4.3 below); this tripartite distinction is maintained only in Indo-
Iranian and Greek. It is widely thought that the three stems expressed primarily differen-
ces of grammatical aspect. A speaker could indicate his or her view of the eventuality
of the verb as internally complex, which was the work of the present (or “imperfective”)
stem; as a bounded, complete whole, using the aorist (or “perfective”) stem; or as a
resulting state, using the perfect stem. The three grammatical aspects interact with lexical
aspect. By “lexical aspect” (German Aktionsart) we mean the inherent semantics of a
verb’s event structure, such as durativity or telicity, which are inherent as opposed to
chosen by a speaker to express a viewpoint. In the case of PNIE, it is generally assumed
that there was close agreement between grammatical and lexical aspect in the formation
of tense-aspect stems: verbal roots with telic lexical aspect had an underived aorist stem
(i.e. root aorist), whereas verbs with atelic lexical aspect had an underived present stem
(i.e. root present). However, the agreement between lexical aspect and stem formation
is in practice not nearly so neat; rather, there are numerous mismatches in both directions,
relatively clear cases in which apparently telic roots form underived present stems, and
apparently atelic roots form underived aorist stems. We will return to some of the specific
mismatches below (4.3). Another real issue with the PIE verbal system stems from the
well-known difficulties associated with analyzing the “perfect” as an aspectual category
cross-linguistically (cf. Comrie 1976: 52), to which may be added the challenge of estab-
lishing the prototypical meaning of the PNIE perfect (see further 4.3.3 below). The
question of grammatical aspect and stem formation has been and continues to be a major
locus of research in Indo-European linguistics.
The deeper prehistory of the PNIE verbal system is one of the most controversial
topics in IE linguistics today. In particular, two important structural features of the verbal
system reconstructible for PNIE are absent in the Anatolian languages: (i) a grammatical-
ized aspectual contrast between present and aorist stems; and (ii) the perfect as a gram-
matical category. It is therefore a priori uncertain whether these verbal features − as
well as certain others, like the subjunctive and the optative (see 4.2.4 below) − should
be reconstructed for PIE and their absence in Anatolian attributed to historical loss, or
whether they should instead be viewed as post-PIE innovations. These issues are dis-

Authenticated
cussed in more detail below, but we lay out now the major assumptions that guide our
presentation.
We adopt the position, shared by the majority of scholars, that PIE had an imperfec-
tive/perfective aspectual contrast realized in the distinction between present and aorist
stems. With respect to (ii), however, we follow Jasanoff (2003a) in the view that a PIE
verbal system was broadly Anatolian-like, in that all verbs belonged to one of two
formally distinct but − from a synchronic perspective − functionally undifferentiated
conjugational classes, the *m-conjugation or the *h2 e-conjugation. Furthermore, we as-
sume with Jasanoff (forthcoming b) that an important innovation of PNIE − i.e. after the
departure of the Anatolian branch − was the grammaticalization of the perfect, which
developed out of a set of PIE verbs with the formal characteristics of PNIE perfects,
including reduplication and *h2 e-conjugation inflection (see further 4.2 and 4.3.3 below).
Adopting these views has significant implications for the PIE verbal system − for in-
stance, on how the inflectional endings of the PIE verb are reconstructed. This issue is
addressed further in 4.2.5 and 4.2.6, where the evidence for the reconstruction of PIE
*m-conjugation endings and *h2 e-conjugation are separately assessed.
4.2. PIE verbal inflection
The PIE verb inflects for five grammatical categories, whose reconstructions are dis-
cussed individually below: tense (4.2.1), person and number (4.2.2), voice (4.2.3), and
mood (4.2.4). The exponents of person, number, and tense were fusional inflectional
suffixes (“personal endings”), which were added directly to a verbal aspectual stem.
Two distinct sets of active voice inflectional endings are reconstructible for PIE, one
that became associated with the PNIE “perfect” stem and another with the PNIE present
and aorist stems; the latter are sometimes referred to together as “eventive” active end-
ings (and the present and aorist stems together as the “eventive” system), a label that
stems from the older view that verbs marked with these endings were semantically op-
posed to a fundamentally stative perfect (now generally viewed as resultative-stative;
see further 4.3.3 below).
These two sets of active endings have distinct cognates in the Anatolian languages,
where all verbs belong to one of two synchronically arbitrary inflectional categories,
usually referred to as the mi- and ḫi-conjugations (after their respective 1sg.act.prs. end-
ings in Hittite, -mi and -ḫ[ḫ]i). Active forms of Anatolian mi-conjugation verbs have
active personal endings clearly cognate with PNIE present/aorist active endings, and ḫi-
conjugation verbs with PNIE perfect (active) endings. In what follows, we refer to PIE
verbal endings that underlie the former as the endings of the PIE *m-conjugation, and
to the latter as the endings of the PIE *h2 e-conjugation; the evidence for their reconstruc-
tion is discussed in 4.2.5 and 4.2.6, respectively. In addition, PIE had a third set of verbal
inflectional endings associated with the middle voice. The distinction between verbs that
select *h2 e-conjugation endings in their active forms and those that select *m-conjuga-
tion endings is not realized in their corresponding middle voice forms, both of which
are marked by the same set of middle endings; we assess the evidence for the formal
reconstruction of these endings in 4.2.7 below.

Authenticated
4.2.1. Tense
Tense is a grammatical category that relates the time of the event described to another
point in time, typically to the moment of the utterance (“absolute tense”), but in some
cases, to the time of some other discourse-relevant event (“relative tense”) (for the dis-
tinction, cf. Comrie 1976: 2). Tense cuts asymmetrically across the PNIE verbal aspectu-
al categories. The imperfective stem shows a morphological contrast between non-past
and past tense forms (present vs. imperfect), and according to a majority of researchers,
so does the “perfect” stem (perfect vs. pluperfect), while the perfective stem has only
forms that lack non-past tense marking (aorist); this system is represented in Table 122.8:
Tab. 122.8 Tense-aspect system of PNIE

ASPECTUAL STEMS
IMPERFECTIVE PERFECTIVE “PERFECT”

TENSE NON-PAST present — perfect
PAST imperfect aorist pluperfect?
The imperfective and perfect stems differ in the way the tense contrast is encoded.
Separate segmentable markers of tense are clearly reconstructible in the imperfective
stem, where non-past tense (i.e. present) verbal forms are generally distinguished from
past tense (i.e. imperfect) forms by the presence of an additional suffixal element − in
the active voice, by the “hic et nunc particle” *-i, and in the middle voice, by *-r
(Yoshida 1990; cf. Jasanoff, this handbook). These morphemes may be viewed as mark-
ers of non-past tense (i.e. [− past]). Inflectional endings characterized by these suffixal
elements are traditionally referred to as “primary” endings, while the unmarked endings
of the past tense are called “secondary” (these labels, which confusingly appear to re-
verse their morphological relationship, are due to their association with “sequences of
tenses” in traditional grammars, “primary” and “secondary” respectively). Thus (e.g.)
the PNIE 1sg.pres.act. was marked with the primary ending *-m-i (vs. the imperfect
“secondary” ending *-m), and the 3sg.pres.mid. form was marked with the primary end-
ing *-o-r/*-to-r (vs. imperfect *-o/-to); for the precise distribution of these tense markers
and the evidence for their reconstruction, see the detailed discussion of the reconstructi-
ble verbal “personal endings” in 4.2.5 and 4.2.7 below. The aorist employs the same
secondary endings as the imperfect, and is thus formally indistinguishable from the im-
perfect in certain stem classes (cf. 4.3).
Whether PNIE had a tense contrast in the “perfect” stem has long been debated (cf.
Wackernagel 1926−1928 [2009]: 238 with references to older literature). It is now the
majority view that the pluperfect, a past tense of the perfect, should be reconstructed for
this stage (see especially Jasanoff 2003a: 34−43). The synchronic systems of both Greek
and Vedic include a separate pluperfect tense generally functioning as a past tense to the
perfect, but its PNIE status is complicated by serious difficulties in reconstructing the
formal markers of this category − in particular, reconciling what appear to be significant
discrepancies between the Greek and Vedic inflectional endings. It is most likely, how-
ever, that the PNIE pluperfect was formed by addition of the secondary endings associat-
ed with the present/aorist system to the perfect stem, as in Vedic, e.g., 1sg. ávedam ‘I

Authenticated
knew’ (to the unreduplicated perfect véda ‘knows’; cf. 4.3.2 below); 3sg. á-bi-bhe-t
‘feared’ (to the presential perfect bi-bhāy-a ‘fears’). For a possible (albeit complicated)
scenario by which the same endings underlie the markers of the Greek pluperfect, see
Katz (2008) and Jasanoff and Katz (2017).
The reconstruction of a future, i.e. as a morphologically distinct, inflectional category
of the verb, is controversial. Futurity could be expressed by the present indicative stem
with or without an adverb expressly indicating the future (on expressions of the future
in ancient IE languages, see Wackernagel 1926−1928 [2009]: 246−265 and refs. in 247
n.14). Additionally, the subjunctive could refer to the future, with further modal mean-
ings, in at least PNIE. A desiderative suffix *-h1 se/o- meaning ‘wanting to do X’ comes
to mark the future in a number of daughter languages. This suffix appears to be com-
posed of the thematic vowel combined with a desiderative morpheme (*-h1 s-e/o-) as
reflected directly in Greek, indirectly elsewhere (for instance in the Celtic futures de-
scended from desideratives; cf. Stüber, this handbook). Examples from Greek include
tenéō, tenō̃ ‘I will stretch’ < *ten-h1 s-e/o- (cf. pres. teínō), or dérk-so-mai ‘I will see’ <
*derk-(h1 )s-e/o-. What is very likely the same suffix with a slight formal innovation,
viz. *-h1 s-ye/o-, underlies the futures in Indo-Iranian and Baltic; e.g., Ved. drak-ṣyá-ti
‘he will see’ < *derk-h1 s-ye-ti (on this morpheme cf. Jasanoff 2003a: 134−135; note that
others − e.g., Willi 2011 − would derive this future instead from an *s-aorist subjunc-
tive).
An additional prefix *(h1 )e-, the “augment,” marks past tenses in Indo-Iranian, Greek,
Phrygian, and, in a phonologically restricted way, Classical Armenian. Examples include
Ved. á-han ‘he smashed’ < *e-gwhen-t (cf. 3sg.prs.act. *gwhén-ti ‘smashes’), Gk. é-p her-e
‘he was carrying’ < *e-b her-e-t (cf. 3.sg.pres.act. *b her-e-ti ‘he carries’). However, in
the earliest Indo-Iranian and Greek texts past tense forms are not obligatorily marked
with the augment, which looks instead like an emerging, additional marker of [past].
Since no certain traces of the augment have been found in other IE languages, augmented
verbal forms are not reconstructible for PIE. The augment is most often derived from a
temporal deictic particle *h1 e ‘then’ (cf. e.g., Meier-Brügger 2010: 315−316 with refer-
ences), although other etymological attempts have been made: Watkins (1963) (= 1994:
3−51) derives the augment from a sentence connective seen in Anatolian (but cf. Melchert
forthcoming a); as an alternative proposal, Willi (2007) proposes to derive it from a redu-
plicating syllable, originally marking perfective aspect and only secondarily past tense.
4.2.2. Person and number
There is general consensus that the PIE verb was morphologically marked for three
persons (1st, 2nd, 3rd) and three numbers (singular, dual, plural). Of these features, only
the dual is somewhat uncertain. As in the nominal system (cf. 2.1.2 above), the Anatolian
languages synchronically lack dual number. It is generally held that the 1du. marker (of
the *m-conjugation) has ousted the 1pl. marker in the prehistory of Anatolian. The Proto-
Anatolian 1pl. primary active ending may be uncontroversially reconstructed as
*-weni (based on e.g., Hitt. -weni, Pal. -wini/-wani, CLuw. -unni < *-weni). Because of
the resemblance of initial w in *-weni to the reconstructed dual *-we-, it is thought that
1pl. *-weni is ultimately cognate with the ending of (primary/secondary) 1du. in Indo-

Authenticated
Iranian (Ved. -vaḥ/-va) and Balto-Slavic (Lith. -va, OCS -vě). The n-element would be
presumably the same as in the Gk. 1pl. -men (cf. Jasanoff 2003a: 3, and cf. n.39; 47n.98;
more hesitantly, Kloekhorst 2008: 1000−1001). Against this reconstruction, we note that
the diachronic change whereby a dual ousts the plural is not typologically trivial (see
Corbett [2000: 38−50, 268−271] for possible examples and discussion), and that no
Anatolian language shows any other trace of the dual in the verb or in pronouns (possible
traces in the noun are discussed in 2.1.2 above). Although no alternative scenario has
yet won acceptance, it may be the case that Proto-Anatolian *-weni does not reflect an
erstwhile dual marker (blended from du. *-wes and pl. *-meni). One attractive (if specu-
lative) suggestion would reconstruct the cross-linguistically common category “inclu-
sive” for the marker *-we, which would then have become the Anatolian 1pl. *-weni
and the PNIE 1du., thus constituting another significant rift between the PIE and PNIE
verb; for this reconstruction, see Watkins (1969: 46−48) (cf. Sihler 1993).
4.2.3. Voice
Two morphological voices are reconstructible for PIE, active and middle. This bivalent
system is maintained unaltered in Anatolian and Tocharian; the opposition between ac-
tive and middle is also continued in Indo-Iranian and in Greek, albeit with the later
development of a separate (partially morphologically distinct) passive voice in these
branches. This opposition is securely reconstructible only for the PNIE present/aorist
system. Indo-Iranian and Greek both synchronically make middle forms to the perfect
stem, but do so using the same morphology as the present/aorist system (rather than
distinctive PNIE “perfect” morphology); this lack of differentiation suggests that the
development of the perfect middle as a category was chronologically “late,” although
potentially already a feature of PNIE itself (cf. Jasanoff 2003a: 44−45). Active and
middle voices are characterized by distinctive inflectional endings. The active and middle
endings reconstructible for PNIE generally bear little formal relationship to one another
(e.g., 1sg.prs.act. *-mi vs. mid. *-h2 er); rather, the middle endings closely resemble the
endings of the PNIE perfect (active), a feature which has been argued to reflect a pre-
PIE connection between them (on which see 4.2.7 below).
Already by the PIE stage, however, the middle had become both formally and func-
tionally differentiated from the ancestor of the PNIE perfect. One core function of the
PIE middle was to express subject affectedness, which is clearly observed in transitive
verbal stems that alternate between active and middle forms. In such oppositional pairs,
middle morphology marks verbs that are reflexive (e.g., mid. Gk. loúe-tai ‘washes him/
herself’ vs. act. loú-ei ‘washes’), reciprocal (Ved. yúdhy-ante, Hitt. zaḫḫiy-anta ‘they
fight each other’ vs. Ved. yúdhy-anti, Hitt. zaḫḫiy-anzi ‘they fight [someone]’), and self-
benefactive (Ved. yája-te ‘sacrifices for his/her own benefit’ vs. yája-ti ‘sacrifices’).
Middle morphology is also frequently used when the subject of a verb (transitive or
intransitive) is non-agentive. It therefore surfaces on anticausatives in “causative alterna-
tion” verbs (see, e.g., Haspelmath 1993) − for instance, mid. Gk. p húe-tai, Ved. várdha-te
‘grows (intr.)’ vs. act. Gk. p hú-ei, Ved. várdh-ati ‘grows (tr.)’. Many non-agentive verbs,
however, are media tantum, i.e. take only middle morphology. The class of PNIE media
tantum − traditionally referred to in the IE literature as “deponents” (following Latin

Authenticated
grammarians) − includes many verbs belonging to semantic types that cross-linguistical-

ly tend to exhibit middle morphology in languages where such dedicated morphology
exists (see Kemmer 1993: 41−94). These types include: verbs of cognition, e.g., PNIE
*mn̥-yé-tor > OIr. -maine-thar ‘thinks’, >> Ved. mánya-te, ‘id.’, Gk. maíne-tai ‘rages’;
non-translational motion verbs, e.g., PNIE *sék w-e-tor ‘accompanies; follows’ > Lat.
sequi-tur, OIr. sechi-thir, >> Ved. sáca-te, OAv. hacai-tē, Gk. hépe-tai, PNIE *h3 ér-(t)o
> Ved. (prá) ār-ta ‘set forth’, Gk. ō̃r-to ‘arose’ (and from the same root, Lat. ori-tur
‘rises’); and stative verbs, e.g., PIE wés-(t)or ‘wears’ > Hitt. wēš-ta, >> Ved. vás-te,
OAv. vas-tē, Gk. heĩ-tai. The IE languages also attest a number of agentive media tantum
verbs, e.g., Ved. dáya-te, Gk. daíe-tai ‘distributes’; TA/B pāṣ-tär, Hitt. paḫḫš-ari ‘pro-
tects’. Several verbs of this type − which notably exhibit a “mismatch” between seman-
tics and morphology − are reconstructible for the proto-language; for an assessment of
the evidence, see Grestenberger (2014a: 225−253, 2016).
No separate passive can be reconstructed for PIE (or PNIE), its functions being ex-
pressed by middle morphology (for which reason it is often referred to as “mediopas-
sive”). The passive use of the middle is attested in all of the oldest IE languages (cf.
Hettrich 1990), including with expressed agent (in the instrumental case; see Jamison
1979a,b; Melchert 2016a), although the rarity of examples within these languages sug-
gests that this usage was relatively uncommon. A separate passive voice with distinctive
morphology arises in many of the daughter languages (with or without loss of the mid-
dle). For instance, in the imperfective stem Vedic has an opposition between middle and
passive, adding to the root the (always accented) suffix -yá- (a specialization of PIE
*-yé/ó-; cf. 4.3.1) plus middle morphology to mark passive voice, e.g., (3sg.prs.pass.)
Ved. kṣī-yá-te ‘is destroyed’ (cf. mid. kṣī́-ya-te ‘perishes’ with root accent) (see Kulikov
2012). Meanwhile, in Greek a similar opposition developed in the perfective stem, with
the emergence of a distinct aorist passive formed by suffixation of *-(t h)ē- plus second-
ary active endings to the verbal root, e.g., (3sg.aor.pass.) Gk. e-gráp h-ē ‘it was written’,
e-lū́-t hē ‘it was released’ (cf. mid. e-gráp-sa-to ‘wrote for him/herself,’ e-lū́-sa-to ‘re-
leased him/herself’). It is standardly assumed that the passive usage was an inner-Greek
innovation, with the original core of the category formed by non-passive intransitive (i.e.
anticausative) aorists, e.g., e-mán-ē ‘went mad’, e-(w)ág-ē ‘broke’; on the historical
origin of this category, see 4.3.1 below, and for discussion of the -ē-/-t hē- alternation in
the suffix, see Jasanoff (2003b: 165−167 with references).
An older position − advanced by Oettinger (1976), influentially upheld by Rix (1988),
and presupposed in LIV 2 − maintains that PIE had a third voice beside active and middle,
the “stative” (Germ. Stativ). According to this view, the “stative” is continued in Indo-
Iranian verbal forms like 3sg.prs. Ved. śáy-e ‘lies’, pl. śé-re (= YAv. sōi-re/saē-re), and
ipfc. á-śe-ran (< *kéy-o-i, -ro-i, -ro[n]), which semantically indicate a state, and are
marked with endings that share features with the regular endings of the middle (3sg.prs.
-te < *-to-i) and the perfect active (3s.pfc. -a < *-e; pl. -ur < *-r̥s) but differ synchronical-
ly from both.
However, clear typological parallels for a trivalent voice system contrasting active,
middle, and stative are lacking, and the actual evidence in support of reconstructing a
third voice is slim. Only in the third person (sg./pl.) would distinctive “stative” endings
be reconstructible; elsewhere in their paradigm, the relevant verbs use ordinary middle
morphology (e.g., 2sg.prs. Ved. śé-ṣe ‘you lie’), and functionally equivalent forms are
attested in later texts marked with synchronically regular middle endings (3sg.prs.mid.

Authenticated
Ved. śé-te [= YAv. saē-te], pl. śé-r-ate ‘lie[s]’). Moreover, in Anatolian, there is robust
evidence for a 3sg.npst.mid. ending *-or (e.g., CLuw. ziy-ar ‘lies’; see further 4.2.7
below), from which the “stative” 3sg.prs. ending *-oi can be derived straightforwardly
by regular Indo-Iranian replacement of the inherited *r-present tense marker of the mid-
dle with the *-i of the active (cf. 3sg.prs.mid. Ved. -te < PIIr. -tai << PIE *-tor); within
Anatolian, the reflexes of *-or mark ordinary 3sg.mid. forms, some which are clearly
non-stative, e.g., Hitt. ḫatt-ari ‘strikes’, paršiy-a ‘breaks’ (cf. Yoshida 2013: 157).
In view of these issues, the “stative” is better treated as a transient effect of the
renewal of middle morphology (cf. Jasanoff 2003a: 49−51). In the third singular the
situation is clearest: two allomorphs of the 3sg.mid. ending are reconstructible for PIE,
older unproductive *-o(r), and younger productive *-tor, the latter having been created
on the model of the corresponding *m-conjugation active ending *-t(i) in accordance
with a pattern that is well-established in IE languages (cf. 4.2.7 below). Archaic *-o(r)
was gradually replaced by productive *-to(r) within the IE languages, but was exception-
ally retained under certain conditions − for instance, when forms marked by *-or became
semantically specialized, such as Ved. bruv-é, OAv. mruii-ē ‘is called’, whose passive
sense contrasts with that of the renewed middle forms Ved. brū-té, YAv. mrūi-te ‘calls
to onself’. In other cases, retention of *-or may have been due to high frequency, e.g.,
in a core vocabulary item like Ved. śáy-e ‘lies’; yet even such forms are liable to renewal,
and indeed, in chronologically later Vedic texts 3sg. forms of this same verb are attested
with identical semantics marked with the productive 3sg.prs.mid. ending -te (as noted
above).
4.2.4. Mood
The following moods may be reconstructed for the PNIE verb: indicative, imperative,
subjunctive, optative. These are the moods of the verb in Greek and Indo-Iranian; inherit-
ance in the other branches of PNIE assures at least a PNIE age. Anatolian, however,
deviates from this picture: the Anatolian languages distinguish only indicative and imper-
ative moods. Hittite, for example, expresses the potential, the unreal, the wished for −
notions associated with the subjunctive and optative (as well as the indicative) in PNIE
languages − with the particle man. Consequently, the reconstruction of the subjunctive
and the optative for the stage of PIE including Anatolian will depend on one’s evaluation
of possible relic forms in Anatolian, together with one’s stance as regards loss vs. non-
inheritance in the prehistory of Anatolian.
The current understanding of moods in PIE is buttressed by centuries of fine-grained
philological work. Representative research in this vein includes the foundational study
of Delbrück (1871), more recently e.g., Tichy (2006); for an overview of the study of
moods within Indo-European linguistics (with older bibliography), see Wackernagel
(1926−1928 [2009]: 266−323). Studies that take advantage of recent theoretical research
on modality are thin on the ground (for one example, see Willmott 2007); continued
incorporation of research on modality into the descriptions of ancient languages will aid
progress toward a more refined reconstruction of the meaning of the moods in PIE (on
modality, see, e.g., Portner 2009 and the survey in Nuyts and Van der Auwera 2016).
We note here that many authorities include an “injunctive” mood in the PIE inventory.
The injunctive is formally the augment-less verbal stem with secondary endings (on the

Authenticated
“augment”, cf. 4.2.1 above). Because its existence depends on the contrast with augment-
ed verbal stems, and because we do not reconstruct the augment for PIE, we do not
reconstruct an injunctive for PIE; with Watkins (1969: 45) we treat it as a category
primarily of Old Indic grammar. In the most influential account of the injunctive, that
of Hoffmann (1967), it is proposed that the augment designates past tense and, inversely,
that the augment-less forms − the injunctives − cannot designate the past. In mythologi-
cal (arguably narrative/preterital) passages of the Rigveda the injunctive would have the
function of “mentioning” (“Erwähnung”), and its modality would be “memorative.” The
textual and cross-linguistic plausibility of this verbal structure (a “memorative” modality)
is questionable, and has been critiqued especially by Kiparsky (1968, 2005), whom we
follow in treating the injunctive not as a mood but rather as a stem underspecified for
mood (as well as tense), taking on its values for tense and mood from context.
For reference, a table of the PNIE moods is provided in Table 122.9:
Tab. 122.9 Formation of modal stems

INDICATIVE/IMPERATIVE SUBJUNCTIVE OPTATIVE
*h1 (e)s- ‘be’ *h1 es-e/o- *h1 s-yeh1 -/*h1 s-ih1 -
(*h1 s-d hí) (*h1 és-e-t[i]) (*h1 s-yéh1 -t)
*li-n(e)-k- ‘leave’ *li-ne-k w-e/o- *li-n-k w-yeh1 -/*li-n-k w-ih1 -
(*li-n-k w-d hí) (*li-né-k w-e-t[i]) (*li-n-k w-yéh1 -t)
*b her-e/o- ‘carry’ *b her-e-e/o- *b her-o-ih1 -
(*b hére) (*b hér-ē-t[i]) (*b hér-oi[h1 ]-t)
*pr̥k̑-sk̑e/o- ‘ask’ *pr̥k̑-sk̑e-e/o- *pr̥k̑-sk̑o-ih1 -
(*pr̥k̑-sk̑é) (*pr̥k̑sk̑-ḗ-t[i]) (*pr̥k̑sk̑-oí[h1 ]-t)
4.2.4.1. Imperative
The imperative basically expressed orders and commands (more generally and more
technically, “directives”). In the 2 nd singular active of athematic verbs, the ending was
either zero or *-d hi added to the weak stem; e.g., Ved. 2sg.aor. śru-dhí ‘listen!’ < *k̑lu-
d hí (root *k̑lew- ‘listen’). Thematic verbs used the bare stem, as in Gk. p hére ‘carry!’
< *b her-e. The 2 nd singular middle imperative ending exhibits greater diversity across
the daughter languages: Lat. -re (< *-so), Gk. -o (< *-so), Ved. -sva, Hitt. -(ḫ)ḫut
(*-h2 u-d hi), etc. Jasanoff (2006) attempts to reconcile the forms under the reconstruction
*-sh2 (u)wo (for which Barnes 2015 provides Old Irish comparanda). The 2 nd person
plural and dual active imperatives were identical to the corresponding indicative forms,
thus (e.g.) 2pl. Ved. bhára-ta (but, with secondary Indo-Iranian aspiration of the ending
[cf. 4.2.5], ind. bhára-tha), Gk. p hére-te ‘carry!’ (< *b hére-te); 2du. (athematic) Ved.
i-tám, Gk. í-ton ‘you two go!’ (< *h1i-tóm), (thematic) Gk. p hére-ton, Ved. bhára-tam
‘you two carry!’ (< *b here-tom). Similarly, plural and dual middle imperatives deployed
the same endings as the indicative (cf. 4.2.5). What are traditionally called third-person
imperatives are modal forms expressing the speaker’s wish that a third person act in
some way. Two formations encoding these third-person imperatives may be reconstruct-
ed. The first formation is the suffix *-u agglutinated to the endings of the third-person,

Authenticated
*-t-u, *-nt-u (e.g., Hitt. eš-tu, Ved. ás-tu ‘let it be’ < *h1 es-t-u). The second formation
is a suffix *-ōd, also added to the secondary endings, as in the so-called “future impera-
tive” in Lat. -tōd (Cl.Lat. -tō), Ved. -tād, Gk. és-tō < *h1 es-t-ōd.
4.2.4.2. Subjunctive
The subjunctive encoded various modal readings, of which a prospective and hortative
are traditionally reconstructed. In athematic verbs, the subjunctive marker is added to
the full-grade root; for instance, from the root *h1 es- ‘be’ was formed *h1 es-e-ti (cf.
pres. *h1 es-ti ‘is’). Thus athematic subjunctive forms looked identical to thematic indica-
tive forms − compare (e.g.) athematic subjunctive (3sg.prs.act.) *h1 es-e-ti with thematic
indicative *b her-e-ti (to *b her- ‘carry’). This formal identity may indicate a functional
split; it has been suggested that the subjunctive functions developed from a present
indicative (Bozzone [2012] and Dahl [2013] provide possible diachronic pathways for
the change). If the stem was thematic, the theme vowel and the subjunctive suffix con-
tracted to a long vowel. As far as inflectional endings go, there is conflicting evidence
for whether primary or secondary endings were used with the subjunctive (on the Vedic
evidence see García Ramón 2009); we reconstruct primary endings here, but this recon-
struction is not certain. It should be noted that numerous daughter languages have catego-
ries called “subjunctive” in their grammars, but these may or may not derive from the
PIE subjunctive. In Latin, for instance, what grammarians call the “subjunctive” reflects
in large measure the PNIE optative, while the PNIE subjunctive has become one ingredi-
ent of the Latin future. We provide below a chart (Table 122.10) of stem formation for
athematic and thematic indicatives and subjunctives in PNIE:
Tab. 122.10 Athematic and thematic indicatives and subjunctives

ATHEMATIC PRES.IND. ATHEMATIC SUBJ. THEMATIC PRES.IND. THEMATIC PRES. SUBJ.
h
*h1 es-ti *h1 es-e-ti *b er-e-ti *b her-e/o-e-ti
‘he is’ ‘he carries’ (*b herēti)
*h1 s-enti *h1 es-o-nti *b her-o-nti *b her-e/o-o-nti
‘they are’ ‘they carry’ (*b herōnti)
Whether the subjunctive is to be reconstructed for PIE will depend on one’s assessment
of the Anatolian evidence. No Anatolian language has a living subjunctive; whether any
Anatolian language has a relic of the subjunctive is disputed (for different viewpoints
see Jasanoff, this handbook and Oettinger, this handbook). Jasanoff (2012a) analyzes the
Hittite 2sg.imp. paḫši ‘protect!’, eši ‘settle, occupy!’, and ēšši ‘do, perform!’ as contain-
ing a PIE imperative ending *-si, which ultimately derives from 2sg. subjunctives built
to a variety of sigmatic formations via haplology, i.e. *-s-e-si > *-si; thus paḫši ‘protect!’
would derive from a subjunctive *peh2 -s-(e-s)i. There is evidence from Indo-Iranian,
Celtic, and Tocharian for reflexes of an imperative in *-s-e-si > *-si (see Jasanoff 2003a:
182−183 with references); however, it should be emphasized that Jasanoff’s (2012a)
proposed Anatolian reflex of *-s(es)i would be the sole Anatolian outcome of the PIE
subjunctive.

Authenticated
4.2.4.3. Optative
The PIE optative expressed at least wishes and potentialities (traditionally “cupitive” and
“potential”, respectively). In a more nuanced reading of the moods in Homeric Greek,
Willmott (2007: 113−152, esp. 120−121) argues that the optative shows broadly “nega-
tive epistemic stance,” i.e. the optative indicates that the event is not in line with the
speaker’s view of the world. The mark of the PIE optative was an ablauting suffix
*-yeh1 /ih1 - added to athematic stems, non-ablauting *-ih1 - to thematic stems (*-o-ih1 -),
plus the secondary endings. Thus to the root *h1 es- ‘be’ would be formed the 3sg.act.opt.
*h1 s-yeh1 -t ‘he would be’, and to the thematic stem *b her-e/o- ‘carry’ would be formed
3sg.act.opt. *b her-o-ih1 -t ‘he would carry’. We note here that the thematic vowel and
the optative suffix − *-o- + *-ih1 - − appear not to have contracted within PIE; evidence
from the daughter languages suggests that the two morphemes remained disyllabic (for
possible reasons why, see Jasanoff 2009). Table 122.11 provides illustrative optative
forms for athematic and thematic present stems:
Tab. 122.11 Athematic and thematic present optatives

ATHEMATIC THEMATIC
Ved. Gk. Lat. PIE Ved. Gk. PIE

syā́t eíē siēt *h1 s-yéh1 -t bháret p héroi *b hér-o-ih1 -t
syā́ma eĩmen sīmus *h1 s-ih1 -me- bhárema p héroimen *b hér-o-ih1 -me-
The optative is well-preserved in Greek and Indo-Iranian. In other branches, reflexes of

the optative are clearly inherited but go by different names. For instance, the Italic
subjunctive reflects in part the optative; we have used the verb siēt (Cl.Lat. sit), sīmus
to illustrate the paradigm (fuller details in Vine, this handbook). In Balto-Slavic, the
optative develops into the synchronic imperative (standard Lithuanian “permissive”); in
Tocharian, the optative has become the optative of TA and TB, as well as the TB imper-
fect; etc. Once again, Anatolian presents a divergent picture: there is no evidence for the
optative in Anatolian. This absence could be interpreted as either loss (the optative would
be inherited into Proto-Anatolian, with subsequent evanescence) or non-inheritance (i.e.
Anatolian branched off before the category had developed). We think the latter option
is likelier, but the matter is still sub iudice.
4.2.5. Verbal endings of the PIE *m-conjugation
It was noted in 4.2 that PIE had two sets of reconstructible active verbal endings, fusional
exponents of person, number, and voice. One of these sets was the common source of
the active verbal endings of the PNIE present/aorist system and of the Anatolian mi-
conjugation. We refer to these endings as the PIE *m-conjugation endings.
Verbal stems selecting the PIE *m-conjugation endings can be further subdivided into
two conjugational classes, athematic and thematic, the latter characterized by a stem-
final ablauting thematic vowel (*o/e). As in the noun (cf. 2.1.1), the distinction between
these classes was purely formal. With the notable exception of the 1sg.prs.act. ending

Authenticated
(and for some scholars also the 3sg.prs.act.; see below), thematic verbs have the same
inflectional endings as the athematic classes, being formally distinguished from the latter
only by the presence of the thematic vowel, which has *o-quality in 1sg./pl. and 3pl.
paradigmatic forms and *e-quality elsewhere − thus (e.g.) 1sg.act.ipfc. athematic
*-m vs. thematic *-o-m; 3sg. *-t vs. *-e-t; 3pl. *-(e)nt vs. *-o-nt. The exceptional
1(/3)sg.act. primary thematic endings are discussed below together with their correspond-
ing athematic endings.
The PIE athematic *m-conjugation inflectional endings that are securely reconstructi-
ble are given in Table 122.12. A following hyphen (-) indicates the possibility that the
PIE ending had additional segmental material, the reconstruction of which is problema-
tized by conflicting evidence in the daughter languages. The evidence for these individu-
al reconstructions, as well as their problematic or controversial aspects, are discussed
further immediately below.
Tab. 122.12 PIE *m-conjugation active endings

SINGULAR PLURAL
ry ry ry ry
1 2 1 2
1ST *-mi *-m *-me-?

2ND *-si *-s *-te-
3RD *-ti *-t *-(e)nti *-(e)nt
The reconstruction of the primary (athematic) singular active endings is wholly uncontro-
versial and supported by robust evidence across the daughter languages. The 1sg.act.
ending *-mi is clearly attested in (e.g.) Gk. ei-mí, Ved. ás-mi, OAv. ah-mī, OCS jes-mǐ,
Hitt. ēš-mi ‘I am’, and somewhat less transparently in VOLat. ES-OM (Lat. s-um), Goth.
i-m, OIr. a-m (< PIE *h1 és-mi).
The 2sg.act. ending *-si is continued in Ved. á-si, OAv. a-hī ‘you are’, as well as Gk.
e-ĩ (< PGk. *e-hi), Goth. i-s (< PIE *h1 é-si with degemination of */s-s/; see Byrd, this
handbook). For this lexical item, some languages attest only forms with root-final *s
analogically restored (e.g., OLat. es-s, Hitt. eš-ši; pace Kloekhorst 2016: 238−241), or
else such forms coexist with the directly inherited ones (e.g., Hom. Gk. es-si).
The 3sg.act. ending *-ti is reflected in Gk. es-tí, Ved. ás-ti, OAv. as-tī, OLith. ẽs-ti,
ORuss. jes-tĭ, CLuw. āš-ti ‘is’, and additionally, in Lat. es-t, Goth. is-t, OIr. is (< PIE
*h1 és-ti).
Thematic inflection differs substantially from athematic in the primary 1sg.act. end-
ing, where the daughter languages reflect an ending *-ō instead of expected x*-o-mi,
e.g., Gk. p hér-ō, Lat. fer-ō, Goth. bair-a, OCS ber-ǫ ‘I bear’ (< PNIE *b her-ō); this
morphological irregularity was eliminated within some language branches, e.g., Indo-
Iranian (cf. Ved. bhár-āmi, OP bar-āmiy, YAv. bar-āmi ‘id.’). It is the majority view that
thematic 1sg. *-ō historically contains the same suffix *-h2 e that is found in the 1sg.
endings of the PNIE perfect (active) and the middle voice (PNIE pfc.act. *-h2 e, 1sg.mid.
*-h2 e-r; see further below). Since Pedersen (1938: 80−86), some scholars have suspected
that the simple thematic conjugation, the PNIE perfect, and the middle voice are histori-
cally related; pursuing this hypothesis, Watkins (1969: 66−69, 105−123, et passim) pro-
posed that *-ō descends from a unitary pre-PIE type underlying these three categories

Authenticated
(later developed by Jasanoff [1978, 1998, 2003a, et seq.] as the “proto-middle;” see
further discussion in 4.2.7), whose verbal paradigm had a 1sg. ending in **-h2 e and 3sg.
in **-e (like the *h2 e-conjugation; see 4.2.6 below). Some members of this category
were eventually thematized − according to Watkins (1969), via reanalysis of 3sg. forms
like **b her-e as zero-marked **b here-0̸, whence new 1sg. **b hér(–)e/o-h2 e. Generally
these “pre-thematic” forms would then be re-characterized with ordinary PNIE *m-con-
jugation active endings (e.g., 2sg. *b hér-e-si), but 1sg. **-e/o-h2 e was exceptionally
retained, developing into P(N)IE *-ō (probably via *-oh2 , with apocope due to the same
phonological process as in the thematic neuter dual ending; see 2.1.1).
Watkins (1969) further argued that t-less 3sg. forms like **b her(-)e are directly recon-
structible for PIE. Most of Watkins’ comparative evidence for this reconstruction (from
Tocharian, Celtic, and Balto-Slavic) can be explained more straightforwardly as reflexes
of *-e-ti (see Jasanoff 2003a: 59−60). Somewhat more problematic is the evidence from
Greek, where it is maintained by some (e.g., Rau 2009b: 186 n. 14) that thematic verbs
like Gk. p hér-ei ‘carries’ directly continue **b her(-)e-i (with only the addition of the
present tense marker *-i; cf. 4.2.1). However, this analysis would imply a surprising
divergence between Greek and other NIE languages with closely related verbal morphol-
ogy (esp. Indo-Iranian, e.g., 3sg. Ved. -a-ti); economy therefore recommends the alterna-
tive approach, first proposed by Kiparsky (1967) and revised by Cowgill (1985a, 2006b)
and Willi (2012), which derives the Greek thematic 3sg. ending -ei from *-e-ti via me-
tathesis at word boundary followed by the regular loss of word-final stops in Greek
(i.e. *-eti# > *-ei-t# > -ei#). Thus only a single thematic 3sg. ending *-e-ti is securely
reconstructible for PIE, although Watkins’ (1969) t-less reconstruction may have ob-
tained at an earlier, pre-PIE stage (cf. Jasanoff 2003a: 148−149).
Similarly straightforward is the reconstruction of the secondary singular active end-
ings. The 1sg.act. ending-m is reflected in (aor.) Ved. á-sthā-m, Gk. é-stē-n ‘I stood’
(< PNIE *steh2 -m), as well as in the Latin (synchronic) imperfect ending -bā-m (see
Vine, this handbook). Thematic verbs show the expected 1sg.act. ending *-om, e.g.,
Gk. é-p her-on, Ved. á-bhar-am, YAv. bar-əm, OP a-bar-am ‘I was bearing’ (< PNIE
*bhér-om).
The 2sg.act. ending *-s is directly continued in Ved. á-dhā-s, OAv. dā-s(-ca) ‘you
placed’, Hitt. tē-s ‘you said’ (< *d heh1 -s), as well as the Germanic weak preterite ending
(e.g., Goth. -de-s, OIc. -ðe-r), which should likely be traced back to the same PIE form
(see Harðarson, this handbook). Further reflexes include (Dor.) Gk. é-bā-s ‘you went’,
Ved. á-gā-s, (< *gweh2 -s), and the Latin imperfect ending -bā-s.
The 3sg.act. ending *-t is evident in (aor.) Ved. á-dhā-t, (Boet.) Gk. (an)é-t hē ‘placed’,
and (pst.) Hitt. tē-t ‘said’ (< aor. *d heh1 -t ‘placed’, with semantic innovation in Hittite).
Somewhat more problematic is the reconstruction of the PIE 1pl.act. endings. Several
of the attested primary and secondary endings in the daughter languages continue *-me-
(e.g., Ved. 1ry -mas[i] / 2ry -ma, OAv. -mahī /-mā [< PIIr. *-mas(i)/-ma]; Att.-Ion. Gk.
-men, Dor. Gk. -mes), which is expected on structural grounds, but Italic and Slavic both
reflect an o-grade *-mo- (Lat. -mus, OCS -mŭ), and at least Lith. -me appears to require a
lengthened variant *-mē; it is uncertain whether these differences are due to independent
innovations within these languages or reflect phonologically-conditioned allomorphy
already at the P(N)IE stage (cf. Weiss 2011: 385−386). There is also variation within
and across language branches with respect to the post-vocalic segment: Latin -mos,
Dor. Gk. -mes, and PIIr. (1ry) *-mas(i) contain an element *s, while Att-Ion. -men has

Authenticated
*n in its place, thus matching Anatolian (e.g., Hitt. 1ry -w[/m]eni / 2ry -w[/m]en; on the
fluctuation of the ending’s initial consonant and its possible dual origin, see further
in 4.2.2). Furthermore, it is unclear whether the primary and secondary endings were
differentiated: past and present tense verbal forms in Greek, Italic, and Balto-Slavic
reflexes of the PNIE 1pl. are identical, but in Indo-Iranian the primary ending is distin-
guished by an additional post-vocalic *s (plus the “hic et nunc” particle *-i in all Avestan
and some Vedic forms, which similarly characterizes non-past tense forms in Anatolian).
Similar issues arise in the reconstruction of the PIE 2pl.act. endings, which had the
basic shape *-te-, e.g., Gk. -te, Lat. -tis, OCS -te and Goth. -þ. It is unclear whether
there was any distinction between primary and secondary forms; the four languages cited
above employ the same ending for both, but in Indo-Iranian, the primary ending PIIr.
*-t ha (> Ved. -tha, OAv. -θā) contrasts with secondary *-ta (> Ved. -ta, OAv. -tā) (see
Kümmel, this handbook). As in the 1pl. ending, Latin shows a post-vocalic segment
*-s, while Anatolian has *-n (Hitt. 1ry -teni / 2ry -ten), but neither has external compara-
tive support from Greek or Indo-Iranian. Lith. *-te reflects a lengthened variant *-tē just
as in the 1pl. ending.
The PIE athematic primary 3pl. act. ending was *-enti, e.g., prs. Ved. s-ánti, Myc.
Gk. e-e-si [eh-ensi], Hitt. aš-anzi , Osc. s-ent, Goth. sind, OIr. it [id] (< PIE *h1 s-énti
‘they are’). The corresponding secondary ending was *-ent (aor. PIE *gw[e]h2 -ent ‘they
went’ > Ved. á-gan, Gk. é-ban; cf. perhaps Pal. -Vnta [-nt]). Zero-grade allomorphs of
these endings 1ry *-n̥ti / 2ry *-n̥t are also attested in several NIE languages in athematic
verbal formations that had fixed accent on a syllable preceding the ending: “Narten
presents” (e.g., Ved. tákṣ-ati ‘they fashion’ < *té-tk̑-n̥ti); reduplicated presents (Ved.
dád-ati ‘they give’ < *dé-dh3 -n̥ti; simple thematic presents (Ved. bhár-a-nti) (with
automatic *-nti following a vowel) and s-aorists (Gk. é-deik-s-an ‘they showed’ <
*deik̑s-n̥t; OCS (po-)grĕ-s-ę ‘they buried’ <*ghréb h-s-n̥t). The zero-grade allomorph *-n̥ti
(*-nti) is therefore standardly reconstructed for PIE in these categories.
The reconstruction of the PIE dual endings is more difficult, given the more limited
evidence for this category in the IE languages. However, the NIE languages agree that
the basic shape of PNIE athematic 1du.act. ending was *-we- (> (1/2ry) Ved. -vas/-va,
OCS -vě, Lith. -va (for Germanic traces, cf. Prokosch 1939: 212; Ringe 2006: 136);
although dual number is absent as a grammatical category in the Anatolian languages,
it is generally held that the Anatolian 1pl.act. endings (Hitt. -w[/m]eni, CLuw. -unni,
Pal. -wini/wani) derive from *-we- and thereby support projecting this ending back to
PIE (but cf. 4.2.2 above). There is also comparative NIE evidence for reconstructing the
2du.act. ending as *-to- (> 2ry Ved. -tam, Gk. -ton, OCS -ta). A secondary 3du. ending
*-teh2 m is perhaps reconstructible as well in view of agreement between Gk. -tēn and
Ved. -tām, but the P(N)IE situation is complicated by a mismatch in the corresponding
primary ending between Gk. -ton and Ved. -tas.
4.2.6. Verbal endings of the PIE *h2 e-conjugation
In addition to the m-conjugation endings (4.2.5), PIE had a second set of active verbal
endings that developed, on the one hand, into the endings of the PNIE perfect active
and, on the other, into the endings of the Anatolian ḫi-conjugation. PIE reconstructions

Authenticated
for these inflectional endings − referred to here as the *h2 e-conjugation endings − are
given in Table 122.13; note, however, that these reconstructions − much more so than
the *m-conjugation endings discussed in 4.2.5 above or the middle endings in 4.2.7
below − are quite uncertain. In particular, reconstructing the distinction between primary
and secondary endings in the *h2 e-conjugation is highly problematic, in part because
only Anatolian provides direct evidence for the original morphological opposition (the
PNIE pluperfect uses *m-conjugation secondary endings; see 4.2.3 above), and in part
due to open (and much disputed) questions surrounding the prehistory of the PNIE
perfect − above all, whether the perfect endings stand in correspondence with (and so
provide evidence for the reconstruction of) PIE primary endings (as recently argued by
[e.g.] Jasanoff 2003a, Oettinger 2006) or with secondary endings (per Jasanoff forthcom-
ing b). These issues are discussed below, together with the evidence for the formal
reconstruction of the *h2 e-endings.
Tab. 122.13 PIE *h2 e-conjugation endings

SINGULAR PLURAL
ry ry ry ry
1 2 1 2
1ST *-h2 ei? *-h2 e *-me-?

2ND *-th2 ei *-th2 e *-te? *-e?, *-s?
3RD *-ei? *-e?, *-s(t)? *-(e)nti *-(e)rs?
The PIE 1sg.act. primary and secondary endings of the *h2 e-conjugation were probably
*-h2 ei and *-h2 e, respectively. Both are directly reflected in Anatolian, the former in
Old Hitt. -ḫḫe (e.g., dā-ḫḫe ‘I take’; replaced by -ḫḫi in younger texts), and the latter in
CLuw. -(ḫ)ḫa, Lyc. -xa (CLuw. a-ḫa, Lyc. a-xa ‘I made’; Hitt. -(ḫ)ḫun is remodeled on
the basis of the corresponding mi-conjugation ending). The 1sg. ending of the PNIE
perfect is *-h2 e, which yields Gk. -a, PIIr. *-a, and Goth. -0̸ (e.g., Gk. oĩd-a, Ved. véd-a,
OAv. vaēd-ā, Goth. wait ‘I know’ < PIE *woid-h2 e). In Italic and Slavic, the perfect
ending was recharacterized with the present tense marker *-i (i.e. *-h2 e-i), whence (e.g.)
OCS věd-ě ‘I know’, Fal. PE:PARAI ‘I got’ (cf. Lat. -ī; see Weiss 2011: 392). The
formal identity between the endings of the PNIE perfect and the secondary endings of
the *h2 e-conjugation suggests that the former historically descend from the latter, and
thereby offers some support for Jasanoff’s (forthcoming b) recent derivation of the per-
fect from a PIE reduplicated *h2 e-conjugation aorist (rather than a reduplicated present,
as per Jasanoff 2003a: 168−169, Oettinger 2006, i.a.). There is some evidence to suggest
that the presence of the present tense marker *-i in the primary ending *-h2 ei was a
relatively recent innovation in PIE: the synchronically irregular m-conjugation 1sg.act.
primary thematic ending *-ō should probably be traced back to *-e/o-h2 e (as discussed
in 4.2.5), which would contain a 1sg.act. ending *-h2 e unmarked for tense. Yet given
the robust evidence across the IE languages for a formal opposition in singular verbal
endings between primary and secondary forms, it seems more likely that pre-PIE **-h2 e
was recharacterized as *-h2 ei already in PIE, and thus that the development of *m-
conjugation thematic 1sg. *-ō also occurred prior to PIE (cf. 4.2.5 above).
The PIE 2sg.act. primary and secondary endings were likely *-th2 ei and *-th2 e. The
primary ending is indirectly reflected in Hitt. -(t)ti (phonologically expected -te* having

Authenticated
been analogically replaced already in the oldest texts). Just as in the first singular, the
inherited secondary ending appears to be continued not only in 2sg.pst.act. Hitt. -tta
(e.g., da-tta ‘you took’), but also in PNIE 2sg.pfc.act.*-th2 e, which yields the regular
perfect ending in Indo-Iranian (PIIr. *-t ha), e.g., Ved. dadhā-tha, OAv. dadā-θā ‘you
have placed’; Ved. vét-tha, OAv. vōis-tā ‘you know’. Cognate Gk. oĩs-t ha ‘id.’ exception-
ally preserves the same ending, although elsewhere it has been replaced by -as (e.g.,
tét hēk-as ‘you have placed’), with the -s of the *m-conjugation active and a-vocalism
by analogy to the 1sg. -a (see above). The second element of the Latin perfect ending
-is-tī (e.g., fēc-istī ‘you made’) also continues *-th2 e-i, with the inner-Italic addition of
the tense marker *-i.
The reconstruction of the PIE 3sg.act. ending is a vexed question. The primary ending
in PIE was likely *-ei, which is marginally continued in Old Hitt. -e (e.g., waršš-e
‘wipes’; replaced by -i in younger texts); it is unlikely that Gk. them. 3sg.act. -ei derives
from *-ei despite its superficial resemblance (cf. 4.2.5 above). Jasanoff (2003a: 70−71,
2012c) argues that the primary/secondary distinction was instead realized in the *h2 e-
conjugation by an opposition between *-e and *-et, with the latter recharacterized by
*m-conjugation 3sg.act. *-t already in PIE; see however Kim (2005: 195) for the PIE
primary ending as *-ei with regular tense marking. Still more problematic is the corre-
sponding secondary ending, for which at least two forms are arguably reconstructible.
One of these is structurally expected *-e, which is reflected in PNIE 3sg.pfc.act. *-e
(> Ved. -a, OAv. -ā, Gk. -e, Goth. -0̸). The other is *-s(t), which is reflected in Hitt. -š
(e.g., dā-š ‘took’) and in the ending associated with Tocharian Class III preterites, TB/
A -sa/-äs (e.g., prek-sa/prak-äs ‘asked’; see Melchert 2015). Both forms have strong
claim to antiquity. Jasanoff’s (forthcoming b) derivation of the PNIE perfect from a
reduplicated *h2 e-conjugation aorist requires that *-e marked the 3sg. in this category
at the stage prior to its post-PIE grammaticalization as the perfect. However, the match
between Hittite and Tocharian with respect to structurally unmotivated *-s(t) is prima
facie evidence for a morphological archaism, and on these grounds Melchert (2015)
argues that it is the original marker of the 3sg. *h2 e-conjugation aorists (cf. Watkins
1969: 54; Yoshida 1993: 33−34). The distribution of these endings in PIE remains at
present unresolved.
In PIE, the *h2 e-conjugation and the *m-conjugation appear to have had the same
1pl.act. ending *-me-, which marked both primary and secondary forms (cf. 4.2.5 above).
The ending *-me is reflected in PNIE 1pl.pfc.act. *-me (> Gk. [w]íd-men, Ved. vid-má
‘we know’) and in both primary and secondary forms of ḫi-conjugation verbs in Anatoli-
an, which have 1pl.act. forms that are inflectionally identical to mi-verbs (i.e. Hitt. 1ry
-w[/m]eni / 2ry -w[/m]en). See, however, Jasanoff (2003a: 32) for the possibility that
Ved. -mā (e.g., vid-mā́ ‘id.’) − synchronically, a lengthened allomorph of the ending −
derives rather from a PIE form with final laryngeal (e.g., *-mehx ) that was once unique
to the *h2 e-conjugation.
Similarly, the PIE 2pl.act. primary ending of the *h2 e-conjugation was most likely
*-te, just as in the *m- conjugation (cf. 4.2.5 above); it is continued in Anatolian, e.g.,
2pl.prs.act. Hitt. da-tteni ‘you (pl.) take’. Reflexes of *-te are also attested in the PNIE
perfect (Gk. [w]ís-te, Goth. wit-uþ ‘you [pl.] know’), but these have clearly been analogi-
cally introduced from the *m-conjugation, since Ved. -a (e.g., vid-á ‘id.’) preserves the
inherited PNIE 2pl.pfc.act. ending *-e. More complicated is the corresponding secondary
ending, for which two forms are potentially reconstructible for PIE: the *-e ending just

Authenticated
noted, and *-s, which according to Melchert (2015) is reflected (with additional morpho-
logical material) in both Anatolian (Hitt. -šten, e.g., dai-šten ‘you [pl.] placed’; cf.
Kloekhorst 2008: 498) and Tocharian (2pl.pret.act. PT *-sV[s]; see Malzahn 2010 for
TB/A outcomes, as well as references to alternative explanations). Agreement between
Hittite and Tocharian would argue strongly that *-s is an archaic feature, a common
retention of these branches. However, there are compelling reasons to believe that *-e is
also archaic: analogical explanation is not viable, since it bears no affinity to any other
PIE 2pl. ending, For this reason the ending is liable to diachronic renewal by the func-
tionally transparent *-te of the m-conjugation. Moreover, a remarkable feature of both
*-e and *-s is that each is identical to one of the two possible secondary endings recon-
structible for the 3sg.act. of the *h2 e-conjugation (i.e. *-e, *-s; see above). Just as in the
3sg.act., the exact PIE distribution of *-e and *-s is at present unsettled, and still less
clear is the broader significance of the structural symmetry between 3sg. and 2pl.act.,
which appears to be a unique feature of the *h2 e-conjugation.
The PIE 3pl.act. primary ending of the *h2 e-conjugation was probably *-(e)nti, once
again identical to the *m-conjugation; it is directly reflected in Anatolian, e.g., Hitt.
3pl.npst.act. akk-anzi ‘they die’. The 3pl.act. secondary ending has several reflexes in
the daughter languages (cf. Jasanoff 2003a: 32−34): *-ēr, which yields 3pl.pst.act. Hitt.
-ēr and pfc. Lat. -ēre (via *-ēr-i with inner-Italic addition of the primary tense marker;
cf. 1/2sg.act. above); *-r̥s, which is continued in OAv. -ərəš (see further below) and
pfc./opt. Ved. -ur; and *-r̥, which is continued in pfc. OAv. -arə̄ (YAv. -ērə) and pret.
OIr. *-(a)tar (< *-ont-r̥, a composite of thematic 3pl. *-ont + *-r̥). For arguments that
*-r̥ is a later analogical innovation, see Jasanoff (2003a: 33). The remaining two endings
*-ēr and *-r̥s can be reconciled as ablaut variants of *-ers (whose status as a PIE surface
form is, however, dubious; see discussion of thematic acc.pl. *-oms in 2.1.1 above): its
expected zero-grade form is *-r̥s, while full-grade *-ers would develop straightforwardly
into *-ēr via Szemerényi’s Law. According to Jasanoff (1997, 2003a: 39−43), PNIE
originally had the full-grade allomorph *-ēr in the perfect and *-r̥s in the pluperfect, a
distribution which − with the exception of the replacement of *-ēr by analogical *-r̥ −
is maintained in Avestan (*-r̥ / *-r̥s > OAv. -arə̄ / -ərəš).
There is insufficient evidence to reconstruct dual endings for the *h2 e-conjugation.
Greek and Indo-Iranian both make perfect dual forms, but their endings cannot be de-
rived from a single pre-form; rather, the endings in each language show clear effects of
analogical re-shaping − for instance, 3pfc.du. Ved. -atuḥ and YAv. -atarə have evidently
been influenced by the corresponding 3pl.pfc. endings (on which see above). Anatolian
offers no help, since there is no unique trace of the dual in the ḫi-conjugation.
4.2.7. Verbal endings of the PIE middle
In PIE, both verbs whose active forms inflected according to the *m-conjugation and
those whose active forms inflected according to the *h2 e-conjugation had middle voice
forms marked with the same set of endings. This situation is still observed within the
Anatolian languages, where these two conjugational classes remain distinct, but verbs of
both classes make use of the same middle endings, e.g., 3sg.prs.act. Hitt. ištamaš-zi
‘hears’, kānk-i ‘hangs (tr.)’ vs. mid. išdamaš-tari ‘is heard’, kank(a)-ttari ‘hangs (intr.)’.

Authenticated
Similarly, the PNIE perfect active is marked by endings that descend from the *h2 e-
conjugation, but perfect middle forms generally employ the same endings as in the
present/aorist system (e.g., 3s.pfc.mid. Gk. lélu-tai ‘has been released’; cf. prs. lúe-tai),
whose active endings come from the *m-conjugation.
Reconstructions for the PIE athematic middle inflectional endings are given in Table
122.14. We discuss the evidence that supports − or else problematizes − the reconstruc-
tion of each ending below.
Tab. 122.14 PIE middle endings

SINGULAR PLURAL
ry ry ry
1 2 1 2ry
1ST *-h2 er *-h2 e? *-med hh2
2ND *-th2 er *-th2 e *-d h(h2 )we?
3RD *-or, *-tor *-o, *-to *-ror?, *-ntor *-ro, *-nto
The PIE primary 1sg.mid. ending was *-h2 er, which is most clearly reflected in Hitt.
-ḫa(ri) (e.g., ar-ḫari ‘I stand’) and − with regular renewal of *-r by *-i as marker of
present tense (as in the active endings) − in PIIr. *-ai (e.g., Ved. bruv-é, OAv. mruii-ē
‘I speak’). The synchronic “passive” endings Lat. -or and OIr. -or (e.g., Lat. ori-or ‘I
rise’; OIr. -mol-or ‘I praise’) continue the corresponding thematic form *-o-h2 er. In
Tocharian and Greek, the initial *m of the *m-conjugation active has been analogically
introduced, thus TB/A -mar/-mār (for details, see Malzahn 2010: 36 with references)
and Gk. -mai (with the same renewal of presential *-r by *-i as in Indo-Iranian); this
kind of analogical remodeling − viz. assimilation of the characteristics of the correspond-
ing *m- conjugation active endings − is typical of the development of the middle endings
in the IE languages, as will become clear below. Hittite also attests an “iterated” (or
“reduplicated”) allomorph of the ending -(ḫ)ḫaḫari (cf. ar-ḫaḫari), which points to a
preform *-h2 eh2 er, but the antiquity of this form is uncertain (see discussion of the
corresponding secondary ending below).
The PIE primary 2sg.mid. ending *-th2 er is directly reflected in Hitt. -(t)ta(ri), TB/A
-tar/tār, and (in media tantum verbs) OIr. -ther. The other IE languages continue an
ending *-soi, with initial *s taken from the 2sg.act. *m-conjugation ending and renewal
of *-r by *-i, e.g., Ved. -se, OAv. -hē / -šē, Myc./Arc.-Cypr. Gk. -soi (in other dialects,
-sai with vocalism after 1sg. -mai), Goth. (pass.) -za.
Two primary 3sg.mid. endings are securely reconstructible for PIE, *-or and *-tor
(cf. 4.2.3 above). The archaic *-or allomorph is preserved in CLuw. ziy-ar(i) ‘lies’, Hitt.
paḫš-a(ri) ‘protects’, OIr. ber-air ‘is carried’ and − with renewal of the tense marker in
Indo-Iranian − Ved. śáy-e ‘lies’, OAv. sruii-ē ‘is heard’ (see further Jasanoff 2003a: 49−
51). The productive allomorph *-tor − with analogical *t from the *m-conjugation
3sg.act. ending − is also attested in the same languages (e.g., CLuw. puppušša-tari ‘is
crushed’, Hitt. ki-tta[ri] ‘lies’ [cf. Pal. kī-tar ‘id.’], OIr. sechi-thir ‘follows’), in some
cases, even in the same lexical items (late Ved. śé-te, YAv. saē-te ‘lies’); these last two
forms, in particular, show the strong tendency for *-or to be morphologically renewed
by *-tor, a pattern that likely began in PIE itself and led eventually to the complete
elimination of *-or in other NIE languages, which have only *-tor: Lat. sequi-tur ‘fol-

Authenticated
lows, TB wike-tär ‘disappears’, Cypr. Gk. ke-i-to-i [kei-toi] ‘lies’ (cf. Att.-Ion. Gk.
keĩ-tai ‘id.’ with vocalism after 1sg. -mai).
The PIE secondary athematic 1sg.mid. ending was likely *-h2 e, which is directly
reflected in Hitt. -(ḫ)ḫat(i), e.g., Hitt. ēš-ḫa-t(i) ‘I sat down’ (with further addition of a
reflexive particle *-di, on which see Yakubovich 2010: 182−205); it may also be main-
tained, as an archaism, as the ending of optative forms in Indo-Iranian (PIIr. *-a, e.g.,
Ved. sac-ey-a ‘may I accompany’, OAv. vāur-aii-ā ‘may I cover’). Elsewhere, the Indo-
Iranian languages show endings (Ved. -i, OAv. -ī < PIIr. *-i), which have been argued to
derive from a shorter ending *-h2 (e.g., Kortlandt 1981; García Ramón 1985); however, it
is more likely that PIIr. *-i should be explained analogically (see Kümmel, this handbook).
The Tocharian preterite endings (TB -mai; TA -we/-e) probably also contain
*-h2 e; see the discussions of Malzahn (2010: 44−45 with references) and Pinault (this
handbook).
Less certain is the PIE status of an “iterated” allomorph of the 1sg.mid. ending
*-h2 eh2 e, which appears to be continued in both Hittite (e.g., ēš-ḫaḫat[i] ‘id.’) and
Lycian (a-xagã ‘I became’; see Melchert 1992b). Potential evidence for its deeper recon-
struction comes from Greek, where it has been suggested that the same form underlies
(non-Attic-Ionic) Gk. -mān < *-m-h2 eh2 e-m with analogical remodeling after the 1sg.act.
*m-conjugation ending (Weiss 2011: 388−389; but cf. the critique of Yoshida 2010, 2013).
The PIE secondary 2sg.mid. ending *-th2 e, is continued − with different additional
morphological material in each language − in Hitt. -(t)tat(i) (+ reflexive *-di; cf. 1sg.
above), Ved. -thās, and TB/A -tai/-te, as well as OIr. -tha. Other IE languages have
replaced *-th2 e with *-so, an analogical form with the initial *s of the m-conjugation
2sg. active ending and the vocalism of 3sg.mid. *-(t)o(r); *-so is reflected in Gk. -so,
OLat. -re (on Cl. Lat. -ris, see Weiss 2011: 388−391), and in the Iranian languages (OAv.
-šā, OP -šā; on the split within Indo-Iranian, see Kümmel, this handbook).
Just as in the corresponding primary form, two allomorphs of the athematic 3sg.mid.
secondary ending are reconstructible for PIE, *-o and *-to. Archaic *-o is maintained in
Hitt. ēš-at(i) ‘sat down’ (with reflexive *-di; cf. 1sg/2sg. above), and famously, in
Ved. á-śay-at ‘was lying down’ (with analogical final *t; Wackernagel 1907: 309−313
[= 1953a: 498−502]). Once again, the same languages also reflect productive *-to, in-
cluding in forms of the same lexical items attested in chronologically younger texts:
Hitt. ēš-tat; late Ved. (a)śe-ta (cf. YAv. sae-ta). In other NIE languages, older *-o has
been wholly ousted by younger *-to: Gk. -to, Iranian (OAv. -tā, OP -tā), TB/A -te/-t.
The PIE 1pl.mid. ending was *-med hh2 or *-mesd hh2 ; it is possible that one of these
forms was once specialized as the primary ending and the other as secondary, but if so,
the daughter languages provide no clear evidence for the original distribution. Support
for reconstructing *-med hh2 comes from Gk. -met ha, as well as Tocharian and Indo-
Iranian; in the latter two, a distinction has been introduced between primary (> Ved.
-mahe, OAv. -maidē < PIIr. *-mad hai; TB/A -mtär) and secondary forms (Ved. -mahi,
OAv. -maidī < PIIr. -mad hi; TB/A -mte/-mät; see Kümmel, this handbook and Malzahn
2010: 37, 46). However, Greek also attests a variant *-mest ha, which points to
*-mesd hh2 ; an *s is also found in the same position in Hittite, which has − like Indo-
Iranian − differentiated primary -wašta(ri) and secondary *-waštat(i) (using the same
morphological material as in the singular; see above). As in the 1pl.act. (cf. 4.2.5), the
initial *w of the Hittite form is usually attributed to the influence of the dual (see 4.2.2

Authenticated
above), either directly (i.e. < 1du.act. *-we/o[s]- + -d[h]h2 of the 1pl.mid.; cf. 4.2.5
above) or else by analogy with the 1pl.act. ending Hitt. -w(/m)en(i).
The reconstruction of the PIE 2pl.mid. ending is problematic. The 2pl.mid. endings
attested in the NIE languages (with the possible exception of Tocharian) can be derived
straightforwardly from an ending *-d hwe, likely undifferentiated for primary/secondary
as in Gk. -st he (with s generalized from coronal-final roots, where it is phonologically
regular via the “Double Dental” rule; see Byrd, this handbook). As in the 1sg.mid,
Indo-Iranian has introduced the primary/secondary distinction; furthermore, the attested
endings appear to continue *-d huwe, a variant of the ending conditioned by Siever’s
Law (on which see Barber 2013 and Byrd, this handbook): 1ry/2ry Ved. -dhve/-dhvam
(with frequent disyllabic scansion); OAv. -duiiē/OAv. -dūm (YAv. -θβe/-θβəm). The same
phonologically conditioned variant underlies Cl.Arm. -(a)ruk‘ (Jasanoff 1979: 44−45),
synchronically the 2pl. mediopassive imperative ending. More difficult is the Tocharian,
where there is a clear split between (1ry/2ry) TB -tär/-t and TA -cär/-c; there is no
consensus about whether either ending is the phonologically expected outcome of
*-d hwe, but most scholars agree that both are ultimately based on *-d hwe (see Malzahn
2010: 37−38 with references).
The deeper PIE situation is problematized by the endings attested in the Anatolian
languages: (1ry/2ry ) Hitt. -ttuma(ri)/-dumat (on m < *w, see 4.2.2 above), CLuw.
-(d)duwar(i). The principal issue is that the initial geminate (or “fortis”) stop (Hitt. -tt-)
cannot be the outcome of *d h. Melchert’s (1984: 26) alternative derivation of the ending
from PIE *-d hh2 we explains the geminate stop, and in addition, accounts more neatly
(i.e. without appeal to Siever’s Law) for the post-consonantal anaptyctic u vowel clearly
observed in the Hittite form (cf. Melchert 1994a: 57−58, 77−78); however, whether
*-d hh2 we can be reconciled phonologically with the NIE evidence remains to be system-
atically assessed. A different solution is proposed by Jasanoff (2003a), who suggests that
Anatolian replaced ending-initial *d h with *t by analogy to the 2pl.act. (m-conjugation)
ending *-te.
For the PIE primary 3pl.mid. ending − like the corresponding singular − two allo-
morphs are reconstructible, likely *-ror and *-ntor. The older ending *-ror is not contin-
ued as such in any IE language, but is in all probability the source of PIIr. *-rai (> Ved.
-re, YAv. -re), which would be derived by the across the board replacement of the
inherited middle tense marker *r by active *i in that branch; PIIr. *-rai is selected by
the same set of verbs that take the archaic 3sg.mid. ending *-ai (<< PIE *-or; cf. 4.2.3
above), e.g., Ved. duh-ré ‘give milk’, śé-re ‘lie’ (= YAv. sōi-re/saē-re), and in the
3pl.pfc.mid., e.g., Ved. jajñi-ré ‘are born’. The endings attested in the other IE languages
and elsewhere in Indo-Iranian all derive from productive *-ntor: Hitt. -anta(ri), Arc-
Cyp. Gk. -ntoi (-ntai in other dialects with analogical vocalism), Ved. -ate (< *-n̥toi; cf.
thematic -ante), TB/A -ntär; (“passive”) Goth. -nda, OIr. -tir, Lat. -ntur (but see Weiss
2011: 390−391 on the complicated Italic evidence; alternative view in Clackson and
Horrocks 2007: 33).
Similarly, the PIE secondary 3pl.mid. ending has two reconstructible allomorphs,
*-ro and *-nto. Archaic *-ro is continued in Ved. -ran/-ram (with added final nasal),
which marks imperfects corresponding to presents in -re, e.g., Ved. á-śe-ran ‘were lying’,
á-duh-ran ‘were giving milk’, as well as 3pl. forms of the aorist “passive,” e.g.,
á-dr̥ś-ran ‘were seen’, á-budh-ram ‘woke up’ (on the development of this category in

Authenticated
Indo-Iranian, cf. Kümmel 1996, Jasanoff 2003a: 153−173, 206−210). Productive *-nto
yields Hitt. -antat(i), Gk. -nto, Ved. -ata (< *-n̥to; cf. thematic -anta), and TB/A -nte/-nt.
No secure reconstruction of dual middle endings is possible. The IE languages that
preserve the dual, above all Vedic and Greek, have dual middle endings that cannot be
traced back to common pre-forms; rather, the attested endings generally appear to be
created by combining features of the m-conjugation active dual endings and inherited
middle plural endings − for instance, 1du.mid. Ved. -vahe amalgamates 1du.act. -vas and
1pl.mid. -mahe, while 2du.mid. Gk. -st hon mixes 2du.act. -ton and 2pl.mid. -st he.
4.3. PNIE verbal stem formation
A tripartite division of tense-aspect stems into “present” (imperfective aspect), “aorist”

(perfective aspect), and “perfect” (resultative-stative) is reconstructible for PNIE. Only
Greek and Indo-Iranian exhibit this three-fold distinction directly, but it underlies other
PNIE languages which have merged the aorist and the perfect, e.g., Latin. The present
stem could be inflected in present and past tenses (the latter called the “imperfect”).
For example, to the root *gwhen- ‘smash; slay’ could be formed the 3sg.prs.ind.act.
*gwhén-ti ‘smashes, slays’ (Ved. hán-ti ‘id.’), 3sg.ipfc. *gwhen-t ‘was smashing’ (Ved.
[á]-han). The aorist stem expressed perfective aspect and could be used in the indicative
only to refer to past tense, e.g., to *weg̑ h- ‘convey, move’ was built an aorist *wēg̑ h-s-t
‘conveyed, moved’ (> Lat. vēxit). Thus the perfective/imperfective distinction is overlaid
with a past/non-past distinction only in the imperfective stem. The perfect stood apart
from the present and aorist on formal and functional grounds in ways we will discuss
below; an example of a perfect is Ved. ca-kár-a ‘I have made, I made’ (1sg.pfc.act.ind.)
< *k we-k wór-h2 e. Bybee and Dahl (1989) survey tense-aspect stems cross-linguistically,
from which the tripartite system reconstructed for PNIE emerges as commonest in the
languages of the world; see further Wackernagel (1926−1928 [2009]: 195−268) for an
overview of tense-aspect in several ancient IE languages with copious examples and
references.
It is important to distinguish between various uses of the term “aspect”. We will use
the term “grammatical aspect” for the grammatical means by which a speaker expresses
views on the action of the verb (such as ongoing, imperfective or as a complete whole,
perfective). Grammatical aspect is conveyed by the morphology of the verb. We will use
the term “lexical aspect” for what is considered the inherent, unmodified lexical meaning
of the verbal root; often this notion goes under “Aktionsart” in IE studies (the term is
fairly elastic and may refer to other phenomena as well, cf. Napoli 2006: 45−51). In
PNIE, the assignment of a verbal root to the present or aorist stem was related to the
verb’s lexical aspect (cf. Hoffmann 1970; Strunk 1994). Basically, if the root was telic
or “punctual” it would be assigned to the aorist stem, if atelic it would be assigned to
the present stem. Thus lexically telic roots like *deh3 - ‘give’, *d heh1 - ‘put, place’, and
*mer- ‘die’ all made root aorists as their basic formation (e.g., *deh3 -t ‘gave’ > Ved.
[á]-dāt). Atelic roots like *b heh2 - ‘speak’, *h1 ed- ‘eat’, *h1 ey- ‘go’ all made root
presents as their basic formation (e.g., *b heh2 -ti ‘speaks’ > Gk. p hēsí). A root with telic
lexical aspect could derive a stem with atelic grammatical aspect (i.e. the “present” stem)
via affixation − for instance, *deh3 - ‘give’ formed a reduplicating present *de-deh3 -ti

Authenticated
‘gives, is giving’. A number of different derivational affixes may derive present stems,
including a thematic vowel added to the root (*b hér-e-ti ‘bears’ > Ved. bhár-a-ti) and
a nasal-infix inserted into the root (*yeug- ‘yoke’ forms *yu-né-g-ti ‘yokes’ > Ved.
yu-ná-k-ti). Vice-versa, a root with atelic lexical aspect could derive a stem with perfec-
tive grammatical aspect (i.e. the “aorist” stem) via affixation − most commonly, by
suffixing *-s- to the root; for instance, *weg̑ h- ‘convey, move’ makes the aorist stem
*wēg̑ h-s-t ‘conveyed, moved’ (>> Lat. vēxit).
This neat picture is, however, disturbed by numerous mismatches between semantics
and root formation. For instance, one notorious example is the root *gwhen- ‘kill, slay’,
of prominent use in the Indo-European dragon-slaying myth (Watkins 1995). Given its
meaning ‘slay, kill’ one might expect a root aorist, yet it forms a root present in PIE,
*gwhén-ti (e.g., Ved. hán-ti). García Ramón (1998) proposes that the root originally
meant ‘(repeatedly) strike’, thus bringing into better accord semantics and stem forma-
tion. Similarly, lexically atelic *peh3 - ‘drink’ forms a root aorist, not a root present as
would be predicted; here too it is surmised that *peh3 - originally had a more telic mean-
ing in line with its root aorist formation, i.e. *‘take a gulp’. In the end, a number of
stubborn mismatches between lexical aspect and stem formation remain.
Two further divisions of aspect must be mentioned. The first is “predicational aspect,”
where grammatical aspect interacts with syntax. For instance, aspect may be changed in
the presence or absence of additional arguments (e.g., imperfective John reads a lot vs.
perfective John reads a book). This domain has proven fruitful for understanding the
individual daughter languages (cf. e.g., Napoli 2006: 85−128 on Homeric Greek), and
future research will likely cast light on its implementation in the PIE verb; it is, however,
situated more in the syntax, so we will omit further discussion of it here. Secondly, the
more developed notion of “state-of-affairs” (or “actionality”) is sometimes used in Indo-
European studies to describe the types of situation a verb may express (following the
seminal work by Vendler 1967). To illustrate using Ancient Greek, where the PIE situa-
tion is often thought best preserved, many studies depart from a first order distinction
between verbs expressing states vs. dynamic situations (cf. Napoli [2006, 2015], and the
overview by George 2014, both with references). States include (e.g.) eĩnai ‘be’, ék hein
‘have’, keĩsthai ‘lie’. Dynamic verbs may be either telic or atelic. If the verbal eventuality
is durative (i.e. persists through time), the telic verb is called an “accomplishment” (e.g.,
manthánein ‘learn’, poieĩn ‘create, make’); if it occurs instantaneously, the telic verb is
called an “achievement” (e.g., apokteínein ‘kill’). Atelic verbs are called “activities” if
durative, as with e.g., verbs of motion (phérein ‘carry’). Here too further research may
shed light on the structure of the PIE verb (cf. e.g., Dahl 2010 on Vedic; Weiss 2011:
377−398 gives an overview on PIE).
Whether and to what extent the PNIE system also underlies Anatolian (and is thus of
PIE age) is debated, since the Anatolian verbal system shows no obvious trace of gram-
matical aspect. In the Anatolian languages, all finite and non-finite verbal forms are
based on a single stem. Many of these stems are formed by suffixes that derive imperfec-
tive stems in the PNIE languages − for instance, the suffix *-sk̑é/ó- makes stems in
various NIE languages with the aspectual value [imperfective] (e.g., Ved. gáchati ‘goes’
<< *gwm̥-sk̑é-ti), but its Hittite reflex -ške-(z)zi modifies the lexical meaning of the verbal
stem, indicating that iteration, pluractionality, or a related notion is a property of the
event. The mere fact that PNIE has so many affixes all deriving the same functions
([imperfective, perfective]) suggests a merger of categories; at an earlier stage the suffix-

Authenticated
es would have marked varieties of lexical aspect, and it has been proposed that this stage
underlies and is reflected by Anatolian (cf. Cowgill 1974, 1979 [= Klein (ed.) 2006: 37–
68]; Strunk 1994). Melchert (1997) contests this finding, arguing that Anatolian might
have inherited a prehistoric contrast in grammatical aspect. He points to Hittite and
Luwian verbs reflecting the suffix *-ye/o- (see 4.3.1. below) exclusively in the present
stem vs. a stem lacking *-ye/o- in the preterite (e.g., Hitt. npst. karp[i]ye- ‘lift’ beside
pst. karp-). Thus Anatolian would have inherited PIE *-ye/o- as an imperfective formant
confined to the present system beside a perfective stem (i.e. a root aorist). But the
question remains an open one due to the paucity of evidence (see Melchert forthcoming
a for a recent assessment of the Anatolian data).
One further means of instantiating the imperfective vs. perfective contrast should be
noted here: stem suppletion. The notion of “suppletion” is a fraught one, since what
defines suppletion cross-linguistically has been disputed (Veselinova [2003, 2013] is
helpful for orientation and discussion). For present purposes, by “suppletion” we mean
the process whereby regular semantic relations are encoded by unpredictable formal
means. In terms of verbal suppletion according to tense and aspect, this will mean that
one root is used for one tense-aspect stem (e.g., present), a separate root is used to form
another stem (e.g., aorist). For example, in numerous IE languages, reflexes of the
present stem *b héreti ‘bears’ have only a suppletive perfective, giving well known pairs
like Gk. p hérō : ḗnegkon, Lat. ferō : tulī, TB/A pär- : kām-. On suppletion in PIE, see
García Ramón (2002) and Kölligan’s (2007) recent study of the Greek evidence (with
particular attention to diachrony).
The basic architecture of the PNIE system of present and aorist stems is exemplified
in Table 122.15:
Tab. 122.15 The PNIE system of present and aorist stems

PRESENT/IMPERFECTIVE STEM AORIST/PERFECTIVE STEM
PRESENT IMPERFECT AORIST
*de-deh3 -ti ‘gives’ *de-deh3 -t ‘was giving’ *deh3 -t ‘gave’

h h h h h
*d e-d eh1 -ti ‘places’ *d e-d eh1 -t ‘was placing’ *d eh1 -t ‘placed’
h h
*b er-e-ti ‘bears’ *b er-e-t ‘was bearing’ [suppletive]
h h
*weg̑ -e-ti ‘conveys’ *weg̑ -e-t ‘was conveying’ *wēg̑ h-s-t ‘conveyed’
4.3.1. Imperfective stem formation
Present (imperfective) stems show a wide variety of formations and we offer here an
abbreviated catalogue of verbal stem types, formally divided between athematic and
thematic, therein divided between “primary” formations (made to verbal roots) and “sec-
ondary” formations (derived verbal stems). Our catalogue aims to be a descriptive over-
view of some present types reconstructible from the IE daughter languages, with the
caveat expressed about the role of these suffixes in Anatolian. We will list the reckoning
from LIV 2 for how many roots build a given formation, often followed by how many
examples are considered “secure” by the authors. We do not accept the analysis of LIV 2

Authenticated
in every instance: the numbers are provided merely as a rough guide to current thinking
in the field. Fuller inventories of verbal stem types may be found in Jasanoff (forthcom-
ing a), Meier-Brügger (2010: 297−311) (based squarely on LIV 2), and Beekes and de
Vaan (2011: 251−286) (representative of Leiden views of the verb, which differ in many
ways from those presented here).
Root presents are formed by adding the endings to the root without overt affixation;
in LIV 2 such a present is listed for about 200 roots. Examples include 3sg. *h1 és-ti ‘is’,
3pl. *h1 s-énti ‘are’ (Hitt. ēš-zi, aš-anzi, Ved. ás-ti, s-ánti, etc.); 3sg. *h1 éy-ti ‘goes,
walks’, 3pl. *h1y-énti (CLuw. ī-ti, Ved. é-ti, etc.). A number of prominent media tantum
are root presents, e.g., PIE *k̑éy-or ‘lies’ (CLuw. ziyar[i], Ved. śáye), and *wés-(t)or
‘clothes oneself, wears’ (Hitt. wešta, Ved. váste, Gk. héstai) (cf. 4.2). A controversial
subtype is the “Narten” (or lengthened-grade) present, named in honor of Johanna Nar-
ten’s work from the 1960s. This type showed *ḗ-grade in the singular, *é-grade plural,
for which the prime example is 3sg. *stḗw-ti, 3pl. *stéw-n̥ti ‘praises’ (> Ved. stáuti, etc.).
The lengthened-grade in these root presents reflects a derived present type. Some exam-
ples form imperfective stems to root aorists: Kümmel (1998) gives (e.g.) *dḗk̑-/dék̑-
‘expect, accept’ (Ved. root dāś-, 3sg. dāṣ-ṭi ‘serves religiously’ via a semantic develop-
ment of Vedic) beside the root aorist *dék̑- (Gk. 3sg.mid. dék-to ‘received’). Other exam-
ples are arguably formed to root presents: Melchert (2014b) gives (e.g.) *h1ḗs-ti,
*h1 és-n̥ti ‘sits’ (OHitt. ēš-zi ‘is sitting’) to the aforementioned root present *h1 és-ti ‘is’.
The formation likely had an earlier aspectual nuance; Melchert suggests iterative-
durative.
molō-presents: Another kind of PIE root present had *o/e-ablaut in the root and −
according to a still controversial proposal by Jasanoff (2003a: 64−90) − inflected
with the perfect-like endings of the *h2 e-conjugation (on which see 4.2.6 above). The
verbs constituting this class are typically those of vigorous activity, such as PIE 3sg.
*b hód hh1 -ei ‘digs’ (e.g., OCS bodǫ ‘I stab’, Lith. bedù ‘I poke’ beside Hitt. paddai
‘digs’). Jasanoff names the class “molō-presents” after the Lat. outcome molō ‘I grind’,
whose cognates give evidence for both *o-grade vocalism of the root (e.g., Goth. malan
‘to grind’, Lith. malù ‘I grind’, both with a < *o) and *e-grade (e.g., OIr. melid ‘grinds’,
OCS meljǫ ‘I grind’). As in the noun, these diverse ablaut grades suggest bifurcated
levelings of a once unitary paradigm *mólh2 -/*mélh2 -. Hittite arguably provides direct
evidence for such a unitary paradigm in the ḫi-conjugation, a class that includes the
cognate verb (3sg.) Hitt. mall-(a)i ‘grinds’; although the original weak stem root vocal-
ism of this verb is obscured by sound change (3pl. mall-anzi), Hittite preserves *ó/é-
ablaut in a recessive sub-class of ā/e-ablauting ḫi-verbs, e.g., k(a)rāp-/k(a)rep- ‘devour’
(< PIE *ghrób h-/*ghréb h- ‘seize’), š(a)rāp-/š(a)rep- ‘sip’ (< *srób h-/*sréb h- ‘id.’).
Kloekhorst (2012, 2014) disputes this evidence, arguing that the ḫi-conjugation in Hittite
reflects only *o/0̸ ablaut, but his alternative inner-Hittite derivation of the weak stem
e-vocalism of this class cannot be maintained − for instance, the root e-vowel in the
verbs cited above cannot be epenthetic, since there is no plausible phonological or mor-
phological motivation for epenthesis in this environment (see Melchert 2013; cf. Yates
2015: 154−155, 166 n. 43).
Reduplicated athematic presents: Partial copy reduplication is another major device
for forming present stems to root aorists. Two types of reduplicated presents may be
formally distinguished, an athematic and a thematic (treated below). The athematic type
is well attested in Greek and Indo-Iranian, but with formal differences − in particular, in

Authenticated
the vocalism of the reduplicant − that problematize its reconstruction. In Greek, all
reduplicated presents have fixed i-segmentism in the reduplicant, e.g., WGk. hí-stā-mi
‘I stand’ (beside root aorist stem WGk. stā-), tí-t hē-mi ‘I place’ (beside root aorist stem
t hē-). In contrast, Indo-Iranian has reduplicated presents with i-, a- (< *e) and even u-
vocalism of the reduplicant, e.g., Ved. í-yar-ti ‘moves’ (beside root aorist stem ar-); Ved.
dá-dhā-ti (= OAv. da-dāi-tī) ‘places’ (beside root aorist stem dhā-); Ved. ju-hó-ti ‘pours’.
While the last type, which occurs only when the verbal root contains u, is generally
regarded as an innovation, both *e- and *i-reduplicated forms are usually viewed as
inherited − for instance, LIV 2 reconstructs two distinct athematic reduplicated presents
for PIE, one with fixed *e- segmentism, another with *i. Yet while this “maximal”
reconstruction is possible, it still does not straightforwardly account for the mismatch
between Vedic and Greek in cognate lexical items (e.g., Gk. tí-t hē-mi, Ved. dá-dhā-mi <
PIE *dV́ -d heh1 -mi ‘I place’), or for the fact that a few roots are attested in Indo-Iranian
with both *e- and *i-reduplicated forms, e.g., Ved. 3sg. sí-ṣak-ti (= YAv. hišhaxti) vs.
3pl. sá-śc-ati (: sac- ‘accompany’), Ved. 3sg. jí-gāt-i vs. fossilized prs.act.ptcp. já-g-at-
‘(moving) world’ (: gā- ‘go’). Various other interpretations of this evidence have been
advanced. Jasanoff (2003a: 128−132) contends that PIE had only *e-reduplicated
presents in the *m-conjugation, arguing that *i-reduplicated athematic presents in Greek
and Vedic are due to the analogical influence of PNIE thematic *i-reduplicated presents,
which would ultimately derive from PIE *h2 e-conjugation *i-reduplicated forms (see
below). Another possibility − proposed already by Hirt (1900: 190−193) and further
developed in recent scholarship (Sandell 2011; Hill and Frotscher 2012) − is that all
athematic presents descend from a single PIE paradigm in which the reduplicant had
two allomorphs, one with *e-vocalism and one with *i-vocalism; this intraparadigmatic
allomorphy would then have been leveled out separately in the individual languages.
Dempsey (2015: 339−341) suggests that this hypothesis better explains the situation in
Anatolian, where reduplicated *h2 e-conjugation verbs may have either fixed *e- or *i-
segmentism in the reduplicant (with no corresponding functional difference) − e.g., Hitt.
we-wakk-i (: wek- ‘demand’) vs. Hitt. li-lḫuwa-i (: laḫ[ḫ]u- ‘pour’). However, there is
not yet scholarly consensus on this issue.
Nasal-infix presents: An ablauting nasal-infix *-ne/n- is one of the commonest means
for making present stems to root aorists: in LIV 2 it is reconstructed for 248 roots (168
secure). An example is the root *yeug- ‘yoke’: the infix is inserted after the first syllable
of the (zero-grade) root to derive a present 3sg. *yu-né-g-ti, 3pl. *yu-n-g-énti ‘yokes’
(> Ved. yu-ná-k-ti, yu-ñ-j-ánti), beside the root aorist *yeug-t (> OAv. yaogəṭ; cf. 1sg.
Ved. yójam). The formation is well attested across a number of branches and is tradition-
ally divided into three varieties based on the consonantal quality of the final segment of
the root into which *-né/n- was inserted: (i) a final obstruent, e.g., aforementioned *yu-
né-g-ti; (ii) final laryngeal, *k wreyh2 - ‘buy’ > *k wri-né-h2 -ti ‘buys’ (Ved. krī-ṇā-ti, TB
3sg.mid. kärn-ās-tär); or (iii) glide *-w-, e.g., *k̑lew- ‘hear’ > *k̑l̥ -né-w-ti, *k̑l̥ -n-w-énti
‘hears’ (Ved. śr̥-ṇó-ti). The sequence *-n(e)w- was reinterpreted as a suffix already in
PIE and added suffixally (not infixally) to roots, e.g., *str̥-néw-ti ‘strews’ (Ved. str̥-ṇó-
ti). Although in the NIE languages it is mainly attested as a present stem formant beside
root aorists (cf. Strunk 1967), there is some evidence to suggest that the infix may have
earlier had a valency-increasing role. The infix is clearly transitivizing in pairs like
(transitive) Hitt. ḫar-ni(n)-k- ‘kill’ (also ḫarg[a]nu- ‘id.’) beside (unaccusative) ḫark-
‘die’. In at least one case there is comparative evidence for a transitive/causative nasal-

Authenticated
infix verb derived from an adjective: Hitt. tep-nu-zi ‘belittles’ and Ved. dabh-nó-ti ‘de-
ceives’ (cf. 2pl. OAv. dəbənaotā) directly reflect PIE *d heb h-né-u-ti ‘belittles’ (from
*d heb h-ú- ‘little, small’). Moreover, the related nasal suffix PIE *-n(é)w- is highly pro-
ductive in valency-increasing derivation in the Anatolian languages, e.g., Hitt. link-
‘swear’ : ling(a)nu- ‘make swear’; HLuw. ta- ‘stand’ : tanu(wa)- ‘make stand’ (cf. Lur-
aghi 2012). Accordingly, Meiser (1993) has argued that the nasal infix was originally
valency-increasing and only secondarily used as a means for deriving present stems. It
is, however, noteworthy that higher transitivity aligns cross-linguistically with perfective,
not imperfective, aspect (see Hopper and Thompson 1980); the nasal-infix should thus
be expected to derive a PIE aorist, not present, stem (see too Clackson 2007: 151−155).
*-eh1 -stative/fientives: Presents formed with *-eh1 -ye/o- make stative as well as
change of state verbs across a wide swath of IE languages. Such presents are sometimes
made to a verbal root (e.g., Lat. hab-ē-re ‘to have’, OCS bǔd-ě-ti ‘to be awake’, Lith.
bud-ė́ -ti ‘to be awake’) and are sometimes deadjectival (e.g., Hitt. marš-e-zzi ‘be false’
to marš-a-, Lith. sen-ė́ -ti ‘to grow old’ to sẽn-as). The deadjectival forms have been
derived from “Caland” adjectives since Watkins (1971). Greek has present forms reflect-
ing the *-eh1 -stative (type tharséō ‘am bold’; cf. Tucker 1990), but additionally the
intransitive (“passive”) aorist is formed with *-eh1 - (e.g., e-mán-ē ‘went mad’), which
is hard to square with the evidence from the other languages. Harðarson (1998) posits
that *-eh1 - formations were at home in the aorist (privileging the Greek evidence) and
calls the type “fientive” (i.e. change of state) meaning ‘to become X’; presents to the
fientive would be derived via further suffixation as *-h1 -ye/o-, named “essives,” which
some languages reformed as *-eh1 -ye/o-. This account was taken over wholesale by the
influential LIV2. The categories “essive” and “fientive” are both rejected by Jasanoff
(2003b), in part on the phonological grounds that *-h1 -ye/o- would infringe “Pinault’s
Law” (cf. Byrd, this handbook; note, though, that Byrd suggests restricting the law to
*h2 , *h3 ). Jasanoff reconstructs instead a suffix *-eh1 -ye/o-, which he derives from the
predicatively used instr.sg. of a root noun in *-eh1 , e.g., *h1rud h-éh1 ‘with redness’ >
*h1rud h-éh1 -yé/ó- ‘be(come) with redness, blush’ (> Lat. rub-ē-re ‘to be red, ruddy’).
On the basis of the reanalyzed stative stem the daughter languages created or extended
other formations including: change of state verbs in *-eh1 -s- in Hittite; verbal abstracts
(infinitives) in *-eh1 -ti- in Balto-Slavic; and intransitive aorists in bare *-eh1 - in Greek.
The matter has not been settled: Yakubovich (2014) presents an overview of the problem;
Bozzone (2016) builds on Jasanoff’s scenario, with further typological considerations.
*-h2 -factitives (the “newaḫḫi”-type): When added to thematic adjectives, the factitive
suffix *-h2 - derives transitive verbs. Examples include the class’s eponymous Hitt.
newa-ḫḫ-i ‘make something new’ (< *newe-h2 -ei; cf. Hitt. nēwa- ‘new’). Other lan-
guages probably reflect the *-h2 -suffix only in its extended form *-h2 -ye/o-; for instance,
the extra-Anatolian comparanda for newaḫḫi include Lat. nou-ā-re ‘make something
new’ and the rare Gk. verb neáō ‘plough up (fallow land)’ (both from extended
*newe-h2 -ye/o-). The derivation remains productive in Italic, e.g., Lat. sānus ‘healthy’ 0
sānāre ‘heal’, etc.; see further Watkins (1971: 61, 85−86) and Jasanoff (2003a: 139−141).
“Simple” thematic presents: Roots with an affixed thematic vowel *-e/o- are a bed-
rock formation of PNIE; Rix and Kümmel (2001) lists 426 roots (224 secure) that make
simple thematic presents. Examples include *b hér-e-ti ‘bears, carries’ (e.g., Ved. bhárati;
cf. 4.2.5), *h2 ég̑-e-ti ‘leads, drives’ (Ved. ájati, Lat. agit, Arm. 1sg. acem, etc.). Simple
thematic presents are often found beside other present types in the daughter languages

Authenticated
(e.g., athematic 3sg.prs. Lat. fer-t ‘bears, carries’ < *b hēr-ti). Jasanoff (1998) has argued
that simple thematic presents in the IE languages come from at least two historically
distinct sources, as indicated by their relationships to other present formations, and the
kinds of aorists they co-occur with. The *b hér-e-ti type occurs beside other present
formations (e.g.*b hēr-ti > Lat. fer-t) and makes a suppletive aorist (both *b hér-e-ti and
*h2 ég̑e-ti make suppletive aorists). A second type, whose present is formally identical,
is represented by (e.g.) *wég̑ h-e-ti ‘conveys’ (Ved. váhati, Lat. vehit, etc.), which does
not have competing present formations, and makes its aorist stem with the s-aorist
(*wēg̑ h-s-t >> Lat. vēxit). This evidence would indicate that the two thematic present
types derive from historically distinct origins, a conclusion bolstered by their “fit” within
the chronology of IE dialects. That is, the *wég̑ heti type does not occur in Anatolian;
whether the *b héreti type does is disputed. Many researchers find an isolated example
of the *b héreti type in HLuw. [tammari]* ‘builds’ (in transcription: AEDIFICARE +
MI-ra/i + i), which could derive from PIE *dém(h2 )-e-ti with thematic cognates in Gk.
dém-ō ‘build’ and Goth. ga-timan ‘fit’ (but cf. Lehrman [1998] for a dissenting view).
The rarity − and possibly complete absence − of both present types in Anatolian is
striking and suggests that both types could represent post-Anatolian innovations. Tochar-
ian knows thematic presents of the *b héreti type (Toch. class II presents and subjunc-
tives) but in reduced numbers; arguably the *wég̑ h-e-ti type does not occur in Tocharian,
and therefore represents a PNIE innovation. Ringe (2000) leverages the dearth of such
presents in Anatolian and Tocharian to suggest an early branching off of these languages,
a view Malzahn (2010: 363−366) disputes. Fitting the simple thematic type of PNIE into
the picture of the earlier PIE verb is an ongoing project.
tudáti-presents: Zero-grade presents with accented thematic vowel − known as
“tudáti”-presents after the canonical class VI present of Sanskrit grammar tudáti
‘strikes’ − are considerably less well-represented than simple thematic presents; in LIV 2
it is reconstructed for 52 roots (20 secure). Significantly, at least one example of this
class is found in Anatolian: Hitt. šuwe-zzi ‘pushes away, shoves’ forms an equation with
Ved. suv-á-ti ‘impels’ and OIr. soïd ‘turns’ < *suhx -é-ti ‘pushes’ (with Oettinger 1979:
279; pace Kloekhorst 2008: 797−798). It has often been thought that this present class,
with its preference for markedly telic activities in Vedic, might have developed from
aspectually shifted thematic aorists; the imperfect of the zero-grade present and the the-
matic aorist are formally identical (e.g., imperfect *suhx -é-t ‘pushed’ and aor. *wid-é-t
‘found’; on the aorist type see below). Because these presents are held to have their
origins in aorists, the class sometimes goes by the unfortunate name “aorist presents.”
The early diachronic development of the tudáti-presents is in need of further investiga-
tion (on the Vedic material see Hill 2007 and now Malzahn 2016). A number of tudáti-
presents are made to roots in final -i- in Old Indic (e.g., sy-á-ti ‘binds’ to root say-/si-,
cf. Kulikov 2000); Jasanoff (2003a: 105−107) argues that these represent part of a wider
class of presents with an *-i- suffix in the protolanguage.
Thematic reduplicated presents: A thematic reduplicated type is also found beside the
athematic type discussed above. An example is *g̑i-g̑n(h1 )-e-ti > Lat. gi-gn-i-t, Gk.
gí-gn-e-tai (deponent mid. beside root aorist *g̑enh1 -to > Gk. e-géneto). In some cases,
thematic reduplicated presents have athematic reduplicated cognates (see above) in other
NIE languages, e.g., Lat. si-st-ō, Ved. tí-ṣṭha-ti vs. WGk. hí-stā-mi (cf. root aorist PIE
*stéh2 -t ‘stood’). The etymological equation between thematic reduplicated present Gk.
mí-mn-ō ‘I stand fast’ and *h2 e- conjugation i-reduplicated Hitt. mimma-i ‘refuses’

Authenticated
points to a diachronic connection between these categories, and it has been argued,
specifically, that some (if not all) PNIE reduplicated thematic presents arise via “themati-
zation” of PIE *h2 e-conjugation *i-reduplicated presents (see esp. Jasanoff 2003a: 128−
132; García Ramón 2010; cf. 4.2.5).
*-yé/ó-presents: The suffix *-ye/o- is a thematic present formation only (i.e. there is
no aorist *-ye/o-). A prominent type has accented suffix and zero-grade root, many exam-
ples of which are deponent, including the roots of birth and death: *mr̥-yé-tor ‘dies’ >
Ved. mri-yá-te, Lat. mor-i-tur; *g̑n̥h1 -yé-tor ‘is born’ > OIr. gain-i-thir, cf. Ved. jā́-ya-te;
and *mn̥-yé-tor ‘thinks’ >> Ved. mán-ya-te, Gk. maíne-tai ‘rages’. In Indo-Iranian, this
suffix, accented and with middle inflection, becomes specialized as a present passive
marker (e.g., 3sg. -yá-te; cf. 4.2); Kulikov (2012) is an extensive treatment of the Vedic
evidence. *-ye/o- is also the normal denominative suffix forming verbs that mean ‘be,
become, act like X’. Examples include Ved. vr̥ṣā-yá-te ‘acts like a bull (vr̥ṣan-)’, Gk.
poimaínō ‘I am a herdsman (a poimḗn)’ < *poh2i-mn̥-yō (cf. Tucker 1988). A number
of primary *-ye/o- presents give evidence for an accented full grade of the root, such as
*(s)pék̑-ye-ti ‘sees, looks at’ (> Ved. páś-ya-ti); in LIV 2 this full-grade formation is
considered a distinct type made to 50 roots (19 secure).
*-sk̑é/ó-presents: The suffix *-sk̑é/ó- with the zero-grade of the root formed thematic
presents in PNIE. Examples include *gwm̥-sk̑é/ó- ‘be walking’ (Ved. gáchati ‘goes’,
2sg.imp. Gk. báske ‘go!’, TA kumnäṣtär ‘comes’), and the widespread item *pr̥k̑-sk̑é-
‘ask’ (Ved. pr̥cháti, Lat. poscit, OIr. -airc). In PNIE, the suffix derives present stems
especially to root aorists, with further innovations and extensions defining the daughter
languages (see Zerdin 1999, 2002 on this issue with special reference to Greek). There
are, however, sufficient indications to reconstruct its earlier aspectual functions. In Hit-
tite, the suffix -ške- derives an aspectual stem whose function can be iterative, habitual,
and pluractional (cf. Hoffner and Melchert 2008: 318−322). In Tocharian B, reflexes of
the suffix *-sk̑e/o-, viz. -ṣṣə-/-ske-, form class IX presents (e.g., we-skau, we-ṣṣäṃ ‘say’),
but the suffix is mostly used in the present (and subjunctive) to form the causative −
e.g., to the root wik- ‘disappear’ is formed a causative present 3sg. wikäṣṣäṃ ‘drives
away, removes’. Peyrot (2013: 515−524) has recently presented new arguments that the
Tocharian A class VIII presents in -s-/-ṣ- (“s-transitives” in his terminology) − tradition-
ally held to reflect presents in *-s-e/o- − derive via inner-Tocharian changes from the
*-sk̑é/ó- suffix as well. This causative feature is usually understood as an inner Tocharian
development (recently Adams 2014 with references). Li and Whaley (forthcoming) argue
on cross-linguistic grounds that there is a grammaticalization cline of intensive > causa-
tive > reciprocal; Tocharian would perhaps fit into this schema. One intriguing detail is
that the suffix makes iterative and durative stems not only in Anatolian but also an
iterative preterite in -(e)skon in the Ionic dialect of Greek; Puhvel (1991: 13−20) and
Watkins (2001: 58−59 [= Watkins 2008: 954−955]) plausibly attribute the spread (or
rebirth) of the iterative functions of this suffix to diffusion from Anatolian to the Greek
speakers of the Ionic coast.
*-eye/o-causative-iteratives: A thematic formation in *R(o)-éye/o-, making transitive
and causative verbs, is widespread across the languages; in LIV 2 it is reconstructed to
400 roots (237 secure). Examples include *men- ‘think’ > *mon-éye- ‘call to mind’
(> Lat. monēre ‘warn’) and *sed-‘sit’ > *sod-éye- ‘set something’ (> Goth. satjan ‘to
set, plant’). Two etymological equations set the date of this formation back to PIE an-
tiquity: Hitt. lukke-zzi ‘lights up, sets ablaze’ was taken by Watkins (1971: 69) to derive

Authenticated
from a causative *louk-éye/o- seen also in e.g., Ved. rocáyati ‘makes shine’, Lat. lūceō,
-ēre ‘ignite, light’; and Hitt. waššezzi ‘clothes (someone)’ continues *wos-éye/o-, to be
equated with Ved. vāsáyati, Goth. wasjiþ (PGmc. *waz-jan, also Eng. wear), Alb. vesh,
as demonstrated by Eichner (1969). The formation knows a particularly rich development
in its Old Indic avatar, the -áya-presents (extensively studied by Jamison 1983). In cer-
tain languages, there are also verbs formed with the suffix that have iterative meaning.
Kölligan (2007) argues that in the case of Latin the distinction depends on the agentivity
of the base verb: if the base is agentive, the derived verb is iterative-intensive; if the
base verb is non-agentive, the derived verb is transitive-causative. It is possible that both
meanings of iterativity and transitivity-increase were available in the proto-language (see
also Kölligan 2004). In some languages, the reflexes of *R(o)-éye/o- have merged with
denominal verbs made to *o-grade nominals; Greek is a case in point (discussed in detail
by Tucker 1990: 123−184).
4.3.2. Perfective stem formation
There were fewer types of aorists − we reconstruct four − but still diversity is found. As
in the present system, the redundancy of four formal markers expressing one functional
category suggests that early mergers define the prehistoric development of the aorist.
Athematic root aorists: As is the case with the athematic root presents, the (secondary)
endings are added directly to the root. Thus *d heh1 - ‘place’ formed a root aorist *d heh1 -t
‘placed, put down’, reflected in Ved. dhā́-t, Gk. é-t hē-k-e (whose older k-less form is
preserved in Boeot. Gk. [an]-é-t hē). Root aorists typically form their present stems by
further affixation; Gk. é-t hēke is the root aorist to the reduplicated present tít hēmi ‘I
place, set something’. PNIE root aorists show up in Anatolian as stems that can form
presents; thus beside the inherited root aorist *d heh1 -t ‘placed, put down’ (> Hitt. tēt
‘said’) are attested Hitt. tē-zzi ‘says’ and Lyc. ta-di ‘puts’, and beside the root aorist
*k wer-t (> Ved. [á]kar ‘made’) is found Hitt. kuer-zi, kuranzi ‘cut(s)’ and CLuw. kuwar-
ti, kur- ‘id.’. The Anatolian forms are usually explained as innovations, when old aorists
were retrofitted with new primary endings, in this case *d héh1 -t-i ‘places’; Malzahn (2010:
267−268, et passim) calls this process of morphological renewal the “tēzzi-principle.”
*s-aorists: Athematic *s-suffixed aorists (“sigmatic aorists”) are a widespread aorist
type in PNIE. The *s-aorist and its offshoots make up the most productive aorist type
in Greek, Indo-Iranian, and Slavic (although it is notably absent from Baltic); further-
more, relics are uncontroversially found in Latin, Celtic, and elsewhere. From the PNIE
languages, a formation with lengthened grade root and secondary endings may be recon-
structed; e.g., the root *weg̑ h- ‘convey, move’ forms an s-aorist *wḗg̑ h-s-t (Lat. vēxit
‘conveyed’, Ved. ávāṭ, etc.). Despite this agreement between the NIE languages, recon-
structing the *s-aorist for PIE − including Tocharian and Anatolian − is beset with
difficulties. Some connection of the Tocharian s-preterite (pret. class III) with the PNIE
*s-aorist is universally accepted; the nature of that connection, however, remains elusive.
Essentially the following three positions have been advanced: (i) the Tocharian s-preterite
derives wholly from the s-aorist; (ii) it represents instead a conflation to some extent
with the PIE perfect; or (iii) it reflects an ancestor of the PNIE aorist, namely a “pre-
sigmatic aorist” (see the review of literature in Malzahn 2010: 208−214). No proposal

Authenticated
has yet won universal accord; recent investigations of this problem may be found in the
volume edited by Malzahn et al. (2015), especially the contributions therein by Kim,
Melchert, and Oettinger (all against the pre-sigmatic aorist). Even more difficult to pin
down is the prehistory of this form in Anatolian. There is widespread agreement that the
Hittite preterite third singulars of the ḫi-conjugation like nai-š ‘turned’ and the *s-aorist
(cf. to the same root Ved. á-nāi-ṣ-am ‘I led’) are historically related (from very different
viewpoints see Oettinger 1979: 405 and Jasanoff 2003a: 174−214), but there is no agree-
ment on what that relationship is. Jasanoff’s innovative proposal (for which see already
Jasanoff 1988, and also his account in this handbook) has not won general acceptance
(as witnessed by the critical remarks of Kim 2005: 194 and Oettinger 2006: 43−44, i.a.),
and the issue remains unsettled at present. Further studies on the developments of the
*s-aorist in the ancient Indo-European languages include Drinka (1995), Narten (1964)
on Vedic, Schumacher (2004) on Celtic, and Ackermann (2014) on Slavic.
Reduplicated thematic aorists: The reduplicated thematic aorist is not widely attested,
but the examples look old; LIV 2 reconstructs it for only 18 roots (5 secure). Examples
include the root *wek w- ‘say’, which makes a reduplicated aorist *we-uk w-e-t ‘said’
(> Ved. vóc-a-t, Av. -vaocaṯ, Gk. [w]eĩp-e), and *werh1 - ‘find’ > *we-wr(h1 )-e/o-
‘found’ (> Gk. heũr-e, OIr. fo-fuair). Willi (2007) argues that the reduplication seen in
the reduplicated aorist was a marker of aspectual perfectivity in PIE. Besides Indo-
Iranian examples like Ved. vócat ‘said’ (< *we-uk w-e-t), there is also attested in Vedic a
reduplicated preterite regularly aligned with the -áya- transitives (discussed above under
*-éye/o-presents), e.g., Ved. darś-áya-ti ‘shows, makes see’ beside the aorist a-dī-dr̥ś-ųa-t.
The fact that the reduplicant in this class regularly contains the vowels -i-, -u- (not -a-)
leads Jamison (1983: 216−219) to argue that it derives from a different historical source
than the PIE reduplicated aorist, viz. imperfects to the reduplicated present.
In a number of daughter languages, the reduplicated aorist is valency increasing;
Ancient Greek is a case in point (Duhoux 2000: 79−80). Bendahman (1993: 61−100,
140−170) finds in Greek about 30 reduplicated aorist stems, which fall into two types: (i)
roots referring to prototypically transitive events with an agentive subject form transitive
reduplicated aorists, *gwhén-ti ‘strikes’ 0 *gwhe-gwhn-e/o- ‘struck’ (> Gk. pép hn-e
‘slew’ = YAv. -jaγnat̰ ); (ii) roots referring to prototypically intransitive events form tran-
sitive reduplicated aorists, e.g., *h2 er- ‘fit’ 0 *h2 e-h2 r-e/o- (>> Gk. arareĩn ‘to make
fit [tr.], to adapt’). Similarly the reduplicated aorist underlies the productive “causative”
formation in Tocharian A, viz. its class II preterite (e.g., ca-cäl ‘lifted’ to the root täl (ā)
‘lift’ < *telh2 -; cf. Malzahn 2010: 172−173 on the function of this preterite). Whether
the TB preterite II can also be derived from the reduplicated aorist is not certain; see
Malzahn (2010: 184−189) for an overview of the question and, in addition, the recent
analysis of Jasanoff (2012b), who books the TB forms under “long-vowel preterites,” a
class which he derives from the imperfects of “Narten presents” (see above under root
presents). It is possible that the cross-linguistically common alignment of high transitivi-
ty and telicity (cf. Hopper and Thompson 1980: 270−276; Wagner 2006) feeds the devel-
opment of transitivity in this class of aorists, though the fact that not all types of aorists
become transitivizing implies a more complicated evolution.
Thematic aorists: Aorists with zero-grade root and accented thematic vowel are
known from at least two equations: PNIE *wid-é-t ‘saw, found out’ (> Ved. 3sg.
á-vid-a-t, Gk. é-[w]id-e, Arm. e-git), and *h1lud h-é-t ‘went out’ (> Gk. ḗlut h-e ‘came’,
OIr. luid ‘went’, TA läc, TB lac ‘went out’). The latter example in particular demon-

Authenticated
strates the PIE antiquity of the thematic aorist, since it is continued in languages where
the category was by no means productive (Old Irish and Tocharian). Cardona (1960)
analyzes most thematic aorists in Greek and Indo-Iranian as thematized root aorists, and
considers only the two examples cited above to be of PIE antiquity, although the fact
that we have these two examples suggests that more existed in the protolanguage. LIV 2
unaccountably fails to reckon with a thematic aorist; for one account of the type’s origins
(ultimately a type of imperfect reanalyzed as an aorist) see Jasanoff (forthcoming b).
4.3.3 Perfect stem formation
“Perfect” stems exhibit far less formal diversity than present and aorist stems; there is
effectively one type of perfect, which is set off from the system of present and aorist
stems in several formal and functional ways. The perfect is formed by partial copy
reduplication (with fixed e-segmentism in the reduplicant) and *o/0̸-ablaut in the root.
The inflectional endings of the perfect (active) are distinct from the present/aorist active
endings (cf. 4.2). Examples include *men- ‘think’ 0 3sg. *me-món-e ‘has in mind’
(> 3sg. Gk. mémone ‘intends’, cf. Lat. meminit ‘remembers’), 3pl. *me-mn-ḗr; *gwhen-
‘strike’ 0 3sg. *gwhe-gwhón-e ‘has slain’ (> 3sg. Ved. ja-ghā́n-a), 3pl. *gwhe-gwhn-ḗr.
Another formal peculiarity of the perfect is its distinctive active participle suffix *-wós-
(contrast the eventive’s *-nt-). There is one certain example of a PIE root that makes an
unreduplicated perfect: *woíd-e ‘knows’ (Gk. [w]oĩd-e, 1pl. [w]íd-men, Ved. véd-a 1pl.
vid-mā́, Goth. wait, witum, etc.). It has long been disputed whether this form represents
an archaism (i.e. reflecting a pre-stage when perfect stems were formed without redupli-
cation), an innovation, or is something else entirely (for one account see Jasanoff 2003a:
234−246 with references, but compare now Jasanoff forthcoming b).
Beyond these formal differences, it is notable that the perfect’s semantic value is
resultative-stative, again setting it apart from the eventive system. The three-way split
between present, aorist, and perfect stems survives only in Greek and Indo-Iranian, and
it is therefore only in these two branches that semantic distinctions between these catego-
ries can be investigated. Early Greek is thought to be most conservative in reflecting the
value of the PNIE perfect: Wackernagel (1904) established that in Homeric Greek a
perfect can have the meanings of a present state and/or a resulting state (cf. further
Wackernagel 1926−1928 [2009]: 215−220 with the editor’s notes, and Chantraine 1926).
The value of the perfect in Indo-Iranian is broadly harmonious with that of Greek; in a
thorough investigation of the category, Kümmel (2000: 65−78) shows that the Indo-
Iranian perfect divides into a stative-like perfect and a past perfect, which refers to a
greater or lesser extent to the present value relevance of a past action. However, on the
particulars of the perfect in Vedic a number of questions remain. Dahl (2010: 343−424),
for instance, argues that the primary meaning is anteriority, a result critically reviewed
by Jamison (2014), who disputes that any overarching function of the perfect can be
established for the Rigveda due to the heterogeneous nature of the text. The diversity of
functions in earliest Vedic would reflect ongoing diachronic change from the resultative-
stative value of PIE, found in earliest Vedic, to the anterior meaning found more consist-
ently in its use as a preterital narrative perfect in later Vedic, regularly in Epic and
Classical Sanskrit. The precise functional value of the perfect in Old Indic is thus a topic

Authenticated
still undergoing investigation (see now also Jamison 2017). For further analysis of the
PIE perfect, see the three-volume study by Di Giovine (1990−1996).
The status of the perfect in Anatolian is unsettled and inextricably bound up with
one’s views on the foundational question of the prehistory of the ḫi-conjugation (a help-
ful introduction to this complex problem is given by Clackson 2007: 129−156). Deriving
the ḫi-conjugation as a whole from the perfect is simply not viable in the wake of
Jasanoff’s (2003a: 1−27) criticism (following esp. Cowgill 1974, 1979). Whether any
Anatolian items reflect the perfect is disputed. Jasanoff (2003a: 11, 37, 117−18) claims
that Hitt. wewakk- ‘demand’ and mēm(a)i- ‘speak’ descend from PIE perfects, and
Forssman (1994) argues that Hitt. šipand- ‘libate’ continues a perfect *spe-spónd-; how-
ever, Jasanoff (forthcoming b) now derives wewakk- ‘demand’ and mēm(a)i- ‘speak’
(and other apparent non-resultative perfects like Gk. mémēke ‘bleats’) from reduplicated
*h2 e-presents with a strong stem *Cé-CoC-ei, while deriving the PNIE resultative-stative
perfect from reduplicated *h2 e-aorists with a strong stem *Ce-CóC-e (cf. 4.2.6 above).
If Hitt. šipand- ‘libate’ reflects a reduplicated stem at all, its attested telic sense argues
that it represents a reduplicated *h2 e-aorist *se-spónd- (Melchert 2016b).
4.4. Non-finite formations
PNIE made participles to each tense-aspect stem and for the two voices of active and
middle. Yet again, Anatolian does not conform to this model, and we address below the
specific points at which Anatolian problematizes the deeper PIE reconstruction. No sin-
gle marker for the category infinitive can be reconstructed for the protolanguage since
the daughter languages disagree too greatly on how the category is marked, although the
fact that numerous daughter branches build infinitives with case-forms of abstract nouns
strongly suggests that the proto-language similarly employed such forms in nascent infin-
itival functions.
4.4.1. Participles
Morphologically, participles attach to tense-aspect stems (present, aorist, perfect), mak-

ing verbal formations with adjectival agreement features. No recent work devoted entire-
ly to participles in PIE exists; Lowe (2015) is a thoroughgoing account of participles in
the Rigveda, with diachronic material throughout. Lowe (2015: 5−6, 226−294) proposes
to define participles along the cline of an adjective’s status as an inflectional part of the
verb system. Thus participles are defined as non-finite, inflectional forms of verbs, which
are morphologically adjectival. As inflectional forms, participles convey adjectival
agreement of case, number, and gender with their head noun; morphologically, participles
mark the verbal categories of voice (active and middle) and tense-aspect. The participle
is defined in distinction to verbal adjectives, which are lexical adjectives that display
some verbal properties. A deciding criterion between participle and verbal adjective is
whether the adjective obligatorily inherits the argument structure of the base verb from
which it is derived; participles in Vedic always inherit the argument structure of the base,
but with deverbal adjectives this may, but need not, be the case.

Authenticated
Present/aorist active participle: In PNIE, the active participle to present and aorist
stems is formed by an ablauting suffix *-ont/nt- (fem. *-nt-ih2 -). Thematic forms were
*-o-nt-, while in athematic verbs the suffix was added to the weak stem − for instance,
*h1 es- ‘be’ makes a prs.act.ptcp. *h1 s-ónt- ‘being’ (cf. Lat. sōns ‘guilty’ and in-sōns
‘innocent’, relics from *h1 s-ónt-s; Watkins 1967). In thematic verbs, the zero-grade suf-
fix was added to the thematic vowel, as in *b hér-o-nt- ‘bearing’ (Gk. p hér-o-nt-). Simi-
larly, *-nt- could be added to aorist stems.
The Anatolian cognate of *-nt- presents several serious discrepancies. The Hittite
cognate of the participial suffix *-nt-, viz. -ā̆nt-, regularly expresses a resultant state:
Hitt. kunant- means ‘killed, having been killed’ (not ‘killing’), a meaning matched resid-
ually in Luwian and Lycian relics, as in CLuw. walant(i)-/ulant(i)- ‘dead’, Lyc. lãta-
‘dead’. In the case of transitive verbs, the Anatolian participles show usually a passive,
but sometimes an active sense, e.g., Hitt. šekkant- ‘knowing/known’, appānt- ‘taken,
seized’. This state of affairs contrasts with other IE languages, as illustrated by Hitt.
kunant- ‘killed’ beside its cognate in Vedic ghnánt- ‘smashing, killing’ (though see Wat-
kins 1969: 142−144 for possible relics of passive meaning of the *-nt-participle). In
general, then, the Hitt. -nt-participle in functional terms most closely resembles PNIE
*-to-/*-no- adjectives. Precisely how to derive the Anatolian or non-Anatolian attested
function from the other remains an unsolved problem (Melchert forthcoming b and Fell-
ner and Grestenberger forthcoming propose possible step-by-step diachronic scenarios).
It may be noted that a formally identical suffix *-ntis also used outside the verbal
system to build adjectives to property concept roots (within the “Caland system”, Rau
2009a: 176−177 et passim). For instance, Ved. br̥hánt- ‘high’, Av. bərəzaṇt- ‘id.’, TA
kom-pärkānt ‘sunrise’, etc. all derive from the root *b herg̑ h- ‘high’, whose meaning is
typical of property concept roots, and which builds adjectival stems (this example was
identified already by Caland 1892: 267). Verbal stems formed to this root are sporadical-
ly attested (see further Lowe 2014a: 283−294).
Middle participle: The middle participle (present, aorist, perfect) is reconstructible as
athematic *-mh1 no-, thematic *-o-mh1 no-. The comparative method requires the recon-
struction of this peculiar suffix shape, as showed by Klingenschmitt (1975: 161−163);
the suffix is certainly composite in diachronic terms, although its internal structure is
opaque. The suffix is found as a productive participle marker in Indo-Iranian (Ved.
[athem.] -āná-, [them.] -a-māná-), Greek ([pfc.] -ménos, [pres.] -menos), and Tocharian
(TA -māṃ, TB -mane). In other languages, mere vestiges remain, such as Arm. anasown
‘animal’ < *n̥-h2 eg̑-omno- lit. ‘non-speaking’, and Latin relics include fēmina ‘woman’
and alumnus ‘nursling’ (cf. Weiss 2011: 437). There is no trace of this participle in
Anatolian; for arguments against Luwian -Vmma- as a reflex of *-mh1 no-, see Melchert
(2014a: 206−207).
Perfect participle: The perfect participle active was formed with the ablauting suffix
*-wos/us- (f.*-us-ih2 -) added to the perfect stem. The formation is clearly continued into
a number of daughter languages, as in Myc. Gk. a-ra-ru-wo-a [arar(u)-woh-a] ‘fitted’
(n.nom.pl.), Ved. ca-kr̥-vā́ṃs-am (m.acc.sg.) / ca-kr-úṣ-ī (f.nom.sg.) to the root kr̥/kar-
‘make’. Forms of the perfect participle active are continued in languages where the
perfect has been lost as a finite category; it is found in Tocharian’s preterite participle,
e.g., TB kekamu/kekamoṣ (root käm- ‘come’ + -u < *-wos-), and remade in Balto-Slavic
(details in Olander 2015: 94−95). A curious trace of the formation survives in Goth.
berusjos ‘parents’ (reflecting the feminine *-us-yeh2 -). Possible vestiges remain in Italic

Authenticated
(see Vine, this handbook, 7.3.1.2.); no trace has been found in Armenian or Albanian.
With greater consequences for PIE, the perfect participle active is absent from Anatolian;
it is highly likely that this absence is due to the category’s nascence after Anatolian’s
departure from the common ancestor of the NIE languages.
4.4.2. Infinitives
The infinitives in the IE languages are usually frozen case-forms of deverbal nominaliz-
ers (cf. 2.4.1 above); it is very likely that a nascent infinitival function was formed in
this way in PIE too. However, the significant formal diversity attested in the marking of
infinitives in the daughter languages seriously problematizes efforts to reconstruct the
PIE exponent(s) of this category − that is, precisely which case form or forms of which
nominalizers marked the category of infinitive remains unclear (for one overview of the
problem, see García Ramón 1997). Keydana (2013a) proposes criteria for segregating
event nominalizations from true infinitives in Vedic. His strongest proposed criterion for
nounhood is that event nominalizers do not inherit argument structure from the verb,
and therefore cannot govern a transitive object (they instead take a genitive comple-
ment). True infinitives do inherit verbal argument structure, which includes transitivity
(and potentially tense, aspect, and voice), and thus will govern accusative case (Keydana
2013a: 25−58). It is not yet clear whether the Vedic texts always conform to the proposed
criteria (cf. Lowe 2014b); see also the extensive discussion of Old Irish verbal nouns
and infinitives by Stüber (2015).
The following infinitives are representative of the forms attested in the daughter
languages. The suffix *-tu- (forming abstract nouns) makes infinitives in various cases,
for instance (acc.sg.) Ved. dā́-tum ‘to give’, (dat.sg.) Ved. pā́-tave ‘for drinking’, also in
Old Prussian da-twei ‘to give’. Likewise the suffix (forming abstract nouns of feminine
gender) *-ti- in various cases: Ved. pī-táye (dat.sg.) ‘for drinking’, Lith. bū́-ti ‘to be’
(from loc.sg. *-tēi). The suffix *-men- furnishes infinitives in various cases, such as Ved.
vid-mán-e (dat.sg.) ‘to know’, Hom. Gk. (w)íd-men-ai ‘to know’; comparable is *-wen-,
which underlies the Anatolian infinitives, Hitt. -wanzi (< abl.-instr. *-wen-ti), Palaic and
Luvian -una (< allative *-un-eh2 ). The suffix *-d hye/o- (cf. Fortson 2012, 2013) makes
infinitives across a number of branches: Indo-Iranian *-d hyāy (e.g., Ved. píba-dhyai ‘to
drink’) can be equated with Italic infinitives, viz. Osc. -fír, Umb.-f(e)i, Lat. prs.pass.
-rier, as well as the Tocharian infinitive in -tsi (e.g., TB lkā-tsi ‘to see’).
5. Conclusions
Our survey of PIE morphology, written in the first quarter of the 21st century, builds
directly on the great foundations of the field laid in the 19 th and 20 th centuries. However,
the picture of PIE morphology it presents differs radically in many respects from the
one presented by our predecessors; as one adage has it, “no language changes so fast as
Proto-Indo-European.” We have attempted here to survey where there is consensus in
the field and to flag points of interest for future research. We have aimed to present a
state-of-the-art view on PIE morphology, in full knowledge that this picture will change

Authenticated
in coming years. The continued integration of Hittite and Tocharian into our understand-
ing of PIE will undoubtedly play a major role in the 21st century, much as it has done
in the 20th; philological work on the daughter branches will continue apace, challenging
and revising our understanding of the proto-language; and advances in theoretical lin-
guistics and in synchronic and diachronic language typology will continue to shed new
light on old problems.
Acknowledgments
For invaluable comments, criticisms, and suggestions, we are deeply indebted to col-
leagues at our home institution, UCLA, especially David Goldstein, Stephanie Jamison,
Craig Melchert, Teigo Onishi, Ryan Sandell, and Brent Vine. Our chapter also improved
immeasurably from the help of Joe Eska, Ben Fortson, Mark Hale, and Jay Jasanoff. We
also thank José Luis García Ramón and Andreas Willi, who made preprint versions of
their forthcoming work available to us. Finally, it is our special pleasure to thank Jared
Klein, without whose support this project could not have been completed.
6. References
Ackermann, Katsiaryna
2014 Die Vorgeschichte des slavischen Aoristsystems: mit der kommentierten Belegsammlung
der Aoristformen und Formen des präteritalen passiven Partizipiums im Altkirchen-
slavischen. Leiden: Brill.
Adams, Douglas Q.
2014 The polyvalent present-formative -äsk- in Tocharian B. Tocharian and Indo-European
Studies 15: 1−33.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
2011 Word-Class Changing Derivations in Typological Perspective. In: Alexandra Y. Aikhen-
vald and Robert M. W. Dixon (eds.), Language at Large: Essays on Syntax and Seman-
tics. Leiden: Brill, 221−289.
Alderete, John D.
2001a Morphologically Governed Accent in Optimality Theory. New York: Routledge.
Alderete, John D.
2001b Dominance Effects as Transderivational Anti-Faithfulness. Phonology 18: 201−253.
Alderete, John D.
2001c Root-Controlled Accent in Cupeño. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19: 455−
502.
Alexiadou, Artemis
2014 Nominal Derivation. In: Lieber and Štekauer (eds.), 235−256.
Balles, Irene
2004 Zur Rekonstruction des früh-urindogermanischen Nominalklassensystems. In: Adam
Hyllested, Anders R. Jørgensen, Jenny H. Larsson, and Thomas Olander (eds.), Per
aspera ad asteriscos: Studia Indogermanica in honorem Jens Elmegård Rasmussen.
Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität, 43−57.
Balles, Irene
2006 Die altindische Cvi-Konstruktion: Form, Funktion, Ursprung. Bremen: Hempen.

Authenticated
Balles, Irene
2008 The Old Indic cvi-construction, the Caland system, and the PIE adjective. In: Rasmussen
and Olander (eds.), 1−15.
Bamyacı, Elif, Jana Häussler, and Barış Kabak
2014 The interaction of animacy and number agreement: An experimental investigation. Lin-
gua 148: 254−277.
Barber, Peter J.
2013 Sievers’ Law and the History of Semivowel Syllabicity in Indo-European and Ancient
Greek. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barnes, Timothy
2015 Old Irish cuire, its congeners, and the ending of the 2 nd sg. middle imperative. Ériu 65:
49−56.
Bauer, Laurie, and Salvador Valera (eds.)
2005 Approaches to Conversion/Zero-Derivation. Münster: Waxmann.
1985 The Origins of the Indo-European Nominal Inflection. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwis-
senschaft der Universität.
Beekes, Robert S. P., and Michiel A. C. de Vaan
2011 Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: an Introduction. 2 nd edn. Amsterdam: Benja-
mins.
Bendahman, Jadwiga
1993 Der reduplizierte Aorist in den indogermanischen Sprachen. Egelsbach: Hänsel-Hohen-
hausen.
Bernardo Stempel, Patrizia de
1999 Nominale Wortbildung des älteren Irischen: Stammbildung und Derivation. Tübingen:
Niemeyer.
Booij, Geert
2012 The Grammar of Words: an Introduction to Morphology. 3 rd edn. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Bopp, Franz
1854 Vergleichendes Accentuationssystem. Berlin: Dümmler.
Bowern, Claire and Bethwyn Evans (eds.)
2014 Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics. New York: Routledge.
Bozzone, Chiara
2012 The PIE Subjunctive: Function and Development. In: Melchert (ed.), 7−18.
Bozzone, Chiara
2016 The Origin of the Caland System and the Typology of Adjectives. Indo-European Lin-
guistics 4: 15− 52.
Brosch, Cyril
2010 Nominalkomposita und komponierende Ableitungen im Hethitischen. Altorientalische
Brugmann, Karl
1891 Zur Frage der Entstehung des grammatischen Geschlechtes. Beiträge zur Geschichte der
deutschen Sprache und Literatur 15: 523−531.
Brugmann, Karl and Berthold Delbrück
1906 Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Bd. 2. 2 nd
edn. Strassburg: Trübner.
Bybee, Joan L. and Östen Dahl
1989 The Creation of Tense and Aspect Systems in the Languages of the World. Studies in
Language 13: 51−103.
Byrd, Andrew M.
2015 The Indo-European Syllable. Leiden: Brill.

Authenticated
Caland, Willem
1892 Beiträge zur kenntniss des Avesta, no. 19. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung
31: 266−268.
Caland, Willem
1893 Beiträge zur kenntniss des Avesta, no. 26. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung
32: 592.
Cardona, George
1960 The Indo-European Thematic Aorists. Ph.D. diss., Yale University.
Casaretto, Antje
2004 Nominale Wortbildung der gotischen Sprache: Die Derivation der Substantive. Heidel-
berg: Winter.
Chantraine, Pierre
1926 Histoire du parfait grec. Paris: Champion.
Chantraine, Pierre
1933 La formation des noms en grec ancien. Paris: Klincksieck.
Chung, Sandra
1983 Transderivational Relationships in Chamorro. Language 59: 35−66.
Clackson, James
2007 Indo-European Linguistics: an Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clackson, James and Geoffrey Horrocks
2007 The Blackwell History of the Latin Language. Oxford: Blackwell.
Comrie, Bernard
1976 Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Comrie, Bernard
1989 Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. 2 nd edn. Chica-
go: University of Chicago Press.
Comrie, Bernard and Sarah Thompson
2007 Lexical Nominalization. In: Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic
Description. 2 nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 334−381.
Cooper, Adam I., Jeremy Rau, and Michael Weiss (eds.)
2013 Multi Nominis Grammaticus: Studies in Classical and Indo-European linguistics in hon-
or of Alan J. Nussbaum on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday. Ann Arbor: Beech
Stave.
2000 Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1991 Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2013 Number of Genders. In: Dryer and Haspelmath (eds.), chapter 30. URL http://wals.info/
chapter/30.
Cowgill, Warren
1957 Old Irish teoir and cetheoir. Language 33: 341−345.
Cowgill, Warren
1970 Italic and Celtic Superlatives and the dialects of Indo-European. In: George Cardona,
Henry M. Hoenigswald, and Alfred Senn (eds.), Indo-European and Indo-Europeans.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 113−153.
Cowgill, Warren
1974 More Evidence for Indo-Hittite: The Tense-Aspect Systems. In: Luigi Heilmann (ed.),
Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of Linguists, Bologna-Florence,
Aug. 28−Sept. 2, 1972, vol. 2. Bologna: Società Editrice il Mulino, 557−570.

Authenticated
Cowgill, Warren
1979 Anatolian ḫi-Conjugation and Indo-European Perfect: Instalment II. In: Erich Neu and
Wolfgang Meid (eds.), Hethitisch und Indogermanisch: Vergleichende Studien zur histo-
rischen Grammatik und zur dialektgeographischen Stellung der indogermanischen
Sprachgruppe Altkleinasiens. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität,
25−39.
Cowgill, Warren
1985a The Personal Endings of Thematic Verbs in Indo-European. In: Schlerath (ed.), 99−108.
Cowgill, Warren
1985b PIE *duu̯o ‘2’ in Germanic and Celtic, and the nom.-acc. dual of non-neuter o-stems.
Cowgill, Warren
2006a The z-Cases of Germanic Pronouns and Strong Adjectives. In: Klein (ed.), 519–534.
Cowgill, Warren
2006b The Personal Endings of Thematic Verbs in Indo-European (longer version). In: Klein
(ed.), 535–567.
Cuzzolin, Pierluigi and Christian Lehmann
2004 Comparison and Gradation. In: Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, and Joachim Mugdan
(eds.), Morphologie. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung.
2. Halbband. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1212−1220.
Dahl, Eystein
2010 Time, Tense and Aspect in Early Vedic Grammar. Leiden: Brill.
Dahl, Eystein
2013 The Indo-European Subjunctive and its Origin as a Present. Journal of Indo-European
Studies 41: 392−430.
Debrunner, Albert
1917 Griechische Wortbildungslehre. Heidelberg: Winter.
Debrunner, Albert
1954 Altindische Grammatik, Band II.2. Die Nominalsuffixe. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht.
Delbrück, Berthold
1871 Der Gebrauch des Conjunctivs und Optativs im Sanskrit und Griechischen. Halle: Wai-
senhaus.
Delbrück, Berthold
1888 Altindische Syntax. Halle: Waisenhaus.
Dell’Oro, Francesca
2015 Leggi, sistemi e leghe suffissali “di Caland”: storia della questione “Caland” come
problema teorico della linguistica indoeuropea. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und
Literaturen der Universität.
Dempsey, Timothy R.
2015 Verbal Reduplication in Anatolian. Ph.D. diss., UCLA.
Derksen, Rick
2014 Etymological Dictionary of the Baltic Inherited Lexicon. Leiden: Brill.
Di Giovine, Paolo
1990−1996 Studio sul perfetto indoeuropeo. (3 vols.). Rome: Editrice ‘Il Calamo’.
Dieu, Éric
2011 Le supplétisme dans les formes de gradation en grec ancien et dans les langues indo-
européennes. Geneva: Droz.
Dixon, Robert M. W.
2004 Adjective Classes in Typological Perspective. In: Robert M. W. Dixon and Alexandra
I. Aikhenvald (eds.), Adjective Classes: A Cross-Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1−49.

Authenticated
Dresher, B. Elan and Harry van der Hulst

1998 Head-dependent asymmetries in phonology: Complexity and visibility. Phonology 15:
317−352.
Dryer, Matthew S. and Martin Haspelmath (eds.)
2013 The World Atlas of Language Structures Online (WALS). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute
for Evolutionary Anthropology. URL http://wals.info.
Drinka, Bridget
1995 The Sigmatic Aorist in Indo-European: Evidence for the Space-Time-Hypothesis. Wash-
ington, D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man.
Duhoux, Yves
2000 Le verbe grec ancien: éléments de morphologie et de syntaxe historiques. 2 nd edn.
Louvain-La-Neuve: Peeters.
Dunkel, George E.
2014 Lexikon der indogermanischen Partikeln und Pronominalstämme. Vol. I−II. Heidelberg:
Winter.
Eichner, Heiner
1969 Hethitisch wešš-/waššiya- “(Gewänder) tragen; anziehen; bekleiden”. Münchener Studi-
en zur Sprachwissenschaft 27: 5−44.
Eichner, Heiner
1985 Das Problem des Ansatzes eines urindogermanischen Numerus ‘Kollektiv’ (‘Kompre-
hensiv’). In: Schlerath (ed.), 135−169.
Fábregas, Antonio
2014 Adjectival and Adverbial Derivation. In: Lieber and Štekauer (eds.), 276−295.
Fellner, Hannes
2014 PIE feminine *-eh2 - in Tocharian. In: Neri and Schuhmann (eds.), 7−22.
Fellner, Hannes and Laura Grestenberger
forthcoming Gemeinsame Unterschiede und unterschiedliche Gemeinsamkeiten der hethi-
tischen und tocharischen Nominalmorphologie: Die Reflexe der *-nt- und *-mh1 no-
Partizipien. Forthcoming in the proceedings of the Indogermanische Gesellschaft, Mar-
burg: “100 Jahre Entzifferung des Hethitischen” (21−23 September 2015).
Forssman, Bernhard
1994 Zu hethitisch šipand- und išpant-. In: Rasmussen (ed.), 93−106.
Fortson, Benjamin W. IV
2010 Indo-European Language and Culture: an Introduction. 2 nd edn. Oxford: Wiley-Black-
well.
2012 Latin -rier and its Indo-Iranian Congeners. Indogermanische Forschungen 117: 75−118.
2013 Pre-Italic *-dhi̯ ē (*-dhi̯ eh1 ) versus Pre-Indo-Iranian *-dhi̯ ōy: Bridging the Gap. In:
Cooper, Rau, and Weiss (eds.), 50−60.
Frazier, Melissa
2006 Accent in Proto-Indo-European Athematic Nouns: Antifaithfulness in Inflectional Para-
digms. Ph.D. diss., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
García Ramón, José Luis
1985 Die Sekundärendung der 1. Sg. Medii im Indogermanischen. In: Schlerath (ed.), 202−
217.
1997 Infinitive im Indogermanischen? Zur Typologie der Infinitivbildungen und zu ihrer Ent-
wicklung in den älteren indogermanischen Sprachen. Incontri Linguistici 20: 45−69.
1998 Indogermanisch *gwhen- ‘(wiederholt) schlagen’, ‘töten’. In: Jasanoff, Melchert, and
Oliver (eds.), 139−154.

Authenticated

2002 Zu Verbalcharakter, morphologischer Aktionsart und Aspekt in der indogermanischen
Rekonstruktion. In: Heinrich Hettrich (ed.), Indogermanische Syntax: Fragen und Per-
spektiven. Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft. Wiesbaden:
2009 Primär- und Sekundärendungen im Konjunktiv im Vedischen: Deixis und Sprechakt. In:
Elisabeth Rieken and Paul Widmer (eds.), Pragmatische Kategorien: Form, Funktion
und Diachronie. Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Marburg
2010 On Hittite Verbs of the Type mimma-hhi ‘refuse’: Aktionsart and Aspect in Indo-Euro-
pean Reconstruction. In: Kim et al. (eds.), 40−54.
Garde, Paul
1976 Histoire de l’accentuation slave. Paris: Institut d’études slaves.
Garrett, Andrew
1990 The Syntax of Anatolian Pronominal Clitics. Ph.D. diss., Harvard University.
Garrett, Andrew
1996 Wackernagel’s Law and Unaccusativity in Hittite. In: Aaron Halpern and Arnold Zwicky
(eds.), Approaching Second: Second-Position Clitics and Related Phenomena. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 85−133.
Garrett, Andrew and Michael Weiss (eds.)
forthcoming Handbook of Indo-European Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
George, Coulter
2014 Lexical Aspect (Aktionsart). In: Giannakis (ed.), Vol. 2: G-O, 332–339.
George, Coulter, Matthew McCulloch, Benedicte Nielsen, Antonia Ruppel, and Olga Tribulato
(eds.)
2007 Greek and Latin from an Indo-European Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge Philologi-
cal Society.
Giannakis, Georgios K. (ed.)
2014 Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill.
Gil, David
1996 Maltese ‘collective’ nouns. Rivista di Linguistica 8: 53−87.
Goedegebuure, Petra
2006 A new proposal for the reading of the Hittite numeral ‘1’, šia-. In: Theo van den Hout
(ed.), The Life and Times of Hattušili III and Tudhaliya IV: Proceedings of a Symposium
Held in Honor of J. de Roos. Leiden: NINO, 165−188 .
Goedegebuure, Petra
2013 Split-ergativity in Hittite. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie
102: 270−303.
Gotō, Toshifumi
2013 Old Indo-Aryan Morphology and its Indo-Iranian Background. Vienna: Verlag der Ös-
terreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Greenberg, Joseph H.
1963 Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful
Elements. In: Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of language,. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press, 73−113.
Grestenberger, Laura
2009 The Vedic i-Stems and Internal Derivation. Master’s thesis, University of Vienna.
2014a Feature Mismatch: Deponency in Indo-European Languages. Ph.D. diss., Harvard Uni-
versity.

Authenticated
2014b Zur Funktion des Nominalsuffixes *-i- im Vedischen und Urindogermanischen. In: Oet-
tinger and Steer (eds.), 88−102.
2016 Reconstructing Indo-European Deponents. Indo-European Linguistics 4: 98−149.
Griepentrog, Wolfgang
1995 Die Wurzelnomina des Germanischen und ihre Vorgeschichte. Innsbruck: Institut für
Sprachwissenschaft der Universität.
Gunkel, Dieter
2014 Accentuation. In: Giannakis (ed.), Vol. 1: A-F, 7−12. (longer version available online at
http://www.indogermanistik.uni-muenchen.de).
Gunkel, Dieter, Joshua T. Katz, Brent Vine, and Michael Weiss (eds.)
2016 Sahasram ati srajas: Indo-European and Indo-Iranian Studies in Honor of Stephanie
W. Jamison. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave.
Gvozdanović, Jadranka (ed.)
1992 Indo-European Numerals. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Hackstein, Olav
2011 Collective and Feminine in Tocharian. In: Olav Hackstein and Ronald I. Kim (eds.),
Linguistic Developments Along the Silkroad: Archaism and Innovation in Tocharian.
Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 143−177.
Hajnal, Ivo
1994 Die lykischen a-Stämme: Zum Werdegang einer Nominalklasse. In: Rasmussen (ed.),
135−171.
Hajnal, Ivo, Daniel Kölligan, and Katharina Zipser (eds.)
2017 Miscellanea Indogermanica. Festschrift für José Luis García Ramón zum 65. Geburts-
tag. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität.
Hale, Mark
2007 Historical Linguistics: Theory and Method. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hale, Mark
2010 Návyasā vácaḥ: To Praise with a Really Old Word. In: Kim et al. (eds.), 85−97.
1987 Zum urindogermanischen Kollektivum. Münchener Studien für Sprachwissenschaft 48:
71−113.
1998 Mit dem Suffix *-eh1 - bzw. *-(e)h1 -ie/o- gebildete Verbalstämme im Indogermanischen.
In: Meid (ed.), 323−339.
2014 Das andere Wort für ‘Frau’ im Urindogermanischen. In: Neri and Schuhmann (eds.),
23−56.
2015 The Proto-Indo-European Collective and the Hittite Neuter Plural. Paper presented at
the conference Hrozný and Hittite: The First 100 Years, Prague, 12 November 2015.
Haspelmath, Martin
1993 More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In: Bernard Comrie and
Maria Polinsky (eds.), Causatives and Transitivity. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 87−120.
Heidermanns, Frank
2005 Bibliographie zur indogermanischen Wortforschung: Wortbildung, Etymologie, Onoma-
siologie und Lehnwortschichten der alten und modernen indogermanischen Sprachen in
systematischen Publikationen ab 1800. 3 vols. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Hettrich, Heinrich
1990 Der Agens in passivischen Sätzen altindogermanischer Sprachen. Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht.

Authenticated
Hill, Eugen
2007 Die Aorist-Präsentien des Indoiranischen: Untersuchungen zur Morphologie und Se-
mantik einer Präsensklasse. Bremen: Hempen.
Hill, Eugen and Michael Frotscher
2012 The Accentuation of Old Indic Reduplicated (3 rd Class) Presents. In: Melchert (ed.),
105−114.
Hill, Jane H.
2005 A Grammar of Cupeño. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Hirt, Hermann
1900 Der indogermanische Ablaut: Vornehmlich in seinem Verhältnis zur Betonung. Strass-
burg: Trübner.
Hoffmann, Karl
1955 Ein grundsprachliches Possessivsuffix. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 6:
35−40.
Hoffmann, Karl
1967 Der Injunktiv im Veda. Heidelberg: Winter.
Hoffmann, Karl
1970 Das Kategoriensystem des indogermanischen Verbums. Münchener Studien zur Sprach-
wissenschaft 28: 19−41.
Hoffmann, Karl
1976 Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik. Vol. 2. Edited by Johanna Narten. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Hoffner, Harry A. and H. Craig Melchert
2008 A Grammar of the Hittite Language. Vol. I: Reference Grammar. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns.
Hopper, Paul and Sandra Thompson
1980 Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language 56: 251−299.
van den Hout, Theo
2001 Neuter Plural Subjects and Nominal Predicates in Anatolian. In: Onofrio Carruba and
Wolfgang Meid (eds.), Anatolisch und Indogermanisch: Akten des Kolloquiums der in-
dogermanischen Gesellschaft, Pavia, 22−25 September 1998. Innsbruck: Institut für
Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 167−192.
Huggard, Mattyas
2015 Wh-words in Hittite: A Study in Syntax-Semantics and Syntax-Phonology Interfaces.
Ph.D. diss., UCLA.
van der Hulst, Harry
1999 Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: De Gruyter.
van der Hulst, Harry
2014 The study of word accent and stress: Past, present, and future. In: Harry Van der Hulst
(ed.), Word Stress: Theoretical and Typological Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge Universi-
ty Press, 3−55.
Hyman, Larry
2006 Word prosodic typology. Phonology 2. 225−257.
1979a The Case of the Agent in Indo-European. Die Sprache 15: 129−143.
1979b Remarks on the expression of agency with the passive in Vedic and Indo-European.
Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 93: 196−219.
1983 Function and form in the -áya-formations of the Rig Veda and the Atharva Veda. Göttin-
gen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
1992 “Sá figé”: an inherited sentence connective? Historische Sprachforschung 105: 213−239

Authenticated
2014 Review of Dahl 2010. Indo-Iranian Journal 57: 151−160.
2016 The Vedic Perfect Subjunctive and the Value of Modal Forms to Tense/Aspect Stems.
In: Hajnal, Kölligan, and Zipser (eds.), 323−334.
Jamison, Stephanie W., H. Craig Melchert, and Brent Vine (eds.)
2010 Proceedings of the 21st Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. Bremen: Hempen
Jamison, Stephanie W., H. Craig Melchert, and Brent Vine (eds.)
2013 Proceedings of the 24 th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference 2012. Bremen:
Hempen.
Jasanoff, Jay H.
1976 Gr. ámphō, lat. ambo et le mot indo-européen pour ‘l’un et l’autre’. Bulletin de la
Société de Linguistique 71: 125−131.
Jasanoff, Jay H.
1978 Stative and Middle in Indo-European. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der
Universität.
Jasanoff, Jay H.
1979 Notes on the Armenian Personal Endings. Historische Sprachforschung 93: 133−149.
Jasanoff, Jay H.
Jasanoff, Jay H.
1988 The s-aorist in Hittite and Tocharian. Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 2: 52−76.
Jasanoff, Jay H.
1989 Language and Gender in the Tarim Basin: The Tocharian 1 sg. Pronoun. Tocharian and
Indo-European Studies 3: 125−148.
Jasanoff, Jay H.
1997 Gathic Avestan cikōitərəš. In: Alexander Lubotsky (ed.), Sound Law and Analogy: Pa-
pers in honor of Robert S. P. Beekes on the Occasion of his 60 th Birthday. Amsterdam:
Rodopi, 119−130.
Jasanoff, Jay H.
1998 The Thematic Conjugation Revisited. In: Jasanoff, Melchert, and Oliver (eds.), 301−
316.
Jasanoff, Jay H.
2003a Hittite and the Indo-European Verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jasanoff, Jay H.
2003b “Stative” *-ē- Revisited. Die Sprache 43: 127−70.
Jasanoff, Jay H.
2006 The Ending of the PIE 2 Sg. Middle Imperative. Die Sprache 46: 203−212.
Jasanoff, Jay H.
2008 *-bhi, *-bhis, *-ōis: Following the trail of the PIE instrumental plural. In: Rasmussen
and Olander (eds.), 137−150.
Jasanoff, Jay H.
2009 Notes on the internal history of the PIE optative. In: Yoshida and Vine (eds.), 47−68.
Jasanoff, Jay H.
2011 Balto-Slavic mobility as an Indo-European problem. In: Roman Sukač (ed.), From
Present to Past and Back: Papers on Baltic and Slavic Accentology. Frankfurt: Lang,
52−74.
Jasanoff, Jay H.
2012a Did Hittite have si-imperatives? In: Roman Sukač and Ondřej Šefčík (eds.), The Sound
of Indo-European 2: Papers on Indo-European Phonetics, Phonemics and Morpho-
phonemics. Munich: LINCOM, 116−132.

Authenticated
Jasanoff, Jay H.
2012b Long-vowel preterites in Indo-European. In: Melchert (ed.), 127‒135.
Jasanoff, Jay H.
2012c The Prehistory of the Thematic Aorist. Paper presented at the 31st Annual East Coast
Indo-European Conference, Berkeley, CA, 18 May 2012.
Jasanoff, Jay H.
forthcoming a Verbal Stem Formation. In: Garrett and Weiss (eds.).
Jasanoff, Jay H.
forthcoming b The Prehistory of the IE perfect: A contribution to the theory of the h2 e-
conjugation. In: 100 Jahre Entzifferung des Hethitischen: Morphosyntaktische Katego-
rien in Sprachgeschichte und Forschung. Proceedings of the Arbeitstagung of the Indo-
germanische Gesellschaft, Marburg, 21. bis 23. September 2015.
Jasanoff, Jay H. and Joshua Katz
2016 A Revised History of the Greek Pluperfect. In: Hajnal, Kölligan, and Zipser (eds.), 347−
361.
Jasanoff, Jay, Craig Melchert, and Lisi Oliver (eds.)
1998 Mír Curad: Studies in Honor of Calvert Watkins. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissen-
schaft der Universität.
Katz, Joshua T.
1998 Topics in Indo-European Personal Pronouns. Ph.D. diss., Harvard University.
Katz, Joshua T.
2008 On the Origin of the Greek Pluperfect. Die Sprache 46 [2006]: 1−37.
Kawahara, Shigeto
2015 The Phonology of Japanese Accent. In: Haruo Kubozono (ed.), The Handbook of Japa-
nese Phonetics and Phonology. Berlin: De Gruyter, 445−492.
Kellens, Jean
1974 Les noms-racines de l’Avesta. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Kemmer, Suzanne
1993 The Middle Voice. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Keydana, Götz
2013a Infinitive im R̥gveda: Formen, Funktion, Diachronie. Leiden: Brill.
Keydana, Götz
2013b Proterokinetische Stämme. In: Keydana, Olander, and Widmer (eds.), 31−62.
Keydana, Götz, Thomas Olander, and Paul Widmer (eds.)
2013 Indo-European Accent and Ablaut, Copenhagen Studies in Indo-European, vol. 5. Co-
penhagen: Museum Tusculanum.
Kim, Ronald
2002 Topics in the Reconstruction and Development of Indo-European Accent. Ph.D. diss.,
University of Pennsylvania.
Kim, Ronald (I.)
2005 Review of Jasanoff 2003a. Diachronica 22: 191−200.
Kim, Ronald
2008 The Celtic Feminine Numerals ‘3’ and ‘4’ Revisited. Keltische Forschungen 3: 143−
167.
Kim, Ronald (I.)
2009 The feminine gender in Tocharian and Indo-European. In: Yoshida and Vine (eds.), 69−
87.
Kim, Ronald
2013a Metrical Grid Theory, Internal Derivation, and the Reconstruction of PIE Nominal Ac-
cent Paradigms. In: Keydana, Olander, and Widmer (eds.), 63−106.

Authenticated
Kim, Ronald (I.)

2013b The Indo-European, Anatolian, and Tocharian “Secondary” Cases in Typological Per-
spective. In: Cooper, Rau, and Weiss (eds.), 121−142.
Kim, Ronald, Norbert Oettinger, Elisabeth Rieken, and Michael Wiess (eds.)
2010 Ex Anatolia Lux: Anatolian and Indo-European Studies in Honor of H. Craig Melchert
on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Ann Arbor/New York: Beech Stave.
Kiparsky, Paul
1967 A Phonological Rule of Greek. Glotta 44: 109−132.
Kiparsky, Paul
1968 Tense and mood in Indo-European syntax. Foundations of language 4: 30−57.
Kiparsky, Paul
2005 The Vedic Injunctive: Historical and Synchronic Implications. The Yearbook of South
Asian Languages and Linguistics 35: 219−235.
Kiparsky, Paul
2010a Compositional vs. Paradigmatic Approaches to Accent and Ablaut. In: Jamison, Mel-
chert, and Vine (eds.), 137−181.
Kiparsky, Paul
2010b Dvandvas, blocking, and the associative: The bumpy ride from phrase to word. Lan-
guage 86: 302−331.
Kiparsky, Paul
2011 Did Indo-European have Reflexive Pronouns? Paper presented at the 23 rd Annual UCLA
Indo-European Conference, Los Angeles, 28−29 October 2011.
Kiparsky, Paul
2015 New Perspectives in Historical Linguistics. In: Bowern and Evans (eds.), 64−102.
Kiparsky, Paul
2016 The Agent Suffixes as a Window into Vedic Grammar. In: Gunkel et al. (eds.), 170−
192.
Kiparsky, Paul
forthcoming Accent and Ablaut. In: Garrett and Weiss (eds.).
Kiparsky, Paul and Morris Halle
1977 Towards a Reconstruction of the Indo-European Accent. In: Larry Hyman (ed.), Studies
in Stress and Accent. Los Angeles, CA: USC Press, 209−238.
Klein, Jared S.
1996 “Sá-figé” and Indo-European Deixis. Historische Sprachforschung 109: 21−39.
Klein, Jared S.
2003 Āmreḍitas and Related Constellations in the Rigveda. Journal of the American Oriental
Society 123: 773−802.
Klein, Jared S. (ed.)
2006 The Collected Writings of Warren Cowgill. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave.
1975 Tocharisch und Urindogermanisch. In: Rix (ed.), 148−163.
Kloekhorst, Alwin
2008 Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden: Brill.
Kloekhorst, Alwin
2012 Hittite “ā/e”-ablauting Verbs. In: Melchert (ed.), 151−160.
Kloekhorst, Alwin
2013 Indo-European nominal ablaut patterns: The Anatolian evidence. In: Keydana, Olander,
and Widmer (eds.), 107−128.
Kloekhorst, Alwin
2014 Once more on Hittite ā/e-ablauting hi-verbs. Indogermanische Forschungen 119: 55−
77.

Authenticated
Kloekhorst, Alwin
2016 The Anatolian Stop System and the Indo-Hittite Hypothesis. Indogermanische For-
schungen 121: 213−247.
Kölligan, Daniel
2004 Wenn zwei dasselbe tun: Iterativa und Kausativa. In: Maria Kozianka, Rosemarie Lühr,
and Susanne Zeilfelder (eds.), Indogermanistik−Germanistik−Linguistik. Akten der Ar-
beitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Jena 2002. Hamburg: Kovač, 193−247.
Kölligan, Daniel
2007 Iteratives and Causatives in Latin: A Unified Approach. In: George et al. (eds.), 49−64.
Kölligan, Daniel
2007 Suppletion und Defektivität im griechischen Verbum. Bremen: Hempen.
Koontz-Garboden, Andrew
2006 On the typology of state/change of state alternations. In: Geert Booij and Jaap van
Maarle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2005. Dordrecht: Springer, 83−117.
Kortlandt, Frederik
1981 1st Sg. Middle *-H2 . Indogermanische Forschungen 88: 123−136.
Krisch, Thomas and Thomas Lindner (eds.)
2011 Indogermanistik und Linguistik im Dialog: Akten der XIII. Fachtagung der Indogerma-
nischen Gesellschaft vom 21. bis 27. September 2008 in Salzburg. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Kubozono, Haruo
2011 Japanese Pitch Accent. In: Marc Van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume, and
Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell, 2879−
2907.
Kuiper, Franciscus Bernardus Jacobus
1942 Notes on Vedic Noun-Inflexion. Amsterdam: Noord-hollandsche uitgevers maatschappij.
Kulikov, Leonid
2000 The Vedic Type syáti Revisited. In: Bernhard Forssman and Robert Plath (eds.), Indo-
arisch, Iranisch und die Indogermanistik: Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesell-
schaft vom 2. bis 5. Oktober 1997 in Erlangen. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 267−283.
Kulikov, Leonoid
2009 Evolution of Case Systems. In: Andrej Malchukov and Andrew Spencer (eds.), Oxford
Handbook of Case. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 439−457.
Kulikov, Leonid
2012 The Vedic -ya-Presents: Passives and Intransitivity in Old Indo-Aryan. Amsterdam: Rod-
opi.
Kümmel, Martin (Joachim)
1996 Stativ und Passivaorist im Indoiranischen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
1998 Wurzelpräsens neben Wurzelaorist im Indogermanischen. Historische Sprachforschung
111: 191−208.
2000 Das Perfekt im Indoiranischen. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
2007 Konsonantenwandel: Bausteine zu einer Typologie des Lautwandels und ihre Konse-
quenzen für die vergleichende Rekonstruktion. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
2012 Typology and Reconstruction: The Consonants and Vowels of Proto-Indo-European. In:
Benedicte Nielsen Whitehead, Thomas Olander, Birgit A. Olsen, and Jens E. Rasmussen
(eds.), The Sound of Indo-European. Phonetics, Phonemics, and Morphophonemics. Co-
penhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 291−329.
2014 Zum “proterokinetischen” Ablaut. In: Oettinger and Steer (eds.), 164−179.

Authenticated

2016 *syá- im Indoiranischen: Zahlwort und Demonstrativum? In: Andrew Byrd, Jessica
DeLisi, and Mark Wenthe (eds.), Tavet Tat Satyam: Studies in Honor of Jared S. Klein
on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave, 179−190.
1990 Les adjectifs grecs en -υς: sémantique et comparaison. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.
2002 Review of M. Meier-Brügger, Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft (8 th edn.), 2002.
Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 97: 103−114.
Ledo-Lemos, Francisco J.
2000 Femininum Genus: A Study on the Origins of the Indo-European Feminine Grammatical
Gender. Munich: Lincom Europa.
Lehrman, Alexander
1998 Indo-Hittite Redux. Moscow: Paleograph.
Li, Fengxiang and Lindsay Whaley
forthcoming A Cross-Linguistic Examination of Morphological Causatives, Intensives, and
Reciprocals: A Grammaticization Perspective. MS Dartmouth College.
Lieber, Rochelle and Pavol Štekauer (eds.)
2009 The Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lieber, Rochelle and Pavol Štekauer (eds.)
2014 The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lindner, Thomas
2011−2016 Komposition. Indogermanische Grammatik IV.1. 4 vols. Heidelberg: Winter.
Litscher, Roland
2014 Voraussetzungen für ein feminines Genus und Implikationen für das Kategoriensystem
des frühindogermanischen Nomens. In: Neri and Schuhmann (eds.), 137−166.
Lohmann, Johannes
1932 Genus und Sexus. Eine morphologische Studie zum Ursprung der indogermanischen
nominalen Genus-Unterscheidung. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Lowe, John J.
2014a Indo-European Caland Adjectives in *-nt- and Participles in Sanskrit. Historische
Lowe, John J.
2014b Review of Keydana 2013a. Indo-Iranian Journal 57: 261−270.
Lowe, John (J.)
2015 Participles in Rigvedic Sanskrit. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lühr, Rosemarie and Irene Balles
2008 Nominale Wortbildung des Indogermanischen in Grundzügen: die Wortbildungsmuster
ausgewählter indogermanischer Einzelsprachen. Band I: Latein, Altgriechisch. Ham-
burg: Kovač.
Lühr, Rosemarie and Joachim Matzinger
2008 Nominale Wortbildung des Indogermanischen in Grundzügen: die Wortbildungsmuster
ausgewählter indogermanischer Einzelsprachen. Band II: Hethitisch, Altindisch, Alt-
armenisch. Hamburg: Kovač.
Lundquist, Jesse
2015 On the Accentuation of Vedic -ti-Abstracts. Indo-European Linguistics 3: 42−72.
Lundquist, Jesse
2016 On the Accentuation of Compound s-Stem Adjectives in Greek and Vedic. In: David
M. Goldstein, Stephanie W. Jamison, and Brent Vine (eds.), Proceedings of the 27 th
Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. Bremen: Hempen, 97−114.

Authenticated
Luraghi, Silvia
2009a Indo-European Nominal Classification: From Abstract to Feminine. In: Stephanie Jamis-
on, H. Craig Melchert, and Brent Vine (eds.), Proceedings of the 20 th Annual UCLA
Indo-European Conference. Bremen: Hempen, 115−131.
Luraghi, Silvia
2009b The origin of the feminine gender in PIE. In: Vit Bubenik, John Hewson, and Sarah
Rose (eds.), Grammatical Change in the Indo-European Languages: Papers presented
at the Workshop on Indo-European Linguistics at the 18 th International Conference on
Historical Linguistics, Montreal, 2007. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 3−13.
Luraghi, Silvia
2011 The origin of the Proto-Indo-European gender system: Typological considerations. Folia
Linguistica 45: 435−464.
Luraghi, Silvia
2012 Basic valency orientation and the middle voice in Hittite. Studies in Language 36: 1−
32.
Luraghi, Silvia
2014 Gender and word formation: The PIE gender system in cross-linguistic perspective. In:
Neri and Schuhmann (eds.), 199−231.
Malzahn, Melanie
2010 The Tocharian Verbal System. Leiden: Brill.
Malzahn, Melanie
2013 Cutting Around “temós”: Evidence from Tocharian. In: Cooper, Rau, and Weiss (eds.),
165−174.
Malzahn, Melanie
2016 Tudati-presents and the tēzzi Principle. In: Gunkel et al. (eds.), 227−238.
Malzahn, Melanie, Michaël Peyrot, Hannes Fellner, and Theresa-Susanna Illés (eds.)
2015 Tocharian Texts in Context. International Conference on Tocharian Manuscripts and
Silk Road Culture, Vienna, June 25−29, 2013. Bremen: Hempen.
Matasović, Ranko
2004 Gender in Indo-European. Heidelberg: Winter.
Matasović, Ranko
2014 Slavic Nominal Word-Formation: Proto-Indo-European Origins and Historical Develop-
ment. Heidelberg: Winter.
Mayrhofer, Manfred
1986−2001 Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. Vol. 1−3. Heidelberg: Winter.
Meid, Wolfgang (ed.)
1998 Sprache und Kultur der Indogermanen: Akten der X. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen
Gesellschaft Innsbruck, 22.−28. September 1996. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissen-
2010 Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft. 9 th edn. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Meillet, Antoine
1922 La forme du génitif pluriel en ombrien. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris
22: 258−259.
Meillet, Antoine
1925 La méthode comparative en linguistique historique. Paris: Champion.
Meillet, Antoine
1931 Essai de chronologie des langues indo-européennes. Bulletin de la Société de Linguis-
tique de Paris 32: 1−28.
Meiser, Gerhard
1993 Zur Funktion des Nasalpräsens im Urindogermanischen. In: Gerhard Meiser (ed.), Indo-
germanica et Italica: Festschrift für Helmut Rix zum 65. Geburtstag. Innsbruck: Institut
für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 280−313.

Authenticated
Meissner, Torsten
1998 Das “Calandsche Gesetz” und das Griechische − nach 100 Jahren. In: Meid (ed.), 237−
254 .
Meissner, Torsten
2005 S-stem Nouns and Adjectives in Greek and Proto-Indo-European. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Melchert, H. Craig
1984 Studies in Hittite Historical Phonology. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Melchert, H. Craig
1992a Relative Chronology and Anatolian: The Vowel System. In: Robert S. P. Beekes, Alex-
ander Lubotsky, and Jos Weitenberg (eds.), Rekonstruction und relative Chronologie.
Akten der VIII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Leiden, 31 August−4
September 1987. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 41−53.
Melchert, H. Craig
1992b The Middle Voice in Lycian. Historische Sprachforschung 105: 189−199.
Melchert, H. Craig
1994a Anatolian Historical Phonology. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Melchert, H. Craig
1994b The Feminine Gender in Anatolian. In: George E. Dunkel, Gisela Meyer, Salvatore
Scarlata, and Christian Seidl (eds.), Fruh-, Mittel-, Spatindogermanisch. Akten der IX.
Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 5. bis 9. Oktober 1992 im Zürich.
Wiesbaden: Reichert, 231−244.
Melchert, H. Craig
1997 Traces of a PIE Aspectual Contrast in Anatolian? Incontri linguistici 20: 83−92.
Melchert, H. Craig
2000 Tocharian Plurals in -nt- and Related Phenomena. Tocharian and Indo-European Studies
9: 530−575.
Melchert, H. Craig
2002 Sibilants in Carian. In: Matthias Fritz and Susanne Zeilfelder (eds.), Novalis Indoger-
manica: Festschrift für Günter Neumann zum 80. Geburtstag. Graz: Leykam, 305−313.
Melchert, H. Craig
2003 Language. In: H. Craig Melchert (ed.), The Luwians. Leiden: Brill, 170−211.
Melchert, H. Craig
2011a The PIE Collective Plural and the “τὰ ζῶα τρέχει rule”. In: Krisch and Lindner (eds.),
395−400.
Melchert, H. Craig
2011b The Problem of the Ergative Case in Hittite. In: Michèle Fruyt, Michel Mazoyer, and
Dennis Pardee (eds.), Acts of the International Colloqium Variations, Concurrence, et
Evolution des Cas dans Divers Domains Linguistiques, Paris, 2−4 April 2007. Chicago:
Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 161−167.
Melchert, H. Craig
2012a Genitive Case and Possessive Adjective in Anatolian. In: Vincenzo Orioles (ed.), Per
Roberto Gusmani: Linguistica Storica e Teorica. vol. 1. Udine: Forum, 273−286.
Melchert, H. Craig (ed.)
2012b The Indo-European Verb: Proceedings of the Conference of the Society for Indo-Euro-
pean Studies, Los Angeles 13−15 September 2010. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Melchert, H. Craig
2013 Ablaut Patterns in the Hittite ḫi-Conjugation. In: Jamison, Melchert, and Vine (eds.),
137−150.
Melchert, H. Craig
2014a Anatolian Nominal Stems in *-(C)o-. In: Oettinger and Steer (eds.), 205−214.

Authenticated
Melchert, H. Craig
2014b “Narten formations” versus “Narten roots”. Indogermanische Forschungen 119: 251−
258.
Melchert, H. Craig
2014c PIE *-eh2 as an “Individualizing” Suffix and the Feminine Gender. In: Neri and Schuh-
mann (eds.), 257−271.
Melchert, H. Craig
2015 The Tocharian s-Preterite. In: Malzahn et al. (eds.), 127−135.
Melchert, H. Craig
2016a The Case of the Agent in Anatolian and Proto-Indo-European. In: Gunkel et al. (eds.),
239−249.
Melchert, H. Craig
2016b Initial *spin Hittite and šip(p)and- ‘to libate’. Journal of Language Relationship 14:
187−195.
Melchert, H. Craig
2016c Relative Clauses in Anatolian. In: Sergio Neri, Roland Schuhmann, and Susanne Zeil-
felder (eds.), dat ih dir it nu bi huldi gibu: Linguistische, germanistische und indoger-
manistische Studien Rosemarie Lühr gewidmet. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 287−295.
Melchert, H. Craig
forthcoming a The Position of Anatolian. In: Garrett and Weiss (eds.), (ms. available at http://
www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/Melchert [Last accessed 1 March 2016]).
Melchert, H. Craig
forthcoming b The Source(s) of Indo-European Participles in *-e/ont-. In: Adjectifs verbaux
et participes dans les langues indo-européennes. Proceedings of the Arbeitstagung of
the Indo-European Society, Paris, 24−26 September 2014.
Melchert, H. Craig
forthcoming c An Allative Case in Proto-Indo-European? To appear in a Festschrift.
Melchert, H. Craig and Norbert Oettinger
2009 Ablativ und Instrumental im Hethitischen und Indogermanischen. Incontri Linguistici
32: 53−73.
Morpurgo Davies, Anna
1987 Folk Linguistics and the Greek Word. In: George Cardona and Norman H. Zide (eds.),
Festschrift for Henry Hoenigswald on the occasion of his seventieth birthday. Tübingen:
Narr, 263−280.
Napoli, Maria
2006 Aspect and Actionality in Homeric Greek. A Contrastive Analysis. Milan: Angeli.
Napoli, Maria
2015 Telicity as a parameter of aspect in Homeric Greek. Activity and accomplishment verbs.
Narten, Johanna
1964 Die sigmatischen Aoriste im Veda. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Neri, Sergio
2003 I sostantivi in -u del gotico: morfologia e preistoria. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen
und Literaturen der Universität.
Neri, Sergio and Roland Schuhmann (eds.)
2014 Studies on the Collective and Feminine in Indo-European from a Diachronic and Typo-
logical Perspective. Leiden: Brill.
Nikolaev, Alexander
2009 The Germanic word for ‘sword’ and delocatival derivation in Proto-Indo-European. The
Journal of Indo-European Studies 37: 462−488.
NIL
2008 see Wodtko, Irslinger, and Schneider (eds.)

Authenticated
Nussbaum, Alan J.
1975 Studies in Latin noun formation and derivation: ī in Latin denominative derivation.
In: Calvert Watkins (ed.), Indo-European Studies II. Cambridge, MA: Department of
Linguistics, Harvard University, 116−161.
Nussbaum, Alan J.
1976 Caland’s “Law” and the Caland System. Ph.D. diss., Harvard University.
Nussbaum, Alan J.
1986 Head and Horn in Indo-European. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Nussbaum, Alan J.
1999 *Jocidus: An account of the Latin adjectives in -idus. In: Heiner Eichner and Hans C.
Luschütsky (eds.), Compositiones Indogermanicae in Memoriam Joachem Schindler.
Prague: Enigma, 377−419.
Nussbaum, Alan J.
2014a Greek τέκμαρ ‘sign’ and τέκμωρ ‘sign’: Why both? In: Oettinger and Steer (eds.), 215−
260.
Nussbaum, Alan J.
2014b Feminine, Abstract, Collective, Neuter Plural: Some Remarks on Each (Expanded Hand-
out). In: Neri and Schuhmann (eds.), 273−306.
Nuyts, Jan and Johan Van der Auwera
2016 The Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Oettinger, Norbert
1976 Der indogermanische Stativ. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 34: 109−149.
Oettinger, Norbert
1979 Die Stammbildung des hethitischen Verbums. Nürnberg: Carl.
Oettinger, Norbert
1987 Bemerkungen zur anatolischen i-Motion und Genusfrage. Zeitschrift für vergleichende
Oettinger, Norbert
2006 Review of Jasanoff 2003a. Kratylos 51: 34−45.
Oettinger, Norbert and Thomas Steer (eds.)
2014 Das indogermanische Nomen: Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesell-
schaft, Erlangen, 2011. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Olander, Thomas
2015 Proto-Slavic Inflectional Morphology. Leiden: Brill.
Olsen, Susan
2001 Copulative Compounds: A closer look at the interface between syntax and morphology.
Yearbook of Morphology 2000, 279−320.
Olsen, Susan
2014 Delineating Derivation and Compounding. In: Lieber and Štekauer (eds.), 26−48.
Ostrowski, Manfred
1985 Zur Entstehung und Entwicklung des indogermanischen Nomens. In: Schlerath (ed.),
313−323.
Patri, Sylvain
2007 L’alignement syntaxique dans les langues indo-européennes d’Anatolie. Wiesbaden:
Reichert.
Pedersen, Holger
1938 Hittitisch und die anderen indoeuropäischen Sprachen. Copenhagen: Levin and Munks-
gaard.
Pedersen, Holger
1926 La cinquième déclinaison latine. Copenhagen: A.F. Høst.
Pedersen, Holger
1933 Études lituaniennes. Copenhagen: Levin & Munksgaard.

Authenticated
Penney, John H. W.
1978 Problems of Greek and Indo-European Ablaut: The Origin and Development of the
O-grade. Ph.D. diss., University of Oxford.
Petit, Daniel
1999 *SUE- en grec ancien: la famille du pronom réfléchi. Linguistique grecque et compar-
aison indo-européenne. Louvain: Peeters.
Petit, Daniel
2016 Force et dominance accentuelle en morphologie dérivationelle grecque. In: Alain Blanc
and Daniel Petit (eds.), Nouveaux acquis sur la formation des noms en grec ancien:
Actes du Colloque international, Université de Rouen, ERIAC, 17−18 octobre 2013.
Louvain: Peeters, 5−35.
Peyrot, Michaël
2013 The Tocharian Subjunctive: A Study in Syntax and Verbal Stem Formation. Leiden: Brill.
Pike, Moss
2011 Latin -tās and Related Forms. Ph.D. diss., UCLA.
2006a Analyse étymologique d’un nom de parenté indo-européen. In: Günter Schweiger (ed.),
Indogermanica: Festschrift Gert Klingenschmitt; indische, iranische und indogerma-
nische Studien dem verehrten Jubilar dargebracht zu seinem fünfundsechzigsten Geburts-
tag. Taimering: Schweiger VWT, 465−486.
2006b Retour sur le numéral “un” en tokharien. Indogermanische Forschungen 111: 71−97.
Portner, Paul
2009 Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Poser, William John
1984 The Phonetics and Phonology of Tone and Intonation in Japanese. Ph.D. diss., Massa-
chusetts Institute of Technology.
Probert, Philomen
2006a Accentuation in Ancient Greek Deverbative ā-stems. In: Daniel Kölligan and Ranjan
Sen (eds.), Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology & Phonetics,
vol. 11. Oxford: Oxford University, 122−142.
Probert, Philomen
2006b Ancient Greek Accentuation: Synchronic Patterns, Frequency Effects, and Prehistory.
Oxford Classical Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Probert, Philomen
2006c Clause Boundaries in Old Hittite Relative Sentences. Transactions of the Philological
Society 104: 17−83.
Probert, Philomen
2014 Relative Clauses, Indo-Hittite, and Standard Average European. In: Stephanie Jamison,
Craig Melchert, and Brent Vine (eds.), Proceedings of the 25 th Annual UCLA Indo-
European Conference, 2013. Bremen: Hempen, 137−164.
Probert, Philomen
2015 Early Greek Relative Clauses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Prokosch, Eduard
1939 A Comparative Germanic Grammar. Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America.
Puhvel, Jaan
1991 Homer and Hittite. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität.
Rasmussen, Jens Elmegård (ed.)
1994 In honorem Holger Pedersen. Kolloquium der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 26.
bis 28. März 1993 in Kopenhagen. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

Authenticated
Rasmussen, Jens E. and Thomas Olander (eds.)

2008 Internal Reconstruction in Indo-European: Results, Methods, and Problems. Section
Papers from the XVI International Conference on Historical Linguistics, University of
Copenhagen, 11th−15 th August 2003. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum.
Rau, Jeremy
2009a Indo-European Nominal Morphology: The Decads and the Caland System. Innsbruck:
Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität.
Rau, Jeremy
2009b Myc. te-re-ja and the Athematic Inflection of the Greek Contract Verbs. In: Yoshida and
Vine (eds.), 181−188.
Rau, Jeremy
2013 Notes on Stative Verbal Roots, the Caland System, and Primary Verbal Morphology in
Indo-Iranian and Indo-European. In: Cooper, Rau, and Weiss (eds.), 255−273.
Rau, Jeremy
2014 The History of the Indo-European Primary Comparative. In: Oettinger and Steer (eds.),
327−341.
Revithiadou, Anthoula
1999 Headmost Accent Wins: Head Dominance and Ideal Prosodic Form in Lexical Accent
Systems. Ph.D. diss., Leiden.
Rieken, Elizabeth
1999 Untersuchungen zur nominalen Stammbildung des Hethitischen. StBoT 44. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
Rieken, Elisabeth
1994 Der Wechsel -a-/-i- in der Stammbildung des hethitischen Nomens. Historische Sprach-
forschung 107: 42−53.
Rieken, Elisabeth
2005 Neues zum Ursprung der anatolischen i-Mutation. Historische Sprachforschung 118:
48−74.
Ringe, Don
2000 Tocharian Class II Presents and Subjunctives and the Reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-
European Verb. Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 9: 121−142.
Ringe, Donald
2006 From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Risch, Ernst
1974 Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache. 2 nd edn. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Helmut Rix (ed.)
1975 Flexion und Wortbildung: Akten der V. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft,
Regensburg, 9. bis. 14. September 1975. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Rix, Helmut
1988 The Proto-Indo-European Middle: Content, Forms, and Origin. Münchener Studien zur
Rix, Helmut
1992 Historische Grammatik des Griechischen: Laut- und Formenlehre. 2 nd edn. Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Rix, Helmut and Martin Kümmel
2001 Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben: die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen.
2 nd edn. Wiesbaden: Reichert. (addenda and corrigenda maintained at http://www.
martinkuemmel.de/liv2add.html).
Sandell, Ryan
2011 The Morphophonology of Reduplicated Presents in Vedic and Indo-European. In: Steph-
anie W. Jamison, H. Craig Melchert, and Brent Vine (eds.), Proceedings of the 22 nd
Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. Bremen: Hempen, 223−254.

Authenticated
Sandell, Ryan
2015 Productivity in Historical Linguistics: Computational Perspectives on Word-Formation
in Ancient Greek and Sanskrit. Ph.D. diss., UCLA.
Sandell, Ryan and Andrew M. Byrd
2014 In Defense of Szemerényi’s Law. Paper presented at the 33 rd Annual East Coast Indo-
European Conference, Blacksburg, VA, 5−7 June 2014.
Sasseville, David
2014/2015 Luwian and Lycian Agent Nouns in *-é-leh2 . Die Sprache 51: 105−124.
1879 Mémoire sur le système primitif des voyelles dans les langues indo-européennes. Leip-
zig: Teubner.
Scalise, Sergio and Antonietta Bisetto
2009 The Classification of Compounds. In: Lieber and Štekauer (eds.), 34−53.
Scalise, Sergio A., Antonio Fábregas, and Francesca S. S. A. F. F. Forza
2009 Exocentricity in compounding. Gengo Kenkyu 135: 49−84.
Scarlata, Salvatore
1999 Die Wurzelkomposita im r̥g-Veda. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Schaffner, Stefan
2001 Das Vernersche Gesetz und der innerparadigmatische grammatische Wechsel des Urger-
manischen im Nominalbereich. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Uni-
versität.
Schindler, Jochem
1967 Zu hethitisch nekuz. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 81: 290−303.
Schindler, Jochem
1972a Das Wurzelnomen im Arischen und Griechischen. Ph.D. diss., Würzburg.
Schindler, Jochem
1972b L’apophonie des noms-racines indo-européens. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique
67: 31−38.
Schindler, Jochem
1975a L’apophonie des thèmes indo-européens en -r/n. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique
70: 1−10.
Schindler, Jochem
1975b Zum Ablaut der neutralen s-Stämme des Indogermanischen. In: Rix (ed.), 259−267.
Schindler, Jochem
1980 Zur Herkunft der altindischen cvi-Bildungen. 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,
386−393.
Schindler, Jochem
1986 Zu den homerischen ῥοδοδάκτυλος-Komposita. In: Annemarie Etter (ed.), o-o-pe-ro-si:
Festschrift für Ernst Risch zum 75. Geburtstag. Berlin: De Gruyter, 394−401.
Schindler, Jochem
1994 Alte und neue Fragen zum indogermanischen Nomen. In: Rasmussen (ed.), 397−400.
Schlerath, Bernfried (ed.)
1985 Grammatische Kategorien: Funktion und Geschichte. Akten der VII. Fachtagung der
Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Berlin, 20.−25. Februar 1983. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Schmidt, Johaness
1889 Die Pluralbildungen der indogermanischen Neutra. Weimar: Hermann Böhlau.
Schumacher, Stefan
2004 Die keltischen Primärverben: Ein vergleichendes, etymologisches und morphologisches
Lexikon. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität.

Authenticated
Sihler, Andrew
1993 The Anatolian and Indo-European First Person Plural. In: Bela Brogyanyi and Reiner
Lipp (eds.), Comparative-Historical Linguistics, Indo-European and Finno-Ugric. Pa-
pers in Honor of Oswald Szemerényi. Vol. III. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 171−186.
Sihler, Andrew
1995 New Comparative Grammar of Latin and Greek. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith-Stark, T. Cedric
1974 The Plurality Split. In: Michael W. La Galy, Robert A. Fox, and Anthony Bruck (eds.),
Papers from the Tenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, April 19−
21, 1974. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 657−671.
Starke, Frank
1990 Untersuchung zur Stammbildung des keilschrift-luwischen Nomens. Wiesbaden: Harra-
sowitz.
Stassen, Leon
2013 Comparative Constructions. In: Dryer and Haspelmath (eds.), chapter 121. URL http://
wals.info/chapter/121.
Steriade, Donca
1988 Greek Accent: A Case for Preserving Structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 271−314.
Stolz, Thomas, Cornelia Stroh, and Aina Urdze
2011 Total Reduplication: The Areal Linguistics of a Potential Universal. Bremen: Akademie.
Strunk, Klaus
1967 Nasalpräsentien und Aoriste: Ein Beitrag zur Morphologie des Verbums in Indo-
Iranischen und Griechischen. Heidelberg: Winter.
Strunk, Klaus
1994 Relative Chronology and the Indo-European Verb-System: The Case of Present- and
Aorist-Stems. Journal of Indo-European Studies 22: 417−434.
Stüber, Karin
2002 Die primären s-Stämme des Indogermanischen. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Stüber, Karin
2015 Die Verbalabstrakta des Altirischen (2 vols.). Bremen: Hempen.
Sturtevant, Edgar H.
1929 The relationship of Hittite to Indo-European. Transactions and Proceedings of the
American Philological Association 60: 25−37.
Sturtevant, Edgar H.
1933 Archaism in Hittite. Language 9: 1−11.
Szemerényi, Oswald
1996 Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics. 4 th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tichy, Eva
1993 Kollektiva, Genus femininum und relative Chronologie im Indogermanischen. Histori-
sche Sprachforschung 106: 1−19.
Tichy, Eva
1995 Die Nomina agentis auf -tarim Vedischen. Heidelberg: Winter.
Tichy, Eva
2004 Indogermanistiches Grundwissen. 2 nd edn. Bremen: Hempen.
Tichy, Eva
2006 Der Konjunktiv und seine Nachbarkategorien: Studien zum indogermanischen Verbum,
ausgehend von der älteren vedischen Prosa. Bremen: Hempen.
Tremblay, Xavier

Authenticated
Tribulato, Olga
2015 Ancient Greek Verb-Initial Compounds: Their Diachronic Development within the Greek
Compound System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tucker, Elizabeth
1988 Some innovations in the system of denominative verbs in early Indic. Transactions of
the Philological Society 86: 93−114.
Tucker, Elizabeth
1990 The Creation of Morphological Regularity: Early Greek Verbs in -éō, -áō, -óō, -úō and
-íō. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Tucker, Elizabeth
2013 Old Persian asabāra- ‘horse-borne’, RV kṣīrapāká- ‘cooked in milk’, and the Restructur-
ing of Vowel Quantities in Indo-Iranian Thematic Verbal Nouns. In: Jamison, Melchert,
and Vine (eds.), 229−242.
Uhlich, Jürgen
2002 Verbal Governing Compounds (Synthetics) in Early Irish and Other Celtic Languages.
Transactions of the Philological Society 100: 403−433.
de Vaan, Michiel
2003 The Avestan Vowels. Leiden: Brill.
Vendler, Zeno
1967 Verbs and Times. In: Zeno Vendler (ed.), Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 97−121. [Revision of 1957, Verbs and Times. Philosophical Review
66: 143−160].
Veselinova, Ljuba N.
2003 Suppletion in Verb Paradigms: Bits and Pieces of a Puzzle. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Veselinova, Ljuba N.
2013 Suppletion According to Tense and Aspect. In: Dryer and Haspelmath (eds.), chapter
79. URL http://wals.info/chapter/79.
Vijūnas, Aurelijus
2009 The Indo-Europan Primary T-Stems. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen
der Universität.
2012 The ablaut of the middle root athematic presents in Indo-European. In: Melchert (ed.),
333−342.
Vine, Brent
1998a Aeolic ὄρπετον and Deverbative -etó- in Greek and Indo-European. Innsbruck: Institut
für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität.
Vine, Brent
1998b The Etymology of Greek κώμη and Related Problems. In: Jasanoff, Melchert, and Oliver
(eds.), 685−702.
Vine, Brent
2002 On Full-Grade *-ro- in Greek and Indo-European. In: Mark Southern (ed.), Indo-Euro-
pean Perspectives. Washington, D.C.: Institut for the Study of Man, 329−350.
Vine, Brent
2004 On PIE Full Grades in Some Zero-Grade Contexts: *-tí-, *-tó-. In: James Clackson and
Birgit A. Olsen (eds.), Indo-European Word Formation: Proceedings of the Conference
held at the University of Copenhagen October 20th−22 nd 2000. Copenhagen: Museum
Tusculanum, 357−380.
Vine, Brent
2013 A Hoarse of a Different Color (Plautus, Poen. 778 rāviō). In: Cooper, Rau, and Weiss
(eds.), 315−328.
Wackernagel, Jacob
1877 Zum homerischen Dual. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 23: 302−310.

Authenticated
Wackernagel, Jacob
1897 Vermischte Beiträge zur griechischen Sprachkunde. Programm zur Rektoratsfeier der
Universität Basel, 3−62.
Wackernagel, Jacob
1904 Studien zum griechischen Perfectum. Programm zur akademischen Preisverteilung, 3−
24 (=Kl. Schr. II. 1000−1021).
Wackernagel, Jakob
1905 Altindische Grammatik, Band II.1: Einleitung zur Wortlehre, Nominalkomposition. Göt-
tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Wackernagel, Jacob
1907 Indisches und Italisches. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 41: 305−319.
Wackernagel, Jacob
1926−1928 [2009] Lectures on Syntax: with Special Reference to Greek, Latin, and Germanic.
Translated and edited with notes and bibliography by David Langslow. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Wackernagel, Jacob
1953 Kleine Schriften. 2 vols. Ed. by Kurt Latte. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Wagner, Laura
2006 Aspectual bootstrapping in language acquisition: Telicity and transitivity. Language
Learning and Development 2: 51−76.
Watkins, Calvert
1963 Preliminaries to a historical and comparative analysis of the syntax of the Old Irish verb.
Celtic 6: 1−49.
Watkins, Calvert
1967 Latin sōns. In: Walter W. Arndt, Paul W. Brosman, Jr., Frederic E. Coenen, and Werner
P. Friederich (ed.), Studies in Historical Linguistics in Honor of George Sherman Lane.
Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 186−194 (= 1994.2: 405−413).
Watkins, Calvert
1969 Geschichte der indogermanischen Verbalflexion (Indogermanische Grammatik: III/1,
Formenlehre). Heidelberg: Winter.
Watkins, Calvert
1971 Hittite and Indo-European Studies: The Denominative Statives in *-ē-. Transactions of
the Philological Society 70: 51−93.
Watkins, Calvert
1994 Selected Writings. 2 vols. Lisi Oliver (ed.). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft
der Universität.
Watkins, Calvert
1995 How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European Poetics. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Watkins, Calvert
1998 Proto-Indo-European: Comparison and Reconstruction. In: Anna Giacalone Ramat and
Paolo Ramat (eds.), The Indo-European Languages. London: Routledge, 25−73.
Watkins, Calvert
2001 An Indo-European Linguistic Area and its Characteristics: Ancient Anatolia. Areal Dif-
fusion as a Challenge to the Comparative Method? In: Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R.
M. W. Dixon (eds.), Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in Comparative
Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 44−63.
Watkins, Calvert
2008 Selected Writings. Volume III: Publications 1992−2008. Lisi Oliver (ed.). Innsbruck:
Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität.

Authenticated
Watkins, Calvert
2011 American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots. 3 rd edn. Boston: Houghton Mif-
flin Harcourt.
Watkins, Calvert
2013 Aspects of the “expressive dimension” in Indo-European. Toward a comparative gram-
mar of speech registers. In: Jamison, Melchert, and Vine (eds.), 243−253.
Weiss, Michael
2011 Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin. 2 nd (corr. repr.) edn. Ann
Arbor: Beech Stave.
Weiss, Michael
2014 The Comparative Method. In: Bowern and Evans (eds.), 127−145.
Whitney, William Dwight
1889 A Sanskrit Grammar. 2 nd edn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Widmer, Paul
2004 Das Korn des weiten Feldes: Interne Derivation, Derivationskette und Flexionsklassen-
hierarchie. Aspekte der nominalen Wortbildung im Urindogermanischen. Innsbruck: In-
stitut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität.
Widmer, Paul
2005 Der altindische vr̥kī-Typus and hethitisch nakkī: Der indogermanische Instrumental
zwischen Syntax und Morphologie. Die Sprache 45: 190−208.
Willi, Andreas
2007 Of aspects, augments, aorists − or how to say to have killed a dragon. In: George et al.
(eds.), 34−48.
Willi, Andreas
2011 Morphosyntaktische Überlegungen zum Ursprung des griechischen Futurs. In: Krisch
and Lindner (eds.), 605−615.
Willi, Andreas
2012 Kiparsky’s Rule, thematic nasal presents, and athematic verba vocalia in Greek. In:
Philomen Probert and Andreas Willi (eds.), Laws and Rules in Indo-European. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 260−278.
Willmott, Jo
2007 The Moods of Homeric Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wodtko, Dagmar S., Britta Irslinger, and Carolin Schneider (eds.)
2008 Nomina im Indogermanischen Lexikon. Heidelberg: Winter.
Yakubovich, Ilya
2010 Sociolinguistics of the Luvian Language. Leiden: Brill.
Yakubovich, Ilya
2013 The degree of comparison in Luwian. Indogermanische Forschungen 118: 155−168.
Yakubovich, Ilya
2014 Reflexes of Indo-European ‘ē-Statives’ in Old Indic. Transactions of the Philological
Society 112: 386−408.
Yates, Anthony D.
2015 Anatolian Default Accentuation and its Diachronic Consequences. Indo-European Lin-
guistics 3: 145−187.
Yates, Anthony D.
2016 Stress assignment in Hittite and Proto-Indo-European. Proceedings of the Linguistic
Society of America 1.25: 1−15.
Yates, Anthony D.
2017 Against Root Faithfulness in Cupeño Stress. In: Supplemental Proceedings of the 2016
Annual Meeting on Phonology.
Yoshida, Kazuhiko
1990 The Hittite Mediopassive Endings in -ri. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Authenticated
123. The syntax of Proto-Indo-European 2195
Yoshida, Kazuhiko
1993 Notes on the Prehistory of Preterite Verbal Endings in Anatolian. Historische Sprachfor-
schung 106: 26−35.
Yoshida, Kazuhiko
2010 1st Singular Iterated Mediopassive Endings in Anatolian. In: Jamison, Melchert, and
Vine (eds.), 231−243.
Yoshida, Kazuhiko
2013 The Mirage of Apparent Morphological Correspondence: A Case from Indo-European.
In: Ritsuko Kikusawa and Lawrence A. Reid (eds.), Historical Linguistics 2011: Select-
ed Papers from the 20 th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Osaka, 25−
30 July 2011. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 153−172.
Yoshida, Kazuhiko and Brent Vine (eds.)
2009 East Meets West: Papers in Indo-European Studies. Bremen: Hempen.
Zerdin, Jason
1999 Studies in the Ancient Greek Verbs in -SKŌ. Ph.D. diss., Oxford University.
Zerdin, Jason
2002 The “Iterative-Intensives” in -σκον. Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics,
Philology & Phonetics 7: 103−130.
Zwicky, Arnold M.
1985 Heads. Journal of Linguistics 21: 1−29.
Jesse Lundquist, Los Angeles (USA)

Anthony D. Yates, Los Angeles (USA)
123. The syntax of Proto-Indo-European

1. Grammatical reconstruction 6. Latent arguments
2. The limits of reconstruction 7. Binding
3. Word order 8. Copula constructions
4. The structure of XPs 9. Subordination and embedding
5. Case 10. References
1. Grammatical reconstruction
The only sentence that can be reconstructed with some plausibility is Watkins’ famous
*eg whent og whim (or rather *h3 eg whim) ‘[he] slew the dragon’ (Watkins 1995: 301) −
hardly more than a VP (for the convincing Greek evidence see Watkins 1995: 359).
No other formula can be reconstructed with the same probability (cf. Keydana 2001).
Reconstructing PIE phrases or sentences, then, is a fruitless endeavor.
Syntactic reconstruction therefore differs markedly from traditional segmental phono-
logical or morphological reconstruction. But this does not mean that the whole project
of a PIE syntax is doomed to failure, as Fritz in Meier-Brügger (2002: 244−245) seems
to assume (cf. also Lightfoot 1980 and Jeffers 1976, and for a critique of these argu-
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-044

Authenticated
Yoshida, Kazuhiko
1993 Notes on the Prehistory of Preterite Verbal Endings in Anatolian. Historische Sprachfor-
schung 106: 26−35.
Yoshida, Kazuhiko
2010 1st Singular Iterated Mediopassive Endings in Anatolian. In: Jamison, Melchert, and
Vine (eds.), 231−243.
Yoshida, Kazuhiko
2013 The Mirage of Apparent Morphological Correspondence: A Case from Indo-European.
In: Ritsuko Kikusawa and Lawrence A. Reid (eds.), Historical Linguistics 2011: Select-
ed Papers from the 20 th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Osaka, 25−
30 July 2011. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 153−172.
Yoshida, Kazuhiko and Brent Vine (eds.)
2009 East Meets West: Papers in Indo-European Studies. Bremen: Hempen.
Zerdin, Jason
1999 Studies in the Ancient Greek Verbs in -SKŌ. Ph.D. diss., Oxford University.
Zerdin, Jason
2002 The “Iterative-Intensives” in -σκον. Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics,
Philology & Phonetics 7: 103−130.
Zwicky, Arnold M.
1985 Heads. Journal of Linguistics 21: 1−29.
Jesse Lundquist, Los Angeles (USA)

Anthony D. Yates, Los Angeles (USA)
123. The syntax of Proto-Indo-European

1. Grammatical reconstruction 6. Latent arguments
2. The limits of reconstruction 7. Binding
3. Word order 8. Copula constructions
4. The structure of XPs 9. Subordination and embedding
5. Case 10. References
1. Grammatical reconstruction
The only sentence that can be reconstructed with some plausibility is Watkins’ famous
*eg whent og whim (or rather *h3 eg whim) ‘[he] slew the dragon’ (Watkins 1995: 301) −
hardly more than a VP (for the convincing Greek evidence see Watkins 1995: 359).
No other formula can be reconstructed with the same probability (cf. Keydana 2001).
Reconstructing PIE phrases or sentences, then, is a fruitless endeavor.
Syntactic reconstruction therefore differs markedly from traditional segmental phono-
logical or morphological reconstruction. But this does not mean that the whole project
of a PIE syntax is doomed to failure, as Fritz in Meier-Brügger (2002: 244−245) seems
to assume (cf. also Lightfoot 1980 and Jeffers 1976, and for a critique of these argu-
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-044

Authenticated
ments, Dressler 1971: 6 and Harris and Campbell 1995: 344−376). The goal of IE studies
is not the reconstruction of utterances, but that of linguistic competence. The reconstruct-
ed roots, words, or affixes are entries in the mental lexicon of an ideal PIE speaker, the
phonological or morphological rules for manipulating them part of his grammar. Like-
wise, PIE syntax is not concerned with actual strings, but with the structure of complex
syntactic objects and constraints on the wellformedness of such objects.
Contrary to my own skeptical assessment in Keydana (1997: 32), I now think that,
grosso modo, syntactic reconstruction is possible (cf. Keydana 2004), as long as we
respect the limits (of external reconstruction) and restrain ourselves from speculating
without sound empirical evidence. For similar positions cf. Dressler (1971), Balles
(2006), and Speyer (2009).
Still, studies in IE syntax face fundamental problems that severely restrict any at-
tempts at reconstruction. The most important one is the fact that the languages we com-
pare never provide negative evidence and that we do not have access to acceptability
judgments. Modern corpus linguistics does not help to improve this situation, as statisti-
cal marginality does not necessarily reflect unacceptability. Besides, the most ancient
corpora are often too small to reveal statistical patterns. Working with actually attested
texts only, historical linguists must by hypothesis assume that all the utterances they are
confronted with are valid and well-formed. This also holds true for poetic texts: even if
they stretch grammaticality to its limits, they never trespass the boundaries of grammar.
“Poetic license” does not lead to agrammaticality (cf. Hock 2000). Translated texts
present us with more serious problems. The Gothic corpus is a case in point: Some
phenomena attested in Gothic texts seem to be syntactic calques that could not be gener-
ated on the basis of Gothic competence alone (see Keydana 1997 on absolute construc-
tions). Nonetheless, crucial differences between the Greek original and its Gothic transla-
tion allow for interesting glimpses into the nature of Gothic syntax (cf. Ferraresi 2005).
The topics of this survey are 1. word order, 2. the structure of XPs and agreement
phenomena, 3. case and argument structure, 4. latent arguments, 5. binding, 6. copula
constructions, and 7. subordination. Some of the issues − like word order or case − have
been discussed extensively since the emergence of IE syntactic studies. Others − like
the structure of XPs or binding − have hardly ever been tackled. This disequilibrium is
reflected in the present survey, so that some of the following sections are no more than
hints for further research.
Information packaging plays a huge role in current work on Indo-European syntax
(see e.g., Lühr 2011; Spevak 2010; Viti 2010; Luraghi 1995). Nonetheless, it will not be
addressed in this overview as a topic of its own, although its relevance for the organiza-
tion of the sentence periphery (and maybe other topics of IE sentence topology) will
be acknowledged. However, caution seems to be called for: the linguistic encoding of
information packaging in the ancient IE languages is not necessarily unambiguous (cf.
below on the DF-slot), and the intonational part of it is not even transmitted (neither
Hittite plene writings nor Vedic verb accentuation should be overestimated). Heuristics
for analyzing text structure are not of much help either, as elements that can be identified
with foci, topics, or other information structural entities based on textual analysis do not
necessarily have to be encoded as such (see also Viti 2008: 91).
One last preliminary remark: I am convinced that students of historical syntax cannot
afford to ignore the developments in syntactic theory in the last 60 years and their
repercussions for empirical studies in syntactic phenomena. I am also positive that mod-

Authenticated
est formalization furthers our insights into syntactic structures and that (contrary to e.g.,
Viti 2007) there is no need to play formal analyses off against functional approaches (cf.
Speyer 2009). This paper is not written in any specific modern syntactic framework, and
I will try to keep the theoretical humdrum to the minimum. The term “dislocation” when
used here refers to linearizations different from those assumed to be canonical; it is not
meant to imply movement in the sense of Government & Binding Theory or the Mini-
malist Program.
2. The limits of reconstruction

PIE was a nominative-accusative language. As all attested old IE languages are of this
type, hypothesizing any other syntactic type would be highly implausible.
Still, certain asymmetries in the case morphology of PIE (*-s in nom. and gen., no
formal differentiation between nom. and acc. in the neuter) and the assumed original
two-valued gender system as well as some peculiarities of Lithuanian or Hittite syntax
have led numerous authors beginning with Uhlenbeck (1901) and van Wijk (1902) to
speculate on the syntax of a stratum preceding PIE as reached by external reconstruction.
Van Wijk (1902) and his followers take PIE *-s as an original agency marker, thus
collapsing the later nom. and gen. into a single category. Two possible scenarios for
“Pre-Indo-European”, as Lehmann (1993) calls it, arise: In the first, Pre-IE is an ergative
language, as was first proposed by Uhlenbeck (1901); authors like Kuryłowicz (1935),
Martinet (1962), Shields (1978), and Schmalstieg (1987) follow suit. The other scenario
is that of an active language, which was proposed by Schmidt (1977b), Gamkrelidze and
Ivanov (1984), Lehmann (1993), Bauer (1996, 2000), and others.
The phenomena addressed by these authors clearly exist and are probably remnants of
an older system different from that of the attested languages. Yet established reconstruction
techniques do not allow for any serious scientific assessment of the proposals given,
especially as they are not backed by well-based typological work on active-inactive or
ergative languages. Belonging to the realm of speculation, they will not be treated in this
survey, which is devoted to PIE as the language reached by external reconstruction.
3. Word order
3.1. Basic word order
It is advisable to follow the insight of Delbrück (1878) that investigations into word
order should focus on early IE prose texts, since their text structure is typically much
simpler than that of poetic texts. The study of prose texts is thus much more yielding
for investigations into functional factors determining word order. The assessment of Viti
(2008: 90), that due to their oral transmission poetic texts “represent […] the natural flow
of conscious experience” and “may cast valuable insights into the pragmatic functions
for which the various word orders were used” seems overly optimistic.

Authenticated
In recent functional studies into word order, the assumption of a basic word order is
often dismissed altogether. Functionalists argue that word order is determined exclusive-
ly by factors like number (Viti 2010), animacy (Viti 2009a), or information packaging
(Spevak 2010) (but see Keydana 2011b). However, even functionalists concede that a
“neutral arrangement of syntactic constituents” (Viti 2009a: 308) or a “basic order”
(Spevak 2010: 115) has to be reckoned with.
Lehmann (1974) and Friedrich (1975) were the first to discuss Indo-European word
order from a typological point of view. While Lehmann found evidence for SOV in the
oldest IE languages and reconstructed this pattern for PIE (cf. also Lehmann 1993;
Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1984; Stepanov 1989), Friedrich argued for a basic SVO word
order. The problem with both approaches was that, following Greenberg (1963), the
authors took surface linearization as the basis of their investigation. Lehmann (1993:
35), for example, takes the first words of the Odyssey
(1) ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε

man-ACC me-DAT tell-of
Tell me about the man …
as evidence for OV, although it seems obvious that ἄνδρα, as the first word of the whole
epos, is in a highly marked position: it probably occupies a discourse functional slot in
the left periphery. Both authors rely heavily on Greenbergian implicational universals
(like postpositions implied by OV or preceding conjunctions implied by VO). Since pure
tokens of the types Greenberg proposed scarcely exist, results derived from implicational
universals have to be treated with caution (cf. Hock 1992).
With the advent of generative syntax, a different approach came into play: seemingly
aberrant word-order patterns were analyzed as a product of the interplay between basic
word order and highly restricted dislocations, so that the dispute between Lehmann and
Friedrich could be settled: Krisch (1997: 302 ff.) showed that (most of) Friedrich’s SVO-
sentences are best understood as sentences with right dislocated constituents. Another
truth that emerged with a systematic treatment of dislocations is the fact that none of
the attested IE languages has free word order. They are all configurational, as is PIE (cf.
Krisch 1998 and Devine and Stephens 2000, 2006, who argue for grades of configura-
tionality). As the problem of basic PIE word order seems to be solved, the interest in
current studies in IE word order has shifted to a phenomenology of dislocations and the
factors that trigger them (cf. for example Kiparsky 1995 and Krisch 1997).
The generative approach advances our understanding of word-order issues substan-
tially. Still, a small caveat is in order: since dislocations are not marked as such in the
linear sequence of syntactic objects in the sentence, they can only be hypothesized. This
means that for any sentence with n constituents, we may assume at least n different
dislocations. Cf. the following Vedic example taken from Krisch (1990: 77):
(2) sá hau vāca gā́rgyah ̣

PCL PCL said Gārgya
Gārgya said …
(ŚB.14.5.1.3)

Authenticated
If we follow Krisch (1990: 77) and take sá as a sentence-initial particle (it might as well
be a pronoun as in [12] below), there are three possibilities for analyzing the linearization
of this sentence: 1. It displays the canonical word order. This solution is not advocated
by anyone, as the low frequency of verb-initial sentences in Vedic makes VS(O) as the
basic pattern highly implausible. 2. The canonical word order is SV and the verb is
dislocated. This analysis goes back to Wackernagel (1892: 434), who takes the verb as
being enclitic. Alternatively it could be derived following assumptions made by Dressler
(1969), who argues that the verb can be dislocated for information structural reasons. In
this case, it is not enclitic. 3. The subject is dislocated to the right. This analysis is
advocated by Krisch (1990: 77), who takes the subject in Vedic as an “Apposition zu
diesem impliziten Subjekt [apposition to this implicit subject]” encoded in the verbal
ending. Being an apposition the subject can be extraposed to form an amplified sentence
in the sense of Gonda (1959) (the dislocation types mentioned will be discussed in due
course). None of these analyses can be falsified, but as mentioned earlier the first is
highly implausible, whereas the second and third are not.
Coming back to basic word order, we may follow Krisch’s aforementioned reassess-
ment of Friedrich’s data and conclude that PIE was of the SOV type (cf. Krisch 1997:
301−303, 2001). As Hock (2013) has shown, the attested subordination strategies of the
early IE languages confirm this picture. It is further strengthened by the fact that main
clause verbs bear no stress (Hock 2012, 2013). If we take dislocation patterns into ac-
count, we find evidence that SOV is the canonical word order in Old Latin and the
Sabellic languages, the Old Indo-Aryan languages and Hittite; cf. Bauer (1995) for Latin,
Luraghi (1990) for Hittite, and Delbrück (1888) for Vedic. Typical SOV phenomena like
the preference for postpositions (cf. Lehmann 1993) confirm this picture. Despite the
convincing evidence for SOV, however, it should be pointed out that one important IE
language does not fit the picture: Ancient Greek. The canonical word order of alphabetic
Greek is disputed (cf. Kieckers 1911; Frisk 1933; James 1960 and Cervin 1990; Dik
1995, 2007), and even the word order of Mycenean does not provide any conclusive
evidence for canonical patterns (Panagl 1999; Babič 1997; Duhoux 1975). SVO prevails
and can hardly be attributed to information packaging in an underlyingly configurational
SOV language (against Krisch 2001: 165−166). It seems possible that Greek developed
into a discourse-configurational language (cf. Dik 1995 and Matić 2003).
SOV reflects a structure of the type [S[NP VP]] (for the core sentence). As both the
subject NP and the VP can be identified by constituent tests (on which see 4), the
configurational nature of early IE (and PIE) syntax is evident (construction-like “Satz-
baupläne” à la Krisch 2001, 2002, however, are unnecessary). Deviations from the basic
pattern are discussed below.
3.2. The left periphery
The left periphery is that part of the sentence that precedes the subject in its canonical
position in the linearization. Structurally speaking, it can be identified with a D[iscourse]
F[unctional] node (Keydana 2011a) or an E[xpression] node (Lowe 2015) and an option-
al C-projection dominating the core sentence. The left periphery of the IE sentence is of
special interest, as it is a preferred slot for dislocations.

Authenticated
3.2.1. Wh and Comp
Wh-words in all ancient IE languages typically undergo left dislocation (cf. Hale 1987:
43 and Hettrich 1988 for Vedic; Garrett 1994: 43−49 and Lühr 2001 for Hittite). As Wh-
words co-occur with material left-dislocated for discourse functional reasons (Hale 1987:
43−44), they should not be confused with topics or foci (as is done in Krisch 1998: 361,
2002). Wh-words and complementizers follow syntactic objects in the DF-slot and pre-
cede the core sentence. Against Kiparsky (1995: 153), it therefore seems reasonable to
follow Krisch (1998: 358) and assume a C-projection for PIE. Keydana (2011a) argues
that, at least in Vedic, subject Wh-words also undergo dislocation.
Complementizers can be found in all ancient IE languages. On subordinate sentences,
cf. 9.2.
3.2.2. Discourse-prominent elements
PIE had a slot in the left periphery that hosted a discourse prominent element. In most
cases, this slot is occupied by one word only and the rest of the constituent remains in
situ, but cases with full constituents in the left periphery exist (cf. Hale 1987: 44). The
distribution of full constituents versus single words remains a field for further research.
This slot is often called the topic-position, but as Keydana (2011a) and Spevak (2010)
have shown for Vedic and Latin, it hosted topics and foci alike. Therefore, it may tenta-
tively be called the DF slot. There is no evidence for separate topic and focus-slots in
the left periphery as assumed by Kiparsky (1995: 153) (who was forced to reckon with
two distinct slots, as he dismissed a C-projection for PIE and still wanted to account for
sentences with both a discourse prominent constituent and a Wh-word in the left periph-
ery). As was argued in Keydana (2011a) for Vedic, the left periphery is obligatory. It
should be remembered that this observation does not imply that foci and/or topics have
to be dislocated. They may just as well be realized in a neutral position (cf. for Latin
Devine and Stephens 2006: 226 ff.).
Speyer (2009) has shown that in Greek, Latin, and Germanic there is a strong prefer-
ence to fill the DF-slot with frame-building elements.
3.2.3. The verb in the left periphery
In his seminal work on verb-initial sentences in IE, Dressler (1969) argues convincingly
that verbs in sentence-initial position are restricted to “textuell gebundene Sätze [textual-
ly bound sentences]”, where the fronting “is roughly associated with salience” (Klein
1991: 125; cf. also Luraghi 1994, 1995). Anaphoric or, to a lesser extent, cataphoric use
is typical. For an extensive study of Vedic data, cf. Klein (1991), who refines and con-
firms Dressler’s conclusions. For Mycenean, cf. Panagl (1999: 489); for Hittite, Bauer
(2011). Viti (2008) proposes that the initial position of the verb in Vedic and Homeric
Greek marks thetic sentences. However, her notion of “thesis” − though promising − is
ill-defined, which makes it impossible to decide if the data discussed in her paper are
actually pertinent.

Authenticated
Krisch extends the notion of verb movement to subsume cases of verb second (but
cf. Schäufele 1991a). According to him, verb movement to both initial and second posi-
tion are a means of establishing cohesion (cf. Krisch 1997, 2001, 2002). Krisch’s argu-
ment is convincing, as cases like the following with a Wackernagel clitic of type 1 (cf.
below) hosted by the verb show that the verb in second position can actually be part of
the left periphery.
(3) asmā́m̐ avantu te śatám asmā́n sahásram ūtáyah ̣

us-ACC let help your hundred-NOM us-ACC thousand-NOM helps-NOM
Let your hundred, your thousand helps help us.
(RV 4.31.10)
Following Krisch (1997: 299, 2001), I assume that the verb in these cases is in the C0
position. This analysis predicts that verbs in this position cannot co-occur with comple-
mentizers.
3.3. The right periphery
The right periphery is that part of a sentence following the base position of the verb in the
linearization of the sentence. Gonda (1959) calls sentences with a filled right periphery
“amplified”, as according to the author, syntactic objects in the right periphery are never
obligatory (cf. also Schäufele 1991a). Gonda (1959) gave ample evidence for right dislo-
cations in Vedic; for Hittite, cf. McCone (1979, 1997); for Greek, Krisch (1997: 304−
306). Krisch (1997: 305) shows that at least part of the data can be understood as heavy
XP shift. Cf.
(4) Ἰδαῖος δ' ἀπόρουσε λιπὼν περικαλλέα δίφρον

Idaios-NOM PCL jumped off leaving-NOM beautiful-ACC cart-ACC
Idaios jumped off, leaving the beautiful cart.
(Il.5,20)
Several questions remain open: first, a precise definition of amplification is needed, as

the dislocated elements may be adjuncts, parts of bigger constituents, or even subjects
(cf. the somewhat startling conclusion of Schäufele 1991a: 191 for Vedic that, “apart
from sentential particles etc., any single ‘constituent’ can be extraposed”):
(5) Τυδεΐδεω δ' ὑπὲρ ὦμον ἀριστερὸν ἤλυθ' ἀκωκὴ ἔγχεος

Tydeid-GEN PCL over shoulder-ACC left-ACC flew tip-NOM lance-GEN
Over the shoulder of the Tydeid flew the tip of the lance.
(Il.5,16−17)
Against Krisch (1997: 304), it seems unreasonable to claim that the subject is “gramma-
tisch schon im Verb enthalten, also nicht obligatorisch [grammatically included in the
verb already, and therefore not obligatory].” From a syntactic point of view, the subject
is obligatory at least on some level of syntactic representation (and there is no point in

Authenticated
assuming that ἀκωκὴ ἔγχεος is an apposition to a latent subject), and from a semantic
point of view, it is necessary as it introduces a discourse referent and a condition on this
referent both of which are crucial for interpreting the sentence. In the given example
(taken from Krisch), the dislocated subject cannot therefore count as an amplifier in the
sense of Gonda (1959). Its dislocation may rather be due to the fact that it is a complex
NP that counts as heavy. This obviously leads to the second question: How can heavy
XP be defined for ancient IE languages and PIE? What kind of heaviness counts, mere
size or syntactic complexity? If amplification and heaviness both lead to right disloca-
tion, it might be worth investigating whether the two concepts could possibly be con-
flated.
One last issue concerns the discourse structural state of right dislocations. Krisch
(1997: 306) assumes that, at least in Greek, obligatory syntactic objects can only be
dislocated to the right if they are “stark rhematisch [strongly rhematic]” (cf. his examples
30−34). This constraint is somewhat problematic, as in the absence of clear heuristics,
it may be hard to decide what exactly a strong rheme is, but it certainly invites further
research into the interaction of syntactic and discourse grammatical factors in right dislo-
cation phenomena.
3.4. Wackernagel positions
Wackernagel’s Law is “one of the few generally accepted syntactic statements about
Indo-European” (Watkins 1964: 1036). Wackernagel (WL) clitics (cf. Wackernagel 1892)
are non-accented syntactic objects that always occupy the second position in the sen-
tence. Two types of WL clitics have to be distinguished; a third type does not belong to
WL clitics proper.
3.4.1. Type 1
WL1 clitics always follow the first word in a sentence except for cases where a Wh-
word or complementizer is preceded by a filled DF-slot. In this case they follow the
Wh-word. Cf.
(6) índraḥ kím asya sak hyé cakāra

Indra-NOM what-ACC its friendship-LOC did
What did Indra do in its [sc. Soma’s] friendship?
(RV 6.27.1)
Hale (1987) was the first to tackle this problem from a generative perspective. He con-
cluded that “WL clitics take second position defined before the topicalization, but after
WH-movement places ká- in COMP” (Hale 1987: 42). Examples with WL1 clitics fol-
lowing a constituent that clearly occupies the DF-slot (for example dyaúś cid asya in
RV 1.52.10) constitute evidence against Hale’s derivational approach. Hale (1996) put
forth another explanation. He assumed that WL1 clitics move to C0 and undergo prosodic

Authenticated
inversion if necessary. Similarly, Lowe (2011) assumes for Vedic a syntactic constituent
C[litic]CL[uster] which undergoes prosodic inversion as a last resort and has a flat struc-
ture reminiscent of a template which comprises not only WL1 clitics but also preverbs
and relative pronouns. Hock (1996) dismisses syntactic approaches to WL1 clitics and
advocates a templatic account for the whole “initial string” including clitics and accented
material alike. His template is descriptively adequate, but because of various provisos
taken (omission and doubling of elements in the template), it is too powerful to achieve
explanatory adequacy. Keydana (2011a) combines insights from Hale and Hock: He too
argues that WL1 cliticization is a prosodic phenomenon, but in Keydana’s approach only
clitic placement is driven by prosody, whereas the linearization of non-clitic elements in
the left periphery is determined by syntactic structure. Following Keydana, WL1 clitics
are hosted by the first prosodic phrase of a sentence, which corresponds to the (syntacti-
cally defined) left periphery.
3.4.2. Type 2
WL2 clitics follow an obvious pattern: they are always hosted by the first word of a
sentence.
(7) uraú vā yé antárikṣe mádanti

wide-LOC or who-NOM.PL atmosphere-LOC rejoice
… or who rejoice in the wide atmosphere.
(RV 3.6.8)
This behavior again can be modeled syntactically (Hale 1987) or prosodically (Hock
1996; Agbayani and Golston 2010; Lowe 2011; Keydana 2011a). The latter approach is
less costly, as prosodic dependency is an obvious trait of WL clitics, whereas syntactical
dependencies cannot be proven empirically.
Krisch’s approach to WL clitics is based on the assumption of “Satzbaupläne” or
“Schemata” (Krisch 1990, 1997, 2002). Blurring the distinction between WL1 and WL2
and operating with ill-defined construction-like entities, it runs into serious descriptive
and theoretical difficulties and will not be discussed here (for an assessment, cf. Keydana
2011a).
3.4.3. Type 3
WL3 clitics (for example, Vedic cid) have to be excluded from the realm of WL clitics
proper (cf. Krisch 1990: 65). A member of this class is “enclitic to the constituent which
it modifies/ emphasizes” (Hale 1987: 45). The linearization is trivial, as the scope of the
particle could not be reconstructed if it were moved out of its constituent: Clitics that
are subject to some recoverability condition cannot be WL clitics. Their occurrence in
second position in the sentence is due to the fact that they modify words in the DF-slot.

Authenticated
3.4.4. Identifying the core sentence
Krisch (2002: 252) claims that WL clitics can help us identify the core sentence (“Kern-
satz”): Even if Krisch is wrong in assuming that “[w]enn Wackernagelsche Partikeln da
sind, handelt es sich bei dem Teil links davon auf jeden Fall um topikalisierte Elemente
[if Wackernagel particles are present, topicalized elements are in the part to the left of
them in each case],” his general premise is correct: placed after the first prosodic phrase
of a sentence, WL1 clitics indirectly mark the left boundary of the core sentence S. They
can also serve as a diagnostic tool for identifying the syntactic status of embedded
nonfinite structures such as infinitive phrases, as every phrase containing a WL1 clitic
must have a left periphery; in other words, it must be a CP or at least a full S licensing
a DF-slot.
The right periphery is less suitable for diagnosing sentence structure, as every sen-
tence with a non-final verb allows for two competing analyses (cf. 2 above): either the
verb has moved to the left periphery, or some other syntactic object has moved to the
right periphery. As unambiguous markers denoting the boundary of the right periphery
do not exist, a principled decision between the two alternatives is impossible.
3.5. Ditransitives
Vedic double object constructions have been studied by Krisch (1994). He observes that
the indirect object does not necessarily precede the direct object. He argues for the direct
object following the indirect object as the unmarked linearization. Preceding direct ob-
jects are licensed only when the direct object is not rhematic.
On double object constructions cf. 5.
3.6. Scrambling
Scrambling may be defined as free word order phenomena inside the core sentence that
remains after stripping away the left and right periphery. Speyer (2009) for Latin and
Germanic, Schäufele (1991a and 1991b) for Vedic, and Haug (2008) for Greek suggest
that scrambling may be due to information structuring (as is at least partially true for
German, too). Further research is needed to back up this claim. On scrambling in Latin
and ways of investigating scrambling phenomena in ancient languages, cf. Devine and
Stephens (2006).
4. The structure of XPs

As this topic has not yet been seriously investigated, we know almost nothing about the
structure and possible complexity of IE XPs. Constituent tests (conjunction, dislocation)
reveal the existence of NPs and VPs in the early IE languages (on the methodology see
Lowe 2015). On the CP see above 3.2.1. Only the NP has been studied in greater detail.

Authenticated
There is no empirical evidence for constituents like IP, DP, vel sim. Consequently they
are not addressed in the following sketch.
4.1. The structure of NPs
Since determiners are not obligatory and no other empirical evidence for DPs has yet
been given, we assume a simple NP structure for PIE. Hints at the internal structure of
Vedic NPs can be found in Keydana (2013), who in an investigation into event nominals
in the language of the Rigveda observed that no more than one argument of the event
nominal can be realized in the NP (cf. below 5.2.2).
Adjectives agree with nouns in the NP, the only exception being nouns in the dual,
which are combined with adjectives in the plural (cf. Viti 2011 and Lühr 2000b with
examples from Greek and Lithuanian), obviously due to a later development. The seriali-
zation of modifier and head noun is open to variation. Old juxtapositions like Vedic
dámpati- (besides pátir dán), Avestan də̄ṇg paiti-, Greek δεσπότης < PIE *déms póti-
may be taken as a hint that the modifier preceded the noun in PIE (on Greek, see Viti
2009b).
Hyperbata are the result of dislocations out of NPs. Material may be dislocated to the
left into the DF-slot or to the right. While the target slots of these dislocations are easily
named, the process as such is not yet understood: Neither do we know what exactly
triggers right dislocation, nor are we in a position to identify factors for and possible
constraints on extracting material out of NPs (but cf. Krisch 1998: 374). For examples
of hyperbata in ancient IE languages, cf. Krisch (1998); for an in-depth study of Greek
hyperbata, cf. Devine and Stephens (2000). It remains to be seen if hyperbaton may be
reduced to the more general phenomenon of left branch extraction (cf. Ross 1986).
4.2. The structure of VPs
The structure of VPs depends mainly on the subcategorization frame of the verb. The
various attested types are discussed below in 5.2.
4.3. Verbal agreement
In all ancient IE languages, the finite verb agrees with the subject. In some ancient IE
languages, like Greek, Hittite, and Avestan, we observe that number agreement fails with
plural subjects of the neuter gender. This is either due to persistence in the grammaticali-
zation process turning a collective affix into a plural marker or to the fact that inanimate
nouns do not necessarily trigger verbal agreement (Melchert 2011). In most ancient IE
languages, incongruencies can also be observed with the dual, but these phenomena
seem to be based on developments within the attested languages (cf. Lühr 2000b). For
an overview of various IE agreement patterns, see also Rieken and Widmer (2014).

Authenticated
4.4. Adverbs and preverbs
The ancient IE languages have a closed set of (mostly monosyllabic) local adverbs that
can with confidence be reconstructed for PIE and which − as dislocation tests show −
were part of the VP. The exact status of these adverbs, however, is a matter of debate.
They often occur in postposition-like configurations, where they follow an NP which
they seem to govern. There are two reasons for addressing them as actual postpositions
governing NPs in a PP: 1. They form a closed set, which is typical for adpositions, but
not for adverbs. 2. At least in later strata of the IE languages, they definitely qualify as
adpositions.
However, other observations cast doubt on the PP-analysis: 1. In ancient IE languages
with rich case systems, the NP they allegedly govern is always marked for a case, which,
being inherent, is in itself associated with the intended local role in the argument struc-
ture (cf. below). Lexical case selected by the adposition is obviously a later development
(cf. for Vedic Hettrich 1991). 2. The NP is not necessarily adjacent to its alleged gover-
nor, which typically immediately precedes the verb (cf. Watkins 1963).
Further evidence against PIE postpositions comes from the fact that the same closed
set of adverbs can be used to modify verbs. In the attested IE languages they developed
into preverbs, but in the most ancient strata they were autonomous, since in a so-called
tmesis configuration they did not form a morphological word with the verb they modified
(cf. Hettrich 1991; Pinault 1995; and Haug 2011).
Since in both contexts these local adverbs do not seem to be heads of complex
projections (neither of PPs nor of morphologically complex verbs), it seems safe to take
them as simple adverbs throughout (cf. Boley 1985 and Tjerkstra 1999 for Hittite; Hor-
rocks 1981 and Haug 2009 for Greek; Lehmann 1983 for Latin; and for Vedic, a series
of papers by Hettrich et al., e.g., Hettrich 1991 and Casaretto 2010).
5. Case
5.1. Traditional approaches to case
Case has been studied extensively since the groundbreaking work of Delbrück (1869,
1888, 1897) and Gaedicke (1880). The central aim of traditional studies of case is to
isolate the prime semantics of a given case, which is subsequently identified with its
original meaning. Uses not covered by the prime semantics are taken to be marked
functions of the case derived from its core function. The most prominent exponent of
this line of research today is Hettrich, who in a series of papers on Vedic developed
what he calls a semasiological approach to case (Hettrich 1990, 1994, 2002, 2007).
Hettrich’s research is based on three assumptions: 1. Only a semasiological approach
can lead to an adequate picture of the function of a given case. 2. The meaning of cases
can best be covered by prototype semantics. Hettrich argues for a prototypical or core
meaning, which becomes less prominent the more marked the use of a case is. In his
paper on the instrumental (Hettrich 2002), he takes the various aspects of meaning to be
features. 3. (Nearly) every occurrence of a given case must be based on its meaning.
Even if he acknowledges syntactic factors for case selection, a case is hardly ever dese-

Authenticated
manticized completely. This approach faces various difficulties. One concerns semasiolo-
gy: Since we can never go beyond philological interpretation, the proposed semantic
features tend to be arbitrary. In Hettrich (2002), the author tries to capture the difference
between vah ráthena and vah ráthe by assuming a semantic feature “manageability”.
According to Hettrich, both the instrumental and the locative denote a means (of trans-
port), the choice of the latter being due to the fact that because of its size a cart is no
“handhabbare[s] Mittel [manageable means]” (Hettrich 2002: 55).
As Vedic is a dead language, this analysis cannot be falsified; but immediately an
alternative comes to mind: in the two constructions at hand, instrumental and locative
might denote different, nonoverlapping, and discrete thematic roles. This phenomenon,
known in the syntactic literature as alternative projection, goes back to the fact that the
human mind has (at least) two possibilities to conceptualize one and the same event of
cart-riding. The cart can be taken as a means of transport or as the place occupied while
traveling. The first conceptual structure is expressed by the instrumental, the second by
the locative. In this scenario, the optionality is not part of the language (or the case
system); it simply manifests different ways of conceptualizing the world. The feature
“manageability” is therefore dispensable (cf. below 5.3 on the strikingly similar problem
with the “deux modèles” of Haudry 1977).
Further difficulties for the traditional approach arise from the fact that certain data
force us to separate argument structure from case (cf. the following section).
5.2. Argument structure and case
Following major insights into the interplay of argument structure and case gained in
recent studies in a generative framework, I will here pursue a different approach, which
is similar though not identical to the one first introduced into the realm of IE studies by
Krisch (1984) (cf. Krisch 2006 and, for an early attempt, Dressler 1971: 10−13). The
fundamental hypothesis of modern approaches to case is that the levels of case and
thematic roles (the traditional semantics of cases) have to be kept strictly distinct. They
form discrete tiers linked by grammar. I will distinguish conceptual structure (not to be
discussed in this overview), argument structure, and the syntactic level, where case is
assigned.
5.2.1. Evidence for argument structure
Empirical evidence for the necessity of discerning discrete tiers comes from different
types of intransitives. In the ancient IE languages, unergatives like PIE *g wem and unac-
cusatives like PIE *b hu̯eh2 are attested side by side. Both types have nominative subjects,
yet they differ in crucial ways that cannot be accounted for by a monostratal theory:
Only unaccusatives allow for attributive deverbal -tó-adjectives, only unergatives on the
other hand are attested with cognate object constructions (cf. Garrett 1996 on Hittite;
Bruno 2011 on Greek; and Keydana (in press) on Vedic). This difference is easily cap-
tured (and even predicted) by recourse to argument structure: unergatives are subcatego-
rized for an agent, unaccusatives (like passives) for a theme (on thematic roles cf. Dowty

Authenticated
1991). As both thematic roles surface in the same case, a monostratal theory could in
no way account for these differences.
This approach is strengthened further by observations on the distribution of case. A
major problem for the traditional semantic approach comes from the difficulty of assign-
ing a plausible core meaning to a given case. A striking example is the nominative,
which may denote at least agents, themes, and experiencers. Subsuming this broad spec-
trum under the notion of “Sachverhaltsträger” (Hettrich 2007) is not necessarily convinc-
ing, especially as the notion of “Sachverhaltsträger” is not properly defined. Another
example for the difficulties of the traditional approach is the accusative: Hettrich (2007)
claims that it “bezeichnet eine gerichtete Strecke, die vom SV-Träger ausgeht und deren
Endpunkt, Ausdehnung oder Verlauf von dem Begriff im A bestimmt wird [denotes a
directed path that comes from the Sachverhaltsträger and of which the endpoint, extent,
or course is determined by the term in A].” This is a possible characterization of the
directive accusative, but severe semantic bleachings are necessary to turn it into the
object accusative in an example like Vedic
(8) áhann áhim

slew dragon-ACC
He slew the dragon.
(RV 1.32.1 and passim)
Looking at nominatives and accusatives, a striking empirical generalization arises: One

case can be linked to various discrete thematic roles, and one thematic role can be
assigned to various discrete cases. In dealing with the interaction of argument structure
and case, three types of case have to be distinguished: structural case, inherent case, and
lexical case. All of them are manifest in the early IE languages. They must therefore be
assumed for PIE, too.
5.2.2. Structural case
Structural case is assigned solely for syntactic reasons. Its association with a thematic
role is arbitrary. The structural cases in the IE languages are the nominative, the accusa-
tive, and the genitive. The nominative is the case syntactically assigned to the first (or
external) argument of a verb in the subject position, independent of the underlying the-
matic role (cf. the active/passive alternation). The object accusative is syntactically as-
signed to the second (or internal) argument of a verb. In most cases, this is the theme,
but again the linking between role and case remains arbitrary (it serves “lediglich zur
Ergänzung des Verbs [merely as the complement of the verb]” in the words of Delbrück
1879: 29). The dependence of the object accusative on syntactic configurations alone
can be seen from the active/passive alternation (the passive is attested in the early IE
languages, however, special morphological markers for passive voice cannot be recon-
structed, cf. Kulikov and Lavidas 2013): Demoting the first argument always leads to a
configuration in which the internal argument surfaces as a nominative subject. The same
holds true for anticausatives (Kulikov 2012: 20−21). The (possessive) genitive is the
structural (subject) case in the NP-domain. At least for Vedic, an investigation into event

Authenticated
nominals (Keydana 2013) showed that the genitive is always assigned to the sister of N.
The data suggest that with event nominals only one argument can be expressed and that
this argument always surfaces as a genitive, independently of its thematic role (cf. also
Dressler 1971: 10).
5.2.3. Inherent case
Inherent cases are inherently associated with some thematic role. The goal accusative
(García Ramón 1995) is a case in point. Following a long tradition, Hettrich (2007) tries
to unify goal accusative and object accusative. But observations on passivization advise
caution: if the goal accusative were basically the same as the object accusative, both
should behave alike syntactically. Yet they do not: object accusatives can be passivized,
goal accusatives cannot. In the framework proposed here, the reason for this is simple:
being inherently linked to the GOAL-role, the directional accusative does not surface as
a nominative under passivization, as inherent linking cannot be ousted by syntactic case
assignment. Whatever reasons lead to the homonymy of structural object case and inher-
ent goal accusative, in the attested IE languages these two avatars of the accusative are
discrete and have to be kept apart. We may conclude that this holds true for PIE, as
well.
According to Hettrich (1994: 112−113), a major challenge for any structural approach
to case comes from double accusatives: “Wenn die Kasus in der Kernprädikation nur
der Differenzierung von Aktanten dienen, dürfte ein bestimmter Kasus nicht zweimal
vorkommen [If the cases in the core predicate serve only to differentiate the participants,
a particular case would not be likely to occur twice].” But as his excellent survey of
Greek and Vedic data shows, the opposite is the case: his examples clearly hint at the
validity of an approach distinguishing structural and inherent case. Verbs of ‘taking
away’ in Homeric Greek often take two accusatives, one denoting the object taken away
and one the person or location from which the object is taken. As Hettrich (1994: 115)
notes, the syntactic behaviors of both accusatives differ: reduced constructions with only
one accusative always lack that of the person or location, and in passivization only the
object taken away may surface in subject position. This is predicted in the approach
defended here. Being the theme, the object taken away is associated with structural case
depending on the syntactic configuration. The person or location takes inherent goal
accusative; its inability to passivize then is expected. Besides, constructions lacking the
GOAL show that it is not part of the subcategorization of the verb. In Vedic (and for the
Greek verb συλάω ‘I strip off’), the picture is slightly more complicated, as complement
alternation can be observed. This is either due to argument demotion or to the fact that
one and the same event may be conceptualized differently. However, the data again
confirm the distinction between structural and inherent case, which is further strength-
ened by the fact that passivization of double accusative constructions never leads to
double nominatives.
Another case with a structural and an inherent avatar is the genitive. Besides being
the subject case in NPs (cf. above), it functions as a partitive. The partitive is of special
interest as it can override structural case marking: partitive genitives are attested in
subject and object position.

Authenticated
The dative is the default case for the third argument, the BENEFICIARY, in double
object constructions. As it cannot undergo passivization in the old IE languages, how-
ever, it seems apt to assume that it is inherently linked to the BENEFICIARY-role. Pending
further investigations, I conclude that it is an inherent case. As is true for many other
languages, the dative of the old IE languages covers both BENEFICIARY and EXPERIEN-
CER, two roles that might ultimately be linked.
Other inherent cases are the instrumental, the locative, and the ablative. They all are
associated with fixed thematic roles. For an excellent overview of the Vedic data, cf.
Hettrich (1995, 2002, 2007).
5.2.4. Lexical case
The third type of case that can be found in old IE languages and should hence be
reconstructed for PIE, is lexical case. Lexical case is idiosyncratic. It is lexically selected
and licensed by lexical heads. This is most obvious in non-predictable case-assignments
in the subcategorization frames of verbs, for example in the genitive assigned to the
theme of Greek κελεύω ‘I order’ or the case assigned to the theme of Vedic kari ‘com-
memorate, reflect upon with praise’ (data on verbal subcategorization in Vedic can be
found in Hettrich 2007). In these instances, searching for an original motivation for the
selection of a given case is futile: as lexical case exists in all attested languages, assum-
ing a different situation for PIE would amount to glottogonic speculation.
5.3. Further topics in the study of IE case
As most cases that can be reconstructed for PIE have various functions in the attested
languages, it seems feasible to ask for the “Ursprungsbedeutung” or source meaning, as
do Delbrück (1893) and various later scholars. However, this quest seems to be rather
futile. A case in point is the instrumental, which is attested with instrumental and socia-
tive meaning (for the instrumental of the agent with passives cf. Jamison 1979ab and
Luraghi 1986b). While some authors are reluctant to assign one proto-meaning to the
instrumental (Delbrück 1888: 122 opts for the rather general description of a “Begriff,
welcher mit dem in Thätigkeit befindlichen Hauptbegriff zusammen ist [concept, which
is in union with the main concept found in the activity]”, whereas Hettrich 2002: 46
restricts himself to a mere synchronic statement concerning Vedic, where according to
him the instrumental proper is the prime function), others argue that in PIE the instru-
mental was associated with the role of the instrument only, the sociative being a later
development. However, in a careful study Strunk (1993: 859) has shown that this ques-
tion cannot be decided upon, as “zumindest in seiner Rolle als ‘Soziativ’ muß schon der
vorgeschichtliche Instrumental auch auf belebte Wesen anwendbar gewesen sein [at least
in its roll as ‘Sociative’, the prehistoric Instrumental also must already have been appli-
cable to living beings]”. The claim of Haudry (1977) that the instrumental was originally
the object case can be dismissed (cf. Cardona 1979). The complement alternation ob-
served by the author is either a case of argument demotion (cf. the spray/load-alternation
in English) or of alternative projection.

Authenticated
This matter is further illustrated by the genitive, which has the two functions de-
scribed above, viz. the partitive and that of denoting the subject in NPs. Authors like
Delbrück (1893) or Serbat (1992) argue for the precedence of the partitive function.
Serbat (1992: 289−290) explains the development of the structural genitive as a reanaly-
sis in which partitivity still persists even in NPs like Latin equus consulis. Stipulations
like these are meaningless, though, since both functions, the partitive and the structural
one, are attested in the earliest strata of the ancient IE languages: external reconstruction
therefore cannot decide on the priority of one over the other.
As for the accusative, most authors take the function associated with goal to be oldest
(cf. Hettrich 1994; Hewson and Bubenik 2006), based on a tendency to take develop-
ments from concrete to abstract as more plausible than vice versa; de Boel (1988) argues
against this and states that at least in Homeric Greek, the goal accusative is a later
development.
Many early IE languages show case syncretism. As in most of them remnants of
more complex case systems can be found (cf. Delbrück 1907; Hettrich 1985; Luraghi
1986a; and the rather enigmatic Hewson and Bubenik 2006), it cannot be doubted that
the PIE case system was as rich as that of Vedic, even if some of the inherent cases may
have been heavily restricted as to gender and number (cf. Risch 1980).
One last issue to be mentioned here is a peculiarity of the vocative: in invocations
with more than one addressee in Vedic, Avestan, and Homeric Greek, only the first word
occurs in the vocative, the one after it bears nominative case (cf. Vedic vā́yav índraś ca
‘Vāyu and Indra!’ and Homeric Ζεῦ πάτερ… Ἠέλιός θ’ ‘Father Zeus and sun!’). Cf.
Zwolanek (1970).
For a discussion of possible pre-IE case systems cf. 2 above.
6. Latent arguments
Latent arguments exist in all ancient IE languages. They should therefore also be recon-
structed for PIE. Evidence for latent subjects and objects as well as descriptions of their
distribution can be found in Luraghi (1997, 2003), Keydana (2009), and Keydana and
Luraghi (2013). Latent arguments can be used with generic reference as well as anaphori-
cally. The special case of latent subjects of infinitive phrases has been examined by
Keydana (2013) for Early Vedic. Control is discussed in 9.3 below.
7. Binding
Binding has up to now not been studied from an IE perspective (in her study of anaphoric
pronouns in Vedic, Kupfer 2002 is concerned with pronouns bound by a non-local ante-
cedent only; in her extensive study of Gothic reflexives, Ferraresi 2005: 77−124 exam-
ines differences in word order between sik and sik silban, but not binding). Speyer (in
press) discusses binding in early Attic. He concludes that only complex reflexives are
bound by a local (i.e. sentence-internal) antecedent. Morphologically simple ones are
predominantly used in local binding configurations, but they may occur with non-local

Authenticated
binding, too. Vedic seems to be similar, as the possessive reflexive again is not restricted
to local binding contexts (only svayám is always reflexive). Cf.
(9) téb hiḥ sākám pibatu vr̥trak hādáḥ sutáṃ sómaṃ

they-INSTR.PL together let drink devourer of Vrtra-NOM pressed-ACC soma-ACC
dāśúṣaḥ své sad hást he
worshipper-GEN own-LOC home-LOC
Together with them let the devourer of Vr̥tra drink the pressed soma in the wor-
shipper’s own home.
(RV 3.51.9)
It seems reasonable to conclude that in the early IE languages − and probably PIE, too −
local binding was not a grammatical constraint. Rather, the early IE languages seem to
fit nicely into a picture developed by Levinson (2000: 347−348), who distinguishes three
stages in the development of reflexives (cf. also Mattausch 2004). Stage one languages
have only one sort of anaphora; non-local binding is preferred, but merely on pragmatic
grounds. Stage two languages have emphatic pronouns, which gradually replace regular
pronouns in locally bound contexts. Stage three finally has fully developed reflexives,
which are historically derived from emphatics. Although it is impossible to show that
PIE *su̯o- (and probably *se) was originally an emphatic pronoun, PIE and its daughters
seem to be stage two languages: they have a pronoun that is predominantly used in
reflexive contexts. Other pronouns typically occur as non-local anaphors, but may also
be used in reflexive contexts. In other words, binding in PIE and the early IE languages
was probably a pragmatic phenomenon and not fully grammaticalized. This picture is
confirmed by the study of Viti (2009c) of the distribution of anaphors and reflexives in
Latin and Ancient Greek. However, further investigations into binding in the ancient IE
languages are necessary in order to evaluate this proposal.
The role of logophoricity and the possibility of long distance anaphora in the oldest
IE languages have not yet been studied (but cf. again Speyer in press for Attic).
8. Copula constructions
In the ancient IE languages, predicates of finite sentences do not obligatorily have to be
verbs. Other possible predicates are nouns, adjectives, and adverbial phrases. These may
be accompanied by a copula, but the copula is not mandatory: it can be omitted, especial-
ly in the present tense. An overview of the semantic types of predicative copula construc-
tions in Vedic can be found in Keydana (2000). Balles (2006) argues for telic copula
sentences in PIE based on *-ih1 -instrumentals and the verb *d heh1 , which are reflected
in the Vedic Cvi-forms and Latin verbs like calefaciō. Lühr (2007) extends the notion
of copula to verbs like τυγχάνω construed with a present participle and shows that similar
constructions can be found in Vedic, too. She takes them to be an inner-Vedic develop-
ment marking progressivity.
A special type of copula construction is the expression of alienable possession with
the so called mihi est construction in ancient IE languages like Latin, and, to a lesser
degree, Greek, Vedic, Tocharian, and others. Cf. Benveniste (1960) and the data given

Authenticated
by Bauer (2000: 197−221) (whose hypothesis that the mihi est construction dates back
to a pre-IE layer is highly speculative). Barðdal and Smitherman (2013) reconstruct for
PIE what they call the DAT-NOM-is-known-construction, consisting of the copula, a da-
tive subject, and a verbal adjective from the root *g̑neh3 .
9. Subordination and embedding

If a syntactic structure is hierarchically connected to another syntactic structure and does
not by itself constitute a well-formed utterance, it is called subordinate.
As Kiparsky (1995: 155) has shown, in the early IE languages two types of subordina-
tion were used. In the first type, the subordinate structure (typically a participial or
infinitival phrase) is truly embedded: it fills an argument or modifier position in the
embedding sentence. This type of subordination is clearly syntactical.
GIŠ
(10) kāša=šmaš=kan parkuin mišriwantan ḫarkin GIDRU ūl
PCL-you-PCL pure-ACC gleaming-ACC white-ACC rod-ACC not
walḫantan UDU-un šipantaḫḫun
hit-PPL.ACC sheep I sacrificed
Behold I have sacrificed for you a pure, gleaming white sheep never struck with
a rod.
(KBo 15.10 + KBo 20.42 ii 8−10)
(11) tvám indra srávitavā́ apás kah ̣
you-NOM Indra flow-INF water-ACC.PL make
You, Indra, make the waters flow.
(RV 7.21.3)
In the second type, the subordinate predication is finite. Finite subordinate clauses are
adjoined to the clause they depend on (cf. for Hittite Garrett 1994 and Probert 2006, the
latter claiming that adjunction is at least partly due to reanalysis and therefore a later
development). They are typically coindexed with a correlative pronoun or adverb in
argument or modifier position. Evidence for adjunction comes from the already men-
tioned obligatory correlatives and the fact that the head of a relative sentence often is
part of it. Cf. the following example, taken from Lühr (2000a: 74):
(12) yó mártyah ̣ śíśīte áty aktúb hir mā́ nah ̣

which-NOM mortal-NOM makes himself sharp too much at night not us
sá ripúr īśata
that-NOM scoundrel-NOM shall have power
The mortal who makes himself too sharp at night, that scoundrel shall not have
power over us.
(RV1.36.16)
In this example, the argument position in the embedding sentence is filled by sá (with
non-referential ripúh ̣), which is anaphoric to yó mártyah ̣ in the relative clause. Similar
structures occur with other types of subordination, where they are less dominant. Cf.

Authenticated
(13) yadā́ śr̥táṃ kr̥ṇávo jātavedó ’them enam prá hiṇutāt

when done-ACC you make Jātavedas then-PCL him-ACC forth send
pitr´̥ bhyah ̣
father-DAT.PL
When you shall make him done, Jātavedas, then send him forth to the fathers.
(RV 10.16.1)
These sentences are not syntactically dominated by the embedding main clause; rather
their dependency is possibly a matter of discourse grammar. Constructions of this type
are frequent in Vedic, Hittite, and Old Latin (cf. Haudry 1973; Calboli 1987; Luraghi
1990). Although they are not prominent in Greek (not even in Mycenean, cf. Ruipérez
1997: 528−529), it seems plausible to reconstruct them − at least in the realm of relative
clauses − for PIE.
In Vedic, subordinate sentences are marked by an accented finite verb in contrast to
an unaccented one in main clauses. This pattern probably goes back to a rise in intonation
indicating that the main clause is to follow (see Klein 1992; the claim of Lühr 2008
that Vedic verbal accent also marks, and even distinguishes, new information focus and
contrastive focus, is untenable).
9.1. Relative clauses
All ancient IE languages have relative clauses, both in restrictive and appositive use
(Held 1957; Hettrich 1988). R[estrictive]R[elative]S[entence]s restrict the reference of
their head, which is typically part of the RRS. RRSs normally precede their main clause.
As described above, their argument or modifier position in the main clause is filled by
a correlative anaphoric pronoun. The linearization of main and subordinate clause comes
as no surprise. To put it into the parlance of Discourse Representation Theory, it is the
RRS which introduces the discourse referent and the prime condition on it (via the head).
The identity condition is introduced by the anaphor in the main clause (this situation
differs fundamentally from that in modern languages like German or English, where
the identity condition comes with the relative; the term “präsupponierende Relativsätze
[presupposing relative clauses]” coined by Lühr 2000a: 78 is therefore misleading). This
sentence type occurs in Hittite, the Indo-Iranian languages, Greek, Latin and a few
others, and it can confidently be reconstructed for PIE. As Hajnal (1997) argues, restrict-
ive relative sentences were a means for marking definite determination.
A[ppositive]R[elative]S[entence]s add information about the referent of their head
without restricting it further. As Hettrich (1988) shows for the language of the Rigveda,
roughly 30 % of the ARSs precede the embedding sentence, while 60 % follow it. Refer-
ring to Lehmann (1980), Hettrich (1988) concludes that originally the ARS always fol-
lowed, but evidence for this assumption is not available. On discourse structural grounds,
one could argue that the serialization is of no importance for processing, so that it may
always have been optional.
The reconstruction of the relative pronoun itself is more difficult: Hittite and Latin
continue the *k wi/k wo-relative, other languages like Greek and Indo-Iranian show *Hi̯ o-.
No attested language uses both (although in Celtic, which continues *k wi-/k wo-, remnants

Authenticated
of *Hi̯ o- can be found, cf. Schmidt 1977a). The communis opinio follows Lehmann
(1980) in assuming that *k wi-/k wo- was originally restricted to RRSs, while *Hi̯ o- was
used in ARSs (cf. Hettrich 1988: 744−790). This neat distinction is certainly very attract-
ive, but Klein (1990: 90) correctly alluded to the fact that this “hypothesis, as it stands,
is virtually unfalsifiable.”
Since Lehmann (1980), communis opinio has it that *k wi-/k wo- was originally an
indefinite pronoun. As authors like Hettrich (1988: 505), Klein (1990: 90), and Hajnal
(1997: 50) argue, the fact that it regularly occurs in second position betrays its origin as
an enclitic indefinite. However, this interpretation of the linearization of Old Latin and
Hittite relative sentences (where the relative pronoun always occupies second position
in RRSs) is not compelling. Cf. the following examples:
(14) agrum quem vir habet, tollitur.

land which man owns is taken away
The land that a man owns is taken away.
(Cato or.frg.32,3)
(15) pēdi=ma=kan kuē KUR.KURMEŠ daliyanun nu=šmaš ZAGḪI.A-uš
place-LOC-PCL-PCL which lands I left PCL-those borders
teḫḫun
I fixed
And for the lands that I left in place, for those I fixed the borders.
(Kup § 3 D 16 f.)
The word in initial position is obviously the most salient one in the sentence (cf. on
Hittite Lühr 2001). We may conclude that it occupies the DF-slot identified above, while
the relative pronoun is most probably in [Spec,CP]. Note that the same linearization is
frequent in Vedic, which has a *Hi̯ o-relative. In the scenario discussed here, this pronoun
must have superseded the original *k wi-/k wo-, which some time before grew out of an
indefinite pronoun. To account for the word order, one has to assume that second position
was transmitted all the way from the indefinite to yá- at least optionally. This scenario
certainly is possible, as persistence often prevails in grammaticalization processes, but
it seems less costly to assume that in Vedic, too, the placement of the relative is deter-
mined by synchronic grammar. I conclude, then, that there is no evidence for the devel-
opment of relative *k wi-/k wo- out of an indefinite pronoun. We should also bear in mind
that such a development is not attested; rather the indefinite builds on the interrogative,
cf. Latin quisquis, Hittite kuiški, or Vedic káś cid.
The origin of the *Hi̯ o-relative is obscure. Viti (2007: 59) opts for anaphoric origin.
However, the pronoun seems to be isolated in the PIE lexicon (cf. Hettrich 1988).
9.2. Subordinate clauses
A complementizer which might be of PIE origin is *k we. It is attested as a complementi-

zer in subordinate sentences in Hittite -(k)ku, takku (cf. Eichner 1971), Vedic ca (cf.
Klein 1985: 238 ff., 1990; Hettrich 1988: 250−260), Gothic -h, and maybe in Greek and
Latin (cf. Wackernagel 1942; Wagner 1967). Szemerényi (1985), Hettrich (1988: 260),

Authenticated
and others take this use of *k we to be of PIE origin. Klein (1990: 93), probably overesti-
mating the triviality of turning a conjunction into a complementizer, argues for independ-
ent developments in the early IE languages. With Klein (1990: 93, fn.14) and against
Szemerényi (1985), derivation from an instrumental relative *k weh1 is not likely. Correla-
tive adverbs with ca are very rare in the Vedic data. The Hittite material confirms this
observation: subordinating -(k)ku and takku are never taken up by a correlative in the
embedding sentence.
Other complementizers developed out of relatives (Vedic yád, Greek ὅτι, Latin cum,
quod, Hittite kuit, Old Church Slavonic iže, Gothic þatei, etc.). As they all show lan-
guage-dependent idiosyncrasies, they must have developed in post-PIE times. Later de-
velopments like Russian čto, German dass, or English that are based on interrogatives
or demonstratives in relative use.
9.3. Infinitives
Infinitives are attested in all early IE languages. The infinitive in *-sen(i), which is based
on a reanalysis of an event nominal, is clear evidence for the PIE age of the infinitive:
For morphological and case-theoretical reasons, it cannot have developed independently
in Greek and Vedic (Stüber 2000; Keydana 2013). Hence, the infinitive is old. As the
case of the event nominalizations reanalyzed into infinitives in the early languages
shows, they were originally used as adjuncts (see also Zehnder 2011). Keydana (2013)
shows that their subject is always latent. Adjunct infinitives occur in two constructions
in the old IE languages: purpose clauses (with free control of their subject) and rationale
clauses (where the subject of the infinitive is always coreferent with the subject of the
embedding sentence). Both types can be assumed for PIE, as well. The same holds true
for the predicative infinitive (typically with a passive reading, see Holland 2011 for
Hittite and Keydana 2013 for Vedic). Other uses of the infinitive such as the infinitive
complement, the Accusativus cum Infinitivo (AcI), and the matrix infinitive are later
developments (on the AcI cf. Lühr 1993 and Hettrich 1997). The evolution of the infini-
tive in the attested IE languages (especially that of the various formal means used and
the relation to verb stems) cannot be discussed in this survey (for a rather simplistic
view, cf. Disterheft 1997, for Vedic Keydana 2013).
9.4. Participles and absolute constructions
The syntax of Vedic participles in adnominal and adverbial use has been studied exten-
sively by Lowe (2015). Both types are also attested in other early IE languages and can
be reconstructed for PIE. A rare type found both in Vedic and in Greek is the participle
denoting purpose as investigated by Knobl (2005). As this use was probably originally
restricted to participles from a desiderative stem, it may be of PIE origin.
Absolute constructions can be found in most old IE languages with the exception of
Hittite. Their lack of attestation in the oldest strata of some languages is probably due

Authenticated
simply to the literary genre (on the question of absolute constructions in the R̥gveda, cf.
Keydana 1997: 97; Ziegler 2002; and Lowe 2015). For those languages whose tradition
starts with or is restricted to bible translations, it is impossible to decide whether the
absolute construction is a calque or not. As Keydana (1997) showed, at least in Gothic
the absolute construction was probably not autochthonous. Absolute constructions denote
an event contingent on the one expressed by the sentence to which they are adjoined.
The most striking fact about them is that despite their event semantics, their internal
syntax is that of an NP (not that of an S, as in the formalization of Lowe 2015) headed
by a noun denoting a participant in the event, while the participle denoting the event
itself is dependent and congruent with this noun. Absolute constructions are always
marked for a case that is used with adverbials, preferably an inherent case denoting
LOCATION. As the case systems of the old IE languages differ fundamentally, this case
is always language-dependent. It comes as no surprise, then, that the cases used differ.
Keydana (1997) showed that (against Bauer 2000) absolute nominatives are not attested
in the early languages.
Keydana (1997) explains the rise of absolute constructions in the context of various
strategies of embedding in languages with a fully developed system of participles and a
less developed system of embedded finite sentences. In his account, absolute construc-
tions can be explained on the basis of the syntactic structures found in the early IE
languages (similarly Ruppel 2013; Lowe 2015). Bauer (2000) takes the absolute con-
struction as evidence for pre-IE as an active language (cf. above). In her analysis, the
absolute construction is a remnant of a system where transitivity was not grammatical-
ized. As Bauer (2000) does not give evidence for absolute constructions in attested active
languages and has to rely on rather bold hypotheses on the nature of pre-IE, the scenario
developed by Keydana (1997), though much less ambitious, seems preferable. As the
conditions for developing absolute constructions were possibly fulfilled in PIE, this type
of adjunction can tentatively be reconstructed. The case used to mark absolute construc-
tions was most probably the locative.
10. References
Agbayani, Brian and Chris Golston
2010 Second-position is first-position: Wackernagel’s Law and the role of clausal conjunction.
Babič, Matjaž
1997 Besedni red in zgradba besedil na mikenskih tablicah. Wortstellung und Textgestaltung
auf den mykenischen Linear-B-Tafeln. Academia Scientiarum et Artium Slovenica. Clas-
sis II: Philologia et Litterae. Opera 47. Ljubljana: Slovenska Akademija Znanosti i
Umetnosti.
Balles, Irene
2006 Die altindische Cvi-Konstruktion. (Münchner Forschungen zur historischen Sprachwis-
senschaft 4). Bremen: Hempen.
Barðdal, Jóhanna and Thomas Smitherman
2013 The Quest for Cognates: A Reconstruction of Oblique Subject Constructions in Proto-
Indo-European. Language Dynamics and Change 3: 28−67.
Bauer, Anna
2011 Verberststellung im Hethitischen. In: Krisch and Lindner (eds.), 39−48.

Authenticated
Bauer, Brigitte L.
1995 The Emergence and Development of SVO Patterning in Latin and French. Oxford: Ox-
ford University Press.
Bauer, Brigitte L.
1996 Residues of non-nominative syntax in Latin. Historische Sprachforschung 109: 241−
256.
Bauer, Brigitte L.
2000 Archaic Syntax in Indo-European. (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 125).
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Benveniste, Émile
1960 ‘Être’ et ‘avoir’ dans leurs fonctions linguistiques. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique
55: 113−134.
de Boel, Gunnar
1988 Goal accusative and object accusative in Homer. A contribution to the theory of transi-
tivity. Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en
Schone Kunsten van België: Klasse der Letteren: 50, 125. Brussels: Paleis der Acade-
mien.
Boley, Jacqueline
1985 Hittite and Indo-European place word syntax. Die Sprache 31: 229−241.
Bruno, Carla
2011 When stylistics is a matter of syntax: cognate accusatives in Ancient Greek. In: Krisch
and Lindner (eds.), 100−109.
Calboli, Gualtiero
1987 Die Syntax der ältesten lateinischen Prosa. In: Anna Giacalone Ramat, (ed.), Papers
from the 7 th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins,
137−150.
Cardona, George
1979 Review of Haudry 1977. Kratylos 23[1978]: 71−81.
Casaretto, Antje
2010 Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des Ṛgveda. VI: práti. International Journal
of Diachronic Linguistics and Linguistic Reconstruction 7: 1−53.
Cervin, Richard S.
1990 Word order in ancient Greek: VSO, SVO, SOV, or all of the above? PhD thesis, Universi-
ty of Illinois.
Crespo, Emilio and Jose Luis García Ramón (eds.)
1997 Berthold Delbrück y la sintaxis indoeuropea hoy. Actas del Coloquio de la Indogerma-
nische Gesellschaft, Madrid, 21−24 de septiembre de 1994. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Delbrück, Berthold
1869 Ueber den indogermanischen, speciell den vedischen dativ. Zeitschrift für vergleichende
Delbrück, Berthold
1878 Die Altindische Wortfolge aus dem Çatapathabrāhmaṇa dargestellt. (Syntaktische For-
schungen 5). Halle an der Saale: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses.
Delbrück, Berthold
1879 Die Grundlagen der griechischen Syntax. (Syntaktische Forschungen 4). Halle an der
Saale: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses.
Delbrück, Berthold
1888 Altindische Syntax. Halle an der Saale: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses.
Delbrück, Berthold
1893 Vergleichende Syntax der Indogermanischen Sprachen. Volume 1. Strassburg: Trübner.
Delbrück, Berthold
1897 Vergleichende Syntax der Indogermanischen Sprachen. Volume 2. Strassburg: Trübner.

Authenticated
Delbrück, Berthold
1907 Synkretismus. Ein Beitrag zur germanischen Kasuslehre. Strassburg: Trübner.
Devine, Andrew M. and Laurence D. Stephens
2000 Discontinuous Syntax: Hyperbaton in Greek. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Devine, Andrew M. and Laurence D. Stephens
2006 Latin Word Order. Structured Meaning and Information. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Dik, Helma
1995 Word Order in Ancient Greek. A Pragmatic Account of Word Order Variation in Herodo-
tus. (Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology 5). Amsterdam: Gieben.
Dik, Helma
2007 Word Order in Greek Tragic Dialogue. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Disterheft, Dorothy
1997 The evolution of Indo-European infinitives. In: Dorothy Disterheft, Martin E. Huld, and
John A. C. Greppin (eds.), Ancient Languages and Philology. Studies in Honor of Jaan
Puhvel. Vol. 1. Washington, D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man, 101−122.
Dover, Kenneth J.
1960 Greek Word Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dowty, David R.
1991 Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67: 547−619.
Dressler, Wolfgang
1969 Eine textsyntaktische Regel der indogermanischen Wortstellung (zur Anfangsstellung
des Prädikatsverbums). Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 83: 1−25.
Dressler, Wolfgang
1971 Über die Rekonstruktion der indogermanischen Syntax. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende
Duhoux, Yves
1975 L’ordre des mots en Mycénien. Minos 14: 123−163.
Dunkel, George, Gisela E. Meyer, Salvatore Scarlata, and Christian Seidl (eds.)
1994 Früh-, Mittel-, Spätindogermanisch: Akten der IX. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen
Gesellschaft vom 5. bis 9. Oktober 1992 in Zürich. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Eichner, Heiner
1971 Urindogermanisch *k we ‘wenn’ im Hethitischen. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissen-
schaft 29: 27−46.
Eichner, Heiner and Helmut Rix (eds.)
1990 Sprachwissenschaft und Philologie. Jacob Wackernagel und die Indogermanistik heute.
Kolloquium der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft von 13. bis 15. Oktober 1988 in Basel.
Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Ferraresi, Gisella
2005 Word Order and Phrase Structure in Gothic. A Comparative Study. Leuven: Peeters.
Friedrich, Paul
1975 Proto-Indo-European Syntax. The Order of Meaningful Elements. (Journal of Indo-Euro-
pean Studies Monograph Series 1). Butte: Montana College of Mineral Sciences.
Frisk, Hjalmar
1933 Studien zur griechischen Wortstellung. (Göteborgs Högskolas Årsskrift 36). Göteborg:
Erlanders.
Gaedicke, Carl
1880 Der Accusativ im Veda. Breslau: Koebner.
Gamkrelidze, Tamaz and Vyacheslav V. Ivanov
1984 Indoevropejskij jazyk i Indoevropejcy. Rekonstrukcija i istoriko-tipologičeskij analiz pra-
jazyka i protokul’tury [Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans. A reconstruction and

Authenticated
historical analysis of a proto-language and a proto-culture]. Tbilisi: Izdatel’stvo Tbiliss-

kogo Universiteta.
1995 Zum Akkusativ der Richtung im Vedischen und im Indogermanischen. In: Hettrich et al.
(eds.), 33−52.
Garrett, Andrew
1994 Relative clause syntax in Lycian and Hittite. Die Sprache 36: 29−69.
Garrett, Andrew
1996 Wackernagel’s law and unaccusativity in Hittite. In: Halpern and Zwicky (eds.), 85−
133.
Gonda, Jan
1959 On amplified sentences and similar structures in the Veda. In: Jan Gonda, Four Studies
in the Language of the Veda. (Disputationes Rheno-Trajectinae 3). The Hague: Mouton,
7−70.
1963 Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful el-
ements. In: Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press, 73−113.
Hajnal, Ivo
1997 Definite nominale Determination im Indogermanischen. Indogermanische Forschungen
102: 38−73.
Hale, Mark
1987 Notes on Wackernagel’s law in the language of the Rigveda. In: Calvert Watkins (ed.),
Studies in memory of Warren Cowgill (1929−1985). Papers from the Fourth East Coast
Indo-European Conference Cornell University, June 6−9, 1985. Berlin: De Gruyter, 38−
50.
Hale, Mark
1996 Deriving Wackernagel’s law: prosodic and syntactic factors determining clitic placement
in the language of the Rigveda. In: Halpern and Zwicky (eds.), 165−197.
Halpern, Aaron and Arnold Zwicky (eds.)
1996 Approaching second. Second position clitics and related phenomena. (CSLI lecture notes
61). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Harris, Alice C. and Lyle Campbell
1995 Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Haudry, Jean
1973 Parataxe, hypotaxe et corrélation dans la phrase latine. Bulletin de la Société de Linguis-
tique 68: 147−186.
Haudry, Jean
1977 L’emploi des cas en védique. Introduction à l’étude des cas en indo-européen. Lyon:
L’Hermès.
Haug, Dag Trygve Truslew
2008 Detecting word order freezing in old Indo-European languages. Paper presented at the
4 th Conference on New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Leuven, 16 th July 2008.
2009 Does Homeric Greek have prepositions? Or local adverbs? (And what’s the difference
anyway?). In: Vit Bubenik and John Hewson (eds.), Grammatical Change in Indo-
European Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 103−120.
2011 Tmesis in the epic tradition, In: Øivind Andersen and Dag Trygve Truslew Haug (eds.),
Relative Chronology in Early Greek Epic Poetry. Cambridge: University Press, 96−105.

Authenticated
Held, Warren H.
1957 The Hittite Relative Sentence. (Language Dissertations 55). Baltimore: The Linguistic
Society of America.
Hettrich, Heinrich
1985 Zum Kasussynkretismus im Mykenischen. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft
46: 111−122.
Hettrich, Heinrich
1988 Untersuchungen zur Hypotaxe im Vedischen. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Hettrich, Heinrich
1990 Rektionaler und autonomer Kasusgebrauch. In: Eichner and Rix (eds.), 82−99.
Hettrich, Heinrich
1991 Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des Rgveda. I: ádhi. Münchener Studien zur
Hettrich, Heinrich
1994 Semantische und syntaktische Betrachtungen zum doppelten Akkusativ. In: Dunkel et al.
(eds.), 111−134.
Hettrich, Heinrich
1995 Zur funktionalen Variationsbreite altindogermanischer Kasus: Der Ablativ im R̥gveda.
In: Hettrich et al. (eds.), 53−72.
Hettrich, Heinrich
1997 Syntaktische Rekonstruktion bei Delbrück und heute: Nochmals zum lateinischen und
griechischen AcI. In: Crespo and García Ramón (eds.), 219−238.
Hettrich, Heinrich
2002 Das Projekt einer Kasussyntax des R̥gveda: Der Instrumental. In: Hettrich and Kim
(eds.), 43−63.
Hettrich, Heinrich
2007 Materialien zu einer Kasussyntax des R̥gveda. Universität Würzburg, Institut für Alter-
tumswissenschaften, Lehrstuhl für Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft.
Hettrich, Heinrich, Wolfgang Hock, Peter-Arnold Mumm, and Norbert Oettinger (eds.)
1995 Verba et Structurae. Festschrift für Klaus Strunk zum 65. Geburtstag. Innsbruck: Institut
für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität.
Hettrich, Heinrich and Jeong-Soo Kim (eds.)
2002 Indogermanische Syntax. Fragen und Perspektiven. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Hewson, John and Vit Bubenik
2006 From Case to Adposition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Hock, Hans Henrich (ed.)
1991 Studies in Sanskrit Syntax. A volume in honor of the Centennial of Speyer’s Sanskrit
Syntax. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Hock, Hans Henrich
1992 Reconstruction and syntactic typology: A plea for a different approach. In: Garry W.
Davis and Gregory K. Iverson (eds.), Explanation in Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam:
Benjamins, 105−121.
Hock, Hans Henrich
1996 Who’s on first? Toward a prosodic account of P2 clitics. In: Halpern and Zwicky (eds.),
199−270.
Hock, Hans Henrich
2000 Genre, discourse, and syntax in Early Indo-European, with emphasis on Sanskrit. In:
Susan C. Herring, Pieter van Reenen, and Lene Schøsler (eds.), Textual Parameters in
Older Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 163−195.
Hock, Hans Henrich
2012 Phrasal Prosody and the Indo-European Verb. In: H. Craig Melchert (ed.), The Indo-
European Verb. Proceedings of the Conference of the Society for Indo-European Studies,
Los Angeles 13−15 September 2010. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 115−126.

Authenticated
Hock, Hans Henrich

2013 Proto-Indo-European verb-finality. Journal of Historical Linguistics 3: 49−76.
Holland, Gary
2011 Active and Passive in Hittite Infinitival Constructions. In: Stephanie W. Jamison, H.
Craig Melchert, and Brent Vine (eds.), Proceedings of the 22 nd Annual UCLA Indo-
European Conference, Los Angeles, November 5 th and 6 th, 2010. Bremen: Hempen, 69−
81.
Horrocks, Geoffrey C.
1981 Time and Space in Homer: Prepositional and adverbial particles in the Greek epic. New
York: Arno.
1979a The case of agent in Indo-European. Die Sprache 25: 129−143.
1979b Remarks on the expression of agency with the passive in Vedic and Indo-European.
Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 93: 196−219.
Jeffers, Robert J.
1976 Syntactic change and syntactic reconstruction. In: William Christie (ed.), Current
Progress in Historical Linguistics: Proceedings of the Second International Conference
on Historical Linguistics, Tucson, Arizona, 12−16 January 1976. Amsterdam: North-
Holland, 1−16.
Keydana, Götz
1997 Absolute Konstruktionen in altindogermanischen Sprachen. (Historische Sprachfor-
schung, Ergänzungsheft 40). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Keydana, Götz
2000 Prädikativa im Altindischen. In: Christine Chojnacki, Jens-Uwe Hartmann, and Volker
M. Tschannerl (eds.), Vividharatnakaran ̣d ̣aka. Festgabe für Adelheid Mette. (Indica et
Tibetica 37). Swisttal-Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica, 369−378.
Keydana, Götz
2001 Review of Watkins. 1995. Indogermanische Forschungen 106: 282−290.
Keydana, Götz
2004 Review of Meier-Brügger. 2002. Indogermanische Forschungen 109: 373−376.
Keydana, Götz
2009 Latente Objekte und altindische Diskursgrammatik. In: Rieken and Widmer (eds.), 125−
142.
Keydana, Götz
2011a Wackernagel in the language of the Rigveda. A reassessment. Historische Sprachfor-
schung 124: 106−133.
Keydana, Götz
2011b Review of Spevak. 2010. Kratylos 56: 149−156.
Keydana, Götz
2013 Infinitive im R̥gveda: Formen, Funktion, Diachronie. (Brill Studies in Indo-European
Languages and Linguistics 9). Leiden: Brill.
Keydana, Götz
In press Unakkusative im Veda. In: Lühr and Zeilfelder (eds.).
Keydana, Götz and Silvia Luraghi
2013 Definite referential null objects in Vedic Sanskrit and Ancient Greek. Acta Linguistica
Hafniensia 45: 1−13.
Kieckers, Ernst
1911 Die Stellung des Verbs im Griechischen und in den verwandten Sprachen. Strassburg:
Trübner.

Authenticated
Kiparsky, Paul
1995 Indo-European origins of Germanic syntax. In: Adrian Battye and Ian Roberts (eds.),
Clause Structure and Language Change. New York: Oxford University Press, 140−169.
Klein, Jared S.
1985 Toward a Discourse Grammar of the Rigveda. Vol I: Coordinate Conjunction. Part I.
Introduction, ca, utá. Heidelberg: Winter.
Klein, Jared S.
1990 Review of Hettrich. 1988. Kratylos 35: 86−95.
Klein, Jared S.
1991 Syntactic and discourse correlates of verb-initial sentences in the Rigveda. In: Hock
(ed.), 123−143.
Klein, Jared S.
1992 On verbal accentuation in the Rigveda. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society.
Knobl, Werner Franz
2005 Studies on the Present Participle: 1. The Present Participle Expressive of Intentionality.
Journal of Indological Studies 16−17: 65−108.
Krisch, Thomas
1984 Konstruktionsmuster und Bedeutungswandel indogermanischer Verben. Anwendungsver-
suche von Valenztheorie und Kasusgrammatik auf Diachronie und Rekonstruktion.
Frankfurt: Lang.
Krisch, Thomas
1990 Das Wackernagelsche Gesetz aus heutiger Sicht. In: Eichner and Rix (eds.), 64−81.
Krisch, Thomas
1994 Beobachtungen zur Wortstellung im Altindischen. In: Dunkel et al. (eds.), 169−138.
Krisch, Thomas
1997 B. Delbrücks Arbeiten zur Wortstellung aus heutiger Sicht. In: Crespo and García Ra-
món (eds.), 283−309.
Krisch, Thomas
1998 Zum Hyperbaton in altindogermanischen Sprachen. In: Wolfgang Meid (ed.), Sprache
und Kultur der Indogermanen. Akten der X. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesell-
schaft, Innsbruck, 22.−28. September 1996. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft
der Universität, 351−384.
Krisch, Thomas
2001 Man kann sich ein Klavier ja auch um den Bauch binden. Können Theorien der allge-
meinen Sprachwissenschaft für die Indogermanistik nützlich sein? In: Heiner Eichner,
Peter-Arnold Mumm, Oswald Panagl, and Eberhard Winkler (eds.), Fremd und Eigen.
In Memoriam Hartmut Katz. Vienna: Praesens, 155−174.
Krisch, Thomas
2002 Indogermanische Wortstellung. In: Hettrich and Kim (eds.), 249−261.
Krisch, Thomas
2006 RIVELEX. Rigveda-Lexikon. 1. Band. Graz: Leykam.
Krisch, Thomas and Thomas Lindner (eds.)
2011 Indogermanistik und Linguistik im Dialog, Akten der XIII. Fachtagung der Indogerma-
nischen Gesellschaft vom 21. bis 27. September 2008 in Salzburg. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Kulikov, Leonid
2012 The Vedic -ya-presents. Passive and Intransitive in Old Indo-Aryan. Amsterdam: Ro-
dopi.
Kulikov, Leonid and Nikolaos Lavidas
2013 Reconstructing passive and voice in Proto-Indo-European. Journal of Historical Lin-
guistcs 3: 98−121.

Authenticated
Kupfer, Katharina
2002 Die Demonstrativpronomina im Rigveda. (Europäische Hochschulschriften. Reihe XXI.
Linguistik 244). Frankfurt: Lang.
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy
1935 Études indoeuropéennes. Prace Komisji językowej. Kraków: Polska Akademja umiejęt-
ności.
Lehmann, Christian
1980 Der indogermanische *k wi-/k wo-Relativsatz im typologischen Vergleich. In: Ramat (ed.),
155−169.
Lehmann, Christian
1983 Latin preverbs and cases in Latin linguistics and linguistic theory. In: Harm Pinkster
(ed.), Proceedings of the 1st International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics 1981 in
Amsterdam. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 145−161.
Lehmann, Winfred P.
1974 Proto-Indo-European Syntax. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Lehmann, Winfred P.
1993 Theoretical bases of Indo-European Linguistics. London: Routledge.
Levinson, Stephen C.
2000 Presumptive Meanings. The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicatures. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lightfoot, David
1980 On Reconstructing a Proto-Syntax. In: Ramat (ed.), 27−45.
Lowe, John J.
2011 R̥gvedic clitics and ‘prosodic movement’. In: Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King
(eds.), Proceedings of the LFG11 Conference. Stanford: CSLI, 360−380.
Lowe, John J.
2015 Participles in Rigvedic Sanskrit. (Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguis-
tics 17). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lühr, Rosemarie
1993 Zur Umstrukturierung von agenshaltigen Sachverhaltsbeschreibungen in Komplement-
funktion. Dargestellt an altindogermanischen Sprachen. Historische Sprachforschung
106: 232−261.
Lühr, Rosemarie
2000a Der Nebensatz und seine Konkurrenten in der Indogermania: Der altindische Relativsatz.
Historische Sprachforschung 113: 71−87.
Lühr, Rosemarie
2000b Zum Gebrauch des Duals in der Indogermania. In: Michaela Ofitsch and Christian Zinko
(eds.), 125 Jahre Indogermanistik in Graz. Graz: Leykam, 263−274.
Lühr, Rosemarie
2001 Relativsätze im Hethitischen. In: Gernot Wilhelm (ed.), Akten des IV. Kongresses für
Hethitologie, Würzburg, 4.−8. Oktober 1999. (Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 45).
Lühr, Rosemarie
2007 Kopulasätze in altindogermanischen Sprachen. In: Ljudmila Geist and Björn Rothstein
(eds.), Kopulaverben und Kopulasätze. Intersprachliche und intrasprachliche Aspekte.
Tübingen: Niemeyer, 181−199.
Lühr, Rosemarie
2008 Old Indic clauses between subordination and coordination. In: Cathrine Fabricius-Han-
sen and Wiebke Ramm (eds.), ‘Subordination’ versus ‘Coordination’ in Syntax and Text.
A cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 307−327.

Authenticated
Lühr, Rosemarie
2011 Zur Informationsstruktur in alten Korpussprachen. In: Michail L. Kotin and Elizaveta
G. Kotorova (eds.), Geschichte und Typologie der Sprachsysteme. Heidelberg: Winter,
101−116.
Lühr, Rosemarie and Susanne Zeilfelder (eds.)
In press Struktur und Semantik der Verbalphrase. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesell-
schaft, Jena 2006.
Luraghi, Silvia
1986a Der semantische und funktionelle Bau des althethitischen Kasussystems. Zeitschrift für
Vergleichende Sprachforschung 99: 23−42.
Luraghi, Silvia
1986b On the distribution of instrumental and agentive markers for human and non-human
agents of passive verbs in some Indo-European languages. Indogermanische Forschun-
gen 91: 48−66.
Luraghi, Silvia
1990 Old Hittite Sentence Structure. London: Routledge.
Luraghi, Silvia
1994 Osservazioni sulla Legge di Wackernagel e la posizione del verbo nelle lingue indoeuro-
pee. In: Maria-Elisabeth Conte, Anna Giacalone Ramat, and Paolo Ramat (eds.), Dimen-
sioni della Linguistica. Milan: Francoangeli, 31−60.
Luraghi, Silvia
1995 The pragmatics of verb initial sentences in some ancient Indo-European languages. In:
Pamela Downing and Michael Noonan (eds.), Word Order in Discourse. Amsterdam:
Benjamins, 355−386.
Luraghi, Silvia
1997 Omission of the direct object in Latin. Indogermanische Forschungen. 102: 239−257.
Luraghi, Silvia
2003 Definite referential null objects in Ancient Greek. Indogermanische Forschungen 108:
167−195.
Martinet, André
1962 A functional View of Language. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
Matić, Dejan
2003 Topic, focus, and discourse structure. Ancient Greek word order. Studies in Language
27: 573−633.
Mattausch, Jason
2004 Optimality theoretical pragmatics and binding phenomena. In: Reinhard Blutner and
Henk Zeevat (eds.), Optimality Theory and Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmil-
lan, 63−90.
McCone, Kim
1979 The diachronic possibilities of the Indo-European ‘amplified’ sentence. A case study
from Anatolian. In: Bela Brogyanyi (ed.), Studies in Diachronic, Synchronic, and Typo-
logical Linguistics. Festschrift Szemerényi. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 467−487.
McCone, Kim
1997 Delbrück’s model of PIE word order and the Celtic evidence. In: Crespo and García
Ramón (eds.), 363−396.
2002 Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft. 8., überarbeitete und ergänzte Auflage. Unter Mit-
arbeit von Matthias Fritz und Manfred Mayrhofer. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Melchert, H. Craig
2011 The PIE Collective Plural and the “τὰ ζῷα τρέχει rule”. In: Krisch and Lindner (eds.),
395−400.

Authenticated
Panagl, Oswald
1999 Beobachtungen zur mykenischen Syntax. In: Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy, Stefan Hiller, and
Oswald Panagl (eds.), unter Mitarbeit von Georg Nightingale und Thomas Lindner,
Floreant Studia Mycenaea II. Akten des X. Internationalen Mykenologischen Colloqui-
ums in Salzburg vom 1.−5. Mai 1995. Vol. 2. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der
1995 Le problème du préverbe en indo-européen. In: André Rousseau (ed.), Les préverbes
dans les langues d’Europe: Introduction à l’étude de la préverbation. Lille: Presses
universitaires du Septentrion, 35−59.
Probert, Philomen
2006 Clause boundaries in Old Hittite relative sentences. Transactions of the Philological
Society 104: 17−83.
Ramat, Paolo (ed.)
1980 Linguistic Reconstruction and Indo-European Syntax. Proceedings of the Colloquium of
the ‘Indogermanische Gesellschaft’, University of Pavia, 6−7 September 1979. Amster-
dam: Benjamins.
Rieken, Elisabeth and Paul Widmer (eds.)
2009 Pragmatische Kategorien. Form, Funktion und Diachronie. Akten der Arbeitstagung der
Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 24. bis 26. September 2007 in Marburg. Wies-
baden: Reichert.
Rieken, Elisabeth and Paul Widmer
2014 ‘Kongruiert alles?’ − Zu den Kongruenzmustern des Pronominaladjektivs der Bedeutung
‘all, jeder, ganz’ im Griechischen und Hethitischen. In: Norbert Oettinger and Thomas
Steer (eds.), Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft − Das Nomen
im Indogermanischen. Morphologie, Substantiv vs. Adjektiv, Kollektivum, Erlangen,
14.−16. September 2011. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 342−359.
Risch, Ernst
1980 Betrachtungen zur indogermanischen Nominalflexion. In: Gunter Brettschneider, Chris-
tian Lehmann, and Paul Garvin (eds.), Wege zur Universalienforschung. Sprachwissen-
schaftliche Beiträge zum 60. Geburtstag von Hansjakob Seiler. Tübingen: Narr, 259−
267.
Ross, John R.
1986 Infinite Syntax! Norwood, NJ: Ablex. (Published version of Ross’ 1967 MIT disserta-
tion, Constraints on Variables in Syntax).
Ruipérez, Martín S.
1997 Mycenaean Greek and its contribution to the reconstruction of IE syntax. In: Crespo and
García Ramón (eds.), 527−536.
Ruppel, Antonia
2013 Absolute Constructions in Early Indo-European. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Schäufele, Steven
1991a Verb-medial clauses in Vedic: Some theoretical implications. In: Hock (ed.), 177−196.
Schäufele, Steven
1991b Free Word-Order syntax: The Challenge from Vedic Sanskrit to Contemporary Formal
Syntactic Theory. Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
1987 A Lithuanian Historical Syntax. Columbus, OH: Slavica.
Schmidt, Karl Horst
1977a Der Beitrag der keltiberischen Inschrift von Botorrita zur Rekonstruktion der protokeltis-
chen Syntax. Word 28[1976−1977]: 51−62.

Authenticated
Schmidt, Karl Horst

1977b Probleme der Ergativkonstruktion. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 36: 97−
111.
Serbat, Guy
1992 Zum Ursprung des indogermanischen Genitivs und seiner lateinischen Verwendung. In:
Oswald Panagl and Thomas Krisch (eds.), Latein und Indogermanisch. Akten des Kollo-
quiums der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Salzburg, 23.−26. September 1986. (Inns-
brucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 64). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft
der Universität, 285−291.
Shields, Kenneth C.
1978 Some remarks concerning early Indo-European nominal inflection. Journal of Indo-
European Studies 6: 185−210.
Spevak, Olga
2010 Constituent Order in Classical Latin Prose. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Speyer, Augustin
2009 Versuch zur Syntax im Protoindoeuropäischen. In: Rieken and Widmer (eds.), 287−305.
Speyer, Augustin
In press Das Altgriechische − Sorgenkind der Bindungstheorie. In: Lühr and Zeilfelder (eds.).
Stepanov, Jurij S.
1989 Indoevropejskoe predloženie [The Indoeuropean sentence]. Moscow: Nauka.
Strunk, Klaus
1991 Syntaktische Bemerkungen zum hethitischen und indogermanischen Instrumental. In:
Jurij S. Stepanov, Nikita I. Tolstoj, Vyacheslav V. Ivanov, Georgij A. Klimov, and Vla-
dimir P. Neroznak (eds.), Istoričeskaja lingvistika i tipologija [Historical linguistics and
typology]. Festschrift for Tamaz V. Gamkrelidze. Moscow: Nauka, 81−91.
Stüber, Karin
2000 Zur Herkunft der altindischen Infinitive auf -sáni. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissen-
schaft 60: 135−167.
1985 Syntax, meaning, and origin of the Indo-European particle k we. In: Günter Heintz and
Peter Schmitter (eds.), Collectanea Philologica. Festschrift für Helmut Gipper zum 65.
Geburtstag. Bd. 2. Baden-Baden: Koerner, 747−775.
Tjerkstra, Françoise A.
1999 Principles of the Relation between Local Adverb, Verb and Sentence Particle in Hittite.
(Cuneiform Monographs 15). Groningen: STYX.
Uhlenbeck, Christianus C.
1901 Agens und Patiens im Kasussystem der indogermanischen Sprachen. Indogermanische
Viti, Carlotta
2007 Strategies of Subordination in Vedic. Milan: Franco Angeli.
Viti, Carlotta
2008 The Verb-Initial Word Order in the Early Poetry of Vedic and Ancient Greek. In: Karlene
Jones-Bley, Martin E. Huld, Angela Della Volpe, and Miriam Robbins Dexter (eds.),
Proceedings of the 19 th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, Los Angeles, Novem-
ber 3−4, 2007. Washington, D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man, 89−111.
Viti, Carlotta
2009a A quantitative analysis of the OSV word order in Vedic. In: Rieken and Widmer (eds.),
307−322.
Viti, Carlotta
2009b Genitive word order in Ancient Greek: A functional analysis of word order freedom in
the noun phrase. Glotta 84: 203−238.

Authenticated
Viti, Carlotta
2009c Anaphorische und reflexive Strukturen im Altgriechischen und Lateinischen. Indoger-
manische Forschungen 114: 143−172.
Viti, Carlotta
2010 The Information Structure of OVS in Vedic. In: Gisella Ferraresi and Rosemarie Lühr
(eds.), Diachronic Studies on Information Structure: Language Acquisition and Change.
Berlin: De Gruyter, 37−62.
Viti, Carlotta
2011 The use of the dual number in Homeric Greek. In: Krisch and Lindner (eds.), 595−604.
Wackernagel, Jakob
333−436.
Wackernagel, Jakob
1942 Indogermanisch qu̯e als alte nebensatzeinleitende Konjunktion (aus dem Nachlaß Jacob
Wackernagels, hrsg. von Johannes Lohmann). Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachfor-
schung 67: 1−5.
Wagner, Heinrich
1967 Indogermanisch -k we im Finnisch-Ugrischen? Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissen-
schaft 20: 67−92.
Watkins, Calvert
1963 Preliminaries to a historical and comparative analysis of the syntax of the Old Irish verb.
Celtica 6: 1−49.
Watkins, Calvert
1964 Preliminaries to the reconstruction of Indo-European sentence structure. In: Horace G.
Lunt (ed.), Proceedings of the 9 th International Congress of Linguists. The Hague: Mou-
ton, 1035−1045.
Watkins, Calvert
1995 How to kill a dragon. Aspects of Indo-European poetics. New York: Oxford University
Press.
van Wijk, Nicolaas
1902 Der nominale Genitiv Singular im Indogermanischen in seinem Verhältnis zum Nomina-
tiv. Zwolle: Tijl.
Zehnder, Thomas
2011 Zur Funktion der Infinitive im Veda. In: Krisch and Lindner (eds.), 622−631.
Ziegler, Sabine
2002 Zur Entstehung des Locativus Absolutus im Altindischen. In: Hettrich and Kim (eds.),
79−86.
Zwolanek, Renée
1970 “Vā́yav índráśca”. Studien zu Anrufungsformen im Vedischen, Avestischen und Griechi-
schen. (Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, Beiheft 5, N.F.). Munich: Kitzinger.
Götz Keydana, Göttingen (Germany)

Authenticated
124. The lexicon of Proto-Indo-European 2229
124. The lexicon of Proto-Indo-European

0. Methodological questions 6. Abstract concepts
1. Basic vocabulary items 7. Religion
2. The human being 8. PIE poetic language (“Dichtersprache”)
3. Society 9. Vocabulary List
4. Technology 10. References
5. Nature
0. Methodological questions
The reconstruction of the lexicon of a proto-language is fraught with a number of prob-
lems and uncertainties. In the best case, the data in the individual languages correspond
exactly and thus allow for the reconstruction of a common form ancestral to those of
the daughter languages. But there are no hard and fast rules for sufficient criteria apart
from the phonological correspondence. The probability of dealing with an inherited form
increases with the number of languages independently attesting the form in question (cf.
Meillet’s rule of thumb of three languages and Kretschmer’s “Randsprachenarchais-
men”) and with the decreasing productivity of the word-formation process in question:
if the latter is still productive in the daughter languages, the form might well have arisen
independently. The ontological status of reconstructed forms is disputed − they are seen
either as pure abstractions and shorthand notations for the attested forms or as more or
less reliable approximations to actual language data.
In addition to the question of whether a form is inherited from the proto-language,
there is further uncertainty as regards the signifié: “identical” meanings in the daughter
languages may be due to contact or be independent developments. Even if an etymology
seems impeccable in form and content, it may be as fallacious as a Proto-Norse term for
‘stamp’ which one might reconstruct on the basis of Swed. frimärke, Norw. frimerke and
Dan. frimærke (cf. Seebold 1981: 48 f.). The uncertainty increases in those cases where
the lexical items are not the same in the daughter languages. There does not seem to be
a definite answer to the question of whether it is possible to reconstruct an inherited
content without an inherited form. A case in point is the syntagm ‘dark earth’ claimed
for PIE on the basis of OIr. domun donn, Hitt. dankuiaz tagnaz (abl.), Serb. crna zemlja
and Gk. gaĩa / Dēmḗtēr mélaina/k ht hṑn kelainḗ, which according to Campanile (1987:
22) has “a greater probability than any Aryo-Greek isogloss”, but which is most probably
a calque from Hurrian in Hittite borrowed into Greek and which may have arisen inde-
pendently in the western languages (cf. Oettinger 1989/90).
While in a case like *h2 ek̑-me/on- meaning ‘stone’ in some daughter languages and
‘sky’ in others (or having both meanings in one and the same language, cf. Skt. aśman-
‘stone’, probably ‘sky’, Av. asman- ‘stone; sky’, Gk. ákmōn ‘anvil’, ‘sky’ in ákmōn …
ouranós [Hsch.] [156]) one may assume that speakers of PIE conceptualized the sky as
made of stone, the solution is less evident in cases like Lat. fāgus ‘beech’ vs. Gk. p hēgós
‘oak’ [287], where the divergence of attested meanings makes it difficult to assess the
situation in the proto-language.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-045

Authenticated
In dealing with these problems, different solutions have been offered in the past, with
one stream of researchers clinging to phonological and semantic equations as the only
basis for reconstructing lexical items for the proto-language and being dismissive about
the possibility of making any solid statements about the “culture” of the speakers of PIE.
The opposite direction, which one could call “cultural reconstruction” (Campanile 1987:
23), uses the term “semantic reconstruction” (cf. also Wachter 1998) and aims at compar-
ing different IE traditions and extracting the elements common to them, starting with
cases where both form and meaning match, but then leaving the area of strict word
equations and assuming that the same inherited content may be expressed differently in
different IE traditions. Cf. for the latter tradition Benveniste (1969.2: 179): “Si en effet
on se borne à considérer la portion du vocabulaire qui peut être définie complètement et
immédiatement par des correspondances régulières, on est condamné à voir peu à peu
l’objet de l’étude se dissoudre.” Benveniste took a rather cautious position by studying
cultural terms first within each language, insofar as they can be subjected to etymology.
The results of these individual studies may coincide, but this alone is still not proof of
their common inheritance: if several IE languages express the content ‘servant/to serve’
by words meaning ‘run/go around s.b.‘ (*peri-, *h2 m̥b hi- + *k u̯elh1 -, *h2 eg̑-, *ret-), with-
out there being a form common to all languages, is it possible to assume that PIE also
had a word for ‘servant’ built from this or similar material or are these independent
innovations in each language?
It is with these caveats in mind that the following material has to be assessed. In many
cases the exact meaning of the proto-lexeme seems beyond the reach of reconstruction,
in others the form is attested only in some sub-branches making its very existence in the
proto-language questionable.
The first part of the material given in the appendix is arranged according to the
extended Swadesh list (nos. 27−207).
1. Basic vocabulary items

Basic verbs that can be reconstructed for the proto-language include a copula and verbum
existentiae *h1 es- [208] that in many languages is in suppletion with *b huh2 - ‘grow,
become, be’ [209], verbs denoting body posture such as *leg h-/k̑ei̯ - ‘lie (down)’ [123],
*sed-/h1 ēs- ‘sit (down)’ [124], and *steh2 - ‘(take a) stand’ [125] and body movement
such as *h1 ei̯ -, *g u̯em- ‘go/come’ [121], *b herg̑ h-, *h1 rei̯ - ‘rise’ [210], *sek u̯- ‘follow’
[212], *b heg u̯-, *drem- (and others) ‘run’ [215] *b heu̯g- ‘escape’, *nes- ‘escape, come
home’ [216], *h1 er-, *h2 nek̑-, *sei̯ k- ‘reach’ [213], verbs of ingestion such as *h1 ed-
‘eat’ [93], *peh3 - ‘drink’ [92], *k u̯em- and *sreb h- ‘sip’ [219], *g u̯erh3 - ‘devour’ [222],
*su̯el-, *sleu̯g-, etc. ‘swallow’ [218], and verbs for ‘sleeping’ and ‘waking’ like *su̯ep-,
*ses- [107] and *b heu̯d h-, *h1 ger- [217] respectively. Apart from the problem of a seem-
ing synonymy frequently beyond the reach of reconstruction, in some cases PIE seems
to have had two verbs differing only in aspect/aktionsart, one expressing a state, the
other the process leading up to that state (e.g., ‘sit’ vs. ‘sit down’ and ‘sleep’ vs. ‘fall
asleep’), while in others various stem formations of the same verb expressed these differ-
ences (e.g., in the case of ‘stand/take a stand’ *steh2 - [125]). There is a larger number
of verbs for ‘see’ [101] with different connotations (e.g., *u̯ei̯ d- with that of knowledge,

Authenticated
cf. the pf. *u̯oi̯ dh2 e ‘I have seen, hence I know’, *derk̑- with that of the eyes emitting
rays of light, cf. Gk. drákōn ‘snake, dragon’, originally ‘the one with flashing eyes’, Pi.
N. 3.84 dédorken p háos ‘the light flashed’, *spek̑- that of ‘spying’, cf. Skt. spaś- [n.]
‘spy’, *ser- that of ‘watching over, guarding’) than for ‘hear’ and other verbs of percep-
tion. A safely reconstructible form for ‘hear’ is *k̑leu̯- [102] with a derivative *k̑leu̯s-,
for ‘taste’ *g̑eu̯s- [221], for ‘smell’ *h3 ed- [105], while a convincing etymon for ‘feel/
touch’ is missing. Besides verbs for ‘bringing, carrying’ (*b her- [223]) and ‘putting’
such as *d heh1 - and *stel- [224], there is a large number of verbs for ‘giving’ and
‘taking’ [128], some of which have both meanings in different languages respectively or
even in the same language, e.g., *nem- is ‘take’ in Germanic but ‘give, distribute’ in
Greek, *deh3 - is ‘take’ in Hittite, ‘give’ in most other languages, and in Sanskrit ‘give’
in the active and ‘take’ in the middle inflection, *g heb h- is ‘take’ in Celtic, but ‘give’ in
Germanic. The basic social activities of ‘sharing’ (*b hag-, *deh2 - [225]) and ‘exchang-
ing’ (*mei̯ -, *mei̯ th2 - [226]) seem to have played an important role not only in relation-
ships between humans, but between humans and gods as well (cf. Av. baγa- ‘god’ <
‘distributor’ or ‘who gets a share [in the sacrifice]’, Gk. Od. 8.325 t heoí, dōtêres heáōn
‘the gods, the givers of goods’, cf. 8).
Many adjectives reconstructible for the proto-language can be analyzed as derivatives
of other word classes, mostly verbs, e.g., *gu̯her-mo- ‘warm’ from *gu̯her- ‘be/become
warm’ [180], *h1 es-u- ‘good’ [185] if from *h1 es- ‘be’ [208], *mei̯ H-u- [32] ‘small’
from *mei̯ H- ‘diminish’ [400], but also nouns, e.g., *ped(i)i̯ o- ‘on foot, foot-’ [274] from
*ped/pod- ‘foot’ [80], and even adverbs, e.g., *neu̯o- ‘new’ [183] if from *nu ‘now’,
while a smaller group seems to establish a class of primary adjectives, e.g., *sen- ‘old’
[184] and *meg̑- ‘big’ [27]. Adjectives for basic physical properties that can be recon-
structed with varying degrees of certainty are, among others, *g u̯(e)rh2 -u- ‘heavy’ [31]
and *h1 le(n)gu̯h-u- ‘light’ [265], *ten(H)-u- ‘thin’ [35], *teg-u- ‘thick’ and *b hn̥g̑ h-u-
‘dense, thick’ [30], *b hr̥g̑ h-u- ‘high’ [266], *d heu̯b- ‘deep’ [267], *pl̥ h1 -no- ‘full’ [182]
and *h1 u̯(e)h2 -no- ‘empty’ [270], *Hōk̑-ú- ‘fast’ [272], probably *g u̯r̥d-u- ‘slow’ [273],
*h2 ek̑-ro- ‘sharp’ [191] *h2 sou̯so- ‘dry’ [195], *pl̥ th2 -u- and *h1 u̯erH-u- ‘broad, wide’
[275] and *h2 emg̑ h-ú- ‘narrow’ [34], *med h-i̯ o- ‘middle’ [388], and various forms mean-
ing ‘long’, *dl̥ h1 g h-o-, *mh2 k̑-ro-, *duh2 -ro- [28] and *mreg̑ h- ‘short’ [33].
Candidates for PIE color terms are *kr̥sno- ‘black’ [176] and *alb ho- ‘white’
[175] (while many other adjs. meaning ‘white’ also mean ‘shining’, cf. [175]), *h1 rou̯d h-
o-/h1 rud h-ro- ‘red’ [172], *g̑ hl̥ h3 - (with various suffixes) ‘green/yellow’ [173], *b hru-
(no)-, *b her-o- ‘brown’ [269], *k̑as- and *poli- ‘grey’ [268].
2. The human being

The basic terms for ‘male adult person’ and ‘female adult person’ in PIE were probably
*h2 nḗr ([37], possibly originating from the more abstract meaning of ‘strength, vital
energy’ [cf. Hitt. innara- ‘having *h2 ner- inside’, Gk. nṓropi k halkṓi ‘with bright
bronze’]) and *g u̯en-(h2 ) [36], respectively. Other words for ‘man’ found in IE languages
are *man-u- [291] and *u̯iH-ro- [37], originally an adj. ‘young, powerful, fresh’ (: Toch.
A wir ‘young, fresh’, perhaps Alb. ri ‘young’, if with metathesis from *u̯riH-o-), fre-
quently also ‘hero’. General terms for ‘male’ were *(h1 )r̥sen- [392] and *u̯ers- [396]. A

Authenticated
different word for ‘woman’, *(h1 e)sor-, probably older than *g u̯en-, has been suspected
in forms like cLuv. ašrulāhit- ‘femininity’, Hitt. compounds like ḫaššu-ššara- ‘queen’
(derived from ḫaššu- ‘king’), the fem. forms of the numerals ‘three’ and ‘four’ in Indo-
Iranian (: Skt. tisrás, cátasras, Av. tišrō, cataŋrō) and OIr. (: téoir, cethéoir), probably
in the PIE word for ‘sister’, *su̯esor- [395], denoting the ‘female person of the same
clan’ (if not from **su̯e-h1 esh2 r/n- ‘of the same blood’), and in Lat. uxor (if not orig. a
fem. from *h2 uks-en- ‘bull, ox’ [313]) and even the name of the Greek goddess Hera
(Willi 2010). Words for ‘old man/woman’ and ‘young man’ are derivatives of the respec-
tive adj., *g̑erh2 -ont- ‘old man’ [276], *g̑erh2 -u- ‘old woman’ [277] (all from the verbal
root *g̑erh2 - ‘rub, grind, make old’ [252]), *h2 i̯ u-Hen- ‘young, youthful, young man’
[278] (probably originally ‘having youthful vigor / life-force’, *h2 i̯ u-h3 en-, cf. [108]) in
addition to other less widely distributed forms like *mag hus ‘boy, young man’ [370] and
*meri̯ o- [371].
Verbal roots for ‘live’, ‘engender, give birth’ and ‘die’ were *g u̯i̯ eh3 - [108], *tek̑- and
*g̑enh1 - [249], and *mer- and *nek̑- [109], respectively.
Speakers of IE languages viewed themselves as ‘mortal’ and ‘terrestrial’ as opposed
to the immortal heavenly gods (cf. 7), hence we find terms for ‘human being’ like
*mr̥to- ‘mortal’ (: Arm. mard ‘man’ < *mr̥to- [presupposing a negative form *n̥-mr̥to-
‘immortal’], Ved. márta-, all from *mer- ‘die’ [109]; Toch. B enkwe, A onk ‘man’ <
*n̥k̑u̯os ‘mortal’, cf. Gk. nékus ‘corpse’, OIr. éc ‘death’ < *n̥k̑u-, Av. nasu- ‘corpse,
carrion’) and *d hg̑ hom-i̯ o-/-on- ‘earthling’ (: OIr. duine; Lat. homō, Goth. guma) from
*d heg̑ hom- ‘earth’ [159]. The same idea is expressed in the Homeric phrase Il. 5.442
at hanátōn te t heõn k hamaì erk homénōn t’ ant hrṓpōn ‘of the immortal gods and of men
who walk on earth’. Correspondingly, the gods were the *n̥-mr̥tōs ‘immortal ones’
(: Gk. ámbrotoi, Lat. dī immortales, etc.).
Terms for body parts and internal organs are attested in most IE languages and recon-
structible for the proto-language. They include *k̑er- ‘head’ ([72], the same root used
for ‘horn’ [68], cf. Nussbaum 1986), *g̑enu- ‘chin’ [285], *h1 d(o)nt- ‘tooth’ [77] (a
derivative of *h1 ed- ‘eat, bite’ [93]), *h3 ek u̯- ‘eye’ [74] (an archaic dual form *h3 (e)k u̯ih1
‘two eyes’ is attested in several languages, Gk. ósse, OCS oči, Lith. akì, Arm. ač‘-
k‘ [plurale tantum]), *h2 ou̯s- ‘ear’ [73], *nas- ‘nose’ [75], *h3 oh1 -(e)s- ‘mouth’ [76],
*(h3 )b hruH- ‘eyebrow’ [279], *d(h)n̥g̑ huH- ‘tongue’ [78] (forms with l- [Arm., Lith.,
Lat.] may be influenced by *lei̯ g̑ h- ‘lick’ [220]), *mon-o- ‘neck, throat’ [87], *b heh2 g̑ h-
u- ‘arm’ [282] and *Hol-en- ‘elbow’ [283], *Homso- ‘shoulder’ [283], *g̑ hes-r- ‘hand’
[83], *h2 ek̑s- ‘armpit’ [324], *h3 neb h- ‘navel’ [290], *g̑e/onu- ‘knee’ [82], *ped/pod-
‘foot’ [80], *h3 est- ‘bone’ [65], *perk̑- ‘rib’ [379], *tu̯ek- ‘skin’ [62], *Horso- ‘buttocks’
[385]. A word for ‘beard’ was *smek̑ru-, while *b har(s)d ho- [381] is attested only in some
western IE languages. ‘hair’ in general may have been designated by *peu̯mos- [71].
Internal organs include *k̑erd- ‘heart’ [90], *i̯ ek u̯r̥(t) ‘liver’ [91], *pleu̯-mon- ‘lung(s)’
[281] (from the root *pleu̯- ‘float’, as the lungs are lighter than other body parts and
float on water), and the ‘womb’, *g u̯elb h-u- [372]. The word for ‘gall’, *g̑ holo-, probably
denoted both the organ (gall bladder) and its secretion (bile) [280], which was named
after its color (cf. [173]). The belief that gall causes anger led to the metaphorical use
of *g̑ holo- as ‘wrath’ (: Gk. k hólos, Germ. gallig ‘malicious’, etc.). A term for ‘blood’
was the archaic heteroclitic noun *h1 esh2 -r/n- [64]. Designations for male sexual organs
are *pes- ‘penis’ [326] and *h1 org̑ hi- ‘testicle’ [325], for female sexual organs maybe

Authenticated
*gu̯hiHb h- [360]. Verbs for sexual intercourse were probably *(h3 )i̯ eb h- [263, orig. meta-
phorical] and *h1 erg̑ h- [211, cf. also 325].
3. Society
The kinship terms reconstructible for the proto-language are usually interpreted as point-
ing towards a patriarchal, patrilineal, and patrilocal society, i.e. descent was reckoned by
the male line and brides left their homes to live with the family of their husbands. The
word for ‘father’ *ph2 ter- [43] probably designated the head of the household as in Lat.
pater familias and in the designation of Zeus (Il. 1.544) as patḕr andrõn te t heõn te
‘father of men and gods’, although he is neither the genetic father of the other Olympian
gods nor of mankind in general. For the genetic father other forms like *g̑enh1 -ter- may
have been used (: Lat. genitor, Gk. genétōr, Skt. janitár-). Like *mātēr ‘mother’ [42], it
may be derived from baby-talk syllables (*pa[pa], *ma[ma] ) that were integrated into
the grammatical system by adding the suffix -ter- found in other kinship terms. Other
etymological proposals connect *ph2 ter- with *peh2 - ‘protect’ [401] and *māter- with a
root *meh2 - ‘make ripe’ (: Lat. māturus ‘ripe, timely’, Hitt. mēḫur- ‘time’), cf. Tremblay
(2003: 85 f.). The suffix -ter- has usually been interpreted as being identical to the one
forming agent nouns of the type *deh3 -ter/tor- ‘giver’. Pinault (2007) identifies *-ter- with
the oppositive suffix found in forms like Gk. deksiterós ‘right’, Lat. dexter ‘id.’, etc.
‘Son’ and ‘daughter’ were *suH-nu- or *suH-i̯ u- [292] (probably from a root ‘to
bear’, *seu̯H- [227]) and *d hugh2 ter- ([293], usually connected with *d heu̯g h- ‘make
useful, prepare; give milk’ [240] whence either ‘female servant’ or ‘suckled one’ or ‘one
who will suckle’, cf. Tremblay (2003: 86). There were words for ‘grandfather’ (*Heu̯o-
[373]), ‘grandmother’ (*h2 en- [398]), and, derived from the former, the ‘maternal uncle’
(*Heu̯on- [374]). Correspondingly, the term for ‘grandson’, *nepot- [295], came to be
used for ‘nephew’ in some languages.
The word for ‘brother’, *b hreh2 ter- [294], probably denoted not just those with the
same father or mother, but anyone belonging to the same ‘clan’, cf. the Gk. p hrḗtēr
‘member of a clan-like group’, Lat. frāter ‘brother’, but also ‘member of a religious
collegium’ (e.g., the fratres Arvales), while ‘sister’, *su̯esor- [395], may have meant
‘female person of the same clan’ (cf. 2).
Terms for ‘in-laws’ are *deh2 iu̯er- ‘husband’s brother’ [296], *Hi̯ enh2 -ter- ‘husband’s
brother’s wife’ [297], *snuso- ‘daughter-in-law’ [393], *su̯ek̑uro-/su̯ek̑ru- ‘father/mother-
in-law’ [394], *g̑l̥ H- ‘husband’s sister’ [399], and probably derivatives from a root
*g̑emH- meaning ‘son-in-law’ [384].
The terms for ‘husband’, ‘wife’, ‘bride’, and ‘bridegroom’ found in the IE languages
all seem to have acquired their meanings secondarily (e.g., Lat. marītus ‘husband’ beside
Skt. márya- ‘young man’). A term coming close to ‘marry’, seen from the bridegroom’s
perspective, is *u̯ed h- ‘lead (the bride)’ [242]. Similarly, *g̑emH- has been suspected to
have meant ‘buy (i.e. the bride)’ [384].
The term for ‘household’ in general and ‘house’ in particular was *dom(h2 )-s, gen.
*dem(h2 )-s [298], whose master was the *dem(h2 )s poti- ‘master of the house’ [300]. A
word for ‘(wing of a) door’ can be reconstructed as *d hu̯or/d hur- [383], one for ‘door-
post’ as *h2 ent(H)- [386]. The next larger unit was probably the *u̯ei̯ k̑- ‘settlement’ [299].

Authenticated
A characteristic trait of PIE society was the idea of exchange and reciprocity: A gift
entails a counter-gift, being a guest entails being a host both for a former host or any
member of his clan (cf. the famous encounter of Glaukos and Diomedes in Il. 6.120−
236). In Indo-Iranian, this idea of mutual obligation was divinized as the Ved. Mitra-,
Av. Miθra-, lit. ‘contract’, probably from the root *mei̯ - ‘give in exchange’ [226] (cf.
the discussion in Mayrhofer 2006: s. v.). The same relation obtained between god and
man (cf. 7).
The stranger, *g hosti- [301], could be viewed both as one who had the right of hospi-
tality, hence ‘guest’ in Germanic (: Goth. gasts) and Slavonic (: OCS gostь, most proba-
bly borrowed from Germanic), and as one who presents a danger to society, hence
Latin hostis ‘enemy’, but also hospes ‘host’ from *g hosti-poti- ‘master of the guest’, cf.
Benveniste (1969.1: 87−101).
4. Technology
The PIE people were agricultors as can be seen in inherited terms for ‘grain’ such as
*g̑r̥h2 -no- [302], orig. ‘ground’, a verbal adjective built to the root *g̑erh2 - ‘grind’ (that
might be identical with *g̑erh2 - ‘make/get old, wear down’ [252]), *i̯ eu̯o- ‘corn, barley,
spelt’ [303], *puHro- ‘wheat’ [304] (perhaps from *peu̯H- ‘purify’, Skt. punā́ti, pávate,
i.e. that which is purified on the threshing floor), and *d hoh1 neh2 - ‘corn, seed’ [382]
(perhaps from *d heh1 - ‘put’ [sc. into the ground]). Also attested, though with more
limited distribution, are *u̯rug hi̯ o- ‘rye’ [306] and *b har-es- ‘barley’ [305].
Verbs for ‘grind, mill’ beside *g̑erh2 - are *melh2 - [264] and *h2 leh1 - [264]. ‘sow’ is
*seh1 - [243], ‘cut, pluck, reap’ is *(s)kerp- [307] (a root from which words for ‘fruit’
[54], ‘harvest’ [308], and ‘sickle’ [309] are derived). ‘To plough’ is *h2 erh3 - [231], cf.
the corresponding instrument noun *h2 erh3 -tro- ‘plough’ [310]. A team of oxen [313]
was yoked together (*i̯ eu̯g- [238]) with the *i̯ ugom [239]).
In addition to husbandry, the PIE people also domesticated animals and practiced
stock breeding. Domesticated animals were the horse, *h1 ék̑u̯os [311] (perhaps related
to *h1 ōk̑ú- ‘fast’ [272], therefore literally ‘the fast one’), the dog, *k̑u̯ṓn [47], the cow,
*g u̯ṓu̯s [312] and ox, *h2 uks-en- [313] (probably a derivative from *h2 u̯eks- ‘grow [up]’
[209]), the sheep, *h2 ou̯i- [314], the lamb, *h2 égu̯(h)no- [315], the goat (for which a
variety of roots are attested: *h2 eig̑-, *g hai̯ do-, *h2 eg̑o-, *h1 er-, *kapro- [316]), the pig
(: *suH- [317]) and its farrow, *pórk̑o- [318] (customarily derived from a verbal root
*perk̑- ‘to furrow’ [319], as ‘the furrowing animal’, but *perk̑- ‘speckled’ [320] is equal-
ly possible), and the goose, *g̑ hans- [375].
The general term for domesticating was *demh2 - [262] which might be connected
with the root *dem(h2 )- ‘build’ [261] (and ‘house’ in nominal forms [298]), if *demh2 -
can be understood as ‘domestication’, i.e. ‘accustoming to the house’ (cf. the recent
discussion of both roots in Nikolaev 2010).
Stock was considered a measure of wealth, hence *pek̑u- [321] probably meant both
‘livestock, cattle’ and ‘riches, wealth’, cf. Lat. pecus ‘livestock’ beside Goth. faihu ‘pos-
session, wealth’. For a development from the latter to the former meaning, one might
think of NE cattle < Lat. capitāle ‘principal sum of money, possession’ (cf. Clackson
2007: 206 ff.). The connection of *pek̑u- with the verbal root *pek̑- ‘pluck, pick (esp.

Authenticated
wool)’ [234], according to which *pek̑u- would have designated ‘the animal to pluck
wool from’, is difficult to maintain by reconstruction alone, since *pek̑u- is not limited
to ‘sheep’, but probably designated originally any ‘moving’ property (including slaves)
and was later restricted to [+animate, -human] as seen in the frequent pairing *pek̑u-
u̯iHro- found in several languages (OAv. pasūš vīrə̄n ̣g [acc.pl.], Umbr. ueiro pequo ‘hom-
ines et pecudes’, cf. Watkins 1979).
The IE language family attests a number of terms for operating with food, e.g., *pek u̯-
[235], which denotes both ‘ripen (intr.)’ and ‘cook, make edible’ (cf. Janda 2000: 48−
49), cf. also the adj. *(H)ōmo- ‘raw’ [271] and the noun *kreu̯h2 s- ‘blood, raw meat’
[63], *pei̯ s- ‘crush’ [236], *d hei̯ g̑ h- ‘mold, shape’ (e.g., bread or clay, cf. Gk. teĩk hos
‘wall’ beside NE dough) [244]. Elements of the PIE diet were *mēms(o)- ‘meat’ [63],
some sort of broth or soup, *i̯ ūs [322], *med hu- ‘mead’ [389], a drink sweetened with
honey (*melit- [359]), and probably ‘wine’ (*u̯oi̯ no- [390]), which is likely to be an
early loanword in PIE.
There was a word for ‘wear, clothe’ *u̯es- [259] (denoting the state) with numerous
derivatives for ‘garment, clothing’ (: Lat. uestis, Skt. vasana-, vastra-, Gk. est hḗs, Goth.
wasti, etc.) beside *h2 eu̯H- (denoting the process) [323]. Whether or not the latter meant
‘put on shoes’ already in PIE, as it does in some daughter languages, is questionable:
no word for ‘shoe’ is reconstructible for the proto-language, but one for ‘gird/girdle’,
*i̯ eh3 s- [260], is widely attested. Among the terms for producing clothes we find *sneh1 -
‘spin’ [245], *u̯eb h- [251] and *tek- [250] ‘weave’, and *si̯ eu̯- ‘sew’ [138].
The use of the wheel and wheeled transport was probably adopted only shortly before
the break-up of the PIE language community. This has been deduced from the fact that
most terms in this semantic field seem to be metaphoric usages of words with different
basic meanings: The nave or hub of the wheel originally designated the navel (: *h3 neb h-
[290]), the ‘axis’ *h2 ek̑s- the ‘axle, armpit’ [324], and the word for ‘wheel’ itself is a
reduplicated form from the root meaning ‘turn’ (: *k u̯elh1 - [126]): *k u̯e-k u̯lh1 -o- [327], a
frequently repeated metaphor, cf. Gk. trok hós ‘wheel’ from trék hō ‘run’, originally ‘turn’
(cf. Létoublon/de Lamberterie 1980; note also Lat. rota ‘wheel’ from *ret- ‘run’ [215]),
S.-Cr. točak ‘wheel’ from *tek u̯- ‘run’ [215]. The widely attested verb for ‘drive, trans-
port in a vehicle’ (: *u̯eg̑ h- [230]) probably meant ‘hover’ originally (cf. Schlerath 1996).
5. Nature
The deified bright sky in PIE was called *di̯ ḗu̯s [162] (cf. 7). In some languages, the
PIE word for ‘cloud’ *neb hos (probably originally from a verbal root *neb h- ‘be wet,
cloudy’ [160]) changed its meaning to ‘sky’ (cf. OCS nebo, Hitt. nepiš, Skt. nabhas-
[post-RV]). The same idea of the ‘bright one’ is expressed in OIr. erc ‘sky’ from a verbal
root *h1 erk u̯- ‘shine’ [141].
Candidates for PIE words for ‘day’ beside *di̯ eu̯- are *(H)āmer- [178] and *h2 eg̑ h-
[178], both with limited distribution, for ‘morning’ *h2 ei̯ -r/n- [328] and for ‘night’
*nok u̯ts [177], based on a verbal root that may be attested in Hitt. nekuzzi ‘becomes
dark’. In various IE (and non-IE) traditions, the night is described as wearing a garment
adorned with the shining stars (cf. Katz 2000). A term for ‘darkness’ was *(h1 )reg u̯os
[329], in Greek denoting the ‘underworld’. The word for ‘dawn’ *h2 eu̯s-os- [330], also

Authenticated
deified in PIE culture, was derived from *h2 u̯es- ‘shine’ [246], as are words for ‘east’
in some IE languages (e.g., Germ. *austa-, OE ēast, OHG ōstan, Av. ušastara-, Latv.
austrumi), while ‘evening’ and ‘west’ [368] derive from *u̯esp- ‘enshroud, clothe’ [369]
(cf. Katz 2000).
The fact that the word for ‘right’ also denotes ‘south’ (*dek̑s- [199]) indicates that
the speakers of PIE oriented themselves facing east. Words for ‘left’ were frequently
subject to replacement or distortion, as the left side was deemed unfortunate and defec-
tive (cf. Gk. lordós ‘bent backward [convex in front]’, Gael. lorcach ‘crooked’, MHG
lërz, lurz ‘left’; Gk. euṓnumos ‘left’, lit. ‘having a good name’ and aristerós ‘left’ from
áristos ‘best’; a term for ‘left’ common to several languages is *lai̯ u̯os, Gk. laiós, Lat.
laevus, OCS lěvъ, probably Toch. B laiwo ‘lassitude’).
In addition to *u̯et-es- [179] other terms for ‘year’ seem to refer to the idea of time
as cyclical movement, cf. *h2 et-no- [179] from *h2 et- ‘go’ (: Skt. átati ‘walks’ [121]),
*i̯ ēr- [179] probably from *i̯ eh2 - ‘go, walk’ [121], hence *i̯ ēh2 -r-, cf. also the Homeric
formula (Od. 1.16, 7.261, 14.287) all’ hóte dē étos ẽlt he periploménōn eniautõn (lit.)
‘but when (a) year of the revolving years had come’. The same idea may underlie toch.
A pukäl, B pikul ‘year’, if these forms derive from *pi-k u̯l̥ - corresponding to the Gk.
epithet epiplómenos ‘revolving’ (cf. periploménōn above) said of eniautós ‘year’ (cf.
Katz 2004). Words for seasons are *g̑ hei̯ - ‘winter’ [331], *u̯es-r- ‘spring’ [334], *sem-
‘summer’ [332] and *Hes-en- ‘harvest time’ [333]. The lunar month was apparently
used as a unit of time: the word for ‘month’ (PIE *meh1 n̥s [148]) is in some languages
identical to that for ‘moon’, or a derivative of it (e.g., Germ. *mēnōþ- > NE month,
NHG Monat). Both words go back to a root meaning ‘measure’ (PIE *meh1 - [248]). The
word for ‘sun’ shows a highly archaic inflection combining a stem in -l- and in -n- in
one paradigm, approximately *seh2 u̯el- vs. oblique *s(e)h2 u̯en- [147]. The common PIE
word for ‘star’ was *h2 ster- [149], probably from the verbal root *h2 eh1 s- ‘burn, become
dry’ [195] (cf. Pinault 2007).
Among terms for meteorological phenomena we find words for ‘snow’, *snigu̯h-s and
*snoi̯ gu̯hos [335], which originally may have meant ‘sticky’, cf. Skt. ásnihat ‘stuck (lay
wounded/dead)’, snihyati ‘sticks, becomes moist’ (cf. Hoffmann 1975−1992: 442−454),
‘rain’, *h2 u̯ers- [151], *sh2 eu̯- [376] (probably related to *seu̯- ‘press’ [228]), *Hemb h-
[377] (either an independent root or a derivative of *neb h- ‘be wet; cloud’ [160]),
*h2 u̯eh1 -nt-/-i̯ u-/-i̯ o- ‘wind’ [163], derived from the verbal root ‘blow’ (: *h2 u̯eh1 -: [98]),
and the verbal root *(s)tenH- ‘thunder’ [336].
The PIE word for ‘earth’ can be reconstructed as *d heg̑ hom- [159]. ‘Hills’ and ‘moun-
tains’ were probably designated by forms such as *g u̯erH- (probably the root ‘[be]
heavy’) [31]) and *b herg̑ h- [171].
The absence of a common word for ‘sea’ (*mori- is attested only dialectally and may
originally have meant ‘lake’ rather than ‘sea’ [154]) seems to indicate that the PIE people
were inland settlers. Transportation on water was known to them, though, as evidenced
by the widely attested *neh2 u- ‘ship’ [286] that was driven by oars (cf. *h1 erh1 - ‘row’
[229]). A word for ‘standing water, swamp’ is *sel-es-, found in Greek and Sanskrit
[378].
The basic word for ‘tree’ and ‘wood’ was *dor-u- [51], from which the Germanic
terms for ‘trust, loyalty’ are derived (cf. Goth. triggwa ‘alliance’, OHG triuwa ‘loyalty’,
OE trēow ‘belief, loyalty, truth’, etc.). Various other words for specific trees are recon-
structible, e.g., *b heh2 go- ‘beech tree’ [287], *b herHg̑- ‘birch’ [342], *perk u̯us ‘oak’

Authenticated
[343] and *peu̯k̑- ‘spruce, pine’ [391]. They have frequently been discussed in connec-
tion with the question of the PIE homeland, since their geographical distribution is limit-
ed. But it cannot be ruled out that this distribution has changed over time or that the
words designated different trees originally. The reconstruction of terms for fruit trees is
less secure, perhaps *h2 ebel- ‘apple’ [288], though only attested in northwestern IE
languages, and *kr̥no- ‘cherry’ [289].
A metal known to speakers of PIE was *h2 ei̯ es-, probably ‘bronze’ or ‘copper’ [337],
which appears in archaeological finds from the early sixth millennium onwards, while
the term for ‘iron’ varies across the languages, indicating its late appearance in most IE
cultures (attested in archaeological finds from the fourth millennium onwards; *īsarno-
‘iron’ in Germanic and Celtic [397] probably originally denoted the ‘holy’ metal, if from
*h1 isHro-, cf. Gk. hierós ‘powerful, holy’, Skt. iṣirá-). A similar variation is found in
words for ‘gold’, *g̑ hl̥ to- [344] (perhaps originally ‘yellow, shiny thing’ [173], derived
from the root also found in the word for ‘gall’ [280]) besides *h2 eu̯so- [345], derived
from the verbal root *h2 u̯es- ‘shine’ [246] found in the word for ‘dawn’ [330] as well.
Similarly, the word for ‘silver’ is derived from a root *h2 erg̑- ‘white, shining’ [175]
(: *h2 r̥g̑[e]nto- [338]).
PIE had two words for ‘fire’: animate *Vgni- [167], inanimate *peh2 u̯er/n- [167], and
several for ‘water’, *h2 ek u̯- [150] and *h2 ep- [387], inanimate *u̯ed-r/n- [150], derived
from a verbal root *u̯ed- ‘moisten, well’ [339], and *u̯eh1 - [150].
The generic term for ‘wild animal’ was *g̑ hu̯ēr [44], which may be derived from a
verbal root *g̑ hu̯er- ‘bend, walk with a hunch’ (: Skt. hvárate, YAv. zbar-, cf. Schindler
1972: 37 f.). Individual words for non-domesticated animals were frequently prone to
tabooistic distortion or euphemistic designations. Both phenomena may be present in the
word for ‘wolf’, PIE *u̯l̥ k u̯os (: Skt. vr̥ ́ kaḥ, Goth. wulfs), which has a variant form *luk u̯os
(: Gk. lúkos, Lat. lupus, a Sabellic loanword in Latin, cf. also *u̯l̥ pē- in Lat. vulpēs ‘fox’)
and may have been a euphemistic term ‘the dangerous one’ (in order not to utter the
animal’s ‘real’ name), cf. Skt. (adj.) a-vr̥ká- ‘safe’ (‘not dangerous’; prob. Hitt. walkuwa-
‘dangerous’, cf. Lehrman 1987).
Similarly, the word for ‘bear’, which probably was *h2 r̥ ́ tk̑o- [340] in PIE, has been
replaced in Germanic by ‘the brown one’ (OHG bēr, ON bjǫrn, OE bera, cf. Lith. bė́ ras
‘brown’; an alternative proposal relates the term to the word for ‘wild animal’ *g̑ hu̯er-
[44]), in Slavonic by ‘honey-eater’ (: Russ. medved’) and in Baltic simply by ‘licker’
(: Lith. lokỹs).
Other animals known to PIE people were the hare, *k̑as-o- [341], probably named
after its color (cf. Lat. cānus ‘grey’ from *k̑as-no-, OE hasu ‘grey-brown’), the beaver,
*b hi/e-b hru- [347] (cf. Skt. babhrú- ‘brown’), the mouse, *mūs [346] (probably derived
from the root *meu̯sH- ‘steal’, Skt. muṣṇā́ti; in Hitt. replaced by kapirt- which could be
*kom-b her-t- ‘who collects, assembles’, cf. also from *b her- [223] *b hōr ‘thief’, Gk.
φώρ, Lat. fūr, cf. Oettinger 1995), and the worm *u̯ermi/o- [50].
The generic term for ‘fish’ was *d hg̑ hu- [45], in the western area of IE we find *pei̯ sk-
[45]. Salmon (: *lak̑s- [354]) and eel (*h2 engu̯hi- [49]) were known, the latter also meant
‘snake’, a meaning also found in the form *He/ogu̯hi- which may be related [49].
The generic term for ‘bird’ was *h2 eu̯i- [46], the word for ‘egg’ [67] *(H)ōu̯i̯ o-,
which Schindler (1969) analyzed as *Hō-Hu̯i̯ o-, i.e. ‘that which is at the bird’, but which
might equally well be a ‘vr̥ddhi’-formation *h2 ōu̯i̯ -o- meaning ‘belonging to the bird’.
Birds known to speakers of PIE were the crane, *gerH- [348], the eagle, *h2 er-en- [349],

Authenticated
the thrush, *trozdo- [351], the sparrow, *sper- [350], the starling, *storo- [352] and the
finch, *(s)ping- [353].
Names of insects reconstructible for PIE are ‘wasp’, *u̯opseh2 - [355], ‘hornet’, *kr̥Hs-
ro- [356] (derived from the word for ‘horn’, PIE *k̑erh2 s- [68], cf. Nussbaum 1986:
248−260), ‘fly’, *mus- [357], ‘louse, louse egg’, *knid- [48], ‘louse’, *lūs- [48], for the
western languages ‘bee’, *b hei̯ - [358], while e.g., Greek and Armenian name the insect
after its product *melit- ‘honey’ [359], cf. Gk. mélitta (mélissa) <*melit-ih2 , Arm. mełow
from mełr ‘honey’.
6. Abstract concepts
Basic terms from the sphere of cognition were *men- ‘think’, *mneh2 -, a compound
*mn̥s-d heh1 - lit. ‘putting the mind (onto s.th.)’ from the same root [104], and *g̑neh3 -
‘recognize, know’ [103]. *med- [247] probably meant something like ‘take the appropri-
ate measure (to establish/restore order)’ (as analyzed by Benveniste 1969.2: 123−132).
Words for ‘learning’ were *dens- and *h1 eu̯k- [232], for ‘forgetting’ *mers- [233]. ‘gov-
ern, give directions’ was *h3 reg̑- [253] (orig. ‘stretch out [the hands]’, i.e. ‘give instruc-
tions, make straight’, cf. the Latin syntagm regere fines ‘to establish the borders of a
sacred place’), from which the root noun *h3 rēg̑-s is derived, which in various languages
denotes the ‘ruler, king’ [361] beside an n-stem *h3 rēg̑-on- (: Skt. rāj-an-; cf. Benveniste
1969.2: 9−15). The rules according to which governance proceeded was the *i̯ eu̯-s ‘law’
(: Lat. iūs: probably originally ‘what is [up]right’, cf. Willi 2001), which was handed
down orally from generation to generation, like all knowledge in a society without writ-
ing (cf. Lat. fas ‘[divine] law, custom’ < *‘what has been said’, from fārī ‘speak’, cf.
Benveniste 1969.2: 133−142).
7. Religion
A PIE term for ‘believe, trust’ was the syntagm ‘put the heart’, *k̑red d heh1 - [362]. There
was probably no general term for ‘pray’, but various verbs denoting specific types of
interaction with the immortal gods such as asking (a favor) (*prek̑- [255]), entering into
a reciprocal obligation (‘speak solemnly, vow’ *h1 u̯egu̯h- [254]) and praising (*g u̯erH-
[256], *steu̯- [237]). Different ways of presenting gifts to the gods are designated by
roots such as *spend- ‘libate’ [258], which frequently takes on the meaning ‘vow, prom-
ise’ (cf. Gk. spondḗ ‘libation’, pl. spondaí ‘truce’ − the gods were witnesses and guaran-
tors of the mutual obligations), *g̑ heu̯- ‘pour, libate’ [241], *sep- ‘attend to, worship’
[364] (with its derivative *sep-el- ‘honor’ in Skt. saparyá- ‘honor, sacrifice’ and Lat.
sepelīre, -iō ‘bury’, originally ‘pay the last respects to s.b.’). The attitude towards the
super-human may be one of both reverence and fear as expressed in *Hi̯ ag̑- ‘fear, wor-
ship, sacrifice’ [257] and *ti̯ eg u̯- ‘retreat, shy away from, feel awe’ [363].
There were various adjectives denoting the sphere of the ‘holy’ (cf. for a detailed
analysis Benveniste 1969.2: 177−207), each with different connotations, e.g., *sak- ‘set
apart from mankind’ [365], *kai̯ lo- [366] ‘whole, healthy’, *k̑u̯ento- ‘imbued with super-
natural power’ [367] and similarly *h1 isHro- (: Gk. hierós, Skt. iṣirá-, cf. the common

Authenticated
phrase hieròn ménos, Skt. [instr.] iṣiréṇa mánasā ‘inspired mind’, from *h1 ei̯ sh2 - ‘give
an impulse’, Skt. iṣ- ‘be lively, powerful; invigorate’, Gk. iáomai ‘I heal’, cf. García
Ramón 1986).
The supreme god of the PIE pantheon was the deified bright sky (cf. 5), *di̯ ḗu̯s (:
Gk. Zeús, Skt. d(i)yaúḥ, Lat. Iū- in Iūpiter), derived from a root *dei̯ - ‘shine’ [246],
which also forms the basis of the general term for ‘god’, PIE *dei̯ u̯ós ‘heavenly one’
[380]. A different idea of godliness seems to lie behind the root *d heh1 s- appearing in
Gk. t heós ‘god’, Lat. fānum ‘temple’ (*d hh1 snom), fēriae ‘holi-days’, and Arm. dik‘
‘god(s)’, which is most probably related to *d heh1 - ‘put, place’.
*di̯ ḗu̯s was deemed responsible for various meteorological phenomena, cf. the Greek
expressions Zeùs húei, níp hei ‘Zeus rains, snows’ and nouns like Gk. eudía ‘good weath-
er’ (*h1 su-diu̯-eh2 ) and OCS dъždь ‘rain’ < *dus-di̯ u-s ‘bad weather’. The personifica-
tion is seen in the form of address ‘father’ (in the sense of ‘head of the household’ as
in the Lat. pater familias, cf. 4) in the syntagm *di̯ ḗu̯s ph2 tḗr ‘father sky’ (: Gk. [voc.]
Zeũ páter, Skt. dyaúṣ pitā́, Lat. [originally voc.] Iūpiter, Umbr. Iupater). There are no
good equations for a possible ‘wife’ of father sky, one proposal being a derivative of the
same root, *diu̯ōneh2 (: Gk. Di[w]ōnē), cf. Dunkel (1991); however, a ‘daughter of the
sky’ is usually reconstructed on the basis of expressions like Skt. divó duhitā́, Gk. t hugá-
tēr Di(w)ós, and Lith. diẽvo duktė̃ (dukrýtė). In the RV, the deified ‘dawn’ [330], Uṣas,
is usually addressed in this manner, and in Greek it is used, among others, of Aphrodite,
who is p hilommeidḗs ‘having a lovely smile’ (Hom.+), similar to Uṣas, who is frequently
connected with the root smi- ‘smile’ (cf. Dunkel 1991). Other suspected members of the
PIE pantheon − with decreasing degrees of certainty, as either no exact correspondences
are attested or the reconstruction is formally problematic − are the ‘divine twins’ (: Skt.
divó nápātā, Gk. Di[w]óskouroi, Latv. Dieva dēli ‘sons of heaven’ [usually twins], the
Greek Kastor and Poludeukēs, borrowed into Latin as Castor and Pollux, who are called
Sōtēre ‘the two saviours’ in Greek, corresponding to the Vedic Nāsatyā ‘saviours’), the
god of the sea (: Lat. Neptūnus, OIr. Nechtan, Skt. Apā́m Nápāt ‘grandson of the wa-
ters’), a divine shepherd (: Gk. Pā́ōn, Skt. Pū́ṣan-, cf. Oettinger 2000), a smith (: Lat.
Vulcānus, Osset. Wergon; cf. Vedic ulkā́ ‘fire, flame’), and a physician (: Gk. Apóllōn,
Skt. Rudrá-, cf. Oberlies 2000).
8. PIE poetic language (“Dichtersprache”)
Many poetic expressions (syntagms, metaphors, etc.) attested in the daughter languages
are derived from PIE, the most famous one being probably *k̑léu̯os n̥ ́ d hg u̯hitom ‘imper-
ishable fame’ (: Gk. klé[w]os áp ht hiton, Skt. śrávas ákṣitam). The poet himself is one
who ‘forges’ the words (*tekt-: Av. vačas-tašti- ‘the forging of words’, RV 5.2.11 etáṃ
stómaṃ … ráthaṃ ná atakṣam ‘I have crafted this song like a chariot’, Pi. P. 3.113
epéōn … téktones ‘the forgers of words’), ‘weaves’ them into a ‘garment’ (: *teks-, cf.
Lat. textus) or ‘harnesses’ his song of praise like a chariot (: Pi. Nem. 1.7 enkṓmion
zeũksai mélos, RV 10.13.1 yujé … bráhma), cf. Schmitt (1967), Schmitt (1968), Meid
(1978), Watkins (1995), and West (2007).

Authenticated
9. Vocabulary list
The material from 27–207 is arranged according to the Swadesh list. Only a selection
of the material related to each root is given. Not all possible roots and reconstructions
are listed here, for more material cf. IEW, LIV, and NIL, and, as onomasiological collec-
tions, Buck (1949) and EIEC.
27. ‘big, large’: *meg̑-h2 - (: Gk. mégas, Arm. mec, Skt. máhi-, Av. maz-; *meg̑h2 -i-:
Hitt. mēkki-; [*m̥g̑h2 -no-] Lat. magnus; [*meg̑h2 -lo-] Goth. mikils, ON mikill, OE micel,
OHG mihhil; Toch. A māk, B māka ‘many’, Alb. madh ‘large’, OIr. maige). IEW 708 f.,
EIEC 344, NIL 468 ff.
28. ‘long’: *dl̥ h1 g h-o- (: Skt. dīrghá-, OAv. darǝga-, OCS dъlgъ, Lith. ìlgas. Gk. en-
delek hḗs ‘long-lasting, uninterrupted’ with full grade I [*delh1 g h-es-], dolik hó- ‘long’ and
Hitt. daluki- with different suffixes [*dolh1 -i-g ho-, *dolh1 -u-g ho-?] beside *dlh1 -oN-g ho-
in Lat. longus, Germ. *langa- [Goth. laggs, ON langr, OHG lanc, etc.], MPers. drang
‘duration’). IEW 196 f.; *meh2 k̑- (: YAv. mas- ‘big’, Toch. A mok, B moko ‘old’, Gk.
mẽkos ‘length’, makrós ‘long, big’, Lat. macer ‘meagre’, OHG magar ‘id.’, Hitt. makla-
nt- ‘meagre, thin’, OIr. machtae ‘big’). IEW 699, EIEC 357, 574, NIL 478 ff.; *duh2 -/
du̯eh2 -ro- (: Gk. dērós, Skt. dūrá-, Arm. erkar, Lat. dūrus ‘hard’ [if from ‘long-lasting’],
cf. root noun ‘length’ in Gk. [adv.] dḗn ‘for a long time’, Hitt. tuwa [adv.] ‘far’).
29. ‘wide’: cf. ‘broad’ [275].
30. ‘thick’: *tegu- (: Hitt. tagu- ‘thick, swollen’, OIr. tiug, Welsh tew, OHG dicki, ON
þykkr, OE þicce). IEW 1057; ‘dense, thick, fixed’. *b heng̑ h- (: Hitt. panku- ‘all’, Skt.
bahú- ‘much, dense’, Arm. bazowm ‘much’, Gk. pak hús ‘dense, thick’; cf. Skt. bam̐háya-
te ‘strengthens’, Av. bązaiti ‘fixes’). LIV 76, IEW 127 f., NIL 13 ff., EIEC 574.
31. ‘heavy’: *g u̯(e)rh2 -u- (: Skt. gurú-, Gk. barús, Lat. gravis, Goth. kaurus, OIr. bair,
Latv. grũts, Lat. (Sabellic loanword) brūtus < *g u̯ruh2 -to-). IEW 476 f., EIEC 264. →
‘mountain’ [171].
32. ‘small’: *men-u-/-u̯o- (: OIr. menb ‘small, tiny’, Gk. mánu ‘small’, Arm. manr; Skt.
manāk ‘a little, slightly’; *mei̯ -: Gk. meíōn ‘less’, Lat. nimis ‘too much’ [*‘not less’],
etc.). IEW 711, 728 f., EIEC 528 f.
33. ‘short’: *mreg̑ h- (: Gk. brak hús, YAv. mǝrǝzu-, Lat. brevis, OHG murg, Skt. múhur
‘immediately’). IEW 750 f., EIEC 515.
34. ‘narrow’: *h2 emg̑ h-ú- (: Skt. aṁhú-, Goth. aggwus, Arm. anjowk, OIr. cum-ung,
OCS o˛zъkъ). LIV 264 f., IEW 42 f., NIL 301 ff., EIEC 391. From a verbal root ‘to cord
up, make tight’ (: Gk. ágk hō, Lat. angere, -ō, Av. °āza-).
35. ‘thin’: *ten(H)-u- (: Skt. tanú-, Gk. tanaós ‘thin, stretched out’ [*tn̥(H)-u̯-o-], tanu°
[e.g., tanú-p hullos ‘with thin leaves’], Lat. tenuis, OIr. tanae, OHG dunni, OCS tьnъkъ

Authenticated
‘fine, soft’, Lith. té˛vas. Probably adj. built from verbal root *ten(H)- ‘stretch’). LIV 626,
IEW 1065–1066, 1069, EIEC 574, NIL 694 ff.
36. ‘woman’: *g u̯en(h2 )- (: probably Hitt. kwinna- [acc.sg.], cLuw. wana-, OIr. bé [n.],
Skt. jáni-, gnā́-, Av. jaini-, gǝnā-, Arm. kin, Toch. A śäṃ, B śana, Gk. gunḗ, [Boeot.]
bánā, Goth. qino, qēns, OCS žena, OPr. genna). IEW 473 f. EIEC 648, NIL 177 ff. For
*(h1 e)sor- see 2.
37. ‘man’: *h2 ner- (: Gk. anḗr, Arm. ayr, phryg. anar, Skt. Av. nar-, Osc. niir, Lat. PN
Nerō, Alb. njerí). IEW 765, EIEC 366, NIL 332 ff.; *u̯iHro- (: Skt. vīrá-, Av. vīra-, Lith.
výras, Latv. virs, OPr. wijrs, Lat. vir, Umbr. ueiro, OIr. fer, Welsh gwr, ON verr, OE
OHG wer, probably Gk. PN Ἶros; note the pun in Od. 18.73 Ἶros Ἄīros ‘Iros [i.e. the
powerful one] [may soon be a powerless one]’). IEW 1178, EIEC 366 f., NIL 726 ff. →
[291], [392], [396].
38. ‘human being’: in most languages designated as either ‘mortal’, *mr̥to-, *n̥k̑-u̯o- →
[109] or ‘earthling’, *d hg̑ hm-on- → ‘earth’ [159], cf. 1.
39. ‘child’: *putló- (: Skt. putrá- ‘boy, child, young one’, Av. puθra-, Osc. puklum [acc.]
‘son’, Lat. putillus, puer ‘boy’; prob. related to Lat. paucus ‘little, few’ and Gk. paĩs/
paũs ‘boy, child’). IEW 842 f. *tek̑no- (: Gk. téknon, Germ. *þegnaz in ON þegn ‘free
man’, OE ðegn, OS OHG thegan from *tek̑- ‘beget, bear’ [249]). IEW 1057, EIEC 106 f.
→ ‘suck’ [95].
40. ‘wife’: PIE does not seem to have had special terms for ‘wife’ and ‘husband’, cf.
Benveniste (1969.1: 239 ff.).
41. ‘husband’: cf. [40].
42. ‘mother’: *māter- (: Skt. mātár-, Av. mātar-, Arm. mayr, Gk. mḗtēr, Lat. māter,
OHG muoter, OIr. máthair, Lith. mótė ‘woman, wife’, mótyna ‘mother’, ORuss. mati,
Alb. motër ‘sister’, Toch. A mācar, B mācer). IEW 700 f., EIEC 385 f., NIL 457 ff.
43. ‘father’: *ph2 ter- (: Gk. patḗr, Skt. pitár-, Av. pitar-, Goth. fadar [attested only once,
otherwise replaced by atta], Toch. B pācer, A pācar, Arm. hayr, OIr. athair, Lat. pater).
IEW 829, EIEC 194 f., NIL 554 ff.
44. ‘(wild) animal’: *g̑ hu̯er- (: Gk. t hḗr/p hḗr, derivatives in Lat. ferus ‘wild [animal]’,
Lith. žverìs). LIV 182, IEW 493, EIEC 22 ff.
45. ‘fish’: *d hg̑ hu(H)- (: Gk. ik ht hús, Lith. žuvìs, OPr. suckis, Arm. jowkn). IEW 416;
*pei̯ sk- (: Lat. piscis, Goth. fisks). IEW 796, EIEC 204 f.
46. ‘bird’: *h2 eu̯i- (: Skt. víḥ, Av. vīš, Lat. avis, Arm. haw, Gk. a[w]ietós ‘eagle’, Alb.
vido ‘dove’). IEW 86, EIEC 66 ff. → ‘egg’ [67].

Authenticated
47. ‘dog’: *k̑u̯ōn, gen. *k̑unos (: Hitt. kuwaš ‘dog-man’, Skt. ś(u)vā́, Av. span-, Gk. kúōn,
Arm. šown, Lith. šuõ, Goth. hunds [<*k̑u̯n̥to-], OIr. cú, Toch. AB ku). IEW 632, EIEC
168, NIL 436 ff.
48. ‘louse, louse egg’: *(s)knid- (: MIr. sned ‘nit’, OE hnitu, OHG [h]niz, Gk. kónis, pl.
konídes, Alb. [Geg] thëni; variant *g hnid- in ON gnit, Russ. gnída, Latv. gnîda, *g hlid-
in Lith. glìnda, Lat. lēns, lendis). IEW 608; ‘louse’: *lūs- (: OHG OE lūs, ON lús, Welsh
[pl.] llau, with tabooistic distortion Skt. yūkā, Lith. liū̃lė, utė[lė], Russ. voš). IEW 692,
EIEC 357.
49. ‘snake, dragon’: *He/og u̯hi- (: Gk. ék his, óp his, Arm. iž, Skt. áhi-, Av. aži- ‘snake,
dragon’). ‘eel, snake’: *h2 eng u̯hi- (: Lat. anguis ‘snake’, anguilla ‘eel’, Gk. égk helus
‘eel’, other material that is possibly related: Lith. ungurỹs ‘eel’, Germ. *æla- ‘eel’ in
OHG āl, OE ǣl etc., Hitt. illuy-ankaš with inversed order of the elements found in Lat.
angu-illa, cf. Katz 1998). IEW 44, EIEC 529 f.
50. ’worm’: *u̯erm- (: Lat. vermis [*u̯ermi-], Gk. hrómos [*u̯romo-] ‘wood-worm’, Lith.
var̃mas ‘insect, gnat’, ORuss. vermie ‘insects’, Goth. waurms [*u̯r̥mo-]). IEW 1152,
EIEC 649 f.
51. ‘tree, wood’: *dóru, gen. *dréu̯s (: Skt. dā́ru, dróḥ), gen. *doru̯os (: Gk. dóru,
dourós ‘stem, tree, spear’); Goth. triu, NE tree, Alb. dru, OIr. daur ‘oak’, Hitt. daru-,
OCS drěvo. IEW 214 ff., EIEC 598 ff. Perhaps related to *der- ‘skin, flay’ → [115] as
the trunk stripped of its twigs, foliage and/or bark.
52. ‘forest’: most probably PIE used derivatives of [51] of the type Gk. drumós, drumá
‘woods, forest’ (: Skt. drumá- ‘tree, plant’, Russ. drom ‘thicket’).
53. ‘stick’:? *stob ho- (: Lith. stãbas ‘post, pillar, cramp’, Germ. *staba/i-, Goth. stabeis
‘elements, letters’), verbal root *steb h- ‘freeze, grow stiff’ (: Lith. stembù, stèbti ‘be
amazed’), probably related to *stemb hH- ‘support’ (: Skt. stabhnā́ti ‘supports, fixes’,
Toch B. śama, A śäm ‘stood’, Lith. stembiù, stem̃bti ‘resist’, Skt. stambha- ‘post, pillar’).
LIV 588 f., 595, IEW 1012 f.
54. ‘fruit’: ? *kr̥po- (: Gk. karpós) from *(s)kerp- ‘cut, pluck’ [307]. (EIEC 63).
55. ‘seed’: ? *seh1 -men- is restricted to western languages (: Lat. sēmen, OHG sāmo,
OPr. semen, OCS sěmę), → *seh1 - ‘sow’ [243]. IEW 889 f., EIEC 505.
56. ‘leaf’: *b hel- (with different suffixes; Gk. p húllon, Lat. folium [*b hl̥ -i̯ o-], Toch. A
pält, MIr. bileóc, OHG blat [Germ. *blada-] etc.), perhaps related to *b hleh3 - ‘blossom’
(: OE blōwan, Lat. flōs, -ōris ‘flower’, OS blōma ‘flower’, OIr. bláth). IEW 122, EIEC
348.
57. ‘root’: *u̯r̥Hd- (: Lat. rādīx, Gk. r hā́diks ‘branch’, r híza ‘root’, ON rōt, Goth. waurts,
Welsh gwraidd ‘roots’, probably Toch. B witsako ‘root’). IEW 1167.

Authenticated
58. ‘bark (n.)’: ?*lou̯bo- (: Lith. luõbas, Russ. lub ‘bast, bark’, Alb. labë ‘rind, bark,
crust’; Lat. liber ‘bast; book’, ON laupr ‘basket’, OHG louft ‘bast, bark’). IEW 690,
EIEC 50.
59. ‘flower’: Probably *h2 end hos- (: Gk. ánt hos ‘sprout’, Arm. and ‘field’, Skt. ándhas-
‘shoot, sprout’, Alb. ëndë). IEW 40 f., EIEC 207; different derivatives from *b hleh3 - in
various languages, → ‘leaf’ [56].
60. ‘grass’: *k̑oi̯ no- (: Lith. šiẽnas ‘hay’, OCS sěno ‘hay, grass’, Gk. [Hsch.] koiná).
IEW 610; *u̯elt- (: Welsh gwellt, OPr. wolti ‘blade of grass’, Lith. váltis ‘oat panicle’,
Hitt. wellu[u̯ant-] ‘grass’). IEW 1139 f., EIEC 240.
61. ‘rope’: −
62. ‘skin’: *tu̯ek- (: Skt. tvák, tvacas-, Gk. sákos ‘shield’ [made of skin], Hitt. twekkaš
‘body, person, self’). IEW 1099; prob. *(s)kuH-ti/o- (: OHG hūt ‘hide’, Gk. skũtos ‘skin,
hide, leather’, Toch. A kāc ‘skin’). IEW 952, EIEC 522.
63. ‘meat’: *mēms(o)- (: perhaps related to *Hōmo- ‘raw’ [271], or a compound *me-
h1 ems- ‘in the middle of the back’ [<*h1 oms- ‘what is cut up’ > ‘back (of a slaughtered
animal)’, *h1 ems- ‘flay, cut’, cf. Lat. ēnsis ‘sword’, Ved. así- ‘sword, slaughtering knife’]
as analyzed by Pinault [ms.]; Skt. [acc.sg.] mā́s, māṃsá-, Arm. mis, Goth. mimz, OCS
męso, Alb. mish, Toch. B misa, Lith. mėsà; derivative *mēms-ro- ‘part of meat, body
part’ in Gk. mērós ‘thigh, thigh bone’, Lat. membrum ‘body part, part’, OIr. mír ‘bit,
portion’). IEW 725, EIEC 374, NIL 486 ff.; → ‘shoulder’ [283]; ‘raw meat, blood’:
*kreu̯h2 - (‘meat’: Gk. kréas, Skt. kravíṣ-; ‘blood’: Lith. kraũjas, Lat. cruor, OCS krъvь,
MIr. crú; Germ. adj. ‘raw’ in OHG [h]rō, OS hrā, OE hrēaw, ON hrár). IEW 621 f.,
EIEC 71, NIL 444 ff.
64. ‘blood’: *h1 esh2 -r/n- (: Hitt. ēšḫar, gen. ēšnaš, Skt. ásr̥k, gen. asnás, Toch. A ysār,
B yasar, Gk. éar, Latv. asins, OLat. as[s]er, Arm. ar-iwn). IEW 343, EIEC 71.
65. ‘bone’: *h3 est- (: Skt. ásthi, gen. asthnáḥ, Av. ast-, asti- , Gk. ostéon, Alb. asht,
ashtë , Lat. os, gen. ossis, Hitt. ḫastāi-). IEW 783, EIEC 77.
66. ‘fat’: *piHu̯en/u̯er- (: Gk. pī́ōn, [f.] pī́eira, Skt. pī́van-, [f.] pī́varī, from a verbal root
*pei̯ H- ‘swell’, Skt. páyate ‘swells’, pínvati ‘makes swell’, Lith. pyjù, pýti ‘produce
milk’). IEW 793 f., → ‘swell’ [146]; *selp- (: Gk. élpos ‘fat, olive oil’ [Hsch.], Skt.
sarpíṣ- ‘ghee’, Toch. A ṣälyp, B ṣalype ‘oil, fat, unguent’, Alb. gjalpë ‘butter’, OHG
salb ‘unguent’). IEW 901, EIEC 194, NIL 612 f.
67. ‘egg’: *Hōu̯io- (: Gk. ōión, Lat. ōvum, Welsh wy, Alb. voe, OCS ajьce, OHG ei, OE
ǣ[i]g). IEW 783 f., EIEC 176. Probably a derivative of → ‘bird’ [46].
68. ‘horn’: *k̑erh2 - and derivatives (: Lat. cornū, Skt. śr̥ ́ ṅga-, Gk. kéras, Germ. *hurna-
in Goth. haurn, OHG OE ON horn). IEW 574 ff., EIEC 272. → ‘head’ [72], → ‘hornet’
[356].

Authenticated
69. ‘tail’: ? *u̯olo- (: Lith. vãlas, pl. valaĩ ‘horse-tail’, Skt. vā́ra- ‘horse-tail, hair of a
horse’s tail’), from *u̯el- ‘turn’ (: Arm. gelowm, Lat. volvere, -ō, Alb. vjell ‘vomits’, Gk.
eiléō). LIV 675, IEW 1140 ff.; *puk-o-/-s(k̑)o- (: Skt. púccha- ‘tail’, Germ. *fuh[s]a-
‘fox’, Goth. fauhō, OE fox, OHG fuhs [named after its characteristic tail], Toch. B pako*
‘tail, cowrie’). IEW 849, EIEC 563.
70. ‘feather’: cf. words for ‘wing’ [84].
71. ‘hair’: *peu̯mos- (: Skt. púmām̐s- ‘man; male being’, Lat. pūbēs, puber- [*peu̯m-ro-]
‘male, coming of age; pubic hair’, Šughnī pūm ‘down, fluff’). IEW −, cf. Mayrhofer
2006.2: 144. For further possible etyma cf. EIEC 251 ff.
72. ‘head’: *k̑erh2 - and derivatives (: Skt. śíras-, Av. sarah-, Gk. kárā, Lat. cerebrum
‘brain’, OHG hirni ‘brain’), cf. Nussbaum 1986: 158 ff. IEW 574 ff., EIEC 260 f. →
‘horn’ [68].
73. ‘ear’: *h2 ou̯s-os- (: Gk. oús, gen. ōtós, OIr. áu, OCS uxo, Av. uši-, Lat. auris, Lith.
ausìs, Arm. ownkn). IEW 785, EIEC 173, NIL 339 ff.
74. ‘eye’: *h3 ek u̯- (: Lat. oculus, Lith. akìs, OCS oko, Goth. augo, Gk. ōps*, óps,
op ht halmós, ómma, Arm. akn, Skt. ákṣi-). LIV 297 f., IEW 775 ff., NIL 370 ff., EIEC
188.
75. ‘nose, nostril(s)’: *nas- (: Skt. [du.] nā́sā, Av. nāh-, nā̊ŋhan-, Lat. nāris, usually pl.
-ēs, nāsum, nās[s]us, OHG nasa, OE nasu, OPr. nozy, Lith. nósis, OCS nozdri ‘nostrils’,
nоsъ). IEW 755, EIEC 395.
76. ‘mouth’: *h3 oh1 -(e)s- (: Hitt. aiš, gen. iššāš, Ved. ās-, Lat. ōs, ōris, OIr. á, Lith.
úostas ‘mouth of a river, harbor’). IEW 784 f., EIEC 387, NIL 387 ff.
77. ‘tooth’: *h1 d(o)nt- (: Skt. dant-, Gk. ódous, -ontos, Lat. dens, dentis, Goth. tunþus,
Arm. atamn, OIr. dét). LIV 230 f., IEW 287 ff., EIEC 594. → ‘bite, eat’ [93].
78. ‘tongue’: *d(h)(e)ng̑ h-uH- (: Skt. jihvā́, Av. hizvā, Arm. lezow, OLat. dingua, Lat.
lingua, Osc. fangvam, OIr. teng, Goth. tuggō, Lith. liežùvis, OCS językъ, Toch. A käntu,
B käntwo [with metathesis from *tanku̯a]). IEW 223, EIEC 594.
79. ‘fingernail’: *h3 nog u̯h- (: Gk. ónuks, -uk hos, Lat. unguis, OIr. ingen, OHG nagal,
Lith. nãgas ‘nail’, nagà ‘hoof’, OCS noga ‘foot’, Skt. áṅghri- ‘foot’). IEW 780, EIEC
389.
80. ‘foot’: *ped-/pod- (: Gk. poús, podós, Skt. pād-, Lat. pēs, pedis, Goth. fotus, Toch.
A pe, B payye, Luw. pāta-, Arm. otn, OIr. ís ‘beneath’ < [loc.] *pēd-su ‘at the feet’,
Alb. (për-)posh ‘below, underneath’ < *pēd-su/si). LIV 458, IEW 790 ff., NIL 526 ff.,
EIEC 280 f.

Authenticated
81. ‘leg’: ? *k̑rūs- (: Lat. crūs, -ris ‘shank, leg’, Arm. srownk‘ ‘shin, calf’(?)). IEW 624;
? *sek u̯t- (: Skt. sákthi-, Av. haxti- ‘thigh’, prob. Toch. B ckāckai ‘shank’, Hitt. šakut-
‘upper leg’); *konHmo- (: OIr. cnáim ‘leg’, OE hamm ‘ham’, Gk. knḗmē ‘tibia, spoke
of a wheel’). EIEC 349.
82. ‘knee’: *g̑e/on-u- (: Skt. jā́nu, Av. [acc.] žnūm, Gk. gónu, Arm. cownr, Lat. genū,
-ūs , Goth. kniu, Toch. A kanweṃ, В kenīne [du.], Hitt. genu). IEW 381, EIEC 336.
83. ‘hand’: *g̑ hes-r- (: Hitt. kiššar-, Gk. k heír, Arm. jer̄n, Alb. dorë, Toch. A tsar, B
ṣar), *g̑ hes-to- (: Skt. hásta-, Av. zasta-, OP dasta-, probably Lat. hostus ‘yield of an
olive-tree’, cf. de Vaan 2008: 292). IEW 446 f., EIEC 254, NIL 170 ff.
84. ‘wing’: *pet(H)-r/n- (: Hitt. pattar, Skt. pataṅgá- ‘flying; bird’, Welsh adain/-en,
Lat. penna ‘feather, wing’ [*petnā], Gk. pterón, CSl. pero, OE feder, OHG fedara, etc.),
from *peth1 - ‘fly, fall’ [120] or *peth2 - ‘spread wings’ [120]. LIV 477 ff., IEW 824 ff.,
EIEC 646.
85. ‘belly’: *Hudero-? (: Skt. udára- ‘belly’, Gk. húderos ‘dropsy’, hóderos· gastḗr
[Hsch.], Lat. uterus, Lith. vė́ daras ‘entrails’, Latv. vêders/-ars ‘belly, stomach’). IEW
1104 f.
86. ‘guts’: *h1 enter-o- (: Gk. éntera, Arm. ǝnderk‘, ON iðrar; Skt. āntrá-), from adj.
*h1 en-tero- ‘inner, being inside’ (: Skt. ántara-, Lat. [comp.] interior) from *h1 en(i) ‘in’.
IEW 313. More divergent meanings in *g̑ hr̥H(d/n)- (: Gk. k hordḗ ‘bowel’, Lith. žarnà,
ON gorn, Lat. haru-spex ‘diviner [from the entrails of victims]’, Skt. híra- ‘rope’, hirā́-
‘vein’). IEW 443, EIEC 179 f.
87. ‘neck’: *mon-o- (: Skt. mányā, Av. manaoθrī, Lat. monīle ‘necklace’, OIr. muin- in
muin-torc ‘necklace’, muinél ‘throat, neck’, Welsh mwn, mwnwgl ‘neck, throat’; ON
men, OE mene, OHG menni ‘necklace’). IEW 747; *g u̯riHu̯eh2 - (: Skt. grīvā́-, Av. grīu-
uā-, Russ. gríva ‘mane, ridge’, Latv. grīva ‘mouth of a river’, probably Gk. dérē). IEW
474 f., EIEC 391 f.
88. ‘back’: ? *(s)kuH-lo- (: Skt. kū́la- ‘slope, rear of an army’, OIr. cúl ‘back’, Lat.
cūlus ‘rear-end’). IEW 951, EIEC 42. Perhaps *h1 e/oms- → ‘meat’ [63].
89. ‘breast’: *psten- (: OHG spunna, MHG spen, spun[n]e, OE spanu, etc. ‘breast’,
Lith. spenỹs, OIr. sine ‘tit’, Skt. stána-, Av. fštana-, Gk. stẽnion [Hsch.]). IEW 990.
‘breast, udder’: *Hou̯Hd h-r/n- (: Skt. ū́dhar-, Gk. oũt har, Lat. ūber, MHG ūter, Lith.
udróti ‘be heavy with young’). IEW 347, EIEC 81.
90. ‘heart’: *k̑erd- (: Hitt. kẽr, kard-, Lat. cor, cordis, Gk. kẽr, kardía/kradíē, Lith. širdìs,
Arm. sirt, Skt. hr̥d- with changed anlaut, OCS srъdьce, Goth. hairto, OIr. cride, Toch.
mäl-kärteṃ ‘magnanimous’). IEW 579 f., EIEC 262 f., NIL 417 ff. → ‘put the heart,
believe, trust’ [362].

Authenticated
91. ‘liver’: *i̯ e/ok u̯-r/n- (: Skt. yákr̥-t, gen. yaknás, Lat. iecur/iocur, gen. iocineris/iocino-
ris, Gk. hḗpar, -atos, Lith. [dial.] jẽknos, MIr. iuchair ‘roe’, ORuss. ikra ‘id.’; doubtful
Arm. leard and Germ. *liƀrō, NE liver, NHG Leber, perhaps from a word for ‘fat’, cf.
Gk. liparós ‘fat’). IEW 504, EIEC 356, NIL 392 ff.
92. ‘drink’: *peh3 (i̯ )- (: Skt. píbati, Lat. bibere, -ō, OIr. ibid, Arm. əmpem, Gk. pī́nō,
OCS pijǫ, piti, Hitt. pāši ‘swallows’, OPr. poieiti [ipv.] ‘drink!’); *h1 eg u̯h- (: Hitt. ekuzi,
Toch. B yokäṃ, A yoktsi ‘drinks, to drink’, cf. Lat. ēbrius ‘drunk’). LIV 462 f., IEW
839 f., EIEC 175 f.
93. ‘eat, bite’: *h1 ed- (: Skt. átti, adánti, Hitt. ēdmi, adanzi, Gk. [fut.] édomai, Lat.
edere, -ō, OIr. ithid, Goth. itan, OLith. ė́ mi, OCS jamь, jasti, Arm. owtem). LIV 230 f.,
IEW 287 ff., NIL 208 ff, EIEC 175 f. → ‘tooth’ [77].
94. ‘bite’: *denk̑- (: Skt. dáśati, Gk. dáknō, ON tengja ‘connect’; cf. Gk. ódaks ‘with
the teeth’, Skt. daṃśman- ‘bit’ etc.). LIV 117 f., IEW 201, NIL 82 f., EIEC 68, → [93].
95. ‘suck’: *d heh1 (i̯ )- (: cLuw. [ptc.] titaimi- ‘fed’, Lyc. tideimi ‘child’, Skt. dhinoti
‘feeds’, OIr. denait [3pl.] ‘suck’, MWelsh dyn-, Gk. [aor.] t hē-s-, Arm. diem, OHG tāen*,
Latv. dêju, dêt, Goth. daddjan, OCS dojǫ, dojiti ‘suckle’). LIV 138 f., IEW 241 f.; *seu̯k̑-
(: Lat. sūgere, -ō, ON súga, OCS sъsǫ, sъsati, Lith. sunkiù, suñkti ‘press, filter’). LIV
539 f., IEW 912 f., EIEC 556.
96. ‘spit’: *spti̯ eu̯H- (: Gk. ptū́ō, Skt. ní ṣṭhīvati, Goth. speiwan, Lat. spuere, -ō, Lith.
spiáuju, spiáuti, OCS pljujǫ, pljьvati). LIV 583 f., IEW 999 f., EIEC 538.
97. ‘vomit’: *u̯emh1 - (: Gk. eméō, Lat. vomere, -ō, Skt. vámiti, Lith. vemiù, vémti). LIV
680, IEW 1146, EIEC 538.
98. ‘blow’: *h2 u̯eh1 - (: Skt. vā́ti, YAv. vāiti, Gk. áēsi, Goth. waian, OCS vějati). LIV
287, IEW 81–84, EIEC 71 f. → ‘wind’ [163].
99. ‘breathe’: *h2 enh1 - (: Skt. ániti, OIr. -ana ‘waits’, Goth. -anan*, Toch. B anāsṣäṃ,
̣
Gk. ánemos ‘wind’, Lat. animus/-a ‘spirit, soul, self’). LIV 267 f., IEW 38 f., NIL 307 ff.,
EIEC 82. → ‘wind’ [163], → ‘smoke’ [166].
100. ‘laugh’: The daughter languages usually use onomatopoetic forms such as Gk.
ka(n)k házō, Arm. xaxank‘ ‘laughter’, Skt. kakhati, Lat. cachinnāre, -ō, OCS xoxotati
(virtually from a root **k hak h-), Goth. hlahjan (**klak-). A root attested only in Greek
and Armenian is *g̑el(h2 )- ‘laugh/shine’ (: Gk. gélōs ‘laughter’, Arm. całr ‘id.’, Gk.
geláō ‘I laugh’, Arm. cicałim, Gk. galḗnē ‘calm [*laughing] / shining sea’< *g̑elasnā,
cf. glaukós ‘bright; bluish green, grey’, glaússei· lámpei ‘shines’ [Hsch.]). LIV 162,
IEW 366, EIEC 344 f.
101. ‘see’ *derk̑- (: Gk. dérkomai, Skt. darś-, Av. darǝs-, OIr. ad-con-dairc ‘has seen’).
LIV 122, IEW 213; *h3 ek u̯- (: Gk. óssomai, Skt. ī́ksate,
̣ cf. root noun for ‘eye’ [74]).

Authenticated
LIV 297 f., IEW 775–7; *k u̯ek̑- (: ved. cáṣṭe ‘sees’, YAv. cašte ‘teaches’; cf. Gk. tékmar
‘sign’ < *k u̯ek̑-mr̥). LIV 383 f., IEW 638 f.; *(s)pek̑- (: Lat. specere, -iō, Gk. sképtomai
[with metathesis], Skt. páśyati, cf. root noun [nom.] spáṭ ‘spy’). LIV 575, IEW 984;
*u̯ei̯ d- (: [aor.] Gk. eĩdon; Skt. ávidam, Arm. egit ‘found’, Lat. uidēre, -eō, OIr. ro-
finnadar ‘finds out’, OCS vědě ‘I know’, OLith. véizdmi ‘I see’, Goth. wait ‘know[s]’).
LIV 665 ff., IEW 1125 ff., NIL 717 ff. ‘watch, guard’: *ser- (Av. nišhauruuaiti ‘guards,
watches’, nī haraitē ‘protects oneself’, Gk. [Myc.] o-pi o-ro-me-no ‘watching over’, Gk.
[Hom.] épi … órontai ‘they watch over’, horáō ‘I watch, look, see’, Lat. servus ‘slave’,
orig. ‘shepherd’, cf. Rix 1994, observāre ‘watch [over]’). LIV 534, IEW 910, EIEC 505.
102. ‘hear’: *k̑leu̯- (: Skt. śr̥n ̣óti, YAv. surunaoiti, OIr. ro-cluinethar, Toch. B kalneṃ,
A kälniñc, Lat. cluēre, -eō, Arm. lsem, [aor.] lowaw). LIV 334, IEW 605–607; *k̑leu̯s-
(: Skt. śróṣati, Toch. B klyauṣäṃ, OCS slyšǫ, slyšati, OHG [h]losēn ‘listen’, Latv. klusu,
klusêt, probably Lith. kláusiu, kláusti ‘ask’). LIV 336, IEW 605 ff., NIL 425 ff, EIEC
262.
103. ‘recognize, know’: *g̑neh3 - (: Lat. [g]nōscere, -ō, Gk. gignṓskō, Arm. čanač‘em,
Alb. njoh; Skt. jānā́ti, Av. -zānaiti*, Lith. žinaũ, žinóti, Toch. A [2sg.] knānat, OIr. ad-
gnin ‘knows’, Goth. kunnan ‘know’, OCS znajǫ, znati, Hitt. ganešš-); cf. also the pf. of
*u̯ei̯ d- ‘see’ → ‘know’ → [101]. LIV 168 ff., IEW 376 ff., NIL 154 ff, EIEC 336 f.
104. ‘think of’: *men- (: Skt. mányate, Av. mainiieṇtē, Gk. maínomai ‘I am in a rage’,
OIr. -mainethar, Goth. munan ‘remember’, Lith. miniù, minė́ ti, OCS mьnjǫ, mьněti).
LIV 435, IEW 726–728; *mneh2 - (probably enlarged variant of *men-, cLuw. mnāti
‘sees’, Gk. mimnḗskō, Skt. ā-manati). LIV 447, IEW 726 f.; *mn̥s-d heh1 - lit. ‘putting the
mind (onto s.th.)’ (: Ved. sumedhā́- ‘wise’, OAv. mazdā- ‘wise’, Gk. mant hánō ‘I learn’,
mát hos ‘thing learned, knowledge’, Lith. mañdras ‘lively, intelligent’, OCS mǫdrъ ‘intel-
ligent’, probably OHG muntar ‘lively’). IEW 730, NIL 493 ff., EIEC 575.
105. ‘smell’: *h3 ed- (: Gk. ózō, Lat. olere, -ō, Lith. úodžiu, úosti). LIV 296, IEW 772 f.;
*smerd- ‘stink’ (: Lith. smìrdžiu, smirdė́ ti ‘stink’, OCS smrъždǫ, smrъděti, probably Lat.
merda ‘faeces’). LIV 570, IEW 970, EIEC 528 f.
106. ‘fear’: *b hei̯ h2 - (: Skt. bháyate, OAv. baiieṇtē, OHG bibēn ‘quiver’, Lith. bijaũ,
bijóti, OCS bojǫ sę, bojati sę). LIV 72 f., IEW 161 f., *du̯ei̯ - (: Arm. erknč‘im, Gk.
deídō, Toch. A [ptc.] wiyo). LIV 130, IEW 227 f.; *h2 eg h- (: Gk. ák hnumai ‘I am sad’,
ák homai, Goth. ōg ‘was afraid’, -agjan ‘make afraid’, OIr. -ágor ‘fear’). LIV 257, IEW
7 f.; ‘cause alarm, terror’: *h2 teu̯g- (: Hitt. ḫatukzi ‘is terrible’, Skt. tujyáte ‘is afraid,
flees’, Gk. atúzomai* ‘I flee [out of fear]’). LIV 286, IEW 914 f.; ‘tremble, fear’: *tres-
(: Gk. tréō, Skt. trásati, OCS tręsǫ, tręsti, Lith. -trįsù, trìsti, Lat. terrēre, -eō). LIV 650,
IEW 1095, *trem- (: Gk. trémō, Lat. tremere, -ō, Toch. A trämäṣ, Lith. tremiù, trem̃ti
‘dispel, throw down’). LIV 648, IEW 1092 f., EIEC 198.
107. ‘sleep’: *su̯ep- (‘fall asleep’) (: Hitt. šuppa, Skt. svap-, Av. xvafsa-, OCS sъpl'ǫ,
sъpati, Lat. sōpīre, -iō ‘make fall asleep’, ON søfa ‘kill’). LIV 612, IEW 1048 f., NIL
675 ff.; *ses- (‘be asleep’) (: Hitt. šešzi, Ved. sásti, OAv. 1sg hahmī). LIV 536 f., IEW −,
EIEC 526 f.

Authenticated
108. ‘live’: *g u̯i̯ eh3 - (: Skt. jī́vati, YAv. juuaiti, Gk. zṓō, fut. béomai, Lat. vīvere, -ō,
OPr. giwa, Latv. dzīvu, OCS živǫ, žiti, Toch. B śaweṃ, Arm. keam). LIV 215 f., IEW
467 ff., NIL 185 ff.; ‘life’: *h2 ei̯ -u-/h2 oi̯ -u-, gen. *h2 i̯ -éu̯-s ‘(time of) life’ (: Skt. ā́yu,
OAv. āiiū, Gk. aieí ‘always’ [*h2 ei̯ -u̯-es-i], aiṓn ‘life[time], eternity’, Lat. aevum, Goth.
aiws ‘time, eternity’), cf. derived from this the adj. ‘young’ → [278]. IEW 17 f., 510 f.,
EIEC 352, 655.
109. ‘disappear, die’: *mer- (: Hitt. merta, Skt. mríyate, YAv. miriiete, Gk. émorten
[Hsch.], Lat. morīrī, -ior, OCS mьrǫ, mrěti, Arm. mer̄anim). LIV 439 f., IEW 735, NIL
488 ff.; *nek̑- (: Skt. náśyati ‘disappears’, YAv. nasiieiti ‘diverges’, Toch. A. nakät ‘per-
ished, disappeared’, Lat. nocēre, -eō ‘damage, hamper’). LIV 451 f., IEW 762, EIEC
150 ff. → ‘human being’ [38], cf. 1
110. ‘beat (repeatedly); kill’: *g u̯hen- (: Hitt. kwenzi, Skt. hánti, Av. jainti, Gk. t heínō,
Arm. ǰnem, Lat. dē-fendere, -ō ‘ward off’, OIr. gonaid ‘wounds, kills’, Lith. genù, giñti
‘drive, push’, OCS ženǫ, gъnati). LIV 218 f., IEW 491 ff.; ‘beat’: *u̯ed hh1 - (: Skt. áva-
dhīt, Hitt. wizzai ‘pushes, beats’, Gk. [ptc.] ét hōn, [prs.] ōt héō). LIV 660, IEW 1115,
EIEC 548 f.
111. ‘fight’: ? Probably *u̯ei̯ k- ‘win, defeat’ (: Lat. vincere, -ō, OIr. -fich ‘fights’, ON
vega ‘fight, kill’, Lith. veikiù, veĩkti ‘work; overpower’). LIV 670 f., IEW 1128 f., EIEC
201.
112. ‘hunt’: ? Probably *u̯reg- ‘trace, follow’ (: Skt. vrájant- ‘walking’, Goth. wrikan
‘pursue’, Lat. urgēre, -eō ‘press’, cf. Hitt. ūrki- ‘trace [n.]’, probably Toch. A wark, B
werke ‘chase, hunt[ing]’). LIV 697, IEW 1181, EIEC 284; *seh2 g- ‘trace, follow’ (: Lat.
sāgīre, -iō, Goth. sokjan ‘seek’, OIr. -saig ‘seeks’, Hitt. šākiya- ‘reveal’, probably Gk.
hēgéomai ‘I lead’). LIV 520, IEW 876 f. If Lat. sentīre, -iō ‘feel’ and Goth. sandjan
‘send’, OIr. sét ‘way’ (*sentu-) are one root, the original meaning may have been ‘follow
(game)’ > ‘trace’ > ‘feel’ (cf. for the meaning Germ. Spur ‘trace’ and spüren ‘to feel’ <
‘to trace’). LIV 533, IEW 908.
113. ‘hit’: cf. [110]; ‘beat, cleave’: *keh2 u̯- (: Gk. [aor.] kéassai, Toch. B kauṣäṃ, A
kosam ‘I kill’, Lith. káuju, káuti, OCS kovǫ, kovati ‘forge’, ON hǫggva, Lat. cūdere, -ō).
LIV 345 f., IEW 535; ‘beat’: *kelh2 - (: Gk. [aor. ppl.] apo-klā́s, Lith. kalù, kálti ‘beat,
forge’, OCS koljǫ, klati ‘slaughter’, Lat. percellere, -ō ‘beat to the ground’). LIV 350,
IEW 545 f.; *tk̑en- (: Gk. kteínō ‘I kill’, kaínō ‘id.’, Skt. kṣaṇóti ‘hurts’). LIV 645 f.,
IEW −; *u̯elh3 - (: Hitt. walaḫzi ‘beats’, Lat. vellere, -ō ‘rip’, Toch. A wälläṣtär ‘dies’,
Gk. halískomai ‘I am caught’). LIV 679, IEW 1144 f.; *pi̯ eh2 - (: Toch. B pyakar [ppl.]
‘beaten’, Gk. p[t]aíō, Lat. pavīre, -iō, Lith. piáuju, piáuti). LIV 481 f., IEW −; *pleh2 g-
(: Gk. plázō ‘I turn away [tr.]’, Lat. plangere, -ō ‘beat the chest, lament’, MIr. léssaim,
OE flōcan, Goth. [3pl. pt.] faiflokun ‘bewailed’). LIV 484, IEW 832 f., *pleh2 k- (: Lith.
plakù, plàkti, OCS plačǫ, plakati sę ‘beat the chest, lament’, most probably a variant of
the former). LIV 485, IEW 832; EIEC 548 ff.
114. ‘cut’: *b hrei̯ H- (: Skt. bhrīn ̣ā́ti ‘hurts’, YAv. [2sg.] -brīnaŋha, RCS brijǫ, briti
‘cut’, OIr. [subj.] -bria ‘shall hurt’). LIV 92 f., IEW 166 f.; *(s)ker(s)- (: Hitt. karašzi,

Authenticated
Gk. keírō, ON skera, Arm. k‘erem, Alb. shqerr, Ukr. [dial.] čru, čérsty). LIV 355 f., 556,
IEW 938 ff., 945; *(s)kert- (: Skt. kr̥ṇtáti, YAv. kǝrǝṇtaiti, Arm. k‘ert‘em, Lith. kertù,
kir̃sti, ORuss. o-čerte). LIV 559, IEW 941 f.; *k u̯er- (: Hitt. kwerta [prt.] ‘cut’, Skt. kr̥ṇóti
‘makes’, YAv. kǝrǝnaoiti, Lith. kuriù, kùrti ‘found, produce’). LIV 391 f., IEW 641 f.;
‘cut off, loosen’: *leu̯H- (: Gk. lúō, Lat. luere, -ō, Toch. B lyewetär ‘sends’, Goth. fra-
liusan ‘loose’, Skt. lunā́ti ‘cuts off’). LIV 417, IEW 681 f.; *sekH- (: Lat. secāre, -ō,
nescīre, -iō ‘know not’, Hitt. šākki ‘knows’, OCS sěkǫ, šěšti ‘fell’). LIV 524, IEW 895 f.;
*temh1 - (: Gk. témnō/támnō, Lat. temnere, -ō, MIr. tamnaid). LIV 625, IEW 1062 f.;
‘cut out’: *pei̯ k̑- (: Skt. piṃśáti, Toch. B pinkeṃ ‘write’, Lith. piešiù, piẽšti, OCS pišǫ,
pьsati ‘write’). LIV 465 f., IEW 794 f., NIL 546 ff., EIEC 143 ff.
115. ‘cleave’. *b hei̯ d- (: Skt. bhinátti, Lat. findere, -ō, Gk. p heídomai ‘I spare, save’,
Goth. beitan ‘bite’). LIV 70 f., IEW 116 f., NIL 11; *der- (: Gk. dérō ‘I skin’, Goth.
gatairan ‘tear apart’, Lith. [Žem.] derù, dir̃ti ‘skin’, OCS derǫ, dirati, Skt. dar-) →
‘tree’ [51]; ‘cleave, split’ : *sk hei̯ d- (: Gk. sk hízō, Skt. chinátti, Lat. scindere, -ō, Lith.
skíedžiu, skíesti, OCS čediti ‘filter’). LIV 547 f., IEW 920 f., NIL 619 ff., EIEC 538 f.
116. ‘stab’: cf. [118].
117. ‘scratch’: *skab h- (: Lat. scabere, -ō, Goth. skaban, Lith. skabù, skàbti ‘pluck’).
LIV 549, IEW 931 f., NIL 621 f.; *gerb h- (: Gk. gráp hō ‘I scratch, write’, OE ceorfan
‘cut, dig’, ?Lith. gerbiù, ger̃bti ‘honor’). LIV 187, IEW 392, 478.
118. ‘dig, stab’: *b hed h- (: Hitt. paddai, Lat. fodere, -iō, OCS bodǫ, bosti, Lith. bedù,
bèsti, Toch. A pātar ‘plowed’). LIV 66, IEW 113 f., EIEC 159.
119. ‘swim, float’: *pleu̯- (: Skt. plávate, YAv. frauua-, Gk. pléō, Lat. pluit ‘rains’, OCS
plovǫ, pluti, Toch. B pluṣäṃ). LIV 487 f., IEW 835 ff.; *(s)neh2 - (: Skt. snā́ti, Gk. nḗk hō,
Lat. nāre, nō, MIr. snaïd, Toch. B [3pl.] nāskeṃ). LIV 572, IEW 971 f., EIEC 561.
120. ‘fly, fall’: *peth1 - (: Skt. pátati, YAv. pataiti, Gk. píptō). LIV 477 f. IEW 825 f.;
‘fly; spread (wings)’: *peth2 - (: Gk. pétomai ‘I fly’, Lat. petere, -ō ‘strive’, Welsh eh-ed-
‘fly’, Arm. ən-t‘anam ‘I run’; Gk. pítnēmi ‘I spread, open’, Lat. pandere, -ō ‘spread’,
patēre, -eō ‘be open, stretch’). LIV 478 f., IEW 824 f., EIEC 208.
121. ‘go, walk’: *h1 ei̯ - (: Skt. éti, yánti, Av. aēiti, yeiṇti, Gk. eĩmi, íasi, Lat. īre, eō,
OLith. 1sg eimì, OCS idǫ, iti, Toch. B yaṃ, A 3pl. yiñc, Hitt. ipv. īt ‘go!’, cLuw. iti),
LIV 232 f., IEW 293 ff., NIL 220 ff.; ‘go, drive, walk’: *i̯ eh2 - (probably derived from
*h1 ei̯ - ‘go’, hence *h1 i̯ -eh2 -?: Ved. yā́ti ‘drives’, Lith. jóju, jóti ‘ride [on horseback]’,
OCS jadǫ, jachati ‘drive’, Toch. B iyäṃ ‘drives’). LIV 309, IEW 296; ‘go, wander’:
*h2 et(H)- (: Skt. átati). LIV 273, IEW 69, EIEC 228. → ‘year’ [179]; ‘step, go’: *g u̯eh2 -
(: Skt. jígāti, Gk. [ptc.] bíbās, aor. Skt. ágāt, Av. gāt̰ , Gk. ébē ‘went’, Arm. eki, Latv.
[pt.] gāju, OIr. baïd ‘dies’). LIV 205, IEW 463 ff., NIL 174 f.; ‘go’: *lei̯ t- (: Goth.
-leiþan, Toch. B lita, A līt ‘went away’, YAv. -iriθiieiti ‘dies’). LIV 410, IEW 672;
‘walk’: *stei̯ g h- (: OIr. téit ‘goes’, Gk. steík hō ‘I rise, go’, Goth. steigan ‘rise’, Lith.
steigiúos, steĩgtis ‘hurry’, Skt. stiṅnoti ‘comes up’, OCS po-stignǫti ‘reach’). LIV 593,

Authenticated
IEW 1017 f.; ‘rise, grow, go’: *h1 leu̯d h- (: Skt. ródhati ‘grows’, Yav. raoδǝṇti, Goth.
liudan, Gk. ḗlut hon ‘came’, OIr. luid ‘went’, Toch. B lac, A läc ‘went’), LIV 248 f.,
IEW 306 f., 684 f., NIL 245 ff.; ‘come, go’: *g u̯em- (: Skt. gam-, gácchati, Av. jasaiti
[<*g u̯m̥sk̑eti], Gk. bask’ ‘Go!’, baínō, Lat. venīre, -iō, Osc. -bened ‘came’, Goth. qiman,
Arm. 3sg. ekn ‘came’, Lith. gemù, gim̃ti ‘be born’ if from ‘come into the world’, Toch.
B śman-, A śmäs ̣ ‘will come’). LIV 209 f., IEW 464 ff., NIL 175 ff., EIEC 227 ff.
122. ‘come’: cf. [121].
123. ‘lie’: *leg h- ‘lie down’ (: Gk. lék homai*, Goth. ligan, OIr. laigid, Toch. B lyaśäṃ,
OCS lęgǫ, lešti, Hitt. lāki ‘tilts’). LIV 398 f., IEW 658 f.; ‘lie’ (state) *k̑ei̯ - (: Skt. śáye,
cLuw. zīyar[i], Hitt. kitta[ri], YAv. 3pl. sōire, Gk. keĩmai). LIV 320, IEW 539 f., EIEC
352.
124. ‘sit’: *sed- ‘sit down’ (: Skt. sad-, gr. hízomai, Lat. sedēre, -eō, Goth. sitan, Arm.
nstim, OIr. -said, sedait, Lith. sė́ du, inf. sė́ sti, OCS sędǫ, inf. sěsti). LIV 513 f., IEW
785 f., 884 ff., NIL 590 ff.; ‘sit’ *h1 ēs- (state) (: Skt. ā́ste, Av. 3pl. ā̊ŋhāire, Gk. hḗstai,
Hitt. ēša). Probably a derivative of *h1 es- ‘to be’ if this meant ‘to sit’ originally →
[208]. LIV 232, IEW 342 f., EIEC 522.
125. ‘stand’: *steh2 - ‘take a stand, stand’ (: Skt. tíṣṭhati, Av. hištaiti, Gk. [Dor.] hístāmi,
Lat. sistere, -ō, OIr. air-sissedar, Lith. stóju, stóti, OCS stajǫ, stajati, Arm. ert‘am ‘I go’
if from *per-steh2 -). LIV 590 ff., IEW 1004 ff., NIL 637 ff., EIEC 542 f.
126. ‘turn’: *k u̯elh1 - (: [aor.] Gk. épleto, Arm. ełew, Alb. [OGeg.] cleh, [prs.] Skt. cárati,
Av. caraiti, Gk. pélomai, Lat. colere, -ō, Alb. sjell). LIV 386 ff., IEW 639 f. → ‘wheel’
[327]; *u̯ert- (: Skt. vártati, Lat. uertere, -ō, Goth. wairþan ‘become’, Lith. verčiù, ver̃sti,
OIr. di-fortī- ‘pour’, OCS vraštǫ, vratiti sę). LIV 691 f., IEW 1156 ff.; *k u̯erp(H)-
(: Goth. ƕairban ‘walk’, ON hverfa ‘turn, go away’, Toch. karp- ‘descend’). LIV 392 f.,
IEW 631; *terk u̯- (: Hitt. tarukzi, Lat. torquēre, -eō, Alb. tjerr ‘spin’, Toch. B [ptc.]
tetarku). LIV 635, IEW 1077; *trep- (: Hitt. teripzi ‘ploughs’, Gk. trépō ‘I turn’, Skt.
[ep.] trapate ‘is ashamed’ [*‘turns away (in shame)’ cf. Mod. Gk. drépome ‘I am
ashamed’ < entrépomai ‘I turn (away)’], probably Lat. trepit ‘vertit’ [Paul. Fest. 367]).
LIV 650, IEW 1094, EIEC 606 ff.
127. ‘fall’: ‘step, fall’: *ped- (: Skt. pádyate ‘steps, falls, goes’, YAv. [subj.] paiδiiāite,
ON fat ‘found out’, OCS padǫ, pasti ‘fall’ → ‘foot’ [80]). LIV 458, IEW 790 ff., NIL
526 ff.; ‘fall’: *k̑ad- (: Gk. kekádonto ‘receded’, Lat. cadere, -ō, Skt. [pf.] śaśāda ‘fell’).
LIV 318, IEW 533; ‘fall, sink’: *seng u̯- (: Arm. ankanim, Goth. sigqan ‘sink’, Gk. iáptō
‘I cast down’). LIV 531, IEW 906, EIEC 191 f.; → ‘fly, fall’ [120].
128. ‘give, take’: *deh3 - (: Hitt. dāi, danzi ‘take’, Skt. dádāti ‘gives’, Gk. dídōmi, Lat.
dare, dō, Arm. tam, OLith. duosti, OCS damь, dati). LIV 105 f., IEW 223 f., NIL 60 ff.;
*h1 ai̯ - (: Gk. aínumai ‘I take’, Hitt. pāi, pianzi ‘give’, Toch. B. [subj.] āyu, A em ‘I will
give’). LIV 229, IEW 10 f.; *g heb h- (: Goth. giban, Lith. gebù, gebė́ ti ‘be able, used to’,
Pol. gabać ‘take’, cf. also Ved. gábhasti- ‘hand’). LIV 193, IEW 407 ff.; ‘take, acquire’:

Authenticated
*h2 er- (: Gk. árnumai, Arm. ar̄nowm, probably YAv. -ərənuu- ‘distribute’). LIV 270,
IEW 61; ‘take’: *selh1 - (: Gk. [aor.] heĩlon, Lat. consulere, -ō ‘assemble, advise’, Goth.
saljan ‘sacrifice’, ON selja ‘give, sell’ [caus. *‘make take’]). LIV 529, IEW 899; *ser-
(: Gk. hairéō, Latv. siŗu, sirt ‘maraud’, cf. Hitt. šāru- ‘booty’, MIr. serb ‘theft’). LIV
535, IEW 909 f.; ‘take, distribute’: *nem- (: Goth. niman ‘take’, Gk. némō ‘I distribute’,
cf. Skt. námas-, Av. nǝmah- [n.] ‘worship, reverence’). LIV 453, IEW 763; ‘grab, seize,
take’: *g hreb hh2 - (: Skt. gr̥bhṇā́ti, YAv. gǝrǝβnāiti, Hitt. karpiezzi ‘lifts up’, OCS grabljǫ,
grabiti, Lith. grė́ biu, grė́ bti). LIV 201 (*g hrebh2 ), IEW 455; *g he(n)d- (: Gk. k handánō,
Lat. pre-hendere, -ō, OIr. ro-geinn ‘fits’, Alb. gjen ‘finds’). LIV 194, IEW 437 f.; h1 ep-
(: Hitt. ēpzi, OLat. apere, -iō ‘bind’, Alb. [j]ep ‘gives’, Skt. ā́pa, YAv. āpa ‘has
reached’). LIV 237, IEW 50 f.; ‘take’: *h1 em- (: Lat. emere, -ō, OIr. -eim, Lith. imù,
im̃ti, OCS imǫ, jęti, Toch. A yomär ‘got’). LIV 236, IEW 310 f.; ‘take, receive’: *h1 nek̑-
(: gr. ḗnenkon ‘brought’ [<‘made receive’], Av. nąsat̰ ‘got’, OCS nesǫ, nesti ‘carry’,
Lith. nešù, nèšti ‘carry’). LIV 250, IEW 316 ff.; *dek̑- ‘take, receive, realize’ (: Gk.
dék(h)omai, dokéō ‘I seem’, Skt. dā́ṣṭi ‘waits on, venerates’, Lat. docēre, -eō ‘teach’,
discere, -ō ‘learn’, Hitt. dākki ‘resembles’). EIEC 224 f., LIV 109 f., IEW 189 f.
129. ‘hold’: *d her- (?) (: Skt. dhāráyati ‘holds, supports’, Av. dāraiiat̰ , probably Lat.
firmus ‘solid, firm’). LIV 145, IEW 252 f.; *skeb hH- (: Skt. skabhnā́ti ‘supports’, Lat.
scamnum ‘stool, bench’). LIV 549, IEW 916. A stative or perfect formation of a verb
‘take, seize’ would have meant ‘have taken’ > ‘hold, have’ in PIE like Lat. habēre, -eō
‘have, possess, hold’ (: OIr. -gaib ‘takes’). EIEC 270.
130. ‘squeeze’: *merh2 - ‘take (with force), crunch’ (: Skt. mr̥ṇā́ti ‘crunches’, Gk. már-
namai ‘I fight’, Alb. merr ‘takes’, ON merja ‘beat, destroy’, Hitt. marritta ‘is shredded’).
LIV 440, IEW 735 f.; *menk- (: Gk. mássō/máttō ‘I knead’, OS mengian ‘mix, mingle’,
Lith. mánkau, mánkyti ‘press’, OCS mǫčǫ, mǫčiti ‘torment’). LIV 438, IEW 730 f.;
*b hrek u̯- (: Lat. farciō, -īre ‘cram’, Gk. p hrássō/-ttō ‘I fence in’). LIV 93 f., IEW 110 f.
131. ‘rub’: *terh1 - ‘rub, drill’ (: Gk. teírō, Lat. terere, -ō, Lith. tiriù, tìrti ‘inquire, get
to know’, OCS tьrjǫ, trъti), cf. Gk. téretron ‘drill (n.)’. LIV 632, IEW 1071 f.; *g(u̯)hrend-
(: Lat. frendere, -ō ‘crunch’, Lith. gréndu, grę́sti ‘scratch, rub’); cf. also *g̑erh2 - ‘rub,
make old’ [252]. EIEC 490.
132. ‘wash’: *h1 erH- (: Hitt. ārri, Toch. A yärnās-). LIV 239 f., IEW 337; *leu̯h3 -
(: Lat. lauere, -ō, Alb. [OGeg.] [subj.] laa, Gk. loéō, Arm. loganam, lowanam). LIV
438, IEW 692; *neig u̯- (: Gk. nízō, OIr. -nig, Skt. nenikté, YAv. naēnižaiti). LIV 450,
IEW 761, NIL 519 f., EIEC 108 f.
133. ‘wipe’: *h2 merg̑- (: Skt. mā́rṣ ti,

̣ 3pl. mr̥jánti ‘wipes, cleanses’, YAv. marǝzaiti
‘touches’, Gk. amérgō ‘I pluck, harvest’, [aor.] Hom. omorxámenos ‘wiping [tears]’).
LIV 280 f., IEW 738, EIEC 646.
134. ‘pull’: *deu̯k- (: Lat. dūcere, -ō, Goth. tiuhan, Alb. n-duk, MWelsh dwc ‘brings’,
Oss. duc-/doc- ‘milk’, Toch. B tsauksā° ‘pulled, drank’). LIV 124, IEW 220 f.; *selk-
(: Toch. B. slaṅktär ‘pulls out’, Gk. hélkō, Alb. heq). LIV 530, IEW 901, EIEC 471.

Authenticated
135. ‘push’: *(s)teu̯d- (: Skt. tudáti, Lat. tundere, -ō, studēre, -eō, Goth. stautan, Alb.
shtyj, OIr. do-tuit ‘falls’). LIV 601, IEW 1033 f.; EIEC 471 with more proposals.
136. ‘throw’: *Hi̯ eh1 - (: Hitt. piyezzi ‘sends’, Gk. híēmi ‘I throw, send’, Lat. iacere, -iō
‘throw’). LIV 225, IEW 502, EIEC 581.
137. ‘tie, bind’: *b hend h- (: Goth. bindan, Skt. badhnā́ti, Av. baṇdaiieiti). LIV 75, IEW
127; *Hned h- (: Skt. náhyati, OIr. -naisc). LIV 227, IEW 758; *lei̯ g- (: Alb. lidh, Lat.
ligāre, -ō, MLG līk ‘bond’). LIV 403, IEW 668; *deh1 - (: Skt. dyáti, Av. diia-, Gk. déō,
dídēmi). LIV 102, IEW 183, EIEC 64.
138. ‘sew’ : *si̯ eu̯- (: Lat. suere, -ō, Lith. siuvù, siū́ti, Skt. sī́vyati, Goth. siujan, CSl.
šijǫ, šiti). LIV 545, IEW 915 f., EIEC 569 ff.
139. ‘count’: ? *reh1 - ‘reckon, count’ only in Lat. reor, ratus sum, ratio ‘counting,
reason’ and Goth. raþjo ‘number, counting’. IEW 59, LIV 499; EIEC 397.
140. ‘say’: ‘say, speak’: *mleu̯h2 - (: Skt. brávīti ‘says’, OAv. mraomī, Cz. mluviti
‘speak’, Russ. molvá ‘rumour’, Toch. B palwaṃ ‘laments’). LIV 446, IEW −; *h2 u̯ed-
(: Skt. vádati, Gk. audḗ ‘voice’, audáō ‘I speak’, Hitt. watarnah̬h̬- ‘command’). LIV
286, IEW 76 f.; *sek u̯- (: Gk. ennépō, Lat. inquit ‘said’, insece ‘tell!’, Lith. sekù, sèkti
‘tell’, sakaũ, sakýti ‘say’, ON segja ‘say’, NE say). LIV 526, IEW 897 f., probably
related to → *sek u̯- ‘follow’ [212] (*‘follow up with words’); *b heh2 - (probably identical
with *b heh2 - ‘shine’ [246] via ‘make clear’: Gk. p hēmí, Arm. bam, Lat. for, fārī, ORuss.
baju, bajati ‘tell’; Skt. bhánati). LIV 69, IEW 105 f.; *u̯ek u̯- (: Skt. [aor.] ávocat, Av.
-vaocat̰ Gk. eĩpon, cf. noun *u̯ōk u̯-s ‘voice’ in Lat. vōx, Skt. vāc-, gr. op-). LIV 673,
IEW 1135 f.; *u̯erh1 - (: Pal. wērti ‘speaks’, Hitt. particle of quotation -wa[r], prs. weri-
yezzi ‘calls’, Gk. eírō, Russ. vru, vrat’ ‘lie’). LIV 689 f., IEW 1162 f.; *h2 eg̑- (: Lat. aiō,
Arm. asem, Gk. [impf.] ē̃ ‘said’, [pf.] ánōga ‘I command’, Toch. B [subj.] āksäṃ ̣ ‘I will
proclaim’). LIV 256, IEW 290 f.; *ter- (: Hitt. taranzi [3pl. in suppletion with 3sg tezzi
from PIE → *d heh1 - ‘place, put’ [224] > ‘say’], Lith. tariù, tarýti). LIV 630 f., IEW
1088 f., EIEC 534 ff. → ‘speak solemly, vow’ [254].
141. ‘sing’: *geH(i)- (: Skt. gā́yati, ORuss. gaju, gajati ‘creak’, Lith. gíedu, giedóti).
LIV 183, IEW 355; *seng u̯h- (: Goth. siggwan, probably Gk. [aor.] eáp ht hē ‘resounded’,
OCS sętъ ‘says’). LIV 532, IEW 906 f.; *h1 erk u̯- ‘shine; sing’ (: Hitt. arkuwanzi [3pl.]
‘sing’, Skt. árcati ‘shines; sings’, Toch. A yärksantär [3pl.] ‘worship’; cf. also OIr. erc
‘sky’ and Arm. erg ‘song’, probably a metaphor ‘shining song’, cf. Gk. paiā́n lámpei
‘the song of praise shines’, húmnoi p hlégonti ‘the hymns shine’, cf. Mayrhofer 2006:
s.v. ARC). LIV 240 f., IEW 340, EIEC 519 f. → ‘shine’ [246].
142. ‘play’: It is unclear if the concept of ‘play’ existed for speakers of PIE. *lei̯ d-,
from which Lat. lūdus ‘game’, lūdere, -ō ‘play’ and Gk. (Hsch.) lízei ‘plays’, loidoréō
‘I insult’ are derived, probably meant ‘let go’ originally, cf. OLith. léidmi (later léidžiu),
léisti ‘let go, impel’, MIr. láidid ‘impels, drives on’, Alb. lind ‘is born’ (*‘is let go’).
LIV 402 f., IEW 666, EIEC 434.

Authenticated
143. ‘float’: cf. [119].
144. ‘flow’: *sreu̯- (: Skt. srávati, Gk. r héō, Lith. sraviù, sravė́ ti, Arm. ar̄oganem, or̄oga-
nem ‘I irrigate’). LIV 588, IEW 1003, NIL 630 ff. cf. also [119]; *g u̯g̑ her- (: Skt. kṣárati,
YAv. fra-žgaraiti, Gk. p ht heíromai ‘I shipwreck; perish’, Toch. B [3pl.] kwreṃntär ‘grow
old, weak’). LIV 213 f., IEW 487 f.
145. ‘freeze’: ?*sreiHg h- (: Gk. ér hr hīga [pf.] ‘I freeze, tremble [with cold]’, r hīgéō ‘id.’,
Lat. frīgēre, -eō ‘be cold, freeze’). Only Greek and Latin. LIV 587 f., IEW1004.
146. ‘swell’: *h2 ei̯ d- (: Arm. aytnowm, Gk. oidéō). LIV 258, IEW 774; *k̑u̯eh1 - (: Skt.
śváyati, Gk. kuéō ‘I am pregnant’, Lat. inciēns ‘pregnant’). LIV 339 f., IEW 592–594;
*pei̯ H- (: Skt. pínvati, YAv. fra-pinaoiti, Lith. pyjù, pýti; → adj. ‘fat’ [66]). LIV 464 f.,
IEW 793; *teu̯h2 - (: Skt. tavīti, RCS, ORuss. tyju, tyti ‘become fat’). LIV 639 f., IEW
1080 f., EIEC 560 f.
147. ‘sun’: *seh2 u̯el/n-: (: Lat. sōl, Gk. [Hom.] ēélios, Skt. súvar-/sū́riya-, Goth. sauil
beside sunnō, Av. huuarə̄, gen. Av. xvə̄ṇg < *sh2 u̯en-s, Lith. sáulė, OCS slъnьce, OIr.
súil ‘eye’ (< ‘sun’ = ‘eye of the sky’), CLuw. ši(ḫ)wal- ‘lamp?, dagger?’, hence *seh2 (u̯)-
‘burn, sting’?). IEW 881 f., EIEC 556, NIL 606 ff., EIEC 556.
148. ‘month/moon’: *méh1 n̥s, gen. *meh1 nés (: Skt. mā́s- ‘moon’, mā́sa- ‘month’, OAv.
mā̊, Gk. mḗn/meís, Lat. mēnsis ‘month’, Goth. mēna, OHG māno ‘moon’, Lith. mė́ nuo,
Toch. A mañ, B meñe ‘month/moon’). IEW 731 f., EIEC 385.
149. ‘star’: *h2 ster- (: Gk. astḗr, Arm. astł, Skt. star-, Hitt. ḫašterza, Lat. stella < *ster-
lā) probably from *h2 eh1 s- ‘become dry, burn’ as *h2 [h1 ]ster-, cf. Pinault 2007. → ‘dry’
[195]. IEW 1027 f., EIEC 543, NIL 348 ff.
150. ‘water’: *u̯ed- (: Hitt. wātar, gen. witenaš, Gk. húdōr, Umbr. utur, Goth. wato, OE
wætar, OHG wazzar, OCS voda, Lith. vanduõ; Skt. udan- ‘water, wave’, Lat. unda
‘wave’, Arm. get ‘river’). LIV 658 f., IEW 78 f., NIL 706 ff. → ‘moisten’ [339]; *h2 ek u̯-
(: Lat. aqua, Goth. aƕa). IEW 23, EIEC 636 f. → ‘water, river’ [387]; *u̯eh1 - (: Toch.
A wär, B. war, ON úr ‘thin rain, moisture’, cLuv. wārša-, Skt. vā́r- ‘water’, OIr. fír
‘milk’, Lat. ūmor ‘moisture’, Lith. ū́mas ‘quick, fresh, not dry’). IEW 80 f., EIEC 636 f.,
NIL 715 ff.
151. ‘rain’: *h2 u̯ers- (: Skt. várṣati, Hitt. waršiyezzi ‘drips’, Gk. ouréō ‘I urinate’; nomi-
nal forms: Skt. varṣá- ‘rain’, Gk. eérsē ‘dew, drop’, probably Hitt. warša- ‘fog, rain[?]’;
probably also Gk. ouranós ‘sky’ < ‘the raining [or urinating?] one’, or related to Ved.
várṣman diváḥ ‘the height of the sky’ as ‘the high one’, cf. Janda 2010: 48 ff.). LIV
291 f., IEW 81, NIL 356 f., EIEC 477 f.
152. ‘river’: most languages use derivatives from *sreu̯- ‘flow’ [144] (: Gk. rheũma,
rhéos, OIr. srúaim, ORuss. strumenь, Skt. srávas-, OHG stroum, etc.). LIV 588, IEW
1003, NIL 630 ff., EIEC 486. → ‘water, river’ [387].

Authenticated
153. ‘lake’, cf. [154].
154. ‘sea, lake’: *mori- (: Lat. mare, -is, OIr. muir, Goth. marei, Lith. mãrė, OCS morje).
155. ‘salt’: *sal- (: Lat. sāl, OIr. sál, Skt. sar-ít- ‘river’ [i.e. *sal-h1 i-t- *‘going to the
salt’?], Gk. háls, Arm. ał, OCS solь). IEW 878 f., EIEC 498, NIL 586 ff.
156. ‘stone’: *h2 ek̑-me/on- (: Skt. áśman-, Av. asman- ‘stone, sky’, Gk. ákmōn ‘stone’,
‘anvil’, ‘sky’ in ákmōn … ouranós [Hsch.], Lith. akmuõ ‘stone’, ašmuõ ‘sharpness,
blade’, OCS kamy ‘stone’; probably Germ. *hemena- ‘sky’, Goth. himins, etc.), →
*h2 ek̑- ‘sharp’ [191], cf. also Hitt. ḫēkur- ‘cliff’. IEW 18 ff. EIEC 547 f. → ‘sky’ [162].
157. ‘sand’: Unclear. Gk. ámat hos (beside ámmos, psámmos, psámat hos) and Germ.
*samada- (: OHG sant, MHG sand/sampt) point to a preform *samH-d ho- without fur-
ther connections (Lat. sabulum?, Arm. awaz?). Skt. pām̐sú-, Av. pąsnu-, OCS pěsъkъ
‘sand, dust’, Hitt. paššila- ‘pebble’ from a root *pens-? IEW 145 f., 824. EIEC 499.
158. ‘dust’: cf. [157].
159. ‘earth’: *d heg̑ hom- (: Hitt. tekan, gen. taknaš, Skt. kṣam-, abl.gen.sg. jmáḥ, loc. sg.
jmán, etc., Av. zam-, Toch. A tkaṃ, B keṃ, Gk. k ht hṓn, Lat. humus, Lith. žẽmė, OCS
zemlja). IEW 414 ff., EIEC 174, NIL 86 ff. → ‘human being’ [38], cf. 1.
160. ‘cloud; be wet’: *neb h- (: Gk. sunnép hei ‘becomes cloudy’, [pf.] ksunnénophen ‘is
cloudy’, YAv. vadj. napta- ‘wet’; nominal forms: Skt. nábhas ‘wetness, cloud, mist’,
Gk. nép hos, Arm. amp, Lith. debesìs ‘cloud’; Hitt. nepiš-, OIr. nem, OCS nebo ‘sky’,
Lat. nebula ‘fog, cloud’, OHG nebul ‘fog’). LIV 448, IEW 315 f., EIEC 110, 477, NIL
499 ff. → ‘rain’ [377]; *mad- ‘be wet, intoxicated’ (: Lat. madēre, -eō ‘be wet’, mador
‘moisture’, Gk. madáō, madarós, Skt. mad- ‘intoxicate o.s.’, OHG muos ‘food’). LIV
421, IEW 694 f., NIL 455 ff., EIEC 638.
161. ‘fog’: cf. [160].
162. ‘sky’: ‘(god of the) (bright) sky’: *di(i̯ )ḗu̯s (: Hitt. šiuš, Gk. Zeús, Skt. dyaúḥ, Lat.
Iū- in Iūpiter, OIr. día ‘day’, probably Alb. zot ‘god’), IEW 184 ff., EIEC 513, NIL 69 ff.
→ ‘stone’ [156], → ‘cloud’ [160], → ‘day’ [178], → ‘shine’ [246], → ‘heavenly one,
god’ [380].
163. ‘wind’: *h2 u̯eh1 -n̥t- (: Hitt. h̬uwant-, Lat. ventus, Goth. winds, Skt. vāta-, Toch. B
yente); *h2 u̯eh1 -i̯ u-/-i̯ o- (: Skt. vāyú-, Av. vaiiu- ‘air, atmosphere’, Lith. vė́ jas). LIV 287,
IEW 81–84, EIEC 643 f. → ‘blow’ [98], → ‘breathe’ [99].
164. ‘snow’: ‘stick, snow’: *snei̯ g u̯h- (: Gk. neíp hei, Lat. nīvit, OHG snīwit, Lith. sniẽga,
YAv. snaēžat ‘will snow’; Skt. sníhyati ‘sticks; becomes wet’, OIr. snigid ‘rains, drips,
snows’). LIV 573, IEW 974, NIL 622 ff. EIEC 530 f.

Authenticated
165. ‘ice’: Unclear. Germ. *īsa- ‘ice’ (: OHG OE OFr. īs, ON íss), Av. aēxa- n. ‘frost,
ice’, isauu- ‘icy’, probably older meaning in Lith. ýnis, Russ. ínej ‘hoarfrost’. From
*h1 ei̯ sh2 - ‘impel’ (via ‘spray’, ON eisa ‘spray, foam’)? IEW 301, EIEC 287.
166. ‘smoke’: *d huh2 mó- (: Gk. t hūmós, Skt. dhūmá-, Lat. fūmus, Lith. dū́mai, OCS
dymъ, OIr. dumacha ‘fog’, OHG toum). From a verbal root *d hu̯eh2 - ‘to smoke’ (: Hitt.
tuḫḫuu̯ai-/tuḫḫui- ‘smoke [n.]’ and [denom.] tuḫḫae- ‘cough, sigh’, Gk. t húō ‘I sacrifice
[burnt offerings]’, Lat. suffīre, -iō ‘fumigate’, CSl. *dujǫ, duti ‘blow’), probably also
‘breathe’ (: Hitt. antuu̯aḫḫaš ‘man’ < *‘having breath inside’, cf. Kloekhorst 2008:
188 f.). LIV 158, IEW 261–267, EIEC 529.
167. ‘fire’: *peh2 u̯er-/u̯en-: (: Hitt. paḫḫur, gen. paḫḫuwenaš, Toch. A pōr, B puwar,
Goth. fon, OHG fuir, Gk. pũr, Umbr. pir, Arm. howr, Cz. pýř ‘glowing ashes’). IEW
828, EIEC 202, NIL 540 ff.; *Vgni- (: Skt. agní-, Lat. ignis, Lith. ugnìs, OCS ognь).
IEW 293, EIEC 202. Perhaps *H(2)eH(2)ter- (: Av. ātarš ‘fire’, Lat. āter ‘black’, OIr.
áith ‘furnace’, Pal. ḫā- ‘be hot’). LIV 257, IEW 69, EIEC 202.
168. ‘ashes’: *h2 eh1 s- (: Hitt. ḫašš-; derivatives: Hitt. ḫāšša- ‘hearth’, Lat. āra ‘altar’),
from a verbal root ‘become dry’ (: Lat. arēre, -eō ‘be dry’, Toch. A asatär, B osotär
‘dries up’), cf. [195] LIV 257 f., IEW 68, EIEC 32. → ‘dry’ [195], → ‘star’ [149].
169. ‘burn’: *d heg u̯h- (: Skt. dáhati, YAv. dažaiti, Lith. degù, dègti, OCS žegǫ, žešti,
Alb. djeg, Lat. fovēre, -eō ‘keep warm’). LIV 133 f., IEW 240 f.; *deh2 u̯- (: Skt. dunóti
‘sets on fire’, OHG zuscen* ‘burn’, Gk. daíō, MIr. *dóïd). LIV 104 f., IEW 179 ff.;
*h1 eu̯s- ‘burn, scorch’ (: Skt. óṣati, Gk. heúō, Lat. ūrere, -ō). LIV 245, IEW 347 f.;
‘kindle’: *h2 ei̯ d h- (: Skt. indhé, Gk. aít hō). LIV 259, IEW 11 f.
170. ‘road, path’: *péntoh2 s, gen. *pn̥th2 és (: Skt. pánthāh ̣, gen. patháh ̣, Av. paṇtā̊, gen.
paθō, Gk. póntos ‘sea’, Lat. pōns ‘bridge’, Arm. hown ‘path’, OCS pǫtь), verbal root
‘find a way’(?) in Goth. finþan ‘find’. LIV 471 f., IEW 808 f., EIEC 202, 487 f.
171. ‘mountain’: *b herg̑ h- (: Germ. *berga-, OHG berg, ON bjarg etc., Av. *barǝzah-,
OCS brěgъ → ‘rise’ [210]). LIV 78 f., IEW 140 f., NIL 30 ff. ‘hill, mountain’: *g u̯erH-
(: Skt. girí- f. ‘mountain, hill’, YAv. gairi-, OCS gora f. ‘mountain’, Alb. gur ‘rock,
stone’, Lith. girià ‘forest’). IEW 477 f., EIEC 269 f. Probably derived from → ‘heavy’
[31].
172. ‘red’: *h1 rou̯d h-o- (: Skt. lohá- ‘reddish’, Lat. (Sabellic) rūfus, OIr. rúad, Welsh
rhudd, Goth. rauþs, ON rauðr, OHG rōt, Lith. raũdas, OCS rudъ, Toch. A rote ‘red
paint color’; *h1 rud h-ro-: Skt. rudhirá-, Gk. eruthrós, Lat. ruber, Umbr. rufru ‘rubros’,
OCS rъdrъ, Toch. A rtär, Toch. B ratre). LIV 508 f., IEW 872 ff., NIL 580 ff., EIEC
480 f.
173. ‘green/yellow’: *g̑ hl̥ h3 -i-/-o-/-ro-/-(s)u̯o- (: Skt. hári-, Av. zari-, Gk. k hló(w)os
‘greenish-yellow or light green colour; pallor’, k hlōrós ‘greenish-yellow, pale green’,

Authenticated
Lat. helvus ‘yellowish’, OIr. gel ‘clear’, OHG gelo ‘yellow’, Lith. gel̃svas ‘yellowish’,
žel̃vas ‘green’, OCS zelenъ ‘green’). IEW 429–434, EIEC 246. → ‘gall’ [280].
174. ‘yellow’: cf. [173].
175. ‘white’: *alb ho- (: Gk. alp hós ‘dull-white leprosy’, Lat. albus ‘white’, Umbr. alfu
‘alba’, Hitt. alpaš ‘cloud’, OHG albiz, ON elptr ‘swan’, OCS lebedь ‘swan’). IEW 30 f.;
*h2 erg̑-ro-/-u-/-i- (: Skt. árjuna-, Gk. argós, árgup hos, Lat. arguere, -ō ‘make clear’,
Goth. airkns ‘pure’, Toch. B ārkwi, Hitt. ḫarki- ‘white’). IEW 64 f., NIL 317 f. → ‘silver’
[338]; ‘white/brilliant/shining’: *k̑u̯ei̯ t- (: Skt. śvetá-, śvitrá-, Av. spaētō, Goth. ƕeits,
ON hvítr, OHG hwiz ‘white’, Lith. švitrùs ‘brilliant’, OCS světъ ‘light’). IEW 628 f.;
‘brilliant/shining’: *leu̯kó- (: Skt. rocá-, Gk. leukós ‘shining, white’, OIr. luach, OHG
lioht [*leu̯kto-] ‘clear, shiny’, Lith. laũkas ‘pale’, Toch. B lyuke-mo ‘shining’). Verbal
root *leu̯k- ‘become light’ (: Hitt. lukta ‘becomes light’, Toch. A [pt.] lyokät, Skt. rócate
‘shines’, etc.). LIV 418 f., IEW 687 ff., EIEC 641. → ‘shine’ [246], ‘birch’ [342].
176. ‘black’: *kr̥sno- (: Skt. kr̥sṇ ̣á-, OPr. kirsna-, OCS črъnъ [Lith. Kirsnà (name of a
river, ‘black one’?)]). IEW 583; ‘black, dirty’: *mel(h2 ) (: Skt. maliná-, Gk. mélas,
mélan- ‘black’, Lat. mulleus ‘purple’?, Welsh melyn ‘yellow’, MHG māl ‘spot’, Lith.
mélynas ‘blue’, Latv. melns ‘black’). IEW 720 f., EIEC 69 f.
177. ‘night’: *nok u̯ts, gen. *nek u̯ts (: Skt. nákt-, Lat. nox, Gk. núx, Goth. nahts, Lith.
naktìs, OCS noštь, gen. *nek u̯ts in Hitt. nekuz mēḫḫur ‘the time of evening’, OIr. innocht
‘tonight’, Alb. natë, Toch. A nokte ‘at night’). LIV 449, IEW 762 f., NIL 504 ff., EIEC
394.
178. ‘day’: *āmer- (: Gk. ē̃mar, āmérā, Arm. awr). IEW 35; *h2 eg h- (: Skt. áhaḥ, gen.
áhnaḥ OAv. [gen.pl.] asnąm). IEW 7, EIEC 149. → ‘sky’ [162].
179. ‘year’: *h2 et-no- (: Lat. annus, Osc. [dat./loc.] akeneí, Goth. [dat.pl.] aþnam). LIV
273, IEW 69. → ‘go’ [121]; *u̯et-(es)- (: Hitt. witt-, Alb. vit, Gk. [Myc.] we-to /u̯etos/,
alph.-Gk. [w]étos, Lat. [→ adj.] vetus ‘old’, Skt. vatsá- ‘calf [*of one year]’, *per-ut-i
‘in the last year’ in Gk. pérusi, Arm. herow, Skt. parút, MHG vert). IEW 1175; *i̯ eh2 -
r- (: Av. yārǝ, Gk. hṓrā ‘season, time of day, hour’, Goth. jēr, OHG jār, RCS jara
‘spring’). IEW 296 f., EIEC 654. → ‘go’ [121].
180. ‘warm’: *g u̯he/ormo- (: Skt. gharmá-, Av. garǝma-, Gk. t hermós, Arm. ǰerm, Lat.
formus, ON varmr, OHG warm, Alb. zjarm, OPr. gorme ‘heat’, Toch. A śärme ‘summer
heat’); cf. verbal root *g u̯her- ‘become/ be warm’ (: Arm. ǰer̄nowm, Gk. t héromai, OIr.
fo-geir, Alb. zien ‘cooks’, Lith. gariù, garė́ ti, OCS gorjǫ, gorěti , Goth. brinnan ‘burn’).
LIV 219 f., IEW 493 ff., NIL 196 ff., EIEC 263 f.
181. ‘cold’:? *k̑elH- (: Skt. śíśira- ‘cold season, frost’, Av. sarǝta-, Lith. šáltas ‘cold’,
RCS slota ‘bad weather, storm’, ON héla ‘hoarfrost’). IEW 551 f. *gelH- (: Goth. kalds,
ON kaldr etc., cf. verb ON kala ‘freeze’, OE calan; Lat. gelu ‘frost, cold’, Lith. gélmenis,
gelumà, Russ. gólot ‘glaze’). LIV 185, IEW 365 f., EIEC 112 f.

Authenticated
182. ‘full’: *pl̥ h1 -no-: Skt. pūrn ̣á-, Av. pǝrǝna-, OIr. lán, Goth. fulls, Lith. pìlnas, OCS
plъnъ, Lat. plēnus (instead of *plānus, which would be homonymous with plānus ‘flat’),
Arm. li (<*pleh1 -to-). Verbal adj. to *pelh1 - ‘fill’ (: Gk. pímplēmi, Skt. pr̥n ̣ā́ti, Arm.
lnowm, Lat. implēre, -eō, Alb. m-blon). LIV 482 f., IEW 798 ff. ‘to fill’: *perk- (: Skt.
pr̥ṇákti ‘grants in abundance’, Lat. parcere, -ō ‘spare’ [i.e. ‘be magnanimous to’], com-
pescere, -ō ‘shut in, subdue’; MIr. ercaid ‘fills’). LIV 476, IEW 820, EIEC 214.
183. ‘new’: *neu̯o- (: Skt. náva-, Av. nauua-, Gk. né[w]os, Lat. novus, OCS novъ, Hitt.
nēwaš, OPr. neuwenen, Toch. A ñu, B ñuwe; *neu̯i̯ o-: OIr. núa[e], Welsh newydd, ON
nýr, OE nīwe, Goth. niujis, Lith. naũjas, Skt. návya-, Gk. [Ionic] neĩos). IEW 769, EIEC
393, NIL 524 ff.
184. ‘old’: *sen-o- (: Skt. sána-, Av. hana-, Gk. hénos, Arm. hin, OIr. sen, Welsh hen,
Lith. sẽnas ‘old’, Goth. sinista ‘eldest’, Lat. senex ‘old man’ [cf. also senātus ‘senate’
< ‘assembly of elders’]). IEW 907 f., EIEC 409, NIL 613 ff. → ‘rub, make old’ [252],
→ ‘old man’ [276].
185. ‘good’: *h1 e/o-su-/h1 su- (probably derived from *h1 es- ‘be’ [208]) (: Skt. [adv.]
su- ‘well’ [e.g., su-kr̥ ́ t- ‘acting well’], Av. hu- [e.g., hu-kǝrǝta- ‘well done’], Hitt. a-aš-
šu- ‘good’ [*h1 osu-], Gk. eu- in eu-kleḗs ‘famous’ ~ Skt. su-śrávas-, probably Gk. hu-
giḗs ‘healthy’ [cf. OCS sъ-dravъ ‘healthy’] if not from *h2 i̯ u- ‘life’ [108], cf. Weiss
1994). IEW 342, EIEC 235, NIL 239 ff.; *h1 u̯esu- (: Skt. vásu-, Av. vohu-, Gk. eā́ōn ‘of
goods’ [**u̯esu̯āsōm], Luw. Pal. wašu-, OIr. *feb [Dat.sg. feib, fib] ‘excellence’). IEW
1174 f., EIEC 235, 638, NIL 253 ff. Adjs. meaning ‘good’ are frequently subject to
replacement in the daughter languages, and are not all widespread, e.g., Lat. bonus, Gk.
agathós, OIr. maith, NE good are all from different roots.
186. ‘bad’: prefix *dus- (: Gk. dus-, Skt. duṣ-, Av. duš-/duž-, OIr. do-, Goth. tuz-, OHG
zur-), probably from *deu̯s- ‘lack’ (: Gk. déō ‘I lack, need, ask for’) or related to *du̯ō̌
‘two’ (: Gk. δύο/-ω, Lat. duo, etc.). IEW 227, EIEC 43.
187. ‘rotten’: *peu̯H- ‘stink, rot’ (: Skt. pū́yati, YAv. puiieti, ON feyja ‘let rot’, Lith.
pūnù/pųvù, pū́ti, Gk. pū́t homai), cf. Lat. pūs ‘pus’, Gk. púos ‘pus’, Lith. puvẽs(i)ai ‘rotten
things’. LIV 480 f., IEW 848 f., EIEC 471.
188. ‘dirty’: cf. [176].
189. ‘straight’: derivatives of → [253] *h3 reg̑- ‘make straight’, e.g., (*h3 r̥g̑-u-) Skt. r̥jú-,
Av. ǝrǝzu-, (*h3 reg̑-to-) Av. rā̆šta- ‘right, straight’, Gk. orektós ‘stretched out’, Lat. rēctus
‘right’, got. raihts ‘right’. → ‘ruler’ [361].
190. ‘round’: ?
191. ‘sharp’: *h2 ek̑- (: verbal root ‘be sharp’, Lat. acēre, -eō ‘be acid’, OHG eggen
‘harrow’, Welsh hyc ‘make sharp’; adj. *h2 ek̑-ro-, Gk. akrós ‘being on top, highest’, OIr.

Authenticated
ér ‘noble’, OLith. ašras ‘sharp’ [Lith. ašrùs], OCS ostrъ; Lat. ācer). LIV 261, IEW
18 ff., NIL 287 ff., EIEC 509 f. → ‘stone, sky’ [156].
192. ‘dull’: ? (cf. ‘slow’ [273]).
193. ‘smooth, soft’: *meld- ‘soft’ (: Gk. méldomai ‘I melt’, OE meltan, Skt. mrádate
‘becomes soft’; adj. *ml̥ d-ú-, Skt. mr̥dú-, Gk. bladús, Lat. mollis [*ml̥ du̯i-], Welsh blydd).
LIV 431, IEW 718, NIL 482 ff., EIEC 532.
194. ‘wet’: *h1 ers-/h1 res- (: Lat. rōs, Lith. rasà, OCS rosa ‘dew’, Skt. rása- ‘juice,
liquid’; cf. Skt. árṣati, Hitt. ārašzi ‘flows’). LIV 241, IEW 336 f.; ‘make wet’: *u̯eg u̯- :
(: Skt. ukṣáti, Lat. ūvēscere, -ō, Toch B ewkäṃ). LIV 662, IEW 1118. EIEC 638 f. →
‘be wet, cloud’ [160].
195. ‘dry’: ‘become dry’: *h2 ed- (: Gk. ázomai, Hitt. [ipv.] ḫādu). LIV 255, IEW 69;
*h2 eh1 s- ‘become dry/burn’ (: Toch. B osotär, A asatär, Lat. ārēre, -eō, cf. ‘ash’ in Hitt.
ḫaš[š]- and ‘hearth’ in Hitt. ḫaššā-/ḫāšša-). LIV 257, IEW 68. → ‘ashes’ [168], → ‘star’
[149]; *h2 seu̯s- (: Skt. śúṣyati, YAv. haoša-, Gk. haúō, OCS i-sъšǫ, Lith. sųstù, sùsti).
LIV 285, IEW 880 f., adj. *h2 sou̯so- (: Gk. aũos; Skt. sóṣa-, OE sēar, Lith. saũsas, OCS
suxъ). LIV 285, IEW 880 f., NIL 345 ff.; *sek- (: Gk. [aor.] ésketo, Skt. saśca-, Lith.
senkù, sèkti, OCS i-sęčetъ). LIV 523 f., IEW 894 f.; *ters- ‘become dry, thirsty’
(: Skt. tr̥ ́ sya-,
̣ Goth. þaursjan, Hitt. tarš-, Lat. torrēre, -eō, Alb. ter). LIV 637 f., IEW
1078 f., NIL 701 ff., EIEC 170 f.
196. ‘correct’: cf. ‘straight’ [189].
197. ‘near’: ?
198. ‘far’: cf. [28].
199. ‘right’: *dek̑s- (: Skt. dákṣiṇa-, OIr. dess ‘right; south’; Av. dašina-, Lith. dẽšinas,
OCS desnъ, Lat. dexter, Gk. dexiterós ‘right’, dexiós ‘right, with good omen’, Goth.
taihswa, Alb. djathë). IEW 190 f., EIEC 485. Cf. also [189] ‘straight, stretched out’.
200. ‘left’: cf. 5.
201. ‘at’: *ad (: Lat. ad, Umbr. ař-, Osc. az, OIr. ad-, Goth. at). IEW 3.
202. ‘in’: *h1 en(i) (: Lat. in, Gk. en[i], Arm. i/y-, OIr. in-, Goth. in, Lith. į̃, Toch. y-,
yn-). IEW 311 f.
203. ‘with’: *kom (: Lat. cum, OIr. co n-, Goth. ga-, Gk. koinós ‘common’ < *kom-
i̯ o-). IEW 612 f. Cf. also *sem/som/sm̥- ‘together’ (: Skt. sam-, sa- Gk. [h]a-, Lith. są́-
žinė ‘con-scientia’, OCS sǫ-sědъ ‘neighbor’), related to *sem- ‘one’ (: Gk. heís, Arm.
mi, Lat. sem-el ‘once’, etc.). IEW 902 ff.

Authenticated
204. ‘and’: *k u̯e (: Lat. -que, Gk. -te, Skt. -ca, Av. -ča, Goth. -h, Arm. -k‘ [e.g., o-k‘
‘anybody’], OIr. -ch, Bulg. če, etc.). IEW 625 f.
205. ‘if’: ?
206. ‘because’: ?
207. ‘name’: *h1 neh3 men- (: Gk. ónoma, PN Enuma-kratidās, Lat. nōmen, Skt. nāma,
OCS imę, Hitt. lāman-, Goth. namo, OIr. ainm, Alb. emën, Arm. anown, Toch. A ñem,
B ñom, OPr. emnes, emmens). IEW 321, EIEC 390.
208. ‘be’: *h1 es- (: Skt. 3sg. ásti, 3pl. sánti, Av. asti, hǝṇti, Hitt. ēšzi, ašanzi, Gk. [Att.]
esti, eisi, Lat. est, sunt, Goth. ist, sind, OIr. is, it, Arm. ē, en, OLith. 1sg. esmì, 3sg. ẽsti,
OCS 1sg. jesmь, sǫtь, Alb. 1sg. jam, 3sg. është). LIV 241 f., IEW 340 f., NIL 235 ff.,
EIEC 53. → ‘sit’ [124], → ‘good’ [185], → ‘grow, become, be’ [209].
209. ‘grow, become, be’: *b huh2 - (: Skt. bhávati, Av. bauuaiti, Gk. p húetai, Lat. fīerī,
fīō, OHG b-im ‘I am’, OIr. -bí, -bíat, cf. Gk. p hutón ‘plant’, OHG boum ‘tree’, etc.).
LIV 98 ff., IEW 146 ff., NIL 46 ff., EIEC 53. ‘become strong’: *h2 eu̯g- (: Lat. augēre,
-eō ‘to increase’, Goth. aukan ‘to increase [itr.]’, Lith. áugti, áugu ‘to grow’). LIV 274 f.,
IEW 84 f., EIEC 248; ‘grow up, become strong’: *h2 u̯eks- (: Gk. aúxomai, aéxomai ‘I
grow’, auxánō ‘I increase’, Av. uxšieiitī ‘grows’, Ved. uksant-̣ ‘growing’, Goth. wahsjan
‘to grow’, Toch. B [subj.] auksi-̣ ‘grow’), -s-derivative (desiderative?) from *h2 eu̯g-.
LIV 288, IEW 84 f., EIEC 248. → ‘bull, ox’ [313].
210. ‘become high, rise’: *b herg̑ h- (: Hitt. parkiyazzi, Arm. bar̄nam ‘lift’, [aor.] ebarj,
Toch B. parka, A pärk ‘rose’, Skt. barháya- ‘strengthen’, YAv. barǝzaiia-, OIr. dí-bairg
‘throw!’). LIV 78 ff., IEW 140 f., NIL 30 ff. → ‘mountain’ [171]; ‘rise’: *h1 rei̯ - (: Hitt.
arāi, Goth. urreisan, Arm. ari ‘arise!’); *k̑en- (: Arm. snanim ‘I am raised, educated’,
YAv. san- ‘rise’). LIV 252, IEW −; *nei̯ k- (: Hitt. ninikzi ‘picks up’, OCS -niknǫti, Lith.
į-ninkù, į-nìkti, cf. Gk. neĩkos ‘quarrel’). LIV 451, IEW −. EIEC 269.
211. ‘mount (sexually), come, go’ (possibly an enlarged form of [213]): *h1 erg̑ h- (: Hitt.
arkatta ‘mounts’, OIr. eirgg ‘go!’, Gk. érk homai ‘I come, go’, if not with [213], ork héo-
mai ‘I dance’, Alb. [aor.] erθ ‘came’). LIV 238, IEW 328. EIEC 507. → ‘testicle’ [325].
212. ‘follow’: *sek u̯- (: Skt. sácate, Av. hacaitē, Gk. hépomai, Lat. sequī, -or, Goth.
saiƕan ‘see’ if from ‘follow with the eyes’, OIr. sechithir, Lith. sekù, sèkti, ORuss. soču,
sočiti ‘seek, persecute’). LIV 525 f., IEW 896 f., EIEC 208. → ‘say’ [140].
213. ‘reach’: *h1 er- (: Hitt. arta ‘stood’, [prs.] āri ‘reaches’, Gk. érk homai ‘I come,
go’). LIV 238, IEW 326–9, *h2 nek̑- (: Skt. aśnóti, Yav. ašnaoiti, Arm. hasanem, OLat.
nanciō, OIr. -ánaic ‘reached’, Goth. ganah ‘is enough’). LIV 282 f., IEW 316–318;
*sei̯ k- (: Gk. híkō, hikánō, hiknéomai, Lith. síekiu, síekti, Toch. B siknaṃ ‘walks’, Umbr.
[fut.] pru-sikurent ‘confirm’). LIV 522, IEW 893; *senh2 - (: Hitt. šanaḫzi ‘searches’,
Skt. sanóti ‘reaches, attains’, OIr. sennid ‘pursues’, OHG sinnan ‘strive’). LIV 532 f.,

Authenticated
IEW 906; ‘come close, reach’: *d heg u̯hh2 - (: Gk. p ht hánō, Skt. dagh-, Toch B. kättaṅ-
käṃ). LIV 134, IEW 250.
214. ‘move, rise’: *h3 er- (: Skt. íyarti ‘moves, raises [tr.]’, r̥n ̣óti ‘id.’, Arm. yar̄nem ‘I
rise’, Gk. órnūmi ‘I rouse, stir to motion’, Lat. orīri, -ior ‘rise’, OCS rinǫti sę ‘jump
at’). LIV 299 f., IEW 326 ff.
215. ‘run’: *b heg u̯- (: Gk. p hébomai ‘I flee’, [caus.] p hobéō ‘I chase off’, Lith. bė́ gu,
bė́ gti ‘run’, OCS běžǫ, běžati). LIV 67, IEW 116; *ret- (: OIr. -reith, Welsh red-, cf.
Lith. rãtas, OHG rad, OIr. roth ‘wheel’, Lat. rota ‘id.’, Skt. rathá- ‘chariot’). LIV 507,
IEW 866, NIL 575 ff.; *drem- (: Gk. [aor.] édramon, Skt. dandramya- ‘run about’, Khot.
dremäte ‘drives away’). LIV 128, IEW 204 f.; ‘run (away)’: *dreh2 - (: Gk. apo-didrā́skō,
Skt. drā́tu ‘let run’). LIV 127, IEW 204; *dreu̯- (: Skt. drávati). LIV 129, IEW 205 f.;
*d henh2 - (: Skt. dhánvati, Gk. t hnḗ[i]skō ‘I die’). LIV 144, IEW 249; *d heu̯- (: Ved.
dhā́vati, Gk. t héō, Goth. *diwan ‘die’). LIV 145 f., IEW 259 f., 262; *tek u̯- ‘run, flow’
(: Skt. tákti, Hitt. wa-tkuzzi, YAv. -tačinti, OIr. -teich, Lith. tekù, tekė́ ti, OCS tekǫ, tešti,
Alb. n-djek). LIV 620 f., IEW 1059 f., EIEC 491.
216. ‘escape’: *b heu̯g- (: YAv. buṇja- ‘set free’, Lat. fugere, -iō, Gk. p heúgō, Lith. bū́g-
stu, bū́gti ‘be scared’, Goth. usbaugjan ‘sweep’). LIV 84, IEW 152; ‘escape, come
home’: *nes- (: Gk. néomai, Skt. násate, Goth. ga-nisan, Toch. B nesau, A nasam ‘I
am’). LIV 454 f., IEW 766 f., EIEC 206.
217. ‘wake up’: *h1 ger- (: Gk. [aor.] égreto ‘woke up’, [pf.] egrḗgora, Skt. jāgā́ra, Av.
jaγāra, Lat. expergiscī, -or, Alb. ngrihet ‘rises’). LIV 245 f., IEW 390; ‘wake up, notice’:
*b heu̯d h- (: Skt. bódhati ‘notices’, OAv. baoda-, Gk. peút homai, punt hánomai ‘I get to
know, am informed’, Goth. ana-biudan ‘command’, Lith. baudžiù, baũsti ‘punish’, OCS
bljudǫ, bljusti ‘take care, guard’). LIV 82 f., IEW 151 ff., NIL 36 f.
218. ‘swallow’: *(s)leu̯g- (: Gk. lunganṓmenon [Hsch.] ‘sobbing’, lúzō ‘I hiccup’, OIr.
loingid ‘eats’, MHG slūken ‘swallow’, probably Lat. lugēre, -eō ‘lament, grieve’ <
*‘sob’, cf. Kölligan 2005). LIV 567 f., IEW 964; *sleu̯k- (: OIr. -sluic, MWelsh llync-).
LIV 568, IEW 964. *su̯el- (: OE swillan ‘drink, swallow’, YAv. xvaraiti ‘eats, drinks’),
*su̯elg h/k- (: OHG swelgan/swelhan ‘swallow, drink’, OE swelgan etc.). LIV 609, IEW
1045.
219. ‘sip’: *k u̯em- (: Skt. cā́mati ‘sips’, YAv. [subj.] ā-š́amāt̰ ‘shall sip’, Arm. k‘amem
‘I press, sift’, probably Gk. étemen [Hsch.] ‘sucked, pressed’). LIV 389, IEW 640 f.;
*sreb h- (: Lat. sorbēre, -eō, Gk. r hop héō, Alb. gjerb, Arm. (aor.) arbi ‘I drank’, Hitt.
šarāpi, Lith. srebiù, srė̃bti, ORuss. sereblju). LIV 587, IEW 1001.
220. ‘lick’: *lei̯ g̑ h- (: Skt. réḍhi, Arm. lizem, Gk. leík hō, OIr. ligim, Lith. liežiù, liẽžti,
OCS ližǫ, lizati, Lat. lingere, -ō, OHG leckōn). LIV 404, IEW 668, EIEC 351 f.
221. ‘taste, make trial of’: *g̑eu̯s- (: Ved. juṣ- ‘enjoy’, YAv. zuš-, Goth. kiusan ‘examine’,
NE choose, Gk. geúomai). LIV 166 f., IEW 399 f.; ‘make/be/become tasty’: *su̯eh2 d-

Authenticated
(: Skt. svad-/svād-, Gk. hḗdomai ‘I enjoy, am happy’, Lat. suādēre, -eō ‘advise’ [*‘make
tasty’], probably Lith. sū́dau, sū́dyti ‘salt’); adj. ‘tasty, sweet’: *su̯eh2 d-u-
(: Skt. svādú-, Gk. hēdús, Lat. suāvis, OHG suozi, OE swōt, swēte; Toch. A swār, B
swāre ‘sweet’). LIV 606 f., IEW 1039 f., NIL 670 ff., EIEC 566.
222. ‘devour’: *g u̯erh3 - (: Skt. girati, Gk. bibrṓskō, Lat. vorāre, -ō, Arm. [aor.] eker
‘ate’, OCS žьrǫ, žrěti, Alb. [aor.] angreh ‘ate’, Lith. geriù, gérti ‘drink’). LIV 211 f.,
IEW 474, EIEC 174 ff.
223. ‘carry, bring’: *b her- (: Skt. bhárati, Av. baraiti, Gk. p hérō, Lat. ferre, -ō, OIr.
-beir, Goth. bairan, Arm. berem, Phryg. ab-beret, Lith. beriù, ber̃ti ‘scatter’, OCS berǫ,
bьrati, Toch. B paräṃ, Alb. bie, root noun *b hōr ‘thief’, Gk. φώρ, Lat. fūr). LIV 76 f.,
IEW 128 ff., NIL 15 ff., EIEC 90 f.
224. ‘put’: *d heh1 - (: Hitt. tēzzi ‘says’, dāi ‘places’, Skt. dádhāti, Av. dadāiti, Gk. tít hē-
mi, Lat. reddere, -ō ‘return [tr.]’, OHG tuon ‘do’, OLith. desti, OCS deždǫ, děti, Toch.
B tattaṃ, Arm. dnem). LIV 136 f., IEW 235 ff., NIL 99 ff. ‘put, place, make ready’:
*stel- (: Gk. stéllō ‘I prepare, equip, send’, OCS po-steljǫ, -stьlati ‘spread’, cf. Gk. stḗlē
‘pillar’, OHG stal[l] ‘place, stand, stable’, Lith. stãlas ‘desk’, OCS stolъ ‘seat, throne’,
probably Skt. sthála- ‘bank, solid ground’). LIV 594, IEW 1019 f., NIL 662 ff., EIEC
472. → ‘think of’ [104], ‘believe, trust, put the heart’ [362].
225. *b hag- ‘get a share; distribute’ (: Gk. [aor.] ép hagon ‘ate’, Skt. bhájati ‘shares’,
YAv. bažat̰ ), LIV 65, IEW 107, NIL 1. ‘divide, share’: *deh2 - (: Skt. dáyate ‘distributes’,
Gk. daíetai ‘is divided’, Alb. [OGeg.] për-dah ‘divides’). LIV 103, IEW 175 f., EIEC
184 ff.
226. ‘exchange’: *mei̯ - (: Ved. 3pl. mayante, Latv. miju, mît, Toch. B mäsk-). LIV 426,
IEW 710; *mei̯ th2 - (: Skt. méthati ‘is hostile’, Lat. mittere, -ō ‘send’, OHG mīdan
‘avoid’, OLat. mitat ‘donates [in exchange]’). LIV 430, IEW 715, EIEC 184 ff.
227. ‘give birth’: *seu̯H- (: Skt. sū́te ‘gives birth’, YAv. hunāmi ‘I give birth’, cf. *sūnu-
‘son’ [292]). LIV 538, IEW 913 f., NIL 617 f. Perhaps related to *seu̯- ‘press’ [228].
EIEC 56.
228. ‘press’: *seu̯- (: Skt. sunóti ‘presses [the soma plant]’, YAv. hunaoiti ‘presses [the
haoma plant]’). LIV 537, IEW 912.
229. ‘row’: *h1 reh1 - (: Myc. e-re-e /erehen/, Lith. iriù, ìrti, OIr. rait [3pl.], ON róa, OE
rōwan, cf. also Skt. aritár- ‘rower’, arítra- ‘oar’, Gk. erétēs ‘rower’, Lat. rēmus ‘oar’).
LIV 251 f., IEW 338, EIEC 490.
230. *u̯eg̑ h- ‘hover; drive (a chariot)’ (i.e. originally a metaphoric usage when applied
to a chariot: ‘hover on a chariot’, Skt. váhati, YAv. vazaiti, Gk. [Pamphyl.] wek hétō ‘let
drive’, Lat. vehere, -ō, ON vega, Lith. vežù, vèžti, OCS vezǫ, vesti, Alb. vjedh ‘steals’,
Toch. B wask-, A wāsk- ‘move, twitch’). LIV 661 f., IEW 1118 ff., EIEC 170.

Authenticated
231. ‘plough’: *h2 erh3 - (: Gk. aróō, Lat. arāre, -ō, OIr. -air, OHG erien, Lith. ariù, árti,
OCS orjǫ, orati, Hitt. ḫarašzi ‘breaks up the earth’). LIV 272 f., IEW 62 f., NIL 322 ff.,
EIEC 434 ff.
232. ‘learn’: *dens- (: Ved. dam̐sáya-, OAv. didąs, Gk. didáskō ‘teach’). LIV 118 f.,
IEW 201 f.; *h1 eu̯k- ‘learn, get accustomed’ (: Arm. owsanim ‘I learn’, Ved. ucya-, Lith.
jùnkstu, jùnkti ‘be accustomed’, OCS učǫ, učiti ‘learn’). LIV 244 f., IEW 347.
233. ‘forget’: *mers- (: Skt. mr̥ṣyate, Toch. [prt.] B marsa, A märs, Goth. marzjan
‘annoy, disturb’). LIV 440 f., IEW 737 f., EIEC 209.
234. ‘pluck, pick’: *pek̑- (: Gk. pékō, Lith. pešù, pèšti, Lat. pectere, -ō, OHG fehtan
‘fight’, Oss. fas- ‘comb’, → ‘livestock’ [321]). LIV 467, IEW 797, EIEC 570.
235. ‘make ripe, edible, cook’: *pek u̯- (: Lat. coquere, -ō, Gk. péssō/péttō, Skt. pácati,
YAv. pacaiti, Lith. kepù, kèpti ‘bake’, OCS pekǫ, pešti, Alb. pjek ‘bake, fry’, Toch. A
pakät ‘cooked [intr. ppl.]’). LIV 468, IEW 798, NIL 548 ff., EIEC 125.
236. ‘crush, trample’: *pei̯ s- (: Skt. pináṣṭi, Lat. pinsere, -ō, Lith. pisù, pìsti ‘mate’, Gk.
ptíssō, CSl. pьchnǫti ‘trample’). LIV 466, IEW 796, EIEC 581.
237. ‘praise’: *steu̯- (: Hitt. ištuwari ‘is known’, Skt. stáve ‘is praised’, OAv. staumi ‘I
praise’, Gk. steũtai ‘proclaims, boasts, promises’). LIV 600, IEW 1035, EIEC 449.
238. ‘yoke’ (vb.): *i̯ eu̯g- (: Skt. yunákti, Av. +yuṇjinti, Lat. iungere, -ō, Lith. jùngiu,
jùngti; → ‘yoke’ [239]). LIV 316, IEW 508 ff., NIL 397 ff., EIEC 655.
239. ‘yoke’ (n.): *i̯ ugom (: Skt. yugám, Gk. zugón, Lat. iugum, Goth. juk, Lith. jùngas
[with -n- taken from the verb jùngiu, jùngti], OCS igo, Welsh iau, Hitt. yugan, Arm.
lowc if l- was taken over from lowcanem ‘I loosen, untie’ [antonymy]). LIV 316, IEW
508 ff., NIL 397 ff., EIEC 655.
240. ‘be of use/make useful’: *d heu̯g h- (: Skt. duhé ‘gives milk’, Gk. teúk hō ‘I make,
produce’, Goth. daug ‘is useful’). LIV 148 f., IEW 271, EIEC 614.
241. ‘pour, libate’: *g̑ heu̯- (: Gk. k hé[w]ō, Toch. B kuṣäṃ, A kuṣ, Skt. hu- ‘libate, sacri-
fice’, hótrā ‘oblation with fire’, hótar- ‘priest’ [who pours ghee, i.e. melted butter, into
the fire], Av. zav-, zaoθra-, zaotar-). LIV 179, IEW 447 f.; *g̑ heu̯d- (probably a variant
of the former, Goth. giutan, Lat. fundere, -ō). LIV 179 f., IEW 448; *seik u̯- (: Skt. siñcáti,
YAv. hiṇcaiti, OHG sīhan ‘sieve’, Toch. A. [3pl.] sikaṃtär ‘are flooded’). LIV 523, IEW
893 f.; *leh2 - (: Hitt. lāḫui ‘pours’) verb only Anat., but cf. Lat. lāma ‘bog, slough’. LIV
401, IEW 692, EIEC 351.
242. ‘lead (esp. the bride)’: *u̯ed h- (: OIr. fedid, Goth. gawidan ‘connect’, Lith. vedù,
vèsti, OCS vedǫ, vesti; Hitt. u-watemi, YAv. vāδaiia-, OCS voždǫ, voditi). LIV 659, IEW
1115 ff., EIEC 369 f.

Authenticated
243. ‘sow’: *seh1 - (: probably orig. ‘press in’, Lat. serere, -ō, Goth. saian, Lith. sė́ ju,
sė́ ti, OCS sějǫ, sěti, Hitt. šāi ‘seals, imprints’). LIV 517, IEW 889 f., EIEC 534.
244. ‘knead, smear, mold’: *d heig̑ h- (: Skt. dih-, Arm. dizanem, Goth. digan, Lith. žied-
žiù, žiẽsti, OCS ziždǫ, zьdati, Lat. fingere, -ō, OIr. con·utainc ‘builds’, Toch. B tsik-).
LIV 140 f., IEW 244 f., NIL 118 f.
245. ‘spin’: *sneh1 - (: Gk. nē̃i, Lat. nēre, -eō, OIr. sníid, OHG nāen). LIV 571 f., IEW
973, EIEC 569 ff.
246. ‘shine, become (day-)light’: *h2 u̯es- (: Skt. uccháti, YAv. usa-, Lith. aũšta, aũšti).
LIV 292 f., IEW 86 f., 1174, NIL 357 f., EIEC 513 f. ‘shine’: *b heh2 - (: Ved. bhā́ti, Av.
frauuāiti ‘shines [forth]’, Gk. p haínō ‘I show’, Arm. banam ‘I open’). LIV 68, IEW
104 f., NIL 7–11, EIEC 513. → *b heh2 - ‘say’ [140]; *dei̯ - (: only in derivatives such as
Ved. sadyás ‘on the same day’ [*sm̥-di̯ -es], adyā ‘today’, PIE *g̑ hdi̯ es ‘yesterday’ [Ved.
hyás, Lat. herī, Gk. (e)k ht hés], OCS dьnъ ‘day’, Lat. nūn-dinum ‘span of nine days’,
etc.). IEW 183 f., NIL 69–81, EIEC 513, Rau 2012. → ‘sky, (god of the) (bright) sky’
[162], → ‘heavenly one, god’ [380]; → ‘shine, sing’ [141], → ‘shine, white’ [175],
→ ‘spring’ [334].
247. ‘(take the appropriate) measure’: *med- (: Gk. médō ‘I rule’, mḗdomai ‘I plan’,
OIr. midithir ‘judges’, Goth. mitan ‘measure’, Av. maδ-, Lat. medērī, -eor ‘heal, help’,
cf. medicus ‘physician’). LIV 423, IEW 705 f., EIEC 374.
248. ‘measure’: *meh1 - (: Skt. mímīte, Lat. mētīri, -ior, Alb. mat). LIV 424, IEW 703 f.,
EIEC 374.
249. ‘beget, give birth’: *tek̑- (: Gk. tíktō, [aor.] étekon → ‘child’ [39]). LIV 618, IEW
1057; *g̑enh1 - (: Gk. gígnomai ‘I become’, Lat. gignere, -ō ‘beget, bear’, Ved. jánati
‘begets, gives birth’, Av. zīzan-, OIr. gainethar [rel.] ‘who is born’, Arm. cnanim ‘I
beget, am born’, Toch. B kantär ‘will happen’). LIV 163 ff., IEW 373 ff., NIL 139 ff.,
EIEC 56.
250. ‘weave’: *tek- (: Hitt. takkešzi ‘prepares, agrees’, Lat. texere, -ō, Arm. t‘ek‘em).
LIV 619, IEW 1058, EIEC 569 ff.
251. ‘weave’: *u̯eb h- (: Hitt. [prt.] wepta, Skt. unap, OHG weban, Gk. hup haínō, Toch.
A [3pl.] wpantär, ON vefja ‘wrap’). LIV 658, IEW 1114, EIEC 569 ff. → ‘wasp’ [355].
252. ‘rub, make old’: *g̑erh2 - (: Skt. járati ‘makes old, lets grow old’, OCS sъ-zorjǫ,
sъ-zoriti ‘let ripen’, Gk. egḗra ‘grew old’). LIV 165 f., IEW 390 f. → ‘old man’ [276],
→ ‘grain’ [302].
253. ‘stretch (out the hands), direct, rule’: *h3 reg̑- (: Skt. rā́sṭi,̣ YAv. rāzaiti, Gk. orégō,
Lat. regere, -ō, OIr. a-t-raig, Goth. rikan ‘heap up’, Toch. B [subj.] rāśäṃ; cf. adj. Skt.
r̥jú-, Av. ǝrǝzu- ‘straight’). LIV 304 f., IEW 854 ff., EIEC 187 f. → ‘straight’ [189], →
‘ruler’ [361].

Authenticated
254. ‘speak solemnly, vow’: *h1 u̯eg u̯h- (: Skt. óhate [3pl.], OAv. aogədā, Gk. eúk homai,
Lat. vovēre, -eō ‘vow’). LIV 253, IEW 348, EIEC 534 ff. → ‘say’ [140].
255. ‘ask (a favour)’: *prek̑- (: Skt. pr̥ccháti, Arm. harc‘anem, Lat. precāri, -or, poscere,
-ō, OIr. -airc, Lith. prašaũ, prašýti, OCS prošǫ, prositi, Goth. fraihnan, Toch. B prekṣäṃ,
A prakäṣ; cf. also Lat. prex, usually pl. preces ‘asking, prayer’). LIV 490 f., IEW 821 f.,
EIEC 33.
256. ‘praise, honour’: *g u̯erH- (: Skt. gr̥ṇā́ti, YAv. -gǝrǝṇte, Lith. giriù, gìrti ‘praise’,
OCS žьrjǫ, žrъti ‘sacrifice’). LIV 210 f. IEW 478, EIEC 449 f.
257. ‘worship, sacrifice’: *Hi̯ ag̑- (: Skt. yájate ‘sacrifices, worships’, Av. yazaite ‘wor-
ships’, Gk. házomai ‘I fear, feel awe, worship’). LIV 224 f., IEW 501, EIEC 650.
258. ‘libate’: *spend- (: Hitt. šipanti, Gk. spéndō, Lat. spondēre, -eō, Toch. B späntetär
‘trusts’). LIV 577 f., IEW 989, EIEC 351.
259. ‘wear’: *u̯es- (: Hitt. wēšta, Skt. váste, OAv. vastē, Gk. hẽmai ‘I wear’, hénnūmi
‘I clothe’, Arm. z-genowm ‘I clothe [myself]’, Toch. B wässāte, A [pl.] wsānte ‘wore,
put on’; caus. *u̯os-éi̯ e/o- ‘clothe s.b.‘ in Hitt. waššiezzi, ved. vāsáyati, OE werian,
Alb. vesh). LIV 692 f., IEW 1172 f., EIEC 109 f. → ‘evening, west’ [368], ‘garment,
enshrouding’ [369].
260. ‘gird (oneself)’: *i̯ eh3 s- (: Gk. zṓnnumi, OLith. [3sg.] juosti, OCS po-jašǫ, -jasati,
Alb. n-gjesh; cf. Gk. zṓma, zōstḗr, zṓnē, OCS po-jasъ ‘girdle’, Lith. júostas, YAv. yāsta-
‘girded’). LIV 311, IEW 513, NIL 391 f., EIEC 223 f.
261. ‘build’: *demh2 - (: hLuw. [prt.] tamata, Gk. démō, Goth. gatiman ‘fit’, Toch. B
[inf.] tsamtsi ‘create’). LIV 114 ff., IEW 198 f., EIEC 87, Nikolaev 2010.
262. ‘domesticate, tame’: *demh2 - (: Gk. dámnēmi, Skt. damáyati, Lat. domāre, -ō,
Goth. ga-tamjan, Hitt. damašzi, OIr. -damna). LIV 116 f., IEW 199 f., EIEC 87.
263. ‘enter; copulate’: *(h3 )i̯ eb h- (: Skt. yábhati ‘copulates’, Gk. oíp hō, Ukr. jebú, jebáty,
Toch. B yopsa, A yowäs ‘entered’). LIV 309, IEW 298, EIEC 507 f.
264. ‘grind, mill’: *h2 leh1 - (: Gk. aléō, Arm. aɫam, khot. ārr-). LIV 277, IEW 28 f.;
*melh2 - (: Arm. malem, Lat. molere, -ō, OIr. melid, OCS meljǫ, mlěti, Goth. malan, Lith.
malù, málti, Hitt. malli-). LIV 432 f., IEW 716 f., EIEC 247.
265. ‘light’: *h1 le(n)g u̯h-u- (: Skt. raghú-, laghú-, YAv. rǝuuī [f.], Gk. elak hús, Lat. levis
[with regular remodeling to i-stem], OIr. laigiu ‘smaller, worse’, Germ. *lenhta- < *le-
n-k(u̯)to- [Goth. leihts, ON léttr, OHG līht], Lith. leñgvas, OCS lьgъkъ). LIV 247 f., IEW
660 f., EIEC 353, NIL 243 ff., 450 f., EIEC 353. → ‘lungs’ [281].

Authenticated
266. ‘high’: *b hr̥g̑ h-u-/-ent- (: Skt. br̥hánt-, Av. bǝrǝz-, Arm. barjr, Hitt. parku-; cf. root
noun *b hr̥g̑ h- in Goth. baurgs ‘citadel’; nt-stem also PN OHG Purgunt, OIr. Brigit
[*b hr̥g̑ h-n̥t-ī]). LIV 78 f., IEW 140 f., EIEC 269. → ‘mountain’ [171], → ‘rise’ [210].
267. ‘deep’: *d heu̯b- (: Lith. dubùs, Goth. diups, Toch. B taupe, A top ‘mine’, MWelsh
dwfn ‘deep; world’, OCS dъno ‘ground’, cf. with opposite meaning Toch. B tapre, A
tpär ‘high’ [*d hub-ro-]). IEW 267 f., EIEC 154, NIL 122 ff., EIEC 154.
268. ‘grey’: *k̑as- (: Lat. cānus ‘grey’, esp. in the word for → [341] ‘hare’: OHG haso,
ON hǫss [*k̑as-u̯o-], Skt. śaśa- [with assimilation from *śasa], Welsh ceinach, OPr.
sasins). IEW 533, EIEC 240, 256 f., NIL 410 f.; *poli-o-/-no-/-to- (: Gk. poliós, Arm.
alik‘ ‘grey hair, waves’, Skt. palitá- ‘grey, old’, Gk. pelitnós, Lat. pallidus ‘pale’?, MIr.
liath, Welsh llwyd ‘grey’ [*pleitos?], OHG falo, ON fǫlr [Germ. *falwaz] ‘pale’, Lith.
pal̃vas ‘pale’, OCS plavъ ‘white’). IEW 804 f., EIEC 240.
269. ‘brown’: *b hru-(no)-, *b her-o- (: Skt. babhrú- ‘brown’, Gk. p hrũnos/-ē ‘toad’ <
‘brown one’, OHG brūn, Lith. bė́ ras ‘brown’, RCS bronъ ‘white’). IEW 136 f., EIEC
85. → ‘beaver’ [347].
270. ‘empty, lacking’: *h1 u̯eh2 -no-/*h1 uh2 -no- (: Lat. vānus ‘empty, idle’, Skt. ūná-
‘lacking’, Arm. ownayn, Goth. wans ‘lack’, OHG OE OS wan ‘lacking, empty’), *h1 uh2 -
ni- (: Gk. eũnis ‘bereaved of, lacking’), *h1 u̯eh2 -to- (: Lat. vāstus, OIr. fás). LIV 254,
IEW 345, 1111, NIL 248 ff., EIEC 179.
271. ‘raw’: *Hōmó- (: Gk. ōmós), *Hō/omo- (: Skt. āmá-, Arm. howm), *Homo- (: OIr.
om). IEW 777 f., EIEC 478, NIL 202.
272. ‘fast’: *Hōk̑ú- (: Skt. āśú-, Av. āsu-, Gk. ōkús, Lat. ōcior, ōcius ‘faster’). Perhaps
related to → [311] *h1 ek̑u̯-o- ‘horse’ (‘the fast animal’?) or to → [191] *h2 ek̑- ‘sharp’
(cf. de Lamberterie 1990.2: 577, 583). IEW 775, EIEC 194, NIL 200 f.
273. ‘slow’: *g u̯r̥d-u- (: Gk. bradús, Lith. gurdùs ‘slow, dull’). Perhaps related to
*g u̯erh2 - ‘heavy’ (cf. de Lamberterie 1990.2: 590 ff.). IEW 476, NIL 195 f.
274. ‘on foot, foot-’: *pedii̯ o- (: Skt. pádya- ‘related to the foot’, Lat. acu-pedius ‘swift-
footed’, Arm. heti ‘on foot’).
275. ‘broad’: *pl̥ th2 -u- (: Skt. pr̥thú-, Av. pǝrǝθu-, Gk. platús, Lith. platùs). LIV 486 f.,
IEW 833, NIL 564 ff.; probably related to *pleh2 - (: Hitt. palḫi- ‘broad’, Lat. plānus
‘broad, flat’). IEW 805, EIEC 205 f., NIL 562 ff.; *h1 u̯erH- (: Skt. urú-, OAv. vouru-,
Gk. eurús, Osc. [f.] uruvú, Toch. A wärts, B wartstse [**h1 u̯r̥H-ti̯ o-]). IEW 1165, EIEC
83, NIL 250 ff.
276. ‘old man’: *g̑erh2 -ont- (: Gk. gérōn, -ontos, Oss. zærond ‘old’, Skt. járant- ‘old
man’); *g̑erh2 -o- (: Arm. cer, NPers. zar); *g̑erh2 -lo- (: ON karl ‘old man’, OE ceorl

Authenticated
‘freeman of the lowest class’ [NE churl], OHG karal ‘old man’, NHG Kerl); *ǵerh2 -on-
(: Toch. B śrān- ‘adult man’). IEW 390 f., EIEC 409 f. → ‘rub, make old’ [252].
277. ‘old woman’: *g̑erh2 -u- (: Gk. graũs, Alb. grua ‘woman’ [or from *g u̯en(h2 )-
[36]?]). IEW 391, EIEC 409 f. → ‘old man’ [276].
278. ‘young/young man’: *h2 i̯ eu̯- (: OIr. óa, MWelsh ieu ‘younger’; *h2 i̯ u-h3 en-: Skt.
yúvan-, Av. yauua-, Lat. iuvenis; *h2 i̯ ou̯-h3 no-: Lith. jáunas, Latv. jaûns, OCS junъ;
*h2 i̯ u-h3 n̥-kó-: Goth. juggs [i.e. (ŋg)] [comp. jūhiza], ON ungr, OE geong, OHG jung,
OIr. ó[a]c, Welsh ieuanc/ifanc ‘young’, Lat. iuvencus ‘young [cow]’, Skt. yuvaśá-). IEW
510 f., EIEC 655 f. → ‘life’ [108].
279. ‘eyebrow’: *(h3 )b hruH- (: Skt. bhrū-, Gk. op hrũs, OIr. brú, Lith. bruvìs, OCS
brъvь, Toch. [du.] A pärwāṃ, B pärwāne, OE brú[w]a). IEW 172 f., EIEC 188, NIL
41 ff.
280. ‘gall’: *g̑ hol-o- (: Gk. k hólos, k holḗ, OHG galla, OCS zlьčь, Av. zāra-, Lat. fel,
probably Lith. tulžìs if with metathesis from *g̑ hol-ti-). IEW 429, EIEC 217. → ‘yellow’
[173].
281. ‘lungs’: *pleu̯-mon- (: Gk. pléumōn, Lat. pulmō, Skt. klóman-), → *pleu̯- ‘float’
[119]. IEW 837 f.; *(h1 )leng u̯h- (: OHG lungūn, NE lights, Russ. lëgkoje, Arm. lanǰk‘
‘breast’, if from an earlier meaning ‘lungs’). IEW 661, EIEC 359. → ‘light’ [265].
282. ‘arm, forearm’ (: Skt. bāhú ḥ, Av. bāzāuš, Gr. pẽk hus, ‘elbow, forearm’, ON bógr
‘arm, shoulder’, OHG buog ‘shoulder, hip’, Toch. АВ poke, В pauke [Arm. bazowk
probably an Iranian loanword]). IEW 152, EIEC 26.
283. ‘shoulder’: *Homso- (: Gk. õmos, Skt. áṁsa-, Lat. umerus, Goth. ams, Toch. A es,
B āntse, Arm. ows). IEW 778, EIEC 515 f. Perhaps related to *mē̆ms(o)- ‘meat’ → [63]
as *h1 omso- ‘back’ / (vr̥ddhi-derivative) *h1 ōmso- ‘belonging to the back’ (Pinault, ms.).
284. ‘elbow’: *Hol-en- (: Skt. aratní-, Lat. ulna, Gk. ōlénē ‘elbow, forearm’, Goth.
aleina ‘cubit’, OHG elina, Alb. lërë, [Geg] lans, Arm. oɫn, gen. oɫin with problematic
meaning ‘vertebra, spine, shoulder’). IEW 370, 524, 590, EIEC 176.
285. ‘chin’: *g̑enu- (: Gk. génus, Goth. kinnus*, Skt. hanu-, Av. zanauua [du.] [IIr.
forms with secondary anlaut], Lat. gena, air. gi[u]n ‘mouth’, Welsh gen, Toch. A śanwe
[du.], Arm. cnawt). IEW 381 (EIEC 107).
286. ‘ship’: *neh2 u- (: Lat. nāvis, Gk. naũs, Skt. naúḥ , OIr. nau, ON nór; probably a
derivative from *(s)neh2 - ‘swim’ → [119], but always without the movable #s-, hence
probably dissociated from this root already in the proto-language). IEW 755 f., EIEC
74 f., NIL 515 ff.

Authenticated
287. ‘beech tree’: *b heh2 go- (: Lat. fāgus ‘beech’, Gk. p hēgós ‘oak’, OHG buocha
‘beech’; also Germ. *bōk[ō]-, OE bōc ‘book’, OHG buocha ‘beech’, etc.). NIL 2, IEW
107 f., EIEC 58 ff.
288. ‘apple, apple tree’: *h2 eb-el- (: Welsh afal, OHG apful, Lith. obelìs, OCz. jablo).
IEW 2 f., EIEC 25 f., NIL 262 f.
289. ‘cherry, cherry tree’: *kr̥-no- (: Gk. krános, Lat. cornu-m/-s ‘cornel cherry (tree)’,
Gk. kránon, Lith. Kirnis ‘deus cerasorum’). IEW 572 f., EIEC 106.
290. ‘navel’: *h3 neb h- (: Gk. omp halós, Lat. umbilicus, OHG nabulo, MIr. imbliu, Skt.
nābhi-, YAv. nāfa-, Latv. naba). IEW 314 f., EIEC 391, NIL 385 ff.
291. ‘man’: *man-u- (: Skt. mánu-, mánuṣ-, Goth. manna, perhaps OCS mǫžь [*man-
gi̯ a-?]). IEW 700, EIEC 366 f. → [37], [392], [396].
292. ‘son’: *suH-nu-, -i̯ u- (: Skt. sūnú-, Av. hunu-, Goth. sunus, OCS synъ, Lith. sūnùs;
Gk. huiús and huiós, Toch. A se, B soy, Arm. owstr [*sūi̯ u- > *ow /u/, -str from dowstr
‘daughter’]). IEW 913 f., EIEC 533, NIL 686 ff. → ‘give birth’ [227].
293. ‘daughter’: *d hugh2 ter- (: Skt. duhitar-, OAv. dugǝdar-, Arm. dowstr, Gk. t hugátēr,
Osc. futír, Goth. dauhtar, Gaul. duχtir, Lith. duktė̃, Ocs. dъšti, Toch. B tkācer, A ckācar,
hLuw. tuwa/itara/i-, Lyc. kbatra-). IEW 277, EIEC 147 f., NIL 126 ff.
294. ‘brother’: *b hreh2 ter- (: Skt. bhrā́tar-, Av. brātar-, Lat. frāter, Gk. p hrḗtēr ‘member
of a brotherhood’, Goth. broþar, Arm. eɫbayr, OIr. bráth[a]ir, OCS brat[r]ъ, Lith. brot-
erė̃lis, Toch. A pracar, B procer). IEW 163 f., EIEC 84, NIL 38 ff. Perhaps derived from
*b her- ‘to bear’ → [223], cf. Pinault (2007).
295. ‘grandson’: *nepot- (: Skt. nápāt-, YAv. napāt-, Gk. népodes, Lat. nepōs, -ōtis, OIr.
nia ‘nephew, sister’s son’, OLith. nepuotìs ‘grandson, nephew’, OHG nevo ‘grandson,
sister’s son’), fem. *nept-ih2 - (: Skt. naptī́-, YAv. napti-, Lat. neptis, OIr. necht, OLith.
neptė, OHG nift). Lat. nepōs means ‘grandson’ in the older language, from the 2 nd c.
CE onwards also ‘nephew’. Similarly, OHG nevo and nift meant ‘grandson/-daughter’
originally, cf. Hettrich (1985). IEW 764, EIEC 239 f., NIL 520 ff.
296. ‘husband’s brother’: *deh2 iu̯er- (: Ved. devár-, Gk. dāḗr, Lat. lēvir, Arm. taygr, OE
tācor, Lith. dieverìs, RCS děverъ). IEW 179, EIEC 84, NIL 58 ff.
297. ‘husband’s brother’s wife, sister-in-law’: *Hi̯ enh2 ter- (: Skt. yātar-, Gk. [Hom. pl.]
einatéres, Arm. nēr, Lat. ianitrīcēs, Lith. jentė, OCS jętry). IEW 505 f., EIEC 522, NIL
204 ff., Kölligan (2012: 142–144).
298. ‘house’: *dom(h2 )-s, gen. *dem(h2 )-s (: Ved. pátir dán ‘lord of the house’, dam-,
Av. dam-, Lat. domī ‘at home’, domus ‘house, home’, Gk. dõ, dõma, dómos ‘layer,

Authenticated
house, room’, Arm. town, Lith. nãmas [with assimilation d - m > n - m], OCS domъ
[u-st.]). LIV 114 ff., IEW 198 f., EIEC 281 f., Nikolaev (2010).
299. ‘settlement’: *u̯ei̯ k̑- (: Skt. viś- ‘settlement, house, clan’, Av. vīs- ‘house, village,
clan’, Lat. vīcus ‘village’, Gk. [w]oĩkos, [w]oikía ‘house’, Goth. weihs ‘village’, Lith.
viẽšpat[i]s ‘lord, master’, OPr. waispattin ‘lady, housewife’, OCS vьsъ ‘village’). LIV
669 f., IEW 1129, 1131, EIEC 622.
300. ‘master of the house’: *dems poti- (: Av. də̄ṇg paiti-, Gk. despótēs, Ved. pátir dán
~ dampati-, with different first element *u̯ei̯ k̑- Lith. viẽšpat(i)s → ‘settlement’ [299]).
301. ‘stranger’: *g hosti- (: Lat. hostis ‘enemy, stranger’, Goth. gasts, OCS gostь ‘guest’;
usually analyzed as belonging to a root *g(u̯)hes- ‘eat’, Skt. ghas-, Av. has-). IEW 453,
EIEC 249, NIL 173.
302. ‘grain’: *g̑r̥h2 no- (: Lat. grānum, OIr. grán, Lith. žìrnis ‘pea’, OCS zrъno, Goth.
kaurn). IEW 391, EIEC 236 f. → ‘rub, make old’ [252].
303. ‘spelt, corn, barley’: *i̯ eu̯o- (: Gk. zeiaí ‘emmer’, Skt. yáva- ‘corn; barley’, Lith.
jãvas ‘corn’, Hitt. ewa- ‘corn’). IEW 512, EIEC 236, NIL 407 ff.
304. ‘wheat’ : *puHro- (: Gk. pūrós, Lith. pūraĩ, OCS pyro ‘spelt’, OE fyrs ‘furze’).
305. ‘barley’: *b har-es- (: Lat. far, gen. farris ‘spelt; flour’, ON barr ‘barley’, OCS
brašьno ‘food’). IEW 111, EIEC 51 f.
306. ‘rye’: *u̯rug h-i̯ o- (: OHG roggo, OE ryge [> NE rye], Lith. rugỹs, pl. rugiaĩ, ORuss.
rъžь, perhaps Thrac. bríza). IEW 1183, EIEC 491 f.
307. ‘cut, pluck, reap’: *(s)kerp- (: Lat. carpere, -ō ‘pluck’, Lith. kerpù, kir̃pti ‘cut’,
OCS črěpljǫ, črъpati ‘scoop’). LIV 559, IEW 944 f., EIEC 258. → ‘harvest’ [308].
308. ‘harvest’: *korpisto- (: Germ. *harbista-, OHG herbist, OE hærvest). LIV 559,
IEW 944 f., EIEC 258. → ‘cut, pluck, reap’ [307], → ‘harvest’ [333].
309. ‘sickle’: *kr̥p-o- (: MIr. corrán, Russ. čerp, Gk. krōpíon, cf. also Skt. kr̥pān ̣a-
‘sword’). LIV 559, IEW 944 f. → ‘cut, pluck, reap’ [307].
310. ‘plough’: *h2 erh3 -tro- (: Lat. arātrum, Gk. árotron, Arm. arawr, Lith. árklas). IEW
62, EIEC 434 f.
311. ‘horse’: *h1 ek̑u̯os (: Skt. áśva-, Lat. equus, gr. híppos [Myc. i-qo], OIr. ech, OE
eoh, Toch. B yakwe, A yuk, hLuv. á-zú-[wa/i]-, Arm. ēš ‘donkey’), prob. related to adj.
→ ‘fast, swift’ [272] (*h1 ok̑-u- ‘swiftness’ → *h1 ek̑-u̯-o- ‘having swiftness’ as analyzed

Authenticated
by J. Schindler, cf. Balles 1997:221 fn. 8). IEW 301 f., EIEC 273 f., NIL 230 ff., Hack-
stein (2012).
312. ‘cow’: *g u̯ṓu̯s, gen. *g u̯óu̯s (: Skt. gáuḥ, gen. góḥ, Av. gāuš, gen. gə̄uš, Arm. kov,
Gk. boũs, Lat. bōs, bovis [Osc.-Umbr. loanword instead of expected *vōs], OIr. bó, OHG
chuo, Toch. A ko, B kau). IEW 482 f., EIEC 134 f., NIL 189 ff.
313. ‘bull, ox’: *h2 uks-en- (: Skt. ukṣán-, Av. uxšan-, Goth. auhsa*, OIr. oss, Toch. B
okso, A [pl.] opsi). IEW 1118, EIEC 135, NIL 368. Perhaps from *h2 u̯eks- ‘grow, be-
come strong’ → [209].
314. ‘sheep’: *h2 ou̯i- (: Skt. avi-, Luw. ḫawiš, Gk. ó[w]is, Lat. ovis, Toch. B [pl.] awi,
OIr. ói, OHG owei, ou, Lith. avìs, OCS ovьca; cf. also Arm. hoviw < *h2 ou̯i-peh2 -
‘shepherd’, if not from *opi-peh2 - ‘guardian’). IEW 784, EIEC 510 ff., NIL 335 ff.
315. ‘lamb’: *h2 eg u̯(h)no- (: Lat. agnus, Gk. amnós, OIr. úan, OE [*ge-]ēanian [> NE
yean], OCS [j]agnę). IEW 9.
316. ‘goat’: *h2 ei̯ g̑- (: Gk. áiks, gen. aigós, Arm. ayc, cf. Av. izaēna- ‘leathern’). IEW
13; *g hai̯ do- (: Lat. haedus m., Goth. gaits). IEW 409; ‘(he-)goat’: *h2 eg̑-o- (: Skt. ajá-
m., ajā́ f., Av. aza-, Lith. ožỹs). IEW 6; *kapro- (: Lat. caper, ON hafr, OIr. gabor ‘goat;
mare’, Gk. kápros ‘boar’). IEW 529; ‘goat’: *h1 er- (Arm. oroǰ, Lith. ė́ ras ‘lamb’, Lat.
ariēs, Skt. āreya- ‘ram’, Gk. érip hos ‘young goat’). IEW 326, EIEC 511, NIL 233 ff.
317. ‘swine, pig’: *suH- (: Av. hū, Gk. hũs/sũs, Lat. sūs, OHG OE sū, Toch. B suwo).
IEW 1038 f., EIEC 425 ff., NIL 683 ff.
318. ‘farrow, pig’: *pork̑o- (: Lat. porcus, Lith. paršas, CSl. prasę, MIr. orc, OHG
far[a]h, OE fearh, Khot. pāsa). IEW 820 f., EIEC 425 ff. → ‘furrow’ [319], → ‘speck-
led’ [320].
319. ‘furrow’: *perk̑- (: Lat. porca, Welsh rhych, OHG furuh, OE furh, Lith. pra-par̃šas
‘ditch’). LIV 475, IEW 820 f.; verb ‘to furrow’: *k u̯els- (: Hitt. gulašzi ‘scratches, writes’,
Skt. kárṣati ‘drags; ploughs’, YAv. karš- ‘furrow’). LIV 388 f., IEW 639 f. → ‘farrow,
pig’ [318].
320. ‘speckled’: *perk̑- (: Gk. perknós ‘dark’, Skt. pr̥ ́ śn ̣i- ‘speckled, coloured’; Lat. por-
cus [a type of fish], MIr. orc ‘salmon’). IEW 820 f., EIEC 537. → ‘farrow, pig’ [318].
321. ‘livestock’: *pek̑u- (: Skt. paśu-, Av. pasu-, Lat. pecū, pecus; Goth. faihu ‘posses-
sion’, OHG fihu ‘cattle’, OE fehu > NE fee, Lith. pẽkus; Arm. asr ‘wool’). IEW 797.
→ ‘pluck, pick’ [234].
322. ‘broth, soup’: *i̯ uHs (: Skt. yū́ḥ, yūṣán-, Lat. iūs, gen. iūris, ORuss. ucha, Lith.
jū́šė, probably Gk. zū́mē ‘leaven’, Germ. *justa- in ON ostr ‘cheese’). IEW 507, EIEC 84.

Authenticated
323. ‘put on, wear’: *h2 eu̯H- (: Lat. ind-/ex-uere, -ō ‘put on/off’, Arm. aganim ‘I wear’,
Lith. aunù, aũti, OCS obujǫ, -uti ‘put on shoes’; cf. also Av. aoθra- ‘shoe’). LIV 275,
IEW 346, EIEC 109.
324. ‘axle; axis’: *h2 ek̑s- (:‘axis’: Lat. axis, Lith. ašìs, OCS osь, Gk. áksōn, Ved. ákṣa-,
OHG OS ahsa, OE eax; ‘axle’: Lat. āla ‘axle, wing’, OHG OE ahsla, OE eaxel). IEW
6, EIEC 39 f., NIL 259 ff.
325. ‘testicle’: *h1 org̑ hi- (: Gk. órk his, Arm. [pl.] orjik‘, Alb. herdhe, MIr. uirgge, Av.
[du.] ǝrǝzi) → *h1 erg̑ h- [211]; cf. also the adj. Lith. aržùs ‘wanton’, Germ. *arga- ‘cow-
ardly, covered, tupped’ OHG arg, ON argr, and Lith. er̃žilas ‘stallion’). IEW 782, EIEC
507 f.
326. ‘penis’: *pes- (: Skt. pásas-, Gk. péos, Lat. pēnis, OHG fasel, OE fæsl). IEW 824,
EIEC 507 f.
327. ‘wheel’: *k u̯e-k u̯lh1 -o- (: Skt. cakrá-, Av. čaxra-, Gk. kúklos ‘circle’, pl. kúkloi/-a
‘wheels’, OE hwēol [> NE wheel], ‘chariot’: Toch. A kukäl, B kokale). LIV 386, IEW
639 f., EIEC 640 f. → ‘turn’ [126].
328. ‘morning’: *h2 ei̯ -r/n- (: Av. aiiarǝ ‘day’ [replacing *h2 eg h-], Gk. áriston ‘breakfast’
< *ai̯ eri-[h1 ]d-tom cf. [93], adv. ẽri ‘in the morning’, Goth. air ‘early’). IEW 12, EIEC
173, NIL 258 f.
329. ‘darkness’: *(h1 )reg u̯os (: Gk. érebos ‘underworld; darkness’, Skt. rájas- ‘[dark]
space’, Goth. riqis ‘darkness’, ON røkkr ‘twilight’, Arm. erek ‘evening’). IEW 857,
EIEC 147, NIL 573 f.
330. ‘dawn’: *h2 éu̯sōs, gen. *h2 us-s-és (: Skt. uṣás-, Av. ušah-, Gk. [Lesb.] aúōs, [Att.]
héōs, Lat. aurōra, Lith. aušrà). LIV 292, IEW 86 f., EIEC 148 f.
331. ‘winter, snow’: *g̑ hei̯ -om- (: Hitt. [dat.-loc.] giemi ‘in winter’, Av. ziiā̊ ‘winter’,
Gk. k hiṓn ‘snow’, k heĩma, k heimṓn ‘winter’, Arm. jiwn ‘snow’, jmer̄n ‘winter’, Lat.
hiems, OIr. gaim, Lith. žiemà, OCS zima ‘winter’). IEW 425 f., EIEC 504, NIL 162 ff.
→ ‘snow’ [335].
332. ‘summer’: *sm-eh2 - (: Skt. sámā, Av. ham-, Arm. am ‘year’, amar̄n ‘summer’, OIr.
sam, OHG sumar). IEW 905, EIEC 504.
333. ‘harvest’: *Hes-en- (: Goth. asans ‘harvest, summer’, ON ǫnn, OHG aren ‘har-
vest’, Russ. ósenь). IEW 343, EIEC 504. → ‘harvest’ [308].
334. ‘spring’: *u̯es-r/n- (: Skt. vasantá-, Av. [loc.] vaŋri, Arm. garown, Gk. éar, Lat.
vēr, OIr. errach, Lith. vãsara ‘summer’, OCS vesna), probably related to *h2 u̯es- ‘be-
come (day-)light’ [246], LIV 292 f., IEW 86 f., 1174, NIL 357 f., EIEC 504.

Authenticated
335. ‘snow’: *snig u̯h-s, *snoi̯ g u̯hos (: Lat. nix, nivis, Gk. [acc.] níp ha, Skt. sneha-, Goth.
snaiws, Lith. sniẽgas, OPr. snaygis, OCS sněgъ). IEW 974, EIEC 530. → ‘winter, snow’
[331].
336. ‘to thunder’: *(s)tenH-: (Skt. stanáyati, Lat. tonō, -āre). LIV 597. IEW 1021, EIEC
582.
337. ‘copper, bronze’: *ai̯ es- (: Skt. áyas-, Av. aiiah- ‘metal, iron, copper’, Lat. aes,
Goth. aiz ‘bronze, money’), frequently suspected to be a loanword. If PIE, probably
related to *h2 ei̯ -d h- ‘burn, shine’ (: Gk. aít hō, Skt. idh- ‘kindle’). IEW 15 f., EIEC 379 f.
338. ‘silver’: *h2 r̥g̑(e)nto- (: YAv. ǝrǝzata-, Arm. arcat‘, Lat. argentum, OIr. argat, Skt.
rajatá-). IEW 64 f., EIEC 518 f. → ‘white’ [175].
339. ‘to moisten, well’: *u̯ed- (: Skt. unátti, cf. YAv. aoδa- ‘spring, fountain’). LIV
658 f., IEW 78 f., NIL 706 ff. → ‘water’ [150].
340. ‘bear’: *h2 r̥tk̑o- (: Hitt. ḫartagga-, Lat. ursus, Skt. r̥ ́ kṣa-, Gk. árktos, Arm. arǰ, OIr.
art, Alb. arí). IEW 875, EIEC 55 f., NIL 343.
341. ‘hare’: *k̑as-o- (: Skt. śaśá- with assimilation from *śasa-, Welsh ceinach, OHG
haso, OPr. sasins). IEW 533, EIEC 256 f. → ‘grey’ [268].
342. *b h(e)rHg̑- ‘birch’ (: OHG birka, ON bjǫrk, OE beorc, Skt. bhūrjá-, Russ. berëza,
Lith. béržas, probably Lat. fraxinus ‘ash tree’; probably derived from a root ‘to shine;
white’, *b hreHg̑-, cf. Skt. bhrā́jate, Av. brāzaiti, Lith. brė́ kšta, brė́ kšti ‘become day’, the
tree being named after its white bark). IEW 139 f., EIEC 65 f. → ‘white’ [175].
343. ‘oak’: *perk u̯us (: Lat. quercus, Goth. fairguni ‘mountain range’, Lat.-Celt. Herkyn-
ia silva [wooded area in central Europe], perhaps Lith. Perkū́nas ‘[god of] thunder’
[related to the oak like Zeus in Greece], OCS prěgynja ‘wooded mountain’). IEW 822 f.,
EIEC 407 f.
344. ‘gold’: *g̑ hl̥ to- (: Goth. gulþ, OCS zlato < *g̑ holto-, Latv. zè˛lts < *g̑ helto-; Skt.
híraṇya- with different suffix). IEW 429 ff., EIEC 234 f.
345. ‘gold’: *h2 eu̯so- (: Lat. aurum, Sabin. ausom [Paul. Fest.], Lith. áuksas, OPr. au-
sis). IEW 86 f., EIEC 234 f.
346. ‘mouse’: *mūs (: Lat. mūs, Gk. mũs, Arm. mowkn, Skt. mūs-,̣ OHG mūs, OCS
myšь). IEW 752, EIEC 387.
347. ‘beaver’: *b hi-b hru- (: Av. baβra-, CSl. bebrъ/bobrъ, Lith. bẽbras, Lat. fiber, OHG
bibar, ON bjórr, OE beofor > NE beaver). IEW 136 f., EIEC 56, cf. Kümmel (2004).
→ ‘brown’ [269].

Authenticated
348. ‘crane’: *gerH- (: Gk. geranós, Arm. kr̄ownk, OHG kranuh, Lith. garnỹs ‘heron,
stork’, Welsh garan, Lat. grūs, Lith. gérvė, RCS žeravь). IEW 383 f., EIEC 140 f.
349. ‘eagle’: *h2/3er-en- (: Hitt. ḫaraš, Goth. ara, OHG aro, etc., OIr. ilar, Lith. erẽlis,
OCS orьlъ, Gk. órnis, órnit hos ‘bird’). IEW 325 f., EIEC 173.
350. ‘sparrow’: *sper-u̯o(n)- (: Goth. sparwa, Gk. sparásion, prob. psā́r ‘starling’, Toch.
A spār [bird]). IEW 991, EIEC 534.
351. ‘thrush’: *tr(o)sdo- (: Lat. turdus, MIr. truit, OHG drosca(la), OPr. tresde, Lith.
strãzdas, Russ. drozd). IEW 1096, EIEC 582.
352. ‘starling’: *ster- (: OHG stara, Lat. sturnus, probably OPr. *starnite ‘mew’ [ms.
stamite], Russ. strenátka ‘yellowhammer’). IEW 1036, EIEC 534.
353. ‘finch’: *sping- (: OHG finko, Welsh pinc, Gk. spíngos). IEW 999, EIEC 201.
354. ‘salmon’: *lak̑so- or *lok̑so- (: Lith. lašišà, lãšis, Russ. lososъ, Toch. B laks ‘fish’,
OHG lahs, probably Skt. lāksā́- ̣ ‘lacquer’ if originally ‘salmon-coloured’). IEW 653,
EIEC 497 f.
355. ‘wasp’: *u̯opseh2 - or *u̯ob hseh2 - (: OHG wefs[a], OE wæsp, wæps, wæfs, Lat.
vespa, RCS osa, Lith. vapsà, OIr. foich; MP vaβz ‘wasp’), perhaps derived from →
*u̯eb h- ‘weave’ [251]. IEW 1179, EIEC 636.
356. ‘hornet’: *k̑r̥Hs-ro- (: OHG hornuz/-iz, OE hyrnet[u], Lat. crābro, Lith. šìršė, RCL
strъšerь/srъšerь). IEW 576, EIEC 273. → ‘horn’ [68].
357. ‘fly’ (n.): *mus- (: Gk. muĩa, Lat. musca, Lith. mùsė, OCS muxa, Arm. mown,
mnoy ‘gnat’). IEW 752, EIEC 207 f.
358. ‘bee’: *b hei̯ - (: *bini- in OHG bīna, bini, *biōn- in ON bý, OE bēo, OHG bīa,
*b hikelā- in OCS bьčela; Lith. bìtė; OIr. bech [*b hekos]). IEW 116, EIEC 57 f.
359. ‘honey’: *melit- (: Gk. méli, gen. mélitos, Hitt. milit, Lat. mel, mellis, Arm. mełr,
Alb. mjal, OIr. mil, Goth. miliþ, OE mildēaw ‘nectar’, OHG militou). IEW 723 f., EIEC
271.
360. ‘vulva’: *g u̯hei̯ b h- (: Germ. *weiba- ‘woman, wife’, OHG wīb, OE wīf etc., Toch.
A kip, B kwipe ‘pudenda muliebra’). IEW 1131 (*u̯ei̯ b/p-), EIEC 507 f., Strunk (1989).
361. ‘ruling; ruler’: *h3 rēg̑- (: Skt. rā́j-, Lat. rēx, OIr. rí, Gaul. PN -rix, Goth. reiks
‘ruler’ is a Celtic loan). IEW 855 f., EIEC 329 f. → ‘straight’ [159], → ‘make straight’
[253].

Authenticated
362. ‘believe, trust’: *k̑red d heh1 - ‘put the heart’ (: Skt. śrad dhā-, Av. zrazdā- ‘trusting,
believing’, Lat. crēdere, -ō, OIr. cretim). IEW 580, EIEC 61. → ‘heart’ [90], → ‘place,
put’ [224].
363. ‘retreat, shy away from, feel awe’: *ti̯ eg u̯- (: Skt. tyaj-, Gk. sébomai, caus. sobéō
‘I drive away’) LIV 643, IEW 1086, EIEC 650.
364. ‘attend to, worship’: *sep- (: Skt. sápati, OAv. haptī, Gk. hépō). LIV 534, IEW
909, EIEC 450.
365. ‘holy, set apart’: *sak- (: Lat. sacer ‘holy; damned’, i.e. in both cases outside
human society, sanctus ‘untouchable, holy’, Hitt. šaklai- ‘custom, rite’, cf. Benveniste
1969.2: 179 ff.), IEW 878, EIEC 493 f.
366. ‘whole, holy’: *kai̯ lo- (: Goth. hails ‘in good health’, Germ. *hailaga- : *haila- >
NE holy : whole, NHG heilig : heil, OCS cělъ ‘whole, healthy’, cěljǫ ‘I heal’, OPr. kails
‘wholesome, unharmed’). IEW 520, EIEC 262.
367. ‘holy, having supernatural power’: *k̑u̯ento- (: Av. spǝnta-, OCS svęntъ, Lith. šveñ-
tas), probably related to Av. sūra- ‘strong’, Skt. śū́ra- ‘id.’ from śvā ‘swell’, Gk. kuéō
‘I am pregnant’, kũma ‘wave’, kū́rios ‘lord, master’, etc.), cf. Benveniste (1969.2: 182 f.).
IEW 630 f., EIEC 493 f.
368. ‘evening, west’: *u̯espero- (: Lat. uesper, Gk. hésperos), perhaps derived from a
locative *u̯esper ‘at the (time of) enshrouding’, cf. Katz (2000). IEW 1173 f., EIEC 184.
→ ‘wear’ [259], → ‘garment, enshrouding’ [369].
369. ‘garment, enshrouding’: *u̯esp- (: Hitt. wašpa- ‘garment’, Lat. uespillō ‘undertaker’
< *‘enshrouder’, probably Gk. ósprion ‘pulse’ [i.e. ‘beans’]), probably related to *u̯es-
‘clothe’. IEW −, EIEC 109 f. → ‘wear’ [259], → ‘evening, west’ [368].
370. ‘boy, young man’: *mag hu- (: Goth. magus, f. mawi ‘young girl’, OIr. maug ‘slave’,
Alb. makth ‘young hare’, Av. maγava- ‘bachelor’). IEW 696, EIEC 655 f.
371. ‘young (wo)man’: *meri̯ o- (: Skt. márya-, Av. mairiia- ‘villain’, Gk. m./f. meĩraks,
perhaps Welsh morwyn ‘girl’, merch ‘daughter’, Lith. martì, mergà). IEW 738, EIEC
655 f.
372. ‘womb’: *g u̯elb hu- (: Skt. gárbha-, Av. garǝβa-, gǝrǝbuš ‘young, child’, Gk. del-
p hús, from which delp hī́s, gen. delp hĩnos ‘dolphin’ [‘the fish with a womb’], cf. also
Gk. a-delp h(e)ós, Skt. sá-garbhya- ‘brother’, both [virtually] deriving from *sm̥-g u̯elb h-
‘stemming from the same womb’). IEW 473, EIEC 615.
373. ‘grandfather’: *Heu̯Ho- (: Hitt. ḫuḫḫa-, Arm. haw, Lat. avus, ON afi; derivative in
Goth. awō ‘grandmother’). IEW 89, EIEC 237 f.

Authenticated
374. ‘(maternal) uncle’: *Heu̯on- (with further suffixes: Lat. avunculus, Welsh ewythr).
IEW 89, EIEC 609.
375. ‘goose’: *g̑ hans- (: Skt. haṃsá-, Gk. k hḗn, Lat. ānser, OHG gans, Lith. žąsìs, OIr.
géis ‘swan’, usually connected with *g̑ han- ‘yawn’, Gk. k haínō/k háskō, Lat. hiāre, -ō,
Lith. žióju, -óti, OCS zějǫ, Toch. B kāy- ‘open’). IEW 412, EIEC 236.
376. ‘shed, rain’: *sh2 eu̯- (: Hitt. šuḫḫai ‘sheds, sprinkles’, Gk. hū́ei, Toch. B suwaṃ
‘rains’, cf. nominal formations such as Gk. hūetós ‘[strong] rain’, Alb. shi, Toch. A
swase, B swese ‘rain’). LIV 545, IEW 912, EIEC 477 f. → ‘rain’ [377].
377. ‘rain’: *Hemb h- (: Gk. ómbros, Lat. imber, Skt. ámbhas- ‘water, flood’, abhrá-
‘cloud’, YAv. aβra- ‘rain, cloud’). IEW 316, cf. Schrijver (1991: 64), EIEC 477 f. →
‘cloud’ [160].
378. ‘standing water, swamp’: *sel-es- (: Gk. hélos, Skt. sáras-). IEW 901, EIEC 370.
379. ‘rib’: *perk̑- (: Skt. párśu-, Av. parǝsu-/pǝrǝsu-, OCS prъsi (pl.) ‘breasts’, Lith.
(žem.) pìršys ‘horse-breast’). IEW 820, EIEC 81.
380. ‘heavenly one, god’: *dei̯ u̯ós (: Lat. deus, adj. dīvus, Lith. diẽvas, OHG Ziu, OE
Tīw, Tī[g], ON Týr [: pl. tívar ‘gods’], Hitt. dŠiu, Luw. Tiwat-, Pal. Tiyaz ‘sun-god’).
IEW 184 ff., 416 f., EIEC 513, NIL 69 ff. → ‘sky’ [162], → ‘shine’ [246].
381. ‘beard’: *smek̑ru- (: Skt. śmáśru-, Arm. mawrowk‘, Lith. smãkras, smakrà ‘chin’,
Hitt. zama[n]kur-). IEW 968; *b har(s)d ho-/eh2 - (: OHG bart, Lat. barba, OCS brada,
Lith. barzdà). NIL 4, IEW 110, EIEC 251.
382. ‘corn, seed’: *d hoh1 neh2 - (: Skt. dhānā́- ‘roasted corn, seeds’, Lith. dúona ‘bread’,
Toch. A tāṃ ‘corn, seed’, B tāno). IEW 242, EIEC 237, NIL 125. → ‘place, put’ [224].
383. ‘door, wing of a door’: *d hu̯or- (: Hitt. [adv.] andurza ‘inside’, Skt. dvā́r-, Av.
duuar-, Arm. dowr̄n, Gk. t húra, Lat. foris, OE duru, OLith. dùres, Lith. dùrys, OCS
dvьrь). IEW 278 ff., EIEC 168 f., NIL 130 ff.
384. ‘son-in-law’: *g̑emH-(t)er-/-ro-/-to- (: Lat. gener, Skt. jā́mātar-, Gk. gambrós, Alb.
dhëndërr, Lith. žéntas, OCS zętь); cf. YAv. zǝmanā- ‘payment’. IEW 369 f., NIL 136,
Bailey (1979: 345), Tremblay (2003: 156), EIEC 533.
385. ‘buttocks’: *Horso- (: Hitt. arra-, Arm. or̄, Gk. órros, OHG ars, MIr. err), perhaps
related to *h1 er- [213] or *h3 er- [214]. IEW 340, EIEC 88, NIL 246 ff.
386. ‘door post’: *h2 ent(H)- (: Skt. ā́tā-, YAv. [loc.pl.] aθāhuua ‘house’, Lat. antae,
Arm. dr-and ‘threshold’, ON ǫnd ‘aisle, vestibule’). IEW 42, EIEC 168, NIL 306 f.

Authenticated
387. ‘water, river’: *h2 ep- (: Hitt. ḫāppa ‘to the river’, Skt. áp-, OAv. ap-, OPr. ape,
Lith. ùpė, Toch. AB āp-, Lat. amnis ‘river’, OIr. ab, o/aub ‘river’, MIr. abann, MWelsh
afon ‘id.’). IEW 1, 51 f., 1149, EIEC 486, 636, NIL 311 ff. → ‘water’ [150].
388. ‘middle’: *med hi̯ o- (: Skt. mádhya-, OAv. maidiia-, Gk. mésos, Lat. medius, OIr.
mid°, Goth. midjis, Lith. mẽdžias ‘tree, wood’, OCS mežda ‘border, alley’, Arm. mēǰ).
IEW 706 f., EIEC 380.
389. ‘mead’: *med hu- (: cLuv. maddu- ‘wine’, Skt. mádhu- ‘sweet drink, honey’, YAv.
maδu- ‘wine’, Gk. mét hu ‘wine’, OE medu ‘mead’, Lith. medùs ‘honey’, OCS medъ
‘honey, mead’, Toch. B mit ‘honey’). IEW 707, EIEC 271, NIL 467 ff.
390. ‘wine’: *u̯oi̯ no- (: Lat. vīnum, Gk. [w]oínos, Hitt. wii̯ ana-, Arm. gini, Alb. vérë).
IEW −, EIEC 644 ff.
391. ‘spruce, pine’: *peu̯k̑- (: Gk. peúkē ‘spruce, pine’, Lith. pušìs ‘pine’, OIr. ochtach
‘spruce’, OHG fiohta ‘spruce’). IEW 828, EIEC 428, NIL 553 f.
392. ‘male’: *(h1 )r̥sen- (: YAv. aršan- ‘man, male’, Arm. ar̄n ‘ram’, Gk. érsēn, ársēn,
Skt. r̥ṣabhá- ‘bull’). IEW 336, EIEC 363, NIL 584 ff. → [37], [291], [396].
393. ‘daughter-in-law’: *snuso- (: Skt. snuṣā́, Gk. nuós, Arm. now, Lat. nurus, OHG
snur, snora, ORuss. snъxa). IEW 978, EIEC 148, NIL 625 f.
394. ‘father-/mother-in-law’: ‘father-’ *su̯ek̑uro- (: Skt. śváśura-, YAv. xvasura-, Gk.

hekurós, Lat. socer, OE swēor, Lith. šẽšuras, RCS svekrъ, Arm. skesrayr); ‘mother-’
*su̯ek̑ruH- (: Skt. śvaśrū́-, Lat. socur, Goth. swaihro, Welsh chwegr, OCS svekry; Gk.
hekurā́, Arm. skesowr). IEW 1043 f., EIEC 85, 195 f., 386 f., NIL 672 ff.
395. ‘sister’: *su̯esor- (: Skt. svásar-, YAv. xvaŋhar-, Gk. éor ‘female relative, niece,
daughter’, Arm. k‘oyr, Lat. soror, OIr. siur, Welsh chwaer, Goth. swistar, Toch. A ṣar,
B ṣer, OCS sestra, Lith. sesuõ, probably Alb. vájzë). IEW 1051, EIEC 521, NIL 680 ff.
396. ‘male, male animal’: *u̯ers- (: Skt. vr̥ ́ ṣan-, Lat. verrēs ‘boar’, Toch. A kayurṣ, B
kaurṣe ‘bull’, YAv. varǝšna-, Lith. ver̃šis ‘calf’). IEW 81, EIEC 363, NIL 722 ff. →
[37], [291], [392].
397. ‘iron’: *īsarno- (: OIr. íarn, Goth. eisarn, OHG OS ON īsarn). IEW 299 ff., EIEC
313 f.
398. ‘grandmother’: *h2 en- (: Hitt. ḫanna-, OHG ana, Arm. han). IEW 36 f., EIEC
238 f.
399. ‘husband’s sister’: *g̑l̥ H- (: Gk. gálōs, Lat. glōs, OCS zъlъva, Arm. tal (with t-
usually explained as taken from taygr ‘husband’s brother’). IEW 367, EIEC 521 f.

Authenticated
400. ‘diminish, perish’: *mei̯ H- (: Skt. minā́ti ‘damages’, Gk. minút hō, Lat. minuere,
-ō). LIV 427, IEW 711.
401. ‘protect, herd’: *peh2 (i)- (: Hitt. paḫḫašmi, Lat. pāscere, -ō, Skt. pā́ti, Av. pāiti,
Toch. B paskenträ, OCS pasǫ, pasti). LIV 460, IEW 787, 839.
10. References
Bailey, Harold W.
1979 Dictionary of Khotan Saka. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Balles, Irene
1997 Griechisch ἄφ(ε)νoς ‘Reichtum’. Historische Sprachforschung 110: 215–232.
Benveniste, Émile
1954 Problèmes sémantiques de la reconstruction. Word 10: 251–264.
Benveniste, Émile
1969 Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes. 2 vols. Paris: Minuit.
Buck, Carl D.
1949 A dictionary of selected synonyms in the principal Indo-European languages: a contri-
bution to the history of ideas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Campanile, Enrico
1987 Indogermanische Dichtersprache. In: Wolfgang Meid (ed.), Studien zum indogermani-
schen Wortschatz. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 21–28.
Clackson, James
2007 Indo-European Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Delamarre, Xavier
1984 Le vocabulaire indo-européen. Lexique étymologique thématique. Paris: Librairie d’Am-
érique et d’Orient.
Dunkel, George E.
1991 Vater Himmels Gattin. Die Sprache 34 [1988–90]: 1–26.
EIEC = Mallory, James P. and Douglas Q. Adams (eds.)
1997 Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. London: Fitzroy Dearborn.
Forssman, Bernhard and Robert Plath (eds.)
2000 Indoarisch, Iranisch und die Indogermanistik: Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Ge-
sellschaft vom 2. bis 5. Oktober 1997 in Erlangen. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
1986 Griego ἰάομαι. In: Annemarie Etter (ed.), o-o-pe-ro-si. Festschrift für Ernst Risch zum
75. Geburtstag. Berlin: De Gruyter, 497–514.
Hackstein, Olav
2012 Indogermanisch *h1 ḱ-u̯-o-s, *h1 eḱ-u̯-o-s ‘Pferd, Hengst, Stute’: Genusindifferenz als
morphologische Persistenz. In: Adam Cooper, Jeremy Rau, and Michael Weiss (eds.),
Multi nominis Grammaticus: Studies in Classical and Indo-European linguistics in hon-
or of Alan J. Nussbaum on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday. Ann Arbor: Beech
Stave, 94–104.
Heidermanns, Frank
2002 Nominal Composition in Sabellic and Proto-Italic. Transactions of the Philological Soci-
ety 100: 185–202.
Hettrich, Heinrich
1985 Indo-European Kinship Terminology in Linguistics and Anthropology. Anthropological
Linguistics 27: 453–80.

Authenticated
Hoffmann, Karl
1975–1992 Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik. ed. by Johanna Narten (Vols. 1–2), Sonja Glauch, Rob-
ert Plath, and Sabine Ziegler (Vol. 3). Wiesbaden: Reichert.
IEW = Julius Pokorny
1959 Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bern: Francke.
Janda, Michael
2000 Eleusis. Das indogermanische Erbe der Mysterien. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissen-
Janda, Michael
2010 Die Musik nach dem Chaos. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Univer-
sität.
Katz, Joshua
1998 How to be a Dragon in Indo-European: Hittite illuyankaš and its Linguistic and Cultural
Congeners in Latin, Greek, and Germanic. In: Jay Jasanoff, H. Craig Melchert, and Lisi
Oliver (eds.), Mír Curad. Studies in honor of Calvert Watkins. Innsbruck: Institut für
Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 317–334.
Katz, Joshua
2000 Evening dress: The metaphorical background of Latin uesper and Greek ἕσπερος. In:
Martin E. Huld, Angela Della Volpe, and Karlene Jones-Bley (eds.), Proceedings of
the Eleventh Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference (Los Angeles June 4–5, 1999).
Washington, D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man, 69–93.
Katz, Joshua
2004 Homeric Formula and the Tocharian Word for ‘Year’: A Transferred Epithet. Glotta 72:
151–168.
Kloekhorst, Alwin
2008 Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden: Brill.
Kölligan, Daniel
2005 Lat. lūgēre ‘trauern’. International Journal of Diachronic Linguistics 2: 169–175.
Kölligan, Daniel
2012 Regular sound change and word-initial /y/ in Armenian. In: Philomen Probert and An-
dreas Willi (eds.), Laws and rules in Indo-European. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
134–146.
Kümmel, Martin
2004 Das Wort für ‘Biber’ und einige Probleme der altgermanischen Phonologie. In: Matthias
Fritz and Ilse Wischer (eds.), Historisch-vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft und germa-
nische Sprachen. Akten der 4. Neulandtagung der Historisch-Vergleichenden Sprachwis-
senschaft in Potsdam 2001. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Univer-
sität, 105–117.
1990 Les adjectifs grecs en -us. Sémantique et comparaison. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.
Lehrman, Alexander
1987 Anatolian Cognates of the Proto-Indo-European Word for ‘Wolf’. Die Sprache 33: 13–
18.
Létoublon, Françoise and Charles de Lamberterie
1980 La roue tourne. Revue de Philologie 54: 305–326.
LIV = Helmut Rix
2001 LIV. Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildun-
gen. 2nd edn. rev. by Martin Kümmel and Helmut Rix. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Mallory, James P. and Douglas Q. Adams
2006 The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Authenticated
Mayrhofer, Manfred
2006 Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. Heidelberg: Winter.
Meid, Wolfgang
1978 Dichter und Dichtkunst in indogermanischer Zeit. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissen-
Nikolaev, Alexander
2010 Indo-European *dem(h2)- ‘to build’ and its derivatives. Historische Sprachforschung
123: 56–96.
NIL = Dagmar S. Wodtko, Britta Irslinger, and Carolin Schneider
2008 Nomina im Indogermanischen Lexikon. Heidelberg: Winter.
Nussbaum, Alan J.
1986 Head and horn in Indo-European. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Oberlies, Thomas
2000 Pūṣ ans Zahnlücken und Hermes’ Vorliebe für Backwerk: Ererbte Strukturen des Panthe-
ons der r̥ gvedischen Religion. In: Forssman and Plath (eds.), 369–387.
Oettinger, Norbert
1989/1990 Die “dunkle Erde” im Hethitischen und Griechischen. Die Welt des Orients 20/
21: 83–98.
Oettinger, Norbert
1995 Anatolische Etymologien. 3: Idg. *b her- ‘tragen’ in heth. (PEŠ)kapirt. Historische Sprach-
forschung 108: 44–46.
Oettinger, Norbert
2000 Die Götter Pūṣ an, Pan und das Possessivsuffix *-h3 en. In: Forssman and Plath (eds.),
393–400.
2007 A Star is Born: A “New” PIE *-ter- Suffix. In: Alan J. Nussbaum (ed.), Verba docenti.
Studies in historical and Indo-European linguistics presented to Jay H. Jasanoff by
students, colleagues, and friends. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave, 271–279.
ms The lengthened grade in some Tocharian nouns. Paper given at the Arbeitstagung “The
lengthened grade in IE”. Leiden University, July 30, 2013.
Rau, Jeremy
2010 The Derivational History of PIE *di̯ éu̯-/diu̯-ˊ ‘(god of the) day-lit sky; day’. In: Ronald
Kim, Norbert Oettinger, Elisabeth Rieken, and Michael Weiss (eds.), Ex Anatolia Lux.
Anatolian and Indo-European studies in honor of H. Craig Melchert on the occasion of
his sixty-fifth birthday. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave, 307–320.
Rix, Helmut
1994 Die Termini der Unfreiheit in den Sprachen Alt-Italiens. Stuttgart: Steiner.
Schindler, Jochem
1969 Die idg. Wörter fur ‘Vogel’ und ‘Ei’. Die Sprache 15: 144–167.
Schindler, Jochem
1972 L’apophonie des noms-racines indo-européens. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique
67: 31–38.
1996 Indo-Iranisch *vātaz *vag̑hati ‘der Wind weht’ und idg. *u̯eg̑h- ‘schweben’. Studien zur
Indologie und Iranistik 20: 379–388.
Strunk, Klaus
1989 Toch. B kwī̆pe ‘Scham, Schande’, A kip ‘Scham’ und germ. *wīƀa ‘Weib’. In: Karin
Heller, Oswald Panagl, and Johann Tischler (eds.), Indogermanica Europaea. Festschrift
für Wolfgang Meid zum 60. Geburtstag am 12. 11. 1989. Graz: Institut für Sprachwissen-
schaft der Universität, 274–284.

Authenticated
Schmitt, Rüdiger
1967 Dichtung und Dichtersprache in indogermanischer Zeit. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Schmitt, Rüdiger
1968 Indogermanische Dichtersprache. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Schrijver, Peter
1991 The Reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Latin. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Seebold, Elmar
1981 Etymologie. Munich: Beck.
Tremblay, Xavier
Vaan, Michiel de
2008 Etymological dictionary of Latin and the other Italic languages. Leiden: Brill.
Wachter, Rudolf
1998 Wortschatzrekonstruktion auf der Basis von Ersatzbildungen. In: Wolfgang Meid (ed.),
Sprache und Kultur der Indogermanen. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der
Universität, 199–207.
Watkins, Calvert
1979 NAM.RA GUD UDU in Hittite: Indo-European Poetic Language and the Folk Taxono-
my of Wealth. In: Erich Neu and Wolfgang Meid (eds.), Hethitisch und Indogermanisch.
Vergleichende Studien zur historischen Grammatik und zur dialektgeographischen Stel-
lung der indogermanischen Sprachgruppe Altkleinasiens. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprach-
wissenschaft der Universität, 269–287.
Watkins, Calvert
1995 How to kill a dragon: aspects of Indo-European poetics. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Watkins, Calvert
2011 The American Heritage dictionary of Indo-European roots. 3rd rev. edn. Boston: Hought-
on Mifflin Harcourt.
Weiss, Michael
1994 Life Everlasting: Latin iūgis ‘everflowing’, Greek ὑγιής ‘healthy’, Gothic ajukdūþs
‘eternity’ and Avestan yuvaēǰī- ‘living forever’. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissen-
schaft 55: 131–156.
West, Martin
2007 Indo-European Poetry and Myth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Willi, Andreas
2001 Lat. iubere, griechisch εὐθύς und ein indogermanisches Rechtskonzept. Historische
Sprachforschung 114: 117–146.
Willi, Andreas
2010 Hera, Eros, Iuno Sororia. Indogermanische Forschungen 115: 234–267.
Daniel Kölligan, Cologne (Germany)

Authenticated
XXI. Beyond Proto-Indo-European
125. More remote relationships of

Proto-Indo-European
1. Introduction 7. Indo-European and other language families
2. Indo-European and Uralic 8. Nostratic
3. Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic/Semitic 9. Eurasiatic
4. Indo-European and Kartvelian 10. Proto-World
5. Indo-European and West Caucasian 11. Conclusion
6. Indo-European and East Caucasian 12. References
1. Introduction
As only a few modern languages are language isolates, it is very probable that Proto-
Indo-European was not of this sort. On the other hand, as practically every modern
language is in contact with at least one language, it is doubtless that so was Proto-Indo-
European. The problem is, of course, how exactly to demonstrate such relationships in
the case of a time depth of thousands of years (see now Campbell and Poser 2008).
Ever since the Indo-European language family was established, it has been compared
with other language families. Even the foremost pioneers in Indo-European studies had
their own long-range comparisons. For instance, Sir William Jones connected Indo-Euro-
pean with Austronesian and Tibetan, whereas Franz Bopp only replaced Tibetan with
Georgian. Meanwhile, Rasmus Rask was of a very different opinion, connecting Indo-
European with Finno-Ugric and Turkic instead. Since these early pioneers, however, all
such remote relationships have only interested the minority of Indo-Europeanists, per-
haps because the average Indo-Europeanist “has his hands full already, and shrinks from
learning a new set of languages”, as Henry Sweet (1901: vi) wittily put it.
The fact that most Indo-Europeanists have long remained agnostic or even skeptical
about any genetic connection involving Indo-European has apparently frustrated some
long-range comparativists, who have rather aggressively accused the former of “fatal
flaws”, “prejudices”, “ignorance”, “a very crude understanding of taxonomy”, “Eurocen-
tric bias”, and even “one of the great hoaxes of twentieth-century science” (Ruhlen 1994:
66, 78, 79, 80). The following sections will therefore discuss some of the suggested
remote relationships of Indo-European. For the sake of brevity, the examples will be
representative rather than exhaustive, and the discussion will omit reference to numerous
self-published books by independent scholars.
2. Indo-European and Uralic

As Indo-European and Uralic are the two largest language families in Europe, it is no
wonder that they have long been compared with one another (see Joki 1973: 3–243).
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-046

Authenticated
125. More remote relationships of Proto-Indo-European 2281
The Uralic language family itself was established as early as the 18 th century, even
though its internal classification still remains under discussion (cf. Salminen 2002). Suf-
fice it to say that there are more than 30 Uralic languages, the best-known of which are
Hungarian, Finnish, and Estonian. As Uralic is the cornerstone of most of the proposed
genetic connections involving Indo-European, this section will be longer than the others,
serving as a case study whose critical remarks can be leveled against most suggested
remote relationships of Proto-Indo-European.
Remarkably, even today most Indo-Uralic hypotheses (i.e. hypotheses suggesting a
genetic relationship between Indo-European and Uralic) largely derive from early publi-
cations by Björn Collinder (1934, 1945, 1954), although his Proto-Uralic reconstructions
were later considered obsolete even by himself (1965: 117). Indeed, these were never
exactly Proto-Uralic but rather Proto-Finno-Permic, made by combining Finnic vowels
and Permic consonants. In fact, it was not even possible to reconstruct Proto-Uralic
before Juha Janhunen first reconstructed the proto-language of the easternmost Uralic
subgroup, Samoyed (1977). The first serious attempt was made by Pekka Sammallahti
(1979), and then Janhunen (1981) finally reached the starting point for modern recon-
structions of Proto-Uralic (see also Sammallahti 1988).
Unfortunately, only a few Indo-Uralic studies (e.g. Kortlandt 2002) rely on up-to-
date Proto-Uralic reconstructions, whereas many more stubbornly refuse to acknowledge
any progress in Uralic linguistics (and often also in Indo-European linguistics for that
matter). It goes without saying that the latter studies must be considered as obsolete as
the reconstructions they offer; and it is no excuse that the only Uralic etymological
dictionaries in existence (Collinder [1955] 1977; Rédei 1988 [1986]–1991) are already
out-of-date. The need to use only the most up-to-date reconstructions becomes obvious
when one considers that in any attempt to establish a remote Indo-Uralic language fami-
ly, the input on the Uralic side will represent one-half the data.
The strongest evidence for the Indo-Uralic hypothesis is no doubt grammatical, al-
though, especially in the case of nominal morphology, striking parallels like the accusa-
tive ending *-m in both Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic (Collinder 1934: 21; Čop
1975: 40–41) are, after all, rather limited. However, perhaps the most interesting parallels
are those where Proto-Indo-European fricatives correspond to Proto-Uralic stops (Čop
1975: 29–32, 35–38, 50–53):
a) Proto-Indo-European du. nom.-acc. *-h1 (e) ~ Proto-Uralic du. nom. *-ki.
b) Proto-Indo-European pl. nom. *-(e)s ~ Proto-Uralic pl. nom. *-t.
c) Proto-Indo-European sg. gen.-abl. *-(o)s ~ Proto-Uralic sg. abl. *-ti.
In any case, the most striking evidence for Indo-Uralic has always included personal
pronouns and everything derived from them (Collinder 1934: 53–55). For instance, con-
sider the Proto-Indo-European possessive pronouns (e.g. Beekes 1995: 210–211) and the
Proto-Uralic possessive suffixes (e.g. Janhunen 1982: 31–32):
a) Proto-Indo-European *h1 mos ~ Proto-Uralic *-mi ‘my’.
b) Proto-Indo-European *tu̯os ~ Proto-Uralic *-ti ‘thy’.
c) Proto-Indo-European *su̯os ~ Proto-Uralic *-sa ‘his, her, its’.
Apart from the 3 rd person, which was unmarked in Proto-Uralic, we may furthermore
compare verbal personal endings with one another – for instance, the Proto-Indo-Euro-

Authenticated
2282 XXI. Beyond Proto-Indo-European
pean athematic secondary endings (e.g. Beekes 1995: 232–233) with the Proto-Uralic
subjective conjugation endings (e.g. Janhunen 1982: 34–35):
a) Proto-Indo-European *-m ~ Proto-Uralic *-m (1 sg.).
b) Proto-Indo-European *-s ~ Proto-Uralic *-t (2 sg.).
As verbal personal endings are indeed most typically derived from corresponding person-
al pronouns, the latter example serves as a piece of internal evidence for the Pre-Proto-
Indo-European non-initial change *t > *s, even though its exact conditions cannot easily
be determined (cf. Čop 1989; Kortlandt 2002: 220–223). However, while the pronominal
pattern *m/*t/*s (i.e. 1st/2 nd/3 rd person) is no doubt shared by Indo-European and Uralic,
it is another question whether even this fact, alone, is enough to prove their genetic
relationship (cf. Thomason and Everett 2005; Campbell and Poser 2008).
The Indo-Uralic hypothesis has also been supported by lexical evidence, even though
especially Collinder’s suggested Indo-Uralic cognates (1934: 59–75, 1965: 117–128)
must now largely be regarded as due to either borrowing or chance (see Koivulehto
1994). In fact, even the most enthusiastic supporters of the Indo-Uralic hypothesis (e.g.
Dolgopolsky 1989: 19–25) do not deny the existence of early Indo-European loanwords
in early Uralic, but what they do is to call them “Proto-Indo-Iranian” loanwords in
“Proto-Finno-Ugric”, although their “Proto-Indo-Iranian” still has a five-vowel system
like (Late) Proto-Indo-European, and although Proto-Uralic and Proto-Finno-Ugric are
often considered synonymous (cf. Salminen 2002). Thus, all the recent monographs on
the topic (e.g. Rédei 1986; Koivulehto 1991; Katz 2003) agree that there were (Late)
Proto-Indo-European loanwords in Proto-Uralic, no matter how little they may otherwise
agree with one another.
Yet there are scholars (e.g. Helimski 2001) who argue that all the lexical similarities
between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic must be due to genetic inheritance, be-
cause the suggested loanwords are too basic to be subject to borrowing. However, no
word is too basic to be subject to borrowing (cf. Campbell and Poser 2008). Besides,
the same scholars tend to have such a lax definition of the concept of “basicness” that
none of the around 200 reconstructed Proto-Uralic word roots would fail to fulfill it (e.g.
the Proto-Uralic words for ‘drill’ and ‘plait’ are among the Proto-Indo-European loan-
words that have often been considered too basic). True, these lexical similarities do
include some actual basic vocabulary items like the word for ‘water’, but even in its
case the Proto-Uralic shape *weti (> Finnish vesi, Hungarian víz, etc.) looks exactly as
if it had undergone all the most predictable loan substitutions from the Proto-Indo-Euro-
pean collective *u̯éd-ōr (> Hittite widar, etc.). In this respect, a more plausible candidate
for an Indo-Uralic genetic cognate would be the word for ‘hand’, namely Proto-Uralic
*käti (> Finnish käsi, Hungarian kéz, etc.) and Proto-Indo-European *g̑ hes-r- (> Hittite
keššar, Greek kheír, etc.), whose sound correspondences could be explained by no attest-
ed loan substitutions (cf. the above-mentioned correspondence between Proto-Uralic *t
and Proto-Indo-European *s).
As genetic and areal relationships are not mutually exclusive, Proto-Indo-European
can have been both related to and in contact with Proto-Uralic. Ignoring this simple fact
has long remained the main obstacle to progress in this field, because one cannot estab-
lish the Indo-Uralic sound laws before first excluding all loanwords. Consider the follow-
ing examples (Koivulehto 1991: 23–25, 93–94; 1995: 122–125):

Authenticated
1. dialectal Indo-European *h2ak̑-i̯ áh2 (> Old High German ekka, Old English ecg, etc.)
‘point, edge’ → dialectal Uralic *kaća (> Finnish kasa, etc.) ‘point, edge’.
2. dialectal Indo-European *bhl(e)h1 -tó- (> Old High German blat, Old English blæd,
etc.) ‘leaf ’ → dialectal Uralic *lešti (> Finnish lehti, etc.) ‘leaf ’.
3. dialectal Indo-European *puH-tó-s (> Old Indic pūtáḥ, etc.) ‘clean’ → dialectal Uralic
*puštas (> Finnish puhdas, etc.) ‘clean, pure’.
These words cannot be genetic cognates because their distribution is rather limited on
both the Indo-European and Uralic sides, not to mention that the Indo-European sources
are post-Proto-Indo-European derivatives. Even so, both the Indo-European source lan-
guage and the Uralic target language were phonologically very close to their proto-
language levels when the borrowing took place. The phonological differences between
the Indo-European and Uralic reconstructions can be explained by loan substitutions
where each Indo-European phoneme was replaced by the phonetically closest Uralic
phoneme (Kallio 2001: 223). If we compare these loan substitutions with, for instance,
Collinder’s suggested Indo-Uralic sound laws (1965: 128–130), we may easily see that
they are almost exactly the same, not to mention that they are never environmentally
conditioned. Thus, they must all be considered loan substitutions rather than sound laws.
In conclusion, Proto-Indo-European was evidently in areal contact with Proto-Uralic.
They may also have been genetically related to one another, but here further research
will be necessary; taking any other position would be a fatal error. In any case, the
burden of proof will always remain on those making the positive claim, because one can
never conclusively disprove genetic relationships, and even in the most unlikely cases
(e.g. Proto-Indo-European and Australian), one can at most say that the languages in
question are unrelatable by linguistic methodology.
3. Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic/Semitic

As is well known, Latin and Greek were compared with Hebrew a long time before
comparative linguistics became a science. In this connection, however, there is no need
to deal with such early attempts, although similar methodology may still be in use even
today (cf. Levin 1995, 2002).
Eventually Hebrew itself was correctly shown to be relatively closely related to nu-
merous ancient and modern Near Eastern languages, such as Akkadian, Phoenician,
Aramaic, and Arabic. From the late 18 th century onwards, these languages have generally
been referred to as the Semitic language family which, however, has thereafter been
shown to be much more distantly related to several African language groups, such as
Egyptian, Berber, Chadic, Cushitic, and Omotic. All these groups together are assumed
to constitute the Afro-Asiatic (a.k.a. Hamito-Semitic) language phylum.
For this reason, Proto-Indo-European should not be compared with Proto-Semitic
(cf. Brunner 1969) but with Proto-Afro-Asiatic (cf. Bomhard 1984), if one intends to
demonstrate that they are related. The trouble is, however, that there is no consensus
about Proto-Afro-Asiatic phonology, but different scholars have entirely different recon-
structions (cf. Ehret 1995; Orel and Stolbova 1995).
On the other hand, the similarities between Indo-European and Semitic are after all
more remarkable than those between Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic as a whole. Thus,

Authenticated
the idea that these similarities were due to contact rather than inheritance makes sense.
The most commonly cited lexical similarities (e.g. Dolgopolsky 1989: 4–12; Gamkre-
lidze and Ivanov 1995: 769–773) include:
a) Proto-Indo-European *h2 s-tḗr (> Hittite ḫašter, Greek astḗr, etc.) ‘star’ → Proto-
Semitic * cattar- (> Akkadian Ištar, Hebrew caštōret, etc.) ‘deified star, planet Venus’.
b) Proto-Indo-European *k̑r̥-n- (> Latin cornū, Gothic haúrn, Old Indic śr̥ ́ ṅga-, etc.)
‘horn’ → Proto-Semitic *qarn- (> Akkadian qarnu, Hebrew qeren, Arabic qarn-,
etc.) ‘horn’.
c) Proto-Indo-European *septm̥ (> Hittite šipta-, Greek heptá, Latin septem, Irish secht,
Gothic sibun, Old Indic saptá, etc.) ‘7’ ← Proto-Semitic *šab c-at-u-m (> Akkadian
sebettum, Hebrew šib c-ā, Arabic *sabc-at-u-n, etc.) ‘7’.
d) Proto-Indo-European *tauros (> Greek taũros, Latin taurus, Irish tarb, Lithuanian
taũras, Old Church Slavic turŭ, etc.) ‘bull’ ← Proto-Semitic *tawr- (> Akkadian
šūru, Hebrew šōr, Arabic tawr-, etc.) ‘bull’.
While the more common borrowing direction was from Semitic to Indo-European, at
least Proto-Indo-European *h2 s-tḗr and *k̑r̥-n- above are derived forms, so they were
more likely borrowed into than from Semitic (cf. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1995: 772–
773). For the same reason, Proto-Semitic *šabc-at-u-m above was more likely the source
of Proto-Indo-European *septm̥ than vice versa, although in this case there are so many
similar words for ‘seven’ in other language families that it is very hard to find out the
exact route of this Wanderwort (cf. Blažek 1999: 252–258). As to *tauros, its Proto-
Indo-Europeanness is anything but self-evident, so that it could very well be a relatively
recent Wanderwort of Phoenician origin (cf. Vennemann 2006: 155).
How to interpret these borrowings is another question. Some scholars (e.g. Dolgopol-
sky 1987: 14–17) consider them sufficient to prove that Proto-Indo-European and Proto-
Semitic were neighboring languages, both spoken in the Near East. Still, even more
scholars (e.g. Diakonoff 1985: 122–133) remain unconvinced by both the suggested
borrowings and the suggested Urheimaten. What everyone seems to agree is that the
lexical similarities between Indo-European and Semitic are not always coincidental, but
everything else remains more or less controversial.
4. Indo-European and Kartvelian

The Kartvelian (a.k.a. South Caucasian) language family includes four mutually unintel-
ligible languages, namely Georgian, Megrelian, Laz, and Svan. As noted above, the idea
of their genetic relationship with Indo-European is not new at all, even though today
this idea is usually only presented as a part of the Nostratic hypothesis (cf. Klimov
1991). However, the idea that Indo-European and Kartvelian were very early in contact
with one another can be supported by several early Indo-European loanwords in Com-
mon Kartvelian (see also Klimov 1994: 40–83):
a) Proto-Indo-European *d h(e)g̑ hom- (> Hittite tekan, Greek khthṓn, Irish dú, Old Indic
kṣam-, etc.) ‘earth’ → Proto-Kartvelian *diγom- (> Georgian diγom-, diγvam-, etc.)
‘black earth’.

Authenticated
b) Proto-Indo-European *i̯ ugóm (> Hittite yukan, Greek zugón, Latin iugum, Old Indic
yugám, etc.) ‘yoke’ → Proto-Kartvelian *ūγ- (> Georgian uγ-el-, etc.) ‘yoke’.
c) Proto-Indo-European *k̑erd- (> Hittite kir, Greek kẽr, Gothic haírtō, etc.) ‘heart’ →
Proto-Kartvelian *m-ḳerd- (> Georgian mḳerd-, etc.) ‘chest’.
d) Proto-Indo-European *u̯e/oih1 -no- (> Greek oĩnos, Latin vīnum, etc.) ‘wine’ → Proto-
Kartvelian *γwino- (> Georgian γvino-, etc.) ‘wine’.
In addition to these lexical parallels between Indo-European and Kartvelian, several
structural parallels have been pointed out (cf. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1995: 115–119,
219–230, etc.), but their probative force is much more limited (see Harris 1990). In
general, the idea that Indo-European and Kartvelian were in contact at the proto-language
level (Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1995: 774–776) does not have to hold true, because the
source language of the earliest Indo-European loanwords could also have been a prede-
cessor of Proto-Armenian (cf. Proto-Kartvelian *γwino- that may reflect the Pre-Armeni-
an development *u̯ > *γu̯ > *γ > *g; Dolgopolsky 1989: 12–13).
5. Indo-European and West Caucasian

The (North-)West Caucasian (a.k.a. Abkhaz-Adyghe/Abkhaz-Circassian) language fami-
ly consists of five recognized languages, namely Kabardian, Adyghe, Abkhaz, Abaza,
and Ubykh, the last of which only recently became extinct. The best-known hypothesis
groups West and East Caucasian into the North Caucasian language phylum (Nikolayev
and Starostin 1994), but West Caucasian has also been connected with Hattic (e.g. Ivanov
1983: 107–144; Chirikba 1996: 406–432). In turn, only a few scholars seem to support
the idea that West Caucasian and Indo-European would be genetically related to one
another, going back to the so-called Proto-Pontic language (Colarusso 1997).
In any event, the typological similarity between West Caucasian and Indo-European
has long been acknowledged and can plausibly be attributed to areal factors. Contrary
to Uralic, Semitic, and Kartvelian above, however, West Caucasian is evidently a much
younger language family than Indo-European, although, paradoxically enough, the West
Caucasian proto-language is not as well-reconstructed as the Indo-European, Uralic, Se-
mitic, and Kartvelian ones. Besides, most West Caucasian roots are very short, often
consisting of a consonant and a vowel alone. It is therefore no wonder that there are no
universally accepted Proto-Indo-European loanwords in West Caucasian, because it
would be more or less impossible to distinguish them from random similarities.
6. Indo-European and East Caucasian

The (North-)East Caucasian (a.k.a. Nakh-Daghestanian) language family includes around
30 languages, such as Chechen, Avar, Lak, Dargwa, and Lezgi. As we noted above, East
and West Caucasian have often been grouped together, but perhaps the most promising
hypothesis connects East Caucasian with Hurro-Urartian (Diakonoff and Starostin 1986).
Indo-European has in turn been regarded as the source of several loanwords in East
Caucasian (cf. Dolgopolsky 1989: 13–16, 25–29), but the fact that there is no unanimity

Authenticated
about East Caucasian reconstructions (cf. Nichols 1997: 145) makes all such compari-
sons rather tentative.
7. Indo-European and other language families

Over the past few centuries, Indo-European has of course been connected with numerous
other languages and language families, such as (in alphabetical order) Ainu, Austrone-
sian, Burushaski, Bushman, Chinese, Dravidian, Egyptian, Eskimo, Japanese, Korean,
Nahuatl, and Salish (see Campbell and Poser 2008 for references). Suffice it to say that
none of these suggested genetic connections stands up to critical scrutiny. However,
there are still a couple of areal relationships worth mentioning. First, the Hurro-Urartian
languages seem to have some loanwords of Indo-European origin, although there is no
reason to think that the source was Proto-Indo-European itself (cf. Dolgopolsky 1987:
22–23; Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1995: 779). Similarly, the Sumerian language seems to
share several Wanderwörter with Indo-European, but it would be exaggerated to con-
clude that Sumerian and Indo-European must have been in direct contact with one anoth-
er (cf. Diakonoff 1985: 133–135; Dolgopolsky 1987: 23; Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1995:
773).
8. Nostratic
Even though the concept of “Nostratic” goes back to the turn of the 19 th and the 20 th
centuries, its modern sense largely derives from the 1960’s, when Vladislav Markovič
Illič-Svityč (1971, 1976, 1984) reconstructed Proto-Nostratic, the hypothetical proto-
language of Indo-European, Uralic, Altaic, Kartvelian, Dravidian, and Afro-Asiatic (cf.
also Kaiser and Shevoroshkin 1988; Manaster Ramer 1993). Even today, his works con-
stitute the core of the Nostratic hypothesis, which has since been very little altered by
his followers at Moscow University, although his Proto-Nostratic reconstructions were
based on half-century-old Indo-European, Uralic, etc. reconstructions already long ago
abandoned in their respective fields. Thus, many of these so-called Moscow-school Nos-
traticists have a negative attitude towards the recent achievements in Indo-European
linguistics, such as the laryngeal theory. Even worse, as many of them simultaneously
ignore all the post-Collinderian progress in Uralic linguistics, their reconstructed Proto-
Nostratic is closer to modern Finnish than to Proto-Uralic according to modern scholar-
ship. Hence, the Moscow school version of the Nostratic hypothesis is in serious need
of updating (see also Campbell 1998).
Outside the Moscow school, however, there have been some scholars ready to renew
the Nostratic hypothesis. They even include Illič-Svityč’s original co-founder of the
hypothesis, Aron Dolgopolsky, who left the Soviet Union for Israel in the mid-1970s
and has since advanced the Moscow-school views although quantitatively rather than
qualitatively (see e.g. Dolgopolsky 1998). Still, the only truly dissident contemporary
Nostraticist is Allan R. Bomhard, whose Proto-Nostratic reconstructions are entirely
different from those of others, due to the fact that he does take the Indo-European
laryngeal and even glottalic theories into account (see e.g. Bomhard and Kerns 1994;

Authenticated
Bomhard 1996). Unfortunately, his treatment of most other language families leaves
much to be desired, and his works in general must be considered both empirically and
methodologically inferior to those of Illič-Svityč (whose works, too, include errors in
linguistic data, apparent to specialists in each language family involved).
What all the versions of the Nostratic hypothesis have in common is a relatively large
inventory of consonants in the reconstructed Proto-Nostratic (viz. 43–50, that is twice
as much as the average). While this is not yet a problem from a typological viewpoint,
it goes without saying that the more one reconstructs consonants, the more easily any
consonant correspondence can be regarded as regular (especially since regular vowel
correspondences do not really matter in Nostratic comparisons, because of Ablaut in
Indo-European, Kartvelian, and Afro-Asiatic). The large number of consonants is in
part due to the fact that the suggested Nostratic sound laws are exceptionally rarely
environmentally conditioned, which makes them look methodologically primitive com-
pared to the Indo-European sound laws in particular. In general, Nostratic studies have
failed to meet the same methodological standards as Indo-European studies, but then
again so have most non-Indo-European studies.
9. Eurasiatic
One of the numerous brainchilds of the late Joseph H. Greenberg (2000, 2002) was the
Eurasiatic hypothesis, connecting Indo-European with Uralic, Yukaghir, Altaic, Korean,
Japanese, Ainu, Gilyak, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, and Eskimo-Aleut. As almost all these
language families are included in at least some versions of the Nostratic hypothesis, the
two hypotheses largely overlap one another, and sometimes Eurasiatic has even been
considered a subgroup of Nostratic. However, while Nostraticists largely rely on the
standard comparative method, Greenberg in turn relies on his so-called mass (or multilat-
eral) comparison, the method of which was already made obsolete by the Neogrammari-
ans (see Campbell and Poser 2008). Moreover, his linguistic data suffer from serious
shortcomings (see Georg and Vovin 2003, 2005). Thus, had he not been one of the
greatest linguists of the 20 th century, his Eurasiatic hypothesis would hardly have gained
as much attention as it has.
10. Proto-World
As we have seen above, it is not easy to critically establish long-range language phyla,
such as Indo-Uralic, Nostratic, or Eurasiatic. Yet there are scholars (e.g. Ruhlen 1994)
who think that they have managed to reconstruct parts of Proto-World, the common
proto-language of all the languages in the world. As every language in the world has
not even been described yet, such optimism looks premature, to say the least. Note that
there is nothing wrong with the idea of monogenesis, which scientifically has the same
status as the idea of polygenesis. Both contentions are by definition based on glottogonic
speculation rather than current scientific methodology and are therefore beyond the scope
of the present discussion.

Authenticated
11. Conclusion
While in theory it is most unlikely that Proto-Indo-European was a language isolate, in
practice it is very hard to conclusively prove that it was anything else.
12. References
1995 Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: an Introduction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Blažek, Václav
1999 Numerals: Comparative-Etymological Analyses of Numeral Systems and their Implica-
tions (Saharan, Nubian, Egyptian, Berber, Kartvelian, Uralic, Altaic and Indo-European
Languages). (Opera Universitatis Masarykianae Brunensis: Facultas Philosophica 322).
Brno: Masarykova univerzita v Brně.
Bomhard, Allan R.
1984 Toward Proto-Nostratic: a New Approach to the Comparison of Proto-Indo-European
and Proto-Afroasiatic. (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic
Science 4; Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 27). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Bomhard, Allan R.
1996 Indo-European and the Nostratic Hypothesis. (Studia Nostratica 1). Charleston: Signum
Desktop Publishing.
Bomhard, Allan R and John C. Kerns
1994 The Nostratic Macrofamily: a Study in Distant Linguistic Relationship. (Trends in Lin-
guistics: Studies and Monographs 74). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brunner, Linus
1969 Die gemeinsamen Wurzeln des semitischen und indogermanischen Wortschatzes: Ver-
such einer Etymologie. Bern: Francke.
Campbell, Lyle
1998 Nostratic: a Personal Assessment. In: Joseph C. Salmons and Brian D. Joseph (eds.),
Nostratic: Sifting the Evidence. (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Lin-
guistic Science 4; Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 142). Amsterdam: Benjamins,
107–152.
Campbell, Lyle and William J. Poser
2008 Language Classification: History and Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carpelan, Christian, Asko Parpola, and Petteri Koskikallio (eds.)
2001 Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeological
Considerations. (Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 242). Helsinki: Suomalais-
Ugrilainen Seura.
Chirikba, Viacheslav A.
1996 Common West Caucasian: The Reconstruction of its Phonological System and Parts of
its Lexicon and Morphology. (CNWS Publications 48). Leiden: Research School CNWS.
Colarusso, John
1997 Proto-Pontic: Phyletic Links between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-West Caucasian.
Journal of Indo-European Studies 25: 119–51.
Collinder, Björn
1934 Indo-uralisches Sprachgut: die Urverwandtschaft zwischen der indoeuropäischen und
der uralischen (finnischugrisch-samojedischen) Sprachfamilie. Uppsala Universitets
Årsskrift: Filosofi, språkvetenskap och historiska vetenskaper 1: 1–116.

Authenticated
Collinder, Björn
1945 Indo-uralische Nachlese. Uppsala Universitets Årsskrift 12 = Språkvetenskapliga Säll-
skapets i Uppsala Förhandlingar 1943–1945. Uppsala: Uppsala University, 1–6.
Collinder, Björn
1954 Zur indo-uralischen Frage. Uppsala Universitets Årsskrift 10 = Språkvetenskapliga Säll-
skapets i Uppsala Förhandlingar 1952–1954. Uppsala: Uppsala University, 79–91.
Collinder, Björn
1965 Hat das Uralische Verwandte? Eine sprachvergleichende Untersuchung. Acta Universita-
tis Upsaliensis: Acta Societatis Linguisticae Upsaliensis: Nova Series 1.4: 109–180.
Collinder, Björn
1977 [1955] Fenno-Ugric Vocabulary: An Etymological Dictionary of the Uralic Languages.
Second Revised Edition. Hamburg: Buske. [Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.]
Čop, Bojan
1975 Die indogermanische Deklination im Lichte der indouralischen vergleichenden Gram-
matik. (Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti: Razred za filološke in literarne vede
31). Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti.
Čop, Bojan
1989 Indouralica IX. Linguistica 29: 13–56.
Diakonoff, Igor M.
1985 On the Original Homeland of the Speakers of Indo-European. Journal of Indo-European
Studies 13: 92–174.
Diakonoff, Igor M and Sergei A. Starostin
1986 Hurro-Urartian as an Eastern Caucasian Language. (Münchener Studien zur Sprach-
wissenschaft; Beiheft 12). Munich: Kitzinger.
Dolgopolsky, Aron
1987 The Indo-European Homeland and Lexical Contacts of Proto-Indo-European with Other
Languages. Mediterranean Language Review 3: 7–31.
Dolgopolsky, Aron
1989 Cultural Contacts of Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Indo-Iranian with Neighbouring
Languages. Folia Linguistica Historica 8: 3–36.
Dolgopolsky, Aron
1998 The Nostratic Macrofamily and Linguistic Palaeontology. (Papers in the Prehistory of
Languages 1). Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
Ehret, Christopher
1995 Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic (Proto-Afrasian): Vowels, Tone, Consonants, and Vo-
cabulary. (University of California Publications in Linguistics 126). Berkeley: Universi-
ty of California Press.
Gamkrelidze, Tamaz V. and Vjačeslav V. Ivanov
1995 Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: a reconstruction and historical analysis of a
proto-language and a proto-culture. [Translation of Indoevropejskij jazyk i Indoevropej-
cy. Rekonstrukcija i istoriko-tipologičeskij analiz prajazyka i protokul’tury. 1984. by
Johanna Nichols]. (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 80). Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Georg, Stefan and Alexander Vovin
2003, 2005 From Mass Comparison to Mess Comparison. Diachronica 20: 331–364; 22:
184–191.
2000, 2002 Indo-European and its Closest Relatives: the Eurasiatic Language Family 1, 2.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Harris, Alice C.
1990 Kartvelian Contacts with Indo-European. In: Thomas L. Markey and John A. C. Greppin
(eds.), When Worlds Collide: the Indo-Europeans and the Pre-Indo-Europeans. Ann
Arbor: Karoma, 67–100.

Authenticated
Helimski, Eugene
2001 Early Indo-Uralic Linguistic Relationships: Real Kinship and Imagined Contacts. In:
Carpelan, Parpola, and Koskikallio (eds.), 187–205.
1971, 1976, 1984 Opyt sravnenija nostratičeskix jazykov (semitoxamitskij, kartvel’skij, indo-
evropejskij, ural’skij, dravidijskij, altajskij) [An attempt at a comparison of Nostratic
languages (Hamito-Semitic, Kartvelian, Indoeuropean, Uralic, Dravidian, Altaic)]. Mos-
kow: Nauka.
Ivanov, Vjačeslav V.
1983 Istorija slavjanskix i balkanskix nazvanij metallov [History of Slavonic and Balkan
names of metals]. Moskow: Nauka.
Janhunen, Juha
1977 Samojedischer Wortschatz: gemeinsamojedische Etymologien. (Castrenianumin toimit-
teita 17). Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.
Janhunen, Juha
1981 Uralilaisen kantakielen sanastosta. [Zusammenfassung: Über den Wortschatz des Proto-
uralischen.] Journal de la Société Finno-ougrienne 77: 219–274.
Janhunen, Juha
1982 On the Structure of Proto-Uralic. Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen 44: 23–42.
Joki, Aulis J.
1973 Uralier und Indogermanen: die älteren Berührungen zwischen den uralischen und indo-
germanischen Sprachen. (Mémoires de la Société Finno-ougrienne 151). Helsinki: Suo-
malais-Ugrilainen Seura.
Kaiser, Mark and Vitaly Shevoroshkin
1988 Nostratic. Annual Review of Anthropology 17: 309–329.
Kallio, Petri
2001 Phonetic Uralisms in Indo-European? In: Carpelan, Parpola, and Koskikallio (eds.),
221–234.
Katz, Hartmut
2003 Studien zu den älteren indoiranischen Lehnwörtern in den uralischen Sprachen. Aus
dem Nachlaß herausgegeben von Paul Widmer, Anna Widmer und Gerson Klumpp.
Heidelberg: Winter.
Klimov, Georgij A.
1991 Some Thoughts on Indo-European-Kartvelian Relations. Journal of Indo-European
Studies 19: 325–341.
Klimov, Georgij A.
1994 Drevnejšie indoevropeizmy kartvel’skix jazykov [Ancient Indo-europeanisms of the Kart-
velian languages]. Moskow: Rossijskaja Akademija Nauk.
Koivulehto, Jorma.
1991 Uralische Evidenz für die Laryngaltheorie. (Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen Aka-
demie der Wissenschaften 566). Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wis-
senschaften.
Koivulehto, Jorma
1994 Indogermanisch – Uralisch: Lehnbeziehungen oder (auch) Urverwandtschaft? In: Rein-
hard Sternemann (ed.), Bopp-Symposium 1992 der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Hei-
delberg: Winter.
Koivulehto, Jorma
1995 Zur indogermanisch-germanischen Kontinuität in der Nachbarschaft der Finnougrier.
Der Gingko Baum: Germanistiches Jahrbuch für Nordeuropa 13: 116–137.
Kortlandt, Frederik
2002 The Indo-Uralic Verb. In: Rogier Blokland and Cornelius Hasselblatt (eds.), Finno-
Ugrians and Indo-Europeans: Linguistic and Literary Contacts. (Studia Fenno-Ugrica
Groningana 2). Maastricht: Shaker, 217–227.

Authenticated
Levin, Saul
1995, 2002 Semitic and Indo-European 1, 2. (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History
of Linguistic Science 4; Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 129, 226). Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Manaster Ramer, Alexis
1993 On Illič-Svityč’s Nostratic Theory. Studies in Language 17: 205–250.
Nichols, Johanna
1997 The Epicentre of the Indo-European Linguistic Spread. In: Roger Blench and Matthew
Spriggs (eds.), Archaeology and Language I: Theoretical and Methodological Orienta-
tions. (One World Archaeology 27). London: Routledge, 122–148.
Nikolayev, Sergei L. and Sergei A. Starostin
1994 A North Caucasian Etymological Dictionary. Moscow: Asterisk.
Orel, Vladimir E. and Olga V. Stolbova
1995 Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary: Material for a Reconstruction. (Handbuch der
Orientalistik 1; Der Nahe und der Mittlere Osten, Vol. 8). Leiden: Brill.
Rédei, Károly
1986 Zu den indogermanisch-uralischen Sprachkontakten. (Sitzungsberichte der Österreichi-
schen Akademie der Wissenschaften 468). Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akade-
Rédei, Károly
1988 [1986]–1991 Uralisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Ruhlen, Merritt
1994 The Origin of Language: Tracing the Evolution of the Mother Tongue. New York: John
Wiley.
Salminen, Tapani
2002 Problems in the Taxonomy of the Uralic Languages in the Light of Modern Comparative
Studies. In: Tatjana Agranat and Olga Kazakevič (eds.), Lingvističeskij bespredel:
Sbornik statej k 70-letiju A. I. Kuznecovoj. Moskow: Izd-vo MGU, 44–55.
Sammallahti, Pekka
1979 Über die Laut- und Morphemstruktur der uralischen Grundsprache. Finnisch-ugrische
Forschungen 43: 22–66.
Sammallahti, Pekka
1988 Historical Phonology of the Uralic Languages with Special Reference to Samoyed,
Ugric, and Permic. In: Denis Sinor (ed.), The Uralic Languages: Description, History,
and Foreign Influences. (Handbuch der Orientalistik 8; Handbook of Uralic Studies,
Vol. 1). Leiden: Brill, 478–554.
Sweet, Henry
1901 The History of Language. London: J. M. Dent.
Thomason, Sarah G. and Daniel L. Everett
2005 Pronoun borrowing. Berkeley Linguistics Society 27: 301–315.
Vennemann, Theo
2006 Grimm’s law and Loanwords. Transactions of the Philological Society 104: 129–166.
Petri Kallio, Helsinki (Finland) and † Jorma Koivulehto

Authenticated
Authenticated
General index
Introductory note
References such as ‘128–9’ indicate (not necessarily continuous) discussion of a topic
across a range of pages. Wherever possible in the case of topics with many references,
these have either been divided into sub-topics or only the most significant discussions
of the topic are listed. References to languages and dialects are only to specific subtopics
(e.g. Anatolian, grammar). For a more exhaustive, undifferentiated list of all references
to specific languages and dialects, please see the Languages and Dialects Index.
Abaev, V. I. 477, 567–8 – suffixes 516, 677, 755, 915, 921, 1911,
Abhidhammapiṭaka 317, 424 2129, 2147, 2169
abhinidhāna 341 – verbs 1003, 1014
abhinihita 328, 339 absolute case 258, 684
Ābhīras 428 absolute chronologies 81, 1389–90, 1392,
abjad 26, 33 1466, 1498, 1841
– Perso-Arabic 430, 434, 437 absolute clause-initial position 560, 1269
– west Semitic 33 absolute constructions 400, 763, 810, 1102,
ablative 226, 257–9, 551, 557–8, 654, 810, 1679, 2196, 2216–17
816–17, 842, 956–7, 1080–3, 1859–60, absolute endings 1210, 1214
1891–2, 2003–4, 2082–3, 2087–9 absolute final position 330, 338, 484, 488,
– case 1221, 1774, 1963 908, 910, 1277, 1313, 1316, 1328
– functions 1083, 2091 absolute word-final position 1314, 1316
– Proto-Indo-European 752, 1834, 1968, absolute word-initial position 2059
2088 absolutives 373, 399, 426, 452, 464–6, 468,
– Proto-Nuclear-Indo-European 2087–8 561, 1345, 1353, 1358, 1779
ablative-instrumental 257–8, 260, 1834, 1836 abstract concepts 216, 2098, 2229, 2238
ablaut 99–100, 213–15, 230–1, 266, 338, abstract noun suffixes 1069, 1124–5
346–7, 513–14, 662–3, 1503–5, 1689–90, abstract nouns 100, 310, 514, 706, 715, 982,
1889–90, 1990–1, 1994–7, 2121–3, 2133–7 1373, 1382, 1690, 1794–5, 2098, 2106,
– and accent 338, 2121, 2129, 2133–4, 2110, 2168, 2170
2136 abstract suffixes 262, 613, 780–1, 1734
– paradigmatic 230, 917, 1890 abstracts, adjectival 414, 1259
– patterns 580, 654, 660–1, 932–3, 1426, Ačar̄yan, H. 1028, 1116–18, 1133, 1135–8,
1460, 1907, 2121 1140
– productive 1309, 1427 Ačar̄yan’s Law 1136–8, 1140
– Proto-Indo-European 335, 1712, 1762, accented endings 352, 364–5
1766 accented forms 380, 1306, 1904
– qualitative 2134 accented morphemes 2122–5, 2127–31
– quantitative 17, 506, 660, 2122, 2133–4 accented roots 352, 2123, 2126, 2132
– secondary 584, 935, 1690 accented suffixes 2115, 2129, 2164
– suffixal 1895 accented thematic vowels 2117, 2163, 2166
– systems 506, 638, 989, 1309 accented vowels 249–50, 255
– types 916–18, 922, 1890, 1893 – long 249, 252, 254–5
– zero-grade 916–17, 1907, 1989, 2135 accents 213–14, 338–9, 497–8, 610, 650–2,
Ablautentgleisungen 448 1136–7, 1275–6, 1280–2, 1305–7, 1590,
ablauting 231, 514, 662–3, 2098, 2161 1644–5, 1692–3, 1890, 2121–3, 2125–35
– stems 663, 1891, 1906, 1911 – and ablaut 338, 2121, 2129, 2133–4, 2136
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-047

Authenticated
2294 General index
– acute 338, 725, 1474, 1483, 1486, 1501, accumulation 139, 160, 723, 1371
1508, 1510–11, 1601, 1607 accusative 378, 382–3, 391, 962, 1100, 1383,
– alternation 350, 1286, 2070, 2124 1904, 2001, 2068, 2208–9
– columnar 338, 347, 350–1, 654, 1747 – case 459, 1219, 1991, 2106, 2111, 2170
– fixed 195, 658, 1889–90, 1895, 1897, – double 550, 554, 956, 2209
1908, 1910, 2124, 2126, 2129, 2150 – forms 805, 899, 1336–7, 1549–50, 1611,
– initial 345, 700, 1306–7, 1894, 2127, 1737, 1758, 2097
2129 – functions 550, 868, 1669
– lexical, see lexical accents – markers 1088, 2068, 2084
– Lithuanian 22, 1586, 1690 – objects 382–3, 684, 956, 1098, 1612, 1836
– marginal 1511 – Proto-Indo-European 761, 917, 1208,
– mobile 195, 255, 619, 657, 1154, 1502, 1313, 1327, 1751, 1978
1706, 1893, 1899, 1908–11, 2109, 2124–5 – singular 380–1, 485, 487–8, 748, 1081–2,
– movable 660 1820–1, 1823–4, 1826–8, 1877, 2006,
– non-acute 1502–3, 1510 2070–1, 2095–6, 2110–12, 2122–3, 2134
– oxytone 947, 1307, 1896, 2130 accusative-cum-infinitive constructions 554,
– patterns 338, 652, 661–2, 1500, 1644–5, 693, 822–3, 957, 967, 1679, 2009, 2216
2096, 2124, 2129–30, 2136 accusativus Graecus 550, 2048–9
– penultimate 1280–1 Achaeans 713, 739, 2044
– pitch 255, 309, 434, 436, 1046, 1072, Achaemenids 45, 49–50, 54, 421, 471, 599–
1586–7, 1589, 1645, 2069 600, 602, 611, 734, 1120
– position 185, 347–8, 497 Achaia 697, 712
– proterokinetic 916 Achaṛyan, H. 1147, 1149, 1157, 1159
– Proto-Indo-European 891, 917, 1751,
ā-classes 464, 1349, 1899
1812, 2121, 2129, 2132–3
ā-conjugation 783, 787
– resolution 2123, 2125, 2128
acrodynamic inflection 350, 352, 363
– secondary 359–60, 651, 2113
acrodynamic root aorist 362, 365–6
– shift 414, 617, 691, 889, 975, 989, 1201,
acrostatic types 226, 399, 541, 753, 790,
1280–2, 1885, 2069
916–17
– laryngeal 484, 1886
– leftward 1752 action nouns 261, 265, 414, 543, 684, 1126–
– rightward 1307, 1752 7, 1372–3, 1381, 1663, 1689, 2109, 2119
– static 657, 660–1 action verbs 282, 284, 932
– stress 255, 436, 864, 889, 906, 1274–8, actionality 671–2, 674, 2158
1280–1, 1283 active endings 228–9, 360, 394, 466, 532,
– suffixal 2109, 2122, 2128–31 678, 788, 1357, 1386, 1836, 1912, 2139,
– surface 2083, 2113, 2122–4, 2127–34, 2148–9, 2154, 2167
2136–7 – primary 792
– underlying 1307, 2122–3 – secondary 2143, 2149
– valencies 1503–4 active forms 362, 370, 394, 530, 792, 1093,
– word 603, 725, 1320, 2082, 2121, 2131 1356–7, 1761, 1767, 1777, 1780, 2139,
accentual behavior 2124, 2129–31 2153
accentual mobility 1501, 1645, 2135–6 – non-marked 382
accentual peak 2121–2 – singular 2126
accentual properties 338–9, 2069, 2122, active imperative forms 941, 1766, 2145
2126, 2131, 2133 active indicative imperfect 1916
accentual variation 1627, 2093, 2123, 2130 – injunctive 1917–18
accentuation 192, 213, 489, 497, 1690–3, active indicative injunctive 1917–18
1885, 1889–91, 1898, 1910, 1915, 2122–4, active indicative pluperfect injunctive 1919
2126–7, 2129, 2133, 2135 active inflection 221, 782, 1764
– default 2123–5, 2136 active participles 221, 265, 351, 370, 763,
accretion 315, 1775, 1784, 2003, 2005–7, 793–5, 797, 1555, 1663, 1673, 1679, 1988–
2010, 2087 9, 1995–6, 2007–8, 2169

Authenticated
General index 2295
active perfect participles 518, 1564 – derived 511, 521, 702, 775, 1376, 2098,
active present participles 541, 1344, 1359, 2131
1672 – deverbal 399, 1380, 1768, 2113, 2116,
active secondary endings 675, 1092 2168
active verbal endings 2147, 2150 – genitival 284, 2032
active verbs 17, 230, 1994, 1996 – inflected 263, 276, 1658, 2105
active voice 388, 2139–40 – i-stem 1545, 1988, 2115–16
actualization 1492, 1498, 2047 – jā-stem 1658, 1661, 1663
acute accents 338, 725, 1474, 1483, 1486, – material 982, 2046
1501, 1508, 1510–11, 1601, 1607 – non-articulated 1754
acute intonation 1646, 1662, 1977, 1981 – o-stem 755, 1657, 1860
acute syllables 1608, 1980 – patronymic 713–14, 831, 1267–9, 1836,
acute tone 1641, 1646, 1648, 1705 1841, 1864
acuteness 1509, 1980 – positive 684, 1100
acuting 1505, 1507, 1509–11 – possessive 227, 771–2, 774, 781, 958,
Adam, Guillelmus 1716 1099, 1545, 1550, 1756, 1898, 1969, 2001,
addressees 383, 667, 1098, 1101, 1299, 2211 2046, 2112, 2116
ā-declensions 523, 913 – predicate 964, 1100, 1654, 1830, 2092
Adelung – predicative 1224, 1754
– J. C. 157–8, 994–5 – primary 982, 1117, 1898, 2231
– Johann Christoph 157 – pronominal 262, 377, 380, 392, 395, 515,
adessive 1655, 1671–2, 2003 524, 584, 767, 772–3, 777, 807–8, 1098,
Adiego, I.-J. 45–6, 258 1112, 1469
– Proto-Indo-European 2081, 2113–14, 2122
Adjarian, H. 1039, 1041, 1048, 1148, 1151,
– reflexive 1087, 2103
1153–4, 1158, 1163, 2062
– relational 301, 304, 1545, 2114, 2116
adjectival abstracts 414, 1259
– semantically basic 765, 767, 772
adjectival agreement 2094, 2099, 2168
– s-stem 2096, 2127
adjectival compounds 1258, 1692
– strong 914, 921, 926
adjectival declension 758, 763, 1559, 1714,
– superlative 1127, 2118
1966
– thematic 227, 914, 929, 1338, 1827,
adjectival forms/formations 542, 690, 780, 1897, 1899, 2096, 2109, 2136, 2162
910, 1088, 1224, 1342, 1376, 1555, 1651, – u-stem 780, 894, 1085, 1205, 1545,
1657, 1861, 2096, 2105, 2114 1657–8, 1988, 2130–1
adjectival inflection 983–4, 1659, 1988, 2096 – verbal 371, 373, 385, 464–6, 541–2, 615–
adjectival roots 1440, 2117 16, 680–1, 780–1, 794–5, 981–2, 1214–15,
adjectival suffixes 241, 254, 1085, 1087, 1240, 1381, 1766–7, 2168
1127, 1277, 1291, 1338, 1547, 1652–3, – weak 921–2, 983
1691, 2115, 2120, 2129, 2131 adjunction 1097, 1100, 2120, 2213, 2217
adjectives 505–9, 514–15, 521, 553–9, 763– adjuncts 458, 694, 1102, 1775
5, 920–2, 1335–40, 1354, 1378–83, 1558– administration 292–4, 723, 727, 828, 1120,
61, 1657–9, 1754–5, 1896–1900, 2105–9, 1148, 1170
2111–18 administrative documents/texts 240, 292,
– articulated 1750, 1754–5, 1757, 1768, 440, 690, 1358, 1377
1773 administrative languages 421–2, 424, 433,
– a-stem 894, 922, 1663 435, 437, 442, 721
– attributive 1224, 1658, 1754, 1759 admixture 715, 727, 1602, 1985
– compound 660, 1085, 1382, 1545, 2096 adnominal forms/uses 392, 397, 768, 808,
– declension 913, 920, 1600, 1657–8, 2102 1616, 1671, 2003, 2007, 2216
– definite 983, 1440, 1658–9, 1668, 1960, adnominal genitive 1674, 1678
1963, 1987, 2005–6 adpositional phrases 379, 549–51, 613, 954,
– denominal 283–4, 1371, 1378, 1381–3, 956–7, 1229, 1352–4, 1356, 1557–8, 1668,
2112–13, 2116, 2120 1671, 1771–2, 1927

Authenticated
2296 General index
adpositions 379–80, 397, 612, 618–19, 814, affixes

1219–20, 1225–6, 1229–30, 1241, 1352–3, – derivational 284, 1603, 1652, 2158
1355–6, 1360, 1775, 2106, 2206 – secondary 1337, 1906
adstratum 978, 1427, 1948, 2050 – verbal 124, 617, 1756
advancement of stress 1514 – Wackernagel 1669, 2007
adverbial clauses 694, 806, 823, 962, 967–8, affricates 249, 254, 333, 481–2, 492–5, 505–
1360–1, 1680 6, 647–8, 1058, 1595–6, 1649, 1703, 1840,
adverbial forms 656, 766–7, 769–71, 1899 1844, 2061, 2063
adverbial morphology 2105–6 – alveolar 492, 1038
adverbial phrases 528, 1360, 2212 – alveopalatal 1471
adverbial suffixes 16, 226, 398, 665, 766–7, – dental 492, 610, 1192, 1325, 1472, 1840,
1343, 2088, 2105 1844
adverbials 260, 377, 392, 396, 398, 549–50, – palatal 472, 492–3, 610, 647, 1472
682, 684, 954, 957, 962, 1110, 1112, 1352– – post-alveolar 493
3, 1359–61 – voiced 649, 1462, 1465, 1601, 1820
– sentence 955, 962 – voiceless 493, 1042, 1471
adverbs 521–2, 555–6, 656, 683–5, 765–8, affrication 639, 644, 1322, 1324, 1701, 1703,
929, 955, 1245–6, 1352, 1360, 1383–4, 1705
1754–5, 2087–90, 2105–6, 2206 Afghanistan 315, 421–2, 424, 435–6, 471,
– circumstantial 1383 476, 599, 605, 610
– correlative 556, 2216 Africa 114–16, 118, 862, 870–1
– independent 707, 1240, 1336 African languages 114–17, 154, 2283
– local 767, 1088, 1251, 1253–4, 1260, African linguistics, comparative method
2206
in 114–15, 117
– multiplicative 767, 779
agent nouns 353, 520, 780, 979, 982–3,
– pronominal 556, 767, 1383–4, 1903
1259, 1375–6, 1378, 1689, 1692, 1795–6,
– relative 357, 1342
1967, 2109, 2111, 2113
– spatial 2105
– productive 1375, 1895
adversative particles 277, 279
agent phrases 1678, 2007
Aegean 29, 712–13, 721, 735, 1482, 1850,
agent suffixes 1056, 1795
2046
– islands 697, 717, 2049 agentive 358, 961, 1354–5, 1367, 1540,
– Macedonia 1415, 1417 2103, 2111, 2113, 2165
Aeolic dialects 648–50, 681, 1864, 2045 agents, passive 378–9, 386, 388, 399, 1222
Aeolic group 643, 714 agglutinated pronouns 1960, 1963
Aeschylus 626, 700 agglutination 174, 176, 1134, 1155
affectedness 1671, 2004–5 agglutinative patterns 608, 613, 618, 1147,
affective formations 1426, 1431 1157, 1159, 1335, 1342
affective meaning 1377, 1965 a-grade 1644, 1889, 1891, 1908–10
affective words 1573, 2063 ā-grade 466, 1889, 1891, 1908
affiliation 12, 18, 426, 831, 860, 983, 1170, agreement 225, 227, 229, 688–9, 733, 806,
1221 809, 815, 838, 1224–5, 1228, 2081, 2083,
affinities 159, 173–4, 228, 431, 437–8, 441, 2090, 2165–6
583, 585, 1107, 1778, 1783, 2013, 2153 – adjectival 2094, 2099, 2168
– close 506, 1943, 2099 – controllers 1671, 2003, 2009
– formal 2091–2, 2094, 2099 – formal 1956, 2092
– linguistic 148, 174, 1839, 1842 – lexical 1119
– special 1968–70 – nominal 559, 1671–2
affirmative particles 559, 955, 1311 – number 392, 1672, 2081, 2205
affixation 2157–8, 2165 – object 1232, 1239–40
– overt 2107, 2160 – patterns 396, 1679, 2091–3, 2099, 2205
– zero 1906 – plural 1836, 1926, 2093

Authenticated
General index 2297
– subject-verb 966, 1772 allomorphs 646, 660, 675, 913, 1040, 1046,
– verbal 384, 616, 815, 1671, 2092, 2205 1052, 1134, 1154, 1335, 1340, 1342–3,
agriculture 17, 87–8, 90, 412, 1366, 1792 2144, 2154–6, 2161
Ahunauuaitī meter 532, 538–9 – reconstructible 2086, 2156
a-inflection 458, 460–1 – reduced 1045, 2133
Aitareyabrāhmaṇa 311, 314, 374 – root 1451, 1495, 1502, 2065
Akkadograms 27, 50, 240, 294 – suffix 935–8
Aktionsart 192, 358–60, 554, 618–19, 671–3, – zero-grade 896, 1434, 2150
930, 959, 1561, 1614, 1905, 2157 allomorphy 918, 936, 1451, 1456, 1465,
Alamanns 996 1495, 1510, 2149
Albania 442, 1717–20, 1722, 1734, 1786, – stem 920, 923, 938, 1435
1788–9, 1791–3, 1800–1, 1812, 1868 allophones 330–3, 493, 495–6, 656, 1190,
– Central 1721, 1800 1429–31, 1445, 1605, 1608, 1975, 1978,
– independence 1791, 1793 2057, 2059, 2061, 2063
– South 1720 – accentual 1304–5
Albanian – backed 1431, 1439, 1450
– alphabet 1723 – fricative 338, 647
– dialectology 1723, 1789, 1800–8, 1814 – non-syllabic 222, 484
– documentation 1716–17, 1719, 1721, – palatalized 1321–3, 1326
1723 – retracted 1431, 1471
– evolution 1812–13 – stressed 1305, 1309
– grammar 1720–1, 1782, 1785 – syllabic 485–6, 2057, 2059
– history 1723, 1762, 1794, 1800 – unstressed 1305
– voiced 1193, 1976
– innovations 1782, 1785
allophony 452, 1321–2, 1328–9, 1807, 1859
– lexicology 1788–9, 1796
alphabetic Greek 639–40, 2199
– lexicon 1788–93, 1795–6, 1814
alphabetic literacy 625, 633
– literature 1721, 1751, 1788
alphabetic scripts 242, 244–6, 602
– morphology 1749, 1751, 1753, 1755,
alphabetic systems 633, 735, 739
1757, 1759, 1761, 1763, 1765, 1767, 1769
alphabets 38–9, 41–3, 45, 47, 49, 633–4,
– nouns 1750–2
735–6, 739–40, 1037–8, 1040, 1399, 1401,
– phonology 1732–3, 1735, 1737, 1739, 1723, 1817–18, 1839–40
1741, 1743, 1745, 1747 – Albanian 1723
– prepositions 1759, 1775 – Armenian 48, 1032, 1037, 1133
– reflexes 1795, 1807 – Cyrillic 49, 867, 1399, 1401–5, 1420,
– syntax 1771–3, 1775, 1777, 1779, 1781, 1447, 1485, 1603, 1605, 1717–18
1783–5, 1787 – Dhivehi 38
– texts 1716–17, 1720, 1724, 1808 – epichoric 40, 648
– verbs 1747, 1760–2, 1768, 1775, 1796 – Euboic 736
Aldeigja 1475 – Georgian 48
Alderete, Bernardo 156, 2122–3, 2132 – Glagolitic 1399–1400, 1402, 1478
Alexander I 1850, 1862 – Gothic 48
Alexander the Great (III) 244, 604, 722, – Greek 38–9, 42, 45, 48, 51, 244, 246,
1816 633, 736, 738–40, 749, 1174–5, 1818,
alienable possession 1354, 2212 1820, 1851–2
alignment 377, 2001, 2138 – cursive 1038
allative 226, 233, 257, 259, 305, 648, 690, – green 39
1306, 1308, 1336, 1354–5, 1360, 1655, – Hellenistic 1841
1671, 2090 – Ionic 646, 711
allegro forms 352, 364, 456, 776, 1494, – Italic 41, 744, 876
1547, 1758 – Laconian-Tarentinian 1840–1
allegro speech 1439, 1492 – Latin 42–3, 46, 736, 738–9, 743, 998,
alliteration 878, 881–3, 1241 1133, 1173–5, 1601, 1943

Authenticated
2298 General index
– local 42, 747 analogical extensions 676, 1426, 1468

– Lugano 1172 analogical forms 466, 888, 1285, 1341, 1768,
– Lydian 45 2155
– Messapic 42, 1840–1 analogical influence 1082–3, 1085, 2098,
– modern Albanian 1723 2161
– Phoenician 39, 633–4, 711 analogical leveling 459, 461, 652, 662, 2130,
– phonetic 473, 1146 2135–6
– Phrygian 45 analogical processes 188, 192, 458, 1213,
– red 39, 41 2135
– Roman 42, 47, 49, 752, 1174 analogical remodeling 1897, 2154–5
Alps, Eastern 1415, 1417, 1466, 1867 analogical replacements 1082, 1544, 1655
alternants analytical constructions/forms 613, 615, 869–
– full-grade 918, 938 70
– lengthened-grade 328 anaphoric pronouns 283, 767–9, 772, 926,
– stem 936, 938, 941, 1467 1088, 1208, 1441, 1549, 1675, 1902, 1991,
– suffix 914, 918, 920, 935 2101, 2103, 2211, 2214
alternating gender 1336–7 – Proto-Indo-European 1209, 1756–7
alternations 175, 177, 448, 450, 991–2, 1071, anaphors 693, 1549, 1992, 2212, 2214
1436, 1463–4, 1468, 1603, 1606, 1774, anaptyctic vowels 483, 891, 1425, 1586
1889–90, 1976, 1982 anaptyxis 261–2, 638, 839, 850, 1196, 1307,
– ablaut 913, 917–18, 927, 931, 933–4, 1425, 1427, 1708
1081, 1126, 1427, 1434, 2133–4 Anatolia 10, 29, 33, 43, 70, 90, 194, 240–1,
– accent 350, 1286, 2070, 2124 244–6, 296, 300–1, 712, 1174, 1816
– accent-conditioned 511 Anatolian
– morphophonemic 18, 187, 192, 335, – dialectology 298–9, 301, 303, 305
1443, 1453, 1456, 1460 – documentation 239, 241, 243, 245, 247,
– morphophonological 17, 1875, 2081 2040
– paradigmatic 1453, 1879, 1976 – innovations 234, 259, 262
– stem 937, 1082, 1464 – lexicon 291, 293, 295–6, 2041
– synchronic 328, 506, 2136 – miconjugation 2139, 2147
– vocalic 1038, 1041, 1043–4, 1047, 1071, – morphology 256–7, 259, 261, 263, 265–7
1126 – phonology 249, 251, 253, 255
– vowel 179, 450, 1126, 1136, 1546, 1561, – prehistory 2097, 2141, 2144
1603, 2069, 2121 – reflexes 225, 2065, 2090, 2146
– vowel-zero 1495–6, 1603–4, 1606 – syntax 274–5, 277, 279, 281, 283, 285,
alveolar affricates 492, 1038 287
alveolar approximants 1072 Andhra Pradesh 316, 421–2
alveolar ridge 329, 1607 Aneirin 1178
alveolo-palatal obstruents 330, 336, 338 Angelus, Paulus 1717
alveolopalatal stops 329–30, 338 angular Glagolitic 1399, 1404
alveopalatal affricates 1471 Anikin, A.E. 2012, 2017–18
alveopalatals 1442, 1444–5, 1450, 1462–3, animacy 614, 684, 1335, 1381–2, 1615–16,
1975 2095, 2198
ambiguities 94, 960, 1015, 1124, 1427, 1492 – hierarchy 398, 2091, 2100
Ambrazas, S. 1652–4, 1657–8, 1674, 1678, animals 86–8, 411–12, 574, 577–8, 582, 654,
1688, 1997, 2002, 2010 1251, 1256, 1367, 1371–2, 1382, 1792,
Ambrosius, Theseus 146 1794, 2237, 2241
Ammermann, Albert 90 – wild 1743, 1948, 1975, 2237
amphikinetic type 196, 224, 226, 764, 779, animate gender 256, 2098–9
917, 930 animate nominative 220, 258–9, 261, 764,
a-mutation 993, 998, 1736–7 771, 2083, 2085
analogical changes 192, 916, 1197, 1510, animate nouns 257, 458, 757, 868, 1382,
1541, 2035, 2081, 2136 1750, 2081, 2092–4, 2098–2100

Authenticated
General index 2299
animates 225, 261, 656, 1337, 1357, 1549, appellatives 296, 412, 831, 876, 1751, 1843,
1671 1869
anlaut 1446–7, 1449, 2245 applicatives 124–5
Antalya 244, 1817 appositions 399, 551, 557–8, 690, 922, 966,
ante-penultimate patterns 651–2, 1275, 1492, 1220, 2199, 2202
1501, 1747 approximants 454, 1040, 1072, 1452, 1833
anteriority 561, 688, 693, 1672, 2007, 2167 appurtenance 508, 511, 1082
anthropology 2, 82, 86, 157, 576 – suffixes 1883, 2098
anthroponyms 412, 831, 875, 1642, 1851–3, appurtenative formations 579, 582, 584, 982
1863–6, 1946, 1962, 1965 Apulia 738, 860–1, 1722, 1839
anticausatives 384, 387–8, 390, 2142–3, Apulian alphabet 1841
2208 Arabic
Antonsen, E.H. 175, 877, 995, 1006, 1017 – loanwords 38, 1137
anunāsika 336 – script 35, 38, 1721
anusvāra 336, 1337 Aramaic script 35, 50, 54, 604
aorist 229–32, 365–8, 532–4, 536–42, 551–3, Aravalli mountains 429, 431
671–6, 686–9, 1090–5, 1105–8, 1766–8, archaeological cultures 76, 89, 1169, 1417–18
1905–7, 2149–52, 2162–9, 2246–52, 2258– archaeological evidence 70, 89, 411, 600,
61 630, 860, 1398, 1419, 1962
– athematic root 358–9, 362–3, 365, 367–8, archaeologists 70, 82, 87, 196, 631, 981,
1346, 2165 1168, 1177, 1299
– endings 792, 846, 852, 1766 archaeology 2, 15, 77, 82, 87, 147, 1168–9
– Greek 930, 1828, 1996 archaic Indo-Iranian languages 1925, 1927,
– injunctive 361, 688, 1091, 1909, 1997
1929–30, 1932
– medio-passive 368, 1093
archaisms 23–4, 225, 227, 266–7, 503, 506,
– passive 675, 1877, 1906–7, 1914
694, 698, 700, 786, 790, 993, 1005, 1147,
– presigmatic 231, 2165–6
1915
– Proto-Indo-European 782, 789–90, 794,
– shared 435, 2032
1213–14, 1311, 2162
areal diffusion 298–9, 303–6
– reduplicated 340, 366–8, 371, 388, 394,
790, 1346, 1910, 2166 areal distribution 1869, 2017, 2019
– root 359, 362, 365–6, 785, 790–1, 1543, areal features 24, 252, 421, 429, 608, 610,
1553, 1766, 1768, 1909–10, 1917, 1994–5, 842, 1616, 1670, 1864, 1989, 2001, 2003
1997, 2157–61, 2163–5 areal links 1671, 2001–2
– sigmatic 216, 230, 362, 367, 643, 650, Arenas-Esteban, Jesús Alberto 1170
652, 1346, 1349, 1433, 1436, 1553, 1827, Argolid 697
1835, 1967 Argonautica 723
– subjunctive 361, 529 Argos 644, 712
– suffixless 1766–8 argument demotion 2209–10
– suppletive 359, 1127–8, 2163 Aristophanes 647, 650, 705, 1415
– system 385, 388, 942, 1108 Aristotle 626, 633, 1029, 1168
– thematic 362, 790, 792–3, 1349, 1553, Armenia 442, 599, 1028–30, 1033, 1035,
1995, 2163, 2166–7 1037, 1105, 1120–1, 1147–8, 1150–1, 1156
aorist-pluperfect 1762, 1769 Armenian
aphaeresis 329, 457, 728, 839, 2046 – alphabet 48, 1032, 1037, 1133
Aphrodite 1842, 2239 – Bible translation 1121–2, 1124
apocope 457, 783, 837, 841, 1080–2, 1199– – Civil 1147–9
1200, 1204, 1210, 1275, 1277–8, 1285, – consonant shift 1047, 1120
1318, 1328, 1808, 1979 – dialectology 1035, 1132–3, 1135, 1137,
apodosis 561, 691–2, 1827, 1829–30 1139, 1141
Apollo 1852, 2086–7, 2121 – dialects 442, 1031, 1042, 1058, 1123,
apophony 177, 179, 192, 195, 1083, 2059, 1132, 1134–5, 1138–9, 1151, 1160–1
2082 – documentation 1028–9, 1031, 1033, 1035

Authenticated
2300 General index
– evolution 1146–7, 1149–51, 1153, 1155, – non-perfective 1561

1157, 1159, 1161, 1163 – perfective 616, 930, 1561, 1906, 2141,
– infinitives 1094, 1373 2157
– lexicon 1115, 1117, 1119–21, 1123, 1125, – predicational 2158
1127 – progressive 1776, 1779
– morphology 1080–1, 1083, 1085, 1087, aspectual contrast 1762, 2138–9
1089, 1091, 1093, 1095 aspectual pairs 1468, 1561–2
– prefixes 1124–5 aspectual stems 671–2, 1090, 2139–40, 2164
– script 1028, 1031–2, 1122, 1146 aspectual system 671–2, 1562, 1564
– syntax 1158–9 aspectual tenses 1561–2, 1564
– verbs 1090, 1116–17 aspectual values 688, 693, 2158
– vocabulary 1116–17, 1119 aspirated consonants 1191, 1873
Arsa 1474–5 aspirated mediae 453, 1882
Arsacids 50, 603, 1120–1 aspirated plosives 717, 725
Arta 729 aspirated stops 45, 331–2, 443, 491, 836,
Artemis 275, 1825 1058–9, 1072, 1151, 1508, 1889, 2063–5,
Arthurian romances 879, 883 2117
articles – voiced 333, 490, 890–1, 1048, 1151,
– definite 96, 667, 685, 725, 922, 958, 969, 1647–8, 1834, 2061
1017, 1072, 1088, 1207, 1559–60, 1751, aspirates 321, 332–3, 351, 434, 489, 493,
1754, 1757 646–7, 836, 852, 1122, 1149, 1852, 1873,
– demonstrative 1098–1100 1875, 1879
– indefinite 958, 1017, 1112, 1206, 1751 – dental 1840, 1844
– Proto-Indo-European 1864–5
articulated adjectives 1750, 1754–5, 1757,
– spirantization 1863, 1865
1768, 1773
– voiceless 221, 223, 331–2, 490–1, 639,
articulation 329, 331, 492–3, 890, 892, 1058,
1051, 1879
1060, 1278–9, 1439, 1449–50, 1463, 1465,
aspiration 331, 333–4, 337, 490–1, 494, 639,
1489, 1833–4, 2061–2
646, 701–2, 1039, 1042, 1189, 1191, 1864–
– dorsal 1431, 1450
5, 1879, 1882
– palatal 1038, 1450
– assimilation 491, 2070
artificial languages 428, 690, 1034 – loss 434, 441, 444, 581, 1139, 1428
Aruba 871 – throwback 334
Arumaa, P. 1542–4, 1546, 1548, 1551, 1553– Assam 439–40
4, 1689 assibilation 713–14, 717–18, 747, 1428–9,
Arunchal Pradesh 438 1443, 1472
Aryans 38, 181, 211, 294, 344, 509, 1120, – phases 1443, 1472
1951 – satem 1431, 1436
Ascoli, Graziadio Isaia 186 assimilation 251–3, 338, 451–2, 455–6, 745,
Asia Minor 88–9, 214, 220, 242, 298, 641, 1007, 1057–8, 1062–3, 1431, 1450–1,
697, 712, 714–15, 717, 722–3, 861, 2037– 1471, 1499, 1505, 2031, 2112
41, 2044–6, 2049 – of aspiration 491, 2070
– Central 106, 2038 – nasal 263, 650, 775, 1015
asigmatic forms 258, 675, 758, 1081–2, 1825 – progressive 645, 647, 649–50, 1463, 2070
Asno Law 2060 – regressive 644–5, 647, 649–50
Aśoka 54, 315, 317, 421–2, 425, 447 – shibilant 1054, 1059
Aśokan inscriptions 310, 315, 421–2, 424–5 – voicing 1069, 1435, 1492, 2064, 2070
aspect 528–9, 551–2, 688, 958–9, 961, 989, Aššuu̯a 2038–9
1097, 1105, 1561–2, 1614–15, 1761–2, Assyria 508, 510
1768, 1775, 2157–9, 2162 Assyrian tablets 292, 300
– grammatical 930, 1552, 2138, 2157–9 Aṣṭādhyāyī 314, 327, 424, 449
– imperfective 617, 1563, 2157 ā-stem declension 510, 1506, 1540, 1545,
– lexical 930, 959, 2013, 2138, 2157–9 1654–6, 1658

Authenticated
General index 2301
a-stem inflection 347, 991, 1988 Attica 641, 648, 697, 712, 1864
a-stem nouns 1550, 1659, 1860 Atticism 723–4, 726
a-stems 421–2, 424, 426–7, 449, 452, 459– attributive adjectives 1224, 1658, 1754, 1759
62, 505–7, 521, 523, 525, 914–16, 919–20, attributive clauses 967, 1336
1082–5, 1542, 1655 attributive determinatives 1692
ā-stems 536, 713, 753, 755, 911, 1371–2, augmentless forms 539, 671–3, 2144
1655, 1658–9, 1708, 1751, 1824–6, 1834, a-umlaut 900, 903, 907, 947, 991, 1319–20
1897, 1899–1900, 1986–7 Auroux, Sylvain 1034
asterisk 182, 212, 215, 474, 1045, 1362, 2081 Ausgliederung 81, 875–6, 995, 1004
astrology 241, 413, 432, 439 auslaut 1319, 1325, 1479, 1858
astronomy 312, 315, 1299 – absolute 1876, 1882
atelic roots 930, 2138, 2157–8 Auslautgesetze 989, 1454, 1541, 1979
atelic verbs 216, 2158 au-stems 506, 511–13
atelicity 959, 961, 2138, 2158 Australia 129–33, 1180
Atharvaveda 310–12, 337, 344, 386, 393, Austria 194, 211, 214, 442, 862, 1174, 1589
396, 418 Autun 1032, 1039, 1136–7, 1140
athematic aorists 1440, 1915 auxiliaries, see auxiliary verbs
athematic conjugations 529, 534 auxiliary verbs 285, 465–8, 555, 616, 618–
athematic consonant stems 485, 757 19, 944, 1018, 1352–3, 1554–5, 1563–5,
athematic endings 1212, 1553, 1661, 1915, 1672–3, 1676–7, 1769, 1776–7, 1813
1987, 1989, 2090, 2148 Avars 106, 862, 1397–8, 1418, 1577, 1601,
athematic forms 362–3, 367–8, 654–5, 672– 2285
avatars 411, 574–6, 2209
4, 677–9, 846–7, 1552–5, 1908–10, 1994–
Aventinus, Johannes 146
7, 2082–3, 2085–6, 2088–90, 2134–5,
Avesta 471–5, 477, 525, 583, 601, 1955
2145–8, 2159–61
Avestan
athematic genitive 2082, 2086, 2127
– corpus 477, 602, 1925
athematic inflections 234, 346, 361–2, 788,
– manuscripts 471, 474, 477
931, 1347, 1988–9, 1997
– phonology 497, 602
athematic middles 1915, 1995–7 – texts 51, 471, 473, 475, 504, 601, 1940
athematic nouns 261, 699, 1859, 2082, 2088– a-vocalism 680, 934, 1055, 1837, 2152
90 Ayodhyā 423
athematic root aorists 358–9, 362–3, 365, Aytĕnean 1037, 1157, 1160–1
367–8, 1346, 2165 Azdarar 1035
athematic roots 359, 363, 932, 1346–7, 2165 Azerbaijan 599
athematic stems 232, 362–3, 366, 373, 530, – Northern 105, 108
677, 785, 914, 920, 1204–5, 1897, 1907,
1915, 1986, 2082 Babel story 143, 145, 147
athematic suffixes 780, 1910, 2115–16, 2129 Babelic confusion of tongues 142–4, 148
athematic verbs 514, 529, 534, 541–2, 783, Bacchylides 635, 665, 819–20
787, 940, 1440, 1553–4, 1688, 1881, 1994, backed allophones 1431, 1439, 1450
1997, 2145–6, 2169 back-formations 231–2, 728
athematics back-mutation 903
– Proto-Indo-European 676, 783, 788–9, Bactria 424, 604, 1298
2082–9, 2134, 2148, 2150, 2154 Bakkum, G. C. L. M. 738, 752, 754, 759,
– secondary 1552, 2155 761, 772–3, 787, 795, 805, 839, 851–3
Athens 245, 626, 642, 698, 711, 720–1, 729, Bakró-Nagy, M.S. 100, 102
756, 1806 Baldi, P. 764, 767, 815, 819
Attic Balkan languages 1046, 1613, 1774, 1780,
– declension 659, 663, 713 1782, 1784–5, 1802, 1804, 1806, 1813–14
– forms 641–2, 650, 715 Balkan peninsula 717, 1028, 1601, 1867–8
– inscriptions 642, 684 Balkan Sprachbund 1156, 1616, 1772, 1777–
– paradigms 657, 659–63 8, 1785, 1802

Authenticated
2302 General index
Balkans 7, 11, 1397, 1399, 1772, 1777, 1788, Barðdal, J. 2213

1791, 1801, 1804, 1808, 1814, 1817, 1850, Bartholomae, C. 330, 475, 477, 488, 491,
1853 504, 508–10, 512, 516, 524–5, 536, 567–8,
– central 1417, 1479–80 1928–9, 1932, 1942
– eastern 1417–19, 1480 Bartholomae’s Law 333, 337, 373, 490, 496,
– northwestern 1474 586, 1069, 1879, 2070, 2112
– southern 1443 Bartolomeo di Bologna 1033
Balles, I. 2098, 2108, 2114, 2196, 2212, Bartoněk, A. 639, 643, 648, 698
2269 barytone 932, 1500, 1503, 1509–11, 1513,
Baltic 1747, 1894
– dialectology 1698–9, 1701, 1703, 1705, – lexemes 1504, 1510
1707, 1709 – neuters 1542
– documentation 1622–3, 1625, 1627, 1629 base verbs 384, 394, 936, 1356, 1690, 2120,
– evolution 1712–13, 1715 2165, 2168
– languages 1645, 1647, 1649–54, 1657–8, Bashir, E. 321, 614–16
1661, 1683, 1687, 1691, 1699, 1701, 1712, Basic Accentuation Principle, see BAP
1980, 1982–3, 2012, 2016–20 basic adjectives 765, 767, 772, 1773
– lexicon 1681, 1683–5, 1687, 1689, 1691, basic order 274, 278, 865, 962, 1937, 2198
1693 basic vocabulary 2–3, 87, 133, 151–2, 154,
– loanwords 102, 1641, 1963 293, 303, 665, 829, 1115–17, 1603, 2229–
– morphology 1651, 1653, 1655, 1657, 30, 2282
1659, 1661, 1663, 1994 Bastari, Zenel 1721
– phonology 1640–1, 1643, 1645, 1647, Bath curse tablets 1290
1649, 1690, 1699, 1978
Bauer, H. 94, 278–9, 819, 2107, 2197, 2199–
– syntax 1668–9, 1671, 1673, 1675, 1677,
2200, 2213, 2217
1679
Bautzen 1407, 1593
– vocabulary 1681, 1687, 1712, 2019
Bavaria 862, 1174
Balto-Slavic
Bayesian phylogenetic inferencing 133
– divergences 1960, 1966, 1968
Bayindir 1817
– existence 1961, 1968–9
– innovations 1987, 1990–2, 1995–6, 2016– Becanus, Johannes Goropius 147–9, 151–3
17 Bechtel, F. 183, 189, 1625
– lexical correspondences 2014, 2016–17, Beci, B. 1724, 1801–5
2021 beech argument 86
– lexical isoglosses 2012–13, 2017 Beekes, Robert 300, 524–5, 1047, 1050,
– lexicon 2012–15, 2017, 2019, 2021 1056, 1059, 1873, 1883, 1885, 2056–8,
– morphology 1985, 1987, 1989, 1991, 2062, 2103, 2105, 2134, 2281–2
1993, 1995, 1997 Behaghel, O. 955, 958, 962, 964
– phonology 1974–5, 1977, 1979, 1981, bejtexinjt poetry 1721–2
1983 Bell Beakers 1169
– reconstruction 1960–1, 2017, 2019 belletristic styles 724, 726
– syntax 2000–1, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009 Benfey, Theodor 182
– unity 1961, 1968, 1997, 2001 Bengal 421, 431
Baluchistan 321 Benloew, Louis 178
Bammesberger, A. 195, 914, 920, 1013, Benveniste, Emile 82, 190–2, 195–6, 222,
1177, 1652, 1688, 2031 554, 575, 618, 1038, 1048, 1160–1, 2230,
Bangladesh 309, 321, 438–40 2234, 2238, 2241, 2273
BAP (Basic Accentuation Principle) 2125– Beowulf 89, 882
33, 2136 Berati, Konstantin 1721
Bardes 433 Bereczki, G. 100
Bardhi, Frang 1718–19 Berezina 1417, 2018
bare stems 362, 460, 754, 787, 941, 1551, Bergin’s Rule construction 1241
1692, 1905, 2145 Bergsland, K. 67

Authenticated
General index 2303
Bern 190, 958, 1174–5 Bonfante, G. 145, 147, 149, 1005, 1070
Bernštejn, S. B. 195, 2021 Bopp
Bezlaj, F. 2016, 2018–19 – François 1, 94, 107, 174–81, 183, 188,
Bezzenberger acuting 1509–11 210–12, 2122
Bharata 315, 318 – Franz 20, 158, 160, 171, 174–5, 181,
Bhāsa 314, 1942 210–11, 2280
bhāṣika accentual system 311, 419 Boretzky, N. 1140, 1793
Bhojpur 430 Borneo 124
Bhutan 309, 438 borrowed words, see borrowings; loans
bible 138, 142–3, 145, 954, 958, 993, 1029, borrowings 140, 150, 152, 412–13, 876,
1034, 1626–7, 1630, 2010 980–1, 1365–6, 1368–71, 1426–7, 1683–4,
Bible, translations 879, 993, 1037, 1124, 1855, 2039–40, 2043, 2045–6, 2048
1127, 1626, 1720, 2217 – early 832, 1371, 1577, 2113
Bielenstein, August 1628, 1706 – lexical 7–8, 12, 299, 1721, 1804, 2039,
Bielmeier, R. 567 2041
bifurcating reflexes 1438, 1451, 1487 – structural 2037, 2039, 2045
Bihar 315, 421, 430–1 Bošković, Z. 1559, 1567, 1569
bilabial glides 1190, 1595 Bosnia 1405, 1717
bilabials 312, 338, 485, 1341, 1833 Botorrita 21, 1171
bilingualism 24, 737, 739–40, 832, 1019–20, boukólos Rule 2072
1290, 2050 bound morphemes 299, 393, 805
– functional 1290 boustrophedon, written 242, 246, 1817
– literary 740 Boutkan, D. 882, 978, 991, 1013
bimoraicity 1474, 1486, 1511, 1514, 2074 Boxhorn, M. Z. 150, 153–4
bimoric vowels 908–10, 1642, 1645, 1981 Bozzone, C. 2146, 2162
binding 840, 1299, 1910, 2195–7, 2211–12 brāhmaṇas 311, 344, 371, 374, 386, 839
bipartite subgrouping 994, 996 Brāhmī script 54–5, 316, 321, 421, 605,
birchbark 316, 1299–1300, 1406, 1596 1299, 1337, 1392
Birnbaum, H. 1397–8, 1404, 1476, 1539–40, Brancato, Nicolò 1722
1551, 1612, 2012 Brandenstein, W. 477, 567
Bisaltia 1865 Braun, Martin 107, 1151, 1172
Bisutun inscriptions 49, 472, 602, 1120 Bréal, Michel 181, 184, 189–90
Bithynia 1817, 1850 breathy stops 1010, 2063
Black Sea 87–8, 90, 105, 471, 599, 697, 712, Brerewood, Edward 147, 149
875, 1416, 1850, 2018 Bretkūnas, Jonas 1626, 1964
Black Yajurveda 311, 418–19 Breydenbach, Bernhardus 146
Blažek, V. 1170, 1256, 1366, 2284 Brindisi-Taranto 1839, 1841–2
Blust, Robert 121, 123, 125, 2062 British Celtic, documentation 1168, 1177
BMAC (Bactria-Margiana Archaeological British Isles 145, 148–9, 156, 193, 1019,
Complex) 411 1168, 1203, 1254–5
Bodrum/Halicarnassus 2038 British languages 1191, 1203–4, 1208, 1210–
body parts 570, 577, 1368, 1623, 1682, 1687, 13, 1250
1949, 2014, 2018–19, 2048, 2107, 2112, Brixhe, Claude 194, 1817–20, 1822, 1829,
2232, 2243 1850–3, 1862–5, 2041, 2046
Boeotia 642, 648, 711, 1865 broken tone 1645–6, 1706, 1708–9, 1980
Boğazköy 191, 220, 246, 1817 Bronze Age 717, 719, 1816, 2039–41, 2043–
Bogdani 6, 2049
– Luca 1719 – Late 1169, 2037–8, 2040–1, 2049–50
– Pjetër 1718–19, 1750, 1752, 1754, 1758 Brosch, C. 261, 2119
Bohemia 1174, 1398, 1402, 1407, 1419 Brough, John 152, 316–17, 320
Boley, J. 280, 282, 285, 944, 2206 Brugmann, Karl 20, 62, 184–8, 191, 211–14,
Bolognesi, G. 158, 181, 1121 220, 368–9, 556, 840, 920, 927, 941, 1011,
Bomhard, Allan R. 196, 2283, 2286–7 1876, 1960–1

Authenticated
2304 General index
Brugmann’s Law 327, 335, 483–4, 489, calques 8–9, 411, 737, 1123–4, 1150–1,
1876–7, 1886, 1889, 1991, 2109 1545, 1686, 1691, 1693, 1788, 1793, 2007,
Brutium 740 2044, 2217, 2229
Bryant, E. 411, 1609 – folk-etymological 1579
Bubenik, V. 319, 387, 640, 642, 647, 652, – morphological 1029
712, 718, 1564, 2211 – syntactic 1035, 2196
Buchholz, O. 1733, 1741, 1746, 1750–1, Camden, William 148–9
1754–60, 1788–9 Campani 738
Buddha 317, 319, 421, 424–5, 438, 1299, Campania 739–40, 860
1306, 1358, 1379, 1381 Campanile, E. 196, 830, 832, 1250, 1855,
Buddhism 309, 316–17, 420, 423, 425, 447, 2229–30
604, 1298, 1366 Canada 1177, 1180
– Central Asian Mahayana 220 Cantera, A. 473–4, 484, 488–9, 494, 497,
– Theravada 309, 315–16, 318–19, 424–5 504–5, 508, 610, 1879, 1896
Budi, Pjetër 1718–19, 1750, 1754, 1758, Cape Breton Island 1177
1768–9 Cape York Peninsula 131
Būga, K. 1684–6 Cappadocia 729, 1816
Bugenhagen, Johannes 1629 Carantania 1398
Bugge, Sophus 189 cardinal numbers/numerals, see cardinals
Bühler cardinals 89, 262, 354–5, 522–3, 665, 774–5,
– G. 56 777–9, 805, 1228–9, 1343, 1546–7, 1758–
– Georg 421 9, 1899–1900, 1989, 2104–5
Bulgaria 194, 1035, 1399, 1404, 1589, 1800–
Cardona, G. 309, 311, 313, 321, 328, 336,
2, 1812, 1850–1
338–9, 490, 1875, 2167, 2210
Bulgars 1416, 1418
Carpathian Basin 1415, 1418, 1474, 1476,
Bullet, Jean-Baptiste 156
1482
Burañjīs 440
Carpathians 1416–18, 1456, 1462
Burgodiones 986
Carruba, O. 241, 256, 262, 283, 300
Burkert, W. 704, 2039, 2048
Burnet, James 150 Carthage 757, 861, 863
Burrow, Thomas 413, 424, 1326 Casaretto, Antje 394, 397, 2108, 2206
Buzuku, Gjon 1717–18, 1734, 1737, 1741, Casaubon, Meric 150
1750, 1757–60, 1764, 1766, 1768, 1788, cases
1795, 1804 – constructions 1353–4, 1356
Byrd, A. M. 890, 895, 899–900, 906–7, – endings 177, 225, 460, 463, 507, 656,
2056, 2059–60, 2065–6, 2068, 2073, 2081– 669, 868, 910, 1281, 2081–2, 2085, 2087–
2, 2084–5, 2117, 2121, 2156, 2162 8, 2094–5, 2105
Byzantine Empire 143, 625, 726, 1791 – singular 2083, 2100, 2109
Byzantine sources 1416–18, 1443, 1474 – genitive, see genitive
Byzantine texts 1415, 1464, 1478 – lexical 550, 2206, 2208, 2210
– local 1355, 2003
C-14 dating 1393 – locative 460, 914, 1013, 1016, 1134,
Çabej, Eqrem 1717–18, 1789–90, 1792, 1223, 1669, 1671, 1774, 1926, 1993, 2005
1795, 1803, 1807 – morphemes 1155, 1752
Čak 1414, 1472, 1482, 1493, 1497, 1500, – plural 227, 303, 663, 718, 2092
1512, 1514 – Proto-Indo-European 226, 1203, 1219,
Calabria 861, 1722, 1724, 1839 2090
Caland, W. 1928, 2114, 2169 – secondary 227, 233, 1336, 1352, 1354–5,
Caland adjectives 2162 1380, 2087
Caland morphology 2114–16 – strong 347, 352, 488, 496, 513, 516, 520,
Caland system 353, 528, 2114–15, 2169 917, 1892, 1901–2, 2082, 2111–12, 2124,
calendar 569, 1008, 1033, 1174–5, 1402, 2134–5
1863 – structural 1669, 2083, 2208–9

Authenticated
General index 2305
– syncretism 1013, 1080, 1830, 2211 – phonology 1188–9, 1191, 1193, 1195,
– syntax 1012, 2000–3, 2048 1197, 1199, 1201, 1204, 1210, 1277
Cashubia 1617 – syntax 1218–19, 1221, 1223, 1225, 1227,
Caspian Sea 88, 105, 600, 603, 1028 1229, 1231, 1233, 1235, 1237, 1239, 1241,
Castiglione 1855–6 1243, 1245
catalogues 146–7, 157, 220, 433, 481, 1017, Celts 85, 159, 981, 1168–9, 1175, 2030
1030, 2159 Central Anatolia 244, 1816
cataphoric usage 380, 685, 692–3, 967 Central Asia 81, 220, 411, 413, 471, 473,
Catechisms 1623–5, 1627, 1641, 1686, 1700, 476, 602, 605, 1418, 1948
1718, 1720, 1750, 1978, 1982, 2010 Central Asia Minor 106, 2038
Catholic tradition 1717, 1720 Central Balkans 1417, 1479–80
Cato 766, 797, 816 Central Europe 188, 859, 862, 879, 1168,
Catullus 766, 772 1179, 1415, 1601, 2271
Caucasian, linguistics 105–7, 109 Central Gangetic Plains 430, 439
Caucasus 11, 21, 24, 89–90, 105–6, 476, Central Greece 712, 714, 1466, 1784, 1850
599, 605, 1028, 1614 Central Italy 739, 752, 831, 860–1
causative constructions 389–90 central vowels 437, 1304, 1420, 1616
causative markers 387, 1924, 1926 centum languages 62, 64, 225, 438, 667, 776,
causative oppositions 387–8, 467 890, 1430, 1647, 1734, 1812, 1824, 2061,
causative paradigms 615, 1346, 1356 2104
causative passives 386, 389 Chadwick, J. 31, 630, 648, 691, 1168, 2037
causative preterite 1366, 1386 chain shifting 1006, 1009–10, 1155
causative stems 370, 615, 1346 Chamberlayne, John 147
causative suffixes 177, 1385
chancellery language 241, 1685
causative verbs 533, 934, 1127, 1346, 1386,
chancery language 33, 50, 734
1644, 2142, 2164
Chantraine, P. 191, 698, 700–1, 704–5, 707,
causatives 386–9, 465, 467, 532, 935–6, 959,
2108, 2167
982, 1094, 1108, 1211, 1260, 1385–6,
Charini 986, 990
1877, 1907
Charnay fibula 880, 998
– derived 232, 1384, 1386
Charyapada 439
Celtiberian
– documentation 1168, 1170 Chatterji, Suniti Kumar 441
– inscriptions 1170–1 Cheung, J. 477, 567–8, 606
Celtic Chhattisgarh 430, 432, 439
– Common 1168, 1170, 1194, 1196–8, children 2, 318, 707, 728, 745–6, 968, 1113,
1250, 1275, 1277, 1286–8 1573, 1655, 1669, 1680, 1834–5, 2088
– dialectology 1264–5, 1267, 1269, 1271 China 599, 604, 1298, 1300
– documentation 1168–9, 1171, 1173, 1175, Chinese Turkestan 23, 191, 214, 599, 605
1177, 1179 Chitral 435–6
– Eastern 1270 choral lyric 711, 720
– evolution 1274–5, 1277, 1279, 1281, Christianity 725, 1028, 1030, 1122, 1147,
1283, 1285, 1287, 1289, 1291 1255
– family tree 1265, 1267, 1270–1, 1290 Christianization 106, 883, 1147, 1175, 1477,
– inscriptions 1172–3, 1256 1622
– languages 1168–70, 1172, 1179, 1188–9, chronological layers 744, 832, 1301, 1390,
1192, 1194, 1218, 1230–3, 1239–41, 1250, 1792
1253–5, 1274–5, 1282–3, 1289–91, 2030 chronological stages 600, 604–5, 659, 1394
– lexicon 1250–1, 1253, 1255, 1257, 1259, chronology 81, 180, 295, 301, 483–5, 748,
1289 752, 1390, 1394, 1457, 1467–8, 1470,
– morphology 1203, 1205, 1207, 1209, 1480, 1858, 1864–5
1211, 1213, 1215 – absolute 81, 1389–90, 1392, 1466, 1498,
– numerals 1206, 1253 1841

Authenticated
2306 General index
– relative 299, 301, 303, 743–4, 1136–7, – negative 1110, 1243, 1360
1455, 1457, 1464, 1466, 1469, 1541, 1543, – nominal 562, 822–3, 1336
1733, 1736, 1885 – participial 1679, 1935
church 49, 147, 730, 1033, 1040, 1122, – purpose 694, 1103, 1107–8, 1673, 2216
1404–5, 1462, 1580, 1735, 1741–2 – rationale 2216
– Orthodox 729, 1720 – relative, see relative clauses
Churu 431 – result 823, 1103
Cicero 737, 766, 828, 847, 864–5 – root 962, 1233
Cilicia 1030, 1032, 1138, 1147–8 – subordinate 397, 400–1, 561–2, 685, 691,
Cimbri 875, 986 693, 807–8, 822–3, 962–5, 967–9, 1099,
circumflex 650–1, 725, 908, 910, 1316, 1102, 1359–61, 2000, 2213–15
1501–3, 1511, 1514, 1543, 1590, 1607, – superordinate 967, 969
1645–6, 1655, 1690, 1980–2 – temporal 691, 694, 823, 1102, 1107, 1836
– intonations 1645–6 – transitive 1937–8
– syllables 1608, 1980 clay tablets 220, 240–2, 282, 630, 683, 697,
– tones 1503, 1705 717
circumpositions 619, 1361 CLI, see Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum
circumstantial adverbs 1383 clitic forms 1342, 1549, 1560, 2103
Cividale 1478, 1482 clitic pronouns 125, 276–7, 280, 1243, 1349,
Clackson, James 752, 784, 787, 791–2, 848– 1354–5, 1361, 1756, 1829
51, 1050, 1067, 1069, 1117, 1119, 1122, clitics 275–8, 287–8, 558–9, 811, 1226,
1133, 1135, 2134, 2137 1228, 1241, 1243–4, 1566–7, 1611–12,
clades 62–4, 68–9, 1422 1616, 1781–5, 1927–9, 1932–4, 2202–3
cladistic trees 66–7, 69 – phrasal 811, 1675, 2006
cladistics, computational 68, 70 – pronominal 287, 614, 617, 811, 1267,
Classical Armenian 1560, 1567, 1675, 1933, 1935
– phonology 1037, 1039, 1041, 1043, 1045, – reflexive 1612, 2007
1047, 1049, 1051, 1053, 1055, 1057, 1059, – Wackernagel 2201–4
1061, 1063, 1065 close juncture 1440, 1446, 1449
– syntax 1097, 1099, 1101, 1103, 1105, close vowels 1425, 1457, 1460
1107, 1109, 1111, 1113 closed syllables 32, 304, 371, 483, 644, 837,
clausal syntax 549, 558, 804, 817, 1781 1277, 1305–6, 1308, 1492, 1502, 1504,
clause structure 274, 392, 965 1586, 1597, 1907
clause types 1097, 1102, 1108, 1938–9 – final 1276, 1453, 1514
– subordinate 1107, 1836 cluster reduction 794, 838, 2063, 2104
clause-initial position 398, 400, 560, 562, clusters 340–1, 421–2, 455–6, 643–4, 646–8,
1269, 1558, 1568, 1927–30 650, 1191–3, 1197–9, 1276–8, 1436–40,
clause-initial verbs 1241, 1940 1452–3, 1472–3, 1595–7, 1821–3, 1879
clauses 398, 400–1, 560–1, 691–4, 825, 964– – complex 585, 1191
5, 967–9, 1103–4, 1240–1, 1243–5, 1567– – consonant, see consonant clusters
8, 1783, 1926–33, 1935–9, 2213–14 – final 337, 1821
– adverbial 694, 806, 823, 962, 967–8, – fricative-affricate 1471
1360–1, 1680 – fricative-fricative 1443, 1498
– attributive 967, 1336 – initial 254, 434, 574, 1824
– conditional 968, 1103, 1107, 1112, 1359, – nasal 1170, 1439
1361 – non-canonical 1438–9, 1492
– dependent 687, 825 – obstruent 337, 1191, 1196
– embedded 964, 1677, 1679, 2009 – sonorant 648–9
– final 561, 928 – stop 341, 1607
– Indo-Iranian 1927, 1931–2, 1938 – suffix 935, 937
– infinitive 554, 693, 797, 1359, 1679, – thorn 224, 332, 425, 444, 838, 1055–6,
2009 2063
– matrix 561, 967, 969, 2009 – voiceless 891, 1879

Authenticated
General index 2307
Cluverius, Philippus 152, 154 Common Slavic

coalescence 327–8, 336, 458–9, 465, 612, – changes 1414–15, 1422, 1468, 1511
2003–4 – dialects 1436, 1439, 1443, 1456, 1468,
coarticulation, palatal 1450, 1462–3, 1479, 1476
1484, 1489 communism 730, 1724, 1789
coda stops 1439, 1505 communities
codas 17, 1006, 1044, 1068, 1423, 1427, – linguistic 186, 1839, 1970, 2047, 2050
1438, 1456, 1482, 1490, 2064, 2067–8, – speech 1, 77, 79, 81, 298, 304–5, 428,
2070, 2073 433, 438–9, 441–2, 1265–6, 1427–8, 1446,
– medial 1049, 2068 1453, 1948
– syllable 340, 1069, 1438, 1486 Como, Lago di 1172
Codex Assemanianus 1401–2 comparative approach 140, 155, 179, 210
comparative constructions 820, 1112, 1220,
Codex Marianus 1402
1355
Codex Suprasliensis 1403, 1559, 2010
comparative evidence 94, 226, 629, 814,
Codex Zographensis 1402, 2010
1147, 2149, 2161
codification 184, 189, 193, 212–13, 730, comparative grammar 95, 108, 141, 143,
1133, 1178, 1789, 1796 158–9, 177, 180, 191–2, 213, 1003, 1134,
coefficients sonantiques 19, 187, 191, 214, 1585
221, 889, 897 – Indo-European 138, 159, 171, 174–5,
cognition 635, 1679, 2143, 2238 177, 180, 184, 187, 189–92, 194–5
coins 244–6, 603–4, 626, 1034, 1171–2, comparative linguistics 15, 20–1, 94–5, 121,
1177, 1222, 1590, 1865 129, 138, 158, 160, 197, 213, 313, 733,
Coleman, R. 713, 774 1250, 2283
collective nouns 1285, 1653 – Indo-European 21, 85, 171, 178, 183,
collective numerals 1547, 1991 190, 193, 195, 217, 943, 2012–13
collective suffixes 250–1, 613 comparative method 1, 4, 15–16, 18, 66–7,
collectives 225, 262, 354, 1223, 1336, 2091– 93–6, 106–8, 114–16, 118, 121–2, 132–4,
3, 2099 141, 171–2, 224, 2135
Collinder, Björn 99–101, 2281–3 – in African linguistics 114–15, 117
Collinge, N. E. 179, 186, 1010, 2056 – in Australian linguistics 129, 131, 133
Collitz, H. 185, 188 – in Austronesian linguistics 121, 123, 125
collocations 78, 467, 579, 1099, 1279, 1376, – in Caucasian linguistics 105, 107, 109
1384, 1659 – in Uralic linguistics 99, 101
colonies 88, 239, 697, 712, 714, 717, 719, comparative suffixes 764, 1085, 1206, 1546,
739, 861, 1596, 1792, 2038 1898, 1989, 2032
colonization, Greek 697, 735–6, 1850 comparatives 352, 504, 518, 521, 665, 920,
colophons 1133, 1354, 1358 923, 929, 1100, 1355, 1643, 1898
Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum
colors 39, 572, 581, 1085, 1121, 1135, 1309,
(CLI) 606, 609–10, 612–18
1370, 1379, 1578, 2232, 2237
complement clauses 274, 693, 928, 1108,
columnar accent 338, 347, 350–1, 654, 1747
1230, 1676, 1680
comitative 684, 1306, 1336, 1355, 1360 complementary distribution 16, 41, 227, 389,
commands 818, 823–4, 1107–8, 1233, 1235, 578, 984, 1040, 1190, 1559, 1615, 1654,
2145 1841, 1869, 1982, 2033
– indirect 817, 823–4 complementation 1097, 1100, 1102, 1680,
– negative 818, 1107 1781, 1785–6
– positive 1108 complementizers 771, 962, 1102, 1219,
Common Balto-Slavic 1422, 1966 1240–1, 1269, 1567, 1680, 1929, 1934,
common gender 256–7, 282–3, 285, 301, 2102, 2200–2, 2215–16
1467, 2097 complements, genitive 1227, 2170
common lexica 293, 977, 1258, 1790, 1794 completed actions 529, 552, 689, 930, 932,
common nouns 1250, 1255, 1275 1237

Authenticated
2308 General index
complex consonant clusters 335, 1495, 1983, conditional stress retraction 1702, 1705
2063 conditioning environments 908, 1978, 2031
complex predicates 554, 616, 964–5 configurational syntax 1924–7, 1939
complex sentences 377, 399–401, 691–2, 966 conflation 139, 612, 667, 675, 1493, 2165
complex suffixes 781, 1540, 1895, 2098, 2110 conjugated forms 1155–6, 1802
complexity 116, 187, 1014, 1189, 1285–6, conjugated prepositions 1209, 1228
1288, 1290, 1495 conjugation classes 229, 782–3, 786, 796
composition 214–15, 315, 418–19, 429, 601, conjugations 196, 212, 264, 266, 785, 790,
699–700, 707, 720, 726–7, 832, 1124, 805, 815, 840, 842, 846–7, 1662–3, 2152,
1206, 1253, 1258, 1795 2154, 2163
– nominal 1258, 1335, 1688, 1795–6, 2118 – secondary 790–1
– vowels 1198, 1281 – thematic 232, 234, 529, 534, 2148
compositional suffixes 1686, 1692–3 conjunct forms 21, 54, 1210–11, 1214, 1269
compound adjectives 660, 1085, 1126, 1382, conjunctions 400–1, 549, 555–6, 559–62,
1545, 2096 654, 656, 691–2, 694, 955, 967–8, 1109–
compound names 831, 1206, 1258, 1377, 10, 1207–8, 1342, 1671, 1829
1687 – coordinating 278, 690–1
compound predicates 274, 285–6 – enclitic 253, 277, 301, 1932
compound tenses 1106, 1563–5, 1672, 2007 – subordinating 691, 965, 1785, 2102
compound verbs 374, 397, 466, 468, 707, connective particles 380, 398, 1773
731, 1210, 1279, 1286, 1387 connectives 276–8, 1219, 1225–6, 1241, 1269
compounded numerals 464, 523 – prepositive 277–8
compounds 381, 474, 503–4, 506–8, 521–2, conservatism 303, 1002, 1018, 1020, 1943
527–8, 663–4, 1126–8, 1258–60, 1376–80, conservative languages 411, 1562
1539–40, 1691–2, 1795, 1955–6, 2118–20 Considine, J. 145, 151, 154, 1120
– bahuvrīhi 354, 381, 707, 1085, 1258, consonant alternations 897, 1649
1378–9, 1582, 1877, 2120, 2127–8, 2130–1 consonant clusters 54, 123, 421–2, 425, 427,
– copulative 339, 984, 1128, 1378, 1692 455, 640, 646, 1301, 1304, 1328–9, 1496,
– determinative 984, 1378, 1692–3, 2110– 1875, 1884, 1894
11, 2119 – complex 335, 1495, 1983, 2063
– dvandva 775, 1258, 2104, 2120–1 – heavy 340, 1086
– endocentric 1127, 1258, 1378, 2119–21 – simplification 1391–3
– exocentric 338, 381, 414, 984, 1127–8, consonant groups 450, 454, 701
1258, 2114, 2119–20, 2127 consonant shifts 175, 179, 889–90, 898–9,
– first members 338, 487, 504, 528, 702, 988, 996, 1006, 1010, 1045, 1873, 2062
776, 1098, 1250, 1253, 1256–8, 1379–80, – Armenian 1047, 1120
1692–3, 2114, 2119–20, 2127 – High German 892, 1010
– nominal 261, 338, 414, 707, 1124, 1258, – West Armenian 1140
1378, 1691–2, 1795, 2081, 2118 consonant stems 506–7, 656, 658, 753–4,
– possessive 261, 707, 1691–2, 1795, 1956, 757–9, 917, 1081–2, 1204–5, 1283–4,
2120 1338–9, 1546–7, 1656–7, 1751, 1819–20,
– Proto-Indo-European 924, 1877, 2127 1892–3
– reduplicated 1126, 1128 consonant systems 100, 183–4, 187, 725,
– synthetic 2119–20 1589, 1601, 1976
computational cladistics 68, 70 consonantal inflections 458–9, 1688
Comrie, B. 617, 1159, 1546–7, 1617, 2093, consonantal phonemes 645, 898
2095, 2107, 2138, 2140 consonantal suffixes 982, 1451, 1539
concatenations 1442, 1504 consonantism 229, 903, 1037, 1047, 1138,
concordance 1300, 1353, 1718–20, 2018–19 1420
concrete nouns 1372–3, 1382, 1690, 2107, consonants 33, 54, 327, 329–32, 340–1, 455–
2112 6, 482–5, 633–4, 745–7, 1171, 1438–40,
conditional clauses 968, 1103, 1107, 1112, 1489–90, 1604–5, 1640–2, 2066–8
1359, 1361 – adjacent 1427, 1492–3

Authenticated
General index 2309
– aspirated 1191, 1873 contacts 9–11, 493–4, 714, 717–19, 736–9,

– double 451, 1624 868–70, 1019–20, 1289–91, 1416, 1802–6,
– final 42, 453, 456, 458, 488, 530, 534, 1814, 2030, 2037–40, 2044–50, 2284–5
906, 910, 1283, 1542, 1552–3, 1752, 1760, – direct 87, 652, 876, 1415, 1588, 1713,
1762 1804, 2286
– first 334, 340, 454, 646, 672, 1195, 1907 – Graeco-Anatolian 2037, 2039, 2041,
– following 902, 1062, 1193, 1380, 1431, 2043, 2045, 2047, 2049
1459, 1479, 1481, 1485, 1489, 1497, 1543, – intensive 125, 305, 600, 1423, 1785,
1594, 1604, 1708 1790, 2049
– geminate 27, 455, 896, 1378, 1960 – linguistic 12, 738–9, 1031, 1397, 1589,
– hard 1484, 1489, 1494, 1544, 1591, 1595, 1645, 1714, 1966
1597 contamination 346, 461, 465, 488, 776, 1082,
– initial 130–1, 463–4, 530, 534, 904, 1088, 1085, 1118, 1205–6, 1544, 1546, 1552,
1283, 1345, 1486, 1990, 2150 1655, 1657, 1661
– intervocalic 424, 454, 456, 1211 contexts 65–6, 278–9, 328–9, 332–3, 449–50,
– labial 489, 1452, 1589, 1597 535–6, 630, 1189–90, 1193, 1195, 1558–9,
– laryngeal 222, 1505 1720–1, 1827–8, 1834–5, 2048–9
– lateral 1031 – archaeological 1172–3, 1858
– nasal 903, 1542–3, 1552 – cultural 8, 292, 413, 724
– non-palatal 1283, 1479 – labial 327, 489, 497, 701
– non-palatalized 1200, 1606, 1704 – morphological 1513, 1608
– palatal 492, 542, 1438, 1541, 1554, 1601 – non-palatalizing 332–3
– palatalized 1401, 1605–6, 2066 – phonetic 450, 489, 947
– preceding 641, 1338–9, 1346, 1349,
– syntactic 614, 1813, 1834, 1836, 2003
1445, 1454, 1457, 1482, 1493, 1499, 1604,
Continental Celtic, evidence 1204, 1258,
1610
1260
– retroflex 9, 321, 610
continuants 46, 329–30, 573, 578–9, 581,
– root-final 1094, 1211, 1975
584–5, 647, 680, 904, 914, 917–18, 938,
– soft 1480, 1482, 1485, 1589, 1591–2,
945, 1072, 1171
1597
– sonorant 325–6, 329–30, 336, 638, 1070 continuity 32, 158, 161, 187, 189–90, 196–7,
– stem-final 1287, 1289, 1469 609, 619, 634, 697, 729, 739, 1042, 1284,
– suffixal 1339–40 1712
– surrounding 1199, 1489, 1734 – cultural 726, 2044, 2049
– unaspirated 424, 454, 1039 contonation 650, 725
– velar 1008, 1123 contraction 327, 456, 462, 642, 644–5, 658,
– voiced 17, 334, 338, 441, 493, 496, 505, 672, 783, 785, 909, 1349–50, 1483, 1491,
1153, 1592, 1597, 1603 1498–1500, 1503–5
– voiceless 1039, 1191, 1194, 1492, 1592, contrastive tone 431, 435, 440
1597 convergence 7–8, 10–12, 190, 298, 304, 306,
– word-final 340, 717, 909, 1327, 1737, 736, 791, 835, 1265, 1422, 1778, 1814,
1983 1970, 2001
consonant-stem endings 513, 757, 1978 – as alternative to substratum 10–11
consonant-stem forms 758, 1277, 1751 – areas 8, 10–11
consonant-stem nouns 1441, 1459 – and Indo-European dialectology 11–12
conspiracies 1437, 2056, 2070 – secondary 11, 106, 989
Constantine VII 1418, 1478, 1483 – structural 8, 306
Constantinople 625, 726–7, 729, 880, 1035, coordinating conjunctions 278, 690–1
1148–50 coordinating particles 400, 1361
consuetudinal present tense 838, 1235–6, 1289 coordination 101, 277, 400, 560, 822, 1241,
contact phenomena 151, 715, 1254, 1289, 1361, 1933
1608, 1772, 1784, 1803 coordinators 276–7, 822
contact zones 714, 859, 1416 Copenhagen 191, 194

Authenticated
2310 General index
copula 562, 616–19, 1091, 1102, 1105, 1160, cultural life 723, 729, 1122
1212, 1214–15, 1347, 1352, 1359–61, cultural terms 87, 831, 2049, 2230
1564, 1673, 1775, 2212–13 culture 1, 3–4, 76–81, 83, 87, 89, 159, 626,
– constructions 2195–6, 2212 628, 632, 986, 988, 1416, 1418, 2230
copular verbs 683, 957, 964 – archaeological 76, 89, 1169, 1417–18
copulative compounds 339, 984, 1128, 1378, – language of 1032, 1851
1692 – material 3, 77, 125, 196, 1397, 1417, 1873
core sentences 2199–2200, 2204 – Proto-Indo-European 86, 196, 2236
Corinth 712, 736, 753, 861 cuneiform 27, 29, 33, 191, 225, 239, 242,
corpora 22, 292, 601–2, 738–9, 1097, 1100– 254, 257, 301
1, 1103–4, 1107, 1110–13, 1389, 1817–18, – Mesopotamian 26, 49, 240
1832, 1835, 1837, 1865 – script 191, 241–2, 472, 602
– large 22, 24 – Sumerian 33
– limited 24, 601, 843, 852, 1654, 1858, Curaçao 871
1861 Curtius, Georg 186, 212
– Sabellic 810, 818, 821 customs 159, 1168, 2273
Correa, J. A. 46, 1271 Cuvier, Georges 173
correlative adverbs 556, 2216 Cuzzolin, P. 764, 767, 819–20, 2118
correlative constructions 1104, 1353 Cybele 1821, 1825
correlative pronouns 400–1, 1860, 2213 Cyclades 641
correspondence sets 150, 156, 177, 1420 Cypriote syllabary 32
correspondences 2, 4, 115, 117–18, 149–50, Cyprus 697, 707, 712, 717
152–3, 155–6, 160, 177, 179–80, 495, Cyril 49, 1419, 1475, 1557
1123, 1803–5, 2016–17, 2020 Cyrillic 49, 867, 1399, 1401–5, 1420, 1447,
– exact 1124, 1206, 1962, 1971, 2239 1485, 1603, 1605, 1717–18
– lexical 843, 1687, 1861, 2013, 2017 Cyrillo-Methodian tradition 1399, 1402,
– morphological 150, 172 1407, 1419
– regular 4–5, 117, 175
– structural 159, 214, 1673 da Lecce, Francesco Maria 1720, 1842
– systematic 3–5, 1116 Dacia 144, 862, 1601
Corsica 860–1 Dacians 986, 1601, 1790
Counter-Reformation 145, 1628 Daghestan 105
Courland 1629–30, 1706, 1714 Dahl, O. C. 121–3, 125, 382, 1358, 1906,
Couvreur, Walter 222, 1300 2146, 2157–8, 2167
Cowgill, Warren 63–4, 66, 194, 196, 211, Dahmsdorf 990, 992
214, 232–3, 1210, 1212, 1214, 1552, 2034– Dál Riata 1177
5, 2101–2, 2104, 2117 Dalmatia 861–2, 1417–18
Crawford, M. H. 740, 752 Damel valley 435
creoles 440–1, 858, 870–2 Dāmodara 321
Crete 31, 630, 697, 711, 717–18, 729, 1865, Daṇḍin 318–19
2038, 2046 Dante 1, 9, 143–5
Crinesius, Christoph 147 Danube 862, 876, 1397, 1415, 1417–18,
Cristofani, M. 41, 738 1601, 1850, 1867
Croatia 49, 1399, 1404, 1414, 1419, 1800–2, Darms, Georges 925, 984
1812 Darrang 440
Croatian, dialects 1591–2, 1607 Daskyleion 1816–17
Crowley, T. 125, 130–1 data, linguistic 88, 90, 115, 300, 986, 994,
C-stems 1541–2, 1824–6, 1834 1271, 1700, 1712, 2041, 2287
Cubberley, P. 49, 1617 dating, C-14 1393
cultural contexts 8, 292, 413, 724 dative 683–6, 689–90, 726–8, 808–9, 955–7,
cultural continuity 726, 2044, 2049 1080–2, 1089–90, 1203–5, 1219–20, 1671–2,
cultural dominance 305, 1685 1678–9, 1986–7, 2001–2, 2008–10, 2085–6
cultural history 77, 79, 734, 1842, 2039 – double 689, 1678, 2010

Authenticated
General index 2311
– enclitic 1826, 1903 – ā-stem 510, 1506, 1540, 1545, 1654–6,

– ethical 685, 816, 1615, 1785 1658
– of external possession 1669, 1671 – Attic 659, 663, 713
– infinitives 388, 400, 1678 – classes 753, 1127, 1560
– of interest 957, 1785 – consonant stem 513, 1283, 1539, 1654
– Lydian 260 – ja-stem 1654, 1656
– masculine 1986, 1992 – nominal 464, 506, 654, 657, 752, 805,
– plural 487, 660, 662, 1008, 1454, 1468, 868, 1080, 1154, 1560, 1615, 1714
1506, 1548, 1550, 1819–21, 1823–5, 2256 – pronominal 525–6, 754, 757, 767, 1542,
– possessive 554, 1674 1544–6, 1560, 2088
– singular 485, 487, 1082–3, 1548, 1550, – thematic 508, 1552, 1554
1818–19, 1821–7, 1830, 2100, 2102, 2110, – u-stem 918, 1542–3, 1654, 1656
2113, 2124–5, 2129, 2170 declensional patterns 805, 1283–4
– subjects 1611–12, 2009, 2213 declensional types 766, 1281, 1337, 1372,
Daugava River 1698, 1700 1541
Daukša, Mikalojus 1626–7, 1992 decomposition 18, 139, 1336, 1481
Daunia 1839, 1841 de-cumulation 139
de Bernardo Stempel, Patrizia 1170 dedications 1175, 1835, 1842, 1852
de Bernardo-Stempel, P. 1275, 1845 deductive changes 1450, 1457
de Busbecq, Ogier Ghislain 146, 880, 903 default accentuation 2123–5, 2136
de Hoz, J. 46, 1172, 1271 defective verbs 788, 790
de Lamberterie, C. 195, 696, 1050, 1063, definite adjectives 983, 1440, 1658–9, 1668,
1067, 1069–70, 1080, 1087, 1098, 1118, 1960, 1963, 1987, 2005–6
definite articles 96, 667, 685, 725, 922, 958,
1120, 1126, 1139, 2115, 2265
969, 1017, 1072, 1088, 1207, 1559–60,
de Miriewo, Theodor/Fedor Jankovič 157
1751, 1754, 1757
de Rada, Roderigo Jiménez 143
– postposed 1616, 1752–3, 1755
de Sacy, Antoine-Isaac Silvestre 175
– preposed 1756–7
de Saussure, Ferdinand 18–19, 77, 171, 184–
definite determiners 958
5, 187–8, 190, 192, 213–14, 221–2, 224,
definite noun phrases 1774, 1989
627, 1646, 1981–2, 2063, 2065
definiteness 922, 983, 1017, 1558, 1668,
de Saussure Effect 895, 2065, 2071 1751, 1754, 1772–4, 1787, 1814, 2005–6
de Simone, C. 1839–45, 1854, 1868–70 – markers 1020, 1675, 1774
de Vaan, M. 504, 507, 512–13, 516–17, 522– – opposition 2006
3, 530, 1719, 1722, 1896, 1898, 1904, degemination 519, 1436, 1473, 2148
1914, 2103, 2105, 2117 Dehradun district 437
deadjectival forms 674, 1286, 1540, 2106, Dehxodā, A. A. 568
2110–12, 2162 deictic elements 282, 355–6, 380, 667–8,
deaspiration 332–3, 434, 646, 1153, 1322 767, 769, 958, 1928–9
debitive 1673, 1677, 1714 deictic particles 258, 282, 667, 769, 924,
Debrunner, A. 839, 1889–90, 1900, 1902, 927, 1208, 1350, 2141
2108, 2120, 2124 deictic pronouns 683, 842, 1098, 1743, 2101
debuccalization 333, 836, 1440 deities 251, 253, 339, 473, 509, 516, 571,
decads 160, 667, 776, 1343, 1659, 1759, 575, 705, 1222, 1227, 1842, 1851, 1949,
1990, 2104–5 1957
Deccan 431 – names 1713, 1825, 2040
decipherment 21, 27, 29, 31–2, 43, 46, 108, deixis 380, 525, 667, 812, 1097–8, 1109–11,
178, 191, 194, 220–1, 230, 245, 629–30, 1547, 1660, 1774, 1902, 2047
717–18 – distal 356, 380, 927, 1111, 1341, 1659
declension 654–5, 658–60, 753, 755, 757, – non-spatial 1901
760–1, 763, 765, 805, 913–14, 1280–1, – proximal 356, 380, 1341, 1659, 1902,
1283, 1335, 1337–9, 1560–1 1904
– adjectival 758, 763, 1559, 1966 – spatial 1098

Authenticated
2312 General index
Dekker, K. 145–6 – initial 425, 443

delabialization 63, 301, 649, 894–6, 1325, – labialized 1048, 1601
1328, 1428–9, 1431, 1446, 1460–1, 1478, – palatalized 1048, 1450, 1463
1880 – unpalatalized 1447
Delbrück, Berthold 185–6, 212–14, 278, 280, depalatalization 332, 600, 644, 1340–1, 1880,
378–9, 383, 390–1, 1936–7, 2105, 2108, 1886
2197, 2199, 2206, 2208, 2210–11 dependent clauses 687, 825
deletion 339, 560, 1015, 1045, 1063, 1307, dependent genitives 1109, 1675, 1956
1314, 1588, 2058, 2060, 2062, 2064, 2066, dephonologization 16, 1457
2071, 2073 deponent verbs 228, 265, 782, 786, 788, 795,
demarcation 11, 386, 629, 694, 917, 996 797, 1095, 1209, 1212, 1231, 1750, 1760–1,
Demiraj, B. 64, 1716–17, 1719–20, 1732, 1767, 1769
1734, 1757, 1759, 1790–2, 1802, 1805 deradical forms 779, 846, 1259
demonstrative articles 1098–1100 dereduplication 790, 930
demonstrative pronouns 355, 380, 525, 557, derivation 265–6, 284, 700–1, 704–6, 832,
561, 667–8, 767, 769–70, 926–7, 967–9, 851–2, 940–1, 983–4, 1044–5, 2068, 2098,
1087–8, 1341–2, 1547–8, 1756–7, 1826 2107–8, 2124–5, 2129–31, 2151–2
demonstrative stems 848–9, 1228, 1313, – causative 388–9
1340–1 – deadverbial 2108
demonstratives 263, 557, 559, 614, 667, 685, – decasuative 2107–8
691, 842, 1017, 1337–8, 1340–2, 1549, – direct 738, 1089
1559, 1756–7, 1901 – feminine 345, 353, 414, 915, 2104, 2112
Demosthenes 698, 721 – internal 226, 338, 753, 762, 2107
demoticism 730–1 – Narten 2126
demotion, argument 2209–10 – nominal 780, 1366, 2106–8
denasalization 901, 1480–3, 1543, 1591, – secondary 779, 982
1804, 1814, 1978, 1983 – traditional 266, 851–2, 1083, 1092–3
Denmark 876, 978, 998, 1418 – verbal 782, 1794–5
denominal adjectives 283–4, 1371, 1378, derivational affixes 284, 1603, 1652, 2158
1381–3, 2112–13, 2116, 2120 derivational bases 572, 583–4, 772, 778, 935,
denominal suffixes 1456, 1998, 2106, 2116 1093, 1169, 1790
denominal verbs 302, 1551, 2165 derivational categories 1652, 1654, 1657,
denominative verbs 266, 531–2, 843, 982, 1661, 2137–8
1259–60, 1278, 1367, 1386–7, 1760, 1767, derivational morphemes 299, 302, 1017,
1795, 1828, 2107 1444, 2126
denominatives 372, 531, 533, 674, 783, 785, derivational morphology 196, 215, 751–2,
790–1, 935–7, 959, 1092, 1094–5, 1211, 778–80, 843, 1551, 1612, 1861, 2081,
1260, 1387, 1768 2108, 2114
dental affricates 492, 610, 1192, 1325, 1472, derivational processes 1365, 1646, 2107,
1840, 1844 2117
dental aspirates 1840, 1844 derivational suffixes 283–4, 930, 1501, 1503,
dental obstruents 333, 647, 649, 1137, 2067 1513, 1653, 1658, 1691, 2087, 2090, 2098,
dental palatalization 1450–3, 1457, 1461, 2100, 2106, 2111–12, 2129–35
1469, 1471, 1484–5 derivative suffixes 654, 1127, 1575
dental sibilants 427, 1342, 1646 derivatives 570, 572–6, 578–81, 583–6, 981–
dental stops 330, 334, 337, 427, 514, 1192, 2, 1116, 1372, 1374–5, 1582–3, 1652–3,
1349, 1431, 1439, 1462, 1474, 1701, 1712, 1689–91, 1898–9, 2107, 2231–3, 2241–4
2063 – Latvian 1652, 1654, 1690
dental suffixes 773, 931, 942–3, 989 – nominal 371, 1291, 1366, 1654
dentals 330–1, 443–4, 453–5, 494–5, 638–9, – primary 982
647–8, 842, 1191–2, 1322–4, 1329, 1428, – secondary 1090, 1898, 2130
1450–1, 1484–5, 1489–90, 1650 derived adjectives 511, 521, 702, 775, 1376,
– hard 1479, 1482, 1489–90 2098, 2131

Authenticated
General index 2313
derived causatives 232, 1384, 1386 diachronic linguistics 186, 193

derived feminines 347, 574, 586, 1376, 1891, diachronic perspectives 95, 627–30, 1776
1990, 2115 diachrony 188, 429, 627, 1046, 2159
derived stems 1897, 2106 diacritics 42, 49, 55, 222, 321, 437, 1039,
Derksen, R. 1054, 1508, 1539, 1646, 1690, 1603
1961, 1968, 1980, 1982 Diakonoff, I. M. 107, 1123, 2284–6
desiderative stems 334, 370, 930, 2216 dialect contact 11–12, 1487, 1489
desiderative suffixes 177, 2033, 2141 dialect continua 11, 62, 65, 67, 108, 299, 421,
desideratives 216, 369–70, 386, 414, 532, 609, 848, 876, 879, 881, 1270, 1414, 1500
676, 782, 847, 982, 1213, 1289, 1879, dialect geography 62, 65, 1265, 1485–6,
1907, 1909, 2141 1498, 1607
desinences 485, 753, 758, 761, 797, 914, 941, dialect variation 309, 336, 860, 1134, 1155,
1222, 1465, 1503, 1511–12, 1608, 2081 1265, 1700, 1970
– disyllabic 1510, 1513 dialectology 183, 190, 306, 711, 986, 996,
– plural 1268 1005, 1389, 1801, 1806, 1832, 1837, 1850,
– single 1539, 1545, 1552 1853, 2017
– singular 1266–7 – Albanian 1723, 1789, 1800–8, 1814
Desmet, P. 147, 151, 160, 177, 184 – Anatolian 298–9, 301, 303, 305
determinative compounds 984, 1378, 1692–3, – Armenian 1035, 1132–3, 1135, 1137,
2110–11, 2119 1139, 1141
determinatives 26–7, 33, 240, 242, 1335, – Baltic 1698–9, 1701, 1703, 1705, 1707,
1340, 1692, 2119, 2121 1709
determiners 505, 685, 691, 1003, 1013–14, – Celtic 1264–5, 1267, 1269, 1271
1099, 1225, 1341, 2100, 2205 – Germanic 986–7, 989, 991, 993, 995,
– definite 958 997, 1004
– indefinite 969 – Greek 710–11, 713–15
– verbal 1444 – Indic 417, 419, 421, 423, 425, 427, 429,
detransitivization 1611–12, 1617, 2119 431, 433, 435, 437, 439, 441, 443
deuterotonic forms 1210, 1269, 1279 – Iranian 599, 601, 603, 605
deuterotonic verbs 1279, 1286 – Italic 835, 837, 839, 841, 843, 845, 847,
Devanāgarī script 56, 321, 430, 432, 437, 449 849, 851, 853
deverbal adjectives 399, 1380, 1768, 2113, – Slavic 1585, 1587, 1589, 1591, 1593,
2116, 2168 1595, 1597, 1599
deverbal nominalizers 2110, 2170 – Tocharian 1389, 1391, 1393, 1395
deverbal nouns 124, 379, 399, 557, 780, diaspora communities 433, 442, 599, 1035,
1260, 1453, 1690, 1779, 2112, 2119–20 1723, 1789, 1801, 1812
deverbatives 252, 414, 935–7, 982, 1260, diatheses 357–8, 362–3, 370–2, 384, 388,
1346, 1576, 1690, 2115 528, 543, 552, 554–5, 958, 1097, 1108,
Devine, A. M. 819, 2198, 2204–5 1344, 1611, 2138
Devnjenskoe 1802 – middle 384, 390
devoicing 12, 252, 304, 332, 428, 434, 443, Dichtersprache 79, 2229, 2239
490, 993, 1133, 1136–8, 1140, 1149, 1153, dictionaries, etymological 81, 108, 180, 210,
1322 215, 217, 477, 606, 698, 1116, 1250, 1304,
Devoto, Giacomo 190 1585, 1623, 1790
dextroverse direction 1174, 1817, 1854 Diderichsen, P. 158, 175
Dharmapada 316, 424 Dieu, E 765, 2117–18
Dhauli 316 Diez, Friedrich 180
Di Giovine, P. 930, 2168 differential object marking 382, 868–9, 871
diachronic analysis 630, 915, 920, 1389–90, differentiation 42, 173, 569, 961, 1098, 1171,
1791 1305, 1390, 1541, 1869, 2142
diachronic change 1940, 2101, 2142, 2167 – formal 961, 2197
diachronic development 1557, 1802, 1939, – qualitative 1421, 1476–8, 1481, 1483,
2079, 2094, 2116, 2136 1485, 1491, 1498

Authenticated
2314 General index
diffusion 106, 132, 575, 734–6, 738, 744, direct objects 281, 345, 377–8, 382–3, 392,
848, 1005, 2017, 2100, 2164 394–5, 612–14, 1374–5, 1387, 1828, 1836,
– areal 298–9, 303–6 1927, 1937, 1939, 2204
Digambaras 319, 426–7 – accusative 382, 1098, 1612
diglossia 441, 724, 728, 730–1, 734, 739 direct reflexes 228, 746, 1350, 2044, 2107
digraphs 42, 49, 648, 749, 1038, 1040, 1401, direct speech 277, 562, 694, 1358
1499, 1832 directionality 140, 151, 158
diminutive suffixes 353, 748, 843, 1196, discontinuity 68, 161, 190, 277, 279, 819,
1370, 1377, 1574, 1712 1175, 2049
diminutives 296, 357, 414, 574, 578–9, 748, discourse
844, 982, 1045, 1072, 1291, 1377–8, 1380, – continuity 276, 1110
1654, 1658 – functions 963, 1929, 1939
Dimitrova-Vulchanova, M. 1559 – grammar 196, 2202, 2214
Dini, P. U. 145, 1494, 1576, 1625, 1699, – particles 787, 2048
1712, 1960, 1964–5, 1970, 2012, 2014, – perspective 1110–11
2018, 2020 – referents 963, 2202, 2214
Dionysius Thrax 1029, 1031, 1033–4, 1124 – syntax 1097, 1109–10
diphthongization 1133, 1135–7, 1436, 1446, discourse-prominent elements 2200
1479–80, 1641, 1762, 1805–6, 1979 diseases 575, 583, 1381, 1970
diphthongs 326, 328, 642, 905, 1043–4, disintegration 66, 460, 866, 1698, 1700
1068–9, 1197–8, 1424, 1458–60, 1642–3, dislocations 1244, 1931, 2197–2200, 2202,
2204–6
1661–2, 1699–1703, 1705, 1977–82, 2058
– right 2198, 2201–2, 2205
– falling 1422–3, 1437, 1456, 1514, 1978
displacements 148, 214, 1398
– final 1350, 1705
– syntactic 1927, 1931
– glide 1443–4, 1456
dissimilation 449–52, 456, 486, 489, 497,
– internal 1486–7, 1502
639, 644, 1054–5, 1060, 1064, 2062, 2104,
– internal open vowel-liquid 1486–7
2110, 2114, 2122
– liquid 1643, 1708
– conditioned 1037, 1045
– long 251, 485, 642, 705, 746–7, 911,
– early 1314, 1367
1198, 1819, 1821, 1833, 2058, 2086 – morphologically conditioned 1037, 1045
– monophthongization 252, 1444, 1542, – regressive 123, 644
1588, 1601 dissimilatory loss 300, 775, 933, 1192, 1319,
– nasal 1437, 1482, 1643, 1700, 1703, 1324
1705, 1978, 1983 distal deixis 356, 380, 927, 1111, 1341, 1659
– preceding 1977, 1981 distal pronouns 1757, 1902
– Proto-Indo-European 250, 1316 distances 67–8, 145, 650, 867, 1610
– rising 1041 distribution
– second element of 495, 898, 1643, 1853 – areal 1869, 2017, 2019
– short 251, 485, 642, 747, 911, 1316, 1819 – complementary 16, 41, 227, 389, 578,
– sonorant 1424, 1980 984, 1040, 1190, 1559, 1615, 1654, 1841,
– stressed 1624, 1980 1869, 1982, 2033
– tautosyllabic 1309, 1456 – geographic 1803, 1805
– trimoraic 1424, 1509, 1514 – limited 1906, 2234–5
– vowel-glide 1459 – original 371, 499, 789, 1691–2, 2155
– vowel-liquid 1437, 1486, 1488, 1503 – random 1428, 1998
– vowel-nasal 1459 – restricted 1928–9, 1932, 2083
direct cases 459, 462, 770 distributive forms 779
direct contact 87, 652, 876, 1415, 1588, disuse 29, 464, 867, 2008
1713, 1804, 2286 disyllabic desinences 1510, 1513
direct derivation 738, 1089 disyllabic endings 881, 1506, 1893, 2089

Authenticated
General index 2315
disyllabic forms 328, 499, 507, 514, 517, Dottrina Christiana 1718, 1720, 1788
669–70, 1007–8, 1306–7, 1499, 1502, double accusatives 550, 554, 956, 2209
1506, 1509, 1511–12, 2086–7, 2089 double consonants 451, 1624
disyllabic roots 223, 1503 double dative 689, 1678, 2010
disyllabic words 1277, 1280, 1306–8 double dental rule 444, 494, 1435, 2072, 2156
ditransitives 383, 1346, 1355–7, 1611–12, double negation 1964
2204 double nominatives 550, 2209
Diver, William 63, 223 double object constructions 383, 2204, 2210
diversification 62, 65, 67, 70, 143, 171–2, 185 doublets 121, 140, 228, 413, 419, 449–52,
diversity 130, 171, 192, 298, 847, 1338, 1343, 1382, 1423, 1426, 1430, 1432, 1453,
1390, 1393–4, 1925, 1940, 2040, 2119, 1647, 1650
2145, 2165, 2167 Dow, Alexander 159
– formal 2167, 2170 dramas 314–15, 318–20, 420, 427–8
divine names 29, 411, 569, 1251, 1253–7, – comic 720
1581, 1843, 1858, 1861 Dravidian
Dixon, R. M. W. 129–33, 2114 – scripts 56
Dnieper 1397, 1417, 1419, 1478, 1483 – substratum hypothesis 10
Doab 419 Draviņš, K. 1628–9
Dobrovský, Joseph 180 Dressler, W. 197, 278, 1047, 2196, 2199–
documentation 115–16, 599, 601, 625–6, 2200, 2207, 2209
630–1, 733–5, 738–9, 879–81, 1298, 1832, drift 864, 989, 1019, 1437, 1451, 1775
1839, 1841, 1850–2, 1857, 1862–3 drink 382, 386, 388, 1321, 1371, 1374–5,
– Albanian 1716–17, 1719, 1721, 1723 1378, 1384–6, 1683, 1690, 1855–6, 2020,
– Anatolian 239, 241, 243, 245, 247, 2040 2212, 2246, 2260–1
– Armenian 1028–9, 1031, 1033, 1035 Droixhe, D. 139, 145, 147–8, 151, 154, 156
– Baltic 1622–3, 1625, 1627, 1629 dual endings 264, 784, 1344, 1615, 2153,
– British Celtic 1168, 1177 2157
– Celtiberian 1168, 1170 dual forms 354, 772, 1012, 1203, 1208–9,
– Celtic 1168–9, 1171, 1173, 1175, 1177, 1339, 1341, 1344, 1357, 1546, 1553, 1559,
1179 1616, 1656, 1660
– Gaulish 1168, 1172 dual inflection 775, 913–14, 993, 1835, 2121
– Germanic 875, 877, 879, 881, 883 dual nouns 1014, 1380
– Greek 625, 627, 629, 631, 633, 635 dual number 1012, 1080, 1223, 1615–16,
– Indic 309, 311, 313, 315, 317, 319, 321 1986, 2091, 2097, 2121, 2141, 2150
– Iranian 471, 473, 475, 477 dual pronouns 956, 1012, 1014
– Italic 733, 735, 737, 739 Dubrovnik 862, 1716
– Latin 734–5 Duenos inscriptions 737, 785, 815, 863, 927
– Slavic 1397, 1399, 1401, 1403, 1405, 1407 Dunkel, George E. 197, 217, 380, 397–8,
– Tocharian 1298–9, 1301 766–70, 774–5, 777–8, 1905, 2087, 2103–
Dolgopolsky, Aron 196, 2282, 2284–6 4, 2106, 2239
dominance 439, 723, 2131–2 Dupraz, E. 754, 767–70, 796, 841, 850
– cultural 305, 1685 durative value 690, 1347
– effects 2132 Duret, Claude 147
– élite 87 Duridanov, I. 1653, 1970, 2019
– political 305 Durkin-Meisterernst, D. 567, 603, 615
dominant morphemes 1504, 2131, 2133 Durrës 1717, 1720, 1869
Donabédian, A. 1134, 1156–7 Dutz, K. D. 155
Doric, alphabet 245 Dybo’s Law/Rule 746, 899, 901, 1195–6,
Dorsa, Vincenzo 1723 1982, 2065
dorsal articulations 1431, 1450 Dyen, I. 65, 67–9, 121, 125, 1119
dorsal consonants 2056 dynamic stress 498, 1590
dorsal stops 333–4, 2063 Dyrrhachion 1842, 1869
dorsals 64, 1646, 2061 Džaukjan, G. 1117

Authenticated
2316 General index
e-ablaut 1991 Embleton, S. 65, 67

early dissimilation 1314, 1367 Emeneau, M. B. 8, 330, 412–13
early runic 991–3, 995, 997 Emmerick, R. E. 493, 567, 576, 579, 610,
Easter Island 122 612–13, 615–16, 618–19, 1907, 1915
Eastern Alps 1415, 1417, 1466, 1867 emotions 216, 551, 960, 1121, 1357
eastern Balkans 1417–19, 1480 emphasis 1245, 1774, 1785, 1928, 1931,
Eastern Central Geg 1806 1934–6, 1939
Eastern Iran 476, 605 emphatic consonants 96
Eastern Polynesian languages 122 emphatic particles 1779, 1826, 1948
Eckert emphatic usages 391–2
– R. 1623, 1689, 1965, 2020 Enchiridion 1623–5, 1628, 1641, 1645, 1680,
– Rainer 1965 1979
Eddic poems 878 enclaves 861, 1180, 1414, 1479, 1812
Edgerton, Franklin 215, 320–1, 410 enclinomena 1504, 1511, 1982
Egeria 866, 2015 enclisis 651, 1307
e-grade 764, 766, 777, 794, 796, 917, 1366, enclitic conjunctions 253, 277, 301, 1932
1374, 1385, 2059, 2101, 2108, 2111, 2133– enclitic dative 1826, 1903
4, 2160 enclitic forms 262, 380, 524, 772–4, 1088,
Egypt 33, 45, 245, 442, 626, 715, 722–3, 725, 1675, 1756, 1761, 1903
957, 1031, 1101, 1108, 1586, 1816, 2007 enclitic particles 275, 556, 613, 968, 1207,
Egyptian hieroglyphs 26, 29, 33 1844, 1877, 1982
eh2-stems 258, 756, 783, 915, 1204, 1977 enclitic pronouns 263, 275–6, 281, 560, 614,
Eichhoff, Frédéric-Gustave 178 616, 1340, 1347, 1545, 1756–7, 1770, 1829
Eichner
enclitics 251–2, 263–4, 274–8, 513–14, 524–
– H. 46, 66, 177, 212, 250, 252, 257, 259,
5, 667–9, 1208, 1210, 1307, 1340–1, 1511–
261–2, 924, 1012, 1065, 1086, 1118, 2093
12, 1757, 1936–7, 1947, 2007–8
– Heiner 21, 66, 212, 230
– Wackernagel’s 276, 278, 1669
Eichner’s Law 2064
endingless locatives 656, 663, 1544, 2085–6
Einang inscription 877, 992, 1017
endings 226–33, 257–61, 363–71, 460–2,
Einverleibung, see incorporation
einzelsprachlich phenomena 838–9, 1197, 783–90, 1210–14, 1335–40, 1347–50,
2072 1541–5, 1551–5, 1653–8, 1760–8, 1890–3,
Elam 494 2081–93, 2147–57
elative 764, 1086, 2117, 2214 – absolute 1210, 1214
Elbasan 1720–1, 1724 – accented 352, 364–5
Elbe 987, 1414–15, 1418–19, 1475 – aorist 792, 846, 852, 1766
Elbing Vocabulary 1623–4, 1641, 1684, – athematic 1212, 1553, 1661, 1915, 1987,
1700, 1978, 1980 1989, 2090, 2148
Elfenbein, J. 567–8 – consonant-initial 1987
Elger – consonant-stem 513, 757, 1978
– G. 1628 – disyllabic 881, 1506, 1893, 2089
– Georg 1628 – dual 264, 784, 1344, 1615, 2153, 2157
Elichmann, Johann 150, 153–4 – imperative 358, 362, 465, 941–2, 1350,
Elis 697, 811, 1641, 1654, 1658 1357, 1912
elision 659, 1439–42, 1447, 1452, 1473, – inflectional 930, 1561–2, 2092, 2094,
1782 2096–7, 2123, 2125, 2129, 2131, 2139–40,
elites 87, 427, 722, 724, 726–7, 729, 1416, 2142, 2146, 2148, 2151, 2154
1418, 1601 – m-conjugation 2139, 2147–8, 2150–1
Elsie, R. 1251, 1716–17, 1719–21, 1723 – mediopassive 64, 69, 841, 1092, 1094,
Elymians 1854 1356–7, 1385–6, 2034
embedded clauses 964, 1677, 1679, 2009 – middle 228–30, 358, 360, 369, 385, 532,
embedded sentences 963 552, 615, 679, 1761, 1763, 2139, 2142–3,
embedding sentences 2213–14, 2216 2151, 2153–4

Authenticated
General index 2317
– nominal 669, 683, 1543, 1550, 1747, epics, Homeric 77, 80, 698, 720, 2040–1,
1892, 2083 2045
– nominal/noun 669, 683, 1468, 1541, epigraphic materials/texts 315, 321, 734, 737,
1543, 1550, 1747, 1892, 1992, 2083 740, 1863
– perfect 229, 358, 680, 792–3, 846, 2151 epitaphs 244, 292, 828, 1832, 1837
– personal 177, 363, 670, 729, 792, 837, epithets 747, 1118, 1255–6, 1326, 1821,
1015, 1211, 1553, 1662, 1912, 2139–40, 1825, 1852, 1858, 1863, 1952
2281–2 equal vocalic components 1458, 1460
– plural 264, 304, 782, 908, 942–4, 1284, Erevan 1029–31, 1035, 1133, 1148–51
1336, 1350, 1616, 1747, 2083, 2090, 2093, ergative 232, 257, 260, 262, 283, 378, 387,
2125, 2157 617, 2090
– present 1093, 1347, 1552, 1979 – constructions 399, 553–5, 612, 614, 616–
– preterite 1348–9 17
– primary 228, 358, 361, 369, 534–6, 676– ergativity 232, 436, 616–17
7, 1210, 1214, 1552, 1763, 2034, 2140, – split 232, 260, 436, 466, 1161, 2090
2146, 2151, 2165 Erhart, A. 1966–8
– pronominal 458, 923, 1898–9 Erlangen School 21, 2134
– Proto-Indo-European 786, 1339, 1348, Ernout, A. 752, 755, 762, 769, 774, 795,
1350, 1655, 1981, 2152, 2154 797, 832, 943
– secondary 358, 360–1, 534, 536–7, 671, errors 150, 197, 222, 496, 504–5, 746, 754,
675, 784–5, 792, 1091–2, 1553–4, 1763–4, 864, 1374, 1624, 2287
2034, 2140, 2146–7, 2149–51 – scribal 504–5, 1624
– soft-declension 1470, 1543 Errumantxela 442
– special 671, 677, 1347–8, 1892, 1897, Eska, J. F. 941, 1172, 1174, 1198, 1218,
1912 1222, 1239, 1241, 1243, 1265–7, 1270–1,
– stative 229, 365, 2143 1279, 1834, 2032
– subjunctive 529, 1155 Eskişehir 1816, 1818
– superlative 2032 e-stems 1090, 1845
– thematic 784, 792, 1552, 1555, 1661, 2088 ē-stems 753, 761, 1703, 1708, 1712
– verbal 21, 603, 616, 678–9, 806, 820, Estonia 442, 1698
870, 1209, 1286, 1306, 1347, 2139, 2147, ethical dative 685, 816, 1615, 1785
2150, 2153 ethnic names 300, 1269, 2038–9
– zero 753–4, 1091 ethnonyms 781, 1171, 1415–16, 1418
endocentric compounds 1127, 1258, 1378, Etienne, Raymond 1716
2119–21 Etruria 839, 1833, 1854
end-stressed forms 1503, 1690, 1747, 1915 Etruscan
Endzelin, J. 1623–4, 1652, 1657–8, 1661–2, – alphabet 736, 1170, 1172
1682, 1684, 1961–4, 1989–90, 1996, 2003, – origin 736, 740, 755
2012–13, 2019 etyma 23, 701, 1070, 1118, 1161, 1540,
Engjëlli, Pal 1717 1574–5, 1582, 1858, 2231
Ennius 740, 756, 763, 774, 816, 2097 – Proto-Indo-European 1161, 1806, 1808
environments 16–18, 223, 225–6, 249–50, etymological analysis 147, 150, 152, 154,
642–4, 647–50, 1276–7, 1279, 1425–6, 157, 1054, 1833, 1836
1430–1, 1447, 1449, 1488–90, 2064, 2072 etymological dictionaries 81, 108, 180, 210,
– blocking 1007–8 215, 217, 477, 606, 698, 1116, 1250, 1304,
– conditioning 908, 1978, 2031 1585, 1623, 1790
epenthesis 328–9, 1044, 1055, 1070, 1278, etymologies 152–3, 293–4, 411–12, 567–8,
2063, 2072–4, 2160 698, 978–81, 990–1, 1117, 1254–5, 1367–
epenthetic vowels 316, 421–2, 483, 520, 8, 1417, 1580–1, 1775, 1850–2, 1868–9
2031 – Proto-Indo-European 411, 1571
epic poems/narratives 89, 314, 429, 864, 882, Etymologisches Wörterbuch des
1406 Altindoarischen 411–12, 1318, 1896,
Epichoric Greek alphabets 40 1902

Authenticated
2318 General index
Euboea 641–2, 648, 712, 2037 fauna 1123, 1682, 1687, 1946, 1952, 2015,
Euboic alphabet 736 2018, 2107, 2113
euphemisms 583, 1370 Feldstein, R. F. 1424, 1437, 1458, 1460
event nominalizations 2109, 2111, 2170, 2216 Fellman, J. 154, 173
event/result nouns, feminine 2109, 2136 female referents 2098, 2100
everyday life 566, 574, 576, 1121, 1299, 1578 females 511, 576, 583, 966, 1376, 1735,
evidence, archaeological 70, 89, 411, 600, 2098–9
630, 860, 1398, 1419, 1962 feminine 461–3, 657–8, 915–17, 920–3,
e-vocalism 664, 787, 2161 925–6, 928, 1336–7, 1339–41, 1751, 1753–
– secondary 672, 845 4, 1891, 1897–9, 1988–90, 2094–2101,
evolutionary processes 1–2, 734 2103–4
exceptionlessness 99, 183, 185–6, 213, 1674 – agreement 1336, 2098
exclamations 683, 689, 1104 – derivation 345, 353, 414, 915, 2104, 2112
exocentric compounds 338, 381, 414, 984, – derived 347, 574, 586, 1376, 1891, 1990,
1127–8, 1258, 2114, 2119–20, 2127 2115
experiencers 285, 556, 684, 1219, 1676, – event/result nouns 2109, 2136
2001, 2208 – forms 658, 664, 702, 755, 894, 922, 984,
expiratory stress 19, 1011 1205, 1340, 1376, 1548, 1759, 1897, 1992,
exponents 264, 996, 1103, 1110, 1240, 2082, 2097
2085, 2087, 2094, 2138–9 – genitive 1380, 2089
– formal 2079, 2101 – i-stems 1544, 1546–7
– fusional 2082, 2147 – nominative 1380, 1989, 1992
extended forms 462, 1902, 2162 – nouns 225, 868, 915, 1285, 1513, 1542,
extension 192, 197, 278, 676–7, 983–4, 1548, 1754, 1795, 1899, 2091, 2096
1337, 1340–1, 1432, 1544, 1546, 1548, – n-stems 920, 1544
1552, 1574–6, 1781–2, 2109–10 – Proto-Nuclear-Indo-European 2096–7,
external reconstruction 117, 2196–7, 2211 2099–2100
external sandhi 335, 1821, 1903, 1932 – stems 452, 917, 2096
Ezeritai 1418 – suffixes 2082, 2094–5, 2097–8, 2100,
Eznik 1029, 1031, 1037, 1097, 1102, 1104, 2130
1107, 1109, 1124 Fenian Cycle 1176
Fennell, T. G. 1629
factitive Ferraresi, G. 955, 1017, 2196, 2211
– secondary 1761, 1767 Festus 740, 774–6, 778, 795
– suffixes 1313, 1611, 2162 fibula, Praenestine 41, 735, 846
– verbs 782, 1760, 1795, 1994 Fick, August 183, 189, 1942
factitives 230, 358–60, 366–7, 533, 674, 785, Fiedler, W. 1718, 1721, 1723–4, 1733, 1741,
937, 1094–5, 1211, 1346, 1767, 1997 1744, 1746, 1750–2, 1754–60, 1788–9
Falileyev, A. 1178–9, 1250–1 fieldwork 95, 115, 435, 438, 444, 632, 1801
Faliscan fientive 216, 358–9, 365, 373, 937, 1905,
– documentation 734, 738 2162
– inscriptions 738, 2032 Figlia, Nicolò 1722
falling diphthongs 1422–3, 1437, 1456, 1514, figura etymologica 379, 555, 957, 1957
1978 filiation 299, 301, 684, 987, 1279
falling intonations 1591, 1645 Filippone, E. 567, 577, 580
falling tones 1511–12, 1608, 1646, 1690, Filliozat, Jean 54, 1300
1706, 1708–9 final clusters 337, 1821
family members 585, 829, 2032 final consonants 42, 453, 456, 458, 488, 530,
family names 831, 1254, 1260, 1841–2, 1845 534, 906, 910, 1283, 1542, 1552–3, 1752,
family trees 1–2, 4–5, 62, 65, 298–9, 301, 1760, 1762
303, 306, 988–9, 993–4, 996, 1266, 1268– final diphthongs 1350, 1705
9, 1602, 1610 final fricatives 891, 993, 1199

Authenticated
General index 2319
final jers 1492, 1506, 1605 Flandria 144

final nasals 1081, 1265, 1267, 1441–2 flexion 173, 215, 654, 656, 667–8, 682–3,
final obstruents 1440, 2161 693, 700, 1219, 1223
final position, absolute 330, 338, 484, 488, – absolute 1269
908, 910, 1277, 1313, 1316, 1328 – double 2013
final stops 252, 841, 906–7, 1015 – verbal 1231, 1269–70
final stress 1044, 1047, 1066, 1282, 1506, flora 843, 1123, 1687, 2015, 2018, 2107
1608 focus
final syllables 609–10, 748, 908–10, 1046–7, – particles 276, 955, 1567
1081–2, 1197–1200, 1275–7, 1280–1, – position 562, 1929, 1931, 1934, 1938–9
1283–4, 1424, 1453–4, 1704–6, 1818–19, Fogel, Martin 154
1858–9, 1979 folk songs 1722, 1964, 2020
final vowels 424, 487, 504, 528, 651, 908, folklore 182, 583, 1035, 2019–20
911, 922, 1277, 1284, 1346, 1350, 1752, following consonants 902, 1062, 1193, 1380,
1760–1, 1763–4 1431, 1459, 1479, 1481, 1485, 1489, 1497,
– long 452, 458 1543, 1594, 1604, 1708
– short 889, 909, 1704, 1708 following vowels 1006, 1048, 1138, 1153–4,
– stressed 1760 1484–5, 1496, 1610
– unstressed 1703 food 216, 294, 505, 509, 586, 1032, 1044,
finite sentences 2004, 2212, 2217 1062, 1113, 1127, 1579, 1582, 1691, 1946,
finite subordinate clauses 1616, 2213 1951
finite verb forms 274, 280, 339, 384, 619, foreign influences 291–2, 295, 1791, 1795,
683, 692, 944, 1671, 1674, 1676, 1762, 2047
1906
foreign names 33, 956, 991, 1038, 1254
finite verbs 96, 264, 280, 339, 374, 815, 959,
foreign origin 294, 412, 1081, 1773, 1866
962–3, 969, 1354, 1361, 1672, 1680, 2205,
foreigners 1428, 1802, 1812, 1818, 1895
2214
forgeries 41, 847, 1406
Finno-Ugric, vowel systems 99
formal identity 80, 1082, 1907, 2092, 2099,
first consonants 334, 340, 454, 646, 672,
2146, 2151
1195, 1907
formal markers 2087, 2090–1, 2097, 2099,
first members of compounds 338, 487, 504,
528, 702, 776, 1098, 1250, 1253, 1256–8, 2102, 2140, 2165
1379–80, 1692–3, 2114, 2119–20, 2127 formants 523, 529, 541, 762, 764–6, 770,
first person 266, 282, 287, 685, 687, 1088, 780, 784–5, 792, 795–7, 841, 846, 1045,
1098, 1107, 1385, 1552–3, 1783–5, 1960, 1663, 1795
1963, 1967, 1993 formulas 15–16, 77–81, 450, 734, 737, 740,
First Regressive Palatalization 1442–3 1354, 1361, 1956, 2195
first vowels 676, 1499, 2033 – fixed 1354, 1955
Fischer, Johann Eberhard 157 Forrer, Emil 107, 233
five-vowel system 1589, 2282 Forssman, B. 83, 475, 504, 508–12, 516,
fixation 652, 748, 889, 1047, 1594 519, 524–5, 527, 532, 534–8, 540, 1623,
– gradual 631 1900, 2168
– of stress 905, 1608 Forster, Peter 197, 1170
fixed accent 195, 658, 1889–90, 1895, 1897, fortition 725, 1010–11, 1055, 1059, 1139
1908, 1910, 2124, 2126, 2129, 2150 Fortson, Benjamin W. 753, 759, 762, 795,
fixed expressions 555, 754–5 797, 811, 814, 839–42, 845, 847–9, 851,
fixed position 1159, 1669, 1671 2117, 2121, 2135, 2137
fixed root accent 2110, 2125–6 Fortunatov, Filipp 189
fixed stress 1586, 1607–8 fossilized forms 380–1, 401, 656, 669, 1203,
fixed suffixal accent 2129, 2131 1207, 1215, 2040, 2161
fixed surface accent 2131 fossilized relics 945, 2040
fixed word order 1003, 1019 Fraenkel, E. 1661, 1964, 1967, 2016

Authenticated
2320 General index
fragmentary attestation, languages of 1250, fronting 641–3, 905, 908, 935–6, 996–7,
1252, 1816, 1818, 1820, 1822, 1824, 1826, 1003, 1007, 1009, 1153–4, 1444–5, 1465,
1828, 1830, 1832, 1834, 1836, 1838, 1469–70, 1541–3, 1931, 2062
1842–4 – vowel 441, 1008, 1444, 1457, 1468–70,
fragmentation 214, 229, 306, 1853 1485
France 156, 160, 181, 184, 194, 442, 1032, frozen case forms 398, 806, 1094, 1356,
1168, 1173–4, 1275 2170
– Southern 712, 1174 full-grade alternants 918, 938
Franciscus Junius 146–7, 156 full-grade formations 1195, 2115, 2164
Francovich Onesti, N. 880, 883, 998 full-grade roots 350, 359, 365–6, 370, 1213,
Franks 1032–3, 1398, 1566, 1569, 1615–16 1911, 2146
free relative clauses 556, 561 full-grade stems 361, 365
free word order 865, 2010, 2198, 2204 full-grade suffixes 915, 1892, 1914
Freeman, P. M. 1168, 1174, 1250, 1255 function words 299, 1860
Freising Fragments 1404, 1419, 1447, 1472, functional differences 552, 1906, 1912, 1914,
1482, 1488, 1493, 1552 2105, 2111, 2161
Fremdvokal 1304–6 functions 265, 282–4, 358–62, 384–5, 550–2,
French 810, 955–6, 1219–23, 1233, 1235–8, 1354–
– creoles 871 5, 1819–20, 1825–8, 2004–5, 2209–11
– loans 892, 1123, 1255, 1289 – accusative 550, 868, 1669
frication 426, 647, 1607 – core 2142, 2206
– dorsal 1429 – directive 656, 2030
– lamino-palatal 1485 – grammatical 384, 460, 728, 811, 868,
fricative weakening 643, 646 1939
fricative-affricate clusters 1471 – indefinite 1827, 1903
fricative-fricative clusters 1443, 1498 – instrumental 259, 266, 1355
fricatives 249, 330, 333–4, 336, 481–2, 490– – locative 957, 2085
1, 493, 609–10, 646–7, 836, 1190, 1192, – middle 961, 1357, 1836
1199–1201, 1833, 2063–5 – original 262, 809, 932, 2098
– final 891, 993, 1199 – pragmatic 1615, 1784, 2197
– voiced 744, 747, 750, 836, 890–2, 1190, – primary 554, 808–9
1201, 1278, 2062 – secondary 808
– voiceless 490–1, 600, 747, 836, 890, 1201 – semantic 913, 930, 1383
fricativization 1055, 1391, 1859 – syntactic 283–4, 392, 684, 819, 956, 1932
Friedman, V. 1611, 1615, 1723, 1759, 1784, Fürecker, Christophor 1629
1802–4, 1808 future imperative 787, 931, 941, 2146
Friedrich futures 521, 676, 728, 784, 845, 1108, 1154,
– Johannes 190–1 1288–9, 1663, 1762, 1777, 1907, 2141
– P. 26, 195, 2198–9 futurity 795, 930, 1236, 2141
Frienstedt comb 877, 881, 991
Fritz Gaedicke, C. 378–9, 382–3, 2206
– Johann Friedrich 147 Galilee 866, 1101, 1106
– Matthias 215, 554, 617–18, 993, 1750, Gamkrelidze, Tamaz 8–9, 11, 21, 48, 82, 89,
2058, 2066, 2195 107, 195, 1028, 2061, 2197–8, 2284–6
front jers 1478, 1492–3, 1597, 1604–5 Gandhāra 54, 309, 418, 420, 424
front vowels 301–2, 643, 718–19, 1442, Ganges 419, 431
1444–5, 1449, 1451–2, 1464–5, 1467, Gangetic basin 418, 420, 431
1469, 1471, 1482, 1604–5, 1807, 1812–13 Garhwal 438
– high 116, 1280, 1321, 1703, 1806 Garrett, Andrew 11–12, 64, 67, 232, 260,
– low 1701–2, 1979 274–5, 281, 283, 287, 1041, 1048, 1152,
– mid 644, 1047, 1309, 1480 2062, 2200, 2207
– open 452 Gāthās 601, 1883

Authenticated
General index 2321
Gauchat, Louis 187 genitive 345–57, 505–20, 522–6, 654–64,

Gaul 778, 1174, 1178, 1204, 1206, 1257, 667–70, 752–65, 771–6, 915–20, 923–8,
1267–8, 1275, 1283, 1289–90, 2032, 2034, 1080–6, 1340–2, 1379–83, 1668–72, 1890–
2087–8, 2267, 2272 9, 2001–8
– Cisalpine 1854 – adnominal 1674, 1678
Gaulish – athematic 2082, 2086, 2127
– coins 1174–5 – complements 1227, 2170
– documentation 1168, 1172 – dependent 1109, 1675, 1956
Gauthiot, Robert 191 – of negation 1670, 1673, 2001, 2003–5
Gebhardt, Bruno 210 – nominal 1381
Geiger – nouns 387, 1382, 1670, 2116
– W. 317, 496, 567–8 – objects 684, 957
– Wilhelm 188 – o-stem 891, 1834, 2032
Geldner 339, 473–5, 503–4, 513, 535, 1896 – partitive 690, 956, 1670, 1674, 2003–5,
Gelenus, Sigismund 146, 149 2010, 2209
geminate consonants 27, 455, 896, 1378, – plural 327, 335, 657, 659, 667, 1441,
1960 1495, 1499, 1501–3, 1506, 1513, 1542,
geminate nasals 249, 251 1546, 2006, 2100
geminate sibilants 648, 1191–2 – possessive 1671, 1678, 2003, 2007, 2010
geminate stops 896, 1199, 1859, 2156 – pronominal 769, 1845
geminates 252, 254, 340–1, 455, 719, 725, – Proto-Indo-European 900, 1314, 1751,
896–7, 900, 1057, 1060, 1064, 1199–1200, 2089
1473, 1821, 2071–2 – thematic 258, 2086, 2089
– singular 423–4, 1539, 1542, 1820–2,
gemination 251, 329–30, 332, 341, 441, 648,
1824–7, 1882–3, 2057, 2059–60, 2068,
701, 765, 881, 897, 899–900, 991, 1460,
2071, 2073–4, 2110–12, 2130, 2132, 2134
1473, 2031
– thematic 226, 656, 780, 1197, 1223,
– expressive 765, 897
1266–7, 1856, 1859, 1861, 1968, 2087
– grammaticalized 441
genitive-dative 612, 658, 1340, 1751, 1903
gender 345–6, 354–6, 396, 685, 805–6, 916–
genocide 442, 1035–6, 1150, 1601
17, 925–6, 1205–7, 1223–5, 1228–9, 1341–
Genoese 1033
3, 1615–16, 1750–1, 1754, 1891; see also genres 292, 421, 711, 719–21, 723, 727, 737,
feminine; masculine; neuter 878, 1937, 2044
– animate 256, 2098–9 – literary 410, 737, 740, 2217
– common 256–7, 282–3, 285, 301, 1467, geographical distribution 149, 245, 717,
2097 1132, 1137, 1140, 1298, 1701, 1782, 1805,
– grammatical 753, 805, 966, 1080, 1098, 2237
1834, 2081, 2094–5, 2098 geographical proximity 108, 714, 989, 1962
gendered pronouns 767, 1888, 1900, 1985, geography 86, 147, 152, 194, 429, 644,
1991 1008, 1132, 1269, 1390, 1801
genealogical classification 157, 172, 1961 Georgiev, V. I. 1661, 1852, 1873–4
general linguistics 187, 191–2, 197 Gepids 987–8
generalization 612–13, 656, 658, 660–3, 666, Gérard, R. 174, 259, 265, 300, 303
674–6, 842–3, 846–7, 938–9, 1285–6, German
1544–5, 1659–60, 1670, 1672, 1915–16 – influence 1615, 1670, 1673, 1678, 2005
generalized stems 843, 1287 – loanwords 1685–6
generative grammar 95, 1469 Germanic
generative syntax 196, 2198 – consonant shift 898, 990
Genesin, M. 1759, 1795 – dialectology 986–7, 989, 991, 993, 995,
genetic relationships 8, 144, 147, 159, 174, 997, 1004
188, 300, 305, 611, 859, 871, 1290, 1855, – documentation 875, 877, 879, 881, 883
1861, 2281–4 – evolution 1002–3, 1005–7, 1009, 1011,
genitival adjectives 284, 2032 1013, 1015, 1017, 1019

Authenticated
2322 General index
– internal structure 1002, 1004 glides 326, 329, 331–2, 640, 1422, 1424,
– lexicon 974–7, 979, 981, 983, 985 1437–8, 1440, 1446–7, 1449, 1452–3,
– loans 1255, 1575, 1578, 1580, 1582, 1685 1456–8, 1469, 1471, 2057–9
– morphology 913, 915, 917, 919, 921, – homorganic 1039, 1196, 1452
923, 925, 927, 929, 931, 933, 935, 937, – inherited 1446, 1449
939, 941 – palatal 640, 644, 647–50, 1041, 1449,
– phonology 888–9, 891, 893, 895, 897, 1469, 1471
899, 901, 903, 905, 907, 909, 911 glossaries 220, 294, 567, 831, 882–3, 1032,
– syntax 954–5, 957, 959, 961, 963, 965, 1133, 1250, 1256, 1622, 1721
967, 969, 1017 glottal stops 634, 1139, 1505, 1508, 1881–2,
– vocabulary 974–5, 979–81 2064
Germanization 875, 1414 glottalic theory 11, 21, 82, 195, 211, 996,
1428, 1508, 2061, 2286
Germany 85, 88, 105, 156, 160, 174, 181,
glottalics 1138–40, 1875, 1879, 1882
194, 211, 216, 222, 298, 442, 835, 994
glottalization 1139, 1510, 1646, 1882, 1980
– Central 81
glottalized stops 610, 996, 1428, 1882
– South-West 862, 882, 1168, 1174 glottogonic speculation 2210, 2287
Gerschner, R. 752, 762 Glück, Ernst 1630
Gershevitch, I. 493, 568, 586, 615–16 Gniezno Sermons 1407
Gerullis, J. 1623, 1625, 1700 Goa 432–3
gerundives 63, 372–3, 385, 464–5, 795, 841, Goalpara 440
845, 982, 1215, 1240, 1354–5, 1359–60, Godel, R. 1046, 1053, 1055, 1058, 1065,
1769, 1779 1068, 1080, 1083
– nominalized 1240, 1367 gods/goddesses 281, 755–6, 965–6, 1172,
gerunds 373–4, 399, 422, 722, 776, 796, 815, 1233–4, 1497–8, 1642–3, 1699, 1835, 1837,
837, 841, 1094, 1338–9, 1344–5, 1373, 2047–9, 2088–9, 2096–7, 2231–2, 2238
1683, 2008–9 Goedegebuure, P. M. 262–3, 280–1, 284,
– uninflected 726, 728 2090, 2103–4
Gesmes Chriksczoniskas 1625 Goetze, A. 293–4
Gessnerus, Conradus 146–7, 2012 Golasecca 1173
Getae 1850 Gómez Moreno, Manuel 46
Gharib, B. 567 Gonda, J. 310, 378–9, 383, 387, 390, 393,
Gharibyan, A. 1149 413, 2199, 2201–2
Giacomelli, G. 831–2, 1843 Gorbachev, Y. 1995
Gilliéron, Jules 3, 187 Gorbachov, Y. 938, 1827
Gimbutas, M. 88–9, 196 Gordion 1816–17
Gippert, J. 106, 108–9, 186, 332, 486, 554, Gorgias 723
1574, 1718–20, 1722 Gortyn 1061, 1865
Gothic
Girdenis, Aleksas 1699, 1701
– alphabet 48
Girnār inscription 315–16, 421–2, 425
– Bible 139, 146, 987, 994
Gjinari, J. 1733–4, 1801–2, 1804–7
– syntax 1017, 2196
Glagolitic 49, 1399, 1401–2, 1404–5, 1420, Goths 150, 156, 159, 879, 987–8, 991, 995,
1447, 1541, 1720 997, 1397, 1416, 1686
– alphabet 1399–1400, 1402, 1478 Gotland 879, 997
– angular 1399, 1404 governance 707, 1113, 2003, 2238
– folia 1402, 1407 gradation 96, 335, 414, 448, 450, 1755,
– graffiti 1405 1898, 1900, 2118
– manuscripts 1401, 1403 grades, see also individual grades (e.g. e-grade)
– rounded 1404 – lengthened 335, 353, 508, 511, 516, 520,
Glanum 1175 530–1, 661, 674–5, 790, 1435, 1543–4,
glide diphthongs 1443–4, 1456 1553, 1766–7, 1827
glide loss 793, 1499 – vowel 581, 1374, 2107, 2116

Authenticated
General index 2323
Graeco-Anatolian contacts 2037, 2039, 2041, – Northwestern 714

2043, 2045, 2047, 2049 – Southern 717, 729, 1488, 1808
graffiti 245–6, 738, 864–5, 1030–1, 1175, Greek
1298–1300, 1394, 1851–2 – alphabet 38–9, 42, 45, 48, 51, 244, 246,
grammar 2, 23–4, 158–9, 174, 176–7, 179, 633, 736, 738–40, 749, 1174–5, 1818,
182, 196–7, 211–12, 317–18, 442, 1033–4, 1820, 1851–2
1492, 1626, 1629 – alphabetic 639–40, 2199
– comparative 95, 108, 141, 143, 158–9, – aorist 930, 1828, 1996
177, 180, 191–2, 213, 1003, 1134, 1585 – civilization 625–6, 631–2, 721, 736
– discourse 196, 2202, 2214 – colonization 697, 735–6, 1850
– generative 95, 1469 – dialectology 710–11, 713–15
– historical 344, 606, 752, 1500, 1858 – documentation 625, 627, 629, 631, 633,
– historical-comparative 140–1, 180, 193, 635
195 – East 678, 712, 714, 717, 719
– school 650, 698 – Epichoric alphabets 40
– standard 344, 1203 – evidence 625, 632, 840, 2120, 2136,
– synchronic 1617, 2215 2159, 2162, 2195
– Thracian 1850–1 – evolution 717, 719, 721, 723, 725, 727,
grammarians 93, 310, 319, 328, 340, 420, 729, 731
428, 711, 893, 2143 – history 153, 696, 712, 730
grammatical aspect 930, 1552, 2138, 2157–9 – influence 442, 832, 864, 1254, 1401, 2041
grammatical categories 21, 192, 344–5, 612, – innovations 654, 663, 665, 673, 677, 679
808, 811, 956, 959, 961, 1498, 1539–40, – inscriptions 626, 875, 1851
– letters 43, 45–6, 634, 1031, 1174, 1401–
2091–3, 2097–9, 2138–40, 2150
2, 1404, 1717, 1840, 2056
grammatical descriptions 471, 477, 734–5,
– lexicon 695–9, 701, 703, 705, 707
1034
– models 296, 699, 737, 864, 1128, 1840
grammatical functions 384, 460, 728, 811,
– morphology 654–5, 657, 659, 661, 663,
868, 1939
665, 667, 669, 671, 673, 675, 677, 679, 681
grammatical gender 753, 805, 966, 1080,
– names 1122, 1818
1098, 1834, 2081, 2094–5, 2098
– phonology 638–9, 641, 643, 645, 647,
grammatical relations 284, 377, 390, 860, 649, 651
863, 868–9, 871, 956, 1354, 1774 – poetry 630–1, 648, 2048
grammatical structure 142, 153, 176, 1304, – prefixes 1124–5
1813, 1955, 1968 – script 604, 1031, 1174, 1720, 1817
grammaticalization 17, 302, 396, 617, 619, – sources 738, 879, 1397, 1816, 1818, 1853
870, 922, 1017, 1119, 1267, 1270, 2100, – spoken 724, 727, 730–1, 1122
2105, 2205, 2215 – suffixes 705, 1125
Granada 862 – syntax 682–3, 685, 687, 689, 691, 693
Grand Duchy of Lithuania 1625–7, 1685, – toponyms 1458, 1479
1713, 2014, 2018 Greek-Anatolian language contacts 2040,
graphemes 1038, 1040, 1421, 1506, 1819 2045
graphic conventions 1197, 1718 Greenberg, Joseph 96, 114–15, 197, 1614,
Grassmann’s Law 333–4, 646 2108, 2287
Gray, R. D. 2, 69–70, 1119 Greenbergian implicational universals 2198
Great Migrations 641, 1397, 1601 Greene, D. 1206, 1253, 1284
Greaves, John 150 Greenwood, T. 1031, 1133
Greece 697, 711–12, 714–15, 718, 722, 729– Gregory of Durrës 1720
30, 861, 863–4, 1784, 1789, 1800–2, 1806– Gregory of Nazianzus 1029
7, 1812, 1862, 1864 Gregory of Tours 862
– Central 712, 714, 1466, 1784, 1850 Greppin, J. A. C. 1058, 1123, 1133
– mainland 31, 711–12, 722, 2037–9, 2049 Grestenberger, L. 542, 2109, 2116, 2143,
– Northern 717, 1404, 1414 2169

Authenticated
2324 General index
Grierson, George 54, 434–5, 437 Haliacmon basin 1850, 1862

Griffith, A. 1197, 1204, 1208, 1220, 1239–40 Halicarnassus 2038, 2049
Grimm, Jacob 16, 175, 179, 889–90, 996, Halla-aho, J. 1541–4, 1555
1796, 2012 Halle, Morris 195, 1155, 1983, 2125, 2131
Grimm’s Law 179, 185, 889–90, 988–9, Hallstatt Culture 1168
1010, 1426 Halys 239, 241
Gröber, Gustav 188 Hamilton, Alexander 173
Großkorpussprache 410, 733, 828, 878 Hämmig, Annelies 1822, 1828–9
Grotius, Hugo 152 Hammond, N. G. L. 1864, 1867
Grotsch, K. 160, 178 Hamp, E. P. 762, 1046, 1118, 1657, 1723,
Grotta della Poesia 1842 1732, 1759, 1765, 1774, 1780, 1803–8,
Grottaferatta 1720 2015
group inflection 613, 1336, 1353–4 handwritten documents 625, 1624–6, 1628–9
Gršković Fragment 1405 Hanhavaldus 998
Grunau, Simon 1623–4 Hanseatic league 881, 1685
Guadeloupe 871 Han-stems 516–17
Gudava, T. 108 Hanxleden, Johann Ernst 159
Guinea Bissau 871 haplology 368, 457, 463, 540, 680, 757–8,
Gujarat 315, 321, 421–2, 432–3 765, 779, 944–5, 1199, 1268, 1893, 2146
Gujarati, inscriptions 432 Harari 93
Gulya, J. 145, 172 Harbert, W. 1004, 1006, 1014, 1016–18
Guṇāḍhya 320, 428 hard consonants 1484, 1489, 1494, 1544,
Gunkel, D. 765, 2128, 2132 1591, 1595, 1597
Günther, A. 1628–9 hard dentals 1479, 1482, 1489–90
Gupta, script 437 hardening 836, 899, 1484
Guptas 55, 423, 428 – laryngeal 898–9, 1092
Gurmukhī 434 Haribhadrasūri 320
Gusmani, Roberto 194, 246–7, 278, 292, harmony 147, 533
300–1, 1844–5, 2041 – height 1006–7, 1009
Guthrie, M. 116–18 Harðarson, J. A. 918, 920, 922, 927, 929,
Gutones 986, 991 932, 937–8, 941, 944, 1012, 1014, 1910,
gutturals 1278, 1808 1914–15, 2092–3, 2098–9
Gutturalwechsel 1429, 1647, 1975, 2061 Haryana 418, 425, 430–1
Guwahati 440 Ḥasandust 477
Guxman, M. M. 1003, 1995 Hattusa 239–42, 292, 300, 305
Gwalior 430 Hatzopoulos, M. B. 1863–5
Gyarmathi, Sámuel 1, 172 Haudricourt, André-Georges 195
gypsy languages 178, 441 Haudry, J. 378–9, 383, 2207, 2210, 2214
Haug, D. T. T. 2204, 2206
Haarmann, H. 157, 1175, 1289, 1629, 1792 Häusler, A. 82, 187
Haas, O. 194, 831, 1818, 1829, 1873, 2045 Havas, F. 101
habitual actions 351, 529, 688, 1215, 1236, Havlík’s Law 1492, 1495–6, 1605
2164 Hawkes, C. 1169
Hackstein, O. 259, 1304, 1307–12, 1314, Hawkins, J. D. 29, 225, 242, 244, 247, 292,
1316–19, 1325, 1327–9, 2099, 2269 1015–16, 1019
Hadrian’s Wall 1290 Haxhifilipi, Theodor 1721
Haiti 871, 1878 head nouns 557, 619, 707, 805–6, 821–2,
Hajnal, I. 259–60, 302–3, 696–7, 701, 704, 1099–1100, 1112, 1127–8, 1224–30, 1380,
710, 714, 843, 2038, 2040, 2042, 2046–8, 1772, 1813, 1860, 2113, 2116
2050, 2098, 2214–15 health 583, 782, 839, 1735, 1737, 1743
Halafian culture 89 heavy consonant clusters 340, 1086
half-thematic verbs 1662 heavy syllables 746, 906–7

Authenticated
General index 2325
Hebrew hi-conjugation 66, 221, 229–32, 234, 266–7,

– script 476 304, 1994, 2139, 2152–3, 2160, 2166, 2168
– Square 35 hieroglyphs
Hegelian philosophy 184 – Egyptian 26, 29, 33
Hehn, Victor 87, 181 – Luvian 29–30
Heidermanns, F. 410, 567, 779–81, 831–3, Hieronymus 865–6
921, 937, 2080 Hiersche, R. 151, 156
height 89, 512, 516, 1006, 1097, 1255, 1499, High German, consonant shift 892, 1010
1603, 1610, 1649, 1982, 2253 high vowels 23, 326, 329, 334–5, 642, 903,
– harmony 1006–7, 1009 1043, 1045, 1047, 1062, 1066, 1070, 1191,
Heinsius, Daniel 154 1196, 1684–5
Hekataios of Milet 1168 – long 1979, 2058, 2072
Helbig, R. 1793 – short 1006, 1890
Heliand 881, 918, 1012 Hildebrandslied 883
Hellenism 724, 737 Hilmarsson, J. 916, 932, 1304, 1310, 1312–
Hellenistic period 642, 644, 698, 710, 715, 15, 1318–21, 1323, 1326, 1328–9
721, 836 Himachal Pradesh 437
hellenization 864, 1488 Himalayas 430, 436, 438–9
Hellenizing school 1029, 1124 Himmelmann, N. P. 124–5
Hellespont 630 Hindu-Kush 433, 435, 443
Helm, Karl 189 Hinterhölzl, R. 955, 963
Hemshin 1133, 1138–9 Hintze, A. 477, 535–6, 567
Henning, W. B. 49, 51, 486, 615, 618, 1121–2 Hinz, W. 472, 568
Hepp, Johann Michael 156 Hippocrates 642, 704
Hērbedestān 473–4 Hirakawa, A. 425
Herculaneum 738 Hirt, Hermann 20, 89, 189–90, 211, 213–14,
Herman, J. 734 938, 983, 1003, 1542, 1544, 1962, 2013,
Hermiones 986 2134, 2161
Herodotus 626, 642, 705–6, 720, 1168, 1415, Hirt’s Law 1505–7, 1509–10, 1962, 1981
1816, 1818, 1865 historical analysis 630, 769, 786, 790, 792
Hervás y Panduro, Lorenzo 149, 157, 2012 historical grammar 344, 606, 752, 1500,
Herzfeld, Ernst 51 1858
Hesiod 683, 686 historical linguistics 1–2, 4, 18, 23, 65, 77,
Hester, D. A. 1873 82, 95, 106, 114, 116–17, 122, 125, 186–7,
Hesychius 640, 649, 700, 711, 1310, 1574, 299
1818, 1823, 1851, 1855, 1863, 1865 historical phonology 99, 639, 1037, 1045,
heteroclitic nouns 660, 1895 1072, 1189, 1195, 1617, 1732, 1751, 1844
heteroclitic stems 757, 1540, 1659, 1895 historical relationships 145, 158, 177, 180,
heteroclitics 261, 349, 578, 654, 662–3, 829, 989
917, 1084–5, 2112 historical-comparative grammar 140–1, 180,
heteromorphemic stops 334 193, 195
heterosyllabic sequences 903, 1456, 1509–10, historical-comparative linguistics 99, 106,
1546 139, 171, 186–7, 870, 2001
Hettrich, Heinrich 76, 379–80, 383, 387, 390, historiography 139, 175, 211, 214, 711, 720,
397, 400, 2143, 2200, 2206–11, 2214–16, 986, 996
2267 Hittite
Hetzer, A. 1721, 1789 – cognates 1118, 2169
Hewson, J. 1012, 1564, 2211 – cuneiform texts 242, 246, 302
hexameters 698, 707, 864, 1819 – Empire 29, 239, 241–3, 300, 305
hiatus 357, 427, 454, 486, 519, 675, 697, 900, – forms 227, 2126, 2155–6
1191, 1197, 1211, 1446, 1883, 1889, 1911 – hi-conjugation 66, 267, 1994
– verbs 1211, 1214, 1287 – kings 239, 241, 286, 300
Hiatustilger 1822, 1827 – verbs 232, 266

Authenticated
2326 General index
Hjelmslev, L. 174–5 Hunza valley 441, 443

Hock, H. H. 9–11, 141, 378, 380, 383, 387, Hurrian-Hittite bilingual document 241, 2043
389–90, 392, 1732–3, 1736, 1738, 1975, Hus, Jan 42
2196, 2198–9, 2203 hushers 1429, 1450, 1471, 1473
Hoenigswald, H. M. 16, 63, 65, 141, 156, Hutterer, C. J. 1004
158, 160, 172, 183–5, 192, 195, 2073 Hutton, James 185
Hoffmann, Karl 50–1, 472–5, 477, 503–5, Huwel Dda 1178
508–13, 515–16, 519–20, 523–5, 527, 531– hydronyms 89, 1417, 1466, 1712, 1851,
2, 534–8, 540, 552, 1900, 1914–15 2013, 2019–20
Hoffner, H. A. 256, 262–5, 274, 277, 282–3, hymnals 1626–9
2041, 2092, 2104, 2108, 2112, 2118, 2164 hymns 77, 310, 383, 418, 473, 542, 601,
Hofmann, J. B. 831–2, 852, 859, 882 1256, 1298, 1625–7, 1629
Högemann, P. 2043–5, 2048 hypercorrections 425, 852, 1449, 1821
Holland, G. 401, 2216 hypotaxis 400, 692, 966–7, 969
holokinetic type 916–17, 920–2 hypothetical proto-languages 16, 629, 2286
Holsinger, D. J. 1011 hysterodynamic patterns 345, 347–51, 361,
Holst, J. H. 1042, 1046 368, 399, 512–13, 1082–3, 1889
Holthausen, F. 882, 1012 hysterokinetic stems 196, 762, 917–18, 1197
Holtzmann’s Law 900
Homer 644, 649–50, 654, 656, 660–2, 667–8, i-affection 1200–1, 1204, 1280
671–2, 676–8, 680, 683–94, 700–2, 704–7, iambic shortening 765–6, 773, 775
1816, 2043–5, 2048 Iberia 33, 46, 1168
Homeric epics 77, 80, 698, 720, 2040–1, 2045 Iberian Peninsula 143, 861–2, 867, 1168,
homilies 867, 1403–4, 1406–7 1170, 1254–5, 1265, 1271, 1857
homonymy 19, 458, 918, 934, 947, 1676, Iberian script 1170–2, 1266
1708, 1761, 1766, 2209, 2257 Ibero-Caucasian hypothesis 106
homophony 278, 651, 658, 726, 1159, 1365, Ickler, I. 1928, 1930
1370, 1576, 1607, 2086 ictus 1483, 1501–3, 1505–7, 1509, 1511,
homorganic forms 1058, 1200, 1446, 1463, 1513–14, 1690, 1962
1482, 1609 identification 4, 96, 123, 178, 221, 223, 734,
homorganic glides 1039, 1196, 1452 1300, 1833, 1855, 1869, 2018
homorganic nasals 336, 1190 identity
Honti, L. 100–1 – formal 80, 1082, 1907, 2092, 2099, 2146,
Hopper, Paul J. 21, 195, 2061, 2162, 2166 2151
Horace 864 – regional 1864, 1866
Horn, Georg 154, 568 ideological assumptions/preconceptions 138–
hortative 687, 1357, 1680, 2146 9, 155, 171
Houtum-Schindler, A. 568 idiomatic semantic changes 383, 390
Hovelacque, Abel 184, 584 idioms 9, 23, 158, 888, 992, 1389, 1790,
h-stems 514–15, 517–18 1812
– neuter 518 idiosyncrasy 11–12, 95, 139, 193, 975, 1161,
Hubbard, P. 1750–1, 1754–60, 1774, 1778–9, 2091, 2100, 2210, 2216
1784–5, 1794 i-diphthongs 1315, 1817
Hübschmann, Heinrich 185, 486, 567–8, i-epenthesis 487, 514, 1063, 1068, 1070
1040, 1043, 1115–17, 1119–20, 1122–3 ī-genitive 1845, 2031–2
Huggard, M. 2102 ignorance 632, 725, 1314, 1320, 1926, 1940,
Huld, M. 1367, 1732, 1790 2280
Hültenschmidt, E. 172 III-iō verbs 783–5, 787, 796–7
human beings 576, 1382, 2095, 2232, 2241, i-inflection 1548, 1989, 1992
2248, 2254 Ijekavian norms 1591
Humbach, H. 477, 567 Iliad 89, 627, 631, 698, 720, 978, 2042–4
Hungary 442, 605, 879, 1174, 1589 Illič-Svityč, V. M. 196, 1500, 1506, 1542,
Huns 155, 1397, 1601 1982, 2286–7

Authenticated
General index 2327
Il’men, Lake 1419 Indian subcontinent 309, 411, 413, 600, 976
imitation 26, 313, 1335, 1402, 1463, 1471, Indic
1474, 1487, 1493, 2008–9, 2049 – dialectology 417, 419, 421, 423, 425, 427,
imperative 278, 280, 360, 362–9, 687–9, 784, 429, 431, 433, 435, 437, 439, 441, 443
786, 817–18, 909–10, 1107–8, 1760, 1762, – documentation 309, 311, 313, 315, 317,
1766, 1783–4, 2145 319, 321
– endings 358, 362, 465, 941–2, 1350, – evolution 447, 449, 451, 453, 455, 457,
1357, 1912 459, 461, 463, 465, 467
– future 787, 931, 941, 2146 – lexicon 409, 411, 413
– optative 1916–19 – morphology 344–5, 347, 349, 351, 353,
imperfect 369–72, 536–7, 687–8, 784–6, 355, 357, 359, 361, 363, 365, 367, 369,
825–6, 841, 930, 944–5, 1090–2, 1105–6, 371, 373
1344–5, 1347–50, 1358, 1761–5, 2140 – phonology 325, 327, 329, 331, 333, 335,
– Proto-Indo-European 784, 1554 337, 339, 341
– subjunctives 63, 825, 1292 – scripts 26, 54, 56
imperfective aspect 617, 1563, 2157 – syntax 377, 379, 381, 383, 385, 387, 389,
imperfective stems 841, 1094, 1998, 2140, 391, 393, 395, 397, 399, 401, 1924
2157–8, 2160 indicative
imperfective verbs 617, 1613 – forms 372, 529, 786, 930, 1292, 1348,
impersonal constructions 556, 806, 824, 1662, 1766, 2145–6
1104, 1156, 1676 – imperfect injunctive 1916–18
impersonal verbs 551, 556, 956, 1772 – injunctive 1917–19
implicational universals, Greenbergian 2198 – present 535, 1090, 1155, 1269, 2141
implicit subjects 1679, 2004, 2199 indirect commands 817, 823–4
improper prepositions 690, 1101 indirect evidence 610, 706, 1623, 1641, 2135
i-mutation 261, 263, 303–4, 905–6, 1734–9, indirect objects 345, 392, 395, 550, 554, 612,
1744, 2046, 2097–8 614, 1354–5, 1751, 1755–6, 1781, 1784,
inalienable possession 124–5, 1356, 2048 1828, 1836, 2204
inanimate nouns 1371, 1382, 2205 indirect questions 694, 823, 825, 968, 1102,
inanimate objects 345, 683, 1355 1104
inanimate subjects 1357 indirect speech 562, 694, 822
inanimates 458, 613, 1549 indirect statements 814, 822–3
inception 420, 431, 675 individualizing n-stems 922, 1259, 1326
inchoative 358, 360, 494, 616, 675, 1317 individualizing suffixes 283–4, 923
– intransitive 1611 Indo-Aryan
incorporation 176, 720, 729, 1685, 1706, – history 449, 456
2144 – innovations 1882, 1947
indeclinables 215, 689, 1545–6, 1679, 1948 Indo-European
indefinite articles 958, 1017, 1112, 1206, – ablaut 1366, 1767
1751 – comparative grammar 138, 159, 171,
indefinite determiners 969 174–5, 177, 180, 184, 187, 189–92, 194–5
indefinite particles 526, 1902 – comparative linguistics 21, 85, 171, 178,
indefinite plural forms 1751, 1774 183, 190, 193, 195, 217, 943, 2012–13
indefinite pronouns 280–1, 526, 928, 969, – dialectology 7–8, 11–12, 22–3, 62–3, 65,
1087–8, 1111–12, 1342, 1758, 1902, 2215 67, 69, 71, 717, 859–60, 1561, 1806, 1814,
independence 420, 711, 982, 1028, 1035, 1961
1352–3, 1788 – etymologies 292–4, 978–9, 1116, 1581,
independent adverbs 707, 1240, 1336 1869–70, 1950
independent phonemes 326, 330, 332, 453 – grammar 213–14
indeterminacy 784, 1610, 1614 – language relationship 138–9, 141, 143,
India 8, 54, 88, 160, 173, 210, 321, 421, 427, 145, 147, 149, 151, 153, 155, 157, 159,
429–31, 433–4, 438, 440, 442, 1035 161, 172
Indian grammarians 340, 413, 449 – laryngeals 192, 1823, 1881

Authenticated
2328 General index
– lexical stock 1789, 1791, 1794 inflection 283–4, 347–9, 353–4, 459–63,
– linguistics 7–9, 11–12, 20–2, 140, 142, 774–5, 915–16, 920–2, 926, 1044, 1046–7,
144, 146, 148, 150, 152, 154, 156, 158, 1081–3, 1085–7, 1762, 1765, 1894–8
171–98, 210–17 – acrodynamic 350, 352, 363
– origins 448, 704, 859, 956, 1790, 1808, – active 221, 782, 1764
2286 – adjectival 983–4, 1659, 1988, 2096
– proto-language 743, 859–60, 980, 1940 – a-stem 347, 991, 1988
– syntax 197, 1927, 1932, 2196 – athematic 234, 346, 361–2, 788, 931,
– vowels 909, 1821 1347, 1988–9, 1997
Indo-Europeanists 21, 67, 82, 183, 186, 192, – consonantal 458–9, 1688
220, 475, 606, 1004, 1115–16, 1927, 2056– – dual 775, 913–14, 993, 1835, 2121
7, 2070, 2280 – feminine 921, 1753, 1988
Indogermanische Grammatik 196, 211, 213– – group 613, 1336, 1353–4
14, 2079–80 – i-stem 757, 761, 763, 1754, 1963, 1978,
Indo-Hittite, hypothesis 62, 65–6, 191, 260, 1988, 1991
2080 – mediopassive 1090, 1093, 1346, 1357
Indo-Iranian – middle 358, 384, 390, 2164, 2231
– clauses 1927, 1931–2, 1938 – mixed 757, 921, 931, 939
– lexicon 1942–3, 1945, 1947–9, 1951, – nominal 216, 459–61, 654, 763, 865,
1953, 1955, 1957 868–9, 913, 1012–13, 1538, 1756, 1820,
– morphology 1888–9, 1891, 1893, 1895, 1966, 2081, 2089
1897, 1899, 1901, 1903, 1905, 1907, 1909, – nouns 263, 304, 458, 1540, 1897–8, 1988
1911, 1913, 1915, 1917 – o-stem 761, 1988
– plural 775, 920, 2092, 2104
– syntax 1924–5, 1927, 1929, 1931, 1933,
– present 907, 909, 936, 938
1935, 1937, 1939
– pronominal, see pronominal inflection
Indus 421, 423–4, 433–4, 436
– singular 914, 928
inessive 1671–2, 2003
– stem 353, 1988, 2095
infinitive stems 1094, 1551, 1662–3, 1708–9,
– thematic 258, 362, 368, 457, 788, 847,
1995–6
1347, 1960, 1963, 1994–5, 1998, 2082,
infinitives 541–3, 554, 689, 693–4, 726–8,
2113, 2148
796–7, 1102–3, 1679, 1769, 1779, 1785–6, – verbs 63, 215, 357, 457, 603–4, 863, 866,
1813–14, 2008–10, 2170, 2216 869, 989, 1012, 1014, 1541, 1551, 1708,
– Armenian 1094, 1373 1714
– dative 388, 400, 1678 – weak 920, 1339
– passive 797, 847, 849 inflectional categories 63, 221, 346, 506,
– perfect active 793, 796–7 654, 670, 931, 1005, 1012, 1561, 1859,
– predicative 2002, 2216 2105, 2138–9, 2141
– Tocharian 1963, 2170 inflectional classes 650, 913–14, 1337, 1433,
infixed pronouns 1207–10, 1279, 1286 1859
infixes 124, 358, 360, 363, 438, 531, 930, inflectional endings 930, 1561–2, 2092,
1346, 1994, 2107, 2161 2094, 2096–7, 2123, 2125, 2129, 2131,
– nasal 216, 364, 387, 794, 932, 1551, 2139–40, 2142, 2146, 2148, 2151, 2154
1581, 1689, 1908, 2162 inflectional paradigms 617, 984, 1561, 1603,
inflected adjectives 263, 276, 1658, 2105 1844, 2124, 2129
inflected forms 283, 346, 774, 811, 984, inflectional patterns 345, 460, 1082, 2082
1219, 1342, 1778, 1899, 1996, 2105, inflectional stems 991, 1066
2107–8 inflectional suffixes 2081, 2123–4, 2138
inflected nouns 551, 1341, 1899, 2105 information packaging 2196, 2198–9
inflected participles 726–7 ingressive 358, 361, 433, 688, 938
inflected possessive pronouns 1209, 1756 Inguaeones 986
inflected relative pronouns 1207, 1253, 1361, inheritance 7, 22, 70, 78, 847, 956, 1126,
2102 1288, 2097–8, 2144, 2284

Authenticated
General index 2329
inherited lexemes 413, 569, 572, 575, 578, – shared 62–4, 130–3, 435, 441, 444, 1119,
585, 1969 1960–1, 1969, 2030–2, 2034–5, 2080
inherited lexica 217, 291–2, 411, 567, 573, – Slavic 1546–8, 1553, 1564, 2014
829, 1250, 1317, 2018 – unique 419, 1816
inherited material 354, 706, 1808 innovative learners 1427, 1445–6, 1492
inherited Proto-Indo-European elements 567, Inoue, T. 2012, 2016
658, 667, 1051, 1258, 1503, 1655, 1671, inscriptional evidence 644, 647, 846, 1137
1674, 1691, 1714, 2090, 2159 inscriptional forms 423, 793, 1136
inherited reflexive pronouns 1756, 1761 inscriptions 241–2, 244–6, 315–17, 421–3,
inherited vocabulary 68, 180, 292–3, 409–10, 848–51, 881–2, 990–2, 1171–7, 1817–18,
567, 582, 695, 699, 1115–18, 1126, 1571– 1826–9, 1832–4, 1836–7, 1839–42, 1854–
2, 1681, 1688, 1788–90, 1942–3 5, 1857–9
initial accent 345, 700, 1306–7, 1894, 2127, – Achaemenid 471, 602
2129 – Aśokan 310, 315, 421–2, 424–5
initial consonants 130–1, 463–4, 530, 534, – Assyrian 600
904, 1088, 1283, 1345, 1486, 1990, 2150 – Attic 642, 684
initial objects 387, 1242 – Bisutun 49, 472, 602, 1120
initial position 252, 275, 277, 287, 486, 491, – burial 734, 1842
493, 600, 640–1, 772, 866, 1360, 1928–9, – Carian 45
1931, 1935 – Carian-Greek 245
initial stops 252, 304 – Duenos 737, 785, 815, 863, 927
initial stress 1012, 1019, 1275–8, 1280–1, – early 853, 1403, 1628
1502, 1511, 1608, 1640, 1714, 1747, 1890, – Greek 626, 875, 1851
1915, 1980
– Gujarati 432
initial subjects 386, 389, 1242
– Mānsehrā 422
initial syllables 487–8, 750, 837, 889, 898,
– private 603, 725
900–1, 905–6, 1067, 1136, 1199, 1424,
– royal 49, 292, 558, 603
1426, 1494, 1514, 1608
– runic 876–8, 881–3, 990–5, 998
initial verbs 278–80, 1243
– Sanskrit 432, 438–9
initial vowels 42, 54, 672, 728, 774, 899,
1441, 1547, 1598, 1737 – stone 122, 737, 739
injunctive 360–5, 368–9, 371–2, 384, 529, – Swiss 1175
534, 536–7, 552–3, 671–2, 678, 1905–6, – Tartessian 46
1911–12, 1915, 1997, 2144–5 – Tekor 1031, 1136
– aorist 361, 688, 1091, 1909, 1997 – Tortora 848, 851
– indicative imperfect 1916–18 – trilingual 49, 245, 472, 603
– perfect 1906, 1910 – Venetic 1832–4
– present 529, 1906–7 – Vezirhan 1817, 1820
– Proto-Indo-European 1763–4 – votive 734, 1174, 1832, 1835–6
– Vedic 1906, 1915 insertion 329, 422, 1043, 1176, 1346, 1348,
inner-Greek innovation 224, 2143 1350, 1495, 1675, 1678, 1708–9, 1892–3
innovations 62–7, 188–9, 298–9, 301–3, instrumental
743–4, 780–1, 840, 993–4, 1005, 1777–8, – forms 391–2, 753, 766, 781, 956
1782–3, 1890–1, 1893, 1960–2, 1967–8 – predicative 1670–1, 1964, 2001, 2003–4
– Italo-Celtic 2032 – Proto-Indo-European 755, 808, 914, 1204,
– lexical 580, 603, 1422, 1965, 1992 2088, 2105
– morphological 62, 67, 69, 96, 302, 790, – singular 259, 461, 784
840, 1706, 1708, 1714 intensification 603, 900, 1601
– post-Proto-Indo-European 2084, 2090, intensity 1011, 1060, 1864, 2039, 2050
2118, 2138 – stress 1011, 1072
– Proto-Nuclear-Indo-European 2088, 2094, intensives 414, 530, 982, 1907–8
2097, 2099, 2101, 2118, 2163 – Proto-Indo-European 267, 936
– Proto-Sabellic 743, 749 interconsonantal laryngeals 1823, 1877

Authenticated
2330 General index
interconsonantal liquids 1495–6 Ionic

interconsonantal sonorants 1495 – alphabet 646, 711
interferences 305, 726, 730, 832, 989, 1161, – prose 706, 720
1196, 1254, 1348, 2040, 2046, 2049 iotation 1450, 1458
interjections 363, 680, 955, 966, 1219, 1352, IPA 568, 1038, 1153, 1420, 1465–6, 1492,
1558, 1719, 1751, 1784, 2106 1822
internal derivation 226, 338, 753, 762, 2107 Iranian
internal reconstruction 15–16, 18, 24, 81, – dialectology 599, 601, 603, 605
109, 116, 132, 227, 412, 648, 1362, 2017, – dialects 471, 474, 486, 601, 1123
2021, 2100, 2110 – documentation 471, 473, 475, 477
internal sandhi 335, 707 – evolution 608–9, 611, 613, 615, 617, 619
internal syllables 744, 1306, 1442, 1591 – lexicon 566–7, 569, 571, 573, 575, 577,
internationalisms 1793–4 579, 581, 583, 585, 587
interrogative 523, 526–7, 555, 557, 817–18, – Modern 471, 497–8, 552, 573, 601, 1878,
928, 1328, 1549, 1758, 1903, 1926–30, 1885, 1943
1992, 2100, 2102, 2215–16 – morphology 503, 505, 507, 509, 511, 513,
– pronouns 398, 526, 562–3, 667, 767, 771, 515, 517, 519, 521, 523, 525, 527, 529,
818, 928, 968, 1088, 1112, 1549, 1757–8, 531
2097, 2101 – New 471, 476, 552, 561, 600–1, 605,
interrogative/indefinite pronouns 668, 1947, 617, 1945
1991–2, 2102 – phonology 481, 483, 485, 487, 489, 491,
intervocalic consonants 424, 454, 456, 1211 493, 495, 497, 499
intervocalic laryngeals 1876–7, 1884, 1886, – scripts 26, 34, 49
– sources 1121–2, 1367, 1370, 1791
1977
– syntax 549, 551, 553, 555, 557, 559, 561,
intervocalic position 453–4, 456, 487, 493,
563, 1924
497, 505, 747, 750, 839, 1199–1200, 1268,
Iranian Plateau 471–2, 599–600
1608, 1840, 1844, 1883–4
i-reduplicated forms 2161, 2163
intervocalic semi-vowels 900
Ireland 43, 1175, 1179, 1289
intervocalic stops 426–8, 453, 619, 776
irrealis 370, 552–3, 618, 1360, 1673, 2007–8
intonability 1640, 1642, 1646
– subordinators 2008
intonations 192, 908, 966, 1420, 1513, 1590– irregular verbs 787–9, 1287
1, 1645–7, 1980–1, 2066, 2214 irregularities 772, 788, 838, 1282, 1289,
– acute 1646, 1662, 1977, 1981 1370, 1508, 1605, 1873, 1907
– broken 1645, 1982 – regular 117
– glottalized 1646, 1980 Irslinger, B. S. 216, 1258–9, 2108, 2113
– nonacute 1982 Isačenko, A. V. 1492, 1496, 1606
– rising 1097, 1591, 1645 Isidore of Seville 142
intransitive subjects 1669, 2004 Islam 35, 116, 443, 471, 600, 862, 1721
intransitive verbs 265, 281, 283, 285, 379, Ismajli, R. 1717–18, 1720, 1724
382–3, 386, 389, 466–7, 530, 533, 616, isoglosses 298–9, 301, 303–4, 306, 573–4,
960, 1670, 1677–8 608, 610–11, 713–14, 848, 1136–7, 1607,
intransitives 383, 386, 388–90, 395, 615, 1800, 1803–5, 1969, 1971
1090, 1095, 1161, 1384–5, 1551, 1611–12, – early 1132, 1136, 1138
1778, 1780, 2207 – lexical, see lexical isoglosses
invariable stems 921, 1081 – morphological 473, 1963, 1985
invariant forms 533, 797, 1156, 1777, 1929 – phonetic 1700
inverse spellings 1859, 1864 – phonological 836, 1805–6
inversion 212, 1152, 1354, 1360–1, 1582, – shared 1593, 1964
1813, 1933, 1936, 2203 – syntactic 1134, 1963
– prosodic 276, 1932–7, 2203 isolated lexemes 1448, 1480–1, 1486
Ionia 720 Israel 599, 1240, 1436–7, 1680, 2286
Ionians 641–2, 718 Istanbul 246, 1148–52

Authenticated
General index 2331
i-stems 662–3, 757–61, 780, 921, 928, 994– Ivanov, Vjačeslav 8–9, 11, 21, 82, 89, 107,
5, 1082, 1126–7, 1338, 1657, 1659, 1834, 195, 299, 1028, 1367, 1422, 2012, 2021,
1986–8, 1991, 2102 2197–8, 2284–6
– adjectives 1545, 1988, 2115–16 i-vocalism 770, 2161
– declension 1283, 1549, 1656 İvriz 244
– feminine 1544, 1546–7 Izbornik 1406
– forms 760, 766, 771
– inflection 757, 761, 763, 1754, 1963, Jackson, K. H. 1177–8, 1189, 1255, 1280–2
1978, 1988, 1991 Jäger, Andreas 154, 156, 956
– neuter 86, 226, 916 Jagić, V. 1402, 1404–5, 1407
– nouns 728, 731, 758, 1616 Jains 309, 319, 321, 423, 426, 447, 927
– original 755, 771 – Śvetāmbara 319, 425–6
– paradigms 1081, 1083, 1268, 2088, 2098 Jaipur 431
– plural 1086, 1546 Jaisalmer district 321, 433
– Proto-Indo-European 753, 759, 916 Jaknavičius, Jonas 1627
Istria 1474 Jakob-Rost, Liane 246
Istuaeones 986 Jakobson
Italian loans 1793 – R. 8, 16, 19, 187, 223, 650, 1406, 1437,
Italic 1458, 1504, 2061–2
– dialectology 835, 837, 839, 841, 843, – Roman 195, 223
845, 847, 849, 851, 853 Jakubica, Miklawuš 1407
– documentation 733, 735, 737, 739 Jamieson, John 156
– evolution 858–9, 861, 863, 865, 867, 869, Jamison, S. W. 339, 378–80, 382–3, 387, 389,
488, 582, 781, 2101, 2143, 2165–8, 2210
871
Jammu and Kashmir 321, 431, 436
– innovation 774, 780–2, 790, 829, 842,
Janda, L. A. 704, 1500, 1843, 2235, 2253
845
Janhunen
– lexicon 828–31, 833
– J. 102, 2281–2
– morphology 751–3, 755, 757, 759, 761,
– Juha 2281
763, 765, 767, 769, 771, 773, 775, 777,
Jankowsky, K. R. 178, 182, 186, 210
779, 781
Japan 155, 1300
– phonology 743, 745, 747, 749 Japhet 143–4, 155–6, 160
– syntax 804–5, 807, 809, 811, 813, 815, Jaroslav, Prince 1406
817, 819, 821, 823, 825 Jasanoff, Jay 66–7, 226–32, 265–7, 932–3,
– verbs 794, 805, 840 1906–10, 1912, 1995–6, 2033–5, 2088–90,
Italo-Albanian writing tradition 1722–4 2137, 2139–47, 2149, 2151–4, 2160–4,
Italy 33, 145, 193–4, 733, 735–6, 738, 743, 2166–8
828, 832, 879, 883, 1789, 1793, 1800–2, ja-stems 1542, 1654, 1656–7, 1659
1812 Java 124
– Central 739, 752, 831, 860–1 Jelgava/Mitau 1629, 1706
– Northeastern 1417, 1477, 1482 Jensen, H. 26, 1044, 1098
– Northern 861, 875, 1013, 1168, 1172–3, jer letter 1489, 1493
1254, 1257, 1289, 2030 jer shift 1443, 1473, 1476, 1482, 1485, 1489,
– pre-Roman 858–9, 875, 1832 1492, 1494, 1497–8, 1502, 1603, 1606–7
– Southern 712, 717, 723, 729, 736, 739, jer vowels 1398, 1405, 1588–9
860–1, 1722, 1790, 1806–7, 1854, 1868 jers 1088–90, 1107, 1113, 1117, 1488–9,
iteration 360, 395, 1384, 2105, 2158 1491–3, 1496, 1587–8, 1590–1, 1594,
iterative preterites 2047, 2164 1603–6, 1684–5, 1979, 1981, 1983
iterative-duratives 12, 359 – front 1478, 1492–3, 1597, 1604–5
iteratives 230, 672–3, 934, 1087, 1260, 1435, – strong 1490, 1492–3, 1495–7, 1597,
1613–14, 1997 1604–5, 1609
i-umlaut 179, 905–6, 1007, 1986 – weak 1481, 1484–5, 1487, 1491–4, 1496–
i-/u-stems 460–1, 511, 520 7, 1511, 1513, 1604, 1606

Authenticated
2332 General index
Jharkhand 421, 430–1 Kaunas region 1702–3, 1713

Jhunjhunu 431 Kavalioti, Theodor 1721
Jiménez, Roderigo 143–5 Kāvyālaṅkāra 318, 320
Jiménez de Rada, Roderigo 143 Kazazi, Gjon Nikollë 1717, 1720
Jokl, N. 1653, 1723, 1747, 1792, 1803, 1805, Kazlauskas, J. 1641, 1656–7, 1662, 1688
1807 Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköy (KBo) 246,
Jones 278–80, 284, 286–7, 2043, 2213
– Morris 1203 Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköy (KUB)
– Sir William 154, 158, 160, 210, 2280 246, 274–6, 280–3, 285–7, 2044, 2047–8
– William 1, 158–60, 171–3 Kellens, J. 473–5, 477, 510, 512, 515, 524,
Jordanes 142, 987, 997, 1397 531–43, 552, 554, 559–61, 567, 1884,
Jorro, Aura 697–8 1906, 1914, 2059
Josephson, F. 260, 283 Kemenade, A. van 965
jo-stems 1539, 1542–5, 1658 Kemmer, S. 1612, 2143
Jügel, T. 529, 552, 555, 558, 614 Kent, R. G. 50, 190, 477, 567
Junāgaḍh 423 Kerala 433
Jungmann, P. 1037, 1098 Keresztes, L. 100–1
Jura 1173–4 Kessler, S. 1623, 1626, 2056
jussives 687, 1358–61 k-extension 790, 2111
Justus Lipsius 148–50 Keydana, G. 340, 400, 1015, 2132, 2135,
juxtapositions 560, 1086, 1107, 1692, 2205 2138, 2170, 2195–6, 2198–2200, 2203,
2205, 2207, 2209, 2211–12, 2216–17
Kabul River 424, 435 Khachaturian, A. A. 1133, 1138
Kadare, Ismail 1724
Khania 697
Kafiristan 443
Kharos 54, 316
Kalayi glossary 1133
Kharoṣṭhī, script 421, 423
Kālidāsa 314, 428
Khorde Avesta 473–4
Kalima, J. 1686, 1989
Khuddanikāya 317
Kaliṅga 315
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 434–5
Kamberi, Hasan Zyko 1721
Kamboja 314 Kieffer, C. M. 568
Kaneš 292, 300 Kiev 1406, 1483
Kannauj 430 Kiev Folia 1419, 1475, 1488, 1492
Karadžič, Vuk Stefanovič 179 Kiev Missal 1401–2, 1404, 1407
Karakoram 433, 435 Kikkuli 294, 328, 2104
Karaliūnas, S. 1661, 1682, 2012 Kim, M. 1170, 1192, 1325, 1899, 2071,
Karashahr 1298 2087, 2099, 2104, 2107, 2132, 2152, 2166
Karatepe 244 kingship 251, 418, 423, 554, 562
Karpūramañjarī of Rājaśekhara 319 kinship 196, 440, 853, 974–6
Karst, J. 107, 1037, 1133–4, 1147, 1155, – relations 152, 557, 2014
1158 – suffixes 2113
Kārum Kaneš 239 – terms 440, 520, 612, 850, 975, 1084,
Kashmir 321, 431, 436–8 1251, 1337–8, 1572, 1574, 1757, 1945,
Kastrati, J. 1716, 1721, 1723 1951, 2113, 2233
Kāṭhaka 311, 451, 455, 457 Kiparsky, P. 195, 1017, 1609, 1684–5, 2103,
Kathiawar peninsula 432–3 2107, 2111, 2121–3, 2125, 2128, 2131–2,
Kathmandu valley 438–9 2135–7, 2145, 2149, 2200
Katičić, R. 1868–9, 1873 Kirchmaier, G. K. 154, 156
Kātyāyana 314 Kispert, R. J. 160, 173
Katz, H. 99, 102, 300, 484, 489, 492, 1316, Kizilirmak 239, 241
1319, 1949, 2048, 2141, 2235–6, 2242, Kizzuwatna 300–2
2273, 2282 Klaĩpėda region 1702, 1705
Kaufman, T. 2, 9, 2040 Klaproth, J. H. 106, 158, 181

Authenticated
General index 2333
Klein, J. 380, 398, 400–1, 1013, 1017, 1089, Kruta, V. 1169–70

1092–3, 1098, 1902, 1925, 1932, 2101, Kucha 605, 1298, 1300–1, 1389–90, 1392–3
2105, 2200, 2214–16 Kuchean kingdom 1377, 1390
Kleinas, Danielius 1626 Kudzinowski, C. 1626–7
Kleinkorpussprache 881–2 Kufner, H. L. 1004
Klimov, G. A. 107, 2284 Kuhn
Klingenschmitt, G. 227, 927, 933, 1048, – Adalbert 181–2
1050, 1056, 1064, 1080–1, 1086, 1088–9, – Ernst 188
1091–3, 1116, 1118–19, 1126–7, 1902 Kuiper, F. B. J. 107, 327, 411–13, 488, 1313,
Kloekhorst, A. 254, 256, 261, 263, 266, 293– 1327, 2134–5
4, 838, 1880, 2064, 2134, 2142, 2153, Kuiper’s Law 756, 1327, 1339, 1341, 2065
2160, 2255 Kulikov, L. 378–9, 383–6, 388–90, 393–4,
Kluge, F. 896, 975, 980 396, 575, 1907–8, 1914, 2087, 2143, 2163–
Kluge’s Law 896–7, 918, 938–9 4, 2208
Knobl, W. 380, 2216 Kümmel, Martin 215–16, 385, 388, 930, 933,
Knossos 697, 711, 717, 2039, 2046 1905–10, 1912, 1914–16, 2085–6, 2089,
Kobayashi, M. 330, 334, 341, 454, 487, 490, 2134–7, 2155, 2157, 2160, 2162
492, 498 Kunar 435–6
Koch, H. 17, 130–1, 133, 1168, 1174, 1176, Kuṇḍapura 319
1178–9, 1219, 1240, 1265, 1267, 1270–1, Künnap, A. 100
1280–1, 1286, 1290 Künzle, B. O. 1029, 1044, 1097, 1133
Koerner, K. 139, 158, 171, 177, 181–3, 185, Kupfer, K. 380, 2211
187 Kupiškis region 1702, 1704
Kohistan 435–6 Kura-Araxes culture 89
Konya 239, 1818 Kurgan Culture 88
Korchak culture 1417–19 Kurschat, Friedrich 1626
Korhonen, M. 101 Kurukṣetra 418–19, 425
Korn, A. 491, 493, 551, 555, 558, 567, 609– Kurylowicz, J. 18, 187, 192, 195, 211, 215,
11, 617 221–3, 229, 332, 335, 488, 929, 1690,
Kortlandt, F. 1046, 1048, 1058–9, 1065, 1877, 1996–8
1067, 1118–19, 1138–40, 1402, 1542–4, Kurzeme 1706, 1714; see also Courland
1624, 1746, 1879, 1883, 1980–1, 2281–2 Kushan empire/kingdom 39, 604
Kosala 418–19 Kuvendi i Arbenit 1719
Kosovo 442, 1721, 1724, 1789, 1791, 1800– Kyçyku, Muhamed 1721
1, 1812
Kossinna, G. 87 La Tène Culture 1168, 1174
Kostallari, A. 1789 Laanest, A. 10, 99, 1687
Kota 431 Labat, R. 27
Kozyreva, T. Z. 567–8 labels 29, 33, 76, 712, 836, 848, 1387, 1437,
Krahe, H. 194, 1839–40, 1867–8 1492, 1926–7, 1931, 2017, 2019, 2135,
Krasnodar 105 2139–40
Krause, W. 876, 920, 941, 956, 991–2, 1304, labial consonants 489, 1452, 1589, 1597
1306, 1308, 1389–90 labial context 327, 489, 497, 701
Krepča monastery 1404 labial mutation 898, 903, 906
Kretingà region 1702, 1705 labial stops 514
Kretschmer, Paul 189, 1852, 2229 labialization 503, 506, 508, 749, 836, 852,
Krisch, T. 379, 393, 2198–2205, 2207 894, 1497
Krivichians 1713 labials 327, 331, 451, 453, 495–6, 514, 638–
Kronasser, H. 223, 260, 1868 9, 718–19, 894–5, 1428, 1439, 1452, 1457–
Kroraina 424, 1370 8, 1489–90, 1646
Kruopas, J. 1626 – preceding 516, 924
Kruskal, J. B. 65, 67–9, 1119 – soft 1597–8
Kruszewski, Mikolaj 187 labiodental features 312, 329, 1431, 1834

Authenticated
2334 General index
labiovelar articulations 1428 Lapis Niger 737

labiovelar reflexes 444, 894 Lapis Satricanus 737
labiovelar stops 1063, 1975, 2061 Laribyan, A. 1138
labiovelars 12, 63–4, 249–50, 300–1, 492, Laroche, Emmanuel 29, 232, 240
638–9, 648–9, 894–5, 1178, 1189, 1325, laryngeal consonants 222, 1505
1426, 1428–9, 1431, 1844 laryngeal features (LFs) 337, 744, 1042,
– original 720, 1062, 1093, 1644 1047, 1069, 1195, 2061–2, 2070, 2112
– Proto-Indo-European 64, 639, 895, 1325, – neutralization 2070
1429, 1647–8, 1812, 1823, 1880 laryngeal hardening 898–9, 1092
– secondary 894, 896, 899 laryngeal loss 250, 746, 1193, 1195, 1198,
– voiced 649, 889, 1833 1317–18, 1327
Labov, W. 1, 1009, 1444, 1979 laryngeal metathesis 1313–14, 1884–6, 2065
Lachmann’s-Law 852 laryngeal reflexes 898, 1194–5, 1508
Laconia 697, 1840, 1865 laryngeal stems 518–19, 530
Laconian-Tarentinian alphabet 1840–1 laryngeal theory 19, 191, 195, 214–15, 222–
Ladakh 436 4, 229, 2056, 2286
Laetius, Johannes 152 laryngeal vocalization 221, 989, 2072, 2085
Lafe, G. 1724, 1793 laryngeal-final roots 791, 1767, 2033
Làgole di Calalzo 1832–3, 1835–6 laryngeals 191–2, 221–5, 233–4, 483–4,
Lahiri, A. 1011 486–7, 888–9, 897–9, 1193–6, 1316–18,
Lahore 434 1504–6, 1875, 1877, 1886, 1977, 2063–6
Lāl Ded 437 – development 489, 1195
Lambert – heterosyllabic 1509–10
– Pierre-Yves 1174 – interconsonantal 1823, 1877
– P,-Y. 1173–5, 1203–4, 1223, 1250, 1266, – intervocalic 1876–7, 1884, 1886, 1977
1275 – medial 907, 1997
Lambton, A. K. S. 568, 1717 – Proto-Indo-European 18, 332, 1194, 1424,
Landi, A. 1720, 1792 1646, 1806, 2061
Lane, G. S. 1314, 1389 – tautosyllabic 1504–5
Langius, Johann 1629 – word-final 1318
Langlois, V. 1033 – word-initial 1317, 1977
language change 19, 23, 71, 77, 81, 146, Lasa B’elo 321
151–2, 154, 178, 186, 188, 190, 1019, Lascarides, A. 963
1393–4, 2039 Lash, E. 1245–6
language contact 7–12, 24, 611, 618–19, Lassiter, D. 1147–8
1019, 1274–5, 1289–90, 1417, 1426, 1802, Lat Common Slavic, period 1475–6, 1481
1806, 1814, 2039–41, 2044–5, 2049 Late Bronze Age 1169, 2037–8, 2040–1,
– intense 305–6, 1415, 1419, 2050 2049–50
– Mycenaean-Anatolian 2040, 2046, 2050 Late Common Slavic
language development 19, 115, 190, 1392, – changes 1475–6, 1485, 1498
1624, 1724, 1802 – dialects 1449, 1468, 1484–5, 1497
language diversity 142, 146–7, 149 latent arguments 2195–6, 2211
language families 86–7, 94–5, 106–8, 115– latent subjects 2202, 2211
18, 121, 140, 142, 151, 172–4, 186, 188, laterals 482, 1031, 1482, 1806–7
195, 859, 2280–1, 2284–7 Latgalia 1706, 1714
language relationships 1–5, 114, 140–2, 148, Latin
151, 155, 157–8, 160 – alphabet 42–3, 46, 736, 738–9, 743, 998,
– horizons for determining 4 1133, 1173–5, 1601, 1943
language typology 21, 174, 184, 195 – grammar 753
languages of fragmentary attestation 1816, – influence 1291, 1732, 1833
1818, 1820, 1822, 1824, 1826, 1828, 1830, – inscriptions 738, 1254, 1842
1832, 1834, 1836, 1838, 1840, 1842, 1844 – lexicon 831, 859
Lanszweert, R. 1681, 1687, 2017 – manuscripts 1178–9, 1407

Authenticated
General index 2335
– pluperfect 792–3, 1291–2 lengthened vowels 933, 1496, 2083–4, 2086

– pre-Literary 735, 737 lengthened-grade forms 328, 761, 770, 790,
– script 1032, 1171, 1404, 1716–18, 1722 933, 1690, 2109
– stop outcomes 836, 852 lengthening 249–50, 328, 484, 641, 643–4,
– submerged 734, 739 672, 932–3, 1195, 1454–5, 1486–7, 1496,
– syncope 748, 1281 1504–5, 1507–8, 1603–6, 1690
– texts 866–7, 882–3, 990, 998 – monosyllabic 2069, 2074
– verbs 783–4, 794, 1747, 2212 lenited reflexes 1070, 1498
Latium 735–6, 740, 864 lenition 255, 302, 424, 428, 776, 848, 1010,
lative cases 2003 1047–8, 1059, 1069, 1139, 1190, 1497–8,
Latvia 442, 1622, 1630, 1685, 1698, 1701, 1607, 1609
1706, 1714, 2021 Leskien, August 185, 212, 1420, 1454, 1460,
Latvian 1513, 1610, 1642, 1652, 1688–9, 1961,
– derivatives 1652, 1654, 1690 2012
– dialects 1643, 1654, 1669, 1675, 1979, Leskien III verbs 1456, 1459, 1500
1981, 2008 Leskien’s Law 1642, 1977, 1979
– texts 1622, 1628 Létôon 245
Laučiūtė, J. 2017, 2019 letters 33, 38–9, 45, 48–9, 54, 148–9, 159,
Laurentian Codex 1406 476, 634–5, 875–6, 879–80, 1399–1402,
Lautverschiebung-law 175, 179, 1852 1611, 1840–1, 1855–6
law codes 212, 240, 1405–6 – coequal 38
Lazar, O. 100 – jer 1489, 1493
Lazard, G. 555, 606, 617 – vowel 35, 749, 1401, 1493
LCSl, see Late Common Slavic Leumann, Manu 63, 190, 752, 762–3, 766,
Le Feuvre, C. 261, 1577, 1580 774, 779, 781, 788, 793, 833, 840
Leabhar Bhaile an Mhóta 1176 leveling 448, 457, 652, 661, 676, 702, 894,
Lebanon 485, 1029 906, 911, 1452–3, 1467–8, 1489, 1491,
Lebedys, J. 1625, 1627 1495–6, 2135–6
Lebor Laignech 1176 – paradigmatic 332, 457, 917, 1048, 1738
Ledesma, Jacob 1626–7, 1722 Lévi
Ledo-Lemos, F. J. 2094 – S. 1300–1, 1357
Lefèvre, André 184 – Sylvain 191, 1300
Lefmann, S. 177, 182 Levin, J. F. 1624, 1684, 1979, 2283
left sentence boundaries 274–6, 278 Levinson, S. C. 2212
leftward shifts 1512–13 Lewis, Henry 190, 1178, 1203, 1289, 1801–2
Lehfeldt, W. 1980 Lewy, E. 101
Lehmann, Winfred 172, 183, 194–5, 879, lexemes 569–70, 576–8, 582–4, 586–7, 671–
2056, 2118, 2197–9, 2206, 2214–15 3, 675–7, 888, 1426, 1449, 1463–4, 1474–
Lehtisalo, T. 100 5, 1501–2, 1509–11, 1513–14, 1794
Leibniz, G. W. 138, 147, 154–7 – inherited 413, 569, 572, 575, 578, 585,
Leiden Indo-European Etymological 1969
Dictionary Series (LIEEDS) 217, 567 – isolated 1448, 1480–1, 1486
Leiden Leechbook 1179 – non-telic 671
Leiden School 2057, 2134 – Proto-Indo-European 572, 581
Lejeune, Michel 41, 143, 191, 194, 643, 645, – verbal 1108, 1113
648, 651, 733, 1172–3, 1175, 1250, 1817, lexica 4–5, 7–8, 78–9, 292–3, 696–9, 828,
1837, 1840 974–5, 1250, 1253–4, 1289, 1571–3, 1864–
lemmata 215, 410, 1841, 2017 5, 1968–70, 2013–14, 2229; see also
Lemnos 860, 1852 vocabulary
Leńczuk, M. 1625 – Albanian 1788–93, 1795–6, 1814
lengthened grade 335, 353, 508, 511, 516, – Anatolian 291, 293, 295–6, 2041
520, 530–1, 661, 674–5, 790, 1435, 1543– – Armenian 1115, 1117, 1119–21, 1123,
4, 1553, 1766–7, 1827 1125, 1127

Authenticated
2336 General index
– Baltic 1681, 1683–5, 1687, 1689, 1691, lexical meaning 1551, 2157–8
1693 lexical reconstructions 15, 17, 122, 125, 567,
– Balto-Slavic 2012–15, 2017, 2019, 2021 772
– Celtic 1250–1, 1253, 1255, 1257, 1259, lexical roots 1126, 1356–7, 1447, 1449
1289 lexical stems 1124, 1126
– Germanic 974–7, 979, 981, 983, 985 lexical units 155, 396, 989, 1796
– Greek 695–9, 701, 703, 705, 707 lexicalization 17, 123, 794, 796, 982, 1114,
– Indic 409, 411, 413 1474–5, 2134
– Indo-Iranian 1942–3, 1945, 1947–9, 1951, lexicalized relics 794–5, 1442, 1512, 2092–3
1953, 1955, 1957 lexicography 153, 293, 410, 568, 831
– inherited 217, 291–2, 411, 567, 573, 829, lexicostatistics 65, 67–8, 81, 130, 2017
1250, 1317, 2018 lexifiers 870–2
– Iranian 566–7, 569, 571, 573, 575, 577, – acrolectal 872
579, 581, 583, 585, 587 Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben (LIV)
– Proto-Anatolian 291, 293 78, 216–17, 701–3, 1252, 1257, 1686,
– Proto-Indo-European 78, 81, 411, 2112, 2034, 2240–2, 2244–65, 2268–71, 2273–4,
2215 2276
– reconstructed 76, 78–9, 81–2, 189, 217 Lhuyd, Edward 156, 180
– Sanskrit 410 liaison vowels 1127
– Tocharian 1365, 1367, 1369, 1371, 1373, Liburnian region 1868
1375, 1377, 1379, 1381, 1383, 1385, 1387 life functions 574, 576
lexical accents 345, 1011, 2123, 2126–7, ligatures 55, 1039, 1392
2129, 2131 light verbs 4, 616
– Proto-Indo-European 2121, 2129, 2132–3 limited corpora 24, 601, 852, 1654, 1858,
lexical agreements 1119 1861
lexical archaisms 568, 578 Lindeman, F. O. 195, 350, 1084, 1879, 2056,
lexical aspect 930, 959, 2013, 2138, 2157–9 2074
lexical attestations 215, 1366 Lindeman variant 761, 1065, 1067, 1086,
lexical borrowings 8, 12, 299, 1721, 1804, 2063
2039, 2041 Lindeman’s Law 907, 2074
lexical case 550, 2206, 2208, 2210 Lindner, Thomas 139, 158, 160, 181, 196,
lexical comparisons 144, 150, 2041 211, 214–15, 697, 781, 832, 2079, 2118
lexical correspondences 843, 1687, 1861, Linear A 29, 630, 717–18
2013, 2017 Linear B 29, 31–2, 194, 221, 629–31, 633,
lexical differences 68, 847, 1149, 1585, 1599 639–40, 672, 683–5, 690–1, 697, 711, 717–
lexical elements 153, 261, 571, 998, 1135, 18, 2039, 2046
1150 linear order 1937–40
lexical fields 981, 1969, 2018, 2111 linearization 2197, 2199, 2201, 2203–4,
lexical innovations 580, 603, 1422, 1965, 2214–15
1992 lingua francas 318, 321, 425, 429–30, 435,
lexical isoglosses 829–30, 975, 1575, 2014, 438, 440, 604, 723, 1148, 1255, 1398, 1417
2018 linguistic affinities 148, 174, 1839, 1842
– Armenian-Greek 1119 linguistic areas 8, 24, 105, 129, 296, 299,
– Baltic-Slavic-Germanic 2013 306, 433, 454, 1405–6, 1861; see also
– Balto-Slavic 2012–13, 2017 Sprachbund
– Slavic-Germanic 1576 linguistic change 9, 109, 140, 144, 148, 151,
– Slavic-Indo-Iranian 1577 177, 186, 188, 1265, 1392
– Slavic-Italic 1576 linguistic communities 186, 1839, 1970,
lexical items 5, 21, 29, 144, 146, 152, 318, 2047, 2050
336, 411–14, 438, 610–11, 619, 717, 2154– linguistic comparativism 140, 175, 182, 184,
5, 2229–30 189–90, 2280
lexical material 4, 24, 963, 979, 981, 1119, linguistic contacts 12, 738–9, 1031, 1397,
1133, 1569, 1858 1589, 1645, 1714, 1966

Authenticated
General index 2337
linguistic data 65, 87–8, 90, 115, 157, 211, literature 76, 79, 100, 159–60, 173–4, 295,
215, 298, 300, 700, 986, 994, 1271, 1700, 314, 317, 440, 698–9, 1054, 1139, 1788,
2287 2107–8, 2119–20
linguistic evidence 144, 245, 625, 859, 998, – Buddhist 410, 424, 1298
1151, 1406, 1837, 2040 – Classical Greek 698, 722
linguistic features 2, 11, 95, 118, 309, 311, – early 316, 719, 1147
429, 438, 737, 739, 1265, 1270, 1404, – scholarly 82, 1286, 1647, 1925–6
1406, 1862–3 Lithuania 182, 442, 1585, 1625–7, 1685,
linguistic paleontology 86–7, 181, 189 1713, 2014, 2018, 2021
linguistic reconstruction 19, 23, 80, 116, 184, – Grand Duchy 1625–7, 1685, 1713, 2014,
981, 1962 2018
linguistic relationships 1, 3, 139, 142, 151, – Prussian 1625–7, 1713
153, 161, 175, 987, 1855–6, 2012, 2018 Lithuanian
linguistic situations 150, 291–2, 305, 921, – accents 22, 1586, 1690
1864 – stems 1657, 1993
linguistic systems 5, 140, 197, 475, 975, – written 1625, 1712
1422, 1475, 1812 liturgical languages 420, 424–5, 611
linguistic unity 147, 212, 1398, 1603, 1942, liturgical texts 473, 1399, 1403–4
2030 living languages 314, 427, 625, 652, 872,
linguistics 1–2, 76–7, 131, 138, 141, 161, 1299, 1427, 2004, 2007
171–2, 175, 184, 186, 192–3, 197, 211, Livland 1629–30
214–15, 221 Livonia 1630, 1685, 1706, 1714
– diachronic 186, 193 loans 87–9, 291, 293–5, 411–13, 831, 977,
1031, 1034–5, 1120–1, 1123, 1193–4,
– general 187, 191–2, 197
1578–80, 1684–6, 1790–3, 1814
– historical 1–2, 4, 18, 23, 65, 77, 82, 95,
– Turkish 1791, 1793, 1814
106, 114, 116–17, 122, 125, 186–7, 299
loanwords 292–4, 411–13, 610–11, 697–9,
– historical-comparative 99, 106, 139, 171,
703–4, 979–81, 1120–3, 1254, 1291, 1475–
186–7, 870, 2001
7, 1685–6, 1742, 1790–1, 1803–6, 2040–2
– Indo-European 7–9, 11–12, 20–2, 140,
– Baltic 102, 1641, 1963
142, 144, 146, 148, 150, 152, 154, 156,
– French 1255, 1289
158, 171–98, 210–17 – Sabellic 832, 2237, 2240
linking vowels 881, 1045, 1547 – Semitic 697, 1065
Lipiński, E. 95, 142 – Slavic 1609, 1684, 1713, 1732, 1792,
Lipsius, Justus 148–50 1805, 1814
liquid diphthongs 1643, 1708 local adverbs 767, 1088, 1251, 1253–4,
liquids 185, 187, 249, 326, 329, 643–4, 746– 1260, 2206
7, 897, 899, 901, 1190, 1192–4, 1586–7, local case 1355, 2003
2057, 2059 local particles 277, 305, 349, 2087
– interconsonantal 1495–6 local scripts 432, 437, 743
– preceding 650, 1190 locative
– syllabic 326, 744, 1193, 1319 – case 460, 914, 1013, 1016, 1134, 1223,
literacy 47, 631–2, 727, 731, 738 1669, 1671, 1774, 1926, 1993, 2005
literary dialects 711, 719, 723, 1149 – endingless 656, 663, 1544, 2085–6
literary genres 410, 737, 740, 2217 – functions 957, 2085
literary histories 321, 429–32, 434, 436, 440 – markers 1082, 1085
literary languages 425, 429, 432, 719–21, – plural 496, 586, 1082, 1433, 1464, 1506,
735, 740, 1032, 1037, 1039, 1042, 1133, 1512, 1649, 1976, 2088, 2274
1147–8, 1589, 1595, 1686 – Proto-Indo-European 259, 656, 666, 753,
literary sources 711, 727, 881, 986, 995, 758, 916, 926, 1204–5, 2105
1030, 1867, 2045 – singular 259, 485, 1462, 1548, 1555,
literary traditions 432, 448, 471, 605, 632, 2106–7, 2109, 2170
711, 733, 878, 882, 1353, 1721 Locris 712, 2037

Authenticated
2338 General index
Löfstedt, E. 866 Lundquist, J. 2109, 2129, 2136

logical objects 551, 555, 557 Lunt, H. C. 1398, 1403, 1405–6, 1415, 1429,
logical subjects 550, 555, 557, 1354, 1356 1444, 1450, 1470, 1473, 1485, 1560
logograms 26–7, 29, 31, 33, 49, 240, 242 Luraghi, Silvia 240, 276, 278–81, 284–6,
Lombards 1417 291, 690, 2094–5, 2099–2100, 2162, 2196,
Lombok 124 2199–2200, 2210–11, 2214
Lomonosov, Mixal 180 Lusatia 1398, 1414–15
long accented vowels 249, 252, 254–5 Luther, Martin 1628
long diphthongs 251, 485, 642, 705, 746–7, Lutheran Church 1628–9
911, 1198, 1819, 1821, 1833, 2058, 2086 Luvian
long final vowels 452, 458 – hieroglyphs 29–30
long high vowels 1979, 2058 – loanwords 241
long nasalized vowels 901, 905 Lycaonia 244, 1816
long stem vowels 507, 790 Lycia 244–5, 295, 2046
long vocalism 2058, 2072 Lycian, alphabet 45, 245
long vowels 249–50, 258, 449–52, 746–7, Lydian
901, 908–10, 1197–8, 1276–7, 1476–7, – alphabet 45
1483, 1513–14, 1606–8, 1819, 1979–82, – dative 260
2083–5 – nominative 303
– non-laryngeal 223, 1424 Lyell, Charles 185
long-grade roots 359, 367 Lykaonia 242
long-grade stems 346 lyrics 315, 720, 864
long-vowel perfects 784 Lystra 244
long-vowel preterites 790, 2166
long-vowel roots 223, 230 Mac Cana, P. 1291–2
Lord’s Prayer 147, 847, 1161, 1622, 1628, McCone, Kim 64, 837, 1170, 1193, 1195,
1630 1203, 1205, 1207–11, 1213–14, 1251,
Lorrio, A. J. 1169, 1250, 1266–8 1253–4, 1258–60, 1276–8, 1286–8, 2033–4
loss of aspiration 434, 444, 581, 1139, 1428 McCone’s Law 1193, 1200
loss of weak jers 1484–5, 1492 McCormick, S. 1012
Lötzsch, R. 180, 2012 Macedonia 89, 442, 721–2, 861, 1399, 1589,
Louden, M. 1016 1724, 1800–1, 1812, 1862–5
Louisiana 871 – Aegean 1415, 1417
low vowels 644, 903, 992, 1709 McFall, L. 96
Lowe, J. J. 399, 2116, 2168–70, 2199, 2203– Machek, V. 2013–14, 2016
4, 2216–17 MacKenzie, D.N. 567–8, 611, 615, 1150
l-participle 1554, 1561, 1563–5, 1568 McManus, D. 43, 1175–6, 1255–6, 1276,
l-stems 260, 1080, 1082 1289, 1291
Lubotsky, Alexander 217, 327–8, 332–4, MacNeill’s Law 1200, 1278
336, 411, 484, 580–1, 602, 1817–20, 1822– macron 1624, 1980
3, 1826–9, 1877, 1879–81, 1883–5, 1948 Madagascar 121
Lubotsky’s Law 2062, 2065 Mādaḷāpāñji 439
Lucania 740, 863 Madhya Pradesh 321, 430–1
Lucht, M. 1251 Mādhyandina school 311, 419
Lučinskienė, M. 1627 Madrid 194
Lucretius 756, 772, 774, 781 Madurai 432
Lüders, H. 317 Madyan 436
Lugano 1172–3 Magadha 421–2, 425–6
– alphabet 1172 Maggiore, Lago 1172
Lühr, H. 896, 941–4, 947, 955–9, 962, 965– Magna Graecia 697, 717, 719, 723, 736, 739,
8, 1897, 2108, 2196, 2200, 2205, 2212–14, 861
2216 Magnússon, B. 878, 921
Lumbini 317, 438 Magyars 1418, 1474, 1603

Authenticated
General index 2339
Mahābhārata 314, 344, 420, 449, 451, 454– Marcomanni 987

7, 463 marginal accents 1511
Mahābhāṣya 314 marked verbal stems 373, 930
Mahānayaprakāśa 437 markers 265, 612–13, 722–3, 792–3, 1155,
Mahārāṣṭra 319, 321, 426, 432 1284–5, 1342, 1673, 1675, 1677, 2082–3,
Mahāvīra 319, 426 2091–2, 2094, 2099–2100, 2140–2
Mailhammer, R. 1014 – accusative 1088, 2068, 2084
main clause complements 1679, 2004 – formal 2087, 2090–1, 2097, 2099, 2102,
mainland Greece 31, 711–12, 722, 2037–9, 2140, 2165
2049 – locative 1082, 1085
Maitrāyaṇī Saṁhitā 336, 338, 374, 450–1, – middle-voice 1756, 1761, 1766
455, 457–8, 464 – morphological 1540, 1926, 2208
Maitrāyaṇi school 311, 336, 338, 418 – plural 920, 1081, 1284–5, 1313, 1754,
Maitreyasamiti-nāṭaka 1300, 1358 1784, 2205
Majidi, M.-R. 568 – present tense 2149, 2151
Majtinskaja, K. E. 100–1 – reflexive 1675, 1708–9, 2007
Maksuti, I. 1794 – relative 1758, 1929, 2101
Malakand division 435–6 – subjunctive 786, 1093, 2033, 2146
Malandra, W. W. 477 – tense 1155, 1616, 2138, 2140, 2144,
Malaysia 124, 871 2149, 2151–2, 2154, 2156
Malcolm, John 1151 – Markey, T. L. 995–6, 1018, 1173
Maldives 309, 440 Maroneia 1852
malediction formulae 1827 Marrucini 738
Mallory, J. P. 17, 22, 70, 82, 196, 1170,
Marsi 738, 986
1573–82
Marstrander, C. 1255
Malte-Brun, Conrad 158
Martianus Capella manuscript 1282
Malzahn, Melanie 215, 228, 231, 1300–1,
Martinet, André 192, 223–4, 1469, 2197
1304–5, 1308–10, 1313, 1321, 1324, 1327,
Martinique 871
1392–3, 1893, 2153–6, 2163, 2165–6
Martirosyan, H. K. 1040–1, 1044, 1051,
Manaster Ramer, A. 223, 1085, 2286
Mancelius, Georg 1629 1053–5, 1058–9, 1065, 1068–9, 1117–18,
Manching 1174 1133, 1135, 1147, 1161
Mańczak, W. 2014 Martynov, V. V. 1582, 2012
Mandalà, Matteo 1722 Martzloff, V. 764, 783, 791, 842, 1855
Manichean church 35, 476, 603–4, 611 Marvan, J. 1608
Manichean script 604, 1298 masculine 345–7, 458–63, 657–8, 664, 752–
Manipur 439 8, 762–4, 766–9, 771, 774–5, 914–18, 920–
Mānsehrā 316, 421–2, 424 4, 991–2, 1339–43, 2094–7, 2101–4
ManSogd 570, 572, 576, 582, 586 – dative 1986, 1992
mantras 311–12, 355–6, 374, 386, 392, 1940, – nominative 336, 1379–81, 1543, 1548,
2112 1615, 1900, 1992
– Vedic 312, 344, 1940 – n-stems 918, 1266, 1543
Manuductio ad linguam lettonicam facilis et – plural 1616, 1988
certa 1629 – stems 658, 2096–7
manuscript tradition 450, 474, 626, 737, Masica, Colin 11, 412–13, 429
1030, 1037, 1041 mass nouns 2095
manuscripts 473–6, 503–5, 878–9, 882–3, Massalia 1168
1029–30, 1032, 1178–9, 1298, 1300–1, Masson, O. 43, 1868
1390, 1392–3, 1397–9, 1401–7, 1629, Maštocʿʿ, Varkʿʿ 48, 1028–30
1722–3 Matasović, R. 1063, 1189, 1195, 1250, 1426,
Marathwada 432 1540, 1543–4, 1648, 2031, 2092, 2094–5,
Maraz 437 2099, 2108
Marchand, J. W. 991 Matenadaran 1029–30, 1044

Authenticated
2340 General index
material culture 3, 77, 125, 196, 1397, 1417, Meillet, Antoine 20, 22, 25, 189–92, 213–14,
1873 1044–6, 1050, 1080–1, 1122, 1134–7,
mathematicians 71, 154, 1119 1961–2, 1968, 2030–1, 2061, 2099–2100
mathematics 66, 70, 315, 439 Meillet’s Law 1050, 1510
Mathura 319, 428, 430, 449 Meinhof, C. 116–18
Matranga, Luca 1719, 1722, 1768 Meiser, G. 63, 773–5, 778, 782, 784–91,
Matrënga, Lekë 1722, 1750, 1759, 1788 793–4, 796–7, 837–8, 841–2, 845–8, 850–
matrix clauses 561, 967, 969, 2009 1, 933, 936, 938, 944
matrix verbs 553–4, 562, 967, 2216 Meissner, T. 2110, 2115, 2128
Matzinger, J. 1080, 1082, 1717, 1719, 1732– Meksi, Vangjel 1721
3, 1737–8, 1740, 1742–4, 1747, 1750–2, Melapart, Yakob 1033
1756–60, 1763–5, 1767–8, 1790, 1794–5 Melchert, Craig 250–4, 256–67, 276–7, 283–
Maurer, F. 987, 996 4, 295, 299–305, 2041–2, 2045–6, 2086–7,
Mauritius 871 2092–4, 2097–2102, 2152–3, 2155–6,
Mauryas 422–3, 425 2159–60, 2168–9
maximum syllable template (MST) 2063, melody 418, 635, 1373
2068, 2072–3 Ménage, Gilles 156
Mayer, A. 1868 Mendolito 1855–6
Maynard, K. 1775, 1802 men-stems 758, 780, 1194, 1338, 1689, 2110
Mayrhofer, Manfred 160, 187, 189, 193, Menz, A. 1012
195–6, 210–12, 214, 221–2, 411–12, 486– Mercator, Arnold 146
9, 492, 567, 914, 916, 1947–8 merchants 431, 604, 735, 881, 1033–4, 1148,
Mažiulis, V. 1623, 1642, 1653, 1656, 1682, 1287, 1375, 1398, 2044
1699, 2013, 2016 mergers 64–5, 249, 301, 305, 421–2, 744,
Mažvydas, Martynas 1625–6, 1673 1151–2, 1445, 1460–1, 1480, 1482, 1605,
m-conjugation 2139, 2141, 2144, 2147–9, 1647–8, 1877, 1886
2151–7, 2161 – partial 891, 921
– endings 2139, 2147–8, 2150–1 Meriggi, P. 186, 2012
Mechitarists 1030, 1035 Mëriis Virghiër, Ghiella e S. 1722
Medes 472, 509, 562, 600 Merseburg charms 883
media tantum 358, 552, 1108, 1356–7, 1761, Mesopotamia 1028, 1949
2142, 2154, 2160 Mesopotamian Cuneiform 26, 49, 240
mediae, Proto-Indo-European 744, 939, 1823 Mesopotamian syllabary 27
mediae aspiratae, see voiced aspirates Mesrop, see Maštocʿʿ, Varkʿʿ
medial position 252, 441, 641, 889, 894, 898, Mesropian orthography 1045
1361, 1493, 1834 Messapia 1840
medial stops 252, 341, 1814 Messenia 697
medial syllables 1008, 1511 Messina 740, 850
medicine 314, 335, 413, 533, 583, 1032, metalinguistic descriptions 1437, 1452, 1492
1299, 1370–1, 1376 metals 572, 704, 900, 906, 1171, 1832, 1854,
mediopassive 299, 304, 849, 941–2, 960–1, 2041–2, 2237, 2271
1090–1, 1094–5, 1108, 1344–5, 1348–50, metaphors 570, 583, 634, 723, 1019, 1367,
1357, 1359, 1384–5, 1775, 2034 1612, 2239, 2252
– aorists 368, 1093, 1095 metathesis 422, 457, 495, 646, 650, 652,
– endings 64, 69, 841, 1092, 1094, 1356–7, 1048, 1055, 1191, 1195, 1473–5, 1486–8,
1385–6, 2034 1490, 2244, 2247
– inflections 1090, 1093, 1346, 1357 – initial 1474
Megaris 712 – laryngeal 1313–14, 1884–6, 2065
Megiser, Hieronymus 147, 149, 2012 – quantitative 658–9, 663
Meier-Brügger, Michael 193, 696–7, 700–3, metatony 1510, 1646, 1690, 1982
705–7, 713, 715, 2103, 2105, 2108, 2114, Metcalf, G. J. 145, 148, 151, 154, 172
2116–18, 2121, 2135, 2137, 2141 meteorological terms 89, 2236, 2239

Authenticated
General index 2341
meters 310, 312–13, 328, 340, 419, 504, 517, Mikkola, J. J. 1482
532, 720, 864, 1883, 1936, 2067 Miklosich, F. 1793, 2009
– Ahunauuaitī 532, 538–9 Mikola, T. 99
Methodius 49, 1399, 1403, 1419, 1475, 1557 Milan 194, 1034, 2119
methodological issues 86, 90, 292, 1858, Milani, C. 2039
1955, 2037, 2039–40, 2229 Milet 1168, 2038, 2049
methodologies 19, 62, 65, 67, 94–6, 192, Milindapañho 317
197, 2204, 2283 Milingoi 1418
metrical texts 246, 311, 313, 374, 398, 419, Millardet, G. 9
473, 707, 1306, 1354, 1360–1, 1829 Miller, D. G. 32, 486, 646
metrics 312, 487, 1352, 1354, 1361, 2069 Minassian, M. 1039, 1098
Meyer, G. 181, 1176, 1721, 1790, 1807 Mingachevir 1154
Meyer-Lübke, Wilhelm 188 minimal pairs 341, 495, 650, 1153, 1305,
mi-conjugation 229, 266, 2125, 2151 1355, 2069
– Anatolian 2139, 2147 Minoans 718, 1855
mid front vowels 644, 1047, 1309, 1480 minuscules 39, 42, 1038, 1170
mid vowels 326, 642, 644, 1009, 1039, missals 1033, 1402, 1404, 1717, 1788, 1795
1065–6, 1476, 1603–5, 1609, 2058 missionaries 159, 173, 1033, 1148, 1399,
– short 450, 2057 1475
Middle Common Slavic Mitanni 294, 328
monophthongizations 1437, 1439, 1482 Mithridates 146–7, 157–8
middle diathesis 384, 390 Mittanni 29
middle endings 228–30, 358, 360, 369, 385, mixed inflection 757, 921, 931, 939
532, 552, 615, 679, 1761, 1763, 2139, mixed languages 292, 321, 602, 720, 731,
2142–3, 2151, 2153–4 997, 1034
– Proto-Indo-European 786, 1348, 2154 mobile accent 195, 255, 619, 657, 1154,
middle forms 382, 385, 393–4, 530, 1760, 1502, 1706, 1893, 1899, 1908–11, 2109,
1766, 1768, 1828, 2142 2124–5
– non-characterized 393 mobile roots 2124, 2127
middle functions 961, 1357, 1836 mobile stress 1500, 1594, 1597, 1607–8,
middle inflections 358, 384, 390, 2164, 2231 1712, 1714, 1892, 1912
middle markers 265 modal constructions 618, 1677, 2002
– prefixed 1766, 1768–9 modal forms 617, 619, 1551, 1762, 1781,
middle morphology 1612, 2142–4 1813, 2145
middle participles 422, 542, 553, 645, 731, modal meanings 1673, 2116
786, 1240, 1835, 1860, 2169 modal negation 1062, 1107–8
– Proto-Indo-European 794, 1316 modal particles 276, 559, 687
middle voice 552, 554, 556, 941–2, 1756, modal stems 1375, 1385, 1387, 2145
1761, 1763, 1769, 1772, 1995, 1998, 2006– modal systems 552, 959, 1358, 1762
7, 2139–40, 2142, 2148 modality 1156, 1359, 1566, 1776, 2144–5
– markers 1756, 1761, 1766 modals 559, 1018, 1781
middles, athematic 1915, 1995–7 Modern Albanian, alphabet 1723
mid-vowels 907, 1458, 1478, 1497, 1514, modern Slavic languages 1398, 1546–7,
1853, 1864 1550, 1552, 1554–5, 1572, 1579, 1588,
– neoacuted 1514 1598, 1608, 1610, 1612–13, 1963, 1983,
Migdalski, K. 1565–9 2002
migrations 9, 87, 106, 570, 600, 739, 879, modifiers 233, 284, 806–7, 819, 1157, 1353,
1014, 1417–19, 1446, 1476, 1508, 1801, 1361, 1382, 1546, 1668, 1678, 1772, 1774–
1850, 1948 5, 1795–6, 2205
– Avar 1418 Moldova 48
– great 641, 1397, 1601 Molinari, M. V. 830
– Slavophone 1418–19, 1474 Möller, Hermann 187, 191, 196, 222, 2063
– southward 1416 Monboddo, Lord 150, 154, 159

Authenticated
2342 General index
monks 425, 777, 1126, 1299, 1358, 1370, morphological features 473, 774, 1345, 1390,
1377, 1386, 1405, 1482, 1557, 1574, 1735 2030–1
monogenesis 154, 158–9, 2287 morphological forms 304, 1155, 1557, 1565,
monophthongization 249–50, 252, 642–3, 1613
845, 848, 904–5, 1068, 1070, 1136–7, morphological innovations 62, 67, 69, 96,
1443–4, 1446, 1452, 1455–60, 1464, 302, 790, 840, 1706, 1708, 1714
1468–9 morphological irregularity 721, 868, 2148
– of diphthongs 1444, 1542, 1588, 1601 morphological isoglosses 473, 1963, 1985
monophthongs 328, 485, 937, 1042, 1066, morphological markers 1540, 1926, 2208
1068, 1455–7, 1624 morphological passives 378, 615, 618
monosyllabic infinitive stems 1708–9 morphological patterns 619, 894, 1002, 1012,
monosyllabic languages 174 1019, 1277, 1287
monosyllabic lengthening 2069, 2074 morphological processes 441, 983, 1190,
monosyllabic roots 132, 177 2117, 2126
monosyllables 123, 452, 484, 504, 906–7, morphological reconstruction 15–17, 2195
911, 1046, 1197, 1276, 1313, 1489, 1591 morphological rules 412, 866, 1496, 1511,
monovalent verbs 1232 2196
Montenegro 1724, 1800–1, 1812 morphological structure 982, 1011, 1045,
monuments 24, 245, 1038, 1404–5, 1820, 1150, 1356, 1837, 1855, 1889, 2131–3
1823, 1825, 1829, 1851 morphological systems 182, 751, 913, 1080,
morae 328, 340, 436, 450–1, 650–1, 1011, 1335, 1539, 1588, 1598
1492, 1595, 2066–8, 2073 morphologically conditioned
Morandi, A. 1173, 1250, 1255, 1257, 1266– dissimilation 1037, 1045
9, 1855
morphology 95–6, 107–8, 457, 726–8, 730–
Morani, M. 831–2, 1067
1, 989–91, 1538–9, 1888, 1926–7, 2040,
Moravia 1398–9, 1402, 1407, 1557, 1603
2079–81, 2103, 2113, 2117–19, 2141–3
Morea 1722
– adverbial 2105–6
Morf, Heinrich 187
– Albanian 1749, 1751, 1753, 1755, 1757,
Morgenstierne, Georg 435–6, 443–4, 475,
1759, 1761, 1763, 1765, 1767, 1769
477, 503, 567–8, 579, 581
Mori, Karl 178 – Anatolian 256–7, 259, 261, 263, 265–7
Morkūnas, Jokūbas 1627 – Armenian 1080–1, 1083, 1085, 1087,
morpheme boundaries 17, 497, 938, 1453, 1089, 1091, 1093, 1095
1883–4, 1990 – Austronesian 123
morpheme-internal vowels 2107 – Baltic 1651, 1653, 1655, 1657, 1659,
morphemes 33, 302, 304–5, 328, 336–7, 397, 1661, 1663, 1994
675–6, 841–2, 845, 1305–6, 1342, 1510– – Balto-Slavic 1985, 1987, 1989, 1991,
11, 1752, 2131–3, 2140–1 1993, 1995, 1997
– bound 299, 393, 805 – Celtic 1203, 1205, 1207, 1209, 1211,
– derivational 299, 302, 1017, 1444, 2126 1213, 1215
– dominant 1504, 2131, 2133 – derivational 196, 215, 751–2, 778–80,
– preaccenting 2122, 2126–7, 2132 843, 1551, 1612, 1861, 2081, 2108, 2114
– unaccented 2122, 2126, 2134 – Germanic 913, 915, 917, 919, 921, 923,
morphological analysis 94, 122, 704, 750, 925, 927, 929, 931, 933, 935, 937, 939,
845, 914, 1873, 2081 941
morphological categories 506, 608, 612, 752, – Greek 654–5, 657, 659, 661, 663, 665,
897, 1278, 1282, 1737, 1926, 2058, 2079, 667, 669, 671, 673, 675, 677, 679, 681
2122–3, 2133, 2136 – Indic 344–5, 347, 349, 351, 353, 355,
morphological changes 17, 19, 184, 989, 357, 359, 361, 363, 365, 367, 369, 371,
1015, 1561, 1600, 2046, 2136 373
morphological correspondences 150, 172 – Indo-Iranian 1888–9, 1891, 1893, 1895,
morphological differences 262, 755, 759, 1897, 1899, 1901, 1903, 1905, 1907, 1909,
1270 1911, 1913, 1915, 1917

Authenticated
General index 2343
– Iranian 503, 505, 507, 509, 511, 513, 515, MST, see maximum syllable template
517, 519, 521, 523, 525, 527, 529, 531 Much, Matthias 189
– Italic 751–3, 755, 757, 759, 761, 763, Mudburra 132
765, 767, 769, 771, 773, 775, 777, 779, Mugdan, J. 187
781 Mühlenbach, K. 1682
– middle 1612, 2142–4 Müller
– nominal 195, 227, 310, 503, 506, 1154, – Andreas 147
1159, 1291, 1335, 1749–50, 1796, 2013, – Friedrich Max 106, 184
2079, 2081, 2281 – R. 875
– perfect 933, 1615, 2142 – S. 990
– pronominal 227, 752 multilingual contact 1772, 1785
– Proto-Indo-European 17, 225, 2079–80, multilingualism 24, 142
2102, 2170 multiple wh-movement 1558, 1568
– reconstructed 1985, 2081, 2137 multiplicatives 523, 665, 767, 778–9, 1087
– Tocharian 1335, 1337, 1339, 1341, 1343, multiword periphrases 1775–6
1345, 1347, 1349, 1371 Munske, H. H. 1004
– verbs 196, 227, 503, 528, 612, 731, 752, Muradyan, G. 1029, 1133, 1136, 1159
1243, 1291, 1335, 1344, 1600, 1760, 1770, Murray, R. W. 1011
2137–8 Murtonen, A. 9
morphonology 214, 1816, 1820, 1832 Murtuk 1393
morphophonemic alternations 18, 187, 192, Musaev, M. M. 108
335, 1443, 1453, 1456, 1460 musical instruments 293, 388, 412
morphophonemic analysis 18, 2084 mutations 448, 1204, 1209, 1283, 1463, 1469
morphophonemics 638, 652 Muzaffarpur 431
morphophonological alternations 1875, 2081 Mxitʿʿar Sebastacʿʿi 1035
morphophonological changes 534, 1762, 1766 Myanmar 317, 438
morphophonological processes 441, 1767, Mycenae 89, 697, 717
2133 Mycenaean civilization 630, 641, 711, 717–
morphophonology 17, 325, 335, 504, 2079, 18, 2050
2121, 2135, 2137 Mycenaean period 696–7, 704, 2037, 2039,
– Proto-Indo-European 2070, 2081–2, 2137 2041, 2043, 2045–7, 2049
morphosyntactic structure 299, 305–6 Mycenaean-Anatolian language
morphosyntax 108, 121–2, 124–5, 381, 956, contacts 2040, 2046, 2050
1098, 1600, 1610, 1616, 1924 Mygdonia 1816
– nominal 377, 549–50, 954, 956, 1352, Mylius, Abraham 152, 154
1354, 1557–8, 1668–9, 1771–2 Mysia 1850
– pronominal 682–3, 1218–19 Mythological Cycle 1176
– verbal 124, 377, 382, 549, 551, 682, 686, mythology 173, 179, 189, 196, 569, 1962,
954, 958, 1352, 1356, 1557, 1561, 1668, 1966
1672
Morpurgo Davies, A. 171, 174, 177, 186, Nagaland 440
211–12, 225, 266, 711, 2037, 2119 Naibi, Sulejman 1721
Moscow Accentological School 1500, 1504, Nainital 438
1506, 1511 Nakhleh, L. 70, 1265
Mossman, S. 1623 names 252–4, 599–603, 875–7, 986, 990–2,
motion suffixes 345, 353, 664, 2095 1255–9, 1377–8, 1400–3, 1474–5, 1482–3,
motion verbs 281, 286–7, 1355, 1670, 2143 1821–3, 1839–42, 1865–6, 1868–9, 2038–9
motivation 8, 698, 1458, 1470, 1543, 1987 – calendar-related 569
– morphological 2160 – compound 831, 1206, 1258, 1377, 1687
Moussy, C. 781 – divine 29, 411, 569, 1251, 1253–7, 1581,
movable accent 660 1843, 1858, 1861
movement, verbs of 550, 616 – divinity 1581, 1843
Movsēs Xorenacʿʿi 1030 – entrenched 1298

Authenticated
2344 General index
– ethnic 300, 1269, 2038–9 – geminate 249, 251

– family 831, 1254, 1260, 1841–2, 1845 – syllabic 713, 1061, 1264, 1987
– female 1279, 1841 national languages 93, 321, 430, 438, 724,
– foreign 33, 956, 991, 1038, 1254 1617
– Greek 1122, 1818 native language 429, 730, 1177, 1800, 1812
– native 1377, 2043 native speakers 625, 634, 1177, 1365, 1630,
– personal 239, 244–5, 291–2, 295–6, 300, 2119
1250–2, 1254, 1256–60, 1275, 1279, 1834– natural classes 1431, 1567, 2061
7, 1841–4, 1860, 1864–5, 1868 natural gender 966, 2095
– place 508, 562, 703–4, 754, 781, 990, natural pairs 1615, 2092
1177, 1774, 1843, 1868–9, 2015, 2032, naturalism 177, 184
2038, 2047 Nāṭyaśāstra 315, 318, 427–8
– proper 744, 748–9, 922, 957, 987, 989– Nazareth 866, 1031, 1104
90, 993, 998, 1031, 1083, 1099, 1200, near-open vowels 1457, 1493
1250, 1252–3, 1257–8 Nebenüberlieferung 875, 883, 1174, 1177
– Slavic 1416, 1478, 1488 necessitive 1677, 2002
– tribal 986, 990–1, 1251, 1254–8, 1260, Nedoma, R. 875–7, 879, 881–3, 918, 992
1415, 1812 negated verbs 1243, 1670, 2005
– Turkic 1377 negation 281, 559–60, 562, 686, 691–4, 821,
Napoli, M. 2157–8 956, 1105, 1107, 1345, 1670, 1673, 1781–
Narbonne 861 2, 2001, 2003–5
narration 958, 963, 1061, 1106, 1906 – double 1964
narrative texts 280, 688, 1358 – modal 1062, 1107–8
Narten, Johanna 51, 386, 473, 477, 515, 520, – nonmodal 1781
530, 579–80, 1906, 1908, 1910, 2126, – sentence 280, 956, 1313
2150, 2160, 2166 negative clauses 1110, 1243, 1360
nasal assimilation 263, 650, 775, 1015 negative commands 818, 1107
nasal clusters 1170, 1439 negative evidence 1416, 2196
nasal consonants 903, 1542–3, 1552 negative partricles 398, 821, 1119, 1207
nasal diphthongs 1437, 1482, 1643, 1700, negative polarity 694, 1112
1703, 1705, 1978, 1983 negative prefixes 899, 1193
nasal infixes 216, 364, 387, 794, 932, 1551, negators 124, 812, 1240–1, 1269, 1781, 1982
1581, 1689, 1908, 2162 Negri, M. 172, 740, 1864
nasal sequences 1046, 1543, 1705, 1804 Nehring, Alfons 81, 189
nasal stems 364, 1338–9 neighboring languages 7, 10, 16, 610, 612,
nasal suffixes 1551, 1908, 2162 617, 619, 696, 981, 983, 1565, 1599, 1772,
nasal vowels 474, 1197, 1401–2, 1451, 1855, 2284
1459–60, 1466, 1479, 1481–3, 1545, 1552, Neirin 1178
1589, 1684, 1700, 1703, 1804 neoacute retraction 1481, 1483, 1498, 1503,
nasal-initial suffixes 338 1506, 1513
nasality 456, 1401, 1460, 1482, 1804 neoacuted midvowels 1514
nasalization 303, 336, 452, 531, 906, 1191, Neogrammarianism 20, 94, 171, 183–9, 191,
1199, 1455, 1459, 1480, 1482, 1608–9, 197, 221–2, 224–5, 228–31, 233, 1960,
1643, 1734, 1876 2012, 2016, 2287
nasalized vowels 452, 747, 904–5, 1046, neologisms 698, 1117, 1788, 1796
1586, 1591, 1597, 1734, 1736, 1739, 1803, Nepal 309, 317, 321, 431, 437–8
1805, 1812, 1987 Nepokupnij, A. P. 1969, 2013, 2018–19
– long 901, 905 Nērangestān 473–4
– short 907 Neri, Sergio 916, 925–6, 933, 937, 2065,
nasals 329, 331, 338, 340, 422, 454–5, 485, 2092, 2099, 2134
889, 891–2, 997, 1046, 1190–1, 1193, Nesos 712
1438–40, 1833 Nestorian script 35, 604
– final 1081, 1265, 1267, 1441–2 Netherlands 194, 217, 442, 994

Authenticated
General index 2345
Neu, Erich 66, 229 nominal categories 614, 753, 1558, 2081,
Neumann, G. 177, 180, 244, 247, 258–9, 2104
284, 295–6, 876, 881, 990, 1818, 1826 nominal classes 989, 2081–2, 2089, 2134
neuter 282–4, 458, 654–5, 658–62, 757–8, nominal clauses 562, 822–3, 1336
916–17, 1340–1, 1372, 1750–1, 1891, nominal composition 1258, 1335, 1688,
1894–7, 1899–1901, 2090–7, 2099–2101, 1795–6, 2118
2112 nominal compounds 261, 338, 414, 707,
– h-stems 518 1124, 1258, 1378, 1691–2, 1795, 2081,
– nominative-accusative 233, 285, 1383, 2118
1893, 1895, 2085, 2100, 2105 nominal declensions 464, 506, 654, 657, 752,
– non-heteroclitic 1895 805, 868, 1080, 1154, 1560, 1615, 1714
– n-stems 920, 1460, 1899 nominal derivation 753, 780, 1366, 2106–8
– o-stems 1542, 1544 nominal derivatives 371, 1291, 1366, 1654
– plural 685, 697, 1338, 1891, 2092 nominal endings 669, 683, 1543, 1550, 1747,
– pronominal 267, 1988 1892, 2083
– Proto-Indo-European 663, 776, 1336, nominal formations 1252, 1329, 1787, 2095,
1373, 1976, 2084, 2095, 2099 2134–5, 2274
– s-stems 796, 1080, 1082, 1542 nominal forms 101, 372, 466, 549, 671, 680,
– u-stems 1890 685–6, 689–90, 1252–3, 1555, 1561, 1660,
neutralization 484, 1042–3, 1609–10, 2071 1668, 1835, 2253–4
– laryngeal features 2070 nominal genitive 1381
New Guinea 131 nominal inflection 216, 459–61, 654, 763,
New Testament 142, 879, 1029, 1407, 1627, 865, 868–9, 913, 1012–13, 1538, 1756,
1629–30, 1721, 1981
1820, 1966, 2081, 2089
New Zealand 1180
nominal morphology 195, 227, 310, 503,
Newmark, L. 1750–1, 1754, 1757–60, 1774,
506, 1154, 1159, 1291, 1335, 1749–50,
1778–9, 1784–5, 1789, 1794
1796, 2013, 2079, 2081, 2281
Nezim Berati/Frakulla 1721–2
nominal morphophonology 2121
Nichols, Johanna 108, 1398, 1603, 1611,
nominal morphosyntax 377, 549–50, 954,
2286
Nicolai, Christoph Friedrich 157 956, 1352, 1354, 1557–8, 1668–9, 1771–2
Nicosa 868 nominal phrases 556, 560, 707, 807, 955,
Nielsen, H. F. 876, 986, 991–2, 994–7, 1003, 957–8, 1772, 1774
1006, 1017, 2056 nominal sentences 281–2, 399, 692, 1361,
Nikolaev, S. L. 107–8, 1980, 2107, 2234, 1757
2264, 2268 nominal stems 195, 260–1, 346, 352, 414,
Nile Valley 118 656, 664, 766, 1644, 1657, 1824, 1837,
n-infixes 530, 532, 673, 1994–5 1890, 2081, 2120
n-inflection 920, 983 nominal subjects 1654, 2081
Niyāyišns 473–4 nominal suffixes 116, 217, 419, 705, 1126–7,
nk-stems 515–16 1343, 1367, 2107
Noah, sons of 142, 144, 146, 148, 155, 1406 nominal syntax 377, 804, 806, 1017
noise 812, 1372 nominal systems 305, 615, 773, 871, 956,
nomadism 428, 431, 441, 1863 1015, 1020, 1278, 1283, 1750, 1978, 1985,
nomina actionis 958, 1652–3 2080–1, 2087, 2091
nomina agentis 958, 1564, 1652, 1658, 1877, nominalizations 379, 399, 1114, 1376, 1561,
2111 1658, 2107–8
nomina attributiva 1654 – event 2109, 2111, 2170, 2216
nomina collectiva 1653 – participant 2111–12
nomina feminina 1653 nominalized gerundive 1240, 1367
nomina instrumenti 1652, 2112 nominalizers 2170
nomina qualitatis 1653 – deverbal 2110, 2170
nominal agreement 559, 1671–2 nominalizing suffixes 1444

Authenticated
2346 General index
nominals 314, 339, 383, 398, 553, 557, 610, non-finite verbal forms 557, 561, 806, 959,
616, 814, 847, 1154, 1775, 1780–1, 1945, 1354, 1802, 2158
1950 non-front vowels 441, 1190, 1451, 1592
– predicate 2003–4 non-heteroclitic neuters 1895
nominative 345–57, 458–61, 505–20, 522–6, non-high short vowels 441, 1977
654–64, 667–70, 752–64, 766–73, 915–21, non-high vowels 335, 649–50, 1368, 1603
923–8, 1204–8, 1336–43, 1750–7, 1834–7, non-Indo-European languages 11, 24, 87, 194,
1891–1904 736, 860, 872, 1504, 1572, 1794, 2131
– animate 220, 258–9, 261, 764, 771, 2083, non-inflectional words 377, 397
2085 non-inflexional lexemes 377
– double 550, 2209 non-inheritance 2144, 2147
– feminine 1380, 1989, 1992 non-initial syllables 487, 907, 1194, 1196,
– forms 275, 393, 1013, 1549, 1738 1198, 1426, 1512, 1593, 1595, 1977
– Lydian 303 non-laryngeal long vowels 223, 1424
– masculine 336, 1379–81, 1543, 1548, non-modal stems 1375, 1380
1615, 1900, 1992 non-neuter stems 1891, 1894
– objects 1612, 1677 non-neuters 1084, 1891, 1894–5
– plural 279, 281, 285, 287, 1083–5, 1447– non-palatal consonants 1283, 1479
8, 1512, 1669, 1671–2, 1752, 2069–70, non-palatal forms 455, 1205, 1211, 1283–4,
2100, 2102, 2123–4, 2133 1438, 1454–5, 1461
– pronominal 278, 1204, 2083 non-palatalized consonants 1200, 1606, 1704
– Proto-Indo-European 758, 909, 1205, non-palatalizing contexts 332–3
1314, 1316, 1323, 1326–7, 1751 non-past 1018, 1344, 1384, 1610, 2138,
2140, 2150
– singular 330, 337–8, 421–2, 426–7, 1008,
non-personal pronouns 463, 1538, 1547,
1081–4, 1542–4, 1555, 1819–23, 1827–8,
1986
1876, 1882–3, 2060, 2096–7, 2130–1
non-primary verbs 1760, 1768
– stems 1606, 1954
non-reduced vowels 1513, 1746–7
– subjects 1612, 1668, 1671, 1676, 2002,
non-sigmatic forms 231, 234, 1429
2207–8
non-syllabic allophones 222, 484
nominative-accusative languages 815, 2197
non-syllabic resonants 23, 901, 2068
nominative-accusative neuter 233, 285, 1383, non-syllabics 486, 498–9, 638, 1304, 1312–
1893, 1895, 2085, 2100, 2105 13, 1316–17, 1319, 1321, 1425, 1430,
non-ablauting forms 662–3, 677, 915, 1346, 1437, 1889–90, 1897, 1976, 1988
1895, 1911, 2147 non-telic lexemes 671
non-active forms 1777, 1780 non-terminative verbs 959–60
non-active voice 1780, 1787 normal ablaut 514–15
non-acute accents 1502–3, 1510 normal word order 1354, 1360, 1924, 1936
non-acute vowels 1507 normalization 340, 426, 457, 877, 1133,
non-acuted roots 1509–10 1494, 1602
non-acuted stems 1644–5 Norman, K. R. 181, 186, 315–17
non-agentive subjects 1016, 2142 North Africa 33, 93, 727, 861–2
non-agentive verbs 1612, 2142, 2165 North Albania 1717–18, 1720
non-articulated adjectives 1754 North America 309, 599, 1177, 1180, 1800
non-canonical clusters 1438–9, 1492 North India 425–6
non-continuants 330–1, 336–7, 1193 North Indic scripts 55–6
non-dental obstruents 338, 1191 Northeastern Iranian 106, 472
non-dominant accented suffixes 2131–2 northeastern Italy 1417, 1477, 1482
non-dominant derivational suffixes 2132 Northern Azerbaijan 105, 108
non-finite formations 385, 1240, 1776, 1778– Northern Geg 1724, 1792, 1806, 1814
9, 1781, 2168 Northern Greece 717, 1404, 1414
non-finite verb forms 280, 561, 806, 1354, Northern Italy 861, 875, 1013, 1168, 1172–3,
1802, 2158 1254, 1257, 1289, 2030

Authenticated
General index 2347
Northern Pakistan 54, 420 – head 557, 619, 707, 805–6, 821–2, 1099–
Northern Silk Road 605, 1298 1100, 1112, 1127–8, 1224–30, 1380, 1772,
Northern Spain 1170, 1257 1813, 1860, 2113, 2116
Northern Switzerland 1168, 1174 – inanimate 1371, 1382, 2205
Northern Syria 29, 33, 240–2, 2044 – inflected 551, 1341, 1899, 2105
Northwestern Middle Indic 422, 424 – inflection 263, 304, 458, 1540, 1897–8,
Norway 879, 997 1988
Nostratic, hypothesis 2284, 2286–7 – instrument 310, 753, 2112, 2234
nota accusativi 1098–9, 1101 – i-stem 728, 731, 758, 1616
notae augentes 1220, 1228 – masculine 347, 755, 1376, 1542, 1549,
notation 27, 54, 157, 195, 339, 1341, 1624, 1616
1716 – mass 2095
Notker 883, 958 – neuter 232, 257, 260, 282–5, 347, 689,
noun classes 805, 1340, 2082 722, 757–8, 2081, 2085, 2090, 2092–5,
noun clauses 806 2108, 2110, 2112
noun phrases 281, 963–4, 969, 1231, 1239, – n-stem 897
1245, 1559, 1929, 2204–6, 2208–9, 2211, – o-stem 1085, 1285, 1459, 1548, 1554,
2217 2031, 2095
– definite 1774, 1989 – participant 2111
– independent 1359–60 – predicate 1670, 1676
– subject 1231, 1239, 2199 – proper 1099, 1382, 1751, 2021
noun stems 993, 1468, 2131 – Proto-Indo-European 226, 2081–2, 2108,
noun suffixes 843, 1064, 1069, 1124–5, 2114
1127, 1259, 1691, 2127 – referential 2107, 2112
noun-forming suffixes 1691, 2126, 2129 – relational 957, 1669, 1672, 1675
nounhood 2113, 2170 – root, see root nouns
nouns 506–9, 689–92, 751–6, 805–8, 1013– – r-stem 1442
14, 1098–1100, 1335–9, 1354–6, 1359–61, – singular 1203, 1229, 1616, 1899, 2100
1378–84, 1538–40, 1668–9, 1754–7, 1772– – thematic 699, 909, 924, 1338, 1859,
5, 2094–2100 1900, 2082, 2084, 2086–7, 2089–90, 2097,
– abstract 100, 310, 514, 706, 715, 982, 2135
1373, 1382, 1690, 1794–5, 2098, 2106, – ti-stem 766, 2129, 2131
2110, 2168, 2170 – u-stem 261, 1013, 1287, 1506, 2113
– action 261, 265, 414, 543, 684, 1126–7, – verbal 1215, 1221, 1238, 1240, 1259,
1372–3, 1381, 1663, 1689, 2109, 2119 1279, 1286, 1288, 1353, 1355, 1359, 1373–
– Albanian 1750–2 4, 1378, 1381, 1555
– animate 257, 458, 757, 868, 1382, 1750, Nova Scotia 1177
2081, 2092–4, 2098–2100 Novara 1172–3
– a-stem 1550, 1659, 1860 Novgorod 1405–6, 1475, 1596
– athematic 261, 699, 1859, 2082, 2088–90 n-stems 516–17, 519–20, 757–9, 915, 917,
– collective 1285, 1653 919, 921–2, 983–4, 1082–6, 1268, 1284–5,
– common 1250, 1255, 1275 1337–8, 1380, 1387, 1981
– concrete 1372–3, 1382, 1690, 2107, 2112 – feminine 920, 1544
– consonant-stem 1441, 1459 – individualizing 922, 1259, 1326
– derived 116, 124, 1651, 1794, 2107 – inflection 1084, 1689, 2117
– deriving 1386, 2098, 2112 – masculine 918, 1266, 1543
– deverbal 124, 379, 399, 557, 780, 1260, – neuter 920, 1460, 1899
1453, 1690, 1779, 2107, 2119–20 – nouns 897
– dual 1014, 1380 – primary 922
– feminine 225, 868, 915, 1285, 1513, – secondary 781
1542, 1548, 1754, 1795, 1899, 2091, 2096 – suffixes 781, 2112
– feminine event/result 2109, 2136 n-suffixes 673, 921, 983–4, 1758, 1760,
– genitive 387, 1382, 1670, 2116 1764, 2111–12

Authenticated
2348 General index
nt-stems 851, 1083–4, 1257, 1284, 1337, – logical 551, 555, 557
1339–40, 1372, 1381, 1898, 1990, 2265 – natural 412, 1682, 2015
nt-suffixes 1326 – of negated verbs 1670, 2005
nucleus-capable sounds 498–9 – nominative 1612, 1677
null subjects 281, 1676, 1937 – oblique 377, 382, 387, 1611–12, 1669
number agreement 392, 1672, 2081, 2205 – portable 877, 882
numbers – transitive 2004, 2170
– ordinal, see ordinals oblique cases 377, 379–80, 389, 392, 461–2,
– plural 1231, 1538, 2090, 2092 553, 557, 656, 662, 664, 770, 2101, 2103,
– singular 1219, 1420 2119, 2123
numeral expressions 775, 925, 1616 oblique forms 277, 282, 1279, 1549
numerals 262, 463–4, 558, 774, 777–8, 924, oblique objects 377, 382, 387, 1611–12,
1203, 1206, 1546–7, 1616, 1658–61, 1669– 1669
70, 1969–70, 2006, 2104–5 oblique optative 687–8, 694
– cardinal, see cardinals oblique stems 251, 703, 843, 850, 1083,
– Celtic 1206, 1253 1161, 1372, 1606, 1826, 1903, 1993
– collective 1547, 1991 oblique subjects 378, 2001
– compounded 464, 523 obstruent clusters 337, 1191, 1196
– ordinal, see ordinals obstruent stems 918, 1372, 2085
– Roman 1420 obstruent-final stems 2083, 2086
– unit 775–6 obstruents 17, 337, 889–90, 896, 898, 1438,
Nussbaum, A.J. 226, 577, 580, 762–3, 843, 1440, 1741, 1743, 1745, 1975, 1977, 2060,
847, 2087, 2094, 2100, 2110, 2112, 2114– 2063–4, 2083–5
– dental 333, 647, 649, 1137, 2067
15, 2232, 2238, 2244
– final 1440, 2161
Nuyts, J. 2144
– non-dental 338, 1191
Nyberg, H.S. 51, 567, 1121
– non-sibilant 1193
– syllable-final 1439, 1443
Oberlies, T. 315–16, 411–13, 417, 420, 2239
– velar 647, 2033
object agreement 1232, 1239–40
– voiced 1136, 1138, 1153–4, 1189–91,
object case 957, 1281, 2209 1429, 1435, 1844, 2063, 2070
object markers 1756, 1770 – voiceless 338, 728, 1191, 1195, 1865
object marking, differential 382, 868–9, 871 occlusion 332, 336, 341, 427, 444, 897, 899
object positions 1208, 1245, 2209 – uninterrupted 334, 341
object pronouns 1208, 1241, 1286, 1775, occlusive stops 490, 492
1781, 1937 occlusives 195, 454–5, 496, 1596, 1844
object verb order 276, 619, 863, 865, 868, – voiced 494, 496, 1865
1017, 1109, 2198 Oceanic languages 124–5
object verb subject order 1361, 1568, 1836 Odryses 1850
objective genitive 379, 399, 774 Odyssey 626, 631, 698, 720, 2198
objectless transitive 382 Oenotri 738
objects 124–5, 383–4, 393–4, 614, 683–4, Oertel, H. 379, 390–1, 1931
691, 707, 1101–2, 1354, 1611–13, 1670, Oettinger, Norbert 229–30, 240–1, 250–1,
1937–8, 2002–5, 2008–10, 2208–11 256, 259–63, 265–6, 1316, 1319, 2043,
– accusative 382–3, 684, 956, 1098, 1612, 2045, 2087, 2151, 2166, 2237, 2239
1836 offglides 330, 725, 1053, 1068, 1443, 1450,
– animate 683 1452, 1457, 1471, 1608
– genitive 684, 957 official languages 292, 300, 432, 434, 438–9,
– inanimate 345, 683, 1355 476, 603–4, 715, 721, 729–31, 737, 1713,
– indirect 345, 392, 395, 550, 554, 612, 1800, 1812
614, 1354–5, 1751, 1755–6, 1781, 1784, Ogam
1828, 1836, 2204 – inscriptions 23, 1277, 1279
– initial 387, 1242 – script 1177, 1276

Authenticated
General index 2349
o-grade 666, 673, 916–17, 978–9, 1366, – Proto-Indo-European 782, 940, 1314,
1374, 1426, 1434, 1547, 1989, 1996, 2059, 1326, 1554, 1662, 2147
2111, 2119, 2133–4 – stems 1762, 1768
– Proto-Indo-European 1366, 1387, 1906 – suffixes 232, 789, 842, 940, 1348, 1554,
– roots 360, 789, 2107–8, 2119 2147
O’Grady, G. N. 130–1, 133 – thematic 64, 69, 940, 2033
OHG, see Old High German oral compositions 423, 631
Olander, T. 1541, 1544–5, 1554–5, 2087, oral culture 878
2089, 2091, 2109, 2169 oral traditions 631–2, 698, 720
Old Armenian, pronunciation 1043 oral transmission 313, 420, 475, 503, 505,
Old Church Slavic/Slavonic 737, 2197
– manuscripts 1399, 1402–4, 1464, 1559 oral vowels 1481, 1609, 1643, 1804
– protographs 1463, 1474, 1487, 1491 orality 631–2, 737
Old Irish, Early 1169, 1176, 1283 ordinal numbers/numerals, see ordinals
Old Prussian, texts 1622–3, 1668 ordinals 355, 522–3, 665, 667, 776–7, 1086–
Old South Arabian (OSA) 93–4 7, 1228–9, 1343, 1546–7, 1659, 1758–9,
Old Testament 93, 142–3, 725, 1029, 1404, 1899, 1969–70, 1990, 2105
1629–30 Orel, V. 875, 1732, 1739, 1742, 1747, 1790,
Olender, M. 139 1803–4, 1807, 2283
Olesch, R. 1407 organs 312, 578, 581–2, 1370, 2232
Ollett, Andrew 428 – internal 580, 2232
Oman 93, 567, 599 orientalists 93, 150
Omari, A. 1719, 1793 Orissa 315–16, 431
O’Neil, W. 1019 Orlandi, T. 177
on-glides 1446, 1452 Oropos 712
onomastic evidence 881, 994, 998, 1407, Orr, R. 1424, 1541, 1555
1866, 2018, 2020, 2040 Ortelius, Abraham 148
onomastic material 150, 292, 1622, 1851, Orthodox Church 729, 1720
1858 orthography 50, 421, 428, 439, 474–5, 503,
onomastic taxa 1868–70 1035, 1037–8, 1304, 1603, 1607, 1624,
onomastics 152, 295–6, 567, 663, 859, 1250, 1832, 1845
1270, 2012, 2017, 2020, 2041 – Mesropian 1045
onomatopoetic forms 412, 980, 1426, 2063, orthotonic features 302, 774, 1504, 1675
2246 Oscan
opaque relics 1085, 1090 – alphabet 743
open reflexes 1479–80 – culture 740
open syllables 327, 483, 644, 748, 1067, – orthography 748
1305, 1308, 1437, 1458, 1477, 1512, 1586, Oslo 194
1588, 1684, 1734 Ossetians 106, 605, 869
optative 360–5, 370–1, 553, 686–8, 936, o-stems 654–5, 658–9, 753–9, 766–7, 771,
940–2, 1345, 1347–8, 1358–61, 1761–2, 1080–3, 1088, 1126, 1454, 1542–5, 1548,
1768–9, 1910–12, 1915, 2144–5, 2147 1655–8, 1819–26, 1988, 2031–3
– active 1910 – masculine 1543–4
– aorist 362, 366, 1909–10, 1912 – neuter 1542, 1544
– forms 465, 930, 1781, 2147, 2155 – nouns 1085, 1285, 1459, 1548, 1554,
– imperative 1916–19 2031, 2095
– oblique 687–8, 694 – Proto-Indo-European 753–4, 1371–2,
– passive 942 1380, 1976
– plural 1845 Osthoff, H. 185–6, 921, 942, 1118
– potential 687, 967–8 Osthoff’s Law 661, 675, 678, 746, 790, 900,
– present 940, 968, 1768, 1907, 2147 932–3, 936–7, 945, 1321, 1641, 1996, 2073
– preterite 529, 940, 968 Osthoff-shortening 775, 794–5

Authenticated
2350 General index
Ostrogoths 879 1604–5, 1649–50, 1752, 1762, 1807–8,

Otrębski, J. 1627, 1652, 1685, 1688, 1692, 1975–6
2012 – dental 1450–3, 1457, 1461, 1469, 1471,
Ottomans 726–9, 1033, 1035, 1132, 1149, 1484–5
1156, 1589, 1717, 1721–2, 1785, 1788, – progressive 1443–4, 1457, 1465
1791, 1793, 1801, 1814 – progressive velar 1458, 1460–1, 1465–70,
Ouzounian, A. 1098 1472, 1485
overt affixation 2107, 2160 – second 1462, 1554, 1588, 1596
overt dative subjects 2009 – secondary 357, 492, 1340
overt subjects 281, 1016, 1679 – Slavic 1588, 1968
Ovid 864 – third 1468, 1588
o-vocalism 665, 679, 702, 836 palatalized allophones 1321–3, 1326
palatalized consonants 1401, 1605–6
oxytone accents 947, 1307, 1896, 2130
palatalized dental fricatives 1048
oxytones 355, 578, 651, 658, 932, 1500,
palatalized velars 249, 1462, 1880
1503, 1506, 1509–11, 1657, 1885
palatals 444, 449, 451, 455, 492–3, 495–6,
Ozola, M. 1628 509–10, 1211, 1283–4, 1322, 1445–6,
Ozols, A. 1628 1449–50, 1452–5, 1461–3, 1489–90
– primary 333, 337, 492, 1472, 1485
Pagliaro, Antonino 190 – Proto-Indo-European 611, 1322, 1647–8,
Pahlavi, see Middle Persian 1807, 1975–6
Paippalāda Atharvaveda 418 – secondary 332–3, 337, 492–3, 1889
pairings 961, 1610, 1613, 2235 palate 1058, 1457, 1479
pairs 65, 67, 123–4, 329, 338, 345, 615–16, palatovelars 1048, 1426, 1428–30, 1880,
631, 1006, 1012, 1117–18, 1121, 1658, 1886
2107, 2112 – Proto-Indo-European 1429, 1880, 1989
– minimal 341, 495, 650, 1153, 1305, 1355, paleolinguistics 87–8
2069 Paleolithic Continuity Theory 1028
– natural 1615, 2092 paleontology, linguistic 86–7, 181, 189
– oppositional 2142 Pāli
Pakistan 309, 316, 321, 418, 421–2, 424, – canon 316, 319, 424–5
430, 433–6, 476, 567, 599, 605 – grammars 317
– Northern 54, 420 palimpsests 106, 1030, 1403
Palā 241 Palionis, J. 1625, 1627, 1685
palaeographical analyses 867, 1301, 1389, Pallas, P. S. 154, 157
1391–3 Pallavas 440
palatal affricates 472, 492–3, 610, 647, 1472 Palmaitis, L. 1623
palatal articulation 1038, 1450 Pamir 573–5, 577
Pamphylia 246, 1865–6, 2046
palatal coarticulation 1450, 1462–3, 1479,
Panagl, O. 697, 2199–2200
1484, 1489
Panayotou, A. 1850–2, 1862–5
palatal consonants 492, 542, 1438, 1541,
Pancheva, R. 1567
1554, 1601 Panevėžys region 1702–4
palatal glide 640, 644, 647–50, 1041, 1449, Pāṇini 54, 313–14, 317–18, 326, 344, 369,
1469, 1471 371, 419–20, 449, 454–5, 490
palatal sibilants 494, 1649 Panjab 418, 425, 434
palatal stops 333–4, 492, 1137, 1472, 1807, Pannonia 1417, 1588
1880–1, 2061 Pannonian Plain 1417–18, 1482
– Proto-Indo-European 1647, 1649, 1880, papyri 603, 626, 735, 1031–2, 1122, 1133
1975 paradigmatic ablaut 230, 917, 1890
palatal vowels 493, 613 paradigmatic alternations 1453, 1879, 1976
palatalization 492–4, 1054, 1199, 1321–2, paradigmatic approaches 2121, 2124, 2129,
1328–9, 1338–41, 1345–7, 1463–5, 1601, 2135–6

Authenticated
General index 2351
paradigmatic classes 2134–7 particles 176, 275–9, 282, 559–60, 685–7,

paradigmatic leveling 332, 457, 917, 1048, 692–3, 768–9, 771–3, 811–12, 927–9, 955–
1738 6, 1207–10, 1342–3, 1902–4, 2047–8
paradigmatic reconstructions 2135, 2137 – affirmative 559, 955, 1311
paragogic vowels 1492, 1495 – aspectual 1238, 1240
parallelisms 393, 559, 899, 1672 – connective 380, 398, 1773
paralytics 1101, 1109, 1128 – coordinating 400, 1361
parent languages 144, 188, 221, 228–9, 231, – deictic 258, 282, 667, 769, 924, 927,
888, 913, 917, 1118, 1126, 1997, 2110 1208, 1350, 2141
Parenti, A. 1652, 1691 – emphatic 1779, 1826, 1948
Parker, Matthew 149 – enclitic 275, 556, 613, 968, 1207, 1844,
Parnassian, N. 1147–8 1877, 1982
Parpola, A. 9, 600 – focus 276, 955, 1567
Parry, Milman 631–2, 1178 – hic et nunc 228, 783, 792, 2140, 2150
Parsons, James 156 – indefinite 526, 1902
participant nominalization 2111–12 – interrogative 562, 955–6, 966, 1279
participant nouns 2111 – local 277, 305, 349, 2087
participial clauses 1679, 1935 – modal 276, 559, 687
participial constructions/forms 314, 372, 400, – negative 398, 821, 1119, 1207
1017, 1677, 1679, 2008 – preverbal 1207–8, 1210
participle suffixes 304, 1805, 2132, 2167 – prohibitive 332, 1066, 1313, 1948
participles 285–6, 370–3, 385, 464–6, 553–4,
– Proto-Indo-European 217, 263, 266, 891
689–90, 943–5, 1101–2, 1671–4, 1676–7,
– reflexive 265, 277–8, 282, 304, 1709,
1768–9, 1777–80, 2007, 2168–9, 2216–17
2155
– active 221, 265, 351, 370, 763, 793–5,
– relative 927–8, 1209, 1288, 1758
797, 1555, 1663, 1673, 1679, 1988–9,
– sentence 276, 690, 1210, 1342
1995–6, 2007–8, 2169
– sentence-initial 398, 2199
– active perfect 518, 1564
– verbal 964, 1353, 1669
– active present 541, 1344, 1359, 1672
partitive 10, 684, 1101, 2004–5, 2010, 2209,
– imperfective 466–7
– inflected 726–7 2211
– passive 296, 385, 763, 766, 941, 982, – genitive 690, 956, 1670, 1674, 2003–5,
1215, 1555, 1560, 1565, 1615, 1663, 1673, 2010, 2209
1677, 1679 parts of speech 377, 928, 974
– past 542, 555, 931–2, 936, 942–5, 947, passive agents 378–9, 386, 388, 399, 1222
959–61, 1014, 1215, 1238, 1359, 1366, passive aorist 675, 1877, 1906–7, 1914
1372, 1434, 2116 passive constructions 378, 385–7, 399, 466,
– perfect active 793, 842, 1555 550, 960, 966, 1356, 1563, 1678
– perfect passive 373, 378, 385, 387, 615– passive forms 782, 786, 941, 1108, 1231–2
16, 618, 782, 794–5, 797, 805, 842 passive infinitive 797, 847, 849
– present 465–6, 541, 618, 784, 931, 945– passive participles 296, 385, 763, 766, 941,
6, 959–61, 1215, 1240, 1344, 1367, 1768, 982, 1215, 1555, 1560, 1565, 1615, 1663,
2212 1673, 1677, 1679
– present active 1420, 1423–4, 1440, 1453, passive preterite 942, 1240, 1270
1455–6 passive sentences 1108, 1219, 1222
– present passive 1420, 1444, 1463, 1555, passive subjects 379, 386–7
1663, 1673, 1679, 1997 passive values 555, 960, 1101, 1357, 1359,
– preterite 265, 994, 1340, 1344–6, 1354–6, 1778
1359–60, 1386, 2169 passive verbs 960, 1098
– substantivized 1100, 1751 passive voice 124, 616, 618, 671, 686, 869,
– truncated 1679, 1778 941, 961, 1231, 2142–3, 2208

Authenticated
2352 General index
passives 371, 385, 387–9, 531, 540, 550, perfect endings 229, 358, 680, 792–3, 846,
1670, 1677–8, 1905, 1907–8, 1910, 1913– 2151
15, 2007, 2207, 2210 perfect forms/formations 314, 388, 533, 676,
– causative 386, 389 788, 790–2, 932, 944, 1564, 1778, 1912,
– morphological 378, 615, 618 2251
passivization 378–9, 383, 386, 394, 1097, perfect injunctive 1906, 1910
1108, 2209–10 perfect middle forms 536, 1828, 2142, 2154
– test 378, 383 perfect morphology 933, 1615, 2142
past action 529, 689, 790, 825, 2167 perfect participle suffixes 1156, 2130
past participles 542, 555, 931–2, 936, 942–5, perfect participles 369, 529, 1345, 1610,
947, 959–61, 1014, 1215, 1238, 1359, 1898, 1995, 2169–70
1366, 1372, 1434, 2116 perfect passive participles 373, 378, 385,
past tenses 465, 616–17, 671, 687, 689, 930, 387, 615–16, 618, 782, 794–5, 797, 805,
1105–6, 1358, 1562, 1564, 1598, 1615, 842
1776, 2140–1, 2157 perfect stems 358, 361, 385, 676–7, 686,
past-infinitive stems 1995, 1998 688, 782, 790–2, 850, 853, 933, 2138–40,
Pāṭaliputra 315, 317, 422 2142, 2167, 2169
Patañjali 310, 314, 318, 326, 420, 422, 428 perfect tenses 555, 959, 1148, 1562, 1598,
patientive value 358, 365, 368 1610, 1615, 1845
Patkar, M. M. 410 perfective aspect 616, 930, 1561, 1906, 2141,
Patna 315 2157
Patri, S. 260, 283, 285, 661, 1064, 2093 perfective stems 2140, 2143, 2159, 2165
patronymic adjectives 713–14, 831, 1267–9, perfective verbs 1555, 2005
1836, 1841, 1864 perfectivity 124, 555, 959, 1762
patronymic suffixes 1254, 1260 perfects 173, 230–1, 266, 791, 795, 846,
patronymics 353, 508, 511, 519, 659, 831, 1210, 1214, 1769, 1906, 1915, 1994, 1996,
878, 1820, 1825, 1832, 1834–5 2138, 2140
Pätsch, G. 177 – long-vowel 784
Paul, Hermann 185–6, 188 – reduplicated 789–90, 846, 933
Paulinus a Sancto Bartolomaeo 159 Pergamum 722, 1816
Paümacariu 320 periodization 191, 609, 752, 1037
Paumacariya 319, 426, 452 peripheral dialects 23, 1460, 1481, 1699,
Pawley, Andy 122, 125–6 1806, 1808
Pedersen, H. 190–1, 1046, 1048, 1050, 1054, peripheral vowels 1066, 1499
1058, 1080, 1082, 1085, 1117, 1119, 1215, periphrases 176, 286, 618, 726, 728, 944–5,
1219, 1806, 2134–5 959–60, 962, 982, 1018, 1113, 1238, 1344,
Pejsikov, L. S. 568 1776, 1779
Peloponnesian War 245, 721 – multiword 1775–6
Peloponnesus 697, 711–12, 715, 720, 1417– periphrastic constructions/formations/
18, 1722 forms 549, 551, 554, 618, 791, 795, 797,
Peñalba de Villastar 1267 944, 958–61, 1155–6, 1238, 1359–61,
Penkovka culture 1419 1672, 1766–7, 1776
Penney, J. 767, 781, 2134 periphrastic tenses 1558, 1561, 1565, 1673,
Pensalfini, R. 132 1769, 1772, 1775
penultimate accent 1280–1 perlative 233, 1306, 1336, 1342, 1355, 1360
penultimate stress 1047, 1276, 1280, 1282, Persian, borrowings 432, 440
1506, 1746 Perso-Arabic abjad 430, 434, 437
Percival, W. K. 147, 175 personal endings 177, 363, 670, 729, 792,
Pérez Vilatela, L. 1857 837, 1015, 1211, 1553, 1662, 1912, 2139–
perfect, present 790, 1562, 1564, 1598 40, 2281–2
perfect active personal names 239, 244–5, 291–2, 295–6,
– infinitive 793, 796–7 300, 1250–2, 1254, 1256–60, 1275, 1279,
– participles 793, 842, 1555 1834–7, 1841–4, 1860, 1864–5, 1868

Authenticated
General index 2353
personal pronouns 262–4, 299, 685–6, 767, phonetic laws 16–17, 451, 1949
772, 927–8, 1080, 1087–9, 1208–9, 1228, phonetic realizations 647, 889, 1492, 1806,
1340, 1755–6, 1903–4, 1993, 2102–3 1840, 2084
Persson, Per 189 phonetic space 1445, 1460, 1477
Peshawar District 316, 434, 436 phonetic values 254, 506, 568, 1135, 1304,
Peshteri 1801 1420, 1477, 1840–1
Peter the Great 154, 157 phonetics 27, 150, 152, 184, 225, 312, 326,
Petit, D. 80, 1689–90, 1699, 1712, 1968, 418–19, 703, 1134, 1137, 1601, 1604,
1974, 1978, 2012, 2103, 2131 2056, 2066
petrified phrases 1769 phonological changes 117, 131–2, 299, 303,
Petrosyan, A. 1161 413, 441, 915, 989, 997, 1073, 1080, 1270,
Petrova, S. 955, 963, 965 1540–1, 1624, 1733
Peucetia 1841 phonological developments 121, 302–4, 351,
Peyrot, M. 1301, 1304, 1311, 1317, 1321, 602, 754–5, 761–2, 1118–19, 1126, 1284,
2164 1291, 1543, 1546, 1690, 2042, 2046
Pezron, Paul-Yves 156 – special 1544, 1553, 1555
Pfeiffer, R. 172 phonological evidence 121, 1040, 2031
pharyngeals 638, 1060, 2065 phonological features 304, 320, 602–3, 1309,
Philip II of Macedonia 721, 1850, 1862 1389, 1597, 1843, 1962
Philippines 122, 124–5, 871 – shared 1962, 2030–1
philology 51, 77, 79–80, 82, 93, 95, 145, phonological innovations, shared 62–3
149, 171, 177, 183, 192, 220, 224, 711 phonological inventories 221, 743, 747, 1049
philosophy 174, 192, 413, 424, 720, 1029, phonological isoglosses 836, 1805–6
1370, 1786 phonological oppositions 650, 1042, 1586–7,
– Hegelian 184 1590, 1592, 1840, 1844
Phoenician, alphabet 39, 633–4, 711 phonological phrases 837, 1932, 2066–7
phonaesthetic associations 1426–7 phonological processes 335, 764, 794, 1009,
phonation 1505, 1511 1043, 1214, 1543, 1762, 2059–60, 2065,
phonemes 4, 16, 331, 483, 877, 1038, 1040– 2068–9, 2084, 2121, 2149
1, 1304–5, 1400–1, 1431–2, 1640, 1878, phonological reconstruction 15–16, 66, 117
1975–6, 2062–3, 2065–6 phonological reductions 778, 793, 1279
– affricate 639 phonological rules 213, 313, 340, 503, 1085,
– aspirate 647 1544, 1873–4, 2069–70
– consonantal 645, 898 phonological shape 1371, 1712, 1760, 2099
– independent 326, 330, 332, 453 phonological systems 22, 107–8, 121, 183,
– marginal 1190, 1881 187, 241, 483, 490, 503, 609, 638, 1189,
– Proto-Indo-European 213, 1732, 1878 1640, 1732, 1812
– sibilant 493, 1881 phonological values 744, 1031, 1068
– vocalic 642, 749, 1821 phonological words 187, 261, 651, 1011,
– vowel 1006, 1437, 1589, 1734, 1750, 1442, 1504, 1511
1978 phonology 108, 212–14, 447–8, 720–1, 990,
phonemic inventories 95, 639, 744, 747, 1275–6, 1414–15, 1491–3, 1495–7, 1832–
1037, 1041, 1816, 1818, 2056, 2058 3, 1843, 1856–8, 1926–7, 2040, 2056–7
phonemic oppositions 1135, 1193, 1604 – Albanian 1732–3, 1735, 1737, 1739,
phonemic reanalysis 1427, 1445–6, 1492 1741, 1743, 1745, 1747
phonemic status 333, 453, 904, 992, 1859 – Anatolian 249, 251, 253, 255
phonemicization 647, 1485, 1886 – Baltic 1640–1, 1643, 1645, 1647, 1649,
phonetic changes 185, 456, 495, 574, 655, 1690, 1699, 1978
1477, 1598 – Balto-Slavic 1974–5, 1977, 1979, 1981,
phonetic developments 448, 456, 497, 1085– 1983
6, 1089 – Celtic 1188–9, 1191, 1193, 1195, 1197,
phonetic isoglosses 1700 1199, 1201, 1204, 1210, 1277

Authenticated
2354 General index
– Classical Armenian 1037, 1039, 1041, phylogenetic methods 68, 70

1043, 1045, 1047, 1049, 1051, 1053, 1055, phylogenetic structure 1264, 1271
1057, 1059, 1061, 1063, 1065 phylogenetic trees 68, 1119
– Germanic 888–9, 891, 893, 895, 897, phylogeny 1265–6
899, 901, 903, 905, 907, 909, 911 Pictet, Adolphe 86, 180–1
– Greek 638–9, 641, 643, 645, 647, 649, Pinault, Georges-Jean 220, 390, 392–3, 398,
651 411, 1298–1301, 1304, 1306, 1309–12,
– historical 99, 639, 1037, 1045, 1072, 1321, 1327–9, 1352–3, 1357, 1948–9,
1189, 1195, 1617, 1732, 1751, 1844 2266–7
– Indic 325, 327, 329, 331, 333, 335, 337, Pinault’s Law 937, 2065
339, 341 Pinkerton, John 156
– Indo-Iranian 327, 332–4, 1926 Pirart, E. 475, 487, 499, 513, 559–60, 567
– Iranian 481, 483, 485, 487, 489, 491, Pisani, Vittore 190, 733, 841, 1046–8, 1086,
493, 495, 497, 499 1845, 1854, 1868
– Italic 743, 745, 747, 749 pitch 16, 311, 339, 1011, 1280, 1970, 2069
– Proto-Indo-European 63, 182, 195, 212, – accents 255, 309, 434, 436, 1046, 1072,
224, 1974 1586–7, 1589, 1645, 2069
– Proto-Indo-Iranian 1875, 1877, 1879, – high 436, 650–2, 2069, 2121
1881, 1883, 1885 – low 311, 650
– Proto-Malayo-Polynesian 121 place names 508, 562, 703–4, 754, 781, 990,
– segmental 214, 1072 1177, 1774, 1843, 1868–9, 2015, 2032,
– Sindhi 433 2038, 2047
– Sinhala 441 Placiti Cassinesi 867
– suprasegmental 213, 1414, 1420, 1500, plain velars 12, 249, 639, 1048, 1054, 1429,
1511 1807, 1812–13
– Tocharian 220, 1304–5, 1307, 1309, plants 86–8, 216, 412, 497, 510, 572–3, 582,
1311, 1313, 1315, 1317, 1319, 1321, 1323, 611, 977, 1151, 1623, 1689, 1692, 1950,
1325, 1327, 1329, 1368 2164
phonotactic constraints 17, 123, 1470 Plato 626, 650, 698, 721, 1029, 1818
phonotactics 100, 132, 896, 1282, 1490, Plautus 756, 759, 761, 773–4, 778, 781, 788,
1983 792, 796, 806, 829, 863
phrasal clitics 1675, 2006 pleophony 1487–8, 1502
phrasal expressions 764, 1957 Pliny 876, 986–8, 1256, 1869
phrasal syntax 549, 556 plosives 481, 489, 492–3, 1907
phrasemes 2043–5, 2049 – aspirated 717, 725
phrases – voiced 725, 1267
– adpositional 379, 549–51, 613, 954, 956– pluperfect 534, 536, 782, 784, 792, 795, 825,
7, 1229, 1352–4, 1356, 1557–8, 1668, 1235, 1237, 1291–2, 1769, 1777–8, 1910–
1671, 1771–2, 1927 11, 2007–8, 2140
– adverbial 528, 1360, 2212 – Latin 792–3, 1291–2
– independent noun 1359–60 – Proto-Nuclear-Indo-European 2140, 2151
– infinitival 1102–3, 2213 pluractionality 1614, 2158, 2164
– nominal 556, 560, 707, 807, 955, 957–8, plural 225–31, 345–57, 360–70, 458–63,
1772, 1774 505–20, 533–41, 658–64, 752–61, 783–9,
– noun, see noun phrases 1087–94, 1207–9, 1338–42, 1347–50,
– postpositional 397, 1671, 1674–5 1892–9, 1912–19
– prepositional 551, 553, 684, 691, 807–8, – genitive 327, 335, 657, 659, 667, 1441,
958, 962, 1100, 1671–2, 1714, 1751, 1759, 1495, 1499, 1501–3, 1506, 1513, 1542,
1774, 1821, 1983 1546, 2006, 2100
Phrygia 1816–17, 1825, 1852 – inflection 775, 920, 2092, 2104
– North-West 1817 – i-stems 1086, 1546
Phrygian alphabet 45 – locative 496, 586, 1082, 1433, 1464,
phylogenetic inferencing, Bayesian 133 1506, 1512, 1649, 1976, 2088, 2274

Authenticated
General index 2355
– neuter 697, 1338, 1891, 2092 Pontic region 106, 1416, 1822
– nominative 279, 281, 285, 287, 1083–5, Poppe, E. 145, 180
1447–8, 1512, 1669, 1671–2, 1752, 2069– population movements 717–18, 1419
70, 2100, 2102, 2123–4, 2133 Porphyry 1029
– numbers 1231, 1538, 2090, 2092 Portuguese, creoles 871
– preterite 302, 304, 993, 1394 Porzig, W. 62–4, 830, 1118, 1969–70
– set 2093, 2099 Porzio Gernia, M. L. 830, 832
– stems 670, 935, 940, 1548, 1752–3 positional variants 42, 903, 1006
– subjects 685, 966, 2091–2, 2205 positive adjectives 684, 1100
– suffixes 1149, 1285, 1339, 1373, 2094, positive commands 1108
2099–2100 possession 216, 263, 345, 684, 808–9, 1160,
– vocative 258, 317, 425, 460–2, 509, 512– 1196, 1209, 1221, 1369, 1380, 1550, 1751,
13, 655, 759 1755, 2234
poems, see poetry – alienable 1354, 2212
poetics 79–80, 315, 320, 632–3 – inalienable 124–5, 1356, 2048
poetry 314, 319, 420, 427, 431, 437, 439, possessive adjectives 227, 771–2, 774, 781,
631, 679, 683, 691, 878–9, 883, 1176–9, 958, 1099, 1545, 1550, 1756, 1898, 1969,
1721–2 2001, 2046, 2112, 2116
– epic 864, 882, 1406 possessive compounds 261, 707, 1691–2,
– Greek 630–1, 648, 2048 1795, 1956, 2120
– Homeric-style 720 possessive constructions 274, 550, 554, 1160,
– oral 631–2 1677, 2002
– religious 1722 possessive dative 554, 1674
possessive genitives 1671, 1678, 2003, 2007,
– Skaldic 878
2010
– written 632
possessive pronouns 262–3, 357, 523–5, 557,
poets 80, 335, 338, 511, 514, 517, 635, 1259,
613, 669, 774, 925–6, 1087–9, 1098, 1209,
1284, 1574, 1583, 1721, 1883, 2090, 2128
1226, 1278–9, 1755–7, 1904
Pohl, H. D. 568, 1540, 1966–7
– reflexive 1341, 1757
Pokorny, Julius 9, 78, 190, 215–17, 978,
possessive suffixes 100, 301, 1258, 1445,
1116, 1313
2281
Poland 194, 1397, 1417, 1419, 1477, 1617, possessives 276, 557, 662, 926, 1228, 1692,
1625, 1628, 1685, 1713, 2020 2120
polarity 1111 possessors 124, 301, 379, 384, 395, 399,
– negative 694, 1112 550, 554, 612, 614, 684, 878, 1671, 1757,
– positive 1112 1772
polis 715, 731, 2231 Postel, Guillaume 146
Polish influence 1594, 1685, 2004 postposed definite article 1616, 1752–3, 1755
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 1706, postpositional phrases 397, 1671, 1674–5
1713 postpositions 397, 619, 806, 869, 1082–3,
political power 418, 611, 642, 861, 872 1336, 1353, 1360–1, 1655, 1671–2, 1675,
politics 49, 154, 828 1933, 1935, 2010, 2198–9
Poljakov, O. 2014 post-Proto-Indo-European features 229, 846,
Polomé, Edgar 194, 223, 876, 1004, 1053, 1760, 1766–8, 1977–8, 1983, 2283
1868 post-Proto-Indo-European innovations 2084,
polygenesis 154, 2287 2090, 2118, 2138
polypersonality 1756, 1770 post-tonic syllables 888, 905–6, 1308, 1510
polysyllabic stems 915, 935, 1890 post-tonic vowels 1609, 1737
polysyllabic words 452, 458, 906, 1007, postvocalic position 336, 535, 609, 1041,
1276, 1502, 1591, 2131 1082, 1191, 2149–50
Pompeii 647, 738, 808, 813, 850, 864–5 postvocalic voiceless stops 338, 609
Pomponius 766, 1869 potential optative 687, 967–8
Pontanus, Johannes Isaac 149, 151 Pott, August Friedrich 8–10, 178, 181, 1960

Authenticated
2356 General index
pottery 87, 711, 718, 738, 1172–4, 1299, pre-Latin 754, 758–9, 764, 769, 775, 777–8,
1579, 1817, 1832 785, 787, 790–2, 794–6, 2089
power 196, 488, 495, 861, 865, 906, 914, pre-literary Latin 735, 737
1050, 1059, 1370, 1373–4, 1379, 1946, Prellwitz, W. 1673
1951–3, 2213 pre-migration Slavophones 1416–17
– political 418, 611, 642, 861, 872 prepalatal features 492–3, 2063
Praenestine fibula 41, 735, 846 prepositional phrases 551, 553, 684, 691,
pragmatics 95–6, 734, 1778, 1931 807–8, 958, 962, 1100, 1671–2, 1714,
Prakrit 1751, 1759, 1774, 1821, 1983
– grammarians 318, 320, 427 prepositions 550–1, 619, 683–4, 690–1, 868–
– inscriptions 315 9, 1098, 1100–1, 1279, 1512, 1549, 1612–
Prakritisms 413, 455 13, 1671–2, 1759, 1775, 2003–4
Prātiśākhyas 313, 326, 329, 341 – Albanian 1759, 1775
Praust, K. 1061, 1995 – conjugated 1209, 1228
prayers 398, 844, 967, 1033, 1136–7, 1403– – improper 690, 1101
4, 1474, 1625–7, 1686, 2264 pre-Roman Italy 858–9, 875, 1832
preaccenting morphemes 2122, 2126–7, 2132 present 358–9, 529–31, 534–5, 537–9, 542,
precative 362, 365, 368, 553, 1912 552, 672, 786–91, 794, 823–5, 907–10,
preceding labials 516, 924 937–8, 1765, 1883–5, 1944
preceding liquids 650, 1190 – active participles 763, 1420, 1423–4, 1440,
preceding voiced stops 1287, 2033, 2062 1453, 1455–6, 1555, 1663, 1673, 1989
predicate adjectives 964, 1100, 1654, 1830, – classes 464, 796, 1346, 2163
2092 – endings 1093, 1347, 1979
predicate nominals 2003–4 – formations 267, 674, 1551, 1995, 2163–4
predicate nouns 1670, 1676 – inflection 907, 909, 936, 938
predicates 285–6, 395, 399, 554, 616, 692, – injunctive 529, 1906–7
815, 964–6, 969, 1354, 1359, 1361, 1668, – optative 940, 968, 1907, 2147
1671, 2212 – participles 465–6, 541, 618, 784, 931,
– complex 554, 616, 964–5 945–6, 959–61, 1215, 1240, 1344, 1367,
– compound 274, 285–6 1768, 2212
predication 399–400, 815–16, 2213 – stems 359, 495, 530, 615, 784, 793–4,
predicative adjectives 1224, 1754 1126, 1211, 1375, 1610, 1767–8, 2161
predicative infinitive 2002, 2216 – systems 363, 385, 387, 614, 782–3, 785,
predicative instrumental 1670–1, 1964, 2001, 788, 935, 942, 1460, 1776, 1780, 2159,
2003–4 2165
predicative position 1560, 1671–2, 2006 present tense 617–19, 930–2, 959, 961,
prefixation 722, 983, 1441, 1582, 1795 1148–9, 1155–6, 1235–6, 1356, 1358,
prefixed middle marker 1766, 1768–9 1361, 1552–3, 1562, 1564, 1996, 1998
prefixes 123–4, 614, 617–18, 983, 1124–5, – consuetudinal 838, 1235–6, 1289
1258–9, 1345, 1365, 1447, 1449, 1452, – forms 1018, 1551, 1835, 1995
1546, 1573, 1577, 1582–3 – markers 2149, 2151
– Armenian 1124–5 – stems 1552, 1997
– Greek 1124–5 present/aorist 538–9, 1911, 2140, 2142, 2154,
– negative 899, 1193 2167, 2169
– privative 1062, 2069 present-stem suffixes 1762, 1768, 1995
– verbal 101, 610, 959, 1551 present-stem system 1761–2
prefixing languages 130, 132–3 preserved root ablaut 1890, 1894, 1896
prehistory 23–4, 66, 138–9, 848, 859, 861, presigmatic aorist 231, 2165–6
1134–7, 1204–5, 1374–5, 1763, 1852–3, Prespa, Lake 1404
1961–2, 2092, 2135–6, 2165–6 prestige 23–4, 143, 430, 436–7, 631–2, 719–
– of Anatolian 2097, 2141, 2144 22, 724
– shallow 2086, 2089, 2097 – cultural 721
– of Tocharian 1336, 1374 – literary 428

Authenticated
General index 2357
Prestino 1173 proclisis 1109, 1307, 1783

preterite 231, 264–6, 368–9, 464–6, 931–4, proclitic elements 1754–5, 1757
936, 938–40, 943, 945–6, 959–61, 1018, proclitic vowels 1199–1200
1213–15, 1344–7, 1356–60, 1905–6 proclitics 124, 276, 278, 1210, 1241, 1311,
– causative 1366, 1386 1511–12
– endings 1348–9 Procopius 880, 988, 1136, 1397, 1418
– iterative 2047, 2164 productive ablaut 1309, 1427
– long-vowel 790, 2166 productive agent nouns 1375, 1895
– optative 529, 940, 968 productive categories 842, 1286, 1654, 1692,
– participles 265, 994, 1340, 1344–6, 1354– 2092
6, 1359–60, 1386, 2169 productive classes 1339, 1377, 1795, 1897,
– passive 942, 1240, 1270 2109
– plural 302, 304, 993, 1394 productive patterns 414, 765, 1127, 1304,
– reduplicated 934, 1287–9, 2166 1795
– strong 931–2, 939 productive processes 853, 1047, 1071, 1127,
– suffixless 1213–14 1383, 1386, 2070, 2118
– tense 671, 930, 939, 967, 1235, 1237, productive rules 1308, 1320, 2059
1345, 1712 productive suffixes 226, 781, 1259, 1383,
– weak 212, 913, 934–5, 942–4, 959, 989, 1546, 2031, 2098
993, 2149 productive types 262, 521, 1093, 1127, 1551,
pretonic reductions 1038, 1047, 1070–1, 1910
1278 productivity 368, 389, 396, 805, 832, 1259,
pretonic syllables 1045, 1195, 1511, 1597, 1285, 1371, 1539, 1688–9, 1692, 1794,
1608, 1705, 1737 2095, 2109
pretonic vowels 1200, 1590, 1737 – growth 386, 389
preverbal particles 1207–8, 1210 professional scribes 240–2, 1291
preverbs 382–4, 393–4, 397, 527, 560, 616– progressive assimilation 645, 647, 649–50,
17, 1208, 1210, 1240–1, 1253, 1259–60, 1463, 2070
1279, 1286, 1765, 1775–6 progressive palatalization 1443–4, 1457,
prevocalic position 838, 906, 1195, 1817, 1465
1819–20, 1982 progressive velar palatalization 1458, 1460–
Prichard, James Cowles 180 1, 1465–70, 1472, 1485
Prifti, P. 1750–1, 1754–60, 1774, 1778–9, prohibitive particles 332, 1066, 1313, 1948
1784–5, 1794 Prokosch, E. 941, 1003, 1013, 1986–7, 2150
primary adjectives 982, 1117, 1898, 2231 Prokosch’s Law 1011
primary endings 228, 358, 361, 369, 534–6, prominence, prosodic 1009, 1011
676–7, 1210, 1214, 1552, 1763, 2034, pronominal adjectives 262, 377, 380, 392,
2140, 2146, 2151, 2165 395, 515, 524, 584, 767, 772–3, 777, 807–
primary palatals 333, 337, 492, 1472, 1485 8, 1098, 1112, 1469
primary suffixes 352, 1259, 2107 pronominal adverbs 556, 767, 1383–4, 1903
primary thematic 232, 1551, 2148, 2151 pronominal clitics 287, 614, 617, 811, 1267,
primary verbal roots 982, 1943 1560, 1567, 1675, 1933, 1935
primary verbs 846, 934–8, 982, 1252, 1287, pronominal declension 525–6, 754, 757, 767,
1551, 1760, 1766–8, 2033, 2125 1542, 1544–6, 1560, 2088
primeval language 142, 144, 151, 155, 212 pronominal endings 458, 923, 1898–9
Prince Edward Island 1177 pronominal forms 354, 524, 556, 754, 766–7,
printing 145, 625, 1033–4, 1038, 1625, 1627, 771, 774, 811, 1549, 1560
1720 pronominal inflection 215, 262, 346, 356,
privative prefixes 1062, 2069 525–6, 767–8, 770, 772, 1017, 1659, 1893,
privatives 1259, 1338–9, 1345, 1738, 1769, 1904, 2083, 2087, 2100–2
1779 – Proto-Indo-European 767, 2100
Probert, P. 2093, 2102, 2108, 2115, 2132, pronominal morphology 227, 752
2136, 2213 pronominal morphosyntax 682–3, 1218–19

Authenticated
2358 General index
pronominal neuter 267, 1988 – singular 132, 304, 1253

pronominal nominative 278, 1204, 2083 – suffixed 1208, 1239, 2005, 2102
pronominal stems 217, 352, 768, 774, 1253, – third person 1756–7
1549, 1756, 1826, 2100, 2103, 2117 – weak 1560, 1772, 1782–5
pronominal subjects 820, 964 pronunciation 312–13, 328, 341, 422, 449–
pronominal systems 227, 305, 557, 613, 617, 50, 725, 1035, 1039–41, 1149, 1282, 1401,
847, 956, 1342, 1659, 1761, 1987, 2097 1452, 1590, 1607, 1701–2
pronouns 354–7, 380–1, 685–6, 769–70, – closed 748–9
913–14, 925–7, 1087–8, 1207–9, 1340–2, – traditional 1037, 1039, 1041, 1043
1558–60, 1755–8, 1826–7, 1900–3, 2005– proper names 744, 748–9, 922, 957, 987,
6, 2100–3 989–90, 993, 998, 1031, 1083, 1099, 1200,
– agglutinated 1960, 1963 1250, 1252–3, 1257–8
– anaphoric 283, 767–9, 772, 926, 1088, proper nouns 1099, 1382, 1751, 2021
1208, 1441, 1549, 1675, 1902, 1991, 2101, property-concept roots 2110, 2114–15, 2169
2103, 2211, 2214 Prosdocimi, A. L. 42, 739, 828, 832, 1170,
– anaphoric-relative 1549, 1675 1832, 1835, 1844–5, 1855
– clitic 125, 276–7, 280, 1243, 1349, 1354– prose 373–4, 625–6, 631, 683, 690–1, 720–1,
5, 1361, 1756, 1829 737, 865, 882, 1176, 1285, 1936
– correlative 400–1, 2213 – commentaries 217, 319
– deictic 683, 842, 1098, 1743, 2101 – Italo-Albanian 1722
– demonstrative 355, 380, 525, 557, 561, – Vedic 361, 368, 370, 372, 374, 384, 386,
667–8, 767, 769–70, 926–7, 967–9, 1087– 391, 396, 401, 1928–31, 1936, 1940
8, 1341–2, 1547–8, 1756–7, 1826 prosodic changes 1011, 1487, 1508, 1605
– distal 1757, 1902 prosodic features/phenomena 1402, 1503,
– dual 956, 1012, 1014 1646, 1706, 1974, 1980, 2203
– enclitic 263, 275–6, 281, 560, 614, 616, prosodic inversion 276, 1932–7, 2203
1340, 1347, 1545, 1756–7, 1770, 1829 prosodic prominence 1009, 1011
– gendered 767, 1888, 1900, 1985, 1991 prosodic structure 448, 707, 1011
– indefinite 280–1, 526, 928, 969, 1087–8, prosodic templates 1011, 2137
1111–12, 1342, 1758, 1902, 2215 prosodic words 1044, 1933, 2059, 2066–7,
– indefinite-interrogative 770, 1342 2069
– infixed 1207–10, 1279, 1286 prosody 864, 1003, 1011, 1037, 1043, 1059,
– interrogative 398, 526, 562–3, 667, 767, 1503, 1607, 2056, 2066, 2203
771, 818, 928, 968, 1088, 1112, 1549, Prósper, B. M. 774–5, 777–8, 1172, 1197,
1757–8, 2097, 2101 1222, 1271, 1858–9
– Interrogative-indefinite 668, 1947, 1991– protasis 561, 691–2, 1827, 1829–30
2, 2102 proterodynamic patterns 345, 348–50, 1889
– non-personal 463, 1538, 1547, 1986 proterokinetic features 196, 753, 779, 916,
– object 1208, 1241, 1286, 1775, 1781, 1937 2129, 2134–7
– o-stem 1991 prothesis 1446–9, 1702
– personal 262–4, 299, 685–6, 767, 772, prothetic vowels 641, 1091, 1121, 1135,
927–8, 1080, 1087–9, 1208–9, 1228, 1340, 1823
1755–6, 1903–4, 1993, 2102–3 Proto-Anatolian, lexicon 291, 293
– possessive, see possessive pronouns Proto-Baltic, velar stops 1649
– Proto-Indo-European 1755, 2100 proto-forms 18, 116, 132, 412–13, 503, 517,
– proximal 525, 770 750, 1086, 1135, 1147, 1500, 1542, 1990,
– reciprocal 384, 393, 395–6, 497, 526, 1993, 2017
1088, 1709 protographs 1463–4, 1474–5, 1487–8, 1491
– reflexive 305, 391–2, 557, 667, 772–3, Proto-Indo-European
814, 926, 960, 965, 1087–8, 1341, 1611, – ablative 752, 1834, 1968, 2088
1675, 1756–7, 2103 – ablaut 335, 1712, 1762, 1766
– relative, see relative pronouns – accents 891, 917, 1751, 1812, 2121,
– second person 2103 2129, 2132–3

Authenticated
General index 2359
– accusative 761, 917, 1208, 1313, 1327, – optative 782, 940, 1314, 1326, 1554,
1751, 1978 1662, 2147
– adjectives 2081, 2113–14, 2122 – origin 9, 330, 360, 579–80, 699, 702,
– age 78, 266, 932, 2158, 2216 705, 1135, 1338, 1572, 1578, 1942, 1955,
– anaphoric pronoun 1208–9, 1756–7 2215–16
– aorist 782, 789–90, 794, 1213–14, 1311, – o-stems 753–4, 1371–2, 1380, 1976
2162 – palatal stops 1647, 1649, 1880, 1975
– aspirates 1864–5 – palatals 611, 1322, 1647–8, 1807, 1975–6
– athematic 676, 783, 788–9, 2082–6, – palatovelars 1429, 1880, 1989
2088–9, 2134, 2148, 2150, 2154 – particles 217, 263, 266, 891
– cases 226, 1203, 1219, 2090 – phonemes 213, 1732, 1878
– categories 229–30, 789, 1761, 2091 – phonology 63, 182, 195, 212, 224, 1974
– compounds 924, 1877, 2127 – reconstructed 212, 1813, 2137
– culture 86, 196, 2236 – reconstructions 754, 1045, 1539, 2117,
– datives 914, 2088 2150, 2168
– dialect continuum 11–12 – resonants 1644, 1649
– diphthongs 250, 1316 – root aorists 790–1, 944, 1212, 1767, 2163
– endings 786, 1339, 1348, 1350, 1655, – root nouns 757, 1314, 1539
1981, 2152, 2154 – roots 17, 86, 216, 266, 576, 902, 938,
– etyma 1161, 1806, 1808 1255, 1346–7, 1572, 1576, 1579, 1581,
– etymologies 411, 1571 2160, 2167
– forms/formations 20, 211, 701–3, 759, – s-aorist 1213–14
914–15, 917, 1253, 1343, 1542, 1896, – sibilants 341, 1649
1912, 2122, 2135, 2149, 2152 – stems 812, 928, 1342, 1572, 1681
– imperfect 784, 1554 – suffixes 266, 370, 705, 764, 945, 947,
– inherited 567, 658, 1671, 2159 1382, 1691, 2117
– inherited elements 567, 658, 667, 1051, – superlative 765, 923
1258, 1503, 1655, 1671, 1674, 1691, 1714, – syllabic sonorants 327, 1425, 1978
2090, 2159 – terms 583, 757, 796, 1374, 1382, 1387,
– injunctive 1763–4 1581–2, 2238
– instrumental 755, 808, 914, 1204, 2088, – thematic formations 753, 783, 785, 1211,
2105 1689, 1764, 2086–7, 2090
– intensives 267, 936 – thematic genitives 258, 2086, 2089
– labiovelars 64, 639, 895, 1325, 1429, – u-stems 753, 760, 916
1647–8, 1812, 1823, 1880 – velars 1647–8, 1880, 1975
– laryngeals 18, 332, 1194, 1424, 1646, – vowels 20, 1422, 1966, 2057–8
1806, 2061 – words 8, 78, 86, 89, 221, 573, 579, 586,
– lexemes 572, 581 701, 1152, 1251, 1580, 1814, 2232, 2235–6
– lexical accent 2121, 2129, 2132–3 Proto-Indo-Iranian 326–8, 332–5, 337–8,
– lexicon 78, 81, 411, 2112, 2215 346–7, 355–7, 506–9, 521, 530–1, 571–87,
– locative 259, 656, 666, 753, 758, 916, 1875–86, 1888–93, 1898–1915, 1942–3,
926, 1204–5, 2105 1947–51, 2154–6
– mediae 744, 939, 1823 – phonology 1875, 1877, 1879, 1881, 1883,
– middle 941, 1209, 2142, 2153 1885
– middle endings 786, 1348, 2154 Proto-Italic
– middle participles 794, 1316 – sound changes 743–4, 746
– morphology 17, 225, 2079–80, 2102, – stage 789, 836, 845
2170 proto-languages 1, 15–16, 18–19, 23–5, 85–
– morphophonology 2070, 2081–2, 2137 8, 106–8, 223–4, 975, 1968, 1970–1, 2079–
– nominative 758, 909, 1205, 1314, 1316, 81, 2115–18, 2133–5, 2167–8, 2229–33
1323, 1326–7, 1751 – hypothetical 16, 629, 2286
– nouns 226, 2081–2, 2108, 2114 – Indo-European 743, 859–60, 980, 1940
– o-grade 1366, 1387, 1906 – reconstructed 20, 212, 1414

Authenticated
2360 General index
Proto-Malayo-Polynesian Ragusa 862, 1716

– phonology 121 Rajasthan 321, 431, 433
– roots 122–3 Rāmāyaṇa 314, 344, 420, 426, 439, 449, 451
Proto-Nuclear-Indo-European Rann of Kutch 428, 431, 433
– ablative 2087–8 Ranwalti 438
– feminine 2096–7, 2099–2100 Raphelengius, Franciscus 150, 159
– feminine suffixes 2094, 2097–8, 2100 Rask, Rasmus 1, 160, 171, 174–5, 177–81,
– innovations 2088, 2094, 2097, 2099, 210, 890, 995, 2280
2101, 2118, 2163 Rasmussen, J. E. 916, 943, 1088, 1321, 2071
prototonic forms 1210, 1269, 1279, 1286–7 Rastorgueva, V. S. 477, 567, 606
proverbs 689, 1057, 1629, 1674, 1719 rationale clauses 2216
Ravnaes, E. 1046–7, 1067
proximal deixis 356, 380, 1341, 1659, 1902,
Ray, John 45
1904
Raynouard, François-Juste-Marie 180
proximal pronouns 525, 770
realignment 1006, 1015, 1155, 1158
Prussia 1623–4, 1713
reanalysis 252, 258, 662, 668, 924, 1446,
Prussian Lithuania 1625–7, 1713 1449, 1453, 1492, 1678–9, 2009, 2099,
psalms 476, 603, 1031, 1122, 1403, 1407, 2211, 2213, 2216
1586, 1626, 1630 recensions 310–11, 328, 1399, 1407, 1419,
psalters 51, 474, 476, 882, 1403–5, 1407 1539
psilosis 642, 2045–6 recessive accent 652, 1893, 2128
Pskov 1596 reciprocal constructions 393, 395–6
Ptolemies 722, 876, 1061 reciprocal pronouns 384, 393, 395–6, 497,
Puhvel, J. 223, 294, 1310, 2043, 2047, 2164 526, 1088, 1709
Pulevski, Gjorgji 1723 reciprocals, spatial 393–5
punctual aorist 1106 recitation 312–13, 339, 380, 474, 627, 634,
punctuation 1097, 1833 737
– syllabic 42, 1832–3 reconstructed lexica 76, 78–9, 81–2, 189, 217
purpose clauses 694, 1103, 1107–8, 1673, reconstructed morphology 1985, 2081, 2137
2216 reconstructed roots 78–9, 131, 215–16, 2196,
push-chain hypothesis 1461, 1480, 1482 2282
Puṣyamitra 423 reconstructible allomorphs 2086, 2156
Putschke, W. 186 reconstruction 15–20, 22–5, 94–6, 107–8,
Pylos 697, 717, 2039 115–18, 121–2, 628–9, 1925–7, 1966–8,
Pytheas of Massilia 875, 990 2083–5, 2090–1, 2139–42, 2148–52, 2154–
7, 2229–30
qualitative differentiation 1421, 1476–8, – Balto-Slavic 1960–1, 2017
1481, 1483, 1485, 1491, 1498 – comparative 131–3, 1869
– external 117, 2196–7, 2211
qualitative opposition 1587, 1594
– internal 15–16, 18, 24, 81, 109, 116, 132,
quantification 2004–5
227, 412, 648, 1362, 2017, 2021, 2100,
quantifiers 821, 1112, 1546, 1669–70, 1674,
2110
2006, 2100 – lexical 15, 17, 122, 125, 567, 772
quantitative ablaut 17, 506, 660, 2122, 2133– – linguistic 19, 23, 80, 116, 184, 981, 1962
4 – morphological 15–17, 2195
quantitative metathesis 658–9, 663 – paradigmatic 2135, 2137
quantity opposition 99, 484, 1201 – Proto-Albanian 1807
question words 817, 821, 1558 – Proto-Indo-European 754, 1045, 1539,
questions 2117, 2150, 2168
– indirect 694, 823, 825, 968, 1102, 1104 – syntactic 196, 1016, 2195–6
– rhetorical 280, 955, 1104 – traditional 21, 642, 1428, 1552, 1641,
quotations 461, 737, 743, 875, 1102, 2252 2056, 2137

Authenticated
General index 2361
Rédei, K. 101–2, 1686, 2281–2 reflexivization 1112, 1611

redistribution 615, 655, 1910 registers 339, 413, 729, 734, 1394, 1472
reduced vowels 99, 1280, 1514, 1587, 1598, – formal 413, 1801
2057, 2064 – informal 1161, 1393
redundancy 718, 1286, 1458, 1713, 1785, – linguistic 298, 578
2165 regressive assimilation 644–5, 647, 649–50
reduplicated aorist 340, 366–8, 371, 388, regressive dissimilation 123, 644
394, 790, 1346, 1910, 2166 regular correspondences 4–5, 117, 175
reduplicated compounds 1126, 1128 regular developments 215, 333, 488, 771,
reduplicated forms/formations 667, 935, 938, 790, 1058, 1086, 1468, 1543, 1553, 1836
1196, 1551, 1573, 2066, 2235 regular losses 932, 1081, 1088, 1975, 2034,
reduplicated perfects 789–90, 846, 933 2149
reduplicated preterites 934, 1287–9, 2166 regular outcomes 489, 495, 669, 674, 895,
reduplicated roots 123, 176 935, 1082, 1161, 1191, 1426, 1433, 1458–
reduplicated stems 264, 364, 530, 1088, 9, 1514, 1544
1906, 2168 regular reflexes 295, 1059, 1426, 1430, 1483,
reduplication 360–1, 368, 532–3, 672, 676–7, 1988
789–90, 931–2, 1126–7, 1213–14, 1288–9, regular shortening 755–6, 761, 784
1306, 1345, 1366, 1907–9, 2166–7 regular sound changes 184, 186, 197, 774,
– partial copy 2160, 2167 838, 918, 933, 1055, 1080, 1423, 1426–7,
referential nouns 2107, 2112 1430, 1433, 1539, 1542
referents 384, 391, 551, 556–9, 561, 963, regular superlative suffixes 765, 1900
1568, 1754, 1757, 1759, 2091, 2095, 2097– regular verbs 726, 783–5, 787, 1090, 1211,
8, 2100, 2113 2033
reflexes 890–2, 898–9, 909–10, 1047–8, regularity 1, 3–4, 18, 94, 117, 140–1, 156,
1428–31, 1456–8, 1462–6, 1471–4, 1476, 177, 450, 464, 1125, 1423, 1447
1481–2, 1485–6, 1488–9, 1496–9, 1605–7, regularization 662, 1282, 1285–7, 1289,
2043–5 1608, 1611, 1890
– alveopalatal 1445 – evolution of 1274, 1282
– Anatolian 225, 2065, 2090, 2146 – progressive 1283
– bifurcating 1438, 1451, 1487 Rehehusen, Johann Georg 1629
– direct 228, 746, 1350, 2044, 2107 Reichelt, H. 477, 562
– expected 899, 1440, 1454, 1545, 1547, Reiters, Jānis 147, 1630
1990 relatedness 1, 3–5, 156
– labiovelar 444, 894 – features for determining 3–4
– laryngeal 898, 1194–5, 1508 – historical 2099
– lenited 1070, 1498 – linguistic 1, 3, 5, 140
– open 1479–80 relational nouns 957, 1669, 1672, 1675
– regular 295, 1059, 1426, 1430, 1483, 1988 relationships
– short 1424, 1881 – close 150, 983, 997, 1824, 1853
– strong-jer 1491, 1495–6 – genetic 8, 144, 147, 159, 174, 188, 300,
reflexive 305, 611, 859, 871, 1290, 1855, 1861,
– adjectives 1087, 2103 2281–4
– forms 685, 773, 813–14, 1662 – historical 145, 158, 177, 180, 989
– markers 1675, 1708–9, 2007 – language 1–5, 114, 140–2, 148, 151, 155,
– particles 265, 277–8, 282, 304, 1709, 157–8, 160
2155 – linguistic 1, 3, 139, 142, 151, 153, 161,
– pronouns 305, 391–2, 557, 667, 772–3, 175, 987, 1855–6, 2012, 2018
814, 926, 960, 965, 1087–8, 1341, 1611, – morphological 1760, 2140
1675, 1756–7, 2103 – remote 2280–1, 2283, 2285, 2287
– verbs 1613, 1998 – semantic 629, 1970
reflexives 390, 393, 395, 526, 669–70, 685, – vertical 15, 188, 905
813, 1018, 1772, 1904, 2007, 2103, 2212 relative adverbs 357, 1342

Authenticated
2362 General index
relative chronologies 299, 301, 303, 743–4, – Proto-Indo-European 1644, 1649

1136–7, 1455, 1457, 1464, 1466, 1469, – sequences 1193–4
1541, 1543, 1733, 1736, 1885 – syllabic 23, 249–51, 301, 641, 746, 900,
relative clauses 274, 400–1, 557, 561, 813, 907, 1046, 1055, 1061, 1067, 1189, 1192–
822, 824, 927–8, 1104, 1157–8, 1207–10, 4, 1196, 1873
1679–80, 1751, 2101–2, 2213–14 Ressuli, N. 1717–18, 1795–6
– free 556, 561 restitutions 497, 1309
– nominal 558, 1751 resultative 553, 676, 959, 1420, 1673, 1678,
– semi-free 2102 1911
relative markers 1758, 1929, 2101 resultativity 553, 555, 561
relative particles 927–8, 1209, 1288, 1758 resyllabification 250, 1324, 2073
relative pronouns 357, 400–1, 556–8, 561, retracted allophones 1431, 1471
770–1, 805, 927, 965, 968–9, 1549, 1673, retraction 488, 1136–7, 1447, 1503, 1505–7,
1679, 1758, 2101–2, 2214–15 1513–14, 1962
– inflected 1207, 1253, 1361, 2102 – neoacute 1481, 1483, 1498, 1503, 1506,
relative sentences 357, 400–1, 967–9, 2213– 1513
15 retroflex 9, 330–1, 334, 434, 443–4, 453,
relative stems 668, 1775, 2102 1431, 1605
relative tenses 1905, 2007, 2140 – consonants 9, 321, 610
relics 259, 261, 264–5, 762, 764–5, 771–2, retroflexion 330, 337, 444, 1431
785, 787, 913–14, 931–2, 1440, 1442, – Sanskrit 8, 10
1893, 1895, 2144 Réunion 871
– fossilized 945, 2040 R̥gveda 77, 309–14, 326, 328–34, 336, 339–
– lexicalized 794–5, 1442, 1512, 2092–3
40, 344, 374, 396–7, 418–19, 447, 453–4,
religion 4, 49, 147, 149, 160, 173–4, 189,
457, 463, 1883
196, 412–13, 447, 828, 830, 1121, 2229,
rhetorical questions 280, 955, 1104
2238
Rhine 862, 876, 881, 986, 1196, 1254
religious terms 611, 1121, 1949–50
– Lower 988, 991
religious texts 23, 292, 413, 611, 1404, 1626,
rhotacism 745, 747, 750, 757, 764, 786, 792,
1628, 1668
remodeling 171, 189, 656, 658, 662–3, 674, 796–7, 839, 991, 993, 995, 1803–4, 1814,
681, 726, 729, 899, 1208, 1339, 1343, 2046
1949, 1953 rhotics 64
remote relationships 2280–1, 2283, 2285, rhyme 340, 449–51, 507, 1046, 1277, 1285,
2287 1625, 1722, 1835
Renaissance 138–9, 142, 145, 147, 172, 730, rhythm 335, 340, 517, 525, 635, 1912
1419 Rieken, Elisabeth 225, 227, 256, 259–63,
r-endings 23, 227–8, 304 266, 283–4, 302, 304–5, 2092, 2098, 2108,
Renfrew, Colin 70, 90, 197, 2037 2205
Renou, Louis 191, 382, 397, 410 Rietbergen, P. J. A. 160
repetition 80, 358, 374, 526, 558, 560, 665, Riga 1628–30, 1685, 1714
672, 676, 687, 692, 1101, 1343, 1961, 2105 right dislocations 2198, 2201–2, 2205
rephonologization 16, 1431, 1452, 1485, right periphery 964, 1568, 2201, 2204
1493 rightward accent shift 1307, 1752
replacement 302, 310, 786, 793, 841–2, Rigveda 396, 410–11, 413, 702, 1912, 1930,
1341, 1350, 1655, 1833, 1840, 2001, 2006, 1932, 2130, 2145, 2167–8, 2205, 2214
2083, 2085, 2089 Rilindja 1788–9, 1795
– analogical 1082, 1544, 1655 Ringe, Don 65–6, 69–71, 924, 926, 1010,
resonants 249–51, 638, 640–1, 895–6, 1193, 1012–13, 1119, 1265, 1304–5, 1307, 1309–
1195–1201, 1640–4, 1739–41, 1858–9, 15, 1317–21, 1323–8, 2030–1, 2100
1875–6, 1878, 2059–60, 2064–5, 2068, Risch, Ernst 66, 195, 223, 643, 700–1, 703,
2072–4 705–7, 713–14, 2046, 2114, 2120, 2211
– non-syllabic 23, 901, 2068 rising intonations 1097, 1591, 1645

Authenticated
General index 2363
rising tone 1502, 1511, 1514, 1608, 1646, root clauses 962, 1233
1709 root nouns 347, 349–50, 514–16, 574, 752–4,
Riṭṭanemicariu 320 797, 917, 982, 1255–6, 1688, 1896, 2110–
Ritter, R. P. 102, 876, 1039, 1064, 1118 11, 2119–20, 2123–5, 2246–7
ritual performances 310, 312, 473 – mobile 2124, 2127
ritual texts 292, 472, 734 – Proto-Indo-European 757, 1314, 1539
rituals 86, 241, 279–80, 310–12, 314, 337, root stems 264, 530, 917, 930, 1889, 1914
349, 473, 601, 739, 1475, 1717, 1837, root structure 192, 933, 939, 944, 1214
2043, 2048 root syllables 123, 1006, 1510
– initiation 1299–1300 root vocalism 367, 789, 894, 1086, 2017,
Rizza, Alfredo 246, 283, 288 2160
r/n-stems 226, 260–1, 517, 758, 1895, 2112 root vowels 192, 523, 676, 932, 1127, 1154,
Roberge, P. 1004
1205, 1320, 1386, 1502, 1690, 1907
Robins, R. H. 173, 186
root-final consonants 1094, 1211, 1975
Robinson, O. W. 1004
root-final stops 333–4
Rocca
– A. 2012 root-initial palatalization 1386
– G. 740, 1864 roots 17–18, 358–60, 367–71, 529–33, 672–
Rocher, R. 160, 173, 178 7, 1210–15, 1345–9, 1581–3, 1767–8,
Rochette, B. 143 1907–12, 2109–17, 2123–7, 2157–67,
Rogozen treasure 1851 2232–4, 2236–40
Roman alphabet 42, 47, 49, 752, 1174 – accented 352, 2123, 2126, 2132
Roman conquest 861–2, 1174, 1254 – atelic 930, 2138, 2157–8
Roman Empire 143, 726, 734, 862, 865–6, – athematic 359, 363, 932, 1346–7, 2165
875, 994, 1290, 1601, 1792, 2030 – bare 930, 936, 1551
Roman numerals 1420 – disyllabic 223, 1503
Roman provinces 723, 862, 1816 – e-grade 932–3, 1551
Romance – full-grade 350, 359, 365–6, 370, 1213,
– creoles 858, 869–70 1911, 2146
– vernaculars 143, 866–7 – laryngeal-final 791, 1767, 2033
Romance-based creoles 858, 870–1 – lexical 1126, 1356–7, 1447, 1449
Romania 442, 870, 879, 1035, 1174, 1414, – long 915, 920
1417 – long-grade 359, 367
Romans 42, 49, 715, 723–4, 735, 737–8, – long-vowel 223, 230
740, 861, 987–8, 990, 1169–70, 1175, – mobile 2124, 2127
1177, 1290, 1415–16 – monosyllabic 132, 177
Rome 144, 194, 715, 723–4, 733–4, 736, – non-acuted 1509–10
743, 756, 839, 860–1, 863, 875, 1034, – o-grade 360, 789, 2107–8, 2119
1718–20, 1722
– primary verbal 982, 1943
Róna-Tas, András 102
– property-concept 2110, 2114–15, 2169
root ablaut 267, 789, 1346
– Proto-Indo-European 17, 86, 216, 266,
– preserved 1890, 1894, 1896
root accent 947, 2124, 2143 576, 902, 938, 1255, 1346–7, 1572, 1576,
– fixed 2110, 2125–6 1579, 1581, 2160, 2167
– persistent 2123 – Proto-Malayo-Polynesian 122–3
root allomorphs 1451, 1495, 1502, 2065 – reconstructed 78–9, 131, 215–16, 2196,
root aorists 359, 362, 365–6, 785, 790–1, 2282
1543, 1553, 1766, 1768, 1909–10, 1917, – reduplicated 123, 176
1994–5, 1997, 2157–61, 2163–5 – short 915, 920, 935
– Proto-Indo-European 790–1, 944, 1212, – stressed 1503, 1510, 1512, 1747
1767, 2163 – telic 2138, 2157
– thematic 366, 1346 – transitive 982, 1385–6
– thematized 1768, 2167 – Vedic 2124–5

Authenticated
2364 General index
– verbal 216–17, 982, 1775–6, 1942–3, Salomon, Richard 54, 309, 315–16, 321, 422,
2107–11, 2126, 2131–2, 2137–8, 2157, 424
2159, 2161–2, 2232, 2234–7, 2240–3, Samadi, M. 567
2255–7 Sāmaveda 310–12, 339
– zero-grade 359–60, 365–8, 370, 932, Sammallahti, P. 99, 2281
1213, 1903, 2109, 2164, 2166 Samnites 733, 738
Rosenfeld, A. Z. 568 Samnium 740, 849–50, 863
Rosinas, A. 1655–7 Samothrace 1851–2
Ross, M. 123–5, 754, 786, 980, 1423, 1437, Sandell, R. 2084, 2124, 2131–2, 2136, 2161
2136, 2205 Sanderson, A. 172, 437
Roth, Heinrich 159 sandhi 327–9, 333, 335–7, 418, 505, 507,
rounded vowels 895, 1009, 1088, 1201, 521, 530, 1440
1420, 1445–6, 1449, 1458, 1461, 1466, – changes 530, 542
1489, 1812 – external 335, 1821, 1903, 1932
Rousseau, A. 146 – internal 335, 707
royal inscriptions 49, 292, 558, 603 – tonal 311, 313
Rozwadowski, J. 1961, 2012 sannatara 311
r-stems 260, 514, 517, 519–20, 904, 917–19, Sanskrit
1082, 1338, 1372, 1442, 1657, 1689, 1834, – forms 24, 159, 320, 1991
1895, 1981 – grammarians 1378, 2105
Rudraṭa 318, 320 – inscriptions 432, 438–9
Ruiz Zapatero, G. 1169 – lexicon 410
RUKI rule 64, 333–4, 438, 444, 1649, 1881,
– manuscripts 1298, 1301, 1392
1886, 1976
– post-Vedic 314, 361, 389, 393, 396, 412,
rules of thumb 76, 1047, 1482
458
runes 42, 48, 876–8, 881, 998, 1017
– retroflexion 8, 10
runic inscriptions 876–8, 881–3, 990–5, 998
– texts 176, 410, 439
Russell, P. 48, 1147, 1169, 1258–60, 1279–
São Tomé & Príncipe 871
81, 1285, 1290–2
Russia 20, 82, 108, 146, 189, 194, 442, s-aorists 231–2, 234, 367–8, 533, 536–42,
1028, 1415, 2021 675–7, 680–1, 790, 846–7, 1092, 1766–8,
– Northwestern 1415, 1462 1997, 2033, 2163, 2165–6
– Southern 81, 602, 1607 – Proto-Indo-European 1213–14
– Southwestern 1415, 1419 Sapir, Edward 215, 223–4, 1015, 1019
Russian Empire 1035, 1713–14 Sapūnas, Kristupas 1626
Russification 1713–14 Śāradā script 437
Růžička, R. 186 Sardinia 860–1
Sargsyan, A. 1133, 1150
Saale 1419 Saronic dialects 642, 652
Sabaliauskas, A. 1681, 1684–7, 2014 Sasanian period 50–1, 472, 603, 1121
Sabellic Sassetti, Filippo 159
– corpus 810, 818, 821 Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa 311, 339, 464
– loanwords 832, 2237, 2240 satem 64–5, 225, 1429, 1585, 1647, 1812,
Sadovski, V. 559, 567, 569, 574, 579–80, 1853, 1873, 2061
586 – assibilation 1431, 1436
Sajnovics, János 1, 172 – dialects 1429, 1431
Śākalya 310, 313, 340, 418–19 – languages 62, 64, 69, 225, 1048, 1647,
Salamanca 194 2061
Salamina 1806 satemization 1048, 1053, 1057, 1647, 1712
Sallust 737, 819 Ṣaṭkhaṅḍāgama 426
Salmasius, Claudius 153–4 Satpura mountains 430–1
Salmons, J. C. 195, 197, 486, 1004, 1007–8, Sattasai 427
1010, 2237, 2269, 2272 Śaunaka 312–13

Authenticated
General index 2365
Saussure Effect 895, 2065, 2071 Schumacher, S. 1210–15, 1252–3, 1257–9,

Saussure’s Law 937, 1196, 1646 1288–9, 1732, 1738–40, 1742, 1744–6,
Šaxmatov’s Law 1512 1751, 1758, 1760, 1763–5, 1767–8, 1774,
Saxony 881, 1593 2033–4
Sayambhueva 320 Schürr, Diether 45, 264
Scaliger, Josephus Justus 148–51, 159 schwa 1427, 1804, 2072–3
Scandinavia 88, 174, 193–4, 882, 994–5, 997 – nasalized 1876
Schaeken, J. 1402, 1404, 1551, 1612, 1623 – primum 2073
Schaffner, S. 196, 215, 914, 916, 918, 921, – secundum 2063, 2073
947, 1316, 1320, 1326, 2135 – stressed 1803–4
Schapka, U. 573, 575 Schwab, R. 174, 879
Schenker, A. M. 1397–9, 1402–5, 1407, Schwebeablaut 1434, 2073
1450, 1558, 1561, 1573, 2012 Schwyzer, Eduard 190, 551, 643, 647, 840
Scherer, Wilhelm 185 scientific vocabulary 872, 1115, 1124
Schindler, Jochem 21, 195, 226, 475, 484, Sclaveni 1397, 1415, 1417–18, 1477
498–9, 917, 2063, 2068, 2074, 2110–11, Scotland 1177–8, 1270
2120, 2126, 2134, 2237 Scots 144, 156, 1580
Schindler’s rule 2068 scribes 42, 50, 302, 474, 504, 630–1, 746,
Schlachter, E. 99, 101, 964 1100, 1112, 1124, 1370, 1399, 1403, 1405,
Schlegel 1493
– August-Wilhelm 171–4, 180 – professional 240–2, 1291
– Friedrich 88, 171–5 scriptio continua 634–5, 1855
Schleicher, August 20, 171, 178, 181–8, 212, scriptio discontinua 635
scripts 26–7, 29, 33, 38, 46, 48–50, 54–6,
733, 989, 993–5, 1960, 1971, 2012–13
242, 316, 321, 439–40, 474–5, 629–32,
Schlerath, Bernfried 66, 80, 82, 177, 1955,
717–18, 1170–2
1957, 2235
– alphabetic 242, 244–6, 602
Schmalstieg, W. R. 1560, 1564, 1624, 1652,
– Arabic 35, 38, 1721
1656–7, 1661–3, 1688, 1987, 1995–7,
– Aramaic 35, 50, 54, 604
2013, 2197
– Armenian 1028, 1031–2, 1122, 1146
Schmid, W. P. 881, 1622, 1661, 1688, 1699,
– Carian 245
1970, 2012–13, 2018, 2020 – Cyrillic 1717
Schmidt – Dravidian 56
– Johannes 89, 183, 187–8, 212, 989 – Greek 604, 1031, 1174, 1720, 1817
– Karl-Horst 1170 – Gupta 437
– Moriz 32 – Iberian 1170–2, 1266
Schmitt, R. 472, 475–7, 507–9, 517–19, 521– – Indic 26, 54, 56
2, 526–7, 531–2, 534–5, 567–9, 602, 606, – Iranian 26, 34, 49
1120, 1139, 1952–3, 2239 – Italic epichoric 41
Schneider, Carolin 186, 216, 397, 2108, 2113 – Kharoṣṭhī 421, 423
Scholz, F. 1626 – Latin 1032, 1171, 1404, 1716–18, 1722
Schöpsdau, K. 143 – local 432, 437, 743
Schrader, O. 81, 87–8, 189 – Manichean 604, 1298
Schrieckius, Adrianus 151–2, 154 – North Indic 55–6
Schrijver, Peter 782–3, 837, 1189, 1192, – Ogam 1177, 1276
1195, 1207–10, 1253–4, 1256–7, 1275–6, – Pahlavi 474
1278–80, 1282, 1284, 1288–90, 2031, 2034 – Psalter 51, 474
Schröder, Johannes Joachim 1034, 1147–8 – Siddhamātṛkā 439
Schuchardt, Hugo 180, 183–4 – Sogdian 604
Schuhmann, R. 2092, 2099 – Syriac 35, 604
Schulze – Tocharian 55, 1301
– Benjamin 106–9, 147, 924, 1304 Scythians 156, 159, 471, 602
– Wilhelm 190 Scythic hypothesis 142, 153–4

Authenticated
2366 General index
seals 29, 292, 603, 717, 1580, 2263 semantic differences 960, 1670, 1759, 1927,
Sebastacʿʿi, Mxitʿʿar 1035 2042
Sebeok, T. A. 171, 606 semantic fields 293–4, 412–13, 569–70, 575–
second person 669–70, 958, 1012, 1088, 6, 580, 583, 698, 828, 843, 1115, 1251,
1098, 1107–8, 1111, 1114, 1161, 1209, 1257, 1366, 1792, 2013–14
1755–6, 1783, 1785, 1903, 1993 semantic groups 383, 843, 976, 1382, 1661,
– forms 784, 787, 1661 1945, 1950
– pronouns 2103 semantic shifts 572, 1575–6, 1578
second position 690–1, 1196, 1279, 1558, semantic specialization 8, 574, 580, 1081,
1560, 1566–7, 1783, 1829, 1928–9, 1932– 1367
3, 1937, 2048, 2067, 2201–3, 2215 semantic types 1357, 1861, 2143, 2212
secondary ablaut 584, 935, 1690 semantically basic adjectives 765, 767, 772
secondary accent 359–60, 651, 2113 semantics 76, 78, 80, 150, 152, 582, 586,
secondary affixes 1337, 1906 1353, 1358, 1929, 2111–12, 2136, 2138,
secondary athematic 1552, 2155 2143, 2206
secondary cases 227, 233, 1336, 1352, 1354– semasiology 216, 2206–7
5, 1380, 2087 Semigalia 1714
secondary convergence 11, 106, 989 Semitic, loanwords 697, 1065
secondary derivatives 1090, 1898, 2130 semi-vowels 249, 252, 422, 640, 660, 747,
secondary endings 358, 360–1, 534, 536–7, 888–9, 897–900, 906, 932, 993, 1006,
671, 675, 784–5, 792, 1091–2, 1553–4, 1305, 1642, 1890
1763–4, 2034, 2140, 2146–7, 2149–51 – intervocalic 900
secondary e-vocalism 672, 845 Semnones 987
secondary factitive 1761, 1767
Senart, Émile 423
secondary forms/formations 351, 369, 532,
Senn, A. 63, 1685, 1961
786–7, 981, 1091, 1902, 1904, 2150–2,
sentence adverbials 955, 962
2155, 2159
sentence boundaries 274–6, 278, 967
secondary labiovelars 894, 896, 899
sentence negation 280, 956, 1313
secondary palatalization 357, 492, 1340
sentence particles 276, 690, 1210, 1342
secondary palatals 332–3, 337, 492–3, 1889
secondary softening 1484–5, 1499 sentence structure 275, 955, 1003, 1939,
secondary stems 386, 661, 699–700, 900, 2204
1906, 1911 sentence syntax 377, 399, 682, 691, 954,
secondary suffixes 352, 983, 1898, 2106–7 966, 1352, 1359, 1361, 1557, 1567, 1668,
secondary thematic 1553–4, 1907 1676, 1771–2, 1781
secondary verbs 706, 936, 944–5, 982 sentence-initial particles 398, 2199
second-position clitic strings 1614, 1617 sentence-initial position 345, 380, 956, 1210,
second-position enclitics 275 2200
Sędzik, W. 2019 sentence-medial position 1361
Seebold, E. 876, 883, 984, 2229 sentences 274–81, 287, 398, 690–2, 818–19,
segmentable suffixes 2138 821–2, 866–7, 955–6, 962–3, 1567–8,
segmental phonology 214, 1072 1676, 1829–30, 1938–9, 2198–2204, 2214–
segmentation 141, 150, 654, 1852, 2117, 15
2119 – core 2199–2200, 2204
segmented forms 141, 144, 156 – embedding 2213–14, 2216
Seklucjan, Jan 1625 – nominal 281–2, 399, 692, 1361, 1757
Seleucids 50, 722 – passive 1108, 1219, 1222
Seliščev, A. M. 1793, 1802 – relative 357, 400–1, 967–9, 2213–15
semantic categories 959, 982, 1948 – subordinate 401, 967, 969, 2200, 2214–15
semantic change 76, 131, 567, 574, 1572 – superordinate 969, 1359
semantic development 302, 388, 438, 1119, – unmarked 819, 956
1367, 1572, 1612, 1683, 1687, 2042, 2049, sentential syntax 1668, 1676, 1771–2, 1781
2099, 2160 Septuagint 626, 725

Authenticated
General index 2367
Serbia 1399, 1414, 1418, 1475, 1589, 1791, shortening 250, 449, 451–2, 746, 754, 757,
1800–1, 1812 906, 908–9, 911, 936–7, 1195, 1197–8,
Serebrennikov, B. A. 19, 100–1 1265, 1267, 2031
serialization 286–7, 2205, 2214 – iambic 765–6, 773, 775
Servius 740 – Osthoff 1197–8
Seržant, I. A. 1684, 2005 – regular 755–6, 761, 784
set plurals 2093, 2099 – secondary 755, 778
Setälä, E. N. 101 shorthand 1063, 1930
settlement 122, 337, 346, 508, 511, 697, 738, – notations 2229
1065, 1173, 1461, 1572, 1832, 1850, 1945– short-vowel forms 361, 364, 791, 2058
6, 2268 Shuteriqi, D. S. 1716–17, 1719–22, 1802
settlers 1177, 1415, 1418–19, 1951 shwa 1304–5, 1307, 1317
Šiauliaĩ region 1702–3
– Slavophone 1461, 1475
Siberia 157
Setubandha 428
sibilant phonemes 493, 1881
sex 574, 583, 666, 775, 1251, 1376, 2095,
sibilants 302–3, 422–4, 453–5, 493–4, 496,
2097–8; see also gender 519, 643, 646, 648–9, 747, 1191–2, 1429–
Seychelles 871 31, 1436, 1649–50, 1875
shallow prehistory 2086, 2089, 2097 – dental 427, 1342, 1646
Shannon, T. F. 1016 – geminate 648, 1191–2
shared features 3, 10, 298, 302, 435, 1961–2, – palatal 494, 1649
2030–1, 2033, 2035 – Proto-Indo-European 341, 1649
– of Italic and Celtic 2030–1, 2033, 2035 – single 422, 427, 2056, 2063
shared innovations 62–4, 130–3, 435, 441, – voiceless 95, 331, 493
444, 1119, 1960–1, 1969, 2030–2, 2034–5, Sicanians 1854
2080 Sicily 33, 712, 715, 717, 723, 736, 738, 860–
shared isoglosses 1593, 1964 2, 868, 1722, 1854
shared phonological features 1962, 2030–1 Siddhamātṛkā script 439
shared phonological innovations 62–3 Sidon 1100, 1106
shared vocabulary 62, 132, 1416 Sieg, E. 220, 977, 1300, 1304, 1391–2
Sharma, S. R. 438 Siegert, H. 181
Shevelov, G. Y. 1398, 1425, 1602, 2012 Siegling, W. 220, 1300, 1304, 1391–2
shibilant assimilation 1054, 1059 Sievers, Eduard 185–6, 350, 1009, 1011,
shibilant realization 1054 1048
Shintani, T. 1648 Sievers’ Law 329, 335, 340, 518, 746, 837,
Shkumbin River 1800, 1803, 1805–6 906, 914–15, 935, 1878, 2074, 2117, 2156
Shkurtaj, G. 1733–4, 1801–2, 1804–7 Sievers-Lindeman’s law 498–9
short acutes 1514 Sievers-variant 352, 914–15, 1082
sigmatic aorist 216, 230, 362, 367, 643, 650,
short diphthongs 251, 485, 642, 747, 911,
652, 1346, 1349, 1433, 1436, 1553, 1827,
1316, 1819
1835, 1967
short duration 358–9, 1492, 2004
signs 26–7, 29, 33, 240, 242, 295, 474, 633,
short final vowels 889, 909, 1704, 1708 736, 739, 1171, 1803–4, 1864, 2046, 2049
short high vowels 1006, 1890 – special 241, 713, 736, 738
short mid vowels 450, 2057 Sihler, A. L. 752, 1012, 2102–3, 2113, 2130,
short reflexes 1424, 1881 2142
short roots 915, 920, 935 Sikar 431
short syllables 864, 1594 Silk Road 39, 54, 214, 424, 604
short vowels 18, 450, 452–3, 487, 900–2, – Northern 605, 1298
904, 907–8, 1007–8, 1195–6, 1276–7, – Southern 605
1586–7, 1589–91, 1690, 1977–80, 1982–3 simplex 383, 700, 790, 960–1, 1127, 1877,
– nasalized 907 2119
– non-high 441, 1977 – verbs 394, 397

Authenticated
2368 General index
simplification 51, 306, 450, 484, 706, 869, – forms/formations 1539, 1546, 1572, 1574,
925, 933, 1191–2, 1392–3, 1439, 1442, 1578–9, 1672, 1969, 1992, 1994
1714, 2066, 2071 – influence 1671, 2003, 2009
Sims-Williams, Nicholas/Patrick 476, 486, – innovations 1546–8, 1553, 1564, 2014
567–8, 604, 606, 609, 611–16, 618, 1170, – languages 1545, 1552–3, 1557–9, 1562–6,
1174, 1188–9, 1255, 1265, 1281–2, 1290 1569, 1572–3, 1589, 1598–1600, 1602–3,
simultaneity 561, 688, 693 1608–10, 1612, 1616–17, 1965, 1981–3,
Sinai 33, 106, 1031, 1403 2016–21
Sindh 321, 433 – modern 1398, 1547, 1550, 1552, 1554,
– Upper 433–4 1572, 1579, 1588, 1598, 1608, 1612–13,
Sindhi, phonology 433 1963, 1983, 2002
singular – loanwords 1609, 1684, 1713, 1732, 1792,
– accusative 380–1, 485, 487–8, 748, 1081– 1805, 1814
2, 1820–1, 1823–4, 1826–8, 1877, 2006, – names 1416, 1478, 1488
2070–1, 2095–6, 2110–12, 2122–3, 2134 – palatalizations 1588, 1968
– case endings 2083, 2100, 2109 – stems 1997–8
– dative 328, 485, 1082–3, 1194, 1818–19, – syntax 1557–9, 1561, 1563, 1565, 1567–9
1821–7, 1830, 1883, 2100, 2102, 2110, – terms 1580, 1582, 2021
2113, 2124–5, 2129, 2170 – verbs 1539, 1550, 1998, 2021
– genitive 423–4, 1539, 1542, 1820–2, Slavophone migrations 1418–19, 1474
1824–7, 1882–3, 2057, 2059–60, 2068, Slavophone settlers 1461, 1475
2071, 2073–4, 2110–12, 2130, 2132, 2134 Slavophones 1415–19, 1461, 1474–5
– locative 259, 485, 1462, 1548, 1555, – pre-migration 1416–17
Slavs 144, 155, 1397–9, 1415–17, 1453,
2106–7, 2109, 2170
1571, 1577, 1589, 1684, 1738, 1741–2,
– nominative 330, 337–8, 421–2, 426–7,
1791, 1807, 1814, 2013
1081–4, 1736, 1819–23, 1827–8, 1876,
Slawski, F. 2014, 2016
1882–3, 2060, 2072, 2096–7, 2111–12,
Slovakia 442, 1174, 1397, 1617
2130–1
– eastern 1414, 1607
– nouns 1203, 1229, 1616, 1899, 2100
Smith, Helmer 425–6
– stems 1752–3
Smitherman, T. 2213
– verbs 559, 685, 966, 2092 Smoczyński, W. 1661–3, 1686, 1688–9,
– vocative 258, 658, 699–700, 1337, 1542 1977, 2008, 2016–17
singulatives 581, 1203, 1285, 1318–19, 1336 Smyrna 1148
Sinhala, script 440 sociatives 393–5, 2210
Sinor, D. 99, 102 sociolinguistics 1, 193, 197, 295–6, 764, 769
Sirvydas, Konstantinas 1627–8 soft consonants 1480, 1482, 1485, 1589,
Sistan 471 1591–2, 1597
Sittig, E. 1627 soft labials 1597–8
Siwrmēlean, X 1035, 1116 soft-declension endings 1470, 1543
Skaldic poems 878 softening
Skardžius, P. 1626–7, 1651–2, 1658, 1684–5, – assimilatory 1443
1688–9 – secondary 1484–5, 1499
Skjærvø, P. O. 471–3, 475–7, 493, 503–5, softness 1482, 1485, 1493, 1649
507, 509, 511–12, 516–18, 524–5, 529, Sogdian script 604
532, 535–6, 540–2, 605–6, 1925 Solinas, P. 1170, 1172–4, 1204, 1266–9
Slavic Solmsen, Felix 190
– dialectology 1585, 1587, 1589, 1591, Solta, G. R. 1080, 1117, 1119, 1790
1593, 1595, 1597, 1599 Sommer, Ferdinand 190–1, 222
– documentation 1397, 1399, 1401, 1403, songs 17, 412, 424, 427–8, 473, 520, 551,
1405, 1407 601, 631, 635, 1051, 1733, 1736, 1744,
– evolution 1600–1, 1603, 1605, 1607, 2239
1609, 1611, 1613, 1615, 1617 sonorant clusters 648–9

Authenticated
General index 2369
sonorant consonants 325–6, 329–30, 336, Spain 194, 867, 879, 1168, 1170, 1256–7,
638, 1070 1289–90
sonorant diphthongs 1424, 1980 – Northeast 712
sonorant syllabification 2068, 2072 – Northern 1170, 1257
sonorant-final stems 1434, 2086 Sparta 647, 1839
sonorants 17, 644–6, 649, 654, 1321, 1422, spatial adverbs 2105
1424–5, 1427, 1431, 1434–5, 1487, 1489– spatial reciprocals 393–5
90, 1976–7, 2070–2, 2083–4 spatial suffixes 527
– interconsonantal 1495 specialization 570, 573, 845, 982, 2143
– syllabic 326, 1424, 1427, 1434, 1439, – semantic 8, 574, 580, 1081, 1367
1488–9, 1496, 1505, 1586 speech communities 1, 77, 79, 81, 298, 304–
sonority 17, 340, 1044, 1049, 1171, 1437, 5, 428, 433, 438–9, 441–2, 1265–6, 1427–
1458, 1460, 1586, 1640, 2067–8 8, 1446, 1453, 1948
sonorization 496, 603, 1051, 1055 Speijer, J.S. 379, 382, 390
Sophocles 626 spellings 252, 254, 639, 643, 646–7, 848,
Soqotra 93 850–2, 888, 892, 1389–90, 1392, 1493,
Šorčuq 1389–90, 1392–3 1605, 1832–3, 1858–9
sound changes 3–4, 16–17, 63–4, 185–6, – hypercorrect 852, 1821
610–11, 743–6, 748, 750, 1152–3, 1304–6, – inverse 1859, 1864
1454, 1600–1, 1603, 1609–10, 2031 – Pompeian 647
– regular 184, 186, 197, 774, 838, 918, Spevak, O. 819, 2196, 2198, 2200
Speyer, A. 2196–7, 2200, 2204, 2211
933, 1055, 1080, 1423, 1426–7, 1430,
spirantization 116, 427, 491, 603, 744, 749,
1433, 1539, 1542
851, 1068, 1138, 1191, 1201, 1853, 1863,
– sporadic 99, 456–7
1865
sound correspondences 1, 99, 117, 2282
spirants 295, 745, 892–3, 1010, 1276, 1646–
sound laws 76, 99–100, 115, 117, 183, 185–
7, 1649, 1840, 1844, 1873, 1879, 2063
6, 188, 224, 295, 1541, 1733, 2056, 2058,
split ergativity 232, 260, 436, 466, 1161,
2282–3, 2287
2090
sound systems 132, 211, 224, 633, 1003,
sporadic sound changes 99, 456–7
1006, 1009 Sprachbund 8, 611, 696, 733, 835, 987,
sources, literary 711, 727, 881, 986, 995, 1156, 1616, 1772, 1777–8, 1785, 1802,
1030, 1867, 2045 2049; see also linguistic areas
South Albania 1720 s-preterite 231–2, 1213–14, 1287–8, 1292
South Asia 10–11, 54, 309, 412 Square Hebrew script 35
Southeast Asia 56, 421, 425 Sri Lanka 309, 317, 321, 425, 440, 871
South-East Livonia 1706 Srinagar 437–8
southeastern Dalmatian onomastic area s-stems 260, 488, 660, 757–8, 763–4, 779,
1867–70 781, 797, 1057, 1081–2, 1283–4, 1894,
southeastern Europe 1416–17, 1488, 1800 1898, 2110, 2117
Southern Anatolia 300, 1147 – neuter 796, 1080, 1082, 1542
Southern France 712, 1174 s-suffixes 1289, 1910
Southern Greece 717, 729, 1488, 1808 Stammbäume 63, 66, 183, 733, 1004, 1398,
Southern Italy 712, 717, 723, 729, 736, 739, 1974
860–1, 1722, 1790, 1806–7, 1854, 1868 Stammerjohann, H. 139, 160, 171
Southern Russia 81, 602, 1607 standard languages 710, 719, 721, 729, 735,
Southern Silk Road 605 1003–4, 1010, 1389, 1497, 1640, 1643–4,
Southern Switzerland 1172 1678, 1785, 1789, 1980–1
Southwestern Russia 1415, 1419 Stang, C. S. 1643–4, 1685, 1687–91, 1712,
Soviet Union 49, 108, 194, 1035, 2286 1965, 1978, 1980, 1982, 1986, 1988–9,
Soviet-Afghan war 435 1992, 1994, 1996–8, 2008, 2013

Authenticated
2370 General index
Stang’s Law 347, 756, 761, 790, 1513, 2060, – aspectual 671–2, 1090, 2139–40, 2164
2071, 2095 – athematic 232, 362–3, 366, 373, 530,
Starke, F. 241–2, 244, 246–7, 261, 265, 292, 677, 785, 914, 920, 1204–5, 1897, 1907,
294, 299–301, 2039, 2043–4, 2097–8 1915, 1986, 2082
Starostin, S. A. 107–8, 1369, 1371, 2285 – bare 362, 460, 754, 787, 941, 1551, 1692,
Stassen, L. 1670, 2003, 2118 1905, 2145
statements, indirect 814, 822–3 – causative 370, 615, 1346
static accent 657, 660–1 – consonant 506–7, 656, 658, 753–4, 757–
stative 229–30, 360, 385–6, 671, 674–5, 9, 917, 1081–2, 1204–5, 1283–4, 1338–9,
782–3, 790, 961, 1090, 1094–5, 1385, 1546–7, 1656–7, 1751, 1819–20, 1892–3
1905, 1996, 2139, 2143–4 – demonstrative 848–9, 1228, 1313, 1340–1
– endings 229, 365, 2143 – derived 1897, 2106
– suffixes 1916, 2085 – desiderative 334, 370, 930, 2216
– verbs 124, 689, 779, 1155, 1967, 2143 – feminine 452, 917, 2096
Steblin-Kamenskij, I. M. 477, 568, 573 – full-grade 361, 365
Stein, Sir Aurel 1300, 1394 – generalized 843, 1287
Steinbauer, D. 783 – heteroclitic 757, 1540, 1659, 1895
Steingass, F. 568 – hysterokinetic 196, 762, 917–18, 1197
Steinitz, W. 99–100, 1686 – imperfective 841, 1094, 1998, 2140,
Steinthal, Heymann 186 2157–8, 2160
stele 245, 276, 643, 650, 810, 817, 848, – infinitive 1094, 1551, 1662–3, 1708–9,
1822, 1825, 1830, 1851, 1855, 2064 1995–6
stem allomorphy 920, 923, 938, 1435 – invariable 921, 1081
– laryngeal 518–19, 530
stem alternants 936, 938, 941, 1467
– lexical 1124, 1126
stem alternations 937, 1082, 1464
– Lithuanian 1657, 1993
stem classes 260, 347, 1014, 1080, 1082,
– long-grade 346
1204–5, 1211, 1258, 1266, 1288, 1688,
– masculine 658, 2096–7
1751, 1834, 1892–3, 2099
– modal 1375, 1385, 1387, 2145
stem formants 507–9, 511, 515–17, 530,
– nasal 364, 1338–9
1451, 2161
– nominal 195, 260–1, 346, 352, 414, 656,
stem formation 262, 359, 530, 532, 920, 930, 664, 766, 1644, 1657, 1824, 1837, 1890,
932, 1215, 1252, 1385, 1900–1, 1905–7, 2081, 2120
1909, 2138, 2158 – nominative 1606, 1954
stem forms 362, 699, 920, 935–6, 940, 1127, – non-acuted 1644–5
1660, 1762, 1768 – non-modal 1375, 1380
stem inflection 353, 1988, 2095 – non-neuter 1891, 1894
stem types 350, 780, 1083, 1895, 1907, – noun 993, 1468, 2131
2159–60 – oblique 251, 703, 843, 850, 1083, 1161,
stem variants 661–2, 1891–3, 1906 1372, 1606, 1826, 1903, 1993
stem vowels 260, 507, 542, 783–4, 786, – obstruent 918, 1372, 2085
790–1, 794, 900, 931, 995, 1006–7, 1073, – optative 1762, 1768
1317, 1656, 1692 – past participle 796, 1386
stem-final consonants 1287, 1289, 1469 – past-infinitive 1995, 1998
stem-leveling 1467, 1483, 1495, 1499, 1506, – perfect 358, 361, 385, 676–7, 686, 688,
1510 782, 790–2, 850, 853, 933, 2138–40, 2142,
Stempel, Bernardo 733, 1046, 1170, 1174, 2167, 2169
1195, 1258, 1265, 1279, 1835, 1837, 2108 – perfective 2140, 2143, 2159, 2165
stems – plural 670, 935, 940, 1548, 1752–3
– ablauting 663, 1891, 1906, 1911 – polysyllabic 915, 935, 1890
– aorist 358, 671–2, 674, 686, 688, 790–1, – present tense 1552, 1997
930, 1090, 1094, 1762, 1767–8, 2138–9, – preterite 1211, 1214, 1345, 1349, 1380,
2157–9, 2166–7, 2169 1714

Authenticated
General index 2371
– pronominal 217, 352, 768, 774, 1253, – breathy 1010, 2063

1549, 1756, 1826, 2100, 2103, 2117 – dental 330, 334, 337, 427, 514, 1192,
– Proto-Indo-European 812, 928, 1342, 1349, 1431, 1439, 1462, 1474, 1701, 1712,
1572, 1681 2063
– reduplicated 264, 364, 530, 1088, 1906, – final 252, 841, 906–7, 1015
2168 – geminate 896, 1199, 2156
– relative 668, 1775, 2102 – glottal 634, 1139, 1505, 1508, 1881–2,
– root 264, 530, 917, 930, 1889, 1914 2064
– secondary 386, 661, 699–700, 900, 1906, – glottalized 610, 996, 1428, 1882
1911 – heteromorphemic 334
– singular 1752–3 – initial 252, 304
– Slavic 1997–8 – intervocalic 426–8, 453, 619, 776
– sonorant-final 1434, 2086 – labiovelar 1063, 1975, 2061
– strong 362–4, 514, 533, 541, 700, 706, – medial 252, 341, 1814
923, 934, 1320, 1346, 1889–91, 1896, – occlusive 490, 492
1906–7, 1968, 2168 – palatal 333–4, 492, 1137, 1472, 1807,
– subjunctive 1211–12, 1345–7 1880–1, 2061
– suffixed 1997, 2096 – Proto-Indo-European 21, 1152, 1428,
– suppletive 668, 767–8, 1215 1975, 2061–2
– tense-aspect 2138, 2157, 2159, 2168 – root-final 333–4
– thematic 677, 679, 914, 921, 1211, 1215, – unaspirated 9, 332, 337, 2061
1337–9, 1689, 1891–2, 1897, 1907, 1911, – velar 64, 224, 330–1, 494, 515, 646,
1915, 2082, 2147 1059, 1439, 1647, 1650, 2061
– voiced 249, 252, 332, 334, 744, 890, 892,
– verb 465, 468, 533–4, 616–17, 1335,
1190, 1192–3, 1199–1201, 1507–8, 1647–8,
1613, 2216
1961–2, 1975–6, 2062–3
– verbal 265–6, 373, 1116, 1126, 1260,
– voiceless, see voiceless stops
1279, 1286, 1669, 1675, 2138, 2142, 2144–
– word-final 338, 2149
5, 2147, 2157–60, 2169
– word-initial 609, 1151, 2073
– vocalic 260, 680, 914, 1081, 1893, 1895
Strabo 649, 740, 1255, 1816, 1851
– vowel 347, 506, 796–7
Strand, Richard 435
– zero-grade 363 Strasbourg Oaths 867
stem-vowels 346, 840, 842, 896, 902, 904, Streitberg, W. 150, 171, 184, 186, 188, 879,
908, 1288 920, 959
Stepanov, J. S. 2198 stress 488–9, 1011, 1043–4, 1047, 1275–6,
Stephanus Byzantinus 1816, 1851 1279–82, 1501, 1503, 1512–14, 1607–9,
Stephens 1623–4, 1626–7, 1644–6, 1745–7, 1981–2
– L. D. 819, 2198, 2200, 2204–5 – absence of 16, 1278
– Thomas 159 – accents 255, 436, 864, 889, 906, 1274–8,
steppes 17, 88, 253, 1028, 1416–17, 1601 1280–1, 1283
Stifter, David 1170, 1172, 1174, 1195, 1204, – advancement of 1514
1210, 1276–9, 1859 – dynamic 498, 1590
Stilo, Donald 610, 612, 614, 616–17, 619 – final 1047, 1282, 1506, 1608
Stipa, G. 101, 145, 172 – initial 1012, 1019, 1275–8, 1280–1, 1502,
Stjepanović, S. 1566, 1568 1511, 1608, 1640, 1714, 1747, 1890, 1915,
stone inscriptions 122, 737, 739 1980
stop clusters 341, 1607 – intensity 1011, 1072
stops 21, 249–50, 252–4, 334, 336–7, 728, – mobile 1500, 1594, 1597, 1607–8, 1712,
889–94, 1041–2, 1190–2, 1194–5, 1438–9, 1714, 1892, 1912
1471–3, 1821, 1879, 2059–61 – penultimate 1047, 1276, 1280, 1282,
– alveolopalatal 329–30, 338 1506, 1746
– aspirated 45, 331–2, 443, 491, 836, 1058– – place of 1589–90, 1981
9, 1072, 1151, 1508, 1889, 2063–5, 2117 stressed forms 1207, 1209, 1550, 1912

Authenticated
2372 General index
stressed position 1137, 1279, 1340, 1690, subject verb object order 124–5, 870–1,
1699, 1701, 1704, 1709 1157, 1361, 1567, 1674, 1836, 1860, 1937,
stressed roots 1503, 1510, 1512, 1747 2198–9
stressed syllables 994, 1011, 1039, 1066–7, subjects 76, 123–5, 280–5, 393–5, 398–400,
1276, 1282, 1483, 1502, 1511, 1588, 1646, 550–2, 558–60, 685–6, 693–4, 900–3,
1980 1098–1102, 1354, 1564–5, 1678–80, 2199
stressed vowels 228, 746, 938–9, 1280, 1483, – dative 1611–12, 2009, 2213
1513–14, 1609, 1624, 1640, 1734, 1743, – implicit 1679, 2004, 2199
1760 – infinitival clause 1679, 2009
Strohmeyer, V. B. 1161 – initial 386, 389, 1242
strong cases 347, 352, 488, 496, 513, 516, – intransitive 1669, 2004
520, 917, 1892, 1901–2, 2082, 2111–12, – latent 2202, 2211
2124, 2134–5 – logical 550, 555, 557, 1354, 1356
strong jers 1490, 1492–3, 1495–7, 1597, – non-agentive 1016, 2142
1604–5, 1609 – non-pronominal 1938
strong preterites 931–2, 939 – noun phrases 1231, 1239, 2199
strong stems 362–4, 514, 533, 541, 700, 706, – null 281, 1676, 1937
923, 934, 1320, 1346, 1889–91, 1896, – oblique 378, 2001
1906–7, 1968, 2168 – overt 281, 1016, 1679
strong verbs 909, 913, 931–4, 936, 938, 940, – passive 379, 386–7
945–6, 982, 989, 993, 1003, 1014, 1211– – plural 685, 966, 2091–2, 2205
13, 1215, 1287 – pronominal 820, 964
structural cases 1669, 2083, 2208–9 – of transitive verbs 260, 283, 285
structuralism 94, 195, 223, 1008, 1482, 1485 subject-verb agreement 966, 1772
structure subjunctive 231, 361, 368, 401, 680, 687,
– clause 274, 392, 965 693, 726, 1320, 1346–7, 1761–2, 1828,
– grammatical 142, 153, 176, 1304, 1813, 1906, 1911, 2146
1955, 1968 – forms 360, 529, 726, 785, 1018, 1155,
– morphological 982, 1011, 1045, 1150, 1157, 1763, 1766, 1813, 2146
1356, 1837, 1855, 1889, 2131–3 – imperfect 63, 825, 1292
– morphosyntactic 299, 305–6 – stems 1211–12, 1345–7
– phylogenetic 1264, 1271 – suffixes 1911, 2033, 2146
– prosodic 448, 707, 1011 subordinate clauses 397, 400–1, 561–2, 685,
– root 192, 933, 939, 944, 1214 691, 693, 807–8, 822–3, 962–5, 967–9,
– sentence 275, 955, 1003, 1939, 2204 1099, 1102, 1359–61, 2000, 2213–15
– syllable 42, 123, 481, 489, 498, 915, subordinate sentences 401, 967, 969, 2200,
1276, 1280, 1438, 1452, 1473, 1974, 1980, 2214–15
1983, 2066–7 subordinating conjunctions 691, 965, 1785,
– syntactic 740, 804, 955, 962, 1015, 1772, 2102
1932, 1938–9, 2197, 2203, 2213, 2217 subordinating constructions 277, 823
Strunk, K. 256, 264, 327, 697, 2157, 2159, subordination 274, 400, 561, 806, 822, 1359,
2161, 2210, 2272 1361, 2195–6, 2199, 2213
Stumpf, Peter 1301, 1353, 1390–4 subordinators 305, 560, 619, 1099, 1109,
Sturtevant, Edgar H. 62, 191, 222–4, 227, 1268, 1680, 2008
233, 256, 2080 subscripts 222, 374
stylistics 1352, 1354 substantives 345, 353, 398, 414, 549, 685,
stylus 26, 56, 1406 755, 757, 913–14, 920–2, 976, 979, 982–3,
Subačius, G. 1625 1085, 1812
subject object verb order 276, 398, 806, 819– – verbal 265, 1555
20, 860, 863, 865, 962, 1241, 1360, 1674, substantivizations 574, 576, 921
1828, 1937–40, 2198–9 substantivized participles 1100, 1751

Authenticated
General index 2373
substitution 9, 455, 520, 555, 613, 618, 933, – derivational 283–4, 930, 1501, 1503,
936, 1089, 1095, 1341, 1343, 1596, 2088, 1513, 1653, 1658, 1691, 2087, 2090, 2098,
2096 2100, 2106, 2111–12, 2129–35
substrata 7–10, 267, 974, 978, 980, 1353, – derivative 654, 1127, 1575
1427, 1699, 1790, 1873, 1948, 2040 – desiderative 177, 2033, 2141
substrate languages 412, 441 – diminutive 353, 748, 843, 1196, 1370,
substratum influence 9–10, 1430, 1703 1377, 1574, 1712
substratum words 979, 1250, 1254 – dual 1339, 1341
subtractive expressions 775 – factitive 1313, 1611, 2162
Suebi 986, 988, 991 – feminine 2082, 2094–5, 2097–8, 2100,
suffix allomorphs 935–8 2130
suffix alternants 914, 918, 920, 935 – full-grade 915, 1892, 1914
– Greek 705, 1125
suffix clusters 935, 937
– imperfective 302
suffixal ablaut 1895
– individualizing 283–4, 923
suffixal accents 2109, 2122, 2128–31
– inflectional 2081, 2123–4, 2138
suffixal consonants 1339–40 – kinship 2113
suffixation 335, 582, 699, 794, 842, 975, – motion 345, 353, 664, 2095
1126, 1258, 1365, 1551, 1572–3, 1582, – nasal 1551, 1908, 2162
1660, 1794–5, 1969 – nasal-initial 338
– nominal 780, 1127 – nominal 116, 217, 419, 705, 1126–7,
– primary 778 1343, 1367, 2107
– secondary 778 – non-dominant accented 2131–2
suffixed pronouns 1208, 1239, 2005, 2102 – noun 843, 1064, 1069, 1124–5, 1127,
suffixed stems 1997, 2096 1259, 1691, 2127
suffixes 283–5, 763–6, 777–81, 792–4, 913– – noun-forming 1691, 2126, 2129
15, 921–3, 936–40, 1211–15, 1343–6, – optative 232, 789, 842, 940, 1348, 1554,
1652–4, 1896–1900, 2098–2100, 2109–17, 2147
2129–32, 2161–5 – participle 304, 1805, 2132, 2167
– ablauting 516, 677, 755, 915, 921, 1911, – patronymic 1254, 1260
2129, 2147, 2169 – perfect participle 1156, 2130
– abstract 262, 613, 780–1, 1734 – plural 1149, 1285, 1339, 1373, 2094,
– accented 2115, 2129, 2164 2099–2100
– adjectival 241, 254, 1085, 1087, 1127, – possessive 100, 301, 1258, 1445, 2281
1277, 1291, 1338, 1547, 1652–3, 1691, – present-stem 1762, 1768, 1995
2115, 2120, 2129, 2131 – primary 352, 1259, 2107
– adjective-deriving 2131 – productive 226, 781, 1259, 1383, 1546,
– adjective-forming 1370, 1379 2031, 2098
– Proto-Indo-European 266, 370, 764, 945,
– adverbial 16, 226, 398, 665, 766–7, 1343,
947, 1382, 1691, 2117
2088, 2105
– regular superlative 765, 1900
– agent 1056, 1795
– secondary 352, 983, 1898, 2106–7
– appurtenance 1883, 2098 – spatial 527
– athematic 780, 1910, 2115–16, 2129 – special 1813, 1950
– causative 177, 1385 – stative 1916, 2085
– collective 250–1, 613 – subjunctive 1911, 2033, 2146
– comparative 764, 1085, 1206, 1546, – superlative 352, 764–5, 776, 1127, 1206,
1898, 1989, 2032 1900, 2031
– complex 781, 1540, 1895, 2098, 2110 – thematic 264, 753, 780–1, 795, 1211,
– compositional 1686, 1692–3 1213, 1345, 1562, 1908–9, 1911, 2115–16
– consonantal 982, 1451, 1539 – verbal 843, 1126–7, 1135, 1747
– denominal 1456, 1998, 2106, 2116 – vocalic 1451, 1561, 1907, 1997
– dental 773, 931, 942–3, 989 – zero-grade 938, 1895, 2169

Authenticated
2374 General index
suffixless aorists 1766–8 Sweden 878, 997–8, 1630, 1684

suffixless preterite 1213–14 Swedish Livonia 1714
suffix-stressed forms 1690, 1747 Sweet, Henry 2280
Suhonen, S. 1686–7 Swiggers, P. 139, 143, 145, 147, 151, 154,
Sukač, R. 2056 156, 158, 160–1, 172–3, 177, 183
Sukow-Dziedzice culture 1418 Switzerland 194, 217, 1172
Šulcas, Teofilis 1626 – Northern 1168, 1174
Suma, Luca 1719 – Southern 1172
Sumatra 121, 124 syllabaries 32, 630, 633
Sumerian cuneiform 33 – Cypriote 32
Sumerograms 27, 240, 294 – Mesopotamian 27
superheavy syllables 1064, 2073 syllabic allophones 485–6, 2057, 2059
superlative syllabic liquids 326, 744, 1193, 1319
– adjectives 1127, 2118 syllabic nasals 713, 1061, 1264, 1987
– endings 2032 syllabic nuclei 486, 498
– forms 558, 684, 765 syllabic punctuation 42, 1832–3
– Proto-Indo-European 765, 923 syllabic resonants 23, 249–51, 301, 641, 746,
superlative suffixes 352, 764–5, 776, 1127, 900, 907, 1046, 1055, 1061, 1067, 1189,
1206, 1900, 2031 1192–4, 1196, 1873
superlatives 69, 352, 504, 521, 664–5, 764–5, syllabic sonorants 326, 1424, 1427, 1434,
776, 830, 922–3, 929, 1100, 1546, 1897–8, 1439, 1488–9, 1496, 1505, 1586
2031–2, 2117–18 – Proto-Indo-European 327, 1425, 1978
superordinate clauses 967, 969 syllabic structure 489, 498, 915, 1276
superordinate sentences 969, 1359 syllabic synharmony 1437, 1469
superscript 195, 374, 506, 1304 syllabicity 183, 185, 326, 888
superstratum 9, 715, 974, 978 syllabification 746, 765, 1043–4, 2058,
supines 760, 793, 796–7, 806, 817, 844, 2068–9
1555, 1561, 1652, 1663, 1670, 1673, 2008, – sonorant 2068, 2072
2110 syllable codas 340, 1069, 1438, 1486
suppletion 261, 358–9, 529, 665, 667, 671, syllable nuclei 337, 1425, 1507, 1982
1340, 1347, 1548, 1614, 1947, 1960, 1992, syllable structure 42, 123, 481, 489, 498,
2103, 2159 915, 1276, 1280, 1438, 1452, 1473, 1974,
suppletive aorists 359, 1127–8, 2163 1980, 1983, 2066–7
suppletive stems 668, 767–8, 1215 syllable weight 340, 907, 2122
suprasegmental features 1195, 1304, 1511, syllable-final obstruents 1439, 1443
1794, 1796 syllables 130–1, 339–40, 487, 633, 910–11,
suprasegmental phonology 213, 1414, 1420, 1011, 1276–8, 1306–8, 1483, 1492, 1501–
1500, 1511 2, 1514, 1586–8, 1590–1, 2066–8
Suprasliensis 1402–3, 1552 – closed, see closed syllables
Śūrasena 319, 425–6 – final 609–10, 748, 908–10, 1046–7,
surface accent 2083, 2113, 2122–4, 2127–34, 1081–2, 1197–1200, 1275–7, 1280–1,
2136–7 1283–4, 1424, 1453–4, 1704–6, 1818–19,
– fixed 2131 1858–9, 1979
surface realization 177, 1307, 2122, 2126 – heavy 746, 906–7
surface syntax 1218, 1937 – initial 487–8, 750, 837, 889, 898, 900–1,
Suthar, B. 321 905–6, 1067, 1136, 1199, 1424, 1426,
Suttapiṭaka 317, 424 1494, 1514, 1608
Svane, G. 1718, 1732, 1742, 1793, 1802 – internal 744, 1306, 1442, 1591
svarita 311, 339 – non-initial 487, 907, 1194, 1196, 1198,
Śvetāmbara Jains 319, 425–6 1426, 1512, 1593, 1595, 1977
Swadesh, Morris 65, 67, 69, 216 – open 327, 483, 644, 748, 1067, 1305,
Swadesh list 68, 1251, 2240 1308, 1437, 1458, 1477, 1512, 1586, 1588,
Swat 423, 436 1684, 1734

Authenticated
General index 2375
– pretonic 1045, 1195, 1511, 1597, 1608, syntax 4–5, 399, 693–4, 1352–4, 1557–8,
1705, 1737 1771–2, 1924–6, 1928–9, 1931–3, 1935–7,
– root 123, 1006, 1510 1939–40, 2040, 2195–7, 2199, 2215–17
– stressed 994, 1011, 1039, 1066–7, 1276, – Albanian 1771–3, 1775, 1777, 1779,
1282, 1483, 1502, 1511, 1588, 1646, 1980 1781, 1783–5, 1787
– superheavy 1064, 2073 – Anatolian 274–5, 277, 279, 281, 283,
– unaccented 249–50, 252, 254–5, 889, 285, 287
892, 898, 900–1, 903–4, 1012, 1276–7, – Armenian 1158–9
1284 – Baltic 1668–9, 1671, 1673, 1675, 1677,
– unstressed 935, 994, 1011, 1278, 1282, 1679
1511, 1588, 1590, 1597, 1610, 1643, 1646, – Balto-Slavic 2000–1, 2003, 2005, 2007,
1699, 1808 2009
– word-final 993, 1876 – case 1012, 2000–3, 2048
syllabograms 240, 639 – Celtic 1218–19, 1221, 1223, 1225, 1227,
symbols 33, 54, 89, 325, 492, 717, 726, 729, 1229, 1231, 1233, 1235, 1237, 1239, 1241,
1420–1, 1627, 2056, 2080–1 1243, 1245
synchronic alternations 328, 506, 2136 – Classical Armenian 1097, 1099, 1101,
synchronic analysis 630, 1982 1103, 1105, 1107, 1109, 1111, 1113
synchronic grammar 1617, 2215 – clausal 549, 558, 804, 817, 1781
synchronic perspectives 627, 629, 789, 1004, – configurational 1924–7, 1939
2139 – discourse 1097, 1109–10
synchronic rules 646, 1054, 2069 – generative 196, 2198
synchrony 188, 627, 1336, 1341, 1348, 2114 – Germanic 954–5, 957, 959, 961, 963,
syncopated vowels 1199, 1277 965, 967, 969, 1017
syncope 745, 748, 764–5, 793–5, 837, 845, – Gothic 1017, 2196
848, 850, 992–4, 1199–1200, 1277–8, – Greek 682–3, 685, 687, 689, 691, 693
1280–1, 1325, 1438–9, 1808 – Indic 377, 379, 381, 383, 385, 387, 389,
– Latin 748, 1281 391, 393, 395, 397, 399, 401, 1924
– patterns 1210, 1278 – Indo-European 197, 1927, 1932, 2196
– regular 759, 1977 – Indo-Iranian 1924–5, 1927, 1929, 1931,
– vowel 99, 419, 748, 2059 1933, 1935, 1937, 1939
syncretism 305, 507, 550, 612, 654–6, 684, – Iranian 549, 551, 553, 555, 557, 559,
868, 913, 1267–8, 1454, 1544, 1963, 2087 561, 563, 1924
– case 1013, 1080, 1830, 2211 – Italic 804–5, 807, 809, 811, 813, 815,
synharmony, syllabic 1437, 1469 817, 819, 821, 823, 825
syntactic analyses 101, 389, 397, 549, 1828 – Kartvelian 107
syntactic calques 1035, 2196 – nominal 377, 804, 806, 1017
syntactic contexts 614, 1813, 1834, 1836, – Proto-Indo-European 195, 1775, 1964,
2003 2195–6
syntactic functions 283–4, 392, 684, 819, – sentence 377, 399, 682, 691, 954, 966,
956, 1932 1352, 1359, 1361, 1557, 1567, 1668, 1676,
syntactic patterns 378–9, 382, 392, 396, 399, 1771–2, 1781
466, 955, 1002, 1015, 1017, 1557–8, 2006 – Slavic 1557–9, 1561, 1563, 1565, 1567–9
syntactic positions 1209, 1353, 1937, 1940, – Tocharian 1352–5, 1357, 1359–61
2002 – Turkish 1158
syntactic reconstruction 196, 1016, 2195–6 – verbal 1018, 1771, 1775
syntactic structures 740, 804, 955, 962, 1015, – word order 1936–7
1772, 1932, 1938–9, 2197, 2203, 2213, Syria 442, 599, 715, 722, 866, 1111
2217 – Northern 29, 33, 240–2, 2044
syntagms 78, 1099, 1306, 1360, 1659, 2229, Syriac scripts 35, 604
2238–9 Szantyr, A. 831–2

Authenticated
2376 General index
Szemerényi, O. J. L. 63, 193, 509, 924, – periphrastic 1558, 1561, 1565, 1673,
1086, 1118, 1314, 1582, 1961, 1990–1, 1769, 1772, 1775
1993, 2012, 2041, 2056, 2215–16 – present 617–19, 930–2, 959, 961, 1148–9,
Szemerényi’s Law 790, 2060, 2083–5, 2153 1155–6, 1235–6, 1356, 1358, 1361, 1552–
3, 1562, 1564, 1996, 1998
tablets 240, 282, 630–1, 672, 685, 717, 879, – preterite 671, 930, 939, 967, 1235, 1237,
1175, 2039, 2046 1345, 1712
– clay 220, 240–2, 282, 630, 683, 697, 717 – relative 1905, 2007, 2140
Tagliavini, C. 171 – sequence of 825, 967, 2140
Tajikistan 476, 599, 604–5 tenues 453, 1170–2, 1889
Talibov, B. B. 108 Teodorsson, S-T. 642
Taliesin 1178 terminations 226, 346, 681, 1892, 1897,
Tamai, T. 1301, 1392–3 1900, 1907
Tarim Basin 424, 1298, 1369–70 Terracina 1563
Tasmanian languages 130–1 Terramare culture 859
Tatiščev, Vasilij K. 157, 180 text specimens 142, 147, 154, 157
tautosyllabic diphthongs 1309, 1456 Thailand 317
tautosyllabic laryngeals 1504–5 Thebes 697, 703, 717
tautosyllabic sequences 937, 1191, 1642 thematic 232, 360–3, 529–31, 654–5, 677,
Tavola da Este 1832 931–2, 1212–14, 1551–3, 1661–2, 1907–8,
Taxila 419, 424 1994–5, 2082–6, 2088–9, 2145–8, 2162–4
Taylor, A. 69, 1119, 1265, 2030, 2032 – primary 232, 1551, 2148, 2151
technical language 68, 2020 – secondary 1553–4, 1907
technical terminology 721, 1366, 1713 – truncated 787
Tegnér, Esaias 185 thematic adjectives 227, 914, 929, 1338,
Tekor inscription 1031, 1136 1827, 1897, 1899, 2096, 2109, 2136, 2162
telic lexical aspect 2138, 2157 thematic aorist 362, 790, 792–3, 1349, 1553,
telic roots 2138, 2157 1995, 2163, 2166–7
telic verbs 216, 689, 2004, 2158 thematic conjugation 232, 234, 529, 534,
telicity 959, 961, 1613, 2138, 2166 2148
Telšiaĩ region 1702, 1705 thematic declension 508, 1552, 1554
Temenides 1862, 1864 thematic endings 784, 792, 1552, 1555,
temporal clauses 691, 694, 823, 1102, 1107, 1661, 2088
1836 thematic flexion 1219, 1266
temporal value 686–7, 689, 693, 1905 thematic forms/formations 360, 515, 780,
Ten Kate, L. 156 1892, 1915, 1968, 2090, 2154, 2164, 2169
tense markers 1155, 1616, 2138, 2140, 2144, thematic genitives 226, 656, 780, 1197, 1223,
2149, 2151–2, 2154, 2156 1266–7, 1856, 1859, 1861, 1968, 2087
tense vowels 1009, 1480, 1483 – Proto-Indo-European 258, 2086, 2089
tense-aspect 196, 1562, 1906, 2140, 2157, thematic inflection 258, 362, 368, 457, 788,
2168 847, 1347, 1960, 1963, 1994–5, 1998,
– stems 2138, 2157, 2159, 2168 2082, 2113, 2148
tenses 466–7, 528–9, 616–17, 688, 693–4, thematic nouns 699, 909, 924, 1338, 1859,
930–1, 958–61, 1090–1, 1105–6, 1155–6, 1900, 2082, 2084, 2086–7, 2089–90, 2097,
1288–9, 1291, 1708–9, 1776–8, 2138–40 2135
– aspectual 1561–2, 1564 thematic optative 64, 69, 940, 2033
– compound 1106, 1563–5, 1672, 2007 thematic paradigms 1662, 1915, 1994, 2089
– past 465, 616–17, 671, 687, 689, 930, thematic roles 550, 555, 2207–10
1105–6, 1358, 1562, 1564, 1598, 1615, thematic root aorists 366, 1346
1776, 2140–1, 2157 thematic stems 677, 679, 914, 921, 1211,
– perfect 555, 959, 1148, 1562, 1598, 1610, 1215, 1337–9, 1689, 1891–2, 1897, 1907,
1615, 1845 1911, 1915, 2082, 2147

Authenticated
General index 2377
thematic suffixes 264, 753, 780–1, 795, Tierney, J. J. 1168

1211, 1213, 1345, 1562, 1908–9, 1911, Tikkanen, B. 10, 399, 752, 761, 767, 805,
2115–16 840, 843, 845, 850
thematic verbs 514–15, 529, 541–2, 699, timbre 449, 641, 1065, 1489, 1875, 2059
783, 793, 796, 938, 940–1, 945, 1433, time depth 4–5, 121–2, 1045, 2280
1552, 1967, 2145, 2148–9 Timotheus Aelurus 1029
thematic vowels 359, 529, 753–4, 940, 1346, Tipiṭaka 317, 424
1552–3, 1915–16, 2082, 2084, 2086–8, Tiryns 697
2095–6, 2107–8, 2116–17, 2146–8, 2162–3 Tischler, J. 65, 67, 76, 292–3, 880
thematizations 232, 774, 780, 1282, 1907, ti-stem nouns 766, 2129, 2131
1909, 2087, 2164 ti-stems 523, 1688, 1899, 2129–30, 2132,
thematized root aorists 1768, 2167 2136–7
Theocritus 723 Tiswadi 433
theological texts 1719, 1788, 1794 titles 29, 153–4, 214, 293, 630, 683, 697,
theonyms 831–2, 881, 920, 1266, 1268, 984, 990, 1003, 1123, 1172, 1354, 1820,
1834, 1851, 1950 1951
theoretical linguistics 171, 193, 2171 tmesis 397, 504, 560, 1240, 1829
Theragāthā 424 Tocharian
Theravada Buddhism 309, 315–16, 318–19, – dialectology 1389, 1391, 1393, 1395
424–5 – documentation 1298–9, 1301
Therīgāthā 424 – infinitives 1963, 2170
thesauri 147, 149, 410, 568, 752, 875, 1034– – lexicon 1365, 1367, 1369, 1371, 1373,
5, 1842 1375, 1377, 1379, 1381, 1383, 1385, 1387
Theseus Ambrosius 146
– morphology 1335, 1337, 1339, 1341,
Thessalonica 1399, 1419, 1475, 1477–8, 1853
1343, 1345, 1347, 1349, 1371
third person 255, 277–8, 281–2, 669–70,
– phonology 220, 1304–5, 1307, 1309,
685, 687, 1087–8, 1107–8, 1208–10, 1902–
1311, 1313, 1315, 1317, 1319, 1321, 1323,
4, 1992, 1994, 1996, 2143, 2145
1325, 1327, 1329, 1368
– endings 230
– prehistory 1336, 1374
– forms 372, 1708, 1712, 1756, 1765
– pronouns 1756–7 – script 55, 1301
Thomas, Werner 1353 – syntax 1352–5, 1357, 1359–61
Thomason, S. G. 2, 9, 299, 2040, 2282 – verbs 1345, 1371, 1384–5
Thomsen, V. 139, 171, 185, 188, 190, 196, tokens 1221–3, 1226, 1229, 1231, 1233,
213, 1686 1239–40, 1268, 1306, 1482, 1721, 2198
Thomson, R. W. 1030, 1044, 1097, 1102, Tomaschitz, K. 1168
1104–5, 1107, 1109, 1147, 1149 tonality 1438, 1457–9, 1464, 1468
Thordarson, F. 484, 497, 568, 610, 612–14, tone systems 419, 435, 1489, 1496, 1586,
616, 618–19 1646, 1962
thorn clusters 224, 332, 425, 444, 838, 1055– tones 434–6, 1501–2, 1511, 1603, 1608,
6, 2063 1706, 1709, 2066
Thracian, grammar 1850–1 – acute 1641, 1646, 1648, 1705
Threatte, L. 642 – broken 1645–6, 1706, 1708–9, 1980
three-series theory 229–30 – falling 1511–12, 1608, 1646, 1690, 1706,
Thucydides 626, 647, 698, 706, 721 1708–9
Thurneysen, Rudolf 188, 849, 1176, 1189, – high 434–5, 2122
1203, 1207, 1210, 1215, 1219–21, 1283 – high-low 313, 1502
Thurneysen-Havet’s Law 745, 836 – low 313, 434
Thurneysen’s Law 64, 892, 993 – low-high 1501–2
Tiber 736, 738–9 – rising 1502, 1511, 1514, 1608, 1646,
Tichy, E. 384, 487–8, 516–17, 1883, 1889, 1709
1895–6, 1903, 1905–6, 1908–9, 1911–12, tonic features 559, 669, 685, 690, 889, 906,
1915, 2093, 2099, 2134, 2144 1550, 1616, 1932–3, 2103

Authenticated
2378 General index
Topalli, K. 1734, 1737–8, 1742, 1747, 1750, tree model 65, 183, 197, 212, 1004
1754, 1804–5, 1808 Tremblay, X. 83, 475, 483, 486–7, 490–2,
TOPIC position 1929–30, 1938–9 495–6, 511, 530, 536–7, 567–8, 1890,
topicality 1228, 1242, 1781, 1784 1895–6, 1910, 1914–16, 2233
topicalization 561, 820, 1244, 1829, 1927, triangulations 140–1
1929, 1931, 2202, 2204 tribal names 986, 990–1, 1251, 1254–8,
toponyms 89, 1171, 1251–8, 1260, 1266, 1260, 1415, 1812
1461, 1464–5, 1474–5, 1477, 1482, 1488, tribes 11, 379, 418, 471, 512, 602, 718, 845,
1851, 1863–4, 2038–9, 2047 875, 986–8, 995–7, 1169, 1179, 1205, 1850
– Greek 1458, 1479 Tribulato, O. 2118, 2120–1
Toporov, V. N. 1422, 1577, 1623, 1961, trilingual inscriptions 49, 245, 472, 603
1994, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2021 trills 482, 1436, 1485, 1607
Torp, Alf 189 trimoraic diphthongs 1424, 1509, 1514
Torres Strait 131 trimoric vowels 908–11, 1981
Tortora inscription 848, 851 tripartite groupings 993–5
Toth, Alfred 1170 trisyllabic forms 123, 328, 345, 499, 512,
Tourneur, V. 145, 172 517–20, 1306, 1308, 1483, 1502, 1608,
Tractatus Sacerdotalis 1625 1946
traditions 1, 147, 149, 157, 631, 739–40, Trithemius, Johann 149
774, 776, 1414, 1418–19, 1716–17, 1719– Trojans 144, 1816, 2038, 2043–4
21, 1925, 2230, 2235 Trubačëv, O. N. 1571–4, 1576–82, 1989,
– Catholic 1717, 1720 2012–13, 2016, 2019
– literary 432, 448, 471, 605, 632, 711, Trubetzkoy, N. S. 7–8, 10–11, 107
733, 878, 882, 1353, 1721
Trudgill, P. 1005
– manuscript 450, 474, 626, 737, 1030,
Trümmersprachen 733–4, 877, 879, 883
1037, 1041
truncated thematics 787
– oral 631–2, 698, 720
Tryon, D. T. 125, 133
– Slavistic 1420, 1476
t-stems 226, 260, 426, 515, 757, 898, 1990,
– written 18, 106, 632, 698, 731, 1080,
2110
1414, 1419, 1602, 1668, 1723, 2003
transcription 94, 116, 336, 338, 344, 374, t-suffixes 1659, 1760, 1766, 2110
506, 1038, 1171, 1300, 1420, 1601, 1623, Tubal 143
1718–20, 2081 Tucker, E. 533, 2109, 2119, 2162, 2164–5
transformational syntax 96 tudáti 1434, 2163, 2252
transitive 383, 386, 388–90, 395, 615, 1161, Turfan 410, 472, 603, 606, 1298, 1389–94
1384–5, 1611, 1778 Turgot, Anne-Robert-Jacques 175
– objectless 382 Turkestan, Chinese 23, 191, 214, 599, 605
– objects 2004, 2170 Turkey 239, 241, 246, 442, 476, 1800–2,
– roots 982, 1385–6 1812
transitivity 281, 383–4, 388–9, 616–17, 1345, Turkic, names 1377
1358, 1385, 1563, 1775, 2001, 2111, 2162, Turkish
2166, 2170, 2217 – influence 442, 1159
transliteration 27, 246, 1037–8, 1300, 1305, – syntax 1158
1377, 1603, 1605, 1718–20, 2080–1 Turkmenistan 599, 610
Translyvania 442 Turner, Ralph L. 443
transmission 2, 41, 139, 298, 302, 309, 534, Tuscans 159
601, 626, 977, 1012, 1019, 1175, 1403, Tuscany 859
1802 tu-stems 760, 796
– oral 313, 420, 475, 505, 737, 2197 Twaddell, W. F. 1006, 1008
– processes 3, 142 typological perspective 606, 867, 1353, 2094,
transpositions, letter/sound 148, 152, 335 2114, 2121
Trautmann, R. 1623–4, 1661, 1687–8, 1961, Tyroller, H. 1013, 1015
1964, 2016–18 Tzetzes, Johannes 605

Authenticated
General index 2379
Udānālaṅkāra 1299 unstressed vowels 19, 228, 1003, 1149, 1276,

Udānavarga 1299 1590, 1609–10, 1640, 1705, 1733, 1736–7,
udāttatara 311 1744, 1803–4
Udine 194 Untermann, Jürgen 46, 757, 761, 773, 775,
u-diphthongs 1199, 1315, 1390 830–2, 843, 848–50, 1203, 1205, 1266–8,
Udolph, J. 1397, 2013, 2017, 2020 1270–1, 1834–5, 1837, 1841–4
Ugarit 93, 2041 Upper Sindh 433–4
Uhlenbeck, Christiaan Cornelis 188, 2197 Uralic, linguistics 99, 101, 2281, 2286
Uhlich, J. 1172, 1258, 1267, 1287, 1795, Urbutis, V. 1651–2, 1685
2120 Urheimaten 81, 85–9, 189, 1415, 2284
Uhlisch, G. 1789, 1792 u-stems 511, 513, 663, 760–1, 916, 919, 921,
Ukraine 442, 1397–8, 1417, 1617, 1800–2, 924, 1080–2, 1283–4, 1542, 1544, 1885,
1890–2, 1986
2018
– adjectives 780, 894, 1085, 1205, 1545,
– western 1414, 1607
1657–8, 1988, 2130–1
Ukrainian, dialects 1594, 1597
– declensions 918, 1542–3, 1654, 1656
Ulster Cycle 1176 – neuter 1890
ultrashort vowels 1427, 1492 – Proto-Indo-European 753, 760, 916
umlaut 994, 1003, 1006–10, 1320, 1325, Utena 1702, 1704
1752, 1754, 1762 Uttar Pradesh 420, 425, 430
– unfolding 1006, 1008 – eastern 418–19, 430
unaccented morphemes 2122, 2126, 2134 Uttarkhand 437–8
unaccented syllables 249–50, 252, 254–5, u-vocalism 299, 1329, 1644, 1661
889, 892, 898, 900–1, 903–4, 1012, 1276– uvular features 443, 1040, 1059–60, 1607,
7, 1284 2064–6
unaccented vowels 17, 1280, 1286, 1291 Uzbekistan 599, 604
unaccusative verbs 1161, 2103
unaspirated consonants 424, 454, 1039 Vaḍḍakahā 320
unaspirated stops 9, 332, 337, 2061 Vaillant, André 191, 1399, 1539–40, 1544,
uncials 49, 1038 1546–8, 1550, 1552–4, 1615, 1961, 1987–
underlying accents 1307, 2122–3 8, 1990, 1997–8
uniform languages 714, 1961, 1968 Vaišnoras, Simonas 1626
Uniformitarianism 185 Vājasaneyisaṁhitā 311
unit numerals 775–6 Valabhī 319
unitary vowels 1481–2 valence 1335, 1344
United Kingdom 309, 1177 – verbal 1056, 1108
United States 188, 190, 192–4, 223, 1812 valencies 385, 390, 1356, 1504, 1506, 2166
unity 18, 149, 159, 171–2, 192, 435, 877, Valesiosio, Popliosio 1081, 2032, 2086
Vallini, C. 186–7
975, 1148, 1259, 2001
van Beek, L. 2066
– genetic 132, 172, 298
Van de Velde, R. G. 145–6
– linguistic 147, 212, 1398, 1603, 1942,
van den Hout, T. 29, 288, 300, 302, 305,
2030 2092
univerbation 584, 707, 770, 784, 791, 811, Van der Auwera, J. 2144
943, 1098, 1306, 1314, 1320, 1336, 1342– van der Hulst, H. 2122, 2131, 2137
3, 1440, 1669 Van der Tuuk, H. N. 121
unmarked word order 398, 558, 865, 1558, van Driem, G. 438
1568, 1828 van Gelderen, E. 1017
unstressed positions 774, 916, 1087, 1092, Van Hal, T. 139, 145, 148, 150–1, 154, 156,
1307, 1590–1, 1737 160, 183
unstressed syllables 935, 994, 1011, 1278, van Ravelingen, Frans 150
1282, 1511, 1588, 1590, 1597, 1610, 1643, Van Rooy, R. 143
1646, 1699, 1808 van Vliet, Jan 147

Authenticated
2380 General index
Van Wijk, N. 2197 Venetic, Recent 1832, 1834

van Windekens, A. J. 1304, 1873 Venice 1029, 1033, 1035, 1148, 1415, 1718–
Vanags, P. 1628–30, 1658 19, 1721, 1791
v-aorists 1766–8 Vennemann, Theo 195, 859, 978, 996, 2056,
Varanasi 430 2062, 2284
Variboba, G. 1719, 1722, 1789 Ventris, Michael 31–2, 630, 691
Varinnae 986 verb forms 176, 395–6, 619, 1099, 1101–2,
Varniai 1627, 1705 1209–10, 1561, 1564, 1675–6, 1718–19,
Varro 740 1845, 1860, 2140–1, 2143, 2150
Vasantavilāsa 432 – compound 274, 285
Vasil’ev-Dolobko pattern 1512 – non-finite 280, 561, 806, 1354, 1802,
Vasmer, Max 188, 1466–7, 1573, 1581, 2016 2158
Vaste 1841 – relative 1209–10
Vater, Johann Severin 157 verb object subject order 1361
Vatican 872, 1720 verb stems 465, 468, 533–4, 616–17, 1335,
Vaux, B. 1041–2, 1044, 1132–3, 1136–7, 1613, 2216
1139, 1153–5, 1162 verbal abstracts 261, 353, 681, 706, 1372,
Vedas 310–14, 369, 410, 447, 602, 1942, 1374, 1911, 2162
1955 verbal adjectives 371, 373, 385, 464–6, 541–
Vedic 2, 615–16, 680–1, 780–1, 794–5, 981–2,
– accentuation 2125, 2128 1214–15, 1240, 1381, 1766–7, 2168
– dialects 330, 418–19, 425, 444 verbal affixes 124, 617, 1756
– mantras 312, 344, 1940 verbal agreement 384, 616, 815, 1671, 2092,
– prose 361, 368, 370, 372, 374, 384, 386, 2205
391, 396, 401, 1928–31, 1936, 1940 verbal bases 314, 1970, 2116
– roots 2124–5 verbal categories 24, 447, 553, 615, 804,
– texts 22, 310–11, 313, 326, 328, 340, 815, 945, 960, 1105, 1155, 1289, 1777,
447–8, 450–1, 455–6, 2109, 2144, 2170 2034, 2080, 2126
Veii 852, 1833 verbal classes 266, 960, 1420, 1760
velar obstruents 647, 2033 verbal conjugation 96, 506, 870, 1813
velar palatalization 647–8, 1469, 1498 verbal derivation 782, 1794–5
– progressive 1458, 1460–1, 1465–70, verbal endings 21, 603, 616, 678–9, 806,
1472, 1485 820, 870, 1209, 1286, 1306, 1347, 2139,
velar stops 64, 224, 330–1, 494, 515, 646, 2147, 2150, 2153
1059, 1439, 1647, 1650, 2061 – active 2147, 2150
velars 331, 492–3, 893–4, 1191, 1212–14, verbal flexion 1231, 1269–70
1322, 1426, 1428–31, 1442–5, 1451, 1462, verbal lexemes 1108, 1113
1464–6, 1468–9, 1880, 1966–8 verbal morphosyntax 124, 377, 382, 549,
– fronted 1443 551, 682, 686, 954, 958, 1352, 1356, 1557,
– occlusive 495, 1171 1561, 1668, 1672
– palatalized 249, 1462, 1880 verbal nouns 1215, 1221, 1238, 1240, 1259,
– plain 12, 249, 639, 1048, 1054, 1429, 1279, 1286, 1288, 1353, 1355, 1359, 1373–
1807, 1812–13 4, 1378, 1381, 1555
– Proto-Indo-European 1647–8, 1880, 1975 verbal paradigms 93, 255, 457, 616, 652,
– voiced 428, 1597–8 982, 1031, 1071, 1252, 1270, 1282, 1286–
– voiceless 116, 494, 1430, 1833 7, 2109, 2133, 2149
Velaza, J. 1250, 1266–8 verbal particles 964, 1353, 1669
Velletri 860 verbal phrases 392, 398, 707
Vendryes, Joseph 191, 1175, 1250, 1289 verbal prefixes 101, 610, 959, 1551
Vendryes’ Law 651 verbal roots 216–17, 982, 1775–6, 1942–3,
Venedi 1415 2107–11, 2126, 2131–2, 2137–8, 2157,
Veneti 1415 2159, 2161–2, 2232, 2234–7, 2240–3,
Venetians 1033 2255–7

Authenticated
General index 2381
verbal stems 265–6, 373, 1116, 1126, 1260, 866, 869, 989, 1012, 1014, 1541, 1551,
1279, 1286, 1669, 1675, 2138, 2142, 2144– 1708, 1714
5, 2147, 2157–60, 2169 – initial 278–80, 1243
verbal suffixes 843, 1126–7, 1135, 1747 – intransitive 265, 281, 283, 285, 379, 382–
verbal syntax 1018, 1771, 1775 3, 386, 389, 466–7, 530, 533, 616, 960,
verbal systems 93, 96, 232, 464, 466, 670, 1670, 1677–8
869, 871, 930, 1352–3, 1760, 1762, 1769– – irregular 787–9, 1287
70, 1778, 2138–9 – Italic 794, 805, 840
verbal valence 1056, 1108 – Latin 783–4, 794, 1747, 2212
verb-bases 1760–8 – Leskien III 1456, 1459, 1500
verbs 382–4, 554–60, 688–91, 793–7, 930– – light 4, 616
40, 942–5, 962–8, 1207–12, 1238–41, – matrix 553–4, 562, 967, 2216
1286–90, 1344–50, 1354–61, 1383–7, – monovalent 1232
1550–4, 2199–2201 – morphology 196, 227, 503, 528, 612,
– ablauting 1003, 1014 731, 752, 1243, 1291, 1335, 1344, 1600,
– action 282, 284, 932 1760, 1770, 2137–8
– active 230, 1994, 1996 – motion 281, 286–7, 1355, 1670, 2143
– Albanian 1747, 1760–2, 1768, 1775, 1796 – of movement 550, 616
– Armenian 1090, 1116–17 – negated 1243, 1670, 2005
– atelic 216, 2158 – non-agentive 1612, 2142, 2165
– athematic 514, 529, 534, 541–2, 783, – non-finite 557, 959
787, 940, 1440, 1553–4, 1688, 1881, 1994, – non-primary 1760, 1768
1997, 2145–6, 2169 – non-terminative 959–60
– passive 960, 1098
– auxiliary 466–7, 555, 728, 795, 944,
– plural 1114, 1231, 1836
1240, 1554, 1769
– polypersonal 1756, 1770
– base 384, 394, 936, 1356, 1690, 2120,
– primary 846, 934–8, 982, 1252, 1287,
2165, 2168
1551, 1760, 1766–8, 2033, 2125
– causative 533, 934, 1127, 1346, 1386,
– Proto-Indo-European 65–7, 2137–9, 2141,
1644, 2142, 2164
2158, 2163
– clause-final 1940
– Proto-Nuclear-Indo-European 2137, 2142,
– clause-initial 1241, 1940 2144
– compound 374, 397, 466, 468, 707, 731, – reflexive 1613, 1998
1210, 1279, 1286, 1387 – regular 726, 783–5, 787, 1090, 1211,
– copular 683, 957, 964 2033
– defective 788, 790 – secondary 706, 936, 944–5, 982
– denominal 302, 1551, 2165 – simplex 394, 397
– denominative 266, 531–2, 843, 982, – singular 559, 685, 966, 2092
1259–60, 1278, 1367, 1386–7, 1760, 1767, – Slavic 1539, 1550, 1998, 2021
1795, 1828, 2107 – stative 124, 689, 779, 1155, 1967, 2143
– deponent 228, 265, 782, 786, 788, 795, – strong 909, 913, 931–4, 936, 938, 940,
797, 1095, 1209, 1212, 1231, 1750, 1760– 945–6, 982, 989, 993, 1003, 1014, 1211–
1, 1767, 1769 13, 1215, 1287
– deuterotonic 1279, 1286 – telic 216, 689, 2004, 2158
– factitive 782, 1760, 1795, 1994 – thematic 514–15, 529, 541–2, 699, 783,
– finite 96, 264, 280, 339, 374, 815, 959, 793, 796, 938, 940–1, 945, 1433, 1552,
962–3, 969, 1354, 1361, 1672, 1680, 2205, 1967, 2145, 2148–9
2214 – Tocharian 1345, 1371, 1384–5
– half-thematic 1662 – transitive 281, 283, 285, 382, 384, 386,
– hiatus 1211, 1214, 1287 466–7, 530, 533, 615–17, 956, 959–60,
– imperfective 617, 1613 1160–1, 1344, 1346
– impersonal 551, 556, 956 – unaccusative 1161, 2103
– inflection 63, 215, 357, 457, 603–4, 863, – underlying 1373–4

Authenticated
2382 General index
– weak 893, 897, 907, 909, 931, 935–40, – Baltic 1681, 1687, 1712, 2019
943, 947, 960, 982, 993, 995, 1014–15, – basic 2–3, 87, 133, 151–2, 154, 293, 303,
1211–14, 1287–8 665, 829, 1115–17, 1603, 2229–30, 2282
– weather 281, 556 – Common Australian 130
Verburg, P. A. 139, 176 – Elbing 1623–4, 1641, 1684, 1700, 1978,
Vercelli 1173 1980
Vermeer, W. 1543, 1603, 1617, 1732–3 – inherited 68, 180, 292–3, 409–10, 567,
vernaculars 143, 145, 310, 315, 321, 447–8, 582, 695, 699, 1115–18, 1126, 1571–2,
455, 711–12, 727, 729, 878, 882, 1032, 1681, 1688, 1788–90, 1942–3
1035, 1405–7 – scientific 872, 1115, 1124
Verner, Karl 16, 185 – shared 62, 132, 1416
Verner’s Law 185, 839, 889–90, 945, 989– vocalic alternations 1038, 1041, 1043–4,
90, 993, 1988 1047, 1071, 1126
Verpoorten, J-M. 1928, 1930, 1936 vocalic chain shifts 1003, 1009, 1020
verses 310, 313–14, 318–19, 321, 344, 373, vocalic phonemes 642, 749, 1821
394, 401, 418, 488, 631, 635, 698, 865, vocalic stems 260, 680, 914, 1081, 1893,
1285 1895
– alliterative 878, 881–3 vocalic suffixes 1451, 1561, 1907, 1997
Versteegh, K. 139 vocalism 662–3, 789–90, 840, 845, 850, 852,
Verstegan, Richard 148–50 1037, 1276, 1280, 1282, 1755–6, 1767–8,
vertical relationships 15, 188, 905 1776, 2154–5, 2161
Vesālī 317 – long 2058, 2072
Vetteland 877 – root 367, 789, 894, 1086, 2017, 2160
Vetter, E. 42, 740, 831, 976 vocalization 94, 487–8, 638, 641, 744–6,
Vezirhan inscription 1817, 1820 937–8, 990, 1055, 1062, 1816, 1823, 1877–
Videha 339, 418–19 8, 1882–3, 1886, 1889
Videvdad 473–4, 477, 491, 601, 1238 – laryngeal 221, 989, 2072, 2085
Vidyapati 431 vocative 339, 345–8, 352, 459–62, 509–16,
Vidzeme 1714 518, 520, 655–61, 753–6, 758–62, 772,
Vienna Fragments 1404 902, 919, 1013, 1893–8
Vienna Glosses 1407 – plural 258, 317, 425, 460–2, 509, 512–13,
Villanovan culture 859 655, 759
Villards-d’Héria 1174 – singular 258, 658, 699–700, 1337, 1542
Vilnius 1625, 1628, 1702, 1704 Vogel, C. 410
Vimalasūri 319 Vogt, H. 67, 1048, 1054, 1138
Vindhya mountains 430 voice 195–6, 264–5, 528, 530, 686, 689–90,
Vindolanda tablets 1290 1344, 1372, 1736, 1761, 1827–8, 2070–1,
Vinson, Julien 184 2138–9, 2168, 2252
Viredaz, R. 1047, 1055, 1058 – active 388, 2140
Virgil 864–5 – middle 552, 554, 556, 941–2, 1756, 1761,
Visigoths 879, 987–8 1763, 1769, 1772, 1995, 1998, 2006–7,
Vispered 473–4 2139–40, 2142, 2148
Vistula 876, 1397, 1415, 1417, 1600, 1698 – passive 616, 618, 671, 686, 869, 941,
Visuddhimagga 425 961, 1231, 2142–3, 2208
Vita Simeonis 1405 voiced affricates 649, 1462, 1465, 1601,
Viti, C. 398, 400, 2196–8, 2200, 2205, 2212, 1820
2215 voiced allophones 1193, 1976
Vltava 1418 voiced aspirated stops 333, 490, 890–1,
vocabulary 68–9, 85, 87, 409, 413, 721, 723, 1048, 1151, 1647–8, 1834, 2061
726, 974–6, 980, 1116–18, 1623, 1794, voiced aspirates 249, 252, 331, 333–4, 337,
1796, 1942; see also lexica 443, 490, 495–6, 744, 836, 1138–40, 1149,
– Armenian 1116–17, 1119 1152, 1189–90, 2062

Authenticated
General index 2383
voiced consonants 17, 334, 338, 441, 493, vowel grades 581, 1374, 2107, 2116
496, 505, 1153, 1592, 1597, 1603 vowel letters 35, 749, 1401, 1493
voiced fricatives 744, 747, 750, 836, 890–2, vowel losses 462, 584, 906
1190, 1201, 1278, 2062 vowel phonemes 1006, 1437, 1589, 1734,
voiced obstruents 1136, 1138, 1153–4, 1189– 1750, 1978
91, 1429, 1435, 1844, 2063, 2070 vowel reductions 769, 1043, 1281, 1590,
voiced occlusives 494, 496, 1865 1703, 2109, 2113
voiced plosives 725, 1267 vowel shifts 1009, 1456, 1476
voiced stops 249, 252, 332, 334, 744, 890, vowel stems 347, 506, 796–7
892, 1190, 1192–3, 1199–1201, 1507–8, vowel syncope 99, 419, 748, 2059
1647–8, 1961–2, 1975–6, 2062–3 vowel systems 94, 100, 187, 189, 449, 452–
– preceding 1287, 2033, 2062 3, 901–2, 992–3, 1009–10, 1309–10, 1455,
voiceless affricates 493, 1042, 1471 1476, 1588–9, 1602–3, 1608
voiceless aspirates 221, 223, 331–2, 490–1, vowel-final verb-bases 1760, 1766–7
639, 1051, 1879 vowel-liquid diphthongs 1437, 1486, 1488,
voiceless clusters 891, 1879 1503
voiceless consonants 1039, 1191, 1194, 1492, vowel-nasal diphthongs 1459
1592, 1597 vowels 325–32, 334–6, 448–53, 481–7, 633–
voiceless fricatives 490–1, 600, 747, 836, 4, 640–2, 904–7, 1153–4, 1189–91, 1196–
890, 1201 1201, 1453–61, 1485–91, 1586–91, 1640–
voiceless obstruents 338, 728, 1191, 1195, 2, 2056–9
1865 – accented, see accented vowels
voiceless sibilants 95, 331, 493 – adjacent 1424, 1427, 1608, 1767, 1803,
voiceless stops 221, 223, 249, 252, 334, 336, 2058
490–1, 639–40, 890, 892–3, 1149, 1151, – anaptyctic 483, 891, 1425, 1586
1199–1201, 1852–3, 1859 – central 437, 1304, 1420, 1616
– postvocalic 338, 609 – changes 266, 889, 975, 1708, 1736, 1752,
– Proto-Indo-European 252, 890, 1048 1762, 1853, 1858
voiceless velars 116, 494, 1430, 1833 – close 1425, 1457, 1460
voicing 249, 253, 255, 333–4, 337–8, 426–7, – contraction 123, 659, 783, 983, 2058
611, 745, 747, 839, 891, 1042, 1139, 1153, – epenthetic 316, 421–2, 483, 520, 2031
1192 – final, see final vowels
– assimilation 1069, 1435, 1492, 2064, – first 676, 1499, 2033
2070 – following 1006, 1048, 1138, 1153–4,
Volga 1419, 1582 1484–5, 1496, 1610
volition 930, 967, 1616 – front, see front vowels
von Bahder’s Law 891 – height 1003, 1006–8, 1482
von Harff, Arnold 1717 – high, see high vowels
von Hinüber, O. 315, 317, 320, 413, 428, – Indo-European 909, 1821
1904 – initial 42, 54, 672, 728, 774, 899, 1441,
von Humboldt, Wilhelm 76, 79, 171 1547, 1598, 1737
von Raumer, R. 145–6, 172 – jer 1398, 1405, 1588–9
von Roth, Rudolf 410 – length 27, 50, 304, 423, 726, 778, 910,
von Savigny, Friedrich Carl 179 1276, 1309–10, 1481, 1704, 1819, 1981,
von Strahlenberg, Philipp Johann 157 2031
Voskopoja 1720–1 – lengthened 933, 1496, 2083–4, 2086
Vossen, R. 116–17 – liaison 1127
Vossius, Gerardus Johannes 154 – linking 881, 1045, 1547
votive inscriptions 734, 1174, 1832, 1835–6 – long, see long vowels
vowel fronting 441, 1008, 1444, 1457, 1468– – long stem 507, 790
70, 1485 – low 644, 903, 992, 1709
vowel gradation 328–9, 335, 414, 2059 – mid 326, 642, 644, 1009, 1039, 1065–6,
– gaffes 448 1476, 1603–5, 1609, 2058

Authenticated
2384 General index
– mid front 644, 1047, 1309, 1480 – unstressed 19, 228, 1003, 1149, 1276,
– nasal 474, 1197, 1401–2, 1451, 1459–60, 1590, 1609–10, 1640, 1705, 1733, 1736–7,
1466, 1479, 1481–3, 1545, 1552, 1589, 1744, 1803–4
1684, 1700, 1703, 1804 – weakening 761, 774–5, 783, 786, 792,
– nasalized, see nasalized vowels 1308, 1747
– near-open 1457, 1493 – word-final 1737, 2083
– non-front 441, 1190, 1451, 1592 vowel-zero alternations 1495–6, 1603–4,
– non-high 335, 649–50, 1368, 1603 1606
– non-high short 441, 1977 v-perfects 790–1, 793
– non-reduced 1513, 1746–7 Vrindavan 430
– open 1081, 1447, 1483, 1641 Vulchanov, V. 1559
– oral 1481, 1609, 1643, 1804 Vullers, J. A. 568
– palatal 493, 613
– paragogic 1492, 1495 Wachter, Johann-Georg 42, 150, 157, 754,
– post-tonic 1609, 1737 2230
– preceding 303, 422, 452, 489, 531, 609, Wackernagel, Jacob 390–1, 393, 396, 1889–
644, 649, 906, 1194, 1284, 1439, 1446, 90, 1900, 1902, 1927, 1929, 1932–3, 2101,
1643, 2060 2103–4, 2114, 2140–1, 2167, 2202
– pretonic 1200, 1590, 1737 Wackernagel affixes 1669, 2007
– proclitic 1199–1200 Wackernagel clitics 2201–4
– prothetic 641, 1091, 1121, 1135, 1823 Wackernagel position 398, 559–60, 614, 965,
– Proto-Indo-European 20, 1422, 1966, 1210, 1361, 1566, 1675, 2202
2057–8 Wackernagel’s Law 274, 811, 1567, 1669,
– quality 440, 747, 749, 1153, 1479, 1604, 1829, 1928, 1932–4, 1936, 2202
1736, 1986 Walde, Alois 190, 215, 733, 852, 859
– quantity 347, 775, 864, 1171, 1640, 1706, Wales 442–3, 1177–9
2121 Wallace, R. 63, 804–5, 820, 822–3, 831, 842,
– reduced 99, 1280, 1514, 1587, 1598, 848, 852, 1243, 1834
2057, 2064 Walsh, M. 133
– root 192, 523, 676, 932, 1127, 1154, Walton, B. 150
1205, 1320, 1386, 1502, 1690, 1907 Wanderwörter 2286
– rounded 895, 1009, 1088, 1201, 1420, Warnow, Tandy 69–71, 1119, 1265, 2030,
1445–6, 1449, 1458, 1461, 1466, 1489, 2032
1812 Waser, Caspar 146
– short final 889, 909, 1704, 1708 Watkins, Calvert 63, 196, 214–15, 264–5,
– short high 1006, 1890 1214, 2030–1, 2042–4, 2046–9, 2102,
– short mid 450, 2057 2141–2, 2148–9, 2162, 2164, 2169, 2195
– stem 260, 507, 542, 783–4, 786, 790–1, weak adjectives 921–2, 983
794, 900, 931, 995, 1006–7, 1073, 1317, weak jers 1481, 1484–5, 1487, 1491–4,
1656, 1692 1496–7, 1511, 1513, 1604, 1606
– stressed 228, 746, 938–9, 1280, 1483, weak preterites 212, 913, 934–5, 942–4, 959,
1513–14, 1609, 1624, 1640, 1734, 1743, 989, 993, 2149
1760 weak pronouns 1560, 1772, 1782–5
– syncopated 1199, 1277 weak verbs 893, 897, 907, 909, 931, 935–40,
– tense 1009, 1480, 1483 943, 947, 960, 982, 993, 995, 1014–15,
– thematic 359, 529, 753–4, 940, 1346, 1211–14, 1287–8
1552–3, 1915–16, 2082, 2084, 2086–8, weather verbs 281, 556
2095–6, 2107–8, 2116–17, 2146–8, 2162–3 Weber, D. 427, 476, 612–13, 615, 618
– trimoric 908–11, 1981 Wechssler, E. 186
– ultrashort 1427, 1492 wedges 26, 49, 302, 1038, 1953
– unaccented 17, 1280, 1286, 1291 Weise, F. O. 832
– unitary 1481–2 Weise’s Law 1880
– unrounded 904, 1606 Weisgerber, Leo 79

Authenticated
General index 2385
Weiss, M. 752–9, 761–2, 765, 769–74, 778– Wodtko, D. S. 1171, 1176, 1203, 1205–6,
88, 790–1, 793–6, 836–40, 843–5, 848, 1215, 1250, 1252, 1255, 1258, 1260, 1266–
850–1, 2063–6, 2101–3, 2133–5, 2155–6 8, 1270, 1278, 2108, 2113
Weitenberg, J. J. S. 227, 1037, 1039, 1068, Wolfe, A. 1044
1083, 1133–8, 1151, 1155, 2062 Wolfenbütteler Postille 1625
Wenker, Georg 187 word accents 603, 725, 1320, 2082, 2121,
Wenzel, H. 387 2131
Werba, C. H. 609, 1883 word boundaries 250, 327, 651, 1171, 1191,
Werner, J. 143 1199–1200, 1456, 1608, 1855, 1876, 1977,
West Bengal 431, 439 2068, 2149
Western Iranian 603–4, 609–10 word classes 175, 377, 549, 682–3, 808,
954–5, 976–7, 1218, 1251, 1352, 1557–8,
western Ukraine 1414, 1607
1608, 1668, 1860, 2231
Wheeler’s Law 651
word families 3, 568, 570, 580–1, 586, 698,
wh-elements 1558, 1569, 1927–8, 1930–1,
702, 975, 977, 979–80
1933–4, 1938
word order 274, 398, 690, 819–20, 865–6,
Whitney, W. D. 184, 188, 397, 2120 954–5, 1016–17, 1109, 1360, 1566, 1674,
wh-movement 1569, 1924–6, 1928–31, 2202 1828–9, 1927, 1939, 2195–9
– multiple 1558, 1568 – fixed 1003, 1019
Whorf, Benjamin Lee 79 – free 865, 2010, 2198, 2204
wh-questions 562, 817, 1104, 1569 – normal 1354, 1360, 1924, 1936
wh-words 1104, 1568, 1927, 1930, 2100, – unmarked 398, 558, 1157, 1568, 1828
2200, 2202 word-final laryngeals 1318
Widmer, P. 300, 562, 1394, 1842, 2039, word-final position, absolute 1314, 1316
2098, 2107, 2205 word-final stops 338, 2149
Wiener, L. F. 184 word-final syllables 993, 1876
wild animals 1743, 1948, 1975, 2237 word-final vowels 1737, 2083
Wilkes, J. J. 1867 word-initial laryngeals 1317, 1977
Wilkins word-initial position, absolute 2059
– David 147 word-initial stops 609, 1151, 2073
– John 149 Wouk, F. 125
Will, Abel 1624, 1980 Wouters, A. 143
Willi, A. 784, 791–2, 850, 1270, 2141, 2149, Wrede, F. 997
2166, 2232, 2238 Wright
Willmott, J. 2144, 2147 – Joseph 213
Windfuhr, G. 49, 475–7, 567, 606, 1948 – William 94
Windisch, E. 160, 172 written boustrophedon 242, 246, 1817
written traditions 18, 106, 632, 698, 731,
Windischmann, Karl Joseph 1, 175
1080, 1414, 1419, 1602, 1668, 1723, 2003
Winter, Werner 11, 66–7, 1063–4, 1086,
Wulfila, Bishop 48, 879–80, 954, 960, 993
1300–1, 1304, 1306–9, 1321, 1389–93,
Wundt, Wilhelm 186
1507–8, 1648, 1690, 1961–2, 1978, 1993–4
Wydra, W. 1625
Winter’s Law 11, 1507–8, 1511, 1648, 1690,
1961–2, 1975, 1978, 1993–4, 1996 Xanthos 245, 292, 296
Wiotte-Franz, C. 143 Xenophon 698, 1120
Wipf, E. 1009, 1013–14 Xinjiang 599, 1298
Wissowa, Georg 210, 839 Xorenacʿʿi, Movsēs 1030
Witczak, K. T. 1540, 1858–9
Witsen, Nicolaas 147 Yajurveda 310–11, 339, 386, 418–19
Wittenberg Psalter 1407 Yakubovich, I. S. 10, 233, 299–302, 305, 567,
Witzel, Michael 310, 331, 411–12, 418–19, 2039, 2041, 2045, 2048, 2098, 2155, 2162
1948, 1950 Yalburt 242

Authenticated
2386 General index
Yamuna 418–19, 438 zero grade 345, 347, 506–7, 516, 530–1, 542,
Yāska 310, 314 789, 794, 1205–6, 1214–15, 1434, 1554–5,
Yasna 473–4, 477, 530, 601 1766–7, 1990, 2133–4
Yašts 473–4, 477, 1940 zero-grade ablaut 1907, 1989, 2135
Yates, A. D. 2122–3, 2125, 2129, 2135–6, zero-grade allomorphs 896, 1434, 2150
2160 zero-grade roots 359–60, 365–8, 370, 932,
Yemen 93 1213, 1903, 2109, 2164, 2166
yes-no questions 817–18, 1104, 1149, 1159 zero-grade suffixes 938, 1895, 2169
Ylli, X. 1732, 1793 Zeus 699, 1819, 1822–3, 1825, 1829, 1843,
yodization 1450, 1976 2043, 2233, 2271
Yoshida, Kazuhiko 228, 265, 2127, 2140, Zeuss, Johann Caspar 180, 2012
2144, 2152, 2155 Zgusta, L. 183, 296, 1147
Young, Thomas 181 Ziegler, S. 76, 1169, 1172, 1175–7, 1203,
Yuga Purāṇa 423 1276, 2217
Yugoslavia 631–2, 1724 Žilina Town Book 1407
Zimmer, Stefan 76–8, 81–2, 85, 196, 1255,
Zade, Muçi 1721 1258, 1354, 1360
Zadok, R. 569–70 Zinkevičius, Z. 1622, 1625–7, 1658, 1661–3,
Zair, N. A. S. 787, 791–3, 838, 1194–6, 2031, 1687, 1699, 1712, 1986–7, 1989
2033, 2065 Zinko, C. 254, 298, 300
Zaliznjak, A. A. 1406, 1467, 1500, 1614 Zohrab 1029
Zawadowski, L. 18 Zoller, Claus-Peter 438
Zeilfelder, Suzanne 256, 274, 281, 284, 298, Zone-Samothrace 1853, 1865
967 Zoroastrianism 51, 472–3, 476, 569, 575,
Zeller, O. 139, 145, 171 577–8, 583, 601, 603, 611, 617, 1370
Zemzare, D. 1628, 1686 z-stems 917, 1436
Ženjak-Negau 875 Zwicky, A. 2131

Authenticated
Languages and dialect index
Introductory note
References such as ‘1289’ indicate (not necessarily continuous) discussion of a topic
across a range of pages. For references to particular languages/dialects in relation to
particular topics, please see the General Index.
Abaza 106, 2285 – Standard 1724, 1750–1, 1760

Abkhaz 106, 2285 – Alemannic 910, 942, 944, 997
Abkhaz-Abaza 107 – Highest 1005, 1012–13, 1019
Abkhaz-Adyghe/Abkhaz-Circassian 2285 – Low 1012
Abruzzian 442 Altaic 188, 1369, 1580, 2286–7
Adyghe 2285 American English 8, 1009, 1015, 1492, 1791
Adyghej 106 Amharic 93, 146
Aenanian 712 Anatolian 11–12, 21–2, 24, 63–7, 69, 82,
Aeolic 640–2, 644–5, 648–52, 660, 692, 698, 190–1, 194, 215, 220–1, 224–5, 227, 231–
703, 712–14, 719–20, 1063, 1822, 1864, 4, 239–40, 242, 244, 246, 250, 252, 254–
1870, 2040, 2047, 2059, 2073, 2083 62, 264–7, 274, 276–8, 280–2, 284, 286,
– Asiatic 714 288, 292, 294, 296, 299–302, 304, 306,
Aequian 804 494, 772, 814, 842, 941, 984, 1116–17,
Aetolian 645, 712 1138, 1373, 1383, 1818, 1892, 1907, 1975–
Afrikaans 1004, 1014, 1017 7, 2037, 2041–3, 2045, 2049, 2061, 2064,
Afro-Asiatic 9, 978, 2280, 2283, 2286–7 2072, 2080, 2084–92, 2094–5, 2097–2102,
Aghul 108 2104, 2108–9, 2113, 2115–17, 2125, 2135,
Agulis 1138, 1147 2137–8, 2141–2, 2144, 2147, 2150–3,
Ainu 196, 2286–7 2156, 2158–9, 2161, 2163–6, 2168–70,
Akarnanian 712 2262
Akhaltskha 1149
– Common 281, 285, 293, 298–9, 304, 306
Akhwakh 108
– Southern 299, 301–4, 306
Akkadian 26–7, 93–4, 96, 294, 472, 2283
– Southwestern 299
Alanic 472, 476, 567, 571, 573, 575, 577–9,
– Western 246, 299
601, 603, 605, 1601
Ancient Egyptian 93
Albanian 12, 20–1, 24, 63–4, 69, 149, 160,
177, 182, 190, 215, 225, 838, 933, 977, Ancient Greek 85, 384, 631, 633–4, 649,
1046, 1049, 1051–3, 1056, 1060, 1064, 652, 683–4, 686–7, 690, 692, 695, 698,
1066, 1071, 1116, 1119, 1428, 1435–6, 700, 704, 725, 728, 730–1, 733, 913, 1169,
1583, 1616, 1653, 1716–24, 1732–4, 1736, 1315, 1564, 1775, 1781–2, 1784, 1791–2,
1738, 1740, 1742, 1744, 1746–52, 1754–8, 1814, 1980, 2069, 2102, 2108, 2118, 2120–
1760–2, 1764, 1766–8, 1770–86, 1788–96, 1, 2125, 2131, 2158, 2166, 2199, 2212
1800–2, 1804–8, 1812–14, 1893, 1914, Andi 108
1967, 1969–70, 2032, 2094–5, 2117, 2165, Aṅgika 431
2170, 2231, 2240–5, 2247, 2249–52, 2254– Anglian 882, 894, 903–4, 934, 996, 2086
64, 2266, 2270–5 Anglo-Saxon 42, 149–50, 174, 992
– Caucasian 106, 108–9 Apabhraṁśa 315, 318, 320–1, 428–9, 447,
– Common 1804–5, 1807 452, 456–68
– Modern 1719, 1732–4, 1736–7, 1739, – Dramatic 428
1741–2, 1790, 1795–6 Aquitanian 1254
– Standard 1723, 1732, 1750–2, 1754–60 Arabic 8, 1040, 1721
– Old 1732, 1734, 1737–8, 1740–2, 1744–5 Aragonese 867
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-048

Authenticated
2388 Languages and dialect index
Aramaic 33–4, 50–1, 93–4, 96, 155, 172, Asiatic Aeolic 714
315, 421, 423, 472, 476, 2283 Assamese 56
Arandic 131 Astori 436
Ararat 1138–9 Attic 641–5, 648, 650–2, 654, 657–8, 660–2,
Arbanas 1812 665–6, 668–70, 676–8, 681, 686, 692, 704,
Arbëresh 1722, 1802, 1806–7, 1812 706, 712–15, 717, 719–22, 724, 729, 890,
Arcadian 644, 648, 654, 674, 679, 712, 714– 902, 2212
15, 719 – Classical 642, 685, 687
Arcado-Cypriot 640–2, 645, 648–9, 712–13, – Great 721
715, 2156 Attic-Ionic 640, 642–5, 657, 692, 703–6,
Archaic Greek 682–3, 685, 690, 692, 698 712, 715
Archaic Latin 819, 1117, 1837, 2086 Aukštaitian 1625–6, 1684, 1700–5
Archi 108 – East 1625, 1702, 1704
Ardhamāgadhī 315, 318–20, 425–7, 447 – West 1625–6, 1685, 1701, 1703, 1713
Aresh 1154 Austro-Asiatic 309, 412–13, 448
Argive 644 Austronesian 121–6, 2093, 2122, 2280, 2286
Argolic 642, 644 Austronesian morphology 123
Armenian 12, 15, 20–2, 24, 48, 64, 106, 160, Avadhi 321, 430
181, 185, 190, 476, 574, 579–80, 587, 600, Avestan 51, 88, 175, 212, 228, 344, 351,
603, 611, 629, 639, 696, 775, 812, 836, 374, 463, 471–3, 475, 484–5, 491, 493–4,
842, 869, 1010, 1028–42, 1044, 1046–8, 497, 499, 503, 506, 553, 555, 562, 574,
1050, 1052–4, 1056–8, 1060, 1062, 1064, 585, 601–2, 605, 609, 811, 922, 1072,
1066–8, 1070–2, 1080, 1082, 1084–6, 1121, 1368, 1583, 1781–2, 1883–5, 1895–
1088, 1090, 1092, 1094, 1098, 1100–2, 6, 1904, 1906, 1912, 1915, 1940, 1969,
1104, 1106, 1108, 1110, 1112, 1114–28, 2086, 2091, 2111, 2150, 2153, 2205, 2211
1134–8, 1140, 1146–8, 1150–1, 1154, – Middle 475, 601
1156–62, 1555, 1564, 1781, 1791, 1813– – Old 267, 333–4, 346, 349, 351, 355–7,
14, 1873, 1914, 1970, 2061–2, 2087, 2116– 360–3, 367–9, 473, 475, 477, 484–5, 487,
17, 2170, 2246 489–90, 496, 504–43, 551, 556–8, 560,
– Cilician 1033, 1123, 1147–8, 1155–6 562, 569, 576, 580, 584–5, 601–2, 669,
– Classical 86, 293, 603, 806, 810, 813, 671, 702, 921, 927, 1058, 1066, 1069,
819–20, 826, 1029, 1032–5, 1037–41, 1088, 1256–7, 1755, 1807, 1876–84, 1893,
1043–5, 1048–9, 1068–9, 1071, 1087, 1896, 1903, 1906, 1910–11, 1925, 1930–2,
1098, 1100–2, 1104–9, 1111–13, 1122, 1934, 1940, 1943–9, 1951–7, 2084–91,
1124, 1126–7, 1134–6, 1138–9, 1147, 1149, 2098, 2104, 2110–12, 2117, 2134, 2143–4,
1152, 1154–8, 1161–2, 1229, 1501, 2141 2148–56, 2161–2, 2235, 2240, 2247–8,
– Common 1147, 1152–3 2252–3, 2260, 2262, 2264–5, 2267, 2273,
– Eastern 21, 1035–6, 1123, 1136, 1149 2275
– Iranian 1150–1, 1159 – Young 374, 471, 473, 475, 484, 495, 498,
– Medieval 1037 504, 601, 702, 842, 1072, 1925, 1940
– Middle 1033, 1133–4, 1147–8, 1155–8, Awar 108
1160 Awaro-Andian 108
– Modern 1029, 1035, 1132–4, 1147, Axalcxa 1150
1155–9 Azeri 106, 1150
– Post-Classical 1037, 1039–40, 1043, 1068
– Standard Western 580, 1148–52, 1155–6 Bactrian 39, 194, 472, 476, 485, 489–90,
– Teheran 1159–60 494–5, 559, 567, 569–74, 576–7, 583–7,
– Western, see Western Armenian 601–4, 610–16, 1880–1, 1884
Aromanian 1721, 1772, 1774, 1777, 1785 Badhani 438
Arvanitika 1784, 1801, 1806–7 Badra dialect 568
– Southern 1808 Bagheli 430
Asamiya 321, 429, 439–40 Bagwalal 108
Ashkun 443–4, 571–2, 578 Bajjika 430–1

Authenticated
Languages and dialect index 2389
Balkan Řomani 442 Bengali 56, 156, 173, 869, 1573

Balkar 106 Berber 93, 861, 2283
Balochi 476, 491, 493, 577, 609–13, 615–19 Berbice 871
– Eastern 610, 615, 618 Bezhta 108
– Karachi 610 BFi, see Baltic Finnic
Baltic 10, 62, 145, 182, 190, 762, 975, 979, Bhili dialects 431–2
988, 1116–17, 1119, 1415–16, 1422, 1544– Bhojpuri 321, 430–1
5, 1555, 1575, 1600, 1622, 1624, 1626, – Nagpuria 430
1628, 1630, 1640–50, 1652, 1654–6, 1658– – Northern 430
62, 1668–72, 1674, 1676, 1678, 1680–92, Biblical Gothic 880, 991, 993
1700, 1702, 1704, 1706, 1708, 1710, 1712, Bihari 429–31
1714, 1960, 1962–3, 1965–70, 1978, 1986, Bisnupur Manipuri 439
1988, 1990, 1994–8, 2001, 2003–4, 2006– Boeotian 643–9, 659, 665–7, 675, 678, 681,
10, 2012, 2017–19, 2021, 2089, 2091, 712–14, 719, 1062, 2165, 2241
2102, 2141, 2165, 2237 Bohemian 149
– Common 1670–1, 1674–5, 1677, 1683, Bohemian Řomani 442
1691–2, 1712, 2014 Bosnian 1583, 1603
– East 1640–4, 1654, 1684, 1686–8, 1691, Bosnian and Montenegrin 1583
1963, 1968–9, 1974, 1977–9, 1982, 1985– Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian 1414, 1437, 1449,
94, 1997, 2018 1451, 1453, 1482, 1484–5, 1489, 1494,
– Modern 1672, 2009 1496, 1500–2, 1514, 1602–9, 1614–16
– West 1640–2, 1687, 1691–3, 1699–1700, Botlikh 108
1968–9, 1974, 1985, 2017–18 Brāhmī, Southern 440
Baltic Finnic (BFi) 1415, 1458, 1478, 1480, Braj 430, 462, 468
1482, 1488 Breton 148–9, 962, 1177, 1179, 1189, 1203,
Balto-Finnic 1645, 1686, 1706, 1712–13, 1205–6, 1210, 1215, 1224–5, 1227–9,
2010 1232–4, 1236, 1239, 1250, 1255, 1270,
Balto-Slavic 11, 20, 22–3, 63–5, 68–9, 183, 1275–6, 1282, 1285, 1288–9, 1583
190, 260, 494, 754, 770, 774, 796, 847, – Middle 1179, 1189, 1193, 1203, 1224–5,
925, 938, 983, 1119–20, 1397, 1544, 1547, 1227–9, 1232–4, 1236, 1239, 1255
1571–2, 1575–6, 1578, 1776, 1893, 1960– – Vannetais 1275, 1282
71, 1974–8, 1980, 1982, 1985–98, 2001–2, Britannic 151
2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016– British Celtic 1175, 1250, 1259
18, 2020, 2030, 2061, 2069, 2086–9, 2091, Brittonic 1177, 1218, 1223–9, 1232–3, 1235–
2110, 2125, 2133, 2142, 2147, 2149, 2169 6, 1238–42, 1245, 1264–5, 1268–70, 1275–
Banarasi 430 6, 1280–92, 2032–4
Bandari 476 – Common 1275, 1283, 1285, 1287, 1292
Baṅgaṇi 438 Bronze-Age Greek 2040–1, 2045
Bangla 321, 429, 439–40 Brythonic 988, 1169, 1177, 1179
Bantu 116–18 Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit 320, 410, 413,
Bardes Christian Konkan 433 1366, 1370–1
Bashkardi 476 Buddhist Sogdian 570–2, 576, 581–3, 586,
Basque 106–7, 144, 148, 156–7, 191, 442, 604, 618, 1369
859, 861, 867, 978, 1254 Bukharan 603
Basque-Cantabrian 149 Bulgarian 23–4, 49, 144, 579, 868, 1058,
Bats 108 1403–4, 1414, 1421, 1558–9, 1562–7,
Bavarian 883, 893, 956, 997, 1012 1569, 1573–6, 1579, 1583, 1589–93, 1595,
– North 1012 1598, 1602–6, 1608–9, 1611, 1614–16,
Belarusian 49, 1405, 1414, 1416, 1602–10, 1721, 1772, 1774, 1777–8, 1783, 1785,
1613, 1617 1813–14, 2014–16, 2019, 2259
Belgian 151–2 – Eastern 1589–90
Belorussian 1572, 1574–5, 1582–3, 1595–8, – Middle 1404, 1422, 1428, 1436, 1456,
1685, 1964, 1991 1462, 1470, 1475, 1481, 1501, 1512, 1592

Authenticated
– Old 49, 212, 1399 1230–1, 1235, 1240–1, 1243, 1250, 1252,
– West 1472, 1479–80, 1489, 1496, 1589 1256, 1259–60, 1264–5, 1270, 1275, 1283,
Burgundian 880, 987, 991, 997–8 1288
Burmese 413 – Insular 9, 21, 25, 837, 841–2, 1169, 1189,
Burushaski 10, 412, 436, 1949, 2286 1193, 1203, 1205–10, 1213, 1215, 1218,
Bushman 2286 1225–7, 1229–33, 1235, 1238, 1240–1,
Byzantine Greek 605, 1683 1244, 1250–5, 1258–60, 1264, 1269–70,
1275, 1283, 1289, 1291, 2033, 2102
Čakavian 1414, 1500, 1549, 1589, 1981 – Nuclear 1264, 1266–8
Calabrian 442 – Transalpine 1218–28, 1230–3, 1235–6,
Cambodian 413 1240–4, 1264–70
Canaanite 93, 96 Celto-Germanic 155–6
Cāndālī 427 Celto-Scythic 155–6
Cao Bang 2063 Central Cretan 642, 644–5, 647
Cape Verde Portuguese 871 Central Gangetic Indo-Aryan 429–30
Carian 43, 45, 194, 239, 245, 258–9, 299– Central Ionic 641, 712
300, 302–4, 306, 2097 Central Livonian 1706
Cassubian/Cashubian, see Kashubian Central Pahari 437–8
Castilian 862, 867 Central Řomani 442
Catalan 144, 492, 862, 867, 869 Central Semitic (CS) 93, 96, 1606–8, 1610–
Caucasian 13, 1615–16, 2067–8
– East 106–9, 2280, 2285 Chadic 93, 117, 2283
– North 107, 619, 2285 Chamalal 108
– South 87, 106–7, 109, 1123, 2284 Chamorro 2122, 2133
– West 106–7, 109, 1255, 2280, 2285 Chechen 107, 869, 2285
Caucasian Albanian 106, 108–9 Cherkes-Kabardian 107
Celtiberian 24, 46, 144, 151, 161, 221, 733, Chhattisgarhi 430
842–3, 861, 1170–1, 1188–9, 1191–8, Chiliso Gabar 436
1203–7, 1212, 1215, 1218, 1221, 1223–5, Chinese 26, 156, 159, 173, 413, 476, 604,
1227–8, 1230–1, 1235, 1240–3, 1250–60, 862, 1301, 1369–71, 1580, 2286
1275, 2032–4, 2101 Choresmian 194, 472, 476, 555, 603–4, 609,
Celtic 9–11, 20–1, 23, 25, 46, 62–4, 69–70, 611–12, 615–19, 1915
145, 149–53, 155–6, 158, 160, 178, 180–2, – Middle 604
190–1, 194, 196, 228–9, 494, 743, 754, Chukotko-Kamchatkan 2287
764, 774, 781, 785–6, 811, 836–8, 840–2, Church Slavic/Slavonic 212, 868, 1072,
847, 860–1, 868, 889, 923, 975, 978, 981, 1323, 1398–9, 1405–7, 1419, 1449, 1539,
988, 1116, 1119, 1168–70, 1172, 1174, 1558, 1561, 1757, 1997
1176, 1178, 1180, 1188–90, 1192, 1194–6, Chwaresmian 485, 494–6, 567, 570–2, 574–
1198, 1200, 1204, 1206–8, 1210, 1212–14, 5, 577, 579, 581–3, 586–7
1216, 1220, 1222, 1224, 1226, 1228, 1230, Cilician 1133, 1147
1232, 1234, 1236, 1238, 1240, 1242, 1244, Cilician Armenian 1033, 1123, 1147–8,
1246, 1250, 1252–60, 1265–6, 1268, 1270– 1155–6
1, 1276, 1278, 1280, 1282, 1284, 1286, Cimbrian 148, 152, 988, 1012–13, 1015,
1288, 1290, 1292, 1415–16, 1578, 1583, 1019
1845, 1861, 1975–6, 2030–5, 2087–8, Cisalpine Celtic 1218–20, 1237, 1239, 1241–
2091, 2094, 2096, 2104, 2146, 2149, 2165– 4, 1264, 1267–8
6, 2231, 2237 Cisalpine Gaulish 42, 1172–5, 1218, 1265,
– British 1175, 1250, 1259 1267
– Cisalpine 1218–20, 1237, 1239, 1241–4, Civil Armenian 1147–9
1264, 1267–8 Classical Armenian 86, 293, 603, 806, 810,
– Continental 221, 1169, 1189, 1194, 1203– 813, 819–20, 826, 1029, 1032–5, 1037–41,
5, 1207, 1209, 1219–21, 1223–6, 1228, 1043–5, 1048–9, 1068–9, 1071, 1087,

Authenticated
1098, 1100–2, 1104–9, 1111–13, 1122, Courland, Tamian of 1706, 1708–9

1124, 1126–7, 1134–6, 1138–9, 1147, 1149, Cretan 644, 657, 670, 676, 678, 681, 712–13,
1152, 1154–8, 1161–2, 1229, 1501, 2141 1367, 1870
Classical Attic 642, 685, 687 – Central 642, 644–5, 647
Classical Greek 626, 634, 654, 668, 671, – Gortynian 2084
674, 686, 691–4, 698, 722 Crimean Gothic 146, 880, 888, 903, 998
Classical Latin 180, 497, 696, 752, 797, 863– Croatian 862, 1403, 1558, 1561, 1565–7,
5, 867, 869–70, 1117, 1291, 1747 1583, 1589–93, 1598, 1603, 2016
Classical Old Irish 1176 Cumbrian 1178, 1250
Classical Sanskrit 139, 344, 348, 352, 355, Cuneiform Luvian 29, 224, 239, 242, 247,
357, 369, 372–4, 378, 387, 399, 410–11, 257, 259–60, 274–6, 279–85, 287, 299,
413, 418–20, 422–4, 427–8, 448, 453, 301–3, 2048
2118, 2167 Cupeño 2122–4, 2127, 2129
Classical Tocharian B 1365, 1382 Curonian 1622, 1652, 1699, 1703, 1705–6,
Common Albanian 1804–5, 1807 1708, 1713
Common Anatolian 281, 285, 293, 298–9, – North 1699–1700
304, 306 – South 1699
Common Armenian 1147, 1152–3 Cushitic 93, 2283
Common Baltic 1670–1, 1674–5, 1677, Cyprian 654, 674, 679, 700
1683, 1691–2, 1712, 2014 Cypriot 644, 648, 650, 684, 712, 714, 719
Common Brittonic 1275, 1283, 1285, 1287, Cyrenaean 642, 644, 657, 677
1292 Czech 146, 183, 215, 582, 1407, 1414, 1419,
Common Celtic 1168, 1170, 1194, 1196–8, 1421, 1430, 1433, 1437, 1443, 1448–9,
1250, 1275, 1277, 1286–8 1456, 1461, 1463, 1471–2, 1480, 1482–6,
Common Germanic 977, 979 1493, 1495, 1497–8, 1501–2, 1504–6,
– Late 976–7 1509–10, 1514, 1546, 1558, 1564–6, 1572–
Common Greek 629, 713, 719 6, 1578, 1580–3, 1586, 1591–6, 1598,
Common Indo-European 629 1602–3, 1605–9, 1615, 1976, 1981, 1983,
Common Italic 743–4, 748, 806, 808, 830 2005, 2014–16, 2020, 2252, 2255
Common Kartvelian 107, 2284 – Old 1053, 1056, 1418–20, 1425–6, 1429–
Common Lycian 301 30, 1433, 1436, 1439, 1442, 1447–9, 1453–
Common Slavic 16, 897, 1414–17, 1423, 4, 1458–9, 1462–4, 1470, 1475, 1478,
1430–1, 1433, 1435–6, 1439–40, 1442, 1480, 1483, 1489, 1491, 1502, 1504–9,
1446, 1449, 1451–2, 1461, 1467, 1469, 1553, 1555, 1885, 1979, 2010, 2267
1474, 1479, 1481, 1488, 1498, 1500–3, Czecho-Slovak 1414, 1419–20, 1456, 1463,
1506, 1510–11, 1571, 1602–3, 1606, 1611, 1471–2, 1474–6, 1478, 1482, 1484, 1486,
1617, 2245, 2252, 2255, 2262, 2269, 2271 1488–90, 1497, 1602, 1606
– Early 1414, 1437
Common Southern Anatolian 306 Daco-Getian 1852
Common Tocharian 1298, 1304, 1308, 1310– Daco-Moesian 1852
16, 1318–29, 1335–43, 1345–6, 1348–50, Daco-Romanian 1772, 1774, 1777, 1785
1389, 1948 Daghestanian 108, 869
Continental Celtic 221, 1169, 1189, 1194, Dainavian 1699
1203–5, 1207, 1209, 1219–21, 1223–6, Dakhini 430
1228, 1230–1, 1235, 1240–1, 1243, 1250, Dalmatian 149, 862, 1477
1252, 1256, 1259–60, 1264–5, 1270, 1275, Dameli 435
1283, 1288 Danish 174–5, 1015, 1018, 1583, 1813
Corinthian 642, 647, 652 Dardic 429, 435–7, 443, 600
Cornish 1179, 1205–6, 1215, 1228, 1270, Dashwa 436
1282, 1285, 1288–9 Delphian 648–9
– Middle 1189, 1203, 1224–5, 1227, 1229– Deśi 432
30, 1232, 1236–7, 1239, 1243, 1288, 1292 Dhakkī 427
Corsican 868 Dhivehi 38, 440–1

Authenticated
Dhundhari 431 East Ionic 640–2, 712, 2047

Digor 484, 569–74, 576–7, 579, 581, 583–5, East Iranian 1601, 1884
587 East Middle Iranian 603
Doabi 434 East Slavic 1397–8, 1405–6, 1414, 1420,
Dogri 434, 437 1423, 1447, 1449–50, 1453, 1455–6, 1463–
Domari 441–3 5, 1471, 1473–4, 1478, 1480, 1482–5,
– Palestinian 442 1487, 1490, 1494–8, 1501–2, 1514, 1558,
Doric 639, 641, 643–5, 649–50, 652, 657–8, 1560, 1564, 1578, 1580, 1585–6, 1588,
666–7, 669–70, 675–6, 681, 700, 712–15, 1593, 1596–7, 1601–2, 1604–9, 1612,
723, 784, 832, 890, 1048, 1050–2, 1055–7, 1614–16, 1675, 1684–5, 1699, 1712–13,
1061, 1063, 1065, 1067, 1739, 1792, 1822, 1981, 2006, 2018
1863, 1954, 2041, 2064, 2084, 2122, 2149, – Old, see Old East Slavic
2250 East Tocharian 1308, 1367, 1373, 1387
– East Aegean 642, 644 Eastern and Southern Nilotic 116
– Island 712 Eastern Armenian 21, 1035–6, 1123, 1136,
– Northwest 1864 1149
Doric-Northwest Greek 712–13 – Modern 1042
Dramatic Apabhraṁśa 428 Eastern Balochi 610, 615, 618
Dramatic Prakrits 426–8 Eastern Bulgarian 1589–90
Dramatic Śaurasenī 426 Eastern Celtic 1270
Dravidian 10, 196, 309, 316, 412–13, 439, Eastern High Lithuanian 1677
441, 448–9, 869, 2286 Eastern Hindi 430
Ḍumāki 441, 443 Eastern Inscriptional Middle Indic 422–3,
Dutch 153, 393, 1059, 1061 441
Dzūkian 1702–3 Eastern Iranian 577, 609–13, 615, 619, 1091,
1601, 1884
Early Common Slavic 1414, 1437–8, 1442, Eastern Magahi 431
1445–6, 1455–6, 1469, 1473 Eastern Pahari 429, 437–8
Early Germanic 20, 221, 875, 963, 984, 990, Eastern Samur 108
996, 1004, 1006 Eastern South Slavic 1399, 1403, 1414,
early Indo-Aryan 29, 309–10, 448 1447–9, 1453, 1462, 1464–5, 1471–2,
Early Latin 818, 846, 876, 1903, 2032 1474, 1479, 1481, 1484, 1490, 1496, 1501–
Early Lepontic 1172–3, 2032 2, 1981
Early New High German 1013 Eastern Vedic 419–20
Early Old Iranian 1193, 1196, 1277–8 Eblaite 93
Early Old Irish 1169, 1176, 1193, 1196, Egyptian, Ancient 93
1277–8, 1283 Ekavian 1591
Early Old Welsh 1178 Elamite 49–50, 421, 472, 492, 494, 510,
Early Tocharian 1393 522–3, 532, 540
Early Vedic 385–90, 392, 395–7, 1915, 2211 Elban 868
Early West Germanic 881, 969, 1013 Elbe Germanic 987
East Aukštaitian 1625, 1702, 1704 Elean 647, 650, 674, 712–13, 1070, 2085
East Baltic 1640–4, 1654, 1684, 1686–8, Empire Luwian 302
1691, 1963, 1968–9, 1974, 1977–9, 1982, Engadinian, Lower 868
1985–94, 1997, 2018 English 4, 8–10, 23, 76, 82, 102, 143, 174,
East Caucasian 106–9, 2280, 2285 176, 181–2, 190, 195, 213, 391, 410, 443,
East Frankish 893 449, 529, 700, 733–4, 790, 806, 814, 821,
East Germanic 48, 875, 879–80, 916, 918, 823–4, 847, 868, 870, 872, 881–2, 893,
920, 987, 990, 992–5, 997–8, 1004, 1457, 908–10, 914, 916, 928, 940–3, 946, 954,
1466 958, 979, 989, 1003, 1005, 1009–12, 1014–
East Greek 678, 712, 714, 717, 719 19, 1035, 1072, 1102, 1105, 1110, 1112,
East High Lithuanian 1654 1116, 1123, 1132, 1150, 1155, 1159, 1161,
East Indo-Aryan 429, 431, 439 1177, 1282, 1288–9, 1314, 1323, 1325,

Authenticated
1365–9, 1371, 1378, 1384–5, 1398, 1492, 1282, 1285, 1289–90, 1298, 1300, 1389,
1558, 1563, 1583, 1612, 1676, 1750, 1778, 1399, 1440, 1562, 1573, 1583, 1769, 1791,
1791, 1801, 1805, 1814, 1866, 1927, 1979, 1826, 1866
1986, 1995, 2001, 2009, 2013, 2071, 2107, – Karifuna 871
2118, 2136, 2210, 2214, 2216, 2283 Frisian
– American 8, 1009, 1015, 1492, 1791 – North 893, 1009, 1012
– Old, see Old English – Old 882, 890–1, 893–5, 903, 908, 910,
Epic Sanskrit 344, 374, 389, 396, 420, 457, 917–18, 920, 925, 946, 954, 968, 994,
462–3 996–7, 1039, 1047, 1072
Epirotic 712 – Old West 940
Eretrian Greek 839 Fula 116
Eṟṟaguḍi 316
Eskimo-Aleut 196, 2286–7 Gabar 436
Estonian 1480, 1482, 1488, 1596, 1686, 2281 – Chiliso 436
Ethiopian 93–5, 159, 172–3 Gaelic, Scottish 1177, 1179–80, 1270, 1277,
Ethiopian Semitic 93, 96 1287
Etruscan 41–2, 146, 151, 173, 196, 227, 736, Galatian 1169, 1174, 1250–8, 1260, 1270
738–9, 743, 748, 775, 804, 828, 830–2, Galindian 1622
839, 852, 859, 861, 1191, 1254, 1289, 1832 Gallo-Latin 1174, 1192–3, 1196, 1275
– North 1172–4 Gāndhārī 54, 316–17, 422–4
Euboean 641, 644 Garhwali 438
European Řomani 431 Gāthic dialect 601
Gaulish 24, 64, 151, 221, 733, 859, 862, 988,
Faliscan 41–2, 659, 733–4, 736, 738, 744,
1169, 1172–4, 1189, 1191–3, 1197, 1203–7,
747, 751–2, 754, 759, 761, 765, 769–70,
1212, 1215, 1250, 1252–4, 1257–8, 1260,
772–4, 776, 784, 787–93, 795, 804, 829,
1287, 1290, 1892, 2032–4
831, 836, 839, 843–4, 846, 851–3, 860–1,
– Celt-Iberian 1275
863, 2032–3, 2086, 2151
– Cisalpine 42, 1172–5, 1218, 1265, 1267
– Old 754, 773, 781, 789, 792–3, 796
– Late 1174–5
Falisco-Latin 860–1
Faroese 1011, 1013 – Middle 1174–5
Fārs 476, 602, 610, 613 Geg 1717–21, 1724, 1732, 1734, 1736,
Fennic 99–100 1738–42, 1744, 1749–50, 1753, 1762,
Finnic 876, 1596, 1609, 1641, 1671–2, 1674, 1766, 1768–9, 1772, 1776–7, 1779, 1785,
1963, 1970, 2001–2, 2004–5, 2007, 2010, 1788–90, 1792, 1800–7, 1812–14, 2032,
2017 2242, 2266
Finnish 99, 149, 156, 172, 442, 979, 988, – Eastern Central 1806
1012, 1478, 1488, 1596, 1684, 1794, 1963, – Northeastern 1805, 1807
2004, 2281 – Northern 1724, 1792, 1806, 1814
Finnish Řomani 442 – Northwestern 1717, 1807
Finno-Ugrian 172, 191, 196, 1416 – Old 1064, 1732, 1742, 1744–5, 1749–50,
Finno-Ugric 86–7, 99, 101, 145, 147, 154, 1753, 1762, 1768–9, 1789–90, 2250–1,
157, 188, 876, 1353, 1949, 2280 2261
Franconian 883 – Southern 1720–1, 1724, 1801, 1805
– Old Low 883, 893, 917, 996–7 Georgian 87, 89, 106–7, 618, 869, 1123,
– South Rhenish 883 1159, 2093, 2280, 2284
Frankish 149, 892 German
– East 893 – High, see High German
French 144, 147, 150, 152–3, 156, 158, 160, – Low 893, 996, 1072
181, 186–7, 189–91, 213, 222, 438, 492, – Middle High 883, 896, 917–18, 925, 940,
559, 733, 747, 821, 866–72, 892, 1032–3, 958–9, 967, 1014, 1049, 1054, 1576, 1579–
1047, 1071–2, 1123, 1149–51, 1159–60, 80, 1583, 1686, 2236, 2245, 2254, 2256,
1169, 1174–5, 1179, 1255, 1265, 1275, 2260

Authenticated
– Middle Low 881, 960, 1685 Gothic 152, 155–6, 158, 173, 176, 179, 212,
– New High 958, 976 221, 362, 369, 663, 668–9, 674, 679, 814,
– Old High, see Old High German 875, 879–81, 883, 891–2, 894, 900, 902–6,
– Pennsylvania 1004, 1016 908–9, 911, 913, 921, 927–8, 931–2, 937–
– Swiss 1011 8, 940–3, 945, 954, 959–61, 976, 979, 981,
– Upper 892–3, 1008 983, 987, 993–5, 998, 1003–4, 1006, 1012–
Germanic 9, 22–3, 42, 62–3, 68–9, 100, 102, 13, 1016–18, 1049–66, 1069–71, 1086,
144–5, 149–53, 155–6, 171–2, 174–5, 178– 1089, 1116, 1251, 1257, 1259, 1323, 1326,
9, 182–3, 185, 190, 194, 196, 212, 230, 1366, 1368, 1583, 1585, 1588, 1642, 1648,
264, 494, 573, 743, 774, 776, 781, 790, 1822, 1826, 1876, 1880, 1884, 1893, 1966–
836–9, 859, 862, 875–6, 878, 880–3, 889– 7, 1969, 1993–5, 2005, 2013, 2015, 2058–
90, 892, 894, 896–902, 904–9, 913–14, 9, 2065, 2068, 2071–3, 2083–4, 2086–9,
916–18, 920, 922, 924–32, 934, 936–42, 2091, 2095, 2100, 2102–5, 2108–9, 2113,
944–7, 955–62, 964, 966–8, 974–84, 986, 2115, 2117, 2148–52, 2154, 2156, 2160,
988–96, 998, 1003–12, 1014–16, 1018–20, 2163–5, 2167, 2169, 2215, 2217, 2232,
1098, 1116, 1119–20, 1190, 1254, 1256–7, 2234–7, 2240–73, 2275
1289, 1312, 1321, 1371, 1378, 1397, 1416, – Biblical 993
1418, 1426, 1432, 1436, 1466, 1488, 1576– – Crimean 146, 880, 888, 903, 998
83, 1683, 1685, 1687, 1966–7, 1969–70, Gotho-Nordic 995
1981, 1985–8, 1990, 1994–6, 1998, 2012– Grabar 1029, 1033, 1042, 1134, 1148
13, 2031, 2084, 2086–8, 2091, 2094, 2102– Great Attic 721
3, 2111, 2200, 2204, 2231, 2234, 2237 Greater Himalayan Indo-Aryan 429, 437
– Common 977, 979 Greek 11–12, 20, 22–3, 45–7, 142–7, 149–
53, 155, 158–60, 172–3, 175–6, 179–80,
– Early 20, 221, 875, 963, 984, 990, 996,
190–2, 221–2, 224–30, 232–3, 245–6, 347,
1004, 1006
349, 449, 625–30, 632–5, 638–42, 646,
– East 48, 875, 879–80, 916, 918, 920, 987,
650–2, 654, 656–60, 662–4, 670, 674–6,
990, 992–5, 997–8, 1004, 1457, 1466
678, 680, 682–4, 686, 688–90, 692–4, 696–
– Elbe 987
8, 700–8, 710–14, 717–28, 730–1, 735–6,
– North 875–6, 878, 881, 891–2, 899–900,
739–40, 743–6, 753–5, 764–8, 772–81,
902–3, 905–6, 908–11, 918, 920, 922, 937–
784–7, 789–90, 831–2, 836–8, 861–2, 957–
8, 940, 943, 946–7, 979, 987, 994–5, 997, 8, 1031, 1038–40, 1043–4, 1046–71, 1083–
1003, 1008, 1013, 1580 9, 1091–2, 1094–5, 1116–17, 1119–20,
– North and East 916, 918, 920 1122–6, 1147, 1309–12, 1314–18, 1321–8,
– North and West 889, 894, 901, 903–4, 1415–17, 1585–6, 1750, 1780–5, 1816–29,
908, 911, 914, 932, 934, 943, 995, 1006, 1841–4, 1853–5, 1863–7, 1873, 1942–3,
1017 1945–9, 1954–6, 1975–7, 1995–7, 2008–9,
– North Sea 987, 996–7, 1015 2031–4, 2040–9, 2057–61, 2063–7, 2069–
– Northwest 903, 909, 976, 992, 995, 1006 74, 2082–97, 2100–17, 2119–22, 2127–30,
– West 875, 877, 881–2, 891–4, 900–1, 2132–4, 2136, 2140–57, 2159–70, 2199–
904–5, 908–10, 913–14, 918, 921–2, 927, 2202, 2204–7, 2214, 2229, 2231–3,
929, 931–3, 937–8, 943, 954, 960, 967–9, 2235–76
976–7, 991–2, 994–7, 1004–5, 1007–9, – Ancient 85, 384, 631, 633–4, 649, 652,
1012–14, 1016, 1458, 1466, 1488, 1582 683–4, 686–7, 690, 692, 695, 698, 700,
Ghodoberi 108 704, 725, 728, 730–1, 733, 913, 1169,
Gilaki 610, 612–13, 617–19 1315, 1564, 1775, 1781–2, 1784, 1791–2,
Gilyak 2287 1814, 1980, 2069, 2102, 2108, 2118, 2120–
Goa Hindu Konkani 433 1, 2125, 2131, 2158, 2166, 2199, 2212
Goidelic 23, 1169, 1189–91, 1203, 1219, – Archaic 682–3, 685, 690, 692, 698
1250, 1264–5, 1268, 1270, 1276, 1280, – Bronze-Age 2040–1, 2045
1283–4, 1286, 1288, 1291 – Byzantine 605, 1683
Gorkha 438 – Classical 626, 634, 654, 668, 671, 674,
Gortynian Cretan 2084 686, 691–4, 698, 722

Authenticated
– Common 629, 713, 719 Hieroglyphic Luvian/Luwian 191, 221, 225,

– Eretrian 839 232, 239, 242, 244–5, 252–4, 257, 259,
– Hellenistic 652, 717–18 264–5, 282, 292, 295, 299, 301–3, 1066,
– Homeric 309, 930, 932, 1072, 1768, 1123, 1368, 2049, 2064, 2086–90, 2113,
1775, 2038, 2091, 2147, 2158, 2167, 2200, 2162–3, 2264, 2267–8
2209, 2211 High German 882, 892, 910, 925, 954, 979,
– Koine 642, 696, 718, 721–4, 727, 992, 994–5, 1008
1765, 1863–4 – Early New 1013
– Medieval 717, 726, 1783 – New 958, 976
– Middle 1737, 1791 – Old, see Old High German
– Modern 625–6, 646, 683–4, 690, 715, – Standard 35
717, 722, 725, 727, 729, 731, 737, 868, High Latvian 1706, 1709, 1714, 2008
1747, 1778, 1781–2, 1784, 2131 High Lithuanian 1701
– Mycenaean 12, 22, 194, 221, 630, 639– – Eastern 1677
40, 642, 648, 654, 656–64, 666–8, 670–9, Highest Alemannic 1005, 1012–13, 1019
681, 697–707, 710, 713–14, 717–19, 757, Hindi 55, 158–9, 321, 429–30, 434, 437–9,
795, 1064, 1067, 1072, 1123, 1319, 1820, 452, 458, 461, 466–8
2037–40, 2044, 2046–7, 2049–50, 2086–7, – Eastern 430
2150, 2154, 2169, 2247, 2256, 2261, 2268 – Western 430
– Northwest 714, 719, 1863–4 Hindko
– Pamphylian 2040 – Hazara 434
– Post-Mycenaean 22, 648, 701, 719, 752, – Peshawari 434
2040–1 Hindustani 429–34
Hispano-Celtic 1168–70, 1257, 1264–7
– Standard Modern 731
Hittite 12, 18, 27, 29, 50, 62–5, 68–9, 191,
– West 644, 649, 652, 656, 660, 665, 668,
193–4, 196, 211, 214–15, 220–34, 239–42,
670, 678–9, 681, 712–14, 717, 719, 1854
250–6, 258–67, 274–81, 283–6, 292–6,
Gujarati 56, 321, 429, 431–3, 458
299–300, 303–6, 657, 660–2, 664, 668,
– Old 432
672–5, 679–81, 760, 771, 782, 786, 811,
Gujri 431
814, 900, 902, 927, 941, 944, 960, 983,
Gunwinyguan 133
1050–2, 1055, 1057–9, 1061–2, 1071,
Gurage 93 1085, 1117, 1120, 1310, 1312, 1315–17,
Gurani 471 1321, 1367, 1372, 1540, 1778, 1782, 1876,
Gutnish 879 1878–82, 1891–2, 1904, 1909, 1914, 1916,
1963, 1970, 2034, 2038–9, 2041–5, 2047–
Hamitic 151, 196 8, 2057, 2059–60, 2063–4, 2071–3, 2080,
Hamshen 1150, 1160 2082–90, 2092–3, 2095, 2098, 2100, 2102–
Harauti 431 6, 2108–10, 2112–16, 2118–19, 2121,
Harsusi 93 2125–6, 2139, 2141–6, 2148–57, 2159–65,
Haryanvi 430, 434 2168–71, 2199–2201, 2205–7, 2214–16,
Hattic 107, 241, 263, 293–4, 2285 2229, 2231–3, 2235, 2237, 2240–65, 2268–
Hausa 116 76
Hawaiian 122 – decipherment 21, 230
Hazara Hindko 434 – Middle 239, 259, 261, 263, 266, 281–2,
Hebrew 35, 93–5, 142–3, 145–9, 151–2, 294–5
154–6, 172, 174, 633, 862, 867, 1113, – Old 226–7, 239, 241, 257–60, 263, 265,
1399, 2283–4 277, 281–2, 285, 1267, 2084–5, 2090,
Hellenistic Greek 652, 717–18 2092, 2101–2, 2151–2, 2160
Heraclean 649, 712 Homeric Greek 309, 930, 932, 1072, 1768,
Hernican 804, 847 1775, 2038, 2091, 2147, 2158, 2167, 2200,
Hiberno-Latin 1290 2209, 2211
hic et nunc particles 228, 783, 792, 2140, Hungarian 99, 101–2, 144, 149, 156, 172,
2150 868, 1415, 1583, 1588, 1601, 2281

Authenticated
Hunikh 108 – Northwest 429, 433, 441, 443

Hurrian 10, 241, 293–4, 1123, 2042, 2229 – Old 309–10, 314, 316, 326, 344–5, 349,
Hurro-Urartian 106–7, 2285–6 351–2, 356–7, 367–8, 370, 373–4, 377–8,
Hybrid Sanskrit 309, 320–1 409–13, 448, 450, 454, 456, 458–9, 463–4,
466–7, 496–7, 506, 514, 516–17, 523–4,
Iberian 861, 1254, 1289 530–2, 535, 538, 1352, 1942–3, 1949–51,
– Northeast 46 1953, 1956
– Southwest 46 Indo-European 11, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 56, 62,
Iberian Řomani 442 94, 138–9, 141–2, 153, 155, 160–1, 172–3,
Ibero-Romance languages 867–8, 1858 177–80, 183–4, 187, 191, 195–6, 212–13,
Icelandic 175, 868, 878, 1005, 1011–14, 215, 267, 280, 332, 377–8, 380, 400, 489,
1018–19, 1072 494, 600, 609, 629, 639, 700–2, 733, 743,
– Modern 1008–9, 1014, 1794 859–60, 868–9, 966, 974–7, 980, 982, 984,
– Old 174, 750, 876–9, 895–6, 898, 900–1, 1028, 1115, 1118–19, 1126, 1147, 1171,
915–16, 918, 920, 922, 928–9, 932, 934– 1215, 1316, 1327, 1347, 1352–3, 1358,
40, 942–3, 947, 992, 994, 1050, 1054, 1360, 1378, 1380–1, 1559, 1561–2, 1564,
1059, 1061–2, 1066–7, 1070, 1312, 1315, 1568, 1599, 1601, 1647, 1712, 1732, 1775,
1329, 1576, 1583, 1970, 2013, 2149 1778–9, 1781–2, 1784–5, 1790–1, 1794,
Illyrian 149, 152, 860, 1790, 1812, 1843, 1801, 1806, 1812–13, 1816, 1842, 1845,
1863, 1867–70, 1873, 1970 1869, 1873, 1926–7, 1932, 1960–1, 1993–
Indic 63, 158, 309–10, 312, 314, 316, 318, 5, 2014, 2020, 2034, 2048, 2166, 2280
320, 326, 328–36, 338, 340–1, 346, 348, – Common 629
350, 352, 354, 356, 358, 360, 362, 364, Indo-Germanic 76, 158, 181
Indo-Hittite 224, 227, 233
366, 368, 370, 372, 374, 377–8, 380, 382,
Indo-Iranian 62, 64–6, 69, 178, 181, 190,
384, 386, 388, 390, 392, 394, 396, 398,
194, 196, 222, 226, 228–9, 233, 294, 309,
400, 410, 412, 414, 417–18, 420, 422, 424,
313, 327, 332–5, 434–5, 438, 444, 483–5,
426, 428, 430, 432, 434, 436, 438, 440–4,
487, 489–90, 492, 495–8, 600, 770, 772,
449–50, 452, 454, 456, 458, 460, 462, 464,
779, 781, 983–4, 1116–17, 1119, 1368–9,
466, 468, 483, 494, 536, 573–4, 580–1,
1422, 1649, 1653, 1776, 1781–2, 1812–13,
610, 615, 619, 784, 786, 794, 796, 815, 1875–6, 1878, 1880–2, 1884, 1886, 1890,
825–6, 907–10, 1368, 1370, 1421, 1564, 1892–4, 1896, 1898, 1900, 1902, 1904,
1889, 1893–6, 1899–1900, 1902, 1904, 1906, 1908, 1910, 1912, 1914, 1916, 1918,
1910, 1914, 1930, 2091 1925–6, 1928–30, 1932, 1934, 1936–40,
– Middle, see Middle Indic 1942–4, 1946–56, 1960, 1966–7, 1975–7,
– Modern 310 1981, 1986, 1988, 1990–2, 1995, 1997,
– Old 212, 326, 328, 330–4, 338–41, 417– 2030–1, 2061–2, 2064, 2070, 2073, 2085–
18, 422, 424–5, 436, 440, 443, 473, 483– 92, 2094, 2096, 2101–2, 2104, 2110–11,
98, 527, 570, 586, 733, 744–7, 749–50, 2115, 2118–19, 2135–6, 2138, 2141–4,
890–1, 894–902, 906–7, 911, 959–60, 2146–50, 2152–7, 2160–1, 2164–5, 2167,
1093, 1316, 1576–7, 1581, 1583, 1651–3, 2169–70, 2214, 2232, 2234
1962–3, 1966–70, 2014–15, 2108, 2117, Indonesian 413
2145, 2163, 2165, 2167, 2283–5 Indo-Scythic 142, 153
Indo-Aryan 309–10, 316, 321, 344–5, 347, Indo-Uralic 2281–2, 2287
349, 351, 353, 355, 357, 359, 361, 363, Indus Kohistani 436
365, 367, 369, 371, 373, 409, 417, 429, Ingush 107
435, 437, 443, 447, 453, 456–7, 463, 484– Ingvaeonic 877, 891, 903–5, 908, 910, 937,
5, 487–90, 495, 497–8, 600, 869, 1353, 957, 987, 996–7
1889, 1904, 1945, 1948, 1969 Insular Celtic 9, 21, 25, 837, 841–2, 1169,
– Central Gangetic 429–30 1189, 1193, 1203, 1205–10, 1213, 1215,
– early 29, 309–10, 448 1218, 1225–7, 1229–33, 1235, 1238, 1240–
– Greater Himalayan 429, 437 1, 1244, 1250–5, 1258–60, 1264, 1269–70,
– Modern 309, 320–1 1275, 1283, 1289, 1291, 2033, 2102

Authenticated
Ionic 641–4, 648–50, 673, 684–5, 698, 706, 750, 752–8, 760–2, 764, 766–70, 772, 774–
711–15, 719–21, 1853, 2164, 2257 6, 778–82, 784–90, 792, 794, 796–7, 804–
– Central 641, 712 6, 808, 810–26, 828–33, 835–48, 850, 852–
– East 640–2, 712, 2047 3, 858–62, 864, 866, 868, 870–2, 889,
– Literary 668, 720 923–4, 936, 975, 981, 988, 1116, 1119,
Ionic-Attic 641, 712–13 1170, 1257, 1289, 1381, 1416, 1428, 1653,
Iranian 24, 35, 50, 54–5, 63, 191–2, 194, 1738, 1834, 1837, 1842, 1844, 1855, 1861,
210, 309, 330, 352, 367, 411, 443–4, 453, 2030–5, 2056, 2071, 2085, 2087–8, 2094,
471–2, 474, 476, 482–99, 504, 506, 508, 2096, 2101–2, 2105, 2109, 2115, 2117,
510, 512, 514, 516, 518, 520, 522, 524, 2147, 2149–51, 2162, 2169
526, 528, 530, 532, 534, 536, 538, 540, – Common 743–4, 748, 806, 808, 830
542, 550, 552, 554, 556, 558–60, 562, Italo-Celtic 23, 69, 228, 779, 836, 838, 1120,
567–86, 599–602, 604–6, 609–10, 612, 2030–1, 2034–5
616, 618–20, 868–9, 1031, 1061, 1072, Italo-Venetic 744, 836
1120–2, 1127, 1150, 1298, 1368–71, 1376,
1397, 1416–17, 1426, 1428, 1430–2, 1435, Jaina Māhārāṣṭrī 319–20, 447
1578, 1583, 1614, 1660, 1855, 1878–9, Japanese 159, 173, 413, 1008, 1298, 1300,
1883–5, 1889, 1893–5, 1899–1900, 1902– 2122–4, 2127, 2129, 2131, 2133, 2286–7
5, 1910–11, 1914–15, 1925, 1928–30, – Tokyo 2122–4, 2131, 2133
1933, 1942–3, 1945–6, 1948–9, 1975, Japhetic 151, 155–6, 181
2091, 2102, 2117, 2142, 2155 Japonic 2122
– Central 472 Jhadi Boli 432
– Eastern 577, 609–13, 615, 619, 1091, Jibbali 93
1601, 1884
Judeo-Czech 1498
– Late Old 609
Judeo-German 35
– Middle, see Middle Iranian
Judeo-Persian 35, 476
– Northeastern 106, 472
Judeo-Yazdi 617
– Northwestern 106, 472, 602, 610–12, 615
Julfa, New 1033, 1133, 1135, 1138–9, 1151–2
– Old 228, 230, 330, 344, 356–7, 369–70,
Jumli 438
471–2, 484, 492, 495, 498, 528, 551–4,
556–8, 567–8, 570, 573, 575, 577, 585–6,
601, 609, 611–17, 671, 675, 746, 814, 838, Kååle 442–3
840, 842, 916, 927, 1050–1, 1055, 1060–7, Kabarda 106
1069–72, 1178, 1189–98, 1266–8, 1270, Kabardian 2285
1276–9, 1283–4, 1286–92, 1312, 1321, Kachhi 433
1323, 1327–8, 1576, 1585, 1588, 1713, Kafiri 435
1855, 1861, 1876–7, 1881–2, 1942, 2030– Kāfirī 600
4, 2058–61, 2064–5, 2068, 2071–2, 2087, Kajkavian 1414, 1421, 1472, 1480, 1482,
2095, 2104–5, 2111–13, 2116, 2143, 2148, 1493, 1502, 1514, 1589
2150, 2153–6, 2160, 2163–4, 2166, 2229, Kalam Kohistani 435–6
2232, 2235, 2239–75 Kalasa-ala 443
– Southwestern 106, 472 Kalasha-mun 436
– Western 603–4, 609–10 Kalderaš 442
Iranian Armenian 1150–1, 1159 Kalkot 436
Irish Kambōǰī 603
– Middle 1176–7, 1223, 1250, 1277, 1284, Kamraz 437
1287–8 Kangri 434, 437
– Modern 1276 Kannauji 430
– Old, see Old Irish Kanyawali 436
Island Doric 712 Karabagh 1132, 1138, 2062
Italic 11–12, 22–3, 41–2, 63–4, 69–70, 182, Karachay 106
190–1, 194, 212, 221, 226, 228–9, 240, Karachi Balochi 610
494, 733–4, 736, 738, 740, 743–6, 748, Karata 108

Authenticated
Karelian 1458, 1478, 1480, 1488 Kurdish (Kurmanci) 570–2, 574, 576–84,
Karevan 2062 587, 610, 612–16, 619
Karifuna French 871 Kurdish (Sorani) 570
Karnataka Christian Konkani 433 Kurmanji, see Kurdish (Kurmanci)
Karrwan 133
Kartvelian 87, 106–7, 109, 196, 2280, 2284–7 Laconian 642, 644, 647, 652, 712
– Common 107, 2284 Ladino 35
Kashmiri 35, 320–1, 435–7 Lahnda 434, 436, 455
Kashtawari 437 Laiuse Řomani 442
Kashubian 1414, 1565, 1583, 1593, 1602–8, Lak 106, 108, 2285
1613, 1615, 1617 Lako-Dargi 108
Kathiawadi 432 Lambani 431
Kati 443–4, 570, 572, 581 Langobardic 883, 888, 987
Kelabit 2062 Lapp 99, 101
Khalka Mongolian 2108 Lapponian 172, 174
Khandeśi 432 Larestani 476
Khariboli 430 Lari 433
Kharoṣṭhī 54, 316, 421, 423–4 Lasi 433
Khinalug 108 Late Common Germanic 976–7
Khoisan 115 Late Common Slavic 1418, 1453, 1456,
Khotanese 55, 194, 221, 472, 476, 484, 491, 1459, 1461, 1475, 1477–86, 1488–9, 1492–
493, 495, 553, 555, 567, 569–82, 584–5, 4, 1497, 1499
601, 603–5, 609–13, 615–16, 618–19, Late Common Slavic (LCSl) 1414, 1443,
1367, 1369–71, 1905
1448–50, 1455, 1460, 1470, 1472–3, 1475,
– Late 476, 612
1486, 1490, 1492, 1496, 1498, 1501–2,
– Middle 476
1508, 1513, 1597, 1603
– Old 476
Late Khotanese 476, 612
Khowar 435–6, 577
Late Latin 752, 785, 944, 1281, 1285, 1292,
Khunzib 108
1777, 1804
Khwarshi 108
Kievan Old East Slavic 1419, 1467, 1491 Late Lepontic 1172–3
Kohistani 436 Late Old Iranian 609
– Indus 436 Late Old Irish 1277, 1284, 1286
– Kalam 435–6 Late Proto-Indo-European 230, 260, 263–7,
– Swat-Dir 436 838, 841, 923, 1369, 1558, 1658, 1892,
Kohistani Shina 436 2056–60, 2063
Koine Greek 642, 696, 718, 721–4, 727, 992, Late Proto-Slavic 1539, 1571, 1585–6, 1588,
1765, 1863–4 1601–2, 1608
Konkan 321, 429, 431–3 Late Vedic 314, 386, 389, 396, 458, 1542
– Bardes Christian 433 Late West Saxon 882
– Goa Hindu 433 Latgalian 1699–1700, 1706, 1713–14
– Karnataka Christian 433 Latin
– Saxtti Christian 433 – Archaic 819, 1117, 1837, 2086
– Southern Saraswat 433 – Classical 180, 497, 696, 752, 797, 863–5,
Kordofanian 116 867, 869–70, 1117, 1291, 1747
Kosova-Albanian 1791 – Early 818, 846, 876, 1903, 2032
Kumauni 429, 438 – Late 752, 785, 944, 1281, 1285, 1292,
– Northwestern 438 1777, 1804
– Western 438 – Merovingian 735
Kumyk 106 – Old 266, 353, 656, 669–70, 676–7, 679,
Kunar group of languages 435 750, 752–6, 758–9, 761–3, 765–71, 773–8,
Kurdish 35, 86, 106, 330, 476, 552, 559, 780, 784–97, 812, 837, 842, 896, 1063,
568, 605, 610–11, 614–15, 619 1081, 2033, 2071, 2083–4, 2087, 2097,

Authenticated
2110, 2148, 2155, 2199, 2214–15, 2243–4, 2065, 2084–6, 2088–91, 2095, 2105, 2109–
2251, 2259, 2261 12, 2117, 2121, 2142, 2149–50, 2160,
– Republican 735, 788, 1832 2162, 2170, 2197, 2205, 2232, 2237,
– spoken 868, 1290, 1792 2239–75
– Vulgar 178, 831, 864–5, 998, 1431, 1574, – High 1701
1777 – Low 1702
Latin-Faliscan group 733, 804, 2030 – Middle 1675, 1679–80
Latino-Faliscan 62–3, 743, 748, 750–2, 769, – Modern 1669, 1673–6, 1692, 1983, 1993,
789, 828–9, 831, 835, 840–1, 845, 847, 1996, 2006
851–3, 860–1, 1854 – Old 1626, 1643, 1672–3, 1675–6, 1685,
Latino-Venetic 1832 1688, 1692, 1987–9, 1991, 1993–4, 2007,
Latvian 2115
– High 1706, 1709, 1714, 2008 – Standard 1643, 1647, 1705, 1713–14,
– Low 1706 1980, 2147
– Middle 1679, 1684 Livonian 157, 1686–7, 1706, 1708–9, 1713
– Old 1622, 1655, 1657, 1668–70, 1673–4, Lomavren 441–3, 1140
1676–80, 1688–9, 1691, 1965, 2001, 2007– Lombardian 870
8, 2010 Low Alemannic 1012
Laz 106–7, 2284 Low German 893, 996, 1072
Lechitic 1414, 1420, 1447, 1456, 1462, 1465, – Middle 881, 893, 960, 1051, 1072, 1685
1472, 1474, 1476, 1479, 1481, 1484, 1486– – Old 881
7, 1489–90, 1493, 1502, 1593, 1602–3, Low Latvian 1706
1605–8 Low Lithuanian 1702
– non-peripheral 1474, 1486 Lower Engadinian 868
– peripheral 1487, 1497, 1501 Lower Sorbian 1421, 1559, 1591, 1593–6,
Lepontic 24, 42, 859–60, 1169, 1172–3, 1602, 1609
1189, 1203, 1218, 1250, 1253–4, 1258, Lucanian Oscan 853
1265, 1267, 2032–3 Luri 610, 613
– Early 1172, 2032 Lusitanian 752, 861, 1170, 1190, 1271, 1857,
– Late 1172–3 1859, 1861
– Middle 1172–3 Luvian/Luwian 10, 27, 29, 220, 225–7, 232,
Lesbian 640, 642–4, 648, 652, 657, 659, 239, 241–2, 246, 250–2, 254, 256–66, 274–
665–70, 674, 680–1, 700, 712–15, 719, 7, 279–81, 284–5, 287, 292–6, 299–306,
1870, 1954, 2041, 2046–7, 2270 673, 1312, 1326, 1812, 2039, 2047, 2061,
Lezgi 108, 2285 2072, 2097–8, 2106, 2108, 2169–70
Lezgian 108, 2071 – Cuneiform 29, 224, 239, 242, 247, 257,
Ligurian 859, 868, 1254 259–60, 274–6, 279–85, 287, 299, 301–3,
Literary Ionic 668, 720 2048
Literary Sinhala 441 – Empire 302
Lithuanian 21, 23, 212, 226, 230, 486, 658– – Hieroglyphic 191, 221, 225, 232, 239,
9, 662, 666–7, 838, 868, 890, 895, 897, 242, 244–5, 252–4, 257, 259, 264–5, 282,
899–902, 908, 924–5, 927–8, 938, 981, 292, 295, 299, 301–3, 1066, 1123, 1368,
1049–51, 1053–61, 1063, 1065–7, 1069– 2049, 2064, 2086–90, 2113, 2162–3, 2264,
70, 1072, 1084, 1086–7, 1089, 1092, 1116, 2267–8
1251, 1312–15, 1321, 1323, 1367, 1416, Luvic, see Southern Anatolian
1540, 1553, 1581, 1583, 1585–6, 1588, Lycian 45, 194, 220–1, 225, 239, 242, 244–
1591–4, 1599, 1612, 1622, 1624–8, 1640– 6, 250–5, 258–60, 262, 264–6, 274–7, 280–
50, 1652–60, 1662–3, 1668–80, 1682–92, 1, 284–5, 292, 295–6, 299–304, 306, 1368,
1698–1701, 1708, 1710, 1712–14, 1826, 1892, 2045, 2047, 2064, 2087–90, 2092,
1876, 1881, 1884–5, 1893, 1943, 1960, 2097–9, 2109, 2113, 2151, 2155, 2165,
1962–70, 1974–83, 1985, 1987–98, 2001– 2169, 2246, 2267
10, 2013–16, 2019–21, 2058–9, 2061, – Common 301

Authenticated
Lydian 45, 194, 220, 239, 245–6, 250–5, Messenian 642, 712
258–9, 261, 264–5, 275–8, 280, 284, 299– Mewari 431
300, 303–4, 306, 733, 2042, 2045, 2097 Mewati 431
Middle Armenian 1033, 1133–4, 1147–8,
Macedonian 24, 868, 1236, 1399, 1404, 1155–8, 1160
1414, 1558–9, 1562, 1564–6, 1569, 1582– Middle Avestan 475, 601
3, 1589, 1591–3, 1595, 1598, 1602–4, Middle Breton 1179, 1189, 1193, 1203,
1606, 1608–9, 1611, 1613–16, 1772, 1774, 1224–5, 1227–9, 1232–4, 1236, 1239, 1255
1777–8, 1783–5, 1813–14, 1816, 1862–6 Middle Bulgarian 1404, 1422, 1428, 1436,
Madhesi 430 1456, 1462, 1470, 1475, 1481, 1501, 1512,
Māgadhī 317, 319–20, 422, 426–7 1592
Magahi 430–1 Middle Choresmian 604
– Eastern 431
Middle Common Slavic 1414, 1455, 1458–
Māhārāṣṭrī 319, 426–8
62, 1466, 1469, 1472–9, 1485–6
– Jaina 319–20, 447
Middle Cornish 1189, 1203, 1224–5, 1227,
Maithili 321, 430–1
Majhi 434 1229–30, 1232, 1236–7, 1239, 1243, 1288,
Malagasy 121–2 1292
Malatya 1138, 1151, 1153–4 Middle Gaulish 1174–5
Malay 122–3 Middle Greek 1737, 1791
Malayo-Polynesian 121–2, 125, 177, 181 Middle High German 883, 896, 917–18, 925,
Malvai 434 940, 958–9, 967, 1014, 1049, 1054, 1576,
Malvi 431 1579–80, 1583, 1686, 2236, 2245, 2254,
Manichean Sogdian 570, 572, 576, 582, 586, 2256, 2260
611, 1369 Middle Hittite 239, 259, 261, 263, 266, 281–
Mantra Vedic 1932, 1940 2, 294–5
Manx 1177, 1270, 1279, 1287 Middle Indic 315, 318, 326, 417, 420–6, 428,
Maori 122 441, 611, 836
Maragha 1159 – Buddhist 423
Marash 1147, 1163 – Eastern Inscriptional 422–3, 441
Marat 429, 431–4, 439 – Northwestern 422, 424
– Standard 432 Middle Indo-Aryan 309–10, 315, 320, 360,
– Thanjavur 432 367, 378, 409–13, 447–51, 453–9, 464–8,
Marathi 55, 321, 452, 458, 461 1086, 1915
Marathi, Thanjavur 432 Middle Iranian 221, 471–2, 475–7, 599–600,
Marrucinian 759, 780, 788, 804, 847–9 603, 606, 1040, 1045, 1058, 1072, 1120,
Marsian 752, 804, 809, 847 1150, 1367, 1369–70, 1576, 1915
– Umbroid 849 – East 603
Marwari 429, 431
Middle Irish 1176–7, 1223, 1250, 1277,
Mazdean 569, 603, 1150
1284, 1287–8
Medieval Armenian 1037
Middle Khotanese 476
Medieval Greek 717, 726, 1783
Medieval Slavic 1600, 1602–3, 1605–6, Middle Latvian 1679, 1684
1613–15 Middle Lepontic 1172–3
Megarian 642, 644, 652 Middle Lithuanian 1675, 1679–80
Mehri 93 Middle Low German 881, 893, 960, 1051,
Mengrel 106–7 1072, 1685
Mercian, West 910 Middle Parthian 1058, 1072
Meriam 131 – Turfan 1370
Merovingian Latin 735 Middle Persian 35, 50–1, 472–3, 476, 483,
Meryam 131 487, 489–97, 532, 536, 550, 552, 554, 556,
Messapic 733, 828, 831, 860–1, 1790, 1839– 559, 561–3, 567, 569–87, 600, 602–5, 609,
46, 2032 611, 613, 615–16, 618, 1040, 1048, 1059,

Authenticated
1070, 1121–2, 1367, 1670, 1878, 1949, Mush 1135, 1138–9, 1150
2240 Mycenaean Greek 12, 22, 194, 221, 630,
– Turfan 1370 639–40, 642, 648, 654, 656–64, 666–8,
Middle Russian 1501, 1503, 1505–6, 1512, 670–9, 681, 697–707, 710, 713–14, 717–
1514 19, 757, 795, 1064, 1067, 1072, 1123,
Middle Vedic 386, 389–90, 401, 418–19, 1319, 1820, 2037–40, 2044, 2046–7, 2049–
1915 50, 2086–7, 2150, 2154, 2169, 2247, 2256,
Middle Welsh 410, 1058, 1177–8, 1189, 2261, 2268
1191–3, 1195–8, 1203, 1206–10, 1212,
1214, 1224–31, 1233–7, 1239, 1242, 1250– Nāgara 429
1, 1253, 1256–60, 1269, 1275, 1281, 1284– Nagpuria Bhojpuri 430
5, 1287–8, 1291, 2030, 2033–4, 2246, Nagpuri-Sadri 431
2251, 2260, 2265–6, 2275 Nagpuriya 438
Milyan 239, 242, 245, 259, 292, 295, 301, Nahali 431
2089 Nahuatl 2286
Ming-oi Qizil 1301, 1389–91, 1393 Nakh 107–8
Modern Albanian 1719, 1732–4, 1736–7, Nakh-Daghestanian 106, 108, 2285
1739, 1741–2, 1790, 1795–6 Narew 1417
Modern Armenian 1029, 1035, 1132–4, 1147, Naxichevan, Nor 1058, 1150
1155–9 Neo-Hittite 239, 264, 295, 2039, 2044
Modern Baltic 1672, 2009 Neo-Štokavian 1500–2, 1504–10, 1512–14
Modern Eastern Armenian 1042 Nepali 55, 321, 429, 438–9
Modern Greek 625–6, 646, 683–4, 690, 715, New High German 958, 976
717, 722, 725, 727, 729, 731, 737, 868,
New Indic 447
1747, 1778, 1781–2, 1784, 2131
New Indo-Aryan 389, 399, 409, 411, 413,
Modern Icelandic 1008–9, 1014, 1794
417, 420, 429–30, 432, 435–7, 440–1, 449,
Modern Indic 310
451–2, 455–9, 461–3, 466–7, 1945, 2267
Modern Indo-Aryan 309, 320–1
New Iranian 471, 476, 552, 561, 600–1, 605,
Modern Iranian 471, 497–8, 552, 573, 601,
617, 1945
1878, 1885, 1943
Modern Irish 1276 New Julfa 1033, 1133, 1135, 1138–9, 1151–2
Modern Lithuanian 1669, 1673–6, 1692, New Persian 124, 392, 397, 472, 485–7,
1983, 1993, 1996, 2006 490–6, 554, 568–87, 600, 609–11, 613–19,
Modern Persian 472, 617, 1093, 1121–2, 819, 964, 969, 1097–8, 1120, 1157, 1224,
1370, 1855 1231, 1240–1, 1243–4, 1353–4, 1359,
Modern Russian 1573, 1596, 1616, 1670 1370, 1559, 1670–1, 1674–6, 1678, 1751,
Modern South Arabian 93, 96 1754, 1759, 1772, 1774, 1784, 1836, 1880,
Modern Standard Albanian 1723, 1732, 1949, 2000, 2005–6, 2065, 2204–6, 2209,
1750–2, 1754–60 2211, 2265
Modern Swedish 1015, 2069 New Phrygian 1817–30
Modern Welsh 1177–8, 1291 Newari 438–9
Moldovan 49 Ngalakan 2093
Molisean Řomani 442 Ngandi 132
Mongol 1580, 1583 Nganyaywana 131
Mongolian 413 Nilotic, Eastern and Southern 116
– Khalka 2108 Nimadi 431
Moravian 1419, 1492, 1602 Nogai 106
Mordvin 100–1 Nor Naxichevan 1058, 1150
Mozarabic 862, 867, 870 Nordic 938, 940–1, 943, 983
Muna 2093 Noric 1270
Munda 309 Norse
Munda 439–40 – Old 174–5, 221, 790, 852, 878–9, 890–
Munji 586, 601, 611–12 900, 903–11, 914–18, 920–1, 925, 928–9,

Authenticated
934, 938–42, 946, 954, 956–8, 960, 962, Nuragic 860–1

966–9, 990, 992, 994–5, 997, 1013, 1018, Nuristani 412, 417, 435, 443–4, 490, 492,
1047, 1049, 1051–3, 1061, 1065, 1070, 600, 1942
1072, 1095, 1257, 1312, 1368, 1475, 1580–
3, 1585, 1655, 1963, 1986, 1988, 1995, Ob-Ugrian 100–1
2086, 2088, 2095, 2108, 2237, 2240–3, Occitan 144, 867–8
2245–53, 2255–7, 2261, 2263–6, 2268–75 Odia 429, 439
– Old West 960, 979 Ogam 1175, 1251, 1253, 1279–80, 1283,
North and East Germanic 916, 918, 920 2087
North and West Germanic 889, 894, 901, Old Albanian 1732, 1734, 1737–8, 1740–2,
903–4, 908, 911, 914, 932, 934, 943, 995, 1744–5, 1749–51, 1755, 1757–60, 1766,
1006, 1017 1769, 1787, 1789–90, 1794, 1796
North Bavarian 1012 Old Armenian 1037, 1039, 1041–6, 1065,
North Caucasian 107, 619, 2285 1068, 1758, 1768
North Curonian 1699–1700 Old Avestan 267, 333–4, 346, 349, 351, 355–
North Etruscan 1172–4 7, 360–3, 367–9, 473, 475, 477, 484–5,
North Frisian 893, 1009, 1012 487, 489–90, 496, 504–43, 551, 556–8,
North Geg 1724 560, 562, 569, 576, 580, 584–5, 601–2,
North Germanic 875–6, 878, 881, 891–2, 669, 671, 702, 921, 927, 1058, 1066, 1069,
899–900, 902–3, 905–6, 908–11, 918, 920, 1088, 1256–7, 1755, 1807, 1876–84, 1893,
922, 937–8, 940, 943, 946–7, 979, 987, 1896, 1903, 1906, 1910–11, 1925, 1930–2,
994–5, 997, 1003, 1008, 1013, 1580 1934, 1940, 1943–9, 1951–7, 2084–91,
North Oscan 841, 847 2098, 2104, 2110–12, 2117, 2134, 2143–4,
2148–56, 2161–2, 2235, 2240, 2247–8,
North Russian 1543, 1597–8
2252–3, 2260, 2262, 2264–5, 2267, 2273,
North Sea Germanic 987, 996–7, 1015
2275
North Slavic 1543, 1555, 1969, 1993, 2018
Old Belorussian 1685
North Žemaitian 1702, 1705
Old Bulgarian 49, 212, 1399, 1591
Northeastern Geg 1805, 1807
Old Church Slavic/Slavonic 16–17, 24, 49,
Northeastern Řomani 442
86, 89, 144, 177, 182, 222, 225, 230, 584,
Northeastern Slavic 2017
629, 656–9, 662, 675, 702, 734, 744–5,
Northern Bhojpuri 430 765, 773, 777, 916, 925, 927–8, 938,
Northern Central Řomani 442 1048–62, 1065–7, 1069–72, 1088–9, 1116,
Northern Paman 131 1118, 1251, 1259, 1311, 1315–16, 1318,
Northern Řomani 442 1366, 1398–9, 1401–5, 1414, 1416, 1419–
Northern Tosk 1801 60, 1462–81, 1486–9, 1491–6, 1499, 1539–
Northwest Doric 1864 41, 1543, 1545–7, 1549, 1551–4, 1557–60,
Northwest Germanic 903, 909, 976, 992, 1562–5, 1567, 1572–83, 1585–6, 1588,
995, 1006 1592–4, 1596–7, 1602–4, 1608, 1610–13,
Northwest Greek 714, 719, 1863–4 1615–16, 1647, 1649, 1654, 1689, 1782–3,
Northwest Indo-Aryan 429, 433, 441, 443 1877, 1882, 1885, 1893, 1960, 1962–70,
Northwestern Geg 1717, 1734, 1807 1974–9, 1981, 1983, 1986–93, 1997–8,
Northwestern Iranian 106, 472, 602, 611–12, 2001–10, 2013–16, 2058, 2061, 2063,
615 2065, 2069, 2083, 2085–91, 2095, 2103–4,
Northwestern Prakrit 1370 2109–10, 2142, 2148–51, 2160, 2162,
Northwestern Řomani 442 2232, 2234–6, 2239–76, 2284
Northwestern Vedic 419 Old East Slavic, Kievan 1419, 1467, 1491
Norwegian 1011, 1014, 1583, 2229 Old English 700, 734, 847, 881–2, 891, 895,
Nostratic 107, 196, 2280, 2286–7 898, 900, 902–6, 908–11, 914, 916–18,
Novgorodian 1419, 1456, 1462–4, 1467, 925, 928, 934, 940–3, 946, 954, 960, 964–
1471, 1480, 1491–2, 1498, 1577, 1580 5, 992, 994, 996, 1016, 1059, 1281, 1365–
Nubian 118 8, 1384, 1986, 1995, 2031, 2243, 2269,
Nuclear Celtic 1264, 1266–8 2283

Authenticated
Old Faliscan 754, 773, 781, 789, 792–3, 796 Old Irish 15, 23, 86, 212, 785–6, 846, 941,
Old Frisian 882, 890–1, 893–5, 903, 908, 979, 1116, 1118, 1176–7, 1189, 1197, 1203,
910, 917–18, 920, 925, 946, 954, 968, 994, 1203–60, 1265, 1269, 1277, 1279, 1283,
996–7, 1039, 1047, 1072 1286–8, 1366, 1368, 1573, 1782, 1789,
Old Gujarati 432 1892, 2031, 2034, 2090, 2108, 2118, 2145,
Old High German 179, 261, 746, 750, 777– 2170
8, 847, 852, 881–3, 890–900, 902–11, 916– – Late 1277, 1284, 1286
18, 920–1, 923–5, 927–9, 932, 934, 936– Old Latin 266, 353, 656, 669–70, 676–7,
40, 942–5, 947, 954–9, 961–9, 976–7, 979– 679, 750, 752–6, 758–9, 761–3, 765–71,
80, 987, 990–2, 994–7, 1006–8, 1013–14, 773–8, 780, 784–97, 812, 837, 842, 896,
1016, 1051–5, 1058–61, 1063, 1069–70, 1063, 1081, 2033, 2071, 2083–4, 2087,
1072, 1087, 1257, 1311, 1320–1, 1323, 2097, 2110, 2148, 2155, 2199, 2214–15,
2243–4, 2251, 2259, 2261
1327, 1368, 1415, 1421, 1461, 1472, 1475,
Old Lithuanian 894, 902, 1574, 1626, 1643,
1478, 1488, 1573, 1576, 1579–81, 1583,
1653, 1655–7, 1660–1, 1668, 1670–80,
1585, 1647–8, 1835, 1880–1, 1885, 1943,
1684–5, 1688–9, 1692, 1963–4, 1975,
1970, 1981, 1995–6, 2013, 2015, 2085, 1977, 1987–9, 1991, 1993–4, 2001–2,
2087, 2095, 2236–7, 2240–7, 2253–7, 2004–8, 2010, 2013, 2086, 2088, 2090–1,
2259–72, 2274–5, 2283 2095, 2115, 2148, 2246–7, 2249–50, 2252,
Old Hittite 226–7, 239, 241, 257–60, 263, 2258–9, 2261, 2264, 2267, 2274
265, 277, 281–2, 285, 1267, 2084–5, 2090, Old Low German 881
2092, 2101–2, 2151–2, 2160 Old Norse 174–5, 221, 790, 852, 878–9,
Old Icelandic 174, 750, 876–9, 895–6, 898, 890–900, 903–11, 914–18, 920–1, 925,
900–1, 915–16, 918, 920, 922, 928–9, 932, 928–9, 934, 938–42, 946, 954, 956–8, 960,
934–40, 942–3, 947, 992, 994, 1050, 1054, 962, 966–9, 990, 992, 994–5, 997, 1013,
1059, 1061–2, 1066–7, 1070, 1312, 1315, 1018, 1047, 1049, 1051–3, 1061, 1065,
1329, 1576, 1583, 1970, 2013, 2149 1070, 1072, 1095, 1257, 1312, 1368, 1475,
Old Indic 212, 326, 328, 330–4, 338–41, 1580–3, 1585, 1655, 1963, 1986, 1988,
417–18, 422, 424–5, 436, 440, 443, 473, 1995, 2086, 2088, 2095, 2108, 2237, 2240–
483–98, 527, 570, 586, 733, 744–7, 749– 3, 2245–53, 2255–7, 2261, 2263–6, 2268–
50, 890–1, 894–902, 906–7, 911, 959–60, 75
1093, 1316, 1576–7, 1581, 1583, 1651–3, Old Persian 49–50, 178, 190, 344, 355–7,
1962–3, 1966–70, 2014–15, 2108, 2117, 374, 421, 471–3, 484–5, 492, 494, 497–8,
2145, 2163, 2165, 2167, 2283–5 504–27, 529–43, 553, 562, 568–72, 575–6,
Old Indo-Aryan 309–10, 314, 316, 326, 344– 578–9, 581, 584–6, 600–2, 609, 618, 734,
5, 349, 351–2, 356–7, 367–8, 370, 373–4, 1072, 1120, 1813, 1897, 1904, 1906, 1912,
377–8, 409–13, 448, 450, 454, 456, 458–9, 1925, 1928, 1932, 1940, 1969, 2086
463–4, 466–7, 496–7, 506, 514, 516–17, Old Phrygian 697, 1817–29
Old Polish 1407, 1416, 1418–20, 1422–6,
523–4, 530–2, 535, 538, 1352, 1942–3,
1428–33, 1435–67, 1469–72, 1474–7,
1949–51, 1953, 1956
1482–4, 1487–8, 1491, 1494–5, 1497,
Old Iranian 228, 230, 330, 344, 356–7, 369–
1499–1500, 1543, 1549, 1594, 1880, 2001,
70, 471–2, 484, 492, 495, 498, 528, 551–4, 2009
556–8, 567–8, 570, 573, 575, 577, 585–6, Old Prussian 146, 177, 215, 629, 666, 843,
601, 609, 611–17, 671, 675, 746, 814, 838, 1050, 1055, 1066, 1367, 1421, 1429–30,
840, 842, 916, 927, 1050–1, 1055, 1060–7, 1459, 1470, 1575–7, 1581, 1583, 1593,
1069–72, 1312, 1321, 1323, 1327–8, 1576, 1622–3, 1640–50, 1652, 1654, 1656, 1659–
1585, 1588, 1713, 1855, 1876–7, 1881–2, 60, 1662–3, 1668, 1673, 1677, 1682–4,
1925, 1942, 2058–61, 2064–5, 2068, 2095, 1686–93, 1699–1700, 1712, 1881, 1962–4,
2104–5, 2111–13, 2116, 2143, 2148, 2150, 1968, 1976, 1978, 1982–3, 1986–94, 1996,
2153–6, 2160, 2163–4, 2166, 2229, 2232, 2007, 2016, 2021, 2086–7, 2090, 2170,
2235, 2239–75 2241–4, 2246, 2248, 2256–7, 2259, 2265,
– Early 1193, 1196, 1277–8 2268, 2271–3, 2275

Authenticated
Old Saxon 908, 914, 916, 928, 940, 942–3, Pamir languages 476, 494, 568, 573–4, 577–
946, 954, 996, 1995, 2085, 2087 8, 582, 585, 611, 614, 616–17, 619
Old Serbian 1399, 1425, 1429–30, 1438, Pamphylian 640, 642, 670, 680, 713, 715,
1440–1, 1443, 1445, 1449, 1451, 1454–5, 2040, 2261
1461, 1466, 1472, 1475, 1477, 1488, 1493, Pañcālan Vedic 418–20, 425
1501 Panjabi 56, 321, 429, 434–5, 437, 452, 455
Old Swedish 879, 899–900, 918, 920, 939, – Standard 434–5
960 Pannonian 1254
Old Tosk 1732, 1750, 1789–90 Parāčī 491, 493, 568, 570, 579, 581, 584,
Old Turkic 1298, 1580 587
Old Venetic 1832–3 Para-Řomani 442
Old Welsh 1178, 1210, 1251–7, 1259, 1268, Parnian 603, 1121–2
1270, 1281–2, 1285, 1287–8, 2031, 2034 Parthian 50–1, 472, 476, 483–7, 491–3, 495,
Old West Frisian 940 497, 555, 569–74, 576–84, 587, 603–4,
Old West Norse 960, 979 610, 612, 615–16, 618, 1040, 1058, 1072,
Omotic 93, 2283 1122, 1878, 1881, 1949
Oriya 56, 321, 439, 452 – Middle 1058, 1072
Oscan 42, 733–4, 738–40, 748–50, 752, 757, Pashto 35, 435, 471, 476, 610–13, 616–17,
759, 770, 786, 788, 791–3, 804–6, 808–11, 619, 1885
813–15, 818–22, 824, 826, 831–2, 838–9, Pašto 485, 487, 491, 494, 498, 568, 1943
841–52, 860, 890, 924, 944, 1319, 2030–4, Pelasgian 1582, 1873–4
2083, 2086, 2088, 2098, 2109, 2116, 2150, Pennsylvania German 1004, 1016
2170, 2241, 2244, 2250, 2256, 2258, 2265, Permian 99–101
Persian 8, 38, 49, 94, 150, 153, 156, 158–9,
2267, 2269
173–4, 176–7, 179, 264, 430–1, 433–4,
– Lucanian 853
471–2, 474, 476, 486, 505, 507–8, 562,
– North 841, 847
568, 575, 577, 580, 600–2, 605, 609–13,
– South 793, 849
615, 617, 670, 1028, 1030, 1033, 1035,
Osco-Umbrian 62–3, 848, 851, 860
1121, 1150, 1159–60, 1902
Ossetic 48–9, 476, 484, 486, 494, 567–8,
– Middle 35, 50–1, 472–3, 476, 483, 490,
572, 601, 605, 610–14, 616–19, 1369–70,
494–6, 532, 536, 550, 552, 554, 556, 559,
1614, 1899 561–3, 567, 569–87, 600, 602–5, 609, 611,
613, 615–16, 618, 1040, 1048, 1059, 1121–
Paelignian 745–6, 752, 757, 771, 773, 776, 2, 1367, 1670, 1878, 1949, 2240
785, 787, 793, 804, 829–30, 832, 842, – Modern 472, 617, 1093, 1121–2, 1370,
847–9, 851 1855
Pahari 437 – New 124, 392, 397, 472, 485–7, 490–6,
– Central 437–8 554, 600, 609–11, 613–19, 819, 964, 969,
– Eastern 429, 437–8 1097–8, 1120, 1157, 1224, 1231, 1240–1,
– Western 434, 436–7 1243–4, 1353–4, 1359, 1370, 1559, 1670–
Paiśācī 319–20, 428 1, 1674–6, 1678, 1751, 1754, 1759, 1772,
Palaic 27, 191, 220, 239, 241, 250–4, 256, 1774, 1784, 1836, 1880, 1949, 2000, 2005–
258–60, 265, 274, 277, 286, 292, 299–300, 6, 2204–6, 2209, 2211
303–4, 306, 1317, 2083, 2141, 2150, 2154, – Old 49–50, 178, 190, 344, 355–7, 374,
2170, 2252, 2255, 2257, 2274 421, 471–3, 484–5, 492, 494, 497–8, 504–
Paleo-Sabellic 739 27, 529–43, 553, 562, 568–72, 575–6, 578–
Palestinian Domari 442 9, 581, 584–6, 600–2, 609, 618, 734, 1072,
Pāli 315–19, 334, 346, 370, 424–6, 440, 447, 1120, 1813, 1897, 1904, 1906, 1912, 1925,
453–4, 458, 463, 465, 1947 1928, 1932, 1940, 1969, 2086
Palpa 438 Peruvian Spanish 868
Palula 436 Phocian 645, 712
Paman, Northern 131 Phoenician 33, 38, 45–6, 93, 95, 421, 633–4,
Pama-Nyungan 130–3 712, 718, 735, 2283

Authenticated
Phrygian 22, 45, 194, 586, 697, 733, 744, Proto-Anatolian 64, 81, 233, 249–55, 257–
770, 1046, 1067, 1816–29, 1850, 1853, 65, 293, 300–3, 1038, 1040–2, 1045–50,
1863, 1865–6, 2101, 2141, 2241, 2261 1052–72, 1926, 2089–90, 2092, 2141–2,
– New 1817–30 2147
– Old 697, 1817–29 Proto-Austronesian 121–5
Picene, South 221, 749–50, 752, 768, 770, Proto-Baltic 1417, 1425, 1428–9, 1505,
773, 786–7, 791–2, 795, 804, 808–10, 817, 1586, 1640–50, 1686–7, 1689, 1698–1700,
820, 845, 847–51, 2030 1703–5, 1712, 1990, 2087
Pictish 43 Proto-Balto-Slavic 24, 1578, 1585–6, 1607,
Picto-Germanic 156 1648, 1689, 1974–83, 1988, 2087–8, 2091,
Picto-Gothic 156 2117
Poguli 437 Proto-Bantu 116, 118
Polabian 1407, 1414, 1421, 1583, 1593, Proto-Bulgarian 1580
1602, 1604, 1606, 1608–9, 1612–13, 1615, Proto-Burushaski 1949
1617 Proto-Celtic 24, 859, 918, 1169, 1188–9,
Polish 16, 149, 1328, 1407, 1414, 1546, 1191–5, 1197–8, 1203–5, 1207, 1210–15,
1560–1, 1563–6, 1583, 1586, 1591–8, 1250–2, 1255–7, 1264–6, 1512, 1855,
1602–3, 1605, 1607–9, 1615, 1617, 1625– 2032, 2034
7, 1649–50, 1670, 1684–5, 1713–14, 1962– Proto-Finno-Permian 1949
5, 1970, 1976, 1981, 1983, 2005–7, 2013– Proto-Finno-Permic 2281
16, 2020, 2250 Proto-Finno-Ugric 1949, 2282
– Old 1407, 1416, 1418–20, 1422–6, 1428– Proto-Germanic 64, 179, 700, 859, 875–7,
33, 1435–67, 1469–72, 1474–7, 1482–4, 881–2, 888–92, 894–911, 914–29, 931–47,
1487–8, 1491, 1494–5, 1497, 1499–1500, 960, 967–8, 988, 990–3, 995, 997, 1003,
1543, 1549, 1594, 1880, 2001, 2009 1006, 1011, 1013, 1017–19, 1059, 1072,
Pomeranian 1414, 1593, 1623, 1700 1323, 1755, 1995, 2065, 2069, 2088, 2117,
Portuguese 144, 433, 492, 862, 864, 867, 2121, 2165
870–2 – Early 914–15, 920, 936–7, 939, 946
– Cape Verde 871 – Late 910, 1006
Post-Classical Armenian 1037, 1039–40, Proto-Greek 641–4, 647, 655–6, 658–9, 661,
1043, 1068 669–70, 672, 677, 679, 681, 697, 700–3,
Post-Mycenaean Greek 22, 648, 701, 719, 707, 1048, 1052, 1884, 1926, 2115–17,
752, 2040–1 2130, 2148
post-Vedic Sanskrit 314, 361, 389, 393, 396, Proto-Hattic 106
412, 458 Proto-High-Latvian 1684
Pothohari 434, 437 Proto-Indo-Aryan 494
Prakrit 54, 309–10, 315–16, 318–21, 427–8, Proto-Indo-European 11–12, 17–18, 20–4,
443, 447–8, 450, 453–4, 456, 458, 461, 70, 76–83, 85–91, 195–6, 210–12, 214–17,
465–6, 1370, 1904, 1993 221, 223–6, 229–30, 233–4, 250–67, 298–
– Northwestern 1370 300, 326–8, 330, 332–5, 344–7, 355, 367–
Prasun 443, 578, 584 9, 371–4, 578–87, 600, 602, 638–41, 656–
Pre-Proto-Albanian 1732, 1734–6, 1738–41, 67, 669–70, 672–81, 696, 699–703, 705–7,
1743–7 744–50, 752, 754–6, 758–9, 762, 769–72,
Pre-Proto-Indo-European 224, 638, 758, 780–94, 808–14, 888–91, 894–902, 904–7,
2080–1, 2083–4, 2100, 2115, 2133–4, 913–18, 920–2, 924–33, 937–42, 944–5,
2149, 2151 974–7, 982–4, 1010–12, 1048–9, 1068–9,
Pre-Slavic 1420, 1422–5, 1427–37, 1439, 1138–40, 1151–4, 1188–91, 1204–8, 1210–
1441–2, 1454, 1473, 1488, 1500, 1503–5, 15, 1253, 1306–7, 1309–29, 1340, 1342–3,
1507–11 1345–8, 1366–70, 1372–6, 1379–83, 1385–
Proto-Afro-Asiatic 2283 7, 1422–31, 1434–5, 1503, 1507–9, 1540,
Proto-Albanian 696, 1732–45, 1750–2, 1754– 1561–2, 1572–83, 1640–4, 1646–9, 1654–
6, 1758, 1767–8, 1789–92, 1803–4, 1812 7, 1660–2, 1682–3, 1687–9, 1712, 1736–9,

Authenticated
1741, 1743–6, 1750–68, 1771–2, 1774–81, 1686–93, 1699–1700, 1712, 1881, 1962–4,
1807–8, 1819–28, 1843–4, 1876–85, 1946– 1968, 1976, 1978, 1982–3, 1986–94, 1996,
8, 1961–3, 1974–83, 2056–74, 2079–2171, 2007, 2016, 2021, 2086–7, 2090, 2170,
2195–2217, 2229–76, 2280–8 2241–4, 2246, 2248, 2256–7, 2259, 2265,
– Late 230, 260, 263–7, 838, 841, 923, 2268, 2271–3, 2275
1369, 1558, 1658, 1892, 2056–60, 2063
Proto-Indo-Hittite 233 Rajasthani 429, 431, 437
Proto-Iranian 481, 483–6, 489–99, 506, 567, Recent Venetic 1832, 1834
611, 1366, 1368–70, 1884 Republican Latin 735, 788, 1832
Proto-Italic 696, 699, 743, 747, 758, 781, Rhaetic 859
789, 791, 793, 814, 835–6, 838–42, 845–6, Rhaeto-Romance 867, 869–70
852, 858–60, 1926, 2030, 2032, 2034 Rhodian 644, 712–13, 1828
Proto-Kartvelian 89, 107, 2284–5 Romance 9, 15–16, 68–9, 140, 143, 145,
Proto-Lezgian 108 147, 149, 156, 172, 174, 178, 180, 183,
Proto-Luwian 262, 2046 492, 734–5, 737, 793, 831, 858, 862–72,
Proto-Lycian 301 944, 1011, 1015, 1019, 1292, 1421, 1563,
Proto-Māgadhī 427 1567, 1614, 1732, 1736, 1745, 1777–8,
Proto-Malayo-Polynesian 121, 123–5 1803, 1807, 1858, 1866
Proto-Nakh 108 Řomani 309, 429, 441–3, 1616, 1777, 1782
Proto-Ngayarda 131 – Balkan 442
Proto-Nordic 876 – Bohemian 442
Proto-Norse 992, 2229 – Central 442
Proto-Nostratic 2286–7 – European 431
– reconstructed 2286–7 – Finnish 442
Proto-Nuclear-Indo-European 2080, 2082, – Iberian 442
2085–92, 2094–2101, 2104, 2106, 2113, – Laiuse 442
2115, 2118, 2125, 2128, 2130, 2137–54, – Molisean 442
2157–9, 2161–9 – Northeastern 442
Proto-Romance 492, 831, 858, 864, 869–70 – Northern 442
Proto-Sabellic 743–4, 748–50, 849–51 – Northern Central 442
Proto-Semitic 89, 95–6, 2283–4 – Northwestern 442
Proto-Slavic 24, 86, 1397–8, 1414–15, 1417, Romanian 1461, 1488, 1580, 1583, 1616,
1422–31, 1434–5, 1437–8, 1440–3, 1449– 1814
50, 1452–6, 1458–60, 1462–3, 1465–6, Rugian 998
1468–70, 1475, 1478–80, 1486, 1497, Rumanian 867–9, 1732, 1751, 1759, 1790,
1503, 1507, 1540, 1542, 1546, 1549–52, 1792, 1794, 1813
1554, 1557–8, 1562, 1571–83, 1585–6, Russian 16–17, 49, 106, 393, 579, 582, 617,
1588–9, 1595, 1597, 1601, 1603, 1605, 1035, 1055, 1123, 1150, 1298, 1300, 1312,
1607, 1610–11, 1647, 1654, 1803, 1975–9, 1405, 1414, 1480, 1489, 1496, 1540, 1546,
1981–3, 2017, 2020 1561, 1572, 1576, 1583, 1585–6, 1588,
– Late 1539, 1571, 1585–6, 1588, 1601–2, 1590–3, 1595–8, 1602–4, 1606, 1608–9,
1608 1611–13, 1615, 1617, 1659, 1684, 1714,
Proto-Tocharian 1322, 1366, 1372, 1374, 1962–7, 1969–70, 1976–7, 1981–3, 2002,
1383 2008, 2013–16, 2018–21, 2071, 2121,
Proto-Umbrian 850 2131, 2237, 2242–3, 2245, 2252, 2255–6,
Proto-Uralic 1949, 2281–3, 2286 2266, 2268, 2270–2
Proto-West-Baltic 1699 – Middle 1501, 1503, 1505–6, 1512, 1514
Prussian, Old 146, 177, 215, 629, 666, 843, – Modern 1573, 1596, 1616, 1670
1050, 1055, 1066, 1367, 1421, 1429–30, – North 1543, 1597–8
1459, 1470, 1575–7, 1581, 1583, 1593, – Old 899, 902, 907–10, 1399, 1405, 1430,
1622–3, 1640–50, 1652, 1654, 1656, 1659– 1540, 1546, 1550, 1552, 1555, 1577, 1580,
60, 1662–3, 1668, 1673, 1677, 1682–4, 1594–5, 1597, 1614, 1675, 1684, 1686,

Authenticated
1962, 1965, 1970, 1979, 2001, 2009, 2013, – Hybrid 309, 320–1
2015–16, 2020, 2148, 2241–2, 2246, 2249, – Vedic, see Vedic
2252–3, 2259–60, 2268–9, 2275 Saraiki 434–5
– South 88, 90, 1463, 1497–8, 1597–8, Sardinian 860, 867–9
1607 Sarmatian 155, 603, 605, 1577
Rusyn 1414, 1497, 1602, 1614, 1617 Śaurasenī 319, 426–7, 443
Ruthenian 1414, 1602, 1713 Śaurasenī, Dramatic 426
Ruthenic 149 Saxon 42, 143, 149–50, 174, 881–2, 908,
910, 914, 916, 928, 940, 942–3, 946, 954,
Sabellic 733–4, 736, 738–40, 744, 746–50, 992, 996, 1012, 1016, 1179, 1995
752, 754–7, 759, 761–4, 766–7, 769–73, – Old 908, 914, 916, 928, 940, 942–3, 946,
775–93, 795–7, 804–8, 810, 812–15, 817– 954, 996, 1995
18, 820–6, 828–9, 831–3, 835–6, 840–3, Saxtti Christian Konkan 433
845–8, 851–3, 860–1, 2030, 2032–5, 2089, Scottish Gaelic 1177, 1179–80, 1270, 1277,
2199, 2255 1287
Śābhārī 427 Scythian 150, 152, 154–5, 172, 476, 567,
Sabine 736, 738, 740, 809, 820, 849 601–2, 981, 1577
Śākārī 427 Scythic 138, 151–4
Salish 2286 Scytho-Celtic 152, 155
– Thompson 2122, 2133 Selonian 1622, 1699–1700, 1704, 1706, 2015
Samaritan 1399 Semigalian 1622, 1699–1700, 1703–4, 1706,
Sambian 1700 1708, 1713
Sami 876 Semitic 9, 33, 38, 89, 93–6, 107, 143, 147,
Samlandian dialect 1624 151, 154, 172, 187, 191–2, 196, 222, 611,
Samoyedic 99, 101–2 633, 868, 1113, 1948, 2048, 2283–5
Samur – Central 93, 96, 1606–8, 1610–13, 1615–
– Eastern 108 16, 2067–8
– Western 108 – Ethiopian 93, 96
Sanskrit 8–10, 15, 17, 20, 22–4, 56, 86, 88– – West 26, 33, 93, 96
9, 158–60, 172–80, 182, 187, 189, 210–11, Serbian 49, 179, 1405, 1414, 1419–21, 1472,
309–10, 313–15, 317–21, 326–30, 334–5, 1558–9, 1561, 1563–8, 1583, 1589–93,
344, 355, 357, 372–4, 385, 387, 389, 393, 1598, 1603
395–6, 409–14, 418–25, 427–8, 430, 432– – Old 1399, 1425, 1429–30, 1438, 1440–1,
3, 435, 437–41, 443–4, 447–58, 461–4, 1443, 1445, 1449, 1451, 1454–5, 1461,
466–7, 474, 476, 583–4, 639, 661, 684–5, 1466, 1472, 1475, 1477, 1488, 1493, 1501
836–7, 860, 862, 869, 913, 915, 982, 984, Serbo-Croatian 1414, 1590–3, 1595, 1792,
1050–1, 1054–8, 1061–3, 1069–70, 1072, 1976, 1982–3
1081–3, 1085–9, 1091, 1094–5, 1116–18, Shāhbāzgaṛhī 316, 421–2, 424
1298–9, 1301, 1314, 1335, 1337, 1353, Shetlandic 1563
1355, 1366–71, 1373, 1377–8, 1386, 1585, Shina 435–6, 443
1774–6, 1778–81, 1807, 1821, 1823, 1826– – Kohistani 436
8, 1837, 1875–85, 1925, 1928–9, 1931, Shughni 476, 611, 613, 1370
1939–40, 1985, 1987, 1990–5, 1997, 2058– Sicel 733, 752, 860, 1854
62, 2064–5, 2068–70, 2072–3, 2097, 2110– Sicilian 868
11, 2118–19, 2121, 2231–76 Siculian 860–1, 1854–6
– Buddhist Hybrid 320, 410, 413, 1366, Sidetic 45, 239, 246, 259, 299
1370–1 Sindhi 35, 321, 429, 431, 433–5, 1879
– Classical 139, 344, 348, 352, 355, 357, Sinhala 56, 317, 321, 429, 440–1
369, 372–4, 378, 387, 399, 410–11, 413, – Literary 441
418–20, 422–4, 427–8, 448, 453, 2118, Sino-Tibetan 438, 440
2167 Siraiki 433
– Epic 344, 374, 389, 396, 420, 457, 462–3 Sivas 1133, 1138, 1149, 1151–2

Authenticated
Slavic 11, 62–4, 145, 149, 156–7, 160, 175, Slovenian 1414–15, 1418–19, 1421, 1423,
178–80, 182, 769, 889, 906–7, 981, 983, 1439, 1442, 1448–9, 1451, 1453, 1466,
988, 1019, 1116, 1119, 1389, 1397–1400, 1471–4, 1477–8, 1480–6, 1488–9, 1491,
1402, 1404, 1406, 1414–55, 1457–1515, 1493–7, 1499–1510, 1512–14, 1540, 1589–
1538–55, 1558, 1560–4, 1566, 1568, 1571– 93, 1598
83, 1586, 1588, 1590, 1592–4, 1596–8, Slovincian 1414–15, 1419, 1421, 1482–3,
1600–6, 1608, 1610, 1612, 1614–17, 1640, 1485, 1489–90, 1501, 1512, 1514, 1593,
1647–9, 1654, 1675, 1683–4, 1687, 1689, 1602
1702–5, 1712, 1714, 1720, 1732, 1737, Sogdian 35, 51, 54, 194, 221, 472, 476, 483–
1744, 1759, 1803, 1805–6, 1812, 1814, 6, 490–1, 493–7, 555, 567, 569–81, 583–7,
1960–71, 1974, 1976–9, 1985–98, 2001– 599, 601–4, 610–13, 615–19, 1370, 1879,
10, 2012–13, 2016–18, 2020, 2074, 2091, 1884
2094, 2096, 2102–3, 2108, 2116, 2149, – Buddhist 570–2, 576, 581–3, 586, 604,
2151, 2165–6 618, 1369
– Church 212, 868, 1072, 1323, 1398–9, – Manichean 570, 572, 576, 582, 586, 611,
1405–7, 1419, 1449, 1539, 1558, 1561, 1369
1757, 1997 Soqotri 93
– Common 16, 897, 1414–17, 1423, 1430– Sorbian 1407, 1414, 1416, 1418–19, 1421,
1, 1433, 1435–6, 1439–40, 1442, 1446, 1472, 1474, 1478, 1480, 1482–7, 1489,
1449, 1451–2, 1461, 1467, 1469, 1474, 1493, 1495, 1497, 1501, 1572–5, 1583,
1479, 1481, 1488, 1498, 1500–3, 1506, 1593–6, 1598, 1602, 1607–8, 1615, 1617,
1510–11, 1571, 1602–3, 1606, 1611, 1617, 2014–16
2245, 2252, 2255, 2262, 2269, 2271 – Lower 1421, 1559, 1591, 1593–6, 1602,
1609
– Early Common 1414, 1437–8, 1442,
– Upper 82, 1414, 1418, 1421, 1447–8,
1445–6, 1455–6, 1469, 1473
1453, 1472–3, 1475, 1479, 1481–2, 1484,
– East, see East Slavic
1487, 1489–91, 1493–5, 1497–8, 1502,
– Medieval 1600, 1602–3, 1605–6, 1613–15
1573–4, 1593–6, 1602, 1607, 2014–15
– North 1543, 1555, 1969, 1993, 2018
South Caucasian 87, 106–7, 109, 1123, 2284
– Northeastern 2017
South Curonian 1699
– Old Church, see Old Church Slavic/
South Geg, see Southern Geg
Slavonic South Oscan 793, 849
– South, see South Slavic South Picene 221, 749–50, 752, 768, 770,
– West 1055, 1397–8, 1402, 1405–7, 1414, 773, 786–7, 791–2, 795, 804, 808–10, 817,
1418, 1420, 1423, 1447, 1453, 1455–6, 820, 845, 847–51, 2030
1462–5, 1471–5, 1491, 1493, 1495–1500, South Russian 88, 90, 1463, 1497–8, 1597–8,
1503, 1514, 1558, 1585, 1588–9, 1591, 1607
1593–6, 1602, 1605, 1607–8, 1610, 1612– South Slavic 631, 1397–9, 1405, 1414, 1417–
14, 1616, 1684, 2003 20, 1423, 1430, 1447–50, 1453, 1455–6,
Slavo-Germanic 212, 1970 1462–5, 1471–4, 1476–9, 1481, 1485–8,
Slavonic 975, 2234, 2237; see also Old 1491, 1493, 1495–1502, 1507, 1512, 1543,
Church Slavic/Slavonic 1558, 1561, 1585, 1588–92, 1596–7, 1602,
Slovak 1407, 1414–15, 1418–19, 1421, 1449, 1604–7, 1610, 1612, 1614, 1747, 1783,
1453, 1462, 1465, 1471–3, 1478, 1480–4, 1969, 1981, 1993, 2006, 2018–19
1486, 1488–9, 1491, 1495–1500, 1502–3, – Eastern 1399, 1403, 1414, 1447–9, 1453,
1513–14, 1558, 1572–5, 1581–3, 1593–6, 1462, 1464–5, 1471–2, 1474, 1479, 1481,
1598, 1602, 1606–9, 1615, 1981, 2014–16, 1484, 1490, 1496, 1501–2, 1981
2019–20 – Western 1404, 1414, 1417–18, 1462,
– West 442, 1595 1471–2, 1474, 1476, 1478, 1485, 1491,
Slovene 1558–9, 1566, 1572–6, 1582–3, 1493, 1498, 1501–2, 1507, 1981
1591, 1602–3, 1606–9, 1611–12, 1615, South Žemaitian 1627, 1702, 1705
2016 Southern Anatolian 299, 301–4, 306
– Northwestern 1607 Southern Arvanitika 1808

Authenticated
Southern Brāhmī 440 Tigre 93

Southern Geg 1720–1, 1724, 1801, 1805 Tigrinya 93
Southern Tati 610, 613 Tihriyali 438
Southern Tosk 1792, 1804, 1806–8, 1814 Tindi 108
Southwestern Iranian 106, 472 Tirahi 436
Spanish, Peruvian 868 Tocharian 15, 21–3, 54, 63, 66–7, 69, 191,
Standard Albanian 1724, 1750–1, 1760 193–4, 211, 214–15, 220–1, 223–9, 231–4,
Standard Lithuanian 1643, 1647, 1705, 411, 413, 463, 476, 700, 771, 775, 786,
1713–14, 1980, 2147 939, 1116–17, 1119, 1298–1301, 1304–10,
Standard Marat 432 1312, 1314, 1316–18, 1320, 1322, 1324–8,
Standard Modern Greek 731 1335–6, 1338, 1340, 1342, 1344, 1346–8,
Standard Panjabi 434–5 1350, 1352–8, 1360–2, 1365–94, 1555,
Standard Western Armenian 580, 1148–52, 1564, 1576, 1583, 1757, 1873, 1914, 2032,
1155–6, 1162 2034, 2073, 2080, 2087, 2091, 2097, 2099,
Štokavian 1414, 1472, 1480, 1482, 1493, 2101–4, 2108, 2117–18, 2137, 2142, 2146–
1514, 1589 7, 2149, 2152–6, 2163–7, 2169, 2171, 2212
Suczawa 1150 – Common 1298, 1304, 1308, 1310–16,
Sudovian 1699 1318–29, 1335–43, 1345–6, 1348–50,
Šughnī 494, 568, 570–4, 577–80, 582–3, 1389, 1948
585–7, 2244 – Early 1393
Sumerian 8–9, 26–7, 33, 38, 240, 2041, 2286 – East 1308, 1367, 1373, 1387
Svan 106–7, 2284 – West 1304–6, 1367, 1374, 1380, 1382
Swahili 116 Togo Remnant language group 116
Swedish 148, 1009, 1011, 1018, 1576, 1580, Tokyo Japanese 2122–4, 2131, 2133
1582–3, 2229 Torwali 436
– Modern 1015, 2069 Tosk 1720, 1722, 1724, 1732–4, 1736, 1739,
– Old 879, 899–900, 918, 920, 939, 960 1741, 1769, 1772, 1776, 1778–9, 1785–6,
Swiss German 1011 1788–9, 1800–5, 1812–14
Syriac 35, 94, 146, 172, 476, 604, 722, 1029, – Northern 1801
1031–2, 1122, 1147 – Old 1732, 1750, 1789–90
– Southern 1792, 1804, 1806–8, 1814
Tajiki 476, 568, 618 Transalpine Celtic 1218–28, 1230–3, 1235–6,
Talyshi 610, 613, 615, 617–18 1240–4, 1264–70
Tamian 1706, 1708–9 Tregami 443
Tamil 441 Tsez 108
Tartar 147, 149 Tsezian 108
Tartessian 46, 861, 1170, 1218, 1271 Tumshuqese 54, 194, 476, 495, 584–5, 601,
Tatar 88, 102 603, 605, 611, 615
Tātī 106 Turfan Middle Parthian 1370
Tati, Southern 610, 613 Turfan Middle Persian 1370
Telugu 439 Turkhmen 106
Thai 123, 413 Turkic 106, 573, 599, 611, 619, 1344, 1353,
Thanjavur Marathi 432 1416, 1573, 1577, 1580, 2280
Thari 433 – Old 1298, 1580
Theran 644, 712 Turkish 11, 153–4, 156, 263, 1035, 1123,
Thessalian 643–4, 646, 648, 659, 674, 681, 1150, 1154, 1157–9, 1747, 1778, 1806,
700, 713, 719, 1784, 1863–4, 1866 1813–14, 2093
Thompson Salish 2122, 2133 Tyrsenian 860
Thracian 181, 981, 1653, 1790, 1850–3,
1863, 1865–6, 1970 Ubykh 106, 2285
Tibetan 413, 1123, 1299, 1369, 2280 Ugaritic 93–4
Tibeto-Burman 309, 412 Ukrainian 49, 1405, 1414, 1421, 1438, 1448–
Tigranakert 1150 9, 1453, 1463–4, 1471, 1473–4, 1479–80,

Authenticated
1484, 1486–7, 1490–1, 1494–5, 1497–8, – Mantra 1932, 1940

1503, 1507–8, 1572–5, 1578–83, 1586, – Middle 386, 389–90, 401, 418–19, 1915
1592, 1595–8, 1607–9, 1617, 2014–15, – Northwestern 419
2019–20, 2249, 2264 – Pañcālan 418–20, 425
Umbrian 42, 146, 228, 662, 664, 738–40, – Western 418, 420
743–4, 747–50, 752, 757, 759, 770, 775, Vegliot 862
779, 784–9, 791, 793, 796, 804–15, 817– Venetic 41–2, 194, 733, 748, 752, 804, 828,
25, 831, 839, 842, 845, 847–51, 860, 924, 831, 836–7, 840, 843, 859–60, 875, 1190,
1062, 1066, 1084, 1087, 1542, 1564, 1836, 1832–7, 1845, 2032
1969, 2030, 2033–4, 2085, 2235, 2239, – Old 1832–3
2241, 2253, 2255–6, 2258–9, 2269 Vepsian 1458, 1475, 1478, 1480, 1488
Umbroid Marsian 849 Vestinian 804, 841, 847, 849–50
Upper German 892–3, 1008 Vicholi 433
Upper Sorbian 82, 1414, 1418, 1421, 1447–8, Vlax 442
1453, 1472–3, 1475, 1479, 1481–2, 1484, Volscian 752, 768, 795, 804, 829–30, 832,
1487, 1489–91, 1493–5, 1497–8, 1502, 847, 860
1573–4, 1593–6, 1602, 1607, 2014–15 Vulgar Latin 178, 831, 864–5, 998, 1431,
Uralic 10, 89, 99–101, 196, 2002–3, 2280–3, 1574, 1777
2285–7
Uralic-Altaic 1353 Waigali 443–4, 571–2, 575, 578–9, 581
Urartian 107, 1123 Wakhi 476, 611–13
Urdu 35, 321, 430, 435 Waxī 492–3, 497–8, 568–82, 584–6, 1370
Ursari 442 Welsh 143–4, 149, 1058, 1177–80, 1189,
Ushojo 436 1194, 1203, 1205, 1208–10, 1212, 1215,
Uto-Aztecan 2122 1224–31, 1233–7, 1239, 1242, 1244–5,
1250, 1255, 1258–9, 1269–70, 1280–2,
Vafsi 610, 614–17 1285, 1287–9, 1291, 1321, 1368, 2015,
Van 1139 2033, 2104, 2240–3, 2245, 2249, 2255–8,
Vannetais Breton 1275, 1282 2260, 2262, 2265–7, 2269, 2271–5
Varhadi 432 – Modern 1177–8, 1291
Vasconic 859, 978 – Old 1178, 1210, 1251–7, 1259, 1268,
Vedic 223–30, 232, 309–10, 314, 335–6, 338, 1270, 1281–2, 1285, 1287–8, 2031, 2034
340, 344, 346, 356–7, 365, 368–9, 371, Wendic 149
373–4, 377, 379, 383, 385, 387, 389–91, West Aukštaitian 1625–6, 1685, 1701, 1703,
395, 397, 400–1, 410–14, 418–20, 444, 1713
447–51, 453–8, 463–4, 466, 497–8, 569– West Baltic 1640–2, 1687, 1691–3, 1699–
70, 572–87, 656–64, 666–81, 754–5, 760– 1700, 1968–9, 1974, 1985, 2017–18
2, 765–80, 784–5, 787–90, 793, 797, 811, West Bulgarian 1472, 1479–80, 1489, 1496,
814, 838–9, 915–18, 921, 923–4, 926–9, 1589
938, 1046–67, 1069–72, 1256–7, 1307, West Caucasian 106–7, 109, 1255, 2280,
1310–14, 1316, 1318–19, 1321–5, 1327–8, 2285
1343, 1345, 1779, 1889–90, 1899, 1902, West Germanic 875, 877, 881–2, 891–4,
1904, 1906, 1910, 1912, 1915, 1925, 1928– 900–1, 904–5, 908–10, 913–14, 918, 921–
32, 1934–5, 1939–40, 2031–2, 2034, 2057– 2, 927, 929, 931–3, 937–8, 943, 954, 960,
61, 2063–5, 2067, 2069–74, 2082–92, 967–9, 976–7, 991–2, 994–7, 1004–5,
2095–6, 2098, 2100, 2102–17, 2119–36, 1007–9, 1012–14, 1016, 1458, 1466, 1488,
2140–58, 2160–70, 2199–2201, 2203–4, 1582
2206–12, 2214–16, 2232, 2234, 2243–4, West Greek 644, 649, 652, 656, 660, 665,
2247, 2249–50, 2259–63, 2267–8, 2270 668, 670, 678–9, 681, 712–14, 717, 719,
– Early 385–90, 392, 395–7, 1915, 2211 1854
– Eastern 419–20 West Mercian 910
– Gandhāran 420 West Saxon, Late 882
– Late 314, 386, 389, 396, 458, 1542 West Semitic 26, 33, 93, 96

Authenticated
West Slavic 1055, 1397–8, 1402, 1405–7, Yaghnobi 476, 493, 496, 570–1, 573, 576–9,
1414, 1418, 1420, 1423, 1447, 1453, 1455– 581–3, 585–7, 611–19, 1915
6, 1462–5, 1471–5, 1491, 1493, 1495– Yanyuwa 133
1500, 1503, 1514, 1558, 1585, 1588–9, Yatvingian 1622
1591, 1593–6, 1602, 1605, 1607–8, 1610, Yazghulami 611, 613
1612–14, 1616, 1684, 2003 Yiddish 35, 965, 1009, 1011, 1013, 1016,
West Slovak 442, 1595 1018–20
West Tocharian 1304–6, 1367, 1374, 1380, Yidgha 571, 610–12
1382
Yidgha-Munji 476, 487, 493, 498
Western Anatolian 246, 299
Yotvingian 1585, 1699, 1713
Western Armenian 1032, 1034–6, 1156
Young Avestan 374, 471, 473, 475, 484, 495,
– Standard 580, 1148–52, 1155–6, 1162
Western Hindi 430 498, 504, 601, 702, 842, 1072, 1925, 1940
Western Kumauni 438
Western Pahari 434, 436–7 Zazaki 570, 580–1, 584, 610, 612–16, 619
Western Samur 108 Žemaitian 1625–6, 1686, 1699–1702, 1705,
Western South Slavic 1404, 1414, 1417–18, 1980
1462, 1471–2, 1474, 1476, 1478, 1485, – South 1627, 1702, 1705
1491, 1493, 1498, 1501–2, 1507, 1981 Zeytun 1139, 1147, 1163
Western Vedic 418, 420 Zyrian 100

Authenticated
Authenticated

Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics (PDFDrive)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics (PDFDrive)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Handbook of Comparative and

Historical Indo-European Linguistics

Mitbegründet von Gerold Ungeheuer

Herausgegeben von / Edited by / Edités par

In cooperation with Mark Wenthe

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

XVI. Languages of fragmentary attestation

Brought to you by | UCL - University College London

107. Macedonian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1862

XIX. Wider configurations and contacts

XXI. Beyond Proto-Indo-European

General index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2293

Brought to you by | UCL - University College London

I. General and methodological issues

II. The application of the comparative method in selected

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics

Brought to you by | UCL - University College London

Brought to you by | UCL - University College London

Brought to you by | UCL - University College London

80. The documentation of Slavic

Brought to you by | UCL - University College London

2.1. Old Church Slavic

Brought to you by | UCL - University College London

Brought to you by | UCL - University College London

Tab. 80.1: The Glagolitic alphabet

Brought to you by | UCL - University College London

Tab. 80.1: (continued)

Tab. 80.2: The Cyrillic alphabet

letter 3, 4, 5 6, 7 8, н 9, : (<) > ? @

Brought to you by | UCL - University College London

Tab. 80.2: (continued)

Brought to you by | UCL - University College London

a synaxarion. It is written in an inconsistent and somewhat innovative orthography (Lunt

2.2. Eastern South Slavic

Brought to you by | UCL - University College London

2.3. Western South Slavic

Brought to you by | UCL - University College London

Brought to you by | UCL - University College London

Brought to you by | UCL - University College London

Brought to you by | UCL - University College London

Brought to you by | UCL - University College London

Brought to you by | UCL - University College London

Brought to you by | UCL - University College London

Brought to you by | UCL - University College London

Brought to you by | UCL - University College London

Keith Langston, Athens, GA (USA)

Brought to you by | UCL - University College London

81. The phonology of Slavic

1.1. Common Slavic and its speakers

The reconstructed Sl protolanguage is called Common Slavic (CSl), or sometimes Proto-

Brought to you by | UCL - University College London

Brought to you by | UCL - University College London

homogeneous ethnicity. Ethnonyms are often reassigned based on proximity or alliances

1.1.1. Localization of pre-migration CSl

Brought to you by | UCL - University College London

1.1.2. CSl during the Migration Period

Slavophones spread to the outer foothills of the Carpathians in incremental waves of

Brought to you by | UCL - University College London

Brought to you by | UCL - University College London

1.2. Early Slavic writing

Brought to you by | UCL - University College London

(5) deH3te:i̯ da̋:tɛ̋:i̯ dati dati dati dać ‘give’