NOTES ON THE INDO-EUROPEAN k"i- AND k=o-PRONOUNS

Summary
S o me ~ a t t e mp t s t o a n s we r t he que s t i on as t o t he hi s t or i cal r e l a t i ons of
t he i nde f i ni t e a nd i n t e r r o g a t i v e f unc t i ons of t he I n d o - Eu r o p e a n kU- pr onouns
are r e vi e we d a nd cr i t i ci zed. The wel l - known pr act i ce of c ons i de r i ng t he
i ndef i ni t es of t he t ype s Got h. h, azuh, Al nd. ka~ci d de r i va t i ve s of t he i nt er -
r oga t i ve is ope n t o di s put e . The i de nt i t y, in I n d o - Eu r o p e a n , of t he i nt er -
r ogat i ves a nd t he i nde f i ni t e a b-is, even in pa r t i c ul a r s c onc e r ni ng t he i r
f unct i ons, ma n y non- I . E, par al l el s. Some s ugges t i ons are gi ven in c onne c t i on
wi t h t he e xpl i c a t i on of Gr. 6'are;, A. I nd. r:~h tea~ca, kaslcid, et c. Su p p l e me n t -
ar y o b s e r v a t i o n s ar e ma d e on t he theorie:s of t he r el at i ve use of t hes e pr o-
nomi na~ s t ems .
It is a curi ous coi nci dence t hat while t he problem of t he chrono-
logic r el at i on bet ween t he indefinite and i nt er r ogat i ve function.~ of
the I ndo- Eur opean ponomi na l st ems ,~"e/0- and k"~ - have given rise
to much cont r over si al discussion, many aut}lors of gr ammar s shoul d
cling t o t he t i me- honour ed practice of teaci~ing ~) t hat it is t he i nt er-
roga' rive whi ch combi ni ng wi t h cert ai n p:~.~' ~ct~.; assumes an i ndefi ni t e
force 2). Yet t he quest i on may arise wi,~:~her this pract i ce can be
l)OSl~ive ar t i cl e, t he i ndef.
l) The a n c i e n t s r e ga r de d t he rel. pron. as a post ' "
as a noun. Howe ve r , t he St oi cs and, under t hei r i nf l uence, s ~ n c g r a mma r i a n s
put it on a pa r wi t h t he ar t i cl e. For pa r t i c ul a r s ' t I %tcin~hal, Gesch. d
Spr achw. bei de n Gr i e c he n und Romer n, Ber l i n 1863, p. 668 f.; M. t t . Jel -
,- II, i l ei ( l el ber < 1914, p 2 6 9 f f "
linek, Gesch. d. ne uhoc h. l e ut s c he n Gr a mm.
279 f.
, : exi,rt,ss~.,~ hi : nqcl f in a rath~, r
a) K. Br u g ma n n , Gr~ln{triss ~', II 2 (1911,
caut i ous way" p. 3 4 8 " Al s s(~lche (i nt err. unit in~lcf, i tul~,,,x,.rtcn, n u r d u r c h
die Be t o n u n g yon e i n a n d e r unt e r s c hl e de n . . . " , t ~. ;55(' " I v~r ge na nnt c ~
Pr onomi na , di e al s I n t e r r o g a t i v a . . . , di ent en zugl ci cl ' al,; I i t ~t ef i ni t a" Ci.,
however , A. Les ki en, Gr a mm d. .altbp.!g. . . . . <,,~. , _ ~: ~. ' , . . . . . p. I;38" "kf i t o, (fh:,
wer den d u r c h Vor s e t z ung yon ,~e ~- i n d e f i n i t i v ' (cf. Li t . Le s e b u c h (1919),
p. 161); E. Si eg- \ V. Si egl i ng, Tochar i s che Gr a mma t i k (1931), p. 188; A. J.
van Wi n d e k e n s , Mor phol ogi e compar ~e du t okhar i en, Lo u v a i n 1944, p. 196"
A. Va i l l a nt , Ma nue l du vi eux sl ave (1941~}, p. t23S " I , ' i n t e r r o g a t i f est . . . ;
avec des e l e me n t s pr opos al s . . . , on a l' indet~n~ . . . "" \V. I<rause, Hdb. d.
16
242
justified. Before attempting to find an answer it will however be
necessary first to reconsider the other point, viz. the relations between
the interrogative and the indefinite functions when fulfilled by the
same. or by related, pronominal forms.
It is no mat t er for great surprise that the co-existence of an inter-
rogative zL,'; and an indefinite zt in Greek, of a similar qui s?: qu~s
in Latin, of war? "what ?" beside :rat "somet hi ng" in Dutch, has
led those students of comparative I.E. linguistics who were mainly,
or exclusively, interested in the investigation of historical develop-
ments to transpose the underlying problem into a question of priority.
which functior, must be regarded as more original, which as younger,
derived, or secondary? "La double valeur, d6jA indo-europ6enne ...
du radical ~epr6sent6 par lat. quis, quid, quod etc. ne saurait ~tre
ancienne. I! faut que l'ulLe des valeurs soit issue de l ' aut re" 3). Con-
sidering the main points of relevance with regard to the use of these
I.E. pronouns the conclusion may, however, .-- despite the more or
less assertive attempts to vindicate the priority of either function
appear to be warranted that the question as to their original character
is not well posed if it is only formulated in rearms of an alternative"
were they primarily interrogatives or indefinites in the modern sense
of these words?
The reconstruction of the prehistoric development has been a
ma~ter of considerable, and essentially glottogonic, speculation among
scholars. Whatever choice is made of the above possibilities, the
answer always implies that there have been, in the history of the
I.E. peoples, times in whicil either the interrogative or' the indefinite
idea was not expressed, at least not by means of the stems under
consideration. As long as the consequences of this implication are
not recognized and accounted for no solution proposed for the above
prob]iem can be considered acceptable.
Leaving this point here and going .~nto some particulars I am
under the impression that the advocates of neither 3tandpoint have
Got i schen (I 953), p. 190 (cf. p. 189) : " De m I n t e r r o g a t i v p r o n o me n ... wird
das enid. El ement -gh angeh/ i ngt " ( > ]vazut; " j e d e r " ) ; L. Renou, Gr amm.
de la l angue v~di que (1952), p. 382: " L' i nt e r r oga t i f est sui vi d ' u n gr and
nombr e de part i cul es, qui lui conf~rent ... une val eur ... " g6n6r al i s ant e" ou
" ~vent ual i s ant e .... , etc. etc.
*) A. Meillet, in t he BSL. 23 (1922), p. 19 f.
243
succeeded in adduci ng conclusive argument s. Among t hose schol ars
who hol d t he i ndefi ni t e funct i on t o be older Hi r t 4) at t ached much
val ue t o t he zero grade of t he st em k"i-: "die Form *k"i-s zei gt ei ne
Schwundst uf e, muB also in unbet ont er Stel l ung ent s t anden Sein;
aus ifinem Sat z es hat einer (uJer) geklop/t kann sich sehr leicht eine
Frage ent wi ekel n: hat wer geklop[t?" But if *k"i- has arisen in an
enclitie posi t i on, f r om what has it arisen ? Fr om a form *k"ei-, whi ch
is in t he ' Vol l st ufe' 5), and which, in Hi r t ' s line of t hought , was not
likely t o be an i ndefi ni t e 6) ? And what about t he st em k"e-[k"o- whi ch,
being in t he ' Vol l st ufe' , can likewise convey an i ndefi ni t e sense?
Meillet v), who regards t he indefinite function as original because
"on con~oit que, en met t ant l ' i nt onat i on i nt errogat i ve sur l' ind~fini,
d~,as une phr ase teUe que quelqu' un est venu, ie mot signifiant quel qu' un
prem, ae la val eur i nt errogat i ve, surt out s"il est cour t ", does not seem t o
ha ve faced t he ensui ng probl em how far an initial *k"i s has ever been,
as t he Fr. quel qu' un can be, non-i nt errogat i ve in meani ng. Equi va-
lents of t he unaccent ed *k"i- in moder n l anguages can at t he be-
gi nni ng of a sent ence be indefinite, but how are we to know if t he
I. E. i ndefi ni t e k"i - was usual in t hat posi t i on?: Greek i nst ances of
an initial Tt do not crop up before Sophocles and Pl at o 8), and t he
Lat i n indef, quis is alway~ an enclitic 9) ~ am afrai d t hat ! cannot
follow t he same Fr ench sa' ~ant and his c()mpatfiot Vendryes in t hei r
ar gument a0) thatt Gr. r/ does not lose its accent even under th,)se
ci rcumst ances Which wou3d condition baryt onesi s of ot her worzls.
Are t hey of t he opi ni on t hat t he i nt errogat i ve i nt onat i on and, hence,
*) H. Hirt, Indogermanische Grammatiik III, p. 26 ( 21); cf. VII, p.
40 ( 40).
6) In English books t he term ' normal igade' is often used. But are the
other grades abnormal ?
') 'The form *k Ue i - is given by J. Pokorny, Indog. etymol. Wer t er buch
(1953), p. 646, al t hough only *k Ui - exists.
v) Meillet, l.c.
*) See E. Schwyzer-A. Debrunner, Gfiechische Grammat i k, II, p..214.
Cf. also infra, p. 268.
') '.Similar suggestions, for instance t hat made by Ph. Wegener, Unt er-
suchungen tiber die Grundfragen des Sprachlebens, Halle 1885, p. 76, are,
for reasons of space, left undiscussed.
1o) A. MeiUet-J. Vendryes, Trait6 de grammai re compar6e des langues
classiques s, Paris 1948, p. 608 f.
244
the interrogative force, did not yet exist when, in prehistoric times,
the relevant Greek rules of accentuation became fixed? W~aatever
the real factors were which played a rSle in the p r o c e s s of bary-
tonesis, it is evident t hat the opposition expressed by r / c: we predis-
posed these words, like ,~ : a e etc. u), to special t reat ment .
Those scholars who developcd the other thesis would draw attention
to phenomena of second;,ry absence of accent. The Slav. k~-pronoun
"erh/ilt die bedeutung emes pron. indef, dadurch, dass es tonlos wird,
in welchem falle es meist einem oder mehreren worten des satzes
nachgesetzt wird" (Miklosich 12)) ; "urspriinglich ist ... wohl der inter-
rogative Gebrauch ... aus ihm ist durch Tonminderung in einge-
schalteter bzw. Enklisenstellung die indefinite Verwendung entstan-
do,,,, ~, , ~, ~, ~, , ~a~ These i~ however ronm for the observation thnt
~,,, 1,11. ~ .It. , , I , . ~. n ,t,. a I . a e,..L , L s A , L ] ] o .,..,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
it is, in historical times, as a rule for the sake of emphasis t hat the
interrogative pronoun . which usually opens the sentence ~ is
occasionally placed in another position" cf. e.g. Soph. El. 1191 ro~
(viz. ro[ q~o~e~a~) ~o~ "(with the murderers) of wh6m?" ; O.C. 412
it' ~vv~rtet~, ~.~[dovaa ro~ , ~Tet ; "what you tell, from wh6m did you
hear it ?"; Arist. Nub. 239 r~A0e ~ n a r d z / ;
According to Leumann ~*) the unaccented indefinite has, in part,
arisen from the accented interrogative in so-called 'mehrzielig~'
interrogations, e.g. a 170 zt~ rtdOe~, elg d ~ , ~ v "who are you among
men, and from whence" is ? Now this type of sentence, though occurring
in many ancient I.E. languages (Greek, Anc.Indian, Latin, Slavonic,
German), is nowhere very frequent and does not seem to have been
in general usage (with the probable exception of some short phrases)'
the Latin instances belong, as far as I am able to see, mainly to Cicero.
Livy and some later authors 1~); most of the Anc.Indian cases quoted
11) I refer to Schwyzer-Debrunr~er, o.c., I I , p. 387; see al so B. Laura,
I) as al exandri ni sche Akzent uat i onssvst em 5 Pader bor n 1928, p. 170 f. ; 251 f.
lz) F. Miklosich, Vergl. Gr amm. d. sl avi schen Spr. IV, p. 86.
1~) j . B. Hof mann, in St ol z-Schrnal z, Lat ei ni sche Gr amm. ~, p. 645.
1,) M. Leumann, in St ol z- Schmal z, o.c., p. 288.
15) See H. Schuchardt , in t he Anal ect a Graeci ensi a, Graz 1893, p. 197 ff. ;
Delbrtick, Vergl. Synt ax, I, p. 511; I I I , p. 259 f.; O. Behag~el , Deut sche
Synt ax, I I I , p. 431. - - Accordi ng to Schuchar dt t hi s cons t r uct i on is ratb.er
frequent in Hungari an, Rumani an, and t he Sl avoni c l anguages, but see
\V. Vondr~k, Vergl. Slavische Gr ammat i k 2, G6t t i ngen 1928, l I , p. 451.
le) I refer t o Hofmann, o.c., p. 647.
245
by' Wackernagl 1~) and ot her scholars smell of el aborat i on or more
or less di dact i c ar gument at i on. Delbrtick' s is),opinion, approved by
Schwyzer - Debr unner 10), seems reasonable- we would not appear to
be just i fi ed in t aki ng for grant ed t hat this construct!on was a feat ure
in t he s ynt ax of Orig. Indo-European 20 ) .
In ,discussing t hi s probl em and in pronouncing :for t he secondary
charact er of the indefinite force of these words H. Frei -~1) lays great
stress upon an ar gument which seems, to be hard to follow. Tra.ns-
forming t he problem, which is essentially historical in nat ure, into
a question of si,:nchronic linguistics, the Swiss autl~,r st at es t hat in
various l anguages t he i nt errogat i ve pronoun is a simple word" I.at.
quis; Fr. qui ; Germ. wer; the indefinite, on the other hand, a combi-
nation of thi_q wnr H ~ncl ~ , ~ ,,~ , , , , , ~ ^ , ~ . . . ^~ . . . . . . . . ,.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , v , a ~ u x ~ , u ~ l l t . - I t Z' l t ' l l l L' l l t S " tulqltls, quisque,
n' i mporl e qui ; wer es auch sei etc. Regardi ng the addi t i onal elements
as ' signes de t ransposi t i on' , he draws the conclusion t hat it is these
' signs' whi ch al ways commut e interrogatives into indefinites. Let t i ng
the t ermi nol ogy alone, which t hough applied to st at i c facts suggest:_~
historical processes ~ an inconsistency often found in the works
of phonologists and st ruct ural i st s ~ , these observations are, as far
as defini.te forms, definite periods, and definite languages are con-
cerned, right" leaving the relative functi~:~ out o ~ consideration, t he
Eng. who is, in itself, interrogative, ~,h(,c~ cr is m,lefinite, ever being,
in t~his word-group and similar cases,, a sign (~I indefiniteness. But
does it follow t hat this sign ' transposes' , or t nmsforms, an inter-
rogative i nt o ah indefinite ? It may be true t hat the ordi nary speakers
of a l anguage --~ Frei refers to "la conscience des suj et s" , if t hey
are i nvi t ed to reflect upon this point, are inclined to i dent i fy who in
whoever wi t h the i nt errogat i ve pronoun; but must we follow t hem?
In Dut ch t he form loop is the imper, sing., ik loop means "I am
walking"" can we reasonabl y contend t hat ik t ransforms an irnpera-
~7) A. De b r u n n e r - J . Wacker nagel , Al t i ndi s che Gr a mma t i k , I I I , p. 5 6 5
~a) Del br t i ck, \ e r gl . Synt a x, I I I , p. 260: " Es verst el nt si ch i i bri gens, dass
es si ch u m ei ne Aus dr uc ks we i s e handel t , di e t i beral l ei nmal aus ei nem beson-
der en Gr u n d e ge wa gt wer den k a n n "
10) Sc h wy z e r - De b r u n n e r , o.c., I I , p. 639.
so) F o r t he t h e o r y def ended by Meuni er in 1875 see H. Fr ei , I n t e r r o g a t i f
et I nd6f i ni , Pa r i s 1940, p. 8.
,1 ) Se e n. 20 .
246
t i ve into a finite verb form of the 1 ' t pets. sing. ? I for one would
prefer to s ay t hat it is t he s t em - - o r what e ve r name one wi shes
t o give to t hat element common to a group of words which is obtained
b y abst ract i ng i nfl exi onal el ement s and al l ot her l i ngui s t i c enti ti es
or features which constitute it a word and which help t o determine
t he class and function of t hat wo r d - - , which combining with an
element zero ~e) expresses an order or desire and which combining
with " I " helps to form an !,t pers. sing. t t is not t he ' addi t i on' of the
ending -en which transforms :a Dutch sing. boek "book" into a plural:
boeken, because the regular singular is een boek " a book" or her boek
"t he book " , the form boek by itself being indifferent m~ to number:
boekband "binding of a book"; boekUelhebber "one who is fond of
books". So it might be more correct to say t hat who in wh o ~ ~ not
a particular pronoun, but an abstract pronominal st em which without
ever or other accretions or accompaniments and under certain con-
ditions of intonation etc. can have a real existence and help to forra
def~mite interrogative sentences. Be this as it ma y - - - quest i cas of
structural formulation cannot detain us here ~ , it is, in my opinion,
an inadmissible conclusion t hat the interrogative function of *k~i -
etc. is, on the strength of the examples discussed by Frei, more original
t han the indefinite. If we may, for the sake of simplicity, say that
in the Dutch i k loop, i k indicates t hat loop is no imperative, does it
follow t hat any form loop originally was an imperative ? Frei answers
a similar question in connection with the pronouns at issue in the
affirmative, because he holds the pair who ?" whoever to be a feature
of many l anguages - - at least in those "~t at s de langue oh l' on peut
sonder la conscience des sujets". In so doing he however focusses
attention only on those languages which d.o not, or hardly, possess a
simple indefinite corresponding to the fc~rms instanced, or, rather,
he disregards the coexistence of simple iv,definites and words of the
type whoever. How are we to account for the Lat i n indefinite quis, if
we consider aliquis and quisque to be ' t ransposed' interrogatives 23?
u) This poi nt has sometimes been a mat t er of confusi on: L. H. Gray,
Foundat i ons of language, New Yor k 1939, p. 150 holds t hat i t is t he base
( "st em") which (in Latin) can be used alone in t wo i nst ances: as t he 2 ud
sg. act. imp. of t he vero, or as t he voc. sg. of t he noun. We had bet t er say
t hat these forms contain the st em and t he i nfl ect i onal endi ng zero.
u) I t may be conceded t hat " en i nt errogeant la conscience des sujets '
247
Here t he Swi s s a u t h or woul d no doubt refer t o hi s r e mar ks wi t h
regard t o t h e t r a ns pos i ng f unc t i on of pi t c h or a c c e nt a nd c ons i de r
gu i s ( i ndef . ) t o be c ha r a c t e r i z e d by t he abs e nc e of t he ' i nt e r r og a t i v e
i nt ona t i on' . Thi s a ns we r woul d, in a wa y , be correct , but i t doe s not
pr ove t h e hi s t or i c al pr i or i t y of t he a c c e nt e d * k" i s. Ev e n if we c oul d
s t at e t h a t al l l a n g u a g e s pos s e s s an ac c e nt e d i nt e r r ogat i ve pr onoun
bes i de an u n a c c e n t e d , but ot he r wi s e i d e n t i c a , ~maccent ed i nde f i ni t e ,
we c oul d not b y t he me r e obs e r vat i on t hat ir~ t he l at t er t he ac c e nt i s
abs e nt , c on c l u d e t h a t i t was l ost. The: abs ence of a f eat ure cart al s o
me an t h a t i t has ne v e r e x i s t e d '.,4).
II
So no s ol ut i on pr opounde d for t he pr obl e m of t he ' ori gi nal charact er'
ot t he i nt e r r . -i nde f , s t e ms * k ue- / k " o - and * k~' i - 2s) has, as f~r as I am
we mu s t r e g a r d t he Du t c h w~e as an i nt e r r oga t i ve and wi e ook ~t,s an i ndef i -
ni t e, b u t wi t h r e ga r d t o t he neut er wat --- free f r om its c ont e xt , of cour se,
s ay in i t s wr i t t e n f or m - - . whi ch is of t en i ndefi ni t e, t hi s vi ew c a nnot be
ma i nt a i ne d.
s~) I t ma y be a dde d in pas s i ng t ha t t he pr es ent a ut hor is not abl e t o follow
Fr ei ' s e xpos i t i on on p. 14 wher e he t r i es ~how t ha t t he i nt e r r oga t i ve
pr onoun b e l o n g s ' t o l anguage, t he i ndef i ni t e t~> speech.
2~) Fo r a t t e mp t s ma de t o di st i ngui si ~ bet ~eer~ t hese s t ems see J. Wa c ke r -
nagel , Ku h n ' s Zs. 29, p. 144; W. Cal and, Zur Synt a x der Pr o n o mi n a i m
Aves t a, Ams t e r d a m 1891, p. 50 n. ; Del br i i ck, Vergl. Sy n t a x I, p. 510 f.,
and es peci al l y E. Benveni s t e, in t he St udi a Bal t i ci I I I , Rome 1933, p. 124;
128 f., whos e obs er vat i ons , however i mp o r t a n t and i ngenuous (cf Cal and,
I.e.), do not sol ve all pr obl ems . The r el at i on bet ween i nt er r , and i ndef.
pr onouns is not i dent i cal wi t h t ha t bet ween dei ct i c and a na phor i c pr onouns
(t he f or me r bei ng c ha r a c t e r i z e d by t he t he ma t i c vowel, t he l a t t e r by the ~).
I ndef i ni t e p r o n o u n s ar e not al ways encl i t i c (cf. AI nd. ,*rid kdh; Lat . al i qui s
etc.} or i ndi f f e r e nt as t o case, number , etc. One c a nnot go so far a~ t o c ont e nd
t ha t t he l i ngui s t i c evi dence pr ovi ded by t he anci ent I . E. i di oms pr oves t h a t
t he y a l wa y s ha d a " v a l e u r I ai bl e" , never had a dat i ve, geni t i ve et c. ; i ns t ances
of ~ Tt as ar e e.g. f ound A 240 mTg TLva a3 ... f~o~..., i ro~:'g ... " wh o ms o e v e r
agai n . . . t h e m . . . " ; O 743 etc. can ha r dl y be sai d t o be in c ons ona nc e wi t h
t he h y p o t h e s i s t h a t *k'*i- or i gi nal ! y was, i n f unct i on, c o mp a r a b l e t o 0 et c. ;
ar e we t o bel i eve t h a t once no geni t i ves, dat i ves , etc. of an i ndef, p r o n o u n
exi st ed, de s pi t e t he ma n y ver bs etc. whi ch gover ned t hes e cases ? (cf. e. g.
B 388; n 305). The Home r i c et c. (see Sc h wy z e r - De b r u n n e r , o. c , I, p. 616}
gen. Tea, La t . cui us, cui (e.g. Pl aut . Amph. 67}, Ved. k~s ya et c. , all of t h e m
a d mi t t i n g of a n i ndef i ni t e use, i nduce us t o concl ude t h a t t hes e cas e- f or ms ,
248
able to see, met with general acceptance. However, neither the cautious
and methodically correct opinion pronounced by Del bNck x) __
"diese Frage ist durch die Mittel einer historischen Untersuchung
ni c ht zu lt~sen . . . (es gen~igt) f e s t z us t e l l e n, das s i n der Ur z e i t berei t s
beide Gebrauchsweisen vorhanden waren" ~ nor the intelligent
observations of Wackernagel ~) .... in bot h cases (viz. the interr.
and the indef, use "handelt es sich um Unbekanntes ... ; Hoehtonig-
keit charakterisiert die Frage iiberhaupt, und anderseits passt unter-
geordnete Stelle im Satze fiir die Bezeichnung eines Begriffs, den man
nicht scharf bezeichnen will oder kann" - - c a n absolve us from the
obligation to look more closely at the difficulties which remain
u n s o l v e d . W- hat was me cnar et ct et ~,x t~,~ ,.~,,-o,.o a,,,.~ ~,.,,.,.,,,.,.o
containing these elements? How are we to account for the various
particulars in the use of the words deriving from these stems ?; how
could they, for instance, also assume a relative function ? Was pre-
der i vi ng f r om *kUe]o -, were al r eady empl oyed in t h a t way. The ver y fact
t ha t t he var i ous *k u- st ems are, in t he anci ent l anguages, di f f er ent l y dis-
t r i but ed in t he nomi nat i ve and accusat i ve, and in t he adver bi al f or ms (Ti; rl;
ri ; .~o~o~ ~6reOo ndO~ ~o~ etc. , i nt err, and indef. ; kah. k~ k i m (cid), k a d a e t c . , but
kuJ~ra etc. ) seems t o poi nt t o a consi derabl e degr ee of i nt er changeabi l i t y in
'O~Sg. I . - E. ' A more sat i sf act or y hypot hesi s woul d per haps be t he f ol l owi ng' t he
' st r ong f or ms' , i.e. *kUe-/kUo -, were especi al l y used when sex (gender) must
be i ndi cat ed - - cf. e.g. t he adj . use in Lat i n" quae p a t r i a est t ua ? - - ; t he st em
*kui -, whi ch coul d not express sex, was pr ef er r ed i n ot her cases - - of. Lat.
qui s t u ? " who goes t her e ?" ; qui s cl ari or Themi s t ocl e ? ; qui s ~u es mu l l e r . . . ? m;
i t was also a pt for maki ng i nqui ri es concer ni ng bei ngs of u n k n o wn sex and
lifeless obj ect s m hence its f r equent occur r ence i n neut er forms" A. Ind.
k i m (which, unl i ke kad, does not serve as an a t t r i but i ve adj . in t he RV.~,
Av. c~, and si mi l arl y in Slav. and Arm. (see Meillet, Le sl ave c ommun, 192~,
p. 442 f.); cf. also Goth. t oi l ei ks D and t o i nt r oduce ques t i ons in gener~.l
(A. Ind. k i m; I . at . qui d?; Gr. r[). The i ndef i ni t e was, t her ef or e, per haps m
most cases, but not excl usi vel y, expressed by *kui -; t he i nt er r ogat i ve force
ma y (especi al l y in masc. and fern.) have been pr ef er abl y expr es s ed by *kUe/'~-
(cf. t he Aves t an usage). Tha t seems to be t he mos t one can s ay in our pre-
sent s t at e of knowl edge. Ther e is, as far as I a m abl e t o see, no r easonabl e
gr ound for following P. Tedesco (Language, 21, p. 133), accor di ng t o whom
t he t wo t hemes were or i gi nal l y di st r i but ed bet ween t he a n i ma t e and inani-
mat e genders, " who" bei ng *kuoS and " wh a t " bei ng *kui d. The opinion
vent ur ed by Vai l l ant (BSL. 37, p. 103 f." *kui - comes f r om a n obl i que case)
is ver y i mpr obabl e.
se) Del bri i ck, o.c., I, p. 521 ; see also t he same, Synt . For s e hunge n I, p. 76.
~) Wacker nagel , Vorl esungen ii'ber Synt a x I I , p. 1 I0.
249
historic Indo-European alone in possessing pronouns of this character ?
It cannot be said t hat the points at issue have already been suf-
fi ci ent l y illuminated by evidence derived from non-I.E, languages.
The few remarks made in this direction by Kret,schmer 28) and Frei .09 )
may not induce us to indulge in the thought that such evidence is
scanty 80). The phenomenon, viz. the 'double function' of the same
pronominal element, is, on the contrary, of wide distribution in
languages of various families. In contradistinction to those scholars
who prefer to explain I.E. facts from I . E. - - - and even Latin from
Latin etc. - - the present author is convinced that a careful and well-
founded examination of non-I.E, phenomena can render useful
services in any research h e a r i n a l l n n n c ~ r n + . - , , . . , + ; . . . . I - . 1 . . . .
character and importance. This has nothing to do with speculations
on the assumed psychology of the earliest human beings whose language
must have far ant edat ed the earliest stages of the so-called I.E.
parent speech, speculations the "absurdity and futility" of which is
deservedly denounced by Miss Hahn a~). There can be no denying
t hat a ccmparat i ve st udy of those syntactic categories and phenomena
which occur in all, or many, languages, especially those which may
be regarded as being closely bound up wit}~ the non-preponderatingly
intellectual life or 'pre-scientific' thought ~:>f man, t hat is to say with
' pr i mi t i vi s m' - - this t erm being understood in a phenomenological,
not in a chronological sense a2) _ reveals to us many points of close
resemblance between functions of words or constructions of clauses
in various languages aa). If it can be shown that there exists, in some
se) p. Kr et s chmer , in t he Scri t t i in onore di A. Tr ombet t i , Milan 1938, p. 47.
a0) Frei , o.c., p. 9; 11 f.
80) Cf. Sc hwyz e r - De br unne r , Griech. Gr amm. II, p. 212, n. 4.
sl) E. A. Hahn, Subj unct i ve and opt at i ve: t hei r origin as fixtures, New
Yor k 1953 (Phil. Mon., Amer . Phil. Ass. XVI ) , p. 15, n. 31.
8s) See e . g . G, van der Leeuw, Religion in essence and mani f es t at i on,
London 1938, esp. p. 683 If.; t he same, L' h o mme pr i mi t i ve et la religion,
Par i s 1940. I t is sur pr i si ng how r adi cal l y even caut i ous a t t e mp t s t o a ppl y
phenomenol ogi cal met hods t o new provi nces of phi l ol ogi cal r es ear ch shoul d
have been mi s under s t ood by schol ars who have accus t omed t hems el ves t o
t hi nk onl y in t he t r adi t i onal t er ms of chr onol ogy.
8s) A di scussi on of some s ynt act i c phe nome na whi ch ma y be r egar ded as
r esul t i ng f r om, or as bei ng connect ed wi t h, t he f unda me nt a l uni t y of ma n-
ki nd a nd t he si mi l ar i t y of all men ma y be f ound in my ar t i cl e ' Uni ver s el e
25O
particular points, a high degree of similarity between idioms of
different family, and t hat comparable facts are also found in spoken
dialects of modern I.E. languages, no objection can reasonably be
made to sound at t empt s to derive information o~r to obt ai n a basis
for a hypothesis from them in order to illuminate t he genesis, force, or
syntactic or stylistic value, of comparable phenomena in ancient I.E.
tongues, especially when t hey may be considered t o have originated
under comparable cultural circumstances, i.e. when t hey are found in
early and simple documents or in literature of a ' popular' character.
We shall now give a limited and random collection of non-I. E, facts
pertinent to the problem under discussion. Commencing wi t h Viet-
namese (Anname~e) because of the reference made by Kretschmer
to the interr.-indef, a i occurri__'_ng in this language, it can be st at ed that
this word, which is usually called the personal interr, pron., is ---
lik,~ the other interrogatives g~ "what ", ffdn " when" etc. - - also used
as a so-called indefinite in making st at ement s or asking questions
about unidentified specimens etc.:~). According to Emeneau ~)
"interrogatives have indefinite meaJfing" in certain contexts, to wit
in predications containing negative words, in questions marked as
such by other means th~n inter~.gative words (e.g. by t he final
particle k h 6 n g which ends questior~ expecting a y~s-o~-no answer),
"and in some other constructions t hat are not to be distinguished by
s~atactic statements from constructions in which the interrogative
words have interrogative meaning". Besides, subordinate predications
introduced by the conjunction n ~ ' u "i f" and ~ "as sure as" also
require indefinite meaning for words which elsewhere are interrogative'
h~ ~ co "~ a i 3 d ~ ' n 4 h o i 5. t 6i e, th~ ~ a n h s ggi 9 t 6i 1 "as sure as x there is ~ someone 3
who arrives 4 inquires about 5 me 6, then ~ you 8 call' me 1, :i.e. if anyone
comes and asks for me, be sure to call me". It is even possible that
interrogative words in subordinate members of predications have that
force even when they are not in clauses introduced by the above
conjunctions. As Emeneau appos!itely observes no decision can in
these cases be made between interrogative and indefinite in literal
tendenzen in de Indonesische syntaxis' , Bijdragen t ot de Taal-, Land- en
Volkenkunde 107 (The Hague 1951), p. l ?gff.
~) See M. B. Emene~u, Studies in Vietnamese (Annamese) grammar,
Berkeley and Los Angeles 1951, p. 137.
85) Emeneau, o.c., p. 57 ff.
251
t ransl at i on" ai 1 l~m*, nd' y s dn* ("as a man works, so he eat s") " "vrho 1
worksS? t hat one s eats*, or" a:ayone ~ works ~:, t hat one s eat s 4''. The
same schol ar t herefore t i ght l y asks himself whet her t he at t emp~ to
make a difference is not due to an Indo-European bias; we should
perhaps ~ y " a mode m I. -E. bias. In Vi et namese a word like g~ has
as its class meani ng subst i t ut i on for a noun with a non-personal
reference, and as its subst i t ut i on t ype reference to an uni dent i fi ed
specimen. I t is only t he cont ext which makes it clear whet her this
reference is i nt ended to st i mul at e the hearer to identify t he specimen
or not. In t he former case we t ransl at e by "what ?", in t he l at t er by
" any" . I would t herefore subscribe to Emeneau' s suggestion to
t ransl at e t he rel evant t er ms in ~be following way" " whi c h? / a ny" ;
" wher e?/ anywher e" etc._ It_. may, however, be uuuuteu'~---~-'-J whet her we
would be fi ght in following the American scholar as far as his termi-
nology is concerned" is it correct to adopt t he practice of I ndo- Eur opean
scholars suggest i ng t hat these words are i nt errogat i ve in charact er
and under cert ai n circumstance., used as indefinites?
There is no denyi ng t hat these facts are very similar to phenomena
occurring in ot her, I. E. and non-]:.E., languages. It would appear t hat
a large par t of t he consideration~ to which we are induced by these
pronouns in Vi et namese ~ and i,n other l a n ~: ~e s in which t hey show
the same charact eri st i cs ~ can be made fr~i~ful ~r a bet t er under-
standing of comparabl e phenomena in Indo-European. We can indeed
be scarcely in doubt t hat a clo,;cr exami nat i on of the rel evant facts
will bring to light a similar "who?/ some (one)" charact er of these
pronouns in ot her idioms, t he grammari ans of which usuall:, cont ent
themselves wi t h t he formul at i on t hat the i nt errogat i ve pronouns
also do dut y for indefinites s6).
When accompani ed by a negation many Indonesian wo~ds which
under ot her ci rcumst ances can express the ideas of "who,?, what ?
etc." bear an indefJinite force. In Malay, s~iapa alone means " who?" ,
and s~orai, or s~s~drai~ (s~- "a, one"; ora~ "l~aman being") "somebody,
an individual human being"' , but ''"~'"'~"'",,,~,,,,~j is not only rendered by
s~ora~ (pun) t i ada' ( t i ada " not " ) , but also by tiada si apa; apa =:
se) See, for instance, G. J. Ramst edt , Einffihrung in die altaische Sprach-
wissenschaft, Helsinki 1952, p. 80; H. Costenoble, Die Chamoro Sprache,
The Hague 1940, p. 228; H. Jorgensen, A gr ammar of the classic~.l Newari,
Copenhagen 1941, p. 39.
252
"what ?", a-apa "something, ar~ything, any, aught", but tiada apa
means "not hi ng", t i ada a p a - a p a "not hi ng at all". In Minangkabau
s i a, which serves as an interrogative pronoun ( " who?" ) , can also
st and for our "whoever" and, in combhlation wi t h a negat i ve particle,
for "nobody". In negative clauses and in const ruct i ons which may
conveniently be called subordinate (e.g. baso t sialbo 2 k b k a ur a~4 k #
ma t i 6 "I fear 1 t hat one 2 (person 4) of us z shall~ die v' ( kbh expresses doubt).
In Achehnese, sb~" is, on the one hand, used as an i nt errogat i ve pronoun.
sO~" k u gat a "who is your father ( ku) ?" ; r u mb h sb~" n y a n "whose house
(r.) is t hat ?", and, on the ot her hand, an indefinite word" na sO~"
sakdt ? "is anyone ill (s.) ?" (na" " t o be, to exi st ") ; b~' sbk" t a mb ~ "nobo<t. y
should ent er" (bk" the Gr . / ~) . It can also express t he idea of "whoever,
J l . ~ D. t T _ _ _ J _ ' L . . . . . . . ~ _ . ' ~ _ L . , L _ 1 _ _ 1
whatever, all t hat . i n otner cases it i s oxten regaraea as a relative
pronoun" le sob" t ul f i t can indeed be t ransl at ed by "t her e are many
(le) who help (t.)", but " many are those-who help, h~lpers are many"
comes nearer to the original. In cases like th~s we may perhaps call
the function of the pronoun indefinite-determinative 3~). There exists
a considerable correspondence between this Achehnese word and
the Gayo s i with which it is etymologically identical" accompanied by
a negative particle si (sih, si h6n) has, in t he first place, a significance
almost equivalent to an indefinite pronoun. As an i nt errogat i ve it
inquires after one or more persons or objects belonging t o a limited
number, or, rather, after the relation in whi ch t hat person or object
stands to the other constituents of a whole. In s a (sah etc.) the same
language possesses a pronominal word which occurs in questions
requiting the hearer to identify a person; accompani ed by g ~ r i " n o t "
it means "nobody". In Sundanese (Java) n a o n means " what ?", but
t~ naon " t hat is nothing" (t~ "not , not hi ng") and t~ a y a n a o n "there
is nothing" ( aya "(to) exist, (to) be"). Beside s abar aha " how much,
how many ?" in interrogative sentences we find hant a s abar aha "not
worth while, little, few" ( hant ~ " n o t , wi t hout ''~). This word, moreover,
goes with similar i,~r~,Ls in other Indonesian idioms in t hat it bears
the same "ndefinite force in clauses like haman t s abar aha ~ l a wa s a n #
"even if x ~ny (number, however much) ~ space of t i me a of it v' , i.e.
"even if it ~' ould take a long t i me" as). Similarly, in ot her I. N. languages;
a~) For t he det ermi nat i ve funct i on see Li ngua IV, p. 25.
88) Cf. also S. J. Esser, Kl ank- en vormleer van het Morisch, Verhande-
253
c f . e . g . t he Bolaang-Mongondow (ki) ine " who?/ whoever " " ki i neXi
muna 2 ko 3 naa 4, yo s si a ~ i 7 moko- untuc, S " w h o e v e r 1 f i r s t ~ ( at 3) h e r e 4,
( t he#) he 6 the one who 7 has won ~'' 39). In Cham thai fulfils bot h
functions, as the t ype of sentence in which it occurs may require.
Comparable relations between indef, and interr, pronouns exist, for
instance, in Khasi 40), Turkish, etc. Authors of grammars sometimes
notice " a confusion" in the use of these two categories of pronouns,
"one being used in place of the other" 4~). Or they inform us t hat there
are, in the idiom described, no regular indefinite (and relative) pronouns,
the interrogatives being commonly used in their place 42).
A striking feature of these elements when bearing an indefinite
force is the frequent duplication of their outward form. Indonesian
instances are very numerous" in Malay mana means "where, which ?",
di mana- mana "everywhere"; in Malay, Minangkabau, and other
languages apa means "somewhat ; what, which ?", apa-apa "something,
whatever, anyt hi ng"; in Ngaju-Dyak (Borneo)" dzve "who ?"" dwe-dwe
, , , ,, ; ~ ~ ,,
' whoever, anybody in Busang (Borneo) hi who? some:~octy ,
hi-hi beside hi (which also occurs in negative sentences;) "whoever"
Side by side with the Mori (Celebes) ba hapa "what ", which is interr.
and indef.~ the geminated ba hapa ~ enhances the indef, character of
the phrase" 4s). In Sangirese (nortl; of Celebes), isain "who?"" i sai-
sain "ever ybody"; in Banggai (east of Celebes) ilee, which is often
used in an interr, sense, can also express the idea of "whoever ", but
l i ngen v a n het Ba t a v i a a s c h Geno(}t schap v. I(. en \Vet. , 67, 3, 1937, p. 158
( 201).
,~9) I t is a ma t t e r for r egr et t ha t most aut hor s of g r a mma r s have fai l ed
t o r e por t e xa c t l y t he cases in whi ch the~e i ndef i ni t e f unct i ons ar e llsed. See
e . g . W. Dunnebi er , S p r a a k k u n s t van het i l ( ) l aangMongondows cb, l ~i j dr agen
t ot de TAM-, La nd- en Vo l k 86, p. 12.5; O~st enobl e, o.c., p. 228 f.
40) See H. Rober t s , A g r a mma r of t he I(hassi l anguage, London 1S91,
p. 45.
41) E. g . T. N. Dave, A s t u d y of t he Guj a r a t i l anguage, Lo n d o n 1935, p. 34.
42) E. g . D. L. R. Lor i mer , The . Dumaki l anguage, Ni me gue n 1939, p. 83;
T. G. Bai l ey, Gr a mma r of t he Shi na l anguage, London 1924, p. 62. The
Shi na i ndef, occur s in negat i ve and s ubor di na t e cl auses; ted " wh o ?" : hb n zish
(n. " i s not " ) " t h e r e was n,o one" . ~ For i nt er es t i ng i nt er r el at i ons see al so
S. K. Chat t er j i , The or i gi n and de ve l opme nt of t he Bengal i l anguage, Cal -
c u t t a 1926, p. 842; G. V. Tagar e, Hi s t or y of Apa bhr a ms a , Poona 1948, p. 256.
4s) Es s er , o. c. , p. 159.
254
in that case it is mostly duplicated ~) ; in Macassar, Gayo u) , Sundanese,
and other languages one might find various parallels. The indeterminate,
distributive, collective or general force often borne by geminated
forms 46) can be of such a vagueness ~md i ndet ermi nat i on as to meet
the want of expressions for all shades of pronominal indefiniteness.
But the indefinite character of the gemi nat ed form may not suggest
considering a priori the simple form to be an i nt errogat i ve 47).
The addition of one or more particles to t hat pronominal stem
which by itself can convey the interrogative meaning is another device
of wMe distribution. In J apane s e t ar e me ans " who ?", tare ka"s omebody"
in sentences like the following: tare ga ki t a ka "who has come ?" (ka:
interr, particle) and tare ka ga ki t a "someone has come" respectively ~8).
AAthough,in NewAri, the relevant forms are i nt errogat i ve and indefinite
in character, the lat'ter meaning is in most cases expressed by the
pronoun and a suffix; when the pronoun alone is used in an indef.
sense, the suffix is frequently added to ot her words in the sentence 19).
In the Dravidian languages the indefinite, according to the formu-
lation chosen by Bloch so), "se forme sur l' interrogatif, en y ajoutant:
1 . une particule de doute; 2 . une particule signifiant "meme"."
In the Indonesian Sangirese we fred i saiewen "whoever" beside isain
(indef.), i sai-sain "anybody", i sai " who?" sl). In Bare' e (Celebes)
i sema is "who", barn i sema or barn i sema ~ "whoever" (bara "per-
haps") 52). In Buginese (Celebes) gemination and the addition oi
~} I refer to J. D. van den Bergh, Spr aakkuns t van het Banggais, The
Hague 1953, p. 73.
46) See G. A. J. Hazeu, Gaj 6sch-Nederl andsch Woordenboek, Batavia
1907, p. 755.
~*) See my paper ' The functions of word dupl i cat i on . . . ", Li ngua II, p.
1 70 ff.
~) It would be worth while exact l y t o det er mi ne tile t ypes of clauses in
which t he different forms occur, t hei r posi t i on among ot her words etc.
~8) For particulars see G. Sansom, An hi st ori cal gr ammar of Japanese,
Oxford 1928, p. 75 ff.
4g) See Jergensen, o.c., p. 40.
50) j . Bloch, St ruct ure grammat i cal e des l angues dravi di ennes, Paris
1946, p. 2-2; cf. e.g. also J. Vinson, Manuel de la l angue t amoul e, Paris 1903,
p. 84.
5~) For particulars see N. A~lriani, Sangi r ee~he Spra~kkunst , Leyden
1893, p. 247; 2S 1 f.
6s) I refer to Adriani, Spr aakkunst der Bar e' e- t aal , Bandung 1931, p. 359.
255
part i cl es of a similar significance are resort ed to" aga " wha t ? " ;
aga 2 and bara-aga " what ever " ~). The Kar o- Bat ak (Sumat ra) tah isZ
means "whoever "" isd " who" , tab being a conj unct i onal el ement
expressi ng doubt , i ncer t ai nt y etc. In t he African Dual a "werden die
I ndef i ni t a von den Fr agepr onomen gebildet durch Beiffigung yon to" s4).
It will be evi dent t hat t he great er tt:e choice of addi t i onal el ement s
t he gr eat er t he oppor t uni t y to exprr;ss various shades of indefinite
meani ngs" Mal. barai, apa, apapun, apa ~uga, etc.
Now t he same addi t i onal elements can often al~;o combine wi t h
non-pronomi nal words, e.g. wffh words for "' human bei ng", which
are oft en equi val ent t o our indefinites (e.g. Bare' e tau " human bei ng;
somebody, one", Ft . "on") " Mal b~rai s~-orai~ "some one or ot her". As
t he Mal. orai, is no i nt errogat i ve ~*), t he conclusion must be t hat words
like barai, cannot be said to t ransform an i nt errogat i ve word i nt o
an i ndefi ni t e ~). Besides, a construction like siapa ~ datai~ ~ "who ~
comes*? ' ' or tiada siapa datai~ "nobody come~" is complete in
itself, but siapa 2 data.n, baraz siapa d., siapa ~uga d. "whoever
comes" ;,re not" aft er these word groups the sentence is continued.
So t he Iunct i on of t he pronouns depends on the cont ext in which
t hey occur; these addi t i onal elements serve to emphasize t he indefinite
force or to indicate some slight difference or delicate distinction sT),
ot her part i cl es (-tah, -kah) fulfilling a simil2.r function in i nt errogat i ve
sentences" si apakah ~ anak " itu 3 ? " Who 1 is t hat a child ~?'' 58).
To t he gemi nat i on and the frequent and wide-spread combi nat i ons
of pronouns and particles special ~nterest at t aches in connection wi t h
~a) For par t i cul ar s see 13. F. Mat t hes, Boegi neesche Spr a a kkuns t , Ams t er -
dam 1875, p. 203.
s,) C. Mei nhof, Gr undzi i ge ei ner vergl. Gr a mma t i k der Ba nt us pr a c he n ~,
t l a mb u r g 1948, p. 93.
6s) I t is i nt er es t i ng t o not e t ha t ~N. wor ds for " h u ma n bei ng"' can combi ne
wi t h el ement s bear i ng an i nt er r ogat i ve force t o form phr as es for " wh a t
sort of ( man) ?, what ( nat i onal i t y) is he? et c. " : Bar e' e to-kuja (to < tau),
tau to-kuja, et c.
5,) I n connect i on wi t h numer al s baran like ,re in Gr eek s t ands for our
"some".
6T) For a di scussi on of t hese part i cl es see A. A. Fokker , I nl ei di ng t ot de
st udi e va n de I ndones i s che [ = l~iodern Mal ay] synt axi s, Gr oni nge n- Dj a ka r t a
1951, p. 55 f.
68) Thes e el ement s ar e also used when a quest i on c a nnot be i ndi cat ed
either by context or intonation.
t he dose parafl~lism of the Co1Tesponding Indo-European forms: Lat.
f u i s q - ~ , f u i s q u a m ; Ge r m. wer auch, wer i n n n e r , AIn& ka~ cana, ko'p/
somebody e t c . . Some scholars explicitly at t ri but e the ~ mt e force
t o t he particle: thus Debruaner-Wackernagel ~ who even speak
of an "indefinitierende Partikel". Others, among whom was Brug-
mann, s e e m t o regard t he particle as less essential" "ei ne den indefi-
ni t en Sinn verstfirkenden Partikel" 60). We need not concern ourselves
here with those phrases which, being modelled on ancient examples,
are: evidently of a more recent origin" (Skt. k o' pi ; Eng. what ever "what
{~ith additional emphasis)", etc. 6~). Focussing at t ent i on mainly on
the gr oup *k~'e-/k~'o - and *k~'i - we must in the tirst place observe
t hat the view pronounced by Delbrtick, Brugmann, Walde, and
other ~hol ar s 62) that Lat. q~i sque, Goth. Ivazuh, the very rare AInd
ka.~ ca, ki . m ca, and (according to some scholars al so) t he Gr." r~; rr
are genetically identical, can no longer be maintained. Re | e ~ for
an ample dis~zuss~on of the relevant facts to another paper ~) , it ~11
su[fice here to state, byway of recapitulation, t hat a Greek counterpart
of qui s que < *k'~i - + *k"e does not, as far as we are able to see,
e x i t ; t hat the Goth. I v ~ u h impresses us as having arisen in special
syntactic positiens, especially in sentences of a virtually conditional
~ase and in pair 5 of clauses of a complementary-antithetic~d character
- - i n both ca:e~ i:here is an abundance of reasons to believe t hat -uh
< -*kue originally and essentially conveyed t hat very complementary
force ~; t hat the Lat. qui sque owes its origin mainly to the frequent
occm-rence of the particle -que < -*k"e in definite types of relative
~nt ences which ..... as has been :~hown by Miss Hotz s 4 ) ~ coinci-
dent ally often contained the likewise enclitic pronoun qui s ( : TLZ)6S).
sg) Debr unner - Wacker nagel , Al t i ndi sche Gr a mma t i k I I I , p. 570.
so) Br ugmann, Grundri ss ~ I I, 2, p. 352.
~) For Anc. I nd. ko 'pi see Debr unner - Wacker r agel , o,c.. ][II, p. 571.
6o.) Del brt i ck, Vergl. Synt ax, I, p. 515 f.; II, p. 511 If.; Br ugmann, Grund-
riss ~, II, 2, p. 352; Wal de- Pokor ny, Vergl. Wt b. I p. 507; S. Fei st , Vergl.
Wt b. d. got i schen Sprache s (1939), p. 283 f.; Debr unner - Wacker nagel , o..,
p. 571; Wal de- Hof mann, Lat . et ym. Wt b. s I I , p. 410.
6~) j . Gonda, The hi st or y and original f unct i on of t he I . - E. par t i cl e kue
especi al l y in Gr eek and Lat i n, .Mnemosyne, 19,54.
6~) L. Hot z, Die Enkl i senst el l ung des Pr onomens qui sque, Thesi s Ztirich
i941.
*~} For Av. ~i~a see Debrunner-Wackernai ~el , o.c., I I I , p. 571.
257
If we are, in t he main, not mi st aken in modi fyi ng t he resul t s of previ ous
research, it follows t hat it was not *k"e which t r ansf or med an i nt er-
rogat i ve pr onoun i nt o an indefinite, but t hat an essent i al l y i ndefi ni t e
pr onoun was in vari ous ways ext ended by t he enclitic part i cl e
, k , e ,6).
It is wor t hy of special notice t hat this indefinite char act er shoul d
show itself, i nt er alia, in explicitly or vi rt ual l y ' rel at i ve' clauses. We
may corroborat e t he above inference by poi nt i ng t o t he f r equent
Vedic and also post-Vedic phrases of t he t ype y d - k d - c a " who (what)
ever" (ye ke ca " any persons what soever " ; yasyai kasyai ca devat ~yai
" t o any dei t y what soever ") and use it, in its t urn, to expl ai n t he
remarkabl e, and at first sight even st range, rari t y of t he combi nat i on
ka- ca, kim. ca in Ancient Indi an 6~).
The more I consider t he well-known idiom ya- ka- ca - - whi ch is
also represent ed in t he adverbs of t he anci ent l anguage ~ t he less I
feel inclined to adhere to the zommuni s opinio, accordi ng to whi ch
ca conver t s t he i nt errogat i ve pronoun to an i ndefi ni t e meani ng 6s).
Nor am I compl et el y convinced of t he correct ness of t he view ~q)
t hat ya- ka- ca owes its origin to a combi nat i on of t he "r el at i ve pr onoun"
and t he indefinite ka- ca. Reservi ng t he ot her r epr esent at i ve of t he
idiom for furt her consideration in a subsequent par t of this article it
must be observed here t hat - - - h~wever much t he t hree component s
form, in historical times, uni t y (of. also t he Avest an yb ~i~Ca) and
however ' i ndefi ni t e' t he sense of t he combi nat i on ma;y be - - t he
original funct i on of t he particle ca seems to be more or less appar ent
in many passages. Start.ing from t he hypot hesi s t hat *k"e essent i al l y
served to express compl ement ar y connect i on 70) such t ext s as R.V.
6s) For ot he r anci ent phr as es wi t h *k Ue - / h~' o -, *kUi - see p. 262 ff.
eT) I r ef er t o De br unne r - Wa c ke ~' na ge l , o.c., I I I , p. 571, a nd, for t he
a c c e nt ua t i on, t o p. 568 f. The i ns t ance quot e d by t hese autl~(, rs is of speci al
i nt e r e s t : J a i mUp Br . 1, 57, 2 ~, ahu 1 v a i k i , . , 2 c a 3 k i m ~ ca ~ P~* ma . rag6 c a r a t i 7
" a ma n n does 7 ma ny ~ t hi ngs x, s ome t hi ng * on t he one han, . s ome t hi ng 4 on
t he ot he r ha nd s' ' , i.e. " a ma n does ma n y a nd var i ous t hi ngs " .
,a) See W. D. Whi t ne y, A Sans kr i t g r a mma r , ~ 507; Re nou, Gr a mma i r e
s ans cr i t e, Par i s 1930, p. 378.
69) CI. Speyer , Sa ns kr i t s ynt a x, p. 214 f. ; Ved. u. Sa ns kr i t Sy n t a x , p. 42;
A. A. Macdonel l , Vedi e g~,~mmar, St r a s s bur g 1910, p. 304; De b r u n n e r -
Wa c ke r na ge l , o.c., I I I , p 571 f.
~0) I r ef er t o my ar t i cl e on t he par t i cl e * k ~e (see n. 63).
17
258
6, 46, 8 ydd 1 v~ s t. rks. a# maghavan 4 d r u k y ~v s # i d n d ydt s p~r aa'
kdc 10 ca ll vfs.~yamX2 l asmdbkyam, xs t dd xt f i r t hs as " or t t he virility12
whi ch 1, O bount i ful One*, is wi t h T~r~i a, or wi t h e t he Dr u h ~ S peopleL
and n what ever s, x0 is wi t h t he Pu r e ' (peopl e), gr ant is usXS thatX,,,
may be compar ed t o R.V. 6, 75, 19 y # na.h a s v # draeo* ydkS c #
nts..tyo ~ ]igh~m. satiS i d e v ~ ' tdm. a sdrve n dh~r v ant u is " i P a man of our
own ' cl an "3 (or) an out ~i de# o # if 5 a forei gner T wi shes t o kill s us ~, all n
t he gods 9 mu,;t bring xz hi m t o x ruinXV'; AV. 7, 70, 1 ydt x kim. s c~sau'~
mdnas ~ s ydc e ca T v ~c # yai r;ai r s i uh6t i x hav~s. ~ xx yd~ustiti I tddaS ... "what -
soever x. 2 (on t he one hand s) he y o n d e # offers TM wi t h mi nd 5, and 7
what n (o~ t he ot her hand ~) wi t h voice s, wi t h sacri fi ces' , wi t h oblationl~,
wi t h sac~'ed formulaXL t hat TM . . . " ma y be r egar ded as represent i ng
a ya- ca ... ya- ca const r uct i on as occurs, for i nst ance, in AV. 11, 10,
22 ydk x ca 2 kavacO ydk 4 c~Skdvaca.h s " who( ever ) a is mai l ed a and 5
wh o is wi t hout mati n'', in whi ch ca . . . ca likewist~ emphasi ze the
i dea of compl ement a, y connect i on. Cf. also AV. 6, 'g,3, 3 y # ~ra~.z),d ~-
vyadvar~ a y # k # ca n sthd ~ vyadvardt # Mn 9 . . . " wha t 1 devour er s a (there
are,) of t he forestL and s what ever *. 5 (other) devour er s s you are 7, t hem 9
. . . " ; AV. 4, 22, 6 where ya- ka- ca forms par t of an avt i t het i cal clause"
~ttaras I t vdm ~ ddhare a t # sapdt n~ 5 y # kd 7 ca s r~anO prdti~atravas~O
te n " super i or ~ (are) you 2, inferior ~ y o u # r i val s ~, , vhosoever n, 7, 0
ki ng ~, are (on t he ot her hand s) your " oppos i ng enemi es ~'' ~l); AV.
5, 72, 5 yd x kr l mayas 2 kitivdks.da y # k.rs.n.~.h ~ ki t i bdhavah n [yd~ kdS ca ~
visvdrYtP ~sx t dnn krim[m, x~ i ambhay~mas i TM " t he wor ms ~- which ~
have whi t e sidesL (those) whi ch ~ are bl ack ~ wi t h whi t e arr,~s n, and ~
wfi at ever ones ~, s (are) of all forms l0 - t hose n wor ms TM we grind
upXV'; and passages like R.V. 10, 19, 7 y # devgl.h ~ kd ~ c # yai ~i ~s ~ td ~
rayy ~ s dm ~ s.r]antu ~ na.h ~ "(t hose) gods ~, whosoever x. a. l (t hey are),
who are wor t hy of worshipS, (t hey n) mus t pr esent s. ' as ~0 wi t h pos-
sessions 7'', where a reference to di vi ni t i es who are not wor t hy of
wor.,~hip (cf. R.V. 10, 124, 3) may be i mpl i ed or suppl i ed; Ai t Br . 4, 18, 7
sarvum~ eveZdam3 atirocate~ yad ~ i dam n ki.m ~ ca s " he surpasses ~ alP' ~
this z in shi ni ng ~ whateverS. 7. s (there is) her e v' , t he i dea of here
~l) I n t hi s connect i on it seems wor t h r emember i ng t ha t in Ger man (doch,
which cont ai ns *kUe, see O. Behaghel, Deut sche Synt ax, I I I , p. 155 ff.) and,
as would appear t o t he present aut hor , also in Gr eek (see t he ar t i cl e referred
t o in n. 63), t he part i cl e *kUe can also appear in a s ubor di nat e clause be-
longing t o an ~nt i t het i cal mai n clause.
2 5 9
possi bl y suggest i ng a corresl:<mdent " yonder " ; 5, 7, :3 i ma n ~ v ai ~
l ok~n s Pr a~pat i . h 4 s r ~v #da. m 6 s ar v am ~ a~akn~, # y a d 9 ida. m x ki . m x~
c a t i " havi ng creat ed ~ t hese worl ds ~ PrajApat i t had s all ~ power* (to
br i ng about ) t hi s what ever *, tL x~ (t here is) hereX"; .A.~v. Gs. 1, 3, l
yat r a t kva ~ ca ~ hos. yan# s y ~ # . . . " wenn x er x i rgendwo ~' ~ opf er n
will ~, v, (Stenzler) whi ch may represent an ' ori gi nal ' " anywher e ~ (at
any par t i cul ar spot a of a ' local whole'*) where x he is to sacrifice ~' ~. . . " ~) ;
Ai t Br . 2, 23, 7 t asmdt x t asya ~ yat a ~ eva t kut a~ ~ c # ~,rd~n~y~t ~ " t her ef or e x
shoul d he eat 7 from any part what ever ~-~ of it v' , etc. etc. 7~).
I I I
Are we just i fi ed in m, kl ng t he oAA;,~,,.~ of . . . . *:~^~
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~.~..~.v.. ~,~,,~,=~ etc. t o t he
i ndefi ni t es a poi nt in favour of t he assumpt i on t hat t hey came i nt o
exi st ence aft er t he i nt errogat i ves ~*)? I am inclined t o answer t hi s
quest i on in t he negat i ve. In many l anguages this addi t i on obvi ousl y
serves t o emphasi ze and intensify t he indefinite force i nherent in t he
pr onoun, or also to qualify it, to i ndi cat e varieties of indefiniteness.
Cf., in Mal ay barai~ si apa " whoever " (b. meani ng "x thing, stuff, wares,
somet hi ng" ) ; s i apa ~uga "i d. " (]. : " i n a way, all t he same") ; Sangi r
i sai ewen, and many ot her IN. f.~,~ms; in t he Dr avi di an Kfii va gives,
in a compar abl e way, emphasis: ~(anyt hi ng etc.) what ever " 75); and
similarly, in Singhalese, in Khasi, and in many ot her languages. Not
i nf r equent l y such combi nat i ons are onl y intelligible if we consi der
t hem as condi t i oned by t he original indefinite char act er of t he pro-
nomi nal el ement cont ai ned in them. Thus the Lat. al i qui s " somebody
~z) May we here recall ~hc f r equent use of re aft er [va, ,,Oa and ot her l ocal
conj unct i ons in anci ent Greek (see t he art i cl e referred t o in n. 63, par t I I ) , and
t he La t i n ubi q u i s q u e (ibidem, par t I I ) ?
Ts) I t is my i nt ent i on before long t o sket ch t he hi st or y of t he par t i cl e ca
in I ndo- I r a ni a u in a separ at e article, whi ch pr obabl y will appear in t he
Annal s of Or i ent al Research, Uni ver si t y of Madras. - - Cf... in t he Avest a,
Y. 45, 5; special at t ent i on ma y be dr awn t o Y. 4,3, 16 wher e y a s . . . ~ i g ~ i s
fol l owed by a ' super l at i ve' spSni~/6, r emi ndi ng us of t he Homer i c const r uc-
t i on: e 4 o~ Te xt~/To ~az~ ~ m~ o v ; ! 39 6 Te x. ~./~. For y a - see Li ngua, I V,
p. 9 ff.
74) See: H. Schuchar dt , 'in t he AnMect a Graeciensia, Gr sz 1893, p 205; P.
Kr et s chmer , in t he Scr i t t i in onore di A. Tr ombet t i , Mi l an 1938, p. 46 f f .
7s) See J. E. Fr i end- Per ei r a, A g r a mma r of t he Kfii l anguage, Cal cut t a
1909, p. 41.
26O
(no mat t er who) , irgend J e ma n d , - - - em , t he first component
of whi ch conveys the sense of "(an) other" ~6) : t h~ indefinite, with
whi ch we may compare t he Gr. ~ m and m ~ ~ "any other",
can i n i t s turn, be 'intensified' by alius: alight al i ~i d et c. ; ct. also
T ~ h . A ~lya-k, B alye-k "&l~o ~" ~) ; - - cf. ~ Lat . qu~vis "jeder
beh' ebige" (vis "you wish, wa nt " ) ~) , qu[libet, and Umbr . ~s - he r (her
.from ~y - " v e l l e " ) from the indef, relat, u:~e (Pl aut. M. G. 388 loquere
q u ~ r i s (or quid vis) ; Curc. 38 area quid lubeO ---; Lat . qui squam < quis
a~d guam "irgendx~ie" ; t he similar AInd. ka&i d etc. whi ch, perhaps,
in the earl y t ext s might sometimes be t ransl at ed" "s o r n e r y in some
~av (somewhat etc.)"" R.V. 1,37, 13; 87, 2; 173, l | ~).
.~li~ Hahn so) seems to be fight in cor, cluding t hat t he lines drawn
ber~ween t he different Lat i n indefinite l>ronoun~ i:u "1" . . . . . .
are not nat ural to the language in general; originally t hey must have
been me ~ by-forms of quis, not too hi ghl y s ~ ~ e d ; hence the
~t~nfusions' and ' interchanges' in popul ar speech ~ d in t he literary
l anguag~ oi later times s:). The redupl i cat ed form, r epr e~med by
,.,,-; . - ~ o- is typical of indefinites s~) In a generalizing relative sense
" ~ : .... ed the simple quis, which e.g. Pl at o. Mere. ~ : c o~d e ~r e , s
~,aat ve W shade of meani ng, besides, it is ~ mb u t i v e Piaut. Most.
~ i . t ~n, however, under the impression t hat 3[i ~ Ha . ~ i.s, too much
h : d i n ~ ~. to believe t hat the exact out war d sLm,~arity og r. he Italic
~*~ Th e r e a d e r ma y. f or t he s a ke of b r e v i ~ ~ ~ t ' W~ d , e - Ho f ma n n ,
La t e t v m Wt b . ~, I, p. 30 f. ; Er n o u t - Me i l | e t , Di ct . ~ . ~ p 2~$ ~ C~,nda.
Re f i ~ t i e a s on t he n u me r a l s " ' one " a n d " ' t ~ e ~. p~ 86 f f
~', C f . . P-..-dersea. Le ~ o u p e me n t des d~M~ i ~ - ~ . ~ ~ s k e v : d h
r ~ : d . : 1, ~, Co ~ n h a g e , n 1-~25, p. 26.
,- :~ .q~, a ~ v e . p, 25~, ff, Fo r Cr i t i c ~ ~ e ~ =, ~ec : l , i v>a Cf al~o
Ge r m o--~---;-~~' E=g, a = v , : ~ , : et c.
" " ' ~ " " .... 3 4 ~
- "~a~.::," ~" : a = h e g r . a r : d l ~ A m , e r . P h : . ~ . A ~ . . ~,4 { ,~,.a,,v,, ~
.%,-~ .aL-w~. Ho~: : : : : : : : . La t , Gr: : ~: : m *. p, 4.~" : ~ " . } . . . . . . . . " . d , : ~ : z ~ e : ' a , ~'~u,eiqu,:s,~, .
" g >e ~ <~ , <~ N. p e ~ , R Met. h, aer, :g{d,~ a.,, D, ~: ~ ff-
.~dt>
m
261
and Hi t t i t e forms can onl y mean t hat t hey al r eady were par t and
parcel of t he ' Ursprache' . I t would ~ndeed be a curi ous coi nci dence
- - Miss Hahn herself even calls it a riddle w t hat not onl y Hi t t .
kui g and Lat . quis, but also kui g kuid" qui squi s, kuiga" quisque, k ui ~k i :
qui squam, which correspond "wi t h amazi ng closeness", shoul d have
r emai ned unal t ered in bot h branches of I. E. duri ng many cent uri es,
whereas on t he ot her hand t he historical I. E. l anguages show a r at her
vari ed succession of pronomi nal forms and functions. There seems
t herefore t o be reason for some reserve 83). Gemi nat i op b,::,ing a devi ce
of very wide di st ri but i on such forms as qui squi s are, ,especially in
' pre-scientific' milieus part of t he doubl ed word forms were t~,r
t hei r ' popul ar' charact er avoided in classic Lat i n apt to t ur n up
i ndependent l y. Cases like t he Gr. z~ ze and the Lat . quisque which do
not correspond in function 84) show t hat the out war d i dent i t y of a
sequence or word group not necessarily implies original i dent i t y
in format i on. So, while Delbriick' s 85) at t empt t o t race qui squi s t o
*ios k"i s (cf. 6'az,) fails to consider t he ancient rel at i ve funct i on of
*k"i s, it would on t he ot her hand be incautio~s to regard the indef.
tel. use of qui squi s ~ kui g kui g as belonging to Orig. I. E. An indef.
rel. qui squi s can also, and, it would appear to me, for t he t i me bei ng
more pr udent l y, be conceived a.~ l~aving sprung from a pr e- exi st ent
rel at i ve qui s, t he more so as the same word in a non-reI, indef, sense
may have exert ed influence.
I t would, in my opinion, be a more sat i sfact ory view to hold t hat
originally nei t her t he addi t i on of *k"e to the pr onomi nal st em, nor
its bei ng gemi nat ed, nor ot her such modifications, were obl i gat ory.
If and whenever t hey occurred t hey i mpar t ed a special shade of
meani ng to the clause or word group. "Ihey could, mai nl y fo.r st yl i st i cal
reasons, ' i nt erchange' s,). That is to say" it must have been l argel y
at t he choice of t he speaker to use any or none of t hese ' by-forms' .
Traces of this ' free usage' are far from rare i~ earl y Lat i n tex~s"
quis, t hough al ready regular after si, ne, n v m, is ~requently f ound
s3) As t o qui sque" kui ~a schol ars di sagr ee' see my paper on t he par t i cl e
*kUe Mnemosyne, par t II.
s,) Cf. Mnemosyne, par t I I . For (Alnd. ka$ ca), Av. (igca see also Meillet,
M~m. Soc. Li ng. 10, p. 272, and above, p. 256.
85) Del bri i ck, Vergl. Synt ax, III, p. 404.
,e) Cf. also such cases as 6 re ' i nst ead of 6' rt(" Mnemosyne, N.S. vol. VI I .
o
262
without these words, quisque and quisquis are often interchangeable,
quisquam is also used in affirmative sentences s,). These very fluctu-
ations seem to be an argument for the hypothesis.
IV
Returning now to the I.E. *kwe-/k=o -, *kui - in general it may be
remembered t hat the' mere forms deriving from them u) can, as a
rule, be used in an indefinite sense, but mainly in special con-
structions, to w~t broadly speaking, in negative and interrogative
sentences and in subordinate clauses" (relative clauses and clauses
introduced by defimte conjunctions).
In connection with a negative particle these stems are indefinite so).
and m~ kd- ( kd- accem~t ed/: e.g. ~ V. 8, 32, 15 n d ~ r z ~ y # ~&i'n~ .ms
n/ yant # "nobody" will check 4 the rendering# of h i s " mighty helpS";
7, 94, 8 m# l u~y# no s draru~# dh~rt~.h s prdt~a~ s mdrtyasya 7 "the
malice s of an (~my)= unfriendly ~ man ~ shalP not ~ falP upoa usV';
and, with the privative a-, such words as akuta.h "not from any
quarter" beside ~uta.h? "from where, whence?"; in Avestan: Y.
31, 18 m~ t ~ig ~ ~ ~,~ dragva20 s mqOrq# ... g~gt~ v "none x, = of you ~
shall listen v to the word# of the wicked man v' . Cf. also OChSI. ni-
k~ kemuIe "nicht zu irgend jemand"; nik~to "nobody"; Gr. o&~,
# ~ "nobody"; Toch. tom x wdrtan~ l rods ke-kl~ a~sa~ ~ (wffrpont? ~)
"these t forests ~ (enjoyed s) by no s one v' ~0), and comparable phrases
and constructions in Armenian, Anglo-Saxon and other languages ox).
In clauses containing two forms of these stems at least one of
e~) For particulars: Hahn, p. 31 ft.; V. Lundstr6m, in the Erano$, 1915,
p. 203, etc.
~s) For particulars regarding the distribution of these forms, the corre-
s pon di n g differentir~tion of case.forms, etc. see, apart from the grammars
a~xd handbooks of the individuM l~nguages, Delbrtick, Vergl. Syntax, I, p.
510 if., and Brugmttnn, GrundrissS II, 2, p. 350 ff.
**) Cf. e.g. also Debrunner-Wackernagel, o.c., IXI, p. ~60 ff.
~o) Sieg und Siegling, Toch. Gramm., p. 188.
~x) See e.g. Meillet, Altarm. Elementarbuch, Heidelberg 1913, p. 63;
E. Sievers, Angels~chsische Grammatik s, Halle 1898, p. 184; compare also
H. Pedersen, Vergl. Grammatik der keltischen Sprachen, II, GOttingen, 1913,
p. 212.
263
t:hem is i ndef i ni t e in char act er 0~). GAy. 50, 1 kat ~ mf i i ~ ur v d 3 i s~ 4
~ahY ~5 a v a y hfie " q ueuel ai de 6 mon ~ ~me 8 peut -el l e a t t e ndr e 4 de
per sonne 6 ?" (Duchesne-Gufl l emi n) ; Gr. r[~ ~o~e " who in t he wor l d ?,
whoe ve r ?" n) ; Ari st . PI. 498 r[~ 8v ~d~Oot ~oz ' ~laeevov; ; ~roM~ , re
makes a quest i on less defi ni t e t han ~o[o "of what ki nd? " al one-
Her odot us 3, 34 ~oMv gd zt va vo#l~ovat H~oaat cl eat ; BhagG. 2, 21
k a t h a m . . . ka. m ghdt ay at i pr obabl y means " how can he cause a ny
one t o s l a y? " ; cf. also Boeht l i ngk, Ind. Spr. 2 II (1872), 3512 n a h i
k a s y a pri ya. h ko va . . .
Fi xed and as a rul e i nsepar abl e groups of t wo f(,rms of t hese pr onouns,
like q u i s q u i s 94), ka~ ci d, ~o,6~ zt~, are indefinil(:. So are t hose fob-ms
whi ch s t a nd in corre!a~ion wi t h ' i ndef i ni t es" ~oz~ iz~v . . . d2;to~,;
d gdv rt~ ... d2/to 6~; and r epeat ed cor r el at i ve forms used in comp!e-
me nt a r y- a nt i t he t i c a l clauses" Al nd. kat i . . . kal i " s ome ... sorr!e""
n: or~/ ~v ... zeor~ ~ " at one t i me ... at anot her . . . " ; zd/~/~, ~'~ . . . , zd 6d
t ... ~). Cf., in Hungar i an, k i a/ el esdgdveI , k i a l dny dv al := Fr. qui
avec sa ] emme, qui avec sa / i l l e (" ki ? " who ?"; similarly, hol ? " wher e" "
hol . . . hol indef. ) 96). Si mi l arl y, in phrases like rt z a[ z, " s uch and such
t hi ngs " , pop. Lat . qui d et qui d ~) .
I n s ubor di nat e phr ases we find" Lat . si q~i s etc., Umbr . svepi s,
Osc. s uae p i s " s i qui s" ; Got h. ;~,a- aft er ]abai "i f (el)", i bai " i f (#~)",
~'atei " t h a t " ; OChS1. a~te k~t o g:ito ~:~eh, "si quis qui d di xer i t " ~:~s)0 etc. ,
and such cases as have al r eady been comment ed upon i.n a pr evi ous
par t of t hi s art i cl e.
I ns t ances of an i ndefi ni t e use of t hese st ems under ot her ci~curn-
01) Ex c e p t i n g t he a bove - me nt i one d " mehr zi el i ge Fr a ge n" , in whi ch t wo
epaxat e ques t i ons ar e asked in one cl ause by di f f er ent f or ms of t he pr onomi -
nal st em( s) . See al so E. Ki eckers, E[ist. Gri ech. Gr amm. , (1926), I I I , p. 85.
0s) For Sans kr i t , see e.g. Moni er Wi l l i ams' Di ct . , s.v.
04) Cf. Av. Yt . 5, 101; Anc. I nd. k d n i k d n i cir.
es) The weU- known Sans kr i t idic, m k v a . . . k v , , . . . { vi s . , , ma) , ser vi ng t o denot e
gr eat i nconsi st encl v or di s cr epancy bet ween t wo e at i t i es or act i ons ( e. g Ki l .
Megh. 5 k v a me g h ~. h s a r ~ d e t ~ r t h ~ h k v a " a cl oud and t he ~mport s of messages
ar e i nc ompa t i bl e " ) , does not come under t hi s head.
,0) CI. S. Si monyi , Di e Ungaxi sche Spr ache, St r as s bur g 1907, p. 256; J.
Br unot , La pens,~e et l a l angue, Pa ns 1936, p. 130.
0~) I r ef er t o E. L6f s t edt , Phi l ol . Komm. zur Per egr . Aet her i ae ( 1 ~ 1 i ), p. 84.
0,) See al so Del br i i ck, Verg]. Synt . I, p. 510 ff. ; Miklosich, o.c., I V, p. 86 f. ;
Sieg und Si egl i ng, o.c., p. 189.
264
stances are however not wanting. Av. Y. 39, 2 (Yt. 13, 154) urun6
kudb.zdtanqm~t nar~m~d nd~rin~m~d "the souls of the men and women
wherever they are born". Indian cases are very rare, and part l y
dubious 99); t.he adj. kiy,,Ahd.h (R.V. 1, 61, 6; 12), which was explained
in Sfiya.na's commentary by kiyato 'navadh.rtaparimdeasya balasya
dhdtd, is often, and in all probability correctly, rendered by "was es
auch sei schaffend" (Geldner) or other words to t hat effect. Beside kati
"how ma.ny ?" we have the derivative katipaya- "some"; Lat. dixerit
quis etc. ; Got. lvo lveilo "for some time; leitil tva "t~tuO&' Td' ; Luke
7, 40 skal bus lva qiban "~Zco ao[ zt dm~v" lo0); Lit. mdn ta~ k~s ~basi~k~
"mi r hat das jemand gesagt"; OChS1. Mariner kto "Marinus quidam",
cf. also Russ. gto nog[ "every ni ght "; Dutch war "something".
Greek, finally, is alone in using the simple indefinite.s freely in all
types of sentences. This fact is closely connected with the absence,
in this language, of combinations like aliquis, ka~ cid, etc., which in
my opinion are, generally speaking, secondary in origin. The strict
accentual opposition z/c" rt etc. may also have played a r61e. It is
not probable t hat the entire wealth of semantic nuances which can
be expressed by the Greek zt and its relatives reach back to a pre-
historic period in which at least some branches of I.-E. were :~poken
in contiguous territories. Nor can we know for certain whether the
use of the indefinites in cases other than those specified (negative
sentences etc.) has remained stationary since Greek had become
independent. Yet it seems warranted to surmise t hat the Greek
usage gives us a reliable idea of prehistoric conditions prevailing
over a wider idea 101).
The regular difference in accent between zt' etc. and zt etc. and the
pronounced predilection of the former for standing at the beginning
of a sentence - - a position which, as we have seen, may be varied
mainly for the sake of emphasis ~ and of the l at t er for occupying the
second place, or for accompanying the word to which it belongs, are in
perfect harmony with ancient rules t0~). It seems to be a reasonable
assumption t hat the widespread use of the indefinite *k ~- stems in
o9) Cf. D e b r u n n e r - W a c k e r n a g e l , o . c . , I I I , p. 5 6 9 .
ioo) S e e a l s o O . B e h a g h e l , i n P a u l u n d B r a u n e ' s B e i t r ~ i g e 4 2 ( 1 9 1 7 ) , p. 1 5 8 .
IoI) Cf. a l s o W a c k e r n a g e l , K u h n ' s Z s . 2 9 , p. 1 4 6 .
1o2) I r e f e r t o S c h w y z e r - D e b r u n n e r , o.c., I, p. 3 8 8 ; E . H e r m a n n , P r o b l e m e
d e r F r a g e I, N a c h r . G S t t . G e s . d. W i s s . , p h . - h . K l . 1 9 4 2 , p . 2 4 4 .
265
' r e ID
negatlv sentences, subor di nat e clauses etc. belonged to t he period
of the parent speech and t hat in ot her cases, where the short pro
nominal forms were as a rule not suppor t ed by negat i ve particle~.
and conjunctions, or where t hey di d not const i t ut e part~ of more or
less fixed groups or const ruct i ons, in whi ch - - last but not least ....
the interrogative val ue was sel dom or never requi red a03)~ t he longer
forms ]had a chance not onl y to spread and to make part of th,~
language, but even t o oust si mpl e *k"e/ o- *k"i - at an earl y stage. It
should however be r emember ed t hat longer forms not i
--- nfr~quent l v
the same longer forms --- di d not fail to make t hei r appear ance in
connection with t he *k~-pronouns also in t he ot her cases" Ski. ~,a
kak cam "nobody"" ka~ ca na " s ome body" ; ~za k~, ' p i ko ' pi ~o~).
na kad,~cit "never"" kaddci t "~ " ";
.~ometlmes in Lat l n ali,~uis appear :
in negative sentences, aft er si etc. when it was emphasi zed, t aki ng
the place of qui dam, qui s quam etc. in t he Romance l anguages; t he
form last ment i oned was, in t he classic period, used in negat i ve
sentence constructions. In t hese cases t hey likewise succeeded in
supplanting the simple *k~-forms ndki h and mdk i h belong to \ ' edi c,
not: to ~Ihe classic language. Nay, in t he negat i ve sent ence t he phrase
with the *k"-pronoun was oft en, at an ear]}, stage, oust ed in its
entirety and replaced by forms whi ch, at !east in t he beginning, were
more expr essi ve- i nst ead of t he earl y ~c,i~,is. ~zem~:, < *he homo and
nullus < *he oinelos " not a sole per son" in La t i n i nst ead of the
ttomefic (and poetical) o~1:, " o~3&,'~ ( < o-~3dd . e~ which as such is
a stronger by-form in At t i c) ; beside ni + h' as t he more usual ,zi
ainshun < ai ns " one" + hun whi ch occurs af t er several i ndefi ni t es ~0~),
and ni manna " no ma n" ; cf. n i e ma n d in Dut ch, nobody in Engl i sh
etc. a06). It is not acci dent al t hat t he Gr. ot'~r,/t~izt: (and s t r e ngt he ne d
~q
o.~rt,~ y, ; o~m/~i~, etc.) r emai ned, as an adver bi al phrase, in f r equer t
use, that, in Sanskri t , cid sur vi ved as a part i cl e, and t hat to forms
~0a) It may be not i ced t hat orth, ~tone form., somet i mes conveyed an ~,. -
nite sense. Debr unne' : - Wacker nagel , ooc., I I I , p. 568 f.- Liddell and Scott.
Gr.-Engl. Lex. (1948), II, p. 1797.
104) For part i cul ars, Speyer, Sar. skri t Synt ax, 28i f. - i n t he I ) r avi di an
k~i the addition of t he part i cl e v~ t o t he indef, pron. gives emphasi s; it is
always used in negat i ve proposi t i ons.
x0~) See: Feist, o.e., p. 275.
,0~) Ct!. my book " La place de la par t i cul e ndg. na . . . " Leyden 1951 p.
~ 2 f , ; 5 8 f~[ . ' '
26 6
which had lost their negative sense, like the Ir. z~ch "aliquis, uUus,
qui squam"' v) , the Lit. nek~s "something", the Russ. z~k/ o"al i -
qui s" 108) etc. a longer life was allotted.
The very substitution of indefinites of the aliquid or q u i ~ m t ypes
by longer or reinforcing forms (Ft. que./que chose; Dut ch it~uznd ()rig.
"ever a man" ; Eng. any-, somebody etc.) may on the other hand be
made an argument in favour of the hypothesis t ~ t the forms which
t hey had themselves replaced and from which t hey had been ' derived'
were likewise indefinite in character.
So the conclusion might be .... and it does not seem t hat we can,
for the time being, penetrate the myst ery of thes~ words any
furt her lOO) ~ t hat the I.E. *k"-pronouns, like many comparable
.,~,,,~,,,o ,., v~uer la~ag~ages, express ea the idea of ~mspecified
individuality; t hat - - questions havi ng much in common wi t h state-
ment s both in form and function, intonation being the principal
means of conveying the character of the enunciation 1,0), and
indefinite utterances as well as interrogations containing an
unidentified t erm - - , the difference in accent may have bt.en, in the
dim past, mai nl y a question of emphasis, comparable to such oppo-
sitions as ~ :~e etc. in Greek m) . The *k~-pronouns had, or ' obtained' ,
the/ r special functions only in the syntactic surroundings ~ including
position in the .sentence, s;entence modulation etc. - - in which t hey
io~) See Pedersen, o. c. , II, p. 21 3 f.
1 ~) See VondrAk, o. c. , II, p. 345.
1 ~) See al so WsA:kernagel, Vorl. tiber Synt ax, II, p. 1 1 0 f. ; EEermann,
o. c. , I~, p. 385.
1,o) Cf. al so t he observat i ons made by A. H. Gardiner, The t :, eory of
s peech and l anguage, Oxford 1 9 32, p. 30 3 ff. ; L. Bl oomf i el d, Language,
1 9 35, p. ! 14; 260 ; W. J. Ent wi s t l e, Aspect s of l anguage, London 1 9 53, p.
1 75 f. ; Hermann, o. c. , I, p. 128.
11,) See Schwyz~-Debrunn~:r, o. c. , I, p. 388. - - Hi ndi ky~, Beng. ki etc.
introduce and characterize interrogations which do not differ from affirma-
tive s ent ences e x c e pt for their i nt o~at i oa. We cannot al ways be sure whet her
in wri t t en doc ume nt s an apparent l y af f i rmat i ve enunci at i o~ was m~s n t t o
e xpr e s s a quest i un; in actual speech i nt onat i on woul d hawe l ef t nc doubt .
In Sanskri t , s ome m~ ( = Gr. ,u~) cl auses were quest i ons. See al so F. Edger-
t on, Buddhi s t Hj, brid Sanskril:, I, Yal e Uni v. 1 9 53, p. 20 2. --- The 'i ndef. '
k~ c i d "occasi onal l y" (Dut ch "soms") is i denti cal wi t h t he parti cl e of i nter-
rogat i on k. ( marki ng a questio:~ t o whi ch t he s peaker hopes for an af f i rma-
ti , te answer) ; i t can al so be tre. nslated by " I hope t hat ".
267
ocom'ed m) . That, in their interrogative function, they as a rule
oco~pied the initial position is a consequence of the tendency to give
that plv~ to the word which bears t he chief interrogator 5, force m) .
The limkation of interrogative el ements to definite syntacti c positions
is a we~-kno~ phenomenon n, ) . The i ndefi ni te forms, however, are
rareb the first word in a sentence, and onl y seldom follow a pa.use.
It may be observed that ~ occasionally appears at the beginning,
meaning "~aY one" in in'terrogations like Aesch. Oh. 654 ~/; eS,~ov "is
any one ~t hi n ?"
V
DCJ : Ul C I d I L~ - ~ t z - - UA5 Z, ~ m, ~ . . u o o ~ . * * ~ .t ~ , o . L, v ~ t a o c u ~ ~ l L~ x . x 2 , . - r v - ~ i UI LLJ d i i S
it ~my be useful to enlarge upon .some comparable elements in other
lang~zages. That the sig~ificance of words like the above indefixfites
doe:; not differ much from t hat of terms for "man, human being" by
whs:h they are not infrequently replaced is too common to need
illustration m). Yet it is wort h mentioning t hat words for "human
m~) Pronouls axe specialized t o general reference, and from t he semant i c
point of ~iew very. vague. Thei r ' cont ent s' co~s~,st of no more t han el ement a-
ry features of si t uat i ons in whi ch t he ut t er ances in which t hey occur are
pronounc,~l. See e. g. O. Jespersen, Li ngui st i ca, Copenhagen 1933, p 329 ff. ;
L. Hjelmslev, in t he M61anges-Van Gi nneken, Pari s 1937, p. 51 ff. ( ~i t h a
bibliography); Z. Rysiewicz, in t he Roczni k Ori ent . 17, Cracow 1953, p. 395
f.--. Cf. ~dao t he various connot at i ons expressed by e.g. t he Eng. ever ("at
any time" in neg., interr. , or condi t , sentences, etc.).
m) For Arabic man a n d ma
see H. Reckendorf, Arabi sche Synt ax, Hei-
doi ng 1921, p. 32 and 290. --- The IN. apa whi ch gives a suggest i on of in-
definiteneH or i nt errogat i on, is, e.g. in Bare' e, a post posi t i ve, " mor e or less
enclitic" ~IAdriani, Bare' e Nederl. Wdb. , Leyden 1928, p. 22) general i zi ng
Pa~jicle:."or so, or t he like about , pr et t y near l y" ; aft er a verbal form the
MM. apadah means "i n some degr ee" > "woul d (you) mi nd" or "can (you)
do anything to ~.."; when used, in Javanese etc., as an interr, part i cl e apa
prec4~l~ 'the words for t he facts, entities., ci r cumst ances etc. asked; t he
chsa~,p.cter Of the sent ence is i ndi cat ed by t he i nt onat i on.
It4) See e.g. Bloomfield, o.c., p. 260: and, in general, Her mann, o. c, p.
218; 363 If.; SchwyserDeb. runner, o.c., II, p. 627 f.
11tt Fbr their being used in t he sense of "ni l us" ~ e.g. in Masai (Afr.)'
liku "indef. pron. ; (an) ot her; somebody else" ~ and t he pecul i ari t i es of
'primitive" cultures which make t hese linguistic phenomena more intelligible
268
bei ng" somet i mes serve i nst ead of our rel at i ve pr onouns or con-
junctions. I n Bare' e (Cel.) p a i 1 da 2 n u p o k a p u r u 3 y a k u 4, t a u s me a s i 26
,h, k a t u wu ~ means" "please do x'~ t ake pity on 3 me 4, because 15 l ead~a
mi serabl e 6 existence ~''" here t a u (which in anot her cont ext , , t t l St be
t r ansl at ed by" "while (he, I etc.), etc.)" obvi ousl y is t he w,ard for
" i ndi vi dual " , used as an opposition to y a k u " I " , t he ' literal' t r ansl at i on
being" " . . . on me, individual leading a . . . ". Whereas Bar e' e has this
i di om onl y in connection wi t h living beings, ot her Celebes language~
(Bada' , Leboni etc.) avail t hemsel ves of t he word for " huma n bei ng"
also in ot her cases" Bad. p i n a t u wo '1 to - ma n a r a 3 " ani mal s 1 which ~
are domest i cat eda"; u p u 21 to 2 t ai t a a " al l t hi ngs x which 2 we see 4''
Similarly, t he Jav. woi~ " human being" and, in definite synt act i c
surroundi ngs, "because, since" ~le). From these instances t he rel evance
In this connect i on it may not be out of place briefly t o discuss a
wi despread Indonesi an word in order to illus.+rate t he char act er of at
least part of t he elements which are usually deal t wi t h under one or
more of t he several divisions of the chapt er ' pronouns' . The IN.
el ement n u or a n u xl~),which is often also consi dered to be a ' personal
article' , serves, for instance in Bare' e, not to det ermi ne a subst ant i ve.
but to lay emphasi s on it, to bring it to t he fore" " what shall I ~;ive
y o u ? " " mau I j a ~ n u 3 l o k # " i t might x even ~ be 1 bananas *''. " How
should we kill this animal ?"' " "wat er (nu u~), t herei n it shall meet its
deat h! " Often, however, t he word is used as a sort of st opgap, for
i nst ance when t he person speaking cannot i mmedi at el y find t he right
word" " I shoul d like to ask you for ... ~h, gambi er (,... n u g a mb e ) " .
In cognat e languages th~ force of this word is oft en similar" Sund.
n u 16tik " t he small people, t he humbl e" as cont r ast ed wi t h " t he
see my ' Refl ect i ons on t he numer al s " one" and " t wo " ' . .... esp. p. 49 f f . -
Wor ds for " huma n bei ng" are, e.g. in IN. l anguages, in f r equent use for
" anot her " .
it. ) I refer t o Adriani, Spraal~kuu_~t. Bare' e, p. 358; C. Snouck Hur gr onj e,
in t he Ti j dschri ft Ind. Taal-, Land- en Volk. (Bat avi a) , 37, p. 62 ( Versprei de
Geschri ft en, V, Bonn- Lei psi c 1925, p. 269 fro) I n Achehnese t he wor d for
" t hi ng" ( a t r a ) can be used in a similar way.
lt~) The r eader mi ght be referred to an art i cl e by t he pr esent aut hor :
' I ndonesi sche r el at i va' , Bijdr. Taal-, Land-, en Vol kenkunde 102, p. 501 ff.,
esp. p. 518 I. See also Li ngua III, p. 50 f.
7
26 9
rich, t he ma n of r a nk". A l on g e r f or m, anu, i s d e s c r i b e d ~.~') a s a
sort of arti cl e, u s e d t o b r i n g ou t or t o e n h a n c e t h e i n d e p e n d e n t c h ~r ac t e r
of a word. We s houl d, p e r h a p s , r a t h e r s a y t h a t it s e r v e s t o i ~ol a t e
or to ~t di vi dual i ze. It c on ' e s p on d s t o v a r i ou s i d i oms i n ou r l a n g u a g e s "
"yoo shoul d not ma r r y a h i z y -' ~ ma n i " : . . . tuamd ~ am~ z mal oseZ;
,,th~ tree x whi c h ~ ( grows ) on ~ t h e b a n k ~ of t h e r i ve r ~''" kaj u ~anu 2 ri a
wi, wi a , a k o r o n y # . i n t he s e case., it can be omi t t e d. S o me t i me s t he
force of a n u is t ha t of our " t o wi t " " n a k o n i ~ n u - a s u a " h e ha s e a t e n
~ 4.~
it ~, to wit ~" t he dog a . i n coses ~t e f ol l owi ng a~zt, i~ o b l i g a t o r y a nu x
mabuya - s ai ~kaf i P " whi t e z (fabri c) one pi ece z' ' If, in 3Iori , t he wor d
is placed before an a dj e c t i ve or a n u me r a l it is, in our l a ngua ge s ,
translated by a def i ni t e ar t i cl e" a nu x mo t a h a e " N N ~ b r o wn 2'' ~.e. " t h e ~
brown ~ one a''. It can al so occur so as t o ' t a k e t o, ~et her t h e c ont ent . ~ of
. . . . 1,~*;a~,o ol ci l l c~, " [ l gqc or l l , ~ t ] " t h ; l t {~ t ~ ,n,t_ r i t ~ ' n n h, ' , ] r ~ t o { n r m : a n
included clause. But , Dr . Es s e r r e a di l y a d mi t t e d , a nu is, in t hi s
function, mor e t ha n a r e l a t i ve pr onoun. Wh e r e a s in t he>e c ons t r uc t i on~
the word or wor ds pr e c e de d by a n u c ont a i n a qual i f i cat i ~m of t he ~o-
and-so or s uch- and- s uch r ef er r ed t o by t hi s e l e me nt , it is un,:i,:'r
other ci r cumst ances us ed as a s u b s t i t u t e for a na me or wor d whi ch
the speaker c a nnot hi t u p o n or whi ch is, for rea.~on~ of t a boo c,r
decency, t o be avoi ded. I n t hi s f unct i on t he el,~.-ment i~ wi de l y ~ii
tributed" Mal. s i - a n u 1 d i Z - k a mp u i ~ 3 ~, ~z~ ": ~o-and-so ~ at :~- s uc h- a nd-
sucMa pl acO" ( si is t he ' pe r s ona l ar t i cl e. ' . A ~i mi Iar sense is exprt_ ". -~--~-~,.,:
in phrases like t he Ba r e ' e a ~u 1 ndoi ~. o2ku a " s o me t h i n g ~ be l ongi ng t o
my 3 wife 2'' (t he pos s es s i ve r e l a t i on be i ng i ndi c a t e d by t he juxtt~-
po,dtioa of t he nouns a n d by t he f or m of t he secon~t ~ " n )ur,). Ti i c
construction ik.u ~ n u 2 a s u 3 " t a i l ~ of a dog 3'' whi ch of t en i:, clear,:,,'-,
r,:ore emphat i cal , or al so mor e l ong- wi nde d t ha n ikz, a sz: ~ m a y
therefore be a na l yz e d a s fol l ows" t ai l - i n- gener al somet hi ng- ( bt ~! ~mgi ng-
to) a (tog. This u~e l ed t he a u t h o r of t he ~r ammar - , I) r. A~r i ani , t o
consider nu. a ' geni t i ve pa r t i c l e ' ~20), a nd a not h~' r .,ct,,:,lar, H. Ke r n ~e~),
tO suppose its or i gi nal s. cn.c" s ~ t o ha ve b~tn,, ~ t t ~a~ of "t . , o. , -cssi on" x-'~"".
t~s) Adr i ani , S p r a a k k u n s t Ba r e ' e - t a M, .~, 237.
lxg~ Esser , Kl a n k - en v o r ml e e r ,,,an he t 3h) : ri sch, :i 207,
x2o) Adr i ani , o. c. , 265.
1~!) H. Ke r n, Ve r s p r e i d e Ge s c h r i f t e n , I V, Th e ~| a guc 1916 p. 2 7 0
a~2) Some t i me s a nu, h e l p i n g t o f or m a c l a u s e t he i ogi cal r el ~t t i ~n ~f wh i c h
t o t he mai n c l a us e is not e x p l i c i t l y exI r e. ~s ed ~ ) " (see IAr~gua, I ' , , p. , ~~,.~ tt.~, ca~ !~c
27O
Curiously enough the Tagalog an6, which must be t he identical word,
is an interrogati~'e pronoun: "what , what ki nd of", required when
asking the name etc. of a person or t hi r g not known, and also in
exclamations of the type : "what weaknessl " m) .
What now is the character of this word in Bare' e and cognate
idioms ? It would appear to me t hat it can fairly well be described
as a particle referring to a person, object, or ent i t y describing or
characterizing them as comparatively i ndependent unities, that it
is a means of exhibiting their relative definiteness (which implies.
their relative indefiniteness). Without st at i ng in explicit terms or
naming specifically it denotes an ent i t y as a separate unity, as
something special of its kind or among t he ot her entities of its cate-
gory. As such it often isolates, emphasizes, d~termines, :individualizes,
announces, includes, introduces, and specifi~s m) . In any function
it is the same word; it depends on the cont ext and the construction
of the sentence which equivalent must be 1,sed in translating. We
should therefore be very cautious in distinguishing different
"meanings" and in attempting to connect t hem genealogically.
Words of this type are, for' our modern and Western 'linguistic
feeling', vague and undefinable. In contradistinction to other words
which may seem indispensable to us, such as defi.nite and indefinite
articles, a relative proper etc., they have a wide distribution in the
languages of Indonesia and adjacent islands and countries.
VI
In the theory advanced by Delbrfick 125) to explain the interrelations
between the ancient I.E. interrogative, indefinite, and relative
pronouns there is much t hat is still tenable and convincing. The so-
called relative stem ~o-, whiclh is a well-known element in Indo-
translated by our "whereas, while" or " al t hough" : "(why do you hold me in
contempt), although I have many relatives . . . " : a n u I m a r i a * i a ' ~ 3 k u 4, lit.
"(being) somebody (who)J many* (are) my 4 relativesV' .
123) I refer to L. Bloomfield, Tagalog t ext s with grammat i cal analysis,
II, Urbana 1917, 131.
12,) The reader may for reasons of space be referred to t he above publi-
cations; see also Adriani, B8re' e-Nederlandsch Woordenboek, Leyden 1928,
p. 20.
1~) Delbrtick, Vergl. Syntax, III, p. 389 ff.
..... 271
I ~ , Greek, and Bal t o-Sl avi c, was in all pr obabi l i t y also used
in prehistoric It al i an and ot her languages, but superseded by t he
s t ~ , k ' e . / k ' o - , * k ' i - , whi ch even in historical times cont i nued to
develop a relative function. Various hypot heses were proposed to
e x p ~ t h ~ processes in detail. The opinion pronounced by Wegener
and modified by Deecke and ot her scholars, according t o whom t he
interrogative --- and i nt erj ect i onal - - use was pr i mar y (e.g. Ter. Ph.
947 argentum, quod habes, c o n d o n a mu s te < a. "" quod ? (viz. a.) " babes;
c o n d ~ m u s re) was t i ght l y reject ed by Br ugmann, Delbriick, Hof mann
and others i~). A more convincing solution ~a~v - proposed bv. Paet.-
zolt 1~), who held the sentence t ype Fest . p. 166 pect ~ni am qz, is nanc i l or ,
habeto to have arisen from" "erl angt j emand Geld ? dann soil er es
haben" (cf..also Slav. sentences like t he Russ. kto odoi~jet(t toter i
prav(~ "who is stronger, has fi ght on his side") a2,). It must however
be doubted, whether Hof mann was co~ect in considering this t ype
of sentence to have al ways expressed a question. The origi~a! value
of a construction of this form rat her was" "erl angt j emand Geld
dann soil er es haben". The former clause must as a rule have been
conditional or otherwise (virtually) subordi nat e; the pronoun was
indefinite ~) . Yet this const ruct i on was nei t her considered the only.
nor even the main, source of t he relative use of the *k"-pronouns.
Since relative sentences cont ai ni ng th~:'~:: pronouns hack, in historical
times, sprung from interroga' cive const ruct i ons and since these
pronouns had, in Greek, Sl awmi c and anci ent German languages,
acquired a relative function, t he inference was commonl y made t hat
m) See e. g. W. Deecke, Die griech, und lat. Nebenst i t ze ..., Progr. Buchs-
weiler 1887; Br ugmann, I ndog. Forsch. 4, p. 229 f f . W. Kroll, Gl ot t a 3, p~
lff.; Hofmann, Lat . Gramm. S, p. 707.
x~7) Paetzolt, Beitrlige zur hist. Synt ax der lat. s pr IX, ', Progr. Wal den-
burg 1875.
tl,) CI. especially VondrAk, o.c., II, p. 480 ff., (as~ to Lith. see F. ]Kurschat~
Gramm. d. l i t aui schen Spr., Hal l e 1876, 1562 f.).
~191 Compare t he views advanced by Del brfi ck, o.c., p. 39@. Hof mann, o. c,
P. 706 speaks of " pa r a t a kt i s c he n Fr agesAt zen mi t mdef i ni t em q u i s ~: ~ \ Ve
may also refer to Greek sent ences like Arist. Thesm. 405 gdpv,L g6or] z,, et~#i,,-
d~, ~ M) , , , . . . . ; Dem. 18, 274 ti~u~E~ r ~ ~bv ~ dO~,//v ... ~trrd rot'~rov; c~.
in Latin, Ter. Eun. 252 n e g a t q u i s , nego. See especi al l y E. Ki eckers. Zur
Para~mxe im Sinne eines Kondi zi onal ver h/ i l t ni sses, Act a et comment at i ones
Univ. Tartuensis, B 33, 5, Dor pa t 1936, p. 10 ff., and such Lat i n i nst ances'
as ar,a recorded by F. Neue, For menl ehr e d. l at . Spr. (1875) II, p. 219.
272
the indirect or dependent interrogation had been the main factor
contributing to the relative use of the ' interrogative pronoun' in pre-
h '
historic Latin and elsewhere x30) The relevant processes we r e dd
to be an 'einzelsprachliche Neuerung' in Armenian, Albanian, Greek,
Germanic, Italic, Balto-Slavic.
The discovery of Hittite forms deriving from the same stems,
especially of kuig which conveys an indefinite, an interrogative, and
a relative sense, led the Amerffan scholars St urt evant and Hahn
to re-open the discussion ~3~). It may be worth while to present the
gist of their articles" The Hitt. k,,ti~, when relative, is, according to
the former scholar, usually postpositive (the ' antecedent' forming
part of the 'relative' clause), often doubled, frequently resumed by
a demonstrative element; the relative clause tends to stand betore
the main ClaUSe. t tlebc u x m~ a . t . t , c t ~ a L. t , a a, , . . ,.,.,..,.,., " " " " 1 " " ' " ' " t.o.,~y
Latin and in the Oscan and Umbrian documents" Plaut. Trin. 137
ille q ui ma,zdavit, eum exturbasti ex aedibus. It may therefore be
warranted to conclude that the 'relative' or ' connective' value of
this stem was also Indo-European ~a..). :/'he subsequent investigations
of Miss Hahn brought to light tha, a Hitt. subordinate relative clause
can scarcely be distinguished from a coordinate indefinite clause"
g_, \ r , ~
C, -TE-MEb-va-)' dn ku-e an-da-an ha-at sa-ra-a da-a-i ' and the
utensils which (are) therein, these he picks up" can also be t r ansl at ed
"and some utensils ,are) therein; and these he picks up" A variety
c)f features characterizing the indefinite type are found to be present
in a large majority of examples of the relative type.
~a0) See - - to ment i on onl y t hese schol ars - - ( Br ugma nn, Grun~lr>~ ~-,
II, 2, p. 348); I)elbriick. o.c., p. 391; F. Sommer , Ha n d b u c h der l at ei ni schen
Laut - und Formenl ehre, Hei del berg 1914, p. 47,5; Le u ma n n , Lat . Gr a mm,
i~. 288; Hof mann, ibid., p. 7C6" Er nout - Mei l l et , I) i ct . 6 t y m a, p. 988 f
,a~) t-. H. ' St urt evant , Rel at i ves in I ndo- F. ur opean and t l i t t i t e , l. angua~, :
.~Ionographs \ I I , Bal t i more 1930, p. 141 ff.', E. A. t t a hn, The (Jri,,in~ ,)t the
rel at i ve k a z - /ea, ~-. Language 2 2 (1946), p. 68 ff.
]a2) t ca;ln, , t f,~ll,~w St ur t evant ill his I n d o - Hi t t i t e t heor y. .... In [~,n-I t(
l anguages t he "xvant of rel at i ve pr onouns is c o mp e n s a t e d " , i nt er alia, by usillg
indef, or i nt err, pronoun:-,,, in cor r el at i on wi t h de mons t r a t i ve s , or by " spl i t t i ng
u p " proposi t i ons i : ' t o indef, or i nt err, cl auses a nd t hei r sequel s. - - t~ne
mi ght also compar e H. Reckendorf, Die s ynt a kt i s c he n Verh~iltnisse ~tes
Arabi schen, Leyden 189;!., t::. 604 ff.; J. R. Swa nt on, Ha i da , in" t t andbo~k
of Ameri can I ndi an Languages I, \ Vashi ngt on 1911, p. 261, et c.
273
I would ask mys el f wh e t h e r schol ar s have not gone t oo far in
clinging to t he t r a di t i ona l di s t i nc t i on bet ween t he vari ous pr onomi nal
categorie'~ whi ch, t hough t i ght l y di scer ned in clas:.ical Lat i n and ot her
languages, are b y n o me a n s d i s t i n c t co-exi st erat c a t e g or i e s in a n y
language. It wou l d a p p e a r t o me t h a t we are not i n f r e qu e n t l y t oo
much inclined t o i nt e r pr e t pr e- and pr ot ohi s t or i c facts in t he l i ght
of classic, and t r a di t i ona l s chemes and t er mi nol ogy. Even in classic
Latin the, pr onouns unde r di scussi on are, as far as t hei r out war , t form~:;
are concerned, kept a pa r t onl y in t he nora. sing. an,t in th~. acc. sin~.
nelter. Miss Ha hn is no doubt ri ght in l ayi n~ - t r , - - o n ~vnt act i c
factors, ,',uch as t he posi t i on of t he pron~::,uns in t I ~, . - , ~, . nc e and
their relations t o ot he r wor ds. But ot her factor., ,:,r ,:,.i~van,-~ ~ (~.g
mMul at i on, pauses in pronouncin~,~ t h e -,:~ntonc~:,, r,,r~~:,in, ~p, knc, wn
to us. We sho_uld t her ef or e be caut i ous in dr awi ng c~r~.c!u.-:ion~ wi t h
regard to t he I . E. per i od a nd .guard agai nst t he unwarrantabie~
assumptiion t ha t t he then. cons t r uct i ons e~xactlv a~r,:t~,l wi t h one c,f
our modem s ent ence types. ., or, r at her , wi t h one, ,~f Iht.-~' nte.nc t tvpt::.,
of t radi t i onal gr a mma r .
The ' i ndef i ni t e' - .... or, as Miss Ha hn prefers t o call it, non-res~:rictivc
- - char act er of tlhe Hi t t . ' r el at i ve' cl ause agrec.~ wi t h t he f~::t t hat in
Oscan-Umbri an, wher e t he f or ms of *k",.,- ar~, u~ed i~ r,:l. ciatx>~:~,, witt~
a ' definite' a nt e c e de nt , t hose of *k~i - h~.~: ~,., form i n, l~,init,: ~' r(.t.
a
clauses. In Lat i n, t oo, q~i s a ppe a r s in ~!~, i ~t (, r cas~ ~ ~.~3). of. 1 ..... XI i
Tab. 1, 4 prol et ari c, Jam c i v i q~,is volet "~,i~dr:~ est,:,. \ \ ' i t hout goi ng -,,
far as to cont end t hat all Lat i n r el at i ves come from i ndofi ni t es w..:
may suppose t he ,'el. auis. et c. t o r epr esent a . t <:cializ,.,~!),- ~: , ~:)f tia,,
4 " * ,
mdef i mt e. "['he t ype of s ent ence Pl aut . Amt)tl. 1009 t~aay rt'fl~.~ct a~l
original" " I want {d 'to meet a cer t ai n N. he was not on b.,ard >hi!,"
(Naucrat em q u e m co,.l:ve.~zire ",.'olzti, i ~ ~za-cz ,z~,z e r a~) of. tilt: ( . ; r eek t2 5C:i
. . . . . or e( wr e t c h t , ( l . - t r an~, , ' r r~:,/tn~ . . . . "
E 9 ~v ~b~ ~'Lg: . . . . ~ldo~,~ " t h e r e wa. , . . . one::, ( un n ~ n ~ , ' . ) 1 ~ '
In the ol dest Gr eek t ext s t he ' gener al rclatix' c' i , ; , : rrt : ~.~a), i.~'
m) For p a r t i c u l a r s see: R. y o n Pl a nt a , Gr a mma t i k d. o s k - u mb r . I) i a-
lekte, I I , St r a s s b u r g I897, p. 424 f. ; Fr. Ne ue - C. XVagener, Fc r me n l e h r e d
lat. Spr.3, I I , , Le i p s i c 1905, p. 430; Hof f ma n, Gr a mm. , p. 7@6; Me i l l e t - Ve n-
dryes, Gr a mm. c o mp a r 6 e =, p. 637; W. M. I. in~Isav, t h e La t i n l anguage, p
444 If.; A. Er n o u t , Hi s t . F o r me n l e h r e des Lat . a. } 14C f f
134) I refer t o S c h wy z e r - De b r u n n e r , o. c. , I I . p. 64~
274
the identical enclitic * k " i - preceded by * i o - l u ) . Here the order of
the elements 6 and 3u; is not only a mat t er of form, zta being enclitic,
but it represents a special case of a phenomenon of wide occurrence,
the so-called insertion of the antecedent in t he relative phrase. This
construction was, in short, chosen if the ant ecedent (or part of it)
was essentially, not accidentally, det ermi ned by the contents of
the 'relative' clause. Thus the subject of x 38 f. is not beloved to
all men, or to men in general, but to those men of unspecified
individuality (3,) who are the i nhabi t ant s of t he towns to which
the subject comes: o5 6& ~ a , 9/20... ~rL~ [ ~r0O~,~o~, 6rtoS~ 3, ~,6~L~
~a~ 7a' i av Ix~73at. Similarly, o 35 n : , p ~e , ~5~ 3or 0600,, ~maO~, [ dOavdz'o~v
~'~ z l ; ae Vo2daaet means " t hat particular (but unspecified) deity who
is yonr protectol will send a fair breeze in your wake", not "one of
_ _
: h e cteltles wziu t~ t~t~u~tuy uz ~t t ~t aucut auy znt er cs r , ~f l I n your well-
being . . . "; cf. O 290 ... 3,; ... O, fiv "some one of the gods", and
especially v 40 ~ #&2a vie ~9e8 t vSov, o~ ~ Oa v &, d ~ v ,'Xova~ "surely
some god is within, one of those who hold broad heaven", where
the relative clause could have been omitted. The words a 47 6 &'M2otzo
Qt~o, likewiise refer to any other person
characterized by doing such deeds, n~t to any other whomsoever,
who as a matter of little importance, does t hem. Cf. e.g. also" B 687;
T/r 285 ; 494;/~ 113 ; 124; 7 16; O 573 (de vwa Igto Xo~?a) ; o 359; o 317.
In cases like B 687 vie after 5'~ is the whole ' ant ecedent " ~ 667 de,roy
~ ~ o"; ztq 6~z~a ot~aeTat "let him draw near who is to bear the cup".
Hence also the phrase o ~u [:a'av 6art , e.g. Arist. Ran. 1217 o~u ~avtv
~ zt~ ~d~' dv~e t,3Oa,/~o-,t[ and such passages as Soph. Tr. 6 ~7~ ~t
~ T t ~ o v e~Zov, which may be supposed to reflect an original" "I *or
one know that my life is unlucky, (I) a person (,to) characteri: o,! by
the fact that I suffered most painful fear arising trom marriage".
However striking the difference, between t he Greek construction
with, and its Latin counterpa:t without, *io- mi ght be, the relative
clause of the type represented by Plaut. Amph. 1009 came to fulfil
the same function- like 6~t,~, which al ready in Herodotus and
Sophocles was used to convey ,in individual force, i.e. instead of 6.--
1as) For whi ch see my paper i n t he Li ngua , I V, p. 1 I f . , a nd for t he con-
st ruct i on to be di scussed esp. p. 22.
275
Hdt. I, '7 &m~o~o, A~ . . . , &~ 8, , o 6 ~{/,o~ A~&o~ ~ / 1 . ~ . . . - - ~ ) ,
the Lat. quis very soon as s ume d a def i ni t e (restrictive) vMue also.
The Hit~tite facts t~) seem to allow us to a~ssume a similar developn;ent.
An intportant ~i : n t i n t he prehi st ory of t he relativ,~, constru, . ti on
in Latin and ot her l anguages has remai ned unexpl ai ned: t he way in
which *" (Gr. ~ ) , Skt . ya- et c. ) was repl aced by the *k~-stems i ~)
, (0 -
and the: ~actors cont ri but i ng to its early disappearance, or (more
cautiously speaking) its absence, in so many I.E. lang~ages. In
endeavouring to solve this problem the ' lautschwaches' character of
the stem *io- and, as far as Lat i n is concerned, the early disappearance
of the correlative stem *so- etc. may perhaps be a help. But the main
determining cause in this process seems to ha~,e been constitul:ed by
the very nature of the clauses introduced by these pronouns.
Of all branches of Indo-European the Indi an is practically alone in
having [)reserved the *io-pronoun ~o the present day ~a~). This remarka-
is,) I refer t o Schwyzer - Debr unner , o.c., II, p 643; E Her mann, Die
Nebens~'tze in den gri echi schen Di al ekt i nschr i f t en, Leipsi~--Berlin 1912, p.
233. I cannot agree wi t h Schwyzer - . Debr unner in i nt er pr et i ng 6; z, ~ 43
by" "delr seiner Ar t nach, sei nem X~'esen nach" ; t he words (o~ ,ud) Z:v, 8
T/ Te O~.:r~v ~r ~og when given t hei r ' original sense' may have meant " "Ze' as
the-one-who (~) on his pa r t (or" in contradi~z4nction to o t h e r s ze) is tiae
unspecifmd i ndi vi dual essent i al l y chara, :teriz~ I k:,:;, being t he hi ghest o[ gods;".
x3,) See H~Lhn, o.c., p. 81.
t T" " "
lu) The convi ct i on t ha t i t has i ndeed bel onged to p, ehl st onc Lat i n' e{c.
was e.g. pronoune,~d by Del bri i ck, Vergl. Synt . I I I . p. 404; Hahn, Am. Ph. Ass.
64, 37; Hirt, I ndog. Gr amm. VI I , p. i33. The correspondence bet ween Gr. 6
"that, because" (Lnd Skt . yad, Av. y~) and t he Lat . quod, Got h. batei " t ha t "
was with good r eason made an a r gume nt by Sch~Tzer - Debr unner , o.c., I[,
p. 648, n. 4. Cf. also, despi t e t he diiflerence in meani ng (see Wackernagel ,
Indog. Forscho 31, p. 267 f.; Schwyzer - Debr unner , o.c., I, p. 6t 6, n 8!,,
the Lat . quia " wh y (e.g. Verg. Aen. 5, 13); because" (see e. g Ernol.~t-Meillet,
Dict. etym.*, p. 982); el. Gr. Booet~ Td " why" etc.) on t he one hand, and
the sporadic Gr. a in t he sense of a on t he ot her.
ts,) I~t Sogdi an t he st em ya- has di sappear ed; its f unct i on was t aken over
by ka-t~a-, t he anci ent i nt err. -i ndef. {see E. Benveni st e, Essai de gr ammai r e
sogdienne, I I , ~ s 1929, p. 131). Cf. also t he as a rul e indef, neut er rel at i ve
(')&v < *cam whi ch had r epl aced th,~ anci ent git. For Persi an see H. Jensen,
Neuper s ~he Gr a mma t i k, Hei del ber g 193I, p. 91 If. Al r eady in t he classic
period t he Gr. r epr es ent at i ve of *k~i - coul d fulfil t he funct i on of ao~
when it was a gener al i zi ng r el at i ve, and, moreover, t ha t of a (I refer to Her-
mann, o.c., p. 227; Ki i hner - Ger t h, Ausf. Gr amm. d. griech. Spr., Sat zl ehre,
~ 6
ble fact would appear to me t o be c l os e l y c onne c t e d wi t h t he character
of the Indian relative clause. Wher eas in ma ny ot her languages the
relative clause may be a concurrent i di om of p~ rt i ei pl es and adjectives
and a means of paraphrasi ng, Sa ns kr i t onl y us e s i t t o expres~ such
attributes as are of i mport ance t o t he unde r s t andi ng of t he mai n
clause" cf. e.g. BhagavadgR~ 10, 3 yo x m ~ m a a ~ a m a a n &l i r a . , ca b vettie
. . [ ... sat ... sar vapa~ ai .hs pr amucy ate "whX knows6 MO, the
unborn 3 and 5 begi nni ngl ess 4 . . . he v is freed f rom all evilsS"; 16
d i v y ~ ~ h y 2 ~ t ma v i b h u t a y a t . ~a [ Y a b h i r 4 . . . l o k a n 5 i mP . ms e tvam.~ v y ~ p y a 8
tis..thasi 8 "(Thy) divine x mani fest at i ons s, by whi ch 4 pervadi ng, these e
worlds s Thou 7 abidest (in t he m) ' " x,0). In an 3, given Sanskrit text
many instances can be noticed of part i ci pl es or absolutives which
in an English or Dut ch t ransl at i on must be r ender ed by a subordinate
clause" ~nt...~" " i, ~"', i0; 39 etc. etc. That means t hat t he original function
of ( *i o- >) ya- ~ focussing t he at t ent i on of t he hearer on a word or
word group of special interest ~,1) is still recognizable.
On the other hand, the indirect const ruct i on, including the indirect
interrogation, al t hough not whol l y unknown in Sanskrit, is not
idiomatic. The direct const ruct i on ( p a p r a c c h a 1. k a s 8 t r a m a (i t i 4)
,,4he asked x. 4 who 2 (are) y o u S ? " ) , often charact eri zed by i t i is in all
periods of Indo-Aryan largely preferred x42). It must even be noticed
t hat the general impression we may obt ai n from t he descriptions in
grammars is not completely correct. The object of t he words of saying,
thinking, believing, etc. is often expressed by a clause introduced by
y a t ( y at h~, yata.h)x48). Kath,~sar. 3, 57 c i n t ~ 1 m e s p u t r a 8 y a d 4 bh~ry~5
n ~ n u r ~ p ~ 7 t a r a 8 k v a c i t ' " I am ~ grieved a, my son s, t hat 4 you 8 have
II, p. 517; Schwyzer-Debrunner, o.e., II, p. 644 (with a bibliography). Modern
Greek tel. clauses are i nt roduced by noO or 6 6noro. ( For Celtic see Pedersen,
Vergl. Gramm. II, p. 235 f.).
~,0) See also Speyer, Sanskrit Synt ax, 455; Ved. u. Sanskrit-~;yntax,
271' "Das ind. Rel at i vpronomen hat ... den Zweek ... durch Hervor-
hebung einer kennzeichnenden ... That sache den ' ~etreffenden Beztigsbegriff
yon der gewtinschten Seite zu bel eucnt en "
14~) See Lingua, IV, p. I ff.
x~) For part i cal ars see' J. Bloeh, L' i ndo- ar yen, Pari s 1934, p. 313 ft.;
Renou, Gramm. sanser., p. 512; Speyer, Veal. u. S. Synt ax, 288; Dh. Varma,
La l~.ngue braj, Paris 1935, p. 129; E. Greaves, Hi ndi gr ammar , Allahabad
1933, p. 1.52 ff.; T. Grahame Bailey, Panj abi , Cal cut t a i912, p. 113.
x,~) For Avestan see L. H. Gray, Cont ri but i ons t o Avest an Synt ax, J. Am.
Or. Soc. 22, 1, p. 168 ff.
277
wi f# meet 7 for you v' . In these cases i t i may even be re-
t r i ed t a) As we have seen in a previous article 145), the conjunction
yat .is in the first place a means of paraphrasi ng, especially when the
f o ~ ~ word or ~or ds are an i mpor t ant element of the sentence.
word or clause' introcluced by the conjunction are, in character,
a direct quotation. The same const ruct i on is used after words of
examining, knowing, in expressing a subordi nat e interrogation, etc."
B.tr.Up. 6, 2, 2 vet t ha x y ahe ~nd' . n a pra]~.h 4 p r a y a t y o 5 v i p r a t i p a d y a n t #
"do you know 1 how i people* here s on depart i ng 5 separate in different
directionsS~ ' ' Although t he sentence is i nt errogat i ve the conjunction
in itself does not bemr t hat force. Besides, verbs of knowing et c are
often followed by inflected forms of ya-" e ~ R.V. 8, 92, t8 v i d ma
hi yds te . . . tvddatta. h "for we know which is the ... given by Thee"
Similar observations may be made wi t h regard to the ' relative-inter-
rogative' cb-- B 3 peQpClQI, . . . (o 'Ax~277a i rtu/~aq "he v,a.s pondering
how he might do honour t o A. " ; Soph. O.C. 75 o I , O, go ~ r ' , do vf i ,
~ a~al~; "do you know, O st ranger, how you will not go wrong ?"
- - and to the use of d etc. in 'il~direct clauses" Arist. Ach. 118 gy&
o/~' ~ lo1:, tu). In a mi nor i t y of .cases, which do not seem to reach
back to the earliest period - - in Avestan ya- and its derivatives are
usual --, Sanskrit has, in these clauses, an interrogative pronoun"
Budhasv,~min, BK$1. 24, 28 dkhydt t a x n i p u e a ~:n 2 d.rs. .tv,~ 3 kataro* r f i pav dn 5
iti 6 "have a good look (at t hem) 2' 3 (and) tell x who 4 is the better-
looking". Certain instanees of k a- instead of ya- under ot her circum-
stances are pra~ztically want i ng" BhagG. l, 22 ratha.~.n t s t h a p a y a z
rod.., t1 y, i va# et dn 5 ni r ~ks . # "ham ~ . . . i kai rS ma y ~9 sahal y o d d h a v y amxi
may, it is true, be t ransl at ed- " hal t 2 my s chariot ~ ... so t hat 4 17 may
0bserv# these s ..., with t0 whom s, 19 must fight n' ' , but the correct
interpretation appears t o be: " . . . I may espy these ... (and see)" with
whom ... ? (>" wi t h whom . . . ) " 147).
m) I reJfer t o Speyer, Sanskr i t Synt ax, 494
m) Lingma, IX'. e,p. p. 15 If.
14t~ , ~e Sehwyzer - Debr unner , ooc., I I , p. 630; 643. A number ot i nst ances
were collected by J. va n Leeuwen, Arist. Acharnenses, Leyden :~01, p. 29
- - For the t er mi nol ogy used in connect i on wi t h t hese clauses - - ' suoor di nat e
interrogative cl ause' ( ' i ndi r ekt er Fr agesat z' ) is i naccur at e - - see Delbriack,
a . c . , I I I , p. 300 ft . ; 431 f. ; Al t i nd. Synt ax, p. 569.
m) ..See F. Edger t on, The Bha ga va d git~i, I, Ha r va r d 1944, p 7 and Nila-
Im~tha's commentary.
278
It may, in the third place, be remembered t hat in Sanskrit the
whole inflection of the i1~terr, pronoun had come to be formed from
ka-, excepting the anomalous n. acc. sg. n. k i m (other representatives
of * k"i - are the stereotyped ndkis, cid) l u) ; t hat , apart from the cases
mentioned above, the simple indefinite pronoun does not normally
occur; t hat the generalizing or indefinite relative ("quisquis, qui-
cumque") has from the beginning a special iorm: ya- ka- ca, ya- ka- cit,
y a - y a - , y a - sa- 149).
So the conclusion must be t hat in Anc.Indian, and in the main
also in Indo-lranian, the ya-clauses, the interrogative and the indefinite
sentences were both in the form of their pronouns and in their particular
character, kept clearly apart. If we may, on the st rengt h of inferences
to be drawn mainly from Greek and Slavonic, consider these features
. f I I r ~nt ~Y Cn reflect_ in t he mai n. ancient usaee, it doeq n,~ ~
v a. . ~ a a b a . ~, j . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . q l ~ - ~s &&
to be hard to form a fairly true picture of prehistoric conditions:
generally speaking, and not taking other constructions into account,
the *~o-clauses were used to distinguish, isolate or emphasize
part of the utterance lS), the *k~-constmctions, if not 'indefinite',
expressed direct interrogations. In those provinces of Indo-European
where *io- was already in prehistoric times replaced by *k ~- the
following developments, part of which can be paralleled and, hypo-
thetically, elucidated by historical evolutions in other languages, may
have taken place. The gradual loss of emphasis of the *~o-construction,
the change in its original character, by which it carae to develop into
a relative clause in the traditional sense of the t erm --- cf. e.g. instances
like Xen. Anal). 1, 2, 7 ~tct~d3etao~ ~t~Taq dTQ[,a~ ~Q/ z~, ~t2~tn/,
~ v o ~ ~b~evcr &td butov - - on the one hand, and an increasing
4 e
tendency to subordinate mten,:Sadons and to give t hem an indirect
character on the other, may have contributed to lessen the original
difference between these constructions. After many verbs - - those
of asking, knowing, thinking, believing, wondering, informing,
mentioning etc. ~ both pronouns and their derivatives came into
~4,) For particulars concerning these innovations" Debrunner-Wacker-.
nagel, o.c.0 I l l , p. 560 ft.
140) For particulars" Speyer, Sanskrit Syntax, 287. For Avestan" H.
Reichelt, Avestisches Elementa, buch, Heidelberg 1909, 741; Caland, Syn..
t ax d. Pron. (see above), p. 48 f.
160) For a more detailed description see Lingua IV, esp. p. 18.
279
use m otherwise si mi l ar sent ence const ruct i ons. In anci ent Greek
and Slavonic t hey have ent er ed i nt o c o mp e t i t i o n - ~ we for i nst ance
fi nd' ? I85 ~ ~ o l 3 a ] ~ d v o J v , o t r ' ~a&oOev ' Axat ~ov . . . " I do not
know ~ h i n g of t hose, who of t he A. were saved . . . " ; Soph. O.C.
l l71 t~oth' .... 6~ taO' 6 ~ d l r r / " I know well who is the s uppl i ant " ;
o ~ ' 6, .ol~rO' ~b i n t ragi c and comi c wri t ers beside e 373 o~ ~ ad,?a
o/&t, ndOm ... " I know not sur el y from whence . . . " , Xen. Anab.
2, 5, 7 o ~ o ~ a , og~r' ~ d ~rolov ~iv ~6X~_,; 7t w~&r o ~ 6~ o~ 363; of.
/7 120; + ndzeQo~ E 85 15x); a 170 ~alrd2e~ov" i r[~ ~6~ev ~'~ &v(5o~v; 16z)
It is however i nt er est i ng t o obser ve t hat aft er verba i nt errogandi
Gr e e k - - i n cont r adi st i nct i on t o I ndo- I r ani an" t.~\'. I, 164, 34
b h u v a n a s 5 n d b h i h 4 I ask 1 where z ( i s) t i l e navel 4
pr. chdmi I y d t r a 2 ,a ~ . "
of the worldS? ' ' x~s) _ . does not use forms of t he *i o- pr onoun o 423
was, and whence she came" . In excl amat i ons bot h pronouns could
in all probability have been used al r eady in prehistoric times" ~ 441
r q m ~ , d~ &o o ~ ~ a ~ / r p , tj;~ "fool, how witl:.s~ is the heart you
haw~!" and. A 552 K O ~ ' & I , no' i ov rdv ~f.0o~ ge~'~e;" son of Cronos, what
a word hast t hou sai d! " ..... in Mod. Gr. onl y t he i nt errogat i ve t ur n
has been left ~ ) ~ ; si mi l arl y, in Slavonic, and in Sanskri t , where,
however, the ka- const r uct i on, t hough r at her rare, seems to have been
preferred" PAn... 8, 1, 37 f., comm. y a t h d ~ : ~ c a t i ~ ~ o b h a n a m a "how ~
excdlent ~ (is) his coekingZ! '' (expressi ng admi rat i on) and Bh. n~r.
Ven.is. 1, 17 + k d ~ k h a l u ~ v e La~t r abhav at y dh ~ p r d p t d y d . h ~ " how ~ long a
it 1 (is), indeed ~, since s her l adyshi p ~ was here'S! '' Besides, cases
were no doubt not r ar e in whi ch one meani ng ol t he ' governi ng t er m'
usu~dly required t he *~o- pr onoun, anot her a k ~- pr cnoun (cf., in Greek,
m) It may be not i ced t ha t a Gr eek equi val ent of t he I. Ir. yat ar a- "who
{which) of t wo (rel , ) " whi ch woul d be used in a cause like thxs d o e s - - - a p a r t
trorn the G~rt. ~ ~ (3ra cent . B.C.) whi ch ma y reach back to t he prehis-
toric period {bi bl i ography" Sc hwyz e r - De br unne r , o c , I p. 615) ..... pr act i cal l y
not exist in Greek; kUotem/o - had an ear l y and wide o c c u ~ e n c e AInd. katara-,
0sc. pfaerel.,(ptd), Got . hm~ar et c. {see Wa l de - Pokor ny, Vgl. Wt b. I, p. :521)
lt~t) There, are sl i ght di fferences in meani ng, for whi ch see Kt i hner - Ger t h,
o. c,, II, 2, p. 43 8 f.
ls~) For Avest an, see Rei chel t , o.c., p. 789.
~,t) More i n s t a n c e s - Se h wy z e r - De b r u n n e r , o.c~ II, p. 626" f o r Mo d , Gr .
A. Thumb, Ha n d b u e h tier neugri ech. Vol ksspr ache ~, St r assbur g 1910, p
171 f.
280
Soph. Tr. 589 6'on , t ~ott'i "pay heed to what you do": ~ d o ~ OHG.
giwar ' attentive, careful'), in which an interrogative implication was
optional, or in which a shift of meaning of the governing verb entailed
a non-interrogative value of the follo~dng *ku-construction.-._ Where,
moreover,,the subordinate clauses came to be marked by characteristics
of their own (especially by the use of a special mood of the verb) 15~),
another factor arose which could contribute to a further assimilation of
both sentence t y p e s . - It should, finally, be remembered t hat the popu-
lar predilection for interrogative constructions ~56) instead of variou.,
other choices and arrangements of words, as well as the above-
mentior~ed use of the 'indefinite' *k~-pronouns in a ' relative' function
must h~ve exerted considerable influence upon the spread of the
*k ~- constructions over new domains; and also t hat the necessity to
use part of the case forms of the thematic stem in order to supplement
the defective.paradigma of k~i - was always apt to further the spread
of a particular function acquired by one of these stems to the other.
That the cases of an originally indefinite *k~-pronoun of the type Pl aut
Amph. 1009 Naucratem quem convenire volui, in navi non erat :ame
to be relative constructions can, I would venture to suppose, Le at-
tributed to the relative force acquired by the *k~-pr0nouns in the above
sentences.
Such are the factors which may have led to a state of affairs such
as exists in OChSlav., where in indirect interrogations "le choix est
frdquemment libre entre la proposition interrogative indirecte et la
proposition relative" x57), the former being more ' idiomatic' and
tending to predominate. Particular circumstances such as the use
of dart~ in Greek having already found ample comment in the works
of my predecessors ~58), I omit any further discussion of this point
155) For a brief survey of t he r el evant poi nt s: Br ugmann, Grundriss*, 1I,
3, p. 874 ff.; Meiilet-Vendryes, Gra am. compar6e, 933 If. ; see also: Del-
briick, o.c., I I I , p. 439 ff.; Schwyzer - Debr unner , o.c., I I , p. 630; 642; Hof-
mann, Lat . Gramm. 5, p. 700 f.
15e) CI. e.g. Soph. El. 316 do~ v~v d~6vro~ [tr6Qet, r l trot ~pl2ov (or lar6Qe~"
T/ not 912ov? ?). For rig = a~: Schwyzer - Debr unner , o.c., II, p. 644.
157) A. VaiUant, Manuel du vi eux slave I, Par i s 1948, p. 342. I also refer
t o Miklosich, Vergl. Gramm. , IV, p. 77; 86; 91; Vondr gk, o.c., II, p. 451 ff..
480 ff.; 488 If.; 528 ff.
~58) See e.g. Schwyzer - Debr unner , o.c., I I , p. 644; Mei l l et - Vendr yes, o.c.,
p. 637.
281
VI I
Some remarks on t he I ndo- I r ani an ci d may al~o find ~t p ,~c~ here.
According to Delbrtiek and ot her schol ars ~9) AInd. cid is a ' hervor-
hebende Part i kel ' , which, i nt er alia in connect i on with i nt er r ogat i ve
pronouns, also bears a gener al i zi ng force. Debr unner - Wacker nagel ,
though correctly deri vi ng it f r om *k~i -, likewise hold its pr i mar y
sense to have been "sogar, j edenf al l s" ~6o). The identical Osc. pi d wa:
called an indefinite part i cl e by Vol~ Pl ant a, Wal de- Hof mann, and
Buck, who s;ays" " . . . it s t ands in t he same rel at i on to Lat. -que as Skt.
-cid t o-ca, bot h of t hese bei ng used as general i zi ng particles t hough
in different combi nat i ons" ~6~, As no ot her at t empt to reconst ruct
the semantic devel opment of th~s word seems to hay,., been made, I
woultd suggest consi deri ng passages like t he following to give an idea
of its original use" 1 . AV. 5, 11 6 end ~ par dh ~ durnd. ~am s cid 4 ar vdk~ I P , . . -
where not hi ng but t he common opi ni on t hat cid is a ' part i cl e' would
prevent us from r egar di ng it as a regul ar neut er = Gr. r~" Whi t ney-
Lanman accordi ngl y t r a n s l a t e " be yond t hat I 2 (is) somet hi ng ~ hard
to get at 3 fi:om t hi s sideS"; si mi l arl y, R V. i, 24, 9 (cf. AV. 0. 97, 2
7, 42, 1} k.r~d~B. 1 ci d 2 dnah 3 pr d ~ mu mu g d h y 5 asmd/6, where t he t rans-
lati0n given b~ t he same schol ars ( " put away ~ 5 from us any 2 coni-
mitted ~ sin 3'') must , t o my mi nd, be decide~ii,~ ~r~ferred to Gel dner' -
"auch die get ane Siinde ni mm yon uns " ' ici., in Greek, e.g. Soph.
Ant. 252 &r~t~o~ o~o~,d7;77~ ~,~ ~v " t he offender, wh ~e ~( "~ he mav. be,
was unnot i ced") ; R.V. 1, 49, 3; !24, t 2; t he phras,:, d~?rd ci.'. (AV. 4,
2 8 , "~" "
.,., cf. 3, 3, 2) may wi t h X~, ~i t ney-Lanman be rendered b 5 .... what -
ever is af ar "; AV. 4, 21, 6 ( = R V. 6, 28, 6) med~:~va/l:~7 k r i d m c / ma y
mean "t at t en whate,~'er is l ean" ~ ) ; passages like RV. 3, 32, 16 vdd x
lb,) Delbr/ack, Al t i ndi sche Synt ax. p 478 Cf also Pet r ogr ad l ) l ct . 1.
1025 I.; Bart hol omae, Al t i ran. Wt b. , 588 ff.; Speyer, Ved u. Sanskri t -Syn-
tax, p. 69; G:rassmann, W6r t er buch zum Ri g-veda, 454 f.
!~t Debr unner - Waeker nagel , o.c., I I I , p. 559: see also Renou. Gr a mm ,te
la langue v6tique, p. 376: Pokor ny, ! ndoger m e t y m \Vtb., p. 646.
101) Von Pl ant a, Gr amm. d. osk, -umbr. Dial. II, p. I6I f.; Wal de- Hof -
mann, o,c., l[I, p. 410; Br,ck, Gr ammar of Oscan and Umbri an, p. 147.
Compare also t he A, Inc. par t i cl e id (see e.g. Grassmann. Wt i r t er buch zum
Rig-veda, 205 f.)
1,,) The n,euter i mpl yi ng, or vaguoIy denot i ng, living beings, as ~, ~n Hor n
h, Aphr. 34.
282
... d.rd. hdm. ~ cid a druj o 4 gdvyam 5 trvdm 6 may, at least originally, have
mea:at" "when x Thou brokest open 4 the byr e 5'6, however a solid~ it
was " (i.e. "solid in any degree" ass)); in t hi s ease and 4, 3, 14 j ahP
rdkso ~ mdhi a c i # v~v.rdh~ndm 5 "kill 1 the demon ~ howeve# vastlyS he
has i r er eas ed v ' > ". . . auch wenn er miiehtig er st ar kt i st " (Geldner)
t he well-known 'concessive' value of the word may have detached
itself from the context in which it was implied; AV. 7, 16, 1; 2 . R.V.
1, 30, 4 vdcas x tdc ~ cins n # ohas # where ci d may have been a neut er
pronoun, expressing a nuance of humble reserve" " Thou observest 5
this z word x of ours 5 whatever it is (worth) v' we mi ght compare
such Greek instances as Xen. Oec. 7, 39 ~ yd~ i#O 9v2 a ~ ... ~, , ~l a ~
~v oIpa~ 9a[vo~o and the ext enuat i ng function of t he I.at. qui dam I~)
time ( < of any length, however long it may be) ".
It may further be remembered t hat the acc. n. of pronomi nal stems,
in a vari et y of constructions, t ended to assume adverbi al v a l u e -
Gr. , l "how ? why ? wherefore ?"; Skt. tat " t her ef or e" ~ and, under
certain circumstances replaced another case" Gr. Xen. Anab. 1, 3, 4
e[ : t ~do~zo as against O~oktat ;tdyov 165). The Gr. , t came to convey such
meanings as "in any degree, at all, in par t " . A n i nt erpret at i on "in
al~y (some) respect, anyhow" seems plausible in passages like I~,V.
1, 32, 8; 84, 9 yd# cid "who in any respect" > " whoever " (AV. 18,
2 15); R.V. 1:. 25, 1 ydc x cid ~ dhl s t # ... varun, a ~ vrat dm ~ I mi n~mt i si ~
d , dvi -dyavi s ... "i P we in any respect s transgress v, O Varun.a a, Thine
o dinances~ every day s . . . "; AV. 7, 18, 2. Hence t he ' indefinite' value
o phrases like yat hd cit .RV. 5, 79, I; 56, 2 (where ci d could have been
an accus.); yadi cit AV. 5, 2, 4; any dm ... kd.m cit AV. 6, 20, 1 etc.
In their translation of the At harvaveda Whi t ney and Lanman
frequently suggest taking the adverbial cit for a subst i t ut e of a pro-
,6a) One mi ght compare, t he ' emphasi zi ng' force of v~ T~ in Gr eek: x 45
6aao v~ xQva6 "what store of gol d" ; Thuc. 8, 3 avQaz~ r~v~ " wi t h consi der abl e
forces"; F 220 q~al~ ~ ~d~oT6v T~ ~Lv" tl#~v~a~ " you woul d have deemed hi m
a, I cannot say precisely how ( > a very) , chur l i sh ma n " ( Ki i hner - Ger t h,
8 L
o.c., II, 1, p. 663 f . ) . - .R.V. l, 1 5, 9 bhuri t i t (and 3, 39, 8 adver bi al ) :
t he adver bi al no26 ~ "mdch".
~64) I also refer t o Schwyzer - Debr unner , o.c., I I , p. 215.
~eb) I must , foz ~easons of space, refer t o Ki i hner - Ger t h, o.c., I I , 1, p. 309
f. ; Schwyzer - Debr unner , o.c., I I , p. 77; Rei chel t , Awest . L~me n t a r b u c h , p.
231; Renou, Gr amm. sanscrite, p. 156, etc.
283
" I
n0rnma case form; al most al ways t hi s i nt er pr et at i cr suits t he cont ext
some crooked i
remarkably well x~) 4, 6, 4 " ( h e hur l ed at you) frr .n 3 ~ 2
bo'~"" vakr&X c i # ~ h i s dhdnvana. h4; 21, 5 icc! ~mi ~ h.rdd 2 mdnas d3
d # in dram5 " wi t h wha t e ve # hear t 2 (and) mi-=l 3 I seek a I ndr aV' ;
5, 27, 4 eili ~ ... g k r t # ci d ~ " he comes x ... unt o :arious ~ ghees~-"; 6, 3,
3; 7, 14, ,4 pdr i / m~ ci d . . . " a ny wander er . . . " 92, 1; cf. also 9, 9, 7;
10,23; 14, 2, 47; and !8, 2, 14; 16; 17 t ~m~ it ~ ) .
A perusal of t he rel evant Anci ent I r a ni : n passages gives us zhe
same impression. As t o O. Pers. x,,), Dar. Be~. a 14 yaOd ~ p a r u v a m~( i y ~
avaOd ~ "as formerly ~, however it was n, t ms " ; 58 ani y a. ~i y ' ' ot her
whatever'", in et ymol ogi caHy ' l i t eral ' t r a ,~slations which must , of
course, be checked in t r ansl at i ng an~). Xer. Pers. a 20 the particle
ensemble" (Meillet-Benveniste)" " my ki ngdom and what I have
achieved and what my f at her has achi eved, tt~at, what ever it be
(which may come t o "t out cel a", M.-B." avai~iy~ must be prot ect ed
by Ahuramazd~i". The part i cl e k~, being an ar,cient instr, sg. ( < *k"()
has a similar value" Dar . . Beh. a 65 t u v a m k i " you (whoever you may
l~z)". It corresponds t o t he Gr. ~o~ " at all, ew~r"; of. also Geth. h'e
' " " ' ~ ' 1 7 1 ) _ _ _ .
.Nenawlc . The Av. ~i t i n t he ' empbat i , ~e.nse of "even, also,
t , ) To a cer t ai n e x t e n t t he s y n t a c t i c e qui va l e nc e cf tatra and ot he r a dve r bs
"~th s limited n u mb e r of case f or ms (tatya van,,, tat~a, gacchata) mi ght be corn-
pared.
t , ) I also refer t o Gr a s s ma n n , o. c. , 455, 4.
m) Whe:re cid > giy. See al so A. Me i l l e t - E. Benveni s t e, Gr a mma i r e du
vieux-perse s, Par i s 1931, p. 194f . ; W. Hi nz, . Mt per si scher Wor t s c ha t z ,
Leipsic 194.2, p. 82.
tH) This phr ase, whi ch is f r e q u e n t in 2~, ve s t a n (cf. e.g. Yt ! 9, 87 ; Vend
18, 73; Yt. 15, 54; Vend. 18, 32), a n d whi ch is r e pr e s e nt e d in Anc . I nd. by
anya..~a-c,it and s i mi l ar c ombi na t i ons , no d o u b t had a wi de di s t r i but i on
among the anci~aiLts. I t r ef er r ed t o a c o mp l e me n t a r 3' e nt i t y (or t o c. ent i t i es)
of unspecified i ndi vi duMi t y. Cf. al so t he Gr. phr a s e 8Ll.o zL " a n y t h i n g el se"
which is used in i nt er r og, sent ence, s" Hdt . 2, 14 8JS~o r~ { ... m,~+,~ovm;
"will they not be, s t a r v e d a' ; Pl at o, G,rg. 49Sc c70~ ~ ot~ . F. ~/ e;, d~d not
you say ?" The Lat . al i f qui " i n a n o t h e r r es pect , ot he r wi s e " r e pr e s e nt s an abl.
of a/~us quis; cf. Lg. Hor . Sat . 1, 4, 4 sicar~us a ut aIioqui /amos**s (a: alia
qua re}. For al i us qui s: Pl a ut . Most . 1355.
tT0) Bar t hol omae, Al t i r an. Wt b . 589.
m) Cf. also Lat . qua: Pl a ut , Ps eud. 160 h u m qui mznus ... " J o e s ( t hat
make me) any less . . . ?" ; Tr i n. 120 si qui p~obiorem /acere posses; Asm. 557
edepol vi~'tutes qui t uas non possi s co ncl audare sic ,,t ego possi m.
28 4
furt her(more) " (cf. e.g. Yr. 10, 109f.; 13, 146f. ; 14, 33; 46; 16, 10)
may also be explained from t he indefinite val ue "i n any way, anyway,
anyhow". The particle often accompanies t he last member of a series
or a rat her vague term" cf. Yt. 10, 84 " whom t he chief of t he village
invokes for help, whom t he lord of the house ..., whom a poor man
(refugee), not definitely indicated and under ci rcumst ances not
described specifically (driyaJ~i~) . . . "; it al,~o appears in connection
with words for "all", "whence", "as, like" etc. which are oftev ac-
companied by indefinite pronouns or particles. - - The repeat ed ~it
. . . ~it, like the corresponding Vedic cid . . . ci d, has often been con-
sidered an equivalent of our "not only ... but also (cure ... t urn) " t72).
I would however prefer to interpret passages like R.V. 6, 28, 6 in the
above manner ' medayat h~ 1 kr~d.m ~ ci d 3 akr~rd.m 4 cit 5 krn. ut hd 6 s upr d-
t ~kam 7 "f at t en x whatever a is lean~; make 6 of good aspect 7 what ever ~
does not look prosperous 4'' - - c f . also i nst ances like AV. I8, 3, 2 3 - - ;
similarly R.V. 2, 38, 2 f. (a succession of 5 ci d' s, emphasi zi ng t hat
the god' s performances do not admit of a det ai l ed description, t hat
t hey make their presence felt under any ci rcumst ance) ; Av. Yr. 10,
1 37 ; 3 9 f. xTs).
This unequivocally ' indefinite' use of these st ereot yped case form.,
shows t hat this force belonged to simple *k"i - and k"o- in earl y times.
So the conclusion seems t e be t hat the various indefinite nuances
of ka~ cid ~ cf. e. g. R. V. 1, 37, 13 ~.rt~dti 1 kd~ 2 ci d 3 es.dm* " manch
emer 2, 8 h6rtl sie 4,, (Geldner); 1, 116, 3 t~tgro x ha 2 bhu~y~m s akvi nM-
d a me g h # rayi.rn 6 mi 7 kd~ 8 ci n 9 ma mr v ~ TM d~dh~l.z u "T. 1 hat t e den
Bh. 3 in der Wassermasse 5 zurfickgelassen n, ihr Agvin 4, wie ~ irgend 8' 9
ein Verstorbener * sein. Verm6gen 8'' - - may be expl ai ned from an
originally indefinite ka-, modified by cid. The phrase ya- ka- ci d may
be considered to represent this ka- cid preceded by ya- " ~at Br. 14,
6, 7, 5 y6 a vd 2 idd.m a kd.~ 4 c i # br~ydt e " anyonO' 4. 5 mi ght say* this a'' ,
Manu 8, 69 anubkdv~ x tu 2 ya.h a ka~ 4 cit 5 k u r y d t ~ sdks, y a m 7 " any person
whatsoever.~, 4, 5 who is an eye-witness 1 may give* evidence 7'', where
it is an emphatic generalizing indefinite; Manu 2, 7 ya.h I ka~ ~ c i # ...
dharmo* ma n u mi 5 parik[rtita.h ~ I sat samoa ' bhi hi t o* vede x " w h a t e v e r " ~' ~
~*) Cf. Petrograd Dict. II, 1026; Bart hol omae, o.c., 590; Renou, Gr amm
v6dique, p. 376. Otherwise' Grassmann, o.c., 4 ~ .
~a) This is not to contend t hat the ' meani ng' of t he particle has remained
unaltered.
285
law* has been ordai ned 6 b y Manu 5, t haf f has been c omp l e t e l y 8 e x pl a i ne d *
in the Veda 1'', where it is a ' rel at i ve' .
Some words remai n t o be sai d on t he conf us ed ac c ount g i v e n by
Hirt ~u) . Starti ng from t he unpr ove d a s s umpt i on t h a t t he *k"e- s t e m
originally was i nt er r ogat i ve he t ri es t o s how t hat it pr evi ous l y was
deictic-anaphoric in char act er . Hi s a r gume nt s , t he s l p p o s e d l y or i gi nal
unity of *kue - and t he par t i cl e *k'~e ~5), and t he so-cal l ed ' r el at i ve
AnschluB' by means of q u i in Lat i n (cf. e.g. Pl aul . Rud. 431):~Te),
fail to convince me" t he i dent i t y me nt i one d first is, it i~ t r ue, a s s ume d
by many scholars, but mus t be consi der e( | dubiolli, ' a n y h o w *k~e
was not ' deictic' in t he sense of t he t er m a dopt e d by Hi r t t he ' r el at i ve
Anschlul3' mav be consi der ed a s wc i a l d e v e t c mmo n t c~f n ~.t.' icto-e.nron,--t
type of ' rel at i ve' cons t r uct i on. To Hi r t ' s s ubs equent e xpa t i a t i ons
upon the supposed gr oup or ' c ompound r el at i ve' *" '
! osR: ' e I mu s t
likewise object. It is t r ue t ha t in Gr eek "re of t en fol l ows 6; but it
cannot be mai nt ai ned t hat d' re is a fi xed phr ase, t he second e!emen~
of which is a s t r engt heni ng par t i cl e, or t ha t it is a gr oup wi t hout a
special meani ng~" ) . The c ombi na t i on ,5.z zL,_- may not be put on a
par with o,, re, and cannot be made an argu. r. ~nt for vi ndi cat i ng t l ~
existence of a fi xed gr oup *iosk~e in (~Ti~:. I. E. , for whi ch t he
supposed paral l el i sm bet ween 8~ re, qz~isq,e~ ~:~.~: ka ca cannot be a
piece of evi dence ei t her. That qui s que shoul d have r epl aced thi~
*iosk~e is a mer el y a r bi t r a r y as s umpt i on. Si nce *iosk~'e is ent i r el y
in the air, it woul d be s uper f l uous to raise, obje~:~ions t o Hi r t ' s usi ng
the inflections of d; re, 6k r~ and si mi l ar phr a. , e, as an a r gume nt f,,r
his thesis t hat in some l anguage t he former, ,,l~e,vhero t he l at t er par t
of it, or of it~ "riffler f or m" *i osk~i s, was lo,,t.
Ut~eckt
.]. G o' , D.~
~7,) Iqirt, I ndoge r m Gr amm. , VII, p 133 ff.
mt See Mnemosyne, N.S. v,fi. VI I , p 1S1.
1~6) See Li ngua I \ ' , p 23.
177) See Mnemosyne, vol. VI I , p. 2@2. ff.