Visit https://ebooknice.

com to download the full version and

explore more ebooks

(Ebook) Sievers' Law and the History of Semivowel

Syllabicity in Indo-European and Ancient Greek by P.
J. Barber ISBN 9780199680504, 0199680507

_____ Click the link below to download _____

https://ebooknice.com/product/sievers-law-and-the-
history-of-semivowel-syllabicity-in-indo-european-and-
ancient-greek-4989580

Explore and download more ebooks at ebooknice.com

Here are some recommended products that might interest you.
You can download now and explore!

(Ebook) The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-

Indo-European World by J. P. Mallory, D. Q. Adams ISBN 9780199287918,
0199287910

https://ebooknice.com/product/the-oxford-introduction-to-proto-indo-
european-and-the-proto-indo-european-world-7120350

ebooknice.com

(Ebook) A Compendium of the Comparative Grammar of the Indo-European,

Sanskrit, Greek and Latin Languages. Volume 2 by August Schleicher
ISBN 9781108073714, 1108073719

https://ebooknice.com/product/a-compendium-of-the-comparative-grammar-
of-the-indo-european-sanskrit-greek-and-latin-languages-
volume-2-48075908
ebooknice.com

(Ebook) S-Stem Nouns and Adjectives in Greek and Proto-Indo-European:

A Diachronic Study in Word Formation by Torsten Meissner ISBN
9780199280087, 9781435623873, 0199280088, 1435623878

https://ebooknice.com/product/s-stem-nouns-and-adjectives-in-greek-
and-proto-indo-european-a-diachronic-study-in-word-formation-1386520

ebooknice.com

(Ebook) Indo-European and Indo-Europeans: Papers Presented at the

Third Indo-European Conference at the University of Pennsylvania by
George Cardona (editor); Henry M. Hoenigswald (editor); Alfred Senn
(editor) ISBN 9781512801200
https://ebooknice.com/product/indo-european-and-indo-europeans-papers-
presented-at-the-third-indo-european-conference-at-the-university-of-
pennsylvania-51966444
ebooknice.com
(Ebook) Ancient Indo-European Dialects by Henrik Birnbaum (editor);
Jaan Puhvel (editor) ISBN 9780520312418, 0520312414

https://ebooknice.com/product/ancient-indo-european-dialects-51818742

ebooknice.com

(Ebook) Ancient Greek Inside Out: The semantics of grammatical

constructions. Guide for exegetes and students in Classical and New
Testament Greek by Gert J C Jordaan ISBN 9783643903532, 3643903537

https://ebooknice.com/product/ancient-greek-inside-out-the-semantics-
of-grammatical-constructions-guide-for-exegetes-and-students-in-
classical-and-new-testament-greek-7216108
ebooknice.com

(Ebook) Ancient Greek Political Thought in Practice (Key Themes in

Ancient History) by Paul Cartledge ISBN 9780521454551, 0521454557

https://ebooknice.com/product/ancient-greek-political-thought-in-
practice-key-themes-in-ancient-history-23394520

ebooknice.com

(Ebook) Technology and Culture in Greek and Roman Antiquity (Key

Themes in Ancient History) by Serafina Cuomo ISBN 9780521810739,
0521810736

https://ebooknice.com/product/technology-and-culture-in-greek-and-
roman-antiquity-key-themes-in-ancient-history-56296672

ebooknice.com

(Ebook) Ancient Greek Women in Film by Konstantinos P. Nikoloutsos

ISBN 9780199678921, 0199678928

https://ebooknice.com/product/ancient-greek-women-in-film-5220044

ebooknice.com
OXFORD CLASSICAL MONOGRAPHS

Published under the supervision of a Committee of the

Faculty of Classics in the University of Oxford
The aim of the Oxford Classical Monograph series (which replaces the Oxford
Classical and Philosophical Monographs) is to publish books based on the best
theses on Greek and Latin literature, ancient history, and ancient philosophy
examined by the Faculty Board of Classics.
 Sievers’ Law
and the History
of Semivowel Syllabicity
in Indo-European
and Ancient Greek
P . J . BA R B E R

3
 3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© P. J. Barber 2013
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
First published in 2013
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2013943733
ISBN 978–0–19–968050–4
As printed and bound by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
For Kathy and Dominic
 Acknowledgements

This book is a revised and expanded version of my Oxford doctoral thesis, ‘Evi-
dence for Sievers’ Law in Ancient Greek’. The writing of the original thesis and its
subsequent revision would not have been possible without all the generous help
and encouragement which I have received during my time at the University of Ox-
ford from colleagues, students, and friends. In particular I would like to thank my
doctoral supervisor, Prof. Anna Morpurgo Davies, for her invaluable insights and
incisive criticism. Dr John Penney advised me during the process of revising this
work for publication and he read the final draft, providing a great many helpful
comments, suggestions, and corrections. I owe a great debt to my doctoral exam-
iners, Dr Philomen Probert and Prof. Don Ringe; their reactions to the thesis and
the questions which they raised profoundly influenced the final form of this work.
Dr Elizabeth Tucker also read the whole thesis and offered detailed and useful
advice and encouragement.
I would also like to offer my thanks and appreciation to Prof. Anthony Kroch,
Prof. Rolf Noyer, Prof. Alan Nussbaum, Dr Beatrice Santorini, Dr Ranjan Sen,
Dr Oliver Simkin, Prof. Andreas Willi, and Dr Nicholas Zair for useful discussions
of various aspects of this work.
I would like to thank Merle Read for copy-editing this book, the typesetter In-
tegra Software Services Private (Ltd.), the proofreader for OUP Juliet Gardner, my
editors Taryn Das Neves and Annie Rose, my production editors Victoria Hart,
Rosie Wells, and Kate Gilks, and all the production staff at OUP for their roles in
preparing this work for publication. I am deeply grateful to Tam Blaxter, Robin
Meyer, and Alessandro Vatri for their invaluable help with proofreading this work
and preparing the index. Any remaining errors are my responsibility.
The writing of the doctoral thesis upon which this book is based was made
possible by a studentship from the Arts and Humanities Research Council and the
Wolfson Linguistic Scholarship. I feel very fortunate to have been able to study
and teach comparative philology at the University of Oxford and to have enjoyed
the supportive academic environment of Wolfson College for so many years.
I would like to thank my parents and my family for all their love and support,
without which this book could never have been written. The greatest thanks of all
I owe to my wife, Kathy, who has shown patience, understanding, and love during
all the time I have been working on this book.
 Contents

List of Abbreviations xiii

1. Introduction 1

Part I. Evidence for Sievers’ Law and the Possibility of Inheritance

2. Sievers’ Law: Gothic and Vedic 9
2.1. Introduction 9
2.2. Evidence for Sievers’ Law in Gothic 9
2.2.1. Alternation in Verbal Forms 10
2.2.2. Explaining these Alternations 10
2.2.3. Sievers’ Law in Nominal Stems 12
2.2.4. Gothic Exceptions 15
2.2.5. Diachronic Problems 15
2.2.6. Synchronic Rules in Germanic 17
2.2.7. An Inherited Constraint? 23
2.3. The Vedic Parallel 25
2.3.1. Metrical Evidence 25
2.3.2. Vedic Exceptions 27
2.3.3. A Converse of Sievers’ Law in Vedic? 28
2.3.4. The Weight of Laryngeals and Obstruents 30
2.3.5. Conclusions from the Vedic Evidence 40
2.4. Further Comparative Complications 41
2.4.1. Sequences of Syllables 42
2.4.2. Effect of the Stem-final Consonant 42
2.4.3. Alternation in Other Resonants? 43
2.5. The Prospect of Comparison 45
2.6. Indo-European Constraints? 46
2.7. Evidence for Word-initial Alternations 47
2.7.1. Edgerton’s Extensions of Sievers’ Law 47
2.7.2. Lindeman’s Law 48
2.7.3. Some Exceptions to Lindeman’s Law 48
2.7.4. Do We Need a Schindler’s Law? 49
2.7.5. Lindeman’s Law and Laryngeals 52
2.7.6. A Note on *CHTR- Clusters 54
2.8. Problems with Lindeman’s “ Law 55
2.8.1. Theoretical Issues 55
2.8.2. The Observations of Sihler, Horowitz, and Atkins 56
2.9. Exploring the Monosyllabicity Criterion 57
2.9.1. Distributional Peculiarities 57
2.9.2. A More General Phenomenon? 60
2.9.3. Formulaic Patterns 61
2.9.4. Conclusions on the Monosyllabicity Criterion 63
2.10. Conclusions 65
viii Contents

3. Chronology and Inheritance 67

3.1. Introduction 67
3.1.1. The Possibility of Inheritance 67
3.1.2. Evidence for Sievers’ Law in Greek? 69
3.1.3. Destructive Influences 70
3.1.4. Organization of this Chapter 71
3.2. The Rise and Fall of *i and *y 72
3.3. Secondary *i and Laryngeal Loss 73
3.3.1. The Loss of Intervocalic Laryngeals 73
3.3.2. Roots with *CiH- 74
3.3.3. Nominal *-iHe/o- 75
3.3.4. Optative Formations 76
3.3.5. Conclusions 79
3.4. Evidence for Inherited *y 80
3.4.1. Palatalization and the Loss of *y 80
3.5. The Behaviour of Secondary *y 83
3.5.1. Secondary *y from Word-final *-iH2
and *-iH1 84
3.5.2. Secondary *y from Word-internal *-iH-? 90
3.5.3. Devocalization at Morpheme Boundaries:
A Converse of Sievers’ Law in Greek? 91
3.5.4. Dialectal Developments 98
3.5.5. Assibilation 100
3.5.6. Conclusions on Secondary *y in Greek 103
3.6. Points of Chronology 103
3.6.1. Sievers’ Law and the Synchronic Grammar 104
3.6.2. Sievers’ Law and the Palatalization
of Stops 105
3.6.3. The Palatalization of Resonants 107
3.6.4. Sievers’ Law and Secondary *y 108
3.6.5. Conclusions 109
3.7. Phonological Problems 110
3.7.1. The Loss of *-sy- after Vowels 110
3.7.2. The Loss of *-sy- after Diphthongs 116
3.7.3. The Development of *-wy- and *-wiy- 118
3.7.4. The Development of *-Hy- Sequences 122
3.8. Further Chronological Factors: Changes in the
Environment 123
3.8.1. Laryngeal Developments 124
3.8.2. The Development of Syllabic Liquids 126
3.9. Syllable Structure and Word-initial
Alternation 129
3.9.1. Examples with Invariant *CyV- 130
3.9.2. Evidence for *CCyV- 132
3.9.3. Evidence for Syllabicity Alternation 133
3.9.4. Examples with *C(C)iyV- 134
3.9.5. Conclusions 140
3.10. Chronological Conclusions 141
 Contents ix

Part II. Greek Nominal Categories

4. Sievers’ Law in Greek: The Comparative 145
4.1. Introduction 145
4.2. Primary Formations 146
4.3. s-stems and n-stems 146
4.3.1. The Origin of s-stem Inflection 147
4.3.2. The Origin of n-stem Inflection 148
4.4. The Length of *ı̄ in *-ı̄yos- and -ῑον- 150
4.4.1. The Distribution of ῑ in Greek 151
4.4.2. The Origin of ῑ 152
4.5. A Question of Methodology 154
4.6. The Impact of Ablaut 156
4.6.1. Early Ablaut Patterns 156
4.6.2. Syllabicity Alternation through Ablaut? 158
4.7. A Categorization of the Comparatives 159
4.8. Comparatives Next to u-stem Adjectives 159
4.8.1. Some Light Zero-grade Sequences 159
4.8.2. Heavy Zero-grade Sequences? 162
4.8.3. Comparatives with Full-grade Roots 167
4.8.4. Later Remodelling 167
4.9. Comparatives beside -ρο- Adjectives 168
4.9.1. κῡδίων 168
4.9.2. μᾶσσον 169
4.9.3. αἰσχίων 170
4.9.4. ἐχθίων 170
4.10. Comparatives beside s-stem Nouns 171
4.11. Comparatives beside Adverbs in -α 172
4.12. Comparatives beside Thematic Adjectives 174
4.12.1. καλλίων 175
4.12.2. κακίων 175
4.12.3. φιλίων 175
4.12.4. ὀλίζων 176
4.13. Unclear and Secondary Examples 176
4.13.1. μείων 176
4.13.2. πλέων 177
4.13.3. Miscellaneous Examples 179
4.14. A Sievers’ Law Pattern? 181
4.14.1. Evidence and Potential Evidence 181
4.14.2. Evidence with Less Potential 184
4.15. Conclusions 185
5. Evidence from *-ye/o Nominals 187
5.1. Introduction 187
5.1.1. The *-ye/o- and *-iye/o- Nominal Suffixes 187
5.1.2. Nominal Suffixes and Sievers’ Law 188
5.2. Problematical Forms 189
5.2.1. Misleading Surface Phonology 189
5.2.2. Forms with Other Suffixes 190
x Contents

5.2.3. Forms without Etymology 191

5.2.4. Etymological Uncertainties 192
5.2.5. Quantity Unknown 195
5.2.6. Stems Ending in Syllabic Resonants 196
5.2.7. Forms Originating in *-ya Feminines 197
5.2.8. Historically Secondary Formations 200
5.2.9. The Evidence for *ye/o- after *-w-, *-s-, and *-H- 201
5.2.10. Conclusions 202
5.3. More Convincing Evidence 203
5.3.1. Internal Evidence from Greek Alone 203
5.3.2. Forms with Comparative Evidence 204
5.3.3. Indirect Attestation 209
5.3.4. Conclusions 210
5.4. Forms with the *-tye/o- Suffix 210
5.5. Conclusions 211

Part III. Verbal Categories

6. Preliminary Considerations 217
6.1. Introduction 217
6.2. Failures of Alternation 218
6.2.1. A Generalization of *-ye/o-? 219
6.2.2. Kuryłowicz and Nagy 220
6.2.3. The Influence of Other Categories 221
6.2.4. Problems with Our Assumptions 222
6.2.5. Problems and Approaches 222
6.3. The -ya- Verbs in Vedic 224
6.3.1. Formations Excluded 224
6.3.2. Primary Formations 225
6.3.3. Conclusions 242
6.4. Understanding the Greek Verbal Evidence 244
6.4.1. The Prevalence of Heavy Sequences 244
6.4.2. Chronological Limitations 247
6.4.3. Organization of the Material 247
6.5. Examples with Secondary Suffixation 248
6.5.1. Forms in -ωσσε/ο- 250
6.5.2. Onomatopoeic Formations 251
6.5.3. A Suffix -ῡσσε/ο- 253
6.5.4. Forms with the Suffix -ῡζε/ο- 254
6.5.5. Suffixes with -πτε/ο- 254
6.6. Etymologically Obscure Examples 256
6.7. Some Phonological Anomalies 259
6.7.1. Problems with s-stems 259
6.7.2. A Grassmann’s Law Problem 261
6.7.3. A Violation of Rix’s Law 261
6.7.4. Peculiar Laryngeal Developments 262
6.7.5. Discrepancies in Root Consonantism 262
6.7.6. Analogy in Labiovelar-final Roots 269
 Contents xi

6.7.7. Further Labiovelar Problems 269

6.8. Phonologically Ambiguous Evidence 270
6.8.1. Ambiguities in Roots with Laryngeals 270
6.8.2. Examples with Root- and Stem-final *s 285
6.8.3. Ambiguities in Root Vowel Length and Its Significance 288
6.8.4. Peculiarities in Root Vocalism 290
6.9. Conclusions 291
7. Greek *-ye/o- Verbs 293
7.1. Denominative Formations 294
7.1.1. Introduction 294
7.1.2. Delimiting the Evidence 295
7.1.3. The Zero-grade Type 295
7.1.4. Thematic Vowel Deletion 297
7.1.5. Categories without Deletion or Reduction 299
7.1.6. Approaches to the Data 301
7.1.7. Denominatives from Adjectives 302
7.1.8. Complications in Deadjectival Semantics 308
7.1.9. Sievers’ Law and the Deadjectival Formations 315
7.1.10. Denominatives from Abstract Nouns 317
7.1.11. Denominatives from Appellatives 318
7.1.12. Denominatives from Concrete Nouns 322
7.1.13. Semantic Anomalies in Denominatives from
Concrete Nouns 324
7.1.14. Denominatives from Concrete Nouns and
Sievers’ Law 326
7.1.15. Conclusions 330
7.2. Primary Formations 332
7.2.1. Indo-European Zero-grade *-ye/o- Formations 332
7.2.2. Applying Semantic Criteria 344
7.2.3. Full-grade *-ye/o- Verbs 349
7.2.4. Evidence for an o-grade Formation 363
7.2.5. Conclusions 364
7.3. Some Etymologically Difficult Examples 365
7.4. Secondary Deverbatives 367
7.4.1. Verbs Built from Reduplicated Formations 367
7.4.2. Verbs Built from Nasal Presents 371
7.4.3. Conclusions on Deverbatives 373
7.5. Conclusions on Verbal Formations 374
8. Conclusions 377
8.1. Inherited Patterns 377
8.2. The Evidence for Sievers’ Law in Greek 377
8.3. Relative Chronology 379
8.3.1. Pinault’s Rule 379
8.3.2. The Loss of Intervocalic Laryngeals 380
8.3.3. Rix’s Law 380
8.3.4. The Development of *-iH2 to *-ya 380
8.3.5. The Breakdown of Inherited Syllabification Rules 380
xii Contents

8.3.6. The Devocalization of *i 381

8.3.7. The Vocalization of Syllabic Liquids 381
8.4. The Scope of Sievers’ Law 382
8.4.1. The Weight of Obstruent Clusters 382
8.4.2. The Status of Polysyllabic Stems 383
8.4.3. Word-initial Alternation? 385
8.4.4. Alternation Confined to Final Syllables? 387
8.4.5. Sievers’ Law or Seebold’s Anschlußregel? 387
8.5. Sievers’ Law in Indo-European? 388

References 389
Subject Index 401
Index Verborum 407
 List of Abbreviations

acc. accusative
Aeol. Aeolic
Alb. Albanian
aor. aorist
Arc. Arcadian
Arg. Argolic
Arm. Armenian
Att. Attic
AV Atharvaveda
Av. Avestan
AVP Atharvaveda Paippalāda
Boeot. Boeotian
Bret. Breton
C Consonant
CEG see References
CLuw. Cuneiform Luwian
Cret. Cretan
CRuss. Classical Russian
CS Church Slavonic
Cypr. Cypriot
dat. dative
Dor. Doric
El. Elean
Eng. English
ep. epic
EWAia see References
fem. feminine
fut. future
GAv. Gathic Avestan
gen. genitive
Germ. Germanic
Gk Greek
Goth. Gothic
H heavy || laryngeal
Hell. Hellenistic
Hitt. Hittite
I Semivowel
IC see References
IE Indo-European
IG see References
IIr. Indo-Iranian
indic. indicative
xiv List of Abbreviations

Ion. Ionic
L light
Lac. Laconian
Lat. Latin
Latv. Latvian
Lesb. Lesbian
Lith. Lithuanian
LIV2 see References
Locr. Locrian
masc. masculine
Meg. Megarian
MHG Middle High German
MIr. Middle Irish
MLG Middle Low German
MMP Manichaean Middle Persian
MS Maitrāyan.ı̄ Sam
. hitā
Myc. Mycenaean
n. neuter
NHG New High German
nom. nominative
Nu nucleus
NWFris. New West Frisian
OAv. Old Avestan
OBret. Old Breton
OCS Old Church Slavonic
OE Old English
OHG Old High German
OIr. Old Irish
ON Old Norse
On onset
OP Old Persian
OPhr. Old Phrygian
OSax. Old Saxon
Osc. Oscan
Oss. Ossetic
OT Optimality Theory
pl. plural
pple participle
Praen. Praenestine Latin
PToch. Proto-Tocharian
R Resonant
Ri rime
Russ. Russian
RV Rigveda
ŚB Śatapatha-Brāhman.a
SCr. Serbo-Croat
SEG see References
sg. singular
Skt Sanskrit
 List of Abbreviations xv

T obstruent
TB Taittirı̄ya-Brāhman.a
Thess. Thessalian
Toch.A/B Tocharian A/B
trag. tragic
Umbr. Umbrian
V Vowel
Ved. Vedic
voc. vocative
YAv. Young Avestan
σ syllable
 1
Introduction

This book is an investigation into the ways in which semivowels were realized
in Indo-European and in early Greek. More specifically, it examines the ex-
tent to which Indo-European *i and *y were independent phonemes, in what
respects their distribution was predictable, and how this situation changed as
Indo-European developed into Greek. As we shall see, these areas of enquiry have
significant morphological as well as phonological components; several important
inherited suffixes had variant forms, some with *i and some with *y. Since these
variants went on to have their own independent histories within Greek, we need
to disentangle a great deal of morphological and phonological innovation in order
to establish a true picture of what was originally inherited.
The phonemic and distributional properties of *i and *y are not isolated
problems, and we cannot treat them as such. One of the outstanding issues in
Indo-European phonology concerns the status of the ‘resonants’ more generally.1
Brugmann (1897:92ff.) established that we should reconstruct for Indo-European
two sets of sounds: syllabic *i, *u, *r, *l, *m, and *n and non-syllabic *y, *w, *r,
˚ ˚ ˚ that these
*l, *m, and *n.2 It has long been recognized ˚ existed in at least a par-
tially complementary distribution. In postvocalic and intervocalic position, we can
only reconstruct non-syllabic resonants; between consonants, on the other hand,
syllabic resonants must be reconstructed, e.g.
IE *deyk- ‘point out’ > Gk δείκ-νυμι and Old Lat. deic-ō;3
IE *treyes ‘three’ > Ved. tráyas and Lat. trēs;
1 Finding an appropriate term to exclusively characterize the syllabic and non-syllabic alternants
of Indo-European *y, *w, *r, *l, *m, and *n presents some problems. In phonetic terms non-syllabic
[j], [w], [ô], and [l] may be characterized as approximants (see, for example, Ladefoged 1993:64–5,
172). However, the nasal stops [n] and [m] are not approximants. Edgerton (1943:83 n. 6) calls all the
sounds in question ‘semivowels’; Szemerényi (1990:107) favours the term ‘sonants’. Sometimes they are
referred to as ‘sonorants’, but technically speaking in phonology this term usually designates everything
that is not an obstruent. Seebold (1972:15) suggests the term ‘Halblaute’. There does not appear to be a
very natural way of grouping these sounds by an exclusive set of shared phonological features. It may
be that attempts to treat all of these sounds as being parallel in every circumstance are mistaken. I use
the term ‘resonants’ to describe the syllabic and non-syllabic alternants of *y, *w, *r, *l, *m, and *n,
since this is fairly common practice in philological works, though we should recognize that ‘resonant’
is often used as a term analogous to ‘sonorant’ by phoneticians. I use the terms ‘semivowel’, ‘liquid’, and
‘nasal’ to pick out the subsets {*y,*w}, {*r,*l}, and {*m,*n} respectively.
2 For typographical convenience, I use y and w to represent i and u.
3 The digraphs <ει> and <ei> in Greek and Latin respectively “ “ultimately reflect diphthongs in
these cases. The front high segment in the diphthong is non-syllabic, as opposed to being a vowel in
hiatus.
2 Introduction

IE *kwid ‘something’ > Ved. cit and Lat. quid.

However, in post-consonantal prevocalic position there appears to be a split.
We find the reflexes of both syllabic and non-syllabic resonants in the daughter
languages, e.g.
Ved. mártiya- ‘mortal’:4 cf. ávya- ‘coming from sheep’;
Gk ἅγιος ‘holy’: cf. ἅζομαι ‘stand in awe of ’ < *hag-yo-mai.
Such alternation raises some immediate questions concerning the structure of the
Indo-European phonological system. It becomes pertinent to ask whether syl-
labic and non-syllabic resonants were ever contrastive in phonological terms. It
is conceivable, for example, that they were contrastive in only a very limited range
of environments.5 Alternatively, it might be possible to establish rules governing
their distribution in all environments. It needs to be borne in mind that there is no
particular reason to suppose that all resonants originally behaved in the same way;
it might prove necessary to treat them separately. The investigation of the alterna-
tion of syllabic and non-syllabic resonants has the potential to affect considerably
the way in which we reconstruct the phonological system of Indo-European and
the ways we think syllable structure might have interacted with the phonology.
Eduard Sievers (1878:129) proposed rule-governed alternation between post-
consonantal prevocalic *i and *y in Proto-Germanic, in order to unify various
superficially distinct inflectional classes in Gothic. This alternation seemed to
correspond to a similar phenomenon in Vedic Sanskrit:
unbetontes (nicht svaritiertes) i oder u vor einem vocal ist consonant nach kurzer,
vocal nach langer silbe ohne rücksicht auf die sonstige accentlage des wortes. (Sievers
1878:129)6

4 Syllabic i is usually represented with signs for non-syllabic y in this position in the Rigveda. The
syllabic reading is restored on metrical grounds: see §2.3.1 and Arnold (1905:81–107). It is widely ac-
cepted that, in phonetic terms, we should assume [iy] and [uw] before a vowel rather than simply [i]
or [u]: see, for example, Osthoff (1881:397ff.) and Wackernagel (1896:203). In Gothic this assumption
receives historical support: new sequences of prevocalic [iy] < *-ey- received an identical treatment to
inherited prevocalic syllabic *i (see §2.2.5.2). In Classical Sanskrit prevocalic -uv- (< *-uw-) is ortho-
graphically represented as such in class V verbs such as aś-nuv-anti. Even in Vedic, iy was sometimes
represented in the orthography, e.g. <kriyate>.
We will denote this subphonemic transitional glide, where appropriate, in reconstructed forms and
sequences, since it seems well justified on comparative grounds, and, through reanalysis, it played a
role in the history of certain daughter languages. However, I will refer to prevocalic syllabic semivowels
themselves simply as *i and *u, rather than *iy and *uw (as some authors prefer). I feel that the latter
practice puts on one level, and allows for the confusion of, two rather separate issues. One of the main
points of debate is whether the contrast of syllabic and non-syllabic semivowels is phonemic. The
existence and originally subphonemic status of the transitional glides *y and *w, on the other hand, are
not in doubt. I prefer to keep the first issue in focus by means of the orthography.
5 Goldsmith (1996:10–13) recognizes a cline between contrastive segments at one end of the scale
and allophones in a complementary distribution at the other. Various possibilities exist in between.
In his ‘just barely contrastive’ category, segments lie in a near complementary distribution and exhibit
contrasts only in limited environments. He gives the example of the irreducible but limited contrast
between tense [A] and lax [æ] in some eastern dialects of American English (see e.g. Labov 1981,
Kiparsky 1996:648ff.).
6 We should note that Sievers clearly intended this statement to apply only to the distribution of
post-consonantal semivowels. The limitation of his statement to unaccented i and u turns out to be
unnecessary, since it goes without saying that an accented semivowel cannot be non-syllabic.
 Introduction 3

According to Sievers’ Law, the syllabic and non-syllabic alternants stood in a

fully complementary distribution; the realization of post-consonantal prevocalic
*i or *y in Germanic, and that of *i or *y and *u or *w in Vedic, was determined
by the weight of the preceding phonological sequence. The theory predicts that
we should find non-syllabic *y after a so-called ‘light sequence’, which consists of
a short vowel followed by a single consonant (i.e. *-V̆CyV-).7 But after a ‘heavy
sequence’, such as a number of consecutive consonants, we should find syllabic *i
(i.e. *-CCiyV-). We should also find syllabic *i after a long vowel followed by one
or more consonants (i.e. *-V̄CiyV-). In the same way, we should find non-syllabic
*w after a light sequence (i.e. *-V̆CwV-), but syllabic *u after heavy sequences (i.e.
*-CCuwV- and *-V̄CuwV-).
Sievers’ Law has attracted an enormous amount of scholarly attention since
its first formulation, and attempts have been made to find traces of these alter-
nations in many Indo-European languages.8 If Indo-European itself had such
rule-governed syllabicity alternations, and if Greek inherited such a system, then
this would clearly have consequences for the ways in which we should understand
the early historical phonology of Greek. Similarly, it may be that the Greek evi-
dence can cast a clearer light on the Indo-European situation. As we shall see, the
testimony of Germanic and Indo-Iranian languages is not in agreement on many
points of detail. Furthermore, their evidence has been interpreted in many dif-
ferent ways by successive generations of scholars. It is important to see how the
Greek data relate to the various competing theories.
Sievers’ original proposals have frequently been reformulated and sometimes
heavily modified. From an early stage their scope was steadily extended. Sievers’
Law was soon explicitly redefined for Indo-European and generalized so as to ap-
ply to all resonants.9 Many scholars came to believe that the law not only applied
word internally, but also word initially, with the same syllabification rules oper-
ating across word boundaries, both in Vedic and in Indo-European.10 Another
influential approach suggested that word-initial alternations might be confined to
monosyllables,11 and in a more general theory of word-initial and word-internal
phenomena it has been posited that alternation only took place in the final syllable

7 I avoid the infelicitous traditional terminology light or heavy syllable (as used by Sievers) when
referring to sequences of segments preceding the semivowels involved in these alternations. Instead I
refer to light or heavy sequences (cf. Beekes 1976:89); a so-called ‘light syllable’ from the point of view
of Sievers’ Law is actually a heavy syllable for the purposes of scansion: the light sequence in *V̆CyV
results in a heavy syllable *V̆C.yV (V = vowel, C = consonant, full stop = syllable boundary). So it
seems better not to presuppose the syllable structure of these sequences in our use of terminology. For
the use of the terms ‘light’ and ‘heavy’ in these contexts, see also Mayrhofer (1986:165). On the general
problem of defining ‘weight’, see Gordon (2006).
8 On the testimony of other Indo-European languages, see §2.4. It would be a considerable task to
give even an overview of what has been written on the subject of Sievers’ Law. Here I intend to give only
an impression of the development of the main ideas in the field. Fortunately, much of the historical lin-
guistic literature has already been discussed at length in other studies. Seebold (1972:25–175) provides
an excellent review of earlier secondary literature. Horowitz (1974:11–38) is also a useful resource.
Collinge (1985:159–74) provides some more up-to-date bibliography, while Edgerton’s (1934) review
of early discussions is still valuable. Mayrhofer (1986:164–7) may be consulted for a sober overview of
the Indo-European position more or less as it still stands.
9 See e.g. Osthoff (1884:404ff.). 10 See Edgerton (1934, 1943, 1962) and §2.7.1.
11 That is, forms which were monosyllabic when the initial cluster contained a non-syllabic
resonant like the Vedic alternants dyaús/diyaús. See Lindeman (1965) and §2.7.2.
4 Introduction

of the word; word-initial alternations in monosyllables merely constituted a spe-

cial case of the more general rule, because in a monosyllable the last syllable and
the first syllable are one and the same.12
None of these modifications to Sievers’ Law has achieved general acceptance.
Subsequent investigations have shown that alternation in the liquids and nasals
is not nearly so well established as semivowel alternation word-internally or
word-initially.13 Theories that posit word-initial alternations face a substantial
difficulty when one notes that the distribution of word-initial alternants could
simply be an artefact of the metres in which the Rigveda was composed.14
Even Sievers’ original claims for *i/*y and *u/*w alternation have been partially
called into question. Statistical evidence from the Rigveda suggests that we fre-
quently find *i unexpectedly after a light sequence, and it has been argued that
we should think of this law in terms of an avoidance of *y after a heavy sequence,
rather than a complementary distribution of allophones.15
Ultimately the difficult problem of determining the nature and scope of syl-
labicity alternations in Indo-European can only be settled by scrutinizing the
comparative evidence. Yet the very comparative basis for reconstructing these
rule-governed alternations for the parent language is by no means as secure as
it is sometimes portrayed. There are inconsistencies in the way in which Sievers’
Law functioned in Germanic and Indo-Iranian, and there are diachronic prob-
lems which make it difficult to be sure that these phenomena are even genetically
related.16 Sihler (2006:191) has reiterated his (1974–5) view that Sievers’ Law
itself arose independently in Germanic and Indo-Iranian. Sihler (1974–5) also
makes a case for regarding Sievers’ Law alternations as a series of suffix-specific
phenomena, rather than as the outcomes of more general phonological principles.
Given the difficulties in interpreting the Vedic and Germanic evidence, the
testimony of these languages alone can no longer be considered sufficient for re-
constructing Sievers’ Law alternation for Indo-European, let alone anything more
elaborate. The need for another basis of comparison is clear. We will, therefore,
examine the evidence for Sievers’ Law in ancient Greek, particularly as it relates to
the inherited distribution of word-internal *i and *y.
There are a few other studies of aspects of the Greek evidence for Sievers’ Law,
notably Hill (1967), Nagy (1970), Yamashita (1971), Perpillou (1974), and Rui-
jgh (1975), and very many works which incorporate to one degree or another the
assumption that Sievers’ Law operated at an early stage in Greek. In the three most
extensive studies (Hill, Nagy, and Yamashita), it is a fundamental assumption that
Sievers’ Law and Edgerton’s additional constructs are essentially valid. As a result
there is very little engagement with the fundamental question of whether there is
sufficient evidence to posit Sievers’ Law for early Greek. Counterexamples assume
a rather minor role in their discussions and there is a general failure to attempt a
comprehensive examination of the evidence. I argue that a different approach is
now required, if the Greek evidence is to assume any substantial place in the wider
Indo-European argument. There is still a great deal of scope for further work and
the benefit of intervening developments may offer us a fresh perspective.
12 See Schindler (1977:56–65) and §2.7.4. 13 See §2.4.3.
14 See the independent work of Sihler (1969, 1971), Horowitz (1974), and Atkins (1968), and §2.8.2.
15 See Seebold (1972:340–1) on ‘die Anschlußregel’, and §2.3.2.
16 See §2.2.3.1 (pp. 13ff.), §2.2.5, and §2.4.
 Introduction 5

In my view, counterexamples to the various formulations of possible syllabic-

ity rules are of considerable importance. In principle we may decide that such
counterexamples as exist are sufficient to throw doubt on the validity of con-
sistent syllabicity rules in any formulation we might devise. There is a need for
a realistic assessment of the evidence in favour of Sievers’ Law and the various
other potential models of syllabicity distribution. It is possible, for example, that
counterexamples to one theory may provide evidence for another.
If we are convinced by a preponderance of the evidence that some version of
Sievers’ Law operated early in Greek, then counterexamples may also offer us
a window on the chronology of the phonological and morphological processes
which could have been involved both in the breakdown of such rules in the gram-
mar and in the potential erosion of evidence for those rules surviving in our
texts. There has been almost no attempt to examine the various questions of
chronology which are inevitably raised in the investigation of semivowel syllabic-
ity alternation in Greek. It is important to consider how early Greek phonological
and morphological changes may have interacted with any inherited system of
semivowel alternation. If the contrast between *i and *y was originally allophonic
in nature, then we should ask how and when and why this situation might have
changed. If the contrast was phonemic, then we should investigate how this
would have altered the prospects of survival for any inherited distributional rules,
and, furthermore, how it would have affected the prospects of detecting earlier
rule-governed behaviour in the surviving evidence.
Deciding how to construe the kinds of evidence which could help us answer
these difficult questions will, naturally, be a delicate task. But it is, therefore, all
the more important to engage with potential counterexamples closely, rather than
regarding them as aberrations to be explained away.
Before we can examine the evidence offered by ancient Greek, we need to think
about the question of resonant syllabicity more generally from a comparative per-
spective, and in Chapter 2 we will consider evidence chiefly from Gothic and
Vedic. In Chapter 3, we will commence our analysis of the Greek evidence. We
will argue that a focused study of the syllabicity alternations of the semivowels
*i and *y is most likely to yield promising results, rather than an attempt to un-
derstand the behaviour of all possible resonants. We will argue that the only way
to understand properly the contribution of the various classes of Greek evidence
is to set the development of the Greek semivowels in a chronological context. In
parts II and III we will evaluate the Greek evidence offered by nominal and ver-
bal categories respectively. In the concluding chapter we shall draw together what
we can know about the history of semivowel syllabification in Indo-European and
ancient Greek from this wider evidential basis.
 Part I
Evidence for Sievers’ Law
and the Possibility of Inheritance
 2
Sievers’ Law: Gothic and Vedic

2.1. INTRODUCTION

In this chapter we will look at some of the comparative evidence for rule-governed
semivowel syllabicity alternations among resonants. In §2.2 we will consider the
behaviour of *i and *y word internally in Gothic, taking into account the rela-
tive chronology of such rules in Germanic, and their synchronic representation
at various stages of prehistory. In §2.3 we will look at the evidence for analogous
patterns of syllabicity alternation in Vedic, though, as we shall see, it is neces-
sary to pay close attention to the precise conditions for alternation and what
exactly constitutes a ‘heavy sequence’ for these purposes. In §2.4 we will sur-
vey a few of the contributions which other Indo-European languages might be
able to make to our understanding of Sievers’ Law effects, including a discussion
of the behaviour of sequences of successive syllables, the effect of the nature of
the stem-final consonant, and whether or not the comparative evidence for al-
ternation among resonants other than semivowels is sufficiently strong. In §2.5
we will consider the arguments for and against comparing Sievers’ Law in Ger-
manic and Vedic, and in §2.6 we will look briefly at the potential implications
such a reconstructed rule would have for our understanding of syllable structure
in Indo-European and its daughters. The rest of the chapter will be concerned
with the behaviour of semivowels in word-initial consonant clusters (§2.7–9),
giving careful consideration to the metrical evidence for the proposition that
word-initial alternations were confined to potentially monosyllablic forms, and
situating these observations within the context of the formulaic language in which
the evidence for alternation has been preserved. The evidence for word-initial and
word-internal alternation in Germanic and Vedic having been reviewed, the de-
sirability of a tertium comparationis will become evident, and in the conclusion of
this chapter we will review a few of the more important questions for subsequent
discussion.

2.2. EVIDENCE FOR SIEVERS’ LAW IN GOTHIC

The reconstruction of rule-governed *i/*y alternation was prompted by Eduard

Sievers’ (1878:129) analysis of what had been assumed to be a purely Germanic
phenomenon. We will focus on the evidence from Gothic, but there are also
significant traces of Sievers’ Law in Old Norse and in the West Germanic
10 Sievers’ Law: Gothic and Vedic

Languages.1 Gothic presents two distinct paradigms in certain verbal and nom-
inal classes. Forms follow one paradigm or the other, depending on their metrical
structure. As we shall see, this split indirectly preserves traces of prehistoric *i/*y
alternation.

2.2.1. Alternation in Verbal Forms

These phenomena may be exemplified by the two types of weak class I present
tense verbs in -ja-.2 A verb of this class with a monosyllabic stem ending in a
sequence -V̆C (a ‘light’ sequence) conjugates as follows:3
1st sg. indic. bid-ja ‘request’
2nd sg. indic. bid-jis
3rd sg. indic. bid-jiþ
2nd pl. indic. bid-jiþ
But there is a different result when such a verb’s stem ends in a sequence -V̄C or
-CC (heavy sequences):4
1st sg. indic. sōk-ja ‘seek’ *warm-ja ‘heat, warm’
2nd sg. indic. *sōk-eis *warm-eis
3rd sg. indic. sōk-eiþ warm-eiþ
2nd pl. indic. sōk-eiþ *warm-eiþ

2.2.2. Explaining these Alternations

Historically, such examples contained the Indo-European verbal suffix *-ye/o-.

Sievers argued that the patterns illustrated above ultimately reflect a Proto-
Germanic syllabicity alternation between *y and *i. This would give a suffix
*-ye/o- or *-iye/o- depending on the metrical structure of the preceding sequence.
The 3rd person singular present indicative bid-jiþ ‘he requests’ derives from a
form with the verbal suffix *-ye/o-, since a ‘light’ sequence preceded the suffix. On
the other hand, sōk-eiþ ‘he seeks’ and warm-eiþ ‘he heats’ originally had the disyl-
labic variant of the verbal suffix *-iye/o-, since they contain a ‘heavy’ sequence
before the suffix. The 2nd person singular and plural forms in each paradigm
exhibit the same weight-governed distinction.

1 For a summary of the reflexes of Sievers’ Law alternants in these other languages, see
Seebold (1972:78–89) and Ringe (2006:223–4).
2 In Germanic philology, j is traditionally used to denote *y. This does not indicate a general as-
sumption that a phonetic change had occurred (see Ringe 2006:120), though compare the argument of
Vennemann (1971:109ff.; 1985) and Murray and Vennemann (1983) that *y underwent syllable-initial
strengthening to a fricative j. In reconstructions we will use *y rather than *j.
3 Special considerations apply to polysyllabic stems, which have given rise to a number of com-
peting analyses of the synchronic rules governing this alternation. We will postpone discussion of
polysyllabic stems in the first instance, but see §§2.2.4 and 2.2.6.
4 <ei> indicates [ı̄] in all examples in this table. Not all forms of all verbs are actually attested, but
we can be confident in these paradigms on the basis of the patterns found in other verbs of this class.
 2.2. Evidence for Sievers’ Law in Gothic 11

Ultimately bidjiþ is probably derived from *gwhedh-ye-ti,5 via a change of

*gwh- > b, Grimm’s Law changing *dh to d, and *t to þ, with the loss of the fi-
nal short vowel and raising of *e>i.6 On the other hand, sōkeiþ derives from
*sāg-iyi-þ < *seH2 g-iye-ti,7 by the change *eH2 > *ā > ō,8 the operation of
Grimm’s Law changing *g to k and *t to þ, the loss of the final short vowel, and
raising of *e>i. The resulting sequence *iyi undergoes the loss of intervocalic *y
and contracts to long [ı̄], which is written <ei>.9 The endings of warm-eiþ 10 are
susceptible to the same explanations as those of sōkeiþ.
In the other forms of the paradigm where *y or *i stood before a vowel which
survived into Gothic, we find only the non-syllabic j, e.g. 1st sg. indic. sōkja ‘I
seek’. There seems to have been a certain stage when every prevocalic *i became
j (except in initial syllables, e.g. fijan/fian ‘hate’).11 This change may also have
affected Greek loanwords. We find that Gk -ια is replaced by Goth. -ja, e.g. Gk
Μαρία → Goth. Marja.12 In such environments the effects of Sievers’ Law are not
manifest, since they are obscured by this later development. On the other hand,
the sequence *-iyi- appears to have contracted to [ı̄] before this change took place.
Otherwise, we would have no evidence for Sievers’ Law in Gothic, merely uniform
*-ji- in all the relevant forms.
If we look beyond the Gothic evidence, a somewhat more complicated picture
of these developments emerges. In West Germanic languages, *y caused gemina-
tion of preceding consonants (other than *r), and in Old Norse velars underwent
gemination when *y followed. We find such gemination in many of the forms

5 The etymology of the root of bidjiþ is disputed. But it was certainly ‘light’, and the ending is not in
doubt. If we follow Seebold (1967:104–33; 1970:91–3) we may compare Av. ǰaiδiieiti, OIr. guidid, Gk
ποθεῖ ‘(s)he longs for’ (intensive), all from the Indo-European root *gwhedh-. This requires us to accept
a sound change IE *gwh > Germ. *b, though examples of the change are rare, probably owing to the
rarity of this sound in Indo-European. See LIV 2 (217) and Ringe (2006:105–6).
The problematic nature of this sound change emerges when we consider the etymology of warm-
eiþ (cf. OE wearm, NHG warm, etc.). The Indo-European root *gwher- ‘to burn’ (cf. Gk θερμός, Lat.
formus, Ved. gharmá-, etc.) has been variously connected with NHG gar, brennen, and warm, but we
should expect only one of these etymologies to be correct; see Seebold (1980:450–84).
6 On the change *gwh- > b-, see n. 5; on Grimm’s Law, see Ringe (2006:93–102); on the loss of non-
high final vowels in polysyllables, Ringe (2006:116–17), for the raising of unstressed *e>i and i-umlaut,
Ringe (2006:122–8). The 2nd singular bidjis and 2nd plural bidjiþ may be derived from *gwhedh-ye-si
and *gwhedh-ye-te respectively, via these same sound changes.
7 Compare Lat. sāgiō, -ı̄re, ‘find the scent’, Hitt. šākiya- ‘give a sign’ (see Melchert 1994:69 and LIV 2
520). On the weight of sequences containing laryngeals for Sievers’ Law, see §2.3.4.
8 See Ringe (2006:72, 146–8).
9 On the loss of intervocalic *y, see Ringe (2006:134ff.). The 2nd singular ending -eis in verbs of
this type derives from *-iyi-s < *-iye-si, via the sound changes already discussed, as does the 2nd plural
sōkeiþ < *sāg-iyi-þ < *seH2 g-iye-te.
10 This denominative *-ye/o- verb seems to be formed from *warmaz ‘warm’, perhaps from IE

*gwhor-mó- with the regular change of *ŏ to ă (see Ringe 2006:145–6 for the Germanic merger of non-
high back vowels). But see n. 5 for the problems connected with the treatment of Germanic *gwh. The
uncertainties as to the ultimate etymology do not substantially affect the value of this example from a
purely Germanic perspective.
11 See Ringe (2006:223) and §2.2.6.1.
12 We can only make cautious use of Greek loanwords because we cannot be sure whether the
semivowel in such environments had already devocalized within Greek at the stage when the word
was borrowed into Gothic.
12 Sievers’ Law: Gothic and Vedic

where Gothic shows post-consonantal prevocalic j, e.g. OE biddaþ, OHG bittent

beside Gothic bidjand < *gwhedhyonti; OE hebbaþ, OHG heffent beside Gothic
hafjand < *kH2 pyonti.
However, in the crucial environment where Gothic shows a post-consonantal j
before an i-vowel, and Sievers’ Law effects can be observed, the West Germanic
evidence presents an unexpected complication: there is a lack of gemination.
Where Gothic has bidjiþ, OHG has bitit. Where Gothic has hafjiþ, OHG has hefit.
It seems that, at least in West Germanic, *y before *i was lost. It is possible that
this loss goes back even further to pre-Proto-Germanic (see Ringe 2006:130, 224).
If this was the case, then the Gothic forms bidjiþ, hafjiþ, etc. would actually be
analogical replacements for Proto-Germanic *bidiþ, *hafiþ, etc. The *y in Gothic
could have been generalized from forms elsewhere in the paradigm, such as 3rd
plurals like *bidyand etc.—forms where Sievers’ Law effects did not ultimately
survive owing to subsequent sound changes (see above).
The implications of such an analysis are significant for any account of Sievers’
Law, because it would seem to suggest that all of our Gothic evidence for forms
with light stems could well be analogical in nature and based on forms where
Sievers’ Law ultimately ceased to apply. At first sight this is alarming. But inso-
far as we can still detect a contrast between Proto-Germanic forms with inherited
*-ye- and forms with inherited *-iye- > *-iyi- > *-ı̄-, the situation would not nec-
essarily be affected to a great extent. At the time when any such putative analogical
spread of *y occurred, a form such as *bidiþ would have restored *y from forms
such as *bidyand, while heavy stemmed forms such as *sōkı̄þ did not introduce
*y, perhaps because forms such as *sōkyand (< *sōkiyand) had not yet acquired
post-consonantal *y. This contrast in the development of these paradigms could
still reflect (albeit indirectly) the original contrast between *-iye- and *-ye-.

2.2.3. Sievers’ Law in Nominal Stems

We find a parallel alternation among the -ja- nouns.13 When the stem ends in a
light sequence, it declines as follows:14

nom. sg. har-jis ‘army’

acc. sg. har-i
gen. sg. har-jis
dat. sg. har-ja

When the noun’s stem ends in a heavy sequence, it declines differently:15

nom. sg. haírd-eis ‘herdsman’

acc. sg. haírd-i
gen. sg. haírd-eis
dat. sg. haírd-ja

13 Analogous patterns of alternation can be seen in the two types of ja-stem adjectives, but I refrain
from giving examples here. The substantives suffice to show the relevant alternations.
14 Special considerations apply to polysyllabic stems: see §§2.2.4 and 2.2.6.
15 <ei> indicates [ı̄] in all examples.
 2.2. Evidence for Sievers’ Law in Gothic 13

We can derive the different genitive singular forms without much difficulty. Gen-
itive singular har-ji-s ‘army’ appears to arise directly from *kor-ye-so (cf. Gk
κοίρανος, Lith. kãrias, and MIr. cuire) through Grimm’s Law changing *k to h,
the change of *o to a, the loss of a final short vowel, and the raising of *e to i. If
we believe that Proto-Germanic *y was lost before *i (see §2.2.2), then we would
have to suppose that j was generalized from other parts of the paradigm such as
the dative singular or the forms of the plural.
On the other hand, genitive singular haírd-ei-s ‘shepherd’ derives from
*herd-iyi-s < *kerdh-iye-so (cf. OHG herta and CRuss. čereda) through Grimm’s
Law, retention of the root *e before r in a stressed syllable (written <aí>),16 loss
of a final short vowel, raising of the thematic vowel *e>i, loss of *y between two
like vowels (*-iyi-), and the contraction of the outcome into long [ı̄], written <ei>.
There was no spread of j from other forms in the paradigm.
We can be confident that the dative singular and plural forms of these words
also obeyed Sievers’ Law at an early stage, but the devocalization of prevocalic *i
eliminated any possible evidence of the fact in Gothic.

2.2.3.1. Problems in Nominal Stems

The origin of the nominative singular forms is altogether more difficult to ex-
plain. Almost everybody agrees that we should reconstruct a form *kor-yo-s, but
it is difficult to see how this could result in the attested har-ji-s. Similarly, it is
not entirely clear that we should expect haírd-ei-s to derive from the inherited
nominative singular *kerdh-iyo-s.17
The origin of the [i] in nom. sg. har-ji-s is far from clear. It cannot be the the-
matic vowel as Sievers (1878:127) originally suggested. Leaving aside the issue
of the vowel quality (which Barrack 1998:103–4 thinks could be reconciled), we
would expect a short vowel in the final syllable to be lost before [s]. The resulting
semivowel between two consonants might reasonably be expected to vocalize, i.e.
*kor-yo-s > *haris.
On the other hand, it has generally been assumed that haírd-ei-s could be a
legitimate reflex of *kerdh-iy-s < *kerdh-iyo-s. But we should note that such a de-
velopment presupposes that the once automatic prevocalic glide *y in a sequence
*iyV must already have achieved some measure of independent phonemic status
in order for it to result in a long vowel in haírd-ei-s (whatever the phonological
mechanism might have been). Otherwise we might have expected a nominative
singular *haírdis, with the inter-consonantal variant i being substituted for *iy.
Seebold (1972:73–4) argued that we can understand the emergence of a nomi-
native har-ji-s, if we reconstruct a uniform suffix *-iyo-s for heavy and light stems
alike.18 A nominative singular form *kor-iyo-s would lose a short vowel in a final
syllable before *s, giving *har-iy-s. He thought that this would automatically re-
syllabify as har-ji-s. The inherited *y preceded *s and so became syllabic [i]; this
was the appropriate pre-consonantal alternant in Gothic.19 The first semivowel

16 ‘Retention’ is perhaps a simplification; see Ringe (2006:122).

17 Compare the Runic Norse nom. sg. -ijaz; see Krause (1971:117).
18 This reconstruction is incompatible with the predictions of Sievers’ Law: the disyllabic suffix
follows a light sequence. But Seebold argues convincingly in another context that such sequences were
possible at an early stage (see §2.3.2).
19 See Moulton (1948:82–3).
14 Sievers’ Law: Gothic and Vedic

*i would develop into [j] before this new syllabic [i], since this would be the
appropriate Gothic prevocalic alternant.
On the other hand, a heavy stemmed example such as *herd-ij-s < *kerdh-iyo-s
would resyllabify rather differently. Once again, Seebold supposed that [j] would
become syllabic before a consonant, i.e. *herd-ij-s > *herd-ii-s. Because a heavy
sequence followed by [j] was impossible under his analysis, just as it was un-
der Sievers’ Law, this *herd-ii-s could not become *herd-ji-s (in the way in which
*har-ij-s is supposed to have become har-ji-s), and so the sequence *-ii- survives
long enough to undergo contraction, giving haírdeis.
At first sight, Seebold’s solution appears to suffer from a slightly worrying am-
bivalence concerning the phonemic status of [i], [j], and the sequence [ij] at the
various developmental stages. However, the chronology can work. The perception
of [ij] as a sequence must post-date the raising of e to i. This raising created new
[ij] sequences which fell into Sievers’ Law alternations with [j] in accordance with
their environment (see §2.2.5.2). On the other hand, [ij] must be considered a se-
quence of independent segments after the loss of short vowels in final syllables,
so that we can understand the failure to substitute simple [i] between consonants
in the putative forms *har-ij-s and *herd-ij-s. Although Seebold needs [ij] to be
perceived as a sequence after this stage, the interchange of [i] and [j] still needs
to be sufficiently automatic that *har-ij-s can resyllabify as har-ji-s and *haírd-ij-s
can resyllabify as *haírd-ii-s (> haírd-ei-s) to satisfy the requirements of the new
surrounding phonological environment.
If Seebold’s approach is correct, then the two types of ja-stem nouns are to be ex-
plained as a Germanic innovation, albeit one which crucially relies on a potentially
inherited constraint preventing [j] after a heavy sequence.
It may be far simpler to regard these nominative singulars as analogical for-
mations: see e.g. Kaufmann (1886:539) and Brugmann (1886:517–18). We could
suppose that the nominative was modelled directly on the genitive:

haírd-ei-s (gen.) : haírd-ei-s (nom.) :: har-ji-s (gen.) : X,

where X = har-ji-s (nom.).

However, the elimination of the nominative/genitive contrast is, on the face of

it, rather surprising.20 The decisive factor in favour of creating nominative harjis
may have been the prevalence of j elsewhere in the paradigm. We find j followed
by a vowel in the genitive and dative singular and throughout the plural. Perhaps
the simplest explanation is to suppose that *y spread throughout the paradigm.21
Once again, this suggests that our evidence for Sievers’ Law alternation in the
light-stemmed forms may be analogical in nature. But, once again, the important
point to notice is the contrast between the two paradigms, which is ultimately at-
tributable to the original weight-conditioned contrast between post-consonantal
*iyV and *yV.

20 Kiparsky (2000), working in the framework of Optimality Theory, also treats harjis as analogical.
He argues that the replacement of the expected *haris can be explained by appealing to wider ten-
dencies in the lexicon affecting underlying morpheme structure. The outcome harjis constitutes the
optimal solution to a number of ranked phonological and morphological constraints.
21 As we noted above (pp. 12–13), if we accept the Proto-Germanic change *j > Ø/ i, then the gen.
sg. har-ji-s is also the result of such paradigmatic levelling of j.
 2.2. Evidence for Sievers’ Law in Gothic 15

2.2.4. Gothic Exceptions

The remarkably regular synchronic alternations of Gothic have inspired a great

deal of work in phonological theory. However, attempts at purely phonological
explanations of these phenomena have sometimes struggled to take into account
a number of systematic exceptions to Sievers’ Law in Gothic.
The genitive singular of neuter ja-stem nouns usually ends in -jis regardless
of the weight of the preceding sequence; for example, we find arb-jis rather than
*arb-eis beside nominative neuter singular arb-i ‘heritage’. This seems to be an
innovation; in a few cases we find the expected Sievers’ Law alternant side by
side with its replacement, e.g. beside nom. sg. andbaht-i ‘service’, we find the
(presumably) new gen. sg. andbaht-jis and the expected andbaht-eis.
Substantival derivatives in -jan- exhibit ‘light stem’ genitive singular forms, re-
gardless of their weight: e.g. gen. sg. fisk-jin-s ‘fisherman’ instead of the expected
*fisk-ein-s. The 2nd sg. imperative of -ja verbs is consistently -ei. For various other
possible exceptions, see Seebold (1972:74–8).22
We find a coherent class of counterexamples to Sievers’ Law among forms with
polysyllabic stems. Prokosch (1939:134) noted that in Germanic a sequence of
syllables can be treated in an identical fashion to a heavy sequence in a number
of metrical contexts; this observation applies to Sievers’ Law: e.g. ragineis ‘ad-
viser’ seems to require us to reconstruct the disyllabic *-iye/o- suffix, even though
the sequence immediately preceding the semivowel is light. This phenomenon
could ultimately be analogical in nature, perhaps starting from polysyllabic stems
which happened to end in a heavy sequence, such as sipōneis ‘disciple’.23 How-
ever, this pattern has been argued to have some parallels in Latin (see §2.4.1), and
we should also consider the possibility that the phenomenon might have been
inherited.
There are, to my knowledge, no surviving inherited lexical items with an ap-
propriate structure to trigger this condition: all the examples are peculiar to
Germanic. Therefore, it is difficult to know whether the rules governing poly-
syllabic stems are an entirely Germanic innovation, or a direct consequence of
the way in which some Indo-European rule functioned synchronically, or was
extended historically.
However, from a synchronic point of view, the evidence from polysyllabic forms
has been taken to indicate that Sievers’ Law in Gothic is best analysed as a foot-
based rather than a syllable-based phenomenon (see further §2.2.6).

2.2.5. Diachronic Problems

The proposition that Sievers’ Law is an extremely ancient phenomenon, or even

of Indo-European antiquity, encounters a serious problem when we look more
closely at the question of chronology. Some examples conform with Sievers’ Law

22 These exceptions have been considered in the context of Optimality Theory by Kiparsky (2000).
He concludes that when viewed from the wider perspective of the organization of the lexicon through
morphological constraints, these may not be exceptions at all.
23 On synchronic approaches to Prokosch’s Law, see §2.2.6.
16 Sievers’ Law: Gothic and Vedic

in Gothic, but the weight of the sequence preceding post-consonantal prevocalic

*i/*y changed during the history of Germanic and reflects the outcome of purely
Germanic sound changes; others comply with Sievers’ Law in Gothic but only
acquired the appropriate phonological structure to fall within the scope of the
rule within Germanic. This gives the impression that these Sievers’ Law effects are
in fact comparatively late developments.

2.2.5.1. New Heavy Sequences

The verb waúrkeiþ ‘he works’ < *wurk-iyi-þ < *wrg-ye-ti (cf. Myc. wo-ze, YAv.
˚
v_r_ziieiti) shows an interesting treatment. The original Indo-European light se-
quence presented by this form is treated as a heavy sequence for the purposes of
Sievers’ Law in Gothic. That seems to indicate that Sievers’ Law in this example
takes effect after the change of *r to *ur in Germanic.
˚*þunk-iyi-þ (cf. OE þyncþ) behaves as a verb with
Similarly, þugkeiþ ‘it seems’ <
a heavy stem. Yet it appears to be based on the zero grade of a root whose o-grade
form *tong- is found in Goth. þagkjan, OE þenċan, OHG denchen, and ON þekkja
‘think, perceive’.24 At an early stage a form *tng-ye-ti should have behaved as a
˚ after the Germanic change of
light-stemmed verb. It only acquired a heavy stem
*n to *un.
˚ Since the provenance of þugkeiþ outside Germanic is doubtful, it may only indi-
cate that Sievers’ Law continued to be a productive rule in Germanic. The example
of waúrkeiþ, however, appears to suggest that Sievers’ Law may have its origin
within Germanic.25

2.2.5.2. The Converse of Sievers’ Law

A different diachronic inconsistency can be found in verbs formed with the
Indo-European *-eye/o- suffix. These merged with the -ja class, when *e raised
to *i, e.g. *wort-eye-ti > *ward-iyi-þ > (fra)-ward-ei-þ ‘he destroys’. The devel-
opment of this particular example is unremarkable. But surprisingly *-eye/o-
also yielded forms in -jiþ and -jis after light stems. In other words, the *-eye/o-
formation merged completely with the inherited *-ye/o- verbs: e.g. causative
lag-jiþ ‘he lays’ with its ending from *-eye-ti-.26 This merger must have happened
after the stage when *-eye- > *-iyi-, with *-iy- being devocalized after a light

24 Without comparative evidence, it is difficult to be certain that þugkeiþ was built with the *-ye/o-
suffix rather than the *-eye/o- suffix (see §2.2.5.2), but Ringe (2006:115, 120) argues that its intransitive
semantics make the first possibility seem the most likely.
25 The development of *n to *un and *r > *ur occur very early in the history of Germanic; at
least there do not appear to˚ be any Germanic
˚ sound changes that must precede these (see Ringe
2006:81).
26 We can suppose that this form has the suffix *-eye/o-, since it has causative semantics when
compared to the intransitive form without suffixation: ligan ‘to lie’. Also, it shows a-vocalism in
the root which can ultimately reflect an inherited o-grade. This form itself may be inherited (cf.
LIV 2 398–9).
 2.2. Evidence for Sievers’ Law in Gothic 17

sequence, becoming *y. This devocalization has often been called the ‘converse of
Sievers’ Law’.27
So, superficially, it appears that the sound changes responsible for bringing
about the Sievers’ Law pattern belong to the history of Germanic rather than Indo-
European. What is more, forms with an origin in *-eye/o- seem to constitute a
substantial proportion of the light ja-stem verbs. The question is whether these
problems, and those discussed in the preceding section, force us to consider Siev-
ers’ Law a Germanic innovation, or, alternatively, whether it might be possible
to argue that these changes represent the expansion of an existing and perhaps
inherited phonological pattern.
Such an argument might be possible if we cease to regard Sievers’ Law simply as
a sound change which occurred at a single point in time; such a conception is not
compatible with the putative reshaping of an inherited form such as waúrkeiþ, or
the extension of Sievers’ Law to new forms as sound change brought them within
its remit (e.g. lag-jiþ). If we could plausibly characterize these syllabicity alterna-
tions as a set of inherited synchronic rules or constraints operating on syllable
structure, or higher metrical structures, then it is conceivable that such rules could
persist and continue to function in the surface phonology of Proto-Germanic,
constraining the output of subsequent sound changes.
In the next section we will consider the form which such putative inherited
rules may have taken, but it is worth noting that nothing in Germanic forces us
to make this argument; Sievers’ Law is clearly a synchronic rule at a certain stage
in Germanic, but if we accept the possibility of ongoing constraints, then there is
no telling how old it is. The only possible motivation for attributing it to Indo-
European is external, and lies in the comparative evidence which we will consider
later in this chapter and indeed throughout this investigation.

2.2.6. Synchronic Rules in Germanic

Various sets of synchronic rules have been proposed to account for Sievers’ Law
in Gothic, and these present no obvious problems if adapted so as to apply in
Proto-Germanic also.
Typically, Sievers’ Law has been analysed as involving the vocalization of [j] to
[i] when preceded by a tautosyllabic consonant in the onset of a syllable. This has
been formalized in various ways. Kiparsky (2000; cf. 1998) sets up an undominated
onset constraint *Cj (where * in Optimality Theory denotes a constraint and not a
reconstructed form).28 Calabrese (1994), on the other hand, gives a filter:

27 See Edgerton (1934:237–41; 1943:87ff.). However, cf. Seebold (1972:43) on the inappropriate
nature of this term; Sievers himself saw syllabic semivowels as primary, and already thought of the
semivowel alternations that he had described in terms of the selective devocalization of an original
uniformly syllabic precursor.
28 It is interesting to note that such a constraint was supposed early on by Sommer (1914) in the
context of Sievers’ Law effects in Lithuanian. He argued that *y must appear in syllable-initial position.
18 Sievers’ Law: Gothic and Vedic

*σ NN
pppp NNN
pppp NNN
NNN
ppp N
pp
X X Nu

–consonantal

place

dorsalM
qqq MMM
qqq MMM
qqq MMM
qq M
+high –back

Again * here denotes a constraint and not a reconstruction; X, a slot in the syllable
structure, and Nu, a syllable nucleus. Dresher and Lahiri (1991) have a vocaliza-
tion rule which does a similar job in their theory to Calabrese’s filter or Kiparsky’s
undominated constraint:
OnC On Ri
v CC
vv CC
vvv CC
vv C
vv
X X → X Nu

[+cons] [i] [+cons] μ

[i]

where On = onset, Ri = Rime, Nu = nucleus, and X = a slot in the syllable structure.

Vennemann (1971:107) also has a rule:29
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
–cons V
⎣ +high ⎦ → [+voc]/$C1 ⎣ +high ⎦
–back –back

where $ denotes a syllable boundary.

29 Note that this is a preliminary version of the rule which Vennemann ultimately proposes; in the
course of the same article he modifies it to account for the behaviour of polysyllabic stems.
 2.2. Evidence for Sievers’ Law in Gothic 19

The main differences between the various approaches are the mechanisms that
ensure that a Cj- onset (with consequent vocalization of the semivowel) would
be required only when a heavy sequence or a sequence of syllables precedes the
semivowel.30 In general the process has been analysed as an interaction between
syllabification and metrical structure.
Kiparsky (2000) argues that Gothic words are exhaustively parsed into moraic
trochees: left-headed, maximally bimoraic feet.31 Sequences that cannot be so
parsed are avoided. A word-initial light-heavy sequence is disfavoured since it
cannot be exhaustively parsed into moraic trochees; if parsed [L][H] (here square
brackets are used to denote feet) the first foot would be too short but in [LH] it
would be too long, and hence we find gen. sg. [har].[jis] and not *ha.riis.32 Be-
cause these feet are supposed to be maximally bimoraic, a syllable with more than
two moras is avoided (at least non-finally), hence [her].[dii]s and not *[herd][jis];
note that *[her][djis] would also be impossible because of the undominated on-
set constraint *Cj- mentioned above. We get [ra.gi][nii]s, since *ra.gin.jis cannot
be exhaustively parsed into moraic trochees and *ra.gi.njis would violate the *Cj-
constraint.
A different approach is taken by Dresher and Lahiri (1991). They argue that
having Cj- in the onset is the expected syllabification in all cases, but this is
then operated on by the vocalization rule mentioned above, which produces an
extra syllable. The challenge is then to explain the aberrant behaviour of light
(monosyllabic) stems. They introduce a left-headed Germanic foot parsed from
left to right, whose head is minimally bimoraic, in order to account for Sievers’
Law, Old English stress, high vowel deletion, and various metrical phenomena.
The head of such a foot must dominate two morae, even if this necessitates dom-
inating a mora in the following syllable. In this way a light syllable followed by
another syllable will be equivalent to a heavy monosyllable in terms of higher
metrical structure (i.e. [miki][liis] and [soo][kiis]). A light monosyllabic stem is
distinguished by the fact that the potentially vocalizable onset cluster is in the
weak part of the foot (i.e. [na.sjis]). Dresher and Lahiri put forward the argument
that any such vocalization would constitute a strengthening of the weak part of
the foot, an outcome which they consider to be ruled out on general principles.
This approach is argued against by Halle et al. (1993), since, in their view,
the admission of a Germanic foot unnecessarily enriches the foot typology elab-
orated by Hayes (1980), Hammond (1986), McCarthy and Prince (1986), and
Hayes (1987). Instead they posit the following rule:

The syllable onset Cj is syllabified Ci if preceded—directly or indirectly—by a

branching foot.

Higher metrical structure is assigned to words by the projection of asterisks onto

a metrical grid. These asterisks are projected by ‘the head vowels of syllables and
the immediately following rime segment, if any’ (their italics). They are grouped

30 On the behaviour of polysyllabic stems, see Prokosch (1939:134) and §2.2.4.

31 On the terminology, and the foot typology see Hayes (1980, 1987), Hammond (1986), and
McCarthy and Prince (1986).
32 Following the conventions established in this field, long vowels are denoted here by a sequence
of two like vowels, so ii stands for ı̄.
20 Sievers’ Law: Gothic and Vedic

into binary left-headed constituents from left to right. Hence the following
representations are obtained:
miki. ljis soo. kjis na. sjis
(** (** (** (** (* (**
This captures the necessary distinction between monosyllabic stems with a light
sequence on the one hand, and heavy sequences and polysyllabic stems on the
other. In the examples where there is vocalization of an onset Cj- to a syllable Ci-,
a branching foot precedes it.
It should be evident that these accounts differ substantially in their details, and
several other approaches could be adduced, but they all seem to rely, to one degree
or another, on the notion that a Cj- onset was somehow disfavoured and liable to
become Ci-. There is some independent evidence pointing in the same direction,
though its interpretation is far from straightforward.

2.2.6.1. A Constraint *Cj-?

There might be some evidence from orthographical practices for a constraint
against j appearing as a non-initial member of a syllable onset. Studies of word
breaks at the ends of lines in Gothic manuscripts33 show that medial clusters
of the type VCRV are usually broken before the consonant and very rarely be-
fore the resonant (e.g. <fa|dreinais> ‘family’, <bai|trei> ‘bitterness’, <ne|þlos>
‘needle’). Conversely, clusters involving a second member j (VCjV) are only
rarely broken before the consonant: they are usually broken before the semivowel
(e.g. <wrak|ja> ‘persecution’, <waurk|ja> ‘work’, <tand|jan> ‘light’, <fraþ|jan>
‘understand’).34 This may give us an indirect indication that the semivowel in such
medial clusters is the sole occupant of the onset, i.e. V.Cr but VC.jV.
Furthermore, the putative onset constraint *Cj does a very good job of predict-
ing the word-initial limitations on consonant clusters in Gothic. We find only the
following word-initial clusters before a vowel:
pr, br, tr, dr, kr, gr, fr, þr, hr, wr;
pl, bl, kl, gl, fl, þl, hl, sl, wl;
tw, dw, kw, þw, hw, sw;
kn, hn, sn;
sm, sp, st, sk;
spr, str, and skr.35
There are no word-initial complex onsets involving j as a non-initial member. This
makes perfect sense if there was an onset constraint and it was not phonologically
possible in Gothic to parse the first segment of a word as belonging to the coda
33 See Hechtenberg Collitz (1906), Hermann (1923:287–93), Schulze (1934:483–96), and
Frey (1989).
34 These examples are taken from Calabrese (1994:165).
35 This tabular arrangement I adapt from Calabrese (1994:164), but these word-initial consonant-
cluster facts have been widely used elsewhere: see Hechtenberg Collitz (1906), Vennemann (1971:107
n. 29), Kiparsky (2000), etc.
 2.2. Evidence for Sievers’ Law in Gothic 21

of the last syllable in the preceding word (contrast this with the situation in
Vedic, §2.6).
We might note that Cw- clusters are found at the beginning of words,36 and
there are no Sievers’ Law effects involving w/u in Gothic (a point developed
by Vennemann 1971). This would appear to be a coherent set of facts under a
constraint-based theory: Gothic does not have a constraint against *Cw in the on-
set, and therefore we also fail to see word-internal syllabicity alternation in the
Sievers’ Law mould.
But Riad (2004) is sceptical. He argues that the orthographical data need to
be treated with caution.37 Word-internally C+w is regularly split, e.g. <iz|war>
‘your’, <waurst|wa> ‘worker’, just like C+j, but there is no constraint on word-
initial Cw-, e.g. swein ‘pig’, twaddje ‘second’. Similarly, even though k+n are
regularly divided in word-breaking contexts, e.g. <taik|neiþ> ‘sign’, <swik|nein>
‘cleansing’, word-initial kn- occurs freely, e.g. kniu ‘knee’, knussjan ‘fall down’
(Riad 2004:195–6).
Nevertheless, there is certainly something special about the orthographical
treatment of word-internal j. Even very complex clusters of consonants are not
divided between syllables in the manner we might expect when j is involved: e.g.
we find <fulhsn|ja> ‘secret’ (dat. sg.) and <waurstw|ja> ‘worker’. The real ques-
tion then becomes: do we trust the word-breaking facts to give us a true reflection
of Gothic syllable division?
Riad (2004) also questions the widespread interpretation of the absence of
word-initial *Cj- clusters, finding it curious that there should be a constraint
against initial *Cj- but not against *Cw-. He argues (194ff.) that the lack of ini-
tial *Cj- and the lack of Sievers’ Law alternations for [u/w] word-internally are
actually gaps in the data and not true distributional facts.
On the latter point, it is certainly true that there is nothing morphologically
parallel to the har-jis/haírd-eis distinction for [u/w], and so we cannot be sure
how [w] would behave under exactly these conditions (Riad 2004:177 esp. n. 4).
However, there are perhaps sufficient differences in the distribution of [u/w] and
[i/j] elsewhere to suggest that we should not start with the expectation that the two
sets of semivowels will behave in a parallel fashion. This is shown, for example,
by forms such as waúrstwja ‘worker’ and waúrstw ‘work’, instead of *waúrstuja
and *waúrstu, with w in positions where Gothic j would certainly vocalize to i
(cf. weina-triwa ‘wine-tree’ not *weina-trjwa, and hari acc. sg. ‘army’ not *harj).38
From this point of view it is difficult to be sure that it would not have been possible
to infer a constraint against *Cj- but not *Cw- in the synchronic grammar of
Gothic.
From a rather different perspective it is somewhat mysterious that we do not
seem to find clear examples of the outcome of inherited word-initial *CyV- in
Gothic. The usual examples we might expect to see do not seem to have been

36 Examples include twai ‘two’, þwahan ‘wash’, swikns ‘pure’, and dwals ‘foolish’; see Kiparsky
(2000:20).
37 Compare the scepticism of Dresher and Lahiri (1991:269 n. 15).
38 The asymmetries are fully recognized and indeed discussed by Riad (2004:178, 197–8).
22 Sievers’ Law: Gothic and Vedic

inherited: e.g. we do not find a reflex of any relevant part of the *dyew- paradigm.39
We have a form of the root *kwyeH1 - ‘rest’ (cf. Lat. quiēs, OP šiyātiš), but only a
zero grade in Goth. ßeila ‘time, hour’ (cf. OE hwı̄l) < *kwiH1 -.
There are various apparently promising examples showing a spelling CijV- or
CiV-, but they always seem to have some other origin than inherited *CyV-, e.g.
Goth. kiusan ‘test, choose’, which, like several similar examples, actually owes its
syllabic i to the raising of an original *ew diphthong (< *“gews-: see LIV 2 166–7).
There seems to be a potential example of vocalization of *y to *i after a word-
initial consonant in Goth. siujan ‘sew’ < *syuH-ye/o- (cf. Lat. suō, Ved. s´ı̄vyati,
Lith. siuvù, siū´ti), but the use we can make of this example is limited, because it
is unclear whether we have a shortening of *-ı̄u- < *-iHw- (with the laryngeal in
the position suggested by the Vedic evidence) or a vocalization to -iu- < *-yū- <
*-yuH- (see LIV 2 545 with n. 5). We find a stem siju- in plural forms of the verb
‘to be’: sijum/sium ‘we are’ and sijuþ/siuþ ‘you (pl.) are’. Although the precise de-
tails are unclear, these seem to be re-formed from the subjunctive stem sijai-, itself
presumably remodelled from an originally alternating paradigm *sijē-/sı̄- < *H1 s-
yeH1 -/*H1 s-iH1 -.40 It is not clear whether the syllabic i in these formations is due
to a constraint against *Cj-, or rather whether the stem is based on the zero-grade
forms of the plural, which would have a syllabic semivowel in any event. The forms
fijan/fian ‘hate’, and fijand- ‘enemy’ (cf. OHG fı̄jant, OE fēond) seem to be related
to Skt p´ı̄yati ‘(s)he insults’ and may go back to *piH-, rather than containing an
original *CyV- sequence (see EWAia II 85, Kluge 1989:208b, and Ringe 2006:257).
The form frijōn ‘to love’ is also likely to have contained a laryngeal; cf. Ved.
priyá- ‘dear’ < *priHo- (cf. Goth. freis, OHG frı̄ ‘free’, Welsh rhydd; see EWAia
II 181–2, 189–90). Marchand (1958:75, followed by Calabrese 1994:166 n. 9) sug-
gests that Goth. kijan- (participle of keinan ‘sprout’) comes from Indo-European
*“gyono-. But in view of the evidence of the Proto-Balto-Slavonic accentuation in
the root syllables of Lith. pra-žýsti and Latv. ziêdu, we need to explain the pres-
ence of a long vowel in both forms. A root-final laryngeal seems the best option,
and, therefore, we reconstruct *“geyH-/*“giH- (cf. Arm. cil, cił/ceł; see LIV 2 161–2
and Pokorny 1959:355–6). Hence, Goth. kijan- does not represent the outcome of
original *Cy- either.
The absence of words with initial *Cj- remains a puzzle. It may be that a wider
survey of the Germanic languages would reveal convincing examples. This gap
may be due to chance. But if there truly is a constraint, then its operation is rather
odd; insofar as it can be said to have any effect, it is to restrict or filter which forms
were inherited from Indo-European, rather than forcing repair strategies such as
semivowel vocalization, as it is supposed to word-internally. I am not aware of any
other linguistic changes that effectively filter what is inherited in this way, and it
would be interesting to know if there were any typological parallels.
In one sense it does not matter from a purely Gothic or indeed Germanic per-
spective whether this distributional gap was due to a genuine historical constraint

39 Outside Gothic we find OE Tı̄w in ‘Tuesday’ and ON Týr, but this is from *deywós ‘god’ (cf. Ved.
devás, Lat. deus), and so does not contain the desired sequence *CyV-.
40 See Ringe (2006:195), who reconstructs *H s-ieH - on the assumption that the initial obstruent
1 1
cluster would call for the syllabic semivowel. On the weight of such clusters for Sievers’ Law see §2.3.4,
and on word-initial alternations, see §§2.7.2 and 3.9.
 2.2. Evidence for Sievers’ Law in Gothic 23

or a chance gap in what was inherited, provided that the gap is real, and not an
artefact of the poverty of our evidence. If so, then at any stage this distributional
peculiarity could have been interpreted synchronically as a constraint. Indeed,
there is some evidence that this in fact occurred, since the otherwise general de-
vocalization of prevocalic *i in Gothic failed to affect *i in an initial syllable, e.g.
fijan/fian.

2.2.7. An Inherited Constraint?

When we observed that examples like waúrkeiþ seemed to rule out the possibility
of ascribing Sievers’ Law in Germanic to Indo-European itself, we raised the pos-
sibility of construing Sievers’ Law as ongoing constraints or persistent rules in the
grammar. In one sense the Gothic data are encouraging, in that they provide sev-
eral competing models for how Sievers’ Law can function in a language, and hence
several models of rules and constraints that could potentially have been inherited.
However, the one element shared by these rule systems, and hence the best can-
didate for an ongoing constraint or persistent rule, appears, at first sight, to be
at odds with some basic facts about the Indo-European lexicon. Unlike Gothic,
Indo-European certainly did have words and stems beginning with *Cy- clusters,
e.g. *dyew- ‘sky (god)’, *tyegw-e/o- (cf. Gk σεμνός ‘holy’, Skt tyájati), *kyew- (cf.
Hom. σεύω ‘set in motion’, ἐ-σσύμενος ‘eager’, Skt cyávate). This seems, on the
face of things, to make the idea of the inheritance and maintenance of a constraint
against *Cy- onsets less than credible.41
A second concern is the way in which a constraint like this might have been
embedded in the rest of the grammar. As we have seen, substantial parts of the the-
oretical mechanics involved with models of Sievers’ Law are motivated by the need
to model the Germanic equivalence of a sequence of syllables to a heavy syllable.
But as we have already noted, this aspect is unlikely to be an inherited characteris-
tic, on the one hand because there do not seem to be any inherited examples, and
on the other because the best comparative evidence for rule-governed semivowel
syllabicity alternation does not offer any convincing support (see §2.4.1). There-
fore, the implementation of any Indo-European rules might have to be rather
different from those supposed for Germanic.
The issue of word-initial consonant clusters in Indo-European might be ad-
dressed by means of a technical device, such as a relaxation of the proposed onset
constraint word-initially. However, the definition of what is in the onset might
also depend on how the syllabification procedure functioned. This is an issue to
which we will return after we have considered the evidence of Vedic.
The second issue might be dealt with more straightforwardly. Calabrese
(1994:184ff.) assumes that Sievers’ Law operated in Indo-European and that it
arose entirely out of syllable structure without reference to higher metrical struc-
tures. On this view, polysyllabic stems had no special status and did not pattern
with heavy sequences. Calabrese reconstructs the same filter for Indo-European

41 For a synchronic analysis of Sievers’ Law in Indo-European which does not depend on an in-
herited onset constraint of this kind, but on interaction between morphological structure and syllable
structure in a stratal OT framework, see Byrd (2010).
24 Sievers’ Law: Gothic and Vedic

as he did for Gothic (see §2.2.6). This interacts with a constraint on the structure
of the rime, allowing only two skeletal positions per rime (i.e. a constraint against
over-heavy syllables; cf. Seebold 1972:340–1). We must leave aside most details
of this proposal here, but it is clear that a light sequence followed by *y, such as
*CeC.ye, can be syllabified in a straightforward manner without violating either of
these constraints. Heavy sequences followed by *y, on the other hand, must either
break the rime constraint, i.e. *CeRC.ye and *CēC.ye, or else violate the constraint
against *Cy- onsets, i.e. *CeR.Cye and *Cē.Cye. These violations can be avoided if a
syllabic semivowel actually surfaces in such contexts. In this way such constraints
can fairly easily model the predictions of Sievers’ Law.
For the sake of clarity, we should emphasize that we will not go so far as to
ascribe Sievers’ Law to Indo-European at this early stage in the argument, since
we have yet to consider the evidence offered by any other languages. Germanic
languages offer us no reason to project any constraints on syllable structure back
beyond Proto-Germanic. However, the knowledge that such ongoing constraints
or persistent rules could have operated is liberating, insofar as it allows us to go
beyond the evidence of waúrkeiþ. We no longer have to assume that Sievers’ Law
is only of Proto-Germanic antiquity, just on the basis that the rule is sensitive
to the purely Germanic heavy sequence generated by the development of syllabic
*r > ur. Instead, Sievers’ Law constraints could have been ongoing and demanded
˚ vocalization of the semivowel as soon as the new heavy sequence arose.42
the
Explaining away the other major diachronic inconsistency is less straightfor-
ward, but this too has been tackled synchronically in many accounts. Examples of
the converse of Sievers’ Law, such as lag-jiþ, suggested that there was a devocaliza-
tion of *iy. Calabrese (1994) introduced a foot-boundary-sensitive devocalization
rule to explain these examples and also to explain the difference between sōkja ‘I
seek’, with the reflex of a non-syllabic semivowel, versus sōkeis ‘you seek’, with the
reflex of a syllabic semivowel. The various stipulations are highly theory depen-
dent. I avoid discussing them here, partly for the sake of clarity and partly because,
if Seebold is right in his claim that Indo-European had no constraint on the syllab-
icity of semivowels after a light sequence, then it would not be desirable to project
developments that arguably belong only to Germanic back into Indo-European.
The outcome of all this is that we are not obliged to say that Sievers’ Law was
a development of Germanic, though in the end that could still turn out to be the
case. Indeed the converse of Sievers’ Law, which is certainly Germanic, would
be sufficient to produce the patterns we observe, assuming that we do not take it
to have been an analogical pattern ultimately owing its existence to an inherited
Sievers’ Law. In any case, the prospect of comparison is left open, and we can now
consider some suspiciously similar patterns of semivowel syllabicity alternation
in Vedic.

42 A rather different historical development would, of course, have been possible. The constraints
could have ceased to apply in a strict and exceptionless fashion and over time they would probably
have become confined to certain morphological categories. Sihler (2006:188–9) considers this latter
scenario as the overwhelmingly likely one, and in consequence is inclined to regard Sievers’ Law in
Germanic as an independent Germanic phenomenon.
 2.3. The Vedic Parallel 25

2.3. THE VEDIC PARALLEL

Sievers (1878:129) did not regard semivowel syllabicity alternations as being lim-
ited to the Germanic languages. He noted that Rigvedic i/y and u/v43 appeared to
be distributed in exactly the same way as *i and *y in Germanic: we should find
CCiyV and V̄CiyV versus V̆CyV, and CCuvV and V̄CuvV versus V̆CvV.

2.3.1. Metrical Evidence

As we have already noticed (Chapter 1, n. 4), we rarely find forms with syllabic
post-consonantal prevocalic semivowels represented in Vedic texts.44 Subsequent
changes eliminated almost all examples of post-consonantal prevocalic syllabic i
and u. As a result, forms containing such a semivowel are generally represented
with signs for non-syllabic y and w. However, since the Rigveda is composed in
syllable-counting metres, it is possible in favourable circumstances to determine
when such forms originally had a syllabic or non-syllabic semivowel.
About one third of the Rigveda is composed of dimeter verses. Most of these
verses consist of eight syllables. These may be deployed in stanzas of various
degrees of complexity. In the first four syllables of each verse (the opening) quan-
tity is fairly free. The last four syllables (the cadence) usually fall into an iambic
rhythm:   .45
In a verse such as RV 9.13.6 (ví vā´ram ávyam āśávah.), we find the form ávyam
‘from sheep’. There is no need to amend the text by introducing a hypothetical
*áviyam; the verse has eight syllables already and the cadence falls into the typi-
cal iambic pattern. On the other hand, a verse such as RV 1.36.4d (yás te dadā´śa
mártyah.) has only seven syllables and there is no iambic rhythm in the cadence.
If we replace the form mártyah. ‘mortal’ with mártiyah., then a metrical improve-
ment is produced. The resulting verse has eight syllables, as we would expect in
this hymn,46 and the cadence has the highly favoured iambic rhythm.
Much of the evidence for Sievers’ Law in the Rigveda is derived from the sum
of such metrical analyses. Restoration is not always as straightforward as in the
examples presented. Sometimes a metrically aberrant verse is merely made less
aberrant, and in no sense absolutely regular.47

43 The sound represented as v seems to have denoted a voiced labiodental spirant by the time of the
Prātiśākhyas and Pān.ini (see Wackernagel 1896:223). It is not entirely clear whether the change from
IE *w had already taken place before the Vedic period.
44 For a summary of the conditions under which iy and uw were represented in Vedic orthography,
see Seebold (1972:21–2).
45 On the structure of dimeter verse generally, see Arnold (1905:7–11, 149ff). Heptasyllabic and
catalectic verses with seven syllables do exist (see Arnold 1905:161–2 for examples). However, leav-
ing aside a few hymns where they are prevalent, such as RV 10.26, the phenomenon is not terribly
common.
46 The metrical scheme in this hymn is Brhatı̄ alternating with Satobrhatı̄ (see Arnold 1905:8, 236);
˚where the second and fourth
this Satobrhatı̄ stanza consists of four verses, ˚ should have eight syllables:
˚
12 8 | 12 8. There are no catalectic dimeter verses in this hymn.
47 For a detailed discussion of the many considerations that need to be taken into account, and
many worked examples of metrical restoration involving resonant syllabicity, consult Sihler (2006
passim, esp. 13–19).
26 Sievers’ Law: Gothic and Vedic

From a certain perspective, restoration of semivowel syllabicity in accordance

with the conditions of Sievers’ Law can be regarded as an extremely success-
ful principle of metrical emendation. But, in reality, the inference works in the
opposite direction: restoration comes first, governed purely by metre-internal
considerations, and Sievers’ Law emerges from its results. Indeed, as we shall see,
Sievers’ Law is not consistently applicable in all morphological categories. Fur-
thermore, even in words where the syllabicity of a semivowel is well established
from a preponderance of the evidence, we often find cases of inconsistent syllab-
ification. Nonetheless, Sievers’ Law accurately predicts semivowel syllabicity for
the Rigveda in an impressive number of instances, e.g.:

aryá- ‘lord’ and ávya- ‘from sheep’

(with -ya- after a light sequence);48
vı̄r-íya- ‘heroism’ and márt-iya- ‘mortal’
(with -iya after a heavy sequence);49
su-nv-ánti ‘press’ and śr-n.-v-ánti ‘hear’
˚
(with -v- after a light sequence); 50

aś-nuv-ánti ‘attain’ and prus.-n.uv-ánti ‘sprinkle’

(with -uv- after a heavy sequence).51

Sometimes our evidence for semivowel syllabicity is not merely inferred metri-
cally, but is of a more direct character. Most of the class V verbs cited above have
an ablauting suffix -no-/-nu-. The zero-grade suffix is manifested in four differ-
ent forms: -nu-, -nuv-, -nv-, and -n-. The last of these is an innovation which
occurs before resonants and does not immediately concern us. The first form oc-
curs only before consonants and exhibits syllabic [u], just as we would expect.
The forms -nuv- and -nv-, on the other hand, occur in the prevocalic environ-
ment and are distributed in accordance with Sievers’ Law.52 This syllabic [uv] is
directly represented in the Vedic and Classical Sanskrit orthography, unlike [iy] in
márt-iya- etc.

48 aryá- (non-syllabic 33 times and syllabic 3 times) and áv-ya- (non-syllabic in all 25 occurrences),
see Seebold (1972:205).
49 vı̄r-íya- (syllabic 78 times and non-syllabic once) and márt-iya- (syllabic 260 times and non-
syllabic twice), see Seebold (1972:254, 252).
50 su-nv- (non-syllabic 12 times and syllabic once) and śr-n-v- (non-syllabic 45 times and syllabic
.
˚
once or possibly twice), see Seebold (1972:194).
51 aś-nuv- (syllabic in all 8 occurrences) and prus-nuv- (syllabic in its one occurrence), see
. .
Seebold (1972:194).
52 See e.g. Edgerton (1934:255). Seebold (1972:44–5, 194, 201) noted that, while the evidence of
the -nu- present stems conforms with Sievers’ Law, there are only two usable examples where the stem
ends in a long vowel rather than a consonant (the evidence is slim for morphological reasons). These
two instances dhū-nuv-āná- (RV 6.47.17c) and dhū-nv-ánt- ‘shake’ (RV 9.72.8b) disagree in respect of
the relevant semivowel’s syllabicity and they cannot be used as evidence for or against Sievers’ Law.
Seebold argued that we cannot be sure the appearance of syllabic u in examples with heavy stems really
results from Sievers’ Law. It could conceivably be due to the nature of the consonant clusters in such
verbs. However, it seems unnecessary to invoke extra rules to explain these facts. If Sievers’ Law, or
something like it, needs to be posited for a prehistoric stage of Vedic, in order to explain a range of
other examples, then forms such as aś-nuv-ánti and prus.-n.uv-ánti would have been affected by it. Only
if we adopt Schindler’s model (see §2.7.4) would alternation in the -nu- verbs be unexpected.
 2.3. The Vedic Parallel 27

The factors conditioning Vedic semivowel alternation are sufficiently similar

to those in Germanic, and the conditions seem sufficiently arbitrary, that the two
phenomena are widely regarded as an Indo-European inheritance.

2.3.2. Vedic Exceptions

Just as the Germanic evidence turns out to be more intricate than a bald statement
of Sievers’ Law might imply, so too the Vedic data show idiosyncrasies which make
direct comparison less than straightforward.
Seebold (1972) conducted a thorough investigation of the Vedic evidence. He
concluded that, after a heavy sequence, we should find syllabic *i, just as Sievers
had observed. But after light sequences the situation was more complex.
Seebold took his starting point from Edgren’s (1885) statistical survey of Siev-
ers’ Law variation in the Rigveda. Edgren had noticed that among the adjectives
in -(i)ya-, there is a skewed distribution of forms. There are 1,747 examples of
monosyllabic -ya- after light sequences and 1,552 examples of -iya- after heavy se-
quences, in accordance with the predictions of Sievers’ Law. But Edgren also found
a certain number of exceptions. The identification of exceptions was not surpris-
ing in itself. The Rigveda was, in all likelihood, not composed at one moment in
history, but represents a chronologically stratified text; we might expect a certain
amount of analogical development. The surprising aspect was the skew among
the counterexamples. Edgren found 91 instances of -ya- after a heavy sequence,
but 462 instances of -iya- after a light sequence. Seebold (1972:340–1) concluded
that Sievers’ Law is formulated incorrectly. The Vedic evidence supports what he
called ‘die Anschlußregel’. This amounts to an avoidance of over-heavy syllables:
*y is prohibited after a heavy sequence, but after a light sequence both *y and *i
may be found.
Seebold argued that we must reconstruct two nominal suffixes: ‘exocen-
tric’ *-ı̄+a- and ‘non-exocentric’ *-i+a-. He supposed that these merged after
heavy sequences as -iya-, but left distinctive reflexes -iya- and -ya- after light
sequences.53
Further sources for -iya- may be considered. Mayrhofer (1986:161, 165–6)
argued that some instances of *-iya- after a light sequence can be explained as ad-
jectives made by adding the thematic vowel to the locative morpheme: *-i- + *-o-,
e.g. Ved. dámiya- ‘situated in the house’.54 We may also consider the possibility
that a suffix *-iHo- may have existed (see Burrow 1949:58), insofar as this is

53 Seebold supported his claim with the observation that as well as two distinct functional cat-
egories being found among the -(i)ya- suffixes, there may have been two distinctive accentuation
patterns, bewahrende Betonung and Kontrastbetonung. In the bewahrende Betonung type, the accent
on the form with the suffix is in the same place as the accent on its base form. In the Kontrastbetonung
type, the accent on the form with the suffix differs from that of its base form. Seebold claimed that
the forms with exocentric function have bewahrende Betonung and the suffix -iya- (even after light
sequences) < *-ı̄+a-, whereas the non-exocentric forms exhibit both accentual patterns and the suffix
-ya- after light sequences (but of course -iya- after heavy sequences) < *-i+a-. See Seebold (1972:251–2,
272–4, 277–8, 338–42). Compare Barrack (1998:187ff.) and Seebold’s (2001:149–51) reply.
54 Similarly, from *H enti we have thematic derivatives in several languages, Gk ἐναντίος ‘opposite’,
2
Ved. ántyas ‘last’, Goth. andeis ‘end’, etc.
28 Sievers’ Law: Gothic and Vedic

distinct from Seebold’s notion of a suffix *-ı̄+a-.55 This suffix could have remained
consistently disyllabic after the loss of intervocalic laryngeals, skewing the Vedic
distribution.
Under Seebold’s analysis the comparatively uniform appearance of *y after a
light sequence in all relevant Gothic categories (excepting those alluded to in
§2.2.4) is the result of a Germanic innovation rather than anything inherited (see
§2.2.3.1).

2.3.3. A Converse of Sievers’ Law in Vedic?

Edgerton (1934: esp. 237–41) understood Sievers’ Law to involve the vocalization
of prevocalic *y, *w, etc. after a heavy sequence, yielding, in phonetic terms, [iy],
[uw], etc. He argued in addition for ‘the converse of Sievers’ Law’ in Vedic, whereby
prevocalic *iy, *uw, etc. devocalized after a light sequence.56 He argued that in con-
texts where we would expect, on morphological grounds, to find a sequence of two
like semivowels across a morphological boundary (e.g. *i-y, *u-w), the phonetic
realization of this underlying sequence was determined by the surface environ-
ment. After a heavy sequence, morphologically motivated sequences were realized
as such. But after light sequences, Edgerton’s Converse caused a devocalization: i.e.
*V̆CR + *RV > *V̆CRV, rather than the expected *V̆CRRV.
˚ best
The “ potential“ example of Edgerton’s Converse˚“operating word-internally
is perhaps the 1st person dual form of class V verbs. In a form with a consonant-
final stem such as śaknuváh. ‘be able’, we can see the suffix -nu- and the ending
-vah.; we could simply understand the syllabic u vowel as the expected inter-
consonantal semivowel variant. On the other hand, in the light-stemmed 1st
person dual sunváh. ‘press’, morphological segmentation is difficult. Edgerton ar-
gued that sunváh. was the phonetic realization of the expected *su-nu-vah., with
the morphologically motivated sequence V̆Cu+vV realized as [V̆CvV].
However, Seebold (1972:45–6) has put forward a convincing alternative ex-
planation for sunváh.. He argued that it could be an analogical replacement
for *su-nu-váh.. If we look at the relationship between forms of the consonant-
final stem śak-nuv-ánti (3rd pl.) and śak-nu-vah. (1st dual) from a synchronic
perspective, it would be possible to infer a rule of v-deletion:
śak-nuv-ánti : śak-nu-vah. :: su-nv-ánti : X (where X = sunváh.).
This explanation acquires additional plausibility, when we realize that a very
similar analogical mechanism is needed anyway, in order to account for the un-
expected form of the 1st person plural sunmáh., which cannot be explained by
Edgerton’s Converse:57
śak-nuv-ánti : śak-nu-mah. :: su-nv-ánti : Y (where Y = sunmáh.).

55 It is very difficult to find evidence for an Indo-European phoneme *ı̄ that cannot be plausibly
resolved into a sequence of *i + *H. However, Seebold (1972:338) certainly regarded these as distinct
hypotheses. See further Chapter 3, n. 13.
56 On the erroneous use of the term ‘converse’, see n. 27.
57 On alternative explanations for this form, see Seebold (1972:45 and n. 92) with literature.
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
current, and it should be used in the way that will produce the
greatest amount of excitation in the cutaneous end-organs. This is
best done by applying the faradic current to the dry skin with the
metallic brush, or by allowing the cathode of the galvanic current to
rest upon it for some time.

The PROGNOSIS in peripheral anæsthesia is in the main favorable, but

it must, of course, depend much on the gravity of the lesion causing
it, as mechanical injury, pressure, neuritis, cold, etc. Rheumatic
anæsthesia, the result of exposure to cold, is in general readily
recovered from. Vaso-motor anæsthesia yields in most cases without
difficulty to treatment. Washerwoman's anæsthesia and allied cases
are intractable, and often resist the patient and well-conducted
application of remedies.

As a concrete picture of peripheral anæsthesia we will give a

description of anæsthesia of the fifth nerve—the rather that in its
consideration we meet with some of the most interesting and
important complications occurring in connection with paralysis of
sensitive nerves. The fifth nerve may have either of its three
branches separately affected, giving rise to anæsthesia limited to the
distribution of that branch, or all of its fibres may be simultaneously
involved, giving rise to complete anæsthesia of the nerve. In the
latter case the lesion of the nerve in all likelihood exists at some
point of its course between the apparent origin from the pons and the
ganglion of Gasser, which rests upon the apex of the petrous portion
of the temporal bone. Beyond this point the nerve divides into its
three branches. Amongst the causes of trigeminal anæsthesia are
injuries, tumors, syphilitic thickening of the dura mater, neuritis, etc.,
affecting the nerve within the cranial cavity. In complete anæsthesia
of the fifth nerve the parts implicated are the skin of the forehead to
the vertex, the nose, the lips, and chin up to the median line, the
cheek and temporal region, including the anterior portion of the ear,
the conjunctiva, the mucous membrane of the nose, the mucous
membrane of the mouth, and partly of the fauces of the same side.
The tongue is deprived not only of common sensation on the
affected side in its anterior two-thirds, but the sense of taste is also
lost over the same region, by reason that the fibres of the chorda
tympani, the nerve of taste for this region of the tongue, are derived
from the fifth nerve. If the whole thickness of the nerve-trunk is
involved, including the small motor root, there is, in connection with
the anæsthesia, paralysis of the muscles of mastication on the side
affected, which may be distinguished by the want of hardening of the
masseter when the jaws are forcibly brought together, and by the
thrusting of the chin over to the paralyzed side when the mouth is
widely opened, caused by the want of action of the external
pterygoid muscle, which allows the condyle on the paralyzed side to
remain in the glenoid fossa, while the condyle of the opposite side is
pulled forward upon the articular eminence by the sound pterygoid.
The face is of a dusky or livid color, and cooler than natural. Ulcers
of a stubborn character in the mucous membrane of the cheek may
be caused by the patient unconsciously biting the insensitive parts.
An inflammation of the conjunctiva is frequently set up, which may
extend to the cornea, causing ulceration, perforation,
panophthalmitis, and destruction of the eye (ophthalmia neuro-
paralytica). This has been regarded by some as caused by trophic
changes in the tissues, the direct result of irritation or destruction of
trophic fibres connected with the ganglion of Gasser. Experiments
made upon animals, however, seem to show that the inflammation of
the eye depends upon the irritation caused by the intrusion of foreign
bodies, which, owing to the loss of sensation, are not appreciated,
and which from loss of reflex action are not removed by winking nor
washed away by an increased lachrymal secretion, as in the healthy
eye. It may be that although the latter is the true explanation of the
origin of the inflammation, nevertheless the tissues may have lost
their normal power of resistance to its invasion by reason of nutritive
changes consequent upon the lesion of trophic fibres running in the
trunk of the nerve. The reflexes ordinarily induced by irritation of the
parts in their normal state are lost. Irritation of the conjunctiva causes
no winking of the lids nor secretion of tears, and titillation of the
nostrils no movements of the muscles of the face nor mucous or
lachrymal secretion. The movements of the face are less lively on
the affected side, not on account of paralysis of the muscles, but
from the loss of that constant play of reflex activity in them which
takes place in the normal condition. The loss of the reflexes
distinguishes peripheral trigeminal anæsthesia from that of cerebral
origin, in which they may still be excited by irritating the anæsthesic
surfaces. In trigeminal anæsthesia, which sometimes occurs from
the effect of cold upon the surface of the face, the mucous surfaces
are not affected.

The SYMPTOMS and DIAGNOSIS of peripheral paralysis having been

already given under the heads of Injuries of Nerves and Neuritis, a
consideration of the distribution of any motor nerve will enable us to
anticipate the distinguishing features of the paralysis dependent
upon it. With each the picture will be modified according to the
position of the muscles paralyzed and the motor functions destroyed.
It now remains to give the symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment of the
paralysis of an individual motor nerve, which may serve as an
example and paradigm, in the consideration of which points of
interest and instruction may be touched upon applicable to all other
cases.

Peripheral Paralysis of the Facial Nerve (Bell's Paralysis).

Of all the peripheral paralyses, probably that of the seventh is the

one we are most frequently called upon to treat and the symptoms of
which are the most complex and interesting. The frequency of its
paralysis is due to the length and peculiarity of its course, enclosed
as it is in a bony canal which permits no increase of its volume
without compression, the run of its terminal branches through parts
liable to inflammation and disease (parotid gland), and their final
distribution to parts exposed to all vicissitudes of heat and cold and
in constant danger of mechanical injury. The complexity and interest
of the symptoms of its paralysis depend in a great measure upon the
intimate connections it forms at different points of its course with the
fibres of other nerves of entirely different functions (acoustic and
fifth).
The seventh nerve is liable not only to intercranial compression from
tumors, inflammation of the meninges, syphilitic processes, etc., but
its long course through the petrous portion of the temporal bone
renders it liable to injury from fracture or caries, and its close
proximity to the middle ear causes it often to suffer from the
diseased conditions of the bony walls or mucous lining membrane of
that chamber, its paralysis being not infrequently the result of simple
aural catarrh. After the exit of the nerve from the stylo-mastoid
foramen it is imbedded in the parotid gland, and sometimes suffers
from compression produced by an inflammation or abscess in that
organ or by enlarged lymphatic glands in the neighborhood. Surgical
operations, so often demanded for disease of the bones or soft parts
of the face, may necessitate the lesion of its trunk or branches. The
exposed position of this nerve is sometimes the occasion of its injury
at the very outset of the life of the individual, when the application of
the forceps to the head has been resorted to in delivery. But the
most frequent cause of facial paralysis appears to be the exposure
of one side of the face directly to cold—as sleeping in a draught of
air, sitting at the open window of a railroad coach, etc. Here the
causal connection appears evident from the rapidity with which the
paralysis usually follows, although cases occur in which an interval
of hours or days elapses after the exposure before the paralysis
declares itself. Although this is usually designated rheumatic
paralysis, there is nothing to connect it with that disease, nor are
rheumatics more liable to it than others. Under such circumstances
the paralysis is probably brought about by the occurrence of a
neuritis of the nerve-trunk, which is compressed by the hyperæmia,
and it may be by an inflammatory exudation against the bony walls
surrounding it, until not only does it lose the power of conduction, but
its fibres undergo the degenerative process. In some cases the
neuritis thus excited by exposure to cold attacks the nerve after it
has issued from the bony canal, and then the resulting injury to the
fibres is much less grave. Although in some cases there are
prodromal symptoms, as stiffness or pain in the face, generally the
paralysis occurs suddenly, very often being first observed upon
awaking. The patient may be first made aware of the paralysis by an
inability to drink without the fluid dribbling from the affected side of
the mouth or by the overflow of tears from the eye of the same side.
When the paralysis is recent and the face in complete repose, there
may be little or no deformity to mark the condition of the muscles.
When, however, the patient speaks or the slightest emotional or
reflex movements of the face are excited, as laughing, frowning, etc.,
it becomes obvious from the bizarre grimace caused by a one-sided
contraction. After the paralysis has existed for some time the
contrast of the two sides of the face is marked. The paralyzed side is
characterized by a vacancy of expression to which the staring,
unwinking eye contributes. From loss of the tonicity of the muscles
the angle of the mouth droops, and the expressive furrows and lines
about the brow, below the eye, and beside the nose are smoothed
out and obliterated. Speech is affected, inasmuch as the paralysis of
the lip interferes with the pronunciation of the labials, and all
attempts to purse up the mouth, as in whistling, is abortive. The eye
not only remains open, the lids motionless, but there is partial
eversion of the lower lid (lagophthalmos), and the tears, no longer
directed to the punctum (paralysis of Horner's muscle), flow over the
cheek. The natural impulse to reflex winking caused by evaporation
from the conjunctiva or by the contact of particles of dust is
answered by a rolling of the eyeball upward to wipe the cornea
beneath the momentarily relaxed and drooping upper lid. Excited
respiration causes no movement of the ala of the nose on the
affected side, but in deep inspiration, in contrast to the normal
elevation of the ala, it is flattened down by the suction of the
inrushing current of air. In masticating, the cheek bulges out from
want of power in the paralyzed buccinator to press the food inward
against the opposing movements of the tongue. In persons who
have the rather unusual power of voluntarily moving the ear we may
detect the paralysis of the muscles concerned in those movements—
a useful point in diagnosis. Moreover, on the sound side of the face
the features have not entirely the natural appearance. The angle of
the mouth is drawn upward and the naso-labial line more deeply
impressed than natural. This results not from excessive contraction,
but from the muscles remaining in the position they have taken
during contraction, the antagonistic tonic traction from the opposite
side, which would have restored them to their normal position, being
wanting. This may be in a measure remedied by mechanical
appliances which will keep up an elastic pull from the paralyzed side,
or by restoring the muscles after contraction to position with the
hand. The tongue rests symmetrically in the floor of the mouth, and
is thrust out straight, although in appearance it is pushed toward the
side paralyzed—a deceptive appearance produced by the
asymmetrical position of the mouth. In some cases there is partial
paralysis of the velum palati, the half arch on the affected side
hanging lowest, and if we cause the patient to make the sound of ah
the opposite side of the palate is alone drawn upward. The uvula
may also participate in the paralysis, but the explanation of its
position, sometimes directed away from, sometimes toward, the side
of the paralysis, cannot be given. In proportion to the amount of the
paralysis of the soft palate will be the prominence of the symptoms
caused by it, such as difficulty in deglutition, a nasal tone in
speaking, and the escape of fluids through the nostril in swallowing.
The sense of hearing is often affected coincidently with facial
paralysis. Thus by reason of their close juxtaposition the same cause
may in common affect the acoustic and the facial, causing imperfect
hearing, subjective noises, etc. The hearing is frequently affected by
diseased conditions of the middle ear, which also cause a facial
paralysis. Still another defect of hearing, however, is caused by the
paralysis of the facial nerve itself. The stapedius muscle, supplied by
a branch of the facial, is the antagonist of the tensor tympani, and
when it is paralyzed the over-tense tympanic membrane vibrates
more readily to sound-waves, and a condition of uncomfortably
exaggerated sensitiveness to sounds is the result (hyperacuisis).
The rarely-occurring symptom of dryness of the mouth on the side of
the paralysis receives its explanation in the well-known fact of the
presence of secretory fibres for the salivary gland in the chorda
tympani, which are derived from the facial. We observe sometimes,
in connection with facial paralysis, that the patient complains of
certain subjective sensations of taste, as sour or metallic, and an
examination will in some cases reveal that the sense of taste is lost
on the anterior two-thirds of the tongue on the side of the paralysis.
The fibres which convey the sense of taste pass centripetally from
the tongue in the chorda tympani nerve, join the facial just within the
stylo-mastoid foramen, and continue united with it to the geniculate
ganglion of the facial, at which point they leave it to pass in the great
superficial petrosal to the spheno-palatine ganglion, and thence to
the trunk of the fifth nerve. Loss of sensation over the face only
occurs in cases where the fifth nerve has been simultaneously
affected with the facial, which may occur from exposure to cold.

It is obviously of importance in cases of facial paralysis to determine

if they are of central or peripheral origin. The most prominent
symptoms which mark a peripheral paralysis are the implication of all
the branches of the nerve, the loss of the reflexes, the development
of the degenerative reaction, and atrophy of the muscles. In facial
paralysis of cerebral origin the frontal and orbital branches are not at
all or but slightly affected, leaving the eye with its natural
appearance, in contrast to the lagophthalmos, and the open eye
which does not close even in sleep. In cerebral paralysis the reflexes
are normal and the muscles retain their natural electric reaction.
Accompanying brain symptoms assure the diagnosis. In facial
paralysis of bulbar origin the electric reactions are diminished, and
we have a complex of symptoms made up in a great measure by the
implication of neighboring nerves. After the diagnosis of a peripheral
facial paralysis has been made, by a careful consideration of the
symptoms we may with more or less accuracy determine at which
point of the nerve the lesion is situated. If there is paralysis of all the
muscles of the face, without alteration of taste or hearing, the electric
reaction of nerve and muscles normal, the nerve is affected outside
of the stylo-mastoid foramen. This is usually the form of slight
rheumatic paralysis. If we discover that the muscles of the external
ear are paralyzed, it shows that the point of lesion is just within the
stylo-mastoid foramen, where the posterior auricular branch is given
off from the facial. If with paralysis of the face there is alteration of
the sense of taste, with dryness of the mouth, without interference
with hearing, the trunk of the nerve is affected within the Fallopian
canal, involving the chorda tympani fibres below the point where the
stapedius nerve is given off. If to the above symptoms there is added
over-sensitiveness to sounds, hyperacuisis, and there is no paralysis
of the palate, we have the nerve affected still higher up, but below
the geniculate ganglion. If the geniculate ganglion is involved, there
is, in addition to the foregoing, symptoms of paralysis of the palate.
If, now, the lesion is above the geniculate ganglion, we will have
eliminated the symptom due to implication of the chorda tympani,
which leaves the trunk of the facial at the geniculate ganglion, and
the sense of taste is unaffected, while there remains paralysis of the
face, dryness of the mouth (the secretory fibres run in the trunk of
the seventh), hyperacuisis, and paralysis of the palate.

It was in facial paralysis that the first observations upon the

degenerative reaction in muscles were made, and it is in that
affection that these electric phenomena have been best studied, and
give us the clearest indications for prognosis and treatment in
peripheral paralysis generally. In rheumatic facial paralysis, the most
common form of peripheral facial paralysis, the electric reactions of
the paralyzed muscles enable us to classify the cases into three
groups, the prognosis and duration of which vary very much. In the
first group are the slight forms of facial paralysis. Here the faradic or
galvanic current, applied to nerve or muscles, causes an ordinary
contraction; the electric reactions are normal. These cases scarcely
require treatment, and recover in two or three weeks. In a second
group are those cases in which within a short time after the invasion
of the paralysis (two weeks) complete degenerative reaction is
observed. This degenerative reaction, with the accompanying
anatomical changes in nerve and muscle, has already been treated
of in this article, and it is sufficient here to say that it is marked by
total loss of electric excitability, both faradic and galvanic, in the
nerve, loss of faradic and increased galvanic excitability in the
paralyzed muscles, with a reversal of the normal reply of the
muscles to the different poles of the galvanic battery. These cases
constitute the severe form of rheumatic facial paralysis, and the
prognosis is grave, recovery takes place only after months, and even
after the lapse of years traces of the disease remain in the imperfect
action of the muscles. A third group of cases are of a gravity
intermediate between these two. In them is present the milder form
of degenerative reaction; that is, there is a diminution, but not a total
loss, of electric excitability in the nerve for both the galvanic and
faradic currents; but in the muscles there is a marked increase of
galvanic excitability, with qualitative change—i.e. greater contraction
upon application to them of the positive than of the negative pole.
These cases may be expected to recover in from four to eight
weeks, the muscles still exhibiting the degenerative reaction after
voluntary motion has returned. Among the symptoms to be
particularly noticed in the progress of the severe forms of facial
paralysis are spasmodic twitchings or spasms of the muscles on the
affected side of the face, about the angle of the mouth, and around
the eye, occurring spontaneously or when voluntary movements are
made. Also a state of tonic contraction and rigidity may develop in
some of the muscles, causing a permanent elevation of the angle of
the mouth, a narrowing of the opening of the eye, or a rigidity of the
cheek. These symptoms have been erroneously attributed to the use
of electricity in the treatment, but they occur as frequently in cases in
which it has not been employed. Traumatic facial paralysis, as from
wounds, surgical operations, use of the forceps in delivery, or
paralysis from compression of the nerve, as from tumors, syphilitic
thickening of the dura mater, etc., do not require a detailed mention
here, as such cases come under the head of nerve-injuries, already
discussed. Paralysis of both facials (diplegia facialis), in so far as it is
caused by peripheral nerve lesion, is an accidental occurrence, and
need not be considered as a separate form of facial paralysis. It is
often the result of central disease.

The TREATMENT of peripheral facial paralysis must begin with the

effort to remove its cause. If syphilis is suspected, mercury and
iodide of potassium must be freely used. If the cause is an affection
of the middle ear, this must be treated. Wounds or traumatic injuries
must receive the necessary surgical attention. In addition, in such
cases electricity must be employed in the manner presently to be
described. In cases of rheumatic facial paralysis the treatment will
vary with their gravity. In the lighter form in which the nerve is
affected outside of the Fallopian canal, recovery takes place in a
comparatively short time, even without treatment, but is hastened by
the use of the faradic or galvanic current daily along the branches of
the nerve. In the severe form we must open the treatment by an
attempt to combat the condition of inflammation—of inflammatory
exudation—which we suppose exists within the Fallopian canal.
Local blood-letting by leeching upon the mastoid process may be
appropriately used in the very first outset of the paralysis. Iodide of
potassium, given persistently in large doses during the earlier period
of the disease, appears to act beneficially independently of any
syphilitic taint. Electricity is the remedy, however, on which most
reliance is to be placed in the treatment of rheumatic facial paralysis,
and the manner of its application may be taken as a model of how it
should be employed in all cases of peripheral paralysis. The galvanic
current, on account of its power of penetrating to the deeper parts
and its catalytic action, is to be preferred for the direct electrical
treatment of the nerve which should be instituted in recent cases. Its
action is best obtained by placing the positive pole behind the ear on
the affected side, the cathode behind the opposite ear, and passing
a moderate current across the base of the skull (the affected nerve
being thus in the course of the current) for one or two minutes.
Occasionally the position of the poles may be reversed. Besides this
direct application of galvanism to the point of lesion, it is necessary
to make a peripheral application of electricity to the branches of the
nerve and to the paralyzed muscles. For this we use both the faradic
and galvanic currents. The galvanic current is used by applying the
positive pole stationary behind the ear, while the negative pole, with
an electrode of suitable size, is stroked over each branch of the
nerve and applied to each muscle, a current being used sufficiently
strong to produce decided contractions. This peripheral application
should be made once daily, the time of application being from two to
five minutes. The application of the faradic current is made by simply
placing one electrode upon an indifferent spot, and moving the other
over the face, with a current strong enough to cause contractions if
the muscles still respond to it, or if they do not of such strength as
the patient can bear without discomfort. Without doubt, one of the
beneficial effects of peripheral electrization is the reflex excitement of
the facial above the point of lesion through the irritation of the
terminations of the fifth nerve in the skin. A certain advantage
derived from it is that it maintains the tone of the paralyzed muscles,
which in the case of the orbicularis palpebrarum is of great
importance in preventing the eversion of the lower lid and the
overflow of the tears. As it is impossible during the first days
succeeding the paralysis to distinguish severe cases from those of
the middle form, it is best to begin the treatment of all cases in the
manner above described. The use of strychnia in rheumatic facial
paralysis, both internally and by hypodermic injection, may be
mentioned on account of the widespread preposession in its favor,
and to point out distinctly its utter futility.

Mechanical appliances and manipulation are used with advantage in

the treatment of facial paralysis to prevent the paralyzed muscles
about the mouth and cheek from being drawn out of place and over-
stretched by the action of the sound ones of the opposite side, thus
having their tonicity and nutrition impaired.

Contractions and rigidity of muscles receive little benefit from the use
of electricity, and must be treated by mechanical procedures, such
as stretching, massage, etc.

Neuromata.

The term neuromata was applied to all tumors involving the nerve-
trunks at a time when their histological differences had not been
studied and they were all supposed to be composed of nerve-tissue;
and even yet the name is conveniently retained, because, although
differing widely histologically, tumors situated upon the nerves have
a very similar clinical history.

Neuromas must be divided into true and false, the true consisting of
nerve-tissue, the false, or pseudo-neuromas, being composed of
many varieties, having this only in common, that they are seated
upon the nerves.

The true neuromas are again subdivided into those in which the
nerve-tissue composing them resembles exactly the fibres of the
peripheral nerves, showing with the microscope the double-
contoured white substance of Schwann surrounding an axis-cylinder,
and those in which the tumor is made up of fibres which Virchow has
shown to be non-medullated nerve-fibres—i.e. the axis-cylinder
without the white substance of Schwann. These two forms have
been distinguished by the names myelinic and non-myelinic. The
true neuromas are non-malignant, although showing the tendency to
recur after extirpation, are of slow growth, and as a rule do not
increase to a very great size. The best type of the myelinic neuromas
is found in the spherical or spindle-shaped enlargements at the cut
ends of nerves, particularly in the stumps of amputated limbs, where
they are found oftenest intimately connected with the cicatricial
tissue, though sometimes lying free. They consist of true medullated
fibres mixed with some fibrous tissue. The fibres composing them
are derived partly from splitting up and proliferation of the fibres of
the nerve itself, partly are of new formation, the appearances
strongly recalling the process of regeneration in nerves. Myelinic
neuromas consist of fibres and nuclei so closely resembling in
microscopic appearance the fibromas that they have hitherto been
confounded with them; and there is a difference among the highest
authorities as to the certainty of their diagnosis, and, in
consequence, of the frequency of their occurrence. The true
neuromas may include in their structure all of the fibres of the nerve-
trunk or only a portion of them (partial neuroma)—a fact of
importance in their symptomatology. Of the false neuromas, the
fibromas are by far the most frequently met with. They appear as
knots, more or less hard, upon the course of the nerve-trunk, which
they may involve completely or partially. They are often excessively
painful to the touch or spontaneously, most of the so-called tubercula
dolorosa belonging to the fibro-neuromas. Fibromas sometimes
occur along the trunk and branches of a nerve, forming a plexus of
knotted cords (plexiform neuroma). Fibro-sarcomas are not an
infrequent form of neuroma.

Myxomas often occur upon the peripheral nerves, and are frequently
multiple, their points of predilection being the larger trunks, as the
sciatic, ulnar, etc. They show their characteristic soft structure, and
are usually spindle-shape, assuming a rounder form as they attain a
large size. The various forms of sarcoma occasionally form tumors
upon the nerves, attacking generally the large trunks. Carcinomatous
tumors beginning upon the nerves sometimes occur, but as a rule
these growths involve the nerve by extension to it from adjacent
parts.

Syphilitic gummata have been found almost exclusively upon the

intracranial portion of the cranial nerves.

Gliomas appear to affect only the optic and acoustic nerves. Lepra
nervorum (lepra anæsthetica) produces usually a spindle-form
thickening upon the nerve-trunks, but sometimes there are more
distinct knots, which may be felt beneath the skin, bead-like, along
the course of the nerves of the extremities.

Like the true neuromas, the false neuromas, developing from the
neurilemma and perineurium, may involve the whole or only a part of
the fibres of a nerve, or the nerve-fibres may run at the side of the
tumor—different conditions, which may alter materially the effects
produced upon the nerve.

Neuromas, both false and true, may occur not only singly, but often
in large numbers, many hundreds having been counted upon an
individual. Sometimes they are numerous upon a single nerve-trunk
and its branches, and again they may appear scattered over nearly
all of the nerves of the body, even to the cauda equina and roots of
the nerves. According to Erb,9 isolated neuromas are more frequent
in females, while multiple neuromas are found almost exclusively in
men. Neuromas vary greatly in size, as we might expect from the
very great difference of their nature and structure; sometimes no
larger than a pea, they may attain the size of a child's head.
9 Ziemssen's Handbuch.

ETIOLOGY.—In cases of multiple neuromata it would seem as if there

was a constitutional condition or diathesis as the foundation of the
affection. This we may the more readily believe as there appears
good evidence to show that the tendency to the formation of these
nerve-tumors is sometimes hereditary, and some of them are
congenital.

Idiots and cretins have been observed to suffer in undue proportion

with multiple neuromas. We find a direct exciting cause of neuromas
in mechanical injuries of nerves, wounds, blows, pressure, etc. Thus,
as has been already seen, true neuromas occur in the divided ends
of the nerves after amputations or otherwise where a nerve-trunk
has been divided (cicatricial neuroma). As such neuromas are in
some degree the result of inflammation, it is probable that they may
sometimes be caused by chronic neuritis.

For a large number of neuromas no cause can be assigned, and we

must at present consider them as originating spontaneously.

SYMPTOMS.—The position and connections of neuromas being so

different, sometimes simply in contact with the nerve; sometimes
situated in the thickness of the nerve-trunk, the fibres being pressed
aside and spread out upon the surface of the tumor; sometimes
involving in their tissue a part or the whole of the nerve-fibres,—we
cannot but expect a very marked difference in their clinical history.
Not a few cases occur in which the presence of neuromas, even in
large numbers, gives rise to no symptoms during life, and their
existence has been revealed only upon a post-mortem examination.

The symptom most common to neuromas, and one to be expected

from their mechanical interference with the nerves, is neuralgic pain
—sometimes extreme, local or shooting along the course of the
nerves, stubborn, and hardly to be alleviated by remedies. It is
paroxysmal, notwithstanding the unvarying character of its cause, in
consonance with the tendency to periodical activity which prevails in
the nervous system. Sometimes the pain is increased notably by
atmospheric changes. The pain may sometimes be arrested by firm
pressure upon the nerve above the seat of the tumor. In some cases
pressure upon the neuroma, or even handling it, causes great pain.
The intensity of the pain does not depend upon the size of the tumor,
some of the smallest having earned the appropriate name of
tubercula dolorosa. The continued irritation of a neuroma sometimes
produces a condition of general nervous excitability, which shows
itself in hysterical and even in true epileptic convulsions.
Occasionally there are abnormal sensations (paræsthesiæ),
formication, numbness, etc., in the distribution of the nerve affected,
and when from pressure or histological changes the fibres are
destroyed anæsthesia results.

The interference with the conductivity of the motor fibres, which

occurs less frequently than alterations of sensation, shows itself in
cramps, tumors, paresis, and paralysis, according to its degree.

Neuromas may destroy life by the continued excessive pain, which

wears down the strength and depresses the vitality. Death may be
caused by their peculiar situation; as, for instance, upon the cauda
equina, where they produce paraplegia, paralysis of the sphincter
and bladder, and trophic changes.

The DIAGNOSIS of neuromas can only be made when they are

sufficiently superficial to be recognized by the touch, and along with
the symptoms above detailed the tumor is situated upon the known
course of a nerve, to which, moreover, its attachment allows a lateral
movement.

The only TREATMENT available for neuromas is extirpation, which must

be conducted with a view to sparing any fibres of the nerve not
involved in the tumor. Where it is necessary to divide the nerve in the
removal of the tumor, as small a portion as possible must be
excised, with the hope of a regeneration and reuniting of the cut
ends. The success of extirpation depends largely upon the nature of
the neuroma. The true neuromas, while they often show a strong
tendency to recur after removal, are benign and show no metastasis.
For the false neuromas the prognosis will be in accordance with their
benign or malignant character.
NEURALGIA.
 BY J. J. PUTNAM, M.D.

DEFINITION.—It is customary to describe as neuralgic those pains for

which no adequate cause can be assigned in any irritation of the
sensory nerves from outside, which recur paroxysmally, are
unattended by fever, and are distributed along the course of one or
more nerves or nerve-branches.

The general use of the term neuralgia further implies the common
belief that there is a disease or neurosis, not covered by any other
designation, of which these pains are the characteristic symptom. Of
the pathological anatomy of such a disease, however, nothing is
known; and if it could be shown for any given group of cases that the
symptoms which they present could be explained by referring them
to pathological conditions with which we are already familiar, these
cases would no longer properly be classified under the head of
neuralgia.

The attempt has frequently been made, and on good grounds, in

obedience to this reasoning, to cut down the list of the neuralgias,
strictly so called, and to account for many of the groups of symptoms
usually classified under that head by referring them to anæmia or
congestion of the sensory nerves, to neuritis, etc.

One of the best and most recent statements of this view is that of
Hallopeau,1 who, although he does not wholly deny the existence of
a neurosis which may manifest itself as neuralgia, goes so far as to
maintain that the gradual onset and decline and more or less
protracted course so common in the superficial neuralgias, such as
sciatica, suggest rather the phases of an inflammatory process than
the transitions of a functional neurotic outbreak, and that, in general
terms, a number of distinct affections are often included under the
name of neuralgia which are really of different origin, one from the
other, and resemble each other only superficially. This subject will be
discussed in the section on Pathology, and until then we shall, for
convenience' sake, treat of the various neuralgic attacks as if they
were modifications of one and the same disease.
1 Nouveau Dict. de Méd. et de Chir. pratiques, art. “Névalgies.”

GENERAL SYMPTOMATOLOGY.—The neuralgias may be conveniently

divided into—1, external or superficial; 2, visceral; 3, migraine and
the migrainoid headaches.

Superficial Neuralgia.

The most prominent symptom of a neuralgic attack of the superficial

nerves is of course the pain, and sometimes, from first to last, no
other sign of disease is present. In an acute attack the pain is usually
ushered in by a sense of discomfort, which the patient vainly tries to
shake off, or by a feeling of weight and pressure or of numbness and
prickling, or of itching. Sometimes, though far less often than in the
case of migraine, there are prodromal signs of a more general
character, such as a feeling of thirst2 or of mental depression or
drowsiness.
2 Spoken of by Mitchell's patient with neuralgia of the stump (see below).

A dart of pain may then be felt, which soon disappears, but again
returns, covering this time a wider area or occupying a new spot as
well as the old. The intensity, extension, and frequency of the
paroxysms then increase with greater or less rapidity, but, as a rule,
certain spots remain as foci of pain, which radiates from them in
various directions, principally up or down in the track of the nerve-
trunk mainly implicated. The pain rarely or never occupies the whole
course and region of distribution of a large nerve or plexus, but only
certain portions, which may be nearly isolated from one another.
In an acute attack the affected parts may at first look pale and feel
chilly, and later they frequently become congested and throb.
Mucous surfaces or glandular organs in the neighborhood often
secrete profusely, sometimes after passing through a preliminary
stage of dryness.

The skin often becomes acutely sensitive to the touch, even though
firm, deep pressure may relieve the suffering. Movement of the
painful parts, whether active or passive, is apt to increase the pain.
When the attack is at its height, the pain is apt to be felt over a larger
area than at an earlier or a later period, and may involve other
nerves than those first attacked. Thus, a brachial becomes a cervico-
brachial neuralgia or involves also the mammary or intercostal
nerves. A peculiarly close relationship exists between the neuralgias
of the trigeminal and of the occipital nerves. It is said that when the
attack is severe the corresponding nerves of the opposite side may
become the seat of pain. This is perhaps remotely analogous to the
complete transference of the pain from one side to the other which is
so characteristic of periodical neuralgic headaches, especially if they
last more than one day.

Some cutaneous neuralgias pass away after a few hours' or a night's

rest, after the manner of a migraine or a headache, and patients in
whom this takes place are, as a rule, constitutionally subject to
neuralgia or other neuroses. Toward the end of such an attack there
is often a copious secretion of pale, limpid urine. In a large class of
cases, on the other hand, the attack is of several days' or weeks', or
even months' or years', duration, with remissions or intermissions
and exacerbations, which may be either periodical or irregular.

The most marked periodicity of recurrence is seen with the

neuralgias of malarial origin, which may take on any one of the
typical forms of that disease.

These malarial neuralgias affect pre-eminently, though not

exclusively, the supraorbital branch of the fifth nerve; but it should
not be forgotten that there is also a typically periodical supraorbital
neuralgia of non-malarial origin, of which the writer has seen several
pronounced examples, the pain usually recurring regularly every
morning at eight or nine o'clock and passing away early in the
afternoon. The same periodicity is seen, though less often, in other
neuralgias. Thus, Trousseau3 speaks of neuralgic attacks from
cancer of the uterus in a young woman, which recurred daily at
exactly the same hour. Some of the traumatic neuralgias show the
same peculiarity to a marked degree.
3 Clin. Méd.

In many neuralgias, on the other hand, the exacerbations are worse

at night, like the pains of neuritis. In the intervals between the attacks
the pain may be wholly absent, or may persist, usually as a dull
aching.

After a neuralgia has lasted a few days—sometimes, indeed, from

the outset if the attack is severe—it is usually found that definite
spots of tenderness have made their appearance at certain limited
points on the course of the nerve. These are the famous points
douloureux which Valleix described with such minute accuracy,
believing them to be invariably present in true neuralgias. This is
certainly not strictly the case, though they are very common. They
are not necessarily coincident with the foci of spontaneous pain, as
Valleix supposed, but do correspond in general to the points at which
the affected nerve emerges from its bony canal or from deep
muscles and fascia, and to portions of its area of distribution in the
skin. The spinous process corresponding to an affected spinal nerve
may also become tender, but this is probably to be looked on, like
the same symptom in so-called spinal irritation, not as a sign of local
disease, but as due to a general reaction on the part of the nervous
system, and as a fact of a different order from the tenderness along
the nerve.

The termination of an acute neuralgic attack is usually gradual, like

its onset, although in some cases of headache, and in other
neuralgias to a less degree, there comes a moment when the patient
suddenly declares that he is free from pain.
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebooknice.com