Advanced search
1 file | 632.63 KB

What is the Greek counterpart of (Proto-)Indo-Iranian (*)th?

Filip De Decker (UGent)
Author
Organization
Abstract
Almost since the beginning of Indo-European linguistics as a science, it has been noted that the voiceless aspirates (Tenues Aspiratae, henceforth TA) were relatively infrequent and were only attested in very few languages (Indo- Iranian, Greek and Armenian). Usually, Indic and Greek agreed in having a TA, but in a number of instances a Sanskrit or Indo-Iranian aspirate corresponded to a plain plosive in Greek. In most of these instances a Sanskrit th corresponded to a Greek t, but there were instances where Sanskrit th was matched by a Greek th. The article therefore focuses mainly (but not exclusively) on the instances in which a th can be found in Indo-Iranian and discusses what the Greek counterpart is. First, we state the problem and give a brief overview of previous suggestions to solve this problem, but none of these explanations can explain the differences and agreements between the Greek and Indo-Iranian. After the overvie we proceed to an analysis of all the instances and argue that the difference in aspiration between Greek t and (Proto-)Indo- Iranian *th can be explained by the fact that the (Proto-)Indo-Iranian forms are the result of a cluster *th2V or are due to evolutions, specific to Indo-Iranian, Indic or Iranian. Where the Greek counterpart of (Proto-)Indo-Iranian *th is th, we argue that the aspirate has to be posited for PIE or — in case there is no related word in a Western language is lacking — for East-IE.
Keywords
phonology, consonantism, laryngeal aspiration, voiceless aspirates, Greek, Indo-Iranian, phonemes, Indo-European

Downloads

  • Tenues Aspiratae IJDL 2015 2.pdf
    • full text
    • |
    • open access
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 632.63 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

Chicago
De Decker, Filip. 2015. “What Is the Greek Counterpart of (Proto-)Indo-Iranian (*)th?” Ed. Eugen Hill, Martin Kümmel, and Stefan Schumacher. International Journal of Diachronic Linguistics and Linguistic Reconstruction 12: 89–164.
APA
De Decker, F. (2015). What is the Greek counterpart of (Proto-)Indo-Iranian (*)th? (E. Hill, M. Kümmel, & S. Schumacher, Eds.)INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DIACHRONIC LINGUISTICS AND LINGUISTIC RECONSTRUCTION, 12, 89–164.
Vancouver
1.
De Decker F. What is the Greek counterpart of (Proto-)Indo-Iranian (*)th? Hill E, Kümmel M, Schumacher S, editors. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DIACHRONIC LINGUISTICS AND LINGUISTIC RECONSTRUCTION. Munich: Peniope; 2015;12:89–164.
MLA
De Decker, Filip. “What Is the Greek Counterpart of (Proto-)Indo-Iranian (*)th?” Ed. Eugen Hill, Martin Kümmel, & Stefan Schumacher. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DIACHRONIC LINGUISTICS AND LINGUISTIC RECONSTRUCTION 12 (2015): 89–164. Print.
@article{8101137,
  abstract     = {Almost since the beginning of Indo-European linguistics as a science, it has been noted that the voiceless aspirates (Tenues Aspiratae, henceforth TA) were relatively infrequent and were only attested in very few languages (Indo- Iranian, Greek and Armenian). Usually, Indic and Greek agreed in having a TA, but in a number of instances a Sanskrit or Indo-Iranian aspirate corresponded to a plain plosive in Greek. In most of these instances a Sanskrit th corresponded to a Greek t, but there were instances where Sanskrit th was matched by a Greek th. The article therefore focuses mainly (but not exclusively) on the instances in which a th can be found in Indo-Iranian and discusses what the Greek counterpart is. First, we state the problem and give a brief overview of previous suggestions to solve this problem, but none of these explanations can explain the differences and agreements between the Greek and Indo-Iranian. After the overvie we proceed to an analysis of all the instances and argue that the difference in aspiration between Greek t and (Proto-)Indo- Iranian *th can be explained by the fact that the (Proto-)Indo-Iranian forms are the result of a cluster *th2V or are due to evolutions, specific to Indo-Iranian,
Indic or Iranian. Where the Greek counterpart of (Proto-)Indo-Iranian *th is th, we argue that the aspirate has to be posited for PIE or — in case there is no related word in a Western language is lacking — for East-IE.},
  author       = {De Decker, Filip},
  editor       = {Hill, Eugen and Kümmel, Martin and Schumacher, Stefan},
  issn         = {1614-5291},
  journal      = {INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DIACHRONIC LINGUISTICS AND LINGUISTIC RECONSTRUCTION},
  keywords     = {phonology,consonantism,laryngeal aspiration,voiceless aspirates,Greek,Indo-Iranian,phonemes,Indo-European},
  language     = {eng},
  pages        = {89--164},
  publisher    = {Peniope},
  title        = {What is the Greek counterpart of (Proto-)Indo-Iranian (*)th?},
  volume       = {12},
  year         = {2015},
}