Surprise at length of Tocharian nouns

Melanie Malzahn Surprise at length of Tocharian nouns Abstract: The Tocharian languages exhibit many examples of the lengthened grade in roots of nominal stems. We find forms that, on the one hand, descend from PIE paradigms in which lengthened grades are expected given our current understanding of ablaut patterns, e. g. TA śanweṃ ‘jaws’, which descends either from an acrostatic u-stem or from a PIE denominative o-stem that denoted appurtenance and was formed by vṛddhisation. On the other hand, there are lengthened grades in Tocharian nouns that do come as a surprise as is the case with TB ñem/TA ñom ‘name’, if this goes back to a protoform PIE *h₁nḗh₃-m. These unexpected lengthened-grade forms will be discussed especially in the context of the so-called Narten system. Keywords: Tocharian, nominal word formation, vocalism, lengthened grade, Narten system Melanie Malzahn: University of Vienna; [email protected] When it comes to reconstructing details of PIE nominal morphology, Tocharian does not take pride of place. Nevertheless, there are quite a few Tocharian nouns showing what seems to be a pre-Proto-Tocharian (pre-PT) lengthened grade in the root or in a nominal suffix.1 In this paper, I tackle what seem to be inherited lengthened grades of roots reflected in Tocharian nouns.2 1 Thematic nouns and what may be derivatives from thematic nouns Lengthened grades found in root syllables of both thematic nouns and athematic nouns that may have been derived from thematic nouns (such as *-i-, *-n-, and 1 There are plenty of such pre-PT lengthened grades in the Tocharian verbal system; see Malzahn 2010 passim. 2 As for suffixal ablaut, e. g., TB maśce ‘fist’ evidently forms an equation with Proto-Indo-Iranian *musti- ‘fist’, but seems to attest to a quite unexpected PIE nom.sg. ending *-tē(y) > pre-PT *-tēs instead of the regular *-ti-s met in Indo-Iranian. 10.1515/if-2014-0014 Bereitgestellt von | Vienna University Library Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 12.07.17 15:18 260 Melanie Malzahn *-eh₂- stems) come as no surprise, as PIE had denominative o-stems which were formed by vṛddhisation of the root vowel of the base noun (i. e., addition of an eor o-vowel) and denoted appurtenance. Derivatives of such a morphological structure were probably used in order to substantivize adjectives, as well (as per Weiss 2007: 261). Both TB yente/TA want ‘wind’ < *h₂wēh₁-t-o- (sic, as per Schindler 1994: 399; Widmer 1997: 28; evidently analyzed as a substantivized variant of a participle with Narten root ablaut *h₂weh₁-t- by Schindler; somewhat differently Widmer)3 and TB yerpe (> TA yerpe) ‘orb’ < *h2/3 ērbʰ-o- (see Adams 2013: 548; analyzed as the result of a “substantivization by vṛddhi” of a verbal adjective *h₃erbʰó- ‘turning’ by Weiss 2007: 260f.) seem to exhibit precisely this process. As far as leges artis are concerned, TB śer(u)we/TA śaru ‘hunter’ may be interpreted as the vṛddhi derivative of a solid-looking basic noun as well, i. e., for an adjective of appurtenance based on PIE *ḱerwo- ‘stag’, as suggested by Jasanoff apud Nussbaum 1986: 8 (other etymological analyses have been proposed, however).4 In a similar vein, it is tempting to construe TB ṣpel ‘mud’ (masc.), which, on the claim of Adams (2013: 731), belongs with Gk. πηλός ‘mud, clay, dung’ and is derived from *spēh₂l-,5 as a masculine endocentric substantivization in *-i-6 of a vṛddhi adjective *(s)pēh₂lo- ‘muddy’ based on the noun *(s)peh₂lo- ‘mud’, a direct reflex of which we would possibly have in the Greek word for ‛mud’. The following Tocharian nouns that also seem to show a lengthened grade in the root may have started out as (derivatives from) thematic vṛddhi formations as well, but here such an analysis is less attractive to account for the morphological structure and/or semantics: – TB ariwe* ‘ram, male goat’ (Adams 2013: 24: < *h₁ōreywo- ~ Skt. āreya- ‘ram’), – TB āntse, TA es ‘shoulder’ < PT *ānsæ usually derived from a preform *ōms-o(Adams 2013: 46; but see also Hackstein 2002: 190f. on the root ablaut), 3 Actually a protoform *h₂weh₁-to- lacking vṛddhi would in my view have resulted in Late pre-PT *wento-; see Malzahn 2011: 97, fn. 32. 4 See Adams 2013: 695; alternatively, Pinault (2006: 179–181; cf. 2008: 588f.) takes the Tocharian word to be a borrowing from a non-Indo-European Central Asiatic language. 5 *-h₂- should be set up because of the Doric evidence pointing to Proto-Greek *-ā-; but note that for the Greek word, Meillet suggested (see Meillet 1905 and Ernout & Meillet 1985: 645) a completely different account. It is also possible to analyze TB ṣpel as acrostatic *l-stem (possibly once basic to the Greek noun, if this had started out as an adjective itself). As for the root involved, one might entertain the possibility that it is the *√speh₂ said to underlie Ved. sphāyate ‘become fat’ and Hittite išpai-i /išpi- ‘to get full, to be filled, to be satiated’ by Nussbaum apud Jasanoff 1994: 160, fn. 19 and Jasanoff 2003: 108f. (in this case, the original semantics of Gk. πηλός may have been “(earth) satiated with water”); alternatively, these verbs could be derived from a root *√sph eh₁ “wunschgemäß geraten, gelingen” (LIV²: 584). 6 See Nussbaum apud Vine 2006: 151. Bereitgestellt von | Vienna University Library Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 12.07.17 15:18 Surprise at length of Tocharian nouns – – – – – 261 TB yepe ‘knife’ < PT *w’æpæ, cf. Goth. wēpn, etc. ‘weapon’ (according to Adams 2013: 547 from a pre-PT *n-stem “*wēb-en-”), TB yerkwanto ‘wheel’, according to Hilmarsson 1986: 275 a vṛddhi formation *h₂wērg-wt-ōn- with individualizing -ōn-,7 TB yetse ‘skin’: according to Adams 2013: 549 just like German Aas ‘carrion’ from *h₁ēd-so- *‘that which one eats’, with a semantic development first to *‘flesh’ and then to ‘skin’, TA yṣaṃ ‘trench, moat’: from *sēd-n-o- > PT *ṣænæ according to Pinault 2008: 208, TB sāle ‘ground, basis’; said to derive from a PIE *sōlo- by Adams 2013: 748. Here may finally also belong TB yerter ‘wheelrim, felloe’, although this noun looks at first sight rather like a stem with a suffix *-tor- (such as *h₂wērg-tor-, as set up by Adams 2013: 548) or *-or- (such as *wērt-or(-), as set up by Widmer 1997: 47f.). According to Pinault (2011: 165) it is in fact a denominative in *-wer-/wenderived from a lengthened-grade formation *h₂ēr-to- ‘joint’. 2 Athematic nouns As for lengthened grades of roots in athematic nouns that are not obvious derivatives from thematic vṛddhi formations, some of them are completely unremarkable (at least for followers of the Schindler School), e. g., the TA dual form śanweṃ ‘jaws’, which evidently attests a lengthened grade *ǵēn-, and can be derived from the paradigm of an acrostatic u-stem that had an *ē-grade rather than an *o-grade of the root in the strong case forms (as per Nikolaev 2010a: 1–18, esp. 4f. with refs.8 ; for this type of u-stems in general, see again Nikolaev 2010a: 221, 327f. and also Nikolaev 2010b: 195f.). Similarly, the *ē-grade i-stem TB yel, TA wal < *wēl-i- ‘worm’ is reminiscent of the Greek abstract i-stem δῆρις ‘battle, contest’, which also shows an *ē-grade. Elsewhere, however, lengthened-grade nominal roots in Tocharian do come as a surprise, in particular in the case of one of the most famous Tocharian nouns, 7 But see also Malzahn 2010: 17, fn. 21 on the possibility of secondary palatalization. For other ways to cope with the TA equivalent wärkänt having -ä- instead of expected -a-; see Adams 2013: 547f. 8 Here is also made mention of an alternative account by Klingenschmitt, who tried to explain the form as the continuant of a thematic vṛddhi formation based on the very u-stem. This reference had to be omitted in the English summary on pages 300–305. Bereitgestellt von | Vienna University Library Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 12.07.17 15:18 262 Melanie Malzahn TB ñem/TA ñom ‘name’. This noun is now often derived from a lengthened-grade protoform PIE *h₁nḗh₃-m (allegedly backed by evidence from Uralic languages), above all by Neri 2006: 213, 236. However, there are also many scholars who deny that Tocharian ñ- has to be explained by reconstructing a pre-PT root vowel *-ē-; see above all Pinault 2008: 194. Now it is certainly true that a lengthened-grade protoform *h₁nḗh₃-m would be unwelcome, since neuter men-stems typically inflect proterokinetically and not acrostatically. However, the same can be said of neuter -wer-/-wen- stems, whereas Hittite mēhur ‘time’ and šēhur ‘urine’, as analyzed by Eichner (1973), are acrostatically inflected nouns as well. Eichner’s analysis is bolstered by genitive forms in -unas, i. e., we do not find in these two nouns a genitive in -waš or -wenaš from typically proterokinetic *-wen-(o)s. These two famous etymological analyses have, however, recently been called into question by Kloekhorst (2008: 568) and Kümmel (2011).9 Finally, at least Anatolian seems to attest to the existence of some acrostatically inflected neuter s-stems (see above all Rieken 1999: 187–190 and most recently Melchert 2010), which flies into the face of Schindler’s well-known claim that the neuter s-stems had also inflected proterokinetically only. 3 Narten forms? Whereas there are no principled reasons against assuming acrostatically inflected -men-, -wer-/-wen-, and -s-stems that existed beside proterokinetically inflected stems built with the very same suffixes, the TB form yesti ‘piece of cloth’ < *wḗstoy (Malzahn 2004) is truly bizarre, since it combines ē-acrostatic root ablaut with a suffix ablaut typical of holokinetic nouns. In cases like these, I think one should turn to Schindler’s suggestion (Schindler 1994: 398f.) that such irregular lengthened grades or full grades of roots found in nouns are conditioned by the existence of verbal Narten forms, i. e. verb forms that differ from that of the normal type in that they have a lengthened grade or a full grade where the normal type offers a full grade or a zero grade, respectively.10 To be sure, Schindler’s original claim11 was much too strong and should 9 Note that according to Melchert 1983: 9, fn. 23, Hittite pankur, pankunaš also belongs here (differently on pankur, Puhvel 2012: 104–109). 10 See also Jasanoff 2003: 109. 11 “Verbalen Nartenformationen entsprechen systematisch Nominalbildungen mit analogen Ablautverhältnissen. Das läßt auf zwei ursprüngliche Wurzeltypen schließen, Standard- und Nartenwurzeln.” Bereitgestellt von | Vienna University Library Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 12.07.17 15:18 Surprise at length of Tocharian nouns 263 nowadays be abandoned, as Kümmel (1998) has shown that from one and the same root both Narten and non-Narten verbal paradigms could be built in IndoEuropean;12 by the same token, if one is determined to preserve the idea of verbal Narten formations (differently, e. g., de Vaan 2004), it is indeed reasonable to assume that as a consequence of the principle of analogy, lengthened grades and full grades found in verbal (so-called) Narten paradigms could be transferred into respective nominal forms at least sporadically, i. e., precisely non-systematically. As far as the principle of introducing the root ablaut of certain verbal forms into cognate nominal forms via analogy goes, it may suffice to mention some examples from Ancient Greek, e. g., Forssman’s claim that Greek βίος ‘life’ is due to the analogical reshaping of a regular o-grade abstract *boos that came under the influence of aoristic βιῶναι ‘live, survive’ (Forssman 1977: 81, fn. 8). Similarly, the quite regular replacement of the archaic Greek type πῶμα ‘drink’ by the more recent type of πόμα that was recently discussed by Gunkel (2011) was probably due to analogical influence from the forms of the 1.sg. perfect middle, as first suggested by Solmsen (1901: 241).13 I myself exploited such a strategy before, above all in my paper on TB ñyās ‘desire’, TB ñāsso*, obl. ñāssa ‘share’ (Malzahn 2004), where I tried to connect the obvious pre-PT root vowel *ō of these two nouns with evidence for respective (non-denominative) verbal forms with *ō (Malzahn 2004: 237), and furthermore with the unexpected pre-PT *e-grade of the verbal stem in -sk- TB ñäsk- ‘to seek, desire, demand’. As for TB yesti ‘piece of cloth’ from pre-PT *wḗstoy, I have already pointed out (Malzahn 2010: 897; Malzahn 2012: 236, fn. 11) that there are good reasons to derive the pre-TA present stem *w(’)æs’ä- ‘don (tr.)’, witnessed by the forms TA waṣlaṃ and TA wassi, from a pre-PT (secondarily thematicized) athematic active present paradigm 3.sg. *wḗs-ti, 3.pl. *wés-ti;14 of the attested forms, at least wassi militates against deriving the TA present from the PIE “causative” *woséye/o- that was no doubt the ancestor of Hittite wašše/a- ‘clothe’ (see, e. g., Melchert 1994: 130 with refs.). Note that precisely on account of the Tocharian evidence I also set up (again in Malzahn 2010: 897) a non-Narten root aorist *us-to for this very root, thereby 12 Which, incidentally, once must have been Schindler’s view as well. As early as 1975, he (implicitly) assumed that from a root *√h₁ed ‘bite’ both a Narten present *h₁ēd-ti/*h₁ed-ti and a non-Narten aorist, which is continued only by its PIE participle formation *h₁dont- ‘tooth’, had been formed in PIE; see Schindler 1975: 62. 13 It is also rather obvious that the lengthened grade met in Gk. γῆρας ‘old age’ was taken over secondarily from verbal forms (cf. Pinault in his talk at the Leiden Arbeitstagung). 14 See also Pinault in this volume. Bereitgestellt von | Vienna University Library Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 12.07.17 15:18 264 Melanie Malzahn clearly denying that there were special “Narten roots” from which no zero-grade forms were (at least originally) built at all. Finally, I would like to argue that a weak version of Schindler’s explanatory principle can indeed help to explain TB śerkw ‘cord, string’/TA nom.pl. śorkmi ‘strings’15 , which Hilmarsson (1984a: 25; 1986: 134) plausibly suggested to belong with the Tocharian verbal root kärk- ‘to bind, tie’16 and to derive from a pre-PT *kērg-w.17 If one accepts such an analysis, it may be best to derive such a prePT noun from a *-wer-/wen- stem by assuming that expected *kērg-w had been turned into *kērg-w by a sort of morphology-induced (or at least morphologybacked) phonological dissimilation of *-r...r 18 into *-r...n19 (in pre-PT, there did exist other neuter stems with a nom.-acc. sg. in *-, at least such ending in *-m, see, e. g., Hilmarsson 1984a: 25; 1986: 134f.). Alternatively, one may derive TB śerkw/TA nom.pl. śorkmi as well as TB taṅkw/TA tuṅk ‘love’, TB ṣaṅkw/TA ṣuṅk ‘throat’, TB sakw/TA suk ‘luck’ from neuter stems with a nom.acc.sg. in *-m, which will be done best by assuming that pre-PT *-m- could develop into PT *-walso if positioned immediately after a (labio)velar and in front of a vowel.20 This 15 Twice-attested TA śorki may belong here as well; see Malzahn forthcoming. 16 TB present gerundive kärkaṣṣäle, abstract karkäṣṣälyñe, PPt kärkau, PPt kekkärku (MQ); TA subj. 1.sg. kärkñam, 3.sg. kärkñäṣ, opt. 3.sg. kärñiṣ, s-pret. 3.pl. + pronoun śarkr-äm, PPt kakärku; cf. Carling 2009: 132 and Malzahn 2010: 572–574. 17 Some time later, Hilmarsson (1996: 87f.) set up the respective verbal root as “*kergw h-”, with the odd claim that the “labiovelar is shown by the rounding in A śorkmi ‘strings’ [...], while the preterite A śarkr-äṃ has preserved non-umlauted -a- due to morphological analogy” (see also Hilmarsson 1996: 217 on “B śerkw, A śorkäṃ*”: “The vowel A -o- shows that the form had a labiovelar”), as if in his later view the following -m- would not have been able to account for the -o- anymore; as for the reconstruction of the root-final labiovelar as media aspirata, his motivation here may have been the Baltic cognate, which does not show lengthening of the root vowel, as he may have expected from a root ending in a non-aspirated media on account of Winter’s Law. Note, however, that a root-final media aspirata is extremely unlikely in view of the root-initial tenuis. 18 For similar dissimilatory processes in Greek, see, e. g., Blanc 1999: 320f. 19 Differently, Hilmarsson (1984a: 25; 1986: 134) assumed that *-w in the nom. had spread from a gen.sg. *kerg-w-s by analogical levelling within the paradigm of an inherited acrostatically inflected neuter *-wer-/-wen- stem. One could also entertain the idea that the pre-PT stem in *-w had started out as the archaic neuter of an inherited possessive adjective in *-we/on- which was internally derived from an acrostatically inflected *-wer-/-wen- stem; but I think it is quite unlikely that what we have here is the reflex of an inherited acrostatic formation. See immediately below. 20 As for original neuter -men- stems showing a sound change pre-PT *-m- > PT *-w- between two vowels, see Malzahn 2005: 396–399. Bereitgestellt von | Vienna University Library Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 12.07.17 15:18 Surprise at length of Tocharian nouns 265 strategy is recommended by the presence of -m- in the respective plural forms of most of the nouns mentioned above.21 Given that (1) neuter *-wer-/-wen- and neuter *-men- stems were as a rule proterokinetically inflected nouns in PIE (as stated above sub 2.), (2) pre-PT *-w > PT *-wär 22 and above all its variant pre-PT *-wor > PT *-wær must have been a quite commonly used suffix (viz. to form verbal abstracts) even before the latter variant finally turned fully productive after having become associated with the preterit participles in PT *-wæṣ-,23 (3) a quite similar argument can be applied to pre-PT *-m > PT *-m/wäy,24 and (4) the PT root *kärk- ‘to bind’ seems to have formed a fully inflected verbal paradigm (with pre-PT lengthened-grade forms quite likely and even seemingly included),25 I think it is quite unlikely that we are dealing here with a noun inherited from the proto-language with unexpected *ē-acrostatic inflection (as precisely suggested by Hilmarsson in his paper on this noun). In my view, it is instead more plausible that this noun was just an inner-Tocharian formation that owed its pre-PT *ē-grade of the root to the respective pre-PT *ē-grade preterit that seems to be evidenced by the TA active Pt III 3.pl. form śarkr-äm.26 Abbreviations LIV² Helmut Rix (2001). Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. Unter Leitung von Helmut Rix bearbeitet von Martin J. Kümmel, Thomas Zehnder, Reiner Lipp, Brigitte Schirmer. 2nd ed. Wiesbaden: Reichert. 21 Especially for this reason, Hilmarsson (1984: 25f. 1986: 134f.) also tried to explain both TB ṣaṅkw/TA ṣuṅk and TB sakw/TA suk (but not TB śerkw/TA nom.pl. śorkmi) as outcomes of a neuter *-men- stem, but in a completely different way. The final -i of TA śorki that I derive from PT *-yæy < *-wæy in Malzahn forthcoming may then ultimately be traced back either to pre-PT *-won (possibly dissimilated from *-wor) or rather to pre-PT *-mon. 22 See Hilmarsson 1984b: 44f.; 1986: 208–210. 23 See van Windekens 1979: 73 and 130f. 24 See Malzahn 2005: 393–399 on evidently not inherited Tocharian verbal abstracts formed with this very suffix. 25 See footnote 16 above. 26 Possibly the noun then had started out as a formation showing the full grade or the zero grade of the root, and the lengthened grade crept in secondarily under the analogical influence of the verbal stem that eventually turned into a Pt III, but this is impossible to prove. At any rate, within this scenario the lengthened-grade allomorph would be required to have played a rather crucial role in the verbal paradigm. Bereitgestellt von | Vienna University Library Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 12.07.17 15:18 266 Melanie Malzahn Bibliography Adams, Douglas Q. (2013). A Dictionary of Tocharian B. Revised and greatly enlarged. 2 vols. Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi. Blanc, Alain (1999). “Étymologies homériques (1. χαλίϕρων; 2. ἄκμηνος; 3. ἀβληχρός)”. In: Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 94.1, 317–338. Carling, Gerd (2009). Dictionary and Thesaurus of Tocharian A. Vol. 1: a–j. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Eichner, Heiner (1973). “Die Etymologie von heth. mehur”. In: Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 31, 53–107. Ernout, Alfred & Antoine Meillet (1985). Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine. Histoire des mots. Quatrième tirage augmenté d’additions et de corrections nouvelles par Jacques André. 4th ed. Paris: Klincksieck. Forssman, Bernhard (1977). Review of: van Strien-Gerritsen 1973. In: Kratylos 20, 77–82. Gunkel, Dieter (2011). “The emergence of foot structure as a factor in the formation of Greek verbal nouns in - μα(τ)-”. In: Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 65, 77–103. Hackstein, Olav (2002). Die Sprachform der homerischen Epen. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Hilmarsson, Jörundur (1984a). “East Tocharian śorkäm ‘peg’ or ‘string’?” In: Die Sprache 30.1, 16–28. — (1984b). “Tocharian B krorīyai (obl. sg.), A kror ‘crescent, horn of the moon’ ∼ Hitt. karawar ‘horn’ ∼ Arm. ełǰiwr”. In: Die Sprache 31.1, 40–47. — (1986). Studies in Tocharian Phonology, Morphology and Etymology with Special Emphasis on the o-Vocalism. Proefschrift Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden. Reykjavík. — (1996). Materials for a Tocharian Historical and Etymological Dictionary. Reykjavík: Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands. Jasanoff, Jay H. (1994). “Aspects of the internal history of the PIE verbal system”. In: Früh-, Mittelund Spätindogermanisch. Akten der IX. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 5. bis 9. Oktober 1992 in Zürich. Ed. by George E. Dunkel et al. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 149–168. — (2003). Hittite and the Indo-European Verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kloekhorst, Alwin (2008). Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden & Boston: Brill. Kümmel, Martin J. (1998). “Wurzelpräsens neben Wurzelaorist im Indogermanischen”. In: Historische Sprachforschung 111, 191–208. — (2011). “The conditioning for secondary h in Hittite”. In: Eighth International Congress of Hittitology, The University of Warsaw, Faculty of Oriental Studies, Warsaw, 5–9 September 2011. Abstracts. Malzahn, Melanie (2004). “Toch. B yesti nāskoy und der Narten-Charakter der idg. Wurzel *wes ‘(Kleidung) anhaben’”. In: Die Sprache 43.2, 212–220. — (2005). “Westtocharische Substantive auf -au und einige Fortsetzer von idg. men-Stämmen im Tocharischen”. In: Indogermanica. Festschrift Gert Klingenschmitt. Indische, iranische und indogermanische Studien dem verehrten Jubilar dargebracht zu seinem fünfundsechzigsten Geburtstag. Ed. by Günter Schweiger. Taimering: VTW, 389–407. — (2010). The Tocharian Verbal System. Leiden & Boston: Brill. — (2011). “Speaking on tongue – the Tocharian B nouns with an oblique singular in -a”. In: Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 12, 83–109. Bereitgestellt von | Vienna University Library Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 12.07.17 15:18 Surprise at length of Tocharian nouns 267 — (2012). “Archaism and innovation in the Tocharian verbal system: The case of valency and the case for a conspiracy theory”. In: The Indo-European Verb. Proceedings of the Conference of the Society for Indo-European Studies, Los Angeles 13–15 September 2010. Ed. by H. Craig Melchert. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 235–240. — (forthcoming). “TA śorki ‘fear’ and two other TA scary words”. In: Tocharian and IndoEuropean Studies 15. In press. Meillet, Antoine (1905). “Att. πηλός, dor. παλός”. In: Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 13, 291–292. Melchert, H. Craig (1983). “A ‘new’ PIE *men suffix”. In: Die Sprache 29, 1–26. — (1994). Anatolian Historical Phonology. Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi. — (2010). “The word for ‘mouth’ in Hittite and Proto-Indo-European”. In: International Journal of Diachronic Linguistics and Linguistic Reconstruction 7, 55–63. Neri, Sergio (2006). “Riflessioni sull’apofonia radicale di proto-germanico *namōn ‘nome’”. In: Historische Sprachforschung 118, 201–250. Nikolaev, Alexander S. (2010a). Issledovanija po praindoevropejskoj imennoj morfologii. Studies in Proto-Indo-European nominal morphology. St. Peterburg: Nauka. — (2010b). “Time to gather stones together: Greek λᾶας and its Indo-European background”. In: Proceedings of the 21th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. Ed. by Stephanie W. Jamison, H. Craig Melchert & Brent Vine. Bremen: Hempen, 189–206. Nussbaum, Alan J. (1986). Head and Horn in Indo-European. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. Pinault, Georges-Jean (2006). “Further links between the Indo-Iranian substratum and the BMAC language”. In: Themes and Tasks in Old and Middle Aryan Linguistics. Papers of the 12th World Sanskrit Conference (Helsinki, 13–18 July 2003). Ed. by Bertil Tikkanen & Heinrich Hettrich. Vol. 5. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 167–196. — (2008). Chrestomathie tokharienne. Textes et grammaire. Leuven & Paris: Peeters. — (2011). “Let us now praise famous gems”. In: Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 12, 155– 220. Puhvel, Jaan (2012). Ultima Indoeuropaea. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck. Rieken, Elisabeth (1999). Untersuchungen zur nominalen Stammbildung des Hethitischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Schindler, Jochem (1975). “L’apophonie des thèmes indo-européens en -r/n”. In: Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 70.1, 1–10. — (1994). “Alte und neue Fragen zum indogermanischen Nomen”. In: In memoriam Holger Pedersen. Kolloquium der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 26. bis 28. März 1993 in Kopenhagen. Ed. by Jens E. Rasmussen. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 397–400. Solmsen, Felix (1901). Untersuchungen zur griechischen Laut- und Verslehre. Strassburg: Trübner. De Vaan, Michiel A. C. (2004). “‘Narten’ roots from the Avestan point of view”. In: Per aspera ad asteriscos. Studia Indogermanica in honorem Jens Elmegård Rasmussen sexagenarii Idibus Martiis anno MMIV. Ed. by Adam Hyllested, Anders R. Jørgensen & Jenny H. Larsson. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen, 591–599. Van Strien-Gerritsen, Magdalena (1973). De homerische composita. Assen: Van Gorcum. Vine, Brent (2006). “An alleged case of ‘inflectional contamination’: On the i-stem inflection of Latin civis”. In: Incontri linguistici 29, 139–158. Weiss, Michael L. (2007). “Latin orbis and its cognates”. In: Historische Sprachforschung 119, 250–272. Widmer, Paul (1997). Nartennomen. Lizentiatsarbeit, Universität Bern. Bereitgestellt von | Vienna University Library Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 12.07.17 15:18 268 Melanie Malzahn Van Windekens, Albert Joris (1979). Le tokharien confronté avec les autres langues indoeuropéennes. Vol. 2.1: La morphologie nominale. Louvain: Centre International de Dialectologie Générale. Bereitgestellt von | Vienna University Library Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 12.07.17 15:18