Abstract
Abstract A standard comparison in Indo-European linguistics equates Vedic tvátpitāraḥ ‘having you as father’ and Ancient Greek compounds in -πατωρ, e.g., εὐπάτωρ ‘having a good father, lineage’. Many scholars describe this equation as resulting from “Internal Derivation”: the second-member of the compound would exhibit amphikinetic inflection, internally derived from a noun with hysterokinetic inflection. This paper reassesses the philological evidence for the long-vowel forms of Vedic -pitār-. Because the long-vowel forms are confined to one Vedic school (Taittirīyans), it is argued that the short-vowel forms such as -pitar- reflect the inherited Indic vowel length in these compounds. Following this reassessment, I question to what extent the second-members of possessive compounds (e.g., Gk. -πατωρ) reflect an “amphikinetic” paradigm. I argue that the forms are “amphikinetic” only to the extent that they show an o-grade suffix in Greek, and that defining such second-members as amphikinetic both overgenerates (predicts unattested forms) and undergenerates (fails to predict attested accents).
Highlights
A standard comparison in Indo-European linguistics unites Vedic tvátpitāraḥ ‘having you as a father’ and Greek compounds ending in -πατωρ, e.g., εὐπάτωρ ‘having a good father/lineage’ (Aesch.Pers.970)
As Steer (2013: 189–190) states in no uncertain terms: “What we definitely know is that the derivation of amphikinetic second compound members from hysterokinetic bases was common practice.”4 To my mind, the state of the field is more aptly summarized in a cautious appraisal by Fortson (2010: 137), who writes that “[i]t is frequently said that bahuvrihis typically have o-grade of the ablauting syllable of the second compound member [e.g., eu-pátōr]
I am not denying the existence of o-grades in PIE athematic compounds, but am stressing that the philological evidence marshalled in favor of o-grades in this category and in neighboring categories merits a reassessment
Summary
The forms cited in support comprise the TS forms from Vedic which I have discussed above, Old Persian hamapitar- (as hamapitā ‘having the same father’; see above, §2.2), Gk. ὁμοπάτωρ (Plato+), Old Norse samfeðra, and Tocharian A ṣoma-pācär On this basis, the editors reconstruct *(somo)-ph2tor-, a zero-grade root in the second-member, with o-grade suffixal ablaut. Our best shot at a three-way correspondence in compounded kinship terms may involve matching e-grades across the languages, though again the Old Persian is frustratingly ambiguous: 32 They cite the TS for this form, but without a location; I am not aware of a TS form with short vowel ablaut. If the form were ancient, one could argue a position which would be the mirror-image of the one I rejected above for the Taittirīya tradition of the Yajur-Veda, namely, that this dialect almost uniquely inherits the heirloom pattern of suffixal e-grade in compounds, which has largely disappeared from other, more innovative dialects. Greek would be archaic in preserving the o-grade rule as well as the e-grade variant
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
