20世紀初頭に収集されたアタヤル語群（アタヤル語とセデック語）の語彙集を基に，アタヤルにおける「家」と「屋内」の形式を再建し，その結果，それらが同源語でないことがわかった。アタヤル語の「家」は四つの形式（ŋasal, saliʔ, muyaw, imuu）が見られるが，ŋasalが本来の形式で，saliʔはこれから派生された。imuuはツォウ語からの借用形であり，muyawは本来「屋内」を表す語である。セデックの「家」は*sapahで，「屋内」は*ruanである。セデック語の「内側にある」はtə-rumaというが，語根rumaはオーストロネシア*Rumaq「家」の反映形だろう。幾つかの台湾オーストロネシア諸語では*Rumaqの反映形に接辞を附加することにより「屋内・内側」を派生するからである。

抄録全体を表示

One of the most dramatic developments in recent Indo-European studies is the increase of data written in minor Anatolian languages: Palaic, Cuneiform Luvian, Hieroglyphic Luvian, Lycian, Lydian, etc. These languages had little more than names a few decades ago compared with rich documents in Hittite. The increase in the database has, however, led us to a position where all the Indo-European languages of ancient Anatolia will contribute to the reconstruction of Proto-Anatolian.
In this paper an attempt has been made to show that the Proto-Indo-European contrast between *d and *dh was still preserved at the stage of Proto-Anatolian. This assumption is based on different reflexes of *d and *dh before *i in daughter languages. The Hittite ablative ending -za corresponds to Coneiform Luvian -ati, Hieroglyphic Luvian -ati, -ari and Lycian -adi, -edi. Similarly, the Hittite reflexive particle -za corresponds to Palaic -ti, Cuneiform Luvian -ti and Hieroglyphic Luvian -ti, -ri. The spelling of intervocalic -t- in Cuneiform Luvian and rhotacized r in Hieroglyphic Luvian, among others, suggest that these minor Anatolian forms include Proto-Anatolian *d. On the other hand, Hittite 2 sg. imperative ending -t, represented by it “You go!” which perfectly corresponds to Sanskrit ihi and Greek 'ιθι (<*h₁i-dhi), and a particle -ti attached to Old Hittite preterite middle endings (<*-dhi; cf. Sanskrit -mahi and Gathic Avestan -maidi <*-ma-dhi) do not show assibilation. These two kinds of correspondences can be best explained by assuming that Proto-Anatolian had notmerged Proto-Indo-European *dh with *d.
It should be noticed that the view presented here is not conclusive yet and needs further investigation in many respects.

抄録全体を表示

本稿はオーストロネシア語族アタヤル語群（アタヤル語・セデック語）において，「耕地の区画」を指す文化的語彙を，*Ratudと再建する。この語は現代においてatu（アタヤル語），ratuc（セデック語パラン方言），gasut（セデック語トゥルク方言）などの形式で現れる。この語は，それぞれの言語において，ならびにそれぞれの方言において，特有の音変化を経たために，同源関係が見えにくくなっている。本稿では，これらの形式に起こった音変化を遡り再建形を導く。

抄録全体を表示

There is no positive evidence that Hittite scribes employed the signs including voiced and voiceless stops in a contrastive manner to distinguish between voiced and voiceless values. On the other hand, they probably made consistent use of orthographic single and double stops in intervocalic position to indicate lax and tense qualities or short and long qualities, respectively. From a historical viewpoint single stops continue Proto-Anatolian voiced stops and double stops Proto-Anatolian voiceless stops. The contrast between single and double spellings is generally observed in the case of laryngeals, fricatives and sonorants as well. An immediate question to be raised at this point is whether the same contrast is found between intervocalic single -z- and double -zz-. I will discuss this problem by analyzing the distribution of 3sg. present active endings of mi-conjugation, -Vzzi and -Vzi.
As for a-stem and u-stem verbs, the sequence -Vzi is attested side by side with the sequence -Vzzi; e. g., ar-nu-uz-zi “brings” vs. ar-nu-zi. The sequence -Vzi is most naturally explained by the so-called “simplified spellings”. Because the signs az and uz are relatively complicated, Hittite scribes must have spelled the ending without az or uz sign. In general the simplified spellings -azi and -uzi are rare in Old Hittite, but outnumber the unomitted spellings in later Hittite. In any event the alternation between z and zz in the sequences of -a(z)zi and -u(z)zi is of no linguistic contrast.
In the case of the -IZ-zi sequence, however, scribes had no motivation for omitting IZ because IZ is a very simple three-stroke sign. Nevertheless, there are a small number of examples in -izi or -ezi with z in Old Hittite texts represented by ú-e-mi-zi “finds” KBo VI 2 IV 12 and i-e-zi “does” KBo VI 2 I 60 (both in Old Hittite originals of Law texts). It is noteworthy that these examples all go back to Proto-Anatolian forms characterized by an ending with voiced *d; e. g., ú-e-mi-zi<*au-ém-ye-di and i-e-zi<*yéh₁-di. An obvious inference to be drawn from this fact is that both *-ti and *-di underwent assibilation at a pre-Hittite stage; the ending *-Izzi with zz reflects *-ti and -i/ezi with z reflects *-di, just as geminated stops reflect voiceless stops and single stops reflect voiced stops. I would like to argue that these verbs, though limited in number, preserve a notably archaic feature, resisting to generalization of -Izzi with zz.
The above result has a further consequence if we are right in assuming that Proto-Anatolian voiced stops as well as voiceless stops got assibilated before *i. Unlike *t and *d, Proto-Indo-European voiced aspirate *dh never got assibilated in Hittite. The non-assibilation of *dh before *i is supported by the 2sg. imperative i-IT(<*h₁í-dhi) “You go!”. Consequently, Proto-Indo-European *d and *dh show different outcomes before *i in Hittite. This will be a piece of evidence for a view that Proto-Indo-European *d and *dh had not been merged at the stage of Proto-Anatolian.

抄録全体を表示

It is well known that the Anatolian languages have virtually no attestation of simple thematic verbs in *-e/o-, but thematic verbs with a suffix are abundantly attested in Hittite and the other Anatolian languages. Five types of thematic verbs will be discussed in this paper, i.e. Hittite verbs in -ške/a-, Hittite verbs in -ie/a-, Hittite denominative verbs in -āi-/-ā-, Hittite causatives in -e/a-, and Cuneiform Luvian verbs in -i-/-(i)ia-.
　According to the communis opinio, Hittite active thematic verbs in -e/a- reflect the Proto-Indo-European alternation of the thematic vowels *-e- and *-o-, i.e. 1 sg. *-o-mi, 2 sg. *-e-si, 3 sg. *-e-ti, 1 pl. *-o-meni (vel sim.), 2 pl. *-e-teni (vel sim.), 3 pl. *-o-nti. But there does not seem to be any compelling evidence for reconstructing the thematic vowel *-o- in pre-Hittite or further back in Proto-Anatolian. The Hittite thematic vowel -a- in the active paradigm of the above five types of verbs does not go back to PIE *-o-. It is historically derived from *-e- by a phonological rule that changed Proto-Anatolian *e to a in Hittite in post-tonic open syllables before sonorants except in the 3 pl. present -anzi, the a timbre of which is explained by a different phonological rule that changed Proto-Anatolian *en to an before a dental as evidenced by Hittite anda 'in(to)' in contrast to Latin endo 'id.'. Likewise, the thematic vowel a in Cuneiform Luvian verbs in -i-/-(i)ia- is either a phonological outcome of original *e or of mediopassive origin.
　Complete lack of the thematic vowel *-o- in Hittite and Cuneiform Luvian is a linguistic feature that does not receive a straightforward historical explanation by what would be reconstructed from the traditional Indo-European point of view. Whether the persistent *-e- in the active thematic paradigm is a PIE inheritance or an Anatolian innovation is a problem which must be reserved for a separate future study.

抄録全体を表示

This article proposes a historical explanation for the development of Niphal verbal forms in Biblical Hebrew. Niphal forms are roughly classified into two patterns, niqtal (with suffixes) and yiqqɔtel (with prefixes or circumfixes). Some scholars also distinguish hiqqɔtel (imperative) from yiqqɔtel based on their supposed origins. The following three points are discussed in this article.
　 (1) By internal reconstruction, it appears that the niqtal pattern originated from **naqtal. As Origens Hexaplaic Greek transcription shows a *nɛqtɛl pattern, it is possible to assume the shift **naqtal＞*nɛqtɛl around third century C. E. After that, the change *nɛqtɛl＞niqtal occurred through vividation of the verbal stem.
　(2) Both yiqqɔtel and hiqqɔtel have the initial vowel i, which was added to avoid the initial consonantal cluster. The epenthetic vowel i in the initial position of the word is attested not only in Hebrew, but also in many other Semitic languages. The underlying forms may have been **yqqatil and **qqatil, to each of which the epenthetic vowel i was added for ease of pronunciation, a change which resulted in *yiqqatil (＞yiqqɔtel) and *iqqatil respectively. The initial h- was then added to the latter to contain the epenthetic vowel within a syllable, a change which resulted in the hiqqɔtel.
　(3) According to G. Buccellati’s analysis in Akkadian verbal forms, only the initial and final vowels of the verbal stem are morphologically meaningful and the other middle stem vowels (realized as a) were inserted to build the shape of the verb. It is possible to suppose that the a stem vowels in **naqtal and **y(i)qqatil in Proto-Hebrew are the vestiges of the same inserted meaning-neutral intervening vowels, though they acquired the new function of creating the passive form by alternation of the stem vowels at the Proto-Central Semitic stage.

抄録全体を表示

Based on the descriptive studies of some 3-patterned and 2-patterned accentual systems in Northern Ryukyuan (Amami-Okinawa region), this research report proposes a list of vocabulary classified according to groups of accentual or tonal patterns which are supposed to exist for nouns, verbs, and adjectives in Proto-Ryukyuan. The list contains the vocabulary belonging to A, B, and C categories for nouns, and A and B categories for verbs and adjectives. Labelling these categories as "Keiretsu (categories)" and the vocabulary list as "Keiretsu-betsu goi," the paper argues that the vocabulary list will be useful in future field research on synchronic as well as diachronic studies on accent and phonology of the Ryukyuan linguistic systems.

抄録全体を表示

Although the formation of mediopassive verbs in Hittite is mostly regular, some 3 sg. mediopassives display idiosyncratic features which are hard to understand from either synchronical or historical point of view.
 Synchronically irregular mediopassives such as lagāittari ‘lies, is laid (low)’, išḫuṷaittat ‘scattered’, sii̯ēttari ‘is pressed’ and laḫuttari ‘is poured’ should be regarded as medialized forms constructed with the productive mediopassive 3 sg. ending -ttanri (present) or -ttat (preterite) added to the corresponding active 3 sg. *lākai (← lāki), išḫuṷai, ši̯iē[t] and *lāḫui, respectively.
 On the other hand, parḫattari ‘chases, pursues’, duu̯arnattari ‘breaks’ and zinnattari ‘is finished’ seem to be historically irregular. Parḫattari is a secondary replacement for the phonologically expected **parrattari (< *bhérh₂o(-tori)) due to the morphological influence from the corresponding active stem par(a)ḫ-. Duu̯arnattari is originally a denominative (< *dhu̯erné-i̯o-r), with an unaccented suffix influenced by causatives in *-ei̯e/o-, while zinnattari goes back to a nasal-infix present *si-n-h₁-ór, which is later replaced by *si-n-h₁-ṓr with the vowel length copied from the correponding active *sinǣ́ti (< *si-né-h₁-ti). Both and dhu̯erné-i̯o-r and *si-n-h₁-ṓr underwent the loss of final -r and later came to take the innovative ending -ttari; hence the actually attested duu̯arnattari and zinnattari.
 As a result of philological and linguistic analysis of the relevant forms, it has become clear that the irregularities found in these mediopassives are not archaic, but have been secondarily created relatively late during the period between Proto-Anatolian and Neo-Hittite.

抄録全体を表示

The primitive form of what has now been widespread as the laryngeal theory was first proposed by Saussure in his brilliant study of 1879. Although the theory made many contributions to our understanding of problems in Indo-European historical phonology since then, it still plays a major part in solving long-standing puzzling issues. In fact, the most significant achievement in the field of the past two decades is probably the further development of the laryngeal theory. It is particularly important that recent findings within the framework of this theory have enabled us to see many seemingly isolated facts in a wider perspective of ablauting paradigms.

抄録全体を表示

The Ikema dialect of Miyako, Southern Ryukyuan, has a three-pattern accent system in which three tone classes (Types A, B, and C) are lexically contrastive, although the Type A simplex nouns are fewer. The biased distribution of tone classes is a consequence of the diachronic change, whereby Types A and B are merged together. This study aims to confirm that the three-pattern system in Ikema retains the proto-Ryukyuan system and to demonstrate that a set of words that are originally of Type A and share specific meanings are not merged into Type B.

抄録全体を表示

This paper is an attempt to deal with the origins and formation of the Japanese language, in the light of mostly linguistic aspects of the neighboring languages, such as Old Korean, Old Chinese, Proto-Austronesian, and some archeological aspects. This notion is also based on a linguistic theory that the Japanese is formed through time with language contacts with the neighboring languages mentioned above. This also discusses the particular aspects of language contact of each language and language family in order to suggest that Japanese has been formed by language contacts with those languages.

抄録全体を表示