Suppletion and its relevance to the IE family-tree

Author: Bičovský, Jan
Source document: Linguistica Brunensia. 2018, vol. 66, iss. 2, pp. 15-26
Extent
15-26
  • ISSN
    1803-7410 (print)
    2336-4440 (online)
Type: Article
Language
English
License: Not specified license
Abstract(s)
Classification of related languages as to the level of mutual genetic proximity relies on a number of criteria, the principal one being the character and number of shared innovations. As singular innovations are likely to emerge in related languages independently, the risk of misinterpreting homology for homoplasy is high. In this respect, suppletion, as the extreme of morphological irregularity and therefore an innovation least likely to emerge independently in the semantically and etymologically identical paradigms, may help to support or invalidate hypotheses. In this article, I examine a number of shared suppletive paradigms to show how their distribution in the family may shed light on its bifurcation.
Note
  • The support of the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic (GAČR 14-10673S) is gratefully acknowledged.
Document
References:
[1] Beekes, Robert S. P. 2010. Etymological Dictionary of Greek. Leiden – Boston: Brill.

[2] Bobaljik, Jonathan D. 2012. Universals in Comparative Morphology: Suppletion, Superlatives, and the Structure of Words. Cambridge, Mass./London: The MIT Press.

[3] Clackson, James. 1994. The Linguistic Relationship between Armenian and Greek. Oxford: Blackwell.

[4] Kolligan, D. 2007. Suppletion Und Defektivitat Im Griechischen Verbum. Bremen: Hempen Verlag.

[5] Eska, Joseph. 2009: "Continental Celtic." In: Woodard, Robert, ed. The Ancient Languages of Europe. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

[6] Euler, Wolfram – Badenheuer, Konrad. 2009. Sprache und Herkunft der Germanen – Abriss des Protogermanischen vor der Ersten Lautverschiebung. London – Hamburg: Verlag Inspiration.

[7] Frantíková, Dita. [forthcoming]. The Fate of Indo-European Suppletive Verbs in Hittite. In: Suppletion and Diachrony. Proceedings of the Conference, Prague, 25–26. September 2015. Hamburg: Baar Verlag.

[8] Grimm, Jacob. 1878. Deutsche Grammatik. Berlin.

[9] Jasanoff, Jay H. 2010. The Luvian "case" in -ša/-za. In: Ex Anatolia Lux: Anatolian and IndoEuropean Studies in Honor of H. Craig Melchert on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Ann Arbor and New York: Beechstave Press, 167–179.

[10] Kloekhorst, Alwin. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden – Boston, Brill.

[11] Kogan, Leonid. 2015. Genealogical Classification of Semitic. The Lexical Isoglosses. Boston/Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

[12] Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 2007. Italo-Celtic origins and prehistoric development of the Irish language. Amsterdam – New York: Rodopi.

[13] Lipp, Reiner. 2009. Die indogermanischen und einzelsprachlichen Palatale im Indoiranischen. Band I. Neurekonstruktion, Nuristan-Sprachen, Genese der indoarischen Retroflexe, Indoarisch von Mitanni. Die indogermanischen und einzelsprachlichen Palatale im Indoiranischen. Band II. Thorn-Problem, indoiranische Laryngalvokalisation. Heidelberg Universitatsverlag: C. Winter.

[14] Orel, Vladimir E. 2003. A handbook of Germanic etymology. Leiden: Brill.

[15] Weiss, Michael. 2009. Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin. Ann Arbor – New York: Beech Stave.

[16] Wodtko, S. Dagmar. 2003. [online] An Outline of Celtiberian Grammar. [Retrieved on October 1st 2018] Available at: http://www.freidok.uni-freiburg.de/volltexte/747/