StudyWeb

The Phonetic Law -CnT# > Cr(T)#

 So I have established the phonetic law "-CnT# > -Cr(T)#". "C" is the symbol for any consonant and "T" means the phonemes "d, t, dh" equally. So -n- and (later) -r- in this position are sonantic. "#" symbolizes the end of the word. In this position "T" shows a tendency to disappear which is symbolized by the brackets.

 The reason for this law is less effort in speech as can easily be tested. Sonantic -n- seems to have been less stable than sonantic -r- and often developed into a vowel in Indoeuropean languages. The phonemes a, r, l, n, d, t and dh are related because all of them are produced by the same mouth position i.e. the tongue in flat (not arched) position. The development from -n- to -r- means first of all loss of nasalization and therefore the attainment of a higher degree of phonetic relationship to the following "T" which is not nasalized. The process may be interpreted as partial assimilation.

 What are the consequences of this law? First of all the ending -r of the heteroclita may be analysed as -n + -d which developed to -r + -d and finally to -r. That means that there is no stem change at all: heteroclita are neuters of the n-declension with the same gender marker as pronouns. There is no difference between the inflections of nouns and pronouns! The heteroclita disappear in modern Indoeuropean languages but Hittite and other old Indoeuropean languages show that this class was formerly wide-spread. On the other hand neuters of the o-declension are an increasing class. I assume that this class is influenced by the animate gender where the marker -m generally occurs. The remaining class of endingless neuters might have been influenced by the heteroclita which seemed to be endingless as soon as the previously described phonetic law had taken effect. Another position where this phonetic law must have taken effect exists: The third person plural of the "secondary" verbal endings of the active voice. This ending is -nt and must have developed to -r(t) immediately after a consonant. I think that the third person plural of the perfect ending -r is of the same origin. The secondary ending -r does not occur at "thematic" stems and at "athematic" stems which show the ending -ent which seems to be the alternative to avoid the ending -r in certain verbal classes (unless due to accent). The ending -r occurs at verbal stems of the "third" Indoaryan verbal class which show present reduplication and no thematic vowel e.g. 3. plural imperfect abibharur < ébibhernt vs. 3. plural present bibhrati < bibhrnti vs. 3. singular imperfect abibhar < ébibhert vs. 3. singular present bibharti < bibherti, cf. the verbum of the "first" (thematic) class abharan < ébheront vs. bharanti < bheronti vs. abharat < ébheret vs. bharati < bhereti. It is clear that a strong tendency to reestablish the old ending -n(t) existed, due to the thematic verba in -on(t) and the primary ending -nti which took place in Greek and also in Gatha Avestan. A similiar tendency seems to have been responsible for the lack of the ending -r in neuter nouns of the nt-declension. But perhaps the Hittite verbal substantive in -uwar which corresponds with the infinitive in -uwanzi shows the law (-uwar < ..nt = nominative against -uwanzi < ..nt-i = locative ?).
 
 

Further arguments

• Sanskrit yakrt "liver" (genetive: yaknas) with an unexplained -t in nominative/accusative shows the effect of the law just before loss of the ending -t and is accordingly a living fossil
• Greek shows -t- before the ending in some neuters e.g. hydatos (genetive of hydor "water") < ud-n-t-os. I think that the original -t of nominative and accusative which was lost later, was transported to all the other cases
• Following this assumption one could explain dental affixes in neuter stems e.g. English "sal-t" vs. Latin "sal" without -t
• Gatha Avestan -r`s as variant of the ending of the third person plural perfect with an unexplained -`s which resembles the law that -rt- in accented syllables changes to -`s- could be a reflex of -rt < -nt like Sanskrit yakrt
• In Gatha Avestan the -r-ending is limited to the perfect (and the heteroclita) ; in Later Avestan the -r-ending also occurs in the optative for which no Gatha Avestan reference exists. I prefer the assumption that Gatha Avestan has lost the -r-endings and reestablished the -n(t)-ending and refuse the assumption that Sanksrit -r is influenced by an isolated perfect ending -r parallel (!) to Later Avestan.
• Isolated Avestan neuter plurals in -ar must have been developed from the singular -r after the -nd/-r-change. Sanskrit does not show this ending but -ni < -n + h2.

Written by Hans-Joachim Alscher