ARMENIOS THE COMMON FORFATHERS HERO FROM THETTALY (B)


(BEING CONTINUED FROM 24/02/15)

3. Morphological isoglosses

3.1. One of the most significant morphological isoglosses shared by Armenian, Greek,
Phrygian and Indo-Iranian is the e-augment (cf. § 1), e.g. Arm. 3sg aorist e-ber ‘brought’ from  PIE *é-ber-et: Skt. á-bhar-at, Gr. ἔ-φερ-ε; Arm. 3sg aorist e-git ‘found’ from PIE *é-“id-et: Skt.
á-vid-at, Gr. εἶδε < ἔ-ιδ-ε; Arm. 3sg aorist e-d ‘put’ from PIE *é-deh1t:
Skt. á-dhā-t, Gr. dial.
ἔ-θη, cf. suffixed forms, Gr. ἔ-θη-κα, Phrygian e-daes.12

3.2. The genitive ending *os
o- (Skt. asya,Gr. οιο,Arm. oy,13 etc.) of the nominal o-stems  has been taken over from the pronominal declension. It is basically restricted to Indo-Iranian,
Greek and Armenian and has been interpreted as either a dialectal Indo-European innovation  or a morphological isogloss.14 Given the appearance of this genitive singular ending in Italic  (osio  in early Faliscan inscriptions and in one early Latin inscription, the Lapis Satricanus, c.490 bc, and in the name Mettoeo Fufetioeo) and Celtic (oiso  in three or four Lepontic inscriptions  from before 400 bc), it is now possible to argue that the spread of a genitive singular*ī took place relatively recently, not much earlier than the period of Italo-Celtic unity. It has been  argued that the ending *os o- was also present in Anatolian. As an archaism it cannot, therefore,be used as an isogloss. Nevertheless, it is somehow significant that, as in case of the eaugment,Armenian sides with Greek and Indo-Iranian in having *os  o- as a specific genitive marker of ostems.15

3.3. A commonly cited morphological feature found in Armenian, Greek and Indo-Iranian
(and perhaps also Celtic) is the instrumental marker *b i(s). Furthermore, Greek and Armenian  share the use of *b i- as the instrumental singular marker, probably due to extension of the  athematic instrumental plural marker *b is that is also shared by Indo-Iranian. After a lengthy  discussion, however, Clackson (1994: 68–74, 87) concludes that the two languages are likely to  have made independent developments and denies the significance of this isogloss. He does admit  the importance of this feature, however, for the dialect group Armeno-Graeco-Indo-Iranian.16

3.4. *meh1 prohibitive particle: Arm. mi, Skt. ma, Av. mā, Gr. μή, Alb. mo.17 The Armenian  prohibitive particle mi is probably reflected in Urartian me(i).18 The value of this isogloss is uncertain  in view of Toch. AB mā ‘not, no’, which expresses both simple negation and prohibition (Adams 1999: 445–446).

3.4. *h2oiu-kʷi(d): Arm. oč‘ ‘not’, Gr. οὐκ, οὐκί ‘not’. However, an inner-Armenian development  is not excluded.19

3.5. *nu-presents are attested in Armenian, Greek and Indo-Iranian in a number of verbs that  lack them outside this area: *h2r-nu-: Arm. aṙnum ‘to gain, obtain, take’ (Armenian, Greek, and  probably Iranian, see § 4.1.9); *”es-nu-: Arm. z-genum ‘to put on clothes’ (Armenian and Greek, see  § 6.1.16); *g.er-nu-: Arm. ǰeṙnum ‘to be/become warm, burn’ (Armenian and Indic, see § 5.2.13).20
As an example of the nu- extension on Armenian grounds, note Arm. lnum, 3sg.aor. e-lic‘
‘to fill, be filled’ from QIE *pleh1:
Gr. πίμπλημι, αμαι
‘to fill, make full’, πλέως, Ion. πλέος
‘full’, Lat. plēre ‘to fill’, Skt. pari ‘to fill’, pres. *píprati, etc. (cf. Arm. li ‘full, abundant, whole’
and lir, istem  ‘plenitude’ vs. Gr. πλήρης ‘full; in full’). The aorist e-li-c‘ derives from *e-plē-ske, with *ske/o- added to the old root aorist *plē-(s),cf. Ved. áprās, Gr. ἔπλησε, etc.

3.6. The *ni- preverb in Armenian and Indo-Iranian.
*ni-si-sd-e/o-: Arm. nstim, 3sg.aor. nst-a-w, impv. nist ‘to sit’ < *nihist-e;
Skt. ní ṣīdati, Av.nišhiδaiti, MPers. nišastan ‘to sit’. The form is based on the reduplicated present form *si-sdfrom PIE *sed- ‘to sit’: Skt. sidati, Gr. ἵζω, Lat. sīdō, etc. The verbal form *ni-si-sd-e/o- ‘to sit’ is a   significant isogloss shared by Armenian and Indo-Iranian. Other languages only have the deverbative  noun *ni-sd-o-: Lat. nīdus m. ‘bird’s nest, residence’, OHG nest ‘nest’, cf. Arm. nist,ostem
‘seat, site, base; royal residence, capital’, Skt. nīḍá- m.n. ‘nest, lair, bird’s nest’, etc.21

3.7. *n-presents in Armenian (anem)  and Greek (άνω).
*li(n)k.-n- ‘to leave’: Arm. lk‘anem, 3sg.aor. e-lik‘ ‘to leave’, Gr. λείπω, λιμπάνω ‘to let,
leave’; cf. Skt. rec,pres. riṇákti ‘to leave, let, release’, Iran. *raič ‘to leave, let, abandon’, Lat.linquō, līquī ‘to leave, quit, forsake; to abandon’, OIr. léicid ‘leaves’. Arm. 3sg.aor. e-lik‘ is derived from thematic aorist *é-lik.-e-t, cf. Gr. ἔλιπε, and the imperative lik‘ reflects IE *lík.e, cf.Gr. λίπε. PIE nasal-infixed present *li-n-k.- was remodelled to *li(n)k.-n-: Gr. λιμπάνω and  Arm. lk‘anem (cf. *beg- ‘to break’, nasal present *b-n-eg-: Arm. bekanem, 3sg.aor. e-bek ‘to  break’, Skt. bhañj-, bhanákti ‘to break, shatter’, OIr. bongid, boing
‘breaks’, etc.). I agree with the view22 that this is likely to be a shared innovation (pace Clackson 1994: 84–85).
This type of presents became productive in Armenian, cf. e.g. *pr<-ske/o- (sk-present): Arm.harc‘anem, 3sg.aor. e-harc‘ ‘to ask, question, inquire’, Ved. prcchami, MPers. pursīdan ‘to ask’,Lat. poscō ‘to ask, demand’, etc. Arm. 3sg.aor. e-harc‘ derives from thematic imperfect *e-pr<-s<-et, cf. Skt. áprcchat. Note also Arm. imper. harc‘ vs. Skt. prcchá.

3.8. The *n-presents (see the previous paragraph) and a few other Graeco-Armenian isoglosses  are treated by Clackson (1994: 74–87) as ambiguous with respect to the question of  whether they represent shared innovations or independent developments: the suffix *olā-in  Greek όλης  (e.g. μαινόλης ‘raving, frenzied’) vs. the Armenian quasi-participles in oł,the usage  of the PIE verbal suffix *s  <- (Greek σκ-in Ionic iteratives and c‘-in the Armenian aorist) with  restriction to past time, peculiar verbal reduplication seen e.g. Gr. δαιδάλλω ‘to embellish’ and  Arm. cicałim ‘to laugh’, etc. Naturally, one should welcome such a sound and cautious approach.
However, the cumulative strength of these morphological (and a few phonological) features and  a great number of such lexical agreements gives additional weight to the evidence.

 

(TO BE CONTINUED)

Hrach Martirosyan
Leiden University

NOTES

11 See Martirosyan 2010: 748–749 and Martirosyan forthc.
12 For a discussion, see Meillet 1950: 97–101; Birwé 1956: 18–19; Meid 1975: 214–215; Schmidt 1980: 2–5; 1987:39; 1988: 601–602; Gamkrelidze/ Ivanov 1984, 1: 388–390 = 1995: 340–341; de Lamberterie 1986: 48–49; 1992: 237;Abaǰyan 1991; Clackson 1994: 9–10; Meier-Brügger 2003: 182; Mallory/Adams 2006: 75; Kocharov 2008: 32–33; Fortson  2010: 92, 101, 392. For Phrygian, see also Ligorio / Lubotsky forthc. (section 5.3)
13 Meillet 1900: 17.
14 See e.g. Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1984, 1: 375–379 = 1995: 329–332; Kortlandt 1984: 99–100 = 2003: 47.
15 For some other possibly related forms and a general discussion, see Lehmann 1981; Gamkrelidze / Ivanov 1984, 1: 3771 = 1995: 3303; Schmidt 1987: 40–42; Beekes 1990–92; Morani 1992; Hamp 1992: 59; Clackson 1994: 8, 14;Szemerényi 1996: 184, 1876; Clackson/Horrocks 2001: 16–17, 32, 69; Eska/Wallace 2001; Fortson 2010: 127. On Anatolian, see Szemerényi 1996: 184; Kloekhorst 2008: 216; and especially Yakubovich 2008.

16 For references and a general discussion of the *b “i- ending, see Meillet 1896: 153; Pedersen 1924: 223 = 1982:306; Gamkrelidze / Ivanov 1984, 1: 379–382 = 1995: 332–335; Kortlandt 1984: 101–102; 2010: 40, 44–45; Schmidt 1987:40; Martirosyan 2010: 751; Beekes 2011: 30–31, 187–189.
17 Martirosyan 2010: 468–469. For Albanian mo, see Demiraj 1997: 275–276.
18 Jahukyan 1963: 124; Arutjunjan 2001: 454b; Yakubovich 2010.
19 For references and a critical discussion, see HAB 3: 561–562; Clackson 1994: 158; 2004–05: 155–156; Martirosyan  2010: 531. The most recent treatment of this correspondence is found in de Lamberterie 2013: 21.
20 See Clackson 1994: 83–84, 178–180 and Martirosyan 2010 s.vv., also Schmidt 1988: 601; Fortson 2010: 97,214. For an extensive discussion on nu-verbs I refer to Kocharov 2008: 39–40, 126–155, 182–185.
21 See de Lamberterie 1986: 49–57 and Martirosyan 2010: 505–506 with lit.

About sooteris kyritsis

Job title: (f)PHELLOW OF SOPHIA Profession: RESEARCHER Company: ANTHROOPISMOS Favorite quote: "ITS TIME FOR KOSMOPOLITANS(=HELLINES) TO FLY IN SPACE." Interested in: Activity Partners, Friends Fashion: Classic Humor: Friendly Places lived: EN THE HIGHLANDS OF KOSMOS THROUGH THE DARKNESS OF AMENTHE
This entry was posted in GLOSSOLOGY and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s