The Tocharian Verbal System

Malzahn, Melanie

doi:10.1163/9789004188440

Cited by 66 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…b subj. ii yāṣtär 'will ask, beg' < *ih2-skȇ/o-, which reflects a different present stem formation (see Malzahn 2010, also Hackstein 1995. ; 242 who posits a now obsolete root *di̯ eh2-).…”

Section: *I ̯I-i ̯Eh2-'demand Seek'mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconstructing Proto-Indo-European Deponents

Grestenberger¹

2016

Indo Eur Linguist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper argues that the Proto-Indo-European voice system, despite undergoing several waves of morphological renewal on the way to the daughter languages (Jasanoff 2003), was typologically that of early IE languages like Vedic and Greek, and contemporary languages such as Modern Greek, and that the syncretic voice systems of these languages share the property of having deponents. While previous discussions of middle-only verbs have focused on a few morphologically archaic but semantically unsurprising middles, I show that PIE also had agentive, syntactically active middles that escaped the expected remodeling as formally active verbs and surface as deponents in the IE daughter branches. Reconstructing verbs with “unexpected” voice morphology may seem counter-intuitive, but is necessary to cover the empirical facts and may also serve as a diagnostic for the relative chronology of the morphological innovations that occurred in the domain of PIE voice morphology.

show abstract

Section: *I ̯I-i ̯Eh2-'demand Seek'mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconstructing Proto-Indo-European Deponents

Grestenberger¹

2016

Indo Eur Linguist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This idea has enjoyed a certain success (it is accepted by e.g. Pinault 2008: 598 or Malzahn 2010: 140), but it seems more likely that the contrast between TB wikau and, say, TB papalkau , obl. ‐ aṣ (< PT *‐ āwä ) rests on a specific Tocharian development of some sort; see e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Jasanoff (1983: 62‐7), Schmidt (1985: 230f. ), Peters (1997: 211), Pinault (2008: 598), Malzahn (2010: 149‐51), Kocharov (2018: 144), among many others.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Balto‐Slavicā‐aorist

Svensson

2020

Trans of the Philol Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper presents a new theory of the origin of the Balto-Slavic a-aorist. It is argued that the conjunct evidence of Baltic and Slavic allows us to reconstruct a clear picture of the position of the a-aorist in the Balto-Slavic verb system: the Balto-Slavic aorist suffix *-awas non-acute (thus pointing to an original form *-ah 2-e/o-> Bl.-Sl. *-a-), triggered zero grade of the root, and was exclusively found beside primary thematic and i̯ e/o-presents. As indicated by a new analysis of the Slavic data, the a-aorist was exclusively used to make aorists from PIE present roots. In spite of frequent claims to the contrary, the Balto-Slavic a-aorist has no obvious cognates elsewhere in the family and is thus likely to be an innovation of this branch. The most obvious clue within Balto-Slavic itself is the formal identity of Baltic a-preterits and a-presents. Some recent refinements in our understanding of the Indo-European ah 2-presents and their development in Balto-Slavic (where they were specialized as a deverbative formation with iterative value) allow us to postulate that the Balto-Slavic a-aorist goes back to the imperfect of a Balto-Slavic a-iterative.

show abstract

“…B ste, star 'is', pl. stare, formerly thought to contain *-o and *-ro, seeMalzahn 2010: 691 f., with references, correcting Jasanoff 2003 Hittite allowed these facts to be seen in a new light. The Hittite middle endings in their simplest form (i.e.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

18. The impact of Hittite and Tocharian: Rethinking Indo-European in the 20^th century and beyond

Jasanoff¹

2017

Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ink was scarcely dry on the last volume of Brugmann's Grundriß (1916, 2 nd ed., Vol. 2, pt. 3), so to speak, when an unexpected discovery in a peripheral area of Assyriology portended the end of the scholarly consensus that Brugmann had done so much to create. Hrozný, whose Sprache der Hethiter appeared in 1917, was not primarily an Indo-Europeanist, but, like any trained philologist of the time, he could see that the cuneiform language he had deciphered, with such features as an animate nom. sg. in -š, an acc. sg. in -n, and neuter r / n-stems like wātar, gen. wetenaš 'water', was Indo-European. Indeed, it was soon clear that Hittite represented a whole new branch of the family, Anatolian, with lexical and grammatical idiosyncrasies that distanced it from the other branches, but linked it to two less well-attested languages of approximately the same time and place, Luvian and Palaic (and, as would eventually emerge, to the later Lycian, Lydian, and other first-millennium languages of Asia Minor). The significance of the decipherment was underscored by the fact that the clay tablets from the archives of the Hittite capital at Boğazköy, some dating back earlier than the middle of the second millennium BCE, were by far our earliest surviving records of an IE language.Only once before in the hundred-year history of IE scholarship had a new branch of the family come to light. Curiously enough, this had been less than a decade earlier, when the languages that would be known as Tocharian A and B were briefly introduced to the world by Sieg and Siegling (1908). In comparison with the discovery of Anatolian, however, the discovery of Tocharian made relatively little impression at the time. The reasons for this were understandable − the late date (first millennium CE) and familiar cultural setting (Central Asian Mahayana Buddhism) of the texts; the highly evolved and untransparent condition of Tocharian phonology; and the widespread perception, incorrect but shared by nearly every early scholar who voiced an opinion in the matter, that Tocharian was essentially an ordinary IE language of the "Western" type, oddly displaced to Central Asia. As the twentieth century progressed, the false picture of Tocharian as a branch of secondary interest was reinforced by the glacial progress of Tocharian philology. The rate at which edited texts, grammars, and glossaries were published lagged far behind the pace set by Hittite. (Thus, e.g., Tocharian B was basically inaccessible until 1949, and had no dictionary until fifty years later. The dates of publication of the basic grammatical and lexicographic tools are given by Pinault 2008: 146−148. Malzahn 2007 and Pinault 2007 catalogue the text fragments, which are scattered over six national collections.) 4. Syntactic impact 5. Implications for subgrouping 6. References

show abstract

The Tocharian Verbal System

Cited by 66 publications

References 0 publications

Reconstructing Proto-Indo-European Deponents

Reconstructing Proto-Indo-European Deponents

The Balto‐Slavicā‐aorist

18. The impact of Hittite and Tocharian: Rethinking Indo-European in the 20^th century and beyond

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

The Tocharian Verbal System

Cited by 66 publications

References 0 publications

Reconstructing Proto-Indo-European Deponents

Reconstructing Proto-Indo-European Deponents

The Balto‐Slavicā‐aorist

18. The impact of Hittite and Tocharian: Rethinking Indo-European in the 20th century and beyond

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

18. The impact of Hittite and Tocharian: Rethinking Indo-European in the 20^th century and beyond