Celtic, Greek, and Indo-Iranian to reconstruct *yeudh- (e.g. Lat iubeo ¯ ‘order, command’, Lith judu ` ‘move, stir’, Grk husmı ¯ ´ ne ¯ ‘battle’, Av yu ¯ iäyeiti ‘Wghts’, Skt yu ´ dhyati ‘Wghts’, Toch A yutk- ‘be anxious’). Increasing the eVect of the violence, we can move to ‘destroy’ which includes *dhg w hei- with a secure Greek-Indo-Iranian correspondence (Grk phthı ´ no ¯ ‘des- troy’, Av d@jı ¯ t.ar@ta- ‘destroying Arta’, Skt ks _ ina ¯ ´ ti ‘destroys’) and less secure cognates from Celtic (OIr tinaid ‘vanishes’) and Italic (Lat situs ‘abandon- ment’). Along with Latin and Greek we can also include Anatolian to support the reconstruction of *h 3 elh 1 - ‘destroy’ (e.g. Lat ab-oleo ¯ ‘destroys’, Grk o ´ llu ¯ mi ‘destroy’, Hit hulla ¯ (i)- ‘combat, Wght’). Hittite and other correspondences secure both *h 2 erk- (e.g. OIr oirgid ‘slays’, Arm harkanem ‘split, fell’, Hit harkzi ‘is destroyed’) and *h 2 erh x - (e.g. Lith ı ` rti ‘dissolve, go asunder’, OCS oriti ‘destroy’, Hit harra- ‘destroy’) to this semantic set. More questionable is *bhreh x i- (e.g. Lat frio ¯ ‘tear apart’, Rus britı ˘ ‘shave’, Skt bhrı ¯ n _ a ´ nti ‘injure, hurt’) with a doubtful Celtic cognate (OIr ro-bria [subj.] ‘may spoil, destroy’). To conquer one’s enemy is indicated by *seg ˆ h- and its derivatives which mean ‘conquer’, ‘victory’ (e.g. OIr seg ‘strong’, NHG Sieg ‘victory’, Grk ekhuro ´ s ‘Wrm, strong’, Hit sakkuriya- ‘overcome’, Skt sa ´ has- ‘victory’, sa ´ huri- ‘victori- ous’), and ‘hold fast’ (it supplies the basic Greek verb e ´ kho ¯ ‘hold’). The word was also a popular element in personal names among the Celts (e.g. Gaulish Sego-marus) and Germans (ON Sigurðr). Probably originally a nominal root, *g w yeh a - which means ‘physical force’ in both Greek and Indic can also mean ‘overcome’ (e.g. ON kveita ‘make an end to, kill’, Grk bı ´ a ¯ ‘physical force, violence’, Skt jya ¯ ´ ‘force, violence’, jina ¯ ´ ti ‘overpowers, suppresses’). Other words indicating ‘physical strength’ include *h a euges- (e.g. Lat augustus ‘sac- red’, Av aojah- ‘strength’, Skt o ´ jas- ‘strength’), which has generally been linked to the type of strength required of a warrior. The word *weih x s ‘strength’ (e.g. Lat vı ¯ s, Grk ı ¯ ´ s both ‘strength’) seems to be a ‘vital force’ and has been linked with one of the words for ‘man’, *wih x ro ´ s (see Section 12.1). There are several words for ‘protect’ or ‘defend’. A verbal root *h a lek-is attested in Germanic (OE ealgian ‘protect’), Grk ale ´ kso ¯ ‘defend’, Arm aracel ‘tend’, and Skt ra ´ ks _ ati ‘protect’; in Germanic and Baltic this root was extended to include temples and sacred groves, e.g. OE ealh ‘temple’, Lith al ~ kas ‘sacred grove’. Three groups attest a root *ser- ‘protect’ (Lat servo ¯ ‘guard’, Lydian sare~ta ‘protector’, and Av haraiti ‘defends’). A root *gheug ˆ h- ‘protect, hide’ is attested in Baltic (Lith gu~z ˇ ti ‘cover with something warm’) and Indo-Iranian (e.g. Av gu ¯ zra- ‘hidden, secret’, Skt gu ¯ ´ hati ‘conceals’). Another root, *k ˆ eudh- ‘hide’, appears in Germanic (e.g. NE hide), Grk keu ´ tho ¯ ‘hide’, and Arm suzanem ‘hide’ and then, after metathesis into *dheuk ˆ -, in Germanic (e.g. for Tolkien fans OE de ¯ agol ‘secret, hidden’) and Tocharian (Toch B tuk- ‘be hidden’). And the quality associated with warriors is suggested by a PIE 17. SOCIETY 281 *dhers- ‘brave’ with cognates in Germanic (e.g. NE dare), Baltic (e.g. Lith dre˛su ` ‘dare’), Grkthe ´ rsos ‘bravery’,and Indo-Iranian (e.g.Skt dhr8s _ n _ o ´ ti ‘isbold, dares’). A Proto-Indo-European word for ‘army’ remains illusive with the best candidate being *leh 2 wo ´ s from a root *leh 2 - ‘military action’. It is attested in Grk la ¯ (w)o ´ s ‘people’, [pl.] ‘army’, Doric Grk la ¯ ge ´ ta ¯ s ‘leader of the people’, and Phryg lawagtei ‘military leader’ in terms of a military leader or his unit; only Hit lahha- ‘campaign’ increases the number of cognates but the Hittite word does not actually indicate a military unit, but rather military action. A second and similar word *koros appears as OPers ka ¯ ra- ‘people, army’ and Lith ka ˜ ras ‘war’ and in derived form, *koryos ‘army, war-band, unit of warriors’, in MIr cuire ‘troop, host’, OE here ‘army’, Lith ka ˜ rias ‘army’, Grk koı ´ ranos ‘army leader’ (see Section 17.1). The North-West region yields evidence of *katu-‘Wght’ (e.g. OIr cath ‘battle’, OHG hadu-‘Wght’, OCS kotora ‘Wght’; also widely employed in Celtic [e.g. Gaul Catu-rı ¯ x] and Germanic [e.g. OHG Hadubrant] personal names); *weik-‘Wght’ (e.g. OIr Wchid ‘Wghts’, Lat vinco ¯ ‘conquer’, OE gewegan ‘Wght’, Lith apveikiu ` ‘defeat’, Rus vek ‘force’); the noun *nant- ‘combat, Wght’ (OIr ne ¯ it ‘battle, combat’, ON nenna ‘strive’); *bheud- ‘strike, beat’ (e.g. OIr bibdu ‘guilty; enemy’, Lat fu ¯ stis ‘cane, cudgel’, NE beat); *bhlag ˆ - ‘strike’ (Lat Xagrum ‘whip’, ON blekkja ‘strike’, Lith blas ˇ kau~ ‘throw, Xing’); *slak- ‘strike’ (e.g. MIr slacc ‘sword’, NE slay), and the participle from *kap- ‘seize’, *kaptos ‘captive’ (e.g. Lat captus ‘captive’, NE haft); *bhergh- ‘keep, protect’ in Ger- manic (e.g. OE beorgan ‘keep’), Baltic (Lith bı ` rginti ‘be parsimonious’) and Slavic OCS bre ˇ s ˇ ti ‘care for’; and possibly *wreg- ‘press, oppress’ if Lat urgeo ¯ ‘press, oppress’ is indeed cognate with a Germanic series (e.g. ON reka ‘avenge, punish’, OE wrecan ‘avenge, punish’ > NE wreak). The West Central area shows *sket(h)- ‘injure, harm’ (e.g. OIr scı ¯ th ‘tired’, OE skaðian ‘injure’ [NE scathe is related but a Norse loanword], Grk aske ¯ the ¯ ´ s ‘uninjured’), and to add to the number of words for ‘strike’ we have *pleh a k/g- ‘strike, strike one’s breasts’ (e.g. in various forms seen as Lat plecto ¯ ‘strike, punish’ and plango ¯ ‘strike, strike one’s breast in lamentations, bewail’, OE Xo ¯ can ‘strike, clap’, Lith pla ` kti ‘strike’, OCS plakati se˛ ‘weep, be sorrowful’, Grk pla ¯ ´ sso ¯ ‘strike’); * g w el- ‘strike, stab’ (e.g. NWels ballu ‘die’, NE kill and quell, OPrus gallan ‘death’, Lith ge ´ lti ‘sting’, ache’, Arm kełem ‘torture’), a word that also provides the base for an ‘insect’s stinger’, i.e. *g w elo ¯ n (Lith geluo ˜ ‘insect’s stinger’, dialectal Grk de ´ llithes [pl.] ‘wasps’); another verb *kelh 1 - ‘strike’ (e.g. Lat calamita ¯ s ‘loss, injury, damage, misfortune’ [> by borrowing NE calamity], Lith kalu ` ‘strike, forge’, OCS koljo˛ ‘stab, slaughter’, Grk keleo ´ s ‘green woodpecker’); *bhlih x g ˆ - ‘strike’ (e.g. Lat fligo ¯ ‘strike’, Latv blaizı ˆ t ‘crush, strike’, Grk phl ¥ bo ¯ ‘press’), and a Serbo- Croatian-Armenian isogloss *deph x - ‘strike’ (SC depiti ‘strike’, Arm top‘em ‘strike’. Baltic and Greek provide *yeh 1 g w eh a - ‘power, youthful vigour’ 282 17. SOCIETY (e.g. Lith jega ` ‘strength, power’, Grk he ¯ ´ be ¯ ‘youth, vigour, puberty’). The Graeco-Aryan isoglosses comprise *tk ˆ en- ‘strike’ (Grk kteı ´ no ¯ ‘kill’, Skt ks _ an _ o ´ ti ‘hurts, injures, wounds’) and *dusmene ¯ s ‘hostile’, literally ‘bad-thought’ (Grk dusmene ¯ ´ s ‘hostile’, Av dus ˇ manah- ‘hostile’, Skt durmana ¯ s ‘sad’). 17.6 Occupations The creation of agent nouns in the diVerent Indo-European languages is so productive that there are few words for occupations that can be attributed to Proto-Indo-European with any degree of certainty. The lack of reconstructable occupational terms may also suggest that Proto-Indo-European society was not one with much occupational specialization. A word *tek ˆ s-(t)or/n- can be reconstructed from Italic, Greek, and Indo- Iranian; the meanings range from ‘weaver’ (Lat textor) to ‘carpenter’ (Grk te ´ kto ¯ n, Skt ta ´ ks _ an-) to ‘creator’ (Av tas ˇ an-). It derives from the verbal root *tek ˆ s- ‘fabricate’, and the semantic divergence may be due either to the fact that the verbal root itself is ambiguous or the fact that the craft of the carpenter also included the construction of wattled (‘woven’) walls. The herdsman, *we ´ stor-, is reconstructed from Hit westara- ‘herdsman’ and Av va ¯ star- ‘herdsman’ and derives from the verbal root *wes- ‘graze’. The verb *yeudh-‘Wght’ underlies *yudhmo ´ s ‘Wghter’ which is attested in Slavic (OCS o-jı ˘ minu ˘ ‘warrior’) and Indic (Skt yudhma ´ -). Regionally attested occupations are from the West Central region and comprise a word for ‘craft’, *ke ´ rdos, attested in Celtic (OIr cerd ‘craftsman’, NWels cerdd ‘song, poem; craft’) and Greek (ke ´ rdos ‘proWt’ but in the plural it means ‘cunning arts; craft’); *dhabhros ‘craftsman’ (Lat faber ‘workman, artiWcer, smith’, Arm darbin ‘smith’) from the root *dhabh - ‘put together’ and two words for ‘herdsman’, *g w ou-k w olos ‘cowherd’, literally ‘one who turns/ moves cows’ (e.g. MIr bu ¯ achail ‘cowherd’, Grk bouko ´ los ‘cowherd’), and *poh 2 ime ´ n- ‘herdsman’ (Lith piemuo ˜ ‘herdsman’, Grk poime ¯ ´ n ‘herdsman’) from *poh 2 (i)- ‘watch (cows)’. Table 17.6. Occupations *tek ˆ s-(t)or/n- ‘one who fabricates’ Lat textor, Grk te ´ kto ¯ n, Skt ta ´ ks _ an- *we ´ stor- ‘herdsman’ *yeudhmo ´ s ‘Wghter’ Skt yudhma ´ - 17. SOCIETY 283 17.7 Proto-Indo-European Society The degree of social complexity generally correlates with the size of the social aggregates and the nature of the economic system involved. Although there are always exceptions to the rule, hunter-gatherer societies are most often egalitar- ian, lacking strong positions of leadership and social ranking; moreover, they tend to be organized into relatively small social aggregates—families, bands, possibly small tribes. A presumably hunter-gathering society such as Proto- Uralic reveals little more than a word for ‘lord’ which is itself a loanword from Indo-Iranian. The Proto-Indo-Europeans with their clear evidence for an economy based on domesticated plants and animals, settled life, metallurgy, and the more advanced technology (plough, wheeled vehicles) of the so-called Secondary Products Revolution would suggest that we might Wnd a larger semantic Weld for social institutions. And this, indeed, is precisely what we do Wnd although we must always beware of attempting to reconstruct an entire social system from the residue of the lexical debris that has survived. Proto-Indo-European seems to have had some form of social ranking with various degrees of social status. Leadership positions would include the *w(n8)na ´ kts ‘leader, lord’, *h 3 re ¯ ´ g ˆ s ‘ruler, king’, *tago ´ s ‘leader’, and *wik ˆ pots ‘master of the clan’ and there are even verbal expressions of authority seen in *po ´ tyetoi ‘rules, is master’, *wal- ‘be strong, rule’, and possibly *h 3 re ¯ ´ g ˆ ti ‘rules’. The nature of leadership probably involved a sacerdotal element if we can correctly recover the etymological nuances of *h 3 re ¯ ´ g ˆ s. But terms such as *tago ´ s ‘leader’, i.e. ‘the one who puts in order’, and *so ´ k w -h 2 -o ¯ i ‘follower, companion’ suggest at least the image of leaders in warfare as well, and this possibility is greatly enhanced by the recovery of other names for warrior sodalities i.e. *leh 2 wo ´ s ‘people (under arms)’, * h a eg ˆ men- ‘troop’, and *koryos ‘people (under arms)’ with its own West Central designation *koryonos ‘leader (of the koryos)’. To what extent the realia of these institutions can be painted in with later ethnographic evidence of war-bands from Ireland to India is not entirely clear but it is diYcult to deny the existence of such institutions. Moreover, the vocabulary of strife, as we have seen, is fairly extensive (at least twenty-seven verbs) and while a number may be dismissed as purely expressions of the general application of physical force, e.g. striking an object, others such as *seg ˆ h- ‘hold fast, conquer’ certainly make better sense in a military context. For some time Indo-European homeland research has found itself all too often cast in the form of an insidious dichotomy: did the Indo-Europeans expand as peaceful farmers or warlike herdsmen? That farmers may also be aggressive and belligerent is well known to anyone who has encountered, for example, agricultural African societies; conversely, pastoralists need not be painted in 284 17. SOCIETY the same terms as the Golden Horde. In any event, there does seem to be suYcient retention of the vocabulary of strife and warfare in the reconstructed lexicon to suggest at least that those who wish to portray the Proto-Indo- Europeans as some form of New Age agrarian movement are strongly contra- dicted by the lexical evidence. Our recovery of legal institutions, at least on the basis of the reconstructed lexicon, is meagre. There seems to be an acceptance of a concept of *h a e ´ rtus ‘what is Wtting’, i.e. the cosmic order that must be maintained. This should be done by adhering to *dhe ´ h 1 mi-/men- ‘what is established, law’, here generally taken (on the basis of Greek and Indo-Iranian comparative studies) to be the law that has been established (*dhe ´ h 1 -) by the gods for humans. The other term, *yew(e)s-, ‘law, ritual norm’, has been seen to express the notion of ritual prescriptions, the recitation of which led to the establishment (or re-establish- ment) of order. Punishment for violation of the law such as murder or failure to abide by an oath required some form of compensation seen in both *k w oineh a - and *serk- ‘make restitution’. The range of vocabulary concerned with exchange and wealth is reasonably extensive and supports the hypothesis that the Proto-Indo-Europeans were involved in some degree of social ranking. If we read the nuances of the terms rightly, then both *mei- and *meit- ‘exchange’ are terms concerned with the concept of balanced reciprocity, i.e. an exchange relationship where neither side seeks an advantage. This is the type of exchange that one might expect to operate within families, clans, or perhaps at the tribal level. The exchange might have involved material goods (*wes-no-) but possibly also the payment of a bride-price (*k w rei(h a )-). More distant exchange is suggested by *per- ‘exchange, barter’ which may have derived from the concept of ‘transport across’ and is employed so in Homeric Greek where it designates the sale of slaves overseas. Exchange outside one’s group might lead to negative reciprocity where each side seeks a more advantageous recovery from the transaction. There are a series of terms for lack or poverty (*deu(s)- ‘be lacking’, *h 1 eg- ‘be in need, lack’, *menk- ‘lack’, *das- ‘lack’), as well as words for wealth (e.g. *h 2 o ´ /e ´ p(e)n- ‘goods, wealth’, *re ´ h 1 is ‘possessions’, *wo ´ su ‘goods’). These may have been acquired through a lifetime but also they may have been inherited (*lo ´ ik w nes-). The context of use in both Greek and Indic derivatives of *h 2 elg- w ho/eh a - ‘payment, prize’ supports the notion that human chattels were a Proto- Indo-European commodity. The noun *soru ‘booty’ also suggests wealth in the forms of captured men or livestock and this is supported by expressions built on *h a eg ˆ - ‘drive’, e.g. OIr ta ¯ in bo ¯ ‘cattle-raid’, Lat bove ¯ s agere ‘raid for cattle’, Av ga˛m var@ta˛m a˛z- ‘drive oV cattle as booty’, and, the widespread practice of cattle-raiding attested in the earliest Indo-European literature from Ireland to 17. SOCIETY 285 India. This manner of gaining wealth should probably be set outside the semantic ramiWcations of *(s)teh 4 -, *mus-, and *teubh-, all ‘steal’ in a presum- ably culturally unsanctioned manner. Further Reading On the problem of ‘Aryan’ see the Thieme–Dume ´ zil debate in Thieme (1938, 1957), Dume ´ zil (1941, 1958); also Thurneysen (1936), Bailey (1959, 1960), Szemere ´ nyi (1977), Cohen (2002). The Indo-European ‘king’ is discussed in Gonda (1955b), Sihler (1977), Scharfe (1985), Strunk (1987), Watkins (1995); other aspects of social organization can be found in Benveniste (1973a), Buti (1987), Della Volpe (1993), Duhoux (1973), Ivanov (1960), Losada Badia (1992), Nagy (1987), Scheller (1959), Schlerath (1987), Winter (1970), Zimmer (1987). Exchange is discussed in Benveniste (1973a), Markey (1990), Parvulescu (1988b), and Ramat (1983) and law in Palmer (1956), Watkins (1970a, 1986b), Puhvel (1971), and the collected readings in Puhvel (1970). The IE war-band has been much discussed from the seminal Wikander (1938) through Crevatin (1979), McKone (1987), Weitenberg (1991), and most recently in a conference edited by Das and Meiser (2002); for PIE ‘booty’ see Watkins (1975). 286 17. SOCIETY 18 Space and Time 18.1 Space The semantic categories of space and time are so fundamental to any language that there is an impressive degree of retention of a range of words, particularly those relating to position. The general terms for space are listed in Table 18.1. The concept of an ‘open space’ is found in *re ´ uh x es- which indicates ‘open Welds’ in Celtic (e.g. OIr ro ¯ i ‘Weld, open land’) and Italic (e.g. Lat ru ¯ s ‘country- side, open Welds’) and ‘space’ in Av ravah The same root with a diVerent extension gives us NE room. The underlying verb (*reuh x -) is preserved only in Toch AB ru- ‘be open’. Semantically more opaque is *g ˆ ho ´ h 1 ros which is a ‘free space, area between, land’ in Grk kho 7 ros but a ‘pit, hole’ in Tocharian (e.g. Toch B ka ¯ re); an e-grade gives a Greek word for ‘widow’ (khe ¯ ´ ra ¯ ). The verbal concept of ‘have room’ is found in *telp- (e.g. OIr -tella ‘have room for something’, Lith telpu ` ‘Wnd or have room enough; enter’, Skt ta ´ lpa- ‘bed’, Toch B ta ¨ lp- ‘be emptied of, purge’). General words for a ‘place’ are built on the verbal root *steh 2 - ‘stand’, hence we have *ste ´ h 2 tis (e.g. Lat statio ¯ ‘position, station’, NE stead, Lith sta ˜ c ˇ ias ‘standing’, Grk sta ´ sis ‘place, setting, standing, stature’, Av sta ¯ iti- ‘station’, Skt sthı ´ ti- ‘position’) and *ste ´ h 2 mo ¯ n (e.g. Lat sta ¯ men ‘warp’, NE stem, Lith stomuo ˜ ‘stature’, Grk ste ¯ ´ mo ¯ n ‘warp’, Skt stha ¯ ´ man- ‘position’, Toch B sta ¯ m ‘tree’). As we can see, the Wrst generally does indicate a ‘place’ or ‘station’ while the range of meanings of the second word is 18.1 Space 287 18.2 Position 288 18.3 Direction 293 18.4 Placement (Verbs) 295 18.5 Shape 297 18.6 Time 300 18.7 Proto-Indo-European Space and Time 303 much wider, e.g. ‘warp’ of a loom (Latin, Greek), ‘stem’ (Germanic), and ‘tree’ (Tocharian). There are three words that indicate ‘border’. Hit arha- ‘line, boundary’ preserves PIE *h 4 erh 2 os while derivatives may be found in Italic (Lat o ¯ ra ‘brim, edge, boundary, region’), Germanic (e.g. OE o ¯ ra ‘border, bank, shore’), and Baltic (e.g. Latv a ˆ ra ‘border, boundary; country; limit’). Another word, *morg ˆ -, indicated a ‘border’ or ‘district’ from Celtic to Avestan (e.g. OIr mruig ‘district’, Lat margo ¯ ‘edge’ [> by borrowing NE margin], OE mearc ‘border, district’ [NE marches is from Old French, in turn from Germanic], Av mar@za- ‘border country’). The root *ter- ‘cross over’ underlies the third word, *te ´ rmn8 (e.g. Lat termen ‘border’, Grk te ´ rma ‘border, goal, end point’, Arm t‘arm ‘end’, Hit tarma- ‘stake’, Skt ta ´ rman- ‘point of sacriWcial post’); both Hittite and Indic provide a concrete meaning here, i.e. ‘post, stake’, a device employed to mark the limit of something. 18.2 Position Words indicating position, with respect to both space or time, include the adpreps, i.e. adverbs and prepositions, which are both basic and well preserved in the Indo-European languages. The rather extensive list is indicated in Table 18.2. There are four words to indicate position ‘before’ or ‘in front’. The Wrst, *h 2 enti (e.g. Lat ante ‘in front of’, Lith an ˜ t ‘on, upon; at’, Grk antı ´ ‘instead of, for’, Arm @nd ‘for’, Hit anti ‘facing, frontally; opposite, against’, hanza ‘in front of’, Skt a ´ nti ‘opposite’), is in fact a frozen case form of *h 2 ent ‘face, forehead’ (cf. Lith an ˜ tis ‘breast(s)’, Hit hant- ‘forehead, front’, Toch B a ¯ nte ‘brow’). The other three are all derived ultimately from the preposition *per ‘through’, here in the extended meanings ‘through, beyond, in front of’. These are *pr8h a e ´ h 1 Table 18.1. Space *re ´ uh x es- ‘open space’ Lat ru ¯ s *g ˆ ho ´ h 1 ros ‘gap, empty space’ Grk kho 7 ros *telp- ‘have room’ Skt ta ´ lpa- *ste ´ h 2 tis ‘place’ Lat statio ¯ ,NEstead, Grk sta ´ sis, Skt sthı ´ ti- *ste ´ h 2 mo ¯ n ‘what stands, stature’ Lat sta ¯ men,NEstem, Grk ste ¯ ´ mo ¯ n, Skt stha ¯ ´ man- *h 4 erh 2 os ‘border, line, limit’ Lat o ¯ ra *morg ˆ - ‘border’ Lat margo ¯ *te ´ rmn8 ‘border’ Lat termen, Grk te ´ rma, Skt ta ´ rman- 288 18. SPACE AND TIME Table 18.2. Position *h 2 enti ‘in front’ Lat ante, Grk antı ´ , Skt a ´ nti *pr8h a e ´ h 1 ‘in front of; before (of time)’ NE fore, Grk para ´ , Skt pura ¯ *pr8h a e ´ i ‘in front of; before (of time)’ Lat prae, Skt pare ´ *pro ‘forward, ahead, away’ Lat pro ¯ , Grk pro ´ , Skt pra ´ - *terh 2 - ‘across, through, above’ Lat tra ¯ ns,NEthrough, Skt tira ´ s *proti ‘against, up to’ Grk protı ´ , Skt pra ´ ti *h 1 ente ´ r ‘into, between’ Lat inter, Skt anta ´ r *(s)me ‘middle, among’ Grk meta ´ , Skt smat *per ‘over, through, about’ Lat per *h 1 en(i) ‘in, into’ Lat in,NEin, Grk en *h 1 e ´ n-do ‘into’ Lat endo, Grk e ´ ndon *h a ed ‘at, to’ Lat ad,NEat *do $ *de ‘to, toward’ Lat do ¯ -nec,NEto, Grk -de *ko(m) ‘with, side by side’ Lat cum, Skt ka ´ m *sek w o- ‘following’ Lat secus, Skt sa ´ ca ¯ *som- ‘(together) with’ Skt sam- *h 1 e ´ nh 1 u ‘without’ NHG ohne, Grk a ´ neu *b(h)eg ˆ h ‘without’ Skt bahı ´ - *sen-i-/u- ‘apart’ Lat sine, Skt sanitu ´ r *wi- ‘apart, in two, asunder’ Lat vitium, Skt vi- *h 4 eu ‘away (from)’ Lat au-fero ¯ , Skt a ´ va *h a et ‘away, beyond’ Lat at, Grk ata ´ r, Skt a ´ tas *h 4 e ´ po ‘back, behind’ Lat ab, Grk apo ´ , Skt a ´ pa *h 4 ep-e ´ r- ‘back, behind’ Skt a ´ para- *posti ‘after’ Lat post(e) *po-sk w o- ‘behind’ Skt pa ´ s ´ ca ¯ t *witeros ‘far’ NE withershins, Skt vitara ´ m *h 2 entbhi- ‘around, on both sides’ Lat ambi-, Grk amphı ´ , Skt abhı ´ ta- *h 4 upo ´ ‘up (from underneath)’ NE up, Grk hupo ´ , Skt u ´ pa *u ¯ d ‘upward, out (from under)’ NE out, Skt ud- *h a en-h a e ‘up (onto), upwards, along’ NE on, Grk ana ´ *h 1 epi $ *h 1 opi ‘near, on’ Lat ob, Grk epı ´ , Skt a ´ pi *(s-)h 4 upe ´ r(i) ‘over’ Lat s-uper,NEover, Grk hupe ´ r, Skt upa ´ ri *bhr8g ˆ hu ´ s $ *bhr8g ˆ he ´ nt- ‘high’ Skt br8ha ´ nt- *h 2 erdus ‘high, lofty’ Lat arduus *worh x dhus ‘upright, high’ Grk (w)ortho ´ s, Skt u ¯ rdhva ´ - *wers- ‘peak’ Lat verru ¯ ca, Grk he ´ rma, Skt va ´ rs _ man- *ni ‘downwards’ NE nether, Skt nı ´ (Cont’d) 18. SPACE AND TIME 289 [...]... reference to the sun, more particularly by reference to the evening (e.g NE west) or the setting of the sun though no particular Proto-Indo-European word is reconstructable A competing system of orientation in Proto-Indo-European was one that presumed the speaker was facing the rising sun East was then forward, west was behind, etc (cf the discussions of *po-sekwo-, *ner, and *deksinos above) Nevertheless,... *d(e)km tos tenth) The loss of the Wnal *-t, if such it was, in the 8 word for ten created the basis of a morphological reanalysis in *dekm tos m t-os to *dekm -tos or the creation of a new ordinal 8 tenth from *dek 8 8 *dekm m-os The new * -to- was extended as an ordinal-deriving ending even in Proto-Indo-European times (witness *pnkwtos Wfth) and continued its 8 extension to other numbers in the individual... AND QUANTITY foreign s- or the like should generate a Proto-Indo-European* ksw- One might also note that the attested Akkadian form is far too late to have been the model for Proto-Indo-European borrowing, no matter where the Proto-Indo-Europeans may have been located, and the earlier Proto-Semitic form of six, *sidt(at), ~ looks even less promising as a model for *ksweks The word for seven, *septm,... , Toch B oktante) The dual morphology suggests that eight consists of two *hxokto- which simple arithmetic would suggest meant four, yet we have already seen that the word for four in Proto-Indo-European was not *hxokto- A way around this problem has been to see the basic root here as - sharp, pointed and the semantic development to involve the Wngers as *haek the pointed sticking-out parts of the. .. decades and of the word for hundred It is probably the original form from which the shorter variant was created by the loss of the Wnal *-t in the otherwise very rare cluster *-m t 8 The oldest reconstructable formation of the ordinal numbers would appear to involve the addition of the inXectible suYx *-o- to the cardinal number (hence 8 *triyos third, *ksweksos sixth, *septmos, *hxoktowos eighth,... extinct language of eastern Anatolia) seeze, Akkadian si/essum (the form used to modify deWnite feminine nouns) six These are variously explained as borrowing into or from (in the Kartvelian case) Proto-Indo-European However, with the exception of the Kartvelian forms, the proposed models for the Proto-Indo-European word are only vaguely similar phonetically and there is no good reason why a 314... would be too late to serve as a model for the Proto-Indo-European word and the Proto-Semitic *sab (at) looks considerably less helpful The reconstruction of the numeral eight, *hxoktoh3(u)(e.g OIr ocht, Lat ` ă octo, NE eight, Lith astuon, OCS osm, Alb tete, Grk okto, Arm ut, Lycian ait , Av asta, Skt ast a(u), Toch B okt), is, in form, the dual of the o-stem The ordinals are formed regularly (e.g... one) The root etymology is generally presumed to be the anaphoric pronoun, i.e *h1ei-, cf NE one in the sense One does what ones told Although there are a number of other theories, this etymology is one of the few thought up for any of the numbers that is at all likely to be correct Because *h1oinos (etc.) is etymologically transparent it is probably a relatively recent addition to the number system The. .. suggested to several investigators that we may be looking at a word that was originally borrowed from some non-Indo-European source Foreign parallels to the Proto-Indo-European forms have been noted since the time of Franz Bopp who compared the Proto-Indo-European form with Proto-Kartvelian (a language group of the Caucasus composed of Georgian and closely related languages) *eksw- six; other comparisons... and all the Germanic forms show the result of an initial *d- which has been variously explained (away) as having crossed with the Proto-Germanic *daZwaz warm time of the year ([< *dhogwho- burning] or from the false division of an expression such as 8 8 *tod haeghr that day into *to( d) dhaeghr Neither explanation has inspired much conWdence The other two words, *deino- $ *dino- (e.g with the full` . due either to the fact that the verbal root itself is ambiguous or the fact that the craft of the carpenter also included the construction of wattled (‘woven’) walls. The herdsman, *we ´ stor-, is. ‘in’). The widespread *h a ed meant to (e.g. Irish ad- to , Lat ad to, at’, NE at, Phryg ad- to ) as did *do or *de (e.g. OIr do, Lat do ¯ -nec ‘up to , NE to, Lith da ‘up to , OCS do ‘up to ,. by reference to the evening (e.g. NE west) or the setting of the sun though no particular Proto-Indo-European word is reconstructable. A competing system of orien- tation in Proto-Indo-European