Metrical Grid Theory Internal Derivation PDF

INDO-EUROPEAN
ACCENT AND ABLAUT
Edited by
Götz Keydana
Paul Widmer
and
Thomas Olander
Museum Tusculanum Press

University of Copenhagen
2013
© Museum Tusculanum Press and the author(s) 2013

Indo-European Accent and Ablaut
© Museum Tusculanum Press and the authors 2013
Edited by Götz Keydana, Paul Widmer & Thomas Olander
Cover design by Thora Fisker
Set by Thomas Olander
Printed in Denmark by Tarm Bogtryk A/S
ISBN 978 87 635 4043 8
Copenhagen Studies in Indo-European, vol. 5

ISSN 1399 5308
Published with support from:
Roots of Europe – Language, Culture, and Migrations
Museum Tusculanum Press

Birketinget 6
DK 2300 Copenhagen S
www.mtp.dk

Metrical grid theory, internal derivation, and
the reconstruction of PIE nominal accent
paradigms
Ronald I. Kim
Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań
This paper applies “metrical grid theory” as developed by Halle and

Idsardi to the standardly reconstructed accent-ablaut paradigms
of PIE. It is shown that root nouns can be straightforwardly mod-
eled, as well as acrostatic and amphikinetic inflection: the strong and
weak case endings are underlyingly unaccented and accented, respec-
tively, and the root is unaccented in root nouns of the standard type
(e.g. *h2ént- ~ *h2n"t-´ ‘front, face’) and amphikinetic paradigms (e.g.
*d#ég$#-om- ~ *d#g$#-m-´ ‘earth’), but accented in acrostatic paradigms
(e.g. *pód- ~ *péd- ‘foot’, *wód-r" ~ *wéd-n"- ‘water’). Hysterokinetic
and neuter proterokinetic paradigms can also be modeled without dif-
ficulty, the latter by assuming a dominant unaccented nom./acc. sg.
ending *-∅, while animate proterokinetic paradigms require the as-
sumption of one or more ad hoc rules. These analyses are then con-
sidered in the context of internal derivation, where it is argued that
amphikinetic inflection represents the default type, derived by the
addition of a dominant zero suffix. The remaining types of internal
derivation are reviewed in turn, followed by a conclusion summariz-
ing the remaining difficulties and issues for future research.1
The “kinetic revolution” in Indo-European studies during the 1960s and ’70s
radically altered our understanding of nominal and, to a lesser extent, verbal
inflection in Proto-Indo-European and the oldest Indo-European languages.
1 I thank Götz Keydana and Paul Widmer for kindly inviting me to take part in the
Göttingen Workshop on Indo-European Accentology, and all the participants
there for their comments on the oral version of this paper. Special thanks also go
to Craig Melchert for reading a final draft and making numerous helpful sugges-
tions. All errors and opinions remain entirely my responsibility.

64 Ronald I. Kim
Following upon the pioneering insights of Pedersen (1926, 1933) and Kui-
per (1942), scholars such as Hoffmann, Narten, and Schindler reconstructed
several contrasting accent and ablaut classes for the protolanguage; their
conclusions are now generally accepted in one form or another by all main-
stream Indo-Europeanists. Only in recent years, however, have scholars seri-
ously attempted to model these accentual paradigms in light of advances in
contemporary phonological theory. In particular, the prosodic framework
developed by Idsardi and Halle has been successfully applied to Russian and
other modern Slavic and Baltic languages with lexically contrastive stress,
whose stress systems are shown to operate according to certain universal
rules and language-specific parametric settings.
This “metrical grid theory” has encountered a number of difficulties in
accounting for the accentual paradigms posited for PIE, calling into question
the validity both of the theoretical approach as well as of the reconstructed
paradigms themselves. The following paper does not seek to address all the
problems raised by the reconstruction of PIE accent and ablaut classes, par-
ticularly such fundamental issues as the prehistoric relation of ablaut and
stress, or the relative strength or weakness of the evidence for individual
paradigms. Instead, it aims to investigate to what extent metrical grid theory
is able to model the main inflectional types, namely acrostatic, amphikinetic,
proterokinetic, and hysterokinetic, and their relation to one other through
processes of internal derivation.
1 Preliminaries
1.1 The PIE accentual system
The basic principles of the PIE accentual system have been known since
the late 19th century. With the exception of pro- and enclitics, all PIE word
forms were stressable and could carry the stress on at most one syllable. In
contrast to most modern IE languages, PIE had lexically contrastive accent,
i.e. the accentual properties of morphemes were not predictable on the basis
of their phonetic shape alone (e.g. vowel length or syllable weight), but had
to be learned individually. Lexical accent is reflected in Hittite, Vedic, an-
cient (and modern) Greek, and many Baltic and Slavic languages, including

Metrical grid theory, internal derivation, and PIE nominal accent 65
Lithuanian, Russian, and Serbo-Croatian; in addition, the effects of Verner’s

Law presuppose lexical accent for an earlier stage of Proto-Germanic.2
The phonetic properties of PIE stress and the prehistory of the PIE accent
and ablaut system are not strictly speaking recoverable by the comparative
method, but must be inferred through internal reconstruction and typologi-
cal arguments. According to the traditional view (going back at least to Ped-
ersen 1926), (pre-)PIE was marked by dynamic accent or “stress accent”, and
the distribution of full and zero-grade vocalism (i.e. *e vs. *∅) was condi-
tioned by the presence vs. absence of surface stress. This stress accent was lat-
er transformed into pitch accent, which based on the descriptions of ancient
grammarians was present in Vedic (as udātta) and ancient Greek; this pitch
accent then gave way to a stress accent in later stages, e.g. modern Greek and
the majority of present-day IE languages, including English.
These assumptions have been called into question by modern phonet-
ics, which has shown that so-called “pitch accent languages” also exhibit
differential levels of stress intensity (loudness, length, etc.) on accented vs.
unaccented syllables, and conversely that “stress accent languages” do show
systematic differences in pitch frequency on syllables with primary stress,
secondary stress, or no stress. Furthermore, the almost universally held be-
lief that the ablaut alternation between full-grade *e and zero-grade *∅ was
conditioned by stress in pre-PIE, i.e. that underlying *e was syncopated in
unstressed syllables, has recently been called into question;3 and the prehis-
tory of qualitative ablaut alternations (*e ~ *o) remains for the most part un-
clear.4 In any case, the secure reconstruction of forms such as *sept' ‘seven’
or pres. act. 2pl. *bhér-e-te ‘you carry’ for the earliest recoverable stage of PIE,
with stressed zero grade viz. unstressed full grades, makes it clear that ab-
laut was no longer purely allophonic. The ablaut alternations reconstructible
for the protolanguage had probably long since become morphologized, i.e.
reinterpreted as associated with specific morphological categories and para-
digms, such as the ones to be examined below in §3.
2 The Iranian languages and Tocharian B have also arguably preserved traces of
PIE lexical accent: see Mayrhofer 1989: 13 with refs., Ringe 1987.
3 See e.g. Keydana 2005: 22–5, 39–43 and passim; Kiparsky 2010: 158–9.
4 For competing views on the origin of o-grade vocalism in general, see Beekes
1985: 157–8, 1995: 166–7, Rasmussen 1989: 123–262, Szemerényi 1990: 124–7, 1996:
119–21 with refs.

66 Ronald I. Kim
1.2 The development of metrical theory
In the earliest version of generative phonology (Chomsky and Halle 1968),

stress was treated as a distinctive feature of particular segments, analogous
to e.g. [long], [back], or [nasal]. However, Liberman (1975) pointed out that
stress alternations such as English phótogràph vs. photógrapher vs. phò-
tográphic or sixtéen, Japanése, bambóo vs. síxteen Jápanese bámboo tábles
would require a complex series of otherwise unmotivated rule derivations,
and proposed instead that stress is the phonetic realisation of underlying
phonological structure, specifically of groupings of segments into larger
units, or “feet”. This view is now universally accepted and has given rise to
various theoretical models to account for the wide variety of prosodic sys-
tems in the world’s languages.
Probably the most influential model of stress computation in the pho-
nological literature has been that of Hayes (1985, 1995). In line with the core
assumption of generative grammar, he argued that stress patterns reflect dif-
ferent parsings of phonological structure into (usually binary) feet, either
syllabic or moraic, and a finite number of parametric settings, e.g. to assign
prominence to the left or right foot edge (i.e. build left- or right-headed feet),
iterate foot building (from left to right, or right to left), or exceptionally skip
segments at the edge of a prosodic domain (extrametricality). This frame-
work successfully generates most of the stress patterns commonly found
in the world’s languages, including some of great surface complexity (e.g.
the famous Axininca Campa; see Hayes 1995: 288–96, McCarthy and Prince
1993: 159–70). However, it does not directly deal with lexical accent, which is
found in many ancient and modern IE languages and reconstructed for PIE
(§1.1), and also occurs in several non-IE languages.5
5 For alternative analyses to the one adopted below, both emerging from the hey-
day of Optimality Theory, see Revithiadou (1999), who treats lexical stress in
terms of faithfulness to underlying accents and morphological headedness; and
Alderete (2001b), who distinguishes root- and affix-controlled accent and in-
vokes the notion of “anti-faithfulness” to account for morphological accent shifts
and dominance effects (see fns. 6, 10).

2 The “brackets-and-edges” theory and its application to IE languages
Building upon the formalism of Halle and Vergnaud (1987: 109ff.), the pho-
nologists William Idsardi and Morris Halle proposed a revised framework
for the representation of accent and computation of stress (see especially
Idsardi 1992, Halle and Idsardi 1995).6 The principal innovation of this model
is that the metrical feet of Hayes and others are replaced by metrical “grids”
consisting of potentially stress-bearing marks and left (opening) vs. right
(closing) brackets. In contrast to earlier approaches, feet thus play no inde-
pendent role in stress assignment.
According to Idsardi and Halle, the computation of prosody, i.e. of main
and secondary stresses, takes place according to the following operations.
As in other domains of generative grammar, different languages are distin-
guished by their settings for individual parameters, highlighted below in ital-
ics.
1 Line 0 Projection
Certain segments in the phonological structure (typically syllable heads)
project grid marks onto line 0.
2 Syllable Boundary Projection (optional)
Project the left/right (L/R) boundary of certain syllables onto Line 0 (see
below).
3a Edge-Marking Parameter
Insert a L/R bracket to the L/R of the L/R-most element in Line 0. The
brackets define the Line 0 grid marks into metrical constituents, similar
to the types of feet specified by Hayes. Here, however, the constituents
are not themselves the parameter, but are determined by the placement
of brackets within the grid.
3b Iterative Constituent Construction (optional)
Insert a L/R boundary for each pair of elements from R/L to L/R.
3c Head Location Parameter
Project the L/R-most element of each constituent onto Line 1.
4a Edge-Marking Parameter
Insert a L/R bracket to the L/R of the L/R-most element in Line 1.
6 Here and below, I follow their terminology in distinguishing between accent as

an underlying property of individual morphemes or phonological elements (e.g.
syllable heads), and stress as a phonetic realization in surface forms.

68 Ronald I. Kim
4b Head Location Parameter

Project the L/R-most element onto Line 2.
5 Conflation (optional):
In languages lacking secondary stress, conflate Lines 0 and 1, so that the
head on Line 2 receives the sole stress.
In addition, a number of avoidance constraints account for extrametrical
effects and clitic phenomena; for details, see Idsardi 1992: 45–80, Halle and
Idsardi 1995: 422–40.
This “brackets-and-edges” framework allows the simple computation of
most stress patterns found in the world’s languages, based on the settings of
just a few parameters; in addition, it does not obviously overgenerate, i.e. pre-
dict stress patterns unattested in human language. Its main advantage lies in
what Halle and Idsardi (1995: 407–8) term Syllable Boundary Projection (see
Step 2 above), which allows syllables with a particular phonological property
to be distinguished for metrical purposes: not only syllables marked by a
phonetic feature such as vowel length or a nasal coda, but also those lexically
specified as accented. In the now extinct Uto-Aztecan language Cupeño, for
example, the accented root √áyu ‘want’ or past durative suffix -qál contrasts
with unaccented √yax ‘say’ or imperative 2pl. -əm. If a word contains more
than one accented morpheme, the rightmost one receives stress; conversely,
if a word contains only unaccented morphemes, stress is assigned to the left-
most syllable by default (“default-to-opposite stress”).7
/pə1- míʔaw -lu/ > pəmíʔawlu ‘he came’

3sg come motion
/pə1- yax -qál/ > pəyaqál ‘he was saying’
3sg say past.dur
/ʔə1- yax -qál -í/ > ʔəyaqalí ‘...what you said’
2sg say past.dur obj
7 Data taken from Alderete 2001b: 48–52, 2001c: 470–4; see also Hill 2005: 23–9
and passim. Stress computation in Cupeño is actually more complicated, since
accented roots are actually dominant accented, i.e. their accent overrides that of
any affixes: hence /pə1- ʔáyu -qál/ > pəʔáyuqal ‘he was wanting’, not “pəʔayuqál”
(see the discussion below). In addition, Cupeño has preaccenting suffixes, which
assign accent to the preceding (usually final root) syllable. On the modeling of
these effects and of default-to-opposite stress, see Alderete 2001b: 37–72, 2001c.

/max -əm/ > máxəm ‘give! (pl.)’

give 2pl
Halle (1997) applies the brackets-and-edges model to Indo-European lan-
guages with lexical accent, e.g. Russian, Lithuanian, and Vedic.8 In Russian,
for instance, every morpheme is either accented (i.e. projects the left bound-
ary of one of its syllables), postaccenting (i.e. projects the left boundary of
the following syllable), or unaccented. The parameters for the computation
of stress are set as follows:
1 Line 0 Projection: project syllable heads
2 Syllable Boundary Projection: project left boundary of lexically speci-
fied syllable heads
3a Edge-Marking: RRR (insert a right bracket to the right of the rightmost
element)
3c Head Location: project the leftmost element of each constituent onto
Line 1
4a Edge-Marking: LLL (insert a left bracket to the left of the leftmost ele-
ment)
4b Head Location: project the leftmost element of each constituent onto
Line 2
5 Conflate Lines 0 and 1
In other words, if a prosodic word contains one or more underlyingly ac-
cented syllable heads, stress falls on the leftmost one; if all the syllable heads
in a word are unmarked for accent, the leftmost (i.e., initial) syllable receives
stress by default. This Basic Accentuation Principle (Kiparsky and Halle
1977) and the parameters underlying it hold for all ancient and most modern
IE languages with lexical accent, and may be securely reconstructed for PIE.
The operation of the above rules results in the three major accentual par-
adigms (APs) of Slavic languages such as Russian, known in Slavic accentol-
ogy as AP a, b, and c and illustrated here with the a-stem nouns koróv- ‘cow’
(accented), mečt- ‘dream’ (postaccenting), and gor- ‘mountain’ (unaccented).
Each is inflected with two case endings, accented instr. pl. -(ami and unac-
8 For earlier theoretical treatments of lexical stress in these languages, see Halle
and Vergnaud 1987: 84–90, 190–203 and Hock 1992. On Russian, see also Halle
1973, Melvold 1989, and Idsardi 1992: 109–35, where numerous complications
and exceptions which cannot be touched upon here are discussed in detail; and
the very different analysis of Revithiadou 1999: 198–225.

70 Ronald I. Kim
cented acc. sg. -u, in order to illustrate the interaction of stem and ending in
the computation of Russian stress.
* * *
(* * (* (*
* (* (* *) *( (* *) * (* *)
ko róv a mi mečt á mi gor á mi
* * *
(* (* (*
* (* *) *( *) * *)
ko róv u mečt ú gór u
We see that when the stem is underlyingly accented (either on one of its syl-
lables or on the immediately following syllable), the resulting paradigm has
columnar stress, at least before the operation of relatively late sound chang-
es.9 In contrast, unaccented stems such as gor- are associated with AP c, with
stress alternating between the default leftmost syllable in unaccented word
forms (acc. sg. góru, nom./acc. pl. góry) and the ending (gen. sg. gorý, instr.
pl. gorámi, loc. goráx, etc.), depending on whether the ending is unaccented
or accented.10
All of the morphemes examined so far have “recessive” accentuation, in
that their accentual properties alone do not determine the stress of the pro-
sodic domain in which they occur. On the other hand, “dominant” mor-
phemes, which may likewise be accented or unaccented, override the accen-
tual specification of any others and “impose” their accent (or lack thereof)
9 Namely retraction from weak jers (e.g. Russ. koról’ ‘king’, underlyingly /korol’(-∅/,
vs. gen. korol’-á, instr. korol’-óm, etc.) and nonacute word-internal vowels (Stang
1957: 168–70, Garde 1976: 218–39, Olander 2009: 131–2 with refs.).
10 In the terminology of the Moscow school of Balto-Slavic accentology associated
with V. A. Dybo and his disciples (see e.g. Dybo 1981, Dybo et al. 1990), unac-
cented word forms are referred to as “enclinomena”, although it is not clear that
they were ever realized without stress. On the possibility that enclinomena were
phonetically unstressed in Old Prussian, see Olander 2009.
Stress domains originally encompassed proclitics and enclitics in Proto-
Slavic and Old Russian, but over time were gradually restricted to the noun in
many Slavic languages, leaving numerous lexicalized relics such as Russ. ná goru
‘(on)to the mountain’, pód goru ‘downhill’, pret. neut. sg. né bylo ‘was not’, pret.
masc. sg. načal-sjá ‘began (intr.)’. See Garde 1976: 5–13, 274–6, Dybo 1981: 45–54,
Olander 2009: 130, 163–5 with refs.

on the entire word form or prosodic domain.11 Inflectional morphemes in

IE languages are generally recessive, but the number of dominant deriva-
tional morphemes has gradually increased over time in languages such as
Russian.12 In the following examples, the stems smex- ‘laugh’ (accented) and
volos- ‘hair’ (unaccented) are paired with the dominant suffix -ač- (postac-
centing) to give smexáč ‘person who laughs, big laugher’, volosáč ‘hairy man’,
gen. smexačá, volosačá.
* *
(* (*
(* *( *) * *( *) * * *( *)
smex ač a → smex ač á vo los ač á
DOM DOM
The same principles for stress computation also underlie the accentual sys-
tem of other Slavic languages such as Serbo-Croatian, and so may be re-
constructed with confidence for Proto-Slavic. In contrast, the four accentual
classes of modern Lithuanian may be reduced to two underlying paradigms
by taking into account de Saussure’s Law (de Saussure 1894), with accented
vs. unaccented stem, and no counterpart to the Slavic postaccenting type.
Although the exact relation between the Slavic and (East) Baltic accentual
paradigms and their development from PIE remain among the most contest-
ed problems of all IE linguistics, almost all scholars today concur in assum-
11 See Inkelas 1996 for examples and discussion, and Alderete 2001a, 2001b: 185–
239 for an analysis of dominant affixes in terms of anti-faithfulness to the accent
of the derivational base.
The same terminology is adopted by Garde (1976) in his monograph on Slav-
ic accentuation (see especially pp. 54ff. on nominal derivation), as well as Hock
(1992: 190ff.). Note that the “dominant” and “rezessiv” morphemes of Lehfeldt
(2009: 67–9 and passim) correspond to (recessive) accented vs. unaccented here.
12 From the point of view of the first or second language learner, the advantage of
dominant morphemes is obvious: one need not know the accentual specification
of the other constituent morphemes, in particular of the root, to compute the
stress of the word form as a whole. – Note that I do not follow Alderete (2001b:
205–18) in treating ending stress in e.g. smex-áč, smex-ač-á as a default stress pat-
tern: although many dominant suffixes in Russian are postaccenting (cf. ryb-ák,
gen. ryb-ak-á ‘fisherman’, smeš-ók, smeš-k-á ‘laugh (dim.)’), others are not, e.g.
-íst-.

72 Ronald I. Kim
ing a common prosodic system ancestral to all the Balto-Slavic languages,

with the same parametric settings as observed in Russian or Lithuanian.
The stress computation rules for Balto-Slavic can also be applied to other
ancient IE languages with lexical accent, most importantly Vedic and ancient
Greek, and to PIE itself. Thus the fundamental opposition between bary-
tone and oxytone thematic stems may be interpreted as a contrast between
underlyingly unaccented and postaccenting roots, illustrated here with the
well-known nouns for ‘horse’ and ‘yoke’:13
* *
(* (*
* *) *( *)
PIE ̑w
*h1ek o s ̑wos
> *h1ék *yug o m > *yugóm
Ved. áśv a s yug á m
Gr. ἵππ ο ς ζυγ ό ν
Whether these rules are also capable of generating athematic paradigms with
mobile stress in PIE is however a much more complex issue, which has re-
ceived relatively little attention to date: in addition to Hock 1992 and the cur-
sory discussion by Halle (1997: 308–9), see R. Kim 2002: 19ff., Keydana 2005,
this volume, and Kiparsky 2010. The following sections will examine to what
extent Idsardi and Halle’s metrical grid theory in general, and the parametric
settings established above on the basis of ancient and modern IE languages
in particular, are compatible with the various accent and ablaut classes now
generally reconstructed for PIE.14
13 The root of ‘horse’ and other barytone o-stem nominals could also be accented,
since in that case stress would also fall on the root.
14 The reconstructions adopted below follow in all essentials those worked out by
Schindler (e.g. 1972, 1975b, 1975c), Eichner (1973: 62, 68–73, 91 n. 33; 1974), and
other scholars of the Erlangen school; see Szemerényi 1990: 170–1, 1996: 161–2,
Rix 1992: 121–4, Widmer 2004: 49–62, Clackson 2007: 79–88, Fortson 2009: 119–
26, Meier-Brügger 2010: 275–90, 336–53 and, with differences of classification
and detail, Rieken 1999: 3–7 and passim, Schaffner 2001: 69–94, Neri 2003: 17–43,
45–114 (u-stems).

3 Metrical grid theory and PIE nominal accent and ablaut classes
3.1 Root nouns
Within the framework of metrical grid theory, the well-known alternation

between strong- and weak-stem forms in PIE root nouns at once receives a
simple explanation.15
· Strong case endings (nominative, accusative, vocative) are unaccented.
· Weak case endings (genitive, dative, instrumental, locative) are accent-
ed.16
If the root is unaccented, the strong forms will have no underlying accent
and therefore receive default stress on the first syllable. In contrast, the weak
forms surface with stress on the only accented syllable head, namely the end-
ing. These two outcomes are illustrated below with the acc. and gen. sg. of the
PIE root noun *h2ént- ~ *h2n"t-´ ‘front, face’.
* *
(* (*
* *) * (*)
*h2ent m
̥ > *h2éntm
̥ *h2ent es > *h2n
̥tés
If however the root is accented, both strong and weak forms will surface
with stress on the leftmost accented syllable, i.e. the root. This is the case for
acrostatic root nouns with *o ~ *e root vocalism and unstressed zero-grade
endings, mainly resultative and agent nouns such as *dóm- ~ *dém- ‘house,
i.e. that which is built’, *pód- ~ *péd- ‘foot, i.e. that which steps’ (Schindler
15 Unless otherwise specified, all morphemes in this and the following sections are
recessively accented. The only dominant inflectional ending in PIE was the neu-
ter nom./acc. sg. *-∅; see below, §3.5. In contrast, the unaccented animate voc.
sg. *-∅ need not have been dominant; the initial stress of all vocatives can be un-
derstood as the result of a postlexical deaccentuation rule, with sentence-initial
vocatives then regularly receiving default initial stress (cf. Ringe 2006: 22).
16 The endingless locative singular is to be analyzed as accented *-∅, thus going
together with the other oblique case endings; see below, §3.3 and fns. 17, 21.

74 Ronald I. Kim
1972: 32–6).17 The metrical grids for the accusative and genitive of ‘foot’ are
hence:18
* *
(* (*
(* *) (* (*)
*pod m
̥ > *pódm
̥ and *ped es > *péds.
The only aspect of the above forms which is not explained by their prosodic
structure is the root ablaut *o ~ *e, which apparently must be prespecified for
strong viz. weak stems. Otherwise, the forms generated are exactly those re-
constructed for PIE, and reflected in relics such as Hitt. nekuz (mēḫur) ‘even-
ing time’ < PIE gen. *nékw-t-s (Schindler 1966, Rieken 1999: 128–9) or GAv.
də0ṇg pati- < PIE *dém-s pótis ‘lord of the house’ (cf. Gr. δεσπότης; Schindler
1972: 32).
Already in the protolanguage, there is a clear tendency to generalize the
alternating stress pattern of *h2ént- ~ *h2n"t-´; this change appears to be com-
plete for root nouns of the shape *TERT-, as in e.g. *pór:- ~ *pr":-´ ‘deer’
(Schindler 1972: 34–5). Since the root-stressed strong case forms could be
analyzed as having accented root (see above) or unaccented root and ending
(with default initial stress), speakers must have chosen the latter option and
extended it to the oblique cases, yielding forms with zero-grade root and
stressed ending:
17 As opposed to root nouns with ordinary *e ~ *∅ ablaut and alternating stress,

which are usually action nouns or denote a state, e.g. *pré:- ~ *pr":-´ ‘prayer’,
*dyéw- ~ *diw-´ ‘sky, that which is clear’ (Schindler 1972: 36–8).
18 Acrostatic nouns containing the nonablauting formant *-t- can also be included
here, e.g. *nókw-t- ~ *nékw-t- ‘evening’; their metrical grids are identical to that for
*pód- ~ *péd-, as *-t- does not project a mark onto Line 0. On the extension of
this formant to root nouns in *-i-, *-u-, and *-r"- in Indo-Iranian, see now Vijūnas
2009.
I assume that the realization of the ablauting endings gen. sg. *-és ~ *-s
(~ *-os) and instr. sg. *-éh1 ~ *-h1 was conditioned by stress at an early (pre-)
PIE stage, as was the ablaut of roots and suffixes; see below for further exam-
ples. (For a different account of PIE ablaut, see now Kiparsky 2010: 145ff. [zero
grades], 149–50 [gen. sg. ending].) The loc. sg. ending, underlyingly accented *-∅
(see §3.3 and fn. 16), causes compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel,
whence e.g. PIE loc. *dēm > GAv. dąm, → YAv. dąm-i.

* *
(* (*
(* *) * *)
̑
*pork m
̥ > ̥̑
*pórkm → ̑
*pork m
̥ > *pórk̑m̥,
whence
* *
(* (*
(* (*) * (*)
̑
*perk es > ̑s
*pérk → ̑
*perk es > *pr̥k̑és.
The same change eventually affects all other acrostatic root nouns, leaving
only relic forms such as those given above. By (late) PIE, however, the shift
of stress from the root no longer automatically conditioned zero-grade ab-
laut, so nouns such as *pód- ~ *ped-´ maintained the inherited *o ~ *e root
alternation, whereas e.g. *bhór- ~ *bhor-´ ‘thief ’ (Gr. φώρ, Lat. fūr), *wókw- ~
*wokw-´ ‘voice’ (Lat. vōx, Ved. vāc-, Toch. B wek) generalized the o-grade of
the strong cases.
The stress alternation between strong and weak cases in root nouns re-
mains productive into the attested history of Vedic and Greek. Thus in Attic
Greek, virtually all consonant-stem nouns with monosyllabic root, including
those which arose by inner-Greek contractions, alternate between root stress
in the nominative and accusative, and ending stress in the genitive and da-
tive.19 The underlying specifications posited above for PIE therefore survive
into both languages, as illustrated below for Ved. vāc- ‘speech, voice’ and Gr.
αἰγ- ‘goat’:
* *
(* (*
* *) * (*)
vāc am > vEcam vāc as > vācás
19 Cf. Hom. ὄϊς ‘sheep’, φάος ‘light’, nom./acc. pl. ὄατα ‘ears’ > Att. οἶς, φῶς (reana-
lyzed as /φωτ-/), ὦτα, whence gen. sg. ὄϊος, φάους, ὄατος → οἰός, φωτός, ὠτός
(but note gen. pl. ὤτων; Schwyzer 1939: 379). On the Vedic facts, see Wackernagel
& Debrunner 1930: 21–3.

76 Ronald I. Kim
* *
(* (*
* *) * (*)
aig a > αἶγα aig os > αἰγός
3.2 Acrostatic paradigms
The same assumption of underlying root accent can also account for the
acrostatic inflection of suffixed nouns in PIE, which are for the most part
reconstructible only on the basis of relic forms showing different root vo-
calism. Since the root as the leftmost accented syllable always receives the
stress, it cannot be determined on the basis of these nouns alone whether the
suffix is accented or not. In the following grids for the nominative and geni-
tive of PIE *wód-r" ~ *wéd-n"- ‘water’ (Schindler 1975b: 4–5; cf. Rieken 1999:
292–3) and *h2ów-i- ~ *h2éw-i- ‘sheep’ (Schindler 1969: 153 n. 60, 1994: 397;
cf. R. Kim 2000), I assume that the suffixes *-r- ~ *-n- and *-i- are underly-
ingly unaccented.
* *
(* (* *
(* * ) (* * (*)
*wod r
̥ Ø > *wódr
̥ *wed en es > *wédn
̥s19
DOM
* *
(* (* *
(* * ) (* * (*)
*h2ow i s > *h2ówis *h2ew i es > *h2éwis.
The same analysis may be applied to acrostatic suffixed nouns with *ē ~ *e

root ablaut, e.g. *Hyḗkw-r" ~ *Hyékw-n"- ‘liver’, *bhḗr-mn" ~ *bhér-mn"- ‘act of
bringing, load’, *h1nḗh3m-n" ~ *h1néh3m-n"- ‘name’.21 Once again, the met-
20 On the dominant unaccented specification of neuter nom./acc. sg. *-∅, see §3.5.
21 Also *ā ~ *a, if *wEst-u ~ *wást-u- ‘settlement’ is to be reconstructed for PIE (cf.
Ved. vEstu- ‘residence, dwelling’, TB ost, TA waṣt ‘house’ < PT *wostə < *wāstu vs.
Gr. ἄστυ ‘town’; EWA II: 549 with refs.).
I continue to reconstruct acrostatic inflection for the PIE word for ‘name’ on
the basis of TB ñem, TA ñom < PT *ñemə < *h1nḗh3mn". This must have adopted

rical theory adopted here provides no obvious clue as to the prehistory or

synchronic representation of the difference between the two main acrostatic
types with *o ~ *e and *ē ~ *e ablaut (types I and II in Schindler 1975b: 4–6),
e.g. why ‘water’ follows the former and ‘liver’ the latter pattern.22
We have seen that acrostatic inflection in root and suffixed nouns may be
modeled by presupposing underlyingly accented roots for PIE. This analysis
is in line with the hypothesis that *o ~ *e inflection in root nouns is charac-
teristic of certain deverbal formations, and also with Schindler’s later view
that “Narten inflection” is a property of specific roots (Schindler 1994: 398–
9), i.e. that a root associated with acrostatic nominal formations likewise
inflects acrostatically in verbal paradigms. For instance, we find the acro-
static root noun *sḗd- ~ *séd- (Lepontic acc. pl. siTeś ‘seats’ < *sḗd-Ws), s-stem
*sḗd-(o)s ~ *séd-(e)s- (OIr. síd ‘(elves’) mound; peace’; cf. Lat. sēd-ēs ‘seat’),
and derivative *sōd-o- > OE sōt ‘soot’ beside Narten verbal formations such
as Ved. sādád-yoni- ‘sitting in his place’ < *sḗd-n"t- and Lith. pres. 1sg. sXdu,
OCS inf. sěsti < PBS *sḗd-.23 Similarly, PIE *bher- ‘carry, bring’ occurs in Ved.
bhErman- ‘offering’, SC brZme ‘burden’ < *bhḗr-mn" as well as MidIr. birit ‘sow’
< PIE *bhér-n"t-ih2, TA impf. pārat ← PIE *bhḗr- ~ *bhér-, and possibly Av.
pres. mid. bairiia- < *bhér-ye⁄o-.24 This view has however been challenged in
recent years: cf. the evidence assembled by Kümmel (1998) for Narten pre-
the proterokinetic inflection of neuters in *-mn" independently at least twice, in

Anatolian (*h1néh3mn" ~ *h1n"h3mén- → Hitt. lāman vs. HLuv. á-ta/i4/5-man-za
/alaman-sa/, Lyc. alãma; Melchert 2007/2008: 184 with fn. 6) and in classical
IE (*h1néh3mn" ~ *h1n"h3mén- → Lat. nōmen, Goth. namō, Gr. ὄνομα, ἐνυμα-,
OIr. ainm, OPr. emmens, PSl. *jĭmę; Ved. nEma, YAv. nąma can reflect full or
lengthened grade). See however Neri (2005: 218ff.), who derives the forms with
zero-grade root from the PIE collective *h1néh3-mōn ~ *h1n"h3-mn-´. – On the
supposed examples of deverbal neuter nouns in simple *-(e)n-, see now Melchert
2007/2008.
22 Or in more recent proposals, a type with root ablaut nom./acc. *ó ~ obl. *é ~ loc.
*∅ (e.g. *wód-r" ~ *wéd-n"- ~ *ud-én ‘water’) and one with nom./acc. *ḗ ~ obl. *ó ~
loc. *e (e.g. *Hyḗkw-r" ~ *Hyókw-n"- ~ *Hyekw-én ‘liver’); see Rasmussen 1989: 251–5,
Schindler 1994: 397–8, Nussbaum 1998: 150 fn. 179. If these scholars are justified
in reconstructing the locative of acrostatic nouns with stressed full-grade suffix
(thus *ud-én, *Hyekw-én; cf. Ved. udán(i)), the PIE loc. sg. ending must have been
dominant accented *-∅.
23 If this does not reflect PIE *sed- by Winter’s Law (Winter 1978). Cf. also Lat. pf.
sēd-ī, which could continue PIE impf. *sḗd- ~ *séd- (Weiss 1993: 179–81) or pf.
(*se-sód- ~) *se-sd-´. See further LIV2: 513–5, NIL: 590–600 with refs.
24 See EWA II: 248–9 s.v. BHAR, LIV2: 76–7, NIL: 15–30 with refs.

78 Ronald I. Kim
sents beside ordinary root aorists, and de Vaan 2004 on acrostatic inflection
in Avestan and PIE.
A further objection to the assumption of accented “Narten roots” is that
acrostatic nouns frequently occur beside internally derived formations be-
longing to other accentual paradigms, e.g. proterokinetic adjectives or am-
phikinetic collectives (see §4). In the following sections, we will address the
underlying representation of the three mobile paradigms conventionally
reconstructed for PIE, i.e. amphikinetic, proterokinetic, and hysterokinetic,
before returning to the evidence of internal derivation for the analysis of
acrostatic inflection.
3.3 Amphikinetic paradigms
If both the root and the suffix in a noun of the structure Root + Suffix + End-
ing are unaccented, the strong case forms will receive default stress on the
leftmost syllable, i.e. the root, while in the weak forms stress will fall on the
underlyingly accented ending. This is exactly the pattern reconstructed for
amphikinetic nouns of the type of *dhég$h-om- ~ *dhg$h-m-´ ‘earth’, *h2éws-os- ~
*h2us-s-´ ‘dawn’, or *swé-sor- ~ *su-sr-´ ‘sister’. The metrical grids for the ac-
cusative and genitive of ‘earth’ are given below:
* *
(* (*
* * ) * * (*)
̑
*d egh h
em m h h
̑ ōm
> *d ég h
̑
*d eg h
em ̑hmés.24
es > *dhg
In the case of the locative singular, which in its oldest variant is character-
ized by a zero ending and a suffix “stepped up” by one ablaut grade compared
to the other weak forms, the ending may be reconstructed as accented *-∅.
25 I assume that the suffix in the weak case forms has underlying e-grade, which sur-
faces in the locative singular (see immediately below). The o-grade of the strong
forms would then be derived by a rule (surely in origin a sound change, though
long since morphologized) changing posttonic *e to *o in amphikinetic stems
ending in a sonorant (*dhég$h-ōm), *-s- (*h2éws-ōs), or *-t- (*nép-ōt-s ‘grandson’).
The long vowel of nom. sg. *dhég$hōm, *wédōr reflects Szemerényi’s Law (Sze-
merényi 1990: 121, 1996: 115–6 with refs.); in s-stem *-ōs it may, and in t-stem *-ōts
it must be analogical to the sonorant stems (pace Szemerényi, op. cit.). Acc. sg.
*dhég$hōm continues pre-PIE *-om-m by Stang’s Law; the homophony of nom. and
acc. led to the transfer of this noun to neuter gender in Hitt. tēkan (gen. taknāš,
dat. taknī; Schindler 1973: 153).

Since the grid mark projected onto Line 1 by step 3c would have correspond-
ed to a phonetically unrealized element, the next grid mark to the left was
projected instead; the result is *dhg$hém (→ Hitt. takān), with full grade of the
suffix.26
*
(*
* * ( ) * (*)
h
̑
*d eg h
em Ø → h
̑
*d eg h
em Ø > ̑hém.
*dhg
Beginning already in PIE, the hic-et-nunc particle *-i could be attached

postlexically to endingless locatives, whence forms such as *dhg$hém+i (> Ved.
kṣámi). This *-i was later reanalyzed as an accented case ending in the oldest
IE languages, producing loc. sg. *dhg$hem-í;27 this change would have been
especially favored by the disappearance of the older endingless locative, after
which the accentuation of *dhg$hémi would have seeemed anomalous. In met-
rical terms, the reanalysis may be captured as follows:
* *
(* (*
* * ( ) * * * (*)
h h h h
̑
*d eg em Ø + i → ̑
*d eg em i
> *dhg
̑hémi > *dh(e)g
̑hmí.
Also reconstructed with amphikinetic inflection for PIE are collectives to

neuter nouns, such as *wéd-ōr, *ud-n-´ ‘(individual) bodies, masses of water’
to acrostatic *wód-r" ~ *wéd-n"- ‘water’ (Schindler 1975b: 3–4), or *mén-ōs to
proterokinetic *mén-(o)s ~ *m(e)n-és- ‘thought’ (GAv. manō, pl. manå; on
26 This can easily be modeled in Optimality Theory as the interaction of input-

ouput faithfulness constraints, i.e. Dep-IO > Align-R. Note that this analysis
implies that suffixal ablaut was still a living phonological alternation in amphiki-
netic nouns, as also in hysterokinetic nouns (§3.4), in PIE and down into Vedic.
(Hitt. takān probably continues *dhg$hóm with *o from the nom./acc.; see Neu
1980: 8 fn. 7, Melchert 1994: 135.)
27 Or *dhg$hm-í (*dhg$hW-í), with zero-grade suffix from the other weak case forms,
e.g. gen. *dhg$hm-és (> Ved. jmáḥ, Av. zəmō). Cf. Ved. dyávi ~ diví to dyáuḥ ‘sky’,
mūrdhán, mūrdháni vs. Classical Skt. mūrdhní to mūrdhán- ‘head’, and see Wack-
ernagel and Debrunner 1930: 19, 24, 41–3.

80 Ronald I. Kim
the singular see §3.5).28 It is clear at once that collectives to acrostatic nouns
cannot be analyzed in the same way as ‘earth’ above, since their roots are un-
derlyingly accented according to the analysis in §3.2. We will return to this
problem below in §4.1, in the context of internal derivation.
3.4 Problematic cases (I): hysterokinetic inflection
In contrast to amphikinetic inflection, the remaining mobile types, protero-

kinetic and hysterokinetic, pose a number of problems for the metrical grid
model. As the examples from Russian (§2) and PIE (§§3.1, 3.3) make clear,
the parametric settings underlying the accentual system of Balto-Slavic lan-
guages with lexical accent, and assumed here for PIE, imply that all mobile
accentual paradigms should alternate between default leftmost stress (in un-
accented forms) and stress on the rightmost syllable, i.e. the ending. Such
“marginal” alternations are exactly what we find in PIE amphikinetic para-
digms, where the stress falls on the root in the strong cases, but on the (ac-
cented) ending in the weak cases.
Proterokinetic paradigms, however, are reconstructed for PIE with
stressed full-grade root and zero-grade suffix in the strong forms, and zero-
grade root and stressed full-grade suffix in the weak forms. Similarly, hyster-
okinetic paradigms are marked by zero grade of the root and an alternation
of stress and ablaut between suffix and ending: the strong cases have stressed
full-grade suffix, while the weak cases have zero-grade suffix and stressed
full-grade endings.29 These two types are illustrated below with the nouns
*gwém-ti- ~ *gwW-téy- ‘coming’ and *uks-én- ~ *uks-n-´ ‘ox’.
nom. sg. *gwém-ti-s *uks-ḗn

acc. *gwém-ti-m *uks-én-R
gen. *gwR-téy-s *uks-n-és
dat. *gwR-téy-ey *uks-n-éy
28 See the groundbreaking study of J. Schmidt 1889: 82–123 (n-stems), 135–60 (s-
stems), 191–218 (r-stems).
29 See the classic treatments of Pedersen 1926: 23–4, 1933: 21ff., Kuiper 1942: 161–
230; for the standard reconstruction of proterokinetic i- and u-stem paradigms,
see e.g. Ringe 2006: 47ff., Weiss 2009: 242, 249. Many of the following comments
also apply to the proterokinetic and hysterokinetic paradigms reconstructed by
the Leiden School, for which see Beekes 1985, 1995: 174–88, Kloekhorst 2008:
103ff.; cf. also fn. 49 below.

Assuming that the case endings have the same representation in all accent
and ablaut paradigms (§2), the stress alternations characteristic of protero-
kinetic and hysterokinetic inflection therefore require the addition of one or
more rules to the prosodic phonology of PIE.30
We may begin with hysterokinetic inflection, the more securely recon-
structible of the two types for PIE. A number of scholars have argued that
hysterokinetic paradigms (and proterokinetic paradigms; see below, §3.5)
originally had columnar stress on the second syllable, whether the syllabic
nucleus belonged to the suffix or to the ending. Under this view, Vedic acc.
sg. pitár-am, dat. pitr-é, instr. pl. pitr"f-bhis or Greek acc. sg. πατέρ-α, gen.
πατρ-ός, dat. pl. πατρά-σι (← loc. pl. *-r"f-su) would preserve the PIE situation,
and Balto-Slavic oblique (dual and) plural forms with ending stress such as
Lith. instr. pl. dukterimìs, rudenimìs or Russ. instr. pl. det’mí, dočer’mí rep-
resent secondary developments (see most recently Olander 2009: 58, 70–3,
95–7 with refs.). I am not convinced, however, that the latter must be post-
PIE innovations: the stress retraction in the oblique dual and plural could
have taken place independently in both Vedic and Greek (Wackernagel
and Debrunner 1930: 16–7, Meier-Brügger 1992: 288; cf. the refs. in Olander
2009: 97 fn. 142).31 In that case, we must reconstruct a stress alternation be-
tween suffix and ending for PIE independent of syllable structure, contrast-
ing strong with weak forms: thus e.g.
acc. sg. *uks-én-W ‘ox’ *dh3-tér-W ‘giver’
nom. pl. *uks-én-es *dh3-tér-es
vs.
30 Halle (1997: 309) simply postulates ad hoc rules for protero- and hysterokinet-
ic inflection, whereas Hock (1992: 181–2) assumes that a sequence of accented
root + accented ending was realized with stress on the suffix, e.g. in gen. sg.
*gwW-téy-s, which runs counter to all the principles of metrical theory presented
above in §2; cf. the critical remarks in Keydana 2005: 38–9 fn. 34.
31 The Oxytone Rule posited by Kiparsky (2010: 144ff.), although consistent with
most of the Vedic facts, can well be a language-specific innovation; note that
Greek does not normally stress the final syllable of a compound stem, hence Ved.
dvi-pád- ‘biped’, a-bhrātár- ‘brotherless’ (but tvát-pitāraḥ ‘having you as father’)
vs. Gr. δί-ποδ-, ἀ-πάτωρ ‘fatherless’, εὐ-δαίμων (voc., neut. εὔ-δαιμον) ‘having
good fortune’. The fact that synchronically exceptional amphikinetic nouns such
as pánthāḥ, gen. patháḥ ‘path’ [GAv. pantå, paθō] ← PIE *pént-oh2-s, *pn"t-h2-és
are not subject to the Oxytone Rule (op. cit. 154–5) also strongly suggests that it
arose in the separate prehistory of Indo-Iranian or Indo-Aryan.

82 Ronald I. Kim
gen. sg. *uks-n-és *dh3-tr-és

gen. pl. *uks-n-ṓm *dh3-tr-ṓm
instr. *uks-n"-bhís *dh3-tr"-bhís
loc. *uks-n"-sú *dh3-tr"-sú.
In my 2002 dissertation, I argued that the PIE r-stem relationship nouns
‘father’, ‘mother’, and ‘daughter’ had synchronically unanalyzable stems, so
that ‘father’ was simply a root noun *ph2tér- ~ *ph2tr-´; from there, the stress
and ablaut pattern was extended to nomina agentis in *-tér- ~ *-tr-´ and
other hysterokinetic stems. However, it is highly unlikely that such a well-
established inflectional type could have spread from such a narrow starting
point, and also not clear how the analysis of e.g. *dhugh2tér- ~ *dhugh2tr-´ as
*dhug-h2tér ~ *dhug-h2tr-´32 is to be understood in accentual terms.
Keydana (2005: 33–4) considers the suffix in hysterokinetic paradigms to
be in turn dominant unaccented, postaccenting, or (recessive) accented, and
concludes that these specifications generate the correct output only under the
assumption of a default-to-opposite stress system for PIE, one in which the
rightmost head is projected onto Line 2 of the metrical grid (as in Cupeño).
This however runs up against the considerable evidence for projection of the
leftmost head in IE languages with lexical accent (the Basic Accentuation
Principle; see above, §2). In the oral version of this paper, I suggested that the
stressable domain in hysterokinetic paradigms is restricted to the final two
syllables of the prosodic word, but offered no reason why such a restriction
should apply to just these forms and not those in amphikinetic paradigms,
e.g. acc. sg. *h2éws-os-W ‘dawn’, *swé-sor-W ‘sister’.
To avoid these difficulties, I propose that the suffix in hysterokinetic para-
digms is postaccenting, like the suffixes of modern Russian associated with
AP b, e.g. -ov- in bereg-ov-ój ‘shore (adj.)’, nos-ov-ój ‘nose (adj.), nasal’ to
unstressed bereg- ‘shore’, nos- ‘nose’. The metrical grids for the acc. and gen.
sg. of ‘ox’ would then be
32 Or *d#ugh2-tér ~ *d#ugh2-tr- 1, though the occurrence of *-h2t(e)r- in all r-stem re-

lationship nouns except ‘sister’ (*ph2t(é)r-, *méh2t(e)r-, *b#réh2tr-, *d#ugh2t(é)r-,
*yénh2t(e)r- ‘husband’s brother’s wife’) suggests that they are to be segmented
in this way (cf. Fortson 2009: 124). – Differently Kloekhorst (2011), who recon-
structs a “bandi-type” of hysterokinetic paradigm for ‘daughter’ with nom. sg.
*d#wégh2-tr", acc. *d#ugh2-tér-W, gen. *d#ugh2-tr-ós (cf. Beekes 1995: 175).

* *
(* (*
* *( *) * *( (*)
*uks en m
̥ > *uksnm
´
̥ and *uks en es > *uksnés.
This hypothesis yields the correct stress on the ending of *uksnés and other
weak case forms, but incorrectly predicts ending stress in the accusative as
well. In contrast to Keydana (op. cit.), I posit for PIE a general constraint
against surface stress on the strong case endings, here acc. sg. *-W; note that
strong forms of athematic nouns are never ending-stressed in PIE, or for
that matter in any of the oldest IE languages which preserve lexical accent
(Hittite, Vedic, Greek).33 In an Optimality Theory approach, this constraint
would be ranked above the output of the stress computation rules in §2, pro-
ducing acc. sg. *uks-én-W and similarly nom./acc. du. *uks-én-h1e, nom. pl.
*uks-én-es, acc. *uks-én-Ws.
3.5 Problematic cases (II): proterokinetic inflection
The greatest difficulty for the metrical grid model is posed by proterokinetic
inflection, in which the stress alternates between the root in the strong forms
and the suffix in the weak forms. It is true that the reconstruction of this
paradigm depends largely on the standard assumptions about the prehistoric
relation of stress and full-grade vocalism, as underlined by Keydana (2005:
22–3, this volume: §2), Olander (2009: 93), and Kiparsky (2010: 150–4). Nev-
ertheless, I do not believe that one can dispense with root-suffix alternations
of this type for the PIE or immediately pre-PIE stage. Not only are examples
such as *gwén-h2- ~ *gwn-éh2- ‘woman’ (OIr. ben, gen. mná)34 or *déyw-ih2- ~
*diw-yéh2- ‘goddess’ (Ved. devo, Gr. δῖα) well supported by the comparative
evidence, but scattered examples in IE languages of deverbal nouns in *-ti- or
*-tu-, the two largest groups of animate proterokinetic stems, do reflect ac-
33 The alternative is that syllabic strong endings (animate acc. sg. *-W, nom. pl. *-es,
acc. *-Ws) do not project a stress-bearing element onto Line 0 at all, which seems
both unlikely and ad hoc, given that no other syllabic nuclei in PIE are specified
in this matter. Nonsyllabic endings such as animate nom. sg. *-s or neuter nom./
acc. sg. *-∅ unsurprisingly do not project a line element, so the stress of nom.
sg. *uks-ḗn (< **-én-s) is automatically generated by the accentual specifications
proposed here, with a metrical grid comparable to that for endingless loc. sg.
*dhg$hém (§3.3).
34 On archaic OIr. bé < *gwḗn < *gwénh2, see Jasanoff 1989.

84 Ronald I. Kim
cented and/or full-grade root: cf. Ved. matí- beside máti- ‘thought’; Verner’s
Law reflexes in Germanic, e.g. Goth. gabaúrþ- ‘birth’, gaqumþ- ‘assembly’
with -þ- vs. OE gebyrd, OHG (gi)burt ‘birth’, kumft (kunft, etc.) ‘coming’ with
*-d-; or the family of Goth. ansts, OHG anst ‘favor, grace’ vs. OHG ab-unst
‘envy’.35 These forms are thus problematic for the hypothesis of a paradigm
with originally columnar suffixal stress, in which e.g. nom. *-í-s, *-ú-s, gen.
*-éy-s, *-éw-s, and pl. nom. *-éy-es, *-éw-es came to be differentiated by Para-
digm Contrast (Keydana, this volume: §§3–4) and/or syllable structure (Ki-
parsky 2010: 150–4).
Leaving aside internal derivation, on which see §4.2 below, any accen-
tual analysis must proceed from the fact that proterokinetic inflection in its
classic shape is barely reconstructible outside of the core cases of the singu-
lar. As observed by Nussbaum (1986: 280–1), the dual and plural desinences
(suffix + ending) of “proterokinetic” stems show descriptively hysterokinetic
ablaut: cf. e.g. i-stem nom. pl. *-ey-es vs. gen. *-(i)y-ōm, instr. *-i-bhis, dat.
*-i-bh(y)os, loc. *-i-su, with acc. pl. *-i-ms going with the weak cases. The in-
strumental singular of such nouns likewise shows an unstressed zero-grade
suffix and stressed full-grade ending (cf. Ved. absolutive gatvE ‘having gone’,
śrutvE ‘having heard’ < instr. *-tw-éh1; see Schindler apud Hollifield 1980: 45,
Peters 1980: 244 fn. 198 and Nussbaum 2010: 271 with refs.); and the allative
may as well (Peters apud Stifter 1997: 218–9). Thus the only cases which con-
form to the expected pattern of proterokinetic inflection are the nom., acc.,
gen./abl., dat., and perhaps loc. of the singular.
35 See Schaffner 2001: 436–87 (feminine i-stems), 488–512 (masculine u-stems),

and compare his treatment of masculine (95–105) and neuter (95–105, 106–13)
thematic nouns. Attempts to explain away these and other examples, e.g. by ap-
pealing to accent retractions in the separate branches (e.g. Olander 2009: 58,
80–2, Kiparsky 2010: 159–66, Keydana, this volume: §2.1), may be convincing in
individual cases, but the sheer extent of the phenomenon as well as the compara-
tive rarity of Verner’s Law alternants among (animate) o-stem nouns suggests
that i-stems in pre-Proto-Germanic did not simply have columnar suffixal stress.
– Cf. also Vine 2004 on full-grade roots in PIE *-ti- formations as evidence for
originally proterokinetic inflection.

nom. sg. *´-i-s *´-u-s *´-mnT

acc. *´-i-m *´-u-m *´-mnT
gen./abl. *-éy-s *-éw-s *-mén-s
dat. *-éy-ey *-éw-ey *-mén-ey
loc. *-ḗy *-ḗw *-mḗn35
Since amphikinetic and hysterokinetic paradigms were analyzed above as
containing unaccented roots + unaccented or postaccenting suffixes, we may
reasonably propose that at least some instances of proterokinesis reflect un-
accented roots + accented suffixes. For neuter nouns in *-wr" ~ *-wen-, *-m(e)
n-, or *-(e)s-, this hypothesis correctly generates the stress of the oblique
(singular) cases, e.g. gen. sg. *ph2-wén-s ‘fire’, *kwr"-mén-s ‘cutting’, *g$(e)nh1-
és-(V)s ‘race, stock, family’:37
* *
(* (*
* (* (*) * (* (*)
*peh2 wen es > *ph2wéns ̑enh1
*g ̑n
es es > **g ̥h1éss.
However, the nom./acc. sg. of such nouns should likewise have suffixal
stress, producing incorrect forms such as *ph2-wér, *kwr"-mén, *g$n"h1-és. I
therefore suggest that the nom./acc. sg. ending *-∅ is dominant unaccented,
as opposed to the recessive case endings encountered thus far (§3.1). Any
accentual specification of the root or suffix (here, the accented suffix) will be
erased in the derivation, and the form will surface with initial stress: hence
*péh2-wr", *kwér-mn", *g$énh1-(V)s.38
36 These may reflect accented loc. sg. *-∅, with compensatory lengthening of the
preceding vowel as in root nouns (§3.1, fn. 18). Alternatively, i-stem loc. sg. *-ḗy
could continue *-éy-i, with a phonetic development analogous to Stang’s Law
(Schindler 1973: 153; Szemerényi 1990: 123, 1996: 118), and this could then have
influenced the loc. sg. of u-stems.
37 Not directly reconstructible, of course: full-grade root has been leveled in from
the nom./acc., and vocalic allomorphs of the gen. sg. ending (*-os, *-es) from
other inflectional types. For details, see Schindler 1975c and fn. 38 below. On the
proterokinesis of PIE nouns in *´-wr" ~ *-wén- (similarly *séh2-wr, gen. *sh2-wén-
s ‘sun’) and *´-mn" ~ *-mén-, see Schindler 1975b: 9–10, 1975c: 263–4.
38 Whence *g$énh1-os with *o from amphikinetic inflection (§3.3); forms such as
Goth. riqis ‘darkness’ (gen. riqizis) ← *h1rég$-os can owe their suffix to leveling
from the oblique cases. The earlier shape is preserved with laryngeal-final roots
such as *kréwh2-s ‘raw meat’ > Ved. kravíḥ, Gr. κρέας and in isolated relics, e.g.

86 Ronald I. Kim
*
(*
* (* ) * * )
*peh2 wer Ø → *peh2 wer Ø > *péh2wr
̥
DOM
In support of this analysis is the striking fact that all PIE athematic neuter
nouns have root stress in the nom./acc. sg.; there are no neuter hysterokinetic
stems reconstructible for the protolanguage. This distributional peculiarity is
explained at once if the zero-ending proper to athematic neuters is dominant
unaccented, so that the stress always surfaces on the default leftmost syllable.
The hypothesis advanced here generates the correct forms for the core
cases of the singular, namely the nom., acc., gen., dat., and loc.;39 on the neu-
ter plural, which is in origin a collective, see §4.1 below. It also accords with
the diachronic tendency for acrostatic nouns to adopt proterokinetic inflec-
tion in the IE daughter languages. As is well known, the acrostatic paradigms
reconstructed by Schindler and others for PIE have left very few direct re-
flexes, e.g. Hitt. nekuz (mehur) < PIE *nékw-t-s. Usually, the reconstructed
oblique case forms take on the productive endings of other inflectional class-
es, and often full-grade suffixes as well, to which the stress shifts in e.g. PIE
*wód-r" ‘water’, gen. *wéd-n"-s → *wed-én-(V)s (cf. Hitt. witēnaš < *wed-én-os;
Rieken 1999: 292–3), or PIE *dór-u ‘wood’, gen. *dér-u-s → *dr-éw-s (Ved.
dróḥ, YAv. draoš; Schindler 1975b: 6–8).
This tendency may be understood as resulting from the accentual ambi-
guity of the nom./acc. sg. forms. As we have seen for root nouns (§3.1), there
was a clear trend toward unaccented roots in (late) PIE; cf. the highly reces-
sive status of Narten verbal inflection in even the earliest attested daughter
languages. Just as acrostatic root nouns of the shape nom. sg. *TóRT-s could
be analyzed with unstressed root, so root-stressed nom./acc. sg. *wód-r" or
*dór-u could also be analyzed as containing unaccented root, accented suf-
*méns dheh1- > PInIr. *mans dhā- > GAv. mə0ṇdā- ‘turn one’s mind to, take no-
tice of ’ (Schindler 1975c: 265–7, EWA II: 313 s.v. mandhātár-). Note also Hitt.
nēpiš, HLuv. tipas, CLuv. tappaš ‘heaven’, which may directly continue acrostatic
*nḗbh-s ~ *nébh-s- with anaptyxis in word-final *-Cs (Melchert and Oettinger,
p.c.; see Melchert 1994: 174–5, 2010: 59–61 with refs.). For other possible archa-
isms in Vedic, see now Hale 2010: 91–6.
39 For one possible interpretation of the aberrant stress and ablaut of the instr. sg.,
see R. Kim forthcoming: §3.

fix, and dominant unaccented ending *-∅. This analysis was extended to the
oblique cases, producing forms with stressed full-grade suffix:
* *
(* (*
(* * ) * (* )
*dor u Ø > *dóru → *dor u Ø > *dóru
DOM DOM
whence
* *
(* (*
(* * (*) * (* (*)
*der ew es > *dérus → *der ew es > *dréws.
The accentual reanalysis and resulting paradigmatic adjustiment of acrostat-

ic neuter nouns was complete for the type of *dór-u, *g$ón-u ‘knee’, *h2óy-u
‘life’ (cf. Ved. gen. jnóḥ, GAv. gen. yaoš), and probably for most others by the
last stage of PIE, leaving only isolated relics in the oldest IE languages.
In contrast, the animate nom. and acc. endings could not have been dom-
inant unaccented, since we do find PIE paradigms with suffixal stress in the
strong forms, e.g. *uks-ḗn, acc. *uks-én-W (§3.4). It follows that the protero-
kinetic inflection of animate nouns, for the most part i- and u-stems, must
have a different derivation, and perhaps also a different origin, from that of
neuter nouns in *-wr" ~ *-wén-, *-mn" ~ *-mén-, or *-(o)s- ~ *-és-. I will argue
below that proterokinesis in animate nouns has its origins in amphikinetic
inflection, but first we must turn to the role of internal derivation in PIE ac-
cent and ablaut paradigms.
4 The evidence of internal and external derivation
One of the most important advances in IE morphology over the past gen-
eration has been the recognition that nominal paradigms in PIE could be
derived from one another not only by suffixation, but also by changing the
accent and ablaut pattern. These shifts of inflectional type are associated with
specific derivational processes, e.g. possessive adjectives from nouns, collec-
tives from count nouns, or compound formation; see the examples below

88 Ronald I. Kim
and the discussion in Nussbaum 1986: 118ff., 1998: 147ff., Widmer 2004: 30–2,
62–70, 113–5 and passim. Although no single language preserves the PIE sys-
tem intact, enough evidence survives in the oldest IE languages (principally
Hittite, Indo-Iranian, and Greek) to reconstruct large portions of it in detail.
It follows that the accentual paradigms reviewed above in §3 cannot be
considered in isolation: any analysis must be able to account for the changes
of inflection associated with internal derivation. According to the model de-
veloped by Schindler and his colleagues, a nominal paradigm could serve as
the basis for a derived formation according to one of two principles:
1 The weak stem of the base serves as the strong stem of the derived for-
mation. Internal derivation thus proceeds according to a hierarchy of
accent and ablaut paradigms: acrostatic → proterokinetic → hysteroki-
netic.
2 A nominal paradigm of any accentual type (acrostatic, proterokinetic,
or hysterokinetic) can serve as the base for an amphikinetic derivative.
Until now, however, theoretical treatments of the PIE accent and ablaut para-
digms have largely avoided the problem of modeling internal derivation in
accentual terms, as a set of morphological rules or processes. The remainder
of this section will seek possible analyses for these two types of internal deri-
vation through comparison with similar accentual shifts provoked by “exter-
nal” derivation, i.e. addition of an overt derivational suffix. These analyses
may also help shed some light on proterokinetic inflection, whose problems
for metrical grid theory were mentioned in §3.5.
4.1 “Default-to-amphikinetic”
Let us begin with the second type of internal derivation listed above, by
which an amphikinetic derivative may be formed to a base belonging to any
of the other three accentual paradigms. This process is especially apparent in
the formation of collectives, e.g.
· acrostatic *wód-r" ~ *wéd-n- ‘water’ → coll. *wéd-ōr ~ *ud-n-´ (cf. Hitt.
pl. úitār, Ved. udE, Gr. sg. ὕδωρ, Umbr. utur; Ved. gen. udnáḥ, Umbr.
abl. une < *udni);

· proterokinetic *péh2-wr" ~ *ph2-wén- ‘fire’ → coll. *péh2-wōr ~ *ph2-un-´

(cf. TB puwar, Goth. fōn, gen. fun-ins);40
· proterokinetic *mén-(o)s ~ *m(e)n-és- ‘thought’ (Ved. mánaḥ, Av. manō,
Gr. μένος) → coll. *mén-ōs ‘thoughts’ (Av. manå; cf. Ved. mánāṃsi);41
animate derivatives, often with possessive and/or individualizing value, e.g.:
· proterokinetic *kréwh2-s ~ *kruh2-és- ‘raw meat’ (Ved. kravíḥ, Gr.
κρέας) → *kréwh2-os- (Lat. cruor ‘bloody gore’);
· proterokinetic sg. *séh1-mn" ~ *sh1-mén- ‘sowing, seed’ (Lat. sēmen,
OCS sěmę) → *séh1-mon- ‘having seed; Sowing (personified)’ (Lat. Sēmō
‘god of sowing’; Schindler 1975a: 63–4);
· proterokinetic *péyh2-wr" ~ *pih2-wén- ‘fat (n.)’ (Gr. πῖαρ) → adj. *péyh2-
won- ~ *pih2-un-´ ‘fat (adj.)’ (Ved. povan-, Gr. πvων);
and finally the second member of compounds:
· acrostatic *HówHdh-r" ~ *HéwHdh-n- ‘udder’ (cf. Gr. οὖθαρ, OS ieder,
Ved. xdhar) → *X-HuHdhon- (Ved. an-udhán- ‘udderless’, try-udhán-
‘three-uddered’);
· proterokinetic *´-mn" ~ *-mén- → *X´-mon- (cf. Gr. αἷμα ‘blood’,
ἀν-αίμων ‘bloodless’);
· proterokinetic *´-u- ~ *-éw- → *X´-ow- (cf. Av. bāzu- ‘arm’, X-bāzāuš
‘X-armed’);
· hysterokinetic *ph2tér- ~ *ph2tr-´ (Gr. πατήρ, Ved. pitár-)→ *X´-ph2tor-
(Gr. ἀ-πάτωρ ‘fatherless’, εὐ-πάτωρ ‘having a good father’; Ved. nom. pl.
tvát-pitāraḥ ‘having you as father’); cf. Arm. anjn, pl. anjin-k‘ ‘person’ →
mi-anjn, pl. mi-anjown-k‘ ‘monk, lit. one-person’.
The key to the accentual interpretation of these amphikinetic internal de-
rivatives lies in my opinion in the collectives. Strictly speaking, these are not
examples of internal derivation, since the long vowel of the suffix is gener-
ally agreed to go back to a (pre-)PIE collective marker *-h2 which was lost
40 Collectives to mass nouns such as ‘water’ and ‘fire’ probably have “delibative”
value (Nussbaum 2011), i.e. denote individual samples of the mass: hence *wéd-
ōr ~ *ud-n-´ ‘bodies of water’, *péh2-wōr ~ *ph2-un-´ ‘individual fires’. Cf. Hitt.
widār ‘sources of water’, huitār ‘kinds of wildlife’, and see Melchert 2011: 396, 398.
41 Note also Hitt. ḫastai, gen. ḫastiyaš ‘bone’ ← PIE coll. *h2ést-ōy, *h2(e)st-i-és (cf.
Gr. ὀστέον), whose suffixal vocalism indicates an original amphikinetic for-
mation (otherwise Oettinger [2009: 341, 343–5], who assumes hysterokinetic
*h2st(h2)-ḗy with suffix influenced by the type of *wéd-ōr).

90 Ronald I. Kim
with compensatory lengthening, e.g. **wéd-or-h2 > *wédōr (Nussbaum 1986:

129–30). Now if this originally derivational suffix is dominant unaccented,
any underlying accentual specification of the root or suffix will be erased in
the derivation, and the form will surface with default initial stress.
*
(*
(* * ) * * )
*wed er h2 → *wed er h2 > *wédōr
DOM DOM
I therefore suggest that the hallmark of this type of internal derivation is the
dominance of the endings, whether originally derivative collective marker
*-h2 or the case endings themselves. The “default-to-amphikinetic” deriva-
tion of collectives, animate possessive/individualizing nouns, or compounds
can be understood in prosodic terms as replacing recessive with dominant
case endings, which delete all accentual features of the base stem. The result-
ing paradigm is amphikinetic, with default initial (root) stress in the strong
forms and ending stress in the weak forms. The metrical grid for the gen.
*ud-n-és of coll. *wédōr is thus
*
(*
(* * (*) * * (*)
*wed en es → *wed en es > *udnés.41
DOM
Similarly, addition of dominant endings to proterokinetic *péyh2-wr" ~

*pih2-wén- ‘fat (n.)’, which has an accented suffix by §3.5, cancels out that
specification and produces an amphikinetic derivative *péyh2-won- ~
*pih2-un-´.
*
(*
* (* *) * * *)
*peyh2 wen m
̥ → *peyh2 wen m
̥ > *péyh2-won-m
̥.
DOM
42 On Ved. gen. pl. bráhmaṇām, mánmanām, etc. with full-grade suffix -man- for
expected *-mn-, see Nussbaum 1986: 280–1.

*
(*
* (* (*) * * (*)
*peyh2 wen es → *peyh2 wen es > *pih2-un-és.
DOM
However, since one would prefer for the case endings to have the same ac-
centual properties in all paradigms, I conclude that the default type of in-
ternal derivation entails addition of a dominant zero derivational suffix, as
now convincingly argued by Kiparsky (2010: 166–70).43 The suffix erases all
underlying accents of the base, whether root or suffix. The endings, mean-
while, remain recessive unaccented (weak) or accented (strong), resulting in
the amphikinetic paradigms above.
If this analysis is correct, it implies that internally derived amphikinetic
collectives or animates do not have the same underlying structure as the “ba-
sic” amphikinetic nouns discussed above in §3.3, e.g. *dhég$h-om ~ *dheg$h-m-´
‘earth’. This conclusion is not necessarily surprising, as there is no a priori
reason to suppose that all nominal stems inflected according to a particular
accent and ablaut paradigm must share the same underlying prosodic speci-
fication. We have already seen in §3.5 that the stress alternations in neuter
proterokinetic paradigms may be accounted for by positing accented suf-
fixes and dominant unstressed nom./acc. sg. ending *-∅, whereas the ani-
mate proterokinetic stems require a different treatment. It is to this most
problematic PIE inflectional type that we now turn.
4.2 Acrostatic and proterokinetic
Any accentual analysis of proterokinetic inflection must take into account

the internal derivation of proterokinetic adjectives from acrostatic abstract
nouns. On the basis mainly of Indo-Iranian and Anatolian evidence, PIE is
now generally believed to have had a process transforming abstract nouns
with columnar root stress and *o ~ *e or *ē ~ *e ablaut into proterokinetic
adjectives, with stress and full-grade vocalism alternating between root and
43 Many thanks to Craig Melchert (p.c., 14 Nov. 2011) for reminding me of this
possibility, and for making available a preprint copy of Kiparsky 2010. Kipar-
sky assumes an Oxytone Rule for PIE which applies after the deaccenting domi-
nant zero suffix, producing columnar oxytone paradigms, but see the objections
above in fn. 31.

92 Ronald I. Kim
suffix (see Nussbaum 1998: 147–52 with refs.). Most clear examples involve
u-stems, e.g.
· *h1ós-u ~ *h1és-u- ‘good (n.)’ → *h1és-u- ~ *h1s-éw- ‘good (adj.)’;
· *krót-u ~ *krét-u- ‘power, strength’ → *krét-u- ~ *kr"t-éw- ‘strong’; and
· *pólh1-u ~ *pélh1-u- ‘a lot, multitude’ → *pélh1-u- ~ *prh1-éw- ‘much,
many’.44
Widmer (2004: 133ff.) has argued that in fact many proterokinetic and am-
phikinetic adjectives in PIE had acrostatic neuter forms, which were for-
mally identical with the corresponding abstracts: cf. neut. nom./acc. sg. *-n"t,
*-is (e.g. in *plóh2-is ~ *pléh2-is- ‘more’), *móg$-h2 ~ *még$-h2- ‘size; a lot’ be-
side pres. act. ptcp. *´-ont- ~ *-n"t-´, comparative *´-yos- ~ *-is-´, and adj.
*még$-oh2- ~ *Wg$-h2-´ ‘great; much’.
This derivational relationship may be captured under the assumption
that proterokinetic adjectives, in particular i- and u-stems, were actually
underlyingly amphikinetic in PIE, i.e. had unaccented root and suffix. The
stress was thus determined by the ending: default initial stress in strong
forms, ending stress in weak forms, just as for *dhég$h-om- ~ *dhg$h-m-´ ‘earth’,
*még$-oh2- ~ *Wg$-h2-´ ‘large, great’, or *wéyd-wos- ~ *wid-us-´ ‘knowing’. The
crucial additional rule which must be posited is that word-final *-yés, *-wés
in the gen. sg. became *-éys, *-éws. The metrical grids for nom. *pélh1-u-s
and gen. *prh1-éw-s ‘much, many’ were thus
* *
(* (*
* *) * * (*)
*pelh1 ew s > *pélh1us *pelh1 ew es > *pl
̥h1éws
From the genitive, the stressed full-grade suffix could have spread to dat.
sg. *-éy-ey, *-éw-ey and perhaps also loc. *-ḗy, *-ḗw (see fn. 36). Other case
forms of the “proterokinetic” paradigm remained identical to those of am-
phikinetic nouns, except for the nom. pl., where *-ey-es and *-ew-es early
on began to compete with *-i-es and *-u-es (cf. Ionic Gr. πόλ-ιες ‘cities’, OCS
pǫt-ĭje ‘paths’).45
44 See Widmer 2004: 65, 96–9 with refs.
45 On the nom./acc. dual, see the discussion in Nussbaum 1986: 282–5. If one re-
constructs the PIE ending as *-h1e, the nom./acc. du. of animate i- and u-stems
should be PIE *-i-h1, *-u-h1 < **-i-h1e, **-u-h1e (by analogy to o-stem *-oh1 <
**-o-h1e? see Jasanoff 1988: 73–4 n. 10, Melchert 1994: 51–2, Weiss 2009: 114),

This solution may account for the observed pattern of facts, but the lack
of independent evidence for a change of *-yés, *-wés > *-éys, *-éws and ap-
peal to analogy to explain the shape of the dat. (and loc.) sg. and nom. pl. are
clearly weak points. A more serious objection is that PIE also had a number
of actual amphikinetic animate i- and u-stems, reflected in e.g. Ved. sákhā,
acc. sákhāyam, gen. sákhye ‘companion’ (< *sékwh2-oy- ~ *s(e)kwh2-i-´), Av.
kauua, acc. kauuaēm ‘prophet, daēvic prince’, OP dahyāuš ‘country’, the
Hittite type of lingāiš, gen. linkiyaš ‘oath’, and the Greek type of πειθώ, gen.
πειθόος (< *-oy-os) ‘persuasion’. One would thus need to explain not only
why gen. *-yés, *-wés remained unaffected in these forms, but also why pro-
terokinetic i- and u-stems do not have suffixal o-grade in the strong cases,
e.g. nom. *pélh1-ow-s, acc. *pélh1-ow-m.
An alternative solution which involves no such ad hoc assumptions like-
wise begins from the underlying acrostatic neuter/abstract. We have seen
(§3.5) that already by PIE, the root-stressed nom./acc. sg. forms were largely
reanalyzed as having an accented suffix, leading to a stress shift to the suffix
in the oblique forms, i.e. a paradigm with proterokinetic stress alternation.
If the accented suffix was taken over into the derived adjective, the resulting
paradigm would have columnar stress on the suffix:
* *
(* (*
* (*) * (* (*)
*pelh1 ew s > *pl
̥h1ús *pelh1 ew es > *pl
̥h1éws.
This hypothesis explains why the overwhelming majority of “proterokinetic”

i- and u-stems have zero-grade root and suffix stress, but not why only the
genitive and dative (and possibly locative) singular have the expected shape,
i.e. full-grade suffix + ending. Also unaccounted for is the zero-grade suffix
of the strong case forms: nom. and acc. sg. (here *-u-s, *-u-m), nom./acc. du.
*-u-h1(e), and at least acc. pl. *-u-ns.46
Thus neither of these analyses is able to capture all of the peculiarities of
proterokinetic inflection as usually reconstructed for PIE, although the first
has the advantage that it at once accounts for the mostly amphikinetic shape
whence Ved. -ī, -ū, YAv. -i, -u, OCS -i, -y, Lith. -i, -u; only Gr. -εε < *-eye, *-ewe
and rare Indo-Iranian forms such as Ved. bāhávā, YAv. bāzauua ‘two arms’ would
have to be analogical.
46 Keydana (this volume) posits a constraint against syncretism of the nom. and
gen. sg., but this would not cover the other strong cases.

94 Ronald I. Kim
of the desinences outside of the singular. The rarity of amphikinetic i- and u-

stems, as compared to the great productivity of proterokinetic i- and u-stems
in many IE branches, does suggest that they belong to an earlier stratum of
the protolanguage which escaped remodeling.
4.3 Proterokinetic and hysterokinetic
Several good examples exist for internal derivation of hysterokinetic para-

digms from proterokinetic neuter bases:
· *syéwH-mn" ~ *syuH-mén- ‘band’ (Ved. syxman-) → *syuH-mén- ‘hav-
ing a band, that which binds’ (Gr. μήν ‘membrane’);47
· *:érh1-(o)s ~ *:r"h1-és- ‘growth, abundance’ → *:(e)rh1-és- ‘having abun-
dance; Abundance (personified)’ (Lat. Cerēs; Schindler 1975a: 63–4);
· *mén-(o)s ~ *m(e)n-és- (Ved. mánaḥ, Gr. μένος) → compound
*X-m(e)n-és- (Ved. su-mánāḥ, Gr. εὐ-μενής); similarly for other neuter
s-stem compounds, e.g. Ved. śrávaḥ → su-śrávāḥ, Gr. γένος → δι-γενής.48
It is a simple enough task to model this pattern in metrical grid theory, by
assuming that underlyingly accented *-es- or *-men- is replaced by a post-
accenting suffix of the same shape. Just why the derivatives of these protero-
kinetic stems were hysterokinetic in PIE, while the functionally comparable
derivatives listed above in §4.1 were amphikinetic (e.g. Lat. cruor, Sēmō, Gr.
ἀν-αίμων), remains unclear at present.
47 Note that PSl. *-mę in e.g. *sěmę ‘seed’, *vermę ‘time’ need not presuppose a PIE
hysterokinetic collective in *-mḗn (Jasanoff 1983: 140, Nussbaum 1986: 123 with
fn. 34, Widmer 2004: 53), but could simply go back to *-men, generalized from
the suffix of the oblique cases; for this and other possibilities, see Aitzetmüller
1991: 96–7.
48 Cf. also hysterokinetic i-stem collectives in *-ḗy, which have been the subject
of a series of articles by Oettinger (see most recently Oettinger 2009). Most of
these occur beside o-stem bases and so ultimately reflect internal derivatives
to abstract formations in *-i-, e.g. PIE loc. *udén (*wédn"?) → vr"ddhi-derivative
*wed(e)no- ‘watery land’ (Arm. getin ‘land, country’; cf. CLuv. wattani(ya)- ‘id.’)
→ abstract *wed(e)ni- → coll. *ud-n-ḗy (Hitt. udnē, gen. udniyaš ‘id.’; Oettinger
2000, 2004).

4.4 Proterokinetic derivatives: a restricted prosodic domain?
A final remark is necessary regarding accent and ablaut in paradigms formed

through external derivation, specifically by addition of the feminine suffix
*-ih2-. Although the original function and distribution of this suffix and its
relation to the collective marker *-(e)h2- rank among the most hotly debated
topics in IE nominal morphology, its presence in Tocharian as well as the
classical IE languages strongly supports the antiquity of the ablaut alterna-
tion *-ih2- ~ *-yeh2- reconstructible on the basis of Indo-Iranian and Greek.
Thus to the u-stem adjective *gwérh2-u- ~ *gwr"h2-éw- ‘heavy’ (Ved. gurvo, gen.
gurvyEḥ, Gr. βαρεῖα, βαρείᾱς) and perfect participle *wéyd-wos- ~ *wid-us-´
‘knowing’ (Ved. vidúṣī, gen. vidúṣyāḥ, Gr. ἰδυῖα, gen. ἰδυίᾱς), the feminine
paradigms may be reconstructed as follows:
nom. sg. *gwr"h2-éw-ih2 *wid-wés-ih2

acc. *gwr"h2-éw-ih2-m *wid-wés-ih2-m
gen. *gwr"h2-u-yéh2-s *wid-us-yéh2-s
dat. *gwr"h2-u-yéh2-ey *wid-us-yéh2-ey
Such paradigms are typically described as “proterokinetic”, and in fact they
do share the peculiarly asymmetric pattern of proterokinetic desinences de-
scribed above (§3.5), with e.g. gen. sg. *-yéh2-s, dat. *-yéh2-ey but amphiki-
netic-looking instr. *-ih2-éh1, nom. pl. *-yéh2-es, instr. pl. *-ih2-bhís, etc. One
important difference from proterokinetic i- and u-stems, however, is that the
stress and full grade alternate between the suffix of the base (here, *-éw- ~
*-u- and *-wés- ~ *-us-) and the feminine marker *-ih2- ~ *-yeh2-. In other
words, neither strong nor weak forms have marginal stress, quite unlike the
typical paradigmatic alternation in Balto-Slavic languages (§2) or PIE am-
phikinetic inflection (§3.3).
However one chooses to analyze proterokinesis in (late) PIE (see §4.2),
it is clear that the inflection of derived feminines in *-ih2- ~ *-yeh2- requires
an additional rule or constraint. I suggest that PIE had or introduced a re-
striction on surface stress to the final three morphemes, so that unaccented
forms did not stress the leftmost syllable of the word, but of the stressable
portion of the prosodic domain, i.e. the third-to-last syllable. This assump-
tion produces the following metrical grids for acc. *gwr"h2-éw-ih2-m and gen.
*gwr"h2-u-yéh2-s, under the hypothesis of unaccented root and suffixes and a

96 Ronald I. Kim
postlexical rule converting *-ih2és to *-yéh2s; the three-syllable stress restric-

tion is represented by a square bracket.
* *
(* (*
* [* * *) * [* * (*)
w w
*g erh2 ew yeh2 m *g erh2 ew yeh2 es
w w
> *g r
̥h2éwih2m > *g r
̥h2uyéh2s
5 Conclusions and remaining issues
Despite a number of outstanding issues, the metrical grid theory described

in §2 has been shown capable of describing most of the accent and ablaut
classes reconstructed for PIE. Under the assumption that the parametric set-
tings for stress computation in a number of IE languages, including Vedic,
Greek, Russian, and Lithuanian, also applied to PIE, it is a simple task to
represent the stress (and ablaut) alternations of root nouns, acrostatic and
amphikinetic paradigms (§§3.1–3). The marginal alternation of ordinary
root nouns and amphikinetic stems involves default initial vs. ending stress
in the strong and weak cases, whose endings were respectively unaccented
and accented, while the columnar root stress of Narten root nouns and acro-
static paradigms presupposes underlying accented roots, which already in
PIE were on the decline. Hysterokinetic paradigms can also be modeled as
containing a postaccenting suffix, so long as one sets up a constraint against
surface-stressed strong case endings (§3.4), while proterokinetic neuter
nouns have accented suffixes and a dominant unaccented nom./acc. sg. end-
ing *-∅ (§3.5). Only animate proterokinetic stems remain difficult to analyze
without the assumption of more or less ad hoc additional rules.
These findings are then reviewed in light of the relation of the different
accentual paradigms to each other through internal and external derivation.
The “default-to-amphikinetic” type of derivation, especially characteristic of
collectives, may be understood as adding a dominant zero derivational suffix
which deletes the accents of the base, resulting in an amphikinetic paradigm
(§4.1). The internal derivation of proterokinetic adjectives from acrostatic
neuters and/or abstract nouns suggests certain possible analyses for pro-
terokinetic inflection in general, but many questions remain (§4.2). Finally,
the inflection of derived feminines in *-ih2- ~ *-yeh2- involves an alternation

between the base and feminine-marking suffixes similar to that of protero-

kinetic stems; at least under one analysis, this presupposes the restriction of
the prosodic domain to the final three morphemes (§4.4).
It is clear from the discussion above that the greatest obstacle to the
description of the PIE accentual system in the framework adopted here is
constituted by proterokinetic animate stems, namely i- and u-stem adjec-
tives. The fact that an alternation of stress and full-grade vocalism between
root and suffix is reconstructible only for several cases of the singular (with
descriptively hystero- and/or amphikinetic forms elsewhere), as well as the
paucity of evidence for stressed full-grade root in the daughter languages,
suggest that the reconstructed proterokinetic paradigm as presented today
in standard IE handbooks is idealized and/or temporally “out of focus”, i.e.
there never existed a paradigm with root-suffix alternations between the
strong and weak cases on a par with amphikinetic or hysterokinetic inflec-
tion.49
This conclusion brings us back to a fundamental difficulty in the theo-
retical modeling of PIE accentual paradigms: they are reconstructible on the
basis of scattered relic forms (e.g. acrostatic *nékw-t-s, *dém-s), suffixal al-
ternations in individual languages (e.g. Ved. -n- ~ -an-, -ān- in n-stems; Gr.
acc. πατ-έρ-α, gen. πατ-ρ-ός ‘father’, acc. ἀ-πάτ-ορ-α ‘fatherless’; Goth. acc.
gum-an vs. gen. gum-in-s), and crosslinguistic mismatches in root, suffix, or
ending ablaut (e.g. *pod- vs. *ped-, *h2ews-, *-os- vs. *h2us-, *-s-); but with
the exception of root nouns, the postulated stress alternations themselves
have left relatively few direct traces (e.g. Hitt. tēkan vs. gen. taknāš, Ved. acc.
ad-ánt-am vs. gen. ad-at-áḥ ‘eating’). As productive inflectional types, the
accentual paradigms thus doubtless belong to the pre-PIE period, a point
emphasized by Pedersen and Schindler in their seminal works on IE nomi-
nal morphology.50 It follows that recovering the synchronic accentual gram-
mar at any actual stage of (pre-)PIE necessarily remains beyond the limits of
the comparative method, at least in the present state of our knowledge.
49 Interesting in this connection is the suggestion of Beekes (1985: 167–207, 1995:
193–4; see now Kloekhorst, this volume, adducing the Anatolian data) that pro-
terokinetic and hysterokinetic inflection were restricted to animate and neuter
nouns respectively in PIE, and go back to a single mobile type contrasting with
acrostatic inflection.
50 Cf. Pedersen 1926: 25 (“une longue série d’actions analogiques et d’innovations”),
Schindler 1975c: 259 (“…außer dem letzten Stadium der Gemeinsprache [sind]
auch ihre Vorstufen durch interne Rekonstruktion zu erschließen”), and see now
the valuable methodological remarks in Hale 2010.

98 Ronald I. Kim
Given these limitations, it is both remarkable and heartening that metri-

cal grid theory successfully captures as many facts of the reconstructed (pre-)
PIE accent and ablaut paradigms as it does. Future research on IE nominal
morphology should therefore take its findings and predictions into account,
and seek to further develop the accentual grammar of PIE and model its evo-
lution into the prosodic systems of the oldest attested IE languages.
References
Aitzetmüller, Rudolf. 1991. Altbulgarische Grammatik als Einführung in

die slavische Sprachwissenschaft. 2., verbesserte und erweiterte Auflage
(Monumenta Linguae Slavicae Dialecti Veteris. Fontes et Dissertationes
30). Freiburg i. Br.: Weiher.
Alderete, John D. 2001a. Dominance effects as transderivational anti-faith-
fulness. Phonology 18. 201–53.
Alderete, John D. 2001b. Morphologically governed accent in Optimality The-
ory. New York (NY): Routledge.
Alderete, John D. 2001c. Root-controlled accent in Cupeño. Natural Lan-
guage and Linguistic Theory 19. 455–502.
Beekes, Robert S. P. 1985. The origins of the Indo-European nominal inflection
(Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 46). Innsbruck: Institut für
Sprachwissenschaft.
Beekes, Robert S. P. 1995. Comparative Indo-European linguistics: An intro-
duction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia (PA): Benjamins.
Chomsky, Noam & Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New
York (NY): Harper and Row.
Clackson, James P. T. 2007. Indo-European linguistics: An introduction.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dybo, V. A. [Дыбо, В. А.] 1981. Славянская акцентология. Опыт рекон-
струкции системы акцентных парадигм в праславянском. Москва:
Наука.
Dybo, V. A. [Дыбо, В. А.], Г. И. Замятина & С. Л. Николаев. 1990. Основы
славянской акцентологии. Москва: Наука.
Eichner, Heiner. 1973. Die Etymologie von heth. mehur. MSS 31. 53–107.
Eichner, Heiner. 1974. Zu Etymologie und Flexion von vedisch stro und
púmān. Die Sprache 20. 26–42.

EWA: Mayrhofer, Manfred. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen.

I. Band: Lieferungen 1–10. (1986–92). II. Band: Lieferungen 11–20 (1992–
6). III. Band: Lieferungen 21–32 (1996–2001). Heidelberg: Winter.
Fortson, Benjamin W., IV. 2009. Indo-European language and culture. 2nd
ed. Malden (MA), Oxford & Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Garde, Paul. 1976. Histoire de l’accentuation slave (Collection de manuels de
l’Institut d’Études Slaves 7). Paris: Institut d’Études Slaves.
Hale, Mark. 2010. Návyasā vácaḥ: to praise with a really old word. In Kim et
al. (eds.) 2010, 85–97.
Halle, Morris. 1973. The accentuation of Russian words. Language 49:2. 312–
48.
Halle, Morris. 1997. On stress and accent in Indo-European. Language 73:2.
275–313.
Halle, Morris & William Idsardi. 1995. General properties of stress and met-
rical structure. In John Goldsmith (ed.), The handbook of phonological
theory, 403–43. Cambridge (MA): Blackwell.
Halle, Morris & Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1987. An essay on stress. Cambridge
(MA): MIT Press.
Hayes, Bruce. 1985. A metrical theory of stress rules. Bloomington (IN): Indi-
ana University Linguistics Club; New York (NY): Garland Press. (Revised
edition of Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, 1980.)
Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and case studies. Chi-
cago (IL): University of Chicago Press.
Hill, Jane H. 2005. A grammar of Cupeño (University of California Publica-
tions in Linguistics 136). Berkeley (CA), Los Angeles (CA) & London:
University of California Press.
Hock, Wolfgang. 1992 [1994]. Der urindogermanische Flexionsakzent und
die morphologische Akzentologiekonzeption. MSS 53. 177–205.
Hollifield, Patrick Henry. 1980. The phonological development of final syl-
lables in Germanic. Die Sprache 26:1. 19–53; 26:2. 145–78.
Idsardi, William. 1992. The computation of prosody. Ph.D. dissertation, Uni-
versity of Delaware.
Inkelas, Sharon. 1996. Dominant affixes and the phonology-morphology in-
terface. In Ursula Kleinhenz (ed.), Interfaces in phonology, 128–154. Ber-
lin: Akademie-Verlag.
Jasanoff, Jay H. 1983. A rule of final syllables in Slavic. JIES 11. 139–49.
Jasanoff, Jay H. 1988. The sigmatic aorist in Tocharian and Indo-European.
TIES 2. 52–76.

100 Ronald I. Kim
Jasanoff, Jay H. 1989. Old Irish bé ‘woman’. Ériu 40. 135–41.

Keydana, Götz. 2005. Indogermanische Akzenttypen und die Grenzen der
Rekonstruktion. HS 118. 19–47.
Kim, Ronald I. 2000. Reexamining the prehistory of Tocharian B ‘ewe’. TIES
9. 37–43.
Kim, Ronald I. 2002. Topics in the reconstruction and development of Indo-
European accent. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Kim, Ronald I. Forthcoming. The Indo-European, Anatolian, and Tocharian
“secondary” cases in typological perspective. To appear in a Festschrift.
Kim, Ronald I. et al. (eds.). 2010. Ex Anatolia lux: Anatolian and Indo-Euro-
pean studies in honor of H. Craig Melchert on the occasion of his sixty-fifth
birthday. Ann Arbor (MI) & New York (NY): Beech Stave.
Kiparsky, Paul. 2010. Compositional vs. paradigmatic approaches to accent
and ablaut. In Stephanie W. Jamison, H. Craig Melchert & Brent Vine
(eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference,
October 30th and 31st, 2009, 137–81. Bremen: Hempen.
Kiparsky, Paul & Morris Halle. 1977. Towards a reconstruction of the Indo-
European accent. In Larry M. Hyman (ed.), Studies in stress and accent
(Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics 4), 209–38. Los
Angeles (CA): Department of Linguistics, University of Southern Cali-
fornia.
Kloekhorst, Alwin. 2008. Etymological dictionary of the Hittite inherited lexi-
con (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 5). Leiden:
Brill.
Kloekhorst, A. 2011. The accentuation of the PIE word for ‘daughter’. In Tij-
men Pronk & Rick Derksen (eds.), Accent matters (Studies in Slavic and
General Linguistics 37), 235–43. Amsterdam & New York (NY): Rodopi.
Kuiper, F. B. J. 1942. Notes on Vedic noun-inflexion. (Mededeelingen der
Nederlandsche Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeeling Letterkunde.
Nieuwe Reeks, Deel 5, No. 4). Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers
Maatschappij.
Kümmel, Martin. 1998. Wurzelpräsens neben Wurzelaorist im Indogerma-
nischen. HS 111:2. 191–208.
Lehfeldt, Werner. 2009. Einführung in die morphologische Konzeption der
slavischen Akzentologie. 3., verbesserte und ergänzte Auflage. Mit einem
Appendix von Willem Vermeer: Critical observations on the modus oper-
andi of the Moscow Accentological School (Vorträge und Abhandlungen
zur Slavistik 42). München: Sagner.

Liberman, Mark. 1975. The intonational system of English. Ph.D. dissertation,

MIT.
LIV2 = Helmut Rix et al. (eds.). 2001. Lexikon der indogermanischen Ver-
ben: Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. Zweite, erweiterte
und verbesserte Auflage bearbeitet von Martin Kümmel und Helmut Rix.
Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1989. Vorgeschichte der iranischen Sprachen; Urira-
nisch. In Rüdiger Schmitt (ed.), Compendium linguarum iranicarum,
4–24. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
McCarthy, John J. & Alan Prince. 1993. Prosodic morphology I: Constraint
interaction and satisfaction (Linguistics Department Faculty Publication
Series 14). Amherst (MA): University of Massachusetts, Amherst. http://
scholarworks.umass.edu/linguist_faculty_pubs/14
Meier-Brügger, Michael. 1992. Relative Chronologie: Schlüsse aus dem grie-
chischen Akzent. In Robert Beekes, Alexander Lubotsky & Jos Weiten-
berg (eds.), Rekonstruktion und relative Chronologie. Akten der VIII.
Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Leiden, 31. August – 4.
September 1987 (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 65), 283–9.
Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.
Meier-Brügger, Michael. 2010. Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft. Unter
Mitarbeit von Matthias Fritz und Manfred Mayrhofer. 9., durchgesehene
und ergänzte Auflage. Berlin & New York (NY): de Gruyter.
Melchert, H. Craig. 1994. Anatolian historical phonology (Leiden Studies in
Indo-European 3). Amsterdam & Atlanta (GA): Rodopi.
Melchert, H. Craig. 2007/2008 [2009/2010]. Neuter stems with suffix *-(e)n-
in Anatolian and Proto-Indo-European. Die Sprache 47. 182–91.
Melchert, H. Craig. 2010. The word for ‘mouth’ in Hittite and Proto-Indo-
European. International Journal of Diachronic Linguistics and Linguistic
Reconstruction 7. 55–63.
Melchert, H. Craig. 2011. The PIE collective plural and the “τὰ ζῷα τρέχει
rule”. In Thomas Krisch & Thomas Lindner (eds.) unter redaktioneller
Mitarbeit von Michael Crombach und Stefan Niederreiter, Indogermanis-
tik und Linguistik im Dialog. Akten der XIII. Fachtagung der Indogerma-
nischen Gesellschaft vom 21. bis 27. September 2008 in Salzburg, 395–400.
Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Melvold, Janis Leanne. 1989. Structure and stress in the phonology of Russian.
Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

102 Ronald I. Kim
Neri, Sergio. 2003. I sostantivi in -u del gotico: morfologia e preistoria (Inns-

brucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 108). Innsbruck: Institut für
Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck.
Neri, Sergio. 2005. Riflessioni sull’apofonia radicale di proto-germanico
*namōn ‘nome’. IF 110. 201–50.
Neu, Erich. 1980. Studien zum endungslosen “Lokativ” des Hethitischen (Inns-
brucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, Vorträge und Kleinere Schrif-
ten 23). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.
NIL = Dagmar S. Wodtko, Britta Irslinger & Carolin Schneider (eds.). 2008.
Nomina im indogermanischen Lexikon. Heidelberg: Winter.
Nussbaum, Alan. 1986. Head and horn in Indo-European: The words for ‘horn,’
‘head,’ and ‘hornet’ (Untersuchungen zur indogermanischen Sprach- und
Kulturwissenschaft, Neue Folge 2). Berlin & New York (NY): Walter de
Gruyter.
Nussbaum, Alan. 1998. Two problems of Greek and Homeric linguistics (Hy-
pomnemata: Untersuchungen zur Antike und zu ihrem Nachleben 120).
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
Nussbaum, Alan. 2010. PIE -Cmn- and Greek τρᾱνής ‘clear’. In Kim et al.
(eds.) 2010, 269–77.
Nussbaum, Alan. 2011. τέκμαρ ‘sign’ and τέκμωρ ‘sign’: Why both? Paper pre-
sented at the Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Erlan-
gen, 14–16 September 2011.
Oettinger, Norbert. 2000. Heth. udnē, armen. getin ‘Land’ und lyk. wedre/i-.
In Almut Hintze & Eva Tichy (eds.), Anusantatyai: Festschrift für Johanna
Narten zum 70. Geburtstag. Dettelbach: J. H. Röll.
Oettinger, Norbert. 2004. Weiteres zur Derivation von i-Kollektiva aus the-
matischen Stämmen. MSS 64, 131–6.
Oettinger, Norbert. 2009. Fälle von o-Stufe der Wurzel hysterokinetischer
Nomina im Indogermanischen. In Rosemarie Lühr & Sabine Ziegler
(eds.), Protolanguage and prehistory: Akten der XII. Fachtagung der Indo-
germanischen Gesellschaft, Krakau, 11. bis 15. Oktober 2004, 340–7. Wies-
baden: Reichert.
Olander, Thomas. 2009. Balto-Slavic accentual mobility (Trends in Linguis-
tics. Studies and Monographs 199). Berlin & New York (NY): Mouton de
Gruyter.
Pedersen, Holger. 1926. La cinquième déclinaison latine. Copenhagen: Høst.
Pedersen, Holger. 1933. Études lituaniennes. Copenhagen: Levin & Munks-
gaard.

Peters, Martin. 1980. Untersuchungen zur Vertretung der indogermanischen

Laryngale im Griechischen (Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen Aka-
demie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 377). Vien-
na: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Rasmussen, Jens Elmegård. 1989. Studien zur Morphophonemik der indoger-
manischen Grundsprache (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft
55). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.
Revithiadou, Anthi. 1999. Headmost accent wins: Head dominance and ideal
prosodic form in lexical accent systems (LOT Dissertation Series 15, HIL/
Leiden Universiteit). The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.
Rieken, Elisabeth. 1999. Untersuchungen zur nominalen Stammbildung des
Hethitischen (Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 44). Wiesbaden: Harras-
sowitz.
Ringe, Donald A., Jr. 1987. On the prehistory of Tocharian B accent. In Cal-
vert Watkins (ed.), Studies in memory of Warren Cowgill (1929–1985).
Papers from the Fourth East Coast Indo-European Conference, Cornell
University, June 6–9, 1985, 254–69. Berlin & New York (NY): Walter de
Gruyter.
Ringe, Donald A., Jr. 2006. From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic:
A linguistic history of English, Volume 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rix, Helmut. 1992. Historische Grammatik des Griechischen. 2., korrigierte
Auflage. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1894. À propos de l’accentuation lituanienne. MSL
8. 425–46.
Schaffner, Stefan. 2001. Das Vernersche Gesetz und der innerparadigmatische
grammatische Wechsel des Urgermanischen im Nominalbereich (Inns-
brucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 103). Innsbruck: Institut für
Sprachen und Literaturen.
Schindler, Jochem. 1966. Bemerkungen zum idg. Wort für ‘Schlaf ’. Die
Sprache 12. 67–76.
Schindler, Jochem. 1969. Die idg. Wörter für ‘Vogel’ und ‘Ei’. Die Sprache 15.
144–67.
Schindler, Jochem. 1972. L’apophonie des noms-racines indo-européens.
BSL 67. 31–8.
Schindler, Jochem. 1973. Bemerkungen zur Herkunft der idg. Diphthong-
stämme und zu den Eigentümlichkeiten ihrer Kasusformen. Die Sprache
19. 148–57.

104 Ronald I. Kim
Schindler, Jochem. 1975a. Armenisch erkn, griechisch ὀδύνη, irisch idu. ZVS
89. 53–65.
Schindler, Jochem. 1975b. L’apophonie des thèmes indo-européens en -r/n.
BSL 70. 1–10.
Schindler, Jochem. 1975c. Zum Ablaut der neutralen s-Stämme des Indoger-
manischen. In Helmut Rix (ed.), Flexion und Wortbildung: Akten der V.
Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Regensburg, 9.-14. Septem-
ber 1975, 259–67. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Schindler, Jochem. 1994. Alte und neue Fragen zum indogermanischen No-
men. In Jens Elmegård Rasmussen (ed.), In honorem Holger Pedersen:
Kolloquium der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 25. bis 28. März 1993
in Kopenhagen, 397–400. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Schmidt, Johannes. 1889. Die Pluralbildungen der indogermanischen Neutra.
Weimar: Böhlau.
Schwyzer, Eduard. 1939. Griechische Grammatik auf der Grundlage von Karl
Brugmanns Griechischer Grammatik, vol. 1: Allgemeiner Teil, Lautlehre,
Wortbildung, Flexion. München: Beck.
Stang, Christian S. 1957. Slavonic accentuation (Det Norske Videnskaps-
Akademi i Oslo, Hist.-Fil. Klasse, No. 3). Oslo. (Republished 1965, Oslo,
Bergen & Tromsö: Universitetsforlaget.)
Stifter, David. 1997 [2000]. Celtiberian -unei, Luguei. Die Sprache 39:2. 213–
23.
Szemerényi, Oswald. 1990. Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissen-
schaft. 4., durchgesehene Auflage. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buch-
gesellschaft.
Szemerényi, Oswald. 1996. Introduction to Indo-European linguistics. Oxford:
Clarendon Press; Oxford & New York (NY): Oxford University Press.
de Vaan, Michiel. 2004. ‘Narten’ roots from the Avestan point of view. In
Adam Hyllested et al. (eds.), Per aspera ad asteriscos: Studia Indogerman-
ica in honorem Jens Elmegård Rasmussen sexagenarii Idibus Martiis anno
MMIV (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 112), 591–9. Inns-
bruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen.
Vijūnas, Aurelijus. 2009. The Indo-European primary t-stems (Innsbrucker
Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 133). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen
und Literaturen.
Vine, Brent. 2004. On PIE full grades in some zero grade contexts. In James
Clackson & Birgit A. Olsen (eds.), Indo-European word formation: Pro-

ceedings of the conference held at the University of Copenhagen, October

20th–22th, 2000, 357–379. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.
Wackernagel, Jacob & Albert Debrunner. 1930. Altindische Grammatik, vol.
3. Nominalflexion. Zahlwort. Pronomen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und
Ruprecht.
Weiss, Michael. 1993. Studies in Italic nominal morphology. Ph.D. disserta-
tion, Cornell University.
Weiss, Michael. 2009. Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of
Latin. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave.
Widmer, Paul. 2004. Das Korn des weiten Feldes. Interne Derivation, Deriva-
tionskette und Flexionsklassenhierarchie: Aspekte der nominalen Wortbil-
dung im Urindogermanischen. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissen-
schaft 111.) Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Univer-
sität Innsbruck.
Winter, Werner. 1978. The distribution of short and long vowels in stems of
the type Lith. Xsti : vèsti : mèsti and OCS jasti : vesti : mesti in Baltic and
Slavic languages. In Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Recent developments in historical
phonology (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 4), 431–46.
The Hague & New York (NY): Mouton.

Metrical Grid Theory Internal Derivation PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Metrical Grid Theory Internal Derivation PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

INDO-EUROPEAN

ACCENT AND ABLAUT

Museum Tusculanum Press

© Museum Tusculanum Press and the author(s) 2013

Copenhagen Studies in Indo-European, vol. 5

Published with support from:

Roots of Europe – Language, Culture, and Migrations

Museum Tusculanum Press

© Museum Tusculanum Press and the author(s) 2013

This paper applies “metrical grid theory” as developed by Halle and

© Museum Tusculanum Press and the author(s) 2013

1.1 The PIE accentual system

© Museum Tusculanum Press and the author(s) 2013

Lithuanian, Russian, and Serbo-Croatian; in addition, the effects of Verner’s

© Museum Tusculanum Press and the author(s) 2013

1.2 The development of metrical theory

In the earliest version of generative phonology (Chomsky and Halle 1968),

© Museum Tusculanum Press and the author(s) 2013

2 The “brackets-and-edges” theory and its application to IE languages

6 Here and below, I follow their terminology in distinguishing between accent as

© Museum Tusculanum Press and the author(s) 2013

4b Head Location Parameter

/pə1- míʔaw -lu/ > pəmíʔawlu ‘he came’

© Museum Tusculanum Press and the author(s) 2013

/max -əm/ > máxəm ‘give! (pl.)’

© Museum Tusculanum Press and the author(s) 2013

© Museum Tusculanum Press and the author(s) 2013

on the entire word form or prosodic domain.11 Inflectional morphemes in

© Museum Tusculanum Press and the author(s) 2013

ing a common prosodic system ancestral to all the Balto-Slavic languages,

© Museum Tusculanum Press and the author(s) 2013

3.1 Root nouns

Within the framework of metrical grid theory, the well-known alternation

© Museum Tusculanum Press and the author(s) 2013

17 As opposed to root nouns with ordinary *e ~ *∅ ablaut and alternating stress,

© Museum Tusculanum Press and the author(s) 2013

© Museum Tusculanum Press and the author(s) 2013

3.2 Acrostatic paradigms

The same analysis may be applied to acrostatic suffixed nouns with *ē ~ *e

© Museum Tusculanum Press and the author(s) 2013

rical theory adopted here provides no obvious clue as to the prehistory or

the proterokinetic inflection of neuters in *-mn" independently at least twice, in

© Museum Tusculanum Press and the author(s) 2013

3.3 Amphikinetic paradigms

© Museum Tusculanum Press and the author(s) 2013

Beginning already in PIE, the hic-et-nunc particle *-i could be attached

Also reconstructed with amphikinetic inflection for PIE are collectives to

26 This can easily be modeled in Optimality Theory as the interaction of input-

© Museum Tusculanum Press and the author(s) 2013

3.4 Problematic cases (I): hysterokinetic inflection

In contrast to amphikinetic inflection, the remaining mobile types, protero-

nom. sg. *gwém-ti-s *uks-ḗn

© Museum Tusculanum Press and the author(s) 2013

© Museum Tusculanum Press and the author(s) 2013

gen. sg. *uks-n-és *dh3-tr-és

32 Or *d#ugh2-tér ~ *d#ugh2-tr- 1, though the occurrence of *-h2t(e)r- in all r-stem re-

© Museum Tusculanum Press and the author(s) 2013

3.5 Problematic cases (II): proterokinetic inflection

© Museum Tusculanum Press and the author(s) 2013

35 See Schaffner 2001: 436–87 (feminine i-stems), 488–512 (masculine u-stems),

© Museum Tusculanum Press and the author(s) 2013

nom. sg. *´-i-s *´-u-s *´-mnT

© Museum Tusculanum Press and the author(s) 2013

17 As opposed to root nouns with ordinary e ~ ∅ ablaut and alternating stress,

The same analysis may be applied to acrostatic suffixed nouns with ē ~ e

nom. sg. gwém-ti-s uks-ḗn

gen. sg. uks-n-és dh3-tr-és

32 Or d#ugh2-tér ~ d#ugh2-tr- 1, though the occurrence of *-h2t(e)r- in all r-stem re-

nom. sg. ´-i-s ´-u-s *´-mnT

· proterokinetic péh2-wr" ~ ph2-wén- ‘fire’ → coll. péh2-wōr ~ ph2-un-´

nom. sg. gwr"h2-éw-ih2 wid-wés-ih2

postlexical rule converting -ih2és to -yéh2s; the three-syllable stress restric-