Some Problems of Indo-European Lexicography

Some problems of Indo-European lexicography

Ignacy R. Danka and Krzysztof T. Witczak

1. History of Indo-European lexicography and the Łódź lndo-Europeandictionary project

The discovery of affiliation among Indo-European languages took placewhen the lexical stocks of various languages were compared. The earliestwork on Indo-European etymology was done by August Pott (1802-1887).Lexicographic work on Indo-European did not become possible untilAugust Schleicher (1821-1868) became involved in the reconstruction of theprotolanguage. An integral part of that work concerned restitution of theprotoforms of words attested in the various related languages of the family.Those could be treated as lexicographic entries and a dictionary of thereconstructed protolanguage could be compiled.

The first etymological dictionary of Indo-European was compiled byAugust Fick (1833-1916). In it Fick (1868;4th ed., 1890-1909) included aconsiderable proportion of Indo-European word stock. While there is noquestion that it was an outstanding piece of work, at the time it was beingcompiled kpowledge of Indo-European phonology was still rudimentary.As a result, Fick's work on the Indo-European lexicon is now of historicalinterest only.

When he took up work on a new dictionary of Indo-European, AloisWalde (1869-1924) had the advantage of numęrous etymological dic-tionaries of many of the Indo-European languages, which made it possiblefor him to include a larger number of Indo-European lexical items in it. Histhree-volume dictionary was published by Julius Pokorny (Walde-Pokorny1927-1932).

A new etymological dictionary of Indo-European was compiled byPokorny (1949-1,959).It differs from its predecessors in a number of ways:

316 IGNACY R. DANKA AND KRZYSZTOF T. WITCZAK

the entries are arranged according to the Latin alphabet and not accordingto the Devanagari script, as in Walde's dictionary, it is more concise, and itdoes not list items based on dubious etymologies. Pokorny's is certainly the

best Indo-European dictionary ever published; most of the reconstructionsare accurate' and the meanings of words and roots are carefully researchędand realiable. It is held in high esteem by linguists, who quote from it andrefer to it freely and without any reservations.

At the Classics Department, University of Łódź, we have undertakento compile a new Indo-European dictionary not so much because Pokorny'sdictionary is inadequate in any major respects as because new needs andpossibilities have sincę arisen. Also, the objectives of the project are some-

what different. It is nevertheless the case that thanks to progress in Indo-European studies, especially in laryngeal theory, we are now able to tracemany word histories further back than Pokorny did, revise some of his find-ings and conclusions, and can add new data not available to him.

An example of an Indo-European dictionary designed to serve needsother than those Pokorny had in mind is the dictionary compiled by CalvertWatkins (7973), which lists all Indo-European roots present in the Englishlexicon, be they native Germanic, Latin, Romance or Greek in origin. Suchdictionaries are designed to make clear the origin of thę vocabulary of anational language and to demonstrate the relatedness of words which, at

first sight, seem to be totally unrelated.In reviewing the history of Indo-European studies one should not over-

look the contribution made by Polish linguists. Towards thę end of 1920s

Aleksander Brtickner (I9Ż7) compiled an etymological dictionary of Polish'Since 1952 a new Polish etymological dictionary is being compiled by Fran-ciszek Sławski (1952-), who also heads a team compiling a Proto-Slavic dic-tionary (Sławski 1974-).In the latter the reconstructed lexis is presented inword_like form. It was precisely Prof. Sławski, as well as Prof. Leszek Bed-narczuk, an Indo-Europeanist, who encouraged us to compile a new Indo-European dictionary and adopt their innovation (Pokorny lists roots,scarcely word-forms).

Recognizing the methodological soundness of such an approach - a

dictionary of a protolanguagę thus becomes less of an abstract object and

more like dictionaries of languages with attested written tradition - we

have to emphasize that resorting to root forms is often unavoidable. This isbecause Indo-European is not a standard language but a set of dialects withnumerous similar but not identical forms. Moreover, due to apophony, one

INDO-EUROPEAN LEXICOGRAPHY 317

and the same root assumes different forms in different grades. Finally,there is infixation. As a result, data from various languages which indirectlyrepresent former Indo-European dialects permit reconstruction of one andthe same word as different as e.g. in the case of 3rd person sing. pres. indic.from the root I-E *leikw-'to leave', where we have *linćkwti (oI. rinókti,Av. irinaxti), *Iinkweti (Lat. linquil) and *lćikwelt/i (Gk. }"einer.) 'heleaves', while 3rd sing. aor' has thę form *ćlikwet (oI. óricat, Gk. óIr.ne ,

Arm. elikh)'he left'. With such variation one has to make reference to thęroot *leikw- lest the less knowledgeable reader should decide the differentforms represent different words.

Dictionaries of Sanskrit list nominal stems and verbal roots. Those ofGreek and Latin list nominative cases of nouns and 1st pers. sing. indic.pres. act. of verbs. In our dictlonary we list the nominatives of nouns and3rd pers. sing. pres. act. of verbs. The latter decision-is related to thę factthat some verbs do not occur in the first person.In addition to presenting the state of the art in Indo-European etymologyand providing data for further research, a strictly scholarly objective thedictionary under preparation is to share with previous etymological dic-tionaries of Indo-European' we intęnd to make available to a wider audi-ence the results of Indo-European research. In particular, a Polish versionof an Indo-European dictionary should be more use to Polish and Slavicscholars than Pokorny's German dictionary. Finally, we also aim to providea set of lexis on the basis of which it may be possible to develop a new arti-ficial language based on Indo-European. We believe that such a languagewould be superior to the arbitrarily constructed languages designed to serveas means of widęr communications.

2. Homonymy in Indo-European

Indo-European lexis contains numerous instances of homonymous roots.These could have existed in Indo-European partly because they were usedin various conjugation types, and were reinforced by the extensive dialectvariation in the protolanguage. Thus a word or root carrying a given mean-ing could have ęxisted in some dialects, while forms phonetically corres-ponding to it but carrying a different meaning could havę functioned insame other dialects. For example , I-E' * pórko's' masc. '(young) pig' (Sakianpasa, Kurd. purs 'pig' from Aryan *parśa-; Lat. porcus 'hog', MIr. orc'young pig, young animal', etc.)l, formed from the root I-E *perk-'to dig


out' (Pokorny 1949-1959:841), does not appear in Greek or Armenianz,where its homonymic counterpart is in use: I-E *pórkos, masc. 'huntingnet, hunt' (Gk. nógxoE 'fishing net', Arm. ors 'hunting net, snare, hunt')(Frisk 1960-1972,II:58I; Pokorny does not list that lexeme). This is a kindof homonymy rvhere the two forms do not coexist in any one Indo-Euro-pean dialect. A real casę of homonymy is attested in Western Indo-Euro-pean dialects (Italo-Celtic) where in addition to I-E' *pÓrkos, masc.'(young) pig' (Lat. porcus;Mlr. orc) there is the I-E *pórkos, masc. 'a kindof fish' (Lat. porcus 'an acanthopterygian fish'; Ligur. *porkos 'trout' inriver name Porcobera'trout bearing'; MIr. orc 'salmon').3 The mutuallyexclusive ranges of occurrence of the two lexemes do not alter the fact thatwith Indo-European one has to reconstruct a homonymic triplet in the formof archetype *pórkos, masc. (baritone stress in all cases).

Homonyms may also have arisen due to apophony present in Indo-European. For example, two genetically different words with differentprimary vocalism: I-E *engwćn- 'swelling, tuber, inguinal region' (Lat.inguen, -inis, neut. 'inguinal region, swelling in vulvar region', ON.@kkvenn 'swelling') and I-E *ongwćn- 'grease' salve, unguent' (Lat.unguen, -inis, nett.'grease'; Umbrian umen'gtease') have homonymousreduced grade forms:I-E*l.tgwćn- 1. (Gk. d6{v, &6óvos' masc. beside fem.'gland/s/') and I-E *r?8*ćr- 2. (olr. imb, imbe 'butter') (Pokorny 1949-

1959:319 and779).A distinction is made between proper and secondary homonyms. The

former are idęntical or very similar roots with totally different etymology,such as, e.g., I-E *ghwen- 1. 'to be plentiful' (Lith. ganćti: oCHSl. gonćti'to be sufficient') and I-E *ghwen- 2.'tohit, to kill' (Gk. rleivcrl 'I kill' :Alb. gjanj 'I hunt' : Lith. geniil'I urge /*by hitting/'). The above roots,conjugated as they were according to different paradigms, gave rise to anumber of homonyms proper' such as, e.g., I-E *ghwonći 1., fem. 'afflu-ence' (Lith. gand, Latv. gana'enolugh' : Pashto yanh, fem.'wealth, pros-perity, property') and I-E *ghwonti2.,f.em. 'homicide' (Gk. Qovrj, fem.),as well as I-E *ghwonós 1. 'plentiful, abundant' (oL ghanófu, adj. 'com-pact, firm, hard, dense') and I-E *ghwonós 2. 'hitting, killing' (oI. ghandfu,

adj. 'slaying, killing', masc. 'club'; Lith. ganas,Latv. gans'herdsman'fromBaltic * ganós' masc. 'a person who beats or drives')'

Secondary homonyms ale roots or words ultimately deńved from thesame protoroot which had changed their meaning to such an extent thatthey are regarded as different lexical items. Such is the case with, e.g., I-E

INDO.EUROPEAN LEXICOGRAPHY

*per- beside *pa_ which gave rise to numerous prepositions, e.g. I-E *pćr/i/

'through, across' (oI. póri, Gk. nćgr., beside negi, dial. rućg; Lat. per) as

well as I-Ę *pró'before' (oI. pró, Gk. ngó; Lat. prÓ), and numerous verbalrocrrs with widely different meanings, e.g., I-E * per- 'to press' (Gk. neigro 'Ipierce, I stick', OChSl. na-perjq),I-E *per-: *prr-'to give birth to'(Lith.periil'I hatch eggs'; Lat' pariÓ'I give birth to') or I_E *per-'to beat, to hit'(OChSl. perq'I hit, I beat').

All of the above polysemous items ultimately go back to Proto-Indo-European root *per- 'forward, before' which, at the same time, denotedtransference of some action. Hence we have the prepositions denoting 'be-fore, at the beginning, in defence of something' as well as verbal roots withthe meaning'lead, carry across, ride, hand over'.

F{owever, Anatolian dialects have thę nominal root *per-, *pern-

'house' (Hitt. per and pir;Luw. parnaś,Lyd. bira) which is an etymologi-cally unrelated homonym proper of the above mentioned I-E *per- (alsoattested in Anatolian, cf. Hitt. para'forward' , piran'at the front').

3. Reconstruction of primary meaning

A problem one often faces in Indo_European etymology is how to discovęrthe original meaning of a reconstructed protoword, where onę has to keepin mind the evolution the object denoted underwent in vańous epochs,beginning with the Stone Age, through Early Metal Era up to the culturesknown from history. Indo-Europeans became familiar with metals at a cer-tain stage of their civilizational development, usually after the primaryspeech community had broken up into a number of subgroups, hence thenames of metals are different in different Indo-European languages. TheBaltic word for lead (Lith. śvinas, Latv. svlłrs) is however etymologicallyrelated to the Hittite kuwannaś, kunnaś'ornamental stone; copper oxide,copper' and Gk. xócrvog, masc. beside fem. 'ornamental Stone, lazuńte,lapis lazuli; dark blue enamel; copper sulphate'. The basis for the deriva-tion was the root I-E *keu- present in colours names' e.g. oI. śó4aĘ'red,crimson', Gk. xuavóg'dark_blue, navy blue, dark, livid' and Hitt. kuwaliu-'dark, dark-blue'. The Greek-Hittite name retained the earlier meaning tothe extent that originally I-E *kwt.tHos I *kuw4Hos denoted a dark-bluesubstance including mineral or metal (Danka 1983: 184). It seems to us thatat first the striking colours of some stones had caused their names and nextin the time of early metals thę latter were also called for their colours

319


resembling those of the stonęs. The treatment and use of Stones were at

that time certainly more related to those of early metals than what we guess

nowadays in retrospective view, for instance metal axes were patterned

after those made of stone, which had probably been patterned after tools

made of wood.Herę is another example of transferring a namę within the same kind

of objects made of various materials. By comparing such words as OI.*ódhitih, masc. beside fem. (attested only in compounds) 'axe, hatchet'with

at. assls, masc. beside rare fem. 'deal, plank, board' it appears that prob-

able I-E lexeme *ódhatis signified primarily a tool made of wood, con-

sequently a wooden axe too. But thę old Indian word presumedly signified

an axe furnished with a stone edge already, because two compounds, inwhich oI' *ódhitih is attested: oI' svódhitif;, masc. beside fem. 'cutlass,

chopper, axe', literally 'a good axe' (cf. oI. sti-, Gk. eó-,Hitt. aśśu-'good'from I-E *

usń- 'good') and oI' vanódhitih'a wooden axe' (cf. oI. vńn- and

vónam, neut. 'tree, wood'), węre created for necessary denotation of an axe

furnished with a metal edge and a primitive one, made of hard wood, being

observed by Aryans in India. This shows that the Indo-European term*ódhatis, denoting some cutting tool made of wood, was transferred.by the

Aryans during cultural and historical changes to an axe turnished wrth a

stone edge. Parallel change of meaning occurred in Hittite and in Ger-manic, which preserved cognate Indo-European term *ódhHes', neut. This

term began to mean a metal tool, especially an axe made of metal: Hitt.ateś, neut. and sęcondary form ateśśaś, comm. 'metal plate, metal axe';

Gmc. * ąóćsąz-: OE'. adesą 'axe' (Tischler 1977 : 94).

Indo-Europeans knew how to till the soil and use appropriatę tools: I-E*ardtrom l*aratrom 'plough, lister'(Arm. arawr;Lat. arątrum; Gk. ógot_gov; MIr arathar,W aradr;Lith. órklas; ON arór; Polr. radło), a word based

on the Indo-European root *arH-'to plough' (Pokorny 1949-1959: 62-63).

Gothic has a different name for plough: hÓha,which has a close phone-

tic and semantic counterpart in the Russian so4ó, Polish socha 'primiliveplough, lister'. More distant are the correspondences involving oI śakha,

fem.'branch', NPers. śdx'branch, antlers', Arm. cax 'branch'' Lith' śakd

'branch, knot (in timber)'. It follows from the above that Indo-Europeanterm *kź:kHa l *kókHą l *kókHa4 originally denoted a (knotty or bifurcate)branch. It then Seems to have bęcome extended to covęr a plough in the

early days of farming when such a branch came to be used for tilling the

soil.

INDO.EUROPEAN LEXICOGRAPHY

lt may well be that the words dęnoted not only a branch but anything

branched or bifurcate. In such a case one would be allowed to associate the

name for a branch, antlers or lister with the Indo-Aryan word for panache

or a tree top, cf. oI. śikhd, fem. 'tuft or braid of hair, plume, crest', Pali

sikha-, Prakrit siha-,fem. 'crest', Singhalese si'tree top'. The equation OI.

śikha : Lith. śakd,Po|. socha, Arm. ęax is fully justified on phonological

grounds, which lends further support to the above supposition'

The primary meaning of a reconstructęd lexeme is sometimes very dif_

ficult or even quite impossible to establish, due to homonymy which occur-

red in the original Indo-European language. The reconstructed I-E lexeme*ry{ipyós describing a bird of prey' especially an eagle' may Serve aS an illus-

tration of such difficulty. The following lexical data are quoted to justify the

reconstruction mentioned above: oI. 1jipyófu (qualification of a bird of prey

śyenóĘ'falcon') usually interpreted as'geradeaus emporschnellend'

(pokorny 1949-t959:854-855); Av. arazifua-, masc. 'falcon, eagle'; oPers.;arrifa-;eagle' (cf. gloss of Hesychius: &gĘlQoE. &etóg. nogd flógocrtg),

NPers. aluh'eag|e'; Arm. arcui, gen. ąrcuwoy 'eagle' Maced' *argipyós

'eagle' (cf. Hesychius' gloss: *&,gyr.nuóg' emendation ógy[noug' &etóg'

Mcrxeóóveg).It is unquestionably a compound word but the second element remains

quite obscure while the first element may be interpreted in two ways: either

is *aSi- 1. ,swift, quick, speedy' (occurring only as the first element of a

compound word): oI' Ęii-śvan- 'der iiber schnelle Hunde gebietende Ver-

btindete Indras' (Pokorny 1949-1959 : 64-65), Gk. Homer. &gyinou g'swift-

footed', said of dogs (from I-E * fti-pod_s); cf . oI. rjróh : Gk' ógyóE (from

*ÓYQóE, due to dissimilation) 'schnell beweglich' (from I-E *rylrós, adj');

or as *rfl- 2. 'white, shiny': Hitt. fuarkiś'white', Toch. A. órki- in com-

pound words like arki-śołj 'weiBe Welt'; Gk. ógyr.-xóQ([UvoE 'mit gldnzen-

dem Donnerkeil', dpyr,-ó6cov'white-toothed'.Homonymy, which occurs here, makes it impossible to unequivocally

decide upon the origin of the first member of the compound. However,

owing to the suitablę parallel we can tell which of the two variants should

be accepted by establishing the primary meaning of the lexeme' And so we

note another Indo-European compound describing a bird of prey, viz.*Óku-pet-,literally 'quick-flying' (oI aśu-patvan-,'quick-flying', adj., Gk.

óxu-netr]g ,quick-flying'; both of them are epithets describing birds of prey)

or *óku-pt"ros .swift-winged' (Gk. lqT|Ę óxóntegog 'the swift-winged

hawk'; Lat| accipiter 'bird of prey, hawk or falcon'; PSL. *ksotrł"hawk':

3ŻI

3Ż2 IGNACY R. DANKA AND KRZYSZTOFT, WITCZAK

Ukr. jóster, a variant with the suffix -ęb- occurs more frequently: SC. jastrcb'vulture', Pol. jastrąb'goshawk').

It seems to us that the first element of the quoted compound *s$ipyós:*ęsi- may be interpreted on the analogy of such forms as 'swift, quick' and*-pyó' (probably from *-ptyós) as derivative of the above-męntioned root*pet-'to fly': Gk. nótopc'l 'I fly', oI. pótati 'he flies', 'he falls', Av. patalti'he flies, he hastens', Lat' petÓ'I strive' (Pokorny 1949-1959\.

Greek and Macedonian data yield atypical continuants of Indo-Euro-pean lexemte *6{ipyós. Gk. oiyunr,óg, masc' 'a bird of prey' probably'bearded vulture (Vultur barbatus)' was transformed from the regular form*dgyr.nr,óg due to folk etymology' Presumably the deformation of thelexeme was caused by the characteristic appearance of the bearded vulture.There were two Greek terms: a'iĘ, gen. criyóg, masc. and fem. 'goat' (from

(from I-E *8tp-s, cf. Maced' gÓps'daw, Corvus monedula', acc. pl. yónag. xoLoloóg . Maxeóóveg, quoted by Hesychius)'

Equally transformed was *argipyós 'eagle' in Macedonian, which,according to Etymologicum Magnum, yields: crlyinori.r óetóg ÓnóMaxe6óvov. The initial diphthong cru- in this name may point to its Greekorigin, because primary Indo-European diphthong al- was monophthon-gized, before a consonant, to Macedonian a-. This development is attestedin Macedonian words like adć'sky' (cf. gloss of Hesychius: dór1 . oóqcvóg. Mcrxeóóveg and adrąia'clear sky' (cf. gloss of Hesychius: dóga(cr . cit}p(o. MoxeóóveE), which are related to Gk. oir}ńQ, masc. 'air, ether, heaven'(from I-E *aidht:r) and ohlqo, airlg(o, fem. 'clear sky' (from I-E *atdhra

and *aidhriya).

The word oiyiruorf may have resulted from contamination and trans-formation of &gyr,nuóE and oiyunr.óg, the change being motivated by theirtaboo character. The final element -ipop- was presumably introduced underthe influence of 'hoopoe lUpupa/, etymologically corresponding to Cl.Greek inor|-l, gen. ónorrog. Aiyinop sęems to be originally an Aeolianword. There are in Aeolian forms with the vowel r corresponding to Classi-cal Greek forms which preserve the older e: cf. Aeolian Homeric niougeg'four' corresponding with classical tóttcqeE. on this basis the dialectalAeolian *inorf 'hoopoe' may be presumed.

Greek ćnorp 'hoopoe' has no strict etymological equivalents in otherIndo-european languages. Similarly as Arm. popop, Lat. upupa, Latv.pupukis, it is an onomatopoeic formation.

TNDO-EUROPEAN LEXICOGRAPHY

The meaning of the Macedonian (originally Aeolian) aiyfuoQ 'eagle',

in spite of the phonetic transformations motivated by association with clĘ.goat' and then with ćltol! l*tnoQ /'hoopoe', is still closely related to the

meaning of the primary epithet *ogymtóg 'quick-flying l eag|e /'. Presuma-

bly the word oiyinov was at one time a substitute taboo term replacing the

primary *óqyr.ntoE but preserving its meaning.It happens that a lexeme develops different meanings in different I-E

languages. The question then arises which of the different meanings was the

original one.For example the Indo-European word *y'ero- or *yóro- carries three

meanings: 'spring', 'a season of the year' and 'year', cf' following data:

PSl. *jkro beside *jdrz 'spting' (Cz. iaro, neut' 'spring', OCz. iaro'spring grain'; LSorb. iaro, OPol. jaro, neut' also 'bread from spring grain',

sć. pr, masc.; Slk' 7ar beside jaro;IJkr' jar) fromI-E' *y(:rom or *yórom,

neut.;PSl. jóra fem. (oRus' jara'spring', SC. jhra'greater heat', B|g' jaró

'air, glow, mirage') fuom. *yóra, fem.;Gk. Att. óg&, Ion. óg1, fem. 'season of the year', also 'year, time of

day, hour, proper time, fluorescence, ripening time', plur. also personifica-

tion: Horae 'goddesses of the seasons' (from *yóra);

Gk. Att. ógog'time, year'. plur. ógol'annals' (from *yóro');

Gmc. jćra-, neut. 'year' (Goth. j€r, oN. dr, OSax. jdr, oHG. jdr, Ger-man lahr; oE,. 3ćar, also 'spring'; English year) troml-E *y"erom, neut'

Av. yara-, neut. 'year' from I-E *yórom or *yórom;

Lat. hÓrnus 'this year's' from I_F- * gho-yÓr-ino-s.

In this case one should assume that - contrary to the evidence of the

majority of I-E languages - the meaning 'year' is probably secondary. The

semantic shift 'spring' to 'season of the year' and further to 'year' is

suggested by the following parallel development. Polish pl. for 'year' is lata

(sg. rok), but its connection to Pol. lato andPSl. lóto, neut.sing. 'summer'

(from I-E *lietom, neut. 'harvest', cf' Gmc' *lźlpa- 'plot of land', originally

'plot where the harvest has been collected': OF . leb, neut., Goth. unlefu

'poor', originally 'unfruitful') shows that summers that had passed since

were counted to represent Years.Judging from presumably Nostratic data, recorded by Illich-Svitych

(19'71.-L984, I, 37 and VI), the original meaning was 'spring', cf. Altaic*ńa/r/e 'spring', adj .'young, new-born - Uralic *ńÓre'spring', adj' young,

new-born - Dravidian *ńar'young plant; sprout' - Semitic *n'r'youlth',

-1Ż'''


adj.'young'.Ivanov (1972 U974h 182) observes that the meaning of SlavicT'ar- (and

Old English Sear)'spnng' is apparently archaic as against the secondarymeaning 'year' in the other languages of the Indo-European family.

NOTES

1. Pokorny (1949-1959: 841) derives I-E *pórkos'(young) pig' from the root *perk-'to dig,to burrow' (Lith. prapórśas 'ditch', Lat. porca'furrow', cf. Lith. pdrśas andLat. porcus)and translate it as 'Wtihler'.

Ż. The word nógxoE 'hog'' attested in classical Greek, homonymous with nóqxog 'fishingnet', is a late loan from Lat. porcus'hog'.

3. I-E pórkos inthe sense 'fish' is derived from the I_E root *perk-'spotted, dappled, varieg-ated' (Pokomy 1949-1959: 820-821). Baritone stress is suggested by its apophonic coun-terparts: l' Gk. nóqxq. lem' 'perch. Percafluviatilis'> Lal. perca:2'Mlr. erc' masc. 'sal-

mon'and olr. erc, adj. 'variegated, spotted' dark red', W. erch 'dappled' from*pćrkos,cf. Gk. nśqxoE 'a kind of falcon'; 3. Gmc. *fiirxnó, fem. 'trout' (oE. fórn, o}JG'forhana), cf. oL p!śnifu 'variegated, spottled'.

4. The reconstruction takes account of the following correspondences: 1. Arm. q requiresI-E*kh, since I-E *ł would have produced Arm. s. cf. also NPers' śl 2. Arm. x,ol kh,NPers. x, PSl. y(ch) suggests intervocalic I-E "kh;3. vacillation in the length of the rootvowel guarantees apophonic ratio - long vowel: schwa (a), the vocalism in the full gradebeing uncertain (Atyan a < I-E *d, *ć or ó

' Gmc. *d < I_E *d or * Ó). Palatalization of the

initial * k/h/ requires the assumption of an influence from laryngeal H , which colours /el ,

apophonic with respect to (o); thus ć:Ó:a|. Hence the archetypes: .*kakhd > oI śakhd,NPers' śdx; *kókhd > Gothic hÓha; *khókha ) Arm' qżx, PSl. *sogó,Lith. śałd, possiblyalso oI śikha, etc.

Abbreviations of Languages

Alb.Arm.Av.Bal.Blg.Cz.Gk.Att.Ion.Homer.I-E.Kurd.Lat.

Latv.Ligur.Lith.LSorb.Luw.Lvd'Maced.MIr.ochsl.OCz.oE.OHG.oI.

: Albanian: Armenian: Avestan: Baltic: Bulgarian_- Częch= Greek= Attic: Ionian: Homeric: Indo-European: Kurdish= Latin

= Latvian: Ligurian= Lithuanian: Lower Sorbian: Luwian: Lydian: Macedonian: Middle Irish: Old Church Slavic: Old Czech: Old English= Old High German: Old Indian

INDO-EUROPEAN LEXICOGRAPHY 325

OIr. : Old IrishON. : Old NorseOPers. : Old PersianOPol. = Old PolishORus. : Old RussianOSax. : Old SaxonPol. : PolishPSl. : Proto-SlavicRuss. : Russian

SC. : Serbo-CroatianSlk. : SlovakToch. : Tocharian (The let-

ters A and B are usedto distinguishbetween the twodialects).

Ukr. : UkrainianW. : Welsh

REFERENCES

Brtickner, Aleksander. 1927. Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego.Kraków: KSW; 2nd, 3rd, 4th ed. Warszawa 1957,1974,1985.

Danka, Ignacy R. 1983' Stanowisko języków anatolijskich w indo-europejskiej rodzinie językowej i ich wzajemne zwiqzki (: The positionof the Anatolian languages in the Indo-European family and theirmutual connections). Łódź: University of Łódź Press'

Fick, A. 1'868. WÓrterbuch der indogermanischen Grundsprache in ihremBestande v on der Vólkertrennurug. GÓttingen: Vandęnhoeck.

Fick, A. 1890-1909. Vergleichendeś WÓrterbuch der indo-germanischenSprachen. 4th ed., vols. 1-3. Góttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.

Frisk, Hjalmar. 1960-197Ż. Griechisches etymologisches WÓrterbuch.Heidelberg: Winter.

Illich-Svitych, Vladislav M. 197I-1984. Opyt sravnenija nostraticheskixjazykov. Sravntel'nyj slovar'. Vols. l.-3. Moskva.

Ivanov, Vjacheslav y. I97Ż|1974]. Review of lllich-Svitych (1971). Etimo-logija I97Ż: 182-rB4.

Pokorny' Julius. 1949 -1959 . Indo germanisches eĘ molo gisches W Órterbuch.Bern: Francke.

Sławski, Franciszek. 1952-. Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego. Yo|s.1-5-. Kraków: TMJP.

Sławski, Franciszek. 1974-. Słownik prasłowiański. Yols. 1-5-. Wrocław -Warszawa - Kraków - Gdańsk: Ossolineum.

Tischler, Johann. 1977-. Hethitisches etymologisches Glossar. Lief. 1-5.

Innsbruck.Walde' Alois and Julius Pokorny. 1927-1932. Vergleichendes WÓrterbuch

der indogermąnischen Sprachen' Vols. 1-3. Berlin: de Gruyter.Watkins, Calvert. 1973. "Indo-European Roots." In: American Heritage

Dictionary. Boston, New York, Atlanta: Morris. 1505-1550.

Some Problems of Indo-European Lexicography

Documents