Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

of Brugmann, Meillet, Lindsay, and Ernout.113 By Lindsay the Latin language is even endowed with an imaginary form *amar, as in the supposed expression *amar amicos 'one loves one's friends'.114 In the first edition of his Grundriss Brugmann explains the Oscan phrase sakrafir ultiumam 'the last festival shall be celebrated' as exactly like 'the Latin legitur Vergilium, legendum est Vergilium'.115 As authority for these Latin expressions Brugmann cites Weisweiler,116 whose authority proves on investigation to be the hexameter:

Matthaeum legitur, Psalmos erit ante legendum from a work by a thirteenth century Franciscan friar, Alexander de villa Dei.

At the conclusion of his article Thurneysen says, 'Beyond this rather shadowy silhouette I should not care to go pending further discoveries.' By a happy fortune which Vendryes characterizes as the linguistic event which will mark the first years of the twentieth century, a new IndoEuropean language has been discovered in Central Asia, the Tocharian; and this language proves to have a developed verbal system in r, which is, according to A. Meillet, the chief interpreter of this new language, clearly medio-passive in sense, showing no trace of the impersonal." Even more impressive is the testimony of the other recently discovered language, Hittite, which also has personal, medio-passive forms in -r.118

117

113 Morphologie historique du latin2 193–7, (Paris, 1927). In this latest edition of his historical grammar Ernout has not modified in any essential respect his earlier views. He still holds that the -r was a characteristic of the impersonal and had its starting-point in the third singular, from which it spread by analogy to the other persons of the medio-passive,-a theory which, as we have seen, is directly opposed to the view of Zimmer and of Vendryes that the third person plural was the starting-point.

114 W. M. Lindsay, The Latin Language 524 (Oxford, 1894); A Short Historical Latin Grammar2 (Oxford, 1915), 108-9, where the equally apocryphal *amar hominem is substituted for *amar amicos.

115 Cf. 2. 2. 1391.

116 Das lateinische participium futuri passivi in seiner Bedeutung und syntaktischen Verwendung (Paderborn, 1890), 70, ftn. 2.

117 See note 45 (citation from Meillet) and compare Vendryes, Rev. Celt. 34. 113: 'Mais cette caractéristique -r- ne saurait être confondue avec la désinence italo-celtique du passif impersonnel; car le tokharien ne connaît rien qui ressemble à ce dernier' (italics mine).

118 Through the kindness of Professor E. H. Sturtevant of Yale University I have had the privilege of consulting his collections of Hittite verbs and thus getting the most recent data on Hittite r-endings. Though Mr. Sturtevant warned me that his collections were not complete and the time at my disposal did not permit an exhaustive study of them, it is, I think, significant that among the

Such a third singular as esari, 'he sits', plausibly connected with the I. E. medium tantum represented by Greek oral, and ending in r without t would seem to be decisive.

One of the most eminent of modern men of science, Lord Kelvin, is quoted as saying, 'Whenever you come upon a difficulty, you are on the eve of a discovery'. We have seen that the hypothesis under consideration leads us into innumerable difficulties. The discovery that we are on the eve of I have tried to indicate in my paper on The Nature of the Latin Passive, in the Light of Recent Discoveries.119

numerous verbal r-forms of his card-catalogue I did not encounter a single one with the meaning of an impersonal. Compare Sturtevant, LANGUAGE, 4. 165-9, especially the statement (p. 168): "The evidence of Hittite does not favor the connection of these endings [certain medio-passive endings of Italo-Celtic and Tocharian] with the r-endings of the third pl. active, which has become almost a dogma of IE comparative grammar.'

119 AJP. 48. 157-75.

THE OGHAM GENITIVE SINGULAR IN -AIS

LOUIS H. GRAY

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

[Genitives in -AIS (and -AI) from io-stems are assumed to contain *-ois, the ending of the IE i-stems. Attention is directed to the same metaplasm in Oscan-Umbrian. Messapian -aihi, etc., may continue *-ois-i, and contain a double genitival ending, if the last syllable is to be connected with the genitival - of Latin and Celtic.]

Three genitives singular in -AIS are found in Irish Ogham inscriptions: GEBBAIS MAQI TANAIS and BIR MAQI MUCOI ROTTAIS 'of G, son of T', and 'of B, son of the posterity of R." Concerning these forms Professor John MacNeill wrote: 'I cannot equate [them] in Ms. Irish or elsewhere. I think they may arise from faulty inscription, or may be pseudoarchaisms. The names in which they occur have not been identified by Ms. equivalents. . . Of final consonants, s only is noted; it disappears before the latest Ogham forms appear, but may be written artificially, as in Gosochtos 223, and perhaps in the genitives in -ais. I cannot refer these to any known declension'.

.

[ocr errors]

Beside these genitives in -AIS there are seven in -AI: CARRICai (6), ERAQETAI (165), Mogai (170), QERAI (78, 79), QETAI (Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, 1895, 102), SENAI (222), and VEQOANAI (199); and one also finds a genitive in -or in the very frequent Muc(c)o(1) and in VEDLLIOGGOI (54). MacNeill correctly considers these io-stems (cf. Old Irish dalt (a)e, genitive dalt (a)i 'fosterling'); but if, as he also rightly implies, -AI may be regarded as standing for -AIS, the query arises whether this -AIS be not a later Ogham writing for *-OIS. One need scarcely argue the fact that ai and oi are occasionally

1 R. A. S. Macalister, Studies in Irish Epigraphy, nos. 10, 218, London, 18971907; J. MacNeill, 'Notes on the Distribution, History, Grammar, and Import of the Irish Ogham Inscriptions', in Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 27 (1909). Section C, no. 15 (pp. 329-70), pp. 343, 345, 357. For the meaning of MUC(C)o(1), Old Irish moccu, see ib. 366-7, and cf. A. Holder, Alt-Celtischer Sprachschatz 2. 649-50, Leipzig, 1896 sqq.; H. Pedersen, Vergleichende Grammatik der keltischen Sprachen 2.16, Göttingen, 1909-13.

found side by side in Ogham (VRAICCI: VROICCI-both equivalent to Old Irish Froech, Fraoch, Fraech, genitive Fruich, Fraoich, Fra(e)ich)2 and in Old Irish (máini: móini 'treasures'; sáib, sóeb: sóib, sóeb 'false'; áis, áes: óis, óes 'people'), just as au and ou are sometimes confused in Gaulish.4

If one may assume, then, that GEBBAIS, ROTTAIS, and TANAIS represent an older *GEBBOIS, *ROTTOIS, and *TANOIS, this genitival *-ois must correspond to Indo-European *-ois, *-eis as the inflexional termination of the genitive singular of -i-stems:5

(a) *-ois: Gothic anstais 'xápiтos';

(b) *-eis: Oscan aeteis 'partis'; Umbrian ocrer 'arcis, montis';

(c) ambiguous: Sanskrit agnés 'of fire', Avesta garōiš 'of a mountain', Lithuanian nakties 'of night', Old Church Slavic kosti 'of a bone'.

Here, too, probably belongs the Pamphylian genitive singular Neyoróλas if this is a genuine dialectic form. It is noteworthy, moreover, that, just as is here suggested for Ogham -AIS < *-OIS, Oscan and Umbrian also show the i-genitive eis in io-stems, as Oscan kúmbennieís 'conventus', Umbrian marties, Martier 'Martii'), a metaplasm likewise found in these dialects in stems in -o- (Oscan sakarakleís 'sacelli', Umbrian popler 'populi'), -n- (Oscan carneis 'partis', Umbrian nomner 'nominis'), -r- (Oscan maatreís, Umbrian matrer 'matris'), and consonants (Oscan medíkeís 'of a meddix').7

8

It seems possible to suggest, furthermore, that a genitive in *-ois underlies the Messapian forms in -aihi, -iaihi, -ihi (e.g. hidazimaihi beiliihi; korahiaihi, skroikhsihi; cf. also perhaps dalmaiyi; tabaraihe taotorrihe; otormahehe) if -aihi may be explained as evolved from *-ois-i. In Messapian inflection Indo-European o > a, as is shown by the nominative singular of -o-stems and the genitive singular of consonantal stems in -as < *-os, e.g. dazimas (genitive dazimaihi); kalatoras; and

2 Holder 3. 453-4,455.

3 J. Vendryes, Grammaire du vieil-irlandais 40, Paris, 1908; R. Thurneysen, Handbuch des Alt-Irischen 40-1, Heidelberg, 1909.

4 G. Dottin, La Langue gauloise 60, Paris, 1920.

• K. Brugmann, Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen2 2. 2. 288-9, Strassburg, 1911.

See F. Bechtel, Die griechischen Dialekte 2. 815, Berlin, 1921-4.

'R. von Planta, Grammatik der oskisch-umbrischen Dialekte 2. 105-9, 150-1, 173, Strassburg, 1892–7.

8 H. Jacobsohn, Altitalische Inschriften nos. 82', 88a,b, 89, 97, 113, Bonn, 1910. 9 Ib., nos. 104, 126, 117.

intervocalics apparently became h.10 The i would seem to be the 'genitival' of Latin and Celtic, as well as of Venetic, Lepontine, and Faliscan (for the three latter cf. lemetoii, enoni; aśkoneti; cauipi leueli)," so that the Messapian -aihi, etc., <*-ois-i would be a double genitival inflectional ending.12

10 Where s seems to stand between vowels, it appears really to mark the end of a word, as hipades[-]aprodta, no. 110d; cf. aprodita[-]hipades, no. 100.

11 Jacobsohn, nos. 170, 185, 193, 8.

=

12 G. Herbig (in M. Ebert, Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte 8. 170, Berlin, 1927) regards -aihi as equivalent to -ai and -ihi as equivalent to -i. Cf., in support of his view, Umbrian ihi ī (persnihimu: persnimu), aha ā (spahata spahmu : spafu), oho = ō (comohota Lat. commōta), ehe =ē (sehemu semu) (von Planta, 1. 59); similarly, if rarely, in Old High German, e.g. emezzihic : emezzîc; gitahan : gitân; seher : sêr (W. Braune, Althochdeutsche Grammatik3 §152 b, Anm. 3, Halle, 1911).

« ZurückWeiter »