Cover not available
Part of
Historical Linguistics 2017: Selected papers from the 23rd International Conference on Historical Linguistics, San Antonio, Texas, 31 July – 4 August 2017
Edited by Bridget Drinka
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 350] 2020
► pp. 49–64

Parallel syncretism in early Indo-European

Oblique-oblique case mergers are now known to be exceedingly rare outside Indo-European, yet very common within it (Baerman, Brown, and Corbett, 2001, 2005). Explanations of these mergers given after 2001 now need to include factors that are, individually or collectively, unique to Indo-European. In this paper, a set of such Indo-European specific factors is proposed, mainly phonological and prosodic, and its implications explored, particularly for the Germanic, Italic and Celtic families. We begin with Proto-Indo-European accent and ablaut morphology and PIE’s existing syncretism of the ablative case. Timelines and examples in Proto-Germanic help flesh out the explanation.
Keywords: PIE, stress, syncretism, case mergers, ablaut, historical phonology
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.How the core and oblique cases became distinct in early IE
    • 2.1How the core and oblique stems became more phonologically distinct
  • 3.Other proposed influences leading to oblique-oblique mergers
    • 3.1Syntactic and semantic grouping
    • 3.2Existing syncretism of the ablative
  • 4.Examples of case mergers
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 9 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.350.03rap
References (23)
References
Allen, W. S. (1973). Accent and rhythm (1st ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baerman, M. & Brown, D. (2013). Case syncretism. In M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Retrieved from [URL]
Baerman, M., Brown, D. & Corbett, G. (2005). The syntax–morphology interface: A study of syncretism (1st ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baerman, M., Brown, D. & Corbett, G. G. (2001). Case syncretism in and out of Indo-European. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Blažek, V. (2008). Gaulish language. Studia minora Facultatis Philosophicae Universitatis Brunensis. Graeco-Latina Brunensia vol. 57, issue 13, pp. 37–65. Brno: Brněnské Univerzity.Google Scholar
Covington, M. (1999). Why the ablative, locative, and instrumental cases fell together in Latin (pp. 1–5). University of Georgia. [URL] (Retrieved April 5, 2015 from Semantic Scholar website)
Fortson, B. (2004). Indo-European language and culture: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. (1995). Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kortlandt, F. (2010). Indo-European morphosyntax. In Studies in Germanic, Indo-European and Indo-Uralic (pp. 81–104). Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, W. P. (1961). A definition of Proto-Germanic: A study in the chronological delimitation of languages. Language, 37(1), 67–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1985). Proto-Indo-European derivational morphology in chronological perspective. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications, 20 (1985), 67–76.Google Scholar
Lundquist, J. & Yates, A. (2018). The morphology of Proto-Indo-European. In J. Klein et al. (Eds.), Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics, 1–85. Berlin /New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luraghi, S. (1987). Patterns of case syncretism in Indo-European languages. Papers from the Seventh International Conference on Historical Linguistics, 48, 355–371. Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matasović, R. (2009). Etymological dictionary of proto-Celtic. Leiden & Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
(2012). Dybo’s law in Proto-Celtic. Zeitschift für celtische Philologie, 59, 129–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Probert, P. (2008). Ancient Greek accentuation: Synchronic patterns, frequency effects, and prehistory (Vol. 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ringe, D. (2006). Linguistic history of English, Vol 1. From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rovers, J. (2016). Case merger in Indo-European and the independent datives in Old Irish, 1–65. (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). University of Utrecht Archives, Utrecht, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, L. A. (1956). Notes on the declension of feminine nouns in Middle Indo-Aryan. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland, 88(3–4), 181–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sihler, A. L. (1995). New comparative grammar of Greek and Latin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stuart-Smith, J. (2004). Phonetics and philology: Sound change in Italic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thurneysen. (1946). A grammar of Old Irish (Revised). Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
Wodtko, D. S. (2003). An outline of Celtiberian grammar. Freiburg: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg.Google Scholar