Vedic dāśvā́ṃs- ‘pious one’, Homeric ἀδηκότες ‘inattentive’, and the “long-vowel” perfects of Proto-Indo-European

in Indo-European Linguistics

Abstract

Although the morphological components of the Vedic noun dāśvā́ṃs- are, from the Indo-European point of view, relatively transparent (root */dek̑-/ ‘perceive’, perfect participle suffix */-u̯ós-/), the exact derivation of the form is disputed, insofar as its history is bound up with an understanding of Proto-Indo-European “long-vowel preterites” (Schumacher 2005, Jasanoff 2012). This article argues that a shallow synchronic derivation of dāśvā́ṃs- in Vedic Sanskrit encounters problems in both morphology and phonology that have been overlooked by proponents of such a derivation (Jasanoff 2012, LIV2: 110–111). The article then further proposes that a cognate of dāśvā́ṃs- is to be found in the isolated Homeric adjective, ἀδηκότες, previously without certain interpretation or etymology; here the gloss ‘inattentive, oblivious, unheeding’ is proposed. The etymological connection of dāśvā́ṃs- to Homeric (ἀ-)δηκότ(-ε/ας) thus supports the reconstruction of a Proto-(Nuclear)-Indo-European (PNIE) form *[dēk̑u̯ós-]; within the grammar of PNIE itself, such a form would be synchronically derived as a perfect participle /RED-dek̑-u̯ós-/, in which a “long-vowel” form surfaces in perfect stems whose zero-grade form is phonologically dispreferred and therefore repaired (cf. Schumacher 2005, Zukoff 2014, Sandell 2015a, Sandell 2015b: Ch. 8, Zukoff 2017a: Ch. 5, 7). The larger implication is at least some “long-vowel” preterites of PNIE can be explained as phonologically driven allomorphs of perfect weak stems.

Abstract

Although the morphological components of the Vedic noun dāśvā́ṃs- are, from the Indo-European point of view, relatively transparent (root */dek̑-/ ‘perceive’, perfect participle suffix */-u̯ós-/), the exact derivation of the form is disputed, insofar as its history is bound up with an understanding of Proto-Indo-European “long-vowel preterites” (Schumacher 2005, Jasanoff 2012). This article argues that a shallow synchronic derivation of dāśvā́ṃs- in Vedic Sanskrit encounters problems in both morphology and phonology that have been overlooked by proponents of such a derivation (Jasanoff 2012, LIV2: 110–111). The article then further proposes that a cognate of dāśvā́ṃs- is to be found in the isolated Homeric adjective, ἀδηκότες, previously without certain interpretation or etymology; here the gloss ‘inattentive, oblivious, unheeding’ is proposed. The etymological connection of dāśvā́ṃs- to Homeric (ἀ-)δηκότ(-ε/ας) thus supports the reconstruction of a Proto-(Nuclear)-Indo-European (PNIE) form *[dēk̑u̯ós-]; within the grammar of PNIE itself, such a form would be synchronically derived as a perfect participle /RED-dek̑-u̯ós-/, in which a “long-vowel” form surfaces in perfect stems whose zero-grade form is phonologically dispreferred and therefore repaired (cf. Schumacher 2005, Zukoff 2014, Sandell 2015a, Sandell 2015b: Ch. 8, Zukoff 2017a: Ch. 5, 7). The larger implication is at least some “long-vowel” preterites of PNIE can be explained as phonologically driven allomorphs of perfect weak stems.

1 Whence dāśvā́ṃs-?1

The Vedic lexical item dāśvā́ṃs- ‘pious man (plural: pious ones)’ (so consistently translated by Jamison and Brereton (2014: passim)) is among the most frequent lexical items in the R̥gvedic corpus (155 distinct occurrences; cf. Lubotsky 1998: 674–675), thereby attesting to the functional importance of the figure in Vedic cultic practice.2 A cognate form is unknown in the Avestan corpus or elsewhere in Iranian, a fact for which the well-established innovations of Zoroastrianism vis-à-vis Indic religious practice may be responsible (Kellens 2005), although an Indic innovation cannot be strictly excluded. In Vedic, the form appears to contain the perfect participle suffix -vā́ṃs- and inflects identically to productively built perfect participles (acc.sg dāśvā́ṃsam, dat.sg dāśúṣe; compare cakr̥vā́ṃsam, cakrúṣe to √kr̥ ‘make, do’). Although this lexeme can be analyzed without problem in terms of inherited Indo-European lexical components—a root */dek̑-/ ‘perceive, be aware of’ (cf. LIV2:110–111) and ablauting perfect active participle suffix */-u̯ós-/~/-ús-/—whether the stem dāśvā́ṃs- proper is older than Proto-Indic (at the earliest) may be doubted; without the attestation of a matching perfect active participle built to */dek̑-/ showing similar formal peculiarities in another Indo-European language, the form is not of demonstrable antiquity.

The objective of the first section of this paper is to argue that, even without the support of a matching cognate, Vedic dāśvā́ṃs- must be considered an archaism; it could not have been generated in the synchronic grammar of Vedic. The second section then will take up the interpretation of an adjective in Homeric Greek nom.pl ἀδηκότες (also acc.pl. ἀδηκότας), and argue that this form is in fact semantically compatible with derivation from the root */dek̑-/ ‘perceive’, and thus constitutes a formal match for Vedic dāśvā́ṃs-. Given that the derivational morphology of a P(N)IE stem *[dēk̑u̯ós-] cannot be readily understood as anything other than a perfect participle, the conclusion that some PNIE perfect weak stems exhibited a long vowel instead of transparent reduplication is difficult to escape.

1.1 dāśvā́ṃs- in Vedic

At first blush, one might reasonably be tempted to suppose that dāśvámṣ- is a formation built internal to Vedic or its shallow prehistory, to the fairly well-represented verbal root dāś-, the verbal forms of which are given in Table 1.

Table 1

Verbal Forms to √dās ‘(piously) serve’ (not all inflected forms are exhaustively listed; glosses after the translations in Jamison and Brereton 2014: passim)

Stem type

Forms

Token

Gloss

frequency

Class I Present

3.sg dā́śati3

37

‘piously honor/serve’

Class (I/)II Present Participle4

dā́śat-

2

‘(piously) offering/serving’

Class II Present

3.sg dāṣṭi

2

‘do/offer service’

Class V Present

3.sg dāśnóti

1

‘ritually serves’

Perfect

3.sg 3.pl. dadāśúr

20

‘have labored/done pious service’

Perfect Active Participle

dat.sg dadāśúṣe

4

‘having done pious service’

Nevertheless, a combination of phonological, morphological, syntactic, pragmatic considerations suggest that dāśvā́ṃs- is an archaism.

First, the form’s high token frequency itself in the RV, a function of its pragmatic usefulness in ritual texts of the Vedic type,5 suggests a well-established lexeme, not a novel creation, or a form liable to undergo morphological renewal. Note that the token frequency of dāśvaṃś- is greater than the combined token frequency of all verbal forms (66) built to the same root. As Hay (2003) and Hay and Baayen (2003) have shown, lexical items that have a higher token frequency than their base of derivation are often not psychologically recognized by speakers as related morphologically related to their bases. This fact alone throws into doubt whether dāśvā́ṃs- has a direct synchronic connection to the wider averbo of √dāś, despite the frequent attribution of the long vowel ā in both dāśvā́ṃs- and the synchronic root that underlies the verbal forms in Table 1 to the same diachronic source (see discussion at the opening of 1.2 below).6

Syntactically, dāśvā́ṃs- normally functions as a noun, not an adjectival modifier of another noun, unlike most productively derived perfect participles. Among its adjectival usages, in fact, evidence for a fixed expression in the RV is available: the collocation dāśúṣe mártyāya ‘for the pious mortal’, occurring 11× in the R.V., is the most frequent two-word sequence involving a form of dāśvā́ṃs-; given the relative frequencies of the forms dāśúṣe (114×) and mártyāya (24×), a likelihood-ratio test indicates a very high degree of collostructional dependency (cf. Stewanowitsch and Gries 2003) between dāśúṣe and mártyāya (p < 0.001 on d.f. = 1), meaning that the null hypothesis that dāśúṣe and mártyāya are completely independent of one another should be rejected).7

From a morphological point of view, to treat dāśvā́ṃs- as a direct adjectival or nominal derivative of √dāś through the suffix -vā́ṃs- is challenging, since -vā́ṃs- is almost exclusively attested to perfect stems, and is not normally (if ever) found built directly to verbal roots.8 Besides forms of vidvā́ṃs- ‘knowing’, where the perfect stem to √vid regularly lacks reduplication, other possible Vedic examples of formations similar to dāśvā́ṃs- recorded in von Böhtlingk and Roth (1855) are: ávarjuṣīṇām ‘avoiding (?)’ (a + √vr̥j ‘twist’; AVŚ 7.50.2), bhakṣivā́ṃs- ‘enjoying’ (√bhaj ‘share’?; AVŚ 6.79.3),9 mīḍhvā́ṃs- ‘generous’ (RV 42×), vijānivā́ṃs- ‘discerning one’ (RV 10.77.1), and sāhvā́ṃs- (√sah ‘conquer’; 10× RV).10 The only forms here perhaps really comparable to dāśvā́ṃs- are mīḍhvā́ṃs- and sāhvā́ṃs- (the latter probably very much so); the others are variously dubious.

The gen.sg. form vijānúṣah at RV 10.77.1 is interpreted by Jamison and Brereton (2014) as belonging to the root √jñā ‘know’, as indicated by their rendering ‘of a discerning one’. This stem is a hapax in the RV, where a perfect active participle to √jñā is otherwise unattested (the middle participle jajñāná- occurs 26×); one might note that an expected Xvijajñúṣaḥ would be metrically equivalent to the transmitted form. Oldenberg (1909–1912: vol. 3, 281) approvingly cites a suggestion of Bartholomae that the form reflects a contamination of jānatáh and jajñúṣaḥ, to which he adds “daß nicht vijānatáḥ gesagt [wird], hängt vielleicht mit dem in [Vers] a vorangehenden -úṣo [abhraprúṣo ‘showering rain from a cloud’], -uṣā [pruṣā vásu ‘showering goods’] zusammen”.

In turn, Whitney (1905: 420) regards the reading of avarjuṣīṇā́m at AVŚ 7.50.2 (preceded immediately by viśā́m) as “very suspicious”, given that viśā́m vavarjuṣīnā́m occurs at RV 1.134.6; perhaps [v] in the AVŚ passage was lost in transmission due to the immediately preceding labial nasal, which could have hindered the perception of a following labial continuant. Finally, bhaktivā́ṃsaḥ at AVŚ 6.79.3 should probably be interpreted as containing the adjectival suffix /-ván-/, not /-vā́ṃs-/: parallel passages at KS 5.4 and TB 3.7.57, read bhaktivāno and bhakṣivā́ṇaḥ respectively. It is altogether uncertain what the correct reading of this form is (Whitney (1905: 340) pronounces all variants “irregular or anomalous”), for which reason no compelling trace of an unreduplicated perfect participle can be seen here.

In the comparatively frequent mīḍhváṃs-, it is phonologically conceivable to derive the form from the active participle of a perfect stem built to the univerbation */mei̯(H)es-dheh1-/ ‘providing refreshment’ (cf. Mayrhofer 1986–2001: 357–358): if the reduplicated participle stem /mei̯(H)es-dhe-dheh1-u̯ós-/ were assumed to target all full-grade vowels to the left of the accented suffix /-u̯ós-/ for the application of zero-grade ablaut, the intermediate resulting derivation would be */mi(H)s-dh-dhh1-u̯ós-/, which would surface as PNIE *[mī̆(H)zdhu̯ós-] (by consonant deletion to avoid geminate segments and regressive voicing assimilation of */s/) > PIIr. *[mī̆ždhu̯ā́s-] > Ved. mīḍhvā́ṃs-.

sāhvā́ṃs-, meanwhile, clearly does serve as a perfect participle synchronically to √sah, and competes with an alternative perfect active participle sāsahvā́ṃs- (6× RV). sāhvā́ṃs- exhibits the same peculiar absence of reduplication and long vowel in the root, which cannot readily be explained by derivation from a root that exclusively appears with a long vowel, as one might with dāśvā́ṃs-. The ultimate point at this juncture is that the possibility of deriving an adjective or noun, rather than paradigmatic perfect participle, synchronically with the suffix /-vā́ṃs-/ in Vedic is virtually to be excluded.

Finally, a crucial phonological fact categorically precludes the interpretation that dāśvā́ṃs- is a productively derived perfect participle in Vedic. As Cooper (2013, 2015:96–106) has systematically demonstrated (cf. also examples and discussion in Kümmel 2000: 38, 42–43, 50–51), consonant-initial suffixes (including the active participle in its strong form /-vā́ṃs-/) attached to a perfect stem regularly condition epenthesis of a vowel [-i-], just in case the syllable preceding the suffix would be superheavy (i.e., a long vowel with at least one coda consonant, or a syllable with two or more coda consonants). See the examples in 1 below.

(1) Epenthesis of Linking [-i-] in the Vedic Perfect

a. nom.pl.part.act tasthivā́ṃsaḥ (√sthā ‘stand’)

b. 1.pl.act dadāśima (√dāś ‘do pious service’)

c. 2.sg tatarditha (√tr̥d ‘bore’)

As examples 1(a) and (b) show, this linking [-i-] is attested with both the perfect participle suffix /-vā́ṃs-/ and the root √dāś; one cannot therefore presume that either the root or suffix involved in dāśvā́ṃs- might fail to condition or block the insertion of linking [-i-]. Given these facts, one may safely assert that the productive synchronic derivation of a perfect active participle to √dāś, in its strong stem, would have appeared in Vedic as Xdāśivā́ṃs-; as seen above in Table 1 above, the reduplicated perfect active participle is attested in the RV, but only in its weak stem dadāśúṣ-.11

1.2 Towards a prehistory of dāśvā́ṃs-

For all of the above reasons, to assume that “dāśvā́m̐s- is probably the analogical replacement (with dāś- from the present) of *dakṣvā́m̐s- < *de-dk̑-, with the regular treatment of a “thorn” cluster”, as per Jasanoff 2012: 128, fn. 5, is not readily defensible. If a form of PIE or early PIIr. antiquity *[dedk̑u̯ós-] had indeed existed, there is good reason to think that a Xdakṣvā́ṃs- would have persisted into Vedic. LIV2:110–111 accounts for the long ā of dāśvā́ṃs- through just the same assumption of reformation of the form after dāś- in the present stem: “Vielleicht Ptz. Perf. Akt. *de-dk̑-u̯ós- dissimiliert zu *dek̑-u̯ós- > *dać-u̯ās-, dann umgeformt nach Präs. *dāć- > ved. dāś- zu ved. dāś-vā́ṃs-/-uṣ-.” Again, the need to accept renewed derivation of dāśvā́ṃs- from the basic root is simply incompatible with the broader linguistic facts of Vedic mustered above.12 Kümmel 2000: 243–244, like the LIV2, posits a dissimilation of */d/ with compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel as responsible for dā́śvā́ṃs-, and situates the development in Proto-Indo-Iranian. Among earlier treatments of dāśvā́ṃs- in the literature, Kümmel’s is the most compatible with the linguistic facts of Vedic, but suffers from two arguable drawbacks: 1) the assumed consonant dissimilation is essentially ad hoc, and not grounded in more general facts about PIE or PIIr. phonology; 2) if the argument advanced in Sandell 2014 is correct—namely, that compensatory lengthening applied to PIIr. short */ă/ in PIIr. or later results in Vedic e—, then dissimilation and compensatory lengthening applied to a *[dadu̯ā́s-] should have resulted in Vedic Xdeśvā́ṃs-.

The Avestan past participle spara-dāšta- ‘served’ (Yašt 13, Karde 8.1c, Yašt 19, Karde 7.10b) suggests that a root */dāć-/ had largely displaced an Indo-European lexeme */dek̑-/ (> PIIr. */dać-/) with short vowel.13 Any newly derived perfect participle to */dāć-/ ought then to have clearly shown reduplication, thus PIIr. *[dadāću̯ā́s-] > Vedic Xdadāśvā́ṃs-.14 Such a reduplicated perfect participle stem synchronically exists in Vedic, but is functionally completely distinct from our dāśvā́ṃs-. Since there is no linguistic basis to set up the derivation of a non-reduplicated stem with the suffix */-u̯ā́s-/ in PIIr., just as such a derivation cannot be justified within the synchrony of Vedic, we fall back to the originally reduplicated perfect participles set up by Jasanoff, LIV2, and Kümmel 2000; the presumed *[dedk̑u̯ós-], however, obviously cannot phonologically result in dāśvámṣ- without the assumption of unjustifiable morphological changes or ad hoc phonological developments.15 What is to be done?

The possible PIE surface forms from which dāśvā́ṃs- could be unproblematically derived are as follows: *[dēk̑u̯ós-], *[dōk̑u̯ós-], and *[de/oHk̑u̯ós-]. Under the assumption, by all lights correct, that a perfect participle is at hand, *[dōk̑u̯ós-] or *[doHk̑u̯ós-] can probably be safely excluded on morphological grounds. The best remaining remaining option, *[dēk̑u̯ós-], and *[deHk̑u̯ós-], might conceivably represent the output of some PIE phonological process applied to an underlying form */de-dk̑-u̯ós-/.16 A virtual *[dēk̑u̯ós-] would reflect a process of consonant deletion and compensatory lengthening; how a *[deHk̑u̯ós-] should relate to */de-dk̑-u̯ós-/ is unclear.17

Indeed, there exists ample evidence across many older Indo-European languages that points towards the possibility of consonant deletion and compensatory lengthening in precisely the context that a virtual */de-dk̑-u̯ós-/ would deliver. Zukoff (2017a) has systematically demonstrated that the phonologically diverse patterns of reduplication attested across Sanskrit, Greek, Anatolian, and Germanic, especially when built to roots containing initial [s] + stop or laryngeal + stop cluster, or roots lacking any sonorants (especially */TeT-/; cf. a similar proposal in Schumacher 2005) can be attributed to the effects of a phonetically grounded phonological constraint No Poorly-Cued Repetition (*PCR), as defined in 2.

(2) The No Poorly-Cued Repetitions Constraint *(PCR) (cf. Zukoff 2017a: 220):

Languages may set stricter conditions (in terms of acoustic/auditory cues) for the licensing of C~Ø contrasts (i.e. the presence of C) when that C would be the second member of a transvocalic consonant repetition (i.e. in a sequence) than in other contexts. Assign a violation mark * for each (i.e. each C~Ø contrast where C is a ) which is not cued to the level required by the language-specific repetition licensing conditions.

Zukoff’s *PCR thus serves to penalize transvocalic consonant repetitions (CαVCα sequences) in particular contexts. The *PCR constraint circumscribes the context(s) of repetition avoidance in phonetic terms: namely, repeated consonants are especially avoided when they lack robust acoustic/auditory cues to their presence (i.e., the contrast between that consonant and Ø), where the most important cue is a rising intensity contour (cf. Parker 2002, 2008, Yun 2016) between the consonant and the following segment; other relevant cues may be a [–sonorant] to [+sonorant] transition or stop-release burst.

As an example, consider the behavior in reduplication of roots in Sanskrit beginning with an [s] + stop sequence versus stop + sonorant. A root such as √druh ‘be hostile’ exhibits C1-copy in reduplication: the /d/ at the left edge of the root appears in the reduplicant, and thus the perfect and desiderative built to this root have a reduplicant of the form du-. The perfect strong stem dudroh- contains a sequence dud- here, in which the d following u is permitted to surface because the phonetic cues to the presence of the stop preceding the sonorant /r/ are considered adequate in the phonological grammar of Sanskrit; the sequence [dr] shows an intensity rise, sonorant transition, and stop-release burst, and thus in absolute terms is acoustically well-cued. On the other hand, a root such as √sthā ‘stand’ exhibits C2-copy, thus building a perfect stem tasthā-, precisely because the alternative with C1-copy, Xsasthā-, would have contained a sas in which the C2 s preceding the stop th would be considered inadequately cued. As a repair, the second consonant from the left edge of the root is pressed into service in the reduplicant. See Zukoff 2017a: passim for detailed formalization and application.

Particularly relevant to the problem at hand is that Zukoff takes effects of *PCR to be responsible for the emergence of perfect weak stems of the form C1ēC2- in Sanskrit (cf. also Sandell 2015b: Ch. 8, Sandell 2017) and for the preterite plural/subjunctive stem in Class IV and Class V Strong Verbs in Germanic (e.g., Goth. 3.pl nēm-un ‘took’ and gēb-un ‘gave’). The common factor in both the Class IVV strong verbs and the Sanskrit perfect weak stems is that they involve roots of the form /C1eC2-/ (especially where C1 = stop), reduplication with *e grade (~ PIIr. *a grade) in the reduplicant, and zero grade of the root, thus /C1e-C1C2-/. Depending upon the precise sequence of consonants /-C1C2-/ and the language-specific phonetic cues required for the licensing of of C~Ø contrast, a *PCR violation may be incurred, and some phonological repair required. Such a repair could conceivably be the deletion, with concomitant compensatory lengthening, of a /C1/ in an unacceptable /C1C2/ cluster.18 See Zukoff 2017a: 199–205 for a more precise formal representation of such a process.

In general, the role of PCR in shaping reduplicants in Indo-Iranian is clear: besides driving reduplication with a stop in roots with [s] + stop clusters synchronically in Sanskrit, and playing a role in the creation and synchronic productivity of the C1ēC2-pattern in Sanskrit perfects, a handful of other isolated matches between Vedic and Avestan support the Indo-Iranian antiquity of C1-deletion and compensatory lengthening at the Proto-Indo-Iranian level. Most compelling here is the reflex of the thematic reduplicated present /si-sd-e/o-/ ‘sit’. The perhaps “expected” PIIr. form would be a *[sízdá-] > [sížda-] (by RUKI), which would be expected to yield Vedic Xsī́ḍati (with retroflex ) and Avestan Xhiždaiti. The actual forms, Vedic sī́dati and Avestan hiδαiti belie a reconstruction with ž—the segment ought to have been maintained in Avestan, and ought to have yielded a retroflex in Vedic. Faced with this problem, already Klingenschmitt (1982: 129) (followed by LIV2:513–514) assumes a sporadic dissimilation of [s … z] prior to the emergence of RUKI as a phonological process in Proto-Indo-Iranian. Such a sporadic dissimilation can capture the same facts in the languages, but is obviously ad hoc, for which reason connection to more general phonological phenomena of the languages ought to be preferred.19 Besides a PIIr. *[sī́da-] ‘sit’, Vedic and Avestan attest a handful of matching desiderative stems with apparently “missing” reduplication and (sometimes) a transmitted long ī: to */dhabh-/, Ved. dī̆ps- and Av. diβža-; to */ćak-/, Ved. sī̆kṣ- and Av. sixša- (cf. Heenen 2006: 27–28 and Insler 1968).

At the same time, the status of the PCR already in Proto-Indo-European is much less certain. While PCR effects in reduplication, especially to roots with [s] + stop clusters, are attested in nearly every daughter branch, the equation of non-productive thematic reduplicated presents Lat. sistō, and Gk. ἵστημι, (as well as possibly Av. hištaiti) adduced by Byrd (2015: 120) (cf. also Zukoff 2017a: 308–310) securely permits the reconstruction of *[sisth2e/o-] for PIE—not X*[tisth2e/o-], X*[sīth2e/o-], X*[stisth2e/o-], or any other *PCR-driven alternative to C1-copy. Here one may note a difference in Indo-Iranian between the behavior of */si-sd-a-/ and */si-stH-a-/: the former evidently became frozen as *[sī́da-], while the latter must have still been productively generable in Indic, given Ved. tíṣṭhati. That Vedic tíṣṭhati attests to the productive application of reduplication and the relevant phonology in Indic suggests that the same productive generation may have been possible in Iranian, whence hištaiti. Exactly what the Proto-Indo-Iranian surface realization of */si-stH-a-/ then was, is uncertain—either a *[sístHa-] (*[sištHa-] with RUKI) or a *[sī́ta-] (PCR) is possible, provided that the underlying form */si-stH-a-/ remained recoverable.20 Regardless of the exact situation in Indo-Iranian, the equation of Lat. sistō, and Gk. ἵστημι strongly suggests that [s] + stop clusters under conditions of reduplication were not subject to repair in PIE.

Although the precise history and development of PCR-effects in reduplication between PIE and its daughters is not yet wholly clear, the foregoing discussion opens the possibility that dāśvā́ṃs- directly continues a PIE or early PIIr. (i.e., prior to the merger of PIE */e/ and */o/) perfect participle*[dēk̑u̯ós-], resulting from the application of PCR-driven deletion and compensatory lengthening from virtual underlying sequence /de-dk̑-u̯ós-/. As Cowgill (1957) and Schumacher (2005: 600) have previously observed, the perfect active participle sāhvā́ṃs- to √sah ‘conquer’ (< */seg̑h-/) looks like an attractive parallel formation, continuing a virtual *[sēg̑hu̯ós-]. Not previously observed, however, is the fact that the stem sāh- occurs only in the perfect active participle, while the alternative productive C1ēC2-type perfect stem seh- occurs in the middle participle, thus sehāná—there is a complementary distribution in the RV.21 seh- might well reflect the productive generation of C1ēC2- perfect weak stems, though Sandell (2015b: Ch. 8) argues that the analogical extension of the class in Vedic is more easily motivated if it possessed more members that developed phonologically. Since the stem sehāná- can phonologically continue PIIr. *[sazj́haHná-] (< PIE *[sezg̑hm̥h1nó-]), and a broader basis of types for the analogical extension of C1ēC2- forms in Indic is desirable, then it is helpful to accept that sehāná- directly continues a PIE form.

The complementary distribution of active participle sāhvā́ṃs- versus middle participle sehāná- could then reflect inherited allomorphy: virtual PIE *[sēg̑hu̯ós-] versus *[sezg̑hm̥h1nó-].22 If this allomorphy is correctly reconstructed, the application of consonant deletion and compensatory lengthening in the active participle can be taken as the application of a PCR-effect in what would otherwise surface as a triconsonantal cluster in a virtual *[sezg̑hu̯ós-]. Another possibility, helpfully pointed out by a reviewer, is that the difference between sāhvā́ṃs- and sehāná- could be purely chronological: the active participle is an older formation and reflects the application of PCR-driven deletion in PIE or early PIIr., while the middle participle is a more recent formation in later PIIr. or Indic; the phonological constraints driving deletion in both cases would be similar, but the outcome of a compensatorily lengthened vowel (*/e/ in PIE, */a/ in PIIr.) yields different results. In either case, the similar outcome of *[dēk̑u̯ós-] makes for an attractive parallel to *[sēg̑hu̯ós-].

The evidence for a stem *[sisth2e/o-] then appears problematic—if triconsonantal sequences trigger PCR violations, why is X*[sīth2e/o-] not found instead? Given that the sequence *[th2] is not directly reflected in Greek and Latin, one might posit deletion of */h2/ rather than of */s/ to escape a fatal PCR violation. Byrd (2015) has consistently shown that deletion of laryngeal segments is often a “low-cost” phonological repair in PIE (i.e., Max-H [“don’t delete underlying laryngeal consonants”] is relatively low-ranked in the phonological grammar of PIE), on which basis the reconstruction of *[siste/o-] ← /si-sth2-e/o-/ could be supported. A direct parallel is to be found in the laryngeal deletion attested in the reduplicated thematic present *[g̑íg̑ne/o-] ‘generate’ (> Lat. gignō, Gk. γίγνομαι); on the so-called “νεογνός-Rule”, to which laryngeal deletion in such forms is often attributed, see Balles 2012. The stems *[síste/o-] and *[g̑íg̑ne/o-] in contrast to the perfect participles *[dēk̑u̯ós-] and [sēg̑hu̯ós-] point to two slightly different repairs (laryngeal deletion versus root C1-deletion) to the same problem: PCR violations in triconsonantal sequences.

While the full phonological grammar surrounding the PCR-driven consonant deletions proposed for PIE here remains to be worked out, at this juncture the reconstruction of *[dēk̑u̯ós-] itself may be bolstered through the discovery of a cognate form. In the following section, I will argue that the Homeric adjectival stem ἀδηκότ- is best interpreted as meaning ‘oblivious, inattentive, heedless’, and likewise reflects the perfect participle *[dēk̑u̯ós-].

2 Homeric ἀδηκότ- = Vedic dāśvā́ṃs-?

2.1 Homeric ἀδηκότ-: formal connection and basic claim

The Indo-European root */dek̑-/ ‘take in, perceive’ that uncontroversially underlies dāśvā́ṃs- is well-represented by numerous verbal formations across the daughter languages, and attests a noteworthy diversity of formations in Greek especially (cf. LIV2:109–112). The basic meaning of the root is fundamentally concerned with mental perception (keeping watch, awaiting, mentally registering information): formations running from a root aorist (Arm. etes ‘saw’), to middle participle of a root present (Gk. δέγμενος ‘keeping watch’), to a causative (Gk. δοκεῖ ‘seem’, Lat. docēre ‘teach’) establish such a semantics (cf. Tichy 1976). In Greek in particular, a robust derivational paradigm to the lemma δέχομαι ‘receive, take (mentally or physically, of an object)’ is well established in Homer, where a few otherwise-unattested relic formations are found (e.g., the root aorist (ἐ)δέκτο ‘received’).23

The adjectival stem ἀδηκότ-, of uncertain meaning, limited in Greek to the language of Epic, and without plausible etymology in the literature (see discussion in 2.2 below), bears a passing formal resemblance to */dek̑-/. The form resembles nothing so much as a perfect participle, formed in Greek with the suffix /-ót-/, built to a root of the shape ἀδη(κ)- or δη(κ)- with a prefix ἀ-; the -κ- could belong either to the root or be part of the perfect stem formation. From a purely formal point of view, the following transponat reconstructions (modulo reformation of the derivational suffix) might be possible (with either *[k̑] or *[k] throughout):24

  • *[n̥dēk̑(u̯)ós-]25
  • *[h2dēk̑(u̯)ós-]
  • Or either [a.] or [b.], substituting *[ē] with the sequence *[eh1] or *[ah2].

Options b. and c. leave one without a simple Indo-European root etymology: LIV2 records no root of the form */(h2)deh1/2k̑/k-/. The entire form then presents one of three choices: no Indo-European etymology, a morphologically more complex Indo-European etymology, or a formal connection with */dek̑-/. Taken on its own, an Indo-European perfect participle built to */dek̑-/ with the negative prefix */n-/ could be expected to yield a meaning approximately ‘not perceiving, unaware’ (‘not having mentally taken in one’s immediate external circumstances’). The ultimate conclusion would be that an Indo-European *[n̥dēk̑u̯ós-] is a negated perfect participle built to */dek̑-/, with “missing” reduplication and a long vowel due to the same phonological effects discussed under 1.2 above. This hypothesis will be further developed and evaluated in the three subsequent sections. The principle questions are: how does such a hypothesis fare against existing etymological proposals, and does such an interpretation fit passingly with the contextual use of ἀδηκότ- in the Epic corpus?

2.2 Homeric ἀδηκότ-: attestation, philological remarks, and existing etymologies

The stem ἀδηκότ- is attested a total of six times in Greek: it occurs four times as the nom.pl ἀδηκότες in Book 10 of the Iliad (10.98, 312, 399, 471), once in the Odyssey (12.281) as an acc.pl ἀδηκότας, and once in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo (460), again as the nom.pl ἀδηκότες. In these six attestations, the stem is, moreover, always immediately preceded by the dative καμάτῳ ‘with toil/weariness’. An established fixed syntagm (or “formula”) καμάτῳ ἀδηκότ- appears to be at hand, and the high degree of collostructional dependency (cf. 1.1 above) between καμάτῳ and ἀδηκότ- suggests a plausible site for the maintenance of a lexical archaism.26 This syntagm is furthermore metrically localized: except at Il. 10.312 (and the exact repetition of four lines at Il. 10.396–399 = 10.309–312), καμάτῳ ἀδηκότ- consistently begins with the second half of the second foot. In all occurrences, the -ῳ of καμάτῳ always scans long (no epic correption, which would result in a tribrach), as does the ἀ- of ἀδηκότ- (short ᾰ would produce a cretic). Although this syntagm still exhibits some flexibility—ἀδηκότ- itself may take different case forms (at least the nom.pl. and acc.pl.), while καμάτῳ may be conjoined with another dative (ὕπνῳ ‘with sleep’; Il. 10.98, Od. 281) or modified by an adjective (αἰνῷ ‘terrible, very bad’; Il. 10.312, 399)—the absence of the stem ἀδηκότ- outside of the language of Epic supports the notion that a lexical archaism preserved in a fixed expression is at hand. ἀδηκότ- is therefore unlikely to be a derivative productively generated from some base within the synchronic young Epic diction, which agrees with Danek’s (1988: 85) detailed analysis of the formula (“es ist absolut unwahrscheinlich, daß der Odysseedichter die Formel für den Zusammenhang von μ 281 original geprägt hat”).

The manuscript tradition of Homer presents some further philological uncertainties concerning the transmission of the form, namely, whether the α- bears a rough or smooth breathing. If this rough breathing is reliable, a reconstruction with simple *[n̥-] would, in principle, be excluded. In particular, in the the Venetus A manuscript, two of the four occurrences in the Iliad (10.98, and 10.399) read δηκότες, with rough breathing. At 10.312, 10.471 and Od. 12.281, all manuscripts read ἀδηκότ-; with respect to the occurrence in the Odyssey, van der Valk (1949) and Tachinoslis (1984) do not even discuss the line in question or index ἀδηκότας, indicating that the line contains no textual problem. Some other manuscripts of the Iliad (B, and E; see West 1998: XI, LIX) of the family closely related to the Venetus A also contain ἁδηκότες at 10.98, 10.312, and 10.399. Despite this variation in the presence versus of absence of rough breathing, all modern editors of Homer (West [Iliad and the Hymn to Apollo], Allen, van Thiel, von der Mühll) print ἀδηκότες and ἀδηκότας, following the majority of the manuscripts from different lines of descent. The philological consensus is thus that δηκότες in the text of the Iliad is erroneous.27 Arguably, the rough breathing on this form is an error belonging to the family of manuscripts from which the Venetus A descends, introduced on account of a supposed etymological connection with ἅδην ‘to satiety’, which goes back to late antiquity (Apollonius the Sophist (1–2 CE), Lexicon Homericum:9, 9–10; see further below).28 In short, ἀδηκότ-, with smooth breathing, may be safely assumed.

Before examining the usage of ἀδηκότ- in context, I will review the renderings of the form offered in modern lexica and translations, as well as the existing etymological proposals. By and large, the lexica and translations offer glosses that, when based on context alone, are approximate but reasonable, but when based principally on etymological considerations, are senseless in context.29 Approximative renderings appear in the translations of Murray 1924 (‘worn out’) and Cerri 1996 (‘stremato’ = ‘exhausted’), while the lexica base their glosses on etymologies and thus offer the senseless ‘sated’ (per Liddell et al. 1925–1940), the peculiar ‘weighed down’ (Montanari et al. 2015), or strained ‘voll Unlust’ (Snell 1979).30 The most detailed consideration of the contextual semantics of ἄδηκότ- is given by Danek (1988: 84–86), who does not commit to a precise gloss, but remarks that “vom Zusammenhang her ist also kein Unterschied zwischen καμάτῳ αδηκότες und καμάτῳ δεδμημένον bemerkbar;” on this basis a gloss ‘subdued’ (= δεδμημένον) could be imputed to ἀδηκότ-. Murray, Cerri, and Danek are close to the mark, though a more precise reading may be possible.

For the etymology, Chantraine 1968–1980 [2009]: s.v. ἀδηκότες discusses two basic possibilities, both of which are already present in Apollonius the Sophist (Lexicon Homericum).31 On the one hand, ἀδηκότ- could be regarded as a kappatic perfect participle, thus making the form relatively young, built to an otherwise unattested verb *ἀδέω ‘to satiate, to fill up’, which would supposedly underlie the adverb ἅδην ‘to satiety’ (Epic ἄδην through psilotic East Ionic) and noun ἅδος ‘satiety’.32 The form is either strangely lacking in reduplication (/e-adɛː-/ ought to have given [ɛːdɛː-] by contraction in Ionic, if it were contracted at all), or could be regarded as a form from an Aeolic dialect, in which /e-adɛː-/ would yield [aːdɛː-]. Treating ἀδηκότ- as an Aeolic form has been argued for most systematically by Peters (1988: 237–238), but there is, however, no independent reason beyond the outcome of vowel contraction to view the form as Aeolic, and as shown below, the long ᾱ- need not be etymological. The presumed development from an original meaning ‘sated’ to the sensible reading ‘exhausted, overcome, worn out’ has struck some commentators as prohibitively strained (so Leaf 1900). That ἀδηκότ- is construed with a dative καμάτῳ rather than a genitive (from which the reading ‘sated with tiredness’ could be extracted) is also peculiar, given that ἄω ‘sate’ and the adverb ἄδην in Epic are regularly construed with genitives (e.g., Il. 19.402 ἕωμεν πολέμοιο ‘(when) we have had our fill of war’). While the base ἅδη- is formally acceptable for etymologizing ἀδηκότ-, the semantics are dubious, and the necessarily young date of the formation for which a kappatic perfect would speak is out of sync with fact that the form is known exclusively in a seemingly established syntagm.

The second option presented by Chantraine is a connection to a form ἀαδεῖν (Hsch. α 10 Latte), glossed by ὀχλεῖν ‘disturb, importune’, and possibly related to ἀηδής ‘distasteful, unpleasant’. The uncontracted sequence αα- in ἀαδεῖν would point to an original *αϝαδε-, in which case Chantraine finds the contraction to ᾱ- in Homer surprising.33 Yet as Chantraine (s.v. ἀαδα) notes, ἀαδεῖν may have been invented outright to provide an explanation for ἀδηκότες. Both etymological proposals found in Chantraine thus present considerable problems, and so room for alternative proposals is open.

Under the view that ἀδηκότες contains the negative prefix *[n̥-], two considerations are important: 1) word-formation concerning *[n̥-] and participles; 2) the consistent scansion of the first syllable as long. On the one hand, the occurrence of privative ἀ- on forms belonging to the verbal system in Ancient Greek is unusual. On the other hand, credible examples are not unknown, e.g., ἀπειθέω ‘disobey’ (largely attested as the sigmatic aorist ἀπίθησε in Epic; but see Peters 2007 for a different analysis), ἀτίει ‘dishonor’, ἀέκοντες ‘unwilling’. The view of Wackernagel (2009: 759 = 1928: 287) was that the negation of participles with ἀ- rather than οὐκ was an archaism: “the old practice of negating the true participle with the privative prefix gradually declined, at the earliest date in Greek.” While no other perfect participles containing privative ἀ- are known in Homer (cf. Risch 1974: 341–348), at least two R̥gvedic perfect participles with privative a- are attested: ájaghnuṣī- ‘not striking’ (8.67.15c) and ásaścuṣī- ‘not drying up’ (9.86.18c).34 The combination of Wackernagel’s discussion and the Vedic examples suggests that the perfect participle with privative suffix *[n̥-] might have been possible in PIE, and thus that the presence of negative ἀ- is compatible with the interpretation of ἀδηκότες as an archaism (see further 2.4 below). ἀέκοντες ‘unwilling’, as the negated form of an old participle ἕκων ‘willing’ that synchronically lacks a base of derivation, suggests a further possibility for explaining the negation of ἀδηκότ-: an unattested *δηκότ- ‘aware, perceptive’ was divorced from the paradigm of δέχομαι (to which only a perfect middle participle exists in 1st Millennium Greek), and thus regarded as a simple adjective; in this case, negation with ἀ- would be a trivial further formation. Regardless, the question of negation strategies for participles in older Indo-European languages remains a topic that requires closer investigation on a broader basis of evidence.

The fact that the ἀ- of ἀδηκότ- is always treated as long metrically poses as relatively minor issue. Of course, the phrase καμάτῳ ἀδηκότες, if scanned as ⏑ ⏑ — — ⏑ ⏑, would not fit the hexameter, having one short syllable trapped between two longs (a cretic sequence). Thus, the ἀ- must be treated as long, giving a scansion ⏑ ⏑ — — — ⏑ ⏑.35 Taken on its own, the form ἀδηκότες or ἀδηκότας, having the shape ⏑ — ⏑ ⏑ can be fit into a hexameter unproblematically after a sequence — ⏑. It is, however, well-known that especially an underlying short /ă/, especially in the first syllable of a word, may be subject to metrical lengthening, whether to repair a tribrach sequence (e.g., in ἀθάνατοι ‘immortals’ or ἀκάματος ‘tireless’) or a short that would be trapped between two longs when the preceding word ends in a long or two shorts (Ἀπολλωνι, forms of ἀείδω ‘sing’); cf. Chantraine 1958: 97–98. Clear instances of the latter, directly or roughly comparable to καμάτῳ ἀδηκότες, in which a word-initial /ă-/ scans long, are can be illustrated with the following lines:

  • Μουσά͜ων θ’ αἳ ἄειδον ἀμειβόμεναι ὀπὶ καλῇ (Il. 1.604).
  • δοιαὶ μὲν Μενελά͜ῳ ἀρηγόνες εἰσὶ θεάων (Il. 4.7; compare especially Il. 10.98 reproduced at 2.3.1 below).
  • εὔχετο δ’ Ἀπόλλωνι Λυκηγενέϊ κλυτοτόξῳ (Il. 4.119).
  • ὄφρα Διὶ Κρονίδῃ ἀρησόμεθ’, αἴ κ’ ἐλεήσῃ (Il. 9.172).
  • καρδίῃ ἄληκτον πολεμίζειν ἠδὲ μάχεσθαι (Il. 11.12 = 14.152).

Examples of this sort can easily be multiplied. Note in particular that the form ἄληκτον ‘unceasing’ exhibits lengthening of an etymological privative prefix, just as would be supposed for ἀδηκότες. In sum, the lengthening of /ă/ within Epic diction to avoid the trapping of a short between two longs is philologically well-established.

Two other relevant observations may be made in connection with the metrics of καμάτῳ ἀδηκότες. One is that καμάτῳ in Homer is robustly localized in the second half of the second foot (10/14 instances, including 4/5 instances of καμάτῳ ἀδηκότες). Besides ἀδηκότες, the other attested options for filling the third and fourth foot following καμάτῳ are δὲ καὶ ἱδρῷ (Il. 17.385), τε καὶ ἱδρῷ (Il. 17.745), τε καὶ ἄλγεσι (Od. 9.75, 10.143), ἀρημένος (Od. 6.2), δεδμημένον (Od. 14.318), and θῡμαλγέϊ (Od. 20.118). This leads to the second observation, namely, that the two perfect (middle) participles ἀρημένος ‘distressed, βεβλαμμένος’ δεδμημένον ‘subdued’ attested after καμάτῳ are of the metrical shape — — ⏑ ⏑. Taken together, καμάτῳ ἀδηκότες, καμάτῳ ἀρημένος, and καμάτῳ δεδμημένον may point to a general formulaic template (or Construction in the sense of Bozzone 2014) καμάτῳ [ — — ⏑ ⏑]Perf.Part. in the Epic language; the lengthening of /ă/ in ἀδηκότες would be necessary to satisfy this template.

In short, there is no strong reason to prefer an etymology of ἀδηκότ- in which the long [ā-] is original. The combined features of Epic diction treated here show that the assumption of metrical lengthening is relatively unburdensome. I would contend that a metrical lengthening is small price to pay for a plausible morphological and etymological understanding of ἀδηκότες.

2.3 Homeric ἀδηκότ-: contextual interpretation

In this section, I will examine five of the six occurrences of the stem ἀδηκότ- in context (the passage at Il. 10.396–399 exactly repeats Il. 10.309–312 and therefore will not be examined separately). In each case, I believe that the context virtually speaks for itself: a rendering of ἀδηκότ- as ‘inattentive, unaware, heedless’ (⇐ ‘not having mentally taken in one’s external circumstances’) fits each passage not just unproblematically, but indeed well. Consistently translating ἀδηκότ- in this way also makes much better sense of the formulaic expression καμάτῳ ἀδηκότ-, where many freer translations (e.g., Lattimore 1951 of the Iliad and McCrorie 2004 of the Odyssey) essentially only pick up on the meaning of the known element, κάματος ‘weary’, or produce a more or less redundant expression (like the “stremato dalla stanchezza” = “exhausted by tiredness” of Cerri (1996)). Under the reading ‘having become inattentive/heedless due to weariness’, the form ἀδηκότ- makes a genuine, non-trivial semantic contribution to the passages in which it appears.

In the subsequent sections, each passage is given with English translation; translations from Il. 10 are based on Murray 1924; Od. 12.279–285 is based on Murray 1919; verses 456–461 of the Hymn to Apollo are adapted from Càssola 1975 [1994] and West 2003. The particular translation given to the phrase καμάτῳ ἀδηκότ- is bolded in the English in each case. The Greek text reproduced is that of Allen 1931 (Iliad), von der Mühll 1962 (Odyssey), and Allen et al. 1936 (Hymn to Apollo).36

2.3.1 Il. 10.98

The context: Il. 10.96–99: Agamemnon, taken with insomnia and worry, has just come to find Nestor, to consult with him about sending spies into the Trojan camp.

ἀλλ’ εἴ τι δραίνεις, ἐπεὶ οὐδὲ σέ γ’ ὕπνος ἱκάνει,δεῦρ’ ἐς τοὺς φύλακας καταβήομεν, ὄφρα ἴδωμεν,μὴ τοὶ μὲν καμάτῳ ἀδηκότες ἠδὲ καὶ ὕπνῳκοιμήσωνται, ἀτὰρ φυλακῆς ἐπὶ πάγχυ λάθωνται.

But if you wish to do something, since sleep does not come to you either, let us go down to look on the sentinels, in case, having become inattentive on account of weariness and sleepiness, they have gone to sleep, and entirely forgotten their watch.

Here Agamemnon, before making any decisions, wants to check that the nighttime sentinels (τοὺς φύλακας) of the Achaeans are in condition needed to carry out their principal duty (i.e., watch for intruders or danger). One may infer that ἀδηκότες here would seem to indicate precisely opposite of the mental state that is desirable for a sentinel, that is, sharpness and attentiveness.

2.3.2 Il. 10.305–312

The context: Just after the leaders of the Achaeans have met, and girded Diomedes and Odysseus to go out on a raid in the Trojan camp, the narrative shifts to the Trojans, where Hector, like Agamemnon at 10.98, is awake, and is attempting to rouse a volunteer to spy amongst the Achaeans.

δώσω γὰρ δίφρόν τε δύω τ’ ἐριαύχενας ἵππουςοἵ κεν ἄριστοι ἔωσι θοῇς ἐπὶ νηυσὶν Ἀχαιῶνὅς τίς κε τλαίη, οἷ τ’ αὐτῷ κῦδος ἄροιτο,νηῶν ὠκυπόρων σχεδὸν ἐλθέμεν, ἔκ τε πυθέσθαιἠὲ φυλάσσονται νῆες θοαὶ ὡς τὸ πάρος περ,ἦ ἤδη χείρεσσιν ὑφ’ ἡμετέρῃσι δαμέντεςφύξιν βουλεύουσι μετὰ σφίσιν, οὐδ’ ἐθέλουσινύκτα φυλασσέμεναι, καμάτῳ ἀδηκότες αἰνῷ.

For I will give him a chariot and two horses with high-arched necks, those that are best at the swift ships of the Achaeans, to the man who will dare—and for himself win glory—to go close to the swift-faring ships, and spy out whether the swift ships are guarded as before, or whether now, beaten at our hands, they [the Achaeans] are planning flight among themselves, and are not minded to keep watch through the night, being inattentive on account of terrible weariness.

Just as in 10.96–99, the focus here lies with the watchfulness of the military component. Likewise, just as ‘guards’ and the ‘watch’ made an appearance in the preceding passage, here two forms of φυλάσσω occur: once with respect to the ships, which ought to be subject to an attentive watch, and once with respect to the guard that should be kept through the night. Indeed, the phrase οὐδ’ ἐθέλουσι νύκτα φυλασσέμεναι ‘are not minded/willing to keep watch through the night’ suggests that the act of φυλάσσω ‘keeping watch’ requires some deliberate mental concentration and effort. One may once again infer that it is the state of being ἀδηκότ- that would precisely inhibit one’s capacity to keep watch effectively.

2.3.3 Il. 10.469–473

The context: Diomedes has just slain the unlucky Trojan spy Dolon, who, before his death, revealed to Diomedes and Odysseus where the camp of the Thracians would be found. The two Greeks have taken spoils from Dolon, hidden them, and continue through the Trojan camp, where they come upon the group of sleeping Thracians.

τὼ δὲ βάτην προτέρω διά τ’ ἔντεα καὶ μέλαν αἷμα,αἶψα δ’ ἐπὶ Θρῃκῶν ἀνδρῶν τέλος ἷξον ἰόντες.οἳ δ’ εὗδον καμάτῳ ἀδηκότες, ἔντεα δέ σφινκαλὰ παρ’ αὐτοῖσι χθονὶ κέκλιτο εὖ κατὰ κόσμοντριστοιχί· παρὰ δέ σφιν ἑκάστῳ δίζυγες ἵπποι.

But they went forward through the weapons and the dark blood, and swiftly came in their course to the company of Thracian warriors. They were sleeping, inattentive out of weariness, and their fair battle gear lay by them on the ground, all in good order, in three rows. And by each one was his yoke of horses.

Here the Thracians are simply asleep, obviously unable to take account of immediate dangers in their environment. Such inattentiveness, brought on by weariness and promoting sleep, then precisely allows Diomedes and Odysseus to come among the Thracians without meeting any resistance and slay twelve of the company, and for Odysseus to release their horses, before receiving any response.

2.3.4 Od. 12.279–285

The context: Odysseus recounts that his ship and rowers have just, with great difficulty, come past Charybdis and Scylla. They are now approaching the island containing the flocks of cattle of Helios, which Teiresias and Circe have warned Odysseus away from. Odysseus tells his crew to row away from the island; they respond:

σχέτλιός εἰς, Ὀδυσεῦ, περί τοι μένος, οὐδέ τι γυῖακάμνεις· ἦ ῥά νυ σοί γε σιδήρεα πάντα τέτυκται,ὅς ῥ’ ἑτάρους καμάτῳ ἀδηκότας ἠδὲ καὶ ὕπνῳοὐκ ἐάᾳς γαίης ἐπιβήμεναι, ἔνθα κεν αὖτενήσῳ ἐν ἀμφιρύτῃ λαρὸν τετυκοίμεθα δόρπον,ἀλλ’ αὔτως διὰ νύκτα θοὴν ἀλάλησθαι ἄνωγας,νήσου ἀποπλαγχθέντας, ἐν ἠεροειδέϊ πόντῳ.

You are stubborn, Odysseus; neither your mind nor your limbs ever grow weary. Indeed, you are wholly made of iron, as you do not allow your comrades, rendered inattentive with weariness and sleepiness, to go ashore, where on this land surrounded by water we could prepare once again a savory supper; instead you order us to wander on through the swift night, driven away from the island, over the misty sea.

Odysseus’ rowers at this point must be suffering from attentional exhaustion: they are telling Odysseus that, in their present mental condition, and given the night and mist that would make the task of navigation more challenging, they cannot make productive progress, but will merely ‘wander’ (ἀλάλησθαι) if compelled to continue. The state and capacities of the crew are explicitly contrasted with those of Odysseus, whose limbs and mind both are said not to suffer from exhaustion. This contrast implies that ἀδηκότ- involves more than just the physical tiredness implied by κάματος.

2.3.5 Hymn to Apollo 456–461

The context: Phoibos Apollo addresses men on a ship arriving to Crisa, which he has diverted there from its original destination, Pylos, so that the men will be compelled to serve as his priests. This long and stressful journey is recounted in verses 413–439.

τίφθ’ οὕτως ἧσθον τετιηότες, οὐδ’ ἐπὶ γαῖανἔκβητ’, οὐδὲ καθ’ ὅπλα μελαίνης νηὸς ἔθεσθε;αὕτη μέν γε δίκη πέλει ἀνδρῶν ἀλφηστάωνὁππόταν ἐκ πόντοιο ποτὶ χθονὶ νηῒ μελαίνῃἔλθωσιν καμάτῳ ἀδηκότες, αὐτίκα δέ σφεαςσίτοιο γλυκεροῖο περὶ φρένας ἵμερος αἱρεῖ.

Why do you sit so afflicted with sadness, without going out onto the land, or putting away the ship’s equipment? That is the custom of civilized men, when they reach land in their dark ship, rendered heedless by weariness, and their hearts are at once seized with appetite for sweet food.

The point of interest here is that ἀδηκότ- characterizes the state of sailors following a long (unwanted) sea journey; the usage here is precisely parallel to the preceding passage at Od. 12.279–285. In this particular case, the description ‘rendered heedless by weariness’ may resonate well with the condition of the specific sailors, who were compelled to endure a more difficult journey than anticipated, without, moreover, knowing the goal.

2.4 ἀδηκότ- as archaism

The passages from the Epic Greek corpus give relatively clear indications that ἀδηκότ- describes a state of mind precisely opposite to the state of mind that would be desirable for activities where alertness and careful attention is warranted (e.g., keeping watch, steering a ship). The instances from Iliad 10 and Odyssey 12 support the reading of ἀδηκότ- as ‘inattentive, heedless, unaware’ nicely, while the instance in the Hymn to Apollo is entirely compatible with this interpretation, even if such a sense appears somewhat bleached in context.

Overall, this connection with attention and mental focus is entirely apposite to a derivation from the root */dek̑-/; ἀδηκότ- then may be seen as the negated form *[n̥dēk̑u̯ós-] ‘inattentive’ of the perfect participle *[dēk̑u̯ós-] ‘attentive’ built to */dek̑-/. In 1st Millennium Greek, the likely paradigmatic isolation of ἀδηκότ- (in antiquity, any presumed relationship to the verb δέχομαι had evidently been lost, given that the earliest etymologies conceived [cf. under 2.1 above] fail to draw such a connection) and relative fixity in the formula καμάτῳ ἀδηκότ- point unambiguously to an archaism, just as the characteristics of dāśvā́ṃs- in Vedic discussed above were likewise argued to be suggestive of an archaism.

The very fact that, morphophonologically speaking, ἀδηκότ- cannot be derived in from /dek-/ in 1st Millennium Greek also speaks in favor of an archaism. The systematic investigation into Greek reduplication in Zukoff 2017b shows that the generally preferred repairs to potential PCR problems (which virtual candidate *[dedk̑u̯ós-] would have encountered) in reduplicated forms in Greek were either “Attic” reduplication (in the case of roots with an initial */HC-/ sequence) or omission of the consonant of the reduplicant (assuming that zero-grade ablaut would still have applied). A productively rebuilt perfect active participle with zero grade of the root in Greek might have resulted in a Xἐκτότ-, with “non-copying” reduplication (cf. perfects ἔκτονα [κτείνω ‘kill’], ἔσταλκα [στέλλω ‘prepare’]) and thorn-cluster treatment of *[dk̑]; with full grade of the root, simply Xδεδεκότ- (cf. the Homeric middle participle δεδεγμένος). Since δέχομαι/δέκομαι is synchronically a medium tantum in 1st Millennium Greek, any other perfect active participle is unattested. This fact, too, would likewise mean that ἀδηκότ-, if connected to IE */dek̑-/, is likely a relative archaism.

Nevertheless, ἀδηκότ-, unlike Vedic dāśvā́ṃs-, cannot simply be a direct inheritance of a form built in PIE, simply run through the expected sound changes. Namely, the fact that the perfect participle suffix has been reformed or replaced in the history of Greek, and that the sequence *[k̑u̯] would be expected to yield [p] in 1st Millennium Greek (falling together with inherited labiovelars), excludes the scenario of mechanical inheritance. Specifically, had an Indo-European nominative plural form *[n̥dēk̑u̯óses] been directly inherited into 1st Millennium Ionic Greek, a form Xἀδηπόες (or contracted to Xἀδηποῦς) might have been expected.37 Before the situation attested in 1st Millennium Attic–Ionic Greek, in which perfect participles are productively derived with a suffix /-ót-/, the only point of reference later than PIE itself is formed by a handful of neuter plural forms in Mycenaean, a-ra-ru-wo-a [araːrwóha] ‘fitted’ and te-tu-ko-wo-a2 [tetukhwóha] ‘produced, built’ (see the discussion in Szemerényi 1967), which continue the full grade of the Indo-European suffix */-u̯ós-/. Since no forms in 1st Millennium Greek preserve the Indo-European full-grade */-u̯ós-/, that ἀδηκότ-, has, in one way or another, been given the productive suffix /-ót-/ requires no special explanation. Historically, as Szemerényi (1967: 23–24) observed, if the nom.sg. is taken as the base of inflection for the paradigm of the participle (here understanding “base” in the sense of Albright 2002), the high type frequency of the alternation nom.sg. [-Vːs] : elsewhere [-Vt-V] could lead to the systematic introduction of [t] into the inflectional paradigm. This development implies the existence of an participial suffix */-wót-/ at some point between Mycenaean and Homer, even though there is no direct evidence in the 1st Millennium for a [w] in the suffix, nor any secure indirect evidence.38 The assumption of a perfect participle suffix */-wót-/ in the latter part of the 2nd Millennium and early 1st Millennium, although entirely credible, is without certain proof; IE */-u̯ós-/ might have been directly replaced by the historically attested suffix /-ót-/. Other credible scenarios by which ἀδηκότ- rather than Xἀδηπότ- might have survived are also available, while still assuming a suffix */-wót-/. Perhaps early lenition of *[w] > Ø intervocalically created the sufix /-ót-/ < */-wót-/ on vowel-final stems, and then systematically ousted */-wót-/ prior to change of *[kw] > [p]. In the event that a stem *[adɛːpót-] did arise among masculine and neuter forms, the expected feminine *[adɛːkuîa] (< *[n̥dēk̑ui̯əh2) would have preserved the dorsal, which could have been imported into the masculine and neuter forms by paradigmatic leveling. Many branching paths could lead from PIE *[n̥dēk̑u̯ós-] to the attested ἀδηκότ-.

Finally, there is also a possible textual objection against viewing ἀδηκότ- as a relative archaism in Greek, namely, the fact that the collocation within which it exclusively occurs appears principally in the tenth book of the Iliad, which has long been regarded as a later interpolation into the text of the Iliad (see generally Danek 1988, Danek 2012). This type of objection, however, rests on the problematic assumption that archaisms should necessarily be first attested in older textual layers (see especially Hackstein 2002: 80–87 on this point with special reference to Homer). Without a complete accounting of a language at a particular point in time, that some relatively older forms might escape attestation until later is inevitable. In considering the case of the R̥gveda, casual use of the LIV2 turns up many archaisms that are first attested in Books I and X, but not in the Family Books—not all forms that are first attested later are themselves perforce younger. Although some scholars (of the Odyssey in particular) have asserted that καμάτῳ ἀδηκότες in Iliad X is dependent upon the occurrence in Book 12 of the Odyssey (so Laser 1958: 393–394, Heubeck and Hoekstra 1989: 134), this view is not universally shared: contrast Danek 1988: 85 (quoted under 2.2 above) and Hainsworth 1993: 166 (re 10.98: “The similarity of the verse to Od. 12.281 has been used as a leading argument for the dependence of this Book on the Odyssey … but could equally be attributed to the random effects of formular composition”). Iliad 10 in particular also contains mention of one of the most striking material archaisms in the Iliad: the description of a boar-tusk helm (Il. 10.260–265), a type of object known in the Mycenaean culture of the 2nd Millennium BCE, but absent in 1st Millennium Greece (cf. Andersen and Haug 2012: 9)—the helm’s appearance in a later book does not speak against its antiquity. That the expression καμάτῳ ἀδηκότες does not occur elsewhere in the Iliad might be yet another stylistic peculiarity of the poet of the Doloneia as against the larger Iliad. From the point of view of oral tradition of Greek Epic, it is licit to assume that καμάτῳ ἀδηκότες belonged to the traditional oral-formulaic repertory, and the capacity of the poet of the Doloneia to modify the formula (cf. 2.1 above) is more coherent with the assumption that he knew and understood this phrase independent of its occurrence in the Odyssey. One might suppose that the formula’s use was dispreferred in the style adopted in much of the Iliad; its relatively high frequency in Book 10 may precisely be another instance, if one follows the thesis of Danek (2012: 108–116), in which the poet of the Doloneia deliberately constructs verses contrary to the linguistic and stylistic expectations established by the rest of the Iliad. At the same time, it may be the case that καμάτῳ ἀδηκότες is thematically inappropriate to much of the Iliad, since, to judge by its attestations, it belongs to scenes of nighttime rest (in Il. 10) or seafaring (in Od. 12 and the Hymn to Apollo); neither the sea nor the night (excepting Books 2 and 24, for the latter) make many appearances in the plot of the Iliad.

3 Conclusion: ἀδηκότ-, dāśvā́ṃs-, and the PCR

The first and second sections of this article have argued that Vedic Sanskrit and Homeric Greek each respectively preserve two archaisms: dāśvā́ṃs- ‘pious man’ and ἀδηκότ- ‘inattentive, heedless, unaware’. When taken as archaisms, each of these forms is most readily explained as the ultimate continuation of an Indo-European “long-vowel” perfect participle built to the root */dek̑-/, *[dēk̑u̯ós-] ‘attentive, having given attention’. If the novel reading of ἀδηκότ- proposed is indeed correct, then the direct equation of two independent archaisms in Greek and Vedic implies that their last common ancestor possessed the form *[dēk̑u̯ós-]—in short, that at least one such “long-vowel” perfect active participle can be projected back to (Core) Proto-Indo-European with some confidence. Vedic sāhvā́ṃs- ‘conquering, having conquered’ is another credible such example, though a possible cognate form is as yet unknown.

While the reconstruction of “long-vowel” perfect participle forms to account for dāśvā́ṃs- and sāhvā́ṃs- is not new (cf. Schumacher 2005: 640), the further support furnished by Greek ἀδηκότ- makes the rejection of their Indo-European antiquity (as per Jasanoff 2012: 128) harder to accept. Furthermore, given that a well-grounded phonological constraint (the No Poorly-Cued Repetitions Constraint of Zukoff 2017a) can motivate and predict the occurrence of such “long-vowel” perfect stems (see discussion under 1.2 above), I believe that one may justifiably view the occurrence of apparent long-vowel forms under morphological conditions where reduplication would otherwise be expected as a consequence of the phonology of Proto-Indo-European. Further details on the precise domain of application for a PCR constraint in PIE remain to be systematically investigated, but at least for now, the comparison of dāśvā́ṃs- and (ἀ)δηκότ- admits of the tentative conclusion that the PCR was active when the second of two identical stops was part of a triconsonantal sequence.

Given then, that the PIE underlying form /RED-dek̑-u̯ós-/ surfaced as *[dēk̑u̯ós-], at least in the last common ancestor of Greek and Indo-Iranian, I propose the following tentative reconstruction of PCR Effects in reduplication along the Indo-Iranian to Indic line of descent:

  • In PIE: PCR drives consonant deletion (and compensatory lengthening) in triconsonantal sequences (*[dēk̑u̯ós-] ← */RED-dek̑-u̯ós-/, *[g̑íg̑ne/o-] ← */RED-genh1-e/o-/), likely in cases where sonorant + stop sequences would arise (*/RED-leg̑-/ → *[lēg̑-] >> Lat. perfect stem lēg- ‘gathered’, but not in [s] + stop sequences (*[siste/o-] ← */RED/-steh2-e/o-/), or, of course in stop + sonorant sequences.
  • In Proto-Indo-Iranian: some PIE formations such as *[dēk̑u̯ós-] are lexicalized, giving PIIr. *[dāću̯ā́s-]. Stricter licensing requirements on C~Ø contrasts result in the synchronic production of desiderative stems like *[dīkša-] (> Ved. dī̆kṣa-, Av. dixša-) and the direct forebears of the C1ēC2-type of perfect weak stems (Ved. bhej- ‘divide’, pec- ‘cook’).
  • In Sanskrit: yet stricter licensing requirements on C~Ø contrasts result in C2-copy among roots with [s] + stop clusters and productive expansion of the C1ēC2-type among perfect weak stems (see detailed accounts in Sandell 2015b: Ch. 8 and Zukoff 2017a: Ch. 5).

The larger question concerning the morphology of PIE and its daughters then becomes how the category of “long-vowel” preterites (Cowgill 1957, Schumacher 2005, Jasanoff 2012) is to be handled. Can all such forms be ultimately explained as perfects of particular root-shapes and later innovations of the daughter languages? This question awaits a more thoroughgoing investigation.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to Chiara Bozzone, Olav Hackstein, Jesse Lundquist, and Tony Yates for helpful and thoughtful comments on earlier drafts, as well as to the IMoLT (Indo-European and Modern Linguistic Theory) research group for support and encouragement. Two anonymous reviewers kindly saved me from assorted mistakes, and helped to improve my arguments on various points. Responsibility for remaining errors and infelicities rests with the author.

1The following linguistic and textual abbreviations are employed: NOM. = nominative; ACC. = accusative; DAT. = dative; GEN. = genitive; SG. = singular; PL. = plural; RV = R̥gveda; AVŚ = Atharvaveda (Śaunaka recension); SV = Sāmaveda; KS = Kāṭhaka-Saṃhita; TB = Taittiriya-Brāḥmana; Il. = Iliad; Od. = Odyssey.
2The dat.sg. form dāśúṣe, in parcticular, which occurs 115×, is, according to a concordance generated on an electronic text of the RV based on van Nooten and Holland 1995, the 109th most-frequent specific surface form of the RV, placing it among the top 1 % of Vedic word types by token frequency.
3Among forms built to the stem dāśa- is the 1.pl.opt dā́śema (11×), one occurrence of which at RV 7.3.7a falls in the cadence of the line, which ought to scan as ⏑ –, and thus, according to Tichy (1976: 80), preserves the optative to a Class II present, *dăśīma < *[dék̑ih1me].
4Lubotsky (1998: 674) takes this participle to belong to the thematic Class I stem dāśa-, though the justification for this classification is unclear to me; a participle stem dā́śant-* would have been expected in Vedic (cf. the present active participle tákṣat- to √takṣ ‘fashion’). Most likely this classification is a mistake, perhaps driven by the fact that thematic present participles (even Class I) do show suffix ablaut in Classical Sanskrit (cf. Whitney 1889 [1960]: 164–165).
5See Baayen 1989: 24–26, Baayen 1992 on the relationship between pragmatic usefulness and token frequency.
6Under the approach to be argued for in this article, dāśvā́ṃs- and the derivatives of √dāś in Table 1 should probably be regarded as independent of one another. Another possibility, however, supported by the frequency relations in the Vedic corpus and the reading given to the forms by Jamison and Brereton 2014, may be that a root √dāś has been extracted from dāśvā́ṃs- itself. In either case, the important point for present purposes is that the long vowel of dāśvā́ṃs- should not be seen as dependent upon a PIE long-vowel present, supposedly reflected in dāṣṭi (cf. fn. 10 below).
7Specifically, , given two words occurring 114 and 24 times, respectively, and occurring in the sequence Word1 Word2 11 times, in a text of 159430 tokens. The value 127.4 can be interpreted under a χ2-distribution to find the p-value. The likelihood value can also be expressed in terms of odds: we can say that the bigram dāśúṣe mártyāya is 4.2 × 1026 times more likely to be found under the hypothesis that mártyāya is more likely to follow dāśúṣe (and vice-versa) than the base rates of occurrence (i.e., token frequency) of the two forms would suggest. λ is the ratio of to , where is the probability of seeing X given Y. See Manning and Schütze 1999: 172–174 for details on the calculation and interpretation of likelihood ratio tests.
8It is, of course, normal for roots whose initial segment is a long vowel, e.g., √āp ‘obtain’ to show a perfect stem, including the weak stem to which the active participle is built, that is identical to the root itself. Forms exhibiting perfect inflection without any trace of reduplication to short-vowel or consonant-initial roots are unusual and rare. On the special case of perfect weak stems of the form C1eC2-, see Sandell 2015b: Ch. 8, Sandell 2017, and Zukoff 2017a: Ch. 5.
9AVŚ 6.79.3 in fact reads bhaktivā́ṃsaḥ, but von Böhtlingk and Roth (1855) propose to read bhakivā́ṃsaḥ to match a parallel passage at TB 3.7.5.7.
10A further stem darśivā́ṃs- to √dr̥ś ‘watch, see’ first appears in the Mahābhārata, and is left out of consideration here.
11Although the strong stem dāśivā́ṃs- is, in fact, one time transmitted in a Vedic text, at SV 1.2.1.1.1a purú tvā dāśivā́ṃ voce, it is unlikely to represent a linguistically real form. SV 1.2.1.1.1 is a complete repetition of RV 1.150.1, where the saṃhitā text reads dāśvā́n. The gāyatrī line as transmitted in the RV saṃhitā evidently has one syllable too few; van Nooten and Holland (1995) thus (correctly) restore dāśuvā́n, just as they read dāśuvā́ṃsam, dāśuvā́ṃsaḥ, dāśuvā́ṃsam, dāśuvā́ṃsam, and dā́śuvā́ṃsaṃ for the saṃhitā’s dāśvā́ṃsam, dāśvā́ṃsaḥ, dāśvā́ṃsam, dāśvā́ṃsam, and dāśvā́ṃsaṃ at RV 4.2.8d, 7.37.4c, 7.92.3a, 8.57.4d, and 8.71.4c, respectively. The SV’s repair of an apparent metrical fault by creating the form dāśivā́ṃ might be explained through a combination of two factors: metrical distraction of consonant + ⟨v⟩ into consonant + [uv] is significantly less common in the RV saṃhitā than distraction of consonant + ⟨y⟩ into consonant + [iy] (by my reckoning, comparing the saṃhitā text to the metrically restored text, there are ~3777 instances of distracted [iy], but only ~1597 instances of distracted [uv]), while the occurrence of ⟨i⟩ before the perfect participle strong stem form is reasonably common (44 out of 159 instances of the sequence ⟨vāṃs⟩ in the RV saṃhitā (= 27.7 %) are ⟨ivāṃs⟩). One can explicitly contrast SV 1.2.1.1.1a with SV 4.7.2.9.2b (dāśvāṃ aśnoti mártyaḥ), which precisely copies RV 3.11.7b, where the need for an additional syllable could be, in principle, satisfied by distraction of either dāśvā́ṃ or mártyaḥ—or by use of the form dāśivā́ṃ. That dāśivā́ṃ does not also appear here probably lies with the frequent, and thus presumably more familiar, trisyllabic scansion of mártya-. Whether the creation of dāśivā́ṃ ultimately lies with the oral or manuscript tradition of the SV cannot be established, but that the form is not linguistically real seems indisputable.
12The reason that Jasanoff (2012) and LIV2 make explicit reference to “analogical replacement” or “Umformung”—which can be seen here as merely descriptive labels that do not properly motivate the presumed changes—from the present stem is due to the reconstruction of a long-vowel present 3.sg *[dḗk̑ti] (> Ved. dāṣṭi), where the active singular indicative/imperfect would be the locus of paradigmatic forms with a long *[ē] at the Proto-Indo-European level.
13OAv. dasəma- ‘offering; ritual ceremony’ (Yašt 28.9) seems, however, to preserve the original short vowel form of the root. As a nominal derivative, this form is more likely to represent an archaism, while the productive past participle shows the synchronic base of derivation.
14In the event that PIIr. *[dadāću̯ā́s-] were directly inherited into Vedic, Xdadāśvā́ṃs- would be the result. Only when the perfect participle is synchronically generated would i-epenthesis be found (giving dadāśivā́ṃs-*), since Vedic i-epenthesis in the perfect does not result directly from any sound change where aniṭ-roots are concerned.
15If one believes that the strong stem form of the Vedic perfect participle itself, /-vā́ṃs-/, is a product of some morphological changes in the prehistory of Vedic (as argued in, e.g., Jamison 1991), then one could potentially object that the instances of the strong stem dāśvā́ṃs- (9× RV) in fact must reflect a newly productively derived form, and in fact, all strong stem forms of the perfect participle, when not synchronically derived, must have been newly built in the recent history of Vedic. At minimum, however, the much more frequent weak stem dāśúṣ- could readily continue a PNIE form *[dēk̑ús-] without the presumption of any productive morphological derivation; in that case, the strong stem in Vedic might be generated by kinds of “rules of referral” (Zwicky 1985) or “paradigm structure rules” (Stump 2001), depending upon one’s assumptions and tastes in morphological theory. The assumption that the strong stem of the perfect participle reflects a morphological change is itself though not necessary. I find more credible the assumption of a sound change [aː] > [ãː] / ___sa, seen also in the primary comparative suffix -yāṃs- and a few isolated lexemes like púmāṃs- ‘man’; see Ohala 1981 on nasalization of [–high] vowels followed by fricatives, and the similar change of ā̆ > [+nasal] / ___hā̆ (i.e., to the sequence ā̆ŋhā̆) in Avestan as accounted for by de Vaan 2013.
16For the sake of simplicity and transparency, I will sometimes represent PIE URs with expected ablaut grades, although some ablaut under some conditions might be phonologically derived. Similarly, the reduplicant should, following McCarthy and Prince 1995, properly be represented as /RED/ (or /RED(e)/, with a fixed segment).
17More specifically, a less likely option as the forebear of dāśvā́ṃs- is *[deh1k̑u̯ós-], where the [h1] would reflect debuccalization of an underlying /d/. The possibility that some Indo-European stops (and more specifically */d/) might be subject to lenition to *[h1] is to be inferred from the interpretation of Greek ἑκατόν ‘100’ proposed in Kortlandt (1982): */dk̑mtóm/ → *[h1k̑m̥tóm] > *[ekaton] >> (contamination with εἱς ‘one’) ἑκατόν. Lubotsky (1994: 204) has suggested that dāśvā́ṃs- might reflect the same lenition of “d to h1”. I take the evidence for a specific process of */d/ → [h1] (under whatever conditions) to be uncertain, at best; the crucial analysis of Greek ἑκατόν requires reference to contamination, in any case, to account for the rough breathing in non-psilotic dialects (cf. Chantraine 1968–1980 [2009]: s.v. ἑκατόν), for which reason a basis in contamination, or another origin altogether, for the prothetic ε- itself is difficult to exclude.Worth noting in this connection are also forms of the numeral ‘50’ in Greek and Vedic, πεντήκοντα and pañcāśát-, which contain long vowels in the second syllables that might also be attributed to a sequence *[eh1k̑] ← */edk̑/. Following Rau (2009: 17, fn. 15) and Kümmel (2012: 302), I prefer to see the long vowel in these forms as the result of direct deletion of */d/ with concomitant compensatory lengthening: */penkwe-dk̑(o)mt-/. The Vedic form may be directly derived from */penkwe-dk̑ḿt-/ → *[peŋkwēk̑ḿ̥t-] by reference to the established deletion of coronals preceding a dorsal + nasal sequence (cf. Gk. χάμαι and καίνω < *[g̑hm̥h2ai̯], *[kn̥i̯ōh2] ← */dhhmh2ei̯/, */tkni̯oh2/, respectively, with discussion in Rau (2009): loc. cit.).
18Attention to the precise root segments is indeed important, since, as a reviewer notes, true zero-grade forms (as shown by the sequence *[uR] < PIE *[R̥]) are preserved in the Germanic preterite-presents *[mun-] ‘will’ and *[skul-] ‘shall’, which have Class IV root shapes. These must be archaisms, unsurprisingly, given the isolation and functional specialization of the preterite presents. Among inherited roots of the Class IV shape */CeR-/, some probably built “long-vowel” perfect weak stems, while others admitted perfects with true zero grade; in Germanic, paradigmatically integrated Class IV forms were all eventually given a “long-vowel” preterite plural/subjunctive stem (cf. Ringe 2006: 235–268 on Proto-Germanic verbal inflection). Compare the R̥gvedic perfect weak stems nem- (√nam ‘bow’) versus mamn- (√man ‘think’), cognate with Germanic *[nēm-] and *[mun-].
19In Avestan, we we find productively built perfect forms to √sad ‘sit’ and √stā ‘stand’, which would appear to contradict the application of a PCR-driven consonant deletion in a cluster consisting of a coronal sibilant fricative and a coronal stop: 3.sg.opt. ha-zd-iiāt̰ (Y. 65.5) and 3.pl.perf. vi-ša-sta-rə. In both cases, however, the perfect stem is precisely productively generated, and the resulting C1VC1- sequence produces consonants with two different places of articulation. A *PCR violation would not be expected in such cases.
20Indeed, even *[tištHa-], with the same reduplication pattern of C2-copy seen in Sanskrit, cannot be totally excluded. The problem is that, in roots beginning with an [s] + stop cluster, Sanskrit attests no reduplicated forms with C1-copy that could be regarded as archaisms, and Iranian attests no reduplicated forms with C2-copy. It is not straightforward to argue that PCR-driven C2-copy is more easily an innovation of Indic, since [s]+stop forms in Iranian will not be subject to PCR effects in any case (/s/ will surface as [h] word-initially before a vowel), thereby allowing a default C1-copy to apply.
21Neither sāh- nor seh- is attested in the Family Books, for which reason one cannot securely argue that either seh- or sāh- is older.
22As discussed in Sandell 2014 and Sandell 2015b: Ch. 8, seh- can reflect a PIIr. *[səːj́h-] parallel to perfect weak stems like pec- (√pac ‘cook’) and bhej- (√bhaj ‘divide’) < PIIr. *[pəːc-], *[bhəːj́-].
23The aspirate [kh] in the Attic present stem δέχο- must be the result of a back-formation from an aorist or perfect stem, where glottal state contrasts can be neutralized. Other dialects (Ionic, Aeolic, Cretan) still have expected δέκομαι (cf. Montanari et al. 2015: s.v. δέχομαι).
24Note that *[-deku̯ós-] cannot readily explain the vowel η of the root. Although loss of *[u̯] in this context could be expected to result in compensatory lengthening in an East or Central Ionic dialect, the resulting vowel would be [eː] (transmitted orthographically as ⟨ει⟩), not [ɛː].A reviewer on this point notes the unpublished view of Weiss (2010) that the “third compensatory lengthening” (3rd CL) from loss of *[u̯] occurred only when the preceding consonant was [+coronal] (Weiss’ notation: {n, r, l, s2, D}). Weiss’ formulation is compatible with the positive evidence for the 3rd CL, but I am not aware of any negative evidence that demonstrates that the 3rd CL was necessarily restricted in this way. Moreover, for compensatory lengthening to be restricted by the place of articulation of segments involved is unknown in the typology of compensatory lengthening (cf. Kavitskaya 2002, Yun 2013). For this reason, I hold to the formulation of Rix (1976 [1992]: 56), that the 3rd CL occurs simply upon loss of *[u̯] after any consonant.
25The *[u̯] in a. and b. here is given in parentheses because the presence or absence of a *[u̯] following the dorsal would result in different phonological outcomes in Greek. This issue is bound up with the history of the perfect participle in Greek, and will be discussed under 2.4 below.
26A likelihood ratio test indicates a very high degree of collostructional dependency between κάματος and ἀδηκότ- (in that specific form): κάματος occurs 16× in the Illiad and Odyssey, while ἀδηκότ- occurs 5× (all five of which are preceded by κάματος). The dependency of κάματος and ἀδηκότ- is highly significant (p < 0.001 on d.f. = 1, meaning that the null hypothesis that κάματος and ἀδηκότ- occur independently of one another should be rejected). Specifically, , given two words occurring 16 and 5 times, respectively, and occurring in the sequence Word1 Word2 five times, in a corpus of 199047 words. The value 96.04369 can be interpreted under a χ2-distribution to find a p-value. In other words, we can say that the bigram καμάτο- ἀδηκότ- is 7.17 × 1020 times more likely to be found under the hypothesis that ἀδηκότ- is more likely to follow καμάτο- (and vice-versa) than the base rates of occurrence of the two lexemes would suggest. See also footnote 5 above.
27A notable exception to this consensus appears in the recent edition of the Odyssey of West 2017: 237, where δηκότας, with rough breathing, is printed at 12.281 (Heubeck and Hoekstra (1989: 134) also represent the form with a rough breathing in their commentary on the passage, but do not remark on this issue specifically). Surprisingly, West’s apparatus criticus for the line makes no mention of this editorial choice, which is all the more puzzling, because the rough breathing in this passage has no manuscript support whatsoever, at least to judge from the apparatus in van Thiel 1991: 151, which makes clear that only a form with a smooth breathing has direct support here. Moreover, since West prints ἀδηκότες, with smooth breathing, in his edition of the Iliad (1998) and the Homeric Hymns (2003), that West does not justify an apparent change in opinion in the Praefatio of his Odyssey (ἀδηκότ- is mentioned neither there, nor in the Praefatio of his Iliad) is frustrating. I would go so far as to wonder whether the rough breathing in question is a printer’s error.
28See Dickey 2007: 24–25 on Apollonius Sophista.
29Compare the commentary of Leaf (1900) (ad Il. 10.98), who says wholly reasonable things: “ἀδηκότες recurs outside this book (312, 399, 471) only in Od. 12.281 (always in the same connexion), with Od. 1.134 “ἀδήσειεν”. In the last case the word means ‘feel disgust’, and we should probably read “ἀηδήσειεν” with Wackernagel (cf. H.G. p. 25). But this does not explain the present phrase. Nor is any satisfactory sense to be got from “ἄδην” … It is simpler to say that though the meaning of the word is obvious, its affinities are unknown.”
30The glosses of ἀδηκότ- given in Liddell et al. 1925–1940 and Montanari et al. 2015 relate to the etymological proposals discussed by Chantraine 1968–1980 [2009] discussed below. The gloss offered in Snell 1979 assumes a connection with the perfect stem ἅδηκ- ‘pleased’ (ἅδηκε βουλή ‘the plan was approved’ in Hipponax frag. 132; see West 1971: 110–152), but this perfect certainly belongs to ἁνδάνω ‘please’ (so correctly Liddell et al. 1925–1940).
31Frisk (1960) adopts the original meaning ‘gesättigt’ and a connection with ἅδην, in a much more cursory entry than Chantraine’s. Beekes (2009) adds nothing further to the discussion, simply referring the reader back to Chantraine 1968–1980 [2009], but declines to give a gloss.
32ἅδην has a semantically plausible root etymology in */seh2-/ ‘satiate’, to which formations built with /-ti-/ are attested in Italic (Lat. satis ‘enough’), Germanic (Goth. saþs ‘satiated’), and Baltic (Lith. sótis ‘satiety’). The Greek forms would evidently reflect a zero-grade of the root, but are otherwise of unclear derivation.
33Here, Chaintraine notes, the form ἁδήσειεν (Od. 1.134) ‘be disgusted by’, whose connection to ἀδηκότ- is proposed by Apollonius, could be a corresponding aorist. The formal problem with a connection to ἁδήσειεν is that the form might better be read as ἀηδήσειεν, on account of the meter; cf. fn. 27 above.
34Thanks to a reviewer for reminding me of these Vedic comparanda.
35A reviewer raises the question of whether the absence of epic correption here has any import for the chronology of this formula. Based on the recent work of Garner (2011) on correption (see especially pp. 133–140), who has shown that there are not significant differences in rates of correption across Homer or between Homer and later epic poetry, I do not think that correption can be used to shed light on the formula’s chronology.
36The text of precisely these editions is reproduced because they are available through the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, and thus easily accesible to many readers. I have noted no differences in other editions of these texts that are relevant to the present discussion, apart from the breathing on ἀδηκότες already discussed above.
37A simplex [p] rather than geminate [pː] as in ἵππος < */h1k̑u̯o-/ is expected, since the vowel preceding the *[k̑u̯] sequence is long (cf. Kostopoulos 2014: 186–198). Thanks to a reviewer for raising this issue and for the relevant reference.
38Perhaps the best possible example of a metrical trace of [w] in Homer is the participle to ἁνδάνω, ἑᾱδότα ‘pleased’ (Il. 9.173 = Od. 18.422) < *[hwehwadwóta], discussed in Leumann 1955. The long ᾱ in the form can easily be the result of metrical lengthening to avoid a sequence of four (!) shorts. Likewise, other forms of the same perfect stem in Epic (e.g., ἕαδεν at Ap. Rhod. Argonautica 1.867) also scan with a long ᾱ that can only be explained as a metrical lengthening.

References

  • Albright Adam. 2002. The Identification of Bases in Morphological Paradigms. Ph.D. diss. University of California Los Angeles.

  • Allen T.W. (ed.). 1931. Homeri Illias. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Allen T.W. W.R. Halliday and E.E. Sikes (eds.). 1936. The Homeric Hymns. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Andersen Øivind and Dag T.T. Haug. 2012. Introduction. In Øivind Andersen and Dag T.T. Haug (eds.) Relative Chronology in Early Greek Epic Poetry 1–19. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Baayen R. Harald. 1989. A Corpus-Based Approach to Morphological Productivity. Statistical Analysis and Psycholinguistic Interpretation. Ph.D. diss. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

  • Baayen R. Harald. 1992. Quantitative Aspects of Morphological Productivity. In Geert E. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.) Yearbook of Morphology 1991 109–149. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Balles Irene. 2012. Zu einigen Fällen von (vermeintlichem) Laryngalschwund im Indogermanischen. In David Stifter and Velizar Sadovski (eds.) Iranistische und indogermanistische Beiträge in memoriam Jochem Schindler 9–30. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

  • Beekes Robert. 2009. Etymological Dictionary of Greek. Leiden: Brill.

  • von Böhtlingk Otto and Rudolph Roth. 1855. Sanskrit Wörterbuch Herausgegeben von der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften edn. St. Petersburg: Eggers.

  • Bozzone Chiara. 2014. Constructions: A New Approach to Formularity Discourse and Syntax in Homer. Ph.D. diss. University of California Los Angeles.

  • Byrd Andrew Miles. 2015. The Indo-European Syllable. Leiden: Brill.

  • Càssola Filippo. 1975 [1994]. Inni omerici. Farigliano: Mondadori.

  • Cerri Giovanni (ed.). 1996. Omero. Iliade. Introduzione e traduzione di Giovanni Cerri. Milano: Rizzoli.

  • Chantraine Pierre. 1958. Grammaire homérique. Tome I. Phonétique et morphologie 3rd edn. Paris: Klincksieck.

  • Chantraine Pierre. 1968–1980 [2009]. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque Nouvelle edn. Paris: Klincksieck.

  • Cooper Adam. 2013. Constraint Indexation Locality and Epenthesis in Vedic Sanskrit. In Ken Seda Claire Moore-Cantwell and Robert Staubs (eds.) NELS 40: Proceedings of the 40th Annual North East Linguistic Society 119–132. Amherst MA: GLSA.

  • Cooper Adam. 2015. Reconciling Indo-European Syllabification. Leiden: Brill.

  • Cowgill Warren. 1957. The Indo-European Long-Vowel Preterites. Ph.D. diss. Yale University.

  • Danek Georg. 1988. Studien zur Dolonie. No. 12 in Wiener Studien. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

  • Danek Georg. 2012. The Doloneia Revisited. In Øivind Andersen and Dag T.T. Haug (eds.) Relative Chronology in Early Greek Epic Poetry 106–121. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Dickey Eleanor. 2007. Ancient Greek Scholarship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Frisk Hjalmar. 1960. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.

  • Garner R. Scott. 2011. Traditional Elegy: The Interplay of Meter Tradition and Context in Early Greek Poetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Hackstein Olav. 2002. Die Sprachform der homerischen Epen. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

  • Hainsworth Bryan. 1993. The Iliad: A Commentary. Volume III: books 9–12. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Hay Jennifer. 2003. Causes and Consequences of Word Structure. New York: Taylor & Francis.

  • Hay Jennifer and R. Harald Baayen. 2003. Phonotactics Parsing and Productivity. Italian Journal of Linguistics 15.99–130.

  • Heenen François. 2006. Le désideratif en védique. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

  • Heubeck Alfred and Arie Hoekstra. 1989. A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey. Volume II. Books IXXVI. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Insler Stanley. 1968. Sankrit ip̄́sati and ī́rtsati. Indogermanische Forschungen 73.57–66.

  • Jamison Stephanie W. 1991. A Cart an Ox and the Perfect Participle in Vedic. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 52.77–100.

  • Jamison Stephanie W. and Joel P. Brereton. 2014. The Rigveda. The Earliest Religious Poetry of India. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Jasanoff Jay H. 2012. Long-vowel Preterites in Indo-European. In H. Craig Melchert (ed.) The Indo-European Verb. Proceedings of the Conference of the Society for Indo-European Studies Los Angeles 13–15 September 2010 127–135. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

  • Kavitskaya Darya. 2002. Compensatory Lengthening: Phonetics Phonology Diachrony. New York: Routledge.

  • Kellens Jean. 2005. L’ amphipolarité sémantique et la démonisation des daivas. In Günter Schweiger (ed.) Indogermanica. Festschrift für Gert Klingenschmitt 283–288. Regensburg: Taimering.

  • Klingenschmitt Gert. 1982. Das altarmenische Verbum. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

  • Kortlandt Frederik. 1982. Greek Numerals and PIE Glottalic Consonants. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 42.97–104.

  • Kostopoulos Georgios. 2014. On Two Problems of Greek εὗρον ‘I found’. Die Sprache 158–236.

  • Kümmel Martin Joachim. 2000. Das Perfekt im Indoiranischen. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

  • Kümmel Martin Joachim. 2012. Typology and Reconstruction. The Consonants and Vowels of Proto-Indo-European. In Benedicte Nielsen Whitehead Thomas Olander Birgit A. Olsen and Jens Elmegård Rasmussen (eds.) The Sound of Indo-European. Phonetics Phonemics and Morphophonemics. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum.

  • Laser Siegfried. 1958. Über das Verhältnis der Dolonie zur Odyssee. Hermes 86.385–425.

  • Latte Kurt (ed.). 1953–1966. Hesychii Alexandrini lexicon. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.

  • Lattimore Richard. 1951. The Iliad of Homer. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

  • Leaf Walter. 1900. The Iliad edited with apparatus criticus prolegomena notes and appendices. London: Macmillan.

  • Leumann Manu. 1955. Griech. hom. εἰδώς ἰδυῖα und ἐοικώς ἐϊκυῖα ἀρηρώς ἀραρυῖα. Celtica 3.241–248.

  • Liddell Henry George Robert Scott and Henry Stuart Jones (eds.). 1925–1940. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Lubotsky Alexander. 1994. RV. ávidhat. In George Dunkel Gisela Meyer Salvatore Scarlata and Christian Sidel (eds.) Früh- Mittel- Spätindogermanisch. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

  • Lubotsky Alexander. 1998. A R̥gVedic Word Concordance. American Oriental Series vol. 83. New Haven: American Oriental Society.

  • Manning Christopher D. and Hinrich Schütze. 1999. Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

  • Mayrhofer Manfred. 1986–2001. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.

  • McCarthy John and Alan Prince. 1995. Faithfulness and Reduplicative Identity. In Jill N. Beckman and Susan Urbanczyk (eds.) Papers in Optimality TheoryUniversity of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics vol. 18 249–384. University of Massachusetts Amherst.

  • McCrorie Edward. 2004. Homer. The Odyssey. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.

  • Montanari Franco Madeleine Goh and Chad Schroeder. 2015. The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek. Leiden: Brill.

  • von der Mühll P. (ed.). 1962. Homeri Odyssea. Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn.

  • Murray A.T. (ed.). 1919. Odyssey. With an English Translation by A.T. Murray Revised by William F. Wyatt edn. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Murray A.T. (ed.). 1924. Iliad. With an English Translation by A.T. Murray Revised by William F. Wyatt edn. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Ohala John J. 1981. The Listener as a Source of Sound Change. In Carrie S. Masek Roberta A. Hendrick and Mary Frances Miller (eds.) Papers from the Parasession on Language and Behavior of the Chicago Linguistic Society. May 1–2 1981 178–203. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

  • Oldenberg Hermann. 1909–1912. Ṛgveda. Textkritische und exegetische Noten. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.

  • Parker Steve. 2002. Quantifying the Sonority Hierarchy. Ph.D. diss. University Of Massachusetts Amherst.

  • Parker Steve. 2008. Sound Level Protrusions as Physical Correlates of Sonority. Journal of Phonetics 36.55–90. Peters Martin. 1988. Indogermanische Chronik 33—G. Altgriechisch. Die Sprache 33.230–239.

  • Peters Martin. 2007. οὐκ ἀπίθησε and πιθήσας. In Alan Nussbaum (ed.) Verba Docenti. Studies in Historical and Indo-European Linguistics Presented to Jay H. Jasanoff by Students Colleagues and Friends 263–270. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave.

  • Rau Jeremy. 2009. Indo-European Nominal Morphology: The Decads and the Caland System. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.

  • Ringe Don. 2006. A Linguistic History of English Volume I: From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Risch Ernst. 1974. Wortbildung der Homerischen Sprache 2nd edn. Berlin: de Gruyter.

  • Rix Helmut. 1976 [1992]. Historische Grammatik des Griechischen 2nd edn. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

  • Rix Helmut Martin Joachim Kümmel Thomas Zehnder Reiner Lipp and Brigitte Schirmer. 2001. LIV2 = Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben: Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen 2nd edn. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

  • Sandell Ryan. 2014. Compensatory Lengthening in Vedic and the Outcomes of Proto-Indo-Iranian *[az] and *[až]. In Stephanie W. Jamison H. Craig Melchert and Brent Vine (eds.) Proceedings of the 25th UCLA Indo-European Conference 183–202. Bremen: Hempen.

  • Sandell Ryan. 2015a. Obligatory Contour Principle Effects in Indo-European Phonology: Statistical Evidence and the Morphology-Phonology Interface. In Stephanie W. Jamison H. Craig Melchert and Brent Vine (eds.) Proceedings of the 26th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. Bremen: Hempen.

  • Sandell Ryan. 2015b. Productivity in Historical Linguistics: Computational Perspectives on Word-Formation in Ancient Greek and Sanskrit. Ph.D. diss. University of California Los Angeles.

  • Sandell Ryan. 2017. Allomorphy Selection in Vedic Sanskrit Perfects of the Form CieːCj-. In Karen Jesney Charlie O’Hara Caitlin Smith and Rachel Walker (eds.) Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Meeting on Phonology. Washington D.C.: Linguistic Society of America.

  • Schumacher Stefan. 2005. ‘Langvokalische Perfekta’ in indogermanischen Einzelsprachen und ihr grundsprachlicher Hintergrund. In Gerhard Meiser and Olav Hackstein (eds.) Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel. Akten der XI. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft 17–23. September 2000 Halle an der Salle 591–626. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

  • Snell Bruno (ed.). 1979. Lexicon des frühgriechischen Epos. vol. 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

  • Stewanowitsch Anatol and Stefan Th. Gries. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the Interaction of Words and Constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8.209–243.

  • Stump Gregory T. 2001. Inflectional Morphology. A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Szemerényi Oswald. 1967. The Perfect Participle Active in Mycenaean and Indo-European. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 2.7–26.

  • Tachinoslis Nikolaos. 1984. Handschriften und Ausgaben der Odyssee. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

  • van Thiel Helmut (ed.). 1991. Homeri Odyssea. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.

  • Tichy Eva. 1976. Gk. δειδέχατο und idg. *dēk̑ti *dék̑toiGlotta 54.71–84.

  • de Vaan Michiel. 2013. On the Nasalization of h to ŋh in Avestan. In Éric Pirart (ed.) Le sort des Gâthâs et autres études iraniennes in memoriam Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin 49–50. Leuven—Paris: Peeters.

  • van der Valk Marchinus H.A.L.H. 1949. Textual Criticism of the Odyssey. Leiden: A.W. Sijthoff’s Uitgeversmaatschappij.

  • van Nooten Barend and Gary Holland (eds.). 1995. Rig Veda. A Metrically Restored Text. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Wackernagel Jacob. 1924. Vorlesungen über Syntax mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Griechisch Lateinisch und Deutsch. vol. 2. Basel: Emil Birkhäuser & Cie.

  • Wackernagel Jacob. 2009. Lectures on Syntax with Special Reference to Greek Latin and Germanic. Edited with notes and bibliography by David Langslow. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Weiss Michael. 2010. Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Greek. Manuscript. Department of Linguistics Cornell University.

  • West Martin L. (ed.). 1971. Iambi et elegi Graceci. vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • West Martin L. (ed.). 1998. Homeri Ilias. Stuttgart & Leipzig: Teubner.

  • West Martin L. (ed.). 2003. Homeric Hyms. Homeric Apocrypha. Lives of Homer. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

  • West Martin L. (ed.). 2017. Homerus Odyssea. Berlin: de Gruyter.

  • Whitney William Dwight. 1889 [1960]. Sanskrit Grammar. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  • Whitney William Dwight. 1905. Atharva-Veda Saṁhitā. Translated with a Critical and Exegetical Commentary. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Yun Sujeon. 2013. The Typology of Compensatory Lengthening: A Phonetically-Based Optimality Theoretic Approach. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society 341–355. University of Chicago.

  • Yun Sujeon. 2016. A Theory of Consonant Cluster Perception and Vowel Epenthesis. Ph.D. diss. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

  • Zukoff Sam. 2014. On the Origins of Attic Reduplication. In Stephanie W. Jamison H. Craig Melchert and Brent Vine (eds.) Proceedings of the 25th UCLA Indo-European Conference 257–278. Bremen: Hempen.

  • Zukoff Sam. 2017a. Indo-European Reduplication: Synchrony Diachrony and Theory. Ph.D. diss. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

  • Zukoff Sam. 2017b. The Reduplicative System of Ancient Greek and a New Analysis of Attic Reduplication. Linguistic Inquiry 48.459–497.

  • Zwicky Arnold M. 1985. How to Describe Inflection. In Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 1985 372–384. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

Sections
References
  • Albright Adam. 2002. The Identification of Bases in Morphological Paradigms. Ph.D. diss. University of California Los Angeles.

  • Allen T.W. (ed.). 1931. Homeri Illias. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Allen T.W. W.R. Halliday and E.E. Sikes (eds.). 1936. The Homeric Hymns. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Andersen Øivind and Dag T.T. Haug. 2012. Introduction. In Øivind Andersen and Dag T.T. Haug (eds.) Relative Chronology in Early Greek Epic Poetry 1–19. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Baayen R. Harald. 1989. A Corpus-Based Approach to Morphological Productivity. Statistical Analysis and Psycholinguistic Interpretation. Ph.D. diss. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

  • Baayen R. Harald. 1992. Quantitative Aspects of Morphological Productivity. In Geert E. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.) Yearbook of Morphology 1991 109–149. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Balles Irene. 2012. Zu einigen Fällen von (vermeintlichem) Laryngalschwund im Indogermanischen. In David Stifter and Velizar Sadovski (eds.) Iranistische und indogermanistische Beiträge in memoriam Jochem Schindler 9–30. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

  • Beekes Robert. 2009. Etymological Dictionary of Greek. Leiden: Brill.

  • von Böhtlingk Otto and Rudolph Roth. 1855. Sanskrit Wörterbuch Herausgegeben von der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften edn. St. Petersburg: Eggers.

  • Bozzone Chiara. 2014. Constructions: A New Approach to Formularity Discourse and Syntax in Homer. Ph.D. diss. University of California Los Angeles.

  • Byrd Andrew Miles. 2015. The Indo-European Syllable. Leiden: Brill.

  • Càssola Filippo. 1975 [1994]. Inni omerici. Farigliano: Mondadori.

  • Cerri Giovanni (ed.). 1996. Omero. Iliade. Introduzione e traduzione di Giovanni Cerri. Milano: Rizzoli.

  • Chantraine Pierre. 1958. Grammaire homérique. Tome I. Phonétique et morphologie 3rd edn. Paris: Klincksieck.

  • Chantraine Pierre. 1968–1980 [2009]. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque Nouvelle edn. Paris: Klincksieck.

  • Cooper Adam. 2013. Constraint Indexation Locality and Epenthesis in Vedic Sanskrit. In Ken Seda Claire Moore-Cantwell and Robert Staubs (eds.) NELS 40: Proceedings of the 40th Annual North East Linguistic Society 119–132. Amherst MA: GLSA.

  • Cooper Adam. 2015. Reconciling Indo-European Syllabification. Leiden: Brill.

  • Cowgill Warren. 1957. The Indo-European Long-Vowel Preterites. Ph.D. diss. Yale University.

  • Danek Georg. 1988. Studien zur Dolonie. No. 12 in Wiener Studien. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

  • Danek Georg. 2012. The Doloneia Revisited. In Øivind Andersen and Dag T.T. Haug (eds.) Relative Chronology in Early Greek Epic Poetry 106–121. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Dickey Eleanor. 2007. Ancient Greek Scholarship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Frisk Hjalmar. 1960. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.

  • Garner R. Scott. 2011. Traditional Elegy: The Interplay of Meter Tradition and Context in Early Greek Poetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Hackstein Olav. 2002. Die Sprachform der homerischen Epen. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

  • Hainsworth Bryan. 1993. The Iliad: A Commentary. Volume III: books 9–12. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Hay Jennifer. 2003. Causes and Consequences of Word Structure. New York: Taylor & Francis.

  • Hay Jennifer and R. Harald Baayen. 2003. Phonotactics Parsing and Productivity. Italian Journal of Linguistics 15.99–130.

  • Heenen François. 2006. Le désideratif en védique. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

  • Heubeck Alfred and Arie Hoekstra. 1989. A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey. Volume II. Books IXXVI. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Insler Stanley. 1968. Sankrit ip̄́sati and ī́rtsati. Indogermanische Forschungen 73.57–66.

  • Jamison Stephanie W. 1991. A Cart an Ox and the Perfect Participle in Vedic. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 52.77–100.

  • Jamison Stephanie W. and Joel P. Brereton. 2014. The Rigveda. The Earliest Religious Poetry of India. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Jasanoff Jay H. 2012. Long-vowel Preterites in Indo-European. In H. Craig Melchert (ed.) The Indo-European Verb. Proceedings of the Conference of the Society for Indo-European Studies Los Angeles 13–15 September 2010 127–135. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

  • Kavitskaya Darya. 2002. Compensatory Lengthening: Phonetics Phonology Diachrony. New York: Routledge.

  • Kellens Jean. 2005. L’ amphipolarité sémantique et la démonisation des daivas. In Günter Schweiger (ed.) Indogermanica. Festschrift für Gert Klingenschmitt 283–288. Regensburg: Taimering.

  • Klingenschmitt Gert. 1982. Das altarmenische Verbum. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

  • Kortlandt Frederik. 1982. Greek Numerals and PIE Glottalic Consonants. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 42.97–104.

  • Kostopoulos Georgios. 2014. On Two Problems of Greek εὗρον ‘I found’. Die Sprache 158–236.

  • Kümmel Martin Joachim. 2000. Das Perfekt im Indoiranischen. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

  • Kümmel Martin Joachim. 2012. Typology and Reconstruction. The Consonants and Vowels of Proto-Indo-European. In Benedicte Nielsen Whitehead Thomas Olander Birgit A. Olsen and Jens Elmegård Rasmussen (eds.) The Sound of Indo-European. Phonetics Phonemics and Morphophonemics. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum.

  • Laser Siegfried. 1958. Über das Verhältnis der Dolonie zur Odyssee. Hermes 86.385–425.

  • Latte Kurt (ed.). 1953–1966. Hesychii Alexandrini lexicon. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.

  • Lattimore Richard. 1951. The Iliad of Homer. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

  • Leaf Walter. 1900. The Iliad edited with apparatus criticus prolegomena notes and appendices. London: Macmillan.

  • Leumann Manu. 1955. Griech. hom. εἰδώς ἰδυῖα und ἐοικώς ἐϊκυῖα ἀρηρώς ἀραρυῖα. Celtica 3.241–248.

  • Liddell Henry George Robert Scott and Henry Stuart Jones (eds.). 1925–1940. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Lubotsky Alexander. 1994. RV. ávidhat. In George Dunkel Gisela Meyer Salvatore Scarlata and Christian Sidel (eds.) Früh- Mittel- Spätindogermanisch. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

  • Lubotsky Alexander. 1998. A R̥gVedic Word Concordance. American Oriental Series vol. 83. New Haven: American Oriental Society.

  • Manning Christopher D. and Hinrich Schütze. 1999. Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

  • Mayrhofer Manfred. 1986–2001. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.

  • McCarthy John and Alan Prince. 1995. Faithfulness and Reduplicative Identity. In Jill N. Beckman and Susan Urbanczyk (eds.) Papers in Optimality TheoryUniversity of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics vol. 18 249–384. University of Massachusetts Amherst.

  • McCrorie Edward. 2004. Homer. The Odyssey. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.

  • Montanari Franco Madeleine Goh and Chad Schroeder. 2015. The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek. Leiden: Brill.

  • von der Mühll P. (ed.). 1962. Homeri Odyssea. Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn.

  • Murray A.T. (ed.). 1919. Odyssey. With an English Translation by A.T. Murray Revised by William F. Wyatt edn. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Murray A.T. (ed.). 1924. Iliad. With an English Translation by A.T. Murray Revised by William F. Wyatt edn. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Ohala John J. 1981. The Listener as a Source of Sound Change. In Carrie S. Masek Roberta A. Hendrick and Mary Frances Miller (eds.) Papers from the Parasession on Language and Behavior of the Chicago Linguistic Society. May 1–2 1981 178–203. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

  • Oldenberg Hermann. 1909–1912. Ṛgveda. Textkritische und exegetische Noten. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.

  • Parker Steve. 2002. Quantifying the Sonority Hierarchy. Ph.D. diss. University Of Massachusetts Amherst.

  • Parker Steve. 2008. Sound Level Protrusions as Physical Correlates of Sonority. Journal of Phonetics 36.55–90. Peters Martin. 1988. Indogermanische Chronik 33—G. Altgriechisch. Die Sprache 33.230–239.

  • Peters Martin. 2007. οὐκ ἀπίθησε and πιθήσας. In Alan Nussbaum (ed.) Verba Docenti. Studies in Historical and Indo-European Linguistics Presented to Jay H. Jasanoff by Students Colleagues and Friends 263–270. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave.

  • Rau Jeremy. 2009. Indo-European Nominal Morphology: The Decads and the Caland System. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.

  • Ringe Don. 2006. A Linguistic History of English Volume I: From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Risch Ernst. 1974. Wortbildung der Homerischen Sprache 2nd edn. Berlin: de Gruyter.

  • Rix Helmut. 1976 [1992]. Historische Grammatik des Griechischen 2nd edn. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

  • Rix Helmut Martin Joachim Kümmel Thomas Zehnder Reiner Lipp and Brigitte Schirmer. 2001. LIV2 = Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben: Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen 2nd edn. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

  • Sandell Ryan. 2014. Compensatory Lengthening in Vedic and the Outcomes of Proto-Indo-Iranian *[az] and *[až]. In Stephanie W. Jamison H. Craig Melchert and Brent Vine (eds.) Proceedings of the 25th UCLA Indo-European Conference 183–202. Bremen: Hempen.

  • Sandell Ryan. 2015a. Obligatory Contour Principle Effects in Indo-European Phonology: Statistical Evidence and the Morphology-Phonology Interface. In Stephanie W. Jamison H. Craig Melchert and Brent Vine (eds.) Proceedings of the 26th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. Bremen: Hempen.

  • Sandell Ryan. 2015b. Productivity in Historical Linguistics: Computational Perspectives on Word-Formation in Ancient Greek and Sanskrit. Ph.D. diss. University of California Los Angeles.

  • Sandell Ryan. 2017. Allomorphy Selection in Vedic Sanskrit Perfects of the Form CieːCj-. In Karen Jesney Charlie O’Hara Caitlin Smith and Rachel Walker (eds.) Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Meeting on Phonology. Washington D.C.: Linguistic Society of America.

  • Schumacher Stefan. 2005. ‘Langvokalische Perfekta’ in indogermanischen Einzelsprachen und ihr grundsprachlicher Hintergrund. In Gerhard Meiser and Olav Hackstein (eds.) Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel. Akten der XI. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft 17–23. September 2000 Halle an der Salle 591–626. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

  • Snell Bruno (ed.). 1979. Lexicon des frühgriechischen Epos. vol. 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

  • Stewanowitsch Anatol and Stefan Th. Gries. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the Interaction of Words and Constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8.209–243.

  • Stump Gregory T. 2001. Inflectional Morphology. A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Szemerényi Oswald. 1967. The Perfect Participle Active in Mycenaean and Indo-European. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 2.7–26.

  • Tachinoslis Nikolaos. 1984. Handschriften und Ausgaben der Odyssee. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

  • van Thiel Helmut (ed.). 1991. Homeri Odyssea. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.

  • Tichy Eva. 1976. Gk. δειδέχατο und idg. *dēk̑ti *dék̑toiGlotta 54.71–84.

  • de Vaan Michiel. 2013. On the Nasalization of h to ŋh in Avestan. In Éric Pirart (ed.) Le sort des Gâthâs et autres études iraniennes in memoriam Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin 49–50. Leuven—Paris: Peeters.

  • van der Valk Marchinus H.A.L.H. 1949. Textual Criticism of the Odyssey. Leiden: A.W. Sijthoff’s Uitgeversmaatschappij.

  • van Nooten Barend and Gary Holland (eds.). 1995. Rig Veda. A Metrically Restored Text. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Wackernagel Jacob. 1924. Vorlesungen über Syntax mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Griechisch Lateinisch und Deutsch. vol. 2. Basel: Emil Birkhäuser & Cie.

  • Wackernagel Jacob. 2009. Lectures on Syntax with Special Reference to Greek Latin and Germanic. Edited with notes and bibliography by David Langslow. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Weiss Michael. 2010. Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Greek. Manuscript. Department of Linguistics Cornell University.

  • West Martin L. (ed.). 1971. Iambi et elegi Graceci. vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • West Martin L. (ed.). 1998. Homeri Ilias. Stuttgart & Leipzig: Teubner.

  • West Martin L. (ed.). 2003. Homeric Hyms. Homeric Apocrypha. Lives of Homer. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

  • West Martin L. (ed.). 2017. Homerus Odyssea. Berlin: de Gruyter.

  • Whitney William Dwight. 1889 [1960]. Sanskrit Grammar. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  • Whitney William Dwight. 1905. Atharva-Veda Saṁhitā. Translated with a Critical and Exegetical Commentary. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Yun Sujeon. 2013. The Typology of Compensatory Lengthening: A Phonetically-Based Optimality Theoretic Approach. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society 341–355. University of Chicago.

  • Yun Sujeon. 2016. A Theory of Consonant Cluster Perception and Vowel Epenthesis. Ph.D. diss. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

  • Zukoff Sam. 2014. On the Origins of Attic Reduplication. In Stephanie W. Jamison H. Craig Melchert and Brent Vine (eds.) Proceedings of the 25th UCLA Indo-European Conference 257–278. Bremen: Hempen.

  • Zukoff Sam. 2017a. Indo-European Reduplication: Synchrony Diachrony and Theory. Ph.D. diss. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

  • Zukoff Sam. 2017b. The Reduplicative System of Ancient Greek and a New Analysis of Attic Reduplication. Linguistic Inquiry 48.459–497.

  • Zwicky Arnold M. 1985. How to Describe Inflection. In Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 1985 372–384. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.

Index Card
Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 338 339 13
PDF Downloads 100 100 3
EPUB Downloads 2 2 0