Some Problems of Indo-European Lexicography

Some problems of Indo-European lexicography Ignacy R. Danka and Krzysztof T. Witczak

1.

History of Indo-European lexicography and the Łódź lndo-European dictionary project

The discovery of affiliation among Indo-European languages took place when the lexical stocks of various languages were compared. The earliest work on Indo-European etymology was done by August Pott (1802-1887). Lexicographic work on Indo-European did not become possible until

August Schleicher (1821-1868) became involved in the reconstruction of the protolanguage. An integral part of that work concerned restitution of the protoforms of words attested in the various related languages of the family.

Those could be treated as lexicographic entries and a dictionary of the reconstructed protolanguage could be compiled.

The first etymological dictionary of Indo-European was compiled by August Fick (1833-1916). In it Fick (1868;4th ed., 1890-1909) included a considerable proportion of Indo-European word stock. While there is no question that it was an outstanding piece of work, at the time it was being compiled kpowledge of Indo-European phonology was still rudimentary. As a result, Fick's work on the Indo-European lexicon is now of historical

interest only. When he took up work on a new dictionary of Indo-European, Alois Walde (1869-1924) had the advantage of numęrous etymological dictionaries of many of the Indo-European languages, which made it possible for him to include a larger number of Indo-European lexical items in it. His three-volume dictionary was published by Julius Pokorny (Walde-Pokorny 1927-1932).

A new etymological dictionary of Indo-European was compiled by Pokorny (1949-1,959).It differs from its predecessors in a number of ways:

316

IGNACY R. DANKA AND KRZYSZTOF T. WITCZAK

the entries are arranged according to the Latin alphabet and not according to the Devanagari script, as in Walde's dictionary, it is more concise, and it does not list items based on dubious etymologies. Pokorny's is certainly the best Indo-European dictionary ever published; most of the reconstructions are accurate' and the meanings of words and roots are carefully researchęd and realiable. It is held in high esteem by linguists, who quote from it and refer to it freely and without any reservations. At the Classics Department, University of Łódź, we have undertaken to compile a new Indo-European dictionary not so much because Pokorny's dictionary is inadequate in any major respects as because new needs and possibilities have sincę arisen. Also, the objectives of the project are somewhat different. It is nevertheless the case that thanks to progress in IndoEuropean studies, especially in laryngeal theory, we are now able to trace many word histories further back than Pokorny did, revise some of his findings and conclusions, and can add new data not available to him. An example of an Indo-European dictionary designed to serve needs other than those Pokorny had in mind is the dictionary compiled by Calvert Watkins (7973), which lists all Indo-European roots present in the English lexicon, be they native Germanic, Latin, Romance or Greek in origin. Such dictionaries are designed to make clear the origin of thę vocabulary of a national language and to demonstrate the relatedness of words which, at first sight, seem to be totally unrelated. In reviewing the history of Indo-European studies one should not overlook the contribution made by Polish linguists. Towards thę end of 1920s Aleksander Brtickner (I9Ż7) compiled an etymological dictionary of Polish' Since 1952 a new Polish etymological dictionary is being compiled by Franciszek Sławski (1952-), who also heads a team compiling a Proto-Slavic dictionary (Sławski 1974-).In the latter the reconstructed lexis is presented in word_like form. It was precisely Prof. Sławski, as well as Prof. Leszek Bednarczuk, an Indo-Europeanist, who encouraged us to compile a new IndoEuropean dictionary and adopt their innovation (Pokorny lists roots, scarcely word-forms). Recognizing the methodological soundness of such an approach - a dictionary of a protolanguagę thus becomes less of an abstract object and we more like dictionaries of languages with attested written tradition unavoidable. This is have to emphasize that resorting to root forms is often because Indo-European is not a standard language but a set of dialects with numerous similar but not identical forms. Moreover, due to apophony, one

INDO-EUROPEAN LEXICOGRAPHY

317

and the same root assumes different forms in different grades. Finally, there is infixation. As a result, data from various languages which indirectly represent former Indo-European dialects permit reconstruction of one and the same word as different as e.g. in the case of 3rd person sing. pres. indic. from the root I-E *leikw-'to leave', where we have *linćkwti (oI. rinókti, Av. irinaxti), *Iinkweti (Lat. linquil) and *lćikwelt/i (Gk. }"einer.) 'he leaves', while 3rd sing. aor' has thę form *ćlikwet (oI. óricat, Gk. óIr.ne , Arm. elikh)'he left'. With such variation one has to make reference to thę root *leikw- lest the less knowledgeable reader should decide the different forms represent different words. Dictionaries of Sanskrit list nominal stems and verbal roots. Those of Greek and Latin list nominative cases of nouns and 1st pers. sing. indic. pres. act. of verbs. In our dictlonary we list the nominatives of nouns and 3rd pers. sing. pres. act. of verbs. The latter decision-is related to thę fact that some verbs do not occur in the first person. In addition to presenting the state of the art in Indo-European etymology and providing data for further research, a strictly scholarly objective the dictionary under preparation is to share with previous etymological dictionaries of Indo-European' we intęnd to make available to a wider audience the results of Indo-European research. In particular, a Polish version of an Indo-European dictionary should be more use to Polish and Slavic scholars than Pokorny's German dictionary. Finally, we also aim to provide a set of lexis on the basis of which it may be possible to develop a new artificial language based on Indo-European. We believe that such a language would be superior to the arbitrarily constructed languages designed to serve as means of widęr communications.

2.

Homonymy in Indo-European

Indo-European lexis contains numerous instances of homonymous roots. These could have existed in Indo-European partly because they were used in various conjugation types, and were reinforced by the extensive dialect variation in the protolanguage. Thus a word or root carrying a given meaning could have ęxisted in some dialects, while forms phonetically corres-

ponding to it but carrying a different meaning could havę functioned in same other dialects. For example , I-E' pórko's' masc. '(young) pig' (Sakian pasa, Kurd. purs 'pig' from Aryan *parśa-;Lat. porcus 'hog', MIr. orc 'young pig, young animal', etc.)l, formed from the root I-E *perk-'to dig *

IGNACY R. DANKA AND KRZYSZTOF T. WITCZAK

318

out' (Pokorny 1949-1959:841), does not appear in Greek or Armenianz, where its homonymic counterpart is in use: I-E *pórkos, masc. 'hunting net, hunt' (Gk. nógxoE 'fishing net', Arm. ors 'hunting net, snare, hunt') (Frisk 1960-1972,II:58I; Pokorny does not list that lexeme). This is a kind of homonymy rvhere the two forms do not coexist in any one Indo-European dialect. A real casę of homonymy is attested in Western Indo-European dialects (Italo-Celtic) where in addition to I-E' *pÓrkos, masc. '(young) pig' (Lat. porcus;Mlr. orc) there is the I-E *pórkos, masc. 'a kind of fish' (Lat. porcus 'an acanthopterygian fish'; Ligur. *porkos 'trout' in river name Porcobera'trout bearing'; MIr. orc 'salmon').3 The mutually exclusive ranges of occurrence of the two lexemes do not alter the fact that with Indo-European one has to reconstruct a homonymic triplet in the form of archetype *pórkos, masc. (baritone stress in all cases). Homonyms may also have arisen due to apophony present in IndoEuropean. For example, two genetically different words with different primary vocalism: I-E *engwćn- 'swelling, tuber, inguinal region' (Lat.

inguen, -inis, neut. 'inguinal region, swelling

in vulvar region', ON.

*ongwćn- 'grease' salve, unguent' (Lat. @kkvenn 'swelling') and I-E unguen, -inis, nett.'grease'; Umbrian umen'gtease') have homonymous reduced grade forms:I-E*l.tgwćn- 1. (Gk. d6{v, &6óvos' masc. beside fem. 'gland/s/') and I-E *r?8*ćr- 2. (olr. imb, imbe 'butter') (Pokorny 19491959:319 and779).

A distinction is made between proper and secondary homonyms. The former are idęntical or very similar roots with totally different etymology, such as, e.g., I-E *ghwen- 1. 'to be plentiful' (Lith. ganćti: oCHSl. gonćti 'to be sufficient') and I-E *ghwen- 2.'tohit, to kill' (Gk. rleivcrl 'I kill' : Alb. gjanj 'I hunt' : Lith. geniil'I urge /*by hitting/'). The above roots, conjugated as they were according to different paradigms, gave rise to a number of homonyms proper' such as, e.g., I-E *ghwonći 1., fem. 'affluence' (Lith. gand, Latv. gana'enolugh' : Pashto yanh, fem.'wealth, prosperity, property') and I-E *ghwonti2.,f.em. 'homicide' (Gk. Qovrj, fem.), as well as I-E *ghwonós 1. 'plentiful, abundant' (oL ghanófu, adj. 'compact, firm, hard, dense') and I-E *ghwonós 2. 'hitting, killing' (oI. ghandfu, adj. 'slaying, killing', masc. 'club'; Lith. ganas,Latv. gans'herdsman'from Baltic ganós' masc. 'a person who beats or drives')' Secondary homonyms ale roots or words ultimately deńved from the same protoroot which had changed their meaning to such an extent that they are regarded as different lexical items. Such is the case with, e.g., I-E *

INDO.EUROPEAN LEXICOGRAPHY

319

*per- beside *pa_ which gave rise to numerous prepositions, e.g. I-E *pćr/i/

'through, across' (oI. póri, Gk. nćgr., beside negi, dial. rućg; Lat. per) as well as I-Ę *pró'before' (oI. pró, Gk. ngó; Lat. prÓ), and numerous verbal rocrrs with widely different meanings, e.g., I-E * per- 'to press' (Gk. neigro 'I pierce, I stick', OChSl. na-perjq),I-E *per-: *prr-'to give birth to'(Lith. periil'I hatch eggs'; Lat' pariÓ'I give birth to') or I_E *per-'to beat, to hit' (OChSl. perq'I hit, I beat'). All of the above polysemous items ultimately go back to Proto-IndoEuropean root *per- 'forward, before' which, at the same time, denoted transference of some action. Hence we have the prepositions denoting 'before, at the beginning, in defence of something' as well as verbal roots with the meaning'lead, carry across, ride, hand over'.

F{owever, Anatolian dialects have thę nominal root *per-, *pern'house' (Hitt. per and pir;Luw. parnaś,Lyd. bira) which is an etymologically unrelated homonym proper of the above mentioned I-E *per- (also attested in Anatolian, cf. Hitt. para'forward' , piran'at the front').

3.

Reconstruction of primary meaning

A problem one often

faces in Indo_European etymology is how to discovęr the original meaning of a reconstructed protoword, where onę has to keep in mind the evolution the object denoted underwent in vańous epochs,

beginning with the Stone Age, through Early Metal Era up to the cultures known from history. Indo-Europeans became familiar with metals at a certain stage of their civilizational development, usually after the primary speech community had broken up into a number of subgroups, hence the names of metals are different in different Indo-European languages. The Baltic word for lead (Lith. śvinas,Latv. svlłrs) is however etymologically related to the Hittite kuwannaś, kunnaś'ornamental stone; copper oxide, copper' and Gk. xócrvog, masc. beside fem. 'ornamental Stone, lazuńte, lapis lazuli; dark blue enamel; copper sulphate'. The basis for the derivation was the root I-E *keu- present in colours names' e.g. oI. śó4aĘ'red, crimson', Gk. xuavóg'dark_blue, navy blue, dark, livid' and Hitt. kuwaliu'dark, dark-blue'. The Greek-Hittite name retained the earlier meaning to the extent that originally I-E *kwt.tHos I *kuw4Hos denoted a dark-blue substance including mineral or metal (Danka 1983: 184). It seems to us that at first the striking colours of some stones had caused their names and next in the time of early metals thę latter were also called for their colours

320

IGNACY R. DANKA AND KRZYSZTOF T. WITCZAK

resembling those of the stonęs. The treatment and use of Stones were at that time certainly more related to those of early metals than what we guess nowadays in retrospective view, for instance metal axes were patterned after those made of stone, which had probably been patterned after tools made of wood. Herę is another example of transferring a namę within the same kind of objects made of various materials. By comparing such words as OI. *ódhitih, masc. beside fem. (attested only in compounds) 'axe, hatchet'with at. assls, masc. beside rare fem. 'deal, plank, board' it appears that probable I-E lexeme *ódhatis signified primarily a tool made of wood, con-

sequently a wooden axe too. But thę old Indian word presumedly signified an axe furnished with a stone edge already, because two compounds, in which oI' *ódhitih is attested: oI' svódhitif;, masc. beside fem. 'cutlass, chopper, axe', literally 'a good axe' (cf. oI. sti-, Gk. eó-,Hitt. aśśu-'good' from I-E * usń- 'good') and oI' vanódhitih'a wooden axe' (cf. oI. vńn- and vónam, neut. 'tree, wood'), węre created for necessary denotation of an axe furnished with a metal edge and a primitive one, made of hard wood, being observed by Aryans in India. This shows that the Indo-European term *ódhatis, denoting some cutting tool made of wood, was transferred.by the Aryans during cultural and historical changes to an axe turnished wrth a stone edge. Parallel change of meaning occurred in Hittite and in Ger*ódhHes', neut. This manic, which preserved cognate Indo-European term term began to mean a metal tool, especially an axe made of metal: Hitt. comm. 'metal plate, metal axe'; ateś,neut. and sęcondary form ateśśaś, * Gmc. ąóćsąz-: OE'. adesą 'axe' (Tischler 1977 : 94). Indo-Europeans knew how to till the soil and use appropriatę tools: I-E *ardtrom l*aratrom 'plough, lister'(Arm. arawr;Lat. arątrum; Gk. ógot_ gov; MIr arathar,W aradr;Lith. órklas; ON arór; Polr. radło), a word based on the Indo-European root *arH-'to plough' (Pokorny 1949-1959: 62-63). Gothic has a different name for plough: hÓha,which has a close phonetic and semantic counterpart in the Russian so4ó, Polish socha 'primilive plough, lister'. More distant are the correspondences involving oI śakha, fem.'branch', NPers. śdx'branch, antlers', Arm. cax 'branch'' Lith' śakd 'branch, knot (in timber)'. It follows from the above that Indo-European term *kź:kHa l *kókHą l *kókHa4 originally denoted a (knotty or bifurcate) branch. It then Seems to have bęcome extended to covęr a plough in the early days of farming when such a branch came to be used for tilling the soil.

INDO.EUROPEAN LEXICOGRAPHY

3ŻI

be that the words dęnoted not only a branch but anything branched or bifurcate. In such a case one would be allowed to associate the

lt may well

name for a branch, antlers or lister with the Indo-Aryan word for panache or a tree top, cf. oI. śikhd,fem. 'tuft or braid of hair, plume, crest', Pali sikha-, Prakrit siha-,fem. 'crest', Singhalese si'tree top'. The equation OI. śikha: Lith. śakd,Po|. socha, Arm. ęax is fully justified on phonological grounds, which lends further support to the above supposition' The primary meaning of a reconstructęd lexeme is sometimes very dif_ ficult or even quite impossible to establish, due to homonymy which occurred in the original Indo-European language. The reconstructed I-E lexeme *ry{ipyós describing a bird of prey' especially an eagle' may Serve aS an illustration of such difficulty. The following lexical data are quoted to justify the reconstruction mentioned above: oI. 1jipyófu (qualification of a bird of prey śyenóĘ'falcon') usually interpreted as'geradeaus emporschnellend' (pokorny 1949-t959:854-855); Av. arazifua-, masc. 'falcon, eagle'; oPers. ;arrifa-;eagle' (cf. gloss of Hesychius: &gĘlQoE. &etóg. nogd flógocrtg), *argipyós NPers. aluh'eag|e'; Arm. arcui, gen. ąrcuwoy 'eagle' Maced' *&,gyr.nuóg' emendation ógy[noug' &etóg' 'eagle' (cf. Hesychius' gloss:

Mcrxeóóveg). It is unquestionably a compound word but the second element remains quite obscure while the first element may be interpreted in two ways: either is *aSi- 1. ,swift, quick, speedy' (occurring only as the first element of a

compound word): oI' Ęii-śvan-'der iiber schnelle Hunde gebietende Verbtindete Indras' (Pokorny 1949-1959 : 64-65), Gk. Homer. &gyinou g'swift* footed', said of dogs (from I-E fti-pod_s); cf . oI. rjróh : Gk' ógyóE (from *ÓYQóE, due to dissimilation) 'schnell beweglich' (from I-E *rylrós, adj'); or as *rfl- 2. 'white, shiny': Hitt. fuarkiś'white', Toch. A. órki- in com-

pound words like arki-śołj'weiBe Welt'; Gk. ógyr.-xóQ([UvoE 'mit gldnzendem Donnerkeil', dpyr,-ó6cov'white-toothed'. Homonymy, which occurs here, makes it impossible to unequivocally

decide upon the origin of the first member of the compound. However, owing to the suitablę parallel we can tell which of the two variants should be accepted by establishing the primary meaning of the lexeme' And so we note another Indo-European compound describing a bird of prey, viz. *Óku-pet-,literally 'quick-flying' (oI aśu-patvan-,'quick-flying', adj., Gk. óxu-netr]g

,quick-flying'; both of them are epithets describing birds of prey)

swift-winged or *óku-pt"ros .swift-winged' (Gk. lqT|Ę óxóntegog 'the *ksotrł"hawk': PSL. falcon'; or prey, hawk of 'bird accipiter Lat| hawk';

3Ż2

IGNACY R. DANKA AND KRZYSZTOFT, WITCZAK

Ukr. jóster, a variant with the suffix -ęb- occurs more frequently: SC. jastrcb 'vulture', Pol. jastrąb'goshawk').

It seems to us that the first element of the quoted compound *s$ipyós: *ęsi- may be interpreted on the analogy of such forms as 'swift, quick' and *-pyó' (probably from *-ptyós) as derivative of the above-męntioned root

*pet-'to fly': Gk. nótopc'l 'I fly', oI. pótati 'he flies', 'he falls', Av. patalti 'he flies, he hastens', Lat' petÓ'I strive' (Pokorny 1949-1959\. Greek and Macedonian data yield atypical continuants of Indo-European lexemte *6{ipyós. Gk. oiyunr,óg, masc' 'a bird of prey' probably 'bearded vulture (Vultur barbatus)' was transformed from the regular form *dgyr.nr,óg due to folk etymology' Presumably the deformation of the lexeme was caused by the characteristic appearance of the bearded vulture. There were two Greek terms: a'iĘ, gen. criyóg, masc. and fem. 'goat' (from (from I-E *8tp-s, cf. Maced' gÓps'daw, Corvus monedula', acc. pl. yónag . xoLoloóg . Maxeóóveg, quoted by Hesychius)' Equally transformed was *argipyós 'eagle' in Macedonian, which,

according to Etymologicum Magnum, yields: crlyinori.r óetóg Ónó Maxe6óvov. The initial diphthong cru- in this name may point to its Greek origin, because primary Indo-European diphthong al- was monophthongized, before a consonant, to Macedonian a-. This development is attested in Macedonian words like adć'sky' (cf. gloss of Hesychius: dór1 . oóqcvóg . Mcrxeóóveg and adrąia'clear sky' (cf. gloss of Hesychius: dóga(cr . cit}p(o . MoxeóóveE), which are related to Gk. oir}ńQ, masc. 'air, ether, heaven' (from I-E *aidht:r) and ohlqo, airlg(o, fem. 'clear sky' (from I-E *atdhra and *aidhriya).

The word oiyiruorf may have resulted from contamination and transformation of &gyr,nuóE and oiyunr.óg, the change being motivated by their taboo character. The final element -ipop- was presumably introduced under

the influence of 'hoopoe lUpupa/, etymologically corresponding to Cl. Greek inor|-l, gen. ónorrog. Aiyinop sęems to be originally an Aeolian word. There are in Aeolian forms with the vowel r corresponding to Classical Greek forms which preserve the older e: cf. Aeolian Homeric niougeg 'four' corresponding with classical tóttcqeE. on this basis the dialectal Aeolian *inorf 'hoopoe' may be presumed. Greek ćnorp 'hoopoe' has no strict etymological equivalents in other Indo-european languages. Similarly as Arm. popop, Lat. upupa, Latv. pupukis, it is an onomatopoeic formation.

TNDO-EUROPEAN LEXICOGRAPHY

-1Ż'''

The meaning of the Macedonian (originally Aeolian) aiyfuoQ 'eagle', in spite of the phonetic transformations motivated by association with clĘ .goat' and then with ćltol! l*tnoQ /'hoopoe', is still closely related to the *ogymtóg 'quick-flying l eag|e /'. Presumameaning of the primary epithet bly the word oiyinov was at one time a substitute taboo term replacing the primary *óqyr.ntoE but preserving its meaning. It happens that a lexeme develops different meanings in different I-E languages. The question then arises which of the different meanings was the

original one. *y'ero- or *yóro- carries three For example the Indo-European word meanings: 'spring', 'a season of the year' and 'year', cf' following data: PSl. *jkro beside *jdrz 'spting' (Cz. iaro, neut' 'spring', OCz. iaro 'spring grain'; LSorb. iaro, OPol. jaro, neut' also 'bread from spring grain', *y(:rom or *yórom, sć. pr, masc.; Slk' 7ar beside jaro;IJkr' jar) fromI-E' neut.;

PSl. jóra fem. (oRus' jara'spring', SC. jhra'greater heat', B|g' jaró 'air, glow, mirage') fuom. *yóra, fem.; Gk. Att. óg&, Ion. óg1, fem. 'season of the year', also 'year, time of day, hour, proper time, fluorescence, ripening time', plur. also personifica*yóra); tion: Horae 'goddesses of the seasons' (from *yóro'); Gk. Att. ógog'time, year'. plur. ógol'annals' (from Gmc. jćra-, neut. 'year' (Goth. j€r, oN. dr, OSax. jdr, oHG. jdr, Ger*y"erom, neut' man lahr; oE,. 3ćar, also 'spring'; English year) troml-E *yórom; *yórom or Av. yara-, neut. 'year' from I-E Lat. hÓrnus 'this year's' from I_F- gho-yÓr-ino-s. *

In this case one should assume that

contrary to the evidence of the

the meaning 'year' is probably secondary. The majority of I-E languages semantic shift 'spring' to 'season of the year' and further to 'year' is suggested by the following parallel development. Polish pl. for 'year' is lata (sg. rok), but its connection to Pol. lato andPSl. lóto, neut.sing. 'summer' (from I-E *lietom, neut. 'harvest', cf' Gmc' *lźlpa- 'plot of land', originally 'plot where the harvest has been collected': OF . leb, neut., Goth. unlefu 'poor', originally 'unfruitful') shows that summers that had passed since were counted to represent Years.

Judging from presumably Nostratic data, recorded by Illich-Svitych (19'71.-L984, I, 37 and VI), the original meaning was 'spring', cf. Altaic *ńa/r/e 'spring', adj .'young, new-born adj' young, - Uralic *ńÓre'spring', *n'r'youlth', *ńar'young plant; Semitic sprout' Dravidian new-born -

IGNACY R. DANKA AND KRZYSZTOF T. WITCZAK

324

adj.'young'. Ivanov (1972 U974h 182) observes that the meaning of SlavicT'ar- (and Old English Sear)'spnng' is apparently archaic as against the secondary meaning 'year' in the other languages of the Indo-European family.

NOTES 1.

Pokorny (1949-1959: 841) derives I-E *pórkos'(young) pig' from the root *perk-'to dig, to burrow' (Lith. prapórśas 'ditch', Lat. porca'furrow', cf. Lith. pdrśas andLat. porcus) and translate it as 'Wtihler'.

Ż.

The word nógxoE 'hog'' attested in classical Greek, homonymous with nóqxog 'fishing net', is a late loan from Lat. porcus'hog'.

3.

I-E pórkos inthe sense 'fish' is derived from the I_E root *perk-'spotted, dappled, variegated' (Pokomy 1949-1959: 820-821). Baritone stress is suggested by its apophonic counterparts: l' Gk. nóqxq. lem' 'perch. Percafluviatilis'> Lal. perca:2'Mlr. erc' masc. 'salmon'and olr. erc, adj. 'variegated, spotted' dark red', W. erch 'dappled' from*pćrkos,

cf. Gk. nśqxoE 'a kind of falcon'; 3. Gmc. *fiirxnó, fem. 'trout' (oE. fórn, o}JG' forhana), cf. oL p!śnifu 'variegated, spottled'.

4.

The reconstruction takes account of the following correspondences: 1. Arm. q requires I-E*kh, since I-E *ł would have produced Arm. s. cf. also NPers' śl2. Arm. x,ol kh, NPers. x, PSl. y(ch) suggests intervocalic I-E "kh;3. vacillation in the length of the root vowel guarantees apophonic ratio - long vowel: schwa (a), the vocalism in the full grade being uncertain (Atyan a < I-E *d, *ć or ó Gmc. *d < I_E *d or * Ó). Palatalization of the ' initial * k/h/ requires the assumption of an influence from laryngeal H , which colours /el , apophonic with respect to (o); thus ć:Ó:a|. Hence the archetypes: .*kakhd > oI śakhd, NPers' śdx; *kókhd > Gothic hÓha; *khókha ) Arm' qżx, PSl. *sogó,Lith. śałd,possibly also oI śikha, etc.

Abbreviations of Languages

Alb. Arm. Av. Bal. Blg. Cz.

Gk. Att. Ion. Homer.

I-E. Kurd.

Lat.

: : : : :

Albanian Armenian Avestan

Baltic

Bulgarian _- Częch = Greek

= Attic

: : : :

Ionian

Homeric Indo-European Kurdish = Latin

Latv. Ligur. Lith. LSorb. Luw.

Lvd'

Maced.

MIr.

ochsl. OCz.

oE.

OHG. oI.

= Latvian

:

Ligurian

= Lithuanian

: : : : : : : :

Lower Sorbian Luwian Lydian Macedonian

Middle Irish Old Church Slavic

Old Czech Old English = Old High German

:

Old Indian

INDO-EUROPEAN LEXICOGRAPHY

OIr. ON. OPers. OPol. ORus. OSax. Pol. PSl. Russ.

: : :

Old Irish Old Norse

Old Persian

= Old Polish

: : : : :

SC. Slk. Toch.

: : :

Serbo-Croatian Slovak

Tocharian (The let-

to Ukr. W.

: :

A

and B are used distinguish between the two dialects). ters

Old Russian Old Saxon

Polish Proto-Slavic Russian

325

Ukrainian Welsh

REFERENCES Brtickner, Aleksander. 1927. Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego. Kraków: KSW; 2nd, 3rd, 4th ed. Warszawa 1957,1974,1985. Danka, Ignacy R. 1983' Stanowisko języków anatolijskich w indoeuropejskiej rodzinie językowej i ich wzajemne zwiqzki (: The position of the Anatolian languages in the Indo-European family and their mutual connections). Łódź: University of Łódź Press' Fick, A. 1'868. WÓrterbuch der indogermanischen Grundsprache in ihrem GÓttingen: Vandęnhoeck. v on der Vólkertrennurug. 1890-1909. Vergleichendeś WÓrterbuch der indo-germanischen Sprachen. 4th ed., vols. 1-3. Góttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Bestande

Fick,

A.

Frisk, Hjalmar.

1960-197Ż. Griechisches etymologisches WÓrterbuch. Heidelberg: Winter. Illich-Svitych, Vladislav M. 197I-1984. Opyt sravnenija nostraticheskix jazykov. Sravntel'nyj slovar'. Vols. l.-3. Moskva. Ivanov, Vjacheslav y. I97Ż|1974]. Review of lllich-Svitych (1971). Etimologija I97Ż: 182-rB4.

Pokorny' Julius. 1949 -1959 . Indo germanisches eĘ molo gisches W Órterbuch. Bern: Francke. Sławski, Franciszek. 1952-. Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego. Yo|s. 1-5-. Kraków: TMJP. Sławski, Franciszek. 1974-. Słownik prasłowiański. Yols. 1-5-. Wrocław Warszawa - Kraków - Gdańsk: Ossolineum. Tischler, Johann. 1977-. Hethitisches etymologisches Glossar. Lief. 1-5. Innsbruck.

Walde' Alois and Julius Pokorny. 1927-1932. Vergleichendes WÓrterbuch der indogermąnischen Sprachen' Vols. 1-3. Berlin: de Gruyter. Watkins, Calvert. 1973. "Indo-European Roots." In: American Heritage Dictionary. Boston, New York, Atlanta: Morris. 1505-1550.