Notes on the Indo-European kui- and kuo-pronouns

NOTES ON THE INDO-EUROPEAN k"i- AND k=o-PRONOUNS Summary S o m e ~ a t t e m p t s to a n s w e r t h e q u e s t i o n as to the h i s t o r i c a l r e l a t i o n s of the i n d e f i n i t e a n d i n t e r r o g a t i v e f u n c t i o n s of the I n d o - E u r o p e a n kU-pronouns are r e v i e w e d a n d criticized. T h e w e l l - k n o w n practice of c o n s i d e r i n g t h e indefinites of t h e t y p e s G o t h . h, azuh, A l n d . ka~cid d e r i v a t i v e s of t h e i n t e r r o g a t i v e is o p e n to d i s p u t e . T h e i d e n t i t y , in I n d o - E u r o p e a n , of t h e i n t e r r o g a t i v e s a n d t h e i n d e f i n i t e a b-is, even in p a r t i c u l a r s c o n c e r n i n g t h e i r functions, m a n y n o n - I . E , parallels. Some suggestions are given in c o n n e c t i o n with t h e e x p l i c a t i o n of Gr. 6'are;, A.Ind. r:~h tea~ca, kaslcid, etc. S u p p l e m e n t ary o b s e r v a t i o n s are m a d e on the theorie:s of the r e l a t i v e use of these pronomina~ s t e m s .

It is a curious coincidence that while the problem of the chronologic relation between the indefinite and interrogative function.~ of the Indo-European p o n o m i n a l stems ,~"e/0- and k"~ - have given rise to much controversial discussion, many aut}lors of grammars should cling to the time-honoured practice of teaci~ing ~) that it is the interroga'rive which combining with certain p:~.~'~ct~.; assumes an indefinite force 2). Yet the question may arise wi,~:~her this practice can be article, the indef. l) T h e a n c i e n t s r e g a r d e d the rel. pron. as a post l)OSl~ive '" as a noun. H o w e v e r , t h e Stoics and, u n d e r their influence, s ~ n c g r a m m a r i a n s p u t it on a p a r w i t h t h e article. For p a r t i c u l a r s ' t I %tcin~hal, Gesch. d Sprachw. bei d e n G r i e c h e n u n d Romern, Berlin 1863, p. 668 f.; M. tt. Jellinek, Gesch. d. n e u h o c h .,-l e u t s c h e •n G r a m m . II, ilei(lelber< 1914, p 2 6 9 f f "

279 f. a) K. B r u g m a n n , Gr~ln{triss ~', II , 2 (1911,: exi,rt,ss~.,~ hi:nqclf in a rath~,r c a u t i o u s w a y " p. 3 4 8 " A l s s(~lche (interr. unit in~lcf, i tul~,,,x,.rtcn, n u r d u r c h die B e t o n u n g y o n e i n a n d e r u n t e r s c h l e d e n ...", t ~. ;55(' " I v~rgenanntc~ P r o n o m i n a , die als I n t e r r o g a t i v a . . . , d i e n t e n zuglcicl' al,; Iit~tefinita" Ci., however, A. Leskien, G r a m m d. .altbp.!g. . <,,~. , _ ~:~.',. .... p. I;38" "kfito, (fh:, werden d u r c h V o r s e t z u n g yon ,~e~- i n d e f i n i t i v ' (cf. Lit. L e s e b u c h (1919), p. 161); E. S i e g - \ V . Siegling, T o c h a r i s c h e G r a m m a t i k (1931), p. 188; A. J. van W i n d e k e n s , M o r p h o l o g i e compar~e du t o k h a r i e n , L o u v a i n 1944, p. 196" A. V a i l l a n t , M a n u e l du vieux slave (1941~}, p. t23S " I , ' i n t e r r o g a t i f est ...; avec des e l e m e n t s proposals..., on a l'indet~n~ ..."" \V. I
242 justified. Before attempting to find an answer it will however be necessary first to reconsider the other point, viz. the relations between the interrogative and the indefinite functions when fulfilled by the same. or by related, pronominal forms. It is no matter for great surprise that the co-existence of an interrogative zL,'; and an indefinite zt¢ in Greek, of a similar quis?: qu~s in Latin, of war? "what ?" beside :rat "something" in Dutch, has led those students of comparative I.E. linguistics who were mainly, or exclusively, interested in the investigation of historical developments to transpose the underlying problem into a question of priority. which functior, must be regarded as more original, which as younger, derived, or secondary? "La double valeur, d6jA indo-europ6enne ... du radical ~epr6sent6 par lat. quis, quid, quod etc. ne saurait ~tre ancienne. I! faut que l'ulLe des valeurs soit issue de l'autre" 3). Considering the main points of relevance with regard to the use of these I.E. pronouns the conclusion may, however, .-- despite the more or less assertive attempts to vindicate the priority of either function appear to be warranted that the question as to their original character is not well posed if it is only formulated in rearms of an alternative" were they primarily interrogatives or indefinites in the modern sense of these words? The reconstruction of the prehistoric development has been a ma~ter of considerable, and essentially glottogonic, speculation among scholars. Whatever choice is made of the above possibilities, the answer always implies that there have been, in the history of the I.E. peoples, times in whicil either the interrogative or' the indefinite idea was not expressed, at least not by means of the stems under consideration. As long as the consequences of this implication are not recognized and accounted for no solution proposed for the above prob]iem can be considered acceptable. Leaving this point here and going .~nto some particulars I am under the impression that the advocates of neither 3tandpoint have Gotischen (I 953), p. 190 (cf. p. 189) : " D e m I n t e r r o g a t i v p r o n o m e n ... wird das enid. E l e m e n t -gh angeh/ingt" ( > ]vazut; " j e d e r " ) ; L. Renou, Gramm. de la langue v~dique (1952), p. 382: " L ' i n t e r r o g a t i f est suivi d ' u n grand nombre de particules, qui lui conf~rent ... une v a l e u r ... " g 6 n 6 r a l i s a n t e " ou "~ventualisante .... , etc. etc. *) A. Meillet, in the BSL. 23 (1922), p. 19 f.

243 succeeded in adducing conclusive arguments. Among those scholars who hold the indefinite function to be older Hirt 4) attached much value to the zero grade of the stem k"i-: "die Form *k"i-s zeigt eine

Schwundstufe, muB also in unbetonter Stellung entstanden Sein; aus ifinem Satz es hat einer (uJer) geklop/t kann sich sehr leicht eine Frage entwiekeln: hat wer geklop[t?" But if *k"i- has arisen in an enclitie position, from what has it arisen ? From a form *k"ei-, which is in the 'Vollstufe' 5), and which, in Hirt's line of thought, was not likely to be an indefinite 6) ? And what about the stem k"e-[k"o- which, being in the 'Vollstufe', can likewise convey an indefinite sense? Meillet v), who regards the indefinite function as original because "on con~oit que, en m e t t a n t l'intonation interrogative sur l'ind~fini, d~,as une phrase teUe que quelqu'un est venu, ie mot signifiant quelqu'un prem,ae la valeur interrogative, surtout s"il est court", does not seem to h a v e faced the ensuing problem how far an initial *k"is has ever been, as the Fr. quelqu'un can be, non-interrogative in meaning. Equivalents of the unaccented *k"i- in modern languages can at the beginning of a sentence be indefinite, but how are we to know if the I.E. indefinite k"i- was usual in that position?: Greek instances of an initial Tt¢ do not crop up before Sophocles and Plato 8), and the Latin indef, quis is alway~ an enclitic 9) ~ am afraid that ! cannot follow the same French sa'~ant and his c()mpatfiot Vendryes in their argument a0) thatt Gr. r/¢ does not lose its accent even under th,)se circumstances Which wou3d condition barytonesis of other worzls. Are they of the opinion that the interrogative intonation and, hence, *) H. Hirt, Indogermanische Grammatiik III, p. 26 (§ 21); cf. VII, p. 40 (§ 40). 6) In English books the term 'normal igade' is often used. But are the other grades abnormal ? ') 'The form * k U e i - is given by J. Pokorny, Indog. etymol. Werterbuch (1953), p. 646, although only * k U i - exists. v) Meillet, l.c. *) See E. Schwyzer-A. Debrunner, Gfiechische Grammatik, II, p..214. Cf. also infra, p. 268. ') '.Similar suggestions, for instance that made by Ph. Wegener, Untersuchungen tiber die Grundfragen des Sprachlebens, Halle 1885, p. 76, are, for reasons of space, left undiscussed. 1o) A. MeiUet-J. Vendryes, Trait6 de grammaire compar6e des langues classiques s, Paris 1948, p. 608 f.

244 the interrogative force, did not yet exist when, in prehistoric times, the relevant Greek rules of accentuation became fixed? W~aatever the real factors were which played a rSle in the p r o c e s s of barytonesis, it is evident that the opposition expressed by r/c: we predisposed these words, like ,~ :ae etc. u), to special treatment. Those scholars who developcd the other thesis would draw attention to phenomena of second;,ry absence of accent. The Slav. k~-pronoun "erh/ilt die bedeutung emes pron. indef, dadurch, dass es tonlos wird, in welchem falle es meist einem oder mehreren worten des satzes nachgesetzt wird" (Miklosich 12)) ; "urspriinglich ist ... wohl der interrogative Gebrauch ... aus ihm ist durch Tonminderung in eingeschalteter bzw. Enklisenstellung die indefinite Verwendung entstando,,,, ~,,~,~,~,, ~a~ These i~ however ronm for the observation thnt it is, in historical times, as a rule for the sake of emphasis that the interrogative pronoun . which usually opens the sentence ~ is occasionally placed in another position" cf. e.g. Soph. El. 1191 ro~¢ (viz. ro[¢ q~o~e~a~) ~o~ "(with the murderers) of wh6m?"; O.C. 412 it' ~vv~rtet~, ~.~[dovaa ro~ ,~Tet¢; "what you tell, from wh6m did you hear it ?"; Arist. Nub. 239 r~A0e¢ ~ nard z/; According to Leumann ~*) the unaccented indefinite has, in part, arisen from the accented interrogative in so-called 'mehrzielig~' interrogations, e.g. a 170 zt~ rtdOe~, elg d ~ , ~ v "who are you among men, and from whence" is ? Now this type of sentence, though occurring in many ancient I.E. languages (Greek, Anc.Indian, Latin, Slavonic, German), is nowhere very frequent and does not seem to have been in general usage (with the probable exception of some short phrases)' the Latin instances belong, as far as I am able to see, mainly to Cicero. Livy and some later authors 1~); most of the Anc.Indian cases quoted ~,,, 1,11.

~ .It. ,,I,.~.n ,t,.a I. a e,..L,L s A ,L

]]o

.,..,,

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

11) I refer to Schwyzer-Debrunr~er, o.c., II, p. 387; see also B. Laura, I)as alexandrinische Akzentuationssvstem 5 P a d e r b o r n 1928, p. 170 f. ; 251 f. lz) F. Miklosich, Vergl. Gramm. d. slavischen Spr. IV, p. 86. 1~) j. B. Hofmann, in Stolz-Schrnalz, Lateinische Gramm. ~, p. 645. 1,) M. Leumann, in Stolz-Schmalz, o.c., p. 288. 15) See H. Schuchardt, in the Analecta Graeciensia, Graz 1893, p. 197 ff. ; Delbrtick, Vergl. Syntax, I, p. 511; III, p. 259 f.; O. Behag~el, Deutsche Syntax, III, p. 431. - - According to Schuchardt this construction is ratb.er frequent in Hungarian, Rumanian, and the Slavonic languages, but see \V. Vondr~k, Vergl. Slavische G r a m m a t i k 2, G6ttingen 1928, lI, p. 451. le) I refer to Hofmann, o.c., p. 647.

245 by' Wackernag¢l 1~) and other scholars smell of elaboration or more or less didactic argumentation. Delbrtick's is),opinion, approved by Schwyzer-Debrunner 10), seems reasonable- we would not appear to be justified in taking for granted that this construct!on was a feature in the syntax of Orig. Indo-European 20). In ,discussing this problem and in pronouncing :for the secondary character of the indefinite force of these words H. Frei -~1) lays great stress upon an argument which seems, to be hard to follow. Tra.nsforming the problem, which is essentially historical in nature, into a question of si,:nchronic linguistics, the Swiss autl~¢,r states that in various languages the interrogative pronoun is a simple word" I.at. quis; Fr. qui; Germ. wer; the indefinite, on the other hand, a combination o f thi_q w n r H ~ncl ~ , ~ ,,~ , , , , , ~ ^ , ~ . . . ^~. . . . . . . . ,. • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , v, a~ux~, u~llt.-I tZ'lt'lllL'lltS" tulqltls, quisque, n'imporle qui; wer es auch sei etc. Regarding the additional elements as 'signes de transposition', he draws the conclusion that it is these 'signs' which always commute interrogatives into indefinites. Letting the terminology alone, which though applied to static facts suggest:_~ historical processes ~ an inconsistency often found in the works of phonologists and structuralists ~ , these observations are, as far as defini.te forms, definite periods, and definite languages are concerned, right" leaving the relative functi~:~ out o ~ consideration, the Eng. who is, in itself, interrogative, ~,h(,c~cr is m,lefinite, ever being, in t~his word-group and similar cases,, a sign (~I indefiniteness. But does it follow that this sign 'transposes', or tnmsforms, an interrogative into ah indefinite ? It may be true that the ordinary speakers of a language --~ Frei refers to "la conscience des sujets" , if they are invited to reflect upon this point, are inclined to identify who in whoever with the interrogative pronoun; but must we follow them? In Dutch the form loop is the imper, sing., ik loop means "I am walking"" can we reasonably contend that ik transforms an irnpera~7) A. D e b r u n n e r - J . W a c k e r n a g e l , Altindische G r a m m a t i k , I I I , p. 5 6 5 ~a) Delbrtick, \ e r g l . S y n t a x , I I I , p. 260: " E s verstelnt sich iibrigens, dass es sich u m eine A u s d r u c k s w e i s e handelt, die tiberall einmal a u s einem besonderen G r u n d e g e w a g t w e r d e n k a n n " 10) S c h w y z e r - D e b r u n n e r , o.c., II, p. 639. so) F o r t h e t h e o r y d e f e n d e d b y Meunier in 1875 see H. Frei, I n t e r r o g a t i f et Ind6fini, P a r i s 1940, p. 8.

,1) See n. 20.

246 tive into a finite verb form of the 1't pets. sing. ? I for one would prefer to say that it is the stem - - o r whatever name one wishes to give to that element common to a group of words which is obtained by abstracting inflexional elements and all other linguistic entities or features which constitute it a word and which help to determine the class and function of that w o r d - - , which combining with an element zero ~e) expresses an order or desire and which combining with " I " helps to form an !,t pers. sing. t t is not the 'addition' of the ending -en which transforms :a Dutch sing. boek "book" into a plural: boeken, because the regular singular is een boek "a book" or her boek "the book", the form boek by itself being indifferent m~ to number: boekband "binding of a book"; boekUelhebber "one who is fond of books". So it might be more correct to say that who in w h o ~ ~ not a particular pronoun, but an abstract pronominal stem which without ever or other accretions or accompaniments and under certain conditions of intonation etc. can have a real existence and help to forra def~mite interrogative sentences. Be this as it m a y - - - questicas of structural formulation cannot detain us here ~ , it is, in my opinion, an inadmissible conclusion that the interrogative function of *k~ietc. is, on the strength of the examples discussed by Frei, more original than the indefinite. If we may, for the sake of simplicity, say that in the Dutch ik loop, ik indicates that loop is no imperative, does it follow that any form loop originally was an imperative ? Frei answers a similar question in connection with the pronouns at issue in the affirmative, because he holds the pair who ?" whoever to be a feature of many languages-- at least in those "~tats de langue oh l'on peut sonder la conscience des sujets". In so doing he however focusses attention only on those languages which d.o not, or hardly, possess a simple indefinite corresponding to the fc~rms instanced, or, rather, he disregards the coexistence of simple iv,definites and words of the type whoever. How are we to account for the Latin indefinite quis, if we consider aliquis and quisque to be 'transposed' interrogatives 23? u) This point has sometimes been a matter of confusion: L. H. Gray, Foundations of language, New York 1939, p. 150 holds t h a t it is the base ("stem") which (in Latin) can be used alone in two instances: as the 2 ud sg. act. imp. of the vero, or as the voc. sg. of the noun. We had better say t h a t these forms contain the stem and the inflectional ending zero. u) It m a y be conceded t h a t "en interrogeant la conscience des sujets '°

247 Here the Swiss author would no doubt refer to his remarks with regard to the transposing function of pitch or accent and consider g u i s (indef.) to be characterized by the absence of the 'interrogative intonation'. This answer would, in a way, be correct, but it does not prove the historical priority of the accented * k " i s . Even if we could state that all languages possess an accented interrogative pronoun beside an unaccented, but otherwise identica, ~maccented indefinite, we could not by the mere observation that ir~ the latter the accent is absent, conclude that it was lost. The: absence of a feature cart also mean that it has never existed '.,4). II

So no solution propounded for the problem of the 'original character' ot the interr.-indef, stems * k u e - / k " o - and *k~'i - 2s) has, as f~r as I am we m u s t r e g a r d the D u t c h w~e as an i n t e r r o g a t i v e and wie ook ~t,s an indefinite, b u t w i t h r e g a r d to the n e u t e r wat --- free from its c o n t e x t , of course, say in its w r i t t e n form - - . which is often indefinite, this view c a n n o t be maintained. s~) I t m a y be a d d e d in passing t h a t the p r e s e n t a u t h o r is n o t able to follow Frei's e x p o s i t i o n on p. 14 where he tries ~how t h a t the i n t e r r o g a t i v e p r o n o u n b e l o n g s ' t o language, the indefinite t~> speech. 2~) F o r a t t e m p t s m a d e to distinguisi~ bet~eer~ these s t e m s see J. W a c k e r nagel, K u h n ' s Zs. 29, p. 144; W. Caland, Zur S y n t a x der P r o n o m i n a im Avesta, A m s t e r d a m 1891, p. 50 n.; Delbriick, Vergl. S y n t a x I, p. 510 f., a n d especially E. B e n v e n i s t e , in the S t u d i a Baltici I I I , R o m e 1933, p. 124; 128 f., w h o s e o b s e r v a t i o n s , however i m p o r t a n t a n d i n g e n u o u s (cf Caland, I.e.), do n o t solve all problems. The relation b e t w e e n interr, and indef. p r o n o u n s is n o t identical with t h a t b e t w e e n deictic a n d a n a p h o r i c p r o n o u n s (the f o r m e r b e i n g c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the t h e m a t i c vowel, the l a t t e r b y the ~). I n d e f i n i t e p r o n o u n s are n o t a l w a y s enclitic (cf. AInd. ,*rid kdh; Lat. aliquis etc.} or i n d i f f e r e n t as to case, number, etc. One c a n n o t go so far a~ to c o n t e n d t h a t t h e linguistic evidence provided by the a n c i e n t I.E. idioms p r o v e s t h a t t h e y a l w a y s h a d a " v a l e u r Iaible", never had a dative, genitive etc. ; i n s t a n c e s of ~¢ Tt¢ as are e.g. f o u n d A 240 mTg TLva¢ a3 ... f~o~..., i ro~:'g ... " w h o m s o e v e r again ... t h e m . . . " ; O 743 etc. can h a r d l y be said to be in c o n s o n a n c e w i t h the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t *k'*i- original!y was, in function, c o m p a r a b l e to 0 etc. ; are we t o believe t h a t once no genitives, datives, etc. of an indef, p r o n o u n existed, d e s p i t e t h e m a n y v e r b s etc. w h i c h g o v e r n e d these cases ? (cf. e.g. B 388; n 305). T h e H o m e r i c etc. (see S c h w y z e r - D e b r u n n e r , o . c , I, p. 616} gen. Tea, L a t . cuius, cui (e.g. P l a u t . A m p h . 67}, Ved. k ~ s y a etc., all of t h e m a d m i t t i n g of a n indefinite use, induce us to conclude t h a t these case-forms,

248 able to see, met with general acceptance. However, neither the cautious and methodically correct opinion pronounced by DelbNck x) __ "diese Frage ist durch die Mittel einer historischen Untersuchung nicht zu lt~sen ... (es gen~igt) festzustellen, dass in der Urzeit bereits beide Gebrauchsweisen vorhanden waren" ~ nor the intelligent observations of Wackernagel ~) .... in b o t h cases (viz. the interr. and the indef, use "handelt es sich um Unbekanntes ... ; Hoehtonigkeit charakterisiert die Frage iiberhaupt, und anderseits passt untergeordnete Stelle im Satze fiir die Bezeichnung eines Begriffs, den man nicht scharf bezeichnen will oder kann" - - c a n absolve us from the obligation to look more closely at the difficulties which remain unsolved.

W-hat

was me

cnaretctet

~,x t~,~ ,.~,,-o,.o a,,,.~ ~,.,,.,.,,,.,.o

containing these elements? How are we to account for the various particulars in the use of the words deriving from these stems ?; how could they, for instance, also assume a relative function ? Was prederiving from *kUe]o -, were already employed in t h a t way. The very fact t h a t the various *k u- stems are, in the ancient languages, differently distributed in the nominative and accusative, and in the adverbial forms (Ti; rl; ri; .~o~o~~6reOo¢ ndO~ ~o~ etc., interr, and indef. ; kah. k~ k i m (cid), k a d a e t c . , but kuJ~ra etc.) seems to point to a considerable degree of interchangeability in 'O~Sg. I.-E.' A more satisfactory hypothesis would perhaps be t h e following' the 'strong forms', i.e. *kUe-/kUo -, were especially used when sex (gender) must be indicated - - cf. e.g. the adj. use in Latin" quae patria est tua ? - - ; the stem *kui-, which could not express sex, was preferred in other cases - - of. Lat. quis tu ? " w h o goes there ?" ; quis clarior Themistocle ? ; quis ~u es muller ... ? m ; it was also a p t for making inquiries concerning beings of u n k n o w n sex and lifeless objects m hence its frequent occurrence in neuter forms" A.Ind. k i m (which, unlike kad, does not serve as an a t t r i b u t i v e adj. in the RV.~, Av. c~, and similarly in Slav. and Arm. (see Meillet, Le slave c o m m u n , 192~, p. 442 f.); cf. also Goth. toileiks D and to introduce questions in gener~.l (A.Ind. k i m ; I.at. quid?; Gr. r[). The indefinite was, therefore, perhaps m most cases, b u t not exclusively, expressed b y *kui -; the interrogative force m a y (especially in masc. and fern.) have been p r e f e r a b l y expressed b y *kUe/'~(cf. the Avestan usage). T h a t seems to be the most one can s a y in our present state of knowledge. There is, as far as I a m able to see, no reasonable ground for following P. Tedesco (Language, 21, p. 133), according to whom the two themes were originally distributed b e t w e e n the a n i m a t e a n d inanimate genders, " w h o " being *kuoS and " w h a t " being *kuid. The opinion ventured b y Vaillant (BSL. 37, p. 103 f." *kui - comes from a n oblique case) is very improbable. se) Delbriick, o.c., I, p. 521 ; see also the same, Synt. F o r s e h u n g e n I, p. 76. ~) Wackernagel, Vorlesungen ii'ber S y n t a x II, p. 1 I0.

249 historic Indo-European alone in possessing pronouns of this character ? It cannot be said that the points at issue have already been sufficiently illuminated by evidence derived from non-I.E, languages. The few remarks made in this direction by Kret,schmer 28) and Frei .09) may not induce us to indulge in the thought that such evidence is scanty 80). The phenomenon, viz. the 'double function' of the same pronominal element, is, on the contrary, of wide distribution in languages of various families. In contradistinction to those scholars who prefer to explain I.E. facts from I.E.--- and even Latin from Latin etc. - - the present author is convinced that a careful and wellfounded examination of non-I.E, phenomena can render useful services in any research h e a r i n a l l n n n c~rn+.-,,..,+; . . . . I-.1 character and importance. This has nothing to do with speculations on the assumed psychology of the earliest human beings whose language must have far antedated the earliest stages of the so-called I.E. parent speech, speculations the "absurdity and futility" of which is deservedly denounced by Miss Hahn a~). There can be no denying that a ccmparative study of those syntactic categories and phenomena which occur in all, or many, languages, especially those which may be regarded as being closely bound up wit}~ the non-preponderatingly intellectual life or 'pre-scientific' thought ~:>fman, that is to say with ' p r i m i t i v i s m ' - - this term being understood in a phenomenological, not in a chronological sense a2) _ reveals to us many points of close resemblance between functions of words or constructions of clauses in various languages aa). If it can be shown that there exists, in some .

se)

.

.

.

£

p. Kretschmer, in the Scritti in onore di A. Trombetti, Milan 1938, p. 47. a0) Frei, o.c., p. 9; 11 f. 80) Cf. S c h w y z e r - D e b r u n n e r , Griech. Gramm. II, p. 212, n. 4. sl) E. A. Hahn, Subjunctive and optative: their origin as fixtures, New York 1953 (Phil. Mon., Amer. Phil. Ass. XVI), p. 15, n. 31. 8s) See e . g . G , van der Leeuw, Religion in essence and manifestation, London 1938, esp. p. 683 If.; the same, L ' h o m m e primitive et la religion, Paris 1940. I t is surprising how radically even cautious a t t e m p t s to a p p l y phenomenological methods to new provinces of philological research should have been misunderstood by scholars who have accustomed themselves to think only in the traditional terms of chronology. 8s) A discussion of some syntactic p h e n o m e n a which m a y be regarded as resulting from, or as being connected with, the f u n d a m e n t a l u n i t y of m a n kind a n d t h e similarity of all men m a y be found in m y article 'Universele

25O

particular points, a high degree of similarity between idioms of different family, and that comparable facts are also found in spoken dialects of modern I.E. languages, no objection can reasonably be made to sound attempts to derive information o~r to obtain a basis for a hypothesis from them in order to illuminate the genesis, force, or syntactic or stylistic value, of comparable phenomena in ancient I.E. tongues, especially when they may be considered to have originated under comparable cultural circumstances, i.e. when they are found in early and simple documents or in literature of a 'popular' character. We shall now give a limited and random collection of non-I.E, facts pertinent to the problem under discussion. Commencing with Vietnamese (Anname~e) because of the reference made by Kretschmer to the interr.-indef, ai occurri__'_ngin this language, it can be stated that this word, which is usually called the personal interr, pron., is --lik,~ the other interrogatives g~ "what", ffdn "when" etc. - - also used as a so-called indefinite in making statements or asking questions about unidentified specimens etc.:~). According to Emeneau ~) "interrogatives have indefinite meaJfing" in certain contexts, to wit in predications containing negative words, in questions marked as such by other means th~n inter~.gative words (e.g. by the final particle kh6ng which ends questior~ expecting a y~s-o~-no answer), "and in some other constructions that are not to be distinguished by s~atactic statements from constructions in which the interrogative words have interrogative meaning". Besides, subordinate predications introduced by the conjunction n~'u "if" and ~ "as sure as" also require indefinite meaning for words which elsewhere are interrogative' h~ ~ co"~ ai 3 d~'n 4 hoi 5. t6i e, th~ ~ a n h s ggi 9 t6i 1° "as sure as x there is ~ someone 3 who arrives 4 inquires about 5 me 6, then ~ you 8 call' me 1°, :i.e. if anyone comes and asks for me, be sure to call me". It is even possible that interrogative words in subordinate members of predications have that force even when they are not in clauses introduced by the above conjunctions. As Emeneau appos!itely observes no decision can in these cases be made between interrogative and indefinite in literal tendenzen in de Indonesische syntaxis', Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 107 (The Hague 1951), p. l?gff. ~) See M. B. Emene~u, Studies in Vietnamese (Annamese) grammar, Berkeley and Los Angeles 1951, p. 137. 85) Emeneau, o.c., p. 57 ff.

251 translation" ai 1 l~m*, nd'y s dn* ("as a man works, so he eats")" "vrho 1 worksS? t h a t one s eats*, or" a:ayone ~ works ~:, that one s eats 4''. The same scholar therefore tightly asks himself whether the attemp~ to make a difference is not due to an Indo-European bias; we should perhaps ~ y " a m o d e m I.-E. bias. In Vietnamese a word like g~ has as its class meaning substitution for a noun with a non-personal reference, and as its substitution type reference to an unidentified specimen. It is only the context which makes it clear whether this reference is intended to stimulate the hearer to identify the specimen or not. In the former case we translate by "what ?", in the latter by "any". I would therefore subscribe to Emeneau's suggestion to translate the relevant terms in ~be following way" " w h i c h ? / a n y " ; " w h e r e ? / a n y w h e r e " etc._ It_. may, however, be uuuuteu'~---~-'-Jwhether we would be fight in following the American scholar as far as his terminology is concerned" is it correct to adopt the practice of Indo-European scholars suggesting that these words are interrogative in character and under certain circumstance., used as indefinites? There is no denying that these facts are very similar to phenomena occurring in other, I.E. and non-]:.E., languages. It would appear that a large part of the consideration~ to which we are induced by these pronouns in Vietnamese ~ and i,n other l a n ~ : ~ e s in which they show the same characteristics ~ can be made fr~i~ful ~ r a better understanding of comparable phenomena in Indo-European. We can indeed be scarcely in doubt that a clo,;cr examination of the relevant facts will bring to light a similar "who?/some (one)" character of these pronouns in other idioms, the grammarians of which usuall:, content themselves with the formulation that the interrogative pronouns also do duty for indefinites s6). When accompanied by a negation many Indonesian wo~ds which under other circumstances can express the ideas of "who,?, what? etc." bear an indefJinite force. In Malay, s~iapa alone means "who?", and s~orai, or s~s~drai~ (s~- "a, one"; ora~ "l~aman being") "somebody, an individual human being"', but ''"~'"'~"'",,,~,,,,~jis not only rendered by s~ora¢~ (pun) tiada'(tiada "not"), but also by tiada siapa; apa =:

se) See, for instance, G. J. Ramstedt, Einffihrung in die altaische Sprachwissenschaft, Helsinki 1952, p. 80; H. Costenoble, Die Chamoro Sprache, The Hague 1940, p. 228; H. Jorgensen, A grammar of the classic~.l Newari, Copenhagen 1941, p. 39.

252

"what ?", a-apa "something, ar~ything, any, aught", but tiada apa means "nothing", tiada apa-apa "nothing at all". In Minangkabau sia, which serves as an interrogative pronoun ("who?"), can also stand for our "whoever" and, in combhlation with a negative particle, for "nobody". In negative clauses and in constructions which may conveniently be called subordinate (e.g. baso t sialbo 2 kbk a ura~4 k # mati 6 "I fear 1that one 2 (person 4) of us z shall~ die v' (kbh expresses doubt). In Achehnese, sb~"is, on the one hand, used as an interrogative pronoun. sO~"ku gata "who is your father (ku) ?" ; rumbh sb~" nyan "whose house (r.) is that ?", and, on the other hand, an indefinite word" na sO~" sakdt ? "is anyone ill (s.) ?" (na" "to be, to exist"); b~' sbk"tamb~ "nobo
~ D.t

T__

_ J_'L

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

~

_.'~

_L.,L_

1

_

_1

a~) For the determinative function see Lingua IV, p. 25. 88) Cf. also S. J. Esser, Klank- en vormleer van het Morisch, Verhande-

253 cf. e.g. the Bolaang-Mongondow (ki) ine "who?/whoever"" ki ineXi m u n a 2 ko 3 n a a 4, y o s s i a ~ i 7 m o k o - u n t u c , S "whoever 1 first ~ (at 3) here 4, (the#) he 6 the one who 7 has won ~'' 39). In Cham thai fulfils both functions, as the type of sentence in which it occurs may require. Comparable relations between indef, and interr, pronouns exist, for instance, in Khasi 40), Turkish, etc. Authors of grammars sometimes notice "a confusion" in the use of these two categories of pronouns, "one being used in place of the other" 4~). Or they inform us that there are, in the idiom described, no regular indefinite (and relative) pronouns, the interrogatives being commonly used in their place 42). A striking feature of these elements when bearing an indefinite force is the frequent duplication of their outward form. Indonesian instances are very numerous" in Malay mana means "where, which ?", dimana-mana "everywhere"; in Malay, Minangkabau, and other languages apa means "somewhat ; what, which ?", apa-apa "something, whatever, anything"; in Ngaju-Dyak (Borneo)" dzve "who ?"" dwe-dwe , ,, ,, ; ~ ~ ,, 'whoever, anybody • in Busang (Borneo) hi who? some:~octy , hi-hi beside hi (which also occurs in negative sentences;) "whoever" Side by side with the Mori (Celebes) ba hapa "what", which is interr. and indef.~ the geminated ba hapa ~ enhances the indef, character of the phrase" 4s). In Sangirese (nortl; of Celebes), isain "who?"" i saisain "everybody"; in Banggai (east of Celebes) ilee, which is often used in an interr, sense, can also express the idea of "whoever", but

lingen v a n het B a t a v i a a s c h Geno(}tschap v. I(. en \Vet., 67, 3, 1937, p. 158 (§ 201). ,~9) I t is a m a t t e r for regret t h a t most a u t h o r s of g r a m m a r s have failed to r e p o r t e x a c t l y the cases in which the~e indefinite functions are llsed. See e . g . W . D u n n e b i e r , S p r a a k k u n s t van het i l ( ) l a a n g M o n g o n d o w s c b , l~ijdragen tot de TAM-, L a n d - en V o l k 86, p. 12.5; O~stenoble, o.c., p. 228 f. 40) See H. Roberts, A g r a m m a r of the I(hassi language, L o n d o n 1S91, p. 45. 41) E . g . T . N . D a v e , A s t u d y of the G u j a r a t i language, L o n d o n 1935, p. 34. 42) E . g . D . L . R . L o r i m e r , The .Dumaki language, N i m e g u e n 1939, p. 83; T. G. Bailey, G r a m m a r of the Shina language, L o n d o n 1924, p. 62. T h e Shina indef, occurs in negative and s u b o r d i n a t e clauses; ted " w h o ?": hb n zish (n. "is n o t " ) " t h e r e was n,o one". ~ F o r interesting i n t e r r e l a t i o n s see also S. K. C h a t t e r j i , The origin a n d d e v e l o p m e n t of the Bengali language, Calc u t t a 1926, p. 842; G. V. Tagare, H i s t o r y of A p a b h r a m s a , P o o n a 1948, p. 256. 4s) Esser, o.c., p. 159.

254 in that case it is mostly duplicated ~); in Macassar, Gayo u), Sundanese, and other languages one might find various parallels. The indeterminate, distributive, collective or general force often borne by geminated forms 46) can be of such a vagueness ~md indetermination as to meet the want of expressions for all shades of pronominal indefiniteness. But the indefinite character of the geminated form may not suggest considering a priori the simple form to be an interrogative 47). The addition of one or more particles to that pronominal stem which by itself can convey the interrogative meaning is another device of wMe distribution. In Japanesetaremeans"who ?", tare ka"somebody" in sentences like the following: tare ga kita ka "who has come ?" (ka: interr, particle) and tare ka ga kita "someone has come" respectively ~8). AAthough,in NewAri, the relevant forms are interrogative and indefinite in character, the lat'ter meaning is in most cases expressed by the pronoun and a suffix; when the pronoun alone is used in an indef. sense, the suffix is frequently added to other words in the sentence 19). In the Dravidian languages the indefinite, according to the formulation chosen by Bloch so), "se forme sur l'interrogatif, en y ajoutant: 1°. une particule de doute; 2 °. une particule signifiant "meme"." In the Indonesian Sangirese we fred i saiewen "whoever" beside isain (indef.), i sai-sain "anybody", i sai "who?" sl). In Bare'e (Celebes) i sema is "who", barn i sema or barn i sema ~ "whoever" (bara "perhaps") 52). In Buginese (Celebes) gemination and the addition oi ~} I refer to J. D. van den Bergh, Spraakkunst van het Banggais, The Hague 1953, p. 73. 46) See G. A. J. Hazeu, Gaj6sch-Nederlandsch Woordenboek, Batavia 1907, p. 755. ~*) See my paper 'The functions of word duplication ...", Lingua II, p. 170 ff. ~) It would be worth while exactly to determine tile types of clauses in which the different forms occur, their position among other words etc. ~8) For particulars see G. Sansom, An historical grammar of Japanese, Oxford 1928, p. 75 ff. 4g) See Jergensen, o.c., p. 40. 50) j. Bloch, Structure grammaticale des langues dravidiennes, Paris 1946, p. 2-2; cf. e.g. also J. Vinson, Manuel de la langue tamoule, Paris 1903, p. 84. 5~) For particulars see N. A~lriani, Sangiree~he Spra~kkunst, Leyden 1893, p. 247; 2S 1 f. 6s) I refer to Adriani, Spraakkunst der Bare'e-taal, Bandung 1931, p. 359.

255 particles of a similar significance are resorted to" aga " w h a t ? " ; aga 2 and bara-aga "whatever" ~). The Karo-Batak (Sumatra) tah isZ means "whoever"" isd "who", tab being a conjunctional element expressing doubt, incertainty etc. In the African Duala "werden die Indefinita von den Fragepronomen gebildet durch Beiffigung yon to" s4). It will be evident t h a t the greater tt:e choice of additional elements the greater the opportunity to exprr;ss various shades of indefinite meanings" Mal. barai, apa, apapun, apa ~uga, etc. Now the same additional elements can often al~;o combine with non-pronominal words, e.g. wffh words for "'human being", which are often equivalent to our indefinites (e.g. Bare'e tau "human being; somebody, one", Ft. "on")" Mal b~rai¢ s~-orai~ "some one or other". As the Mal. orai, is no interrogative ~*), the conclusion must be that words like barai, cannot be said to transform an interrogative word into an indefinite ~). Besides, a construction like siapa ~ datai~~ "who ~ comes*? '' or tiada siapa datai~ "nobody come~" is complete in itself, but siapa 2 data.n, bara¢z siapa d., siapa ~uga d. "whoever comes" ;,re not" after these word groups the sentence is continued. So the Iunction of the pronouns depends on the context in which they occur; these additional elements serve to emphasize the indefinite force or to indicate some slight difference or delicate distinction sT), other particles (-tah, -kah) fulfilling a simil2.r function in interrogative sentences" siapakah ~ anak °" itu 3 ? "Who 1 is that a child ~?'' 58). To the gemination and the frequent and wide-spread combinations of pronouns and particles special ~nterest attaches in connection with ~a) F o r particulars see 13. F. Matthes, Boegineesche S p r a a k k u n s t , Amsterdam 1875, p. 203. s,) C. Meinhof, Grundziige einer vergl. G r a m m a t i k der B a n t u s p r a c h e n ~, t l a m b u r g 1948, p. 93. 6s) I t is interesting to note t h a t ~N. words for " h u m a n being"' can combine with e l e m e n t s bearing an interrogative force to form phrases for " w h a t sort of (man)?, what (nationality) is he? e t c . " : Bare'e to-kuja (to < tau), tau to-kuja, etc. 5,) I n connection with numerals baran like ,re in Greek s t a n d s for our

"some". 6T) F o r a discussion of these particles see A. A. Fokker, Inleiding tot de studie v a n de Indonesische [ = l~iodern Malay] syntaxis, G r o n i n g e n - D j a k a r t a 1951, p. 55 f. 68) These elements are also used when a question c a n n o t be i n d i c a t e d

either by context or intonation.

the dose parafl~lism of the Co1Tesponding Indo-European forms: Lat. fuisq-~, f u i s q u a m ; Germ. wer auch, wer innner, AIn& ka~ cana, ko'p/ somebody e t c . . Some scholars explicitly attribute the ~ m t e force to the particle: thus Debruaner-Wackernagel ~ who even speak of an "indefinitierende Partikel". Others, among whom was Brugmann, seem to regard the particle as less essential" "eine den indefiniten Sinn verstfirkenden Partikel" 60).We need not concern ourselves here with those phrases which, being modelled on ancient examples, are: evidently of a more recent origin" (Skt. ko'pi; Eng. whatever "what {~ith additional emphasis)", etc. 6~). Focussing attention mainly on the group *k~'e-/k~'o - and *k~'i - we must in the tirst place observe that the view pronounced by Delbrtick, Brugmann, Walde, and other ~holars 62) that Lat. q~isque, Goth. Ivazuh, the very rare AInd° ka.~ ca, ki.m ca, and (according to some scholars also)the Gr." r~; rr are genetically identical, can no longer be maintained. R e | e ~ for an ample dis~zuss~on of the relevant facts to another paper~), it ~11 su[fice here to state, byway of recapitulation, that a Greek counterpart of quisque < *k'~i- + *k"e does not, as far as we are able to see, e x i t ; that the Goth. Iv~uh impresses us as having arisen in special syntactic positiens, especially in sentences of a virtually conditional ~ase and in pair 5 of clauses of a complementary-antithetic~d character - - i n both ca:e~ i:here is an abundance of reasons to believe that -uh < -*kue originally and essentially conveyed that very complementary force ~; that the Lat. quisque owes its origin mainly to the frequent occm-rence of the particle -que < -*k"e in definite types of relative ~ntences which ..... as has been :~hown by Miss Hotz s 4 ) ~ coincident ally often contained the likewise enclitic pronoun quis ( : TLZ)6S). sg) Debrunner-Wackernagel, Altindische G r a m m a t i k III, p. 570. so) Brugmann, Grundriss ~ I I, 2, p. 352. ~) For Anc.Ind. ko 'pi see Debrunner-Wackerragel, o,c.. ][II, p. 571. 6o.) Delbrtick, Vergl. Syntax, I, p. 515 f.; II, p. 511 If.; Brugmann, Grundriss ~, II, 2, p. 352; Walde-Pokorny, Vergl. Wtb. I p. 507; S. Feist, Vergl. Wtb. d. gotischen Sprache s (1939), p. 283 f.; Debrunner-Wackernagel, o.¢., p. 571; Walde-Hofmann, Lat. etym. Wtb. s II, p. 410. 6~) j. Gonda, The history and original function of the I.-E. particle kue especially in Greek and Latin, .Mnemosyne, 19,54. 6~) L. Hotz, Die Enklisenstellung des Pronomens quisque, Thesis Ztirich i941. *~} For Av. ~i~¢a see Debrunner-Wackernai~el, o.c., III, p. 571.

257 If we are, in the main, not mistaken in modifying the results of previous research, it follows that it was not *k"e which transformed an interrogative pronoun into an indefinite, but that an essentially indefinite pronoun was in various ways extended by the enclitic particle

,k,e ,6). It is worthy of special notice that this indefinite character should show itself, inter alia, in explicitly or virtually 'relative' clauses. We may corroborate the above inference by pointing to the frequent Vedic and also post-Vedic phrases of the type y d - k d - c a "who (what) ever" (ye ke ca "any persons whatsoever"; yasyai kasyai ca devat~yai "to any deity whatsoever") and use it, in its turn, to explain the remarkable, and at first sight even strange, rarity of the combination ka- ca, kim. ca in Ancient Indian 6~). The more I consider the well-known idiom ya- ka- ca - - w h i c h is also represented in the adverbs of the ancient language ~ the less I feel inclined to adhere to the zommunis opinio, according to which ca converts the interrogative pronoun to an indefinite meaning 6s). Nor am I completely convinced of the correctness of the view ~q) that ya- ka- ca owes its origin to a combination of the "relative pronoun" and the indefinite ka-ca. Reserving the other representative of the idiom for further consideration in a subsequent part of this article it must be observed here that ---h~wever much the three components form, in historical times, unity (of. also the Avestan yb ~i~Ca) and however 'indefinite' the sense of the combination ma;y be - - the original function of the particle ca seems to be more or less apparent in many passages. Start.ing from the hypothesis that *k"e essentially served to express complementary connection 70) such texts as R.V. 6s) F o r o t h e r a n c i e n t phrases w i t h * k U e - / h ~ ' o -, *kUi - see p. 262 ff. eT) I refer to D e b r u n n e r - W a c k e ~ ' n a g e l , o.c., I I I , p. 571, a n d , for t h e a c c e n t u a t i o n , to p. 568 f. The instance q u o t e d b y these autl~(,rs is of special i n t e r e s t : J a i m U p B r . 1, 57, 2 ~,ahu 1 v a i k i , . , 2 c a 3 k i m ~ ca ~ P ~ * m a .rag6 c a r a t i 7 " a m a n n does 7 m a n y ~ things x, s o m e t h i n g * on the one h a n , . s o m e t h i n g 4 on the o t h e r h a n d s'', i.e. " a m a n does m a n y a n d various t h i n g s " . ,a) See W. D. W h i t n e y , A S a n s k r i t g r a m m a r , ~ 507; R e n o u , G r a m m a i r e sanscrite, Paris 1930, p. 378. 69) CI. Speyer, S a n s k r i t s y n t a x , p. 214 f. ; Ved. u. S a n s k r i t S y n t a x , p. 42; A. A. Macdonell, Vedie g~,~mmar, S t r a s s b u r g 1910, p. 304; D e b r u n n e r W a c k e r n a g e l , o.c., I I I , p 571 f. ~0) I refer to m y article on the particle * k ~ e (see n. 63). •

17

258 6, 46, 8 ydd 1 v~ s t.rks.a# maghavan 4 druky~v s # i d n d ydt s p~raa' kdc 10 ca ll vfs.~yamX2 l asmdbkyam, xs tdd xt firthsas "or t the virility12 which 1, O bountiful One*, is with T~r~i a, or with e the D r u h ~ S peopleL and n whatever s, x0 is with the P u r e ' (people), grant is usXS thatX,,, may be compared to R.V. 6, 75, 19 y # na.h a s v # draeo* ydkS c # nts..tyo ~ ]igh~m. satiS i d e v ~ ' tdm. a° sdrve n dh~rvantu is "iP a man of our own 'clan "3 (or) an out~ide# o # if 5 a foreigner Twishes to kill s us ~, all n the gods 9 mu,;t bring xz him to x° ruinXV'; AV. 7, 70, 1 ydt x kim. s c~sau'~ mdnas~ s ydc e ca T v~c# yair;air s iuh6ti x° hav~s. ~ xx yd~ustiti I tddaS ... "whatsoever x. 2 (on the one hand s) he y o n d e # offers TM with mind 5, and 7 what n (o~ the other hand ~) with voice s, with sacrifices', with oblationl~, with sac~'ed formulaXL that TM ..." m a y be regarded as representing a ya- ca ... ya- ca construction as occurs, for instance, in AV. 11, 10, 22 ydk x ca 2 kavacO ydk 4 c~Skdvaca.hs "who(ever) a is mailed a and 5 w h o is without mati n'', in which ca ... ca likewist~ emphasize the idea of complementa,y connection. Cf. also AV. 6, 'g,3, 3 y # ~ra~.z),d~vyadvar~ a y # k # ca n sthd ~ vyadvardt# Mn 9 ... " w h a t 1 devourers a (there are,) of the forestL and s whatever *. 5 (other) devourers s you are 7, them 9 ..."; AV. 4, 22, 6 where ya- ka-ca forms part of an avtithetical clause" ~ttaras I tvdm ~ ddhare a t # sapdtn~ 5 y # kd 7 ca s r~anO prdti~atravas~O te n "superior ~ (are) you 2, inferior ~ y o u # rivals ~, ,vhosoever n, 7, 0

king ~, are (on the other hand s) your "opposing enemies ~°'' ~l); AV. 5, 72, 5 yd x krlmayas 2 kitivdks.da y # k.rs.n.~.h~ kitibdhavah n [yd~ kdS ca ~ visvdrYtP ~sx° tdnn krim[m, x~ iambhay~masi TM "the worms ~- which ~ have white sidesL (those) which ~ are black ~ with white arr,~s n, and ~ wfiatever ones ~, s (are) of all forms l0 - those n worms TM we grind upXV'; and passages like R.V. 10, 19, 7 y # devgl.h~ kd ~ c # yai~i~s ~ td~ rayy ~ sdm ~ s.r]antu ~ na.h ~° "(those) gods ~, whosoever x. a. l (they are), who are worthy of worshipS, (they n) must present s. ' as ~0 with possessions 7'', where a reference to divinities who are not worthy of wor.,~hip (cf. R.V. 10, 124, 3) may be implied or supplied; AitBr. 4, 18, 7 sarvum~ eveZdam3 atirocate~ yad ~ idam n ki.m ~ ca s "he surpasses ~ alP' ~ this z in shining ~ whateverS. 7. s (there is) here v', the idea of here ~l) In this connection it seems worth remembering t h a t in German (doch, which contains *kUe, see O. Behaghel, Deutsche Syntax, I I I , p. 155 ff.) and, as would appear to the present author, also in Greek (see the article referred to in n. 63), the particle *kUe can also a p p e a r in a subordinate clause belonging to an ~ntithetical main clause.

259

possibly suggesting a corresl:
"having created ~ these worlds ~ PrajApati t had s all ~ power* (to bring about) this ¢ whatever *, tL x~ (there is) hereX°"; .A.~v. Gs. 1, 3, l yatra t kva ~ ca ~ hos.yan# s y ~ # ... "wenn x er x irgendwo ~' ~ opfern will ~, v, (Stenzler) which may represent an 'original' "anywhere ~ (at any particular spot a of a 'local whole'*) where xhe is to sacrifice ~' ~..." ~) ; AitBr. 2, 23, 7 tasmdt x tasya ~ yata ~ eva t kuta~ ~ c # ~,rd~n~y~t ~ "therefore x should he eat 7 from any part whatever ~-~ of it v', etc. etc. 7~). ca t i

III Are we justified . . . *:~^~ etc. to the . . . . in . . . . m,klng . . . . . . . the oAA;,~,,.~ ~.~..~.v.. of .~,~,,~,=~ indefinites a point in favour of the assumption that they came into existence after the interrogatives ~*)? I am inclined t o answer this question in the negative. In many languages this addition obviously serves to emphasize and intensify the indefinite force inherent in the pronoun, or also to qualify it, to indicate varieties of indefiniteness. Cf., in Malay barai~ siapa "whoever" (b. meaning "xthing, stuff, wares, something"); siapa ~uga "id." (]. : " i n a way, all the same"); Sangir i saiewen, and many other IN. f.~,~ms; in the Dravidian Kfii va gives, in a comparable way, emphasis: ~(anything etc.) whatever" 75); and similarly, in Singhalese, in Khasi, and in many other languages. Not infrequently such combinations are only intelligible if we consider them as conditioned by the original indefinite character of the pronominal element contained in them. Thus the Lat. aliquis "somebody ~z) May we here recall ~hc frequent use of re after [va, £,,Oa and other local conjunctions in ancient Greek (see the article referred to in n. 63, part II), and the L a t i n ubi quisque (ibidem, part I I ) ? Ts) I t is m y intention before long to sketch the history of the particle ca in I n d o - I r a n i a u in a separate article, which probably will appear in the Annals of Oriental Research, University of Madras. - - Cf... in the Avesta, Y. 45, 5; special attention m a y be drawn to Y. 4,3, 16 where yas ... ~ i g ~ is followed b y a 'superlative' spSni~/6, reminding us of the Homeric construction: e 4 o~ Te xt~/To¢ ~az~ ~ m ~ o v ; ! 39 6 Te x. ~./~. F o r y a - see Lingua, IV, p. 9 ff. 74) See: H. Schuchardt, 'in the AnMecta Graeciensia, Grsz 1893, p 205; P. Kretschmer, in the Scritti in onore di A. Trombetti, Milan 1938, p. 46 ff. 7s) See J. E. Friend-Pereira, A g r a m m a r of the Kfii language, Calcutta 1909, p. 41.

26O (no matter who), irgend Jemand,--- em , the first component of which conveys the sense of "(an)other" ~6): t h ~ indefinite, with which we may compare the Gr. ~ m and m¢ ~ ~ "any other", can in its turn, be 'intensified' by alius: alight ali~id etc.; ct. also

T ~ h . A ~lya-k, B alye-k "&l~o¢ ~¢" ~); - - cf. ~ Lat. qu~vis "jeder beh'ebige" (vis "you wish, w a n t " ) ~ ) , qu[libet, and Umbr. ~s-her (her .from ~y-"velle") from the indef, relat, u:~e (Plaut. M. G. 388 loquere

qu~ris (or quid vis) ; Curc. 38 area quid lubeO ---; Lat. quisquam < quis a~d guam "irgendx~ie" ; the similar AInd. ka&id etc. which, perhaps, in the early texts might sometimes be translated" "s o r n e r y in some ~av (somewhat etc.)"" R.V. 1,37, 13; 87, 2; 173, l| ~). .~li~ Hahn so) seems to be fight in cor, cluding that the lines drawn ber~ween the different Latin indefinite l>ronoun~ i:u "1". . . . . . are not natural to the language in general; originally they must have been m e ~ by-forms of quis, not too highly s ~ ~ e d ; hence the ~t~nfusions' and 'interchanges' in popular speech ~ d in the literary languag~ oi later times s:). The reduplicated form, r e p r e ~ m e d by ,.,,-; o- is typical of indefinites s~) In a generalizing relative sense " ~ : ....ed the simple quis, which e.g. Plato. Mere. ~ : c o ~ d e ~ r e , s ~,aat ve W shade of meaning, besides, it is ~ m b u t i v e Piaut. Most. ~ i . t ~n, however, under the impression that 3[i~ H a . ~ i.s, too much h : d i n ~~. to believe that the exact outward sLm,~arity og r.he Italic .-~

~*~ T h e r e a d e r m a y . for t h e s a k e of b r e v i ~ ~ L a t e t v m W t b . ~, I, p. 30 f. ; E r n o u t - M e i l | e t , Dict. R e f i ~ t i e a s on t h e n u m e r a l s " ' o n e " a n d " ' t ~ e ~°. p~ ~', Cf.. P-..-dersea. Le ~ o u p e m e n t des d~M~ i ~ - ~ . ~ r ~ : d . : 1, ~, C o ~ n h a g e , n 1-~25, p. 26.

~ t ~ . ~ 86 f f ~ske

'W~d,e-Hofmann, p 2~$ ~ C~,nda. v:d

h

,- :~ .q~, a ~ v e . p, 25~, ff, F o r Critic ~ ~ e ~ = , ~ec : l , i v>a C f al~o G e r m o--~---;-~~' E=g, a=v,:~,: etc. " " ' ~ " " .... ~ 34 ~• - "¢~a~.::," ~" :a = h e gr. ar:d l ~ Am,er. Ph:.~. A~.. ~,4 { ,~,.a,,v,, .%,-~ .aL-w~. Ho~::::::::. L a t , Gr::~::m *. p, 4.~" : ~ " .} . . . ."...d. ., : ~ : z ~ e : ' a , ~'~u,eiqu,:s,~, . "g>e

~<~,<~N.

p

e~,

R

Met.h,aer, :g{d,~ a.,, D, ~ : ~ ff-

.~dt>

m

261 and Hittite forms can only mean that they already were part and parcel of the 'Ursprache'. It would ~ndeed be a curious coincidence - - Miss Hahn herself even calls it a riddle w that not only Hitt. kuig and Lat. quis, but also kuig kuid" quisquis, kuiga" quisque, kui~ki : quisquam, which correspond "with amazing closeness", should have remained unaltered in both branches of I.E. during m a n y centuries, whereas on the other hand the historical I.E. languages show a r a t h e r varied succession of pronominal forms and functions. There seems therefore to be reason for some reserve 83). Geminatiop b,::,ing a device of very wide distribution such forms as quisquis are, ,especially in 'pre-scientific' milieus part of the doubled word forms were t~,r their 'popular' character avoided in classic Latin apt to turn up independently. Cases like the Gr. z~ ze and the Lat. quisque which do not correspond in function 84) show that the outward identity of a sequence or word group not necessarily implies original identity in formation. So, while Delbriick's 85) attempt to trace quisquis to *ios k"is (cf. 6'az,¢) fails to consider the ancient relative function of *k"is, it would on the other hand be incautio~s to regard the indef. tel. use of quisquis ~ kuig kuig as belonging to Orig. I.E. An indef. rel. quisquis can also, and, it would appear to me, for the time being more prudently, be conceived a.~ l~aving sprung from a pre-existent relative quis, the more so as the same word in a non-reI, indef, sense may have exerted influence. It would, in my opinion, be a more satisfactory view to hold t h a t originally neither the addition of *k"e to the pronominal stem, nor its being geminated, nor other such modifications, were obligatory. If and whenever they occurred they imparted a special shade of meaning to the clause or word group. "Ihey could, mainly fo.r stylistical reasons, 'interchange' s,). That is to say" it must have been largely at the choice of the speaker to use any or none of these 'by-forms'. Traces of this 'free usage' are far from rare i~ early Latin tex~s" quis, though already regular after si, ne, nvm, is ~requently found s3) As to quisque" kui~a scholars disagree' see my paper on the particle *kUe • Mnemosyne, part II. s,) Cf. Mnemosyne, part II. For (Alnd. ka$ ca), Av. (igca see also Meillet, M~m. Soc. Ling. 10, p. 272, and above, p. 256. 85) Delbriick, Vergl. Syntax, III, p. 404. ,e) Cf. also such cases as 6¢ re 'instead of 6'¢rt(" Mnemosyne, N.S. vol. V I I .

o

262 without these words, quisque and quisquis are often interchangeable, quisquam is also used in affirmative sentences s,). These very fluctu-

ations seem to be an argument for the hypothesis. IV Returning now to the I.E. *kwe-/k=o-, *kui- in general it may be remembered that the' mere forms deriving from them u) can, as a rule, be used in an indefinite sense, but mainly in special constructions, to w~t broadly speaking, in negative and interrogative

sentences and in subordinate clauses" (relative clauses and clauses introduced by defimte conjunctions). In connection with a negative particle these stems are indefinite so).

and m~ kd- (kd- accem~ted/: e.g. ~V. 8, 32, 15 nd~r z ~ y # ~&i'n~.ms n/yant# "nobody" will check4 the rendering# of his" mighty helpS"; 7, 94, 8 m # l u ~ y # no s draru~# dh~rt~.hs prdt~a~s mdrtyasya 7 "the malice s of an (~my)= unfriendly ~ man ~ shalP not ~ falP upoa usV'; and, with the privative a-, such words as akuta.h "not from any quarter" beside ~uta.h? "from where, whence?"; in Avestan: Y. 31, 18 m~ t ~ig~ ¢~ ~,~ dragva20s mqOrq# ... g~gt~ v "none x, = of you~ shall listen v to the word# of the wicked man v'. Cf. also OChSI. nik~ kemuIe "nicht zu irgend jemand"; nik~to "nobody"; Gr. o&~¢, # ~ "nobody"; Toch. tomx wdrtan~l rods ke-kl~ a~sa~ ~ (wffrpont?~) "these t forests ~ (enjoyeds) by no s one v' ~0), and comparable phrases and constructions in Armenian, Anglo-Saxon and other languages ox). In clauses containing two forms of these stems at least one of e~) For particulars: Hahn, p. 31 ft.; V. Lundstr6m, in the Erano$, 1915, p. 203, etc. ~s) For particulars regarding the distribution of these forms, the corresponding differentir~tion of case.forms, etc. see, apart from the grammars a~xd handbooks of the individuM l~nguages, Delbrtick, Vergl. Syntax, I, p. 510 if., and Brugmttnn, GrundrissS II, 2, p. 350 ff. **) Cf. e.g. also Debrunner-Wackernagel, o.c., IXI, p. ~60 ff. ~o) Sieg und Siegling, Toch. Gramm., p. 188. ~x) See e.g. Meillet, Altarm. Elementarbuch, Heidelberg 1913, p. 63; E. Sievers, Angels~chsische Grammatik s, Halle 1898, p. 184; compare also H. Pedersen, Vergl. Grammatik der keltischen Sprachen, II, GOttingen, 1913, p. 212.

263 t:hem is indefinite in character 0~). GAy. 50, 1 kat ~ mfii ~ urvd 3 is~ 4 ~ahY ~5 avay hfie "q ueuel aide 6 mon ~ ~me 8 peut-elle a t t e n d r e 4 de personne 6 ?" (Duchesne-Gufllemin) ; Gr. r[~ ~o~e "who in the world ?, w h o e v e r ? " n ) ; Arist. PI. 498 r[~ 8v ~d~Oot ~oz' ~laeevov; ; ~roM~ ,re makes a question less definite than ~o[o¢ "of what k i n d ? " aloneH e r o d o t u s 3, 34 ~oMv gd ztva vo#l~ovat H~oaat cleat; BhagG. 2, 21 katham ... ka.m ghdtayati probably means "how can he cause a n y one to s l a y ? " ; cf. also Boehtlingk, Ind. Spr. 2 II (1872), 3512 nahi kasya priya.h ko va ... Fixed a n d as a rule inseparable groups of two f(,rms of these pronouns, like quisquis 94), ka~ cid, ~o,6~ zt~, are indefinil(:. So are those fob-ms which s t a n d in corre!a~ion with 'indefinites" ~oz~ iz~v ... d2;to~,; d gdv rt~ ... d2/to¢ 6~; and repeated correlative forms used in comp!em e n t a r y - a n t i t h e t i c a l clauses" Alnd. kati ... kali "some ... sorr!e"" n:or~/~v ... zeor~ ~ " a t one time ... at another ..."; zd/~/~, ~'~ ..., zd 6d • t ... ~). Cf., in Hungarian, ki a/elesdgdveI, ki a ldnydval := Fr. qui avec sa ]emme, qui avec sa /ille (" ki ? "who ?"; similarly, hol ? "where"" hol ... hol indef.) 96). Similarly, in phrases like rt za[ z, "such and such things", pop. Lat. quid et quid ~). In subordinate phrases we find" Lat. si q~is etc., Umbr. svepis, Osc. suae pis "si quis"; Goth. ;~,a- after ]abai "if (el)", ibai "if (#~)", ~'atei " t h a t " ; OChS1. a~te k~to g:ito ~:~eh, "si quis quid dixerit" ~:~s)0etc., and such cases as have already been c o m m e n t e d upon i.n a previous part of this article. Instances of an indefinite use of these stems under other ci~curn01) E x c e p t i n g the a b o v e - m e n t i o n e d "mehrzielige F r a g e n " , in which two • epaxate questions are asked in one clause by different forms of the pronominal stem(s). See also E. Kieckers, E[ist. Griech. Gramm., (1926), I I I , p. 85. 0s) F o r Sanskrit, see e.g. Monier Williams' Dict., s.v. 04) Cf. Av. Yt. 5, 101; Anc.Ind. k d n i k d n i cir. es) The weU-known Sanskrit idic, m k v a ... k v , , ... {vis.,,ma), serving to denote great inconsistenclv or discrepancy between two e atities or actions (e.g Kil. Megh. 5 k v a megh~.h s a r ~ d e t ~ r t h ~ h k v a " a cloud a n d the ~mports of messages are i n c o m p a t i b l e " ) , does not come under this head. ,0) CI. S. Simonyi, Die Ungaxische Sprache, Strassburg 1907, p. 256; J. B r u n o t , L a pens,~e et la langue, P a n s 1936, p. 130. 0~) I refer to E . L6fstedt, Philol. Komm. zur Peregr. Aetheriae ( 1~ 1 i ), p. 84. 0,) See also Delbriick, Verg]. Synt. I, p. 510 ff. ; Miklosich, o.c., I V, p. 86 f. ; Sieg u n d Siegling, o.c., p. 189.

264 stances are however not wanting. Av. Y. 39, 2 (Yt. 13, 154) urun6 kudb.zdtanqm~t nar~m~d nd~rin~m~d "the souls of the men and women wherever they are born". Indian cases are very rare, and partly dubious 99); t.he adj. kiy,,Ahd.h (R.V. 1, 61, 6; 12), which was explained in Sfiya.na's commentary by kiyato 'navadh.rtaparimdeasya balasya dhdtd, is often, and in all probability correctly, rendered by "was es auch sei schaffend" (Geldner) or other words to that effect. Beside kati "how ma.ny ?" we have the derivative katipaya- "some"; Lat. dixerit quis etc. ; Got. lvo lveilo "for some time; leitil tva "t~tuO&'Td';Luke 7, 40 skal bus lva qiban "~Zco ao[ zt dm~v" lo0); Lit. mdn ta~ k~s ~basi~k~ "mir hat das jemand gesagt"; OChS1. Mariner kto "Marinus quidam", cf. also Russ. gto nog[ "every night"; Dutch war "something". Greek, finally, is alone in using the simple indefinite.s freely in all types of sentences. This fact is closely connected with the absence, in this language, of combinations like aliquis, ka~ cid, etc., which in my opinion are, generally speaking, secondary in origin. The strict accentual opposition z/c" rt¢ etc. may also have played a r61e. It is not probable that the entire wealth of semantic nuances which can be expressed by the Greek zt¢ and its relatives reach back to a prehistoric period in which at least some branches of I.-E. were :~poken in contiguous territories. Nor can we know for certain whether the use of the indefinites in cases other than those specified (negative sentences etc.) has remained stationary since Greek had become independent. Yet it seems warranted to surmise that the Greek usage gives us a reliable idea of prehistoric conditions prevailing over a wider idea 101). The regular difference in accent between zt'¢ etc. and zt¢ etc. and the pronounced predilection of the former for standing at the beginning of a sentence - - a position which, as we have seen, may be varied mainly for the sake of emphasis ~ and of the latter for occupying the second place, or for accompanying the word to which it belongs, are in perfect harmony with ancient rules t0~). It seems to be a reasonable assumption that the widespread use of the indefinite *k ~- stems in o9) Cf. Debrunner-Wackernagel, o.c., III, p. 569. ioo) See also O. Behaghel, in Paul und Braune's Beitr~ige 42 (1917), p. 158. IoI) Cf. also Wackernagel, Kuhn's Zs. 29, p. 146. 1o2) I refer to Schwyzer-Debrunner, o.c., I, p. 388; E. Hermann, Probleme der Frage I, Nachr. GStt. Ges. d. Wiss., ph.-h. Kl. 1942, p. 244.

265 negatlv sentences, subordinate clauses etc. belonged to the period of the parent speech and that in other cases, where the short pro nominal forms were as a rule not supported by negative particle~. and conjunctions, or where they did not constitute part~ of more or less fixed groups or constructions, in which - - last but not least .... the interrogative value was seldom or never required a03)~ the longer forms ]had a chance not only to spread and to make part of th,~ language, but even to oust simple *k"e/o- *k"i- at an early stage. It should however be remembered that longer forms --- not i nfr~quentlv the same longer forms --- did not fail to make their appearance in connection with the *k~-pronouns also in the other cases" Ski. ~,a kak cam "nobody"" ka~ ca na " s o m e b o d y " ; ~za k~, ' p i ko 'pi ~o~). na kad,~cit "never"" kaddcit "~.~ometlmes " "; in Latln • ali,~uis appear: in negative sentences, after si etc. when it was emphasized, taking the place of quidam, quisquam etc. in the Romance languages; the form last mentioned was, in the classic period, used in negative sentence constructions. In these cases they likewise succeeded in supplanting the simple *k~-forms • ndkih and mdkih belong to \'edic, not: to ~Ihe classic language. Nay, in the negative sentence the phrase with the *k"-pronoun was often, at an ear]}, stage, ousted in its entirety and replaced by forms which, at !east in the beginning, were more expressive-instead of the early ~c,i~,is. ~zem~:, < *he homo and nullus < *he oinelos "not a sole person" in L a t i n instead of the ttomefic (and poetical) o~1:,¢ " o~3&,'~ ( < o-~3dd . e~ which as such is a stronger by-form in Attic); beside ni + h'as the more usual ,zi ainshun < ains "one" + hun which occurs after several indefinites ~0~), and ni manna "no m a n " ; cf. niemand in Dutch, nobody in English etc. a06). It is not accidental that the Gr. ot'~r,/t~izt: (and s t r e n g t h e n e d o.~rt,~y,; o~m/~i~, etc.) remained, as an adverbial phrase, in frequert use, that, in Sanskrit, cid survived as a particle, and that to forms •

'r e

ID

~q

~0a) It may be noticed t h a t orth,~tone form., sometimes conveyed an ~,. nite sense. Debrunne':-Wackernagel, ooc., III, p. 568 f.- Liddell and Scott. Gr.-Engl. Lex. (1948), II, p. 1797. 104) For particulars, Speyer, Sar.skrit Syntax, § 28i f. - in the I)ravidian k~i the addition of the particle v~ to the indef, pron. gives emphasis; it is always used in negative propositions. x0~) See: Feist, o.e., p. 275.

,0~) Ct!. my book " L a place de la particule ndg. na ..." Leyden 1951 p.

~ 2 f,; 5 8 f~[.

'

'

266

which had lost their negative sense, like the Ir. z~ch "aliquis, uUus, quisquam"'°v), the Lit. nek~s "something", the Russ. z~k/o"aliquis" 108) etc. a longer life was allotted. The very substitution of indefinites of the aliquid or q u i ~ m types by longer or reinforcing forms (Ft. que./que chose; Dutch it~uznd ()rig. "ever a man"; Eng. any-, somebody etc.) may on the other hand be made an argument in favour of the hypothesis t ~ t the forms which they had themselves replaced and from which they had been 'derived' were likewise indefinite in character. So the conclusion might be .... and it does not seem that we can, for the time being, penetrate the mystery of thes~ words any further lOO) ~ that the I.E. *k"-pronouns, like many comparable .,~,,,~,,,o ,., v ~ u e r la~ag~ages, express ea the idea of ~mspecified individuality; that - - questions having much in common with statements both in form and function, intonation being the principal means of conveying the character of the enunciation 1,0), and indefinite utterances as well as interrogations containing an unidentified term - - , the difference in accent may have bt.en, in the dim past, mainly a question of emphasis, comparable to such oppositions as ~ :~e etc. in Greek m). The *k~-pronouns had, or 'obtained', the/r special functions only in the syntactic surroundings ~ including position in the .sentence, s;entence modulation etc. - - in which they io~) See Pedersen, o.c., II, p. 213 f. 1~) See VondrAk, o.c., II, p. 345. 1~) See also WsA:kernagel, Vorl. tiber Syntax, II, p. 110 f.; EEermann, o.c., I~, p. 385. 1,o) Cf. also the observations made by A. H. Gardiner, The t:,eory of speech and language, Oxford 1932, p. 303 ff.; L. Bloomfield, Language, 1935, p. ! 14; 260; W. J. Entwistle, Aspects of language, London 1953, p. 175 f. ; Hermann, o.c., I, p. 128. 11,) See Schwyz~-Debrunn~:r, o.c., I, p. 388. - - Hindi ky~, Beng. ki etc.

introduce and characterize interrogations which do not differ from affirmative sentences except for their into~atioa. We cannot always be sure whether in written documents an apparently affirmative enunciatio~ was m~snt to express a questiun; in actual speech intonation would hawe left nc doubt. In Sanskrit, some m~ ( = Gr. ,u~) clauses were questions. See also F. Edgerton, Buddhist Hj, brid Sanskril:, I, Yale Univ. 1953, p. 202. --- The 'indef.' k ~ c i d "occasionally" (Dutch "soms") is identical with the particle of interrogation k. (marking a questio:~ to which the speaker hopes for an affirmati,te answer); it can also be tre.nslated by "I hope that".

267 ocom'ed m). That, in their interrogative function, they as a rule oco~pied the initial position is a consequence of the tendency to give that plv~ to the word which bears the chief interrogator 5, force m). The limkation of interrogative elements to definite syntactic positions is a we~-kno~ phenomenon n,). The indefinite forms, however, are rareb the first word in a sentence, and only seldom follow a pa.use. It may be observed that ~¢ occasionally appears at the beginning, meaning "~aY one" in in'terrogations like Aesch. Oh. 654 ~/; eS,~ov"is any one ~thin ?" V DCJ:UlC

IdIL~-~tz--UA5

Z,~ m,~..uoo

~.**~

.t ~ , o . L ,

v ~

taoc

u~

~lL~

x.x2,.

- rv

-~i

UILLJdiiS

it ~my be useful to enlarge upon .some comparable elements in other lang~zages. That the sig~ificance of words like the above indefixfites doe:; not differ much from that of terms for "man, human being" by whs:h they are not infrequently replaced is too common to need illustration m). Yet it is worth mentioning that words for "human m~) Pronouls axe specialized to general reference, and from the semantic point of ~iew very. vague. Their 'contents' co~s~,st of no more than elementary features of situations in which the utterances in which they occur are pronounc,~l. See e.g.O. Jespersen, Linguistica, Copenhagen 1933, p 329 ff. ; L. Hjelmslev, in the M61anges-Van Ginneken, Paris 1937, p. 51 ff. (~ith a bibliography); Z. Rysiewicz, in the Rocznik Orient. 17, Cracow 1953, p. 395 f.--. Cf. ~dao the various connotations expressed by e.g. the Eng. ever ("at any time" in neg., interr., or condit, sentences, etc.). m ) For Arabic man and ma see H. Reckendorf, Arabische Syntax, Heidoing 1921, p. 32 and 290. --- The IN. apa which gives a suggestion of indefiniteneH or interrogation, is, e.g. in Bare'e, a postpositive, "more or less enclitic" ~IAdriani, Bare'e Nederl. Wdb., Leyden 1928, p. 22) generalizing Pa~jicle:."or so, or the like about, p r e t t y nearly"; after a verbal form the MM. apadah means "in some degree" > "would (you) mind" or "can (you) do anything to ~.."; when used, in Javanese etc., as an interr, particle apa prec4~l~ 'the words for the facts, entities., circumstances etc. asked; the chsa~,p.cter Of the sentence is indicated by the intonation. It4) See e.g. Bloomfield, o.c., p. 260: and, in general, Hermann, o.c, p. 218; 363 If.; Schwyser°Deb.runner, o.c., II, p. 627 f. 11tt Fbr their being used in the sense of "nilus" ~ e.g. in Masai (Afr.)' liku "indef. pron.; (an)other; somebody else" ~ and the peculiarities of 'primitive" cultures which make these linguistic phenomena more intelligible

268 being" sometimes serve instead of our relative pronouns or conjunctions. In Bare'e (Cel.) p a i 1 da 2 n u p o k a p u r u 3 y a k u 4, t a u s m e a s i 26 ,h,k a t u w u ~ means" "please do x'~ take pity on 3 me 4, because 15 lead~a miserable 6 existence ~''" here tau (which in another context ,,ttlSt be translated by" "while (he, I etc.), etc.)" obviously is the w,ard for "individual", used as an opposition to y a k u " I " , the 'literal' translation being" " . . . on me, individual leading a ...". Whereas Bare'e has this idiom only in connection with living beings, other Celebes language~ (Bada', Leboni etc.) avail themselves of the word for " h u m a n being" also in other cases" Bad. p i n a t u w o '1 to °- m a n a r a 3 "animals 1 which ~ are domesticateda"; u p u 21 to 2 taita a "all things x which 2 we see 4'' Similarly, the Jav. woi~ "human being" and, in definite syntactic surroundings, "because, since" ~le). From these instances the relevance In this connection it may not be out of place briefly to discuss a widespread Indonesian word in order to illus.+rate the character of at least part of the elements which are usually dealt with under one or more of the several divisions of the chapter 'pronouns'. The IN. element n u or a n u xl~),which is often also considered to be a 'personal article', serves, for instance in Bare'e, not to determine a substantive. but to lay emphasis on it, to bring it to the fore" "what shall I ~;ive y o u ? " " mau I ja ~ n u 3 l o k # " i t might x even ~ be 1 bananas *''. " H o w should we kill this animal ?"'" "water (nu u~), therein it shall meet its death!" Often, however, the word is used as a sort of stopgap, for instance when the person speaking cannot immediately find the right word" "I should like to ask you for ... ~h, gambier (,... n u g a m b e ) " . In cognate languages th~ force of this word is often similar" Sund. n u 16tik "the small people, the humble" as contrasted with "the see m y 'Reflections on the numerals "one" and " t w o " ' . .... esp. p. 49 f f . Words for " h u m a n being" are, e.g. in IN. languages, in frequent use for "another". it.) I refer to Adriani, Spraal~kuu_~t. Bare'e, p. 358; C. Snouck Hurgronje, in the Tijdschrift Ind. Taal-, Land- en Volk. (Batavia), 37, p. 62 ( Verspreide Geschriften, V, Bonn-Leipsic 1925, p. 269 fro) In Achehnese the word for " t h i n g " (atra) can be used in a similar way. lt~) The reader might be referred to an article by the present author: 'Indonesische relativa', Bijdr. Taal-, Land-, en Volkenkunde 102, p. 501 ff., esp. p. 518 I. See also Lingua III, p. 50 f.

7

269

rich, the man of rank". A longer form, a n u , is described ~.~') as a sort of article, used to bring out or to enhance the i n d e p e n d e n t ch ~racter of a word. We should, perhaps, rather say that it serves to i~olate or to ~tdividualize. It con'esponds to various idioms in our languages" "yoo should not marry a hizy °-' ~ m a n i " : ... t u a m d ~ am~ z maloseZ; ,,th~ tree x which ~ (grows) on ~ the bank ~ of the river ~''" k a j u ~ a n u 2 ri a wi,wi a , a k o r o n y # .

in t h e s e case., it can be o m i t t e d . S o m e t i m e s t h e

force of a n u is t h a t of o u r " t o w i t " " n a k o n i ~ n u °- a s u a " h e h a s e a t e n it ~, to wit ~" the dog a~ . i n coses 4.~ ~te following a~zt, i~ o b l i g a t o r y a n u x mabuya °- sai~kafiP " w h i t e z (fabric) one piece z'' If, in 3Iori, t h e w o r d is placed before an a d j e c t i v e or a n u m e r a l it is, in our l a n g u a g e s , translated by a definite article" a n u x m o t a h a e " N N ~ b r o w n 2'' ~.e. " t h e ~ brown ~ one a''. It can also o c c u r so as to ' t a k e to,~ether t h e c ontent.~ of ....

1,~*;a~,o o l c i l l c ~ , "

[lgqcor

ll,~t]"

th;lt

{~ t ~

¢,n,t_r

it

~'nn

h,',]r~

to

{nrm

:an

included clause. B u t , Dr. E s s e r r e a d i l y a d m i t t e d , a n u is, in this function, more t h a n a r e l a t i v e p r o n o u n . W h e r e a s in the>e c o n s t r u c t i o n ~ the word or words p r e c e d e d b y a n u c o n t a i n a qualificati~m of the ~oand-so or s u c h - a n d - s u c h r e f e r r e d to b y this e l e m e n t , it is un,:i,:'r other circumstances used as a s u b s t i t u t e for a n a m e or w o r d w h i c h the speaker c a n n o t hit u p o n or which is, for rea.~on~ of t a b o o c,r decency, to be avoided. In this f u n c t i o n t h e el,~.-ment i~ w i d e l y ~ii tributed" Mal. s i - a n u 1 d i Z - k a m p u i ~ 3 ~,~z~ ":~o-and-so ~ at :~- s u c h - a n d sucMa placO" (si is the ' p e r s o n a l a r t i c l e . ' . A ~imiIar sense is exprt_ ". -~--~-~,.,: in phrases like t h e B a r e ' e a ~ u 1 ndoi~.o2ku a " s o m e t h i n g ~ b e l o n g i n g to my 3 wife 2'' (the possessive r e l a t i o n b e i n g i n d i c a t e d by t h e juxtt~po,dtioa of the n o u n s a n d b y t h e form of the secon~t n ~)ur,). " Tiic construction ik.u ~ n u 2 asu3 " t a i l ~ of a dog 3'' which o f t e n i:, clear,:,,'-, r,:ore emphatical, or also m o r e l o n g - w i n d e d t h a n ikz, a sz: ~ m a y therefore be a n a l y z e d a s follows" t a i l - i n - g e n e r a l something-(bt~!~mgingto) a (tog. This u~e led t h e a u t h o r of t h e ~rammar- , I)r. A~riani, to consider nu. a 'genitive p a r t i c l e ' ~20), a n d a noth~'r .,ct,,:,lar, H. K e r n ~e~), tO suppose its original s.cn.c" s ~ to h a v e b~tn,, ~ tt~a~ of "t.,o.,-cssion" x-'~"". t~s) lxg~ x2o) 1~!) a~2) to the

Adriani, S p r a a k k u n s t B a r e ' e - t a M , .~, 237. Esser, K l a n k - en v o r m l e e r ,,,an het 3h):risch, :i 207, Adriani, o.c., § 265. H. Kern, V e r s p r e i d e G e s c h r i f t e n , IV, T h e ~ | a g u c 1916 p. 2 7 0 S o m e t i m e s a n u , h e l p i n g to f o r m a c l a u s e the iogical rel~tti~n ~f w h i c h main clause is n o t e x p l i c i t l y exIre.~sed ~ ) " (see IAr~gua, I ' , , p. ,~~,.~ tt.~, ca~ !~c

27O Curiously enough the Tagalog an6, which must be the identical word, is an interrogati~'e pronoun: "what, what kind of", required when asking the name etc. of a person or thirg not known, and also in exclamations of the type : "what weaknessl" m). What now is the character of this word in Bare'e and cognate idioms ? It would appear to me that it can fairly well be described as a particle referring to a person, object, or entity describing or characterizing them as comparatively independent unities, that it is a means of exhibiting their relative definiteness (which implies. their relative indefiniteness). Without stating in explicit terms or naming specifically it denotes an entity as a separate unity, as something special of its kind or among the other entities of its category. As such it often isolates, emphasizes, d~termines, :individualizes, announces, includes, introduces, and specifi~s m). In any function it is the same word; it depends on the context and the construction of the sentence which equivalent must be 1,sed in translating. We should therefore be very cautious in distinguishing different "meanings" and in attempting to connect them genealogically. Words of this type are, for' our modern and Western 'linguistic feeling', vague and undefinable. In contradistinction to other words which may seem indispensable to us, such as defi.nite and indefinite articles, a relative proper etc., they have a wide distribution in the languages of Indonesia and adjacent islands and countries. VI In the theory advanced by Delbrfick 125) to explain the interrelations between the ancient I.E. interrogative, indefinite, and relative pronouns there is much that is still tenable and convincing. The socalled relative stem ~o-, whiclh is a well-known element in Indotranslated by our "whereas, while" or "although": "(why do you hold me in contempt), although I have many relatives ...": a n u I m a r i a * ia'~3ku 4, lit. "(being) somebody (who)J many* (are) my 4 relativesV'. 123) I refer to L. Bloomfield, Tagalog texts with grammatical analysis, II, Urbana 1917, § 131. 12,) The reader may for reasons of space be referred to the above publications; see also Adriani, B8re'e-Nederlandsch Woordenboek, Leyden 1928, p. 20. 1~) Delbrtick, Vergl. Syntax, III, p. 389 ff.

.....

271

I~, Greek, and Balto-Slavic, was in all probability also used in prehistoric Italian and other languages, but superseded by the s t ~ ,k'e./k'o-, *k'i-, which even in historical times continued to develop a relative function. Various hypotheses were proposed to e x p ~ t h ~ processes in detail. The opinion pronounced by Wegener and modified by Deecke and other scholars, according to whom the interrogative --- and interjectional - - use was primary (e.g. Ter. Ph. 947 argentum, quod habes, condonamus te < a. "" quod ? (viz. a.) " babes; cond~mus re) was tightly rejected by Brugmann, Delbriick, Hofmann and others i~). A more convincing solution ~a~v- proposed bv. Paet.zolt 1~), who held the sentence type Fest. p. 166 pect~niam qz, is nancilor, habeto to have arisen from" "erlangt jemand Geld ? dann soil er es haben" (cf..also Slav. sentences like the Russ. kto odoi~jet(t toter i prav(~ "who is stronger, has fight on his side") a2,). It must however be doubted, whether Hofmann was co~ect in considering this type of sentence to have always expressed a question. The origi~a! value of a construction of this form rather was" "erlangt jemand Geld dann soil er es haben". The former clause must as a rule have been conditional or otherwise (virtually) subordinate; the pronoun was indefinite ~ ) . Yet this construction was neither considered the only. nor even the main, source of the relative use of the *k"-pronouns. Since relative sentences containing th~:'~:: pronouns hack, in historical times, sprung from interroga'cive constructions and since these pronouns had, in Greek, Slawmic and ancient German languages, acquired a relative function, the inference was commonly made that m) See e.g.W. Deecke, Die griech, und lat. Nebenstitze ..., Progr. Buchsweiler 1887; Brugmann, Indog. Forsch. 4, p. 229 f f . W. Kroll, Glotta 3, p~ lff.; Hofmann, Lat. Gramm.S, p. 707. x~7) Paetzolt, Beitrlige zur hist. Syntax der lat. s p r IX,', Progr. Waldenburg 1875. tl,) CI. especially VondrAk, o.c., II, p. 480 ff., (as~ to Lith. see F. ]Kurschat~ Gramm. d. litauischen Spr., Halle 1876, § 1562 f.). ~191 Compare the views advanced by Delbrfick, o.c., p. 39@. Hofmann, o.c, P. 706 speaks of " p a r a t a k t i s c h e n FragesAtzen mit mdefinitem q u i s ~: ~ \ V e may also refer to Greek sentences like Arist. Thesm. 405 gdpv,L g6or] z,¢, et~#i,,d~,~¢ M),,,....; Dem. 18, 274 ti~u~E~ r ~ ~¢bv ~ dO~,//v ... ~trrd rot'~rov; c~. in Latin, Ter. Eun. 252 n e g a t q u i s , nego. See especially E. Kieckers. Zur Para~mxe im Sinne eines Kondizionalverh/iltnisses, Acta et commentationes Univ. Tartuensis, B 33, 5, D o r p a t 1936, p. 10 ff., and such Latin instances' as ar,a recorded by F. Neue, Formenlehre d. lat. Spr. (1875) II, p. 219.

272 the indirect or dependent interrogation had been the main factor contributing to the relative use of the 'interrogative pronoun' in pre' historic Latin and elsewhere x30)• The relevant processes w e r e h dd to be an 'einzelsprachliche Neuerung' in Armenian, Albanian, Greek, Germanic, Italic, Balto-Slavic. The discovery of Hittite forms deriving from the same stems, especially of kuig which conveys an indefinite, an interrogative, and a relative sense, led the Amerffan scholars Sturtevant and Hahn to re-open the discussion ~3~). It may be worth while to present the gist of their articles" The Hitt. k,,ti~, when relative, is, according to the former scholar, usually postpositive (the 'antecedent' forming part of the 'relative' clause), often doubled, frequently resumed by a demonstrative element; the relative clause tends to stand betore the main ClaUSe. t tlebc u x m ~ a . t . t , c t ~ a L . t , a a , , . . ,.,.,..,.,., " " " " 1 " " ' " t.o.,~y Latin and in the Oscan and Umbrian documents" Plaut. Trin. 137 ille q ui ma,zdavit, eum exturbasti ex aedibus. It may therefore be warranted to conclude that the 'relative' or 'connective' value of this stem was also Indo-European ~a..). :/'he subsequent investigations of Miss Hahn brought to light tha, a Hitt. subordinate relative clause can scarcely be distinguished from a coordinate indefinite clause" g_,\r C,-TE-MEb-va-)'dn , ~ ku-e an-da-an ha-at sa-ra-a da-a-i 'and the utensils which (are) therein, these he picks up" can also be translated "and some utensils ,are) therein; and these he picks up" A variety c)f features characterizing the indefinite type are found to be present in a large majority of examples of the relative type. '"

~a0) See - - to mention only these scholars - - ( B r u g m a n n , Grun~lr>~ ~-, II, 2, p. 348); I)elbriick. o.c., p. 391; F. Sommer, H a n d b u c h der lateinischen Laut- und Formenlehre, Heidelberg 1914, p. 47,5; L e u m a n n , Lat. G r a m m , i~. 288; Hofmann, ibid., p. 7C6" Ernout-Meillet, I)ict. 6 t y m a, p. 988 f ,a~) t-. H. 'Sturtevant, Relatives in Indo-F.uropean and t l i t t i t e , l.angua~,: .~Ionographs \ I I , Baltimore 1930, p. 141 ff.', E. A. t t a h n , The (Jri,,in~ ,)t the relative k a z - /ea,~-. Language 2 2 (1946), p. 68 ff. ]a2) t ca;ln,,t f,~ll,~w Sturtevant ill his I n d o - H i t t i t e t h e o r y . .... In [~,n-I t( languages the "xvant of relative pronouns is c o m p e n s a t e d " , inter alia, by usillg indef, or interr, pronoun:-,,, in correlation with d e m o n s t r a t i v e s , or by "splitting up" propositions i:'to indef, or interr, clauses a n d t h e i r sequels. - - t~ne might also compare H. Reckendorf, Die s y n t a k t i s c h e n Verh~iltnisse ~tes Arabischen, Leyden 189;!., t::. 604 ff.; J. R. S w a n t o n , H a i d a , in" ttandbo~k of American Indian Languages I, \Vashington 1911, p. 261, etc.

273 I would ask myself w h e t h e r scholars h a v e not gone too far in clinging to the t r a d i t i o n a l d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n the various p r o n o m i n a l categorie'~ which, t h o u g h t i g h t l y discerned in clas:.ical Latin and o t h e r languages, are by no means distinct co-existerat categories in any language. It would appear to me that we are not infrequently too much inclined to i n t e r p r e t pre- a n d protohistoric facts in the light of classic, and t r a d i t i o n a l schemes and terminology. Even in classic Latin the, pronouns u n d e r discussion are, as far as their outwar,t form~:; are concerned, kept a p a r t o n l y in the nora. sing. an,t in th~. acc. sin~. nelter. Miss H a h n is no d o u b t right in layin~ - t r , - - o n ~vntactic factors, ,',uch as the position of the pron~::,uns in t I ~ , . - , ~ , . n c e and their relations to o t h e r words. But other factor., ,:,r ,:,.i~van,-~ ~ (~.g mMulation, pauses in pronouncin~,~ t h e -,:~ntonc~:,, r,,r~~:,in, ~p, knc, w n to us. We sho_uld therefore be cautious in drawing c~r~.c!u.-:ion~ with regard to the I.E. period a n d .guard against the unwarrantabie~ assumptiion t h a t t h e then. c o n s t r u c t i o n s e~xactlv a~r,:t~,l with one c,f our modem sentence types.., or, rather, with one, ,~f Iht.-~'nte.nc t tvpt::., of traditional g r a m m a r . The 'indefinite'- .... or, as Miss H a h n prefers to call it, non-res~:rictivc --character of tlhe Hitt. 'relative' clause agrec.~ with the f~::t that in Oscan-Umbrian, where the forms of *k",.,- ar~, u~ed i~ r,:l. ciatx>~:~,, witt~ a 'definite' a n t e c e d e n t , those of *k~i - h~.~: ~,., form in, l~,init,: ~' r(.t. clauses. In Latin, too, q~is a p p e a r s in ~!~, i ~t(,r cas~~ ~.~3). of. 1..... X I i Tab. 1, 4 proletaric, Jam civi q~,is volet "~,i~dr:~ est,:,. \\'ithout going -,, far as to c o n t e n d that all L a t i n relatives come from indofinites w..: may suppose the ,'el. auis. etc. to represent a .t <:cializ,.,~!),- ~ : , ~:)f tia,, mdefimte. "['he t y p e of sentence Plaut. Amt)tl. 1009 t~aay rt'fl~.~ct a~l original" "I w a n t { d 'to meet a certain N . he was not on b¢.,ard >hi!," (Naucratem quem co,.l:ve.~zire ",.'olzti, i~ ~za-cz ,z~,z era~) of. tilt: (.;reek t2 5C:i a

4"

*

,

..... E 9 ~v ~b~ ~'Lg: . . . . ~ldo~,~¢ " t h e r e

ore(

wretcht,(l

.-tran~,,'r r~:,/tn~ .... "

wa., ... one::, ( u n n ~ n ~ , ' . )

In the oldest Greek t e x t s the 'general rclatix'c' i

1~'

,;,:rrt: ~.~a), i.~'

m) For p a r t i c u l a r s see: R. y o n P l a n t a , G r a m m a t i k d. o s k - u m b r . I)ialekte, II, S t r a s s b u r g I897, p. 424 f. ; Fr. N e u e - C . XVagener, F c r m e n l e h r e d lat. Spr.3, I I , , L e i p s i c 1905, p. 430; H o f f m a n , G r a m m . , p. 7@6; M e i l l e t - V e n dryes, G r a m m . c o m p a r 6 e =, p. 637; W. M. I.in~Isav, t h e L a t i n language, p 444 If.; A. E r n o u t , H i s t . F o r m e n l e h r e des Lat. a. } 14C ff 134) I refer to S c h w y z e r - D e b r u n n e r , o.c., II. p. 6 4 ~

274 the identical enclitic *k"i- preceded by *io-lu). Here the order of the elements 6¢ and 3u; is not only a matter of form, zta being enclitic, but it represents a special case of a phenomenon of wide occurrence, the so-called insertion of the antecedent in the relative phrase. This construction was, in short, chosen if the antecedent (or part of it) was essentially, not accidentally, determined by the contents of the 'relative' clause. Thus the subject of x 38 f. is not beloved to all men, or to men in general, but to those men of unspecified individuality (3,¢) who are the inhabitants of the towns to which the subject comes: o5¢6& ~ a , 9/20¢... ~rL~ [ ~r0O~,~o~¢, 6rtoS~ 3, ~,6~L~ ~a~ 7a'iav Ix~73at. Similarly, o 35 n:,p~e, ~5~3or 0600,, ~maO~, [ dOavdz'o~v ~'~ zl; ae Vo2daaet means "that particular (but unspecified) deity who is yonr protectol will send a fair breeze in your wake", not "one of : h e cteltles wziu t~ t~t~u~tuy uz ~tt~taucutauy zntercsr,~fl In

your well_

_

being ..."; cf. O 290 ... 3,; ... O, fiv "some one of the gods", and especially v 40 ~ #&2a vie ~9e8¢ tvSov, o~ ~Oav&, d ~ v ,'Xova~ "surely some god is within, one of those who hold broad heaven", where the relative clause could have been omitted. The words a 47 6¢ &'M2otzo Qt~o, likewiise refer to any other person characterized by doing such deeds, n~t to any other whomsoever, who as a matter of little importance, does them. Cf. e.g. also" B 687; T/r 285 ; 494;/~ 113 ; 124; 7 16; O 573 (de vwa¢ Igto Xo~?a¢) ; o 359; o 317. In cases like B 687 vie after 5'~ is the whole 'antecedent" ~ 667 de,roy ~~ o"; ztq 6~z~a¢ ot~aeTat "let him draw near who is to bear the cup". Hence also the phrase o ~u [:a'av 6art¢, e.g. Arist. Ran. 1217 o~u ~avtv ~ zt~ ~d~' dv~e t,3Oa,/~o-,t[ and such passages as Soph. Tr. 6 ~7~ ~t

~Tt~ov e~Zov, which may be supposed to reflect an original" "I *or one know that my life is unlucky, (I) a person (,to) characteri: o,! by the fact that I suffered most painful fear arising trom marriage". However striking the difference, between the Greek construction with, and its Latin counterpa:t without, *io- might be, the relative clause of the type represented by Plaut. Amph. 1009 came to fulfil the same function- like 6~t,~, which already in Herodotus and Sophocles was used to convey ,in individual force, i.e. instead of 6.¢-1as) For which see m y p a p e r in t h e L i n g u a , IV, p. 1 struction to be discussed esp. p. 22.

If.,

a n d for the con-

275 Hdt. I, '7 &m~o~o, A ~ ..., &~ 8,,o 6 ~{/,o~ A~&o~ ~ / 1 . ~ ... - - ~ ) , the Lat. quis very soon assumed a definite (restrictive) vMue also. The Hit~tite facts t~) seem to allow us to a~ssume a similar developn;ent. An intportant ~i:nt in the prehistory of the relativ,~, constru,.tion in Latin and other languages has remained unexplained: the way in which *",(0- (Gr. ~), Skt. ya- etc.) was replaced by the *k~-stems i~) and the: ~actors contributing to its early disappearance, or (more cautiously speaking) its absence, in so many I.E. lang~ages. In endeavouring to solve this problem the 'lautschwaches' character of the stem *io- and, as far as Latin is concerned, the early disappearance of the correlative stem *so- etc. may perhaps be a help. But the main determining cause in this process seems to ha~,e been constitul:ed by the very nature of the clauses introduced by these pronouns. Of all branches of Indo-European the Indian is practically alone in having [)reserved the *io-pronoun ~o the present day ~a~).This remarkais,) I refer to S c h w y z e r - D e b r u n n e r , o.c., II, p 643; E Hermann, Die Nebens~'tze in den griechischen Dialektinschriften, Leipsi~--Berlin 1912, p. 233. I cannot agree with Schwyzer-.Debrunner in interpreting 6; z,¢ ~ 43 by" "delr seiner Art nach, seinem X~'esen n a c h " ; the words (o~ ,ud) Z¢:v, 8¢ T/¢ Te O~.:r~v~ r ~ o g when given their 'original sense' may have meant" "Ze'as the-one-who (~) on his p a r t (or" in contradi~z4nction to o t h e r s ze) is tiae unspecifmd individual essentially chara,:teriz~ I k:,:;,being the highest o[ gods;". x3,) See H~Lhn, o.c., p. 81. lu) The conviction t h a t it has indeed belonged to p, ehlstonc Latin' e{c. was e.g. pronoune,~d b y Delbriick, Vergl. Synt. I I I . p. 404; Hahn, Am. Ph. Ass. 64, 37; Hirt, Indog. Gramm. V I I , p. i33. The correspondence between Gr. 6 "that, because" (Lnd Skt. yad, Av. y ~ ) and the Lat. quod, Goth. batei " t h a t " was with good reason made an a r g u m e n t by Sch~Tzer-Debrunner, o.c., I[, p. 648, n. 4. Cf. also, despite the diiflerence in meaning (see Wackernagel, Indog. Forscho 31, p. 267 f.; Schwyzer-Debrunner, o.c., I, p. 6t6, n 8!,, the Lat. quia " w h y (e.g. Verg. Aen. 5, 13); because" (see e.g Ernol.~t-Meillet, Dict. etym.*, p. 982); el. Gr. Booet~ Td " w h y " etc.) on the one hand, and the sporadic Gr. a in the sense of a on the other. ts,) I~t Sogdian the stem ya- has disappeared; its function was taken over by ka-t~a-, the ancient interr.-indef. {see E. Benveniste, Essai de grammaire sogdienne, II, ~ s 1929, p. 131). Cf. also the as a rule indef, neuter relative (')&v < *cam which had replaced th,~ ancient git. For Persian see H. Jensen, N e u p e r s ~ h e G r a m m a t i k , Heidelberg 193I, p. 91 If. Already in the classic period the Gr. representative of *k~i - could fulfil the function of ao~¢ when it was a generalizing relative, and, moreover, t h a t of a¢ (I refer to Hermann, o.c., p. 227; K i i h n e r - G e r t h , Ausf. Gramm. d. griech. Spr., Satzlehre, t

T"

"

"

~6 •ble fact would appear to me to be closely connected with the character of the Indian relative clause. Whereas in m a n y other languages the relative clause may be a concurrent idiom of p~ rtieiples and adjectives and a means of paraphrasing, Sanskrit only uses it to expres~ such attributes as are of importance to the understanding of the main clause" cf. e.g. BhagavadgR~ 10, 3 yo x m ~ m a a~am a an&lira., ca b vettie •.. [... sat ... sarvapa~ ai.hs pramucy ate° "wh°X knows6 MO, the unborn 3 and 5 beginningless 4 ... he v is freed ° from all evilsS"; 16 divy~ ~ hy 2 ~tmavibhutayat. ~a [ Y abhir4 ... lokan5 imP.ms e tvam.~ vy~pya 8 tis..thasi 8 "(Thy) divine x manifestations s, by which 4 pervading, these e

worlds s Thou 7 abidest (in them)'" x,0). In an 3, given Sanskrit text many instances can be noticed of participles or absolutives which in an English or Dutch translation must be rendered by a subordinate clause" ~nt...~" " i, ~"', i0; 39 etc. etc. That means that the original function of (*io- >) ya- ~ focussing the attention of the hearer on a word or word group of special interest ~,1) • is still recognizable. On the other hand, the indirect construction, including the indirect interrogation, although not wholly unknown in Sanskrit, is not idiomatic. The direct construction (papraccha 1. kas 8 tram a (iti 4) ,,4he asked x. 4 who 2 (are) youS?"), often characterized by iti is in all periods of Indo-Aryan largely preferred x42). It must even be noticed that the general impression we may obtain from the descriptions in grammars is not completely correct. The object of the words of saying, thinking, believing, etc. is often expressed by a clause introduced by yat (yath~, yata.h)x48). Kath,~sar. 3, 57 cint~ 1 me s putra8 yad 4 bh~ry~5 n ~ n u r ~ p ~ 7 tara 8 kvacit' "I am ~ grieved a, m y son s, that 4 you 8 have II, p. 517; Schwyzer-Debrunner, o.e., II, p. 644 (with a bibliography). Modern Greek tel. clauses are introduced by noO or 6 6noro¢. (For Celtic see Pedersen, Vergl. Gramm. II, p. 235 f.). ~,0) See also Speyer, Sanskrit Syntax, § 455; Ved. u. Sanskrit-~;yntax, § 271' "Das ind. Relativpronomen hat ... den Zweek ... durch Hervorhebung einer kennzeichnenden ... Thatsache den '~etreffenden Beztigsbegriff yon der gewtinschten Seite zu beleucnten " 14~) See Lingua, IV, p. I ff. x~) For particalars see' J. Bloeh, L'indo-aryen, Paris 1934, p. 313 ft.; Renou, Gramm. sanser., p. 512; Speyer, Veal. u. S. Syntax, § 288; Dh. Varma, La l~.ngue braj, Paris 1935, p. 129; E. Greaves, Hindi grammar, Allahabad 1933, p. 1.52 ff.; T. Grahame Bailey, Panjabi, Calcutta i912, p. 113. x,~) For Avestan see L. H. Gray, Contributions to Avestan Syntax, J. Am. Or. Soc. 22, 1, p. 168 ff.

277 wif# meet 7 for you v'. In these cases iti may even be retried t a ) As we have seen in a previous article 145), the conjunction yat .is in the first place a means of paraphrasing, especially when the fo~~ word or ~ords are an important element of the sentence. word or clause'introcluced by the conjunction are, in character, a direct quotation. The same construction is used after words of examining, knowing, in expressing a subordinate interrogation, etc." B.tr.Up. 6, 2, 2 vettha x yahe~nd'.n a pra]~.h 4 prayatyo 5 vipratipadyant# "do you know 1 how i people* here s on departing 5 separate in different directionsS~'' Although the sentence is interrogative the conjunction in itself does not bemr that force. Besides, verbs of knowing etc are often followed by inflected forms of ya-" e ~ R.V. 8, 92, t8 vidma hi yds te ... tvddatta.h "for we know which is the ... given by Thee" Similar observations may be made with regard to the 'relative-interrogative' cb¢-- B 3 peQpClQI¢, ... (o¢ 'Ax~277a i rtu/~aq "he v,a.s pondering how he might do honour to A."; Soph. O.C. 75 oI, O, go ~ r ' , do¢ vfi, ~ a~al~¢; "do you know, O stranger, how you will not go wrong ?" and to the use of d¢ etc. in 'il~direct clauses" Arist. Ach. 118 gy& o/~' ~¢ lo1:, tu). In a minority of .cases, which do not seem to reach back to the earliest period - - in Avestan ya- and its derivatives are usual--, Sanskrit has, in these clauses, an interrogative pronoun" Budhasv,~min, BK$1. 24, 28 dkhydtta x n i p u e a ~:n2 d.rs..tv,~3 kataro* rfipavdn 5 iti6 "have a good look (at them) 2' 3 (and) tell x who 4 is the betterlooking". Certain instanees of ka- instead of ya- under other circumstances are pra~ztically wanting" BhagG. l, 22 ratha.~.nt sthapaya z rod.., t1y,iva# etdn 5 nir~ks.# "ham ~ ... i kairS m a y ~9 sahal° yoddhavy amxi may, it is true, be translated- "halt 2 my s chariot ~ ... so that 4 17 may 0bserv# these s ..., with t0 whom s, 19 must fight n'', but the correct interpretation appears to be: "... I may espy these ... (and see)" with whom ... ? (>" with whom ...)" 147). -

-

m) I reJfer to Speyer, Sanskrit Syntax, § 494

m) Lingma, IX'. e,p. p. 15 If. 14t~ ,~e Sehwyzer-Debrunner, ooc., II, p. 630; 643. A number ot instances were collected by J. v a n Leeuwen, Arist. Acharnenses, Leyden :~01, p. 29 - - For the terminology used in connection with these clauses - - 'suoordinate interrogative clause' ('indirekter Fragesatz') is inaccurate - - see Delbriack, a.c., III, p. 300 ft.; 431 f. ; Altind. Syntax, p. 569. m) ..See F. Edgerton, The B h a g a v a d git~i, I, H a r v a r d 1944, p 7 and Nila-

Im~tha's commentary.

278

It may, in the third place, be remembered that in Sanskrit the whole inflection of the i1~terr, pronoun had come to be formed from ka-, excepting the anomalous n. acc. sg. n. kim (other representatives of *k"i- are the stereotyped ndkis, cid) lu); that, apart from the cases mentioned above, the simple indefinite pronoun does not normally occur; that the generalizing or indefinite relative ("quisquis, quicumque") has from the beginning a special iorm: ya- ka- ca, ya- ka- cit, ya- ya-, ya-

sa-

149).

So the conclusion must be that in Anc.Indian, and in the main also in Indo-lranian, the ya-clauses, the interrogative and the indefinite sentences were both in the form of their pronouns and in their particular character, kept clearly apart. If we may, on the strength of inferences to be drawn mainly from Greek and Slavonic, consider these features . f I I r ~ n t ~ Y Cn reflect_ in the main. ancient usaee, it doeq n,~ ~ to be hard to form a fairly true picture of prehistoric conditions: generally speaking, and not taking other constructions into account, the *~o-clauses were used to distinguish, isolate or emphasize part of the utterance lS°), the *k~-constmctions, if not 'indefinite', expressed direct interrogations. In those provinces of Indo-European where *io- was already in prehistoric times replaced by *k ~- the following developments, part of which can be paralleled and, hypothetically, elucidated by historical evolutions in other languages, may have taken place. The gradual loss of emphasis of the *~o-construction, the change in its original character, by which it carae to develop into a relative clause in the traditional sense of the term --- cf. e.g. instances like Xen. Anal). 1, 2, 7 ~tct~d3etao~~t~Taq dTQ[,a~ ~Q/z~, ~t2~tn/¢, ~ v o ~ ~b~evcr &td butov - - on the one hand, and an increasing tendency to subordinate mten,:Sadons and to give them an indirect character on the other, may have contributed to lessen the original difference between these constructions. After many verbs - - those of asking, knowing, thinking, believing, wondering, informing, mentioning etc. ~ both pronouns and their derivatives came into va.

.~aaba.

•

~,j

•

•

.

•

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

•

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ql~

-

•

~s&&

4e

~4,) For particulars concerning these innovations" Debrunner-Wacker-. nagel, o.c.0 Ill, p. 560 ft. 140) For particulars" Speyer, Sanskrit Syntax, § 287. For Avestan" H. Reichelt, Avestisches Elementa, buch, Heidelberg 1909, § 741; Caland, Syn.. tax d. Pron. (see above), p. 48 f. 160) For a more detailed description see Lingua IV, esp. p. 18.

279 use m otherwise similar sentence constructions. In ancient Greek and Slavonic they have entered into c o m p e t i t i o n - ~ we for instance find'? I85 ~ ~ o l 3 a ] ~ d v o J v , ot r' ~a&oOev 'Axat~ov ... "I do not know ~ h i n g of those, who of the A. were saved ..."; Soph. O.C. l l71 t~oth' .... 6~ taO' 6 ~ d l r r / ¢ " I know well who is the suppliant"; o ~ ' 6, .ol~rO' ~b¢ in tragic and comic writers beside e 373 o~~ ad,?a o/&t, ndOm ... "I know not surely from whence ...", Xen. Anab. 2, 5, 7 o ~ o~a, og~r' ~ d ~rolov ~iv ~6X~_,¢; 7tw~&r×o ~ 6~ o~ 363; of. /7 120; + ndzeQo~ E 85 15x); a 170 ~alrd2e~ov" i r[~ ~6~ev ~'~ &v(5o~v; 16z) It is however interesting to observe that after verba interrogandi G r e e k - - i n contradistinction to Indo-Iranian" t.~\'. I, 164, 34 5,a ~ ndbhih. 4 " I ask 1 where z (is)tile navel 4 pr.chdmi I ydtra 2 bhuvanas • of the worldS? '' x~s) _ . does not use forms of the *io-pronoun o 423 was, and whence she came". In exclamations both pronouns could in all probability have been used already in prehistoric times" ~ 441 r q m ~ , d~ &oo~ ~a~/rp, tj;~¢ "fool, how witl:.s~ is the heart you haw~!" and. A 552 KO~'&I, no'iov rdv ~f.0o~ ge~'~e;" son of Cronos, what a word hast thou said!" ..... in Mod.Gr. only the interrogative turn has been left ~ ) ~ ; similarly, in Slavonic, and in Sanskrit, where, however, the ka-construction, though rather rare, seems to have been preferred" PAn... 8, 1, 37 f., comm. yathd ~ :~cati ~ ~obhanam a "how ~ excdlent ~ (is) his coekingZ! '' (expressing admiration) and Bh.n~r. Ven.is. 1, 17 + kd ~ khalu ~ veLa~trabhavatydh ~ prdptdyd.h ~ "how ~ long a it 1 (is), indeed ~, since s her ladyship ~ was here'S! '' Besides, cases were no doubt not rare in which one meaning ol the 'governing term' usu~dly required the *~o- pronoun, another a k ~- prcnoun (cf., in Greek, m) It may be noticed t h a t a Greek equivalent of the I.Ir. yatara-"who {which) of two (rel,)" which would be used in a cause like thxs d o e s - - - a p a r t trorn the G~rt. ~ ~ (3ra cent. B.C.) which m a y reach back to the prehistoric period {bibliography" S c h w y z e r - D e b r u n n e r , o c , I p. 615) ..... practically not exist in Greek; kUotem/o - had an early and wide o c c u ~ e n c e AInd. katara-, 0sc. pfaerel.,(ptd), Got. hm~ar etc. {see W a l d e - P o k o r n y , Vgl. Wtb. I, p. :521) lt~t) There, are slight differences in meaning, for which see Ktihner-Gerth, o.c,, II, 2, p. 438 f. ls~) For Avestan, see Reichelt, o.c., p. 789. ~,t) More i n s t a n c e s - S e h w y z e r - D e b r u n n e r , o.c~ II, p. 626" f o r M o d , G r . A. Thumb, H a n d b u e h tier neugriech. Volkssprache ~, Strassburg 1910, p 171 f.

280 Soph. Tr. 589 6'on , t ~ott'i¢ "pay heed to what you do": ~ d o ~ OHG. giwar 'attentive, careful'), in which an interrogative implication was optional, or in which a shift of meaning of the governing verb entailed a non-interrogative value of the follo~dng *ku-construction.-._ Where, moreover,,the subordinate clauses came to be marked by characteristics of their own (especially by the use of a special mood of the verb) 15~), another factor arose which could contribute to a further assimilation of both sentence t y p e s . - It should, finally, be remembered that the popular predilection for interrogative constructions ~56) instead of variou., other choices and arrangements of words, as well as the abovementior~ed use of the 'indefinite' *k~-pronouns in a 'relative' function must h~ve exerted considerable influence upon the spread of the *k ~- constructions over new domains; and also that the necessity to use part of the case forms of the thematic stem in order to supplement the defective.paradigma of k~i - was always apt to further the spread of a particular function acquired by one of these stems to the other. That the cases of an originally indefinite *k~-pronoun of the type Plaut Amph. 1009 Naucratem quem convenire volui, in navi non erat :ame to be relative constructions can, I would venture to suppose, Le attributed to the relative force acquired by the *k~-pr0nouns in the above sentences. Such are the factors which may have led to a state of affairs such as exists in OChSlav., where in indirect interrogations "le choix est frdquemment libre entre la proposition interrogative indirecte et la proposition relative" x57), the former being more 'idiomatic' and tending to predominate. Particular circumstances such as the use of dart~ in Greek having already found ample comment in the works of my predecessors ~58), I omit any further discussion of this point 155) For a brief survey of the relevant points: Brugmann, Grundriss*, 1I, 3, p. 874 ff.; Meiilet-Vendryes, Gra am. compar6e, §§ 933 If. ; see also: Delbriick, o.c., III, p. 439 ff.; Schwyzer-Debrunner, o.c., II, p. 630; 642; Hofmann, Lat. Gramm. 5, p. 700 f. 15e) CI. e.g. Soph. El. 316 do~ v~v d~6vro~ [tr¢6Qet, rl trot ~pl2ov (or lar6Qe~" T/not 912ov? ?). For rig = a~: Schwyzer-Debrunner, o.c., II, p. 644. 157) A. VaiUant, Manuel du vieux slave I, Paris 1948, p. 342. I also refer to Miklosich, Vergl. Gramm., IV, p. 77; 86; 91; Vondrgk, o.c., II, p. 451 ff.. 480 ff.; 488 If.; 528 ff. ~58) See e.g. Schwyzer-Debrunner, o.c., II, p. 644; Meillet-Vendryes, o.c., p. 637.

281 VII Some remarks on the Indo-Iranian cid may al~o find ~t p ,~c~ here. According to Delbrtiek and other scholars ~9) AInd. cid is a 'hervorhebende Partikel', which, inter alia in connection with interrogative pronouns, also bears a generalizing force. Debrunner-Wackernagel, though correctly deriving it from *k~i -, likewise hold its primary sense to have been "sogar, jedenfalls" ~6o). The identical Osc. pid wa: called an indefinite particle by Vol~ Planta, Walde-Hofmann, and Buck, who s;ays" "... it stands in the same relation to Lat. -que as Skt. -cid to-ca, both of these being used as generalizing particles though in different combinations" ~6~, As no other attempt to reconstruct the semantic development of th~s word seems to hay,., been made, I woultd suggest considering passages like the following to give an idea of its original use" 1°. AV. 5, 11 6 end ~ pardh ~ durnd.~am s cid 4 arvdk~ where nothing but the c o m m o n opinion that cid is a 'particle' would prevent us from regarding it as a regular neuter = Gr. r~" WhitneyLanman accordingly t r a n s l a t e " b e y o n d that I 2 (is) something ~ hard to get at 3 fi:om this sideS"; similarly, R V. i, 24, 9 (cf. AV. 0. 97, 2 7, 42, 1} k.r~d~B.1 cid 2 dnah 3 prd ~ m u m u g d h y 5 asmd/6, where the translati0n given b~¢ the same scholars ("put away ~ 5 from us ° any 2 conimitted ~ sin 3'') must, to my mind, be decide~ii,~ ~r~ferred to Geldner'"auch die getane Siinde n i m m yon u n s " ' ici., in Greek, e.g. Soph. Ant. 252 &r~t~o~ o¢~o~,d7;77~ ~,~ ~v "the offender, wh ~ e ~"~ ( he mav. be, was unnoticed"); R.V. 1, 49, 3; !24, t2; the phras,:, d~?rd ci.'. (AV. 4, 28, "~" .,., cf. 3, 3, 2) m a y with X~,~itney-Lanman be rendered b 5.... whatever is afar"; AV. 4, 21, 6 ( = R V. 6, 28, 6) med~:~va/l:~7 k r i d m c / m a y mean "tatten whate,~'er is lean" ~ ) ; passages like RV. 3, 32, 16 vdd x IP

,

. .

•

•

-

•

"

lb,) Delbr/ack, Altindische Syntax. p 478 Cf also Petrograd l)lct. 1. 1025 I.; Bartholomae, Altiran. Wtb., 588 ff.; Speyer, Ved u. Sanskrit-Syntax, p. 69; G:rassmann, W 6 r t e r b u c h zum Rig-veda, 454 f. !~t Debrunner-Waekernagel, o.c., III, p. 559: see also Renou. G r a m m ,te la langue v6¢tique, p. 376: Pokorny, !ndogerm e t y m \Vtb., p. 646. 101) Von Planta, Gramm. d. osk,-umbr. Dial. II, p. I6I f.; Walde-Hofmann, o,c., l[I, p. 410; Br,ck, G r a m m a r of Oscan and Umbrian, p. 147. Compare also the A,Inc. particle id (see e.g. Grassmann. Wtirterbuch zum Rig-veda, 205 f.) 1,,) The n,euter implying, or vaguoIy denoting, living beings, as ~, ~n Horn h, Aphr. 34.

282 ... d.rd.hdm. ~ cid a drujo 4 gdvyam 5 ¢trvdm 6 may,

at least originally, have

mea:at" "when x Thou brokest open 4 the byre 5'6, however a solid~ it was" (i.e. "solid in any degree" ass)); in this ease and 4, 3, 14 jahP rdkso ~ mdhi a c i # v~v.rdh~ndm 5 "kill 1 the demon ~ howeve# vastlyS he has irereased v ' > "... auch wenn er miiehtig erstarkt ist" (Geldner) the well-known 'concessive' value of the word may have detached itself from the context in which it was implied; AV. 7, 16, 1; 2 °. R.V. 1, 30, 4 vdcas x tdc ~ cins n # ohas# where cid may have been a neuter pronoun, expressing a nuance of humble reserve" "Thou observest 5 this z word x of ours 5 whatever it is (worth) v' we might compare such Greek instances as Xen. Oec. 7, 39 ~ yd~ i#O 9 v 2 a ~ ... ~,,~la ~ ~v oIpa~ 9a[vo~o and the extenuating function of the I.at. quidam I~) time (< of any length, however long it may be)". It may further be remembered that the acc. n. of pronominal stems, in a variety of constructions, tended to assume adverbial v a l u e Gr. ,l "how ? why ? wherefore ?"; Skt. tat "therefore" ~ and, under certain circumstances replaced another case" Gr. Xen. Anab. 1, 3, 4 e[ :t ~do~zo as against O~oktat ;tdyov 165). The Gr. ,t came to convey such meanings as "in any degree, at all, in part". A n interpretation "in al~y (some) respect, anyhow" seems plausible in passages like I~,V. 1, 32, 8; 84, 9 yd# cid "who in any respect" > "whoever" (AV. 18, 2 15); R.V. 1:. 25, 1 ydc x cid ~ dhl s t # ... varun, a ~ vratdm ~ I min~mtisi ~ d ,dvi-dyavi s ... "iP we in any respect s transgress v, O Varun.a a, Thine o dinances~ every day s ..."; AV. 7, 18, 2. Hence the 'indefinite' value o phrases like yathd cit .RV. 5, 79, I; 56, 2 (where cid could have been an accus.); yadi cit AV. 5, 2, 4; anydm ... kd.m cit AV. 6, 20, 1 etc. In their translation of the Atharvaveda Whitney and Lanman frequently suggest taking the adverbial cit for a substitute of a pro,6a) One might compare, the 'emphasizing' force of v~ T~ in Greek: x 45 6aao¢ v~¢ xQva6¢ "what store of gold" ; Thuc. 8, 3 avQaz~ r~v~ " w i t h considerable forces"; F 220 q~al~¢ ~ ~d~oT6v T~ ~Lv" tl#~v~a~ " y o u would have deemed him a, I cannot say precisely how ( > a very), churlish m a n " (Kiihner-Gerth, L tit (and 3, 39, 8 adverbial): o.c., II, 1, p. 663 f . ) . - .R.V. l, 18 5, 9 bhuri the adverbial no26 ~ "mdch". ~64) I also refer to Schwyzer-Debrunner, o.c., II, p. 215. ~eb) I must, foz ~easons of space, refer to K i i h n e r - G e r t h , o.c., II, 1, p. 309 f. ; Schwyzer-Debrunner, o.c., II, p. 77; Reichelt, Awest. L ~ m e n t a r b u c h , p. 231; Renou, Gramm. sanscrite, p. 156, etc.

283 n0rnma " I case form; almost always this interpretaticr suits the context some 2 crooked i remarkably well x~) • 4, 6, 4 "(he hurled at you) frr .n 3 ~ bo'~"" vakr&X c i # ~ h i s dhdnvana.h4; 21, 5 icc! ~mi ~ h.rdd 2 mdnasd3 d # indram5 "with w h a t e v e # heart 2 (and) mi-=l 3 I seek a IndraV'; 5, 27, 4 eili~ ... g k r t # cid ~ "he comes x ... unto :arious ~ ghees~-"; 6, 3, 3; 7, 14, ,4 pdri/m~ cid ... " a n y wanderer ..." 92, 1; cf. also 9, 9, 7; 10,23; 14, 2, 47; and !8, 2, 14; 16; 17 t~m~ it ~ ) . A perusal of the relevant Ancient I r a n i : n passages gives us zhe same impression. As to O.Pers. x,,), Dar. Be~. a 14 yaOd ~ paruvam~(iy ~ avaOd~ "as formerly ~, however it was n, t ms"; 58 aniya.~iy' 'other whatever'", in etymologicaHy 'literal' tra ,~slations which must, of course, be checked in translating an~). Xer. Pers. a 20 the particle ensemble" (Meillet-Benveniste)" " m y kingdom and what I have achieved and what my father has achieved, tt~at, whatever it be (which may come to "tout cela", M.-B." avai~iy~ must be protected by Ahuramazd~i". The particle k~, being an ar,cient instr, sg. (< *k"() has a similar value" Dar..Beh. a 65 tuvam k i "you (whoever you may l~z)". It corresponds to the Gr. ~o~ "at all, ew~r"; of. also Geth. h'e '".Nenawlc " ' ~' 171) . _ _ _ . The Av. ~itin the 'empbati, ~e.nse of "even, also, t,) To a certain e x t e n t the s y n t a c t i c e q u i v a l e n c e cf tatra and o t h e r a d v e r b s "~th s limited n u m b e r of case f o r m s (tatya van,,, tat~a, gacchata) might be cornpared. t,) I also refer to G r a s s m a n n , o.c., 455, 4. m) Whe:re cid > giy. See also A. M e i l l e t - E . Benveniste, G r a m m a i r e du vieux-perse s, Paris 1931, p. 1 9 4 f . ; W. Hinz, .Mtpersischer W o r t s c h a t z , Leipsic 194.2, p. 82. tH) This phrase, w h i c h is f r e q u e n t in 2~,v e s t a n (cf. e.g. Y t ! 9, 87 ; Vend 18, 73; Yt. 15, 54; Vend. 18, 32), a n d which is r e p r e s e n t e d in A n c . I n d . by anya..~a-c,it and similar c o m b i n a t i o n s , no d o u b t had a wide d i s t r i b u t i o n among the anci~aiLts. I t referred to a c o m p l e m e n t a r 3' e n t i t y (or to c. entities) of unspecified individuMity. Cf. also t h e Gr. p h r a s e 8Ll.o zL " a n y t h i n g else" which is used in interrog, sentence,s" H d t . 2, 14 8JS~o r~ { ... m,~+,~ovm; "will they not be, s t a r v e d a' ; Plato, G,rg. 49Sc c70~ ~ ot~ . F.~/e;, d~d not you say ?" The Lat. alifqui " i n a n o t h e r respect, o t h e r w i s e " r e p r e s e n t s an abl. of a/~us quis; cf. Lg. Hor. Sat. 1, 4, 4 sicar~us a ut aIioqui /amos**s (a: alia qua re}. For alius quis: P l a u t . Most. 1355. tT0) Bartholomae, Altiran. W t b . 589. m) Cf. also Lat. qua: P l a u t , Pseud. 160 hum qui mznus ... " J o e s (that make me) a n y less ... ?"; Trin. 120 si qui p~obiorem /acere posses; Asm. 557 edepol vi~'tutes qui tuas non possis co nclaudare sic ,,t ego possim.

284

further(more)" (cf. e.g. Yr. 10, 109f.; 13, 146f.; 14, 33; 46; 16, 10) may also be explained from the indefinite value "in any way, anyway, anyhow". The particle often accompanies the last member of a series or a rather vague term" cf. Yt. 10, 84 "whom the chief of the village invokes for help, whom the lord of the house ..., whom a poor man (refugee), not definitely indicated and under circumstances not described specifically (driyaJ~i~) ..."; it al,~o appears in connection with words for "all", "whence", "as, like" etc. which are oftev accompanied by indefinite pronouns or particles. - - The repeated ~it ... ~it, like the corresponding Vedic cid ... cid, has often been considered an equivalent of our "not only ... but also (cure ... turn)" t72). I would however prefer to interpret passages like R.V. 6, 28, 6 in the above manner' medayath~ 1 kr~d.m ~ cid 3 akr~rd.m 4 cit 5 krn. uthd 6 suprdt~kam 7 "fatten x whatever a is lean~; make 6 of good aspect 7 whatever ~ does not look prosperous 4'' - - c f . also instances like AV. I8, 3, 2 3 - - ; similarly R.V. 2, 38, 2 f. (a succession of 5 cid's, emphasizing that the god's performances do not admit of a detailed description, that they make their presence felt under any circumstance); Av. Yr. 10, 137 ; 39 f. xTs). This unequivocally 'indefinite' use of these stereotyped case form., shows that this force belonged to simple *k"i- and k"o- in early times. So the conclusion seems te be that the various indefinite nuances of ka~ cid ~ cf. e.g.R.V. 1, 37, 13 ~.rt~dti1 kd~ 2 cid 3 es.dm* "manch emer 2, 8 h6rtl sie 4,, (Geldner); 1, 116, 3 t~tgro x ha 2 bhu~y~m s akvinMd a m e g h # rayi.rn 6 mi 7 kd~ 8 cin 9 m a m r v ~ TM d~dh~l.z u "T. 1 hatte den Bh. 3 in der Wassermasse 5 zurfickgelassen n, ihr Agvin 4, wie ~ irgend 8' 9 ein Verstorbener *° sein. Verm6gen 8'' - - may be explained from an originally indefinite ka-, modified by cid. The phrase ya-ka-cid may be considered to represent this ka- cid preceded by ya-" ~atBr. 14, 6, 7, 5 y6 a vd 2 idd.m a kd.~4 c i # br~ydt e "anyonO' 4. 5 might say* this a'' , Manu 8, 69 anubkdv~ x tu 2 ya.ha ka~ 4 cit 5 kurydt ~ sdks, y a m 7 "any person whatsoever.~, 4, 5 who is an eye-witness 1 may give* evidence 7'', where it is an emphatic generalizing indefinite; Manu 2, 7 ya.hI ka~ ~ ci# ... dharmo* m a n u m i 5 parik[rtita.h ~ I sat samoa 'bhihito* vede x° " w h a t e v e r " ~' ~ ~*) Cf. Petrograd Dict. II, 1026; Bartholomae, o.c., 590; Renou, G r a m m v6dique, p. 376. Otherwise' Grassmann, o.c., 4 ~ . ~a) This is not to contend that the 'meaning' of the particle has remained unaltered.

285

law*has been ordained 6 by Manu 5, thaff has been completely 8 explained * in the Veda 1°'', where it is a 'relative'. Some words remain to be said on the confused account given by Hirt ~u). Starting from the unproved assumption that the *k"e- stem originally was interrogative he tries to show that it previously was deictic-anaphoric in character. His a r g u m e n t s , the s l p p o s e d l y original unity of *kue - and the particle *k'~e ~5), and the so-called 'relative AnschluB' by means of qui in Latin (cf. e.g. Plaul. Rud. 431):~Te), fail to convince me" the identity mentioned first is, it i~ true, a s s u m e d by many scholars, but must be considere(| dubiolli, ' a n y h o w *k~e was not 'deictic' in the sense of the term a d o p t e d by H i r t the 'relative Anschlul3' mav be considered a swcial d e v e t c m m o n t c~f n ~.t.'icto-e.nron,--t type of 'relative' construction. To Hirt's subsequent e x p a t i a t i o n s upon the supposed group or ' c o m p o u n d relative' *"!osR:'e ' I must likewise object. It is true t h a t in Greek "re often follows 6; but it cannot be maintained that d'¢ re is a fixed phrase, the second e!emen~ of which is a strengthening particle, or that it is a group without a special meaning~"). The combination ,5.z zL,_- may not be put on a par with o,, re, and cannot be made an argu.r.~nt for vindicating tl~ existence of a fixed group *iosk~e in (~Ti~:. I.E., for which the supposed parallelism between 8~ re, qz~isq,e~ ~:~.~: ka¢ ca cannot be a piece of evidence either. That quisque should have replaced thi~ *iosk~e is a merely a r b i t r a r y assumption. Since *iosk~'e is entirely in the air, it would be superfluous to raise, obje~:~ions to Hirt's using the inflections of d;¢ re, 6k r~¢ and similar phra.,e, as an a r g u m e n t f,,r his thesis that in some language the former, ,,l~e,vhero the latter part of it, or of it~ "riffler form" *iosk~is, was lo,,t. Ut~eckt

~7,) Iqirt, I n d o g e r m Gramm., VII, p 133 ff. mt See Mnemosyne, N.S. v,fi. VII, p 1S1. 1~6) See Lingua I\', p 23. 177) See Mnemosyne, vol. VII, p. 2@2. ff.

.]. G o', D.~