Indo-european accent and ablaut

Alwin Kloekhorst

116

all.sg. 

ar-ḫa (OS) 

<  *h₁rh₂o

abl. 

a-ra-aḫ-za (OS)  <  *h₁reh₂ti

As we see, we find three different stems in this paradigm, namely erḫ- < 

*h₁erh₂-, arḫ- < *h₁rh₂- and araḫ- < *h₁reh₂-. Since Schwebe-ablaut is a not 

a normal phenomenon in Indo-European, these stems must be interpreted 

as containing a root *h₁er- followed by a suffix *-(e)h₂-: *h₁er-h₂-, *h₁r-h₂-, 

*h₁r-eh₂-. It is crucial that in this paradigm we find a stem in which the root 

contains a full grade but the suffix shows zero grade next to a stem in which 

the root shows zero-grade but the suffix contains a full grade. is combi-

nation of stems is inexplicable within the Erlangen model. e only way in 

which it can be accounted for, is by reconstructing a hysterodynamic para-

digm according to the Leiden model:

26

nom.sg. *h₁ér-h₂

acc.sg. *h₁r-éh₂-m

gen.sg. *h₁r-h₂-és

6  Connection between Leiden “hysterodynamic” and Erlangen 

“hysterokinetic”

e pattern that in the Erlangen model is called hysterokinetic is recon-

structed with the following forms:

nom.sg. *CC-ḗC 

e.g. *ph₂-tḗr  ‘father’

acc.sg. *CC-éC-m   *ph₂-tér-m

gen.sg. *CC-C-és  *ph₂-tr-és

As we see, the acc.sg. and gen.sg. forms are identical to the forms in the 

Leiden hysterodynamic paradigm. Only the nominative form is different. 

Beekes (1985: 154) therefore assumes that there is a close connection between 

the hysterodynamic paradigm and the hysterokinetic one. According to 

him, the hysterodynamic paradigm, containing the nom.sg. form *CéC-C, is 

original, whereas the hysterokinetic paradigm, containing the nom.sg. form 

*CC-ḗC, is a younger off-shoot of it.

27

 e idea is that in the original hystero-

dynamic paradigm the accusative stem secondarily spread to the nominative 

26  Cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 247 for the reconstruction of this paradigm.

27  In Beekes 1995: 175, the hysterokinetic paradigm is therefore called ‘subtype 1’ of 

the hysterodynamic inflection.

@ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2013

---

Indo-European nominal ablaut patterns: The Anatolian evidence

117

case (with subsequent lengthening of *e to *ē when standing before a word-

final resonant, cf. Section 8).

nom.sg. *CéC-C 

>> *CC-ḗC

acc.sg. *CC-éC-m  = *CC-éC-m

gen.sg. *CC-C-és  = *CC-C-és

It must be stressed that this scenario involves only one trivial assumption, 

namely influence of the accusative stem on the nominative stem, which is a 

process that can be observed in many languages over and over again. 

is scenario implies that the hysterokinetic nom.sg. *CC-ḗC always is a 

younger version of original *CéC-C. For e.g. *ph₂tḗr ‘father’, this means that 

there must have been an original nom.sg. form *péh₂-tr, which according to 

Kortlandt (2009: 7) is identical to the verbal noun *péh₂-tr as attested in Skt. 

pātár- ‘protector’.

28

 For e.g. *dhuǵh₂tḗr ‘daughter’, I have already argued on 

other grounds that the original nom.sg. form must have been *dhuéǵh₂-tr.

29

 

For e.g. *h₂stḗr ‘star’, Pinault (2007: 273) posits a nom.sg. *h₂éh₁s-tr,

30

 a verbal 

noun to the root *h₂eh₁s- “to burn, glow” (which implies that ‘star’ actually 

is *h₂h₁stḗr).

7  Hysterokinetic in Anatolian

In Anatolian, we find some traces of hysterokinetic paradigms as well, al-

though not all details are always clear. e best example is the word for ‘star’:

nom.sg.  ḫašterza  <   *h₂s-tḗr(+s) ‘star’

acc.sg.  ḫašteran  <   *h₂s-tér-m

In the following two examples, the *

-ḗ- of the nom.sg. form seems to have 

been coloured to -a- in a sequence *-ḗn-s:

nom.sg.  išḫimāš  <   *sh₂i-mḗn-s (?)  ‘string, rope’

acc.sg.  išḫimenan  <   *sh₂i-mén-m 

28  Cf. footnote 35 for a detailed discussion of the connection between ‘protector’ 

and ‘father’.

29  Cf. Kloekhorst (2011) where I argue that a stem *dhuéǵh₂-tr-, i.e. with full grade 

in the root, is reflected in the Anatolian words for ‘daughter’, HLuw. tuwatra/i-, 

Lyc. kbatra- < Proto-Luwic *tuatra- < *dhueǵh₂-tr-eh₂-.

30  Pinault’s scenario to explain the hysterokinetic paradigm *h₂stḗr, etc. differs from 

the one presented here, however.

@ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2013

---

Alwin Kloekhorst

118

nom.sg.  kutruu̯aš  <   *kʷtru-ḗn-s (?)  ‘witness’

nom.pl.  kutrueneš  <   *kʷtru-én-

8  Connection between Leiden “hysterodynamic” and Erlangen 

“amphikinetic”

As we saw above, the paradigm that in the Erlangen model is called amphiki-

netic, is reconstructed as follows:

nom.sg. *CéC-ōC 

e.g. *h₂éus-ōs 

‘dawn’

acc.sg. *CéC-oC-m   *h₂éus-os-m

gen.sg. *CC-C-és 

 *h₂us-s-és

According to Beekes, also this paradigm is a younger off-shoot of the origi-

nal hysterodynamic paradigm.

31

 In order to understand how this would have 

worked, we have to have a look at the development of the Proto-Indo-Euro-

pean ablaut system. Kortlandt (2001, building on Beekes 1985: 157) assumes 

the following chronology of developments:

“A. Indo-European vowel reduction, giving rise to full grade *e under 

the stress and zero grade elsewhere;”

[At this stage there was only one phonemic vowel, *e, which was always 

stressed; *i and *u are to be regarded as mere syllabic variants of *i̯ and *u̯ 

and do not count as vowels.]

“B. phonetic lowering of *u (= syllabic *w) to *o,

32

 giving rise to a full 

grade (= non-high) vowel in unstressed syllables;”

31  In Beekes 1995: 175, the amphikinetic paradigm is therefore called ‘subtype 3’ of 

the hysterodynamic inflection.

32  According to Kortlandt (2001), this rule “accounts for the frequent instances of 

*wo after a consonant where the semivowel was restored on the basis of an alter-

nating *w, especially before *i and *r, which were syllabic in the zero grade, e.g. 

in the words for ‘two’ and ‘four’.” is means that he for instance assumes that 

the stem for ‘four’, *kʷétur-, in antevocalic position, *kʷéturV-, yielded *kʷétor-, 

whereas in anteconsonantal position, *kʷétu̯r̥C-, it remained as such. A blend 

of the two stems yielded *kʷetu̯or- as attested in e.g. nom.pl.c. *kʷétu̯ores > Skt. 

catvā́ras (my colleague Lucien van Beek informs me that the original nom.pl.c. 

form, *kʷétores, might be directly reflected in Dor. τέτορες ‘four’). 

@ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2013

---