Article published in:
Proto-Indo-European Syntax and its Development
Edited by Leonid Kulikov and Nikolaos Lavidas
[Benjamins Current Topics 75] 2015
► pp. 51–78

Proto-Indo-European verb-finality

Reconstruction, typology, validation

| University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Although the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European as verb-final is widely accepted, there continue to be dissenting opinions (e.g. Friedrich 1975). See e.g. Pires & Thomason (2008), who question the fruitfulness of Indo-European syntactic reconstruction. In this article I address two issues: First, the reconstructable subordination strategies, including relative-correlative structures, are perfectly in conformity with verb-final typology — pace Lehmann (1974) and Friedrich (1975) who considered relative clauses with finite verbs and relative pronouns incompatible with SOV. Second, verb-final reconstruction makes it possible to account for prosodic and segmental changes that single out finite verbs, such as the non-accentuation of Vedic finite verbs and i-apocope preferentially targeting finite verbs in Italic, Celtic, and Baltic-Slavic. Both developments find a natural, prosodically motivated explanation if we accept PIE as SOV, but not if we do not accept that reconstruction. These facts show that, pace Pires & Thomason (2008), the reconstruction of PIE as verb-final is a fruitful hypothesis.
Published online: 16 July 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.75.04hoc
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Elvira, Javier
2020.  In Changes in Meaning and Function [IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature, 25], ► pp. 2 ff. Crossref logo
Hock, Hans Henrich
2019. Latin influence on German word order?. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 33 ► pp. 183 ff. Crossref logo
Sapp, Christopher
2016. Word order patterns in the Old High German right periphery and their Indo-European origins. Diachronica 33:3 ► pp. 367 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 01 march 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

References
Andrews, Avery D.
III 1975 [1985] Studies in the Syntax of Relative and Comparative Clauses. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology PhD dissertation. (Reprinted in “lightly retouched version”, 1985, New York/London: Garland.)Google Scholar
Bauer, Anna
2011 Verberststellung im Hethitischen. Indogermanistik und Linguistik im Dialog: Akten der XIII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft Salzburg ed. by Thomas Krisch, Thomas Lindner, Michael Crombach & Stefan Niederreiter, 39–48. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto
1929 Zur Stellung des Verbs im Germanischen und Indogermanischen. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 56.276–281.Google Scholar
Bergin, Osborn J.
1938 On the Syntax of the Verb in Old Irish. Ériu 12.197–214.Google Scholar
Berneker, Erich Karl
1900 Die Wortfolge in den slavischen Sprachen. Berlin: Behr.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh
2003 Locality in Correlatives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21.485–541. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Caldwell, Robert
1913 A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South-Indian Family of Languages. 3rd edition, revised and edited by J.L. Wyatt & T. Ramakrishna Pillai. Reprinted 1974, New Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Corporation.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle & Alice C. Harris
2002 Syntactic Reconstruction and Demythologizing “Myths and the Prehistory of Grammars”. Journal of Linguistics 38.599–618. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cervin, Richard Stuart
1990 Word Order in Ancient Greek: VSO, SVO, SOV, or All of the Above? Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Chantraine, Pierre
1963 Grammaire homérique. 2: Syntaxe. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
ed. 1987 The World’s Major Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
① ②
1981 Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Davison, Alice
2009 Adjunction, Features, and Locality in Sanskrit and Hindi-Urdu Correlatives. In Anikó Lipták, ed., Correlatives Crosslinguistically, 223–262. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, Tonya Kim
2006 The Origins and Development of Germanic V2: Evidence from Alliterative Verse. Berkeley: University of California PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Downing, Bruce T.
1973 Correlative Relative Clauses in Universal Grammar. Minnesota Working Papers in Linguistics and Philosophy of Language 2.1–17.Google Scholar
1978 Some Universals of Relative Clause Structure. Universals of Human Language. Vol. 4: Syntax ed. by Joseph H. Greenberg, 375–418. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U.
1969 Eine textsyntaktische Regel der indogermanischen Wortstellung. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 83.1–25.Google Scholar
Emeneau, Murray B.
1980 Language and Linguistic Area: Essays selected by A. S. Dil. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur
1995 Verbal Syntax in the Early Germanic Languages. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
1998 Zur historisch-vergleichenden Syntax des Verbums in Germanischen. Sprache und Kultur der Indogermanen; Akten der X. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, 22–28. September 1996 ed. by Wolfgang Meid, 395–410. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar
Ferraresi, Gisella & Maria Goldbach
eds. 2008 Principles of Syntactic Reconstruction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
① ②
Fortson, Benjamin W.
IV 2008 Language and Rhythm in Plautus: Synchronic and Diachronic Studies. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
IV 2010 Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Friedrich, Paul
1975 Proto-Indo-European Syntax. Butte, MT: Journal of Indo-European Studies.Google Scholar
Garrett, Andrew
1994 Relative Clause Syntax in Lycian and Hittite. Die Sprache 36.29–69.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H.
1966 Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements. Universals of Language: Report of a Conference Held at Dobbs Ferry, New York, April 13–15, 1961 ed. by Joseph H. Greenberg, 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth
1975 Gaps in Grammar and Culture. Linguistics and Anthropology: In Honor of C. F. Voegelin ed. by Marvin Dale Kinkade, Kenneth Locke Hale & Oswald Werner, 295–315. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Harms, Robert T.
1964 Review of The Structure and Development of the Finnish Language by Lauri Hakulinen (Bloomington, IN: Curzon, 1960). Word 20.105–114.Google Scholar
1990 Synchronic Rules and Diachronic “Laws”: The Saussurean Dichotomy Reaffirmed. Research Guide on Language Change ed. by Edgar C. Polomé, 313–323. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice
2008 Reconstruction in Syntax: Reconstruction of Patterns. In Gisella Ferraresi & Maria Goldbach, eds., Principles of Syntactic Reconstruction, 73–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell
1995 Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haudry, Jean
1973 Parataxe, hypotaxe et corrélation dans la phrase latine. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 68.147–186.Google Scholar
Hettrich, Heinrich
1988 Untersuchungen zur Hypotaxe im Vedischen. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich
1976 Review of An Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics by Raimo Anttila (New York: Macmillan, 1972). Language 52.202–220. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1982a AUX-cliticization as a Motivation for Word Order Change. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 12:1.91–101.Google Scholar
1982b Clitic Verbs in PIE or Discourse-based Verb Fronting? Sanskrit sá hovāca gā́rgyaḥ and Congeners in Avestan and Homeric Greek. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 12:2.1–38.Google Scholar
1986/1991 Principles of Historical Linguistics. 1st and 2nd ed. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
1989 Conjoined We Stand: Theoretical Implications of Sanskrit Relative Clauses. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 19:1.93–126.Google Scholar
1991 On the Origin and Development of Relative Clauses in Early Germanic, with Special Emphasis on Beowulf. Stæfcræft: Studies in Germanic linguistics ed. by Elmer A. Antonsen & Hans Henrich Hock, 55–89. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1992 Reconstruction and Syntactic Typology: A Plea for a Different Approach. Explanation in Historical Linguistics ed. by Garry W. Davis & Gregory K. Iverson, 105–121. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999 Finality, Prosody, and Change. Proceedings of LP ’98 ed. by Osamu Fujimura, Brian D. Joseph & Bohumil Palek, 15–30. Prague: Karolinum Press.Google Scholar
2000 Genre, Discourse, and Syntax in Sanskrit. Textual Parameters in Older Languages ed. by Susan C. Herring, Pieter van Reenen & Lene Schøsler, 163–195. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 The Insular Celtic Absolute: Conjunct Distinction Once Again: A Prosodic Proposal. Proceedings of the Sixteenth UCLA Indo-European Conference. Los Angeles, Nov. 5–6, 2005 ed. by Karlene Jones-Bley, Martin E. Huld, Angela Della Volpe & Miriam Robbins Dexter, 153–172. (= The Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph, 50.) Washington: Institute for the Study of Man.Google Scholar
2007 Morphology and i-apocope in Slavic and Baltic. Proceedings of the Eighteenth UCLA Indo-European Conference. Los Angeles, Nov. 3–4, 2006 ed. by Karlene Jones-Bley, Martin E. Huld, Angela Della Volpe & Miriam Robbins Dexter, 65–76. (= The Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph, 53.) Washington: Institute for the Study of Man.Google Scholar
2008 Dravidian Syntactic Typology: A Reply to Steever. Annual Review of South Asian Languages and Linguistics ed. by Rajendra Singh, 164–198. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2010a Review of Ferraresi & Goldbach, eds. (2008). Kratylos 55.1–12.Google Scholar
2010b Phrasal Prosody and the Indo-European Verb. Paper at the Arbeitstagung “The Indo-European Verb” of the Indogermanische Gesellschaft, UCLA, September 2010.
2014 Vedic Verb Accent Revisited. Vedic and Sanskrit Historical Linguistics. Papers from the 13th World Sanskrit Conference ed. by Jared Klein & Elizabeth Tucker, 153–178.Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Hoffner, Harry A.
1997 The Laws of the Hittites: A Critical Edition. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
van den Hout, Theo
2003 Studies in the Hittite Phraseological Construction I: Its Syntactic and Semantic Properties. Hittite Studies in Honor of Harry A. Hoffner, Jr. on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday ed. by Gary M. Beckman, Richard Henry Beal & Gregory McMahon, 177–204. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard
1994 The Antisymmetry of Syntax. (= Linguistic Inquiry Monographs, 25.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward
1985 Relative Clauses. Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Volume II: Complex Constructions ed. by Timothy Shopen, 141–170, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Keydana, Götz
In Press. Indo-European Syntax. Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An International Handbook of Language Comparison and the Reconstruction of Indo-European ed. by Matthias A. Fritz & Jared S. Klein Berlin de Gruyter
Klein, Jared S.
1992 On Verbal Accentuation in the Rigveda. (= American Oriental Society Essay, 11.) New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin
1987 Turkish and the Turkic Languages. In Bernard Comrie, ed., The World’s Major Languages, 619–644.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Hans
1933 Zur Wortstellung und -betonung im Altgermanischen. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 57.1–109. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert
1996 Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P.
1974 Proto-Indo-European Syntax. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
1978 Conclusion: Toward an Understanding of the Profound Unity Underlying Languages. Syntactic Typology: Studies in the Phenomenology of Language ed. by Winfred P. Lehmann, 395–422. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Leumann, Manu, Johann B. Hofmann & Anton Szantyr
1977a Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre. München: Beck.Google Scholar
1977b Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik. München: BeckGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, David W.
2002a Myths and the Prehistory of Grammars. Journal of Linguistics 38.113–136. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002b More Myths. Journal of Linguistics 38.619–626. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lipták, Anikó
2009 The Landscape of Correlatives: An Empirical and Analytical Survey. In Anikó Lipták, ed., Correlatives Crosslinguistically, 1–46. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
ed. 2009 Correlatives Crosslinguistically. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
① ②
Mallory, James P. & D.Q. Adams
1997 Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. London: Fitzroy-Dearborn.Google Scholar
Meenakshi, K.
1983 Epic Syntax. New Delhi: Meherchand Lachhmandas.Google Scholar
Meiser, Gerhard
1998 Historische Laut- und Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Oberlies, Thomas
2003 A Grammar of Epic Sanskrit. (= Indian Philology and South Asian Studies, 5.) Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan
1991 Phrase Structures in Competition: Variation and Change in Old English Word Order. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Pires, Acrisio & Sarah G. Thomason
2008 How Much Syntactic Reconstruction is Possible? In Gisella Ferraresi & Maria Goldbach, eds., Principles of Syntactic Reconstruction, 27–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Probert, Philomen
2006 Clause Boundaries in Old Hittite Relative Sentences. Transactions of the Philological Society 104:1.17–83. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schleicher, August
1856 Handbuch der litauischen Sprache, 1: Grammatik. Prag: Calve.Google Scholar
Schwyzer, Eduard
1949 Griechische Grammatik 2: Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik, completed and edited by Albert Debrunner. München: Beck.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi
1987 Japanese. In Bernard Comrie, ed., The World’s Major Languages, 855–880.Google Scholar
Sihler, Andrew L.
1995 New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Speijer, Jakob S.
1886 Sanskrit Syntax. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Steever, Sanford B.
1987 The Serial Verb Formation in the Dravidian Languages. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Yasuko
2008 Finite Verb Stress and Clitic Verbs in Old English Beowulf. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Taylor, Ann
1990 Clitics and Configurationality in Ancient Greek. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
1994 The Change from SOV to SVO in Ancient Greek. Language Variation and Change 6.1–37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G.
2006 Syntactic Reconstruction. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd ed., Vol. 10 ed. by Keith Brown, 397–401. Oxford: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G. & Terrence Kaufman
1988 Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Wackernagel, Jacob
1892 Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung. Indogermanische Forschungen 1.333–345. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Watkins, Calvert
1962 Indo-European Origins of the Celtic Verb. Dublin: Institute for Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
1963 Preliminaries to a Historical and Comparative Analysis of the Old Irish Verb. Celtica 6.1–49.Google Scholar
1964 Preliminaries to the Reconstruction of Indo-European Sentence Structure. Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Linguists ed. by Horace G. Lunt, 1035–1045. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
1976 Towards Proto-Indo-European Syntax: Problems and Pseudo-Problems. Papers from the Parasession on Diachronic Syntax ed. by Sanford Steever, Carol A. Walker & Salikoko S. Mufwene, 305–326. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Weiss, Michael
2009 Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press.Google Scholar
Wichmann, Søren
2008 The Study of Semantic Alignment: Retrospect and the State of the Art. The Typology of Semantic Alignment ed. by Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann, 3–23. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yoshida, Yutaka
2009 Sogdian. The Iranian Languages ed. by Gernot Windfuhr, 279–335. London: Routledge.Google Scholar