A Reader in Nineteenth Century
Historical Indo-European Linguistics
Winfred P. Lehmann
Copyright © 1967 by Indiana University Press
All rights reserved
No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or
mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage and
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. The Association of
American University Presses, Inc. Resolution on Permissions constitutes the only exception to
this prohibition.
Library of Congress catalog card number: 67-63012
Manufactured in the United States of America
CONTENTS
Introduction by the Editor 1
1. Sir William Jones: The Third Anniversary Discourse, on the Hindus 7
2. Friedrich von Schlegel: On the Language and Wisdom of the Indians 21
3. Rasmus Rask: An Investigation concerning the Source of the Old Northern or
Icelandic Language
29
4. Franz Bopp: On the Conjugational System of the Sanskrit Language 38
5. Jacob Grimm: Germanic Grammar 46
6. Wilhelm von Humboldt: On the Structural Variety of Human Language and Its
Influence on the Intellectual Development of Mankind
61
7. Rudolf von Raumer: Linguistic-Historical Change and the Natural-Historical
Definition of Sounds
67
8. August Schleicher: Introduction to A Compendium of the Comparative
Grammar of the Indo-European, Sanskrit, Greek and Latin Languages
87
9. C. Lottner: Exceptions to the First Sound Shift 97
10. Hermann Grassmann: Concerning the Aspirates and Their Simultaneous
Presence in the Initial and Final of Roots
109
11. Karl Verner: An Exception to the First Sound Shift 132
12. Heinrich Hubschmann: On the Position of Armenian in the Sphere of the IndoEuropean
Languages
164
13. Karl Brugmann: Nasalis Sonans in the Original Indo-European Language 190
14. Hermann Osthoff and Karl Brugman: Preface to Morphological Investigations
in the Sphere of the Indo-European Languages I
197
15. Eduard Sievers: On the Accent and Phonology of the Germanic Languages. III.
On the Law of Vocalic Finals
210
16. Ferdinand de Saussure: Memoire on the Primitive System of Vowels in the
Indo-European Language
217
17. William Dwight Whitney: Language and the Study of Language, Lecture X 225
18. Eduard Sievers: Foundations of Phonetics 257
Introduction
W. P. Lehmann
This anthology has been arranged to provide easy access to some of the important works of
nineteenth-century historical Indo-European linguistics. These works are not readily available
to students, in part because of their language, in part because of the difficulty of obtaining the
works themselves. Schlegel's book of 1808, for example, is generally placed in a special
section for rare books in a library; the early issues of an important journal like the Zeitschrift
für vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft may be stored in a depository; even the section in
Grimm's Grammar dealing with the sound shift may be difficult for a non-specialist in
German to locate. An anthology will permit students to become acquainted with some of the
key works of the nineteenth century, and to learn at first hand their contributions to the
development of linguistics as well as their weaknesses.
The weaknesses are readily apparent, and should not need detailed comment. Even the
important contributions presented here include shortcomings we would not tolerate. Principles
observed in writing, printing and editing generally seem to have been determined for the ease
of the publisher rather than the reader. A very capable author like Grassmann, for example,
paid little attention to editorial details. The name Panini is at one point given without a
macron in his article, at another point as Pānini; similarly Samaveda and Sāmaveda. These are
superficial details, but they indicate how little the editor pampered the reader. Greek forms
were rarely labeled--the special type face used for Greek was considered an adequate marker--
and often a reader was expected to recognize Latin and Sanskrit forms as well. Glosses for
forms may be in one of a number of languages. Other such editorial practices of the
nineteenth century are left to the reader to discover. Occasionally it was difficult to maintain
them without seeming unfair to our great predecessors. But when Brugmann lists himself as
Brugman and permits spelling his forename Carl or Karl, one has the impression that
externals were of little concern in the aim to make available as quickly as possible new
insights into linguistic problems.
The selections here incorporate such insights, or are credited with priority in achieving them.
In making selections, I intended to present only complete essays, or complete sub-sections of
a work, so that the reader might himself determine the point of view of a scholar, his
contemporaries, and his publication. Excerpts may more economically present the high points
of early linguistics, but they take from readers the pleasure of determining these; the
interested student can find the history of linguistics in this way in Hans Arens'
Sprachwissenschaft. Excerpts also fail to provide the context in which a permanent
contribution was made. Jones's entire essay is reprinted here, for example, to indicate that the
celebrated paragraph which is constantly reprinted simply makes up one small segment of a
report on Indian culture; it is instructive for students to find out for themselves how peripheral
was the concern with language at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Schlegel too
discussed Indian culture in general, not simply language. Yet it did not seem useful to
demonstrate repeatedly by incorporating long passages of their writings on other matters that
he and the other early linguists assumed many intellectual responsibilities. For similar
reasons, only parts of selections 12, 13, 15, 16 and 18 are included here.
Each selection in the anthology is preceded by comments which point up its contributions,
and thus I do not give here a survey of the development of nineteenth-century linguistics. I
might also note that the anthology does not reflect all advances of the nineteenth century.
Some are not represented because they were inaugurated by more than one man, sometimes in
several different works. The study of dialect geography, for example, was encouraged by
many linguists, as the selections from von Raumer and Sievers demonstrate. Such
encouragement was not given in special essays, as the example of Gaston Paris may indicate;
his initial lecture of 1868 on the historical grammar of the French language, Mélanges
linguistiques, pp. 153-173 (Paris, 1909), reflects the views that led to the dialect project in
France, but only in a general discussion. Other advances are not represented because they
occurred to a number of linguists almost simultaneously and were not made in any one
notable work, for example the understanding that reconstructions can be established from
other segments of a linguistic system than those directly involved. The conclusion that PIE e
must be assumed because of palatals in Sanskrit is the most striking example. The gradual
clarification of the vowel system of Proto-Indo-European is also the work of many, as the
excerpt from Saussure indicates. Further, because of the length of the materials here, I have
omitted the works of the great dissenters such as Hugo Schuchardt. These to be sure would be
useful in illustrating the breadth of approaches in linguistics, as does the Hugo SchuchardtBrevier
(Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1922). But, as Schuchardt himself points out, his central
concern was the Romance language group, not Indo-European; accordingly his work lies
outside the area of the anthology. Moreover, like the dialect geographers, he published many
of his theoretical statements in the twentieth century. For this reason too Paul's Prinzipien is
not represented; its definitive form was reached only in 1920. For a synthesis of nineteenthcentury
work, I have included a chapter from Whitney.
Interpretation of the contributions of the leading nineteenthcentury linguists are happily
available in a number of fine surveys. One of the best is Language, by Otto Jespersen
(London: Allen and Unwin, 1922) pp. 19-99. The most widely read is probably Holger
Pedersen's Linguistic Science in the Nineteenth Century, translated by John W. Spargo and
republished as The Discovery of Language (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1962).
Pedersen's penetrating review of linguistics has a capable predecessor in Vilhelm Thomsen:
Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft bis zum Ausgang des 19. Jahrhunderts, translated by H.
Pollak (Halle: Niemeyer, 1927). A recent short survey going beyond the nineteenth century is
Perspectives in Linguistics, by John T. Waterman (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1963).
Students who read German should make use of the excellent introduction to the history of
linguistics through well-chosen excerpts in Hans Arens' Sprachwissenschaft
(Freiburg/Munchen: Karl Alber, 1955). Its bibliography contains 744 items, of which items
306-321 deal with the history of linguistics.
Moreover, handbooks that provide brief surveys should not be overlooked, such as Hermann
Hirt's Indogermanische Grammatik I. (Heidelberg: Winter, 1927) pp. 1-16, or J. Schrijnen's
Einführung in das Studium der indogermanischen Sprachwissenschaft, translated by W.
Fischer (Heidelberg: Winter, 1921) pp. 20-38, or Antoine Meillet's Introduction à l'étude
comparative des langues indo-européennes (Paris: Hachette, 1937 8), Appendix I, pp. 453-
483, or the fine essays on individual linguists in his collected essays: Linguistique historique
et linguistique générale II. (Paris: Klincksieck, 1938). All of these provide means for a better
understanding of the contributions in the selections presented here, and of the problems their
authors attempted to solve.
This Reader was undertaken in the fall of 1963. At that time students in a course on the
history of the German language were asked to translate various essays. Of these, translations
by the following students are included, after revision: 5 by Mr. Roy A. Boggs, 7 by Mr. Louis
E. Brister, 9 by Mr. Peter Mollenhauer, 11 by Miss Carolyn Farmer, 13 by Mr. Clifford
Crowe, 14 by Miss Judy Haddon, 18 by Mr. Jerry Glenn. The other essays I have translated. I
am grateful to Catharina Breedveld for typing much of the manuscript, and to Miss Victoria
Bunye for reading all of it.
Problems of translation could be discussed at length. Among them are shifts in the uses of
terms. For Grimm deutsch meant Germanic, for Schleicher West Germanic, though also
German in accordance with its current use. It is often difficult to translate such terms
accurately without providing a contemporary interpretation that reflects the increased
precision in use of terminology, and may therefore not correspond to the views of the author.
More external, but also troublesome, are items that we no longer use, such as Bactrian rather
than Avestan, or symbols like ḱ rather than Sanskrit c, IE a₁ rather than e. The proper
interpretation of these is generally apparent. Some of the forgotten terminology one is
tempted to reintroduce, such as the youthful Saussure's symphthong and autophthong.
In general, interpretation is left to the reader; when Grimm uses "analogy," for example, his
meaning differs from ours, but it is instructive and not difficult to interpret his use of the term.
Often such terminology has been long maintained. It is highly important to understand
Grimm's view of the consonant shift occurring in stufen "grades," in accordance with the
scheme he included in his discussion; the concept of the shift as a series of steps or grades has
persisted to the present, though it was probably carried to its extreme under the
neogrammarians for whom not only the various series but also the individual items were
distinct. Further, an understanding of the methodological approach of Grimm to the consonant
shift may be instructive when viewed in relation to that maintained in our handbooks for IndoEuropean
ablaut.
Students who seek to follow the development of methodology in linguistics will want to
consult the originals, not merely the translations or even the selections provided here. Fuller
acquaintance with the important contributions of the past will lead to a deeper understanding
of the views we have maintained and may also provide insights into contemporary approaches
and the discussions of linguists today.
CHAPTER ONE
SIR WILLIAM JONES
THE THIRD ANNIVERSARY DISCOURSE, ON THE HINDUS
Delivered 2 February, 1786. Works I, pp. 19-34.
Editor's Introduction
Sir William Jones's celebrated discourse is given here in full to illustrate the context from
which linguistics developed in the nineteenth century. With his contemporaries, Jones was
interested in better knowledge of ancient history. In the pursuit of this knowledge, language
was only one means. The commemorative address of his successor as president of the
Asiatick Society, Sir John Shore, states explicitly that for Jones language was a tool, not an
end in itself. "But the judgement of Sir William Jones was too discerning to consider language
in any other light than as the key of science, and he would have despised the reputation of a
mere linguist. Knowledge and truth, were the object of all his studies, and his ambition was to
be useful to mankind; with these views, he extended his researches to all languages, nations,
and times." (Works I.p.v.) A glance at the other annual discourses supports this statement on
Jones's wide interests and the subsidiary position of linguists, which it maintained to the
middle of the nineteenth century. Yet the "Desiderata" which Shore found among his papers
may indicate that Jones had planned to spend additional time on linguistics: the third
desideratum is "A Grammar of the Sanscrit Language, from Panini, etc."; the fourth, "A
Dictionary of the Sanscrit Language, from thirty-two original Vocabularies and Niructi."
These proposed undertakings, and citations from his "Dissertation on the Orthography of
Asiatick Words in Roman Letters" (Works I. pp. 175-228) may indicate that Jones deserves a
larger reputation than that for stimulating study of the Indo-European languages and historical
linguistics. The views in his third discourse on the origin of our writing system and
Devanagari are accurate; the following excerpts from the "Dissertation" indicate a knowledge
of phonetics comparable with that of Grimm's successors.
It would be superfluous to discourse on the organs of speech, which have been a thousand
times dissected, and as often described by musicians or anatomists; and the several powers of
which every man may perceive either by the touch or by sight, if he will attentively observe
another person pronouncing the different classes of letters, or pronounce them himself
distinctly before a mirror: but a short analysis of articulate sounds may be proper to introduce
an examination of every separate symbol.
All things abound with errour, as the old searchers for truth remarked with despondence; but
it is really deplorable, that our first step from total ignorance should be into gross inaccuracy,
and that we should begin our education in England with learning to read the five vowels, two
of which, as we are taught to pronounce them, are clearly diphthongs. There are, indeed, five
simple vocal sounds in our language, as in that of Rome; which occur in the words an
innocent bull, though not precisely in their natural order, for we have retained the true
arrangement of the letters, while we capriciously disarrange them in pronunciation; so that our
eyes are satisfied, and our ears disappointed. The primary elements of articulation are the soft
and hard breathings, the spiritus lenis and spiritus asper of the Latin Grammarians. If the lips
be opened ever so little, the breath suffered gently to pass through them, and the feeblest
utterance attempted, a sound is formed of so simple a nature, that, when lengthened, it
continues nearly the same, except that, by the least acuteness in the voice it becomes a cry,
and is probably the first sound uttered by infants; but if, while this element is articulated, the
breath be forced with an effort through the lips, we form an aspirate more or less harsh in
proportion to the force exerted. When, in pronouncing the simple vowel, we open our lips
wider, we express a sound completely articulated, which most nations have agreed to place
the first in their symbolical systems: by opening them wider still with the corners of them a
little drawn back, we give birth to the second of the Roman vowels, and by a large aperture,
with a farther inflexion of the lips and a higher elevation of the tongue, we utter the third of
them. By pursing up our lips in the least degree, we convert the simple element into another
sound of the same nature with the first vowel, and easily confounded with it in a broad
pronunciation: when this new sound is lengthened, it approaches very nearly to the fourth
vowel, which we form by a bolder and stronger rotundity of the mouth; a farther contraction
of it produces the fifth vowel, which in its elongation almost closes the lips, a small passage
only being left for the breath. These are all short vowels; and, if an Italian were to read the
words an innocent bull, he would give the sound of each corresponding vowel, as in the
monosyllables of his own language, sà, si, sò, se, sù. Between these ten vowels are
numberless gradations, and nice inflexions, which use only can teach; and, by the composition
of them all, might be formed an hundred diphthongs, and a thousand triphthongs. ...
We may now consider in the same order, beginning with the root of the tongue and ending
with the perfect close of the lips, those less musical sounds, which require the aid of a vowel,
or at least of the simple breathing, to be fully articulated; and it may here be premised, that the
harsh breathing distinctly pronounced after each of these consonants, as they are named by
grammarians, constitutes its proper aspirate. (pp. 182-5)
We hear much of aspirated letters; but the only proper aspirates (those I mean, in which a
strong breathing is distinctly heard after the consonants) are to be found in the languages of
India; unless the word cachexy, which our medical writers have borrowed from the Greek, be
thought an exception to the rule: this aspiration may be distinguished by a comma, as the
letter before us is expressed in the word c'hanitra, a spade. (p. 195)
Agreeably to the preceding analysis of letters, if I were to adopt a new mode of English
orthography, I should write Addison's description of the angel in the following manner,
distinguishing the simple breathing, or first element, which we cannot invariably omit, by a
perpendicular line above our first or second vowel:
Só hwen sm énjel, bai divain cămánd,
Widh raisı
n tempests shécs a gilti land,
Sch az ăv lét ór pél Britanya pást,
Cálm and sı
rín hi draivz dhi fyúryas blást,
And, plí
z'd dh'ālmaitiz ārderz tu perfórm,
Raids in dhi hwerlwind and dairects dhi stārm.
This mode of writing poetry would be the touchstone of bad rhymes, which the eye as well as
the ear would instantly detect; as in the first couplet of this description, and even in the last,
according to the common pronunciation of the word perform. I close this paper with
specimens of oriental writing, not as fixed standards of orthography, which no individual has
a right to settle, but as examples of the method, which I recommend. ... (p. 205)
Jones (1746-94) was led to his knowledge of Sanskrit through an interest in Hindu law. At
Harrow and Oxford he studied oriental languages and literature. After achieving a reputation
as an oriental scholar, out of financial necessity he undertook the study of law. In 1783 he was
appointed judge in Calcutta, where he continued his vigorous career of publication. His
collected works were published five years after his death, in a handsome edition, The Works
of Sir William Jones in six volumes (London: Robinson and Evans, 1799). This has been
followed here, with a few orthographical changes: since ligatures and symbols like long s are
not maintained, it also seemed best to modernize spellings like authentic for authentick, and
Sanskrit for Sanscrit, except in titles. Students having the opportunity of consulting the
printing of 1799 will admire, with Sir John Shore, Jones's "degree of knowledge" and his
elegant presentation.
In the former discourses, which I had the honor of addressing to you, Gentlemen, on the
institution and objects of our Society, I confined myself purposely to general topics; giving in
the first a distant prospect of the vast career, on which we were entering, and, in the second,
exhibiting a more diffuse, but still superficial, sketch of the various discoveries in History,
Science, and Art, which we might justly expect from our inquiries into the literature of Asia. I
now propose to fill up that outline so comprehensively as to omit nothing essential, yet so
concisely as to avoid being tedious; and, if the state of my health shall suffer me to continue
long enough in this climate, it is my design, with your permission, to prepare for our annual
meetings a series of short dissertations, unconnected in their titles and subjects, but all tending
to a common point of no small importance in the pursuit of interesting truths.
Of all the works, which have been published in our own age, or, perhaps, in any other, on the
History of the Ancient World, and the first population of this habitable globe, that of Mr.
Jacob Bryant, whom I name with reverence and affection, has the best claim to the praise of
deep erudition ingeniously applied, and new theories happily illustrated by an assemblage of
numberless converging rays from a most extensive circumference: it falls, nevertheless, as
every human work must fall, short of perfection; and the least satisfactory part of it seems to
be that, which relates to the derivation of words from Asiatic languages. Etymology has, no
doubt, some use in historical researches; but it is a medium of proof so very fallacious, that,
where it elucidates one fact, it obscures a thousand, and more frequently borders on the
ridiculous, than leads to any solid conclusion: it rarely carries with it any internal power of
conviction from a resemblance of sounds or similarity of letters; yet often, where it is wholly
unassisted by those advantages, it may be indisputably proved by extrinsic evidence. We
know à posteriori, that both fitz and hijo, by the nature of two several dialects, are derived
from filius; that uncle comes from avus, and stranger from extra; that jour is deducible,
through the Italian, from dies; and rossignol from luscinia, or the finger in groves; that sciuro,
ecureuil, and squirrel are compounded of two Greek words descriptive of the animal; which
etymologies, though they could not have been demonstrated à priori, might serve to confirm,
if any such confirmation were necessary, the proofs of a connection between the members of
one great Empire; but, when we derive our hanger, or short pendent sword, from the Persian,
because ignorant travellers thus mis-spell the word khanjar, which in truth means a different
weapon, or sandalwood from the Greek, because we suppose, that sandals were sometimes
made of it, we gain no ground in proving the affinity of nations, and only weaken arguments,
which might otherwise be firmly supported. That Cús then, or, as it certainly is written in one
ancient dialect, Cút and in others, probably, Cás, enters into the composition of many proper
names, we may very reasonably believe; and that Algeziras takes its name from the Arabic
word for an island, cannot be doubted; but, when we are told from Europe, that places and
provinces in India were clearly denominated from those words, we cannot but observe, in the
first instance, that the town, in which we now are assembled, is properly written and
pronounced Calicátà; that both Cátá and Cút unquestionably mean places of strength, or, in
general, any inclosures; and that Gujaràt is at least as remote from Jezirah in sound, as it is in
situation.
Another exception (and a third could hardly be discovered by any candid criticism) to the
Analysis of Ancient Mythology, is, that the method of reasoning and arrangement of topics
adopted in that learned work are not quite agreeable to the title, but almost wholly synthetical;
and, though synthesis may be the better mode in pure science, where the principles are
undeniable, yet it seems less calculated to give complete satisfaction in historical
disquisitions, where every postulatum will perhaps be refused, and every definition
controverted; this may seem a slight objection, but the subject is in itself so interesting, and
the full conviction of all reasonable men so desirable, that it may not be lost labor to discuss
the same or a similar theory in a method purely analytical, and, after beginning with facts of
general notoriety or undisputed evidence, to investigate such truths, as are at first unknown or
very imperfectly discerned.
The five principal nations, who have in different ages divided among themselves, as a kind of
inheritance, the vast continent of Asia, with the many islands depending on it, are the Indians,
the Chinese, the Tartars, the Arabs, and the Persians: who they severally were, whence, and
when they came, where they now are settled, and what advantage a more perfect knowledge
of them all may bring to our European world, will be shown, I trust, in five distinct essays; the
last of which will demonstrate the connection or diversity between them, and solve the great
problem, whether they had any common origin, and whether that origin was the same, which
we generally ascribe to them.
I begin with India, not because I find reason to believe it the true center of population or of
knowledge, but, because it is the country, which we now inhabit, and from which we may best
survey the regions around us; as, in popular language, we speak of the rising sun, and of his
progress through the Zodiac, although it had long ago been imagined, and is now
demonstrated, that he is himself the center of our planetary system. Let me here premise, that,
in all these inquiries concerning the history of India, I shall confine my researches downwards
to the Mohammedan conquests at the beginning of the eleventh century, but extend them
upwards, as high as possible, to the earliest authentic records of the human species.
India then, on its most enlarged scale, in which the ancients appear to have understood it,
comprises an area of near forty degrees on each side, including a space almost as large as all
Europe; being divided on the west from Persia by the Arachosian mountains, limited on the
east by the Chinese part of the farther peninsula, confined on the north by the wilds of
Tartary, and extending to the south as far as the isles of Java. This trapezium, therefore,
comprehends the stupendous hills of Potyid or Tibet, the beautiful valley of Cashmír, and all
the domains of the old Indoscythians, the countries of Népál and Butánt, Cámrùp or Asàm,
together with Siam, Ava, Racan, and the bordering kingdoms, as far as the Chína of the
Hindus or Sín of the Arabian Geographers; not to mention the whole western peninsula with
the celebrated island of Sinhala, or Lion-like men, at its southern extremity. By India, in short,
I mean that whole extent of country, in which the primitive religion and languages of the
Hindus prevail at this day with more or less of their ancient purity, and in which the Nágarì
letters are still used with more or less deviation from their original form.
The Hindus themselves believe their own country, to which they give the vain epithets of
Medhyama or Central, and Punyabhúmi, or the Land of Virtues, to have been the portion of
Bharat, one of nine brothers, whose father had the dominion of the whole earth; and they
represent the mountains of Himálaya as lying to the north, and, to the west, those of Vindhya,
called also Vindian by the Greeks; beyond which the Sindhu runs in several branches to the
sea, and meets it nearly opposite to the point of Dwáracà, the celebrated seat of their Shepherd
God: in the south-east they place the great river Saravatya; by which they probably mean that
of Ava, called also Airávati in parts of its course, and giving perhaps its ancient name to the
gulf of Sabara. This domain of Bharat they consider as the middle of the Jambudwípa, which
the Tibetians also call the Land of Zambu; and the appellation is extremely remarkable; for
Jambu is the Sanskrit name of a delicate fruit called Jáman by the Muselmans, and by us roseapple;
but the largest and richest sort is named Amrita, or Immortal; and the Mythologists of
Tibet apply the same word to a celestial tree bearing ambrosial fruit, and adjoining to four
vast rocks, from which as many sacred rivers derive their several streams.
The inhabitants of this extensive tract are described by Mr. Lord with great exactness, and
with a picturesque elegance peculiar to our ancient language: "A people, says he, presented
themselves to mine eyes, clothed in linen garments somewhat low descending, of a gesture
and garb, as I may say, maidenly and well nigh effeminate, or a countenance shy and
somewhat estranged, yet smiling out a glozed and bashful familiarity. " Mr. Orme, the
Historian of India, who unites an exquisite taste for every fine art with an accurate knowledge
of Asiatic manners, observes, in his elegant preliminary Dissertation, that this "country has
been inhabited from the earliest antiquity by a people, who have no resemblance, either in
their figure or manners, with any of the nations contiguous to them," and that, "although
conquerors have established themselves at different times in different parts of India, yet the
original inhabitants have lost very little of their original character." The ancients, in fact, give
a description of them, which our early travellers confirmed, and our own personal knowledge
of them nearly verifies; as you will perceive from a passage in the Geographical Poem of
Dionysius, which the Analyst of Ancient Mythology has translated with great spirit:
To th' east a lovely country wide extends,
India, whose borders the wide ocean bounds;
On this the sun, new rising from the main,
Smiles pleas'd, and sheds his early orient beam.
Th' inhabitants are swart, and in their locks
Betray the tints of the dark hyacinth.
Various their functions; some the rock explore,
And from the mine extract the latent gold;
Some labor at the woof with cunning skill,
And manufacture linen; others shape
And polish iv'ry with the nicest care:
Many retire to rivers shoal, and plunge
To seek the beryl flaming in its bed,
Or glitt'ring diamond. Oft the jasper's found
Green, but diaphanous; the topaz too
Of ray serene and pleasing; last of all
The lovely amethyst, in which combine
All the mild shades of purple. The rich soil,
Wash'd by a thousand rivers, from all sides
Pours on the natives wealth without control.
Their sources of wealth are still abundant even after so many revolutions and conquests; in
their manufactures of cotton they still surpass all the world; and their features have, most
probably, remained unaltered since the time of Dionysius; nor can we reasonably doubt, how
degenerate and abased so ever the Hindus may now appear, that in some early age they were
splendid in art and arms, happy in government, wise in legislation, and eminent in various
knowledge: but, since their civil history beyond the middle of the nineteenth century from the
present time, is involved in a cloud of fables, we seem to possess only four general media of
satisfying our curiosity concerning it; namely, first their Languages and Letters; secondly,
their Philosophy and Religion; thirdly, the actual remains of their old Sculpture and
Architecture; and fourthly, the written memorials of their Sciences and Arts.
I. It is much to be lamented, that neither the Greeks, who attended Alexander into India, nor
those who were long connected with it under the Bactrian Princes, have left us any means of
knowing with accuracy, what vernacular languages they found on their arrival in this Empire.
The Mohammedans, we know, heard the people of proper Hindustan, or India on a limited
scale, speaking a Bháshá, or living tongue of a very singular construction, the purest dialect of
which was current in the districts round Agrà, and chiefly on the poetical ground of Mat'hurà;
and this is commonly called the idiom of Vraja. Five words in six, perhaps, of this language
were derived from the Sanskrit, in which books of religion and science were composed, and
which appears to have been formed by an exquisite grammatical arrangement, as the name
itself implies, from some unpolished idiom; but the basis of the Hindustání, particularly the
inflections and regimen of verbs, differed as widely from both those tongues, as Arabic differs
from Persian, or German from Greek. Now the general effect of conquest is to leave the
current language of the conquered people unchanged, or very little altered, in its groundwork,
but to blend with it a considerable number of exotic names both for things and for actions; as
it has happened in every country, that I can recollect, where the conquerors have not
preserved their own tongue unmixed with that of the natives, like the Turks in Greece, and the
Saxons in Britain; and this analogy might induce us to believe, that the pure Hindì, whether of
Tartarian or Chaldean origin, was primeval in Upper India, into which the Sanskrit was
introduced by conquerors from other kingdoms in some very remote age; for we cannot doubt
that the language of the Véda's was used in the great extent of country, which has before been
delineated, as long as the religion of Brahmà has prevailed in it.
The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect
than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet
bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of
grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no
philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some
common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists: there is a similar reason, though not quite
so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic and the Celtic, though blended with a very
different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanskrit; and the old Persian might be added to
the same family, if this were the place for discussing any question concerning the antiquities
of Persia.
The characters, in which the language of India were originally written, are called Nágarí, from
Nagara, a City, with the word Deva sometimes prefixed, because they are believed to have
been taught by the Divinity himself, who prescribed the artificial order of them in a voice
from heaven. These letters, with no greater variation in their form by the change of straight
lines to curves, or conversely, than the Cusic alphabet has received in its way to India, are still
adopted in more than twenty kingdoms and states, from the borders of Cashgar and Khoten, to
Ráma's bridge, and from the Sindhu to the river of Siam; nor can I help believing, although
the polished and elegant Dévanágarí may not be so ancient as the monumental characters in
the caverns of Jarasandha, that the square Chaldaic letters, in which most Hebrew books are
copied, were originally the same, or derived from the same prototype, both with the Indian
and Arabian characters: that the Phenician, from which the Greek and Roman alphabets were
formed by various changes and inversions, had a similar origin, there can be little doubt; and
the inscriptions at Canárah, of which you now possess a most accurate copy, seem to be
compounded of Nágarí and Ethiopic letters, which bear a close relation to each other, both in
the mode of writing from the left hand, and in the singular manner of connecting the vowels
with the consonants. These remarks may favor an opinion entertained by many, that all the
symbols of sound, which at first, probably, were only rude outlines of the different organs of
speech, had a common origin: the symbols of ideas, now used in China and Japan, and
formerly, perhaps, in Egypt and Mexico, are quite of a distinct nature; but it is very
remarkable, that the order of sounds in the Chinese grammars corresponds nearly with that
observed in Tibet, and hardly differs from that, which the Hindus consider as the invention of
their Gods.
II. Of the Indian Religion and Philosophy, I shall here say but little; because a full account of
each would require a separate volume: it will be sufficient in this dissertation to assume, what
might be proved beyond controversy, that we now live among the adorers of those very
deities, who were worshipped under different names in Old Greece and Italy, and among the
professors of those philosophical tenets, which the Ionic and Attic writers illustrated with all
the beauties of their melodious language. On one hand we see the trident of Neptune, the
eagle of Jupiter, the satyrs of Bacchus, the bow of Cupid, and the chariot of the Sun; on
another we hear the cymbals of Rhea, the songs of the Muses, and the pastoral tales of Apollo
Nomius. In more retired scenes, in groves, and in seminaries of learning, we may perceive the
Bráhmans and the Sarmanes, mentioned by Clemens, disputing in the forms of logic, or
discoursing on the vanity of human enjoyments, on the immortality of the soul, her emanation
from the eternal mind, her debasement, wanderings, and final union with her source. The six
philosophical schools, whose principles are explained in the Dersana Sástra, comprise all the
metaphysics of the old Academy, the Stoa, the Lyceum; nor is it possible to read the Védánta,
or the many fine compositions in illustration of it, without believing, that Pythagoras and
Plato derived their sublime theories from the same fountain with the sages of India. The
Scythian and Hyperborean doctrines and mythology may also be traced in every part of these
eastern regions; nor can we doubt, that Wod or Oden, whose religion, as the northern
historians admit, was introduced into Scandinavia by a foreign race, was the same with
Buddh, whose rites were probably imported into India nearly at the same time, though
received much later by the Chinese, who soften his name into FO'.
This may be a proper place to ascertain an important point in the Chronology of the Hindus;
for the priests of Buddha left in Tibet and China the precise epoch of his appearance, real or
imagined, in this Empire; and their information, which had been preserved in writing, was
compared by the Christian missionaries and scholars with our own era. Couplet, De Guignes,
Giorgi, and Bailly, differ a little in their accounts of this epoch, but that of Couplet seems the
most correct: on taking, however, the medium of the four several dates, we may fix the time
of Buddha, or the ninth great incarnation of Vishnu, in the year one thousand and fourteen
before the birth of Christ, or two thousand seven hundred and ninety-nine years ago. Now the
Cáshmirians, who boast of his descent in their kingdom, assert that he appeared on earth about
two centuries after Crishna the Indian Apollo, who took so decided a part in the war of the
Mahábhárat; and, if an Etymologist were to suppose, that the Athenians had embellished their
poetical history of Pandion's expulsion and the restoration of Ægeus with the Asiatic tale of
the Pándus and Yudhishtir, neither of which words they could have articulated, I should not
hastily deride his conjecture: certain it is, that Pándumandel is called by the Greeks the
country of Pandion. We have, therefore, determined another interesting epoch, by fixing the
age of Crishna near the three thousandth year from the present time; and, as the three first
Avatàrs, or descents of Vishnu, relate no less clearly to an Universal Deluge, in which eight
persons only were saved, than the fourth and the fifth do to the punishment of impiety and the
humiliation of the proud, we may for the present assume, that the second, or silver, age of the
Hindus was subsequent to the dispersion from Babel; so that we have only a dark interval of
about a thousand years, which were employed in the settlement of nations, the foundation of
states or empires, and the cultivation of civil society. The great incarnate Gods of this
intermediate age are both named Ráma but with different epithets; one of whom bears a
wonderful resemblance to the Indian Bacchus, and his wars are the subject of several heroic
poems. He is represented as a descendent from Súrya, or the Sun, as the husband of Sítá, and
the son of a princess named Caúselyá: it is very remarkable, that the Peruvians, whose Incas
boasted of the same descent, styled their greatest festival Ramasitoa; whence we may
suppose, that South America was peopled by the same race, who imported into the farthest
parts of Asia the rites and fabulous history of Ráma. These rites and this history are extremely
curious; and, although I cannot believe with Newton, that ancient mythology was nothing but
historical truth in a poetical dress, nor, with Bacon, that it consisted solely of moral and
metaphysical allegories, nor with Bryant, that all the heathen divinities are only different
attributes and representations of the Sun or of deceased progenitors, but conceive that the
whole system of religious fables rose, like the Nile, from several distinct sources, yet I cannot
but agree, that one great spring and fountain of all idolatry in the four quarters of the globe
was the veneration paid by men to the vast body of fire, which "looks from his sole dominion
like the God of this world"; and another, the immoderate respect shown to the memory of
powerful or virtuous ancestors, especially the founders of kingdoms, legislators, and warriors,
of whom the Sun or the Moon were wildly supposed to be the parents.
III. The remains of architecture and sculpture in India, which I mention here as mere
monuments of antiquity, not as specimens of ancient art, seem to prove an early connection
between this country and Africa: the pyramids of Egypt, the colossal statues described by
Pausanias and others, the sphinx, and the Hermes Canis, which last bears a great resemblance
to the Varáhávatár, or the incarnation of Vishnu in the form of a Boar, indicate the style and
mythology of the same indefatigable workmen, who formed the vast excavations of Cánárah,
the various temples and images of Buddha, and the idols, which are continually dug up at
Gayá, or in its vicinity. The letters on many of those monuments appear, as I have before
intimated, partly of Indian, and partly of Abyssinian or Ethiopic, origin; and all these
indubitable facts may induce no ill-grounded opinion, that Ethiopia and Hindustàn were
peopled or colonized by the same extraordinary race; in confirmation of which, it may be
added, that the mountaineers of Bengal and Bahár can hardly be distinguished in some of their
features, particularly their lips and noses, from the modern Abyssinians, whom the Arabs call
the children of Cúsh: and the ancient Hindus, according to Strabo, differed in nothing from
the Africans, but in the straitness and smoothness of their hair, while that of the others was
crisp or woolly; a difference proceeding chiefly, if not entirely, from the respective humidity
or dryness of their atmospheres: hence the people who received the first light of the rising sun,
according to the limited knowledge of the ancients, are said by Apuleius to be the Arü and
Ethiopians, by which he clearly meant certain nations of India; where we frequently see
figures of Buddha with curled hair apparently designed for a representation of it in its natural
state.
IV. It is unfortunate, that the Silpi Sástra, or collection of treatises on Arts and Manufactures,
which must have contained a treasure of useful information on dying, painting, and
metallurgy, has been so long neglected, that few, if any, traces of it are to be found; but the
labors of the Indian loom and needle have been universally celebrated; and fine linen is not
improbably supposed to have been called Sindon, from the name of the river near which it
was wrought in the highest perfection: the people of Colchis were also famed for this
manufacture, and the Egyptians yet more, as we learn from several passages in scripture, and
particularly from a beautiful chapter in Ezekial containing the most authentic delineation of
ancient commerce, of which Tyre had been the principal mart. Silk was fabricated
immemorially by the Indians, though commonly ascribed to the people of Serica or Tancǔt,
among whom probably the word Sèr, which the Greeks applied to the silkworm, signified
gold; a sense, which it now bears in Tibet. That the Hindus were in early ages a commercial
people, we have many reasons to believe; and in the first of their sacred law-tracts, which they
suppose to have been revealed by Menu many millions of years ago, we find a curious
passage on the legal interest of money, and the limited rate of it in different cases, with an
exception in regard to adventures at sea; an exception, which the sense of mankind approves,
and which commerce absolutely requires, though it was not before the reign of Charles I. that
our own jurisprudence fully admitted it in respect of maritime contracts.
We are told by the Grecian writers, that the Indians were the wisest of nations; and in moral
wisdom, they were certainly eminent: their Níti Sástra, or System of Ethics, is yet preserved,
and the Fables of Vishnuserman, whom we ridiculously call Pilpay, are the most beautiful, if
not the most ancient, collection of apologues in the world: they were first translated from the
Sanskrit, in the sixth century, by the order of Buzerchumihr, or Bright as the Sun, the chief
physician and afterwards Vezír of the great Anúshireván, and are extant under various names
in more than twenty languages; but their original title is Hitópadésa, or Amicable Instruction;
and, as the very existence of Esop, whom the Arabs believe to have been an Abyssinian,
appears rather doubtful, I am not disinclined to suppose, that the first moral fables, which
appeared in Europe, were of Indian or Ethiopian origin.
The Hindus are said to have boasted of three inventions, all of which, indeed, are admirable,
the method of instructing by apologues, the decimal scale adopted now by all civilized
nations, and the game of Chess, on which they have some curious treatises; but, if their
numerous works on Grammar, Logic, Rhetoric, Music, all which are extant and accessible,
were explained in some language generally known, it would be found, that they had yet higher
pretensions to the praise of a fertile and inventive genius. Their lighter Poems are lively and
elegant; their Epic, magnificent and sublime in the highest degree; their Purána's comprise a
series of mythological Histories in blank verse from the Creation to the supposed incarnation
of Buddha; and their Védas, as far as we can judge from that compendium of them, which is
called Upanishat, abound with noble speculations in metaphysics, and fine discourses on the
being and attributes of God. Their most ancient medical book, entitled Chereca, is believed to
be the work of Siva; for each of the divinities in their Triad has at least one sacred
composition ascribed to him; but, as to mere human works on History and Geography, though
they are said to be extant in Cashmír, it has not been yet in my power to procure them. What
their astronomical and mathematical writings contain, will not, I trust, remain long a secret:
they are easily procured, and their importance cannot be doubted. The Philosopher, whose
works are said to include a system of the universe founded on the principle of Attraction and
the Central position of the sun, is named Yavan Achárya, because he had travelled, we are
told, into Ionia: if this be true, he might have been one of those, who conversed with
Pythagoras; this at least is undeniable, that a book on astronomy in Sanskrit bears the title of
Yavana Jática, which may signify the Ionic Sect; nor is it improbable, that the names of the
planets and Zodiacal stars, which the Arabs borrowed from the Greeks, but which we find in
the oldest Indian records, were originally devised by the same ingenious and enterprizing
race, from whom both Greece and India were peopled; the race, who, as Dionysius describes
them,
... first assayed the deep,
And wafted merchandize to coasts unknown,
Those, who digested first the starry choir,
Their motions mark'd, and call'd them by their names.
Of these cursory observations on the Hindus, which it would require volumes to expand and
illustrate, this is the result: that they had an immemorial affinity with the old Persians,
Ethiopians, and Egyptians, the Phenicians, Greeks, and Tuscans, the Scythians or Goths, and
Celts, the Chinese, Japanese, and Peruvians; whence, as no reason appears for believing, that
they were a colony from any one of those nations, or any of those nations from them, we may
fairly conclude that they all proceeded from some central country, to investigate which will be
the object of my future Discourses; and I have a sanguine hope, that your collections during
the present year will bring to light many useful discoveries; although the departure for Europe
of a very ingenious member, who first opened the inestimable mine of Sanskrit literature, will
often deprive us of accurate and solid information concerning the languages and antiquities of
India.
CHAPTER TWO
FRIEDRICH VON SCHLEGEL
ON THE LANGUAGE AND WISDOM OF THE INDIANS
From Über die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier:
Ein Beitrag zur Begründung der Alterthumskunde
(Heidelberg: Mohr & Zimmer, 1808)
Editor's Introduction
Like Jones's Discourse, Friedrich von Schlegel's Über die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier
prepares for the important early works in nineteenth-century linguistics. Schlegel's aim too is
to encourage general study of antiquity, not only of language; the section on language makes
up only approximately a fourth of his book, which goes on to deal with other "media of
satisfying our curiosity concerning . . . the early age" of mankind. Schlegel's book was
important for arousing interest in Sanskrit, especially in Germany; it also makes the first
mention of aims that were to be central to linguistics, notably "comparative grammar".
Because its prime importance is its encouragement to others, only excerpts are given here,
though the entire book is delightful to read. I have included one paragraph of citations
comparing the vocabulary of Sanskrit and German; it may illustrate the advances made over
Schlegel by his successors. And his lists of grammatical criteria for establishing relationships
illustrate the enthusiasm of a popularizer rather than the care of a scholar. From the selections
translated, students may learn to know the contributions of Schlegel's work as well as its
shortcomings.
With his successors, Schlegel is interested in finding a common source for the languages
which after Jones were held to be related. In interpreting the early conception of "source" or
"derived from" we must be careful to avoid our own definitions, which are based largely on
the work of subsequent linguists. In his excellent introduction to the centenary edition of
Rask, Ausgewählte Abhandlungen XIII-LXIII, Holger Pedersen discusses sympathetically the
use of these notions at the beginning of the nineteenth century for determining the relationship
of languages. Schlegel indeed speaks of a family-tree, but derives the European languages
from Sanskrit on the basis of its greater antiquity, not by positing intermediate stages.
Accordingly, the relationship he suggests between German and Sanskrit should not be equated
with our deriving German from Proto-Indo-European.
Schlegel's emphasis on grammar in determining relationships merits great credit. His demand
for precise agreement of vocabulary items may be understood when we compare the fanciful
etymologies of his predecessors; insistence on rigor was essential to stop further such
fabrications. Yet while he asks for complete agreement in determining cognates, Schlegel
permits the use of forms which differ, though he has not yet hit upon the concept of
determining "rules" for such differences; his citing of an "analogy" between Latin p and
Germanic f, Latin c and Germanic h, is a step on the way to the more comprehensive sets of
rules given by Rask and Grimm.
Schlegel also is applauded for introducing the term "comparative grammar" into linguistics. In
basing this term on comparative anatomy and incorporating the notion of family trees for
languages, he drew on biology for linguistic methodology, foreshadowing Schleicher and his
reliance on Darwinism. These adoptions of methodology and the attention he drew to Sanskrit
are the most important contributions of his book.
Yet in it Schlegel also suggested a further means for distinguishing language
interrelationships, one that was not taken over by Bopp, Grimm and their successors, and
subsequently remained peripheral to the central course of nineteenth century linguistics: the
use of typology. For Schlegel there was an ancient grammar, characterized by inflection, and
a more recent grammar, characterized by analytic devices. Languages of the ancient type were
more kunstreich (ingenious, artistic) than are those of the newer manner. Accordingly,
examination of the type of a language might contribute to determining its antiquity. Yet in
dealing with Chinese, for even Schlegel this means was disappointing; the problems of
typology interested some linguists of the nineteenth century, notably Humboldt and Steinthal,
but its uncertainties gave it more status among nonspecialists than among linguists. Even the
efforts of Sapir in this century did little to encourage its application, though recent techniques
may make it more useful. (See my Historical Linguistics, Chapter III.) Yet all attempts to use
typology in support of genealogical classification have been completely discredited. We may
wonder whether the ineffectiveness of typology as a tool for supporting genealogical
classification led Schlegel's successors to disregard his interest in structure, which we find
duplicated only in this century.
Apart from his book of 1808, the chief concern of Friedrich von Schlegel (1772-1829) was for
literature. He began his study of Sanskrit and Indian antiquity in 1803, under Alexander
Hamilton in Paris, planning a chrestomathy printed in Devanagari, but for it he lacked the
necessary funds. Instead he published his book to arouse interest in Indic studies, expecting
for European scholarship results comparable to those produced by the study of Greek in the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Yet after publication of the book, he himself abandoned his
concern for Indic studies, in a shift of interest that may be reflected by his joining the Roman
Catholic Church. From then to his death he directed his attention to Europe and his own
literary production. His brother, August Wilhelm von Schlegel (1767-1845), who also
concerned himself with the typological classification of language, came to concentrate on
Indic studies, especially after he was appointed professor of literature at the University of
Bonn in 1818. His work in this position is generally credited as the beginning of Indic
scholarship in Germany. Apart from the contributions which increased knowledge of Indic
languages made to linguistics, the importance of the brothers for linguistics is based almost
entirely on Friedrich's book of 1808.
Chapter 1. On the Indic Language in General (pp. 1-3)
The Old Indic Sanskrito, that is the cultivated or perfected, also Gronthon, that is the written
language or the book language, has a very close relationship with the Roman and Greek, as
with the Germanic and Persian languages. The similarity consists not only in a great number
of roots, which it shares with them, but it extends to the innermost structure and grammar.
The agreement is accordingly not one of chance which might be explained by mixture, but
rather an essential one which points to common descent. Comparison yields the further result
that the Indic language is the older, the others however later and derived from it. For
Armenian, the Slavic languages and next for Celtic, the relationship with Indic is either
minute, or not to be compared with the close agreement among the languages named above
which we derive from it. Yet this relationship, though minute, is not to be completely
disregarded, since it manifests itself in accordance with the sequence in which these
languages were named at least in some grammatical forms, in such components which cannot
be reckoned among the chance features of the language but rather belong to their inner
structure.
In Hebrew and related dialects, as well as in Coptic, a goodly number of Indic roots may
possibly be found still. But this does not prove an original relationship since it can be the
result of simple mixture. The grammar of these languages like that of Basque is basically
different from that of Indic.
The large and not yet completely determinable number of the remaining north and south
Asiatic and American Ianguages has absolutely no essential relationship with the Indic
language family. To be sure, in the grammar of these languages, which also is quite different
from that of Indic, we find a similar arrangement among several; in their roots however they
are also completely different, even among one another and so totally deviant, that there is no
possibility of being able to take them back to a common source.
The important results of this linguistic comparison for the oldest history of the origin of
peoples and their earliest migrations will be the subject of investigation in the future. In this
first book we will be content with establishing and making clear the principles themselves,
simple but very comprehensive results of conscientious research....
Chapter 2. On the Relationship of Roots (pp. 6-7)
Some examples may show most clearly that the claimed relationship does not in any sense
rest on etymological elaborations, many of which were contrived before the proper source
was found, but that it may be presented to impartial scholars as simple fact.
In making this demonstration we permit absolutely no rules of change or replacement of
letters, but rather demand complete equivalence of the word as proof of descent. To be sure, if
the intermediate steps can be proved historically, then giorno may be derived from dies; and if
instead of Latin f we often find Spanish h, if Latin p very often becomes f in the Germanic
form of the same word and Latin c not infrequently h, this certainly establishes an analogy,
also for other not quite such apparent cases. Yet as indicated, one must be able to demonstrate
the intermediate steps or the general analogy historically; nothing can be fabricated from
axioms, and the agreement must be very precise and evident in order to permit even the
minutest variations of form.
I cite first of all some Indic words which are characteristic of Germanic. Shrityoti - er
schreitet 'strides'; vindoti - er findet 'finds'; schlißyoti - er umschließt 'surrounds'; Onto - das
Ende 'end'; Monuschyo - der Mensch 'human being'; Shvosa, Svostri - die Schwester 'sister';
Rotho - das Rad 'wheel'; Bhruvo - die Brauen der Augen 'eyebrows'; Torsho - der Durst
'thirst'; Tandovon - der Tanz 'dance'; Ondoni - die Enten 'ducks'; Noko - der Nagel 'nail';
sthiro - unbeweglich, stier 'immovable'; Oshonon - das Essen 'food', etc....
Chapter 3. Of Grammatical Structure (pp. 27-28; 32-35)
Might one however not possibly reverse this whole proof and say: the relationship is striking
enough and may be established in part; but what really is the reason for assuming that Indic is
the older among the related languages and their common source? May it not just as well have
arisen only through mixture of the others, or at any rate have received its similarity in this
way?
Not to mention that much of what has already been mentioned and also many another
probability speaks against that, we will now come to something that decides the situation fully
and raises it to certainty. In general the hypothesis that attempts to derive whatever Greek
elements are found in India from the Seleucids in Bactria is not much happier than one which
might try to explain the Egyptian pyramids from natural crystallization.
The decisive point however which will clarify everything here is the inner structure of the
languages or comparative grammar, which will give us quite new information about the
genealogy of 1anguages in a similar way as comparative anatomy has illuminated the higher
natural history.
Of the related languages we will first select Persian, whose grammar, which has even taken
over personal suffixes from Arabic through the long and old intercourse between both
peoples, agrees with that of Indic and the others far less than even that of German today, not
to speak of Greek and Roman. But if one assembles all similarities, they are certainly
weighty.... [to p. 32]
In Germanic grammar there are many other agreements with the Greek and Indic besides
those which it shares with Persian. In Germanic as throughout in Indic, n is characteristic of
the accusative, s of the genitive. The final syllable -tvon forms substantives of state in Indic,
just as -thum is used in German. The subjunctive is in part marked by a change of the vowel,
as in all languages which follow the old grammar. Agreeing similarly is the formation of the
imperfect through change of the vowel in one type of the German verbs. If in another type the
imperfect is formed by means of an inserted t, this to be sure is a special characteristic, just as
is the b in the Roman imperfect; the principle however is still the same, namely that the
secondary determination of the meaning for time and other relationships does not happen
through special words or particles added outside the word, but through inner modification of
the root.
If, moreover, we add the grammar of the older dialects, of Gothic and Anglo-Saxon for
German, of Icelandic for the Scandinavian branch of our language, then we not only find a
perfect with an augment, as in Greek and Indic, a dual, more exact gender and relationship
markers of the inflections, which now are somewhat worn down and less recognizable; the
third persons of the singular and plural of verbs, for example, are complete and in perfect
agreement. In a word, in the contemplation of the old monuments of the Germanic language
not the slightest doubt can remain that they formerly had a quite similar grammatical structure
to that of Greek and Roman.
Even now very many traces of these older forms of language remain in Germanic, in German
itself more than in English and the Scandinavian dialects; but if on the whole the principle of
the more recent grammar prevails here -- to form conjugation primarily through auxiliary
verbs, declension through prepositions -- this should mislead us the less, since also all the
Romance languages, which stem from the Latin, have undergone a similar change, as have all
the Hindustani dialects, as they are now spoken, which have approximately the same
relationship to Sanskrit as the Romance dialects do to Latin. No external cause is necessary
either to explain this phenomenon which shows up everywhere the same. The ingenious
structure is readily lost through wearing away by common usage, especially in a time of
barbarism, either quite gradually, or at times also more suddenly; and the grammar with
auxiliaries and prepositions is actually the shortest and most convenient, like an abbreviation
for simple, general usage; in fact one could almost establish the general rule that a language is
the easier to learn, the more its structure has been simplified and approximated to this
abbreviation....
Chapter 4. Of Two Main Types of Languages according to Their Inner Structure
(pp. 44-45)
The real essence of this principle of language which prevails in Indic and in all languages
derived from it is best made clear through contrast. For not all languages follow this grammar,
whose ingenious simplicity we admire in Indic and Greek, and to whose character we tried to
call attention in the previous chapter. In many other languages and actually in the most, we
find the characteristics and laws of a grammar quite different from that, indeed in complete
contrast with it.
Either the secondary markings of meaning are indicated through inner change of the sound of
the root, through inflection; or on the other hand always through a separate, added word,
which by itself indicates plurality, past, a future obligation or other relationship concepts of
manner; and these two very simple cases also designate the two main types of all languages.
On closer inspection all other cases are only modifications and secondary types of these two
kinds; therefore this contrast includes and completely exhausts the entire sphere of language
which is immeasurable and indeterminable with regard to the variety of roots.
A notable example of a language quite without inflection, in which everything that the other
languages indicate through inflection is arranged through separate words that have a meaning
by themselves, is furnished by Chinese: a language which with its peculiar monosyllabicity,
because of this consistency or rather perfect simplicity of structure, is very instructive for the
understanding of the entire world of languages.... (to 49-50)
The series of grades of languages, which follow this grammar, is accordingly the following. In
Chinese, the particles which designate the secondary marking of meaning are monosyllabic
words that exist by themselves and are quite independent of the root. The language of this
otherwise refined nation would accordingly stand precisely on the lowest grade; possibly,
because its childhood was fixed too early through its extremely ingenious writing system. In
Basque and Coptic, as in the American languages, the grammar is formed completely through
suffixes and prefixes, which are almost everywhere still easy to distinguish and in part still
have meaning by themselves; but the added particles are already beginning to merge and
coalesce with the word itself. This is even more the case in Arabic and all related dialects,
which to be sure clearly belong to this type in accordance with the greater part of their
grammar, while many other things cannot be taken back to it with certainty; here and there we
even find an individual agreement with grammar through inflection. Finally, in Celtic some
individual traces of grammar through suffixes are found; yet in greater part the newer manner
is the prevalent one, of conjugating through auxiliaries and declining through prepositions....
Chapter 6. Of the Variety of Related Languages and of Some Peculiar Intermediate
Languages (conclusion, pp. 84-86)
I would really be afraid of tiring and confusing the reader if I reported everything that had
been gathered and prepared. Enough if some order has been brought in the whole field and it
has been indicated satisfactorily, by what principles a comparative grammar may be drawn
up, and a completely historical family-tree -- a true history of the origin of language instead of
the former fabricated theories about its origin. What was said here will at least be adequate to
demonstrate the importance of the study of Indic, even only from the point of view of the
language; in the following book we will contemplate this study in relation to the history of the
Oriental spirit.
I conclude with a look back at William Jones, who first brought light into the knowledge of
language through the relationship and derivation he demonstrated of Roman, Greek,
Germanic and Persian from Indic, and through this into the ancient history of peoples, where
previously everything had been dark and confused. When however he wants to extend the
relationship to some other cases too, where it is much smaller -- further, to reduce the
indeterminably great number of languages to the three main branches of the Indic, the Arabic
and the Tatar families -- and finally, after he himself first determined so beautifully the total
difference of Arabic and Indic, to derive everything from one common original source simply
for the sake of unity; then we have not been able to follow this excellent man in these matters,
and in this everyone will unhesitatingly agree who examines the present treatise attentively.
CHAPTER THREE
RASMUS RASK
AN INVESTIGATION CONCERNING THE SOURCE
OF THE OLD NORTHERN OR ICELANDIC LANGUAGE
"Undersøgelse om det gamle Nordiske eller Islandske
Sprogs Oprindelse" (Copenhagen, 1818), in Rasmus Rask,
Ausgewählte Abhandlungen, ed. by Louis Hjelmslev, Vol. I
(Kopenhagen: Levin and Munksgaard, 1932)
Editor's Introduction
Perhaps the most brilliant of the early linguists, Rasmus Rask (1787-1832) made his primary
contribution in accordance with a topic proposed for a prize by the Danish Academy of
Sciences in 1811. The topic directed the structure of his monograph, and according to
Pedersen led to some of its shortcomings. It requested competitors to "examine with historical
criticism and indicate with appropriate examples the source from which the old Scandinavian
language is to be derived most securely; also to indicate the character of the language and the
relationship in which it stood from the oldest periods and during the Middle Ages on the one
hand to the Nordic, on the other to the Germanic dialects; also to determine precise principles
which must be followed in any statement of the origin and comparison of these languages."
After discussing general principles, Rask surveyed the evidence with regard to neighboring
languages: Greenlandic Eskimo, Celtic, Basque, Finnish, Slavic, Lettish, Thracian and the
Asiatic languages. His survey of the relationship with Thracian (a term he adopted from
Adelung to refer to the ancestor of Greek and Latin, hence one which we might equate with
Indo-European) makes up approximately half of his monograph and contains the well-known
statement relating Icelandic obstruents to those of Greek and Latin. Grimm himself indicated
his indebtedness to this statement; after coming to know it he speedily rewrote the first
volume of his grammar of 1819 and included in the second edition of 1822 the section
presented below on the Germanic consonant shift. Rask's statement is presented here, with a
few other excerpts to illustrate his fine grasp of linguistic principles.
As Pedersen and others have pointed out, Rask must be credited for his use of "system" and
"grammatical criteria" rather than vocabulary in carrying out the request of the Academy.
Although we applaud him for his methodological advances, we regret some of his
terminology, for example, his name Thracian for "Indo-European". Since he did not know
Sanskrit at the time he wrote his monograph, his group of Indo-European languages was still
small, though in it he accurately provided the answer to the first request of the Academy. For
the Germanic branch he used the term Gothic, which he divided into Scandinavian and
Germanic (of which [Moeso-]Gothic was in turn a subbranch).
Less external is the terminology regarding "source" and "descendant of"; a literal
interpretation of these suggests that Rask was quite wrong in his genealogical classification.
Yet these terms Pedersen would like to interpret "systematically" not "historically". Students
who wish to deal with the problem fully may go to the original, admirably edited by Louis
Hjelmslev, and to Pedersen's sympathetic introduction. Some of Rask's other views
correspond to those of Schlegel; like him Rask thought of inflectional languages as the most
ingenious -- though unlike Schlegel he concerned himself little with typology.
The most widely discussed problem in relation to Rask is one of priority: has he been given
inadequate credit for his accurate formulation of the Germanic consonant change, known
widely by the name of Grimm's law? The discussion in Holger Pedersen's Linguistic Science
in the Nineteenth Century, pp. 248-254, 258-262, presents the problem with Pedersen's wellknown
conciseness. In these days of corporate scholarship, questions of individual credit do
not seem as important as they did in the past, when even national prestige was involved. We
are much more interested in trying to understand the views, and for them the terminology
used by perceptive scholars of the past. We admire Rask for noting the correspondences;
Grimm accepted these, supported them more fully and gave his well-known formulation.
We also admire Rask for his efforts to learn language in the field; the data for his conclusions
are largely the result of his own collecting. After completing his monograph, Rask undertook
a journey to Russia, Persia and India, which led to more advanced views on the IndoEuropean
languages. We also credit him for managing his data with a methodology that
approximates the high requirements of successors: though in the essay he still used the term
"letter" for sounds as well as for writing symbols, he attempted to get at the phonetic basis of
the letters. The phonetic interpretation he then compared systematically. Of further emphasis
in his comparisons was grammar. This emphasis is clear from the space he devotes to
grammatical comparison (pp. 190-295) of the monograph as opposed to vocabulary (295-
321).
Rask's interest in learning ever more languages consumed the rest of his life after his return
from his trip to the east in 1823. His failure to incorporate his new ideas in a revision of the
"prize monograph" as well as its availability only in Danish led to a widespread disregard of
it. The centenary edition in Danish has made up in part for previous neglect; possibly for the
one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of Rask's death a complete English translation might be
arranged. Rask's perceptive examination of his data and the great preponderance of
methodology that accords with ours in proceeding beyond that of his predecessors would
justify the translation, though most scholars might with little difficulty make their way
through the Danish original.
Investigations, pp. 49-51
Grammatical agreement is a far more certain indication (than is vocabulary) of relationship or
original unity; for one finds that a language which is mixed with another very rarely or never
takes over changes of form or inflection from this, but on the other hand the more readily
loses its own. In this way English has not taken over any Icelandic or French inflections, but
on the other hand has lost many of the old inflections of Anglo-Saxon; similarly Danish has
not taken over German endings, nor has Spanish taken over Gothic or Arabic endings. This
kind of agreement, which is the most important and most certain, has nonetheless been almost
entirely overlooked until now in tracing the source of languages, and this is the greatest error
of most things written to the present on this point; it is the reason why they are so uncertain
and of such small scientific value.
The language which has the most ingenious grammar is the most unmixed, the most original,
oldest and nearest to the source; for the grammatical inflections and endings are constantly
lost with the formation of a new language, and it requires a very long time and intercourse
with other people to develop and rearrange itself anew. In this way Danish is simpler than
Icelandic, English simpler than Anglo-Saxon; in the same way New Greek is related to Old
Greek, Italian to Latin, German to Moeso-Gothic, and similarly in all situations that we know.
A language, however mixed it may be, belongs to the same class of languages as another,
when it has the most essential, concrete, indispensable and primary words, the foundation of
the language, in common with it. On the other hand nothing can be concluded about the
original relationship of technical terms, words of politeness and commerce or that part of the
language which intercourse with others, social relations among one another, education and
science have made it necessary to add to the oldest stock of words; it depends on many
circumstances, which can only be known from history, whether a people has borrowed these
from other languages or developed them from its own. Thus English is rightly counted to the
Gothic class of languages and in particular to the Saxon branch of the Germanic chief part of
it; for all basic stems of the English stock of words are Saxon, such as: heaven, earth, sea,
land, man, head, hair, eye, hand, foot, horse, cow, calf, ill, good, great, little, whole, half, I,
thou, he, to make, love, go, see, stand; of, out, from, together, etc. Especially substitutes
(pronouns) and numerals are lost last of all in mixing with unlike languages; in Anglo-Saxon
for example all pronouns are of Gothic and specifically Saxon origin.
When in such words one finds agreements between two languages, and that to such an extent
that one can draw up rules for the transition of letters from one to the other, then there is an
original relationship between these languages; especially when the similarities in the
inflection of languages and its formal organization correspond; e.g.
Gk phēmē in Latin to fama and holkos to sulcus
Gk mētēr in Latin to mater and bolbos to bulbus
Gk phēgos in Latin to fagus and amorgē to amurca
Gk pēlos in Latin to palus and Aeol. olkhos to vulgus
From this one sees that Gk ē in Latin often becomes a, and o becomes u; by bringing together
many words one would be able to draw up many transition rules. And since one finds such
great agreement between Latin and Greek grammar, one can rightfully conclude that an
original relationship exists between these languages, which is also sufficiently known and
does not need to be demonstrated here again.
Thracian
(pp. 177-8) After having considered the three eastern classes of languages: Finnish, which had
little or no relation with Icelandic, Slavic, which was closely related, and Lettish, which
seemed even nearer; we find to the south the Roman class of languages and the New Greek.
The Romance is of greatest extent; to it belong Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and French, but
all these languages are more notable for their development, harmony and literary riches than
for age or remote origin. It is known that all of them arose after the fall of the Roman Empire,
indeed long after, when the confusion which the wandering Gothic people caused to the old
Latin began to subside, but in such a way that the old material completely maintained the
upper hand and merely was rearranged in new form. Accordingly this language could in no
way contain the source for the Gothic, which is much older; and the same can be applied to
New Greek; but the Romance languages descend, as indicated, from the Latin, and the New
Greek (hē rōmaīkē) from the old or real Greek hē hellenikē): we then come to the two old,
rightfully famous peoples, the Greeks and Romans.
Adelung in his Mithridates has demonstrated at length and with care that all the peoples, who
were situated between the Halys River in Asia Minor, as widely as broadly to the north and
west up to Pannonia, where the Germanic stock began, are to be ascribed to a single stock of
peoples, whom he called the Thracian-Pelagian-Greek-Latin, but who in my opinion might be
given the shorter designation Thracian, after the central point.
(pp. 187-8) [After stating phonetic similarities between Greek and Icelandic, Rask discusses
some differences, such as the limited number of permitted final consonants in Greek and the
loss of final inflections in Icelandic; he continues:] But not only in endings, also in the words
themselves many changes took place; it will probably not be out of the way to note here the
most frequent of these transitions from Greek and Latin to Icelandic.
Long a becomes á or ó, as: elakhus (little) - lágur (low); mater - módir.
Short a to e: damąn - temia; scabo - eg skèf; sakkos, saccus - seckur.
u to o: gunē - kona; purgos (tower) - borg; gusto - German ich koste.
Of the mute letters, they generally remain in words, becoming usually:
p to f, e.g.: platus (broad) - flatur (flat); patēr - fadir.
t to þ, e.g.: treis (read trís) - þrír; tego - eg þek; tu - þu.
k to h, e.g.: kreas (meat) - hræ (dead body); cornu - horn; cutis - hud.
b most often
remains:
blazanō (germinate) - blad; bruō (spring forth) - brunnr (spring); bullare
- at bulla.
d to t : damaō (tame) - tamr (tame); dignus - tíginn (elevated, noble).
g to k : gunē - kona; genos - kyn or kin; gena - kinn; agros - akr.
ph to b : phēgos - Danish Bøg; fiber, - Icel. bifr; phero, fero - eg ber.
th to d : thurā - dyr; so also in Latin, theos - deus.
kh to g : khuō - Danish gyder; ekhein - ega; khutra - grýta; kholē - gall.
' to s : heks - sex; hama - saman; hupnos - svefn, Danish Søvn.
But often they are also changed in other ways; for example, medially and after a vowel k
becomes g, as in: macer (read maker) - mager; ac - og; taceo - Icel. Þegi; and t to d, as in:
pater - fadir, frater - bródir, and the like.
(pp. 190-2) [After dealing with the phonology of the Thracian languages, Rask surveys their
morphology. Only his introduction is translated here; he goes on to survey the paradigms,
spending most of his time on the substantives, much less on verbs.] Both languages which we
know of the Thracian class, namely Greek and Latin, are so famous and well-known that it
would be superfluous here to describe them extensively; but since they have been analyzed by
various language teachers, accordingly from various points of view, they have been given a
more unlike appearance than they really have. Presumably none of the learned men who have
worked in this area have known the related, ancient and unusual languages: Lithuanian,
Slavonic, Moeso-Gothic and Icelandic; these are very closely related to the Thracian, and
could contribute so very much to clarify them. Indeed these have until now been much less
analyzed and known than the Thracian languages. One can accordingly not expect to find
greater agreements between the proposed grammatical systems of these and the Thracian
languages than between the Thracian languages themselves. From the foregoing one should
also have been convinced that there is much to improve in the grammars of these languages,
in respect to system and manner of presentation. The same is true of Thracian or the so-called
ancient language, and it is scarcely to be expected that anyone who knows only one or at most
two of these languages could find out the system which was the correct one for all; this can
only be discovered through comparison of all of them. I have in the foregoing given briefly
for each language the classification and arrangement that seems to me most correct, especially
from the basis which seems most fitting for all of them. I will accordingly do the same here, at
least to present the reader all of them from a single point of view, which is indispensably
necessary, if one is to recognize and evaluate the similarities or dissimilarities between them.
Nouns and adjectives have one and the same manner of inflection in both the Thracian
languages: in Greek they distinguish three numbers and in the singular five cases, which are
best arranged as follows: 1) nominative, 2) vocative, which is generally only an insignificant
modification of the nominative, 3) accusative, 4) genitive, and 5) dative. One might be
uncertain which of the last two should be placed first, but because of the relationship of the
accusative with the genitive in the Slavic languages, as of the natural likeness of the endings
in the Lettish and Thracian languages, the arrangement given seems most correct. The dual
has only two cases: the one is used for the nominative, vocative and accusative; the other for
the genitive and dative. The plural has four; the nominative and vocative are always the same
here. In Latin on the other hand these parts of speech have six cases in the singular, namely, in
addition to Greek, 6) an ablative, which however is simply a modification of the dative. The
dual is lacking entirely in Latin, but in the plural it has the same cases as in Greek, since the
vocative is included with the nominative and the ablative with the dative. Gender and
comparison are the usual three. With regard to method of inflection these words are
distinguished in both languages into two main types or systems, as also in Gothic, Slavic and
Lettish. The sub-division in each of these, as in the languages just mentioned, is made
according to gender; Neuter, which is the simplest and most original, is to be set first,
thereupon Masculine, which is directly developed from it; and finally the Feminine, which has
the most peculiarities of its own.
In accordance with this principle of division the separate methods of inflection in these
languages are as follows: [The first system contains the three genders; the second system is
made up of a neuter and a common gender.]
(p. 295) This formal organization of the Icelandic language is much simpler than the Greek
and Latin inflection, from which it has originated in its entirety. For there is hardly a single
form or ending which is not found in them, except for those which have arisen from
combinations of parts which however are individually found in the Thracian languages. After
this one will also expect a significant similarity also in regard to the stock of words. Since I
cannot give here an entire dictionary, however, I will limit myself to citing a number of
individual words as proof. [He cites 352.]
(pp. 321-3) This collection of words which in the Thracian and Gothic languages, and
especially in Icelandic, seem to have an original relationship to one another, could easily have
been larger, but I omitted many, though they were obvious in both classes of languages, such
as all interjections: ouai, Lat. vae, Icel. vei, from which vein and kvein as also veina and
kveina, ai Icel. æ (read aj), pheu Danish fy, and many others; and I selected these not so much
according to ease of detecting likeness, but much more according to meaning, to demonstrate
that precisely the first and most necessary words in the language, which designate the first
objects of thought, are the same in both classes of languages. For this purpose I also listed
them according to subject matter. I do not assume that all will agree with me on every one of
these; but even if one throws out all of those about which one might have some doubt, then
nonetheless of 352, in addition to the 48 listed above, in all 400 words, enough will certainly
remain, that combined with the grammatical comparison given above they will prove as much
as the 150 words with added grammatical notes which Sajnovics has cited as 'proof that the
Hungarian and Lappish languages are one and the same'; as far as I know, no one has
subsequently denied this. After this agreement which we have found in the stock of words and
in inflection, as well as in accordance with the agreed historical indication of our fathers'
immigration to the north from Scythia, and especially the last main colony, which is said to
have brought in the language, literature and runes, which have such a striking likeness with
the oldest Phoenician-Greek series of letters, which colony, as well-known, came from Tanais
and the Black Sea: it seems that both the Northmen and the Germanic peoples are branches of
the large Thracian stock of peoples, and that their language must also have had there its first
origin, which also agrees with what is known about the languages of the Lettish stock and its
relationship to the Greek. The Lettish stock is the nearest branch of the Thracian, next the
Northern and the Germanic; the last seems to me somewhat farther away, which is also
natural as a result of our fathers' eastern and southern tribal seat. But the difference is really
not great; they stand about side by side, but in no way can the Northern be taken to stem from
the Thracian indirectly through the Germanic; this would be contrary both to history and to
the inner essence of the languages. Similarly one can by no means say that Icelandic stems
from Greek. Greek is not the pure old Thracian. Least of all must one limit Greek to Attic, for
it is just one of the latest Greek dialects, and far from the one in which relationship is shown
most clearly. As great preeminence as Attic has in refinement and harmony, so great do Doric
and Aeolic have in antiquity and importance for the investigator of language; for if these were
lost, the identity with Latin, not to speak of Icelandic, could scarcely be proved satisfactorily.
But what we can permit ourselves justified to conclude after the foregoing is that Icelandic, or
Old Norse, has its source in the old Thracian, or that in its chief components it has sprung
from large Thracian stock, of which Greek and Latin are the oldest and only remains, and that
we can consider that its root. But for the complete etymological explanation of this we have
seen that the Lettish and the Slavic classes of languages are of greatest importance, also that
even Finnish was not without significant influence and use.
CHAPTER FOUR
FRANZ BOPP
ON THE CONJUGATIONAL SYSTEM
OF THE SANSKRIT LANGUAGE
In comparison with that of Greek, Latin, Persian
and the Germanic languages
From Über das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in
Vergleichung mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen,
persischen und germanischen Sprache
(Frankfurt-am-Main: in der Andreäischen Buchhandlung, 1816)
Editor's Introduction
It may be unfair to Bopp to give a selection from his initial work. But his chief importance is
in clarifying the morphology of Indo-European, and even his final presentation has long been
superseded. Accordingly the views which he first presented are those of greatest interest to us.
Moreover, his analysis of the conjugational system of the Sanskrit language is by no means a
negligible result of four years of independent work, carried on with little guidance from
predecessors. The extracts presented here indicate however that Bopp's publication of 1816
was still preliminary to the important treatments in comparative linguistics.
For in 1816 Bopp is still pursuing the course of Friedrich von Schlegel. To be sure a much
greater portion of his book is devoted to the language, pp. 3-157, but as much space is given
to Indic literature, primarily to translations, pp. 160-312. Bopp's chief aim is accordingly an
understanding of Indic culture, not of the Indic language, let alone that of the Indo-European
family. His first work then resembles a comparative grammar of the Indo-European languages
less than does the monograph of Rask. The publication in 1818 of Rask's work, which had
been completed earlier, may have been as beneficial to Bopp in his groping toward a
comparative grammar of the Indo-European languages as it was to Grimm.
To interpret Bopp's aims from the often tedious introduction of his teacher Windischmann,
Conjugational System i-xxxxvi, may also be less than flattering to the mature Bopp; but it
gives us an insight into contemporary hopes for comparative linguistics and accordingly some
understanding of the tremendous energy with which it was pursued. According to
Windischmann, ix-x, Bopp "had resolved to treat the investigation of language as a historic
and philosophic study and not to be content with understanding what was written in any given
language. We may rejoice at these efforts and intentions, which from a purely human point of
view deserve to be named before many others, for through intimate association with the
significant signs, by which the word, this child of the spirit, expresses the deepest emotions
and feelings, as it does the clearest and most definite thoughts, indescribably much of the
hindrances to true self-knowledge and self-culture are dispelled." Moreover, in study of
languages, such as Gothic, and their structure, there was hope, according to Windischmann,
for additional means to illuminate the history of the Indic and Germanic peoples and the
differing cultures of each. Such considerations led Bopp to master ever more of the IndoEuropean
languages-Sanskrit, Avestan, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian and Gothic for the first
volumes of his Comparative Grammar of 1833 -- then Slavic, Celtic and Albanian for
remaining volumes, and the second edition of 1857-61. The posthumous third of 1868-70
maintains some of the initial shortcomings of the early period of comparative linguistics
virtually to the time of the neo-grammarians.
One shortcoming was the almost exclusive attention to morphology. We note Grimm's similar
lack of interest for phonology. Raumer's attention to phonetics had its influence only on the
successors to the great pioneers
Another shortcoming is Bopp's attempt to discern the origin of inflection in separate words,
particularly the verb "to be". In its crass form, this is completely superseded. Yet many
publications still emerge which seek the origin of inflections, like the Germanic weak
preterite, in simple verbs such as do, even though highly conservative and careful linguists,
e.g. H. Collitz, Das Schwache Präteritum, Baltimore, 1912, have cited almost overwhelming
evidence against such views. The early notions on the development of language, from
noninflected through agglutinative to inflected, have not been discarded even today, though
we probably would find little receptivity for the view that certain inflections developed
because of an inherent meaning of the symbol, such as s for the second person.
Franz Bopp is often credited with providing "the real beginning of what we call comparative
linguistics" (Pedersen, Linguistic Science, p. 257). In keeping with this achievement his
external career was distinguished. His publication resulting from four years of study in Paris,
1812-1816, led to general recognition. After visiting London and publishing there, he became
professor of Sanskrit and comparative grammar in Berlin in 1821. Teaching and publication
made up the rest of his life; his publications are on the whole admirable, except for a
suggestion that the Malayo-Polynesian languages are related to the Indo-European. Apart
from this lapse, editions, monographs and successive editions of his grammar, with
translations into English and French, made him the dominant figure in Indo-European
comparative grammar throughout the first half of the nineteenth century.
Chapter 1. On Verbs in General
By verb in the narrowest sense is meant that part of speech which expresses the connection of
a topic with a property, and their relations to one another.
The verb, according to this definition, has no real meaning in itself, but is simply the
grammatical bond between subject and predicate, through whose inner change and formation
their mutual relations are indicated.
Under this concept there is only a single verb, namely the so called verbum abstractum, sein,
esse. But also with this verb, to the extent that it is to express simply the relations between
subject and predicate, we have to remove the concept of existence, which it comprehends in
itself; in its grammatical determination this does not need to express the existence of the
subject, because this is already expressed by the subject when we state it. Thus in the
sentence: homo est mortalis, it is not the verb, est, which expresses the existence of the
subject homo, but the existence is contained as the first and basic characteristic in the concept
expressed by the word homo, just as the characteristic mortalis like others assumed to be
known for the concept homo is associated through the copula est. In the sentence: der Gott ist
seiend, the word sein represents two quite different functions. In the first it determines as
grammatical bond simply the relation between the subject and the predicate; in the second it
expresses the property which is added to the subject.
It seems to me therefore, that simply through lack of a completely abstract verb, a verb which
embraces the concept of existence in itself is used in most languages for the sake of a
grammatical bond; and there might well be a language, which is not without a totally
meaningless copula, through whose inflection or inner change the relations between subject
and predicate might be expressed. In Sanskrit there are two verbs which correspond to the
verb esse, namely asti and bhavati. Whether both are exchanged with one another equally
frequently, and although the first is replaced by the latter in the tenses lacking to it,
nonetheless for both synonyms a fine difference must exist, which may possibly have been
distinguished more sharply originally. Nonetheless it seems to me from observation of the use
of both, and from comparison of the substantives and adjectives derived from the roots of
both, to emerge clearly that asti almost alone expressed grammatical union, that bhavati
however is primarily used when existence is to be expressed. From the root bhū come the
words bhāvana, svajambhū, prabhu, bhūtam, bhavān, etc., all of which point to existence.
From the root as one can hardly find a noun derived other than the participle sat and its
negative asat. The following verse from the Bāgavat Gita can probably not be translated
faithfully into any language:
Nāsatō vidjatae bhāvō nābhāvō vidjatae satah.
The relation of the subject with its predicate is not always expressed through a special part of
speech, but is unexpressed; and the relations and secondary determinations of meaning are
indicated through the inner change and inflection of the word itself that expresses the
attribute. The adjectives inflected in this way make up the sphere of verbs in the usual sense.
Among all the languages known to us, the sacred language of the Indians shows itself to be
one of the most capable of expressing the most varied relations and connections in a truly
organic manner through inner modification and forming of the stem syllable. But disregarding
this remarkable capability of modification, occasionally it is pleased to incorporate the root of
the verbum abstractum in which case the stem syllable and the incorporated verbum
abstractum divide the grammatical functions of the verb.
Among the languages which are of common origin with the Old Indic we have to admire the
capability of indicating the most varied determinations of relationship, most of all in the
Greek. In the conjugation of the verbs it not only follows the same principle as the Sanskrit,
but the inflections by which it expresses the same relations are exactly the same; and it
combines in the same tenses and in the same way the verbum abstractum with the stem
syllable.
The Roman language agrees with the Indic no less than does the Greek, and one could hardly
find in it a relation expressed by an inflection which is not common to it and Sanskrit. In the
conjugation of verbs however the combination of the root with an auxiliary verb has become
the prevailing principle for it. In this combination however it does not express a part of the
relation, which is to be defined, through inflection of the stem syllable, as this is the case in
Indic and in Greek, but the root remains totally unchanged.
It is the purpose of this essay to show how in the conjugation of the Old Indic verbs the
definitions of relationship are expressed through corresponding modifications of the root, how
at times however the verbum abstractum is combined with the stem syllable to one word, and
stem syllable and auxiliary divide the grammatical functions of the verb; to show how the
same is the case in the Greek language, how in Latin the system of combination of root with
an auxiliary has come to be dominant, and how only in this way the apparent difference of the
Latin conjugation from that of Sanskrit and Greek arose; finally to prove, that in all the
languages which stem from Sanskrit or from a mother language in common with it, no
definition of relationship is indicated by an inflection which is not common to them and that
original language, and that apparent exceptions only arise from the fact that either the stem
syllable is combined with the auxiliaries into one word, or that from participles the tempora
derivativa which are customary already in Sanskrit are derived, in the fashion as verba
derivativa can be formed from substantives in Sanskrit, Greek and many other languages.
Among the languages that stand in closest relationship with Sanskrit I recognize especially
Greek, Latin, Germanic and Persian. It is remarkable that Bengalese, which surely has
undergone the least foreign admixtures among the New Indic dialects, does not agree in its
grammar nearly so completely with Sanskrit as do the above-mentioned languages, while on
the other hand it attests a far greater number of Old Indic words. Yet new organic
modifications have not taken the place of the Old Indic inflections, but after their meaning
and spirit have gradually vanished, their use also diminished, and tempora participialia
(among which I do not understand periphrastic forms like the Latin amatus est) replaced the
tenses which were formed in Sanskrit through inner change of the stem syllable. Similarly in
the New Germanic languages, several indications of relationship are expressed through
periphrasis, which in Gothic were designated by inflections that were already used in Sanskrit
and Greek.
In order to show in its full light the truth of these principles which are extremely important for
the history of languages, it is necessary to become acquainted above all with the conjugational
system of the Old Indic languages, then to survey and compare the conjugations of the Greek
and the Roman, the Germanic and Persian languages, whereby we will see their identity, but
will also recognize the gradual and graded destruction of the simple speech organism and
observe the striving to replace it by mechanical combinations, from which an appearance of a
new organism arose when their elements were no longer recognized.
Chapter 2. Conjugation of the Old Indic Language
We will go through the tenses of the Indic verbs here in the sequence in which they follow
one another in the Sanskrit grammars, and in the process will give as briefly and compactly as
possible the reason for every change of form and depict the manner how every modification
of meaning corresponds to an individual modification of the word. From this it will become
clear of itself that many tenses must be explained as compounds. Since however in my
assertions I cannot support myself on the authority of others, for up to now nothing has been
written about the origin of the grammatical forms, I will have to support them with cogent
proofs.
Formation of the Present
In the tempus praesens the meaning of the root is limited through no added secondary
indication; the subject has real use of the predicate designated by the root. Also from the root,
which is the common mother of all parts of speech, the tempus praesens is formed through
simple addition of the designations for person. The designation for the first person is M for
the singular and plural, and for the dual V; designation of the second person is S or H which is
related to it; designation of the third person is T for all three numbers. The endings, or the
accents of the personal designations serve to determine the numbers, not the formation and
characterization of the tenses.
Example: ad, eat
Sing. Dual Plur.
3. atti < adti attah < adtah adanti
2. atsi-adsi atthah-adthah attha < adtha
1. adai advah admah
Note. The D of the root becomes T before T and S in accordance with the rules of euphony.
(end of p. 13).
Chapter 3. Conjugation of the Greek verbs (61-2)
In Greek, as in Sanskrit, certain random letters are added to roots, which as in Indic are
maintained only in some tenses and disappear again in the others. One could, as in Sanskrit,
divide the verbs into different conjugations in accordance with these, which then would
largely correspond with the Indic in their characteristics. -- The first Indic conjugation adds a
to the first root; thus patschati comes from patsch. With this one can compare those Greek
verbs which insert e, a or o between root and designation for person. The third conjugation of
Sanskrit repeats the initial letters of the root, e.g. dadāti, tischthati from dā and sthā. So in
Greek dídōmi, héstēmi from da and stat. The fifth Indic conjugation adds nu to the root; e.g.
sunuma 'we beget' from su. To this corresponds in Greek rhēgnumen, déiknumen, dáinumen
from the roots rhēg, deik, dai. -- The eighth Indic conjugation adds u, e.g. tanuma 'we extend'
from the root tan. -- The ninth conjugation adds the sylable na in Sanskrit, e.g. krināmi from
kri. N is often inserted in Greek between the root and the designation for person, as in krínō,
klínō, témnō, etc., from kri, kli, tem.
Chapter 4. Conjugation of the Latin Verbs (88-89)
In order to learn to know the principle of the Latin conjugation, it is necessary that we start
out from the conjugation of the auxiliary verbs, partly because of their frequent combination
with the other verbs, partly because in their simpler change the principle of the Latin
conjugation is easier to recognize.
The Latin language has two verbs, which are used for combination between subject and the
predicate expressed by an adjective or substantive, and for the expression of their mutual
relation to one another. Their stem syllables are es and fu, corresponding to the Indic roots of
the same meaning as and bhu. As in Sanskrit bhavati replaces those tenses that went out of
use for asti, so it happened for Latin fu. The ancients said esum; the Etruscans (=Umbrians)
for sum: esume. Esu-me is like Indic as-mi and the Greek esmi, esmai. -- The praeteritum of
esum is eram, with change of the s to the related r, accordingly eram for esam. Also in
Sanskrit and in Greek the personal designations with A are emphasized. But the past is not
expressed through this emphasis, rather through modification of the root: through replacement
of the augment, through reduplication or change of the stem vowel. Eram is different from
esum; its use gives its past meaning, but this modification of the meaning does not correspond
to a particular modification of the root.
Chapter 5. Conjugation of the Persian Language and the Old Germanic Dialects
(116-17)
However much the inflections have gone out of use in other parts of speech of the Persian
language, through which in Indic and the languages related to it important secondary
specifications are indicated, yet especially in the inflection of verbs the close bond can be
recognized which ties it to those languages whose system of conjugation we have examined.
With the old Germanic dialects it affords in the principle of the change of verbs such striking
agreement that for the sake of brevity I consider myself justified to place it with them in one
class. In the Persian language and in all Germanic dialects, the tempus praesens is derived
from the root through simple affixation of the personal designations, which are known to us
from Sanskrit as from Greek and Latin. Yet these have not maintained themselves throughout,
but are at times replaced through vowels, as in Greek and Roman; eventually the designation
of a definite person becomes the common ending of all others, as will be clear from the
following examples.
From the roots ber, luf, sok, mach, brenn there are made in Persian, Anglo-Saxon, Gothic,
Frankish and Icelandic the following presents:
Persian Anglo-Saxon Gothic Frankish Icelandic
1. ber-em luf-ige sokj-a mach-on brenn-e
2. -- -i -- -ast sokj-ais -- -ost -- -er
3. -- -ed -- -ath sok-eith -- -ot -- -er
Pluralis
1. ber-im luf-iath sokj-am mach-omes brenn-um
2. -- -id -- -iath sok-eith -- -ot -- -ed
3. -- -end -- -iath sok-and -- -ont -- -a
CHAPTER FIVE
JACOB GRIMM
GERMANIC GRAMMAR
From Deutsche Grammatik
(Gütersloh: C. Bertelmann, 1893), I, pp. 580-592
Editor's Introduction
If non-specialists know anything about historical linguistics, it is Grimm's law. The history of
views on the consonant shift is virtually a history of linguistic theory until 1875; subsequently
it is equivalent to the theory of historical linguistics, from the neogrammarian position (that
each consonant should be treated individually) to that propounded today (that the entire shift
be viewed as a whole). Yet our first reaction on looking at Grimm's celebrated statement may
be surprise, He is groping through the consonants; his remarks on the liquids show great
uncertainty. The vowels are quite obscure for him. And combined with the treatment are
peripheral remarks about speech -- comments on the purpose of vowels -- which we would
not welcome in any treatise today. Yet this formulation of the Germanic consonant shift has
indeed had "momentous consequences for the history of language." Subsequent discussion is
voluminous; few Germanists, Indo-Europeanists or even general linguists have failed to
comment.
It was Grimm's conception of the shift as a unit which made such an impact on linguistics.
Although his formulation lacks the neatness we might expect, he did account consistently for
a large segment of the set of Indo-European and Germanic consonants. His consistent account
was so overwhelming that no one doubted its validity. The items unaccounted for were
considered exceptions and were made the object of research for the next half century.
Yet we may be even more surprised that there is no mention of a law. Grimm has given nine
rules, relating the consonants of Germanic with those of Greek and Latin, less commonly with
Sanskrit and other Indo-European languages. Instead of rule, Regel might equally well be
translated correspondence. If we did use this translation, Grimm's formulation might be quite
contemporary. He stated the evidence fully, including exceptions, posited the relevant
correspondences, and indicated their relationships to one another. The statement is a classic
example of the formulation of a problem in linguistics, and of its solution within the sphere of
language.
Possibly an attempt at explanation is implicit, though even this is not certain. By viewing the
shift as non-organic, Grimm apparently saw in it a deviation from the organism developed by
the speakers of Indo-European languages. Just as inflection, in contrast with agglutination,
seemed appropriate to the Indo-European languages, so did the system of obstruents in Greek
and Latin. But we see none of the fanciful attempts at explanation which our handbooks
summarize -- a shift due to change of geography, or climate and so on -- nor even the more
sober attempts which seem appropriate to us, such as a general shift in keeping with one type
of phonetic reshaping or with the modification of distinctive features. Grimm's concentration
on taxonomy spared him all such ventures.
He was also fortunate in his ignorance of phonetics, which permitted him to class together
consonants which were quite different in articulation, and to produce a statement which
passes beyond details to the system. Examination of details, as by Raumer, Grassmann,
Verner, clarified exceptions, but it also for a time undermined the unity which Grimm saw in
the shift, and which a structural approach has restored.
The translation has been deliberately kept stark to illustrate Grimm's pioneering. We might
well interpret "guttural" to mean velar, as it often does even among linguists who should be
better informed; but that it meant "throat-sound" to Grimm is clear from his German
equivalent "Kehllaut". Though we may pride ourselves on superior terminology, our estimate
of the capabilities of Grimm's contemporaries is not diminished by the ease with which they
were to identify examples as Greek or Latin, with no special indication.
As we update Grimm's terminology, we may wonder at terms that have not been discarded.
Grimm speaks of consonant gradation. We no longer do, but our entire treatment of the IndoEuropean
vowels is based on the assumption of gradation. Grimm viewed vowels as virtually
hopeless, but brought order into the consonant system by his use of grades. Subsequent
linguists brought order into the Indo-European vowel system by using grades. In maintaining
their terminology, are we also maintaining an antiquated framework for the vowels?
Though we consider Jacob Grimm (1785-1863) one of the greatest contributors to linguistics,
his name is a household word for other achievements as well. The veneration in which he is
held by scholars may be indicated by the retention of the page numbers of his original text of
the grammar, which are maintained here, as in subsequent editions. His Germanic Grammar
is still the most complete one we have. The large German dictionary, recently completed, was
inaugurated by him and his brother, Wilhelm (1786-1859). His work in other fields: medieval
literature, law, mythology, folklore, is as fundamental as his work in linguistics. After
studying law at Marburg he held small government posts, which brought him at various times
to Paris and Vienna. In 1817 he was appointed professor and librarian at Göttingen. Here he
lectured in his areas of interest until 1837, when with six other professors he protested against
the King of Hanover's abrogation of the constitution, and was dismissed. His political action
at this time illustrates that his greatness was not confined to academic matters. After returning
to Cassel for a few years he and his brother were invited to professorships at Berlin in 1840,
and to memberships in the Prussian Academy of Sciences. Acclaim did not hinder his work,
which involved all areas of linguistics from phonology to the painstaking activities of a
lexicographer.
A Survey of the Consonants
The above survey informs us that the vowel relationships are uncertain and subject to various
influences, but that their distribution and alternation are not arbitrary, rather, resulting from
deeply established laws that have not yet been disclosed. The law of the ablauts will spread
more light on this. One may view the vowels as the necessary coloring or animation of all
words, as the breath without which they would not even exist. The real individuality of the
word rests on the vowel sound; it affords the finest relationships.
The form, if I may say so, on the other hand the specification is established by the
consonantism. Here the relationships appear far more certain and lasting; dialects, whose
vowels for the most part deviate, often maintain the same consonants.
The four liquids are unchangeable; their fluid element preserves them intact during the most
powerful upheavals. They undergo only occasional permutations, transpositions, losses or
geminations, in spite of which their essential significance remains the same; i.e., although, for
example, chilche occasionally appears as chirche, r and 1 remain fundamentally different in
all other cases. To be noted:
1) On the one hand l and r are closely related, on the other m and n. When an exchange takes
place, m is the earlier and more delicate, n later and coarser (cf. p. 386, 387). [These
references are to Grimm's Grammar.] Conversely, the harder r may be older, the softer l
younger. M stands in a special relationship with the labials, n with the linguals (cf. p. 536).
Thus the OHG au, ou before m and labials, ô before n and linguals (p. 100); l and r are
associated as readily with labials, linguals and gutturals. -- L and r disintegrate occasionally
into u and i (and could therefore be called semivowels); never m and n, yet the influence of a
lost n on the preceding vowel might be compared (gâs, for gans).
2) In the important association of r with s, of the combination rd with dd and sd (Goth. zd) r,
rd appear as the younger forms which have gradually developed from s, sd (cf. p. 64, 65, 121,
167, 210, 244, 305, 317, 343, 387, 416).
Like the liquids, the three spirants v, h, s remain essentially unchanged throughout all the
Germanic dialects. I deduce their inner relationship in part from the ê and ô which appear in
front of them rather than ei and au (p. 91, 94), in part from the changes between h and v, w (p.
148, 403), h and s (p. 318, 416), and the association of the aspiration with the assibilation (th,
ts, z); no direct exchange between v, w, and s; h and v, (the softest of all consonants,)
disappear occasionally without replacement, even initially and particularly before liquids. (v.
addendum)
Relationships are completely otherwise with the remaining consonants; a notable contrast
between High German and all the other dialects becomes obvious. In the labial, lingual and
guttural sounds, the Gothic (Saxon, Frisian, Northern) tenues correspond to the High German
aspirates; the Gothic mediae to the High German tenues; and the Gothic aspirates to the High
German mediae. The particulars may be expressed as follows:
Goth. P. B. F. | T. D. Þ | K. G. .
OHG F. P. B. (V) | Z. T. D | CH. K. G.
A change has taken place by means of which each of these nine consonants in High German
shifted similarly from its position.1
There is no doubt that the High German situation must be
viewed here as the later, the changed, and the Gothic (Saxon, Frisian, Northern) as the earlier.
This has been proved by analysis of the Old High German letters on various grounds.
Observations:
1) The lingual series indicates the relationship most clearly; in Gothic táins, dal, þaúrnus are
as necessarily distinguished as in Old High German Zein, Tal and Dorn.
2) The labial order also fits as soon as one acknowledges the second aspirate bh for the HG v
in initial position and admits this instead of the closely related real media. For f, p, v, the
erroneous designations ph, b, f were introduced, or occasionally others. Compare Goth. pund,
baíran, filu with the HG funt, përan, vilo (also written phunt, bëran, filo). The older
arrangement had visible effect in the inconsistent writing system; the strictest High German
pronunciation, in which përan, pein, përag were completely current, did not even rise to the
pure media bilo for filo, vilo. Even hard, upper German folk dialects do not know and
cultivate such a b for f (certainly, however, many b for the spirant w). This all applies
however for the initial position; in medial position the media frequently seems to me to stand
in proper position, for example, in ëbar (aper), ëban (aequalis) etc. (cf. below, p. 589, fn. b.).
3) For the series of throat sounds the aspiration is lacking in Gothic, etc.: in High German all
three gradations are found, but how are the High German k and g (ch assumed for Goth. k) to
be organically divided into Gothic k? This could hardly be answered from the German
language; the uncertainty of the Old High German writing system not only confuses k and g,
but also k and ch with one another. At the same time however some clarification is provided
by this that the OHG k which alternates with g never goes over to ch, and conversely, the k
which alternates with ch never to g. So for example, gunni may not stand for chunni (genus)
and chans never for gans (anser); for both, however, kunni and kans. Since in addition medial
ch may not be exchanged with k (no sprëkan for sprëchan), then HG k for ch would be
completely objectionable and of the two sounds, g and k, one would be superfluous and
indeed theoretically this would be g. The High German language would thus not actually have
any more throat sounds than the Gothic; ch would correspond to Goth. k, k however to g. Yet
it appears to me that there is a third case where OHG g of necessity stands, i.e., where it
cannot be replaced by k or ch; this is none other than the varying relationship between h and g
(p. 427). Here the Goth. g plays a double role; in þragjan (currere), and guma (vir) a different
g appears from that in áugô (oculus), and tagram (acrimis). This can become clear only
through comparison of further originally related languages.
With such comparisons, which here cannot by any means be thoroughly pursued, but rather
only are intended to put our Germanic sound-relationships into proper perspective one
proceeds best from the consonants. If a thoroughly grounded statement is ascertained and
accepted for these, then perhaps some insights might also be gained into the history of the
vowels.
First we encounter the important principle: liquids and spirants agree in all essential
relationships with the manner and arrangement of the German tongue. It seems that where the
branches of the Germanic languages do not deviate from one another, Latin, Greek and Indic
will not deviate. Sanskrit expressly recognizes the r and 1 as vowels, and uses r this way
often, l more rarely. The weakening of the older m into later n is common everywhere; a large
group of words with m in Sanskrit and Latin receive n in Greek (see addendum); exactly as
the final MHG n becomes m again in medial position (lein, leimes; arn, armes, p. 386), so en
is related to emen (Lat. eram, eramus; compare néon with novum). Analogous modifications
of the s to r are also easily found; especially Latin preferred the r, which is however always to
be understood as the younger form. Alternation of the spirants v (digamma), s and h is
demonstrated by hespéra, vespera; heptá, for septem; hus; sus; hérpō, serpo; hekurós, socer;
hupó, sub; sas, sâ (Skt. isea), Gk ho, hē, Goth. sa, sô; háls, sal; sasa, (Skt. lepus), haso etc.;
also the initial spirant disappeared completely, e.g., Lat. anser is found for hanser (Skt. hamsa,
cignus), odium for hodium (Goth. hatis), éar Lat. ver, and the Gk ídmen (Skt. vidmas, Lat.
videmus, Goth. vitum) earlier had a digamma before it. V and s alternate the least, cf. sinister
with winster.
Yet more astounding than the accord of the liquids and the spirants is the variation of the lip,
tongue and throat sounds, not only from the Gothic, but also the Old High German
arrangement. For just as Old High German has sunk one step down from the Gothic in all
three grades, Gothic itself had already deviated by one step from the Latin (Greek, Sanskrit).
[See supplement.] Gothic is related to Latin exactly as is Old High German to Gothic. The
entire twofold sound shift, which has momentous consequences for the history of language
and the rigor of etymology, can be so expressed in a table:
Gk P. B. F. | T. D. TH. | K. G. CH.
Goth. F. P. B. | TH. T. D | -. K. G.
OHG B. (V) F. P. (V) | D. Z. T | G. CH. K.
or otherwise conceived:
Gk Goth. OHG Gk Goth. OHG Gk Goth. OHG
P F B(V) | T TH D | K - G
B P F | D T Z | G K CH
F B P (V) | TH D T | CH G K
From this we see now how the Goth fills the gap arising from the departure of the throat
aspirate: he uses the spiritus h initially rather than ch, and h occasionally also medially and
finally, but frequently also the media g. In Old High German the g would appear here
consistently everywhere and would be analogous to the b and d of the other series; it may
however be a remnant of the earlier sound arrangements that the Gothic initial h has also been
carried over to Old High German because it was taken for a spirant and not as aspirate. Only
occasionally does g appear beside it. This use of the h for ch is also remarkably found
precisely in initial position in Latin so that the gutturals, more precisely determined, show up
as follows:
Gk Lat. Goth. OHG
κ c h, g h, g
γ g k ch
χ h g k
The necessary examples for the proposed nine comparisons are:
I. (P. F. B, V.) 1) Initial position: pax, pacis, pacatus; Goth. fahêds (gaudium, quies), ON
feginn (contentus, laetus) --- pes, pedis; Gk poȗs; podós Skt padas; Goth. fôtus; OHG vuoz ---
piscis, fisks, visk --- porca (sulcus), OHG vuriha --- porcus, OHG varah --- Gk póros (iter,
via), Goth. faran (ire) ---- pater, Gk patḗr, Goth. fadrs, OHG vatar --- patis (Skt conjux), Lith.
pats, Gk posis (? Dor. Gk pótis), Goth. brûd-faþs (sponsus) --- Gk pȗr, OHG viur --- Gk polá
OHG vilo, Goth. filu --- Gk pléos, Goth. fulls, OHG vol --- Gk prōí, OHG vruo --- pecus,
Goth. faíhu, OHG vihu --- pulex, OHG vlôh --- plecto, OHG vlihtu --- Gk pérdō, Lith.
perdziu, Swed. fjerter, OHG vërzu --- Gk palámē, Lat. palma, AS folma, OHG volma Gk
ptéron (for petéron, like Gk petáō for Gk ptáō) ON fiödhur, OHG vëdar --- Gk peúkē, picea,
HG vihta --- pellis, Goth. fill, OHG vël --- pullus, Goth. fula, OHG volo --- pauci, Goth. favai,
OHG vaohê --- primus, Goth. frumists, OHG vromist. --- 2) Medial position (The Gothic
medial b for f is less precise than Northern and Saxon f. bh) Gk kápros, caper, ON hafr --- Gk
loipós (reliquus), ON leifar (reliquiae), Goth. láibôs --- svapa (Skt somnus), Gk húpnos, ON
svefn, OS suëbhan --- septem, AS sëofon, Goth. sibun --- aper, ON iöfor, AS ëbar OHG ëbar --
Gk hupér, super, Goth. ufar, ON yfir, OHG ubar --- rapina, AS reáf, OHG roub.
II. (B, P, F) 1) For inital position, I know no example to support my view that the Germanic
words with initial p, HG f (ph) are lacking (above p. 55, 131, 212, 247, 397, 462). 2) Medial
position: Gk kánnabis, cannabis, ON hanpr, OHG hanaf; should turba be compared with Goth.
þaúrp, OHG dorof; stabulum with ON stöpull, OHG staphol; labi with hláupan, loufan?
III. (PH, B, P) The aspirate of the older languages itself still requires closer attention; Sanskrit
recognizes both ph and bh, which appear mixed in Gk ph, Lat. f and b. 1) Initial position: The
Indic root bhu, the Gk phu, the Lat. fu in the verb 'to be', compare with the AS bëon, OHG
pim (sum) --- Gk phēgós, fagus, ON beyki, OHG puocha --- forare, ON bora, OHG poren ---
frangere, fregi; Goth. brikan, OHG prëchan --- frui, fructus; Goth. brûkôn, OHG prûchôn ---
frater, brôþar, pruoder --- flare, blasan, plasan, --- fero (in Skt the root bhr), Goth. baíra, OHG
piru --- Gk phúllon, folium, ON blad, OHG plat --- Gk ophrús, ON brâ, OHG prawa. --- 2)
Medial position: Gk eléphas, antos, Goth. ulbandus, OHG olpenta --- Gk kephalḗ, haubiþ,
houpit --- Gk nephlélē, nebula, Goth. nibls?, OHG nëpal --- Gk gráphein, Goth graban, OHG
grapan. These medials vacillate toward the first class; like: caput, AS heáfod, OHG haubit, cf.
the ON nifl to which an OHG nëbal would correspond.
IV. (T. TH. D.) 1) Initial position: tauta (lett. gens, regio) Goth. þiuda, OHG diot --- tu, Goth.
þu, OHG dû --- tenuis, tener, ON þunnr, OHG dunni --- Gk teínein, tendere; Goth. þanjan,
OHG denen --- Gk treȋs, tres; þreis; drî --- tergere, ON þërra --- Gk térsein (arefacere) Goth.
þaursis (aridus) torridus, OHG durri --- tacere, Goth. þahan, OHG dagen --- Gk trékhein,
Goth. þragjan --- Gk talận, tlận, tolerare, Goth. þulan, OHG dolen --- tectum, Goth. þak, OHG
dach --- Gk taũros, ON þiôr --- tad (Skt id), Gk to (for tad), Goth. þat, OHG daz --- talis, ON
þvîlîkr. --- 2) Medial position: ratio, raþjô, redja --- frater, brôþar, pruoder --- Gk metá, Goth.
miþ --- dantas (dens, dentis) tunþus, zand --- rota, ON hradhr (celer) OHG hrad (rota) ---
iterum, Goth. viþra, OHG widar --- Gk héteros, anþar, andar --- perhaps Gk étēs, hetaȋros
(socius) may be compared with OS gesith, OHG sindeo --- étos (annus) with the obscure
Goth. ataþni (i.e. at-þni, OHG az-adani?).
V. (D. T. Z.) 1) Initial position: dingua, tuggo, zunga (cf. above p. 152) --- deus, divus, Lith.
diéwas; Gk dís, díos (for theós is Cretan) ON tŷr; OHG ziu (cf. above p. 150, 151) --- dantas
(Skt) Gk odoús odoú odóntos; dens, dentis; Goth. tunþus, OHG zand --- Gk dia-, Lat. dis-,
Saxon to-, OHG zi- --- Gk damą̑n, domare, Goth. tamjan, OHG zemen --- Gk drȗs, Goth. triu
--- digitus, cf. with the Saxon têkan (signum) OHG zeichan --- Gk deiknúein, deíkein,
indicare, Saxon tôgjan, HG zeigen --- Gk dólos, dolus, ON tâl, OHG zâla --- ducere, Goth.
tiuhan, OHG ziohan --- Gk dúo, duo, Goth. tva, OHG zuei. --- Gk dákru, Goth. tagr, OHG
zahar --- Gk deksiá, dextra, Goth. taíhsvô, OHG zësawa. --- 2) Medial position: Gk hēdú,
Goth. suti, OHG suozi --- ad, Goth. at, OHG az --- Gk hédos, sedes; sedere, Goth. sitan, OHG
sizan --- Gk édein, edere; itan, ëzan --- Gk eídein, eidénai, videre, Goth. tva, OHG wizen ---
odium, Goth. hatis, OHG haz --- claudere, OHG sliozan --- laedere, HG letzen, --- radix, ON
rôt --- Gk húdōr, Goth. vatô, OHG wazar --- Gk hidrōs, sudor, sveiti, sueiz --- pedes, fôtjus,
vuozi.
VI. (TH. D. T.) The Latins have no th (except in foreign words), but often the Gk th has
become the labial aspirate f of the same grade just as in Greek itself the Aeolic dialect shows
ph for th (cf. Gk thumós, spiritus, animus, with fumus, Gk phúmos; thúein with fire, suffire)
both remind one of the intersection of Goth. þl with fl indicated on p. 66, 67. 1) Initial
position: Gk thugátēr, Goth. daúhtar, OHG tohtar --- Gk thúra, Lat. pl. fores, Goth. daúr,
OHG tor --- Gk thḗr, Aeol. phḗr, Lat. fera, ON dŷr, OHG tior --- Gk tharréein (audere) Goth.
ga-daúran, OHG turran, cf. the preterite ga-daúrsta, getorsta with Gk thárros, thársos, thrasús.
--- Gk thénar (vola manus) OHG tënar --- Medial position: Gk méthu, AS mëdo, OHG mëtu --
- Gk éthos, AS sido, OHG situ.
VII. (K. H,G. H,G.) In the second grade the Goth. h is found for ch; in the third the OHG h for
g. 1) Initial position: claudus, halts, halz --- Gk kánnabis, ON hanpr, OHG hanaf --- canere cf.
with hano (gallus, as this with ON kalla, OHG challôn, clamare, fari) --- caput, háuþip, houbit
--- Gk kardía, cor, haírtô, hërza --- Gk kúōn, canis, hunþs, hund --- Gk koȋlos, hol --- celare,
hilan, hëln --- Gk kálamos, calamus, halam, helm --- Gk kártos, karterós, hardus, hart ---
cornu, haúrn, horn --- collum, hals --- Gk krumós, (gelu), ON hrîm --- Gk klaíein, Goth.
hlahan --- Gk krázein, crocitare, Goth. hrukjan --- Gk kléptēs, Goth. hliftus. --- 2) Medial
position: Gk ókos, oculus, áugo, ouga --- acies, OHG egga --- lux (lucs) liuhad, lioht, cf. Gk
leukós with liuhadeins --- Gk oȋkos, Goth. veihs --- lacus, AS lagu --- acus, aceris, OHG ahan,
agan, --- Gk dákru, tagr, zahar --- tacere, þahan, dagen --- pecus, faíhu, vitro --- Gk hekurós,
socer, Goth. svaíhra, HG schwager, schwieger --- Gk mḗkōn (papaver), OHG mâgan, NHG
mohn (? Goth. mêhan). Medially this sometimes corresponds to Skt sh: e.g. dasha, Gk déka,
Lat. decem, Goth. taíhun, Lith. deszimts.
VIII. (G. K. CH.) 1) Initial position: granum, ON korn, OHG chorn --- Gk génos, genus; kuni;
chunni --- Gk génus, gene, ON kinn, OHG chinni --- Gk gonu, ON knê, OHG chnio --- Gk
gunḗ, ON kona, OHG chona --- gelu (frigus) Goth. kalds, OHG chalt --- gula (guttur) OHG
chëla --- gustare, kiusan, chiosan --- gau (Skt vacca), ON kû, OHG chua --- 2) Medial
position: Gk egṓ, ego, Goth. ïk, OHG ih --- vigil, OHG wachar --- Gk agrós, agere, Goth.
akrs, OHG achar --- Gk ágein, agere, ON aka --- Gk mégas, mégalos; mikils; michil --- rex,
regis, regnum; reiks; rîchi --- jugum, juk, joch --- augere, áukan, auchôn --- Gk amélgein,
mulgere, ON miólka, OHG mëlchan.
IX. (CH, H. G. K.) In Latin h is here equivalent to ch. cf. Schneider, Lateinische Grammatik,
p. 202: Gk kheimṓn, hiems; Gk kheír, Lat. hir; Gk khḗr, herinaceus. Frequently however,
OHG g to k, which I carry out here only in theory. 1) Initial position: Gk khḗn, anser (for
hanser) Goth. gans, OHG kans --- Gk khéō (fundo), Gk khutós (fusus) Goth. giutan, OHG
kiozan --- Gk kholḗ, ON gall, OHG kalla --- Gk khthés, heri, hesternus, Goth. gistra, OHG
këstar --- Gk khórtos, hortus, gards, OHG karto --- hostis (peregrinus) gasts, kast --- homo,
Goth. guma, OHG komo --- Gk khthṓn like khthés for khés for khṓn and this for khóm, cf.
khamái, humi, humus; to be compared with Goth. gauï, OHG kouwi, kou --- 2) Medial
position: Gk ékhein, Goth. áigan, OHG eikan --- Gk trékhein, Doric trákhein, Goth. þragjan --
- Gk lékhos, Goth. ligrs, OHG lëkar --- Gk leíkhō, líkhō (lambo) Goth. laígo, OHG lêkôn ---
Gk lukhą̑n (insidiari), (Goth. lêgôn ?), OHG lâkôn. --- (see supplement).
Notes on this comparison of consonants:
1) Even if certain of the cited samples still appear to be dubious or uncertain, the majority
may be considered as clearly demonstrated because of the analogy of the gradation; the
correctness of the rules in general is unmistakable. Words in which two consonants agree are
doubly certain (Gk trékhein, þragjan; pódes, fôtjus); those in which one consonant agrees,
another deviates, are suspicious; even more suspicious, those whose consonants showed
essential equivalence in the three languages without gradation. In this case, relationship is
either entirely lacking (e.g. AS pädh, padhas and Gk páthos, dolor) or the one language has
borrowed from the other (e.g. scrîban is scribere itself, fruht is fructus, hence not Germanic;
the same is true for OS sicor, Lat. securus).
2) In the investigations of the words, likeness or resemblance of consonants which are in
general related is less important than observation of the historical course of gradation, which
does not become disturbed or reversed. A High German word with p, which shows b in
Gothic and f in Latin is originally related in these three languages: each possesses it
unborrowed. If, however, we were to find an f in a High German word, b in Gothic and p in
Latin, then the relationship would be nonsensical, even though in the abstract exactly the
same relationships of the letters are present. The Gk t requires a Goth. þ, the Gothic t however
no Gk th but rather d, and so the identity throughout is based on the external difference.
3) Words, which the one or other language does not possess, could readily be posited for the
nine consonant relationships, but not in the elements of vowels, liquids and spirants. All
hypothesizing accordingly remains unprofitable; we might at most claim that for example Gk
dáphnē would have to have t-b in Gothic and z-p in High German; Gk phutón b-þ in Gothic
and p-d in High German. These nine rules are only touchstones for words which are available.
Analogy is generally not sufficient for new creations, for everything alive is incalculable and
merges the laws of theory with the exceptions found in reality.
4) Such exceptions, i.e. instances, where the proposed comparisons fail, appear:
a) in the transition of the tenues, mediae or aspiratae, to tenues, mediae or aspiratae of another
series. How often do the members of one series exchange with one another: p, t, (Gk taȏs,
pavo; Gk pénte, Aeol. pémpe; Gk poȋos, Ion. koȋos) b, d, g (Gk obelós, Dor. odelós; Gk gȇ
Dor. dȇ: cf. above p. 445, 446) ph, th, ch (examples above p. 587).
b) because of the imperfection of the aspirations in most languages and the mixing with the
related spirants and mediae which arises out of it. Sanskrit has aspiration of the mediae and
tenues of each organ, so that bh, ph; dh, th; gh, and kh are found. Jumbled relics of these
appear in the other languages. The Greek speaker has ph, th, and ch; the Latin only the first
(and then it is modified; his f is close to thebh); th becomes f for him; ch becomes h. Also the
Lithuanian and Latvian languages both lack f, th and ch (yes even the simple spirant h);
Gothic etc. lack ch, which they replace with h and g. In other Germanic dialects, distinct
traces of the bh, dh and gh, which can probably be found more clearly in the future than could
happen in my presentation. The lack of initial Goth. p, HG ph (f), appears less striking with
this point of view. Since in Greek and Latin the labials fluctuate, e.g. Gk kephalḗ, caput; Gk
néphos, nephélē, nubes, nebula; thus each of the Germanic forms is justified, Goth. háubiþ
beside gibla and the Saxon heafod; and it must in general remain undecided whether OHG
houbit or houpit, nëpal or nëbal deserves preference. The Latins loved medial mediae (habeo,
nobilis, mobilis, fabula, cibus, hebes, scabies etc.; origin in v is obvious in novisse, movere,
etc.).
c) The sound shift takes place in the mass, but never neatly in individual items; words remain
in the relationship of the old arrangements-the stream of innovation has passed them by.
Connection with the unchangeable liquids and spirants has usually (not always) preserved
them. Thus, α) some words of the Gothic etc. languages still have the stamp of the Latin and
Greek order, e.g. du, dis (cited p. 152), compare with Saxon tô and OHG zuo, zi, zër; daddjan
(Dan. dîe) was erroneously cited, which is related according to the sixth comparison with Gk
tháein, and has nothing to do with the AS tit. Further examples are OS sëdel, instead of sëtel
(p. 217), the ON pt instead of ft (p. 314). The relationship between dies, days, däg-dagr may
not be interpreted otherwise. β) some of the Old High German words have the stamp of the
Gothic etc., as in the words enumerated p. 154, 155, 394. γ) some Gothic and Old High
German (the latter accordingly unscathed through two sound shifts) agree with the Latin and
Greek e.g. the cited AS tit, Eng. teat, OHG tutto (p. 155), Gk títthē. Further: longus, laggs,
lângr; angustus, aggvus, engi; gramen, gras etc.2
δ) of two consonants in a word one may be
shifted, the other retained, e.g. in tunga, zunga, lingua, the g remained, while d (dingua)
underwent gradation; the lingual does not check in prudentia, Goth. frôdei and Lith. protas;
gaudere too may be closely related to Goth. gatjan (facere ut aliquis obtineat restituere, from
gitan, like nasjan from nisan) and MHG ergetzen, and for the stricter form katjan (ON kâtr,
laetus, beside gëta acquirere and gëtaz acquiescere) go to the MH erchetzen. This possibly
misleading sentence should not be misused by the etymologists.
5) I have presented the Old High German sound shift (p. 127, 151, 177) as something nonorganic,
and admittedly it is a visible deviation from an earlier organism which is still present
in vestiges. One must also consider Gothic in contrast with Greek and Latin as equally nonorganic.
The similarities of both changes puts them right in the proper light. They are great
events in the history of our language and neither is without inner necessity.3
It is also not to be
overlooked that each gradation fills ever smaller circles. The peculiarity of the latter does not
extend beyond the High German dialect. The earlier one encompassed Gothic, Saxon,
Northern still; accordingly it had a more significant extent. And how restricted this appears
when contrasted with the still older situation, which we must recognize for the Latin, Greek
and Indic languages, and to which in general also the Slavic and Latvian tribes adhere,
perhaps with some modifications. For example, since aspiration is lacking for the Latvians,
Prussians and Lithuanians, they are accustomed to use a media for it or sibilants (see
addendum). But they possess the unmodified (Latin and Greek) tenues and mediae, cf. the
Lith. pilnas (plenus) (see addendum) pirmas (primus) pakájus (pax, pacis) piemů (poimḗn)
peda (vestigium) tris (tres), tu (tu) traukti (trahere) kampas (campus) kas (quis) kélas
(kéleuthos) akis (oculus) ratas (rota) dantis (dens) antras (Goth. anþar) wertas (Goth. vaírþs)
derwà (ON tiara, NHG zehr) trokszti (NHG dürsten) du (duo) sedeti sedere etc. Similarly in
Slavic pasti (pascere) vepr (aper) piti (píein) pokoj (pax) mater (mater) sjekati (secare) videti
(videre) dom (domus) smrt (mors, mortis) ptak (pterón) etc. For this reason, the Slavic and
Lettish languages are without doubt closer to the Latin and Greek than the Gothic, and this is
closer than the Old High German.
6) The result of the sound shift brings it about that HG z (for t) fully takes the place of the th,
as HG ph for p, and ch for c. This High German equating of the z (ts) with th is even more
remarkable, in part because in no monument known to me is an actual exchange between z
and th apparent (no trace of an OHG thiman, thein for ziman, zein), and in part because in the
High German dialect the pure spirant h is strongly favored and never is exchanged with the
spirant s. This exchange prevails precisely in the Slavic and Lettish languages, in which so
many of the original gutturals appear assibilated, cf., cor, cordis, hërza with the Lith. szirdis
(pronounce schirdis), Bohemian srdce; canis, hund with the Lith. szů; centum, hundert with
the Lith. z̦̓ (pronounce sh or dsh) answers to the Gk kh, Lat. h as: ziema (kheȋma, hiems),
zeme (humus, cf. humilis and khthamalós, khamalós), zmogus, (homo, pl. zmones, homines;
OPruss. smunents, homo), zasis (khḗn, anser); zengti, zengimas is the Germanic gangan,
gang. One should compare, however, the AS sceort, Eng. short for cëort and even the OHG
scurz for churz (above p. 175) as well as the hissing pronunciation of the Frisian, English and
Swedish initials c, k ch.
The relationships of the consonants accordingly provide adequate proof of original
relationship of the compared languages. Might not also, based on this, at the same time
contacts between the vowels be detected? -- the analogy between the High German and
Gothic vowel situation not lead to the conclusion that Latin vowels too must be connected
with Gothic? The connection will be even more uncertain and disrupted for this reason
because in the Germanic dialects with the same consonantal gradation we meet such varying
and manifold vowels. Nonetheless there are still unmistakable similarities like those given
below.
Addenda
(580-581) The relationship of the semi-vowels v and j (p. 9) to the spirants v,s, h, (p. 10) is
still obscure. First of all, the lingual order has no semi-vowel at all. Secondly, the gutturals
have a semi-vowel j which is distinct from the spirant h. Finally, the question arises whether
the semi-vowel v falls together with the spirant v? I have already touched on this puzzle on p.
187. It is to be noted that semi-vowels (i.e. vowels with consonantal value) only develop from
i and u, not from a, obviously not from the nonoriginal e and o. And since further l and r can
develop to u and i, they are semi-vocalic in a reverse sense, i.e. consonants with vocalic value.
Is it related to the richer endownment of the throat sound series that the aspirate is
occasionally withdrawn from it?
(583, 32) madidus, mador, Goth. natjan, OHG naz.
(584, 15) If one also assumed a fourth grade, then the sound would return to the first grade.
Isolated items might possibly be put there, such as the ch and z in châpi, hagestolz cited in the
addenda to p. 185 and 526; these however are non-organic exceptions. Never does such a
thing show up in an established regular series.
(585-588) Some more examples are added here for the nine comparisons.
I, 1. pallidus, Lith. palwas, ON fölr, OHG valêr; Slav. post (jejunium) OHG vasta; Lith.
pauksztis (avis) Goth. fugls; Slav. plst (coactile) OHG vilz; Slav. pjast (pugnus) OHG vûst;
Gk péras, Goth. fêra.
I, 2. nepos, OHG nëvo; Gk kȇpos, OHG hof, hoves; copia, hûfo; hoplḗ, ON hôfr, OHG huof,
huoves.
II, 2. Lith. obolys, Russ. jabloko, ON epli, OHG epfili, Russ. obezjana (simia) Bohemia opice,
ON api, OHG affo.
IV, 1. trituro, AS þërsce, OHG driscu; tonitru, AS þaërsce, OHG driscu; tonitru, AS þunor,
OHG donar; Slav. trn, tern (spina) Goth. þúrnus OHG dorn.
V, 2. kardía, con, cordis, haírtô, hërza; radix, ON rôt; hoedus, ON geit, OHG keiz; madidus,
OHG naz; kónis, kônidos, ON nit, OHG niz (instead of knit, hniz); nidus, Slav. gniezdo, AS
nëst, OHG nëst; possibly nodus, Goth. nati (consisting of knots) OHG nezi.
VII, 1. Gk kȇpos, hof; copia, hûfo; crinis, hâr; cerebrum, hirni.
VII, 2. pulex (pulec-s) Slav. blocha, OHG vlôh.
VIII, 1. Slav. gnjetu (premere, depsere) OHG chnëtan).
VIII, 2. Lith. nogas (nudus) ON naktr, OHG nacchot.
IX, 1. hoedus (= hoidus) ON geit.
(591, 22) In the Slavic initial position the media of the second or third grade occasionally
prevails, especially in the combinations bl, br, gn, gr, e.g. blocha (pulex) brat (frater) (bronja)
(lorica, Dobr. p. 115) OHG prunja; gnida (kónis, kónidos Dobr. 195); graditi (cingere, Goth.
gaúrdan) etc.; to the Germanic hl, hu correspond chl, chv, e.g. chvila (more) hvîla; chlev,
hleip and many others.
(591, 24) pilnas, plenus, Slav. pln, poln.
Notes
1. The modification of the initial and final sounds in Old High German, Middle High
German and Middle Low German is not taken into consideration here. [return to text]
2. The OHG mit, miti agrees with the Gk metá, hût, hûti with cutis, but not with Goth.
miþ, ON hûdh. I doubt if other words cited in the note p. 159 and other assumed OHG
words can be judged in the same manner. The contradiction to the comparison of the
linguals is noteworthy in the words patḗr, mḗtēr; pater, mater, frater; Goth. fadrs (?),
brôþar; AS fäder, môder, brôdher (cf. p. 514, 544); OHG vatar, muotar, pruodar; the
Germanic languages agree among themselves and the Lat. frater with them; but should
it be pathḗr and mḗthēr? Hardly; all three have the same original tenues in Sanskrit.
[return to text]
3. Different from individual corruptions which were not thorough, e.g. from the Swedish
and Danish displacement of initial lingual aspirates by tenues, while labial aspirates
remain: or the Danish media which is found medially, beside which the initial position
maintains the tenuis. [return to text]
CHAPTER SIX
WILHELM VON HUMBOLDT
ON THE STRUCTURAL VARIETY OF HUMAN LANGUAGE
AND ITS INFLUENCE ON THE INTELLECTUAL
DEVELOPMENT OF MANKIND
From Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen
Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluss auf die geistige Entwickelung
des Menschengeschlechts (Berlin: F. Dümmler, 1836), Chapter 19
Editor's Introduction
An excerpt from Humboldt's highly influential monograph can do little more than indicate the
far-ranging manner in which he presented his views about language. The whole is tightly
organized and should be read as a unit for accurate understanding of Humboldt's position.
This selection illustrates some of Humboldt's concerns, among them questions which are still
occupying linguists.
One is, how should we deal with language in change. A subsequent answer was to abstract the
system from speech --language from parole--and make it the essential concern of linguists. By
this view linguistic analysis could arrive at items and their arrangements; linguistic forms are
arranged for selection and order. After the items and their arrangements are described, the
historical linguist might compare two selected stages of a language and deal with the changes
between them. Humboldt's view of language as an organism in constant change does not
permit such a simple answer. He would have looked with favor on the attempts to introduce
linguistic methodology which does not first require reduction of language to a state--which
can manage processes in a descriptive presentation.
A second concern exemplified in the excerpt is the problem that Sapir dealt with under drift.
Here too Humboldt is not dogmatic. He does not hypostatize; he would probably have
objected to the notion of therapeutic sound change. He simply suggests that a principle can be
noted; he discusses its functioning in language and leaves it up to others to make use of this
guideline in their efforts to understand language.
The excerpt also illustrates Humboldt's well-known concern with typology. Like that of the
Schlegel brothers, this was to be overwhelmed by the concentration on genealogical
classification. The types were not exact enough to arouse enthusiasm. In discussing them,
Humboldt does not propose that they are to be rated against one another, but rather against
their adequacy in meeting the varied demands of the human intellect. Nor does he relate any
type to historical progress or to stages of culture. The aim was simply to understand language.
Other ideas are discussed more fully in other widely cited sections of the monograph such as
the eighth on form [in which Humboldt asserts that language is not a finished product (ergon)
but rather an activity (energeia)] and the eleventh on the inner form of language. These have
been cited especially in connection with the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Humboldt held that the
structure of a language reflects the culture of its speaker and that the differences between
languages parallel those between speakers, but he did not specify the parallels nor did he
insist that it was the language which brings about the differences. These views on the close
relation between language and other components of culture appeal especially to linguists such
as Weisgerber and his associates, who object to a purely mechanistic approach to language.
Humboldt's primary publications dealt with language, but he was interested in the humanities
in general. A close friend of Schiller and an early commentator on Goethe, Wilhelm von
Humboldt (1767-1835) belonged to the leading intellectual groups of his day. Though he
studied political science, he devoted himself to his interests in literature and esthetics until
1801 when he entered service with the Prussian state; repelled subsequently by its reactionary
policies, he returned to his private pursuits in 1819. He was proclaimed for his knowledge of
languages, among them Basque, which he made known among linguists. Although he did not
travel as widely as his younger brother, Alexander (1769-1859), his control over languages
extended beyond those of Europe, as illustrated in the references of the excerpt. Like the
ancient Kawi language of Java, to the grammar of which the monograph is an introduction,
languages were of primary interest to Humboldt for his chief concern, the relation of language
and culture.
19. On the Primary Differences between Languages in Accordance with the Purity
of Their Principle of Formation
Since language, as I have already mentioned frequently above, always possesses only an ideal
existence in the heads and spirits of men, never a material one -- even when engraved on
stone or bronze -- and since the force of the languages which are no longer spoken depends
largely on the strength of our own capability to revivify them, to the extent in which we can
still perceive them, in the same way there can never be a moment of true standstill in
language, just as little as in the ceaselessly flaming thought of men. By nature it is a
continuous process of development under the influence of the actual intellectual force of the
speaker. Two periods which must be definitely distinguished arise of course in this process:
the one in which the sound-creating force of the language is still in growth and living activity;
the other in which an apparent standstill takes place after complete formation of at least the
external form of language and then a visible decline of that creative, sensual force follows.
But even from the period of decline new principles of life and new successful reformations of
language can develop, which I will touch on in greater detail below.
In the course of development of language generally, two mutually limiting causes work
together: the principle which originally determines the direction, and the influence of the
material which has already been produced, whose power always stands in reverse relation to
the force of the principle which is asserting itself. There can be no doubt of the presence of
such a principle in each language. Just as a people, or a human capable of thought in general,
adopts elements of a language, in the same way it must combine them into a unity, quite
instinctively and without a clear realization of the process; for without this operation thinking
by means of language in the individual and mutual understanding would be impossible. One
would have to make this very assumption if one could rise to an initial creation of a language.
This unity however can only be that of an exclusively prevailing principle. If this principle
approximates the generally language-forming principle in man to such an extent that this
permits its necessary individualization, and if it penetrates the language in full and
unweakened power, then it will run through all stages of the course of its development to such
an extent that in place of a diminishing power a new power will arise again and again which is
suitable for the continuing course. For it is characteristic of every intellectual development
that its power does not actually die but simply changes in its functions or replaces one of its
organs with another. If however something which is not based on the necessity of the form of
the language is already mixed with the initial principle, or if the principle does not truly
penetrate the sound, or if something which is also wrongly formed joins a not purely organic
material and leads to greater deviation, then a strange power becomes opposed to the natural
course of development, and the language cannot gain new strength through the pursuit of its
course, as should be the case for every proper development of intellectual forces. Here too, as
in the designation of the manifold associations of thought, language needs freedom; and one
can regard it as a secure sign of the purest and most successful linguistic structure if in it the
formation of words and constructions undergoes no other limitations than are necessary to
combine regularity with freedom, that is, to assure for freedom its own existence through
limitation. For the course of development of intellectual capability generally stands in natural
harmony with the correct course of development of language. For since the need of thinking
wakens language in man, in the same way that which flows purely from its conception also by
necessity advances the successful advance of thinking. If however a nation equipped with
such a language would sink into intellectual inertia and weakness for other reasons, it would
be able to work itself out of this state more simply through its language. Conversely the
intellectual capability must find in itself the lever for its development, if it is equipped with a
language deviating from that correct and natural course of development. Then the means
created by this capability will have an effect on the language, not to be sure a creative one,
because its creations can only be the product of its own life-force, but constructing in it,
lending its forms meaning, and permitting a use which it had not placed in them and to which
it would not have led.
We can then determine a difference in the countless variety of current and lost languages
which is of decisive importance for the continuing education of mankind, namely that
between languages which have developed powerfully and consistently from a pure principle
in lawful freedom and those which cannot boast of this advantage. The first are the successful
fruits of the linguistic instinct which flourishes among mankind in manifold exertions. The
latter have a deviant form in which two things combine: lack of strength of the feeling for
language, which always exists in pure form among man originally; and a one-sided
malformation which arises from the situation that to a form of sound which does not by
necessity flow from the language others are combined, attracted by this malformation.
The above investigations provide a guide-line to study this in actual languages and to present
it in simple form, however much one thinks he sees a bewildering mass of detail in them
initially. For we have attempted to show what is important in the highest principles and in this
way to establish points to which linguistic analysis can be raised. However much this path
may still be clarified and smoothed, one comprehends the possibility of finding in each
language the form from which the character of its structure flows; one can also see in the
material sketched above the measure of its advantages and its deficiencies.
If I have succeeded in depicting the inflectional method in its total perfection, in showing how
it alone provides the true, inner firmness for the word with regard to the intellect and the ear,
and at the same time distinguishing securely the parts of the sentence in accordance with the
necessary intertwining of thoughts, then there is no question that it exclusively preserves in
itself the pure principle of linguistic structure. Since it takes each element of speech in its
twofold value, in its objective meaning and its subjective relationship to the thought and
language, and designates this double relationship in its proportional weight through forms of
sound designed for the purpose, it increases the most original essence of speech, articulation
and symbolization, to its highest grades. Accordingly the question can only be, in which
languages this method is preserved most consistently, completely and freely. No real language
may have reached the pinnacle. But above we saw a difference of grade between Sanskrit and
the Semitic languages: in the latter, inflection in its truest and most unmistakable form and
connected with the finest symbolization, yet not carried through all parts of the language and
limited through more or less accidental laws--the bisyllabic word form--the vowels used
exclusively for designation of inflection--the hesitation about compounding; in the first,
inflection preserved against every suspicion of agglutination through the firmness of the word
unity, carried through all parts of the language and prevailing in it in the highest freedom.
Compared with the process of incorporation and loose attachment without a true word unity,
the method of inflection seems to be a principle of genius, proceeding from the true intuition
of the language. For while such languages are anxiously concerned with uniting the individual
entity into a sentence, or with representing the sentence immediately unified, the method of
inflection indicates directly the components in accordance with a particular thought
construction, and by its nature cannot separate the relationship of a component to the thought
in speech. A weakness of the languageforming instinct at times does not permit the method of
inflection to go over to the sound, as in Chinese, and at other times not to prevail freely and
alone, as in the languages which individually follow the process of incorporation. The effect
of the pure principle can however be checked also through one-sided malformation, when an
individual form of construction, as for example the specification of the verb by means of
modifying prefixes in Malay, becomes prevalent to the neglect of all others.
However different the deviations from the purest principle may be, every language can still be
characterized for the extent to which the lack of designations for relationship is visible in it,
and the attempt to add them and raise them to inflections, and the expedient of characterizing
as a word what speech ought to present as a sentence. From the mixture of these principles
will proceed the essence of such a language, but as a rule an even more individual form will
develop from the application of them. For where the full energy of the guiding force does not
preserve the proper equilibrium, there a part of the language readily attains a disproportionate
development with unfairness to others. From this and other circumstances individual
excellences can also arise in languages in which one cannot otherwise recognize the character
of being excellently suited organs of thought. No one can deny that Chinese of the old style
carries an impressive dignity through the fact that only weighty concepts join one another
directly, and in this way it attains a simple greatness by seeming to escape to pure thought
through speech in discarding all unnecessary secondary relationships. The real Malay is not
unjustly praised because of its ease and the great simplicity of its constructions. The Semitic
languages preserve an admirable art of fine distinctions of meaning through many vowel
gradations. Basque possesses in its word formation and in its constructions a special strength
which proceeds from brevity and boldness of expression. Delaware and other American
languages combine into a single word a number of concepts, for the expression of which we
would need many. But all of these examples only prove that the human intellect, however
unbalanced the course it may take, can always produce something great and productive of
fruitfulness and enthusiasm. These individual points do not decide the preeminence of
languages to one another. The true preeminence of a language is simply to develop from a
principle and in a freedom which make it possible for it to maintain all the intellectual
capabilities of man in vigorous activity, to serve them as a satisfactory organ, and to stimulate
them constantly through the sensuous fullness and intellectual regularity which it preserves.
Everything of benefit to the spirit which can develop from language exists in this formal
characteristic. It is the bed in which the spirit of language can propagate its waves, in the
secure confidence that the sources which they lead him to will never be exhausted. For he
actually glides on it as on an indeterminable depth from which he can draw more and more,
when more has already flowed to him from it. Accordingly this formal measure can be
applied to languages only if one tries to bring them under a general comparison.
CHAPTER SEVEN
RUDOLF VON RAUMER
LINGUISTIC-HISTORICAL CHANGE AND THE
NATURAL-HISTORICAL DEFINITION OF SOUNDS
"Die sprachgeschichtliche Umwandlung und die
naturgeschichtliche Bestimmung der Laute,"
Zeitschrift far die Österreichischen Gymnasien V (1856), 353-73
Editor's Introduction
The great advance in historical linguistics after the early publications of Grimm, Bopp and
others was in knowledge of phonetics. Usually we assume that this increased knowledge
clarified historical problems, as in accounting for the "first set of exceptions in the consonant
shift" -- the retention of the voiceless stops after fricatives, for example in Gothic ist = Lat.
est. But from von Raumer we learn that the influence also went in the other direction, that the
problems which arose in historical linguistics led to an increasing need for competence in
phonetics. In keeping with this need to move away from the "shuffling of letters," von
Raumer set out to arrive at an accurate statement of articulatory phonetics.
The essay presented here recapitulates many of the conclusions presented by von Raumer in
his monograph on Aspiration and the Consonant Shift, published when he was 22. In this he
attempted to clarify the relationship of the Greek stops to the Germanic; he concluded that ph
th kh were aspirates, like the related bh dh gh in Sanskrit. By this clarification he defined with
greater precision the variety of sounds that Grimm combined in his aspiratae. He also made
the suggestion for which Grassmann later was given credit -- that Sanskrit never shows
aspiration in two successive syllables: Aspiration and the Consonant Shift p. 74, § 64: "For
since Sanskrit never aspirates two successive syllables, one can assume as the original form of
bud' with equal justification b'ud'. Then biudan would simply be the usual transition of b' to
b." But this insight of von Raumer's was not noted by his contemporaries. Apparently review
of all the relevant examples, as by Grassmann, was necessary to attract the notice of linguists.
In devoting attention to phonetics, von Raumer dealt with the spoken dialects, citing the
pronunciation of Low German, Bavarian, Swabian variants. This attention to the dialects was
followed by specific concentration on them, as his concern with phonetics led to the definitive
treatments of Sievers and Jespersen at the end of the century.
Rudolf von Raumer (1815-1876) had a quiet career, completing his studies at the University
of Erlangen and holding a position there until his death. With a chair at a university which
was not a center for linguistic study he was somewhat of a loner, who did not participate in
the struggles between the traditional grammarians and the more rigorous linguists. Possibly
his aloof position also led to the neglect of his writings. Both in content and style, however,
they seem more modern than most linguistic works of his time. In spite of his problems in
developing a linguistic vocabulary and his occasional faulty reasoning (as in his interpretation
of Gothic þ as an aspirate) we consider him one of the important contributors to the
developing methodology of historical linguistics.
Foreword
Through the discoveries of historical linguistic investigaon, the significance of phonetics has
been placed in a new light. The more the importance of phonetics becomes recognized, the
more apparent becomes the need to understand as clearly and precisely as possible its subject
matter, namely the sounds themselves. This understanding, insofar it is in the sphere of direct
observation, lies in the area of the physical sciences. Therefore it is highly desirable that
important scientists should devote themselves to the study of this subject. Among the many
valuable studies, which have been recently undertaken in this area, I intend to dwell only upon
those which Johannes Müller and Ernst Brücke have achieved for a determination and
arrangement of the sounds of language. Investigations of this type need above all a common
solid foundation. And exactly that has been furnished by Brücke's publication1
in a manner as
clear as it is accessible. Only after agreement has been reached on such a basis can one
discuss the more complex and deep-seated questions of scientific as well as historical
investigation of sounds. If in regard to some of these questions I maintain previously proposed
findings opposed to Brücke's views, I ask that this not be considered as personal obstinacy. I
have subjected my assertions to a renewed careful examination. But the result of this
examination has only convinced me anew, that my views concerning aspiration and the sound
shift, stated in 1837, are essentially correct. The relationship, however, in which this
particular sound development stands to the various types of sound change in general, will be
clarified partly by the following treatise, partly by comparison of it with my other linguistic
works.
I. The Natural-historical Determination of Sounds
1. The natural-historical determination of sounds must first devote itself solely to the sounds
of the present as object of immediate observation. The chief aim of such observation is the
manner of utterance of the sounds. Differences, which the ear perceives or believes it
perceives, are not to be dismissed. But in the realm of precise natural-historical observation
they are only then to be dealt with, when one can establish with certainty their diversity of
production.2
2. We distinguish primarily the tones of the human voice and the sounds of human speech.
The tones are produced through the vibration of the vocal cords in the glottis; the sounds are
produced through the deflection of the exhaled airstream against the organs lying between the
epiglottis and the lips. Of the tones produced in the glottis, one distinguishes between loud
and soft speech (vox clandestina). Loud speech is produced when we accompany utterance of
sound, as far as it is possible, with tones from the vocal cords. Soft speech is produced when
we speak without simultaneous sounding of the vocal cords. We accompany soft speech too
with a noise, differing from the production of sounds, which we can clearly perceive
especially in whispering the vowels.3
3. The sounds are divided into classes on the basis of three different criteria, namely 1)
according to the position of the organs, 2) according to the type of air influx, 3) according to
the organs, by which they are produced.
4. According to the position of the speech organs, the sounds are divided into 1) those which
require for their utterance a complete closure of the organs (stops, literae explosivae), and 2)
those which are produced without a complete closure of the organs (continuants, literae
continuae4
). The latter sounds are divided again into those, which are produced by air passing
through such a narrow passage, that the noise of air deflection becomes clearly audible
(consonantal continuants, consonantes continuae) and those for which, because of the
wideness of the opening this is not the case (vowels).
5. The second criterion of classification is the type of air influx. Usually one divides the
consonants into hard and soft, so that, for example, the German p is called hard, the b soft,
and likewise ß (in gießen) hard, and the s (in sagen, Wesen) soft. The objection is raised
against this division, however, that it is wavering and without clearly fixed limits, for what
one person calls hard, another will consider soft. Another criterion has therefore been
advanced, which provides a definite limit, namely whether the tone of the voice can be
combined with the utterance of a sound or not. Sounds are accordingly divided into voiced
and voiceless. The difference is most noticeable in the pronunciation of some continuants, for
example, the s and the ß. While one sustains the (so-called soft) s, one can simultaneously
produce a singing tone; as soon as one passes to the (hard or sharp) ß, however, the singing
tone immediately ceases. This difference, which was known already by the old Indian
grammarians, is an excellent criterion, because it replaces an uncertain and indefinable
difference for the ear with a certain and verifiable distinction in utterance. But since the tone
of the voice only accompanies the sound and is not essential to it, one will do better by
seeking the reason why it becomes impossible for certain sounds to combine with the tone of
the voice, and then to take this cause as the criterion for distinction. This cause, however, is
none other than this: certain sounds are produced by blowing (flare), while others are formed
through breathing (halare). But blowing and singing exclude one another; one can convince
himself of this at once, if one tries to sustain a singing tone when one passes from breathing to
blowing.5
The difference then that one designates by voiceless and voiced6
I would prefer to
express by blown (literae flatae) and breathed (literae halatae).7
6. Concerning the division of the sounds according to the organs or the places of articulation,
I refer to Brücke's exhaustive presentation; for illustration, however, I wish to give at this
point merely a survey of the common stops and spirants (consonantes continuae spirantes) of
the general New High German language. I limit myself to these two classes, because
primarily they are to be considered in the course of this paper. I append the column for vowels
merely in order to indicate the position of the consonantal continuants between the stops and
the vowels.
Place of
Articulation
Stops
(Explosivae)
Consonantal
Continuants
(Conson. continuae)
Vowels
(all halatae)
blown
(flatae)
(= voiceless)
breathed
(halatae)
(= voiced)
blown
(flatae)
breathed
(halatae)
are not always
assignable to
individual places of
articulation with the
same certainty as the
consonants.
I. Throat
sounds
(gutterales)
k g ch (in Sache,
Brücke's X²)
II. Palatal
sounds
(palatales)
ch (in Sichel,
Brücke's X¹)
j (in jeder)
III. Cerebral
sounds
(cerebrales)
sch (in schön)
IV. Dental
sounds
(dentales)
t d ß (in gießen) s (in sagen,
Wesen)
V. Labial
sounds
(labiales)
p b f w² (= French V)
w¹ (the u in
Quelle)
This table of the common stops and spirants of the general New High German language
conforms to the one given in my paper on aspiration and the sound shift. Only in one single
instance do I disagree thereby with Brücke, in reference to the cerebral sibilant (sch in
schoen). I have repeated the experiments, which in conjunction with the old Indian grammar,
disposed me to assign this sound to the cerebrals, and they have only convinced me again that
its place of articulation lies between that of ch (in Sichel, Brücke's X¹) and that of ß (and s).
One can convince himself of this fact, if one produces our spirants, one after another with vox
clandestina, whether the sequence be from back to front or from front to back. One may first
narrow the air passage in one such sequence by beginning with the ch in Sache, passing then
to that in Sichel, thereupon to the sch and finally the ß. Immediately upon reaching the ß, one
should reurn to the sch. It will be very easy to notice that the place of ariculation of the sch
lies somewhat farther back than that of the ß. This is the most usual pronunciation of the NHG
sch. The determination of this sound becomes somewhat complicated, however, in that there
is a third sibilant besides ß and sch, which is pronounced somewhat farther back than the
usual German sch. Sanskrit has this sound in the palatal sibilant श, according to Bopp's
designation ʼs. It is produced by approaching the palate with the tongue in the same area,
where we pronounce the ch in Sichel. But while we hold the part of the tongue, which lies in
front of the place of articulation, as far as possible from the palate in pronouncing ch (in
Sichel), in pronouncing the palatal sibilant we must approach the palate with the tongue.
Through a gradual transition from the positioning of the organs of articulation of the palatal
sibilant (श, s̓) to that of the pure cerebral sibilant (ष = s̒, sh, sch), we obtain an uninterrupted
series of traditional sibilants lying between the palatal s̓ and the cerebral s̒. A portion of our
fellow-countrymen use these sibilants in place of the pure cerebral s̒ (= sh, sch).
II. The Historical-Linguistic Change of Sounds
1. In the course of time the words of language have changed their sounds. So much is certain
and, moreover, this is one of the most important facts for the history of languages. We
ascertain that the sounds of words have changed when we compare the older state of
languages with the more recent. The process of the change itself however has not yet been
investigated enough. If we penetrate deeper into the darkness which in many ways veils these
questions, we find a huge multitude of highly different processes at work. And that is even
more troublesome, we find that to isolate these processes becomes even more difficult,
because often quite heterogeneous occurrences lead to almost the same result.
2. When the change of languages and especially of language sounds is spoken of, there are
almost immediately references to the "spirit of the language" and its wonders. I have no intent
whatsoever of deprecating the profundity with which the more recent research distinguishes
itself. But I think it is about time that we turn our attentions to reality and its phenomena with
clear and impartial minds. When we do, we find that the "spirit of the language" in itself and
apart from people does nothing, but rather that all changes in language actually are produced
by the people. To just what extent their production is really a product of man remains a matter
of conjecture. It is enough that the changes themselves are objects of observation as soon as
they become apparent.
3. If first of all we direct our observation to that which happens before our very eyes, or
better, before our ears, we will discern the following facts:
1) Every single person changes his speech in the course of his life. As a child, before the
complete development of his speaking ability, he speaks many words with sounds, which he
later abandons. If he attains an old age and loses his teeth, not only does the sharpness of his
articulation disappear, but also in more than one instance real modifications of the previously
pronounced sounds become apparent.
2) From this alone it follows that not even a single family, which consists of old people, adults
and children, speaks one and the same language.
3) But even the adults among themselves never have exactly the same language, not even
phonetically. This follows necessarily from the principle of individuation. Every human being
has his own peculiarly formed organs of speech as well as his own particular facial features.
Now the production of sounds is conditioned by the form of the speech organs, which confine
the sound-producing air stream. Therefore, although our ear does not perceive the resultant
difference, it is nevertheless present. But in many cases our ear is very readily able to detect
the difference.
4) A further and not infrequently occurring difference results from the fact, that one person
articulates a sound at a somewhat different place than another, and therefore, strictly
speaking, actually produces an entirely different sound.
4. If we consider the possibilities which could result from the above discussed differences
among relatively great numbers of people, we find them to be of most varied kinds. If the
change of a sound heard in an individual's speech is caused by the inability of the vocal
organs to produce the heard sound, this individual is forced to face the particular change
wherever the sound in question occurs. Let us consider then an entire family, or an even larger
social group consisting only of individuals which suffer from the foresaid disability. The
sound pronounced earlier will necessarily disappear in this entire group, and the other sound
will take its place.
On the other hand, however, let us consider a family in which one member, for example the
father, has that peculiarity of speech, but the mother does not. The case may then occur that
the children imitate either the father entirely or the mother. But it can also be that, being
capable of imitating both, the children imitate their father in some words, the mother in
others, and in some words perhaps they waver between one parent and the other.
5. If the change of the heard sound is not based on the inability of the speaker to produce the
sound, but rather only on the fact, that the changed pronunciation is easier for the speech
organs than the traditional one, then usually the results will also be different than in the
previously discussed instances. It is possible then that certain members of the group will
retain the old pronunciation. But since the change is not due to an individual peculiarity of the
speaker, but rather to the mechanism of the human speech organs in general, among the other
members of society it will also be effected, not merely through imitation, but also through the
structure of their own speech organs. This is the case in most instances in which one sound is
altered by the environment of another.
6. A large part of the changes, which the sounds of words undergo in the course of time, can
be accounted for in the ways discussed above. Especially if one remembers in addition, that
the mere inexactness of hearing and speaking causes sound changes, which are very similar to
the four discussed already. We find however another type of alterations belonging to a class
of sound changes different from those previously discussed. And these changes are namely
those in which, firstly, there is no question of mere inexactness of transmission, because they
are immanent within the entire vocabulary or at least a very large part of it. Secondly, in these
changes there exists no inability to produce the earlier sound, because the same sound, which
is abandoned in one place, reappears at another. And thirdly, in these changes it has not been
possible to prove an influence of neighboring sounds as the cause of the change. In this
category belongs the most remarkable sound change in the Germanic languages: the sound
shift of the mutes.8
7. The ways in which one sound changes into another can be twofold. Either a certain sound
changes swiftly into another particular sound, or it passes gradually through a continuous
series of intermediate sounds. In the case of sound changes through neighboring sounds,
especially among vowels, there is often this gradual transition. For the sound changes
discussed under number 6, this gradual transition is especially applicable.
8. It is naturally not my intention above to exhaust the diverse types of sound change.
Otherwise, sound change through analogy, for example, would also have to be treated. But I
would prefer to reserve this and other related questions for another occasion.
III. Which Means Do We Have at Our Command for Investigating Sound Changes?
1. We are not speaking here of the confirmation of the fact, that the sounds of words have
changed. Neither is it a question of the form of words in one language or another. Rather, we
are concerned about the process itself, by which the one form of words and sounds has
replaced the other.
2. Neither is it a matter here of how word forms, which were already present in the spoken
language, came to be taken into the written language. We are asking, rather, how one form of
a word replaced another in the spoken language itself.
3. Although the question then about this process itself is different from the question
concerning sounds which in one language are to be found in place of others in another
language; the research on the latter question forms the basis for the investigation of the
former. Indeed the excellent activity in the realm of comparative phonology and its admirable
results lead us to believe that we shall also be successful in getting more clues about the
above-mentioned processes. It is our very worthy linguists, whom we have to thank for the
many results, and whose work has laid the foundation for all further investigations. Above all,
it has been the comparative studies of the Indo-Germanic languages which have paved the
way for us. I mention only the works of Rask, Bopp and Pott concerning the connection of the
Asiatic and the European branches of the Indo-Germanic languages, the epochal Germanic
grammar of Jakob Grimm, and the research in the Romance languages by Diez, in the Slavic
languages by Miklosich and Schleicher, in the Celtic languages by Zeuß.
4. All of these works not only furnish the material for the investigation of sound change, but
they also pave the way to this objective through the contributions, which they make toward
the solution to what Diez, in the second edition of his Grammar of the Romance languages,
has recently accomplished in this field. In fact the works of Diez quite clearly direct our
attention toward both points; research must now be primarily focussed on these. The first of
these is the investigation of the living dialects in the most specific and the most general sense
of the word, and secondly, the physiological investigation of not only the living languages,
but also of the languages no longer spoken.
5. Besides the very worthwhile treatment of dialects of entire ethnic groups, the investigation
of living dialects will have to concern itself above all with the most accurate examination and
representation possible of the particular diction of individuals. These studies will give us the
possibility of drawing conclusions from the thousand-fold synchronic diversity on the
diachronic succession.9
6. The second requisition: the investigation of sounds in nonliving languages is always
attended by great difficulties. And yet this inquiry is the indispensable pre-condition if we
want to advance from the mere demonstration of alphabetical modification to the
investigation of sound change. The means at our command for converting the written letters
of old languages into living sounds are quite diverse. To some extent they are provided in the
structure of the languages themselves. Physiological and euphonic sound changes within the
language concerned also offer numerous clues. Moreover, there is the value of the sounds in
meter, which gives us so much information, especially in the classical languages and Sanskrit,
and their positions in rhyme, which is so important for many languages of the Middle Ages.
We do not want to review here all of the particular aids for determining the sounds of dead
languages: the introduction of individual words in other languages, their transcription in
another alphabet, and so forth. Rather, we shall limit ourselves to emphasizing only two
means of determination relevant to the old chief languages of the Indo-Germanic family: the
statements of the old native grammarians and the linguistic-historical change of the sounds
themselves.
7. The importance of the old grammarians for determining the sounds is generally recognized.
The general complaint, however, is that their assertions are partially ambiguous and partially
difficult to understand. It is evident that this complaint is not entirely without foundation, in
that the most discerning and candid scholars have arrived at quite different conclusions in
many of the most important points. It should be pointed out, however, that the Indian
grammarians are incomparably more accurate, more comprehensible and more explicit in
their definition of sounds than the Greeks, who are in their own way also quite discriminating.
8. When I designate the historical-linguistic change of sounds as one of the means for
determining sounds no longer spoken, I must first protest against a misunderstanding. In
reference to Max Müller's estimable article on the languages in the area of the oriental war,
Brücke says:10
"It must be noted that Max Müller considers the e and o to be diphthongs
which differ from the true diphthongs, like the English J and ou in out only in degree. It is
hardly comprehensible how a man of Max Müller's intelligence could defend such an error,
however widely accepted, after he had read the investigations of Willis. The cause of this
particular error is, as it appears to me, another error of even greater range, which he
unfortunately shares with many other linguists. They believe that the nature of a speech sound
can only be determined by historical and comparative philological research, for only this can
be meant by the author when he refers to theoretical analysis. This determines how sounds
replace one another at different times and among different peoples. But even if this occurred
according to more immutable laws than it actually does, even then the analysis of individual
sounds with regard to the conditions, under which they arise would be left to direct
observation and scientific experiments." I subscribe fully to this statement of the discerning
physiologist, and wish moreover that he would some day subject to a scientific examination
the definition of sounds found in our otherwise quite laudable grammatical works. He would
encounter there a great number of things which are almost more incredible than the above
cited views of Max Müller11
concerning the alleged diphthongal nature of the Sanskrit ē and
ō. I have therefore no intention of wanting to determine the nature of sounds according to
linguistic-historical processes that would be contradictory to natural-historical observation.
What I assert is rather: When we are uncertain about which sound is expressed by the symbol
of a non-living language, among other arguments we can consider the question: What
development has the sound of this symbol undergone in the course of linguistic history? From
the answer to this question we can draw conclusions on the nature of the old sound. It is quite
apparent, that by this method we would never enter into conflict with scientific conditions of
sound production. For our entire investigation is to serve only the purpose of finding the
historically true sound belonging to the symbol among the many scientifically possible ones. I
shall demonstrate this with an example. Old High German had two i's, a short and a long.
Etymologically, the short i corresponds to a Gothic (short) i; the long one to a Gothic ei. For
example, Old High German stilu (furor) is in Gothic stila (with a short i); on the other hand,
Old High German stîgu (scando, with long i) is in Gothic steiga. Now if someone should want
to conclude that the OHG î is a diphthong, because it came from Gothic ei, then he would be
guilty of the error of Max Müller, which Brücke rightfully criticizes above. If he says
however: "The OHG i is long, where it corresponds etymologically with a Gothic ei; but
where it stands in the position of a Gothic i (always short) it is short," then he will be right,
insofar as direct proofs contrary to this assumption can not be adduced from elsewhere.
IV. The Natural-Scientific Determination of the Aspirates and the Germanic Sound-
Shift
1. One of the most remarkable sound changes in the entire area of Indo-Germanic languages
is the transformation which the mutes have undergone in the Germanic branch of this great
language family. This transformation is not only among the most remarkable because it is one
of the most important for etymological research, but rather because it runs through an entire
family of sounds with amazing regularity and, moreover, has occurred in the course of
centuries not once, but twice, according to the very same principles. This transformation, to
which Jacob Grimm gave the name "sound shift," consists therein, as is well-known, that the
Germanic languages of the Gothic stage have a tenuis in place of a Greek media, and in place
of a Greek tenuis, an aspirata, and finally in place of a Greek aspirata, they have a media. But
the same transformation, which Gothic experienced in relation to Greek, Old High German
undergoes a second time in relation to Gothic. In spite of all restrictions and exceptions,
which the course of this development undergoes, we have accordingly in this transformation a
process which is undeniably based on the nature of these sounds.
2. In order to comprehend the progress of this development, however, it is absolutely
necessary to determine correctly the nature of the sounds concerned in it. The tenues or blown
(= voiceless) stops cause us no difficulty. The languages still living today have them as well
as the dead languages, and the essential agreement of our k, t, p with the Old Greek k, t, p is
not disputed. The mediae would give us somewhat more difficulty, if at the outset we have to
attempt to determine relatively exactly the meaning of this concept, which the Old Greek
grammarians identify with the expression mésa. For the moment, however, we can put aside
this investigation, for the specific peculiarities of Greek pronunciation are not our concern in
dealing with the law of the sound shift, but rather the sounds, which in the original Greek
stage etymologically corresponded to the Gothic tenues, were the breathed (= voiced, = soft)
stops, accordingly in the main our g, d, b.
3. The difficulty lies in the determination of the sound of aspirates. Twenty-one years ago I
made the attempt to grasp the law of the sound shift more accurately by proceeding beyond
the mere etymological comparison of letters and trying to penetrate into the historicalphysiological
process of the sound change itself.12
Among the results of this investigation was
a more exact determination of the Greek and Sanskrit aspirates, a precise distinction of them
from mere spirants (friction noises) and the proof, that precisely the aspirates played a major
role in the process of the sound shift, a role, which the spirants, being quite different from the
aspirates, were incapable of assuming. The main difference between aspirates and spirants
was found to be, that the aspirate was a stop (explosiva) with after-sounding, while the spirant
is a continual sound (continua), produced not through the closure, but rather through the mere
constricting of the speech organs.
4. Now after many years of further research I would, of course, modify in many respects the
views which I expressed in my article of 1837. Yet I still hold to the entire course of the
investigation as well as to its essential conclusions, believing I can refute everything which
has been said against my findings. The conclusions published by me would receive the
strongest blow if the views which a perceptive physiologist recently postulated concerning the
nature of the old aspirates had any basis. For Brücke is of the opinion in his article mentioned
frequently above, that the old aspirates, the Indian as well as the Greek, were merely fricatives
(spirantes). He attempts to support his opinion with the most diverse arguments, and I feel
myself obliged, therefore, to analyze more closely his argumentation.
5. We shall first discuss the Sanskrit aspirates. Here Brücke begins his exposition with an
argument, which he draws from the orthographical designation of the Sanskrit aspirates. "In
the Dêvanâgarî," he says, "their signs have nothing in common with those of the respective
stops; only the sign for t² (t of the cerebral group) has an unmistakable resemblance with that
of its aspirate. This must be pointed out, because the almost complete lack of correlation of
the signs is not entirely without importance for the evaluation of the nature of the sound."13
To the same degree as the latter is of importance precisely for the Dêvanâgarî, Brücke's
argument will obviously refute his own views, as soon as the signs for the unaspirated stops
reveal themselves to be in evident correlation with the signs for the corresponding aspirates.
With a great number of signs, however, this correlation is not subject to the least doubt, and
moreover is restricted by no means merely to the t of the cerebral series. One glance at the
Dêvanâgarî signs will convince us of this fact. Let us compare in the guttural series क (ka)
and ख (kha), in the palatal series ज (ja) and झ (jha), and in the labial series प (pa) and फ
(pha). How one wants to explain the origin of this similarity depends naturally on the views
one has in general on the origin and development of the Dêvanâgarî.
According to the present grammatical tradition of the Indians, "each aspirate is pronounced
like its corresponding non-aspirate, but with an accompanying, clearly perceptible h.
Consequently one may not pronounce ख (k̒) like a German ch, फ (p̒) not like f, or थ (t̒) like an
English th; but according to Colebrooke ख (k̒) is read like kh in inkhorn, फ (p̒) like ph in
haphazard, and थ (t̒) like th in nuthook. The relationship is the same with the other
aspirates."14
Even Brücke cannot deny this. He is of the opinion, however, that the present
pronunciation of the Sanskrit aspirates is not the original, that they were rather mere fricatives
(spirants): ख (k̒) sounded like our ch in Spruch, फ (p̒) like f and so forth.15
To determine whether this is in fact true, we shall have to consult the older Indian
grammarians. In the annotation to Pânini's Grammar we find a survey of the Sanskrit letters
with indication of the manner of production in regard to the several speech organs as well as
the position of these organs.16
Here all of the aspirates k̒, g̒, etc., as well as the corresponding
non-aspirated stops are counted among the letters, whose utterance requires sprista, that is, the
contact of the organs.17
I would not know, how one could any more clearly characterize the
nature of the stops. But perhaps Brücke wants to maintain that the annotations to Pânini are
not old enough for him, rather that they stood under the influence of that later change in the
pronunciation of the Indian aspirates which was assumed by him. Let us look then for the
earliest evidence of Indian grammar. In the Prâtisâkhya of the Rigvêda a representation of the
sounds of Sanskrit has been preserved, which leads us quite far back in Indian antiquity. The
very alphabet which precedes the first patala shows us how closely the aspirates were
associated with the corresponding non-aspirates even in those very earliest times. For the
letters are represented in such a way, that every aspirate forms a single word with the
corresponding non-aspirate, which, through the dual ending (au), indicates the copulative
composition of both letter-names. Thus ka and k̒a are joined to form the word kak̒au, ga and
g̒a to form the word gag̒au, and so on.18
Decisive, however, is the naming and definition of the
aspirates in this old grammatical work. For the ten Sanskrit aspirates (k̒, g̒, c̒́, g̒́, ṭ̒ , ḍ̒ , t̒, d̒, p̒, b̒)
are brought together with the ten corresponding unaspirated stops and the five nasal
consonants under the expression spars̓âs. This expression comes from the same word spris̓
(tangere), to which the word spris̒ta (contact) in the annotations to Pânini belongs. All of these
sounds, including the aspirates, are accordingly designated as contact sounds by the old
grammarian and are quite expressly distinguished from the semi-vowels (j, r, l, v) and the
breathed sounds (ûs̒mâ), to which h and the sibilants are ascribed. As a clinching argument,
one old annotation interprets the passage to the effect, that the spars̓âs are the letters in the
utterance of which the speech organs touch one another.19
For all fifteen sounds, which with
the aspirates form one and the same class, there is no doubt of this contact; for also in the
nasal consonants the actual speech organs are entirely closed and only the nasal passage
remains open. It is therefore quite clear what the old grammarian means with the designation
spars̓âs contact sounds. Furthermore there can accordingly be no doubt, that also the aspirates
were produced in his time through actual contact of the speech organs, that is, as stops.
I believe herewith to have given the proof, that the Sanskrit aspirates were stops, and it only
remains to put in its right place an argument especially emphasized by Brücke. Max Müller
says in the above-mentioned publication:20
"According to the Sanskrit grammarians we
produce the aspirate as a modified tenuis, and not as a double consonant, in that we begin to
pronounce the tenuis, but instead of breaking it off sharply, we allow it to be produced with
what they call the corresponding wind (flatus, incorrectly rendered as sibilans)." From this
Brücke wants to conclude:21
"Let us first turn our attention to this passage,"22
he says, "so far
as it is concerned with the tenuis aspirates, that is, the voiceless aspirates. So far it does not
give cause for the slightest doubt, since Max Müller mentions on p. 27, that the fricatives are
called winds by the Sanskrit grammarians. In this passage the derivation of the voiceless
fricatives from the voiceless stops is described. No one could invent a description of such
simplicity and truth, if these fricative sounds did not exist in the language. The present
pronunciation of the voiceless aspirates is consequently not the original." Rather according to
him, the Sanskrit aspirates must have been voiceless fricatives, namely ख (k̒a), our ch in
Spruch, छ (c̒́a) our ch in sprich, etc.
This entire argument, however, seems to me to suffer from an inner contradiction. Even
according to Brücke, the Indian grammarians have a clear and correct concept of the
fricatives. They classify the sibilants, the h and a few others as belonging to these fricatives
(ûs̒mâ, a term of the Indian grammarians, rendered wind by Max Müller). But precisely the
aspirates, which are our concern here, they do not include, but rather classify them among the
spars̓âs, that is, sounds which require complete contact of the speech organs. What could be
clearer, than that the Sanskrit aspirates were, in fact, not fricatives (spirants, ûs̒mânas), but
rather stops?
As concerns the description of their production, which Max Müller passes on to us from the
Indian grammarians, surprisingly enough it agrees completely with the statement I gave of the
Old Greek aspirates twenty-one years ago. According to the description of the Indian
grammarian, we have a Tenuis with a following, yet incompletely developed spirant, which,
as regards the organs concerned, corresponds to the Tenuis. Twenty-one years ago I proposed
to represent this undeveloped spirant with a proposed ħ and delineated the sound in question
as follows:
Non-aspirated Mutes Spirants
p b f v
t d ß s
k g ch (spruch) hh
From these result the hard aspirates pħv, tħs, kħhh. If the following spirant develops
completely, then we obtain the double consonant pf, tß (new High German z) and kch, which
still occurs in many dialects of German-speaking Switzerland. The difference between the
aspirate and the corresponding double consonant is this: with the double consonants (pf, tß,
kch), after production of the Tenuis the speech organs are brought into the steady position,
which is necessary for the utterance of the clearly developed spirant. They are held in this
position for a time, so that the spirant produced by it is distinguished from the preceding
tenuis as a separately articulated sound. Because the speech organs have this steady position,
one can also hold them there as long as one likes and, for example, make the uninterrupted
sound: pfffff, tßßßßß and so on. The situation is quite different, however, with the
undeveloped after-sounding of the aspirates. This is produced only through the slow opening
of the organs after the closure of the Tenuis. The organs do not remain for one moment in the
same position. Therefore no clearly determined, separable sound can be produced; and just so,
this sound, which is involved in a continuous change from the time of its origin until it fades
away, cannot be maintained steadily. For it begins with the point of opening and ends with
such an expansion of the speech organs, that the stream of flowing air no longer makes
audible friction.
In order to make myself as clear as possible, I have restricted myself intentionally to the
simplest circumstances.
6. I have already treated the nature of the Old Greek aspirates quite extensively in my work
concerning aspiration and the sound shift.23
From the agreement of the Old Greek
grammarians with the development of the sounds within the Greek language itself as well as
in the relationship of Greek to the other Indo-Germanic languages, I demonstrated the Greek
aspirates to be the sounds already given in the previous paragraph: pħv, tħs, kħhh. I would not
know very much to add to what I said then and I confess that Brücke's publication, which in
other respects is highly instructive, has not shaken me the least in my convictions on this
point. Brücke starts out from the fact that the Old Greek grammarians intended the same
distinction with their division of the letters into phōnḗenta and áphōna, as he makes in
connection with the Indian grammarians between voiced and voiceless sounds. But just one
condition should have prevented him from making this assumption. The Old Greek grammar
does not merely have phōnḗenta and áphōna but also hēmíphōna. Now what shall we do with
these? By Brücke's view they must have been intermediary between voiced and voiceless
sounds. Admittedly there is no such thing. We maintain the assumption therefore that
reproduces phōnḗenta as vocales, hēmíphōna as semivocales, and áphōna as mutae. By
vocales, the vowels are understood; by semivocales those sounds, which are formed through
the narrowing of the speech organs. The division of the latter into khilá (tenues), daséa
(aspiratae), and mésa (mediae) we explain as follows: grámma khilón designates the letter,
whose sound is cut off sharply without after-sounding; dasú designates the stop with a strong
air gust after the opening of the closure; finally méson designates a sound, which to be sure
does not have the strong after-sounding of grárnma dasú, nor also the sharp cutting off of all
after-sounding like the grámma khilón. From this assumption one can best explain the
development, which not only the daséa, but also the mésa have undergone in New Greek.
7. If we take these results as a basis, which the investigation of the Sanskrit and Old Greek
aspirates has furnished us, we find that our present High German language actually does not
have any aspirates. The essence of the aspirates consisted therein, that it was a stop with an
undeveloped after-sounding. In this class our f, ß, and ch (in sprich as well as in Spruch) do
not belong. For they are continuant sounds (continuae), produced through narrowing, not
closure of the speech organs. Neither are our pf and our z (= tß) aspirates. To be sure, they
begin with a stop, but do not follow this with such an only half-developed after-sounding as
we described above (§ 5), but rather a clear, fully-developed spirant. Our pf and z are
therefore double sounds, which the Indian and Greek aspirates were not.
8. The Germanic languages of the Gothic stage no longer have a guttural aspirate; of the
labial, they have preserved only a small part, and these medially. On the other hand, they have
the dental aspirate initially as well as medially. The h and f, which these languages have in the
positions where we might normally expect aspirates, are not aspirates but spirants. A remnant
of the labial aspirates, Old Saxon possesses in its medial ƀ. All of the older Germanic
languages of the Gothic stage have the dental aspirate th (þ). It has, however, been partly lost
in the modern languages such as Swedish, Danish, and Low German; in others its change and
eventual loss has been going on for centuries, as in English, which still shows a slight trace of
the genuine old aspirate only in those instances, where the pronunciation of the th begins with
the stop.
9. If we relate what we learn about the nature of the aspirate from the Indian and Greek
grammarians with the results of etymological research, we recognize by a clear example how
a real history of sound changes only results from the combination of scientific determination
of sounds and etymological comparison of words. In place of the Greek and Sanskrit aspirates
we find etymologically the soft (=voiced =breathed) stop in the Germanic languages of the
Gothic stage. For example:
Greek kh = Gothic g (e.g. khéō, Gothic giuta)
Greek th = Gothic d (e.g. thúra Gothic daúr)
Greek ph = Gothic b (e.g. phérō Gothic baíra)
The same change is repeated for the second time in the relationship of High German to the
Germanic languages of the Gothic stage. But only the dental th of the Gothic stage changes to
High German d; the h does not go to g, nor the f to b. While the numerous Gothic th's
consistently become d in High German (Gothic thanjan, High German denen, Gothic thata,
High German daʒ etc.), the h and f remain unchanged (Gothic haubith, High German haupt;
Gothic harjis, High German heer; Gothic fôtus, High German fuß; Gothic faran, High German
fahren). What can be clearer than this process? The true aspirate contains the stop in itself,
which remains after the cessation of its after-sounding. The Greek-Indian aspirates therefore
become soft stops in Gothic, and similarly, centuries later Gothic th becomes High German d.
On the other hand, the spirants h and f do not contain such a stop and consequently do not
become High German g and b, but remain as they are.
10. We still have to show how precisely a media came from the aspirate. There is, of course,
no question of a general necessity. The hard aspirate can also leave the hard stop by giving up
its after-sounding. Such has been the case of the Old Norse th in Swedish. According to a very
widespread but erroneous theory, one is inclined perhaps to say that it is impossible for
aspirates, as we conceive of them, to begin with a soft stop. One will say: "The hard stop
requires a greater amount of air than the soft. Now if the quantity of air pouring forth is
increased further with the aspirate, how can it possibly begin with a soft stop?" But this
argumentation is based on an erroneous physiological assumption. The hardness of the stop is
dependent, to be sure, upon the amount of air emitted, but not upon this alone; it is at the same
time also dependent upon the further condition, that the expelled current of air finds a firm
closure of the speech organs, which can be opened only by strong pressure. If on the other
hand the closure yields somewhat in firmness while the mass of onrushing air pressure either
remains the same or even increases, two phenomena happen, which condition each other. First
of all, a part of the breath rushes out only after the stop is opened and so creates the
circumstances necessary for producing the true aspirate. Secondly, the stop will lose some of
its hardness precisely through this premature yielding of the closure. For only the breath,
which rushes on before the opening of the closure, conditions the hardness of the sound. So
we see almost before our very eyes, the hard, non-aspirated stop (tenuis) gradually becoming
through further intensification, an aspirate with a softer stop. For it is, in fact, the further
strengthening of the breath beyond that of the tenuis, which causes the earlier opening of the
closure. In this way the phonetic-historical series t - th - dh - d can result, as well as, more
directly, the group t - dh - d. Old Saxon provides us with the documentary proofs for the
whole process.
Notes
1. Grundzüge der Physiologie und Systematik der Sprachlaute, by Ernst Brücke. Wien,
1856. [return to text]
2. I agree here with Brücke's views. [return to text]
3. The noise caused by the narrowing of the glottis has been explained thus: "the vocal
cords are not set into motion to produce tone, but rather the air as it passes through
them causes a friction noise" (Brücke, p. 8). If my observation does not mislead me,
this is not exactly the situation. For when one passes from a singing tone to the noise
of whispering, one notices that the latter is not produced at the same point as the
singing tone, but somewhat further up. [return to text]
4. In this expression I deviate somewhat from the usual usage. [return to text]
5. This opposition of blowing and breathing extends far beyond the distinction of sounds,
which is actually only one manifestation of it. There are, moreover, two ways of
whistling, one by breathing, the other by blowing. Whoever whistles by blowing, he
will obstinately maintain that it is impossible to whistle and sing simultaneously. And
he is right, insofar as he is speaking only of his own way of whistling. If, however, his
assertion is extended to every way of whistling, then he will be easily refuted by the
breather-whistler, who will whistle the soprano of a song to him while simultaneously
singing the alto. [return to text]
6. Compare Brücke, pp. 7; 31; 55ff. [return to text]
7. These two classes are distinguished by the possibility of combining the singing tone
with one, which the other does not permit. This is the usual difference in utterance.
We will see, however, that for the hearer these two classes overlap under certain
conditions, in that a soft blowing produces an effect similar to simple breathing.
[return to text]
8. It is naturally not my intention above to exhaust the diverse types of sound change.
Otherwise, sound change through analogy, for example, would also have to be treated.
But I would prefer to reserve this and other related questions for another occasion.
[return to text]
9. I made a suggestion toward this end in Fromanns Deutschen Mundarten, 1857, and
should like to recommend once again this suggestion as well as this most valuable
journal to all those informed about language. [return to text]
10. Grundzüge etc., p. 117. [return to text]
11. It is understood that in these polemics the otherwise very meritorious works of this
excellent linguist are not being impugned. [return to text]
12. Die Aspiration und die Lautverschiebung. Eine sprachgeschichtliche Untersuchung
von Rudolf von Raumer. Leipzig, 1837. [return to text]
13. Brücke, Grundzüge etc., p. 82. [return to text]
14. Bopp, Kritische Grammatik der Sanskrita-Sprache, Berlin, 1834, p. 15 ff. [return to
text]
15. Brücke, p. 83. [return to text]
16. Pâninis acht Bücher grammatischer Regeln, Her. von Böhtlingk. Bd. 1. Bonn, 1839,
p. 3. [return to text]
17. I describe the Dêvanâgarî letters in accordance with Bopp. [return to text]
18. See the edition of this Prâtiçâkhya by Regnier, Études sur la Grammaire védique in
Journal Asiatique. Paris, 1856. Février Mars, p. 169. [return to text]
19. Regnier, op. cit., p. 194. [return to text]
20. The Languages of the Seat of War in the East. London, 1855, p. XXXII. [return to
text]
21. P. 83. [return to text]
22. That is, the just cited words of Max Müller. [return to text]
23. Compare also my publication: Über deutsche Rechtschreibung. (Vienna, 1855), p. 65
ff. [return to text]
24. To repeat the extensive proof, which I gave in my article on aspiration and the sound
shift in support of my view would require that I merely reprint here the greater part of
what I said there. For were I to leave out a single ancient quotation or an associated
argument, then the exposition given there would only lose in effectiveness.
CHAPTER EIGHT
AUGUST SCHLEICHER
INTRODUCTION TO A COMPENDIUM OF THE
COMPARATIVE GRAMMAR OF THE INDO-EUROPEAN,
SANSKRIT, GREEK AND LATIN LANGUAGES
From Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der
Indogermanischen Sprachen (Weimar: Hermann Böhlau, 1871),
xlviii, 829pp., pp. 1-9
Editor's Introduction
Schleicher is generally regarded as totally superseded. Since he flourished immediately before
the neogrammarians, it is scarcely remarkable that their reputation has eclipsed his. Probably
the most commonly maintained segment of his writings is his model for displaying languages,
the family tree, though it too is held to be superseded by other interpretations of language
spread and interrelationships, such as the wave theory. In part Schleicher seems supplanted
because so many of his ideas were taken over by his successors.
1. Even though the Stammbaum in its simple form falsifies language interrelationships,
Sherman Kuhn has pointed out it is the model by which genealogical classifications have been
achieved.
2. The reconstructed form of a proto-language, rather than the earliest known form of a
selected language which has developed from it, is now the accepted way of indicating
linguistic relationships. In Indo-European linguistics Schleicher broke the practice of citing
Sanskrit for this purpose and introduced the starred form.
3. But possibly the most important influence he has had is that on the neogrammarians -- his
aim (credited to them) to account for relationships to the extent possible and then to admit
residues. In his brief sketch of the history of Indo-European linguistics, Compendium 15-16,
he has the following comment:
At present two tendencies confront each other in Indo-European linguistics. The adherents of
the one have taken as their principle strict adherence to sound laws (e.g. G. Curtius in Leipzig,
Corssen in Berlin, the author of this Compendium, and others); the other trend (Benfey in
Göttingen, Leo Meyer in Dorpat, and others) believes that it need not be essentially hindered
in the clarification and explanation of language forms by the sound laws that have been
determined up to now. In this way it is possible for the adherents of the latter trend to explain
many things which seem dark to the others. Particularly from this approach a number of stemforming
suffixes of Indo-European are taken back to a single original form. The two schools
also are importantly differentiated through this procedure. The former accepts as old and
original much that the second permits to be looked on simply as a change of an original and
primitive form. The further historical development of our discipline will show on what side
the certain, truly scientific basis for the future flourishing of linguistics is to be sought.
When one notes that August Leskien assisted in the production of the second edition and with
Johannes Schmidt brought out the third, it is not difficult to recognize one source of
neogrammarian ideas and the continuity of development in linguistics, even though
Schleicher did not sharply formulate a need for complete accounting for phenomena and
explanation of residues.
The Introduction to the Compendium is given here in a translation from the third German
edition, prepared by Herbert Bendall and published by Trübner and Company, London, 1874.
Although one of Schleicher's essays may have been useful in representing his theoretical
views, the introduction may reflect various reasons for Schleicher's importance.
Schleicher looked on language as a whole. His introduction states specifically that linguists
should deal with the construction of sentences -- a statement found again in the excerpt from
Sievers below; but Schleicher also admits that he cannot handle sentences adequately, and
hence he confines himself to sounds and forms. This limitation was largely maintained for the
next eighty years, with the emphasis on phonology that Schleicher introduced.
He also attempted to get away from the detail of language to its form, using for this purpose
formulae. In this attempt he foreshadows the repeated efforts to increase rigor in linguistics.
His formulae for descriptive linguistics, referred to below in the extract from Whitney, were
not maintained though his reconstructed -- or fundamental -- forms have been. It should be
noted that Schleicher looked on these as abstractions, not as real language material; he says
specifically that he does not assert they ever existed.
Everywhere Schleicher's presentation is sober and clear. In the third edition of the
Compendium he introduced external techniques which have become general, such as glossing
citations in the language of the writer rather than in Latin. His conclusions have in part been
superseded, as in his identification of Armenian as a dialect of Iranian. But through his lucid
summary of the data that had been assembled Schleicher provided the basis for the
tremendous expansion of control over historical linguistics during the last quarter of the
nineteenth century.
August Schleicher (1821-68) may not have achieved a definitive work because of his short
life. The first edition of his Compendium was published in 1861, on the basis of fifteen years
of lecturing. Earlier he had published a morphology of Old Church Slavonic, 1852, and a
grammar of Lithuanian, 1856-7, produced as a result of field work. For the second edition he
modified the Compendium largely in externals. The third was published posthumously from
his annotated copy. Since he examined the bases of linguistic study -- the relevance of Hegel,
or Darwin -- and since he made use of the compendious grammars being produced for the
various Indo-European dialects -- for the Romance languages by Diez, 1836-44, for the Celtic
by Zeuss, 1853, and for the Slavic by Miklosich, 1852ff. -- he may have removed from his
Compendium some of the shortcomings maintained from his predecessors if he had not died
relatively early.
Introduction
I. Grammar forms one part of the science of language: this science is itself a part of the
natural history of Man. Its method is in substance that of natural science generally; it consists
in accurate investigation of our object and in conclusions founded upon that investigation.
One of the chief problems of the science of language is the inquiry into, and description of the
classes of languages or speech-stems, that is, of the languages which are derived from one and
the same original tongue, and the arrangement of these classes according to a natural system.
In proportion to the remainder but few speech-stems have hitherto been accurately
investigated, so that the solution of this chief problem of the science must be looked for only
in the future.
By grammar we mean the scientific comprehension and explanation of the sound, the form,
the function of words and their parts, and the construction of sentences. Grammar therefore
treats of the knowledge of sounds, or phonology; of forms, or morphology; of functions, or
the science of meaning and relation, and syntax. The subject of grammar may be language in
general, or one particular language or group of languages; grammar may be universal or
special: it will in most cases be concerned in explaining the language as a product of growth,
and will thus have to investigate and lay down the development of the language according to
its laws. This is its exclusive province, and therefore its subject is the laying-down of the 'life
of language,' generally called historical grammar, or history of language, but more correctly
'science of the life of a language' (of sound, form, function, and sentence), and this again may
be likewise as well general as more or less special.
The grammar of the Indo-European languages is therefore a special grammar: because it treats
of these languages as products of growth, and exhibits their earlier and earliest gradations, and
would therefore be more accurately called a special historical grammar of Indo-European
language.
Note 1. By comparative grammar is meant not that grammar which is merely descriptive, but
that which throws light on speech-forms as far as possible, because as a rule it is not confined
to the treatment of any one particular language.
Note 2. The following work embraces only two parts, scientific treatment of sounds and of
forms. Indo-European function and sentence-formation we are not at present in a position to
handle in the same way as in the case of the more external and intelligible branches -- sounds
and forms.
II. To assume one original universal language is impossible; there are rather many original
languages: this is a certain result obtained by the comparative treatment of the languages of
the world which have lived till now. Since languages are continually dying out, whilst no new
ones practically arise, there must have been originally many more languages than at present.
The number of original languages was therefore certainly far larger than has been supposed
from the still-existing languages. The easiest preliminary distribution of languages which we
can make is suggested by their morphological constitutions.
There are:
1. Languages which are simply composed of invariable disjointed meaning-sounds,
monosyllabic, e.g. Chinese, Annamese, Siamese, Burmese. Such sounds we denote by R
(radix). The Indo-European language would be in this stage of development when the word
ai-mi (I go, εἶμι) was sounded not so, but as i or i ma (formula R, or R + r).
2. Languages which can link to these invariable sounds of relation, either before, or after, or
in the middle, or in more than one place at once (denoted here as s. [suffix], p. [prefix], i
[infix]). These are confixative languages, e.g. Finnish, Tatar, Dekhan, Basque, the languages
of the aborigines of the New World, of South Africa (Bântu), and most languages in fact. In
this step of development the word ai-mi would be i-ma or i-mi (Rs).
3. Languages which for the purpose of expressing relation can regularly vary their roots as
well as their confines (which have sprung from independent original roots), and can at the
same time preserve intact the means of compounding. These are inflexive languages. Such a
root is regularly varied for the end of expressing relation is here denoted by Rx
(R¹, R², etc.), a
similar suffix by sx
.
Hitherto we have become acquainted with only two speech-stems of this class, the Semitic
and the Indo-European. The latter has for all words only one formula, viz. Rx
sx
(sx
meaning
one or more than one regularly variable suffix), and consequently a regularly variable root
with a regularly variable expression of relation at the end of the suffix, e.g. ai-mi, εἶμι, √ι.
The Indo-European is therefore a suffix-language, together with the neighboring languages of
the Finnish stem, including Tataric, (Turkish) Mongolian, Tungusian, Samoiedish, as also
with the Dravidian (Dekhan) -- all included in the formula Rs.
Note 1. The Semitic, which is not akin to the Indo-European, has more word-forms, namely
Rx
and pRx
, forms quite strange to Indo-European, which has only one. Besides, its vowelsystem
is perfectly distinct from the Indo-European, not to mention other marked differences.
Cf. Aug. Schleicher, "Semitisch und Indogermanisch" in Beitr. ii. 236-244. An attempt to
deduce the fundamental language of the Semitic speech-stem has been made by Justus
Olshausen in his Lehrbuche der hebräischen Sprache, Brunswick, 1862.
Note 2. The augment in Indo-European is no relation-affix, no prefix, but an adherent, though
originally independent word, which may moreover be omitted.
III. The life of a language (generally called its "history") falls under two heads:
1. Development in prehistoric times. As man has developed, so also has his language, i.e. the
expression of his thoughts by sounds: even the simplest language is the product of a gradual
growth: all higher forms of language have come out of simpler ones, the confixative of the
monosyllabic, the inflexive out of the confixative.
2. Decline in the historic period. Language declines both in sound and in form, and in its
decay changes of meaning take place alike in function and construction of sentences. The
transition from the first to the second period is one of slower progress. To investigate the laws
by which languages change during their life is a most important problem in the science of
language, for unless we are acquainted with them we cannot possibly understand the
languages in question, especially those which are still living.
Through different developments, at different points in the province of one and the same
language, the self-same tongue branches out into the ramifications of the second period
(whose beginning however is likewise earlier than the origin of historic tradition), and
diverges into several languages (dialects); this process of differentiation may repeat itself
more than once.
All these changes took place gradually and at long intervals in the life of the language, since
generally all changes in language unfold themselves gradually.
The languages which spring immediately from an original language we call fundamental;
almost every fundamental language has split up into languages; all these last-named
languages may further branch into dialects; and these dialects into sub-dialects.
All the languages which are derived from one original-language form together a class of
speech or speech-stem; these again are sub-divided into families or branches of speech.
IV. The name of Indo-European has been given to a distinct set of languages belonging to the
Asiatico-European division of the earth, and of a constitution so consistent internally, and so
different from all other languages, that it is clearly and undoubtedly derived from one
common original language.
Within this Indo-European class of speech however certain languages geographically allied
point themselves out as more closely related to one another: thus the Indo-European speechstem
falls into three groups or divisions.
These are:
1. The Asiatic or Aryan division, comprising the Indian, Iranian (or more correctly Eranian),
families of speech, very closely allied to one another. The oldest representative and
fundamental-language of the Indo-European family, and generally the oldest known IndoEuropean
language, is the Old Indian, the language of the oldest portion of the Vêdas; later
on, after it had become fixed in a more simplified form, and subject to certain rules, as a
correct written language, in opposition to the peoples' dialects, called Sanskrit. We are not
acquainted with Eranian in its original form: the oldest known languages of this stem are the
Old Baktrian or Zend (the Eastern), and the Old Persian, the language of the Achaimenid
cuneiform inscriptions (the Western). To this family besides is related the Armenian, which
we know only from a later date, and which must have branched off even in early times from
the Eranian fundamental-language.
2. The south-west European division, composed of the Greek, next to which we must perhaps
place the Albanian, preserved to us only in a later form; Italian (the oldest known forms of
this language are the Latin -- especially important for us is the Old-Latin, as it was before the
introduction of the correct literary language formed under Greek influence -- the Umbrian and
the Oscan), Keltic, of which family the best known, though already highly decomposed,
language is the Old Irish, Erse dating from 700 A.D. Italian and Keltic have more in common
with one another than with the Greek.
3. The North-European division, composed of the Sclavonic family with its closely-allied
Lithuanian, -- the most important language for us of this group, -- and the German, widely
separated from both. The oldest forms of this division are the Old-Bulgarian (Old ChurchSlavonic
in MSS. dating from 1100 A.D.); the Lithuanian (and of course the High-Lithuanian,
South-Lithuanian, Prussian Lithuanian), first known to us 300 years ago, but clearly of far
greater antiquity; and the Gothic from the fourth century. Beside the Gothic, however, are the
oldest representatives of German and Norse, Old High German, and Old Norse, which we
may bring forward when they present earlier forms than Gothic.
The greatest number of archaic particulars in point of sounds and construction of language is
found in the Asiatic division, and within it, in the Old Indian; next in point of archaicisms (i.e.
preservation of similarity to the original language, by having fewer strongly-developed and
peculiar forms) comes the S.W.-division, in which Greek is found to be most faithful; and
lastly the N.-European group, which, if regarded as a whole, may be shown to have the most
characteristic development, and to be the least faithful to the original language.
By combining these facts with the above-named relationships of the Indo-European
languages, and drawing inferences as to the process of separation of the Indo-European body
of language in ancient times, we get the following result: The Indo-European original
language differentiates first, through unequal development in different parts where it
prevailed, into two fundamental-languages, viz. The Sclavo-Teutonic, which afterwards
divided itself into Teutonic and Sclavo-Lithuanian, and the Aryo-Graeco-Italo-Keltic, the
remaining portion of the Indo-European language, which divided itself into Graeco-ItaloKeltic
and Aryan; and the Graeco-Italo-Keltic soon split up into Greek and Italo-Keltic, while
the first, the Aryan, remained undivided for some time. Later still the Sclavo-Lithuanian, the
Aryan ([ndo-Eranian) and the Italo-Keltic, further divided themselves. It may be that at most
or at all of the divisions there arose more languages than we now know of, since probably
many Indo-European languages have died out through the lapse of time. The further eastward
an Indo-European people lives, the more archaisms are found in its language; the further
westward they have gone, the fewer archaicisms, and the more numerous new-formations are
found in the language. From these and other indications we infer that the Sclavo-Teutonic
race first began its wanderings westwards; next followed the Graeco-Italo-Keltic; and of the
Aryans who remained behind, the Indians journeyed south-eastward, the Eranians southwestward.
The home of the Indo-European original race must be sought in the highlands of
Central Asia.
It is only of the Indians, who were the last to leave the parent stem, that it is quite certain that
they expelled an aboriginal race from their later dwelling-place, a race of whose language
much passed into their own; a similar process is highly probable in the case of many other
Indo-European peoples.
The most ancient divisions of the Indo-European, up to the origin of the fundamental
languages belonging to the families of speech formed from the speech-stem, may be seen in
the following table. ... The length of the lines shows the duration of the periods, their
distances from one another, the degrees of relationship.
Note. In the present work an attempt is made to set forth the inferred Indo-European original
language side by side with its really existent derived languages. Besides the advantages
offered by such a plan, in setting immediately before the eyes of the student the final results
of the investigation in a more concrete form, and thereby rendering easier his insight into the
nature of a particular Indo-Europes language, there is, I think, another of no less importance
gained by it, namely that it shows the baselessness of the assumption that the non-Indian
Indo-European languages were derived from Old-Indian (Sanskrit), an assumption which has
not yet entirely disappeared. This view has found supporters up to the present date, especially
as regards Old-Baktrian (Zend). The term 'Sanskritist', not seldom applied to Indo-European
philologers (meaning that we concede to Sanskrit a position which it does not deserve, by
deriving other languages from Sanskrit, or explaining them by it, instead of studying them
fundamentally), is likewise shown to be quite inapplicable by the plan employed in the
Compendium. The disadvantage of having in certain cases Indo-European original forms
inferred which are more or less doubtful, does not weigh at all against the advantages which,
according to our view, are attained by the arrangement of the subject used hereafter.
Schleicher's Family Tree
A form traced back to the sound-grade of the Indo-European original language, we call a
fundamental-form -(f.f.) [e.g. Lat. generis, f.f ganasas; Gk γενουs, f.f ganasas]. Hence it is
only when forms of different sound-grades are brought to one and the same sound-grade, that
we can compare them with one another. When we bring forward these fundamental-forms, we
do not assert that they really were once in existence.
CHAPTER NINE
C. LOTTNER
EXCEPTIONS TO THE FIRST SOUND SHIFT
Originally "Ausnahmen der ersten Lautverschiebung,"
from Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete
des Deutschen, Griechischen und Lateinischen 11.3 (1862), 161-205
Editor's Introduction
Lottner's cataloging article has never been given the acclaim of Grassmann's or Verner's,
which it prepared for. Yet Lottner carefully screened the evidence and listed the three large
sets of "real" exceptions, after eliminating the apparent ones traceable to "false comparisons",
onomatopoeic words and borrowings. In his treatment of the apparent exceptions Lottner
reflects the status of historical linguistics shortly after the middle of the nineteenth century;
for that reason, and because the first section of his article is his permanent contribution to
clarification of the first sound shift, this section is presented rather fully here. The "real
exceptions", which Lottner discusses in the remaining sections of his article, may be found in
the articles of Grassmann and Verner. After Lottner's publication there was no further
confusion about the apparent exceptions. His clarification of these, and his thorough
descriptive presentation of the evidence remain the essence of his achievement.
This is not to say that Lottner's article is thoroughly praiseworthy. The tone of it is
occasionally intemperate; at the conclusion he added a short paragraph apologizing to Curtius
for an unwise phrase in an earlier article. He also misled Grassmann about the "third set of
exceptions," which were clarified by Verner, by introducing the glib notion of a
Wahlverwandtschaft -- elective affinity -- between the resonants and the mediae. Yet with its
faults, the article is an example of the interplay of descriptive and historical linguistics:
Lottner's descriptions simplified the explanations of Grassmann and Verner. The article also
illustrates that linguistics did not advance by a series of leaps; rather, careful scientific
attention to the data led in time to its mastery.
C. Lottner submitted the article from London. To my knowledge he made no further
contributions to historical linguistics. From their acknowledgements we conclude that the
article was important for both Grassmann and Verner.
Prefatory Note. In general, only those Germanic languages are considered whose consonants
have really experienced only the first sound-shift. On the other hand, High German has only
then been taken into account when it illuminates the Germanic original form which in Old
Norse, Anglo-Saxon, etc., was distorted according to specific sound laws. Words which are
only High German are not treated for the time being.
The exceptions to the first sound-shift fall into apparent and real exceptions.
Those words may be treated as the first class among the apparent exceptions with which the
entire assumption of a violation of Grimm's law originates simply from the fact that one has
compared things that should have remained uncompared. It is of course impossible to list all
cases of such erroneous comparison since error and caprice lack definite demarcations. I am
therefore content to observe a few examples of this kind where erroneous comparison has
enjoyed a certain popularity, whether by virtue of its apparent plausibility or on account of its
author's reputation. Of this sort are Gothic: kara 'care' which has nothing to do with Lat. cura,
since the latter arose from coira, as is proved by OLat. coerare to which probably belongs Gk
-koíranos (cf. Landpfleger, 'prefect'). The Germanic word means primarily 'fear, anxiety,
lament' (therefore OHG charôn lamentari, our NHG char-freitag), and it thus goes with the old
root GAR 'be heavy', which is present in Skt guru 'heavy' (from garu; comparative garîyas) =
Lat. gravis, Gk barús, and from which Goth. kaurs 'difficult' is to be derived. Yet in Germanic
the meaning 'to be heavy about something', 'to take care about some thing', must have
developed in this root at an early time. For that is the only explanation for ON kaer-r 'dear',
the original form of which is KÂRIA and which will have to be understood as 'something
worth being cared for' with the same suffix ja which is present in Goth. andanêmja'acceptable,
pleasant', in Goth. unquêþja- 'impossible to utter, inexpressible', in Lat. exim-ius
= eximendus and in the many corresponding formations of Sanskrit (such as bhâr-ya
'ferendus'). This Scandinavian kaerr therefore does not in the least have anything to do with
Lat. cârus which, despite the long vowel, is probably to be compared with OIr. caru,1
carimm
'I love'. -- The comparison of Goth. leik with Skt dêha "body" -- the transition from d to l is as
indemonstrable for Gothic as the k vs. h is objectionable -- was able to gain a dubious
reputation only on account of the great reputation of the founder of comparative grammar.
The same is true of his relation of Goth. -leiks 'like' (isolated galeiks = OE lîc, gelîc ON lîkr,
glîkr) with Skt. -dṛça, because the regularly corresponding Lith. lygus is much more plausible
and because the root dṛç, i.e. dark (Gk dérkō) 'see', from which that Sanskrit word originates,
is also regularly represented in our AS torht 'light' = OHG zor(a)ht. Goth. natjan 'moisten'
would have hardly been compared with Gk -notîa if one had not dismissed all too easily the
connection of the latter with Gk nótos. To compare Goth. raþs 'easy' with Gk hrą́dios, as the
otherwise admirable Gabelentz and Loebe do, is a monstrosity, because the latter is
contracted, as Homer's Gk hrēídios shows and furthermore, it began with digamma in
Lesbian. Our Germanic word belongs to the root RAT, in Skt ratha 'wagon', Lat. rota, OHG
rad, Gallic riton (to be deduced from petor-ritum) and therefore means something that
'begins'. The root itself may have been developed from AR (Skt ṛ "go" Gk or- etc.). -- Goth.
auhns "stove" has often been compared with Skt açna 'fire', but since Aufrecht has related it
nicely to Skt açna 'stone' the former comparison must be considered obsolete. Bidjan 'ask for'
scarcely has anything to do with Lat. petere, because the basic meaning of the latter is 'to fly
at something,' (= Skt pat 'fly, fall'), whereas Goth. badi 'bed' seems to indicate as the original
meaning of our word: 'sternere, se prosternere'. Goth. kalds 'cold', or rather its stem-verb ON
kala 'be cold' is quite regular with regard to Lat. gelu, gelidus, Skt gala 'cold, coldness, water'.
For that reason OSlav. chladŭ 'cold' is either not related at all, or it is borrowed. Lith. szaltas
'cold', szala (3rd p. sg.) 'be cold, become cold' is however quite a different word, which, with
respect to the root, Zend çareta 'cold' and Skt çiçira 'cold' resemble. But the two latter words
point back to an original root KAR, KAL; whether this root is to be treated as identical with
GAL, I do not know. At any rate, the difference occurred already before the language
separation and we Germanic people must be absolved from the reproach of an irregular
sound-shift ... (166). With these and similar comparisons we lose ourselves completely in a
territory where any words are picked up according to their sound-similarity and, with an
indubitably blessed, but highly unscientific naïveté, are assumed to be related.
Apparent exceptions to the sound-shift can also stem from the fact that the words under
comparison are connected psychologically, but not historically, i.e. that they are imitations of
sounds, or they fall into that category which Buschmann designates by the name 'sound of
nature'. After the thorough discussion by that scholar it may be considered certain that the
consonants T, P, or in other words the syllables ap, pa, at and ta even in non-related languages
form the basic elements in the names of the father (more infrequently in that of the mother)
because of the identical physiological make-up of the speech organs and because of identical
psychological impulses. Although the Indo-European languages possess words from very
early times to express these relationships, it must nevertheless be admitted that some of the
many parental names have been formed anew only after the time of the language separation.
If therefore Goth. atta 'father' corresponds too well to Gk átta OSlav. otĭcĭ (OBohem. ot), then
neither relationship nor borrowing is to be assumed here, but the Gothic word has simply
sprung from the everflowing fountain of nature sounds. Furthermore, it can be seen from the
treatise of the aforementioned scholar that the nasals N and M play the same role in the name
of the mother (again, here too, less frequently in the name of the father) as P and T did in the
case of the father. It must also be noted that all of these readily pronounceable elements,
notably m(a) and p(a), serve at the same time as children's words for 'food' and 'nourishment'
and therefore frequently as expressions for the mother's breast. Such words are our pappen,
pappe, Engl. pap 'female breast', Lat. papilla, Lat. mamma, mamilla 'mother's breast' but
mamma, mammula also meaning 'mother, grandmother'. For our purposes, we must be
concerned with still another word for 'mother's breast' (beside the abovementioned apparently
very irregular pappen) which staggers just as unsteadily and wildly through the various
consonant stages, namely OE titte, NE teat, to which fits NHG Zitze, but also OHG tutta,
MHG and NHG tutte, Gk títthē (compare in Dieffenbach a number of related words under
Goth. daddjan 'to nurse'). Yet this latter is perhaps no longer the immediate creation from a
sound of nature, but rather the reduplication of an old root dî, which corresponds to Skt dhê
'to nurse' (from which, dhênu 'cow') and also to dhâ (in dhâ-trî 'wet nurse'), compare Gk
thêsai, thêsai, tithene, thelus, Lat. femina (?), fellare, Umbr. felio- 'sucking', OIr. dinu 'agna',
stem dîna(n)t, Lat. filius (cf. Gk thḗlē, thēlázō; and Lett. dehls 'child'), OSlav. doiti 'to nurse',
dê-te 'child.' OHG tila = Gk thḗlē; (cf. OHG taan = Gk thȇsai) is certainly related and must be
distinguished from those new formations made of sounds of nature. In all of the latter words
the exact sound correspondence stands for a genuine historical relationship. But that the
above-noted chaos of sounds in otherwise closely connected words of identical meaning can
find a sufficient explanation through the assumption of simple psychological relationship, is
most clearly demonstrated by similar sounding words from non-Indo-Germanic languages by
Dieffenbach, such as Basque thilia, dithia, titia, Hung. tsets, Eston. tis, all of which mean
'female breast'. To these may be added several onomatopoeic words in which an apparently
irregular sound-shift takes place, e.g. ON klaka 'queri (de avibus)' = klökkva 'lament', NE
clank, OHG klingan as against Lat. clango Gk klaggḗ, klázō, to which may be joined Goth.
hlahjan 'laugh', which originates from a similar formative impulse. In addition, compare NE
clatter, clap, NHG klirren, klopfen, klappern. OE cancettan 'laugh' and also ceahhettan do not
go with Gk kagkházō, cachinnari. Much more of this kind could be cited, if one wished to
include living folk dialects. A peculiar example of this merely psychological relationship is
NE lick, OE liccjan = NHG lecken. It is quite impossible to place this with Skt lih, Gk leíkhō,
Lat. lingo, OIr. ligum etc., since this root is present with regular shift in Goth. laigon. In
addition, there is in Lithuanian and in Slavic a Lith. lak-ti, OSlav. lokati and beside it Lith.
laiźyti (OSlav. lizati) which correspond regularly to the Greek-Sanskrit root. If one notes that
similar sounds serve also in non-Indo-European languages as a designation for the act of
licking (e.g. Hebr. kkl, Finn. lakkia), and that in Germanic itself there is a third form which
deviates completely, but is still related in sound: ON sleikja -- Gk láptō, Lat. lambo, labrum,
NE lap 'lick', lip = OHG laffan, lefsa, NHG lefze, Lippe (the latter actually Low German) are
admittedly more remote but must not be ignored either -- then all this leads one to conclude
that only Goth. laigôn is historically connected with Skt lih, whereas the other forms with a
seemingly irregular k are new root formations, or if one prefers it this way, that the old root
lih is in fact present in them, but is disturbed in its regular sound shift through the influence of
sound imitation and thus has been distorted to LIK, LAK (the latter with a quite preposterous
a from i). This easy mode of explanation would have arisen a long time ago if the strange
hypothesis had not spread in comparative linguistics that root formation cannot possibly have
occurred after the Indo-European peoples had separated. I cannot grasp why such a purely
exterior event like the disintegration of peoples should have suddenly cut off the capability to
create language. It is paramount to denying the writer of this article the capability to create
new compounds and derivatives in his mother tongue just because he emigrated to England. I
should like to go on record that I have strongly protested against this mechanical, as well as
lifeless and unhistoric, interpretation of the aforesaid conception which assumes the existence
of a special "root-forming" era.
A similar situation is found in ON gaukr 'cuckoo', also MHG gouch, which just does not fit
NHG Kuckuck, NE cuckoo, or Lat. cuculus, Gk kókkuks; all these irregularities can be
explained simply by the fact that imitations of the animal's voice have been made over and
over again. Only the same assumption will explain the strangely corresponding and deviating
names of the crow, partially also those of the raven; compare Lat. corvus, Swed. korp; OHG
hraban, ON hrafn, can just barely be related to the Latin word (although our b does not
correspond to Lat. v either). Further, there is OE crâve, ON krâka, Gk korṓnē, Lat. cornix and
further the verbs NHG krächzen, Gk krázō, Lat. crocito and finally, though applied to the
'rooster', OE crâvan, our krähen. All of these are but bound together by a psychological tie.
A great number of apparent violations of the sound shift must be attributed to borrowings
within or from the Germanic languages. Most of their foreign words are clearly of Greek,
Latin and recently also of French origin. It is not possible to list all of them; I am content to
cite those which appear in Gothic. They are from Latin: akeit 'vinegar', annó 'annual pay',
arka, asilus, aurkeis (urceus), faskja, kaisar, kapillon 'shear', karkara, katils (catinus), kavstjo
(cautio), kubîtus 'resting place at the table', which is related to anakumbjan 'to lie at the table',
laiktjo, lukarn, maimbrana 'parchment, membrane', militon, papa, paurpaura, praitoria, pund,
spaikulator, unkja and probably also vein. From Greek they are: aggilus, arkaggilus, aikklesjo,
aipiskaupus, aipistaule, aivaggeli, aivlaugia (Gk eulogía), aivxaristia, probably also alev 'oil',
anaþaima, apaustulus, azyme, balsan, barbarus, daimonareis, diabaulus, diakaunus, hairaisis,
jota (Gk iȏta), nardus, paintekuste, parakletus, paraskaive, paska, pistikeins (Gk pistikós),
praizbytarei, praufetus, psalma, saban (Gk sábanon), sabbato, sakkus, satanas, sikls, sinap,
skaurpjo, smyrn, spyreida (Gk spurís), synagoge; further ulbandus 'camel', with a changed
meaning and strangely enough with regular sound shift from Gk eléphant. - - - I pass over the
borrowings of the younger dialects from the two Classical languages, as well as over the few
cases where the borrowings take place into them. I also omit the many Germanic words which
have gone into the Romance languages, since all of these have been exhaustively treated by
Diez. Yet on the whole I must say that it is completely wrong to assume complete isolation of
the Germanic peoples of heathen times. Just one word like ulbandus should speak against this,
since it must have been in use for a long time in order to be Germanicized in such a form. But
we also know that the Germanic heathens took over the seven day week from the Romans --
where else would the pagan names of the weekdays come from? We know from Kirchhoff
that the runes originate from the Roman uncials. There are Roman coins in Old Scandinavian
graves from the time of Tiberius to Marcus Aurelius; and in the oldest Eddic songs we already
have evidence of Roman words: tafla 'tabula', tefla 'to play a game at a board' are to be found
in the Vǫlusspâ; ketill 'kettle' appears in the Hymiskvîða and has deeply penetrated the
northern heathendom, as is shown by the names Ás-ketill, þôr-ketill 'god's kettle, Thor's
kettle'. Even the Roman state affairs and Roman religion have influenced us early; Kemble
detected the Old English name Säter not only in Säteres däg (Saturday), but also in the names
of places, compare Säteres byrig (Saturn's castle). Saturn must therefore have enjoyed a
certain popularity, if not in fact veneration, and Caesar, as is well-known, rose to the honor of
being moved into the Old English genealogies as the son of Vôden. Under these
circumstances it will be advisable in the future not to be too eager to disregard the possibility
of borrowing even for very old Germanic words which have apparently escaped the sound-
shift.
It is of course to be expected that there was an early exchange of words between the Germanic
peoples and their neighbors to the east and west. As regards the Celts, our connections with
them were obviously quite lively in the pagan era. This is proved by the fact that the king of
the truly Germanic Marcomannen, for instance, had the decidedly Celtic name Maroboduus.
In addition, there are the great number of Gallic names ending in -rîx, -rîg-is and -mârus to
which the many Old Germanic names ending in -ricus, -merus correspond very precisely.
Compare, for example, Gall. Segomârus with OGmc Sigimerus, a condition which can only
be explained through the factor of mutual influence. But since Celtic not only resembles
Germanic in lowering the old aspirates to mediae, but also shows beginnings of a sound shift
of the mediae to tenues, for these reasons it is in most cases extremely difficult to determine
which one of the two languages has borrowed from the other, and often whether borrowing or
original relationship exists. Besides, most words of this kind will be discussed below, because
the irregularity present in them can best be explained by a comparison with words of the other
originally related languages. Therefore I mention here only Gall. bracca 'trousers', from which
is borrowed ON brôk, OE brôc, NE breech. Furthermore, the strange Goth. kelikn Gk púrgos
which is no doubt identical with celicnon, a word that recently appeared on a Gallic
inscription. The fact that the word stands alone in Gothic, as well as its strange suffix and the
completely un-Germanic appearance and sound, speaks for borrowing from Celtic.
Since earliest times Germanic has many specific agreements with Slavic and Lettish; much of
this is admittedly due to an original kinship, but very early borrowing is not rare either. The
Slavic-Lettish languages resemble the Celtic in their consistent lowering of the old aspirates
to mediae, and they also coincide otherwise (see below) in an anticipating manner with our
sound shift. These circumstances make it also extremely difficult to decide whether borrowing
took place and if so, from where ... (174) Although I deal here only with those SlavicGermanic
loanwords which, not being recognized as such, seem to constitute exceptions to
the sound shift, I cannot refrain on this occasion from drawing attention to the strange fact
that we have indeed borrowed from Slavic a great many expressions dealing with commerce,
comforts and amusements (buying, names of coins, debt, market and translator, the beaker
and the dance), but the Slavs on the other hand have taken from us the word for ruler
(likewise the Finns their kuningas). The historic position of the two peoples corresponds fully
to this phenomenon: throughout the Middle Ages the Germans treated the Slavs as servants;
therefore our Sklave, earlier in the fifteenth century without k, Slave, NE slave, Swed. slaf.
The Scandinavians established for the Slavs their Russian empire. It remains to be seen
whether this political position of the two peoples is going to change in the future.
Borrowings have also taken place from one Germanic language into another, i.e. 1) from Low
German into High German, 2) from Scandinavian into English, 3) from Low German into
New Scandinavian, and 4) from New High German into Low German and New Scandinavian.
Yet, in 2) and 3) the borrowing and receiving dialects are at the same stage of the sound shift.
This is admittedly not the case with the borrowings of the first and fourth class, and some of
these indeed give the appearance of a disturbance of the sound shift (e.g. Swed. dyster,
borrowed from NHG düster, does not correspond to OE þŷster, Lith. tamsus, Swed. an-dakt =
NHG Andacht, not to Lat. tongere). But a more detailed treatment of these mutual borrowings
of the Germanic peoples must be reserved for another time.
A great number of apparent irregularities in the sound-shift also come into being through the
irregularities of the related languages. To start from the beginning, it is known that Sanskrit
has an entire class of aspirates, namely the voiceless aspirates, which only the Iranian
languages share with it. With every example one must first determine whether -- which seems
mostly the case -- these voiceless aspirates come from an original tenuis or -- which
admittedly occurs in some cases -- originated from an aspirated media. For this Greek will
generally guide us safely. Thus everything is in good order for the Sanskrit root path, from
which comes panthan 'path', equal to the Germanic root fanþ, which will have to be treated
later because of other irregularities, because Gk pátos, patéō witnesses the existence of the
original tenuis. But Skt nakha 'fingernail' is likewise quite regularly represented by OE nägel,
since Gk ónukh- shows here the age of the aspirate. There are, however, also other cases
where the Germanic only seems to be irregular with regard to Sanskrit, for example Goth.
hairto 'heart' vs. Skt hṛd, hṛdaya. Since all European languages have here either k or its
regular substitute (Gk kardía, Lat. cord-, 0Ir. cride, OSlav. srĭdĭce, Lith. szirdis) there really is
no alternative to admitting an irregularity in Sanskrit (and Zend).
Another series of exceptions can be explained when one looks at the history of the sound shift
law. It seems to me that Curtius has demonstrated that the sound shift began with the lowering
of the aspirates to mediae, which in turn led to the raising of the genuine mediae into tenues,
and further the old tenues into aspirates. I should like to point out in anticipation of the
conclusion of this examination that there will then be another reason in support of his view.
But it would be false to believe that this lowering of the old aspirates owed its origin to a
sudden caprice of the Germanic people, for it is very deeply ingrained in our whole language
development. Zend already shows b for the old bh and frequently also d for the old dh. In
OPers. bh, dh and gh always change to mediae. On European soil this same degeneration is
very old in some words; and earlier I have pointed to the conformity of all European lan
guages in this respect, which is attested several times as one of the reasons which compel us
to assume that there was a lasting association of the Europeans after their separation from the
Asiatics. Goth. ik, mikils, -k (suffix in mi-k, þu-k etc.), kinnus all correspond to Gk egṓ,
megalo-, ge, génus, to Lat. ego, mag-is, gena (the Celtic, Slavic and Lettish languages prove
nothing in this matter since all old aspirates become mediae in them), while Sanskrit offers
aham, mahat, ha (Ved. gha) and hanu. The situation is also similar with Skt vṛh 'to grow' 2) 'to
work' -- Zend verez- but Gk werg-, Goth. vaurkjan; also with Skt vṛdh 'to grow', but Gk
(b)ríza from wridja, hrádeks, hrádamnos, with which goes Goth. vaurts, OE wyrt, and further
ON rôt, NE root, while OE rôd 'pertica', NE rood, rod, OHG ruota agree with the Sanskrit
sound level. From Gk megalo- it can be affirmed against all doubt that the root had originally
gh, for this root is in Sanskrit manh 'crescere, augere' and has maintained Gk kh in mȇkhos,
mēkhanḗ, with which in turn Goth. magan agrees. It may also be assumed as proved that Gk
ge arose out of older Gk khe only on European soil, in the event that Gk -khi (in hȇkhi),
which can not possibly be considered a case suffix, is related to it as Skt hi is to ha (all these
little words are enclitic). With all the other examples there remains the slight possibility that
originally a g stood here and that the h of Sanskrit is a special irregularity.
Aside from these anticipations of the sound-shift, which pervade all European languages, each
language has also specific preludes to the sound shift, as well as some peculiar irregularities
of its own. [Lottner goes on to list these pp. 177-182].
(182) Finally, apparent irregularities come into being through dialect peculiarities of the
individual Germanic languages, through which the system of their mutes is more or less
altered. To this belongs above all the second sound shift of the High German which has
affected some of its individual dialects more, others less, but none completely. Therefore
determination of the original Germanic form meets with considerable difficulty where words
have only been preserved in High German. The second sound shift, as is well-known, has
penetrated the dental group most thoroughly, and of these the z (= Goth., OE, ON t). But there
is an exception here too, to which insufficient attention has been paid: the groups tr, tl always
remained unshifted. This not only explains our treu, OHG triuwi vs. NE true, ON trûa, Goth.
trauan etc., but also cases like OHG bittar vs. OE biter, ON bitr, Goth. baitrs, where a vowel
was inserted at later times. --- A great number of apparent exceptions to the first sound shift
originate in Old Norse and in Old English through the almost consistent change of medial b to
f (changed further in English, Low German and Danish to v, in Swedish to fv), whereas Old
Saxon has preserved the intermediate grade bh. Thus, OE leof 'dear', ON liufr, OE lufjan 'love'
appear to be on the same grade with Skt lubh 'cupere'. Likewise, ON stafr 'staff' OE stäf seem
to fit exactly Skt stambh 'fulcire', but HG lieb, Stab, Goth. liubs, stabs show that everything is
in order. In most cases of Old Norse medial d becomes þ, ð, and in Anglo-Saxon this may
happen under certain conditions which, of course, gives rise to new apparent exceptions. 2) In
New Norse (as well as in Low German) th is lost and is replaced by t or d. It is replaced by the
former when the English form begins with a hard th, and by the latter when the English
pronounce a soft th (thus Swed. du, de, den, dem, desse, än-då = Engl. thou, the, they, them,
these, though). For this reason Swed. du 'you', tänka 'think' are apparently irregular when
compared with Lat. tu, tongere, but in Old Norse we quite regularly have þu, þenkja. Finally,
medial tenues between vowels, and final tenues after a vowel, change in Danish to mediae
(rarely also in Swedish). Thus, Dan. bog 'book', vide 'know', aede 'eat' correspond, for
example, to Gk phȇgos, wid, ed, but compare Swed. bok, veta, äta, ON bôk, vita, eta. All
these special irregularities are, of course, to be revoked and the state of Primitive Germanic
sounds to be restored before a comparison is possible, also when the dialect form is
apparently more regular than the primitive form arrived at by a comparison of the other
Germanic languages. It is, for example, uncritical to cite OE seofon 'seven' for the correct
sound shift with regard to septem, because Goth. sibun as well as the High German form
demonstrate clearly that here Primitive Germanic had a b.
The Gothic sound conditions of the mutes are identical with Primitive Germanic in by far the
most cases, but not always, just as little as the grammar of this dialect does not always have
the oldest forms. Some examples of irregular sound shift in which Gothic is corrected by
other dialects will be given later. Here I cite but the two peculiar examples in which the
Gothic alone has maintained an unshifted d, namely du 'to' = OSlav. do 'to', da Gk hína, OIr.
do and, according to Stokes, probably also Lat. -du (in in-du = NE in-to), whereas OE tô and
OHG zuo, za, zi have been shifted; and Goth. dis- = Lat. dis, but OHG zir- which presupposes
an earlier regular tis.
After elimination of the apparent exceptions we can now proceed to consideration of the real
exceptions.
I. Irregularities of the original tenues:
a) The tenues remain regularly (184-187).
[First Lottner cites the groups sp, st, sk, which he says are well-known; then ht and ft. Apart
from these he finds little material.]
b) The old tenuis appears as media (187-197).
[Here he finds the greatest number of exceptions, especially in medial position. He cites,
though not coherently, the well-known words, such as "Goth. sibun 'seven' = Skt saptan",
"Goth. taihun 'ten' beside -tigus (-zig) Lat. decem". Nor can he account for subsequent
changes, such as the devoicing in Goth. hlaifs beside the hlaib- of the oblique cases.
Accordingly he is nowhere near a solution. In his final comment on medial mediae instead of
expected aspiratae he points to the "elective affinity" between liquids and mediae and to the
interchange between "aspiratae" and mediae in the same word, citing for example,
OE veorðan vearð vurdon
OHG ziohan zôh zugum zogan
NHG leiden gelitten
He concludes the section with the sentence: "Although to be sure examples occur, in which
the older aspirates can no longer be demonstrated, it may not be too daring to presuppose in
general the transition of the tenues through aspirates to mediae as a former intermediate
stage." It remained to Verner to correct the phonetic statements and associate the phenomenon
with the Indo-European accent.]
II. Irregularities of the original mediae (197-202):
[This section was very useful for Grassmann. Although some of Lottner's equations had to be
discarded, others are:
Goth. grēdus "hunger, greed" - Skt. gardth "be greedy"
Goth. bindan - Skt. bandh
OHG bodam "floor" - Skt. brudhna, Gk puthmḗn
The ON botn and OE botm perplexed Lottner, as did the Greek tenuis. In this section too he
associated the irregularities with the liquids, but noted that there were many fewer than for
tenues.]
III. Irregularities of the original aspirates (202-3):
[In this short section Lottner's examples are largely erroneous comparisons, which he himself
calls uncertain.
After a brief summary Lottner concludes with a statement on the relative chronology of the
sound shift.] (204) "It has been disputed where exactly the sound shift began. Grimm finds
boldness in the shift of the mediae to the tenues, and accordingly seems to view this as the
starting point; I heard Bopp present the entire shift as a weakening of sound, completely
opposite to Grimm, and he put the change of the tenues to aspirates at the beginning. The third
assumption, that the aspirates became mediae first of all, Curtius capably demonstrated as the
most probable by comparing the originally related languages. Through the observation that
the aspirates were shifted with greatest regularity, with somewhat less regularity the mediae
and least of all the tenues, this view of Curtius gains new support."
London, 10 November, 1860.
Notes
1. The older form caru Stokes attests in Félire Oingosso Céli dé -- "á ísu notcaru" -- "O
Jesus, I love you." [return to text]
2. It is peculiar that in English the Old English medial dental mediae often appear as th;
thus in together, weather, father, mother, all very common words; OE ät-gädere, vedr,
fäder, môdor (the three last as exceptions to the sound shift; see below). Is this
Scandinavian influence?
CHAPTER TEN
HERMAN GRASSMANN
CONCERNING THE ASPIRATES AND THEIR
SIMULTANEOUS PRESENCE IN THE INITIAL
AND FINAL OF ROOTS
"Ueber die Aspiraten und ihr gleichzeitiges Vorhandensein
im An- und Auslaute der Wurzeln," Zeitschrift für
vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete des Deutschen,
Griechischen und Lateinischen, 12.2 (1863), 81-138
Editor's Introduction
Grassmann's is one of the celebrated articles of linguistics. Rightly, because it largely led to
the conviction that reconstructed languages must be set up for any language family. Before
Grassmann, Sanskrit had served as the measure against which forms in the other languages
were compared. On the surface it may seem that all earlier scholars viewed Sanskrit as the
source of the various other Indo-European languages; but their writings indicate that they
were not quite so simple. Because of the transparency of its forms Sanskrit seemed closer to
the agglutinative period, through which the Indo-European languages were thought to have
passed, than did any of the other languages. The unparalleled antiquity of its materials
supported this view. Accordingly, sounds and forms of the other Indo-European languages
might well be contrasted with those of Sanskrit. By demonstrating that Germanic actually was
"older " in one phonological pattern than was Sanskrit, Grassmann undermined the position of
Sanskrit as the language which was the earliest attainable in Indo-European linguistics.
By this demonstration Grassmann also undermined the notion that language developed from
an analytic to a synthetic structure through an agglutinative. With it he did away with the
close relationship that had been observed previously between genealogical and typological
classification. After the publication of his article we find fewer and fewer references to the
typological structure of a language in comparative treatments; and when typology is taken up
by Finck in the definitive treatment of the nineteenth-century approach there is no reference to
genealogical classification. The appealing notion of a straightforward development of
language had been abandoned.
These contributions to general linguistic theory were achieved by explanation of one
phonological problem in Indo-European studies. We have noted how von Raumer had hit on
the explanation earlier, but had stated it so briefly that it remained without impact. We have
also noted Lottner's important preparatory work. Neither reduces Grassmann's achievement.
His article is admirably composed. First he examines previous attempts at explanation, then
the data. His examination of both is complete. When he presents his conclusions there is no
question of their validity.
His convincing explanation led linguists to deal with entire forms, not merely with single
segments. In this way it prepared for the concern with entire utterances, demanded by Sievers.
Unfortunately this concern with entire forms and with entire utterances was often neglected
subsequently in the attempt to solve the numerous minor problems within the various
languages.
It is also noteworthy that Grassmann, with his background in mathematics, objects to fanciful
theory -- the equilibrium theory. He insists on an "organic" approach; speech sounds must be
classified in accordance with their organs of articulation. For an understanding of linguistic
change a knowledge of articulatory phonetics is indispensable. To be sure, he stumbles over
Lottner's notion of a Wahlverwandtschaft between mediae and liquids; but such a notion is
not completely in contrast with articulatory phonetics, for both sets of sounds are voiced and
usually lenis in articulation. Grassmann's achievement is great, even though he left a field for
Verner to conquer. His overall procedure is unobjectionable. All "exceptions" have been dealt
with. One could not ask for more rigorous methods.
Hermann Grassmann (1809-1877) was a banker who was compelled to retire because of
tuberculosis [see N.E. Collinge, The Laws of Indo-European, Amsterdam: John Benjamins,
1985, p. 47]. In his leisure he occupied himself with mathematics and linguistics. He made
important contributions to both fields. His work on non-commutative algebra is an important
contribution to mathematics. For linguistics, besides his clarification of the reflexes of the
Indo-European aspirates, he prepared a complete dictionary of the Rig-Veda which is still
indispensable for Indo-Europeanists and for Sanskritists. Other works which would be major
for most scholars round out his list of achievements, such as his complete translation of the
Rig-Veda. He remains one of the great figures in linguistics.
The question of whether there were originally roots in Indo-European with aspirates initially
and finally has in my opinion not yet been decided. It is not surprising that, before Sanskrit
and also the comparative investigation of languages gained influence on Classical philology,
many grammarians-impelled by the moving about of aspiration, e.g. in trékhō, thréksomaiassumed
roots in greatest abundance for Greek with initial and final aspirate and in this way
defaced Greek grammar in part with roots that never existed, as linguistic comparison
showed; for Goth. þragja as well as the Celtic root trag, PBB 1.167 beside Gk trékhō forbid
setting up a form threkh** as the original form of the root. It was natural that the investigators
starting out from comparison of languages, in their first unhappiness about such monstrosities
rejected all roots with original initial and final aspirates; and subsequently the principle that
there were no roots of this type was held as a kind of axiom in linguistics, though in more
recent times an inclination to that older point of view may again be recognized in various
places (cf. Ahrens, Griechische Formenlehre §152, Schleicher Compendium §143). But as far
as I know an actual investigation has not yet been undertaken about the matter.
Encouragement of such an investigation is to be the main purpose of the present essay. Yet it
is impossible to take up the matter without touching the disputed question whether the hard or
the soft aspirates were the original. For even if the most essential results of the investigation
are not dependent on the answer to this disputed question, the entire point of view and the
form of the presentation in its details will be quite different, depending on the answer to this
question, so that it is not possible to avoid it here. I will therefore first treat this question and
only afterwards proceed to the actual task.
First essay: On the presence of hard and soft aspirates before the linguistic separation. (82-
110).
[In this essay Grassmann assumes two kinds of aspirates, the voiceless as well as the voiced,
specifying that he is dealing with the original Indo-European language. At the end of the
essay he states that the Germanic shift began with the loss of the aspiration, sharing this
phonetic modification with Sanskrit and Greek. The change of tenues in Germanic he views
as related. And only the change of mediae to tenues does he consider without parallel in the
other languages, though he states that it took place to restore the balance which was lost in the
first two modifications.]
Second essay: On the original presence of roots whose initial and final contained an aspirate.
(110-138).
With regard to the question about the original presence of roots with aspirates in initial and
final position it is above all necessary to note the two following well-known euphonic laws of
Greek and Sanskrit, which I give here for the sake of clarity.
If a root ends with an aspirate and begins with a consonant capable of aspiration, and if its
final loses its aspiration through the operation of some other sound law, the aspiration moves
to the initial. But this is true of Sanskrit only when the final of the root is a soft aspirate and
when the initial is a non-palatal media; and for Greek only when the initial is τ.
For Greek only τεύχω, τυγάνω with their common future τεύξομαι etc. and τρῡχω, future
τρύξω provide exceptions. For the former, as shown above, χ results as a later modification of
the original κ, which is also maintained in the derivations and in the aorist τετυκεῖν, but this
cannot be demonstrated for τρύ-χ-ω (from τρύ-ω). This law is also valid in Greek when the
final represents an originally hard aspirate, as in ταχύ, Comp. θάσσων (see the first essay),
and also when the root never contained an aspirate initially as well as finally at the same time,
as in τρέχω (= Goth. þragja), fut. θρέξομαι. The second law we can express in general as
follows:
If aspirates that belong to the same root occur in two consonant groups of a word which are
separated by a vowel, then one of them, usually the first, loses its aspiration. Only rarely does
this happen when the aspirates belong to different roots, or to different suffixes, or one of
them to a root and the other to a suffix, or when more than one vowel stands between the
consonant groups (as in έκε-χειρία, τηλεθοων).
There is no doubt that reduplication originally arose from a repetition of the entire root
syllable, as especially the formation of intensives illustrates (e.g. dar-dhar-shi 'you hold firm'
from dhar, dhṛ, (παμφαίνω from the theme φαν); originally then the aspirate must have been
repeated as such too, and only later when the repeated root combined into one word and the
above-stated law of euphony entered into effect did one of the aspirates give up its aspiration.
Indeed we find this aspiration often maintained still in onomatapoeic words, but in these the
above law, which would disturb the intended imitation of the sounds of nature, is not applied
(gharghara, ghurghurā, gharghurghā, ghurghura, jharjhára, jhinjhi, etc.)
The decision with regard to the form of the root itself is not so simple. It would follow from
the above law that there would be no roots in Greek and Sanskrit which simultaneously
showed an aspirate initially and finally in the state of the language transmitted to us. Now this
is the case throughout apart from some secondary dialect forms,cited by the Indic
grammarians and apart from the Greek forms έ-θαφ-θην, τε-θάφ-θαι, τε-θάφ-θω, τε-θάφ-αται
(from θάπτω), and τε-αράφ-θαι, έ-θρέφ-θην (from τρέφω). Nonetheless it would be
unjustified to draw conclusions from this about the original presence of aspirates in initial and
final position. It is even less justified to assume without further consideration, as a kind of
axiom, that that euphonic law existed from the very first beginnings of the development of
language. Bopp makes this last mistake, when in his comparative grammar (§104) he states as
grounds against assuming roots with initial and final aspirates that in the very original
arrangement of the roots (directed by the cited euphonic law) the language would have
guarded against the simultaneous occurrence of aspirates in initial and final position. But it is
precisely the question whether that euphonic law existed from the beginning, and in principle
this is most unlikely. The sure answer to this question may only be gained on a historical
basis. Now this law shows up in only two language areas: in Aryan and in Greek. In the Italic
languages by contrast it does not prevail, as Latin fefelli, the Oscan forms fufans, fefacust,
fefacid, fetho, hafiest prove. To be sure f and h are not genuine aspirates, but they take the
place of these; and if indeed that euphonic law was valid already before the separation of the
Italic branch from the entire family, it is hard to see why later on again the two spirants which
take the place of aspirates should have been restored, even though the one of them had already
forfeited its aspiration. Even more decisively, Gothic points to the later origin of that
euphonic law and to roots with original initial and final aspirates. For if the law existed
already before the separation of the Germanic branch, then on the one hand, since Gothic
mediae correspond to the old aspirates, the reduplication of mediae had to be avoided, and on
the other hand there should have been no roots in Gothic with initial and final mediae. Neither
is true. With regard to the first we can cite Goth. gaigrot from gretan, which does not belong
to Skt krand as will be shown below. With regard to the second it turns out that of all nine
possible groups of roots with initial and final mutes none is represented as widely as that with
initial and final mediae. To look on this as a mere play of chance seems impossible; and
consequentlywe may assume it to be securely established that the questionable euphonic law
was not yet in existence before the separation of not only the Germanic but also the Italic
branch. A linguistic phenomenon that points to the contrary has not yet been adduced by
anyone, as far as I have learned. Nonetheless the frequent recurrence of Gothic roots with
mediae initially and finally forces one to the conclusion that there were roots with aspirates
initially and finally in the common language branch. Yet the individual roots have to be
compared before this conclusion can be drawn with certainty.
If the hard aspirates of Sanskrit are excluded for the time being, especially those roots come
into consideration, which begin with a media in Sanskrit and conclude with a soft aspirate.
First I consider those beginning with b. I begin with an example among them which can be
pursued with utmost certainty through all four language branches which are considered here,
and which to a certain extent can be viewed as representative of the others; for the
phonological phenomena which appear in it are repeated almost throughout in the others in a
precisely corresponding manner, namely:
1. budh-ná-s πυθ-μήν fund-u-s OS bod-m,
where the remaining Germanic dialects likewise all show the initial b, while d and t vary
among them in an irregular manner. The initial media of Sanskrit is replaced in Greek by the
tenuis, in Latin by the aspirate, in Germanic by the media. Of these soumds only the Latin
aspirate stands in accord with the German media; all other five replacements are anomalous.
But nonetheless the same series of phenomena is repeated in almost all roots of the named
type. Therefore, to avoid these anomalies, on the grounds that Sanskrit has preserved the
original grades of sound, one has devised theories through which one attempts to explain
these irregularities for every single one of the remaining language branches. To this end, first
Pott and in greater detail Benary in his Phonology have set up for Greek the equilibrium
theory, which has been adopted by most of the more recent investigators of languages (as also
by G. Curtius, Schleicher Compendium §143). Benary explains the phenomenon, that for
example Skt budh- is equal to Gk πυθ- through the fact that since the aspirate became hard in
Greek the tenuis arose medially instead of the media in order to restore the equilibrium (p.
195). This equilibrium he finds disrupted, if from budh, which contains two soft sounds,
*βυθ- had developed, which would contain one soft and one hard sound (β); and this
equilibrium is to have been restored through the hardening of the β to π. I cannot make any
other sense of this expression (of the disrupted and then restored equilibrium), than that the
hard sounds are placed as equivalent among themselves, and similarly the soft sounds among
one another; on the other hand the hard as not equivalent to the soft -- and that the Greek
language had a preference for equilibrium of the initial and final of roots. Let us examine this
preference for equilibrium in greater detail. Four types of equilibrium are conceivable for
Greek. First, both sounds can be soft, that is, initial and final can be mediae; second, the initial
can be a tenuis, the final an aspirate; or conversely, the first can be an aspirate, the final a
tenuis; or, last, both can be tenues. With regard to the first combination of sounds there is
apparent in Greek a comprehensive, but, as far as I know, not yet observed law according to
which there is no root in Greek with two mediae and a simple intermediate vowel or a vowel
expanded by a nasal. It is obvious that in the reduplicated forms, as in δίδωμι, δαιδάλλω,
δενδίλλω, or in derivations like βά-δην, βα-δ-ίζω, two mediae can arise at both sides of the
vowel, without thereby affecting the law. The single exception would be the hapax legomenon
of Theocritus δαγύs 'wax doll of magicians', if the reading for it (besides δατύs) were not
doubtful, and a foreign origin not probable. Things are not much better in the second and third
equilibrium form. Actually there seems to be hardly a Greek root which originally began with
a tenuis and ended in an aspirate, or conversely -- of such a kind that in the remaining
languages the regular representation would take place. Rather, we see the first of these forms
regularly paralleling the form of Sanskrit: media, vowel, soft aspirate and in accordance with
the above representation paralleling the forms of the other languages related to it, as the above
example illustrates. As the only cases, which might provide a more extensive correspondence
of the sort that the tenuis initially and the aspirate finally in the root appear original, I have
found: τρεχω = Goth. þrag-ja, in which however the Lith. strokas 'haste' makes an originally
initial s probable; and perhaps κεύθω (theme κυθ), compared with OE hyd-an, hed-an, OHG
huot-jan; but this second example is also highly uncertain, since the Greek κεύθω stands in
much closer relationship to the Skt gudh, guh 'conceal', which has the same meaning, and
since there are only highly uncertain traces of a root *kuh in Sanskrit, about which in addition
we do not know whether the h corresponds to a dh or to another aspirate (kuha, kúhaka,
kuhana, kuhayāmi, kuhū, kuhara, kuhūla = kukūla, kūhanā, kūhā = kujjhaßi-kā, which have
the meanings 'juggler, deception, deceive by cheating, new moon, cave, fog, etc.' -- see the
Petersburger Lexicon). In any case the second and third equilibrium forms, which originally
show a tenuis initially and an aspirate finally, or the reverse, are accordingly only poorly
represented, if at all. Only the fourth equilibrium form with tenuis initially and finally is
normal in Greek, but it is greatly outnumbered by the numerous roots in which no equilibrium
of the designated type takes place; and indeed all five types of non-equilibrium occur, and
most of them in great abundance. A preference in Greek for the equilibrium between the
initial and final of the root is accordingly out of the question. One would accordingly have to
modify the Benary law to this effect that the Greek language attempts to maintain through all
changes the relationship of weight between initial and final, as it exists at any time, and
especially when both stand in equilibrium; but even about this we find no trace outside the
area in support of which the entire theory is to serve. From Benary's conception that of
Schleicher (op. cit.) differs only in choice of words, for the weak sounds are designated as
voiced, the hard as voiceless; equilibrium is designated as similarity of sound and the
production of equilibrium as assimilation. In order to explain the irregularity found in Latin
(Lat. fund-u-s = Skt budhna-s), Benary has made accountable the shift of the aspiration from
the final to the initial, and this assumption has also been adopted by most of the more recent
investigators of language. But such a shift has not been demonstrated anywhere in the area of
the Italic languages. Moreover, the analogy of Sanskrit is not decisive here, since the
corresponding phenomenon in Sanskrit is tied to certain conditions which do not enter in here;
and in addition, Latin treats the medial aspirates, in contrast with Sanskrit, almost everywhere
like mediae. Finally for the anomaly of Gothic and Germanic in general no theory has as yet
been made cogent, but here the anomaly is permitted to stand as such, as for example Curtius
in No. 326, 327, 328, 329, 145, 318, 138, Schleicher in §143. All these anomalies disappear
and those highly dubious theories which have been devised for their explanation become
superfluous if one assumes in the examples under consideration original roots with aspirates
initially and finally, which were modified in all those languages in accordance with the
general laws which apply in these languages. If for example we assume in the above-cited
budh-ná-s, πυθ-μήν etc. two original aspirates (bh, dh), then in Sanskrit and Greek in the
development of the above-discussed euphonic law, one, and generally the first had to give up
its aspiration; in this way, since the aspirate was soft in Sanskrit, hard in Greek-at least from a
certain time on there a b, here π had to arise, the latter (at least if the time when the euphonic
law came into force was after this point in time). In Latin, on the other hand, where as shown
above this law did not prevail, the aspirate was maintained as f and in Germanic it shifted
regularly to b. Instead of the three anomalies which also did not stand in any sort of
relationship to one another, one has with this assumption organic changes everywhere, and
there is no need to explain the phenomena through artificial hypotheses which lack any other
support, nor, despairing of a solution to consider the changes as non-organic. For Greek we
must examine the phenomena in still greater detail. It turns out that when the first aspirate of
the root loses its aspiration initially before vowels, the tenuis appears without exception; on
the other hand where the second (root-final) loses it, the media arises. The latter occurs, as
will be discussed further below, for example in θυγ-άτηρ, φράσσω (theme φραγ), φεύγ-ω,
θέλγ-ω, (θελγίν beside τελχίν), φιδ-άκ-νη beside πιθ-άκ-νη, φέβ-ομαι, φοῖβ-os (the latter
probably a reduplicated formation from bhā 'shine') and probably also in θιγγάνω. It follows
from this that at the time when the above-mentioned euphonic law occurred, the aspirate was
already hardened initially; medially however it had still preserved its original nature (as a soft
aspirate). The initial aspirates before ρ and λ also seem to have remained weak at that time
still; evidence for this is given by γράφ-ω = Goth. grab-a, βρεχμó-s = OE brägen (see below),
and also γλάφω and γλύφω (compare below also δολιχó-s). Accordingly, from the abovementioned
development we have to assume that the euphonic law -- according to which the
simultaneous appearance of aspirates in the initial and final of the root was avoided through
the fact that one of the two aspirates was deprived of its aspiration -- developed independently
in the two separated branches of the Greek-Aryan language branch, and that particularly
between the time of separation of Greek from Aryan and the development of this law in Greek
the period must have elapsed in which the initial aspirate was hardened, except before ρ and λ.
This law arose in both branches from the striving which is based on the nature of the aspirates
to avoid the heaping of aspirates in the same word. The two languages did not follow the
same course in this process, and particularly the Aryan languages resisted also the direct
coming together of the two aspirates, while Greek did not, except for homorganic aspirates;
yet the Aryan languages attempted to transfer with much greater consistency to another sound
of a word the aspiration lost in one position, and by this to maintain the traces of that
aspiration (e.g. Skt labdhá-s from labh + ta-s, Gk γραπ-τó-s from γραφ + τó-s, Skt ghoxyāmi
from guh + syāmi, Gk κεύσω from κυθ + σω, both with gunation of the root vowel).
Nonetheless the agreement of both branches in their treatment of the aspirates is
overwhelming, and particularly in comparison with the other branches of the Indo-European
language family. While these gave up the aspirates partially or completely without providing
a substitute for them, the others only worked against their heaping up, but still attempted, to
the extent permitted by the striving for euphony which was constantly developing toward
greater perfection, to preserve the aspiration as faithfully as possible. As in general in both of
these branches, also where they apparently developed independently of one another, but most
prominently in Sanskrit, on the one hand a wonderfully fine feeling for euphony developed,
and on the other hand the striving remained along with this to bring to view unimpaired all
phonological characteristics of the roots, especially in all of the formations and derivations
which sprang out of them, and in this way to maintain the roots in their original and complete
life. And this agreement of both language branches is also simply another of the many
phenomena, in which the far-reaching agreement between the Greek and the Aryan (preBrahmanic)
spirit appears to us in language, poetry, myth and life, and gives evidence of the
tremendous intellectual development which the Greek-Aryan people underwent after the
departure of the other peoples. After these digressions, which seemed to me necessary for the
understanding of the whole, I return to the comparison of the individual roots and first of all
to those with an original initial bh. The citations refer to Curtius, Grundzüge (C), where the
number is cited; to Schleicher's Compendium (S), where the paragraph is; to Leo Meyer's
comparative grammar (M) and to Lottner's essay in Volume 11 of this journal (L), where the
page is cited.
2. buhd πυθ ---- bud ) C. 328, M. 394
bódhāmi πυνθάνομαι ---- binda ) S. 143
The Latin putare does not belong here, as was shown above.
3. bandh *πενθ, *πειθ *fad(?) band ) C. 326
badhnâmi binda )
bandh-u-s πενθ-ερó-s
bandh-a-s πεῖσμα fas-ci-s(?) HG band, bind-a
Latin fūnis probably belongs to the secondary form with u, Skt *bundh; and Gk πίθo-s 'vat',
πιθάκνη = φιδάκνη, Lat. fidelia and possibly also Lat. fîlum, if it is to be explained from *fidlum,
seem to point to a secondary form with i. The following root also seems to set out from
the same basic meaning.
4. ---- πιθ (fĭd-es) bid, bad ) C. 327
πείθω fīd-o bidja )
where Gothic to be sure shows the theme bad for the preterite, but in the present (bidja) and in
the derivations (bida, bidagva) it seems to point to a theme bid.
5. badh, bādh παθ, πενθ fend *badv (Grimm, KZ 1.437)
bādhe πά-σχω -fendo (N böd 'battle' OE beadu)
Here Greek differs appreciably in meaning from the other languages, for Skt badh or vadh
'strike, kill', badh 'torture', Lat. fendo as it appears in offendo, defendo means 'push'. With this
is associated Lith. bēdá 'need, misery' = Russ. bēda, 'misery, woe', OSl. bēdá 'compulsion';
also, to the form badh, the Slavic bodą 'stab, push'. But the transition of meaning to Greek
πάθo-s, πάσχω appears clearly in the Lithuanian and Slavic words. That Lat. pati doesn't
belong here has been shown above.
6. bāhú-s πῆχυ-s ---- N bōg-r ) C. 176, S. 143
7. bahú-s παχύ-s ) S. 143
Latin pinguis does not belong here, for neither the initial, nor the following vowel fits. It
probably belongs together with sphigî 'hip', which belongs to Skt sphai 'swell', and more
directly still with ON spik, OE spic 'bacon'; and it presupposes an adjectival formation in u
from that extended root *sphig. The root for No. 7 is:
8. bah, bamh 'grow', from which Goth. bag-m-s 'tree'
9. bhuj φυγ fug bug )
C. 163
bhujâmi φράγω fugio biuga )
Here Gothic points to two aspirates. That in Sanskrit the second aspirate, and not as is usual
the first, has lost its aspiration, seems to have its basis in the fact that the palatal media is not
usually aspirated, except in onomatopoeic words; for this reason the law of moving of
aspiration to the initial, for example, does not take place when this is a palatal media. This
situation (that the second aspirate rather than the first loses its aspiration) occurs more
frequently in Greek.
10. ---- ϕραγ ---- barg )
L. 200
ϕράσσω ---- bairga )
To this probably
10a. ---- βρεχμό-s ---- OE brägen (see above)
11. ---- flagellum, flīgo bliggva (L. 200)
Gothic bliggvan (theme blaggv) 'scourge' as the original root vowel, which is maintained in
Lat. flagellum, while fligo shows the transition to the i-series.
12. bíbhemi ϕέβ-ομαι ----
OHG bib-en,
OE bif-jan 'tremble'
(L. 201, C. 409)
The reduplication which the Sanskrit root bhi shows in the stem syllable has here entered into
the theme.
13. ---- ---- fiber OHG biber (L. 201)
Before I proceed to the other initials, I must cite another phenomenon, which gives evidence
for the previously posited roots with two aspirates, especially those cited in numbers 1-8.
Comparisons of the words beginning with Skt. b, Gk β, Lat. b, Goth. p indicates, as is wellknown,
that they do not correspond to each other in any two of the named languages. The
single exception, apart from βραχύ-s = brevis, βοῦs = bos, is formed by the onomatopoeic
words, which in the three first named language branches begin with b, and whose b
accordingly also remains unshifted in Germanic, like for example, Gk βλή-χω, Lat. balare,
OHG blā-zan, NHG blöken and Skt barbara-s, Gk βάρβαρo-s, which refer to the foreign
language and imitate this at the same time; similarly the Lat. balbu-s (C. 394-397, S. 117,3).
Even from this peculiar situation it is probable that initial b, except in onomatopoeic words,
had not existed before the separation of the languages, and that accordingly those words with
initial b (Gmc p) in those languages originally had another initial. For Latin and Greek it turns
out that initial b either arose from gv (βαρύ-s, βαίνω, βοῦs, Lat. bos, βοάω, βίο-s, βιó-s, βία,
βάλλω, βορά, βιβρώσκω, and probably βαθύ-s, βάπτω), or from dv (bis, bellum, bonus), or
from v (βούλομαι, βελτίων, βολβó-s, βλαστó-s, βρίζα, βρέχω, βρóγχο-s) or from m before l or
r (βροτó-s, βραδύ-s, βλώσκω, βλίσσω, βλάξ, βληχρó-s, βραχύ-s according to L. Meyer) or
from bh (βρέμω, βάζω, βασκαίνω, βρύω, βλύω, βλέπω, bulla, balaena) or from p (βóσκω,
bibo, buxu-s). And the remainder, which cannot be explained in one of these ways, or seems
to be borrowed, is quite isolated and still awaits an explanation. Similarly it is also probable
that the Sanskrit b too arose from other sounds initially, because otherwise it would be
impossible to understand why its representatives do not show up in the related languages.
Now we also see here, as in Greek, that b arises from m before r in Skt brū; 'speak', for Zend
mru corresponds to this, and before r, m can indeed go over to b, but not the converse.
Further, as also in Latin v and b frequently interchange (bāro = vāro, batillum = vatillum), so
in Sanskrit this interchange between v and b appears broadly distributed, but in such a way
that in part v seems to be older, in part b. If one takes the rest of the Sanskrit words beginning
with b, which either have no secondary form beside them beginning with v, or in which b
seems to be older than v (which is the more common), the remainder consists almost without
exception of words in which an aspirate (with or without nasal) or an l follows the first vowel.
The latter are bal and bil beside the obvious dialectal secondary forms *bhal and *bhil. Since
the first two are also not directly attested, one must determine their meanings from
derivations. In the first place, bala-m 'strength' with its derivations does not belong here, since
Latin valor etc. demonstrate v as original initial. Now we see bali-s 'nourishment, food', bāla-s
'boy, child', bālā 'girl' establish the meaning of bal which is cited by the grammarians:
"sustentare nutrire" (= bhṛ), for which the example bālayati bālam pitā 'the father feeds the
child' is cited. This leads at the same time to the origin from Skt bhar, bhṛ, for r changed to l,
as it did so often and first generated the form *bhal, and then the bh lost its aspiration through
the influence of the l at the end of the root. The exact equivalent is true of bil, from which
bíla-m 'gorge, grotto' arose, and which the grammarians quite correctly explain from bhid
'split' beside the root *bhil, which is cited by them too but not attested in derivatives either.
The root bhid must also be viewed as the original form for bil (see Benfey's Glossary to the
Sāmaveda), for d developed to l, as happens not infrequently in the final root; accordingly
*bhil arose first of all, whereupon the initial aspirate lost its aspiration through the above
mentioned influence of the l. This influence of the l following the vowel on the initial (soft)
aspirate is also confirmed by the fact that apart from the cited roots *bhal and *bhil the
grammarians cite no root which begins with a weak aspirate and ends with l. The few words
of the form: "weak aspirate, vowel, l" are either onomatopoeic, like ghulaghulārava 'a kind of
dove', jhillī 'cricket' etc., or dialectal secondary forms, chiefly adduced only by the
grammarians, like ghola-yāmi 'mix together', a Prakrit reformation of ghūrṇayāmi or jhāla
'heat of the sun' beside jvala-s (from jval); dhūli 'dust' is the only word of this type that has a
more general distribution. According to this it seems justified therefore, to assume for
Sanskrit a dislike for such combinations and to hypothesize that the l following the vowel in
the classical language deprived the originally (soft) aspirate of its aspiration, so that
particularly bal and bil point back to the original initial bh. The remaining evidence for initial
b after removal of the named forms, is limited according to the glossaries of Bopp and of
Benfey (to the Samaveda) to the following words (when we exclude the words cited only by
grammarians: baṇij 'merchant', where the b is weakened from p (pan 'sell, play dice'), the
Vedic asseverative particle bat, which probably goes back to the original initial v (see Benfey,
Glossary), bāná-s = vāná-s 'arrow' = bundá-s, brbád-uktha for bṛhad-uktha. I now proceed to
the other initials.
14. dih (θιγ) fig dig ) C. 145
déhmi (θιγγάνω) fingo deiga ) M. 385
That Goth. deiga belongs together with Lat. fingo, with which Curtius also associated it
recently, is proved by the nicely fitting meaning as well as the form. The g in Germanic shows
itself to be very persistent in all dialects, and it is also maintained in Goth. deiga 'πλάσσω',
digans 'οσταρκινó-s' daig-s 'φύραμα'; only the isolated gadikis 'πλάσμα' shows a deviation.
Germanic accordingly points definitely to a final aspirate, the corresponding Sanskrit form
would therefore have to read digh or dih. The Sanskrit root dih has the meaning: 'coat with
white material' and accordingly agrees nicely with the basic meaning of fingo. That Skt h
stands for gh is proved among other things by the secondary form san-degh-a for san-deh-a.
The sounds are in complete agreement when the form with two aspirates is taken as original.
The Greek θιγγάνω also agrees in sound, since as demonstrated above the root-final aspirate,
if it loses its aspiration, goes over to the media. But the meaning is by no means in such exact
correspondence with that which the other languages develop, that there may not still be doubt.
From the root dih develops in Sanskrit deha-s, deha-m 'body', which however does not yet
occur in the Vedas with dehî (as feminine formation from it) with the meaning 'mound, dike,
wall'; with this agrees dehalî 'mound before a house, step, lintel, terrace', as also dehikā 'an
insect that throws up earth'; upa-dehikā 'a kind of ant', ud-dehikā 'termite'. And this meaning
of 'heaping up' or 'formation of earth' we also give as the basis for deha 'body'. To deha-s
corresponds quite exactly Gk τοῖχo-s and with neuter suffix τεῖχ-os, the basic meaning of
which would also be 'earthen wall'. Against the interrelationship with Gk τεύχω (Curtius, No.
135), the vowel provides the most decisive evidence, for οι and ει are the regular gunations of
i, the first regularly with the suffix o-, the latter always with the neuter suffix -os.
15. dáh-āmi 'burn' ---- ---- OHG tāht 'wick'
áh-an 'day' Goth. dag-s
for which I adopt the interpretation of Skt áhan from *dah-an (Bopp, Glossary). That Gk
δαίω, δαίs does not belong here, as L. Meyer (Comparative Grammar 385) assumes, but
rather stands for *δαFjω, δαFίs, and belongs to Skt du 'burn', from which Skt dava-s, davathus
dāvá-s 'burning' develops, has already been indicated by Curtius (Grundzüge, No. 258); and
that Lat. fax does not belong here, because of the contrasting final c, has been demonstrated
above.
16. duhitár θυγάτηρ dauhtar C. 318,
in which Greek has modified the second aspirate and indeed regularly; the Goth. h is
conditioned by the following t. With this belongs the root:
17. duh ---- ---- dug
dogh-mi daug
Skt duhitar points back to the root duh; Goth. dauhtar to the Gothic root dug; both correspond
exactly in sound. But the meaning of Goth. dug-an (συμ-φέρειν, χρήσιμον, εἶναι) with which
Grimm, Grammar 2.23, rightly puts dauh-t-s 'guest meal, δοχή', seems to be quite remote
from the concept of the Sanskrit root duh 'milk, give milk'; and the English dug 'teat, udder'
could be suspected of borrowing from Celtic, deogh- 'mammas sugere'. But the abstract
concept of Goth. dugan must have risen from a sensuous meaning; and the root duh of
Sanskrit places this transition before our eyes. In this way the meaning 'milk' is transferred to
abstract concepts: 'to exploit something, draw a use or profit from it'; and the meaning 'milk',
that is 'to give milk' to the abstract concepts: 'to provide something desired (useful)'. And from
this concept the meaning: 'provide a use, be useful', as Goth. dugan shows it, as well as the
concept of entertainment (dauht-s as translation of δοχή could very readily develop. Lat.
ducere, Goth. tiuhan clearly does not belong here.
18. druh (θελγ) fraud OHG trug
drhúyāmi (θελγω) triugu (ON draug-r)
With regards to the meaning, as well as the Gk θέλγω (the vowel of which still raises a
question), I point to Kuhn's discussion in this journal (1.180), and note only that the basic
concept is: 'to injure someone, especially through trickery, treachery, witchcraft'; and that ON
draugr 'ghost, shadow of the dead' agrees precisely with Skt druh 'monster, witch', Zend druj
'evil spirit'. Lat. fraus, which agrees excellently in meaning (compare Skt drógha-s, droha-s
'insult, deception') I have put here experimentally; the organically corresponding form would
have to be *fraug-. Since however an exchange of the aspirates of various speech organs is
not at all infrequent, and since Lat. d in fraud would represent an aspirate, this attempt did not
seem too daring. In Germanic a homophonous root, but starting from another meaning, seems
to have mixed with this, namely Goth. driuga (theme drug) 'do military service' compared
with OE dryht, ON dröt 'companions, retinue', and especially with Lith. drauga-s 'companion',
draugé, and in compounds: draug- with OSl., Russ. drugŭ 'companion, friend' also in the sense
'another'. We do not find anything in Sanskrit corresponding to these meanings, which go
back to the concept of companionship, if one does not want to adduce the words cited by the
lexicographers: druha-s 'son', druhī 'daughter'. Lat trux would indeed correspond initially with
our root in accordance with the treatment above, by which initial Lat. tr can have arisen from
older dr, originally dhr; but its final, as shown above, point to another origin for it.
19. ---- τυφ-λó-s ---- Goth. daub-s, dumb-s (L. 199)
20. *drāgh traho draga
dīrgh-á-s δολιχ-ó-s
From the root *drāgh (drâghe) 'make long' etc. are derived dīrghá-s 'long', compar. drágh-īyas,
superl. drágh-istha-s; drāgh-imán or drāgh-mán 'length', drāgh-áyāmi 'extend'. Of especial
interest here is the secondary form with two aspirates cited by the grammarians which offends
against the euphonic law: dhragh-e, from which the scholiast for Panini forms the perfect
dadrāghe. It must be noted for Gk δολιχó-s, to which OS1. dlŭgŭ, Russ. dologŭ corresponds,
that in accordance with the above the soft aspirate of Sanskrit often changes to the media in
Greek before ρ and λ, a change that is not hindered by the (subsequently) intercalated o. The
tr in Latin has been discussed above. Compare Leo Meyer (in this journa1 6.223), who
however associates HG träge, incorrectly, since this already at the Gothic stage has tr, which
as is well-known is not shifted.
21. (jabh) κεφαλή ---- OHG gebal
OHG gebal, gibilla means 'skull', as does the related gibil, gibili and ON gafl 'gable', with
which also NHG gipfel is connected. It is difficult to separate from this gabala, OE gaflas pl.,
ON gaffal 'the fork', and also OE geaflas pl.; this leads us to the root, Skt jabh, jambh 'open
the maw, snap at something'; in connection with its development of meaning the treatment of
Kuhn, KZ 1.123ff., is to be compared. As well the Greek, in forms like γαμφ-ηλαί, γαμφ-αί,
γόμφιο-s = Skt jámbha-s, γóμφιo-s = jambhya-s, as also the Germanic, in forms like OE
ceafle, ceaflas pl. 'throat', ON kiaptr 'snout, throat, cheek-bone' etc., in comparison with the
forms cited above, point to a split of the root jabh attested in Sanskrit - a split previous to the
linguistic separation -- into a form with original aspirate initially (Gmc gab-, Gk κεφ) and into
another with the corresponding media.
22. gadh ---- ---- *gad
The Sanskrit root gadh (according to the grammarians 'to be mixed') occurs in the Vedas with
ā and pari in the participial form â-gadh-ita, pâri-gadh-ita, which according to the editors of
the Petersburger Dictionary probably has the meaning 'attached', 'surrounded'; gádh-ia-s 'that
which one must hold fast, to exploit' also belongs to this. Grimm (No. 5456) ascribes the
meaning 'jungere' to the Germanic root *gad, which occurs in OS gigado, OE gada, gegada,
gädeling 'associate', in OHG gagat 'associated', in Goth. gadiligg 'ἀνέψι-os', in OS, OE gador
'together' in OE gegäde 'assembly', in NHG gatte, gatten, gattung, getter, gitter, ON gadda
'join together', Swed. gadda sig 'conspire'. The basic meaning seems to be that of firm, close
association, possibly precisely in the special conception of 'attaching, joining to one another'.
23. ---- ἀγαθós ---- gōds (L. 197)
The Gothic word points to an original form with two aspirates and the root vowel a, to which
the Greek agrees,apart from the preposed a; for at the time when the one aspirate deprived the
other of its aspiration the medial Greek aspirate in accordance with the statements above was
soft, the initial hard; accordingly either ἀγαθó-s or ἀκαθó-s (Hesychios) had to result,
depending on whether the α was preposed before or after that time. As root we may
hypothesize No. 22, with possibly a transition of meaning through the intermediate concept
'aptus'.
24. ---- γράφω (scribo) graba (L. 197)
With this the secondary forms with λ: γλάφω, γλύφω Lat. glaber, glūbo. With regard to the
initial, for Nos. 24 and 25 the first essay is to be consulted.
25. ---- ---- gradu-s grid-s, ON grada (L. 198)
To the two roots given in 24 and 25 belong forms with initial s, namely Lat. scrib-o (to
γράφω) and OE scrīd-e, OHG scrīt-u (to gradior), both with transfer to the i-series; further,
Lat. scalp-o (to γλάφ), sculp-o (to γλύφ-ω); and as original initial either sk is to be assumed,
and then it must be posited that it changed in part to the weak aspirate before r and l even
before the linguistic separation, or more probably that gh was the original initial, before which
an s had been introduced as a type of compensation for the abandoned aspiration.
26. gṛdh ---- ---- gred-u-s (L. 198)
The meaning of the Sanskrit root gṛdh, gṛdh-yami 'be greedy for something' is mirrored in
Goth. gredu-s 'hunger', ON grad-ug-r, OE grædig 'greedy'.
All words cited above go back to original root forms with two soft aspirates, which in the
Germanic and Italic languages are treated precisely as such, and of which in the Aryan and
Greek languages one, generally the first, loses its aspiration. Some instances still remain to be
treated, in which the hard aspirate, whether it was originally present or developed only later
from the tenuis, exerted in the same way an influence on an originally present, soft aspirate,
so that it lost its aspiration. For we note that like roots with two soft aspirates, those with hard
aspirate initially and soft finally, or the converse, are avoided in Sanskrit (and Greek), apart
from some individual ones which were probably taken from the dialects, and in addition
partly secondary forms of grammarians resting on uncertain readings. Actually, Germanic
makes this assumption very probable for the following two roots:
27. chid σχιδ scid skaid )
C. 295
chinadmi σχίζω scindo scaïdo )
Here Germanic (Gothic) points to the original root final dh. But from this does not necessarily
follow a root with two aspirates; rather it is possible, indeed probable, that the original initial
was sk and only in the common Greek-Aryan language branch did the tenuis, as we see
happen so frequently, also subsequently, after the separation of the two branches, change
under the influence of the preceding s to the hard aspirate, which then merged with s in
Sanskrit to ch. Then we would have to assume an original form *skidh, whose final aspirate
had to change to d, Gk δ, after the k was aspirated and the euphonic law became effective, by
which the simultaneous occurrence of aspirates initially and finally in roots was avoided.
28. chad ---- ---- skad-u-s
The meaning 'shadow' goes naturally with the meaning 'cover up, cover over, conceal' also
'darken' of the Sanskrit root chad (chādáyāmi). In accordance with the statements about the
previous root we would here have to assume an original form *skadh.
If at this point we review the exceptions to the first consonant shift, as Lottner so usefully
assembled them recently, we see that they almost vanish completely, apart from a small
number of dialectal variations and from the instances to be mentioned below which rest on a
type of elective affinity between the liquids and the following media. If we examine first the
initial, then of the instances in which the media is said to remain unshifted (p. 197) the
following disappear, in connection with which I always refer to the number in the foregoing
treatment: 1. god-s (No. 23), 2. graban (No. 24), 3. gredu-s (No. 26), 4. root drug (No. 18), 5.
dauhtar (No. 16), 6. bindan (No. 3), 7. biudan (No. 2), 8. ON botn (No. 1), 9. ON bog-r (No.
6), 10. OE geaflas(No. 21), 11. Goth. gibla, ON gafl (No. 21), 12. dumb-s, daub-s (No. 19),
13. dag-s (No. 15), 14. OE beado (No. 5), 15. OE drygge 'dry'; for Skt *drākh 'be dry', which
is not yet attested, actually shows the original aspirate in the form *dhrākh (same meaning),
which to be sure is similarly unattested. And this example was passed over above only
because the root simply is unattested and no derivatives from it appear; also the vowel u of
Germanic, like the irregularity of the final arouses some suspicion. Among the remaining
exceptions, Goth. gagga, OHG gā must definitely be excluded, however much it is placed
together with Skt gā. For since Skt gā (Gk βαίνω, etc.) is represented by the Germanic root
kvam (Goth. kviman etc.), and since Skt gā (Gk βιβά-s) stands in very close relationship with
it, for this reason alone one cannot accept that equation; Skt gā, Gk βα would have to yield
Gmc ** kvā. Now for the Germanic root ga, the exactly corresponding root with the same
meaning is found in Skt hā, jihāmi, and there seems to be no reason for not equating the
Germanic gā and the reduplicated gaggan with it; this equation is established to a certain
extent through Lith. ẓeng-iu 'stride', for Lith. ẓ is virtually the regular representative of Skt h.
Obviously Skt hā, jáhāmi, jáhīvas (1. du), ptc. hīná-s, which have the meaning 'desert' and, in
the related languages and to some extent also in derivatives in Sanskrit, the meaning 'to
separate, gape', are closely connected; yet in this root an i or j often develops after the initial
(* χα-, hia-re, ON gi-a, HG gi-en. That Goth. gras does not belong to Skt gras 'devour' has
been shown in the first essay in connection with the replacement of the initial aspirate through
Latin media (No. 2); and that ON bulla = Lat. ebullire provides no exception has been
demonstrated there (No. 11). Relationship of OE gilpan with Skt garva, garba had already
been doubted by Lottner and indeed justly; rather, Skt garva 'pride' is to be associated with
Skt gurú 'heavy, weighty, honorable', compar. gárīyas, for which the form and the meaning fit
excellently. Moreover ON gala 'sing, croak', gella 'yell' are hardly to be placed with Skt gr̥, jr̥,
for these, as Lottner correctly remarks, p. 165, are represented by ON kalla; but for these the
onomatopoeic Skt gharghara 'crackling, rustling, laughter', ghargharā and ghargharikā 'bell,
lute' might possibly be adduced. In connection with placing diup-s 'deep', daupjan 'baptize'
with Gk δύπτω it must be noted that δύπτω is an extension, though a late one, of δύω, and
that Lith. dub-u-s, dumb-u gives us no clarification about the original sounds. Goth. dal
'valley', dail-s 'part' belongs to be sure with Skt dal 'burst', dale-m 'torn-off piece, part'; but
because of the final l (see above) it is dubious whether d or dh was the original initial; dhalila
(the name of a valley in northern India) might well speak in favor of the latter. To be sure, Skt
dal is related to dṛ, dar; but just as OE derjan 'harm' stands beside teran 'tear', terjan 'incite',
the corresponding parallelism between initial d and dh might well extend into the time before
the linguistic separation. Goth. gavi 'county', however attractive the relationship with Gk γαῖα
may be, is nonetheless not to be placed here but rather following Grimm with Gk χαμαί etc.
(see above), and the frequent change of m to v at the final of roots must be assumed (cf.
Schweizer, KZ 2.305 and 7.155). Finally, placing ON draum-r HG traum with Skt drā 'sleep'
Lat. dormire is dubious in every respect. Gmc au, OE eá before labials generally points back
to a lost palatal [HG baum = bagm-s; haubi-þ = Skt kakubha; ON taum-r 'bridle' = *tuhm
from tuh 'pull', cf. HG zuhil, zügel, 'bridle'; so also OE teám 'suboles, what is reared', Grimm,
Grammar 2.146, from the same root; OE hreám 'cry' beside Goth. hruk-jan; OE seám, OHG
saum = σάγμα]. A readily available root for draum-r is the above-treated drug (No. 18), and
the naming of a dream for the deceptive or shadowy figures (cf. ON draug-r above) with
which it bewitches the mind (cf. Homer's θέλγειν) is highly suitable; similarly OE dreám
'music' would represent music as that which charms and enchants the mind.
As exceptions, in which Gothic mediae are to have replaced the old tenues, Lottner (p. 187)
adduces only two examples for initial position, which he himself however subsequently
designates as dubious: gretan 'weep' to Skt krand and dragan to Lat. traho. That the latter does
not form an exception has been shown above (No. 20). The basic meaning of krand is 'roar,
bellow', partly of animal cries (of the horse, the ox, the screaming bird), partly of the roaring
of the ocean, of the thundercloud, of crackling fire, of the creaking wheel; then also of the
cries of man, particularly of cries of battle and sorrow. To the latter the meaning of Goth.
gret-an 'weep' might be related. Yet the sound relationships lead us to another root of similar
meaning, namely to Skt *hrād 'roar, thunder', from which: hrādinī 'the lightning of Indra';
hrādunī 'bad weather'; and with short vowel hradinī 'river' (named from its roaring), hradá-s
'pool', used in the Vedas of a pool into which brooks plunge with a roar, later of the deep pool
of Tartarus. Accordingly gretan can just as well be associated with hrād, since the basic
meaning coincides so closely with that of krand, and hrād fits exactly with regard to form.
According to Lottner the initial Gothic aspirates furnish no exception to the shift, though the
initial tenues do, yet only to the extent they seem to correspond to old tenues in some
examples (p. 185). First of all OE päd = πάτo-s along with the corresponding forms of the old
dialects provides a real exception, though only in the special sense of 'path'; for the root fanþ
(Goth. finþ-an), whose original meaning must be 'go', and all its derivatives in use (OE feða =
0HG fendo 'pedestrian', OE feða 'stride' etc.) show the regular shift. In this way OE cal-o
'bald', which is put erroneously among the initials by Lottner, has been demonstrated above to
be a regular correspondent of Skt khal-atí-s. If in addition Goth. tek-an corresponds to Lat.
tango, Gk τε-ταγ-ών, I believe that the irregularity exists in the old languages and is caused
by a sound law demonstrated above for Greek. For Goth. tek-an would correspond to an old
*dang, *dag if regularly shifted. Now we have seen that in Greek, roots with two mediae and
between them a simple vowel or vowel expanded by a nasal are absolutely avoided; in Latin
this law was necessarily obscured because of the representation of aspirates through mediae.
If we therefore take as original that root which Gothic suggests, then when a disinclination
against such a root form began to develop in Greek and Latin, a change of the one sound had
to take place, by which a reason was afforded for hardening of the initial. The remaining
exceptions which Lottner cites there, all concern Germanic k, and particularly in its position
before v and r, where however the organic forms with initial h in part occur beside it, as in
kvainon, ON hvāna, in ON kringla, hringr; and Lottner already rightly observed that here the
h (which however must have been closer in sound originally to the ch) is to be viewed as the
original sound on Germanic soil; only later (when it inclined more towards the soft spirant),
because of the difficulty to make it audible before r, v (l, n), did it disappear in part, in part
harden to k. This can be applied to all the examples adduced there; for also the ON kynda
'kindle' stands for *kvinda in accordance with the Old Norse sound laws.
For medial position Lottner demonstrated (pp. 188-197), as Grimm had already pointed out at
various times, that frequently in this position the old Germanic aspirates (which correspond to
the tenues of other languages) had sunk downward to mediae; further, that this transition,
which can be pursued historically in many individual instances, was the reason why we
frequently, and in particular after liquids, find mediae corresponding to medial tenues of other
languages on the first grade of the Germanic shift, where the more frequent aspirate would be
expected. And he also showed (p. 200) that the shift of mediae is frequently not carried out, so
that here too a kind of elective affinity makes itself known between liquids and mediae (p.
196). But in all other instances the exceptions turn out to be only apparent, if one applies the
laws developed above; or they are limited to an exceedingly small number of cases, which in
addition are nearly all dubious or limited to dialect variations. In this way, all the exceptional
instances adduced by Lottner (p. 202) in which Gothic tenues are supposed to correspond to
old aspirates vanish first of all; for the aspirates showed up as hard originally, and therefore,
in accordance with the above, regularly correspond to Gothic tenues. These are: 1. skip,
skapan (see the first essay towards the end, No. 8); 2. meki (No. 1); 3. OE macjan (No. 7); 4.
tacan (No. 6); 5. greipan (No. 10). A similar situation applies for the exceptions which are
medially preserved mediae (p. 201), for here the Gothic mediae correspond to original weak
aspirates, as has been demonstrated in this second essay of mine for the following instances:
1. grid-s (No. 25), for which I demonstrated at least that also Lat. gradus can be taken back to
a root with two aspirates; 2. deigan (No. 14); 3. skaidan (No. 27); 4. skadus (No. 28); 5. biben
(No 12); 6. biber (No. 13). Similarly OE gläd 'be happy', if it really belongs to Skt hlad, which
however does not seem certain to me, would point to the fact that the original final was dh,
whose aspiration had to defer later to the initial aspirate. Moreover, OHG sweben, sweibon
'vary, waver', Goth. sveiban 'διαλείπειν', ON svāfa 'waver, hurry' seem to me to have to be
separated from OHG sweif = σοβή OS suepan, OE svīpan, svāpan 'sweep' = σοβέω, Goth.
sveipan (in midja-sveipains), which correspond exactly to the Greek forms in meaning and
form (apart from the varying vowels in Germanic). As single exception would then remain
OHG swīgan = Gk σιγάω, for which it is not clear however whether the irregularity lies on the
side of the Germanic or Greek, or whether a relationship exists at all.
Most numerous are the exceptions cited by Lottner (p. 185) for the instances in which medial
tenues seem to be maintained. But first, all those exceptions must be excluded in which the
Germanic words only correspond to words in Latin, Lithuanian, Slavic (Irish), for in all of
these languages (apart from Lat. f which represents initial sph) the tenues are not
distinguished from the original hard aspirates; and in accordance with the statements above,
Gothic tenues correspond to hard tenues. Moreover, those instances must be excluded in
which the remaining languages (as Lottner too remarks) show mediae, which then correspond
regularly to tenues on the first grade of the shift (like hruk-jan beside κραυγ-ή, hveit-s beside
Skt çvid, ut beside ud, þata beside tad; in this connection it should be noted that Panini
already posits these words in the forms ud and tad). Moreover those instances should be
disregarded in which the deviation occurs only in one or the other secondary dialect form,
while all other forms and dialects show the regular correspondence (ON spak-r 'intelligent'
beside ON spā for *spah 'prophecy', OHG spahi 'wise', spahā 'wisdom' spehon, etc.; further,
OE sūcan beside the normal sūgan etc. of Old English and the other dialects). The situation is
quite different in OE vīc, OHG wīch = Lat. vīcus, Gk Foἶκο-s for here only Gothic provides
the regular form veih-s. Moreover those examples are excluded in which the Gothic tenues
regularly correspond to original hard aspirates, namely in vairpan (Essay I, No. 9), in ON flatr
(No. 5), and probably in NHG flach, which may be recognized as a secondary form beside
flat-r since Old High German almost exclusively shows the form flaz corresponding to ON
flat-r. Finally, those words are excluded whose association with those of the related languages
rests on erroneous comparison. Here I put the association of taikn-s 'sign' with δείκνυμι, Skt
diç, to which the generally distributed Germanic root tih 'show' regularly corresponds. It
seems to me that taikn-s has lost an initial s and that it belongs to the root: Zend çtij, στιγ, Lat.
stig, Goth. stik, stak 'stick', which loses its s also in Sanskrit; this association is demonstrated
by the meaning of στίγμα 'spot, characteristic', and through Lat. signum, which Ebel in this
journal 6.441 correctly explains from *stig-num and which, except for the loss of the second
element of the consonant combination, corresponds exactly with Goth. taikn-s. Further, I
count as erroneous the association of ON hvat-r 'sharp' with Lat. catu-s, or with Skt kaṭu-s; the
Latin word, to which also cōs belongs, leads to a root *ca = Skt çā (ço) 'sharpen' (Aufrecht in
this journal 7.74). Skt kaṭu-s 'sharp in taste' does not belong with hvat-r either; for this
purpose kaṭh-ora-s 'hard, sharp' (cf. kaṭh-ina-s 'hard') is much more probable -- for the ax
kuṭh-āra, for example, is called a kaṭhora-nemi provided with a sharp edge, and kaṭhora
(Petersburger Lexicon) is used of a sharp bite, a sharp wind, of piercing cries (of the donkey).
The associated kuṭhāra 'ax' makes an original initial of kv probable at the same time through
the exchange between a and u. The sounds then agree very exactly, since the hard aspirate
regularly corresponds to ON t. Accordingly there remains among the exceptions cited by
Lottner only one, namely OE vīcan, ON vīka, OHG wīchan 'yield' beside Gk Fἐίκω, Skt vic
'separate' for which the secondary form vij of the grammarians (or indeed a derivation from vi
yuj) cannot be taken into consideration.
If in this way the numerous exceptions to the first sound shift vanish almost without a trace,
as soon as one recognizes the laws developed above, I believe I have found through this fact
no negligeable confirmation of the theory I have proposed.
Stettin, 4 September 1862
CHAPTER ELEVEN
KARL VERNER
AN EXCEPTION TO THE FIRST SOUND SHIFT
"Eine Ausnahme der ersten Lautverschiebung,"
Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete
der Indogermanischen Sprachen, 23.2 (1875), 97-130
Editor's Introduction
Verner's may be the single most influential publication in linguistics. It is so lucid that it
scarcely needs comment. Yet since a later generation often wonders why a publication had the
impact it did, a few of the reasons may be mentioned.
First, the article is excellently written. Verner presented all the relevant material in exemplary
form. Comparison with even the careful Grassmann, not to speak of the discursive Lottner or
earlier scholars, will indicate Verner's superior marshalling of the data. The argument too is at
all times lucid and persuasive. One need only read articles published by well-known scholars
even after Verner's time to observe the refreshing clarity of Verner. Alone as an essay, the
article is superb.
Further, through the primary purpose of the article Verner solved the most troublesome
contemporary problem - "the last set of exceptions to Grimm's law." To be sure an
explanation had been offered and had even been acknowledged by scholars as competent as
Lottner and Grassmann. But it was fuzzy, scarcely in accordance with other observations on
the functioning of language. Verner's explanation was immediately convincing. Moreover, it
removed from linguistics an awkward attempt to rely on imprecise relationships, and it
suggested that linguistic phenomena must be accounted for with the rigor demanded in the
physical sciences.
Because this explanation was at once adopted, the reasoning on which it was based and its
implications for general theory had a tremendous influence. Attention was drawn to
suprasegmentals. The journals after Verner are full of articles proposing explanations of
linguistic phenomena by means of accent, such as the various attempts to give an explanation
for the development of Gmc -jj -ww- to -dd/ggj- -ggw in Gothic and North Germanic. And
since such suprasementals came to their attention, linguists began to devote a great deal of
interest to the use of suprasegmentals in selected patterns of language, to metrics. This
scrutiny of suprasegmentals for improved understanding of linguistic phenomena was
important, but of greatest importance for general linguistics was the effort to account for all
phonological phenomena: not only consonants and vowels, but also stress, pitch, quantity,
juncture. Control over these was not achieved at once, but the efforts leading to that control
were largely touched off by Verner's article.
Further, Verner saw the clinching evidence for his explanation in its accounting for
morphophonemic variation. Since there was a direct relationship between the consonant
variation, the variation in accent, and the stem changes in the preterite and preterite participle,
Verner concluded that the variation must be regularly conditioned. This attention to
morphophonemic variation led to greater examination of morphological structure in its
relation to the phonological system of language, and in this way to the method of internal
reconstruction. Verner's second article, which stands immediately after this one, KZ 23.2.131-
38, dealt with Indo-European ablaut. Other linguists made the important contributions to its
understanding: Brugmann by positing vocalic nasals; Saussure by positing laryngeals. Both
scrutinized morphological patterning in arriving at their conclusions. Both, especially
Saussure, came to be increasingly proficient in the method of internal reconstruction.
In providing his explanation, Verner sought to account for all the data. Grimm had recognized
the general relationship between the Germanic obstruents and those in the other IndoEuropean
dialects, and he noted only in passing problems like the -d- in Gothic fadar etc.
Grimm's successors had clarified some particulars. In clarifying the remainder Verner
accounted for all the residues. In this way he applied the principle of accounting for all data in
a language. His predecessors were moving toward such methodological standards. When
Lottner and Grassmann, for example. published their articles they also discussed (the
remainders which were not yet accounted for. But since imprecise sets of exceptions
remained, their articles had not exerted the dramatic impact on general linguistics of Verner's.
After his it seemed clear that linguists could and must provide a total accounting of the data in
any given language.
It is understandable that with its tremendous contributions to Germanic, Indo-European and
general linguistics the article led to excesses. After its publication many obscure problems
were examined for possible explanation by means of supra-segmentals, and solutions were
given which never were widely adopted. Yet of greatest general impact was the conviction
that language undergoes change regularly, even mechanically: that sound change takes place
without exception. The linguists at Leipzig, who brought Verner down from Copenhagen,
were strengthened in this mechanical view of language by his remarkable article; his
explanation helped establish the highly influential neogrammarian school which dominated
linguistics for the next two generations.
Karl Adolf B. Verner (1846-1896) was himself very modest. The article which brought him
fame was published at the insistence of Vilhelm Thomson. Although he was well-known after
this publication, he preferred a simple position in a library at Halle. When there was a
vacancy in Slavic Philology at his own university, he became Reader there in 1883 and spent
the rest of his career at the University of Copenhagen. Not least of his qualities was his
capacity for self-criticism. He published very little, all of it high in quality. The impact of his
work resulted from his capable formulation as well as the discovery itself. For a fine account
of his manner of work and his personality see Otto Jespersen's essay in his volume of
collected papers, Linguistics.
In the eleventh volume of this journal (pp. 161-205), Lottner subjected the exceptions of the
first sound-shift to a careful examination. He investigated all developments of the IndoEuropean
stops (tenues, mediae, and aspiratae) which seem to forsake the scheme
IE k = Gmc h, IE g = Gmc k, IE gh = Gmc g
t = þ, d = t, dh = d
p = f, b = p, bh = b,
and the now dead researcher found essentially two categories of exceptions, exclusive of the
cases where no shift occurred due to certain consonantal combinations (IE sk, st, sp = Gmc sk,
st, sp; IE kt, pt = Gmc ht, ft). On the one hand, Lottner found that g, d, b were sometimes
present in Germanic unshifted, as for example in Goth. gredu-s 'hunger' beside Skt gṛdh-yati
'he is eager for', Goth. dauhtar 'daughter' beside Skt duhitar 'daughter', Goth. bindan 'to bind'
beside Skt bandh 'to bind', and others. On the other hand, these same Germanic voiced stops
(g, d, b) appeared in many cases not as correlatives of the Indo-European aspirates, as was to
be expected, but as correlatives to the Indo-European voiceless stops (k, t, p); thus, for
example, the Germanic form tegu 'decade', which corresponds to IE dakan 'ten', Gmc modar =
IE mâtar, OHG ebar = Lat. aper, Goth. bairand 'they carry' = Skt bharanti etc.
The first class of exceptions, however, was soon afterwards accounted for by Grassmann. In
his well-known article in the twelfth volume of this journal "On the original presence of roots,
whose initial and final contained an aspirate," he establishes the fact that the anomalies cited
by Lottner are only apparent, since in Skt gṛdhyati, duhitar, bandh and the like, we do not
have the original Indo-European initial sound, which was rather an aspirate, as a comparison
with other Indo-European languages attests, and therefore the voiced stop in the Germanic
form is fully justified.
Compared with the first very extensive class of exceptions found by Lottner, the second class
may not be cleared up in such a way. Here there is really a violation of the sound laws and
apparently the guilt falls exclusively on Germanic. The irregular sound change occurs only
medially and then only in a voiced environment. I cite some examples of this irregular
shifting with differing sound-positions medially:
Gmc g = IE k. Gmc saga f. 'saw' (ON sög, OHG saga); compare Lat. sec-o, OSl. seką 'I hew',
Lith. sýki-s 'strike, time'. Gmc sagjan 'to say' (ON segja, OS seggian, OE secgan, OHG
sagian) Lith. sak-ýti, -aú 'to say'; compare έν-νεπ-ε for *έν-ςεπ-ε and OLat. in-sec-e 'quote,
tell'. Goth. hals-aggan- m. 'curve of the neck', OE angan- m. 'point, arrowhead'; compare Skt
anka- m. 'hook, clasp; joint, side, lap' = ογχo-s = Lat. uncu-s 'hook'. Gmc þegna- m. 'boy,
servant, warrior' (ON þegn 'free man, warrior', OS thegan 'boy, man, warrior', OE þegn
'knight', OHG degan 'boy, servant, warrior') = τέκνο-ν 'child'. Along with this compare
successively the following examples of the regular shift in similar medial sounds: Goth.
haiha- 'one-eyed' = Lat. caecu-s 'blind'. Gmc hlahjan 'to laugh' (Goth. hlahjan, ON hlčja, OE
hlehhan, hlyhhan, (OHG hlahhan); compare Skt kark 'to laugh', κλώςςω for *κλωκ-jω 'I cluck,
click (the tongue)'. Gmc fanhan 'to catch' (Goth. fâhan, ON fá, OS fâhan, OE fôn, OFris. fâ,
OHG fâhan); compare Skt pâç-aya-ti 'he binds', Lat. pac-iscî, pax, pâc-is. Gmc laihna- n. 'fief'
(ON lân, OE læn, OHG lêhan) derived from lêhvan 'to lend' (Goth. leihvan, ON ljá, OS farlîhan,
OHG lîhan); compare Skt ric, pres. riṇak-ti and recati 'to leave' = λείπω, ἕ-λιπ-oν =
linquo, lîqui = Lith. lëk-u, lík-ti.
Gmc d = IE t. Goth. fadi- m. 'master', only in compounds, as for example brûþ-fadi'bridegroom'
= Skt pati- m. 'master, husband' = πóςι-s = Lith. pàt-s 'lord and master'. Gmc
þeuda- f. 'people' (Goth. þiuda, OS thioda, OHG diota) = Lith. (Zemaitic) tautà, Latvian tauta,
Umbrian tūtu. Gmc þridjan- 'the third' (Goth. þridjan-, ON þriði, OS thriddio, OE þridda,
OHG dritjo, dritto) = Skt tṛtîya-, Lat. tertiu-s, Lith. trècza-s, OSl. tretii. Gmc fedvôr 'four'
(Goth. fidvor, ON fjórir, OS fiuuar, OE feóver, OHG fior) = Skt. catvâras, τέςςαρεs, quatuor,
Lith. keturì, OSl. četyrije. Gmc and- 'against, ant-' (Goth. anda-, and-, ON, OE and-, OHG
ant-); compare Skt anti 'against' ἀντί, ἄντα 'against'. Lat. ante. Gmc andja- m. 'end' (Goth.
andja-, ON endi-r, OS endi, OE ende, OHG enti- m.n.); compare Skt. anta- m. 'end', antyaadj.
'he who is final, the last'. Gmc skordi- f. 'to shear, cut' (ON skurð-r m. i-stem, 'cutting,
mowing', OHG scurt- f. 'tonsure') formed from the root skar 'to cut' by means of the suffix -di
= IE -ti. Gmc skoldi- f. 'guilt' (ON skuld, skyld, OS sculd, OE scyld, OHG sculd) by means of
the same suffix from the root skal 'should'. Compare with this the following cases of regular
shifting: Gmc hvaþara- 'both' (Goth. hvaþar, ON hvár-r, OS hueðar, OE hväer, OHG hwedar,
wedar) = Skt katar- = πóτερο-s, Ionic κóτερo-s = Lith. katrà-s. Gmc hleuþa- n. 'hearing,
listening, silence' (Goth. hliuþa-, ON hljóð) = OBactrian çraota- n. 'hearing'. Gmc niþja- m.
'relative, cousin' (Goth. niþja-, ON ni;ð-r, OE niððas pl.m. 'men'); compare OSl. netii m.
'nephew', ἀ-νεψιó'-s 'cousin, relative' from a base form *napatja-, compare Skt. napât-, naptar'grandson,
nephew, descendant', Lat. nepôt-. Goth. saliþva- f., only in the pl. saliþvos 'shelter,
lodging', formed by means of the suffix -þva = IE -tva from the verb stem salja- 'to put up at'.
Gmc tanþu-, tanþ- m. 'tooth' (Goth. tunþu-, ON tönn f., OS tand m., OE tôð, OHG zand) =
Skt. dant-, dantà- m., ὀ-δούs, o-δóντos m., Lith. dantí-s m. f. Gmc an-þja- n. 'forehead' (ON
enni, OHG andi); cp. ἀντίo-s 'that which is opposite, opposed', Lat. antiæ 'hair on the
forehead'. Gmc morþa- 'murder' (ON morð, OE morð, OS morð, OHG mord), formed from
the root mar 'to die' by means of the suffix -þa = IE -ta. Goth. vulþu- m. 'grandeur' = Lat.
vultu-s, from the root val 'to desire' by means of the suffix -þu = IE -tu.
Gmc. b = IE p. Gmc seban 'seven' (Goth. sibun, ON sjau, OS, OHG sibun, siban, OE seofon)
= Skt saptan, ἐπτά, septem. On the other hand with regular shifting: Gmc nefan- m. (the
Germanic basic form must be posited with f after OHG nevo 'nephew, sister's son, uncle,
relative'; ON nefi, OE nefa); cf. Skt. napât- m. 'descendant, grandson', Lat. nepôt-.
But this differentiation of the originally voiceless stops takes place not only, as in the above
examples, in forms originating from different roots; it also appears very frequently within
word formations belonging to the same root, so that some derivations show in Germanic
voiceless fricatives in the root, the other derivations voiced stops. Thus beside Gmc tehan 'ten'
(Goth. taihun, ON tíu, OS tŷn, OHG zehan = Skt dacan, δέκα, decem) is found a substantive
tegu- m- 'a ten' (Goth. tigu-, ON tig-r, tug-r, OHG -zig, -zog); beside Gmc hauha- 'high'
(Goth. hauha-, ON há-r, OS hôh, OE heáh, OHG hôh) a form hauga- m. 'hill' (ON haug-r,
MHG houc, gen. houges); beside teuhan 'to draw' (Goth. tiuhan, OS tiohan, OHG ziohan =
Lat. dûco) Gmc tuga- 'pull' (ON tog n., OHG zug m.), Gmc taugi- f. 'cord' (ON taug f., OE
teig) and Gmc haritugan- m. 'commander-in-chief' (ON hertogi, OS heritogo, OE heretoga,
OHG herizogo); beside Gmc fanhan 'to catch' the substantive fanga- catch' (ON fang n., OHG
fang m.); beside Gmc slahan 'to beat' (Goth., OS, OHG slahan, ON slá, OE sleá) Gmc slaga'blow'
(ON slag n., OE slagu f., OHG slaga f.); beside OHG swehur m. and OE sveor m.
'father-in-law' (= Skt çvaçura-, έκυρó-s-, socer, OSl. svekrŭ, Lith. szeszura-s) OHG swigar f.,
OE sveger f. 'mother in-law' (= Skt. çvaçrû ἑκυρό, socru-s, OSl. svekry); beside ON flá from
*flahan 'flay' ON flaga wk. f. 'layer' and flagna 'come off (the skin from the flesh)'; beside
Gmc felhan 'to hide' (Goth. filhan, ON fela, OHG felahan) Goth. fulgina- 'hidden' and ON
fjalg-r in compounds 'safe, well kept', and others. In the dental series we have for example
Goth. hinþan 'to capture, take prisoner', Swed. hinna st.verb, Dan. dialect hinne 'to reach'
beside the Germanic form connected with it handu- 'hand' f. (Goth. handu-, ON hönd, OS
hand, OE hond, OHG hant, hand); Gmc finþan 'to find' (Goth. finþan, ON finna, OS fiðan,
OHG findan) beside ON fund-r, stem fundi- m. 'gathering'; Goth. fraþan 'to understand, to be
reasonable' beside Gmc frôda- 'intelligent, reasonable' (Goth. froda-, ON fróð-r, OS, OE frôd,
OHG fruot); Gmc lîþan 'to go' (Goth. leiþan, ON làða, OS lîða, OS lîðan, OE lîðan, OHG
lîdan) and liþu- m. 'limb' (Goth. liþu-, ON lið-r, OE lið, OHG lid) beside Gmc laidjan 'to lead'
(ON leiða, OS lêdian, OE lædan, OHG leittan) and laida- f. 'way' (ON leið, OE lâd); Goth.
soþa- m. 'satisfaction' ga-soþjan 'to sate' beside Gmc sada- 'satisfied' (Goth. sada-, ON sað-r,
OS sad, OHG satt = OSl. sytŭ cf. Lat. satur, sat, satis) and others. In the labial series, f and b
have fused through secondary sound changes into one sound in most of the Germanic
languages, thus obliterating the differentiation originally present. From Gothic, which, like
Old High German, kept the two sounds distinct, these forms can be cited: af-lif-nan 'remain
over' beside laiba- f. 'remainder'.
If one surveys the cited examples, one may easily be tempted to explain this entire
differentiation of the originally voiceless stops as a caprice of the language, to ascribe simply
to chance the appearance of the voiced stops in many cases where the voiceless fricative
would be expected. Yet just to cite still another striking example, the three identically formed
Indo-European relationship terms bhrâtar, mâtar, patar correspond to the Germanic
correlatives brôþar, môdar, fadar, though there is no apparent reason why môdar and fadar do
not follow the regularly shifted brôþar. One cannot however persist in the hypothesis that this
was a chance occurrence. Comparative linguistics cannot, to be sure, completely deny the
element of chance; but chance occurrence en masse as here, where the instances of irregular
shifting are nearly as frequent as those of regular shifting, it cannot and may not admit. That is
to say, in such a case there must be a rule for the irregularity; it only remains to discover this.
Let us first clarify the phonological event. One can readily accept the fact that the Germanic
voiceless fricative resulted directly from the Indo-European voiceless stop by a relaxing of the
oral closure. On the other hand, the Germanic voiced stop cannot have resulted directly from
the Indo-European voiceless stop by voicing, for this would be a sound innovation directly
counter to the main direction of the sound shift, which produced a voiceless stop from the
Indo-European voiced stop. One must therefore attempt to arrive indirectly from the voiceless
stop to the voiced stop, and then the best proposal is Scherer's explanation in the fine section
concerning the sound-shift (Geschichte der deutschen Sprache, p. 82): "I now assume that all
irregularly shifted tenues were first shifted regularly to voiceless spirants, that these,
particularly in frequently used words (like fadar, môdar), were under the influence of the
surrounding voiced elements also produced with voice and then, with the beginning of the
third part of the shift, took the direction of all the remaining voiced spiraints or voiced
affricates. " If one wants to assert that in the above explanation the so-called affricates
(Rumpelt, Deutsche Grammatik I, section 27) must generally be substituted for spirants, then
one may do this; it is itself of little importance and especially for our purposes will be a matter
of complete indifference, since it is enough for us to have determined that the irregular shifts
also followed at one time the sound stage of the regular shifts; from there, however, they
progressed further.1
And we can now phrase the question of the etymological explanation
thus: Why did the sound current of the shift in some cases stop with the voiceless fricative and
in other cases progress further through the voiced fricative to the voiced stops?
The only person who has sought an answer to this question, as far as I know, is Scherer in the
passage just cited. He assumes that the shift to voiced stops occurs "in frequently used words
(like fadar, môdar)" consequently the regular shift occurs in less frequently used words. I
believe that the venerable author did not wish to attach great weight to this attempt at
explanation and that he permitted himself to mention it only as a conceivable possibility. A
careful scrutiny of the Germanic vocabulary is not favorable to his thesis. Is it probable that
fadar and môdar were used more frequently than brôþar? In Ulfila's writings moreover môdar
does not even appear, the word aiþei always being used instead; and he uses fadar only once,
otherwise however atta, while his broþar has no parallel synonym at all.
Could fehu-, the Germanic epitome for material well-being, cattle, money, wealth,
possessions and the like, have been a more infrequently occurring word than, for example,
lagu- 'lake' (ON lög-r, OE lagu = Lat. lacu-s)? May one assume that our Germanic ancestors
used the numbers 4 and 100 (fedvór, hund) more frequently than the number 10 (tehan)?
More such examples could be cited, I will, however, find occasion in what follows to
demonstrate the improbability of that thesis.
An attempt to find an etymological rule for the differentiation of the Proto-Germanic
voiceless fricative into voiceless fricative and voiced stop by means of a juxtaposition of the
Germanic word stock with the comparable word stock of the other Indo-European langauages
cannot lead to any certain result; for precisely because the differentiation manifest itself so
actively in word formation, one cannot be satisfied with a comparison of root-related words;
rather, a juxtaposition of words which are identical wherever possible is required, and in this
way the comparable materials will become too small for something reliable to be built on it.
Happily, however, the investigation can be transferred to another sphere which is significantly
more circumscribed and where we can find certain bases for our conjectures. Not enough
importance has been placed on the fact that the differentiation of the Proto-Germanic
voiceless fricative also appears in the conjugation of certain verbs.2
When, for example, we have for OE liðe 'navigo, proficiscor' a participal form lidan, then here
there is apparently the same diferentiation as in lið 'limb' as against lid 'vehicle'. That
Germanic philology has until now so readily ignored this fact, which is very interesting in
itself and demands reflection -- for a modification of the root consonant for the purpose of
conjugation does not belong to the realm of the commonplace -- may have its basis in the fact
that Gothic, from which one usually proceeds in a comparison, does not even know this
differentiation in the conjugation. It can, however, be establislied through compilation of the
relevant materials that this differentiation in the conjugation originally belonged to all the
Germanic Iangruages, and consequently that it must also at one time have been present in
Gothic. The Germanic voiceless fricatives and voiced stops which arose from the IndoEuropean
voiceless stops are so distributed in the conjugation, that all present tense verb
forms (inf., pres. ind., subj., imper., and part.) as well as the singular forms of the preterite
indicative show voiceless fricatives an all remaining verb forms show voiced stops. I must
completely disregard the labial differentiation in the following compilation; it was alluded to
above that the differentiation of the labial in word f orm ation was almost completely effaced
by later falling together of the sounds; there is no longer any trace to be found in the
conjugation.
A. Verbs, whose roots in Indo-European end in k, in Germanic in h (hv), g:
1) root slah, slag 'ferire'3
ON slá, sló, slógum, sleginn.
OS slahan, slôh (slôg), slôgun, slagan.
OE sleán, slôh (slôg), slôgon, slàgen.
OFris. slâ, slôch, slôgon, e-slein.
OHG slahan, sluoh (MHG sluoc), sluogum, slagan.
OS, OE slôg, MHG sluoc through the influence of the plural forms; thus frequently in the
following forms.
2) root þvah, þvag 'lavare'.
ON þvâ, þvó, þvógum, þveginn.
OS thuahan, (thuôg), [thuôgun, thuagan].
OE þveán, þvôh, þvôgon, þvàgen.
OHG dwahan, dwuoh (MHG dwuoc), dwuogum, dwagan.
3) root lah, lag 'vituperare'.
OS lahan, (lôg), [lôgun, lagan].
OE leán, lôh (lôg), lôgon, [làgen].
OHG lahan, luog), luogum, [lagan].
4) root flah, flag 'excoriare'.
ON flá, fló, flógum, fleginn.
5) root klah, klag 'fricare'.
ON klá, kló, klógum, kleginn.
6) root vah, vag 'mentionem facere'.
OHG [ge-wahan], -wuoh, -wuogum, [-wagen].
7) root hlah, hlag 'ridere', makes its present forms by means of -jaON
hlæja, hló, hlógum, hleginn
OS ? [hlôh], hlôgun, hlagan.
OE hlehhan hlyhhan, hlôh (hlôg), hlôgon, [hlàgen].
OHG hlahhan, (hluoc) ? ?
8) root fah, fag 'laetari'.
OE ge-feón, -feah, fægon, [fegen].
OHG ge-fehan, -fah, -fâhum, -fehan has abandoned the differentiation.4
9) root sahv, sagv 'vider'
OS sehan, sah, ságon sâuuun (sâhun), seuuan (sehan).
OE seón, seah, sægon sâvon, seven.
OFris. sia, (sag), sagen, sien.
OHG sehan, sah, (sâhum), sewan (sehan).
The v, which is only manifested in the preterite forms, must also be regarded as a kind of
differentiation.
ON sjá, sá, sáum, sénn does not show the differentiation.
10) root falh, falg 'commendare, abscondere'.
ON fela, fal, (fálum), folginn.
OE feolan (felgan), fealh, fulgon (fêlon, fælon), (folen, feolen).
ON fulgum is to be expected in the preterite plural; fálum is formed by analogy with fela fal,
as if the verb belonged to the second ablaut class (stela, stal, stálum); likewise OFris. bi-fellan
for *bi-felhan has gone over to the second ablaut class (bi-fel, -faelon, -felen). OS bi-felahan,
-falah, -fulhun, -folhan and OHG felahan, falah, fuluhum, folohan are without differentiation.
11) root tih, tig 'demonstrare, nuntiare'.
0S tîhan, [têh, tigun, tigan].
OE teón tîhan, tâh, [tigon], tigen.
OHG zîhan, zêh, zigum, zigan.
ON tjá has become weak.
12) root þih, þig 'crescere, proficere'.
OS thîhan, [thêh, thigun], thigan.
OE þeon þîhan, þâh (þeáh), þigon (þugon), þegen (þogen).
OHG dîhan, dê, digum, digan.
13) root sihv, sigv 'colare, liquare'.
OE seón, sâh, sigon, [sigen].
OHG sîhan, sêh, [sigum], sigan siwan (sihan).
14) root vrih, vrig 'operire'.
OE vreón vrîhan, vrâh, vrigon, vrigen.
OHG (int-) rîhan, [-rêh] -rigum, -rigan.
15) root lihv, ligv 'commodare'.
0S (far)- lîthan, [-lêh], -liuuum (-lihun), -liuuan.
OE lîhan, lâh, [ligon, ligen].
OHG lîhan, lêh, liwum, liwan (lihan).
Compare No. 9 - ON ljá, OFris. lîa have become weak.
16) root tuh, tug 'trahere'.
ON ----- ----- ----- toginn.
OS tiohan, tôh, tugun (tuhun), togan.
OE teón, teáh, tugon, togen.
OFris. tîa, tâch, tegon, tein.
OHG ziohan, zôh, zugum, zogan.
17) root þluh, þlug 'fugere'.
OS fliohan, flôh, [flugun, flogan].
OE fleón, fleáh, flugon, flogen].
OFris. flîa, ----, flegen, flain.
OHG fliohan, flôh, flugum, flogan.
B. Verbs, whose roots in Indo-European end in t, in Germanic in þ, d.
Old Norse cannot be compared here, since þ and d medially fell together in one sound. Also in
the conjugation Old Saxon merged the two sounds in ð, while keeping them otherwise
distinct. It can however be perceived from ON finna, OS fîðan, that both languages at one
time recognized the difference in the conjugation, even in the dentals. In OHG, Gmc þ is
shifted to d medially (in the Low Franconian Isidore to dh) and Gmc d is shited to t (in Isidore
to d).
1) root kvaþ, kvad 'dicere'.
OE cveðan, cväð, cvædon, cveden.
OHG quedan, quad, quâtum. (quâdum), quetan. In Isidore quhedhan (quhedan), quhidum,
quhedan.
2) root fanþ, fand 'linvenire'.
ON finna, fann, fundum. (funnum), fundinn (funninn).
OS fîðan (findan), (fand), fundun, fundan.
OHG findan, fand, funtum (fundum), funtan (fundan).
OE findan, OFris. finda with d throughout.
3) root þarp, vard 'fieri'.
OE veorðan, vearð, vurdon, vorden.
OFris. wertha, warth, worden, worden.
OHG werdan, ward, wurtum, wortan. In Isidore uuerdhan (uuerdan), (uuard), uurdum,
uuordan.
4) root liþ, lid 'ire, proficisci'.
OE lîðan, lâð [lidon] (liðon), liden (liðen).
OHG lîdan, leid, litun, litan.
5) root sniþ, snid 'secare'.
OE snîðan, snâð, snidon, sniden.
OFris. snîtha, snêth, sniden, snein (snithen).
OHG snîdan, sneid, snitum, snitan.
6) root vriþ, vrid 'ligare, torquere'.
OE vrîðan, vrâð, [vridon] (vriðon), [vriden] (vriðen).
OHG rîidan, [reid, ritum, ritan] (ridan).
7) root miþ mid 'evitare'.
OE mîðan, mâð, [midon, miden] (miðen).
OHG mîðan, meid, mitum, mitan.
8) root skriþ, skrid 'gradi'.
OE scrîðan, scrâð, scridon [scriden] (scriðen).
9) root suþ, sud 'coquere'.
OE seóðan, seiáð, sudon, soden.
OHG siodan, (sôt), [sutum], sotan.
10) root hruþ, hrud 'ornare'.
OE hreóðan, [hreóð, hrudon], hroden.
The above verbs all belong to the various ablaut classes; of the verbs which in Germanic
originally formed their preterite by means of reduplication, only two show differentiation;
they, however, do so in such a way that the voiceless fricative is found only in the present
forms, while the preterite singular conforms to the remaining preterite forms and shows a
voiced stop.
1) root fanh, fang 'capere'.
ON fá, fékk (for *fénk, *féng), féngum, fenginn.
0S fâhan, fêng, fêngun, fangan.
OE fôn (from *fôhan, *fonhan, *fanhan), fêng, fêngon, fangen.
OFris. fâ, fêng, fêngon, fangen fenszen.
OHG fâhan, fiang, fiangum, fangan.
2) root hanh, hang 'pendere'.
ON (hanga), hékk, héngum, hanginn.
0S [hâhan, hêng, hêngun], hangan.
OE hôn, hêng, hêngon, hangen.
OHG hâhan, hiang, hiangum, hangan.
Certainly no one would think of interpreting all these cases as special developments within
the individual languages. It would be quite unthinkable that the five languages here treated
changed the h in the preterite participle of slahan, for example, to g independently of one
another. The differentiation in conjugation must therefore have existed already at a stage of
development common to the five languages; indeed even where this differentiation can be
established only for one particular language, it may be viewed as a common possession, for a
phenomenon which operates in such a special sphere and is due to an insignificant acoustical
difference would hardly have been able to produce forms by analogy. If, however, the
differentiation in conjugation was common to the five languages, then Gothic must also once
have participated in it. This language, which recognizes the differentiation in word formation,
shows consistently the voiceless fricative in the conjugation of verbs, which in the other
Germanic languages have the differentiation: slahan, sloh, slohum, slahans; leiþan, laiþ,
liþum, liþans; vairþan, varþ, vaurþum, vaurþans; fâhan, fai-fâh, fai-fâhum, fâhans etc. The
more frequently occurring present forms won out over the preterite forms and forced their
root consonants on them; in this we may see a manifestation of the strong tendency toward
uniformity of this language idiom, which also manifests itself elsewhere, for example, in
Gothic i, u as against the e, i and o, u respectively of the other Germanic languages. The
differentiation in conjugation, therefore, already belonged to the Germanic original language.
If, however, the differentiation in conjugation had its origin in the same language period in
which the differentiation in word formation also originated, then it is self-evident that both are
simply manifestations of one and the same sound shift; they must therefore be interpreted
from one unified viewpoint, a common explanation must be sought for them. The following
equation will be generally valid:
Gmc tehan slahana- (inf. stem) brôþar kveþana- (inf.)
= = =
Gmc tegu- slagana- (pret. part. stem) môdar kvedana- (part.)
An explanation which is suitable only for one of the differentiations or only for quite isolated
cases of the differentiation5
has thereby the appearance of improbability. Even if the abovecited
explanation by Scherer could with great difficulty be adapted to the differentiation in
word formation, it still could not be applied to the differentiation in conjugation because one
would then have to make the foolish assertion that the plural forms of the preterite indicative,
which show the voiced stop (OS slôgun), are more frequently used than the plural forms of
the present indicative, which have the voiceless fricative (OS slahad), and that the preterite
participle (OS slagan is more frequent than the infinitive (OS slahan).
From the regular occurrence of differentiation in the conjugation of these verbs, the important
conclusion may now be drawn that the differentiating force must be sought in a certain
phonetic relationship which varyingly accompanied the conjugation. Through this conclusion
the investigation is confined to rather narrow limits. The differentiation took place after the
sound-shift had begun; therefore it is peculiar to Germanic. The differentiating impetus, on
the other hand, must be older and may very well have already belonged to the Indo-European
language. Consequently, this impetus must be sought in that language stage which has its end
members in the underlying Indo-European forms on the one hand and on the other, in the
forms to which one can attain through a compilation of the Gernianic languages. Fortunately,
the principal forms of the Germanic, strong verbs are transparently clear back to IndoEuropean.
The Indo-European conjugation is based on the following four means of formation:
1) varying ending
2) varying root vowel
3) the use or non-use of augment and reduplication
4) varying accent
These and no others.
If one now looks at a series of Germanic basic forms, for example:
kveþana-, slahana-, lîþana-,
kvarþ, slôh, laiþ,
kvâdum, slô, lidum
kvedana-, slagana-, lidana,
it is readily apparent that the phonetic basis for the differentiation cannot lie in the
phonological material of the endings: the endings of the infinitive stem (kveþ-ana-, slah-ana-,
liþ-ana-) is the same as that of the participle stem (kved-ana-, slag-ana-, lid-ana-) and yet
differentiation is present. Secondly, the basis cannot be sought in the quantitative aspects of
the roots, for the voiceless fricative appears with long as well as short root vowels (lîþana-,
slôh; kveþana-, kvaþ, slahana-); the same is true of the voiced stop (slôgum; kvedana-,
slagana-). And these same quantitative conditions were already present in Indo-European.
Thirdly, and finally the use or non-use of reduplication -- the augmented verb forms have
been lost in Germanic -- could not have caused the differentiation, since then we would have
to have for some forms the same root consonants in the entire preterite indicative, which is not
the case; for others outside the conjugation, a special explanation would have to be given for
the differentiation, since reduplication is essentially a purely verbal process.
Consequently, only one explanation remains and it is no desperate hypothesis, to which I must
take recourse because all other attempts at explanation have failed, but rather a decision which
has of necessity thrust itself upon me by sober argumentation: The differentiation must be
based on the fourth means of formation of the conjugation, on the varying Indo-European
accent. This assumption is confirmed in the highest degree by a confrontation of the Germanic
verb forms with the corresponding forms of the Sanskrit verbs. When the accent in Sanskrit
rests on the root syllable, we have the voiceless fricative for the root final in Germanic; on the
other hand, when the accent in Sanskrit falls on the ending, the Germanic forms show a
voiced stop for the root final. In the following compilation, I am juxtaposing to the Sanskrit
forms first the etymologically corresponding Germanic paradigm and then a paradigm with
the differentiation. Since we are concerned here only with the root final, I am citing the
Germanic forms with Gothic endings.
A. The accent rests in Sanskrit on the root; the root final is a voiceless fricative in Germanic.
a. Skt pres. ind. = Gmc pres. ind.
sg. 1. bhédâmi = bîta lîþa
2. bhédasi = bîtis liþîs
3. bhédati = bîtiþ lîþiþ
pl. 1. bhédâmas = bîtam lîþam
2. bhédatha = bîtiþ lîþiþ
3. bhédanti = bîtand lîþand
b. Skt pres. potential = Gmc pres. subj.
sg. 1. bhédeyam = bîtau lîþau
2. bhédes = bîtais lîþais
3. bhédet = bîtai lîþai
pl. 1. bhédema = bîtaima lîþaima
2. bhédeta = bîtaiþ lîþaiþ
3. bhédeyus = bîtaina lîþaina
c. Skt pres. imper. = Gmc pres. imper.
sg. 2. bhéda = bît lîþ
pl. 2. bhédata = bîtiþ lîþiþ
d. Skt pres. part. act. = Gmc pres. part. act.
bhédant- = bîtand- lîþande.
Skt verbal substantive = Gmc infinitive
bhédana- = bîtan lîþan
f. Skt perf. ind. sg. = Gmc pret. ind. sg.
1. bibhéda = bait laiþ
2. bibhéditha = baist laist6
3. bibhéda = bait laiþ
B. The accent in Sanskrit rests on the ending; the root final is a voiced stop in Germanic.
a. Skt perf. ind. pl. = Gmc pret. ind. pl.
1. bibhidimá = bitum lidum
2. bibhidá = bituþ lituþ
3. bibhidús = bitun lidun
b. The Vedic Sanskrit forms vavṛrjyús, tuturyấma and the like, first recognized by
Westergaard as perfect potential = Gmc preterite subjunctive.
sg. 1. bibhidyấm = bitjau lidjau
2. bibhidyấs = bitîs lîdis
3. bibhidyất = biti lidi
pl. 1. bibhidyấma = bitîma lidîma
2. bibhidyấta = bitîþ lidîþ
3. bibhidyús = bitîna lidîna
c. Forms in -ná- in Skt., usually called perf. part. pass. = Gmc. pret. part. pass.
bhin-ná- for *bhid-ná- = bitana- lidana- 7
Before I pursue further the rule which is disclosed here, I must make a short digression
concerning a relationship which has until now remained obscure, but which finds its answer in
this context. I ain referring to the relation between s and z(r) in the Germanic languages. The
IE s corresponds in Gothic partly to r, partly but more seldom and never initially, however, to
z, whose phonetic value must be established as a voiced dental fricative. The latter
corresponds in the other Germanic languages to an r, which is to be regarded as a further
development. In all respects, this differentiation of the original s to s and z(r) in the Germanic
languages is parallel to the above-treated differentiation.
Thus we have for example Gmc auzan- n. 'ear' (ON eyra,8
OS ôra, OE eáre, OHG ôra = Lat.
auris f. for *ausis, Lith. ausì-s f., OSl. ucho, stem ušes-); Gmc deuza- n. 'animal' (Goth. diuza,
ON dýr, OS dior, OE deór, OHG tior; from the root dhus, which is in OSl. dŭch-ną-ti dyš-ati
'to breathe', duchŭ 'anima', duša 'soul'); Gmc baza- 'bare' (ON ber, OS, OE, OHG, bar = OSl.
bosŭ, Lith. bása-s 'barefoot') etc. with voiced dental fricative; whereas Gmc lausa- 'loose,
empty' (Goth. lausa-, ON lauss, OS lôs, OE leás, OHG lôs; from a root lus in Goth. fra-liusan
'to lose'), Gmc mûs- mûsi- f 'mouse' (ON mû- f., OE mûs- f., OHG mûs- f. = Skt. mûsh-,
mûsha- m., μῦσ, μυ-ós, Lat. mûs mûri-s, OSl. myšĭ- f.), Gmc nasa- f. (ON nös, OE nà¤se,
OHG nasa = Skt. nâsâ f., Lat. nâsu-s, OSl. nosŭ m., Lith. nósi-s f.) and others have preserved
the voiceless fricative.
The same differentiation is also found in the conjugation. One example will suffice:
ON kjósa, kaus, kurum kørum, korinn kørinn,
OS kiosan, cos, curun, coran,
OE ceósan, ceás, curon, coren,
OFris. kiasa, kâs, keron, keren,
OHG kiosan, kôs, kurum, koran.
Therefore, s and z(r) are distributed in the conjugation in full accord with the distribution of h
g, and of þ d.
Here too Gothic avoids the differentiation, i.e. the voiceless fricative of the present forms has
spread to all the forms of kiusan, friusan, fraliusan, driusan, visan etc.
All this demonstrates sufficiently that the differentiation of the s to s and z(r) must in every
way be viewed like the differentiation of the Proto-Germanic voiceless fricatives to Germanic
voiceless fricatives and voiced stops. If at a certain time and under certain circumstances the
three voiceless fricatives of the language: h (Brücke's χ²), þ (B's s⁴) and f (B.'s f¹) were voiced,
i.e., to the sounds which Brücke designates by y², z⁴, w¹, it follows almost out of necessity
that the fourth and last voiceless fricative of the language: s (B.'s s³) must also have been
voiced (B.'s z³) at the same time under the same conditions.9
Therefore the basis for the
differentiation of s to s and z(r) must likewise be sought in earlier accentual relationships, and
we can augment the equation set up on p. 144 by the two members.
Gmc mûsi- keusana=
=
Gmc deuza kuzanaFor
the differentiation in its entirety, as will be clear from what follows, where the instances
of differentiation also occurring outside root syllable are taken into consideration, the
discovered rule must be formulated as follows:
IE k, t, p first shifted to h, þ, f in all environments; the voiceless fricatives thus originating,
together with the voiceless fricative s inherited from Indo-European, then became voiced
medially in voiced environments, but remained voiceless when they were the final sounds of
accented syllables.
A simulated Indo-European word *akasatam developed in the Germanic region first to
*ax²as³as⁴am (with Brücke's notation), then, however, further to *áx²az³as⁴a(m),
*ay²ás³az⁴a(m), *ay²az³ás⁴(m), according to whether the accent rested on the first, second,
third, or fourth syllable. Later, the new Germanic accent principle came into being; z³
remained a fricative; the other voiced fricatives, however, shifted to voiced stops; and IE
*akasatam would then have appeared in Gothic in one of the following forms: *ahazad(am),
*agasad(am), *agazaþ(am), *agazad(am).
The fact that the voiceless fricatives did not follow the general tendency and become voiced
in accented syllables, is easy to explain physiologically. For the older period of Germanic we
have to start with an accent which was not purely chromatic like the accent in Sanskrit and the
Classical languages, but which, like modern accentuation, had something expiratory10
about
it, that is, was based on greater activity of the muscles of expiration and to the subsequently
stronger exhalation of air. The essential distinction between the voiceless and voiced
consonants is dependent on the position of the vocal cords (Brücke, Grundzüge der
Physiologie, p. 8.56). For voiceless consonants, the vocal cords are wide open; the air stream
from the chest cavity has free passage: it is therefore more forceful than for voiced
consonants, and this stronger expiration of air manifests itself in the stops by a more rigid
muscular occlusion and a more powerful explosion. For voiced consonants on the other hand,
the vocal cords are brought together almost until they touch; the narrow glottis hinders the
free expiration of air; the air-stream is therefore weaker, the occlusion in the oral cavity
accompanying the voiced stops and the explosion itself are not as energetic as those of the
voiceless stops. Therefore, the stronger expiration of air is an element which the expiratory
accent has in common with the voiceless consonants. Accordingly the intensified air-stream in
the accented syllable could keep the voiceless fricative voiceless; that is, it could hinder the
vocal cords from becoming narrowed for voicing, as happened with the normal expiration of
air in the unaccented syllable.
I probably need not remark that here we must not employ the modern hyphenation fa-dar, finþan;
all the consonants following the vowels belonged to the preceding syllable fad-ar, finþan),
as indeed Germanic versification also attests (the Old Norse hendingar, assonance rimes).
I have deduced my rule from the presence of differentiation in the conjugation and it has been
shown above that it suffices completely for the explanation of the root final in the
conjugation. This is, however, not enough. If the rule is to have general validity, then it must
also be able to explain the differentiation in all other cases; it must also be applicable to those
root consonants outside the conjugation and finally even for the endings, both inflectional and
derivational. I shall now turn my attention to this final test. I shall conscientiously bring up
even those isolated cases where the law is not valid. I must again use Sanskrit as comparative
member; only rarely do I bring in Slavic and Lithuanian.
The enigma brôpar, môdar, fadar is resolved first of all. The Sanskrit accentuation is bhrấtar-,
but mâtár-, pitár-, and according to the rule, in Germanic we must have brôþar in contrast with
môdar, fadar. Among other kinship names can be cited: Gmc snuza f. 'daughter-in-law' (OHG
snura, OE snóru f., ON snør f.), which entirely corresponds with the Sanskrit word of the
same meaning snushấ (= νυó-s, Lat. nuru-s OSl. snŭcha, Russ. snochá). Gmc nefan- m.
'descendant, nephew' = Skt nápât. Gmc svehra- m. 'father-in-law, (OE sveor, OHG swehur,
MHG sweher; Goth. svaihran-) = Skt. çváçura-, 'father-in-law' (ἐκυρó-s, Lat. socer, Lith.
szészura-s, OSl. svekrŭ, Russ. svjókor), whereas Gmc svegrâ f. 'mother-in-law' (OE sveger f.,
OHG swigar f.) goes back to Skt çvaçrû f. 'mother-in-law' (ἐκυρά, Lat. socru-s, OSl. svekry,
Russ. svekróv' f.).
Of the numerals, Skt. daçan 'ten' and pañcan 'five' are paroxytone; to these correspond in
Germanic tehan and fimf (Goth. fimf, ON fimm, OS fîf, OE fîf, OHG fimf, finf = πέντε,
πέμπε, Lat. quinque, Lith. penkí, pènkios, OSl. pętĭ). On the other hand are Gmc fedvôr 'four'
and hunda- n. 'hundred' (Goth. hunda- n., ON hund, OS hund, OHG hunt) = Skt. catvấras m.,
catvấri n., catúr- and çatá- n., for *çantá- (ἐ-κατó-ν, Lat. centu-m, Lith. szímta-s, OSl. sŭto,
Russ. sto n.). Gmc seban 'seven' corresponds to Skt. saptán (Vedic Sanskrit, in the classical
language accented sáptan = ἐπτά, Lat. septem). Lith. túkstanti-s, OSl. tysąšta, tysęšta f. (for
*tysantjâ), Russ. týsjača; f. 'thousand' is Gmc þûsundja- f.n. (Goth. þûsundi f., þûsundja n.pl.,
ON þúsund f., OS thûisint n.pl., OE þûsend n., OHG dûsunt n pl.). Gmc þridjan- 'third'
corresponds to Skt. trtî́ya-. Gmc fedvôrþan- 'fourth' (ON fjórði, OS fiorðo, OE feóverða,
feórða, OHG viordo) does not correspond to Skt. caturthá-; perhaps the accentuation in Gmc
fedvôrþan- was however in agreement with the accentuation of the Sanskrit cardinal number;
cf. Lith. ketvírta-s, Russ. četvjórtyj, Bulg. četvrŭ́ti.
Other comparable words are:
Gmc fehu- n. 'cattle' (Goth. faihu n., ON fé, OS fehu, OE feó, OHG fihu) is completely
identical with Skt. páçu n. 'cattle' (so accented in the Vedas; the masculine form páçu-s is
oxytone; Lat. pecu n.).
Gmc ehva- m. 'horse' (ON jó-r, OE eoh, OS ehu-skalk 'groom')= Skt. áçva m. 'horse' (ἵππο-s
Lat. equu-s).
Gmc volfa- m 'wolf' (Goth. vulfa- m., ON ulf-r, OS uulf, OE vulf, OHG wolf: the f of the
Germanic base form assured by Gothic and OHG f) corresponds to Skt. vṛ́ka- m 'Wolf' (λύκos,
Lat. lupu-s, Lith. vílka-s, OSl. vlŭkŭ, Russ. vołk, gen. vółka).
Gmc angan- m. 'curve, arrowhead' corresponds to Skt. aṅká- m.
Gmc haidu- m. 'appearance, way, manner' (Goth. haidu- m., ON heið-r, OE hâd, OHG heit m.,
cf. Einheit, Gleichheit etc.). Skt. ketú -m. 'appearance of light, brightness, clarity; appearance,
form, figure'.
Gmc raþa- n. 'wheel' (OHG rad n.) = Skt. rátha- m. 'vehicle' for *rata- (Lat. rota, Lith. ráta-s).
Gmc hardu- 'hard, stringent' (Goth. hardu-s, ON harð-r, OS hard,
OE heard, OHG hart) = κρατύ-s.
Gmc anþara- 'the other' (Goth. anþar, ON annar-r, OS ôðar, OE ôðer, OHG andar) = Skt.
ántara- 'the other' (Lith. àntra-s).
Gmc undar- adv. and prep. 'under' (Goth. undar, ON undir, OS undar, OE under, OHG untar)
= Skt antár adv. 'within', prep. 'under' (Lat. inter, Oscan Umbrian anter).
Gmc tanþu-, tanþ- m. 'tooth' = Skt. dánta- m. 'tooth'.
Gmc sanþpa- 'true' (ON sann-r, OS sôð, OE sôð)= Skt. sát-, present participle of the root as 'to
be' (έóντ, Lat. præsent-)
Gmc anadi-f. 'duck' (ON önd, OE ened, OHG anut) Skt. âtí- f. 'a certain waterfowl' νῆςςα, Lat.
anati-, Lith. ánti-s f.).
Gmc maþjan- n. 'speech' (Goth. maþla- n., 'place of assembly', but maþljan, 'to speak'; ON
mál, OE mäđel) = Skt. mántra- m. 'saying, poem, agreement, advice' (cf. OSl. moli-ti 'to ask,
pray', Bohem. modliti, Pol. modli for *motliti = Lith. maldý-ti 'to ask', Goth. maþljan 'to
speak'; Pol. modly f.pl. 'prayers', Lith. maldà f. 'prayer').
Gmc hleuþra- n 'hearing' (OE hleóðor) = Skt. çrótra- n, hearing, ear ' (Avestan çraothra- n.
'hearing, causing to hear, singing').
Gmc þaþrô 'there' (Goth. þaþro, þaðra) = Skt. tátra 'there'.
Gmc feþra f. 'feather' (ON fjöðr, OS feðara weak f., OE feðer st.f., OHG fedara) = Skt. pátra-,
páttra- m. and n. 'wing, feather' (πτέρo-ν, OSl. pero n.).
Gmc rôþra- m.n. 'oar, rudder' (ON róðr m., OHG ruodar n.) = Skt aràtra- m. rudder', áritra and
aràtra- n. 'steering rudder'.
Gmc nôsa f. 'nose' (OE nôsu; cf. ON nös f., OE näse f., OHG nasa f.) = Skt. nấsâ f. 'nose' (Lat.
nâsu-s, Lith. nósi-s f., OSl. nosŭ m.).
Gmc hazan- m. 'hare' (ON héri, OE hare, OHG haso, in which z has reverted to s) = Skt çaçám.
for *çasá- 'hare'.
Gmc fersna f. 'heel' (Goth. fairzna, OE fiersn, OHG fersna) = Skt. pấrshṇi f. 'heel' (= πτέρνα).
Goth. amsa- m. 'shoulder' = Skt. áṁsa- m.n. 'shoulder' (ὦμo-s, Lat. umeru-s).
Of the words for which the rule is not valid, I have noted the following:
Gmc hvaþara- 'both' (Goth. hvaþar, ON hvár-r, OS hueðar, OHG hwedar), but Skt. katará(πóτερo-s,
Ionic κóτερo-s, Lith. katrà -s).
Gmc hersan- m. 'head' (ON hjarsi, hjassi), but Skt. çîrshán- n. 'head'.
Gmc hvehvla- n. 'wheel' (ON hjól, OE hveól, hveohl), but Skt. cakrá- m.n. 'cart-wheel, circle'
(= κύκλo-s)
Gmc maisa- m.f. 'sack, basket' (ON meis-, OHG meisa), but Skt. meshá- m 'ram, the fleece of
the sheep and what is made from it' (Lith. maàsza-s 'large sack', OSl. mechŭ m. 'hide, skin':
Bugge, Zeitschr. XX, p. 1).
Gmc fadi- m. 'master, husband', only as the last member of a compound (Goth. fadi- m.), but
Skt. páti- m. 'master, husband' (πóςι-s, Lith. pàti-s, pat-s).
In the Sanskrit causatives, the accent falls on the ending:
bhâráya- sâdáya-, vedáya-, etc. The Germanic causatives agree with this accentuation, as may
be seen from the following examples:
Gmc hlôgjan 'to make laugh' (ON hloegja; Goth. uf-hlohjan with h by analogy with the basic
verb), causative of hlahjan 'to laugh'.
Gmc hangjan 'to cause to hang' tr. (ON hengja, OHG hengan, henkan), causative of hanhan 'to
hang' intr. Gmc laidjan 'to lead' (ON leiða, OS lêdian, OE lædan, OHG leittan) causative of
lîþan 'to go'.
Gmc fra-vardjan 'to spoil', causative of Goth. fra-vairþan to be ruined'.
Gmc sandjan 'to send' (Goth. sandjan, ON senda, OS sendian, OHG sentan; cf. Lith. siunczà¹
'I send'), causative of a lost verb sinþan 'to go', cf. sinþa- m. 'course, time' (Goth. sinþa-, ON
sinn n., OS sîð, OHG sind).
Gmc nazjan 'to save' (OS nerian, OE nerjan, OFris. nera, OHG nerian: Gothic again by
analogy nasjan), causative of nesan 'to recover'.
Gmc laizjan 'to teach' (ON læra, OS lêrian, OE læren, OHG lêran: Gothic by analogy laisjan),
causative of a verb lîsan 'to know, inferable from Goth. lais 'I know'.
On the other hand, no Germanic causatives occur with h, þ, s, as root final, since lausjan 'to
loosen' (Goth. lausjan, ON eysa, OS, OHG lôsian, OE lŷsan) is not the causative of leusan 'to
lose', but rather the denominative of lausa- 'loose'. We can therefore (as a pre-Germanic form
of the Skt. sâdáya- 'to set') assume a form *satája-, more correctly perhaps *satàja. With the
appearance of the new principle of accentuation, we would have sátija-, and only then the
earlier stressed vowel of the ending was lost and satja- resulted. In hlôgjan as against hlahjan,
the evident contrast between the causative-forming and the present tense-forming -ja should
be observed by the way; the latter required root stress (the fourth class in Sanskrit).
In Sanskrit, from the substantives which signify a masculine being, the corresponding
feminine forms are frequently constructed by means of the suffix -î: devá- m., 'god', devî́- f.
'goddess'; putrá- m. 'son', putrî́- f. 'daughter'; meshá- m. 'ram', meshî́- f. 'ewe'; sûkará- m.
'boar', sûkarî́ f. 'sow'; mátsya- m. 'fisč, f. matsî́; çván- 'dog' f. çunî́; tákshan- m. 'carpenter',
takshnî́ f. 'wife of the carpenter'; dhártar- 'carrier, supporter', f. -trî́; bhártar- 'supporter,
maintainer', f. -trî́ etc. The feminine form is oxytone even when the masculine form is
accented otherwise. The Indo-European form of this suffix must be posited as -yâ, as may be
seen from the corresponding Greek forms: ςώτειρα for *ςώτερ-jα, τέκταινα for *τέκταν-jα =
Skt. takshṇî́ for *takshan-yấ. This feminine-forming suffix is also evident in Germanic,
although more seldom; thus we have from þeva- m. 'boy, servant' (Goth. þiu-s, stem þiva-,
ÞEWAR in the oldest Runic language, OE þeóv) a form þivja- f. 'woman slave, maid-servant'
(Goth. þivi, stem þiuja-, ON þý, gen. þýjar, OS thiui, OHG diuwa) against galtu- m. 'castrated
swine' (ON gölt-r) a form goltia- f. 'sow' (ON gylt-r f.). Also explained thus is ON ylg-r f.
'she-wolf', stem ylgja-; the Germanic form is *volgja, the feminine of volfa- m., which stands
for *volhva-, just as fimf for *finhv.11
Gmc *volgja, therefore, also agrees in its accentuation
with vṛ́kî́ of the same meaning, just as volhva- agrees with Skt. vṛka-.
As can be seen, those cases of the differentiation of root consonants occurring outside the
conjugation fit very nicely into the proposed rule. All that now remains is to establish the
validity of the rule even for those cases of differentiation occurring in the endings. In the
above, we have already encountered an example in Gmc þûsundja-; if the Pre-Germanic
accent was situated on the first syllable of this word, then the t of the ending had to appear in
Germanic as d. Since the strong verbs in Germanic can, with only a few isolated exceptions,
be traced back to verbs of the first and fourth Sanskrit classes, which accentuate the root
syllable, we have to expect Gmc d for the frequent t in the Indo-European conjugational
endings. -This is, in fact, the case. So we have Gmc d for IE t in the following endings:
Gmc 3rd sg. pres. ind. berid (OS -d, OHG t, Goth. -þ, according to the Gothic law of finals for
-d, which also occurs) = Skt. bhárati, φέρει, fert.
Gmc 2nd pl. pres. ind. berid (Goth. -þ, for -d, which also occurs; OHG -t) = Skt. bháratha,
φέρτε, fertis.
Gmc 2nd pl. pres. subj. beraid (Goth. -þ for -d, which also occurs; OHG -t) = Skt. bháreta,
φέρετε, ferâtis.
Gmc 2nd pl. pres. imper. berid (Goth. -þ, -d, OS -d, OHG -t) = Skt. bhárata, φέρετε, ferte.
Gmc 3rd pl. pres. ind. berand (Goth. -nd, OHG -nt) = Skt. bháranti, φέρουςι, ferunt.
Goth. 3rd sg. pres. ind. pass. bairada = Skt. bhárate, φέρεται.
Goth. 3rd sg. pres. subj. pass. bairaidau = Skt. bháreta, φέροιτο.
Goth. 3rd pl. pres. ind. pass. bairanda = Skt. bhárante, φέρονται.
Goth. 3rd pl. pres. subj. pass. bairaindau = φέροιντο (Skt. bháreran).
Goth. 3rd sg. imper. (mid.) bhairadau (atsteigadau Matthew 27, 42) = Skt. bháratâm.
Goth. 3rd pl. imper. (mid.) bhairandau (liugandau 1 Cor. 7, 9) = Skt. bhárantâm.
Gmc pres. part. act. berand = Skt. bhárant-, φέροντ-, ferent-.
The s in the Indo-European conjugational endings becomes z in the Goth. 2nd sg. pres. ind.
pass. bairaza = Skt. bhárase, φέρῃ; in subjunctive bairalza = φέροιο (Skt. bhárethâs).
The second singular present form causes difficulties. The 2nd sg. pres. ind. bhárasi in Sanskrit
would according to our rule lead to a Germanic basic form beriz. ON berr presupposes this
basic form; Goth. bairis can be traced back to beriz or beris; OS, OHG biris only to beris; OE
byrest and OFris. berst have been extended by an epenthetic t. The 2nd sg. pres. subj. bháres,
φέροιs, ferâs would lead to the Germanic basic form beraiz, which may also be assumed from
ON berir, OE and OFris. bere; Goth. bairais on the other hand can be traced back to beraiz or
to berais, OS beras and OHG berês only to berais. I shall attempt an explanation of these
irregularities. For all the Germanic languages the basic form beriz was at one time valid in the
second singular present indicative. The -z must have become -s in the special life of Gothic. In
Old Norse the -z remained and became -r in the further course of the sound development. In
the West Germanic languages, the -z should have disappeared in accordance with the laws of
finals applicable to these languages; see Scherer, Zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache, p.
97ff. One would therefore expect in the West Germanic area a form *beri or *ber for beriz;
this apocopated form was, however, too short for the language and could easily have been
confused with other forms; hence, the language sought, for the purpose of clarity, to preserve
the fuller form, a fact which so affected Old Saxon and Old High German that they made the z,
which was impossible in final position, voiceless; whereas Old English and Old Frisian
changed the -t originating in the 2nd person of the preterite-present (OE þearf-t, vil-t, OFris.
skal-t, wil-t) to s. The situation of the subjunctive form is similar; the posited basic form
beraiz regularly becomes ON berir, Goth. bairais, OE, OFris. bere, whereas Old Saxon and
Old High German on the other hand have again established -s.
The ending -tá- in the perfect participle passive in Sanskrit corresponds in the-Germanic weak
verbs to the ending of the preterite participle passive -da-: Goth. tami-da = Skt. dami-tá, Lat.
domi-tu-s; Goth. sati-da = Skt. sâdi-tá-; frijô-da-, habai-da- etc. With this same suffix are
formed: Goth. munda- 'believed', participle of munan = Skt. matá- for *mantá-. Gmc kunda(Goth.
godakunda- 'of good birth', OE feorran-cund 'originating from afar' = Skt. jâtá- 'born'
for *jantá-. Gmc hlûda- 'loud' (OE hlûd, OHG hlût) Skt. çrutá- 'heard', κλυτó-s, Lat. (in)clutus.
Gmc kalda- 'cold' (Goth. kalda-, ON kald-r, OS kald, OE ceald, OHG calt) from the root
kal, ON kala strong verb 'to freeze': cf. Lat. gelu, gelidus, gelare. Gmc alda- 'old' (OS ald, OE
eald, OHG alt) = Lat. altus, cf. ad-ultu-s, from the root al in ON ala = Lat. alere. Gmc dauða'dead'
(ON dauð-r, OS dôd, OE deád, OHG tôt, but Goth. dauþa- with þ by analogy with the
juxtaposed substantive Gmc dauþu- m., Goth. dauþu, ON dauðr, OS dôð, OE deáð, OHG tôd),
from a root dau, ON deyja, OS dôian, 'to die'. Probably here belongs also the fem. Gmc þeuda
'people' from the Indo-European root tu, 'to grow' = Lith. dialect tautà, Latvian tauta, Umbrian
tūtu).12
In Sanskrit, the primary suffix -ti- forms the feminine nomina actionis, which are sometimes
paroxytone, sometimes oxytone: gáti- 'way, going' from the root gam 'to go', sthíti- 'standing'
from the root sthâ 'to stand', yûti- 'joining' from the root yu 'to yoke', pîtí- 'drink' from the root
pā 'to drink', pûrtí 'filling, granting' from the root pṛ̂ 'to fill', etc. That oxytonation was more
widespread earlier is seen from the fact that a great many of these forms are oxytone in the
language of the Vedas which appear as paroxytone in the later classical language; so for
example kîrtí 'thinking, mentioning', ishṭí 'impulse, wish', paktí- 'cooking, digestion', bhûti'powerful
existence, vitality', matí 'devotion, opinion, insight', râti-, 'bestowal, gift', vittí
'finding, discovery', vîtí 'enjoyment', vṛshßí 'raining' and others; in the Classical language
kî́rti-, íshṭi-, pákti- etc. In Germanic this suffix is -þi- or -di-. Only rarely does it occur in the
form -þi-: Goth. ga-qum-þi f. 'meeting', cf. the above-cited Skt. gáti- for *gámti-; Goth.
gabaurþi f. 'birth' (root bar 'to bear'); more frequently, however, the suffix occurs in the form di-:
Goth. ga-mun-di- f. 'memory' = Skt. matà for *mantà 'understanding, opinion', Gmc
spôdi- f. 'success' (OS spôd, OE spêd, OHG spuot) = Skt. sphâtí13
'growth, thriving', root sphâ,
sphâ-yati 'he puts on weight, becomes stouter' = OSl. spe-jetĭ 'he has success' = Lith. spé-ja 'he
has time, opportunity' = OE spêv-eđ 'he succeeds'; Gmc sâdi- f. 'seed' (Goth. m. mana-sedi'crowd
of men', ON sáđ, OHG sât) from the root sâ 'to sow'; Gmc skordi- f. 'shearing' (OHG
scurt 'tonsure'), root skar 'to shear, cut', cf. κάρςι-s 'shearing' and others.
By means of the secondary suffix -tâ f., Sanskrit quite frequently forms abstracts from
adjective stems; which accent the syllable preceding the suffix, as for example çuklátâ- 'white
subance' from çúkla- 'white' âryátâ 'an honorable bearing' from ấrya- 'Aryan, venerable',
nyûnátâ 'defective condition' from nyûana- 'defective', krûrátâ 'cruelty' from krûrá- 'cruel',
paṅgútâ 'lameness, from paṅgú 'lame', pṛthútâ 'breadth' from pṛthú 'broad' etc. The formations
in -þa f. in Germanic which correspond in every way are very numerous: so for example Gmc
folliþa f. 'fullness' (OHG fullida) = Skt. pûṛnátâ 'fullness', from Gmc folla- 'full' (Goth. fulla-,
ON full-r, OS full, OE ful, OHG fol) = Skt. pûṛná-, 'fullness'; Goth. gauriþa f. 'grief' from
Goth. gaura- 'grieved', which is perhaps to be compared with Skt. ghorátâ 'horribleness' from
ghorá- 'horrible'; Gmc hailiþa f. 'health' (OHG heilida) from haila- 'healthy, well', (Goth.
haila-, ON heil-l, OS hêl, OE hâl, OHG heil), to which Skt. *kalyátâ from kalya- 'well' would
correspond; Gmc sâliþa f. 'happiness' (OS sâlða, OE sælð, OHG sâlida) from sâla-, sâlja
'happy' (Goth. sela-, ON sæl-l, OE sêl); Gmc deupiþa f. 'depth' (Goth. diupiþa, ON dýpt) from
deupa- 'deep' (Goth. diupa-, ON djúp-r, OS diop, OE deóp, OHG tiuf) etc.
Goth. þivadva- n. 'servitude' from þiva- m. 'servant' corresponds to the frequent Sanskrit
secondary forms in -tva-, as for example pitṛtvá- n. 'fatherhood' from pitár- 'father'; patitvá- n.
'wedlock' from páti- m. 'husband, master'; jñtitvá- n. 'kinship' from jñti- m. 'kinsman';
brâhmaṇatvá- n. 'Brahmin priesthood' from brâhmaṇá- m. 'Brahmin'. I do not know the
feminine form of this suffix for Sanskrit; it appears however in Gothic in fijaþva f. 'enmity'
from fijan 'to hate', frijaþva f. 'love' from frijon 'to love', saliþva, only pl. f. saliþvos 'lodgings,
quarters' from saljan 'to stop at', and seems to be used for forming abstracts from verbal stems
and in this is like the corresponding OSl. suffix tva- f., for example in žrŭ-tva- f. 'sacrifice'
from the root žrŭ, inf. žrě-ti 'to sacrifice'; bitva f. 'battle' from bi-ti 'to beat'; klętva 'oath' from
klę-ti 'to swear'; žętva 'harvest'from žę-ti 'to reap'; molitva 'prayer' from moli-ti 'to pray';
lovitva 'hunt, chase' from lovi-ti 'to chase'; selitva 'settling, dwelling' from seli-ti sę 'to settle,
establish oneself'; cf. O nžkotorychu zakonachŭ Russkago udarenija Ja. Grota, St. Petersburg
1858, p. 41 (off-print from the Reports of the Second Department of the Academy, vol. VII).
The newer Slavic languages which have maintained the free accent show an accentuation of
the syllable preceding the suffix: Russ. žértva; Russ. bàtva; Russ. kljátva = Bulg. klétvŭ =
Serb. klêtva, which according to certain laws14
stands for klétva; Russ. žátva = Bulg. žétvŭ =
Serb. žètva for žèikva; Russ. molàtva = Bulg. molàtvŭ = Serb. mólitva for molàtva; Russ. lovàta.
The þ in the Germanic form of the suffix agrees with this accentuation; perhaps Goth.
saliþva from saljan is the same word as OSl. selitva from seliti, although the latter goes back
to *sedlitva from *sedliti (Bohem. sedliti, Pol. siedlić).
The primary suffix -as in Sanskrit forms neuter substantives which in meaning are usually
nomina actionis and have the accent on the root syllable. Forms of this sort are found in all
Indo-European languages; thus in Greek the neuter substantives in -εs-, nom. -os, also with
the accent always on the first syllable, in Latin in -or-, -er-, nom. -us: Skt. jánas = γένos = Lat.
genus, Skt. árças 'wound' = ἕλκos = ulcus 'ulcer', Skt. sádas 'seat' = ἕδos, Skt. ándhas 'herb,
plant' = ἄνθos 'flower', Skt. vácas 'word' = ἕπos, Skt. çrávas 'fame' = κλέos, Skt. sáras 'water'
= ἕλos 'swamp', Skt. mánas 'spirit' = μένos 'courage, power', Skt. nábhas 'cloud' = νέφos, Skt.
rájas 'dust, darkness' = ἕρεβos 'darkness of the underworld', Skt. yáças 'fame' = Lat. decus,
Skt. ápas 'work' = opus, Skt. rấdhas 'strength, wealth' = Lat. rôbur, Skt. áyas 'metal, bronze' =
Lat. aes. In agreement with the accentuation in Sanskrit the suffix in Germanic has the form ez(a);
so Gmc aiza- n. for *ajez 'ore' (Goth. aiza-, ON eir, OE ær, OHG êr) = Skt. áyas, Lat.
aes; Gmc seteza- n. 'seat' (ON setr n. 'domicile', sólarsetr n. 'sunset') = Skt. sádas, ἕδos; Gmc
rekveza- n. 'darkness' (Goth. riqiza-, ON rökkr n.) = Skt. rájas, ἕρεβos; Gmc bareza- n. 'barley'
(ON barr n., Gothic in bariz-eina adj. 'barley') = Lat. far, gen. farr-is, 'spelt'; Gmc harteza'hate'
(Goth. hatiza-, ON hatr); Gmc faheza- n. 'sheep' (ON fær, OSwed., ODan. fár; see
Steffensen in Tidskrift for filologi, New Series, II, p. 70) = Lat. pecus, -oris 'cattle'. Here
Fick's correlation of Gmc aruza- n. 'scar' (ON örr n.) with Skt. árus n. 'wound' can also find its
place.
The Sanskrit gradation suffixes, comparative îyaṁs- and superlative ishßha- require
accentuation of the stem syllable, even when the accent falls on the endings in the positive
degree: vára- 'excellent', várîyṁs-, várishßha-: dîrghá- 'long', drấghîyaṁs-, drấghishßha-;
gurú, βαρύs, garlyam's-, garîshßha-. This retracting of the accent also occurs in Greek, as is
well-known: ἡδύ- 'sweet' = Skt. svâdú-, comp. ἥδιον = Skt. svấdîyams-, sup. ἥδιςτςo- = Skt.
svấdishßha; ἐλαχύ 'easy' = Skt. laghú-, comp. ἕλαςςον- = Skt. lághîyams-, sup. ἐλάχςτο- =
Skt. lághishßha-; κακó- 'bad' κάκιον-, κάκιςτο-, etc. The accentuation of the newer Slavic
languages also indicates this accent change, which may therefore be established as IndoEuropean.
In agreement with the root accentuation attested by Sanskrit, Greek, and Slavic in
gradation, the comparative suffix in Germanic appears in the form -izan-, -ôzan-, in the
adverbially used neuter forms as -iz, -ôz: Gmc batizan-, 'the better' (Goth. batizan-, ON betri,
OS betiro, OE betra, OHG beʒiro); Gmc blindô-zan- 'the blinder one' (Goth. blindozan-, ON
blindari, OS blindoro, OE blindra, OHG blindoro); Gmc batiz adv. 'better' (ON betr, OS bat,
bet, OE bet, OHG baʒ); Gmc nâhviz, nâhvôz adv. 'nearer' (Goth nehvis for nehviz, ON nærr,
OS OHG nâhor); Gmc sîþôz adv. 'later' (ON sîðar, OS sîðor, OHG sîdor). In Gmc junga'young'
(Goth. jugga-, ON ung-r, OS OHG jung, OE geong = Skt. yuvaçá- 'youthful', Lat.
juvencu-s, basic form *yuvanka-), comp. Gmc junhizan- (Goth. jûhizan- for *junhizan-, ON
œri, according to Thórodd with nasal œ for *jàµhizan-, *junhizan-) and superl. ON oest-r for
*junhista-, may reflect the change of accent in svâdú, svấdiyaṁs-, svấdishßha-, ἡδύ-, ἥδιον-,
ἥδιςτο-; ON yngri, yngstr, OS jungaro, OE geongra, gyngra, geongost, gyngest, OHG jungiro
and the like may then be viewed as later analogy formations.
Finally, what may be said about the s, which occurs frequently in Indo-European declensional
endings? In the nominative singular masculine the ending -s was to be expected according to
our rule for all originally oxytone and one-syllable stems: jungás, daudás, hardús, haidús, kûs
= Skt. gaus 'cow', hvas = Skt. kas 'who' etc.; for all other stems, the ending -z: vólfaz, ámsaz,
máisaz, sanþaz, ánþaraz, dáuþuz, éhuz etc. In the genitive singular of the feminine a-stems, -s
and -z would similarly be expected according to the accentuation: snuzôs, þeudôs, but nôsôz,
férsnôz, follàþôz, salàþvôz etc. So too in other declensional endings which include IE s.
Germanic, however, generally shows only -z15
: n. sg. m. volfaz (Goth. vulfs, according to the
Gothic law for finals for *vulfz, ON ulfr, oldest Runic language -AR; in the West Germanic
languages with regular loss of the -z: OS uulf, OE vulf, OHG wolf); gen. sg. fem. gebôz
(Goth. gibos for *giboz, ON gjafar, OS gebo, geba, OE gife, OHG gebo); n. pl. in. volfôz
(Goth. vulfos for *vulfoz, ON ulfar, OHG wolfa) etc. The language observed unity of
inflectional endings. Where the phonetic development would have impaired unity, the
language suspended the sound law and monopolized the most frequently occurring ending,
and in the above case, that was the inflectional ending of the non-oxytone stems. The third pl.
ind. sind (Goth., OS, OE sind, OHG sint) is just like this; Skt. sánti led to Gmc *sinþ; the
ending of the third plural indicative was -nd elsewhere however, and sinþ had to submit to
this.
We can now survey in broad outline the history of Germanic accentuation from the oldest
Indo-European time up to the present. The Indo-European accent was by nature purely
chromatic, in position absolutely free. We must assume that in the Sanskrit accentuation --
when we disregard the clearly non-original Svarita -- we possess a relatively true picture of
that ancient accentuation. In the common European language period, the accent still had its
original character: that it was still purely chromatic is assured by the accent of the Classical
languages; that, moreover, it still had its full freedom is assured by the free accentuation of
Lithuanian and several New Slavic languages. Only after Germanic had separated from its
closest neighbor, Slavo-Lithuanian, and had begun its special life, do we encounter the accent
somewhat changed in nature; it had become expiratory or perhaps, since it probably still
retained along with the expiratory accent its chromatic character, chromatic-expiratory. But
the Proto-Germanic accentuation had maintained, with surprising integrity, the second
characteristic feature of the Indo-European accent, freedom. The transition to fixed
accentuation (root accentuation) which followed is an analogical formation which was
thoroughly carried out. Those instances in which the accent rested on the root syllable were
already in the majority under the old accent principle, and this method of accentuation then
spread in Proto-Germanic, when those word forms which had the accent on the ending
gradually retracted it to the root syllable. From the strict carrying out of root accentuation in
all living Germanic languages, it might be surmised that the transition to the new accent
principle was already accomplished before the Germanic basic languages split into dialects.
Contrary to this, however, are the pronominal forms unsih, inan, imo, iru, ira, which often
count as oxytone in Old High German versification; their accentuation is difficult to explain
otherwise than as an inheritance from the time of free accentuation, for the last four forms
correspond successively to the Sanskrit oxytone forms imám, asmaí, asyaí, asyấs (cf. Scherer,
Z.G., p. 152). It must therefore be accepted, that, in the division of the Germanic basic
language, the accentuation of the root syllable was indeed dominant, that, however, at the
same time, forms with the old accentuation still survived which only gradually conformed in
the individual languages to the main trend.
The conclusions, to which my investigation has led me, will perhaps be considered highly
remarkable. It may of course seem strange that an accentual principle which perished in grey
antiquity may be subsequently traced today still in the Germanic verbal forms ziehen
gezogen, sieden gesotten, schneiden geschnitten. It is astounding that Germanic consonantism
gives us the key to the proethnic accentuation, whereas this had formerly been sought vainly
in the Germanic vocalism. If my conclusions, however, are found to be remarkable, then I
hope that they will not to the same degree be found improbable. Remember the course of the
investigation. Proceeding from a seemingly irregular point in the conjugation by apagogic
reasoning -- a means of proof which is not despised even by exact mathematics -- I have
arrived at an explanation which was not only completely satisfactory for that point; but at the
same time a series of language phenomena also viewed previously as irregularities were
proved in this way to be completely organic products of the development of the language.
Precisely in the harmonic interrelationship of various language phenomena with one another
and with the total development of language as discovered through this explanation, I find the
best confirmation for the correctness of my demonstration.
If my conclusions are accepted by the critics, we have in them a starting point for a further
investigation into Proto-Germanic accentuation. In that way we will get nearer to the great
question of the origin of ablaut. That the basic principle in Holtzmann's ablaut theory, the
assumption of a far-reaching influence of accentuation on the vocalism, is certain, is for me a
settled matter; but the form which Holtzmann has given his theory can not be brought into
accord with the one arrived at here and must be completely modified.
The most important new results of the above investigation are briefly the following:
1) Germanic still had the free Indo-European accent after the beginning of the sound-shift.
2) The accent however, was no longer purely chromatic as in Indo-European, but was at the
same time expiratory.
3) If IE k t p are sometimes found in Germanic as hþf, sometimes as g d, t this was
conditioned by that older accentuation.
4) Likewise, the bifurcation of IE s into Gmc s and z medially depends on the earlier
accentuation.
5) The first sound-shift -- making allowance for the unconditional non-shift in certain
consonant complexes -- allows no large groups of exceptions.
Copenhagen, July 1875
Notes
1. It is therefore incorrect, for example, to speak of a differentiation of IE t into Gmc þ
and d; it was Gmc þ that divided into þ and d. [return to text]
2. Compare Braune's essay "Ueber den grammatischen Wechsel in der deutschen
Verbalflexion" in the Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur by
H. Paul and W. Braune, I, 513ff. Footnote by editor (presumably A. Kuhn). [return to
text]
3. The forms in () are analogical formations; the forms in [] do not occur, or more
correctly, I cannot verify them. [return to text]
4. The Old Norse adj. feginn 'happy' may in form be the preterite participle passive to the
root fah, fag (compare Old English); it is however better attributed to OS fagan, OE
fagen, which have the same meaning; umlaut was then caused by the palatal (k, g with
following e, i) as frequently happens in ON: lengi adv. = OS, OHG lango, OE lange;
degi dative sg. of dag-r; the participles ekinn, tekinn, dreginn, sleginn, fenginn, etc.
[return to text]
5. This is true, for example, of Pauli's attempt (Zeitschrift XIV, p. 102) to explain the d in
fadar, môdar as against the þ in brôþar by a folk etymological association with
Germanic fôjan 'pascere' or môdi- f 'anger, courage'. Apart from the fact that it
requires very vivid, popular linguistic fantasy to associate the concept present in
'mother' with that in 'anger, courage', the explanatory words themselves require an
explanation, since fôdjan and môdi likewise have a d from IE t. Do we then have to
assume a folk etymological association for these words also? [return to text]
6. The second person preterite indicative in the West Germanic languages (OS biti, lidi;
OE bite, lide; OHG bizi, liti) is the subjunctive form which has penetrated into the
indicative = Goth. biteis, liþeis. [return to text]
7. Leo Meyer relates the Germanic preterite passive with the Sanskrit forms in -âná- with
reduplication, thus bitana = bibhidâná-; also in this case the voiced stop in lidanaagrees
with the Sanskrit accentuation. [return to text]
8. The z arising from r brings about in Old Norse (very seldom in Old Swedish and Old
Danish) umlaut of the directly preceding root vowel: ker 'vessel', gær 'yesterday', dýr
'animal', dreyri 'blood', ber 'loose, empty', reyr 'reed', frörinn 'frozen', kýr 'cow', sýr
'sow'. Cf. Bugge, Tidskrift for Philologi VII, p. 320; Wimmer, Fornnordisk Formlära,
Lund 1874, Section 12, note 2; Steffensen, Tidskrift, new series, II, p 71. [return to
text]
9. The following additional conclusion would be tempting: If at one time all voiceless
fricatives of Germanic came to be voiced under certain conditions, then the voiceless
stops k, t, p under like circumstances must also have become voiced (g, d, b). This
however, as is known, did not occur. Therefore -- as can be inferred -- the
differentiation took place at a time when the language did not yet know these sounds
in a voiced environment, i.e., before the last part of the sound-shift, the transition of
the IE g, d, b, to k, t, p, had taken place. Such a conclusion is, however, inadmissible.
Latin shows a similar transition of Proto-Latin h, þ, f (Ascoli, Zeitschr. XVII, p. 241),
arising from IE gh, dh, bh, which also became voiced in a voiced environment. The s
here too follows the other voiceless fricatives and develops further to r. Medial c, t, p
were, however, not at all affected by this sound shift. [return to text]
10. The accent is of twofold nature in the Indo-European languages. Either the
accentuation of a syllable occurs by the vocal cords becoming more strongly tensed; in
that way a higher pitch is produced in opposition to the lower pitch of the unaccented
syllables. The Sanskrit and Classical accent was of such a kind, and this is also the
original meaning of the name accentus, προςῳδία. I call this accent chromatic. On the
other hand the accentuation of the syllable consists in this that the muscles of
expiration are set in greater activity, the stronger expiration of air intensifies the voice,
and thus a relative forte is produced in opposition to the piano of the unaccented
syllables. This may be called expiratory accent; Brücke describes it in his work: Die
physiologischen Grundlagen der neuhochdeutschen Verskunst, Vienna 1871, p. 2.
There is also a combination of both accents when the voice in the accented syllable
can not only be raised, but also intensified, and in the cited work, p. 3, Brücke shows
how the expiratory accent tends to take on a stronger or weaker chromatic coloring.
This accent must be called a chromatic-expiratory accent. Skt mánas, Gk μένos have
the pure chromatic accent on the first syllable; this can be given the musical
expression ♪
♪. The Serbian accusative vodu 'aquam' has the pure expiratory accent on
the first syllable, musically expressed ♪♪; Vuk Stefanović denotes this accent by \\. In
the nominative of this same word, voda, on the other hand, a chromatic-expiratory
accent is found on the first syllable, which might be indicated by ♪
♪; this accent Vuk
Stefanović denotes by \. When Brücke (in the above cited work) asserts "it is incorrect
to attempt to distinguish a word accent consisting in tone elevation from a word accent
consisting in tone intensification," then on this point I cannot agree with this expert in
physiology. Anyone who has heard the Swedes pronounce the peculiar articulation of
their kalla, gata, ögon, syster, saker and such words, will have to admit, firstly that the
syllable with the expiratory accent does not necessarily lie higher on the tone scale
than the unaccented syllables; secondly, that there can be a raising of the voice
(chromatic accent) in addition to and independent of the expiratory accent; for in these
Swedish words the expiratory accent rests on the root syllable, but the voice is raised
on the final syllable at the same time that it decreases in expiratory power ("hvaruti,
om än utan ljudvigt, rösten liksom svänger sig uppför," Rydqvist, Svenska språkets
lagar IV, p. 211). This pronunciation could be musically designated thus: ♪♪
.
Therefore, the mentioned words have two accents, so to speak, a purely expiratory one
on the root syllable and a purely chromatic one on the final syllable. An ancient Greek
ear would perceive only the last syllable as accented (kalla = καλλά); the Swedish ear
hears only the accent on the first syllable, which is why the native grammarians speak
of a "low tone" ("låg ton") for this syllable, though this, of course, is not quite correct,
since the syllable is not beneath but on the level of the normal speech tone, while the
final syllable is raised above that level. Norwegian also has this method of
accentuation. In an article in Christiania Videnskabs-Selskabs Forhandlinger 1874, p.
296, Joh. Storm explains: En général les syllabes atones ont ici un ton plus haut. Ceci
est contraire à l'usage de la plupart des langues européennes et montre que l'élévation
de la voix (angl. pitch) et le renforcement ou l'appui (angl. force) sont deux choses
differentes, comme l'a très bien fait ressortir M. Ellis dans son travail sur l' accent
(Transactions of the Philological Society, 1873-4, Part I p. 113 ff). [return to text]
11. The sound change xv-(xf-) f is also known elsewhere. It is found, for example, in the
South Slavic languages: Bulg. falŭ, Serb. fala, OSl. chvala 'praise'; Bulg., Serb. fat 'a
linear measure' for chvat; Bulg. fraste 'branches' for chvraste and others. Furthermore,
in Lapp loan-words: fadno = ON hvönn, feres = ON hverr, fales = ON hvalr; see
Thomsen "Ueber den Einfluss der germanischen Sprachen auf die finnischlappischen",
p. 68. [return to text]
12. Gmc kunþa- 'known', (Goth. kunþa-, ON kunn-r, OS kûð, OE cûða, OHG kund; pret.
part. pass. of kunnan) may not be cited as contrary to the rule. The phonetic
phenomena accompanying the nn of certain roots are still not clear. One should
remember, that an s was often inserted (as one likes to term it) in word formation
along with these: OHG cun-s-t, Goth. an-s-ti-, Goth. ala-brun-s-ti-, German gun-s-t
and that the nn can change a following d = IE dh to þ: Gmc unþa (ON unna, OE ûðe,
OHG onda) pret. ind. of unnan for *unnda; Gmc kunþa (Goth. kunþa, ON kunna, OE
cûóðe, OHG conda), pret. ind. of kunnan for *kunn-da. If, however, the pret. ind.
kunþa represents the expected *kunnda, then the pret. part. pass. kunþa can also
represent *kunnda-. [return to text]
13. As accented by Benfey, Vollständige Grammatik p. 162 above; the Petersburg
dictionary does not give the accentuation for this word. [return to text]
14. See C.W. Smith, De verbis imperfectivis et perfectivis in lingvis Slavonicis
(Universitätsprogramm, Copenhagen 1875), p. 31f. [return to text]
15. In the genitive singular of the masculine and neuter a-stems, the ending is Gmc -s,
volfas (Goth. vulfis, ON ulfs, oldest Runic language -AS, OS uulfes, OE vulfes, OHG
wolfes). The s was retained here, because it was actually ss and, as such, had to retain
its voiceless character (IE várkasya = Gmc *-volf-asj, *volf-ass, volfas), see Ebel in
Zeitschr. IV p. 149 bottom. [return to text]
CHAPTER TWELVE
HEINRICH HÜBSCHMANN
ON THE POSITION OF ARMENIAN IN THE SPHERE
OF THE INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES
"Ueber die Stellung des Armenischen im Kreise der
indogermanischen Sprachen," Zeitschrift für vergleichende
Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der Indogermanischen
Sprachen, 23.1 (1875), 5-49
Editor's Introduction
Hübschmann's is another of the articles published in 1875 which indicate the maturing of
linguistics. Making use of the increased control over the data in the Indo-European languages,
and over linguistic methodology, Hübschmann by this article established Armenian as an
independent branch of the Indo-European group.
Hübschmann's minute attention to data enabled him to sort out the evidence for distinguishing
between native Armenian forms and those borrowed from Iranian. In this way his is one of the
last important articles to deal with a problem which vexed early Indo-European linguistics:
identification of the various strata in a language so that its original relationships could be
determined. By sorting out the non-native forms, and establishing the phonological
correspondence between Germanic and the other Indo-European languages, Grimm, Rask and
the early historical linguists laid down the methodological principles for their field. Using
these principles in a more difficult area, Hübchmann at once demonstrated their validity and
gave a definitive solution to the problem he was investigating.
It is clear why Hübschmann's solution was so satisfactory: after dealing with morphological
characteristics he concentrated on phonological correlations rather than on the vocabulary.
His procedure might still be emulated by linguists seeking to establish genetic
interrelationships in other language groups.
Even with his accomplishment, Hübschmann's understanding of Indo-European phonology
was not completely accurate. Although he was aware of secondary palatalization in IndoIranian,
he still assumed a single short vowel a for Proto-Indo-European, with a split into the
vowels of the European languages. The correct view became generally apparent shortly after
his article was published. Other misconceptions in his article are obvious to the reader. But
since Hübschmann's aim was to determine the relation of Armenian to the other dialects, his
conception Of Proto-Indo-European was not crucial in achieving this aim.
Nor were some of his methodological views, such as those on residues. A few of these he
dismisses as chance phenomena. The sections of his long article with such comments are not
reproduced here. But it is to Hübschmann's credit that he recognized before his article was
printed that he had slighted some of the material in Armenian. Subsequently he rectified any
omission by his comprehensive Armenische Etymologie (Leipzig, 1897), the first part of his
planned grammar of Armenian. Moreover, residues are still being explained in Armenian
today, thanks to his solid work on its phonology.
Hübschmann's concern with thorough descriptive analysis enabled him to clarify other
interrelationships, such as that of Ossetic as well as that of Afghan (which in his first
excursus, pp. 43-46 [not included here], he demonstrated to be an Iranian and not an Indic
language). The pioneering work that was necessary in Iranian as well as Armenian may be
recognized from the preliminary note to his article, in which he deals with the transcription
for Armenian. Though he modified it, he was unfortunately prevented by the editors of the
Zeitschrift from revising the transcription for Iranian, which in the form he used suggests
pronunciation like that of Sanskrit.
Besides his insistence on careful descriptive techniques, Hübscmann's conception of the
interrelationships between the languages in one family was admirable. The family tree model
as proposed by earlier linguists seemed far too rigid. His identification of shared
characteristics in Armenian and the European languages as well as in Armenian and IndoIranian
gave excellent support to the wave theory which had been proposed three years earlier
by Schmidt. The resulting conception of the position of the early Indo-European dialects
prepared for the more realistic view of interrelationship between languages which followed
further studies in dialect geography.
The interest in broadening the study of the Indo-European languages at this time is strikingly
illustrated by the editorial comment at the beginning of the twenty-third volume of the
Zeitschrift, on its increased scope beyond Germanic, Greek and Latin. Hübschmann's own
boldness concerning the Indo-European family may be demonstrated by the concluding
comment in the second excursus to his article, pp. 46-49 (not included here). After suggesting
that Phrygian may have been closely related to Armenian, he ends with the statement:
"Possibly these languages formed a separate branch with other languages of Asia Minor,
which in accordance with our contributions on Armenian above, might be placed between
Iranian and Balto-Slavic. " The separate branch has indeed been uncovered, but with a
position in the Indo-European family somewhat different from that which Hübschmann had
forecast. His concentration on interpreting the Iranian and Armenian data permitted little
further speculation of this sort. But the interpretations he provided of these data remain
permanent contributions on the position of these languages.
Johann Heinrich Hübschmann (1848-1908), after a post-doctorate period of four years at
Leipzig, spent his entire career at Strasburg. Scornful of academic jockeying, he rejected
offers to move closer to the contemporary centers of linguistic research. Though he dealt with
many of the Indo-European languages, his concern with Armenian extended beyond
linguistics to Oriental studies. His primary achievement was in the elucidation of Armenian.
Though it has never been one of the languages of central interest to Indo-Europeanists,
Hübschmann holds a position of great respect not only as founder of scientific Armenian
studies but also for his capable application of linguistic method.
My attempt to assign to the Armenian language its position among its relatives is not the first.
The Armenians themselves have proposed views about it which flatter their national vanity
but lack every scientific foundation. And European scholars of previous centuries have made
everything of this language since they could do nothing with it. But immediately after the
establishment of linguistics by Bopp, Petermann in his Grammatica linguae Armeniacae
(Berlin, 1837), on the basis of etymologies given at the beginning of it was able to furnish the
proof that Armenian is an Indo-European language. Nine years later, in 1846, and
independently of the work of Petermann, Windischmann published in the Abhandlungen of
the Bavarian Academy (IV, 2) an excellent treatise about Armenian, in which he comes to the
conclusion that Armenian goes back to an older dialect which must have had great similarity
with Avestan and Old Persian but to which foreign elements had been added early. But while
Pott doubted that Armenian is an Aryan language and only wanted to admit a strong influence
of Aryan on Armenian, Diefenbach on the other hand observed that this assumption did not
suffice to explain the close relationship of Armenian to Indic and Persian, a view which
Gosche also adopted in his dissertation: De Ariana linguae gentisque Armeniacae indole
(Berlin, 1847). Three years later in the Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen
Gesellschaft IV, p. 347 ff., under the title "Vergleichung der armenischen consonanten mit
denen des Sanskrit" de Lagarde gave a list of 283 Armenian words with their etymologies
(which he also had found independently of Windischmann), without however dealing in
greater detail about the character of the language. In the preface to the second edition of his
Comparative Grammar, 1857, Bopp designated Armenian as Iranian and attempted, though
without success, to explain its inflectional elements. Fr. Müller, who since 1861 had busied
himself successfully with the etymological and grammatical explanation of Armenian in a
series of treatises (Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Akademie), penetrated much more deeply in
the essence of this language, which he explained as certainly Iranian. In general Patkanoff
follows him in his summarizing treatise "Über die bildung der armenischen sprache," which
was translated from Russian into French, Journal asiatique, XVI, Série 6, 1870, p. 126 ff.
Even though de Lagarde in his Gesammelten Abhandlungen (1866), p. 291, asserted that three
components are to be distinguished in Armenian: the original basis; an Old Iranian alluvium
resting on it; and a similar New Iranian, added after the founding of the Parthian kingdom,
nonetheless he did not give the distinguishing characteristics of these three layers, and for this
reason his opinion has not been taken into further consideration. In any case Müller's view,
that Armenian is Iranian, has not been disproved, and must be designated as the best
established and the prevailing one at present.
The aim of the following is to investigate whether it is tenable.
It is a primary defect of Müller's investigations that he has not undertaken to demonstrate that
the Armenian words which correspond phonologically with the corresponding Persian are not
borrowed from Persian. If however the oldest Armenian that we know contains loanwords
from Aramaic and Greek, we may expect that since the Armenians lived for centuries under
the influence of the mightier and more cultured Persians, they also would have taken from
their language no small number of words.1
" If this is admitted, then one can also suspect a
great number of words to be borrowed; and if one has given way to this suspicion, then faith
in the Iranian character of the language also disappears rapidly. And this suspicion can be
very easily supported. In numerous Armenian compounds, for example, we find the word dast
'hand', while the usual word for 'hand' is dzer'n; now dast corresponds to Persian dasta, which
in contrast with Av. zasta, Skt hasta is demonstrated to be specifically Persian through the
sound change from z to d, and accordingly must be a loanword in Armenian. Accordingly also
dastak, dastakert are foreign words, OP *dastaka, *dastakarta. It is further clear that Armenian
regularly prefixes a or e to words with originally initial r: for this reason r'azm 'battle array,
battle', r'ah 'way', r'ocik 'content'2
, which we also find in Persian, are loanwords from Persian,
just as all words beginning with r' in Armenian are foreign words, cf. r'abbi 'master'. Further,
since final h in Persian corresponds to original ç or dental, final h in Armenian to original s or
tr (and original ç corresponds to Armenian s, original dental between vowels to Armenian
dental or y), final h in Persian is accordingly etymologically different from that in Armenian;3
accordingly Arm. akah 'well-informed' = NP âgâh < âkâça, gah 'throne, seat' = NP gâh, Av.
gâtu, zrah 'armor' = Av. zrâdha, NP zirih are loanwords from Persian. Further, if below we
find the sound law that Skt j = Av. z = Arm. ts and accordingly Skt jan 'be born' = Av. zan =
Arm. tsn (< tsin, tsen), then azat 'free' = Pers. âzâd, Av. âzâta, from the root zan, must be
regarded as a foreign word. Similarly if it is demonstrated below that Skt han = Av. jan in
accordance with the sound laws would have to be represented in Armenian by gan and is so
represented, then Arm. zen- 'slaughter, offer' is suspected of being borrowed because it
corresponds to Av. jan, NP zan-. If in the same way Skt aj in accordance with the sound laws
is Av. az, Arm. ats, then gavazan 'stick' = Av. gavâz cannot be an original word -- it would
have to be kovatsan -- and also not xarazan 'whip', instead of which išatsan would be
expected. Finally, Skt. yaj = Av. yaz 'worship' in accordance with the sound laws would have
to be lats or dzats in Armenian (Skt. j = Av. z = Arm. ts, see below; originally initial y
becomes Arm. l or dz, z; where y is initial in Armenian, it is a newly added prefix, as can be
easily demonstrated); the form however is yaz and accordingly it is borrowed. The same is
true of yašt 'offering' = Av. yêsh'ti. Also to be considered as loanwords: dev = Av. daêva,
instead of which tiv would be expected in accordance with the laws of the sound shift which
are to be set up below; likewise, I am convinced, bag- 'god' = Av. bagha, and den4
'religion' =
Av. daêna, words which came to Armenia with the Zoroastrian religion. Likewise, without
being able to furnish proof, I would also like to look on words like thošak = Pers. tôshah
'viaticum', ambox = Pers. anboh 'quantity', zĕndan = Pers. zindân 'jail' as having come from
Persia to Armenia; but of words like dipak 'brocade' = Pers. dîbâh, Arab. dîbâj, crag 'candle' =
Pers. cirâgh, Arab. sirâj, thuthak 'parrot' = Pers. tûtak, tûtî, kerpas 'silk' = NPers. kirpâs, Arab.
kirbâs, Skt karpâsa, Gk. kárpasos etc. there can be no doubt that they are foreign material. If it
has been so easy for me to separate as loanwords no small number of the words5
treated by Fr.
Müller, how greatly would this number be increased if an expert like de Lagarde would
undertake to separate the foreign elements from the entire Armenian lexicon? Possibly also
two groups of these could be distinguished, an older and a younger, and in this way the two
layers would be found which according to de Lagarde were deposited on the Armenian basis.
If now we have become suspicious of the lexicon, we may turn with greater confidence to the
grammar; for in all living languages this is surely the palladium that a foreign influence
cannot touch. How wild is the lexicon of Afghan and New Persian, or English, and how
clearly does the grammar teach us that in the former we have Iranian at hand, in the latter
Germanic! And we may expect to find clarification from the grammar much more readily in
Armenian, because it displays a relatively rich inflection. For Armenian still has four cases of
nouns distinguished by endings and five of pronouns; and in verbs, without considering the
infinitive and participles, it distinguishes by means of inflection active and passive, indicative,
subjunctive and imperative, present, imperfect, simple and compound aorist, and
corresponding to these double futures. Since I must treat of the grammar here briefly, it may
be permitted to adduce a paradigm for the inflection of the noun and the verb:
a) Noun:
Stem: mardo "human" (Gk. broto-), anwan "name" (= anman).
Sg. Pl.
Nom. mard, anun mardkh
Acc. z mard, z anun z mards
Gen.-Dat mardoy, anwan mardoʒ
Abl. i mardoy, y anwanê i mardoʒ
Dat. (pron. dcl.) mardum6
---- ----
Instr. mardov, anwamb mardovkh
b) Verb: ger-el 'take captive'
Active Passive
1. p. sg. pres. ind. gerem gerim
-- subj. geriʒem geriʒim
imperf. gerêi gerêi
comp. aor. gereʒi gereʒay
simple aor. of
gt-an-el "find"
gti gtay
future
gereʒiʒ
gtiʒ
gereʒaiʒ
gtaiʒ
m, s, y, mkh, ykh, n serve as primary verbal endings, and i, ir, r, akh, ikh, in as secondary.
If however one views the total structure of Armenian, it gives the impression of a language
which has undergone great changes7
, having lost much of the old material of stem and word
formational elements; but it replaced what was lost by new inflectional elements. In this way
the subjunctive turns out to be a new formation from the present stem and the subjunctive of
the substantive verb: em (pronounced yem) = Lat. sum, iʒem = Lat. sim- accordingly gerem --
geriʒem, aḷam -- aḷaiʒem; similarly, the future is formed from the aorist stem and the aorist
subjunctive, with little change of the coalescing components: gereʒ + iʒem = gereʒiʒ instead
of gereʒiʒem, 2. p. gereʒ + iʒes = geresʒes instead of gereʒiʒes; and the imperfect similarly
might be a new formation from the present stem and the imperfect of the substantive verb: em
'sum', êi 'eram' - gerem - gerêi, but Fr. Müller claims to find a formation with the suffix ya in
the imperfect: berêi = berey -i,8
with reference to the a-class, which forms ayi not êi: aḷam aḷayi.
Moreover, the main factor in new linguistic formations, analogy, has of course been
powerfully effective, just as it also essentially brought about the remodeling of the Old
Armenian inflection to the New Armenian. For example, the passive marker is i; if it is added
to present stems in -u, wi results (zenu-l, pass. zenwi-l, l-nu-l, pass. lnwi-l); and this wi, which
of course was originally only the present marker of the passive of a very limited number of
verbs, has become the general passive marker in modern Armenian; cf. NArm. kordzwil 'be
done' = OArm. gortsil, act. gortsel. In this situation it is readily understandable why the
elements of the Armenian inflection are still so obscure to us. I do not know how one is to
explain the ʒ9
which forms the compound aorist and the ʒ in iʒem, etc. If one identified with
them the s of the Indo-European aorist and the sy of syijn, the opt. of as, then Armenian could
not be Iranian, for in Iranian s would have to be represented by h and sy by hy. Equally
obscure are the secondary verbal endings; on the other hand the primary are clearer, among
them m = mi, n = nti, y = ti, mkh = masi; accordingly ykh (= tkh) could go back to tasi, the
original Indo-European form assumed by Schleicher, in contrast with which Sanskrit and
Avestan show tha. But ykh is probably an analogical formation to mkh of the first person, and
kh is to be regarded as added on later, so that y likewise goes back to tha or a similar form.
The suffix of the 2. p. sg. s refutes the Iranian character of Armenian, since Iranian shows h
rather than s; yet also Ossetic, certainly an Iranian language, has s in the same form, for which
explanations must still be provided.
Among the case forming suffixes of the plural, ʒ too is unclear, kh probably goes back to as
(or in accordance with Fr. Müller to âsas, Iran. âhah) s to ans; in the instrumental we have the
instrumental marker of the singular, to which the plural marker kh was added. Among the
suffixes of the singular, m of the dative-locative goes back to the pronominal -hmâi, hmi; the ê
of the ablative prepares difficulties. Fr. Müller would like to derive it from âdha, a shape of
the ablative suffix found occasionally in the Avesta; I would rather think of the adverbial
suffix tas = Av. tô, if ê can really not be = at. The instrumental suffix b remains to be
considered. While this suffix was formerly identified with the one suffix of the Indo-European
instrumental bhi, recently Fr. Müller and I have attempted to see in it a new formation, to be
sure for no other reason than that this suffix contradicted the Iranian character of Armenian
which had been asserted by us. For like Aryan in general, Iranian too does not know the
instrumental suffix bhi. Our conclusion was accordingly: because Armenian is Iranian, it may
not have the instrumental suffix bhi. But suppose one should rather conclude: because
Armenian has this suffix, it is not Iranian. Now in accordance with Armenian sound laws, b
surely points to bhi; and an original anmanbhi, martabhi had to become Armenian anmanb,
martob, subsequently anwamb, mardov, as the instrumental of anun, mard actually is attested.
And since in its function as well the case with b is a pure instrumental, there can be no
objection to the equation: Arm. b = IE bhi. Some scholars have claimed to find this suffix bhi
in Greek, Germanic and Balto-Slavic. But φι could also be a reflex of the other suffixes
compounded with bhi (bhiam, bhiams, bhiâms, bhis). In Germanic the instrumental in mi =
bhi is actually not found.10
Accordingly it remains only in Balto-Slavic, where bhi is found as
OCS mĭ, Lith. mi. Accordingly bhi as instrumental suffix of the singular can be assigned with
certainty only to Armenian and Balto-Slavic.
Result: In the inflection of Armenian we cannot demonstrate any specific Iranian
characteristics; on the contrary it differs in an important point with Aryan and agrees with
Balto-Slavic.
Since the inflection does not give us enough information about the character of Armenian, we
will turn to the phonology.
Part I
In order to decide whether or not Armenian is Iranian with reference to its sounds, the
question must first be answered: what are the characteristic features of the sound system of
Iranian in contrast with the other Indo-European languages?
They are as follows:
A.1. The dental s, when not protected by a directly preceding following consonant,
consistently becomes h, and
2. correspondingly sv becomes hv,
3. but when i, u or ai, au precedes, it becomes sh. In the latter point Iranian agrees with
Sanskrit (except for final position where Sanskrit preserves the s); but Slavic between vowels
always develops instead of that sh the fricative ch (sluchŭ = sraosha). In the change of s to h
on the other hand, Greek agrees with Iranian; but unlike Iranian, in Greek this change is not
carried through consistently. Further, also in Celtic sv becomes hv, chw; cf. Cornish huir,
Breton choar 'sister' = NPers. khvâhar; Welsh chwech (= sves) 'six'.
4. Iranian shows a disinclination for aspirates but an inclination for the formation of spirants,
of which it is particularly fond of kh, gh, f and w. Yet the oldest Iranian dialects, those of the
Gathas and of the Old Persian cuneiform inscriptions, do not yet know the voiced spirants (gh,
dh, w, which are present in the usual Avestan);11
and Ossetic has shifted the voiceless stops (k
and t) to aspirates. Baloci too knows aspirates (see at the end of this discussion), but they
probably arose through the influence of Indic.
5. In consonant clusters spirants arise from stops through the influence of following t, sh, r, v;
accordingly original kt, pt, tt become kht, ft, st; khsh, kra, pra, tra become khra, fra, thra.
6. Notable is the lack of l in Old Iranian,12
the shift of çv to sp, and in contrast with Indic the
form of the preposition pati (= Skt prati), of the adverb us, uz (= Skt ut, ud, but similarly in
Old Persian), words like gaosha with the meaning 'ear', etc.
B. The aspirated voiced stops are lacking in Iranian; through loss of aspiration they fell
together with the voiced stops and like them often became spirants subsequently. Balto-Slavic
also merged voiced stops and voiced aspirated stops.
C. The change of the original palato-velars k, g, gh to the palatals c, j and s, z must be
considered a primary characteristic of Iranian. But Sanskrit shares in the formation of palatals
from palato-velars, and Balto-Slavic in the change of the palato-velars to slit fricatives.
Accordingly every single one of these characteristics is found in other Indo-European
languages, and only the occurrence of all of them makes up the character of an Iranian
language. We ask now whether all these characteristics occur in Armenian.
A.1. Original s generally appears in Armenian as h; cf. hin 'old' = Av. hana, Lat. senex;
mahik, diminutive of mah 'moon', = Skt mâsa, Av. mâoṅha; this h is lost for example in the
root arb 'drink' = original sarbh (Lat. sorbeo, Lith. srebiù), evthn 'seven', Ossetic awd =
original saptan. In inflection this h shows up as kh (now pronounced as an aspirate), just as
also in Persian h is closed to the spirant kh. s has been maintained as s in amis 'month', mis
'meat', us 'shoulder', in which the maintenance of s is explained by an originally preceding n:
amis developed from mens, mis from memsa and us from amsa. The s in the accusative plural
may probably be explained similarly: mards (now pronounced mártŭs) developed from
mardins = martans. Accordingly the maintenance of s in these cases would not contradict the
Iranian sound law set up above, even though Avestan would also change s to h after n; cf.
maiih = mans, aorist stem of the root man, = man + s. In one case to be sure (before original
v) s seems to be maintained even contrary to the sound law: skesur 'mother-in-law', cf.
Avestan qapra 'father-in-law', NPers. khusur; here v may first have changed to g13
and this to k
after the s on the pattern of skund 'puppy' = çvan-. Windischmann, Grundlage des
Armenischen, p. 20, already wanted to regard the colloquial by-form kesur as the original
form, and derive k from kh = sv; s would then have been added inorganically. But this
explanation does not seem probable to me.
2. sv becomes kh or v in Armenian, both probably having arisen from hv: khoir, now
pronounced khuir, NPers. khvâhar, pronounced khâhar, originally svasar, and veʒ = sechs =
Gk sweks, Welsh chwech.
3. Aryan sh = s after i, u and their various grades is found in dž = Av. duzh from dush, cf. džgoh
'discontented' and in zguiš 'careful' = *uzgaosha, actually 'with pricked up ears' -- two
genuine Iranian formations, of which the latter itself would prove the Iranian character of
Armenian. And zguiš is so well established in Armenian that one cannot readily assume it to
be borrowed. This sh shows up also in uš 'memory, reason' = Av. ushi 'reason'. Elsewhere this
š may indeed have developed further to s, e.g. ls-el 'hear' = Av. srush in sraosha (Lith. klausà
OCS sluchŭ), nist 'sitting' = nsit = niseda = nishadah, as in Ossetic where in ghos 'ear', ars
'bear', aχsawa 'night', ast 'eight' s is found instead of sh. Accordingly de Lagarde is probably
right in deriving gusan 'singer, musician' from the root Skt ghush 'make noise, resound'. Yet
this material is not sufficient in order to discuss this point adequately.
4. Armenian is fond of the (voiceless) aspirates, of which it possesses a complete set: kh, th,
ph; but of the voiceless spirants it knows only χ. Yet of the voiceless spirants Afghan
possesses only χ (kh), but not f, which is frequent in Ossetic and Persian.
5. χt = original kt is found in uχt 'vow, treaty', Av. ukhti, aχt 'suffering, sickness' = Av. akhti;
and dstr 'daughter' (beside duχt = Pers. dukht) may also be derived from duχtr, when we find
bast beside bayt, drast beside draχt ('garden, paradise' Pers. dirakht 'tree'). ft for original pt
cannot be found in Armenian, since f is missing; yet Avestan too still has pt instead of ft:
gerepta, haptan, but NPers. giriftah, haft. For the change of tt to st I do not find an example,
but it seems certain because of Arm. azd 'information' = OPers. azdâ, Skt addhâ 'certainly'.
Aryan ksh = Iran. khsh appears metathesized in Armenian as šχ: išχel 'govern' = Av. khshi;
bašχel 'distribute' = Av. bakhsh; ašχarh 'land' = Av. khshathra. Iranian khra appears as Arm.
χra in χrat 'theme' χratu 'admonition, counsel', Av. khratu, NPers. khirad; Iran. fr as Arm. hr:
hra = pra, Av. fra; Iran. thr as Arm. rh: ašχarh 'land' = Av. khshathra.
6. l is not absent in Armenian; but it also occurs in all contemporary Iranian languages, so that
the presence of l in Armenian would prove nothing of itself. But we will see later that
Armenian is distinct from Iranian by the manner of occurrence of l ....
B. As far as the aspirated voiced stops are concerned, we might assume that the original
Iranian language had already given up aspiration and merged the aspirated voiced stops with
the voiced stops. Before this happened, Armenian must have separated from Iranian (if we set
up a family tree); for in Armenian voiced stops and aspirated voiced stops do not fall together
but rather have always been kept distinct. For while the aspirated voiced stops were shifted to
voiced stops, the voiced stops developed to voiceless stops; the voiceless stops however
remained unchanged or became aspirates or spirants. Accordingly the original series
gh g k
dh d t
bh p
undergo in Armenian a conversion to:
g k k, kh
d t t, th, y
b p, ph, h
Examples are as follows:
a. Dental series:
Arm. d = original dh: Arm. d-ne-l = original dhâ 'set, do' ... (Other examples follow.)
Arm. t = original d: atamn (a-ta-mn) 'tooth' = dant. (Other examples follow.)
Original t was maintained when protected by neighboring consonants: astḷ 'star', dustr
'daughter'; or it developed to d: du (from túam) = NHG du; leard 'liver' = yakart; mard 'human
being' = Gk. brotós; ôd 'wind' = vâta; or it developed to an aspirate: tharm 'fresh, young' = Skt
taruṇa; tharšam 'wilted' (in an-tharšam 'not wilting', tharšameʒuʒanel 'wilt' trans.), root tars,
Lat. torreo, tarsós; evethn 'seven' = saptan; uth 'eight' = ashtan; thandzr 'thick' root tañc;
artsath 'silver' = Skt rajata; or between vowels it developed to y: hair (written hayr) 'father';
mair 'mother'; berê 'he bears' = bereti, etc.
b. Labial series:
Arm. b = original bh: band, bant 'prison', root bhandh... (Other examples follow.)
p is maintained as voiceless stop in kapel = capere; partkh (stem partu-) 'debt', Av. par (in
pesha, peretha) 'involve in debt, forfeit through debt'; pšnul 'observe' = Skt paç; patmel
'narrate' pati + mâ, it was shifted to an aspirate14
in phoši 'dust' = Av. pãsnu; phetur = NHG
Feder; phut 'foul' = Skt pûti 'foul, stinking', Phl. pûtak; and initially it went over to h in: hair
'father' = patar; hing 'five' = pankan; harʒanel 'question' = NPers. purs-îdan; heru 'last year' =
Osset. fâre 'in the previous year', falwâre (= farfâre) 'in the second last year', Pers. pâr 'the past
year'.
c. Palato-velar series: (H's term: Gutturalreihe)
Arm. g = original gh: gari 'barley' = hordeum, originally ghardha, Phl. jurdâk 'grain, barley',
Baloci zurth-ânî 'a kind of grain'; mêg 'mist' = mêgha; vagr 'tiger' = Skt vyâghra.
Arm. k = original g: kov 'cow' = gâu; klanel 'devour', keri 'I ate', root gar; keal 'life', root giv;
kin 'woman' = ganâ; kr'unk 'crane' = gíranos; eki 'I came', root ga, of which the present
however is ga-m. gravel too does not agree with Skt grabh, Av. garb; yet the same irregular
shift occurs in Goth. greipan. For further details, see below. (not included here) The voiceless
stop was maintained as k in akn 'eye'; kam-il 'desire' Skt. kâma; kerp = Lat. corpus; kapel =
Lat. capere; in final position it became g: erg 'song' = Skt arka; infrequently it became an
aspirate: kharšel 'pull' = Av. karesh; khên 'hatred, revenge' = Av. kaêna, NPers. kîn; khandel
'destroy' (khand-el denominative ?) from Av. kan, Skt khan.
On the shift of another series (g¹ -- gh¹) see below.
This is the first sound shift of Armenian. The New Armenian of the west has undergone a
second: the relationship of voiced and voiceless stops, as established after the first sound shift,
is reversed, so that the original voiced aspirates are now voiceless Stops, the original voiced
stops as well as a part of the original voiceless stops are now voiced stops, but the aspirates
and h-sounds remained unshifted. In Armenian accordingly, voiced stops and asPirated voiced
stops did not fall together as in Iranian.
C. The last point remains to be discussed, the development of spirants from original palatovelars.
In this point Iranian and Balto-Slavic have much in common, so that Johannes Schmidt
protested with this support against a separation of Iranian and Slavic and of Aryan and
European in the early period; and he overthrew the family tree of the Indo-European
languages which has been proposed up to now. For not only in the split of original k to k and
k¹ = ç, s do Balto-Slavic and Aryan agree closely,15
but also in accordance with Ascoli's
demonstration in that of g to g and g¹ = Iranian, Balto-Slavic ż, z and that of gh to gh and gh¹
= Iranian, Balto-Slavic ż, z. This knowledge however is not adequate for our following
purpose, and in order to be able to compare the split of the palato-velars in Armenian with
that in Aryan and Balto-Slavic we have to set up these series of splits completely, as I now do.
I. Split of g to g and g¹.
a. g appears in Sanskrit as g, in Avestan as g, Armenian k, Balto-Slavic g.
Note 1: Skt. gâ, gam 'go', Av. gâ in gâma, gâya, ga in gata, apagaiti, gam in ja-ghm-aṭ, aibîgemen,
Arm. eki 'I came', ek 'the stranger' (baínō, venio)... (Other examples follow.)
The g above we see developing to j in some examples; thus beside Skt. gam, Av. gâ even the
root and present stem appear as jam, jim, jas, though the original g was maintained where it
was protected by a consonant: jaghmaṭ ... Beside Skt. yuga : yuj we find Av. yuj. So we may
also posit original g = Skt. j = Av. j = Arm. k, BaltoSlavic g; note Skt. rajas 'sphere of air, fog,
darkness', = Arm. erek 'evening', Gk. Érebos, Goth. riqis. ... The complete g-series
accordingly shows up as follows:
Skt g, Av. g, Arm. k, Balto-Slavic g
| | |
j j, zh k, ž
b. g¹ appears in Sanskrit as j, Avestan z, Arm. ts, Slav. z, Lith. z.
cf. Skt. aja, ajâ 'buck, goat', Av. azi, Arm. aits, Lith ożýs 'buck', aíks ... (Other examples
follow.)
II. Split of the gh to gh and gh¹.
a. gh appears in Sanskrit as gh, Av. g, gh, Arm. g, Balto-Slavic g.
cf. Skt. megha = Av. maêgha 'cloud', Osset. miegha 'fog, cloud', Arm. mêg 'fog', Lith. miglá,
OCS mĭgla 'fog, clouds'... (Other examples follow.)
Just as g occasionally became j in Sanskrit and j, zh in Avestan, so gh occasionally becomes h
in Sanskrit, j, zh in Avestan, ž in Armenian.
Skt. druh 'vex', drogha 'insult', Av. druj, druzh 'lie, deceive' beside draogha 'deceitful', Arm.
džr-el, drž-el 'deceive, miss, offend' ... (Other examples follow.)
Accordingly the gh-series shows up as:
Skt. gh = Av. g, gh, Arm. g, Balto-Slavic g
| | |
h j, zh g, ž
b. gh¹ = Skt h, Av. z, Arm. z, dz, Slavic z, Lith ż.
Skt. aham 'I', Av. azem, Arm. es from ez), OCS azŭ, Lith aż (asz)... (Other examples follow.)
Some apparent anomalies must be noted here, from which the relation of g to g¹, gh to gh¹
becomes clear. We saw above that Skt. yuj = Av. yuj must go back to a root yug, the g of
which must have been present in Armenian as palato-velar, as it is actually found that zuig =
*yôga. Now we also find however lts-el 'hitch up in a yoke', which goes back to original yug¹
(which is not present in Sanskrit and Avestan); and accordingly we must posit for Armenian
two roots, yug and yug¹, which of course were identical originally. Then the two g's are not
originally different, but the one g has split in two, in part remaining g, in part becoming g¹.
The same is true of Aryan g in the root gabh (and of forms with gh and k that H. cites). ... This
can only mean: originally there was only one k, one g, one gh, which later split to k, k¹, g, g¹,
gh, gh¹....
If one now compares the k series with the g and gh series, in accordance with the previous
investigations:
k = Skt k, Av. k, Arm. k, Balto-Slavic k
/ | | |
k c c ?
\
k¹ = ç s s (š, ʒ) Slav. s, Lith. sz
g = g g k, g
/ | | |
g j j, zh k, ž
\
g¹ = j z ts Slav. z, Lith. ż
gh = gh g (gh) g g
/ | | |
gh h j, zh g, ž
\
gh¹ = h z z, dz Slav. z, Lith. ż
there is complete agreement between these series, from which it must be concluded that in the
original period of the Aryans, Armenians, and Balto-Slavics speakers were in especially close
contact with one another. For this common development of the palato-velars k, g, gh in two
directions: to k, g, gh and k¹, g¹, gh¹ cannot be purely accidental -- or if it is, all characteristics
of languages, by which we determine their conditions of relationship, must be purely
accidental.
If we consider especially the relationship of Armenian to Aryan and Balto-Slavic, it turns out
first of all that by its strict distinction of g (= k and ts) and gh (= g and z, dz) it is at an older
stage than Balto-Slavic and Iranian, which as may be seen from the above tahle have merged
both of these. This phenomenon agrees totally with the other phonological relationships of
these languages. For if Sanskrit and Armenian in general maintain the distinction between
voiced aspirated stops and simple voiced stops (gh-g, dh-d), which Iranian and Balto-Slavic
have abandoned, then we must also expect that the two first-named languages retained the
distinction between original gh¹ and g¹, and the last named language groups gave it up, i.e.
they merged gh¹ and g¹ to g¹ and developed this to a spirant (Av. z = Slav. z = Lith. ż). On
their part Sanskrit and Armenian are differentiated because Sanskrit, in contrast with Avestan
and Balto-Slavic, merges part of the original g, gh with g¹, gh¹ (so that Sanskrit j = g and g¹,
Sanskrit h = gh and gh¹); Armenian on the other hand not only continues the distinction of
voiced stops and voiced aspirates, but also g, gh and g¹, gh¹, and accordingly in this respect it
maintains the original phonological relationship more faithfully than Aryan and Balto-Slavic.
But we must also examine the relationship of Armenian to Aryan and Balto-Slavic in another
and more important area. For the chief difference between the language families named above
consists in this that Balto-Slavic at first maintains its palato-velars (g, k) unchanged, Aryan on
the other hand changes them to palatals. For the Old Aryan sounds k, g, gh in part remained
velars, in part also developed to the palatals: Skt c, j, h (h from jh) and Av. c, zh, j, primarily
in three cases: 1. if i or y followed them originally, e.g jîv 'live'; 2. in the reduplicating
syllable; 3. in root final position, when they were not protected by a following consonant, or
when they were maintained unchanged before vowels in nominal derivations, as happened in
part, e.g. pac 'cook', vac 'speak', but pâka and ukta. But palatalization has also taken place
beyond these limits, if not widely, and in this situation k has been affected more frequetly, and
g and gh less: cf. Aryan ca 'and', catvar 'four', car 'go, drive', pañcan 'five', Skt jaßhara 'belly',
Skt han = Av. jan 'strike'. The agreement with which Indic and Iranian have carried out this
process of palatalization provides certain proof that it took place already in the common
Aryan period. And since it did not occur in this way in any other Indo-European group, this
formation of palatals is particularly characteristic for Aryan. For that reason it must also serve
as a test to determine whether Armenian is Iranian or not.
Now we have already noted (in a portion not given here) that: Arm. uiž baž, buž = Aryan
aujas, bhaj, bhuj, possibly also žtel = Av jad, žir = Skt jîra, and držel, džrel = Skt druh, Av.
druzh, iž = Av. azhi, aržani = Skt arh, Av. arej (NPers. arzân), and may because of these
examples designate Armenian as Aryan. But only one thing is unclear: why do we find in uiž,
baž, buž the sound ž corresponding to Aryan j, since in accordance with the sound shift we
would expect c? No example at all has been found for Arm. j = Aryan jh and Arm. c = Aryan
j; for this reason one must assume first of all that j and c arose only late in the separate
existence of Armenian16
(accordingly ž would have arisen for j and c in Aryan times?). Arm. c
= Pers. c is found frequently by the way; cf. cank, cang 'hook' = NPers. cang; caš 'eat' with its
derivatives: cašel, cašak, cašakel 'taste' = NPers. cashîdan; capuk- = NPers. câbuk 'nimble';
carp 'fat' = Phl. carp; crag = NPers. cirâgh 'lamp'; vcar- 'solvere' = NPers. guzâr (from vicar);
r'ocik 'support' = NPers. rûzeh; rûzî, Av. rocaṅh 'day', etc. But these examples prove too
much; the agreement with Persian is here too great, for otherwise we find no trace of such
agreement. And since words like crag and r'ocik are certainly borrowed (they are also found
in Georgian), the above words other than these are probably also loanwords. The same is
probably true of patmucan = Phl. patmucan 'dress', while the c of mucak = NPers. mûzah
could only have arisen from the k of the underlying word muik 'shoe' = Phl. môk (Afghan
moc-aṛ̃ah f. 'shoe') in Armenian.
But in accordance with the sound shift, the Aryan palatal c is found in Armenian as ch in:
chorkh17
'four' = catvar; gochel 'scream', kochel 'name' Lat. vocare; and it has become a dental
in mrʒ-il 'battle, fight' Av. mereñc, nasalized from marc (for the meaning, cf. márnatai 'he
fights' = Skt mṛrṇâti 'he crushes'), haʒ 'bread' = pac, thandzr (from thanʒr 'thick', Av.
tañicish'ta), and finally in luis 'light' = Av. raocanh, NPers. rôz18
. Is Armenian then Aryan?
Compare now the Armenian words eki 'I came', keal 'life', kov 'cow', kin 'woman', erek
'evening', bek 'broken', gan 'strike' with their Aryan related words as well as hing (from
penkan) 'five' with Aryan pañcan and lkh-anel 'leave' with Aryan ric (erg 'song' = Skt arka,
root arc and khan = Lat. quarn, khanak = quantum, Av. cvañt, NPers. cand do not come into
consideration); it then turns out that precisely in those forms to which especially value is to be
ascribed after Ascoli's splendid studies concerning the Aryan palatals, Armenian is decisively
separated from Aryan and agrees with Balto-Slavic.
After the above remarks we can now complete the k-series set up above as follows:
IE k = Skt k, Av. k, Arm. k, Balto-Slavic k
c c k, kh; ch, ʒ, s
and the parallelism with the g and gh series is now completely established.
From the whole preceding investigation we obtain as total result:
In accordance with its development of original palato-velars to spirants Armenian belongs to
the sphere of the Aryan and Balto-Slavic languages. It agrees in part with the Aryan
languages in the palatalization of the palato-velars, but in another area it also preserves palatovelars
unchanged, like Balto-Slavic; for this reason it can neither be subordinated to Aryan (in
the usual sense) nor be taken away from it. For this reason too it cannot be designated as
Iranian, even though it like Iranian changes s to h and treats many consonants and groups of
consonants (like Arm. šχ = Iran. χš = Aryan kš) in a similar or in the same way. For this
reason it must be set up as an independent branch between Iranian and Balto-Slavic.
Part II.
If however Armenian stands between Iranian and Slavic, that is between Aryan and European,
we must still examine its position to the special peculiarities of the European languages,
through which these are sharply separated from the Aryan languages; that is, we must
examine whether Armenian knows the European split of a to a and e, that of r to r and l, and
whether or not it presents important points of contact in vocabulary with European. We will
proceed at once to answer these questions.
1. Split of a to a and e.
Nothing is more correct than Fick's view that the most important difference between
European and Aryan in vocalism consists in the split and non-split of a to a and e. It is certain
that no Indic and no Iranian language knows this split. To be sure we write numerous e, i.e.
short ä, in New Persian words, but short a simply becomes ä throughout (pronounced as pure
a in India),19
and of a split there is no question here. Ossetic, in the Caucasus, has o and e for
and beside a, but e is rare and obviously late; it appears beside ä and both beside a, which a
stricter, and older, manner of speaking preserves; and also o = a seems to be only a later
darkening of the a in the neighborhood of n and r,20
but does not enter into consideration here
at all. Accordingly Aryan does not know this split.
Armenian on the other hand splits the a completely to a, e, o in the European manner, and is
thereby distinguished sharply from the Aryan related languages, even if it may not coincide in
individual examples with the European. But in order to be able to undertake a comparison of
the individual examples, we must first survey the vocalism of Armenian in general. The
scheme for it is:
Basic Vowel Lengthening21
a
a e, i, zero â
o, u, zero
i, zero ê, î
u, zero ui, û
and the accentual law which controls the vocalism is as follows: the accent moved to the
penultimate syllable of the word and caused the loss of the last, or the loss of its vowel, so that
now the last syllable always has the accent. Short i and u as well as their lengthened forms ê
and ui can be maintained only by the accent, that is, if they stand in the last syllable now; if
however they lose the accent through the addition of a new syllable, then ê becomes î, ui
becomes û, i and u on the other hand are lost. e.g. i: root vid 'find' = Arm. git, but in the
infinitive gt-anél; original vinâç = NPers. gunâh = Arm. vnâs; lengthening: mêg 'fog', root
migh; mêz 'urine', root migh¹, Skt mih, but in the genitive: mîgi, mîzi22
. u: root yuj, Arm. luts,
infinitive ltsel 'yoke'; lengthening: luis 'light' from raucah, root ruc, but in the genitive lûsóy.
From this it is clear at once that gitém 'I know', lizem 'I lick' go back to gêt-em, lêz- em, that
is, that in these verbs the lengthened present stem occurs (gêt-em = vêda + later added em =
âmi, lêzem = leigh¹-âmi), except when we deal with denominative verbs, as may be true of
mizel 'urinate' beside mêz 'urine'. On the other hand a, â cannot be changed: bazúm 'much' =
Skt bahu; bazúk 'arm' = Skt bâhu; asél 'say', Skt. ah. The same is true of o,23
cf. gochél 'cry',
root vac; gortsél 'do' beside gorts 'work' = wérgon. e too generally remains, cf. mets 'great', Gk
mégas, genitive: metsi; but it has dropped out occasionally, e.g. vtak 'rivulet' beside get 'river';
astḷ 'star' = aster; tagr 'brother-in-law' = dawer, genitive = astél, tagér. But if this e comes to
stand before nasals and double consonants, it regularly goes over to i,24
hing = quinque; hin
'alt [old]' = senex; sirt = Herz; and like original i, this i is elided when it loses the accent: hin
'old', hn-anal 'become old'; sirt 'heart', gen. srti. Accordingly e must be assumed everywhere in
Armenian where instead of the a-vowel to be expected in accordance with the etymology, e, i
or total loss of the vowel has occurred. Accordingly, if Armenian is to take part in the chief
characteristic of European, we have to expect to find a) Arm. a (o) = European a (o) and b)
Arm. e, i, zero = European e.
a. Arm. a (o) = European a (o). For this correspondence it is adequate to cite few examples:
akn 'eye', Lith. akís, oculus; atsem = ágō; tal 'give' = dare; ail = állos; aits = aíks; hair = patḗr.
gochel = vocare; chorkh 'four' = quatuor; gorts = wérgon; kov 'cow' = bow-ós; ordz 'testicle' =
órkhis; orb 'orphan' = orphanós. In addition one should note for inflection that the a-stems --
apart from proper names -- went completely over to o-stems; for this reason original marta-,
Gk broto- appears in Armenian as mardo-, cf. gen. dat. mardoy, instr. mardov, gen. pl.
mardoʒ, instr. mardovkh. In this respect Armenian agrees with Latin and Greek.
b. Arm. e = European e. In his book, Die ehemalige spracheinheit der Indo-germanen
Europas, p. 425, Fick listed the original European words to which e must be ascribed. Of
these I find the following in Armenian: Arm. sirt = Eur. k¹erd 'heart'; tsnôt (= tsen-ôt) = genu
'chin'; inn (= inun = invan from envan = nevan) = nevan 'nine'; hing = penkan 'five'; mets =
mega 'large'; mêj (from medyo) = medhia 'middle'; melr 'honey', melu 'bee' (mélissa) = melita
'honey'; nist (= nsit = ni-sedas) = Eur. sedas 'seat'; hin = sena 'old'; evthn = septan 'seven'; astḷ
'star' = ster; skesur 'mother-in-law' = svek¹ura, sved¹rû 'in-law'; veʒ = sveks 'six' .... For
inflection e is important in nominal suffixes like ter = original tar, therefore dústr 'daughter',
gen. dstér; in verbs as the stem-forming verb of the most widely distributed class: berem,
beres, berê, etc.; as augment, to the extent it appears: eki 'I came', edi 'I set',25
etu 'I gave', etes
'he saw', egit 'he found'....
2. Split of the r to r and l.
l is found in Armenian beside two r sounds (r' and r) and an ḷ, which is now pronounced by
the western Armenians as γ, but in former days transcribes Gk. l. In European l also
corresponds to the first l, while r is found in European corresponding to the r', r and ḷ.
a. l = European l: lal 'bewail, weep' root lâ... (Other examples follow.)
b. Arm. r, r', ḷ = European r:
sirt 'heart' = cor... (Other examples follow.)
3. There are various words which go back to a dffferent phonological structure in the
European languages than in the Aryan.... (Of the twelve found in Armenian) the Aryan forms
compare with the European in the proportion of 3 : 9 = 1 : 3.
4. The last point to be discussed here, the question about the relationship of the Armenian
vocabulary to that of the European languages, I have to leave untouched for the time being,
because the greater part of the Armenian words are still not yet etymologically clarified.... But
in future studies numerous "European" words will be demonstrated to exist in Armenian.
Through the last part of our investigation, such a tight bond has without question been
constructed between Armenian and European that it would be easier to tear Armenian from
Aryan than from European. Among the European languages it stands closest to Balto-Slavic
because of the spirants, with which it was also especially connected by the instrumental suffix
bhi, which is common to only these two. In this situation, friends of the family tree, like Fick,
will certainly be inclined to separate Armenian completely from Aryan and make it a purely
European language. Against this view I might first refer to the fact that Armenian does not
take part completely in the split of a and r. ...
The result of my entire investigation is accordingly as follows:
Armenian stands in the sphere of the Aryan-Balto-Slavic languages between Iranian and
Balto-Slavic.
If further research makes this preliminary conclusion definitive, then the impossibility of
setting up a family tree of the Indo-European languages would be strikingly demonstrated.
For Armenian would be the connecting ring of both parts in the chain of the Aryan-BaltoSlavic
languages, not a branch between two branches. And then too the family tree, which
Johannes Schmidt's vigorous might has overturned, would remain lying forever.
But if Armenian is to be the connecting member between Iranian and Balto-Slavic, between
Aryan and European, then in my opinion it must have played the role of an intermediary at a
time when they were still very similar to one another, when the historical period had not yet
drawn the present sharp boundary between them, but when they were still related to one
another as dialects. Just as Upper Italian folk dialects with their nasal vowels, with ü instead
of u and with other characteristics approach French, so that one might expect that Italian at the
boundary of France is almost an intermediate between French and Italian, in the same way
Armenian might once have been intermediate between the Aryan and the European dialects
and therefore have taken part in the characteristics of both. For if we see that the archaic
languages of the Avesta and the Veda still stand quite close to one another and that a
reconstructed Iranian and an Indic Proto-language would be related to each other in the very
same way as dialects, why shouldn't the European languages once have stood in this
relationship to one another and Armenian as intermediate dialect between the two types? In
this way the peculiar hybrid structure of Armenian can easily be explained. After the wave of
the splitting of a and r had arisen in the Western dialects and that of the splitting of the palatovelars
in the Eastern, the former penetrated beyond Balto-Slavic and spread further over
Armenian, while the latter penetrated outside of Armenian and spread further over BaltoSlavic.
The former changed, whether directly or through a subsequent effect, the a of the
Indo-European numeral dakan to e in Balto-Slavic, and the latter changed the k of the same
word to k¹, so that instead of the IE dakan the Balto-Slavic basic form dek¹an resulted. When
later in Aryan the wave of the subsequent split of the palato-velars (to velars and palatals)
arose, it was still able, whether it was of itself too weak or whether the dialects had already
begun to separate more and more, to spread completely over Iranian, but only over Armenian
in some offshoots, so that we find to be sure chorkh = catvar, but also hing = pañcan.
However that may be, if we must view the development of Skt c, j, h and Av. c, j from k, g, gh
in the same forms as proof for the connection of the Aryan languages, then also the
development in the table below must be viewed as proof for the connection of Aryan with
Armenian and Balto-Slavic:
IE k, g, gh to
Aryan-Arm.-Balto-Slavic k¹ g¹ gh¹
i.e.Skt. ç j h
Av. s z z
Arm. s (š, ʒ) ts dz, z
Slavic s z z
Lith. sz ż ż
It is obvious that the minute difference between sounds in the individual languages proves
nothing against this conclusion, for only the later phonological propensities26
of the individual
languages are responsible for their existence. For Gothic even confronts the European e with
i; and the l of the individual languages which has arisen from European l is certainly not the
same everywhere, as the Gk. l in Armenian transcription is always given by ḷ (etymologically
= r, now = γ), never by l. If nonetheless we prove the original connection of the European
languages with this e and l, we must also prove through those spirants the former connection
of Aryan, Armenian and Balto-Slavic. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. And
finally, as compelled as we are to derive the Aryan palatals from the pre-Aryan palato-velars,
we are equally justified in deriving the series of the Aryan-Armenian-Balto-Slavic sounds k¹,
g¹, gh¹, to which we take back those spirants, from the series of the Indo-European palatovelars.
For a split of the palato-velars took place twice in a similar manner but in dffferent
extent.
But if one might claim both series for the Indo-European original language, as Fick did with k
and k¹, then our argumentation would be untenable and no closer relationship would be
proved between Aryan, Armenian and Balto-Slavic; yet even so the common formation of the
palatals in Aryan, in which Armenian participates, if only in part, would prove nothing for the
closer connection of Indic-Iranian-Armenian:
k = Skt. c, Av. c Arm. ch, ʒ, s
g = j j, zh (k) ž
gh = h j, zh (g) ž
But then, to be just and consistent, one ought also declare meaningless the few reasons for
which Balto-Slavic and Germanic as well as Greek and Italic or Italo-Greek and Celtic have
been generally assumed to be connected; for they are by no means of greater significance than
those by which one can connect Aryan with Balto-Slavic or Armenian with both of these.
Then we would arrive at a skeptical point of view, and would hold that European e and l too
prove nothing: just as in the one group spirants would arise from palato-velars in certain cases
without motivation, so in the other a would become e and r would become l in certain cases
without motivation. Or if one assumes two basically different k for Indo-European, why not
also two originally different a and r, which had fallen together in Aryan just as randomly as
often happened in European with Fick's k and k¹? No one can claim that this point of view is
nonsensical; only Fick will not be inclined to adopt it.
From this point of view there would be nothing further to say about Armenian than that it is
an individual branch of Indo-European. And as such we will also have to view it from the
other point of view, however its relationship to European and Iranian is to be conceived.
Unfortunately -- and to this I'd like to point in conclusion -- the etymological investigation of
Armenian is still in its beginning, and we are working with such a minute portion of the
Armenian vocabulary that we cannot foresee what further investigations will uncover; and it
was probably unjustified to erect at this time such bold constructions on such an uncertain
basis as was done above. It is by far most important to separate the Iranian loanwords from
Armenian and to arrive at pure Armenian material. Only when this has been done can one
determine the more precise phonological characteristics of Armenian and thereupon loosen or
tighten the bond that connects it with Iranian. But whether this bond is firm or slack, the close
connection of Armenian to European remains undeniable, such as the formation of the
instrumental singular with original bhi, the (partial) preservation of the palato-velars in
contrast with the Aryan palatals, and the split of a to a and e, that of r to r and l demonstrate.
For the time being there are not yet many deviations and agreements in the vocabulary to be
given, since up to now neither Armenian nor Iranian has been investigated enough
etymologically. Therefore the question of the lexical relationship of Armenian to Iranian and
Slavic must still be viewed as quite open, just as we have intended to broach the question of
the position of Armenian in the sphere of the Indo-European languages, not to have settled it
decisively.
Notes
1. Fr. Müller also admits this in general, since in a friendly letter (28 July 1874), in
which he wants to have Armenian energetically reclaimed for Iranian and not viewed
as a transitional language, he writes: "That there are many foreign words in Armenian
which have penetrated from Proto-Pehlevi is an evident fact; I fear however that many
a word that is good Armenian is regarded as a foreign word only to be able to deny the
Iranian character of Armenian." But it is not adequate to admit this in general; if one
wishes to judge about the character of a language, one must be certain in every
individual instance that the material with which one works is not foreign stuff.
Moreover, in the interest of the theory which is presented below I would like very
much to have Fr. Müller prove to me that I have gone too far in the assumption of
loanwords. [return to text]
2. Pers. rôzî to which lûsik and not r'ocik would have to correspond in Armenian, since
Pers. rôz 'day' = Arm. luis. [return to text]
3. Alike only if both go back to s: Arm. mah-ik = NPers. mâh 'moon', from mâsa. [return
to text]
4. Also designated as Persian in the Armenian-Italian dictionary of Caχcaχ. [return to
text]
5. To these must still be added the foreign personal names, which are sharply
distinguished from the real Armenian ones: the latter have a very characteristic sound
and are etymologically obscure; the former are old acquaintances from Persian, like
Artavan = Av. ashavan, and accordingly OPers. *artavan; Artavazd = Av. ashavazdaṅh,
and accordingly OPers. *artavazdah (the former = Gk Artábanos Artabanus, the
latter = Gk Artabázēs or Artaouásdēs, Artavasdes) etc. Therefore it is unfortunate to
claim to prove merely from proper names the Iranian character of a people who are
neighbors to the Persians. [return to text]
6. In the modern dialect of Tiflis, um, which can only be pronominal in origin,
consistently forms the locative, while the genitive and dative have fallen together. This
New Armenian therefore has one case more in nominal inflection -- to be sure one
newly formed -- than Classical Armenian. [return to text]
7. One example may demonstrate this: the pronoun of the second person plural is dukh
'you', formed from the singular du = 'thou' with the plural sign of nouns kh = as
originally. Probably no other Indo-European language has gone so far. [return to text]
8. Also êi, êir, êr etc. would remain unexplained, while in this way we could assume that
this imperfect of ah has gone over to the analogical influence of the other verbs; this is
also true in part for the present, where ê 'is' is not explained from asti, but probably
through analogy from berê 'he bears' = bereti. [return to text]
9. ʒ is emphatic ts, just as ch is emphatic tš (c). [return to text]
10. On the Old High German instrumental in u, see Braune, "Ueber die quantität der ahd.
endsilben," p. 40. [return to text]
11. For further information see Spiegel, Grammar p. 345. [return to text]
12. That Old Iranian had no l is clear from the fact that the modern Iranian languages do
not agree in the use of l; compare for example the following examples: Ossetic stal
'star', khalm 'crawling animal (snake)', nal 'man', malin 'die' with NPers. sitârah, kirim,
nar, murdan; and conversely: NPers. gulû (gula 'throat') with Ossetic qur = ghur,
Afghan ghâṛah, fem. 'throat'; NPers. talkh 'bitter' with Afghan trîχ, fem. tarχah, NPers.
kulâgh = Baloci gurâgh 'crow' (Afghan kârgh*h 'crow' ?). For this reason, in spite of
Oppert's objections, Revue de linguistique IV, p. 209), l will have to be denied for Old
Iranian. [return to text]
13. This change is frequent: gail 'wolf' = European valka; get 'river' beside vtak, root vad;
gin 'price' venum, original vasna; gini 'wine', vinum; gitel 'know', root vid; gtanel
'find', root vid, vind; gortsel 'work', Av. verez, werg-; tagr 'brother-in-law', dawer-;
gochel 'cry' = vac, garun 'spring' = Av. vahra, gier 'night' = vesper, gar'n 'lamb' =
warḗn, warnós. Old Persian too causes v to change to g, cf. gurg 'wolf' = Arm. gail;
but otherwise in different forms than in Armenian: gul 'rose' = Arm. vard, gunâh 'pass'
= vnas, etc. Both languages have carried out this change quite independently of each
other. [return to text]
14. Found also in loanwords: phartham 'rich', Phl. fratum; phuriršišs 'process' = Pers.
pursish; phiḷ 'elephant' = Pers. pîl. In loanwords however which had initial f rather than
p, Armenian substituted the similar h, since it had no f: hrasac = Arab. farsac, Pers.
farsang 'parasang'; hraman 'order' = Pers. farmân; hretak 'envoy, angel' = Pers.
firishtah. The Kurds too have changed their f to h, but maintained it in loanwords, e.g.
in firman (Justi, Die kurdischen Spiranten, p. 15). The Ossetes on the other hand
change initial p consistently to f: farsun 'ask', fondz 'five', fathan 'broad', so that p is
initial still only in loanwords, while Afghan substitutes v for f and uses f only in
Arabic and Persian loanwords. [return to text]
15. The series are: original k = Skt k, Iran. k, Arm. k (kh), Balto-Slavic k; and k¹ = Skt ç,
Iran s, Arm. s, Slav. s, Lith sz. Armenian agrees with Iranian and Slavic, cf. tasn 'ten'.
Occasionally however š is found instead of s, as in šun 'dog' = Skt çvan, pš-nul
'observe', Skt paç, as in NPers. shâkh 'twig' instead of sâkh = çâkhâ, shustan 'purify' =
çudh, an indication that the sharp s of Iranian stands very close to the sh = Skt ç. And
when for that reason sz is found in Lithuanian as opposed to Slav. s = k¹, and Indic ç,
now pronounced sh, as opposed to Iranian s = k', we will consider this difference
irrelevant, with Johannes Schmidt against Fick. From the sole Aryan-Balto-Slavic
çvan, çuni arose only late the various Skt çvan, gen. çunas, and çuni, Av. sûnô, sûni,
Arm. šun, gen. šan, Old Prussian sunis, Lith. szů, gen. szùns. But whatever is valid for
Slavic s = Lith. sz must also be valid for Slavic z = Lith. z, original g¹ and gh¹. [return
to text]
16. Through secondary palatalization in the separate existence of Armenian there arose:
jerm 'warm' = Skt gharma, NPers. garm and šeram 'silkworm' = Skt kṛmi, Phl. kirm.
[return to text]
17. The secondary form khar' is related to chor- as is Av. tûirya to Av. cathware, tûirya =
tvar-ya and khar' = tvar; kh = tv as in khsan 'twenty' = dvi-çanti. [return to text]
18. Add to this: Arm. ch = Skt ch = original sk in the present stem forming sk = Gk sk:
Arm. can-ach-em = gignṓskō, Aor. tsaneay, and in chu 'walking' = original sku,
Ascoli, Vorles. p. 189. [return to text]
19. Accordingly in this essay I have written instead of ä, as it is now pronounced in Persia
itself, the older a, from which it developed. [return to text]
20. See barzond 'high', zarond 'old' = geront, zond, zund 'knowledge', zônun 'know', fondz
'five', dzorun 'speak', χor 'sun' (= svar), corun 'eat' (= svar-). How little o means here is
shown by kharôn = Av. karana, which forms in the plural: Tagauric kharatthä, Digoric
kharanthä. [return to text]
21. I should like to note that the quantity of vowels is not marked in the Armenian writing
system; therefore elsewhere as well I have not indicated a long mark. But this is only a
shortcoming of the writing system, with reference to which it must be noted that a, i,
u, where they are lengthened forms of the basic vowels a, i, u, must have formerly
counted as long or still do. Only e and o are always short. [return to text]
22. I write here î, as in the following û; for from mĭgí, mĭzí: mgí, mzí would have had to
develop, and similarly from lŭsoy: lsóy. [return to text]
23. Petermann, Grammar p. 37: "omnium vocalium constantissima, quae fere nunquam
abjicitur seu mutatur." (The most constant of all vowels, which almost never is lost or
changed.) [return to text]
24. This change of e to i has been carried through completely in the modern dialect of
Tiflis, in which o has also become u throughout. In older Armenian u from o = a is
found more infrequently: a sure example is probably the suffix forming the decades: sun,
gen. -sni, e.g. innsun, gen. innŭsni '90' = enenḗkonta. [return to text]
25. The present is dnel = d-ne-l, which according to the sound laws must go back to dene-l.
If one compares this with the present tal 'give', then the equation results: Arm. de
'set': ta 'give' = Gk the: do. [return to text]
26. Consider how s in Sanskrit, where it was to be voiced, develops to everything, only
not z, and how jh, instead of which h shows up, is almost prohibited. It is therefore not
remarkable that we do not find in Sanskrit z, to which it was completely opposed,
instead of the original g¹. Notable is the preference of Iranian, Armenian and Slavic (in
their oldest form) for the dental spirants over against the palatals of Sanskrit and the
linguals of Lithuanian; but nothing is proved by this about the closer relationship of
these languages to one another. [return to text]
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
KARL BRUGMAN
NASALIS SONANS IN THE ORIGINAL
INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGE
"Nasalis sonans in der indogermanischen Grundsprache,"
Curtius Studien 9 (1876), 287-338
Editor's Introduction
Brugmann's article is included here for two reasons: it illustrates the growing control over
articulatory phonetics; it reflects an awareness that the phonological and morphological levels
of language are distinct, and that the one can be examined for insights into the other. Only a
small portion of the article is given. The remainder is important for comparative IndoEuropean
grammar -- the excerpt presented here, for general theory, especially for the
assertion that there were vocalic nasals in Proto-Indo-European.
The recognition that PIE m and n were also vocalic led to considerable clarification of the
ablaut in the Indo-European languages. Eventually the six resonants -- y w r l m n -- were
classed together, for the clarification of many interrelationships in Indo-European grammar,
such as an understanding of the Germanic strong verb bases. Brugmann's formulations are
awkward in part -- another reason for merely providing excerpts. But publication of the article
eventually led to the general assumption of vocalic resonants.
Verner's explanation of the phonological variation in sets like
OHG ziohan zōh zugum zogen
illustrated that phonological change did not occur by morphological sets but rather in similar
phonological environments. Accordingly, aberrancies in morphological sets might point to
earlier phonological change. Brugmann led off the investigation of vocalic nasals by
scrutinizing patterns in a morphological set, the n-stems. His procedure leads to that now
known as internal reconstruction; in using it Brugmann is not as precise as is Saussure, but
through its use he added conviction to conclusions which were supported by reference to
general phonetic observations.
The article illustrates a tremendous number published in the last quarter of the nineteenth
century which gradually clarified the important problems in the Indo-European family. Most
dealt with minor problems and received little lasting acclaim. But their results led to the great
compilations, such as Brugmann's Grundriss and to the grammars of the individual languages,
such as Streitberg's, Pedersen's, Meillet's, Hirt's which are still widely used.
Karl Brugmann (1849-1919) is one of the great Indo-Europeanists. His capacity for work was
enormous. He produced the Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen
Sprachen, second edition 1897-1916, which will never be superseded, for it is reliable,
thorough and representative of Indo-European studies when many of the important problems
had been clarified. Even though his writing was prolific, Brugmann was, however, not as
clear and compact as Verner. His article on vocalic nasals lacks the immediate impact of
Verner's, though it was as important for clarification of the Indo-European vowel system as
was Verner's for the Indo-European accent.
Osthoff's essay "On the Question of the Origin of the Germanic n-Declension," just published
in Paul and Braune's Beiträgen III 1 95., which I became acquainted with several months ago
through a special printing, I will not hesitate to characterize as a work that will exert for a
long time a most profound influence on research in the field of nominal stem formation and
inflection. Its principles, to be sure, are not new, but its application to the given facts is new in
many instances, and opens a great many quite new and farreaching perspectives. I will treat
the most essential results of the essay at another opportunity, in order to use them as a basis to
clear up various phenomena of stem gradation which remain obscure. Here I will deal with a
matter which Osthoff handled only in passing, and which led him to a result whose validity I
must question.
I.
As is well known, the accusative plural in Old Indic is for the most part a weak case in those
consonantal declensions, in which stem gradation occurs. For example, the accusative forms
ap-ás 'waters', path-ás 'paths', ukshṇ-ás 'oxen', tudat-ás 'pushing' stand in contrast to the
nominative plurals ā́
p-as, pánthān-as, uksháṇ-as and tudánt-as, and to the accusative singulars
ā́
ap-am, pánthān-am, uksháṇ-am and tudánt-am. A different situation exists in the European
languages, which along with the Aryan took part in stem gradation, and have this appear
often, though never as clearly and openly as does the Old Indic. In the European languages
the accusative plural is throughout a strong case, so that Osthoff sets up as basic form for his
model the Indo-European stem uks-án-, uksa
n-as in the Aryan languages and uksán-as in the
European languages. Naturally now, only one of these two forms can be considered the
original Indo-European form. Either the Aryan or the European has altered the original
relationship.
Osthoff decides on pages 35ff. in favor of the Aryan languages, and consequently asserts that
the accusative plural in the original language was a weak case with a weak stem form and a
stressed case ending. If I understand correctly, three considerations lead him to this
assumption:
1. If uksán-as is taken in the original form, then a shift of the accent from the stem suffix to
the ending has to be assumed for Old Indic. Shifts of the accent did indeed often occur in Old
Indic toward the beginning of the word, but never in the other direction.
2. One encounters attempts in many places during the historical period of the Indo-European
languages to assimilate the nominative and accusative towards each other in form. Now if
uksán-as is assumed to be the original form, so that in the original language the nominative
and accusative plural were formed alike on the one hand, and the accusative singular and the
accusative plural were on the other hand accented alike, then Aryan would have taken exactly
the opposite course and would have disturbed the original agreement of cases.
3. It is a quite unprovable hypothesis that the original form of the suffix of our case was -ams
or -ans: the whole group of languages points only to -as. This proposition plays a role to the
extent that it implies that the accusative plural was not formed by simply attaching the plural s
to the singular form in -am. Accordingly, there would not necessarily need to be agreement
between the singular and plural as far as the stem gradation is concerned.
In contrast to these statements let us weigh the following:
1. Among themes which undergo stem gradation the accusative plural often appears in Vedic
as a strong case with regard to the form as well as to the accent; for example, ā́
p-as beside ap-
ás, uksháṇ-as beside ukshṇ-ás, vṛshaṇ- as beside vṛshṇ- as. Among monosyllables without
stem gradation, the accusative plural in Vedic is at times accented as a strong case, at other
times as a weak case, thus rā́
j-ás and rāj-ás, vā́
ḱ-as and vāḱ-ás.1
In themes of this sort, in later
Sanskrit some words appear with the stress on the stem syllable, such as nā́
v-as and vāḱ-as,
others with the stress on the case ending, such as mās-ás (Benfey, Vollständige Grammatik p.
318, IV). In Old Bactrian furthermore the accusative plural is probably about as prevalent in
the strong form, and thus like the nominative plural in sound as in the weak form; in the
strong, for example, in çpānō from çpā 'dog', dātārō from dāter 'giver'. urvānō or urvānō from
urvan - 'soul' (See Spiegel Grammar p. 119).2
The Vedic uksháṇs corresponds very closely to
Goth. auhsans; similarly, vāḱas and nā́
vas to the Gk ópas and nēas. If therefore all the IndoEuropean
languages are familiar with the accusative plural as a strong case and only the
Aryan, beside the general Indo-European relationship, exhibits a different one,
characteristically peculiar only to itself, it follows as a matter of course that this exclusively
Aryan form, which even in the Aryan languages is not regular, is not the original form.
2. The fact that Greek from earliest times on does not use the same form for the accusative
and nominative plural, but shows the ending -as (ópas) for the former and -es (ópes) for the
latter, remains quite enigmatical in Osthoff's conception. For the view that in the common
Indo-European language state, the ending of the nominative plural -as had already undergone
weakening to -es, while at the same time the original form of the accusative plural uksa
n-ás
persisted, and that precisely the old stress of the case ending caused Greek to preserve the
pure -a-sound is to my mind highly artificial; and one must object to it above all, that the
assumption that the high pitch on the end syllable -as prevented any departure from a pure asound
is absolutely without basis. For where else in Greek is such an influence of the accent
to be found? I look in vain for analogies and believe that instances like the genitive op-ós =
0ld Indic vāḱ-ás simply demolish Osthoff's hypothesis.
3. Everything indicates that our Indo-European ending -as actually originated from -ams. The
m of pad-am (pedem) is without doubt essentially the same element as the m of akva-m
(equum). If now, as no one doubts, the plural of akva-m was originally akva-ms, and from
that form akva-ns, perhaps already in the original language; this form, however, differs from
the singular only by the addition of the plural characteristic s,3
it is extremely probable that
the plural of pad-am was pad-ams. None of the various languages prevents our establishing
this as the original Indo-European form; Greek as a matter of fact, points to it most decisively.
I will prove the correctness of this assertion below at relatively great extent.
If we are to consider -ams accordingly as the original form of the case suffix, then it
necessarily follows that the accusative plural in the original Indo-European period belonged to
the strong cases....
(293) We now arrive at the central point of our argument, at the demonstration that no
phonetic obstacle exists to setting up -ams as the original form, and that Greek -as must
necessarily be derived from -ans.
The vowel of the case suffix -am in Old Indic pā́
d-am, Gk pód-a Lat. ped-em, etc. has been
called a connecting vowel. For the sake of brevity let us maintain this name provisionally,
without wishing to make any statement about the origin of the vowel. It is surely the same
vowel which we encounter in the inflection of the verb before endings beginning with -nt, as
in the third person plural before -nti, -nt, and -ntai, -nta, when these endings appear on themes
which end with consonants, such as the Old Indic third person plural dvish-ánti (cf. first
person plural dvish-más). We then call this too a connecting vowel. But now in both Aryan
and European a significant difference is shown in the treatment of a when it is a connecting
vowel and when it is thematic (part of the stem suffix); this holds true in nouns as well as in
verbs, so that we are forced to conclude that the thematic a, for example from ákva-m Gk
híppo-e and bhára-nti Gk phéro-nti, was already pronounced differently from the connecting
vowel in the original Indo-European, for example pád-am Gk pód-a and as-ánti Gk é-anti. As
these Greek forms set beside the original forms show, the difference in this language is still
clearly distinct.
In Old Indic, the difference between the two a-sounds can be arrived at from a hard and fast
rule, whose operation we will now exarnine more closely.
It is a constant rule that after a thematic a which is followed by a consonant,4
a nasal never
disappears without a trace, and conversely that a nasal after a connecting vowel a disappears
completely, if its syllable has low tone.
Let us begin with the verb. First, compare the indicative bhára-nti (Class I) and bíbhr-ati
(Class III); the imperative bhára-ntu and bíbhr-atu; the participial accusative singular bhárantam
and bíbhr-atam. Contrast further bíbhr-ati (Class III) and dvish-ánti (Class II), bíbhr-atu
and dvish-ántu, bíbhr-atam and dvish-ántam. The law to be noted here is not invalidated by
the fact that the third person plural middle of Classes II, V, VII, VIII and IX lacks the nasal, in
spite of the accent on the connecting vowel, as in dvish-átē, ḱinv-átē, juñǵ-átē, tanv-átē and
jun-átē. The fact that this stress is more recent and that the accent originally stood on the end
syllable is proved by such Vedic forms as indh-atē, tanv-atḗ, etc. (Delbrück, Das altindische
Verbum p. 74). There is the same type of relationship between the later tanvátē and the Vedic
tanvatḗ as there is between the later máti- fem. (mens) and the Vedic form mattí- which also
has lost the nasal because of influence of the conditions of the accent; more on this below.
If we now compare the formation of the accusative plural of the a-stems and the consonant
stems, we find that áçvān i.e. (*áçva-ns) is like bhára-nti; conversely vā́
ḱ-as, i.e. (*váḱ-ans)
like bíbhr-ati. We therefore find that ending -as, with which this investigation began, has
appeared in complete accordance with the sound laws for Indo-European -ans....
(303) This is the place to go into the articulatory phonetics of our question.... E. Sievers, in his
splendid Grundzügen der Lautphysiologie, sets forth the principle, p. 24ff., that the liquids r
and l and the nasals ṅ, n, and m can be vowels just as well as consonants. He teaches that, for
example, in the usual pronunciation of ritten and handel, rittn and handl, n and l form the
whole second syllable, and actually made up a syllable, and are to be designated as actual
vowels. Accordingly, a strong distinction should be made between the nasalis sonans as in
rittn, ātm and the nasalis consonans as in berittne, ātme; in the first words the nasal carries the
accent of the final syllable, while in the second the accent is placed on the e. The sonore
nasalis can carry the main stress of the word, as for example in the bisyllabic ńi-nein and ńi-ja
as I know them for the expression of unwilling negation and heated asseveration in the
Wiesbaden dialect. Now if we designate vocalic nasal m and n in contrast with the
consonantal m and n, I am convinced that we have to establish for the original language
beside ákva-m, ákva-ms the forms pád-m, pád-ms, and beside bhára-nti, bhára-ntai the forms
as-ńti, ā̀
s-ntai. By means of svarabhakti, i.e. the appearance of a short vowel from resonant
consonants before m and n (cf. Sievers, Lautphysiologie p. 142) all the above-cited forms -m,
-ms, -nti, etc., developed. First of all, therefore, svarabhakti developed in such forms as patárm,
and then spread also to those instances where a voiceless sound preceded the nasal.
My friend Osthoff urged me on to this conception. During a conversation in which I told him
the main results of my study, he said: "One will probably have to posit the nasal in the
original language precisely as a vowel" (in the sense of Sievers).5
With this assumption, we gain a double advantage. First, we can unite as one the double suffix
forms -am, -anti, etc., (in consonant stems) with -m, -nti, etc., (in vowel stems). Second, all
the qualitative vowel differences in the various languages which were cited above are simply
solved, and I hope, some other difficulties too....
Notes
1. Vā́
ḱ-as as accusative plural Rigveda 1.113.17 according to Grassmann under the word
sjū́
man and Ludwig l.p. 12. [return to text]
2. In Old Persian the accusative plural of stems ending in consonants is not attested.
[return to text]
3. Compare the instrumental singular -bhim, plural -bhim-s etc.; see Leskien, Die
Declination im Slavisch- Litauischen und Germanischen, p. 99ff. 1876. [return to text]
4. An apparent exception is formed by the participle bhára-nt-in the weak cases, e.g. gen.
bháratas; concerning this see the excursus at the end of the article (not included here).
[return to text]
5. Earlier I had explained the difference to myself by ascribing to the vowel designated
as connecting vowel the value of an irrational vowel in the original language. [return
to text]
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
HERMANN OSTHOFF AND KARL BRUGMANN
PREFACE TO MORPHOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS
IN THE SPHERE OF THE INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES I
From Morphologische Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der
indogermanischen Sprachen I (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1878) pp. iii-xx
Editor's Introduction
By 1878 the young linguists at Leipzig were confident enough of their methodology to
undertake investigations of virtually all Indo-European problems. To publish their views
Osthoff and Brugmann founded a journal of their own, which continued until 1890.
The preface to this journal, written by Brugmann but also signed by Osthoff, states the
principles which they and their colleagues followed. The central axiom, that sound laws have
no exceptions, was first published by the oldest of the group, August Leskien in Die
Declination im Slavischlitauischen und Germanischen (1876). With Leskien, Wilhelm
Scherer, as the preface indicates, gave the initial impulse to the group. One of Scherer's
contributions was his rejection of the old notion tnat the languages of today represent a
decline from those of the past; in this way he freed linguistics from some of the burden
maintained from the first part of the century.
The principles elaborated by Brugmann were also applied by the other notable
neogrammarians: Braune, Delbruck, Paul, and Sievers in addition to those mentioned above.
Their shortcomings have been widely discussed. Students who have heard primarily about
these may be surprised at the restraint of the preface: the insistence on oral, not paper,
language; the study of speech as one of the cultural activities of men; the concern with
contemporary language, even with dialects; the suspicion of theory -- even today the last
sentence of footnote 3 is not without validity; the temperate statement of the neogrammarian
axiom and concomitant recognition of analogical modification. After reading the preface one
may wonder how it could have led to the shortcomings for which the neogrammarians are
blamed. It is clear how on these principles many of the phonological and morphological
problems of the Indo-European languages were clarified.
Since the appearance of Scherer's book Zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache (Berlin, 1868),
and principally through the impulses that went out from this book, the physiognomy of
comparative linguistics has changed considerably. A method of research has been instituted
since then and is winning more and more supporters; it differs in essential respects from the
method by which comparative linguistics proceeded in the first half-century of its existence.
The older linguistics, as no one can deny, approached its object of investigation, the IndoEuropean
languages, without first having formed a clear idea of how human speech really
lives and develops, which factors are active in speaking, and how these factors working
together cause the progression and modification of the substance of speech. Languages were
indeed investigated most eagerly, but the man who speaks, much too little.
The human speech mechanism has a twofold aspect, a mental and a physical. To come to a
clear understanding of its activity must be a main goal of the comparative linguist. For only
on the basis of a more exact knowledge of the arrangement and mode of operation of this
psychophysical mechanism can he get an idea of what is possible in language in general -- by
that one should not think of the language on paper, for on paper almost everything is possible.
Moreover, only through this knowledge can the comparative linguist obtain the correct view
of the way in which linguistic innovations, proceeding from individuals, gain currency in the
speech community, and only thus can he acquire the methodological principles which have to
guide him in all his investigations in historical linguistics. Articulatory phonetics concerns
itself with the purely physical aspect of the speech mechanism. This science is several
decades old, and the older linguistics, since about the 1850's, has also profited by its results;
for this we must give it great credit. But the matter is far from ending with articulatory
phonetics alone, if one wants to acquire a clear understanding of man's speech activity and of
the formal innovations that man undertakes in speaking. Even the commonest sound changes,
as, for example, the change of nb to mb, or bn to mn, or the metathesis of ar to ra, are
incomprehensible if one proceeds solely from the standpoint of the physical production of
sounds. In addition, there must necessarily be a science which undertakes extensive
observations of the operation of the psychological factors which are at work in countless
sound changes and innovations as well as in all so-called analogical formations. The first
outlines of this science were drawn by Steinthal in the essay "Assimilation und Attraction,
psychologisch beleuchtet" (Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie, I, 93-179), which up to now has
received little notice from linguistic science and articulatory phonetics. In the work named
below (KZ 24,50f), one of the two authors will soon try to demonstrate fully, starting from
this essay of Steinthal, how important it is to form a clear idea of the extent to which sound
innovations are on the one hand of a purely psychomechanical nature and on the other hand
the physical reflections of psychological processes. Further, the author will there examine
thoroughly the effect of association of ideas in speech activity, and the creation of speech
forms through the association of forms; and he will attempt to develop the methodological
principles relative to it. The older comparative linguistics, while it readily accepted and
utilized the teachings of articulatory phonetics, hardly concerned itself at all with the
psychological aspect of the speech process, and as a consequence it fell into numerous errors.
Only in very recent times is one becoming more aware of that neglect. Fortunately the
movement starting with Scherer's efforts, the "neo-grammarian" movement, has already done
away with some of the fundamental errors which dominated the entire older linguistics. These
errors originated in that very failure to recognize the fact that even the changes and
modifications taking place solely in the external speech form and affecting only the phonetic
expression of thought are due to a psychological process which takes place prior to the
materialization of the sound by the vocal organs. In this regard future research will of course
have to investigate many things more carefully and in more detail, and many other viewpoints
important to the method of historical linguistics will presumably be disclosed through this
association, when historical linguistics and psychology will have entered into a closer
relationship with each other than they have maintained up to now.
The insufficient investigation of the speech mechanism, especially the almost total disregard
of its psychological side, was in itself a drawback which, in the older comparative linguistics,
impeded and retarded the acquisition of correct guiding principles for the investigation of
form change and formal innovations in our Indo-European languages. But in addition there
was something which had a far worse effect and which gave rise to an error that made the
discovery of these methodological principles flatly impossible as long as it persisted.
Formerly the reconstruction of the Indo-European parent language was always the chief goal
and focal point of the whole of comparative linguistics. The consequence was that all
investigations were constantly directed toward this original language. Within the individual
languages known to us through written documents, within the development of the Indian,
Iranian, Greek languages, etc., almost exclusive interest was held by the oldest periods, those
lying closest to the original language, such as Old Indic, here again especially Vedic, Old
Iranian, Old Greek, here chiefly the Homeric dialect, etc. The more recent language
developments were thought of as stages of decay, of decline, of aging, and with a certain
amount of disdain they were disregarded as much as possible. From the forms of the earliest
historically accessible periods the original Indo-European forms were constructed. And the
latter were made the generally held criterion for evaluating the structures of attested language
formations; so much so that comparative linguistics acquired its general ideas of how
languages live, are maintained and change primarily on the basis of the original IndoEuropean
forms. That this, however, was not the right way to arrive at correct guiding
principles for the investigation of form change and form innovation in our Indo-European
languages is so very obvious that one must be surprised at how many have not yet become
clear about it. Is not, after all, the authenticity, the scientific probability, of the original IndoEuropean
forms, which are of course all purely hypothetical creations, totally dependent on
whether they agree in general with the proper conception of the development of linguistic
forms and on whether they are constructed according to correct methodological principles?
Thus the investigators went around in the most obvious circles, and even today many still do
so, without knowing it or wanting to admit it.
We have a picture of the manner in which linguistic forms in general are maintained, not by
means of the hypothetical reconstructions in the original language, nor by means of the oldest
forms known to us of Indic, Iranian, Greek, etc., whose prehistory can be inferred only by
way of hypothesis and reconstruction, but -- according to the principle that one has to start
with the known and from there advance to the unknown -- by means of those linguistic
developments whose previous history can be pursued at some length on the basis of texts and
whose starting-point is directly known to us. The more linguistic material is made available
for our observation in an unbroken written tradition extending through the centuries, the better
off we are; and the farther, with reference to the present, a stage of a language is removed
from the point where its historical tradition begins, the more informative it necessarily
becomes. Therefore, the comparative linguist must turn his attention from the original
language to the present if he wants to arrive at a correct idea of the manner in which language
is maintained, and he must once and for all rid himself completely of the thought that as a
comparative Indo-Europeanist one need concern himself with the later stages of the IndoEuropean
languages only when they offer linguistic material that is of importance for the
reconstruction of the original Indo-European language.
Language fields like Germanic, Romance and Slavic are without doubt the ones where
comparative linguistics can most securely acquire its methodological principles. In the first
place, the main condition is met here: we can pursue the development, the process of change
of linguistic forms through many centuries on the basis of texts. Further we are here to a much
greater extent involved with genuine popular speech, with the common language of
communication and colloquial speech than in such languages as Old Indic, Old Greek, and
Latin. What we know about the old Indo-European languages through the texts handed down
to us is in such a way and to such an extent literarily influenced speech -- the word "literary"
taken in its broadest sense -- that we scarcely get to know the genuine, natural, spontaneous,
everyday language of the old Indians, Greeks, and Romans. But it is precisely this latter way
of communication of thoughts which one must have clearly in mind in order to acquire the
correct standpoint for evaluating the linguistic change taking place in the vernacular and
especially for the evaluation of all prehistoric language development. Furthermore, the
younger languages referred to are also by far superior to the ancient languages with reference
to the purpose under discussion, because their development in everyday use, which can be
pursued for centuries on the basis of texts, terminates in a living language abounding in
dialects; but this language does not yet differ so sharply from the older state of the language
of centuries ago, accessible solely in a written reproduction, that it could not furnish an
excellent corrective against the errors that must necessarily creep in repeatedly with exclusive
dependence on this written reproduction of the speech forms of earlier centuries. Everyone
knows, for example, how we can establish the history of High German sounds in the
individual dialects from the Old High German period up to the present day far more reliably
than we can establish the history of Greek sounds in the Old Greek period, because the living
sounds of the present permit the possibility of correctly understanding the characters through
which the Germans tried to represent their sounds in past centuries. Letters are indeed crude
and awkward, and very often actually misleading representations of the spoken sound. It is
not possible at all to get an exact idea of the course of the process of changes, for example, of
an Old Greek or Latin dialect.
Precisely the most recent stages of the newer Indo-European languages, the living dialects, are
of great significance for the methodology of comparative linguistics in many other respects
too. Here I may especially emphasize only one other thing to which linguistic research has
paid much too little attention until now, simply because of the belief that whenever possible it
must turn its back on the language life of the more recent and of most recent times. In all
living dialects the shapes of sounds peculiar to the dialect always appear much more
consistently carried out throughout the entire linguistic material and maintained by the
members of the linguistic community than one would expect from the study of the older
languages accessible merely through the medium of writing; this consistency often extends
into the finest shades of a sound. Whoever is not in the position of making this observation in
his native dialect or elsewhere may refer to the excellent work by J. Winteler Die Kerenzer
Mundart des Kantons Glarus (Leipzig and Heidelberg, 1876) where he can convince himself
of the accuracy of what has been said.1
And should not they now take this fact to heart, who
so willingly and so often admit of unmotivated exceptions of the mechanical sound laws?
When the linguist can hear with his own ears how things happen in the life of a language, why
does he prefer to form his ideas about the consistency and inconsistency in phonological
systems solely on the basis of the inexact and unreliable written transmission of older
languages? If someone wants to study the anatomical structure of an organic body, and if the
most excellent preparations stand at his disposal, will he then take recourse to notoriously
inexact diagrams and leave the preparations unexamined?
Therefore: only that comparative linguist who for once emerges from the hypothesesbeclouded
atmosphere of the workshop in which the original Indo-European forms are forced,
and steps into the clear air of tangible reality and of the present in order to get information
about those things which gray theory can never reveal to him, and only he who renounces
forever that formerly widespread but still used method of investigation according to which
people observe language only on paper and resolve everything into terminology, systems of
rules, and grammatical formalism and believe they have then fathomed the essence of the
phenomena when they have devised a name for the thing -- only he can arrive at a correct idea
of the way in which linguistic forms live and change, and only he can acquire those
methodological principles without which no credible results can be obtained at all in
investigations in historical linguistics and without which any penetration into the periods of
the past which lie behind the historical tradition of a language is like a sea voyage without a
compass.
The picture of the life of language that someone gets, on the one hand, through the study of
more recent language developments and of the living dialects and, on the other hand, through
a consideration of those things which an observation of the psychological and physical speech
mechanisms place at his immediate disposal -- this picture differs in essential features from
that other picture which comparative linguistics formerly saw arising out of the original IndoEuropean
fog when it was still looking only for the primitive language; this picture is still the
guiding form for many investigators today. And precisely because this discrepancy exists,
there remains, we believe, no other choice than: to reform the previous methodological
principles of our science and to abandon forever that hazy picture which can in no way
disavow its foggy home.
That is by no means to say that the whole structure of comparative linguistics, as far as it has
been erected till now, should be torn down and built up again from the beginning. In spite of
the above-mentioned shortcomings of the method of investigation, such an abundance of
important, and so it seems, permanently reliable results have been achieved through the
discernment and industry of the investigators who have been active in our field, that one can
look back with pride upon the history of our science so far. But it is not to be denied that
many faulty and untenable things are mixed in with the many good ones, even though many
investigators at present still regard the untenable components as certain conclusions. Before
one builds further, the whole structure, as far as it now stands, has need of a thoroughgoing
revision. Even the foundations contain numerous unsolid places. That part of the masonry
which is already set on top of these must necessarily be brought down again. The other part of
the masonry, which already towers fairly high in the air, can remain standing or need only be
touched up because it rests on a good foundation.
As was already indicated above, it is Scherer's achievement to have effectively broached the
question of how changes and innovations take place in a language. To the horror of not a few
fellow investigators, but luckily for the discipline itself, Scherer in the book named above,
made ample use of the principle of leveling in his explanations. Many forms of even the
oldest historically accessible stages were suddenly according to him nothing other than
formations by "false analogy";2
until then investigators had always regarded these as purely
phonetic developments from the original Indo-European forms. That was against all tradition
and hence aroused distrust and opposition at the outset. Now, in many points Scherer was
without doubt wrong; in not a few, however, also without doubt correct. And no one can
contest his right to that one achievement which overshadows all errors and which can hardly
be valued highly enough: because of him investigators were for the first time faced with the
question of whether the way in which they had previously been accustomed to judging form
changes in old stages of a language, as in Old Indic, Old Greek, etc., could be the right one,
and of whether these languages did not have to be treated from the same point of view as the
newer languages in which they had readily admitted "formations by false analogy" in rather
great measure.
Some linguists, particularly a few most directly concerned passed over the question and,
abruptly rejecting it, remained satisfied with the old way. No wonder. When serious attempts
at upset are directed against a procedure that one is used to and with which one feels
comfortable, one is always more readily stimulated to ward off the disturbance than to
undertake a thorough revision and possible alteration of the accustomed procedure.
But with others, especially younger scholars, the seed scattered by Scherer fell on fruitful
ground. Leskien above all seized upon the thought, and since he reflected on the concept of
"sound law" and "exception to the law" more profoundly than had been done before, he
arrived at a set of methodological principles which he at first made fruitful in his university
lectures in Leipzig. Then other younger investigators, personally stimulated by him (among
them also the authors of these Untersuchungen), tried and still do try to bring them to wider
acceptance and recognition. These principles are based on a two-fold concept, whose truth is
immediately obvious: first, that language is not a thing which leads a life of its own outside of
and above human beings, but that it has its true existence only in the individual, and hence
that all changes in the life of a language can only proceed from the individual speaker;3
and
second, that the mental and physical activity of man must have been at all times essentially
the same when he acquired a language inherited from his ancestors and reproduced and
modified the speech forms which had been absorbed into his consciousness.
The two most important principles of the "neogrammarian" movement are the following:4
First, every sound change, inasmuch as it occurs mechanically, takes place according to laws
that admit no exception. That is, the direction of the sound shift is always the same for all the
members of a linguistic community except where a split into dialects occurs; and all words in
which the sound subjected to the change appears in the same relationship are affected by the
change without exception.
Second, since it is clear that form association, that is, the creation of new linguistic forms by
analogy, plays a very important role in the life of the more recent languages, this type of
linguistic innovation is to be recognized without hesitation for older periods too, and even for
the oldest. This principle is not only to be recognized, but is also to be utilized in the same
way as it is employed for the explanation of linguistic phenomena of later periods. And it
ought not strike us as the least bit peculiar if analogical formations confront us in the older
and in the oldest periods of a language in the same measure or even in still greater measure
than in the more or most recent periods.
This is not the place for going into further particulars. Yet let us here briefly call attention to
two other main points so that we may justify our method in the face of some objections made
to it recently.
One of them is this. Only he who adheres strictly to the principle of sound laws, this mainstay
of our whole science, has firm ground under his feet in his investigations. There are, on the
one hand, those who needlessly, only to be able to satisfy certain desires, admit of exceptions
to the sound laws governing a dialect,5
who except either individual words or classes of words
from a sound change which has demonstrably affected all other forms of the same type, or
who postulate a sporadic sound change which has taken place only in isolated forms and
which has not affected all other forms of the same kind; and finally, there are those who will
say that the same sound, in the very same environment, has changed in some words one way,
in other words another. He who does this and who in addition sees in all these unmotivated
exceptions which are favored by him, something very normal which he thinks follows from
the very nature of mechanical sound change, and he who then even as very frequently
happens makes these exceptions the basis of further conclusions, which are to abolish the
consistency of the sound law that is otherwise observed,6
he necessarily falls victim to
subjectivism and arbitrariness. In such instances he can indeed put out quite ingenious
conjectures, but none that merit belief, and he must not then complain when he is faced with
cold rejection. That the "neogrammarian" movement is not yet in a position to explain all
"exceptions" to the sound laws is, of course, no basis for an objection against its principle.
And secondly, a few more brief words about the use of the principle of analogy in the
investigation of the older periods of a language.
Many believe that analogical formations arise principally in those stages of a language in
which the "feeling for the language" has "degenerated" or, as one also says, in which a "the
awareness of language has grown dim"; and thus they believe that one cannot expect
analogical formations in the older periods of a language to the same extent as in the later.7
A
strange way of looking at things! This point of view arose among those who think that a
language and the forms of a language lead a life to themselves, apart from the individual
speakers and who permit themselves to be governed to such an extent by terminology that
they continually regard metaphorical expressions as reality itself and even incorporate into the
language concepts which are only the ways in which the grammarian looks at things. If
someone could once and for all manage to get rid of these generally harmful expressions
"youth" and "old age" of languages! These and many other in themselves quite innocent
grammatical terms have so far been almost exclusively a curse, hardly a blessing. For the
child who was born in Greece in the Homeric age, who became aware of the speech forms of
his linguistic community by hearing them, and who then reproduced them in order to make
himself understood by his fellow men for that child were these speech forms ancient? Did he
feel and handle them differently from the way in which a Greek of the Alexandrian age or
someone of still later times felt and handled them?8
If today a Greek dialect of the 20th
century B.C. or a Germanic dialect of the 8th century B.C. suddenly became known to a
grammarian, would not he then immediately alter his conception of antiquity, which he
associates with the Homeric and Gothic dialects, and henceforth call old things young? And
would he not in all probability henceforth drop the notion that the Greeks of Homeric times
and the Goths of the 4th century A.D. were people with a "degenerate feeling for language,"
with a "dim awareness of language"? And do such predications have anything at all to do with
the thing itself? Or might the older Indo-European peoples, suspecting what was coming, not
have analogized the forms of their time a great deal in order to satisfy the grammatical desires
of their offspring and not make the business of reconstructing the Indo-European parent
language too difficult? We believe: as sure as we are that our Indo-European forefathers had
need, just as we do, of their lips, tongue, teeth, etc. for the articulation of the sounds of their
language, just as sure can we be of the fact that the entire psychological aspect of their speech
activity (the emergence of sound images preserved in the memory from a subconscious state,
and the development of concepts of sounds to words and sentences) was influenced by the
association of ideas in the same way and in the same measure as today and as long as people
are people. One must also understand that the difference in overall make-up which exists
between the individual old Indo-European languages, the descendants of the same original
Indo-European language, would not be nearly so considerable if in prehistoric periods regular
phonetic change of the original forms had only taken place and if reformations and new
formations by analogy had not supplemented it to a very great extent. Therefore there is
nothing to that difference between old and young.
At first glance another objection which has been raised against us recently in order to discredit
our efforts makes more sense. It is said: whoever operates with the concept of analogy can
here and there perhaps hit upon the right thing with a stroke of luck, but in the main he can
only appeal to faith. Now, that latter statement is quite right, and everybody who deals with
the principle of analogy is also clearly aware of it. But consider the following. First: if, for
example, the suffixal ending of the nominative plural Gk híppo), Lat. equi can not be
reconciled with that of Osc. Núvulanús, Goth. vulfôs, Old Ind. açvâs on the basis of the sound
laws, and if we have come to the conclusion that one of the two formations must be an
analogical creation, is it such a bold stroke if we assume that híppoi and equi were formed
according to the pronominal declension (such as originally tai, from ta-, Old Ind. te, Gk toí,
etc.)? Of the same or similar simplicity are, however, countless other instances where we have
recourse to our principle, whereas others arbitrarily stretch and bend the sound laws in order
not to let the speaking peoples be bad grammarians who did not remember their forms and
paradigms properly. Second: A principle which we strictly maintain, to the best of our ability,
is: only then to take recourse to analogy when the sound laws compel us to. Form-association
is for us too an "ultimum refugium." The difference is only that we see ourselves confronted
with this much sooner and much more often than are the others, precisely because we are so
punctilious about the sound laws and because we are convinced that the boldest assumption of
the operation of analogy always has more claim to be "believed" than arbitrary evasions of the
mechanical sound laws. Third: It was not long ago that the beginning was made to establish
rights for the principle of analogy. Hence it is, on the one hand, very probable, indeed sure,
that blunders have been made here and there in the assumption of form associations. But, on
the other hand, it is also very probable that more general principles will gradually be found to
cover the diverse tendencies of association, especially when the modern languages have been
investigated more thoroughly with regard to their analogical formations. In this way a
probability scale can also gradually be established for the assumption of association. The
essential thing in the meantime is for people to have the good intention of permitting
themselves to be instructed by the facts of modern language developments and then for them
to conscientiously apply what they have learned to the older periods of a language.
Thus we believe that the objection that our work with the principle of analogy is reprovable
because it terminates in mere conjecture has been proven to be unjustified, and we want to
add one more thing in conclusion of this discussion. If the "neogrammarian" movement with
its methodological principles gives up many of the original Indo-European forms which have
circulated for a long time in our science and which are probably very dear to many, and if the
movement is not now in a position to go along on the "idealistic flight" into the periods of
primitive and pre-primitive language -- as this flight is now so often attempted -- and if the
neogrammarian movement with its skeptical attitude seems to lag behind those who are
always looking toward the primitive language and if it appears inferior in its efficiency to the
older movement, it can surely console itself with the thought that for a young science, as
comparative linguistics is in spite of its sixty years, it must be of more concern to fly as safely
rather than as far as possible. On the other hand, it can cherish the hope that what it gives
away in primitive and primitive-primitive linguistic niceties will be amply made up for
through the attainment of a deeper understanding of the mental activity of human beings in
general and of the individual Indo-European peoples.
We believed that we should preface the present Untersuchungen with our creed because they
are to contribute primarily to bringing the "neogrammarian" movement into more and more
general acceptance. We may also, however, here ask our several critics to keep in mind
constantly the principles by which we have decided in favor of this or that assumption. In the
last years people have unfortunately passed numerous unfavorable judgements on our
movement or on some of the opinions advanced by this movement; they only prove that the
judges in question have not considered at all what motives led us to follow just this method
and no other. An understanding and agreement between the different movements in our
science which are at present battling with each other can not be brought about by such
occasional skirmishings which skirt the basic questions and not by directing one's blame
solely against details, but only by taking aim at the leading motives and principles. That is not
to say, of course, that we, for our part, would not be heartily grateful for a detailed
demonstration of mistakes and errors.
Heidelberg and Leipzig, June, 1878
Notes
1. One should give special consideration to the remarks this phonetician (p. 233) makes
in general about the unreliability of the usual representation of the spoken word and
about the dangers which result from it for linguists. [return to text]
2. Thus Scherer maintained, for example, (which one of the authors, O., still disputed
unjustly in his Forschungen, II, 137) that Old Indic bhárâmi 'I carry' was not the
phonetic descendant of an original Indo-European form bharâmi, but that in IndoEuropean
one said bharâ and that Old Indic bhárâmi was a new creation by analogy
with athematic verbs like dádâmi. [return to text]
3. This had previously been accepted in theory. But the fact that people were accustomed
to seeing language only on paper as well as the fact that people always said "language"
when, strictly speaking, they ought to have said "the men who speak" -- it was not, for
example, the Greek language which was averse to spirants, dropped final t, changed
thíthēmi to títhēmi, etc., but those among the Greeks with whom the sound change in
question started -- had as a consequence that people frequently forgot the true state of
affairs and attached a completely false idea to the term "language." Terminology and
nomenclature are often a very dangerous enemy of science. [return to text]
4. The following have expressed themselves (in general) about these principles: more
briefly: Leskien, Die Declination im Slavisch-litauischen und Germanischen (Leipzig,
1876), Merzdorf, Curtius' Stud., IX, 231 f.; 341, Osthoff, Das Verbum in der Nominal
composition (Jena, 1878); more extensively, Brugman, Stud., IX, 317 ff. and Kuhn's
Zeitschr., xxn, 3 ff.; 51 ff. and especially Paul, Beitr. zur Gesch. der deutschen
Sprache u. Liter., IV, 320 ff. In addition, most recently Brückner, "Zur Lehre von den
sprachlichen Neubildungen im Litauischen," Archiv für slav. Phil., III, 233 ff. and
Osthoff's review of Ascoli's Studi critici in Jena Lit.-zeit., 1878, no. 33. [return to text]
5. We are of course speaking here only of mechanical sound change, not of certain
phenomena of dissimilation and metathesis. The reason for the latter lies in the
peculiarity of the words in which they appear; they are always the physical reflections
of purely psychological stimuli and in no way nullify the concept of sound law. [return
to text]
6. Reference is made to such an example below p. 156, fn. 1. (not included here). [return
to text]
7. Often one encounters the statement in linguistic works that a given form stems from
too ancient a period to be considered a formation by false analogy. [return to text]
8. Naturally we are here speaking only of common colloquial speech and of the people
who approached language with no literary or grammatical training. [return to text]
CHAPTER FIFTEEN
EDUARD SIEVERS
ON THE ACCENT AND PHONOLOGY OF THE
GERMANIC LANGUAGES. III. ON THE LAW OF
VOCALIC FINALS
"Zur Accent- und Lautlehre der germanischen Sprachen. III.
Zum vocalischen auslautsgesetz," Beiträge zur Geschichte
der Deutschen Sprache und Literatur, 5 (1878), 63-163
Editor's Introduction
In a long discussion on "accent and phonology in the Germanic languages" Eduard Sievers
proposed a solution for the difference between the endings of Gothic harjis and hairdeis which
illustrates his capabilities in analysis and the initial steps towards recognizing allophonic
variation in language. The solution came to be known as Sievers's law, now occasionally
Sievers-Edgerton's law, after two important articles by the late Franklin Edgerton: "Sievers's
law and IE weak-grade vocalism," Language 10. 235-65 (1934) and "The Indo-European
Semivowels," Language 19. 83-124 (1943). In its current form it proposes that [i],[y], and [iy]
were allophones of PIE /y/, determined by its phonological environment; also that the other
Proto-Indo-European resonants underwent the same allophonic variation.
Sievers recognized the "law", but did not describe the conditioning features thoroughly; nor
did he apply it to the Indo-European resonants other than /y w/. His recognition was achieved
before it was generally accepted that Proto-lndo-European has "several a vowels"; see the
excerpt below from Saussure. The segment of Sievers's discussion included here illustrates
the concern with accent, with more precise definition of other phonological entities, and with
the relations between morphological and phonological structures that was general after
Verner's article. It also reflects the increasing preoccupation with metrics.
Eduard Sievers (1850-1932) was probably the most brilliant of the neogrammarians. He had a
remarkably fine capability for analyzing language. Among his legendary accomplishments
was the identification of the Old English Genesis as a translation from Old Saxon before there
was evidence for an Old Saxon poem on Genesis; it was later discovered in the Vatican.
Another is his early recognition of the relationship between the accent and the phenomenon
clarified by Verner. Like Verner he made his initial suggestion in a letter; this letter, written to
Braune 24 March 1874, Sievers himself never published, nor did he proceed to a thorough
formulation of the discovery as did Verner. Streitberg published a part of the letter in
Germanisch, pp. 287-8:
But the verbs in -ja? Should one think of the influence of the accent, for those in -áyati, -ā́
yati
originally have the accent after the stem syllable just as the preterite plurals do? According to
the root vowel and the Slavic accentuation -énŭ the preterite participle also must have had an
accent like *numánas. But how are accent and weakening related? The -da of the preterite
participle of the weak verbs, such as *nas-i-dá-s is surely also pertinent; cf. Skt uktá etc., Gk
plek-tós, etc.; also Gk -ikós = Goth. *ei-ga-s etc. A pity that we still do not have the
beginnings of a sensible theory of accent; and who can understand German sound changes
without an understanding of shifts of accent?
Fortunately Sievers made ample contributions to linguistics without pursuing this idea. A
professor at 21, his long career at Leipzig made it one of the leading centers in linguistics.
The multiple recognition of the role of accent in language change is a further indication of the
maturing of linguistics. It also illustrates that discoveries were not simply made by men of
genius, but by capable workers in a developing field; and credit goes to those who formulated
the discovery. The most notable multiple recognition at the time was that of the "law of
palatals." During the 1870's it became clear to a number of linguists -- Ascoli, Thomsen,
Verner, Tegnér, Saussure, Collitz, Schmidt -- that Sanskrit palatals were found in
environments where the European languages had e. This observation led to the conclusion
that more than one vowel must be assumed for late Proto-lndo-European and to the
assumption of e a o where Schleicher posited a; it also contributed further to reducing the
reliance on Sanskrit for comparative purposes, and instead to the reconstruction of ProtoIndo-European.
Like the excerpt presented here, formulation of the "law of palatals" was only
one of a great number of fine observations which were being published in the last quarter of
the nineteenth century, often to be refined later, as Edgerton did for Sievers's law.
[125-31] A further reason against the assumption of general Germanic syncope of a I take
from the inflection of the ja-stems. In order to clarify everything here, however, I must
expand somewhat.
It is a question of the explanation of the groups of sounds: -ji and -ei in harjis, haírdeis and the
corresponding verbal forms nasjis, sôkeis; on these compare Scherer, Zur Geschichte der
Deutschen Sprache 113f.; Zimmer, Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum 19.419; Amelung, ibid.
21. 230f.; Osthoff, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 22.89f.
Scherer, whose view Zimmer and Amelung accept, as is known derives harjis and haírdeis
from *harijas and *haírdijas through syncope of the a; in complete accordance with the views
of Scherer, Zimmer and Amelung interpreted the latter forms as hárijàs, haírdìjas. This in turn
presupposes the validity of the law of the Middle High German low accent, which I believe I
have disproved for the original Germanic language; according to the principles proposed in
Beiträge 4. 522ff., I can make no other assumption than that those forms, presupposing three
syllables, were each pronounced hárijàs, haírdijàs. Why shouldn't both have developed
similarly to harjis, *haírdjis, as the group of sounds ji is maintained undisturbed in the
genitive singular neuter in reikjis, kunþjis etc. or in faírnjin etc.; or why isn't it *hareis, like
haírdeis, after the analogy of naveis and gasteis from *navijiz and *gastijiz? [The ending -iz is
supported by OE fêt, ON fœtr = *fôtiz; see above 111.] There is also a strong physiological
question concerning the assumed loss of the vowel a between the consonants j and s; but I
would not like to press this too strongly here, for the discussion necessary for its support
might find little support.
I can come to terms still less with the view of Osthoff than with this conception, which one
might call the general point of view and which one has to agree is consistent and logical in its
point of view. A development of *hairdjas, *harjas through *hairdjs and *harjs to *hairdjis
and harjis by means of the development of an auxiliary vowel from the j may indeed be
represented graphically but not be made credible for the written language. If this a was
actually lost after the j, then according to the laws developed in Lautphysiologie § 22 this j
should have become the vowel i, and we would get only *haírdis, *haris. If one wanted to
take refuge in the fact that j may not have been a semivowel, but rather a spirant or obstruent,
then the development of an auxiliary i could not be conceived, nor its contraction with a
completely non-homogeneous vowel. Finally, the objection that Scherer's hypothesis
necessarily requires the dative form *haírdija does not hold up any better, for the development
of a medial ija to ja is without question in sôkja and similar forms.
But if the assumption of harjis and haírdeisas general Germanic forms raises so many
problems, one might simply ask whether they indeed have any claim to this status. North
Germanic does not play a decisive role here; its forms niðr, hirðir = Goth. niþjis, haírdeis have
the same phonological relationship as do ON biðr, sœkir = Goth. bidjis, sôkeis; hirðir, sœkir
however are justified by means of analogies like ástir, nœmir = Goth. ansteis, nêmeis, whose i
is certain in the Germanic period. Accordingly in the northern languages there is no sound law
which hinders our equating hirðir directly with Goth. haírdeis.
It's quite different in West Germanic. The older Anglo-Saxon, Old Saxon and Old High
German attest in weak verbs with short syllables instead of Goth. ji only i, e without
lengthening of the preceding consonant. Compare, for example, from the Old Kentish psalter
(Ed. Stevenson, London and Edinburgh, 1844) reces 2, 9, seleð 7, 8 etc., seles 15, 10 etc.,
cweceð 7, 13, ðeneð 7, 13, sites 7, 4 etc., swereð 14, 4, gestes 17, 44 etc., segeð 18, 2 (cf. J.
Grimm, Grammatik I⁴, 822f.); Old Saxon fremis, frumid, haƀis, haƀid, hugis, hugid, letid,
sagis, sagið, telid; Old High German examples, Grimm Grammatik I⁴, 788. [In Old High
German, this law was broken through early by the sound shift, like many other things. The
form of the infinitive, of the plural and subjunctive present is carried through everywhere
where there was too great difference of the sound; accordingly, sezzis, deckis, like sazta, not
*seʒʒiz, *dechis etc., = OE setes, þeces]. The j was merged here throughout to a simple vowel
with i of the verbal ending, which was proved to be general Germanic through its causing
umlaut in the strong verb at a very early time, before the beginning of the consonant
lengthening. Differently among the nouns. Here we have nominatives and accusatives like OE
hrycg, mecg, slecg, wecg, þrymm, neuter cynn, webb, bedd, nett, flett, OS hruggi, nt. bed,
flet(ti), net(ti), siukki, kunni, webbi, OHG hrukki, nt. kunni, tenni, stukki, giuuiggi, âuuiggi,
stuppi, uueppi, betti, antlutti, nezzi, uuizzi, etc.; further, adjectives like OE nytt, gesibb, OS
middi, thriddi, luggi, OHG luggi, fluggi, âuulggi, sibbi, nuzzi, accordingly throughout
lengthening of the consonant before the ending. I believe that this proves that a j was still
present in West Germanic before the final vowel; and since analogy with the verb has just
showed us that ji was not possible in West Germanic the final vowel must have been other
than i. Where else might this questionable vowel arise other than from the thematic a? As the
last general Germanic original form of the short syllable stems we must therefore not assume
harjis, kuni, but only *harjəz, *kunjə; in these ə may designate the vowel sound that cannot be
determined, which developed gradually under the influence of the j from the thematic vowel
a². But also for the long syllable stems non-shortened forms with ia or iə must be assumed.
For if the Germanic original form of the neuters had been, for example, rîki or even *rîkî, then
the i would have been compelled to drop in Old English and Old Norse as in the imperatives
OE sêc, ON sœk = Goth. sôkei, or in the feminines OE bend, hôeð, ON heið-r (with nonoriginal
r) = Goth. bandi, haiþi. Details are given about this below. [A further proof for the
non-originality of the i in the nominative of the neuters is given by ON hey = Goth. havi. If
havi were original Germanic, then the i would have been compelled to drop in North
Germanic after short syllable without producing umlaut. Proto-Germanic *naviz regularly
yielded ON há-r, as *favaz yielded fár; or in order to give an analogy for the medial position
as well, as beside the verbs *haujan, þraujan = ON heyja (OE hêgan), þreyja the preterites
haviða, þraviða, i.e. ON háða, þráða regularly occur. ON hey can accordingly stand only for
Gmc. *hauja, *haujə (cf. Lappish avje, Thomson 131). On the other hand one may not adduce
the analogy of mœr, þý = Proto-Norse *mavi-r, *þivi, for these forms actually have the ending
Gmc -î, as will become clear later. But the inflection mœr, meyjar can warn us not to view the
nominative-accusative hey prematurely as possible analogical formations to the other cases.]
None of the forms discussed can be explained through analogical formation, for apart from
them there is nowhere a pattern by which they could have been formed. There are clearly
three groups: ja-stems that have remained short, with e in the nominative-accusative, e.g. here
and the borrowing ele; those that have become long (through consonant gemination) without
vocalic ending, hrycg, cynn; old long syllables with e, hyrde, rîce.
Examination of the genitive singular of the ja stems leads to similar results with regard to the
non-originality of the Gothic forms. For in order to maintain haírdeis as common form, one
must first of all seize upon the highly questionable assumption of a Proto-Germanic
contraction of ie to ī in the penultimate (while the e of the genitive elsewhere did not become
i, does not cause umlaut); then however one must explain all West Germanic forms as new
formations (OE hyrdes, rîces, OS hirdies, rîkies, OHG hirtes, rîches). Only the North
Germanic hirðis, ríkis with some difficulty be compared with the Gothic. Shouldn't one then
rather admit that the Gothic haírdeis owes its development only to the specifically Gothic
aversion to the sound e, with which was apparently also associated an effect from the
nominative? Only in this way do the neuters, with their prevailing genitives in -jis, receive
their due: kunþjis, reikjis, faírgunjis, andbahtjis, valdufnjis, gavaírþjis beside andbahteis,
valdufneis, gavaírþeis, trausteis, fauramaþleis (see the list in Heyne, Ulfilas § 23). The lack of
a nominative similar in sound helped to preserve the older forms here.
Accordingly: the i in Goth. harjis is a remainder of the thematic a; it did not develop from the
derivative suffix i or j but was only conditioned in its color by these. The same remainder is
found also in haírdeis, which we have to resolve first of all in a previous three-syllabic
*herðiiz or *herðijiz, whose treatment corresponds completely with that of naveis, ansteis (cf.
p. 125). Goth. naveis is particularly welcome as evidence that the contraction has nothing to
do with quantity or with an accentual law dependent on quantity, as we objected above. For
the language it's quite immaterial which of two similar contracted vowels had the accent; I
need only recall the well-known elementary rules of Greek grammar.
The difference between the short and long syllable ja-stems accordingly consists only in the
fact (as Scherer already recognized, though in my view without adequate justification) that the
former had consonantal j, the latter vocalic, i.e. syllabic, i in their suffixes.
But where does this difference arise, if it does not depend on the low accent law? One would
scarcely assume with no further evidence an earlier, general Germanic existence of this law in
the Lachmann version, and a later complete reversal especially in West Germanic! On what
should we base our suggestions? We will therefore have to go farther back and hold to the
original Indo-European language.
If one may take confidence in the investigations of Benfey (Abhandlungen der Göttingen
Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 16. 91ff., 1871), the suffix ia was used interchangeably in the
Veda as monosyllabic or bisyllabic. If one however examines the situation more precisely, a
quite definite law stands out: unaccented (without svarita) i or u before a vowel is consonantal
after a short syllable, vocalic after a long syllable, without regard for the other accentual
situation of the word. Compare examples like the following:
ajuryá: asûriá | ávya: mártia
aryá kâviá | -búdhya ayā́
sia
anishavyá taugriá | -avadhya árdhia
kavyá pûrviá | íbhya açmā́
sia
gavyá bhâviá | gávya áçvia
divyá açâsiá | mádhya aria etc.
[For the references, see Grassmann. Here I must withhold giving the proof for the above
principle at length or discussing the regular exceptions which occur and the violations against
it, which in part are not insignificant criteria for determining the age of Vedic hymns. I will
only note here that that principle is only a segment of an extensive rhythmical law in oldest
Sanskrit and Indo-European, particularly concerning the relationship of the vowels i, u and the
semivowels y, v; for years I have been collecting material in support of it. Precise observation
of these principles will be useful not only for metrics but also for grammar itself. It turns out,
for example, that the lengthenings before r + consonant were still foreign to the living Vedic
language; that ūr, īr always developed through ṛ, and the like.] Exceptions are the suffixes
beginning with a consonant like -bhyās, -bhyām, -tva, to the extent that these (like wordinitial
consonants + y, v in general) were used interchangeably after long syllables (after short
syllables only with consonantal y, v, i.e. monosyllabic); further certain short syllabic
adjectives, especially verbal adjectives with bisyllabic suffix (Grassmann's Part. IV): gádhia,
gúhia, gopayátia, carkṛ́tia, tújia, dábhia, dṛ́çia (mádia, yújia?), çásia, çrúitia, hávia (while for
example the suffix of the so-called ya-class or the passive follows the rule).
I may report that Hübschmann has recently established the same laws for Old Bactrian,
starting from another point of view, so that three languages may already be called upon as
mutual witnesses for the great age of the phenomenon. In the remaining languages the old
difference seems to have been eliminated early; at any rate none of them shows such an
obvious observance of the law as do the three named. But scholars will doubtless succeed in
finding remnants of the rule still in details. I'd like to direct attention to one such still: the
Greek adjectives hágios and stúgios, which correspond to hádzomai i.e. *hagjomai and similar
forms in the same way as do the Sanskrit verbal adjectives to the corresponding verbs.
Probably the most general formulation of the law discovered here may be given as follows:
the vowel of a syllable of derivation is and remains heavier after a preceding long than after a
preceding short (therefore ia, ua remain bisyllabic in the first case; in the second they become
monosyllabic).
CHAPTER SIXTEEN
FERDINAND DE SAUSSURE
MÉMOIRE ON THE PRIMITIVE SYSTEM
OF VOWELS IN THE INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES
Mémoire sur le système primitif des voyelles dans
les langues indo-européennes (Paris: Vieweg, 1887),
authorized reprint of the 1879 edition
Editor's Introduction
Saussure's achievement in his Mémoire is phenomenal. Published during his student days,
actually in 1878 rather than the indicated 1879, it was far in advance of his time. Applying the
method of internal reconstruction to Proto-Indo-European, he proposed the hypothesis that the
long vowels had developed from short vowel plus sonant coefficients. His hypothesis was
confirmed after Hittite was discovered. J. Kurylowicz in 1927 pointed out that the Hittite
consonants transcribed with ḫ corresponded in some cognates to those which Saussure had
suggested purely on the basis of phonological analysis of morphological patterns. The
Mémoire is accordingly a fine example of the method of internal reconstruction, possibly the
most dramatic application that has been made.
The consonants proposed by Saussure were related to Semitic by Hermann Möller in the
following year, and have subsequently been known as laryngeals; their position in the
phonological system of Proto-Indo-European and pre-Indo-European has subsequently been
one of the intriguing questions of Indo-European linguistics. As is clear from the excerpts
presented here, Saussure's chief interest was clarification of the Indo-European ablaut
relationships generally, not merely of the roots with long vowels. These excerpts also
illustrate the various uncertainties about the phonological system of Indo-European during the
seventies. Only at the end of the decade was the "law of palatals" understood and with it the
vowel system of late Proto-Indo-European as we know it was proposed.
Although the contributions of Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) to historical linguistics
were great, those to descriptive linguistics overshadow them. He is known as the founder of
modern linguistics. His influence was largely exerted through a posthumous publication based
on lecture notes: the celebrated Cours de linguistique générale, edited by C. Bally and A.
Sechehaye. A student at Leipzig, he is largely responsible for establishing the eminent
linguistic group in Paris, through his position at the École des Hautes Études, 1881-1891,
which after him was led so long by his student, Antoine Meillet (1866-1936). He himself
found life more congenial in Geneva, where he gave the lectures on which the Cours was
based. His contributions have been capably discussed, as by Rulon Wells, "De Saussure's
System of Linguistics," Word 3. 1-31 (1947) and Meillet, Linguistique historique et
linguistique générale II. 174-183. We may note that his view of language as a system is
apparent in the very title of the Mémoire which he wrote when he was barely twenty-one, and
that from this view he made his notable analysis.
(1-6) The immediate object of this small work is to study the various forms under which is
manifested what is referred to as IE a; the remaining vowels are not taken into consideration
except to the extent that the phenomena related to a require. But if after we have come to the
end of such a limited field the table of the Indo-European vocalism is little by little modified
under our eyes so that we see it grouped entirely around a, and we take a new view of it,
clearly it is the system of vowels in its entirety on which our observations will center and
which should be indicated at the start.
Nothing is more disputed: the opinions are almost infinitely divided and various authors have
rarely made a completely rigorous application of their ideas. In addition, the problem of the a
is related to a series of phonological and morphological difficulties, some of which have yet
to be solved, but many have not yet been stated. Thus in the course of our peregrination we
will often traverse the most unexplored regions of Indo-European linguistics. If nonetheless
we set out, though convinced in advance that our inexperience will often lead us into a maze,
it is not recklessness, as is often said, that compels anyone who occupies himself with these
studies to attack such questions: rather it is a necessity, it is the first school one must pass. For
the question is not one of speculations of a transcendent order but of research into elementary
facts without which everything drifts, everything is arbitrary and uncertainty.
I must withdraw some opinions which I have published in an article in the Mémoire de la
Société de Linguistique de Paris, entitled: An Essay on a Distinction between different IE a's.
Particularly the resemblance of Ar with the phonemes arising from r̥ led me to reject, very
reluctantly, the theory of vocalic liquids and nasals, to which I now return after mature
reflection.
Bopp and those who immediately followed the illustrious author of the Comparative
Grammar limited themselves to stating that in regard to the three vowels a e o of the
European languages, the Aryan uniformly showed a. The e and o were then considered
weakenings characteristic of the idioms of the West and relatively recent developments from a
single IE a.
The work of Curtius in the Sitzungsberichte der Kgl. Sächs. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften
(1864) enriched our understanding greatly: Curtius showed that e appeared in the same place
in all the languages of Europe, so that it cannot have developed independently in each of
them. And departing from the accepted idea that the mother language only possessed the three
vowels a i u, he concluded that all the European peoples must have passed through a common
period, during which they still spoke the same language. Also, that during this period a part of
the a's were weakened to e, under an unknown influence, while the rest persisted as a. Later
the various languages, separately from one another, had carried out a second split of the a,
which yielded o. Yet in southern Europe this vowel must have arisen before the end of the
Greco-Italic period, in view of the agreement of the o of the two classical languages, notably
in the declension of the masculine stems in -a (Gk híppos = equos).
We believe we are representing exactly the system of Curtius by the following table:
Indo-European a ā
European a; e ā
Later a o; e ā
[It is necessary, however, to add the following remark of the Grundzüge, p. 54: "the original
dualism (Zweiklang) gan (Skt ǵan-â-mi) and gân (Skt perf. ǵa-ǵân-a), bhar (Skt bhar-â-mi)
and bhar (Skt bhâra-s 'bundle') arose by an imperceptible substitution at the start: gen gan,
bher bhar, then gon (Gk genésthai, gégona), bher, bhor (Gk phérō, phóros). But nothing can
make us believe that there had ever been a time when Gk gen and gon, pher and phor would
have been interchanged arbitrarily, of a kind so that one might have said Gk gonésthai, phórō
or inversely gégena, phéros." Here accordingly the learned professor admits an original
distinction of e and o, and derives the o of Gk ǵegona from IE ā.]
Fick's statement, Spracheinheit der Indogermanen Europas, p. 176ff., reproduces in general
the preceding system. The ancient a is divided into a and e in the European period. When a
word shows e in all the languages, it is necessary to assume that the change of its a to e goes
back to this period. On the contrary it seems for a or o, that although this appears in a single
language, it is necessary to admit that a still remained at the time of the community. The
ablaut of Gk dérkomai dédorka, but above all of Gmc ita, at, is an admirable utilization of the
splitting of a. On this last point see Curtius in the quotation above.
The system of Schleicher is different. Admitting in each vocalic series two degrees of
reinforcement produced by the addition of one or two a's, he places for the series of a the
three expressions: a aa āa.
He finds these three degrees in Greek: a is represented ordinarily by ε (e.g. Gk édō), but also
by o (Gk podós) and by α (Gk ákōn). The first reinforcement, a + a, is represented by o when
it is produced from ε, i.e. "Gk gé-gon-a, the first form: ga-gān-a; Skt ǵaǵān-a beside Gk egen-ómēn."
This same degree is transmitted under the form of ā, ē, when it has a for base: Gk
élakon, lélāka. The second reinforcement is o: érrōga. Gothic possesses the three degrees too;
the other languages have confused the two reinforcements.
Since the genealogical tree of languages as Schleicher constructed it was not that which most
of the other scholars had adopted and did not include a European period, it is clear that the e
of the languages of Europe does not go back for him to a common origin. In particular, Goth. i
has a different place from that of Gk e in his Compendium; the latter is considered the regular
representative of IE a, Goth. i as an abnormal weakening. In formulating the following
scheme according to Schleicher's system we therefore avoid the idea of a historically common
development of the European vocalism:
Indo-European a aa āa
European a e o a o ā ā
It is also necessary to note that Gk a and Lat. a are not mentioned as reinforced degrees.
In a small work entitled: "Die Bildung der Tempusstämme durch Vocalsteigerung," Berlin,
1871, the Germanist Amelung, prematurely lost to our science, has attempted to apply the
system of Schleicher in a very consistent manner and to combine it with the fact of common
European e. In his eyes, this e is the normal representative of the non-reinforced a. The
European a -- with which he also includes o as Curtius had done -- goes back to the first
reinforcement which he designates by ā; and the second reinforcement (â) is long ā in the
European languages. Presents, such as Goth. fara, Gk ágō, ózō accordingly show a reinforced
vowel, and it is necessary to admit that they are denominatives. -- In a word, the dualism: e a
is original, and the relation existing between them is that of simple to reinforced vowel. Note
the table:
Indo-European a ā â
(Aryan a a ā ā)
European e a ā
Gothic i a ō
Greek e a o ā ō
The debate which Amelung had on this question with Leo Meyer in KZ 21 and 22 did not
bring any essential modification to this system, which has been presented in detail a second
time in the Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum 16. 161ff.
Brugman, Studien 9. 367ff. KZ 24.2 traces the existence of e, as a distinct vowel from every
other, to the Indo-European period, without pretending by this that its pronunciation had been
that of an e from its origin; and he designates its proto-type by a₁. Concurrently with this
vowel the same scholar finds in Greek, Latin, Slavic o = Lithuanian, Gothic a = Sanskrit ā (at
least in open syllables) a stronger phoneme which he calls a₂ and the origin of which was
determined by the accent.
In accordance with this theory one generally arranges the following table, which nonetheless
is certainly not that approved by Brugman himself, for he alludes (Studien 9.381) to the
possibility of a great number of original a's:
(a)
Indo-European a₁ a₂ ā
European e a ā
In sum, one sees that for the languages of the West, the different authors, whatever their point
of view, operate with three entities: the e, a, ā of the European languages. It will be our task to
clarify the fact that there are really four different units, not three; that the languages of the
North confused two fundamentally distinct phonemes still distinguished in southern Europe:
a, a simple vowel, opposed to e; and o, a reinforced vowel, which is merely e in its higher
form of expression. The dispute between those who favor the split (original a weakened
partially to e) and those who favor a twofold original a (a₁, a₂ becoming e and a) -- this
dispute, it is necessary to state, gets us nowhere, because by the a of the languages of Europe
is understood an aggregate which has no organic unity.
These four kinds of a which we are going to try to find at the basis of the European vocalism
we will pursue further still and arrive at the conclusion that they even belonged to the mother
language from which the languages of the East and West arose.
Chapter I. The sonant liquids and nasals.
Before beginning the study of a it is necessary to determine carefully the limits of its domain,
and at this point the question of the sonant liquids and nasals is presented. For anyone who
admits these phonemes for the mother language will consider a number of vowels of the
historical periods of the language recent and distinct from the question of the a.
The hypothesis of sonant nasals was first proposed and developed by Brugman, Studien 9.
287ff. In the same work (325) the author also touched on the subject of the sonant liquids, of
which apparently the first notion is due to Osthoff.
1. Sonant liquids.
In the Indo-European mother language, the liquid, or liquids, if one accepts two of them,
existed not only in the state of consonants but also in the state of sonants, that is to say, that
they were able to carry a syllabic accent, capable of forming a syllable. This took place, as is
known, in historical times, in Sanskrit. Everything leads one to believe that the sonant liquids
never arose except through weakening, because of which the a which preceded the liquid was
expelled; but this does not hinder our placing them, as we shall see, on the very same plane
with i and u....
(8) 1. Root syllable.
The order adopted here to distinguish the different instances in which r{syllabic} appears is
based on a new classification of roots, which can only be justified later but should not confuse
the reader in the meantime.
We will deal only with the roots containing e. -- Every root which contains e in the languages
of Europe has the ability of expelling this e and in this way taking on a weaker form, on the
sole condition that the phonetic combinations so produced can be readily pronounced.
To be arranged under the roots containing e are those in which are found the diphthongs ei
and eu and which one is accustomed to cite under their weakened form, deprived of e: thus,
kei, sreu, deik, bheugh (ki, sru, dik, bhugh).
The i and u of these roots, as well as the liquid and nasal of roots such as derk bhendh can be
called sonant coefficients (coefficient sonantique).
They are parallel in vocalism of the root. Depending on whether the e remains or disappears,
their function varies: r l m n develop from consonants to sonants; i and u pass from a
symphthongic state to an autophthongic.
A. Roots ending with a sonant coefficient.
Examples kei (weak form ki) sreu (w.f. sru) bher (w.f. bhr) men (w.f. mn).
B. Roots including a sonant coefficient followed by a consonant.
Examples deik (w.f. dik) bheugh (w.f. bhugh) derk (w.f. dr̥k) bhendh (w.f. bhn̥dh).
C. Roots without a sonant coefficient, ended by a consonant.
Examples pet (w.f. pt) sek (w.f. sk) sed (w.f. zd)....
(51) How then could the a and o of the languages of the South have arisen from one and the
same original a? By what miracle could this old a be colored to o, and never to a, in all the
times that it is found to vary with e? -- Conclusion: the twofold a and o of the classical
languages is original, and it must be that in the single a of the North two phonemes were
confused.
Confirmation: when a root contains a in Greek or in Latin and this root is found in the
languages of the North, one observes in the first place that it there still shows the vowel a, but
what is the important fact, that this a never alternates with e, as is the case when Greek
corresponds with an o. Thus Goth. vagja = Gk okhéō, hlaf = Gk (ké)klopha are accompanied
by viga and hlifa. But agis(a-) = Gk ákhos, or ala = Lat. alo do not have a parent form with e.
On the other hand, the roots of the latter type have a characteristic, unknown among the first
type: the ability to lengthen their a (agis: ōg, ala: ōl) of which we will have to take account
below.
Brugman has designated with a₁ the prototype of European e; his a₂ is the phoneme which we
have called o up to now. As to this third phoneme which is Greco-Italic a and which
constitutes a portion of the a's of the languages of the North, we will designate it by the letter
A, after noting well that it is not the parent of e(a₁) nor of o (a₂). -- Excluding for the time
being the other possible kinds of one obtains the following table:
(134-135) § 11. Grammatical role of the phonemes A and O̬. Complete system of the
primordial vowels.
When one considers the following cases of the permutation a₁,a₂: Goth. hilfa hlaf, Gk kléptō
kéklopha, Gk. híppos híppe, and when one compares with them the following cases of the
permutation A Ā: Goth. sake sōk, Gk láskō lélāka, Gk númphā númphă, the temptation is
strong, assuredly, to set up the proportion Ā : A = a₂ : a₁. But this would be to get involved in
a course without result and to misunderstand the true character of the phenomena. For greater
clarity we are going to construct at once the system of vowels such as we understand it. For
the time being we are concerned only with root syllables.
The phoneme a₁ is the root vowel of all roots. It can be alone in forming the vocalism of the
root or it can be followed by a second sonant which we have called sonant coefficient (p. 8).
Under certain conditions which are not known, a₁ is replaced by a₂; under others, better
known, it is expelled.
When a₁ is expelled, the root remains without vowel when it does not contain a sonant
coefficient. When it does, the sonant coefficient comes to be alone, or in an autophthongic
state (p. 8), and provides a vowel to the root.
The phonemes A and O̬ are sonant coefficients. They cannot appear alone except in the
reduced state of the root. In the normal state of the root, it is necessary that they be preceded
by a₁, and the combinations a₁ + A, a₁ + O̬ give rise to the longs Ā, Ō̬. The permutation a₁: a₂
takes place before A and O̬ as elsewhere.
Useful designations
For a₁A and a₁O̬ after contraction: Ā₁ and Ō̬₁.
For a₂A and a₂O̬ after contraction: Ā₂ and Ō̬₂.
The theory summed up in this table has been applied to all the types of roots above except
those which contain A and O̬....
CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
WILLIAM DWIGHT WHITNEY
LANGUAGE AND THE STUDY OF LANGUAGE,
LECTURE X
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1892⁵, pp. 356-394
Editor's Introduction
By the latter part of the nineteenth century, sufficient work had been done in linguistics to
suggest the need for general handbooks. The most representative of these is Whitney's. In
1864 he was asked to present six lectures "on the principles of linguistic science" at the
Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. These were expanded to twelve when presented
in Boston, and published essentially in that form. In his preface Whitney acknowledges
obligations to Heinrich Steinthal and August Schleicher, and refers to his frequent antagonist,
the great popularizer Max Müller. Since Whitney was at home in the linguistic centers of
Europe, his statements on the "science of language" may be taken as representative of views
of the time. His book was first published in 1867. Bloomfield, Language 16, says of it and its
successor The Life and Growth of Language (New York, 1874), "Today they seem
incomplete, but scarcely antiquated, and still serve as an excellent introduction to language
study." Readers may make their own judgements of Whitney's views through the segment
presented here.
Lecture X surveys the problem which pervades much of nineteenth-century linguistics --
linguistic classification both genealogical and typological. It also deals with the relationship
between language and other elements of culture, as well as race. Although some of Whitney's
views may not have been immediately adopted, they are in large part the ones that we now
hold, such as the view that there is little evidence for proposing a relationship between IndoEuropean
and Afro-Asiatic; or that there is little likelihood of establishing interrelationships
beyond a certain time, on the basis of the materials we now know. As Bloomfield indicated,
the matter of Lecture X is therefore scarcely antiquated. Whitney's interest in Schleicher's
attempts at linguistic formalization is also in keeping with current activities.
William Dwight Whitney (1827-1894) was called by Jespersen, Language 88, "the leading
exponent of general linguistics after the death of Schleicher." We hold him in high regard for
his temperate views; as Jespersen remarked, "he was opposed to all kinds of mysticism, and
words were to him conventional signs." All who have used his Sanskrit Grammar (Leipzig
and Boston, 1896³) can scarcely have failed to be amused by the first sentences of its preface:
"It was in June, 1875, as I chanced to be for a day or two in Leipzig, that I was unexpectedly
invited to prepare the Sanskrit grammar for the Indo-European series projected by Messrs.
Breitkopf and Härtel. After some consideration, and consultation with friends, I accepted the
task, and have since devoted to it what time could be spared from regular duties, after the
satisfaction of engagements earlier formed. If the delay was a long one, . . ." In four years he
completed, presumably in his spare time, the grammar which has remained standard ever
since. A professor at Yale University, Whitney is responsible for its early eminence in
linguistics. Any member of the Linguistic Society of America knows the veneration still
accorded him.
Classification of languages. Morphological classifications; their defects. Schleicher's
morphological notation. Classification by general rank. Superior value of genetic division.
Bearing of linguistic science on ethnology. Comparative advantages and disadvantages of
linguistic and physical evidence of race. Indo-European languages and race mainly
coincident. Difficulty of the ethnological problem. Inability of language to prove either unity
or variety of human species. Accidental correspondences; futility of root comparisons.
Our inquiries into the history and relations of human languages have last brought us to a
review and brief examination of their groupings into families, so far as yet accomplished by
the labors of linguistic students. The families may be briefly recapitulated as follows. First in
rank and importance is the Indo-European, filling nearly the whole of central and southern
Europe, together with no inconsiderable portion of south-west Asia, and with colonies in
every quarter of the globe; it includes the languages of nearly all the modern, and of some of
the most important of the ancient, civilized and civilizing races. Next is the Semitic, of
prominence in the world's history second only to the Indo-European, having its station in
Arabia and the neighboring regions of Asia and Africa. Then follows the loosely aggregated
family of the Scythian dialects, as we chose to term them, ranging from Norway almost to
Behring's Straits, and occupying a good part of central Asia also, with outliers in southern
Europe (Hungary and Turkey), and possibly in southernmost Asia (the Dekhan, or peninsula
of India). Further, the southeastern Asiatic or monosyllabic family, in China and Farther
India, and countries adjacent to these; the Malay-Polynesian and Melanesian, scattered over
the numberless islands of the Pacific and Indian Oceans; the Hamitic, composed of the
Egyptian and its congeners, chiefly in northern Africa; the South-African, filling Africa about
and below the equator; and the American, covering with its greatly varied forms our western
continent, from the Arctic Ocean to the Antarctic. Besides these great families, we took note
of several isolated languages or lesser groups, of doubtful or wholly unknown relationship: as
those in extreme north-eastern Asia, in the Caucasian mountains, in central Africa; as the
Basque in the Pyrenees, the Albanian in north-western Greece, the Yenisean in Siberia, and
the extinct Etruscan in northern Italy.
The scheme of classification, as thus drawn out, was a genetical one, founded on actual
historical relationship. Each family or group was intended to be made up of those tongues
which there is found sufficient reason to regard as kindred dialects, as common descendants
of the same original. We were obliged, however, to confess that our classification had not
everywhere the same value, as the evidences of relationship were not of an equally
unequivocal character in all the families, or else had been thus far incompletely gathered in
and examined. Where, as in the case of Indo-European and Semitic speech, we find structural
accordance combined with identity of material, as traced out and determined by longcontinued
and penetrating study on the part of many investigators, there the unity of the
families is placed beyond the reach of reasonable doubt. But it is unfortunately true that these
two are the only groups of wide extent and first-rate importance respecting which the
linguistic student can speak with such fullness of confidence; everywhere else, there is either
some present deficiency of information, which time may or may not remove, or the conditions
are such that our belief in the genetic relationship must rest upon the more questionable
ground of correspondence in structural development. We may by no means deny that
morphological accordance is capable of rising to such a value as should make it a sufficient
and convincing evidence of genetic unity; but it is evidently of a less direct and unmistakable
character than material identity, and requires for its estimation a wider range of knowledge, a
more acute insight, and a more cautious judgement. If two languages agree in the very
material of which their words and apparatus of grammatical inflection are composed, to a
degree beyond what can possibly be regarded as the effect of accident or of borrowing, the
conclusion that they are akin is inevitable; nothing but community of linguistic tradition can
explain such phenomena: but agreement in the style only in which words are composed and
thought expressed admits of being attributed to cause other than historical -- to equality of
mental endowment, of intellectual force and training. We may look hopefully forward to the
time when linguistic science shall have reached such a pitch of perfection, shall have so
thoroughly mastered the infinitely varied phenomena of universal human language and traced
out their causes, that she shall be able to separate with certainty the effects of ethnic capacity
from those of transmitted habit: but that time has certainly not yet come; and, as the value of
morphological accordances as evidence of genetic connection has hitherto been repeatedly
overrated, so it will long, and always in unskilful or incautious hands, be peculiarly liable to a
like mistreatment.
We have already had occasions to refer to and describe some of the principal structural
peculiarities which are illustrated in the variety of human tongues; but it will be worth while
here to bestow a few words farther upon them, and upon the systems of morphological
classification to which they have served as foundation.
The languages of mankind have been divided into two grand classes, the monosyllabic
(otherwise called isolating, or radical) and the polysyllabic (or inflectional). To the former
belong the tongues of China and Farther India, with their relatives in the same quarter of Asia,
and perhaps one or two idioms in other parts of the world. In them there is a formal identity of
root and word; none of their vocables are made up of radical and formative elements, the one
giving the principal idea, the other indicating its limitation, application, or relation; they
possess no formally distinguished parts of speech. Usage may assign to some of their roots the
offices which in inflectional tongues are filled by inflective endings, suffixes or prefixes; it
may also stamp some as adjectives, others as nouns, as pronouns, as verbs, and so on: yet
means of this sort can only partially supply their lack of the resources possessed by more
happily developed languages; categories undistinguished in expression are but imperfectly, if
at all, distinguished in apprehension; thought is but brokenly represented and feebly aided by
its instrument. To the latter, or inflectional class, belong all the other languages of the world,
which, whatever and however great their differences, have at least this in common, that their
signs of category and relation are not always separate words, but parts of other words, that
their vocables are, to some extent, made up of at least two elements, the one radical, the other
formative. There can be, it is evident, no more fundamental difference in linguistics structure
than this. And yet, it is not an absolute and determinate one. It lies in the nature of the case
that, as the inflectional languages have grown out of a monosyllabic and noninflecting stage,
there should be certain tongues, as there are in other tongues certain forms, which stand so
closely upon the line of division between the two stages, that it is hard to tell whether they are
the one thing or the other. In our own tongue, there is no definite division-line to be drawn
anywhere in the series of steps that conducts from a mere collocation to a pure form-word --
from house floor to house-top, from tear-filled to tearful, from godlike to godly; and, in like
manner, it is often a matter of doubt, in languages of low development, where isolation ends
and where a loose agglutination begins. Thus, even the Chinese, the purest type of all the
isolating structure, is by some regarded as, in its colloquial forms, and yet more in some of its
dialects, a language of compounded words; and the possession of one or two real formative
elements has been claimed for the Burmese; while the Himalaya is likely to furnish dialects
whose character, as isolated or agglutinative, will be much disputed.
But the main objection to the classification we are considering is not so much its want of
absolute distinctness (a defect incident to all classification, in every department of science) as
its one-sidedness: it is too much like the proverbial lover's division of the world into two
parts, that where the beloved object is and that where she is not: it leaves almost all human
tongues in one huge class together. Accordingly a much more popular and current system
distinguishes three primary orders, separating the mass of inflectional languages into such as
are agglutinative, or attach their formative elements somewhat loosely to a root which is not
liable to variation; and such as are inflective, or unite more thoroughly their radical and
formative elements, and make internal changes of the root itself bear their part, either
primarily or secondarily, in the expression of grammatical relations. The distinction between
these three orders is well expressed by Professor Max Müller in the following terms:
1. Roots may be used as words, each root preserving its full independence.
2. Two roots may be joined together to form words, and in these compounds one root
may lose its independence.
3. Two roots may be joined together to form words, and in these compounds both roots
lose their independence.1
No better scheme of division, of a simple and comprehensive character, has yet been devised
than this, and it is likely to maintain itself long in use. It faithfully represents, in the main,
three successive stages in the history of language, three ascending grades of linguistic
development. But its value must not be overrated, nor its defects passed without notice. In the
first place, it does not include all the possible and actually realized varieties in the mode of
formation of words. It leaves altogether out of account that internal change of vowels which,
as was shown in the eighth lecture, is the characteristic and principal means of grammatical
inflection in the Semitic tongues. The distinctions of qatala 'he killed', qutila 'he was killed',
qattala 'he massacred', qātala 'he tried to kill', aqtala 'he caused to kill' and the like, are not
explainable by any composition of roots and loss of their independence, even though the
somewhat analogous differences of man and men, lead and led, sing and sang, sit and set, do
admit of such explanation. In the second place, it is liable to something of the same reproach
of one-sidedness which lies against the former, the double method of classification. It puts
into a separate class, as inflective languages, only two families, the Indo-European and the
Semitic: these are, to be sure, of wide extent and unapproached importance; yet the mass of
spoken tongues is still left in one immense and heterogeneous body. And finally, a yet more
fundamental objection to the scheme is this heterogeneity, which characterizes not its middle
class alone, but its highest also. It classes Indo-European and Semitic speech together, as
morphologically alike, while yet their structural discordance is vastly greater than that which
separates Indo-European from many of the agglutinative tongues -- in some respects, even
greater than that which separates Indo-European from the generality of agglutinative and from
the isolating tongues. Not only are the higher Scythian dialects, as the Finnish and Hungarian,
almost inflective, and inflective upon a plan which is sufficiently analogous with the IndoEuropean,
but, from a theoretical point of view (however the case may be historically),
Chinese, Scythian, and Indo-European are so many steps in one line and direction of progress,
differing in degree but not in kind: Semitic speech, on the other hand, if it started originally
from the same or a like center, has reached an equally distant point in a wholly different
direction. The two inflective families may lie upon the same circumference, but they are
separated by the whole length of the diameter, being twice as far from one another as is either
from the indifferent middle. A less fundamental discordance, perhaps, but an equal variety of
structure, belongs to those tongues which are classed together as agglutinative. The order
includes such extremes in degree of agglutination as the barren and almost isolating Manchu
or Egyptian, on the one hand, and, on the other, the exuberantly aggregative Turkish and the
often excessively agglomerative American or Basque; it includes such differences in the mode
of agglutination as are presented by the Scythian, which makes its combinations solely by
suffixes, and the Malay or South-African, which form theirs mainly by prefixes. Here, again,
it may be made a question whether the morphological relationship of Scythian and IndoEuropean
be not closer than that of Scythian and Malay. The principle which divides the
former is, it is true, reasonably to be regarded as of a higher order than that which divides the
two latter; yet it is more teleological than morphological; it concerns rather the end attained
than the means of attainment. The reach and value, too, of the distinctively inflective
principle, as developed in Indo-European language, is, as I cannot but think, not infrequently
overrated. In no small part of the materials of our own tongue, for example, the root or theme
maintains its own form and distinction from the affixes, and these their distinction from one
another, not less completely than is the case in Scythian. All the derivatives of love, as love-d,
lov-ing, lov-er, loverly; the derivatives of true, as tru-ly, tru-th, tru-th-ful, tru-th-ful-ly, un-truth-ful-ly
-- these, and the host of formations like them, are strictly agglutinative in type: but
we do not recognize in them any inferiority as means of expression to those derivatives in
which the radical part has undergone a more marked fusion, or disguising change. Loved from
love is as good a preterit as led from lead, or sang from sing; truth from true is as good an
abstract as length from long, or filth from foul; nor is the Latin lædo-r, 'I am hurt', from lædo,
'I hurt', inferior to the nearly equivalent Arabic qutila, from qatala. The claim might plausibly
enough be set up that the unity which the Scythian gives to its derivative words by making the
vowels of their suffixes sympathize with that of the principal or radical element, is at least as
valuable, in itself considered, as the capacity of an Indo-European root to be phonetically
affected by the ending that is attached to it -- a subjection of the superior to the inferior
element. Not that the actual working-out of the latter principle in the tongues of our family
has not produced results of higher value than the former has led to; but this may be owing in
great measure to the way in which the two have been handled respectively.
The immensely comprehensive order of agglutinative languages is sometimes reduced a little
by setting apart from it a polysynthetic or incorporative class, composed of the Basque and
the American family. This, however, is rather a subdivision of one of the members of the
triple system than the establishment of a new, a quadruple, scheme of classification.
Professor Müller2
seeks to find a support and explanation of the threefold division of human
language which we are now considering by paralleling it with the threefold condition of
human society, as patriarchal, nomadic, and political. Monosyllabic or "family languages" are
in place, according to him, among the members of a family, whose intimacy, and full
knowledge of one another's dispositions and thoughts, make it possible for each to understand
the other upon the briefest and most imperfect hints. Agglutinative or "nomadic languages"
are required by the circumstances of a wandering and unsettled life; the constantly separating
and reassembling tribes could not keep up a mutual intelligence if they did not maintain the
integrity of the radical elements of their speech. Inflective or "state languages" are rendered
possible by a regulated and stable condition of society, where uninterrupted intercourse and
constant tradition facilitate mutual comprehension, notwithstanding the fusion and integration
of root and affix. Tne comparison is ingenious and entertaining, but it is too little favored by
either linguistic philosophy or linguistic history to be entitled to any other praise. It would
fain introduce into the processes of linguistic life an element of reflective anticipation, of
prevision and deliberate provision, which is altogether foreign to them. That wandering tribes
should, in view of their scanty intercourse, their frequent partings to be followed by possible
meetings, conclude that they ought to keep their roots unmodified, is quite inconceivable; nor
is it easy to see what purpose the resolution should serve, if the endings are at the same time
to be suffered to vary so rapidly that mutual unintelligibility is soon brought about. In every
uncultivated community, the language is left to take care of itself; it becomes what the
exigencies of practical use make it, not what a forecasting view of future possibilities leads its
speakers to think that it might with advantage be made to be: let two tribes be parted from one
another, and neither has any regard to the welfare of its fellow in shaping its own daily
speech. In point of fact, moreover, Indo-European languages were inflective, were "state
languages", long before the tribes had formed states -- while many of them were as nomadic
in their habits as the wildest of the so-called Turanian tribes. And to denominate the immense
and highly-organized Chinese empire a mere exaggerated family, and account for the
peculiarities of its speech by reference to the conditions of a family, is fanciful in the extreme.
No nomenclature founded on such unsubstantial considerations has a good claim to the
acceptance of linguistic scholars; and the one in question has, it is believed, won no general
currency.
A very noteworthy attempt has been made within a short time by Professor Schleicher, of
Jena,3
to give greater fulness and precision to the morphological classification and description
of language, by a more thorough analysis, and a kind of algebraic notation, of morphological
characteristics. A pure root, used as a word without variation of form or addition of formative
elements, he denotes by a capital letter, as A: a connected sentence expressed by a series of
such elements, as is sometimes the case in Chinese, he would represent by A B C, and so on.
Such a sentence we may rudely illustrate by an English phrase like fish like water in which
each word is a simple root or theme, without formal designation of relations.4
A root which,
while retaining its substantial independence, is so modified in signification and restricted in
application as to form an auxiliary or adjunct to another root (which was shown in the last
lecture to be a frequent phenomenon in the isolating languages), is marked by an accented
letter, as A': thus, in the English shall like would be represented by A' + A; shall have put, by
A' + B' + A: the interposed sign of addition indicating the closeness of relation between the
elements. The position of the accented letters in the formula would point out whether the
auxiliaries are placed after the main word, as in Burmese, or before it, as in Siamese, or on
either or both sides, as sometimes in Chinese.
If, now, the formative element is combined with the radical into a single word, it is indicated
by a small letter, which is put before or after the capital which stands for the root, according
to the actual position of the elements in combination. Thus, if we represent true by A, untrue
would be aA; truly or truth would be Aa; untruly, aAb; untruthfully, aAbcd; and so on.
Expressions of this kind belong to the agglutinative type of structure; and they are, it is plain,
capable of very considerable variation, so as to be made to denote the various kinds and
degrees of agglutination. It is possible, for example, to distinguish the endings of inflection
from those of derivation, or elements of pronominal from those of predicative origin, by the
use of a different series of letters (as the Greek) to indicate one of the classes: thus, truths
might be Aaα, but truthful, Aab; babalarumdan, in Turkish (see above, p. 318), might be
Aαβγ, but sevishdirilememek, Aabcdef. An adroit use of such means of distinction might
enable one even to set forth with sufficient clearness the peculiarities and intricacies of
polysynthetic tongues.
Again, an inflective change of the root itself for the expression of grammatical relations is
denotable by exponents attached to the root-symbol. Thus, man being A, men would be Aa
;
men's, Aa
a, sang, sung, song, from sing, would be denoted by Aa
, Ab
, Ac
; spoken from speak,
would be Aa
a; its German counterpart, gesprochen, aAa
b. And in the Semitic tongues, where
the root never appears without a vocalization which is formal and significant, the constant
radical emblem would be Aa
.5
Compounds, finally, would be expressed in this method by putting side by side the symbols
expressive of their separate members, the capital letters with their modifications and adjuncts.
House-top, would be AB; songwriter, Aa
Ba; and so on.
It is unnecessary to explain with any more of detail Professor Schleicher's system of
morphological notation, or to spend many words in pointing out its convenience and value. It
may evidently be made a means of apprehending distinctly, and setting forth clearly, the main
structural features of any language. It will not, indeed, enable us to put in a brief and compact
form of statement the whole morphological character of every spoken tongue. Most tongues
admit no small variety of formations; each must be judged by its prevailing modes of
formation, by the average of highest and lowest modes, by their respective frequency of
application, and the purposes they are made to serve. It does not help us to a simple and facile
scale and classification of all the dialects of mankind; but this is to be imputed to it as a merit,
not as a fault: it thus fairly represents the exceeding variety of languages, the complexity of
the characteristics which distinguish them, and their incapacity of separation into a few
sharply defined classes.
No single trait or class of traits, however fundamental may be its importance, can be admitted
as a definite criterion by which the character of a language shall be judged, and its rank
determined. We saw reason above to challenge the absolute superiority of the inflective
principle, strongly as it may indicate a valuable tendency in language-making. Certainly it is
wholly conceivable that some language of the agglutinative class may decidedly surpass in
strength and suppleness, in adaptedness to its use as the instrument and aid of thought, some
other language or languages of the inflective class. Not morphological character alone is to be
taken account of; for not every race of equal mental endowment has originated and shaped a
language, any more than an art, of equivalent formal merit. Some one needed item of capacity
was wanting, and the product remains unartistic; or the work of the earliest period, which has
determined the grand features of the whole after-development, was unadroitly performed; the
first generations left to their successors a body of constraining usages and misguiding
analogies, the influence of which is not to be shaken off; and the mental power of the race is
shown by the skill and force, with which it wields an imperfect instrument. Many a tongue
thus stands higher, or lower, in virtue of the sum of its qualities, than its morphological
character would naturally indicate. The Chinese is one of the most striking instances of such a
discordance; though so nearly formless, in a morphological sense, it is nevertheless placed by
Wilhelm von Humboldt and Steinthal6
in their higher class of "form languages", along with
the Indo-European and Semitic, as being a not unsuitable incorporation of clear logical
thought; as, though not distinctly indicating relations and categories, yet not cumbering their
conception, their mental apprehension, by material adjuncts which weaken and confuse the
thought.
But further, apart from this whole matter of morphological form, of grammatical structure, of
the indication, expressed or implied, of relations, another department contributes essentially to
our estimate of the value of a language: namely, its material content, or what is signified by its
words. The universe, with all its objects and their qualities, is put before the language-makers
to be comprehended and expressed, and the different races, and tribes, and communities, have
solved the problem after a very different fashion. Names-giving implies not merely the
distinction of individual things, but no less, classification and analysis, in every kind, and of
every degree of subtlety. There are conceptions, and classes of conceptions, of so obvious and
practical character, that their designations are to be found in every language that exists or ever
has existed: there are hosts of others which one community, or many, or the most, have never
reached. Does a given tongue show that the race which speaks it has devoted its exclusive
attention to the more trivial matters in the world without and within us, or has it apprehended
higher things? Has it, for example, so studied and noted the aspects of nature that it can
describe them in terms of picturesque power ? Has it distinguished with intellectual acuteness
and spiritual insight the powers and operations of our internal nature, our mind and soul, so
that it can discuss psychological questions with significance and precision? Any dialect,
isolating or inflective, monosyllabic or polysynthetic, may be raised or lowered in the scale of
languages by the characteristics which such inquiries bring to light. In these, too, there is the
widest diversity, depending on original capacity, on acquired information and civilization, and
on variety of external circumstance and condition -- a diversity among different branches of
the same race, different periods of the same history, and, where culture and education
introduce their separating influences, between different classes of the same community. Our
earliest inquiries (in the first three lectures) into the processes of linguistic growth showed us
that the changes which bring about this diversity, the accretions to the vocabulary of a tongue,
the deepening of the meaning of its words, are the easiest of all to make, the most pervading
and irrepressible in their action, throughout every period of its existence. Here, then, more
than in any other department, it is practicable for later generations to amend and complete the
work of earlier; and yet, such is the power of linguistic habit that, even here, original
infelicities sometimes adhere to a language during its whole development.
To make out a satisfactory scheme of arrangement for all human tongues upon the ground of
their comparative value, accordingly, will be a task of extreme difficulty, and one of the last
results reached by linguistic science. It will require a degree of penetration into the inmost
secrets of structure and usage, an acuteness of perception and freedom from prejudice in
estimating merits of diverse character, and a breadth and reach of learning, which will be
found attainable only by a few master-minds. Great play is here afforded for subjective views,
for inherited prepossessions, for sway of mental habits. Who of us can be trusted fairly to
compare the advantages of his own and of any other language?
There can be no question that, of all the modes of classification with which linguistic scholars
have had to do, the one of first and most fundamental importance is the genetical, or that
which groups together, and holds apart from others, languages giving evidence of derivation
from the same original. It underlies and furnishes the foundation of all the remaining modes.
There can be no tie between any two dialects so strong as that of a common descent. Every
great family has a structural character of its own, whereby, whatever may be the varying
development of its members, it is made a unit, and more or less strikingly distinguished from
the rest. Whatever other criterion we may apply is analogous in its character and bearings
with the distinction of apetalous, monopetalous, and polypetalous, or of monogynous,
digynous, etc., or of exogenous and endogenous, or of phenogamous and cryptogamous, in
the science of botany -- all of them possessing real importance in different degrees, variously
crossing one another, and marking out certain general divisions; while the arrangement of
linguistic families corresponds with the division of plants into natural orders, founded upon a
consideration of the whole complicate structure of the things classified, contemplating the
sum of their characteristic qualities; fixing, therefore, their position in the vast kingdom of
nature of which they are members, and determining the names by which they shall be called.
The genetical classification is the ultimate historical fact which the historical method of
linguistic study directly aims at establishing. With its establishment are bound up those more
general historical results, for the ethnological history of mankind, which form so conspicuous
a part of the interest of our science.
To subjects connected with this department of interest, the bearing of linguistic science on
ethnology, we have next to turn our attention, occupying with them the remainder of the
present lecture.
One of the first considerations which will be apt to strike the notice of any one who reviews
our classification of human races according to the relationship of their languages, is its nonagreement
with the current divisions based on physical characteristics. The physicists, indeed,
are far from having yet arrived at accordance in their own schemes of classification, and the
utter insufficiency of that old familiar distinction of Caucasian, Mongol, Malay, African, and
American, established by Blumenbach, and probably learned by most of us at school, is now
fully recognized. But it does not seem practicable to lay down any system of physical races
which shall agree with any possible scheme of linguistic races. Indo-European, Semitic,
Scythian, and Caucasian tongues are spoken by men whom the naturalist would not separate
from one another as of widely diverse stock; and, on the other hand, Scythian dialects of close
and indubitable relationship are in the mouths of peoples who differ as widely in form and
feature as Hungarians and Lapps; while not less discordance of physical type is to be found
among the speakers of various dialects belonging to more than one of the other great linguistic
families.
Such facts as these call up the question, as one of high practical consequence, respecting the
comparative value of linguistic and of physical evidence of race, and how their seeming
discrepancy is to be reconciled. Some method of bringing about a reconciliation between
them must evidently be sought and found. For neither linguistic nor physical ethnology is a
science of classification merely; both claim to be historical also. Both are working toward the
same end -- namely, a tracing out of the actual connection and genealogical history of human
races -- and, though each must follow its own methods, without undue interference from
without, they cannot labor independently, careless each of the other's results. To point out the
mode of reconciliation, to remove the difficulties which lie in the way of harmonious
agreement between the two departments of ethnological science, I shall not here make the
least presence; such a result can be attained only when the principles and conclusions of both
are advanced and perfected far beyond their present point. All that we can attempt to do is to
notice certain general considerations bearing upon the subject, and requiring not to be lost
from sight by either party; and especially, to point out the limitations and imperfections of
both physical and linguistic evidence, and how necessary it is that each should modestly
solicit and frankly acknowledge the aid of the other.
How language proves anything concerning race, and what it does and does not prove, was
brought clearly to light in the course of our earliest inquiries into its nature and history. What
we then learned respecting the mode of acquisition and transmission of each man's, and each
community's, "native tongue" was sufficient to show us the total error of two somewhat
different, and yet fundamentally accordant, views of language, which have been put forth and
defended by certain authorities -- the one, that speech is to man what his song is to the bird,
what their roar, growl, bellow are to lions, bears, oxen; and that resemblances of dialect
therefore no more indicate actual genetic connection among different tribes of men than
resemblances of uttered tone indicate the common descent of various species of thrushes, or
of bears, inhabiting different parts of the world: the other, that language is the immediate and
necessary product of physical organization, and varies as this varies: that an Englishman, a
Frenchman, and a Chinaman talk unlike one another because their brains and organs of
articulation are unlike; and that all Englishmen talk alike, as do all Frenchmen, or all
Chinamen, because, in consequence of their living amid similar physical conditions, and their
inheritance of a common race-type, their nervous and muscular systems minutely correspond.
And doctrines akin with these are more or less distinctly and consciously implied in the views
of those who hold that language is beyond the reach of the free-agency of men, and can be
neither made nor changed by human effort. All who think thus virtually deny the existence of
such a thing as linguistic science, or reduce it to the position of a subordinate branch of
physiology: speech becomes a purely physical characteristic, one among the many which by
their common presence make up man, and by their differences distinguish the different
varieties of men; and it would be for the physicist to determine, here, as in the case of other
physical characteristics, how far its joint possession indicated specific unity, or how far its
diversities of kind indicated specific variety. All these false theories are brushed away at once
by our recognition of the fact that we do not produce our speech from within, but acquire it
from without ourselves; that we neither make nor inherit the words we use, whether of our
native tongue or of any other, but learn them from our instructors.
But from this it also follows that no individual's speech directly and necessarily marks his
descent; it only shows in what community he grew up. Language is no infallible sign of race,
but only its probable indication, and an indication of which the probability is exposed to very
serious drawbacks. For it is evident that those who taught us to speak, of whose means of
expression we learned to avail ourselves, need not have been of our own kith and kin. Not
only may individuals, families, groups of families, of almost every race on earth, be, as at
present in America, turned into and absorbed by one great community, and made to adopt its
speech, but a strange tongue may be learned by whole tribes and nations of those who like our
negroes, are brought away from their native homes, or, like the Irish, have lived long under a
foreign yoke, or like the Celts of ancient Gaul and Spain, have received laws, civilization, and
religion from another and a superior race. Languages unnumbered and innumerable have
disappeared from off the face of the earth since the beginning of human history; but only in
part by reason of the utter annihilation of the individuals who had spoken them; more often,
doubtless, by their dispersion, and incorporation with other communities, of other speech.
Everywhere, too, where the confines of different forms of speech meet, there goes on more or
less of mixture between them, or of effacement of the one by the other. Yet, on the other
hand, mixture of language is not necessarily proof of mixture of race. We can trace the
genesis of a very large part of our own vocabulary to the banks of the Tiber, but hardly the
faintest appreciable portion of our ancestry is Roman. We obtained our Latin words in the
most strangely roundabout way: they were brought us by certain Germanic adventurers, the
Normans, who had learned them from a mixed people, the French, chiefly of Celtic blood;
and these, again, had derived them from another heterogenous compound of Italian races,
among whom the Latin tribe was numerically but a feeble element.
Of such nature are the difficulties in the way of our inferring the race-connections of an
individual or of a community with certainty from the relations of the language which either
speaks. They are of undeniable force and importance, and must be borne constantly in mind
by every one who is pursuing investigations, and laying down conclusions, in linguistic
ethnology. They drive him to seek after some other concurrent test of descent, which shall
serve to check and control his own results; and they make him court and welcome the aid of
the physicist, as well as of the archaeologist and the historian.
But, notwithstanding this, their consequence, and their power to invalidate linguistic evidence,
must not be overrated. They concern, after all, what in the grand sum of human history are the
exceptions to a general rule. It still remains true that, upon the whole, language is a tolerably
sure indication of race. Since the dawn of time, those among whom individuals were born, of
whom they learned how to express their mental acts, have been usually of their own blood.
Nor do these difficulties place linguistic evidence at any marked disadvantage as compared
with the physical. They are, to no small extent, merely the effect, on the side of language, of
the grand fact which comes in constantly to interfere with ethnological investigations of every
kind: namely, that human races do not maintain themselves in purity, that men of different
descent are all the time mingling, mixing their blood, and crossing all their racecharacteristics.
Fusion and replacement of languages are impossible, except when men of
different native speech are brought together as members of the same community, so that there
takes place more or less of an accompanying fusion of races also; and then the resulting
language stands at least a chance of being a more faithful and intelligible witness of the
mixture than the resulting physical type. That the modern French people, for example, is made
up of a congeries of Celtic, Germanic, and Italian elements is to a certain extent -- although
only the aid of recorded history enables us fully to interpret the evidences -- testified by the
considerable body of the Celtic and Germanic words mixed with the Latin elements of the
French language; but no physicist could ever have derived the same conclusion from a study
of the French type of structure. The physicist claims that there may be a considerable infusion
of the blood of one race into that of another, without perceptible modification of the latter's
race-type; the intruded element, if not continuously supplied afresh, is overwhelmed and
assimilated by the other and predominant one, and disappears: that is to say, as we may
interpret the claim, its peculiarities are so diluted by constant remixture that they become at
last inappreciable. In any such case, then, traces discoverable in the language may point out
what there is no other means of ascertaining. It is true that, on the other hand, the spread and
propagation of a language may greatly exceed that of the race to which it originally belonged,
and that the weaker numerical element in a composite community may be the one whose
dialect becomes the common tongue of all. Thus the Latin swept away the primitive tongues
of a great part of southern and central Europe, and has become mingled with the speech of all
civilized nations, in the Old world and the New. But we are not rashly to infer that such things
have happened over and over again in the history of the world. We have rather to inquire what
influences make possible a career like that of the Latin, what lends the predominant and
assimilating force to a single element where many are combined. And, as was pointed out in
the fourth lecture, we shall find that only superior culture and the possession of a literature
can give to any tongue such great extensibility. The Persians, the Mongols, have at one period
and another exercised sway over an empire not less extensive than the Roman, but their
languages were never spread far beyond the limits of the peoples to which they properly
belonged. The German tribes, too, conquered in succession nearly every kingdom of Europe;
but it was only in order to lose themselves and their dialects together, almost undiscoverably,
in the communities and languages into which they entered. Nay, even the wide-spread Greek
colonies, with the superiority of Greek culture to aid them, were not able to make the Greek
the tongue of many nations. There was an organizing and assimilating force in Roman
dominion which the world has nowhere else seen equalled. And if the career of the Arabic
furnishes something like a parallel to that of the Latin, it is due, not to the sword of Islam, but
to the book, and to the doctrine and policy which the book enjoined and the sword imposed.
Since, then, such movements must be connected with culture and literature, they cannot but
leave their record in written history, and find there their explanation. Nor could there occur in
every region or in every period such an inpouring and assimilation of nationalities as is now
going on among us; it is only possible under the conditions of civilized life in the nineteenth
century, and the historical conditions which have been created here. The wild and
uncultivated races of the earth generally are simply maintaining themselves by growth from
generation to generation, taking in no immigrants, sending out no emigrants. Culture makes
an astonishing difference in the circumstances and fates of those portions of mankind over
which its influence is extended, and it would be the height of folly to transfer to barbarous
races and uncivilized periods of human history analogies and conclusions drawn from the
history of cultivated nations and tongues. The farther we go back into the night of the past, the
greater is the probability that the limits of race and speech approximately coincide, and that
mixture of either is accompanied by that of the other.
And if, in certain circumstances, a race may change its tongue, while yet retaining in its
physical structure evidence of its descent, a race may also undergo a modification of physical
type, and still offer in its speech plain indications of its real kindred. If the talk of our colored
citizens does not show that they were brought from Africa, neither do the shape and bearing
of the Magyars show that they came from beyond the Ural, nor those of the Osmanli Turks
that their cousins are the nomads of the inhospitable plateau of central Asia. This is the grand
drawback to the cogency of physical evidence of race, and it fully counterbalances those
which affect the cogency of linguistic evidence, rendering the aid of the linguist as necessary
to the physical ethnologist as is the latter's to the linguistic ethnologist. Physical science is as
yet far from having determined the kind, the rate, and the amount of modification which
external conditions, as climate and mode of life, can introduce into a race-type; but that,
within certain undefined limits, their influence is very powerful, is fully acknowledged. There
is, to be sure, a party among zoologists and ethnologists who insist much upon the dogma of
"fixity of type," and assert that all human races are original; but the general tendency of
scientific opinion is in the other direction, toward the fuller admission of variability of
species. The first naturalists are still, and more than ever, willing to admit that all the
differences now existing among human races may be the effects of variation from a single
type, and that it is at least not necessary to resort to the hypothesis of different origins in order
to explain them. In the fact that Egyptian monuments of more than three thousand years'
antiquity show us human varieties and canine varieties, bearing the same characteristics as at
the present day, there is nothing to disturb this conclusion; for, on the one hand, a period of
three thousand years is coming to be regarded as not including a very large part of man's
existence on the earth; and, on the other hand, such a fact only proves the persistency which a
type may possess when fully developed, and is of very doubtful avail to show the originality
of the type. Something analogous is to be seen in language. The speech of our rude Germanic
ancestors of the same remote period, had we authentic record of it, would beyond question be
found to have possessed already a general character clearly identifying it with Germanic
tongues still existing, and sharply sundering it from Greek, from Slavonic, from Celtic, and all
the other Indo-European branches; yet we do not doubt that the Germanic type of speech is
derived, a secondary one. In settling all these controverted points, in distinguishing between
original diversity and subsequent variation, in establishing a test and scale for the possibilities
and the rate of physical change, the physical ethnologist will need all the assistance which
historical investigations of every kind can furnish him; and the greater part must come to him
from the student of language.
As the Indo-European family of language is that one of which the unity, accompanying a not
inconsiderable variety of physical type in the peoples who speak its dialects, is most firmly
established, and as therefore it may naturally be regarded as furnishing a prominent
illustration of the bearing of linguistic conditions on physical inquiries into the history of man,
it is perhaps worth our while to refer to a theory respecting Indo-European speech which has
found of late a few supporters of some note and authority, and which, if accepted, would
altogether deprive it of ethnological value. The assertion, namely, is put forth, that the
apparent unity of languages of this family is not due to a prevailing identity of descent in the
nations to which they belong, but to the influence of some single tribe, whose superior
character, capacity, and prowess enabled it to impose its linguistic usages on distant and
diverse races. By some it is even assumed that the correspondence of words and forms
exhibited by the so-called Indo-European tongues are not fundamental and pervading, but
superficial, consisting in scattered particulars only, in such designations of objects and
conceptions as one race might naturally make over into the keeping of another, along with a
knowledge of the things designated. This assumption, however, the expositions, and
reasonings of our fifth and seventh lectures will have shown to be wholly erroneous: the
correspondences in question are fundamental and pervading: they constitute an identity which
can only be explained by supposing those who founded these tongues to have been members
together of the same community. Others, who know the European languages too well to
maintain respecting their relations any so shallow and untenable theory, yet try to persuade
themselves that the analogy of the Latin will sufficiently account for their extension over so
wide a region; that, as Etruscans, Celts, Iberians, Germans, learned to speak a tongue of
Roman origin, so the populations of Europe and Asia, of diverse lineage, learned to speak a
common Indo-European dialect; and that, accordingly, the differences of Greek, Sanskrit,
Celtic, and Slavonic are parallel to those of Italian, French, and Spanish. But this theory,
though more plausible and defensible than the other, is hardly less untenable. It exhibits a like
neglect of another class of linguistic principles: of those, namely, which underlie and explain
the abnormal extension of tongues like the Latin and the Arabic: we have more than once had
occasion to set them forth above. In order to establish an analogy between the history of Latin
and that of Indo-European speech, and to make the former account satisfactorily for the latter,
it would be necessary to prove, or at least to render probable, the existence in a very remote
antiquity of those conditions which in modern times have been able to give such a career to
the language of Rome. But, so far as we can at present see, there must have been a total lack
of the required conditions. Force of character, warlike prowess, superiority of inherent mental
capacity, undeveloped or partially developed, the Indo-Europeans may probably have
possessed, as compared with the more aboriginal races of Europe; but these are not the forces
which enable the language of a small minority to stifle that of the masses of a people and to
take its place; if it were so, southern Europe would now be talking Germanic instead of
Romanic dialects. The rude beginnings of a higher civilization, as metals, instruments, seeds,
domestic animals, arts, may possibly have been theirs; yet even these would merely engraft
upon the languages of the peoples to whom they were made known certain words and phrases.
Only the resources of an enlightened culture, supplemented by letters, literature, and
instruction, could give to any tongue the expansive force demanded by the theory we are
considering; and of these, it is needless to say, no traces are to be found in Indo-European
antiquity. We have no good ground, then, for doubting that the great extension of the
languages of our family was effected by the usual causes which act among uncultivated
tongues: that is to say, mainly by the growth, spread and emigration of a single race; by its
occupancy of ever new territory, accompanied with the partial destruction and partial
expulsion, sometimes also with the partial incorporation and absorption, of the former
inhabitants; the element of population which inherited the speech and institutions of the
original Indo-European tribe being ever the predominant one in each new community that was
formed. How many fragments of other races may have been worked in during the course of
the family's migrations -- how far the purity of blood of one or another of its branches or subbranches
may have been thus affected by successive partial dilutions, so that some of their
present peculiarities of type are attributable to the mixture -- is, of course, a legitimate matter
for inquiry, and one upon which we may even look for information from their languages,
when these shall have been more narrowly examined. But upon the whole, in the light of our
present knowledge, we are justified in regarding the boundaries of Indo-European speech as
approximately coinciding with those of a race; the tie of language represents a tie of blood.
If the limitations and imperfections of the two kinds of evidence are thus in certain respects
somewhat evenly balanced, there are others in which linguistic evidence has a decidedly
superior practical value and availability. The differences of language are upon a scale almost
infinitely greater than those of physical structure. They are equal in their range and variety to
those found in the whole animal kingdom, from the lowest organisms to the highest, instead
of being confined within the limits of the possible variation of a single species. Hence they
can be much more easily and accurately apprehended, judged, and described. Linguistic facts
admit of being readily collected, laid down with authentic fidelity, and compared coolly, with
little risk of error from subjective misapprehension. They are accessible to a much greater
number of observers and investigators. Exceptional capacity, special opportunity, and a very
long period of training, are needed to make a reliable and authoritative describer of racecharacteristics.
It is true, that to distinguish from one another very diverse types, like the
European and African, is a task which presents no difficulty. But, though we should all, in
nine cases out of ten, recognize a native of Ireland at sight, who among us could trust himself
to make a faithful and telling description of the ideal Irishman, such that, by its aid, a person
not already by long experience made familiar with the type would recognize it when met
with? The peculiarities of the native Irish dialect, however, are capable of being made
unmistakably plain to even the dullest apprehension. A few pages or phrases, often even a few
words, brought back by a traveller or sojourner in distant lands from some people with which
he has made acquaintance, are likely to be worth vastly more for fixing their place in the
human family than the most elaborate account he can give of their physical characteristics.
Photography, with its utter truth to nature, can now be brought in as a most valuable aid to
physical descriptions, yet cannot wholly remove the difficulty, giving such abundant
illustration as shall enable us to analyze and separate that which is national and typical from
that which is individual and accidental. This last, indeed, is one of the marked difficulties in
physical investigations. Two persons may readily be culled from two diverse races who shall
be less unlike than two others that may be chosen from the same race. While, on the contrary,
words and phrases taken down from the lips of an individual, or written or engraved by one
hand, can be no private possession; they must belong to a whole community.
The superior capacity of the remains of language to cast light upon the affinities of races
needs only be illustrated by an instance or two. What could have impregnably established the
ethnological position of the ancient Persians like the decipherment of the inscriptions of
Darius and his successors, which show that they spoke a dialect so nearly akin with those of
Bactria and India that it can be read by the latter's aid? What could exhibit the intimate
mixture of races and cultures in the valley of the Euphrates and Tigris, and the presence there
of an important element which was neither Indo-European, nor Semitic, except the trilingual
inscriptions of the Mesopotamian monuments? What a pregnant fact in African ethnology will
be, if fully and irrefragably proved, the relationship of the Hottentot dialects with the ancient
Egyptian! What but the preserved fragments of their speech could have taught us that the
Etruscans had no kindred with any other of the known races inhabiting Europe? And when
would physical science ever have made the discovery that the same thing is true of the
Basques, whom yet it has all the opportunity which it could desire to study? But the most
important of the advantages belonging to linguistic science, in its relation to ethnology, is that
to which allusion was made at the very outset of our discussions: namely, that language tells
so much more respecting races than lies within the reach or scope of the physicist. In every
part and particle, it is instinct with history. It is a picture of the internal life of the community
to which it belongs; in it their capacities are exhibited, their characters expressed; it reflects
their outward circumstances, records their experiences, indicates the grade of knowledge they
have attained, exhibits their manners and institutions. Being itself an institution, shaped by
their consenting though only half-conscious action, it is an important test of national
endowment and disposition, like political constitution, like jural usage, like national art. Even
where it fails to show strict ethnic descent, it shows race-history of another sort -- the history
of the influence which, by dint of superior character and culture, certain races have exercised
over others. The spread of the Latin has swept away and obliterated some of the ancient
landmarks of race, but it has done so by substituting another unity for that of descent; its
present ubiquity illustrates the unparalleled importance of Rome in the history of humanity.
For these reasons, and such as these, the part which language has to perform in constructing
the unwritten history of the human race must be the larger and more important. There are
points which physical science alone can reach, or upon which her authority is superior: but in
laying out and filling up the general scheme, and especially in concerting what would else be
a barren classification into something like a true history, the work must chiefly be done by
linguistic science.
The considerations we have been reviewing will, it is hoped, guide us to a correct
apprehension of the relations of these two branches of ethnological study. Discord between
them, questions as to respective rank, there is or should be none. Both are legitimate and
necessary methods of approaching the solution of the same intricate and difficult question, the
origin and history of man on the earth -- a question of which we are only now beginning to
understand the intricacy and difficulty, and which we are likely always to fall short of
answering to our satisfaction. There was a time, not many years since, when the structure and
history of the earth-crust were universally regarded as a simple matter, the direct result of a
few fiats, succeeding one another within the space of six days and nights: now, even the
school-boy knows that in the brief story of the Genesis are epitomized the changes and
developments of countless ages, and that geology may spend centuries in tracing them out and
describing them in detail, without arriving at the end of her task. In like manner has it been
supposed that the first introduction of man into the midst of the prepared creation was distant
but six or seven thousand years from our day, and we have hoped to be able to read the record
of so brief a career, even back to its beginning; but science is accumulating at present so
rapidly, and from so many quarters, proofs that the time must be greatly lengthened out, and
even perhaps many times multiplied, that this new modification of a prevailing view seems
likely soon to win as general an acceptance as the other has already done. And the different
historical sciences are seeing more and more clearly their weakness in the presence of so
obscure a problem, and confessing their inability to give categorical answers to many of the
questions it involves.
Such a confession on the part of linguistic science, with reference to one point of the most
fundamental interest and importance in human history, it next devolves upon us to make.
A second question, namely, which cannot but press itself upon our attention, in connection
with the survey we have taken of the grand divisions of human speech, is this: What is the
scope and bearing of the division into families? Does it separate the human race into so many
different branches, which must have been independent from the very beginning? Does
linguistic science both fail to find any bond of connection between the families and see that
no such bond exists? Or, in short, what has the study of language to say respecting the unity
of the human race?
This is an inquiry to which, as I believe, the truths we have established respecting the
character and history of language will enable us readily to find a reply. But that reply will be
only a negative one. Linguistic science is not now, and cannot hope ever to be, in condition to
give an authoritative opinion respecting the unity or variety of our species. This is not an
acknowledgement which any student of language likes to make; it may seem to savor, too, of
precipitation on the part of him who makes it; of a lack of faith in the future of his science -- a
science which, although it has already accomplished so much, has yet confessedly only begun
its career. That those linguistic scholars -- for such there are -- are over-hasty and overcredulous
who suppose themselves to have proved already, by the evidence of language, that
all mankind are akin by blood as well as by nature, will be conceded by many who are yet
unwilling to give up all hope of seeing the proof one day satisfactorily made out. Let us, then,
enter into a brief examination of the point, and a consideration of the grounds upon which is
founded the view we have taken.
To show, in the first place, that linguistic science can never claim to prove the ultimate variety
of human races will be no long or difficult task. That science, as we have seen, regards
language as something which has grown up, in the manner of an institution, from weak and
scanty beginnings; it is a development out of germs; it started with simple roots, brief in form
and of indeterminate meaning, by the combination of which words came later into being. And
the existing differences of speech among men are, at least to a very considerable extent, the
result, not of original diversity, but of discordant growth. Now we cannot presume to set any
limits to the extent to which languages once the same may have grown apart from one
another. It matters not what opinion we may hold respecting the origin of the first germs of
speech: if we suppose them to have been miraculously created and placed in the mouths of the
first ancestors of men, their present differences would not justify us in believing that different
sets must have been imparted to different pairs, or groups, of ancestors; for the same
influences which have so obscured the common descent of English, Welsh, and Hindustani,
for example, may, by an action more prolonged or more intense, have transformed germs
originally common beyond even the faintest possibility of recognition. And if, on the other
hand, we regard them as originated by the same agency which has brought about their later
combinations and mutations, by men, namely, using legitimately and naturally the faculties
with which they have been endowed, under the guidance of the instincts and impulses
implanted in them -- and no linguist, certainly, as such, has any right to deny at least the
possibility of this origin of language -- then the case is yet clearer. For we cannot venture to
say how long a time the formation of roots may have demanded, or during what period
universal language may have remained nearly stationary in this its inceptive stage. It is
entirely conceivable that the earliest human race, being one, should have parted into disjoined
and thenceforth disconnected tribes before the formation of any language so far developed
and of so fixed forms as to be able to leave traceable fragments in the later dialects of the
sundered portions. These possibilities preclude all dogmatic assertion of the variety of human
species on the part of the linguist. Among all the known forms of speech, present and past,
there are no discordances which are not, to his apprehension, fully reconcilable with the
hypothesis of unity of race, allowing the truth of that view of the nature and history of speech
which is forced upon him by his researches into its structure. It is certain that no one, upon the
ground of linguistic investigations alone, will ever be able to bear witness against the descent
of all mankind from a single pair.
That no one, upon the same grounds, can ever bear witness in favor of such descent is, as it
appears to me, equally demonstrable, although not by so simple and direct an argument, and
although the opinions of eminent authorities are at variance upon the point, and may fairly
continue to be so for some time to come, until more of the fundamental facts and principles in
linguistic science shall have been firmly established and universally accepted than is the case
at present. We have here no theoretical impossibility to rely upon; no direct argument from
necessary conditions, cutting off all controversy. As the linguist is compelled to allow that a
unique race may have parted into branches before the development of abiding germs of
speech, so he must also admit the possibility that the race may have clung together so long, or
the development of its speech have been so rapid, that, even prior to its separation, a common
dialect had been elaborated, the traces of which no lapse of time, with all its accompanying
changes, could entirely obliterate. Nay, he was bound to keep that possibility distinctly before
his mind in all his researches,to cherish a hope of making language prove community of blood
in all members of the human family, until conscientious study should show the hope to be
groundless. The question was one of fact, of what existing and accessible testimony was
competent to prove; it was to be settled only by investigation. But I claim that investigation,
limited as its range and penetration have hitherto confessedly been, has already put us in
condition to declare the evidence incompetent, and the thesis incapable of satisfactory proof.
In order to make clear the justice of this claim, it will be necessary to recapitulate some of the
results we have won in our previous discussions.
The processes of change which are constantly at work in language, altering both the form and
the meaning of its constituent words, were set forth and illustrated with sufficient fulness in
our early lectures. The degree of alteration which they may effect, and the variety of their
results, are practically unlimited. As they can bring utter apparent diversity out of original
identity, so they can impress an apparent similarity upon original diversity. Hence the
difficulties which beset etymological science, its abuse by the unlearned and incautious, the
occasional seeming arbitrariness and violence of its procedures, even in skilled and scientific
hands. Voltaire's witty saying, that in etymologizing the vowels are of no account at all, and
the consonants of very little -- to which he might have added, that the meaning is equally a
matter of indifference -- was true enough as regarded the science of his day; but we must also
confess that in a certain way it possesses an applicability to that of our own times. Even
modern etymology acknowledges that two words can hardly be so different, in form or in
meaning, or in both form and meaning, that there is not a possibility of their being proved
descendants of the same word: any sound, any shade of idea, may pass by successive changes
into any other. The difference between the old hap-hazard style of etymologizing and the
modern scientific methods lies in this: that the latter, while allowing everything to be
theoretically possible, accepts nothing as actual which is not proved such by sufficient
evidence; it brings to bear upon each individual case a wide circle of related facts; it imposes
upon the student the necessity of extended comparison and cautious education; it makes him
careful to inform himself as thoroughly as circumstances allow respecting the history of every
word he deals with.
Two opposing possibilities, therefore, interfere with the directness of the etymologist's
researches, and cast doubt on his conclusions. On the one hand, forms apparently unconnected
may turn out to be transformations of the same original: since, for example, the French évêque
and the English bishop, words which have no common phonetic constituent, are yet both
descended, within no very long time, from the Greek episkopos; since our alms comes from
the Greek eleēmosunē; since our sister and the Persian χāhar are the same word; since the
Latin filius has become in Spanish hijo; and so on. On the other hand, what is of not less
importance in its bearing upon the point we are considering, he must be equally mindful that
an apparent coincidence between two words which he is comparing may be accidental and
superficial only, covering radical diversity. How easy it is for words of different origin to
arrive at a final identity of form, as the result of their phonetic changes, is evident enough
from the numerous homonyms in our own language, to which we have more than once had
occasion to refer. Thus, sound in "safe and sound" comes from one Germanic word, and
sound in "Long Island Sound" from another; while sound, 'noise', is from the Latin sonus. So
we have a page of a book from the Latin pagina, and a page in waiting from the Greek
paidion, 'a little boy', we have cleave, 'to stick together', from the Anglo-Saxon clifian, and
cleave, 'to part asunder', from the Anglo-Saxon clufan; and numberless other instances of the
same kind. Fortuitous coincidences of sound like these, in words of wholly independent
derivation, are not less liable to occur between the vocables of different languages than
between those of the same language; and they do so occur. It is, further, by no means
infrequently the case that, along with a coincidence, or a near correspondence, or a remoter
analogy, of sound, there is also an analogy, or correspondence, or coincidence, of meaning --
one so nearly resembling that which would be the effect of a genetic relationship between the
two words compared as to give us an impression that they must be related, when in fact they
are not. Resemblances of this sort, of every degree of closeness, do actually appear in
abundance among languages related and unrelated, demonstrably as the result of accident
alone, being mistaken for signs of genetic connection only by incompetent or heedless
inquirers. Thus, an enterprising etymologist, turning over the pages of his Hebrew lexicon,
discovers that the Hebrew root kophar means 'cover'; and he is at once struck with this plain
proof of the original identity of Hebrew and English: whereas, if he only looks a little into the
history of the English word, he finds that it comes, through the Old French covrir, from the
Latin coöperire, made up of con and opertre; which latter is gotten by two or three steps of
derivation and composition, from a root par, 'pass': and this puts upon him the necessity,
either of giving up his fancied identification, or of making out some degree of probability that
the Hebrew word descended, through a like succession of steps, from a like original. Another
word-genealogist finds that lars in ancient Etruscan meant 'a chief, a headman', and he parades
it as an evidence that the Etruscan was, after all, an Indo-European language: for is not lars
clearly the same with the Scottish word laird, our lord? He is simply regardless of the fact that
laird and lord are the altered modern representatives of the Anglo-Saxon hlaford, with which
lars palpably has about as little to do as with brigadier-general or deputy-sheriff. A
Polynesian scholar, intent on proving that South Sea islanders and Europeans are tribes of the
same lineage, points out the almost exact coincidence of the Polynesian mate and the modern
Greek mati, both signifying 'eye': which is just as sensible as if he were to compare a
(hypothetical) Polynesian busa, 'a four-wheeled vehicle', with our bus from omnibus): for mati
in Greek is abbreviated from ommation, diminutive of omma, 'eye', and has lost its originally
significant part, the syllable om, representing the root op, 'see.'
These are only a few samples of false etymologies, selected from among the thousands and
tens of thousands with which all linguistic literature, ancient and modern, teems; which have
been drawn out, with infinite expenditure of ill-directed ingenuity and misapplied labor, from
the vocabularies of tongues of every age and every clime. There is not one among them which
has not a much higher primâ facie plausibility than the identity of évêque and bishop, or of
filius and hijo, or than numberless others of the true etymologies established upon sufficient
evidence, by the scientific student of languages: but their value is in seeming only; they are
baseless and worthless, mere exemplifications of the effects wrought by the process we are
considering -- the process which brings out accidental analogies, phonetic and significant,
between words historically unrelated. The greater portion of false etymologies are to be
ascribed directly to its influence; and their number is a sufficient and striking proof of the
wide extent of its action, the frequency and variety of the results it produces.
The fact is well established, that there are no two languages upon the face of the earth, of
however discordant origin, between which may not be brought to light by diligent search a
goodly number of these false analogies of both form and meaning, seeming indications of
relationship, which a little historical knowledge, when it is to be had, at once shows to be
delusive, and which have no title to be regarded as otherwise, even if we have not the means
of proving their falsity. It is only necessary to cast out of sight the general probabilities
against a genetic connection of the languages we are comparing (such as their place and their
period, their nearer connections, and the pervading discordance of their structure and
material), and then to assume between them phonetic transitions not more violent than are
actually proved to be exhibited by other tongues -- and we may find a goodly portion of the
vocabulary of each hidden in that of the other. Dean Swift has ridiculed the folly which
amuses itself with such comparisons and etymologies, in a well-known caricature, wherein he
derives the names of ancient Greek worthies from honest modern English elements,
explaining Achilles as 'a kill-ease', Hector as 'hacked-tore', Alexander the Great as "all eggs
under the grate!" and so on. This is very absurd; and yet, save that the absurdity of it is made
more palpable to us by being put in terms of our own language and another with which we are
somewhat familiar, it is hardly worse than what has been done, and is done, in all soberness,
by men claiming the name of linguistic scholars. It is even now possible for such a man to
take an African vocabulary, and sit deliberately down to see what words of the various other
languages known to him, he can explain out of it, producing a batch of correspondences like
these: abetele, 'a begging beforehand' (which he himself defines as composed of a, formative
prefix, be, 'beg', and tele, 'previously'), and German betteln, 'beg' (from the simpler root bit,
bet, our bid); idaro, 'that which becomes collected into a mass', and English dross; basile,
'landlord' (ba for oba, 'master', si, 'of', and ile, 'land'), and Greek basileus, 'king': and the
comparer, who is especially versed in the mathematical doctrine of chances, gravely informs
us that the chances against the merely accidental character of the last coincidence are "at least
a hundred million to one." More than one unsound linguist has misled himself and others by
calculating, in the strictest accordance with mathematical rules, how many thousand or
million of chances to one there are against the same word meaning the same thing in two
different and unconnected languages. The calculation is futile, and its result a fallacy. The
relations of language are not to be so simply reduced to precise mathematical expression. If
words were wholly independent entities, instead of belonging to families of connected
derivatives; if they were of such precise constitution and application as so many chemical
formulas; if the things they designated were as distinct and separate individualities as are
fixed stars, or mineral species, or geographical localities -- then the calculations of chances
would be in place respecting them. But none of these things are true. The evidences on which
linguistic science relies to prove genetical connection are not identities of form combined with
identities of meaning: forms may differ as much as hijo and filius; meanings may differ as
much as German bekommen, 'get', and English become, 'come to be' and become, 'suit'; form
and meaning may differ together to any extent, and yet the words may be one and the same,
and good evidences of relationship between the languages to which they respectively belong.
Not literal agreement, but such resemblances, nearer or more distant, clearer or more obscure,
as are proved by supporting facts to have their ground in original identity, make satisfactory
evidence of common descent in language.
Here, then, is the practical difficulty in the way of him who would prove all human speech a
unit. On the one hand, those fortuitous coincidences and analogies which any given language
may present with any other with which it is compared form a not inconsiderable body, an
appreciable percentage of its general stock of words. On the other hand, the historical
coincidences and analogies traceable between two languages of common descent are capable
of sinking to as low, or even to a lower, percentage of its vocabulary. That is to say, there may
be two related tongues, the genuine signs of whose relationship shall be less numerous and
conspicuous than the apparent but delusive signs of relationship of two others which derive
themselves from independent origins. The former have been so long separated from one
another, their changes in the meantime have been so pervading, that their inherited points of
resemblance are reduced in number and obscured in character, until they are no longer
sufficient to create a reasonable presumption in favor of their own historical reality; they are
undistinguishable from the possible results of chance. As we saw in the sixth lecture,
evidences of genetic connection are cumulative in their character; no single item of
correspondence is worth anything until there are found kindred facts to support it; and its
force is strengthened with every new accession. And, in the comparison of languages, the
point is actually reached where it becomes impossible to tell whether the few coincidences
which we discover are the genuine traces of a community of linguistic tradition, or only
accidental, and evidence of nothing. When we come to holding together the forms of speech
belonging to the diverse families, linguistic testimony fails us; it no longer has force to prove
anything to our satisfaction.
To demonstrate that this is so, we do not need to enter into a detailed examination of two
tongues claimed to be unrelated, and show that their correspondences fall incontestably short
of the amount required to prove relationship: we may take a briefer and directer argument. We
have seen that the established linguistic families are made up of those dialects which exhibit
traceable signs of a common historic development; which have evidently grown together out
of the radical stage (unless, as in the case of the monosyllabic tongues, they have together
remained stationary in that stage); which possess, at least in part, the same grammatical
structure. There are some linguistic scholars who cherish the sanguine hope that trustworthy
indications of this kind of correspondence may yet be pointed out between some two or three
of the great families; but no one whose opinion is of one straw's weight thinks of such a thing
with reference to them all. So discordant is the whole growth of many of the types of speech
that we can find no affinities among them short of their ultimate beginnings: if all human
speech is to be proved of one origin, it can only be by means of an identification of roots. To
give the investigation this form, however, is virtually to abandon it as hopeless. The
difficulties in the way of a fruitful comparison of roots are altogether overwhelming. To trace
out the roots of any given family, in their ultimate form and primitive signification, is a task
whose gravity the profoundest investigators of language are best able to appreciate.
Notwithstanding the variety of the present living dialects of the Indo-European family, and
the noteworthy preservation of original forms on the part of some among them, their
comparison would be far enough from furnishing us the radical elements of Indo-European
speech. Even the aid of the ancient tongues but partially removes the difficulty; and, but for
the remarkable and exceptional character of the Sanskrit, our knowledge of that stage in the
history of our language out of which its present grammatical structure was a development
would be but scanty and doubtful; while we have been compelled to confess (in the seventh
lecture) that we know not how far even so primitive a stage may lie from the absolute
beginning. The corresponding condition of Semitic speech, its foundations of triliteral roots, is
to no small extent restorable; but we have seen that these roots are themselves the products of
a strange and highly perplexing deyelopment, beneath which their actual origin is not yet
discernible. Among the different great branches of the Scythian family, the recognizable
radical coincidences are hardly sufficient, if they are sufficient, to establish their unity as
proceeding from the same stock: a reliable basis for comparison with other families is
certainly not furnished us here. Nor was the Scythian the only family in establishing whose
unity we were obliged to add the evidence of morphological structure to that of material
correspondences: there were at least two, the monosyllabic in south-eastern Asia and the
American, which were founded almost solely on accordance of type. And the former of them
is a striking illustration of the power of phonetic corruption to alter and disguise the bare roots
of language, without help from composition and fusion of elements. If we cannot find
material correspondences enough between the pure radicals of Chinese, Siamese, and
Burmese to prove these three tongues akin, but must call in, to aid the conclusion, their
common characteristic of monosyllabism, what hope can we possibly entertain of proving
either of them akin with Mongolian or Polynesian, for example, with which they have no
morphological affinity? Who will be so sanguine as to expect to discover, amid the blind
confusion of the American languages, where there are scores of groups which seem to be
totally diverse in constituent material, the radical elements which have lain at the basis of
their common development? Apparent resemblances among apparent roots of the different
families are, indeed, to be found: but they are wholly worthless as evidences of historical
connection. To the general presumption of their accidental nature is to be farther added the
virtual certainty that the elements in which they appear are not ultimate roots at all, but the
products of recent growth. There is nothing, it may be remarked, in the character of ultimate
roots which should exempt them from the common liability to exhibit fortuitous coincidences,
but rather the contrary. The system of sounds employed in the rudimentary stage of linguistic
growth was comparatively scanty, the circle of ideas represented by the roots was narrow and
limited, the application of each root more vague and indeterminate; hence accidental
analogies of form and meaning might even more reasonably be looked for between the radical
elements of unconnected families than between their later developed words.
For these reasons it is that the comparison of roots is not likely to lead to any satisfactory
results even in the most favorable cases, and cannot possibly be made fruitful of valuable and
trustworthy conclusions through the whole body of human language. There are, it is true, not
a few philologists -- and among them some authorities deserving of the highest respect -- who
hold that correspondences enough have been found between Indo-European and Semitic roots
to prove the ultimate connection of those two families of language: but the number is yet
greater of those who regard the asserted proof as altogether nugatory. The attempt has been
made above (in the eighth lecture) to show that the governing presumption in the case is not a
purely linguistic one, but rather a historical; and it is one which is quite as likely to be
weakened as to be strengthened by the results of future researches. But, as regards the point
now under discussion, the admission or rejection of a genetic tie between these two particular
families, or even between these and the Scythian and Chinese, would make no manner of
difference; there would still remain the impossibility of extending a like tie, by linguistic
means, to the other great families.
Our general conclusion, then, which may be looked upon as incontrovertibly established, is
this: if the tribes of men are of different parentage, their languages could not be expected to be
more unlike than they in fact are; while, on the other hand, if all mankind are of one blood,
their tongues need not be more alike than we actually find them to be. The evidence of
language can never guide us to any positive conclusion respecting the specific unity or
diversity of human races.
Notes
1. Lectures, first series, eighth lecture. [return to text]
2. In his Letter on the Classification of the Turanian Languages, p. 21 seq.; see also his
Lectures, first series. [return to text]
3. See his paper, "Contribution to the Morphology of Language," in the Memoirs of the
Academy of St. Petersburg, Vol. i, No. 7 (1859); also, the Introduction to his work, the
German Language (Stuttgart, 1860), p. 11 seq. [return to text]
4. Of course the parallel is to be regarded as only an imperfect one; though these three
words are to our apprehension primitives, they are far from being ultimate roots; they
all either contain formative elements added to such a root, or have possessed and lost
them; each is, to be sure, employable as noun, adjective, or verb, without change of
form, yet not, like Chinese roots, in virtue of an original indefiniteness of meaning, but
as one distinct part of speech is in our usage convertible directly into others; nor can it
be said that, even as they stand, they are altogether formless; for each is defined in
certain relations by the absence of formative elements which it would otherwise
exhibit: water is shown to be singular by lacking an s, fish and like to be plural by the
absence of s from like. [return to text]
5. Professor Schleicher, indeed, adopts this emblem as that of the Indo-European root
also, since he holds the view, briefly stated and controverted above (in the eighth
lecture), that the radicals of our family were originally liable to a regular variation, of
symbolic significance, for purposes of grammatical expression. I regard it, on the
contrary, as the weak point in his system, as applied by himself, that it does not
distinguish an internal flection like the Semitic -- which, so far as we can trace its
history, is ultimate and original, and which continues in full force, in old material and
in new formations, through the whole history of the languages -- from one like the
Indo-European, which is rather secondary and accidental, constantly arising in new
cases under the influence of phonetic circumstances, but never winning a pervading
force, and in many members of the family hardly taking on anywhere a regular form
and office, as significant of relations. [return to text]
6. See the latter's Charakteristik etc., pp. 70, 327. [return to text]
CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
EDUARD SIEVERS
FOUNDATIONS OF PHONETICS
From Grundzüge der Phonetik zur Einführung in das
Studium der Lautlehre der indogermanischen Sprachen
(Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1901⁵), pp. 1-9, 267-69, 272
Editor's Introduction
The most definitive achievement of nineteenth-century linguistics may be in articulatory
phonetics. By the end of the century Jespersen, Sweet, Sievers and others had gained a control
of the subject which has been surpassed only in details. Accordingly, sections from one of the
standard works on phonetics have been chosen as the last in this anthology.
These sections indicate that Sievers held some linguistic views which we generally consider
characteristics of more recent linguistics. Section 11 stresses the importance of system in
language; entities are to be defined in it. Section 14 speaks of "individual sounds" as
abstractions which are dependent on the point of view of the linguist; this statement is not
unlike definitions of the phoneme given in the 1930's. Possibly most notable is Sievers'
insistence that the sentence is the minimum linguistic unit. Like other views given in these
few sections, this is remarkably in keeping with those held today; one wonders why it had so
little influence in 1876 and during the subsequent decades when Sievers' handbook was
revised, reprinted and widely used.
Sievers' views on historical linguistics seem equally contemporary. Sound change is a
modification of Bildungsfaktoren-formative features. Sound law is temperately defined. These
excerpts may illustrate that students will derive greater profit by reading the outstanding
works of the neogrammarians and their predecessors than by reading about them.
I. Present Position, Goals and Methods of Phonetics
1. By phonetics we mean the study of the forming of speech, that is, of the production, the
characteristics and the use of sounds in the forming of syllables, words and sentences, and
finally of the general conditions of their change and decay. Phonetics, then, is a border area
between physics, insofar as it is concerned with the acoustic analysis of individual quantities
of sound, physiology, insofar as it investigates the functions of the organs which are used in
producing and perceiving speech, and finally linguistics, insofar as it gives information about
the nature of one of its important aims.
2. Only for the two above-mentioned scientific disciplines can the investigation of the origin
and the nature of the individual sounds from which a language is constructed be an end in
itself. For the linguist, phonetics is only an ancillary science. Accordingly the interest of the
individual disciplines in its different sub-areas will vary. The task and most important goal of
scientific investigation is to ascertain the general, basic laws concerning the nature, formation
and utilization of the speech sounds. The linguist's task on the other hand is to pursue these
basic laws into all the ramifications which have taken place in the various languages and
dialects and to make the results of this specialized research useful to his scholarly aims. The
natural scientist will accordingly be concerned with the general, the theoretical, while the
linguist is primarily interested in the specific data and their particular application to the
material to the study of which he dedicates himself.
3. Within the wide area included in the study of language, the studies which are directed at the
investigation of living languages undoubtedly have the most direct and practically significant
part in the discoveries relating to the nature of linguistic phenomena, which phonetics is able
to provide; for only on the basis of a knowledge of phonetics can the facts in the
pronunciation of the various idioms be determined. The recognition of the accuracy of this
statement has become increasingly widespread, and accordingly practical phonetic research
has striven more and more to meet the needs of the modern study of language. It has directed
itself particularly toward obtaining reliable material for study while limiting theoretical
discussion as much as possible, and reducing this material to simple rules in keeping with
practical demands. The success which these attempts have had, is adequate proof that the path
begun was the correct one for the solution to this undertaking. It seems all the more doubtful
whether the unduly great emphasis placed upon the so-called experimental phonetics with its
purely mechanical measuring and representation, even by some who formerly represented the
practical position, will in the long run work more to the advantage than to the detriment of the
physiological side of the discipline, notwithstanding a series of results with practical value,
which experimental phonetics has thus far produced.
4. The relation of phonetics to historical-comparative linguistics is also different from its role
for the investigator of living languages. The practical aspect of phonetics is here important
only insofar as it may be necessary to ascertain the pronunciation of the living members of a
language or dialect group whose history is to be investigated. The linguist needs such
identification especially to augment the incomplete pictures of linguistic phenomena which
the incomplete writing systems of ancient and modern times afford; for only too often do
these systems conceal peculiarities of pronunciation which are of importance in the
development of the language. But the center of the interest that linguistic research has in
phonetics surely lies in another area. Phonetics must enlighten the historical linguist first of all
concerning the nature, the development and the relationships of the various phonetic
processes whose beginning and end he has determined by means of a historical study of
language. It can do this because it shows him series of developmental stages in the
comparison of living languages and dialects, which in turn, by suggesting analogies, lead him
to reliable conclusions concerning the course of development of the individual language, and
because it represents for him, in paradigm form, the relationship between the force which
conditions linguistic change and the individual examples of the resulting change, again from
the example of living language. The historical linguist, then, needs detailed, individual
descriptions of the pronunciation of a given idiom less than does a scholar who is
investigating a modern language; and he has even less need to construct a general system in
which the individual sounds of the various languages are once and for all ordered according to
a definite arrangement. One can even say that while for the theoretical phonetician the system
and the precise analysis of individual sound classes and sounds which result from it stand in
the center of interest, the historical linguist who pursues the historically attested changes and
shifts of precisely these formations will derive the most benefit from systematic consideration
precisely of the points of contact between the individual subclassifications which the
systematizer sets up and tries to keep distinct as best he can.
5. It would be impossible for any single presentation of phonetics to do justice to the demands
of all the above- mentioned areas of interest. For the phonetician with interests in science, the
specialized linguistic material which is necessary for the philologist and linguist will scarcely
ever be available in any quantity. Moreover he lacks interest, since even a very large
accumulation of material can offer him no real help in the formulation of the general
statements concerning language formation, for which he is striving. Still further afield for him
are the historical linguist's problems of the development of language. And again only the
smallest number of those who lean toward philology will want to or be able to follow the
scientist in the details of his anatomical, physiological and physical research. Granted that
some one individual might succeed in assembling all the knowledge necessary for presenting
a comprehensive survey of phonetics, and in putting this down in a textbook of general
phonetics, such a work would still not meet the needs of the student, who, after all, almost
invariably approaches phonetics with a limited range of interest and accordingly brings to the
subject an understanding for only one or the other portion of it, not for all.
6. Because of these considerations it seems necessary to abandon all thoughts of a general
survey of phonetics in favor of individual presentations which direct greater attention to the
particular requirements of the various areas of interest, while touching upon only the most
essential aspects of the subject as a whole, and that but briefly. The present study, for
example, is aimed at one such specialized field. In the first place it is intended to be an
introduction to the study of the phonology of the older Indo-European languages,
approximately in the extent to which they are represented in the "Library of Indo-European
Grammars"; and it tries to do justice to this task by orienting the reader through selected
examples about a number of phonetic problems which are pertinent to an understanding of the
development of Indo-European phonology. Anything else which is included to make the
presentation of the material more complete is intended only as an incidental supplement
through which the author attempted, to the best of his ability, to make the book useful to
historical linguists outside the field of Indo-European. It will be obvious that the book,
because of this emphasis on the historical aspect, is not aimed at the scientist; nor does it meet
the needs of the specialist in modern languages, and is useful in their teaching only insofar as
that which is of use to the historical linguist may also be of use in language teaching.
7. It lies in the very nature of the problem that a certain amount of work with the spoken
language is indispensible for any training in phonetics. A mere description will never be able
to convey accurately all the fine points of pronunciation which determine the real character of
a language or dialect, and along with it often the particular direction of its further
development, while the ear trained through oral practice is readily able to grasp these. It may
be most readily possible to present the basic scientific laws of language formation
theoretically while keeping them generally understandable. But the greater phonetics is to be
made useful for the practical purposes of teaching languages or linguistic research, the more
instruction of the teacher must be replaced by direct observation on the part of the learner
himself. A textbook of phonetics, then, if it is to be useful to the student of linguistics, must
be essentially nothing other than an introduction to the proper use of observation, which in
turn affords the student the solid foundation for the practical utilization of the phonetic
principles which have been acquired in this way.
8. It follows that the task of the language teacher, whose field of observation is limited
essentially to the normal pronunciation of the language he is teaching, is relatively simple.
The scholar engaged in research, on the other hand, cannot consider such restriction. The
more complicated the phonological problems whose solution he is seeking may be, the more
comprehensive and secure his survey of the conditions of development of living idioms must
be, if he is to avoid continually exposing himself to the danger of reaching for false means of
explanation.
9. Above all, the serious student of language who hopes to realize concrete profit for his
science through the study of phonetics must strive from the beginning to free himself from a
number of prejudices to which the scholar is driven, partially through the schools, partially
through the practical activity of living, and from which learned circles are least of all free.
The first of these prejudices is the opinion that normal or natural speech is found only in the
languages of writing or culture. The necessary presupposition for this doctrine, the basic unity
of languages, exists only on paper; a tremendous number of opinions will, therefore, become
entangled in an insoluble conflict if, in accordance with bad habits of the past, the individual
arbitrarily attributes his own pronunciation to the letters of a writing system, and makes this
the only basis for his conclusions concerning foreign languages. And even if there did actually
exist somewhere a relatively large entity within a language (a phenomenon which could only
be developed, as experience shows, through artificial cultivation starting from a writing
system transmitted from an earlier period of the language), how could the views derived from
it help to explain the development of language, which so often moves from a condition of
simplicity to one of complexity? Furthermore, the individual modern languages are too distant
from one another to permit with requisite certainty from comparison of them alone relatively
general statements concerning the development of sounds and of speech. Dialects must be
used to fill the gap, since they alone are in a position to supply the links missing in the
standard languages. Furthermore, dialects are generally in a position to give the observer a
much clearer picture of the consistency of pronunciation and the development of sounds than
do the written and standard languages, which at any time not only exhibit a mixture of sound
and speech forms, having widely divergent origins, but also are constantly subject to a large
number of unpredictable influences from individual speakers than is the idiom of the lower
classes which is transmitted only through the unconscious and therefore more steady tradition
of oral communication.
10. Each linguist must accordingly use dialects which are familiar to him from his youth as
the starting point for all studies in phonetics. If an actual folk dialect is not available to him,
he must at least adhere to the natural and easy colloquial speech of the educated people of his
home, and not to the generally artificially contrived and therefore often contradictory manner
of speaking of the schools, the pulpit, the theater, or the drawing room. Only when he has
achieved complete clarity with regard to all phonetic phenomena of his own dialect should he
turn to the study first of related dialects and languages, and finally to those more distant. If it
is feasible, one should attempt to attain perfect fluency in one or more dialects.
11. Some additional comments will be found below, in the concluding remarks to chapter 11,
especially concerning the particulars of examining the sound systems of related dialects as
one's study progresses. But even here it must be pointed out most emphatically that the tasks
of historical phonetics cannot be solved with a mere statistical consideration of individual
sounds and their changes. For in general it is not the individual sound which undergoes
change according to certain universally valid laws, but rather there is usually a corresponding
development of corresponding series of sounds in corresponding positions (cf. for example
the uniform shift of the series of tenues, mediae and aspiratae in the Germanic consonant
shift, or the transformation of entire vowel systems through increase or diminution of the
specific articulation of the vowels, etc.); generally specific points of view can also be
discovered which help explain the change of one such series of sounds from the overall
constitution of the system as well as of the particular position of that series in it.
12. Above all, then, one should seek an exact insight into the structure of every phonological
system which must be treated. One will do well always to remember that this is determined
not so much by the number of sounds themselves which happen to be mixed together in the
system as by the relationship of these individual members with one another; and furthermore
that the acoustic impression of a sound is not the essential thing, but rather the manner in
which it is formed. For what we call sound change is just a secondary result of modifications
of one or more of this kind of formative factors through whose interaction a sound is
produced.
13. It must be emphasized that the acquisition of such phonetic training, as that emphasized
here from the start, is no easy matter. It requires a tireless, lengthy training of the speech
organs, and particularly in connection with the last statement of the hearing. For on the one
hand the ear tends to be deaf to a certain extent to sounds which are foreign to it or to the
differences of these from sounds which are familiar to it; or when a difference is actually
perceived, we often hear intermediates somewhere between the unfamiliar and our own
sounds, which arise only through the fact that the impression of one's own sounds blends with
that of the corresponding unfamiliar sounds which are heard. On the other hand, because of
the insensitivity of hearing to minor differences in the impression of sounds, we often run the
risk of attributing such articulations to unfamiliar sounds which one can grasp only through
hearing, by means of which one can approach the acoustic effect of them in attempts at
imitation, but quite often one's own articulation does not correspond to the unfamiliar ones.
One will therefore be able to say that a preliminary conclusion in phonetic training in this
direction has only been acquired when the observer is able to perceive correctly any
unfamiliar sound, preferably by ear alone, and to characterize it according to its position in its
own system as well as its relationship to corresponding sounds of other systems. Cautious
occupation with experimental phonetic studies may now and then be useful as a preliminary
step in attaining this goal, because it can occasionally clear up deficiencies in the powers of
observation especially for the indifferent beginner, which have thus far gone unnoticed. But
only he who succeeds in sharpening his senses to such an extent that he need no longer remain
subject to the often deceptive, dead apparatus attains complete mastery over his attainment.
14. Current grammatical practice usually takes letters or sounds as a starting point, and then
builds up to consideration of syllables, words, and sentences. But it is self-evident that a
phonetics which proceeds very systematically would have to begin with the investigation of
the sentence, because only the sentence exists in the spoken language as an entity which is
given by itself and which can be directly observed. The word, the syllable, the individual
sound often take on different forms in the "sentence" (this word is understood in the broader
sense in which it is generally used; for the problem itself cf. below, 611 ff); and the individual
sound often does not even exist isolated in speech in the absolute form in which it is generally
presented in grammars. Therefore the sentence ought to be investigated first, with all the
variations which it can experience in oral expression (e.g. those, which the same "sentence"
experiences when it is used as simple declarative, as exclamatory, as interrogative, etc., and
the like). Only after one has learned to take these variable characteristics of the sentence into
consideration should one go on to the analysis of the sentence itself, that is, to the
investigation of the individual rhythmic groups of speech (620 ff.) and of the syllables as
components of these rhythmic groups. Only to this should the analysis of syllables as such
and of their individual sounds be attached. That which finally results as definition of the
individual sound is in the end largely an abstraction dependent on arbitrarily selected points of
view which is made from the frequently variable forms under which this socalled individual
sound can appear in continuous human speech. For practical reasons it is customary also in
the study of phonetics to proceed from the simplest elements to the more complex formations,
and this generally adopted method is also retained in the present work. If, however, one
adheres to this method, one must always bear in mind the important fact, that we have by no
means exhausted all that there is to be said about the nature of the individual sound in living
speech with the few things we can express concerning the artificially isolated individual
sound. In any case, the construction of a mere sound system, however important it may be in
itself, always remains one of the most elementary tasks of the phonetician, in whose realm all
the various phenomena of spoken language fall. One should not, then, be content with the
study of sounds per se, but must examine with equal exactitude the formation of syllables, of
rhythmic units and sentences, always with one's native language as the starting point. The
knowledge thus obtained must then be tested by comparing other living languages and
dialects, and only when one finds that he is completely equipped for these, should he proceed
to the application of phonetic criteria for the elucidation of older stages of speech and their
gradual change to their modern representatives.
IV. Sound Change and Sound Development
722. It is usual for the traditional pronunciation of the individual forms of speech, (sounds,
groups of sounds, syllables, rhythmic groups, etc.), to change in the course of time. Instead of
the early OHG gasti, for example, there is the later (common OHG) gestiand in its stead late
OHG and MHG geste; OHG piligrîm with m corresponds to the Latin peregrinus, with n; and
the MLG bersten with the sequence er corresponds to the OLG brestan, with re, etc. The term
"change in pronunciation" best describes the results of such modifications; but instead the
form "sound change" has come into use. And this term is acceptable when one considers that
even the sum total of the changes in the pronunciation of complicated formations (as of a
sound group, a syllable, a word) are composed of the changes which the individual sounds of
these complexes undergo.
723. Every sound change is based upon inadequate reproduction of the traditional
pronunciation. The formation of new forms of pronunciation then originates with a single
individual or with a group of individuals and only through imitation are such individual
innovations spread adequately throughout larger parts of a speech community, or even its
entirety. In the process it is rather unimportant for the further development of a language
where the innovation begins, whether within one and the same generation of speakers or in
the process of transmitting speech from one generation to the other. Apparently both forms of
innovation have a characteristic role in language change.
725. Causes of the Sound Change. Even today the opinion is very widespread that all sound
change proceeds from striving toward an easier manner of pronunciation, or in other words
that it is always based on a decrease of effort ("sound weakening") and never on an increase
("sound strengthening"). We can admit that many phenomena in the development of
languages may be brought under this heading, but in the generality with which the statement
is produced it is definitely false. Its incorrectness can readily be seen, even from a very
superficial examination of the various historically attested directions of sound development.
When an original tenuis becomes a media, that is, when a fortis becomes a lenis, as in the
change from Latin patrem to Italian padre, and when this lenis disappears completely as in the
corresponding Provençal paire, French père, this clearly must be designated as an instance of
weakening. But also the directly opposite series of development is found, as for example on
Germanic soil, where we see a ddj arise from simple j (Gothic twaddje from *twaije, etc.) and
all original mediae change to tenues or affricates (Gk déka, Lat. decem, Gothic taíhun, OHG
zëhan). The sphere of the vowels is similar. For example, the same languages frequently
enough (if partly in different periods) show simplification of diphthongs to long vowels and
diphthongization of originally simple vowels (OHG mêr, lôn as opposed to Goth. máis, láun;
and OHG hiar, fuor as opposed to Goth. hêr, fôr; or Ital. oro beside Lat. aurum and Ital.
buono, Pietro beside Lat. bonum, Petrum etc.) Particularly interesting phenomena along this
line are found in languages like Danish, which forms its initial tenues very energetically and
with strong aspiration, whereas in medial or final position following a vowel it has permitted
them to sink to fricatives of very little energy or even to disappear completely.
726. These few examples are sufficient to show that if the concept of the simplification of
pronunciation is to be retained at all, it must be conceived in a very relative sense (often it will
be a question of nothing more than simple fashion). In general it must be carefully noted that
differences in difficulty of producing speech sounds are extremely minute, and that actual
difficulties with regard to imitation generally exist only with regard to unfamiliar sounds. Just
as every part of the human body is particularly trained through special practice for the one
service which it performs every day, but becomes less suited or even completely useless for
other tasks, so the human speech organs attain a complete mastery of all the articulatory
movements, which are required for one's native language, through the practice in the
production of sounds and groups of sounds in this language which one carries on continually
since childhood. But only of these sounds! After the organs of speech have received special
training for and through the service determined for them, everything which falls outside the
limits of the familiar articulatory movements seems difficult. Naturally this applies with
regard to the sounds of one language as well as another: the Englishman has the same
difficulty in pronouncing the German ch or the uvular or tongue trilled r or the dorsal d, t as
the German speaker has in imitating the English th or the cerebral r or the cerebral d, t, etc.
Such difficulties, however, play a role of course only in the transfer of a language from one
people to another (accordingly by speech borrowing in the broadest sense of the word).
732. The word sound law, as one sees, is not to be conceived in the sense in which one speaks
of natural laws. It is not meant to imply that under certain given conditions a certain result
must necessarily follow everywhere; but it should merely indicate that, if somewhere under
certain conditions a shift in the manner of articulation has occurred, the new manner of
articulation must be applied without exception in all instances which are subject to exactly the
same conditions.