Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-8p85h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-16T15:33:37.097Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Word-initial semivowel alternation in the Rigveda

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

Andrew Sihler
Andrew Sihler*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The metrical distribution of Rigvedic doublets like dyáus and diyáus is one of the foundations of Edgerton's theory of Proto-Indo-European semivowel alternation. The metrical distribution of the forms covered by Edgerton's theory is here compared with the distribution of words having different phonological structure but identical metrical shape, and it is seen that there is no difference between their distributions in statable metrical environments. In addition, a number of constraints on the incidence of Rigvedic semivowel alternation are pointed out, such as its strict limitation to the vocoid semivowels y and v, and it is argued that these constraints are difficult to account for in terms of the Sievers–Edgerton hypothesis. Rigvedic evidence provided the principal testimony for Edgerton's formulation of his hypothesis of semivowel alternation, but it is shown here, on the basis of the same text, that in its usually accepted form the Sievers–Edgerton hypothesis is neither necessary nor sufficient to account for the observed behavior of post-consonantal semivowels in word-initial position.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , March 1971 , pp. 53 - 78
Copyright
Copyright © 1971 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anttila, Raimo. 1969. Proto-Indo-European Schwebeablaut. (University of California publications, Linguistics, 58.) Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Arnold, E. Vernon. 1905. Vedic metre in its historical development. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Atkins, Samuel D. 1968. The RV dyáus- paradigm and the Sievers–Edgerton law. JAOS 88. 679–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Maurice. 1906. A Vedic concordance. (Harvard Oriental series, 10.) Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Maurice. 1909. On some disguised forms of Sanskrit paśu ‘cattle’. Indogermanische Forschungen 25. 185–99.Google Scholar
Brugmann, Karl. 1886. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. 1st ed., vol. 1. Strassburg: Trübner.Google Scholar
Brugmann, Karl. 1897. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. 2nd ed., vol. 1. Strassburg: Trübner.Google Scholar
Burrow, Thomas. 1959a. On the phonological history of Sanskrit kṣám- ‘earth’, ŕkṣa-‘bear’, and likṣa- ‘nit’. JAOS 79. 85–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrow, Thomas. 1959b. Sanskrit kṣi-: Greek phthínō. JAOS 79. 255–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Debrunner, Albert. 1935. Dyāvāpṛthivī or diyāvāpṛthvī? Lg. 11. 117–9.Google Scholar
Edgerton, Franklin. 1934. Sievers's Law and IE weak-grade vocalism. Lg. 10. 235–65.Google Scholar
Edgerton, Franklin. 1943. The Indo-European semivowels. Lg. 19. 83–124.Google Scholar
Edgerton, Franklin. 1958. Indo-European ‘s movable’. Lg. 34. 445–53.Google Scholar
Edgerton, Franklin. 1962. The semivowel phonemes of Indo-European, a reconsideration. Lg. 38. 352–9.Google Scholar
Emeneau, M. B. 1966. The dialects of old Indo-Aryan. Ancient Indo-European dialects, ed. by Birnbaum, H. and Puhvel, J., 123–38. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Grassmann, Hermann. 1873. Wörterbuch zum Rig-Veda. Leipzig: Brockhaus.Google Scholar
Hoenigswald, Henry. 1965. Phonetic reconstruction. Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Münster, 1964, ed. by Zwirner, E., 25–42. Basel: Karger.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Karl. 1955. Vedisch ‘gámati’. Münchner Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 7. 89–92.Google Scholar
Kuiper, B. F. J. 1967. The Sanskrit nom. sing. víṭ. Indo-Iranian Journal 10. 103–25.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1935. Études indoeuropéennes. (Polska Umiejętności, prace Komisji Językowej, 21.) Kraków.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1949. La nature des procès dit ‘analogiques’. Acta Linguistica 5. 15–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, W. P. 1968. On the reading of some ya-suffixes in the Rigveda. Pratidānam (Indian, Iranian and Indo-European studies presented to Franciscus Bernardus Jacobus Kuiper on his sixtieth birthday), 39–45. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Lindeman, Fredrik Otto. 1965. La loi de Sievers et le début du mot en indo-européen. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap 20. 38–108.Google Scholar
Nagy, Gregory. 1970. Greek dialects and the transformation of an Indo-European process. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oldenberg, Hermann. 1909, 1912. Ṛgveda. Textkritische und exegetische noten. 2 vols. (= Abhandlungen der kaiserlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, phil.-hist. Klasse, neue Folge, 11 and 13.).Google Scholar
Schindler, Jochem. 1967. Das idg. Wort für ‘Erde’ und die dentalen Spiranten. Die Sprache 13. 191–205.Google Scholar
Sihler, Andrew. 1967. Proto-Indo-European post-consonantal resonants in word-initial sequences. (Yale doctoral dissertation.) Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.Google Scholar
Sihler, Andrew. 1969. Sievers–Edgerton phenomena and Rigvedic meter. Lg. 45. 248–73.Google Scholar
Wackernagel, Jacob. 1896. Altindische Grammatik. vol. 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.Google Scholar