Indo-european accent and ablaut

---

INDO-EUROPEAN 

ACCENT AND ABLAUT

Edited by

Götz Keydana

Paul Widmer

and

Thomas Olander

Museum Tusculanum Press

University of Copenhagen

2013

@ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2013

---

Indo-European Accent and Ablaut

© Museum Tusculanum Press and the authors 2013

Edited by Götz Keydana, Paul Widmer & omas Olander

Cover design by ora Fisker

Set by omas Olander

Printed in Denmark by Tarm Bogtryk A/S

ISBN 978 87 635 4043 8 

Copenhagen Studies in Indo-European, vol. 5

ISSN 1399 5308

Published with support from:

Roots of Europe – Language, Culture, and Migrations

Museum Tusculanum Press

Birketinget 6

DK 2300 Copenhagen S

www.mtp.dk

@ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2013

---

Indo-European nominal ablaut patterns: 

The Anatolian evidence

Alwin Kloekhorst

Leiden University

In this article the reconstruction of the PIE accent-ablaut paradigms 

will be reviewed, especially taking into account the evidence from the 

Anatolian branch. It will be argued that both the Erlangen and the 

Leiden reconstruction of PIE accent-ablaut patterns is correct, albeit 

that the two systems represent different chronological layers of the 

proto-language.1

1 Introduction

In most recent handbooks on Indo-European, a consensus seems to have 

been reached as to which nominal accent-ablaut patterns must be recon-

structed for Proto-Indo-European. In e.g. Meier-Brügger 2002: 203–20, Fort-

son 2004: 107–10 and Clackson 2007: 79–86, the following four paradigms 

are cited (the “strong” cases are nominative and accusative, the “weak” cases 

all other cases, except the locative;

2

 “R” = root, “S” = suffix, “E” = ending): 

acrostatic

proterokinetic

R

S

E

R

S

E

strong

ḗ/ó

-

-

é

-

-

weak

é

-

-

-

é

-

loc.

é

-

-

ḗ

1  is research was financially supported by the Netherlands Organisation for Sci-

entific Research (NWO). e symbol “>” represents phonological, i.e. regular de-

velopments, whereas the symbol “>>” represents morphological, i.e. analogical 

developments.

2  Note that Meier-Brügger in his overview of paradigms states that in the acro-

static paradigm the locative has the structure *CC-éC (2002: 216), whereas in the 

paradigm of *nokʷ-t-, *nekʷ-t-, his main example for an acrostatically inflected 

noun, he cites a locative form *nékʷ-t (2002: 218), i.e. according to the structure 

*CéC-C.

@ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2013

---

Alwin Kloekhorst

108

hysterokinetic

amphikinetic

R

S

E

R

S

E

strong

-

é

-

é

o

-

weak

-

-

é

-

-

é

loc.

-

é

(-i)

-

é

(-i)

Since the foundations for this system were layed by a group of scholars, 

among which Schindler, Eichner, Rix, and Hoffmann, during the 1964 Er-

langer Kolloquium that discussed the works of Pedersen (1926) and Kuiper 

(1942) on nominal accent-ablaut patterns in Indo-European, this system is 

sometimes referred to as the Erlangen model.

3

 In Leiden, Kuiper’s student 

Beekes, together with his colleague Kortlandt, developed an alternative 

model on the basis of Pedersen’s and Kuiper’s works, most explicitly present-

ed in Beekes 1985. is Leiden model seems to have received little support by 

scholars from outside Leiden.

In the following article, it is my intention to assess to what extent Anato-

lian material can elucidate the discussion on the reconstruction of nominal 

accent-ablaut patterns in Indo-European. I will not treat the ablaut patterns 

of root nouns, which present their own problems.

4

2  Acrostatic / static

e pattern that in the Erlangen model is called “acrostatic” is referred to as 

“static” in the Leiden model, because “acrostatic” is regarded as a redundant 

term: there are no other types of static patterns with which the acrostatic 

one would contrast.

5

 I will therefore use the term “static” as well. Schindler 

(1975a: 4f.) reconstructs two types of (acro)static patterns, namely a type 1 

that shows an ablaut *ó/é, and a type 2 that shows an ablaut *ḗ/é. 

According to Schindler, type 1 is synchronically attested in the Hittite 

paradigm for ‘water’, u̯ātar, u̯iten-, which he reconstructs as *uód-r, *uéd-n-. 

3  Cf. Meier-Brügger 2002: 203f. for a Forschungsgeschichte.

4  For instance, the word for ‘foot’, which is usually reconstructed as having a static 

paradigm, *pṓd-s, *pód-m, *péd-s, seems to be mobile in Hittite: acc.pl. pāduš < 

*pód-ms vs. gen.pl. patān < *p(o)d-óm.

5  e idea of reconstructing a “mesostatic” pattern (i.e. accented full grade on the 

suffix syllable throughout), which had been postulated by some scholars (e.g. Rix 

1976: 123 for the *h₂-stems), is nowadays commonly abandoned (cf. Beekes 1985: 

174, Meier-Brügger 2002: 220).

@ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2013

---