Colarusso - Typological Parallels Between PIE and NWC (1981)

TYPOLOGICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN
AND THE NORTHWEST CAUCASIAN LANGUAGES

JOHN COLARUSSO
McMaster University
1.
Introduction:
1.1. The Northwest Caucasian language family is one of three

language families indigenous to the Caucasus mountain area of the
southern U.S.S.R. (cf. Colarusso 1977). The family has three subdivisions: Circassian, with a West and an East sub-group (the latter
dominated by the chief language, Kabardian); Ubykh; and Abkhaz-Abaza,
split, as the name denotes, into Abkhaz and Abaza sub-groups. The
Northwest Caucasian languages are arguably the most bizarre, at least
phonologically, of any of the Caucasian languages. On the face of
things, one could hardly ask for a less Indo-European set of languages,
yet despite this alien aspect overall similarities between Proto-IndoEuropean and one or more of the Northwest Caucasian languages have
been studied before (cf. Hopper 1977a [general Northwest Caucasian];
Colarusso 1975:394-8 and 1977:67-8 [both general Northwest Caucasian];
Allen 1956:172-4 and 1965a [both Abaza]; Kuipers 1960:104-7, 113-4
[Kabardi an]).
1.2. Modern phonological and phonetic theory has thrown a great
deal of light upon the Northwest Caucasian languages (cf. Colarusso
1975), so that more is known about these languages than was the case
a decade ago. Older comparisons between this group and Proto-Indo-
476
JOHN COLARUSSO
European show only gross typological parallels, many of which do not

hold up under close scrutiny. The parallels are there, however, and
in fact are very close. They are, however, not as evident as was once
thought and are clear only after detailed examination. This paper will
make use of our enhanced knowledge of the phonology and phonetics of
the Northwest Caucasian languages to examine issues in Proto-Indo-European and to suggest avenues for future research.
2.
Usefulness of Typological Studies:
2.1. One may legitimately question the usefulness of typological

studies to historical linguistics since clearly one can do historical
linguistics without typology, as has been the case for most of the
history of Indo-European studies. In a sense typological studies have
acquired theoretical importance only as linguistic theory has matured
and we have come to have some understanding of what is likely or possible in a language. Even beyond the bounds of modern theory, we find
striking, though as yet unexplained, patterns in the world's languages.
If reconstructing proto-languages is an effort to retrieve some information about real languages, then it is disturbing when such protolanguages violate these patterns. Moreover, if language reconstruction
is viewed as retrieving or reconstructing grammars and rules thereof,
then typology backed up by phonological or syntactic theory becomes
quite powerful.
2.2. In comparing Proto-Indo-European (PIE) and the Northwest
Caucasian (NWC) languages, we have patterns of a simply typological
sort, on the one hand, and patterns backed up by elaborate and wellfounded phonological theory, on the other. In addition, recent work
(Gimbutas 1973a, 1973b, and 1974; Gamkrelidze 1966; Gamqrelidze [Gamkrelidze] and Mac'avariani 1965) have placed the likely PIE homeland
just to the north of the Caucasus (Colarusso 1977:67) and have drawn
close parallels between PIE and Proto-Kartvelian (the mother language
TYPOLOGICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN PIE AND NWC
477
of Georgian, Mingrelian, Laz, and Svan). Such a PIE homeland would

make PIE near, if not contiguous, to Proto-NWC (PNWC). If this work
holds up, then typological parallels between PIE and the NWC languages
take on the aspect of shared areal features.
2.3. Finally, the PIE laryngeals, as their name suggests, have
usually been viewed as 11 gutturals 11 , i.e., as either velars [+high,
+back], in terms of distinctive features (cf. Chomsky and Halle 1968),
uvulars [-high, +back], pharyngeals [+constricted pharynx] (Colarusso
1975:219-92, 1978, and in press; Halle and Stevens 1969; Perkell 1972),
or true laryngeals [+low] (usually). The NWC languages, exceedingly
rich in these segments, offer invaluable typological insights into the
phonology, both synchronic and diachronic, of such segments, particularly of the laryngeals and rare pharyngeals (Colarusso 1978). Since
we have no hope of finding an Indo-European language in which the phonetic and phonological character of the laryngeals will be evident,
such typological work is invaluable if we are to attain a more concrete
notion of these sounds and how they worked. For examining such 11 guttural11 segments, the testimony of the NWC languages is crucial. Such
a comparison gains greater importance when viewed as part of a set of
wider similarities between PIE and the NWC languages, especially with
regard to apophony and syllable type. Such general, though detailed,
comparison between the two groups is highly rewarding.
3.
Proto-Indo-European Source Features:
3.1. Some recent work (Hopper 1973, 1977a, and 1977b; Gamkrelidze
1976; Szemerenyi 1967) has viewed the PIE stop system as typologically
improbable. The three-way contrast (using the dentals as examples)
*dh ~ *d ~ *t is known in no living language. We should note here,
however, that a similar system is necessary in the reconstruction of
Proto-Chinese (cf. Karlgren 1940, 1915-26). Karlgren (1940) posits a
velar series *k ~ *kh ~ *g ~ *gh ~ *D ~ *h (= *x ?). Cowan (1971:22-3,
JOHN COLARUSSO
478
85-9) eliminates the voiced series and presents such sets as those in
(1).
(1)
item
gloss
Canton
Shanghai
Peking
Proto-Chinese
24
2
help
/pol)/
/pal)/
/pal)/
all
/phou/
/phu/
/phu/
*p
*ph
41
plate
/phOn/
/be/
/phan/
*bh
The Proto-Chinese system seems to have survived in the Tangsi dialect

of Wu Chinese (cf. Kennedy 1952). Furthermore, it may have persisted
until recently in Tibetan. Bell (1919:2-4) speaks of a three-way contrast: t"' th"' 11 t 11 , with the 11 t 11 being pronounced as t, but 11 through
the throat and in a lower tone 11 The lower tone would suggest laxed
vocal cords (Halle and Stevens 1971). Laxed vocal cords characterize
voiced sounds of various sorts. As Bell was familiar with Indo-Aryan
languages, one might have expected him to simply call 11 t 11 a /dh/ if in
fact that was what it was. His book, however, is written for the naive
reader, and his locution 11 through the throat 11 may have been his way of
describing a /dh/. This locution may have been an effort to describe
aspiration. Aspiration or opening of the vocal cords combined with
voicing produces the murmured or breathy voiced voiced aspirates such
as /dh/. We should note that Tibetan has voiced aspirated sonorants:
jmh, nh, T)h, rh, lh/, so that the existence of voiced aspirated stops
would be likely. We should note too that Bell s language had plain
voiced stops. These are absent from the modern language as are the
voiced aspirates (cf. Goldstein and Nornang 1970:xiii-xiv), though
some modern idiolects have a voiced prenasalized series. In any event,
it is possible that the Proto-Chinese source feature system may go back
as far as Proto-Sino-Tibetan. Closer to our concerns, some dialects
of Eastern Armenian (cf. Vogt 1958:152, 160, 162) also show a ProtoChinese-like system. From such considerations, it seems that what is
odd about the PIE source feature system is not sounds such as *dh but
rather those such as *d. It is typologically sound, therefore, that
479
both Hopper and Gamkrelidze in rewriting the PIE system replace *d

with *t'. Gamkrelidze goes further and replaces *dh with *d to produce
*d ~ *t' ~ *th, a common system both in the Caucasus and elsewhere,
sometimes showing a plain voiceless series, sometimes an aspirated one.
Hoppers system, *dh ~ *t' ~ *tfth, is unknown, though in fairness it
must be noted that the aspiration of the voiced series is non-distinctive. The very strangeness of Hoppers system is an advantage, however, in that it may explain later shifts to the more usual PIE source
feature system, cf. (2).
(2)
Later PIE
*dh (lldhll)
Early PIE
Unstable
*d
*dh
*t'
*t'
*d
*t/t h
*t/t h
*t
*t h (lit hll)
The unstable system would have driven the language over into its
11 Classic 11 form, with the addition of voiceless aspirates, while a few
marginal dialect areas, notably Germanic and Armenian, would have retained the early PIE form with only slight modifications. The shift
of *t' to *d (Hopper 1973, 1977a:43, and 1977b; Gamkrelidze 1976; Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1972 and 1973) does have a precedent in NWC (cf.
Colarusso 1975:.82-3). In Kabardian, /p', t', ... /have 11 Knarrstimme 11
or creaky voicing (cf. Kuipers 1960:19-20). In some Abaza dialects,
this has given rise to voiced segments in certain positions. Contrast
the standard Abaza forms in {3) (Serdjucenko 1956:633) with the Anatolian dialect forms in (4) (Allen 1956 and 1965b). In (4), the standard stative present /-p'/ and the active present /-y-t'/ are shifted
to /-b/ and /-y-d/ respectively.
(3)
Standard Abaza:
a.
/s-c'vwa-p'/
11
I sit, I am sitting 11
b.
/s-~W-y-t'/
11
I write, I am writing 11
------------------------------------
480
(4)
JOHN COLARUSSO
Anatolian Abaza:
a.
/s-c'vwa-b/
(same as 3a)
b.
/s-1w-y-d/
(same as 3b)
Voiced aspirates are absent from the Caucasus with the exception of
the Eastern Armenian dialect already mentioned. Thus, while the Caucasian languages in general can provide no typological grounds for
understanding of the PIE voiced aspirated series, they do make the
occurrence of such sounds in Armenian all the more remarkable and
suggest strongly that this is a survival of an old PIE feature rather
than some sort of late areal innovation.
3.2. The Hopper-Gamkrelidze-Ivanov {H-G-I) system was posited,
in part, to account for the absence, or great rarity, of PIE *b.
Typologically, in languages with a glottal ejective series, the /p'/
is often missing. Absence of a /b/ in a language with labial stops
is much rarer, if indeed it occurs at all. Therefore, the rarity of
PIE *b was better explained if *b were traced back to *p' instead.
Typologically this reasoning is sound. /p'/ is indeed often missing
from the Northeast Caucasian languages. It is always present, however,
in the NWC ones and in the Kartvelian languages as well. While the
NWC and Kartvelian facts are not typologically significant, they should
be kept in mind in any efforts to relate PIE and Caucasian features in
areal terms. Typologically significant is the absence of a voiced
uvular stop from both NWC and Kartvelian groups {also from most Northeast languages as well). While PIE 11 classical 11 *ghw, construed in the
11 new 11 PIE as a possible uvular {Hopper 1977a:48-9), seems to have been
the rarest of the labiovelars (ibid. 47), it is still common enough
to have been an original segment no matter how far back we wish to
push our PIE reconstructions. This too is distinctly at odds with the
NWC areal picture and should be borne in mind in any future work.
4.
481
Phonotactics of PIE *r:
4.1. It has been plausibly argued that PIE lacked initial *r

(Lehmann 1951). If this is true, then PIE may have shared this feature, either typologically or perhaps even areally, with the Circassian languages and Ubykh. Kabardian (Kuipers 1963:59 and fn. 10)
has no native words with initial /r/. The West Circassian dialects
show only one or two examples, e.g., Chemgwi /raaza/ (1) "contented'',
(2) "in agreement", most likely late formations. It is clear that
PNWC had initial */r/, but that this has been preserved only in the
Abkhaz-Abaza group. Circassian and Ubykh have eliminated this in
various ways. In old loans (ibid.), such as "silver", Skt. rajat6m,
Lat. argentum, Abkhaz and Abaza show /r/, East Circ. /d/ and West /t/;
Ubykh may show /d/: Abkhaz /a-ra)en/, Abaza /rezna/, Bzhedukh (West
Circ.) /tezYen/, Kabardian /dezen/, Ubykh /daswana/ (~ */dazwana/ ?),
all "silver". In native words, the correlation is Abkhaz-Abaza /r/"'
West Circ. /d/"' East Circ. /d/. Ubykh forms are again doubtful.
The clearest word is "nut", PNWC */ra-/: West and East Circ. /da/,
Abkhaz /a-ra/ (with definite article prefix), Abaza /rasa/, all "nut",
Ubykh /laq'Ya/ "walnut", /lasxwa; "hazel nut", root */Ia-/. Bzyb
Abkhaz /a-raxwac/, Abaza /ra"Cfa/ "thread", both with pharyngealized
and rounded uvulars, point to a PNWC */ra-)u-/. PNWC */)u/ gives /?W/
in the Circassian languages: Bzhedukh (Bzh) /?Wedaan/, Kabardian
(Kab) /?Wedaane/ "thread", where the /-aa-/ sequence indicates that
we are dealing with an old compound, and hence that we have a likely
metathesis from an older */da-?wa-/, directly comparable to the Abkhaz
and Abaza roots. The Ubykh forms /dwawa/ "thread", /(n)dwasa/ "cord,
rope" remain enigmatic: if PNWC */r/-+ Ubykh /1-/, then we should
have expected */laywa/. When prefixed with an old grammatical class
prefix, Circassian shows a voiced lateral spirant, /A/, and Ubykh preserves the /r/: Bzyb Abkhaz /a-res-ba/ a family name, /'a-ras/ "elm",
Bzh. /b.Xaacha/, Kab. /b.Xaasa/ id., Ubykh /bracw/, /beracw/ "medlar"
(small Eurasian tree of the rose family). These point to a PNWC root
----~--
---
JOHN COLARUSSO
482
*/rachaf 11 elm 11 , with ablaut variants */rach<:~/, */rachaf and inflected

forms */p-racha/, underlying the Circassian forms, and */p-racha-w/
the Ubykh.
4.2. Thus, though the developments are complex, we may note the
following pattern. The Circassian languages show the clearest developments, with PNWC */r-/ going to /d-/ and /-A-/, the latter when prefixed. Ubykh shows preservation in prefixed forms and perhaps /1-/
initially, though there seems to be a confusion of possible forms.
Abkhaz and Abaza show simple preservation. This is a north-to-south
gradient with the most thoroughgoing elimination of PNWC */r-/ in the
north among the Circassians. This is noteworthy for if the PIE homeland was to the north of the Caucasus, then it may have been contiguous
to the Circassian speaking area. Thus the north-to-south gradient may
reflect an archaic phonotactic areal feature shared by PIE and the
northern NWC languages, with the northernmost, the Circassian languages,
showing the most PIE influence, the middle, Ubykh, showing some influence along with a good deal of native innovation and dialect mixture,
giving rise to the confusing picture we see today, and the southernmost area, the Abkhaz-Abaza languages, showing no PIE influence. Certainly more thorough inv~stigation of PIE and NWC initial */r/ would
be rewarding.
5.
Proto-Indo-European Palatal-Velar Series:
5.1. The usual reconstruction of the PIE k-like sounds is that

shown in ( 5}.
(S)
PIE Velars:
*k
r'
*g
*gh
(plain velars)
*g"'
*ghW
(the so-called "labiovelars")
The plain velars are in some way palatalized in the satem languages,
TYPOLOGICAL PARALLELS BET\-JEEN PIE AND NWC
483
while the labiovelars loose their rounding. The system is preserved

in the centum, Anatolian, and Tocharian languages, with loss of rounding in the latter two. Correspondence sets show that velars in both
centum and satem branches are often viewed as due to dialect mixture
(Burrow 1965:77-6).
(6)
PIE *k
Skt. kakt?a- "armpit", Lat. coxa, OHG. hahsa
*g
Skt. sthag- "to cover", Gk. O'Ttyw, Lat. tego
*gh:
Skt. df-rgha- "long", OCS. dl?Jg'b, Gk.

Hitt. dalugas
ooA.Lx6s,
Others assume that the forms in (.6) reflect the true PIE velar series,
while the velars of (5), as in Lat. centum 100 Av. satam, PIE
*kytom, go back to a palatal series, usually written *k, *g, *gh, but
which I shall write as in (7) in order to follow traditional caucasiological analysis.
11
(7)
11
PIE Palatals and Velars:
*kY
*gY
*ghY
(palatals)
*k
*kW
*g
*gw
*gh
*ghW
(plain velars)
(labiovelars)
Some workers, for example Hamp (1970), use the system in (7) to account
for differences in the reflexes of palatals and velars within Indo-Iranian. There is no general consensus even now, however, as to whether
the system in (5) or that in (7) is to be preferred.
5.2. Turning to typological st~dies, Hopper (1977a) takes the
system in (5) and reinterprets the plain velars as palatals and the
labiovelars as uvulars, to obtain the system in (8).
(8)
Hopper's PIE:
*khY
*k' Y
*qhw
*q'w
*gY
(= old *k, *g, *gh)

(=old *kw, *gw, *ghW)
------~--
~--~
-----
JOHN COLARUSSO
484
The system in (8) also shows Hoppers revisions of the PIE source
features (cf. 3 above).
5.3. Unfortunately I know of no language with the system shown
in (8), neither within nor without the Caucasus. The system in (9) is
found along with several uvular series in East Circassian and the West
Circassian dialects Shapsugh, Hakuchi, and Old Chemgwi, spilling over
into Ubykh (Colarusso 1977:89-92), with contrast of voiceless aspiration only in some West Circassian dialects.
(9)
NWC (Circassian-Ubykh) Palatals and Velars:
khY
kY
gY
k'Y
The contrasts in (9) are not unusual and may be found among some of
the American Indian languages of the Northwest Coast. The AbkhazAbaza languages add to the system in (9) a series of plain velars,
along with 3.or 5 uvular series, to produce a typologically unusual
system. The simplest set of contrasts (using unmarked voiceless segments as exemplars), /kW/ ~ /q/ ~ /qw/, is found, apparently as arecent development, in Kabardian, Bzhedukh, and New Chemgwi, but such a
set is a very non-Indo-European looking one. In effect, therefore,
the NWC languages are much richer in the palatal, velar, and uvular
areas than is any recoverable stage of PIE and as a consequence can
provide little typological guidance for the analysis of the PIE 11 gutturals11. The issue of choosing between such systems as (5), (7), or
(8) will have to be decided on the basis of internal PIE considerations.
6.
Epenthesis (Anaptyxis):
6.1. Anaptyxis or vowel epenthesis in PIE is quite complex (Polom~ 1965:29, fn. 126): *~ 3 p 0 kwto- ~Iranian *puxta, or the syllabic
-b- in Avestan debenao- (Skt. dabhnoti), or the Greek forms ~AnTos,
-----------------------
--~-

yvw<o~ +
*ple?to-, *neyto-, respectively, vs. *dh?eto-, *dyeto-
485
~ETO~, 6o<o~,
respectively, all phonologically */pl?t6-/, */gnyt6-/,

*jdh?t6-/, */dyto-/. In some ways this is one of the most confusing
and least understood areas of PIE phonology, as Polome admits. Luckily, it is in just this area of vowel-epenthesis and syllable structure
that the NWC languages offer interesting parallels, for they, like PIE,
have elaborate agglutinative forms.
6.2. Widespread in the NWC languages are two general a-epenthesis
rules that may be represented to a first approximation by the rules in
(10).
(10)
NWC a-Epenthesis Rules:

a.
0 + a % [-voice]
b.
0 +a% [-sonorant] _ _ [+sonorant]{[-sonorant]}
[+voice]
II
(lOa) accounts for the underlined schwa in such forms as Anatolian

Abaza /d-s-ba-x-d/ + /d-a-z-ba-x-~-d/ "him/her-I-see-again-past" = "I
saw him/her again", and the Bzhedukh agglutinated form /sa-q-z-fa-zathay-wacwa-a-ya-gwara-ra/ + /sa-q-~-z-fa-za-thay-wacwa-ya-gwara-r/
"!-horizon-what-for-self-on-halt-thematic vowel-past-referential-participle" = "the reason why I stopped in my tracks (distal action)".
(lOb) accounts for the underlined schwa in such forms as Bzh. /swaz-m/
+ ;5waz-~-m/ "woman (oblique case)", or Ubykh /b~recw; "medlar'' as
opposed to the more usual /brecw;. The rules in (10) are a simplification and their number may increase with further work, yet in their
present state they offer a very natural and typologically plausible
form of anaptyxis, one that is likely to have played some role in the
hi story of PI E.
6.3. There is yet another type of a-epenthesis in NWC that sheds
light on PIE processes. Contrary to some assertions (cf. Allen 1956
and 1965a; Anderson 1978; Kuipers 1960, 1968, and 1976), /a/ is not
~---------------------------
JOHN COLARUSSO
486
entirely predictable in any NWC language (for extensive arguments, cf.

Colarusso 1975:347-73) nor does it appear to be entirely predictable
among the languages of the Ndu family of New Guinea, such as Manambu,
the only other languages where /a/ ~ /a/ vertical vowel systems are
known (cf. Allen and Hurd 1972; Pike 1964). For Abaza, one of the most
important authorities, Genko (1955:171-3), stated that /-a-/ is a morpheme meaning "from, out from a locus" and stands in apophonic contrast
with /-a-/ "toward, into a locus" and /-0-/ "at, on a locus" as a suffix on verbal locative particles, hardly a statement that one would
expect from one belonging to the "vowelless" persuasion of Caucasology
in which Genko is sometimes placed. In fact, this /-a-/ morpheme accounts for such pairs as (ibid.; Tugov 1967:293, 294) Abaza /nc'-ra/
"to live~' vs. /n-e-c'-ra/ "interior-outward-go-inf(initive)" = "to go
away, leave, go out from", or /c'-c'-ra/ "bite-bite-inf" = "to gnaw,
nibble" vs. /c'-e-c'-ra/ "under-outward-go-inf'' = "to come out from
underneath".
6.4. Yet, despite the clear status of /a/ as a systematic phoneme in Abaza, most /a/'s are epenthetic (cf. Allen 1965b; 1966).
Thus, as forms are inflected, their syllabic structure alternates as
in (11).
(11)
Abaza:
/d-e-1-ba-d/
"him/her-she-see-past" = "she saw him/her"
b .. /d-1-z-ba-d/ ~ /d-1-a-z-ba-d/
"him/her-she-can-see-past" = "she was able to see him/her"
c. /d-gY-1-m-ba-d/ ~ /d-a-gY-1-a-m-ba-d/
"him/her-neg(ative)-she-neg-see-past" = "she did not see
a.
/d-1-ba-d/
him/her"
d.
/d-gY-1-z-m-ba-d/
/d-gY-a-1-z-a-m-ba-d/
"him/her-neg-she-can-neg-see-past" = "she could not see
~
him/her"
-----~-----
TYPOLOGICAL PARALLELS BETVJEEN PIE AND NI\TC
487
At least this is how the language is claimed to work. It is difficult

to judge the correctness of the forms in (11) as the most important
work, by Allen, has systematically ignored most /a/'s. There are clearly complications, such as a secondary rule of a-deletion, which can
take forms such as /qa~w~wa-ra/ "to harrow" and produce /q~w~wa-ra/,
with its remarkable cluster of pharyngealized uvular stop followed by
two rounded pharyngeal spirants, all voiceless. In fact, to maintain
a simple and coherent a-epenthesis rule, one must assume that Abaza has
labialized ([+labial], cf. Anderson 1971) as opposed to rounded ([+round])
segments, as well as long, but non-geminate, ones ([+long], cf. Colarusso 1975:213-7, 1977:101-3, 1978, and in press), cf. /gwtpss~a-ra/
"to have a fight" (lit. "to have the heart fly downwards") which,
through secondary deletion of schwa, comes from /gwtapss~a-ra/, more
properly written /gwtaPs:~a-ra/ with a labialized, long "s", ;Ps:/.
With secondary deletion of schwa plus long and labialized segments, we
may posit the straightforward epenthesis rule in (12) (Allen 1956:142;
Colarusso 1975:363-5).
(12)
Abaza a-Epenthesis Rule:

+a I [-syllabic]
.
. {[+syllabic]}
[-syllab1c][-syllab1c]
#
Rule (12) is complicated by the role of glides; there is some indication that post-tonically they do not count as segments for (12).
6.5. Whatever the exact form of (12), what is of interest to us
is that it is a rule which inserts syllables starting from the end of
a word. This will cause the syllabification of a word to alter radically as it is inflected. Similar variability occurs in the PIEgrade (cf. Anttila 1969:30-3; Schmitt-Brandt 1967). Sometimes there is
evidence of inflectional differences (cf. Polome 1965:29, fn. 126):
Gk. E:rropov : rrrrpwwL "it has been fated", "with [p e ry] before thematic endings and [pry]
before athematic endings". In other cases, no
e
clear difference in inflection is apparent (cf. the examples cited in
---
488
JOHN COLARUSSO
6.1, above). Yet in those cases where inflectional differences do

seem to be involved, we have strong evidence that we are dealing with
a rule similar to (12), i.e., a right-to-left epenthesis rule. The
exact form of the PIE rule is probably irrecoverable because of the
loss of details in the daughter languages due to leveling in various
paradigms and derivational settings. Those forms which show irregular
variation in epenthesis may reflect the influence of epenthesis rules
such as those in (10) or late dialectal variations in syllabification
of consonant sequences. Thus, we are in the interesting position that
while we cannot recover the detailed form of PIE anaptyctic processes,
we can nevertheless be confident of the overall form of at least that
process which is associated with thematic and athematic inflection,
and obtain some typological guidance for examining these complex processes from similar mechanisms in the NWC languages. We shall see similar patterns of syllable type when we examine Schwebeablaut below (8).
7.
Ablaut (Metaphony):
7.1. One of the most striking features of PIE --and quite in

keeping with the general picture presented by anaptyxis -- is the variability both of quality (ablaut or metaphony) and position (Schwebeablaut) of syllabic nuclei. Taking in this section ablaut, we find pairs
such as the following in the daughter languages: Gk. Acyw : AOyo~
("I say" : "word"), Lat. tego: toga ("I cover" : "gown"), OE. singan:
sang ("to sing" : "song"), often with morphological significance as in
the forms just cited, with e-grade in the verb and o-grade in the noun.
It is possible that much of this ablauting may reflect ancient allophonic variations due to word stress (cf. Burrow 1965:111-2): Gk. ooTnP :
owTwp "giver". In such accounts, *o is viewed as an unstressed a 11 aphone of *e (stress being either percussive or pitch), counter examples
being viewed as due to analogical extensions of one vowel over another.
It is certainly possible that some such conditioning factor is correct,
and the theory has attracted some recent attention (Barnhard 1975:3.4-
~--------------
~------
- -
--
..
-------------
489
3.7, 4.4, 5:5-5.6, 6.4; 1976:7.1-7.5; 1977:23-27; 1979:3;

Burrow 1965:107ff; Lehmann 1952:109ff; Schmitt-Brandt 1967:124ff).
The NWC languages, on the other hand, like Semitic ones, show metaphony,
either as an active process or part of their history, with only morphological conditioning.
7.2. Metaphony is active in the Circassian languages, marginal
or relict in Abkhaz-Abaza, and relict in Ubykh. It may involve /a/a/
and in some forms /0/a/a/. Occasionally, //a/ or //a/ is found, but
such cases are probably better analyzed as vowel-deletion under phonological conditioning. What is interesting in the Circassian languages
is that we can still observe two processes: one of true ablaut in
which a morpheme can come in several grades, and one in which another
morpheme is being added. In the latter case, this morpheme is a single
vowel and supplants the vowel of the main morpheme to which it is appended. Thus, this process merely mimics ablaut through a set of fortuitous phonological conditions. It is still active in the Circassian
languages and arises through simplification of the sequence /-a-a-/ to
[a]. A related process creates long /a/'s from the sequence /-a-a-/.
Examples of false ablaut are shown in (13).
(13)
NWC False Ablaut:

Bzhedukh:
a.
/sha/ "horse", /sha-a-sY/-+ /shasY/ "horse stable", lit.

"horse-its-standing-place"
b.
c.
/maJ..a/ "sheep", /maJ..a-a-sY/-+ /maJ..asY/ "sheep shed"

/wana/ "house", /wana-a-yw;-+ /wenayw; "family", lit.
"house-its-territory" (?)
Ubykh (cf. Vogt 1963:26-7):

d.
/sa-tW-ala II sa-na-ala/-+ /setWala 1/ senala/ "my father

and mother", lit. "my-father-and my-mother-and"
Abaza (cf. Genko 1955:171-3):

e.
/c'-a-c'a-ra/ "under-into-set-inf" = "to set something

underneath something else"
JOHN COLAF.l!SSO
490
lc'-e-c'-ral "under-out-from-move-inf" = "to come out
f.
from underneath something" (note g)
lc'-c'-ral "bite-bite-inf" = "to gnaw, nibble"
g.
The Abadzakh dialect of West Circassian has retained a three-way false

ablaut (cf. Colarusso 1977:107).
(14)
Abadzakh
a.
W~st
Circassian Three-Way False Ablaut:
11/J-se-txl "it-I-write" = "I usually write something"

(transitive and habitual)
b.
/0-se-tx-e/ "it-I-write-trans(itive)" = "I am writing something" (transitive, momentaneous)
c.
/sa-tx-al "I-write-intrans(itive)" = "I am writing, I write"

(intransitive)
7.3. In the Circassian languages, however, there is also extensive

use of true ablaut. In these cases, no separate vocalic morpheme can
be found (Colarusso 1975:355, 1977:107; Kuipers 1960:69-72). Various
gradation processes may be distinguished, all more or less corresponding
to clear morphological differences.
(15)
Circassian Ablaut:
/e/ vs. /a/
Kabardian:
a.
/ze/ "one" vs.
lzal
"once"
Bzhedukh:
b.
Is' We/ "good" in Is' We-7\ayw -e-ney I "good-see-trans-deverbative" = "love" (noun) vs. (c)
c.
ls'Wa/ "good" in /-s'wa-7i.ayw-e-1 "good-see-trans" = "to

love"
d.
lqwal "son" vs. /qWe-y-sY/ "son(s)-their-three" = "three

sons"
(16)
Circassian Ablaut:
/1/J/ vs. /e/ vs. /a/
Bzhedukh:
a.
1-s-/ "I" in 11/J-s-tx-e-y/ "it-I-write-trans-past"

wrote it"
----
"I
---------------------------
TYPOLOGICAL P/IRALLELS BETHEEN PIE AND NHC
b.
c.
491
/-sa-/ "I" in 1'/>-se-tx-e-(/;/ "it-I-write-trans-pres(ent)"

am writing it"
/-sa-/ "I" in /sa-tx-a-(/;/ "I-write-intrans-pres" = "I
write, I am writing"
= "I
Forms in (17) are most likely due to final vowel devoicing and deletion,
rather than true ablaut.
(17)
Circassian Ablaut(?): /e/ vs. /'/>/,and /a/ vs. /(/;/

Bzhedukh:
/a/ vs. /(/;/:
a. /s-ee/ "my tooth" vs. /e-c/ (+ /a-ce/ ?) "his tooth"
/a/ vs. /'/>/:
b. /s~a/ "head" vs. /~'asb/ (+ /~'e-a-sbe/ ?) "leader",
lit. "man-his-head/top"
7.4. The other NWC languages show true ablaut but not in a
productive form. In Abkhaz-Abaza, it exists but has no clear morphological significance and is probably a historical relic. Thus, we
find forms such as Bzyb Abkhaz /a-bayw;, /a-beyw/, /a-bywa/, all meaning "bone" (cf. Colarusso 1977:106). Such variants most likely reflect
retentions of different ablaut grades of a root from a period when ablaut was still an active process in Abkhaz-Abaza. In Ubykh, leveling
seems to have taken place, and much less ablaut variation has survived,
though pairs such as /lasxwa/ "hazel nut", root */Ia-/ "nut" (cf. 4.1,
above) with /-sxwe/, vs. /sxwa/ "herbs" (earlier "*greens", cf. Bzh.
/sxwaant'a/ "grey, blue, green") can be found.
7.5. We thus have a situation in which morphologically conditioned
true ablaut seems to have been a characteristic of PNWC and has survived
in only one branch, leaving relics elsewhere. Some forms, such as the
Bzyb variants of "bone", the Ubykh forms, and such inflectional variants
as the root for "son" in {15d) in Bzhedukh, strongly suggest that some
original ablaut may have been morphologically conditioned but not seman-
----
~-----
~-~~
~~---
JOHN COLAHUSSO
492
tically significant, i.e., have represented mere combinatory variants.

No evidence of phonological conditioning is available, though forms
such as those in (17) should remind us that phonological conditioning
might have been possible and would be exceedingly difficult to distinguish from morphologically conditioned ablaut in certain circumstances.
Typologically, the NWC languages or PNWC need not have paralleled PIE
with respect to ablaut. Then again, PIE may not have had phonologically
conditioned ablaut or may have had some areas of its grarrrnar subject to
morphologically conditioned ablaut alone. Forms such as Gk. >..tyw :
>..oyo~ strongly suggest morphological ablaut, while pairs such as ooTnP
owTwp equally strongly suggest phonological. NWC gives us models for
both. We should remain aware that, though it may be unesthetic, a
proto-language should be rich enough to account for all the data of the
daughter languages that in any reasonable sense appear to be old.
8.
Schwebeablaut:
8.1. Turning now to Schwebeablaut or positional variation in the

syllable nucleus, we find one of the most recent developments in PIE
theory (Benveniste 1935) and as such it is still the subject of some
controversy (cf. Anttila 1969). It is based upon a *e/*~ ablaut, where
roots of the shape *CeC- with suffixes, thus *CeC-C-, appear as stems
either as a theme I, *CeC-C- (cf. Gk. E:pyov +- *wer-g-), or as a theme
II, *CC-eC- (cf. Gk. pt~w +- *wr-eg-). The bare root rarely, if ever,
occurs but can be inferred from alternating suffixes, as in pairs such
as Lat. sector+- *sekw-t- vs. Vedic sakh-a +- *sekw-a- (cf. Benveniste
1935:176). Such stems may be further expanded by an enlargement
thus: *~ew-d- (I) (Av. aoda- source
*~w-ed- (II) (Arm. get, Goth.
wato [with a-vocalism]), *~w-d-en- (Skt. udan) or *f!w-d-or- (Gk. 06uip),
further *~w-d-n-es (Skt. udna~ gen. sg.), (ibid. :151, 180). This process can be carried even further: *bhr-w-n-en- (PGmc. *brunen-), with
one zero-grade enlargement, and further *bhr-w-n-n-en (Goth. brunna),
with two. It is just such extension of the PIE theme II stem that leads
11
11
11 ) ,
11
493
to elaborate Zero-grade stems, i.e., stems of the form CC-C-C-. It

is in such zero-grade stems, perhaps late elaborations of an earlier,
simpler system, that we see the anaptyctic processes that we examined
in 6 at work, cf. (ibid. :157-8) *e3ep-kW- (Gk. onTb~ ?), *e3p-ekW-y(Skt. pacy-ate, Gk. nsaaw), *e3p-ekW-t- (Gk. nnTw), *e3p-ekw-s- (Skt.
pak?-), *~3p-kW-t6- (Gk. on[n]Tb~, Iranian *puxta, Pers. puxtan [cf.
6.1]). Here again we are confronted with the complexities of PIE anaptyctic processes which we discussed in 6. For example, if *~ 3 p-kw
t6- was syllabified so as to yield Gk. 6n(n)T6~, then one would have
expected *'}.3p-ekw-y- and *~3p-ekw-t- to have yielded *onaaw and *6nnTw respectively. Such issues must remain beyond the scope of this paper. What is of interest to us is the fact that these zero-stems with
their anaptyxis are part of the overall process of Schwebeablaut. Accordingly, it is tempting to view Schwebeablaut itself as a product of
a kind of anaptyctic phenomenon. In this view (cf. Lehmann 1952:112,
15.5), the vowel grade in the stem is viewed as a phonetic realization
of distinctive stress so that vowels hop around following morphologically conditioned shifts in stress. As this is an important contention,
spilling over into questions about the laryngeals, and has been one of
the chief starting points for typological comparisons between PIE and
such NWC languages as Abaza (Allen 1965a; Martinet 1957a and 1957b), it
deserves further examination.
11
11
8.2. There are certain aspects of Schwebeablaut that strongly

suggest an anaptyctic process. The pattern in (18a, b) is suggestive
of the Abaza anaptyctic rule (12), with CCCV+ CCVCCV (Benveniste 1935:
175).
(18)
PIE Schwebeablaut as Anaptyxis:
cvc-cv
a.
*pan-t ( i )
Gk. n6vTo~, Lat. pons -tis, OCS. p~tb, OPruss.
pi ntis
-----------------------------
----
494
JOHN COLJIP.lJSSO
eve-e-ve0
b.
*pon-t-e~2-
Av. panta, Skt. pantha-~ (with -h- from the

oblique cases)
ee-e-c-ve
c.
*pn-t-a2-es
0
,..
Av. paeo gen.-abl. sg.
The interplay between (18a) and (18b) would precisely parallel, on a

phonetic level, the kind of anaptyxis seen in such Abaza fonns as (11).
Unfortunately, the form in (18b) is abnormal, as Benveniste himself
says, with a restored full-grade in the root. One would have expected
*pn-t-ea2{Av. *pata-, Skt. *patha-). {18c) is in fact a normal deo
,..
velopment. The point is this: In Abaza, the anaptyctic vowel, [a], is
phonetically identical with one of the systematic phonemes, viz., /a/.
Even if one were to banish PIE *o from the era of productive Schwebeablaut {cf. Lehmann op. cit.), the anaptyctic vowel would not be the
same vowel as that found in the full-grade. The full-grade is *e; the
anaptyctic vowel is usually equated with schwa secundum, cf. *dekC- ~
Gk. 6L6aa~w {Collinge 1953:80), though in fact its actual vocalic reflex is extraordinarily difficult to determine with any degree of confidence, being often masked by coloring from contiguous sonorants and
other consonants {cf. the difficult fonns cited in 6.1). If *e is to
be taken as an anaptyctic vowel, then some explanation must be found
for why it differs from the "true" anaptyctic vowel, schwa secundum or
whatever it may be. Such explanations are not unimaginable. We may be
dealing with two levels of anaptyxis, an older one with *e and a later
one with schwa secundum. This would gain some support from the contention that extended zero-grade stems, such as (18c), may be later extensions of earlier patterns. It is also possible that the anaptyctic vowel in PIE, unlike that in Abaza, was phonetically different under stress,
producing instead of a schwa secundum an *e. In any event, interpreting
Schwebeablaut as an anaptyctic process forces complications into PIE
phonology and raises more questions than it answers. Thus, on a phonological level, PIE Schwebeablaut and NWC anaptyxis are not comparable
except in their grosser lineaments. There is a further problem.
TYPOLOGICAL PAP.ALLELS BETHEEN PIE AND NWC
495
8.3. PIE Schwebeablaut is a morphological process intimately

associated with the formation of stems. Thus, the root is the first
element, in full- or zero-grades, followed by a suffix. These may
have further suffixes or "enlargements" affixed to them. Remarkably,
a similar system is found in Proto-Kartvelian (cf. Anttila 1969:177-8;
Gamkrelidze 1966 and 1967; Gamqrelidze [Gamkrelidze] and Mac'avariani
1965 [esp. 433-5]); cf. (19).
(19)
Proto-Kartvelian Schwebeablaut (cf. Anttila 1969:177):

root:
*der-, stem *der-k'- "to bend"

Transitive
present
aorist
dr-ek'dr-ik'-e
Intransitive
dr-k'-V
der-k'0
It is not quite as simple as (19) would indicate. We should also note

that *Jt-k'-a occurs as an intransitive 3rd sg. aor., and that Mingrelian and Laz (sometimes grouped together as Zan) show the very un-IE-looking pattern of *d~-ik'- alongside *d~-k'-, although this may be a dialectal development. Proto-Kartvelian Schwebeablaut is confined to the
verb, unlike PIE Schwebeablaut. As an indication of further morphological restriction, there is no evidence of significant stress differences
in Proto-Kartvelian so that the variations seen in (19) must be viewed
as largely due to morphological conditioning, though of course an earlier stress stage is still a possible source for this state of affairs.
As Proto-Kartvelian Schwebeablaut stands, it presents a striking parallel with PIE Schwebeablaut, though numerous details are divergent between the two. By comparison, Abaza anaptyxis looks less like PIE
Schwebeab 1aut. It is a purely phonological rule, governing the shape
of the whole word and not the formation of a crucial class of morphemes.
Forms such as those in (11) are inflected and undergo anaptyxis without
regard to the root /-ba-/ "to see", which remains in its a-grade. This
is in sharp contrast with the PIE system, in which both vowels are subject to variation under crucial morphological changes. In its deepest
496
JOHN COLAHUSSO
sense, as a morphological process of stem formation, Schwebeablaut is

absent from the NWC languages. This is surprising. It has been suggested (Gamkrelidze 1966:83, 3.9) that the occurrence of Schwebeablaut
in both Proto-Kartvelian and PIE may have been due to a Sprachbund.
This would make sense if the PIE homeland were taken to be just to the
north of the Caucasus, as has been suggested (cf. 2.2). In this case,
one would expect Schwebeablaut patterns to occur in various Caucasian
proto-languages or languages. One would naturally expect NWC to fall
between PIE and Proto-Kartvelian. Indeed, there is evidence that the
NWC languages and PIE may have been contiguous at a remote point in
their histories. This evidence is in the form of ancient loans between
PIE and PNWC or early forms of Circassian, the northernmost NWC language
sub-group (Colarusso 1977:70-73 and 153-4; forthcoming b). One should
expect, therefore, Schwebeablaut patterns somewhere in the NWC family.
There, i~ fact, does appear to be something like Schwebeablaut early
in the history of PNWC.
8.4. NWC history is exceedingly difficult to recover, and the
forms presented here are quite tentative (Colarusso 1977:103-7; forthcoming a). Nevertheless, some fairly firm conclusions can now be reached. First, it seems that the quasi-vowelless look of Abaza is a late
development and represents a process of vowel loss that was operative
in the early history of the family and has been carried to a near extreme in this dialect branch. PNWC looks much more like a Northeast
Caucasian language than it does like any of its daughters. There has
been a change of language type in going from PNWC to its attested descendants. The NWC languages have come to resemble PIE perhaps as a
result of contiguous PIE influence or, better, as a result of areal
shifts in language type shared by PIE and PNWC. The common PNWC root
canon, CVCV-, can be seen in (20).
(20)
NWC Etymologies:
497

PNWC */base/ "water, stream, body of water"
a.
*/base/
*/bse/
Circ. /psa/ (left-to-right assimilation)
b.
*/base/
*/bse/
Ubykh /bze/ (right-to-left assimilation)
This is about as simple as NWC etymologies come. There is no affixation of grammatical class prefixes or other types of suffixes. Of immediate concern to our purposes is the obvious vowel deletion due to
the influence of what must have been a strong stress accent, still
preserved in Ubykh and, to a lesser extent, Abkhaz-Abaza. More complex histories may be seen in (21).
(21)
NWC Etymologies (Colarusso 1975:413, fn. 13 and 1977:105-6):

PNWC */?eqe/ "to run"
a.
*/?aqa/
b.
*/-w-?aqe/ + */?weqa/ + */?Wqe/ + */q'we/ + Abkhaz /a-)w-ra/,

Abaza /)W-ra/ (cf. Circ. verbal prefix /-w-/)
*/?qa/
Ubykh /qa-n/
PNWC */-?eqe-/ "bone", */b-/ grammatical class prefix (cf. Klimov

1969:56)
c.
*/ba-?aqa/ + */ba?qa/
/-pq/ "bone, frame"
d.
*/ba-?aqa/ + */ba?qa/ + */baqa/ + */bqa/ + Ubykh /bya/, later

/'Q_ya/ "thin", said only of animals, i.e., "boney"; Ubykh
/-pq(e)/ "bone, frame" is a Circ. loan
e.
*/ba-?aqa-w/ + */ba?qu/ + */ba?qwa; + */a-baq'we;

Abkhaz /a-ba)W/, Bzyb /a-bayw; "bone"
Abzhwi
*/ba-?aqa-w/ + */ba?qu/
Bzyb /a-beyw; id.
*/be?qwa;
*/a-baq'wa;
*/a-be)w/
g.
*/be-?eqa-w/
/be)W/ id.
*/be?qu/
*/ba?qwa;
*/beq'wa;
Abaza
h.
*/ba-?eqa-w/ + */ba?qo/
b)Wa/ + Bzyb /a-bywa/
*/ba?qwa/
*/a-beq'wa;
i.
*/be-?eqa-w/ + */ba?qu/
Abaza /b)wa; id.
*/ba?qwe;
*/baq'we/
*/be)We/
f.
*/baqe/
*/bqe/
*/bqa/
Bzh.
*/a+
Some of the etymologies (21c-i) might be replaced with analogical extensions of various vowel grades, but the conditions for this are not
yet clear and so the histories have been recorded in detail. It should
498
JOHN COLARUSSO
be noted that the history of the Ubykh form (21d), for example, from
*/be-?eqa/ to */be?qa/ produces a form reminiscent of a PIE theme I,
CeC-C-. A further shift from */be?qa/ through */beqa/ to /bya/ produces a form reminiscent of a PIE theme II, CC-eC-, but without the
final consonant. An intermediate form */b?eqa/, though it would look
more like an IE theme II, is ruled out as it would produce an early
Ubykh */~ya/, not found. Similarly, an intermediate form */b?qa/,
though resembling an IE zero-grade stem, would be expected to yield
only Ubykh /~ya/ and never /bya/, though the latter is the earlier,
unassimilated form. It is through such recurrent processes of syncope
that the NWC languages have acquired the remarkable consonant clusters
and general phonotactic patterns that set them apart from the Northeast Caucasian languages, with whom they may be remotely related, and
give them their resemblance to PIE.
8.5. Thus, although NWC etymologies only approximately follow
PIE Schwebeablaut patterns, it is tempting to suggest that PIE itself
may have derived its Schwebeablaut from an earlier full-grade stage,
CVC-VC-, reminiscent of PNWC. This would give the earliest PIE a look
which, though currently not popular, has been propounded before (see,
for example, Kerns and Schwartz 1940). Phonologically, and typologically, it is simpler to assume an early form *pJZ-ew-, for example,
yielding *pJl-w-, theme I (Benveniste 1935:54), (Goth. filu), and
another *pol-ew- yielding *pol-w- (Gk. *n6\u), while a *pel-ow- yielded a theme II *pl-ow- (Olat. plous, Lat. plus), and a *pel-~- yielded
*pl-Jw- (Hom. Gk. n\o~). This theory reduces Schwebeablaut to an earlier process of syncope. While this theory may be somewhat unesthetic
in that it may occasionally require the reconstruction of a vowel whose
color is completely lost (one might prefer to have *pJl-Vw- rather than
*pel-ew-), it has the advantage of accounting in a straightforward way
for the difference between PIE *e and the anaptyctic vowel: PIE *e is
no longer an anaptyctic vowel, but a simple vowel in its own right, and
the anaptyctic vowel need have no connection with it. Furthermore, the
TYPOLOGICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN PIE AND l\11.JC
499
NWC languages provide relatively strong typological (and perhaps areal)

evidence in their histories that such a process can be extensive and
lead to phonotactic patterns remarkably like those of early PIE. In
this scheme, the NWC languages are IE-like languages that have never
gone on to have the further developments that have given rise to the
patterns of late or dialectal IE and its daughter languages. Finally,
the vowelless forms of PIE that have been postulated now seem less
likely, for the history of the NWC languages, particularly Abaza, which
comes as close to being vowelless as any of the family, show that such
a phonotactic state is not primitive, but is more likely the end product of a long linguistic evolution.
9.
The PIE Vocalic Inventory *e
*o and the NWC Vertical Vowel System:
9.1. Ignoring the nonapophonic PIE *a until the next section, it

must be admitted that the PIE vowel system *e ~ *o is typologically
utterly bizarre. Even adding *a to this system does not change this
fact. I know of no language with such a vowel system. The only thing
that resembles it at all is the vertical two-vowel system characteristic of the NWC languages. The PIE system seems to be based upon a
front ~ back opposition, whereas that of the NWC languages seems to
be a mid~ low one (cf. Colarusso 1975:293-418). In terms of distinctive features, however, PIE *e and NWC /a/ are equivalent, i.e., both
[+syllabic, -high, -low, -back, -round], though on a phonetic level,
the reflexes of PIE *e in most of the daughter languages have been
front vowels, whereas the phonetic realization of NWC /a/ in noncoloring consonantal environments, such as next to a labial, is a central
or slightly fronted central vowel. PIE *e and NWC /a/ seem to exhibit
two systematic similarities as well. First, they are both minimal vowels, i.e., they mark syllabic peaks and have no other inherent features
themselves. Second, they both enter into parallel relationships of
ablaut with a second vowel, in PIE *o, in NWC /a/. Also the wide tendency for PIE *o to have an /a/ reflex in many of the daughter languages,
500
JOHN COLARUSSO
often falling together with the reflex of *a, suggests that *o may
have stood in opposition to *a through the feature [+round]. This
would make *o's rounding a redundant feature that became significant
only after the emergence of *a. Moreover, an interpretation of PIE
*o as [+low] would make the vowel system look much more like the NWC
one, making it typologically unusual, but comprehensible. The similarities between the two systems are strong enough to warrant further
study. There are two further considerations that are worth looking at.
9.2. The reinterpretation of the PIE *e ~ *o system as */a/~
*/a/ presents one problem. It is quite easy to imagine that at the
time when the old morphological patterns were breaking down and syllabic */y/ and */w/ were being reinterpreted as */i/ and */u/, the
old */a/ was reinterpreted in its least marked allophone, probably
*[a] originally, leading to *a in Indo-Iranian and *e or some other
front vowel in most of the other dialects. The shift of */a/ (apophonic, i.e., classic *o) to */o/ presents difficulties. It is possible
that */a/ was rephonemicized on the basis of a rounded allophone, perhaps the product of coloring due to labiovelars and o-coloring laryngeal(s). Here the confusion of the reflexes of *o with the /a/ reflexes of nonapophonic *a may be traces of the earlier form of *o as
*/a/ (apophonic). It is also possible that PIE simply realized an
earlier */a/ as *[o] or*[~]. Of interest in this regard is the persistence until nearly the end of the first millennium A. D. of an
areal feature in the Ukraine in which /a/ was realized with rounding.
Traces of this can be found in the history of Ossetic and to the present day in many Hungarian dialects, Hungarian having been contiguous to
Ossetic prior to its final migration into Europe. Thus, although it
is perhaps unlikely, PIE may reflect an ancient southern Russian areal
feature. However one may wish to construe the shift of hypothetical
PIE apophonic */a/ to *o, one must find a way of distinguishing this
apophonic */a/ (*o) from nonapophonic *a. We shall return to nonapophonic *a in the section on laryngeals (13.5). For now, it should be
TYPOLOGICAL PA"RPLLELS HETVJEEN PIE AND NWC
501
emphasized that while there are certainly a number of forms in which an

original *a seems to be recoverable, it is quite strikin9 that this *a
does not enter into any of the apophonic processes characterizing the
rest of the vowel system. This strongly suggests, especially given the
prevalence of ablaut in PIE, that as old or 0riginal as non-apophonic
*a may be, it may be from a younger period than *e "-' *o (our hypothet ical */a/"-' */a/), or it may reflect a syllabic allophone of a segment
that is underlyingly not a vowel, i.e., it may reflect some type of very
old laryngeal
To have it otherwise, to have a simple *e "-' *o system
with extensive apophony conjoined with a non-apophonic *a, is perhaps
the single most typologically improbable aspect of PIE phonology as it
now stands.
11
11
11
11
9.3. In the NWC languages, the anaptyctic vowel [a] coincides with
the systematic phoneme /a/. This makes good sense since what an anaptyctic vowel is supposed to do is add a feature of [+syllabic] to break
up consonant clusters, and this is just what the distinctive specification of /a/ is. Epenthetic [a] and systematic /e/ behave the same way
phonetically, with the exception that the systematic one tends to persist in most languages even when unstressed, It is this persistence
that is probably a major aid to the NWC language learner in his task of
sifting through the welter of schwas in his language to find underlying
ones and is the chief reason why no dialect has totally lost this phoneme. In this regard, the PIE neutral syllabic vowel, *e, differs from
the anaptyctic vowel and, as has been noted (8.2), is a strong reason
not to regard the PIE Schwebeablaut system as due to anaptyctic processes. Yet if we are really to compare the PIE vowel system to that of
the NWC, then we must account for this difference between the treatment
of the neutral vov1el and the anaptyctic vov1el in the two groups. Two
possible explanations have come to mind. First, one could readily imagine a NWC language eventually setting up some sort of phonetic difference
in the treatment of systematic /e/ as opposed to epenthetic [e]. This
would be a great aid to the child in learning one of these languages and
502
JOHN COLARPSSO
would promote the preservation of /e/ which frequently carries an important semantic load. If this happened in PIE, such a difference,
perhaps degree of fronting, would be established by superficial phonetic rules that would later be reinterpreted in the diverging IE dialects
as phonemic differences, thus giving rise to the different reflexes of
IE *e as opposed to the anaptyctic vowel. Second, it is possible that
PIE did not have well established anaptyctic processes and that these
arose only during the period of dialect differentiation. In favor of
this interpretation of PIE anaptyxis as late, it should be noted that
even Greek, which is, of course, highly conservative in its treatment
of PIE vocalism, shows varrying reflexes of the PIE anaptyctic vowel.
Sometimes it resembles schwa secundum, *dekC- ~ Gk. 6L6aoxw (cf. 8.2),
but at other times turns up as an -L-, cf. Gk. X~E~ without anaptyxis
vs. x-\JLI:;0~ yesterday" with anaptyxis, perhaps showinq i-coloring from
a *-y- (~ *dhghe-y6-s, Skt. hy&s), or with some other coloring (cf.
6.1), or may even have been absent altogether, cf. Gk. on(n)To~ ~
*~ 3 p-kw-t6- (8.1).
If a careful sifting of the PIE material provides
evidence for one or more anaptyctic processes in the parent language,
then we may construe this to mean that PIE distinguished */e/ from
anaptyctic *[e] by phonetically stabilizing the former and allowing
the latter to undergo coloring by adjacent consonants and glides. If
the reflexes of anaptyxis in the IE dialects show tremendous and irreconcilable differences in syllabic form and position, then we may assume
that PIE reinterpreted */e/ as *e and that anaptyxis was a late, dialectal IE innovation. Only further consideration of the difficult question
of PIE anaptyxis will permit a choice between these two alternatives.
With the aid of NWC, we have at least been able to frame these two
theories.
11
10.
PIE Laryngeals and Comparable Segments in the NI-JC Languages:
10.1. PIE laryngeal theory is still in a state of flux (cf. vJinter 1965a), largely b~cause of (1) doubt as to the reflexes of laryn-
-----------------------------
-------
--------
TYPOLOGICAL PARALLELS
RETt~EEN
PIE AND NWC
503
geals in certain positions, particularly next to sonorants, (2) doubt

as to the effects of laryngeals as opposed to effects of analogy, (3)
doubt as to the number of laryngeals, i.e., they do not always appear
in the Anatolian languages where theory predicts them. The Anatolian
languages may enjoy with regard to the laryngeals somewhat the arbiter
status of Sanskrit in the nineteenth century, even though it is becoming increasingly clear that laryngeals have vanished from Anatolian in
certain positions (cf. Watkins 1975:1-26), and may have persisted elsewhere as, for example, in Albanian (Hamp 1965a). It may not be too
much to say that, at least in part, our future understanding of the
PIE laryngeals will directly benefit from an increase in our understand.:.
ing of the Anatolian branch. For example, Watkins (1972:10, 28, fn. 11)
has shown that the lack of assibilation in Hitt. tiyanzi 11 they place 11
(one might have expected *siyanzi, cf. sius, Gk. Zsu~ + *dyeu-s), exactly parallel to Lat. (con-)diunt 11 they build 11 , is due to the presence of
a laryngeal in the zero-grade of the root, IE *dh<).1-y-ont-, cf. Gk. TL~nWL + *dhe<)_I-
Further such examples will lend greater credence to
the correspondence PIE *e,... : Anatolian .
,.,...---.
10.2. To elucidate not merely the behavior but also the inherent
phonological nature of the PIE laryngeals (i.e., what were they?), we
must turn to typological comparisons. There have been many efforts
along this line (Barnhard 1980; Colarusso 1975:394-8; Keiler 1970; Lehmann 1952; Sapir 1938). The task is in principle simple. We must find
segments in other languages that behave like PIE laryngeals. Here \'Je
must rea.lize that we know not merely the phonotactics of the PIE laryngeals, but their history as well. Roughly, the laryngeals went through
three stages: (1) an early period when they persisted in all positions
and did not color contiguous vowels, (2) a later stage when they persisted in some positions, \'Jere possibly lost in others \'lith compensatory
lengthening of preceding vowel, and colored contiguous vowels (attested
in the Anatolian languages, with relics elsewhere, cf. Gk. ~6wp + *2wd-or or *~ew-d-or, Alb. hap, Gk. aRo + *~4ep- [Hamp 1965a:125, 4.1.1]),
JOHN
504
COLA~USSO
and (3) a late, dialectal stage in which they color contiguous vowels,
are lost with compensatory lengthening of a precedin9 vowel and vanish
elsewhere (attested in the non-Anatolian branches with exception of
the relict forms mentioned in [2]). To a phonologist, such a history
tells a great deal. We must find typologically parallel sounds, i.e.,
they must have the phonological or historical ability to be stable and
phonologically inactive, and then be able to undergo changes that preserve their stability while enabling them to color vo~tJels, and finally
undergo yet further changes which lead to total instability and loss.
This is a considerable amount of information when coupled with the actual vowel-coloring properties which we know the laryngeals to have had,
particularly if we construe such vowel-coloring as due to simple phonological assimilation, and I see little reason not to. With all this as
a starting point, we shall see that the NWC lanauages provide a complex,
but remarkably detailed ami convincing account of what the PIE laryngeals
may have been like and how they vanished.
10.3. First, we must note that there have been some false or misleading parallels dra\'m beb1een NWC and PIE with respect to .the laryngeals. Kuipers (1960:105) compares Kabardian /w/ and /y/ with the PIE
laryngeals (though we shall see that his comparison of /h/ with them is
more to the point), cf. (22).
(22)
r--
Kabardian Laryngeal-like Developments:
/ey/
+ [
/aw/
T]
[u]
/ay/
+ [
eJ
/aw/+[6]
The NWC glides exhibit loss, with compensatory lengthening of a preceding vowel after coloring thereof. Effects like this due to glides have
been postulated in limited conditions for PIE (cf. Benveniste 1935:63,
with *rey-y- + *rey-, Ved. ray-, vs. *rey-ey- + *rey-i-s, Ved. rap{-h:,
and Schmitt-Brandt [1967:48, 48], with *gwyewo- + Gk. 13Lo~, vs. *gu'eywo+ Lat. v~vus, and *bhweti- + Gk. ~uoL~ vs. *bhewti- + Skt. bhut{-~),
505
TYPOLOGICAL PARALLELS BEH.JEEN PIE AND l'lWC
but such processes are controversial and are overshadowed by the effects
of the laryngeals. The trouble with Kabardian glide effects is that /w/,
for example, produces [6] only when the preceding vowel is already low,
i.e., when it is an /a/. A preceding /a/ is raised, backed and rounded
to [u], the /w/ combining with this [u] as length. This coloring is
basically different from that observed for the PIE laryngeals. For PIE
For *e2 and *84 both
*~1 no coloring is observed, merely lengthening.
*e and *o are mapped into *a, for *e3 into *o. Thus,
\'/hen coloring oc.
curs in PIE, it is without regard to the original character of the vowel affected. This is not the case with the NWC glides, nor do we find
simple lengthening without coloring. The NWC glides do not, therefore,
afford a true parallel with the PIE laryngeals.
~
10.4. Vowel coloring and lengthening involve only one main process in NWC: occasional lowering of a /a/ to /a/, and then lowering of
this and any original /a/'s below their usual "low'' articulatory target
by a prolongation of their articulatory gesture, i.e., by lengthening.
There are three sources for this process (Colarusso in press; 1975:31229; Kuipers 1960:32-9).
10.5. In the Circassian languages, /-a-a-/ yields [a] or [Q], depending upon consonantal environment, both being long as though two morae were involved (cf. [13b,c], in 7.2). The same is true in Ubykh,
(cf. [13d], in 7.2). This is the first source of long /a/ in NWC languages. This process does not occur in the Abkhaz-Abaza branch.
10.6. There is strong evidence that /h/ in /ah/ sequences can have
the same effect as the second /a/ in /aa/ (Colarusso in press; 1975:3238, 390-3; Kuipers 1960:33-4, 37-8). This effect is largely confined to
the Ci rcass ian 1anguages, cf. (23).
(23)
Circassian Initial /h/:
JOHN COLARUSSO
506
Bzhedukh:
a.
/hadaga/ -+ [ hadt ge] "Adyghe, Circassian"
b.
/hadaga/-+ /ahdaga/-+ [adtga]
c.
/haqa>./-+ [haqwv\] "mind, intellect" (Arabic loan)
d.
/haqe>./-+ /ahqe>./-+ [aqwv>.]
Ubykh has this effect to a very limited extent, cf. (24).

(24)
Ubykh Initial /h/:

a.
/hadaga/-+ [hadeAgaA] "Adyghe, Circassian"
b.
/hadaga/-+ /ahdega/-+ [~daAgaA]
c.
d.
/adaga/ -+ [ adaAgaA J id.

' J "no"
/hay/ -+ [hay
e.
/handa/ -+ [ havndaA] "today, now"
(24b) shows vowel-lengthening due to /h/ in Ubykh. (?4c) shows a variant without initial /h/, and (24d, e) show forms in which initial /h/
does not undergo metathesis and vowel-lengthening consequently does not
occur. /h/, at least in Circassian, seems to be a glide, ([-consonantal]), and is subject to inversion as is /y/. Thus one has Bzh. /s-yawana/ ''my-possessive prefix-house" = "my house" (alienable possession)
-+ /s-ay-wana/ -+ [slwuna]. For /h/ vwrd boundary, /#/, can act (optionally) as a consonant. For non-initial /h/ Kabardian presents clear evidence in the form of its nominal plural marker /-ha/ (Kuipers ibid.:
37-8), cf. West Circ. /-xa/, Bzh. and Shapsugh /-xha/. Thus, one has
Kab. /7:.'a-r/ "man-definite"= "the man", but /7r'a-ha-r/ "man-pl-def" =
"the men". Here no metathesis takes place, this being true even when
the stem ends in a consonant, cf. /7i.'a-z-ha-r/ "man-old-pl-def" = "the
old men''. Morphological conditioning is at play, both here and in the
examples in (25) where /-ha-/ is suffixed to a pronominal or possessive
suffix.
-----------------
- - - - - - - -
TYPOLOGICAL PAP.ALLELS BEnJEEN PIE AND NWC
(25)
507
/-ha-/ in Prefixes:
/0-ya-tx-a-0/ "it-he-write-trans-pres" = "he is writing it'!
'
/0-ya-ha-tx-a-0/ + /0-y-ha-tx-a-0/ + /0-y-ah-tx-a-0/ + [yatxL
J
Kabardian
a.
b.
"they are writing it"

c.
/0-ya-tx-a-ns/
"it-he-,vrite-trans-future" = "he is to write
it"
d.
e.
f.
/0-ya-ha-tx-a-ns/ + /0-y-ha-tx-a-ns/ + /0-y-ah-tx-a-ns/ +

[yatxtn5J
/0-ya-wana/ "his-pass-house" = "his house"

/0-ya-ha-wana/ + /0-y-ha-wana/ + /0-y-ah-wana/ + [yawuna]
"their house"
The same morphologically conditioned metathesis is at work with /-y-/

in such forms as /ca-ya/ + /c-ya/ +/c-ay/ "wool-the one of" = "Cherkeska" (lit. "the one of \'JOol"), /da-ya/ + /d-ya/ +/d-ay/ "nut-the
one of" = "nut tree" (Kuipers ibid. :36).
10.7. [a] in Circassian from /ah/ or /ha/ is distinct from the
one derived from /-a-a-/ in that the former persists as a long vowel
even when not stressed (cf. [23b, d] and [25d, f]), whereas the latter
does not, cf. (26b).
(26)
Circassian [a] Shortening:

Bzhedukh:
a.
b.
/qhwa-a-sY/ + [qhw6,5v] "pig-its-place"= ''pigsty"

/qhwa-a-sY-s'way-ar/ + [qhwa.sYs'wf:yEr] "pig-its-place-dirtyclef" = r:the dirty pigsty"
All persistent [a]'s are, therefore, underlyingly /ha/, if initial or

preserved in this sequence in related morphemes (as with the Kahardian
plural /-ha/), or underlyingly /-ah/, if in the sequence /Cah/. This
is not a case of fallacious reasoning: ''if some persistent [a]'s are
/ha/ or /ah/, then all must be," i.e., "if some A's are B, then all A's
are B." Underlying forms are hypotheses made by the language learner
to facilitate his task. Economy dictates, therefore, that if there is
JOHN COLARUSSO
508
no data that suggest otherwise, the learner will dispose of A and use
B along with the rule B ~A to organize his grammar. Thus, a Bzhedukh
child hearing the word [natref] "maize" will posit the underlying form
/nahtraf/ .. Given such learning strategies and their crucial role in
determining the underlying forms of a language, the "original'' long vowels of PIE are highly suspect. Since PIE had the well-developed lengthening processes due to loss of laryngeals and possibly glides (cf. 10.
3), it would be very likely that the original long vm>~els would have
been due to loss of earlier laryngeals or other compensatory lenthening
processes. Certainly original long vowels would have been possible,
but PIE indirectly attests to generations of speakers interpreting long
vowels as due to the loss of some segment. This makes it highly likely
that the original long vowels had a similar basis. We shall return to
the possibility of an "older generation" of laryngeals below (cf. 13).
10.8. The arguments used for non-initial /-ha-/ in Circassian
have limited application to Ubykh (Colarusso 1975:325-8), largely because [a]'s persist in Ubykh regardless of stress. Most Ubykh [a]'s
appear to be /-a-a-/ sequences (cf. [13d]). In old compounds this
morphology is moribund and often [a]'s are shortened, thus [yabe] (~
/i{aaba/) alternates with /ijaba/ "strong, hard" (Vogt 1963:34). Historically, a sequence of vowel plus /h/ seems to have been involved in the
plural affixes, cf. (27).
(27)
Ubykh Plural Morphemes:

a.
/sa-wa-n-tw~n/
b.
/sa-w8-na-tw~n/ +- */sa-wa-n-ah-tw~n/
c.
11
me-you-he-give-pres"
/sYa-wa-n-tW-a-n/
+-
e.
r-
f.
g.
"they give me to you"
*/sYa-wa-n-tW-h-n/ or */sYa-wa-n-tW-eh-n/
"us-you-he-give-pl-pres"
d.
= "he gives me to you"
"he gives us to you"
/a-tet-n/ "the-man-obl" = "the man" (oblique)

/a-tM-n-a/ ~ >'</a-tet-n-h/ or >'</a-tat-n-ah/ "the men" (oblique)
/sa-cY'a/ "my-horse" = "my horse
/sa-aw-cYe/ (~ [socYaA]) ~ */58-h-w-cYa/ or */se-8h-w-cYa/
11
"my horses 11 (for >'</-w-/, cf. Circ. /-y21-/ possessive affix).
TYPOLOGICAL PARALLELS BETI-JEEN PIE AND NWC
509
The reconstructions of the Ubykh plural morphemes in (27b, c, e, g)

are based upon the reasonable assumption that these are cognate with
Kab. /-ha/, Bzh. /-xhaf (nouns), /-xhf (verbs), /-ha-/ (verbal and
possessive affixes), (Proto-Circ. */-ha/, */-h/). The reconstruction
of the Ubykh /-a-/ plural as */-h-/ is the most likely, for, as we
shall see, there is evidence in Abkhaz to lead us to expect that */-ah-/
would have coincided with */-ah-/ at an early stage. What is interesting about the Ubykh plural is the evidence which it provides for the
reflex of a syllabified */h/, viz., we find a low vov1el, /a/. This
taken together with the fact that the /h/ in /ah/ in Circassian behaves
in a fashion highly similar to the second /a/ in /aa/ is very strong
evidence that the NWC low vowel shares some phonological feature with
this laryngeal, viz., they are both [+low] (Colarusso in press; 1975:
403-9; 1978). We have strong typological evidence, therefore, that
some of the PIE laryngeals may have been [+low].
10.9. The articulatory gesture behind [+lmJ] is an opening of the
oral cavity to enhance resonance. In this state only two articulatory
zones remain at which any degree of consonantal closure may be obtained:
the pharynx, which we will examine with Abkhaz, and the larynx. Thus,
if /?/ is made like a vowel, with open oral cavity, and is [-continuant,
-sonorant] (contrary to conventional notions of the laryngeals as sonorants), then the only way these manner features may be fulfilled is
through action at the larynx, i.e., its phonation must be stopped. A
glottal check is the result. This use of the larynx is particularly
clear for laryngeals that are [+low], but is true for other types as
well, though these are rare, cf. Abadzakh West Circassian /?YaaAa/
"boy", with [+high] /?Y/, cf. Bzh. /c'YaaAa/ 1:d. In a few lanquages
/?/may be [syllabic]. When syllabified it can yield a low vowel,
usually [a], neither front nor back. There are examples of this. One,
from Bella Coola (Colarusso in press; 1975:398-402), involves dissimilation in glide sequences, cf. (28).
---------------
-------~
- -
~--
JOHN COLARUSSO
510
(28)
Bella Coola Glide Dissimilation:

underlying form
glide dissimilation
syllabification
vowel~lowering
before a laryngeal
/yy/
/y?/
/i?/
/e?/
/ww/
/w?/
/u?/
/o?!
/??/
/a?/
/a?/ (older
speakers)
loss and lengthening
[eJ
[6]
[a]
(younger)
10.10. In PIE there is a striking parallel: Hitt. eszi asanzi

"he is" : "they are". This is sometimes viewed as paradigmatic (Polome
1965:30-1, fn. 131), a type of metaphony, but the forms cited for this
are probably based upon a Hittite tendency to write indifferently either
e or a when /a/ alone is involved, cf. Hitt. 7Jenkan "death, plague, etc."
where almost surely a *e2 is involved and the vowel should 'be a, cf. Gk.
"
*ank- (&v-ayx-n [Benveniste 1935:154-5]), PGmc. *anxto- (OHG. Cicl?ta,
OE. oht "hostile pursuit, persecution'' [Walde-Hofmann 1965/2:152-5]).
Furthermore, this vowel alternation is part of a set in Hittite occurring just where laryngeal theory predicts an alternation of *~1eC- :
*e1C-, cf. *a1ed- (Hitt. ed- "to eat") : *e1d- (HitL ad-anzi "they
"
"
"
eat"), *~1ep- (Hitt. ep-zi "he takes") : *~1p- (Hitt. ap-anzi "they
take"). In such cases where e vs. a carries a phonemic 1oad, the scribes
seem to have been more consistent. Many Indo-Europeanists have assumed
that *21 =*/?/,so that Hitt. asanzi + */?s-on-t-i/ with syllabic*/?/
(cf., for example, Hamp 1965a:124; Winter 1965c:193, fn. 13 [with */?sgti/]). The Greek vocalism has caused some concern and has been viewed
as an analogical restitution from the e-grade singular (Cowgill 1965:
167-9): Attic E:oTC "he is", d,oC "they are"+ *E:e:vaC (cf. t1yc. e-e-si),
Dor. E:vTC, non-Attic E:ovT-, with assumed developments *esenti + *ehenti
+ *E:e:vTC + Dor. E:vTC, and *es6nti + *eh6nti +non-Attic E:ovT-. Note,
however, that.*~1 gives evidence of vocalizing toe: else\Jhere in Greek,
e.g., ow "I eat" (*21ed-), E:onow~ pf. part. (*21de-~1d-). Thus, Hittite
and Greek differ in their vocalization of*/?/ (*~1). Surprisingly, we
find typological evidence from the NWC languages for precisely this dif-
511
TYPOLOGICAL PARALLELS BETHEEN PIE AND NHC
ference as well.
We saw that Bella Coola /?/ acted as a glide and vocalized
as [a]. But whether a given laryngeal is treated as a glide or a consonant or is vocalised as a low or a mid vowel seems to be language
specific. Hence, we spoke of consonantal articulations in the laryngeal region, contrary to most accepted theory. In the Circassian languages we saw that the laryngeal /h/ acted like a glide, undegoin9 metathesis as did /y/. West Circassian /?/ and /?W/ never behave as
glides, but pattern exactly like consonants, thus Bzh. /?a/ hand
never */a?/ or *[6.], /t'?Wa/ tW0 never */t'a?w/. In East Circassian,
however, the last word gives evidence that in this branch Proto-Circassian */?W/ was treated as a glide, thus Kab. /t'aw/ bl0 +- */t'a?w/ +*/t'?wa/, with glide-metathesis as with /h/ and /y/. Note also, that
the Kabardian form shows no evidence of lowering before */?w/, i.e., we
do not find */t'aw/. No lowering is found before the glottal stops in
West Circassian either, cf. Bzh. /a-?Wa/ ''his lips -+ /a-?w/, never
*/a-?w/, and /a-?a/ his hand -+/a-?/, never */a-?/. Therefore, /?/
is one segment that we can expect to vocalize as either [e] or [a],
just as the evidence in Greek and Hittite_suggest. This stands as a
well-attested typological tendency. In effect we are dealing with a
laryngeal that is [-high, -back, -low, +consonantal], a kind of consonantal // or, within the NWC languages, the consonantal counterpart to
/a/ since this is also [-high, -back, -low]. Note that, if a laryngeal
were to be consonantal and non-low, it would have to be non-back, otherwise it would be some sort of velar or uvular occlusive. Therefore,
our theory of laryngeals (cf. Colarusso forthcoming c for further details) provides an elegant explanation for the fact that consonantal,
non-low/?/ in the Circassian languages shows no coloring effects, i.e.,
its feature matrix consists of all negative feature specifications as
far as point of articulation features are concerned. In this sense,
the lucky choice of the notation o at least for *a1,
in PIE is quite
,...
accurate: *~1 was apparently a consonantal form of a schwa-like segment
10.11.
11
11
11 ,
11
11
11
11
11
11 ,
11
11 ,
512
JOHN COLAP.USSO
(at least /a/ in the NWC sense as a mere syllabic peak with no inherent
coloring), though of course there need not have been a true schwa vowel
counterpart in the PIE phonemic inventory. Such a PIE*/?/, or perhaps
better */?E/ or */?a/ would have behaved like the other laryngeals, syllabifying or vanishing with compensatory lengthening of a preceding vowel, but having no vowel-coloring effects. Only in one dialect branch,
Anatolian, did PIE *21 have a syllabic allophone that was [+low]. When
it was syllabified in Hellenic, it yielded the expected front, mid vowel form /E/, Gk. "E".
10.12. From the NWC evidence we may conclude that/?/ is a prime
candidate for PIE *21, an equation often made (Barnhard 1980; Lehmann
1952:108; Sturtevant 1951). /h/ is an excellent candidate for *~4, if
one wishes to posit another a-coloring laryngeal. Barnhard (1980), in
an interesting typological study, and following Hopper (1977a:49-50),
Lehmann (op. cit. :108) and Sturtevant (op. cit. :76), has equated *24
with /h/, but *2 2 with /x/, a voiceless velar or uvular spirant. Clearly if one posits two a-coloring laryngeals, there must be a difference
between them, but we will argue later against either velar or uvular
interpretations of any laryngeal (cf. 15). Finally, *~3, the most
enigmatic laryngeal, is often interpreted as a voiced velar or uvular
spirant with non-distinctive rounding, /y/ 4 [yw]. This too we shall
argue against later. Although there is no precise parallel to this
laryngeal among the NWC languages, there is much data 0n rounding: Kab.
/c'ak'w/ "little" 4 [c't~k'w], Bzh. /a-?we; "his lips" 4 [eS??w], /she-w/
"horse-predicative = being on horseback/a horseman~:
[shu]. That a
feature [+round] was part of *23 is indicated by the fact that it left
an intervocalic /-w-/ in a number of languages when it was syllabified
but followed by a vowel, cf. *de~3-m- (Attic <'iLounJL), *d2 3 -en- (Cypr.
ooFEvaL, Skt. &ivane) (t1artinet 1953). To find evidence for a laryngeal
segment with o-color, we have to turn briefly to the North ~merican Indian language Tonkawa (Hoijer 1946), which has a system of Schwebeablaut
(based on deletion processes, cf. 8.5), and traces of three vowel-col11
11
~------------------------------
-----------------
-----
513
oring laryngeals, which have been preserved in certain positions as /h/

(Calvert ~!atkins p.c.), cf. (29).
(29)
Tonkawa Laryngeals and Schwebeablaut (Hoijer ap. cit. :293-5):

a.
/yamaxa-/ root:
b.
/yamxa-no?/ "he is painting his face"
c.
/ke-ymaxa-no?/ (/ke-maxa-no?/ ?) "he is painting my facen
d.
/yakap-/ root:
e.
/ke-ykap-o?/ (/ke-kap-o?/ ?) "he hits me"
f.
/yaka-kap-o?/
g.
/hepa-/ root:
h.
/xe-pa-co?/
i.
/hap i -/ root:
j.
/ka-pi-lo?/
k.
/ho?oxaw-/ root:
1.
/ko-?oxaw-o?/
+-
+-
"to paint the face"
"to hit"
/yaka-ykap-o?/ "he hits him repeatedly",
CVCV- reduplication and glide ~ 0/V___C.
+-
"to falln (e-coloring)

/xa-hpa-co?/ "several fall hard:'
"to attack" (a-coloring)

/ke-hpi-lo?/ "they attack me"
+-
"to steal" (a-coloring)

/ke-h?oxaw-o?/ "he steals me"
Forms {29a-f) exhibit Schwebeablaut through syncope, (29f) also showing

the conditions for glide-loss. (29g-l) exhibit the coloring effects of
the three laryngeals that must have been present in Proto-Tonkawa, (29g,
h) e-coloring, (29i, j) a-coloring, (29k, 1) a-coloring. (29g, i, k)
also indicate that these earlier laryngeals colored the first vowel of
the root as well. Finally, the loss of /h/ in (29h, j, 1) is precisely
parallel to the loss of /y/ in (29f), indicating that the three ProtoTonkawa ''laryngeals" were in fact just that, laryngeal glides. Crucial
for our purposes is the fact that Tonkawa is a sort of North American
Hittite: the laryngeals persist as /h/. Of course, there are instances
of persistent \p in Anatolian as well, cf. Hitt. ljaiHai, Luw. ljasi'fa"bone" (Gk. oaTifov), Luw. ~awi-, Hier. Luw. ha:tc,is "sheep" (Lat. avis)
(Puhvel 1965:88), though of course the orthography does not tell us the
value of~ The NWC languages together with Tonkawa point toward a segment [+low, +round] for *a3, i.e., something 1ike /hw/ or nw;. He may
"
------------
-----------~
514
JOHN COLARUSSO
safely conclude, therefore, that there is strong typological evidence

that the PIE "laryngeals" were indeed laryngeals at some point in their
history.
10.13. The only real challenge to our analysis of the PIE laryngeals seems to come from some of the Salishan languages, where pharyngeals can be seen to lower vowels or color them to [a] (Mattina 1979).
This seems, however, to be largely a co-articulatory effect. The gesture for [+constricted pharynx] pulls the tongue body somewhat down and
back as the tongue root is pulled back (Colarusso 1975:337; Perkell
1972:136, 139, fn. 21). Thus, while low vowels are not pharyngealized,
the low back vowels are near the pharynx and one seems to find a kind
of gestural assimilation between low back vowels and pharyngeals. This
may be viewed as a process similar to the palatalizing of velar stops
to palato-alveolar affricates, rather than to palatal stops, cf. (30).
(30)
Types of Palatalization:
a.
velar
-+
palatal:
+high
+back
b.
velar
-+
-+
+high
-back
kY
+high
+high
-back
-back
palata-alveolar affricate:
k
l+high
+back
-+
+high
+high
-back
-back
l+high
-back
+coronal
+delayed release
r--
Thus, while (30a) may be in some abstract sense the simpler phonological
change, (30b) is actually far more common due, apparently, to ease of
articulation. Note that the pharyngeals in NvJC fail to lower vo~tJels
(Colarusso in press; 1975:338-9), contrary to some claims (Kuipers 1960:
22-3), cf. Kabardian where both /a/, /a/ and [a] are found next to/~/,
/da~an/ "to carry something with someone's help", /da~an/ "to enter (a
515
narrovJ space) 11 , [da~a] + /0-da-~a-a-ah/ 11 he-into-enter-in-past 11 = !'he

entered (a narrow space) 11 In some of the Northeast Caucasian 1anguages
with pharyngealized vowels (Colarusso in press; 1975:341-4; Catford
1977:294-5), vowel height is independent of pharyngealization, thus
Tsakhur has both /w/ and /u1/ (pharyngeal ized) opposed to /a/ and /a/
(Ibragimov 1974:34-7). Therefore, it may not be necessary to produce
low, back vowels around pharyngeals, but it may be easy. Nevertheless,
the most straightforward source, and also an easy one (unlike [30a]),
for low vowels are the laryngeals, and we may feel confident that we
have some very strong arguments in favor of [+low, round] PIE laryngeals, at least at s.tage 3 of their history when they were coloring vo~t-I
els and vanishing. So much for the synchronic nature of the laryngeals
in late PIE. We must turn now to typological considerations of the possible sources of laryngeals, i.e., v1e must find typological parallels
to the 3 stages of the history of the PIE laryngeals which we outlined
in 10.2.
11.
Typological Parallels in the NWC Languages for the Origin and

History of the PIE Laryngeals:
11.1. The Nt~C languages show that pharyngeals can give rise to
laryngeals. It seems that pharyngeals are the_ only articulation that
can combine with [+low] to produce multiply articulated consonants, all
other zones of articulation not permitting a radical constriction of
the or.al cavity without conflicting with the open oral cavity characteristic of [+low] (Colarusso 1975:405-8; 1978). Furthermore, we should
expect laryngeals, if they are non-syllabic vowel-like segments, to occur with any of the modifications which we find with vowels. For example, since we find nasalized vowels, we might expect to find nasalized
laryngeals and in fact in Nenets Samoyed we find a nasalized /?n/ op- .
posed to a plain /?/ (Tere~enko 1966a:377). Since we find pharyngealized vowels in some Salishan languages (Mattina 1979) and a few Northeast Caucasian languages (cf. 10.13, 11.5), we should also expect to
JOHN COLARPSSO
516
find pharyngealized laryngeals, which we do. Such laryngeals are usually [+low], perhaps as a result of the synergistic effects between
pharyngeals and low vowels which we discussed in 10.13. Unlike nasalization, however, pharyngealization is not merely a secondary resonance
feature, but a1so represents a di sti net articulatory zone. Thus, pharyngealized laryngeals have the status of multiply articulated consonants, much like African /kP/ or Georgian /t'k'/ or /t'q'/ (Colarusso
in press). Such multiply articulated segments are found in a number of
languages. The Northeast Caucasian language Chechen (Nakh sub-group)
has many pharyngealized consonants, among which is a pharyngealized
glottal stop,/~/, opposed to/?/ (Catford 1970:2). The North American
Wakashan family has a similar contrast, cf. Nitinat with /~?/ vs. plain
/h/ and/?/, and the closely related Nootka with both/~/ and/~/ vs.
/h/ and /?/ (Jacobsen 1969:125-7) (it is not clear whether these are
[+low] pharyngeals or pharyngealized laryngeals, in which case they
would be better written as/~/ and/~/ respectively). In the NWC languages a similar tendency may be seen in the West Circassian tendency
to realize pharyngeals with a distinct laryngeal component, /~/ ~ [~],
/~/ (only in Arabic loans)~[~] or [n].
Similar tendencies occur in
the Ashkharwa dialect of Abkhaz (Colarusso in press, 1975:181; Catford
1970, 1972; Allen 1965a:119; Lomtatidze 1954:11ff. ), /~/ ~ [~], [ShJ or
[h], /~/ ~ [~], [~n] or [n]. The Ashkharwa tendencies seem to have been
generalized in the other Abkhaz dialects to more or less obligatory phonological rules. The pharyngeals, therefore, seem to have been the
source of the laryngeals in the other Abkhaz dialects.
..._____
..._____
..._____
11.2. In an Anatolian dialect of Abkhaz (Dumezil 1967:10), ProtoAbkhaz-Abaza (PAA) */~/has yielded /h/. Elsewhere, */~/ is preserved,
along with its rounded counterpart */~w; which persists even in Anatolian Abkhaz. The fate of */1/ has been different. Although it is preserved as an underlying, systematic phoneme,/~/, this/~/ is realized
in the Bzyb, Abzhwi(-Samurzakan) and Anatolian dialects as[~], perhaps
[n], rendered in the national orthography as aa. This laryngeal real-
- - - - - - - - - - -
TYPOLOGICAL PAPALLELS BETWEEN PIE AND NWC
517
ization of/\/, just like the laryngeal /h/ in Circassian, causes lml/ering and lengthening of a vowel~ There are two facts that point to /I:J./
as underlying aa. First, there is a rule spread throughout the N\1C
group that voices a verbal index when it occurs immediately before a
transitive verb root that begins with a voiced segment. Thus, /-s-/
"I" becomes 1-z-/ in the Abkhaz form /y-s-ba-wyt'/ ''it/them-I-see-pres"
= "I see it/them". Hith /-~-/ "we" in this position, one would expect
1-I:J.-/. One finds instead a lowered and lengthened vowel (ByazWba 1971:
76), cf. (31).
(31)
Abkhaz Verbal Index-Voicing:

a.
ly-s-ba-wyt 'I "it/them-I-see-pres"

lying form)
b.
lyasbawyt'l a-epenthesis
c.
lyazbowyt'l index-voicing and vowel-coloring
d.
lyazb6yt'l glide-loss and compensatory lengthening
e.
/y-~-ba-wyt 'I "it/them-~ve-see-pres"
"I see it/them'' (under-
= '\1e see it/them" (under-
lying form)
f.
lya~bawyt'l
g.
lya\bawyt'l index-voicing
h.
lyahbawyt'l \-lowering
i.
lyahbowyt'l vowel-coloring: a-coloring of /a/ before /h/ and

a-coloring of /a/ before /w/
j.
lyaboyt'l glide-loss and compensatory lengthening
a-epenthesis
~-
The derivation in (31e-j) is the only natural way to account for an [a]
where one would have expected *fa\/. Note that in (31i) the rule of
vowel-coloring treats /h/(~ /I:J./) just like a glide. So too in (31j),
both /h/ and /w/ vanish, with compensatory lengthening of the preceding
vowel. /h/ in Abkhaz, once produced, is obviously treated as a glide.
He may note that the form /w-ah-b6t.'/(= /w-h-ba-wt'/ ?) "we see you
(masc.)" in Anatolian Abkhaz (Dumezil op. cit.:31, 30) is either an
error or an icon elicited in its underlying form. The following assimilations show further evidence that /I:J./ underlies aa (Bgazba 1964:110):
518
JOHN COLARUSSO
Abzhwi ataacwa (/a..,ta)cWa/) -+ Bzyb /a-tahcwa; family Abzhwi axWaaxwtra (/a-xw)axwt-ra/ or /a-xwa)xwt-ra/) -+ Bzyb /a-xw~axwt-ra/ tO trade;
trade Bzyb /a-k'al ~a-ra/-+ Abzhwi ak'alaara (/a-k'al)a-ra/) l!opening
Finally, Abaza and Ashkhar\'Ja Jl.bkhaz /)a/ corresponds to Bzyb and Abzhwi
aa, cf. Abaza, Ashkharwa /-r)a/ agentive suffix, Bzyb and Abzhwi -raa,
Abaza and Ashkharwa I -)a-/ d0\'/n, back, beneath (prefix on verbs),
Bzyb and Abzhwi -aa-, Abaza /-)a-/ prefix on verbs denoting either
hither direction of activity or activity distant from the speaker,
Ashkharwa I -)a-/ hither Bzyb and Abzhwi -aa- hither a11 prefixes
on verbs. Abaza forms with /)/ are even rendered into Abkhaz linguistic works by means of aa (Bgazba op. cit. :145), Abaza ;~wsasa-r1a/
maiden written as ~Wsasa-raa.
11
11 ,
11
11 ,
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11 ,
11
11 ,
11
11.3. The second fact pointing to /)/ as underlying aa is the

fact that we know aa cannot be /aa/ because there is a pan-Abkhaz-Abaza
rule which simplifies all vowel sequences by deleting the first vowel.
Thus, \'le can have Bzyb /s-xa/ my head /a-xa/ the head but in a
root which itself begins in a vowel \'le have Bzyb /s-a~/ my prince
/a~/ prince/the prince
(/a-a~/ the prince -+ /a~/).
Abkhaz aa,
therefore, must contain a consonant. It is clear from this consideration and those in the preceding section that we must posit /1/ as an
underlying abstract segment in Bzyb and Abzhwi Abkhaz.
11
11 ,
11 ,
11
11
11
r--
11
11
11 ,
11
11.4. The preceding sections have shown that one of the most likely antecedents to a laryngeal is an earlier pharyngeal. Of course,
there are numerous instances of PIE *p and *s becoming /h/ in a number
of daughter languages, but these segments cannot be of concern to us
here because they appear to be preserved within the mother language at
all recoverable stages of its history. Therefore, to gain a further
understanding of how the PIE laryngeals may have evolved, we must look
closely at the behavior of pharyngeals, in particular how they differ
from laryngeals. It is in this \'lay that we may find evidence that earlier pharyngeals underly some of the PIE laryngeals.
519
Pharyngeal s and pharyngea 1i zed segments have a rather surprising property: they front things, vowels especially. This is the
emphati c softening of Trubetzkoy (1931: 10-2 ~ 1958:124) (cf. Colarusso
1975:336-45; 1978). This is a phonetic effect. Pharyngealization produces a low frequency, formant-like noise of considerable power, this
being responsible for the muddy
thick or dark quality often
attributed to such sounds. t~hen combined with other formants, however,
such a low formant mimics the low formant characteristic of front vowels and other sonorants made in the front of the mouth, the results being often interpreted as fronting. Such effects are surprisingly widespread. In some Northeast Caucasian languages pharyngealized vowels
(v) occur. In certain dialects, these have been reinterpreted as front
vowels, Tsakhur /t'ox/-+ dial. /t'ox/ rope Rutulian /gat'/-+ dial.
/gat'/ Cat" (!) (Jeiranisvili 1959:343). The same effect is apparent
in some Interior Salishan languages, cf. Columbian /~acam/-+ [~~cam]
(Kinkade 1967), and in the history of Semitic, cf. (32) (Colarusso 1978).
11.5.
11
11
11
11 ,
11
11 ,
11
11
11
11 ,
11
(32)
Semitic Emphatic Softening (Pharyngeal Fronting):

Akkadian:
ic/ipta~/
a.
/ipte/ +- /ipte/ +-
b.
/belu/ +- >'</ba'i'lu/ "lord, owner, possessor''
c.
/erebu/ +- >'</'i'arabu/ "to enter" (with vowel harmony)
"he opened" (petu "to open")
Hebrew:
d.
/he~slr/
e.
/heyla/ +-/gala/ "to "mnder, go into exile, depart" (/g/ is
+-
/~aser/
"to cause to be lacking"
inherently pharyngealized)
Handaic:
f.
/tet! +- */ta~t! "under"
g.
I rema/ +- >'c I ra<i'ma/ "thunder"
The NWC 1anguages fo 11 ow suit. Ubykh, \'lith its numerous pharyngea 1i zed
uvulars and labials, offers excellent examples. In (33) spectrographic
data has been used (Colarusso 1975:219-92, 341; 1978) to determine the
520
JOHN COLPRUSSO
quantitative shift in the first two formants of the target vowel, /e/.
The effect is one of fronting.
(33)
Ubykh Pharyngeal Fronting:

word
/xama/
/xema/
environment
target
850Hz
1,700Hz
-x
m
---
550Hz
1,200Hz
Thus we have /xama/ 11 Stranger 11 -+ [xema], but /xfl!!}_a/ 11 harvest 11 -+ [xc:( !!}_a]
where the [~] almost gives the impression of [E]. In Abzhwi and Bzyb
Abkhaz this same effect has worked within a pharyngeal segment itself.
Thus, we have PAA */)W/ realized as [yw], i.e., a pharyngealized [4] in
Abzhwi and reinterpreted as /yw/ in Bzyb, cf. Ashkharwa /a-mrtwa/ 11 road 11 ,
Abaza /m)wa/, Abzhwi /a-m)We/-+ [amywa], Bzyb /a-mywo/. It is evident
that Bzyb has reinterpreted this pharyngeal as a rounded /y/ because
in certain Bzyb forms dissimilation has unrounded an earlier j)w/, and
when this happens we get /y/ rather than the/)/, aa, that we should
expect if this segment were still an underlying pharyngeal, cf. Bzyb
(a-i.Wyan/ vs. Abzhwi /a-zw)wan/ 11 sky 11 , Bzyb /a-t' waya/ vs. Abzhwi /at'We)Wa/ 11 horn 11 (Bgazba 1964:112-4). There are a few Bzyb forms in
which /yw/ has syllabified to produce front vowels, cf. Bzyb [wu] ~
/wyw; ~ */w)w/ 11 race 11 , [au]~ /ayw/ ~ */a)W/ 11 clothes moth 11 , [ozwa]
~ /aywzwa/(?) ~ */rtwazwa/ 11 twenty 11 . Thus, we may conclude that the
pharyngeals have the rather remarkable property of being the only segments that can be intimately associated both with low vowels and with
front vowels, high, mid and low. This unique combination of properties
will have important consequences for our theories about the PIE laryngeals.
A final point about the N\:JC pharyngeals is their tendency
toward skewing in both their synchronic and dia~hronic development. In
(34) we see how certain members of the PAA pharyngeal system are preserved while others tend toward lo\'t laryngeals or toward fronted glides.
11. 6.
TYPOLOGICAL PARALLELS BET't-JEEN PIE AND NHC

(34)
521
Proto-Abkhaz-Abaza Pharyngeal Developments:
PAA
Abaza
Ashkharwa
Bzyb
Abzhwi
Anatolian
*I~/
/~/
/~/([ ~] [ ~] [ h])
/I)!
/~/
/h/
*Ill/
/11/
/11 I ([ r:; J [ r:;..__..nJ [ n])
/1/([ fi])
/\'I ([ fi])
/\'I ([ fi])
*/~W/
;~w;
;~w;
;~w;
;~w;
;~w;
*/flW/
/f!W/
;r;w;
/yW/
/f!W I ([ Lj])
/)WI ([ Lj] [ Ll ])
PNWC */~/was preserved in Circassian, but was lowered in Ubykh to /h/,

cf. Bzh. /~aw/ 11 n0 11 , Ubykh /hay/ (PNWC */~a-/), while*/\'/ was lowered
to Circ. /?/,but was preserved in Ubykh to eventually become a pharyngealized uvular, cf. Bzh. /?aaya/ 11 bad 11 , Kab. /?ay/, Ubykh /(ma-)ywa/
(PNWC */-\'a-ya/ for Circassian, */-1a-wa/ for Ubykh). Both PNWC pharyngeals were preserved in early PAA and became pharyngealized uvulars, cf.
Ubykh /O.,Wapxe/ 11 foster child 11 (lit. 11 SOn - fosterling 11 ) + */(qwa-)pye/
+ PNWC */pe-)e/ son- fosterling, Bzh. /p'?wa; 11 Student, foster child 11
+ ,PNHC */pa-w-18/, Bzyb /a-xwp~a/ + */a-qwapxa/ + */a-qwa-pxa/ (lit.
the-son-fosterling) + PNWC */pe-lla/. Thus, the history of the pharyngeals can be complex and varying, some persisting and others shifting
into front glide or vowel forms or low laryngeal forms. The pharyngeal
zone is, therefore, very rich phonologically and can present us with a
wealth of possibilities in our typological study of the PIE laryngeals.
11
11.7. He may now reinterpret our 3 stages in the history of the

PIE laryngeals (10.2). In stage (1), when the PIE laryngeals were
stable and showed no vowel-coloring, they were likely to have been
pharyngeal spirants (cf. Gamkrelidze 1968:96). In stage (2), when they
were persistent in most positions, but showed vowel-coloring effects
(cf. Anatolian), they were likely to have been multiply articulated
pharyngeals, i.e., pharyngeal-laryngeal spirants. Such segments are
stable, but can show vowel-coloring effects. Finally, in stage (3),
when they were no longer stable, but colored vowels, were syllabified
in some dialects in certain positions, and were lost with compensatory
lengthening of a preceding vowel, they had become laryngeals. If *21
522
JOHN COLARUSSO
were*/?/, then it is possible, though there is little evidence for this

(cf. 13.4), that this came from a yet earlier*/<!/ via pharyngeal fronting to a laryngeal (cf. PNVJC */f!/ + Circ. /?/,which has no coloring).
PIE *~2 may go back to a stage (1) */~/or*/<!/, which as *[;hJ or*[~]
in Anlaut in Hittite would have persisted, while PIE *24 may always have
been */h/, vanishing in Hittite' as it did else'IJhere. Both laryngeals
would have been a-coloring. PIE *~3 may have been */?w/ or */hw/, but
both may have gone back to some sort of rounded pharyngeal, either */~w;
or *j<:;w;. We shall now briefly survey some of the PIE material to see
to what extent data from the daughter languages square with our notions
of a complex and rich history behind the laryngeals.
12.
PIE Evidence for a Complex Laryngeal History:
12.1. The following section is set forth with some reluctance

since it might be construed by some as a. license to start wildly speculating about the number of PIE laryngeals and concocting unsound etymologies. Clearly the single most important guide to sound historical
work is sober attention to the data. Furthermore, if we now have a
good notion as to the type of laryngeals that might have lain behind
PIE *~1, *~2, *~ 3 , why bother speculating about earlier antecedents?
First, we do know something about the history of the PIE laryngeals
(the 3 stages), and any account of these segments should explain their
past as well. Second, there is nagging evidence from the daughter languages that some of the facts may be best explained by several varieties
of laryngeals, hence the old questions as to how many laryngeal there
were. Thus, a cautious investigation is warranted.
12.2. For many workers the Anatolian data on laryngeals take precedence over any internal patterns the laryn9eals may be assumed to have
taken: thus, the debate over whether or not PIE could have vowel initial roots, or whether these too began in a laryngeal that has not been
preserved in Anatolian. Yet, the laryngeals were first posited on the
------------------------
- -
__
..
_,_ _ _ _
,
,_,
TYPOLOGICAL PARALLELS BETt-JEEN PIE AND
m.;rc
523
basis of internal evidence alone. Some workers have recognized the limits of Anatolian and have posited more than 3 laryngeals on the basis
of patterns within PIE (Puhvel 1965:92). One of these laryngeals, lost
in Anatolian, has even gained some currency, viz., *24 (Polom~ 1965:13ff;
Kurytowicz 1935:28-30). Thus, we have *22 in Hitt. ~anti "in front,
before, separately", ~anza "foreside, front", Lat. ante "before", Gk.
avT~ "over, against" (PIE *~2ent-), but *24 in Hitt. ap(p)a ''afterwards",
Lye. epn, Hier. Luw. apan, Gk. an:o "from", Clq, "backwards, back, again'!,
Lat. ab "from", absque "without", Alb. hap (Vaccarizzo /yap-/, Sophiko
/hap-/) "open" (PIE *2 4 ep-[o]). The Albanian forms may even have preserved *24 (Hamp 1965a:125, 4.1.1).
12.3. There is a tendency in the literature to attribute phonological behavior to a single laryngeal rather than to a phonological feature characterizing a class of laryngeals. Reconstructing a feature,
rather than a segment, though strange, is phonologically quite sound
and natural. For example, Winter (1965b:109-11, 113) argues for *g21
~ *gh in Indo-Iranian, being skeptical of *g~ 3 in Lat. ego, Gk. tyw(v),
Skt. aham. He takes Skt. maha, mahi-, Gk. wrya as reflecting *meg21-~2,
with *-22 an old collective. This is probably correct as Tokh. B maka,
makats (gen.) is inflected as a plural. Gk. wryEBos probably reflects
the simple stem in *meg2 1-dh-o-s. He chooses, however, to ignore the
vocalic evidence for *22 in the Greek forms yv&Bos, yvaBuos in favor of
a stem *gen-~1-. One expects the syllabic form of *~2 to yield Gk. a,
that of *21 Gk. E. He also ignores the -a- in Gk. Buy&Tnp and takes
the -a- in Tokharian from words for "mother" and "father", but the simple fact is that if *21 had been involved, one would have expected Tokh.
A *tkecar or *ckecar, B *tkecer, rather than A ckacar, B tkacer (cf.
also Hamp 1970 for further efforts to find *81 here). This is to ignore
attested facts, however, for analogical speculations, something to be
done only with the utmost caution. Furthermore, it is not necessary.
The evidence indicates that *~1, *~2, and *~3 all aspirate a preceding
voiced stop in Indo-Iranian. The proper conclusion is not that only
------~----
--------
JOHN COLARUSSO
524
one of these really does this, the others being illusory, but rather
that all three share some feature that is responsible for this phenomenon. Though a form *~ueg-21-, *21g-o21- may underly the forms for 11 I 11 ,
it is better to posit *81eg-83- and variants as *e3 is defined on the
basis of non-alternating *o and there are no known forms *ege, etc.
(Goth. ik is from the unstressed PGmc .. *ika(n), the stressed *eka(n)-+
Oice. ek [Hempel 1966:51-2], and not from *ike(n)). Thus, we have
*21g-e23- (theme II)-+ Gk. Eyw(v), *21eg-23- (theme I)-+ Skt. ah&m,
Arm. es, and probably Hitt. uqqa (/ekwkwa/ or /egwa/ + *2 1ekw-2 3-, with
*23 [+round]). Theme I would have given Lat. *eg and II Lat. *go, so
that leveling or analogical change here would be likely, cf. *21eg-e23
-+Lat. *ego-+ ego, via iambic shortening (Buck 1933:95), a form with a
restored full-grade in the root. Therefore, we seem to have a *83 which
aspirated voiced stops in Indo-Iranian. Various grades of *meg-21-(:22-)
seem to account for the daughter forms: *meg-21--+ Skt. mah (can occur
as an independent word, cf. Lindeman 1970:82; Grassmann 1964:1019), Gk.
~EYE~o~, Hitt. mekkis (with -kk- or -g- + *-k21- and perhaps -i- due to
the front nature of *21), *meg-21-22--+ Skt. mahi (also an independent
word, cf. Grassmann 1964:1012; MacDonell 1910:108), Gk. ~Eya, Tokh. B
maka, makats (gen.), *meg-21-e22- (with analogically restored full-grade
in the root)-+ Skt. maha, *meg-e~1- (anal. + *mg-e~1-)-+ Arm. mec. He,
therefore, seem to have a *21 that has the same effects in Indo-Iranian
as *23 Finally, *dhug-22-ter-+ Gk. ~uychnp, Skt. duhit~-. Av. dug8oar,
Tokh. B tkacer, Arm. dustr (where some idiosyncratic cluster developments seem to have led to early loss of laryngeal, cf. Hamp 1970; tlinter
1965b:112-3, for dissenting views). Thus, we can add *22 to the other
two laryngeals, all three sharing some phonological feature. Given the
phonological effects in Indo-Iranian, it is likely that we are dealing
with clusters of the form *g-h-, i.e., that these 3 laryngeals were spirants (but cf. 12.4, 16.3). What is of interest is that there is one
bit of striking evidence that there was another form of *\23 with quite
different phonological effects.
~
TYPOLOGICAL PARALLELS BEn1EEN PIE .AND NHC
525
12.4.
The deviant *e,.. 3 is posited in the verb 11 to drink 11 , PIE

*pi-p~ 3 -eti ~ Skt. p{bati, Lat. bibo, bibit, Oir. ibid (+ *pibeti).
The Greek root nw- shows *pe~3-, while ne-e-, nt-v- seem to be built
upon forms of the zero-grade. In any event the absence of *Sw-, *SC-,
*s~- (contrary to Cowgill 1965:174) simply indicates, as may be inferred
from forms such as BuyaTnp, ~tya, ~tyEBo~, that *C8,... clusters show no
assimilation in Greek. That *p~3 ~ b in Sanskrit Nhile *g~3 ~ *gh ~ h
(Kerns-Schwartz 1940:186f) is phonologically incoherent. No natural
rules could produce the
two processes from the same *e3.
If one took
.
,..
*e3
a rule that Nould
,.. to be *j~w;, for instance, one could well imagine
take *g-~3- over to *gh- by reanalyzing the spirant nature of */~w; as
aspiration in the *g. The sequence of */p-~w-/ would then be expected
to yield *ph by a similar reinterpretation of */~w;. If the voicing of
*/fl.W/ were to cause *p-~3- ~ *b-~3-, then one would expect this new *b
to interact with *83
~ *bh.
To obtain *b alone from
,.. so that *b-e3,..
*p-~3- one would have to have a rule that in one step voiced the *p
and deleted the *~3, and this would be quite unnatural. In fact, all
this works better if we assume a Hopper-Gamkrelidze-Ivanov (H-G-I)
source feature syste~ for PIE (cf. 3). In this system the root for
11 to drink 11 would be based upon an immediate */p'/, which would go back
to a zero-grade of *phe~ 3 -. We could quite confidently identify this
*~ 3 with */?w/.
The shift *g~ 3 ~ Indo-Iranian *gh vtould then be reinterpreted as one of *k'~3 ~ *g, i.e., this *~3 must simply be voiced,
i.e., */)W/ (cf. 16.4). The same form of rule would then be operating
in both changes, namely, a simple anticipatory assimilation of source
features. This elegant explanation of early PIE source feature assimilations has not gone unnoticed (cf. Barnhard 1980) and has been one of
the most striking successes of the H-G-I system. Taken with our possibilities for multiple laryngeal forms, i.e., both */?W/ and *f\:Wf forms
for *~ 3 , the overall picture is a rather vivid one. We can similarly
draw a case for two types of *~212.5.
The voiceless aspirates of Indo-Iranian, and Armenian, (and
------------------------.
-----
526
JOHN COLARUSSO
their Greek~'~. x cognates), are generally viewed as late dialectal

developments. There is strong evidence that laryngeals may be involved
in some of these. One of the clearest etymologies is "to stand", PIE
*ste~2- and other grades:
Attic t-crTn~~. Dor. t-crTa~~. fut. crTacrw; Attic crTaTo~, Lat. status, Skt. sthita-~. Here *~2 seems simply to have
caused aspiration in some IE dialects, as seems also to have been the
case in *dhug~2ter, Gk. ~uy<hnp, Skt. duhitar-. If we adopt the H-G-I
and *duk'e2ther.
In the first
.system, we must reconstruct PIE *sthee2...
...
*e2
... preserves aspiration, but causes no voicing, i.e., it must be voiceless, [-lax vocal cords]. In the second, another *~2 simrly causes
voicing, i.e., it must be voiced, [+lax vocal cords]. (In some IE dialects, e.g., Armenian [Winter 1965b:103-4], there is evidence that all
the laryngeals went through a stage of haying voiceless reflexes. In
Armenian they all act like voiceless spirants, cf. Arm. ewt'n Seven",
Gk. E:n&, Lat. septem [with Arm. -w- +- *-f- +- *-p-], Arm. canc;rwt' "know",
Gk. yvuno~ [*gn-e~3-to-s], Arm. a!awt 'k' "prayer" [*p~~ 3-ti-], Lat.
ploro, implore [*ple~3-]. This may be dismissed as a dialect development, especially when it is realized that a simple assimilation process,
H1C2 where 1 assimilates to 2 in source features, may be involved, all
the Armenian forms involving a sequence *-~-t-. For loss of voicing
contrasts, we should also keep in mind the collapse of PN~'IC */~/ and
*!~I into Proto-Abkhaz-Abaza */a.!, */qw/ [11.6].) He could, therefore,
reconstruct */sthe~-/ with the first *~2 = *!~/, and */duk'~th~r/ with
the second *~2 = *!~/. An added advantage to positing pharyngeals is
their ability to explain the peculiar vocalizations of these laryngeals,
Skt. i, and a elsewhere, the schwa primum. The a variant would be due
to a [+low] syllabic allophone, e.g., *!~/ ~ [~h] or [h], while the i
forms would represent the fronting effects of pharyngeal emphatic softening, even when syllabified, as we saw in Bzyb ;~w; ~ [U], e.g.,
*~eC- or *1C- goes to Skt. i.
While this analysis may be more complex
than the classical one with the usual PIE source features, it is nonetheless straightforward and provides a phonologically natural explanation for the peculiarities of schwa primum vocalizations.
11
~.
TYPOLOGICAL PARALLELS BET\-JEEN PIE AND NWC
527
12.6. Having suggested a voiced ~ voiceless contrast for two types

of *~2, it should be noted that Anatolian orthographies provide some
slight evidence for such an opposition (Puhvel 1965:80-6, 92; but cf.
Gamkrelidze 1967:92-3). There is the variation between Hittite-~- and
-~~-.
Contrary to what would be expected from the Sturtevant Rule, Hitt.
-~~-corresponds to Lye. -g-, cf. Hier. Luw. huhas "grandfather", Hitt.
~u~~as~ Lye. xuga-, though as hypochoristic terms are involved this data
may have slight probative value.
12.7. Watkins (1965a:120-1) has called attention to the peculiar
variations in some forms between the reflexes of what appear to be PIE
*V~3 and *aZJ, cf. Lith. uostas "rivermouth; harbor", Lat. osthAm, os,
Indo-Iranian as- (all with *o + *V~3), vs. OPruss. austo "mouth", OCS.
usta, Skt. o~tha- (all with *aw); Lith. uoga "berry", OCS. (j)agoda
(PIE *og- "grow"), vs. Skt. oj-as- "force", ug-ra-~ "strong", Av. (a8)aoJah- "that with great force", aoJ-(ista-) superl., Lat. aug-e-o "to
increase", Goth. auk-an "to gr0\11/ and within Lithuanian itself aug-u
(PIE *awg- "grow")(Pisani 1947:108); Lith. guotas "herd" (*o) vs. gauja
"troop" (*aw), but Gk. SoaHw, SoTnp, Sthwp (with *'33 and *V:;z3); Lith.
duob~ "pit", duobti "hollow out" (*o), vs. dauba "gully", OPruss. padaubis ''valley", Goth. diups "ceep" (with *eu) in Gmc. and therefore
probably *ow ablaut in Baltic). Lindeman (1967:1190) suggests an alternation between *:z 3 e~ 1 -es and a neuter in *-us, *~3e:;z1-us for the variation *o- ~ *aw- in the forms seen in ''mouth" and its derivatives. ~lhile
clever, this explanation is not available for such verbal forms as
"grow". A more plausible explanation is that .there was some dialectal
confusion in PIE bet~t1een *~3, *w, *~ZJ and *wf<, all highly likely if we
assume *~ 3 = */?w/, */~w; or */lw/. Some interesting laryngeal insights
may be gained from this hypothesis. First, if we note the apparent *e
~ *o variation between the Baltic and Germanic forms for "pit", "deep",
etc., then we may posit a confusion in PIE between */?w;, */w/, */w?/
and */?w/, all phonetically highly likely. The cluster variant */dew?ph-j
(in the H-G-I system), would account then for the rare PIE *b (+ */p'/
11
528
JOHN COLARl!SSO
+*/?ph/, cf. 12.4 where */?w/ has the same effects), while at the
same time explaining the lack of vowel-coloring, with Lith. duobe, duobti going back to an earlier */de?wph-j with vowel-coloring. This explanation receives further unexpected support when it is seen that the
only other form known to me which seems to have PIE *b may also have
this rare segment explained by means of a similar confusion between
*/?W/' */w?/' etc.: thus Gk. oA.LBpb\! "smooth" (Hesych.) (*/I?W-ph-j'
*/?wl-ph-j), Lat. Ziibricus (*/l'f{?-ph-j), OE. slipor, Norw. slipra ''to
slide" (*/[s-] I?W-[e]ph-j), OHG. sUfan (*/[s-] le?[w]-ph-j ?), with
leveling among these forms leading to generalization of */p'/ (classic
*b), and further Lat. levis "smooth" (*/le?w-y-s/), Gk. :\d:o~ (*/l?ewyo-s/), and perhaps OE. Um "lime, birdlime" (*/le?[w]-m-/ ?). Our
theory has an unexpected and highly attractive bonus: we can explain
nearly all the difficult details of the three forms that clearly contain a PIE *b while at the same time showing that this *b is itself due
to details of a laryngeal, */?W/ or*/?/, in combination with some other labial stop, which we have chosen in most cases to represent as */ph/
(classic *p) where evidence as to its exact nature is lacking. In other words, the three clear instances of PIE */p'/ (*b) are the automatic
result of laryngeal effects that are also needed to explain the difficult details of vocalism in the forms in question. PIE */p'/ (*b) can,
therefore, be eliminated altogether. ~1ore information may yet be gleaned
from these *o rv *aw forms. The forms for "grow" indicate that a laryngeal in Anlaut must be overshadowed by a laryngeal in Auslaut, cf. Lat.
aug-e-o+ *~2ew-g- with a-coloring, but Lith. uoga + *~2e~3-g- \Jith the
laryngeal in Auslaut dominating. The Sanskrit form ug-ra-~ \'lould be
quite naturally *~ 2 w-g-. Furthemore, the peculiar Hittite form for
"mouth", ais, may have a similar explanation, also involving varying
vowel grades. Lindeman's development, *~3e81-os
~ *ahas ~ *ahes ~ *aes
"" ,..
~ Hitt. aii5, via a sel'ies of hypothetical .Proto-.Anatolian forms, though
perhaps plausible, is quite ad hoc. Furthermore, it goes against the
evidence that Auslaut laryngeals dominate in VO\'Jel-coloring, as well as
against the tendency for well-established cases of *~3 (of whatever sort)
529
in initial position to be reflected as G- in Anatolian, cf. Hitt. ~astai

bone G~. oadov, Luw. GauJis Sheep (cf. 12.9, 13.5, 16.3), (i.e.,
if Lindeman were correct, we would expect Hitt. *heis, Luw. *hes), and
"'
"'
it relegates the zero-grade forms of the oblique cases, Hitt. issas
{gen.), issi (dat.-loc.), to the status of peculiar Hittite developments.
It also leaves the apparent Luwian forms, as (nom.-acc. sg.), ass(a-)
(pl.), without -i-, quite outside the Proto-Anatolian developments that
were supposed to have led up to the Hittite forms. Since the material
for this root outside of Anatolian indicates what we believe to be some
dialectal variation, and we know that this variation could take place
even within a dialect, cf. Skt. as-, 6~~ha-, it seems plausible to assume that a similar confusion may lie within Anatolian. The Luwian form,
as, would continue directly *~4e~w-s (or with */-~w-;) with this variant
of *~ 3 vanishing in Auslaut, while Hitt. ais must reflect a histo~y ais
~ *awys ~ *~4eWl-s, with vowel cluster simplification in Auslaut and
with-y- due to the fronting effects of the pharyngeal (cf. 13.2), the
oblique stem, 1:ss-, being the normal form of a root *').4ey-C : *').4Y-C-V-.
If our analysis is correct, then the Luwian oblique stem, if it ever
turns up, should be *uss-, with the syllabified */~w; vocalizing to
-u- {again cf. 13.2). Finally, we may try to trace sets such as Attic
TpaOpa, T~Tp~oxw, Ionic Tp~pa (Cowgill 1965:179) back to an alternation
*/tre~w-; "-' */tr(e)~w-/ with the first giving the forms in -w-, and the
second giving -au- through the a-coloring effects of a [+low] allophone
of*/~/, cf. Gk. ~uyaTnp, probably with*/~/ (cf. 12.3, 16.2).
11
11
11
11
12.8. It is clear that most forms of *~3 vanish in Auslaut in

Anatolian, *'),4e~W- in Lat. OS, Luw. as, */phe?W-/ in Gk. (rr(-)rrw-(xa),
Hitt. pas-zi he takes a swallow .. (Winter 1965c:197), undetermined in
*dea 3 - in Gk. (oL-)ow-(p~) Qive
Hitt. dai he takes as well as in
c_v, */ph?w-; in Hitt. pas-zi he drinks, s~tiallows'' (Bernhard 1980),
Lat. bibit, Skt. p{bati, cf. also the similar loss of *~1 in Hitt. tiyanzi they place (10.1). Laryngeals other than *~3 also appear in
Anatolian to vanish in Auslaut, though certain assimilatory (?) environ11
11
11 ,
11
11
11
11
11 ,
JOHN
530
COLA~USSO
ments may block this deletion, cf., for example, Hitt. da-i "he places"
vs. te7:!,-7:!,i "I place", with variable retention of *~1, Gk. d~nllL. Not
all laryngeals, however, vanish in Auslaut, cf. Hitt. we~-zi, wa~-zi
"he turns", weh-anzi, wah-anzi "they turn" (no clear cognates outside
Anatolian), pa7:!,7:!,ur "fire", Toch. P.por (+ *paur), Goth. fon (with -n
generalized to the nominative from the oblique stem, cf. funins gen.,
Hitt. pa1J1Jweni dat. sg. )(~Jinter 1965c:192) -- though this form may have
undergone metathesis from *paw1J1Jr, cf. Toch. B puwar, Gk. nup, Arm. hur,
Oice. furr (a zero-grade?) -- Hitt. sebur "urine", Oice. saurr "male
semen; impurity, filth" (with metathesis in the full-grade, cf. OHG.
sou, souwes, OE. seaw, Oice. soggr [Lehmann 1965:213], and in the zerograde, cf. Oice. surr "sour", OCS. syr?J "moist, raw", Gk. VEL, Toch. B
suwam. "it rains"), Hitt. mehur "time", Goth. mel "time, hour, season",
OHG. mal "time", OE. mffil "mark, sign, measure, fixed time", Lat. metior
"to measure, mark off distance (perhaps on a sundial or some other early
instrument for measuring time)" (Puhvel 1965:89; Gamkrelidze 1968:92),
the last form with no evidence of metathesis. Winter S efforts to see
a *~3 in Hitt. me~ur by tentatively comparing it to Lat. moveo "move",
momentv~ is semantically less convincing than Puhvel S identification
and would seem to be motivated by an effort to reduce, unnecessarily,
all these persistent forms to some type of *~3 The coloring of the
vowel in Goth. mel points to an e-coloring laryngeal, and this accords
well with Lat. metior. The coloring effects of the laryngeal in Hitt.
pa~~ur are unclear.
Goth. fon suggests a-coloring, while OHG .. fiur
suggests e-coloring. Winter (ibid.) points to the Hittite dissimilation
of *o before a rounded segment: Hitt. nekuz "evening", Lat. nox; Hitt.
nekumanza "naked", Goth. naqaps. Thus, he would expect an earlier *sabur (+ *so~wr) behind Hitt. sebur. These dissimilating *o S in Hittite
are said to be those arising from laryngeal coloring, apophonic *o being stable, cf. Hitt. sakki "he sees", sekkweni "we see", Goth. sahw,
sehwum. On a phonological level, however, an /o/, regardless of where
it came from, should behave consistently. Rather than posit a dissimilation here for se~ur, nekuz, nekumanza, it may be simplest to accept
~
-----------------------------
---------
TYPOLOGICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN PIE
M~D
NWC
531
these as e-grades, regardless of the vocalism of their cognates elsewhere. The laryngeal in seGur, therefore, would be some type of *~1,
and the Germanic cognates, Oice. saurr, soggr, OHG. sou, etc., would be
rare cases of indubitable o-grade before a *~1 of some sort. If this
is correct, we may then readily add Lat. semen to this series of cognates. Whatever their coloring effects, and this is by no means a
settled issue, the laryngeals in these three words -- note too that
Hittite orthography indicates two kinds, -~~- and -~- -- persist in
Auslaut and this sets them quite apart from the usual reflexes of PIE
laryngeals discussed at the outset of this section. I shall examine
these words, Hitt. pahhur,
sehur,
mehur,
in more detail in 16.4, where
..........
.....
......
I shall suggest a radically different solution to their persistent laryngeals based upon further NWC parallels.
12.9. Though Hittite writes ~u- in certain words, it is noteworthy
that the reflexes of all forms of *~3 in initial position in Anatolian
are simple~-, cf. the scanty, but striking, forms Hitt. ~astcd "bone",
Luw. ~assa-, Gk. ooTsov, Arm. oskr (all with what is apparently */?w;,
cf. 13.5 for details), vs. Luw. ~aZJi-, Hier. Luw. haZJis "sheep", Lat.
ovis, but Arm. hoviZJ "shepherd" (with Arm. h- apparently pointing to
either */~w; or */~w;), cf. again 13.5 (data from Puhvel 1965:88; Winter 1965b:102). One might have expected some indication of rounding in
the Anatolian reflexes. All the more so as there is the initial GUand this is in contrast with ZJ- in some words, cf; Hitt. Guekzi "he conjures; he slaughters" vs. ZJekzi "he demands" (Puhvel op. cit.:87, fn.
21). Some instances of Hitt. hu- clearly reflect the h- reflex of one
of the *:;p s of Luw. ~au)i- or Hitt. ljast'Cd, cf. Hitt. ~ulana-, ~uliya
"wool" (~ *e 3ZJ-l-), Gk. oiS.\oc::; "wooly, woolen" (~ *~3eu)-l-), and with
metathesis Lith. vllna, Lat. lana, Skt. Ji1~na, Goth. umlla (PGmc. *uwlno
[~ *ZJ~~ 3 -n-e~ 2 ]) -- but cf. Dor . .\~voc::; with *~ 2 -- (Walde and Hofmann
1965:2.756-7). Other forms show a *e,.., 2 , cf. Hitt. huu,ant- "wind", Lat.
ventus (~ *~ 2 ZJ-en-t-), Gk. anJJL, "breathe hard, blow" (~ *~2ZJ-e~1-),
Epic aw (~ *e2eZJ?). Other forms suggest that a type of rounded laryn,..,
~
,..,
532
JOHN COLARUSSO
geal may be involved: Hitt. auiszi he lives Skt. v&sati, though

here too, if we are to compare these forms with Gk. ~a0w tO sleep,
pass the night (+- *~2i-~2ew-s-), aor. awa, inf. aFEa(a)aL (both+*~2w-es- [Hamp 1965b:234]), we may be dealing with a cluster *~2w-.
Only further research will determine if Hitt. ~u- in such forms as
~uekzi involve remnants of an old rounded laryngeal or cluster of laryngeal plus w.
11
11 ,
11
11
12.10. There is another slight indication that rounded laryngeals may have kept their rounding in some Anatolian dialects despite
the Luwian and Hittite~- reflexes of classic *~3, though here too the
evidence is frustratingly slight. This rounded laryngeal may be represented by Lycian q (Puhvel 1965:84-5). Lycian q corresponds to
Hieroglyphic Luwian ~u, Hittite ~. and in forms borrowed outside of
Anatolian to a rounded velar, cf. Lye. qastti, qanuwetti punish
Hitt. aaskizzi, aannai judge Lye. qla Chief Hitt. ~alanta head
Lye. trqqas (nom. sg.), trqqnti (dat. sg.), Milyan {Lye. dial.) trqqiz
(nom. sg.) god'' or Lyciarch (?), Hier. Luw. Tarhu(nt)- name of
storm god, Anatolian onomastics TapHov6a~, Etruscan Tarxu-, Lat. Tarquinius, cf. Hitt. tar~-zi he conquers (*~2 ?). Therefore, it is
not impossible that some instances of Luwian au-, -~u- may reoresent
a rounded laryngeal, distinct from the h- reflex of classic *e3. The
speculations here and in 12.7, 12.8 might be lightly dismissed if
it were not for the fact that there is sound evidence for two forms of
*~ 3 elsewhere (12.2, 12.3, 12.7, 12.8, 12.9, i.e., */?w/, */lw/ and
perhaps */bw/). The worth of these hypotheses can only be borne out
by careful future research.
11 ,
11
11
11
11 ,
11
13.
11
11 ,
11
11
11
11
11
Evidence for two Generations of Layrngeals in PIE, the PIE Pharyngeals:
13.1. ~Je argued in 10 for a class of segments, laryngeals, that

behaved much as do the PIE laryngeals, and in 11 for a class of seg-
533
ments, the pharyngeals, that not merely resembled the laryngeals, but
could also offer an historical source for them. We noted in particular
that these pharyngeals could readily vocalize either as a low vowel or
a front, often high vowel, a unique pattern of vocalization alternatives. Such a distinctive vocalization pattern would be a powerful
tool for arguing for earlier pharyngeal forms of laryngeals in PIE if
variations between front and low vowel forms for laryngeals in syllabic
position could be found. We have already commented upon the peculiar
behavior of the so-called schwa primum (12.5): *meg-~1-~2 ~ Skt. mahi,
with i, but Gk. ~Eya, ~Eya~, with a, where a *~ 2 is involved. Such variable syllabic reflexes may underly other problems of IE philology.
Polome (1965:31, 43 and fn. 195) is reluctant to equate
Hitt. daluki-, Gk. 6oALX6~, Skt. dirgha-, precisely because of the odd
equation Hitt. -u- ~ Gk. -L-. If we attribute schwa primum vocalism
to *~2 (perhaps instances of syllabified */~/ or*!'/), then we might
posit here a form with a distinct pharyngeal: */dJ1wgh-j. Its rounding would account for the a-color of the syllabic *l in both Hittite
and Greek, as well as the -u- vocalism in Hittite, while its pharyngeal
nature would account for the high, front vowel, -L-, in Greek. Cf. also Hitt. kaluti- line, list (+- */k!\'wdhy-/), Gk. xAwcrL~ Spinning,
line, list (+- */kle1wdhy-/), xAwBw Spin (+- */klef!wdh-j) (Puhvel
1965:90). We have already made use of a similar pharyngeal fronting
in 12. 7 to account for the -i- (/y/) in Hitt. ai5 mouth +- *awys +13.2.
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
*~~+ew1-s.
13.3. While certain front vowels or glides may be due to pharyngeal fronting effects, it is clear that the /-y-/ in the diphthongal
stems of the Hittite -~i conjugation are not as a class exuded from
the frequent root final laryngeal (contra Puhvel 1965:91-2; Risch 1955).
This -i-, -iy- can be from a *-y(e/o)- present that occurs elsewhere in
IE, cf. Hitt. dai he places tiyanzi they place Lat. (con-)diunt
(10.1, 12.8). Furthermore, this *-y- of the present has been shown
11
11 ,
11
11 ,
JOHN COLARPSSO
534
by Diver (1959) not to have involved a laryngeal. He has shown that in

this regard it stands opposed to a denominative *-y- which in fact does
appear to be exuded from a laryngeal, contrast Gk. <plAEw, <rlA.now ''love
6w, 6now ''bind'', both with an *-ey- rv *-e- alternation, vs. Tcvw (+*ten-y-), TELow (+- *TEcvow +- *ten-y-s-), TE\!w fut., TETaxa perf. (+*ten-, *tn-, respectively) pay'', where simple *-y- is involved. The
*-y- of the *-y(e/o)- present cannot, and hence the -i-, -iy- of the
Hittite diphthongal stems need not, have a laryngeal origin. On the
other hand, the *-y- found in certain denominatives in fact does go
back to a laryngeal, which from the front nature of the exuded glide
and the-E-, -n- vocalism in Greek suggest a development *C?V ~ *CeV ~
*Ce~V ~ *CeyV, without any necessary pharyngeal involvement (here in
agreement with Puhvel and Risch as to the behavior of the laryngeal,
though not as to the general etymology of -y- in these forms). The
only forms that may have laryngeals are Hitt. ~uwai ''he runs'', ~uyanzi
''they run'', Gk. anJJl ''to blow, breathe hard'' (?) and Hitt. piddai ''he
flies
Gk. n:ToJJal, n:TEpov. In the first, the Greek word is a dubious
cognate because of its meaning, though some connection may be possible.
In the second, the Greek forms show no evidence for a laryngeal. Accordingly Hitt. piddai may in fact reflect a laryngeal of the denominative, being based upon the noun, meaning ''wing (of a bird), feather
and go back to an original meaning of *''to take win9''.
11 ,
11
11 ,
11
13.4. Instances of *~1 being preserved in Anatolian are scanty

(Puhvel 1965:88). One of the few forms with cognates outside Anatolian
is Hitt. ~enkan- death, disease, plague
Unfortunately, these cognates, where they give evidence for a laryngeal, point toward a *~2,
cf. PGmc. *anxto ~ OHG. achta, Mod. Germ. Acht, OE. oht hostile pursuit, persecution (Walde and Hofmann 1965:2.152-5), Gk. avchxn "force,
necessity (a reduplicated form c1vc2c3- ~ clvc2-clvc2c3-, cf. Ved.
jambh- "chew up ~ janjabh-, but with full-grade in the root, cf. Ved.
gam- g0 ~ jangam- [MacDonell 1910:390, 545.2b]) +- av-ayx-n +- *~2en~2en-k-.
Gk. vExTap should have been *avExTap, but this may have been
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
---------------------~.~.--
- -
TYPOLOGICAL PARALLELS RETWEEN PIE AND NWC
535
reanalyzed as *a-vEHTap, with an a-privative on a new root VEH-, hence

VEHU~, VEHpo~, etc. (but cf. Hammerich 1967:845-7). Other forms -- Oir.
ec "death", Bret. ankou; Oir. ecen "necessity, anguish", Bret. anken;
Lat. neco "to kill, murder, slay", Skt. nasati; Ir. echt (+- *anktu-)
"vengeance, murder"; OPruss. nowis "corpse", Goth. naus, nawis (gen.),
etc. -- point to a remarkable development of the root, but are useless
in determining the value of any initial laryngeal as they all go back
to a zero-grade. If Hitt. henkan- really reflects *82, then one would
have expected an a-vocalism, *hankan-, cf. harkis "white". It is possible that this "irregular'' e is merely a scribal artifact, the result
of a tendency to write indifferently either "e" or "a" in words where
the contrast carried a low semantic load (cf. 10.10), but it is also
possible that the writing ~enkan represents a dialect variant in which
the initial ~-was still fully pharyngeal. If such were the case, this
~-would not lower vowels, and if it had any coloring effects at all,
they would likely be fronting. The "standard" Hittite counterpart to
this ~- would likely then be a pharyngeal with a low laryngeal component and would cause vowel-lowering, as is seen in such forms as ~arkis.
~
13.5. We have argued that the PIE laryngeals indeed behaved like
true laryngeals, [low]. We have also seen that there is some evidence,
some of it strong, that there were several variants of at least two of
the laryngeals, *~2 and *~3 Furthermore, some of the peculiarities of
PIE vocalism that have been tentatively linked to laryngeals find plausible explanations if viewed as alternate low or fronted vowels or
glides arising from pharyngeals. We obtain a simple, yet powerful,
picture of the PIE laryngeals that have survived into Anatolian, if we
assume, therefore, that they go back to pharyngeals. Moreover, we may
now account for those PIE laryngeals that did not survive into Anatolian (with one exception) as being reflexes of original laryngeal segments. Thus, the second a-coloring laryngeal, *~4, would go back to
an original */h/, *81 back to*/?/. Given the apophonic parallels between NWC and PIE (9.2), such typologically troublesome and unlikely
JOHN COLARUSSO
536
segments as non-apophonic *a could readily be explained as due to this

*/h/, while original long vowels could go back to compensatory lengthening processes that might involve, in part, the loss of early */h/, */?/
or */?w/. As original laryngeal segments, */h/, */?/and */?W/ would
have been likely to have shown vowel-coloring and perhaps even loss
with compensatory lengthening in Auslaut even at a very remote epoch
so that their reflexes in certain forms where ancient morphological
patterns have been obscured would appear as "original" long vowels and
the recovery of the underlying laryngeal would be difficult, cf. adjectives in *-otos, Lith. raguotas, OCS. rogat'b "horned", Gk. <'iLvwTo~
"turned, rounded" (Watkins 1965a:120), from an earlier */-e?w-to-s/
(?). By having laryngeal allophones in Auslaut, most of the original
pharyngeals would have been lost in Anatolian, but this would also explain why the original laryngeals, */h/, */?/and */?w/, would have
disappeared from this branch. Only in Anlaut (really, initially), are
the reflexes of */?w/ and the rounded pharyngeals conflated in Anatolian. Perhaps, */?w/ took on a pharyngeal articulation in this branch.
Here, however, Armenian may be of some help. If we assume that on the
whole pharyngeals were more persistent in most of the IE dialects, then
we may see a rounded pharyngeal in Arm. hoviw "shepherd", Luw. ljawi-,
Hier. Luw. hawis, Lat. avis "sheep"; Arm. hot ''smell", Lat. odor, Gk.
o6w6a perf. and plqpf. We may then assume as a natural phonological
consequence of the relative instability of the laryngeal segments that
Arm. 1/J-: Hitt. ~-represents PIE */?w-/, cf. Arm. ost "branch", Hitt.
hasdwir, Gk. o~;;o~, Goth. asts; Arm. oskr "bone", Hitt. hasted, Gk. ocrTEov (data from Winter 1965b:102, 2.1). Ultimately, in some branches
of Anatolian all laryngeals, including the ones that had been stable,
may have shifted to h-like sounds and disappeared. Thus, Lydian lacks
any obvious laryngeals, cf. A.aLA.a~ (Hesych.) the name of a "Tyrant of
the Lydians". This form may be related to Hitt. lahhiyalas "warrior"
(Puhvel 1965:85; Neumann 1961:69-71).
~
~~
13.6.
This picture of the PIE laryngeals and pharyngeals would
TYPOLOGICAL PARALLELS BET\lliEN PIE AND NWC
537
closely resemble, therefore, that of the same sounds in the NWC languages. Though complex and admittedly speculative, these proposals offer a wealth of phonologically and typologically sound mechanisms for
explaining many of the more obscure details of laryngeal theory in PIE.
These proposals try to do for PIE and its daughters what a generative
phonologist would try to do for a living language: come up with a rich
enough underlying structure (proto-forms) and a set of natural rules
that will be rich enough to account for all the data that cannot be
morphologically explained away. These goals have led quite naturally
to a proliferation of PIE laryngeals, quite in contrast to most modern
efforts in historical work to restrict the number of proto-segments,
laryngeals in particular, that are. posited for PIE. Thus, the present
proposals may seem quite odd to most Indo-Europeanists. There is some
typological evidence, however, that suggests strongly that PIE should
have more segments than present reconstructions give it and that this
is particularly true of the PIE laryngeals.
14.
The Poverty of the PIE Consonantal System:
14.1. We have made extensive comparisons between PIE and.the NWC

languages and have found many striking similarities, though these may
not have been many of the ones usually alluded to. We have also briefly
gone into some of the history of the NWC languages (8.4). I shall return to such considerations here and point out one further striking typological improbability associated with the PIE consonantal system as
it is presently reconstructed.
14.2. In 9, as a conclusion to our considerations of the various
sorts of PIE and NWC ablaut, we suggested that the PIE *e ~ *o vowel
system was highly marked and that it would be more in accord with the
overall picture of ablaut if it were reoriented along the lines of the
NWC vertical vowel system, /e/ ~/a/. If we take such a reassessment
seriously -- and if typological arguments carry any force at all, we
538
JOHN COLARUSSO
certainly should -- then PIE is typologically bizarre in yet another

way. Languages with vertical vowel systems get that way by a process
in which older normal vowels have given up their coloring to adjacent
consonants (Colarusso 1975:379-85), thus: *Cu ~ *CWu ~*ewe, *Co~
*CWo ~ *CWa. Two vowels remain at the end of this process, because
the feature [+low] cannot combine with most consonantal articulations
and so is left on its original vowel, i.e., as a low /a/. Examples of
this process can be found in a number of languages: Ethiopic (with the
old language, Ge1ez, possibly having had a true vertical vowel system),
Eth. /kWeJ/ "all", Ar. /kull/, Syr. /kol/, Hebr. 7:J, 7D /kol/, Ug. kl,
Akk. kullatu; Eth. /?exW/ "brother", ESA 'h, Ar. /?ax/, Syr. /?aha/,
.
Hebr. n~ /?a~/, Ug. d~, Akk. a~u (Moscati et at. 1964:39, with "(!" as
x); Northeast Caucasian (Avar-Andi-Dido branch) Ginukh (Hinukh) /?aq'we/
"mouse", Dido /?aq'u/; Ginukh /\{Wede/ "day", Dido /yudi/, where Dido
reflects the earlier state (Lomtadze 1963:20-1). The Ginukh development shows that a vertical vowel system need not be the final result.
Nevertheless, vertical systems only seem to come about in this way.
Some of the simplest NWC etymologies demonstrating this might be PNWC
*/cu/ or */cu/ "ox'' (we are dealing here with an early neutralization
of */c/ and */c/ before a rounded vowel), Bzh. /ewe;, Kab. /ve/ (~
*/~we; [cf. Kuipers 1975:30, 32]), Ubykh /cw8;, Bzyb /a-cw/, Abaza
/'f:Ye/; PNWC */t'q'u/ "two", Bzh. /t'?we;, Kab. /t'ew/, Ubykh /t'q'wa;,
Abkhaz /)We/ (~ */t')wa/), Abaza /1W-/. As a result of such processes,
the consonantal system always shows many secondary articulations, such
as rounding, palatalization, or advancing of the tongue root (a type of
palatalization exhibited by Ubykh and Abkhaz-Abaza uvulars). Such secondary articulations are found in Manambu of the Ndu family (Allen and
Hurd 1972), with rounded labials and velars, this New Guinea family containing the only other veYtical vowel systems extant (ibid.; Pike 1964).
In the NWC family, such a process has produced some of the largest consonantal inventories known, with numerous types of multiply articulated
consonants, cf. Ubykh (35) with 81 consonants (Colarusso 1975:119, 438:
1977:92; Vogt 1963:13), and the Apsuy sub-dialect of .O.shkharwa Abkhaz
---------'----------
---~--~-
-----~--
TYPOLOGICAL PARALLELS BEHJEEN PIE AND NWC
539
(36) with 71 (Colarusso 1975:445; Lomtatidze 1954:29).

(35)
Ubykh Consonantal Inventory:

Labials
p'
Pharyngealized
-p
p'
t
tW
d
dW
t'
t'W
c'
Rounded
c
cw
)w
c'w
Apicalized
c'
c_v
~y
c'v
c'
Alveolars
Rounded
Affricates, Spirants (Laminal)
Alveo-palatals (Rounded)
Palata-alveolars (Laminal)
Retroflexed
Laterals
s
sw
z
zw
s
sW
z
.zw
sv
zY
?\ '
z
v
kY
gY
k'Y
Velars (Rounded)
kW
gw
k'w
xw
Uvulars (Advanced Tongue Root)
qY
q'Y
xY
yY
Plain
q
qW
q'
q'W
xw
y
yw
Pharyngealized
q'
-y
Pharyngealized, Rounded
qw
q'W
xw
yw
Laryngeal
Palatals
Rounded
14.3. In other words, the PIE consonantal system is very impoverished when compared to its vowel system if the NWC and Ndu languages are
a reliable typological guide, as they seem to be. The historical processes that lead to vertical vowel systems will not create consonantal
series at new points of articulation, but they will create numerous series with secondary articulations. It is these that are missing from
PIE as it now stands, with the sole exception of the rounded ("labio-")
velars. I do not wish to suggest that people should go hunting for
rounded alveolars, etc., in PIE, but rather that any laryngeal or pharyngeal consonants that are proposed should be quite naturally expected
---------------------
JOHN COLARUSSO
540
to have rounded counterparts. Indeed, an absence of these, rather than

simplifying the picture, would introduce a degree of typological markedness. This paucity of secondary articulations is a striking typological
anomaly that has gone unrecognized because of our previously poor understanding of vertical two-vowel systems and their historical origins.
(36)
Consonantal Inventory of Apsuy Sub-Dialect of Ashkhan.;ra Abkhaz:
Lapials
p'
Alveolars
t'
f'
Rounded
c'
Affricates, Spirants (Laminal)

Apicalized, Rounded
(:_w
~W
c'W SW
zW
SW
zW
Alveo-palatals, Rounded
Palate-alveolars (Laminal)
c'v 5v
Retroflexed
c'
Retroflexed, Rounded
7<'
Laterals
Palatals
Velars
k'
Rounded
kW
gW
k'W XW
Uvulars (Advanded Tongue Root)
q'Y xY
yY
Plain
q'
Rounded
Pharyngealized
Rounded
Pharyngeals
Rounded
15.
The Velar Hypothesis of the PIE Laryngeals:
15.1. Most current typological works on the PIE laryngeals posit

a */x/ for *~2 and a */y/ for *2 3 (Bernhard 1980; Hamp 1965a; Lehmann
1952:107-8; Sapir 1938:269-74). Gamkrelidze (1968) is virtually alone
-------
-----------
541
in taking the PIE laryngeals to be pharyngeals but he too views the

Anatolian laryngeal reflexes as velar spirants, albeit dialectal developments. Much of the force behind this assumption derives from Hittite
orthographic considerations (Puhvel 1965:84-6; Lehmann op. cit. :197,
14.7). This is a difficult issue, but much of it boils down to the
fact that Hittite laryngeals are usually rendered into Greek by some
sort of velar, x, y, less often x. Thus, (data from Puhvel) Hitt.
gazzi : Gk. KaoLos, Hitt. gilakku : Gk. KLALxLa. This is generally the
mode of transcription for cuneiform Ginto Greek, but cf. Ptolemy's
KoAXLS, probably Urartean KulGai, XaSwpas : gabur, also rendered as
'ABwpas. Sometimes the same words turn up in different Greek forms,
depending upon their path of transmission, so, for example, Anatolian
garran(u) : Gk. KappaL (via Anatolia), but Gk. Xappav via Hebr. 11n
/~aran/.
The picture is further muddied by such variants as MnTnp
"hw or "hna for Hurrian gebat, cf. the name (Pudu)J:!,epa (?). This
suggests a considerable amount of confusion on the part of the Greeks
in trying to render alien sounds. we should note that a velar was used
to denote a voiced pharyngeal: Gk. rasa : Hebr. ~TY /1azza/, Gk. rowoppa : Hebr. ~1ny /)amora/. Velars in Greek do not, therefore, rule out
possible pharyngeals. Hittite loans into Ugaritic should show ax~~
~ h contrast, hopefully, since Ugaritic made phonemic use of such a set
of oppositions. Unfortunately, the few Hittite loans that occur are
ambiguous (Puhvel op. cit. :83): Gty "Hittite ~tiff "silver" (reg. Semitic ksp, cf. Hebr. qo~ /kesef/), the latter probably a Hattie borrow; ng; the Sumerogram for ~attusas means "s i 1ver city'
1' ,
15.2. This frustrating mixture of forms occurs right within Anatolian itself: (data from Puhvel) Hitt. kilamni : Gilammar "gate building", is~isaza : iskisaza (neut. nom. iskisa- "back"). These may be
signs of dialect mixture, but this k ~ Gconfusion is a common one
throughout this area, cf. OBabyl. Gissatum : kissatum "forced servi ce
NAssyr. ~anasu : kanasu Subject oneself", LBabyl. tamaku : tama~u (no
gloss), Hurrian kesk/~i, ~e3k/~i at Boghazkoy, gs~-p at Ras Shamra,
1
',
11
JOHN COLARUSSO
542
"chair" (cf. the Hurrian loan into Ugaritic, k~i3, and Hittite, kislji[ta]-), Hattie Kat(t)a~~as, lj_ata~~as, Kata~gas, lj,ataggas, etc., "Queen''
(name of a goddess). Such fluctuations over space and through time
strongly suggests unsettled scribal conventions for representing sounds
alien to the cuneiform syllabary, originally taken from Sumerian, a language poor in gutturals. Taken together with the Greek transcriptions,
any hope of deducing the phonological nature of the Anatolian laryngeals
from the orthographic evidence seems fairly remote.
15.3. Abandoning orthographic concerns, we must ask ourselves if
it is typologically possible that velar or uvular spirants could have
been associated with the pharyngeals and laryngeals that we have seen
are likely to underly the PIE laryngeals. Unfortunately, to complicate
the picture yet further, the answer is ''yes''. Fortunately, however,
the relationship between all these sounds is well defined. The velars,
uvulars and laryngeals do not seem to be phonologically interrelated in
any way in the NWC languages. On the other hand, the PNWC uvulars have
in Abkhaz-Abaza become pharyngeals, while the original pharyngeals, again in Abkhaz-Abaza and in part in Ubykh, have become pharyngealized
uvulars (Colarusso 1978), cf. (37) and (38).
(37)
PNWC Uvular
Pharyngeal Shift in Abkhaz-Abaza:
PNWC */p(a/a)-/ "son", */-x(a/a)-/ "female, young woman''

Bzh. /pxwa; "daughter"
a.
~/pa-w-xa/ ~
b.
*/pa-xa/
c.
'~~/pa-y-xa-/ ~
d.
"~~/pa-xa/ ~
PNWC
e.
<J-qh(e/a)-/ "pear"
'~~/w-qhe-/ ~ Bzh. /qhwe<Z.e)/ "pear"
f.
*/y-q~a/ ~ ubykh
g.
*/qha/
~ Shapsugh WCir.
/pxa/ id.
Ubykh /pxYa(dak'W)/ "young girln
Abaza /p~a/, Abkhaz /a-p~a/ "daughter 11
;xv'a;
~ Abkhaz /a-~a/
TYPOLOGICAL PARALLELS BETHEEN PIE AND NWC

(38)
543
PNWC Pharyngeal -+ Pharyngealized Uvular Shift in Abkhaz-Abaza

and Ubykh (cf. 11.6):
PNWC */-CJ.a-/ "gray/blue/green"
a.
*/CJ.a-/-+ Ubykh /lja-q'a/ "blue/green" (/-q'a/ a color suffix)
b.
*/w-CJ.a/-+ Bzyb /a-'X-'a/, "gray/blue, ash-colored", Abzhwui

/a-xwa;
PNWC
'~~/li(e/a)~a/
c.
*/7\e~a/
-+
"mountain"
*/-'1\~a/
-+ Bzh.
/qwes~a/
"mountain side, mountain
forest"
d.
*/7\e~a/-+ */1-i.~a/-+
e.
*/1-i.a~a/
Bzyb /a-sYxa/ "mountain", Abzhwui /a-sYxa/
-+ */7\aha/ -+ 1/7\axha/ -+ Ubykh /4axa/ "mountain forest"
The shift of uvular spirants to pharyngeals must not be merely language

specific, but due to some underlying phonological or phonetic cause,
since the same shift sets Hebrew and Syriac apart from the other Semitic languages, cf. Hebr. nl'{ /?a~/ "brother", Syr. /?a~a/, vs. Ar. tl
/?ax/ (cf. 14.2).
15.4. It is important to keep in mind, however, that while there
are typological grounds for deriving pharyngeals from earlier uvulars,
uvulars in themselves will not exhibit the vowel-coloring effects that
are characteristic of the PIE laryngeals. In the NWC languages, the
uvulars as [+back] segments color vowels [+back]. No lowering is observed. If the PIE laryngeals were something like */x/, */y/, */xw;,
*/yw/, part of the velar and labia-velar series and colored vowels as
part of their velar nature, then we would expect the IE velar and labiavelar stops to do the same. This objection is the phonological basis
behind Watkins (1965b:182-3) rejection of the velar theory of the PIE
laryngeals. The striking point observed by Watkins is that the laryngeal *~ 3 does not pattern like the other labio-velars in Italic. The
Italic development is PIE *ghw-+ Proto-Italic *xw-+ Lat. /w/, cf. Lat.
/niwem/, /woweo/, with non-lengthening, non-coloring /w/. If PIE *~3
were */yw/, then one would have expected */yw/-+ */w/, with the same
544
JOHN COLARUSSO
effects as Proto-Italic *xw (+PIE *ghw). One might wish to attribute

the laryngeal behavior of these hypothetical (labio-)velar laryngeals
to their spirant nature, thus distinguishing them from the (labio-)velar stops. Watkins' argument eliminates this possibility, however,
since the reflex of the PIE *ghw is a spirant as well in Italic, and
here it is clear that the laryngeal behaves distinctly from this reflex.
This is a strong argument, therefore, that the PIE laryngeals were not
(labio-)velar spirants.
15.5. There is some strong evidence, however, that despite the
Italic considerations some laryngeals did have velar allophones in some
of the daughter languages. Martinet (1953; 1955a; 1955b; 1956; 1957a;
see Watkins ap. cit. :181 for discussion) has called attention to apparent velar reflexes of laryngeals in Italic, cf. Lat. -trrx + *-try~s,
Skt. -trr, Lat. senatus + *sen-ee 2 -to-s, senex + *sen-eez-s. The general assumption here is that a laryngeal, probably */x/, is dissimilated to k because of the following s. This is impressive in light of parallel Armenian (Winter 1965b:103-5) and Tocharian (1965c:206-10) evidence. In Armenian *-~y- ~ c' in *-y(e/o)- presents, just as *-kwy- ~
c', cf. ac'k' "eyes" (+ *okw-y-), an old dual with later plural -k' (+
*-s) added, cf. Gk. OOCH:, Toch. B es; note Arm. akn "eye"+ *ak'-n +
*okw-, without this cluster and its effects. The laryngeal parallels
are canawt' "known", canac'em "I know" (+ *gr;-~3-ye-m), al;:awt'k' "prayer",
atac'em "I implore" + *p~-~3-ye-m. Furthermore, in certain nouns *~ ~
k/_*s, where the *s has later gone to zero, cf. Arm. mukn "mouse", Gk.
lJU~, Lat. mils, Arm. jukn (/~ukn/) "fish", Gk. ~x.au~, OPruss. suckans,
from *mu~s, and *( )hu~s, respectively. There are also s and k enlargements of various inflectional forms in Tocharian where a *~ may
underly them (s may be of analogical origin [ibid. :209]), cf. Toch. B
kwa- "to call", vs. kaka preterite-subjunctive "be called"+ *kwaka
(for loss of -w- cf. the labial umlaut in imperatives: B pokkaka, A
p~kaksam), \<there kwa- + *ghw-(e }~-, Skt. havate "call", part. huta-,
OCS. zwati "call", kaka + *ghw-::i!-~ Thus, in Tocharian it seems that
~
545
*-e-e,., ,., +-aka-, with velar stops emerging through dissimilation before
a spirant, in this case another laryngeal, much as with the dissimilation before (*)s in Latin and Armenian. Clearly, we must be prepared
to accept velar allophones of some laryngeals. A careful consideration
of the data, however, shows that this velar, though arising from a laryngeal, does not itself have laryngeal effects. The Latin forms are
crucial here, because these are the only reflexes that simply and unambiguously preserve laryngeal coloring and lengthening. It is clear
that in the shift *sen-ee2-to-s
+ senatus the *e2
,.,
,., has exhibited its
normal behavior. In *sen-ee2-s
+ senex, on the other hand, neither
,.,
coloring nor lengthening is apparent, yet this is just where one clearly has a velar allophone of *e2.
Therefore, if there was something a,.,
bout a velar that caused laryngeal effects, i.e., if this laryngeal
were actually a velar, then we would expect the form *senax or *senax,
which, of course, we do not find. The length in -trix is not a forceful counterexample because it could easily represent an earlier *-tr~x
with a long vowel restored from a *-tri (Skt. -tri). In short, rather
than pointing to a velar laryngeal, the Latin evidence merely points to
a velar allophone for a laryngeal which, because of its velar nature,
lacks any laryngeal properties. We have two strong arguments, Watkins'
and, unintentionally, Martinet's, that the PIE laryngeals could not
have been velar spirants.
15.6. The velar allophone of some of the laryngeals remains to be
accounted for. This is where the pharyngeal to uvular shift which we
observed in Abkhaz-Abaza and in Ubykh is useful. \~e can well picture
a shift, taking the predecessor of Lat. senex as an example, of the following sort: */sen-e~-s/ + */sen-ex-s/ + */sen-ex-s/ + /seneks/ (senex),
where the shift of */~/ + */x/ (possibly via */q/) is found in the shift
from PNWC to PAA, and the shift, */x/ + /x/, is found in going from PAA
to the Abzhwi dialect (cf. 39b, d). Note, however, that *~2 cannot be
/x/. The only coloring effect that a /x/ can have is a fronting one,
as we saw with Ubykh (cf. 11.5.[34]), no lowering effects are possible.
------------------------~
------
546
JOHN
COLA~USSO
While fbi can have fronting effects, it can, in its allophonic possibilitites as [bh] and [h], have lowering effects as well. *~2 cannot,
therefore, be underlyingly either /x/ or /x/. If we take it to be a
pharyngeal, however, we can explain its lowering effects as well as its
tendency to form uvular or velar spirants. The same arguments hold for
the rounded laryngeal, *~3 The tendency to shift either way between
pharyngeals and pharyngealized uvulars is apparently due to co-articulatory effects, the tongue being somewhat backed with the retraction of
the tongue root characteristic of pharyngealization. A pharyngealized
uvular being a complex segment with a difficult articulation, it is
natural that it be prone to simplification, either to a plain uvular,
as in Abzhwi Abkhaz, or to a plain velar, as apparently in some dialects
of PIE.
~
16.
Summary of the PIE Laryngeals:
16.1. Now that we have added another potential exotic specimen,

a pharyngealized uvular, to the PIE laryngeal zoo, so to speak, it is
necessary to summarize our conclusions and see if there is any need for
this new segment as a full-fledged laryngeal phoneme, and not just as
an allophone. We shall now examine some PIE reconstructions using our
laryngeal hypotheses. Since many of our arguments pivoted around laryngeal properties as exhibited in assimilatory phenomena involving consonants, I shall employ the Hopper-Gamkrelidze-Ivanov source feature
system. This will make the assimilations the simplest and most natural.
16.2. I argued for the following laryngeals. For *~1 in non-assimilatory position, I posited*/?/, cf. */?es-(th-i)/ "to be.": Skt.
&sti, Lat. est, Goth. ist, Hitt. e~zi; Gk~ E~a{ + *eens{ + *ehensi ~
*es-en-; */?s-(e/o)n-th-i/ "they are": Skt. s&nti, Lat. sunt, Goth.
sind, Hitt. a~anzi, Dar. E:vTL + *eent{ + *esenti, non-Attic E:6vT- +
*ehont- + *es6nt-. For one form of *~3 I posited */?w/, cf. */phe?w-/,
*/-ph?w-/ "to drink": Skt. p{bati, Lat. bibo, bibit, Oir. ibid, Gk.
-------------------------
-----------
------------
547
*/de?wph-/ deep; hollowed out space''; Lith. duob~

pit duobti hollow out but also the variant */d(e/o)w?ph-/: Lith.
dauba gully
OPruss. padaubis Va 11 ey Goth. diups deep''. For *~ 4
I followed earlier workers (Hamp in particular) and posited */h/, */hap-/
after, back, away, from
Gk. ano, a<)J, Lat. ab, absque, Hitt. ap(p)a
afterwards, again, back'', Hier. Luw. apan back, again'', Lye. epn, Alb.
hap-, Vaccarizzo dial. /yap-/, Sophiko dial. /hap-/ 0pen
This laryngeal is difficult to recover in any but initial position. It is possible that short vowel forms in Sanskrit that never shmAJ ani-vocalism,
but show signs of a voiceless, spirant laryngeal may give evidence for
*/h/. */~/,because of pharyngeal fronting effects, would be expected
to show i-vocalism (cf. below). Thus, we may have */h/ in */phh(e)l-/
to shine, sparkle'': Skt. phalgu-~ reddish, red Gk. cpaA.uvE:L, A.aJJrrpuve:L (Hesych.), Arm. p'ayl Shine, brightness II, p'aylem I shine
p'arp'im I shine, glisten
p'alp'a!im I glo\'t, glisten
p'olp'otim I
shine, sparkle (Meillet 1936:35), where the numerous Armenian formations give evidence of a full-grade which, taken with the Greek form,
points to an original *a, hence the posited */h/. These constituted
the older, first generation of PIE laryngeals, partially preserved in
Albanian, but generally lost elsewhere, even in Anatolian.
nw-, n'CV-, nt::C-;
11
11 ,
11
11
11
11 ,
11 ,
11
11
11 ,
11
11 :
11
11
11
11
11
11 ,
11
11
11 ,
11
11
11
11 ,
11 ,
11
11
16.3. I then dealt with a series of laryngeals which produced

voiced aspirates in Indo-Iranian. In the Hopper-Gamkrelidze-Ivanov system, these laryngeals were voiced, producing simple voicing in the preceding stop in those dialects that later gave rise to Indo-Iranian. For
this variety of *~2 I posited */1./, */d'(:'k').ther/ 11 daughter 11 : Gk. ~vya
<np, Skt. duhitar-, Av. dugedar, Toch. B tkacer, Arm. dustr. For this
variety of *~ 3 I posited */).w/, */?ek'-)w-;, */?k'-e).w(-m)/ 11 .! 11 , with
leveling and analogical restoration of full-grade in the root between
the reflexes of these forms: Skt. ah&m (*/?ek'-)w-em/), Lat. ego+
*ego (analogy at work between *eg [*/?ek'-)w/] and *go [*/?k'-e)w/]),
Oice. ek (PGmc. *eka[n]), Gk. E:yw(v) (*/?k'-e)w[-m]/), OHitt. uga
(Lindeman 1970:82, 72), Hitt. uqqa (/ekWkWa/ or /egWa/, where the u-,
548
JOHN COLARUSSO
u- point to labialization of the following stop[s]).
Voiceless varieties of these types of laryngeals may have existed, */~/ (*~2) and */~w;
(*:~p); for*/~/, */sthe~-/, */sth~-/ "stand": Dor. L:-aTiiJJL, onho~,
Lat. status, Skt. sthita-~; for */~w;, perhaps (if we follow Hittite
orthographic evidence), */s~-~w-/, */sen-~w-/ "strive, gain": Gk. *&viJJJL (*/snhW-m-i/), Skt. san6ti, Hitt. sanhanzi (both */snhW-en-t"-i/),
Hitt. san~zi (*/sen~W-th-i/) (Puhvel 1965:91-2). It is also possible
that */~w; may underlie some of the following forms, where Sanskrit
shows a rounded realization of a *~ in one case and an unexplained -uin another: Skt. sphurj- "burst", Gk. a<papay(o)JaL "to burst, crackle",
Lith. sp~rgas (with -~r- possibly pointing to *-t~-, cf. Watkins 1965a:
117), Lat. spargo (+- *sparago ?) "to scatter, sprinkle" (Burrow 1965:701, 3; Meillet 1964:124), where we may posit */sp"[~wg-/, */sph~w[g-/
variants of a stem; Skt. sphurati "throbs, quivers", Lith. spiri~. Gk.
anaCpw "to gasp (of a dying fish, hence to flop, thrash about)'', Lat.
sperno "to remove, reject", and perhaps Gk. a<pal:pa "ball" (Buck 1949:
907), pointing to a stem */sph~w(e)r(-y)-/, perhaps a different vocalic
grade of the preceding stem. Thus, */~/ and */~w; may be considered to
lie behind at least some of the voiceless aspirates that have developed
in Indo-Iranian, Greek and Armenian. Their spirant h-like character
would be responsible for preservation or addition of aspiration in the
preceding stop. These pharyngeals survive in Anlaut in Anatolian,
though it is not possible in most cases of Anlaut and never in initial
position to distinguish between voiced and voiceless counterparts, cf.
*/ther('i'/h)-/ "conquer": Hitt. tarh(h)-, Lat. -trCire, trans, Skt. tiras,
Av. taro, Oir. tar, Welsh tra-, trauJ (Hamp 1965b:231; Benveniste 1935:
151); */('i'/~)er-k'-/ "shining, v1hite": Hitt. ~arkis, Gk. apyn~. Lat.
araentwn, Arm. arcat' (*l:arcat', with an unstable h- from *82.,
cf. t1in,...
ter 1965b:102, 2.1); *j(c;w;~w)ew-/ "sheep": Luw. ~aui-, Hier. Luw.
hau;is, Arm. hoviu; "shepherd", Lat. ovis "sheep". ~le should recall that
Armenian data are crucial for distinguishing between the rounded pharyngeals, as in the last word, and */?W/ in initial position, as the latter
seems also to have been preserved in initial position in Anatolian, thus
0.
0.
TYPOLOGICAL PARALLELS BEn-JEEN PIE AND NHC
549
*/?west'-/ "branch 11 :
Hitt. ~ai~dwir, Gk. or;os;, Goth. asts, Arm. ost

(Winter 1965b:102, 2.1; cf. our 12.7, 12.9, 13.5).
16.4. In the preceding paragraph we deliberately omitted the *~1

that caused voiced aspirates in Indo-Iranian. This causes problems,
because we have used up all our laryngeal candidates without accounting
for this last change. The simplest thing would be to assume */?/ for
this and employ some sort of rule, perhaps *C? ~ *Ch. Unfortunately,
we must somehow get a voiced segment out of this */?/, unless, of course,
we revert back to the classical PIE source feature system, to be faced
again with the problem of why we do not get Skt. *pibhati or *b{bhati
(cf. 12.4). There is a voiced glottal stop,/~!. ([+lax vocal cords]),
in Jingpho (Halle and Stevens 1971:208-9) and Enets Samoyed (Anderson
p.c.; Tere~enko 1966b:440), but these are the only known occurrences of
this exceedingly rare segment. Though this last exotic possibility cannot be ruled out, it is possible that we are dealing with yet another
form of e-coloring PIE laryngeal here, perhaps *(y/. This would beecoloring, voiced, and what is more, as this is not laryngeal, this would
persist into Anatolian. This */y/ might underly the words for "great,
big", */mek'-y-(~2-)/: Gk. ~syr~os;, ~syas;, Skt. mah-, mahi, Hitt. mekkis. There is some evidence for a voiceless counterpart, */x/, */(s-)
thex-k'-/, */(s-)thx-k'-/: Skt. sthag- "to cover", Gk. cnsyw, Lat. tego. These pharyngealized uvular spirants may also represent those Anatolian laryngeals that persist in Auslaut. Thus, follmling the Sturtevant rule for Hittite orthography (but cf. 12.6), we may have */seywr/,
*/sewyr/ "moist; urine; sour; impurity" (Hitt . .se~ur), */meywr/ "measure,
mark off; time, moment of time" (Hitt. me~ur), */pexwr/, */pewxr/ "fire"
(Hitt. pa~~ur), where the pharyngeal component may account for theecoloring in such forms as Lat. semen, Goth. mel, OHG. fiw' (cf. 12.8).
Here too may lie an explanation for the famous alternation of -r-/-~
seen in Hitt. wahnu-/u,arnu- "burn", where the -r- mav be an effort to
render /yI or a dialect I yI. The general sonority of /yI among the N~JC
languages would make its confusion with /r/ also a simple and natural
v
550
JOHN COLARUSSO
explanation for this variation.

16.5. We are now tentatively suggesting a PIE laryngeal system of
the sort depicted in (39). Traditional laryngeal equivalents are noted
near them.
(39)
The Most Elaborate Possible PIE Laryngeal System:

pharyngealized uvulars
(*~1)
-y
pharyngeals
(*~2)
rounded
()'c2 3)
~w
C[W
laryngeals ("first generation")
(*24)
rounded
(*21)
(*23)
?W
Typologically (39) may seem odd in the absence of plain uvular or velar
stops and spirants. but it should be noted that this system is very
similar to that in Proto-Semitic, where one has only two plain velars,
*/k/ and */g/, 1t1hile the other uvulars are all pharyngealized (actually
pharyngealized velars underlyingly) (Moscati et aZ. 1964:24, 8.3), cf.
(40). I have modified the traditional Semitic transcription.
(40)
Proto-Semitic "Gutturals":
velar
pharyngealized uvulars (velars)
-q
pharyngeals
laryngeals
g
X
-y
C[
In the history of PIE the system in (39) would have been successively
collapsed down toward the laryngeal zone of articulation, at which the
segments would have become unstable and subsequently vanished. As to
an earlier, though entirely conjectural, stage of PIE lying behind (39),
one could envision a system such as that in (41), where the numerous
pharyngeals of (39) are now spirants in the velar and labio-velar (uvular?) series, while the pharyngealized uvulars are now simple pharyn-
551
geals.
(41)
Earliest or Pre-IE "Gutturals":
k'
k'W
velars
rounded (labio-velars)
pharyngeals
?
?W
laryngeals
rounded
xw
y
yw
The system in ( 4-1) is very Caucasian 1ooki ng. Moreover, the shift from
(41) to (39) has its parallel in the PNWC shift to PAA. It is tempting
to view all this as an IE-Caucasian areal feature. Subsequent modification and loss of the laryngeals in PIE could then be viewed as due to
spread of the mother tongue beyond this area and consequent simplification by new speakers of what must have seemed a very difficult and
strange system.
11
11
16.6. The proposals in this paper have been suggestions with which
Indo-Europeanists may work. Whether or not most of these will bear
fruit can only be determined by careful comparative work. Surely, in
many etymologies involving laryngeals insufficient information has survived to permit any sure determination of the exact nature of the underlying laryngeal and it is in these cases that the traditional cover symbols will be used, now and for the forseeable future. It is time, however, that more confidence be placed in typological and phonological
theory and that we view as highly 1i kely, if not assured, that the PIE
laryngeals were some form of pharyngeal or laryngeal consonant, and
perhaps even pharyngealized uvulars. The set of possible can.didates
for the PIE larync;~eals may be confidently viewed as limited and well
defined, and the phonological and historical behavior of these forms as
well understood, albeit complex. The identification of a particular
reflex within an etymology _as a given segment, *!QI, */l'/, *f?wj, etc.
will only rest on detailed etymological work. Major shifts such as
""""'""----------------------~
- - - - -..
---------
---
------------
- -
-- --
---~--
552
JOHN COLAPUSSO
that from the system in (41) to the one in (39) may only be recoverable,
if at all, through careful systematic considerations or even external
comparison (cf. Barnhard this volume; 1977). Despite such reservations,
Indo-Europeanists should now have greater confidence in using the phonological behavior of pharyngeals, laryngeals and pharyngealized uvulars
to unravel the difficult and complex patterns found in the reflexes of
the PIE laryngeals.
REFERENCES:
Allen, J.D. and Hurd, P. ~J. 1972. "}fanambu Phonemes," Te Reo 15.
Allen, W. S. 1965a. "On One Vowel Systems", Linqua 13.
Allen, W. S. 1965b. "An Abaza Text':, Bedi kartlisa: Revue de kartvelologie 19.
Allen, W. S. 1956. "Structure and System in the Abaza Verbal Complex'",
Transactions of the Philological Society.

Anderson, S. R. 1978. "Syllables, Segments, and the Northv1est Caucasian Languages", in Syllables and Segments. /IJTisterdam.
Anderson, S. R. 1971. "On the Description of 'Apicnlized' Consonants",
Linguistic Inquiry 2.
Anttila, R. 1969. PY'oto-Indo-European Schwebeablaut. Berkeley and Los
Angeles.
Austin, W. M. 1941. "The Prothetic Vowel in Greek", Language 17.
Bell, C. 1919. Grammar of Colloquial Tibetan. Repript of 2nd ed.,
1977. New York.
Benveniste, E. 1935. Origines de la formation des noms en indo-europeen. Paris.
Bya~wba [Bgazba], X. s.
1971. Apswa b8zswa [The Abkhaz Language].
(In Abkhaz.) Aq'wa (Sukhumi], USSR.
Bgazba, X. S. 1964. Bzybskij dialekt ab.razskogo jazyka. Tbilisi.
Barnhard, A. R. 1980. "Typological Studies and the Identification of
the Indo-European Laryngeals", in Studies in Diachronic~ Synchronic~
and Typological Linguistics:
Festschrift for Oswald Szemerenyi.
Amsterdam.
Bomhard, A. R. 1979. "The Indo-European Phonological System:. New
Thoughts about its "Reconstruction and Development," 01~bis XXVIII/ 1.
Barnhard, A. R. 1977. "The 'Indo-European/Semitic' Hypothesis P.eexamined", JIES 5/1.
Buck, C. D. 1949. A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal
Indo-European Languages. Chicago.
Buck, C. D. 1933. Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. Chicago.
Burrow, T. 1965. The Sanskrit Language. London.
Catford, J. C. 1977. "Nountain of Tongues: the Languages of the Caucasus", Annual Review of Anthropology 6.
- - -
---------
TYPOLOGICAL PAFALLELS
BET~ffiEN
PIE AND NWC
553
Catford, J. C. 1972. "Labialization in Caucasian Languages Hith Special Reference to Abkhaz", in Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. The Hague.
Catford, J. C. 1970. Report on Fieldtrip to the U.S.S.R.
(Mimeographed.) Ann Arbor.
Chomsky, N. and Halle, M. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New
York.
Colarusso, J. Forthcoming(a). "Methodological Considerations in Historical Reconstruction: The Case of Proto-Northwest Caucasian",
International RevieUJ of Slavic Linguistics. (Special volume on
the non-Slavic languages of the U.S.S.R., ed. by Bernard Comrie.)
Colarusso, J. Forthcoming (b). "The Origin of Greek Favcon-".
Colarusso, J. Forthcoming(c). "On the Nature of the So-called 'Laryngeal' Segments".
Colarusso, J. In Press. "Phonemic Contrasts and Distinctive Features:
Caucasian Examples", in The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic
Units and Levels_, Including Papers from the Conference on Non-Slavic Languages of the USSR. Chicago. (Appeared in 1979.)
Colarusso, J. 1978. The Typology of Pharyngeals and Pharyngealization:
Caucasian Examples. Paper presented at the 6th North American Conference on Afro-Asiatic Linguistics, April 9-10, Toronto.
Colarusso, J. 1977. "Languages of the Northwest Caucasus 11 , in Tl:e Lan-
guages and Literatures of the Non-Russian Peoples of the Soviet

Union. Hamilton.
Colarusso, J. 1975. The NorthUJest Caucasian Languages: A Phonological
Survey. Ph.D. Dissertation (unpublished), Harvard University.
Collinge, N. E. 1953. "Laryngeals in Indo-European Ablaut and Problems of the Zero Grade", Archivum Linguist?:cum 5.
Cowan, W. 1971. y/orkbook in Comparative Reconstruction. New York.
Cowgill, hl. 1965. "Evidence in Greek", in Evidence for Laryngeals.
The Hague.
Diver, hi. 1959. "Palatal Quality and Vocalic Length in Indo-European,"
rv'ord 15.
Dumezil, G. 1967. Documents anatoliens sur les langues et les traditions d1/ Caucase _, V_, Etudes abkhaz. Paris.
Gamkrelidze, T. V. 1976. "Linguistic Typology and Indo-European Reconstruction", in Linguistic Studies Offered to Joseph Greenberg.
Vol. 2. Saratoga.
Gamkrelidze, T. V. 1968. "Hittite and the Laryngeal Theory", in Pratidanam. The Hague.
Gamkrelidze, T.V. 1967. "Kartvelian and Indo-European: A Typological
Comparison of Reconstructed Linguistic Systems'', in To Honor Roman
Jakobson. Vol. I. The Hague.
Gamkrelidze, T. V. 1966. "A Typology of Common Kartvelian", Language
42.
Gamkrelidze, T. V. and Ivanov, V. V. 1973. "Sprachtypologie und die
Rekonstruktion der gemeinindogermanischen Verschliisse", Phonetica
27.
---------------------
554
JOHN COLMl'SSO
Garnkrelidze, T. V. and Ivanov, V. V. 1972. "Lingvisticeskaja tipologij a i rekonstrukcij a sistemu indoevropej skix smycnyx", in vlorking
Papers of the Conference on the Comparative-Historical Grammar of

the Indo-European Languages (12-14 December 1972). ~oscow.
Gamqrelidze [Gamkrelidze], T.V. and Mac'avariani, G. 1965. Sonant'ta
sist'ema da ablaut'i kartvelur enebsi [The Sonant System and Ablaut
in the Kartvelian Languages]. (In Georgian with Russian summary.)
Tbilisi.
Genko, A. N. 1955. Abazinskij jazyk. Moscow.
Gimbutas, M. 1974. "An Archaeologist's View of PIE in 1975", JIES 2.
Gimbutas, M. 1973a. "The Beginning of the Bronze Age in Europe and
the Indo-Europeans: 3500-2500 B.C.", JIES 1.
Gimbutas, M. 1973b. "Old Europe c. 7000-3500 B.C.: The Earliest European Civilization before the Infiltration of the Indo-European
Peoples", JIES 1.
Goldstein, M. C. and Nornang, N. 1970. Modern Spoken Tibetan: Lhasa
Dialect. Seattle.
Grassmann, H. 1964. Worterbuch zum Rig-Veda. Reprint of 1872 edition.
Wiesbaden.
Halle, M. and Stevens, K. 1971. "A Note on Laryngeal Features'', MIT
Quarterly Progpess Report 101.
Halle, H. and Stevens, K. 1969. "On the Feature 'Advanced Tongue
Root'", MIT Quarterly Prog1'ess Report 94.
Hammerich, L. L. 1967. "Ketzereien eines alten Indogermanisten", in
To Honor Roman Jakobson. Vol. II. The Hague.
Harnp, E. P. 1970. "Sanskrit duhita, Armenian dustr, and IE Internal
Schwa", JAOS 90.
Hamp, E. P. 1965a. "Evidence in Albanian", in Evidence for Laryngeals.
The Hague.
Hamp, E. P. 1965b. "Evidence in Keltic", in Evidence for LaryngeaZs.
The Hague.
Hempel, H. 1966. Gotisches EZementarbuch. Berlin.
Hoijer, H. 1946. "Tonkawa'!, in Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 6~ Linguistic Structures of Native America. Reprinted 1971.
New York.
Hopper, P. J. 1977a. "The Typology of the Proto-Indo-European Segmental Inventory", ,JIES 5/1.
Hopper, P. J. 1977b. "Indo-European Consonantism and the 'New Look"',
Orbis XXVI/1.
Hopper, P. J. 1973. "Glottalized and Hurmured Occlusives in Indo-European", Glossa 7/2.
Ibragimov, G. X. 1974. "Faringalizovannye zvuki v caxurskom i rutul'skom jazykax", in Ezegodnik iberijsko-kavkazskogo jazykoznanija I.
Tbilisi.
Jacobsen, W. H., Jr. 1969. "Origin of the No.otka Pharyngeals'', IJAL
35.
Jeiranisvili, E. 1959. "Paringalizebuli xmovnebi c'axurul-rutulursa
da udur enebsi" [The Pharyngealized Vowels of the Tsakhur-Rutulian
and Udi Languages] (in Georgian), IberiuZ-k'avk'asiuri enatmecniereba 11.
TYPOLOGICAL PARALLELS BET1lliEN PIE AND NWC
555
1940. Grammatica serica: Script and Phonetics in Chinese

and Sino-Japanese 15. Stockholm.
Karlgren, B. 1915-26. Etudes sur la phonologie chinoise. Leiden.
Keiler, A. R. 1970. A Phonological Study of the Indo-European Iaryngeals. The Hague.
Kennedy, G. A. 1952. "Voiced Gutturals in Tangsic", Language 28.
Karlgren, B.
Kerns, J. A. and Schwartz, B. 1940. "The Laryngeal Hypothesis and IndoHittite, Indo-European Vocalism", JAOS 60.
Kinkade, M. D. 1967. "Uvular-Pharyngeal Resonants in Interior Salish'',
IJAL 33.
Klimov, G. V. 1969. Die kaukasischen Sprachen. Translated from the
Russian by W. Boeder. Hamburg.
Kuipers, A. H. 1976. "Typologically Salient Features of Some Northwest Caucasian Languages", Studia Caucasica 3.
Kuipers, A. H. 1975. A Dictionary of Proto-Circassian Roots. Lisse.
Kuipers, A. H. 1968. "Unique Types and Typological l!niversals", in
Pratidanam. The Hague.
Kuipers, A. H. 1963. "Proto-Circassian Phonology';, Studia Caucasica 2.
Kuipers, A. H. 1960. Phoneme and Morpheme in Kabardian. The Hague.
Kury{owicz, J. 1935. Etudes indoeuropeennes. Vol. I. Cracow.
Lehmann, W. P. 1965. "Germanic Evidence", in Evidence for Iaryngeals.
The Hague.
Lehmann, W. P. 1952. Proto-Indo-B~ropean Phonology. Austin.
Lehmann, W. P. 1951. "The Distribution of Proto-Indo-European /r/",
Language 27.
Lindeman, F. 0. 1970. Einfuhrung in die Lar~wtgaltlzem~ie. Berlin.
Lindeman, F. 0. 1967. "Indo-europeen *os 'bouche'", in To Honor Roman
Jakobson. Vol. II. The Hague.
Lomtadze, E. A. 1963. Ginuxskij dialekt didojskogo ja:::yka. Tbilisi.
Lomtatidze, K. V. 1954. Asxaruli dialekt'i da misi adgili sxva apxazur-abazur dialekt'ta soris [The Ashkharwa Dialect and its Place
among the Other Abkhaz-Abaza Dialects]. (In Georgian.) Tbilisi.
HacDonell, A. A. 1910. Vedic Grammar. Strassburg.
Martinet, A. 1957a. "Phonologie et 'laryngales'", Phonetica 1.
Martinet, A. 1957b. "Les 'laryngales' indo-europeennes", in Proceed&ngs of the VIIIth International Congress of Linguists. Oslo.
Martinet, A. 1956. "Some cases of -k-/-ul- Alternation in Indo-European", Word 12.
Martinet, A. 1955a. "Le couple senex-senatus et le 'suffixe' -k-",
BSL 51/1.
Martinet, A. 1955b. "L'analyse en traits distinctifs et la reconstruction: le vocalisme o non-apophonique en indo-europeen", in Econo-
mie des changements phonetiques:
Traitc de pl:onologEe
diacl~ronique.
Bern.
Martinet, A. 1953. "Non-apophonic a-vocalism in Indo-European", r/ord 9.
Mattina, A. 1979. "Pharyngeal Hovement in Colville and Related Phenomena in the Interior Salishan Languages", IJAL 45/1.
Meillet, A. 1964. Introduction a l'etude comparative des langues indoeuropeennes. Reprint of 8th edition. University.
556
JOHN COLARUSSO
1936. Esquisse d'une grammaire comparee de l'armenien

classique. Vienna.
Moscati, s. et al. (eds.). 1964. An Introduction to the Comparative
Grammar of the Semitic Languages. Wiesbaden.
Neumann, G. 1961. Untersuchungen zum Weiterleben hethitischen und
Meillet, A.
luwischen Sprachgutes in hellenistischer und romischer Zeit.

Wiesbaden.
Perkell, J. 1972. "Physiology of Speech Production: A Preliminary
Study of Two Suggested Revisions of the Features Specifying Vowels", MIT Qu.arterly Progress Report 102.
Pike, E. V. 1964. "The Phonology of the Ne-\v Guinea Highlands Languages", in Ne1.J Guinea, the Central Highlands~ Special Publication~ American Anthropologist 66/4.
Pisani, V. 1947. Crestomazia Indoeuropea.
Torino.
Polome, E. 1965. "The Laryngeal Theory so far: A Critical Bibliographical Survey", in Evidence for Laryngeals.
The Hague.
Puhvel, J. 1965. "Evidence in Anatolian", in Evidence for Laryngeals.
The Hague.
Risch, E. 1955. "Zu den hethitischen Verben von Typus tehhi" in
~~
'
Corolla Linguistica~ Festschrift Ferdinand Sommer. Hiesbaden.
Sapir, E. 1938. "Glottalized Continuants in Navaho, Nootka and Kwakiutl (with a Note on Indo-European)", in Selected fvritings of
Edward Sapir (1968). Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Schmitt-Brandt, R. 1967. Die Entwicklung des indogermanischen Vokalsystems (Versuch einer inneren Rekonstruktion). Heidelberg.
Serdjucenko, G. P. 1956. "Kratkij grammaticeskij ocerk abazinskogo
jazyka". Appendix in Russko-abazinskij slovar', edited by X. D.
Zirov and N. B. Ekba. Moscow.
Sturtevant, E. H. 1951. A Comparative Grammar of the Hittite Language.
Vol. I.
2nd ed. New Haven.
Szemerenyi, 0. 1967. "The New Look of Indo-European: Reconstruction
and Typology", Phonetica 17.
Teresenko, N. M. 1966a. "Neneckiy j azyk", in Jazyki Narodov SSSR, III.
Noscow.
Teresenko, N. M. 1966b. "Eneckiy jazyk", in Jazyki Narodov SSSR, III.
Moscow.
Trubetzkoy, N. 1958. Grundzuge der Phonologie.
Gottingen.
Trubetzkoy, N. 1931. "Die Konsonantsysteme der ostkaukasischen Sprachen", Caucasica 8.
Tugov, V. B. ( ed.). 196 7. Abazinsko-russki.j slovar'. Moscow.
Vogt, H. 1963. Dictionnaire de la langue oubykh.
Oslo.
Vogt, H. 1958. "Les occlusives de l'armenien", NTS 18.
Walde, A. and Hofmann, J. 1965. Lateinisches etymolog1:sd1es fi 70rterbuch. Heidelberg.
Watkins, C. 1975. "Reflexes of Laryngeal in Certain Morphological
Categories in the Indo-European Languages of Anatolian", in IndoEuropean Studies II. Cambridge.
Watkins, C. 1972. "Indo-European Lexical Families and Their Derivation: Archaic Nominal Forms, 1. *dieu- 'god'", in Indo-European
Studies I. Cambridge.
~ ~
TYPOLOGICAL PAF.ALLELS BET\-!EEN PIE AND NHC
557
1965a. "Evidence in Balto-Slavic' 1 , in Evidence for LarynThe Hague.

Watkins, C. 1965b. ~'Evidence in Italic", in Evidence for Laryngeals.
The Hague.
Winter, H. (ed.). 1965a. Evidence for Laryngeals. The Hague.
Winter, H. 1965b. "Armenian Evidence", in Evidence for Laryngeals.
The Hague.
Hinter, H. 1965c. "Tocharian Evidence", in Evidence for Laryngeals.
The Hague.
Watkins, C.
geals.

Colarusso - Typological Parallels Between PIE and NWC (1981)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Colarusso - Typological Parallels Between PIE and NWC (1981)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Colarusso - Typological Parallels Between PIE and NWC (1981)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TYPOLOGICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN

AND THE NORTHWEST CAUCASIAN LANGUAGES

1.1. The Northwest Caucasian language family is one of three

European show only gross typological parallels, many of which do not

Usefulness of Typological Studies:

2.1. One may legitimately question the usefulness of typological

TYPOLOGICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN PIE AND NWC

of Georgian, Mingrelian, Laz, and Svan). Such a PIE homeland would

Proto-Indo-European Source Features:

The Proto-Chinese system seems to have survived in the Tangsi dialect

TYPOLOGICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN PIE AND NWC

both Hopper and Gamkrelidze in rewriting the PIE system replace *d

TYPOLOGICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN PIE AND NWC

Phonotactics of PIE *r:

4.1. It has been plausibly argued that PIE lacked initial *r

*/rachaf 11 elm 11 , with ablaut variants */rach<:~/, */rachaf and inflected

Proto-Indo-European Palatal-Velar Series:

5.1. The usual reconstruction of the PIE k-like sounds is that

(the so-called "labiovelars")

TYPOLOGICAL PARALLELS BET\-JEEN PIE AND NWC

while the labiovelars loose their rounding. The system is preserved

Skt. kakt?a- "armpit", Lat. coxa, OHG. hahsa

Skt. sthag- "to cover", Gk. O'Ttyw, Lat. tego

Skt. df-rgha- "long", OCS. dl?Jg'b, Gk.

PIE Palatals and Velars:

(= old *k, *g, *gh)

NWC (Circassian-Ubykh) Palatals and Velars:

TYPOLOGICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN PIE AND NWC

*ple?to-, *neyto-, respectively, vs. *dh?eto-, *dyeto-

respectively, all phonologically */pl?t6-/, */gnyt6-/,

NWC a-Epenthesis Rules:

0 +a% [-sonorant] _ _ [+sonorant]{[-sonorant]}

(lOa) accounts for the underlined schwa in such forms as Anatolian

entirely predictable in any NWC language (for extensive arguments, cf.

TYPOLOGICAL PARALLELS BETVJEEN PIE AND NI\TC

At least this is how the language is claimed to work. It is difficult

Abaza a-Epenthesis Rule:

6.1, above). Yet in those cases where inflectional differences do

7.1. One of the most striking features of PIE --and quite in

TYPOLOGICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN PIE AND NWC

3.7, 4.4, 5:5-5.6, 6.4; 1976:7.1-7.5; 1977:23-27; 1979:3;

NWC False Ablaut:

/sha/ "horse", /sha-a-sY/-+ /shasY/ "horse stable", lit.

/maJ..a/ "sheep", /maJ..a-a-sY/-+ /maJ..asY/ "sheep shed"

Ubykh (cf. Vogt 1963:26-7):

/sa-tW-ala II sa-na-ala/-+ /setWala 1/ senala/ "my father

Abaza (cf. Genko 1955:171-3):

/c'-a-c'a-ra/ "under-into-set-inf" = "to set something

lc'-e-c'-ral "under-out-from-move-inf" = "to come out

from underneath something" (note g)

lc'-c'-ral "bite-bite-inf" = "to gnaw, nibble"

The Abadzakh dialect of West Circassian has retained a three-way false

Circassian Three-Way False Ablaut:

11/J-se-txl "it-I-write" = "I usually write something"

/0-se-tx-e/ "it-I-write-trans(itive)" = "I am writing something" (transitive, momentaneous)

/sa-tx-al "I-write-intrans(itive)" = "I am writing, I write"

7.3. In the Circassian languages, however, there is also extensive

/e/ vs. /a/

/ze/ "one" vs.

ls'Wa/ "good" in /-s'wa-7i.ayw-e-1 "good-see-trans" = "to

/rachaf 11 elm 11 , with ablaut variants /rach<:~/, */rachaf and inflected

(= old k, g, *gh)

ple?to-, neyto-, respectively, vs. dh?eto-, dyeto-

respectively, all phonologically /pl?t6-/, /gnyt6-/,

der-, stem der-k'- "to bend"

/-w-?aqe/ + /?weqa/ + /?Wqe/ + /q'we/ + Abkhaz /a-)w-ra/,

PNWC /-?eqe-/ "bone", /b-/ grammatical class prefix (cf. Klimov

/ba-?aqa/ + /ba?qa/ + /baqa/ + /bqa/ + Ubykh /bya/, later

/ba-?aqa-w/ + /ba?qu/ + /ba?qwa; + /a-baq'we;