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 14 october 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.