Hiat laryngalny w językach bałto-słowiańskich

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA XLVII (2002), 55–87 Laryngeal hiatus in the Balto-Slavic languages1 WOJCIECH SMOCZYŃSKI Jagiellonian University, Kraków The article deals with the treatment of the so-called Laryngalhiat in Baltic and Slavonic. These are cases where a laryngeal was lost between a high vowel i or u and a suffixal vowel. This constellation is characteristic of zero grade formations based on roots of the type *Cei̯H-/*Ci̯eH- or *Ceu̯H-/*Cu̯eH-. When a vocalic suffix is added to a full grade root of the type *CeH-, the laryngeal leaves no trace (its loss leading to contraction or the rise of a secondary diphthong), whereas a similar situation involving the loss of a laryngeal after i, u produces a hiatus subsequently eliminated in Baltic and Slavonic by insertion of a homorganic glide i̯, u̯. INTRODUCTION The term laryngeal hiatus (German Laryngalhiat) is used to refer to a situation in which a laryngeal consonant (laryng.) occurs after the high vowels i, u and before a suffixal vowel, schematically *iH-V, *uH-V. This phoneme constellation is characteristic of word forms in the zero ablaut grade (SZ). These are derivatives from roots of the type *Cei̯H-/*Ci̯eH or *Ceu̯H-/*Cu̯eH-, that is, roots containing a diphthong plus a laryng. The treatment of the sequences *iH-V, *uH-V is fundamentally different from that of *eH-V, where a vocalic suffix is attached to the full-grade root *CeH- (SP). Whereas in *eH-V the laryng. disappears without a trace, leading to vowel contraction (with a twofold outcome: contraction length or a secondary diphthong, depending on the quality of the suffixal V²), in the case of *iH-V, *uH-V the loss of H results in hiatus. Its distinctive feature is that it is not eliminated by contraction, but by the insertion, after i, u, of a homorganic glide consonant, namely i̯, u̯. This treatment yields the sequences 1. *[ijV], historically [ijV], in place of PIE *[iHV], and 2. *[u̯V] > historically [uvV] in place of PIE *[uHV]. For example: [ijV]: OCS bijenъ ‘beaten’ from *bi̯e.no- ⇐ *bʰiH-eno-, a zero-grade-vowel- (SZ-V) formation from *bʰe̯iH-C. Cf. zero-grade-consonant (SZ-C) biti, bitù. [ijV]: Lithuanian bijóti(s) ‘to fear’ from *bi̯u̯ā- < *bi.HaH- < *bʰiH-eh₂-, a zero-grade-vowel-formation from *bʰe̯iH-, Vedic bháyate. Cf. zero-grade-consonant Latvian bitîes ‘to fear’. [uvV]: OCS zabъvenъ ‘forgotten’ (-en- analogical for *-on-), from *bu̯.ana- < *bhu.h₂.a.no- < *bhuh₂-eno-, a zero-grade-vowel-formation from *bʰu̯eh₂-. Cf. zero-grade-consonant byti, bylù. 1 This article develops a paper I presented to the Linguistics Commission of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków Branch, on 28 February 2001. 2 Cf., on the one hand, long vowels: Latin lēnis ‘mild’ < *leh₁-en-; mās ‘man, male’ < *maHōs < *meh₂-ōs; flōs ‘flower’ < *bʰloHōs < *bʰleh₁-ōs. On the other hand, diphthongs: Greek πλεῖστος ‘most numerous’ < *pleh₁-istho-; Lithuanian dienà ‘warm’ < *dein-i̯ < *dʰeh₁-in- (Vedic dhénuk ‘cow’ < *dʰeh₁-inu-); Latin laevus ‘left’, Greek λαῖ(ϝ)ός, OCS lēvъ < *lāiu̯o- < *leh₂-iu̯o-; Lithuanian sausas ‘dry’ and OCS suxъ < *saHusos < *seh₂-usos (Greek (h)αῦος); Lithuanian káulas ‘bone’ < *kau̯H.lo- < *kaHulo- < *keh₂-ulo- (Latin caulis). 56 | WOJCIECH SMOCZYŃSKI [uvV]: Lith. buvo ‘he was’ from *bu. ųą < *bhuh₂-eh₂-, a formation with SZ-V to *bʰu̯eH-. Cf. SZ-C búti, būdamas. As can be seen, the syllabic structure of the historical forms corresponds to the Proto-language structure: bi.je.nъ like *bʰi.He.no-, *bu̯e.nъ like *bʰu.He.no-, etc. The historical spirants j, v do indeed continue the Proto-language glides *i, *u, but it must be borne in mind that these are not phonemes inherited directly from the Proto-Indo-European language, as, for example, in the case of Lith. lejù < *lei̯H-e-, vejù < *u̯ei̯H-e-, OCS zovǫ < *gʰeu̯H-e-, Lith. sravà < *sreu̯-, but rather segments of a secondary nature, arising only in the period bounded by the weakening and disappearance of laryngeal phonemes. We therefore regard the phonemes j and v in the sequences ijV and uvV as indirect evidence of the presence of an intervocalic laryngeal, and in this sense distinguish them genetically from j, v appearing after vowels other than i, u. The main aim of this study is to document, as exhaustively as possible, those Baltic and Slavic morphemes that contain the glides i, u in place of laryngeal phonemes. The material is organized as follows. For each morpheme, an ablaut paradigm is constructed, with the allomorph containing ij, uv characteristic of SZ-V listed first. It is then contrasted with the long-vowel (ī, ū) allomorph from the SZ-C position, in order to demonstrate that the nature of the suffix onset, V or C, determines the complementary distribution of these two forms resulting from the loss of roots of the eiH/ieH or euH/ueH type. Next, the e-grade (SE) of the PIE root is listed, usually in the form given by LIV (1998), and its Balto-Slavic reflexes are specified. In some entries, the e-grade is followed by derivatives formed from ijV, uvV with the o-grade (SO). These are divided into prevocalic (ai-V, au-V) and preconsonantal (ai-C, au-C) forms. The ablaut paradigm of a morpheme also shows how primary forms with ijV, uvV generate their derivatives. Three groups of forms are involved: 1. SZ presents with infix, 2. derivatives with lengthened grade ījV, ūuV (designated WSZ-V), 3. derivatives with o-grade (SO). Lithuanian infixed sequences of the type *Cinį, *Cunų undergo phonetic change to Cij, Cuv (gīja, būva), then denasalize to Cīj, Cūv (gīja, bija, būva, klūva). Where possible, attention is drawn to the presence of variant “-na presents” (gīna, lýna, būna, klūna), since the latter, owing to their circumflex accent and the -na formant, must be regarded as products of the crossing of the innovative type -(ȳ)ja, -(ū)va with the older type -(ī)na, -(ū)na, represented by inherited infixed formations that reach back to the period before the loss of prevocalic laryngeals, e.g. *līna from *li-n-H-e-, *būna from *bʰu-n-H-e-. Derivatives of the WSZ-V type in Lithuanian include, for example, palyjėti ⇐ lij-, papjūvėti ⇐ pjuv-; in Slavic, e.g. OCS upijati sę ⇐ pij-, pokryvati ⇐ krīv-. As for SO derivatives, they are mostly deverbal nouns with a root form aiV (⇐ vb. ijV) or auV (⇐ vb. uvV), e.g. Lith. bajùs from bij-, gajùs from gij-, sajùs from sij-, and Latv. krava, OCS krovъ from *kru̯-, OCS rovъ from rъv- (across the material as a whole, the auV type is strikingly less well represented). Sometimes the SZ-V form of interest is not attested in the material. In that case, WSZ-V is taken as the basis for internal reconstruction; cf., for example, the entries *miį-, *žį-, *liuu-. In previous analyses, there have been cases, for example, of HIAT LARYNGALNY W JĘZYKACH BAŁTO-SŁOWIAŃSKICH | 57 relating the yj form palyjēti with y (lyti) or yj prs. lyja. Similarly, with papjūvéti, ūv was associated with āu vb. pjāti (see, e.g., Otrębski 1965: 366). As for Slavic, for example, byvati was analyzed on the model of byti as by-vati (instead of the correct *bū-ā-). Such cases have been corrected in the WSZ-V section. The four excursuses appended to the end of the article point to certain morphological innovations that seem to have been indirectly conditioned by laryngeal hiatus. These are: (1) infixed presents from anit roots of the type šlyja, srūva, (2) the nominal suffix - yś as an allomorph of -ijas, (3) the infinitive suffix -yti, (4) the Slavic suffix -aviti. 1. GLIDE i IN THE POSITION *I.HV 1.1. *b̑ij- I < *bʰiH- SZ-V *b̑ij-: Lithuanian bijóti(s) ‘to fear’, Latvian bijât(iēs), Old Prussian biātwei³ from *bi.ǰā- < *bi.HaH- < *bʰiH-eh₂-. SZ-C *b̑i-: Latvian bitìēs ‘to fear’, present bìstuōs (⇒ intensive bìstītiēs), preterite, dialectal bìduōs (variant of bijuōs). SE *bʰȇiH- ‘to become afraid’ (LIV 58), cf. Vedic bháyate ‘is afraid, fears’. Derivatives. bai̯-V: 1. Proto-Slavic *boja-, Old Church Slavonic bojati se ‘to fear’ (present bojiti̯u se) appears to be a reflexive formed secondarily from *bojati, a form that earlier had transitive value (causative ‘to frighten’) in relation to Proto-Slavic bĭj-, cf. the Lithuanian form cited above, bijóti(s)⁴. – 2. Old Prussian pobaint, causative ‘to punish’. – 3. Lithuanian baĵùs ‘fearful, timid’; bàju: Mirt nebus bajù ‘It will not be frightening to die’. Derivatives. bai̯-C: ibajdýti causative ‘to frighten, intimidate’ (Latvian baidīt ‘to frighten’), báime feminine ‘fear, fright’, baisà ‘fear’ (⇒ baisus ‘frightening’), bailỹs masculine ‘a fearful, timid person’. 1.2. *b̑ij- II < *bʰiH- SZ-V *b̑ij-: 1. Old Church Slavonic bĭjenú ‘beaten’ from *bi.ǰe.no- ⇐ *bʰiH-eno-, 2. Old Church Slavonic bijetú ‘he beats’ (ESJS 63, Stang 1942, 46) < *bi.ǰe- ⇐ *bʰiH-e-, secondarily changed to Old Church Slavonic bijetú by leveling to the infinitive bi-C (see below brijetú). SZ-C *b̑i-: 1. Old Church Slavonic biti ‘to beat’, bitù ‘beaten’, nižùbiti ‘to knock down’, ubiti ‘to kill’, zabiti ‘to beat to death’, 2. Latvian būt ‘to push’, iterative bidīt ‘to push, move, push along; stuff’, Lithuanian dialectal býdyti ‘to make rise, scare, drive’ (see Urbutis 1981: 109). SE *bʰȇiH- ‘to strike’ (LIV 57). Derivatives *bai̯-V: Old Church Slavonic razboi masculine ‘attack, robbery’, uboi masculine ‘murder’; Slovak *boji, Polish bój (etymological meaning ‘fighting’). 3 Read [bijá:tvei]. 4 The inherited character of the Slovak stem boj- is less probable, namely as a continuation of the PIE perfect *-bʰoiH- (cf. Vedic bibhāya-), as is usually assumed in the literature (see Vaillant 1966: 393) and most recently in ESJS 72. 58 | W O J C I E C H S M O C Z Y Ń S K I 1.3. *bii- III < *bʰih₂- SZ-V *bii-: Latv. biju pret. ‘I was’. Referring to the attested word forms bimū (1st pl.), bi (2nd/3rd sg.) of the anteconsonantal SZ *bī-, one can, according to the analytical principle adopted here, reduce *bii-ā- to *bʰiH-eh₂-, and *bi-C to *bʰiH-C. If we now specify root H as h₂ in light of the synonymous allomorph *bʰuh₂-V (cf. Lith. buvai, Old Latv. buvu, OCS ⁰būvenŭ), we obtain *bʰih₂-V, that is, SZ to *bʰieh₂-⁵. This, together with the fact that the *bʰih₂- / *bʰuh₂- variation also occurs in Germanic, Celtic, and Italic (see LIV 83), leads to the hypothesis that in the western Indo-European dialects, Proto-Indo-European *bʰueh₂- ‘to grow, arise, become’ split through dissimilation of the labials, bʰu > bʰi, into two forms, and that both are used complementarily in the Balto-Slavic languages in the paradigm of the verb ‘to be’, namely in its weak forms. Further, if the hypothesis is correct that the auxiliary verb *biiu > -biau (1st sg.), *bijai > -bei (2nd sg.), and, by apocope, *bijā > *-bi (3rd person) are contained in the conditional forms of Old Lithuanian in -biau ‘-would I’, -bei ‘-would you’, -bi ‘-would he/she/it’ (pl. -bime, -bite)⁷, we find in this evidence for the Proto-Lithuanian-Latvian provenance of the stem *bijā-⁸. 1.4. *brii- < *bʰriH- SZ-V *brii-: Proto-Slavic *brĭjetŭ se ‘shaves’ < *bri.ie- ⇐ *bʰriH-e-; OCS brijetŭ se is a later form; its long i comes from leveling to the infinitive bri-C (cf. above bijetŭ)⁹. SZ-C *brī-: OCS briti se ‘to shave oneself’ (britva f. ‘razor, shaving instrument’), archaic Croatian brīti, brĭjem, secondarily brĭjati. SE *bʰreiH- ‘to cut’ (LIV 77). In Proto-Slavic the meaning was restricted to ‘to cut off facial hair’. 1.5. *gii- I < *gʷih₃- SZ-V *gii-: 1. Lith. atgijo ‘revived’, iżgijo ‘recovered’, Latv. dziju from *gi.ia- < *gʷih₃-eh₂-, 2. derivative pagijelis m. ‘convalescent’, 3. Lith. prs. infixed gija/gija ‘is recovering’ from *gi-n-i- (variant form gyna, from a blend of the older *gina < *gʷi-n-H-e and the later gija). ⁵ Cf. *gʷih₃- to *gʷieh₂- ‘to live’ s.v. *gii-. ⁶ Others assume that dissimilation took place in the stem *bʰū-ī-e- and was induced by the suffixal -i-, > *bʰī-ī-e-; see Klingenschmitt (1982: 222, n. 72) and LIV 84. It must be noted that, specifically with regard to the Balto-Slavic languages, the model *bʰū-ī-e- does not hold, since the combination of the suffix -ie- with roots ending in -ū- and -i- (< *-uH-, *-iH-) is avoided here (at least in primary verbs); cf., for example, the absence of trīja to rīti ‘to swallow, devour’, and tļyja to tļīti ‘to fall (of rain)’. ⁷ Por. nusidētum biau, būtumbei, tarnāutum bime, sakōtum bime, Zinkevičius (1981: 122n). ⁸ Dokładniej o tym Smoczyński (2001:51, 224n). Tam też o wcześniejszych próbach objaśnienia łot. bij-V ⁹ For this reason, the derivation of brijetǫ from PIE *bʰriH-ie- in LIV 77 is improbable. For the sequence -iH-ie-, see the note in n. 6. HIAT LARYNGALNY W JĘZYKACH BAŁTO-SŁOWIAŃSKICH | 59 SZ-C *gi̯-: 1. Lithuanian atgȳti ‘recover, come back to life’, Latvian dzīt ‘get well’, Old Church Slavonic ožiti ‘come to life’ < *gʷih₃-C¹⁰. 2. gýdyti ‘treat, heal’ (etymological meaning: ‘cause to come back to life, recover’), gȳvas ‘alive’. SE *gʷei̯h₃- ⇐ *gʷjeh₃- ‘live’ (LIV 192), cf. Greek βέομαι ‘I will live’, originating from conjunct. *gʷeih₃-o-. Deriv. gai̯-V: 1. Lithuanian gajùs ‘healing easily and quickly, recovering’, atgajùs ‘lively’. – 2. In Slavic, SO goj- was formed from the antevocalic allomorph *gii-, Proto-Slavic *ži̯j-V (cf. Lithuanian °gijo): caus. *gojiti ‘restore to life’, refl. *gojiti się ‘heal’—of a wound (cf. bojati się above). Only from a synchronic point of view does gojiti appear to be a causative derivation from žiti intr. ‘live’ < *gʷih₃-C¹¹. Deriv. gai̯-C: Lithuanian gaivà f. ‘vitality’¹². (The fact that there are no Baltic reflexes *gei̯-V/ *gei̯-C rules out the possibility that gai- derives from a stem in SE.) 1.6. *gii- II < *gʷiH- SZ-V *gii̯-: Lithuanian gijà f. ‘thread in the warp of a fabric’, Latvian dzija ‘thread, yarn’ from *g̑i.Hā < *gʷiH-éh₂. Cf. Vedic jyá- f. ‘bowstring’, Homeric Greek βίος m. ‘bow’ (etymological meaning: ‘equipped with a bowstring’) < *bi̯i̯ó- < *gʷiH-ó-. SZ-C *gi̯-: Lithuanian gýsla f. ‘vein’, Serbian žica f. ‘thread, sewing thread’ < *gīkā. SE *gʷi̯eH-, cf. Vedic jyá f. ‘bowstring’ (Mayrhofer EWAI₁, 603). 1.7. *gli̯- < *gliH- SZ-V *glii̯-: Proto-Slavic *glìjь, Russian dialectal glej ‘clay, clayey soil’, Ukrainian hlej ‘sludge, clay’, Belarusian hlej ‘sludge under water’ (borrowed into Polish glej ‘a layer of soil with an ash-grey color’ (see Sławski SEJP₁ 282, Bańkowski I 430). SZ-C *gli̯-: 1. Lithuanian glyti̯s ‘smooth, even’, Latvian glīts ‘smooth, nice, graceful, pretty’, 2. Slovak glina ‘clay’. SE *glei̯H- ‘to smear, stick’ (LIV 168): Lithuanian glėjù (cf. glėju̯, preterite gliejau, infinitive glėti, alongside dialectal glėti) ‘to smear, smooth by smearing; to plaster, fill holes with clay, glue’, reflexive ‘to stick (to something), cling’. Derivative *glai̯-V: Lithuanian glājus m. ‘a liquid of viscous consistency’ (LKŽ). N.B. A trace of the old present infixed form *gli-n-H-é- ⇒ Lithuanian glinù, resegmented as glin-ù, is the non-prefixed verb glin-, cf. preterite gliniaũ, infinitive glīnti, usually with preverbs ap-, už- ‘to coat, seal (with clay)’, see LKŽ. 10 A SZ of the gy-C type may be present in the Lithuanian nominal compound dveigys ‘two-year-old (of a horse)’. This compound can indeed be interpreted as ‘living (for) two (years)’, namely on the assumption that the element -gy-s is an alternative to the prevocalic allomorph *gii-V, Proto-Baltic *gii̯as ‘alive’, which continues the PIE noun *gʷih₃-ó-; cf. Greek βίος ‘life, way of life; means of subsistence, food; grain’. See also Excursus III. 11 The absence of Lithuanian *gajyti is noteworthy. The Slavic gojiti corresponds in meaning to Lithuanian gýdyti (see above). 12 On the basis of gaiv- resulting from the reanalysis gaiv- + -a, the verb gaivinti ‘to revive’ and the nouns gaivàlas ‘element’ and gaivùmas m. ‘revival’ were subsequently formed. 60 | WOJCIECH SMOCZYŃSKI 1.8. *gni̯- II < *gniH- SZ-V *gni̯-: Proto-Slavic *gnijetū present ‘it rots’ from *gnih₁-e-. SZ-C *gnī-: Old Church Slavonic (sū)gniti ‘to rot’ < *gnih₁-C. By analogy, *gnīj- was remodeled after the infinitive gni-C, giving rise to the present gnijetū (cf. above bijetū alongside biti, brijetū alongside briti). SE *gne̯iH-. Absent from LIV. As for the type of root extension, see above *bʰeiH- and below *leiH-, *pe̯iH-. Derivative *gnai̯-V: Old Church Slavonic (sū)gnojiti causative ‘to cause to rot’¹³ (postverbal Old Church Slavonic gnoi, -ja m. ‘manure’). Derivative *gnai̯-C: Old Church Slavonic gnĕvù ‘anger’, Zorn¹⁴. For the suffix, compare Lithuanian gaivà s.v. gii- I. 1.9. *ki̯i- < *kʷih₁- SZ-V *ki̯i-: Proto-Slavic *či̯jo < *kʷih₁-e- ‘I rest’, present to čiti. Compare *bījǫ:: biti, *lījǫ:: liti, *vījǫ:: viti. SZ-C *kī-: Old Church Slavonic počiti ‘to rest’ (with the innovative present počijǫ) < *kʷih₁-C. Also compare Old Church Slavonic čilŭ, Serbo-Croatian čō, Czech čilý ‘lively, vigorous’ (etymological meaning ‘rested’). SE *kʷieh₁- ‘to rest’ (LIV 352), compare Avestan ši̯iāmā ‘let us rejoice’. In Slavic, SE *ča- from *kē- < *kʷieh₁- or from *kʷi̯a- < *kʷioh₁-¹⁵ is absent. Compare Latin quiētus ‘calm, pacified; peaceful; private’ < *kʷi̯éh₁-to- (to Old Avestan ši̯āta- ‘happy’, Old Persian ši̯āta- etc.), perfect quiēuī < *kʷi̯ē-uai (LIV 353). For the type of root extension, compare *gʷieh₃- s.v. gii- I. Derivative *kai̯-V: Old Church Slavonic pokojiti ‘to calm, refresh, invigorate’, pokojiti zakona ‘to fulfill the law’¹⁶, Old Polish koji się ‘it cools down, grows cold’, koji się choroba ‘the illness abates’ (Proto-Slavic causative with the etymological meaning ‘to cause to find rest’, cf. Sławski SEJP II 329). From this, pokoji m. ‘calm, peace’ as a postverbal noun. 1.10. *kri̯i- < *kriH- SZ-V *kri̯-: 1. Latvian krijāt (< *kriH-eh₂-) ‘to skin; to line a sled with linden wood; to wind yarn onto a reel’ (ME II 278), 2. Latvian krīja f. ‘linden bark, linden bast; rim, hoop of a sieve, bast rim of a sieve, winnowing sieve; basket made of linden bast; linden board’ (ME II 277; related to this is krijuôt ‘to skin’ as a later denominative). SZ-C *krī-: 1. Lithuanian krýtis, -ties f. ‘net for scooping up fish; fish scoop’, with metatony: krytis, -tiēs f. ‘ice floe’ (etymological meaning ‘a piece that has broken off’). – 2. Old Church Slavonic krinǫ m. or krina f. ‘wooden vessel, water tub’, Old Church Slavonic okrinǫ m. same (ESJS 365 gives a different account: from *(s)krej- with an anit-grade root). SE *krejH-, from an alteration of Proto-Indo-European *kreh₁- ‘to sift, separate’, cf. LIV 327. A new SP *kre̯iH- was formed from SZ *kriH- in Baltic by means of v̥rdhi; hence Lithuanian dialectal 13 Historically speaking, this is therefore a derivative from a present stem in -ī-, not in -i-, as in Vaillant (1966: 417). 14 For the semantic development, see Sławski SEJP I 304, ESJS 182. 15 Unless we connect with this root the word čăs ‘time’, assuming a formation ča-s̑ and the etymological meaning ‘interval, moment of respite’ (?). ESJS 98 s.v. časǫ does not consider such a derivation. 16 Derywat od prs. na -ū-, nie zaś -ii- (inf. -i-), jak u Vaillanta (1966: 417). Zob. wyżej gojiti, gnojiti oraz niżej *krojiti, *lojiti, pojiti. HIAT LARYNGALNY W JĘZYKACH BAŁTO-SŁOWIAŃSKICH | 61 krejù (krejaũ, kriẽti) ‘to gather from the surface; to fish in a liquid’, Latvian kreju (krēju, krìet/krìēt) ‘to skim cream from the surface of milk’. Derivatives. kraj-V: 1. Lithuanian nomen krājus m. ‘sides of a sieve, sieve; rim’. – 2. Proto-Slavic *krojiți, Polish kroić ‘to separate using a sharp tool’, Russian krojú, kroiť ‘to sift grain’, Slovene krojím, krojíti ‘to chop, tear’17, Old Church Slavonic okrojenije n. ‘circumcision’. The extended grade of kroj- is evident in Old Church Slavonic krai, -ja m. ‘bank, edge’. Derivatives. kraj-C: Latvian kraistīt ‘to skim, to despoil, to scoop the cream from the milk’, generally ‘to skim from above; to make superficial’ (MEII 256), Lithuanian kraitis m. ‘basket, hamper’. 1.11. *li̯- I < *liH- SZ-V *li̯-: 1. Latvian lija preterite ‘it rained’, Lithuanian įsilijo preterite ‘it began to rain heavily’ < *li̯.i̯ā- < *liH-eh₂-, 2. Lithuanian infixed present lȳja/lī́ja ‘it rains’ < *li-n-i̯- (variant form lȳna from a blend of *lina < *li-n-H-e and lȳja), 3. nouns: li̯imas masculine ‘heavy rain’, li̯ùngas dialectal ‘rainy, wet’, li̯ùndra feminine ‘freezing rain (weather when it rains and freezes)’. WSZ-V *li̯-: Lithuanian palvėti ‘to pour (of short-lived rain)’ ⇐ *li̯-ē-18. SZ-C *lī-: Lithuanian lýti ‘(of rain) to fall, pour’ = Latvian līt (with present līst); Lithuanian lýdyti causative ‘to leave out in the rain so that it gets wet’. SE *le̯iH- ‘to pour’ (LIV 363): Lithuanian lejù, lieti ‘to pour, spill’, Latvian leju, liet (new causative Lithuanian líedinti causative ‘to cause something to flow, pour, overflow’). Derivatives lai-V: Lithuanian ãtlaja feminine or ãtlajis masculine ‘washout, shoal, shallow place in a lake’, ãtlajus masculine same, užúolaja feminine ‘riverine inundation area’. Derivatives lai-C: Lithuanian láistyti iterative ‘to pour, water; to shed tears’19. N.B. Compare the note on ilajai masculine plural ‘clay for plugging holes’, laitas masculine ‘clay threshing floor’ at the end of Part I. 1.12. *li̯- II < *liH- SZ-V *li̯-: 1st sg. *lijọ prs. ‘I pour’, Russian l’ju together with Latvian dialectal lij ‘it is raining’ (Endzelin 1922: §609), from *li̯.i̯e- < *liH-ē-, 2nd sg. *lijati from *liH-éh₂-, as implied by the presence of South Slavic lijati (cf. Latvian lija above). 17 An ambiguous formation in South Slavic: either a causative to *kr̥nēti se ‘to detach, separate oneself, stick out’ (itself built on the old infixed present *kr̥nō < *kri-n-H-é-), or an iterative to Proto-Slavic *krejo (cf. Latvian kreju). 18 Lengthening of the laryngeal-conditioned zero grade -i̯- to -ī- also occurs in pavijėti (s.v. *u̯ii- I). The corresponding -uu- ⇒ -ū- occurs in papijūvėti (s.v. *pi̯eu-) and pasiūvėti (s.v. *si̯eu-). The vowel i is treated the same before our secondary i as before other consonants, regardless of whether these are resonants, cf. pagvėnti, pamny̌ti, patry̌nėti, pakylėti, or obstruents, cf. pabvėdti (brid- ⇐ bred-), paskrydėti, paslydėti (*slid- ⇐ *sle̯id-), pakrypėti (*krip- ⇐ kreip-), palypėti, panysėti (*niš- ⇐ neš-), palytėti (*lit- ⇐ leit-), pamygėti, pavyzdėti (*vizd- ⇐ veizd-), pavyzėti (*viz- ⇐ vež-). Details are given by Otrębski (1965: §61ff.), though it should be noted that the primary stems for these duratives cited by the author are sometimes questionable; cf. krypsta as the base for kypėti, liečia for *lȳtėti, šlysta for *shȳdėti. 19 Acute accent patterned after the stem lieti, for polarization against laistyti ‘to smear, grease, coat with wet clay’ (leisti). 62 | WOJCIECH SMOCZYŃSKI WSZ-V *līj-: Old Church Slavonic lijati ‘to pour, pour out’²⁰, secondary intensive in -vati: izlivati ‘to pour out’. SZ-C *li-: Old Church Slavonic liti, Serbo-Croatian lĭti (se), dialectal ljȉti, Old Polish *lić ‘to pour’. SE *lejH- ‘gießen’ (LIV 363): Old Church Slavonic lęjo ‘I pour’ < *lejH-je- (see also *lii- I above). Derivative * laj-V: Proto-Slavic *lojiti iterative ‘to pour, pour out’; from this, Old Church Slavonic loji, -a m. ‘tallow’, Silesian łój, Czech lůj as a postverbal noun (etymological meaning ‘liquid, pourable fat’). No Slavic SO *lě-C. 1.13. *mii- < *miH- SZ-V *mii-: Latvian miju present tense to mīt ‘to change, exchange’, < *mi.iā- < *miH-eh₂-. WSZ-V *mii-: Slavic mijati ‘to pass (of time)’—presupposes a primary present *mījǫ (sę) ‘I change’ (myself)? SZ-C *mi-: 1. Latvian mīt ‘to exchange’, reflexive mītēs ‘to exchange with one another, move alternately, change, transform’; iterative mistīt ‘to exchange repeatedly’ < *mi-stī-. – 2. Old Church Slavonic minǫti ‘to pass (of time)’. SE *mejH-. LIV 383 lists only athematic *mej- ‘to change; exchange, alter’ (Vedic ví mayante 3 pl. ‘they change’). In Latvian, the present *meju²¹ was replaced by miju through leveling to the past tense miju. Derivative *maj-C: 1. Lithuanian atmainà f. ‘change’, mainãi m. pl. ‘phases of the moon’²², 2. Old Church Slavonic měna f. ‘exchange’. 1.14. *nĭi- < *niH- SZ-V *nii-: Latv. niju pret. to nīt, nīt < *ni.iā- < *niH-eh₂-. SZ-C *ni-: Latv. nīt, nīt ‘to make a circular motion’, sviestu nīt ‘to churn cream into butter’. SE *neiH- ‘führen, leiten’, cf. Ved. náyati ‘leads’, Hitt. nēanzi 3pl. ‘they direct (drive), send’ (LIV 406). In Latvian, prs. *neju was replaced by niju through leveling with pret. niju. LIV does not mention the Latvian vb. 1.15. *pii- I < *pih₃- SZ-V *pii-: OCS pijetǫ prs. ‘I drink’ < *pih₃-e- (allomorph *pih₃- from metathesis of *ph₃i-), cf. Russ. pju, pješь (inf. pitь), p’jányj, Ukr. pju (inf. pytý)²³. WSZ-V *pii-: OCS upijati sę ‘to get drunk’ (secondary intensive in -vati: opivati sę likewise²⁴, whence pivo n. ‘drink’ as a postverbal noun). ²⁰ It is worth investigating whether lijati could be a reflex of Proto-Slavic *lъj-ē-, i.e. a formation parallel to Lith. patyjęti; see above. ²¹ Cf. Latv. meju to miet ‘to drive in a stake, I drive in’. ²² The absence of an acute accent is evidence that these nouns were derived from SZ-V *mii-, not from SE-C *mej-. LIV 383 gives only athematic *mej- ‘wechseln; tauschen, ändern’. ²³ Inaczej Stang (1942: 46), który (niesłusznie) operuje pierwiastkiem anitowym *pej-. ²⁴ Cf. SCr. posmijati se alongside the older posmijati se ‘to mock’. The secondary suffix -vati comes from resegmentation that occurred in forms such as oplivati OCS ‘to spit on’ ⇒ opli-vati (by analogy with pli-noti ‘to spit’), poči-vati ‘to rest’ ⇒ poči-vati (by analogy with *poči-noti ‘to come to rest’). HIAT LARYNGALNY W JĘZYKACH BAŁTO-SŁOWIAŃSKICH | 63 SZ-C *pī-: Old Church Slavonic piti ‘to drink’. SE *peh₃- > *peh₃-i- (cf. the notation *peh₃(i)- ‘trinken’ in LIV 417). Derivative *pai-V: Slovene napojiti caus. ‘to give to drink, water’²⁵ (postverbal napoji, -a m. ‘drink’, cf. lojĭ ‘tallow’ above). 1.16. *pii- II < *piH- SZ-V *pii-: 1. Lithuanian pijo pret. of pyti (see below), 2. present with infix pīja ‘swells with milk’ < *pi-n-i-²⁶, from *pi.ie- < *piH-é-. SZ-C *pī-: 1. Lithuanian pyti ‘to swell with milk (of a cow’s udder)’, išpyti ‘to become waterlogged (of soil, yeast)’; pýdyti caus. ‘to massage the udder before milking so that milk flows into it’, 2. Proto-Slavic *pitǫ ‘sated, satiated’ < *piH-tó-, which provided the basis for the denominative verb Old Church Slavonic pitěti sę ‘to become sated, to feed oneself’ (from this caus. pitati ‘to satiate, feed, nourish; bring up’) and the noun Old Church Slavonic pišta f. ‘food’, Croatian pića, Old Polish pica²⁷. SE *peiH- ‘to swell’ (LIV 419), cf. Vedic pāyate ‘spurts (of milk)’. An allomorph in SO may be present in Lithuanian pěnas m. ‘milk’ < *păina- < *pojH-no- (see šiena s.v. šii- II). Absent in Lithuanian is SO *pai- from pij-. 1.17. *prii- < *priH- SZ-V *prii-: Slavic *prĭjǫ ‘I show friendship, favour’ – implied by the presence of the iterative on SW prijati ‘to favour someone, to be favourably disposed towards someone’²⁸. Reconstruction *pri.ie- < *priH-é-. Cf. Vedic priyá- ‘dear, desirable; one’s own, counted among one’s own’ (alongside prs. prináti ‘enjoys something, is content; takes delight in something’ < *pri-né-H-ti (Mayrhofer EWAI AII 189). Cf. the corresponding SZ for *bʰeiH-, *leiH-, *ueiH-. SZ-C *pri-: unattested in Balto-Slavic. Cf. Vedic prītá- ‘disposed in a friendly manner’ < *priH-tó-, prīti- f. ‘joy, contentment’ < *priH-tí- (Mayrhofer EWAI AII 181). SE *preiH- ‘to delight, to show love’ (LIV 441): prs. Czech přējǫ, Old Czech přěju (Trautmann 1923: 231). In Baltic there is Latvian priēks ‘joy’ (ME III 393) < *prei-ka-. As to its formation, cf. Latvian spēks ‘strength, power; abundance’, Lithuanian spēkas ‘strength, power’ (related to spēju, spėti ‘to have free time’, suspėti ‘to manage in time’ < *speh₁-) and Old Church Slavonic znakъ ‘Kennzeichen’ < *žnō-ka- (related to znajǫ, znati ⇐ *gneh₃- ‘to recognize’). 25 Derywat od prs. na -ī-, nie zaś -ī- (inf. -i-), jak u Vaillanta (1966: 417). Zob. wyżej gojiti, gnojiti, *krojiti, *lojiti. 26 The reconstruction of pȳja as *piH-ié- in LIV 419 is doubtful. With a regular continuation of the given proto-form, we would have to obtain accented †pýja. Such a form would be entirely irregular, since Baltic does not combine the suffix -i̯e/o- with stems in *-iH-, cf. note 6. 27 The affiliation of Proto-Slavic *pirъ, Old Church Slavonic piro ‘feasting, Gastmahl’ is disputed; it could just as well belong with Old Church Slavonic piti ‘to drink’. 28 Given that prijati does not differ in any way from iteratives such as Old Church Slavonic lijati ⇐ *līj- (s.v. *lii- II) and Lithuanian palyjėti ⇐ *līj- (s.v. *lii- I), Slovenian mijati alongside Latvian miju (s.v. *mii-), and Old Church Slavonic upijati sę alongside pijętǫ (s.v. *pii- I), there seems no need to assume, following Vaillant (1966: 293), borrowing from Gothic fijōn ‘to be friendly’. 64 | WOJCIECH SMOCZYŃSKI 1.18. *ri̯- I < *riH- SZ-V *ri̯-: 1. Latvian ri̯u pres., ri̯u pret. to rīt (see), Lithuanian nur̄jo pret. ‘swallow, devour’, from *rih₂-e-, -eh₂-, 2. Lithuanian pres. with infix rī̀ja/rīja < *ri-n-i- (variant form rīna from a blend of *rina < *ri-n-H- and rīja), 3. nominals: Lithuanian rījikas m. ‘glutton’, rījimas m. ‘eating, devouring’. SZ-C *rī-: Lithuanian rýti ‘gulp down, devour’, Latvian rīt same (intens. ristīt ‘devour quickly’)²⁹. SE *reh₂- ⇒ *reh₂i-: The Proto-Baltic form *rih₂- represents a metathetic change from *rh₂i- as SZ to *reh₂i-, which in turn was abstracted from the present *reh₂-ie-; compare Latvian rāju ‘I scold, rebuke’. The Lithuanian SP *ro-C²⁹ is absent. Derivatives rai̯-V: Lithuanian rajōti ‘chew, masticate’, rajùs ‘gluttonous’, prarajà f. ‘abyss, precipice’. 1.19. *ri̯- II < *h₃riH- SZ-V *ri̯-: Proto-Slavic *řijęnu < *HriH-en-, changed in Old Church Slavonic otъ-rivenŭ ‘pushed away, rejected’ (Vaillant 1966: 232), with v transferred from the synonymous otъ-rinovenŭ or also from the verb otъ-rūvati ‘tear away’. SZ-C *rī-: Old Church Slavonic rǫti se ‘collapse, fall down’, otъrinǫti ‘drive out, reject’, iterative otъ-rivati ‘drive out, push away’, urivati ‘surround’. SE *h₃rejH- ‘surge, whirl; flow’ (LIV 271). SZ in Vedic riṇāti ‘lets flow, lets run’, rīyate ‘flows, runs’. Compare West Slavic Old Church Slavonic rějǫ, rějati ‘flow, roll (of water)’ (derivative rě-ka ‘current, river’). Derivatives rai̯-V: Proto-Slavic *rojī m., Russian roj, Polish rój (swarm of bees); Proto-Slavic *vǫz-rojī m., Polish (w)zarój ‘place where water bursts forth, source’. 1.20. *si̯- I < *siH- SZ-V *si̯-: Lith. sijóti ‘to sift, to pass through a sieve’, apsijóti ‘to sow with seed’ < *si̯ā- < *sih₁-eh₂-. The PBalt. form *sih₁- represents a metathetic form *sh₁i- as SZ to *seh₁i- (itself abstracted from the pres. *seh₁-ie- ‘sows’). Cf. OCS sějǫ < *seh₁-ie-, inf. sěti alongside sějati31 ‘to sow, to sift’. SZ-C *sī-: Lith. sýtas m. dial. ‘large sieve for sifting grain, winnowing sieve’. SE *seh₁i- ‘to press in, insert’ ⇒ ‘to sow’ (LIV 469). Drw. sai̯-V: Lith. sajùs ‘something with which much can be sown’, which has sėjùs as a synonym, is synchronically associated with sėti ‘to sow’ (pres. sėju) and attests to a conflation of roots meaning ‘to sow’ (*sē-) and ‘to sift through a sieve’ (*si̯-). The root form saj- relates to sij- as, for example, spar- does to spir- (sparùs ‘quick, lively’ ⇐ spìrti ‘to urge, press’, among other meanings). 29 ME₃ 540, following Osthoff, connected this with Vedic riṇāti ‘lets flow, lets run’, rīyate ‘flows, runs’. Today LIV 271 assigns the Vedic forms to PBIE *h₃eiH- ‘to surge, swirl’ ⇒ ‘to flow’, but does not mention Lith. rýti there. 30 As for Lith. rėju, jau, rieti alongside rėjau, rieti ‘to bellow, roar’, it is most easily explained as a vrddhi-type derivative: *rēi-C < *reih₂- from SZ *rih₂-. Cf. PBIE *reh₂(i)- ‘to cry out, roar’ in LIV 543. 31 As for the suffix *-ā-, cf. Lith. sėjo ‘sowed’ as a preterite formed secondarily to the pres. sėj-a, etymologically sė-ja ‘sows’ < *seh₁-ie-. HIAT LARYNGALNY W JĘZYKACH BAŁTO-SŁOWIAŃSKICH | 65 – The intonation of Lithuanian sietas ‘sieve’ and Serbo-Croatian sìto argues for the Proto-Balto-Slavic proto-form *séi̯ta- < *séih₁-to-. This, in turn, may be interpreted as a vr̥ddhi formation to SZ *sih₁- (cf. the explanation of Lithuanian siena s.v. sij- II)³². 1.21. *sij- II < *siH- SZ-V *sij-: 1. Lithuanian sijo past tense ‘bound’, 2. present tense with infix sȳja < *si-n-i-³³, 3. nouns: sijā f. ‘beam binding a structure, bond’ < *si.iā- < *sih₂-eh₂-; atāsija f. dialectal ‘rod or rope connecting the front-wheel axles with the pole’, literary ātsija likewise. – The form *sih₂- results from metathesis of *sh₂i-, i.e. SZ to the newly isolated root *sh₂ei-, which was abstracted from the present tense *sh₂-ei̯é- (Lithuanian *sajù, cf. the type Old Church Slavonic stojǫ from *sth₂-ei̯é-, SE *steh₂-).³⁴ – Lithuanian dialectal present sinù ‘I bind’ may represent an ancient infixed formation, *si-n-h₂-e-³⁵ from *sih₂- (inf. °sȳti), cf. Vedic sināti ‘fetters, binds the hooves’ < *si-né-h₂-ti. SZ-C *sī-: Lithuanian sī-: užsī́ti ‘bind on’, susyti ‘bind together with something’ < *sih₂-C. – Lithuanian siena f. ‘wall (wickerwork); boundary’ < *sei-nā < *sei̯h₂-neh₂-³⁶ appears to be a vr̥ddhi formation. SE *seh₂-, cf. Vedic ā́va sāt ‘unbinds’ (LIV 471). In Baltic, secondarily *sei̯h₂- from SZ *sih₂- (vr̥ddhi): Lithuanian dialectal sejù ‘I bind’ < *sei̯h₂-e-. The infinitive sieti (no *sieti!) and past tense sėjau are based on the present-tense stem sej-. Accordingly, one must note the loss of its set character in reference to the root in SE³⁷. N.B. The presence of the newly isolated root sej- does not allow the Lithuanian derivatives with SO to be unambiguously interpreted as based on SZ-V sij-. This applies to the verb sáistyti ‘wrap around’ (analogical acute accent) and the nouns pasaitas m. ‘tether, rein’, atāsaja or atsajā f. (this is a variant of the word atāsija, see above). 1.22. *ui̯i- I < *uiH- SZ-V *ui̯i-: Lithuanian vijo past tense ‘wound; drove, chased’ < *ui.iā- < *uih₁-eh₂-, nuvijóti iterative ‘unwind, unwrap’, ī̯vijas ‘winding, twisted, spiral’, vijōklis m. ‘bindweed’. WSZ *ūi-: Lithuanian pavȳjė́ti ‘chase away, drive off a little (e.g. hens from the vegetable garden)’, cf. palȳjė́ti and further parallels s.v. *lii- I. SZ-C *ūi-: Lithuanian nuvýti ‘make by weaving; drive away, chase off’, įvýti ‘weave into; drive in, thrust in’. SE *uei̯h₁- ‘direct one’s attention to, strive for’ (LIV 609), cf. Lithuanian vejù dialectal ‘I chase, drive; wind’ < *uéih₁-e-. ³² Mniej prawdopodobna jest hipoteza metatezy *séh₁i-to- > *séi̯h₁-to- (Smoczyński 2001: 150f.). ³³ Also the ambiguous syjęti ‘be bound’: a derivative either from the present tense syj(a) or a zero-grade formation to sij- (cf. the type palȳjė́ti s.v. *lii- I). ³⁴ *sh₂i- as a result of resegmentation of the present tense *sh₂-i̯é- seems less likely here; cf. Vedic ā́va syāti ‘unbinds’, Hittite ishiyanzi 3pl. ‘they bind, fetter’. ³⁵ The past tense sin-iau̯ was formed from the resegmented sin-ù (newly isolated root sin-). ³⁶ The structure is as in pienas ‘milk’, alongside pūti, pija, pijo ‘be milked (of udders)’. ³⁷ If inherited SE had survived in Lithuanian, it would have yielded the present tense †sóju < *sá-ie- < *séh₂-ie- (cf. klóju ‘I spread, cover’ < *klā-ie- < *kléh₂-ie-, stóju ‘I stand, take my stand’ < *stā-ie- < *steh₂-ie-). 66 | WOJCIECH SMOCZYŃSKI Drw. uąj-V: 1. Lithuanian vajóti iterative ‘drive, wind’, Latvian vajât ‘pursue’. Nouns: vajīs masculine ‘messenger’, vajà feminine ‘enclosure, pasture’ (Old Prussian wayos EV 282 ‘meadows’), įvajųs masculine ‘winding’, 2. Old Church Slavonic voi, -ja masculine ‘warrior; army’. Drw. uąj-C: Lithuanian vãiras masculine ‘tiller, helm’, vainikas masculine ‘wreath’ (= Slavic věnьcь), from the intermediate derivative *uąj-ni- ‘twisting, weaving’ (cf. Vedic veṇíḥ ‘braid of hair, plait’). 1.23. *uii- II < *uiH- SZ-V *uii-: Proto-Slavic *-vĭjetù present ‘winds, twines, joins’ < *uḭ.ie- < *uih₁-éh₂-, cf. WSZ Old Church Slavonic °vijetù. SZ-C *uī-: 1. Old Church Slavonic viti ‘to wind, twist’ (-vinǫti38), Slovak vìti, 2. Lithuanian výti (see above) < *uih₁-C. SE *ueih₁- ‘wrap around, envelop’ (LIV 610). Cf. Lithuanian vejà s.v. *uii- I. Drw. *uąi-V: Old Church Slavonic povoi, -ja masculine ‘garment, wrap’, Slovak ‘twining plant, bindweed’. 1.24. *ži- II < *ǵhiH- SZ-V *ži-: Lithuanian žiōju, žiōti ‘to gape’. This form results from the syncope of an older *žijāti⁳⁹ = Proto-Slavic *žijati (Slovak žjāti, žjām) < Proto-Balto-Slavic *ži.jā- < *ži.HaH- < *ǵʰih₁-eh₂⁴⁰. WSZ-V *ži-: Old Church Slavonic zijati ‘to gape’. SZ-C *ži-: Old Church Slavonic zinǫti ‘to open one’s mouth, gape’, Latin hīscō < *ǵʰih₁-C. This SZ is a metathetic form of an older *ǵʰh₁i-C, associated with the non-root *ǵʰeh₁-, which arose through reanalysis of ie-present *ǵʰeh₁-ie-, cf. Old Church Slavonic žějǫ41. There are no derivatives in SO from žij- (unlike gij-, rij-, see above). SE *ǵʰeh₁- ⇒ *ǵʰeh₁i- ‘to open one’s mouth wide, yawn’ (LIV 153). The absence of Lithuanian *žėju, *žėti is noteworthy. 1.25. Laryngeal hiatus *-iHV indirectly attested in an o-grade derivative: SZ-V *dij- SZ-C *di-: Latvian dīdīt ‘make dance’. SE *deih₁- ‘drive along, hurry’ (LIV 91, Greek διένται): Latvian deju, diet ‘jump, dance’. Drw. *dai-C: Lithuanian dainà 4th accentuation pattern ‘song’ < *dai-nā- (etymological meaning ‘singing for dancing’?). If this word were a derivative from SE, it would show the acute (*dāina). SZ-V *li- (see above, s.v. *lii- I) 38 Cf. OCS povinǫti sę ‘submit oneself, surrender’, povinǫti být ‘be subjected, be subordinate to someone’. 39 For syncope in the pretonic syllable, compare as parallels: 1. niókoju ‘I destroy, devastate’ from *nijokōju, a denominative verb from nījoks ‘none, not one’, 2. nãuȳgi ‘isn’t it?’ (< *ne-jau-gi). See Smoczyński (2001: 139, 252). 40 The reconstruction of a denominative stem *ǵʰ.(i)eh₁-,ie-, proposed in LIV 153 to explain the supposedly inherited Proto-Baltic stem *ž-ia- (> Lithuanian žiō-), is unlikely. 41 Rasmussen (1989: 52) widzi nierozszerzony SE *ǵʰeh₁- w nomen gr. χήμη ‘małż’; miarka (znacz. etym. ‘Gähnen’?). HIAT LARYNGALNY W JĘZYKACH BAŁTO-SŁOWIAŃSKICH | 67 SE *h₁eiH- ‘to smear, beschmieren’ (LIV 247, Lat. linō, -ere, Hitt. halina- ‘clay’). Derivative *lai-V: Lith. ilajai m.pl. ‘clay for sealing holes (in an oven, in a clay floor)’. Derivative *lai-C: Lith. laitas m. ‘clay threshing floor’. N.B. Semantically, for both words this is a better placement in Lithuanian than s.v. *lii- I ‘to pour, spill’. SZ-V *sujj- SZ-C *suj- SE *suejH- ‘to disappear’ (LIV 553, Old English swīnan): no Lithuanian *śvieti. Derivative *suaj-V: Lith. svaj-d ‘dream’ ⇒ svajōti, -ōju ‘to dream; fantasize; talk nonsense; wander aimlessly; blow (of the wind)’; Latv. svajāt ‘to talk nonsense, speak rubbish, fib’. Derivative *suaj-C: *svái-ta f. ⇒ denom. svāitėti ‘to rave, be delirious; talk nonsense; wander’. Perhaps also Lith. svai-gùs ‘intoxicating, inebriating’ (denom. svaigštù, svaigti ‘to become intoxicated, get drunk, lose consciousness’). 2. GLIDE u IN THE POSITION *u.HV 2.1. *blių- I instead of *bluų- < *bʰluH- SZ-V *blių- (*liu generalized from SE): Lith. bliuvóti iter. ‘to bleat, roar, bellow’. Instead of *bluvóti, this is from *blu.uā- < *bʰluH-eh₂-. Parallels s.v. *diųu-, *skių-. SZ-C *bliu- ⇒ *blju- (*li generalized from SE): Lith. prabliūti ‘to begin roaring’, subliūti ‘to roar; shout’. Instead of *blúti, compare Greek γλύει ‘bubbles, boils over’. SE *bʰleuH-: Lith. bliáuti ‘to roar, bleat’ < *bliąu-C, compare Greek φλέει ‘overflows’ (LIV 74). 2.2. *blių- II instead of *bluų- < *bʰluH- SZ-V *blių- (*liu generalized from SE): OCS bljīvati iterative ‘to vomit’ (also with the preverbs iz-, o-). Instead of *blūvati, this is from *blu.uā- < *bʰluH-eh₂-. Cf. the phonologically regular *lių in OCS pljīvati s.v. *(s)pių-. SZ-C *bliu-: no words. *bly- < *bʰluH- (cf. kryti, kryją s.v. *kruų-, tryti, tryją s.v. *truų-). SE *bʰleuH- ‘to overflow’ (LIV 74). Instead of the expected Proto-Slavic *blovǫ (*bljuti/*bluti)⁴², OCS bljujo (bljīvati) became established, with blju- appropriate to the preconsonantal position; see above Lithuanian bliáuti ‘to roar’⁴³. 2.3. *bruų- I < *h₃bʰruH- SZ-V *bruų-: 1. Lithuanian old, dialectal bruvìs f. ‘eyebrow’, acc. brùvį⁴⁴, also brùvē. – 2. OCS brŭvĭ, -i f. ‘eyebrow; eyelid; eyelash’, Polish brew, brwi < Proto-Balto-Slavic *bru.uin (acc. sg.) < *h₃bʰruH-m̥. 42 Cf. rovǫ:: rjuti/ruti (Proto-Slavic *h₃reuH-), trovǫ:: truti (*treuH-), as well as the nasal-infix formations plovǫ:: pluti (*pleu-), slovǫ:: sluti (*kleu-). 43 In the meaning ‘to vomit’, Lithuanian retained the old verb: vēmti (vemiu) < PIE *u̯emh₁-. 44 The nominative of an i-stem was reconstructed from the form acc. sg. in *-im < *-m̥. 68 WOJCIECH SMOCZYŃSKI SZ-C *bru-, cf. Vedic bhrū́h, acc. bhrū́vam, Greek ὀφρύς, ὀφρύα ‘eyebrow’. SE *h₃bʰreuH-. There is no Proto-Slavic reflex *br̥āu-C. 2.4. *bru̯- II < *bʰruH- SZ-V *bru̯-, see WSZ-V. WSZ-V *brū-: Lithuanian brū́vėti, present tense -iù/-ė́ju ‘to toil, work hard, struggle’ (LKŽ). SZ-C *brū-: Lithuanian brū́dyti ‘to send hurriedly’⁴⁵: Brūdýk, kol išbrūdysi šeimyną į pievą suimti śieną prieš lietų, i.e. ‘hurry as fast as possible’ (LKŽ). In the same meaning, the quasi-primary verb brū́du, brū́dau, brū́sti occurs (LKŽ), which looks like a back-formation from the preceding form. SE *bhreuH- ‘to break forth’ (LIV 81): Lithuanian briáutis, -jasi/-nasi ‘to force one’s way in, barge in’, alongside bráutis, same meaning, with non-palatal r originating in the present tense bráujasi, where dissimilatory loss occurred before the suffix -i̯a- (cf. máuju s.v. *mu̯- II). See *bru̯- III. 2.5. *bru̯- III < *bʰruH- SZ-V *bru̯-: Proto-Slavic *brūvь, -i f. ‘footbridge, a plank laid across a stream’, changed by vowel assimilation (ESJS 85) into *brǔvь: Old Russian brū̆v alongside brūvь, Serbo-Croatian sh. brv, Old Czech břev, genitive břvi. More widely distributed is the derivative in -no-: Old Church Slavonic brīvno, brūvino n. ‘log, beam’, Old Czech břevno, Old Polish birzwno. The etymology is uncertain; see ESJS 85. Possibly related to PIE *bʰreuH- in the sense ‘to spout (of water springing from deep underground)’, cf. Lithuanian briáutis ‘to force one’s way in, barge in’, Russian brujá ‘strong current of water’, bruítb ‘to flow swiftly’, further Greek φρέαρ, -ατος n. ‘well’, Gothic brunna m. same meaning. In that case, this may refer to wood used to line the walls of a well or spring. 2.6. *bu̯- < *bʰuh₂- SZ-V *bu̯-: 1. Lithuanian bū́vo, preterite ‘was’ < *bu.u̯á < *bʰuh₂-eh₂-, 2. infixed present bū́va/bū́va ‘is, occurs’ < *bu-n-u- (the variant form bū́va results from contamination of *būna < *bʰu-n-H- and bū́va), 3. Lithuanian buvóti, iterative ‘to be somewhere, stay, spend time’, 4. Old Church Slavonic zabūvenŭ ‘forgotten’⁴⁶, 5. Old Prussian buwinayti, 2nd person singular imperative ‘dwell, live!’ WSZ-V *bu̯-: 1. bū́vis m. ‘being, existence’, 2. Old Church Slavonic byvati ‘to be, become’, byvati sę ‘to happen’, zabývati ‘to forget’, pribyvati ‘to be with something, arrive’. Should Proto-Slavic *būvati be assumed here as the stem, parallel to Lithuanian buvóti? Cf. žyvati ⇐ žūvati, present tense zovo, *ryvati ⇐ rūvati, present tense *rovo. SZ-C *bū-: 1. Lithuanian būti ‘to be’, 2. Old Church Slavonic byti ‘to be’, Serbo-Croatian biti. SE *bʰuh₂-, secondarily *bʰeuh₂- ‘to grow, arise, become’ (LIV 83). ⁴⁵ Causative in -dyti, as, for example, pū́dyti alongside pū́ti and *pūvéti; see s.v. *pu̯- I. ⁴⁶ This is for *zabūvonŭ, from *bu.ana- < *bʰuh₂-eno-. See below *krīvenŭ, *mūvenŭ, *trīvenŭ. HIAT LARYNGALNY W JĘZYKACH BAŁTO-SŁOWIAŃSKICH | 69 Drw. *baų-V: Proto-Slavic *bovǫ prs. ‘I stay somewhere’ (cf. Vedic bhávati ‘is, becomes, happens’) is implied by Slavic baviti ‘to entertain, weilen’, Old Church Slavonic izbaviti ‘to deliver, save’, etymologically an iterative-causative with lengthened SO, *bōų-i-. Cf. plaviti ⇐ plovǫ, traviti ⇐ trovǫ47. The absence of Lithuanian SO *bav-V/*bau-C is noteworthy. 2.7. *dinžų- < *dŋ́h-uh₂- SZ-V *dinžų-: Old Prussian insuwis ‘tongue’48, Lithuanian liežùvis49. Here the SZ of the suffix *-ueh₂- is at issue: *dŋ́h-uh₂- beside Proto-Indo-European *dŋ́h-ueh₂- (Rasmussen 1989: 88). Cf. Vedic juhú- f. ‘tongue; Agni’s tongue = flame’ (Mayrhofer EWAIa, 591). – In Slavic, on the basis of Proto-Slavic *dęzuv-V, the nom.sg. *dęzy was formed; from this, *dęzy-kū, which subsequently changed its form through association with lizati ‘to lick’ (Proto-Indo-European *leiǵʰ-) into *lęzykū and finally—by an unclear route—into języki (cf. Latin lingua instead of Early Latin dingua). 2.8. *džių- instead of *duų- < *dʰuH- SZ-V *džiu-: Lithuanian džiuv- in the inflection (nu)džiūvo pret. to džiūti (LKŽ)⁵⁰, 2nd-person singular infixed džiūva instead of *dūva; inherited was *dūna < *dʰu-n-H-), 3. džiuvinti caus. ‘to dry’, 4. nouns: džiuvėsis m. ‘a stale piece of bread; a gaunt, dried-up person’, džiuvinys m. ‘that which is intended for drying; dried goods’. WSZ-V *džiu-: pret. (nu)džiūvo ‘dried up’. SZ-C *džiu-: Lithuanian džiūti ‘to dry up, wither’ (prs. džiūsta), Latvian žūt. Cf. pūti s.v. *puų-. SE *dʰeuH-: 1. Lithuanian džiáuti (džiáuju, džioviau) ‘to hang up to dry, to dry’, Latvian žāut < Proto-Baltic *diāu-. – 2. With the change eų > oų, Proto-Slavic *dovǫ, *duti ‘to swell up; to blow, waft’ should be included here: Old Church Slavonic naduti se, dujeti se ‘to swell up’, Serbo-Croatian dūti, dūjem51. SW *dōų-V instead of *dōų-V is evident in Old Church Slavonic podaviti ‘to suffocate; to crush, destroy’ (originally causative ‘to deprive of breath’; otherwise ESJS 124, LIV 130). N.B. 1. Baltic shows generalization throughout the paradigm of the initial dź- < *d₁- from SE, as a result of which there are no alternants with d- here: *dū-C/*duų-V (SZ) < *dʰuH- and *dāų-C (SO) < *dʰoųH-. Against this background, džiuv- < *džiu- must also be an innovation in place of *duv-. N.B. 2. If Lithuanian džiáu-/džiū- ‘to dry, dry up’ can be connected with Proto-Indo-European *dʰeuh₂- ‘to smoke, fumigate’ (see Smoczyński 2001: 155), then the d- onset expected for Proto-Baltic may perhaps be attested in two cases: first, in the South Slavic verb diti 47 Otherwise ESJS 258, where izbaviti is derived from *jьzbyti, just as zabaviti is derived from zabyti. 48 Loss of d-, paralleled by Lithuanian ilgas ‘long’ < *d’ilgas, from Proto-Indo-European *dʰl̥ghó- (cf. Old Church Slavonic dlъgъ, Serbo-Croatian dūg) and āšara ‘tear’, belonging to the stem *dašru < Proto-Indo-European *d(r)ak’ru; cf. Greek δάκρυ n., Old Latin dacru-ma. 49 Altered in the root through association with liežùti ‘I lick’ (Proto-Indo-European *leiǵʰ-). 50 Cf. supūvo ‘rotted’ to pūti (s.v. *puų-). 51 Also as a perfective, Old Church Slavonic vъdnǫti ‘to draw a breath, sigh’; Slovenian dúniti of a gust of wind, Old Polish dunąć ‘to blow, flare’. 70 | WOJCIECH SMOCZYŃSKI (prs. díjem) ‘to smell fragrant, to blow’ < ps. *dyti < *dʰuh₂-C, cf. the type represented by OCS kyti, kyjǫ (s.v. *kruų-), ryti, tryjǫ (s.v. *truų-); secondly, in the isolated Lithuanian noun dūlis, -io m. ‘rotten wood used when smoking bees’, from adj. *dūlas < *dʰuh₂-ló-⁵² (a parallel formation to dūmai m. pl. ‘smoke’ < *dʰuh₂-mó-, see LIV 131). 2.9. *griuų- instead of *gruų- < *gʰruH- SZ-V *griuų-: 1. Lithuanian grìuvo ‘to collapse’, preterite to grìūti, instead of *gruv-ā- < *gʰruH-eh₂-, with r’ according to SE (see there); 2. infixed present grìųva ‘is collapsing’ < *gʰriu-n-u-, instead of *gru-n-u-; still older *grūna < *gʰru-n-H-, cf. the variant grìūna), 3. noun gr(i)uvėsiai m. pl. ‘ruins’. SZ-C *grių-: Lithuanian grìūti ‘to collapse, fall down, tumble’ (instead of *grūti). SE *gʰreHų- ‘to fall, rush down’ (LIV 182) ⇒ *gʰreuH-, PBalt. *gʰriāų-: Lithuanian gríauti, griáunu, grióviau ‘to overturn and knock down, demolish, destroy’. 2.10. *guų- < *guH- SZ-V *guų-: 1. Latvian guvu ‘I caught’, preterite to gūt, from *gu.ųā- < *guH-eh₂; 2. in Lithuanian, the preterite *guvaĩ is unattested; instead there is the noun guvìs ‘capable, agile; lively, quick as a spark’. SZ-C *gū-: Latvian gūt ‘to catch, seize, get’ (prs. gūnu and gūstu⁵³), iterative gūstīt. SE *geųH- ‘to obtain’ (LIV 167): Lithuanian gáuti ‘to get, receive’ replaced *gʰiāų-. The initial consonant was leveled after the SZ form, while the prs. gáunu also suggests influence here from the old infixed formation *gunū < *gu-n-H-é- (similarly in the case of šáunu alongside infinitive *šiáuti, see s.v. *šuu-). 2.11. *klių- instead of *kluų- < *kluH- SZ-V *klių-: 1. Lithuanian pakliùvo past tense of kliùti. Instead of *kluv-ā- < *kluH-eh₂-, with l’ according to SE, 2nd-person present infixed kliųva ‘fall into something; get in the way’ < *klių-n-u-, instead of *klu-n-u- (still older *klūna < *klu-n-H-, cf. variant kliūna). SZ-C *klių-: Lithuanian kliùti ‘get to; get in the way’. SE *kleųH-, Baltic *kliaų-: Lithuanian kliáutis (kliáujuosi, klióviausi) ‘associate, consort, get involved with someone; trust someone’. 2.12. *knių- instead of *knuų- < *knuH- SZ-V *knių-, see WSZ-V. WSZ-V *kniū-: Lithuanian kniūvynės f.pl. ‘brawl’ (etym. meaning ‘tussle’). Secondary variant knyvynės ‘quarrel, discord’. The initial kn- is modeled on SE (see). SZ-C *knū-: Latvian knūdu or knūstu, knūdu, knūst ‘itch’, āda knūd ‘the skin itches’. The -d- stem generalized from the present *knū-da < *knuH-dʰ-e-, etymological meaning ‘scratches itself’. Alongside this, the short-vowel forms knūd ‘it itches’, knūdēt, remain unexplained. 52 Cf. the comment on púliai s.v. *puų-. 53 An analysis as *gun-stu cannot be ruled out, this being a renewal of *gunu < *gu-n-H-e. HIAT LARYNGALNY W JĘZYKACH BAŁTO-SŁOWIAŃSKICH | 71 PIE *kneuH- ‘scratch’ (LIV 326, Greek χνύω ‘scrapes’), Proto-Baltic *kni̯au-: Lithuanian kniautis, kniąjuosi, knióviausi ‘fight, struggle with someone’, atsikniauti ‘(of a scab on a wound) come off, separate’. More widely attested is kniausiu ‘rummage in something, dig, turn over; look for something’, reflexive ‘burrow (by digging in earth, straw)’, formerly belonging to the infinitive *kniau-séti. 2.13. *kruu- I < *kruH- SZ-V *kruų-: 1. first-person singular *krùvenǫ ‘covered’, Old Church Slavonic nepokrývenǫ ‘uncovered’⁵⁴ < *kru.ę.no- < *kruH-eno-; Old Church Slavonic pokrývati ‘cover, conceal’ < *kruH-eh₂-, 2. Latvian kruva ‘heap (malkas kruva ‘a pile of firewood’); hillock, elevation’ (variant kruva, with r transferred from PIE, see below), 3. the affiliation of Latvian kruvesis m. is uncertain; besides ‘the hump’ (see above kruva), it also means ‘hard-frozen excrement on the road, in a field’; see ME II 291 (where it is compared with Greek κρύος ‘frost’, κρύσταλλος ‘ice’). WSZ-V *krū-V: 1. Old Church Slavonic pokryvati, iterative ‘cover, conceal’, 2. Lithuanian krūvà f. ‘heap (of stones, wood, straw, manure); crowd of people’ (denom. krūvyti or krūvóti, krūvuoti ‘pile up’). SZ-C *krū-: 1. Old Church Slavonic kryti, kryją ‘cover’ (parallel s.v. *trų-), 2. Lithuanian krūšnis, -ies f. ‘heap, stack of stones’. PIE *kreųH-: Latvian krąūt, krąūju ‘pile together, gather, load’ < *kri̯ąu-C. The secondary initial kr- in Lithuanian kráuti ‘pile, load’ results from dissimilation in the present form: *kriáuju > kráuju (cf. máuju instead of *mjaúju and note 56). Derivatives *krąu-V: Lithuanian pérkravinėti ‘reload, overload (a cart)’, kravuš ‘capacious, holding a lot’ (of a cart, barn), kravažai m. pl. ‘things transported during a move, loads’, Latvian krava f. ‘heap’. — For Slavic, cf. Old Church Slavonic krovъ m. ‘roof, covering; shelter; tent, hut; covered place’, Old Church Slavonic pokrovъ m. ‘covering, roof; protection, defense’. 2.14. *kruų- II < *kruH- SZ-V *kruų-: Proto-Balto-Slavic *kruųina- < *kruh₂-V, cf. 1. Lithuanian krūvinas ‘bloody, bloodstained’, 2. Slavic krūvinъ ‘bloody; related’ (Polish krewny), 3. Old Church Slavonic krŭvi, -ve f. ‘blood’, Russian krovь, historically an old accusative singular of kry, < *kru.ųin < *kruh₂-m̥. SZ-C *krū-: Finnish ky, Estonian krĩ, Serbo-Croatian dialectal krĩ f. ‘blood’ < Proto-Balto-Slavic *krūs. Cf. Avestan xrū- ‘raw, bloody meat’, xrūra- ‘bloody; cruel’ (Latin crūdus ‘raw’). Proto-Indo-European *kréu̯h₂-s-, cf. Vedic kravíṣ- n. ‘meat dripping with blood’, Homeric Greek χρέας likewise < *kréua-s-. In the Baltic-Slavic languages there is no trace of *kri̯ąu-C. By contrast, the etymological allomorph *kri̯ąu- is visible in Latvian kreve f. ‘clotted blood, scab on a wound’, from *krave. Derivatives: krevains ‘scabby’, krevelains likewise. Derivatives *kraų-C: Lithuanian kraujas m. ‘blood’ (also kraujai as a plural tantum) is ambiguous. First, kraų- may be an SO to *kruų-. Since such derivatives usually show the Balto-Slavic suffix -a-/-ā-⁵⁵, not -i̯a-, krau-ja- could be a second-degree derivative 54 Cf. also prikrývenije n. ‘covering, shelter’, sŭkrýveno adv. ‘secretly, covertly’. 55 Cf. Latvian kruva, Old Church Slavonic krovъ s.v. *kruų-I. 72 | WOJCIECH SMOCZYŃSKI from some *kravas or *krava. Secondly, kraų- may stand in place of *krųų-, which lost its root segment before the suffix -ia- and through dissimilation, as did the verb kraųju < *kriaųju (cf. Latv. krāju, see *kruu- I)⁵⁶. We would thus have here an SE stem. The absence of an acute accent requires us to start from the prevocalic allomorph, *kreuh₂-V- > *kriavas, *kriava. In this case too, the formation in -ia- would be only a secondary derivation⁵⁷. 2.15. *kuų- I < *kuH- SZ-V *kuų-: OCS kŭvati ‘to nod one’s head’ < *kuH-eh₂-. WSZ-V *kuų-: OCS kyvati ‘to nod one’s head’, Rus. kivát⁵⁸. SZ-C *kū-: 1. OCS (po)kynǫti ‘to nod, to give a nod’, kyznĭ, -i f. ‘deceit, machinations’, 2. Lith. kūjis m. ‘blacksmith’s hammer’, OCS kyji m. ‘club, hammer’. SE *keh₁u- ‘wackeln’ (LIV 306) ž *keuH-: OCS kovo, kovati ‘to forge, to strike with a hammer’⁵⁹. In Baltic, *kāu- was generalized at the expense of *kiāu- following dissimilatory loss and in the prs. formation *kiā-io⁶⁰: Lith. káuti, prs. káuju/káunu, prt. kóviau (earlier kavaũ), ‘to strike, beat, forge’, Latv. kaût, prs. kaûju/kaûnu, prt. kâvu/kavu⁶¹. 2.16. *kuų- II < *kuh₁- SZ-V *kuų-: PS *kųenŭ ‘perceived’ < *kuh₁-V⁶². According to SE, it was replaced by čuti ‘to feel; to hear’ with *čivenŭ, cf. OCS učŭvenije, Old Serbian čvenije (Vaillant 1966: 288); later renewed as *čuvenŭ, cf. Serbo-Croatian čuven ‘known, renowned’. – In Baltic, the verbal stem Old Lith. kuv-ē- (or SW kūv-ē-) reflexive ‘to beware (of sins), escape (destruction), avoid (people)’, written <nusisukuvitie>, 3rd person prs. <kuwisi>⁶³, suggests itself as a counterpart, although the relationship between the Slavic and Lithuanian meanings remains difficult to explain. SZ-C *kū- (no reflexes). SE *(s)keuh₁- ‘to perceive, look’ (LIV 507): OCS čujo, čuti ‘to feel, perceive’ < *kiāu-C. 56 Parallels: naũjas ‘new’ from *n̥iaų-ias < PIE *neu̯-io-s (cf. Ionic Greek νεῖος, Gothic niujis, Vedic návya-, see Smoczyński 2001: 122, 162); brájuos s.v. *bruu- II, máuju s.v. *muu-. 57 If an original suffix *-io- is assumed, the laryngeal would have been in a preconsonantal position, which would necessarily have led to an acute reflex: *kráujas < *krouh₂-io- or *kráujas < *kreuh₂-io-. Cf. above Vedic kraviś and Greek κρέ(ϝ)ας. 58 Por. Vaillant (1966: 284), gdzie też porównanie formalne ze stlit. kŭvētis. To ostatnie jest moim zdaniem bliższe *kuu- II, zob. niżej. 59 The reflex ov results from the Proto-Slavic change *eų to *ou. As a result, in the ablaut domain SE merges with SO. Cf. below the etymological forms with SE: plovǫ s.v. *pluu-, rovǫ s.v. *ruu-II, snovǫ s.v. *snuu-, trovǫ s.v. *truu-, zovǫ s.v. žųu- I. 60 Cf. Lith. kráuti alongside Latv. kraût (s.v. *kruu-I). 61 LIV 308 reconstructs Proto-World in the form *keh₂u- ‘to strike, split’, and assigns OCS kovo the structure *koh₂u- (originally a reduplicated prs. with SO vocalism: *ḱé-koh₂u-). According to the same dictionary, Lith. káuju is a secondary prs. in -ie- with Proto-World o-vocalism: *koh₂u-ie-. Doubtful. 62 Cf. Vedic ākuvátē ‘he intends, plans something’. 63 Zob. dokumentację z Punktay sakimu Szyrwida (1644) w Smoczyński (1989: 50). HIAT LARYNGALNY W JĘZYKACH BAŁTO-SŁOWIAŃSKICH | 73 See *skuu-. 2.17. *liųu- instead of *luų- < *luH- SZ-V *liųu-, see WSZ-V. WSZ-V *liųu-: Lithuanian liūvis m. ‘cessation of something, breaking off from something’. Cf. Homeric Greek λύω ‘I release’ < *lu.uō < *luH-ē-. SZ-C *lū- < *luH-. The deverbal noun *lū-ka-, Proto-Slavic *łyko n. ‘lime bast’, Serbo-Croatian līko, Russian lýko, Czech lýko, Polish łyko⁶⁴, probably belongs here, with the etymological meaning ‘that which has been separated, torn off’⁶⁵. (N.B. Lithuanian lùṅkas ‘bast’ and Latvian lûks have a different origin. This is a postverbal formation from the verb *lūṅku (*lū́kau, *lū́kti) ‘strip bast’, formed from the noun *lū́ka- ‘bast’⁶⁶). SE *leuH- ‘cut off, loosen’ (LIV 374, Vedic lunāti ‘cuts off’⁶⁷), Proto-Baltic *li̯āu-: Lithuanian liáutis (liáujasi, lióvesi) ‘refrain, stop; endure, bear’, Latvian ļauties ‘stop’, ļaut ‘allow, permit’⁶⁸. 2.18. *mluų- < *mluh₂- SZ-V *mluų-: Old Church Slavonic mlȳva f. ‘clamor, tumult, noise; confusion, unrest, disturbances’ < *mlu.uā- < *mluh₂-eh₂- (cf. Vedic bruvánti 3 pl. pres. ‘they speak’, pres. participle bruvánt- < *mluh₂-ént- ‘speaking’); without mlȳvy adv. ‘calmly, quietly’, mlȳvьnъ ‘noisy, loud, restless’. – From mlȳva the denominative verb Old Church Slavonic mlȳvljo, -iti ‘make a noise, cause a disturbance, instigate unrest, incite’⁶⁹ was formed; in other languages it means ‘speak’: Old Czech mluviti, Polish mówić (formerly and dialectally also mołwić), Russian mółvitь. SZ-C *mlū-. It may be present in Slavic młynū m. ‘moth’ < *mlū-no- (with the assumed etymological meaning ‘noise, loud sound of stones rubbing against one another’). Absent in Slavic. SE-C *ml(j)u- < Proto-Balto-Slavic *mli̯āu-C < *mleuh₂-⁷⁰ (cf. Avestan mraomī ‘I announce, speak’, Vedic brávīti ‘speaks’)⁷¹. The prevocalic allomorph would be Proto-Slavic *mlov-⁷², cf. rovǫ, r(j)uti, trovǫ, truti. ⁶⁴ As to the formation, cf. Serbo-Croatian rykú ‘roar’, s.v. *ruu- II. ⁶⁵ Cf. Lithuanian names for bast: máukna ⇐ maũkti ‘to strip skin, bark’, among other meanings; karnà ⇐ kérti ‘to stand apart, separate’; plaušà or plaušas ⇐ plýšti ‘to tear, crack’. ⁶⁶ Cytowanemu w kółko zrównaniu lit. lùks ze słow. łyko (zob. np. Trautmann 1923: 163) sprzeciwiają się prawa głosowe: ani słowiański nie zna †lǫkъ, ani litewski †lūkas w znaczeniu ‘łyko’. ⁶⁷ Without Baltic material. This is found in LIV s.v. *leh₁- on p. 358. ⁶⁸ The hitherto problematic Lithuanian liūtas ‘lion’ may have the stem lū-, abstracted from the intransitive present *liūva or *liūna ‘is tearing; tears itself apart’ < *liu-n-u-. The adjective liūtas ‘wild’, borrowed from Russian ljuty (see Fraenkel LEW 382), is unrelated. ⁶⁹ As to the formation, cf. e.g. Lithuanian krūvija, -yti ‘pile up’ ⇐ the noun krūva ‘heap, stack’. ⁷⁰ Cf. Old Church Slavonic bljǫjo to *bhleuH-, pljǫjo to *(s)pie̯uH. ⁷¹ ESJS 485 gives Proto-Indo-European *melu(H)- as its first reconstruction, which does not seem accurate, since (1) in Slavic there is no SZ *mūlu- < *mlu(H)-; (2) the sequence i̯u in mlȳva permits derivation only from a SZ ending in *uH- (ESJS does not mention the connection between (u)v and laryngeal hiatus). ⁷² SW *mlav(iti), parallel to plaviti ⇐ plovǫ, traviti ⇐ trovǫ, could have yielded the post-verbal noun *mlava, attested in the Polish place name Mława (cf. trava from traviti). 74 | WOJCIECH SMOCZYŃSKI 2.19. *muų- I < *muH- SZ-V *muų-: 1. OCS neomūvenu ‘unwashed’ < *mu.ue.no- < *muH-eno-; otūvenije n. ‘washing’; Old Russian movī f. ‘bathhouse’ < *mūvī (Vaillant 1966: 282), 2. Latvian *muvu ‘I flowed’, preterite to dialectal present myunu (*mū-nu)⁷³. WSZ-V *mū-: OCS omyvati ‘to wash off’, umyvati ‘to wash’. SZ-C *mū-: 1. OCS izmyti sę ‘to wash oneself’, umyti ‘to wash’, Serbo-Croatian mūti, Czech mýti, 2. Old Prussian aumūšnan ‘washing’ (from *aumūt ‘to wash off, wash’), 3. Latvian dialectal myustīs alongside myunu ‘I flow’, 4. mūdāt ‘to make float’, mūdāties ‘to swim, bathe’, mūdināt ‘to make (horses) swim in a river’. SE *meųH-: in Lithuanian and Latvian, *māų- became established instead of *mių- (cf. below the Lithuanian type pjauti): Latvian maūt, mauju/maunu⁷⁴, māvu ‘to immerse oneself, flow’, causative maudāt ‘to make float’, Lithuanian māudyti ‘to bathe someone’ (there is no primary verb here⁷⁵). 2.20. *muų- II instead of *mių- < *miųh₁- SZ-V *muų-, see WSZ-V. WSZ-V *mū-: Lithuanian mūvėti ‘to wear something slipped on, put on (a garment, ring), to be dressed, clothed’ (3rd person present mūvi)⁷⁶. SZ-C *mū-: 1. Lithuanian mūstyti ‘to wave, flourish, move, behave restlessly; nod one’s head; oppose, be disobedient’ (an intensive in -sty-; also the variant mūistyti(s), LKŽ), 2. nouns: mū-kla ‘loop, snare for catching birds’, mū-klas ‘a loop of horsehair attached to a stick, used for catching pike’ (LKŽ); perhaps also mūksnis m. ‘gulp, mouthful’ (Trimis mūksniais išgėrė kvartą pieno, LKŽ), if from *mū-snis⁷⁷. Until now, the zero-grade mū-C has not been mentioned in connection with mūti; see Trautmann (1923: 172), Pokorny IEW 743, Fraenkel LEW 421, Rasmussen 1989: 115nn., LIV 402. SE *mieųh₁- ‘(to) move’ (LIV 402⁷⁸). Baltic SE *miąų- underwent a change in the present formation *miąų-jō through the dissimilatory loss of i, hence Lithuanian máuju, not *májuju⁷⁹. From there, the non-palatal initial m- was extended to the entire paradigm (including Lithuanian mū- in SZ-C). Cf. Lithuanian máuti, máuju/máunu, móviau ‘to slip on (a ring, cap), put on (trousers); to put on and take off’, Latvian maūt, mauju/maunu⁸⁰, māvu ‘to dress; to put on a harness’. 73 Tak Endzelin (1922: §612). Zob. wyżej łot. guvu ‘chwyciłem’ do gūnu, gūt. 74 The presence of the present-tense formant -nu requires taking into account the influence of the lost infixed present form *munū ‘I clothe myself’ < *mu-n-Hé-. Cf. the hypothesis concerning the present ‘unu ‘I put on footwear’ s.v. *uų-. 75 It may have been the intensive present *mū-du ‘I immerse myself’ < *muH-dʰe-, from which māud-yti as a causative and Latvian maud-āt as an iterative in SO. See below Lithuanian pūdyti ‘to cause to rot’, pūdamas present participle ‘rotting’ ⇐ *pūda ‘it rots’ (infinitive pūti). If so, Proto-Slavic *mydło ‘soap’ allows the analysis *mūd-la- and, consequently, separation from Vedic mūtra-, Avestan mūθra n. ‘urine, excrement’ < *muH-tro-. 76 Cf. the type siuvėti s.v. *sjuų-. 77 Insertion of k, as in alksnis, āuksnas, Old Prussian lauxnos. 78 Cf. Ved. múvati ‘pushes, presses forward’ < *miH₁u-e-, from metathesis of the laryngeal in Balto-Slavic *miųH₁-, see Eichner (1988: 135). 79 Parallels in note 56. 80 The presence of the present-formant -nu requires us to consider the influence of the form of the old present with infix *munū < *mu-n-H-. HIAT LARYNGALNY W JĘZYKACH BAŁTO-SŁOWIAŃSKICH | 75 2.21. *pi̯u̯- < *pi̯uh₂- Balto-Slavic-V *pi̯u̯-: Lithuanian pjūvenos f. pl. ‘sawdust’ < *pi̯u.ue.nā-⁸¹ < *pi̯uh₂-en-. West Balto-Slavic-V *pi̯u̯-: Lithuanian papjūvėti ‘to rot for a while’ (cf. pasiūvėti s.v. *si̯u̯-); nomina: Lithuanian pjūvenos f. pl. ‘splinters; scythe blade’, pjūvis m. ‘cutting, sawing; grain ripe for reaping’. Balto-Slavic-C *pi̯u̯-: Lithuanian pjūdyti ‘to set on; incite, egg on’⁸², noun pjūklas m. ‘saw’. Indo-European *pie̯uh₂-: Lithuanian pjáuti, pjā́unu ‘to cut, saw’ (intensive pjáustyti), Latvian plaũt ‘to mow; harvest’ (intensive plaũstīt). 2.22. *plu̯- < *pluH- Balto-Slavic-V *plu̯-: 1. Lithuanian plūvo, past tense of plūti (see) < *plu.ǭ- < *pluH-eh₂-, 2. infixed present plūva < *plu-n-ų- (the variant plūna suggests an older *plūna < *plu-n-H-), 3. pluvėti, plūva ‘to be submerged, sink in something; wander about’, pluvénti ‘to flow slowly’⁸³. – In Slavic cf. Proto-Slavic *plŭvěti, Old Czech plvěti, plvu ‘to flow, melt, dissolve; melt (of wax)’, plúci ‘melting, thawing’, Old Polish plwieć ‘to sway, hesitate’ (figurative usage), płwiących gen. pl. ‘fluctuantium’; Proto-Slavic *ob-plŭv-itŭ ‘overflowing with something’ (a calque of Latin abundans), Old Polish opwity ‘abundant’. West Balto-Slavic-V *plū-: Old Church Slavonic plŭvati ‘to swim’. The relationship kyvati ⇐ kūvati (s.v. *kuu- I) raises the question whether one should posit a stem *plŭvati, which coexisted with *plŭvěti (see above). Balto-Slavic-C *plū-: 1. Lithuanian plūti (present plūnu/plūvù, past tense pluvau̯) ‘to be overflowing, spread out’, paplūti ‘to end up under water, in water; burst into tears; abound’; noun plūtis m. ‘float on a net’ (LKŽ). – 2. Proto-Slavic *plyti ‘to flow’, Serbo-Croatian plīti, Old Polish pyć, past tense pyło ‘(of a liquid) to pour, flow; pour down as if rain’ (SStp₁₇₈), with Proto-Slavic *plynoti as its imperfective. Proto-Slavic *pleuH-⁸⁴: Old Church Slavonic plovǫ, pluti, Old Czech plovu, plūti ‘to flow’, cf. Seto rovo, ruti, trovǫ, truti. N.B. The anitov forms found in this family, such as (1) Latvian pluts, gen. pluta ‘grass’, (2) Old Church Slavonic plŭtŭ ‘grass’, Russian plot, plotá (*plu-to-), Old Polish płet, płtu m., Old Czech plet, plti f. (*plu-ti-) ‘grass’, (3) Old Church Slavonic plŭnije n. ‘current, flow of water, spring’ (*plu-n-) may be related to the short *plu- of the old present *plune- < *plu-n-H-é- (see above). 2.23. *pu̯u- I < *puH- SZ-V *pu̯u-: 1. Lith. (su)pūvo, pret. to pūti ‘to rot’ < *pu.ǭ- < *puH-eh₂-, 2. prs. infixed pūva/pūva < *pu-n-ų- (replaced *pūna < *pu-n-H-, cf. pūna), 3. 81 This is evidently instead of *pi̯u.ǭnā- < *pi̯uh₂-en-eh₂. Cf. OCS zabŭvenŭ s.v. *bu̯-. 82 Alongside this, pjūdyti etc. The striking ū-vocalism we find here can be explained by assuming a neo-root pju-, abstracted from the old infixed present *pju-nu̯ < *pi̯u-n-h₂-é. Cf. the note on spjudóti s.v. *(s)pi̯u̯-. 83 Cf. snuvěti, sŕiva alongside sruvénti ‘to trickle, flow in a small stream’. 84 LIV 438 reconstructs only *pleu- ‘to swim, hover’ and does not take into account the Baltic material cited above, which strongly argues for the root’s seṭ character. 76 | WOJCIECH SMOCZYŃSKI Nouns: pùvenos f. pl. ‘rot, rotten objects’, išpuvìmas m. ‘decay, rottenness’, supuvìmas m. ‘rotting, rot’, sámpuva ‘rotten object’, Latv. puveši m. pl. ‘pus, Eiter’. WSZ *pūu-: Lith. išpùvėti ‘to rot completely’ (LKŽ), pūvažìnai m. pl. ‘flattened, rotting peas’ (LKŽ). SZ-C *pū-: 1. Lith. pūti (pūsta), Latv. pùt (pùstu) ‘to rot’, 2. pūdyti caus. ‘to cause to rot, to make rotten’, pūdamas ptc. prs. ‘rotting’ ⇐ *pūda ‘is rotting’ < *puH-dʰ-e-, 3. pūliai m. pl. ‘pus, Eiter’ (derivative from adj. *pū-la- ‘rotten’), 4. pūtra ‘something partly rotten; a physically weak person’. SE *peuH- ‘to rot’ (LIV 432), Proto-Baltic *p̄iau-C. Nouns only: 1. Lith. pjáulas m. ‘rotten or decayed wood’, pjáulai m. pl. ‘rotten wood used for fumigating bees’, 2. Latv. praùls m. ‘a modern or decayed piece of wood; a disparaging term for an old person’, from dissimilation *p̄ļāuls, in turn from *p̄i̯āulas (see MEIII 379)⁸⁵. 2.24. *puu- II < *puH- SZ-V *puu-: OCS upūvati ‘to trust, believe’, Russian upovátь, Ukrainian upováty, Silesian ūpati, Serbo-Croatian ùfati se, Czech doufati, Old Polish pwać, nadpwać and ufać. This verb may be denom. from the lost adjective *pūvъ < *puH-e/o- meaning ‘trustworthy, credible’⁸⁶. If this adjectival meaning developed from an older ‘pure’⁸⁷, then we have here a derivative of the root *peuH-/*puH-, cf. Vedic punāti ‘cleans’, páyate ‘becomes clean’. LIV 432 does not mention upūvati in this connection. 2.25. *ruu- I < *ruH- SZ-V *ruu-: Old Church Slavonic rùvati ‘to tear, break off’ < *ru.ū- < *ruH-eh₂-, OCS rùvatva f. ‘tearing, ripping’, vūzdrùvanije n. ‘uprooting, eradication’, rūvenikъ m. ‘pit, water-filled hole’ (presupposing ptc. *rūvenъ ‘torn’)⁸⁸. WSZ-V *rū-: Slovenian rývati iterative (Polish odrywać, wyrywać ‘to tear off, pull out’). Cf. °kryvati ⇐ krūvati s.v. *kruu- I. Old Polish noun rwocina f. ‘cliff, abruptum’ (SSTP VIII 65). SZ-C *rū-: 1. OCS ryti, rýjo ‘to dig, excavate’, izdyriti ‘to dig out’ (parallels s.v. *kruu-, *truu-); Serbo-Croatian rìlo ‘snout; mouth’, 2. Lithuanian rūtis, -ties f. ‘pit, cellar’ (a secondary form in place of *rūtis?). SE *reuH-: Proto-Baltic *r̄i̯āu- was replaced by *rāu- as a result of dissimilation that occurred in the prs. form *r̄i̯āu-ī̯ō, hence: Lithuanian ráuti, rãuju/rãunu (prt. róviau) ‘to tear, pull out (by the roots)’, Latvian raũt, raũju/raũnu (prt. rāvu). Intensive Lithuanian ráustyti. Deriv. rau-V: 1. OCS rovъ m. ‘ditch’, p(r)ěrovъ m. ‘pit, cave’, 2. Old Lithuanian ravalas ‘weed’ (Dauksza), Lithuanian ravà f. ‘tearing; time for pulling flax’, išravos f. pl. ‘weeds pulled out’, ravùs ‘easily torn’. 85 Lithuanian pãvalas ‘overturned, rotting tree’ (LKŽ), which at first glance looks like an ablaut derivative in -alas from puv-, is in fact a borrowing from Polish pował ‘felled tree’ (cf. walić się ‘to fall over’). 86 A noun of the type Old Polish pwa ‘trust, fiducia’ < *pūva is probably not primary, but a postverbal formation from pwać. The adjective *pūvъ, Polish pewny ‘sure’, Czech and Slovak pevný ‘strong’, was formed secondarily from this abstract noun. 87 Cf. colloquial Polish on jest czysty, i.e. ‘he is unarmed, harmless’ ⇒ ‘not arousing suspicion’ (whence the step to ‘inspiring trust’). 88 It is not known whether Lithuanian riuv- (for *ruv-?) in įsiriuvėti ‘to grow fat’ belongs here (LKŽ). Semantic difficulty. HIAT LARYNGALNY W JĘZYKACH BAŁTO-SŁOWIAŃSKICH | 77 2.26. *ru̯u- II < *h₃ruH- SZ-V¹ *ruu-: Proto-Slavic *rŭvati iterative ‘to roar’ < *ru.ā- < *h₃ruH-eh₂- (cf. Vedic ruváti ‘he roars’). SZ-V² *rįu- (*ri- by analogy with SE-C, see below): 1. Proto-Slavic *rjŭvati > *rjívati iterative ‘to roar’ in Old Polish rzwać, Czech řváti ‘to roar, shout’. – 2. Proto-Slavic *rjŭv-īnŭ ‘roaring, roaring with anger; enraged, quarrelsome; moved⁸⁹, cf. Church Slavonic rĭvini f. ‘anger, wrath’, Old Church Slavonic rĭvinivŭ ‘angry, jealous’, Polish rzewny, rzewliwy, Czech řevný čas ‘rutting season’, Russian revnívyj ‘jealous’. SZ-C *rū-: Proto-Slavic *rū-ka- > Czech rykŭ m. ‘roar’⁹⁰ (⇒ denom. Old Church Slavonic rykati ‘to roar, growl’). SE *h₃reuH- ‘to roar’ (LIV 272), Proto-Balto-Slavic *r̥i̯au-: Old Church Slavonic rovǫ, ruti ‘to roar, shout’ (vŭzdruti ‘to roar out’); rovy present active participle. The alternating paradigm rev-/rju- is seen in Czech revǫ, rjuti, Old Russian revu, rjuti and Old Czech řevu, řúti (cf. also Slovene rjóvem, rjuti, Russian revú, revéťb). It arose through the introduction into the present of the initial cluster rj- from the infinitive rjuti. As a result, the phonetically regular rov-V was replaced by *rjov-, whence *rjev- (> rev-, řev-)⁹¹, see Trautmann (1923: 241)⁹². 2.27. *śių- < *śiuH- SZ-V *śių-: Lithuanian siuvì present, siuvaũ past to siūti ‘to sew’, Samogitian šuvu⁹³, past šuvu. Reconstruction: *śių-u-V < *śiuH-V. Cf. also siuvėjas m. ‘tailor’; siuvėlė f. ‘seam’; siùvena f. ‘cattle louse’, see piùvenos s.v. *pjųu-. – In Slavic, cf. 1. Old Church Slavonic šivěnǫ ‘sewn’ < *siu.ue.na- < *siuH-eno- (see above šivěna), 2. Old Church Slavonic šiv-či ‘tailor’, which requires Proto-Slavic present *šīvǫ (= Lithuanian siuvù) as its derivational base, cf. Old Lithuanian siuvikis m. ‘tailor’ ⇐ siùva⁹⁴. WSZ-V *śių-: 1. Lithuanian pasiūvėti ‘to sew a little, to engage in sewing from time to time’, siūvis m. ‘sewing; a stitch in a needle’, 2. Slavic °šivati, Polish zszywać, wyszywać, which as an intensive presupposes *šŭvati ‘to sew’ (cf. Polish szwacz, szwaczka). 89 Not found in Trautmann (1923: 241) s.v. *rau̯ǫ. 90 Cf. *lúka-, Proto-Slavic *lyko s.v. *liu-. 91 Cf. Latvian plevināt ‘to make flutter, move (hair, wings)’ from *plav- beside plau-, Old Church Slavonic plovǫ ‘I swim’, Lithuanian pláuju ‘I rinse, wash off’. 92 An intensive *rjujati may have existed alongside rjuti. This is indicated by such postverbal derivatives as Old Russian rujene, Russian rujěne m. ‘rutting season (roaring) of deer; name of the month of September’, Serbo-Croatian rujan ‘September’, Old Czech ruję f. ‘rutting season of deer’, Czech rǐje ditto, ‘rujen’ name of the month of October (Polish rują ‘time and place of rutting among deer’ appears to be secondary instead of *rzuja, cf. rzwać, rzwiec). Old Russian rjuvitĭsja ‘coire’ points to postverbal *rju-va. 93 Alongside this, a new present šu-ju, which presupposes the synchronic resegmentation šu-vu. See below škuju alongside skuvu ‘to sew’. 94 Zaskakująca jest wypowiedź Stanga (1966: 334): „Skt. śívati: syūtáh gibt einen Fingerzeig, dass das Prās. siùva keine alte Bildung ist“. Ze stanowiska teorii laryngalnych stlit. praesens śívvati ‘szyje’ tłumaczy się jako forma innowacyjna, wynika z metatezy spółgłoski laryngalnej w sąsiedztwie u: *śiuH-jé- > *siHų-jé-, zob. Eichner (1988: 135), LIV 493. Wynika z tego, że nie można jej brać za punkt wyjścia dla analizy lit. siùva. Podobną metatezę pokazuje refleks stlit. mìvati ‘sunię, pcha, trącą’, z *mih₁-u-é-ti < *miuh₁- (p.wk. *mieuh₁-), zob. wyżej *mu-. 78 | WOJCIECH SMOCZYŃSKI SZ-C *śiu-: Lithuanian siūti ‘to sew’, Latvian šūt, OCS sīti⁹⁵. SE *śięuH-: no PBalt. *śiąu-C, Lithuanian *śiau-, PS *šu-. 2.28. *skįu- instead of *skuu- < *skuh₁- SZ-V *skįu-: PS *ščivati < *ščīvati, cf. Polish szczwać ‘to make (dogs) scent’, Old Czech ščtývati. The initial šč- arose through leveling to SE (see below). For įv see žīvati s.v. *žiu-. The expected form is *skūvati < *sku̯a- < *skuh₁-eh₂-⁹⁶. Etymological meaning: ‘to cause dogs to perceive (game) by smell’. A causative formation in -ā- corresponding to OCS čujo, see s.v. *ku̯-. SZ-C *skū- (no reflexes). SE *(s)keuh₁- ‘to feel, perceive’. PS *ščuję ‘I incite (dogs)’ continued present *skiąu-ie- (unknown in Baltic). A new infinitive *ščūti was built on this present: Slovene ščúti, Polish szczuć⁹⁷. 2.29. *skuu- < *skuh₂- SZ-V *skuu-: Latvian skuvu present⁹⁸, skuvu past, from skūt ‘to shave’, < *skuh₂-e-, *skuh₂-eh₂-. SZ-C *skū-: Latvian skūt infinitive (with a new present skīnu), iterative skūstīties ‘to shave oneself; to wash oneself’. SE *(s)keuh₂- ‘to work with a blade, cut, pierce’, etc.; PBalt. *(s)kiąu-: Lithuanian kiáuras ‘holey’⁹⁹, probably also skiáutas m. ‘shred’, skiáutė f. ‘piece of cloth, cut-off piece’, Latvian škāute ‘sharp edge, corner’ (possibly mixed with the family of Lithuanian skuti, skūsti ‘to shave, tear, peel, scrape, strip off bark’, PIE *skeut-). 2.30. *snuu- < *snuH- SZ-V *snuu-: PS *snūvati ‘to spin’ < *snu̯ā- < *snuH-eh₂-. Implied by WSZ-V -snyv- in OCS osnyvati ‘to establish, institute’. See above °byvati to būv-, °kryvati to krūv-, °myvati to mūv-, °ryvati to rūv-. WSZ-V *snū-, see above. SE *sneuH- ‘to turn, wind’ (LIV 523), PBalt. *sniąu-. Cf. OCS snovǫ (⇒ snovati) ‘to spin, to spin a thread’. The derivative *snau-V may be contained in OCS osnova f. ‘warp, foundation’. Cf. roví to rūv- s.v. *ruu- I. ⁹⁵ OCS šijǫ is an innovation based on the infinitive ši-ti, just like myjo:: myti, vyjo:: vyti, and bijǫ:: biti, brijǫ:: briti, gnijǫ:: gniti. ⁹⁶ As for secondary palatality in SZ forms, cf. bl̥jvati s.v. *blu̯- II. ⁹⁷ LIV 507 does not take *ščivati into account, citing only OCS čujo. Vaillant (1966: 295) wrongly classifies *šču-/*ščīv- as a “onomatopoeic root”. ⁹⁸ The new present skuju arose through differentiation from the past. Cf. šiju above alongside šavu ‘I sew’. ⁹⁹ LIV 508 s.v. skeuh₂- cites Hittite forms as well as Old Indian skunāti, āskunoti, but takes no notice of the Baltic data. The connection of skuvu/skūt with Greek ἕω and with the athematic PIE root *skeu- > MEu 908, Trautmann (1923: 268), and Fraenkel LEW 824 is erroneous (an arbitrary metathesis hypothesis *ks > sk, with no explanation for the alternation uv-V:: ū-C). HIAT LARYNGALNY W JĘZYKACH BAŁTO-SŁOWIAŃSKICH | 79 2.31. *(s)pịų- < *(s)piųH- SZ-V *(s)pịų-: 1. OCS pljivati ‘to spit, to spit out’ from Proto-Slavic *pjuvati < *pių̯ā- < *(s)piųH-eh₂-, Polish płwać. Similarly živati from Proto-Slavic *žjuvati (s.v. *žiu̯-). See also bljivati s.v. *bluų- II, *ščivati s.v. *skių-. – The Slavic -ā- stem under SZ suggests that Lithuanian may once have had the preterite *spjivau, later renewed as spjōviau. – 2. A trace of Lithuanian iterative *spjuvóti may be spjudóti ‘to spit, to spit out’ (LKŽ), since its -d- can be explained by secondary association with the iterative spjáudyti ‘ditto’.100 WSZ-V *(s)pịų-: 1. Lithuanian spjúvis m. ‘spitting’, 2. Proto-Slavic *-pljivati ← *pljīv-, e.g. OCS oplъvati ‘to spit on’, Old Czech plivati, Czech plivat ‘to spit’. SZ-C *(s)pịų-: Proto-Slavic *plji- in OCS plinǫti ‘to spit’, perfective to plīvati ‘to spit’; see Vaillant (1966: 232)101. SE *(s)pięuH-: ‘to spit’ (LIV 529), Proto-Balto-Slavic *(s)piāu-: 1. Lithuanian spjáuti, spjáuju/ spjáunu (preterite spjóviau) ‘to spit out, to spit’, Latvian splaut, splauju (preterite splāvu), 2. present tense OCS pljǫ, Church Slavonic pljǫm, Russian pljují. 2.32. *suų- < *suH- SZ-V *suų-: Latvian dialectal suvēns ‘piglet’ < *su.uen- < *suH-en- (otherwise dissimilated in sivēns). SZ-C *sū-: compare Avestan hūš ‘sow’, Greek ὗς, Latin sūs. SE *seuH-: no Proto-Balto-Slavic reflexes of *śiau- (Proto-Slavic *šu-C). 2.33. *šluų- < *šluH- SZ-V *šluų-: šlūvenos f. pl. ‘rubbish, what has been swept together, sweepings’ < *šlu.uen- < *k’luH-en-. Parallels: pūvenos s.v. *puų-, pjūvenos s.v. *pių-, šiūvena s.v. *šių-. SZ-C *šlū- unattested. SE *k’leuH-: ‘to cleanse’ (LIV 298, Latin cluere). No Lithuanian *šláiuti, pret. *šluvau. Compare, however, Lithuanian šláuti (šliáuna, šlióve) in the figurative sense ‘to deal a blow, whack, strike’. It is likely that the allomorph šlav- in the present šlavù ‘I sweep’ (Samogitian), and the nouns sąšlavos, iššlavos, núošlavos f. pl. ‘rubbish’ represent an SO to *šlu-. 2.34. *šuų- < *k’uH- SZ-V *šuų-: Proto-Baltic *šuų-e- < *k’uH-e- (no Lithuanian *šuv-C ‘I push’). WSZ-V *šū-: Lithuanian šūvis m. ‘shot, discharge’. SZ-C *šū-: Lithuanian šūtis, -ies f. ‘pile, stack’, šūsnis, -ies f. ‘pile, stack of wood, brushwood’ (as to formation, cf. krūšnis ‘pile, stack of stones’ from krū-/kráu-). 100 Another possibility is the hypothesis of a neo-root spju-, originating in a reanalysis of *spju-nu (cf. spjáu-nu), whose point of departure was the old infixed present *spjunu < *(s)pių-n-H-é-. 101 Contrary to what ESJS 666 states, Vaillant l. c. does not speak of “lengthening of the reduced grade” but of the zero grade: “Le thème pli- est issu de *pljū-, degré réduit de la racine *(s)pięu-, lit. spiáuju...“. 80 | WOJCIECH SMOCZYŃSKI SE *k’əuH- ‘to throw, push’ (LIV 294), PBSl. šiąu-: 1. Latv. šāuju/šāunu, šāvu, šāut ‘to make a vigorous movement in a direction; to push or thrust quickly; to deliver a blow or a strike; to shoot; to rush forward, run, go hurriedly; to rain’, 2. Lith. šiaut(u)vas m. ‘weaving shuttle’, šiaulỹs m. ‘shooter’ (n. m. šiauliai, -iūs m.pl.) from *šiauti. – The presence in Proto-Slavic of the paradigm *sovo, *suti seems to result from derivatives such as OCS sov-ati ‘to slide, nudge’ (iter. to sov-) and PSl. sujo (from inf. *suti), cf. Russ. sovátь, sujú. – The striking relationship Lith. šaunu:: šauti (‘to dart, fire, shoot’) may be a regularization of an older relationship *šunù:: *šiáuti, where the present was based on infixation, specifically inherited infixation: *k’u-n-H-é- > *šu-n-é-, while *šiáu-C reflected PBalt. SE (cf. Latv. šaūt). Cf. the remark above on gáu(nu) instead of *giáu-102. 2.35. *truų- < *truH- SZ-V *truu-: 1. PSl. *trúvenų ‘worn down, used up’ < *tru.ue.no- < *truH-eno103, cf. the Polish denom. trwonić instead of *trwionić ‘to wear down through rubbing, chewing, biting’ (denom. from ptc. *trwion); Serb.-Croat. trvènik m. ‘worn, beaten path’; OCS rastrъva f. ‘loss, ruin’ (Trautmann 1923: 330). – 2. In Lithuanian-Latvian, the laryngeal is conditioned by the neologism trun-: Lith. trūna, trunėti104 ‘to rot, decay’, Latv. trunu, -ēju, trunēt ‘to weather, rot, decay; to doze’. It was based on the infixed present *truna < *tru-n-H-, which was interpreted as a stem in -a-: trun-a. Subsequently, in Lithuanian, through leveling to SZ *trū-, trūnėti and the corresponding present trūni105 appeared. – The absence of WSZ-V *trųn- is noteworthy106. SZ-C *trū-: 1. OCS trъti, trъjo ‘to rub’ (cf. Gk. τρίβω ‘to rub off, exhaust, subdue’). – 2. Latv. trū-dêt intr. ‘to weather; to decay, rot’, probably originating as a state durative in -ē- corresponding to the present *trūda < *truH-dʰe- (cf. Lith. pū́da-mas:: pūti s.v. *puu- I). A further derivative is the factitive trūd-inât ‘to cause to decay, rot’ (zeme kaulus trūdina); see MEiv 250. SE *treuH- ‘to wear down, consume’ (LIV 593): OCS trovǫ, truti ‘to consume’ (inf. instead of *trjuti < *trjāu-C, cf. rjuti s.v. *ruų- II)107. In Lithuanian, SE *triáuti is expected108. The filiation of the verb triaũnija, -yti or tráunija, -yti ‘to chew noisily (an apple),’ is unclear. 102 Cf. Degree, *k’ųH-, is unlikely in a primary present. 103 Cf. above OCS *bъvenų, *krъvenų, *mъvenų and Lith. pūvenos. 104 With the sonorized variant drūna/drūni, drunėti or drunija/drūni, druńyti, see LKŽII 763, 766. 105 Cf. also the length in the synonymous verb dūlėti ‘to rot, decay’. 106 Latv. trūvēt ‘to mourn, be in mourning’ does not belong here; it comes from dissimilation of trūrēt, a verb borrowed from Middle Low German truren ‘to mourn’; see MEiv 252. 107 Cf. SW *trǫ- in OCS traviti iter. ‘to process digested food’, Old Polish trawić, inter alia ‘(of fire and other forces) to destroy something, burn, use up (material goods), waste them’; trawny ‘cunning, crafty, false’ (SStpIX 181n.). 108 This raises the question whether triaũšėti, -ėja ‘to crumble (of hair, of sheep’s wool), become weak, deteriorate’, alongside traušėti, -ėja ‘to fall out (of hair from a horse’s tail)’, is originally a state durative in -sēti, i.e. *triáu-sēti. HIAT LARYNGALNY W JĘZYKACH BAŁTO-SŁOWIAŃSKICH | 81 ‘to gnaw (a nut)’, which appears to be a denominative. Differently Fraenkel LEW 1114: in ablaut with trūnēti. 2.36. *u̯u- < *h₂uH- SZ-V *u̯u-: Proto-Lithuanian preterite *ùvo ‘put on shoes’ < Proto-Balto-Slavic *u.u̯ā- < *h₂uH-eh₂-. Cf. above bùvo, guvu (phot.), plùvo, pùvo, siùvo. On the basis of the Baltic opposition between preterite forms with SZ and present forms with SP (see Stang 1966: 331), it may be assumed that the preterite *ùvo once had alongside it, on the one hand, the transitive present *avù ‘I put shoes on (someone)’ < *h₂euH-e- and, on the other, the intransitive present *unù ‘I put shoes on’ < *h₂u-n-H-ē- (cf. the proposed present *munù ‘I clothe myself’ s.v. *mu̯u-). Historical Lithuanian aunù = au-nù represents a hybrid formation, resulting from the crossing of *av-ù and *u-nù109. WSZ-V *ū-: *ūvẽti, expected by analogy with muvéti(s) (see s.v. *mu̯u- II), does not exist. SZ-C *ū- < *h₂uH-C, see below. SE *h₂eųH- ‘to put on (footwear)’ (LIV 245, Old Armenian agaw ‘to clothe oneself’): avēti ‘to be shod, wear footwear’ (aviù, āvi). Cf. Lithuanian auti ‘to put on or take off footwear’, an innovation instead of the expected *ūti (SZ-C). The SE and circumflex are generalized from antevocalic forms with a lost laryngeal, such as the present *avù, durative avē-, Lithuanian āvalas, Latvian apavi m. pl. ‘footwear’110. 2.37. *ži̯u- < *ǵiuH- SZ-V *ži̯u-: Old Church Slavonic živati ‘to chew’, Old Czech žváti, Old Polish żwać < Proto-Slavic *žǔvati < Proto-Balto-Slavic *ži̯u.u̯ā- < *ǵiuH-eh₂-. A parallel is pljīvati from Proto-Slavic *pljǔvati s.v. *(s)pi̯u-. SZ-C *žiū- < *ǵiuH- (no Balto-Slavic reflexes). SE *ǵieuH- ‘to chew’ (LIV 148). In Baltic only nominal forms: Lithuanian žiáunos f. pl. ‘jaws’ < *ǵi̯āu-nā-. 2.38. *žu- I < *ǵuH- SZ-V *žu-: 1. Lithuanian žùvo, past tense of žūti (see below) < *žu.u̯ā- < *ǵuH-eh₂-, 2. infixed present žùvù < *žu-n-u- (the old variant žinù may be related to the older type *žunù < *ǵu-n-H), 3. noun pražùvelis ‘lost, missing’. SZ-C *žū-: Lithuanian pražūti ‘suddenly disappear from sight, perish, die; lose one’s life, die; go to waste; fall into poverty or misfortune; work with zeal, devote oneself to an activity’. Causative: Old Lithuanian žūdyti, žūdžiu ‘condemn, punish, cause to perish, destroy, kill’; Latvian zudīties ‘to take careful concern, to worry’, zūdīt ‘to worry, to grieve’, zudināt causative ‘cause to be lost, destroy, hide’. 109 This is from a metanalysis of the infixed present. Parallels: *gunu under gu̯-, *munu under *mu̯u-, *šunu under *šu-, truna under *tru-, as well as sinù under *ši̯-. 110 The reconstruction of the infinitive *áuti is misguided, as is the derivation of aúna from *(h₂)au-n-ə- in LIV 245, note 7. 82 | WOJCIECH SMOCZYŃSKI SE *ǵeuH- ‘to set oneself in rapid motion’ (LIV 147). There is no Proto-Balto-Slavic reflex *žiau̯-C. Derivative *žau̯: Lithuanian žavúosi (žàvisi), žavėtis ‘to be delighted, fascinated’, causative žavinti or žavinti ‘to enchant, delight, charm’; Old Lithuanian ‘to destroy by means of magic’. 2.39. *žų- II < *ǵʰuH- SZ-V *žų-: Old Church Slavonic žъvati ‘to call, summon’, Polish zwać < *žų̯ā- < *ǵʰuH-eh₂-. WSZ-V *žų-: Slovak *zyvati, Polish wzywać, nazywać. SZ-C *žū-: compare Vedic hútá- ‘called, invoked’ < *ǵʰuH-tó- (no Lithuanian *žūtas, Slovak *zytъ). SE *ǵʰueH- ‘to call’ (LIV 160), secondarily *ǵʰeuH-¹¹¹: Old Church Slavonic zovǫ (infinitive zъvati) ‘I call’, Old Polish zowę, zowiesz, zową, present participle tako zowący ‘so-called’ (compare Vedic hávate ‘calls, invokes’). There is no reflex *žiau̯-C. 2.40. *žų- III < *ǵʰuH- SZ-V *žų-: Proto-Baltic *žūvin AS f. ‘fish’ < *ǵʰuH-m̥, Lithuanian AS žùvi (from which žuvis as an innovative nominative singular). – From Slavic, compare Proto-Slavic *žųveno, Old Polish zwono n. instead of *zwiono ‘a slice of fish cut crosswise’, Russian zvenó likewise, Polish (d)zwonka ‘a piece of fish’, a derivative of the adjective *žuv-enǫ ‘fishy’. The adjective *žūvenǫ relates to the Proto-Slavic noun *zy < *žūs ‘fish’ as *krъvenǫ (Polish przekrwiony ‘bloodshot’) relates to the noun *kry < *krūs ‘blood’. There is no SZ-C *žūs ‘fish’ < *ǵʰuH-s. See s.v. *brų- and *krų-. 3. S U M M A R Y In light of the arguments presented above, the segments (i)j, (u)v should be regarded as traces of lost laryngeals of the same status as vocalic length in the corresponding allomorphs with ī, ū¹¹². The fact that the duality of the Baltic reflexes bī-C/bjū-V, Old Church Slavonic bi-C/bjū-V, or Lithuanian bū-C/buv-V, Old Church Slavonic by-C/b’bū-V can be traced back to the original uniformity of *bʰiH- or *bʰuH- means that the emergence of the alternation i-C/ji-V and ū-C/uų-V is a straightforward consequence of the loss of laryngeals in the Proto-Balto-Slavic period. The presence of this same alternation in roots that are non-laryngeal in origin and anit-type (see Excursus I below) is, by contrast, explained as a morphological innovation from a later period. It follows that sections of historical phonetics dealing with Baltic or Slavic consonants j, v should clearly distinguish the twofold origin of each of these phonemes, namely, compare Table 1. ¹¹¹ See the parallel s.v. *bų-. ¹¹² And conversely: just as the length in full-grade forms of the type Lithuanian dėĩ, Old Church Slavonic děti ‘to put’ < PIE *dʰeh₁-C, Lithuanian stóti, Old Church Slavonic stati ‘to stand’ < PIE *steh₂-C and Lithuanian dúoti, Old Church Slavonic dati < PIE *deh₃-C. HIAT LARYNGALNY W JĘZYKACH BAŁTO-SŁOWIAŃSKICH | 83 TABLE 1. TWOFOLD ORIGIN OF BSŁ. J, V. PIE *i, *u PIE *(i)H, *(u)H Latvian kreju < *krei̯H-e- Latvian krija, Lithuanian krùja < *kriH-eh₂- Lithuanian lēju < *lēi̯H-e- Old Church Slavonic lijǫ < *liH-ḗ- Old Church Slavonic lějǫ < *lěi̯H-je- Lithuanian lijo < *liH-eh₂- Lithuanian vēju < *u̯ēi̯h₁-e- OCS vъjǫ < *u̯iH-ḗ- OCS zějǫ < *ǵhēh₁-je- PS *zъjati, Croatian žěti, žjám < *ǵhih₁-eh₂- OCS zovǫ < *ǵhēuh₂-e- OCS zъvati < *ǵhuH-éh₂- PS *bovǫ < *bheu̯h₂-e- (⇒ SW OCS *baviti) OCS zabъvenǫ < *bhuh₂-eno- 4. EXCURSES 4.1. Excursus I Lithuanian infixed presents of the type šlyja ‘leans against something’, srūva ‘flows, pours’ derive through denasalization from *šli-n-ja, *sru-n-ua. This proves that the stems *šlī-, *sruu- were subject to infixation here. From a morphological point of view, these are “weak” stems in relation to *šlēj- (cf. šlējǫ, šlējūosi), *sriau- (here only srav-, Old Lithuanian srawanczio DP ‘flowing’), which are “strong.” The peculiarities here are that 1° *šlī- stands for šli- (cf. pašlitas ‘slanting, leaning obliquely’), while *sruu- stands for sru- (cf. išsruvù/išsrūnù, -sruvaũ, -srūti ‘drain away’), and that 2° from šli- we would rather expect prs. *šli-nù, and from sru- prs. *sru-nù. The actual forms šlyja, srūva, with the segments j, v, should therefore be regarded as created by analogy, namely with presents of the respective types pyja ‘swells with milk—of an udder’ < *pi-n-ia and būva ‘I am, stay somewhere’ < *bu-n-ua. The structure of the latter is justified by the presence of an intervocalic SZ-V with forms *pii-V, *bu̯-V, which alternated with SZ-C in ī, ū, cf. *pi-C < *piH-C (pýti ‘swell with milk; become damp, soften’, SP *pejH- ‘swell; gush’), *bū-C < *bʰuH₂- (būti ‘be’, SP *bʰu̯eh₂- and *bʰeu̯h₂- ‘grow; become’). The foregoing thus leads to the conclusion that in Lithuanian certain non-laryngealized (athematic) roots ending in the diphthong *ei̯ or *eu̯ (*k’lei-, *sreu-) underwent analogical influence from roots laryngealized with *eiH or *euH, which in SZ-V produce allomorphs *ii-V, *uu-V characteristic only of them, with i and u as reflexes of laryngeal hiatus. 84 | WOJCIECH SMOCZYŃSKI 4.2. Excursus II The suffix -ij-as (vienatijas, medijas/medija, prakijas/prekijas, žūklijas, treinijas/treinijā), which appears sporadically in Old Lithuanian and is also known in other Baltic languages (cf. Latvian salijs, mālijs, Old Prussian medies), is originally an adjectival formant which also penetrated nominal formations through substantivization. The suffix -i̯a- continues Indo-European *i.h₂a- < Proto-Indo-European *-ih₂o- (not *-iio-¹¹³). It is noteworthy that, in Lithuanian, according to the allomorphy ij-V/i̯-C, a consonant-preceding alternant of the shape -i-s was additionally formed alongside -ija-. It occurs in a series of Lithuanian nomina in -ỹs, e.g. arklỹs, gaidỹs, svetỹs. A morphological explanation of the Lithuanian suffix -ỹs seems preferable to the phonetic hypothesis of contraction of *-ijas to -ỹs. The treatment of the suffix *-ih₂o- is in a certain respect specific to Lithuanian, in that it leads to the emergence of two series of derivatives, the older in -ijas (preserved in a vestigial state) and the newer in -ỹs (productive). The first of these suffixes is a straightforward phonetic continuation that takes laryngeal hiatus into account; the second, by contrast, is the product of morphophonological analogy. 4.3. Excursus III Above, in connection with the Lithuanian form dveigys (note 10), mention was made of the complementarity of the consonant-preceding form -gy-s with respect to the vowel-preceding *-gii-as, as well as of the possibility of additionally forming a consonant-preceding variant with i on the basis of an original vowel-preceding stem with ij. It seems that the relation of morphological implication ij-V ⇒ i̯-Cij-V ⇒ i̯-C can also explain the appearance of the long vowel i in the infinitive suffix Lithuanian -yti, Slavic -iti. This concerns the suffix of iterative-causative verbs, which in Proto-Indo-European formed the present with the suffix *-éi̯e/o-. A plausible connection between the suffix *-éi̯e/o- and the innovative infinitive -ī- is made possible by the hypothesis of an intermediate stage -i̯i̯a-, cf. Lithuanian presents in -i̯a of (denominal) verbs in -yti, e.g. dalija, dalýti from dalìs. In my view, the form of the suffix -ija- in place of Proto-Indo-European *-éio- reflects the raising of the original e before i—a case of anticipatory assimilation¹¹⁴. Once the raised sequence -ii- appeared in the personal forms of the secondary verb, namely before vocalic endings, it seems to have been incorporated into the alternation system ii-V:: i̯-C, which had formed earlier within the primary verb, cf., for example, Lithuanian lij(o) ‘poured’, but infinitive lý(ti), gij(o) ‘healed’, but infinitive gý(ti). In this way, on the basis of presentational -ij-, -ī- arose as the alternant specific to the consonant-preceding position in the infinitive formation. 113 Niedawno S. Ambrazas (2000:134, 205) powtórzył młodogramatyczną rekonstrukcję sufiksu w postaci *-i̯-io-. Sugeruje to, że chodzi o pewien wariant sufiksu pie. *i̯o-. W myśl naszych wywodów w sekwencji i̯a nie jest jednak fonemem odziedziczonym, lecz stanowi – jako wypełniacz hiatus laryngalnego – swego rodzaju namiastkę zanikięj spółgłoski H, w danym razie *h₂. W odniesieniu do litewskiej formacji na -ija- należy mówić o sufiksie *ih₂o-, który nie ma bezpośredniego związku z sufiksem pie. *-io- (po sylabie lekkiej) względnie z wariantem Sieversowym *-iio- (po sylabie ciężkiej). 114 Such assimilation has a parallel, for example, in isolated forms such as (1) Old Church Slavonic trьje ‘three’, Lithuanian trỹs likewise < *tri̯iis ⇐ *tri̯es, from Proto-Indo-European *trei̯es (Vedic tráyah, Greek τρεῖς = [trèːs], Latin trēs, Gothic þreis (NB the Balto-Slavic *tríes in place of *treies was presumably favored by the presence of the allomorph trī in the neuter form, cf. Vedic trī, Old Church Slavonic tri ‘three’, Lithuanian trýlika ‘thirteen’ < Proto-Indo-European *triH₂) or (2) Old Church Slavonic gostьje ‘guests’ from nom. pl. *gʰostēies (Latin hostēs, Greek πόλεις). HIAT LARYNGALNY W JĘZYKACH BAŁTO-SŁOWIAŃSKICH | 85 4.4. Excursus IV In Slavic, iteratives in -ŭ are formed by lengthening i, and ijati, -yvati, e.g. °bijati, °lijati, °vijati, °byvati, °kryvati, °myvati, °zyvati, °živati; it is interesting that they mostly contrast with the conservative Lithuanian type sijóti, bliuvóti (cf., however, the more recent bliūvóti). Alongside these types are the causative-iteratives, distinctive in form, in -aviti. First, it should be noted that their element v—unlike in the case of -yv(ati)—has nothing to do with laryngeal hiatus. If -av- is taken as a relative whole, this segment115 can be derived phonetically from *-ōu- and then interpreted from a morphonological standpoint as a lengthening of the *-ou- segment of the derivational base. Such a segment was characteristic exclusively of those preforms of the present tense in -e/-o- that were formed from PIE roots with the structure *Ceu(H)-. It is significant that the phonetic change of PIE *Ceu(V) to Slavic Cou(V) (replacement of e by o) created, in the relevant class of primary verbs, a substitute for the ablaut grade o. This, in turn, paved the way for the innovative lengthening of the vowel o in the derivation of Slavic caus.-iter. in -iti. The foregoing applies primarily to derivatives such as plaviti ‘to float’ ⇐ plovǫ, pluti ‘to flow’, root *pleu-; slaviti ‘to set’ ⇐ slovǫ, sluti ‘to be famous’, root *k’leu-; traviti ‘to digest’ ⇐ trovǫ, truti ‘to consume’, root *treuH-. Secondarily, this applies to such iter.-caus. forms which in Old Church Slavonic no longer show present stems in -ovǫ, but instead have a new formation in -yjo, modeled on the infinitive in -yti: naviti ‘tire’ ⇐ *novo (nvjo), unyti ‘bore’, Proto-Indo-European root *neuH-; taviti ‘make dull’ ⇐ *tovo (tvjo), tyti ‘grow fat’, Proto-Indo-European root *teuH-. Compare also °baviti °‘amuse’ ⇐ *bovǫ, byti ‘be, become’, Proto-Indo-European root *bʰeuh₂-116. ABBREVIATIONS adi. – adjective aor. – aorist awest. – Avestan C – any consonant conjunct. – subjunctive czes. – Czech demin. – diminutive 115 U Vaillanta (1966: 423–424) pozostawiony bez wyjaśnienia. 116 Vaillant (1966: 424) dodaje jeszcze scs. staviti ‘stawić; zatrzymać’, któremu przez porównanie stati przypisuje „un élargissement en -v- de la racine”. Hipoteza rozszerzenia pierwiastkowego nie ma oparcia w innych paralelnych wypadkach, jest więc ad hoc. Verbum to raczej denominatywem od sb. sta-vŭ ‘stanie, stan; zatrzymanie, wstrzymanie’ (por. denom. lit. stat-ýti ‘stawić’ od *stãtas, dziś stãčias ‘postawiony, stojący pionowo’). 86 WOJCIECH SMOCZYŃSKI denom. – denominative drw. – derivative durat. – durative gr. – Greek H – any laryngeal (as opposed to h1, h2, h3) inf. – infinitive intens. – intensive lit. – Lithuanian lrg. – laryngeal łot. – Latvian neopwk. – neo-root... pbałt. – Proto-Baltic pdg. akc. – accent paradigm pbsł. – Proto-Balto-Slavic pers. – Persian pf. – perfect PIE – Proto-Indo-European Pol. – Polish postverbal – (nomen) postverbale prs. – present tense prt. – preterite note – footnote PSl. – Proto-Slavic root – root Rus. – Russian Rus. – Ruthenian sb. – noun SCr. – Serbo-Croatian OCS – Old Church Slavonic SE – grade e Serb. – Serbian Slov. – Slovenian SO – o-grade SP – full grade st° – Old- stpr. – Old Prussian SW – lengthened grade SZ – zero grade (SZ-C – before a consonant, SZ-V – before a vowel) V – any vowel vb. – verb war. – variant wed. – Vedic WSZ – lengthened zero grade zam. – instead of znacz. etym. – etymological meaning HIAT LARYNGALNY W JĘZYKACH BAŁTO-SŁOWIAŃSKICH | 87 BIBLIOGRAFIA Ambrazas, S. 2000: Daiktavardžių darybos raida II. Lietuvių kalbos vardažodiniai vediniai, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Bankowski, A. 2000: Etymologiczny słownik języka polskiego I-II, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. Eichner, H. 1988: Anatolisch und Trilaryngalismus, in: Bammesberger, A., ed., Die Laryngaltheorie und die Rekonstruktion des indogermanischen Laut- und Formensystems, Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 123–151. Endzelin, J. 1922: Lettische Grammatik, Riga: Kommissionsverlag A. Gulbis. ESJS – Etymologický slovník jazyka staroslověnského, red. E. Havlová, (od zeszytu 7) A. Erhart, Praha: Academia, 1989–. Fraenkel, LEW = Fraenkel, E. Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch I-II, Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1955–1965. Klingenschmitt, G. 1982: Das altarmenische Verb, Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. LIV = Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. Unter Leitung von Helmut Rix, unter der Mitarbeit vieler anderer bearbeitet von Martin Kümmel, Thomas Zehnder, Reiner Lipp, Brigitte Schirmer, Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1998. LKŽ = Lietuvių kalbos žodynas I–XX, Vilnius, 1941–2002. Mayrhofer, EWAIa = Mayrhofer, M., Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen, Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1986–2001. ME = Mühlenbachs, K., Latviešu valodas vārdnīca / Lettisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch. Redigiert, ergänzt und fortgesetzt von J[ānis] Endzelīns. Bde. I–IV, Riga, 1923–1932. Otrębski, J. 1965: Gramatyka języka litewskiego II: Nauka o budowie wyrazów, Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Pokorny IEW = Pokorny, J. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, Bern: A. Francke AG, 1949–1969. Rasmussen, J. E. 1989: Studien zur Morphophonemik der indogermanischen Grundsprache, Innsbruck. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, 55.) Skardžius, P. 1943: Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba. Vilnius: Lietuvių mokslų akademija, Lietuvių kalbos institutas. (Wznowione w reprodukcji fotograficznej jako t. I wydawnictwa Skardžius, P., Rinktiniai raštai, red. Albertas Rosinas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 1996.) Sławski SEJP = Sławski, F., Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego I–V. Kraków: Towarzystwo Miłośników Języka Polskiego, 1952–1975. Smoczyński, W. 1989: Studia bałto-słowiańskie I, Wrocław–Kraków: Zakład Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich. (Polska Akademia Nauk, Oddział w Krakowie, Prace Komisji Językoznawstwa, 57.) Smoczyński, W. 2001: Język litewski w perspektywie porównawczej, Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. (Baltica Varsoviensia, 3.) SStP = Słownik staropolski, red. Stanisław Urbańczyk, Kraków: Polska Akademia Nauk, 1953–. Stang, Ch. S. 1942: Das slavische und baltische Verbum. Oslo: I Kommisjon Hos Jacob Dybwad. Stang, Ch. S. 1966: Vergleichende Grammatik der Baltischen Sprachen, Oslo, Bergen, Tromsø: Universitetsforlaget. Trautmann, R. 1923: Baltisch-Slavisches Wörterbuch, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Urbutis, V. 1981: Baltų etimologijos etiudai, Vilnius: Mokslas. Vaillant, A. 1966: Grammaire comparée des langues slaves III: Le verbe, Paris: Klincksieck. Zinkevicius, Z. 1980–1981: Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika I–II, Vilnius: Mokslas. Wojciech Smoczyński Uniwersytet Jagielloński Katedra Językoznawstwa Ogólnego i Indoeuropejskiego al. Mickiewicza 9/11, 31–120 Kraków, Polska [email protected] Gauta 2002 11 29