Kortlandt, Frederik





Bibliography

Kortlandt, Frederik, “Old Irish ol 'inquit'”, Études Celtiques 32 (1996): 143–145.

  • journal article
Citation details
Contributor(s)
Article
“Old Irish ol 'inquit'”
Periodical
Études Celtiques 32 (1996)
Études Celtiques 32 (1996).
Persée – Études Celtiques, vol. 32, 1996: <link>
Volume
32
Pages
143–145
Description
Abstract (cited)
[FR] Vieil-irlandais ol ‘inquit’.
La distinction entre ol-et al-en italique et en celtique represente une distinction sémantique originale entre un sens inclusif ’beyond, über . . . hinaus, par-delà’ et un sens exclusif ’jenseits, on the other side, au-delà de’. Il n’apparaît pas immédiatement que ol ’inquit’, al (asbert ) ’praeterea (dixit)’ soit identique à la préposition al, ol ’par-delà’. Il y a deux obstacles qui empêchent une identification immédiate, l’absence de lénition après ol ’inquit’ et la présence de -s- dans la forme élargie olse ’said he’. Les difficultés disparaissent si nous prenons ol et olse pour ce qu’ils semblent être, c. à d. des formes verbales deutérotoniques avec un radical zéro. Le meilleur candidat pour cette forme verbale disparue est *égt ’dixit’, grec ē, virl.*í cf. latin aio ’je dis’. Si l’expression *ol-est-ēgt, à la différence des formes verbales régulières, est devenue une formule figée dès avant la lénition, le résultat attendu en vieil-irlandais est olsi ’inquit’ Cela explique le -s-de olsé ‘dit-il’, qui a dû être créé, à l’évidence, lorsque l’on a réinterprété olsí comme signifiant ‘dit-elle’, ce qui a par la suite permis d’employer la forme ol devant un sujet nominal.

[EN] The distinction between ol-and al-in Italic and Celtic represents an original semantic distinction between inclusive ‘beyond, über . . . hinaus’ and exclusive ‘jenseits, on the other side’. It is not obvious that the word ol ‘inquit’ al (asbert) ‘praeterea (dixit)’ is identical with the preposition al, ol ‘beyond’. There are two obstacles which prevent their immediate identification, viz. the absence of lenition after ol ‘inquit’ and the presence of -s-in the extended form olse ‘said he’. The difficulties vanish if we take ol and olse to be what they look like, viz. deuterotonic verb forms with a zero root. The obvious candidate for the lost verb form is *egt ‘said’, Greek ē , OIr. *í , cf. Latin aio 'I say’. If the phrase *ol-est-ēgt, unlike regular verb phrases, became a fixed expression before the lenition already, the expected Old Irish reflex is olsí ‘inquit’. This explains the -s-of olsé ‘said he’, which was evidently created by the reanalysis of ohi as ‘said she’ which subsequently gave rise to the form ol before a nominal subject.
Related publications
Other editions or printings
Kortlandt, Frederik, Italo-Celtic origins and prehistoric development of the Irish language, Leiden Studies in Indo-European 14, Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2007.  
abstract:
This volume offers a discussion of the phonological and morphological development of Old Irish and its Indo-European origins. The emphasis is on the relative chronology of sound changes and on the development of the verbal system. Special attention is devoted to the origin of absolute and relative verb forms, to the rise of the mutations, to the role of thematic and athematic inflexion types in the formation of present classes, preterit[e]s, subjunctives and futures, and to the development of deponents and passive forms. Other topics include infixed and suffixed pronouns, palatalization of consonants and labialization of vowels, and the role of Continental Celtic in the reconstruction of Proto-Celtic. The final chapter provides a detailed analysis of the Latin and other Italic data which are essential to a reconstruction of Proto-Italo-Celtic. The appendix contains a full reconstruction of the Old Irish verbal paradigms, which renders the subject more easily accessible to a wider audience. The book is of interest to Celticists, Latinists, Indo-Europeanists and other historical linguists.
(source: Publisher)
Subjects and topics
Headings
Old Irish
Contributors
Dennis Groenewegen,Pierre Faure