Frederik Kortlandt #306 (2016) Phrygian between Greek and Armenian In an earlier study (1988), I argued that we can think of Thracian as an early dialect of Proto-Armenian. Both languages shared the devoicing of the PIE glottalic stops *b, *d, *g to *p, *t, *k (cf. Dečev 1952: 7-9, Duridanov 1976: 101, 1988: 61, Brixhe & Panayotou 1997: 200), e.g. Thracian Utus, Ουτως, Greek ὕδωρ. The alleged voiced aspirates appear as plain voiced stops, e.g. γεντον ‘meat’ < *gwhento-, βρ(ο)υτος ‘beer’ < *bhrūto- (cf. Georgiev 1977: 103). The voiceless stops remained unchanged, as is especially clear from Pulpudeva ‘Plovdiv’, Greek Φιλιππόπολις (cf. Duridanov 1986, Hamp 1988), also -πορις ‘son’ (with variants), Latin puer. The Thracians evidently did not perceive the aspiration of the Greeks. Like Balto-Slavic and Daco-Albanian, the Thraco-Armenian complex belongs to the satǝm languages. Following Lejeune (1979), I assumed that Phrygian did not share the ThracoArmenian consonant shift. This view is still maintained by Brixhe (1997: 173, 2008: 74), Matzinger (2005: 378) and de Lamberterie (2013: 27f.). Their key example is podas, which they identify with Greek acc.pl. πόδας ‘feet’. However, Lubotsky has pointed out (2004: 232) that this suggestion does not yield an acceptable interpretation of the sentence. Other pieces of evidence that Lejeune adduces (1979: 223f.) are bagun ‘gift’ < *bhagom and the name benagonos, which he compares with Greek -γονος. As Lubotsky points out, the former word may rather mean ‘idol’ and be a borrowing from Iranian, or may even be identified with Greek acc.sg. πῆχυν ‘arm’ < *bhāǵhum, whereas the latter may correspond to Greek -φονος or even -χθονος. On the other hand, Lubotsky adduces the following words in order to show that the consonant shift operated in Phrygian: – acc.sg. Τιαν < *diēm, gen.sg. Τιος < *diwos, Gr. Ζεύς, Ζῆν, Διός < Διϝός. – acc.sg. βεκος ‘bread’ < *bhH1ǵos, Gr. φώγω ‘bake’. – nom.pl. κενα ‘generations’ < *ǵenH1esH2, Gr. γένεα. – acc.sg. κ̣ναικαν ‘wife’ < *gwneH2iḱ-, Gr. γυναικ-. – imp.mid. 3sg. lakedo ‘?devote’ < *slH2gw-, Gr. λαβεῖν ‘be taken’. – pf.pt.mid. τετικμενος ‘cursed’ < *dediḱmH1nos, Gr. δικάζω ‘judge’. – preverb τι ‘?through’ < *dis-, Gr. δια-. I conclude that the Thraco-Armenian consonant shift affected Phrygian as well and was a dialectal Indo-European innovation cutting through the division between centum and satǝm languages, which may have arisen around the same time. In view of its geographical distribution, I suspect that the devoicing of the glottalic stops can be attributed to the influence of a Proto-Anatolian substratum because the Anatolians passed through future Thracian and Phrygian territory on their way from the Indo-European homeland north of the Black Sea to Anatolia. Indo-European voiced stops originated only after the Anatolians and the Tocharians left the IndoEuropean homeland (cf. Kortlandt 2012). Contrary to de Lamberterie’s objection (2013: 28), there is no reason to suppose that PIE *p, *t, *k became aspirated in order to keep them distinct from *b, *d, *g when the latter were devoiced because glottalization was probably preserved, as it was in Armenian (cf. Kortlandt 2003: 20-25, 126-128). The rise of aspirated stops in Armenian was a much more recent development (cf. Kortlandt 2003: 28-31). 2 The development of the laryngeals in Phrygian was evidently the same as in Greek (cf. Ligorio & Lubockij 2013: 186). Armenian shared the triple representation of the laryngeals in word-initial position, e.g. *H1- in inn ‘nine’ < *H1neun, im ‘mine’ < *H1mos, both with *i- < *e- before a nasal, further eluzanem ‘extract’, erek ‘evening’, Greek ἐλεύσομαι, ἔρεβος, *H2- in ayr ‘man’, astł ‘star’, arew ‘sun’, Greek ἀνήρ, ἀστήρ, Sanskrit ravis, *H3- in ołb ‘lament’, orb ‘orphan’, orjik‘ ‘testicles’, oskr ‘bone’, Greek ὀλοφύρομαι, ὀρφανός, ὄρχις, ὀστέον (cf. Kortlandt 2003: 54-56, 75-78). Initial *H2e- and *H3e- are reflected as ha- and ho-, respectively, e.g. haw ‘bird’, harawunk‘ ‘field’, hot ‘odor’, hoviw ‘shepherd’, Latin avis, arāre, odor, ovis, Greek ἄρουρα, ὄϊς (cf. Kortlandt 2003: 39-44, 54-56). It cannot be established if Thracian and Phrygian shared the latter development because initial h- would not be reflected in the orthography of these languages. Without taking the ablaut grades into account, de Lamberterie rejects the rise of h- from *H- in Armenian (2013: 2965) on the basis of wrong etymologies, positing *H2o- for hoviw, hołm ‘wind’, ost ‘branch’ and oskr. He also rejects the reconstruction of *H3- for atamn ‘tooth’ and anun ‘name’, where pretonic *o- yielded a- (cf. Meillet 1894: 153-157, Pedersen 1900: 100, Kortlandt 2003: 32), in spite of the unambiguous evidence of Greek ὀδών, ὀδούς, ὄνομα, ὄνυμα, and especially νωδός ‘toothless’, νώνυμος ‘nameless’, which represent an archaic formation beside more recent ἀνόδων, ἀνώνυμος. The word for ‘tooth’ must not be connected with Gr. ἔδομαι ‘will eat’ but with the root *H3ed- ‘bite, sting’ attested in Lith. úodas ‘gnat’, Gr. ὀδύνη ‘pain’, νώδυνος ‘painless’. The word for ‘name’ is also attested in Old Phrygian onoman. Contrary to de Lamberterie’s statement (2013: 3374), I do not think that the initial vowel of Albanian emër ‘name’ is a “voyelle prothétique”; as in Prussian emmens (cf. Kortlandt 2009: 255) and Old Irish ainm, it reflects the vocalization of the syllabic nasal. The word is a derivative of the root *H3neH3- of Gr. ὄνομαι ‘scorn’. The inflection of nominal o-stems in Phrygian is virtually identical to that in Greek and Armenian (cf. Brixhe 2008: 76, Ligorio & Lubockij 2013: 188, Kortlandt 2003: 45-51): Greek Phrygian Armenian -ος -ον -ου, -οιο -ῳ -οι -os, -ος -un, -ουν -ovo, -ου -oi, -ου = dat. = acc. *-u *-oyo *-oye *-e -οι -ους, -ονς -ων -οις -οισι -oi, -οι ?-oys -ουν ?-oys, -ως = dat. *-uh, *-e *-us *-oc‘u = gen. *-su SINGULAR nom. acc. gen. dat. loc. PLURAL nom. acc. gen. dat. loc. The singular endings represent nom. *-os, acc. *-om, gen. pronominal *-oso (Greek and Phrygian, cf. *-eso in Germanic) and *-osio (Greek and Armenian, also in IndoIranian), dat. *-ōi (Arm. -oy- from the genitive), loc. *-oi, the plural endings nom. pronominal *-oi (Arm. *-uh < *-ōs), acc. *-ons, gen. *-oom (cf. Kortlandt 2014b, 3 Arm. -c‘- < *-sk-), dat. *-ōis from the instrumental, loc. *-(oi)su (Greek -ι from the singular). As far as we can reconstruct the Phrygian verbal system, it is largely identical to that of Greek and Armenian. It appears that there are reflexes of the present, imperfect, aorist, perfect, future, subjunctive, optative, imperative, active and transitive middle (cf. Sowa 2007, Ligorio & Lubockij 2013: 191f., Kortlandt 2003: 34-38, 107-116). Phrygian αδδακετ “corresponds to the aor. παρεθέμην of the Greek text, which makes the preterite interpretation of this form very likely” (Lubotsky 1997: 127), resulting in a meaning ‘has put’. This looks like a perfect derived from a k-aorist *dhēk, like Latin fēcit (cf. Kortlandt 2016). This interpretation is supported by the 3rd pl. perfect form δακαρεν, corresponding to Latin fēcērunt (cf. Ligorio & Lubockij 2013: 192). The 3rd pl. form *stār (Vedic ásthur) may be found in Phrygian ενσταρνα̣. Since αδδακετορ and αββερετορ appear in the same contexts as αδδακετ and αββερετ, where we also find αββερετοι, Ligorio & Lubockij assume that all these forms belong to the middle paradigm (2013: 191). I find this highly unlikely. As Lubotsky points out himself (1997: 12726), the most common forms are αδδακετ and αββερετορ while αδδακετορ and αββερετ occur only in a few inscriptions. It is therefore probable that the original formulae used either active αδδακετ or middle αββερετορ and later the forms became mixed up. This suggests that αδδακετ was a perfect form ‘has put’ whereas αββερετορ and αββερετοι were middle forms of the imperfect ‘brought’ and the present ‘brings’, respectively. While the present ending -τοι is the same as in Greek, the imperfect form must be compared with the Armenian imperfect berēr < *-etor, beriwr < *-etro (cf. Meillet 1936: 127, Kortlandt 2003: 37), like Latin -tur < *-toro beside Oscan -ter < *-tro (Kortlandt 2007: 156). It appears that the original transitive middle endings in *-(n)tr(o) were lost in Greek and Indo-Iranian, where the intransitive endings 3rd sg. *-o and 3rd pl. *-ro were preserved in Vedic śáye, śére ‘lie(s)’, with added *-i. Like Greek, Phrygian developed a transitive s-aorist, which is attested in 3rd sg. εδαες ‘put’ < *dhēs-es and εσταες < ‘erected’ < *stās-es (cf. Lubotsky 1988: 17f.). I do not think that the ending -es can be derived from another sigmatic aorist (thus Ligorio & Lubockij 2013: 191, similarly Gorbachov 2005). More probably, it represents an enclitic subject pronoun *es, like Tocharian A -ṣ, B -ṃ, Old Irish olsé ‘said he’ (cf. Kortlandt 2007: 114). The enclitic pronoun was also added to the root aorists ενεπαρκες ‘engraved’ < *pērk-es and εκανες ‘dug’ < *kēn-es, with a long root vowel from monosyllabic lengthening (cf. Kortlandt 2015). Since edatoy < *dhētoi and estatoi < *stātoi are evidently the middle counterparts of edaes and εσταες (Ligorio & Lubockij 2013: 191), they are original root aorists with a long root vowel and a generalized primary ending. This is reminiscent of Tocharian, where the intransitive middle endings spread to the transitive middle aorist (cf. Kortlandt 2014a: 84). As a result, Phrygian has 3rd sg. -toi in the aorist versus -tor in the imperfect while the secondary ending *-to was evidently lost. This is again reminiscent of Armenian, which has 3rd sg. -r in the imperfect but not in the aorist. The form daΨet /dakset/ is strongly reminiscent of the Latin future faxō ‘will do’ while the subjunctives egeseti and εγεσιτ ‘will hold’ < *seǵhes- beside με-βερετ < *bher- and με-τοτοσσειτι ‘will take away’ < *-dH3(e)s- and ιστεικετ ‘will appear’ < *-deiḱ- suggest that there was no semantic difference between primary and secondary endings here (as in the Indo-Iranian subjunctive, cf. Beekes 1981). The zero grade of the root in τοτοσσειτι and the suffix *-es- in εγεσιτ show that these forms must be compared with Oscan didest ‘will give’ 4 and Umbrian ferest ‘will carry’ and represent original s-presents (cf. Pedersen 1921: 23), similarly Old Irish fo-lil ‘will support’ < *lilugst, subj. -bé ‘may be’ < *bhH3uest, Lithuanian bùs ‘will be’, Tocharian tās- ‘put’ < *dhH1(e)s- (cf. Kortlandt 2007: 65-74). Thus, I conclude that Greek, Phrygian and Thraco-Armenian reflect a single Indo-European dialect area that was divided by two major isoglosses, viz. the devoicing of the glottalic stops which separated Phrygian from Greek and the satǝmization of the palatovelars which separated it from Thraco-Armenian. Phrygian provides in several respects the missing link between Greek and Armenian. In particular, the paradigms of the middle voice appear to have been more extensive than what we find in the separate languages. The 3rd sg. endings are the following (cf. Ligorio & Lubockij 2013: 191, Kortlandt 2003: 37f., 2007: 145f.): present imperfect aorist Greek -ται, -τοι -το -το Phrygian -τοι -τορ -toy Armenian -y -yr, -wr -w It appears that the original endings are best preserved in Armenian and that the ending *-tor was lost in Greek (but not in Latin -tur and Old Irish -thar). The ablaut in the Phrygian forms egeseti and με-τοτοσσειτι (Ligorio & Lubockij 2013: 192) reveals their origin as athematic s-futures while the form daΨet < *dhēkset is clearly an aorist subjunctive, like Armenian dic‘ē ‘put’ and tac‘ ‘gave’ (cf. Kortlandt 2003: 107-109). The archaic character of the Phrygian language is corroborated by the Indo-Iranian and Italo-Celtic evidence. References Beekes, Robert S.P. 1981. The subjunctive endings of Indo-Iranian. Indo-Iranian Journal 23/1, 21-27. Brixhe, Claude. 1997. Le phrygien. Langues indo-européennes (Paris: CNRS), 167-180. Brixhe, Claude. 2008. Phrygian. The ancient languages of Asia Minor (Cambridge: UP), 69-80. Brixhe, Claude & Panayotou, Anna. 1997. Le thrace. Langues indo-européennes (Paris: CNRS), 181-205. Dečev, Dimitъr. 1952. Harakteristika na trakijskija ezik (Sofija: BAN). Duridanov, Ivan. 1976. Ezikъt na trakite (Sofija: Nauka i izkustvo). Duridanov, Ivan. 1986. Pulpudeva, Plovdiv, Plovdin. Balkansko Ezikoznanie 29/4, 25-34. Duridanov, Ivan. 1988. Zur Frage der Lautverschiebung im Thrakischen. Balkansko Ezikoznanie 31, 57-64. Georgiev, Vladimir I. 1977. Trakite i tehnijat ezik (Sofija: BAN). Gorbachov, Yaroslav. 2005. The origin of the Phrygian aorist of the type edaes. Proceedings of the 16th annual UCLA Indo-European conference [=JIES monograph no. 50], 191-217. Hamp, Eric P. 1988. Плъп’дивъ > Плъвдивъ. Balkansko Ezikoznanie 31, 75-76. Kortlandt, Frederik. 1988. The Thraco-Armenian consonant shift. Balkansko Ezikoznanie 31, 71-74. 5 Kortlandt, Frederik. 2003. Armeniaca: Comparative notes (Ann Arbor: Caravan Books). Kortlandt, Frederik. 2007. Italo-Celtic origins and prehistoric development of the Irish language (Amsterdam: Rodopi). Kortlandt, Frederik. 2009. Baltica & Balto-Slavica (Amsterdam: Rodopi). Kortlandt, Frederik. 2012. Proto-Indo-European glottalic stops: The evidence revisited. <www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art282e.pdf> Kortlandt, Frederik. 2014a. The Tocharian personal endings. Tocharian and IndoEuropean Studies 15, 79-86. Kortlandt, Frederik. 2014b. Reconstructing Balto-Slavic and Indo-European. Baltistica 49/1, 5-13. Kortlandt, Frederik. 2015. Sigmatic and asigmatic long vowel preterit forms. Journal of Indo-European Studies 43, 236-242. Kortlandt, Frederik. 2016. The Indo-European k-aorist. <www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art302e.pdf> de Lamberterie, Charles. 2013. Grec, phrygien, arménien: des anciens aux modernes. Journal des Savants 2013/1, 3-69. Lejeune, Michel. 1979. Regards sur les sonores i.e. en vieux phrygien. Florilegium Anatolicum [Fs. Laroche] (Paris: Boccard), 219-224. Ligorio, Orsat & Lubockij, Aleksandr. 2013. Frigijskij jazyk. Jazyki Mira: Reliktovye indoevropejskie jazyki Perednej i Central’noj Azii (Moskva: Academia), 180-195. Lubotsky, Alexander. 1988. The Old Phrygian Areyastis-inscription. Kadmos 27/1, 9-26. Lubotsky, Alexander. 1997. New Phrygian inscription no. 48: Palaeographic and linguistic comments. Frigi e Frigio: Atti del 1° simposio internazionale (Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche), 115-130. Lubotsky, Alexander. 2004. The Phrygian Zeus and the problem of the “Lautverschiebung”. Historische Sprachforschung 117, 229-237. Matzinger, Joachim. 2005. Phrygisch und Armenisch. Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel (Wiesbaden: Reichert), 375-394. Meillet, Antoine. 1894. Notes arméniennes. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 8, 153-165. Meillet, Antoine. 1936. Esquisse d’une grammaire comparée de l’arménien classique (Vienne: Mékhitharistes). Pedersen, Holger. 1900. Wieviel laute gab es im Indogermanischen? Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 36, 74-110. Pedersen, Holger. 1921. Les formes sigmatiques du verbe latin et le problème du futur indo-européen (København: Høst & Søn). Sowa, Wojciech. 2007. Anmerkungen zum Verbalsystem des Phrygischen. Indogermanische Forschungen 112, 69-95. Summary We can think of Thracian as an early dialect of Proto-Armenian. Both languages shared the devoicing of the PIE glottalic stops *b, *d, *g to *p, *t, *k. The alleged voiced aspirates appear as plain voiced stops. The voiceless stops remained unchanged. The Thracians evidently did not perceive the aspiration of the Greeks. The Thraco-Armenian consonant shift affected Phrygian as well and was a dialectal 6 Indo-European innovation cutting through the division between centum and satǝm languages. In view of its geographical distribution, I suspect that the devoicing of the glottalic stops can be attributed to the influence of a Proto-Anatolian substratum because the Anatolians passed through future Thracian and Phrygian territory on their way from the Indo-European homeland north of the Black Sea to Anatolia. The development of the laryngeals in Phrygian was evidently the same as in Greek. The inflection of nominal o-stems in Phrygian is virtually identical to that in Greek and Armenian. As far as we can reconstruct the Phrygian verbal system, it is largely identical to that of Greek and Armenian. It appears that there are reflexes of the present, imperfect, aorist, perfect, future, subjunctive, optative, imperative, active and transitive middle. I conclude that Greek, Phrygian and Thraco-Armenian reflect a single Indo-European dialect area that was divided by two major isoglosses, viz. the devoicing of the glottalic stops which separated Phrygian from Greek and the satǝmization of the palatovelars which separated it from Thraco-Armenian. Phrygian provides in several respects the missing link between Greek and Armenian. In particular, the paradigms of the middle voice appear to have been more extensive than what we find in the separate languages. The archaic character of the Phrygian language is corroborated by the Indo-Iranian and Italo-Celtic evidence.