HERMAN GRASSMANN
CONCERNING THE ASPIRATES AND
THEIR "Ueber die Aspiraten und ihr
gleichzeitiges Vorhandensein [Lehmann 109-131] {Textual
Conventions}
Grassmann's is one of
the celebrated articles of linguistics. Rightly, because it largely led to
the conviction that reconstructed languages must be set up for any language
family. Before Grassmann, Sanskrit had served as the measure against which
forms in the other languages were compared. On the surface it may seem that
all earlier scholars viewed Sanstrit as the source of the various other
Indo-European languages; but their writings indicate that they were not
quite so simple. Because of the transparency of its forms Sanskrit seemed
closer to the agglutinative period, through which the Indo-European
languages were thought to have passed, than did any of the other languages.
The unparalleled antiquity of its materials supported this view.
Accordingly, sounds and forms of the other Indo-European languages might
well be contrasted with those of Sanskrit. By demonstrating that Germanic
actually was "older " in one phonological pattern than was Sanskrit,
Grassmann undermined the position of Sanskrit as the language which was the
earliest attainable in Indo-European linguistics.
By this demonstration
Grassmann also undermined the notion that language developed from an
analytic to a synthetic structure through an agglutinative. With it he did
away with the close relationship that had been observed previously between
genealogical and typological classification. After the publication of his
article we find fewer and fewer references to the typological structure of a
language in comparative treatments; and when typology is taken up by Finck
in the definitive treatment of the nineteenth century approach there is no
reference to genealogical classification. The appealing notion of a
straightforward development of language had been abandoned.
These contributions
to general linguistic theory were achieved by explanation of one
phonological problem in Indo-European studies. We have noted how von Raumer
had hit on the explanation earlier, but had stated it so briefly that it
remained without impact. We have also noted Lottner's important preparatory
work. Neither reduces Grassmann's achievement. His article is admirably
composed. First he examines previous attempts at explanation, then the data.
His examination of both is complete When he presents his conclusions there
is no question of their validity. His convincing explanation led linguists
to deal with entire forms, not merely with single segments. In this way it
prepared for the concern with entire utterances, demanded by Sievers.
Unfortunately this concern with entire forms and with entire utterances was
often neglected subsequently in the attempt to solve the numerous minor
problems within the various languages.
It is also noteworthy
that Grassmann, with his background in mathematics, objects to fanciful
theory-the equilibrium theory. He insists on an "organic" approach; speech
sounds must be classified in accordance with their organs of articulation.
For an understanding of linguistic change a knowledge of articulatory
phonetics is indispensable. To be sure, he stumbles over Lottner's notion of
a Wahlverwandtschaft between mediae and liquids; but such a notion is not
completely in contrast with articulatory phonetics, for both sets of sounds
are voiced and usually lenis in articulation. Grassmann's achievement is
great, even though he left a field for Verner to conquer. His overall
procedure is unobjectionable. All "exceptions"have been dealt with. One
could not ask for more rigorous methods.
Hermann Grassmann
(1809-1877) was a banker who was compelled to retire because of
tuberculosis. In his leisure he occupied himself with mathematics and
linguistics. He made important contributions to both fields. His work on
non-commutative algebra is an important contribution to mathematics. For
linguistics, besides his clarification of the reflexes of the Indo-European
aspirates, he prepared a complete dictionary of the Rig-Veda which is still
indispensable for Indo-Europeanists and for Sanskritists. Other works which
would be major for most scholars round out his list of achievements, such as
his complete translation of the Rig-Veda. He remains one of the great
figures in linguistics. The question of
whether there were originally roots in Indo-European with aspirates
initially and finally has in my opinion not yet been decided. It is not
surprising that, before Sanskrit and also the comparative investigation of
languages gained influence on Classical philology, many grammarians-impelled
by the moving about of aspiration, e.g. in trékhō, thréksomai-assumed roots
in greatest abundance for Greek with initial and final aspirate and in this
way defaced Greek grammar in part with roots that never existed, as
linguistic comparison showed; for Goth. þragja as well as the Celtic
root trag, PBB 1.167 beside Gk trékhō forbid setting up a form
threkh** as the original form of the root. It was natural that the
investigators starting out from comparison of languages, in their first
unhappiness about such monstrosities rejected all roots with original
initial and final aspirates; and subsequently the principle that there were
no roots of this type was held as a kind of axiom in linguistics, though in
more recent times an inclination to that older point of view may again be
recognized in various places (cf. Ahrens, Griechische Formenlehre
: 152, Schleicher Compendium :143). But as far as
I know an actual investigation has not yet been undertaken about the matter.
Encouragement of such an investigation is to be the main purpose of the
present essay. Yet it is impossible to take up the matter without touching
the disputed question whether the hard or the soft aspirates were the
original. For even if the most essential results of the investigation are
not dependent on the answer to this disputed question, the entire point of
view and the form of the presentation in its details will be quite
different, depending on the answer to this question, so that it is not
possible to avoid it here. I will therefore first treat this question and
only afterwards proceed to the actual task.
First essay: On the
presence of hard and soft aspirates before the linguistic separation.
(82-110).
[In this essay
Grassmann assumes two kinds of aspirates, the voiceless as well as the
voiced, specifying that he is dealing with the original Indo-European
language. At the end of the essay he states that the Germanic shift began
with the loss of the aspiration, sharing this phonetic modification with
Sanskrit and Greek. The change of tenues in Germanic he views as related.
And only the change of mediae to tenues does he consider without parallel in
the other languages, though he states that it took place to restore the
balance which was lost in the first two modifications.]
Second essay: On the
original presence of roots whose initial and final contained an aspirate.
(110-138). If a root ends with
an aspirate and begins with a consonant capable of aspiration, and if its
final loses its aspiration through the operation of some other sound law,
the aspiration moves to the initial. But this is true of Sanskrit only when
the final of the root is a soft aspirate and when the initial is a
non-palatal media; and for Greek only when the initial is *.
For Greek
only */U,6, *-(T%6
with their common future */U+o3&!
etc. and
*9V,6, future
*9U+6 provide exceptions. For the former, as shown
above,, results as a
later modification of the original 4, which is also maintained in the
derivations and in the aorist */*-4/J%, but this cannot be
demonstrated for *9U-,-6(from
*9U-6.) This law is also valid in
Greek when the final represents an originally hard aspirate, as in
*&,U, Comp.
#T556% (see the first
essay), and also when the root never contained an aspirate initially as well
as finally at the same time, as in *9E,6 (= Goth. þragja),
fut. #9E+o3&!.The
second law we can express in general as follows:
If aspirates that
belong to the same root occur in two consonant groups of a word which are
separated by a vowel, then one of them, usually the first, loses its
aspiration. Only rarely does this happen when the aspirates belong to
different roots, or to different suffixes, or one of them to a root and the
other to a suffix, or when more than one vowel stands between the consonant
groups (as in E4/- ,/!9Q&, *01/#o6%.
There is no doubt
that reduplication originally arose from a repetition of the entire root
syllable, as especially the formation of intensives illustrates (e.g.
dar-dhar-shi 'you hold firm' from dhar,
dhY,
(2&37&Q%6 from the theme 7&%); originally
then the aspiratemust have been repeated as such too, and only later when
the repeated root combined into one word and the above-stated law of euphony
entered into effect did one of the aspirates give up its aspiration. Indeed
we find this aspiration often maintained still in onomatapoeic words, but in
these the above law, which would disturb the intended imitation of the
sounds of nature, is not applied (gharghara, ghurghurā,
gharghurghā, ghurghura, jharjhára, jhinjhi,
etc.)
The decision with
regard to the form of the root itself is not so simple. It would follow from
the above law that there would be no roots in Greek and Sanskrit which
simultaneously showed an aspirate initially and finally in the state of the
language transmitted to us. Now this is the case throughout apart from some
secondary dialect forms,cited by the Indic grammarians and apart from the
Greek forms E-#&7-#0%, */-#T7-#&!, */-#T7-#6,*/-#T7-&*&! (from #T2*6), and */-&9T7-#&!, E-#9E7-#0%
(from *9E76) .
Nonetheless it would be unjustified to draw conclusions from this about the
original presence of aspirates in initial and final position. It is even
less justified to assume without further consideration, as a kind of axiom,
that that euphonic law existed from the very first beginnings of the
development of language. Bopp makes this last mistake, when in his
comparative grammar (: 104) he states as grounds against assuming roots with initial
and final aspirates that in the very original arrangement of the roots
(directed by the cited euphonic law) the language would have guarded against
the simultaneous occurrence of aspirates in initial and final position. But
it is precisely the question whether that euphonic law existed from the
beginning, and in principle this is most unlikely. The sure answer to
this question may only be gained on a historical basis. Now this law shows
up in only two language areas: in Aryan and in Greek. In the Italic
languages by contrast it does not prevail, as Latin fefelli, the
Oscan forms fufans, fefacust, fefacid, fetho,
hafiest prove. To be sure f and h are not genuine
aspirates, but they take the place of these; and if indeed that euphonic law
was valid already before the separation of the Italic branch from the entire
family, it ishard to see why later on again the two spirants which take the
place of aspirates should have been restored, even though the one of them
had already forfeited its aspiration. Even more decisively, Gothic points to
the later origin of that euphonic law and to roots with original initial and
final aspirates. For if the law existedalready before the separation of the
Germanic branch, then on the one hand, since Gothic mediae correspond to the
old aspirates, the reduplication of mediae had to be avoided, and on the
other hand there should have been no roots in Gothic with initial and final
mediae. Neither is true. With regard to the first we can cite Goth.
gaigrot from gretan, which does not belong to Skt krand
as will be shown below. With regard to the second it turns out that of all
nine possible groups of roots with initial and final mutes none is
represented as widely as that with initial and final mediae. To look on this
as a mere play of chance seems impossible; and consequentlywe may assume it
to be securely established that the questionable euphonic law was not yet in
existence before the separation of not only the Germanic but also the Italic
branch. A linguistic phenomenon that points to the contrary has not yet been
adduced by anyone, as far as I have learned. Nonetheless the frequent
recurrence of Gothic roots with mediae initially and finally forces one to
the conclusion that there were roots with aspirates initially and finally in
the common language branch. Yet the individual roots have to be
compared before this conclusion can be drawn with certainty.
If the hard aspirates
of Sanskrit are excluded for the time being, especially those roots come
into consideration, which begin with a media in Sanskrit and conclude with a
soft aspirate. First I consider those beginning with b. I begin with an
example among them which can be pursued with utmost certainty through all
four language branches which are considered here, and which to a certain
extent can be viewed as representative of the others; for the phonological
phenomena which appear in it are repeated almost throughout in the others in
a precisely corresponding manner, namely:
1.
budh-ná-s,2-#-3N%,
fund-u-s, OS bod-m,
where the remaining Germanic dialects
likewise all show the initial b, while d and t vary
among them in an irregular manner. The initial media of Sanskrit is replaced
in Greek by the tenuis, in Latin by the aspirate, in Germanic by the media.
Of these soumds only the Latin aspirate stands in accord with the German
media; all other five replacements are anomalous. But nonetheless the same
series of phenomena is repeated in almost all roots of the named type.
Therefore, to avoid these anomalies, on the grounds that Sanskrit has
preserved the original grades of sound, one has devised theories through
which one attempts to explain these irregularities for every single one of
the remaining language branches. To this end, first Pott and in greater
detail Benary in his Phonology have set up for Greek the equilibrium theory,
which has been adopted by most of the more recent investigators of languages
(as also by G. Curtius, Schleicher Compendium :143). Benary explains the
phenomenon, that for example Skt budh- is equal to Gk 2-#- through the fact that since
the aspirate became hard in Greek the tenuis arose medially instead of the
media in order to restore the equilibrium (p. 195). This equilibrium he
finds disrupted, if from budh, which contains two soft sounds,
* '-#- had developed,
which would contain one soft and one hard sound ( ' ) ; and this equilibrium is to
have been restored through the hardening of the ' to 2. I cannot make
any other sense of this expression (of the disrupted and then restored
equilibrium), than that the hard sounds are placed as equivalent among
themselves, and similarly the soft sounds among one another; on the other
hand the hard as not equivalent to the soft--and that the Greek language had
a preference for equilibrium of the initial and final of roots. Let us
examine this preference for equilibrium in greater detail. Four types of
equilibrium are conceivable for Greek. First, both sounds can be soft, that
is, initial and final can be mediae; second, the initial can be a tenuis,
the final an aspirate; or conversely, the first can be an aspirate, the
final a tenuis; or, last, both can be tenues. With regard to the first
combination of sounds there is apparent in Greek a comprehensive, but, as
far as I know, not yet observed law according to which there is no root in
Greek with two mediae and a simple intermediate vowel or a vowel expanded by
a nasal. It is obvious that in the reduplicated forms, as in )Q )63!, )&!)T116, )/%)Q116, or in derivations like
'T- )0%, '&-)-Q$6, two mediae can arise at both
sides of the vowel, without thereby affecting the law. The single exception
would be the hapax legomenon of Theocritus )&(Us 'wax doll of magicians',
if the reading for it (besides )&*Us) were not doubtful, and
a foreign origin not probable. Things are not much better in the second and
third equilibrium form. Actually there seems to be hardly a Greek root which
originally began with a tenuis and ended in an aspirate, or conversely-of
such a kind that in the remaining languages the regular representation would
take place. Rather, we see the first of these forms regularly
paralleling the form of Sanskrit: media, vowel, soft aspirate and in
accordance with the above representation paralleling the forms of the other
languages related to it, as the above example illustrates. As the only
cases, which might provide a more extensive correspondence of the sort that
the tenuis initially and the aspirate finally in the root appear original, I
have found: *9/,6=
Goth. þrag-ja, in which however the Lith. strokas 'haste'
makes an originally initial s probable; and perhaps 4/U#6 (theme 4-#), compared with OE
hyd-an, hed-an, OHG huot-jan; but this second example
is also highly uncertain, since the Greek 4/U#6 stands in much closer
relationship to the Skt gudh, guh 'conceal', which has the
same meaning, and since there are only highly uncertain traces of a root
*kuh in Sanskrit, about which in addition we do not know whether the
h corresponds to a dh or to another aspirate kuha,
kúhaka, kuhana, kuhayāmi, kuhū, kuhara,
kuhūla = kukūla,kūhanā,kūhā=kujjhabi-ka, which have the meanings
'juggler, deception, deceive by cheating, new moon, cave, fog, etc.'-see the
Petersburger Lexicon. In any case the second and third equilibrium forms,
which originally show a tenuis initially and an aspirate finally, or the
reverse, are accordingly only poorly represented, if at all. Only the fourth
equilibrium form with tenuis initially and finally is normal in Greek, but
it is greatly outnumbered by the numerous roots in which no equilibrium of
the designated type takes place; and indeed all five types of
non-equilibrium occur, and most of them in great abundance. A preference in
Greek for the equilibrium between the initial and final of the root is
accordingly out of the question. One would accordingly have to modify the
Benary law to this effect that the Greek language attempts to maintain
through all changes the relationship of weight between initial and final, as
it exists at any time, and especially when both stand in equilibrium; but
even about this we find no trace outside the area in support of which the
entire theory is to serve. From Benary's conception that of Schleicher (op.
cit.) differs only in choice of words, for the weak sounds are designated as
voiced, the hard as voiceless; equilibrium is designated as similarity of
sound and the production of equilibrium as assimilation. In order to explain
the irregularity found in Latin (Lat. fund-u-s = Skt
budhna-s), Benary has made accountable the shift of the aspiration
from the final to the initial, and this assumption has also been adopted by
most of the more recent investigators of language. But such a shift has not
been demonstrated anywhere in the area of the Italic languages. Moreover,
the analogy of Sanskrit is not decisive here, since the corresponding
phenomenon in Sanskrit is tied to certain conditions which do not enter in
here; and in addition, Latin treats the medial aspirates, in contrast with
Sanskrit, almost everywhere like mediae. Finally for the anomaly of Gothic
and Germanic in general no theory has as yet been made cogent, but herethe
anomaly is permitted to stand as such, as for example Curtius in No. 326,
327, 328, 329, 145, 318, 138, Schleicher in :143. All these anomalies
disappear and those highly dubious theories which have been devised for
their explanation become superfluous if one assumes in the examples under
consideration original roots with aspirates initially and finally, which
were modified in all those languages in accordance with the general laws
which apply in these languages. If for example we assume in the above-cited
budh-ná-s, 2-#-3N%
etc. two original aspirates (bh, dh), then in Sanskrit and
Greek in the development of the above-discussed euphonic law, one, and
generally the first had to give up its aspiration; in this way, since the
aspirate was soft in Sanskrit, hard in Greek-at least from a certain time on
there a b, here 2 had to arise, the latter (at least if the time when the
euphonic law came into force was after this point in time). In Latin, on the
other hand,where as shown above this law did not prevail, the aspirate was
maintained as f and in Germanic it shifted regularly to b.
Instead of the three anomalies which also did not stand in any sort of
relationship to one another, one has with this assumption organic changes
everywhere, and there is no need to explain the phenomena through artificial
hypotheses which lack any other support, nor, despairing of a solution to
consider the changes as non-organic. For Greek we must examine the phenomena
in still greater detail. It turns out that when the first aspirate of the
root loses its aspiration initially before vowels, the tenuis appears
without exception; on the other hand where the second (root-final) loses it,
the media arises. The latter occurs, as will be
discussed further below, for example in #-(-
T*09, 79T556 (theme 979&(), 7/U(-6,
#E1(-6, ( #/1(Q% beside */1,Q%),7!)-T4-%0
beside 2!#-T4-%0,7E'-o3&!,7oJ'-os
(the latter probably a reduplicated formation from bhā'shine') and
probably also in #!((T%6. It follows from this that at the time when the above-mentioned
euphonic law occurred, the aspirate was already hardened initially; medially
however it had still preserved its original nature (as a soft aspirate). The
initial aspirates before 9 and
1 also seem to have remained weak
at that time still; evidence for this is given by (9T7-
6 = Goth. grab-a, '9/,3ó-s,= 0Ebrägen (see
below), and also (1T96 and (1U96 (compare below also )o!,ó-s). Accordingly, from the
abovementioned development we have to assume that the euphonic law-
according to which the simultaneous appearance ofaspirates in the initial
and final of the root was avoided through the fact that one of the two
aspirates was deprived of its aspiration-developed independently in the two
separated branches of the Greek-Aryan language branch, and that particularly
between the time of separation of Greek from Aryan and the development of
this law in Greek the period must have elapsed in which the initial aspirate
was hardened, except before 9 and 1.
This law arose in both branches from the striving whichis based on the
nature of the aspirates to avoid the heaping of aspirates in the same word.
The two languages did not follow the same course in this process, and
particularly the Aryan languages resisted also the direct coming together of
the two aspirates, while Greek did not, except for homorganic aspirates; yet
the Aryan languages attempted to transfer with much greater consistency to
another sound of a word the aspiration lost in one position, and by this to
maintain the traces of that aspiration (e.g. Skt labdhá-sfrom
labh + ta-s, Gk (9&2-*ó-s, Skt ghoxyāmifrom
guh + syāmi,Gk 4/U56 from 4-#+56 , both with gunation of
the root vowel). Nonetheless the agreement of both branches in their
treatment of the aspirates is overwhelming, and particularly in comparison
with the other branches of the Indo-European language family. While these
gave up the aspirates partially or completely without providing a substitute
for them, the others only worked against their heaping up, but still
attempted, to the extent permitted by the striving for euphony which was
constantly developing toward greater perfection, to preserve the aspiration
as faithfully as possible. As in general in both of these branches, also
where they apparently developed independently of one another, but most
prominently in Sanskrit, on the one hand a wonderfully fine feeling for
euphony developed, and on the other hand the striving remained along with
this to bring to view unimpaired all phonological characteristics of the
roots, especially in all of the formations and derivations which sprang out
of them, and in this way to maintain the roots in their original and
complete life. And this agreement of both language branches is also simply
another of the many phenomena, in which the far-reaching agreement between
the Greek and the Aryan (pre-Brahmanic) spirit appears to us in language,
poetry, myth and life, and gives evidence of the tremendous intellectual
development which the Greek-Aryan people underwent after the departure of
the other peoples. After these digressions, which seemed to me necessary for
the understanding of the whole, I return to the comparison of the individual
roots and first of all to those with an original initial bh. The
citations refer to Curtius, Grundzüge(C), where the number is cited;
to Schleicher's Compendium (S), where the paragraph is; to Leo
Meyer's comparative grammar (M) and to Lottner's essay in Volume 11 of this
journal (L), where the page is cited.
2.
buhd; 2-#
----------------------; bud
) C. 328, M 394 The Latin putare does not belong
here, as was shown above.
3.
bandh; *2/%#, *2/!#; *fad(?); band
) C. 326 Latin fūnisprobably belongs to
the secondary form with u, Skt *bundh; and Gk 2Q#o-s,'vat', 2!#T4%0=7!)T4%0, Lat. fidelia and possibly
also Lat. fîlum,if it is to be explained from *fid-lum, seem
to point to a secondary form with i. The following root also seems to
set out from the same basic meaning.
4.
-----------; 2!#
(fRd-es);
bid, bad ) C. 327
where Gothic to be sure shows the theme
bad for the preterite, but in the present (bidja) and in
the derivations (bida, bidagva) it seems to point to a theme
bid. 5. badh,
bādh; 2&#, 2/%#; fend ; *badv
(Grimm, KZ 1.437). Here Greek differs appreciably in
meaning from the other languages, for Skt badh or vadh
'strike, kill', badh 'torture', Lat. fendo as it appears in
offendo, defendo means 'push'. With this is associated Lith.
bēdá'need, misery' - Russ. bēda,'misery, woe', OSl.
bēdá'compulsion'; also, to the form badh, the Slavic bod?'stab, push'. 6.
bāhú-s; 2M,--s; -----; N bōg-r [C.
176, S. 143] Latin pinguis does not belong
here, for neither the initial, nor the following vowel fits. It probably
belongs together with sphigî 'hip', which belongs to Skt sphai
'swell', and more directly still with ON spik, OE spic
'bacon'; and it presupposes an adjectival formation in u from that
extended root *sphig. The root for No. 7 is
8.
bah, bamh 'grow', from which Goth. bag-m-s
'tree'. Here Gothic points to two aspirates.
That in SansWrit the second aspirate, and not as is usual the first, has
lost its aspiration, seems to have its basis in the factthat the palatal
media is not usually aspirated, except in onomatopoeic words; for this
reason the law of moving of aspiration to the initial, for example, does not
takeplace when this is a palatal media. This situation (that the second
aspirate rather than the first loses its aspiration) occurs more frequently
in Greek.
10.-------------;
79&( ;
------------; barg )
To this probably
10a. -------------; '9/,3ó-s; -----; OE brägen (see
above) Gothic bliggvan (theme
blaggv) 'scourge' as the original root vowel, which is
maintained in Lat. flagellum, while fligo shows the transition
to the i-series.
12. bíbhemi;7E'-o3&!; ---------------OHG bib-en , OE bif-jan
'tremble' The reduplication which the Sanskrit root bhi
shows in the stem syllable has here entered into the theme.
13. -----; -----; fiber; OHG biber
(L. 201). Before I proceed to the other initials,
I must cite another phenomenon, which gives evidence for the previously
posited roots with two aspirates, especially those cited in numbers 1-8.
Comparisons of the words beginning with Skt. b, Gk ', Lat b, Goth. p
indicates, as is well-known, that they do not correspond to each other in
any two of the named languages. The single exception, apart
from '9&,U-s =
brevis, 'oLs = bos,
is formed by the onomatopoeic words, which in the three first named language
branches begin with b, and whose b accordingly also remains
unshifted in Germanic, like for example, Gk '1N-,6, Lat.
balare, OHG blā-zan, NHG blökenand Skt
barbara-s, Gk 'T9'&9o-s,
which refer to the foreign language and imitate this at the same time;
similarly the Lat. balbu-s (C. 394-397, S. 117,3). Even from this
peculiar situation it is probable that initial b, except in
onomatopoeic words, had not existed before the separation of the languages,
and that accordingly those words with initial b (Gmc p.) in
those languages originally had another initial. For Latin and Greek it turns
out that initial b either arose from gv ('&9U-s, '&Q%6, 'oLs, Lat. bos, 'oT6, 'Qo-s, '!ó-s, 'Q&, 'T116, 'o9T, '!'9O546, and probably '&#U-s, 'T2*6), or from dv (bis,
bellum, bonus), or from v ('oU1o3&!, '/1*Q6%, 'o1'ó-s, '1&5*5ó-s,
'9Q$&, '9E,6, '9ó(,o-s) or from
m before l or r ('9o*ó-s, '9&)U-s,
'1O546, '1Q556, '1T+, '10,9ó-s, '9&,U-s according to L. Meyer) or
from bh ( '9E36, 'T$6, '&54&Q%6, '9U6, '1U6, '1E26, bulla,
balaena) or from p ('ó546, bibo,
buxu-s). And the remainder, which cannot be explained in one of these
ways, or seems to be borrowed, is quite isolated and still awaits an
explanation. Similarly it is also probable that the Sanskrit b too
arose from other sounds initially, because otherwise it would be impossible
to understand why its representatives do not show up in the related
languages. Now we also see here, as in Greek, that b arises from
m before r in Skt brū 'speak', for Zend mru
corresponds to this, and before r, m can indeed go over to
b, but not the converse. Further, as also in Latin v and
b frequently interchange (bāro = vāro, batillum
= vatillum), so in Sanskrit this interchange between v and
b appears broadly distributed, but in such a way that in part
v seems to be older, in part b . If one takes the rest of the
Sanskrit words beginning with b, which either have no secondary form
beside them beginning with v, or in which b seems to be older
than v (which is the more common), the remainder consists almost
without exception of words in which an aspirate (with or without nasal) or
an l follows the first vowel. The latter are bal and
bil beside the obvious dialectal secondary forms *bhal and
*bhil. Since the first two are also not directly attested, one must
determine their meanings from derivations. In the first place, bala-m
'strength' with its derivations does not belong here, since Latin
valor etc. demonstrate v as original initial. Now we see
bali-s 'nourishment, food', bāla-s 'boy, child', bālā
'girl' establish the meaning of bal which is cited by the grammarians:
"sustentare nutrire " ( = bhY ) for which
the example bālayati bālam pitā 'the father feeds the
child' is cited. This leads at the same time to the origin from Skt
bhar, bhY , for r changed to l, as it did so often and
first generated the form *bhal, and then the bh lost its
aspiration through the influence of the l at the end of the root. The
exact equivalent is true of bil, from which bíla-m 'gorge,
grotto' arose, and which the grammarians quitecorrectly explain from
bhid 'split' beside the root *bhil, which is cited by them too
but not attested in derivatives either. The root bhid must also be viewed as
the original form for bil (see Benfey's Glossary to the Sāmaveda),
for d developed to l, as happens not infrequently in the final
root; accordingly *bhil arose first of all, whereupon the initial
aspirate lost its aspiration through the above mentioned influence of the
l. This influence of the l following the vowel on the initial
(soft) aspirate is also confirmed by the fact that apart from the cited
roots *bhal and *bhil the grammarians cite no root which
begins with a weak aspirate and ends with l. The few words of the
form: "weak aspirate, vowel, l" are either onomatopoeic, like
ghulaghulārava 'a kind of dove', Jhillī 'cricket' etc., or
dialectal secondary forms, chiefly adduced only by the grammarians, like
ghola-yāmi. 'mix together', a Prakrit reformation of
ghūrnayāmi or jhāla 'heat of the sun' beside jvala-s
(from jval); dhūli'dust' is the only word of this type that
has a more general distribution. According to this it seems justified
therefore, to assume for Sanskrit a dislike for such combinations and to
hypothesize that the l following the vowel in the classical language
deprived the originally (soft) aspirate of its aspiration, so that
particularly bal and bil point back to the original initial
bh. The remaining evidence for initial b after removal of the
named forms, is limited according to the glossaries of Bopp and of Benfey
(to the Samaveda) to the following words (when we exclude the words cited
only by grammarians: bafij 'merchant', where the
b is weakened from p (pan 'sell, play dice'),the Vedic
asseverative particle bat, which probably goes back to the original
initial v (see Benfey, Glossary), bāná-s = vāná-s
'arrow' = bundá-s, brbád-uktha for bYhad-uktha. I now proceed to the other initials. 14.
dih; (#!(); fig;
dig
) C. 145 That Goth. deiga belongs together
with Lat. fingo, with which Curtius also associated it recently, is
proved by the nicely fitting meaning as well as the form. The g in
Germanic shows itself to be very persistent in all dialects, and it is also
maintained in Goth. deiga '21T556', digans 'o5*&94!%ó-s' daig-s '7U9&3&'; only the isolated gadikis '21T53&' shows a deviation. Germanic
accordingly points definitely to a final aspirate, the corresponding
Sanskrit form would therefore have to read digh or dih. The
Sanskrit root dih has the meaning: 'coat with white material' and
accordingly agrees nicely with the basic meaning of fingo. That Skt
h stands for gh is proved among other things by the
secondary form san-degh-a for san-deh-a.
The sounds are in complete agreement
when the form with two aspirates is taken as original. The Greek #!((T%6, also agrees in sound, since as
demonstrated above the root-final aspirate, if it loses its aspiration, goes
over to the media. But the meaning is by no means in such exact
correspondence with that which the other languages develop, that there may
not still be doubt. From the root dih develops in Sanskrit
deha-s, deha-m 'body), which however does not yet occur in the
Vedas with dehî (as feminine formation from it) with the meaning'mound,
dike, wall'; with this agrees dehalî 'mound before a house, step, lintel,
terrace', as also dehikā 'an insect that throws up earth';
upa-dehikā 'a kind of ant', ud-dehikā 'termite'. And this
meaning of 'heaping up' or 'formation of earth' we also give as the basis
for deha 'body'. To deha-s corresponds quite exactly Gk *oJ,o-s and with neuter suffix */J,-os, the basic meaning of which would
also be 'earthen wall'. Against the interrelationship with Gk */U,6 (Curtius, No. 135),the vowel
provides the most decisive evidence, for o! and /! are the
regular gunations of i, the first regularly with the suffix
o-, the latter always with the neuter suffix
-os.
15.
dáh-āmi 'burn'
--
-- OHG
tāht 'wick' for which I adopt the interpretation of
Skt áhan from *dah-an (Bopp, Glossary). That Gk )&Q6, )&Qs does not belong here, as L.
Meyer (Comparative Grammar 385) assumes, but rather stands for *)&Fj6, )&FQs, and belongs to Skt du 'burn',
from which Skt dava-s, davathu-s dāvá-s 'burning'
develops, has already been indicated by Curtius (Grundzüge, No. 258); and
that Lat. fax does not belong here, because of the contrasting final
c, has been demonstrated above.
16.
duhitár; #-(T*09
--- dauhtar [C. 318], 17.
duh
--
-- dug
Skt duhitar points back to the
root duh; Goth. dauhtar to the Gothic root dug; both
correspond exactly in sound. But the meaning of Goth. dug-an (5-3-7E9/!%, ,9N5!3o%, /G%&!) with which Grimm,
Grammar 2.23, rightly puts dauh-t-s 'guest meal, )o,N', seems to be quite remote from the
concept of the Sanskrit root duh 'milk, give milk'; and the English
dug 'teat, udder' could be suspected of borrowing from Celtic,
deogh- 'mammas sugere'. But the abstract concept of Goth.
dugan must have risen from a sensuous meaning; and the root
duh of Sanskrit places this transition before our eyes. In this way
the meaning 'milk' is transferred to abstract concepts: 'to exploit
something, draw a use or profit from it';and the meaning 'milk', that is 'to
give milk' to the abstract concepts: 'to provide something desired
(useful)'. And from this concept the meaning: 'provide a use, be useful', as
Goth. dugan shows it, as well as the concept of entertainment
(dauht-s as translation of )o,N could very readily develop. Lat. ducere, Goth.
tiuhan clearly does not belong here.
18.
druh (#/1();
fraud; OHG trug With regards to the meaning, as well as
the Gk #E1(6 (the vowel of which
still raises a question), I point to Kuhn's discussion in this journal
(1.180), and note only that the basic concept is: 'to injure someone,
especially through trickery, treachery, witchcraft'; and that ON
draugr 'ghost, shadow of the dead' agrees precisely with Skt
druh 'monster, witch', Zend druj 'evil spirit'. Lat. fraus,
which agrees excellently in meaning (compare Skt drógha-s,
droha-s 'insult, deception') I have put here experimentally; the
organically corresponding form would have to be *fraug-. Since
however an exchange of the aspirates of various speech organs is not at all
infrequent, and since Lat. d in fraud would represent an
aspirate, this attempt did not seem too daring. In Germanic a homophonous
root, but starting from another meaning, seems to have mixed with this,
namely Goth. driuga (theme drug) 'do military service'
compared with OE dryht, ON dröt 'companions, retinue', and
especially with Lith. drauga-s 'companion', draugé, and in
compounds: draug- with OS1., Russ. drugH
'companion, friend' also in the sense 'another'. We do not find anything in
Sanskrit corresponding to these meanings, which go back to the concept of
companionship, if one does not want to adduce the words cited by the
lexicographers: druha-s 'son', druhī 'daughter'. Lat
trux would indeed correspond initially with our root in accordance
with the treatment above, by which initial Lat. tr can have arisen
from older dr, originally dhr; but its final, as shown above,
point to another origin for it.
19.
----- *-7-1ó-s ------ Goth. daub-s, dumb-s
(L.199)
SIMULTANEOUS
PRESENCE IN THE INITIAL
AND FINAL OF ROOTS
im An- und Auslaute der Wurzeln, "Zeitschrift
für
vergleichende
Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete des Deutschen,
Grie chischen und Lateinischen, 12.2
(1863), 81-138
With regard to the question about the original
presence of roots with aspirates in initial and final position it is above
all necessary to note the two following well-known euphonic laws of Greek
and Sanskrit, which I give here for the sake of clarity.
bódhāmi;2-%#T%o3&!;
----; binda ) S.
143;
badhnâmi;
; binda )
bandh-u-s; 2/%#-/9ó-s
bandh-a-s; 2/J53&; fas-ci-s(?);
HG band, bind-a.
2/Q#6; fīd-o;
bidja )
bādhe ; 2T-5,6 -fendo; ( N böd 'battle' OE
beadu).
But the transition of meaning to Greek 2T#o-s, 2T5,6 appears clearly in the Lithuanian and Slavic words. That Lat.
pati doesn't belong here has been shown above.
7. bahú-s;
2&,U-s
[S. 143].
9.
bhuj 7-( ;
fug bug )
C. 163
bhujâmi; 79T(6; fugio;
biuga )
L.
200
; 79T556; ------------; bairga
)
11. -------------; flagellum, flīgo; bliggva (L.
200)
(L. 201, C. 409).
dehmi;
(#!((T%6; fingo; deiga
) M. 385
áh-an
'day'
Goth. dag-s
in which Greek has modified the second aspirate
and indeed regularly; the Goth. h is conditioned by the following
t. With this belongs the root:
dogh
-mi
daug.
drhúyāmi (#/1(6); triugu (ON
draug-r).
20.
*drāgh;
------- traho;
draga
dīrgh-á-s;
)o1!,-ó-s