Masaryk University
The development of the IEclusters obstruent + t/s(dh
)
[habilitation thesis]
Brno 2020 Ondřej Šefčík
2
3
Hereby I state myself the sole author of the presented thesis, I used only the quoted literature as listed below.
4
5
1 On IE obstruents, examined clusters and used methods
1.0 Introduction remarks
The purpose of the present study is to describe the development of a particular set of
consonantal clusters in the Indo-European languages and, in hindsight, to shed some light both
on its earlier phase (shared in various degrees by the various sub-branches of the IE language
family) and on the main tendencies present in the development of given Indo-European
branches.
The set of consonantal clusters we will study are two-consonantal clusters (with a few
exceptions, mentioned as such in the following text, used from necessity given by the lack of
more suitable data) formed either by an Indo-European obstruent (in the context of the present
study, an obstruent will be any IE plosive and a sibilant) in the left position and by either by *tor
*s- or *dh
- in the right position (the terms ‘rightʼ and ‘leftʼ are arbitrarily used to mark the
mutual relative position within the speech act).
The method used is the principally traditional structural analysis of clusters of our
interest, primarily those synchronically productive, secondarily those etymological (i.e.,
synchronically unanalysable and with structure revealed only through the etymological
analysis). The analysis is based on the assumption that the phonemic alternation (indifferent if
synchronic or diachronic) could reveal, in its nature, functions and relations otherwise invisible
to the pure phonemic analysis in the way of simple registration of elements and their
description; this is the reason why we use the term ‘structural analysisʼ since we are focused on
mutual relations between segments as much as on the segments themselves.
On the following lines of this chapter in we will bring forth the reconstructed set of IE
obstruents, the classification of given consonantal classes and a few methodological remarks.
1.1 Indo-European obstruents
The set of the Indo-European obstruents consists of a single voiceless sibilant *s (split in
languages affected by the Pedersen’s Law/the ruki-rule into two sibilants – in such languages,
we will deal with both sibilants independently) and a numerous set of plosives, their number
differing according to the used models.
The main differences between given models of the plosive sets used could be classified
according to the number of modal classes used and on local series; the main points of divergence
6
we will sum up on following lines to express reasons for the list of plosive phonemes we will
be using below.
1.1.1 Indo-European plosives I: the modal classes
The classification of IE obstruents according to their modality is a matter of debate both of their
number and phonemic nature. The models used could be classified thus:
i. the quaternary model, containing the voiceless-nonaspirated, voiced-nonaspirated, voiceless
aspirated and voiced aspirated classes, is, in fact, a projection of the Vedic system backwards
in time, was first proposed by Curtius (1853), and became the standard model for another
century, being used by influential grammarians, especially by Brugmann. Hirt (1927: 218–
219, 224, 240-241; Hirt 1939: 161) followed the quaternary model, though considering the
secondary origin of the voiceless aspirates (as proposed by ternary models). From later
supporters we have to mention Hiersche (1964) and especially Szemerényi (1967: 84, 88–
89; Szemerényi 1996: 54); Rasmussen (1987: 81–109 = 1998: 216–243), Elbourne (1998:
1–30; 2000: 2‒28).
ii. the ternary model has numerous variants, all having in common a denial of the IndoEuropean
origin of the voiceless-nonaspirates (since de Saussure 1892: 118), for its classical
form see especially Pedersen (1926: 48); Kuryłowicz (1927: 202‒204; Kuryłowicz 1973:
68–69); Lehmann (1952: 99). From its variants, we could mention the one assuming that the
voiced-aspirates were originally the voiced spirants (cf. Brücke 1856: 59–60; Walde 1897:
466; Prokosch 1918–1919; Prokosch 1939: 39–41; Hammerich 1967: 839–849). More
popular are various glottal models, denying the traditional values of three modal classes in
various degrees, cf. Pedersen 1951: 10–16; Andreev 1957: 7–8; Griffen 1989. Often variant
are purely glottalic models such as those by Martinet (1953: 67–68); Gamkrelidze/Ivanov
(1972: 15–18); Hopper (1973: 141–166); Kortlandt (1978b: 107–108; Korlandt 1985); Huld
(1984: 140); Collinge (1985: 259–269); Salmons (1993); Fallon (2002: 284–288, 317–318).
An interesting variant replaces the voiced non-aspirated with an implosive, cf. Haider
(1985); Kümmel (2012: 303–306); Brett Miller (2012: 95, 236‒266).
Note: The binary model, using the simple opposition of the voice was introduced by Schleicher (18611
: 136–137;
18662
: 162–163) as the first stage in the common development of the IE languages; even Schleicher assumes
the later existence of the ternary model. Erhart (1956; Erhart 1982: 39) later brings a similar model of the twostages
development with a later split of the voiced class on two modal classes.
Within the frame of this study, we will use the traditional variant of the ternary model, since it
satisfyingly fits our purposes, especially since we will deal with plosives in the neutralization
positions, where the distinction between the modal classes is subjected to various alternations.
As we will see below, the contrast between the voiceless and voiced non-aspirates is always
neutralized (as often are the voiced aspirates), and the distinction between both non-aspirated
plosives on one side and the voiced aspirate on the other side is relevant only in some contexts
of our interest for the Indo-Iranian languages (the contexts of Bartholomae’s law).
7
The phonetic properties of the reconstructed IE phonemes are always only better or
worse approximatively due to their necessarily abstract nature, this being the result of the
reconstruction, not of direct observation. As we saw above, the conventional modal classes are
variously interpreted. The terms voiceless non-aspirates, voiced non-aspirates and voiced
aspirates will be used on following lines, with approximate values given by the names (except
with the third modal class where the phonetic nature as voiced aspirate could be successfully
doubted, cf. Kümmel 2015: 293; we would prefer the values of voiced spirants, as mentioned
above, but we will use both the traditional values and frame)1
. However, Jakobson (1958: 22–
23) and Hopper (1973: 141) are wrong when arguing that two voiced plosives in a single triadic
system are impossible (cf. Kümmel 2012: 294–295), as demonstrate the typological parallel of
Madurese or Kelabit (Blust 2009: 174–175, 182; added could be probably even Bintulu).
Note: The existence of the IE voiceless-aspirates we cannot be merely rejected, but we can surely assume that if
such modal class did exist, it was not proportional to other classes (cf. Šefčík 2012; Šefčík 2016), as it is in
Indic (the Indic state is a secondary leveling of the system, as we will demonstrate below). It should be noted
that OIA, where the voiceless aspirates are a singular class (unlike in other languages – Greek voiceless
aspirates usually reflect the IE voiced-aspirates), they never enter the context we will examine below, hence
clearly demonstrating their unusual position in the whole phonemic system.
1.1.2 Indo-European plosives II: the local series
The reconstruction of the dental and labial series is not in doubt (though the status of the IE
phoneme *b is often questioned, the reconstructed existence rest of labials is accepted).
However, the number and phonetic realization of a reconstructed velar series is a matter of
debate.
To sum up, there are the following approaches to the ‘guttural questionʼ:
i. the monic model reconstructs only three series: labial, dental and (plain) velar series. This
type of model was first used by Schleicher (18611
: 136–1379; Schleicher 18662
: 162–165),
who presupposed that other velar series (the terminology used today was not used in his
days) developed due to the set of processes he even tried to list. Schleicherʼs model in the
original form was abandoned in favour of either dyadic or triadic models; however, even
later the monic model was considered as a working model for an earlier stage of
development of guttural series, i.e. used as a predecessor of later models with more series,
cf. Pedersen (1897: 192; Pedersen 1900: 292–300; Pedersen 1908: 354; 1 Pedersen 951: 3);
Ribezzo (1903; Ribezzo 1922–1923; Ribezzo 1929); Hirt (1927: 234–236; Hirt 1939: 162);
Sturtevant (1930); Specht (1944: 316–317); Safarewicz (1945: 37); Vaillant (1950: 25);
Otrębski (1963: 11–15). To the possibilities of the palatalization and labialization of velars
see Solta (1965), who adds typological parallels. The monic model is, as an earlier stage of
the development of IE guttural system, presupposed later by Markey (1980) and Szemerényi
1
Peeters (1971) prefers to reconstruct non-phonemic voice (development later in context with the later creation of
voiceless aspirates). Peeters assumes the non-occlusive character of IE *Dh
, though he does not directly state
the spirant value.
8
(1996: 149), first via the split of plain velars and labiovelars, followed (in satəm-languages)
by the phonemization of palatovelars and the subsequent delabialization of labiovelars2
.
ii. the dyadic centum-model presupposes that system of guttural series we meet in centumlanguages,
is already traceable back to Indo-European and consequently, the satəm-language
model is considered a later innovation. According to this model, the three guttural series
model is a pure phantom given by a generalization and merging of two models in a single
one, without any real existence. The first proponent of the dyadic centum model was Meillet
(1893), later Hirt (1899; also Hirt 1927: 226f; 1939); Vaillant (1950: 25), Lehmann (1952:
8; Lehmann 1993: 100–102); Sihler (1995: 151–165). Generally, the satəmization is
considered a process similar in its nature to later palatalizations of velars (in Indo-Iranian,
Slavic, Romance etc.), though the specification of its conditions is quite vague. This
satəmization lead to the split of original plain velar series into two, the palatovelars later
(af)fricativized. Numerous authors pointed out that satəm-languages form a single
innovation area (i.e. area of satəmization)3
, cf. József Schmidt (1912: 45); Sköld (1931, 56-
79); Pisani (1961); Porzig (1954: 76); W. P. Schmid (1966: 11); Shields (1981: 210–211);
Sihler (1995: 153); Schmitt-Brand (1998, 88–90). Burrows (1955: 72–73) considers
satəmization in the satəm-languages as the first stage of a general process of palatalization
(‘first palatalizationʼ), followed by a ‘second palatalizationʼ of velars (< original IE *K and
*Kṷ
), occurring independently in the satəm Balto-Slavic and Armenian (Burrows 1955: 76-
77), similarly Sihler (1995: 154–155); Sims-Williams N. (2017: 268–270). To generalize the
thesis: the original state of IE was with plain velars and labiovelar, and some of the plain
velars became secondarily palatalized (except in some positions like before r, a or after u, ū
etc.) in the future satəm-languages. With a new marker in work, the original labiovelars lost
their labiality and merged with original IE plain velar.
iii. the dyadic satəm-model mirrors the dyadic centum-model in presupposing that the threevalued
model is a purely reconstructional phantom. The difference in the idea that the satəmmodel
(i.e. the model with distinguished palatovelars and plain velars) was the original
model of IE since in this model, the labiovelar series is a secondary series, arising due to
some process of labialization of plain velars (‘centumizationʼ), resulting in the secondary
split of plain velar series into two. It is worthy of mention that this model was originally
accepted by Brugmann in the first edition of his Grundriss (Brugmann 1886), though it was
later abandoned and replaced by the triadic model. However, similar ideas were later stated
by authors like Joh. Schmidt (KZ 25, 1881: 134); Ribezzo (1903; 1922–23; 1929); Jószef
Schmidt (1912: 54) and Reichelt (1922: 40–81). Later the main proponent of this model was
Kuryłowicz, who voiced his opinion repeatedly (Kuryłowicz 1956: 356–375; Kuryłowicz
1964: 12). The mechanism of centumization was described by Szemerényi as the result of
simplification of *Ku̯ clusters (where K is any plain velar) (Szemerényi 1964: 401;
Szemerényi 1996: 145–146); in this he follows Vaillant (1950: 171–173).
iv. the dyadic equipollent model assumes that there were two marked series (i.e. the labiovelar
and the palatovelar series) and that the plain velar series, which are reconstructed for IE in
an only very limited number (note that absolutely higher number of plain series in attested
IE languages is given by the merging of one of marked guttural series with plain velar series,
not inherited from IE), were not present in reconstructed Indo-European. As a proponent of
this model, we can list Meillet (1893; Meillet 1934: 91–95), since in his model, plain velar
is just an allophone of palatovelar and hence the phoneme is palatovelar in opposition to
2
That the palatovelars must be arisen before the merging of plain velars and labiovelars is clear from the fact that
there are no palatovelars arisen from original labiovelars since both sets of gutturals are clearly and strictly
distinguished.
3
Less probably is the idea supported by Georgiev (1937: 124; 1966: 46) and Abaev (1965: 140f.), who suppose
the independent process of satəmization in given IE languages.
9
labiovelar. Steensland (1973, cf. especially 96–127) presupposes two series, marked in a
purely algebraic way as KA and KB, the first of them developing in palatovelar series in the
satəm-languages and plain velars in the centum-languages, the second of them developing
into labiovelar series in the centum-languages and plain velars in the satəm-languages; plain
velars are then a result of neutralization of one of his series. A very similar model was
developed by Kortlandt (1978a; Kortlandt 1994a: 2–3) and Woodhouse (1998; 2000), who
advances the opposition between prevelars and backvelars. Even Beekes (2011: 124–126),
who otherwise reconstructed three guttural series, seems to tend to accept the opinion that
plain velars were just positional allophones either of palatovelars or labiovelars (cf. Cavoto
2001: 51).
v. the triadic model assumes the original existence of all three velar series and was first
introduced by Bezzenberger (Bezzenberger 1890), named by von Bradke (1890) and
accepted by Brugmann (1897) (both by the second edition of his great comparative grammar
and also by his concise grammar). Since that time, this model has been used by many authors;
for example by Szemerényi (1990: 71). This model became a widely accepted standard,
having the advantage of covering all possible guttural series. However, it could still contain
a reconstructional error since the possibility of reconstructing three guttural series does not
necessarily mean that the system with three series ever existed at the same time (cf. Sihler
1995: 154). This traditional model is accepted by Allen (1978); Tischler (1990: 93–94);
Kapović (2017: 14–15, 21–28). The fact that attested Indo-European languages have only
two guttural series4
, led Burrows (1955: 75–76), Kuryłowicz (1956: 356; Kuryłowicz 1973:
64); Meillet (1893: 278); Lehmann (1952: 100), Bernabé Pajares (1971: 84) and others to
state that the triadic model is therefore impossible, but since there are external parallels in
the Northern Caucasian and other languages, it is hardly possible to say that the system of
three guttural series is impossible from the typological point of view, and we will
demonstrate that some version of it even exists in Indo-European language. A slightly
modified statement is that by Cavoto (2001: 51), who namely considers three phonetically
distinct guttural series, but only two phonemic series for IE (cf. Beekes 2011: 126, too). A
very similar statement was already earlier made by Safarewicz (1945: 37). Speaking about
the triadic system, we have to mention the variants given by Huld (1986; 1997) and by
Kümmel (2007: 310-327), working with the triad with traditional labiovelars, but where
traditional palatalovelars are plain velars (hence there is no depalatalization in the centumlanguages,
but there is a palatalization in the satəm-languages), and traditional plain velars
are uvulars (de-uvularized in both branches) (cf. also Huld 1986: 144–147; Huld 1997;
Woodhouse 1998). Lipp (2009a, especially: 5–19) postulates two stages system, similar to
that by Szemerényi (1996: 60–61), with an original distinction between plain- and
labiovelars, but with a later split of palatovelars from the plain velars in languages which
later became the satəm-languages; the satəmization as a first step in the general development
of palatalization (cf. two stages of palatalization in Burrows 1955: 72–73).
The aforementioned lack of the whole triadic system in attested IE languages led numerous
authors to raise grave objections against the triadic system (cf. Meillet 1893: 278; Lehmann
1952: 100; Burrows 1955: 75; Kuryłowicz 1956: 356; Kuryłowicz 1973: 64 as examples).
However the traces of a triadic system were stated to be found in Albanian, since Pre-Albanian
labiovelars *kṷ
and *gṷ
(< IE *gṷ
, *gṷh
) were later palatalized to Albanian s, z before the palatal
4
The question of preserving at least of traces of three guttural series in IE we will deal with below.
10
vowel but merged with plain velars in other positions and hence giving, as plain velars, *k and
*g (< IE *g, *gh
); cf. Alb. sjell ‘to bringʼ < IE *√kṷ
elH1- but Alb. pjek ‘to bakeʼ < IE *√pekṷ
-;
Alb. zorrë ‘gutʼ < IE *√ghṷ
ērn- but Alb. djeg ‘to burnʼ < IE *√dh
egṷh
-. Moreover, since Albanian
is a satəm-language (IE palatovelar *ḱ developed into Alb. th, the IE palatovelars *ǵ, ǵh
merged
into Albanian dh), Albanian preserved traces of the original triadic system. The first proponent
of this theory was already Pedersen (1900a), similarly Jokl (1937), Huld (1984: 144; Huld
1997); Rusakov (2017: 569–571); for the opposing points of view cf. Ölberg (1976), Kortlandt
(1980a), Orël (2000: 66–74).
A similar development was stated for Armenian, in which, again, the IE voiceless
labiovelar5
was in some cases palatalized before the merging of labiovelars and plain velars
(cf. Stempel 1994; Kortlandt 1980; Kümmel 2007: 311; Olsen 2017: 426–428; for data see at
least Schmitt 2007: 62–65): IE *√ḱḗrdi- > Arm. sirt ‘heartʼ; IE *√kér-ō > Arm. k̒erem ‘I scratchʼ;
IE *√kṷ
et(ṷ)ores > Arm. č ̒ork ‘fourʼ. A contrary view that the distinction between original
labiovelars and plain velars is secondary and accidental is held by Kortlandt (1975), Beekes
(2003: 176–179) and Martirosyan (2010: 711), who consider the palatalization as regular for
both original labiovelars and plain velars, the regularity of this process later being disrupted by
the excessive analogy.
Note: A model of three velars series was proposed for Luvo-Lycian by Melchert (1987: 182–204; Melchert 1994:
251–256)6
but was later distinctly decreased by Melchert himself (Melchert 2012: 206–218), not being
unconditioned, but having conditioned palatalization of original palatovelars (but not plain velars) before front
vowels, i̯ and ṷ (the phenomenon seems to be proved for voiceless palatovelars, but not fully affirmed for
voiced palatovelars); cf. Cuneiform Luv. ziyari, Lyc. sijẽni ‘liesʼ < IE *ḱē̆sāi̯e- vs Cuneiform Luv. kišā(i)- ‘to
combʼ < IE *kē̆s- vs Cuneiform Luv. kui-, Lyc. ti ‘whoʼ < IE *kṷ
i-. In contrast, the traces of three guttural series
in Phrygian are assumed by Woodhouse (2005) as the result of the further development of the original IE
dyadic two-valued model, based originally on front velar and back velar (in this respect he is following
Steensland 1973: 96–107; Kortlandt 1978a: 237; see above).
Other traces of the original existence of the labiovelars in the future satəm-languages are
considered to be found in original reduced grades such as OIA guru- ‘heavyʼ and gūrta‘welcomeʼ,
similarly in OCS gъnati (cf. ženǫ ‘propel, drive, chaseʼ) from IE *√gṷh
en- (cf.
Burrows 1957; Pisani 1961; Mayrhofer 1986: 104–105).
The striking phenomenon of the satəm-languages, especially present in Balto-Slavic,
but traceable in Indo-Iranian, too, is the existence of parallel roots with plain velar or original
5
Surprisingly, this change did not affect IE *gṷ
.
6
Melchert (1987: 204) mentions an independent statement made by Warren Cowgill in his unpublished manuscript
from the early seventies, though based on less evidence (which was probably the reason why the paper was
never published). For another independent statement on the preservation of the IE triadic system in Luwian,
see Morpurgo Davies/Hawkins (1988: 169‒182).
11
palatovelar, not caused by any noticeable first-hand alternation-trigger, cf. OIA √klam- ‘be tiredʼ
vs √ślam- ‘be tiredʼ; OIA √ruc- ‘shineʼ vs ruśant- ‘be brightʼ; OIA √śru- ‘hearʼ, OCS slyšati
‘hearʼ vs Lith. klausyti ‘hearʼ; Lith. pekus ‘domestic animalʼ vs OIA paśu- ‘cattleʼ; OIA śvaśura‘father-in-lawʼ
vs OCS svekrъ ‘father-in-lawʼ; OIA aśman- ‘stoneʼ, Lith. ašmuõ, Latv. asmens
‘sharpnessʼ vs Lith. akmuõ, Latv. akmens, OCS kamy ‘stoneʼ etc. (cf. Hirt 1927: 238–241;
Vaillant 1950: 171–173; Burrows 1955: 75–76; Steensland 1972: 102–104; Čekman 1974;
Allen 1978: 103; Shields 1981: 210–211; Mayrhofer 1986: 105–106; Szemerényi 1996: 146;
Lipp 2009a: 5–98; Kapović 2017: 26–27; Young 2017: 497).
To the phonemic status of given velars: the labiovelars were determined as such7
at least
since Zupitza (1896: 1–2). Sköld doubted the monophonemic value of labiovelars (Sköld 1924:
128; similarly Whatmough 1937: 52–56) and preferred the double articulated labial-velar
plosives (i.e. as Ewe ͡kp, ͡gb), Salmons and Smith (2005) returned to the monophonemic status
of (voiced) labiovelars, independently confirming it. Palatovelars are not attested as such in a
single satəm-language (here we usually meet sibilants or affricates); their phonetic value is then
a reconstruction8
.
We will use the two-stages triadic model based on Lipp (2009a: 5–19), assuming the older
distinction between the plain velar (unmarked) and the labiovelar (marked series). This model
was replaced in the area of the later satəm-languages by the classical triadic model (this explains
why there are traces of the old labiovelar vs plain velar distinction in the satəm-languages, but
not the traces of the palatovelars in the centum-languages). However, it is highly probable that
the ‘palatovelarsʼ were affricates at the same time, not true palatovelar plosives.9
With such
massive remodelling, the primordial distinction between old labiovelars and plain velars was
neutralized in all positions, resulting in a merging of both guttural series (similar processes are
known from the centum-languages, e.g. k-Celtic, Tocharian, later Germanic languages).
7
Similar sounds are present in North-Caucasian, the Suto-Chuana subgroup of Bantu languages and Salish
languages.
8
Again, palatovelars as such are attested in Ubykh and other North-Caucasian languages.
9
However, the classical triadic system has typological parallels in some non-Indo-European languages, especially
in North-Caucasian; we should mention especially recently extinct Ubykh or in Abaza and Abkhaz. Edeľman
(1973: 540–546) demonstrated that the guttural system based on three series (plain, palatalized, labialized) is
attested in Yazghulami, an East Iranian dialect in the North Pamir, and it should be noted that this system is
not a directly inheritance from IE, but secondarily created. It is worthy of mention that Yazghulani has not only
three guttural series, but a plain uvular and labialized uvular series, too. Ossetian has a pair of guttural and
uvular series in opposition plain vs labialized, too, again independently developed, not inherited from IE. That
the triadic system of related series could exist, is demonstrated in OIA in Šefčík 2012.
12
However, for simplicity, we will use the traditional marking for the palatovelars, as we do for
other reconstructed Indo-European phonemes.
1.1.3 Indo-European obstruents: the list
Considering the issues as mentioned above, the set of Indo-European obstruents we work with
is then the seemingly conventional set (including the ruki-sibilant *š), we can put as follows:
plosives sibilant
labiovelars: ku̯
gu̯
gu̯ h
plain velars: k g gh
palatovelars: ḱ ǵ ǵh
(š)
dentals: t d dh
s
labials: p b bh
This model does not probably reflect any actual state in the development of the Common IndoEuropean
but serves as a panchronic working model (as we have already mentioned above, the
guttural triad was limited to future satəm-languages and palatovelars were probably not
phonetic palatovelar plosives, and we have to repeat that the modal values are probably
simplified, etc.). For panchronic reasons, the ruki-palatal š is included in the list, though never
reconstructable outside the satəm-area and even so it’s existence is questionable for PreAlbanian
and Pre-Armenian).
1.2 Segments and contexts
The focus of our study is clusters of IE obstruents in three different contexts.
The obstruent segments (i.e., the left part) of clusters could be split into the following blocks:
i. the central block10
containing IE dentals (phonetically could also be realized as alveovelars
in some of the languages) and palatovelars (in the satəm-languages only);
ii. the peripheral block11
containing IE labials, plain velars and labiovelar series (in the
centum-languages only);
iii. the sibilant block12
containing the old IE sibilant *s, the most satəm-languages have a
secondary sibilant *š, arising due to Pedersen’s Law/the ruki-law.
Similarly, the context (i.e., the right part) of clusters could be classified as:
i. the context of *t-, causing the devoicing and deaspiration of the left obstruent in all IndoEuropean
languages; the exception is languages with Bartholomae’s Law;
10
In terms of Jakobson / Halle (1956: 31), we can term it an acute block.
11
Using the terminology of Jakobson/Halle again, the block could be termed a grave block.
12
This block is defined, as we see, not by its localization, but its sonority.
13
ii. the context of *dh
-; causing the voicing and deaspiration of the left obstruent in languages
where the voicing is preserved (here especially in Indo-European);
iii. the context of *s-;13
also causing the devoicing and deaspiration of the left obstruent; again;
these clusters could be affected by Bartholomae’s Law, the feature well preserved in Iranian
only.
1.3 On trajectories of the development in general
The development from the Indo-European stage to a given language stage is the transformation
between two (or more) states-of-arts; each state is a set of elements.
Within this analysis, we generally distinguish at least three stages of the development
from the input Indo-European into a given output language:
i. the (Late) Indo-European stage, the initial state, arrived at by reconstruction;
ii. the intermediate stage, the transitional stage (or, more appropriately, a set of sub-stages)
between Indo-European and an output language;
iii. the given language stage, the actually attested language14
.
The Indo-European-stage and the given-language-stage are hence both termini of the whole
complex of the development processes, and both serve either as an input or respectively output
of the complex transformation of the reconstructed Indo-European phonemic system into a
given phonemic system. This transformation, concerning the processes involved, could be
described more appropriately as a set of minor transformations, not as a single giant
transformation of its own.
Note that the input (i.e., the Indo-European-stage) is a result of reconstruction, but the
output is actual language matter, recorded as a hard fact. Both are fixed sets objects, though
results of a different approach (output is simply observed, the input is reconstructed).
The intermediate-stage (or stages) is, on the contrary, a set of trajectories between the
input and the output and hence a matter of more or less analytic nature.
It is a paradox that often the reconstructed stage (the input) can be quite securely
reconstructed without a more profound analysis, e.g. the merging of both voiced modal classes
of plosives in Iranian, Balto-Slavic, etc., since it can be based on a simple observation.
The intermediate stage is based both on a comparative reconstruction and an internal
reconstruction and in this very aspect the intermediate-stage is a kind of black box since we do
13
In some context realized as *š-; the distribution, in this case, is affected by the left phoneme in the cluster, i.e.,
by the Pedersen’s Law/ruki-rule; securely attested in Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic);
14
At this moment, we leave aside the often insecure knowledge of the phonetic realization (cf. the phonetic
nature of the ‘tau gallicumʼ, the value of Hittite plosives, etc.).
14
not see immediately what is inside, but we project the possible trajectories in it and choose that
which fits most the known data both of the input and the output.
INPUT
→
TRANSFORMATIONS
→
OUTPUT
Indo-European intermediate
stage(s)
a given language
(given by
reconstruction)
(‘the black boxʼ; the
modelled trajectories)
(attested language
facts)
When speaking about the trajectory from the input to the output, there are often multiple ways
of plotting the trajectory, i.e., there could be competing scenarios, though leading from the same
income towards the same outcome, as we will see on the examples of the development of
various clusters below (a typical case is the development of the peripheral clusters + t/s- in Pre-
Slavic).
Note: On the following lines, the terms ‘majorʼ and ‘minorʼ developments will be sometimes used. A minor
development is a development which in its results differs from the expected lautgesetzlich development
according to a given known sound law but falls with a possible range of outputs, though the precise reasons
for this special development are not clear (otherwise they would fit within a defined sound law).
1.4 On language material and its analysis
The focus of the present analysis is on clusters of Indo-European obstruents (in a sense
described above) + *t/s- clusters. The reason we have picked these clusters is obvious and
apparent: formations of these two types are very numerous and well-attested, and the
observation of their function could be applied, in the basic features, to all other clusters formed
by voiceless obstruents.
The clusters of the same obstruents with *dh
- were used only with languages with
extensive and productive use of this kind of formation, namely in Indo-Iranian (here especially
since the comparison of the dh
-context clusters are important due to Bartholomae’s Law and
subsequently for the t-context clusters), Baltic (more to illustrate the situation outside of IndoIranian)
and Greek (besides the purely illustrative use, it was important to demonstrate the *dh
context
clusters after the phonemic revaluating of voice and subsequent remodelling of whole
*dh
-context clusters in Greek). Again, the function of the *dh
-context clusters can be applied
and generalized to other IE voiced aspirated contexts, namely to IE *bh
-context.
The reader will notice that a natural complement to the present study could be the
‘thornʼ-question, which was deliberately and willingly omitted, since the sheer number of
examples would increase the number of pages required – the author of the present lines could
only recommend comprehensive study by Lipp (2009b – covering 350 print pages!).
15
The work on this analysis was made possible due to preceding important works, quoted in the
lines below. Especially worthy of mention are authors of LIV (the second edition of it was
used), the more so since our focus was mainly on the productive verbal formations, NIL (used
when verbal data were not sufficient) and of various quoted etymological dictionaries of given
languages (often of the Leiden origin) but also with the use of the classical works like Pokorny
(IEW). Of valuable help were lists of OIA verbal forms by Whitney (1885) and MacDonell
(1916), the list of the Avestan verbal forms by Kellens (1984) and the list of Tocharian verbal
forms by Malzahn (2010). From monographs at least few of many should be noted in alphabetic
order: Görtzen (1998), Hill (2003), Kümmel (2007) and two-part monumental volume by Lipp
(2009a; 2009b). To the quoted literature, we should attribute all the positive sides of the present
works; all mistakes are fully the author’s alone.
The analysis is segmented in accordance with given branches of the IE languages, represented
either by a single language (Old Church Slavonic for the whole Slavic family, Gothic for the
whole Germanic) or more languages (OIA, Avestan, Persian and Nūrīstānī represent the IndoIranian
branch; Italic languages are represented by both by Latin and Sabellian languages) if
the data they bring are substantially and significantly different (the aforementioned Italic
languages differ in their development of the peripheral series, Indo-Iranian languages
substantially differ in the development of all local series). The ordering of the given branches
is not accidental – first, we will follow the satəm-languages, followed by the centum-languages
and finally by two peripheral (technically centum) languages with a remarkable difference in
the development of the clusters of dental plosive + *t/s (Hittite for Anatolian languages, and
Tocharian). Each chapter on a given branch/language is then written as an independent study,
both for convenience of the reader and for the simplicity of the present treatise as a whole.
17
Chapters 2‒12 hidden
19
13 The development of the two-obstruent clusters in the Indo-European
languages: the summary and conclusions
The processes affecting the development of clusters of obstruent + t/dh
/s in various IndoEuropean
sub-branches could be classified as:
i. the shared-processes, i.e. the processes in similar contexts, of the same origin (e.g., the
Common Indo-European first phase of the development of the dental + t/dh
/s clusters;
another example is the earliest phase of the development of the palatovelar + t/dh
/s clusters
in the satəm-languages; the third example is the old neutralization of labiovelars in the
context of + t/dh
/s, securely attested at least in some of the centum-languages);
ii. the drift-processes, i.e. parallel processes in similar contexts, independently caused (e.g., the
spirantization of the peripheral series in Iranian, Celtic, Sabellian, Slavic);
iii. the zero-processes; i.e. the retention of the original state (e.g., the preservation of the
peripheral series in Latin, Greek, Vedic, Baltic). Zero-processe seems to be trivial, but we
have to remember that the preservation of a state is as important as a change of it, especially
in comparison. The zero-processes has to be distinguished from re-archaization processes
(as is the restitution of a plosive in clusters of dental + t/s/dh
- in Indic).
In the following lines, we will list the known outcomes of the IE clusters in given daughter
languages and branches and then sketch up possible trajectories. The boldly marked outcomes
are attested; the lightly marked outcomes are constructs. Analogous forms are listed, but not
included in the trajectories graphs.
13.1 The development of the central series
There are two developments of the central series: the shared development of the dental series,
present in some form in all Indo-European languages, with the seemingly (and false) exception
of Indo-Aryan; and the shared development, limited to the satəm-languages, of the palatovelar
series.
A similarity in the development of both series is striking since both series, however,
with original plosive inputs, usually have sibilant outcomes (Hittite and Tocharian being
remarkable exceptions with affricate outcomes of the IE cluster *Tt, Nūristānī and Armenian
with a zero outcome for the same cluster, Albanian with a zero outcome both for the IE *Tt, but
also for IE *Ḱt).
For the development of both central series we can draw two possible trajectories through
the ‘black box’, which could be summed under terms of the affricativization trajectory and the
spirantization trajectory.
20
13.1.1 The development of central series I: the dental series
The singular development of the IE cluster *Tt, common to all sub-branches of Indo-European
languages, is the development of the dental series.
Note: Surprisingly, Kümmel (2007: 349–350) gives a shortlist of shared IE consonantal developments without at
least the first phase of the development of the dental series, but deals with the whole process with as a series
of later developments in each of the IE sub-branches (Kümmel 2007: 350–411).
This development has the following outcomes:
i. IE Tt* > ts
t(s)
, attested in Anatolian and Tocharian;
ii. IE Tt* > tt, attested in Old Indo-Aryan (and probably attested in Nūristānī);
iii. IE Tt* > st, attested in Iranian, Greek, Balto-Slavic;
iv. IE Tt* > ss, attested in Italic, Celtic15
and Germanic;
v. IE Tt* > u̯ t, attested in Armenian;
vi. IE Tt* > c, attested Albanian;
The Albanian outcome could not be the result either of an older st-outcome (BaltoSlavic/Iranian/Greek
style) since IE *st is realized as Albanian št nor could it be a result of the
Italic/Celtic/Germanic *ss-outcome, since the outcome of the IE *ss in Albanian is 0š (as it is
of the IE *Ts). The most probable predecessor of IE *Tt in the earlier stages of the Albanian
development was probably an affricate (Anatolian/Tocharian style) or a fricative (assumed as
on older stage for all developments outside the Anatolian/Tocharian model).
The Armenian outcome could not be attributed directly to one of the four types
mentioned above either, since the stage *st is impossible, since the IE *st cluster is fully
preserved and if this cluster merged with that of IE *Tt, the outcome would be the very same.
Moreover, the *ss outcome for *Tt is also impossible since IE *ss is realized as Arm. 0s.
The development of the cluster of dental plosive + s in various IE branches can be listed as:
i. IE *Ts > ts, attested Old Indo-Iranian, Hittite and Tocharian;
ii. IE *Ts > 0s, attested in Avestan, Baltic, Slavic, Greek and Albanian;16
iii. IE *Ts > ss, attested in Italic, Celtic (the Gaulish ðð being its variant) and Germanic;
iv. IE *Ts > tš
, attested in Nūristānī;
v. IE *Ts > cʿ, attested in Armenian;
The Hittite and Tocharian developments are securely archaic, preserving the older state. The
Indo-Aryan development can not be detached from the Iranian – we have all the reasons to
assume that both branches had a shared development, from which we have to model both
15
The Gallic outcome đđ (of the insecure phonetic value) alternates with ss and is considered both a variant and
a predecessor of the ss outcome.
16
In Albanian, the outcome is 0š, due to later palatalization of the sibilant.
21
trajectories; therefore the preservation of the older state (as in Hittite and Tocharian) is then
impossible for Indo-Aryan. We assume the spirantization of T before s not only for Indo-Iranian
but for all IE languages (outside Hittite and Tocharian); the Indic outcome is the later rearchaization,
while the Iranian state is a progressive outcome, resulting from the merging of the
dental spirant with a sibilant. All other languages with 0s outcomes followed the same
trajectory.
The development of the clusters of dental plosive + dh
can be securely reconstructed in a
few languages, and we have to highlight that the outcome is always given by the voicedness of
these right contexts, even in Greek, where the IE *dh
was devoiced, and subsequently, the
clusters were analogically remodelled. The outcomes in Indo-Iranian, Greek and Baltic are:
i. IE *Tdh
> ddh
, attested in Old Indo-Aryan as the major outcome;
ii. IE *Tdh
> zd, attested in Iranian and Baltic as a regular outcome, in OIA in the form of 0dh
as the minor outcome;
iii. IE *Tdh
> sth
, attested in Greek;
The traditional affricativization trajectory, first formulated by Kräuter (1977: 88)17
, evaluated
by Verner (1878: 341–342) and popularized by Brugmann (1880 and passim) is usually
assumed for the whole development, which can be modelled for first four outcomes as follows:
with a sibilantization of the left plosive (= the loss of the plosive segment of the affricate), with
a loss of the sibilant segment (= re-archaization) or with a further affrication of the whole cluster
and its simplification of sibilants:
Tt > tt > tst > st
> tt
> tsts > ss
Note: Both the Armenian and Albanian outcomes could hardly be put within the affricativization trajectory, hence
we do not dare to propose any trajectories of their developments.
The great advantage of the affricativization trajectory is the attested preservation of affricates
in Hittite and Tocharian (exceptions in Tocharian could be explained as a further development
along the very same trajectory). What is problematic is application for the development of
Armenian, which could not be attached to the affricate stage, to a sibilant or to the double
sibilant stage. Similarly we might be tempted to attach the Albanian outcome to the doublesibilant
outcome, but the Albanian outcome of Tt is different from that of Ts and ss, hence
impossible. That the Indo-Aryan outcome is re-archaized is supported by the fact that the IE
cluster *ss is realized in OIA usually as ts, which demonstrated that outcomes of IE *Tt and *ss
17
Also Verner (1878: 341–342).
22
were merged in some point of development. Italo-Celtic-Germanic development is the result of
a similar trajectory.
Note: A specific development of the final -dh
, affected by Bartholomae’s Law, is known from Indo-Iranian. The
trajectory would be modelled, according to the affricativization strategy, as:
dh
t > dz
dh
> ddh
> zd(h)
The affricativization trajectory for the development of IE clusters of *Ts was reconstructed fully
only by Lipp (Lipp 2009a: 169) for the Indo-Iranian languages. It is remarkable that both
languages with affricate outcomes of the *Tt cluster (Hittite and Tocharian) do not show any
trace of the more complex developments attested in languages without the attested
affricativization of *Tt clusters. The Hittite/Tocharian development could be either an archaic
feature or a simplification of the affricate back to ts by the loss of one of the sibilants. We can
also consider Indic, Nūristānī and Armenian outcomes as archaic (or re-archaized) (here with
later aspiration).
Ts > ts
> ts
s > ss > 0s
> ts (?)
The affricativization trajectory assumes affricativization, followed in OIA by re-plosivation,
and by a sibilantization in other languages (and the same process is the minor process in OIA,
the loss of a voiced sibilant allophone is known from proper sibilants in the same context, cf.
below). The Greek trajectory is affected by analogy remodelling, hence omitted:
Tdh
> dz
dh
> ddh
> zd(h)
> 0dh
The spirantization trajectory was independently brought forward for Italic by de Saussure
(1877), independently by Cocchia (1883: 16–58)18
and Bartholomae (1887: 83; Bartholomae
1895: 16), followed by Leumann (1942: 13) and Morgenstierne (1942: 80; for Iranian only).
Applying this trajectory to the development of the IE cluster of plosive + t, the trajectories for
the st-group (Iranian, Greek, Balto-Slavic), Indic and the ss-group (Celto-Italic-Germanic)
could be modelled as:
18
And we have to remark that his idea was dismissed by Brugmann (1885: 183).
23
Tt > tt > ϑt > st
> tt
> ϑϑ > ss
That the Indo-Aryan outcome is re-archaized is supported by the fact that the IE cluster *ss is
usually realized in OIA as ts, which demonstrated that outcomes of IE *Tt and *ss were merged
in some point of development. Italo-Celtic-Germanic development is the result of a similar
trajectory: IE *Tt was spirantized as ϑt, assimilated first to ϑϑ and later to ss, merging both with
the original IE *Tt and *st clusters.
Albanian development, according to the spirantization trajectory is a series of
spirantization and later affricativization and sibilantization: Tt > ϑt > ϑϑ > ts
(= c) > 0s.
Armenian development has (after spirantization) the later debuccalization of the fricative: Tt
> ϑt > ht > u̯ t.
Note: A specific development of -dh
, affected by Bartholomae’s Law, is known from Indo-Iranian. For the
trajectory of Bartholomae’s Law, we assume spirantization for all series , followed by a re-plosivation in OIA:
dh
t > ðð > ddh
> zd(h)
The development of the cluster of dental plosive + s according to the spirantization trajectory
is similar to that of *Tt: the spirant was often sibilantized (and the geminate simplified). In Indic
the spirant was fortified as a plosive, and a similar process, followed by affricativization and
later aspiration, is attested in Armenian and probably in Nūristānī (here the re-plosivation is
probably related to that of OIA). The Gallic state shows the free variantion of the dental spirants
with dental sibilants.
Ts > ϑs > ss > 0s
> ts > cʿ
Note: Bartholomae’s Law applies even on clusters of dh
s in Indo-Iranian, but Indic outcomes are levelled:
dh
s > ðz > zz > 0z
The proposed trajectory of the development of the Tdh
-clusters within the spirantization/lenition
trajectory assumes first spirantization, followed in OIA by re-buccalization as a plosive, or by
a sibilantization in other languages (and the same process is the minor process in OIA, as the
loss of a voiced sibilant allophone is known from proper sibilants in the same context, cf.
below). The Greek trajectory is affected by analogy remodelling, hence omitted:
24
Tdh
> ðdh
> ddh
> zd(h)
> 0dh
Note: Principally the same development is valid for the development of IE clusters of *dh
dh
into Indo-Iranian.
To sum up: there are two languages with affricate outcomes both for the *Tt and *Ts clusters,
namely Hittite and Tocharian, both being peripheral languages, and there is no other possible
trajectory for both languages than the affricativization trajectory. On the other hand, for all other
languages the spirantization trajectory is more probable, since especially the development of
the *Ts > (s)s excludes the possibility of affricativization (the intermediate *ts
s could be easily
simplified on ts
but we have full sibilant outcomes). Affricativization development is wholly
impossible for Indic: if we accepted affricativization development both for the dental and the
palatovelar series, it would be impossible for the assumed (*Tt >) ts
t (> Indic tt) to lose the
plosive segment and the parallel and contemporary (since both processes are operating after the
split of the Indo-Iranian languages) (*Ḱt >) tš
t (> Indic ṣṭ) would lose the fricative segment of
the affricate – this paradox is not present within the spirantization trajectory.
The spirantization trajectory also makes it easier to explain Italic-Celtic-Germanic ssoutcome;
the merging of the IE *Ts and *ss in a single ϑs output also explains why the Indic
outcome of the *ss is surprisingly ts (and of *šs is kṣ), which is otherwise a solitary and isolated
process.
However, the distinction between the affricativization and the spirantization trajectory
is not as wide as it could see: both fell within the same frame of fricativization, and while the
affricativization presumes the insertion of the fricative segment into a given cluster, the
spirantization presumes the fricativization of the already existing segment. Both peripheral
languages (Tocharian and Hittite) used the affricativization variant of the fricativization
trajectory, but all other languages used the spirantization variant of the same trajectory.
13.1.2 The development of the central series II: the palatovelar series
The development of the IE clusters of *Ḱt into given satəm-languages usually has an outcome
in the form of a sibilant (either palatal or non-palatal) + t. The single exception is Albanian,
where the outcome is 0t:
i. IE Ḱt* > št, attested in Iranian, Lithuanian;
ii. IE Ḱt* > ṣṭ, attested in Indo-Aryan and Nūristānī; the geographical variant of the preceding
development;
iii. IE Ḱt* > st, attested in Slavic and Armenian;
iv. IE Ḱt* > 0t, attested in Albanian;
(v. IE Ḱt* > kt, attested in the centum-languages).
25
The development of the cluster of palatovelar + s in various IE branches can be listed as:
i. IE *Ḱs > kṣ, attested Old Indo-Iranian;
ii. IE *Ḱs > 0š, attested in Avestan, Lithuanian and Albanian;19
iii. IE *Ḱs > 0s, attested in Slavic;
iv. IE *Ḱs > ts
, attested in Nūristānī; the outcome cʿ, attested in Armenian, is a variant;
(v. IE *Ks > 0š, attested in the centum-languages)
The affricativization strategy assumes the affricativization of the original palatovelar in the
satəm-languages, and its later sibilantization (in Indo-Iranian, Armenian and Balto-Slavic).20
Ḱt > tš
t > št > st
> ṣṭ
Note: Bartholomae’s cluster of *ǵh
t, according to the affricativization trajectory, can be modelled as follows both
for Indic ( ḍh
) and Iranian (žd):
ǵh
t > ʝdh
> ždh
> ẓḍh
> ḍh
> žd
The development for the cluster of *Ḱs in the satəm-languages within the affricativization
trajectory can be modelled as follows (with affricativization, sibilantization, simplification for
Iranian, Lithuanian and Albanian with depalatalization for Slavic; with de-affricativization and
location shift for Indic; with the later aspiration of the affricate in Armenian; a simplified
affricate is attested in Nūristānī):
Ḱs > tš
s > šš > 0š > 0s
> ṭṣ > kš
> ts > c(ʿ)
Note: Bartholomae’s cluster of *ǵh
s, the affricate model is (the Indic outcome is due to the analogy):
ǵh
s > ʝžh
> džh
> ḍẓ (→ kṣ)
> žžh
> žž > 0ž
Within the spirantization strategy, we assume that the clusters were spirantized, either as a
palatal spirant or as a velar one (either directly from the ‘neutralization’ form kt or due to the
depalatalization of *çt). The palatal spirant was later sibilantized (eventually depalatalized
later), the velar spirant was debuccalized as simple ht or even fully elided (we model this
development for Albanian, since in Albanian even IE *Kt realizes as 0t).
19
The Albanian outcome should be listed with Slavic, since old sibilants merged into š in Albanian.
20
The Albanian development (based on Schumacher 2013: 243) assumes deaffricativization (technically
gemination) and simplification of the cluster (Ḱt > tš
t > tt > 0t).This development definitely must have been
later than the development of the IE cluster *Tt, since it had not merged with it.
26
Ḱt > çt > št > st
(> kt) > xt > ht > 0t
Note: As with all series, there is a specific development of -ǵh
+t in Indo-Iranian, affected by Bartholomae’s Law.
We model the following spirantization trajectory, assuming the spirantization of the palatovelar:
ǵh
t > ʝð > žð > ẓḍh
> 0ḍh
> žd
Within the spirantization strategy, for the development of the cluster of a palatovelar plosive
+ s-, we assume first the neutralization of a palatalization (and palatalization of a sibilant due
to the ruki-rule), followed in many languages by spirantization, sibilantization and
simplification:
Ḱs > kš > kṣ
> çš > šš > 0š
> ϑš > ts > 0s
Note: We can model the ‘Bartholomaen’ development of the cluster of *ǵh
s according to the spirantization
trajectory as (valid for Iranian; Indic development was replaced by the analogy):
ǵh
s > ʝz > ʝž > žž > 0ž
The development of the clusters of palatovelar plosive + dh
can be securely reconstructed in a
few satəm-languages (technically: Indo-Iranian and Baltic), and the outcomes are always
voiced. The outcomes in Indo-Iranian and Baltic are:
i. IE *Ḱdh
> ḍḍh
, attested in Old Indo-Aryan;
ii. IE *Ḱdh
> žd, attested in Iranian and Baltic;
The proposed trajectory assumes the spirantization of the palatovelar and later sibilantization
of the spirant, this sibilant is lost in Indic:
Ḱdh
> ʝdh
> žḍh
> ḍdh
> ždh
> žd21
Note: Essentially the same development is valid for the development of IE clusters of *ǵh
dh
into Indo-Iranian,
since they share the same outcome.
13.2 The development of the peripheral series
The set of the input peripheral series differ according to the centum/satəm languages dichotomy,
the first having labiovelars preserved (at least on a re-constructible level) beside plain velars
21
The outcome is zd after depalatalization in Prussian and Latvian.
27
and labials, the second having the old IE labiovelars merged fully with the plain velars
(however, such merging is known from the centum-languages as well).
Note: The logical consequence of this feature is clear: the positive marker we can use to distinguish the
centum/satəm languages is not the presence of the labiovelars series, but the presence of the palatovelar series.
In other words: the centum-languages are all languages without the presence of the original palatovelar series,
so the centum-languages are hence ‘negatively’ defined and the satəm-languages are defined ‘positively’.
Regarding the data of the attested Indo-European languages, we can state that there are two
strategies in general: the conservative strategy (with the ‘zero’ trajectory) and the progressive
strategy (with the spirantization/lenition trajectory). We can express the distribution of both
strategies in the following table:
CONSERVATIVE STRATEGY PROGRESSIVE STRATEGY
Old Indo-Aryan Old Iranian
Baltic Slavic
Armenian
Albanian
Greek (Middle Greek)
Latin Sabellian
Celtic
Germanic
Hittite
Tocharian
A remarkable feature is that the split between both strategies could run through a given subbranch,
as we can see in the examples of the Indo-Iranian, Balto-Slavic or Italic language
families.
Note: As we can see in the example of Middle Greek, spirantization could affect archaic clusters later. Similarly
process we can see in the development of French from (Vulgar) Latin.
Note: Beside spirantization, there is another progressive strategy, far less attested: gemination. The process of
gemination of the consonantal clusters is known from Middle Indo-Aryan and Italian. It is also usually
attributed to the Pre-Slavic development.
13.2.1 The development of the peripheral series I: the plain velar series
A development of the plain velar series can be listed as:
i. IE *Kt > kt, attested in Old Indo-Aryan, Baltic, Greek, Latin, Hittite and Tocharian;
ii. IE *Kt > xṭ, attested in Iranian, Gallic, Irish;
iii. IE *Kt > ht, attested in Sabellic and Gothic;
iv. IE *Kt > t, attested in Brythonic;
v. IE *Kt > 0t, attested Nūristānī, Armenian, Albanian and as a minor outcome in Slavic;
vi. IE *Kt > št, attested in OCS as the major outcome.
The first group is within the zero-process, the old plain velars are preserved as plain velar stops.
28
The outcomes from ii. to v. are products of various lenitions, which we can order according to
decreasing consonantal strength, being the palatal counterpart of h:
Kt > kt > xt > ht > 0t
> t
The št- outcome of OCS (c/ć-outcome in other Slavic languages) is an original prepalatal
variant, extended, due to analogy, to all productive clusters.
Note: The Armenian outcome displays aspiration of the t-context, known from the development of the all
peripheral series (but not the central series!) in Armenian, cf. the development of labials in Armenian below.
The older form was highly probably a spirant: the trajectory is: Kt >xt > xϑ >hϑ > 0tʿ.
Note: We model the ‘Bartholomaen’ development of the cluster of -gh
+s as:
gh
t > γð > gd(h)22
The development of the cluster of plain velar + s in various IE branches can be listed as:
i. IE *Ks> ks, attested in Hittite, Tocharian, Greek, Latin and in Baltic23
;
ii. IE *Ks> kṣ, attested Old Indo-Aryan;
iii. IE *Ks > xš, attested in Avestan;
iv. IE *Ks > xs, attested in Gaulish;
v. IE *Ks > hs, attested in Gothic;
vi. IE *Ks > 0x, attested in Brythonic and Slavic (beside its palatalized variant 0š);
vii. IE *Ks > 0š, attested in Armenian, Albanian and Slavic (beside its non-palatalized variant
0x);
viii. IE *Ks > ss, attested in Goidelic, with 0s attested in Sabellian;
The ks-outcome is the conservative one, with OIA kṣ as its ruki-variant attested in OIA. The
progressive outcomes follow the spirantization/lenition trajectory:
Ks > ks > xs > hs
> xx > 0x
> ss > 0s
> kš24
> xš > šš > 0š
Note: Similarly, we model the ‘Bartholomaen’ development of the cluster of -gh
+s as follows (the outcome is
attested in Iranian, Indic has the analogous levelling again):
gh
s > γz > gž25
22
This reconstruction is also valid for the development of *Ku̯
t clusters, since there is no distinction between
plain velars and labiovelars in Indo-Iranian.
23
The Baltic outcome is surprising, since it is the position where the ruki-rule is supposed to be operating.
24
Also represents OIA kṣ here.
25
Similarly to the development of the cluster of *Ku̯
t, this reconstruction is also valid for the development of
*Ku̯
s clusters, since there is no distinction between plain velars and labiovelars in Indo-Iranian.
29
The development of the plain velar plosive + dh
clusters can be reconstructed securely in IndoIranian,
Baltic and Greek, and the outcomes are always voiced. The outcomes in Indo-Iranian,
Greek and Baltic are:
i. IE *Kdh
> gḍh
, attested in Old Indo-Aryan;
ii. IE *Kdh
> gd, attested in Iranian and Baltic;
iii. IE *Kdh
> kh
th
, attested in Greek;
The trajectory is simple for OIA and Baltic, but in Iranian we meet a typical spirantization and
Greek has an analogy-based outcome, omitted below:
Kdh
> gdh > γḍh
> γð/gd
Note: The clusters of *gh
dh
are similarly developed.
13.2.2 The development of the peripheral series II: the labiovelar series
The development of the cluster of labiovelar + t in various IE branches can be listed as:
i. IE *Ku̯
t > ku̯
t, attested in Hittite and Mycenaean;
ii. IE *Ku̯
t > kṭ, attested in Latin, Tocharian, partially in Greek;
iii. IE *Ku̯
t > pt, attested in partially in Greek;
iv. IE *Ku̯
t > xt, attested in Goidelic (and probably in Gaulish);
v. IE *Ku̯
t > ht, attested in Sabellic and Gothic;
vi. IE *Ku̯
t > t, attested in Brythonic;
The first group could be suspected to represent the zero-process, but it is more probable that
this development is the result of a secondary analogous levelling, the older state being preserved
in the second outcome, with the neutralization of the related series on the plain velars.
Note: The outcome in the conservative satəm-languages (OIA, Baltic) is also kt, the outcomes in the progressive
satəm-languages follows the development of the kt-clusters (see above). We dare to propose that it is was the
neutralization of labiality in the t/s/dh
-contexts (and in some other context too, especially before labial vowels,
the process well known from Italic) which caused the final loss of labiality of the old labiovelars in later satəmlanguages
(the process with its parallel in Tocharian).
The third version of the development is limited to Greek and it is a secondary outcome of the
development of labiovelars in Greek; here a labial is a direct heir of Mycenaean ku̯
.
The last three outcomes are all results of the spirantization (attested directly in Goidelic)
or of a further lenition (attested in Sabellic, Gothic and Brythonic), all within the progressive
strategy, following the development of plain velars, as described above26
:
Ku̯
t > kt > xt > ht
> t
26
A remarkable difference is the non-existence of the elided form 0t, since it is attested for velars only in the
satəm-languages.
30
The development of the cluster labiovelar + s in various IE branches could be listed as:
i. IE *Ku̯
s> ku̯
s, attested in Hittite and Mycenaean;
ii. IE *Ku̯
s> ks, attested in Latin, Tocharian, partially in Greek;
iii. IE *Ku̯
s > ps, attested in partially in Greek;
iv. IE *Ku̯
s > hs, attested in Gothic;
v. IE *Ku̯
s > ss, attested in Goidelic and 0s attested in Sabellic;
vi. IE *Ku̯
s > 0x, attested in Brythonic;
The ku̯
s-outcome is in our opinion a result of analogical levelling (as ku̯
t is), while the psoutcome
is a result of the specific Greek development of the levelled clusters of ku̯
s, hence the
conservative outcome follows the spirantization/lenition trajectory:
Ku̯
s > ks > xs > hs
> xx > 0x
> ss > 0s
Note: The satəm-languages follow the same trajectory as the Ks clusters (see above), with the exception of Baltic
languages.
Note: Since there are no wide and secure examples of the development of the IE clusters of *Ku̯
+ dh
in the centumlanguages
(Greek clearly restoring both the labialization of the labiovelar and remodelling the cluster due to
the loss of voicedness of the dh
), we willingly omit to reconstruct the trajectory.
Note: The development of the clusters of *Ku̯
dh
and *gu̯ h
dh
is essentially the same as the developments of the
clusters of *Kdh
and *gh
dh
, respectively (cf. above).
13.2.3 The development of the peripheral series III: the labial series
The development of the cluster of labial + t can be summed up as:
i. IE *Pt > pt, attested in Old Indo-Aryan, Avestan, Baltic, Greek, Latin, Hittite and Tocharian;
ii. IE *Pt > fṭ, attested in Oscan, Gothic, reconstructed for Old Persian;
iii. IE *Pt > ṭ, attested in Brythonic;
iv. IE *Pt > 0t, attested in Nūristānī, Slavic (as a major outcome), Armenian, Albanian;
v. IE *Pt > st, attested as a minor outcome in Slavic;
The first outcome is a conservative one, other clusters falling within the spirantization/lenition
trajectory, the oldest stage of which is roughly represented in the second outcome (for the first
stage *φt seems to be a more probable variant). Brythonic attests the further weakened
approximant, the outcome 0t the final, elided form. The minor outcome st known from Slavic
is a result of a parallel process: sibilantization instead of lenition.
Pt > pt > φt > ft
> ht > 0t
> t
> st
31
Note: The Armenian outcome displays the aspiration of the t-context, known from the development of all the
peripheral series (but not the central series!) in Armenian. The older form was highly probably a spirant; the
trajectory is: Pt >φt > φϑ >hϑ > 0tʿ.
Note: We model the ‘Bartholomaen’ development of the cluster of -bh
+t again with a spirantization in the first
phase:
bh
s > βð > bd(h)
The development of the cluster of labial plosive + s in various IE branches can be listed as:
i. IE *Ps> ps, attested in OIA, Lithuanian, Greek, Latin, Hittite and Tocharian;
ii. IE *Ps> fs, attested in Avestan (beside fš)27
and Gothic;
iii. IE *Ps > 0s, attested in Slavic, Armenian, Albanian28
and Sabellic;
iv. IE *Ps > xs, attested in Gaulish;
v. IE *Ps > ss, attested in Goidelic;
vi. IE *Ps > 0x, attested in Brythonic;
Ps > ps > φs > fs > 0s
> xs > 0x
> ss > 0s
Note: Similarly, we can model the ‘Bartholomaen’ development of the cluster of -bh
+s with an early spirantization
as follows (again, Indic development is based on the analogy):
bh
s > βz > bz
The development of the clusters of labial plosive + dh
can be reconstructed again securely in
Indo-Iranian, Baltic and Greek, and the outcomes are always voiced. The outcomes in IndoIranian,
Greek and Baltic are:
i. IE *Pdh
> bḍh
, attested in Old Indo-Aryan;
ii. IE *Pdh
> bd, attested in Iranian (the two-spirant cluster βð being its variant) and Baltic;
iii. IE *Pdh
> ph
th
, attested in Greek;
The trajectory is simple for OIA and Baltic; in Iranian we meet a typical spirantization; Greek
has an analogy-based outcome, omitted below:
Pdh
> bdh > βḍh
> bd
Note: Clusters of *bh
dh
are similarly developed.
27
This outcome is an extension of the ruki-rule in Iranian (actually attested in Avestan only, not in Old Persian).
28
The variant Albanian outcome f is a result of a metathesis of IE *ps on *sp. The trajectory is: ps > sp > hf >
0f, see above. The Albanian outcome of a cluster without this metathesis is 0š, i.e., with a typical Albanian
palatalization of a sibilant.
32
13.3 The development of the sibilant clusters
The set of phonemes of the reconstructed IE obstruent system has a single sibilant phoneme *s
(with a positional allophone *z before voiced plosives). The satəm-languages had another
phoneme *š, resulting from the split of the old single sibilant due to Pedersen’s law (the rukirule),
securely attested for four of the six satəm-branches, but insecure for Albanian and
Armenian.
The development of the sibilant clusters are remarkably stable, the Celtic development
being an exception.
The developments of the IE cluster of *st could be summed as:
i. IE *st > st, attested in all branches except Celtic and Albanian;
ii. IE *st > šṭ, attested in Albanian;
iii. IE *st > ss, attested in Celtic languages (in Gaulish beside the variant ðð of the insecure
phonemic value);
The conservative st-outcome is a regular one, the Albanian št-outcome is a later result of the
independent Albanian development.
The Celtic development, tied with the development of the IE clusters *Tt, *Ts (see
above), can be explained only within this wider frame. If the Gaulish ðð had a value of an
affricate, the trajectory would be, if we accept the proposal of Lewis/Pedersen (1937: 20): st >
ts > ss, or, as we dare to propose: st > sts
> ts
ts
> ss.
st > st > sϑ > ϑϑ > ss
The developments of the satəm-cluster of *št can be summed up as:
i. IE *št > št, attested in Iranian and Lithuanian;29
ii. IE *st > ṣṭ, attested in OIA and Nūristānī;
Note: The OIA–Nūristānī outcome is just an area variation of the preceding regular outcome, as it is in the case
of IE clusters of *Ḱt > OIA ṣṭ.
The development of the clusters of sibilant + s usually leads towards the degeminated form of
a single sibilant or to the preservation of the geminate. The bisibilant cluster could be considered
not as a preserved one, but as an analogical restoration, since we have all the reason to consider
the simplification *ss > 0s as already being Indo-European at least in the 2nd
sg. pr. of the root
*√H1es- ‘be’ (cf. OIA asi, L. es, OCS jesi, Lith esi). A remarkable development is attested in
OIA, where the verbal forms have the outcome ts. This form can be traced back to the older
29
The Albanian outcome can not be distinguished from the outcome of the IE cluster *st, since the old IE
sibilant was regularly palatalized in Albanian.
33
spirant stage, resulting from the levelling of this cluster with a cluster of ϑs, which we
reconstruct as a stage of the development of the IE cluster Tt, later re-buccalized in OIA.
ss > ss > 0s
> ϑs > ts
The development of the clusters formed by a ruki-sibilant + s in the satəm-languages30
usually
also leads towards the degeminated form of a single sibilant or to the preservation of the
geminate. Again, OIA is an exception, where the right sibilant is replaced by a plosive, this time
velar (and the sibilant is cerebral). Even in this case we assume the shift of the original sibilant
towards a spirant and later re-buccalization of the spirant (and an area cerebralization of a right
sibilant):
šs > šš > 0š
> xš > kṣ
The development of the clusters of sibilant + dh
is simple outside Indic (where any voiced
sibilant of any origin is regularly lost), with the voicing of a sibilant. The Greek development
is remodelled due to devoicing of the original IE context *dh.
For the IE *s the development can
be modelled as:
i. IE *sdh
> 0dh
, attested in Old Indo-Aryan;
ii. IE *sdh
> zd, attested in Iranian and Baltic;
iii. IE *sdh
> sth
, attested in Greek;
And similarly, for the ruki-sibilant *ž the outcomes are in the satəm-languages, with a loss of a
sibilant in OIA, preserved as voiced in Iranian and Baltic:
i. IE *šdh
> 0ḍh
, attested in Old Indo-Aryan;
ii. IE *šdh
> žd, attested in Iranian and Baltic;
The trajectories for both sibilants we can model as:
sdh
> zd(h) > zð > ðð > 0dh
šdh
> žd(h) > žð > ð̣ð̣> 0ḍh
30
Again, the Albanian and Armenian data do not distinguish this outcome from that of *ss, since the validity of
Pedersen’s Law in these languages is questionable.
35
Appendix I: The comparative table of IE clusters plosive + t/s- in the given Indo-European languages31
i. the clusters dental plosive + t/s-:
IE OIA Av. N. Lith. OCS Arm. Alb. Gr. L. Os. Gal. Ir. W. Goth. Hitt. TB
Tt tt st 0t st st u̯t 0s st ss ss ðð
ss
ss ss ss ts
t ts
ts
Ts ts 0s ć 0s 0s cʿ 0š 0s ss ss ðð
ss
ss ss ss ts ts
tV tV tV tV tV tV tʿV tV tV tV tV tV tV tV þV tV tV
ii. the clusters palatovelar plosive + t/s-:
IE OIA Av. N. Lith. OCS Arm. Alb. Gr. L. Os. Gal. Ir. W. Goth. Hitt. TB
Ḱt ṣṭ št ṣṭ št st st 0t kt kt ht xt xt t ht kt kt
Ḱs kṣ 0š c 0š 0s cʿ 0š ks ks 0s xs ss 0x hs ks ks
ḱV śV šV cV šV sV sV ϑV kV kV kV kV kV kV hV kV kV
iii. the clusters velar plosive + t/s-:
IE OIA Av. N. Lith. OCS Arm. Alb. Gr. L. Os. Gal. Ir. W. Goth. Hitt. TB
Kt kt xt 0t kt št
0t
0tʿ 0t kt kt ht xt xt t ht kt kt
Ks kṣ xš ? ks 0x
0š
0š 0š ks ks 0s xs ss 0x hs ks ks
kV kV
cV
kV
cV
kV
cV
kV
cV
kV
čV
kʿV kV kV kV kV kV kV kV hV kV kV
iv. the clusters labiovelar plosive + t/s-:
IE OIA Av. N. Lith. OCS Arm. Alb. Gr. L. Os. Gal. Ir. W. Goth. Hitt. TB
Ku̯
t kt xt kt kt št 0tʿ 0t pt32
kt ht (xt) xt t ht ku̯
t kt
31
The examples are limited on the non-Bartholomaean clusters. The dh
-clusters are fully omitted since not securely attested in many daughter languages. The cluster obstruent
+ vowel is added to demonstrate the unmarked form of the given obstruent (secondarily palatalized velars from Indo-Iranian and Slavic are omitted, as similar secondary
forms).
32
ku̯
t, ku̯
s in Mycenaean.
36
0t kt
Ku̯
s kṣ xš ? ks 0x
0š
0š 0š ps
ks
ks 0s (xs) ss 0x hs k u̯
s ks
ku̯
V kV
cV
kV
cV
kV
cV
kV kV
čV
kʿV kV pV ku̯
V pV pV kV pV hu̯
V ku̯
V kV
v. the clusters labial plosive + t/s-:
IE OIA Av. N. Lith. OCS Arm. Alb. Gr. L. Os. Gal. Ir. W. Goth. Hitt. TB
Pt pt pt 0t pt 0t
st
0tʿ 0t pt pt ft33
xt xt t ft pt pt
Ps ps fs
fš
ps 0s 0s 0š
(0f)34
ps ps 0s xs ss 0x fs ps ps
pV pV pV pV pV pV hV pV pV pV pV 0V 0V 0V fV pV pV
vi. the clusters sibilant + t/s-:
IE OIA Av. N. Lith. OCS Arm. Alb. Gr. L. Os. Gal. Ir. W. Goth. Hitt. TB
st st st st st st st št st st st ðð
ss
ss ss st st st
ss ts 0s 0s 0s 0s 0š 0s 0s 0s 0s 0s 0s (ss) ss ss
sV sV hV sV sV sV hV gjV
šV
hV 0s 0s 0s 0s 0s sV sV sV
(št) ṣṭ št ṣṭ št st st št st st st ðð
ss
ss ss st st st
(šs) kṣ 0š 0š 0š 0s 0š 0s 0s 0s 0s 0s 0s (ss) ss st
(šV) ṣV šV ṣV šV šV hV šV hV sV sV sV sV sV sV sV sV
33
Umbr. ht
34
Due to metathesis of *ps on *sp, later fricativized, debuccalized and elided.
37
Appendix II: The pan-chronic overviews of the given developments
i. The pan-chronic overview of the Indic development:
Kt > kt
Ḱt > çt > št> ṣṭ (SPT) vel Ḱt > tš
t > št > ṣṭ (AFT)
Tt > ϑt > tt (SPT) vel Tt > ts
t > tt (AFT)
Pt > pt
ght > γδ > gdh
ǵht > ʝδ > žδ > ẓḍh
> i̯ḍh (SPT) vel ǵht > dž
dh
> ždh
> ẓḍh
> i̯ḍh (AFT)
dht > δδ > ddh (SPT) vel dht > dz
dh
> ddh (AFT)
bht > βδ > bdh
st > st
št > št > ṣṭ
Kdh > γδ > gdh
Ḱdh > ʝδ > ʝʝ > ḍḍh (SPT) vel Ḱdh > dž
dh
> ždh
> ḍḍh (AFT)
Tdh > δδ > ddh/0dh (SPT) vel Tdh > dz
d(h)
> ddh/0dh (AFT)
Pdh > βδ > bdh (?)
ghdh > γδ > gdh (?)
ǵhdh > ʝδ > žḍh
> i̯dh > 0ḍh (SPT) vel ǵhdh > dž
dh
> ždh
> i̯dh
> 0ḍh (AFT)
dhdh > δδ > i̯dh (SPT) vel dhdh > dz
dh
> i̯dh (AFT)
bhdh > βδ > bdh (?)
sdh > zδ > hδ > i̯dh
šdh > žδ > ʝδ > ḍḍh
Ks > kš > kṣ
Ḱs > çš > xš/ϑš > kṣ (SPT) vel Ḱs > tš
š > kš/ṭṣ > kṣ (AFT)
Ts > ϑs > ts (SPT) vel Ts > ts
s > ts (AFT)
Ps > ps
ghs > γž → kš > kṣ
ǵhs > ʝž → kš > kṣ (SPT) vel ǵhs > dž
ž → kš > kṣ (AFT)
dhs > δz → ts (SPT) vel dhs > dz
z → ts (AFT)
bhs > βz → ps
ss > ϑs > ts
šs > çš > kṣ
ii. Pan-chronic overview of the Iranian35 development:
Kt > kt > xt
Ḱt > çt > št (SPT) vel Ḱt > tš
t > št (AFT)
Tt > ϑt > st (SPT) vel Tt > ts
t > st (AFT)
Pt > pt > φt  pt/*ft (?)
35
There is no difference in the general features of the development between Avestan and Old Persian.
38
ght > γδ > gd
ǵht > ʝδ > žd (SPT) vel ǵht > dž
d(h)
> žd (AFT)
dht > δδ > zd (SPT) vel dht > dz
d(h)
> zd (AFT)
bht > βδ > bd
st > st
št > št
Kdh > γδ > gd
Ḱdh > ʝδ > žd (SPT) vel Ḱdh > dž
d(h)
> žd (AFT)
Tdh > δδ > zd (SPT) vel Tdh > dz
d(h)
> zd (AFT)
Pdh > βδ > bd
ghdh > γδ > gd (?)
ǵhdh > ʝδ > žd (SPT) vel ǵht > dž
d(h)
> žd (?) (AFT)
dhdh > δδ > zd (SPT) vel dht > dz
d(h)
> zd (AFT)
bhdh > βδ > bd (?)
sdh > zd
šdh > žd
Ks > kš > xš
Ḱs > çš > šš > 0š (SPT) vel Ḱs > tš
š > šš > 0š (AFT)
Ts > ϑs > ss > 0s (SPT) vel Ts > ts
s > ss > 0s (AFT)
Ps > ps > φs > fs/fš
ghs > γž
ǵhs > ʝž > žž > 0ž (SPT) vel ǵhs > dž
ž > žž > 0ž (AFT)
dhs > δz > zz > 0z (SPT) vel dhs > dz
z > zz > 0z (AFT)
bhs > βz > βž
ss > 0s
šs > šš > 0š
iii. Pan-chronic overview of the Nūristānī development:
Kt > kt > tt > 0t
Ḱt > çt > št (SPT) vel Ḱt > tš
t > št (AFT)
Tt > ϑt > tt > 0t (SPT) vel Tt > ts
t > tt > 0t (AFT)
Pt > pt > tt > 0t
st > st > st/št
št > št > ṣṭ (/> ṭṭ > 0ṭ ?)
šdh > žd(h)
> žd (/> ḍḍ > 0ḍ ?)
Ḱs > çš > ϑš > ts (SPT) vel Ḱs > tš
š > tš > ts (AFT)
Ts > ϑs > ϑs > tš (?) (SPT) vel Ts > ts
s > tš (?) (AFT)
39
iv. Pan-chronic overview of the Baltic36
development:
K(u̯ )t > kt
Ḱt > çt > št (SPT) vel Ḱt > > tš
t > št (AFT)
Tt > ϑt > st (SPT) vel Tt > ts
t > st (AFT)
Pt > pt
K(u̯ )s > ks
Ḱs > çš > šš > 0š (SPT) vel Ḱs > tš
š > šš > 0š (AFT)
Ts > ϑs > ss > 0s (SPT) vel Ts > ts
s > ss > ts (AFT)
Ps > ps
st > st
št > št
ss > 0s
šs > 0š
v.: Pan-chronic overview of the Old Church Slavonic development:37
K(u̯ )
t > xt > çt > št (SPT) vel K(u̯ )
t > tt > št (GET)
K(u̯ )
t > xt > ht > 0t (SPT) vel K(u̯ )
t > tt > 0t (GET)
Ḱt > çt > ϑt > st (SPT) vel Ḱt > tš
t > št > st (AFT)
Tt > ϑt > st (SPT) vel Tt > ts
t > st (AFT)
Pt > φt > ht > 0t (SPT) vel Pt > tt > 0t (GET)
Pt > φt > st (SPT) vel Pt > ? > st (GET)
K(u̯ )
s > xx/šš > 0x/0š (SPT) vel K(u̯ )
s > kš > šš > 0x/0š (GET)
Ḱs > çs > ϑs > ss > 0s (SPT) vel Ḱs > tš
s > šs > ss > 0s (AFT)
Ts > ϑs > ss > 0s (SPT) vel Ts > ts
s > ss > 0s (AFT)
Ps > φs > ss > 0s (SPT) vel Ps > ss > 0s (GET)
st > st
št > st
ss > 0s
šs > > šš > 0š
vi. Pan-chronic overview of the Armenian development:
K(u̯ )t > xϑ > hϑ > 0tʿ
Ḱt > çt > śt > st
Tt > ϑt > ht > u̯ t
Pt > φϑ > hϑ > 0tʿ
K(u̯ )s > xš > šš > 0š38
Ḱs > çs > ϑs > cʿ
Ts > ϑs (?) > cʿ
Ps > φs > hs > 0s39
36
Here demonstrated on the Lithuanian data.
37
The “strategy of simplification”, since trivial, is omitted in this overview.
38
Alternativelly with the same frame: K(u̯ )
s > xš > hš > 0š.
39
Alternatively within the same frame: Ps > φs > ss > 0s.
40
St > st
Ss > 0s
vii. Pan-chronic overview of the Albanian development:
K(u̯ )t > kt > xt > ht > 0t
Ḱt > çt > xt > ht > 0t
Tt > ϑt > ϑϑ > c > 0s (SPT) vel Tt > ts
t > cc > 0c > 0s (AFT)
Pt > pt > φt > ht > 0t
K(u̯ )s > ks > xs > hs > 0s > 0š40
Ḱs > çs > xs > hs > 0š41
Ts > ϑs > ss > 0s > 0š (SPT) vel Ts > ts
s > ss > 0s > 0š (AFT)
Ps > ps  sp > hf > 0f
St > st > št
Ss > ss > 0s > 0š
viii. Pan-chronic overview of the Ancient Greek development:
K(´)t > kt
Ku̯ t > pt
Tt > ϑt > ϑϑ > ss (SPT) vel Tt > ts
t > tst > st (AFT)
Pt > pt
Kdh > gdh
 Kth
> khth
Ku̯ dh > gu̯
dh
 Ku̯
th
> phth
Tdh > > δdh
 tth
> ϑth
> sth (SPT) vel Tdh > dz
dh
 ts
th
> tsth
> sth (AFT)
Pdh > bdh
 pth
> phth
K(´)s > ks
Ku̯ s > ps
Ts > ϑs > ss > 0s (SPT) vel Ts > ts
s > tss > ss > 0s (AFT)
Ps > ps
st > st
sdh > zdh
 sth
> sth
ss > 0s
ix. Pan-chronic overview of the Mycenaean development:
K(´)t > kt
Ku̯ t > ku̯ t
Tt > ϑt > ϑϑ > ss (SPT) vel Tt > ts
t > tst > st (AFT)
Pt > pt
40
In the case of the validity of the ruki-rule for Proto-Albanian: Ku̯
s > kš > hš > 0š.
41
If we assume that Albanian was affected by ruki-rule, the development will be: Ḱs > kš > xš >hš > 0š.
41
Kdh > gdh
 Kth
> khth
Ku̯ dh > gu̯
dh
 Ku̯
th
> ku̯ hth
Tdh > > δdh
 tth
> ϑth
> sth (SPT) vel Tdh > dz
dh
 ts
th
> tsth
> sth (AFT)
Pdh > bdh
 pth
> phth
K(´)s > ks
Ku̯ s > ku̯ s
Ts > ϑs > ss > 0s (SPT) vel Ts > ts
s > tss > ss > 0s (AFT)
Ps > ps
st > st
sdh > zdh
 sth
> sth
ss > 0s
x. Pan-chronic overview of the Latin development:
K(´)t > kt
Ku̯ t > kt
Tt > ϑt > ϑϑ > (s)s (SPT) vel Tt > ts
t > tss > (s)s (AFT)
Pt > pt
K(´)s > ks
Ku̯ s > ks
Ts > ϑs > (s)s (SPT) vel Ts > ts
t > tss > (s)s (AFT)
Ps > ps
st > st
ss > (s)s
xi. Pan-chronic overview of the Sabellic development:
K(´)t > xt > ht (/> 0t)
Ku̯ t > kt > xt > ht
Tt > ϑt > ϑϑ > (s)s (SPT) vel Tt > ts
t > tss > (s)s (AFT)
Pt > > φt > ft42
K(´)s > xs > hs > 0s
Ku̯ s > ks > xs > hs > (s)s
Ts > ϑs > (s)s (SPT) vel Ts > ts
t > tss > (s)s (AFT)
Ps > > φs > hs > 0s
st > st
ss > (s)s
42
Umbrian: Pt > φt > xt > ht
42
xii.: Pan-chronic overview of the Brythonic development:
K(´)t > xt (> ht) > t
Ku̯ t > xt (> ht) > t
Tt > ϑt > ϑϑ > ss (SPT) vel Tt > ts
t > tsts > ss (AFT)
Pt > φt > (ft > ht >) t
K(´)s > xs > xx > 0x
Ku̯ s > xs > xx > 0x
Ts > ϑs > ss (SPT) vel Ts > ts
s > tsts > ss (AFT)
Ps > φs > xx > 0x
st > sϑ > ϑϑ > ss (SPT) vel st > ts > ss (AFT)
xiii. Pan-chronic overview of the Goidelic development:
K(´)t > xt
Ku̯ t > xt
Tt > ϑt > ϑϑ > ss (SPT) vel Tt > ts
t > tsts > ss (AFT)
Pt > φt > (ft >) xt
K(´)s > xs > ss
Ku̯ s > xs > ss
Ts > ϑs > ss (SPT) vel Ts > ts
s > tsts > ss (AFT)
Ps > φs > ss
st > sϑ > ϑϑ > ss (SPT) vel st > ts > ss (AFT)
xiv. Pan-chronic overview of the Gallic development:
K(´)t > xt
(Ku̯ t > xt)
Tt > ϑt > ϑϑ > đđ/ss (SPT) vel Tt > ts
t > tsts > đđ/ss43
(AFT)
Pt > φt > (ft >) xt
K(´)s > xs
(Ku̯ s > xs)
Ts > ϑs > ϑϑ > đđ/ss (SPT) vel ts
s > ts
t > tsts > đđ/ss (AFT)
Ps > φs > xs
st > ϑs > ϑϑ > đđ/ss (SPT) vel st > ts > đđ/ss (AFT)
xv.: Pan-chronic overview of the Gothic development:
K(´)t > kt > xt > ht
Ku̯ t > kt > xt > ht
Tt > ϑt > ϑϑ > ss (SPT) vel Tt > ts
t > tsts > ss (AFT)
Pt > pt > φt > ft
K(´)s > ks > xs > hs
Ku̯ s > ks > xs > hs
Ts > ϑs > ss (SPT) vel Ts > ts
s > tss > ss (AFT)
43
Here đđ marks two dental affricates, probably voiceless.
43
Ps > ps > φs> fs
st > st
ss > ss (?)
xvi. Pan-chronic overview of the Hittite development:
K(´)t > kt
Ku̯ t > kt /  ku̯ t
Tt > ts
t > ts͜ t
Pt > pt
K(´)s > ks
Ku̯ s > (ks ?) /  ku̯ s
Ts > ts
s > ts
Ps > ps
st > st
ss > ss
xvii. Pan-chronic overview of the Tocharian development:
K(´)t > kt
Ku̯ t > kt
Tt > ts
t > tsts/tts
Pt > pt
K(´)s > ks
Ku̯ s > (ks ?)
Ts > ts
s > ts
Ps > ps
st > st
ss > ss
45
Abbreviations of languages
Aeol. – Aeolic
Alb. – Albanian
Arc. – Arcadian
Arm. – Armenian
Att. – Attic
Av. – Avestan
B. – Bulgarian
Br. – Breton
Bryth. – Brythonic
Celt. – Celtic
Corn. – Cornish
CS – Common Slavic
Cypr. – Cypriotic
Cz. – Czech
Dor. – Dorian
Gal. – Gaulish
Germ. – Germanic
Goid. – Goidelic
Goth. – Gothic
Gr. – Greek
Hitt. – Hittite
Hom. – Homeric
IE – Indo-European
Ir. – Irish
L. – Latin
Latv. – Latvian
Lith. – Lithuanian
Luw. – Luwian
MBr. – Middle Breton
MCorn. – Midle Cornish
MIr. – Middle Irish
MHG – Middle High German
MW. – Middle Welsh
N. – Nūristānī
NP – New Persian
OAlb. – Old Albanian
OAv. – Old Avestan
OBr. – Old Breton
OCorn. – Old Cornish
OCS– Old Church Slavonic
OE – Old English (Anglo-Saxon)
OGeg. – Old Gegh
OHG – Old High German
OIA – Old Indo-Aryan
OIr. – Old Irish
OL. – Old Latin
OLith. – Old Lithuanian
ON – Old Norse
OP – Old Persian
OPol. – Old Polish
OS – Old Saxon
Os. – Oscan
PAlb. – Proto-Albanian
PAnat. – Proto-Anatolian
PArm. – Proto-Armenian
PCelt. – Proto-Celtic
PGerm. – Proto-Germanic
PGr. – Proto-Greek
Phl. – Pahlavi
PItal. – Proto-Italic
Pol. – Polish
PPAlb. – Pre-Proto-Albanian
Pruss. – (Old) Prussian
PSab. – Proto-Sabellian
Ru. – Russian
RuCS – Russian Church Slavonic
Sab. – Sabellian
SCr. – Serbo-Croatian
Slk. – Slovakian
Sln. – Slovenian
Toch. – Tocharian
Uk. – Ukrainian
Um. – Umbrian
W. – Welsh
YAv. – Young Avesta
47
Literature
Adams, Douglas Q. 1988. Tocharian Historical Phonology and Morphology. New Haven:
American Oriental Society.
Adams, Douglas Q. 20132
. A Dictionary of Tocharian B. Revised and Greatly Enlarged.
Volume 1. Volume 2. Amsterdam – New York: Rodopi.
Allen, W. Sidney. 1968. Vox Graeca. A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Greek.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Allen, W. Sidney. 1978. The PIE velar series: Neogrammarian and other solutions in the light
of attested parallels. Transactions of the philological society 76. 87–110.
Andersen, Hennig. 1968. IE *s after i, u, r, k in Baltic and Slavic. Acta Linguistica 11, 171–
190.
Anderson, Stephen R. 1970. On Grassmann’s Law in Sanskrit. Linguistic Inquiry 1(4). 387–
396.
Andreev, Nikolai D. 1957. Periodizacija istorii indoevropejskogo prajazyka. Voprosy
jazykoznanija 2. 3–18.
Arumaa, Peeter. 1976. Urslavische Grammatik. II. Band. Konsonantismus. Heidelberg: Carl
Winter-Universitätsverlag.
Aura Jorro, Francisco / Adrados, Francisco R. 1985. Diccionario griego-español. Anejo 1.
Diccionario micénico. Volumen 1. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones
Cientifícas.
Aura Jorro, Francisco / Adrados, Francisco R. 1993. Diccionario griego-español. Anejo 2.
Diccionario micénico. Volumen 2. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones
Cientifícas.
Baldi, Philip. 1991. Lachmannʼs Law in the Light of the Glottalic Theory of PIE Consonantism.
In: Coleman, Robert (ed.). New Studies in Latin Linguistics: Selected Papers from the 4th
International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Cambridge, April 1987. Amsterdam /
Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 3–21.
Baldi, Philip. 1999. The Foundations of Latin. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bammesberger, Alfred. Der Aufbau des germanischen Verbalsystems. Heidelberg: Carl Winter
Universitätsverlag.
Bartholomae, Christian. 1882. Die arische Vertretung von med. Asp. + t und med. Asp. +s.
Arische Forschungen I. 3–24. Halle: Niemeyer.
Bartholomae, Christian. 1883. Handbuch der altiranischen Dialekte. Leipzing: Breitkopf &
Härtel.
Bartholomae, Christian. 1885. Θυγάτερ. KZ 27. 206–207.
Bartholomae, Christian, 1887. Die Vertretung des altitalischen ss im oskischen (etc.).
Bezzenbergers Beiträge 12. 80–92.
Bartholomae, Christian. 1895–1901. I. Vorgeschichte der iranischen Sprachen. II. Awestasprache
und Altpersisch. In: Geiger, Wilhelm / Kuhn, Ernst (eds.). Grundriß der
iranischen Philologie. Erster Band. I. Abteilung. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner: 1–248.
Bartoněk, Antonín 2003. Handbuch des mykenischen Griechisch. Heidelberg:
Universitätsverlag C. Winter.
Beekes, Robert S. P. 1988. A Grammar of Gatha-Avestan. Leiden: Brill.
Beekes, Robert S. P. 2003. Historical phonology of Classical Armenian. In: Kortlandt, Fredrik.
Armeniaca. Comparative Notes. Ann Arbor: Caravan Books, 133–211.
Beekes, Robert S. P. 2011. Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. Armsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Beekes, Robert, S. P. 2016a. Etymological dictionary of Greek. Volume one. Leiden: Brill.
48
Beekes, Robert, S. P. 2016b. Etymological dictionary of Greek. Volume two. Leiden: Brill.
Bernabé Pajares, Alberto. 1971. Aportaciones al estudio fonológico de las guturales
indoeuropeas, Emérita, Revista de Lingüística y Filología Clásica, XXXIX, 63–107.
Bezzenberger, Adalber. 1890. Die indogermanischen Gutturalreihen. Beiträge zur Kunde
der indogermanischen Sprachen. 16, 234–260.
Belić, Aleksandar. 1921. Srpskohrvatske glasovne grupe -jt-, -jd- i
praslovansko -kti-, -gdi-, -hti- [The Serbo-Croatian phonemic clusters -jt-, -jd- and PreSlavic
-kti-, -gdi-, -hti-]. Južnoslovenski Filolog 5. 217–226.
de Bernardo Stempel, Patrizia. 1999. Nominale Wortbildung der älteren Irischen.
Stammbildung und Derivation. Tübingen: Niemayer.
Blažek, Václav. 1999. Numerals. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.
Blažek, Václav 2009. On the position of Gaulish within Celtic from the point of view of
glottochronology. Indogermanische Forschungen 114: 257−299.
Blažek, Václav / Hegedüs, Irén. 2012: On the position of Nuristani within Indo-Iranian. In:
Sukač, Roman / Šefčík, Ondřej (eds.). The Sound of Indo-European 2. München: Lincom
Europa, 40–66.
Bloch, Jules. 1965. Indo-Aryan from Vedas to Modern times. (translated by Master, Alfred).
Paris: Librairie d’Amérique et d’Orient. Adrien – Maisonneuve.
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1911. The Indo-European Palatals in Sanskrit. The American Journal of
Philology 32/1. 36–57.
Blust. Robert. 2009. The Austronesian Languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Research
School of Pacific and Asian Studies. The Australian National University.
Bousquette, Joshua / Salmons, Joseph. 2017. Germanic. In: Kapović, Mate (ed.). The IndoEuropean
Languages. New York: Routledge, 387–420.
von Bradke, Peter. 1890. Über Methode und Ergebnisse der arischen Alterthumswissenshaft.
Giessen: J. Ricker'che Buchhandlung.
Brandenstein, Wilhelm / Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1964. Handbuch des Altpersichen. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
Braune, Wilhelm / Ebbinghaus, Ernst A. 1981. Gotische Grammatik mit Lesestücken und
Wörterverzeichnis. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
Braune, Wilhelm / Heidermanns, Frank. 2004. Gotische Grammatik mit Lesestücken und
Wörterverzeichnis. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
(von) Brücke, Ernst. 1856. Grundzüge der Physiologie und Systematik der Sprachlaute für
Linguisten und Taubstummenlehrer. Wien: Carl Gerold´s Sohn.
Brugmann, Karl. 1880. Die lautgruppe dentale explosive + t im indogermanischen. In: Osthoff,
Hermann / Brugmann, Karl. Morphologische Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der
indogermanischen Sprachen. Teil. 3. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 131–147.
Brugmann, Karl. 1885. Handbuch der klassischen Altertums-Wissenschaft in systematischer
Darstellung mit besonderer Rücksicht auf Geschichte und Methodik der einzelnen
Disziplinen. Nördlingen: C.H. Beck’schen Buchhandlung.
Brugmann, Karl. 1886. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen
Sprachen. Erster Band: Einleitung und Lautlehre. Strassburg: Karl. J. Trübner.
Brugmann, Karl. 1890. Handbuch der klassischen Altertums-Wissenschaft in systematischer
Darstellung mit besonderer Rücksicht auf Geschichte und Methodik der einzelnen
Disziplinen. Nördlingen : C.H. Beck’schen Buchhandlung.
Brugmann, Karl. 1897. Vergleichende Laut-, Stammbildungs- und Flexionslehre der
indogermanischen Sprachen. Zweite Bearbeitung. Erster Band: Einleitung und
Lautlehre. Zweite Hälfte. Strassburg: Karl. J. Trübner.
49
Brugmann, Karl. 1900. Handbuch der klassischen Altertums-Wissenschaft in systematischer
Darstellung mit besonderer Rücksicht auf Geschichte und Methodik der einzelnen
Disziplinen. Nördlingen: C.H. Beck’schen Buchhandlung.
Brugmann, Karl. 1913. Zu den Ablautverhältnissen der sogennannten starken Verba des
Germanischen. Indogermanische Forschungen 32: 179–195.
Brugmann, Karl. 1913/1914. Gotisch usstagg ʽstich ausʼ. Indogermanische Forschungen 33:
284–285.
Brugmann, Karl/Thumb, Albert. 1913. Griechische Grammatik. Lautlehre, Stammbildungsund
Flexionslehre, Syntax. München: C.H. Beck’schen Buchhandlung.
Brust, Manfred. 2018. Historische Laut- und Formenlehre des Altpersischen : mit einem
etymologischen Glossar. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität
Innsbruck, Bereich Sprachwissenschaft.
Bubenik, Vit. 1996. The Structure and Development of Middle Indo-Aryan Dialects. Delhi:
Motilal Banarsidass.
Bubenik, Vit. 2017. The Phonology of Greek. In: Klein, Jared / Joseph, Brian / Fritz / Matthias
(eds). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics (HSK 41.1).
Berlin / Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 637–653.
Buck, Carl D. 1904. A Grammar of Oscan and Umbrian with a Collection of Inscriptions and
a Glossary. Boston: The Athenæum Press, Ginn & Company.
Buck, Carl D. 1933. Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Buddruss, Georg. 1977. Nochmals zur Stellung der Nuristan-Sprachen des Afghanistanischen
Hindukusch. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 36. 19–38.
Bugge, Sophus. 1889. Beiträge zur etymologischen Erläuterung der armenischen Sprache. .
Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel.
Bugge, Sophus. 1893. Beiträge zur etymologischen Erläuterung der armenischen Sprache.
Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 32, 1–87.
Burrow, Thomas. 1955. The Sanskrit Language. London: Faber and Faber.
Çabej, Eqrem. 1972. Über einige Lautrefeln des Albanischen. Die Sprache 18, 132–154.
Camaj, Martin. 1966. Albanische Wortbildung. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Cantera, Alberto. 2017. The phonology of Iranian. In: Klein, Jared / Joseph, Brian / Fritz
Matthias (eds). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics.
Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 481–503.
Cardona, George / Jain, Dhanes. 2003. General introduction. In: Cardona, George/Jain,
Dhanesh (eds). The Indo-Aryan Languages. 1–45. London: Routledge.
Cardona, George 2017. The documentation of Indic. In: Klein, Jared / Joseph, Brian / Fritz
Matthias (eds). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics.
Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 309–325.
Carling, Gerd [et al.]. 2009. Dictionary and Thesaurus of Tocharian A. Volume 1: A–J.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
Carlton, Terence. R. 1991. Introduction to the Phonological History of the Slavic Languages.
Columbus: Slavica Publishers.
Cavoto, Fabrice. 2001. Did PIE have Three Velar series? MSS 61, 29–56.
Čekman, Valerij M. (1974): O reflexach indoevropejskix *ḱ, *ǵ v balto-slavjanskom
jazykovom areale. Balto-slavjanskie issledovanija. 116–135
CHD L–N = Günterbock, Hans G. / Hoffner, Harry. A. et al. 1989. The Hittite Dictionary of
the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. L – N. Chicago: The University of
Chicago.
CHD P = Günterbock, Hans G. / Hoffner, Harry. A. et al. 1997. The Hittite Dictionary of the
Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. P. Chicago: The University of Chicago.
50
CHD Š = Günterbock, Hans G. / Hoffner, Harry. A. et al. 2019. The Hittite Dictionary of the
Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Š. Chicago: The University of Chicago.
Cheung, Johny. 2007. Etymological Dictionary of the Iranian Verb. Leiden: Brill.
Clackson, James. 1994. The Linguistic Relationship between Armenian and Greek. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Cocchia, Enrico. 1883: Questioni di fonologia Latina. Rivista di filologia e d´instrutione
classica XI. 16–101.
Coleman, Robert. 1992. Italic [numerals]. In: Gvozdanović, Jadranka (ed.). Indo-European
Numerals. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 389–445.
Collinge, Neville E. 1985. The Laws of Indo-European. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Collins, Daniel. 2017. The Phonology of Slavic. In: Klein, Jared / Joseph, Brian / Fritz /
Matthias (eds). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics
(HSK 41.3). Berlin / Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 1414–1538.
Comrie, Bernard. 1992. Balto-Slavonic [Numerals]. In: Gvozdanović, Jadranka. IndoEuropean
Numerals. Berlin / New York. 717–834.
Cowgill, Warren. 1980 : The Etymology of Irish guidid and the Outcome of *gu̯ h
in Celtic. In:
Marhofer, Manfred / Peters, Martin / Pfeiffer, Oscar E. (eds.) Lautgeschichte und
Etymologie. Wiesbaden: Reichert. 49–78.
Curtius, Georg. 1853. Die aspîraten der indogermanischen sprachen. KZ 2. 321–336.
Darden, Bill. J. 1978. On the Slavic reflexes of Indo-European *pt. GL 18, 10–13.
Degener, Almuth 2002. The Nuristani Languages. In: Sims-Williams, Nicolas (eds.). IndoIranian
Languages and Peoples. 103–117. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Delamarre, Xavier. 2003. Dictionaire de la langue gauloise. Une approche linguistique du
vieux-celtique continental. Paris: Editions Errance.
Demiraj, Bardhyl. 1997: Albanische Etymologie (Untersuchungen zum albanischen
Erbwortschatz). Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.
Demiraj, Shaban. 1993: Historische Grammatik der albanischen Sprache. Wien: Verlag der
Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Derksen, Rick. 2008. Etymological dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon. Leiden: Brill.
Derksen, Rick. 2015. Etymological Dictionary of the Baltic Inherited Lexicon. Leiden/Boston:
Brill.
Deshayes, Albert. 2003. Dictionnaire étymologique du breton. Douarnenez: Le Chasse-Marée.
de Vaan, Michiel. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages.
Leiden / Boston: Brill.
de Vaan, Michiel. 2018. The phonology of Albanian. In: Klein, Jared / Joseph, Brian / Fritz,
Matthias (eds.) Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics
Volume 3 (HSK 41.3). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 1732–1748.
Dini, Pietro U. 2014. Foundations of Baltic Languages. Vilnius: Eugrimas.
Dottin, Georges. 1920. La langue gauloise. Grammaire, textes et glossaire. Paris: Librairie C.
Klincksieck.
Dressler, Wolfgang. 1976. Das Altarmenische und die Phonologietheorie. Handes Amsorya 90.
901–976.
Drinka, Bridget. 1991. Lachmannʼs Law: A Phonological Solution. Indogermanische
Forschungen 91. 52–74.
Džaukjan44
, Gevork B. 1967. Očerki po istorii dopisʹmennogo perioda armjanskogo jazyka.
Erevan: Izdatel´stvo Akademii nauk armjanskoj SSR.
44
Name is also transliterated as: J̌ahukyan, Djahukian. Since the quoted work is in Russian, we use the
transliteration of the Russian variant of transliteration.
51
Ėdeľman, Džoj I. 1973. K tipologii indoevropejskich guttural´nyx. Izvestija Akademii Nauk
SSSR. Serija Literatury i Jazyka 32. 540–546.
Ėdeľman, Džoj I. 1994. K predposylkam v etapam perexoda i.-e. *s v š v jazykax grupy satem.
Baltistica Priedas 4, 56–66.
Eichner, Heiner. 1973. Die Etymologie von heth. mēhur. Münchener Studien zur
Sprachwissenschaft 31, 53–107.
Eichner, Heiner. 1980. Phonetik und Lautgesetze des Hethitischen – ein Weg zur ihrer
Entschlüsselung. In: Mayrhofer, Manfred / Peters, Martin, Pfeiffer, Oskar E. (eds.),
Lautgeschichte und Etymologie. Akten d. VI. Fachtagung d. Indogermanischen
Gesellschaft, Wien, 24.-29. September 1978. Wiesbaden: Reichert. 120-165.
Eichner, Heiner. 1992. Anatolian [numerals]. In: Gvozdanović, Jadranka (ed.). Indo-European
Numerals. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 29–96.
Ejerhed, Eva I. 1981. The Analysis of Aspiration in Sanskrit Phonology. Nordic Journal of
Linguistics 4(2). 139–159.
Elbourne, Paul. 1998. Proto-Indo-European Voiceless Aspirates. HF 111. 1-30.
Elbourne, Paul. 2000. Plain voiceless stop plus laryngeal in Indo-European. HF 113. 2-28.
Emmerick, Ronald E. 1992a. Old Indian [Numerals]. In: Gvozdanović, Jadranka (ed.). IndoEuropean
Numerals. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 163–198.
Emmerick, Ronald E. 1992b. Iranian [Numerals]. In: Gvozdanović, Jadranka (ed.). IndoEuropean
Numerals. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 289–345.
Endzelin(s), J(ānis). 1923. Lettische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s
Universitätsbuchhandlung.
Endzelin(s), Jānis. 1939. Über den slavisch-baltischen Reflexe vom idg. sḱ. ZfslPh 16, 107–
115.
Endzelin(s), J(ānis). 1944. Altpreussische Grammatik. Rīga: Verlag Latvju Grāmata.
Erhart, Adolf. 1956. Zum ie. Wechsel Media : Media aspirata. Sborník prací Filozofické fakulty
brněnské univerzity. A 5. 5– 18.
Erhart, Adolf. 1980. Struktura indoíránských jazyků [The Structure of the Indo-Iranian
Languages]. Brno: Univerzita J. E. Purkyně.
Erhart, Adolf. 1982. Indoevropské jazyky – srovnávací fonologie a morfologie [Indo-European
Languages – the Comparative Phonology and Morphology]. Praha: Academia.
Erhart, Adolf. 1984: Baltské jazyky [Baltic Languages]. Brno: Univerzita J. E. Purkyně.
ESJS = Erhart, Adolf / Eva Havlová / Ilona Janyšková (eds.), 1989–2018. Etymologický slovník
jazyka staroslověnského, 1–19 [Etymological dictionary of Old Church Slavonic
Language, 1–19]. Praha: Academia/ Brno: Tribun.
Eska, Joseph F. 1998. Tau Gallicum. Studia Celtica 32. 115–127.
Eska, Joseph F. 2010. The Emergence of the Celtic Languages. In: Ball, Martin J. / Müller,
Nicole (eds.). The Celtic Languages. London: Routledge. 22–27.
Evans, D. Ellis. 1967. Gaulish Personal Names. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
EWAi = Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1992. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen I. +
Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1996. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen II. +
Mayrhofer, Manfred. 2001. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen III.
Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Fahs, Achim. 1989. Grammatik des Pali. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie.
Fallon, Paul. D. 2002. The synchronic and diachronic Phonology of Ejectives. New York &
London: Routledge.
Fellner, Hannes A. 2006. On the Development of Labiovelars in Tocharian. In: Jones-Bley,
Karlene / Huld, Martin E. / Della Volpe, Angela (eds). Proceedings of the seventeenth
annual UCLA Indo-European conference, Los Angeles, October 27-28, 2005. 51–65.
52
Forssman, Berthold. 2001. Lettische Grammatik. München: J. H. Röll Verlag.
Fortunatov, Filipp. F. 1888. Phonetische Bemerkungen veranlasst durch Miklosich’s
Etymologisches Wörterbuch der slavischen Sprachen. Archiv für Slavische Philologie
11. 561–575.
Fraenkel, Ernst. 1950a. Die baltischen Sprachen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
Fraenkel, Ernst. 1950b. Slavisch gospodъ, lit. viẽšpats, preuss. Waispattin und Zubehör.
Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie 20. 51–89.
Fraenkel LEW = Fraenkel, Ernst. 1962. Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch I.
Heidelberg/Göttingen: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht +
Fraenkel, Ernst. 1965. Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch II. Heidelberg/Göttingen:
Carl Winter Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Friedrich, Johannes. 1974. Hethitisches Elementarbuch I. Heidelberg: Carl Winter
Universitätsverlag.
Friedrich, Johannes. 1990. Kurzgefaßtes Hethitisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter
Universitätsverlag.
Frisk, Hjalmar. 1960. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Band I, A-Ko. Heidelberg:
Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
Frisk, Hjalmar. 1970. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Band II, Kr-Ō. Heidelberg:
Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
Frisk, Hjalmar. 1972. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Band III, Nachträge,
Wortregister, Corrigenda, Nachwort.. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
Fussman, Gérard. 1972. Atlas linguistique des parlers dardes et kafirs. II. Commentaire. Paris:
École française dʼExtrême-Orient.
Gallée, Johan H. Altsächsische Grammatik. Dritte Auflage mit Berichtigungen und
Literaturnachträgen von Heinrich Tiefenbach. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
Gamkrelidze, T. V. / Ivanov Vyacheslav V. 1972. Lingvističeskaja tipologija i rekonstrukcija
sistemy indoevropejskix smyčnyx. In: Bernštein, Samuil B. et al. (eds). Konferencija po
sravnitelno-istoričeskoj grammatike indoevropejskix jazykov. Moskva: Institut slavjanovedenija
i baltistiki AN SSSR. 15–18.
Gerullis, Georg. 1922. Die altpreußischen Ortsnamen: gesammelt und sprachlich behandelt.
Berlin: Vereinigung wissenschaftlicher Verleger Walter de Gruyter & Co.
Gippert, Jost. 2002. Neues zu “Slavisch st aus älterem pt”?. In: Anreiter, Peter / Ernst, Peter/
Hausner, Isolde (eds.): Namen Sprachen und Kulturen. Imena, Jeziki i Kulture. Festschrift
für Heinz Dieter Pohl zum 60. Geburtstag. Wiedn: Edition Praesens, 239–256.
Godel, Robert. 1975. An Introduction to the Study of Classical Armenian. Wiesbaden: Dr.
Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Görtzen, Jens. 1998. Die Entwicklung der indogermanischen Verbindungen von dentalen
Okklusiven mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Germanischen. Innsbruck: Institut für
Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.
Götze, Albert. 1928. Madduwattaš. Leipzig: Hinrichs.
GPC = [eds]. 1997–2002. Geriadur Prifysgol Cymru. Aberystwyth: Gwasg Prifysgol Cymru.
Greene, David. 1992. Celtic [numerals]. In: Gvozdanović, Jadranka (ed.). Indo-European
Numerals. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 498–554.
Greenberg, Marc. L. 2017. Slavic. In: Kapović, Mate (ed.). The Indo-European Languages.
New York: Routledge, 519–5151.
von Grienberger, Theodor. 1900. Untersuchungen zur gotischen Wortkunde. Wien: Gerold.
Griffen, Toby D. 1989. Nostratic and Germano-European. General Linguistics 29/3. 139–149.
Gunnarsson, Jón. 1971. On the Indo-European “dental spirants”. Norsk Tidskrift for
Sprogvidenskap 24. 21–82.
53
Hackstein, Olav. 2017. The Phonology of Tocharian. In: Klein, Jared / Joseph, Brian / Fritz /
Matthias (eds). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics
(HSK 41.2). Berlin / Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 1304–1335.
Haider, Hubert 1985. The Fallacy of Typology. Remarks on the PIE Stop-System. Lingua 65.
1–27.
Hammerich, Louis L. 1955. Die germanische und die hochdeutsche Lautverschiebung. Beiträge
zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (PBB(T)) 77. 1–29, 165–203.
Hammerich, Louis L. 1967. Ketzereien eines alten Indogermanisten. In: To Honor of Roman
Jakobson II. The Hague: Mouton. 839–849.
Hamp, Eric P. 1961a. Albanian be, besë “oath”. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung
auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen 77/3–4. 252–253.
Hamp, Eric P. 1961b. IE *bhend- in Albanian. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung
auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen 77/3–4. 253–254.
Hamp, Eric P. 1961c. Albanien natë “night”. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf
dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen 77/3–4. 254–256.
Hamp, Eric P. 1967. On IE *s after i, u in Baltic. Baltistica 3. 7–11.
Hamp, Eric. 1976. *gweiH- ʽliveʼ. In: Davies, Anna Morpurgo / Meid, Wolfgang (eds.). Studies
in Greek, Italic and Indo-European Linguistics offered to Leonhard R. Palmer.
Innsbruck: University of Innsbruck, 87–91.
Hamp, Eric P. 1992. Albanian [numerals]. In: Gvozdanović, Jadranka (ed.). Indo-European
Numerals. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 835–921.
HED 1–2 = Puhvel, Jaan. 1984. Hittite Etymological Dictionary. Vol. 1, Words Beginning with
A. Hittite Etymological Dictionary. Vol. 2, Words Beginning with E and I. Berlin / New
York / Amsterdam: Mouton.
HED 3 = Puhvel, Jaan. 1991. Hittite Etymological Dictionary. Vol. 3, Words Beginning with H.
Berlin / New York: Mouton.
HED 4 = Puhvel, Jaan. 1997. Hittite Etymological Dictionary. Vol. 4, Words Beginning with K.
Berlin / New York: Mouton.
HED 5 = Puhvel, Jaan. 2001. Hittite Etymological Dictionary. Vol. 5, Words Beginning with L.
Indices to volumes 1–5. Berlin / New York: Mouton.
HED 6 = Puhvel, Jaan. 2004. Hittite Etymological Dictionary. Vol. 6, Words Beginning with
M. Berlin / New York: Mouton.
HED 7 = Puhvel, Jaan. 2007. Hittite Etymological Dictionary. Vol. 7, Words Beginning with N.
Berlin / New York: Mouton.
HED 8 = Puhvel, Jaan. 2011. Hittite Etymological Dictionary. Vol. 8, Words Beginning with
PE, PI, PU. Berlin / New York: Mouton.
HED 9 = Puhvel, Jaan. 2013. Hittite Etymological Dictionary. Vol. 9, Words Beginning with
PA. Berlin / New York: Mouton.
HED 10 = Puhvel, Jaan. 2017. Hittite Etymological Dictionary. Vol. 10, Words Beginning with
SA. Berlin / New York: Mouton.
Hegedüs, Irén. 2012. The RUKI-rule in Nuristani. In: Nielsen Whitehead, Benedicte et al. (eds).
The Sound of Indo-European. Phonetics, Phonemics, and Morphophonemics. 145–167.
Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.
Hiersche, Rolf. 1964. Untersuchungen zur Frage der Tenues Aspiratae im Indogermanischen.
Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Hill, Eugen. 2003. Untersuchungen zum inneren Sandhi des Indogermanischen. Der Zusammenstoß
von Dentalplosiven im Indoiranischen, Germanischen, Italischen und
Keltischen. Bremen: Hempen Verlag.
Hillmarsson, Jörundur. 1993a. Development of labiovelars (and tectals plus u̯) in initial position
in Tocharian (an overview). Die Sprache 35/2. 176–186.
54
Hillmarsson, Jörundur. 1993b. The fate of TTR/RTT in Indo-European. In: Meiser, Gerhard
(ed.) Indogermanica et italic. Festschrift für Helmut Rix zum 65. Geburtstag. Innsbruck:
Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 72. 209–222.
Hirt, Hermann. 1899. Zur Lösung der Gutturalfrage im Indogermanischen. BB 24. 218–291.
Hirt, Hermann. 1912. Handbuch der griechischen Laut- und Formenlehre. Heidelberg: Carl
Winter´s Universitätsbuchhandlung.
Hirt, Hermann. 1927. Indogermanische Grammatik. Teil 1, Einleitung. 1. Etymologie. 2.
Konsonantismus. Heidelberg: Carl Winter´s Universitätsbuchhandlung.
Hirt, Hermann. 1939. Die Hauptprobleme der indogermanischen Sprachwissenschaft. Halle:
Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Hock, Wolfgang. 2004. Forschungsbericht: Baltoslavisch. I. Teil: Phonologie. Kratylos 49. 1-
32.
Hock, Wolfgang. 2005. Zur Vorgeschichte des albanischen Lautsystems. In: Meiser,
Gerhard/Hackstein, Olav (eds.). Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel. Akten der XI.
Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, 17.—23. September 2000, Halle an der
Saale. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 261–274.
Hoffmann, Karl. 1956. Notizen zu Wackernagel–Delbrunner, Altindische Grammatik II.2. MSS
8. 5–24.
Hoffmann, Karl / Forssman, Bernard. 1996. Avestische Laut- und Flexionslehre. Innsbruck:
Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.
Hoffner, Harry A. / Melchert, H. Craig. 2008. A Grammar of the Hittite Language. Part 1.
Reference Grammar. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Holst, Jan Henrik. 2001. Lettische Grammatik. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.
Hopper, Paul. 1973. Glottalized and murmured Occlusives in Indo-European. Glossa 7. 141–
166.
Horrock, Geoffrey. 2017. The Evolution of Greek. In: Klein, Jared / Joseph, Brian / Fritz /
Matthias (eds). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics
(HSK 41.1). Berlin / Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 717–745.
Hrozný, Bedřich. 1917. Die Sprache der Hethiter. Leipzig: Hinrichs.
Hübschmann, Heinrich. 1883. Armenische Studien I. Grundzüge der armenischen Etymologie.
Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel.
Hübschmann, Heinrich. 1897. Armenische Grammatik I. Armenische Etymologie. Leipzig:
Breitkopf und Härtel.
Hujer, Oldřich. 1913. Skupina kt ve slovanštině [The Cluster kt in Slavic]. Časopis moderních
filologů 3. 356–360.
Huld, Martin E. 1984. Basic Albanian Etymologies. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers.
Huld, Martin E. 1986. On the unacceptability of the Indo-European Voiced stops as Ejectives.
IF 91, 67–78.
Huld, Martin E. 1997. Satəm, centum and Hokum. In: Adams, Douglas Q. (ed.), Festschrift for
Eric P. Hamp I. Washington: Institute for the study of Man. 115–138.
Insler, Stanley. 1972. Some irregular Vedic imperatives. Language 48/3. 551–565.
Insler, Stanley. 1975. The Vedic type dheyām. Sprache 21/1. 1–22.
Jackson, Kenneth. 1953. Language and History in Early Britain. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Jakobson, Roman / Morris Halle. 1956. Fundamentals of Language. ‘S-Gravenhage: Mouton
& Co.
Jakobson, Roman. 1958. Typological Studies and their Contribution to Historical comparative
linguistics. In: Sievertsen (ed.): Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of
Linguists. Oslo: Oslo University Press. 17–35.
55
Jamison, Stephanie W. 1997. Syntactic Constraints on Morphological Change: the Vedic
Imperatives bodhí, dehí and dhehí. In: Pirart, Eric (ed.). Syntaxe des langues indoiraniennes
anciennes: colloque inernational. 63–80. Barcelona: Universidad de
Barcelona.
Jannaris, Antonius N. 1897. An Historical Greek Grammar, Chiefly of the Attic Dialect as
Written and Spoken from Classical Antiquity Down to the Present Time: Founded upon
the Ancient Texts, Inscriptions, Papyri and Present Popular Greek. London: Macmillan.
Jasanoff, Jay. 2002. The Vedic Imperatives yódhi “fight” and bódhi “heed”. Journal of the
American Oriental Society 122/2. 290–295.
Jasanoff, Jay. 2004. Plus ça change... Lachmann's Law in Latin. In: Penney, J. H. W. (ed.).
Indo-European Perspectives: Studies in Honour of Anna Morpurgo Davies. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. 405–416.
Job, Michael. 1995. Zum Lautwandel im Armenischen: Probleme einer relativen Chronologie.
In: Smoczyński, Wojciech (ed.). Kuryłowicz Memorial Volume. Part One. Cracow:
Universitas, 291–311.
Johansson, Karl F. 1903. Arische Beiträge. Indogermanische Forschungen 14: 265–339.
Johansson, Karl F. 1906. Arische Beiträge. Indogermanische Forschungen 19: 112–139.
Jokl, Norbert. 1923. Linguistisch-kulturhistorische Untersuchungen aus dem Bereiche des
Albanischen. Berlin/Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
Jokl, Norbert. 1937. Ein Beitrag zur Lehre von der alb. Vertretung der idg. Labiovelare. In:
Hjelmslev, Louis (ed.). Mélanges linguistiques offerts à M. Holger Pedersen à lʼoccasion
de son soixante-dixième anniversaire. København : Universitetsforlaget i Aarhus Levin
& Munksgaard, 127–161.
Jokl, Norbert. 1963. Die Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse des Albanischen zu den übrigen
indogermanischen Sprachen. Die Sprache 9. 113–156.
Kapović, Mate. 2017. Proto-Indo-European Phonology. In: Kapović, Maté. (ed.). 2017: The
Indo-European Languages. London – New York: Routledge. 13–60.
Karaliūnas, Simas. 1966. K voprosu ob i.-e. *s posle i, u v litovskom jazyke. Baltistika 1, 113–
126.
Karulis, Konstantīns. 1992a. Latviešu etimoloğijas vārdnīca I. A – O. Rīga: Avots.
Karulis, Konstantīns. 1992b. Latviešu etimoloğijas vārdnīca II. P – Ž. Rīga: Avots.
Kausen, Ernst. 2012. Die indogermanischen Sprachen. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.
Kellens, Jean. 1976. Un prétendu present radical. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft
34. 59–71.
Kellens, Jean. 1989. Avestique. In: Schmitt, Rüdiger (ed.). Compendium linguarum
Iranicarum. 32–55.Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Kellens, Jean. 1984. Le verbe avestique. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Kellens, Jean. 1995. Liste du verbe avestique. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Kent, Roland G. 1928. Lachmannʼs Law of Vowel Lengthening. Language 4. 181–190.
Kent, Roland G. 1932a. The Development of the Indo-European Dental Groups. Language 8/1.
18–26.
Kent, Roland G. 1932b. The Sounds of Latin. A Descriptive and Historical Phonology.
Language 8/3. (Language Monograph 12). 11–13, 15-216.
Kent, Roland G. 1936. Assimilation and dissimilation. Language 12/4: 245–258.
Kent, Roland G. 1950. Old Persian. Grammar. Texts. Lexicon. New Haven: American Oriental
Society.
Kim, Ronald. 1999. The development of labiovelars in Tocharian: a closer look. Tocharian and
Indo-European Studies 8. 139–187.
Kim, Ronald I. 2016. Studies in Armenian Historical Phonology I: Aspiration and
Spirantization of PIE Voiceless Stops. In: Byrd, Andrew M. / DeLiss, Jessica / Wenthe,
56
Mark (eds.). Tavet Tat Satyam. Studies in Honor of Jared S. Klein on the Occasion of his
Seventieth Birthday. Ann Arbor/New York: Beech Stave Press, 151–167.
Kim, Ronald. 2018. Greco-Armenian: The persistence of a myth. Indogermanische
Forschungen 123/1, 247–271.
Kimball, Sara. 1999. Hittite Historical Phonology. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur
Sprachwissenschaft.
Kimball, Sara. 2017. The Phonology of Anatolian. In: Klein, Jared / Joseph, Brian / Fritz /
Matthias (eds). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics
(HSK 41.1). Berlin / Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 249–256.
Kirchhoff, Adolf. 1877. Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Alphabets. Berlin: Ferd.
Dümmler´s Verlags-Buchshandlung.
Klingenschmitt, Gert. 1982. Das altarmenische Verbum. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert
Verlag.
Kloekhorst, Alwin. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden /
Boston: Brill.
Kloekhorst, Alwin. 2019. The spelling of clusters of dental stop + sibilant in Hittite. Münchener
Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft. 73/1. 55–72.
Kobayashi. Masato. 2004. Historical Phonology of Old Indo-Aryan Consonants. Tokyo:
Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa. Tokyo University of
Foreign Studies.
Kobayashi. Masato. 2017. The phonology of Indic (Old Indo-Aryan). In: Klein, Jared / Joseph,
Brian / Fritz Matthias (eds). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European
Linguistics 4.1. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 325–344.
Ködderitzsch, Rolf. 1991. Historische Phonologie des Albanischen: Probleme und Aufgaben.
In: Breu, Walter / Ködderitzsch, Rolf / Sasse, Hans-Jürgen (eds). Aspekte der
Albanologie: Akten des Kongresses „Stand und Aufgaben der Albanologie heute“. 3.–5.
Oktober 1988, Uniersität Zu Köln. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. 121–130.
Kögel, Rudolf. 1879. Ueber einige germanische dentalverbindungen. Beiträge zur Geschichte
der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 7. 171–201.
Kortlandt, Frederik. 1975. A Note on the Armenian Palatalization. Zeitschrift für vergleichende
Sprachforschung 89. 43–45.
Kortlandt, Frederik. 1976. Notes on Armenian Historical phonology I. Studia Caucasica 3, 91–
100 (also in: Kortlandt/Beekes 2003: 1–9).
Kortlandt, Frederik. 1978a. Notes on Armenian Historical phonology II. Studia Caucasica 4,
9–16 (also in: Kortlandt/Beekes 2003: 20–25).
Kortlandt, Frederik. 1978b. I.-E. palatovelars before Resonants in Balto-Slavic. In: Fisiak, Jack
(ed): Recent developments in historical phonology. The Hague: Mouton. 237–243.
Kortlandt, Frederik. 1978c. PIE obstruents. Indogermanische Forschungen 78. 107–120.
Kortlandt, Frederik. 1978d. Comment on W. Winter’s paper. In: Fisiak, Jack (ed.). Recent
developments in historical phonology. The Hague: Mouton., 447.
Kortlandt, Frederik. 1980a. On the Relative Chronology of Armenian Sound Changes. Studia
Caucasica 4, 9–16 (also in: Kortlandt/Beekes 2003: 26–33).
Kortlandt, Frederik. 1980b. Albanian and Armenian. Zeitschrift für vergleichende
Sprachforschung 94/1–2, 243–251 (also in: Kortlandt/Beekes 2003: 13–19).
Kortlandt, Frederik. 1981. More Evidence for Italo-Celtic. Ériu 32.1–22.
Kortlandt, Frederik 1982. IE. *pt in Slavic. Folia Linguistica Historica 3 (1). 25–28.
Kortlandt, Frederik. 1985. Proto-Indo-European glottalic stops: the comparative evidence.
Folia Linguistica Historica VI/2. 183–201.
57
Kortlandt, Frederik. 1986. Armenian and Albanian. In: Leroy, Maurice / Mawet, Francine
(eds.). La place de l'arménien dans les langues indo-européennes. Leuven: Peeters, 38–
47 (also in: Kortlandt/Beekes 2003: 68–74).
Kortlandt, Frederik. 1987. PIE *s in Albanian. Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 10.
219–226.
Kortlandt, Frederik. 1988. Reflexes of Indo-European Consonants in Albanian. Orpheus.
Journal of Indo-European and Thracian Studies 8 (Georgiev Memorial Volume). 35–37.
Kortlandt, Frederik. 1989. Lachmannʼs Law. In: Vennemann, Theo (ed.). The New Sound of
Indo-European (Essays in Phonological Reconstruction). Berlin: Mounton de Gruyter.
103–105.
Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1994a. From Proto-Indo-European to Slavic. The Journal of IndoEuropean
Studies 22. 91–112.
Kortlandt, Frederik. 1994b. Proto-Armenian Numerals. In: Rasmussen, Jens E. (ed.) In
honorem H. Pedersen. Kolloquium der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 25. bis 28.
März 1993 in Kopenhagen. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 253–257. (also in: Kortlandt/Beekes
2003: 98–101).
Kortlandt, Frederik. 1995. The Sigmatic Forms of the Armenian Verb. Annual of Armenian
LInguistics 16, 13–17. (also in: Kortlandt/Beekes 2003: 107–109).
Kortlandt, Frederik. 1996. Proto-Armenian Verbal System. In: Sakayan, Dora (ed.) Proceeding
of the 5th International Conference on Armenian Linguistics. Delmar, N.Y.: Caravan
Books, 35–43. (also in: Kortlandt/Beekes 2003: 110–116).
Kortlandt, Frederik. 1999. Lachmannʼs Law Again. In: Polomé, Edgar C.; Justus, Carol F.
(eds.). Language Change and Typological Variation: In Honor of Winfred P. Lehmann
on the Occasion of his 83rd Birthday. Vol. 1 : Language change and phonology.
Washington, D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man. 246–248.
Kortlandt, Frederik / Beekes, Robert S. P. 2003. Armeniaca. Comparative Notes. Ann Arbor:
Caravan Books
Krahe, Hans / Meid, Wolfgang. 1969. Germanische Sprachwissenschaft. I. Eingleitung und
Lautlehre. (Sammlung Göschen Band 238). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
Kräuter, Johann F. 1877. Zur Lautverschiebung. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner.
Krause, Wofgang 1952. Westtocharische Grammatik. Band I. Das Verbum. Heidelberg: Carl
Winter Universitätsverlag.
Krause, Wofgang / Thomas, Werner. 1960. Tocharisches Elementarbuch. Band I. Grammatik.
Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
Kronasser, Heinz. 1956. Vergleichende Laut- und Formenlehre des Hethitischen. Heidelberg:
Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
Kroonen, Gus. 2013. Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Germanic. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
Kümmel, Martin J. 2007. Konsonantenwandel: Bausteine zu einer Typologie des Lautwandels
und ihre Konsequenzen für die vergleichende Rekonstruktion. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Kümmel, Martin J. 2012. Typology and reconstruction. In: Nielsen Whitehead, Benedicte /
Olander, Thomas / Olsen, Birgit A. / Rasmussen, Jens E. (eds.): The Sound of IndoEuropean.
Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. 291–329.
Kurschat LDW = Kurschat, Alexander et al. 1968. Litauisch-deutsches Wörterbuch. Thesaurus
Linguae Lituanicae I. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. + Kurschat, Alexander et al.
1970. Litauisch-deutsches Wörterbuch. Thesaurus Linguae Lituanicae II. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1927. ə indo-européen et ¯ hittite. In: Symbolae grammaticae in honorem
Ioannis Rozwadowski I. Kraków. 95–104.
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1935. Études indoeuropéennes I. Kraków: Skład główny w ksiȩgarni
Gebethnera i Wolffa.
58
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1951. Le VIIe
aoriste indien. In: Kuryłowicz, Jerzy 1973. 126–130.
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1956. L´apophonie en indo-européen. Prace jȩzykoznawcze 9. Wrocław:
Polska Akademia Nauk.
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1964. The inflectional Categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Carl
Winter Universitätsverlag.
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1968. A Remark on Lachmann's Law. Harvard Studies in Classical
Philology 72. 295–299.
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1973. Esquisses linguistiques I. München: Fink.
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1977. Problèmes de linguistique indo-européenne. Prace jȩzykoznawcze 90.
Wrocław/Warszawa/Kraków/Gdańsk: Polska Akademia Nauk.
Kuiper, Franciscus B. J. 1967. The Sanskrit Nom. Sg. víṭ. Indo-Iranian Journal 10. 103–125.
Lachmann, Karl. 1850. Lucretius: De rerum natura (reprinted 1979. New York/ London:
Garland Publ.).
Lambert, Pierre-Yves. 1994. La langue gauloise. Paris: Editions Errance.
Lambert, Pierre-Yves / Pinault, Georges-Jean (eds). 2007. Gaulois et Celtique continental.
Paris: Droz.
Lamprecht, Arnošt. 1987. Praslovanština [The Pre-Slavic language]. Brno: Univerzita J. E.
Purkyně.
Langston, Keith. 2017. The Documentation of Slavic. In: Klein, Jared / Joseph, Brian / Fritz /
Matthias (eds). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics
(HSK 41.3). Berlin / Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 1397–1413.
Larson, Jenny H. / Bukelskytė-Čepelė, Kristina. 2018. The documentation of Baltic. In: Klein,
Jared / Joseph, Brian / Fritz Matthias (eds). Handbook of Comparative and Historical
Indo-European Linguistics 4.3. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 1621–1639.
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1952. Proto-Indo-European Phonology. Austin: The University of Texas
Press/Linguistic Society of America.
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1986. A Gothic Etymological Dictionary, based on the third edition of
Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der Gotischen Sprache by Sigismund Feist. Leiden: E. J.
Brill.
LEIA = Vendryès, Joseph. 1959–. Lexique étymologique de l'irlandais ancien. Paris: Centre
national de la recherche scientifique.
Lejeune, Michel. 1947. Traité de phonétique grecque. Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck.
Lejeune, Michel. 1972. Phonétique historique du mycénien et du grec ancien. Paris: Éditions
Klincksieck.
Leumann, Manu. 1942. Idg. sḱ im Altindischen und Litauischen. Indogermanische
Forschungen 58. 1–26, 113-130.
Leumann, Manu. 1977. Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre. München: C. H. Beck´sche
Verlagsbuchandlung.
Lewis, Charlton Th. / Short, Charles / Freund, Wilhelm / Andrews, Ethan Allen. 1879. A Latin
dictionary : founded on Andrews' edition of Freund's Latin Dictionary, rev., enl. and in
great part rewritten by Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short. Oxford: Clarendon, 1879.
Lewis, Henry / Pedersen, Holger. 1937. A Concise Comparative Celtic Grammar. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Liddell, Henry G. / Scott, R. (/ Jones, Henry S.), 1996. A Greek-English Lexicon. A new edition.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Lindemann, Fredrik O. 1965. Note phonologique sur hittite eku- 'boire'. Revue hittite et
asianique 23. 29–32.
Lipp, Reiner. 2009a. Die indogermanischen und einzelsprachlichen Palatale im Indoiranischen.
Band I: Neurekonstruktion, Nuristan-Sprachen, Genese der indoarischen
Retroflexe, Indoarisch von Mitanni. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.
59
Lipp, Reiner. 2009b. Die indogermanischen und einzelsprachlichen Palatale im Indoiranischen.
Band II: Thorn-Problem, indoiranische Laryngalvokalisation. Heidelberg:
Universitätsverlag Winter.
LIV2
= Rix, Helmut / Kümmel, Martin J. / Zehnder, Thomas / Lipp, Reiner / Schirmer, Brigitte.
2001. Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Lombardi, Linda. 1991. Laryngeal Features and Laryngeal Neutralization. Dissertation,
University of Massachusetts.
Lubotsky, Alexander. 1995. Sanskrit h < *dh, bh. In: Gurov, Nikita V. / Vasiľkov, Yaroslav V.
(eds). Sthāpakašrāddham. Professor G. A. Zograf Commemorative Volume. 124–144. St.
Petersburg: Peterburgskoe Vostokovedenie.
Lubotsky, Alexander. 2018. The phonology of Proto-Indo-Iranian. In: Klein, Jared / Joseph,
Brian / Fritz Matthias (eds). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European
Linguistics. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 1876–1888.
Macak, Martin. 2018. The Phonology of Classical Armenian. In: Klein, Jared / Joseph, Brian /
Fritz, Matthias (eds.) Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European
Linguistics Volume 2 (HSK 41.2). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 1037–1079.
MacAulay, Donald (ed). 1992. The Celtic Languages: an Overview. In: MacAulay, Donald
(ed). The Celtic Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1–8.
MacDonell, Arthur A. 1910: Vedic Grammar. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner.
MacDonell, Arthur A. 1916: A Vedic Grammar for Students. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Malzahn, Melanie. 2007a. Tocharian Texts and Where to Find Them. In: Malzahn, Melanie
(ed.). Instrumenta Tocharica. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter. 79–112.
Malzahn, Melanie. 2007b. A Tocharian Brahmi Chart. In: Malzahn, Melanie (ed.). Instrumenta
Tocharica. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter. 223–354.
Malzahn, Melanie. 2010. The Tocharian Verbal System. Leiden / Boston: Brill.
Maniet, Albert. 1956. La “loi de Lachmann” et les antinomies de l´allongement compensatoire.
In : Hommages à Max Niedermann. Bruxelles: Latomus. 230–237.
Mann, Stuart E. 1952. The Indo-European Consonants in Albanian. Language 28/1. 31–40.
Mann, Stuart E. 1963. Armenian and Indo-European (Historical Phonology). London: Lusac
& Co. Ltd.
Mareš, František V. 19691
. Diachronische Phonologie des Ur- und Frühslavischen. München:
Verlag Otto Sagner.
Mareš, František V. 19992
. Diachronische Phonologie des Ur- und Frühslavischen. Frankfurt
am Main: Peter Lang.
Markey, Thomas L. 1980. Delabialization in Germanic. Folia Linguistica Historica 1/2. 235–
293.
Marsh, Gordon H. 1941. The Voiced Sibilants in Sanskrit. JAOS 61. 45–50.
Martinet, André. 1951. Concerning some Slavic and Aryan reflexes of IE *s. Word 7. 91–95.
Martinet, André. 1952. Langues à syllabes ouvertes: le cas du slave commun. Zeitschrift für
Phonetik 6. 145–163.
Martinet, André. 1953. Remarques sur le consonantisme sémitique. Bulletin de la Société de
Linguistique de Paris 49, 67–78.
Martinet, André. 1955. Économie des changements phonètiques. Traité de phonologie
diachronique. Berne: A. Francke.
Martirosyan, Hrach, K. 2010. Etymological Dictionary of the Armenian Inherited Lexicon.
Leiden: Brill.
Martirosyan, Hrach, K. 2013. The Place of Armenian in the Indo-European language family:
the relationship with Greek and Indo-Iranian. Journal of Language Relationship 10, 85–
137.
Masica, Colin P. 1991. The Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
60
Matasović, Ranko. 2009. Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
Matzinger, Joachim. 2006. Der altalbanische Text Mbsuamae e krështerë (dottrina cristiana)
des Lekë Matrënga von 1572: eine Einführung in die albanische Sprachwissenschaft.
Dettelbach: Röll.
Matzinger, Joachim. 2009. Die Albaner als Nachkommen der Illyrier aus der Sicht der
historischen Sprachwissenschaft. In: Schmitt, Oliver J. / Frantz, Eva (eds.). Albanische
Geschichte. Stand und Perspektiven der Forschung. München: R. Oldenburg Verlag, 13–
35.
Matzinger, Joachim. 2012. Zwischensprachen – areallinguistische Bemerkungen ausdem
Bereich des Balkanindogermanischen. In: Sadovski, Velizar / Stiffler, David (eds.).
Iranistische und indogermanistische Beiträge in memoriam Jochem Schindler (1944–
1994). Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 137–159.
Mayrhofer, Manfred 1951. Handbuch des Pali. Heidelberg: Winter.
Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1984. Lassen sich Vorstufen des Uriranischen nachweisen? Anzeiger der
Österreichischen Akademie der Wissensschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, 120: 249–255.
Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1986. Indogermanische Grammatik I.2. Lautlehre. Heidelberg: Winter.
Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1989. Vorgeschichte der iranischen Sprachen; Uriranisch. In: Schmitt,
Rüdiger (ed.). Compendium linguarum Iranicarum. 4–24,Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig
Reichert Verlag.
Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1997. L’Indo-iranien. In: Bader, Françoise (ed.). Langues indoeuropéennes.
Paris: CNRS Edition. 101–122.
Mayrhofer, Manfred. 2004. Die Hauptprobleme der indogermanischen Lautlehre seit Bechtel.
Wien: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie dr Wissenschaften.
Mažiulis, Vytautas. 2013: Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopeidjų
ledidybos centras.
McCone, Kim. Towards a relative chronology of ancient and medieval Celtic sound change.
Maynooth: Department of Old Irish, St. Patrick’s College.
Meillet, Antoine. 1893. De quelques difficultés de la théorie des gutturales indo-européeennes.
Memoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 8. 8. 277–304.
Meillet, Antoine. 1902. Études sur l’etymologie et le vocabulaire du vieux slave I. Paris:
Bouillon.
Meillet, Antoine. 1903. Esquisse d´une grammarie comparée de l´Arménien classique. Vienne:
Imprimerie des PP. Mékhitharistes.
Meillet, Antoine. 1913. Altarmenisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitäts-
Buchhandlung.
Meillet, Antoine. 1922. Les dialectes indo-européens. Paris: Librairie ancienne Édouard
Champion.
Meillet, Antoine. 1924. Le slave commun. Paris: Librairie ancienne Honoré Champion.
Meillet, Antoine. 1934. Introduction a l’étude comparative des langues indo-européennes.
Paris: Librairie Hachette
Meillet, Antoine. 1936. Esquisse d´une grammarie comparée de l´Arménien classique.2
Vienne: Imprimerie des PP. Mékhitharistes.
Meillet, Antoine / Vendryes, Joseph. 1924. Traité de grammaire comparée des langues
classiques. Paris: Librairie Ancienne Édouard Champion.
Meiser, Gerhard. 1986. Lautgeschichte der Umbrischen Sprache. Innsbruck: Institut für
Sprachwissenscahft der Universität Innsbruck.
Meiser, Gerhard. 1998. Historische Laut- und Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache.
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
61
Meiser, Gerhard. 2017. The Phonology of Italic. In: Klein, Jared / Joseph, Brian / Fritz /
Matthias (eds). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics
(HSK 41.2). Berlin / Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 743–751.
Melchert, H. Craig. 1987. PIE Velars in Luvian. In: Watkins, Calvert (ed.) Studies in Memory
of Warren Cowgill, 182-204. Berlin − New York: de Gruyter.
Melchert, H. Craig. 1994. Anatolian Historical Phonology. Amsterdam / Atlanta: Rodopi.
Melchert, H. Craig. 2012. Luvo-Lycian Dorsal Stops Revisited. In: Sukač, Roman / Šefčík,
Ondřej (eds). The Sound of Indo-European 2. Papers on Indo-European Phonetics,
Phonemics and Morphophonemics. Munich: Lincom Europa, 206–218.
Melchert, H. Craig. 2017. Anatolian. In: Kapović, Mate (ed.). The Indo-European Languages.
New York: Routledge, 171–201.
Merlingen, Weriand. 1958. Idg. x. Die Sprache 4. 39–73.
Mey, Jacob L. 1972. Was Bartholomae really a Grassmann? Norwegian journal of linguistics
1. 81-89
Meyer, Gustav. 1891. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der albanesischen Sprache. Strassburg:
Verlag von Karl. J. Trübner.
Michelson, Truman. 1911/1912. The alleged change of Indo-European tst(h) to st(h).
Indogermanische Forschungen 29: 221–226.
Mikkola, Jooseppi J. 1942. Urslavische Grammatik. II. Teil. Konsonantismus. Heidelberg: Carl
Winter-Universitätsverlag.
Miller, Brett. 2012. Sonority and the Larynx. In: Parker, Steve (ed.). The Sonority Controversy.
Berlin: De Gruyter. 257–288.
Miller, D. Garry. 1977. Bartholomaeʼs Law and an IE Root Structure Constraint. In: Hopper,
Paul J. (ed.): Studies in Descriptive and Historical Linguistics. Festschrift for W. P.
Lehmann. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 365–392.
Miller, D. Garry. 2019. The Oxford Gothic Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Morgenstierne, Georg. 1926. Report on a Linguistic Mission to Afghanistan. Oslo: H. Aschehou
& Co.
Morgenstierne, Georg. 1942. Orthography and sound-system of the Avesta. Norsk Tidsskrift for
Sprogvidenskap 12: 30–82.
Morgenstierne, Georg. 1945. Indo-European ḱ in Kafiri. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap
13: 225–238.
Morgenstierne, Georg. 1965. Dardic and Kāfir Languages. In: Lewis, Bernard/ Pellat,
Charles/Schacht Joseph (eds.) Encyclopaedia of Islam II. 138–139. Leiden: Brill.
Morpurgo Davies, Anna / Hawkins, J. David. 1988. A Luwian Heart. In: Imparati, Fiorella
(ed.). Studi di storia e di filologia anatolica dedicate a Giovanni Publiese Carratelli.
Firenze: Elite. 169–192.
Nedoma, Robert. 2017. The Documentation of Germanic. In: Klein, Jared / Joseph, Brian / Fritz
/ Matthias (eds). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics
(HSK 41.2). Berlin / Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 875–888.
Nelson, David N. 1986. The Historical Development of the Nuristani Languagues. (Ph.D.
thesis, University of Minnesota).
NIL = Wodtko, Dagmar S. / Irslinger, Britta / Schneider, Carolin. 2008. Nomina im
indogermanischen Lexikon. Heidelberg: Winter Universitätsverlag.
Oettinger, Norbert. 1979. Die Stammbildung des hethitischen Verbums. Nürnberg: Hans Carl
Verlag.
Ölberg, Hermann M. 1976. Zwei oder drei Gutturalreihen? Vom Albanischen aus gesehen. In:
Scritti in onore di Giuliano Bonfante II. Brescia: Paideia Editrice. 561–570.
Olsen, Birgit A. 1999. The Noun in Biblical Armenian: Origin and Word-formation: with
special emphasis on the Indo-European heritage. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
62
Olsen, Birgit A. 2018. The Morphology of Armenian. In: Klein, Jared / Joseph, Brian / Fritz,
Matthias (eds.) Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics
Volume 2 (HSK 41.2). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 1080–1099.
Olsen, Birgit A. 2017: Armenian. In: Kapović, Mate (ed.). The Indo-European Languages. New
York: Routledge.
Orël, Vladimir. 1998. Albanian Etymological Dictionary. Leiden: Brill.
Orël, Vladimir. 2000. A Concise Historical Grammar of the Albanian Language. Leiden: Brill.
Osthoff, Hermann. 1884. Zur Geschichte des Perfects im Indogermanischen: Mit besonderer
Rücksicht auf Griechisch und Lateinisch. Berlin: Karl I. Trübner.
Otkupščikov, Jurij V. 1984. Zakon Laxmana v svete indoevropeijskix dannyx. Gipotezy i fakty.
Voprosy Jazykoznanija 2. 83–90.
Otrȩbski, Jan. 1954. Slavjano-baltiskoe jazykovoe jedinstvo. Voprosy jayzkoznanija 5, 27–42,
6, 28–46.
Otrȩbski, Jan. 1958. Gramatyka jȩzyka litewskiego I. Warszawa: Państwowe wydawnictwo
naukowe.
Otrębski, Jan. 1963. Über die Vervollkommnung der Forschungsmethoden. Lingua
Posnanensis 9. 7–28.
Patri, Sylvain. 2003. Les traitements contradictoires de */pt/ en slave commun (avec une note
sur «þ» indo-européen). Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 63. 121–137.
Pedersen, Holger. 1895. Das indogermanische s im Slavischen. Indogermanische Forschungen
5. 33–87.
Pedersen, Holger. 1896. Das indogermanische s im Slavischen. Indogermanischen
Forschungen 5. 33–87.
Pedersen, Holger. 1897. Aspirationen i Irsk. Ph.D. Dissertation, Copenhagen. Leipzig:
Spirgatis.
Pedersen, Holger. 1900a. Die Gutturale im Albanesischen. Zeitschrift für vergleichende
Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen 36/3, 277–340.
Pedersen, Holger. 1900b. Albanesisch und Armenisch. Zeitschrift für vergleichende
Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen 36/3, 340–341.
Pedersen, Holger. 1904. Armenisch und die nachbarsprachen. Zeitschrift für vergleichende
Sprachforschung 39, 334–485.
Pedersen, Holger. 1908. Die idg.-semitische Hypothese. Indogermanische Forschungen 22.
341–365.
Pedersen, Holger. 1909. Vergleichende Grammatik der keltischen Sprachen. Erster Band.
Einleitung und Lautlehre. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck und Ruprecht.
Pedersen, Holger. 1913. Vergleichende Grammatik der keltischen Sprachen. Zweiter Band.
Bedeutungslehre (Wortlehre). Göttingen: Vanderhoeck und Ruprecht.
Pedersen, Holger. 1926. La cinquième declinaison latine. KDVS. Hist.-fil. Medd. XI. 5.
Pedersen, Holger. 1951. Die gemein-i.e. und die vorie. Verschusslaute. Copenhagen: Acad.
Peeters, Christian 1971. A phonemic Definition of I-E bh dh gh. KZ 85/1. 1–4.
Penney, J. W. H. 2017. The Documentation of Tocharian. In: Klein, Jared / Joseph, Brian / Fritz
/ Matthias (eds). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics
(HSK 41.2). Berlin / Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 1298–1303.
Peters, Martin. 1997. Der armenische Flexionstyp gitem, gitacʿ und das ion.-att.
Plusquamperfekt. In: Lubotsky, Alexander (ed). Sound Law and Analogy: Papers in
honor of Robert S. P. Beekes on the occasion of his 60th
Birthday. Amsterdam/Atlanta:
Rodopi, 209–217.
Petit, Daniel. 2018. The Phonology of Baltic. In: Klein, Jared / Joseph, Brian / Fritz Matthias
(eds). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics 4.3.
Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 1640–1651.
63
Peyrot, Michaël. 2008. Variation and change in Tocharian B. Amsterdam / New York: Rodopi.
Pinault, Georges-Jean. 1990. Notes sur le manuscripts de Maitreyasamit. Tocharian and IndoEuropean
Studies 4. 119–202.
Pinault, Georges-Jean. 1999. Tokharien A kapśañi, B. kektseñe. In: Eichner, Heiner /
Luschützky, Hans Chr. Compositiones Indogermanicae in memoriam Jochem Schindler.
Praha: enigma corporation. 457–478.
Pisani, Vittore. 1947. Balto e Slavo. In: Pisani, Vittore. Linguistica generale e indeuropea,
saggi e discorsci I. Milano: Libreria editrice scientifico universitaria. 65–82.
Pisani, Vittore. 1951. Studi sulla fonetica dell’armeno (II). Ricerche linguistiche 2, 47–74.
Pisani, Vittore. 1961. La ricostruzione dell´indoeropeo e del suo sistema fonetico. Archivio
glottologico italiano XLVI. 1-31.
Pisani, Vittore. 1976. Sanskrit dehí und dhehí. Sprache 22/2. 166.
von Planta, Robert. 1892. Grammatik der Oskisch-Umbrischen Dialekte. Erster Band.
Einleitung und Lautlehre. Strassburg: Verlag von Karl J. Trübner.
von Planta, Robert. 1897. Grammatik der Oskisch-Umbrischen Dialekte. Zweiter Band.
Formenlehre, Syntax, Sammlung der Inschriften und Glossen, Anhang, Glossar.
Strassburg: Verlag von Karl J. Trübner.
Pocetti, Paolo. 2017. The Documentation of Italic. In: Klein, Jared / Joseph, Brian / Fritz /
Matthias (eds). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics
(HSK 41.2). Berlin / Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 733–743.
Pohl, Hans D. 1980. Slavisch st aus älterem *pt? In Die Sprache 26. 62–63.
Pokorny IEW = 1959. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. I. Band, A–KN. Bern:
Francke Verlag; 1966. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. II. Band, KO–
WR. Bern: Francke Verlag. 1969. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. III.
Band. Bern: Francke Verlag.
Pokorny, Julius. 1969. Altirische Grammatik. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
Porzig, Walter. 1984. Die Gliederung des indogermanischen Sprachgebiets. Heidelberg: Carl
Winter.
Prokosch, Eduard. 1918–1919. Media Aspirata (I–IV). Modern Philology 15/10. 621–628,
16/2. 99–115, 16/6. 325–336, 16/10. 543–552.
Prokosch, Eduard. 1939. A Comparative Germanic Grammar. Philadelphia: Linguistic Society
of America/University of Pennsylvania.
Rasmussen, Jens E. 1987. On the status of the aspirated tenues and the Indo-European
Phonation Series. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 20. 81-109.
Reichelt, Hans. 1909. Awestisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s
Universitätsbuchhandlung.
Reichelt, Hans. 1922. Die Labiovelare. IF 40. 40–81.
Rejzek, Jiří. 2008. K vývoji psl. kt [On the development of Pre-Slavic kt]. Slavia 77. 165–170.
Renou, Louis. 19963
. Grammaire Sanscrite. Paris: Librairie d’Amérique et d’Orient. Adrien
Maisonneuve.
Ribezzo, Francesco. 1903: Il problema capitale delle gutturali ie. Rendiconti dell´Accademia
di Napoli 17. Napoli : Stab. Tipografico della R. Universita A. Tessitore e figlio.
Ribezzo, Francesco. 1922–1923. Per la genesi delle tre serie gutturali ie. RIGI 6. 225–241, RIGI
7. 41–62.
Ribezzo, Francesco. 1929. La teoria Ascoliana delle gutturali ie. Allo stato presente della
glottologia. AGI 22-23. 131–151.
Ringe, Don. 1996. On the Chronology of Sound Changes in Tocharian. Volume 1. From ProtoIndo-European
to Proto-Tocharian. New Haven: American Oriental Society.
Ringe, Don. 2006. From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
64
Rix, Helmut. 1992. Historische Grammatik des Griechischen. Laut- und Formenlehre.
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Rix, Helmut. 2004. Ausgliederung und Aufgliederung der italischen Sprachen. In:
Bammesberger, Alfred / Vennemann, Theo et al. (eds). Languages in Prehistoric Europe.
Heidelberg : Universitätsverlag Winter, 147–172.
Ross, Alan S. C. / Berns, Jan. 1992. Germanic [numerals]. In: Gvozdanović, Jadranka (ed.).
Indo-European Numerals. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 555–715.
Rozwadowski, Jan Michał. 1961. O pierwotnym stosunku wzajemnym jȩzyków bałtyckich i
słowiańskich. In: Rozwadowski, J. M. Wybór pism II. Jȩzykoznawstwo indoeuropejskie.
Warszawa: Państwowe wydawnictwo naukowe, 96–113.
Rusakov, Alexander. 2017. Albanian. In: Kapović, Mate (ed.). The Indo-European Languages.
New York: Routledge, 552–608.
Sag, Ivan A. 1974: The Grassmann’s Law Ordering Pseudoparadox. Linguistic Inquiry 5(4).
591–607.
Sag, Ivan A. 1976: Pseudosolutions to the Pseudoparadox: Sanskrtit Diaspirates Revisited.
Linguistic Inquiry 7(4). 609–622.
Safarewicz, Jan. 1945. Pochodzenie trzech szeregów spólgłosek tylnojęzykowych w prajęzyku
indoeuropejskim. Sprawozdania z czynności i posiedzeń Polskiej akademii umiejętności
XLVI. Kraków. 37.
Salmons, Joseph C. 1993. The Glottalic Theory. McLean, VA: Institute for the Study of Man.
de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1877. La transformation latine de *tt en ss suppose-t-elle un
intermédiaire *st ?. Mémoires de la Société de linguistique de Paris 3. 293–301 (quoted
the version published in: de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1922. Recueil des publications
scientifiques de Ferdinand de Saussure. Heidelberg: Carl Winters
Universitätsbuchhandlung. 370–375).
de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1885. Sur un point de la phonétique des consonnes en i.-e. Mémoires
de la Société de linguistique de Paris 6. 246–257.
de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1892. Contribution à lʼhistoire des aspirées sourdes. BSL 7. 118.
Schenker, Alexander M. 2002. Proto-Slavonic. In: Bernard Comrie / Greville G. Corbett (eds),
The Slavonic languages, 60–121. London: Routledge.
Schindler, Jochem. 1967: Das idg. Wort für “Erde” und die dentalen Spiranten. Die Sprache
13. 191–205.
Schindler, Jochem. 1976: Diachronic and Synchronic Remarks on Bartholomae’s Law and
Grassmann’s Law. Linguistic Inquiry 7(4). 622–637.
Schleicher, August. 18611
. Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen
Sprachen. Weimar: Herman Böhlau.
Schleicher, August. 18662
. Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen
Sprachen. Weimar: Herman Böhlau.
Schmidt, Gernot. 1973. Die iranischen Wörter für „Tochter“ und „Vater“ und die Reflexe des
interkonsonantischen H (ǝ) in den idg. Sprachen. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende
Sprachforschung 87. 36-83.
Schmidt, Johannes. 1881. Zwei arische a-Laute undi die Palatalen. KZ 25. 1–179.
Schmidt, József: 1912: Kisérlet az indogermán gutturális probléma medoldására [Essay at a
resoluton to the IE guttural Problem]. Budapest: Acad.
Schmidt, Karl H. 1957. Die Komposition in gallischen Personennamen. Zeitschrift für celtische
Philologie. 26/1-4. 33–301.
Schmidt, Karl H. 1980. Armenian and Indo-European. In: Greppin, John A.C. (ed.). First
International Conference on Armenian Linguistics. New York: Caravan Books. 35–58.
Schmidt, Karl H. 1991. Latin and Celtic: Genetic Relationship and Areal Contacts. Bulletin of
the Board of Celtic Studies 38. 1–19.
65
Schmidt, Wolfgang P. 1966. Alteuropa und der Osten im Spiegel der Sprachgeschichte.
(Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft, Sonderheft 22). Innsbruck: Institut für
Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.
Schmitt, Rüdiger. 1989. Altpersisch. In: Schmitt, Rüdiger (ed.). Compendium linguarum
Iranicarum. 56-85,Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Schmitt, Rüdiger. 1989. Die Iranischen Sprachen im Überblick. In: Schmitt, Rüdiger (ed.).
Compendium linguarum Iranicarum. 25-31,Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Schmitt, Rüdiger. 2007. Grammatik des Klassisch-Armenischen mit sprachlichen
Erläuterungen. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität
Innsbruck.
Schmitt-Brandt, Robert. 1998. Einführung in die Indogermanistik. Tübingen: Francke.
Schrijver, Peter. 1995. Studies in British Celtic Historical Phonology. Amsterdam / Atlanta:
Rodopi.
Schrijver, Peter. 2007. Some common developments of Continental and Insular Celtic. In:
Lambert, Pierre-Yves / Pinault, Georges-Jean (eds). 2007. Gaulois et Celtique
continental. Paris: Droz. 355–371.
Schumacher, Stefan. 2004. Die Keltischen Primärverben. Ein vergleichendes, etymologisches
und morphologisches Lexikon. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der
Universität Innsbruck. Abteilung Sprachwissenschaft.
Schumacher, Stefan / Matzinger, Joachim. 2013. Die Verben des Altalbanischen.
Belegwörterbuch, Vorgeschichte und Etymologie. Unter Mitarbeit von Anna-Maria
Adaktylos (= Albanische Forschungen 33). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Schumacher, Stefan. 2013. Historische Phonologie. In: Schumacher, Stefan / Matzinger,
Joachim. Die Verben des Altalbanischen. Belegwörterbuch, Vorgeschichte und
Etymologie. Unter Mitarbeit von Anna-Maria Adaktylos (= Albanische Forschungen 33).
Wiesbanden: Harrassowitz, 205–276.
Schwyzer, Eduard. 1934. Dissimilatorische Geminatenauflösung als Folge yon Übersteigerung,
zunächst im Neugriechischen und im Spätaltgriechischen. KZ 61/3-4. 222–252.
Schwyzer, Eduard. 1939. Griechische Grammatik auf der Grundlage von Karl Brugmanns
griechischer Grammatik. Erster Band. Allgemeiner Teil, Lautlehre, Wortbildung,
Flexion. München: C. H. Beck’sche Verglasbuchhandlung.
Šefčík, Ondřej. 2012. On the Integration of Old Indo-Aryan Voiceless Aspirates into the
system. In: Sukač, Roman  Šefčík, Ondřej (eds.): Sounds of Indo-European 2. München:
Lincom Europa.
Šefčík, Ondřej. 2016. The problem of Proto-Balto-Slavic ‘aspirates’ revisited. 77/4. 300–315.
Šefčík, Ondřej 2017. Notes on the Function of the Indo-European Velar Series. In: Hansen,
Bjarne Simmelksjær et al. (eds). Etymology and the European Lexicon. 401–414.
Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag.
Senn, Alfred. 1966. Handbuch der litauischen Sprache I. Grammatik. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Shevelov, George Y. 1964. A Prehistory of Slavic: the Historical Phonology of Common Slavic.
Heidelberg: Carl Winter-Universitätsverlag.
Shields, Kenneth. 1981. A New Look at the Centum/Satem Isogloss, KZ 95, 203-213
Shields, Kenneth. 2002. On the distribution of velar consonants in the suffixes and endings of
Indo-European. Indogermanische Forschungen 107. 96–105.
Sihler, Andrew L. 1995. New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Sihler, Andrew L. 1997. The Myth of Direct Reflexes of the PIE Palatal Series in Kati. In:
Diesterherft, Dorothy / Huld, Martin / Greppin, John (eds.). Studies in Honor of Jaan
Puhvel. Part One. Ancient Languages and Philology. Washington D. C.: Institute for the
Study of Man. 187–194.
66
Sims-Williams, Patrick. 1981. The Development of the Indo-European Voiced Labiovelars in
Celtic. Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 29. 201–229.
Sims-Williams, Patrick. 2017. Iranian. In: Kapović, Mate (ed.). The Indo-European Languages.
New York: Routledge, 352–386.
Sims-Wiliams Patrick. 2007. Common Celtic, Gallo-Brittonic and Insular Celtic. In: Lambert,
Pierre-Yves / Pinault, Georges-Jean (eds). 2007. Gaulois et Celtique continental. Paris:
Droz, 309– 353.
Sims-Williams, Patrick. 2017. Celtic. In: Kapović, Mate (ed.). The Indo-European Languages.
New York: Routledge, 352–386.
Skjærvo, Prods Oktor. 2017. The documentation of Iranian. In: Klein, Jared / Joseph, Brian /
Fritz Matthias (eds). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European
Linguistics 4.1. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 472–481.
Sköld, Hannes 1924: Die indogermanischen Labiovelare. KZ 52, 147-151.
Smoczyński, Wojciech. 2001. Jȩzyk litewski w perspektywie porównawczej. Kraków:
Wydawnictwo uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
Smoczyński, Wojciech. 2005. Lexicon der altpreussischen Verben. Innsbruck: Institut für
Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Inssbruck.
Smoczyński, Wojciech. 2007. Słownik etymologiczny jȩzyka litewskiego. Wilno: Uniwersytet
Wileński, Wydział Filologiczny.
Solta, Georg R. 1960. Die Stellung des Armenischen im Kreise der indogermanischen
Sprachen: eine Untersuchung der indogermanischen Bestandteile des armenischen
Wortschatzes. Wien: Mechitharisten-Buchdruckerei.
Solta, Georg R. 1965. Palatalisierung und Labialisierung. Indogermanische Forschungen 70.
276–315.
Sommer, Ferdinand. 1914. Handbuch der lateinischen Laut- und Formenlehre. Eine
Einführung in das sprachwissenschaftliche Studium des Lateins. Heidelberg: Carl Winter
Universitätsverlag.
Specht, Franz. 1944. Die Ursprung der indogermanischen Deklination. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Stang, Christian S. 1966. Vergleichende Grammatik der Baltischen Sprachen. Oslo / Bergen /
Tromsö: Universitetsforlaget.
Steensland, Lars 1973. Die Distribution der urindogermanischen sogennanten Gutturale.
Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksel.
Stempel, Reinhard. 1994. Zur Vertretung der drei indogermanischen Gutturalreihen im
Armenischen. HS (KZ) 107. 298–309.
Stevens. Allan M. 1968. Madurese phonology and morphology. New Haven: American
Oriental Society.
Stempel, Reinhard. 1994. Zur Vertretung der drei indogermanischen Gutturalreihen im
Armenischen. Historische Sprachforschung 107/2. 298–309.
Stifter, David. 2017. The Phonology of Celtic. In: Klein, Jared / Joseph, Brian / Fritz / Matthias
(eds). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics (HSK 41.2).
Berlin / Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 1188–1202.
Stiles, Patrick V. 2017. The Phonology of Germanic. In: Klein, Jared / Joseph, Brian / Fritz /
Matthias (eds). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics
(HSK 41.2). Berlin / Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 888–912.
Stolz, Friedrich. 1894. Historische Grammatik der Laterinischen Sprache. Erster Band.
Einleitung, Lautlehre, Stammbildungslehre. Erste Hälfte. Einleitung und Lautlehre.
Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.
Strand, Richard F. 1973. Notes on Nūristāni and Dardic Languages. Journal of the American
Oriental Society 93/3. 297–305.
67
Streitberg, Wilhelm. 1974. Urgermanische Grammatik. Einführung in das vergleichende
Studium der altgermanischen Dialekte. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Stuart-Smith, Jane. 2004. Phonetics and Philology. Sound Change in Italic. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Sturtevant, Edgar H. 1930. The Gutturals in Hittite and Indo-European. Language 6. 213–228.
Sturtevant, Edgar H. 1933a. Archaism in Hittite. Language 9. 1–11.
Sturtevant, Edgar H. 1933b. A Comparative Grammar of the Hittite Language. Philadelphia:
Linguistic Society of America/University of Pennsylvania.
Sturtevant, Edgar H. / Hahn, E. Adelaide. 1951. A Comparative Grammar of the Hittite
Language. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Sukač, Roman. 2013. Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and Balto-Slavic Accentology.
Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing Szemerényi, Oswald. 1957. The
Problem of Balto-Slav Unity. A Critical Survey. Kratylos 2.2. 97–123.
Szemerényi, Oswald. 1964. Syncope in Greek and Indo-European and the Nature of IndoEuropean
Accent. Napoli: Istituto universitario orientale di Napoli.
Szemerényi, Oswald. 1967. The New Yook of Indo-European. Reconstruction and Typology.
Phonetica 17. 65–99.
Szemerényi, Oswald. 1990. Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft. Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Szemerényi, Oswald. 1996. Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics, Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Tischler, Johann. 1990. Hundert Jahre kentum-satem Theorie. Indogermanische Forschungen
95. 63–98.
Tedesco, Paul. 1968. Sanskrit dehi ‘give’. Language. 44. 1–24.
Thompson, Rupert. 2017. Greek. In: Kapović, Mate (ed.). The Indo-European Languages. New
York: Routledge, 287–316.
Thurneysen, Rudolf 1909. Handbuch des alt-irischen Grammatik, Texte und Wörterbuch. I.
Teil: Grammatik. Heidelberg: Carl Winterʼs Universitätsbuchhandlung.
Townsend, Charles E. & Laura A. Janda. 1996. Common and Comparative Slavic: Phonology
and Inflection with Special Attention to Russian, Polish, Czech, Serbo-Croatian,
Bulgarian. Columbus: Slavica Publishers.
Trautmann, Reinhold. 19742
. Die altpreussischen Personennamen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht.
Trubetzkoy, Nikolai S. 1939. Grundüge der Phonologie. Prag: Travaux du Cercle linguistique
de Prague.
Turner, Ralph L. 1964. Sanskrit buddhi-. In: Indo-Iraniaca: Mélanges présentés à G.
Morgenstierne à l´occasion de son soixante-dixième anniversaire. Wiesbaden :
Harrasowitz. 174-176.
Turner, Ralph L. 1966. A Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages. London:
Oxford University Press.
Uhlenbeck, Christianus C. 1894. Etymologisches. 3 Flëhtan. Beiträge zur Geschichte der
deutschen Sprache und Literatur 19. 517–519.
Untermann, Jürgen. 2000. Wörterbuch des Oskisch-Umbrischen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Vaillant, André. 1950. Grammaire comparée des langues slaves, tome I, phonétique. Lyon &
Paris: IAC.
Vasmer, Max. 1953–1958. Russisches etymologisches Wörterbuch 1–3. Heidelberg: Carl
Winter-Universitätsverlag.
Vath, Bernd / Ziegler, Sabine. 2017. The Documentation of Celtic. In: Klein, Jared / Joseph,
Brian / Fritz / Matthias (eds). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European
Linguistics (HSK 41.2). Berlin / Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 1169–1188.
68
Vendryès, Joseph. 1908. Grammaire du Vieil-Irlandais. Paris: Librairie orientale & américaine.
Verner, Karl. 1878. (rev. of) Zur lautverschiebung. Von J F Kräuter. Strassburg, Trübner 1877.
[viii und] 154 ss. Anzeiger für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 21. 333–342.
Vey, Marc. 1931a. Slave st provenant ďi.-e- *pt. Bulletin de la Société de linguistique 32. 65–
67.
Vey, Marc. 1931b. [Procèses-verbaux des séances:] V. sl. nestera. Bulletin de la Société de
Linguistique 32. XV.
Vey, Marc. 1953. Les noms de l̕ «autour» en slave. Bulletin de la Société de linguistique 49
(1). 24–40.
Vey, Marc. 1958. [Procèses-verbaux des séances :] Hypothèse sur l̕etymologie de vieux russe
Stribogъ. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique 53 (1). XLI.
Voyles, Joseph B. 1992. Early Germanic Grammar. Pre-, Proto-, and Post-Germanic
languages. San Diego/New York: Academic Press.
Waanders, Frederik M. J. 1992. Greek [numerals]. In: Gvozdanović, Jadranka (ed.). IndoEuropean
Numerals. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 369–388.
Wackernagel, Jakob. 1896. Altindische Grammatik. Band I. Lautlehre. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Walde, Alois. 1897. Die Verbindungen zweier Dentale und tönendes z im Indo-germanischen.
KZ 34: 461–536.
Wallace, Rex. 2017. Greek. In: Kapović, Mate (ed.). The Indo-European Languages. New
York: Routledge, 317–351.
Watkins, Calvert. 1966. Italo-Celtic Revisited. In: Puhvel, Jaan / Birnbaum, Henrik (eds.).
Ancient Indo-European Dialects. Berkeley / Los Angeles: University of California Press.
29–50.
Watkins, Calvert. 1970. A Further Remark on Lachmannʼs Law. Harvard Studies in Classical
Philology 74. 55–65.
Weisgerber, Leo. 1935. Sprachwissenschaftliche Beiträge zu frührheinischen Siedlungs- und
Kulturgeschichte, I. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, Neue Folge, 84/4. 289–359.
Weiss, Michael. 2009. Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin. Ann
Arbor / New York: Beech Stave Press.
Weiss, Michael. 2012. Italo-Celtica: Linguistic and Cultural Points of Contact Between Italic
and Celtic. In: Jamison, Stephanie W. / Melchert, H. Craig / Vine, Bret (eds.).
Proceedings of the 23rd Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. Bremen: Hempen:
151-73.
Werba, Chlodwig H. 2016. Ur(indo)arisches im Nūristānī. Zur historischen Phonologie des
Indoiranischen. In: Miller Andrew M./DeLisi Jessica/Wenthe Mark (eds.). Tavet Tat
Satyam. Studies in Honor of Jared S. Klein on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday.
Ann Arbor/New York: Beech Stave Press.
WH LEW = Walde, Alois / Hoffmann, Johann Baptist. 2007–20086
. Lateinisches
etymologisches Wörterbuch. Erster Band A – L. Zweiter Band M – Z. Registerband
zusammengestellt von Elsbeth Berger. Heidelberg: Carl Winterʼs
Universitätsbuchhandlung.
Whatmough, Joshua. 1937. The development of the Indo-European labiovelars with special
reference to the dialects of Ancient Italy. In: Mélanges linguistiques offerts à M. Holger
Pedersen : à l'occasion de son soixante-dixième anniversaire, 7 avril 1937. København:
Levin & Munksgaard. 45–56.
Whitney, William D. 1879. A Sanskrit Grammar, including both the classical language and the
older dialects of Veda and Brāhmana. Leipzig: Breitkopf and Härtel.
Whitney, William D. 1885. The roots, verb-forms and primary derivatives of the Sanskrit
language: a supplement to his Sanskrit grammar. Leipzig: Breitkopf and Härtel.
69
van Wijk. Nicolaas. 1931. Geschichte der altkirchenslavischen Sprache. Erster Band. Lautund
Formenlehre. Berlin / Leipzig: De Gruyter.
van Windekens, Albert J. 1976. Le Tokharien confronté avec les autres langues indoeuropéennes.
Volume 1. La phonétique et le vocabulaire. Louvain: Centre International
de Dialectologie Générale.
van Windekens, Albert J. 1986. Notes sur le traitement des dentales indo-européennes en
tokharien. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 99/1. 151–160.
Windfuhr, Gernot L. 1971. Diacritic and Distinctive Features in Avestan. Journal of the
American Oriental Society 91/1: 104–124.
Winter, Werner. 1954. Problems of Armenian Phonology I. Language 30/2, 197–201.
Winter, Werner. 1955. Problems of Armenian Phonology II. Language 31/1, 4–8.
Winter, Werner. 1962a. Problems of Armenian Phonology III. Language 38/1, 254–262.
Winter, Werner. 1962b. Die Vertretung indogermanischer Dentale im Tocharischen.
Indogermanische Forschungen 67. 16–35.
Winter, Werner. 1978. The distribution of short and long vowels in stems of the type Lith. jsti
: vfsti : mfsti and OCS jasti : vesti : mesti in Baltic and Slavic languages. In: Fisiak, Jack
(ed.). Recent developments in historical phonology. The Hague: Mouton. 431-46.
Winter, Werner 1979: Zur “Überlänge” im Deutschen. In: Ezawa, Kennosuke – Rensch Karl.
H. – Bethge Wolfgang (eds.): Sprache und Sprechen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. 197–
200.
Winter, Werner. 1992a. Armenian [numerals]. In: Gvozdanović, Jadranka (ed.). Indo-European
Numerals. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 347–367.
Winter, Werner. 1992b. Tocharian [Numerals]. In: Gvozdanović, Jadranka (ed.). IndoEuropean
Numerals. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 97–164.
Winter, Werner. 2011. Vowel lengthening before distinctively voiced consonants. Tocharian
and IE Studies 12. 221–238.
Woodhouse, Robert. 1998. On PIE tectals. Indogermanische Forschungen 103. 40-60.
Woodhouse, Robert 2005. Assibilative palatalization of tectals in Phrygian and the adequacy
of bitectal frameworks for Proto-Indo-European. Indogermanische Forschungen 110.
205-234.
Young, Steven. 2017. Balto-Slavic. Baltic. In: Kapović, Mate (ed.). The Indo-European
Languages. New York: Routledge, 497–518.
Zinko, Christian. 2017. The Documentation of Anatolian. In: Klein, Jared / Joseph, Brian / Fritz
/ Matthias (eds). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics
(HSK 41.1). Berlin / Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 239–249.
Zubatý, Josef. 1891. Slav. pastorъkъ. Archiv für slavische Philologie 13. 315–317.
Zupitza, Ernst. 1896. Die germanische Gutturale. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.
Zupitza, Ernst. 1899. Wortdeutungen. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 35. 265–
270.