Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

older er preserved?) Bersumno, Birziminium, Berselum, Bersula, cf. Krahe 83. Nor again should Messapic plastas (gen. sg. masc. from *plaset, plazet) be connected, as it was by Deecke, with Placens, Placentius, but rather with the names Plassarus (CIL 3.4376) or (?) with Blasa, Blazziza, Blassius (ib. 7635, 8292, 3074, 1650, 4150, 5498) with p:b as in Messapus Méтaßos, Пlužoūs : Buxentum, Clampetra: Clambetis. 13 Deecke's account of haçtorres (= *EKTÓρLOS) is equally untenable. I connect this form with Latin hostis, cf. Hostilius (ID 32, 34-Calabria, Peucetii; represented also in the borrowed hos@ellihi with Ital. -o-?), gh being represented by h as in the pronominal hi-, in dehatan (:Lat. fingo), and perhaps in mahehe (:Skt. mahā'n?). Finally βίσβη· δρέπανον (and βισβαία· κλαδευτηρια which H. Petersson interprets as *uik-ua, comparing Skt. veç' 'needle', Arm. gisel 'tear, split', may just as well stand for *uis-ya 'the divider, cutter, German Messer', cf. Skt. vişva- 'on both sides, on different sides', IE *ui- 'two', as in *ui-dh- 'divide, separate', cf. OCSI věja, Skt. vajā' 'branch, bough', Lat. virga for *viz-gā; and if Messapic did not sibilise the palatal stops, then Petersson's etymology becomes untenable.

There are a few instances in which it has been proposed by Ribezzo (23ff.) to see examples of the sibilisation of ĝ or ĝh. These may be easily disposed of. Thus the series of names azen, açen, azinne, azena in which Ribezzo (28) sees IE *ĝen-, is far more likely to be connected with the names Asinius, Asenius (CIL 3.7118, 10765, 8897, 8895); and the name zarres with Sarius (ib. 1204493; 5.8115108; Pais, Suppl. 1080441, 1182) cf. Sarina, Sarus, Sarronius, Sarnus (CIL 3 Index) and zairikihi with Saerius (ID 155) than with Gr. xaipw, with which Ribezzo (26) connects them both. The two forms azinnota and inzanixis according to Ribezzo (29) both contain the same root IE *ĝen(cf. azen etc. above) and mean respectively 'creavit' and 'finxit'. Taking Ribezzo's view of the meaning, though that is quite uncertain, we may quite as reasonably see in -zin- -zan- the root *sen- (son-) 'achieve, complete', cf. Gr. avvμ, Skt. sanóti.

I should not have thought it necessary to remove these examples, apparently contrary to the view which I take, namely that the palatal stops were not sibilised in Messapic, if there had not been also a con

13 Cf. Krahe 89. It would also be possible to separate plastas from the names given above and to connect it with Plarius, Plarentius (ID 155, 257, 375, cf., CIL 3.6183, D xxiii, C vi test., xiv), intervocalic -s- being preserved in Messapic (e.g. Canusium, Genusia, Galaesus, lasoihi, Busidius and the names cited above), unless in Plarius etc. -r- is original.

14 Only the summary, Glotta 15.9 (1926), is known to me.

siderable body of positive evidence in favour of that view. To this I now pass.

Apart from klaohizis, already discussed, we have, as against z from ĝ (azinnota etc.) oroagenas '(citizen, native) of Uria, Uritis' with -r- for -rr- from -ri-, and with -oa- indicating locality as in a large number of names (e.g. daran@oa, dalma@oa, kritaboa) though the form might conceivably be merely a patronymic. What cannot be doubted is the equivalence of -genas to Latin -genus, Venetic -xeneh (gen. sg.) in which -g-, -x-represent IE 9 (Skt. jánaḥ) especially when we find also genollihi gen. sg. masc. (cf. with a different suffix, Genucius CIL 3.2535, 4471, 141472) and the local name Genusia (Peucetii, ID 33). In the river name Vergellus (ib.) it is probable that we have the same root *uer (e)ĝ'bend, wind' as in Latin uergo, Skt. várjati. The meaning of Messapic argorian (cf. argora-pandes an official title) is admitted by every one to be 'silver, money', and here again there is evidence of ĝ represented by g (cf. Lat. argentum, Gr. åpyvpos, Skt. rajatám), for in view of the place names 'Apyvρīvo (Epirus) 'Aруúρɩππа (Apulia) the supposition that argorian was borrowed from Greek is quite needless. The Peucetian local name Geronium (ID 35) also probably contains IE ĝ (cf. Lat. granum, Gr. yépas, Yépwv: Skt. jaráḥ) and in y in the suffix of 'Iáπvyes (cf. 'Opruyia) we may have either ĝ or g. It would be possible to connect Anxa (the older name of Callipolis) with either Lat. ancus or ango, referring either to the shape or to the character (narrowness) of the harbour; in the former case the word would be indecisive (IE k), but in the latter we should have g(x = g + s) for IE ĝh after n as in brigannas (see above) after r. The local name trigonoxoa appears to show *ĝon- 'corner, bend' (Lat. genu, Gr. yóvv, ywvia: Skt. jā'nu) though borrowing from Greek (cf. Tpiywvos) is possible, and in konkolastis seems certain (k, gh), cf. Gr. Kóyxos, kóyxŋ. The word agrafos seems to show ŷ (Lat. ager, Gr. ȧypós: Skt. ájraḥ) and if it is a proper name, as is likely, it will be parallel to such Latin names as Agrius, Agrestius, Agreius. There are three names in gor(gor, goro abbrev., gorrih[i, gorvaides, gorretavidihi) which are not decisive, since in these g is more plausible: cf. either Lat. gurges, root ger-, or Gr. yupós, also with g-, Lat. būra. Doubtless gronehias stands in some relation to Granius (Calabri, Daunii ID 32,36), but it is not clear whether we have gh (ĝh or gh ?) represented before r by g, cf. Lat. frendo (*gheren-d- an extension of ĝher-, see Walde, s.v. and compare names like Frensidius, Fresidius: frēsus ?); or ĝ (*ĝerā2-: ĝr-, see Geronium above); or even gu (*guren- with -dh-extension perhaps

in Lat. grandis). In magos it is tempting to see *maĝ- as in Latin magnus (cf. perhaps maeos: Osc. mais, Lat. maior, mazzes with -zzfrom -gi- ?) beside *maĝh- in mahehe (above), while in xonedonas, xonet@es beside Xáoves, Xŵves we have presumably to do with borrowing, though x is probably equivalent to k (not to kh) cf. taimakos: Δαίμαχος.

Reasonably clear instances of IE & represented by k, both initially and medially, occur apart from the form klaohizis (see above), in the following words: korah[i (or -[aihi?) with ō-grade; or, less likely, with epenthesis (as in Greek), ou being written o; or, conceivably with loss ofy after r and 'compensatory' lengthening, Gr. Koūpos Att. kópos, Lat. Cerus, creo: Skt. çardhaḥ 'herd', cf., if a proper name, 'Eri-kou pos (?). Peucetii: Greek Tein, Lith. puszis 'pine', either with the diphthong preserved as in @eotoras, or more probably with the (Greek?) spelling eu. kordomaos: Cordus, Cordius (Calabri), Lat. cor, OCSI srudice 'heart'; with -om- (-um-) as in dazomas beside dazimas (cf. Lat. -imus, -umus) and ō in the initial syllable. Greek 'I for 'E?), cf. Venetic Ecco, ekupe@aris. ter'?) :dico (k, cf. Skt. diç-).

Tarentine "IKKOS (with dikoteras (quasi 'Dex

vaikaneataos (?) see above.

calare. kri@onas, kritaboa. balakrahiaihi. kra@eihi.

IE k (or k alternating with k and therefore equally indecisive for our present purpose) may occur in the following instances, which it will be sufficient merely to enumerate. kelonihi1 (cf. Venetic kelo: Lat. Celsus, but with either & or k if connected with Lat. Celer, Cillius, see Walde s.v. Luceria, Leuсa, λevкav. Lacinium promonturium. nerikiden, cf. Ven. nerikah. Canusium: KOVES ? kalatoras Lat. saihikas. inkermali : κρεμάννυμι ? koileihi. kavasbo : καίω ? kraapati carpo ? hipakai : scalpo ? For IE k I find no other certain instances than the one already cited (penkahel) except dokihi : Sicel AoUKÉTIOS, Lat. Docetius, Duceus, dūco. It would be easy to multiply conjectures, or to write at length on the examples discussed in this note. But nothing is gained by that method, which has too often marred the earlier stages of investigation of little known or ill preserved dialects. All I am concerned with here is to point out that the view that Messapic was a satem-speech is based upon quite inadequate evidence, and that it has been too hastily accepted by Kretschmer and others.16

16 Cf. kilahiaihi? But why -i-?

16 Cf. Jokl in Ebert's Reallexicon, s.v. Illyrier 6.41 (1925).

LOSS OF FINAL n IN INFLECTIONAL SYLLABLES OF MIDDLE

ENGLISH

SAMUEL MOORE

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

In no respect perhaps do the Southern and Midland Middle English texts of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries show greater differences than in the loss or retention of the final n of unstressed inflectional syllables. Disregarding all but the gross differences, we can recognise three types of distribution to one or the other of which the various texts tend, in the roughest way and in varying degrees, to conform. These three types of distribution may be illustrated by the Owl and the Nightingale, the Cotton Nero A 14 text of the Ancren Riwle, and the London English of Chaucer.

In the Owl and the Nightingale we find an approximation to the complete loss of final n in all the unstressed inflectional syllables that developed from the Old English endings -an, -um, -on, and -en: i.e. in both the singular and plural of weak nouns, in the weak adjective inflection, in the dative singular and plural of the strong adjective inflection, in the dative plural of strong nouns, and in the present subjunctive plural, the preterit indicative and subjunctive plural, the infinitive, and the past participle of strong verbs. The loss of final n is approximately complete in the singular of weak nouns and in the strong and weak adjective inflection. There are a few examples, however, of -en as the plural ending of nouns that were weak in Old English and a very small number of analogical -en plurals of nouns that were not weak in Old English, such as children; one or two plural forms also may be interpreted as the Middle English development of the Old English strong dative plural in -um, e.g. of heore sunnen, 858. In verbs the final n is lost in at least 80 per cent of all the plurisyllabic forms that were entitled historically to the ending -en.

In the Cotton Nero A 14 text of the Ancren Riwle there is an approximately complete loss of final n in the singular of weak nouns and in the strong and weak adjective inflection. But final n is nearly always retained in the plural form of weak nouns and there are numerous ex

amples of analogical -en plurals of nouns that were not weak in Old English. There are also some -en plurals that may be interpreted as the Middle English development of the Old English strong dative plural in -um, but the difficulty of discriminating between dative and accusative in this text makes impossible any more definite statement as to the relative frequency of -en and -e in the dative plural of strong nouns. In verb forms final n is nearly always retained.

In the London English of Chaucer there is complete loss of final n in the singular of weak nouns. There is also complete loss of the nasal in both the strong and weak adjective inflection, except for the survival of the Old English ending -an or -um in -self compounds such as my selven, etc. In the great majority of weak nouns the analogical plural ending -es has displaced the historical -en, but in the very small number of weak nouns that retain the historical inflection the ending is always -en and never -e; there are a few nouns that have analogical -en plurals. With regard to verb forms it would be rash in the light of our present knowledge to make a much more definite statement than that neither loss nor retention of final n was complete in any form of the verb.2

Two conclusions, I believe, can be drawn (tentatively, at least) from the facts summarised in the preceding paragraphs. From the fact that some loss of n occurred in all grammatical forms3 and that in texts like the Owl and the Nightingale there was an approximation to complete loss of n we may infer that we have to do here, in part at least, with the results of sound-change. But from the fact that in all texts, including texts like the Owl and the Nightingale, the loss of n was more complete in some grammatical forms than in others we may infer that the distribution of forms with and without n was not the result of sound change alone. It seems reasonable to expect that sound change alone would result in actual speech either in: (1) complete loss of n; or in (2) a distribution of forms with and without n that would correspond to phonetic

1 The same exception must be made for the Owl and the Nightingale, the Ancren Riwle, and all the other earlier Middle English texts in which loss of final n in the strong and weak adjective inflection is almost or quite complete.

I can only partly agree with Wild's opinion "dass die n-losen formen bei Chaucer eigentlich die normalformen sind, die n-formen aber zur beseitigung des hiatus von dem dichter fakultativ verwendet wurden" (Die sprachlichen eigentümlichkeiten der wichtigeren Chaucer-handschriften und die sprache Chaucers, p. 296), but it seems fairly clear that the Ellesmere scribe's partiality for the -en forms should not be accepted as representing Chaucer's own usage.

3 Orm has no loss of final n in verb forms except the present subjunctive plural, but his spellings cannot be relied on as proving more than that n was usually retained in verb forms.

« ZurückWeiter »