 |
<< Home Page << Articles and Books
1.1.2. Vocalism.
The only attempt to reconstruct the PEC (Proto-Daghestan) vocalism
was made by E. A. Bokarev, who had reconstructed an original system of
five vowels, based on a small number of examples from Avar, Lak, Dargwa,
Lezghian and Tabasaran (see [Bokarev 1981]). At the present time the data
of the reconstructed PN, PA, PTs, PD and PL languages call for a total
revision of the correspondences established by E. A. Bokarev. It must be
also noted that it now seems pointless to reconstruct nasalized vowels
(on their secondary development in PTs as a result of the fall of medial
resonants, see above), as well as the pharyngealized ones (on their origin,
see section 1.1.3); however, we have reasonable evidence in favour of the
distinction between long and short vowels.
The reconstruction of vowels is made generally on the basis of nouns
(see below on the behaviour of vowels in verbal roots). We should also
note that vowels behave quite differently in medial and word-final positions.
1.1.2.1. Medial vocalism.
In medial (non-final) position we reconstruct 9 vowels for PNC (or
18-vowels, considering the length feature);
*i¢ |
*– |
*µ¢ |
*¶ |
*—¢ |
*˜ |
*u¢ |
*³ |
*e¢ |
*Œ |
* |
*Ž |
*o¢ |
*¡ |
*„ |
*… |
*a¢ |
*ƒ |
In the tables below we demonstrate three types of reflexes: 1) reflexes
when there is no labial w adjacent to the vowel; 2) reflexes of the vowel
after the labial w; 3) reflexes of the vowel before the labial w. Such
a division is necessary, because labialization in North-Caucasian languages
has significantly influenced the development of vowels.
The development of vowels is also influenced by pharyngealization (that
appears as a result of the fall of laryngeals, see below), as well as by
nasalization in PTs (that appears as a result of the fall of medial resonants,
see above). We list the nasalized variants of PTs reflexes after the main
ones in square brackets. See below for more detailed comments on the development
of vowels in East-Caucasian languages.
In West-Caucasian languages, the original PNC vocalism system has been
totally destroyed (as we know, most modern West-Caucasian languages possess
bi- or trivocalic systems that have developed from the initial PWC bivocalic
vowel system). The main principle of the reflexation of vowels in PWC is
as follows:
a) front vowels are reflected as the palatalization of the preceding
consonant, being themselves transformed into neutral */a; if the preceding
consonant is labialized, it becomes palatalized too. This gives rise to
the specific series of "palatalized-labialized" consonants (on
their development in West-Caucasian languages, see below).
b) the labialized back vowel *u is reflected as the labialization of
the preceding consonant; thus, the reflexes of non-labialized consonants
before *u merge with the reflexes of labialized consonants. The vowel itself
is also transformed into neutral * or *a.
c) the mid vowels *—, * as well as back *o, *a are reflected in PWC
as neutral * or *a;
d) long vowels in PWC merge with short ones, but preceding consonants
become tense (strong). This gives rise to the specific series of PWC tense
(so-called "preruptive") consonants.
Generally speaking, all the listed rules of vowel reflexation in PWC
can be reduced to one: the transfer of qualitative and quantitave features
of vowels onto the preceding consonants. As a result of this rule, the
system of vowels in PWC was drastically reduced, but the system of consonants
was significantly increased (because of the appearance of palatalized,
"palatalized-labialized" and "tense" phonemes). We
must note that the height opposition of two PWC vowels (*-*a) still cannot
be connected with the respective opposition in PEC. High vowels were probably
originally reflected as *, mid and low vowels - as *a, but afterwards,
under the influence of ablaut, the connection of PWC vowel height with
the corresponding Proto-North-Caucasian phonetic categories became obscured.
In the table given below we do not list PWC reflexes (which were basically
described above).
PNC,PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs1 |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
*i¢ |
*a¢ |
*i |
i |
*i[i~]2 |
i3 |
*i¬a4 |
*i |
i |
*(Cw)i¢ |
*u¢¬o¢ |
*Cºi |
Cºe |
*Cº— |
Cºa¬ |
*Cu¬ |
*Cºi |
Cu¬Cºa |
|
/a¢ |
¬*Cu5 |
¬Co |
|
Cu |
Cºa |
*i¢(Cw) |
*u¢/a¢ |
*iCº |
i¬u |
*iC(º)¬ |
VC(º) |
*iCº¬aCº |
*iCº |
|
|
¬uC |
uC[e~] |
*– |
*Œ/ƒ |
= *i¢ |
= *i¢ |
= *i¢ |
i |
= *i¢ |
= *i¢ |
= *i¢ |
*(Cw)– |
*¡¬³/ƒ |
= *i¢ |
= *i¢ |
= *i¢ |
Cºi¬Cu |
= *i¢ |
= *i¢ |
= *i¢ |
*–(Cw) |
*¡/ƒ |
= *i¢ |
= *i¢ |
= *i¢ |
iCº¬uC |
= *i¢ |
= *i¢ |
= *i¢ |
*µ¢6 |
*o¢¬i¢ |
*i |
e¬i |
*a[a~] |
u¬a |
*a(¬u) |
*e¬„ |
*µ¢(Cw) |
*u¢¬i¢ |
*iC(º) |
o¬i |
*e[¥~] |
u¬a |
*a |
*e¬„ |
|
*¶ |
*¡/ƒ |
= *µ¢ |
= *µ¢ |
= *µ¢ |
= *µ¢ |
= *µ¢ |
= *µ¢ |
*µ(Cw) |
*¡/ƒ |
= *µ¢ |
= *µ |
= *µ¢ |
= *µ¢ |
= *µ¢ |
= *µ¢ |
*e¢ |
*a¢7 |
*o8 |
a8 |
*¥[o~]9 |
a |
*e/a10 |
*e¬„11 |
i12 |
*(Cw)e¢ |
*o¢/a¢ |
*Cºi¬ |
Cºa¬ |
*Cº¬C¥ |
a¬u |
*Cºe¬ |
*Cºe¬ |
u |
|
|
Cºo |
Cu |
[Cº~¬C¥~] |
|
Cºa |
Cº„ |
*e¢(Cw) |
*o¢¬e¢ |
*iCº¬ |
a |
*¥[¥~] |
a¬u |
*eCº¬aCº |
*eCº¬ |
u |
|
|
oCº |
|
|
|
|
„Cº11 |
*Œ |
*Œ¬–/ƒ |
*i |
e13 |
*—(¬?)14 |
a |
*e¬i15 |
*e16 |
i |
*(Cw)Œ |
*¡¬Œ |
*Cºi¬ |
Cu¬ |
*C(º)— |
Cºi¬ |
*Cºe¬ |
*Cºe |
u |
|
|
Cu |
Cºe,Co13 |
Cu |
Cu15 |
*Œ(Cw) |
*Œ/ƒ |
*iC(º) |
e¬o |
*—C(º) |
a¬u |
*eC(º)¬ |
*eCº |
— |
|
|
|
|
[o~C] |
|
*iC(w) |
*„¢ |
*i¢17 |
*i |
i18 |
*i[i~]19 |
i20 |
*i21 |
*„22 |
—(-u) |
*(Cw)„¢ |
*i¢ |
*C(º)i |
i¬ |
*C(º)—[—~] |
CºV |
*Cu¬Cºa |
*C(º)„¬ |
— |
|
|
|
u18 |
|
|
|
Cºe |
*„¢(Cw) |
*i¢ |
*iC(º) |
a¬u |
*i |
i¬u |
*iCº¬uC |
*„C(º) |
|
(¬u¢,o¢) |
|
*… |
*¡/ƒ |
= *„¢ |
=*„¢23 |
*¥[¥~¬e~] |
= *„¢ |
= *„¢ |
= *„¢ |
—¬i |
*(Cw)… |
*ƒ |
= *„¢ |
= *„¢ |
*C(º)e |
= *„¢ |
= *„¢ |
= *„¢ |
*…(Cw) |
*ƒ |
= *„¢ |
= *„¢ |
|
= *„¢ |
= *„¢ |
= *„¢ |
i |
*—¢ |
*a¢24 |
*o |
a |
*—[e~],-u |
a |
*u |
*—(-i?) |
—¬u |
*(Cw)—¢ |
*o¢/a¢ |
*Cºo/ |
u¬Cºe |
*C(º)— |
Cu¬ |
*u¬a28 |
*Cu¬Cº—29 |
|
|
Cºi25 |
/Cºa26 |
[e~]27 |
Cºa |
*—¢(Cw) |
*a¢ |
*oC(º) |
u¬o |
*—C(º)[e~] |
aCº¬ |
*aCº¬uC |
*uC¬—Cº31 |
|
|
¬iC(º) |
(¬a)30 |
uC |
*˜ |
*ƒ32 |
*i |
i |
*—[¥~]33 |
u¬i |
*i¬u |
*—(*ji-) |
i¬—¬u |
*(Cw)˜ |
*³/ƒ |
*C(º)i |
u¬i34 |
*C(º)— |
u¬i |
*C(º)i¬ |
*Cº—¬ |
i |
|
|
¬Cu |
|
[C(º)—~] |
|
Cu |
Cu35 |
*˜(Cw) |
*ƒ |
*iCº¬ |
i |
*— |
u¬i |
*i¬u |
*—Cº |
|
|
oCº |
*¢ |
*o¢/a¢ |
*i36 |
o |
*o[¥~]37 |
a(-u) |
*a |
*a(*ja-) |
„¬a,o |
*(Cw)¢ |
*u¢¬o¢ |
*Cºo |
o |
*o´ |
u |
*u¬a38 |
*Cu¬C(º)a39 |
*¢(Cw) |
*o¢ |
*iC(º) |
o¬u |
*o[¥~] |
iC(º) |
*a |
*aC(º) |
|
|
¬uC |
|
¬aC(º)40 |
*Ž |
*Œ/ƒ |
*i36,41 |
= *¢ |
o[a~¬o~]42 |
= *¢ |
= *¢ |
= *¢ |
= *¢ |
*(Cw)Ž |
*¡/ƒ |
*C(º)i |
= *¢ |
*u´ |
= *¢ |
= *¢ |
= *¢ |
|
|
¬Cu |
*Ž(Cw) |
*Œ¬¡/ƒ |
*iC(º) |
= *¢ |
*o´ |
= *¢ |
= *¢ |
= *¢ |
|
|
¬uC |
*u¢ |
*o¢¬u¢/a¢ |
*u |
u |
*o¬u |
u |
*u |
*o |
a(?) |
*³ |
*¡¬³ |
*u |
u |
*—¬i |
u |
*u |
*o |
a(?) |
*o¢ |
*o¢ |
*i |
e¬i44 |
*¥[a~¬o~]45 |
u |
*a¬u |
*a |
—(?) |
|
(/a¢)43 |
*(Cw)o¢ |
*u¢ |
*Cºi¬ |
u |
*¥ |
u |
*u |
*Cºa |
|
|
Cu |
|
|
(*CºaI-) |
*o¢(Cw) |
*o¢ |
*iCº¬ |
u |
*¥ |
u |
*iCº |
*aCº |
|
|
uC |
|
|
(*-aICº) |
*¡ |
*ƒ(-o) |
*i46 |
e¬i |
*—[i~¬~]47 |
u |
*a/i48 |
*o |
a¬„ |
*(Cw)¡ |
*¡/ƒ |
*Cºo |
C(º)e |
*Ce¬Cº |
u |
*Cºi |
*o |
„ |
|
|
|
[e~¬a~] |
*¡(Cw) |
*ƒ |
*oC(º) |
i |
u |
*iC(º)¬ |
*oC(º) |
|
|
¬iC(º) |
|
uC |
*a¢ |
*a¢ |
*a |
a/e50 |
*a¬e |
a(-u) |
*a |
*a(*ji-) |
„¬a |
|
(-e)49 |
|
|
[a~´~] |
|
|
(-u?)51 |
*(Cw)a¢ |
*o¢/a¢ |
*Cºa |
Cºa/ |
*Cºa¬Cºe |
Cwa¬ |
*Cºa53 |
*Cºa |
a¬o |
|
|
|
Cºe52 |
[a~´~] |
Cu |
*a¢(Cw) |
*a¢ |
*aCº |
aCº¬eCº |
*a¬e |
aC(º) |
*aC(º) |
*aCº |
*ƒ |
*Œ/ƒ |
*a |
a |
*—¬i |
a(-u) |
*a54 |
*a(*ji-) |
|
|
|
|
[i~¬~] |
*(Cw)ƒ |
*Œ¬¡/ƒ |
*Cºa¬ |
Cºa¬ |
*C(º)i¬ |
C(º)a |
*Cºa |
*C(º)a |
a¬o |
|
|
Cu |
Cu |
Cu |
¬Cu |
*ƒ(Cw) |
*ƒ |
*aC(º) |
aC(º)¬ |
*—(i)¬u |
aC(º) |
*aC(º) |
*aC(º) |
|
|
|
uC |
Comments.
1) In Proto-Tsezian-Khvarshi (PTsKh) we observe a phenomenon of splitting
the reflexes of some PTs vowels (see below), which causes us to reconstruct
two series of vowel phonemes (series A and series B) of the first syllable:
*iA-*iB,*eA-*eB,*—A-—B,*A-B, *oA-oB, *uA-uB.
In the table we have not taken into account this distinction, the origin
of which seems to be caused by prosodic reasons. Indeed, in all the rows
of correspondences listed above we observe an exact correspondence of Tsezian
series of vowels to Avar accent paradigms:
PEC vowel |
PTs series |
Avar accent paradigm |
*i |
A |
B¬C |
|
B |
A |
*µ |
A |
B¬C |
|
B |
A |
* |
A |
B¬C |
|
B |
A |
*a |
A |
B¬C |
|
B |
A |
*e |
A |
B¬C |
|
B |
A |
*„ |
A |
A¬B¬C |
|
B |
B¬C |
*— |
A |
(A)¬B¬C |
|
B |
B¬C |
*o |
A |
A¬B¬C |
|
B |
B¬C |
From this scheme we see that the PTs series B corresponds to Avar barytonal
accentuation if the root vowel goes back to PEC *i,*µ,* or *a, while the
same PTs series B corresponds to Avar non-barytonal accentuation if the
root vowel goes back to PEC *e, *„, *— or *o. On the contrary, the PTs
series A corresponds to Avar non-barytonal accentuation if the root vowel
goes back to PEC *i,*µ,*,*a, but to different Avar accent patterns if
the root vowel goes back to PEC *e,*„,*— or *o. It is not to be excluded
that the reconstructions of PEC vowels * and *— should be swapped; in
that case we would have a general rule according to which the PTs series
A corresponds to non-barytonal paradigms when the root contains an original
narrow vowel (or the neutral *a), and to any paradigm when the root contains
an original wide vowel; on the contrary, the series B corresponds to the
barytonal paradigms if the root contains an original narrow vowel (or the
neutral *a), and to non-barytonal paradigms if the root contains an original
wide vowel. However, the phonetic articulation of the vowels * and *—
could probably vary in time, and by now we would rather preserve the reconstruction
presented in the table (see above). The reasons why non-barytonal accent
paradigms correspond to both PTs series (A and B) are to be examined additionally.
But the correspondences given above evidently confirm the suggestion of
a connection between PTs vocalic series and prosodic factors (ultimately
with fallen laryngeals, see below).
2) The vowel *i develops in a different way adjacent to laryngeals,
where *Hwi- > *H¥- [Ho~-] and *-CwiH > -aI(j).
3) In Lak the initial sequence *wi¢- >ba- (cf. *Cwi¢- > C(º)a-),
and in final position *-iw > -uw.
4) In Dargwa e can appear in the place of *i in the sequence *CiCa
> *CeCa as well as before the resonant in the sequence *CiRC- > *CeRC-.
Other specific features of the development of *i in Dargwa: we usually
observe *u after labials, as well as in the sequence *-iw > *-ub; before
the final laryngeal widening occurs: *-iH > *-eH.
5) In PA after h(w), widening occurs: *h(w)i- > *h(º)a-.
6) Labialized high vowels *µ and *u are more rarely encountered than
other vowels and their secondary character is not to be excluded. Besides
that, the vowel *µ is characterized by an extreme instability of reflexes
(as a result, the reconstruction of *µ and not, for example, *£, is rather
tentative). Up to now, however, we do not see any means to eliminate these
vowels from the PEC system (i.e. any other way of interpreting the existing
correspondences).
7) In PN *e¢ > *o¢ after and before labials (though after *m a non-labialized
reflex *a¢ also occurs). Besides, the development *e¢ > *a¢ apparently
does not occur before laryngeals and in final position after labialized
consonants.
8) In PA and Avar the medial sequence *-e¢m- > *-um-.
9) In PTs *me¢Cw- > muC-; *-¥œu > -eœu.
10) In Dargwa in this row we observe a complicated distribution between
the reflexes e and a (e after labials, dental explosives, hissing sounds,
before “; a after hushing, velar, uvular, laryngeal consonants); *e¢ with
pharyngealization (caused by fallen laryngeals) > aI.
11) PL also has a reflex i after r-, j- and some laryngeals.
12) In Khinalug i is the most frequent reflex; however, we also meet
other vowels as descendants of *e¢.
13) Avar has a after m-. The vowel *Œ after front labialized consonants
is here usually reflected as u, while after back labialized consonants
it is either preserved or develops into o (*Kwe- > Ko-; the latter rule
reflects an already quite late process).
14) Before and after hushing consonants PTs has i instead of —.
15) In Dargwa, before pharyngealized uvulars, widening occurs: *-eQI
> -aQI. After labialized front consonants and lateral fricatives *Œ
> u, after labialized back consonants e is preserved.
16) In PL, before pharyngealized uvulars, widening occurs: *-eQI >
-„QI (cf. above about a similar process in PD).
17) After labial consonants in PN *„¢ > o¢. In a few cases (after
“, after labialized consonants in final position) *„¢ > a¢.
18) Sometimes we also observe Avar e (it happens, in particular, regularly
after Av. ). Labialized front consonants before *„ lose their labialization
(*Tw„- > Ti-); after back labialized consonants *„ > u.
19) In a few cases PTs has *— as a reflex of *„¢ even without adjacent
labialization. The distribution rules are not quite clear yet.
20) In the case of pharyngealization in Lak, *„ > iI, but *„Cw >
aICº. After front labialized consonants we usually have i here (with the
loss of labialization of the preceding consonant); the sequence *Kw„- usually
gives Ku- or Kºa-.
21) In PD before pharyngealized uvulars, the development *-„QI >
-aQI occurs (see above, comm. 15), and *„ > e before “. Adjacent to
-w-, *„ behaves as follows: *Tw„- > Tu-, *-„Tw > -uT(º); *Kw„- >
Kºa-, *-„Kº > -iKº.
22) In the case of pharyngealization in PL, *„ > aI, but in the
sequence *„Cw, „I is preserved. The sequence *Cw„- usually gives Cºe- (but
C„- the in case of delabialization). The reflex e is also present before
labialized laterals. After PL *j- *„ > a (the *a - *„ distinction is
neutralized in this position).
23) Judging by Avar ma› 'nail', the sequence *m…- is reflected
as ma- in Avar (just like *mŒ-, see comm. 13).
24) The sequence *-—¢w- gives u¢¬o¢ or a¢w here.
25) In PA Cºi occurs after velar and lateral fricatives.
26) In Avar C(º)a occurs after labialized front consonants; after labialized
back consonants we observe the reflexes Cu¬Cºe (with a later development
Cºe>Co).
27) In PTs *—¢ develops into u after labial consonants.
28) In Dargwa u occurs after front consonants and fricatives; a in
other cases.
29) The reflex Cº— is observed after PL front fricatives; in other
cases *Cº—¢ > Cu.
30) We see the reflex a in Avar in the case of early delabialization
of the consonant.
31) In PL — is preserved only before combinations of the type RCw;
in other cases *—¢Cw > uC.
32) Judging by PN *l(”)¡® 'waste of corn', the medial combination
*-˜wis reflected as ¡ in PN.
33) After labial consonants *˜ (just as *—¢, see comm. 27) develops
into u in PTs.
34) In Avar i occurs in the case of an early delabialization *Cw˜ >
*C˜.
35) The reflex Cº— is observed after PL front fricatives; in other
cases we have Cº— as well as Cu (with a not quite clear distribution).
36) The reflexes of * in PA are modified before the following m: *-m-
> -um-¬-im-, *-mV > -omV.
37) In PTs *¢ gives the normal reflex o after labialized consonants,
unlike *Ž (see comm. 41); however, after m- we meet a labialized reflex
u.
38) In PD *Cw > Ca, if C is a front fricative (in rare cases the
same development occurs after other dental consonants as well). In other
cases *Cw > Cu. We must also note the variation a¬u in the reflexes
of the medial combination *-m-.
39) In PL *Cw > C(º)a, if C is a front fricative (cf. the same
development in PD, see comm. 37).
40) The variation i¬a in Lak is also observed in reflexes of the medial
combinations *-w-, -m-.
41) The different development of the sequences *Cw¢ and *CwŽ in PA
is established on the basis of rather little material; this rule can probably
be neglected (we may simply state a variation of the reflexes of *¢¯ after
labialized consonants); in this case we should admit that the reflexes
of short and long * are distinguished only in PN and (somewhat less) in
PTs.
42) In PTs *Ž is reflected as u after labial consonants (except m);
after *m-, however, we meet the non-labialized reflex a.
43) After m- and b-, PN also has a more narrow reflex u¢.
44) After initial nasals Avar reflexes are somewhat modified; after
*m we have a or o (though *mo¢Cw- > miC(º)-).
45) After initial *m- we have the variation ¥¬u in PTs.
46) The medial combination *-¡w- > PA o (cf. *-¡Cw > -oC(º)).
47) The medial combination *-¡w- (in *h¡wš[ƒ] 'pea') > PTs *e(?).
48) After back and laryngeal consonants (as well as in the case of
pharyngealization) we see the reflex a in PD; after labial and front consonants,
the reflex i (though sometimes we meet e instead of i).
49) The vowel *a¢ becomes a front e¢ in PN, if it is located in final
position or before the laryngeal ‚. It is interesting that, adjacent to
labial consonants, the non-labialized reflex a¢ is preserved in PN (unlike
some other cases, where we see the labializing influence of labial consonants,
see comm. 2,8,17). Still, in the combination *-a¢wthe vowel is labialized
and *-a¢w- > o¢¬u¢.
50) In Avar the fronting *a¢ > e usually occurs before the resonant
*-m-(afterwards lost).
51) In Khinalug the reflex i is encountered as well (in i»er
'many', ™iz„ 'hare': in both cases we deal with a pre-accent position
in a bisyllabic word).
52) In Avar a is preserved if the previous labialized consonant is
a back one; after front labialized consonants we observe both a and the
fronted reflex e.
53) However, the sequence *Twa¢ (where T is a dental consonant) is
reflected as *Tu- in PD.
54) Before the laryngeal “ in PD fronting occurs: a > e.
In conclusion, we must pay attention to the rather frequent PN reflex
a(ƒ); this reflex is missing only in the reflection of the PEC vowels *µ¢,
*„¢. To explain this phenomenon, we must point to the rather productive
Nakh V/a ablaut, which involves a change of any vowel present in the direct
nominal stem to a (ƒ) in the oblique one. In some cases the vocalism of
the oblique base could probably have influenced the direct base, which
led to the appearance of the "ablaut" a in many rows of correspondences.
For more details on the PEC ablaut, see below.
1.1.2.2. Final vocalism.
In most of the subgroups of North-Caucasian languages, word-final vocalism
is represented by reduced systems compared to medial vocalism. Except vocalic
end, in most languages the consonant end is represented as well (it is
virtually missing only in PA, where the consonant /resonant/ end is allowed
only in stems of the type CVCVC, where -VC usually is a word-formative
affix, as well as in some monosyllabic pronominal stems). There is reason
to believe that the consonant end was not allowed in PEC and PNC; there
is a very small number of stems that have a uniform consonant end in all
subgroups (except, of course, PA, where, as we mentioned above, it is not
allowed at all), and the reflexes of the last consonant in such stems in
PWC are usually labialized or palatalized, which points to the fact that
in the protolanguage they had some labialized or front final vowel.
The comparison of final vowels in Avar, Lak, PD and PL allows us to
state the presence of seven main types of vowel correlations in final position
and to reconstruct the following system:
The distinction of long/short vowels in the final syllable is missing
in all modern languages, including Nakh (in some Lak dialects the opposition
of final short/long vowels is noted, but this phenomenon has not been sufficiently
described yet and therefore is not taken into account). However, there
evidently are some reasons for reconstructing such a distinction in PEC
and PNC. In fact, many rows of correspondences of final vowels (see below)
contain somewhat different reflexes, depending on whether the corresponding
word in Avar belongs to the accent paradigm B (the scheme of this paradigm:
accent on the second syllable in Gen. Sg., and on the second syllable in
Nom. Pl.) or to the accent paradigm C (the scheme of this paradigm: accent
on the second syllable in Gen. Sg., but on the first syllable in Nom. Pl.).
The accent paradigm A (its scheme: accent on the first syllable in Gen.
Sg. and Nom. Pl.) is irrelevant here (this paradigm, as a result of the
fall of emphatic laryngeals, or the influence of the preserved emphatic
laryngeals, probably combined the words that originally belonged to paradigm
B as well as to paradigm C; see below, section 1.1.3). The final vowel
is often preserved if Avar has paradigm B, but is lost if Avar has paradigm
C.
The described situation may be interpreted in two ways: we can either
think that Avar preserves old accent characteristics and reconstruct for
the Avar paradigm B a type of stems with the accent, e.g., on the second
syllable, and for the Avar paradigm C a type of stems with the accent on
the first syllable; or we may think that in final position there also existed
a contrast between long and short vowels. The long ones were subsequently
shortened, but have caused an accent attraction to the long syllable in
the Avar plural paradigm. As for short vowels (Av. paradim C), they never
caused the shift of accent to the second syllable and were more often subject
to reduction. The second solution seems more likely to us, because it receives
a convincing affirmation in PWC, where the behaviour of long vowels in
final position is similar to that in the medial position, i.e. they cause
the strenghtening of the preceding obstruent.
The correspondences between Pl, PD, Lak and Avar may be shown in the
following scheme:
PNC,PEC1 |
Av. acc. par. |
Av |
Lak2 |
PD |
PL3 |
*-i¢ |
C |
-0 |
-i |
*-i¬-04 |
*-e |
*-– |
B |
-0 |
-i |
*-i¬-04 |
*-e |
*-e¢ |
C |
-0 |
-0 |
*-i(-a)¬-04 |
*-„ |
*-Œ |
B |
-i5 |
-i |
*-i(-a)¬-04 |
*-„ |
*-—¢ |
C |
-0 |
-0 |
*-0 |
*-— |
*-˜ |
B |
-0 |
-a¬-u |
*-a |
*-— |
*-¢ |
C |
-0 |
-a¬-u |
*-a |
*-a |
*-Ž |
B |
-a |
-a |
*-a |
*-a |
*-a¢ |
C |
-0 |
-a |
*-a |
*-„ |
*-ƒ |
B |
-a |
-a¬-u |
*-a |
*-„ |
*-u¢ |
C |
-u6 |
-0 |
*-0 |
*-— |
*-³ |
B |
-u6 |
-a¬-u |
*-a |
*-— |
*-o¢ |
C |
-0 |
-0 |
*-0 |
*-a |
*-¡ |
B |
-0 |
-u |
*-0 |
*-a |
Comments.
1) The system of final vowels is by now reconstructed only on Av.,
Lak., PD and PL evidence. The rules of the development of these vowels
in PN, PA and in PTs (as well as in Khinalug) are still to be specified,
and therefore they are not examined here. As for PWC, here final vowels
generally behave quite like non-final ones (see the rules on page 73);
the only difference concerns the vowel *o, which in final position, unlike
the medial one, causes the labialization of the preceding consonant (this
vowel was probably more labialized in final position than otherwise). The
phonetical characteristics of PEC and PNC vowels are basically reconstructed
on PL evidence (though here some phenomena, not typical for the medial
position, also occurred: the shift in height *i > *e, the delabialization
*u > *—, the shift in row *a > *„ - though the last rule is rather
"orthographic", because the precise phonetic nature of the PL
final *„ is rather obscure, see below). However, this reconstruction is
also confirmed by West-Caucasian data, where quantitative and qualitative
vowel features leave their traces on preceding consonants.
2) Lak reflexes are generally not strict (though a certain correlation
with the data from other languages is surely observed); let us note that
in virtually every type of correspondences Lak may have a zero reflex,
i.e. a consonant auslaut (besides the reflexes presented in the table above).
The reasons for such a frequent reduction of the final vowel in Lak are
not clear yet.
3) In this table we give the PL vowel system that is reconstructed
for the oblique nominal stem (see below, page 170). In the direct stem
(i.e. in nominative) PL suffered a total reduction of final vowels, only
one of which has been preserved (*-„, probably pronounced in the direct
stem as /-a/).
4) In the case of pharyngealization we have PD *-aI in these types
of correspondences. Instead of -i we also sometimes meet the PD vowel -u,
but it apparently represents a later development of *-i after labialized
consonants.
5) After labialized consonants Avar has -u, not -i.
6) Together with -u we also meet a wider reflex -o in Avar; however,
-u and -o are apparently not really opposed to each other, but represent
dialect variants of the same final vowel.
In general we may state that during all the history of North Caucasian
languages the final vowels were dynamically weaker than the medial ones
(they are more prone to reduction and have a tendency to disappear completely;
in the latter case they are preserved only if some formants are joined
to the stem, i.e. in the oblique stem).
1.1.2.3. Ablaut.
The vowel gradation in nominal and verbal stems is rather widespread
in modern North-Caucasian languages. However, a big part of it appears
to have had a quite recent origin: thus, vowel gradation in the Avar nominal
paradigm is almost completely caused by the phenomena of vowel reduction
and assimilation in preaccented syllables; most vowel alternations in Nakh
paradigms are explained by rather late umlaut, etc.
However, a proper ablaut system (i.e. vowel gradation in different
morphological categories) can still be reconstructed in PN, PL and (in
a relic shape) in PTs. Apparently there is a connection between the ablaut
in these languages and the PWC ablaut */a.
The verbal ablaut (judging by the situation in PL and PN, see below)
was apparently very complicated and its reconstruction is a self-standing
task (hard to be separated from the task of reconstructing the whole PEC
and PNC verb paradigm).
As regards the ablaut in the nominal system, the situation is somewhat
easier. In a number of cases it is possible to link the vowel gradations
in PTs, PN and PL. In most cases we are dealing with the gradations of
mid and high vowels: *e/*i, */*— (it is not yet clear whether a similar
gradation *u/*o had existed). The vowels *e and * characterize the direct
nominal stem, and the vowels *i and *— - the oblique one. The PWC ablaut
*/a probably reflects the ancient vowel height gradation as well (both
types of ablaut mentioned above are reduced to this type after the loss
of vocalic quality characteristics).
Here we must emphasize that all cases of the PN ablaut *V/*a in nouns
cannot be explained by just these two types of ancient gradation. Therefore
it is possible that vowel gradations in PEC were even more widespread (though
a secondary joining of many nouns with originally non-alternating vowels
to the PN ablaut system is probable as well).
Of course, all these introductory notes cannot play the part of a full
model of the PEC (and PNC) ablaut system, which can be constructed only
together with a careful reconstruction of the PNC morphological system.
1.1.3. Root structure and prosody.
1.1.3.1. Nominal root.
The nominal root structure in PEC and PNC can, in general, be characterized
as CVCV, where C is a consonant or a combination of consonants, and V is
a vowel. A typical feature of the PNC root (both nominal and verbal) is
the fact that at least one obstruent must be present in it; roots containing
only resonants were not allowed. A specific structure (CV without any consonant
restrictions for C) could be possessed only by auxiliary (grammatical and
pronominal) morphemes.
The system of vowels, simple consonants and medial combinations of
consonants was characterized above. Only the problem of initial consonant
clusters requires special examination in this section.
In most modern East-Caucasian languages, initial combinations of consonants
are not allowed; the situation in such languages as Lezghian or Tabasaran,
where in some cases, as a result of reduction of narrow vowels of the first
syllable, new initial clusters have appeared, is certainly secondary. However,
initial combinations of consonants are well represented in Nakh languages
(see below); though some of them go back to ancient labialized consonants
(i.e. clusters with -w-), which we examined above, there is still a very
important group of combinations left - i.e., the combinations of the type
CH- ("consonant"+"laryngeal").
The Nakh situation is apparently very archaic. We can suggest that
PNC and PEC possessed a class of initial combinations of the type *CH-,
that were preserved in PN, but disappeared in all other subgroups. The
fallen laryngeals could have caused the appearance of the barytonal accent
paradigm A in Avar (cf. above on the connection of this paradigm with initial
emphatic laryngeals), and in some other North-Caucasian languages - the
appearance of a prosodic feature of pharyngealization. We establish four
main types of correspondences between PN initial combinations and prosodic
features in other languages:
PNC,PEC |
PN |
Av. acc. par. |
Lak, PD, PL pharyngealization |
*Ch- |
*C”- |
C/B |
*V |
*C”- |
*C“-/*C‚- |
C/B |
*V¬VI |
*C“- |
*C”- |
A |
*V¬VI |
*C- |
*C- |
A |
*V¬VI |
Let us go over some details of the reflexation of these types of combinations
in separate subgroups.
First, it is necessary to note that in PN the clusters "uvular
+ laryngeal" are not allowed (unlike all other types of combinations).
These rather frequent clusters are therefore reflected as simple uvulars
in PN. In some - very rare - cases PN loses its laryngeals in combinations
of the type "resonant+laryngeal" as well. It is not to be excluded
that in these cases PEC had clusters of resonants with € or ‚ (missing
after initial obstruents), but this question is still open because there
are too few examples. In reflexes of the combination *C”- PN has the laryngeal
“ after voiceless consonants, and ‚ - after voiced, glottalized and resonant
consonants.
Pharyngealized vowels in Lak, PD and PL usually correspond to each
other rather well and can be traced to PEC fallen laryngeals (not only
in initial combinations, but in medial clusters as well, see above). Pharyngealization
is preserved best of all close to uvular consonants; on the contrary, in
the vicinity of front consonants, this prosodic feature often weakens and
disappears. Labial and velar (sometimes hushing as well) consonants occupy
an intermediate position in their "pharyngealization attraction".
As a result, systems often appear, in which pharyngealization is only or
mostly combined with the uvular series; such systems would be better regarded
phonologically as systems without prosodic or vocalic pharyngealization,
but rather with a special local series of uvular pharyngealized consonants.
All of the above means that in the rows of correspondences given above,
in PL, PD and Lak pharyngealization is best preserved after uvular consonants,
but it has a tendency to disappear after consonants of other local series;
on the contrary, in PN laryngeals are not preserved after uvulars, but
are well preserved after the consonants of other local series. Thus, PN
and Lak-Dargwa-Lezghian data complement each other and help to reconstruct
the PEC system as a whole (which is also confirmed by Avar accentological
evidence).
A characteristic feature of PL is the specific development of the initial
combination *rH-; in those (rather rare) cases, when Nakh data requires
the reconstruction of this combination in PEC, PL has got the initial reflex
r- (unlike the normal development *r- >j-, see above). The accuracy
of this rule is confirmed by a similar development, *Hr- > r-, see below.
In addition to Lak, Dargwa and Lezghian languages pharyngealization
is also present in PTs and PWC (where, on the basis of Ubykh, we reconstruct
the series of labial and uvular pharyngealized consonants, see below).
Its origin, in this case, is also probably connected with the process of
the fall of laryngeals (in many cases it corresponds to pharyngealization
in East-Daghestan languages), but many details require further examination.
Besides the examined types of roots there is another group of nominal
roots (stems) with very specific correspondences in different languages.
We mean roots whose reflexes have an initial resonant consonant in some
languages and a laryngeal one in others. In the latter case the reflex
of the resonant may be present too, but already in medial position. In
some of these cases we may be dealing with a secondary metathesis of the
resonant from the medial into the initial position; this process is going
on regularly, e.g., in Avar in the initial sequence "€+narrow vowel+RC".
However, in most cases such an explanation cannot be suggested. It is probable,
that here we are dealing with the development of PEC initial combinations
of the type *HR-, that in some cases are simplified into R-, and in other
cases are simplified to H- with a transfer of resonants into the medial
position (*HRVCV > *HVRCV). The examination of the material allows us
to state that roots with initial combinations of the type *HR behave in
two ways, depending on the Avar accent paradigm - i.e., on the brevity/length
of final vowels (see above):
PNC,PEC
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
1.*HRVCV¢
a)(R=r,l)
b)(R=m,n)
*RVC(V) |
*RVCV |
RVC(V)C |
*RVCV |
t:VRC(V) |
*dVRC(V) |
*HVRCV |
HVnC(V) |
|
|
|
|
¬dVC(V) |
*RVC(V) |
|
|
*RVCV |
RVC(V) |
|
*HV(N)CV |
2.*HRVCV¯
a)(R=r,l)
b)(R=m,n)
*HV(R)C(V) |
*HV(R)CV |
HV(R)CVB |
*HVCV(-V~-) |
t:VRVC(V) |
*dVRVC(V) |
*RVCV |
RVC(V) |
*HV(R)C(V) |
*HV(R)CV |
HV(R)CVB |
*HVCV(-V~-) |
RVC(V) |
*(HV)RVC(V) |
*RVCV |
RVC(V) |
It is worth noting that in type 2 roots (*HRVCV¯), the initial combination
*Hrgives r- and not j- in PL (though the normal reflex is *r- > j-);
thus, we establish a general rule according to which initial combinations
*rH-,*Hr- > PL *r(see above, page 83, on *rH- > PL *r-). Therefore,
the only source of PL initial r- are PEC combinations with laryngeals.
The development *Hr- > r- is certainly connected with a very specific
Lak-Dargwa reflection of PEC *Hr- ( > Lak. t:Vr-, PD *dVr-). It must
be noted, however, that in some numerals and adjective roots the initial
dental explosive may be missing in Lak and Dargwa.
Very complicated reflexes in North-Caucasian languages are characteristic
for a subtype of roots with *HR-, namely, for roots with a medial resonant
of the type *HRVRCV (this type is rather frequent). Here, when the initial
cluster is being eliminated, a "collision" of two resonants in
medial position can happen. As a result, one of them is pushed out by the
other; besides, in individual reflexes mutual assimilations of resonants
sometimes occur (described above, see pp. 42, 45, 55, for simple roots
of the type *RVRCV). These roots may appear as a "merry-go-round"
of resonants and laryngeals around a single obstruent and are very hard
to examine. The most frequent sequences here are represented by the types
*HrVNCV and *HNVrCV (N=n,m):
PNC,PEC
*HrVNCV¢
*HNVrCV¢
*HrVNCV¯
*HNVrCV¯
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
*nVwC(V) |
*NVCV |
NVC(V)C |
*NVCV |
NVC(V) |
*(HV)NVCV |
*RVCV |
*RV(N)CV |
*HV(N)CV |
HV(R)CVC |
*HVCV(-V~-) |
NVC(V) |
*NVRC(V) |
*RVCV |
|
|
|
|
|
|
¬*mVrCV |
*HV(N)CV |
*HVNCV |
HV(N)CVB |
*HV~CV |
t:VrVCV |
*dVrVC(V) |
*RVCV |
*RVCV |
*HV(R)CV |
*HV(N)CV |
RVCVB |
*HVCV(-V~-) |
|
*HVNCV |
*RVCV |
Other types of resonant combinations are not frequent. It must be noted
that the type *HrVNCV¢ - because of the preservation of the initial resonant
in PL - could be interpreted as *rHVNCV¢ (except those sporadic cases,
when Dargwa preserves the initial laryngeal).
Another interesting type of roots are those which in some languages
reveal the structure CVRV, and in others - HV(R)CV. By analogy with the
roots of the previous type it seems quite probable that in this case we
are dealing with old structures of the type *HCVRV. In some languages this
structure is simplified into CVRV (cf. *HRVCV > RVCV), while in others
it develops into *HVCRV (cf. *HRVCV > HVRCV), and afterwards - because
combinations of the type CR are generally not allowed - into HVRCV (with
a possible subsequent loss of the medial resonant). According to their
behaviour in descendant languages these roots can also be divided in two
subgroups correlated with Avar accent paradigms and therefore with the
brevity/length of final vowels:
PNC,PEC
*HCVRV¢
*HCVRV¯
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
*RVCV |
*HV(R)CV |
HV(R)CVC |
*HVCV(-V~-) |
CVRV |
*CVRV |
*CVRV |
RVC¬CVR |
a)*HV(R)CV |
*CVRV |
CVR(V)B |
*CVRV |
CVRV |
*CVRV |
*CVRV |
CVR(V) |
b)*mHVCV |
We should note that the reflexes of the structure
*HCVRV¯ differ from the reflexes of simple roots of the type *CVRV¯ only
in PN, where we see the structure HV(R)CV with front resonants, and a special
structure mHVCV with the labial m. It must, however, be stated that in
the last table we have on purpose somewhat simplified the transcription
of the root structures; in reality medial resonants in descendant languages
rather often disappear, which suggests that the structure *HCVRV, while
transforming itself, developed not just into *CVRV, but rather into *CVRHV
or *CVHRV (on the development of the medial combinations *RH and *HR see
above, pp. 69-71).
In PWC, owing to the general rule of dropping laryngeals and (in most
cases) resonants, most root types listed above are reflected as the monosyllabic
structure CV. However, in rather many cases PWC has a prothetic consonant
before C (usually a labial b or p - depending on the voice/voicelessness
of C, more rarely a dental t or d). The nature of this consonant is not
quite clear yet. It is not to be excluded that West-Caucasian languages
preserve an important archaism - i.e., the prefixed class markers, that
were preserved by PEC only within verbal word-forms (most of the "class
markers" that some researchers discover in a "petrified"
shape within East-Caucasian nouns, are, as seen from what was said above,
organic parts of the root and have nothing to do with class agreement)
and within a small number of nouns, mostly kinship terms and names of "inalienable"
body parts.
All the variants of the CVCV structure that have been examined above
(we have not said anything only about two very hypothetical structures
*HCVCV and *RCVCV, the reconstruction of which is yet dubious) are characteristic
for PEC (PNC) non-derived nominal roots. In some cases we can probably
regard the initial *H- as a prefixed element (e.g., the noun *hwmi¢_½³
"honey", that is probably a derivate from the adjective *mi¢½_V
"sweet"), but in most cases we cannot find any deriving roots
(verbal or adjectival) with a simpler structure. The contrary is correct
as well: an absolute majority of non-derived PEC (PNC) nouns has the phonetic
root structure CVCV (where C, as has been noted above, is a consonant or
a consonant combination of one of the examined types). The following cases
must be specially noted:
1) There is a rather numerous class of nominal stems of the structure
CVCVCV, where the last consonant is usually a resonant. It is quite possible
that all such stems are derived from obsolete simple roots of the structure
CVCV, because virtually all of the resonants in PEC could act as derivative
or inflectional suffixes. However, the final solution in each individual
case depends on deeper inner reconstruction or external comparison.
2) There is a small number of nominal stems with the structure *-VCV
and a variable initial class marker. As we said before, these are nouns
denoting some kinship relations or inalienable body parts (e.g. face, belly,
etc.) These words - both by their semantics and their shape - in a way
occupy an intermediate position between nouns and verbs (on the verbal
root structure, see below). There is no doubt that in PEC this class of
nouns was not much more extensive than in modern Caucasian languages. It
is not to be excluded, however, that in the original PNC system the class
markers could be prefixed not only to verbal structures of the type *-VCV,
but to noun structures of the type *CVCV as well. On one side, it is indicated
by some facts of West-Caucasian languages (see above, page 85), on the
other side, we meet occasional prefixation of the syllable rV- or €Vr-
with an obscure meaning to some nominal roots of the type CVCV in individual
East-Caucasian languages. It is probable that a very archaic situation
of this type is reflected in ancient Hatti texts (see [Ivanov 1985]). However,
this problem still requires a fundamental elaboration.
Summing up, we may state that for an absolute majority of nouns we
can reconstruct an original two-syllable root structure. The extreme point
of view of some authors, who think that the PNC and PEC root had a monosyllabic
structure and consisted of one obstruent+vowel must therefore be considered
insubstantial. The semblance of "monoconsonantism" is created
here, on one side, by the pseudo-"monoconsonantism" of the West-Caucasian
root (whose secondariness was already noted by N. S. Trubetskoy, see [Trubetskoy
1930, 281] ), on the other side, by the stability of the reflexes of PNC
oral obstruents, opposed to the general instability and active assimilative/dissimilative
processes within the subsystems of laryngeals and resonants. There is no
doubt that many nominal stems contain old derivational morphemes, but the
number of these stems is very much smaller than is often suggested.
1.1.3.2. Verbal root.
One of the main tasks of the comparative grammar
of North-Caucasian languages must be the reconstruction of the PNC verbal
paradigm. Up to now we have a very approximate notion about the system
of PEC and PNC verb conjugation. However, such a reconstruction has been
established for some intermediate protolanguages (e.g. PL), and we can
already draw some preliminary conclusions.
The verbal word-form in PNC was apparently represented by a rather
long chain of class and aspect/tense markers, with the verbal root in the
middle. Unlike the nominal root, it was apparently never isolated, without
auxiliary morphemes; such a situation is still preserved in most North-Caucasian
languages. The interaction with prefixes and suffixes has probably conditioned
the specific structure of the PNC verbal root.
The structure of the PEC (PNC) verbal root was already outlined by
N. S. Trubetskoy (see [Trubetskoy 1929]), who had noted that it looked
like -VCV(R), where C is an obstruent, V - alternating vowels and R - some
resonant. The position of the initial consonant in the PEC verbal root
was usually occupied by interchanging class (agreement) markers. We can
now make this conception somewhat more detailed, by noting the possible
presence of initial laryngeals (usually lost in descendant languages after
prefixed class markers - see above on the development of the combinations
CH-, - but preserved if prefixed morphemes are missing) as well as medial
clusters of the type -RC- (see below for more detail on their reconstruction
in PL) in the PNC (PEC) verbal root. Therefore, the full structure of the
PNC (PEC) verbal root looks like *(H)V(R)CV(R); in PWC, owing to the phonetic
processes of dropping laryngeals and resonants (mentioned above), most
verbal roots acquire the monosyllabic structure CV.
The nature of the initial syllable *HV- in the PNC verbal root is not
quite clear yet. It is possible that more profound internal reconstruction
and external comparison will in many cases allow us to regard this syllable
as prefixed (having arisen in some cases between the class indicator and
the initial root consonant in order to eliminate a forbidden initial cluster;
in some cases reflecting some ancient deictic or locative markers). It
is also quite probable that ancient root structures of the type *RVCV,
finding themselves in a position after the prefixed markers, were transformed
into *-VRCV, while the ancient structures *CVRV in such a situation developed
a prothetic vowel > *-VCVR-. However, on today's level of knowledge
we may talk only about the known structure *(H)V(R)CV(R).
We should pay attention to a virtually complete (with very rare exceptions)
lack of verbal roots with two oral obstruents of the structure CVCV. We
can only guess about their fate in PNC (they could, even before the division
of PNC, have been transformed into roots with the structure -VCCV with
a later simplification of the forbidden consonant combination; or they
could completely lose verbal functions, becoming nominal roots).
We will now sum up our knowledge of the behaviour of individual elements
of the PEC verbal root in descendant languages (in PWC it was in most cases
reduced to the simple structure CV, see above; a similar simplification
of the verbal root structure has apparently come to pass in Khinalug, but
material on it is rather scarce and it is too early to make any exact conclusions).
1. The initial consonant. This position in verbal roots is occupied
only by laryngeals (for their reflexes, see above) that, in most cases,
disappear after prefixed (class or locative) morphemes. Therefore, for
most verbal roots we can regard the position of the initial consonant as
not filled (thus following N. S. Trubetzkoy).
One of the as yet unclear questions of the reconstruction of the PEC
verbal paradigm is the problem of the so-called "prefixless"
conjugation, attested by some verbs in Avaro-Andian languages (it is not
connected, of course, with the later process of dropping class markers
in some Lezghian languages). It is not to be excluded that in PEC (and
PNC?), class agreement could be absent in some aspect/tense forms, as a
result of which the vocalic root beginning turned out to be "not covered".
In such a situation initial vowels (especially narrow ones) could easily
be lost, and the structure -VCV(R)- could be reduced to a more simple structure
CV(R)-. This phenomenon could explain the presence of a rather large number
of doublet forms in Avar-Andian languages, which can be characterized as
two states of root. Cf. in Avar: state 1 - =u»:- "to rake,
shovel", =us:- "to crumble, cut", =e®- "to
pull, to pluck fruits", =at- "to be"; state 2 - »:a-
"to shovel up, to rake up", s:u - "to slit",
®e - "to tear down", te - "to leave",
etc.
It is not yet clear how the described phenomenon is related (and whether
it is related at all) to the distinction of "strong" and "weak"
series of class indicators in PL, where the "prefixless" conjugation
is absent (on this opposition, see Àëåêñååâ 1985).
2.V1†. In many cases first syllable vowels are related to each other
in different languages by the same rules as the first syllable vowels of
nominal roots (see above). However, in verbal conjugation an undoubtedly
significant role was played by ablaut, which was much more productive and
diverse here than in the nominal system. The reconstruction of ablaut rows
is by now made only for the Proto-Lezghian language (see below), and not
transferred to more archaic stages. Because of that the exact reconstruction
of the first syllable vowel for most verbal roots characterized by active
vowel gradation is still unclear.
3.R1†. The clusters with medial resonants in the verbal root are reconstructed
in PL (see below), PD, PA and PN. However, reconstructing the system of
medial resonants in the verbal root is somewhat harder than in the nominal
one, because here, due to several reasons (reduction of the initial vowel,
a possibility of secondary infixation of some originally suffixed morphemes),
root resonants are often reinterpreted as auxiliary morphemes and therefore
can disappear (in some verbal forms or even in the whole paradigm). If
one also considers the general phonetic instability of resonants in clusters
of the type RC in North-Caucasian languages (on the development of these
clusters in nominal roots, see above), it becomes clear why, in many cases,
medial resonants are preserved only sporadically as archaisms.
Nevertheless, a careful comparison of the reconstructed intermediate
protolanguages, as well as the consideration of phonetic rules (in clusters
of the type -RC-, obstruents behave in the same way as in nouns, and the
analysis of the correspondences between obstruents often allows us to make
a conclusion about the presence of a resonant before them in PEC and PNC),
allow us to reconstruct in verbal roots, on the whole, the same system
of medial -RC-clusters as in nominal ones (see above).
It must be noted that in PL and PA verbal roots, the medial nasals
-m- and -nare completely missing. These medial resonants can be reconstructed
only on the basis of PD data (-m- is preserved in PD) and indirect evidence
of the Lezghian and Andian languages. As a matter of fact, both PL and
PA have a so-called "n-conjugation", generally going back to
PEC roots with a final *-n (see below on final resonants). But in some
cases the n-conjugation in PL corresponds to the resonantless conjugation
in PA, and vice versa. We may think that the dropped medial nasals may
have left behind a nasalization that also spread over the second syllable
of the verbal root, resulting in the mixture of roots with original final
nasals and roots with medial nasals. Judging by the correlation of known
cases with Dargwa and PTs evidence (PTs reflects medial nasals as the nasalization
of the vowel V1†), the medial -m- disappeared in PL without any trace,
but was reflected as the "n-conjugation" in PA, and, vice versa,
the medial -n- disappeared without any trace in PA, but was reflected as
the "n-conjugation" in PL.
4. C. The root obstruent is the most stable element in the verbal root.
For the verb we reconstruct the same system of obstruents as for the nominal
root (on the correspondences, see above). We must pay attention only to
the extreme rarity of labial consonants in verbal roots (in fact, within
the whole bulk of North-Caucasian and East-Caucasian roots we know of only
one root with a labial). In addition, we must note that the root obstruents
can be laryngeals which easily disappear or are consumed by adjacent consonants,
as a result of which in some languages "zero" verbal roots can
appear.
5. V2†. Significant vowel distinctions in the second syllable of the
verbal root are found in Lezghian languages (for the PL reconstruction
of V2†, see below), in Lak, in Avar-Andian and probably Nakh languages.
In other languages the differences among second syllable vowels are generally
neutralized. Judging by the data from Lezghian and Nakh languages, vowel
gradation (though of a somewhat different kind and with different functions
than in the first syllable) was also present in the second syllable. However,
the system of PEC verbal vowels in the second syllable is not yet clear;
we can draw some conclusions about the PNC system by comparing the PL system
with the behaviour of root obstruents in PWC (because they are apparently
subject to the same modifications in the verb as in the noun). However,
this problem needs special investigation.
6. R2†. Final resonants in verbal roots are attested in PA, PD and
PL. We can quite reliably reconstruct *r, *l (perhaps *š as well, judging
by the PA data, though there are few examples on this resonant), and *n
for PEC. The question of the reconstruction of the final labials *m, *w
(> PA m, b) is still open, because their PL and PD correspondences are
not clear; however, their presence in the original system seems quite possible.
In other languages final resonants are lost. This process was apparently
caused chiefly by morphological reasons: final resonants in the verbal
root are easily reinterpreted as suffixal morphemes and therefore are separated
from the root. This process is active, for example, in modern Lezghian
languages and dialects (see below).
PEC final resonants *r, *n are well preserved in PL and PD. PA stems
in "state 1" (see above) preserve only -n and lose -r; in "state
2" -r, -n are usually preserved. PEC final *l is preserved in PA in
"state 2" and in PL; in PA "state 1" and in PD this
consonant probably merges with -n. In addition, in PD roots with the original
final *r, but containing a medial -l- are transferred into the n-conjugation
(probably as a result of the process *-VlCVr > *-V(l)CVL > *-V(l)CVn).
However, these rules have many exceptions as a result of different analogical
processes, taking place in individual cases.
On the whole we may say that, though we know the general structure
of the verbal root, there are still very many gaps in our reconstructions,
for the filling of which more careful research in the field of North-Caucasian
verbal morphology will be needed.
1.1.3.3. Other types of roots.
Besides nominal and verbal, there are also some intermediate types
of roots. We have already examined above nominal roots with variable class
markers that are formally rather similar to verbal roots. They are adjoined
by adjective roots, the structure of which partially resembles the verbal
one, partially the nominal one. It should be noted that there are some
adjective roots with a typical nominal structure (e.g. CVRV), that can
obtain class prefixation and change the root structure: *CVRV > *=VCRV
and (owing to the inadmissibility of -CR- combinations) > *=VRCV. It
is possible that such (or similar) was the original process of the formation
of verbal roots in North-Caucasian languages (see above, page 87, on other
possibilities).
1.1.3.4. Prosody.
The PEC and PNC prosody is still little known.
We have all reason to think that the PNC word was characterized by tonal
accentuation; this is confirmed by the data of the PWC accent system reconstructed
by V. A. Dybo (see [Dybo 1977, 1989]), as well as by the discovery of tonal
accent systems in modern East-Caucasian languages (see [Kibrik-Kodzasov-Starostin
1978]). However, the PNC accent reconstruction is still very far from completion;
for some preliminary observations on tonal correspondences in Avar-Andian
languages see [Starostin 1978]. A successful solution of this problem still
requires much field research and the creation of intermediate accent reconstructions
for PTs, PA and PL protolanguages. Therefore all such questions are not
examined in this work.
Some prosodic phenomena in North-Caucasian languages (namely: pharyngealization,
the split of vowel reflexes in Tsezian languages and Avar mobile accent)
were already examined above - being by their very nature connected with
segment factors (the system of laryngeal consonants and the brevity/length
of vowels).
There is, however, one more question that is closely linked to the
root structure, the consonant system and probably the original prosodic
system in PEC and PNC. It is the problem of the so-called "geminates"
(on their reflexes in the subgroups, see above).
If we examine the bulk of the reconstructed PEC and PNC roots with
the structure AV(R)AV (where A is an affricate or fricative, R - a resonant),
we will discover the following regularity: 1) roots with the structure
AVAV allow either the combination of two plain affricates (CVCV), or two
"geminates" (CCVCCV), but nothing else; 2) roots with the structure
AVRAV allow either the sequence CVRCV (where both the affricates are plain),
or CVRCCV (where the first affricate is plain, and the second one is geminated).
(Possible exceptions are some reduplicated structures). Thus, roots with
two affricate (or fricative) consonants are divided exactly in two subgroups:
a) roots containing only "plain" consonants; b) roots, where
both consonants are "geminated" if the first syllable is open,
but where only the second consonant is geminated if the first syllable
is closed (in short, roots, where only the consonant in the open syllable
is geminated). If we suggest here the activity of some prosodic factor
(e.g. phonation or tone), whose presence caused the strenghthening of affricates
and fricatives in the open syllable, we can in fact eliminate all the "geminates"
from the reconstruction. However, this possibility is still hypothetical;
to confirm this hypothesis we would have to link the described distinction
with some actually witnessed prosodic features.
|