Metka Furlan
Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts*
UDK 81'362
THE ARCHAIC WORD-FORMATIONAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PROTO-SLAVIC NOUN *POL'E AND THE HUTITE ADJECTIVE PALHI-
1.	In his 1982 article, Calvert Watkins demonstrated that the PIE acrostatic and protero-kinetic declension patterns of «-stems originally expressed a functional relationship, in which nouns were declined following the acrostatic type and the word-formationally identical adjectives following the proterokinetic type,1 and that the traces of such a relationship can still be recognized, for example, in Vedic Sanskrit, in which the noun vasu-(n.) 'good' is acrostatically inflected (cf. gen. sg. vasvah), whereas the homophone adjective vasu- 'good' is proterokinetically inflected (cf. gen. sg. vasoh).2 Based on the archaic Hit. nom-acc. pl. n. a-aš-šu-u 'good' < *-u-H2 (alongside standard aššuua 'idem'), which inflectionally corresponds to Ved. vasu (nom.-acc. pl. n.) 'good' and Av. vohu 'idem', Watkins therefore postulated that the word-formational relationship between the Hit. adjective aššu/aššau- 'good, dear, favored' and the noun aššu- (n.) 'good' is not as is generally explained, as though the noun is substantivized from the adjective, but that the noun aššu- (n.) 'good' was inflected in the protolanguage following the acrostatic accent pattern and has therefore also preserved the archaic case ending *-H2 in the nom.-acc. pl. n. The proterokinetic quality of -u/au- in the adjective aššu/aššau- and the acrostatic quality of the noun aššu- (n.) 'good' with the archaic form a-aš-šu-u (nom.-acc. pl. n.) thus presumably still expresses the protolanguage state of affairs.
2.	Watkins' explanation of the original functional relationship between the acrostatic and proterokinetic accent-ablaut pattern can be typologically compared with the situation in more recent thematic relationships of the type ^opog (m.) : ^opog (adj.) and may therefore merely be a transfer of the older protolanguage pattern:
acrostatic paradigm ^ nominal declension proterokinetic paradigm ^ adjectival declension
Indirect indicators of this protolanguage pattern may include relationships of the type Skt. apas- (n.) 'work' : apas- (adj.) 'active' and also the more recent type Skt. usr-a- (adj.) 'morning, reddish' : usar- (f.) 'sunrise, morning', tamasa- (adj.) 'dark' : tamas-
* Author's address: Inštitut za slovenski jezik Frana Ramovša, Novi trg 4, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia. Email: metka.furlan@zrc-sazu.si
1	A similar interpretation of the functional relationship between the acrostatic and proterokinetic declension of ¡'-stems and u-stems is also found in Benveniste (1935: 52).
2	Following Melchert (1994a: 301) and Pinault (2003).
(n.) 'darkness'. The last example of adjective formation includes not only thematiza-tion of a consonant noun but (also) shift of the accent onto it. Even substantivization with an accentual shift of the type Skt. krsna- (adj.) 'black, dark' ^ krsna- (n.) 'black antelope', Gr. AeuKog (adj.) 'bright shining' ^ AeuKog (m.) 'grey mullet' could be an expression of this protolanguage word-formational relationship.
The original functional relationship between the acrostatic and proterokinetic declension patterns must have started to break down very early in the protolanguage, before the Anatolian branch separated from the protolanguage system. In Hittite, istem and «-stem nouns are predominantly inflected following a declension pattern without ablaut; that is, acrostatically (e.g., halki-s, halki-n, halkii-as etc.; *hassu-s, *hassu-n, *hassuu-as etc.), and i-stem and «-stem adjectives are predominantly inflected following a declension pattern with ablaut; that is, proterokinetically (e.g., salli-s, salli-n, sallas (< *sallai-as) etc.; assu-s, assu-n, assau-as etc.). Hittite preserved this pro-tolanguage feature as a tendency with a number of exceptions among both nouns and adjectives; for example, uesi- (c.) 'pasture': uesaes (nom. pl.), uesaus (acc. pl.); NINDAharsT (c.) 'type of bread': NINDAhar-sa-i (dat.-loc. sg.), NINDAhar-sa-es (nom. pl.), NINDAhar-sa-us (acc. pl.); DUGpalhi- (n.) 'type of (broad) vessel': DUGpal-ha-as (dat.-loc. pl.), DUGpal-ha-e-aHIA (nom.-acc. pl.); seli- (c.) 'pile of grain, granary (?)': se-e-la-as (gen. sg.) etc.; nakki- (adj.) 'important; difficult': nakkii-az (abl.), nakki-us (acc. pl. c.) etc.
There still exists an inherited functional distinction in Hittite between the homophone noun assu- (n.) and the adjective assu-/assau-, but not between the homophone pair DUGpalhi- (n.) : palhi- (adj.), from which it can be concluded that the second pair is of more recent origin because the noun could have arisen via the "zero substantivization" type Skt. prthivi- (f.) 'earth' ^ prthivi- (adj. f.). It was probably the zero substantivization pattern that triggered the breakdown of the original relationship between the protolanguage acrostatic and proterokinetic declension types, with the result that the originally acrostatically declined nouns began switch over to the proterokinetic type, such as *deru- (n.) 'wood, tree', in which the original acrostatic pattern, alongside Skt. and Gr. material, is also confirmed by PSl. *dervo (n.), which arose with the thematization of the oblique case stem *deru-:3
nom.-acc. sg. *doru = Skt. daru, Gr. Sopu, Hit. taru-
gen. sg.	*deru-s *deru-o-m > PSl. *dervo) ^ *dreu-s = Skt. droh *dreu-o-m =
Goth. triu)
3 With the same thematization from PIE *seru-/soru- (n.) 'quarry' (cf. Hit. saru- (n.) 'quarry', Olr. serb (f.) 'theft' < *serueH2), it would be possible to explain membership in this word family of Lat. seruus (m.) 'slave' (ElEC: 77), in which the change of grammatical gender was probably influenced by the narrowing of the meaning to pertain only to human quarry: 'quarry' ^ *'quar-ry = people' ^ 'slave'.
The transition of the nominal acrostatic pattern into the proterokinetic one in *g'enu- (n.) 'knee' alongside Goth. kniu (n.) < *g'n-eu-o-m, as is known, with the archaic instrumental ga-nu-ut < *g'n-eu-d is also confirmed by Hittite:
nom.-acc. sg. *g'onu = Skt. janu, Av. zanu, Gr. yovu
gen. sg.	*g'enu-s Hit. genu-, Lat. genu) ^ *g'neu-s = Skt. jnoh (Hit. ganut)
*g'neu-o-m = Goth. kniu)
This phenomenon almost completely obscured the original functionality of the acrostatic and proterokinetic declension pattern. It appears to still be preserved in the Slavic-Anatolian relationship *pol'e (n.) : palhi- (adj.).
3. After Julius Pokorny first demonstrated in his Indogermanisches etymologisches Wortebuch that only the Slavic neuter noun *pol'e 'field' and the Hittite adjective palhi- 'wide' - as part of a word family that he combined under the root *peh-/pla-'wide and flat; to spread out; to make flat by pressing and beating, to beat out, to pat out' (IEW: 805 ff.)4 - contain an i-stem morpheme, Schmitt-Brandt (1967: 71) derived the Hit. adjective from the reduced grade *pelHi-, and the Slavic noun, understandably, from the o-stem *polHion or, better, *p6lH2i-o-m.5 I myself (Furlan 1986: 96; 1994: 11) have also written about this shared Slavic-Anatolian morphological feature and have demonstrated that the PSl. noun *pol'e (n.) was thematized following the same pattern as PSl. *mor'e (n.) 'sea' from a PIE neuter i-stem noun; specifically, *pol'e (n.) from PIE *polH2-i- (n.), and PSl. *mor'e from PIE *mor-i- (n.), cf. OIr. muir, Lat. mare.6 The PSl. nouns *pol'e (n.) and *mor'e (n.) are therefore, like PSl. *dervo (n.), thematized nouns of the acrostatic type, only that *dervo preserves the oblique case stem, but *pol'e (n.) and *mor'e a direct case stem.
In the same papers, I also surmised that the PIE noun *polH2-i- (n.) arose through substantivization from a PIE adjective, which is preserved in Hit. palhi- 'wide', and that this adjective therefore derived from the same o-grade form *polH2-i-.7 The explanation is based on the presumption that the Slavic-Anatolian relationship *pol'e (n.) : palhi- (adj.) derives from the original PIE adjective *polH2-i- 'wide', which was nominal-ized in PIE and then thematized in the PIE ^ PSl. transition, whereas in Hittite it was preserved in its original adjectival form as a reflex of PIE *polH2-i-.
By naming parts of the earth's surface *pol'e, the Slavs therefore marked it with the seme width/extension. This Slavic lexeme is etymologically (in its semantic moti-
4	Prior to this, Benveniste (1935: 151) connected this word family or Lat. planus only with Hit. palhi-and demonstrated that it represents the full grade *pel-32-.
5	This explicit connection was not observed in the literature on Hittite, nor was it observed in Derksen (2008), where only root-related Germ. Feld is cited alongside PSl. *pol'e. This has been known in Slovenian etymology since the eighteenth century in the work of Marko Pohlin.
6	On the secondary character of vowel coloring in Lat., see Schrijver (1991).
7	This explanation of mine was later used in ESSJ (III, 82) and adopted in ESJS (678).
vation) determined exactly the same as, for example, Skt. prthiví- (f.) 'earth', which is originally the nominalized feminine adjective prthiví- (adj.) 'wide, extended' from prthú- (adj.) 'wide, extended'.
Although such an etymological explanation of PSl. *pol'e is also likely because the same PIE word family also includes the semantically comparable but word-for-mationally different Germ. Feld (n.) 'field, area', OHG feld 'field, plain' < WGerm. *felPa- (n.) < PIE *pélH2-to-m or Arm. hoi 'earth, land, ground' < PIE *polH2o-s (IEW: 805 ff.; Olsen 1999: 53, 781),8 today it is not possible to agree with the morphological part of the explanation, that PIE *pólH2-i- (n.) ^ PSl. *pol'e was substantivized from the PIE adjective *pólH2-i- 'wide', because the assumptions about PIE substantivization cannot be satisfactorily argued. Namely, neither of the other two thematized nouns *mor'e and *dervo have such an adjectival member in their word family. Internal Hittite evidence also leads to the more economical interpretation of the pair *pol'e (n.) : palhi- (adj.) with the application of Watkins' model, which does not permit derivation of Hit. palhi- (adj.) from o-grade *pólH2-i-.
Because of the Hit. proterokinetic declension type of the adjective palhi- (cf. pal-hi-is (nom. sg. c.), pal-ha-a-e-es (nom. pl. c.)), and especially because of the possibility that assimilation was at work in PIE *-VlH2V- > Hit. -VllV-,9 if the adjective is derived from *pólH2-i-10 > **palli-11 then it is more likely that palhi- 'wide' preserves a base from the PIE zero-grade root *plH2-i ,12 which became independent from *plH2-éi--13 and therefore derives from the adjectival proterokinetic declension pattern. However, in the direct cases, this contained the stem *pólH2-i-, taking into account that the
8	At least three root-connected examples (i.e., PSl. *pol'e, Germ. *felPa-, and Arm. hoi) show that Pokorny's reconstruction of the root *peb-/*pla- = *pelH2-/*pleH2- was justified.
9	The assimilation *-VRHV- > Hit. -VRRV- took place before the transition of PAnat. syllabic sonants into the Hittite reflexes vowel + sonant (Melchert 1994b: 55).
10	At one time Couvreur (1937: 216) excluded the possibility of o-grade ablaut in palhi- because he determined that in such a case it would be written as *pa-al-hi- and not pal-h°, and so he derived the adjective from a zero-grade form; that is, *p¡H2i-.
11	Also taking into consideration the possibility that the assimilation *-VlH2V- > Hit. -VllV- was not at work, the reflex of the base *pólH2-i- would be written *pa-a-al-h° with the full vowel a (the ispandi type).
12	According to Sturtevant (1933: 106) and Couvreur (1937: 216), an adjective was also derived from the same zero-grade base *plH2-i- by Oettinger (1979: 550), Melchert (1984: 45; 1994: 55, 125), Kimball (1999: 123, 242), and Wodtko et al. (2008: 562).
13	The origin of a-vocalism in the Hit. alternations -i-/-ai- and -u-/-au- alongside the IE base *-i-/-éi-and *-u-/-éu- is not entirely clear. Melchert (1994: 138) has rejected his earlier attempt to derive this from the o-stem variant *-i-/-ói- and *-u-/-óu- (Melchert 1984: 45; derived the same way by Kimball 1999: 242, adjective palhi- *plH2-í-, *plH2-óy-) and has decided in favor of an internal Hittite phonetic base for the vowel a from PIE *e in post-tonic position and an open syllable. The application of such a phonetic development also makes it possible to explain the present-tense person marker with a-vocalism -uani (alongside -ueni) and -tani (alongside -teni), where the preterit person markers do not have such vocalism. The transition into an a-vowel could have occurred after apocope into -uen < *-ue-ne and -ten < *-te-ne. Otherwise, the phenomenon would have also created a-vocalism in the preterit person markers.
CLuv. adjective uasu- 'good', related to Skt. vasu- (adj.) and Av. vohu- (adj.), as well as the Olr. noun fo 'goodness, obligingness', points to an o-grade < *uosu-.14
The adjectival paradigm from which Hit. palhi- is derived is therefore probably:
nom.-acc. sg. gen. sg.
nom. sg. acc. sg.
*polH2i-s
*polH2i-m
*polH2i-0
*plH2-éi-s ^ Hit. palhi-/palhai- (adj.)
•k.
and the nominal paradigm, from which PSl. *pol'e is derived, is:
nom.-acc. sg. n. gen. sg.
*polH2i-0 ^ *polH2i-o-m > PSl. *pol'e (n.) *pélH2i-s

4. In the Hittite proterokinetically declined adjective palhi- and the Proto-Slavic noun *pol'e (n.) it is therefore possible to recognize the old interparadigmatic connection from the earlier protolanguage period, when the i-stem and u-stem neuter nouns were declined acrostatically, but their homophone adjectives proterokinetically. This relationship is all the more valuable because until now such examples in IE languages have been recognized only among u-stem formations.
14 Alongside OIr. fo < *uosu there is also OIr. feb 'goodness, obligingness' < *uesueH2. Alongside this I should draw attention to the same formal relationship between OIr. serb 'theft, robbery' < *serueH2 and Hit. saru- (n.) 'quarry' < *soru.
Bibliography References
BENVENISTE, Emile (1935) Origines de la formation des noms en indo-européen.
Paris: Librarie d'Amérique et d'Orient Adrien-Maisonneuve. COUVREUR, Walter (1937) De hettitische h. Een bijdrage tot de studie van het indo-
europeesche vocalisme. Leuven: Le Museon. FURLAN, Metka (1986) Indoevropske dvozložne težke baze v hetitščini. PhD thesis.
Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana. FURLAN, Metka (1994) "Etimološko raziskovanje slovenskega besedja (Od Jarnikovega do Miklošičevega etimološkega slovarja)." In: M. Orožen (ed) XXX. seminar slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture. Ljubljana: Seminar slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture. KIMBALL, Sara E. (1999) Hittite Historical Phonology. Innsbruck: Institut für
Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. MELCHERT, H. Craig (1984) Studies in Hittite Historical Phonology. Göttingen. MELCHERT, H. Craig (1994a) "'Cop's Law' in Common Anatolian." In: J. E.
Rasmussen (ed.) In honorem Holger Pedersen. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert. MELCHERT, H. Craig (1994b) Anatolian Historical Phonology. Amsterdam /Atlanta: Rodopi.
OETTINGER, Norbert (1979) Die Stammbildung des hethitischen Verbums. Nürnberg: Hans Carl.
OLSEN, Birgit Anette (1999) The Noun in Biblical Armenian. Origin and WordFormation - with special emphasis on the Indo-European heritage. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. PINAULT, Georges-Jean (2003) "Sur les thèmes indo-européen en *-u- : dérivation et étymologie." In: E. Tichy, D. S. Wodtko, B. Irslinger (eds) Indogermanisches Nomen. Derivation, Flexion und Ablaut. Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft. Freiburg, 19. bis 22. September 2001. Bremen: Hempen.
SCHMITT-BRANDT, Robert (1967) Die Entwicklung des indogermanischen
Vokalsystems (Versuch einer inneren Rekonstruktion). Heidelberg: Groos. SCHRIJVER, P., 1991: The reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Latin.
Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi. STURTEVANT, Edgar H. (1933) A Comparative Grammar of the Hittite Language.
Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America. WATKINS, Calvert (1982) Notes on the Plural Formation of the Hittite Neuters. In: E. Neu (ed) Investigationes Philologicae et Comparative, Gedenkschrift für H. Kronasser. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert. WODTKO, Dagmar S./Britta IRSLINGER/Carolin SCHNEIDER (2008) Nomina im indogermanischen Lexikon. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.
Dictionaries
EDSIL: Derksen, Rick Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon. Leiden - Boston, 2008.
EIEC: Mallory, James/Douglas Q. Adams (eds) Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. London /Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 1997.
ESSJ: Bezlaj, France Etimološki slovar slovenskega jezika I-V. (Authors of headwords: France Bezlaj, Marko Snoj, Metka Furlan). Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, 1976-2007.
ESJS: Etymologicky slovnik jazyka staroslovenskeho 11. Praha: Academia, 2002.
IEW: Pokorny, Julius Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch I. Bern /München: Francke, 1959.
HEG: Tischler, Johann Hethitisches etymologisches Glossar I-. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 1977-.
Abstract
THE ARCHAIC WORD-FORMATIONAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PROTO-SLAVIC NOUN *POL'E AND THE HITTITE ADJECTIVE PALHI-
In the Hittite proterokinetically declined adjective palhi- and the Proto-Slavic noun *pol'e (n.) it is possible to recognize the old interparadigmatic connection from the earlier protolan-guage period, when the i-stem and «-stem neuter nouns were declined acrostatically, but their homophone adjectives proterokinetically (Watkin's model). This relationship is all the more valuable because until now such examples in IE languages have been recognized only among «-stem formations.
Povzetek
ARHAIČNO BESEDOTVORNO RAZMERJE MED PRASLOVANSKIM SAMOSTALNIKOM *POL'E IN HETITSKIM PRIDEVNIKOM PALHIV hetitskem proterokinetično dekliniranem pridevniku palhi- in praslovanskem samostalniku *pol'e (n.) je mogoče prepoznati staro medparadigmatsko vez iz zgodnejšega prajezičnega obdobja, ko so se ijevski in ujevski samostalniki srednjega spola deklinirali akrostatično, njim homofoni pridevniki pa proterokinetično (Watkinsov model). Razmerje je toliko bolj dragoceno, ker so bili taki primeri do sedaj v ide. jezikih prepoznani le med ujevskimi tvorbami.