AN EXAMINATION OF THE THEORIES REGARDING THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF INDO EUROPEAN INFLECTION BY HANNS Oertel and Edward P. MORRIS I. INTRODUCTION (§ 1-2). 1. The necessity of forming a definite theory concerning the origin of Indo-European inflectional endings, because the method of dealing with concrete problems of the development of cases, modes, and tenses in the historical IndoEuropean languages is essentially influenced by such a theory (§ 1). 2. Three preliminary remarks and limitations (§ 2): A. The discussion refers to the Indo-European languages only. B. In assigning a language to the 'adaptation type' we do not intend to exclude the possibility that some agglutinative forms may be found in it. C. The importance of distinguishing between formal and semantic agglutination. Summary of the four positions which may be taken regarding agglutination. II. AGGLUTINATION AND ADAPTATION (§ 3-18). A. FORMAL AGGLUTINATION (§ 3-5). 1. Ludwig's belief in formal agglutination (§ 3). 2. Jespersen's 'sound-continua' (§ 4). 3. Discussion of the relative probability of the two theories (Bopp's and Jespersen's). The advisability of an agnostic attitude regarding primitive Indo-European word-formation ($5). B. SEMANTIC AGGLUTINATION (§ 6-18). 1. The alternative theory (adaptation) proposed by Ludwig. His view regarding undoubted cases of semantic agglutination in the historical periods. of the Indo-European languages (§ 6). 2. The argument against semantic agglutination and in favor of adaptation as the typical manner in which the Indo-European inflectional system originated (§ 7-18). (a) The weakness of Ludwig's Vedic support for his theory ($7). (b) The weakness of the case for semantic agglutination (§ 8-9). (a) The number of instances where inflectional suffixes can actually be identified with formerly independent words is very small (§ 8). (B) Bopp's theory of semantic agglutination was not the natural and simple consequence of his analysis of Indo-European inflectional forms, but owed its origin to extraneous influences and a priori considerations (§ 9). (c) The certain cases illustrative of semantic agglutination can be paralleled by equally well established instances of adaptation (§ 10). (d) The chief argument in favor of adaptation and against semantic agglutination for the IndoEuropean languages is the qualitative difference between their inflectional structure and that of the 'agglutinative' type of languages, e. g. the Ural-Altaic (11). Detailed examination of this structural difference between 'inflecting' and 'agglutinative' languages (§ 12-13): (a) The regular and systematic character of the agglutinative languages. The stability of their inflectional systems. Their tenacity in maintaining their case-system (§ 12). (B) The irregular and complex character of IndoEuropean structure. The mobility of the Indo-European inflectional suffixes (§ 13). (e) The lack of system of Indo-European inflectional structure in the light of the theory of adaptation (§ 14-17): (a) Ludwig's identification of inflectional terminations with stem-formatives. The secondary character of inflectional meanings (§ 14). (B) The evidence at present available for this identification (§ 15). (y) The original multiplicity of inflectional forms. and meanings as a corollary to Ludwig's theory of adaptation (§ 16). (8) The gradual consolidation and centralization of the Indo-European inflectional system. The struggle toward comparative unity and system (§ 17). (f) Only if the theory of semantic agglutination is rejected for the Indo-European languages can a qualitative difference between 'agglutinative' and 'inflecting' languages be maintained (§ 18). III. THE EFFECT OF THE FOREGOING ON THE IDEA OF A 'GRUND- 1. Is the assumption of a 'Grundbegriff' for cases, modes, and (§ 20). 3. The character of the semantic evidence upon which the reconstructed 'Grundbegriffe' must rest. Semantic and formal evidence contrasted (§ 21). 4. The necessity of distinguishing between formal and semantic evidence illustrated by examples of lexicographical reconstruction (§ 22). 5. Delbrück's distinction of 'absolute' and 'relative Grundbegriffe' (§ 23). 6. The present attitude toward 'absolute Grundbegriffe' (§ 24). 7. The present attitude toward 'relative Grundbegriffe.' The gradual change from 'Grundbegriffe' to 'Gebrauchstypen ' (§ 25). 8. Agreement and differences in the attitude of the two theories (viz., that of semantic agglutination and that of adaptation) toward the 'Gebrauchstypen' (§ 26–29). A. Points of agreement (§ 26). B. Points of difference (§ 27-29). (a) The agglutinative theory regards a 'Gebrauchstypus' as the source of all later developments. The effect of this view on the treatment of syntactical problems (§ 27). (b) 'Gebrauchstypen' viewed in the light of the theories of gradual growth and original local differences (§ 28). 'Gebrauchstypen' as the results of a process of centralization (§ 29). 9. Illustrations (§ 30-31): A. The genitive (§ 30). B. The subjunctive and optative (§ 31). § 1. There is at present, and there has been for some time, a disinclination amounting occasionally to a positive aversion to discuss problems of origins, which by their very nature must be metaphysical or rather metagrammatical.' Undoubtedly Delbrück is right in closing the fourth edition of his Einleitung (1904) with the words: For the near future glottogonic hypotheses will probably remain in the background, while the historical and psychological investigation of the actual data will, we hope, progress further and further.' And yet the very fact that these problems crop out again and again, and that even those who are honest in their renunciation are often forced tacitly to assume some kind of hypothesis shows that these discussions are not due simply to a love of speculation that Greek vice of which Crassus (Cic. de Orat. 2, 4, 18) said, omnium ineptiarum haud sciam an nulla sit maior quam de rebus aut difficillimis aut non necessariis argutissime disputare. Why is it that we cannot refrain entirely from such speculation and subscribe to Johannes Schmidt's1 1 Kuhn's Zt. XXIV (1879), p. 320 f. 'Die aufgabe der indogermanischen sprachwissenschaft ist, nachzuweisen, welches die formen der ursprache waren, und auf welchen wegen daraus die der einzelsprachen entstanden sind. Den begrifflichen confession of honorable ignorance? There are two reasons, both clearly felt and expressed twenty years ago by Delbrück.1 (1) The attempts to analyze grammatical forms are not simply airy speculations, they do not rest wholly upon assumptions and imaginary constructions of single scholars, but are ultimately based upon a considerable mass of definite linguistic facts. (2) The carrying on of work upon one whole class of problems in syntax the history and use of modes, tenses, and cases - forces the investigator, unless he is content with mere description, to adopt some hypothesis in regard to the early history of inflection;2 without such a hypothesis an interpretation of the facts is impossible. It is for this reason that we propose in the following paper to call the attention of classical philologists to the gradual shift of opinion among comparative philologists in regard to the long-held theory of agglutination as applied to the Indo-European family of languages, and to suggest or discuss some of the effects which this changed attitude necessarily produces upon our views of semantics and of syntax in particular. § 2. Before entering upon the discussion it seems advisable to make three points clear at the outset. (1) The discussion of the theories of agglutination and adaptation in the following pages refers to the IndoEuropean group of languages only. We do not for a moment hold that what seems to us true with regard to them applies to other families also. In fact, we are strongly convinced that the different types of languages show essential differences in their development (see below, §§ II to 18, pp. 81-98), and we would therefore discourage the practice of interpreting the evolution of one clearly defined and characterized werth der an die sogenannten wurzeln gefügten formativen elemente zu erklären sind wir in den allermeisten fällen . . . unfähig. . . . Auf diesem gebiete schreitet, wie es einer gesunden wissenschaft ziemt, die erkenntniss des nicht wissens von jahr zu jahr fort.' 1 Delbrück, Einleitung in das Sprachstudium (1880), p. 100. 'Ich glaube aber doch nicht dass diese [Schmidt's] Anschauungsweise allgemein werden wird. Die Versuche, die Sprachformen zu zerlegen, beruhen schliesslich nicht auf willkührlichen Entschlüssen und Einfällen der Gelehrten, sondern haben gewisse sprachliche Thatsachen zur Grundlage. . . und werden also vermuthlich auch in Zukunft wiederholt werden.' * Delbrück, Einleitung in das Sprachstudium (1880), p. 91, ' . . . bei öfter wiederholter Erwägung der ganzen Frage [viz. the question of the origin of case endings], auf die ich bei syntaktischen Arbeiten immer wieder geführt worden bin . . .' |