- Email: [email protected]
The Latin thematic genitive singular
Ltngua 30 (1972) 72-I00, © No~,ttJ-Holla~d Publssktng Compa~ 2
REVIEWS-
COMPTES-RENDUS
A n d r e w M a c K a y DEViatE, The Latin thematw gemt,ve s,ngutav. P u b h s h e d for Stanford U m v e r s i t y C o m m i t t e e on L i n g m s t its, p r i n t e d by W l l h a m Clowes a n d Sons Ltd., L o n d o n 1970 Available from Blackwells, Oxford. vi, 128 pp. In the first section ot this book (1-63) t h e a u t h o r assembles a n d discusses the evidence for this casc-morph m republican Latin togother with comparable d a t a from Faliscan, Oscan, Umbrian, Mess~plc, Venetic anc. Lepontic. The actual relevance of SOlXleof this materlal is rightly called in question for example the Venetic forms Volgtge~e,, Urkl, etc., of whlch 'none are certainly gen. a n d m a n y are c e r t a i n l y n o t gen. (55), a n d Messapic daz~m~,h~ beil~hL kazam~h, etc.. where b o t h t h e analysm of t h e s t e m - t y p e s a n d the precise phonological r d a t i o n , If any, to t h e L a t i n form (-,h, < or > i'?) pose serious problems (45-,53) In a field where fanciful speculation has often reigned u n c h e c k e d D e w n e ' s sceptical a p p r o a c h is welcome B u t it is surprising to find here no dmcusslon of the m u c h more p a t e n t l y related Celtic d a t a - G a u h s h Segomari, O. Irish (Ogamic) M A Q I etc. - which are of great i m p o r t a n c e for placing the ~-gemtive in t e r m s of P I E reconstruction. T h e second section (64-84) consists of an historical survey of research in t h e subject from B o p p onwards T h e criticisms m a d e by t h e a u t h o r are often acute a n d H l u m m a t i n g in m a t t e r s of detail, b u t t h e r e is an u n f o r t u n a t e reluctance to push t h e m very far, to disc~ammate categorically between wh~tt is reasonable a n d w h a t is d o w n r i g h t absurd, between the r e m o t e l y possible a n d t h e highly probabIe S o m e t i m e s a t h e o r y t h a t seemq to h a v e been refuted in one place bobs u p again later to be t r e a t e d quite seriously, as if the a u t h o r l a c k e d confidence in his own a r g u m e n t s More d i s t u r b i n g : the historical catalog, e ,alsonn~e, for all its thoroughness, lacks any 72
REV][EWS
-- C O M P T E $ - R E N D U S
7~
real shape or direction This kind of exercise m o n l y j u s t d l e d if the a u t h o r is able t h e r e b y t o e x p o s e d e v e l o p i n g lines of p r o b a b i l i t y , w h m h he t h e n t a k e s f u r t h e r into t h e f o r m u l a t i o n of his own s o l u t i o n t o t h e probler~:; or alternatively if, h a v i n g syst emat~cally d e m o h s h e d all p r e v i o u s h y p o t h e s e s , he goes on to e x p l o r e t h e pomtive i m p h c a t m n s of his d e s t r u c t i v e a r g u m e n t s a n d erect a n e w hypothes~s o u t of t h e d6brm D e v i n e d o e s n e i t h e r of these I n t h e final seclion (85--! 1 t) all we are offered is a d e t a i l e d dascussion of t h e four m m n theories - d e r i v a t i o n of -i from a locative -el or a g e m t i v e -*osio, connectaon with t h e Skt feminine t y p e devl or t h e c o m p o m t l v e mithun~(-tef-) etc T h e r e is a lot of t i r e s o m e repeUtion from a n d cross-reference to the preceding section T h e devt t h e o r y as a d j u d g e d t h e least I m p r o b a b l e (11 I), b u t there is w r t u a l l y n o t h i n g new here T h e iml3osmg m o u n t a i n of erudlt~on has l a b o u r e d m y a m , o n l y a f e w b a t t e r e d old mice we h a v e k n o w n for y e a r s e m e r g e at t h e e n d of at all T h e r e are t h r e e a p p e n d i c e s (112-28), comprasmg an inconclusive d i s c u ~ m n of t h e n o t o r m u s F a h s c a n inscription ecoq~lon etc {Vetter 242b), a convincing r e f u t a t i o n of t h e view t h a t P r a e n e s t m e Vetus~a is a possessive a d j e c t i v e a n d an m t e r p r e t a t m n of P r a e n e s t m e Tase~o as a d e r i v a t i o n a l a d j e c t i v e Irom a h y p e r - D o n z e d form of G k TheseUs W e t u r n n o w t o an e x a m m a t x o n of the m a r e theories, a d d i n g one to D e v i n e ' s short-list of four. (i) F o r t h e d e r i v a t i o n f r o m loe, -ez t w o i n s t a n c e s of a s y n c r e t i s m of l o c a t i v e a n d genitive h a v e o f t e n b e e n alleged in ~upport, a n d b o t h of t h e m are a p p a r e n t l y t a k e n seriously b y D e v i n e (e g. 86) n a m e l y t h e a n a l y m s of O s c a n - U m b r l a n gen -*ezs as loc -*e~ + s, w l n c h ~s n o t s y n c r e t i s m at alI, a n d t h e T h e s s M m n G r e e k use of -oz as locative, d a t i v e a n d g e n i t i v e , cp p G k -*of, -*~, -*oszo respectaveiy. T h e f o r m e r d e v e l o p m e n t is h a r d t o m o t i v a t e e x c e p t on t h e m o d e l of cons s t e m . ~ I E D [ t f E I ( d a t i v e I) M E D [ K E [ S (I o t e only Oscan forms, bu~ t h e s a m e a r g u m e n t holds for U m b n a n ) . B u t m fact M E D I K E I S is itself m o s t likely d e r i v e d b y a n a l o g y f r o m t h e ~-stem gen aegis, w l u c h reflects P I E -*era in s u f l i x - a c c e n t e d z-stems. c o n t r a s t e d w i t h -*ios m r o o t - a c c e n t e d nouns, ef, S k t .uz~h, dvya.h W e k n o w t h a t s y n c o p e in L a t i n l - s t e m n o m i n a t i v e s (e g * m ~ t z s > ~twns b e s i d e eons. s t e m dens) ~vas o n e of t h e f a c t o r s t h a t led t o t h e g e n e r a h z a t i o n of c a s e - m o r p h s b e t w e e n t h e c o n s o n a n t a n d ~-stem p a r a d i g m s . So too, we m a y r e a s o n a b l y c o n j e c t u r e , in Oscan a n d
74
REVIEWS
- -
GOMPTES-RENDISS
Umbrtan, where the-,mttc nom sg was also generally affected, e.g. Osc H O R Z = Lat horfus, U m b r I K U V I N S = Lat lguui~us Hence -e,s spread from aete~s to tanginets to S A K A R A K L E I S and conversely-ore (acc.) and .Od) (abl. ~rom H(TRTOM, SA K A R A KL OD to tanglnom, T A N G I N O D A~ for Thessahan, the earhest d a t a from the different localities can be summarized t h u s Lanssa, Krannon" gen -o~o,-oz, dat -~ Pherai. gen, -or, dat. -8 Phalanna f e n ~,, dat -0 (later sometimes -o,) Skotussa. gen -o,; dat. -oz Thetonion. gen. -~; dat. -ai (the length ts uncertam) Kiermn" gen -.g (later, perhaps only in Latin names, -or). dat, -(~ (later-or) Pharsalos: gen. -5, dat -@ As m other Greek dtalects, there ts no reason to think t h a t the locative dative distraction was a feature ot the living paradigm system, so we should talk of a genitive-dative t a t h e r t h a n genitivelocative syncretism here. But it is of very restricted occurrence At Kierion a n d P h a l a n n a it is only partial a n y w a y , and in the former the influence of Lat -~ is v e r y plaumble, in the latter infiltration of the dative form from n e a r b y Skotussa and Thetonion equally so. Only at Skotussa is the syncretism unquestionably indigenous. All the v a r i a n t s can be comprised within a specifically Thessalian dlac h r o n y p Gk gen. -*osio > o~o > either -oi (the only development unparalleled among the Greek dialects) or -%0 > 4 ; pGk d a t - ' 6 i > -~, > either -0~ 0dentieal with the inherited locative) or -g'. The phonology, though complex, involves no special pieachng, but its final reflexes are h a r d l y weighty enough to support the hypothesis of Ioeative and genitive syncretmm elsewhere The crucial objection to a locatival origin for the t a t . f e n -~ is in fact phonological; there is a b u n d a n t evidence (2-9) tha Lthe t h e m a t i c genitive bad -~ at a time when the diphthong -e~ wax still intact. (Incidentally decrezu~, ~mpetmtor (88) are not evidence for confusion of ~', and ~; the former reflects *d8crgi~t cf d~cem6 < *dS-cri~tO, the latter *~np~r~t~, thus perhaps revealing just how narrowly the presence of t h e following Iateral v i b r a n t arrested the normal change ([a] > ) [el > [~] > ill in n o n - m m a t syllables, cp. *d~cdd~t~s > d~c~d~rs, etc. b u t ~m~,~ttgr).
R E V I E W S
--
C O M P T E S - R E N D U $
75
' T h a t old w a r h o r s e of t h e l o c a t i v e t h e o r y ' (89). which m still v o u c h s a f e d - to be sure w i t h some r e l u c t a n c e - a m o d e s t c a n t e r or two t h r o u g h D e v i n e ' s pages (e.g 20, 86), can s u r e l y be laid to rest at last m t h e grave which Ahrens, L e l e u n e a n d o t h e r s h a v e tong since p r e p a r e d for him. (n) The d e r i v a t i o n of L a t -~ from -*osto bristles w i t h dlffmultles On t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e final u n c h e c k e d t h e m a t m vowel w o u l d a p p e a r as -~ in L a t i n (cf. */zgeso > L a t . legere beside Gk ldgou) a n d t h a t , as in t h e L a t i n reflexes of -,o- n o u n s a n d adlectIves, t h e S t a y e r s E d g e r t o n v a r i a t i o n b e t w e e n -to- a n d -*io-. w h l c h r e q m r e s P I E -*oslo. was replaced b y a gene~ahzed -~(0o, we can ~et u p -*osjo ~ -*os*e A l t h o u g h *[fhe ~ ]~l~ el:c supports-**¢ > -L the -s- w o u l d c e r t a i n l y be r h o t a c m e d , cf N'~mas~o- (Praen.) .~ N~m,s,o- ~ Numar~o-. w h e n c e -*os,¢ ~ -*or~! The e x a m p l e s of t h e loss of -s- dmcussed on 97-102 are a t best r e l e v a n t t o p I a t -*os~o, not -*os,o B u t even so t h e y are u p s a t i s f a c t o r y d~,~dzcare, for instance, if it d i r e c t l y reflects *d~s-toud- a n d Is n o t l u s t a n i n s t a n c e of dr- generalized f r o m d~l,gcr~, dCuelgere (-< *d,s-leg-, *d,s-~el-) e t c , i n d t c a t e s * V s t V :> V t V Slmllaxly e v e n l f t h e c h a n g e *mag-tos-, *#¢d-~os- rnaz,or, pe~,or could confid e n t l y be p r e d m a t e d of * V s I V as well as *Vg~V, *Vd~V, we s h o u l d still be left w i t h an a w k w a r d d i p h t h o n g m -*o~te to be dasposed el (Those who f a v o u r t h e d e r i v a t m n of cu,us from *kyos,o, cf S k t kasya, + s c a n a t least resort t o d m s l m f l a t o r y loss of t h e first s, fanciful t h o u g h it is ) T h e relevance of F a h s c a n -o~)o, as m eke ka,s,os,o ~ E t r Ca)s~e~a m~, L a t . ~go Caes~ [s~. sumj is u n c e r t a i n To t h e v m w t h a t it is a possessive a d j e c t i v e D e v i n e r i g h t l y o b j e c t s (32) t h a t -s~o is f o u n d o n l y w~th t h e m a t i c n o u n s t e m s a n d t h e g e n d e r m a r k e r s -s ( m a s e ) , -m ( n e u t ) are n e v e r w r i t t e n . I t seems b e s t t o t r e a t t h i s as a F a h $ c a n reflex, , s o l a t e d m t h e I t a h e g r o u p , of t h e t h e m a t i c g e n i t i v e reflected in Sanskrat a n d Greek -~ m F a h s c a n -io- n o u n s , e g. ~Iarc~ A r c e h m w o u l d t h e n be a L a t i n i s m , e a s y e n o u g h t o a s s u m e m a n a r e a w h e r e the chstmctmns between Falsican, Lat~mzed Fahscan and Faliscan L a t i n are n o t o r i o u s l y h a r d t o d r a w (ni) B y c o n t r a s t t h e d e r i v a t i o n -£ <: -*)e <: -*zo poses no p h o n o logical problems. T h o u g h c a n v a s s e d b y B r u g m a n n , V a i l l a n t a n d others, t h i s h y p o t h e s i s gets ¢~tflya w a l k - o n p a r t in D e v i n e ' s c a t a l o g u e {75) a n d ~s n o t a c c o r d e d the special dascusnion t h a t ~t deserves F o r this -*io is s u r e l y identical w i t h t h e final c o m p o n e n t of -*os~o. a d d e d
76
R E V I E W S
--
C O M P T E S - R E N D U S
to an original ~nematlc geml we -*o-s to recharacterize it against the h o m o p h o n o u s n o m m a t , . ' e -*o-s. If this is so, then -*io itself must have already had a semantic field compatible with genitival functions, a n d we can set vp for an earlier stage within P I E two rival formations *agro-s, *a~r-,io: *somo-s *sore-to -*os was replaced b y -os@, the eonflated form, reflected in the genitlves of Sanskrit. Greek and Fahscan: *-,o survives in the L a t m a n d Celtic genitives, and with the addition of a full adjectival paradigm in the -*tos adjectival cla~s reflected in a n u m b e r of I E languages. T h a t Lat -~ is not an renovation but an archaism is rightly m a i n t a i n e d b y Devine (! 1 l, though ~ e need not follow him into fanciful Semitic 'parallels') It is confirmed b y the fact t h a t the morph occurs in Latin and Celtic but not in the languages most closely related to Latin, vlz Fahscan wRh -osio ,rod Oscan and Umbrian, whose i n n o v a t o r y -*ezs could of course have replaced either -*osio or -*{ Now one of the pecuharltles of the genitive over against other cases as t h a t it occurs throughout I E in a w~de range of both attributive and predicative functions The a n t i q m t y ot the gemttvml complem e n t to verbs like Skt {]e 'has power over', bddhal, "rakes note of'. piba~ "drinks' has long been recognized, and the pr;,~rity of predicative to attributive usage in some gemtival functions, e g. m e m i n i regzs --~ memoria reg,~s, nwmor regis, is generally agreed. Watkins ha~ recently (To Honor R o m a n Jakobson I I I (1967) 2191-8) argued strongly for the priority of the predicative use of the g e m , i r e of 'belonging" liber est Marc~ 'the book is Mark's' -+ liber M a r c , "Mark's book' In passing he observed that the prechcative use of the adjectl~ e is hkewise assigned priority in transformational g r a m m a r : Iiber est paruus 'the book is small' ~-~ l~ber par~*us 'the small book" A specific instance of parallel p a t t e r n i n g m the s y n t a x of genitive case and adjective is t h e well-known group L i t u r n a m Venoris, urna Vener, a (Plautus, Rudens 473, 475) 'Venus's urn', Aeolic (and Homeric) Gk Poluxenata [sc. sgdlla] emm~ "I am Polyxer a's monum e n t ' (Schwyzez 584, from Latassa) OCS gek/avnotr/'~ s~n¢~ %on of carpenter'. In early Latin the usage Is e x t e n d e d as -m OCS from -ioto other adlectival suffixes, e.g er~l~s [*lius 'the master's son', ab leomno cauo 'from the lion's cave" (both Plantine), but it was n o t productive as a c o m p e t i t o r to t h e gem*ire. Devme's r a m b h n g discussion (26--3t) of t h e L a t i n material here illustrates the w a y in which he becomes the prisoner of his own historical catalogue. For
R E V I E W S
--
COMPTi~S-R~NDUS
77
the question he is concerned w i t h . ' W h w h has priority in this usage, the genitive or the adjectlve~' is the traditional one, but it is the wrong one Neither has priority The Greek and Slavic parallels confirm t h a t in this function both are inherited. Taken all in all, t h e derivation -**o > -**e > -~ look~ a v e r y ~ttractlve hypothesm (iv) Wackernagel in a famous paper (Mgl~mges Saussure (1908), 125-52} argued for a connection between tide Latin construction magn~ ]acere 'to value highly', [locc~ aest~mare 'to value at a straw's worth', mhtl~ esse ' to be worthless" and the Skt compounds m,thun~bhavantL -syam, -karot, ' t h e y become paired, m a y I be coupled, he couples" (cf. Ved. m,thund- 'paired'), seeing in both the r e m n a n t of an original adverbial case denoting 'c,~tegory' The parallel with adjectival constructions is again obvious when one considers the general p a t t e r n of complemental usage with the verbs in question, e.g. ,llum magnum [ec~runt ' t h e y have made him great', die est magnus, m,thunat~ bhdvatah 'the two become paired', gtdn eva~tdd d~gbh~r m, thundn karot, 'm this w a y he couples the (five) seasons with the regions of the world' The earlier Ind,~-Iranmn e w d e n c e for the cv,-compounds, so productive in Classical Sanskrit, is a d m i t t e d l y not Impressive. e.g. R V aM, kt, alfk[tyg '~rymg out an Joy', cf the e x c l a m a t o r y akhkhala, AV ,d~lk#a- 'v disease of the eyes', cf vatah "wind', phalfkdrazm' m a d e of smMI grains', cf #hal~, phal~ 'fruit, grain', and the isolated Avestan vaxgaO~-buye "for growth', the connection of which with vaxgaOa- "growing' need not be doubted. After Bloch's drastic assault on t h e t h e o r y ( K Z 76 (I 960) 102-9.42) not m u c h of it m i g h t be t h o u g h t t o remain intact And yet the formative t y p e does look ancient and is parMleled in ~akal~-barot, bemde kakal~-karot, "breaks m pieces', eft. kdkala- 'chip', I~gh~-karot~ ' m a k e hght', cf. lagk~- 'light" The long vowels here are not explained b y labelling t h e m , with Bloch, merely as indeclinable preverbM forms (v) Now it is m t e i e s t m g t h a t -d. -~ -~ are also feminine formants. e.g. dkvd beside dkva~$; devt, devdh, babhrd, b~bhr~b and Ved start;, 'barren female' beside C1. Skt stargkarot~ 'makes sterile'. Which brings us to the devt theory p r o p o u n d e d b y Sommer in the firs~~ edition of Ins Handbuch der lit Laut- und Formenlehre (1902). It is reasonable to assume (106) that the -s of v~kt.h etc. is second. a r y a n d t h a t devt represents the original n o m i n a t i v e form. The long vowel invites laryngeal analysis, but Devine's t r e a t m e n t (106-t l) is
78
REVIEWS
--
COMPTES-RENDUS
neither conclusive nor clear. The variation m paradigm between the two types, e.g gen sg. vl'k~ab, devydh m a y be due m part to the influence of d- stems on the latter, b u t it ts tempting to see here a reflex of two types, one with root accented having -*~aa-os, the other with suffix (-~ia~-) a c c e n t e d having -*~-euzs. This recalls the contrast in ~- a n d u- stems (dvTa.h, agndh, mddhvczh, ~a~dh) of stmtlar ongin, a n d provides some support for the view t h a t laryngeal-suffixed nouns were paradigmatically parallel to the resonant-suffix classes. W~thia P I E we might envisage a situation where t h e relattonshtp of -*o$~- to -*o- was strictly parallel to -*ie~-: -*z-, -*ua~-" -*u- (and perhaps even -*~. oz -*~o-), the laryngeal ~uffix in each instance forming a derivative noun (whence later the feminine adjective) s~gmfymg 'beIongmg to, pertaining to'. F r o m -*los would then be derived not only Skt devt, the feminme of devdb and the long vowel form of the cm- compounds sam~karot, ere but also the Latin dSuL genitxve of d~uus, etc. In short as was already seen b y Hirt a n d L o h m a n n , whose views are duly chromcled b y D e w n e (76, 80) but without taking the point, the theories of WackernageI a n d Sommer are, tf or, e explores their P I E lmpheatlons, not two theories but one. The semantic analys:s is v e r y simflax m b o t h the B r u g m a u n and S o m m e r - W a c k e r n a g e l hypotheses, which emerge as the only serious contenders Brugmann'~ has the advantage, perhaps, in t h a t whde it leav es dev t and m ~thungk ~rol~to b e othcrwise account ed for (e.g. b y t h a t p a r t of the S o m m e r - W a ckernagel t h e o r y that pertaans only to them), it does relate Lat 4 via -*z0 to another well a t t e s t e d I E t h e m a t i c genitive singular -*oslc; nor does it involve a n y laryngeal speculations of the kind t h a t are needed ff the latter is to go b e y o n d the e s t a b h s h m e n t of I E correspondences to P I E reconstruction B o t h theories of course entail some speculation, b u t it is only from speculative ventures, as careful!y controlled as we can m a k e t h e m , into the relat~on between items within t h e p a l a d i g m a t i c system and t h e m o d e s of suffixM derivation in P I E t h a t we are likely to aetneve a n y progress on the t h e m a t i c genitive singular. Thts is why, for all its painstaking i n d u s t r y and accurate scholarship, Devane's book, b y failing to e x t e n d the dtseusslon b e y o n d the confines set b y the previous literature, m a k e s such a disappointing contribution to the subject.
Emmanuel College. Cambridge, England
Robert COLEMAN
REVIEWS-
COMPTES-RENDUS
A n d r e w M a c K a y DEViatE, The Latin thematw gemt,ve s,ngutav. P u b h s h e d for Stanford U m v e r s i t y C o m m i t t e e on L i n g m s t its, p r i n t e d by W l l h a m Clowes a n d Sons Ltd., L o n d o n 1970 Available from Blackwells, Oxford. vi, 128 pp. In the first section ot this book (1-63) t h e a u t h o r assembles a n d discusses the evidence for this casc-morph m republican Latin togother with comparable d a t a from Faliscan, Oscan, Umbrian, Mess~plc, Venetic anc. Lepontic. The actual relevance of SOlXleof this materlal is rightly called in question for example the Venetic forms Volgtge~e,, Urkl, etc., of whlch 'none are certainly gen. a n d m a n y are c e r t a i n l y n o t gen. (55), a n d Messapic daz~m~,h~ beil~hL kazam~h, etc.. where b o t h t h e analysm of t h e s t e m - t y p e s a n d the precise phonological r d a t i o n , If any, to t h e L a t i n form (-,h, < or > i'?) pose serious problems (45-,53) In a field where fanciful speculation has often reigned u n c h e c k e d D e w n e ' s sceptical a p p r o a c h is welcome B u t it is surprising to find here no dmcusslon of the m u c h more p a t e n t l y related Celtic d a t a - G a u h s h Segomari, O. Irish (Ogamic) M A Q I etc. - which are of great i m p o r t a n c e for placing the ~-gemtive in t e r m s of P I E reconstruction. T h e second section (64-84) consists of an historical survey of research in t h e subject from B o p p onwards T h e criticisms m a d e by t h e a u t h o r are often acute a n d H l u m m a t i n g in m a t t e r s of detail, b u t t h e r e is an u n f o r t u n a t e reluctance to push t h e m very far, to disc~ammate categorically between wh~tt is reasonable a n d w h a t is d o w n r i g h t absurd, between the r e m o t e l y possible a n d t h e highly probabIe S o m e t i m e s a t h e o r y t h a t seemq to h a v e been refuted in one place bobs u p again later to be t r e a t e d quite seriously, as if the a u t h o r l a c k e d confidence in his own a r g u m e n t s More d i s t u r b i n g : the historical catalog, e ,alsonn~e, for all its thoroughness, lacks any 72
REV][EWS
-- C O M P T E $ - R E N D U S
7~
real shape or direction This kind of exercise m o n l y j u s t d l e d if the a u t h o r is able t h e r e b y t o e x p o s e d e v e l o p i n g lines of p r o b a b i l i t y , w h m h he t h e n t a k e s f u r t h e r into t h e f o r m u l a t i o n of his own s o l u t i o n t o t h e probler~:; or alternatively if, h a v i n g syst emat~cally d e m o h s h e d all p r e v i o u s h y p o t h e s e s , he goes on to e x p l o r e t h e pomtive i m p h c a t m n s of his d e s t r u c t i v e a r g u m e n t s a n d erect a n e w hypothes~s o u t of t h e d6brm D e v i n e d o e s n e i t h e r of these I n t h e final seclion (85--! 1 t) all we are offered is a d e t a i l e d dascussion of t h e four m m n theories - d e r i v a t i o n of -i from a locative -el or a g e m t i v e -*osio, connectaon with t h e Skt feminine t y p e devl or t h e c o m p o m t l v e mithun~(-tef-) etc T h e r e is a lot of t i r e s o m e repeUtion from a n d cross-reference to the preceding section T h e devt t h e o r y as a d j u d g e d t h e least I m p r o b a b l e (11 I), b u t there is w r t u a l l y n o t h i n g new here T h e iml3osmg m o u n t a i n of erudlt~on has l a b o u r e d m y a m , o n l y a f e w b a t t e r e d old mice we h a v e k n o w n for y e a r s e m e r g e at t h e e n d of at all T h e r e are t h r e e a p p e n d i c e s (112-28), comprasmg an inconclusive d i s c u ~ m n of t h e n o t o r m u s F a h s c a n inscription ecoq~lon etc {Vetter 242b), a convincing r e f u t a t i o n of t h e view t h a t P r a e n e s t m e Vetus~a is a possessive a d j e c t i v e a n d an m t e r p r e t a t m n of P r a e n e s t m e Tase~o as a d e r i v a t i o n a l a d j e c t i v e Irom a h y p e r - D o n z e d form of G k TheseUs W e t u r n n o w t o an e x a m m a t x o n of the m a r e theories, a d d i n g one to D e v i n e ' s short-list of four. (i) F o r t h e d e r i v a t i o n f r o m loe, -ez t w o i n s t a n c e s of a s y n c r e t i s m of l o c a t i v e a n d genitive h a v e o f t e n b e e n alleged in ~upport, a n d b o t h of t h e m are a p p a r e n t l y t a k e n seriously b y D e v i n e (e g. 86) n a m e l y t h e a n a l y m s of O s c a n - U m b r l a n gen -*ezs as loc -*e~ + s, w l n c h ~s n o t s y n c r e t i s m at alI, a n d t h e T h e s s M m n G r e e k use of -oz as locative, d a t i v e a n d g e n i t i v e , cp p G k -*of, -*~, -*oszo respectaveiy. T h e f o r m e r d e v e l o p m e n t is h a r d t o m o t i v a t e e x c e p t on t h e m o d e l of cons s t e m . ~ I E D [ t f E I ( d a t i v e I) M E D [ K E [ S (I o t e only Oscan forms, bu~ t h e s a m e a r g u m e n t holds for U m b n a n ) . B u t m fact M E D I K E I S is itself m o s t likely d e r i v e d b y a n a l o g y f r o m t h e ~-stem gen aegis, w l u c h reflects P I E -*era in s u f l i x - a c c e n t e d z-stems. c o n t r a s t e d w i t h -*ios m r o o t - a c c e n t e d nouns, ef, S k t .uz~h, dvya.h W e k n o w t h a t s y n c o p e in L a t i n l - s t e m n o m i n a t i v e s (e g * m ~ t z s > ~twns b e s i d e eons. s t e m dens) ~vas o n e of t h e f a c t o r s t h a t led t o t h e g e n e r a h z a t i o n of c a s e - m o r p h s b e t w e e n t h e c o n s o n a n t a n d ~-stem p a r a d i g m s . So too, we m a y r e a s o n a b l y c o n j e c t u r e , in Oscan a n d
74
REVIEWS
- -
GOMPTES-RENDISS
Umbrtan, where the-,mttc nom sg was also generally affected, e.g. Osc H O R Z = Lat horfus, U m b r I K U V I N S = Lat lguui~us Hence -e,s spread from aete~s to tanginets to S A K A R A K L E I S and conversely-ore (acc.) and .Od) (abl. ~rom H(TRTOM, SA K A R A KL OD to tanglnom, T A N G I N O D A~ for Thessahan, the earhest d a t a from the different localities can be summarized t h u s Lanssa, Krannon" gen -o~o,-oz, dat -~ Pherai. gen, -or, dat. -8 Phalanna f e n ~,, dat -0 (later sometimes -o,) Skotussa. gen -o,; dat. -oz Thetonion. gen. -~; dat. -ai (the length ts uncertam) Kiermn" gen -.g (later, perhaps only in Latin names, -or). dat, -(~ (later-or) Pharsalos: gen. -5, dat -@ As m other Greek dtalects, there ts no reason to think t h a t the locative dative distraction was a feature ot the living paradigm system, so we should talk of a genitive-dative t a t h e r t h a n genitivelocative syncretism here. But it is of very restricted occurrence At Kierion a n d P h a l a n n a it is only partial a n y w a y , and in the former the influence of Lat -~ is v e r y plaumble, in the latter infiltration of the dative form from n e a r b y Skotussa and Thetonion equally so. Only at Skotussa is the syncretism unquestionably indigenous. All the v a r i a n t s can be comprised within a specifically Thessalian dlac h r o n y p Gk gen. -*osio > o~o > either -oi (the only development unparalleled among the Greek dialects) or -%0 > 4 ; pGk d a t - ' 6 i > -~, > either -0~ 0dentieal with the inherited locative) or -g'. The phonology, though complex, involves no special pieachng, but its final reflexes are h a r d l y weighty enough to support the hypothesis of Ioeative and genitive syncretmm elsewhere The crucial objection to a locatival origin for the t a t . f e n -~ is in fact phonological; there is a b u n d a n t evidence (2-9) tha Lthe t h e m a t i c genitive bad -~ at a time when the diphthong -e~ wax still intact. (Incidentally decrezu~, ~mpetmtor (88) are not evidence for confusion of ~', and ~; the former reflects *d8crgi~t cf d~cem6 < *dS-cri~tO, the latter *~np~r~t~, thus perhaps revealing just how narrowly the presence of t h e following Iateral v i b r a n t arrested the normal change ([a] > ) [el > [~] > ill in n o n - m m a t syllables, cp. *d~cdd~t~s > d~c~d~rs, etc. b u t ~m~,~ttgr).
R E V I E W S
--
C O M P T E S - R E N D U $
75
' T h a t old w a r h o r s e of t h e l o c a t i v e t h e o r y ' (89). which m still v o u c h s a f e d - to be sure w i t h some r e l u c t a n c e - a m o d e s t c a n t e r or two t h r o u g h D e v i n e ' s pages (e.g 20, 86), can s u r e l y be laid to rest at last m t h e grave which Ahrens, L e l e u n e a n d o t h e r s h a v e tong since p r e p a r e d for him. (n) The d e r i v a t i o n of L a t -~ from -*osto bristles w i t h dlffmultles On t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e final u n c h e c k e d t h e m a t m vowel w o u l d a p p e a r as -~ in L a t i n (cf. */zgeso > L a t . legere beside Gk ldgou) a n d t h a t , as in t h e L a t i n reflexes of -,o- n o u n s a n d adlectIves, t h e S t a y e r s E d g e r t o n v a r i a t i o n b e t w e e n -to- a n d -*io-. w h l c h r e q m r e s P I E -*oslo. was replaced b y a gene~ahzed -~(0o, we can ~et u p -*osjo ~ -*os*e A l t h o u g h *[fhe ~ ]~l~ el:c supports-**¢ > -L the -s- w o u l d c e r t a i n l y be r h o t a c m e d , cf N'~mas~o- (Praen.) .~ N~m,s,o- ~ Numar~o-. w h e n c e -*os,¢ ~ -*or~! The e x a m p l e s of t h e loss of -s- dmcussed on 97-102 are a t best r e l e v a n t t o p I a t -*os~o, not -*os,o B u t even so t h e y are u p s a t i s f a c t o r y d~,~dzcare, for instance, if it d i r e c t l y reflects *d~s-toud- a n d Is n o t l u s t a n i n s t a n c e of dr- generalized f r o m d~l,gcr~, dCuelgere (-< *d,s-leg-, *d,s-~el-) e t c , i n d t c a t e s * V s t V :> V t V Slmllaxly e v e n l f t h e c h a n g e *mag-tos-, *#¢d-~os- rnaz,or, pe~,or could confid e n t l y be p r e d m a t e d of * V s I V as well as *Vg~V, *Vd~V, we s h o u l d still be left w i t h an a w k w a r d d i p h t h o n g m -*o~te to be dasposed el (Those who f a v o u r t h e d e r i v a t m n of cu,us from *kyos,o, cf S k t kasya, + s c a n a t least resort t o d m s l m f l a t o r y loss of t h e first s, fanciful t h o u g h it is ) T h e relevance of F a h s c a n -o~)o, as m eke ka,s,os,o ~ E t r Ca)s~e~a m~, L a t . ~go Caes~ [s~. sumj is u n c e r t a i n To t h e v m w t h a t it is a possessive a d j e c t i v e D e v i n e r i g h t l y o b j e c t s (32) t h a t -s~o is f o u n d o n l y w~th t h e m a t i c n o u n s t e m s a n d t h e g e n d e r m a r k e r s -s ( m a s e ) , -m ( n e u t ) are n e v e r w r i t t e n . I t seems b e s t t o t r e a t t h i s as a F a h $ c a n reflex, , s o l a t e d m t h e I t a h e g r o u p , of t h e t h e m a t i c g e n i t i v e reflected in Sanskrat a n d Greek -~ m F a h s c a n -io- n o u n s , e g. ~Iarc~ A r c e h m w o u l d t h e n be a L a t i n i s m , e a s y e n o u g h t o a s s u m e m a n a r e a w h e r e the chstmctmns between Falsican, Lat~mzed Fahscan and Faliscan L a t i n are n o t o r i o u s l y h a r d t o d r a w (ni) B y c o n t r a s t t h e d e r i v a t i o n -£ <: -*)e <: -*zo poses no p h o n o logical problems. T h o u g h c a n v a s s e d b y B r u g m a n n , V a i l l a n t a n d others, t h i s h y p o t h e s i s gets ¢~tflya w a l k - o n p a r t in D e v i n e ' s c a t a l o g u e {75) a n d ~s n o t a c c o r d e d the special dascusnion t h a t ~t deserves F o r this -*io is s u r e l y identical w i t h t h e final c o m p o n e n t of -*os~o. a d d e d
76
R E V I E W S
--
C O M P T E S - R E N D U S
to an original ~nematlc geml we -*o-s to recharacterize it against the h o m o p h o n o u s n o m m a t , . ' e -*o-s. If this is so, then -*io itself must have already had a semantic field compatible with genitival functions, a n d we can set vp for an earlier stage within P I E two rival formations *agro-s, *a~r-,io: *somo-s *sore-to -*os was replaced b y -os@, the eonflated form, reflected in the genitlves of Sanskrit. Greek and Fahscan: *-,o survives in the L a t m a n d Celtic genitives, and with the addition of a full adjectival paradigm in the -*tos adjectival cla~s reflected in a n u m b e r of I E languages. T h a t Lat -~ is not an renovation but an archaism is rightly m a i n t a i n e d b y Devine (! 1 l, though ~ e need not follow him into fanciful Semitic 'parallels') It is confirmed b y the fact t h a t the morph occurs in Latin and Celtic but not in the languages most closely related to Latin, vlz Fahscan wRh -osio ,rod Oscan and Umbrian, whose i n n o v a t o r y -*ezs could of course have replaced either -*osio or -*{ Now one of the pecuharltles of the genitive over against other cases as t h a t it occurs throughout I E in a w~de range of both attributive and predicative functions The a n t i q m t y ot the gemttvml complem e n t to verbs like Skt {]e 'has power over', bddhal, "rakes note of'. piba~ "drinks' has long been recognized, and the pr;,~rity of predicative to attributive usage in some gemtival functions, e g. m e m i n i regzs --~ memoria reg,~s, nwmor regis, is generally agreed. Watkins ha~ recently (To Honor R o m a n Jakobson I I I (1967) 2191-8) argued strongly for the priority of the predicative use of the g e m , i r e of 'belonging" liber est Marc~ 'the book is Mark's' -+ liber M a r c , "Mark's book' In passing he observed that the prechcative use of the adjectl~ e is hkewise assigned priority in transformational g r a m m a r : Iiber est paruus 'the book is small' ~-~ l~ber par~*us 'the small book" A specific instance of parallel p a t t e r n i n g m the s y n t a x of genitive case and adjective is t h e well-known group L i t u r n a m Venoris, urna Vener, a (Plautus, Rudens 473, 475) 'Venus's urn', Aeolic (and Homeric) Gk Poluxenata [sc. sgdlla] emm~ "I am Polyxer a's monum e n t ' (Schwyzez 584, from Latassa) OCS gek/avnotr/'~ s~n¢~ %on of carpenter'. In early Latin the usage Is e x t e n d e d as -m OCS from -ioto other adlectival suffixes, e.g er~l~s [*lius 'the master's son', ab leomno cauo 'from the lion's cave" (both Plantine), but it was n o t productive as a c o m p e t i t o r to t h e gem*ire. Devme's r a m b h n g discussion (26--3t) of t h e L a t i n material here illustrates the w a y in which he becomes the prisoner of his own historical catalogue. For
R E V I E W S
--
COMPTi~S-R~NDUS
77
the question he is concerned w i t h . ' W h w h has priority in this usage, the genitive or the adjectlve~' is the traditional one, but it is the wrong one Neither has priority The Greek and Slavic parallels confirm t h a t in this function both are inherited. Taken all in all, t h e derivation -**o > -**e > -~ look~ a v e r y ~ttractlve hypothesm (iv) Wackernagel in a famous paper (Mgl~mges Saussure (1908), 125-52} argued for a connection between tide Latin construction magn~ ]acere 'to value highly', [locc~ aest~mare 'to value at a straw's worth', mhtl~ esse ' to be worthless" and the Skt compounds m,thun~bhavantL -syam, -karot, ' t h e y become paired, m a y I be coupled, he couples" (cf. Ved. m,thund- 'paired'), seeing in both the r e m n a n t of an original adverbial case denoting 'c,~tegory' The parallel with adjectival constructions is again obvious when one considers the general p a t t e r n of complemental usage with the verbs in question, e.g. ,llum magnum [ec~runt ' t h e y have made him great', die est magnus, m,thunat~ bhdvatah 'the two become paired', gtdn eva~tdd d~gbh~r m, thundn karot, 'm this w a y he couples the (five) seasons with the regions of the world' The earlier Ind,~-Iranmn e w d e n c e for the cv,-compounds, so productive in Classical Sanskrit, is a d m i t t e d l y not Impressive. e.g. R V aM, kt, alfk[tyg '~rymg out an Joy', cf the e x c l a m a t o r y akhkhala, AV ,d~lk#a- 'v disease of the eyes', cf vatah "wind', phalfkdrazm' m a d e of smMI grains', cf #hal~, phal~ 'fruit, grain', and the isolated Avestan vaxgaO~-buye "for growth', the connection of which with vaxgaOa- "growing' need not be doubted. After Bloch's drastic assault on t h e t h e o r y ( K Z 76 (I 960) 102-9.42) not m u c h of it m i g h t be t h o u g h t t o remain intact And yet the formative t y p e does look ancient and is parMleled in ~akal~-barot, bemde kakal~-karot, "breaks m pieces', eft. kdkala- 'chip', I~gh~-karot~ ' m a k e hght', cf. lagk~- 'light" The long vowels here are not explained b y labelling t h e m , with Bloch, merely as indeclinable preverbM forms (v) Now it is m t e i e s t m g t h a t -d. -~ -~ are also feminine formants. e.g. dkvd beside dkva~$; devt, devdh, babhrd, b~bhr~b and Ved start;, 'barren female' beside C1. Skt stargkarot~ 'makes sterile'. Which brings us to the devt theory p r o p o u n d e d b y Sommer in the firs~~ edition of Ins Handbuch der lit Laut- und Formenlehre (1902). It is reasonable to assume (106) that the -s of v~kt.h etc. is second. a r y a n d t h a t devt represents the original n o m i n a t i v e form. The long vowel invites laryngeal analysis, but Devine's t r e a t m e n t (106-t l) is
78
REVIEWS
--
COMPTES-RENDUS
neither conclusive nor clear. The variation m paradigm between the two types, e.g gen sg. vl'k~ab, devydh m a y be due m part to the influence of d- stems on the latter, b u t it ts tempting to see here a reflex of two types, one with root accented having -*~aa-os, the other with suffix (-~ia~-) a c c e n t e d having -*~-euzs. This recalls the contrast in ~- a n d u- stems (dvTa.h, agndh, mddhvczh, ~a~dh) of stmtlar ongin, a n d provides some support for the view t h a t laryngeal-suffixed nouns were paradigmatically parallel to the resonant-suffix classes. W~thia P I E we might envisage a situation where t h e relattonshtp of -*o$~- to -*o- was strictly parallel to -*ie~-: -*z-, -*ua~-" -*u- (and perhaps even -*~. oz -*~o-), the laryngeal ~uffix in each instance forming a derivative noun (whence later the feminine adjective) s~gmfymg 'beIongmg to, pertaining to'. F r o m -*los would then be derived not only Skt devt, the feminme of devdb and the long vowel form of the cm- compounds sam~karot, ere but also the Latin dSuL genitxve of d~uus, etc. In short as was already seen b y Hirt a n d L o h m a n n , whose views are duly chromcled b y D e w n e (76, 80) but without taking the point, the theories of WackernageI a n d Sommer are, tf or, e explores their P I E lmpheatlons, not two theories but one. The semantic analys:s is v e r y simflax m b o t h the B r u g m a u n and S o m m e r - W a c k e r n a g e l hypotheses, which emerge as the only serious contenders Brugmann'~ has the advantage, perhaps, in t h a t whde it leav es dev t and m ~thungk ~rol~to b e othcrwise account ed for (e.g. b y t h a t p a r t of the S o m m e r - W a ckernagel t h e o r y that pertaans only to them), it does relate Lat 4 via -*z0 to another well a t t e s t e d I E t h e m a t i c genitive singular -*oslc; nor does it involve a n y laryngeal speculations of the kind t h a t are needed ff the latter is to go b e y o n d the e s t a b h s h m e n t of I E correspondences to P I E reconstruction B o t h theories of course entail some speculation, b u t it is only from speculative ventures, as careful!y controlled as we can m a k e t h e m , into the relat~on between items within t h e p a l a d i g m a t i c system and t h e m o d e s of suffixM derivation in P I E t h a t we are likely to aetneve a n y progress on the t h e m a t i c genitive singular. Thts is why, for all its painstaking i n d u s t r y and accurate scholarship, Devane's book, b y failing to e x t e n d the dtseusslon b e y o n d the confines set b y the previous literature, m a k e s such a disappointing contribution to the subject.
Emmanuel College. Cambridge, England
Robert COLEMAN