Printer Friendly

The origin of Indic and Iranian feminines in -ani-(d).

1.0 Vedic has a feminine-forming suffix -ani(d) with devi-inflection (1) that is derived nearly exclusively from thematic stems and that makes derivatives in the following two semantic groups:

a) 'wife of x', with x being the name of a divine or (semi-) mortal figure:

indrai- (RV 1.22.12a, 2.32.8c, 5.46.8b, 11a, 12a): indra-

varunani-(RV 1.22.12b, 5.46.8c): varuna-

usinarani- (RV 10.59.10b)" usinara-(Br.) (2)

Purukutsani- (RV 4.42.9a): Purukutsa-

mudgalani- (RV 10.102.2c, 6d): mudgala-

b) 'the divine woman/female genius of x', with x being an appellative:

arayani- 'female genius of the forest' (RV 10.146): aranya-'forest'

urjani- 'female genius of urj- (who attends the Asvins)' (RV 1.119.2d): urj-/urja- 'energy' (3)

The type remains productive in later Vedic and in the epic and classical language, where it largely preserves the same derivational behavior and semantic functions it has in the Rigveda. For a survey of the material in the later language and the details of its development, see Debrunner 1954: 279f. and Narten 1986: 213f.

The type also appears in two residual cases in ancient Iranian. The first is the famous Old Avestan form ahurani-(d), which is used as an epitnet of the waters at Yasna Haptanhaiti 38.3. (4) This stem has recently been treated by Narten (1986: 212ff), who has convincingly shown that it should be aligned with its Vedic correspondents and translated 'Herrinnen' or, more originally, 'wives of the ahura'. This analysis is supported with reference to the other Iranian reflex of this type, Pahlavi m'sy'nyd < Av. *masiianl-(d) and Turfanian Middle Persian mwrdy'ng < Old Persian *martiyanl-(d), the feminine corresponding to Avestan masiia- 'mortal, man' and the female member of an early Iranian mythical pair *martiia-and *martiiani- of the sort that is familiar from Vedic manu-: manavi. (5)

2.0 On the basis of these forms it is possible to reconstruct a Proto-Indo-Iranian suffix of the shape (6) *-aniH-(d) or *-aHniH-(d) that made feminine derivatives meaning 'the wife/woman of x' to masculine thematic nouns. More complicated however is the question of the origins and derivational history of the type. Although it has been the subject of numerous discussions in the last two hundred years, today there are still two competing approaches to its origins, and no clear consensus as to which is likely to be correct. (7) The purpose of this short contribution is to decide which of these approaches best explains the type.

2.1 The first approach to be discussed--which was advanced by Theodor Benfey (1854: 455ff.), Ernst and Manu Leumann (1893: 294ff.; 1952: 14)--takes its start from the athematic-stem counterpart of the -ani- (d) formations. This type, which is limited to a handful of examples in the Rigveda and later Vedic texts, is formed by lengthening the suffix vowel of the derivational basis and adding the devi-suffix -i-(d). Like -ani-(d) it mostly makes derivatives meaning 'the wife of x', where x is the name of a divine or (semi-) mortal figure: agnayi RV (1.22.12c, 5.46.8b): agni-, jahnavi RV (1.116.19c): jahnu-, (8) manavi-SB (manavi p.4.1.38), manayi- (9) MS: mdnu-, (+) putdkratayl- (10) RV (8.56.4b): putdkratu- RV (8.68.17c). vasavi- RV (10.73.4c): *vasu-, (11)' vrsdkapayl- (12) RV (10.86.13a): vrsakapi-.(13) Benfey and his followers argue that this "athematic" type is the older of the two formations, and that the apparent n-stem suffix we have in the "thematic" -ani-type above has been segmented out of athematic n-stem pairs like brahmani-: brahman- and secondarily extended to thematic stems. (14)

This approach has two fatal weaknesses. The first is that contrary to what we would expect in a morphological category with a unitary origin, the accentual patterns of the two types fail to match up. In the "athematic" type paroxytonesis is the rule apart from two exceptions: + putakratayi-, where the stem replicates the accent of its derivational basis, and manavi- (SB), which is essentially a varia lectio with the same accentuation that is common in the "thematic" type. The "thematic" type, on the other hand, seems to have originally been oxytone, the exceptions being two instances, usinarani- and purukutsani-, where the derivative imitates the accent of its basis, and one further case, mudgalani-, (15) where the accent is paroxytone just as in the "athematics."

A second and more significant weakness involves the supposed evidence for the "athematic" agnayi-type to n-stems. The form that is usually taken to support this analysis, brahmani 'wife of a Brahmin', is attested only in the epic/classical period, and is not likely to be older than this, since -ani-(d) feminines meaning 'wife of x' made to appellatives are not attested before this period. Since all the feminines of the Vedic period apart from personifications like aranyani- and urjani- are made to proper names, to motivate this analysis it would be necessary to assume (1) that to an n-stem compound name like Ved. susaman- speakers of Proto-Indo-Iranian made a feminine *susamani- 'the wife of S[degrees]' according to the regular "athematic" pattern, (16) and (2) that because compounds with an n-stem as second member could optionally replace the n-stem suffix with the thematic vowel--cf., e.g., RV visvakarma- beside visvakarman- (17)--they got the idea that a-stems could also make feminines in [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and then generalized this pattern by proportional analogy: *susama- ([congruent to] susaman-): * susamani-:: indra-: x, x [right arrow] indrani-. But beyond the fact that this analogy is somewhat artificial, there are no n-stem proper name pairs attested in the languages that support this analysis, nor do proper names with n-stem second members seem to have regularly replaced this suffix with the thematic vowel. Of all the Vedic, Avestan, and Old Persian names given in Mayrhofer 2003 and 1979, there are at least twenty compounds based on n-stems, and all have n-stem inflection, there being no certain cases of -a- replacing -an-. (18)

2.2 A second direction has been highlighted by Meid (1956: 277f.), who aligns the -ani- (d)feminies with the Greek suffix -[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], which makes genitival derivates (19) to thematic stems. In particular, Meid compares the kinship term [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (Hom.+) 'grandson': [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'son' and feminine derivatives to masculine proper names like [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (Hom. +) 'daughter of Akrisios': [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (Hom.+) 'wife of Zeus': [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (20) These are closely related to nouns like [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (Hom.+) 'bird of prey': [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (Att.) 'egg' (21) or [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'wind-flower': [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'wind', and have their origins in a specialization of what in today's terminology can be termed the thematic version of the "Hoffmann suffix," viz. *-[h.sub.1]-n-o-. (22) This suggestion seems promising, but requires elaboration and further motivation. (23)

What Meid and others have crucially failed to appreciate in making this identification is that the patronymic use of Greek -[[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] has a very close correspondent in lndic and Iranian in the suffix -ana-. (24) In Avestan this suffix is well attested for the formation of patronymics and pro-patronymics, and like its Greek correspondent is mostly limited to thematic stems: (25)
 Old Avestan
 friiana- (Y.46. 12, epithet of tura-) (26) 'descendant of
 F[degrees]': friia- (Yt. 13.110, 119)
 haecat.aspana- (Y.53.3, epithet of pourucista-) 'descendant of
 H[degrees]': haecat.aspa-(27) (Y.46.15)

 Young Avestan (28)
 fraiiazentana- (Yt. 13.113, epithet of frenah- and jaro.vohu-):
 fraiiazenta- (Yt.13.113) (29) gaiia[delta]astiiana- (Yt. 13.114,
 epithet of asa.siiaona-): gaiiaasti- (Yt. 13.112, 140)
 gaoraiiana- (Yt.13.118, epithet of +yoista-): gaoiri- (Yt.13. 118)
 jamaspana- (Yt.13.104, epithet of hanhaurus-):
 (de)jdmdspa- (OAv.+) neremiiazdana- (Yt.13.110, apparently patronumic
 as PN): *nermiieiiazda-pouru[delta]] azstaooana- (Yt.13.112, epithet
 of various names): pouru[delta]axsti- (Yt.5.72, 13.111, 140)
 tumaspana- (Yt.13.131, epithet of uzauua-): *tumaspa-
 varakasana- (Yt.13.113, epithet of vohuraocah-): *varakosa-
 *xsuuibraspana- (Yt.13.112, 140, apparently patronymic as PN):
 +xsuuibraspa- (Yt.13.111)


In Vedic, on the other hand, the suffix is not common and must have become unproductive early. The few formations that are found are attested already in the Rigveda, and are made exclusively to i- and u-stems. (30) Nearly all seem to be derived from and used as proper names: (31)
 apnavana- PN (4.7.1c. 8.102.4b): *apnu- PN (cf. OP *afnuaspa- [Elam.
 ab-nu-as-ba]?)
 takavana- PN (1.120.6a): (*)taku- PN (9.97.52d?)
 turvayana- PN (1.53.10b, 1.174.3c, 6.18.3d, 10.61.2c): *turvi- PN
 ([less than or equal to] adj. turvi- 'victorious'), YAv. tauruui-
 (V.19.43) name of a demon
 prthavana- apparently PN (32) (10.93.14a): (*)prthu- PN (cf. ep. cl.
 PN prthu- and RV [6.27.8d] patronymic parthava-)
 harayana- (33) PN (8.25.22b): *hari- PN ([less than or equal to] adj.
 hari- 'golden', or hypocoristic to compound names like Ved.
 haryasva- = OP (*)zariyaspa- [Elam. za-ri-as-ba])


That these Vedic forms are not hypocoristics to compound names or denominatives to appellatives, but should rather be identified with the Iranian forms above and interpreted as patronymic or pro-patronymic formations or as patronymics/pro-patronymics that have come to be used as proper names (34) is made clear by RV bhrgavana-. This stem, found three times in the Rigveda (1.71.4d, 1.120.5a, 4.7.4d), is derived from the name bhrgu-, a mythical first priest who was the progenitor of an important priestly family that has special connections to Agni and the discovery of fire. Although one of the passages (1.120.5) where the stem appears is difficult to interpret, (35) the other two are straightforward. In both it figures as an epithet of Agni: (36)
 1.71.4 mathid yad im vibhrto matarisva grhe-grhe syeto je[n.sub.i]yo
 bhut
 ad im rajne na sahyase saca sann a du[t.sub.i]yam bhrgavano vivaya
 Als ihn verteilt du Matarisvan aus (dem Holze) rieb und der
 Rotlichschimmernde in jedem Haus heimisch wurde, da besorgte du
 Bhrgavana das Botenamt wie der Begleiter fur einen machtigeren Konig.

 4.7.4 asum dutam vivasvato visva yas carsanir abhi
 a jabhruh ketum ayavo bhrgavanam vise-vise
 Den flinken Boten des Vivasvat, der uber alle Volker (herrscht), ihn
 den Bhrgugenossen
 brachten die Ayusohne als Wahrzeichen zu jedem Clane.


Here we have Agni's close relationship with Bhrgu and the Bhrgus highlighted by the use of an adjective meaning 'connected with (the) Bhrgu(s)' (vel sim). This is exactly parallel to the frequent application of a vrddhi adjective derived from the name of a rsi to designate a divine being with which he and his descendants are closely associated or to whom they are particularly devoted: so angirasa-(: angiras-) applied to Brhaspati (6.73. lb, 10.68.2a, 10.164.4c [or Agnil]), kausika- (:kusika-) to Indra (1.10.11a), daivavata- (:devavata-) to circumstances these vrddhi adjectives serve as regular patronymics, and the default assumption must be that bhrgavana- and the other -ana- forms above once had this functions also. (37)

Vedic and Avestan thus line up closely with Greek, and point to a Proto-Indo-Iranian genitival and patronymic suffix of the shape *-aHna-/-aHnaH-. Now it is interesting to note that like most genitival derivatives to personal nouns and proper names, the feminine version of this suffix in Greek is used to mark both relationships of descent--[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'daughter of Akrisios': [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]--as well as what can be termed "lateral" relationships--[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]--Auovri 'wife of Zeus': [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. In Indic and Iranian, by contrast, the one time the suffix appears in the feminine--OAv. haecat.aspana--it functions as a descent-marker. Although we would expect to find forms like this in Indie and Iranian meaning 'wife/woman of x' this function shows up instead with [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. This is a curious discrepancy, but one that also suggests a straightforward way to make a case for Meid's identification: since the "lateral" reading we would expect to find associated with *-aHna-/-aHnaH- shows up instead with the very similar-looking suffix -ani-(d), the obvious thing to do is to try to unify these suffixes and to explain -ani-(d) (under the reconstruction *-aHniH-(d)) as the result of a specifically Proto-Indo-Iranian specialization of *-aHna-AaHnaH-.(38) In practical terms this means motivating two things: (1) why the genitival suffix *-aHna- would have had two feminines *-aHnaH- and *-aHniH-(d) already in Proto-Indo-Iranian, and (2) why these would have been secondarily differentiated by semantic function.

The presence of a devi-feminine *-aHniH-(d) beside *-aHnaH- is easy to explain. Although the inherited feminine to thematic adjective suffixes like *-aHna- was made with the suffix *-aH-, the devi-feminine had started expanding to thematic stems in Proto-Indo-Iranian, (39) and at least in vrddh/-formations had already in large measure become the rule: (40) cf., e.g., Ved. nari-(d) 'woman; lady', Av. nairl-(d) 'woman, wife' < Pllr. *HndriH- 'woman, wife', and further Ved. manavi-(d) 'daughter of Manu' (RV 10.86.23a [and 9.98.9a adj.]) and YAv. huuouul-(d) 'descendant of Hugu' ([Yt. 13.39, 16.15] < *hauguui-). (41) Since vrdd/zf-derivation was the most productive mechanism for making genitival derivatives to personal nouns and proper names in Proto-Indo-Iranian, it can be expected to have exerted an analogical influence on the functionally and semantically very similar stems in *-aHna- and so to have led to the adoption of the devf-form *-aHniH-(d) as an alternative to *-aHnaH-.(42)

The question of the differentiation of these two feminine formations requires a brief look at the origin of the "athematic" agnayi-type discussed above. This was cleverly explained by M. Leumann (1952: 14), who, noting that the vrddhi syllable in the Proto-Indo-Iranian vrddhi derivative *HnariH- 'the woman of the *Hnar-': *Hnar- 'nobleman' (43) was formally ambiguous between word-initial and pre-suffixal position, argued that at some point speakers must have preferred this second analysis and then generalized the pattern to other stems in order to create the "athematic" feminine type. In my view this analysis is correct, (44) although the background and motivation for the proposed reanalysis requires further discussion.

The first thing to note is that the starting point for this explanation, *HnariH- 'the woman of the *Hnar-': *Hnar- 'nobleman', is a vrddhi derivative with "lateral" meaning and that before the creation of the "athematic" type, vrddhi derivation must have been one of the prime ways of making genitival derivatives meaning 'woman/wife of x' to personal nouns and proper names. Thus, in Proto-Indo-Iranian, a feminine derivative of the type *manaviH-(d) to the proper name *manu- should have meant both 'wife of Manu' as well as 'daughter of Manu', the meaning the stem normally has in Vedic. Feminines like this however would also have paired with masculines--here *manava--that when used with reference to a person would almost exclusively have functioned as patronymic adjectives, and this specialization, together with the general frequency of the masculine, must have favored descent-marking as the default interpretation of most such feminine derivatives. In this circumstance the "lateral" meaning once at home in these formations would of course have been in some danger of disappearing, and it is easy to understand why speakers would have developed some means of marking this meaning more clearly.

As Leumann rightly observed, the mechanism selected to resolve this problem was presented by *HnariH-. Although the basis of this derivative was originally a root noun, its precise morphological structure was probably opaque for most speakers of Proto-Indo-Iranian, since there was no productive verb made to the same root to reinforce this noun's root-noun interpretation, nor any other root-noun agent nouns of exactly the same shape to make clear its origins. As a noun with personal reference, it must instead have reminded speakers of what was found in kinship terms like Ved. svasar-, devar-, or nanandar- where the element -ar- was suffixal, (45) and this must further have led many to parse it as if it consisted of a basic root *Hn- and a suffix *-ar-. Once this analysis spread to the corresponding feminine* HnariH--viz. *Hn-ar-iH- (d)--speakers could easily have gotten the idea that the "lateral" meaning inherent in this stem was marked by lengthening the suffix vowel and adding *-iH- (d), and then generalized this pattern to other stems by proportional analogy: viz. *Hn-ar-: *Hn-ar-iH- (d) 'the woman/wife of the H[degrees]':: * Hag-nai-: x, x [right arrow] *Hag-nai-iH- (d) 'the woman/wife of H[degrees]', etc.

The origin of the "athematic" feminine type should therefore be traced to the desire to avoid the semantic ambiguity inherent in feminine vrddhi derivatives. The implication of this fact for explaining the "thematic" indrani-type is obvious. Here speakers would have faced exactly the same problem as with vrddhi-formations. To a feminine like *mudgalaHnaH-'woman/wife, daughter of M[degrees]' the corresponding masculine must have primarily meant 'son/descendant of M[degrees]', and this must have favored descent-marking as the default interpretation of the feminine. Once *-aHna- had acquired its alternative devi-feminine, however, it became possible to secondarily differentiate these readings and to provide each with its own formation: the new devi-ferminine *-aHniH-(d) was thus pressed into service as a "lateral" marker under the influence of *HnariH-(d) and similar devi'-formations like *patniH-(d) 'mistress; wife' ( > Ved. patnl-(d) 'id.', YAv. pa[theta]nl-(d) 'id.'): *pdti- 'master; husband' and *HrajniH-(d) 'queen' (> Ved. rajni (d) 'id.'): *Hraj(an)- 'king', while the older feminine *-aHnaH- remained the regular correspondent of masculine *-aHna- in patronymic/ pro-patronymic function.

3.0 In sum, the best approach to the "thematic" indrani-type is to align it with Vedic and Avestan genitival derivatives in -ana-/-ana-, and to explain it and its "athematic" counterpart as different morphological responses to the same semantic problem--the need to distinguish the meaning 'woman/wife of x' from the more common and productive 'daughter of x' in feminine genitival derivatives. As we have seen, in the "athematic" agnayi-type. this differentiation was achieved through the structural reanalysis of Proto-Indo-Iranian *HnariH-(d) 'woman/wife of the H[degrees]' (46) while in the "thematic" indrani-type recourse was had to a secondary specialization of the genitival and patronymic suffix *-aHna-/-aHnaH- Proto-Indo-Iranian inherited together with Greek. (47)

REFERENCES

Angermann, Constantinus Th. 1868. De patronymicorum graecorum formatione. In Studien zur griechischen und lateinischen Grammatik, vol. 1. Ed. Georg Curtius. Leipzig: Hirzel. Pp. 1-61.

Bartholomae, Christian. 1923. Zur Kenntnis der mitteliranischen Mundarten. Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-Hist. Klasse, vol. 3, Heidelberg: Verlag der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Benfey, Theodor, 1854. Einige Bemerkungen uber die Gotternamen auf den indoscythischen Munzen. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenldndischen Gesellschaft 8: 450-66.

Brugmann, Karl. 1906. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen, vol. 2/1. Strassburg: Trubner.

Debrunner, Albert. 1954. Altindische Grammatik, vol. 2/2: Die Nominalsuffixe. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.

Dunkel, George. 1988-90. Vater Himmels Gattin. Die Sprache 34: 1-26.

Geldner, Karl F. 1951-57. Der Rig-Veda aus dem Sanskrit ins Deutsche ubersetzt und mit einem laufenden Kommentar versehen. 3 vols. Harvard Oriental Series, vols. 33-35. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.

Gubler, Theophil. 1903. Die Patronymica im Altindischen. Gottingen: E. A. Huth.

Jamison, Stephanie. 2006. Poetic "Repair" in the Rig Veda. In La Langue poetique indo-europeene, ed. Georges-Jean Pinault and Daniel Petit. Leuven: Peeters. Pp. 133-40.

Leumann, Ernst. 1893. Eine arische Femininbildungsregel. Zeitschrift fur vergleichende Sprachforschung 32: 294-310.

Leumann, Manu. 1952. Volkaldehnung, Dehnstufe und Vrddhi. Indogermanische Forschungen 61: 1-16.

Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1973. Onomastica Persepolitana: Das altiranische Namengut der Persepolis-Tafelchen. Vienna: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

--. 1979. Iranisches Personennamenbuch, vol, I: Die altiranische Namen. Vienna: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

--. 2003. Die Personennamen in der Rgveda-Samhita: Sicheres und Zweifelhaftes. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Meid, Wolfgang. 1956. Zur Dehnung praesuffixaler Vokale in sekundaren Nominalableitungen. Indogermanische Forschungen 62: 260-95.

Narten, Johanna. 1986. Der Yasna-Haptanhaiti. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

Oldenberg, Hermann. 1909, 1912. Rgveda. Textkritische und exegetische Noten. 2 vols. Berlin: Weidmann.

Peters, Martin. 1980. Untersuchungen zur Vertretung der indogermanischen Laryngale im Griechischen. Vienna: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Pinault, Georges-Jean. 2000. Vedique damunas-, latin dominus et l'origine du suffixe de Hoffmann. Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 95: 61-118.

Rix, Helmut. 1972. Zum Ursprung des romisch-mittelitalischen Gentilnamensystems. In Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt, vol. 2: Von den Anfangen Roms bis zum Ausgang der Republik, ed. Hildegard Temporini. Pp. 700-758. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Schmitt, Rudiger. 2003. Onomastische Bemerkungen zu der Namenliste des Fravardin Yasht. In Religious Themes and Texts of Pre-Islamic Iran and Central Asia. Studies in Honor of Professor Gherardo Gnoli on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday on 6th December 2002, ed. Carlo G. Cereti, Mauro Maggi, and Elio Provasi. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Pp. 363-74.

--. 1985. Eine neue indoiranische Namengleichung. Studia Iranica 14: 101-3.

de Vaan, Michiel. 2003. The Avestan Vowels. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Wackernagel, Jacob. 1905. Altindische Grammatik. Vol. 2/1. Einleitung zur Wortlehre. Nominal-komposition. Rpt. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1950.

Whitney, William Dwight. 1889. Sanskrit Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.

(1.) Here and below devi'-inflection is marked with a superscript d, vrkl'-inflection with a superscript v.

(2.) usinara-, the basis of usinarani-, is in this instance an ethnic used as a proper name. On the identity of this figure and his wife, see Geldner 1951-57 ad loc.

(3.) On this stem, see Jamison 2006: 138-39.

(4.) Note also Yasna 68.10, which closely matches the Yasna Haptanhaiti passage, and further Yasna 66.1; 68.1, 3, 5, 9 and Nirangistan 48, in which the divinity of the water appears in the singular.

(5.) See Narten 1986: 214.

(6.) Here and below-H-is used as a cover symbol for the three Proto-Indo-European laryngeals. These seem to have fallen together as a single sound in late Proto-Indo-Iranian and then disappeared leaving various effects in the early history of Proto-Indo-Aryan and Proto-Iranian.

(7.) A third approach has been suggested by Dunkel (1989-90: 19ff.). In his discussion of the feminine counter part of the PIE divinity *dieu.diu- 'god of the daylit sky', Dukel--following an older tradition (24 n. 80)--traces the ani- (d) feminines to an originally "mittelindogermanisch" n-stem *diuon-, which he claims (1) was made from the athematic stem *dieu-/diu- with a specifically feminie-forming suffix* -on-/-n-; (2) was hypercharacterized with the feminie suffix *-eh (2), which on the way to Proto-Indo-Iranian was further replaced with the devi-suffix *[-ih.sub.2]; and (3) was finally segmented * diu-aniH- (d), a segmentation which then allowed the sufix-conglomerate *-aniH-(a) to be extended to other stems. But beyond the fact that this approach fails to explain the limitation of the -ani-type to thematic stems and operates with the completely unmotivated hypercharacterization of an athematic stem with the properly thematic-stem feminie suffix *[-eh.sub.2], there is absolutely no evidence for a specifically feminine-forming suffix *-o/en- in Proto-Indo-European or the Indo-European languages. In fact, there is evidence for precisely the opposite--a suffix of exactly this shape, individualizing *-o/en- and its "Hoffman-suffix" variant *-h;e/on-, that was clearly common gender.

(8.) Note that at RV 3.58.6b the stem is an abstract/collective meaning der Jahnu Stamm'. This resembles the abstract/collective use of devi-feminies to vrddhi-derivates as we later have it in the Sutras and the epic/classical language--cf., e., ep. vaidusi- 'talent', maitri- 'friendship', etc., and see Debrunner 1954: 397--and is to explained in the same way.

(9.) Like (+)putdkratdyl-: putakratu- below, manayi- shows a unitary substitutive suffix -ayi-. This has obviously been segmented out of i-stem cases like agnayi- and then generalized.

(10.) The form as actually attested is putakratayai. This should be read (+)putakratayyai. See Mayrhofer 2003: 59 ([section] 2.1.327) with lit.

(11.) So Oldenberg 1912 ad loc. and Geldner 1951-57 ad loc.

(12.) The form appears in the vocative. The accent is given after Panini 4.1.38.

(13.) Note further the demon-name kusitayi- MS (2.1.11, 3.2.6) = kusidayl- KS (10.5), whose etymology and derivational basis are unclear. See Mayrhofer 2003 s.v. with lit.

(14.) On the ultimate origins of the "athematic" type, see Leumann 1952: 14 and the discussion below.

(15.) urjani- is ambiguous between the two types.

(16.) For ease of comprehension, forms are here given in their Vedic rather than Proto-Indo-lranian shape.

(17.) See Wackernagel 1905: 115ff.

(18.) This contrasts with the situation among non-proper-name n-stem bahuvrihis where a-stem inflection seems to have largely been the rule in the earlier language. See Wackernagel 1905: 115ff.

(19.) Here and below genitival derivatives are understood as having a basic meaning 'of x, belonging to x', possessive derivatives as 'having x'.

(20.) For additional forms of this type, see the list at Angermann 1868: 58f. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is derived via the seemingly thematic compound and derivational stem [[delta].sub.10].

(21.) On this pair see Peters 1980: 292ff.

(22.) In recent years it has become common to reconstruct the "Hoffmann suffix" as *-[h.sub.3]on- with the third laryngeal. For a recent discussion with literature see Pinault 2000: 61ff. In my view, this reconstruction is excluded not only by the short suffix-vowel of the RV acc. sg. kanyanam < * konHi-[h.sub.1]en-but also by the e-grade of Greek formations like [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'the one with the phallus', an epithet of Dionysus, to [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'phallus'. Both forms require that the suffix be reconstructed with a non-coloring *-[h.sub.1]-.

This is a specialization insofar as the "Hoffmann suffix" normally has possessive meaning. What must have happened on the way to Greek--and Indo-Iranian, as per below--is that a few forms built with this suffix lost their clearly possessive meaning and faded into a more general sense 'connected with, related to', which then allowed the suffix to be extended to cases like [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], where a possessive reading was not possible. This kind of semantic bleaching of the derivational semanties of a suffix is not uncommon, and is due to the fact that speakers often lose sight of the precise semantic relationship between base and derivative. As an example of this kind of bleaching and reinterpretation, note for instance the Greek denominative suffix -[epsilon][upsilon]-, which while generally having possessive semantics--cf., e.g., [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'potter':[[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'pot'--also occasionally requires genitival readings--cf., e.g., [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'member of a board of ten': [[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] -[[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'board of ten'.

(23.) In fact it should be noted that it is not entirely clear what Meid thinks about the precise connection between these formations since he also (1956: 278) aligns the -ani- (d) feminines with OCS forms in -ynji like bogynji 'goddess': [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'god', under the assumption of an "exocentric" suffix -ni--viz. one having genitival or possessive semantics vis-a-vis its basis--which induced pre-suffixal lengthening. This Slavic type is not however directly related with what we have in Indo-Iranian--note for one that has its origins among u-stems--and has a developmental history slightly different from what will be outlined below.

(24). Note Debrunner 1954: 277 for the tentative identification of Greek [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and Indic and Iranian -ana-. Rix (1972: 727-28), on the other hand, has proposed identifying this Indic and Iranian type with the *-eno- gentilities found in the Italic dialects, cf., e.g., Umb. voisiener. While this is certainly possible, given that Greek and Indo-Iranian are more closely related to each other than either is with Italic, the Greek/Indo Iranian identification advocated here should be preferred.

(25). For all the forms given below, see Mayrhofer 1979 s. vv. The type is also attested for Old Persian, see Mayrhoger 1973: 283.

(26). This is also Young Avestan: gen. pl. friiananam Yt.5.81 and friiananam (J10-ananam) Yt. 13.120.

(27). The name appears in plural patronymic function. On the Indic and Iranian use of the plural of an ancestor's name as a "Sippenbezeichnung" and a derived patronymic adjective for a single member of the family, see Debrunner 1954: 50f. On the meaning and morphological analysis of this name see Mayhofer 1979:1/48 ([section]164),

(28). Note also maotariiana (Yt.13. 102, Yt.576 [degrees] iiana-), which is a phypercharacterization of the patronymic naotairiia-(Yt.5.98) to naotara_(Yt.17.55, 56, 15.35). For less certain cases, see Mayrhofer 1979 s.v.v. also kana (Yt.5.113), haostrauuanhana-(Yt.13.137 [?]), and kahrkana-(Yt.13.127).

Note that all the Young Avestan forms below except varakasana have a short vowel in the first syllable of their suffix. This results from a secondary shortening-ana- > -ana-, and can be explained either as the result of a contamination with patronymics in-aiiana-(-Ved. -ayana-) like frasaostraiiana-(Yt.13.104) or as the result of a phonological shortenning since all the names below are in the gen. sg. and so would be liable to antepenultimate shortening. On the shortening of -an- in Avestan see de Vaan 2003: 127ff.

(29). On these, see Schmitt 2003: 368, 372 n.40.

(30.) This represents an expansion of the domain of the suffix exactly as in Young Avestan and as is perfectly in order in a patronymic or pro-patronymic suffix.

(31.) On the forms given see Debrunner 1954: 275 and Mayrhofer 2003 s.vv. for further information. Unclear are two additional forms often put here: cyavatana- PN (RV 5.33.9c) and kaurayana- PN (RV 8.3.21b). Probably not to be included among these formations is RV+ vasavana-, applied to Indra and other gods and understood synchronically as 'provider/possessor of good' (vel sim.)--cf. RV 1.90.2a vasvo vasavanah applied to Varuna, Mitra, and Aryaman. This is presumably best aligned with the denominative -ana- that makes what seem to be verbal adjectives to s-stems. On this type, see Debrunner 1954: 236.

(32.) The exact interpretation of the passage in which this form appears is unclear: RV 10.93.14ab pra tad duhsime prthavane vene, pra rame vocam asure maghavatsu "das verkunde ich vor Duhsima, Prthavana, Vena, vor Rama, dem Gebieter, vor den Lohnherren." Geldner's translation follows Sayana in assuming that four figures are mentioned. The collocation prthavane vene, however, closely resembles what is found in prthi- veniya-(RV 8.9.10c) and pthi- venlya- (RV 10.148.5ab), and, given the well-known repetition of (parts of) names among the members of a family, might suggest interpreting prthavana- as a patronymic.

(33.) This form is perhaps a Proto-Indo-Iranian inheritance. Schmitt (1985: 101-3) has recently identified an Iranian *zarayana- (= MP zlyd'n) on a Sassanid seal in the British Museum (Nr. 119382).

(34.) The use of a lone patronymic to designate a person is common in the Rigveda. See Gubler 1903: 30-31. For a patronymic which has apparently become a proper name, cf., e.g., YAv. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]nmiiazdana- above.

(35.) The problem is the noun ghosa-, and whether it should be taken as an appellative or proper name. If the latter, then bhrgavana- might have patronymic or pro-patronymic function. On the passage, see Oldenberg 1909: 116 and Geldner 1951-57 ad loc.

(36.) In both passages, the translation is that of Geldner 1951-57 ad loc.

(37.) To judge by Greek [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], Vedic formations in -ana-should presumably have been oxytone, an accentuation that would also be favored by the connection between -ana- and -ani. Perhaps the consistent word-initial accent in these forms has its origins in substantivizing accent retraction brought on by the use of the -ana- formations as proper names or as part of the proper name system. Although substantivizing accent retraction was no longer productive in proper names at the time of our texts, remnants of the process make it clear that it survived into Proto-Indo-Aryan/Proto-Vedic: cf. PNN (RV) krsna- (: krsna-adj.}, citra- (:citra-), syava- (syava-), and savya- (: savya-).

(38.) For the etymological connection of -ani- (d) with -ana-, note already Whitney 1889: 469 [section]1223b and, as the rough predecessor of the analysis outlined below, Bartholomae 1923: 15 n. 2.

(39.) Most secondary thematic suffixes in Vedic at least have devi-feminines as variants to -a-. See the survey at Debrunner 1954: 398ff. Although Avestan was more conservative in this regard than Vedic, it has a few instances of this phenomenon also. Note for instance mainiiauui (OAv.+) "spiritual', the feminine of the possessive derivative mainiiauua-.

(40.) A rare case of an a feminine to a vrddhi patronymic adjective in Vedic is barhatsama- (AV 5.25.9). For the few a-feminines to vrddhi derivatives in Vedic see Debrunner 1954: 396.

(41.) Note the corresponding masculines OAv. huuo.guua-, YAv. huuouua-. On the interpretation of this form see most recently de Vaan 2003: 365f.

(42.) This can be done by proportional analogy: *mdnavdH-: *manaviH-(d):: *(H)indraHndH-: x, x [right arrow]*(H)indraHn(H-. Given that the starting point is a thematic stem, an alternative possibility would be to begin with a vrki-formation. As is well known, vrki-derivatives had three functions in Vedic and Proto-Indo-Iranian: (1) they made denominative substantives with genitival meaning to [hematic stems, cf., e.g., RV rathi- 'charioteer': rdtha-'chariot' and YAv. maesl- 'sheepskin': maesa- 'sheep'; (2) as a special development of this genitival function, they made feminines to masculine thematic substantives, cf., e.g., RV vrki- 'she- wolf': vrka- 'wolf; and finally (3) they were used to substantivize adjectives, cf., e.g., aruni- 'the red one' > 'red cow': aruna- 'red', which were then often re-adjectivized, cf., e.g., RV adj. aruni- 'red'. In line with this third function, it might be conjectured that *-aHm'H-(v) was created as a substantivization to *-aHna-, and then switched to dev'i-inflection under the influence of the vrddhi formations. This however would require assuming an extra and unnecessary step, and is inferior to the scenario presented above. For another suffix type which has taken on a devi-feminine under the influence of semantically similar vrddhi formations, cf. the material adjectives in Vedic of the type -aya-, etc. A further case is perhaps the Old Avestan devi-W^mvaz- .spitami (Y53.3)--if the epithet spitdma- is in fact a "singulative" to a plural family name as Schmitt (2003: 36} attractively suggests.

(43.) Here and below the forms used by Leumann have been modernized. Although the development of the "athematic" type could technically be just an Indic development, it is

(44.) The only real alternative to Leumann's approach would be something like the analysis of Brugmann (1906: 218), who suggests that the "athematic" type has its origins in ttevf-feminines made directly to i- and u-stem locatives. But given that Indic and Iranian do not otherwise have a living de-locatival derivational type, Leumann's analysis should be preferred.

(45.) Note further that the semantically similar pati- and jani- have been assimilated to the kinship terms in Vedic, as has perhaps nar-, gen. sg.[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] in Avestan.

(46.) Although the "athematic" agnayi-type is only attested in Vedic, it is best assigned to Proto-Indo-Iranian. This follows from the fact that if *-aHniH- (d) was more or less dislodged as a specifically "lateral"-marking suffix from *-aHna-/-aHnaH- already in Proto-Indo-Iranian, it is highly unlikely that speakers would have had recourse several centuries later to a reanalysis of *HnariH- (d) in order to create the athematic counterpart of the "thematic" type and would not have simply reanalyzed *-aHniH- (d) as *-a-HniH-(d) and then extended the suffix conglomerate *-HniH- (d) to athematic stems--viz. *(H)lndra-: *(H)indra-HniH-:: *Hagni-: x, x [right arrow] *Hagni-HniH--in the way that was to some extent later done with -ani- (d) in Sanskrit and patronymic/pro-patronymic -ana- in Vedic and Avestan.

(47.) Note finally that if *-aHna-/-aHnaH-was originally oxytone as suggested in note 37 above, the accentuation of the two types would further reflect their different origins: the oxytone accent of the "thematic" indrani-type would mirror the normal accentuation of vrddhi-derivatives, and the paroxytonesis of the "athematic" agnayi-type would depend on the accent position that was generalized in * HnariH- (d).

JEREMY RAU

HARAVRD UNIVERSITY
COPYRIGHT 2007 American Oriental Society
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2007 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Rau, Jeremy
Publication:The Journal of the American Oriental Society
Date:Jan 1, 2007
Words:6061
Previous Article:The Lecherous Holy Man and the Maiden in the Box.
Next Article:A note on ki-ma LI-i-im (Gilgamesh P 218, 224).

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2022 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |