Home

15.7.10.19:40: VOWEL LENGTH AND INTRUSIVE NASALS IN SANSKRIT VS-STEMS

I was puzzled by Sanskrit Vs-stems when I first learned how to decline them in 1992, and I remain puzzled today. Most forms (singular and dual / plural) can be generated by adding endings to -Vs stems and applying the following rules which apply to Sanskrit in general:

1. s > after i or u and before a vowel: e.g., havis > havi 'oblation' (inst. sg.)

2. -as > -o before voiced consonants: e.g., manas-bhyām > manobhyām 'minds' (inst./dat./abl. du.)

3. -s > -r after i or u and before voiced consonants: e.g., havis-bhyām > havirbhyām 'oblations' (inst./dat./abl. du.)

4. s before s: e.g., manas-su > mana-su 'minds' (loc. pl.)

But those rules cannot explain a few forms:

Why do the m./f. nom sgs. have long vowels before the stem-final -s?

5. sumanās 'favorably minded' (m./f. nom sg.)

cf. sumanas 'id.' (n. nom. sg.)

Why do the n. nom./acc./voc. pls. have long vowels and an anusvāra nasal (written here as and in Whitney's grammar as ṅ) before the stem-final -s?

6. manāṃs-i 'minds' (n. nom./acc./voc. pl.) instead of *manas-i

Is 5 by analogy with mant/vant-stems that also have lengthening in the m. nom. sg.? (The feminines of mant/vant-stems are ī-stems:  paśumatī instead of *paśumān.)

sumanāspaśumān*-ēn < *-en-s < *-ent-s? 'rich in cattle' (m. nom. sg.; is the long vowel of -mān due to Szemerényi's law?)

cf. the acc. sg.: sumanas-ampaśumant-am

Why do ant-participles and an-stems work somewhat differently?

bhavan < *-ont-s 'being' (m. nom. sg.); why isn't this *bhavā < *-ō < *-ōn < *-on-s < *-ont-s?; cf. rājā below

rājā*-ō < *-ōn < *-on-s 'king' (m. nom. sg.); final *-n was lost after  but not 

the m. acc. sg. bhavant-am has a short vowel like sumanas-am and paśumant-am, but rājān-am has a long vowel even though Szemerényi's law can't apply to a word without *s or *laryngeals!

I think 6 and similar neutral plurals of vowel stems are by analogy with an-neuters; they all share the pattern long stem vowel + nasal + -i:

manas > manāṃs-i 'minds' (as-stem; -ns--ṃs-)

asya-m > asyān-i 'mouths' (a-stem)

vari > varīṇ-i 'waters' (i-stem; n after r)

madhu > madhūn-i 'honeys' (u-stem)

nāma > nāmān-i 'names' (an-stem)

The stem-final nasal in nāmāni was restored by analogy and the regular neuter plural ending -i was added:

*ʕʷneʕʷmon-ʕ > *nōmō > (*)nāmā (attested in Vedic?) > nāmān-i (cf. nom./acc./voc. du. nāman-ī and voc. sg. naman, but the second a in those forms isn't old; they go back to *ʕʷneʕʷmn-ʕi and *ʕʷneʕʷmn)

This restoration must have predated the split of Indo-Aryan from Iranian, since the restored nasal is present in Avestan nāmə̄n-i 'names'. However, the nasals in the Sanskrit Vs and vowel stem neuter plurals have no parallels in Avestan, so they must be Sanskrit innovations.


15.7.10.13:25: POSSESSING SIMILAR ENDINGS IN THE PRESENT

Last week I was puzzled by the stems of Hungarian van 'is' and megy 'goes'. Now I want to look at their present tense endings which partly overlap with possessive endings:

Person/number Present indefinite verb endings Present definite verb endings Possessive endings for singular nouns Possessive endings for plural nouns
1S -ok/-ek/-ök
e.g., lát-ok egy 'I see a ...'
-om/-em/-öm (optional for -ik verbs):
e.g., játsz-ok ~ játsz-om 'I play'
-om/-em/-öm
e.g., lát-om a(z) 'I see the ...'
-(V)m
e.g., órá-m 'my clock'
-(j)(a)im/-(j)(e)im
e.g., órá-im 'my clocks'
2S -sz [s]
-ol/-el/-öl (-s, -sz, -z, -dz verbs)
e.g., játsz-ol 'thou playest'
-od/-ed/-öd -(V)d -(j)(a)id/-(j)(e)id
3S
-ik (-ik
verbs):
e.g., játsz-ik 'he/she/it plays'
-ja/-i -(j)a/-(j)e -(j)(a)i/-(j)(e)i
1P -unk/-ünk -juk/-jük -(u)nk/-(ü)nk -(j)(a)ink/-(j)(e)ink
2P -(o)tok/-(e)tek/-(ö)tök -játok/-itek -(V)tok/-(V)tek/-(V)tök -(j)(a)itok/-(j)(e)itek
3P -(a)nak/-(e)nek -ják/-ik -(j)uk/-(j)ük -(j)(a)ik/-(j)(e)ik

Questions:

1. Why is the pattern of overlap between verb and possessive endings so complex?

Person/number Possessive endings for singular nouns Possessive endings for plural nouns
1S ends in -m like present definite
2S ends in -d like present definite
3S -ja looks like present definite but presumably linking -j- + 3S possessive suffix -a -i looks like present definite but presumably an unrelated plural possessive suffix -i
1P similar to present indefinite ends in -nk like present indefinite
2P definite, indefinite, and both types of possessives all of the tVk type
3P unlike verb endings aside from plural -k -ik looks like present definite but presumably an unrelated plural possessive suffix -i + plural -k

Is the unity of the 2P endings original or the result of a merger? Can a more consistent system be reconstructed for an earlier stage?

2. Why do -ik verbs have optional indefinite endings that look like definite endings only in 1S?

3. Did 2S present indefinite -sz and -Vl originally have different functions before being reinterpreted as allomorphs for different stem types?

4. Why do -ik verbs have a special 3S ending?

5. Why do possessive endings for consonant-final plural nouns have 'bridges' that look like the third singular possessive endings for singular nouns?

kert-je-im 'my gardens' (not *kert-im); cf. kert-je 'his/her/its garden'

6. Why do definite 3S, 2P, and 3P have a jA ~ i alternation instead of a jA ~ je alternation?

7. Why doesn't definite 1P end in -nk?

8. Why do definite 2P and 3P have long á instead of short a?

BONUS: Why isn't játsz- [jaːts] spelled jác [jaːts]? I think I can answer that one myself. The spelling is etymological; játsz- is from ját- plus -sz-.


Tangut fonts by Mojikyo.org
Tangut radical and Khitan fonts by Andrew West
Jurchen font by Jason Glavy
All other content copyright © 2002-2015 Amritavision