Cover not available
Article published In:
Diachronica
Vol. 33:1 (2016) ► pp.95–130

A single origin of Indo-European primary adpositions?

Unveiling the Indo-Aryan branch-off

| Universität zu Köln
It has been widely assumed that the primary adpositions of modern Indo-European languages constitute a historically identical category, descending from the Proto-Indo-European ‘local particles’. I argue that this assumption needs to be revised, because a major branch of the language family, Indo-Aryan, possesses adpositions of unrelated origin. This is not only a question of different etyma, but the New Indo-Aryan adpositions descend from structurally different sources. The ancient local particles, as attested in early Indo-Aryan varieties, combine with local case forms and show a preference for the prenominal position. By contrast, the New Indo-Aryan adpositions descend from nominal and verbal forms heading genitives, and show a propensity for the postnominal slot. Thus, we are dealing with elements unrelated not only etymologically, but also with regard to their morphosyntactic distribution.
Keywords: adpositions, local particles, grammaticalization, Indo-Aryan, syntactic class, word order, Indo-European
Published online: 12 May 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.33.1.04rei
References (64)
Das Aitareya Brāhmaṇa. Mit Auszügen aus dem Commentare von Sāyaṇācārya und anderen Beilagen. Theodor Aufrecht (ed.). Bonn: A. Marcus, 1879.Google Scholar
[Aitareyabrāhmaṇa] Rigveda Brahmanas: The Aitareya and Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇas of the Rigveda. Arthur Berriedale Keith (transl.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1920.Google Scholar
The Dīgha Nikāya (Vols I-III1). Thomas William Rhys Davids & Joseph Estlin Carpenter (eds.). London: Luzac & Company, 1947-1949.
[Dīghanikāya] Dialogues of the Buddha. Thomas William Rhys Davids (transl.). London: Luzac & Company, 1956, 1965, 1966.Google Scholar
Karakaṇḍa Cariu of Muni Kanakāmara. Hiralal Jain (ed.). Karanja, Berar: Karanja Jaina Publication Society, 1934.Google Scholar
Majjhima-nikāya (Bände I-III1). Robert Chalmers (ed.). London: Oxford University Press, 1948.Google Scholar
[Majjhimanikāya] The Collection of The Middle Length Sayings (Majjhima-Nikāya) (Vols I-III1). Isaline Blew Horner (transl.). London: Luzac & Company, 1957, 1967.Google Scholar
[R̥gveda] Die Hymnen des Rigveda (Vols I & II1). Theodor Aufrecht (ed.). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1955.Google Scholar
[R̥gveda] Rig-Veda: Das heilige Wissen: Erster und zweiter Liederkreis. Michael Witzel und Toshifumi Gotō (ed. and transl.). Frankfurt am Main: Verlag der Weltreligionen, 2007.Google Scholar
The Thera- and Therīgāthā (Stanzas ascribed to Elders of the Buddhist Order of Recluses) (2nd edn. with appendix). Kenneth Roy Norman & Ludwig Alsdorf (eds.). London: Luzac & Company, 1966.Google Scholar
[Therīgāthā] The Elders Verses II. Therīgāthā. Kenneth Roy Norman (transl.). London: Luzax & Company, 1971.Google Scholar
Andersen, Paul Kent. 1979. Word order typology and prepositions in Old Indic. In Bela Brogyanyi (ed.), Studies in diachronic, synchronic, and typological linguistics: Festschrift for Oswald Szemérenyi on the occasion of his 65th birthday, 23-34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beames, John. 1970 [1875]. A comparative grammar of the modern Aryan languages of India - to wit Hindi, Punjabi, Sindhi, Gujarati, Marathi, Oriya and Bengali. Vol. II. The noun and pronoun. London: Trübner.Google Scholar
Bloch, Jules. 1965. Indo-Aryan. From the Vedas to modern times. (rev. and transl. by Alfred Master). Paris: Librairie d’Amérique et d’Orient Adrien – Maissonneuve.Google Scholar
Böhtlingk, Otto & Rudolph Roth. 1855-1875. Grosses Petersburger Wörterbuch (7 Theile). (Online at [URL], last accessed 10/10/2013)
Bubenik, Vit. 2006. Cases and postpositions in Indo-Aryan. In John Hewson & Vit Bubenik (eds.), From case to adposition: The development of configurational syntax in Indo-European languages, 102-130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butt, Miriam & Tafseer Ahmed. 2011. The redevelopment of Indo-Aryan case systems from a lexical semantic perspective. Morphology 21(3-4). 545-572. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Casaretto, Antje. 2010a. Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des R̥gveda IX: ánu. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 651. 7-64.Google Scholar
. 2010b. Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des R̥gveda VI: práti. International Journal of Diachronic Linguistics and Linguistic Reconstruction 71. 1-53.Google Scholar
. 2010 [2011]. Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des R̥gveda VIII: abhí. Historische Sprachforschung 1231. 97-156.Google Scholar
. 2011 [2012]a. Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des R̥gveda. XVI: áti und tirás. International Journal of Diachronic Linguistics and Linguistic Reconstruction 81. 173-216.Google Scholar
. 2011 [2012]b. Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des R̥gveda XII: ví. Historische Sprachforschung 1241. 134-177.Google Scholar
. 2011 [2012]c. Lokalpartikel im R̥gveda XIV: ácchā. Zeitschrift für Indologie und Südasienstudien 281. 1-27.Google Scholar
. 2012. Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln im R̥gveda XXI: purás, purástāt und purā́. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 661. 11-53.Google Scholar
Chatterji, Sunti Kumar. 1970 [1926]. The origin and development of the Bengali language. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Coleman, Robert. 1991. Latin prepositional syntax in Indo-European perspective. In Robert Coleman (ed.), New studies in Latin linguistics, 323-338. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuny, Albert. 1907. Les préverbes dans le Çatapatabrāhmaṇa. Paris: Université de Paris dissertation.Google Scholar
Davids, T.W. & William Stede. 2007 [1921–1925]. Pali-English Dictionary. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold. 2009 [1888]. Altindische Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Emeneau, Murray Barnson. 1956. India as a linguistic area. Language 32(1). 3-16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fahs, Achim. 1989. Grammatik des Pali. Leipzig: VEB.Google Scholar
Hagège, Claude. 2010. Adpositions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, Kenneth. 1983. Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 1(1). 5-47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hettrich, Heinrich. 1991. Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des R̥gveda I: ádhi. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 521. 27-76.Google Scholar
. 1993. Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des R̥gveda II: antár. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 541. 147-176.Google Scholar
. 2002. Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des R̥gveda III: pári. In Matthias Fritz & Susanne Zeilfelder (eds.), Novalis Indogermanica. Festschrift für Günter Neumann zum 80. Geburtstag, 215-242. Graz: Leykam.Google Scholar
Hettrich, Heinrich, Antje Casaretto & Carolin Schneider. 2010. Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des R̥gveda IV: Allgemeines (H. Hettrich); II. úpa (A. Casaretto); III. áva (C. Schneider). Münchner Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 641. 17-130.Google Scholar
Hewson, John & Vit Bubenik. 2006. From case to adposition: The development of configurational syntax in Indo-European languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2014. Asymmetries in the prosodic phrasing of function words: Another look at the suffixing preference. Language 90(4). 927-960. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacobi, Hermann. 1967 [1886]. Ausgewählte Erzählungen in Mȃhȃrȃshṭrȋ. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Jamison, Stephanie. 1991. The syntax of direct speech in Vedic. In Joel Brereton & Stephanie W. Jamison (eds.), Sense and syntax in Vedic, 40-57. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume. 2013. Harmonization and disharmonization of affix ordering and basic word order. Linguistic Typology 171. 187-215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kellogg, Rev. Samuel Henry. 1972 [1875]. A grammar of the Hindī Language, in which are treated the High Hindī, Braj, and the Eastern Hindi of the Ramāyan of Tulsī Dās. New Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Corporation.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1958. L’accentuation des langues Indo-Européennes. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy Imienia Ossolińskich Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam. 2012. From Latin to Romance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1985. Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile 201. 303-318.Google Scholar
. 2002 [1982]. Thoughts on grammaticalization. 2nd, rev. edn. (Arbeitspapiere Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft 9). Erfurt: Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Erfurt.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 2010. The rise (and possible downfall) of configurationality. In Silvia Luraghi & Vit Bubenik (eds.), The Continuum companion to historical linguistics, 212-229. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Masica, Colin Paul. 1976. Defining a linguistic area: South Asia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 1991. The Indo-Aryan languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1992. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. Band 11. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine & Joseph Vendryes. 1927. Traité de grammaire comparée des langues classiques. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Oberlies, Thomas. 1998. Historische Grammatik des Hindi: Die Genese seines morphologischen Systems aus dem Mittel- und Altindischen. Freiburg: Reinbek.Google Scholar
Reinöhl, Uta. Forthcoming. Grammaticalization and the rise of configurationality in Indo-Aryan. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logo
Renou, Louis. 1956. Préposition et préverbe dans le R̥gveda. In Louis Renou (ed.), Études védiques et pāṇinéennes, Vol. II1, 113-127. Paris: E. de Boccard.Google Scholar
Davids, Thomas William Rhys & William Stede. 2007 [1921-1925]. Pali-English Dictionary. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Schneider, Carolin. 2009 [2010]. Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des R̥gveda V: ní. Historische Sprachforschung 1221. 118-169.Google Scholar
. 2010a. Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des R̥gveda. VII: níṣ. International Journal of Diachronic Linguistics and Linguistic Reconstruction 71. 149-193.Google Scholar
. 2010b. Lokalpartikel im R̥gveda (Folge 13): ápa. Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 271. 1-35.Google Scholar
. 2011. Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des R̥gveda X: úd. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 651. 185-241.Google Scholar
. 2012. Local particles in the R̥gveda XVII: párā. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 661. 221-246.Google Scholar
Speijer, Jacob Samuel. 1968 [1886]. Sanskrit syntax. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Verbeke, Saartje & Ludovic De Cuypere. 2009. The rise of ergativity in Hindi. Assessing the role of grammaticalization. Folia Linguistica Historica 301. 1-24.Google Scholar
Whitney, William Dwight. 1983 [1879]. Sanskrit grammar. 5th edition. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Louagie, Dana & Uta Reinöhl
2022. Typologizing nominal expressions: the noun phrase and beyond. Linguistics 60:3 ► pp. 659 ff. DOI logo
Bez, Gitanjali
2020. The relator noun construction in Assamese. Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 7:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Stroński, Krzysztof, Joanna Tokaj & Saartje Verbeke
2019. Chapter 20. A diachronic account of converbal constructions in Old Rajasthani. In Historical Linguistics 2015 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 348], ► pp. 424 ff. DOI logo
Reinöhl, Uta & Antje Casaretto
2018. When grammaticalization does not occur. Diachronica 35:2 ► pp. 238 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.