15.7.10.19:40: VOWEL LENGTH AND INTRUSIVE NASALS IN SANSKRIT VS-STEMS
I was puzzled by Sanskrit Vs-stems when I first learned how to decline them in 1992, and I remain puzzled today. Most forms (singular and dual / plural) can be generated by adding endings to -Vs stems and applying the following rules which apply to Sanskrit in general:
1. s > ṣ after i or u and before a vowel: e.g., havis-ā > haviṣ-ā 'oblation' (inst. sg.)
2. -as > -o before voiced consonants: e.g., manas-bhyām > manobhyām 'minds' (inst./dat./abl. du.)
3. -s > -r after i or u and before voiced consonants: e.g., havis-bhyām > havirbhyām 'oblations' (inst./dat./abl. du.)
But those rules cannot explain a few forms:4. s > ḥ before s: e.g., manas-su > manaḥ-su 'minds' (loc. pl.)
Why do the m./f. nom sgs. have long vowels before the stem-final -s?
5. sumanās 'favorably minded' (m./f. nom sg.)
cf. sumanas 'id.' (n. nom. sg.)
Why do the n. nom./acc./voc. pls. have long vowels and an anusvāra nasal (written here as ṃ and in Whitney's grammar as ṅ) before the stem-final -s?
6. manāṃs-i 'minds' (n. nom./acc./voc. pl.) instead of *manas-i
Is 5 by analogy with mant/vant-stems that also have lengthening in the m. nom. sg.? (The feminines of mant/vant-stems are ī-stems: paśumatī instead of *paśumān.)
sumanās : paśumān < *-ēn < *-en-s < *-ent-s? 'rich in cattle' (m. nom. sg.; is the long vowel of -mān due to Szemerényi's law?)Why do ant-participles and an-stems work somewhat differently?cf. the acc. sg.: sumanas-am : paśumant-am
bhavan < *-ont-s 'being' (m. nom. sg.); why isn't this *bhavā < *-ō < *-ōn < *-on-s < *-ont-s?; cf. rājā below
rājā < *-ō < *-ōn < *-on-s 'king' (m. nom. sg.); final *-n was lost after *ō but not *ē
I think 6 and similar neutral plurals of vowel stems are by analogy with an-neuters; they all share the pattern long stem vowel + nasal + -i:the m. acc. sg. bhavant-am has a short vowel like sumanas-am and paśumant-am, but rājān-am has a long vowel even though Szemerényi's law can't apply to a word without *s or *laryngeals!
manas > manāṃs-i 'minds' (as-stem; -ns- > -ṃs-)
asya-m > asyān-i 'mouths' (a-stem)
vari > varīṇ-i 'waters' (i-stem; n > ṇ after r)
madhu > madhūn-i 'honeys' (u-stem)
nāma > nāmān-i 'names' (an-stem)
The stem-final nasal in nāmāni was restored by analogy and the regular neuter plural ending -i was added:
*ʕʷneʕʷmon-ʕ > *nōmō > (*)nāmā (attested in Vedic?) > nāmān-i (cf. nom./acc./voc. du. nāman-ī and voc. sg. naman, but the second a in those forms isn't old; they go back to *ʕʷneʕʷmn-ʕi and *ʕʷneʕʷmn)
This restoration must have predated the split of Indo-Aryan from Iranian, since the restored nasal is present in Avestan nāmə̄n-i 'names'. However, the nasals in the Sanskrit Vs and vowel stem neuter plurals have no parallels in Avestan, so they must be Sanskrit innovations.
15.7.10.13:25: POSSESSING SIMILAR ENDINGS IN THE PRESENT
Last week I was puzzled by the stems of Hungarian van 'is' and megy 'goes'. Now I want to look at their present tense endings which partly overlap with possessive endings:
Person/number | Present indefinite verb endings | Present definite verb endings | Possessive endings for singular nouns | Possessive endings for plural nouns |
1S | -ok/-ek/-ök e.g., lát-ok egy 'I see a ...' -om/-em/-öm (optional for -ik verbs): e.g., játsz-ok ~ játsz-om 'I play' |
-om/-em/-öm e.g., lát-om a(z) 'I see the ...' |
-(V)m e.g., órá-m 'my clock' |
-(j)(a)im/-(j)(e)im e.g., órá-im 'my clocks' |
2S | -sz [s] -ol/-el/-öl (-s, -sz, -z, -dz verbs) e.g., játsz-ol 'thou playest' |
-od/-ed/-öd | -(V)d | -(j)(a)id/-(j)(e)id |
3S | -Ø -ik (-ik verbs): e.g., játsz-ik 'he/she/it plays' |
-ja/-i | -(j)a/-(j)e | -(j)(a)i/-(j)(e)i |
1P | -unk/-ünk | -juk/-jük | -(u)nk/-(ü)nk | -(j)(a)ink/-(j)(e)ink |
2P | -(o)tok/-(e)tek/-(ö)tök | -játok/-itek | -(V)tok/-(V)tek/-(V)tök | -(j)(a)itok/-(j)(e)itek |
3P | -(a)nak/-(e)nek | -ják/-ik | -(j)uk/-(j)ük | -(j)(a)ik/-(j)(e)ik |
Questions:
1. Why is the pattern of overlap between verb and possessive endings so complex?
Person/number | Possessive endings for singular nouns | Possessive endings for plural nouns |
1S | ends in -m like present definite | |
2S | ends in -d like present definite | |
3S | -ja looks like present definite but presumably linking -j- + 3S possessive suffix -a | -i looks like present definite but presumably an unrelated plural possessive suffix -i |
1P | similar to present indefinite | ends in -nk like present indefinite |
2P | definite, indefinite, and both types of possessives all of the tVk type | |
3P | unlike verb endings aside from plural -k | -ik looks like present definite but presumably an unrelated plural possessive suffix -i + plural -k |
Is the unity of the 2P endings original or the result of a merger? Can a more consistent system be reconstructed for an earlier stage?
2. Why do -ik verbs have optional
indefinite endings that look like definite endings only in 1S?
4. Why do -ik verbs have a special 3S ending?
5. Why do possessive endings for consonant-final plural nouns have 'bridges' that look like the third singular possessive endings for singular nouns?
kert-je-im 'my gardens' (not *kert-im); cf. kert-je 'his/her/its garden'
6. Why do definite 3S, 2P, and 3P have a jA ~ i alternation instead of a jA ~ je alternation?
7. Why doesn't definite 1P end in -nk?
8. Why do definite 2P and 3P have long á instead of short a?
BONUS: Why isn't játsz- [jaːts] spelled jác [jaːts]? I think I can answer that one myself. The spelling is etymological; játsz- is from ját- plus -sz-.