Quelltext der Seite h₂e-conjugation theory


*angelegt 31.12.2020
*This page was last edited on 28 June 2020, at 21:51<span class="anonymous-show">&nbsp;(UTC)</span>.

{| class="metadata mbox-small noprint selfref" role="presentation"
|-
| class="mbox-image" | 
| class="mbox-text plainlist" | '''This article contains characters used to write reconstructed [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language Proto-Indo-European] words.'''Without proper [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Special_characters rendering support], you may see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specials_(Unicode_block)#Replacement_character question marks, boxes, or other symbols] instead of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode Unicode] combining characters and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_script Latin] characters.
|}
<p style="text-align: justify;" >The '''<span class="Unicode" lang="ine" title="Proto-Indo-European language">h₂e</span>-conjugation theory''' adds a third [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_conjugation conjugation] to the two generally accepted conjugations of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language Proto-Indo-European language] (PIE), the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_verbs thematic and athematic conjugations].</p><p style="text-align: justify;" >The symbol ''<span class="Unicode" lang="ine" title="Proto-Indo-European language">h₂</span>'' refers to a particular example of a class of sounds known as "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laryngeals laryngeals]" in the theory of PIE linguistics.</p>
== <span id="History_of_the_theory">History of the theory</span> ==
<p style="text-align: justify;" >Proposed by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Jasanoff Jay Jasanoff] in 1979 and presented in its most elaborate form in Jasanoff (2003), the evidence for the "new" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_conjugation verbal conjugation] in PIE is based on the attested existence of the similar ḫi-conjugation in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittite_language Hittite] and other [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolian_languages Anatolian languages]. Whereas the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolian_languages Anatolian] ḫi-conjugation has traditionally been seen as an innovation in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolian_languages Anatolian branch] of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages Indo-European family of languages], Jasanoff presents evidence and arguments to place it as a conjugation already established in PIE proper.</p>
== <span id="The_problem">The problem</span> ==
<p style="text-align: justify;" >The following table serves to give an understanding of the problem that the theory tries to solve.</p>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! style="text-align: center;" colspan="1" | <br>
! style="text-align: center;" colspan="2" | Hittite present
! style="text-align: center;" colspan="2" | PIE present
! style="text-align: center;" colspan="3" | PIE "ḫi-conjugation candidates"
! style="text-align: center;" colspan="1" | Jasanoff's solution
|-
! style="text-align: center;" | <br>
! style="text-align: center;" | -mi conj.
! style="text-align: center;" | -ḫi conj.
! style="text-align: center;" | ath. conj.
! style="text-align: center;" | ???
! style="text-align: center;" | perfect
! style="text-align: center;" | middle
! style="text-align: center;" | thematic present
! style="text-align: center;" | "3rd conj." pres.ind.act.
|-
| style="text-align: center;" | 1st pers.
| style="text-align: center;" | -mi
| style="text-align: center;" | -ḫi
| style="text-align: center;" | *-mi
! style="text-align: center;" | ???
| style="text-align: center;" | *<span class="Unicode" lang="ine" title="Proto-Indo-European language">-h₂e</span>
| style="text-align: center;" | *<span class="Unicode" lang="ine" title="Proto-Indo-European language">-h₂e</span>
| style="text-align: center;" |
| style="text-align: center;" | *<span class="Unicode" lang="ine" title="Proto-Indo-European language">-h₂e</span>
|-
| style="text-align: center;" | 2nd pers.
| style="text-align: center;" | -ši
| style="text-align: center;" | -ti
| style="text-align: center;" | *-si
! style="text-align: center;" | ???
| style="text-align: center;" | *<span class="Unicode" lang="ine" title="Proto-Indo-European language">-th₂e</span>
| style="text-align: center;" | *<span class="Unicode" lang="ine" title="Proto-Indo-European language">-th₂e</span>
| style="text-align: center;" |
| style="text-align: center;" | *<span class="Unicode" lang="ine" title="Proto-Indo-European language">-th₂e</span>
|-
| style="text-align: center;" | 3rd pers.
| style="text-align: center;" | -zi
| style="text-align: center;" | -i
| style="text-align: center;" | *-ti
! style="text-align: center;" | ???
| style="text-align: center;" | *-e
| style="text-align: center;" | *-o
| style="text-align: center;" |
| style="text-align: center;" | *-e
|}
<p style="text-align: justify;" >The origin of the Hittite mi-conjugation (in the singular of the present indicative active) is not controversial. It can easily be identified as a descendant of the corresponding forms in the ancestral PIE language.</p><p style="text-align: justify;" >The question is, where does the ḫi-conjugation come from (represented in the table as question marks)? A very common solution (Eichner and others) has been to derive it from the PIE perfect. The second most common candidate has been the PIE middle (Rozenkranz, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerzy_Kury%C5%82owicz Kuryłowicz]). (Why the PIE perfect and middle endings resemble each other so much is a major question in itself, and of course of great interest vis a vis the Hittite ḫi-conjugation). Deriving the Hittite ḫi-conjugation directly from the PIE thematic presents (like Couvreur did) involves huge problems, but that there is some connection seems very probable (in line with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holger_Pedersen_(linguist) Pedersen] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvert_Watkins Watkins]).</p><p style="text-align: justify;" >All these three solutions, according to Jasanoff, present massive problems, not the least of which being that the way verbs are distributed between the two Hittite conjugations seems arbitrary, by and large, compared to the other PIE daughter languages. Even for this reason, it seems more probable that two categories serving one function have largely merged in the other languages (Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, etc.).</p><p style="text-align: justify;" >Thus, the theory does not dispute that the present of the PIE 3rd conjugation is related to the traditional middle and perfect endings, it just moves the common ancestry back to a time before that of PIE proper.</p><p style="text-align: justify;" >(The table is greatly simplified for the sake of presentation. The plural is omitted altogether because it presents significantly greater problems than the singular, as the "normal" forms were generalized from the Hittite mi-conjugation to the ḫi-conjugation, probably by analogy.)</p>
== <span id="Some_new_developments">Some new developments</span> ==
<p style="text-align: justify;" >In his thesis on Hittite, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alwin_Kloekhorst Alwin Kloekhorst] has shown that the ''ḫi''-conjugation of that language is virtually the same as the reconstructed perfect (or stative) of Proto-Indo-European, but without any [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduplication reduplication]. In a more recent study, Olivier Simon demonstrates that in the oldest stage of Proto-Indo-European, the active stative was unreduplicated (as in the Hittite ''ḫi''-conjugation or in the widely accepted reconstruction of ''*woidh₂e'' = "I know") while the medio-passive was reduplicated (as shown by old [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language Greek] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit Sanskrit] irregular perfects), and therefore unifies the Hittite ''ḫi''-conjugation with the Proto-Indo-European mainstream model.</p>
== <span id="References">References</span> ==

*<cite id="CITEREFJasanoff1979" class="citation book cs1">[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Jasanoff Jasanoff, Jay H.] (1979). [http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~jasanoff/pdf/Position%20of%20hi-Conjugation.pdf "The position of the ''ḫi''-conjugation"] <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span>. In Erich Neu and Wolfgang Meid (ed.). ''Hethitisch und Indogermanisch''. Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. pp.&nbsp;79–90. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISBN_(identifier) ISBN]&nbsp;[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/3-85124-542-3 <bdi>3-85124-542-3</bdi>].</cite>
*<cite id="CITEREFJasanoff2003" class="citation book cs1">[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Jasanoff Jasanoff, Jay H.] (2003). ''Hittite and the Indo-European Verb''. Oxford University Press. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISBN_(identifier) ISBN]&nbsp;[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-19-928198-X <bdi>0-19-928198-X</bdi>].</cite>
*Alwin Kloekhorst (2007). [https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/11996 ''The Hittite inherited lexicon'']. Leiden University Centre for Linguistics, Faculty of Arts, Leiden University.
*Olivier Simon (2015). [https://www.academia.edu/17299209/Cons%C3%A9quences_du_non-marquage_morphologique_de_la_transitivit%C3%A9_en_Proto-Indo-Europ%C3%A9en_sur_son_syst%C3%A8me_verbal ''Conséquences du non-marquage morphologique de la transitivité en Proto-Indo-Européen sur son système verbal.''], 2.4.1.
<p style="text-align: justify;" >[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Category Categories]:</p>
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Proto-Indo-European_language Proto-Indo-European language]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Linguistic_morphology Linguistic morphology]
[[Kategorie:Quelle Wikipedia englisch]]
[[Kategorie:Webseiten Sicherung]]
[[Kategorie:Lautgesetz]]
[[Kategorie:Theorie]]