In δίδωμι and τίθημι, it’s fairly easy to see that the present tense is a reduplicated form. I’m curious about ἵστημι and ἵημι. I guess the aspiration always goes away in reduplication, so it makes sense that θη- becomes τιθη-.
In ἵστημι, my guess would be that it was PIE steh-, which reduplicated as sisteh-, but then there is a sound law where PIE s followed by an obstruent stays as s in Greek, while word-initial s not followed by an obstruent becomes h (as in words like ἕπομαι, cognate with sequel). Does this seem right?
I’m more mystified by ἵημι. Beekes derives it from something like hieh- (he writes it as “(H)ieh1”) and calls it a reduplication. Would hieh- be the form that was already reduplicated, so that the non-reduplicated PIE stem would be just eh- or something, as in ἧκα? Does eh- just become he- for some reason?
That’s right about ἵστημι: σίστημι > ἵστημι. Word-initial *s > h is regular in Greek, which is also why Greek ὁ = Sanskrit sá. (Exceptions such as σϋς are likely from inter-dialect borrowing.)
The development of ἵημι starts with reduplication of *(H)ieh1- to something like *(H)ii(H)ieh1-; we can also write *(H)yeh1- and *(H)yi(H)yeh1- since PIE *i before a vowel would be a semivowel. Word-initial (laryngeal plus) yod develops in Greek into either spiritus asper or ζ. See also Greek ἧπαρ = Latin iecur. Hence, from *(H)yi(H)yeh1- we get present ἵημι (intervocalic *y > *h is dropped), and from *(H)ieh1- ἧκα. (The origin of the kappa ending in the aorist is unclear, per Sihler §507.3.)
P.S.: Does Beekes explain the laryngeals in a foreword? The way *(H)ieh1- is written isn’t an arbitrary elaboration of “hieh-”.
Thanks, Menoeceus, for taking the time to write up that explanation!
I’m going to intentionally oversimplify, but what I’m getting from your explanation is that for ἵημι, there was the usual reduplication of the form hi->hihi, but then there was an additional regular phonetic change that undid the reduplication by eliminating the second (i.e., right-hand) copy of hi.
He has a preface where he asserts that the laryngeal theory is correct and necessary, but I don’t see where he ever defines the notation. Personally, as an amateur who just wants to be able to recognize etymological connections, I find it to be a huge obstacle when I have to compare different sources of information that are using different versions of the laryngeals or different ways of notating them.
You’re welcome! I just went through my last post to improve the formatting a bit. In particular, I added an asterisk before PIE forms to make them clearer.
Before saying anything else about the reconstructed root of ἵημι, we really do need to talk about laryngeals. When you read the next paragraphs, please mentally add “according to the standard reconstruction found in most handbooks” before every time I say that PIE or the laryngeals “were” something, “became” something, etc.
The laryngeal consonants were first posited by Ferdinand de Saussure in an article that effectively reduced all PIE stems and ablaut to a few regular patterns. (Fun fact: Saussure was 21 when this article was published.) A quarter of a century later, the discovery of Hittite verified Saussure’s hypothesis, since Hittite retained the laryngeals as consonants (the ḫ sound). In all other Indo-European languages, the laryngeals are identified based on their effects on nearby vowels; they also became vowels in certain contexts. It’s very important to note that the laryngeals did not develop into the Greek rough breathing.
Most reconstructions of PIE posit 3 laryngeals, typically denoted *h₁, *h₂, and *h₃. (You’ll also see *h1 etc. for ease of typing and occasionally subscript e/a/o.) *H is used for an indeterminate laryngeal. In broad strokes, the laryngeals “color” the vowels they are around and lengthen vowels they follow. So for example (ignoring other factors that might affect the development of a word) *h1e gives Greek ε, *h2e short α, and *h3e ο; but *eh1 develops into η, *eh2 into long α (which then becomes η in Ionic and in many cases in Attic), and *eh3 into ω.
I don’t like the phrasing “undid the reduplication,” since it’s still there as the ἵ-, but think I agree with your simplified version. Let me restate the development of *(H)yi(H)yeh1mi going left-to-right. *-mi becomes -μι, *eh1- becomes η, both instances of (H)y become a /h/ sound, the /h/ to the right drops out, and the i becomes ι (written ἵ to capture the remaining /h/ and accent). So we get ἵημι, finally.
Well, hopefully my summary above was somewhat helpful. Unfortunately the laryngeals are as much a part of the reconstruction of PIE as any other feature such as ablaut, the stop system, or the liquids. When you see different versions of them, it’s probably because you’re comparing two somewhat different reconstructions. Notation is just a mess, though.
Thanks for a very clear explanation, Menoeceus. Although I’m by no means knowledgeable in PIE linguistics beyond the most superficial level, I think it’s worth pointing out that the term “laryngeal” used to designate these mysterious phonemes is simply a traditional convention and doesn’t imply anything about their phonetic realization, which is unknown and probably unknowable even if some may have attempted to address the question).
Although I can’t pretend to know anything about the subject, I know that some people more knowledgeable than me have found the whole laryngeal theory problematic, basically an ad hoc way to deal with any irregularity. When you’re short of explanations, posit a new laryngeal. Is it even possible to falsify the laryngeal theory?
One thing I find difficult myself is that, as far as I’m aware, the most common variants of the theory imply a Proto-Indoeuropean language with no /a/ sound at all - something rather unique from a language typological point of view.
Paul, with my very superficial knowledge, I’m not the right person to authoritatively address your comment on the laryngeal theory – or rather, theories, since as you note, there’s apparently considerable difference of opinion among experts. But my limited understanding is that in the main, the theory successfully brings a large number of apparent irregularities into systematic regularity, particularly in the area of verbal ablaut/apophony. And the existence of “laryngeal” phonemes in PIE, as Menoeceus noted, was more or less confirmed by the decipherment of Hittite. So I think it’s worth accepting, with some cautious reservation as to the whole enterprise of PIE reconstruction, the views of the majority of specialists in this area that these phonemes existed and played a role in the language.