Proto-Indo-European accent

Proto-Indo-European accent refers to the accentual system of Proto-Indo-European language.

Description

Proto-Indo-European (PIE) is usually reconstructed as having had variable lexical stress, meaning that the placement of the stress in a word (the accent) was not predictable by phonological rules. Stressed syllables received a higher pitch than unstressed ones; PIE is therefore often said to have had pitch accent – but this must not be confused with the other meaning of the term "pitch accent", which refers to a system where one or two syllables per word have one of at least two unpredictable tones (while the tones of any other syllables are predictable).

PIE accent could be mobile, which means that it could change place throughout the inflectional paradigm. That state of affairs can be seen in Vedic and Ancient Greek, e.g. in the declension of athematic nouns; compare:

—or in the conjugation of athematic verbs (compare Sanskrit root present first-person sg. émi, first-person plural imás). Otherwise, the accent was placed at the same syllable throughout the inflection, and according to that placement nouns are divided into barytones accented on the first syllable, and oxytones accented on the last syllable. Compare:

PIE accent was also free which means that it could stand on any syllable in a word, which is faithfully reflected in Vedic Sanskrit accent (later Classical Sanskrit has predictable accent). Compare:

As one can see, the placement of reconstructed PIE accent is reflected in Vedic Sanskrit basically intact. According to the reflex of PIE accent, Indo-European languages are divided into those with free accent preserved (either directly or indirectly), and those with fixed (or bound) accent. Free accent is preserved in Vedic Sanskrit (of modern Indo-Iranian languages, according to some, in Pashto), Ancient Greek, Balto-Slavic and Anatolian. In Proto-Germanic, free accent was retained long enough for Verner's Law to be dependent on it, but later stress was shifted to the first syllable of the word.

Reflexes

Vedic accent is generally considered the most archaic, reflecting fairly faithfully the position of the original PIE accent. Avestan manuscripts do not have written accent, but we know indirectly that in some period free PIE accent was preserved in (e.g. Avestan *r is devoiced yielding -hr- before voiceless stops and after the accent—if the accent was not on the preceding syllable, *r is not devoiced[1]).

Ancient Greek also preserves free PIE accent in its nouns (see Ancient Greek accent), but with limitations that prevent the accent from being positioned farther than the third syllable from the end (next from the end if the last syllable was long). Verbal accent in Greek is almost completely worthless for reconstructing PIE accent, because (other than in a few cases) it is consistently positioned as far to the left as the rules allow.

Proto-Germanic initially preserved PIE free accent, with some innovations. In the last stage of Proto-Germanic, the accent was changed into a stress accent and fixed on the first syllable of the word, but prior to that it left its traces in the operation of Verner's law.

Anatolian languages show traces of old PIE accent in the lengthening of the old accented syllable. Compare:

Balto-Slavic also retains free PIE accent. For the reconstruction of Proto-Balto-Slavic accent, the most important is the evidence of Lithuanian, Latvian (traditionally Lithuanian is thought as more relevant, but that role is being increasingly taken over by Latvian[2]), and some Slavic languages, especially West South Slavic languages and their archaic dialects. Balto-Slavic accent is continued in Proto-Slavic accent. Accentual alternations in inflectional paradigms (both verbal and nominal) are also retained in Balto-Slavic. Generally it was held that Balto-Slavic has innovative accentual system, but nowadays, according to some researchers, Balto-Slavic takes a pivotal role in the reconstruction of PIE accent (see below).

Indirect traces of the PIE accent are said to be reflected in the development of certain sounds in various branches. For the most part, however, these are of limited, if any, utility in reconstructing the PIE accent.

Unaccented words

Some PIE lexical categories could be unaccented (clitics). These are chiefly particles (PIE *-kʷe 'and' > Vedic -ca, Latin -que, Ancient Greek τε) and some forms of pronouns (PIE *moy 'to me' > Vedic me).

Vedic Sanskrit evidence also indicates that in some positions Proto-Indo-European verb could be unaccented in some syntactical conditions, such as in finite position in the main clause (but not sentence-initially, where verbs would bear whatever accent they would have borne in subordinate clauses). Same is valid for vocatives, which would be deaccented unless they appeared sentence-initially.

Interpretation

No purely phonological rules for determining the position of PIE accent have been ascertained for now. Nevertheless, according to the traditional doctrine, the following can be said of PIE accentual system: PIE thematic nominals and thematic verbal stems all had fixed accent (i.e. on the same syllable throughout the paradigm), which was inherited in all attested daughter languages. Although, there exist some uncertainties regarding the simple thematic present. Some athematic nominals and verb stems also exhibited fixed accent (chiefly on the root), but most had alternating, mobile accent, exhibiting several characteristical patterns; in all of them the surface accent was to the left in one group of inflected forms (nominoaccusative of nominals, active singular of verbs), and to the right in the rest. These facts are often interpreted as being the result of the interplay between individual morphemes, each of which belonged, unpredictably, to one of several accentual classes in PIE. According to this view, endings and stems could all be underlyingly accented or not, the leftmost underlying accent surfaced, and the words with no underlying accent were accented by default on the leftmost syllable.

Modern theories

Traditionally the PIE accent is reconstructed straightforwardly—by the comparison of Vedic, Ancient Greek and Germanic; e.g. PIE *ph₂tḗr 'father' from Sanskrit pitā́, Ancient Greek πατήρ, Gothic fadar. When the position of accent would match in these languages, that would be the accent reconstructed for "PIE proper". It was taken that the Vedic is the most archaic and the evidence of Vedic would be used to resolve all the potentially problematic cases.

It was shown, however, by Vladislav Illich-Svitych in 1963 that the Balto-Slavic accent does not match with that presupposed PIE accent reconstructed on the basis of Vedic and Ancient Greek—the Greek-Vedic barytones correspond to Balto-Slavic fixed paradigms, and Greek-Vedic oxytones correspond to Balto-Slavic mobile paradigms.[3] Moreover, in about a quarter of all cognate Vedic and Ancient Greek etymons accents do not match at all;[3] e.g.

Recently Russian linguists Vladimir Dybo and Sergej Nikolayev have been reconstructing PIE accentual system as a system of two tones: + and − (probably high and low tone).[4] Proto-Indo-European would not thus have, as is usually reconstructed, a system of free accent more or less preserved in Vedic, but instead every morpheme would be inherently high or low (i.e. dominant or recessive, as it cannot be known for sure how those features were phonetically actually manifested), and the position of accent would be later in various daughter languages determined in various ways (depending on the combinations of (+) and (−) morphemes), whereas Vedic would certainly not be the most archaic language. Many correspondences among IE languages, as well as certain phenomena in individual daughters dependent on PIE tones, should corroborate this interpretation.[5]

Dybo lists several shortcomings of the traditional approach to the reconstruction of PIE accent.[6] Amongst others, wrong belief in the direct connection between PIE accent and ablaut which in fact does not actually explain the position of PIE accent at all. Usually, however, it is thought that zero-grade should be unaccented, but that is provably not valid for PIE (e.g. *wĺ̥kʷos 'wolf', *septḿ̥ 'seven' etc.) according to the traditional reconstruction. Furthermore, Dybo claims that there is none whatsoever phonological, semantic or morphological reason for the classification of certain word to a certain accentual type, i.e. the traditional model cannot explain why Vedic vṛ́kas 'wolf' is barytone and Vedic devás 'deity' is oxytone. According to Dybo, such discrepancies can only be explained by presupposing lexical tone in PIE.

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Compare e.g. Avestan vəhrka- 'wolf' with devoicing, as opposed to Vedic vṛ́kas, Ancient Greek λύκος, but mərəta- 'dead' without devoicing, as opposed to Vedic mṛtás, Ancient Greek βροτός.
  2. ↑ Kapović 2008:271
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Kapović 2008:272
  4. ↑ cf. Dybo, Nikolajev & Starostin:1978, Nikolaev:1989, Dybo 2007:47-50
  5. ↑ For example, the problem of secondary reflexes in Italo-Celtic of PIE *R̥H of an, ar, al (there are no examples for *am) beside the usual mā, nā, rā, lā that are usually reconstructed. According to Dybo, such dual reflexes are based on the old opposition of two PIE tones; the reflexes of type Rā match the Balto-Slavic fixed accent paradigm, whereas the reflexes of type aR match the Balto-Slavic mobile accent paradigm.
  6. ↑ Cited after Kapović 2008:272

References