Die Reflexe der *nt- und *mh1no-Partizipien im Hethitischen und Tocharischen

The appropriate place to share useful online or printed resources about every aspect of Indo-European studies and proto-language reconstructions, including your own works and websites regarding (Proto-)Indo-European language, dialects, society, culture, etc..
Post Reply
cquiles
Posts: 249
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:31 am
Contact:

Die Reflexe der *nt- und *mh1no-Partizipien im Hethitischen und Tocharischen

Post by cquiles » Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:59 am

Die Reflexe der *nt- und *mh1no-Partizipien im Hethitischen und Tocharischen (2018), by Hannes A. Fellner & Laura Grestenberger, in: 100 Jahre Entzifferung des Hethitischen - Morphosyntaktische Kategorie in Sprachgeschichte und Forschung. Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 21. bis 23 September 2015 in Marburg. Ed. by Elisabeth Rieken, Ulrich Geupel, and Theresa Maria Roth. Reichert: Wiesbaden, 63-82

Abstract:
In this paper we argue that the suffixes *-nt- and *-mh1no- were grammaticalized as active and middle participles after Anatolian left the family. Anatolian inherited *-nt-, which originally functioned as a denominal possessive suffix. In Hittite, the *-nt-suffix is used to form verbal adjectives that express a state and are primarily object oriented (similar to *-to- in the “inner-Indo-European” languages). We propose that the reinterpretation of stative-intransitive verbal adjectives as processual (Hitt. ānt- ‘hot’ → ‘being hot’) and the subsequent usage of the nt-suffix with non-stative intransitive verbs and transitive verbs paved the way for its development to an active, subject-oriented participle in inner-Indo-European languages. This process independently took place in Hittite with certain verbs (e. g., adānt- ‘eating’/‘eaten’).

We show that the usage of *-nt- in Tocharian does not differ qualitatively from that of the inner-Indo-European languages and that *-mh1no-, albeit synchronically grammaticalized as gerund-like form, originally had the same function in Tocharian as its reflexes in the inner-Indo-European languages. With respect to their participial morphology, Tocharian is therefore less archaic as previously thought and patterns with the inner-Indo-European languages, while the Anatolian branch remains the most archaic one in the family.
Read more
Carlos Quiles - Academia Prisca

Post Reply