Lindeman Laryngeal Theory

Fredrik Otto Lindeman
Introduction to
the ‘Laryngeal Theory’
The Institute
for Comparative Research
in Human Culture
Oslo
Instituttet for
sammenlignende
kulturforskning
Serie B: Skrifter
LXXIV
Fredrik O tto Lindeman
Introduction to the ‘Laryngeal Theory’
Introduction to
the ‘Laryngeal Theory’
Norwegian N p
University Press L J:
The Institute for
Comparative Research
in Human Culture
Norwegian University Press (Universitetsforlaget AS), 0608 Oslo 6
Distributed world-wide excluding Scandinavia by
Oxford University Press, Walton Street, Oxford 0X 2 6DP
London New York Toronto
Delhi Bombay Calcutta Madras Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Singapore Hong Kong Tokyo
Nairobi Dar es Salaam Cape Town
Melbourne Auckland
and associated companies in
Beirut Berlin Ibadan Mexico City Nicosia
© The Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture 1987
This book is a revised version of the author’s Einführung in die Laryngaltheorie, Walter de
Gruyter, Berlin 1970 (Sammlung Göschen Bd. 1247/1247A)
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission
of Norwegian University Press (Universitetsforlaget AS)
British Library Cataloguing in Publication D ata

Lindeman, Fredrik Otto
Introduction to the ‘Laryngeal Theory’.
1. Proto-Indo-European language—Laryngeals
I. Title
414 P572
ISBN 82-00-18459-5
ISBN 82-00-02628-0 Pbk
Printed in Denmark
by P. J. Schmidt A/S, Vojens
Contents
Preface ......................................................................................... 7
A b b re v ia tio n s ............................................................................. 9
N ote on the Use of S y m b o ls ............................................. 17
I General observations on the ‘Laryngeal Theory’ . . . 19
§1-3 I n tro d u c tio n ......................................................... 19
§4-9 M ain features of the ‘Laryngeal Theory’ .......... 21
§10-14 Ferdinand de Saussure ..................................... 24
II On the necessity of recognizing the actual existence
o f ‘laryngeals’ in Early-Indo-European . ................. 29
§15-19 The ablaut o f the disyllabic or ‘heavy’bases 29
§20-22 H ittite h ................................................................ 32
III ‘Laryngeal’ reflexes found in the various IE. lan
guages .................................................................................. 35
§23 Preliminary rem ark .................................................. 35
§24-32 ‘Laryngeals’ initially in the position before a
following syllabic sound .................................................. 36
§ 33-36 ‘Laryngeals’ in internal position between syl
labic sounds ........................................................................ 44
§37 ‘Laryngeals’ in the position after a non-syllabic
and before a syllabic s o u n d ....................................... 48
§38-46 ‘Laryngeals’ in the position after a full grade
vowel and before a non-syllabic sound (or in word-
final p o s itio n ) ................................................................ 50
§47-51 ‘Laryngeals’ in the position after a syllabic
resonant and before a non-syllabic sound (or in word-
final p o s itio n ) ................................................................ 59
§ 52-54 ‘Laryngeal’ m e ta th e sis.................................. 65
§55-59 Assimilation of a ‘laryngeal’ and *y or *w . 67
§ 60-65 The ‘natural’ long diphthongs of Indo-E uro
pean ...................................................................................... 71
§66-70 Prothetic vowels in Greek and A rm enian . . 75
§71-72 The Balto-Slavic in to n a tio n s ........................... 86
§73-75 The voiceless aspirates o f Indo-Iranian . . . . 88
§76-77 On some mediae aspiratae in Indo-Iranian . 91
§78-83 ‘H ardening’ of certain ‘laryngeals’ to k or g 94
§ 84-88 ‘Laryngeals’ in the position between non-syl-
labics .................................................................................... 98
IV Phonology and ‘laryngeals’ ............................................. 107
§ 89-95 On the phonem ic status of t h e ‘laryngeals’ . 107
§96-103 Conclusions ....................................................... 114
Select B ib lio g ra p h y ............................................... 121
Index verborum ........................................................................ 131
Index nom inum ........................................................................ 153
Preface
This book is a revised edition of my previous w ork Einführung

in die Laryngaltheorie, Berlin 1970; much new m aterial has been
added and some passages from the first edition have been
removed.
The ‘Laryngeal Theory’ is a powerful tool which is in constant
use in the field of Indo-European studies. The theory, however,
appears in m any forms which occasionally may be mutually
conflicting. Students of our discipline may therefore have diffi
culties in finding their way through this diversity. It is my hope
that the present edition can be o f some help in this respect.
The presentation will necessarily be dom inated by my per
sonal views on the ‘Laryngeal Theory’, but I have tried to
consider diverging views and hypotheses with an objective and
critical mind. Some suggestions which I have found of little
value, have been left out of my discussion. The word ‘laryngeal’
always appears between inverted commas when referring to
the Indo-European ‘laryngeals’ whose phonetic nature is yet
unknown.
A special word of thanks to my colleague and friend H arald
Bjorvand, who has gone through much of the new text and
given me valuable pedagogical advice. Above all I am indebted
to Professor Erich N eu (Ruhr-Universität-Bochum ) for his en
couragement and valuable assistance with the A natolian m a
terial.
My m anuscript was completed in M arch 1987.

Abbreviations
A A L = Annual o f Armenian Linguistics

ActOr = Acta Orientalia
A IO N Sezione Linguistica = Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di
Napoli. Sezione Linguistica
Anttila, Schwebeablaut — Raimo A nttila, Proto-Indo-European
Schwebeablaut, (University of California Publications
Linguistics 58), 1969
AO = Archiv Orientâlni
ArchLing = Archivum Linguisticum
B B C S = The Bulletin o f the Board o f Celtic Studies. University
of Wales
Beekes, Development = R. S. P. Beekes, The Development o f the
Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Greek, (Janua Linguarum
Studia Memoriae Nicolai Van Wijk D edicata, Series Practica
42), 1969
Benveniste, H I — Émile Benveniste, H ittite et indo-européen,
Paris 1962
Benveniste, Origines = Émile Benveniste, Origines de la fo rm a
tion des noms en indo-européen, Paris, 1935
BiOr = Bibliotheca Orientalis
Bono homini donum = Bono homini donum. Essays in Historical
Linguistics in M emory o f J. Alexander Kerns, 1981
Brugmann, Grdr = Karl Brugmann and Berthold Delbrück,
Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen
Sprachen, 2. Auflage, Strassburg, 1897-1916
B SL = Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris
B S O A S = Bulletin o f the School o f Oriental and African Studies,
London
Chantraine, Dictionnaire = Pierre Chantraine, Dictionnaire
étymologique de la langue grecque. Histoire des mots. Paris
1968-1980
10 INTRODUCTION TO THE ‘LARYNGEAL THEORY’
Corolla linguistica = Corolla linguistica, Festschrift Ferdinand

Sommer, Wiesbaden, 1955
Couvreur, H ett H = Walter Couvreur, De Hettitische H, een
bijdrag tot de Studie van het Indo-Europeesche Vocalisme,
(Bibliothèque du M uséon 5), Louvain, 1937
É C = Études Celtiques, Paris
EngStud = Englische Studien, H eilbronn
Ériu = Ériu founded as the Journal o f the School o f Irish Learn
ing Devoted to Irish Philology and Literature, D ublin
E vfL = Evidence fo r Laryngeals, second edition edited by Wer
ner W inter (Janua Linguarum Studia M emoriae Nicolai Van
Wijk D edicata. Series M aior XI), 1965
Fachtagung V = Flexion und Wortbildung. Akten der V Fachta
gung der indogermanischen Gesellschaft Regensburg, 9-14 Sep
tember 1973, W iesbaden 1975
Fachtagung VI = Lautgeschichte und Etymologie. Akten der VI.
Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft Wien, 24-29
September 1978, W iesbaden, 1980
Festschrift Neumann = Serta Indogermanica. Festschrift fü r
Günter Neumann zum 60. Geburtstag, hsgg. von J.Tischler,
Innsbruck, 1982
Festschrift Otten = Festschrift Heinrich Otten, 1973, hsgg. von
E. N eu und Christel Rüster
Festschrift Szemerényi = Studies in Diachronie, Synchronic, and
Typological Linguistics. Festschrift fü r Oswald Szemerényi on
the Occasion o f the 65th Birthday. 2 Vols., Amsterdam, 1979
FlorAnat = Florilegium Anatolicum, Mélanges offerts à Emman
uel Laroche, Paris, 1979
Friedrich, H ethW b = Johannes Friedrich, Hethitisches Wör
terbuch, Heidelberg, 1952
Gamkrelidze, Laringal’naja Teorija = T. V. Gamkrelidze, Chetts-
kij Jazyk i laringal'naja Teorija (Akademija N auk Gruzinskoj
SSR), Tbilisi, 1960
Gedenkschrift Kronasser = Investigationes Philologicae et Com-
parativae. Gedenkschrift fü r Heinz Kronasser, hsgg. von
E .N eu, Wiesbaden, 1982
Godel, Introduction = R .G odel, An Introduction to the Study o f
Classical Armenian, W iesbaden, 1975
HdO = Handbuch der Orientalistik
Hethldg = Hethitisch und Indogermanisch. Vergleichende Studi-
ABBREVIATIONS 11
en zur historischen Grammatik und zur dialektgeographischen

Stellung der indogermanischen Sprachgruppe Altkleinasiens,
hsgg. von E. N eu und W. Meid (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur
Sprachwissenschaft, Bd. 25), 1979
Hirt, IdgGr = H erm ann H irt, Indogermanische Grammatik, 7
Bd., Heidelberg, 1927-37
H SCPh = Harvard Studies in Classical Philology
IF — Indogermanische Forschungen
IIJ = Indo-Iranian Journal
Ivanov, Obsceindoevropejskaja = V. Vs. Ivanov, Obsceindoevro-
pejskaja praslavjanskaja i anatolijskaja jazykovye sistemy,
Moskva, 1965
JA O S = Journal o f the American Oriental Society
JIF S = The Journal o f Indo-European Studies
JL = Journal o f Linguistics
Kammenhuber, Hethitisch = Annelies K am m enhuber, Hethi-
tisch, Palaisch, Luwisch und Hieroglyphenluwisch, H dO , 1.
Abt., 2. Bd., 1. und 2. A bschnitt, 1969, pp. 119-355
Kratylos = Kratylos. Kritisches Berichts- und Rezensionsorgan
fü r indogermanische und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Wies
baden
Kronasser, E H S = Heinz Kronasser, Etymologie der hethitisch-
en Sprache, Wiesbaden, 1962 ff
Kronasser, VLFH = Heinz Kronasser, Vergleichende Laut- und
Formenlehre des Hethitischen, Heidelberg, 1956
Kurylowicz, Apophonie = Jerzy Kurylowicz, Lapophonie en
indo-européen, Wroclaw, 1956
Kurylowicz, É I — Jerzy Kurylowicz, Études Indoeuropéennes I,
Krakow, 1935
Kurylowicz, IdgGr 2 = Jerzy Kurylowicz, Indogermanische
Grammatik 2. Akzent. Ablaut, Heidelberg, 1968
Kurylowicz, Problèmes = Jerzy Kurylowicz, Problèmes de lingu
istique indo-européenne (Polska A kademia N auk K om itet
Jçzykoznawstwa Prace Jçzykoznawcze 90), Wroclaw, 1977
K Z = Zeitschrift fü r vergleichende Sprachforschung (begründet
von A. Kuhn)
Lang = Language, Journal o f the Linguistic Society o f America,
Baltimore
Laroche, D L L = Emmanuel Laroche, Dictionnaire de la langue
louvite, Paris, 1959
Lehm ann, PIEPh = W infred P. Lehm ann, Proto-Indo-European

Phonology, A ustin, 1955
Lejeune, Phonétique historique = Michel Lejeune, Phonétique
historique du mycénien et du grec ancien, Paris, 1972
Lindeman, E L = Fredrik O tto Lindeman, Einführung in die
Laryngaltheorie, Berlin, 1970
Lindeman, Triple representation = Fredrik O tto Lindeman, The
triple representation o f Schwa in Greek and some related prob
lems o f Indo-European phonology, Oslo, 1982
Lindeman, Verschärfung = Fredrik O tto Lindeman, Les Origi
nes indo-européennes de la ‘Verschärfung’ germanique, Oslo,
1964
M artinet, Économie — A ndré M artinet, Économie des change
ments phonétiques (Bibliotheca Rom anica, Series Prim a M an-
ualia et Com m entationes X), 1955
Mayrhofer, A ietym W b = M anfred Mayrhofer, Kurzgefasstes
etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindischen, Heidelberg, 1953 ff
M ayrhofer, IdgGr 1 = Indogermanische Grammatik, Band I, 1.
H albband: Einleitung von W. Cowgill, Ins Deutsche übersetzt
und bibliographisch bearbeitet von A. Bammesberger und
M .Peters. 2. H albband: Lautlehre (Segmentale Phonologie
des Indogermanischen) von M anfred M ayrhofer, Heidelberg,
1986
Meillet, Esquisse = Antoine Meillet, Esquisse d ’une grammaire
comparée de l ’arménien classique, 2e édition, Vienne, 1936
Meillet, Introduction = Antoine Meillet, Introduction à l ’étude
comparative des langues indo-européennes, 8e édition, Paris,
1937
Mélanges Chantraine — Mélanges de linguistique et de philologie
grecques offerts à Pierre Chantraine, 1972
Mélanges F.Mossé = Mélanges de linguistique et de philologie
Fernand M ossé in memoriam, Paris, 1959
Mélanges Grégoire I I = Mélanges Henri Grégoire (Annuaire de
l’institut de philologie et d ’histoire orientales et slaves, Tome
X), 1950
Mélanges Renou = Mélanges d ’indianisme à la mémoire de Louis
Renou, Paris, 1968
Melchert, StH H P h = H .C raig M elchert, Studies in H ittite His
torical Phonology (Ergänzungshefte zur Zeitschrift für Ver
gleichende Sprachforschung Nr. 32), Göttingen, 1984
ABBREVIATIONS 13
Messing, S S P = G ordon M. Messing, Selected Studies in Indo-

European Phonology, HSCPh Vol. LVI-LVII, 1947, 161 ff
M S S — Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft
N T S = Norsk Tidsskrift fo r Sprogvidenskap
Oettinger, Stammbildung = N .O ettinger, Die Stammbildung des
hethitischen Verbums (Erlanger Beiträge zur Sprach- und
Kultur-Wissenschaft Bd. 64), N ürnberg, 1979
O rN S = Orientalia, Nova Series, Rom a
PBB — Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und L ite
ratur
Pedersen, Hittitisch = Holger Pedersen, Hittitisch und die an
deren indoeuropäischen Sprachen, Copenhagen, 1938
Pedersen, VKG = Holger Pedersen, Vergleichende Gram
m atik der Keltischen Sprachen, Bd. I, 1909, Bd. 2, 1913,
Göttingen
Peters, Untersuchungen = M. Peters, Untersuchungen zur Vertre
tung der indogermanischen Laryngale im Griechischen, Wien,
1980
P IC L 7 = Proceedings o f the Seventh International Congress o f
Linguists, London, 1952 [1956]
P IC L 8 = Proceedings o f the Eighth International Congress o f
Linguists, Oslo, 1957 [1958]
P IC L 11 = Proceedings o f the Eleventh Congress o f Linguists,
Bologna, 1972 [1974], 2 vols.
Pokorny, IE W = Julius Pokorny, Indogermanisches etymolog
isches Wörterbuch, Bd. I. Bern, M ünchen
Polomé, Reflexes of Laryngeals in Indo-Iranian = Edgar Polo-
mé, Reflexes of Laryngeals in Indo-Iranian with special refer
ence to the problem of the voiceless aspirates. Saga og sprâk.
Studies in Languages and Literature, 1972, 233 ff
Pratidänam = Pratidänam. Indian, Iranian and Indo-European
Studies presented to F.B.J.Kuiper on his sixtieth Birthday
(Janua Linguarum Studia M emoriae Nicolai Van Wijk De-
dicata, Series M aior 34, M outon 1969).
Puhvel, H ED = Jaan Puhvel, H ittite etymological Dictionary,
Vol. 1, Vol. 2, 1984
Puhvel, Laryngeals = Jaan Puhvel, Laryngeals and the Indo-
European Verb, University of California Publications in
Linguistics 1960
RBPh.H ~ Revue Belge de Philologie et d ’Histoire
R E A rm N S = Revue des Études Arméniennes, Nouvelle Série,

Paris
R H A = Revue H ittite et Asianique, Paris
R L = Ricerche linguistiche. Bolle tino semes traie dell’Istituto di
Glottologia delVUniversità di Rom a
R V = Rig Veda
Schm itt-Brandt, Vokalsystem = R obert Schm itt-Brandt, Die
Entwicklung des indogermanischen Vokalsystems, Heidelberg,
1967
Schwyzer, GrGr — E duard Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik,
Erster Band, H andbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, 2. Abt.,
1. Reihe, 1. Band, M ünchen
Sprache = Die Sprache. Zeitschrift fü r Sprachwissenschaft, Wien
Stang, VerglGramm = Christian Stang, Vergleichende Gramma
tik der baltischen Sprachen, Oslo, 1966
S tB o T = Studien zu den Bogazköy-Texten, hrsg. von der K om
mission für den alten Orient der Akademie der Wissenschaf
ten und der Literatur, W iesbaden
Studia Indoeuropejskie = Studia IndoeuropejskiejÉtudes Indo-
Européennes. Ioanni Safarewicz septuagenario ab amicis collegis
sodalibus animo oblatum gratissimo, 1974
Studies ArchAH ill = Linguistic and Literary Studies in Honor
o f Archibald A. Hill, The Hague, 1978
Studies Palmer = Studies in Greek, Italic, and Indo-European
Linguistics Offered to L .R . Palmer, Innsbruck, 1976
Sturtevant, CG = Edgar H .S turtevant and Adelaide H ahn, A
Comparative Grammar o f the H ittite Language, New Haven,
1951
Sturtevant, IH L = Edgar H .Sturtevant, The Indo-Hittite Lar
yngeals, Baltimore, 1942
SymbGramm = Symbolae Grammaticae in Honorem Ioannis
Rozwadowski I, Krakow, 1927
Szemerényi, Einführung = Oswald Szemerényi, Einführung in
die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft, 1970
Szemerényi, Syncope = Oswald Szemerényi, Syncope in Greek
and Indo-European and the Nature o f Indo-European Accent,
Naples, 1964
To Honor Roman Jakobson = To Honor Roman Jakobson (Jan-
ua Linguarum Studia M emoriae Nicolai Van Wijk Dedicata.
Series M aior XXXI-XX X III), M outon, 1967
ABBREVIATIONS 15
T P S = Transactions o f the Philological Society

VJA = Voprosy Jazykoznanija
VM U = Vestnik M oskovskogo Universiteta
Watkins, IdgGr I I I /1 = Calvert Watkins, Indogermanische
Grammatik, Bd. I l l / 1, Geschichte der indogermanischen Ver
balflexion, Heidelberg, 1969
Z C P = Zeitschrift fü r celtische Philologie
Z P S K = Zeitschrift fü r Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kom
munikationsforschung, Berlin
Note on the Use of Symbols
The notations for the ‘laryngeals’ in this w ork are the follow
ing ones:
*H\ = a neutral, non-colouring ‘laryngeal’ (phonetically per

haps a voiceless dorso-palatal fricative [*’].
*H2 = an a-colouring ‘laryngeal’ (phonetically perhaps a
voiceless velar fricative [x],
* //3 = an o-colouring ‘laryngeal’ (phonetically perhaps a
rounded velar fricative [xw].
The corresponding voiced phonemes are w ritten *H\, *H2,
* / / 3.
*H — an unspecified ‘laryngeal’.
Kurylowicz, É1, 27 ff., cf. Apophonie, §19, uses the following

symbols:
*d\ = a neutral, non-colouring ‘laryngeal’.

*d2 = a n a-colouring ‘laryngeal’.
*a4 = an a-colouring ‘laryngeal’ which has disappeared in A n
atolian.
*a3 = an o-colouring ‘laryngeal’. (In Studies Palmer 127 ff.,
Kurylowicz regards *a3 as the voiced partner of *a2).
Sturtevant, IH L , § 11 f., uses the following symbols:
[’] = a glottal stop with fronted timbre ( = Kurylowicz’s *Oi).

[!] = a glottal stop with velar timbre ( = Kurylowicz’s *a4).
[x] = a voiceless velar spirant ( = Kurylowicz’s *o2).
[y] = a voiced velar spirant ( = Kurylowicz’s *o3).
In Sturtevant’s CG, § 55, [?] is written h.
American ‘laryngealists’ frequently use de Saussure’s and

M oller’s symbols E, A, O. The ö-colouring ‘laryngeal’ is written
A w or H w by M artinet, cf. also Puhvel, EvfL, p. 92. Mayrhofer,
IdgGr 1, 121 f., writes*//,, h2, hh and H ( = any ‘laryngeal’).
I
General Observations on the
‘Laryngeal Theory’
§§1-3 Introduction
§ 1 To make it easier for the student to follow our presentation
of the different aspects of the ‘Laryngeal Theory’, we will begin
by giving a summary of the earlier predom inant, traditional
views on the Indo-European vowel system as we find them in
the works of scholars like H übschm ann {Das indogermanische
Vokalsystem, 1885), Brugmann (Grdr I, 1), H irt (IdgGr 2) and
others.
§ 2 With the exception of a few m inor m oot points, the ‘classical’

doctrine assumes the following vowel-sounds for the parent
Indo-European language: (short) *a, *o, *e, *i, *u, *d, and
(long) *ä, *5, *ë, *ï and *w; *a, arising from the weakening
of an ‘original’ long vowel,1 *ä, *ö or *ë, is called ‘Schwa
indogerm anicum’. Schwa appears in Indo-Iranian as i, in
Greek frequently as ë, ä, ö; in all other languages it has fallen
together with IE. *a. Diphthongs: (short) *ai, *oi, *ei, *au,
*ou, *eu, and (long) *äi, *ôi, *ëi, *äu, *öu and *ëu. Syllabic
liquids and nasals: (short) *f, *[, *m, *n, and (long) *f, *f, *m
and *«.
§ 3 The parent Indo-European language had the following ab

laut system (including short vocalic and long vocalic ablaut
series)2:
1. i.e. a long vowel (*ä, *ö or *e) that does not come from a short vowel (*a,
*o or *e) by lengthening, see Hirt, IdgGr 2, §65.
2. Formations involving the lengthened grade are left out of consideration
here. See, however, §46 below.
Short vocalic ablaut series

norm al grade zero grade
a) *e - *o zero
Gk. pélomai polos épleto
‘become’ ‘axis’
b) The full grade vowel *ejo also occurs in com binations with
semi-vowels (*/, *u), liquids (*r, *1) and nasals (*m, *n):
Gk. leipo léloipa élipon

‘leave’
*eu - *ou *u
G oth, biuda baup budum
‘bid’
*er - *or
G oth, baira bar baurans
‘carry’
etc.
c) The *a/ 0 -series. This ablaut, o f rare occurrence in the parent
language, remains disputed, cf. H irt, IdgGr 2, § 190.
*a - *o
Gk. ago ‘lead’ ogmos ‘furrow ’ -
d) The *fl/o-series in com binations with a semi-vowel:
*ai - *oi *i
Lat. aemidus Gk. oidma -
‘swollen’ ‘swell(ing)’
Gk. aithö ‘kindle’ - itharôs ‘cheerful’
Rem ark: Hirt, IdgG r 2, § 54, assumes an ablaut *o - zero for the parent
language. *o denotes an *o-vowel not alternating with *e, cf. IE. ok K-
in Gk. össe ‘the two eyes’ vis-à-vis Skt. ksana- ‘instant, moment’. Some
scholars deny the existence o f this *o, see e.g. Pedersen, K Z 36, 86 ff.
Long vocalic ablaut series

normal grade zero grade
e) *<? - *5 *9
Lat. fë c ï Goth, doms Lat. factus
‘judgement’
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE ‘LARYNGEAL THEORY’ 21
f) *ä - *ô *d
Gk. (Dor.) phämi phône phâsis
‘say’ ‘voice’ ‘utterance’
Lat. fäma ‘saying’
(The ablaut *ä - *ö remains disputed, see Hirt, IdgGr 2, § 191).
g) *0 *3
Lat. dönum ‘a gift’ datus
§§4-9 Main Features of the ‘Laryngeal Theory’

§4 As the brief description in this section will show, the tra
ditional views on the Indo-European vowel and ablaut systems
were radically altered by the introduction of the so-called ‘L ar
yngeal Theory’. A more detailed justification of the theory itself
will be given below in Chapter II.
§5 According to the ‘Laryngeal Theory’, the source of the

‘original’ long vowels *ä, *ö, *ë is to be found in a com pensatory
lengthening caused by the loss of a consonant standing (1)
between a non-long vowel3 and another consonant, or (2) in
absolutely final position after a non-long vowel, cf. the follow
ing formulas: (1) *-eH-C > *-ëx-C, and (2) *-eH # > *-ex # .
(H denotes a consonant which may have been a laryngeal, e.g.
h, a dorsal fricative, i.e. an ach- or ich-Laut, or a pharyngeal
fricative; for details see § 95 below). This type of phonetic change
is known from many languages. The following example may be
quoted from Greek: IE. *esmi ‘I am ’ (cf. H itt, esmi) > *ehmi >
Att. ëmi (eimî). For a similar development in Latin, cf.
*ayesnos > aënus ‘of copper’. A further example can be found
in Eng. daughter, i.e. /doits/, cf. Germ. Tochter. (In Olcel. döttir
both the vowel and the following t have been lengthened).
Similarly, the long résonants *F, *ü, *f, */, *m and *n are
interpreted as deriving from sequences containing a syllabic
resonant plus a following (preconsonantal) *H, cf. IE. *bhü-tô-
(Skt. bhü-tâ-, verbal adjective of bhâvati ‘becomes’) < *bhuH-
tô-, or IE. *pT-nô- ‘full’ (Skt. pürnâ-, G oth, fulls, Lith.
pilnas) < *plH-nô-. The verbal adjective seen in Skt. pürnâ-
3. i.e. a short vowel if the system at that time had quantitative oppositions; if
not, a vowel without phonemic quantity.
derives from a verbal stem whose different forms can be recon

structed as (full grade) *pélH- > *péh- (Skt. pârï-man-
‘plenty’) ~ *pléH- > *plê- (Skt. aor. â-prâ-t, Lat. -plëre, plënus),
and (zero grade) *plH- > *p(~.
§ 6 Further, it is generally agreed that an early form o f the

parent IE. language possessed m ore than one such ‘laryngeal’
consonant. These consonants have later been lost, however, in
m ost o f the non-A natolian IE. languages. Whereas some o f the
supposed ‘laryngeals’ undoubtedly survived in the A natolian
consonants h, hh, other similar sounds m ust have disappeared
early, also in this branch of Indo-European.
§ 7 Owing to their particular phonetic properties some of these

‘laryngeal’ consonants exercised an assimilatory influence on
immediately preceding or following vowels. This type of assimi
lation of a vowel to a consonant is a well-known linguistic
phenom enon. In G othic *u before h, h , and r becomes an open
o-sound written au, cf. dauhtar vis-à-vis Skt. duhitâr-. Similarly,
IE. *i and *e, which otherwise develop into i in G othic, become
an open e-sound, written ai, before the same consonants, cf.
e.g. saiha ‘see’: OH G. sihu. It is well known that in Russian
the pronunciation o f the various vowels differs considerably
depending on whether they stand between palatalised or non
palatalised consonants.
In its commonly accepted form the ‘Laryngeal Theory’ as
sumes the existence in Early Indo-European of (at least) three
‘laryngeal’ consonants which we write *H\, *H2, *H3. Other
frequently used notations are *§\, *d2, *03, or *h\, *h2, *h3, see
p. 17 above. The first of these consonants, which may have
been a laryngeal (e.g. h), or a dorso-palatal fricative (an ich-
Laut), had no colouring effect on neighbouring vowels. The
second, perhaps an ach-L aut involving a retraction of the body
of the tongue, changed a neighbouring vowel to a, and the
third, possibly a rounded ach-L aut corresponding to G oth, h ,
changed a neighbouring vowel to o.
§ 8 Thus, a wholly new interpretation of the oldest IE. ablaut

system is made possible by the introduction of the ‘Laryngeal
Theory’. The many different ablaut series described above (§3)
can now be reduced to one original series only, i.e. *e - *o -

zero. (The lengthened grade vowels *ë - *ö are left out of
consideration here).
The so-called long vocalic ablaut series are interpreted as
going back to the original series *e - *o - zero plus a following
*H:
*eH]- *oH\ - *H X> * ë - * ô -* d
*eH2- * o H 2 - *H2 > * ä - * ä (or *o?)4- *a
*eH3- *oH3- *H3 > *ö (- *ö) - *a
As can be seen, these ablaut series correspond formally to those
occurring in com binations with semi-vowels, liquids or nasals:
*ei - *oi - *i
*eu - *ou - * u
*er - *or _ *r
°3‘
*
*em - *om
i
etc.
It is quite uncertain, however, w hether *H\, *H2 and *H3 were
syllabic consonants at any stage. On the contrary, they may have
contained an anaptyctic vowel. For this particular problem , see
§ 84 ff. below.
All the following short vocalic ablaut series go back to com bi
nations of the vowels *e - *o with an immediately preceding
‘laryngeal’:
*H\e - *HiO > *e - *o
*H2e - *H2o > * a - * a (or *o?)5
*H3e - *H3o > * o - * o
Remark: A zero grade form like Skt. ksana- (: full grade *H3ekw- seen
in Gk ôsse, cf. § 3, Remark) represents *H3k w-; initially, preconsonantal
‘laryngeals’ have been lost in most of the non-Anatolian IE. languages
with the exception of Greek and Armenian. See § 66 ff below.
§9 It is possible that an early form of the parent IE. language

had a one-vowel system (cf. Benveniste, Origines, p. 149,
Hjelmslev, Studi Baltici 6, p. 51).‘‘Laryngealists’ subscribing to
this view usually denote the supposed original vowel by the
symbol *e. For languages with minimal vowelsystems(zero or
4. For a discussion of the reflex of *oH2, see §40 below.

5. See §26 below.
one vowel), the student is referred to the instructive discussions

by W.Sidney Allen, Lingua 13, 111 ff. and A .H .K uipers, Prati-
dänam, 68 ff.
However, the ‘Laryngeal Theory’ does not necessarily imply
that Early Indo-E uropean m ust be regarded as a univocalic
language. Theoretically, one might assume that the parent lan
guage had a two-term clo se-o p en contrast which we can write
as d - a (cf. Pulleyblank, Word 21, 86 ff.). A t a later stage,
when other vowels had arisen, these phonemes may have fallen
together in the sound we write *e. According to M artinet, PIC L
8, p. 145, it cannot, at any rate, be doubted that
‘l’indo-européen pré-apophonique ait été une langue où un
phonèm e vocalique déterminé, celui que nous noterions e par
tradition, jouissait d ’une prépondérance statistique écrasante,
et que c’est en fonction des avatars de ce phonème que s’est
effectuée la réorganisation post-apophonique du système de
la langue’.
See also M artinet, Homenaje a Antonio Tovar, 1972, 301 ff.,
Économie, p. 217, note 15 and J.Safarewicz, Bulletin de la société
polonaise de linguistique, fasc. 29, p. 176.
Remark: A.R.Bomhard, Festschrift Szemerényi I, p. 128, reconstructs

the vowel system of Pre-Indo-European as *ä, *t, *u, and assumes
that stressed *â ‘was not changed to *e in the neighborhood of the
laryngeals *a2 and *a4 (Sturtevant’s x and h respectively)’.
§§10-14 Ferdinand de Saussure

§ 10 As the analysis of the IE. vocalism made by Ferdinand de
Saussure in his famous M émoire sur le système prim itif des
voyelles dans les langues indo-européennes (Leipzig 1879) consti
tutes the basis of the ‘Laryngeal Theory’, it seems appropriate
to give a brief account of de Saussure’s analyses at this point.6
§11 It was the following considerations that led de Saussure,

op. cit. p. 136 ( = Recueil des Publications scientifiques de F. de
6 . Cf. Szemerényi, La théorie des laryngales de Saussure à Kurylowicz et à

Benveniste, Essai de réévaluation, BSL. LXVIII, 1-25; Mayrhofer, Nach
hundert Jahren. Ferdinand de Saussures Frühwerk und seine Rezeption durch
die heutige Indogermanistik , 1981 (Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akad
emie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse).
Saussure p. 128), to the conclusion that ‘original’ *ä, *ö, *ë of

Indo-European could not always have been simple long vowels.
In those cases where other verbal roots show regular norm al
grade forms in *a\i, *a\u, *a\r, *a\m, etc. (a\ = B rugm ann’s *e),
roots o f the type seen in Gk. sta- ‘stand’ always display a long
vowel. By assuming that the ä in Gk. (Dor.) stâmôn ‘w arp’ goes
back to an earlier diphthong, de Saussure could interpret the
relationship between Gk. stamön and stätös as corresponding
to that between Skt. jéman- ‘victorious’ (e < ai by m onoph-
thongization) and jitâ-. In other words, the underlying struc
ture of roots ending in a long vowel (*stä-, etc.) would originally
seem to have been identical to th at found in roots ending in a
diphthong. De Saussure takes Gk. stâ(-môn) and stä{-tös) to
reflect *sta\A- and *stA-, respectively. Whereas *ai is the orig
inal vowel of all verbal roots, *A can be regarded as the second
element of a diphthong, i.e. as a ‘coefficient sonantique’, like
the elements *i, *u, *r, */, *m and *n in roots of the type * k ’ei-
‘lie’, *g’heu- ‘pour’, *bher- ‘carry’, etc. Full grade *-aiA- is to
zero grade *-A- as *-aJ- is to or *-a\n- to *-«-. The com bi
nation *-Ai + A- yields *-ä- at a later stage.
According to de Saussure, dö- (in the G reek present didömi
‘give’) and do- (in the Gk. ptc. dotés) presuppose *da\Q- and
*dO~, respectively. The symbol *O denotes a second ‘coefficient
sonantique’.
Postulating that the old ablaut alternation *ai/a2 ( = *e/o)
could also occur in the position before the coefficients *A and
* 0 , de Saussure assumes the following phonetic developments
(op. cit., 138 f., Ree, 130 f.):
*aiA > *ä (Gk. Dor. histämi)
*a2A > *ö (Gk. bömos ‘stand; altar’, from the root bä~)
*a\0 > *ö (Gk. didömi)
*a2Ö > *ö (possibly in Gk. döron ‘a gift’,
op. cit., p. 139, Rec, p. 131).
§ 12 Besides roots like *stä- ‘stand’ ( < *staxA-) and *dö- ‘give’
(< *da\0-), there is, however, also the type ending in *-ë-, e.g.
*dhë- ‘p u f attested by Gk. tîthëmi, Skt. dhâ-, Lith. dëti, etc. De
Saussure did not give any convincing explanation of the origin
of this type in *-<?-. He suggested (op. cit., 141 f., Rec, 133 f.)
that the *-<?- of *dhë- might reflect *-ai + A-, i.e. the same
com bination that had given *ä in his theory. He was, however,

unable to state the exact conditions under which the different
developments (partly into *ë, partly into *ä) of the com bination
*-a\ + A- had taken place.
§ 13 According to de Saussure (op. cit., 239 ff., Rec, 231 ff.), *ï,
*ü, and the so-called long syllabic liquids and nasals, go back
to earlier sequences of */', *u, or a liquid or a nasal followed by
the ‘coefficient sonantique’ *A. Again, it is on m orphological
evidence th at de Saussure bases his conclusions. In form a
tions like Skt. rôditi ‘weeps’ : rudimâs, or skambhitum ‘to
pro p ’ : skabhitâ- the plural form and the verbal adjective show
the norm al expulsion of the vowel *ax. Structurally, the relation
ship between the infinitive pavitum and the verbal adjective pütâ-
(from punâti, pâvate ‘cleanses’) corresponds to that between
skambhitum and skabhitâ-. On the strength o f this comparison,
de Saussure concluded that the -ü- o f pü-tâ- must contain
pavi- minus -a-. As he points out, if Skt. pavi- comes from
*pa\wA~, it follows that Skt. pü- (in pütâ-) m ust be from earlier
*puA-.
To this example o f pavi- : pü- there are various exact m orpho
logical parallels in Sanskrit:
câritum ‘move’ : cïrnâ- (i.e. *-aJA- : *-[A~)
khânitum ‘dig’ : khätä- (i.e. *-axnA- : *-nA-)
damitâr- ‘a tam er’ : däntä- (i.e. *-am A - : *-mA-).
De Saussure’s analysis (op. cit., C hapter VI, § 14) of the relation
ship between the 7th and the 9th present classes in Sanskrit is
particularly impressive. He posits roots of the shape *bhadd-,
*ya\ug- for 7th class verbs like bhinâdmi ‘split’, bhindânti, aor.
âbhet, and yunâkti ‘joins’, yunjânti, perf. yuyoja. The present is
formed— after the expulsion of the radical ax— by infixing the
syllable -nax- between the two last elements of the reduced
root: bhadd- : bhi-nax-d~, y a xug- :yu-nax-g-\ weak forms: bhi-n-d-,
yu-n-g-. By assuming that ‘original’ long ä represents axA, de
Saussure could give a corresponding interpretation of the 9th
present class. He takes a verb like punâti ‘cleanses’, punânti to
reflect *pu-nax-A-, *pu-n-A-. The analogical proportion
bhinaid- : bhadd- = punaxA - : x leads to the reconstruction o f a
root *paxwA- which survives e.g. in pavi-tra- ‘a means of puri
fication’, aorist ä-pävisur. The underlying morphological struc-
ture is the same in both cases: pa\w A-:pu-nâ\-A- =

bha\id- : bhi-nâi-d-,
§ 14 On the strength of these analyses de Saussure was able to

draw a simple picture of the oldest IE. vocalism by positing one
original vowel *ai and 8 ‘coefficients sonantiques’: *i, *u, *r, *1,
*m, *n, *A and *0. As previously noted, his interpretation of
the IE. vowel system constitutes the source o f the ‘Laryngeal
Theory’.
The term ‘laryngeal’, however, was coined by H erm ann
Moller. Discussing de Saussure’s system, M oller rejected the
idea that IE. *ê and *ä had the same origin (*-aiA-) as uncon
vincing. He correctly stressed the necessity of assuming a third
phoneme, *E, for Indo-European. According to M oller’s view,
then, the *e of *dhë- ‘pu t’ reflects *-aiE~. Thus, the triad
*ä:*ö: *ë was convincingly explained as presupposing earlier
*a\A : *axO : *a^E.
It should also be pointed out that whereas de Saussure had
taken the a of e.g. Lat. ago, Gk. ägö to go back directly to *A,
Moller analysed this a as a full grade vowel whose tim bre
he attributed to a preceding *A, i.e. *Aâig’~ > *ag'-. M oller
proposed a similar explanation for the o of a form like Gk. özö
‘smell’ ( < *Oa\d-).
Contrary to de Saussure, Moller regarded the elements *E,
*A, * 0 as consonants rather than semi-vowels. In PBB 7, 492 f.,
note 2, he proposed to see in *E, *A and * 0 gutturals o f the
kind found in Semitic, and later (in his Vergleichendes indoger
manisch-semitisches Wörterbuch, 1911, p. VI) labelled them lar
yngeals. On the strength of this assum ption M oller wanted to
prove that Indo-European was genetically related to Semitic
(cf. his study Die Semitisch-Vorindogermanischen Laryngalen
Konsonanten, 1917).
Rem ark: Several scholars have accepted Moller’s hypothesis, cf. e.g.
Sweet, T P S, 1880-81, 155 ff.; Cuny, Études prégram m aticales sur le
domaine des langues indo-européennes et cham ito-sém itiques, 1924, and
Recherches sur le vocalisme, le consonantisme et la form ation des racines
en ‘nostratique’, ancêtre de l ’indo-européen et du cham ito-sém itique,
1943; Pedersen, IF 22, 1907/1908, 341 ff. Cf. also K.Ostir, Zum
Verhältnis des indogermanischen x-Lautes zu den semitischen Kehl
kopf-Lauten. Ein Beitrag zur indogermanisch-semitischen Sprachwis-
senschaft, A nthropos 8 (1913), 165 ff.; B.Rosenkranz, Zur Indo-urali-

schen Frage, A I O N Sezione Linguistica 1 (1966); V.M.Illic-Svityc, Opyt
sravnenija nostraticeskich jazykov, S lavjanskoe jazykozn an ie, 6. mezdu-
narodnyj s ”e z d slavistov, Moskva, 1968, cf. Illic-Svityc, Sootvetstvija
smycnych v nostraticeskich jazykach, E tim ologija 1966 and P roblem y
lingvogeografii i m ezja zykovych kon taktov, Moskva, 1968, 304 ff.
(401 ff.); B.Cop, Die indouralische Sprachverwandtschaft und die in
dogermanische Laryngaltheorie, Slovenska A kadem ija Z nan osti in
U m etnosti. R a zred za Filoloske in L iter arne Vede. R azprave VII, 1970,
183 ff.; A.B.Dogopol’skij, Nostraticeskie korni s socetaniem later-
al’nogo i zvonkogo laringala. E tim ologija 1970 [1972], 356 ff.;
A. R.Bomhard, T oward P roto-N ostratic. A N ew Approach. (Amster
dam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science IV.
Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Vol. 27) 1984 and M.Kaiser and
V. Shevoroshkin, On Indo-European Laryngeals and Vowels, JIE S 13,
1985, 377 ff.
II
On the Necessity of Recognizing
the Actual Existence of
‘Laryngeals’ in Early Indo-
European
§§15-19 The Ablaut of the Disyllabic or ‘Heavy’

Bases
§ 15 Ferdinand de Saussure’s and H erm ann M oller’s analyses
of the so-called ‘original’ long vowels *ä, *ö, *ë < *eA, *eO,
*eE, being based on strictly theoretical-deductive consider
ations, cannot, of course, serve as proof of the earlier, actual
existence of such ‘coefficients sonantiques’ or laryngeals in the
parent Indo-European language. The same objection can be
raised against M oller’s hypothetical reconstruction of an Indo-
European-Semitic proto-language.
§ 16 There is, however, some linguistic evidence that points to

the actual existence in Early Indo-E uropean of certain conson
ants which were later lost in m ost of the attested dialects. The
strongest argument, perhaps, is furnished by the ablaut of the
disyllabic or ‘heavy’ bases, cf. A.Cuny, Indo-Européen et Sémi
tique, Revue de Phonétique 2, 1912, 101 ff. See also Cuny, Revue
des Etudes Anciennes, 1909, p. 278, note 2.
As is well known, the traditional IE. gram m ar teaches that the
neutral vowel (Murmelvokal) called ‘Schwa indogerm anicum ’
arose from the weakening of the ‘original’ long vowels *ä, *5,
*ë, cf. §2 above. However, Cuny points to the fact that the
preconsonantal reduced grade of a ‘heavy’ base like *stero-,
*strö- ‘strew’ (cf. Skt. strnâti, Gk. aor. éstrôsa) is not *stro- as
might have been expected if *d had been a vowel: there is no
verbal adjective *stra-nô- > Skt. *strinâ- (with *a > i, cf. §2).
The attested form is Skt. stïrnâ- < *stf-nô- (IE. *f > Skt. îr, Hr,
Lat. rä, Gk. rä, etc.). The long syllabic resonant in *str-nô- can
only be convincingly accounted for by assuming, with Cuny,
that w hat was left— after the ablaut reduction— of the long final
vowel of *strö- (i.e. *a) was an element inherently less sonorous
than the resonants *r, */, *m and *n, so that the form *stf-nö-
m ust be analysed as *stra-no- containing a consonantal element
*d. It is precisely the original presence o f a consonantal element
after the resonant *r that explains the vocalic form of that same
resonant.
§ 17 We find C uny’s way of reasoning conclusive. If *a must be

regarded as a consonant, one should express this fact in one’s
notation of it. Following Kurylowicz’s example {ÉI, 27 ff.),
many scholars use the symbol *a (with the same diacritic as in
i, u). In this book we will write *H. See p. 17 above.
§ 18 As the long *e of a verbal stem like *plë- ( ~ *peh-, cf. § 5)

‘fill’ m ust be decomposed in a vowel plus a following consonant,
i.e. *pleH- (cf. the verbal adjective Skt. pürnâ- < *pf-no-), it
follows that the original presence of a corresponding consonant
can be assumed also in the case o f the long *ë of the root *dhë-
‘p u t’, cf. Gk. thë-, etc. (i.e. *dheH~).
§ 19 According to the communis opinio the ablaut of such disyl

labic or ‘heavy’ bases furnishes a powerful argum ent in favour
of the assum ption of ‘laryngeal’ consonants for Early Indo-
European, cf. Cowgill, EvfL, p. 144.
Remark: W.F.Wyatt jr., in an article entitled Structural Linguistics

and the Laryngeal Theory {Lang 40 (1964), 138 ff.), rejects Cuny’s
explanation of Skt. pürnâ-, etc. as unconvincing. Wyatt posits a vowel
*/a/ (with no consonantal allophones) for Indo-European. Referring
to Cowgill’s description {EvfL, p. 144) of the syllabic structure of *pia
no- as -C\XC- (and not -Cl%C~), he observes: ‘This is an important
and weighty argument, but it is still far from proving its point, for it
rests on phonetic, not phonemic, speculation. If Cowgill’s formulas,
-Cl)fC- and -C[XC-, represented contrasting phonemic sequences, his
point would be proved: we should analyze [f\ as /rH/. But Cowgill did
not intend his formulas to represent different phonemic sequences,
but only different phonetic realizations of the same sequence. He
EXISTENCE OF ‘LARYNGEALS’ IN EARLY INDO-EUROPEAN 31
explicitly states that the two do not contrast: “It seems unlikely that
PIE would have had sequences of the shape C R H C beside C R H C ’.
This means in effect that we do not know which of the two vocalizable
elements, /l/, and /H/, was in fact vocalized in sequences of this sort.
For if there is no contrast between [C R H C ] and [C R H C \, lacking a
native speaker we know only that a phonemic sequence /CRHC/
occurred. The notion that C R H C > [C R H C ] > C R C rather than
C R H C > [C R IfC ] > C R C derives from the phonetic supposition that
the /r/ had to be vocalized in order to yield the attested correspon
dences. Such phonetic considerations are irrelevant to the phonemic
analysis of the original sequence, which was /CRHC/. We need not
concern ourselves with the syllabicity of the phonemes involved, for
that was automatic; hence the question whether H (or X ) is conson
antal or vocalic is irrelevant.’
Wyatt’s way of reasoning does not seem conclusive to us. Any
realistic form of historical linguistics aiming at the reconstruction of
earlier forms should take into account both the phonetic probability
of the various sound changes and the existence of allophones which
later have undergone phonemically different treatments. Thus, we can
reconstruct a voiced allophone of IE. */s/ in the position before voiced
plosives (*[ozdos], Goth, asts, Gk. ôzos ‘branch, twig’, etc., *[sizdö],
Lat. sido ‘sit down’, *[mézgô], Lat. m ergo ‘immerse’, etc.). Similarly,
in cases like */strHno-/, */plHno-/ the development attested in all the
IE. dialects show that it was jrj, /l/—and not the following sound—that
appeared in a syllabic form. See now also N.E.Collinge, Collectanea
linguistica, p. 71. Cuny’s interpretation of *3 as a consonant finds
some support in the following (see Lindeman, Sprache 19, 198 ff.):
apparently, initial groups consisting of *y- + a consonantal
resonant + a vowel (i.e. schematically * #yRF-) did not occur in Indo-
European, see Meillet, Introduction, p. 136. Consequently, if one fol
lows Wyatt and defines *3 as a vowel, one must interpret a form
like */ynat(e)r-/, the reduced grade of */yenster-/ (attested in Greek
einatéres ‘sisters-in-law’, Lith. jé n tè ‘wife of the husband’s brother’),
phonetically as *[in3t(e)r]; a reflex of such a form is nowhere attested
(e.g. Skt. *initar-). However, Post-Vedic yâ ta r- may be explained as
reflecting * \ym ter-], the nasal appearing in its vocalic form since it
stands between *y- and a following consonant.
Finally, the thematic aorist in Greek of a set-root like *gweld- ‘throw’
(Gk. bâllô, béblëka) is ébalon presupposing *ë-gw\d-om with a vocalic
*(. The */ appears in its vocalic form as it stands between two conson
ants. A similar example is Gk. ékamon < * -k ’rri3-om from the set-root
seen in Skt. sam nïte ‘exert one’s self, Gk. kékm ëka, kàm nô ‘work’. It
should be noted that ébalon, ékam on contrast with e.g. é-pl-e-to from
the an it-root *kKel- (Skt. car- ‘move’, Gk. pèlom aî).
For W.R.Schmalstieg’s analyses in Baltistica 9 (1973), 7 ff., of Skt.
gïrnà-, pürncL-, etc, (cf. also Schmalstieg, K Z 87, 99 ff., Arch Ling IX,
135 ff. and p. 157), see Lindeman, Triple representation, p. 13, note 1.
Hans Jonsson’s criticism (in The L aryn geal Theory, 1978) of Cuny’s
analysis is based on a series of misunderstandings, see Lindeman, IF

8 6 , p. 325.
§§20-22 Hittite h
§20 Some confirm ation for de Saussure’s theory came in 1927
when J. Kurylowicz, in the article, d indo-européen et h hittite
(in Symbolae Grammaticae in Honorem Ioannis Rozwadowski
I, 95 ff.) could show that H ittite had preserved de Saussure’s
‘coefficient sonantique’ *A. It should be pointed out, however,
that the same discovery was made by A .C uny in that same
Festschrift in an article entitled Réflexions sur le type khrê (zên,
etc.) et le type ëkhô, p. 94, note 1. But whereas Cuny did not
quote any examples from H ittite, Kurylowicz in his article called
attention to a series o f precise correspondences o f the type Hitt.
pahs- ‘protect’ : Lat. päsco ‘drive to pasture’, pästor ‘a shepherd’
(IE. *peo2s-), H itt, hantezzi- ‘first’ : Lat. ante ‘before’, Gk. anti
(IE. *32ent~), H itt, harkis ‘w hite’ : Gk. argés ‘w hite’, Skt. ârjuna-
‘clear, w hite’ (IE. *d2erg’-). Kurylowicz further proposed that
de Saussure’s *A and * 0 be w ritten *o2 and *a3, respectively
(ibid., p. 95, note 2); he wrote M oller’s *E *d\.
Having collected, in a series of shorter articles, more material
from H ittite, Kurylowicz then published a complete ‘Laryngeal
T heory’ in the C hapter ‘Sur les éléments consonantiques dispa
rus en indo-européen’ in his book É I (1935).
§ 21 The cuneiform system of writing employed by the Hittites

offers considerable difficulties for the phonological interpret
ation of the H ittite linguistic evidence. In this book, we usually
give the H ittite forms in syllabic transcription since different
‘readings’ may at times be possible.
It should, however, be stressed right at the start that the
H ittite consonant h is an autonom ous phoneme (cf. Polomé,
R B PhH 39, 557 f., Puhvel, EvfL, p. 87, note 21). Thus, we may
note ‘minimal pairs’ of the following type: hanna- ‘grandm other’
vs. anna- ‘m other’, handa ‘accordingly’ vs. anda ‘therein’, har-
kanzi ‘they hold’ vs. arkanzi ‘they cut up ’, tarhanzi ‘they over
come’ vs. taranzi ‘they say’, etc. K ronasser’s argument, VLFH ,
§ 101 ff., that h in many cases represents some kind of secondary
EXISTENCE OF ‘LARYNGEALS’ IN EARLY INDO-EUROPEAN 33
phonetic parasite in H ittite, has found little following.7 For the

equally unfounded assumption that H itt, h in certain cases
reflects a palatalisation of IE. velars like *k, cf. the critical
discussion by Polomé, On the Source of H ittite h, Lang 28,
444 ff.8
A consonant h corresponding to H itt, h is found in Luwian,
another A natolian language, e.g. Luw. hassa- ‘bone’ = H itt.
hastai, Luw. pahur ‘fire’ = H itt, pahhur. See Laroche, D L L § 18.
Lurther, the Lycian consonants / , q, g frequently correspond
to h in Luwian, e.g. Lyc. x ava~ ‘a sheep’ = Luw. hawa/i-, Lyc.
Xuga- ‘grandfather’ = Luw. huha- (? D LL. 46), cf. H itt, huhha-,
Lyc. x^na- ‘grandm other’ = Luw. hanna-, Lyc. ~xa, -ga = Luw.
-ha (1 sg. pret. ending). See Laroche, B S L 62, p. 60.
7. There is no evidence that Hittite h ‘was generally unstable, liable to be lost

in the spoken language, ...’, see Crossland, T P S (1951), p. 96 (and cf. ibid.,
note 2). As Kurylowicz, P IC L 8, p. 222, points out, an alternation of the
type seen in eshar ‘blood’ vs. gen. sg. esnas (with loss of interconsonantal
li) is no more surprising than that attested by harkanzi : harzi (with loss of
interconsonantal k). (For the Old Hitt. gen. sg. form is-ha-na-a-as see § 102
below). Consequently, we cannot follow Kronasser, who (in Beiträge zur
Indogermanistik und Keltologie, Julius Pokorny gewidm et (1967), 45 ff.), sug
gested that a sequence *uC- sometimes developed an initial parasitic h- in
Hittite (huC -). Kronasser’s examples, like those quoted by Sturtevant, IH L,
p. 64, of huC- as the regular zero grade of full grade we-/wa- are not very
convincing. Thus, it is by no means self-evident that e.g. hurki- ‘wheel
contains the zero grade of the root of wawarkima- ‘pivot of a door’. For
the material cited by Sturtevant, cf. the criticism by Polomé, M élanges
Grégoire II, 567 ff., EvfL, p. 26, note 114; see also Zgusta, AO 19, p. 457.
It is now commonly held that the IE. root *dhePh- ‘put’ has survived in
Hitt, u-wa-te- ‘bring’ and pi(-e)-hu-te- ‘lead away’, see C.Watkins, IdgGr III/
1, 69, Eichner, M S S 31, p. 55, Melchert, StH H Ph, p. 92. According to
Eichner, ‘ein altes Paar *oH\- oder *ö-dheH\- ‘hersetzen’ : *H2au-dheH\- ‘weg
setzen’ wurde im Heth. durch Vorsetzen der produktiven oppositionsbilden
den Morpheme u- und pe- zu uuate- und pehute- verdeutlicht’; Eichner takes
hu- (in pehute- and in e-hu ‘come!’) to be from *H2au-, the preform of Lat.
auiferre) and OCS. u in umyti ‘wash o ff, etc. Otherwise Melchert, op. cit.
p. 61, who follows Sturtevant, CG, p. 53, and equates Hitt u- ‘hither’ with
Lat. au-, etc. (Sturtevant assumes the loss of an initial «-colouring ‘laryngeal’
*h- in Hitt, u- and Lat. au-, etc. For the symbol *h, see p. 17 above).
8. Cl. Crossland, TPS (1951), p. 103, note 1; Kammenhuber, K Z , p. 76, 3.
Eichner, Fachtagung VI, p. 129, note 41 (with references), takes Hitt, ishahru-
‘tear’ to be from *s + H2â k ’ru- by assimilation of sh...k to sh...h (: Skt. âsru
‘tear’). Puhvel, HED, p. 393, posits IE. * (s -)H 2a k ’ru- ~ * (d -)H 2a k ’ru- (with
‘«'-mobile'), cf. Gk. dâkru ‘tear’. He thinks that the *r seen in Armenian
artawsr ‘tear’ (< *drak’ur) and OHG. trahan (< *drak'nu-) may reflect a
change of *H2 to *r comparable to the alternation attested by Hittite
wahnu- ~ warnu- ‘burn’.
The hypothesis th at IE. *H2 is continued as g in the old

A natolian language called Palaic (Watkins, Fachtagung V,
358 ff.), does not find convincing support in the attested m a
terial. Despite their very fragm entary state, the meager Palaic
rem nants nevertheless indicate th at the regular Palaic reflex of
the IE. a-colouring ‘laryngeal’ was h(h), see Lindeman, Triple
representation, 18ff.
R em ark: It is possible that Arm. h- is in some cases a reflex of an

initial IE. ‘laryngeal’ (*H 2- and *H 3-), cf. Polomé, First International
Conference on Arm enian Linguistics, P roceedings , 1980, 17 ff.;
F.Kortlandt, Studia Caucasica 5, 9 ff., A A L 5, 41 f.; A. R.Bomhard,
O rbis 25, p. 231. See also §25, note 13, below.
Examples: Arm. haw ‘bird’ : Lat. auis; Arm. haw ‘grandfather’ : Hitt.
huhha-; Arm. han ‘grandmother’ : Hitt, hanna-. Cf. also Lindeman,
Triple representation, 17 f. As Arm. h- comes from different sources
{*p~, *s-), the possibility cannot be wholly excluded that h- may be of
secondary origin at least in some such forms where one could be
tempted to interpret it as reflecting a ‘laryngeal’.
E.P.Hamp, EvfL , 123ff., sees a reflex of an IE. ‘laryngeal’ in the
Albanian h-. However, H .M .Ölberg, K Z 86 (1972), 121 ff., has shown
that Hamp’s etymologies are a d hoc constructions that cannot prove
a ‘laryngeal’ origin for Alb. h-.
§ 22 The linguistic evidence discussed in this chapter makes it

seem extremely plausible that an early form of the parent lan
guage had certain consonants, generally called ‘laryngeals’,
which have been lost, at a later stage, in most of the non-
A natolian IE. dialects. Some of these ‘laryngeals’ survive in the
H ittite consonants h, h{h), the distribution of which, however,
is difficult to explain in several instances.
Ill
‘Laryngeal’ Reflexes Found in the
Various IE. Languages
§23 Preliminary Remark

§ 23 The ‘laryngeals’ assumed for the parent language have left
many traces, more or less clear, in the different IE. dialects. In
§§ 5, 7 f. above, we mentioned the effects of the ‘laryngeals’ on
a neighbouring *e. The IE. vowel triad *e, *ä and *o points
to the earlier existence of at least three different ‘laryngeals’:
the occurrence of a- and o-grade in morphological environm ents
that otherwise show e-grade ( = the so-called norm al grade)
may be accounted for by assuming th at the ‘laryngeals’ caused
not only lengthening, but also colouring of neighbouring
vowels. Thus, by supposing that *e was coloured to *a in the
vicinity o f *H2, we can take a present like Lat. ago, Gk. ägö,
Skt. àjati ( < *âg’-e/o~) to go back ultimately to *H2ég ’-e/o-, a
formation which corresponds exactly to that of *bhér-e/o-
‘carry’ (Lat. fero, Gk. phérô, Skt. bhàrati, etc.) and other norm al
grade presents.9 Similarly, a form ation like Gk. (fut.) ôpsomai,
if derived from *H2ékw-sejo-, can be equated with the type
leïpsô < *léykw-se/o- (fut. of leipö). Gk. didömi and hïstâmi
(Dor.) can only be explained as norm al e-grade presents corre
sponding to tîthëmi ( < IE. *dheH\~) if they are analysed as
representing earlier *di-déH2- and *si-stéH2-, respectively.
Consequently, Gk. ôpsomai, didömi, histämi and similar forms
constitute powerful structural evidence for the assum ption of a
non-ablauting *o-vocalism ( < *H2e-, *-eH3-) in non-A natolian
Indo-E uropean.10
9. See Martinet, PICL 8, p. 46.

10. Cf. Martinet, Word 9, 253 ff., Économie, 212 ff. The suggestion that the
root *dö- might have an analogical *o-vocalism (cf. Pedersen, Hittitisch,
N .E.C ollinge, Collectanea linguistica, p. 98, referring to

W. Cowgill, adduces another piece of evidence which points in
the same direction: since the present is normally characterized
by an e-grade, the Greek nasal infixing verbs in (sg.) -nâ- seem
to presuppose *-néH2- with an a-colouring ‘laryngeal’, which
means that the parent language m ust have possessed at least
two different ‘laryngeals’, i.e. *H2 and *H\, the neutral or non
colouring ‘laryngeal’ found for example in the stem *pleHr , cf.
the verbal adjective Skt. pürnâ-, Lith. pilnas, etc.
Besides such colouring and lengthening of neighbouring
vowels, other im portant ‘laryngeal’ reflexes survive in the vari
ous IE. dialects, a num ber o f which will be examined critically
in the present chapter.
§§ 24-32 ‘Laryngeals’ Initially in the Position Before

a Following Syllabic Sound
§ 24 In this position the ‘laryngeals’ are regularly lost (without
causing any vowel-lengthening) in the non-A natolian IE. lan
guages.11
§25 The IE. sequence *H2e- gives ha- in A natolian, but *a- in
non-A natolian Indo-European, cf. e.g. Hitt, ha-an-za ‘front’
(nom. sg.), dat.loc. ha-an-ti (-/ < *-ei, see E.N eu, S tB o T 18,
p. 41, note 23), abl. ha-an-ta-a-az (S tB o T 26, p. 49), ha-an-te-
iz-zi-is ‘first’ (nom. sg.), Lyc. /ntaw at- ‘com m andant’ or
‘com m andem ent’12 = Luw. ha-an-da-wa-te-en (acc. sg.) vs. Lat.
ante ‘before’, anterior, Gk. anti ‘opposite’; H itt. har(k)- ‘hold,
have’ (pres. 1 sg. har-mi, 3 sg. har-zi, prêt. 1 sg. har-ku-un) vs.
Lat. arceo ‘enclose, shut u p ’; Hitt, har-ki-is (nom. sg.) ‘white’
vs. Gk. argés, ârguros, Lat. argentum, Toch. A ärki, B ärkwi
‘white’; Hitt, had- ‘dry up’ (3 sg. ha-a-ti) vs. Gk. âzô ‘dry up’13,
p. 180, Sturtevant, Lang 16, p. 276, and note 9, IH L , §41c, Ivanov, VM U
No 2 (1957), 33 f.) has been adequately disposed of by Cowgill, EvfL,
p. 145.
11. For a different, disputable view, see § 32 below.
12. See Laroche, BSL 62, p. 60.
13. It seems possible that Arm. hat ‘granum’ belongs here, see M.Poetto,
Accademia Nazionale D ei Lincei, Serie VIII, vol. 31 (1976), 151 ff., who
points out that Hitt, had- ‘in the cult inventories denotes a drying operation
performed on the cereals.’ (p. 163). For the h- of Arm. hat see §21, Remark
above.
‘LARYNGEAL’ REFLEXES IN VARIOUS IE. LANGUAGES 37
Hitt, ha-an-na-as ‘grandm other’, Lyc. %nna (Laroche, BSL. 53,

p. 191) vs. Lat. anus f. ‘an old w om an’, O H G . ana ‘grand
m other’, Gk. annis 'métros è patràs métër (Hsch.).
Remark: The suggestion that Hitt, he- reflects IE. *H2e- is without
foundation. Hitt, forms in he- lack convincing etymological connec
tions in the other IE. languages. Thus, Hitt, hé-kur; hé-gur ‘summit,
peak, stronghold’, which has been connected with Gk. âkris ‘mountain
peak’, ôkris ‘jagged point’, OLat. ocris ‘mons confragosus’, may have
hek- from *H2eik’-, the root of Gk. aikhmê ‘spear-point’, see Melchert,
StHHPh, p. 142, note 113. (Otherwise R.Schmitt-Brandt, IF 79, p. 226,
who compares the Hittite form to OCS. igla ‘needle’). For Eichner’s
reconstruction of a preform *H2ek’-wr (with a lengthened ablaut grade
of *H2ek’- ‘sharp’ (M SS 31, p. 96, note 64)) > Hitt, hé-kur, see §46
below. Similarly, other Hittite words in initial he- (hi-) may contain
an original /-diphthong (or, perhaps, the corresponding zero grade,
*H2i-, etc.). Old Hittite spellings like hé-ek-ta, ha-in-kân-ta (StBoT 5,
54 f.; 12, p. 54, note 22; 18, pp. 41 and 43, and note 30) seem to
indicate that Hitt, hink- ‘nod, bow, show reverence’ contains an old
diphthong. (Otherwise Melchert, StHHPh, 23 f.). Hitt, heu- ‘rain’, for
the ablaut and formation of which cf. E.Neu, Bono homini donum,
203 ff., and hé-en-kân, hi-en-kàn ‘fate, pestilence, death’ have no clear
etymologies. See Tischler, HethetymGlossar 2, 247 f., for various tenta
tive explanations proposed for Hitt, henkan. Cf. also Melchert,
StHHPh, 23 f., note 46.
§ 26 The treatm ent of the sequence *H2o- (with *o < *e by

qualitative ablaut) in non-A natolian Indo-European poses dif
ferent problems. In A natolian one would expect *H2o- to have
given ha- as a is the regular outcome of IE. *o in H ittite and
the other old A natolian languages. However, ha- is also
the regular H ittite reflex of IE. *H2e- (§25) and therefore a
distinction between *H2o- and *H2e- in H ittite is no longer
possible.
In § 2 above, we mentioned briefly the ablaut *a - *o assumed
for the parent language by some traditional scholars. This ab
laut is also recognized by some ‘laryngealists’ who believe that
*H2 had no colouring effect on a following (or preceding) *o.
According to these scholars the ablaut *a - *o (*ü - *o) reflects
an earlier contrast between *H2e and *H2o (*-eH2- and *-oH2-).14
14. De Saussure, Mémoire, p. 135, Kurylowicz, ÉI, 111 f., Polomé, RBPhH 30,
p. 1045, note 4; Cowgill, EvfL, 145 f., R .S.P. Beekes, Sprache 18, 117 ff.
and M SS 34, p. 17.
As Kurylowicz, Apophonie, 167 ff., points out, however, the

evidence for the supposed ablaut * ä - *o is weak. Setting aside
uncertain etymologies like Gk. ôgmos ‘furrow ’ vs. ägö ‘lead’,15
and cases where the o-grade might have been formed secondarily
to a zero grade (*i, *u, *r, etc.) originally belonging to an a-full
grade (*ai, *au, *ar, etc.),16 we are left with only a very limited
num ber o f examples whose ä - o-alternation remains unex
plained: Gk. âkros, akme ‘point, edge’, akônë ‘whetstone’ vs.
ôkris ‘jagged p oint’, Lat. ocris, Umbr. ukar ‘arx, m ons’, cf. also
Gk. oksüs ‘sharp, keen’. As will be seen below (§ 40) the existence
of the ablaut *ä - *5 is likewise extremely doubtful. Conse
quently, we will, as a first step, assume that both *H2e- and
* H 2o - (*-eH2- and *-oH2-) have given *a-(*-ä-) in non-A natolian
Indo-E uropean.17
§ 27 It is generally accepted that the sequences *H3e- and *H3o-

(with *o from *e by qualitative ablaut) have given ha- in A nato
lian, *o- in non-A natolian Indo-E uropean.18
Examples: Luw. (nom. sg.) ha-a-u-i-is ‘a sheep’, Lyc. yava-
(see Laroche, B SL 62, p. 60), Hierogl. hawa/i- vs. Lat. ouis, Gk.
ois, Skt. âvih\ H itt. ha(-a)-ra-as ‘eagle’, (gen. sg.) ha-ra-na-as vs.
Gk. om is, OH G. aro, am , etc.;19 H itt, harp- ‘separate, etc.’ vs.
Lat. orbus ‘bereft’ (Benveniste, H I, 10 f.); Hitt, hastai ‘bone’
(ha-as-ta-(a-)i), Luw. pl. nom. acc. ha-(a-)as-sa vs. Gk. ostèon,
Lat. os, Skt. âsthi.20 A nother plausible example is Hitt, hasdwer
‘twigs, branches’ (ha-as-du-ir, ha-as-du-e-er) = Gk. bzos
‘branch’, from a preverb *H3e- plus the zero grade of the root
15. Benveniste, HI, 107 f., connects Gk. ôgmos with Hitt, akkala- ‘furrow’. See
now also J.Puhvel, HED I, p. 23.
16. Cf. Kurylowicz, Apophonie, 188 f. See also Lindeman, Triple representation,
27 f.
17. Kurylowicz, Apophonie, p. 168, assumes a syncretism of IE. *e and *o in
the vicinity of *H2. According to him, *H2 in the sequences *H2o- and
* - o H 2- simply disappeared in the northern languages (Germanic, Baltic and
Slavic), whereas *H2o- and *-oH2- yielded *a- and *-ä-, respectively, in the
southern languages.
18. IE. *H3 gave Anatolian zero according to Eichner, Sprache 24, p. 162, note
77, cf. Mayrhofer, IdgGr 1, p. 132, note 141. See, however, §29 below.
19. For Lith. eras, OIr. irar which do not presuppose earlier *er-, see Cowgill,
EvfL, p. 146, note 5.
20. For Celtic *ast- in OCom. asen, W. as(gw rn) ‘bone’, see §40 Remark below.
*sed- ‘sit’, see Melchert, StH H P h, p. 61, note 111, and cf. §66
below.21
Rem ark I: Old Hitt. {É)hista- (Éhi-is-ta-a-as) ‘a cult building’ (see I.

Singer, S tB o T 27, 112ff.) may be a loanword from Proto-Hattic ac
cording to Kammenhuber, O rN S 41, 292 ff., cf. G. Neumann, IF 91,
p. 379. Its IE. origin remains disputable at any rate, and E. Neu (oral
communication) sees an argument in favour of a non-IE. origin in the
lack of a complete inflection of hista- in Hittite. For the reasons set
forth in §46, Eichner’s reconstruction (Sprache 20, p. 30, note 30)
of an IE. preform *H 2ëstoyô- for Hitt, hista- must be rejected as
unconvincing.
R em ark 2: According to Kortlandt, H 2o and oH 2, Lingua Posnaniensis
23, p. 128 (cf. also A A L 5, 41 f.) initial *H 2 and *//3 were lost before IE.
*o, but preserved as h before IE. *e in Armenian. Thus, in the case of
*H i he takes Arm. hot ‘odor’ to be from IE. *H 2éd-es- ( = Lat. odor,
old 5-stem, cf. also Lat. olet ‘smells’ < *od-),22 and hoviw ‘pastor’ from
*H 2ew i-peH 2- (cf. Lat. ouis, p a stor), whereas orb ‘orphan’ is explained as
going back to *H 2orbho- (cf. Lat. orbus ‘bereft’, Gk. orphanôs ‘orphan’,
and Hitt, harp- ‘separate’), and ost ‘branch’ to *H 2osdo- (cf. Gk. ôzos
‘branch, twig’, OHG. ast ‘bough’, Hitt, hasdwer ‘twigs’, cf. above). After
the colouring of *e to *o by *H i, the ‘underlying’ *H 2éd-es- and *H iéwi-
are supposed to have given *H 2ôd-es- and *H iôwi-, respectively, the *o
of which is said to have ‘differed phonetically’ {A A L . 5, p. 42) from the
*o arising from qualitative ablaut ( < *e) in Indo-European— a purely
ad hoc assumption. (Chronologically, we take the ablaut *e > *o to have
occurred later than the colouring of */e/ to *[u] or [o] by a neighbouring
*H2or *Hs, see §40 below.). As comparative IE. data that might justify
Kortlandt’s reconstructions simply do not exist, his way of reasoning
must be characterized as wholly circular: an unexplained Armenian con
trast between ho- and o- is made the justification of the assumption of a
contrast between *H 2e- and *H 2o- in Indo-European, the only vestige of
which is the Armenian contrast in question, see Triple representation, p.
18, where reference is also made to the equally unexplained cooccurrence
of ho- and o- in hogi : ogi ‘spirit’, mentioned by Meillet, Esquisse, p. 38.
§ 28 In some cases a H itt, a-, unaccom panied by h-, corresponds

to non-Anatolian IE. full grade *a~. In order to account for
21. According to Watkins, S prache 20, p. 11, the suffix seen in Hitt, hasdw er
corresponds to that of Arm. oskr ‘bone’ < *ostwer.
22. The lengthened grade *5d- (< */H3ëd-/ = *[H3ôd-], cf. §46 n. 42 below) is
attested by Lith. iiosti ‘smell’. It should be noted that W.P.Schmid, F est
sch rift fü r H e rb e rt Bräuer, 1986, 457 ff., has shown that Winter, Trends in
Linguistics, (Studies and Monographs 4), 1978, 431 ff., was wrong in as
suming that the Indo-European sequence of short vowel plus voiced stop
was reflected by lengthened vowel plus voiced stop in Baltic and Slavic.
such correspondences, Kurylowicz, ÉI, p. 75, added to his three

‘laryngeals’ a fourth, *H4. The latter, an a-colouring ‘laryngeal’,
is supposed to have been lost both in A natolian and non-
A natolian Indo-European. *H4 corresponds to Sturtevant’s [I]
(.IH L , §64 f., see p. 17 above).
M uch o f the m aterial for positing IE. *H4 is, however, far
from convincing and can be ignored here, cf. the critical dis
cussions by Polomé, R B P hH 30, 1042 ff., Messing, S S P , 210 ff.,
Zgusta, AO 19, 466 ff. The very few plausible examples which
involve a correspondence o f the type H ittite a- = non-A natolian
IE. *a- may be accounted for by positing an originally voiced
a-colouring ‘laryngeal’. This ‘laryngeal’ will be denoted by the
symbol *H2 in this book. (The punctum delens denotes voice,
cf. M artinet, Phonetica 1, p. 27). For the voiceless counterpart,
*H2, which seems to be continued in H ittite by -hh- in the
position between (written) vowels, see the discussion in § 92 ff.
below.
The following H ittite forms may belong here: appa ‘behind;
afterwards; back’ : Gk. apô. However, H itt, appa may be cognate
with Gk. epi, *opi (in ôpithen, ôpisthen ‘behind’), cf. Hitt.
appezzi- ‘later, last’ : Gk. opissö ‘backwards, hereafter’, see
Messing, S S P 210 f., Lohm ann, IF 51, 319 ff. E.N eu,
S tB o T 18, p. 41, interprets ap-pé-e-ez-zi-, etc., as representing
appezzi- < *opei-tyo- (rather than *opi-tyo- as in Gk. opissö),
cf. ha-an-te-ez-zi- ‘forem ost’ < *H2ntei-tyo- (ibid. p. 41). Hitt.
pai- ‘give’ seems to be *pe- + ai-, cf. Toch. B ai-, A e- ‘give’,
Gk. ainumai ‘take’, cf. now M elchert, StH H P h, p. 32, and note
65 (with further references). For the sequence *-eH2-, see §41
below.
Rem ark: For these and other similar form s, see G am krelidze, Larin-
g a l’naja Teorija, 75 ff., Ivanov, V M U N o 2, 1957, 29 ff. It is frequently
assum ed that A natolian h was lost in H ittite in certain positions, e.g.
after *-t-, cf. P olom é, R B P h H 30, p. 1044, and note 2, w ho posits
*-tH 2e ( = Skt. -tha, 2 sg. perfect) > Hitt, -ta (2 sg. pret. o f the hi-
conjugation; cf. 2 sg. m iddle p res.-ta-). To account for such H ittite forms
by assum ing a particular reduced grade (* -M 2~) or a ‘vocalization ’ o f
*H 2 > a does not seem to be possible, cf. §§41, 69, R em ark below.
§ 29 A voiced initial *H3- seems to be lost in Anatolian if Linde-

man, To Honor Roman Jakobson II, 1188 f., is justified in taking
Hitt, ais n. (written a-i-is), abl. sg. issaz (is-sa-az), etc., and
Luwian assa- n. ‘m outh’ (a-a-as-sa-, cf. Laroche, R H A 23,
p. 45) to represent IE. *H3ôH\-es-, cf. Lat. ös ‘m outh’. See also
Eichner, Sprache 24, p. 162, note 77, for other possible exam
ples. For IE. *-eH3- see §43 below.
§ 30 The sequences *H\e- and *HiO- (with *o < *e by qualitative

ablaut) seem to have given *e- and *o-, respectively, in all the
IE. languages. Examples: Hitt, ed- ‘eat’, Lat. edo, Gk. édomai,
Goth, itan (IE. *Hied~); H itt, es- ‘be’, Gk. esti, G oth, ist, etc.
(IE. * / t e - ) .
As IE. *o becomes H itt, a, we m ust expect the com bination
*Hio- to have given Hitt. a-. Consequently, H itt, arkiya- ‘tes
ticle’ (nom. pi. ar-ki-i-e-es), Arm. nom. pi. orjik\ gen. pi. orjwoci
(stem *org’hiyo-), OIr. uirge ‘a testicle’ ( < collective *org’hiya)
may all go back to an IE. stem *H\org’hi- (see Watkins, B S L
70, p. 12 and Puhvel, JA O S 95, 262 ff.). The underlying verbal
stem *H\erg’h-j*H \rg’h- is found in the H ittite verb arg- ‘m ount,
cover’ (3 sg. pres, ar-ga, imperative 3 sg. ar-ga-ru) according to
Watkins, ibid. p. 12. A nother *o-grade noun with initial *H {-
is attested by Hitt, arras ‘buttocks’, Gk. ôrros ‘rum p’, Arm.
nom. pl. o rk‘ (z-stem), OH G. ars (IE. *H\orso-). For the H ittite
form with -rr-, cf. the discussion by N eum ann, K Z 72, 79 f. The
*e-grade *H\ers- is seen in OIr. err f. ‘end, tail’ < *ersä.
The ‘laryngeal’ under discussion has no colouring effect on
a neighbouring vowel and is represented by zero in H ittite (ed-
‘eat’, etc.).23 This means that we have no concrete linguistic
evidence that can justify reconstructions of the type *H\ed-
‘eat’, *H xes- ‘be’. M ost ‘laryngealists’ assume, however, that the
parent language had no (verbal) roots with an initial vowel.
This assumption is based on Benveniste’s theory of the IE. root
according to which the IE. root consisted of two consonants
that took the vowel *e between them in the (accented) full
grade: *CéC- vs. zero grade *CC-'.24 The root may be followed
by a suffix: a full grade root takes a zero grade suffix, whereas
a zero grade root can only be followed by a norm al grade suffix.
23. For the single h combined with e-vocalism in Hittite forms like wehzi ‘turns’
see § 92 below.
24. See also Cuny, Revue de Phonétique 2, 104 ff. A root structure correspond
ing to that posited for Indo-European by Benveniste would seem to have
Schematically, this gives us the two following types: *CéC-C-

(‘thème I’) and *CC-éC- (‘thème II’). For further details, see
Origines, 147 ff. See also §36 below.
Rem ark: According to G. A. Klimov, Vorposy m etodiki sravn itel’no-

geneticeskich issledovanij (Akademija Nauk SSSR, Leningrad 1971),
p. 46, we may have a tangible reflex of an initial *H \- in the Udi word
for ‘horse’, i.e. ek, pi. ek-ur or ek-ur-ux (the u belongs to the suffix)
in which e is a pharyngealized vowel e, and k is aspirated voiceless k.
(Udi is the southernmost of the East-Caucasian languages). Klimov
suggests that ek may be an IE. loan-word, i.e. a reflex of IE. * H \é k ’wo-
(Skt. âsva-, Lat. equus, etc.). Hans Vogt has informed me that the
‘pressed’ vowels of Udi may as a rule be ascribed to the loss of an initial
pharyngeal. Thus one might assume that IE. * H \e k ’wo- underwent the
following development once it had found its way into Udi:
* H \e k ’wo- > *[xek-\ > *[xek-], whence ek. Although Klimov’s hypo
thesis raises interesting perspectives, a critical appraisal of it remains
impossible as long as it is based solely on the word ek, as accidental
similarity of form cannot be ruled out in such a case.
J.Koivulehto, V irittäjä 2 (1986), 176 f., thinks that Finnish loan
words have preserved traces of various IE. ‘laryngeals’, e.g. Finn, kesä
‘summer’ < IE. *H ies- ‘Erntezeit, Sommer’ (Goth, asans ‘id.’), or Finn.
koke- ‘(Netze) nachsehen’ < IE. *H îekw- ‘see’ (Gk. ôpsom ai, etc.).
Speculation of this kind, based on ‘root etymologies’, does not, how
ever, furnish any cogent evidence for the IE. ‘Laryngeal Theory’. (See
further Koivulehto, Sym posium Saeculare S ocietatis Fenno-Ugricae
(1983), 149 f.).
§31 Similarly, ‘laryngeals’ in initial position before a syllabic

resonant (*/, *u, *r, *1, *m and *n) are regularly lost in non-
A natolian Indo-European.
Examples: Gk. itharôs ‘cheerful, glad’ < *H2idh- vs. aithö
existed also in Proto-Khartwelian according to Gamkrelidze and Matcha-

variani, S o n a n t’ta s i s t ’em a da a b la u t’i kartvelu r enebsi, Tiflis 1965. Cf.
Gamkrelidze, Kartvel’skij i indoevropejskij (in P ro b lem y Jazyko zn a n ija
Moskva 1967, 21 Iff). The typological correspondences in question have
been discussed in some detail by Hans Vogt, B edi K artlisa. revue de k a rtvél-
o logie XXIII-XXIV (Paris, 1967), 3Iff. Cf. also the discussions by
G.Jucquois, L a linguistique 8 , 73 ff., Gamkrelidze, VJA 3 (1971), 34 ff.,
H.Vogt, VJA 4 (1971), p. 41 and J.Taillardat, E .B en ven iste au jou rd ’hui II,
p. 175 ff. Cowgill, K ra ty lo s 29, p. 7, thinks that ‘Benveniste’s reduction of
all roots to CVC, while brilliant and imaginative, is ultimately unconvincing
and, on the whole, has not led to better understanding of the Indo-
European protolanguage.’ Cf. also Kurylowicz, A pophonie, p. 106. Gamkre-
lidze’s latest discussion of the IE. root-structure can be found in Gamkre-
lidze-Ivanov, In doevropejskij ja z y k i in doevropejcy I, 1984, 251 ff.
‘light up, kindle’ < *H2eidh-; with Gk. ith- com pare Skt. idh-
‘kindle’ in inddhé etc. Gk. hudéô ‘sing’ < *H2ud- vs. aude
‘voice’ < *H2eud-; with Gk. hud- com pare Skt. ud- in pass.
udyâte, etc. (: vad- ‘speak’, IE. *H2wed-, i.e. ‘thème II’ *H2w-
éd-). Cf. Cowgill, EvfL, p. 146.
A possible A natolian example showing the m aintenance of
h- before i is Hitt, hissa- (hi-is-sa-) ‘a pole’ = Skt. Isa ‘id.’ (cf.
Benveniste, HI, 13 f.) The H ittite and Skt. forms may reflect a
preform *H2iH]S- (cf. Gk. oiéion ‘rudder, helm’, Av. aësa-
‘plough’, etc.). We have no definite knowledge, however, of the
quantity of the i of Hitt, hissa- (cf. §96 below).
A nother plausible example is Hitt. hartag(g)a~, i.e. probably
hartka-, ‘wild animal ?, bear ?’ (cf. S tB o T 26, p. 58, note 264),
which may be cognate with Gk. ârktos, Skt. rksa-, Lat. ursus,
etc.; the IE. preform of the word meaning ‘bear’ may be recon
structed as *H rtk’o- (cf. Mayrhofer, IdgGr 1, p. 153).
Remark: In M S S 27, 79 ff., H .R ix tries to dem onstrate that IE. *H\~,

*H 2-, and *H 2- in the position before *r, *{, *m and *n are reflected
by e-, a-, and o-, respectively, plus r, I, m and n in G reek. H e concludes
that the replacem ent o f the IE. ‘laryngeals’ in initial position by Greek
vow els is older than the Greek vocalization o f the IE. resonants. R ix’s
assum ptions, although accepted by M ayrhofer, IdgG r 1, 129 f., are in
conflict with what has hitherto been the communis opinio regarding
the behaviour o f the IE. ‘laryngeals’: in prevocalic p osition , i.e. in the
sequences *H V- and *H R -, the ‘laryngeals’ are lost in the IE. dialects
outside A natolian (with the possible exception o f Arm . h-, cf. §21,
Rem ark above); for a criticism o f R ix’s views, see Lindem an, Triple
representation, 60 ff. Several o f the exam ples given by Rix can contain
a full grade. Thus, G k. om phalos ‘n avel’, Lat. umbilicus, and O H G .
amban ‘belly’ m ay all be from *H 2embh-; G k. aude ‘voice’, assum ed
to reflect IE. *H 2w d-éH 2, m ay be a noun o f the tom é-type, and con se
quently represent *H 2aw daH 2 : according to §40, the qualitative ablaut
*e > *o arose later than the colouring o f */e/ to *[a] by a neighbouring
*H 2 so that *[u] here w ould not have been affected by the ablaut in
question. Scholars w ho believe (with H am p, M S S 37, p. 62, and
Ruijgh, Lingua 26, 90 ff., cf. §40 below ) that IE. *H 2o (with *o < *e
by qualitative ablaut) becam e *H 2a, posit *H 2ow dâH 2 for G k. aude.
§32 According to Ivanov, Obsceindoevropejskaja, 11 ff., cf.

VM U No 2 (1957), p. 36, short vowels (and also syllabic rés
onants) were sometimes lengthened by the loss of a preceding
‘laryngeal’. This hypothesis, however, does not find convincing
support in the attested material. The regular development o f a

sequence *HeC- can be seen in forms like Skt. âjati, Lat. ago,
Gk. âgô, etc. ( < *H2ég ’-e/o-, cf. §23 above). The preform of
lat. ära, Ose. aasai (loc. sg.) ‘an altar’ can be posited as *H2eHs-
(cf. Sturtevant, CG. p. 49). The latter form may also be the
source of H ittite hassa- (ha-as-sa-) ‘hearth’; the quantity o f the
-a- in the first syllable of hassa- remains unknow n, cf. § 96 below.
The assum ption of a lengthened grade *H2ës- (i.e. phonetically
*[H2äs-] according to §46) could also account for the forms in
question. For a different opinion see Gamkrelidze, Laringal’naja
Teorija, p. 84, who takes Lat. ära to come from *eH2s- by
assuming an unw arranted ‘laryngeal’ metathesis.
Rem ark: Ivanov, O bsceindoevropejskaja, p. 13 (cf. Tocharskie Jazyki,

14 f.), points to certain H ittite-T ocharian correspondences o f the type
H itt, hant- ‘front’ : Toch. B änte, A änt ‘front, etc.’, H itt, harki-
‘w h ite’ : Toch. B ärkw i, A ärki ‘w h ite’, where H itt, ha- and Tocharian
ä- (allegedly arisen from short a by lengthening caused by the loss o f
a preceding ‘laryngeal’) are supposed to contrast with the short initial
vow el in the other IE. languages (cf. Lat. ante, Gk. and, etc.). H owever,
IE. short *a is alw ays continued in Tocharian by ä > B ä (accented),
a (unaccented), A à, cf. A sale, B salyiye ‘salt’ ( < IE. *salyo~). IE.
has coalesced with *a in Tocharian, e.g. A ckäcar, B tkäcer
‘daughter’ : Skt. duhitâr-. See K rause-T hom as, Toch Elem entarb I, § 24.
§§33-36 ‘Laryngeals’ in Internal Position Between

Syllabic Sounds
§33 In this position the ‘laryngeals’ are lost in non-A natolian
Indo-European w ithout causing any vowel lengthening. In such
cases the disappearance of presyllabic ‘laryngeals’ must have
resulted in a hiatus which was removed by contraction at a later
stage. Thus, Gk. pleîstos ‘m ost’, if from *pleH\-isto-, goes back
to *pleïsto- whose hiatus (-<?!'-) was replaced by the diphthong
ey. Cf. Cowgill, EvfL, p. 147.
§ 34 A particularly illustrative example of the removal by con

traction of a hiatus, due to the loss of an intervocalic ‘laryngeal’,
could be seen in the non-A natolian 1 sg. active thematic ending
*-ö (Gk. phèrô, L at.fero, G oth, baira, Lith. vezii) if this can be
equated with the Hitt. 1 sg. middle -ah-ha :*-o-H2e ( = Hitt.
-ahha) > *-o-a (for *-a-a, according to §26, with analogically

restored thematic vowel -o-), whence *-ö by contraction.25
A nother plausible example can be found in Hitt, uhhi ‘I
see’ (u-uh-hi):Wedie uvë ‘ich sehe an m ir’ < *u-âi (1 sg. pres.
middle).26 For the inflection of Skt. rayi- ‘property, w ealth’,
cf. the discussion by Kurylowicz, É I, 3 6 f.: nom. sg. rayis <
*re-ïs < *reHx-is, dative sg. râyé < *reHxy-éi (with *-eHxy-
> *-ëy- according to §44). The inflection of rayi- is com parable
to that of âvi-, âvyas or pâti-, pâtye, pâtyà. The m aintenance of
the hiatus in the nominative sg. is difficult to account for.
However, Kurylowicz, ibid., p. 37, note 1, calls attention to the
disyllabic character of the other forms (ray-é, etc.), cf. also
Szemerényi, K Z 73, 167 ff., for a discussion of Lat. res, rem,
etc. See also Mayrhofer, IdgGr 1, pp. 124 and 149 and note
210. For Skt. nâus ‘ship’, gen. sg. nâvâs, see Kurylowicz, ÉI,
p. 38.
§35 In the opinion of some scholars, Vedic Indie is supposed

to have preserved particularly clear vestiges of old hiatus caused
by the loss of intervocalic ‘laryngeals’ (schematically *-eHe- >
Vedic -act-), cf. Kurylowicz, ÉI, p. 35. Vedic metre requires that
a long vowel m ust sometimes be pronounced as equivalent to
two short syllables, e.g. the imperative päntu (from pä- ‘protect’)
which must be read as paantu in R V IV, 4, 12. Similarly, the
indicative forms pânti ‘they protect’ and y Anti ‘they go’ (from
yä-) must frequently be pronounced as paànti, yaânti, cf. also
the participle paântas, paântam, etc. These forms seem structur
ally to correspond to adântu, adânti, adântas (: âtti ‘eats’). R oot
nouns in ä frequently display a hiatus in the acc. sg., nom.
acc. dual, and nom. acc. plur. (-aam, -aä, -aas) : tanü-pâam ‘p ro
tecting the person’, go-pad ‘a herdsm an’, etc. (Kurylowicz, ÉI,
p. 35 and IdgGr 2, 16 ff). Stems in s of the type bhäs- ‘light’,
25. For these endings, cf. E.Neu, S tB oT 6, p. 139; Ivanov, Otrazenie dvuch
serij indoevropejskich glagol’nych form v praslavjanskom ( Slavjanskoe Ja-
zykoznanie, 6. mezdunarodnyj s ”ezd slavistov, Moskva, 1968), p. 229, note
15; C. Watkins, IdgGr III/1, 108 f., p. 129; Lindeman, Hethldg, p. 157, note
30.
26. W. P. Schmid, IF 63, 144 ff.; Rosenkranz, IF 64, p. 68; and Watkins, IdgGr
H I/1- P- 83. Melchert, StH H Ph, p. 66, note 122, writes, ‘It is possible
that *au- “perceive” had quantitative ablaut ...: *âu-h2ei > uhhi, *u-wèni >
structurally parallel to the type tâpas- ‘w arm th, heat’, must

often be pronounced as bhaas-, etc. Cf. also superlatives like
dais tha- (written destha-) from the root dä- ‘give’
( < *deH3-ist(h)o-).
However, the im portance of such Rigvedic scansions should
not be overrated: the possibility that the disyllabic pronunci
ation is in m any cases due to analogy cannot be excluded. Thus,
the analogy of adântu : âtti may have created a paântu from
pâti, see Hoenigswald, E vfL, p. 97 and Messing, SSP, 178 ff.
For the treatm ent of intervocalic ‘laryngeals’ in Iranian, see
R. S. R Beekes, Bono homini donum, 47 ff., who assumes that
where the preceding vowel was Indo-Iranian a, contraction was
regular in Gatha-Avestan, and that disyllabic sequences are
mostly due to analogy. See also E .P irart, M S S 47, 159 ff.
§36 The regular loss of *H in the presyllabic sequences *CiH~,

*CuH-, *CrH-, *CIH~, *CmH- and *CnH- results in the rise of
the prevocalic phonemes */i/, */u/, */r/5 etc. in non-A natolian
Indo-European, see Kurylowicz, P IC L 8, p. 222, Apophonie,
§19. Only a few corresponding forms with preserved h are
attested in Anatolian.
Rem ark: M any exceptions to the so-called Sievers’ Law m ust be at
tributed to the developm ent o f earlier *C R H -V - into * /C R -V -/:th e
latter sequence presents a vocalic resonant also after a short preceding
syllable, see K urylowicz, Apophonie, § 19 and Lindem an, Verschärfung,
6 f. and N T S 20, 38 ff. Linguistic material illustrating the phonem ic
type */CR-V-,/ in the various IE. dialects is given by Kurylowicz, ÉI,
p. 76, Apophonie, 120 f. and Lindem an, Verschärfung, 6 f.
The following forms would appear to presuppose the loss of

presyllabic ‘laryngeals’:
Vedic uvé < earlier *u-âi: Hitt, uhhi, IE. *Hu-H2é(f), cf. §34,
and note 26 above; Gk. ébalon ( < *gw[H-o-), cf. béblëka, and
see above §19, Remark', Gk. ékamon ( < * k ’mH-o-), cf. Skt.
samnïte (cf. § 19, Remark)', Skt. pres, tirâti ‘crosses’ ( < *trH2-é~),
cf. tïrnâ- and Lat. tra n sf1 Skt. pres, sanôti ‘gains’, Gk. anüö
27. Hitt, tar-ah- ‘vanquish’ is probably from a different root, cf. Laroche, RHA
16, p. 112, who connects tarhu-, i.e. the root tarh- plus an enlargement u,
with Skt. tarute, türvati ‘vanquishes’. However, he does not exclude the
possibility of two homophonous roots: * ter Hi- ‘cross’ (in Lat. trans, etc.)
and *terH 2- ‘vanquish’ (in Hitt, tarh-, etc.).
‘effect’ ( < *snH-(e)u-), cf. Hitt, sanhhzi ‘approaches, asks for,

etc.’ (sa-an-ah-zi, 1 sg. pret. sa-an-hu-un, sa-an-ah-hu-un).
Vedic form ations of the type svasti- ‘well-being, fortune’,
sväpnas- ‘rich’ (: âpas-) m ust frequently be pronounced with a
syllabic resonant (suasti-, suâpnas-) after a short as well as after
a long preceding syllable. Lindeman, N T S 20, 99 ff., posits IE.
su-H\esti-, *su-Hiepno- (: Lat. ops, perhaps H itt, happin-ant-
‘rich’, see Laroche, B SL 58, 71 ff. and Szemerényi, Glotta 33,
275 ff.), and compares the development of *su-H\esti- into
*suesti- (Skt. suasti-) to that seen in *trH2-é-ti > *tr-é-ti (Skt.
tir-â-ti). If this be accepted, such com pounds give further sup
port to Benveniste’s theory of the IE. root according to which
the original form of the verb *es- ‘to be’ m ust be reconstructed
as *H\es-, etc. (cf. §29 above). At this point reference should
also be made to Benveniste’s analysis of the Latin perfect type
êmï(: emo) as presupposing a reduplicated form ation *H\e-H\m-
(iai), structurally com parable to the *de-dH2-(ai) underlying Lat.
dedl (ArchLing 1, 16 ff.). Thus, the original IE. form of *em-
(Lat. emo ‘buy’, OIr. em- in air-fo-em- ‘receives’, Lith. imù ‘take’,
etc.) would have been *H\em~.
Rem ark 1: Kuiper, India Antiqua, p. 199, explains G k. émolon (: bloskö

‘go, com e’), éthoron (: throskö ‘spring’), époron (: p ép rô ta i ‘it has/had
been fated’, cf. further p erâ ô and H itt, pâr-ah -zi ‘drives’) by assum ing
a particular ‘laryngeal’ um laut in Greek: whereas IE. *r, *[ norm ally
developed into G k. ar, al (ra, la), the sam e resonants, w hen preceded
or follow ed by * / / 3 supposedly gave Gk. or, ol. Lindem an, Triple
representation, p. 54, suggests, however, that the form s in question in
origin are athem atic aorists, i.e. *étero, *ém elo (with analogical *-o, for
*-a, cf. §87, R em ark below ) < IE. *é-terH i-t, *ém elH 2-t, etc.; *étero,
*émelo, etc. underwent the sam e m etathesis that is usually assum ed
for *estérosa > estôresa (cf. § 87, R em ark) and gave étore, ém ole, etc.
The latter were reinterpreted as them atic form ations. A sim ilar expla
nation was proposed by M .P eters, Untersuchungen, p. 30. Otherwise
K urylowicz, Apophonie, 207 f., P roblèm es, p. 188.
A ccording to Kuiper, India Antiqua, p. 202 and Sprache 7, p. 15, a
particular kind o f ‘laryngeal’ um laut m ust also be recognized for cases
like Skt. tîrnâ- < *tirH -nà- (: tàrati), simï- ‘labour, w ork ’, sim ïvant-,
sim ya ti ‘toils’ (: sâmï- ‘labour’). H owever, Skt. ïr m ay be a direct reflex
o f */?/; see § 100, below, for IE. */r/, etc. For sim ï(vant-) vis-à-vis sâm ï-,
see also R enou, G ramm aire Védique, §24, note 4: ‘Influence possible
de l’échange ir/r.’ For Kuiper’s hypothesis, cf. also the discussion by
Strunk, P IC L 11, 375 ff.
R em ark 2: In a series o f articles 28 K. Strunk has attem pted to justify

the assum ption o f a phonetical developm ent o f * -h x- to Gk. -oli- in
interconsonantal p osition , e.g. in dolikhôs : Skt. dïrghâ- ‘lo n g ’, and in
(H esiod ) (am -)boli(-ergôs) ‘putting o ff w ork ’ : blë-. The sym bol *§x
signifies here a ‘laryngeal’ ‘welcher gew isse Ä hnlichkeiten mit dem e-
färbenden Laryngal hat, aber nicht unbedingt dam it identisch ist.’
( P IC L 11, p. 377). H ow ever, Strunk has not been able to determ ine
the exact con d ition s that allow ed *-l§x- to develop differently in Greek
from (interconsonantal) *-[H- > -lä- (e.g. lênos ‘w o o l’ : Lat. lana, Gk.
tlëtôs : Lat. (t)latus), or -ala- (e.g. pa lâ -m ë ‘palm o f the hand’ : Lat.
p alm a < *pala-m a). Strunk’s *§x, w hich has left no trace in com b i
nation with the other resonants in G reek, seem s to be weakly m oti
vated.
§§37 ‘Laryngeals’ in the Position After a Non-

Syllabic and Before a Syllabic Sound
§ 37 In this position the ‘laryngeals’ are lost in the non-A natoli
an IE. languages, but traces of them are sometimes found in
the preceding consonant or semi-vowel (*y, *w), cf. §§ 55 f., 73 f.,
76 f.
Examples: Luw. (1 sg. prêt.) ta-pâr-ha (from tapar- ‘gouver
ner’) the ending of which corresponds to Lyc. -ya (above §21,
cf. H itt. -hun) and the non-A natolian 1 sg. perfect ending *-a
seen in Skt. véda, Gk. oîda. The IE. preform of the ending in
question can be posited as *-H2e.29 H itt, e-es-har, is-har ‘blood’,
gen. sg. (Old H ittite) is-ha-na-a-as, Luw. part. nom. plur. a-as-
har-nu-um-ma-in-z[i\ from the verb asha(r)nu- = Hitt. esha(r)nu-
‘ensanglanter’ (Laroche, D LL , p. 33). The gen. sg. Hitt, esnas,
28. Glotta 47, Iff.; M S S 28, 109 ff.; P IC L 11, 376 ff.; Studies Palmer, p. 398.
29. In SymbGramm, p. 103, Kurylowicz took the Skt. forms (1 sg.) cakàra and
(3 sg.) cakara (perfect of ky-) to represent *k"e-kwor-H2e and *kwe-k“or-e,
respectively. Whereas the *-o- of the 3 sg. had become Skt. -d- in an open
syllable (according to Brugmann’s Law), the radical short -a- of the 1 sg.
was supposed to be the regular outcome of an IE. *-o- in an originally
closed syllable. The same phonetic development was assumed for causative
formations like janäyati ('jan- ‘generate’) < *g ’onH-éye/o- (structurally
parallel to e.g. vartâyati < *wort-èyejo-) vis-à-vis pädayati < *pod-éye/o-
(:root pad- ‘go’). Kurylowicz later (in Apophonie, pp. 330 and 336 f.) with
drew this explanation with the following observation: ‘Si a y était pour
quelque chose, les racines set comme * g ’eno- n’allongeraient pas la voyelle
à la 3e p. sing. (* g ’e g ’ôno-e > *jajâna, tandis qu’on ne rencontre quejajâna)’
(p. 337). Ibid., §43, he proposes a morphological interpretation of the
forms in question. Other scholars frequently regard the -ä- of jajâna as
analogical.
which shows no trace of the ‘laryngeal’ found in the nom. acc.

sg. form eshar, was considered as ‘old’ in Lindeman, E L, p. 47
since it seems to correspond to Vedic asnâs (not *asinâs), gen.
sg. o f âsrk ‘blood’. However, G .H art, B S O A S X L III, 10 f., and
note 27, suggests that Old H itt, is-ha-na-a-as, whose i- ‘m ust
represent a reduced or even zero grade version o f the radical
vowel when unaccented’, may have lost its -h- in interconson-
antal position, and that the e-vocalism seen in e-es-na-as may
have been taken over from the nom. acc. sg. form. Cf. §21,
note 7 above. For Skt. asnâs, see § 102 below.
Remark: Hoenigswald, in an article entitled ‘Laryngeals and s mov

able’, Lang 28, 172 ff., is of the opinion that prevocalic ‘laryngeals’ in
the position after an initial *s- were lost at a very early date ‘before
the difference of e and a had become distinctive—that is, in the IH
period.’ (IH = Indo-Hittite). This hypothesis is based mainly on ‘root-
etymologies’. We quote here some of the better examples: Skt. âksi
‘eye’, Gk. ôsse ‘the two eyes’, Arm. akn ‘eye’ : Goth, saih an ‘see’, i.e.
IE. *H iekw- / *s(H i)ekw-, cf. the type Gk. tégos / stégos', OHG. ano,
ana, OPruss. ane, Lat. anus, Hitt, hanna- ‘grandmother’ (cf. §25
above) : Skt. sâna- ‘old’, Gk. hénë kai néa, Lat. senex, OIr. sen, etc.
(IE. *Hien-l*s(H2 )en-)- Hoenigswald’s hypothesis, however, is in con
flict with Hittite forms of the type ishamai- ‘song’, isham aiskizzi ‘sings’
(: Vedic säman- ‘song’ and Gk. oïm ë ‘song’, oîm os ‘melody’ < *sH om -
y o - f 0 with *H preserved in the initial sequence *sH - + vowel (cf. also
Polomé, EvfL, p. 32). It should also be noted that the vocalism of
Hitt. (nom. acc. pi.) sa-(a-)ku-w a ‘eyes’ is puzzling since Hoenigswald’s
explanation makes us expect *sekuwa from orig. *s(H f)ekw- as in Goth.
saihan. (sakuw a < * s ( H i ) o k with *o < *e by qualitative ablaut ??).
According to Lindeman, B B C S XXX (1983), p. 304, note 11, Hitt.
swais ‘bird’, written su-wa-is, may be from *sHîWÔy-s (: Skt. véh
‘bird’ < *H j\vôy-s ) with 5-mobile and a voiced ‘laryngeal’ * fL which
seems to disappear in this language (cf. §29 above). In non-Ànatolian
IE., the stem forms (full grade) *sH iw ejoy-, (zero grade) *sH 3wi- (cf.
*FLwi- in Skt. nom. sg. vi-h, acc. vi-m, dat. pi. vibhyas) would have
been realized phonetically as *sHiUwe/oy- and *sEEuwi-, respectively,
after a long preceding syllable (in accordance with Sievers’ Law),
whence, after the loss of the now prevocalic ‘laryngeal’, *suw e/oy- and
*suwi-. The latter forms would have been reduced (by some sort of
‘converse of Sievers’ Law’) to *sw e/oy- and *swi- after a short preced
ing syllable. A form *swi- may in effect have survived in Celtic *sw iy +
30. Puhvel, HED, p. 395, referring to Beekes’ observation (Sprache 18,

p. 127) that we would expect *sHom-yo- to have become Gk. *hoino-, cf.
bainö < *g"m-yö, suggests that oîmos may come from *sHoy-, a variant
form of the same root, plus *-mo~.
ato- > Brit. *sw iyat-, seen in W. h w yad ‘duck’, NW. chwïadan. For the
vocalism o f Lat. auis, see §40, R em ark below. For another explanation
o f H itt, su-wa-is, see Schindler, Sprache 15, p. 159, cf. Oettinger,
Stam m bildung, p. 549, n ote 13.
§§38-46 ‘Laryngeals’ in the Position After a Full

Grade Vowel and Before a Non-Syllabic Sound (or
in Word-Final Position)
§ 38 In the non-A natolian languages the ‘laryngeals’ disappear
in these positions entailing a com pensatory lengthening o f a
preceding short full grade vowel, i.e. (1) *-exH -C > *-ëx-C, and
(2) > *-ë*#.
§ 39 Thus, the sequence *-eH2- gives A natolian -ah(h)-, but *-ä-

in the non-A natolian dialects, cf. the H ittite factitive type
newahh- (1 sg. pret. ne-wa-ah-hu-un), from newa- ‘new’ vs. Lat.
nouäre, O H G . niuwön, Gk. neân (IE. *newe-H2- ‘to make new’);
H itt, pa-ah-ha-as-mi (i.e. probably pahhs-mi) ‘I protect’ vs.
Lat. päsco, pästor, OCS. pasti ‘to pasture’ (IE. *peH2s-); Hitt.
nah(h)- ‘to fear’ (pres. 1 sg. na-ah-mi, part, na-ah-ha-an-za),
nah{h)sariya- ‘to fear’, nahsariyawant- ‘tim id’, nahsaratt- ‘fear’
vs. OIr. nâr ‘diffident’ (*nâ-sr-o~), nâire ‘diffidence’ ( < *nä-sr-
iyä); the IE. preform s can be posited as *neH2- and *neH2sr~.
Rem ark: For the double writing o f h between vow els in H ittite see § 92
below.
§40 As already noted in §26 above, a development of *H2o-

(with *o < *e by qualitative ablaut) into *o- in non-Anatolian
IE. is difficult to justify. Similarly, there is no conclusive evi
dence for the frequently assumed change of IE. *-oH2- to *-o-
outside of Anatolian. Examples like Gk. phöne ‘sound’ (: phämi)
and bömös ‘altar’ (: root bä- ‘go’) permit other explanations.31
Equally doubtful is the 1 sg. pres, ending *-ô (Gk. phérô, etc.)
for which Cowgill, EvfL, p. 146, posits a preform *-oH2 (with
the same ‘laryngeal’ that appears in the 1 sg. perfect ending
31. Pedersen, K Z 38, p. 403, connects phöne with OCS. zvonü. Another possible
etymological connection could be found in the root *bhen- attested by Skt.
bhânati ‘speaks; sounds’. Hirt, IdgGr 2, p. 183, takes bömös to go back to
*g“öm-os, from the root *g“em-. For Kurylowicz’s explanation of phöne,
bömös, see Apophonie, p. 186, cf. Lindeman, Triple representation. 27 f.
*-H2e; cf. also Kurylowicz, SymbGramm, p. 103, note 2

(*bhero-d2). For an alternative explanation of the *-ô, see § 34.
Cf. also Hirt, IdgGr 4, p. 145.
C .J.R uijgh, Lingua 26, 190 ff., tries to m otivate a phonetic
change o f *H2o to *H2a. His conclusions are accepted by
E.P.H am p, M S S 37, p. 62.32 However, if *H2 was a velar frica
tive (see below, §95), it is difficult to see how it could lower and
unround an o to a. See Cowgill, EvfL, p. 146. It will be assumed
here that the ablaut *e > *o arose while the contrast between
*e and *a (in the sequences *eH\ and *aH2) was still phonetic:
since, according to this view, the ablaut in question occurred
later than the colouring of */e/ to *[a] by a neighbouring *H2,
it could not affect the */e/ of */eH2/ which had already been
changed to *[a], an allophone of */e/, see Triple representation,
p. 25 with further references.
The following may illustrate w hat we have just been saying.
It is generally assumed, doubtless correctly, that the flexion seen
in the Vedic type vrkfh ‘she-w olf (: vfka- m.), gen. sg. vrkiyah,
cf. Olcel. ylgr, is built on a generalized zero grade o f the suffix
*-yeH2- found in the equally old type Vedic devt ‘goddess’
(: devä- m.), gen. sg. dev(i)yàh. The gen. sg. of the word for ‘she-
w o lf may accordingly be reconstructed phonemically as
*/wlkwyH 2es/. This form would be realized phonetically as
*[wlkwiH2as] with colouring of */e/ to *[a] by the neighbouring
* //2:the *a here would not have been affected by the ablaut
*e > *o33 since the latter occurs later than the colouring of */e/
to *[a] in the vicinity of *H2. We would expect the sequence
*-iH2as to have developed into *-i(y)as after the loss of the
32. F.Kortlandt, Lingua Posnaniensis 23, 127f., agrees with Ruijgh that *H2
coloured a contiguous *o to a in Greek, but he thinks (p. 128) ‘that the
relevant instances do not date back to the Indo-European protolanguage.
The simplest solution is that the opposition between the laryngeals was
neutralized in the neighbourhood of PIE. *o, where they merged into *Hj-
and that *H2 was restored in certain productive categories in Proto-Greek’.
Thus, agôs ‘a chief would be from *H2ogos with a restored *H2 on the
analogy of âgo < *H2é g ’-. Kortlandt’s hypothesis seems to be une vue de
l ’esprit since the supposition of a restoration of *H2 in certain productive
categories in Proto-Greek and the assumption that a distinct *H2 could
colour a neighbouring *o to *a at this relatively late stage are entirely
gratuitous.
33. The gen. sg. ending of IE. consonant stems appears as *-es (Lat. pedis)
and (with qualitative ablaut) as *-os (Gk. podôs ).
intervocalic ‘laryngeal’ in the IE. dialects outside of A natolian.

A genitive of this type in *-i(y)as survives in the OIr. gen. sg.
in -e seen in *-î-, *-yä- and *-d-stems (of the type séitche, soilse,
tüaithe : sétig ‘wife’, soilse ‘light’, tüath ‘tribe’). See Lindeman,
ÉC XIX (1982), 159 f.
Similarly, a form ation like Gk. agôs ‘a chief, in which one
m ight expect an *o-grade (cf. tomôs : tém n ô f4 goes back to
*H2a g ’- ( < */H 2eg’ :/), the *a o f which has not been affected
by the subsequent ablaut *e > *o.
There seems to be no way o f deciding whether the ablaut
*e > *o, the origin of which remains unexplained, is to be placed
chronologically before or after the zero grade, cf. also §101.
For traces of the ablaut *e > *o in A natolian, see §96.
Rem ark: According to R. S. P. Beekes, Sprache 18, 117 ff., Gk. oûs
‘ear’ < *H 2ows- is the regular o-grade of the *H 2ews- seen in Lat.
auris. However, taking the third ‘laryngeal’ to have been a rounded
fricative (e.g. *x w, cf. §95), we can follow Martinet, Econom ie, p. 229,
in positing *xwews- (Gk. oûs) > *x{w)ews- (through a dissimilation of
labiality) for the *aus- underlying Lat. auris. Other examples:
Lat. auis ‘bird’ < *x{w)e\vy- vs. Gk. oiônôs (without dissimila
tion); Gk. aiei < *x^w)eyw - vs. Skt. äyu- (< *xK'eyw-)', Gk. amnôs
‘lamb’ < *xSw)eg*nos vs. OIr. üan (without dissimilation). Cf. also Lin
deman, H eth ld g , p. 156, note 30, Triple representation, 25 ff. For Arm.
keam ‘I live’ < *gwiex{w)- vs. Gk. biô- < *g"iexw-, see Lindeman, R E A rm
N S 15, 19 f. Cf. also §86 below. Lindeman, Triple representation,
p. 68 , accounts for the a-vocalism of the *ast- underlying OCorn. asen
‘costa’, W. as(gwrn) ‘id.’ by assuming a dissimilation of labiality in
*x west- (Gk. ostéon) > *xMest- in certain sandhi situations, e.g. in
sentences where the word *xwest- ‘bone’ was immediately preceded by
the ‘sentence connective’ *nu (Hitt, nu, OIr. no), i.e. *nu x (w)est- > *nu
ast-, cf. Hitt, nu h a-as-ta-i-si-[ti\-it Q A -T A M -M A m a-al-la-an-du ‘und
seine Knochen ebenso zermahlen’ (S tB o T 22, p. 10).
§41 In a few forms we find a H ittite -a-, unaccom panied by

-h(h)-, corresponding to a non-A natolian IE. *-ä-. In accordance
with w hat was said in §28 above, we may account for such
cases by positing a voiced a-colouring ‘laryngeal’ (*H2).
The A natolian evidence for *-eH2- > -a- is meager:35 Hitt.
34. See Lejeune, Phonétique historique, p. 203, note 3.
35. The thematic stem of Hitt, iya- ‘go, march’ may be due to a ‘fausse coupe’
of the third pi. (iya-nta) < *H\y-onto, from the root *Hiey- ‘go’ seen in
Skt. é-ti, etc. See E.Neu, StBoT 6, 86 f., cf. Melchert, StHHPh, p. 20. The
suggestion that the Hittite verb in question reflects the *ya- of Lith. jôti,
Skt. yàti ‘goes, etc.’ is therefore inconclusive.
tayezi ‘steals’ (ta-{a-)i-e-iz-zi) = Gk. tëtâomai, OCS. tajg, Skt.

stäyü-, täyü- ‘th ie f (IE. *{s)teH2-ye/o-; cf. Pokorny, IEW,
p. 1010);36 H itt, thematic neuter pi. in -a ( = Luw. and Palaic
-a), cf. dan-na-at-ta ‘em pty’, = Skt. -à (type priya ‘dear’), etc.
(IE.
The view according to which the -a of dannatta and similar
forms represents a ‘vocalized’ ‘laryngeal’ (*H2 > *a > H itt, a),
seems without foundation for the simple reason th at voiceless
*H2 survives as -h(h)~ in interconsonantal position in Hittite, cf.
Sturtevant, IH L , §73a, who quotes the following examples: sa-
an-ah-zi, sa-an-ha-zi, sa-an-ah-hu-un, i.e. probably sanhh-zi, etc.;
pâr-ha-zi, pâr-ah-hi-is-kân-zi, i.e. probably parhh-zi, etc.; wa-al-
ah-zi, wa-al-ha-an-zi, wa-al-(ah)-hu-un, i.e. probably walhh-zi,
etc. To attribute the -h{h)- in pâr-ha-zi, etc. to the analogical
influence of the 3 plural (e.g. sa-an-ha-an-zi) would be an en
tirely ad hoc explanation. To posit a particular ‘reduced’ grade
(*-eH 2- > Hitt, -a-) distinct from the norm al zero grade is like
wise o f no use since the assum ption of a special reduced grade
in the parent language remains unverifiable, see §69, Rem ark
below. The suggestion that *-H2 was regularly lost in absolutely
final position in H ittite (cf. Polomé, R B P hH 30, p. 1044) is in
conflict with imperative forms of the type ne-wa-a-ah, su-up-ya-
ah (from suppiyahh- ‘make clean, etc.’): there are no good rea
sons for explaining away these imperative forms as ‘secondary’
or ‘analogical’.
§42 The sequences *-eH3- and *-oH3- (with *o < *e by quali

tative ablaut) give *-o- outside of A natolian, e.g. Lat. pro
‘before’, OCS. pra(dëdü), Skt. pràtâr ‘at daw n’, Gk. prö-i, OH G.
fruo ‘early’ ( < IE. *preH3, cf. Polomé, R B P hH 30, p. 1064). We
would expect the sequences in question to be continued in
A natolian by -ah{h)~. However, we do not know of any really
convincing example of such a development.
36. Jasanoff, M S S 37, p. 92, takes Hitt, tayezi to come from *(s)toH 2y-eye-.
He follows Watkins (Fachtagung V, 371 f.) and Eichner (Fachtagung VI, p.
129) in thinking that -h- was lost regularly before *-y- in Hittite and
Luwian. The assumption of a phonetic development of Anatolian *-hy-
into Hitt, -y- is difficult to justify, see Szemerényi, FlorAnat, 317 ff.; Linde
man, Triple representation, p. 19, note 10 and Catsanicos, B SL LXXXI, p.
158.
§43 An IE. root like *dö- ‘give’, which according to §42 might
be reconstructed as *deH3~, appears in H ittite in the form da-
unaccom panied by -h{h)~, cf. da-a-i ‘takes’, pret. 3 sg. da-a-as,
etc.37 A similar case is pa-a-as-zi ‘swallows’, pret. pa-as-ta which
is generally connected with Gk. pôihi, pôm a ‘draught’, etc.38 The
underlying verbal root can be posited as *peHi-. On the strength
o f w hat was said in § 29 above, it will be assumed here that the
‘laryngeal’ seen in *dc//3- ‘give’ and *peHi- ‘drink’ was orig
inally voiced (* 7/ 3).
Remark: According to Martinet, Word 9, 253 ff., a non-ablauting * 0
(or the corresponding weak grade) ‘exuded’ a glide -w- before a follow
ing vowel. In his opinion the w-glide represents a phonemically relevant
feature of the originally rounded ‘laryngeal’ * H 3 (which Martinet
writes *AWor *HW). Schematically, we would thus have *eAw+ V >
*äw + V vs. *eAw+ C > * 0 + C. Martinet mostly quotes Latin ma
terial in support of his hypothesis. However, as Szemerényi has shown
(KZ 70, 51 ff.), a change of *-öw- to *-äw- must be assumed for Latin
(or Italic). Cf. also the critical discussions by Cowgill, EvfL, p. 148,
Polomé, EvfL, p. 39, and Winter, KZ 79, p. 209.
§44 The sequence *-eH\- gives *-<?- in non-Anatolian .Indo-

European; the corresponding result of *-oH\- (with * 0 < *e by
qualitative ablaut) is *-ö~.
Examples: Gk. tithëmi, OCS. déti, Lith. dëti, Skt. dädhäti
(< *dheHr ); IE. *dhoHx- (o-grade) is attested by G oth, doms
‘judgem ent’ Gk. thômôs ‘heap’ (cf. Polomé, R B P hH 30, 1045 f.).
IE. *dheHr ‘p u t’ survives in the H ittite suppletive verb te-
‘say‘ (1 sg. te-(e-)mi) ~ tar- (cf. Lith. tariù ‘I say’), see J. Puhvel,
Gedenkschrift Kronasser, 183 ff. A nother example showing IE.
*-eH r > Hitt, -e- is ga-ni-es-zi [gnes-zi] ‘knows’ which, like
Toch. A khasäst (2 sg. pres.), seems to go back to *g’neH\-s~,
cf. Lindeman, N T S 24, 7 ff.39
37. For the meaning ‘take’ of Hitt, da-, cf. Benveniste, Année S ociologique
1951, 8 ff.
38. See Sturtevant, C G , p. 51. Otherwise Schmitt-Brandt, V okalsystem , p. 117,
who compares Hitt, p a s- with Skt. bhas- ‘devour’.
39. According to Melchert, S tH H P h , p. 92., note 31, a sequence *-H\S- becomes
gemmate -ss- in Hittite, e.g. 3 pi. kan essan zi ‘they know’. Elis suggestion,
however, remains disputable as long as it has not been conclusively demon
strated that Hitt, esa ‘sits’ is not from an orig. reduplicated *H \e-H \s-o
(cf. Eichner, M S S 31, p. 54, Lindeman, N T S 26, 66 f. and Oettinger,
Stam m bildu n g, p. 101). The assumption of a lengthened grade ( * H {ës -) for
Skt. äste, Gk. h êstai, and Hitt, esa (cf. Winter, E vfL , p. 202) remains
unveri fiable.
The (unenlarged) verbal root *g’ne/oH\- is attested by Gmc.

*kne-jana- (OE. cnäwan,40 OH G. knäen, Lat. {g)nosco, etc.41
Rem ark: According to Risch, Corolla linguistica, 189 ff. (cf. Cowgill,
Lang 39, p. 267; Puhvel, L aryngeals, 55 ff. and Mayrhofer, Sprache
10, p. 182, note 25), a sequence *-oH \- (with *o < *e by ablaut) is
continued in Hittite as -ai-, e.g. Hitt, ais ‘mouth’ (a-(i-)is ) vs. lat. 5s;
2 sg. da-it-ti, 2 pi. da-a-it-te-ni (from tehhi) < *dhoH\- = perfect Skt.
da-dhâ-tha, etc. Risch sees the regular zero grade in the i of ti{ya-)an-
zi (: dai), gen. is-sa-as (: ais). We do not find Risch’s hypothesis convinc
ing; forms like daitti, tiyanzi, etc. seem to contain an old *y-suffix, cf.
the discussions by Kronasser, E H S , 536 ff. (with references);
Crossland, Arch Ling 10, 97 f.; Melchert, S tH H P h , p. 68; Jasanoff,
H eth ldg, p. 88, and Lindeman, H eth ldg, 155 f. For Hitt, ais ‘mouth’,
see § 29 above.
According to Diver, W ord 15, llOff., *H\ is to be defined phoneti
cally as *H y. Diver posits the following regular developments for a
sequence *-eH y-\ *-eH y + V- > *-ëy + V- (with a glide *-y-), *-eH y +
C- > *-<? + C-. For the reasons given in §63 below, this seems disput
able to us. For further speculations on *H \, see Puhvel, L aryngeals,
53 ff., Schmalstieg, Word 16, 204ff. Cf. also Polomé, E vfL , p. 38.
§ 45 On the strength of examples like eszi ‘is’ and dai ‘takes’ we

concluded in §§29, 44 that the ‘laryngeal’ *H X has not been
maintained in Hittite.
However, there exists some linguistic m aterial that might
indicate that H ittite has preserved vestiges of an originally
voiced neutral ‘laryngeal’ which we will write *H X(cf. also §93
below). Some H ittite forms present an internal sequence -eh-
for which Sturtevant and scholars following him assume a non
colouring voiced ‘laryngeal’, e.g. mehur ‘tim e’ which has been
etymologically connected with the IE. verbal root *m eH x- ‘meas
ure’ (in Skt. mâti, etc.). According to Sturtevant, it is precisely
the single writing of h which indicates the originally voiced
quality of the ‘laryngeal’ in question, cf. §93 below. It should
be stressed, however, that most H ittite forms containing the
sequence -eh- have no established etymology, cf. the Rem ark
below.
40. For the -w- of OE. cnäwan and similar verbs, see Lindeman, NTS 22,
(1968), 48 ff.
41. For the reasons stated in § 46 below, Gmc. *knë-jana- and Toch. A kna(säst)
cannot go back to a lengthened grade */g’nëH3-/ despite Mayrhofer, Idg
Gr 1, 141 f. (with further references).
R em ark: The supposed etymological connection of Hitt, mehur ‘time’

with IE. *m eH i- has been criticised by Polomé, R B P h H 30, 459 f., who
compares the Hitt, form to Lat. m eo ‘to go, pass’ (IE. *m ey-). The
assumption that Hitt, sehur is from the same root *seH \- as Lat. semen
‘seed’ (Sturtevant, IH L , 47) has been shown to be incorrect by Puhvel,
FlorA nai 297 ff., who observes that the meaning of sehur is not simply
‘urine’ in all cases; thus, KUB XXII 33 Vs. 9 A MUèEN-m a...sëhur tarnas
‘means simply “the eagle let fall droppings” (since birds have no urine).
Finally, KBo X 45 IV 37-38 yields a meaning which is incompatible
with bodily wastes or emissions of any kind and points rather to
“muck, crud”: karizz-a-kan GIM -an URU-æz sëhur IM-a/î ärri “as the
deluge washes crud (and) mud off the city”...’ (ibid., p. 298). Puhvel
points to the ‘gloss-wedged Luwoid neuter noun du-ü-ür ‘urine’ in
KUB XIII 4 III 67-68 apedani-m a DINGIR.MES z a k k a r % d ü r adanna
akuwanna p ia n zi “to him the gods will give excrement (and) urine to
eat (and) drink”.’ (p. 298). Together with Luwian du-ü-ür Hitt, sehur
(which is taken to be the verbal noun of sah- ‘clog (with dirt), plug,
stop’ (ibid., p. 300) supposedly goes back to Proto-Anatolian *dyehur
from IE. *dh yéH \-w p Puhvel proposes to see the root of the latter
form continued in Lat. fim u s ‘ordure’, fa e x ‘dregs, sediment, impuri
ties’ (ibid., p. 302). This raises interesting perspectives, but the sug
gested etymology remains essentially a ‘root etymology’; also the ab
sence of any ‘laryngeal’ in fimus and the a-vocalism of fa e x do not
seem to be easily compatible with Puhvel’s restitution of a non-colour
ing (voiced) ‘laryngeal’ in *dhyeH \-wr.
For Winter’s suggestion (E vfL, p. 196) that Hitt, mehur ‘time’ reflects
IE. *moEEu- seen in Lat. moueo, m om entum, see the discussion by
Eichner, M S S 31, p. 61.
For Hitt, words with initial he- of the type hekur, henkan, etc., see
§25, Rem ark.
§46 According to Eichner, M S S 31, 53 ff., mehur, gen. sg. me-

e-hu-na-as ‘tim e’ goes back to *méH2-wr with *ë preserved be
fore *Hi, for the lengthened grade in a neuter rjn-stem o f this
type, cf. Gk. hêpar ‘liver’. Eichner posits the underlying verbal
root as *meH2- ( > *mä-) ‘die rechte Zeit sein, zur rechten Zeit
sein’, cf. Lat. mätürus ‘ripe’, mäne ‘early in the morning; m orn’.
This explanation, however, creates more problems than it
attem pts to solve. I know of no linguistic evidence— and none
is adduced by Eichner—which might substantiate the claim that
laryngeals (and pharyngeals) do not affect an adjacent long
vowel. Further, since Eichner’s explanation presupposes the
existence of a lengthened grade at a stage when */e/ had not
yet been coloured to *[a] in the vicinity of *H2, we should expect
to find non-ambiguous traces of an alternation of the type *më-
(from the lengthened grade *meH2- with *e preserved before

*H2) ~ *mä- (from the normal grade */meH2-/ > *[maH2-]) in
the IE. dialects outside of A natolian (see Lindeman, Hethldg,
p. 153, note 6, Triple representation, p. 15, cf. also Catsanicos,
B SL LXXV, fasc. 2, p. 117).42 As there is no *gwë- < *gwëH 2-
beside *gwä- < *gweH 2- ‘go, com e’ (Gk. Dor. ébâri), no
*stë- < *stëH2- beside *stä- < *steH2- ‘stand’ (Gk. Dor. histämi
‘make to stand’), no *bhë- < *bhëH2- beside *bhä- < *bheH2-
‘say’ (Gk. Dor. phämi), etc., the proposed explanation remains
entirely ad hoc. (For Eichner’s suggestion, ibid., p. 100, note 88,
that -h- in mehur is the lenition of -hh-, the regular reflex of
*-H2~, see §92 below).
M ost of the examples - including H itt, mehur - quoted in
M ayrhofer’s IdgGr 1, 132 f. in support of Eichner’s claim that
*/ë/ was not affected by an adjacent *H2, are essentially typical
‘root etymologies’.
Anatolian form s. Luw. si(h)wal-, allegedly from *sëH2wol-ô-,
a derivative of *seH2wel- ‘sun’ (cf. Gk. *hâwélios), can be dis
carded right away since its meaning remains unknow n, see
Lindeman, Festschrift Ernst Risch, p. 146, note 3, with refer
ences. Further forms: Hitt, hekur ‘summit, peak’ < *H2ë k ’-wr
(:*H 2e k ’~ ‘sharp, pointed’, cf. Gk. ak-ros); Luw. piha-
‘brilliance’ < *bhëH2-o- (: *bheH2- > Skt. bhä- ‘shine’); Luw.
liirud-, hirun- ‘oath’ < *H2ër-w- (: *H2er-, cf. Gk. ararisko).
As long as there is no trace of a similar ablaut alternation in
the non-Anatolian IE. root- and word- forms cited as etym o
logical connections (e.g. *ëk’- ‘sharp; peak’ < *H2e k ’- ~
*ak’~ < *H2e k ’-, *bhë- ‘shine’ ~ *bhä- ‘id.’, *ër- ~ *ar~, Gk.
ararisko, etc.), to account for H itt. (Luw.) e (i) in these words
by positing *H2ë-, *-ëH2- would be a purely ad hoc assumption.
For other ‘explanations’ of H itt, hekur, etc., see §25, Remark
above.
In IdgGr 1, p. 132, and note 143, H ittite /hënk-/, from *h2ë n k ’-
‘zuteilen’, is quoted as an aerostatic root-present of *h2e n k ’-/
*h2n ek’~ (Gk. enegkein ‘bear, carry’, diänekes ‘unbroken, con
tinuous’, cf. §67 below). However, if H itt, hink- ‘darreichen’ is
etymologically related to hink- ‘nod, bow, show reverence’ (as
42. For an example with *H3, cf. §27, note 22 above: Lith. üosti ‘smell’ <
*/H,ëd-/ = *[Hiöd-] (not *[H3êd-]\) : Lat. olet < */H3ed-/ = *[H3od-].
E .N eu, S tB o T 18, p. 43, note 30, thinks), we m ust interpret its

root vocalism as representing an /-diphthong (see E .N eu, S tB o T
5, p. 55, note 1, and cf. §25, Rem ark above). Mayrhofer, Fest
schrift Neumann, p. 191, note 51, referring to Pokorny, IF
35 (1915), p. 340, teaches that OIr. (ro-)icc ‘comes, reaches’
ultimately goes back to a lengthened grade present
*ënk’ti < *H2e n k ’ti = H itt, /hënk-/ ‘darreichen’. Pokorny had
suggested that -icc be regarded as a ‘transform ation’ o f an
earlier athem atic *ënk’-ti. As this ‘transform ation’ cannot have
taken place in Celtic (where *ënk’ti would have given *inchti),
Pokorny was forced to posit a pre-Celtic *ënk’-e-t of which
there is no other vestige in any other IE. language. P okorny’s
ad hoc construction is rightly ignored in Celtic studies. The
Britannic languages point to an Insular Celtic zero grade *ank-
( < * n k’~), e.g. M1W. ranc in ranc bod ‘satisfy’, and I see nothing
w rong with Thurneysen’s explanation of OIr. -iccu ( < *-ank-
yü, Grammar o f Old Irish, p. 130). M ayrhofer, ibid., p. 191, note
51, reconstructs IE. *H 2e-H2no[n\k’e for OIr. -anaic ( = Skt.
änämsa, perfect of asnôti ‘attains’). However, the stem of the
OIr. suffixless preterite in question (-ânaic, -âncammar, -âncatar)
represents Insular Celtic *änank- ( > Prim. Irish *äneg-, seen in
Wb. 14c40 -anecc-) from an IE. zero grade perfect stem *5/
ännk’- attested for example in the Skt. perfect 3 pi. änasür, see
Lindeman, Ériu X X X III (1982), p. 184.
In IdgGr 1, p. 133, M ayrhofer quotes some other non-Anatolian
IE. forms as testifying to an IE. lengthened *ë-grade < *-ëH2-, In
each case, however, these examples are confined to one language
only, and none of them has any demonstrative force.
N oreen’s old (and frequently disputed) view that ON. Æger
‘god of the sea’ goes back to Gmc. *ëjwija-, with *ejw- in ablaut
alternation with *ajw- seen in *ajw-jö, in ON: ey, gen. sg. eyar
‘island’ (cf. Lat. aqua), m ust be discarded because it is in conflict
with Seebold’s rules for the treatm ent of IE. *-gwh-, *-kw- in G er
manic, K Z. 81 (1967), 115 ff. (Æger might continue *ëj-ija-, cf.
the IE. root noun *ëg’h-, *eg’h- which Fraenkel, Litetym Wörterb,
p. 125, sees in Lith. eze ‘border’, O CS. jazü ‘estuary; stomach,
etc.’, Russ.ja z ‘Fischzaun’, cf. Lith. ëzeras ‘sea’).
There is nothing that forces us to believe that OIr. lie, gen. sg.
liacc ‘stone’ necessarily presupposes a root vowel *ê < *-ëH2-
(* lëü 2- : *leH2- > *lä- in Gk. Idas): the stem vowel of lie may
be Insular Celtic *e (cf. Gk. lépas ‘bare rock’) since a short

stressed *e in hiatus sometimes becomes i in Old Irish, cf. nie
‘sister’s son’ (: Lat. nepos). See also Pedersen, VKG II, p. 100.
ON. âi ‘great grandfather’ is m ost certainly not from IE.
*H2ëwën (: *H2ew- > *H2aw- in Lat. avus ‘grandfather’): it is a
well-established fact that ON : -i in masc. «-stems does not presup
pose IE. *-ë«; -i is the ending of -(/««-stems, analogically trans
ferred to -««-stems {gumi), see N. Lid, N T S 16, 1952, 237 ff.,
E.H . Antonsen, The Nordic Languages and Modern Linguistics,
Proceedings o f the International Conference o f Nordic Languages
and General Linguistics, 1970, 313 f. and O .G ronvik, Runene pâ
Tunesteinen, 1981, 65 f. In our case, we can posit a Classical U r-
nordic nom. sg. *awa, the ending -« of which has been remodelled
on the oblique cases, cf. the acc. sg. *-««; *«w« would give regu
larly ON. *«, whence âi in the same way as nom. sg. *gum becomes
gumi with the -/ of -//««-stems. It is generally assumed, doubtless
correctly, that âi is the same w ord as afi ‘grandfather’ (with re
stored *w > f), and that the meaning ‘great grandfather’ is due to
a secondary semantic split.
Finally, as long as clear evidence for ablaut alternations of
the type *më- ( < *mëH2~) ~ *mä- ( < *meH2-) simply does not
exist in the IE. dialects outside of A natolian, it would be a
purely ad hoc explanation to posit *-yëH2-s > *-yës to account
for the Lat. type (mater)iës. I see nothing wrong with Sommer’s
explanation of this type in his Handbuch der Lat. Laut- und
Formenlehre, 394 f., ‘da sonst sichere Spuren eines -ië- fehlen, tut
man besser, auch die lat. Feminina auf -ië- als einzelsprachliche
Nebenform von -/«- zu fassen, womit zugleich das auffallende
Schwanken nach der -/«-Klasse {effigiës und effigia, mâteriës
und -/« ...) erklärt w äre.’ Sommer points (with Osthoff) to the
acc. sg. *-iyem as the source of the e-vocalism in Latin; the
preform of the acc. sg. in *-iyem can be posited as *-iH2m (cf.
Gk. potnia(n), and see Kurylowicz, Apophonie, p. 195).
§§47-51 ‘Laryngeals’ in the Position After a Syllabic

Resonant and Before a Non-Syllabic Sound (or in
Word-Final Position)
§ 47 In these positions the ‘laryngeals’ disappear in non-A nato
lian Indo-European entailing a com pensatory lengthening of
the preceding syllabic resonant. The com binations *-iH~, *-uH-

give regularly *-ï-, *-ü- in all the non-A natolian IE. languages.43
Examples: the zero grade *-F- ( < *-iHx-) of the optative suffix
*-yéH\- in plural and middle forms of the type Lat. sT-mus
(:siës), Skt. dhuksïmàhi (from duh- ‘m ilk’), G oth. (pret. opt.)
bereina, Gk. eîmen < *es-î-men, Toch. A yäm-i-mäs (1 pi. opt.
of yäm- ‘do, m ake’), B yamïcer (2 pi. opt. of yäm-).
For *-ü- < *-uH-, cf. Skt. bhü-tâ-, aor. âbhüt, Gk. éphü, Lith.
inf. bâti (: Skt. bhavitum; IE. *bhew-H-, *bhu-H-)\ Skt. sü-tâ-
(: pres, suvâti ‘generates’), ipf. âsüta, etc. (IE. *sew-H~, *su-H-);
Skt. dhümâ-, Lat. füm us, OCS. dymü ‘sm oke’ ( < *dhuH-mô-),
cf. H itt. tuhh-{ima-) ‘difficult breathing’, tuhhui- ‘fumée, vapeur’
(Laroche, B S L 52, pp. 80 and 76, n o te l).44
§48 As the ‘laryngeals’ were consonants inherently less son

orous than the resonants *y, *w, *r, */, *m, *n (§ 16), it follows
that the -ia of Gk. pôtnia (vs. Skt. pâtnï ‘wife’) cannot represent
the phonetic outcome in Greek of IE. */-yH2/ # : (potn)ia seems
to owe its shape to the acc. sg. (potn)ian in which -ia{n) is
from */-yH2m / # , i.e. phonetically *[zi/2ra ]# (see Kurylowicz,
Apophonie, p. 195). A nother re-shaped form ation in Greek is
ôsse ‘the two eyes’, an old dual *ôk"'i (with -i as in eikosi), to
which the dual ending -e has been added later, i.e. *oky-e >
ôsse (see Schwyzer, GrGr I, p. 565, Cowgill, E vfL , p. 150,
note 12). The expected phonetic outcome of an IE. dual
*/H 3ékw-yH/ is attested by OCS. oci < *ôkw-ï; for Arm. a c‘k ‘
‘eyes’, cf. the discussion by Lindeman, Triple representation,
p. 47.45
43. For *-F-, *-w- in forms like Skt. dhï-tâ- (: aor. ädhät, from dhä- ‘suck’), Skt.
suras (gen. sg. of suar, cf. Gk. *hdwélios, Goth, sauil ‘sun’), see §§53, 60 f.
below.
44. For a criticism of the aberrant views of Chr. Peeters, IF 78 (1973),
75 ff., see the discussion by Lindeman, Triple representation, p. 13,
note 1.
45. For the reasons given here, Mayrhofer, IdgGr 1, p. 127, note 118 (cf. ibid.,
p. 131), is not justified in taking the *-ye of *ok-ye to reflect *y 4- a
‘vocalized’ ‘laryngeal’ in absolutely final position. Mayrhofer does nothing
to clarify under which conditions the two variants in question (i.e. *-yo, >
Gk. *-ye in ôsse vs. *-iHi > *-T in OCS. oci, etc.) have developed. For a
more detailed discussion of such forms, see Lindeman, Triple representation,
47 f.
The bio- (of biotos ‘life’) may be regarded as an analogically

created form in Greek: dö- (di-dö-mi) : dö- (do-tos) = biö- (aor.
e-biôn < *gwieH3-, cf. IF 90, 62 f.) : x; x = biö-.
The source of the -ia- of Gk. aor. e-pria-to remains unknown:
we would expect the zero grade of a stem *kwreyH- to have
been *kwriH- > *kwrf- in preconsonantal position, and this is
precisely w hat we find in Skt. krï-tâ-, part, of krïnâti ‘buys’. For
a tentative explanation, cf. Lindeman, K Z 100, who assumes
that the oldest form of the 1 sg. middle ending was *-mH2a in
the dialect ancestral to Greek, i.e. that the *-m- had been taken
over from the active before the loss of prevocalic ‘laryngeals’.
A regular 1 sg. middle *kwriH -H 2a was remodelled into *kwriH-
m H 2a, the vocalic *-m- of which is phonetic (according to
Sievers-Edgerton’s Law): the latter form would have given Gk.
*kwriyama, whence, with a new ‘coupe m orphologique’, *kwriya-
ma -►*kwriya-män (for the ending, see Watkins, IdgGr III/l,
p. 130). For Toch. B käryä-mai, etc., see Schindler. IF 72,
p. 240, who com pares it to OIr. (subjunctive) -cria < *kwriH- +
-ä- (:crenaid ‘buys’). Cf. also Lindeman, K Z 100.
Rem ark: The regular outcome in Tocharian of IE. preconsonantal

*-uH- is The *suwä- underlying Toch. B suwam , A sw äs ‘eats’ is
from older *säwä-, the full grade of the singular of an athematic
present active which can be reconstructed as IE. (3 sg.) * g ’y éw d -ti (i.e.
phonemically */g’yéwH-ty/); IE. *a, like IE. *a, gives Toch. *â, cf. B
tkäcer, A ckäcar ‘daughter’ vs. Skt. duhitàr-. The ‘laryngeal’ of IE.
* g ’y ew H - ‘chew’ may have left a trace in the -ww- of Germanic
*kewwana- seen in Olcel. tyggva, OHG. kiuw an , cf. §58 below. The
phonetic change of *säwä- to later *suwä- (> B suwam , A sw äs) is
parallel to that of (IE. *newo- ‘new’ > ) Toch. *näwa- > *nuwa- > B
nuwe. For these and similar Tocharian forms, see Lindeman, Tocharian
and the Laryngeal Theory, K Z 100.
§ 49 The sequences *-rH-, *-lH-, *-mH-, *-nH- underlie the so-

called long syllabic liquids and nasals, cf. Skt. pürnâ- ‘full’, Lith.
pilnas, S.-Cr. pûn ( < *plH\-nô- vs. *pleH\- in Skt. aor. àpràs, cf.
pres, prnâti)',46 Skt. türvati ‘vanquishes’ (*trHwe/o-) vs. Hitt.
46. See K. Strunk, Nasalpräsentien und Aoriste (1967), for the type Skt. prnâti
( < *pl-n-éH rti), grnàti ( < *g"r-n-éH2-ti), sfriâti ( < *str-n-éH2-ti). The stem
*p{-n-éH\- is to aor. *pl-eHr t (Skt. âprât) as e.g. *k’[-n-éw- (Skt. srnôti) is
to aor. *k’l-éw-t (Skt. âsrot).
tarhuii)— tarh- ‘vanquish’ (written tar-hu-, tar-ah-);47 Skt. ürnä

‘w ool’, Gk. Dor. länos, Lat. läna, Lith. vilna, etc. < *wT-n-,
originally *HwlH-n-, cf. H itt, hulana- ‘w ool’ (Friedrich, K Z 77,
p. 257), Luw. *hulani- (cf. SIG -la-ni-is, S tB o T 30, p. 329), cf.
also H itt, huliya- ‘w ool’;48 Skt. sä-tä- (*snH-tô-), cf. sanôti, sâni-
tar-, sani-syant-, etc. vs. H itt, sanhh-zi (§ 36 above).
Rem ark: In Tocharian—as in Germanic and Armenian—IE. precon-

sonantal */f/, */[/ (< *rH , *IH) have fallen together with (short) *r,
*{, cf. B kärw ene ‘stone’ < *kärw an-ya-, IE. *gwrH w on-yo- (cf. Skt.
gravan- ‘stone for pressing out the Soma’), and B *pällew ‘Voll-
mond(stag)’ < *pälna-w-, IE. *p[H ino-w- (from the stem *pleH \- ‘fill’),
etc. Cf. the discussion by Lindeman, K Z 100.
Several contemporary scholars regard Greek forms like (kasï-)gnëtos
‘brother’ (from * g ’en H \-j* g ’neH \- ‘beget, bear’), Dor. tlä-tos ‘patient;
to be endured’, and strô -tô s (from stôrnüm i ‘spread’) as the regular
outcome in Greek of IE. zero grade forms of the type * g ’nH \-tô-,
*t[H 2 -tô-, and * st{H î-tô-, respectively. In other words, Gk. -ë-, -ä-,
and -ö- (in gnë-, tlä-, and strö-) are considered as evidence for the
maintenance of the different timbres of the ‘laryngeals’ (*H \, *Ü 2 , and
*H 3) in the IE. dialect ancestral to Greek, see e.g. Mayrhofer, IdgG r
1 , p. 128 (with further references).
This, however, is unacceptable to us since we believe—for the rea
sons set forth in § 86—that the Greek triple representation of Schwa
is a Greek innovation. We think that some Greek forms in -ë- and -ö-
may possibly reflect a secondary full grade, cf. Kurylowicz, Apophonie,
p. 134, IdgG r 2, p. 223. Thus, Vedic prä -tä -, Lat. -plë-tus, and (prob
ably) Arm. li ‘full’ would seem to point to the existence of a verbal
adjective *plë-tô- (from *pleH \- ‘fill’, Skt. p rn a ti ‘fills’) with a full grade
vocalism in a type of formation that normally requires zero grade, e.g.
Skt. ga-tâ-, from gam - ‘go’ (*gwem -). Once we admit the occurrence of
*plë-tô- (for *p\-tô-, cf. Skt. pürnâ- < *p(-no-) at some stage of Indo-
47. See Laroche, R H A 16, p. 96, cf. §36, note 27 above, tar-ah- may be for
[tarh-] or [trah-], see Laroche, ibid., p. 96. Similarly, pâr-(a)h- = [parh-] or
[prah-].
48. The initial ‘laryngeal’ of IE. *H w [H -n- ‘wool’ may have suffered a dissimila-
tory loss in the IE. languages outside of Anatolian, i.e. *H w{H -n- > *w (H -
n-, which would explain the lack of a prothetic vowel in Greek (lânos), see
§ 66 ff. below, for the prothetic vowels of Greek and Armenian. One might
further speculate whether the medial ‘laryngeal’ of this word might not be
posited as *H \ since this disappears in Hittite. Otherwise Eichner, Sprache
24, p. 160, note 69, who reconstructs *H 2w lH 2-yo- for huliya- assuming
that * H 2 was lost before *y (cf. §41, note 35 above). The IE. *H w el-no-
underlying Lat. vellus , gen. velleris ‘fleece’ and Arm. gelm n, gen. sg. gelm an
‘fleece’ seems to have had no medial ‘laryngeal’.
European, the existence of *plë-tô (for expected *pf-to), 3 sg. middle

aorist, cannot be excluded a priori. The latter form may have survived
in Gk. p lê-to (: pim plëm i). Lindeman, Triple representation, pp. 42 and
46, sees a corresponding secondary full grade in (kasi-)gnëtos, blë-tôs,
blê-to (from bällö ‘throw’), and in a form like strô-tôs; cf. also Lejeune,
Phonétique historique, 198 f. and Kurylowicz, IdgG r 2, 253 f.
Examples of secondary full grade forms outside of Greek: Skt. (AV.)
khyätä- (: khyä- ‘see’), (AV.) drànâ- (: drä- ‘sleep’), yä-tä-, Avest. -yäti-
(: Skt. yä- ‘go’), rä-tä-, rä-ti-, Avest. räta-, räti- (: Skt. rä- ‘give’), äjnäta-,
jhäti- (: Skt.jnä- ‘know’), dhmä-ta- (: Skt. dhmä- ‘blow’), pyä-tä- (: pyä-
‘fill up’), srä-tä- (: srä- ‘boil’), Germanic *sëôi- (for *saôi-) in Goth.
{manna-)seps, OHG. sât (: Gmc. pres. *së-jana-), cf. Goth, ga-deps,
OHG. tât (< *dhë-). See Kurylowicz, Apophonie, pp. 251 and
216 ff.
§50 Kurylowicz, ÉI, 30 f. and Apophonie, p. 339, finds good

evidence for an initial ‘laryngeal’ in the lengthening o f the
first element of certain com pounds in Vedic. Examples: dvïpâ-
‘island’, nîpâ- ‘situated low; the foot of a m ountain’, anüpâ-
‘situated near the w ater’ ( < *dwi-H2p-, etc., from *H2ep- ‘w ater’,
cf. Skt. âp f. ‘w ater’), abhl sat (: abhy as- ‘surpass’), âsat ‘not
being’ ( < *n-H\s- to the root *H\es- ‘be’, cf. § 29), âpàc- ‘situated
backwards; western’, pratïc- (pratyac-) ‘turned tow ards’, anüc-
(.anvac-) ‘following the direction of another’ ( < *enu-FLkw-, to
*H2ekw- ‘eye’, Gk. ôsse, etc.), äyan (3 pi. ipf. with the augment,
from / ‘go’, cf. injunctive y««) < *é-H\y-ent (: *H\ey- ‘go’). Kury
lowicz points out that the second element o f the type pratïc-,
i.e. * fh k we/o-, is to *FLekw- ( > *okw-) as *-bhre/o- in the type
Gk. di-phr-os ‘chariot-board’ is to *bher- ‘carry’. The im port
ance of the Vedic material should not be exaggerated, however,
as we find a corresponding lengthening also in cases for which
no ‘laryngeal’ can possibly be assumed, e.g. âdeva-jâdeva- ‘god
less’. See Messing, SSP, p. 179, cf. E.P.H am p, B S L LXVIII,
77 ff. For a discussion of the Indo-Iranian evidence, see M ayr
hofer, Z P S K 34, 436 ff. and Festschrift Neumann 187 ff. For a
discussion of the Greek material, see F. Bader, Le traitem ent des
hiatus à la jointure des deux membres d ’un composé nominal en
mycénien, Minos XII, 141 ff.
Kurylowicz’s hypothesis may find support in the equation
Hittite su-hm- = Vedic sü-m- posited by J.Catsanicos, B SL
LXXXI, p. 173, on the strength of the com pounds H itt, su-
hmili- (< *su-Hm(e)ili-) ‘bien fixé’ and Vedic sü-mâya- (*su-
Hmeyo-) ‘dont l’ajustem ent (/la jonction) est bon(ne)’.49

§51 In absolute finality the ‘laryngeals’ undergo exactly the
same development as in preconsonantal position, e.g. Lat.
pro < *preH3 (§42), Gk. nom. sg. f. néâ < *néweH2, nom. acc.
dual néô < *néweH3 (to *newo- ‘new’), cf. Kuiper, Sprache 7,
19 f.50
In some cases the expected vowel lengthening does not occur,
cf. Gk. pro ‘before’ (: Skt. puräs ‘in front’, pürva- ‘fore, first’,
Gk. pâros ‘formerly; before, etc.’). Kuiper, India Antiqua, p. 210
and note 53, Sprache 7, p. 18, explains such forms by assuming
that postvocalic ‘laryngeals’ were regularly lost in pausa w ithout
affecting the vowel quantity. K uiper’s hypothesis may also ac
count for vocatives of the type Skt. devi (: devi ‘goddess’), vad.hu
(: vadhü ‘bride’), Gk. nümpha, OCS. zeno (\zena), etc.51 Kuiper,
Sprache 7, 19 f., also points to dual forms (vocatives) like asura
(RV I, 151, 4), äditya (VII, 85, 4), cf. voc. dual prthivi (<
See also W ackernagel-Debrunner, Altindische Grammatik II,
p. 54, for these forms.
Rem ark: Gk. p ro might reflect an old prevocalic sandhi variant of
*preH 3 : according to §§24 f., 33 f., we would expect IE. * p re th to lose
its *-H i before the initial vowel of a following word. In §29 above,
it has been noted, however, that the parent language according to
Benveniste’s theory of the IE. root, originally had no words beginning
with vowels. Consequently, a sandhi combination of the type *preHi
exC~, which would have given *pro exC- (cf. Gk. pro), cannot have
arisen until after the word *exC- < *H eC - had lost its prevocalic *//-.
The same explanation might account for a reading like devi etu ( - u - u )
of RV I, 40, 3 p râ devy ètu ‘the goddess shall come forth’ discussed
by Kuiper, India A ntiqua, p. 208, cf. P.T. Roberge, K Z 99, p. 62.
49. The lack of an initial h- in the denominative verb m itai- ‘fixer, attacher’
which Catsanicos connects etymologically with the stem *H m ey- of
(su-)hm ili- is puzzling. However, if the h- of hm ili- represents an IE. velar
(or pharyngeal) fricative (cf. §95 below), the existence of doublets of the
type *xm ey- : *m ey- (showing *x-mobile) cannot be ruled out a p r io r i :
Hittite hm ili- might be to m i(tai-) as Gk. stég o s ‘roof is to tégos ‘roof
(showing *s-mobile).
50. For Gk. ôsse ‘the two eyes’ and similar aberrant forms, see §48 above.
51. For the pragfhya-quality of the -I of a locative sg. like vfki, see Kuiper,
India A n tiqu a, p. 209: the original loc. sg. of *wlk"iH 2- ‘she-wolf can be
reconstructed as *w[k"iH2-i, which, after the loss of the intervocalic ‘laryn
geal’ was contracted to *w[k* f before a following consonant, but became
*w [kKiH 2y > *w[k"ty before a following vowel. P. T. Roberge, K Z 99, 54 ff.,
interprets the pragrhya-quality of the Vedic nominal duals in -I, -ü, and -e
‘as a residual laryngeal effect’ (p. 63).
Chronologically, we would have *deywiH2 LLeytu > *deywiH Heytu

(for the syncretism of the ‘laryngeals’ into *H, see § 86) > *deywiH
eytu > Vedic devi etu. On the strength of such speculation Lindeman,
NTS 22, p. 78, argues that the IE. ‘laryngeals’ were lost earlier in
prevocalic than in preconsonantal position. Cf. Cowgill, EvfL, p. 148.
§§52-54 ‘Laryngeal’ Metathesis

§ 52 The m aterial which has led to the assum ption of a ‘larynge
al’ metathesis in Indo-European is not very clear and offers
many phonologic and morphologic difficulties.
References: Winter, EvfL, p. 192; M ayrhofer, Sprache 10,

p. 183, note 26; Schindler, Sprache 15, 145 f.; Jasanoff, M S S
37, p. 105, note 2; R. S.P. Beekes, K Z 86, p. 34; Gamkrelidze,
Pratidänam, 95 f. See also § 62 below.
§53 According to §47, Gk. pûr ‘fire’, Arm. hur, Umbr. pir,
Olcel. fü rr (m.) may all go back to *puH-r~, the regular zero
grade of a full grade stem *pew-H~. However, Gk. gen. sg.
pürôs, G o th . funins (gen. sg. of fo n ‘fire’) seem to reflect earlier
*pu- < *p(H)u- which would be the zero grade of a full grade
stem *peHw- (‘thème I’) ~ ‘thème II’ *pHew- (cf. §29).
‘Fire’ is attested in H ittite as nom. acc. sg. pa-ah-hu-ur, pa-ah-
hur, gen. sg. pa-ah-hu-e-na-as, dat.-loc. sg. pa-ah-hu-e-ni. E.N eu
(personal com munication) informs me that pa-ah-hu-wa-ar
‘entstammt KUB VII 60 II 11— einer jungen Niederschrift’.
These Hittite forms seem to presuppose a stem *peH2w- (or
*peHiw-) in which Cowgill, EvfL, p. 159, sees a metathesis
of *-wH- (seen in O H G. fuir, Gk. pûr, etc.) > -hhw-. Cf. also
Hammerich, Laryngeal before Sonant, 35 ff. The Luwian form
is pa-a-hu-u-ur (Laroche, D LL, p. 77).
It is not easy to reconstruct the original shape of the word for
‘fire’. According to the phonological rules of Indo-European, one
would expect the nom. acc. sg. */péH2wr/ to have been realized
phonetically as *\pâH2wr]. Schindler, B SL 70, p. 10, thinks that
the latter form is continued in H itt, pahhur', for postconsonantal
*-wr > -ur in Hittite, cf. Melchert, StH H P h, p. 52.
An alternative explanation would be to interpret H itt, pahhur
as representing earlier *[pâH2ur\ with [-u-] taken over from the
oblique cases (e.g. gen. sg. *\p(a)H2un-és\ = */p(e)H2wn-és/), i.e.

schematically:
old paradigm new paradigm
sg. nom. acc. *pâH2wr *pâH2ur
gen. *p(a)H2un-és *p(a)H2un-és
dat. *p(a)H2un-éy *p(a)H2un-éy
A preform *pâH2ur might likewise account for Toch. A
por < earlier *paur. However, the fact that the old oblique stem
seems to be pahhwen- in H ittite represents an obvious difficulty
for the suggested analysis of pahhur.
As we have seen, the H ittite and Tocharian (A) forms of
the word meaning ‘fire’ presuppose an IE. stem *peH2w- (or
*peH3w~). The relationship between the stem *peH2w- seen in
H itt, pahhur and the zero grade stem *puH2- > *pü- attested by
Gk. pûr, etc., corresponds structurally to that between *seH2w-
(in Gk. *hüwélios ‘sun’) and the zero grade *suH2- > *sü- found
in Skt. gen. sg. säras.52 A nother com parable example is Skt.
sthävarä- ‘standing still, firm ’ vs. sthürâ- ‘thick, strong’.
Since the expected outcome of the regular zero grade o f the
stem *peH2w- would be *pH2u- > *pu- in non-A natolian IE. (cf.
Gk. purôs, etc.), one might explain the *puH2- > *pü- found in
Gk. pûr, etc. by assuming a metathesis of *H2 and *-w~, i.e.
*pH2u- -* *puH2~. According to Winter, E vfL , p. 192, the regular
sequence *Hw (*H y) was metathesized to *wH (*yH): ‘M eta
thesis occurred only when no vowel preceded the laryngeal,
when the laryngeal did not stand in initial position ..., and when
the semivowel was at least originally followed by a consonant
...’ However, W inter’s rule does not account for the short u of
Gk. purôs, O lcel. fune ‘fire’, G oth. gen. sg. funins. Kurylowicz,
Apophonie, §13, p. 125, takes the *pu- of Gk. purôs, etc. to
represent the zero grade of the ‘thème II’ *pH2ew-', according
to his view, the ‘thème I’ *peH2w- becomes regularly *p(H2)ü-
in the zero grade (before a following consonant).
We have seen that Toch. A por may come from older
*paur < *pàH2ur ( = Hitt, pahhur0.). Toch. B puwar, how-
52. For IE. ‘sun’, see E.P.Hamp, BBCS 26 (1975), 97 ff. and R. S. P. Beekes,
M SS 43 (1984), 5 ff. E.Pirart, M SS 47 (1986), p. 190, does not explain
how his IE. reconstruction *seau-sl-i30- can account for Gk. *hawélios
which has a long *ä in its first syllable ( *seH2uHl- would have given *saûl-
or the like). The same objection can be raised against the reconstruction
proposed by Huld, KZ 99, 194f.
ever, presupposes Proto-Toch. *puwär which may repre

sent */pwH2er/ (with ‘laryngeal’ metathesis) = phonetically
*[puH2ar\, cf. the type seen in Vedic üdhar < IE. üdher (Meillet,
Introduction, p. 266). For Toch. B puwar and similar forms, see
Lindeman, K Z 100.
§54 On the strength of Myc. re-wo-to-ro-ko-wo { — lewo-

trokhowoi) ‘bath-pourers’, re-wo-te-re-jo ( = lewotreios) ‘for b a
thing’,53 Cowgill, EvfL, p. 159, reconstructs the IE. verbal stem
meaning ‘w ash’ as *lewH3- (cf. Ruipérez, Emerita 38, 386 ff. and
Études Mycéniennes, p. 107, note 3). H omeric loetrôn ‘bath,
bathing-place’, aor. inf. loéssai, etc. testify to a Greek metathesis
of lewo- > lowe-. Cowgill thinks that the etymologically related
H ittite verb lahhuwai- ‘p o u r’ shows a metathesis of *w and *H3
(> -hh-).
Lindeman, Tilegnet Carl Hj. Borgstrom, 83 ff., however, ar
gues that the simple root underlying the stem of lahhuwai-
survives in the Hitt, imperative 2 sg. la-a-ah, and in the 1 sg.
preterite la-a-hu-un. If this be accepted, it follows that lahhuwai-
must be analysed as root lah(h)- plus enlargement *-w~. Simi
larly Jasanoff, H ethldg, p. 88. For a tentative explanation of
the Greek stem lewo- see § 87 Rem ark below.
Rem ark: For Kuiper’s suggestion ( Sprache 7, p. 23) that the long vowel
of Skt. â pratltta-, p â rïtta -, p â rîtti- may be explained by assuming a
‘laryngeal’ metathesis in prehistoric Indie see § 102 below. For further
speculation on ‘laryngeal’ metathesis in IE. see Hammerich, Lingua
22, p. 203, who discusses Gk. agathös vs. Gmc. *göda- (in Germ, gut,
Eng. good, etc.). Cf. also H .B.R osén, Athlon. Satura G ram m atica in
Honorem F .R .A drados I (1984), p. 436.
§§ 55-59 Assimilation of a ‘Laryngeal’ and *y or *w

§55 A presyllabic ‘laryngeal’ in the position after a resonant
disappears in the IE. languages outside of A natolian (cf. § 37).
Similarly, the loss of a ‘laryngeal’ in the sequence *-exH R-
resulted in a com pensatory lengthening of the short vowel (*ex),
cf. §38. In some cases, however, intervocalic sequences of the
type *-yH-, *-Hy~, and *-wH~, *-Hw- seem to have become
geminate *-yy- and *-ww~, respectively. In §95 below, we have
53. See Ventris and Chadwick, Documents in Mycenaean Greek, pp. 160 and
338 and Chadwick and Baumbach, Glotta XLI, p. 219.
tentatively defined some of the IE. ‘laryngeals’ as dorso-palatal

fricatives. If this be accepted, the change of *-yH- (*-Hy~) to
geminate *-yy- in some cases could be understood phonetically
as the result of an assimilation of a dorso-palatal fricative
of the type (voiceless) *x’ (or voiced *y’) and the palatal
approxim ant *y ( = semi-vowel). The conditions under
which the supposed assimilation took place remain un
know n.54
§56 Examples: The IE. preform of the Skt. optative dheyAm

(: dhä-) — Gk. theiën may be reconstructed as *dhey-
yem < earlier *dheH\yéH\-, If this be accepted, it follows that
the assimilation of *-H\y- > *-yy- m ust have taken place before
the rise of the quantitative ablaut. The maintenance o f the
full grade of the root in a morphologic form ation normally
characterized by zero grade (cf. Lat. s-ie-d : indie, est) might be
accounted for by assuming that it was the geminate *-yy- itself
which prevented the further reduction of *e to zero in
*dheyyéH\-. A corresponding optative is *g’noH\-yéH\- (from
the root *g’ne/oH\- ‘know ’ seen in H itt, ga-ni-es-zi, OE. cnäwan,
etc., §44) > *g’noyyéH]- underlying Skt. jneyâs = Gk. gnoiës;
cf. also Skt. stheyâm (: sthä-) = Gk. staiën. Similarly Ruijgh,
Études sur la grammaire et le vocabulaire du grec mycénien,
(Amsterdam, 1967), p. 64.
An im portant example is *dwoy-Hows, an old dual form with
a ‘laryngeal’ in the gen. loc. ending attested by Goth, (gen.)
twaddje, Olcel. tveggja, OH G. zweiio, see Lindeman, N T S 26
(1972), p. 231, and cf. Hoffm ann, Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik II,
p. 561, Anm. 2. In the gen. loc. dual of /-, u-, and r- stems the
metre in the Rigveda mostly requires a disyllabic pronunciation
of w hat is written -yos, -vos, and -ros, see Wackernagel, Ai
Gramm II, p. 56. A pronunciation (gen. loc.) härios (: hâri-
‘reddish brow n’) may be explained by assuming that a ‘larynge
al’ has been lost in the underlying form, i.e. *g’heli-Hows >
*g’heli-ows (cf. §33).55
54. Cf. the (speculative) discussion by Lindeman, N T S 23, 35 f.

55. It should be noted that deyâm (RV. VIII, 1, 5) and dheyâm (V, 64, 4; X,
52, 5) must be pronounced as trisyllables. Grassmann ( Wörterbuch zum
Rigveda) reads dhaiäm, etc., whereas Cowgill, Lang 39, p. 270, restitutes
dheyaam, etc. A reading dheyaam might in effect reflect earlier *dhayyääm
§ 57 Further examples. The *-ayyo- attested by the suffix Skt.

-éya-, Gk. -aîos, Osc.-Umbr. -ai{f)o- may have originated in
root nouns of the type *CeH2-, e.g. *sm-bhéH2- ( > Skt. sabhä-
‘colloquium ’), to the root *bheH2- ‘speak’ (Gk. Dor. phämi,
Lat. fârï, OCS. bajg, etc.), + suffix *-yo~, i.e. *smbhéH2yo- >
*smbhâyyo-, Vedic sabhéya- ‘fit for an assembly’. The original
type *smbhä- : *smbhayyo- has furnished the model for the an a
logical creation of adjectives in -ayyo- to derivative «-stems, see
Lindeman, Verschärfung, 43 ff.
We find the same phonetic development in m ore isolated
form ations such as Gk. gloiös ‘gum’ and OE. clœg ‘clay’ < Gmc.
*klajja- < IE. *gloyyô- < earlier *gloyHô- to the verbal stem
*gley-H- found in OIr. glenaid ‘sticks fast’; OCS. vëja ‘branch’,
if from *woyyä, would correspond to Gmc. *wajj- seen in G oth.
-waddjus, Olcel. veggr: the IE. preform would be *woyH~,
cf. Lat. viëre ‘to plait’, Lith. vyti, etc. See Verschärfung, § 10,
10 .
§ 58 The com parative evidence for a corresponding assimilation

of *-Hw~, *-wH- to *-ww- is meagre. (The examples quoted by
Lindeman, Verschärfung, p. 176, are mostly uncertain). H ow
ever, it cannot be excluded a priori that a geminate *-ww- may
in some cases go back to a sequence of a ‘laryngeal’ and the
semi-vowel *w, e.g. Olcel. byggja (byggva), OH G. houwan and
similar examples discussed by Lindeman, ibid., §15. Cf. §48,
Remark above.
Rem ark: According to Lindeman, Verschärfung, this assimilation of

‘laryngeal’ and *y or *w may have left traces also in other Germanic
forms in -jj- and -ww-. The Germanic ‘Verschärfung’ has been much
discussed by ‘laryngealists’, cf. the bibliography cited by Lindeman,
ibid., pp. 9-39. R. S. P. Beekes, Orbis 21, 327 ff., maintains that ‘larynge
als’ have no bearing on the question o f the Germanic ‘Verschärfung’,
but he does not enter into a discussion of its origin(s). Kurylowicz,
Lang 43, 445 f., regards -jj- and -ww- as due to a morphologic inno
vation in Germanic. His views are rejected as unconvincing by Linde
man, N T S 23, 25 ff. Recently, Jasanoff, M S S 37, 77 ff., has proposed
with a hiatus aä due to the loss of the presyllabic ‘laryngeal’ of the optative
suffix, i.e. *dheyyéH\m%, cf. Vedic vääta- ‘wind’ ( ~ vâta-), possibly from
*wéijto- < older *H2wéH\nto-, see §67 below. Otherwise Hoffmann, Prati-
d.änam, 3 ff.
a new interpretation o f forms like Olcel. byggja, byggva. He suggests

that a pre-Germanic form *bheuH i-eye- gave Gmc. *beu-ï-, whence
*beuw-i- with -w- filling out the hiatus caused by the loss o f the
intervocalic ‘laryngeal’: “Subsequently, intervocalic *-uw- could have
been reinterpreted as a phonological geminate, and *beuwi- would
have assumed the shape *bewwî- ( > *biwwï- > 01. b yggvi-).”, cf. ibid.,
p. 80. It is generally agreed, however, that a resonant or semi-vowel
standing after a vowel and before a consonant was consonantal in
form in Indo-European (see Edgerton, Lang 19, p. 108, §63a, A. 4;
E. Seebold, D a s S ystem der idg. H albvokale, 344 ff.). Consequently,
Jasanoffs reconstructed form *bheuH2-eye- should be interpreted
phonemically as */bhewH-eye-/ : the subsequent loss of the prevocalic
‘laryngeal’ would produce *bhew-eye- (unless one accepts the assump
tion o f a much earlier gemination of *w and the following ‘laryngeal’),
and there would thus be no basis for introducing a ‘euphonic glide’
[-H’-] here.
§59 We do not know of any convincing example of a corre

sponding assimilation of a ‘laryngeal’ and one of the resonants
*r, *1, *m and *n. Seebold’s explanation (K Z 80, 273 ff., cf. PBB
89, 122 f.) of the nn of Olcel. kann (and ann) is not the only
possible one, see Lindeman, IF 71, p. 281; cf. also PBB 94, p.
433, for the single n of G ermanic *ana- ‘breathe’ (cf. G oth. pret.
uz-on), which Seebold himself takes to represent IE. *and-
( = Skt. àni-ti ‘breathes’) < *H2énH-,
R.Lühr, M S S 35, p. 37 ff., has attem pted to produce more
evidence in support of Seebold’s hypothesis. L ühr’s discussion
of a passage of *-RH-V- > *-RR-V- is restricted to Germanic,
and several of the examples that she adduces involve both
phonetic and m orphologic difficulties that make them seem at
best inconclusive, cf. the critical discussion by Lindeman, Triple
representation, 32 ff. See also Kurylowicz, IdgGr 2, 342 ff.
In Fachtagung V, 376 ff., C. Watkins postulates a ‘gem ination’
o f -R- plus ‘laryngeal’ to -RR- in Hittite: ‘der Laryngal geht
verloren vor Vokal, mit graphischer Verdoppelung des Sonor
lauts.’ (p. 376). His results are accepted by Jasanoff, M S S 37,
p. 88, note 3. Melchert, StH H P h, p. 16, note 33, teaches that
a ‘sequence *-VRH V- in H ittite gives - VRRV-, ...’ However, the
evidence which Watkins produces in support of the suggested
change of *-VRH V- to *-VRRV- in Hittite is far from convinc
ing, cf. the discussion by Lindeman, Triple representation, 35 ff.
It should also be stressed that Watkins and those who follow
him have been unable to point out the exact phonetic conditions
under which *-R + H- became H ittite -RR- : m any H ittite words

present an unaltered sequence -Rh- between vowels, e.g. arha
‘away, o ut’, arhai- ‘die Runde m achen’ (S tB o T 12, p. 82), tarh-
‘vanquish’ (cf. 1 sg. pret. tarhun, etc.), tarhu(i)~ ‘vanquish’, palhi-
‘b road’, park- ‘drive’, iterative parhesk-, sanh(h)~ (1 sg. pret.
sanhun, etc.), sarh- ‘überfallen’, sarhuntalli- ‘räuberisch’, walh-
‘strike’ (3 pi. pres, wa-al-ha-an-zi, 1 sg. pret. wa-al-(ah-)hu-un,
etc.).56
§§60-65 The ‘N atural’ Long Diphthongs of Indo-

European
§60 The ‘Laryngeal Theory’ has found no generally accepted,
convincing solution to the phonologic and morphologic diffi
culties posed by the so-called ‘natu ral’ long diphthongs of Indo-
European. The following discussion will concentrate upon some
main problems only.
§ 61 On the strength of forms like Skt. pres, pâti ‘drinks’, caus

ative päyäyati, aorist apät, participle pïtâ-, Lat. pötus ‘draug h t’,
etc., and Skt. dhdyas- (n.) ‘strengthening, nourishing’, aorist
ädhät ‘sucked’, part, dhïtâ-, Gk. thêsthai ‘suck’, etc., W. Schulze,
K Z 27 (1885), 420ff., assumed the existence in the parent lan
guage of ‘long-diphthong’ bases of the type *pö(i)~, zero grade
*pï-, ‘drink’, *dhë(i)-, *dhï- ‘suck’, etc. The preconsonantal full
grade forms *pô-, *dhë- (cf. Gk. pô-ma ‘drink’, thêlus) were
supposed to have come from earlier *pôi-, *dhëi- by a regular
56. According to Melchert, S tH H P h , p. 16, and note 33, IE. * H 2w élH 2-ti
‘strikes’, 3 pl. * H 2w \H 2-én ti gave Hittite w alh -zi (by dissimilatory loss of
the first ‘laryngeal’), 3 pi. h ullanzi : ‘This very irregular paradigm was then
leveled after the singular as walh- “strike”, while the form hulla- was
retained in the secondary meaning “fight”, and a new paradigm created
after the model of zin n izzi-, zin n anzi “finish” (note that both stems share
the shape CVRRV-).’ (p. 16). Melchert’s interpretation of walh- and hulla-
rests, however, entirely on the preconceived idea that * -V R H V - yields
Hittite - V R R V - by regular development. However, no conclusive proof has
yet been offered that might force us to admit that Hitt. 3 pl. walhanzi, 1
sg. pret. walhhun, etc. cannot be the regular outcome in this language of
earlier *w [H 2-énti, etc. Hence, we are free to regard walh- ‘strike’ and h ulla/
i- ‘fight’ as representing etymologically unrelated verbal stems. For the
supposed change of IE. *-H is-, etc. > Hitt, -ss-, see §44, note 39 above,
and cf. the discussion by Lindeman, Triple represen tation, p. 35, note 25,
of Hitt, kuissa ‘every one’.
loss o f the second element of the long diphthongs *-ôi-, *-ëi~.

Schulze’s hypothesis soon became a commonly accepted doc
trine in Indo-E uropean studies (cf. Brugmann, Grdr. I, 1,
203 ff.). It should be stressed that such ‘n atural’ long diphthongs
m ust be distinguished from the lengthened grade diphthongs of
the type found in Skt. (s-aorist 3 sg.) âraik (: pres, rinâkti), cf.
the discussion by Hirt, Idg Gr 2, pp. 51-76.
Preconsonantal stem forms like *dhëi- pose serious problems
for the ‘Laryngeal Theory’: *dhëi-, if posited as *dheHd- in
‘laryngeal’ notation, could not have given *dhë- (Skt. aor. â-
dhä-t). We would expect *dheHd-C- to have become (disyllabic)
*dheï-C- > *dhei-C- in the same way as e.g. *pleH\istos becomes
*pleïstos > Gk. pleîstos (§ 33). Cf. Cowgill, E vfL , p. 178. Various
‘solutions’ to this difficulty have been proposed over the years.
§62 Kurylowicz, É I, 40 f., starting from *dheH\- ‘suck’, *peHi-

‘drink’, assumes that a suffix *y was added to these roots at
a very early stage of Indo-E uropean (before the rise of the
quantitative ablaut), i.e. *dheH\- *dheHx-y-, etc.; the suffix in
question soon came to be felt as p art of the verbal root itself.
Thus, the old full grade *peLL- would be reflected in the pô- of
Gk. pô-ma ‘a drink’, whereas the pi- of pl-thi would presuppose
the zero grade of the enlarged root *peHi-y-. A similar inter
pretation is proposed by Benveniste, Origines, 167 f., who
likewise assumes an early alternation in the parent language
between root forms with and w ithout enlargements in *-y (and
*-w ).
Kurylowicz, Apophonie, p. 125, explains the long -F- of Gk.
pl-thi, etc. by assuming a phonetic reduction of full grade
*peHA- to zero grade *p(LL)ï-. This assumption, however, seems
to be w ithout any real foundation. Benveniste, Origines, 167 f.,
sees a particular assimilation product in the long *-T- of Skt.
participle pï-tâ-, etc. ( < *piitô- < *poitô-). His ad hoc expla
nation has found little following however.
To assume an early alternation between root forms with and
without an enlargement in *y in order to account for an inflec
tion of the type seen in Skt. pâti, causative pâyâyati, aorist âpàt,
part, pïtâ- is of very little help: no satisfactory explanation has
yet been given of the peculiar distribution of the enlarged root
form (*peHi-y-) : why is it that the supposed enlargement (*y)
is present in this verb precisely in the causative stem and in the

verbal adjective and in no other forms in Vedic? As long as this
question remains unanswered, Kurylowicz’s and Benveniste’s
explanations m ust be treated with the utm ost scepticism. For
precisely the same reason we find M ayrhofer’s treatm ent of the
long diphthongs (in his IdgGr 1, 174 f.) unconvincing. It should
also be pointed out that the unw arranted assum ption of a
‘laryngeal’ metathesis in order to justify the long -I- of Skt. p i
ta-, Gk. aor. imperat. pî-thi (i.e. *pl- < *piH3- < *pHd-) is in
obvious conflict with M ayrhofer’s own views (ibid., p. 100)
regarding the predialectal IE. voicing of *p by *H3in Skt. pibati,
OIr. ibid, etc.: it follows from *pi-pEL-e-ti > *pi-bH^-e-ti > *pi-
b-e-ti that we must expect the original verbal adjective to have
been *pHd-tô- > *bHd-tb-, whence (by ‘laryngeal’ metathesis)
*biHi-tô- > *bï-tô- (Skt. *bï-tâ-). See further Lindeman, N T S
22 (1968), p. 100, note 2, and cf. Polomé, Reflexes of Laryngeals
in Indo-Iranian, 233 ff.
§63 Diver, Word 15, llO ff., taking the ‘laryngeal’ *H\ to have
been *Hy, tries to show that a sequence *-eHy- developed regu
larly into *-ëy- before a following vowel, but into *-ë- in precon-
sonantal position, cf. §44, Remark above. He uses his hypothesis
to account for certain ‘long-diphthong’ bases of the shape
*-ë(/)-. Diver finds support for his views in two m orphologic
categories: (1) On the strength of the vowel lengthening found
in form ations like Skt. âsvâyati (: âsva-), satrüyati (: satru-), Lat.
albës (: albeo), metütum (: metuo), Gk. philésô, ephilësa (:philéo)
etc., he reconstructs the oldest IE. form of the denom inative
suffix *-ye/o- as *-Hye/o-. However, the assum ption that the
non-presential forms (such as Gk. ephilësa) contain the suffix
of the present stem is not convincing (see Cowgill, E vfL, 178 f.),
and the vowel lengthening seen in the Sanskrit forms in question
admits o f other explanations (see Kurylowicz, Apophonie,
p. 126). (2) Diver (ibid., 120f.) thinks that presents like Skt.
gâyati ‘sings’ (: s-aorist inj. gäsi), etc., which have etymological
connections in *-ë- in the other IE. dialects, ultimately derive
from thematic forms of the shape *géHy-e-ti. This assumption,
however, would imply that the type in *-<?(/)- must be separated
from those in *-ä(i)~ and *-ö(z')- which display exactly the same
alternations (e.g. Skt. pâti : pâyâyatï). Moreover, Diver seems to
have overlooked the fact that forms with a preconsonantal

diphthong occur frequently in IE. dialects outside of Indo-
Iranian, e.g. Lith. gaidys ‘cock’ Latv. gaîlis ‘id.’, Lith. giedôti
‘to sing’ (: Skt. gayati). Zero grade form ations like Skt. gïtâ-
(part. of gàyati) are not discussed by Diver, cf. Lindeman, N T S
22, p. 101.
§ 64 Referring to my previous analysis of the ‘long-diphthong’

bases in N T S 22, p. 99 ff., I will briefly present here w hat seems
to me now to be a plausible solution to this difficult problem.
Taking Skt. causative pàyâyati and participle pï-tâ- to be
structurally parallel to Skt. bhâvâyati ( < *bhowH-éye-ti) and
bhü-tâ- ( < *bhuH-tô-), we can reconstruct, in the case o f the
IE. verb meaning ‘drink’, a causative stem *poyH3-éye-ti and a
participle ^piH^-to-. We posit the underlying verbal stem as
*péy-Hi- (‘thème I ’, cf. §29). The ‘thème II’ may be reconstruct
ed as *py-eH?,-. The radical *y o f the latter stem was lost by
dissimilation at a very early stage of Indo-European (before the
rise of the quantitative ablaut) in those cases where the stem
was immediately followed by a suffix beginning with *-y- as for
example in the optative: *p{y)eH^-yéH\- > *peTT-yéH\-N Thus,
the dissimilatory loss of the *y o f *pyeHi- gave rise to a variant
root form (full grade), *pHy- (zero grade), cf. Skt. aorist
âpàt, present pibati, etc. Similarly, the ‘thème II’ *dhy-éHr
‘suck’ (alternating with a ‘thème I’ *dhéy-H]~ seen in Skt.
dhâyati = Gmc. *dijana- OSwed. dla, Norw. die ‘suck’, etc.)58
would have undergone the same dissimilation, i.e. (optative)
*dh(y)eH\-yéHx- > *dheH\-yéH\- giving rise to a variant root
form *dheH\- (full grade), *dhH\- (zero grade), cf. Skt. aorist
ädhät, perfect (RV) dadhür. Luwian titai(m)mi- ‘suckling, suck
ing child’ = Lyc. tideimi ‘son’, and Hitt. tit(t)ai-/tit(t)iya- ‘give
the breast, nurse’ seem to belong here, see I. Hoffmann, K Z 98,
206 ff. The IE. preform of A natolian *tidai-/*tidiya- is not clear
to me.
57. According to § 56, *peT T -yéH \- might be expected to have become

* p o y y é H r a formation which may survive in the Skt. precative (3 sg.)
p e y â s, cf. N T S 22, p. 107.
58. See Lindeman, N T S 22, 72 f. It seems impossible to decide whether we
should reconstruct IE. *d h éyH l-e -ti (cf. Skt. b h âvati < *bh éw H -e-tî) or
*dh H \èy-e-ti for the present Skt. d h â ya ti = Gmc. *dija/i- < *deja/e-.
§ 65 As can be seen from the m any diverging viewpoints cited

above, the origin of the ‘long-diphthong’ bases remains unex
plained. Since a small leak will sink a great ship, ‘laryngealists’
should pay serious attention to the construction o f a new theory
of such bases that can replace the one proposed by W. Schulze.
§§ 66-70 Prothetic Vowels in Greek and Armenian

§66 In certain cases Greek and A rm enian seem to have pre
served a reflex - in the form of a so-called prothetic vowel - of
initial ‘laryngeals’ which have otherwise disappeared in the non-
Anatolian IE. languages.59 Cowgill, E vfL, p. 151, thinks that
this ‘feature of maximal vocalization ... strongly suggests that
the dialects ancestral to Greek and A rm enian were in contact
at the time when laryngeals began to develop differently in
different parts of the Indo-European speaking territory.’
(E.P.H am p, Studies Palmer, p. 91, referring to the great num ber
of features which Arm enian shares with Greek, observes ‘that
the time is approaching when we should speak of Helleno-
Arm enian.’)
It should be stressed, however, that it is only in a very limited
number of cases that a Greek and A rm enian prothetic vowel can
be com pared to etymologically related forms with a preserved h-
in A natolian. It is likewise a fact that there are prothetic vowels
of a non-‘laryngeal’ origin both in Greek and in Armenian.
Some of the prothetic vowels found in these languages may
ultimately go back to preverbal elements of the shape *e or *o
(comparable to the augm ent *e), e.g. Gk. e-thélô ~ thélô ‘wish’,
o-kéllô ~ kéllô ‘run aground, etc.’, see Lejeune, Phonétique hi
storique, pp. 150, 210 and Kurylowicz, Studia Indoeuropejskie,
111 f. and Mayrhofer, IdgGr 1, p. 126, note 115. The IE. preform
of the preverb seen in Gk. o-kéllô and in özos ‘branch’ can be
posited as on the strength of the equation H ittite hasdwer
‘twigs, branches’ = Gk. ôzos, i.e. *Hie-sd- (zero grade of the
root *sed- ‘sit’), cf. Sturtevant, CG, p. 32, Melchert, StH H P h,
p. 93, note 34; cf §27 above.
59. Cf. §40, Remark above, for Celtic *ast- ‘bone’. See Triple representation,
p. 68, for a critical discussion of other Celtic words, e.g. OCorn. abrans
‘supercilium’ (Breton abrant) vs. OIr. brâe, broi ‘eyebrows’; Mid.Ir. anim
‘blemish’, and Mid. Ir. àirne ‘sloe; kernel’.
§67 Examples: Gk. â{w)ësi ‘blows’ < *H2wéHi-, cf. Gk. âella
‘storm y w ind’ vs. H itt. hu-(u-)wa-an-t- ‘w ind’ (to be read huwant-
or hwant-, see Melchert, StH H P h, p. 28, note 59).60 The initial
‘laryngeal’ has been lost in Skt. vâti ‘blows’, OCS. vèjati, G oth.
waian, Lat. uentus, etc.; note also the lack of lengthening of the
a- o f Vedic avàtâ- ‘windless’, and cf. Mayrhofer, Festschrift
Neumann, p. 188.
Kurylowicz, ÉI, pp. 35 and 74, thinks that Vedic vita- ‘w ind’,
which, like Avest. väta-, must sometimes be read metrically
as vaata-, reflects earlier *waäta- (with hiatus) < *wento-
< *H2weH[nto-: the hiatus *-en- has been removed, however,
in the preform of Lat. uentus, G oth, winds, etc., i.e. *wento- >
*wento-.6]
Gk. a(w)éskei, aorist âesa ‘spend the night’ < *H2wes- vs.
Hitt, hu-i-is-zi ‘lives’, hu-u-e-su, hu-i-su ‘alive’ (probably to be
read hwesu). The initial ‘laryngeal’ has been lost in Skt. vâsati,
G oth, wisan, Arm. gom. (Cf. also §82, Remark below, for Arm.
gom ‘I am ’). A nother possible example is Gk. Horn, -âednos in
an-âednos ‘w ithout bridal gifts’ < *awed- vs. Hitt, huett(iya-)
‘pull’ if this represents *H2wedH2- (with *d + *H2 > tt, see be
low §77, with references).
W hether the initial vowel of Gk. aster and Arm. astl ‘star’
admits of the same explanation seems somewhat doubtful: Wat
kins, Sprache 20, p. 13, thinks that ‘star’ was of the type seen
in Vedic pânthàh, pathâh, Avest. pantà, pa&ö (cf. §73), and
reconstructs the nominative sg. as *H2ostër > Hitt, ha-as-te-er-
za (in which he sees a secondary sigmatic nominative, cf. haras
‘eagle’, nom. sg. of the «-stem haran-, cf. OHG. aro, etc.).62
However, since ast- in aster is to st- in G oth, stairno, Vedic
60. It is doubtful whether Hitt, huwai- ‘run’ belongs here. Laroche, Revue de
Philologie XLII, fasc. 2 (1968), 245 f., connects Hitt, hway- / hwi- ‘courir’
with Gk. hiemai, Skt. véti (see also Couvreur, Heth H, p. 119; Catsanicos,
BSL LXXXI, p. 162, and note 238.). The Luw. form is hu-u-i-ya- ‘courir,
fuir’ (Laroche, D L L , p. 46). For these forms, see now also Melchert,
StH H Ph, p. 16, note 31.
61. Melchert, StH H Ph, p. 33, note 70, observes that Hitt. hu(u)want-, read as
hwant-, might be from *H2w éH xnt-. (Otherwise Porzig, Gliederung des idg
Sprachgebiets, 197 f., who sees a contamination of *wents (Hitt, hwants)
and *wetos (Skt. väta- ‘wind’) in *wentos (Lat. uentus, etc.).)
62. Otherwise Friedrich, Athenaeum XLVII, p. 118, who posits *hasters (like
Gk. hal-s ‘salt’) with -rs > [-m] (written -r-za), cf. Laroche, RHA 28,
p. 74.
stâr-, etc. as aw- in Gk. â(w)ësi < *awë-ti ‘blows’ is to w- in

Skt. vâ-ti ‘blows’ < *HwéH-ti, it is tempting to posit *Hster- as
the primitive form; H ittite ha-as-te-er-za would then be a writing
for [hster(-s)] with a non-vocalized initial ‘laryngeal’. If ‘star’
was o f the type Vedic (nom. sg.) pänthäh : gen. sg. pathâh, its
nominative sg. ought to have had root accent; the accent o f
Gk. aster gives no support to W atkins’ hypothesis.63
The fact that we find *«- in Greek in the rare cases where a
Greek prothetic vowel can be com pared to etymologically re
lated forms with a m aintained h- in the A natolian languages is
in full agreement with the conclusions set forth below (§86)
concerning the development of interconsonantal *H in Greek.
See also Kurylowicz, VJA (1971), 3, p. 123.
In other cases Anatolian offers no corroborative evidence for
the assumption of a ‘laryngeal’ origin of a Greek or Arm enian
prothetic vowel, e.g. Gk. a{w)éksô < *H2weks- vs. auksänö, Lat.
augëre, G oth, aukan, etc. < *H2ewg~; Gk. anér, Arm. ayr
‘m an’ < *Hner-, cf. the vowel lengthening seen in the first ele
ment of the com pounds Skt. sü-nâra- ‘bountiful’, G ath. Avest.
kamnä-nar- ‘wenig Männer, Leute besitzend’ (according to
§50, < *su-Hner-, etc.). For the Phryg. anar ‘m an’, see
R. Ködderitzsch, Linguistique Balkanique 28 (1985), p. 4. H ittite
innara ‘willfully, purposely’, innarawant- ‘strong, vigorous’, and
Luwian annarummi- ‘strong, forceful’ may belong here, see
Puhvel, HED, p. 373, who postulates (with Laroche, R H A 23,
p. 42) a Proto-A natolian neuter noun *enar ‘strength’ < IE.
*H\ènr. Puhvel thinks that ‘the “m an” words are accentually
polarized animate nominative counterparts to those neuters.’
The orig. (animate) *H xnér ‘m an’ gives *Hnër (whence the
Greek and Armenian forms) after the syncretism of the ‘larynge
als’ under one colour (§86).
Vedic 1 sg. middle aorist namsi, perfect 3 sg. ânâmsa, pi.
cmasur (: pres, nâsati, asnôti ‘attains’), OIr. suffixless preterite
stem -cinec- (:pres. -ice, e.g. in r-icc ‘reaches’, cf. §46) all seem
63. For Hamp’s analysis of ‘star’ (PICL 11, 1050f., see Lindeman, Triple
representation, p. 58. For ‘star’, see now also Mayrhofer, IdgGr 1, p. 135,
and note 154 (with further references), Eichner, Sprache 24, p. 161, note
76, regards *H2s-ter as a nomen agentis to a root *H2es- ‘burn, glow’
(which he finds in Hitt, hassa- ‘hearth’, Lat. ära, etc.). The same etymology
is proposed by A.R.Bomhard, JIES 14, 191 f.
to be from a verbal stem *Hnenk’’-, an allom orph (with double

nasal) of the *H nek’~ seen in Vedic 3 sg. root aorist anat
(< *é-H nek’-t, according to §50), Gk. diënekês ‘continuous’,64
OCS. nesti, Lith. nèsti ‘carry’ (cf. Cowgill, EvfL, p. 151, and
note 17, A nttila, Schwebe ablaut, p. 125). The initial ‘laryngeal’
of *H nenk’- is shown not to have been *H\ by the OIr. pret.
stem -änec- < Insular Celtic *änank- = Vedic zero grade perfect
stem änas{-ür), cf. §46. The *ä- of *änank- presupposes IE. *ä
or *6. The underlying reduplicated zero grade perfect stem can
be reconstructed as *He-Hnnk'-.
If the Gk. aorist enegkeîn ‘bring’ goes back to the same stem
*H nenk’-, its initial e- cannot, of course, be regarded as a
phonetic reflex of a vocalized *H X-.65 However, if we are right
in assuming that IE. *Hster- ‘star’, attested by Hitt, ha-as-te-
er-za [hster(-s)\, has given Gk. astêr, we would expect the IE.
stem *H nenk’~ to have become Gk. *anegk- (with a vocalized
‘laryngeal’ giving Gk. a, see also §§86, 88 below); the latter
form seems to have given enegk- by assimilation (cf. Cowgill,
E vfL, p. 154).
Scholars who believe that the triple representation of Schwa
in G reek is a phonetic archaism (§ 87) take the e- of a form like
Myc. e-e-si = [ehensi] ‘they are’ to be the regular reflex of a
vocalized initial *H X-, i.e. IE. *H\s-énti > Gk. eh-ensi (vs. Skt.
sänti, Umbr. sent, G oth, sind, OIr. it, etc., with loss of the initial
‘laryngeal’). The a- found in the corresponding 3 pl. H ittite a-
sa-an-zi (: 3 sg. es-zi ‘is’) is likewise regarded as the phonetic
outcome of the vocalized initial *H\- of *H xs-énti (cf. M ayrho
fer, IdgGr 1, 124 f., with references and E.P.H am p, M S S 37,
59 f.). Similarly, Gk. eüs ‘good’, eû ‘well’, and Hitt, assu ‘good’
are taken to be from *H\su- (vs. Vedic sü ‘good’, OIr. so-, su-
‘good’). Other scholars, however, posit a full grade *H xesu- for
Gk. eüs (e.g. M .Peters, Untersuchungen, p. 42, with references);
see also Chantraine, Dictionnaire II, p. 388: ‘Il n’est pourtant
64. For the variant form diänekes, see Chantraine, Dictionnaire I, p. 282: ‘La
forme en a long vise, l’étymologie étant perdue de vue, à mettre en accent
le préverbe dia-.’ F. Bader, Minos 12, p. 149, thinks that this compound
‘pourrait être un *dia-onek-, s’il était très archaïque, ce qui est indémontra
ble.’
65. R .S.P. Beekes, M SS 38, 18 f., holds that enegkeîn must be separated from
Vedic nàmsi, etc. for semantic and formal reasons. He posits an initial *HX-
in the preform of the Gk. verb. Cf. also G. Schmidt. Orhix 26, p. 113.
pas impossible, en définitive, que i.-e. *esu- et *wesu- se soient

confondus en grec.’ IE. *wesu- (Skt. vâsu- ‘good’) may at an
early stage have become *esu- by dissimilation (*w...u > *0...u).
Catsanicos, B SL 79, fasc. 2, p. 150, takes H itt, a-as-su (subst.
neuter ‘bien’) to come from *H\ôsu the o-vocalism of
which would be parallel to that of Glètaru (neuter) ‘bois’, Gk.
dôru.
Forms like Gk. ehensi ‘they are’ and H itt, asanzi pose serious
phonological problems. As Kurylowicz has shown (B S L LXXII,
p. 72 and Problèmes, 187 f.), it seems possible that the prothetic
vowel in Greek— whatever its origin— tended to adopt the
timbre o f a collateral full grade form. Thus, the prothetic
vowel ([«-], cf. aster, and see § 86) which possibly66 arose from a
vocalization of the initial ‘laryngeal’ in the present indie, plural
of *H\és-ti ‘is’ in Greek, i.e. in the forms *H xs-mén, *H\S-té,
*H\s-énti (cf. Skt. s-mâh, s-thâ, s-ânti), may have become e-
under the influence of the e of the corresponding full grade
stem *és- < *H]és-ti, etc.
Similarly, if ‘to o th ’ (Skt. dânt-, Lat. dens, OH G. zand, OIr.
dét, etc.) ultimately goes back to an old participle of *H\ed-
‘eat’ (Hitt. 1 sg. pres, edmi),67 i.e. to *H\d-é(ônt-, *H\d-nt-, the
prothetic vowel which arose from a vocalization of the initial
‘laryngeal’ in Greek, may have adopted the tim bre *e of the
collateral full grade *éd- (seen in Horn. inf. édmenai, cf. pres.
édo). The resulting *edont- (for *adont-, cf. also the initial a- of
Armenian atamn ‘to o th ’) may survive in Aeol. édontes ‘teeth’.68
The usual form odont- would show a later assimilation of the
initial e- to the o of the following syllable, cf. examples like
eréphô ‘cover with a r o o f vs. ôrophos, orophé ‘ro o f, eréthô
‘provoke’ vs. oroth-ünö ‘stir up ’, cf. also kéleuthos ‘road, p ath ’
66. Catsanicos, BSL LXXXI, p. 172, note 287, thinks that *#H isV - gave Gk.
* #sU -, and that the e-vocalism of the singular has been substituted for
zero in Myc. 3 pi. ehensi (cf. ibid., p. 172, note 290, with further references).
67. Otherwise Benveniste, B SL 32, 74 ff. Winter, K Z 72, p. 167, tries to show
that *H\ed- may have denoted originally ‘ein kauendes “essen”’ and that
‘teeth’ should probably be understood as ‘Kauende, Kauwerkzeuge’.
68. The development would have been as follows. IE. pres, indie, (schematical
ly) sg. *H iéd-ti:p\. *H ld-énti, part. *Hid-e/ont- ‘eating; tooth’ > Early
Greek sg. *éd-ti : pl. *ad-énti, part. *ad-éjônt- ‘eating; tooth’; the prothetic
vowel adopting the timbre of the full grade form *ed-, *ad-énti, part. *ad-
é/ônt- ‘eating; tooth’ now become *ed-énti, part. *ed-é/ônt- ‘eating; tooth’,
cf. Aeol. édontes.
vs. akôlouthos ‘follower’. See Kurylowicz, Problèmes, p. 187, cf.

E.P.H am p, M S S 37, p. 61.
H ittite forms like asanzi ‘they are’ (: 3 sg. eszi), adanzi ‘they
eat’ (: 1 sg. edmi) are generally supposed to come from *H xs-
énti, *H[d-énti by vocalization o f the initial ‘laryngeal’. This
does not seem convincing to me. If we are right in taking ha-
as-te-er-za ( = Gk. aster) as *hster(-s), it follows that an initial
preconsonantal *H2 (or *H{!) was not vocalized to a- in Hittite.
Since *//), like *H2 and *H3, is a consonant (§ 16), there is no
reason a priori that makes us expect a vocalization of the
initial *H\- of *H xs-énti, *H xd-énti. On the strength of */Hster-/
‘star’ > hster(-s) we can posit */Hisénty/ (with a consonantal
‘laryngeal’). Since *H X disappears in H ittite (§30), we would
expect */Hisénty/ to have given H itt. *sanzi.69 For a possible
explanation of the a- o f asanzi, adanzi, see § 88 below.
It should be stressed th at ‘a G reek prothetic vowel is not by
itself evidence for a ‘laryngeal’:70 in cases where there is no
outside corroborative evidence, the earlier existence of an initial
‘laryngeal’ cannot be conclusively dem onstrated. Thus, the ori
gin o f the e- e.g. of egeirö ‘awaken, rouse’, perf. egregora ‘to be
aw ake’ remains unknow n.71 There is no trace of any initial
‘laryngeal’ in related forms in other IE. languages, cf. e.g. Vedic
aorist imperat. 2. dual jigrtâm , perf. 3 sg. jägära, and, perhaps,
OIr. diuchtra- ‘awakes’, if this contains the verb stem *gr-ä-,
see Lindeman, Ériu 35, 203 f. It seems to me that Lejeune,
Phonétique historique, p. 150, is justified in assuming that the
69. The a- of asanzi cannot be ‘nur Schreibung für den Mangel jeglichen
Vokals’ (Kurylowicz, IdgGr 2, p. 256), since *sanzi could have been written
sa-an-zi.
70. Cowgill, E vfL , p. 151, note 15, referring to Winter, Studien zum 'prothetisch-
en ’ Vokal im Griechischen, p. 5.
71. See Chantraine, Dictionnaire II, p. 310. To explain a form like négretos
‘unwaking’ by positing *n-Lhgretos (where *nEh- is supposed to have given
Gk. *nê-, see R. S. P. Beekes, Development, 107 f.) is not convincing, cf. the
discussion by Lindeman, Triple representation, p. 59. See also Kurylowicz,
Studia Indoeuropejskie, p. 114, note 8, who likewise rejects the possibility
of positing *nHi-, *nH2-, *nTL- > Gk. né-, nä-, nö- : ‘On attendrait des
formes semblables (nä-) en italique et en celtique.’ W.F.Wyatt Jr., The
Greek Prothetic Vowel (1972), wholly rejects the possibility of taking prothe
tic vowels to be reflexes of I.E. ‘laryngeals’ (cf. also Wyatt Jr., Indo-
European /a/ (1970)). For Wyatt’s often arbitrary ‘rules’, cf. the discussion
by Polomé, First International Conference on Armenian Linguistics, Proceed
ings, (1980), 22 ff. Cf. also Mayrhofer, Sprache 17 (1971), p. 77.
prothetic vowels of Greek ‘pourraient être d ’origines (et de

dates) diverses.’ Cf. Kurylowicz, Studia Indoeuropejskie, p. 114.
Even in cases where Greek and Arm enian show prothetic
vowels in related word-forms, the earlier existence of an initial
‘laryngeal’ cannot be conclusively dem onstrated if there is no
corroborative evidence in other IE. languages. It is com m on
place that initial *r- is always preceded by a prothetic vowel in
Armenian. Hence, it remains doubtful w hether erek ‘evening’
and Gk. érebos ‘darkness’ w arrant the restitution of an IE.
noun of the shape *H\regwe/os-, cf. Skt. râjah ‘dim space’, G oth.
riqis ‘skotos’. For these reasons I think that M ayrhofer {Fest
schrift Neumann, p. 186, note 30, IdgGr 1, p. 126, note 115) is
right in discarding Arm. erek, Gk. érebos, and Arm. inj (dative
of es ‘I’), Gk. emé, Arm. inn ‘9’, and Gk. ennéa as evidence for
a development of initial preconsonantal *H\- into prothetic e-
in these languages.
When it comes to the interpretation of the relevant Arm enian
and Greek material opinions differ widely am ong contem porary
scholars. One can only hope that new linguistic evidence from
A natolian may one day throw new light upon the problem of
prothetic vowels of ‘laryngeal’ origin in G reek and Armenian.
The following examples may illustrate the point in question.
In his IdgGr 1, p. 126, M ayrhofer reconstructs ‘nam e’ as
*h\neh3men-.12 The oldest Greek form is supposed to be énuma
(in Enumakraddäs n. pr.), whence, by assimilation, Aeol. Dor.
ônuma. Ion. Att. onotna. The A rm enian form is anun, gen. sg.
anuan?1 O ther forms are H itt, laman < *naman (by dissimi
lation), Lat. nomen, OIr. ainm, gen. sg. anmae, A lbanian emër
(Geg. emën), Toch. B hem, A horn, OCS. im§, G oth, namo, Skt.
narna. Scholars who, like Mayrhofer, posit *HineH3men- for
Hitt. *naman > laman, do not com ment on the lack of a ‘prothe
tic’ a- here: if one m aintains that the a- of asanzi ‘they are’ has
arisen from a vocalization of the initial * th - of *H\s-énti (Gk.
72. The underlying root is the one seen in Gk. ôno-tai ‘blames’ according to
Eichner, Fachtagung VI, p. 144, note 64 (?).
73. For the inflection of Arm. anun, gen. sg. anuan, see Lindeman, AAL 1,
57 f., who tries to show that the oblique singular stem of this word, i.e. the
pre-Armenian *anowan attested by gen. dat. loc. anuan, may ultimately go
back to *nomnti ( = Gk. onômati) with a phonetic loss of final *-ti, cf. k'san
‘20’, < *wlk'mti.
eh-ensi), one ought to explain why there is no such prothesis in

*H\neHimen- > *naman.
Since no ‘laryngeal’ is attested by the H ittite form *naman >
laman, and since, further, prothetic vowels may be of non-
‘laryngeal’ origin in Greek and Arm enian (cf. above), other
scholars (e.g. A nttila, Schwebe ablaut, 126 f., Lindeman, Triple
representation, 64 f., Szemerényi, Syncope, p. 245) follow
Cowgill, E vfL, p. 156, who thinks th at the original inflection of
‘nam e’ may have been nom. acc. *nômn, gen. sg. *nméns parallel
to the type seen in Skt. däru, droh ‘tree’ < *dôru, gen. sg. *dréws.
The e- of Gk. énuma and the a- o f Arm. anun74 would then be
o f non-‘laryngeah origin.
The oblique stem *nmen- (cf. OIr. gen. sg. anmae < *nmen-s)
would have given A natolian *anman- which may be continued
in Hierogl. Luw. ad(a)man- (cf. Anatolian Studies 28, p. 104; 30,
p. 124) with a dissimilation o f the first n to d, and a graphic or
genuine anaptyctic -a-, cf. Melchert, Sprache 29, p. 21. An
A natolian stem form *nam(a)n- is attested by Hierogl. Luw.
lamnisati (3 sg.), cf. H itt. lam(a)niya- ‘to name; mention, etc.’
(Cf. Meriggi, Hieroglyphisch-Heth. Glossar, p. 78).
For a discussion o f the Tocharian forms for ‘nam e’, see Linde
man, Triple representation, p. 65, who thinks that the oblique
stem *nmen- at an early stage developed into Toch. *änm’än-
(with regular palatalization of m before *ä < *e), whence
*än’m ’än- with palatalization spreading to comprise the cluster
nm. Anaptyxis and subsequent loss of *ä- would cause the latter
form to become *häm-( ), the palatal initial *h- of which may
have spread by analogy to the old nom. acc. sg. form
*nam(än) > *ham (än), B hem, A horn.
A further controversial example is Gk. ôsse ‘the two eyes’
and Arm. a c k ' ‘eyes’, the IE. preform o f which is reconstructed
as */h3kHihi/ by M ayrhofer, IdgGr 1, p. 127, note 118, with
references. As prothetic vowels from vocalized initial ‘larynge
als’ are otherwise unknown in Baltic and Slavic, Lindeman,
Triple representation, p. 47, note 35, posits a full grade *H tfkwiH
74. Referring to Arm. vat‘sun ‘60, for expected *vet'sun (cf. vec‘ ‘6’), Lindeman,
Triple representation, p. 64, tentatively suggests that the oldest form of
‘name’ may have been *enun in Armenian. The change of *enun to anun
would have preceded the change of an *e to i before a following nasal in
Armenian.
for Lith. aki, OCS. oci, Gk. ôsse, Arm. a c‘k \ and Toch. B
es(a)ne, etc. According to M artinet’s analysis (Économie,
p. 229), the initial a- of Arm. akn ‘eye’, pi. ac‘k ‘ may come
from IE. *xekw- < *xwekw- by dissimilation of labiality, cf. §40,
Remark above; for * //3 = *xw, see §95 below. Consequently, all
the above mentioned forms for ‘eye’ go back to the same pre
form *HiékwiH with full grade root vocalism. For the ending of
Gk. ôsse see §48.
§ 68 The material analysed above m akes it seem beyond reason

able doubt that certain prothetic vowels in G reek and Arm enian
have a ‘laryngeal’ origin. Further, we have seen that the rare
examples where Greek and Arm enian prothesis actually corre
sponds to the presence of h- in A natolian all show initial a-,
e.g. Gk. aster, Arm. astl ‘star’ vs. H itt. hster(-s), and, perhaps,
Arm. arew ‘sun’, areg(-akn) ‘id.’ vs. H itt. har(u)wanai- ‘es hellt
vollständig a u f. It should be stressed, therefore, that the p ro
thetic vowels do not provide any conclusive evidence for the
maintenance of the different timbres (*H\, *H2, *H2) of the
‘laryngeals’ in the IE. dialects ancestral to G reek and Arm enian.
We do not know how an initial cluster of the type *H2w-
came to be pronounced *aw- in Gk. â(w)ësi ‘blows’ (vs. Skt.
vati, OH G. wäen, etc. with regular loss of the initial ‘laryngeal’).
Crossland, ArchLing 10, p. 84, may well be right in assuming
that loss of a ‘fricative in initial sequences such as jxw j and
development of a ‘Hilfsvokal’ before it seem likely phonetic
developments. The latter has a parallel in Greek iktînos; cf. Skt.
syenas.’’
§ 69 According to W. M. Austin, Lang 17, 83 ff., metrically long

initial m, n and / in Homeric Greek that cannot be explained
by etymology (e.g. niphâs < *snigwh-) or analogy (e.g. mégas
after mikrôs < *smi-) reflect old sequences of initial ‘laryngeal’
plus a following resonant (*H R-). However, A ustin’s hypothesis
remains without foundation, cf. the discussion by Messing, SSP,
194 ff.; see also Cowgill, EvfL, 160 f. As an illustration we will
examine one of A ustin’s examples, i.e. Horn, sùn de nephéessi
(e 293), where the n- of neph- is supposed to owe its length to
the initial ‘laryngeal’ of the IE. word for ‘cloud’, reconstructed
as *H\nebh-, cf. Skt. nâbhas, Hitt, ne-pî-is :G k. ômbros ‘rain’,
Skt. âmbhas ‘w ater’. However, we know from Szemerényi’s

careful analysis (in Syncope, 241 ff.) that IE. *nébhos ‘cloud’
had no initial ‘laryngeal’ (as Gk. ômbros and Skt. âmbhas do not
belong here). We see no fault with the traditional explanation of
initial long n, m, T in cases like Horn, neph- (see Schwyzer, Gr
Gr I, p. 311, cf. Cowgill, EvfL, 161 f.).
R em ark: According to Sapir, L ang 14, 271 f f , Greek h- corresponding

to an initial *w- or *y- in other IE. languages (e.g. Gk. hésperos : Lat.
uesper, Gk. hôs: Skt. y â -) originates in sequences o f ‘laryngeal’ plus
*w- and *y~. Cf. Sturtevant, IH L , 76 ff., Polomé, R B P h H 30, p. 457,
Zgusta, A O 19, p. 446, Lehmann, P IE P h 33 f. and p. 107, Schmitt-
Brandt, V okalsystem , 79 ff. However, Sapir’s hypothesis finds no con
vincing support in the existing material, cf. the critical discussion by
Cowgill, E vfL , 160 f f , who points to the development of IE. *EEw-
into Gk. aw-, seen e.g. in *H iw éH i-ti (Skt. vati ‘blows’) > Gk. â{w)ësi.
To posit an IE. distinction between a reduced grade ( *H iew -) and a
zero grade ( *H 2w- ) in order to account for Greek prothesis {aw-) and
Gk. initial h-, respectively, is entirely a d hoc, cf. Cowgill’s observation
in E vfL , p. 162: ‘... I see no good grounds for accepting a special
reduced grade for Proto-Indo-European so long as no one is able to
produce a set o f environments, either phonologic or morphologic, in
which reduced grade was regular in PIE, comparable to the environ
ments that can be established for normal grade, zero grade, o-grade,
and lengthened grade. Until that time, hypotheses relying on a PIE
distinction between reduced and zero grade must be treated with the
utmost skepticism.’
The idea that a sequence of (voiced) ‘laryngeal’ + *y- underlies Gk.
z- (Hammerich, L aryn geal before Sonant, 12 ff. and Lehmann, PIEPh,
74 ff.) has been shown to be incorrect by Cowgill, E vfL, 163 ff.
(Schmitt-Brandt, Vokalsystem , 79 ff., assumes that IE. *y- is regularly
continued in Greek as z-). For a detailed discussion o f the treatment
of initial ‘laryngeals’ before *i and *u followed by a consonant in
Greek, see M. Peters, Untersuchungen, 5 ff. The author finds that pro
thetic vowels did not develop before *i, but did before *u in Greek.
(Gk. huphainö ‘weave’, if it reflects *Hubh-, would then be an excep
tion, which does not seem plausible: for this verb an initial ‘laryngeal’
might be assumed on the strength o f the nasal present unâbh- found
in Vedic (e.g. unap ipf. 2 sg.), i.e. IE. *Hu-n-ébh-, see R. S. P. Beekes,
D evelopm ent, p. 67.
§70 In Eos XXX (1927), 206 ff., Kurylowicz tried to show that
the origin of the so-called ‘A ttic’ reduplication could be ex
75. ei for e (in eileloutha) by metrical lengthening.

plained by the assum ption of a ‘laryngeal’ prothesis in Greek, cf.

Horn, enénothe, eiléloutha15 < *H\ne-H\nodh-e, *Hde-HJoudh-
H 2e, etc. Later, in Apophonie, p. 270, w ithdrawing his earlier
explanation, he proposed an interpretation by analogy: the long
(second) syllable of eiléloutha, etc. was re-shaped on the model
of the com pound-initial lengthening found in cases like ép-ëlus
‘stranger’. Otherwise Schwyzer, GrGr I, p. 766, note 8. Lor the
‘Attic’ reduplication, cf. also L. A .N ikitina, VJA (1962), 1, 81 ff.,
who thinks that some of the prothetic vowels come from a
‘laryngeal’ whose articulation was similar to that of IE. *s. This
‘laryngeal’ is supposed to have fallen together with *s in all
the IE. languages with the exception of A lbanian, G reek and
Armenian, where it developed into vowels. However, as long as
the author has not established the exact conditions determining
the various phonetic developments (partly into vowels, partly
into *s), this hypothesis remains w ithout foundation. Lor cases
where H ittite s seems to correspond to an IE. ‘laryngeal’, see
Schindler, Sprache 15, 159 f., and note 91. Lor H ittite su-wa-is
‘bird’, cf. § 37, Rem ark above.
We can be reasonably certain that the ‘A ttic’ reduplication
does not allow for a ‘laryngeal’ explanation (despite C. J. Ruijgh,
Mélanges Chantraine 21 ff., Mayrhofer, IdgGr 1, p. 125): the
morphological rules governing the form ation of the IE. perfect
stem exclude the possibility of positing *Hle-Hl(o)udh- to ac
count for Gk. elël{o)uth-\ ‘Aussi longtemps que d\ était une
consonne et que dd- form ait un groupe consonantique, le re
doublement consistait en une répétition du premier élément
consonantique plus e, donc: d{e + ddoudh- > *ëlouth-. Si, de
l’autre côté, on part d ’une racine à initiale vocalisée (*eleudh),
le redoublement sera égal à l’allongement de l’initiale, d ’où
*ëlouth-, Pour peu qu’on s’en tienne scrupuleusement aux règles
du redoublement indo-européen, chacune des deux hypothèses
nous fait attendre a priori un parfait *ëlouth-é (.Apophonie
p. 270) See also Kurylowicz, M etrik und Sprachgeschichte
(1975), 15 ff., H.Schmeja, Studies Palmer, 353 ff., Kurylowicz,
Studia Indoeuropejskie, 111 f.
Lor the ‘A ttic’ reduplication, see now Szemerényi, Acta M y-
cenaea, Proceedings o f the 5th International Colloquium on M y
cenaean Studies (1972), 309 f. Szemerényi assumes, perhaps cor
rectly, that a monosyllabic stem like ed- replaced its old perfect
*êda (cf. G oth. pl. ëtun,16 Lat. ëdi), m any forms of which would
have been hom onym ous with forms both of edmi and o f eimi,
by éd-ëda by prefixing ed- on the model of (*estës (ed-tä-s)->•)
ed-estes ‘eater’. Disyllabic stems such as ela-, eleuth- then fol
lowed suit and formed élëla, elëlouth-, ‘irrespective of whether
the initial vowel was inherited or prothetic.’ (p. 310).
§§71-72 The Balto-Slavic Intonations

§71 According to the communis opinio11 the Balto-Slavic inton
ations (— at any rate outside the final syllable—) are historically
connected with the (non-A natolian) Indo-European quantity:
in principle, long IE. m onophthongs and the reflexes in Balto-
Slavic o f IE. *f, *1 *m and *n (cf. §49) become acute,78 while
norm al (full grade) diphthongs and the reflexes o f (short) *f,
*[, *m and *n become circumflex.79 Examples: Lith. môtè, Latv.
mäte, S.-Cr. m äti vs. Skt. mätä, etc.; Lith. (acc. sg.) sàny. vs.
Skt. sünus\ Lith. vyras ‘m an’, Latv. virs vs. Skt. vïra-; Lith. düoti
‘give’, S.-Cr. dâti vs. Skt. dä-, etc.; Lith. antras, Latv. ùotrs vs.
G oth, anpar; Lith. (acc. sg.) dantj < IE. *dont- ‘to o th ’;
Lith. parsas, S.-Cr. prâse vs. Lat. porcus ‘hog, pig’; Lith. diëvas,
Latv. dievs vs. Skt. deva-, Lith. sniëgas, Latv. sniegs, S.-Cr.
snêg vs. G oth, snaiws, etc.80 For a num ber of cases, how
ever, a so-called m etatony has to be assumed, i.e. a change
from acute to circumflex or vice versa, cf. Stang, Vergl
Gramm 144 ff. Examples: 3 sg. fut. Lith. duos, s to s :\ sg.
dùosiu, stôsiu.
§ 72 There is probably no direct connection between the inton

ations of Balto-Slavic on the one hand, and the ‘laryngeals’ of
76. For the Gmc. preterite *ët-, *ët-un (Goth, -ët, ëtun, OHG. äz, äzun, etc.),
cf. the discussion by Lindeman, N T S 22, p. 76.
77. F. de Saussure, M SL . 8, p. 425; Kurylowicz, L’accentuation des langues
indo-européennes, 162 ff. Chr. Stang, Vergl Gramm, 128 ff. and Slavonic
Accentuation, 5 ff.
78. i.e. Lith. ' on long, ’ on short syllables, Latv. ~ and ", respectively, S.-
Cr. ".
79. i.e. Lith. ~ Latv. ', S.-Cr. ".
80. The following correspondences may illustrate the intonations in the Slavic
languages. Circumflex: Russ, gbrod, S.-Cr. grâd, Slov. grâd (Lith. gardas).
Acute: Russ, vorôna, S.-Cr. vràna, Slov. vrâna (Lith. vnmn ‘crow’).
Indo-European on the other, see C.W atkins, EvfL, p. 116.81

Thus, Lith. bûti and S.-Cr. bid presuppose a Balto-Slavic base
*bü- corresponding to a (non-A natolian) zero grade *bhü (seen
in Skt. bhü-, etc.). It is only on the strength of Skt. bhavitum
and similar form ations that the zero grade *bhü- can be analysed
as *bhu-H- (cf. §47 above). Consequently, Balto-Slavic forms
with acute cannot be considered as evidence for a lost ‘laryngeal’
except in such cases where no other explanations of the origin
of the long m onophthongs (or long diphthongs) in question are
available.82
The following phonologic feature is of particular im portance
for the ‘Laryngeal Theory’: an IE. sequence *-eRH- in the
position before a plosive or a resonant developed in Balto-
Slavic into a long diphthong *-ëR- the long vowel of which was
subsequently shortened; the original length is reflected, however,
by the acute accent, e.g. Lith. gérti ‘drink’, Latv. dzeft <
*gwerH- (Skt. girâti, gïrnâ-, etc.). See Kurylowicz, Apophonie,
§35.83
Similarly, a preconsonantal sequence *-RH- ( > *-R-) seems
to have given a Balto-Slavic long diphthong *-ïR- (*-üR-), cf.
Lith. pilnas ‘full’, Latv. piïns, S.-Cr. pun : Skt. pürnâ-, etc.
( < *plH\no~). Short preconsonantal *-R- is reflected in Lith.
vilkas, Latv. vilks, S.-Cr. vûk: Skt. v[ka~.
81. Otherwise Kortlandt, K Z 92 (1978), 269 ff. (with further references). Kort-
landt assumes that Early Slavic had preserved the IE. ‘laryngeals’, and that
their disappearance at different stages explains the different accentual
developments in Slavic. In the field of Slavic studies, Kortlandt’s analyses
seem to have found little following.
82. Lehmann, PIEPh , p. 31, restitutes the IE. word for ‘heart’ as *keXrd- on
the strength of Lith. acc. sg. sirdj (nom. sir dis ‘heart’), Latv. nom. sg. sirds,
S.-Cr. srce. This restitution, however, creates considerable problems for
our interpretation of forms like Skt. hfd-, Gk. kardia, Lat. cord-, etc. The
Balto-Slavic forms admit of an alternative, and much simpler explanation,
cf. Skardzius, IF 62, p. 162: referring to the coexistence of sir dis, gen. sg.
sir dès (-iës), gen. pl. sirdÿ., and serdis, -iès, sérdj ‘Mark, Kern im Holze’ or
serdè, -ès, sérdç ‘id.’ (= Latv. serde), Skardzius concludes ‘dass im Baltisch
en einst ein Wurzelnomen *sérd-/*sird- vorhanden gewesen ist; vg. ai. hàrdij
kfd-, gr. kêr/kardia, kradië u.a. Aus diesen zwei verschiedenstufigen Wurzeln
haben sich später zweierlei Wörter entwickelt: serdis, sérdj, oder serdè, sérdç
mit ursprünglich langer Wurzel und sirdis, *sirdj, welches den Stosston aus
dem bedeutungsähnlichen sérdj, sérdç erhalten haben kann.’ Cf. C. Watkins,
EvfL, p. 117.
83. An original sequence *-eHR- likewise gives Balto-Slavic *-ëR- whose length
is reflected by the acute, e.g. Lith. sàulè ‘sun’, Latv. saule : Gk. *hâwélios,
etc Such forms are of infrequent occurrence.
In conclusion we will quote some Balto-Slavic forms whose

acute accent indirectly points to the original presence of ‘laryn-
geals’ in the IE. preform s in question:84
S.-Cr. pâsti ‘to pasture’, Czech pâsti : Lat. pästus, pästor, etc.,
H itt, pahhs- (§ 39 above); S.-Cr. prâm, Russ, porôm ‘ferry’ : Gk.
peräö and H itt, parhh- ‘drive’ (cf. § 36, Rem ark 2 above); Lith
vémti ‘to vom it’, Latv. vemt: Skt. vâmiti, Gk. émetos, etc.; S.-
Cr. mjera, Czech mira ‘m easure’ : Skt. m âti ‘m easures’; Lith. ârti
‘to plough’, ârklas, Latv. arkl(î)s, S.-Cr. râlo ‘plough’, etc.: Lat.
arätrum, Gk. ârotron, etc. (H ittite har-as-zi ‘beackert’ may be
a loan-w ord from Semitic, see Puhvel, JA O S 74, 86 ff. and
Technology and Culture 5, p. 183). L ith . plônas ‘thin, fine’, Latv.
plans ‘flat, etc.’ : Lat. plänus, H itt, pal-hi-is ‘bro ad ’ ( < *plHi-i-l,
cf. Sturtevant, IH L , p. 42).
§§73-75 The Voiceless Aspirates of Indo-Iranian

§73 Basing himself on a suggestion by de Saussure {BSL 7,
CX V III),85 Kurylowicz explained the tenues aspiratae of Indo-
Iranian as a specifically Indo-Iranian innovation whose origin
is to be found in clusters of a voiceless plosive plus a following
‘laryngeal’ (see É I, 46 ff., Apophonie, §47, IdgGr 2, 339 ff.).
A particularly convincing example is the noun seen in Skt.
pânthâh = Avestan pantâ. In the strong cases Avestan has t : sg.
nom. pantâ, acc. pantgm (and pantäm m ), pl. nom. pantänö, but
in the weak cases S : sg. instr. paSa, gen. pa&ô, loc. pai&ï, pi.
acc. paSö, gen. pa&gm. Avestan seems to have preserved the
original distribution of -tä- < *-teH- and *-th- < *-tH~, i.e.
*péntoH-s /*pntH -é/ôs (> *pnth-é/ôs), etc. In Sanskrit -th- has
penetrated into the strong cases by analogy (nom. sg. pânthâh,
gen. sg. pathâh, etc.).
O ther plausible examples are verbs of the 9th Class like
grathnati ‘to string together’, mathnati ‘to stir around’, srathnati
‘become loose’. Such verbs are old sef-roots (*met-H-, etc.),
see Hoenigswald, EvfL, 94 f. A further example: Skt. ràtha- ‘a
chariot’ ( < *rotHo~) : Lat. rota ’wheel; chariot’ ( < *roteH).86
84. Cf. Vaillant, BSL 37, 111 ff.

85. For a historical survey, see Szemerényi, BSL 68, 8 ff.
86. Lehmann’s suggestion {PIEPh, p. 82) that the absence of palatalization of
kh- before y in khyä- ‘see’ may be explained by the assumption of an
§ 74 Assuming an original triadic plosive system * i: * d : *dh for

Indo-European, Kurylowicz explains the development of /th/,
etc. as autonom ous phonemes in Indo-Iranian along the follow
ing lines. In the absence of voiceless aspirates *dh, etc. m ust be
regarded as phonemically neutral, although in m ost cases they
were voiced sounds phonetically. In the position after initial *s-
(and probably in word-final position), however, *dh, etc. were
realized as voiceless *th, etc., i.e. *sdh- > *sth- (Siebs’ Law).87
In Indo-Iranian these voiceless allophones of *dh, etc. now fell
together with the reflexes of the clusters *t + H, etc. > *th, etc.
giving rise to a phonemic contrast between *dh, etc. and *th,
etc. For a critical appraisal of Kurylowicz’s view, see W. Sidney
Allen, Studies Greenberg II, p. 240. It should also be noted that
not all scholars accept Siebs’ Law as well-founded, see for
example Szemerényi, Einführung, p. 136 and M ayrhofer, IdgGr
1, p. 93, note 13.
Remark: Sturtevant’s hypothesis (L ang 17, Iff. and IH L , 8 3 ff.) ac

cording to which voiceless aspirates arose already in the parent IE.
language from sequences o f plain plosives + ‘laryngeal’ has been
shown to be wrong by Polomé, R B P h H 30, 465 ff., Messing, SSP,
182 f., Cowgill, E vfL , 171 ff. For Sturtevant’s interpretation (L ang 16,
179 ff.) o f the Greek aspirated perfect (pépom pha < *pe-pom p-H 2e,
etc.), see Kent, Lang 17, 190 ff., Messing, SSP, 201 ff. Polomé, R B P h H
30, p. 465.
§75 According to the ‘classical’ doctrine, the parent IE. lan

guage had a tetradic plosive series for each place of articulation,
e.g. *t : *d: *th : *dh. The tenues aspiratae (*th, etc.), however,
only are securely attested in Indo-Iranian. M eillet’s hypothesis
{Esquisse, 34 f., cf. Godel, Introduction, p. 74) according to
which Arm enian p ‘, t ‘, x reflect IE. *ph, *th, *kh is built on
scanty and controversial etymological material. Thus, M eillet’s
attem pt to equate e.g. Arm. p ‘ayl ‘brilliance’, p ‘alp‘ali- ‘shine’
with Skt. phalgù- ‘reddish, red’, or Arm. o rt‘ ‘c a lf allegedly
original cluster *kHv- seems difficult to justify, see Borgstrom, N T S 17,

p. 562.
87. In Current Trends in Linguistics 11, 1973, p. 68, note 7, Kurylowicz observes:
‘The possibility of IE initial clusters s + “voiced” aspirate is borne out by
examples like Gr. sphe < *sebh or skheîn < *seg’h.' Cf. also the discussion
by Klingenschmitt, D as Altarmenische Verbum, 168 f., note 14.
from *porthu- with Skt. prthuka- ‘Kind, das Junge eines Tieres’,
has been adequately disposed of by Klingenschmitt, Das Altar-
menische Verbum, pp. 168 and 102 f. (with further references).
Ibid., p. 169, Klingenschm itt takes the x of Arm. c ‘ax ‘branch’
(: Skt. säkhä- ‘branch’, OCS. soxa ‘H akenpflug’) to represent a
pre-Arm enian tenuis aspirata kh from an IE. cluster *kH 2,
which, however, remains un verifiable. It seems likewise doubtful
whether Slavic x reflects IE. *kh, see W.Thümmel, M S S 21,
71 f., cf. A rum aa, Urslav Gramm II, p. 104. In the case of Greek,
the only example of any plausibility is the 2 sg. perfect ending
-stha (e.g. in oistha ‘thou know est’), which may ultimately,
however, go back to *-sta with analogical aspiration, see
Cowgill, EvfL. 171 ff. (*st-endings are attested by e.g. H itt, pa-
is-ta ‘thou gavest’, Lat. odisti, G oth. saisost,ss etc.).
If * th , etc. are excluded from the original IE. plosive system,
we are faced with the difficulty pointed out by R.Jakobson,
P IC L 8, p. 23, that a triadic series * t : * d : *dh is typologically
exceptional: ‘no language adds to the pair /1/—/d/ a voiced
aspirate /dh/ w ithout having its voiceless counterpart /th/.’ The
so-called G am krelidze-Hopper theory89 avoids this typological
problem by assuming that the IE. plain voiced plosives (* d , etc.)
were glottalized ( * t \ etc.): in this hypothesis, the triadic series
* t : * d : *dh is replaced by * t(h ) : * t ’ : * d (h ); according to Gamkre-
lidze, the aspiration of * t(h ) and *d(h ) is optional.
For the reasons given above, it seems to me that one should
pay serious attention to the Gamkrelidze-Hopper reconstruc
tion. For the time being, I choose to adopt the view of
W. Cowgill, Kratylos 29, p. 6, who thinks that a pre-Indo-Euro-
pean system *t(h) : * t’: *d(h)
‘shifted— for reasons that so far are unfathom able— to a high

ly unstable PIE system *t, *d, *dh, which everywhere was
replaced before our earliest w ritten documents by a more
stable configuration: in Indo-Iranian, by the addition of
voiceless aspirates; in Greek, and, in the first instance, Italic,
by devoicing of the aspirates; in Celtic, Balto-Slavic, A lban
ian, and (probably) Anatolian, by the loss of distinctive aspir
88. For a different (but unconvincing) explanation of the sf-ending in German
ic, see A. Sihler, M SS 47, 193 ff., especially p. 197.
89. Cf. the bibliography given in Mayrhofer, IdgGr 1, p. 92.
ation; in Tocharian, by the merger of all articulation types;

and in Germanic and Arm enian, by more complex rem ode
lings, beginning probably with shift of *t to *th and of *d to
t. The weakness of this hypothesis is of course the utter lack
of explanation why a presum ably stable pre-IE configuration
should have been replaced in PIE by an extremely unstable
one; perhaps it would be profitable to put some effort into
seeing whether an explanation for such an unlikely develop
ment can be found.’
For a critical discussion of the G am krelidze-H opper reconstruc

tion, see also Szemerényi, T P S (1985), 9 ff. (with further refer
ences); Eichner, Beiträge zur Namenforschung 19 (1984), 450 f.
See also M. E. Huld, On the Unacceptability of the Indo-E uro
pean Voiced Stops as Ejectives, IF 91, 1986, 67 ff.
§§ 76-77 On Some Mediae Aspiratae in Indo-

Iranian
§76 Kurylowicz, É I, 53 f. (cf. Cuny, Revue de Phonétique 2,
118 ff.) cites the following examples as evidence for a specifically
Indo-Iranian development of the clusters *b + H ,* d + H, *g +
H into bh, dh, gh:
Skt. mahâ- ‘great’ = Gk. mégas, G oth, mikils, etc.
Skt. duhitâ ‘daughter’ = Gk. thugâtër, G oth, dauhtar, etc.
Skt. ahâm ‘I’ = Gk. egö, Lat. ego, G oth, ik, etc.
Skt. hânu- ‘jaw ’ = Gk. genus, G oth, kinnus.
The h (< *g’h) of Vedic mahâ- may have arisen in the weak
cases (e.g. gen. sg. mahâs < *m eg’h-é/ôs < *m eg’H 2-é/ôs) from
where it would have penetrated into the strong forms (for
original *meg’eH 2 -). The European languages show the reflexes
b, d, g of the earlier clusters *b + H, etc., cf. Gk. mégas and
G oth, mikils.
Pedersen, Hittitisch, 36 f., takes the -kk- of H itt, me-ik-ki-is
‘many, much, etc.’ to come from *g’ + H by assimilation:
‘was aus *g’H in den altbekannten Sprachzweigen ausserhalb

des Indisch-Iranischen lautgesetzlich geworden wäre, lässt
sich streng genommen nicht beweisen. Im H ittitischen ist aber
ein Zusam menfall von g ’H m it g ’h nicht eingetreten; das H

ist als selbständiger L aut bew ahrt geblieben, bis schliesslich
durch Assimilation -kk- entstanden ist; so ist die dem ved.
m ahl entsprechende Form schliesslich zu me-ik-ki-is gewor
den’ (p. 36).
On the strength of H itt, m ekk-i- other scholars assume a pre

form *meg’H-i- for Ved. mâhi ‘greatly, very’, cf. Szemerényi,
K Z 73, 192 f., note 1 (with references). See, however, Mayrhofer,
IdgGr 1, 138 f. A different, graphemic, explanation of the -kk-
of mekki- is given by Kurylowicz, P IC L 8, p. 221. Cf. also
Winter, P IC L 8, p. 251.
Assuming a corresponding assimilation of *H2 + g > Hitt.
kk, Eichner, M S S 31, p. 71 (cf. Fachtagung VI, 128 f., note 41),
takes H itt, sakki ‘know s’ to represent an old perfect *sôH2g-
e + y ‘hat aufgespürt’ from the IE. stem *seH2g-, seen in Goth.
sokjan ‘seek’, Lat. sagio, etc.
R em ark: The meaning ‘many, much’ o f Hitt, rnekkis, m ekki is no

sufficient reason for doubting the etymological connection of this
word with Gk. m égas ‘large, great’, etc., see particularly Borgstrom,
N T S 20, 365 ff.
As older *g’h gives Luwian zero between vowels (e.g. Luw.

tiyamm-i- < *dheg’hom, A natolian *degam = Hitt, te-e-kcin
‘earth’, see Laroche, B S L 58, p. 79), Luwian mai- ‘nom breux’,
attested in mayassis lalis Tangue de la foule’ (Laroche, ibid.,
78 f.), may reflect earlier *ma{g)-i- < *meg’h-i- < *meg’H-i-.
Consequently, it would seem that *g’ + H fell together with IE.
*g’h in Luwian as in Vedic. For Tocharian A mäk, B mäka ‘viel’,
see K rause-Thom as, Toch Elementarbuch I, §24, 1 (mäk-
< *mag-, cf. Lat. magnus).
§77 An IE. preform *H xeg’-He/om (with the particle *-He/om

seen in Lat. id-em, Skt. ay-àm, etc.) is assumed for Skt. ahâm
‘I’ by Kurylowicz, ÉI, p. 53. Cf. Hoenigswald, EvfL, p. 95,
Gamkrelidze, Laringal’naja Teorija, p. 62. The -kk- ol Hitt.
Norn, uqqa, ugga was frequently seen as a parallel to the
-kk- < *g + H of mekki-, cf. Szemerényi, B S O A S 27, p. 158,
Mayrhofer, Sprache 10, p. 195, note 91, Winter, PIC L 8, p. 251
and Borgstrom, N T S 20, p. 365. However, the H itt, form of

the 1 pers. sg. nom. is ug (ü-uk) (for earlier *eg?, see Benveniste,
HI, p. 73). For the distinction between Hitt, ug-a ‘I however’
(with an adversative particle -a) and ugg-a ‘and I’ (with the
particle -a ‘and’), see Ph. H .J.H ouw ink ten Cate, Festschrift
Otten, 1973, 119 ff.
Remark: Polomé, Reflexes of Laryngeals in Indo-Iranian, p. 236,

thinks that the -h- in ahâm “can hardly be dissociated from the -h- of
its dative màhyam, which has a parallel in Lat. mihi, both pointing to
a PIE form with /gh/...”
For Skt. duhita, Avest. dugôar : Gk. thugâtër, etc. see the dis
cussion by Winter, EvfL, 108 ff., cf. now M ayrhofer, IdgGr 1,
137 f.
The equation Skt. hânu- f. = Gk. génus offers particular diffi
culties, for which see Winter, E vfL, 108 f., Polomé, Reflexes of
Laryngeals in Indo-Iranian, p. 235, M ayrhofer, IdgGr 1, p. 139.
For a discussion of a possible connection between Skt. hâsta-
(m.) ‘h and’ and Gk. agostôs, cf. Cowgill, EvfL, p. 152, Polomé,
op. cit., 234 f. (For a refutation of the views of A .E rhart, Zum
IE. Wechsel Media : Media Aspirata, Sbornik Praci Filosofické
Fakulty Brnënske University, A 4, 1955, pp. 5-17, see Polomé,
ibid., p. 247, note 21).
Kuiper, A ct Or 20, 23 ff., cf. I IJ 18, p. 250, regards the dh of
Vedic sâdhis-, sadhâstha- ‘place’ as a reflex of an earlier cluster
*d + H i : we would have here an enlargement in *H Xof the root
*sed- ‘sit’, i.e. *sed-H\-es- > Skt. sadhàs- (vs. *sed-eH\-s- in Lat.
sëdës). A nother plausible example is Skt. vadlm- ‘bride’ vs. Lith.
vèsti ‘lead; m arry’, OE. weotuma ‘bride-price’, Gk. éedna ‘bridal
gifts’, cf. Winter, EvfL, p. 113. Melchert, StH H P h, p. 88, note
16, compares the Hitt, verb huettiya- ‘pull’ whose preform he
reconstructs as *H2wedH2- (with *d + H 2 > H itt, tt in the same
way as *g’ + H 2 > kk in mekki-). If this be accepted, the pro
thetic a- of Horn, -âednos (in an-âednos ‘w ithout bridal
gifts’) < *awed- shows the expected ‘vocalization’ of an initial
‘laryngeal’ to a in Greek (cf. § 67 above); the e- of éedna may
be due to a later assimilation of the prothetic vowel to the e of
the tollowing syllable (cf. § 67 above, for *anegk- > enegkein,
and see Melchert, ibid., p. 88). M ayrhofer, Sprache 10, p. 191,
however, points to the possibility that ‘in der Vorstufe des

Arischen oder Indo-Arischen *wed- durch *weg’h- beeinflusst
und zu *wedh- um gestaltet werden konnte.’
R em ark: It is frequently assumed that Skt. p ib a ti ‘drinks’, OIr. ibid,

Lat. bibit go back ultimately to a reduplicated present *pi-pH 3-e-ti
(from a root *peH 3-), structurally comparable to the one seen in Skt.
tisthati, Avest. histaiti, Lat. sistit, i.e. * t/si-stH 2-e -ti:th e change of the
voiceless *p to b in p ib a ti, etc. is attributed to the voicing effect of
the distinctively voiced ‘laryngeal’ *H 3 : *pi-pH 3-e-ti > *pi-b-e-ti, see
Benveniste, Origines, p. 168. However, one might have expected an
assimilation of *p to a voiced *H 3 to have led to Indo-Iranian bh.
Cf. the discussion by Martinet, P IC L 8, p. 49; Polomé, Reflexes of
Laryngeals in Indo-Iranian 233 f. (referring to Winter’s suggestion in
EvfL , p. 109); for A. R.Bomhard’s reconstruction of the root meaning
‘drink’ as * p o H i- (where *H i is defined as a glottal plosive), see Triple
representation, p. 25, note 17.
Kurylowicz, S ym bG ram m , p. 96, has proposed a ‘laryngeal’ in
terpretation of the Sanskrit sandhi-rule under which -ta -, - ty -, etc.
result in -da-, -dy- etc.: we should have here the analogical extension
of an assimilation of *-t *H 3e- (with a voiced *H 3) to *-do- ( > -da-).
Hoenigswald, E vfL , p. 96, is perfectly justified, however, in describing
the alleged analogic replacement as ‘not particularly plausible’.
§§78-83 ‘Hardening’ of Certain ‘Laryngeals’ to k or

g
§78 According to Sapir, Lang 15, 181 f., certain IE. dorsals
originate in com binations of two ‘laryngeals’ having come into
contact with each other in internal position or in external sand-
hi. Cf. Sturtevant, Lang 16, 273 ff.
There is hardly any absolutely cogent evidence for such a
development, cf. the critical discussion by Cowgill, EvfL, p. 175,
of Sturtevant’s attem pt to account for the k of Greek aorists
and perfects of the type édôke, héstâke (IH L , 87 ff.) in this way.
§ 79 However, Sapir’s idea of a ‘hardening’ of certain ‘larynge

als’ to k should, perhaps, not be excluded a priori: in a few
cases it seems to provide a reasonable explanation for some
troublesome initial *Cs alternating with zero in etymologically
related word-forms. Thus, the initial dorsal of the feminine
nouns Lat. costa ‘rib’ and OCS. kostl ‘bone’ which can be
connected etymologically with H itt, hastai ‘bone’, Gk. astéon
‘id.’ ( < *H3est-, §27), may have arisen from the contact of
the final *-H2 of the nom. sg. of a them atic adjective immedi
ately preceding the substantive *H3est-, i.e. schematically
*...eH2H 3est- > *...ä kost-, see M artinet, B S L 51, p. 56, P IC L
8, p. 51, Ivanov, V M U No. 2 (1957), p. 29. Lindeman, S L
(1963), 91 ff., basing himself on M artinet’s suggestion of an
alternation *kost-/*H3ost- (attested by Lat. costa/os), takes the
Germanic verb *hauzjan- ‘hear’ to go back to IE. *kows-(yé/ô-)
alternating with the *H3ews- seen in Gk. oûs ‘ear’, etc. The late
Borgstrom suggested a similar origin for Gk. akoüö
‘hear’ : pointing to the possibility of a ‘fausse coupe’ (as in the
nom. pi. of the indefinite pronoun Gk. àtta (hopoîa ssa > hopoi
âssa, see Chantraine, Morphologie historique du grec, p. 130),
he proposed a reconstruction of the type *kwyâH 2 H 3owsyesi
‘what hearest thou?’ > *kwyâ kousyesi (cf. G oth. hciusjan) or >
*kwy ’ âkousyesi (cf. Gk. akoüo). The accent of the Gmc. stem
*hauz-jan- ( < *kows-yé/ô~), however, offers some difficulty for
this hypothesis. Admittedly, the lack of any clear evidence for
such a development (of *-HH- into -k-) in internal position
makes the proposed explanations of Lat. costa, G oth, hausjan,
etc. seem quite disputable, cf. Polomé, EvfL, p. 40 (with further
references).
§80 M artinet, B S L 51, 42 ff., pointing to the ‘hardening’ of the

Gmc. fricative (cf. Germ, sechs) in Eng. six, Dan. Norw.
seks, tries to show that an IE. ‘laryngeal’ in the position before
s may in some cases have developed into k. Thus, the k of a
series of nominal form ations in -k-, -ko-, -kä- allegedly arose
from the com bination of the final ‘laryngeal’ of the noun stem
with the -s of the nom. sg.: Lat. audàx ( < *-eH2-s), Gk. nëâks,
OCS. novakü; cf. further Lat. feminine nouns in -trïx, OCS.
-ica. A nother example would be Lith. zùkmistras ‘Fischm eister’,
OPruss. (acc. pi.) suckans vs. Gk. ikhthûs; cf. also Arm. jukn
‘fish’, and see Winter, EvfL, 108 f.
While some scholars regard M artinet’s hypothesis as well-
founded (e.g. Watkins, EvfL, 181 ff., Winter, EvfL, 104 ff. and
PIC L 8, p. 60), Cowgill, EvfL, p. 176, finds it unconvincing for
the very good reason that the only example quoted by M artinet
of a case where k before s alternates with recognized ‘laryngeal’
reflexes m other positions, [i.e. Lat. senex : senätus (*seneH2-)\,
remains disputable. As Szemerényi has shown (A IO N Sezione

Linguistica 2 (1960), p. 10), senex may well contain an old *k-
suffix ( < *senekos, parallel to iuuencus).90
§81 For a case like OCS. rëka ‘river’ vs. Lat. rïuos, rïuus ‘a
b ro o k ’ M artinet, Word 12, 1 ff., assumes a particular k/w-alter
nation: we would have here the ‘laryngeal’ *AW(i.e. *H3, cf. p.
17) ‘hardened’ to k before v, but having ‘exuded’ a glide w in
prevocalic position. Thus, Lat. rïuus reflects *riAw-os, whereas
OCS. rëka is said to go back to *roik- < earlier *roiAw- with
‘hardening’ of the stem final *-Aw- to k before the s of an orig.
nom. sg. form *roiAw-s. The *-w- of rïuus is supposed to find a
parallel in the v of Skt. pres, rinvati < *ri-n-Aw-e-ti, a secondary
them atization of *ri-n-éAw-ti > Skt. rinati ‘flows’.
A nother example is Lat. uluos ‘alive’ < *gwiA w-os vs. OE.
cwic, cwicu, taken to reflect *gwiks < older *gwiAw-s. Polomé,
EvfL, p. 40, raises the following objection against M artinet’s
explanation of OE. cwic, etc.: ‘As for the Germanic evidence
for /k/ from PIE /A ws/, if this change actually occurred in pre-
dialectal IE, as the adduced Latin, Greek, Sanskrit and Balto-
Slavic evidence undoubtedly implies it, one wonders why this
pre-Gmc. /k/ did not undergo the Germanic consonant shift.’
Cf. also Polomé, Mélanges F.Mossé, 392 ff.
In §43, Remark, we have characterized the assumption of a
change of *H3 to *w in intervocalic position as disputable.
Consequently, we regard the proposed alternation k/w
( < * - H 3s / *-H3V-) as unconvincing.
§ 82 Some scholars take Germ anic -g- and -kk- in certain forms
to reflect IE. clusters of the type *-Hw-, *-Hy-. Thus, Lehmann,
PIEPh, 47 ff., thinks that IE. *-Hw- could give Gmc. -g- or
-k(k)-. Austin, Lang 22, 109 ff., according to whom the accent
may have been decisive, posits IE. *-Hy- and *-Hw- > Gmc.
-k-. Despite Winter, EvfL, p. 198, examples like OE. naca ‘bo at’,
OS. naco (vs. Lat. näuis, etc.) seem disputable for the reason
that the expected outcome in Germanic of IE. *néH2w-, i.e.
*nöw-, survives in Olcel. Nôa(-tün), cf. OWN. nôr orig. ‘bo at’.
90. For Lindeman’s speculation on the possible ‘laryngeal’ origin of the g of
Lat. sang{uen) ‘blood’ (: Hitt, eshar, gen. sg. ishanas), see BSL LXXXI
(1986), p. 373, note 19.
See Polomé, R B P hH 31, 537ff., Mélanges F.Mossé, 387ff.,

E. Seebold, IF 87, p. 178.
Cowgill, E vfL , p. 143, note 1 (and p. 170, note 58; p. 178,
note 72), tentatively accepting the idea that at least one of
the IE. ‘laryngeals’ became k in G erm anic before w— under
conditions that remain unknow n - , writes: ‘The Germ anic L au t
verschiebung suggests that this k is from *g, which in turn is
most plausibly from a voiced spirant, [y] or [y,v].’ (p. 143, note 1).
Thus, we would have e.g. IE. *gwiH w\vos > pre-Gmc. *gwigwôs,
whence Gmc. *kwikwaz, OE. cwic, cwicu, O H G . quec, Olcel.
kvikr, etc.91 The Gmc. duals *unkiz and *inkwiz, seen in G oth,
(dat., acc. ugkis, igqis, etc.) are said to be from *nHwé and
*uHwé (cf. Skt. dual âvâm, yuvam).92 For A ustin’s later hypothe
sis (Lang 34, 203 ff.), according to which the Proto-G m c. se
quences qy, qw (< IE. *Hy, *Hw, where *H — a glottal fricative
or glottal plosive) developed differently throughout the G er
manic speaking territory depending on whether the accent pre
ceded or followed, cf. the critical discussion by Lindeman, Ver
schärfung, 29 ff.
For a critical and thorough discussion of the Germ anic evi
dence, see now E. Seebold, D er Ü bergang von idg. -w- zu germ.
-k- und -g-, IF 87, (1982), pp. 172-194. According to Seebold
(ibid., 182 f.), ‘Indogermanisch -w- wird in den germanischen
Sprachen zu -g-, das durch die Lautverschiebung weiter zu -k-
verschoben wird, nach Diphthongen, Liquiden und Nasalen,
wenn auf das -w- ein -u- oder ein silbischer L iquid/N asal folgt.’
(Cf. also Winter, EvfL, p. 198, for Gmc. -g- from ‘any
intervocalic *w adjacent to u, ...’). Seebold finds support for
this change of *w to *g > k in old examples like IE. *daywér
(Skt. devâ ‘a husband’s brother’, Gk. dâër, Arm. tciygr, Lith.
dieveris) > Gmc. *taikur- (OE. täcor, O H G. zeihhur), or pre-
Gmc. *spoyw-l- (cf. Gmc. *speiw-a- ‘vom it’) > Gmc. *spaikul-
‘spittle’ seen in OH G. speihhilla, -ulla, cf. G oth, spaiskuldra
‘ptüsm a’ (dat. sg.), OS. spekaldron (dat. pl.), OH G. speihhaltra.
Ibid., 179 ff., Seebold takes the Gmc. dual forms *unkiz and
*inkwiz to represent, in the final analysis, reduplicated forms
(?). At a later stage, after the Gmc. ‘Lautverschiebung’, -w-
91. E. Seebold, IF 82, p. 177, posits an IE. variant *g"ei-gw- ( ~ *g"ey-H}-) for
forms like Lat. uixi, Latv. (dial.) dzîga ‘life’, OE. cwic, etc.
97 See also A. Erhart, Studien zur indoeur. Morphologie, (1970), 87 ff.
becomes -g- between u or i (e) and Gmc. u in Westgermanic

according to Seebold, cf. OE. nigun ‘9’, OS. nigun vs. Goth.
niun, or O H G . tugund, OE. dugop < Gmc. *duwnpi-, cf. OWN.
dyggr.
R em ark: In M élanges G régoire II, 539 ff. (IV, 669 ff.) Polomé suggested
that IE. *H \w- and *H 3w- had given Arm. g-, cf. gom ‘I am’ (§67
above), whereas IE. *H 2w- had given Arm. Id-. As Crossland, Arch
Ling 10, p. 86, points out, there is no good evidence for such a
development since initial IE. *w-, unaccompanied by any ‘laryngeal’,
likewise yields g- in Armenian. Winter, EvfL , 104 f., explains the k of
Arm. mukn ‘mouse’ (: Gk. mûs) and jukn ‘fish’ (: Gk. ikhthûs ) as
being of ‘laryngeal’ origin; see further Greppin, R E A rm N S 8, pp. 1-4;
Bolognesi, Bolle tino d ell’A tlan te Linguistico M editerraneo (1976-1977),
200f.; Tumanjan, VJA (1968) 5, p. 61. A non-Taryngeal’ origin o f the
suffix -kn o f these words was suggested by Lindeman, First Interna
tional Conference on Arm enian Linguistics, Proceedings, 1980, p. 62.
He thinks that the starting point o f this suffix is to be sought in the
IE. word for ‘fish’ which seems to have had a variant form * g ’huk-,
seen in Lith. zù km istras ‘Fischmeister’, zùkparnis ‘Fischhaar’, OPruss.
(acc. pl.) suckans ‘fish’ (Fraenkel, L itetym W örterb, p. 1323, Specht,
K Z 59, pp. 212 and 228 ff.). A preform o f this shape would explain
the Armenian ju kn (which secondarily has adopted the «-inflection):
IE. * g ’huk- > pre-Arm. * j hukh-, whence, by dissimilation o f *jh...kh-
to *3 h...k-, *yhuk- > Old Armenian ju kn , gen. sg. ju kan («-inflection).
Cf. Lindeman, Triple representation, p. 39, for a discussion of the Arm.
pl. a k a n jk ' (:sg. unkn).
§83 To sum up: the possibility o f a ‘hardening’ of IE. ‘larynge

als’ to *k or *g cannot be totally discarded although no abso
lutely cogent evidence can be found for such a development. It
should also be stressed that the exact conditions under which
the supposed ‘hardening’ occurred have not yet been elucidated.
§§ 84-88 ‘Laryngeals’ in the Position Between Non-

Syllabics
§84 If we are justified in taking the IE. ‘laryngeals’ to have
been consonants contrasting with vowels and semi-vowels
(§§ 16 f., 86 f., 90), it follows that the vowel appearing in forms
like Skt. hi-tâ- (:dhä-), Lat. dätus (:däre), etc. can hardly be
interpreted as a reflex of a direct vocalization of the ‘laryngeals’
in zero grade formations of the type *dhH\-to~, *dH3-to- (: full
grade *dheHx~, *deH3-). It should be stressed in this connection

that the A natolian -h(h)~ is never ‘vocalized’ in interconsonantal
position, cf. Sturtevant, IH L , §75a, who quotes the following
examples: Hitt, sanhhzi, parhhzi ‘drives’, walhhzi ‘strikes’ (cf.
§41 above). See also Catsanicos, B S L LXXXI, 168 f., note 273.
We choose to adopt the view of M artinet (P IC L 8, p. 53)
who argues convincingly that the source o f the -i- of Skt. hi-tâ-
and o f the -â- in Lat. datus may be sought in old sequences of
‘laryngeal’ and an anaptyctic vowel (i.e. schematically *-dH- or
*-//«?-).93 It is also interesting to note that an anaptyctic a is
inserted between a laryngeal and another consonant at the end
of a word in Hebrew, e.g. *yas‘ (with apocopated ending) >
-yisa‘ in wayyisa ‘he looked (at)’. Further, an unstressed syl
lable closed by a laryngeal is frequently opened by a non-
phonemic subsidiary vowel in this language, e.g. *ya‘zübu >
y a ‘azob ‘he leaves’; a fu ll vowel develops, however, in the corre
sponding 3 pl. *ya‘zubü > yaazbü. It does not seem advisable,
however, to speculate too much on the phonetic realization of
the IE. ‘laryngeals’ in the position between non-syllabics. We
will use a strictly phonemic notation of the type (full grade)
*/CéH-/ : (zero grade) */CH-tô-/, cf. Kurylowicz, Apophonie,
p. 170.
§ 85 In some languages forms occur which do not display the

expected development of an anaptyctic vowel, e.g. Lith. dukte,
Goth, dauhtar, Avestan dugôar, Arm. dustr (gen. sg. dster), G aul
duytir94 ‘daughter’ vs. Skt. duhitàr-, Gk. thugâtër, Toch. B tkäcer,
93. Cf. Martinet, Phonetica 1, p. 28, who refers to the French ‘e muet’ in
clusters like /rsbl/ where /s/ is realized as sa (cf. ours(e) blanc). Cf. also the
interesting discussion of these questions by Crossland, ArchLing 10, 94 ff.,
Collinge, ArchLing 5, 75 ff., and 8, 121 ff., Polomé, EvfL, p. 29, note 126
(with further references), Mayrhofer, IdgGr 1, p. 138.
94. ÉC XXII, p. 131, and note 42. The fact that ‘daughter’ is attested as duytir
in a dialect (Gaulish) of Continental Celtic does not necessarily imply that
‘daughter’ may not have been *dugater- (with -a- from the vocalized inter
nal ‘laryngeal’) in Insular Celtic. It is sufficient to refer to the difference
between Skt. duhitàr- and Avestan dugôar- in order to demonstrate that
the reconstruction of a Proto-Celtic *duxtlr is not inevitable. A preform
*dugater- may well underlie the element Ter-, Der-, Dar-, Derb- in women’s
names in Early Irish as suggested by A. O’Brien, Celtica III, 178 f. Cf.
Lindeman, Triple representation, 36 f., note 26.
100 INTRO D U CTIO N TO THE ‘LARYNGEAL THEORY’
Hierogl.Luw. twatra,95 Lyc. A kbatra < IE. */dhwgHter-/;

Lith. antis ‘duck’ vs. Lat. anas, gen. sg. anatis ‘duck’ < IE.
*/H 2énH t-/. Cf. M artinet’s interesting discussion of such forms
in Phonetica 1, p. 28.
Certain forms present particular difficulties. Thus, there is no
reflex (-/-) of any anaptyctic vowel before the endings in the
zero grade present forms of dä- ‘give’ and dhä- ‘p u t’ in Sanskrit:
1. pl. da-d-mâs, da-dh-mâs, 2 pl. da-t-thâ, dha-t-thâ vs. Gk. di-
do-men, ti-the-men. (Perfect forms like 1 pl. da-di-mâ, da-dhi-mâ
may have -i- by analogy, cf. Kuiper, Sprache 7, 22 f.). For
different attem pts at explaining such forms, see Kurylowicz,
Apophonie, p. 252, Hoenigswald, E vfL , 98 f., Kuiper, Sprache 7,
22 f., Lindeman, IF 91, 79 ff. Equally problem atic are the G atha
Avestan forms ptä, a variant of YAv. pita ‘father’, dative sg.
fdöröi, i.e. fOrai, see Kurylowicz, IdgGr 2, p. 225, Mayrhofer,
IdgGr 1, p. 138, E.Ravnæs, IIJ 23, 247 ff. For Vedic gen. sg.
jânmanas : nom. sg. jânima, etc., see § 102 below.
Meillet, Esquisse, p. 42, quoting dustr, gen. sg. dster, teaches,
doubtless correctly, that interconsonantal *a is lost in an internal
syllable in Arm enian. De Lam berterie, R E A rm N S XVI, p. 41,
nevertheless thinks that a (preconsonantal) internal IE. ‘larynge
al’ gave Arm. -a- after a resonant, e.g. in the aorist
cnaw < *cinaw ‘he was born; he generated’, allegedly from IE.
*g’enH-to. For a different opinion, see Lindeman, A A L 6, 63 ff.,
who takes cnaw to be from an IE. 3 sg. middle imperfect *g’enH-
e-to, attested by Vedic imperfect jan-a-ta ‘he was born; he gener
ated’, 3 p i.jan-anta. The Vedic forms are transitive in construc
tion e.g. in RV II, 18, 2 anyàsyà gârbham anyâ ü jananta ‘Als
den Spross einer anderen erzeugten ihn andere, ...’,96 X, 123,
7 näma janata priyani ‘und brachte seine lieben Namen zum
Vorschein’.97 M any Armenian aorist form ations come from old
imperfects, cf. eber ‘carried’ < IE. *é-bher-e-t = Skt. ipf. 3 sg.
â-bhar-a-t.
Remark: Klingenschmitt, M SS 28, pp. 80 and 86, and note 9, teaches

that all the ‘laryngeals’ of different colour have fallen together in a in
95. tü-wa/i-tara/i-, J.D. Hawkins, K Z 92, 112 ff. ForS.Bugge’sreconstruction
(in 1901) of twatra as the preform of Lyc. A kbatra,see Lindeman, Triple
representation, p. 56.
96. See K.Geldner, Der Rigveda I, p. 269.
97. See K.Geldner, Der Rigveda III, p. 353.
Armenian initially, medially and finally. For a critical discussion of

the linguistic evidence, see Lindeman, Triple representation, 38 ff. For
Arm. dalar ‘fresh, green’, see § 102 below.
To w hat extent and under which conditions an interconsonantal

‘laryngeal’ was lost in Indo-European remains unknow n.98
M ayrhofer, IdgGr 1, p. 138 (with references), thinks that a
‘laryngeal’ disappeared in a sequence ‘(-)CHCC(-) ... wenn die
ser vierfachen K onsonanz der Akzent folgte: wurde in *ph2ter
der Laryngal als ar. -i- fortgesetzt (jungavest. pita), so ergab
*ph2tr-éi D atSing altavest. < fdöröi > ...’ This seems disputable
to me as a form like */pH 2trey/ would have been realized
phonetically as * pll2tréy (in accordance with Sievers’ Law).
Consequently, all we can safely say is that we assume the
existence of (phonemic) */dhwgHtér-/ etc. for the parent IE.
language. Such forms were later subject to different phonetic
treatm ents in different parts of the Indo-E uropean speaking
territory.
§ 86 The anaptyctic vowel development which we assume for a

sequence of the type */CHC-/ led to partly different results in
non-A natolian Indo-European. Thus, we find -i- in Indo-Iran
ian in zero grade forms like hi-tâ- (: dhä- ‘p u t’), sthi-tâ- (: sthä-
‘stand’), aorist âdita (: dä- ‘give’). All the other languages—with
the exception of Greek only—have a vowel ä, e.g. Lat. factus
('.feci), datus (: dö ‘give’), Goth, staps ‘topos’, Lith. stataü ‘place’.
Greek, however, has forms of the type thetôs (: thé-), statôs
(: stä-), dotôs (: dö-).
It follows from the phonologic discrepancy in question (Indo-
Iranian i:a in all other languages) that the ‘laryngeals’ were
lost in sequences of the type */CHC-/ at a dialectal stage of
Indo-European. Furtherm ore, there is good reason to believe
that the development of an anaptyctic vowel in */CHC-/ oc
curred at a stage when all the ‘laryngeals’ of different colour
had fallen together phonetically in non-A natolian Indo-E uro
pean: the fact that all languages (with the exception of Greek)
98. The assumption made by kurylowicz, ÉI 29, 41 ff., cf. Polomé, RBPhH
30, p. 446, Sturtevant, IHL, §73, of a regular loss of *H between non-
syllabic sounds in the parent language, finds no support in the existing
material, see Kuiper, Sprache 7, 21 ff.
present only one anaptyctic vowel (Indo-Ir. -i-, otherwise -a-)99

speaks in favour of this interpretation. If this be accepted, it
follows that the Greek ë and ö reflexes (thetôs, dotôs) m ust be
analogic in origin.
R em ark: According to Kurylowicz, B S L LXXII, 71 f. and P roblèm es,

179 f., the Greek triple representation of Schwa {a, e, o), which is of
secondary, analogical origin, is to be placed chronologically after
Wackernagel’s Law {D as D ehnungsgesetz der griech. K om posita). The
Law in question reflects a preliterary contraction of -ax + ay-, interpret
ed as elision of ax plus lengthening of ay {a = any timbre of the triad
a, e, o). At a prehistoric stage, however, the long (medial) vowels of
compounds such as stra tà gôs ‘commander of an army’, ôm ëstês ‘eating
raw flesh’, m egalonum os ‘with a great name’ may also have been felt
to represent -o + a- {stratôs, agôs), -o + e- {öm ös ‘raw’, édô), -o + o-
(m egâlo-, ônuma), i.e. to be the products of a contraction of à-, ë-, ir
resp ectively with any short preceding vowel: ä = axa, ë = axe, 5 = axo
{ax = any member of the triad a, e, o). Such long, motivated, vowels
(a = axa etc.) have been the model on which certain inherited, non
motivated, long vowels (in *stä- ‘stand’, *dhë- ‘put’, *dö- ‘give’, etc.)
were decomposed into axa, axe, axo thus acquiring a quasi biphonemic
status parallel to that of the diphthongs axi, axu. This changes the old
relationship between full grade and zero grade, i.e.
I ai, ei, oi I au, eu, ou I à, ë, ö
y i y u ’ a { < a)
to: | axi i axu |cixa axe axo
Y / Y u Y a e o
by the suppression of the ax. See Kurylowicz, B S L LXXII, 71 f. For
further details, cf. Lindeman, Triple representation, 41 f.
To sum up: at a relatively early stage of non-A natolian Indo-

European the different ‘laryngeals’ fell together under one col
our, a development which resulted in the phonem ization o f the
99. In the field of IE. studies, Burrow’s idea (TPS (1949), 27 ff.) that the i in
Indo-Ir. forms like Skt. hi-tâ- represents IE. *i (e.g. *dhH\-i-to- > Skt. hi-
tâ-) has found little following. Tischler, Bono homini donum, p. 322, teaches
that in *CHC- either a or i might be inserted as anaptyctic vowel in
Old Indie, e.g. *mH-tô- > *mHi-tô- > mi-tà- (ptc. of mä- ‘measure’) versus
*trH-to- > *traH-tö- > trä-tä- (ptc. of trä- in pres, träyase ‘rescue’). How
ever. Vedic forms of the type tïrnà- (< *tfH-nô-) show the regular develop
ment of *CRH-C- in Old Indie (cf. §49 above); trâ-tà- contains the same
kind of secondary full grade vowel as prà-tâ-, see §49, Remark. It should
be stressed that mi-tà- is analogic after hi-tâ- (: dhä-) and similar forms: the
original */mH-tô-/ = phonetically *[mH-tô-} could not have given mi-tâ-
by regular phonetic development.
contrast between e, a, and o, cf. the following schematical

illustration:
full grade zero grade

*dhéFh- ‘p u t’ *dhH\-tô-
*stâH2- ‘stand’ *stH2-tô-
*dôH3- ‘give’ *dH3-tô-
giving:
*/dhéH-/ */dhH -tô-/
*/stâH -/ */stH-tô-/
*/dôH-/ */dH -tô-/
In the zero grade forms (*/dhH -tô-/, etc.) the consonant clusters
were resolved by the insertion of an anaptyctic vowel.
The assumption of a syncretism of all ‘laryngeals’ under one
colour in non-A natolian IE. finds support in the G reek aorist
type in -ë-, e.g. dam-ë- (: pres, damäzö ‘tam e’). If we are justified
in reconstructing the verbal stem meaning ‘tam e’ as *demH2-
(cf. R. S. P. Beekes, Development, p. 198), it follows that the IE.
preform underlying the aorist dam-ë- m ust be posited as (zero
grade) *dmH2- + suffix -eH\-. We would expect the latter form a
tion to have given Greek *damä- with colouring of the e o f the
suffix to a by the preceding *H2, i.e. *dmH2aH x- > *damä-. The
attested Greek form, however, is damë- with a proto-G k. -ë-.
Consequently, the aorist type damë- can only have been formed
after the syncretism of the different ‘laryngeals’ under one col
our, i.e. damë- presupposes (zero grade) *dmH- + suffix -eH-,
see Lindeman, IF 90, 62 f. For the same reason, Gk. aorist e-
biö cannot go back to *gwiH3oFh- (as assumed by E.D. Francis,
Glotta 52, p. 29), but m ust come from a ‘thème II’ *gwi(y)-éH3-,
cf. § 39, Remark above.
§87 There are some problem atic forms, e.g. Gk. ânemos (Myc.
a-ne-mo) ‘wind’, from the verbal stem *H2enH~, attested by
Skt. âni-ti ‘breathes’; there is no ‘thème II’ *anë- in Greek
( < *H2néH\-) on which an original *ana-ti ( = Skt. âni-ti) could
have been remodelled into *ane-ti, cf. thetôs : ti-thë-mi, etc.
Hence, scholars who regard the Greek triple representation of
Schwa as a phonetic archaism posit IE. *H2énFh-mo- > Gk.
âne-mos with -e- from a ‘vocalized’ *-Fh- (see M ayrhofer, Idg
Gr 1, p. 127).
104 IN TRO D U CTIO N TO THE ‘LARYNGEAL THEORY’
Lindeman, ZF91, 7 9 ff., however, finds this explanation ques

tionable. Since *H represents a consonantal element inherently
less sonorous than the resonants *r, */, *m, *n (§ 16), it follows
th at an IE. sequence of the type */-eRHRe-/ (R = *y, *w, *r,
*/, *m, *n) m ust be interpreted phonetically as *[-eRHRe~] (ac
cording to Sievers’ Law). A fter the regular loss of the prevocalic
‘laryngeal’, *[-eRHRe-\ would have given *-eRRe- in the non-
A natolian IE. languages. The following example may illustrate
the proposed phonetic development: */g’énHi-yo-/ (from
the stem *g’enHi- ‘beget’ plus suffix *-yö~) = phonetically
*\genHrio~] (in accordance with Sievers’ Law). The latter for
m ation, which became *g’én-io- after the loss of the prevocalic
‘laryngeal’, survives in Vedic jan-iya- ‘belonging to the race’.
(The variant form jân-ya-, in which the hiatus (/«') has been
removed, would be due to some sort of ‘converse of Sievers’
Law’). If this be accepted, it follows that ânemos cannot be a
direct reflex of */H 2énH i-m o-/ since the latter was phonetically
*[H2ânH\-mo-]. The restitution o f the stem final ‘laryngeal’ of
the verb ‘to breathe’ as *H\ (i.e. *H2énH\~) has no support in
any linguistic m aterial outside Greek, and rests entirely on the
preconceived idea that an interconsonantal *H\ gives Gk. e.
There are, however, no non-am biguous examples of such a
phonetic development. Some forms may have e by analogy (e.g.
*ale-ti ‘grinds’ in aléô, cf. *alë-, found in alethö), in other cases
no sure etymological connection has been established (e.g. for
theôs, the etymology of which Chantraine, Dictionnaire II,
p. 430, rightly describes as ‘inconnue’). As long as there is no
unquestionable evidence for the supposed development o f *H\
into e in Greek, it is purely ad hoc to define the medial ‘larynge
al’ o f *we?nHti ‘vom its’ (attested by RV imperfect âvamït) as *H\
exclusively on the strength of the unexplained e of (em)é(ô).m
Equally disputable is the view (e.g. Mayrhofer, IdgGr 1, p. 142)
that an interconsonantal *H3 gave Gk. o (cf. Remark below).
Kurylowicz, Apophonie, p. 205, note 50, rightly stresses that ‘les
d isolés, ‘immotivés’, apparaissent en grec comme a, ainsi dans
100. Mayrhofer, IdgGr 1, p. 127, observes: ‘Die Entwicklung */hi/ > gr. e muss
im übrigen kumulativ mit weiteren Wirkungen gesehen werden ...’ This,
however, is of little help: as long as the number of non-ambiguous exam
ples of */hi/ > Gk. e is zero, a further cumulation of ambiguous examples
has no demonstrative power: 0 . x = 0 (for all x’s).
patér, thugâter, méga, kré(w)as, {phéront-)a, (pherômeth-)a =

ind. pitf-, duhitr-, mâhi-, kravls-, (bhârant-)i, (bhârâmah-)i.’
Rem ark: Hittite la-hu-wa-a-ri, 3 sg. middle pres, o f the verb lah(h)uwa-
‘pour’, may go back to *laH 2w-ô(-ri ); the apparent full grade o f the
root seems to have been modelled on the accented sing, active pres.
la-a-hu-i (which Jasanoff, H eth ldg, p. 88, derives from *léH 2-w-e(f)).
A morphologic parallel to the retention o f the full grade vowel in
*laH 2 W-o(-ri) can be found in OIr. passive forms o f the type do-
form agar (*to-for-m ag- ‘increase’), do-adbadar (*to-ad-fëd- ‘show’), etc.
in which the stem vowel has been retained on the model of the 3 sg.
pres, active: do-form aig, do-adbat, etc. (cf. Thurneysen, G ram m ar o f
O ld Irish, p. 369).
A ‘laryngeal’ metathesis in *laH 2 W- = phonemically */leH 2w-/ could
explain a variant form */lewH2-/ of the verbal stem in question. In the
same way as Hitt, la-hu-wa-a-ri, i.e. *laH w-o(-ri), has beside it a (later)
variant la-hu-wa-ta-ri, i.e. *laH w o-to(-ri), in which the ending *-to
has been added to the old form in order to better characterize it
morphologically (cf. Watkins, IdgG r III/l, p. 84, for this replacement
of *-o by *-to), the variant 3 sg. middle *lew H 2o (with ‘laryngeal’
metathesis) may have undergone exactly the same morphological re
fashioning to *lewH 2o-to, whence, after the loss o f the prevocalic
‘laryngeal’, *lewo-to. ( *H 2 does not affect an adjacent *o according
to §40). The stem of * lewo-to, interpreted as the regular athematic
preconsonantal reflex o f this verb, must have (gradually) replaced
*lewa- ( < *lew3~) in Greek (cf. Myc. lewo-, later lo(w)e-, cf. § 54 above).
See Triple representation, 50 f. (where I incorrectly posited the IE.
verbal stem as *leHjw~. For the reconstruction *leH 2w-, cf. Winter,
EvfL, p. 108, Jasanoff, H eth ldg, p. 88).
A full grade *stera- ( = Skt. â-starls : stçnâti ‘strews’) became early
Gk. *stero- in accordance with the following analogical proportion:
C R ä- : CeRa- = C R 5- (cf. strö-tös, for the ro o f which, see §49,
R em ark) : x; x = stero-, seen in the aorist *sterôsai > storésai (cf. Rui-
pérez, Em erita XVIII, 386 ff., É tudes M ycéniennes, p. 107, note 3,
Cowgill, E vfL , 158 ff.). For Gk. om ôssai (: ômnümi ‘swears’), see Linde
man, IF 9 \, p. 80, note 11, who suggests that the Greek aorist in
question ultimately goes back to an inherited reduplicated aorist corre
sponding to Skt. âm am at (: âm ïti ‘anpacken’ = ‘schwören’ according
to Hoffmann, K Z 83, 197 ff.). The origin o f the Gk. stem *omo- may
be found in the 1 pi. aorist which suffered a haplological dissimilation
in Greek, i.e. *omomomen > omo-men. See IF 91, p. 80, note 11, for
details.
§88 It is frequently assumed that Schwa indogermanicum, i.e.

a ‘vocalized’ ‘laryngeal’, has given a in H ittite, see for example
Kronasser, VLFH, §29, Kammenhuber, K Z 77, 170 f., note 4,
Gamkrelidze, Laringal’naja Teorija, 76 ff., Eichner, M S S 31,

p. 55, Fachtagung VI, 128 f., and Oettinger, M S S 34, p. 101.
However, there does not seem to exist any non-ambiguous
evidence for such a development, cf. Lindeman, Triple represen
tation, 55 f., Schindler, Sprache 15, p. 145, M elchert, StH H P h,
p. 129, note 98. H itt, maklant- ‘meagre’ (acc. sg. ma-ak-la-an-
da-an) might come from *meH2k- with a voiced a-colouring
‘laryngeal’ (for which, cf. §28 above, and see also Sturtevant,
CG, p. 52), cf. Gk. Dor. mâkos ‘length’. Hitt, thematic neuter
pi. in -a ( = Luw. and Pal. -a) may be from *-eH2, see §41
above: Hitt, dannatta ‘em pty’ = Skt. -ä in priyà ‘dear’, etc.; the
neuter pi. of consonant stems (type humanda) may have -a
(< *-eH2) from the o-stems, cf. Lat. -ä in trigintä, and see
Sommer, Handbuch der lat. Laut- u. Formenlehre, pp. 351 and
386. (Cf. Lindeman, Sprache 29, 42 f.). Luwian twatra (§85)
‘daughter’, the internal -a- of which seems to reflect a vocalized
‘laryngeal’, does not prove that this word, which is unattested
in H ittite, would there have displayed a corresponding vocaliza
tion of the medial ‘laryngeal’. It is sufficient to refer to the
difference between Skt. duhitàr- and Avestan dugôar in order
to dem onstrate that the reconstruction of an Anatolian
*tugat(a)ra- on the strength of Luwian twatra remains doubtful.
The origin of the a- of asanzi ‘they are’ (: 3 sg. eszi), adanzi
‘they eat’ (: 1 sg. edmi) is difficult to account for (cf. § 67 above).
According to the attractive suggestion by Catsanicos, B SL
LXXXI, p. 172, the root vocalism of asanzi, adanzi may have
been analogically re-shaped on the model of verbal stems ending
in a resonant, e.g. pres. 3 sg. mer-zi ‘disappears’ : 3 pi. *maranzi
(cf. d/taranzi ‘they say’) = 3 sg. es-zi : 3 pl. x; x = asanzi; for
the participle asant-, adant-, cf. the type djtarant- (\te-jtar-
‘say’). (For another, less convincing, explanation of asanzi, etc.,
see Lindeman, Triple representation, 67 f.).
It should be stressed in this connection that Hitt, ha-as-te-er-
za, if it stands for hster(-s), shows the maintenance of the initial
‘laryngeal’ in its consonantal form as do forms like
walhhzi < *wélH-ti ‘strikes’, sanhhzi, parhhzi, etc. (cf. §41
above). It seems so far, therefore, that we have no conclusive
evidence for a vocalization of a ‘laryngeal’ to a in H ittite (either
initially or medially/finally).
IV
Phonology and ‘Laryngeals’
§§ 89-95 On the Phonemic Status of the ‘Laryngeals’

§ 89 The evidence of the w ritten sources constitutes a deficient
basis for determining the exact phonetic nature of H ittite h. It
has been assumed that Hitt, h represents a dorsal fricative, or
(perhaps less likely) a velar plosive.101 Cf. Kronasser, E H S, 94 ff.,
Puhvel, EvfL, 80 ff., M artinet, Phonetica 1, 8 f., Crossland, T P S
(1951), 92 ff., Ivanov, Chettskij Jazyk, 87 f.
§90 As we have seen above in § 16, Cuny’s analysis of verbal

adjectives of the type Skt. pürnà-, Lith. pilnas, etc. furnishes
cogent evidence for the consonantal nature of the IE. ‘larynge
als’. The assumption that at least some of the IE. ‘laryngeals’
may in fact have been dorsal fricatives finds some support in
Kurylowicz’s observation (Apophonie, p. 109, note 14) that the
‘laryngeals’ seem to have constituted ‘une classe de phonèmes
intermédiaires en ce qui concerne leur fonction, entre les conson
nes proprem ent dites et les sonantes.’ Pointing to the phonologie
structure of themes like *gwerH- ‘swallow’ (Skt. girâtï), *pelH\-
‘fill’ (Skt. prnati) which seem to correspond to themes of the
shape *wert- ‘tu rn ’ (Skt. vârtati), Kurylowicz draws attention
to the existence of themes like Skt. khäd- ‘chew’, säs- ‘order’,
Gk. wrëg- ‘break asunder’ whose structure (*CeHC-) is parallel
to that of e.g. *bheydh- (Gk. peithö ‘persuade’) and similar
101. Cf. Crossland, A rch L in g 10, p. 98. In this connection one should note the
(rare) alternations between k and h in cases like h am eskan t- for ham eshant-
‘springtime’, and ishisa- for iskisa- ‘Rücken’, h alternates with r in
wahnu- = warnu- ‘burn’, cf. Puhvel, E vfL , p. 84. H E D , p. 393, cf. above,
§21, note 8. See also Kronasser, E H S , 98 ff. For Pal. ahu- ‘drink’ vs. Hitt.
eku-, and Luwian sahuidara- vs. Hitt, sakuw assara- ‘regular’, see Puhvel,
E vfL , p. 84, cf. Laroche, D L L , p. 84. For Palaic h, cf. Kammenhuber,
B S L 54, p. 29, Carruba, S tB o T 10, 40 f.
stems. (Cf. Cuny, Revue de Phonétique 2, p. 107). See also

Kurylowicz, Mélanges Renou, p. 437: ‘La coexistence de racines
du type -E H T et de racines set -E R H semble bien un indice de
1’“ouverture” particulière de H, située entre celles de T et de R \
We also refer to the interesting discussion by Ammer, Studien
zur indogerm anischen W urzelstruktur, Sprache 2, 193 ff., 209 ff.,
who likewise concludes that the ‘laryngeals’ mainly were frica
tives. See also Lehm ann, PIEPh, 103 ff., M ayrhofer, IdgGr 1,
121 f., and note 101 (with further references).
§91 In several places above (§§28, 29, 41, 43, 45) we have
tentatively assumed that the parent IE. language possessed dis
tinctively voiced ‘laryngeal’ consonants. Theoretical consider
ations make this extremely plausible, cf. the discussion by M ar
tinet, P IC L 8, 41 ff. However, the various IE. dialects offer little
or no concrete m aterial that might provide a confirm ation for
such a hypothesis (cf. §76, Rem ark above, for the supposed
voicing of *p to b by *H3 in the reduplicated present Skt.
pibati, OIr. ibid, etc.). As the A natolian m aterial is of crucial
im portance here it deserves a closer examination.
§ 92 It is frequently assumed that H ittite possessed two different

h-phonemes written -h- and -h(h)-, respectively, in intervocalic
position.102 This assum ption finds support in ‘Sturtevant’s ru
le’103 according to which IE. voiceless plosives were written
double and IE. voiced plosives single in positions where the
H ittite syllabary made that possible, i.e. between (written)
vowels.104
There can be no doubt that H ittite orthography observes the
rule in question105 in a fairly consistent m anner in the case of
the plosives p, b, t, d, q, k, g in root syllables, cf. Laroche, BiOr,
Jaargang XVIII N o 5/6 (1961), 254f.: ‘Toutefois, il convient de
102. The notation -h(h)- indicates that the double writing of -hh- is not carried
out consistently, cf. sa-a-k-h i : sa-ag-ga-ah-h i (to sak- ‘know’), tar-ah-hu-
un : tar-hu-un (to tarh- ‘vanquish’), la-a-hu-i : la-ah-hu-u-w a-i ‘pours’, etc.
See Sturtevant, CG , p. 27, Crossland, T P S , (1951), 94 f.
103. See Sturtevant, C G , p. 26, and note 45 (with further references).
104. For the use of single and double orthographies in the case o f I, m , n, r, s, and
z, cf. Sturtevant, CG , p. 27 f. and Crossland, T P S , (1951), p. 94, note 3.
105. Cf. Sturtevant, C G , §53, Benveniste, H I, p. 7, Scheller, IF, 69, 38 f.,
Anm. 6; Kammenhuber, B iO r 21, 201 f., Crossland. A rch L in g 10: p 81,
PHONOLOGY AND ‘LARYNGEALS’ 109
rappeler que les occlusives intérieures radicales se répartissent,

pour un m ot donné, en simples et en géminées. On a toujours ne-
pï-is “ciel”, jamais *ne-ep-pi-is : lire *nebes; toujours te-(e-)kân
“terre”, jam ais *te-ek-kân : lire *tegan; toujours pit-ti-ya- “cou
rir, voler”, jam ais *pi-ti-ya-: lire *pet(ï)ya~. Cette habitude gra
phique, commune aux scribes de Bogazkôy et à ceux du M itanni
(cf. E. Speiser, Introduction to Hurrian, §47 et sqq.), offre très
peu d ’exceptions.’
W hether the graphie opposition between -h- and -h(h)~ can
likewise be interpreted as pointing to the existence of two differ
ent h-phonemes in H ittite remains a m oot point for different
reasons. Thus, it should be noted that single intervocalic -h-
occurs chiefly after a written -e- (-/-), rarely after -a-, as opposed
to -h(h)- which occurs regularly after the vowels -a- and
-h(h)- is found after a written -e- (-/-) only in such cases where
-h(li)- represents the initial consonant of a verbal ending (e.g.
in te-eh-hi, i.e. te-hhi ‘I place’). This is why Hamm erich, Lingua
22 (1969), p. 209, takes -h- to represent an /c/z-Laut, and -h(h)~
an ach-Laut. However, there are also cases where -h- is consist
ently written single in the position after -a-, e.g. in the verb sah-
‘clog (with dirt), plug, stop’ (Puhvel, FlorAnat, p. 300, Laroche,
RH A 9, p. 16, and note 12), cf. pres. 3 sg. sa-ha-a-ri, sa-a-hi-is-
kat-ta-ri, etc. (S tB o T 5, p. 144).
M artinet, PIC L 8, 50 f., argues that although ‘Sturtevant’s
rule’ indicates that H ittite had two series of plosives, this does
not necessarily imply that the use of single and double
orthographies in the case of h may not have had a different
significance. From a strictly logical point of view this is certainly
true. It seems, however, difficult to find any clear alternative to
Sturtevant’s view that H ittite scribes in the case of h denote
original voicelessness and voice by double and single writing,
T P S (1951), 92ff„ 99 ff., P I C L 8, p. 473, and Kronasser, E H S , 13 f. The
exact nature of the contrast -t- : -tt-, etc. in Hittite (voiced : voiceless, or
lenis : fortis) is another matter, cf. Kurylowicz, P I C L 8, p. 220, who for
many cases assumes a graphemic explanation for the double writing.
Gamkrelidze, P e re d n e a zia tsk ij S born ik (1961), 238 f., takes the double
writing to indicate aspirated consonants (e.g. IE. *p > Hitt, ph , graphically
-pp-, -bb-)\ single writing allegedly indicates voiceless (non-aspirated) plo
sives (e.g. IE. *d and *dh > Hitt, t, graphically -t-, etc.). See now Gamkrel-
idze-Ivanov, Indoevropejskij ja z y k i indoevropejcy I (1984), p. 46. Cf.
further Jucquois, H eth itica 1 (1972), 86 ff. and Eichner, M S S 31, 79 ff.
(and note 88).
1 10 INTRODUCTION TO THE ‘LARYNGEAL THEORY’
respectively. Thus, B onfante’s suggestion, Classical Philology

39, p. 51, that -h- in for example mehur ‘tim e’ may have indicat
ed a hiatic pronunciation (i.e. mëür, rather than *mewr with a
diphthong ew) remains speculation as long as it has not been
shown that the -h- in e.g. ü-e-eh-zi (wehzi) has been analogically
restored on the model of forms with intervocalic -h- (e.g. u-e-
hu-un, 1 sg. pret. of weh- ‘tu rn ’).106 The same objection can be
raised against Cowgill’s explanation of mehur in Hethldg, 27 f.,
note 8. Basing himself on the realization ‘that single h between
e and u in H ittite has no etymological value’, he explains mehur
as a *-wr/-wen- noun to the root *m eH x- ‘m easure’ (Skt. mä-ti,
etc.), i.e. IE. *méHxwr > *meHur > *meür (disyllabic) of which
mehur ‘is either a writing or a further development.’ Cowgill,
ibid., 27 f. (with references), finds a phonetic parallel in Hitt.
ehu which he takes to represent *ey *go!’ followed by a particle
u, the single h having no etymological value. T hat ehu, however,
is not a development of earlier *eyu can be seen from the noun
heu-, heau- ‘rain’ that comes from pre-Hitt. *heyu-, *heyaw-
(according to Cowgill’s own derivation in Kratylos 29, p. 8).
Puhvel, HED, p. 257, connects H itt, ehu ‘come!’ with the stem
of iya-, ie- ‘go’; -hu is plausibly taken to reflect *H2au ‘away,
o ff (cf. Lat. au- in au-ferre, etc.) by Eichner, M S S 31, p. 55.
Eichner, M S S 31, p. 100, note 88, teaches that single -h- in
ü-e-eh-zi, u-e-hu-un and me-e-hu-ur and similar forms represents
the lenition of -hh- (the regular reflex of *-H2-) after a stressed
long vowel (cf. also Melchert, StH H P h, p. 11, and note 8). For
lenition in Proto-A natolian, see now Eichner, K Z 99, 206 f.,
note 10.
However, the assum ption that mehur goes back to an IE.
lengthened grade */mëH2wr/ has been shown to be entirely ad
hoc in §46 above. To posit (with Melchert, op. cit., p. 11)
*wëH2-ti to account for the single -h- of ü-e-eh-zi (the etymology
of which remains unknown) is equally ad hoc: the unexplained
single -h- of ü-e-eh-zi is here made the justification of the as
sum ption of a lengthened grade *wëH2- which itself ‘explains’
106. Cf. Crossland, TPS (1951), p. 104: ‘Bonfante’s suggestion that h in such
words as mehur may have been a graphic device for indicating hiatus or
vowel-length cannot be conclusively disproved, but the fact that it has
not been shown that the h-signs were used in this way in any other class
of cuneiform documents is a strong argument against it.’
the single -h- of ü-e-eh-zi. It is im portant to stress that the oldest

paradigm of weh- in H ittite is (3 sg.) ü-e-eh-zi : (3 pi.) wa-ha-an-
zi (with consistently single h), see Triple representation, p. 14,
note 5 with references. Cf. also § 93, note 107 below, for the
plural wa-ha-an-zi.
Rem ark: W hether the e o f me-e-hu-ur, ü-e-eh-zi, etc. w as ever phone-

m ically long in H ittite is doubtful. G .H art, B S O A S X L III, 1 ff., has
m ade it seem extrem ely plausible that plene-writing does not indicate
vow el length, but is historically connected w ith the IE. accent. For a
criticism o f H art’s view, see now Eichner, K Z 99, p. 208, n ote 12, and
cf. S. E. K im ball, IF 91, 85 ff. A ccording to M elchert, S tH H P h ,
p. 162, ‘plene spellings have at least three other functions in H ittite
orthography in addition to indicating vow el length: (1) to show e-
coloring o f the vow el with am biguous Ce/i- and -e/iC signs (pé-e-da-
an beside pé-da-an for /p ed an / “place”); (2) to m ark the p osition o f
the accented syllable (nom .-acc. sg. te-e-kân /d égan / “earth” vs. gen.
sg. tâk-na-a-a.s /d agn âs/, loc. sg. tâk-ni-i /d agn i/ etc.); (3) in the case
o f all m onosyllables except sentence-initial conjunctions, to avoid
writing a word w ith only one sign (da-a /d a/ ‘take!’ and i-it /id / “g o ”) .’
We choose to follow Crossland, ArchLing 10, p. 81, who sees a

strong argument in favour of the view that H ittite had two
different //-phonemes in the graphical opposition between -(e)h-
and -(a)h(h)- attested by morphologically parallel form ations of
the type (pret.) weh-un and nahh-un (to nahh- ‘fear’). See also
Crossland, P IC L 8, p. 59.
§93 The vocalism and the single -h- in the root syllable o f a
form like weh-un make it seem extremely plausible that the -h-
here represents a neutral voiced ‘laryngeal’, cf. Sturtevant, CG,
§75. We will denote this ‘laryngeal’ by the symbol *//j. It should
be duly stressed, however, that the assum ption of the existence
of two different //-phonemes in H ittite inevitably remains a m oot
point as long as H ittite words with single -h- (and c-vocalism) o f
the type seen in ü-e-eh-zi, pi. wa-ha-an-zi,107 me-e-hu-ur, etc. lack
convincing etymological connections in the other IE. languages,
cf. the discussion above in §§25, Remark, 45, Remark, 46.
107. Taking ü-e-eh-zi: wa-ha-an-zi to represent a normal athematic m/-verb,

we may see a regular IE. *e-full grade in the singular stem, i.e. *wéh-,
corresponding to that attested by IE. *sés-ti ‘sleeps’ > Hitt, sés-zi (cf. Skt.
sas-ti). The plural wah-anzi could be a re-shaped form (for older *wh-enti
§94 From the preceding discussion we may now draw some

tentative, summ ary conclusions: ‘Sturtevant’s rule’ seems to
indicate that H ittite had two different h-phonemes which occur
as -h- and -h(h)~, respectively, between written vowels; -h(h)-
stands frequently next to the vowel a ( < IE. *a or *o) and
seems to be the regular reflex in A natolian of the IE. voiceless
‘laryngeals’ *H2 and * //3. Initially, IE. */H 2e-/ and */H 3e-/
are reflected by H itt. ha-.m The H ittite opposition between
-{e)h- and -(a)h(h)- has no correspondence in Luw ian.109
The single -h- o f H ittite weh-, pi. wah-, sah- ‘clog (with
dirt)’, etc. may represent an IE. voiced, non-colouring
‘laryngeal’.
§95 In § 98 ff. we have tentatively assumed that at least some

of the IE. ‘laryngeals’ were dorsal fricatives. It is tempting
to think that these fricatives may have constituted a system
structurally com parable to that posited for the dorsal plosives
of Indo-European, i.e.:
dorsal fricatives
palatal velar labio-velar
(voiceless) x’ x x H'
(voiced) / y yw
with regular zero grade), cf. the following analogical proportion: sés-
zi : sas-ânzi = wéh-zi \x ',x — wah-ânzi. (The variant form sesanzi has taken
over the c-vocalism of the singular, see Melchert, StH H Ph, p. 60). The
origin of the old allomorph sas- of 1 pi. pres, sa-su-e-ni (S tB oT 26,
p. 165), 3 pi. sas-anzi might be explained along the following lines: an
inherited IE. paradigm (3 sg.) *sés-ti : (3 pl.) *ss-énti > *s-énti (with simpli
fication of initial *ss- > *s-) was remodelled in Anatolian on the type
*wélh-ti ‘strikes’ : pl. *walh-énti (< *w[H-ênti) into *sés-ti : pl. *sas-énti
(whence sas-ânzi); for the development of *wélh-ti into later walhh-zi, see
Kurylowicz, PIC L 8, p. 228, Catsanicos, B SL LXXXI, p. 169, and note
274. For Hitt, sasant- c. ‘Konkubine’ (subst. ptc. of ses-), see S tB oT 2.6,
p. 161, note 478 (with references).
108. Cf. Hitt, hant- ‘front’ < *H2ent- (§25 above) whose ‘laryngeal’ is written
double in mena-hhanda ‘toward, facing’ representing a juxta-position of
mena and handa in which Laroche, RHA 28, p. 37, sees the ‘directif of
mena- ‘cheek’ and hant- ‘front’.
109. According to Ivanov, Obsceindoevropejskaja, p. 14, and note 16, the lack
of a corresponding opposition in Luwian can be explained by the later
syncretism of *e and (*o > ) a in Luw. a.
Cf. the traditionally reconstructed system of IE. dorsal plosives:

dorsal plosives
palatal velar labio-velar
(voiceless) k’ k kw
(voiced) g' g gw
The colouring of a neighbouring *e to *a in the vicinity of *H2
and *H2 would be phonetically well understandable if the latter
sounds were fricatives of the type [x] and [y] whose velar articu
lation involves a retraction of the body of the tongue. Similarly,
the o-colouring *H3 and *H3 may well have been rounded velar
fricatives ([xvl] and [y,v]) whose articulation involves retraction
of the body of the tongue and simultaneous rounding of the
lips. *Hi and *H\ which did not have any colouring effect on
a neighbouring *e may have been of a dorso-palatal type, i.e.
[x’j and [/], respectively.
According to the description given by W. S. Allen, T P S (1956),
129 f., the (Caucasian) A baza language has a system of voiceless
and voiced dorsal fricatives corresponding to the one we have
tentatively posited for Indo-European. Beside the palatal voiced
fricative there is also a semi-vowel y (I.P.A. : palatal approxim -
ant [j]). It is further interesting to note that M argi (a West
African language) has a contrast between a palatal voiced frica
tive ([j,'])110 and a palatal approxim ant ([j]), see Ladefoged, A
Phonetic Study o f West African Languages (Cambridge, 1964),
p. 28. The supposed coexistence of the semi-vowel *y and a
voiced dorso-palatal fricative *[y5] in Indo-E uropean is therefore
clearly a theoretical possibility.
It is further extremely plausible that Indo-E uropean may
have possessed so-called pharyngeals, i.e. fricative consonants
produced by retracting the root of the tongue tow ards the hind-
wall of the pharynx. See M artinet, P IC L 8, p. 42 and Économie,
p. 217, note 16. Typologically, we may again refer (with M arti
net, Phonetica 1, p. 18) to the Abaza language which according
to W. S. Allen’s description has rounded as well as unrounded
voiceless and voiced pharyngeal fricatives. There is also a glottal
plosive. It should be noted here that the lack of any colouring
of *e by *Hi could mean that *Lh should be defined as [h] (a
110. For the symbol [j see Ladefoged, Preliminaries to Linguistic Phonetics,

p. 60.
voiceless laryngeal fricative) or [?] (a glottal plosive), respective

ly. Cf. M artinet, Phonetica 1, p. 20.
For a relatively early stage of non-A natolian Indo-European
we assume a syncretism o f all ‘laryngeals’ under one colour
leading to the phonem ization of the contrast between e, a, and
o.
The following is a tentative scheme of the H ittite reflexes of
the supposed IE. ‘laryngeals’:
Symbols Reflexes in H ittite
H\ zero (e-, -e-), e.g. eszi ‘is’, temi ‘I say’
H\ -h- e.g. ü-e-eh-zi; he-2
H2 h-, -h(h)-, e.g. hant- ‘front’, newahh- ‘make new’
H2 zero («-, -a-), e.g. ai- ‘give’ in pai-2; neuter pi. -a
H3 h-, -h(h)-, e.g. hasdwer ‘twigs, branches’
H3 zero (a-, -a-), e.g. ais ‘m outh’, dai ‘takes’
R em ark: For a different interpretation o f the H ittite reflexes o f the

Indo-E uropean ‘laryngeals’, see Puhvel, E vfL , p. 92, H E D X.
§§96-103 Conclusions
§96 Since the evidence for Sturtevant’s ‘Indo-H ittite’ still re
mains inconclusive (despite Cowgill’s discussion in P IC L 11,
pp. 557-570, and Hethldg, pp, 25-39), there is nothing that
forces us to abandon Pedersen’s hypothesis that sees Hittite
(Anatolian) as an Indo-European dialect on an equal footing
with the sister-languages (cf. Eichner, Fachtagung VI, 71 ff. and
Kammenhuber, K Z 94, 33 ff.). However, certain facts suggest
that A natolian must have separated from the Indo-European
linguistic com munity at a relatively early stage.
Thus, different IE. ‘laryngeals’ clearly survive in the Hittite
phonemes -h-, and -h(h)-. It follows from an example like Hitt.
pahhs- ‘protect’ vs. Lat. pästor, OCS. pasti, etc. (§39) that A n
atolian must have separated from the IE. linguistic community
at a time when the change *-eH-C- > *-ëx-C- had not yet taken
place throughout the whole of the Indo-European speaking
territory. It should also be noted that we ignore whether a
development of the type *-eH-C- > *-ëx-C- occurred in those
cases in which a ‘laryngeal’ was lost in A natolian, e.g. pas-
‘swallow’ (if from *peH3- ‘drink’), gnes-zi (ga-ni-es-zi) < IE.
*g’neH\-s- (§44), or hassa- ‘hearth’ (if from *H2eHs-, cf. Lat.

ära, etc., §32). We know next to nothing about a possible
distinctive vowel quantity in Hittite, cf. Catsanicos. B SL.
LXXXI, p. 160, and note 226. For the plene writing, see §92,
Remark above.111
The vowel colouring brought about by the IE. ‘laryngeals’
(e.g. */eH2/ > *[aH2]) is attested both in A natolian and in non-
A natolian Indo-European, cf. H itt, newahh- ‘m ake new’ : Lat.
(re-)nouä-re ( < *newe-H2-). The ablaut *e > *o, which is later
than the colouring of */e/ by neighbouring *H2 and * //3 (cf.
§40), is found both in A natolian (e.g. H itt, kasza
‘hunger’ : kisduwant- ‘hungry’, Kurylowicz, P IC L 8, p. 230) and
outside Anatolian. The regular IE. alternation between a full
grade (e.g. 3 sg. *gwhén-ti ‘strikes’) and a zero grade (3 pi.
*gwhn-énti) is continued in A natolian (Hitt, kuenzi ‘strikes’ : 3 pi.
kunanzi) and in non-A natolian IE. (Vedic hânti ‘strikes’ : 3 pi.
ghncmti).
§97 The development of an anaptyctic vowel in sequences of

the type */CHC-/ appears to have occurred in a dialectal period
of non-A natolian Indo-European, at a stage when all the ‘laryn
geals’ o f different colour had fallen together phonetically: the
fact that all languages (with the exception of Greek) present
only one anaptyctic vowel type (Indo-Iranian i, otherwise a)
speaks in favour of this interpretation. Consequently, the Greek
triple representation of Schwa (thetôs, statôs, dotôs) m ust be a
Greek innovation.
The assumption of a merger of all ‘laryngeals’ in a dialectal
period of non-A natolian Indo-European finds further support
in the following: (1) the timbre of a Greek or A rm enian
prothetic vowel of indisputably ‘laryngeal’ origin (i.e. where
the Greek or Armenian prothesis corresponds to a preserved
initial h- of an etymologically related word form in A natolian)
is always a- (cf. § 67); (2) the voiceless aspirates appear to be a
111. For Eichner’s views on vowel quantity in Anatolian and Hittite, see K Z
99, p. 206, note 10, where he proposes a development of this type: *H2iHn
2saH2- > Proto-Anatolian *H2ïsâ-, whence *H2is- (by a Proto-Anat. short
ening of an unstressed long vowel) > Hitt, hissa-, cf. Skt. ïsâ- ‘pole of a
carriage’ (cf. §31 above). Eichner’s hypothesis can neither be conclusively
proved nor disproved.
specifically Indo-Iranian development which took place in earli

er sequences o f voiceless plosive plus *H (into which the original
IE. ‘laryngeals’ had merged); cf. Polomé, Reflexes of Laryngeals
in Indo-Iranian, p. 244. The same is true of the Indo-Iranian
development of *b + H, *d + H, *g + H to bh, dh, gh.
§ 98 A corresponding syncretism o f the different IE. ‘laryngeals’

appears not to have occurred in A natolian: here the (voiceless)
*H2 and *Hi have fallen together in -h(h)~, whereas *H\ can be
shown to have disappeared in m any cases. The source o f the
single -h- in words like wehzi ‘turns’, mehur ‘time’, sah- ‘clog
(with dirt)’, etc. has not been decided beyond doubt: -h- may
here represent an IE. voiced ‘laryngeal’ (cf. §92).
There is no non-am biguous trace of a vocalization of inter-
consonantal ‘laryngeals’ in Hittite, which here differs from Lu-
wian (twatra ‘daughter’, see §85), cf. H itt, walhhzi < *wélH-ti
and similar forms (§84). As we have seen (§67), a preconso-
nantal ‘laryngeal’ is not vocalized in word-initial position in
Hittite, cf. hster(-s) vs. Gk. aster.
§ 99 The disappearance of *H (into which the different ‘larynge

als’ had merged in a dialectal period of non-A natolian Indo-
European) entailed a com pensatory lengthening of the preced
ing short vowel in the sequences *-eH-C, *-aH-C, *-oH-C,
and *-<?##, * -o H # > *-e-C, *-ä-C, *-ö-C, and * -ë # ,
* - ä # , * -ö # , respectively.112 This development took place in all
the non-A natolian dialects. Similarly, the triad *e, *a, *o goes
back to *He, *Ha, *Ho. It cannot be decided beyond doubt
whether the loss of *H occurred earlier in the position before
a vowel (or a syllabic resonant) than in preconsonantal position
(cf. §51, Remark above).
§ 100 Similarly, the sequences *-rH-C, *-mH-C and

*-nH-C may have developed regularly into the long phonemes
*1x1, *Hl, */m/ and */n/ in non-A natolian Indo-European. Many
112. Cf. Kurylowicz, Problèmes, p. 197: ‘L’opinion suivant laquelle certaines

voyelles longues proviennent d’une contraction de brèves avec a antécon-
sonantique est confirmée par les exemples où ces longues s’observent m
statu nascendi, cf. véd. dvïpa-, sünara-, âyan (augment + y an), etc.’ For
these Vedic forms, see § 50 above.
PHONOLOGY AND ‘LARYNGEALS’ 1 17
contem porary scholars pointing to the phonologic discrepancy

between forms like Lat. gränum and Skt. jïrnâ-, or Lat. -gnätus
and Skt.jätci-, reject the assum ption of such long phonem es for
Indo-European as unconvincing, cf. Kuiper, Sprache 7, p. 20,113
who writes: ‘Es verdient dabei Beachtung, dass schon die D i
skrepanz zwischen lat. gränum : ai. jïrnâ- einerseits, und lat.
-gnätus : ai. jätä- anderseits entschieden gegen die A nnahm e von
ursprachlichen f und n spricht. Im Lateinischen, wo n nicht
vokalisiert wurde, entwickelten sich *rH und *nH vor K onson
anten ganz parallel zu *raH > rä und *naH > nä. Im U rindoir-
anischen dagegen wurde n schon früh zu a vokalisiert, w odurch
nH sich zwangsläufig als aH weiterentwickeln musste, und d a
her vor K onsonanten schliesslich zu ä w urde.’ However, a
strong argum ent against Kuiper’s phonetic speculation can be
found in the attested development in Indo-Iranian o f a prevoca
lic sequence *CnH- : *CnHo- has given Vedic, etc. Cana- (with
prevocalic *n > an), not *Cä- < *Ca(H)a-\, e.g. Vedic pres, san-
oti ‘gains’ (< *snH-éw-ti) : ptc. sâtâ- ( < *snH-to-).m
The fact that the non-A natolian dialects present different
phonologic reflexes of */?/, etc. is not a strong objection against
the assumption of the earlier existence of such phonemes. Final
ly, it should be pointed out that a phonem e /r/ exists in Serbo-
Croation (cf. Troubetzkoy, Principes de Phonologie, traduction
J.C antineau, p. 62).
The loss of *H in a sequence *CRH -V- resulted in */CR-V-/
with a prevocalic phoneme */R/, cf. § 36 above.
§ 101 On the basis of the preceding observations I venture to

suggest the following tentative chronology:
1. Colouring: */eH,/, */eH2/, */eH3/ > *[eHx], *[aH2\, *[oH,]
2. Zero grade: *CeH\C-, *CaH2C-, *CoH,C- > *C H ,C -,
*CH2C-, *CH3C-
3. Qualitative ablaut: *eH\ > *oH\
(The order of 2 and 3 may have been the reverse, cf. §40).
113. See also Kurylowicz, Apophonie, p. 393, Problèmes, 182 f., note 7 and
Mayrhofer, IdgGr 1, p. 160.
114. Forms of the type Gk. (w)rag(ênai), Lat. ratus, laxus, Goth, lats, OHG.
slaf, blat, etc. are not phonetically regular developments, but represent
forms re-shaped on the model of *dha- ( < *d h o j : *dhë-, see Kurylowicz,
Apophonie, pp. 175, 209 and 217. Cf. M. Nyman, IF 90, 59 f.
4. A natolian separates from the IE. linguistic community.

5. Syncretism o f the ‘laryngeals’ under one colour in non-A n
atolian Indo-E uropean:115
*CéH\C, *CâHiC, *CôH}C > */CéHC/, */CâH C/, */CôHC/
*C7/iC-, *CH2C-, *CH i C- > */CHC-/
6. Loss o f *H in a dialectal period of non-A natolian Indo-
European (possibly first in position before a vowel). The
disappearance of *H entailed a com pensatory lengthening of
a preceding short vowel in the sequences *-exH -C and
*-exH # . O ther developments that occurred at this stage are:
(a) # HC- > # a C - in Greek and Armenian; (b) */C H C:/
develops an anaptyctic vowel ( > Indo-Iranian CiC'-, other
wise CaC-); (c) *pH-, *tH-, *kH-, and *bH-, *dH-, *gH- >
Indo-Iranian ph, th, kh, and bh, dh, gh, respectively.
§ 102 Kuiper, Sprache 7, 14 ff. (cf. IIJ 18, 241 ff.), assumes the
m aintenance of a consonantal ‘laryngeal’ in prehistoric Indie.
Thus, a gen. sg. of the type Ved. jânmanas (: nom. acc. sg.
jânima ‘race’) is said to presuppose a specifically Indie loss o f a
consonant *H. Kuiper finds support for his hypothesis in Vedic
forms like âpratïtta- ‘not given back’, pârîtta- ‘given away’, pârï-
tti- ‘delivering’ the long -f- of which he takes to be the result o f
a ‘laryngeal’ metathesis, i.e. *prati-dH-ta- > *prati-Ht-ta-, etc.
(Sprache 7, p. 28). Similarly, he thinks that a consonantal ‘laryn
geal’ has been lost in G atha Avestan ptà,fdârôi (cf. §85 above,
for the Iranian forms). Kuiper does not, however, indicate under
which phonologic conditions an interconsonantal ‘laryngeal’
could occur partly in its ‘vocalized’ form ( > Indie i), and partly
in its consonantal form (e.g. in the supposed preform *prati-
dH-ta- vs. *dd-tô- > Vedic di-tâ-). It is further im portant to note
that forms like cark^tî- ‘praising’ (: kvrti- ‘fam e’), susuti- ‘an easy
birth’ (: inf. sutave ‘to generate’) do not— despite Kuiper, ibid.,
24 ff., and M ayrhofer, IdgGr 1, 150 f.—w arrant the assumption
o f a specifically Indie loss of *H as such forms may represent
old anit roots.
For a different explanation of the alternation between
janman- and janiman- in Vedic, cf. the discussion by Lindeman,
115. Similarly A.R.Bomhard, Orbis XXV, p. 232, Festschrift Szemerényi I,

p. 128; cf. Triple representation, p. 70.
IF 91, 79 ff. (and cf. §87 above): since *H represents a conson

antal element inherently less sonorous than the resonants *r, */,
*m, *n, it follows that an IE. sequence of the type */g’énHm en-/
must be interpreted (according to Sievers’ Law) as being p h o
netically *[g enHmen-\ (structurally parallel to the *g’enHio-
underlying Vedic jâniya- (§ 87)). A fter the loss of the prevocalic
*H the resulting *g’énmen- became *g’énmen- ( > jân-m an-) by
some sort of ‘converse of Sievers’ Law’ (cf. Vedic jân-ya- ~
jâniya-).
The variant jâni-man- may have been created according to
the following analogical proportion: precons. anit-ïovm (cf.
Lat. gens, gentis) jân(-tva~) :jân(-man-) = precons, sef-form
jâni(-tva-) : x; x = jâni-man-.
Vedic asnäs, gen. sg. of âsrk ‘blood’, admits, perhaps, o f a
similar explanation. On the strength of H itt. gen. sg. is-ha-na-
a-as (: nom. acc. sg. eshar ‘blood’), we may posit the oldest IE.
gen. sg. o f */HiésHr-/ as */HisHnés/ = phonetically *H xsHnés
(with a syllabic nasal after the initial consonant cluster *H xsH-
in accordance with Sievers’ Law). The presyllabic *H is lost,
and *Hs(H)nés gives *(H)snés > *snés which now takes over
the *e- of the nom. acc. sg. ésr- and becomes *esnés > *esnés
(Vedic asnàs) by some sort of ‘converse of Sievers’ Law ’. It
should be noted that the later H itt. gen. sg. esnas has likewise
taken over the e-vocalism of the nom. acc. sg. eshar (G .H art,
B S O A S X LIII, p. 11).
For the reasons given here, Gk. thalerôs ‘blooming, fresh,
etc.’ and Arm enian dalar ‘fresh, green’ cannot be from IE.
*dhalHxrô- with a ‘vocalized’ *H X> Gk. -e-, Arm. -a-, as as
sumed by Mayrhofer, IdgGr 1, p. 127, note 118, with further
references. */dhalH iro-/ = phonetically *dhalH\xo- may in ef
fect underlie Arm. dalar since prevocalic *r gives Arm. ar (i.e.
*dhalHi£Ô- > *dhalfô- (with loss of the presyllabic ‘laryn
geal’) > pre-Arm. *dalaro-, etc.). Gk. thalerôs may be to an
original *thalûs (cf. thâleia f. ‘florissante, riche’ o f banquets) as
glukerôs is to gluküs, see Chantraine, Dictionnaire II, p. 420.
Cf. Triple representation, p. 38.
§ 103 In originally medial syllables we do not find any vestige

of a vocalized ‘laryngeal’ in Germanic, see Meillet, Les dialectes
indo-européens p. 64, W.H. Bennett, Studies Arch. H. H ill III,
13 f. (Lehm ann PIEPh., 53 ff., tries to show that *77 was pre
served for a long time in the vicinity o f r, I, m and n in Germanic.
The ‘evidence’ that he adduces is, however, mostly uncertain
and unclear. It should be noted that OE. hœrfest ‘autum n’ does
not presuppose Gmc. *harubist- (with u allegedly from 77), but
goes back to Gmc. *har bist-).
It is generally assumed that IE. in originally fin a l syllables
gave Gmc. -u-, see Meillet, ibid., 6 4 f., Bennett, op. cit. 14f.
Thus, the u of O H G . anut ‘duck’ is supposed to represent the
*d o f an IE. nom inative sg. form *anot-s ( < *H2énHt-s), cf. Lat.
anas. This, however, seems extremely doubtful to me for the
following reasons: O H G . anut cannot justify the reconstruction
of a G erm anic stem *anud-m since there is no way of proving
th at its u is m ore original than the i attested by OH G. enit, OE.
œnid, ened, cf. OS. anad. Theoretically, Olcel. g n d can represent
Gmc. *anuô-, *aniô-, probably even *anaô-, cf. çln ‘ell’ ( ~ alin,
cf. G oth, aleina ‘pêkhus’). The archaic form gnp (Noreen, Altisl
Gramm, p. 285) proves that a vowel has been lost after the n.
It would seem, therefore, that IE. *H2énHt- gave Germanic
*anVxô- whose short predesinential vowel (Vx) probably arose
in Germanic by some sort of anaptyxis after the loss o f the
medial ‘laryngeal’.
The supposed anaptyctic vowel development might have the
same explanation as that seen in forms like OH G. halam vs.
Olcel. halmr ‘straw ’ or OH G. birihha vs. OE. beorc ‘birch’, for
which see Meillet, Les dialectes indo-européens, p. 65: ‘Dans
ces exemples, Va de halam, Yi de birihha ne représentent pas
directem ent *d, mais une sorte de résonance provenant de la
prononciation particulière de la diphtongue détérminée par la
chute de *a.’
116. My colleague Bjorvand informs me that the nom. acc. plural form attested
by Olcel. endr is a strong argument against the restitution of a Gmc. i-
stem [*anuôi-, see e.g. Kluge, Etym Wörterb der deutschen Sprache11, p.
167) since a Common Nordic transition of an /-stem to the consonantal
inflection (cf. OSwed. render) would be quite unusual.
Select Bibliography
For the system of abbreviations, see pp. 9-15 above
Adrados, F. R., M ore on the Laryngeals with labial and palatal

Appendices, Folia Linguistica Historica II/2, (Societas Lingu
istica Europaea, 1981), pp. 191-235
Andreev, N. D., Ranneindoevropejskie korni s veljarnymi spi-
rantam i, VJA (1978), 5, 46 ff
Anttila, R., The pitfalls of ananke, Sprache 18 (1972), pp. 34-
43
Bader, F., Nom s de bergers de la racine *pâ-, Studies Palmer,
pp. 17 ff
Bader, F., Le traitem ent des hiatus à la jointure des deux m em b
res d ’un composé nominal en mycénien, Acta Mycenaea,
Actes du 5. colloque international des études mycéniennes, ed.
by M .S.Ruipérez, Universidad de Salamanca, 1972, pp. 141-
196
Bader, F., Relations de structure entre les désinences d ’infectum
et de perfectum en latin, Word 24 (1968), pp. 14-47
Barton, C h .R., H ittite me-ri-ir, epp- and a N ote on the A blaut
of R oot Verbs, K Z 98 (1985), 13 ff
Beekes, R .S .R , The Development o f the Proto-Indo-European
Laryngeals in Greek, (Janua Linguarum Studia M emoriae
Nicolai Van Wijk Dedicata. Series Practica 42), M outon,
1969
Beekes, R.S.P., FLO, Sprache 18, 117 ff
Beekes, R. S. P., The N om inative of the H ysterodynamic N oun-
Inflection, K Z 86 (1972), pp. 30-63
Beekes, R. S.P., Monukhes hippoi, Orbis 20, 138 ff
Beekes, R. S.P., PIE ‘sun’, M S S 43 (1984), 5 ff
Beekes, R. S. P., The N euter Plural and the Vocalization of the
Laryngeals in Avestan, IIJ 23 (1981), 275 ff
Beekes, R .S.R , Some Greek aRa-forms, M S S 34, 9 ff
Beekes, R.S.P., Intervocalic Laryngeal in G atha-Avestan, Bono

homini donum, 47 ff
Beekes, R.S.P., On Laryngeals and Pronouns, K Z 96, 201 ff
Benveniste, É., Le redoublem ent au parfait indo-iranien, Sym-
bolae linguisticae in honorem Georgii Kurylowicz, Warszawa,
1965, 25 ff
Bom hard, A. R., The Placing o f the A natolian Languages, Orbis
25, pp. 199-239
Bom hard, A. R., Typological Studies and the Identification o f
the Indo-E uropean Laryngeals, Festschrift Szemerényi I,
1979, pp. 123-137
Bomhard, A. R., An etymological Note: PIE. *Hs-tér- ‘star’,
JIE S 14 (1986), 191 f
Campanile, E., Sulla preistoria del paradigm a di bé e ben in
irlandese antico, Incontri Linguistici 3, 1, 1976-77, 21 ff
C ardona, G., Review o f O. Szemerényi, Syncope, Lang 43
(1967), 757 ff
Catsanicos, J., A propos des adjectifs hitt. su-hmili- et véd. sü-
mâya- : quelques remarques sur le traitem ent du groupe 0 V-
H XC° à la jointure des composés, BSL LXXXI (1986), pp.
121-180
Colarusso, J., Typological Parallels between P roto-Indo-E uro
pean and the N orthw est Caucasian Languages, Bono homini
donum, 475 ff
Collinder, B. Die indo-uralische Sprachvergleichung und die
Laryngaltheorie, Sprache 13 (1967), 179 ff
Collinge, N .E ., Collectanea linguistica, (Janua linguarum Series
M inor 21), The Hague, 1970
Connolly, L.A ., A ltnordisch e < indogermanisch i, K Z 97
(1984), 267 ff
Cowgill, W., The first person singular medio-passive of Indo-
Iranian, Pratidänam, 24 ff
Cowgill, W., Italic and Celtic Superlatives and the Dialects
o f Indo-European Indo-European and Indo-Europeans,
Papers presented at the 3rd Indo-European Conference at the
University o f Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1970, p. 148,
note 30
Crossland, R. A., A Reconsideration of the H ittite Evidence for
the Existence of “ Laryngeals” in Primitive Indo-European,
TP S (1951), 88 ff
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY 12 3
Eichner, H., Die Etymologie von heth. mehur, M S S 31 (1973),

pp. 53-107
Eichner, H., Die urindogermanische Wurzel *H2reu ‘hell m ach
en’, Sprache 24, 144 ff
Eichner, H., Die Vorgeschichte des hethitischen Verbalsystems,
Fachtagung V, 71 ff
Eichner, H., Phonetik und Lautgesetze des Elethitischen - ein
Weg zu ihrer Entschlüsselung, Fachtagung VI, p. 128, note
41
Fischer, H., Lateinisch gravis “schwer” , M S S 41 (1982), 33 f
Forssman, B., Untersuchungen zur Sprache Pindars, Wiesbaden,
1966, 145 ff
Forssman, B., Nachlese zu ôsse, M S S 25, 39 ff
Francis, E. D., Greek éblën, Glotta LII (1974), 11 ff
Gamkrelidze, T. V., H ittite and the Laryngeal Theory, Pratidän-
am, 89 ff
Gamkrelidze, T.V., and Ivanov, V.Vs., Indoevropejskij ja zy k i
indoevropejcy. Rekonstrukcija i istoriko-tipologiceskij analiz
prajazyka i protokul’tury I, Tbilisi, 1984, 152 ff
Georgiev, V., Die indoeuropäische e i/2y-Klasse, Symbolae
linguisticae in honorem Georgii Kurylowicz, Warszawa,
1965, 81 ff
Gil, J., El genitivo en -i y los origenes de la declinaciôn temâtica,
Emerita 36 (1968), 25 ff
Gusmani, R., Ittito, teoria laringalistica e ricostruzione,
H ethldg 63 ff
Hammerich, L.L., Ketzereien eines alten Indogerm anisten, To
Honor Roman Jakobson II, 839 ff
H amp, E. P., On some Troublesome Indo-E uropean Initials,
Studies in Historical Linguistics in Honor o f G. S. Lane, 146 ff
Hamp, E.P., IE. *Hued(h)~, Sprache 14 (1968), 156 ff
Hamp, E.P., Palaic ha-a-ap-na-as ‘river’ M S S 30 (1972), 35 ff
Hamp, E.P., dhugHtër in Irish, M S S 33 (1975), 39 ff
H amp, E.P., On Greek ‘Prothetic’ Vowels, M S S 37 (1978), 59 ff
Hamp, E.P., IE. *g«reHauon-, M S S 38, pp. 4-43
H amp, E.P., *gweiH0- ‘live’, Studies Palmer, pp. 87-91
Hamp, E.P., Indo-European *{He)op-, M S S 40 (1981), 39 ff
Hamp, E.P., IE. *meHa-, M S S 43 (1984), 45 f
H amp, E.P., Indo-European ‘bone’ Reconsidered, K Z 94
(1984), 197 ff
Hoenigswald, H .M ., Certain Semivowel Sequences in Greek,

Pratidänam, 20 ff
Hoenigswald, H .M ., An Aspect of Semivowel Asymmetry in
Indo-E uropean, Bulletin o f the Department o f Comparative
Philology and Linguistics University o f Calcutta 3, 1978, (Suni-
ti K um ar Chatterji M emorial Volume), pp. 14-18
H offm ann, K., Zum O ptativ des indogermanischen W urzelao
rists, Pratidänam, 3 ff
H offm ann, K., Ein grundsprachliches Possessivsuffix, M S S 6
(1955), 35 ff
Hovdhaugen, E., Prothetic Vowels in A rm enian and Greek and
the Laryngeal Theory, N T S 22 (1968), 115 ff
Hovdhaugen, E., Review of Lindeman, Einführung in die La-
ryngaltheorie, N T S 25 (1971), pp. 116-126
Isebaert, L., À propos de hittite ishunau ‘arrière-bras’, K Z 96,
59 f
Ivanov, V.Vs., Obsceindoevropejskaja, (Review by Ambrazas,
Baltistica 3, 1967, 117ff.)
Ivanov, V.Vs., Otrazenie dvuch serii indoevropejskich gla-
gol’nych form v praslavjanskom , Slavjanskoe jazykoznanie,
6. mezdunarodnyj s ”ezd slavistov, M oskva, 1968, 225 ff
Jasanoff, J.H ., Observations on the Germanie Verschärfung,
M S S 37, 77 ff
Jasanoff, J.H ., The Position of the /u-Conjugation, Hethldg,
pp. 79-90
Keiler, A. R., A Phonological Study o f the Indo-European Lar
yngeals, Den Haag-Paris, 1970
Klingenschmitt, G., Griechisch hïlâskesthai, M S S 28, pp. 75-88
Klingenschmitt, G., Tocharisch und Urindogermanisch, Fachta
gung V, pp. 148-163
Klingenschmitt, G., Das altarmenische Verbum, Wiesbaden
1982, esp. pp. 68, note 11, 90 ff., 105, note 27, 167, note 13
K ortlandt, F., Slavic Accentuation, Lisse, 1975 (Peter de Ridder
Press)
K ortlandt, F., On the History o f Slavic Accentuation, K Z 92
(1978), pp. 269-281
K ortlandt, F., H 2o and oH2, Lingua Posnaniensis 23 (1980), 127 f
K ortlandt, F., Greek Numerals and PIE. glottalic Consonants,
M S S 42 (1983), 97 ff
K ortlandt, F., PIE. *H- in Armenian, A A L 5 (1984), pp. 41-43
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY 125
Kuiper, F.B.J., Traces of Laryngeals in Vedic Sanskrit, India

Antiqua, 1947, pp. 198-212
Kuiper, F.B.J., Old East-Iranian Dialects, IIJ 18 (1976), pp.
241-253
Kuiper, F.B.J., Rigvedic Süar and Tvâm, I IJ 30 (1987), 1 ff
Kurylowicz, J., A utour de v. ind. sâsti et sâdhati, Mélanges
Renou, 433 ff
Kurylowicz, J., Phonologisches zum indogerm anischen a-Voka
lismus, Studies Palmer, pp. 127-133
Kurylowicz, J., Problèmes de linguistique indo-européenne, Pol
ska Akademia N auk K om itet Jçzykoznawstwa Prace
Jçzykoznawcze 90. Wroclaw, 1977, esp. pp. 179-190 and 211-
217
Ködderitzsch, R., Review of E. Campanile, Profilo etimologico
del cornico antico, Z C P 36 (1977), pp. 285-288
Ködderitzsch, R., Brygisch, Päonisch, M akedonisch, Linguisti
que Balkanique XXVIII, 1985, 4, (Académie Bulgare des
Sciences) pp. 17-41
Laroche, E., Les laryngales de l’anatolien: état des questions,
Académie des Inscriptions & Belles-Lettres. Com ptes rendus
des séances de l’année 1986, pp. 134-140
Lehmann, W .P, On the reading of some ya-Suffixes in the
Rigveda, Pratidänam, 39 ff
Lindeman, F.O., N otes sur les accusatifs indo-européens *gwöm,
*d{j)yèm, N T S 21 (1967), 133 ff
Lindeman, F.O., Althochdeutsch ier, N T S 22 (1968), 74 ff
Lindeman, F.O., Bemerkungen zu den indogerm anischen Lang
diphthongen, N T S 22 (1968), 99 ff
Lindeman, F.O., Indo-européen *ös ‘bouche’, To Honor Roman
Jakobson II, 1188 ff
Lindeman, F.O., Remarques sur la flexion des verbes du type
de tehhi en hittite, Hethldg, pp. 153-157
Lindeman, F.O., Le gén. sg. des thèmes féminins en -â en vieil-
irlandais, ÉC XIX (1982), 159 f
Lindeman, F.O., Eine laryngalistische Bemerkung, IF 90 (1985),
62 ff
Lindeman, F.O., Eine phonologische Bemerkung zur “Vokalisi-
erung” der “Laryngale” im Indogermanischen, ZF 91 (1986),
79 ff
Lindeman, F.O., Tocharian and the Laryngeal Theory, K Z 100
Lubotsky, A., Gr. pégnumi: Skt. pajrà- and loss of laryngeals

before mediae in Indo-Iranian, MSS 40, 133 ff
Lühr, R., Germanische Resonantengem ination durch Laryngal,
M S S 35, 73 ff
M artinet, A., Phonologie et “laryngales”, Phonetica, Journal
International de Phonétique, vol. 1, 1957, 7 ff
M ayrhofer, M., Nach hundert Jahren. Ferdinand de Saussures
Frühwerk und seine Rezeption durch die heutige Indogermanis
tik, Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissen
schaften Philosophisch-historische Klasse, 1981
M ayrhofer, M., Laryngalreflexe im Indo-Iranischen, Z P S K 34
(1981), pp. 427-438
M ayrhofer, M., Ü ber griechische Vokalprothese, Laryngaltheo-
rie und externe R ekonstruktion, Festschrift Neumann, 1982,
pp. 177-192
M ayrhofer, M., IdgGr 1, pp. 121-150
Meid, W., Review of F.R .A drados, Evoluciôn y estructura
del verbo indoeuropeo, M adrid 1963, IF 70 (1965/66),
346 ff
M elchert, H. C., A ‘N ew ’ PIE *men Suffix, Sprache 29 (1983),
pp. 1-26
Merlingen, W., Laryngaltheorie und Laryngale, Ablauttheorien
und Ablaut, Versuch von Korrekturen einiger Grundlagen der
Indogermanistik, Wien, 1983
Michelini, G., *d indoeuropeo e h ittito, Studi Italiani di linguis
tica teorica ed applicata 3 (1974) (Padova), pp. 445-477
M onna, M .C., The Gathas o f Zarathustra, Amsterdam, 1978;
The chapter entitled ‘H iatus caused by laryngeals’, pp. 97-
103
Nym an, M., ë/ô/a as an ablaut pattern in Indo-European, IF
90 (1985), pp. 55-61
Ölberg, H .M ., Einige Überlegungen zur Laryngaltheorie an
H and des Albanischen, K Z 86 (1972), pp. 121-136
Oettinger, N., Indogermanisch *s(h2 )neur/n- ‘Sehne’ und
*(s)men- ‘gering sein’ im Hethitischen, M S S 35, 93 ff
Peeters, Chr., The Word for ‘dog’ and the Sequence *wH +
C onsonant in Indo-European, IF 78 (1973), 75 ff
Peters, M., Untersuchungen zur Vertretung der indogermanischen
Laryngale im Griechischen, Vienna, 1980
Pinault, G.-J., Grec agathös, M S S 38, 165 ff
Pirart, E., Le traitem ent des laryngales intervocaliques en vieil-

avestique métrique, M S S 47 (1986), 159 ff
Polomé, E.C., The Indo-European N um eral for ‘five’ and H itti
te panku- ‘all’, Pratidänam, 98 ff
Polomé, E .C ., A rm enian and the P roto-Indo-E uropean L ar
yngeals. First International Conference on Armenian Linguist
ics: Proceedings, 1980, pp. 17-33
Polomé, E .C ., Reflexes of Laryngeals in Indo-Iranian with spe
cial reference to the problem of the voiceless aspirates. Saga
og sprâk. Studies in Languages and Literature (1972), 233 ff
Polomé, E.C., How archaic is Old Indie? Studia Linguistica et
Synchronica, Pieper/Stickel (eds.), M outon de Gruyter, 1985,
pp. 671-683
Puhvel, J., On the Origin and Congeners of H ittite assu- ‘good’
K Z 94 (1980), 65 ff
Ravnæs, E., The Development of a/interconsonantal laryngeal
in Iranian, I IJ 23 (1981), pp. 247-273
Rix, H., Anlautender Laryngal vor Liquida oder Nasalis sonans
im Griechischen, M S S 27 (1970), pp. 79-110
Rix, H., Review of Beekes, Development Kratylos 14, pp. 176-
187
Rix, H., Historische Grammatik des Griechischen. Laut- und
Formenlehre. D arm stadt, 1976
Roberge, P.T., On “Pragrhyatva” in Sanskrit, K Z 99 (1986),
pp. 54-74
Ruijgh, C. J., Review of F. R. A drados, Evoluciôn y estructura
del verbo indoeuropeo, Lingua 19 (1968), 405 ff
Ruijgh, C. J., Observations sur la flexion des verbes du type
tribö, phrügö : l’origine des alternances ï/ï et ü/ü, Studies Pal
mer, pp. 337-347
Ruijgh, C. J., Le redoublement dit attique, Mélanges Chantrai
ne, 211 ff
Ruipérez, M .S., Ëléktôr et êlektron, “A m bre” , Mélanges Chan
traine, pp. 231-241
Scharfe, H., Vokaleinsatz und Laryngaltheorie, K Z 86 (1972),
pp. 155-177
Schindler, J., Die idg. Wörter für ‘Vogel’ und ‘Ei’, Sprache 15
(1969), 144 ff
Schindler, J., On the Greek type hippeüs, Studies Palmer, 349 ff
Schmidt, G., Die iranischen Wörter für ‘Tochter’ und ‘Vater’
und die Reflexe des interkonsonantischen H (a) in den idg.

Sprachen, K Z 87 (1973), 36 ff
Schmidt, K. T., Spuren tiefstufiger je/-W urzeln im tocharischen
Verbalsystem, Festschrift Neumann, 363 ff
Schm itt-Brandt, R., Vokalsystem: Review by Lindeman, IF 13,
158 ff
Schm itt-Brandt, R., Review of Lindeman, Einführung in die
Laryngaltheorie, IF 79 (1974), 226 f
Schultheiss, T., H ethitisch und Armenisch, K Z 77 (1961), pp.
219-234
Seebold, E., Die G em inata bei gm. kann, ann und anderen
starken Verben, K Z 80, 273 ff
Sevoroskin, V., Zur hethitisch-luwischen Lexik, Orbis 17 (1968),
467 ff
Sevoroskin, V., Zu einigen Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen im
Lykischen und Milyischen, M S S 36, 131 ff
Simone, C. de, Hethitisch Tarhu- Etruskisch Tarxu-, Festschrift
Neumann, 401 ff
Simeonov, B., Iz problem ite na protoindoevropeistikata, Izvesti-
ja na instituta za bülgarski ezik 16 (1968), 233 ff
Stang, Chr., L’alternance des consonnes sourdes et sonores
en indo-européen, To Honor Roman Jakobson, pp. 1890-
1894
Strunk, K., Nasalpräsentien und Aoriste, Heidelberg, 1967
Strunk, K., Ü ber tiefstufige set-Wurzeln im Griechischen, M S S
28 (1970), pp. 109-127
Strunk, K., Verkannte Spuren eines weiteren Tiefstufentyps im
Griechischen, Glotta XLVII (1969), pp. 1-8
Strunk, K., Z ur R ekonstruktion Laryngalhaltiger Idg. Wörter
Bzw. M orpheme, P IC L 11, Vol. I (1972), 375 ff
Strunk, K., Heth. huekzi, heth. hünikzi und die indogermanisch
en Nasalinfixpräsentien, Hethldg, pp. 237-256
Strunk, K., Der Verbalstamm bebolë- im epischen Griechischen,
Studies Palmer, 391 ff
Szemerényi, O., The New Look o f Indo-European. Reconstruc
tion and Typology. Phonetica 17 (1967), 65 ff
Szemerényi, O., Palaic and the Indo-European Laryngeals, Flor
Anat 315 ff
Szemerényi, O., Review of Burrow, The problem of shwa in
Sanskrit, Kratylos 28, pp. 67-77
Szemerényi, O., Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissen

schaft, 2nd. edition, 1980, pp. 114-123
Tichy, E., Avestisch pitar-/ptar~. Z ur Vertretung interkonsonan
tischer Laryngale im Indo-Iranischen, M S S 45 (1985), 229 ff
Tischler, J., Schwundstufige Form en von langvokalischen Ver
ben im Altindischen, Bono homini donum, 311 ff
Tischler, J., Hethitisch h und die R ekonstruktion des indoger
manischen Phoneminventars, Fachtagung VI, pp. 495-522
Thomas, W., Review of Puhvel, Laryngeals and the Indo-E uro
pean Verb, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 66, Jahrg. Nr. 11/
12 (1971), 538 ff
Tronskij, I.M ., Obsceindoevropejskoe jazykovoe sostojanie (Vo-
prosy Rekonstrukcii), Leningrad, 1967 (esp. pp. 8-24)
Tronskij, I.M ., Sravnitel’no-istoriceskie issledovanija, Teoretice-
skie problemy sovetskogo jazykoznanija, M oskva, 1968, 5 ff.,
esp. 15 ff
Watkins, C., I.-E. ‘star’, Sprache 20 (1974), pp. 10-14
Watkins, C., Die Vertretung der Laryngale in gewissen m orpho
logischen Kategorien in den indogerm anischen Sprachen A n
atoliens, Fachtagung V, pp. 358-378
Watkins, C., N otes on the Plural Form ations of the H ittite
Neuters, Gedenkschrift Kronasser, pp. 250-262
Watkins, C., A G reco-H ittite etymology, Festschrift Neumann,
455 ff
Weber, D., Einige Verba mit langvokalischer Wurzel im Indoger
manischen, A IO N Sezione Linguistica 6 (1965), 5 ff
Index verborum
ehu, 110
Cuneiform Hittite eku-, 107
-a (neuter pl.), 53, 106, 114 es-, 41
a-as-su, 79 esa, 54
-ahha, 45 eshar, 33, 49, 96, 119
-ah-ha, 44 esh a(r)n u -, 48
ai-, 114 es mi, 21
a -(i-)is , 41, 55 esnas, 33, 48, 119
ais, 41, 55, 114 eszi, 55, 80, 106, 114
akkala-, 38 es-zi, 78
anna-, 32 ed-, 41
anda, 32 edm i, 79f, 106
appa, 40
ap-pé-e-ez-zi-, 40 ha-an-na-as, 37
appezzi, 40 h a-an -ta-a-az, 36
arha, 71 ha-an-te-ez-zi, 40
arhai-, 71 ha-an-te-iz-zi-is, 36
arg-, 41 ha-an-ti, 36
ar-ga, 41 ha-an-za, 36
arkanzi, 32 h a (-a )-ra -a s, 38
ar-ga-ru, 41 h a -a s-ta -(a -)i, 38
ar-ki-i-e-es, 41 h a -a s-ta -i-si-[ti]-it, 52
arkiya-, 41 ha-as-te-er-za, 76ff, 80, 106
orras, 41 ha-as-du-e-er, 38
a-sa-an-zi, 78 ha-as-du-ir, 38
asant-, 106 ha-a-ti, 36
asanzi, 80f, 106 ha-in-kân-ta, 37
assu, 78 hameshant-, 107
adanti, 106 ham eskant-, 107
adanzi, 80, 106 hanna-, 32, 34, 49
hant-, 44, 112, 114
e-es-har, 48 handa-, 32, 112
e-es-na-as, 49 hantezzi-, 32
e-hu, 33 happin-ant-, 47
132 INDEX VERBORUM
har an-, 76 Am//û-, 71

ha-ra-na-as, 38 hullanzi, 71
haras, 76 humanda, 106
har-as-zi, 88 -Aim, 48
h a r (k )-, 36 hurki-, 33
harkanzi, 32f hu-u-e-su, 76
harki-, 44 h u -(u -)w a-an -t-, 76
har-ki-is, 36 huwant-, 76
harkis, 32 huwai-, 76
har-ku-un, 36 hway-, 76
har-mi, 36 Awz-, 76
Aarp-, 38f
h a rta g (g )a -, 43 K?-, 110
hartka-, 43 Mf, 111
h a r(u )w a n a i-, 83 innara, 77
Aarzi, 33 innarawant-, 77
har-zi, 36 ishahru-, 33
hassa-, 44, 77, 115 ishamai-, 49
hastai-, 33, 38, 94 isham aiskizzi, 49
hasdwer, 39, 75, 114 is-ha-na-a-as, 33, 48f, 119
had-, 36 ishanas, 96
heau-, 110 is-har, 48
hé-ek-ta, 37 ishisa-, 107
hé-en-kân, 37 iskisa-, 107
he kur, 56f is-sa-as, 55
hé-kur, 37 is-sa-az, 41
hé-gur, 37 iswnz, 41
henkan, 37, 56 iya-, 52, 110
A«/-, 37, 110 iya-nta, 52
hi-en-kân, 37
hi-is-sa-, 43 kanessanzi, 54
Èhi-is-ta-a-as, 39 ga-ni-es-zi, 54, 68
hink-, 37, 57 kasw a, 1 1 5
hissa-, 43, 115 kisduw ant-, 115
®Awfa-, 39 gneszi, 114
* h ster(-s), 80, 83, 106, 116 kuenzi, 115
Am-, 33, 110 kuissa, 71
h u e tt(-iy a )-, 76, 93 kunanzi, 115
huhha-, 33f
hu-i-is-zi, 76 la-a-ah, 67
hu-i-su, 76 la-a-hu-i, 104, 108
hulana-, 62 la-a-hu-un, 67
huliya-, 62 la-ah-hu-u-wa-i, 108
INDEX VERBORUM 133
la h (h )-, 67 pahhs-, 88, 114

lah (h )u w a-, 105 pahhs-m i, 50
lahhuwai-, 67 pahhur, 33, 66
la-hu-wa-a-ri, 105 pahhwen-, 66
la-hu-wa-ta-ri, 105 pahs-, 32
laman, 82 pai-, 40
la.m (a)niya-, 82 pa-is-ta, 90
palhi, 71
ma-ak-la-an-da.-an, 106 pal-hi-is, 88
m aklant-, 106 p â r-(a )h -, 62
m e-e-hu-na-as, 56 pâr-ah-zi, 47
me-e-hu-ur, 1 1 1 pâr-ah-hi-is-kân-zi, 53
mehur, 55f, 110, 116 p a r h-, 71
m e-ik-ki-is, 9 l f pâr-ha-zi, 53
m ekki-, 92f parhesk-, 71
m ekkis, 92 parhh-, 88
mena, 112 parhh-zi, 53
mena-hhanda, 112 parhhzi, 99, 106
m er-zi, 106 pas-, 54, 114
m itai-, 64 pe-, 33
pé-e-da-an, 1 1 1
na-ah-ha-an-za, 50 pehute-, 33
na-ah-mi, 50 pé-da-an, 1 1 1
n a h (h )-, 50, 111 p i(-e)-h u -te-, 33
n ah (h )sa riya -, 50 p it-ti-ya -, 109
nahh-un, 1 1 1 sa-a-hi-is-kat-ta-ri, 109
nahsaratt-, 50 sa-a-k-hi, 108
nahsariyawant-, 50 sa-ag-ga-ah-hi, 108
ne-pî-is, 83, 109 sa -(a -)k u -w a , 49
new a-, 50 sa-an-ah-hu-un, 47, 53
ne-wa-a-ah, 53 sa-an-ah-zi, 47, 53
ne-wa-ah-hu-un, 50 sa-an-ha-zi, 53
newahh-, 50, 114f sa-an-hu-un, 47
nu, 51 sah-, 56, 109, 112, 116
sa-ha-a-ri, 109
p a-a-as-zi, 54 sak-, 108
pa-ah-ha-as-m i, 50 sakki, 92
pa-ah-hu-e-na-as, 65 sakuw assara-, 107
pa-ah~ku-e-ni., 65 san h (h )-, 71
pa-ah-hur, 65 sanhhzi, 47, 99, 106
pa-ah-hu-ur, 65 sanhh-zi, 53, 62
pa-ah-hu-wa-ar, 65 sanhun, 71
pa-as-ta, 54 sarh-, 71
134 INDEX VERBORUM
sarhuntalli-, 71 tehhi, 55
sas-, 112 te-hhi, 109
sas ant-, 112 tem i, 114
sas-ânzi, 112 tit( t) a i- , 74
sa-su-e-ni, 112 tit( t) iy a , 74
se hur, 56 ti-(y a -)a n -zi, 55
sés-zi, l l l f tiyan zi, 55
suhmili-, 63 tu h h -(im a-), 60
su ppiyahh-, 53 tuhhui-, 60
su-up-ya-ah, 53
su-wa-is, 49f, 85 w-, 33
sw ais, 49 ü-e-eh-zi, 11 Off, 114
ü-e-hu-un, 110
-ta, 40 uhhi, 45f
da-a, 1 1 1 ug, 93
da-a-as, 54 wgga, 92f
da-a-i, 54 uqqa, 92
ta -(a -)i-e -iz-zi, 53 umeni, 45
da-a-it-te-ni, 55 uuate-, 33
dai, 55, 114 u-uh-hi, 45
d a itti, 55 w-tet, 93
da-it-ti, 55 ü-w a-te-, 33
täk-na-a-as, 1 1 1
täk-ni-i, 1 1 1 wa-al-(ah)-hu-un, 53, 70
dan-na-at-ta, 53 w a-al-ah-zi, 53
dannatta, 106 wa-al-ha-an-zi, 53, 70
tar-, 54, 106 wah-, 112
tar-ah-, 46, 62 wa-ha-an-zi, 1 1 1
tar-ah-hu-un, 106 wah-änzi, l l l f
df tarant-, 106 wahnu-, 33, 107
d/taran zi, 32, 106 walh-, 71
tarh-, 46, 62, 71, 108 walhanzi, 71
tarhanzi, 32 walhhun, 71
tar hu-, 46 walhh-zi, 53, 112, 116
tar-hu, 62 walhhzi, 99, 106
ta rh u (i)-, 62, 71 walh-zi, 71
tarhun, 71 warnu-, 33, 107
tar-hu-un, 108 waw arkim a-, 33
ta yezi, 53 Hte/i-, 11 Off
te-, 54, 106 weh-un, 1 1 1
te-eh-hi, 109 wehzi, 41, 110, 116
te -(e -)k ä n , 92, 108, 111 wéh-zi, 112
te -(e -)m i, 54
INDEX VERBORUM 135
zinnanzi, 71 Palaic
zinninzi, 71
-a, (neuter pl.), 106
ahu-, 107
Cuneiform Luwian
-a (neuter pl.), 106 Lycian
a-a-as-sa- (a ssa -), 41
kbatra, 100
a-as-har-nu-um -m a-in-z[i] ( asha
-ga, 33
(r)n u -), 48
tideim i, 74
annarummi-, 77
-Xa, 33, 48
-ha, 33
Xava-, 33, 38
h a -(a -) as-sa-, 38
Xnna-, 33, 37
ha-an-da-wa-te-en, 36
Xntawat-, 36
hassa-, 33
*zi£a-, 33
hawaji-, 33
hirun-, hirud-, 57
huha-, 33
*hulani-, 62
hu-u-i-ya-, 76
Avestan
m ai-, 92 aësa-, 43
m ayassis, 92 äugäar, 93, 99, 106
pa-a-hu-u-ur, 65 faôrôi, 100, 10 1 , 118
pahur, 33 histaiti, 94
piha-, 57 kamnâ-nar-, 77
sahuidara-, 107 pan tâ, 76, 88
si(h )w a i-, 57 p a n t à-, 88
ta-pâr-ha, 48 /»ado (pa9~), 76, 88
tita i(m )m i-, 74 p ita , 100, 101
tiyam m i-, 92 p tä , 100, 118
du-ü-ür, 56 -yäti-, 63
rä/a-, 63
rät/-, 63
väta-, 76
Hieroglyphic Luwian
a d (a )m a n -, 82
hawa/i-, 38
lam nisati, 82 Old Indic
tw atra, 100, 106, 116 äksi, 49
tü-waji- tarali-, 99 äjati, 35, 44
äjnäta-, 63
ädita, 101
136 INDEX VERBORUM
âdeva-, 63 äyan, 63, 116

ädhät, 60, 7 If, 74 äyw-, 52
âni-ti, 70, 103 ävam , 97
anüc-, 63 55at, 63
anüpà-, 63 äste, 54
âp, 63
âpas-, 4 7 ä#z-, 43
âpâc-, 63 inddhé, 43
âpât, 71f, 74 zÿa, 43, 115
âp ra tïtta -, 67, 118
äprät, 61 43
â-prâ-t, 22 udyâte, 43
âprâs, 61 unap, 84
â-bhar-a-t, 100 unäbh-, 84
a b h ï sat, 63 uvé, 45f
âbhüt, 60 ädhar, 67
âbhet, 26 ürnä, 62
âm ïti, 105 rfcsa-, 43
àm bhas, 84 é-/z, 52
ay-âm , 92 -éya-, 69
ârjuna-, 32
âvam ït, 104 Äfrfz-, 118
avâtâ-, 76 kr avis-, 105
âvz'/z, 38 krl-tâ-, 61
asnôti, 58, 77 krïnâti, 61
âirw, 33 ksana-, 20, 23
âiva-, 42, 73 khânitum , 26
asura, 64 khätä-, 26
asâta, 60 khäd-, 107
asrA:, 49, 119 khyä-, 89
â-starïs, 105 kh yätä-, 63
àsthi, 38
asnâs, 49, 119 g ä ya ti, 74
âsrot, 61 gäsi, 73
â svâyati, 73 giräti, 87, 107
ahâm, 9 Iff gltd-, 74
-ä (neuter pl.), 53, 108 gïrnâ-, 31, 87
äditya, 64 g m ä ti, 61
âdeva-, 63 go-paä, 45
ana/, 78 grathnäti, 88
änäm sa, 58, 77 grävan-, 62
änasür, 58, 77f ghnänti, 115
äm am at, 105 cakära, 48
INDEX VERBORUM 137
cakâra, 48 daïstha-, 46
câritum , 26 da-t-thà, 100
carkrtî-, 118 da-di-m à, 100
cïrnâ-, 26 da-d-m âs, 100
dâdhàti, 54
jajâna, 48 da-dhâ-tha, 55
jan -a-ta, 100 da-dhi-m â, 100
jan-anta, 100 dadhür, 74
ja n â ya ti, 48 da-dh-m âs, 100
jâ n i(-tv a -), 119 dânt-, 79
jânim a, 100, 118 dam itàr-, 26
janim an-, 118 dà-, 86, lOOf
jâni-m an-, 119 dàntâ-, 26
jâ n -iya -, 104 dâru, 82
jâ n iya -, 119 di-tâ-, 118
jâ n (- tv a - ), 119 dïrghà-, 48
janm an-, 118 duhitâr-, 22, 44, 61, 99, 106
jân-m an-, 119 duhitâ, 91, 93
jânm anas, 100, 118 duhitr-, 105
jâ n -ya -, 104, 119 deyâm , 68
jâ g â ra , 80 deva, 86
jâ tâ -, 117 devâ, 51
jig rtâ m , 80 devâ, 97
jitâ -, 25 devi, 64
jïrn â-, 117 devi, 64
jém an-, 25 d e v (i)y â h , 51
jn à ti-, 63 devï, 64
jn eyâ s, 68 devi, 51
de s tha-, 46
tanü-pàam, 48 drànà-, 63
târati, 46 drôh, 82
tarute, 46 dvïpa-, 116
tâyü-, 53 dvïpâ-, 63
tirâti, 46 dhà-, 25, 60, 68, 98, lOOff
tir-â-ti, 47 dha-t-thâ, 100
tisthati, 94 dhâyati, 1A
tïrnâ-, 46f, 102 dhâyas-, 71
türvati, 46, 61 dhïtâ-, 71
trä-, 102 dhï-tâ-, 60
trä-tä-, 102 dhuksïmâhi, 60
träyase, 102 dhümâ-, 60
-tha, 40 dheyâm , 68
dhm à-tâ-, 63
138 INDEX VERBORUM
nâus, 45 pràtàr, 53
nâbhas, 83 p riy â , 53, 106
nâmsi, 77f p y â -tâ -, 63
nâvâs, 45 phalgü, 89
nâsati, 77
nâm a, 81 bhaas-, 46
nïpâ-, 63 bhânati, 50
bhârati, 35
paân tam , 45 bhârant-i, 105
p aân tas, 45 bhàram ah-i, 105
paân ti, 45 bhâvati, 21, 74
paantu, 45 bhavitum , 60, 87
paàntu, 46 A/zas-, 54
pâtn ï, 60 bhâ-, 57
pathàh, 76f, 88 bhäväyati, 74
pânthâh, 76f, 88 A/zäs-, 45
p â rïtta -, 67, 118 bhinâdmi, 26
p â rïtti-, 67, 118 bhindânti, 26
pârï-m an-, 22 bhü-, 87
p â va te, 26 bhü-tâ-, 21, 60, 74
pavitu m , 26
pa vi-tra , 26 m athnâti, 88
p â ti, 46, 7 Iff m ahâs, 91
p â d â ya ti, 48 m ahâ-, 91
/zätttZ, 45 ma/zz, 92
päntu, 45 m âhi-, 104
p ä yä ya ti, 7 Iff ma/zz", 92
pitr-, 105 m âhyam , 93
pïb a ti, 73f, 94, 108 mû-, 102
/zz~tâ-, 71 m ata, 86
p ï-tâ -, 72ff matz, 55, 88
punânti, 26 mâ-tz, 110
punâti, 26
puräs, 64 yâ -, 84
p ü tâ-, 26 yaân ti, 45
/mrna-, 21, 30f, 36, 60f, 107 ya«, 63
purva-, 64 yâ -tâ -, 63
prthivi, 64 yâtar-, 31
prthuka-, 90 y â ti, 52
pm â ti, 61f, 107 yân ti, 45
p eyà s, 74 yunâkti, 26
pra tïc-, 63 yunjànti, 26
p râ-tâ-, 62, 102 yu yôja, 26
INDEX VERBORUM 139
yuvàm , 97 sim ïvant-, 47

sim yati, A l
rajah, 81 syenas, 83
râtha-, 88 srâ-tâ-, 63
rayï-, 45 srathnâti, 88
ray is, 45 srnôti, 61
rä-tä-, 63 sadhâs-, 93
rä-ti-, 63 sadhâstha-, 93
ràyé, 45 sadhis-, 93
rinâti, 96 sâna-, 49
rinvati, 96 sânitar-, 62
rudimâs, 26 sani-syant-, 62
rôditi, 26 sanôti, 46, 62, 117
sân-ti, 78
vad-, 43 s-ânti, 79
vadhu, 64 sabhâ-, 69
vadhü, 64 sabhéya-, 69
vadhü, 93 sâs-ti, 111
vâm iti, 88 sâ-tâ-, 62
vârtati, 107 sâtâ-, 117
vâsati, 76 säm an-, 49
vâsu-, 79 sa, 78
va/a-, 68, 76 suâpnas-, A l
va//, 77, 83f suar, 60
va-/z, 76 suvâti, 60
vz-ra, 49 suasti-, Al
vz-/z, 49 süsuti-, 118
vïra-, 86 stitave, 118
vr/ca-, 51, 87 sü-tâ-, 60
vrkîyah, 51 sü-nâra-, 11
vrkt, 64 sünara-, 116
vrkth, 51 sünus, 86
véti, 76 sü-m âya-, 63
véda, 48 süras, 60, 66
vé/z, 21 skabhitâ, 26
skam bhitum , 26
satru-, 73 star-, 11
satrüyati, 73 stâyü-, 53
saraf-, 47 stlrnâ-, 30
sam nïte, 31, 46 stm â ti, 29, 61, 105
sâkhà-, 90 s-thâ, 79
sâ s- . 107 stha-, 68, 101
sîmî, 47 sthàvarâ-, 66
140 INDEX VERBORUM
sth i-tâ-, 101 h-, 34, 43

sthürâ-, 66 han, 34
sth eyâm , 68 hat, 36
s-m âh, 79 haw, 34
svàpnas-, A l hogi, 39
svasti-, A l hoviw, 39
hot, 39
hânu-, 91, 93 hur, 65
hânti, 115 ju kn , 95, 98
hârios, 68 mukn, 98
hâsta-, 93 og/, 39
hârdi, 87 o r k ‘, 41
hi-tâ-, 99, 102 orb, 39
hrd-, 87 o rjik ‘, 41
ort, 89
orjw oc , 41
oskr, 39
Armenian ost, 39
unkn, 98
akanjk ', 98
vat'sun, 82
akn, 49, 83
ve c ‘, 82
ac'fc', 60, 83
taygr, 97
ayr, 11
c'ax, 90
anuan, 81
p'alp'ali-, 89
anun, 8 l f
/Lay/, 89
asti, 76, 83
k'san, 81
atam n, 79
a re g (-a k n ), 83
arew, 83
artawsr, 33
Lithuanian
gelm an, 62
gelm n, 62 aki, 83
gom , 76, 98 äntis, 100
Â&z/flr, 101, 119 antras, 86
dustr, 99f ärklas, 88
dster, 99f ärti, 88
eber, 100 bâti, 60, 87
es, 81 dahtj, 86
erek, 81 deti, 25, 54
inj, 81 dièvas, 86
inn, 81 dieveris, 97
li, 62 dukté, 97
cnaw, 100 duös, 86
keam , 52 düoti, 86
INDEX VERBORUM 141
ëras, 38 dievs, 86
ezè, 58 dze ft, 87
ëzeras, 58 dzîga, 97
gaidys, 74 gaîlis, 74
gardas, 86 m âte, 86
gérti, 87 pilns, 87
giedôti, 74 plans, 88
imù, 47 saule, 87
jén tè, 31 sefde, 87
jô ti, 52 .S'/räv, 87
m ôtè, 86 sniegs, 86
nèsti, 78 ùotrs, 86
p a r sas, 86 vemt, 88
pllnas, 21, 36, 61, 87, 107 vilks, 87
plônas, 88 virs, 86
sâulè, 87
sniëgas, 86
stataü, 101
stôs, 86 Old Prussian
suny, 86
ane, 49
serdë, 87
suckans, 95, 98
sérdç, 87
sérdÿ 87
serdis, 87
sir d'y 87
sir dis, 87 Old Church Slavonie
tarzù, 54 ja zü , 58
i/ojtz, 39, 57 bajç, 69
vàrna, 86 dëti, 54
vém ti, 88 dym ü, 60
vèstz, 93 -ica, 95
vezù, 44 igla, 37
vilkas, 87 imç, 81
vzVrza, 62 kostï, 94
vyras, 86 nesti, 78
vytz, 69 novakü, 95
zùkm istras, 95, 98 oez, 60, 83
zùkparnis, 98 poutz, 50, 114
p ra (d ë d ü ), 53
rëka, 96
.soxa, 90
Latvian
ta/p, 53
a f k l(i) s , 88 um yti, 33
142 INDEX VERBORUM
veja, I Albanian
vëjaü, 76 em ër (em ën Geg.), 81
zvonü, 50 24
zena, zeno, 64
Russian Greek
ja z , 58 agathôs, 67
gorod, 86 agôs, 51f, 102
po rö m , 88 agostôs, 93
vorona, 86 âgô, 20, 27, 35, 38, 44, 51
-âednos, 76, 93
âella, 76
*hâwélios, 57, 60, 66, 87
a (w )ê k sô , 11
Serbo-Croatian
a (w )é sk e i, 76
biti, 87 a (w )ë s i, 76f, 83f
dati, 86 âzô, 36
gräd, 86 aiei, 52
m äti, 86 aithô, 20, 42
m jèra, 88 ainumai, 40
p ä sti, 88 -a îo s, 69
pram , 88 aikhme, 37
p râse, 86 akm ê, 38
pun, 61, 87 akônë, 38
râlo, 88 akoüô, 95
snêg, 86 âkris, 37
srce, 87 âkros, 38, 57
vràna, 86 aléô, 104
vûk, 87 alethô, 104
(a m -)b o li(-e rg ô s ), 48
am nôs, 52
an-âednos, 76, 93
Slovene a-ne-mo (Myc.), 103
ânemos, 103f
grâd, 86
anêr, 11
vràna, 86
annis, 37
anti, 32, 36, 44
anûô, 46
apô, 40
Czech arariskô, 51
m ira, 88 argës, 32, 36
p â sti, 88 ârguros, 36
INDEX VERBORUM 143
ârktos, 43 egregora, 80
ârotron, 88 ego, 91
aster, 76ff, 83, 116 ed-estes, 86
aude, 43 éd-ëda, 86
auksânô, 77 édm enai, 79
edm i, 86
bd-, 25, 50 édom ai, 41
bâllô, 63 édontes, 79
béblëka, 31, 46 édô, 79, 102
bio-, 61 édôke, 94
biotos, 61 éedna, 93
biô-, 52, 61 e/i-ra.v/, 78f, 82,
blê-to, 63 e-e-V (Myc.), 78
blë-, 48 e-thélô, 75
blë-tôs, 63 éthoron, 47
bloskô, 41 eikosi, 60
bôm ôs, 25, 50 eileloutha, 85
eîmen, 60
génus, 91, 93 eim i, 2 1 , 86
gloiôs, 69 einatéres, 31
glukerôs, 119 ékam on, 31, 46
gluküs, 119 élëla, 86
gnoiës, 68 elël(o )u th , 85f
élipon, 20
dâer, 97 em é, 81
dâkru, 33 ém et os, 88
dam âzô, 103 ( e m ) é ( ô ) , 104
dam -ë-, 103 émole, 47
diânekes, 57, 78 émolon, 47
di-do-m en, 100 enegk-, 78
didöm i, 25, 35, 61 enegkeîn, 57, 78, 93
di-phr-os, 63 hénë, 49
do-, 25 enenothe, 85
dolikhôs, 48 ennéa, 81
dôron, 25 énuma, 8 l f
dotôs, 25, 61, lOlf, 115 E num akratidäs, 81
dô-, 25, 101 hêpar, 56
ép-ëlus, 85
ébalon, 31, 46 epi, 40
ébân, 57 épleto, 20, 31
e-biô, 103 époron, 47
e-biôn, 61 e-pria-to, 61
egeirô, 80 érebos, 81
144 INDEX VERBORUM
hésperos, 84 kradie, 87
hêstai, 54 k r é (w )a s , 105
héstâke, 94
estï, 41 lâas, 58
estôresa, A l /««os, 62
éstrôsa, 29 fewo- (Myc.), 67, 105
étore, A l lew otreios (Myc.), 67
eû, 78 lew otrokhow oi (Myc.), 67
eus, 78 20
ephïlësa, 73 leipsô, 35
éphü, 60 léloipa, 20
lênos, 48
(w ) r a g ( ê n a i), 117 lépas, 59
wrëg, 107 lo (w )e -, 105
loéssai, 67
thâleia, 119 loetrôn, 67
thaler ôs, 119
theiën, 68 m âkos, 106
thêlus, 71 m éga, 105
thélô, 75 m egâlo-, 102
theôs, 104 m egalonum os, 102
thêsthai, 71 m égas, 83, 91f
thetôs, 10 Iff, 115 m ikrôs, 83
thë-, 30 mûs, 98
throskô, A l
thugâtër, 91, 93, 99, 105 -na, 36
thôm ôs, 54 néà, 64
neâ«, 50
-ia-, 61 néâks, 95
-ia (n ), 60 negr et os, 80
hlem ai, 76 heph-, 84
ith-, 43 néô, 64
itharôs, 20, 42 niphâs, 83
iktînos, 83 nümpha, 64
hlstàm i, 25, 35, 57
ikhthûs, 95, 98 ôgm os, 20, 38
odont-, 79
kâm nô, 31 ôzos, 31, 38, 75
kardia, 87 ôzô, 27
(k a si-)g n ëto s, 63 ofc/a, 48
kékm ëka, 31 oîdm a, 20
kéllô, 15 oieion, 43
kêr, 87 ozraë, 49
INDEX VERBORUM 145
oîm os, 49 pô-m a, 54, 71f

ois, 38 pôtn ia, 60
oîstha, 90 p ô tn ia (n ), 59f
oiônôs, 52 pro, 64
o-kéllô, 75 prô-ï, 53
ôkris, 37f pûr, 65f
ôm bros, 83f purôs, 66
ômnümi, 105 pürôs, 65
ômo-men, 105
om ôssai, 105 re-w o-te-re-jo (Myc.), 67
omphalôs, 43 re-w o-to-ro-ko-w o (Myc.), 67
ônoma, 81
onôm ati, 81 -stha, 90
ôno-tai, 81 stä-, 101
ônuma, 81, 102 stä, 25
oksüs, 38 staiën, 68
*opi, 40 stàm on, 25
ôpithen, 40 statôs, 101, 115
ôpisthen, 40 stàtôs, 25
ôpissô, 40 stégos, 49, 64
om is, 38 storésai, 105
ôrros, 41 stôrnüm i, 62
orphanôs, 39 stratàgbs, 102
hôs, 84 stratôs, 102
ôsse, 20, 23, 49, 60, 63f, 83 strô-tôs, 63, 105
ostéon, 38, 52, 94 sphe, 89
oûs, 52, 95 skheîn, 89
ôpsom ai, 35, 42
tégos, 49, 64
palâ-m ë, 48 tëtâom ai, 53
pâros, 64 ti-the-m en, 100
pater, 105 tïthëm i, 25, 35, 54, 103
peithô, 107 tlà-tôs, 62
pélom ai, 20, 31 tlëtôs, 48
pépom pha, 89
péprôtai, 47 hud-, 43
perâô, 47, 88 hudéo, 43
pî-thi, 72f huphaïnô, 84
pim plëm i, 63
plê-to , 63 phäm i, 21, 50, 57, 69
pleîstos, 44, 72 phâsis, 21
podôs, 51 pherôm eth-a, 105
pôthi, 54 phéront-a, 105
146 INDEX VERBORUM
phérô, 35, 44, 50 donum, 21

philéô, 73
philesö, 73 edi, 86
phöne, 21, 50 e<io, 41
effigia, 59
ôm ëstês, 102 effigies, 59
öm ös, 102 ego, 91
em i, 47
emo, 47
equus, 42
Latin est, 68
aem idus, 20
aënus, 21 fa ctu s, 20, 101
ago, 27, 35, 44 fa e x , 56
albeo, 73 fa m a , 21
albes, 73 fo ri, 69
anas, 100, 120 fe c i, 20, 101
anatis, 100 /ero, 35, 44
ante, 32, 36, 44 fim u s, 56
anterior, 36 fum u s, 60
anus, 37, 49
58 ge«s, 119
ara, 44, 77, 115 gentis, 119
aratrum , 88 -gnatus, 117
arceo, 36 (g )n osco, 55
argentum , 36 granum, 117
au-, 33, 110
audax, 95 z<7em, 92
a u f erre, 33, 110 iuuencus, 96
auger e, 77
auis, 34, 50, 52 lana, 48, 62
auris, 52 laxus, 117
bibit, 94 m agnus, 92
m ane, 56
corJ-, 87 m ateries, 59
costa, 94f m aturus, 56
meo, 56
z/ore, 98 m ergo, 31
datus, 21, 99, 101 m etuo, 73
dWi, 47 m etutum , 73
dens, 79 mihi, 93
do, 101 m om entum , 56
INDEX VERBORUM 147
m oueo, 56 sied, 68
sies, 60
nauis, 96 sim us, 60
nepos, 59 sistit, 94
nomen, 81
nouare, 50 (t)la tu s, 48
trans, 46
ocris, 37f triginta, 106
odisti, 90 -trix, 95
odor, 39
olet, 39, 57 uentus, 76
ops, 47 uesper, 84
or bus, 38f uiuos, 96
os, 38, 41, 55, 94 umbilicus, 43
ouis, 38f ursus, 43
palm a, 48 velleris, 62
pasco, 32, 50 vellus, 62
pastor, 32, 39, 50, 88, 114 viere, 69
pastu s, 88
pedis, 51
planus, 88
plenus, 22 Oscan, Um brian
-plere, 22
aasai, 44
-pletus, 62
- a i(i)o -, 69
porcus, 86
pir, 65
pro, 53, 64
sent, 78
ukar, 38
ratus, 117
rem, 45
renouare, 115
res, 45
riuos, 95 Tocharian
riuus, 95f A ânt, 44
rota, 88 B ânte, 44
A ârki, 36, 44
sagio, 92 B ârkw i, 36, 44
sa n g(u en ), 96 A e-, 40
sedes, 93 B e s (a )n e , 83
semen, 56 B ai-, 40
senatus, 95 B k ä ryà-m ai, 61
senex, 49, 96 B kàrwene, 62
sido, 31 A knasàst, 54f
148 INDEX VERBORUM
A ckäcar, 44, 61 itan, 41

B fiuwe, 61 kinnus, 91
B nem, 8 If lats, 117
A nom , 8 If ( m an n a-)seps, 63
B tkäcer, 44, 61, 99 m ikils, 91
B *pällew, 62 aamo, 81
B puwar, 67 niun, 98
A por, 66 riqis, 81
A m äk, 92 sa ih a , 22
B m äka, 92 saih an , 49
B yam icer, 60 saisost, 90
A yäm -i-m äs, 60 sauil, 60
B suwam , 61 sind, 78
A sw äs, 61 snaiws, 86
B salyiye, 44 sokjan, 92
A säle, 44 spaiskuldra, 97
stairno, 76
staps, 101
tw addje, 68
Gothic ugqis, 97
aleina, 120 uz-on, 70
anpar, 86 -waddjus, 69
asans, 42 waian, 76
asts, 31 winds, 76
aukan, 77 wisan, 76
baira, 20, 44
Aar, 20
baurans, 20
Old Scandinavian
baup, 20
bereina, 60 afi, 59
biuda, 20 a/m, 120
budum, 20 aim, 70
dauhtar, 22, 99 âi, 59
dom s, 20, 54 byggja, byggva, 70
-ët, ëtun, 86 dïa, 74
fo n , 65 äyggr, 98
fu lls, 21 dôttir, 21
funins, 65, 66 enär, 120
ga-deps, 63 <?y, eyar, 58
hausjan, 95 /im e, 66
igqis, 91 /wrr, 65
ik, 91 gimzz, 59
ist, 41 halmr, 120
INDEX VERBORUM 149
kann, 70 M odern English

kvikr, 97
daughter, 21
N ö a (-tü n ), 96
gooof, 67
nôr, 96
six, 95
tveggja, 68
tyggva, 61
veggr, 69
ylgr, 51
58
Old High German
cender, 120 am ban, 43
p/.»2, 120 37, 49
çnd, 120 ano, 49
çnp, 120 anut, 120
oro, 38, 76
ars, 41
an/, 38
M odern Scandinavian
as/, 39
die (Norw.), 74 äz, äzun, 86
seks (Norw. Dan.), 95 birihha, 120
blat, 117
enit, 120
fru o, 53
Old Saxon
fuir, 65
anad, 120 halam, 120
naco, 96 houwan, 69
nigun, 98 kiuwan, 61
spekaldron, 97 knäen, 55
niuwön, 50
97
sâr, 63
Old English
V/zu, 22
cenid, 120 s la f 117
beorc, 120 speihhaltra, 97
clœg, 69 speihhilla, 97
cnäwan, 55, 68 târ, 63
cwz'c, cwicu, 96, 97 trahan, 97
dugop, 98 tugund, 98
ened, 120 vvôen, 83
hœrfest, 120 zand, 79
rcaca, 96 zeihhur, 97
nigun, 98 zw eiio, 68
täcor, 97
weotum a, 93
150 INDEX VERBORUM
M odern High German sen, 49

séitche, 52
gut, 67
so-, su-, 78
sechs, 95
soilse, 52
Tochter, 21
Ter-, 99
tüaithe, 52
uirge, 41
üan, 52
Gaulish
duxtir, 99
Welsh
Old Irish asgwrn, 38, 52
chw'iadan (NW.), 50
ainm, 81
hw yad, 50
anim (Mid. Ir.), 75
ranc (MIW.), 58
anm ae, 81, 82
d im e (Mid. Ir.), 75
-ànaic-, 58
-âncammar, 58
-àncatar, 58
Old Cornish
-änec-, 58, 77, 78 abrans, 75
bräe, broi, 75 asen, 38, 52
crenaid, -cria, 61
Dar-, Der-, etc., 99
dét, 79
diuchtra-, 80 Breton
do-adbat, 105
abrant-, 75
do-adbadar, 105
do-form aig, 105
do-form agar, 105
-e (gen. sg.), 52
em- ( air-fo-em -) , Al
Phrygian
err, 41 anar, 11
glenaid, 69
ibid, 73, 94, 108
-icc, 58, 77
irar, 38
it, 78
liacc, lie, 58
nâire, nâr, 50
nie, 59
(ro -)icc , 58
INDEX VERBORUM 151
N on-Indo-European Hebrew
Languages w ay y is a ‘, 99
y a ‘azbu, 99
y a ‘“zob, 99
Finnish
kesä, 42
koke-, 42 Udi
ek, ek-ur, 42
Index nominum
Allen, W. S., 24, 89, 113 Cowgill, W., 30, 36ff, 42ff, 50f, 54f,
Ammer, K., 108 60, 65, 67f, 72f, 75, 78, 80, 82ff,
Antonsen, E. H., 59 89f, 93ff, 97, 105, 110, 114
Anttila, R., 78, 82 Crossland, R. A., 33, 55, 83, 98,
Arumaa, P., 90 99, 107f, 110
Austin, W. M., 83, 96f Cuny, A., 27, 29ff, 41, 91, 107f
Bader, E , 63, 78 Debrunner, A., 64

Baumbach, L., 67 De Lamberterie, Ch., 100
Beekes, R. S. P., 37, 46, 49, 52, 65f, Diver, W., 55, 73f
69, 78, 80, 84, 103 D ogopol’skij, A. B., 28
Benveniste, E., 23, 38, 41 ff, 47, 54,
64, 72f, 79, 93f, 108 Edgerton, F., 70
Bennett, W. H., 119f Eichner, H., 33, 37ff, 41, 53f, 56f,
Bjorvand, H., 120 62, 77, 81, 91f, 106, 109ff
Bolognesi, G., 98
Bomhard, A. R., 24, 28, 34, 77, Fraenkel, E., 58, 98
94, 118 Francis, E. D., 103
Bonfante, G., 110 Friedrich, J., 62, 76
Borgstrom, C. Hj., 89, 93, 95
Brugmann, K., 19, 25, 72 Gamkrelidze, T. V., 40, 42, 44, 65,
Bugge, S., 100 90, 92, 106, 109
Burrow, T., 102 Godel, R., 89
Geldner, K., 100
Cantineau, J., 117 Grassmann, H., 68
Carruba, O., 106 Greppin, J. A. C., 98
Catsanicos, J., 53, 57, 63, 76, 79, Gronvik, O., 59
99, 106, 112, 115
Chadwick, J., 67 Hammerich, L. L., 65, 67, 84, 109
Chantraine, P , 78, 80, 104, 119 Hamp, E. P., 34, 43, 51, 63, 66, 75,
Collinge, N. E., 31, 36, 99 77f, 80
Cop, B., 28 Hart, G., 49, 111, 119
Couvreur, W., 76 Hawkins, J. D., 100
154 INDEX NOMINUM
Hirt, H., 19ff, 50f, 72 Lehmann, W. P., 84, 87f, 96, 108,
Hjelmslev, L., 23 120
Hoenigswald, H. M., 46, 49, 88, Lejeune, M., 52, 63, 75, 80
92, 94, 100 Lid, N ., 59
Hoffmann, I., 74 Lindeman, F. O., 3 lf, 34, 38, 40,
Hoffmann, K., 69, 105 42, 45ff, 49, 52ff, 57f, 60ff, 65,
Hopper, P. J., 90 67ff, 73f, 77, 80ff, 85, 95f, 97ff,
Houwink ten Cate, Ph. H. J., 93 118
Huld, M. E., 66, 91 Lohmann, J., 40
Hübschmann, H., 19 Lühr, R., 70
Illic-Svityc, V. M ., 28 Martinet, A., 18, 24, 35f, 40, 52,

Ivanov, V. Vs., 36, 40, 42ff, 95, 54, 83, 94f, 99f, 107ff, 113f
107, 109, 112 Matchavariani, G. I., 42
Mayrhofer, M., 18, 24, 38, 42, 45,
Jakobson, R., 90 55, 57f, 60, 62f, 65, 72f, 75ff,
Jasanoff, J. H., 53, 55, 65, 67, 69f, 80ff, 85, 89f, 92f, 99ff, 103f, 108,
105 117ff
Jonsson, H., 31 Meillet, A., 31, 39, 66, 89, 100, 119
Melchert, H. C., 33, 37, 39ff, 45,
Kaiser, M., 28 52, 54f, 65, 7 lf, 75f, 82, 93, 106,
Kammenhuber, A., 33, 39, 105, 11 Iff
107, 108, 114 Messing, G. M., 40, 46, 63, 83, 89
Kent, R. G„ 89 Möller, H., 11, 27, 29, 32
Kimball, S. E., I l l
Klimov, G. A., 42 Neu, E., 36f, 39f, 45, 52, 58, 65
Klingenschmitt, G., 90, 100 Neumann, G., 39, 41
Ködderitzsch, R., 77 Nikitina, F. A., 85
Koivulehto, J., 42 Nyman, M., 117
Kortlandt, F., 34, 39, 51, 87
Kronasser, H., 32f, 55, 105, 107, O ’Brien, A., 99
109 Ölberg, H. M., 34
Kuiper, F. B. J„ 47, 64, 67, 93, 101, Oettinger, N., 50, 54, 106
117f Osthoff, H., 59
Kuipers, A. H., 24 Ostir, K., 27
Kurylowicz, J., 17, 30, 32f, 37f, 40,
42, 45ff, 50f, 59f, 62f, 66, 69f, Pedersen, H., 20, 27, 35, 50, 59,
73, 75ff, 79ff, 84ff, 91f, 94, 91, 114
99ff, 104, 107ff, 112, 115flf Peeters, Chr., 60
Peters, M., 47, 78, 84
Fadefoged, P., 113 Pirart, E., 46, 66
Laroche, E., 33, 36ff, 41, 46ff, 60, Poetto, M., 36
62, 65, 76f, 92, 107ff Pokorny, J., 58
INDEX NOMINUM 155
Polomé, E., 32ff, 37, 40, 49, 53ff, Singer, I., 39

73, 80, 84, 89, 93ff, 99, 100, 106 Skardzius, P., 87
Porzig, W., 76 Sommer, F., 59, 106
Puhvel, J., 18, 32f, 38, 41, 49, 54ff, Specht, F., 98
77, 88, 107, 109f Speiser, E., 109
Pulleyblank, E. G., 24 Stang, Chr., 86
Strunk, K., 47f, 61
Ravnæs, E., 100 Sturtevant, E. H., 17f, 33, 36, 40,
Renou, L., 47 44, 53ff, 75, 84, 88f, 94, 99, 101,
Risch, E., 55 106, 108f, 1 1 1
Rix, H., 43, 51 Sweet, H., 27
Roberge, P. T., 64 Szemerényi, O., 24, 45, 46, 53f, 82,
Rosén, H. B., 67 84f, 88f, 91f, 96
Rosenkranz, B., 28, 45
Ruijgh, C. J., 43, 68, 85 Taillardat, J., 42
Ruipérez, M. S., 67, 105 Thurneysen, R., 58, 105
Thümmel, W., 90
Safarewicz, J., 24 Tischler, J., 37, 102
Sapir, E., 84, 94 Troubetskoy, N . S., 117
Saussure, F. de, 18, 24ff, 29, 32, Tumanjan, E. G., 98
37, 86, 88
Scheller, M., 108 Vaillant, A., 88
Schindler, J., 50, 61, 65, 85, 106 Ventris, M., 67
Schmalstieg, W. R., 31, 55 Vogt, H., 42
Schmeja, H., 85
Schmid, W. P , 39, 45 Wackernagel, J., 64, 68
Schmidt, G., 78 Watkins, C., 33f, 39, 45, 53, 61,
Schmitt-Brandt, R., 37, 54, 84 70, 76f, 87, 95, 105
Schulze, W., 71, 75 Winter, W., 39, 54, 56, 65f, 79f,
Schwyzer, E., 60, 84f 92f, 95ff, 105
Seebold, E., 58, 70, 97f Wyatt, W. F. jr., 30f, 80
Shevoroshkin, V., 28
Sihler, A., 90 Zgusta, L., 33, 40, 84

Lindeman Laryngeal Theory

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lindeman Laryngeal Theory

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lindeman Laryngeal Theory

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the book about?

What is the book about?

What theories does it discuss?

What theories does it discuss?

Fredrik Otto Lindeman

© The Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture 1987

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

British Library Cataloguing in Publication D ata

This book is a revised edition of my previous w ork Einführung

Fredrik Otto Lindeman

A A L = Annual o f Armenian Linguistics

Corolla linguistica = Corolla linguistica, Festschrift Ferdinand

en zur historischen Grammatik und zur dialektgeographischen

Lehm ann, PIEPh = W infred P. Lehm ann, Proto-Indo-European

Messing, S S P = G ordon M. Messing, Selected Studies in Indo-

R E A rm N S = Revue des Études Arméniennes, Nouvelle Série,

T P S = Transactions o f the Philological Society

*H\ = a neutral, non-colouring ‘laryngeal’ (phonetically per­

Kurylowicz, É1, 27 ff., cf. Apophonie, §19, uses the following

*d\ = a neutral, non-colouring ‘laryngeal’.

Sturtevant, IH L , § 11 f., uses the following symbols:

[’] = a glottal stop with fronted timbre ( = Kurylowicz’s *Oi).

In Sturtevant’s CG, § 55, [?] is written h.

American ‘laryngealists’ frequently use de Saussure’s and

§ 2 With the exception of a few m inor m oot points, the ‘classical’

§ 3 The parent Indo-European language had the following ab ­

Short vocalic ablaut series

Gk. leipo léloipa élipon

Long vocalic ablaut series

§§4-9 Main Features of the ‘Laryngeal Theory’

§5 According to the ‘Laryngeal Theory’, the source of the

derives from a verbal stem whose different forms can be recon­

§ 6 Further, it is generally agreed that an early form o f the

§ 7 Owing to their particular phonetic properties some of these

§ 8 Thus, a wholly new interpretation of the oldest IE. ablaut

can now be reduced to one original series only, i.e. *e - *o -

§9 It is possible that an early form of the parent IE. language

4. For a discussion of the reflex of *oH2, see §40 below.

one vowel), the student is referred to the instructive discussions

Remark: A.R.Bomhard, Festschrift Szemerényi I, p. 128, reconstructs

§§10-14 Ferdinand de Saussure

§11 It was the following considerations that led de Saussure,

6 . Cf. Szemerényi, La théorie des laryngales de Saussure à Kurylowicz et à

Saussure p. 128), to the conclusion that ‘original’ *ä, *ö, *ë of

com bination that had given *ä in his theory. He was, however,

ture is the same in both cases: pa\w A-:pu-nâ\-A- =

§ 14 On the strength of these analyses de Saussure was able to

senschaft, A nthropos 8 (1913), 165 ff.; B.Rosenkranz, Zur Indo-urali-

§§15-19 The Ablaut of the Disyllabic or ‘Heavy’

§ 16 There is, however, some linguistic evidence that points to

§ 17 We find C uny’s way of reasoning conclusive. If *a must be

§ 18 As the long *e of a verbal stem like *plë- ( ~ *peh-, cf. § 5)

§ 19 According to the communis opinio the ablaut of such disyl­

Remark: W.F.Wyatt jr., in an article entitled Structural Linguistics

analysis is based on a series of misunderstandings, see Lindeman, IF

§ 21 The cuneiform system of writing employed by the Hittites

phonetic parasite in H ittite, has found little following.7 For the

7. There is no evidence that Hittite h ‘was generally unstable, liable to be lost

The hypothesis th at IE. *H2 is continued as g in the old

R em ark: It is possible that Arm. h- is in some cases a reflex of an

*H\ = a neutral, non-colouring ‘laryngeal’ (phonetically per

§ 3 The parent Indo-European language had the following ab

derives from a verbal stem whose different forms can be recon

can now be reduced to one original series only, i.e. e - o -

Saussure p. 128), to the conclusion that ‘original’ ä, ö, *ë of

§ 18 As the long e of a verbal stem like plë- ( ~ *peh-, cf. § 5)

§ 19 According to the communis opinio the ablaut of such disyl

§ 26 The treatm ent of the sequence H2o- (with o < *e by

§ 27 It is generally accepted that the sequences H3e- and H3o-

§ 30 The sequences H\e- and HiO- (with o < e by qualitative

§ 34 A particularly illustrative example of the removal by con

-ahha) > -o-a (for -a-a, according to §26, with analogically

§36 The regular loss of H in the presyllabic sequences CiH~,

Remark: Hoenigswald, in an article entitled ‘Laryngeals and s mov

§ 39 Thus, the sequence -eH2- gives A natolian -ah(h)-, but -ä-

§42 The sequences -eH3- and -oH3- (with o < e by quali

§44 The sequence -eH\- gives -<?- in non-Anatolian .Indo-

(from the lengthened grade meH2- with e preserved before

the preceding syllabic resonant. The com binations -iH~, -uH-

§48 As the ‘laryngeals’ were consonants inherently less son

§ 49 The sequences -rH-, -lH-, -mH-, -nH- underlie the so-

European, the existence of plë-tô (for expected pf-to), 3 sg. middle

Chronologically, we would have deywiH2 LLeytu > deywiH Heytu

oblique cases (e.g. gen. sg. \p(a)H2un-és\ = /p(e)H2wn-és/), i.e.

ever, presupposes Proto-Toch. *puwär which may repre

§§ 55-59 Assimilation of a ‘Laryngeal’ and y or w