The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European Part 6 ppt

threat’, Toch AB pa ¨ l- ‘praise’). More ambiguous is *yek- where the range of meanings is disparate, e.g. Lat iocus ‘joke’ but Umb iuka ‘prayers’ (cf. also MWels ieith ‘speech’, OHG je ¨ han ‘express, explain’, Skt ya ¯ ´ cati ‘asks, solicits, entreats’); about the only thing we can say is that it meant some form of verbal expression. Among the formal expressions, those that comprise the concept of ‘praise’ are well represented in Indo-European. We have both the verbal root *h 1 erk w - ‘praise’ (e.g. Hit arkuwai- ‘explain, answer’, Skt a ´ rcati ‘praises’) and a nominal derivative *h 1 erk w o ´ s ‘song of praise’ (e.g. OIr erc ‘heaven’, Arm erg ‘song’, Oss arªaw ‘tale’, Skt arka ´ - ‘song’, Toch B yarke ‘honour’). The verbal root *h 1 eug w h- ‘praise’ takes a present *h 1 e ´ ug w hetor and renders ‘praises’ and ‘proclaims’ (e.g. Grk eu ´ khomai ‘pray [for], vaunt’, Lyd ow-‘Æ proclaim’, Av aojaite ‘says, pronounces’, Skt o ´ jate ‘they praise’). Probably related to it is *weg w h- which returns meanings of ‘vow, promise solemnly, consecrate’ in Lat voveo ¯ and ‘sacriWcer, supplicant, institutor of a sacriWce’ in Skt va ¯ gha ´ t-, as well as the more mundane Arm gog ‘say’. The root *g w erh x - ‘praise’ (e.g. OPrus girtwei ‘praise’, Alb ge ¨ rshas ‘invite to a marriage’, Av gar- ‘praise’, Skt gr8n _ a ¯ ´ ti ‘sings, praises’) gives us the Irish and Welsh words for bard (bardd in Welsh, on which see further below); a derivative is Lat gra ¯ te ¯ s [pl.] ‘thanks’ (i.e. ‘praisings’). The root *kar- indicates ‘praise’ in Indo-Iranian (Av c ˇ ar@k@r@- ‘praise’, Skt carkarti ‘praises’) and ‘fame’ (e.g. OE hre ¯ þ) and ‘report’ (e.g. ON herma) in Germanic. There are several words associated with singing. Ascription of *seng w h- ‘sing’ to Proto-Indo-European rests on whether one accepts Prakrit sam _ ghaı ¨ ‘say, honour’ as cognate with a series of Celtic, Germanic, and Greek words (e.g. MWels dehongli ‘explain’, NE sing, song, Grk omphe ¯ ´ ‘divine voice, prophecy’). The root *geh 1 (i)- ‘sing’ is restricted to Baltic, Slavic, and Indo-Iranian (e.g. Lith giedo ´ ti ‘sing [hymns]’, ORus gajati ‘crow’, Av ga ¯ Ta ¯ - ‘metre, line of poetry’, Skt ga ¯ ´ ti $ ga ¯ ´ yati ‘sings’, ga ¯ tha ¯ - ‘song’); the Av ga ¯ Ta ¯ - ‘metre’, is also the name of the earliest section of the Avesta. A Slavic-Tocharian isogloss gives us *pei- ‘sing’ (e.g. OCS pe ˇ ti ‘sing’, Toch B pi- ‘sing’). Another possible Proto-Indo-European word for ‘sing’ is *kan-, on which see below. The Proto-Indo-European word for ‘song’ was *sh 2 o ´ men-, e.g. Grk hu ´ mnos ‘song, festival song (of praise in honour of gods and heroes)’ (borrowed into NE as hymn), Hit ishamai- ‘song, melody’, Skt sa ¯ ´ man- ‘song, chant’). As we have already seen, acts of ‘praising’ and ‘singing’ would have been closely associated with the concept of ‘fame’. Proto-Indo-European *k ˆ le ´ wes- ‘fame’ (e.g. OIr clu ¯ ‘fame’, Lat cluor ‘glory’, OCS slovo ‘word’, Grk kle ´ os ‘fame’, Av sravah- ‘word’, Skt s ´ ra ´ vas- ‘fame’, Toch B -ka ¨ lywe ‘fame’) is from *k ˆ leu- ‘hear’ (see also Section 20.5), i.e. ‘what is heard’, a central feature of the Indo-European poetic tradition. As one’s fame attaches to one’s name, we should add here *h 1 no ´ mn8 ‘name’ which is attested in all major Indo-European 21. SPEECH AND SOUND 357 groups (e.g. OIr ainm, Lat no ¯ men,NEname, OPrus emens, OCS ime fi , Alb eme ¨ r, Grk o ´ noma, Arm anum, Hit la ¯ man, Av Skt na ¯ ´ ma, Toch B n ˜ em, all ‘name’). The actual expression for giving a name was *h 1 no ´ mn8 dheh 1 - ‘name-put’ which is seen in OCzech dieti jme ˇ , Hit la ¯ man da ¯ -, Skt na ¯ ´ ma dha ¯ - and as a noun in Grk onomatothe ´ te ¯ s ‘name-giver’. Although there are regionally attested words for the ‘poet’, there is no single well-attested form for Proto-Indo-European. As we have seen, the Celtic word for ‘bard’ (OIr bard, NWels bardd) was based on the verbal root *g w erh x - ‘praise’. It is actually from a nominal compound *g w r8h x - dhh 1 -o ´ -s which itself derives from the verbal compound *g w r8h x -dheh 1 - ‘praise- put’. This collocation exists as an uncompounded expression in Indo-Iranian, i.e. Av gar@mda ¯ -: Skt giram dha ¯ - ‘give praise’ but the Indo-Iranian and Celtic evidence is insuYcient to allow us to reconstruct ‘praise-put’ to Proto-Indo- European; the phrase may well have been independently created at either end of the Indo-European world. In addition to some of the words for ‘praise’ or ‘speak solemnly’, which may also be translated as ‘pray’, we have several more words that can be simply rendered ‘pray’. Although the Germanic cognates of *meldh- do not have obviously religious connotations (e.g. OE meld(i)an ‘announce, declare, pro- claim, reveal’; NE meld ‘show a combination of cards in a game’ is a loan borrowed from German [cf. OHG meldo ¯ n ‘report’]), the other cognates in Baltic (e.g. Lith meldz ˇ iu ` ), Slavic (e.g. OCS moljo˛), Arm malt‘em, and, most signiWcantly, Hit malda ¯ (i)-, all mean ‘pray’. Those words derived from *g w hedh- rather consistently mean ‘pray’ (OIr guidid ‘asks, prays’, Lith geda ´ uju ‘desire’, OCS z ˇ e˛z ˇ do˛ ‘desire’, dialectal Grk the ´ ssasthai ‘ask, pray’, Av jaiäyemi ‘ask, pray’); to these we might add NE bid. A Greek-Luvian correspondence gives *h 2 eru- which can mean both ‘pray’ and ‘call down a curse’ (Grk ara ´ omai ‘pray, vow; call down a curse’, Luv hı ¯ ru ¯ t- ‘curse’). A Germanic-Hittite isogloss yields *telh x - ‘pray’ (e.g. ON þulr ‘wiseman, sage, sayer of sacred rituals’, Hit talliya- ‘appeal to a god for help’). Although *perk ˆ - ‘ask’ (e.g. OIr arcu ‘ask’, Lat posco ¯ ‘ask’, precor ‘ask for’, OHG forsco ¯ n ‘ask, examine’, Lith pras ˇ au~ ‘request’, OCS prositi ‘ask’, Arm harc‘anem ‘ask’, Av p@r@saiti ‘asks’, Skt pr8ccha ´ ti ‘asks’, Toch AB pa ¨ rk- ‘ask’) may carry a general meaning it is also the best candidate we have in Proto- Indo-European for ‘to ask for someone in marriage’ (cf. particularly Lat procus ‘wooer’, Lith pers ˇ u ` ‘ask in marriage’, Arm harsn ‘bride’; see Section 12.2). Finally, a judicial connotation adheres to *kreuk ˆ - which has both Germanic and Indic cognates that mean ‘raise a hue and cry’ (OE hre ¯ am ‘[judicial] outcry’, Av xraos- ‘call’, Skt [a ´ nu] kro ´ s ´ ati ‘cries out, raises the hue and cry’). From the West Central region: *kan- ‘sing’ (e.g. OIr canaid ‘sings’, Lat cano ¯ ‘sing’, carmen ‘song, prophecy, form of incantation’ OHG hano ‘cock’, Grk e ¯ i- kano ´ s ‘cock’ [literally ‘dawn-singer’ just as in Skt us _ a ¯ -kala-], and probably 358 21. SPEECH AND SOUND Toch B kene ‘song, tune’, in which case we have a general Proto-Indo-Euro- pean word rather than a regionalism) and *sek w - ‘say, recount publicly’ (e.g. OIr insce ‘discourse’, Lat ı ¯ n seque ‘say!’, NE say, Lith sakau~ $ seku ` ‘say’, OCS soc ˇ iti ‘indicate’, Grk enne ´ po ¯ ‘say’). Greek-Indo-Iranian correspondences (Grk ke ¯ ´ ruks ‘herald’, Skt ka ¯ ru ´ - ‘one who sings or praises, poet’) comprise *ka ¯ ru- ‘poet’ (from *kar- ‘praise’ although the Indo-European status of the Greek word has been challenged) and *steu- ‘praise’ (Grk steu 7 tai ‘make a gesture of or show of [doing something], promise, engage oneself, or threaten [to do some- thing]’, Av staoiti ‘praises’, Skt sta ´ uti ‘praises’). Indo-Iranian and Tocharian share a regional development of *k ˆ eh 1 - ‘declare solemnly’ as *k ˆ eh 1 s- ‘instruct’ (Av sa ¯ h- ‘say instruct, call’, Skt s ´ a ¯ sti ‘punishes, controls, commands, instructs’, Toch A ka ¯ s- ‘chide, reprimand’) and a common root *yeh a - ‘ask for, beg’ (e.g. Skt ya ¯ - ‘beg, entreat’, Toch B ya ¯ sk- ‘beg’). 21.3 Interjections and Human Sounds Here we have gathered together in Table 21.3 those words which may be described as interjections or describe the type of noises that might issue from a human (laugh, babble, moan, etc.); animal noises will be treated separately in Section 21.4 although there will be some crossing between these two spheres, e.g. both people and wolves ‘howl’ in English. Obviously, when dealing with words that may be sound symbolic, there may be independent onomatopoeia involved rather than genetic inheritance. The instrument responsible for making the following noises is the *wo ¯ k w s ‘voice’ (e.g. Lat vo ¯ x, Grk [acc.] o ´ pa,Avva ¯ xs ˇ , Skt va ¯ k, Toch B wek, all ‘voice’), a nominal derivative from *wek w - ‘speak’. The standard vocative particle in Proto-Indo-European was *o ¯ where it meets this formal use in Celtic (e.g. OIr a ¯ ), Germanic (MHG a ¯ ,NEO), Baltic (Lith o ¯ ), Slavic (OCS o), Grk (o 7 ), and Indic (Skt a ¯ ). In Lat o ¯ it is a cry (as it may also be in Greek) and in Goth o ¯ it means ‘alas’. The expression of grief seen in *wai ‘alas’ has undergone irregular phonological developments but would seem to be strongly reconstructed never- theless (e.g. OIr fae, Lat vae,OEwa ¯ , Lith va, Grk ouaı ´ ,Avvayo ¯ i, all ‘alas’, and NE woe, Alb vaj ‘lament’, Arm vay ‘woe, misfortune’–compare also Yiddish, and now English, oy veh). The word for ‘laugh’ in Proto-Indo-European was obviously onomatopoeic and although it is provided a root reconstruction, i.e. *kha-, it is generally found in reduplicated form, e.g. in addition to the Lat cachinno ¯ ‘laugh’ we have OE ceahhettan, OCS chochotati, Grk ka(g)kha ´ zo ¯ , Arm xaxank, Skt ka ´ khati $ kha ´ kkhati, all ‘laugh’, suggesting that one might have laughed *kha kha! in 21. SPEECH AND SOUND 359 Proto-Indo-European. Alternatively, we have the more familiar *ha ha (Lat hahae, Grk ha ` ha ´ , Skt ha ha ). A single *ha tended to indicate surprise (Lat ha ¯ , Grk ha ¯ , Skt ha). The root *smei- means ‘smile’ in ME and NE smile, Grk meidia ´ o ¯ and Indic sma ´ yate but ‘laugh’ in Norw smila, Baltic (Latv smeju), Slavic (OCS sme ˇ jo˛), and Tocharian (Toch B smi-). Words for ‘babble’ are so clearly onomatopoeic that certainty of reconstruc- tion is impossible. There are three widespread words or, perhaps more accur- ately, sounds: *baba- (e.g. Lat babit ‘bears himself proudly, prances’, babiger ‘foolish, simple’, NE baby, babble, Lith bo ´ ba ‘old woman’, OCS baba ‘old Table 21.3. Human noises *wo ¯ k w s ‘voice’ Lat vo ¯ x, Grk o ´ pa, Skt va ¯ k *o ¯ ‘O’ Lat o ¯ ,NEO, Skt a ¯ *wai ‘alas’ Lat vae,NEwoe, Grk ouaı ´ *kha- ‘laugh’ Lat cachinno ¯ , Grk ka(g)kha ´ zo ¯ , Skt ka ´ (k)kati *ha ha (laughing sound) Lat hahae, Grk ha ` ha ´ , Skt ha ha *ha (sound of surprise) Lat ha ¯ , Grk ha ¯ , Skt ha *smei- ‘smile, laugh’ NE smile, Grk meidia ´ o ¯ , Skt sma ´ yate *baba- ‘babble’ Lat babit,NEbaby, babble, Grk baba ´ zo ¯ , Skt bababa ¯ -karo ´ ti *balba -‘Æ stammer’ Lat balbus,NEbabble *lal- ‘babble’ Lat lallo ¯ ,NElullaby, Grk lale ´ o ¯ , Skt lalalla ¯ - *reudh a - ‘mourn, lament’ Lat rudo ¯ , Skt ro ´ diti *glag ˆ h- ‘cry out, lament’ Skt gr8ha ´ ti *leug- ‘grieve, be pained’ Lat lu ¯ geo ¯ , Grk lugro ´ s *sten- ‘moan’ Grk sto ´ nos, Skt sta ´ nati *murmur- ‘murmur’ Lat murmuro ¯ , Grk mormu ´ ro ¯ , Skt marmar- *mug-‘Æ make a (low) noise’ Lat mu ¯ gio ¯ , Grk mu ´ zo ¯ , Skt mu ´ n ˜ jati *(s)pr8h x g- ‘crackle, sputter’ Grk spharage ´ omai, Skt sphu ¯ ´ rjati *meh 1 (i)- ‘Æ mumble’ Grk mimikhmo ´ s, Skt mı ´ ma ¯ ti *dhren-‘Æ rumble, drone’ Lat dre ¯ nso ¯ ,NEdrone, Grk thre 7 nos, Skt dhra ´ n _ ati *k ˆ wesh x -‘Æ breathe; sigh, groan’ Lat queror,NEwheeze, Skt s ´ va ´ siti *g ˆ h(h 1 )iy-eh a - ‘yawn’ Lat hia ¯ re,NEyawn *dhwen- ‘sound’ NE din, Skt dhva ´ nati *swenh x - ‘(re)sound’ Lat sono ¯ ,NEswan, Skt sva ´ nati *klun- ‘resound’ *gerg-‘Æ crack, resound’ NE crack, Skt ga ´ rjati *g ˆ hwonos ‘a sound, voice’ *k ˆ le ´ utrom ‘a sound’ Skt s ´ ro ´ tra- 360 21. SPEECH AND SOUND woman’, Alb bebe ‘newborn child’, Grk baba ´ zo ¯ ‘babble’, Skt bababa ¯ -karo ´ ti ‘crackles [of a Wre]’); *balba- (and *balbal- and *barbar-), e.g. Lat balbus ‘stammer’, NE babble, Lith blebe ´ nti ‘stammer’, Czech beblati ‘stammer’; Grk ba ´ rbaros ‘non-Greek speaker’ [whence via Latin to NE barbarian], Skt barbara- ‘stammerer, non-Indic speaker’); and *lal- (e.g. Lat lallo ¯ ‘sing to sleep’, NE lullaby, NHG lallen ‘stammer, babble, speak indistinctly’, Lith lalu ´ oti ‘stam- mer’, Rus la ´ l ‘babbler’, Grk la ´ los ‘babbling, loquacious’, lale ´ o ¯ ‘talk, chat, prattle’, Hit lala- ‘tongue’, Skt lalalla ¯ - ‘indistinct or lisping utterance’). The Wrst exhibits the meaning ‘babble’, e.g. Grk baba ´ zo ¯ ‘babble’ or, in Indic, ‘crackle’ but is also associated with infants and shows a two-way semantic development such that we have a meaning ‘baby’ in English and Albanian but a reversed perspective in Middle High German, Lithuanian, and Old Church Slavonic where we Wnd ‘old woman’ or ‘mother’. Clearly related are those that close the initial syllable with an *-l-or*-r The meaning of these extended forms seems to have also included a pejorative for ‘speak in a foreign way’. Hence both Grk ba ´ rbaros and its Skt equivalent barbara- could refer to one who did not speak the respective language concerned, i.e. a barbarian was literally someone whose speech sounded like bar-bar. The third word generally means ‘babble’ but in Hit lala- means ‘tongue’. A number of words Wll out the vocabulary of ‘grief ’. The verbal root *reudh a - (with a present *re ´ udh a ti) ‘mourn’ (Lat rudo ¯ ‘roar, bellow, bray’, ON rauta ‘roar’ [whence by borrowing NE root (for someone)], OE re ¯ otan ‘moan’, Lith raumi ‘mourn, lament’, Slov rydati ‘weep, cry, sob’, Av raod- ‘lament, mourn’, Skt ro ´ diti ‘weeps, roars’) also yields a derivative *roudh a os ‘cry’ (OHG ro ¯ z, Lith grauda ` , Skt ro ´ da-, all ‘cry’). There is also *glag ˆ h- ‘cry out’ (e.g. OHG klago ¯ n ‘bewail, complain about’, Av g@r@zaiti ‘laments, cries’, Skt gr8ha ´ te ‘lament’). Latin, Greek, and Tocharian all point to a *leug- ‘weep’ (Lat lu ¯ geo ¯ ‘mourn, lament’, Grk leugale ´ os ‘sad, horrible’, lugro ´ s ‘baneful, mournful’, Toch B lakle ‘pain, suVering’). A ‘moan’ was conveyed by *sten- (e.g. OE stenan, Lith stenu ` , OCS stenjo˛, all ‘moan’, Grk ste ´ no ¯ ‘roar’, sto ´ nos ‘moaning’, Skt sta ´ nati ‘thun- ders’) which is probably related to *(s)tenh x - ‘thunder’ (see Section 8.4). Another reduplicated form is *murmur- ‘murmur’, e.g. Lat murmuro ¯ [whence by borrowing NE murmur], Lith murme ´ nti, Grk mormu ´ ro ¯ , Arm mrmrm, all ‘murmur’, and Skt marmar- ‘roaring’. There are a series of sounds that defy easy semantic reconstruction. Probably the clearest is *mug- whose meanings run from Hit muga ¯ (i)- ‘entreat’ to low moaning sounds (e.g. Lat mu ¯ gio ¯ ‘low, bellow’, OHG muckazen ‘grumble’, Grk mu ´ zo ¯ ‘mutter, moan, growl’, Skt mu ´ n ˜ jati ‘makes a noise’); it would appear to be an enlargement of *mu- a low sound of some sort (in Czech it does mean to ‘moo’ like a cow). Germanic, Baltic, and Greek agree that their derivatives from *(s)pr8h x g- mean ‘crackle’ (e.g. ON spraka, Lith sprage_ ´ ti, Grk spharage ´ omai); the Indic cognate means 21. SPEECH AND SOUND 361 ‘thunders’ (Skt sphu ¯ ´ rjati ‘thunders, rumbles’). The sound indicated by *meh 1 (i)- is diYcult to ascertain as it means ‘stammer’ in OCS mu ˘ mati, ‘neigh’ in Grk mimikhmo ´ s, ‘bleat’ in Armenian and Indic (mayem and mı ´ ma ¯ ti respectively), but ‘speak’ in the oldest attested language, Hit memma The sound made in *dhren-, if Germanic, Lithuanian, and Greek are anything to go by, should approximate that of a bee as it does produce the word ‘drone’ in these diVerent groups (e.g. NE drone, Lith tra ˜ nas, Grk thro 7 naks; cf. also MIr dresacht ‘creak- ing noise’, Lat dre ¯ nso ¯ ‘cry [of a swarm]’, Grk thre 7 nos ‘funeral lamentation’, Arm drnc ˇ ‘im ‘toot, resound’, Skt dhra ´ n _ ati ‘resounds’, and perhaps Toch B tren _ k- ‘speak’). A ‘sigh’ or some other breathing sound is associated with *k ˆ wesh x -; it can mean ‘lament’ in Lat queror and Toch B kwa ¨ s- but in Germanic and Indic we have ‘cough’ (OE hwo ¯ san), ‘snort’, ‘hiss’, etc., Skt s ´ va ´ siti;NE wheeze is a loanword from Old Norse. The concept of ‘yawn’ or ‘open the mouth wide’ is provided by various forms related to *g ˆ h(h 1 )iy-eh a - which provide the North-Western words (Lat hia ¯ re, OHG gı ¯ e ¯ n,NEyawn, Lith z ˇ io ´ ju, Rus zija ´ tı ˘ , all ‘yawn’) but with an o-grade we have Toch B ka ¯ ya ¯ - ‘yawn, gape’. There is a series of totally ambiguous sounds. A Germanic-Baltic-Indic isogloss delivers *dhwen- which seems to be some form of ‘loud noise’ (e.g. NE din, Lith dunde ˙ ´ti ‘rumble, roar, thunder’, Skt dhva ´ nati ‘sounds, roars’). Although the Sanskrit word derived from *swenh x -, sva ´ nati, means ‘roars, makes sound’, the fact that the word means ‘resound’ in other languages (e.g. Lat sono ¯ , Latv sane ¯ t), ‘sing’ in OE swinsian, and ‘play a musical instrument’ in OIr seinnid suggests a meaning ‘resound’ or something less noisy; derivatives of the verbal root include Lat sonus ‘sound’ and NE swan (< *‘singer’). A Ger- manic-Tocharian isogloss preserves *klun- ‘resound’ (e.g. OE hlynn ‘sound, noise, roaring stream’, Toch AB ka ¨ ln- ‘resound’). The root *gerg- is regarded as onomatopoeic but it is by no means clear what that sound signiWes; it means ‘creak’ and ‘crack’ in Germanic and Baltic (e.g. OE cearcian ‘creak, gnash’, NE crack, Lith gı ` rgz ˇ dz ˇ iu ‘creak’) but ‘roars, howls’ in Indic (Skt ga ´ rjati) and simply ‘noise’ in Arm karkac ˇ . The verbal root *g ˆ heu(h x )- ‘call’ yields the derivative *g ˆ hwonos ‘sound, voice’ (OCS zvonu ˘ ‘noise’, Alb ze ¨ ‘voice’, Arm jayn ‘voice’) while from the the root *k ˆ leu- ‘hear’ (see also Section 20.5) regularly (and perhaps independently) derived *k ˆ le ´ utrom ‘a sound’ (e.g. OE hle ¯ odor ‘sound’, Av sraoTram ‘song’, Skt s ´ ro ´ tra- ‘tone’). Regional correspondences are all from the West Central region and oVer frequent question marks over the solidity of their reconstruction (so many are onomatopoeic). We have *gag- ‘cackle’ (e.g. NE cackle, Lith gagu ` , Rus gogola ´ tı ˘ , Arm kakac ˇ ‘em, all ‘cackle’) and a possible Welsh-Greek isogloss *sward- ‘laugh’ (NWels chwarddiad ‘laugh’, Grk sarda ´ nios ‘(bitter) laughter’, sarda ´ zo ¯ ‘scoV, jeer’ [whence by borrowing NE sardonic]); *leh a - ‘complain, cry out’ (e.g. OIr liı ¨ d ‘complains’, Lat la ¯ menta ‘lamentation’, dialectal Grk laı ´ o ¯ 362 21. SPEECH AND SOUND ‘+ make a sound’, Arm lam ‘cry, weep’) which might be the same as *leh a - ‘bark’ (see Section 21.4); *g ˆ em- ‘weep, lament, moan’ (e.g. NIr geamh ‘prattle’, Lat gemo ¯ ‘sigh, moan, lament, groan’, Arm cmrim ‘grieve’); *yu-‘+ shout (for joy)’ (e.g. MIr ilach ‘victory cry’, Lat iu ¯ bilo ¯ ‘shout’, NE yowl, Grk iu ´ zo ¯ ‘shout’); *sner-‘+ rattle, growl’ (e.g. NE snore, snarl, Lith niu ` rniu ‘growl, grumble’, dialectal Grk e ´ nuren ‘+ cried out’); *ger-‘+ hiss, howl’ (e.g. OE ceorran ‘creak’, Lith gu ` rti ‘yell’, Alb nguron ‘howls [of the wind]’); *srenk- ‘snore’ (OIr sreinnid ‘snores’, Grk hre ´ gko ¯ ‘snore’); and *gheh a - ‘yawn’ (ON gan ‘yawn’, Grk kha ´ sko ¯ ‘yawn’). 21.4 Animal Sounds We have already seen that the words for the names of birds are often onomato- poeic and in addition to these there are a number of other words associated with the speech of animals. That the language of animals is speciWc to one’s individ- ual language is easily illustrated by the fact that an English-, German- and Greek-speaking dog all bark slightly diVerently, i.e. NE bow-wow, NHG wau- wau, and Grk baubau. Noises associated with animals are listed in Table 21.4. The root *bhrem- would seem to involve some sort of buzzing or roaring sound and it tends to mean ‘roar’ in Germanic (e.g. OE bremman) but returns a Sanskrit word for ‘bee’ (bhramara ´ -); cf. also Lat fremo ¯ ‘growl, roar’, NHG brummen ‘growl, grumble, hum’, Pol brzmiec ´ ‘resound’). A Proto-Indo-Euro- pean dog was said to *leh a - ‘bark’ (e.g. Lat la ¯ tro ¯ ‘bark [at]; rant, roar’, Lith lo ´ ju ‘bark’, OCS lajo˛ ‘bark’, Alb leh ‘bark’, Oss ræjun ‘bark’, Skt ra ¯ yati ‘barks’) or *bhels- ‘howl’ (e.g. OE bellan ‘roar, howl’, Skt bhas _ ati ‘barks, yelps’) or *bukk- ‘howl’ (SC bu ´ kati ‘howl’, Grk bu ´ kte ¯ s ‘howling’, Av buxti- ‘howling’, Skt bukkati Table 21.4. Animal sounds *bhrem-‘Æ make a noise (of animals)’ Lat fremo ¯ , Skt bhramara ´ - *leh a - ‘bark’ Lat la ¯ tro ¯ , Skt ra ¯ yati *bhels- ‘yelp, howl’ Skt bhas _ ati *kau(k)- ‘cry out; cry out as a bird’ Lat cavannus, Grk ke ¯ ´ ks, Skt ko ´ ka- *ker-‘Æ caw’ Lat corvus, Grk ko ´ raks, Skt karat _ a- *ul-‘Æ howl, hoot’ Lat ulula ¯ re, Grk hula ´ o ¯ , Skt ulu ¯ lu ´ - *gher-‘Æ cry (of animals or birds)’ Lat hirrı ¯ re, Skt gha ¯ ´ rghara- *bukk- ‘howl’ Grk bu ´ kte ¯ s, Skt bukkati *reu- ‘roar, howl’ Lat ru ¯ mor, Grk o ¯ ru ¯ ´ omai, Skt ruva ´ ti 21. SPEECH AND SOUND 363 ‘barks’). The Wrst word means ‘bark’ in the six groups in which it is attested and it is not obviously onomatopoeic but seems to be Wrmly inherited from Proto- Indo-European. It is also curious that the other two roots do not themselves appear to be onomatopoeic or, at least, if *bukk- is, it does not reXect a sound that an English speaker would intuitively regard as a ‘howling noise’. There are several words for ‘bird cry’. The raucous-sounding *kau(k)- (e.g. Skt ka ´ uti ‘cries out’, Lith kaukiu ` ‘howl’, Grk ko ¯ ku ´ o ¯ ‘cry, lament’ Arm k‘uk‘ ‘sighing, groaning’, Skt koku ¯ yate ‘cries out’) has been associated with the word for ‘owl’: Celtic (NWels cuan ‘nightowl’), Italic (Lat cavannus ‘nightowl’), Germanic (OHG hu ¯ wo); the ‘tern’ (Grk ke ¯ ´ ks), and the ‘goose’ (Skt ko ´ ka- ‘kind of goose’). Lat corvus and Grk ko ´ raks return ‘raven’ as a derivative of *ker- while the Indic cognate (Skt karat _ a-) means ‘crow’ (cf. also Czech kra ´ korati ‘cackle’, Grk skorakı ´ zo ¯ ‘dismiss contemptuously’). Both Latin and Indic mean ‘owl’ (Lat uluc(c)us ‘[screech] owl’, Skt u ´ lu ¯ ka-) as a name built on *ul- although this can also mean ‘howl’ (Grk hula ´ o ¯ , Lat ulula ¯ re), ‘ululate’ (Skt ulu ¯ lu ´ - ‘ululating’), and even ‘shout hello’ (Lith ulu ¯ lo ´ ti ). A more general ‘animal cry’ was *gher- which may be independently invented over a number of its putative cognate languages (e.g. Lat hirrı ¯ re ‘howl like a rabid dog’, ON garpr ‘warlike man’, RusCS gu ˘ rkati ‘coo’, Skt gharghara- ‘gurgling’). Certainly the semantic disparities seen in this group would seem to favour the notion of independent creation rather than inheritance. Finally, *reu- ‘roar, howl’ can be found with this meaning in Germanic (e.g. ON rymja ‘roar’), Slavic (e.g. OCS rovo˛ ‘roar’), Grk (o ¯ ru ¯ ´ omai ‘howl’), and Indic (Skt ruva ´ ti ‘roars, bellows’); in Lat ru ¯ mor it has come to mean ‘rumour, common talk’. Regional words from the North-west comprise *kem- ‘hum’ (e.g. NE hum, Latv kamines ‘bee, bumble-bee’, Rus cmelı ˘ ‘bumble-bee’) returning ‘bee’ in Baltic and Slavic; *bherg-‘+ bark, growl’ (e.g. NE bark, Lith burge_ ´ ti ‘spurt, splash, splutter, howl’); and *bhleh 1 - ‘bleat’ (e.g. Lat Xeo ¯ ‘weep, cry, lament; shed tears’, MHG blæjen ‘bleat’, Latv ble ˆ ju ‘bleat’, Rus ble ´ ju ‘bleat’). From the West Central region: *baub- ‘bark, low’ (Lat baubor ‘bark’, Lith bau~bti ‘low [of cows]’, Grk bau ¨ zo ¯ ‘bark’) with ‘bark’ in Latin and Greek but ‘low (of cattle)’ in Lithuanian; *kla(n)g- ‘scream (of birds)’ (Lat clango ¯ ‘cry [of birds]’, ON hlakka ‘cry [of an eagle]’, Lith klage_ ´ ti ‘cackle’, Grk kla ´ zo ¯ ‘resound’, klaggo ¯ ´ de ¯ s ‘shout- ing, screaming [of people and birds], barking or baying [of dogs]’); *g(h)ru(n)(d)- ‘grunt’ (e.g. Lat grunnio ¯ $ grundio ¯ ‘grunt’, NE grunt, Grk gru ´ zo ¯ ‘grunt’); and *b(h)(o)mb(h)- ‘+ muZed noise’ (e.g. ON bumba ‘drum’, Lith bambe _ ´ ti ‘roar’, Rus bu ´ ben ‘drum’, Alb bumbullit ‘it thunders’, Grk bo ´ mbos ‘muZed noise’) with related words for ‘bee’ in Lith bam~ balas, Grk bombu ´ le ¯ , and Skt bambhara 364 21. SPEECH AND SOUND 21.5 Proto-Indo-European Speech In their typological distinctions between humans and beasts, Gamkrelidze and Ivanov emphasize speech as a major deWning characteristic of humans (a feature also found in many non-IE traditions) and in Old English we Wnd reordberend ‘speech-bearers’ as a kenning for human beings. The category of speech in Indo-European is one of its larger semantic Welds. If these are divided into twenty-Wve categories, speech trails only after words concerning the body and health and the large variety of action verbs. Interestingly enough, if the same semantic W elds are superimposed on Proto-Uralic, speech is one of the least represented categories and ties for twentieth place. What this says about the loquaciousness of Indo-Europeans vis-a ` -vis Uralics is anyone’s guess. Among the variety of words for speech reconstructed to Proto-Indo-European is fairly convincing evidence of diVerent registers. In English we can ‘utter’, ‘declare’, ‘pronounce’, ‘asseverate’, or, dropping a level, we can ‘talk’ and ‘say’, and now in free fall, ‘yak’, ‘gab’, and ‘yap’, and ultimately enter a world where we are unsure whether it is humans or animals making the noises, e.g. ‘growl’, ‘grunt’, ‘yelp’. A similar range of expression seems to have been open to the Proto-Indo-Europeans. Words based on *k ˆ e(n)s- and *h 1/4 o ¯ r-, for, example, appear to Wll out special formal contexts of speech associated with religion or the law. It is likely that the less nuanced expressions of speech include the more widely attested forms such as *wek w - and *(s)wer- while at the bottom we might have some of the expressions associated with children or foreigners, e.g. *lal-, *baba Among the key functions of speech was prayer. Words for ‘pray’ are well attested in Proto-Indo-European, e.g. *meldh-, *g w hedh-, and the structure of the earliest IE prayers appears to follow a basic pattern of invocation to the deity, statement of why the deity should assist one or be honoured, and then the actual request, often with an imperative verb. In some IE traditions, e.g. Phrygian, Italic, we have abundant evidence for curses as well as prayers, especially in the context of protecting graves from deWlement, and this is further supported by the evidence in Greek and Anatolian for *h 2 eru-‘+ pray, curse’. We have also seen the specialized use of the verb *perk ˆ - ‘ask’ to indicate a marriage proposal. In addition to the verbs listed above that indicate recite or sing, e.g. *(s)pel-, *seng w h-, there are a number of isoglosses, generally involving Greek and Indo- Iranian, that suggest speciWc collocations associated with the art of poetry. For example, the standard verb for ‘make’ (*tek ˆ s-) is found associated with ‘speech’ (*we ´ k w os) in Grk epe ´ o ¯ nte ´ ktones,Avvac ˇ astas ˇ ti-, and Skt va ´ cas taks _ - to suggest a PIE ‘fashion speech’. Another technical verb that enters the realm of poetry is 21. SPEECH AND SOUND 365 [...]... (*klewos n whitom) has already ˚ been mentioned in Section 20.5 and we have listed some of the reconstructed poetic phrases in Table 7.9 These examples of poetic diction are unfortunately the closest we can get to reconstructing Proto-Indo-European poetry although comparisons between the diVerent Indo-European traditions permit us to suggest some of the general features of the verse For example, there are... Halga the good’ To go further and reconstruct the actual metrical system of the Proto-Indo-Europeans has been attempted a number of times and there is no doubt that there are striking similarities between some of the earliest poetic traditions, especially Greek and Indic, e.g both oVer examples of lines that are twelve, eleven, or eight lines long But the only concrete observation that includes all the. .. diYcult; Grk phrasso can mean ‘push together’ and the root may also have indicated that this resulted in making something Wrm, e.g Toch B prakre ¯ ‘Wrm’ and Lat fartus ‘thick’; to this series is also added the far more semantically opaque OIr barc ‘storm, fury’ (perhaps indicating that one is in the ‘thick’ ˆ of things) Finally, *puk- ‘press together’ provides the base for both the Greek ´ and Iranian words... obvi¯ ously derived meanings in other language groups, e.g ‘grave’ (NWels bedd), ‘plough’ (Toch A pat-) There have been attempts to place the Germanic set that ¯ includes NE bed here under the reasoning that the Proto-Germans once slept in hollows in the ground like animals but this set is far more likely to derive from a homophonous *bhedh- ‘bend’ which yields ‘cushion’ The verb *h1reuk- means ´ ¯ ‘dig’... diVerent verbs Hittite and Tocharian alone preserve the underlying verb form *yeh1-, i.e Hit iezi ‘does, makes’, Toch A ya- ‘do, make’, but nominal derivatives are ¯ ´ ¯ ´ ¯ widely found including Grk heros ‘hero’ and the name of the goddess Hera; here ¯ ¯ Indo-Iranian has shifted the meaning to the occult, e.g Skt yatu- ‘witchcraft’ ¯ ´ A similar partial shift to magic is seen in the descendants of *kwer-... not g) Tocharian lik- ‘wash’ may belong here too, if the initial l- can be explained as resulting from the contamination of some other root (e.g *leuh1- ‘wash’) PIE *neigw- also exhibits a derived ´ form *nigw-tos ‘washed’, seen in OIr necht, Grk aniptos ‘unwashed’, and Skt ´ nikta- In Germanic the root is nominalized to designate a ‘water spirit’, e.g NE ¨ nix $ nixie An Anatolian (Hit arr(a)-)-Tocharian... that have something vaguely to do with motion The list of movement words is found in Table 22.11 Both *h1er- ‘set in motion (horizontally)’ and *h3er- ‘set in motion (vertically)’ seem assured for Proto-Indo-European but their similarity in meaning made them liable to confusion, probably even before the loss of laryngeals ´ made them largely homophonous Surely belonging to the Wrst are Grk erkhomai ‘set... on the supposition that we have ‘bend’ > ‘bow in reverence’ > ‘place where one honours the gods’ The verb ´ itself is to be seen in Av n@maiti ‘bends’, Skt namati ‘bends, bows, submits ¨ oneself to , Toch AB nam- ‘bend’ A root *pel- indicates ‘fold’, both in the ¨ literal sense, e.g NE fold as in to fold a piece of cloth (similarly Alb pale ‘fold’) ´ or Grk peplos ‘garment that falls in folds’ to the. .. in Tocharian ¨ (AB kars-) The root *kwer- retains its original verbal meaning ‘cut’ in Anatolian (e.g Hit kuerzi ‘cuts’) but NWels pryd ‘time’, Osc -pert ‘ time[s]’, and Skt -kr ‘ time[s]’ all employ this root also to mean ‘time(s)’, i.e a ‘slice of time’ 8t A Latin-Tocharian isogloss supports a PIE *put- ‘cut’ (Lat puto ‘prune’, Toch ¯ AB putk- ‘divide, share, separate’) To these we may add the. .. bark’, Av dar@dar- ‘split’, Skt _em ´ ¨ dr ati ‘causes to burst, tears’, Toch AB tsar- ‘separate’ An extended form, 8n ¯ _ ´ *drep- ‘scratch, tear’, is widely found (e.g Rus drjapati ‘scratch, tear’, Grk ´ ¯ ¨ drepo ‘pluck’); the possible Tocharian cognates (Toch A rap-, Toch B rap-) ¯ show the meaning ‘dig’, and the possible Anatolian cognates show the meaning ‘plough’ (e.g Hit teripzi ‘ploughs’) A Germanic-Indic . for the names of birds are often onomato- poeic and in addition to these there are a number of other words associated with the speech of animals. That the language of animals is speciWc to one’s. Hrothgar, and Halga the good’. To go further and reconstruct the actual metrical system of the Proto-Indo-Europeans has been attempted a number of times and there is no doubt that there are striking. in Grk onomatothe ´ te ¯ s ‘name-giver’. Although there are regionally attested words for the ‘poet’, there is no single well-attested form for Proto-Indo-European. As we have seen, the Celtic