{"title":"原始印欧语系“刺”集群","authors":"Alwin Kloekhorst","doi":"10.13109/HISP.2014.127.1.43","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"(1) Introduction Since the beginning of Indo-European linguistics, the group of words in which the Skt. cluster kṣ corresponds to Gk. KT have received much attention. According to Brugmann (1897: 790), these clusters must reflect a combination of a PIE velar plus “þ-Laute” (hence the name “thorn”-clusters), which was the standard view for many decades. For instance, in Pokorny 1959, the word for ‘bear’ (Skt. ¶koa-, Gr. ἄρκτος) is reconstructed as *¶§þo(875); the word for ‘earth’ (Skt. koám-, Gr. χθών) as *ǵðem(414); etc. When in 1932 Kretschmer equated the words for ‘earth’ in the newly found languages Hittite (tēkan) and Tocharian B (tkaṃ) with the thus far common reconstruction *ǵðem-, he was able to convincingly show that the initial cluster must originally not have contained a “thorn”, but rather consisted of a dental and a velar stop, *dǵ-. According to Kretschmer, the original order of these stops was retained in Hittite and Tocharian, but in Greek and Indo-Iranian the cluster was metathesized to *ǵd-, with a subsequent development of *-dto -sin Indic “weil ihm zwei Verschlußlaute im Wortbeginn ungewohnt waren” (1932: 67). In the other languages, *dǵwas simplified to *ǵ-, yielding Lat. hum-, Lit. žem-, OCS zem-, etc. Burrow (1959) argued, however, that assuming a metathesis in Indic is unnecessary. In analogy to Skt. koumánt‘having cattle’ ~ Av. fšūmaṇt‘id.’ < *p§u-mént-, where an initial cluster *p§yielded Skt. ko-, showing a development of palatovelar *§ into the retroflex sibilant ṣ, Burrow argued that we may assume a similar change for the “thorn”-clusters: *H¶t§o> *¶tśa> *¶»oa> ¶koa‘bear’ and *dǵém> *dj́ám> *dźám> ḍẓám> »oám> koám‘earth’. In his famous 1977 article ‘A thorny problem’, Schindler therefore concluded that the assumption of a separate phoneme *þ or *ð “is superfluous for an early stage of IndoEuropean” (1977: 34). According to him, all words with “thorn”-clusters reflect a cluster *TK (the one word where he reconstructs *KT, namely ‘yesterday’, will be treated in detail below). Moreover, he assumed that already in the PIE mother language this cluster was reduced in some environments, for instance before a syllabic nasal: *TK±C > *K±C. Recently, Lipp, in his book Die indogermanischen und einzelsprachlichen Palatale im Indoiranischen (2009), devotes a 350 pages long chapter to “Das Problem des Ansatzes von idg. þ (Thorn)”, in which he provides a very detailed account of all problems, proposed solutions and material regarding the “thorn”-clusters. Although this chapter is extremely elaborate, I still have the feeling that not all details regarding this topic have","PeriodicalId":177751,"journal":{"name":"Historische Sprachforschung","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Proto-Indo-European “thorn”-clusters\",\"authors\":\"Alwin Kloekhorst\",\"doi\":\"10.13109/HISP.2014.127.1.43\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"(1) Introduction Since the beginning of Indo-European linguistics, the group of words in which the Skt. cluster kṣ corresponds to Gk. KT have received much attention. According to Brugmann (1897: 790), these clusters must reflect a combination of a PIE velar plus “þ-Laute” (hence the name “thorn”-clusters), which was the standard view for many decades. For instance, in Pokorny 1959, the word for ‘bear’ (Skt. ¶koa-, Gr. ἄρκτος) is reconstructed as *¶§þo(875); the word for ‘earth’ (Skt. koám-, Gr. χθών) as *ǵðem(414); etc. When in 1932 Kretschmer equated the words for ‘earth’ in the newly found languages Hittite (tēkan) and Tocharian B (tkaṃ) with the thus far common reconstruction *ǵðem-, he was able to convincingly show that the initial cluster must originally not have contained a “thorn”, but rather consisted of a dental and a velar stop, *dǵ-. According to Kretschmer, the original order of these stops was retained in Hittite and Tocharian, but in Greek and Indo-Iranian the cluster was metathesized to *ǵd-, with a subsequent development of *-dto -sin Indic “weil ihm zwei Verschlußlaute im Wortbeginn ungewohnt waren” (1932: 67). In the other languages, *dǵwas simplified to *ǵ-, yielding Lat. hum-, Lit. žem-, OCS zem-, etc. Burrow (1959) argued, however, that assuming a metathesis in Indic is unnecessary. In analogy to Skt. koumánt‘having cattle’ ~ Av. fšūmaṇt‘id.’ < *p§u-mént-, where an initial cluster *p§yielded Skt. ko-, showing a development of palatovelar *§ into the retroflex sibilant ṣ, Burrow argued that we may assume a similar change for the “thorn”-clusters: *H¶t§o> *¶tśa> *¶»oa> ¶koa‘bear’ and *dǵém> *dj́ám> *dźám> ḍẓám> »oám> koám‘earth’. In his famous 1977 article ‘A thorny problem’, Schindler therefore concluded that the assumption of a separate phoneme *þ or *ð “is superfluous for an early stage of IndoEuropean” (1977: 34). According to him, all words with “thorn”-clusters reflect a cluster *TK (the one word where he reconstructs *KT, namely ‘yesterday’, will be treated in detail below). Moreover, he assumed that already in the PIE mother language this cluster was reduced in some environments, for instance before a syllabic nasal: *TK±C > *K±C. Recently, Lipp, in his book Die indogermanischen und einzelsprachlichen Palatale im Indoiranischen (2009), devotes a 350 pages long chapter to “Das Problem des Ansatzes von idg. þ (Thorn)”, in which he provides a very detailed account of all problems, proposed solutions and material regarding the “thorn”-clusters. Although this chapter is extremely elaborate, I still have the feeling that not all details regarding this topic have\",\"PeriodicalId\":177751,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Historische Sprachforschung\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Historische Sprachforschung\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.13109/HISP.2014.127.1.43\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Historische Sprachforschung","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13109/HISP.2014.127.1.43","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
摘要
自印欧语言学开始以来,Skt是一组单词。簇kk对应于Gk。KT受到了很大的关注。根据bruugmann(1897: 790)的说法,这些星团一定反映了PIE velar加上“þ-Laute”(因此被称为“thorn”-clusters)的组合,这是几十年来的标准观点。例如,在1959年的Pokorny中,“熊”这个词(希腊语:bear)。¶高雅- Gr。ἄρκτος)重建是*¶§þo (875);“地球”一词(希伯来文)。koám-, Gr. χθών) as *ǵðem(414);等。1932年,克雷奇默将新发现的赫梯语(tēkan)和吐火罗语B语(tkaka)中表示“地球”的单词与迄今为止常见的重建词*ǵðem-进行了对比,他能够令人信服地证明,最初的星系团最初一定不包含“刺”,而是由齿状和velar止点* ddeo -组成。根据Kretschmer的说法,这些停顿的原始顺序在赫梯语和吐火罗语中被保留了下来,但在希腊语和印度-伊朗语中,这个集群被整合为*ǵd-,随后发展为*-dto -sin印度语“weil ihm zwei Verschlußlaute im Wortbeginn ungewohnt waren”(1932:67)。在其他语言中,*dǵwas被简化为* * -,即拉丁语。hum-, Lit. žem-, OCS . zem-等。然而,Burrow(1959)认为在印度语中假设一种元化是不必要的。类似于Skt。koumánt '有牛' ~ avfšūmaṇt ' id。' < *p§u- msamment -,其中初始簇*p§产生Skt。ko-,显示了palatovelar *§向反折音节的发展,Burrow认为我们可以假设“刺”簇也有类似的变化:*H¶§o> *¶tśa> *¶»oa>¶koa ' bear '和*dǵém> *dj´ám> *dźám> ḍẓám>»oám> koám ' earth '。在他1977年著名的文章“棘手的问题”中,Schindler因此得出结论,假设一个单独的音素*þ or *ð“对于印欧语的早期阶段是多余的”(1977:34)。根据他的说法,所有带有“刺”簇的单词都反映了一个簇*TK(他重建*KT的一个单词,即“昨天”,将在下面详细讨论)。此外,他假设在PIE母语中,这个簇在某些环境中已经减少了,例如在一个音节鼻音之前:*TK±C > *K±C。最近,利普在他的《德国人与印度人的关系》(2009)一书中,用了350页的篇幅来讨论“德国分析问题”。þ (Thorn)”,他在书中提供了非常详细的所有问题,提出的解决方案和有关“Thorn”集群的材料。虽然这一章非常详细,但我仍然有一种感觉,不是所有关于这个话题的细节都有
(1) Introduction Since the beginning of Indo-European linguistics, the group of words in which the Skt. cluster kṣ corresponds to Gk. KT have received much attention. According to Brugmann (1897: 790), these clusters must reflect a combination of a PIE velar plus “þ-Laute” (hence the name “thorn”-clusters), which was the standard view for many decades. For instance, in Pokorny 1959, the word for ‘bear’ (Skt. ¶koa-, Gr. ἄρκτος) is reconstructed as *¶§þo(875); the word for ‘earth’ (Skt. koám-, Gr. χθών) as *ǵðem(414); etc. When in 1932 Kretschmer equated the words for ‘earth’ in the newly found languages Hittite (tēkan) and Tocharian B (tkaṃ) with the thus far common reconstruction *ǵðem-, he was able to convincingly show that the initial cluster must originally not have contained a “thorn”, but rather consisted of a dental and a velar stop, *dǵ-. According to Kretschmer, the original order of these stops was retained in Hittite and Tocharian, but in Greek and Indo-Iranian the cluster was metathesized to *ǵd-, with a subsequent development of *-dto -sin Indic “weil ihm zwei Verschlußlaute im Wortbeginn ungewohnt waren” (1932: 67). In the other languages, *dǵwas simplified to *ǵ-, yielding Lat. hum-, Lit. žem-, OCS zem-, etc. Burrow (1959) argued, however, that assuming a metathesis in Indic is unnecessary. In analogy to Skt. koumánt‘having cattle’ ~ Av. fšūmaṇt‘id.’ < *p§u-mént-, where an initial cluster *p§yielded Skt. ko-, showing a development of palatovelar *§ into the retroflex sibilant ṣ, Burrow argued that we may assume a similar change for the “thorn”-clusters: *H¶t§o> *¶tśa> *¶»oa> ¶koa‘bear’ and *dǵém> *dj́ám> *dźám> ḍẓám> »oám> koám‘earth’. In his famous 1977 article ‘A thorny problem’, Schindler therefore concluded that the assumption of a separate phoneme *þ or *ð “is superfluous for an early stage of IndoEuropean” (1977: 34). According to him, all words with “thorn”-clusters reflect a cluster *TK (the one word where he reconstructs *KT, namely ‘yesterday’, will be treated in detail below). Moreover, he assumed that already in the PIE mother language this cluster was reduced in some environments, for instance before a syllabic nasal: *TK±C > *K±C. Recently, Lipp, in his book Die indogermanischen und einzelsprachlichen Palatale im Indoiranischen (2009), devotes a 350 pages long chapter to “Das Problem des Ansatzes von idg. þ (Thorn)”, in which he provides a very detailed account of all problems, proposed solutions and material regarding the “thorn”-clusters. Although this chapter is extremely elaborate, I still have the feeling that not all details regarding this topic have