The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European Part 4 pot

‘woman, wife’, Arm kin ‘wife’, Av g@na ¯ - ‘woman, wife’, Skt gna ¯ ´ - ‘goddess, divine female’, Toch B s ´ ana ‘woman’). The development of this word in English shows two poles: the e-grade gives ultimately English quean, i.e. ‘an impudent or disreputable woman’ (but, in OE, also (any) ‘woman or wife’), while a length- ened grade root (*g w e ¯ ni-) gives OE cwe ¯ n ‘woman, wife, consort’, NE queen. The vocabulary of ‘youth’ is very much concerned with the concepts of ‘strength’ and ‘ability’. Both *h a yeu- (OIr o ¯ a ‘young’, Lat iuvenis ‘young’, NE young, Lith ja ´ unas ‘young’, OCS junu ˘ ‘young’, Av yvan- ‘youth’, Skt yu ´ van- ‘young’) and the extended form *h a yuh x -n8-k ˆ o ´ s (e.g. OIr o ¯ ac ‘youth’, Lat iuven- cus ‘young (cow)’, Skt yuvas ´ a ´ - ‘young’) derive from *h a o ´ yus ‘strength’ while the masculine and feminine forms, *maghus and *maghwih a - respectively (e.g. Corn maw ‘youth; servant’, mowes ‘young woman’, OE mago ‘son; man; servant’, mæg(e)þ ‘maiden, virgin; girl; wife’ [> NE maiden], Av maäava- ‘unmarried’), may come from the semantically similar *magh- ‘be able’. Another masculine and feminine set is seen in *me ´ ryos and *merih a - (Lat marı ¯ tus ‘husband; lover, suitor’, Alb she me ¨ r ‘co-wife; concubine; (female) rival’, Grk meı ˆ raks ‘young man or woman’, Av mairya- ‘young man’, Skt ma ´ rya- ‘young man, lover, suitor’). While the base meaning may indicate a ‘youth’, many of the languages reveal extended meanings to include ‘warrior’, i.e. generalized presumably from ‘young warriors’ (cf. the use in American English of ‘our boys’ in reference to soldiers overseas). A ‘child’ without reference to its sex may have been indi- cated by the neuter noun *teknom (e.g. Grk te ´ knon ‘child’) from a root *tek- ‘beget’, hence more properly ‘oVspring’. The range of meanings for this word includes a Germanic series all pertaining to servants of a king or followers (e.g. NE thane). The concept of the ‘family’ or ‘household’ is found in *g ˆ e ´ nh 1 es- (e.g. Lat genus ‘family’, Grk ge ´ nos ‘family’, Arm cin ‘birth’, Skt ja ´ nas- ‘family’) which derives from *g ˆ enh 1 - ‘be born’ and * do ´ m(h a )os (e.g. Lat domus ‘house’, Lith na ˜ mas ‘house’ (with nasal assimilation of the initial consonant to the second), OCS domu ˘ house’, Grk do ´ mos ‘house’, Skt da ´ ma- ‘house’) which is ultimately derived from *dem(h a )- ‘build’ on which is formed the noun for ‘house(hold)’; Latin also shows the extended form dominus ‘master of the house’. The *wik ˆ - (e.g. Av vis- ‘clan’, Skt vis ´ - ‘dwelling; clan’, OCS vı ˘ sı ˘ ‘village’, and with a full- grade *we/oik ˆ o- seen underlying Lat vı ¯ cus ‘village’, Gothic weihs ‘village’, Grk oikı ´ a ¯ ‘house, household’, Toch B ı ¯ ke ‘place’) indicates a residence unit larger than the nuclear family and is generally translated as ‘extended family’ or ‘clan’ (see Section 13.1). Two words are associated with ‘friendship’ although neither speciWcally means ‘friend’. Four groups attest *prih x o ´ s; in Celtic and Germanic the cog- nates indicate one who is ‘free’ while the Indo-Iranian cognates suggest one who is ‘dear’ (NWels rhydd ‘free’, NE free,Avfrya- ‘dear’, Skt priya ´ - ‘dear’). 12. FAMILY AND KINSHIP 205 Some have seen this word as derived from a (controversial) root *per- ‘house’, i.e. ‘those who belong to one’s own household’. Such is also the underlying meaning suggested for *k ˆ e ´ iwos where the semantics range from ‘citizen’ (Lat cı ¯ vis, Oscan ceus) to ‘household’ (Germanic, e.g. OE hı ¯ wan ‘household’), ‘wife’ (Baltic, i.e. Latv sieva), and ‘dear’ (Indic, e.g. Skt s ´ iva ´ - ‘kind, auspicious, dear’, whence also the god Shiva); some derive this word from *k ˆ e ´ i- ‘lie’, i.e. either ‘those who lie together (in sleep)’ or ‘those who depend on one another’. The words for ‘lineage’, *s(w)ebh- (e.g. NE sib, perhaps Lat soda ¯ lis ‘associate’, OCS svobodı ˘ ‘free’, Skt sabha ¯ ´ - ‘assembly’) and *swedh-o- (e.g. perhaps Lat soda ¯ lis ‘associate’, Grk e ´ thos ‘custom, habit’, Skt svadha ¯ ´ ‘homestead; kindred group’), are both built on the reXexive pronoun ‘self’. Regionally attested vocabulary from the North-West includes *dhg ˆ hm8 -on- ‘man’ (Lat homo ¯ ‘person’), which derives from *dhg ˆ hom- ‘earth’ (see Section 8.1); it is found in Celtic (OIr duine ‘human’), Italic, Germanic (OE guma ‘man’), and Baltic (Lith z ˇ muo ˜ ‘person’) and survives in NE bride groom where the element ‘groom’ derives from OE guma ‘man’ which was changed to ‘groom’ by way of (erroneous) folk etymology. The North-West also oVers a superb example of how far semantics might diverge between the diVerent Indo- European groups. A *keh a ros (originally) ‘friendly’ is attested in Celtic, Italic, Germanic, and Baltic: in Celtic (OIr cara) and Italic (Lat ca ¯ rus) it means ‘friend’ whereas in Germanic it takes on a diVerent connotation (NE whore); in Baltic, on the other hand, it means ‘greedy’ (Latv ka ¯ rs). From the West Central region both Germanic, e.g. Goth samkunja ‘of the same lineage’ (NE – kin), and Grk homo ´ gnios ‘of the same lineage’ provide possible evidence of *somo-g ˆ n8h 1 -yo-s ‘same (kinship) line’ although these words may be independ- ently formed in the two groups. The Central European region provides another word for ‘man’ or ‘mortal’ built on the root ‘to die’, i.e. *mo ´ rtos ‘man, mortal’ (see Section 11.7); this may have been independently derived in Grk morto ´ s ‘man, mortal’ in Hesychius, Arm mard ‘man’, and Skt ma ´ rta- ‘mortal’. Also of possible independent deriv- ation in Armenian and Iranian is *g ˆ erh a -o-s ‘old man’ (i.e. Arm cer, NPers zar). This region also attests the use of *do ¯ ´ m ‘house(hold), nuclear family’ (Grk do Ð , Arm tun,Avdam-, Skt da ¯ ´ m, all ‘house’) where the structure and the social unit of the house are combined under a single term. 12.2 Marriage There are two possible words for ‘marry’, both from the male point of view. As a verb, *g ˆ emh x - only indicates ‘marry’ in Grk game ´ o ¯ but derivatives indicate ‘son-in-law’ (Lat gener, Grk gambro ´ s,Avza ¯ ma ¯ tar-, Skt ja ¯ ma ¯ tar-) and ‘suitor’ 206 12. FAMILY AND KINSHIP (Alb dhe ¨ nde ¨ r, Skt ja ¯ ra ´ -). In later Greek, and perhaps already in earlier Greek, this word was used also of the sexual act by which a marriage was consum- mated. More solidly attested is *h 2 wed(h 2 )- which means ‘marry’ in the North- Western group (NWels dyweddı ¨ o ‘marry’, NE wed, OPrus wedde ¯ ‘marry’, Lith vedu ` ‘lead, marry [of a man]’) and generally ‘bride’ in Indo-Iranian (Av vaäu ¯ -, Skt vadhu ¯ ´ -). It is a special use of the verb ‘lead’, indicating that the male led away the woman in the early Indo-European system of marriage, a system whose vocabulary might be later recreated, e.g. Lat uxo ¯ rem du ¯ cere ‘to lead away a wife’, i.e. ‘marry’. The husband and wife constituted the ‘master’ and ‘mistress’ of the household, which might consist of children, grandchildren, and perhaps unrelated slaves or servants. Of course within a given household not every husband and wife, of which there might be several (father and mother, sons and wives), would be ‘master’ and ‘mistress’ but only the most senior ones. Indeed, there is some evidence that, should the senior man die, his eldest son would become the master, but the dowager would remain the mistress. The words for ‘master’ and ‘mistress’ are *po ´ tis (attested from Celtic to Tocharian: Bret ozah [< *potis stegesos] ‘husband, master of the house’, Latv pats ‘master of the house; self’, Rus gospo ´ dı ˘ [< *ghost-poti-] ‘host’, Alb zot [< *wik ˆ a ¯ -pot-] ‘master of the house’, Grk po ´ sis ‘husband’, Hit pat ‘self’, Av paiti- ‘husband’, Skt pa ´ ti- ‘husband, master’, Toch A pats ‘husband’) and its feminine derivative *pot-nih a - (e.g. OPrus waispattin ‘wife, mistress’, Grk po ´ tnia ‘lady, wife’, Alb zonje ¨ ‘lady, wife’, Skt pa ´ tnı ¯ - ‘lady, wife’). Viewed from the perspec- Table 12.2. Marriage *g ˆ emh x - ‘marry’ Grk game ´ o ¯ *h 2 wed(h 2 )- ‘lead in marriage, marry’ NE wed, Skt vadhu ¯ ´ - *po ´ tis ‘husband’ Lat hos pe ¯ s, Grk po ´ sis, Skt pa ´ ti- *pot-nih a - ‘mistress, lady’ Grk po ´ tnia, Skt pa ´ tnı ¯ - *dom(h a )u-no-s ‘master’ Lat dominus, Skt da ´ muna- *h 1 esh 2 o ´ s ‘master’ Lat erus *h 1 esh 2 e ´ h a - ‘mistress’ Lat era *prih x eh a - ‘wife’ Skt priya ¯ ´ - ?*parikeh a -‘+concubine; wanton woman’ *widheweh a - ‘widow’ Lat vidua,NEwidow, Skt vidha ´ va ¯ - *h 2/3 orbhos ‘orphan, heir’ Lat orbus, Grk orphano ´ s, Skt a ´ rbha- *yemos ‘twin’ Lat geminus, Skt yama ´ - 12. FAMILY AND KINSHIP 207 tive of householders, we also Wnd *dom(h a )u-no-s ‘master’, i.e. the ‘master of the house’ (e.g. Lat dominus, Skt da ´ muna-) as the word is a clear derivative of the word for ‘house’ (cf. *dom(h a )os above) with the suYx*-no- which is used to create words ‘leader of’. A Latin-Hittite isogloss gives us both *h 1 esh 2 o ´ s ‘mas- ter’ and *h 1 esh 2 e ´ h a - ‘mistress’ with no certain root etymology (Lat erus ‘master of the house, lord, owner’, era ‘mistress, lady, owner’, Hit isha ¯ - ‘master, lord, owner’). Finally there is a Greek-Indo-Iranian isogloss, *dems-pot- ‘master of the house’ (e.g. Grk despo ´ te ¯ s, Skt da ´ m-pati-) which is structurally part of the same set that gives us ‘master of the clan’, i.e. *wik ˆ (-a ¯ )-pot- (in Baltic, Albanian, and Indo-Iranian). The word *prih x eh a - ‘wife’ is almost a term of endearment as it derives from *prih x o ´ s ‘be pleasing, one’s own’ (see above) and it provides the wife of the Germanic god Oðinn with a name, e.g. ON Frigg (cf. also ON frı ¯ ‘beloved, wife’, OE fre ¯ o ‘woman’, Skt priya ¯ ´ - ‘wife’). The underlying semantics of ?*parikeh a - are diYcult; the word is attested only in MIr airech ‘(type of) concubine’ and Av pairika ¯ - ‘demonic courtesan’. Presumably the meaning attested in Irish is the older one while in Iranian ‘the other woman’ has suVered a loss of social standing. The word for ‘widow’ (*widheweh a -) is very well attested (nine groups as ‘widow’, e.g. OIr fedb, Lat vidua,NEwidow, OPrus widdewu, Rus vdova ´ , ?Alb ve (if not a loan from Latin), Hit SAL u(i)dati-, Av viäava ¯ , Skt vidha ´ va ¯ -, and in a derived form in Grk, e ¯ ı ´ theos, as ‘bachelor’). This word is usually taken as a nominal derivative of a verb *wi-dheh 1 -, attested only in Anatolian, meaning ‘separate’. A word for ‘orphan’ (*h 2/3 orbhos) is reasonably well attested as well (e.g. OIr orb ‘heir, inheritance’, Lat orbus ‘bereft, childless, orphan’, OCS rabu ˘ ‘servant’, Arm orb ‘orphan’, Skt a ´ rbha- ‘child’) and derives from a verbal form which was still preserved in Hit har(ap)p- ‘change status’. A word for ‘twin’ (*yemos) is supported by cognates in Celtic (OIr emon ‘twins’), Italic (geminus ‘twin’), and Indo-Iranian (Av y@ma-, Skt yama ´ -, both ‘twin’). There are a few regional terms. A word for ‘marry’ (*sneubh-) seen from the wife’s point of view is attested in Italic (Lat nu ¯ bere) with derivatives in Slavic (OCS snubiti ‘to pander’) and Grk nu ´ mphe ¯ ‘bride’ while a Germanic-Slavic- Greek isogloss (OE witumo, OCS ve ˇ no, Grk he ´ dnon [< *wedmon]) gives us *wedmo/eh a - ‘bride-price’ (i.e. the price paid by the groom’s family to the bride’s to compensate the latter for the loss of a worker). On the basis of both our Proto-Indo-European terms and some of our regional terms, Eric Hamp has suggested that we can reconstruct terms for four stages or events in the Indo-European marriage. It begins with the *perk ˆ - ‘ask, propose a mar- riage’ (see Section 21.2) which is then followed by the *wedmo/eh a -, the exchange of the bride-price. The newly wed wife would be literally ‘led away’, i.e. *h 2 wed (h 2 )- ‘wed’, and *g ˆ emh x - would indicate the consummation of the marriage (for the latter two, see above). A regional term for ‘wife’, found in 208 12. FAMILY AND KINSHIP Slavic and Greek, is *sm8 -loghos (SerbCS sulogu ˘ ‘wife’, Grk a ´ lokhos ‘bed-fellow, spouse’). Literally it means ‘bed-fellow’. Finally we have a Graeco-Aryan isogloss where Grk despo ´ te ¯ s ‘master, lord’ and Indo-Iranian (e.g. Skt da ´ m- pati- ‘master’ derive from a compound *dems-pot- ‘master of the house’. 12.3 Kinship Kinship terms in Indo-European tend to be limited over three generations. The word *h 2 euh 2 os ‘grandfather’ is well attested in Anatolian, e.g. Hit hu ¯ hhas, and a number of groups in both Europe and Asia (e.g. Lat avus,ONaW, Arm haw, Toch B a ¯ we, all ‘grandfather’ except Tocharian B which may be ‘uncle’ instead). There is also an Albanian-Indic correspondence that yields *suh x sos Table 12.3. Kinship *h 2 euh 2 os ‘grandfather’ Lat avus *suh x sos ‘grandfather’ Skt su ¯ s _ a ¯ ´ *pro- third generation marker Lat pro-, Grk pro-, Skt pra- *h 4 ep- fourth generation marker Lat ab-, NE oV-, Grk apo, Skt apa- *ph8 a te ¯ ´ r ‘father’ Lat pater,NEfather, Grk pate ¯ ´ r, Skt pita ´ r- *somo-ph8 a to ¯ r ‘of the same father’ Grk homopa ´ to ¯ r *g ˆ enh 1 - to ¯ r ‘father; procreator’ Lat genitor, Grk gene ´ to ¯ r, Skt janita ´ r- *at- ‘father’ Lat atta, Grk atta *t-at- ‘father’ Lat tata, Grk tata Ð , Skt tata ´ - *papa ‘father, papa’ Lat pa ¯ pa, Grk pa ´ ppa *putlo ´ s ‘son’ Skt putra ´ - *suh x nu ´ s ‘son’ NE son, Skt su ¯ nu ´ - *suh x yu ´ s ‘son’ Grk huyu ´ s *ne ´ po ¯ ts ‘grandson; (?) nephew’ Lat nepo ¯ s, Grk ne ´ podes, Skt na ´ pa ¯ t *neptiyos ‘descendant’ Grk anepsio ´ s *h 2 en- ‘father’s mother’ Grk annı ´ s *me ´ h a te ¯ r ‘mother’ Lat ma ¯ ter,NEmother, Grk me ¯ ´ te ¯ r, Skt ma ¯ ta ´ r- *h 4 en- ‘(old) woman, mother’ Lat anus *n-h 4 en- ‘mother’ Lat nonnus, Grk na ´ nne ¯ , Skt nana ¯ - *h 4 em- ‘mother’ Lat amma, Grk amma ´ s, Skt amba ¯ - *m-h 4 em- ‘mother’ Lat mamma, Grk ma ´ mme ¯ *h a ekkeh a - ‘mother’ Lat Acca, Grk Akko ¯ , Skt akka ¯ - *g ˆ enh 1 trih a - ‘mother, procreatrix’ Lat genetrı ¯ x, Grk gene ´ teira, Skt ja ´ nitrı ¯ - (Cont’d ) 12. FAMILY AND KINSHIP 209 ‘grandfather’ (Alb gjysh ‘grandfather’, Skt su ¯ s _ a ¯ ´ ‘paternal grandmother’) from *seuh x - ‘beget’, the same root that gave the words for ‘son’ below). Other degrees of descent employ basic prepositions. For example, *pro- provides the third generation marker, e.g. Lat pro-avus ‘great-grandfather’ while *h 4 ep- forms the fourth generation marker, e.g. Lat av-avus ‘great-great-grand- father’; these can be, and normally are, also reversed to provide descending generations, e.g. Lat pro-nepo ¯ s and Skt pra ´ -napa ´ t- ‘great-grandson’ and Lat ab- nepo ¯ s ‘great-great-grandson’. We Wnd *h 4 ep- also in NE oVspring. There is a series of words for ‘father’. The formal term, attested in eight groups, is *ph8 a te ¯ ´ r (e.g. OIr athir, Lat pater,NEfather, Grk pate ¯ ´ r, Arm hayr,Av pta ¯ , Skt pita ´ r-, Toch B pa ¯ cer, all ‘father’) while it also appears in compound form in Germanic, Greek, Iranian, and Toch A as *somo-ph8 a to ¯ r ‘of the same father’ (ON samfeðra, Grk homopa ´ to ¯ r, OPers hamapitar-, Toch A s _ omapa ¯ ca ¯ r). Possibly of Proto-Indo-European date (if not independent creations from the root ‘beget’), is *g ˆ enh 1 -to ¯ r ‘procreator’ (Lat genitor, Grk gene ´ to ¯ r, Skt janita ´ r-). Table 12.3 (Cont’d) *dhug ˆ (h a )te ¯ ´ r ‘daughter’ NE daughter, Grk thuga ´ te ¯ r, Skt duhita ´ r- *neptih a - ‘granddaughter; (?) niece’ Lat neptis, Grk anepsia ´ , Skt naptı ´ ¯ - *bhre ´ h a ter-‘+brother’ Lat fra ¯ ter,NEbrother, Grk phre ¯ ´ te ¯ r, Skt bhra ¯ ´ tar- *bhreh a triyom ‘brotherhood’ Grk phra ¯ trı ´ a ¯ , Skt bhra ¯ tryam *swe ´ so ¯ r ‘sister’ Lat soror,NEsister, Grk e ´ or, Skt sva ´ sar- *ph8 a tro ¯ us ‘paternal kinsman’ Grk pa ´ tro ¯ s *ph8 a tr8wyos ‘father’s brother’ Lat patruus, Grk patruio ´ s, Skt pitr8vya ´ - *daih a we ¯ ´ r ‘husband’s brother’ Lat le ¯ vir, Grk da ¯ e ¯ ´ r, Skt deva ´ r- ?*swe ¯ k ˆ uro ´ s ‘wife’s brother’ Skt s ´ va ¯ s ´ ura- *syo ¯ (u)ros ‘wife’s brother’ Skt sya ¯ la ´ - *g ˆ (e)m(h x )ros ‘sister’s husband’ Lat gener, Grk gambro ´ s *swe ´ k ˆ uros ‘father-in- law’ Lat socer, Grk hekuro ´ s, Skt s ´ va ´ s ´ ura- *swek ˆ ru ´ h a s ‘mother-in-law’ Lat socrus, Grk hekura ¯ ´ , Skt s ´ vas ´ ru ¯ ´ - *g ˆ enh 1 - to ¯ r ‘father; procreator’ Lat genitor, Grk gene ´ to ¯ r, Skt ja ´ nita ´ r- *g ˆ omh x -ter- ‘son-in-law’ Skr ja ¯ matar- *snuso ´ s ‘son’s wife, brother’s wife’ Lat nurus, Grk nuo ´ s, Skt snus _ a ¯ ´ - *g ˆ h 3 - wos- ‘husband’s sister’ Lat glo ¯ s, Grk ga ´ lo ¯ s, Skt girı ´ - *h 1 yenh a -ter- ‘husband’s brother’s wife’ Lat ianitrı ¯ ce ¯ s, Grk ena ´ te ¯ r, Skt ya ¯ ta ´ r- *swesr(iy)o ´ s ‘pertaining to a sister, sisterly; sister’s son’ Lat co ¯ n sobrı ¯ nus, Skt svasrı ¯ ya *bhendhr8ros ‘+relation’ Grk penthero ´ s, Skt bha ´ ndhu- 210 12. FAMILY AND KINSHIP The other terms are widely attested children’s words, i.e. *at-, *t-at-, and *papa (e.g. from *at-: OIr aithe ‘foster-father; teacher’, Lat atta ‘father’, Goth atta ‘father’, Rus ote ´ c ‘father’, Alb ate ¨ ‘father’, Grk a ´ ttas ‘father’, Hit attas ‘father’; from *tat-: NWels tad, Lat (inscriptional) tata, Grk tata 7 , Luv ta ¯ tis, Skt tata ´ -, all ‘father’; from *papa: Lat pa ¯ pa ‘father’ [whence by borrowing NE pope], Grk pa ´ ppa ‘papa’, Pal pa ¯ pa ‘father’). There are two words for ‘son’, *putlo ´ s (four groups) which is traditionally derived from *p(a)u- ‘small’ þ the diminutive suYx*-tlo-, i.e. the ‘small one’ (e.g. Osc puklo- ‘son’, Arm ustr ‘son’ [remodelled from the expected *usl after dustr ‘daughter’], Av puŁra- ‘son’, Skt putra ´ - ‘son’), and the more widely attested *suh x nu ´ s (and the semantically identical *suh x yu ´ s) which derives from *seuh x - ‘bear, beget’, i.e. the ‘begotten’ (e.g. from *suh x nu ´ s:NEson, OPrus sou ¯ ns ‘son’, OCS synu ˘ ‘son’, Av hu ¯ nu- ‘son’, Skt su ¯ nu ´ - ‘son’, Toch B som _ s ´ ke ‘(young) son’; from *suh x yu ´ s: Grk huiu ´ s ‘son’, Toch B soy ‘son’). The word for ‘grandson’ (*ne ´ po ¯ ts which, in a derivative, *neptiyos, gives a more general word for ‘descendant’) is one of the most controversial words in the reconstructed lexicon. Formally, the word is attested in Celtic, Germanic, Italic, Baltic, Slavic, Albanian, Greek, and Indo-Iranian; there is no problem reconstructing the shape of the word to Proto-Indo-European. The problem arises when one Wnds that, in addition to the meaning ‘grandson’, the word also means ‘sister’s son (i.e. nephew)’ in Celtic (e.g. OIr nia ‘sister’s son, grandson, descendant’), Lat nepo ¯ s ‘grandson, descendant’ and in later Imperial Latin also ‘nephew’, Germanic (e.g. OE nefa ‘sister’s son, grandson’), Baltic (Lith nepuotı ` s ‘grandson’), Slavic (OCS netijı ˘ ‘nephew’), and Alb nip ‘grandson, nephew’. Thus some would argue that both meanings, ‘grandson’ and ‘sister’s son’, should be ascribed to Proto-Indo-European.Othersargue that ‘sister’s son’ is a secondary development among some and not all the North-Western Indo- European languages and, therefore, this second meaning cannot be ascribed to Proto-Indo-European itself, since in the east of the Indo-European world only ‘grandson’ or the like is attested (e.g. Grk ne ´ podes ‘descendants’, OPers napa ¯ ‘grandson, descendant’, Skt na ´ pa ¯ t ‘grandson, descendant’). Also arguing for a meaning ‘grandson’ are NWels kefnder ‘male cousin’ (< *kom-nepo ¯ t-) and Grk anepsio ´ s ‘(male) cousin’ (< *sm8 -neptiyo-). Why should anyone care? The systems by which people organize their kin vary across the world and anthropologists have long studied and deWned a series of basic kinship types, generally named after various ethnic groups among whom they were Wrst studied. Anthropologists have found that these systems of kinship terminology correlate, albeit imperfectly, with social and family organization within the group. Therefore, knowing how a reconstructed language handled kinship terminology suggests how its speakers may have organized certain social and family relationships. A modern English speaker basically utilizes an Eskimo 12. FAMILY AND KINSHIP 211 kinship system which provides separate words for each member of the nuclear family, ‘father’, ‘mother’, ‘brother’, and ‘sister’, and uses none of these terms to refer to anyone outside the nuclear family. Thus there are diVerent terms for ‘aunt’, ‘uncle’, ‘cousin’, etc. As has often been noted, such a system with its emphasis on the nuclear family and the clear separation of it from other familial relationships Wts contemporary, mobile, nuclear-family-oriented, Anglo-American society well. On the other hand, English speakers developed this Eskimo kinship terminology by 1200 ad or so, at a time when social and family relationships were very diVerent from what they are now and seemingly less appropriate to an Eskimo system—a fact which should give us pause when determining how much of an insight kinship terminology can give us concern- ing social and family roles. In any case, the Eskimo kinship system is quite unlike the Hawaiian one where every term used for a nuclear family member is also used for kin outside of the nuclear family. Thus the term for ‘father’ includes, beside the ‘male parent’, all uncles whether paternal or maternal. Similarly ‘mother’ includes all aunts on both sides of the family and ‘brother’ includes all male cousins and ‘sister’ includes all female cousins. Other kinship systems are in some sense intermediate between the Eskimo and the Hawaiian types, with tendencies to merge certain nuclear family kin types, but not all, with kin types outside the nuclear family. Of these ‘intermediate’ types, Indo- Europeanists have been most interested in the Omaha system, since some branches of the family at least show Omaha features and the Omaha system is often associated with strong patrilineal social organization, and it certainly is the case that early, historically attested, Indo-European groups show such a patrilineal tendency. In the classic Omaha system (and not all Omaha systems, or any other system for that matter, show all the tendencies imputed to it) the father and paternal uncle have the same designation as do the mother and maternal aunt, while the children of the paternal uncle and maternal aunt (technically ‘parallel cousins’) are designated with the same terms as one’s brother and sister. There is also a tendency in Omaha systems towards a ‘skewing of generations’ whereby the maternal uncle is equated with the maternal grandfather and the maternal uncle’s children with the maternal grandfather’s children, and conversely one’s ‘grandson’ will be called by the same term as one’s ‘sister’s son’, i.e. ‘nephew’. If one ascribes both meanings ‘grandson’ and ‘sister’s son’ to Proto-Indo-European *ne ´ po ¯ ts, then this particular conXation of kin types would support the identiWcation of the Proto-Indo-European kinship system as of the Omaha type. However, if the Proto-Indo-European word meant only ‘grandson’, then much of the evidence for considering Proto-Indo-European’s kinship terminology to have been of the Omaha type disappears. The Omaha type would be a regional, post- Indo-European, type of the North-West. 212 12. FAMILY AND KINSHIP Taking now female relatives, we have Wrst *h 2 en- ‘grandmother’, apparently another child’s word but a very old one, e.g. OHG ana ‘grandmother’, OPrus ane ‘female ancestor’, OCS vu ˘ no˛ku ˘ ‘grandfather’, Grk annı ´ s ‘grandmother’, Arm han ‘grandmother’, Hit hannas ‘grandmother’, OPers nya ¯ ka ¯ ‘grand- mother’. As might be expected, there are numerous words for ‘mother’, many of them from the language of children (and hence renewable in any given language). The formal term, attested in eleven diVerent groups, is *me ´ h a te ¯ r (e.g. OIr ma ¯ thair, Lat ma ¯ ter,NEmother, OPrus mothe, OCS mati, Grk me ¯ ´ te ¯ r, Phryg matar , Arm mayr,Avma ¯ tar-, Skt ma ¯ ta ´ r-, Toch B ma ¯ cer, all ‘mother’). A second term, *h 4 en-, with a diVerent laryngeal from the word for ‘grand- mother’, is kept separate from the ‘grandmother’ term only in Armenian and Anatolian, e.g. OIr Ana ‘mother of the gods’, Lat anus ‘old woman’, and Hit annas ‘mother’ distinct from hannas ‘grandmother’ where Hittite retains no trace of the *h 4 - in the word for mother but does retain *h 2 - in the word for grandmother. Other terms appear to be possible reduplications, e.g. *n-h 4 en- on *h 4 en- (e.g. NWels nain ‘grandmother’, Late Lat nonnus ‘nurse’, Alb ne ¨ ne ‘mother’, Rus nja ´ nja ‘nurse’, Grk na ´ nne ¯ ‘female cousin, aunt’, NPers nana ‘mother’, Skt nana ¯ - ‘mother’) and *m-h 4 em-on*h 4 em- (e.g. NWels mam ‘mother’, Lat mamma ‘breast; mu/ommy, grandmother’, OHG muoma ‘aunt’, Lith mama ` ‘mother’, Rus ma ´ ma ‘mother’, Alb me ¨ me ¨ ‘mother’, Grk ma ´ mme ¯ ‘mother’ (later ‘grandmother’), Arm mam ‘grandmother’, NPers ma ¯ m ‘mother’, Skt ma ¯ ‘mother’). In addition to ‘mamma/nanna’ type words, Proto-Indo- European also attests *h a ekkeh a -, e.g. Lat Acca ‘mother’ (Roman goddess), Grk Akko ¯ (nurse of Demeter), Skt akka ¯ ‘mother’. And as with the male form for ‘procreator’, there is also an equivalent feminine form, either inherited or independently created in the diVerent languages, *g ˆ enh 1 trih a - (Lat genetrı ¯ x, Grk gene ´ teira, Skt ja ´ nitrı ¯ -). For the next generation we have the widely attested *dhug ˆ (h a )te ¯ ´ r ‘daughter’ (e.g. Gaul duxtir, Osc fuutı ´ r,NEdaughter, OPrus duckti, OCS du ˘ s ˇ ti, Grk thuga ´ te ¯ r, Arm dustr, Lyc kbatra,Avduª@dar-, Skt duhita ´ r-, Toch B tka ¯ cer, all ‘daughter’) and then *neptih a - ‘granddaughter’. This latter word behaves very much like that for ‘grandson’ in that the North- Western languages also indicate the meaning ‘niece’ (e.g. OIr necht ‘grand- daughter, ?niece’, Lat neptis ‘granddaughter, female descendant’, and in later Imperial Lat also ‘niece’, OE nift ‘niece; granddaughter; stepdaughter’, Lith nepte_ ‘granddaughter; niece’, ORus nestera ‘niece’, Alb mbese ¨ ‘granddaughter; niece’, but Av naptı ¯ - ‘granddaughter’, Skt naptı ¯ ´ - ‘granddaughter’). Though unlike *nepo ¯ ts, which meant speciWcally ‘sister’s son’, *neptih a - meant both ‘sister’s daughter’ and ‘brother’s daughter’ in the languages of the North-West. One might note that English has borrowed, via Old French, the Latin descend- ants of Proto-Indo-European *nepo ¯ ts and *neptih a - with the meanings of ‘nephew’ and ‘niece’ respectively. 12. FAMILY AND KINSHIP 213 [...]... 8wyos to Proto-Indo-European That the designation for the father’s brother is so obviously a derivative of ‘father’ might be taken as additional evidence that the Proto-Indo-European kinship system was of the Omaha type (Latin kinship is apparently alone in equating the father’s brother’s children with the father’s, e.g frater (germanus) ‘brother’ beside frater ¯ ¯ patruelis ‘father’s brother’s son’) There... There is no equally secure Proto-IndoEuropean term for ‘mother’s brother’ The languages of the North-West show derivatives of ‘grandfather’, which would reXect the expected Omaha equation of ‘grandfather’ and ‘mother’s brother’, but then each group shows a diVerent derivation for ‘mother’s brother’, suggesting the Omaha-like equation of ‘grandfather’ and ‘mother’s brother’ was only a very late Indo-European... Driessen (20 04) 15 Material Culture 15.1 Containers 239 15.2 Metals 241 15.3 Tools 242 15 .4 Weapons 244 15.5 Ornament 246 15.6 Transport 247 15.7 Roads 250 15.8 Proto-Indo-European Material Culture 251 15.1 Containers In addition to textiles and clothing, there is considerable reconstructable vocabulary pertaining to the rest of material culture While skin, plant Wbres, or wool might be fashioned into containers,... reconstructing the original semantics of the words For example, a number of Indo-European groups (Balto-Slavic, Greek, Armenian) use this Proto-Indo-European word for ‘father-in-law’ to indicate exclusively the ‘husband’s mother’, i.e the word is used solely from the perspective of the wife and not from that of the husband Consequently, Oswald ´ ´ Szemerenyi suggested that the deeper etymology of the word... Arm siwn) ´¯ *k ¯ 13.3 Proto-Indo-European Settlement The reconstructed lexicon provides a very general picture of the residences and architecture of the Proto-Indo-Europeans Nevertheless, we can at least make an attempt at translating some of the vocabulary into features that might be recoverable from the archaeological record To begin with, it seems fairly clear that the Proto-Indo-Europeans occupied... v ´ ´´ father’, Av x asur ‘father-in-law’, Skt svasura- ‘father-in-law’; and NWels chwegr ‘mother-in-law’, Lat socrus ‘mother-in-law’, OE sweger ‘mother-in´ ¨ law’, OCS svekry ‘husband’s mother’, Alb vjeherr ‘mother-in-law’, Grk hekura ¯ ´ ´ ´ ¯ ‘husband’s mother’, Arm skesur ‘husband’s mother’, Skt svasru- ‘mother-inlaw’) The word for ‘mother-in-law’ is clearly derived from the masculine There is... suYcient corolˆ lary evidence in the terms for textile manufacture, e.g *pek-, *reu(hx)-, that the exploitation of woollen textiles should be reconstructed to the speakers of the proto-language This has been a substantial argument for those who suggest that the Proto-Indo-Europeans had not experienced serious linguistic divergence much prior to the fourth millennium bc, i.e the Proto-Indo-Europeans are ‘post-wool’... and Nagy (1974b); the bed in Hamp (1987c) and Maher (1981)  14 Clothing and Textiles 14. 1 Textiles 230 14. 2 Proto-Indo-European Textile Production 236 14. 1 Textiles Among the obvious domestic pursuits in any society, at least one inhabiting the temperate regions of Eurasia, is the production of textiles and clothing The reconstructed lexicon has a considerable number of items pertaining to these activities... ner ‘husband’s brother’s wife’, Skt yatar¯ ´ ‘husband’s brother’s wife’) So apparently speciWc a word makes sense if the usual social unit was an extended family of parents and married sons The daughter-in-law in such a situation would be in need of a term to refer to her husband’s brothers’ wives The concept of ‘nephew’, as we have seen, is critical to the identiWcation of the Proto-Indo-European kinship... ‘bottom, foot’) which is extended to mean ‘ground’ ¯ ˘ na-) but not in the sense of the Xoor of a house (In the south-east of (e.g Av bu ¯ the Indo-European world derivatives of this word are used to name the ´ ´ archetypical monster, i.e the Greek Putho and Sanskrit ahir bhudhnyas ¯ ´ ¯ ˆ ‘snake of the deep’.) There is also an adverb, *dhgh(e)m-en ‘on the ground’, ˆ which has been formed from the . apa- *ph8 a te ¯ ´ r ‘father’ Lat pater,NEfather, Grk pate ¯ ´ r, Skt pita ´ r- *somo-ph8 a to ¯ r ‘of the same father’ Grk homopa ´ to ¯ r *g ˆ enh 1 - to ¯ r ‘father; procreator’ Lat genitor, Grk gene ´ to ¯ r,. to Proto-Indo-European *ne ´ po ¯ ts, then this particular conXation of kin types would support the identiWcation of the Proto-Indo-European kinship system as of the Omaha type. However, if the Proto-Indo-European. *ph8 a tr8wyos to Proto-Indo-European. That the designation for the father’s brother is so obviously a derivative of ‘father’ might be taken as additional evidence that the Proto-Indo-European