A Look over Lat.

umerus
29th WeCIEC, UCLA, November 3–4, 2017
Stefan Hoefler
hoefler@fas.harvard.edu

§1 The dilemma
The PIE reconstruction of the word for ‘shoulder’:

*(hx)omeso-A *(hx)ómso-
Lat. umerus, -ī m. Ved. áṁsa- m.
Umbr. loc. sg. uze, onseE Gk. ὦµος m.B
PGmc. *amsa- (Goth. acc. pl. amsans)
Arm. owsC
Toch. A es, B āntseD
Umbr. loc. sg. uze, onseE

A
Walde/Hofmann II:815; IEW:778; de Vaan 2008:640; Weiss 2009:140.
B
*-ómsV- > Att.-Ion. -ῶµ- (not †-οῦµ-) is the product of regular sound change, as in κῶµος m. ‘revel’, Ved. śáṁsa-
m. ‘praise’ < *k̑ ómso- (cf. Durante apud Peters 1980:307 n. 253; LIV2:326 s.v. *k̑ eNs- n. 1; Hackstein 2002:190f.).
The expected Aeol. outcome -οµµ- can be seen in ἐπ-οµµάδιος ‘on the shoulders’ (v.l. in Theocr. 29.29).
C
The development *o > *u before a nasal is regular; cf. cownr ‘knee’ < *g̑ ónu and Schmitt 2007:49f.
D
The Toch. words (cf. the seminal treatment in Hilmarsson 1989:6ff.) seem to presuppose a *(hx)ōmso- (or *h2emso-,
see below). However, a dual *(hx)omsoh1 > *omsō(+nº) > PT *ænsā(+næ) (with *ºnæ as the dual marker) would
have constituted a possible environment for the phenomenon known as ā-umlaut, by which PT *ænsā(+næ) >
*ānsā(+næ), whence TB āntsne (verse), aṃtsane (prose), TA esäṃ, from which the singular TB āntse, TA es was
backformed / analogically remodeled. I am unsure, however, why the umlaut-causing *ā (< *ōC-) was shortened to
*-ä- in TB; in TA, a threesyllabic PT *ānsānæ would have undergone “Vokalbalance” to esäṃ anyway. Incidentally,
the same development can be assumed for *podyoh1 ‘(the two) feet’ (cf. Hilmarsson 1989:13) > PT *pæyyā(+næ) >
*pāyyā(+næ) >> *pāyyä(+næ) > TB paine, TA peṃ. In any case, an analogical explanation of the first vowel of āntse
is also possible, cf. Peters 1980:307f. note 253. I plan to take a closer look over the Toch. ‘shoulder’ on another
occasion.
E
Umbr. loc. sg. uze (IIb 27,28), onse (VIb 50) ‘in umero’ can apparently continue either *(hx)omes(e)i or *(hx)oms(e)i
(cf. Meiser 1986:163). See also below note 10.
N.B. Hitt. gen. sg. a-na-aš-ša-aš=ša-aš (KUB 35.148 iii 24) ‘lower part of the back (?)’ does not belong here (cf.
Kloekhorst 2008 s.v.)

Topic of this talk: how to account for *(hx)omeso- (Lat. umerus) next to *(hx)ómso- (all others)?1

1
I am indebted to Francesco Burroni, Jay Jasanoff, Martin Peters, Jeremy Rau, and Zachary Rothstein-Dowden for
precious comments and advice, but no endorsement of any specific ideas is hereby implied.
1
§2 Two unattractive solutions
2.1 Two different lexemes *(hx)omeso- and *(hx)ómso-?

• This is, obviously, not very attractive.

2.2 Regular development of *(hx)ómso- > Lat. umerus?

This assumption implies the insertion of an anaptyctic vowel in the intervocalic sequence *-ms-.

• *(hx)omso- > *(hx)omVso- > umerus (so tentatively Weiss 2009:171).

The sound law seems somewhat counter-intuitive since no other sonorant + *s cluster in Latin shows the
development of an anaptyctic vowel.

• It is usually assumed that intervocalic *-ms- gave Lat. -ns- (cf. Leumann 1977:212). Examples for
PIE *-ms- are, however, scarce. But cf. Lat. cēnsēre ‘think, suppose’ (if from *√k̑ ems LIV2:326);
Lat. mēnsa ‘table; meal; altar’ (if from *mē̆ms-o- ‘meaty’).2

Putative other examples for *-ms- > *-mVs- could be numerus m. ‘number’ (if *nomso-) and cumerum n.
‘chest, box’ (if *komso-), but these are more easily otherwise explained.

§3 A third alternative – the prehistories of Lat. cumerum and numerus

• The third strategy to solve the umerus dilemma would be to look at the two other words that
synchronically rhyme with umerus:
o numerus, -ī m. ‘number’ (Naev.+).
o cumerum, -ī n., also cumera, -ae f. ‘chest, box, basket’ (Varro+).

3.1 Lat. cumerum n., cumera f. ‘chest, box, basket’

Walde/Hofmann I:306 set up *komeso- and compare Ved. kaṁsá- m. ‘a drinking vessel (made of metal)’
(AV+; *komsó-), und camasá- m. ‘a drinking vessel (made of wood)’ (RV+; *kemesó-). The prehistory of
these is, however, far from clear.

Semantically, a connection with Ved. √cami ‘sip, slurp’ (LIV²:389f as *√ku̯ em ‘(hinunter)schlucken,
einsaugen’) is plausible, a fortiori in view of Ved. camū́ - f. ‘bowl, wooden vessel (for soma)’ (cf. EWAia
I:286). But this is unrewarding for Lat. cumera.

An alternative account of Lat. cumera will be mentioned below.

2
Note that a post-syncope sequence of *-ms- (or *-m-s- with morpheme boundary) develops to -m(p)s- (as in sūmō ‘I
take’, perf. sūmpsī; the town name Temesa [Ov.], Tempsa [Plin.], cf. Weiss 2009:171; or *sm̥ ́ h2seh2 ‘scooped mass,
heap’ > *samasā > Lat. sam(p)sa f. ‘olive pomace; mass of crushed olives (before and after the pressing)’ [Plaut.,
Col.; Ital., Cat. sansa], cf. Höfler 2017a:21); in other instances the sequence develops to -ns- (as in intrinsecus,
altrinsecus with adverbial *-im as in utrimque, and also in com- + sº as in cōnsul, etc.; cf. Leumann 1977:212).
2
3.2 Lat. numerus m. ‘number’

The word is usually reconstructed as *nomeso- (cf. Walde/Hofmann II:186f; IEW:763f.; de Vaan 2008:419),
more recently also as *nomh1-r̥ (cf. LIV² Addenda s.v. *nemh1-). The latter can be discarded easily, the
former requires further attention.

• An alleged *nomeso- could be interpreted as a derivative of an s-stem from the root *√nemh1
‘distribute’ (with *h1 because of Gk. νέµεσις f. ‘retribution’, perf. νενέµη-; cf. also the Latv.
accentuation of nem̃ t ‘to take’; cf. Peters 1980:141 n. 94; Peters 1997 [2002]:114 n. 32; Nikolaev
2010 [2011]:84ff.; Malzahn 2010:685; LIV² Addenda s.v. *nemh1-).

But in my dissertation on possessive derivatives of neuter s-stems in Latin, Greek, Vedic, Anatolian, and
the Celtic languages (Höfler 2017b), I found NO examples of derivatives of this shape.

• A type with o-grade root and e-grade suffix did not exist; an alleged *nomh1-es-o- would, thus, have
never been a well-formed PIE derivative.
• A type with e-grade root and zero grade suffix, on the other hand, is attested throughout all language
branches.
o An oft-cited example of such a formation is Ved. vatsá- m. ‘yearling, calf’ which shows the
e-grade root and zero-grade suffix of the s-stem *wét-os n. ‘year’ and continues the
substantivized form of an adjective *wet-s-ó- ‘having a year’.3

I want to propose, therefore, to reconstruct a similarly formed *nemh1-s-o-, implying a development

*nemaso- > *nomaso- > *numaso- > Lat. numerus.

But of course, I need to justify both the formal (§4) and the phonological side (§5) of this reconstruction.4

§4 A formal account of *nemh1-s-o-

The oldest layer of s-stem-derivatives via the possessive suffix *-ó- seems to have had zero-grade in both
root and suffix of the s-stem base word (cf. also Vine 2016:136):

• *h1réwdh-os n. ‘redness’ (Gk. ἔρευϑος n. Hp., Lat. rōbur n. ‘heartwood’ Enn./Cato+)

→ *h1rudh-s-ó- ‘having redness’ (Lat. russus ‘red(-haired)’ Enn.+)
• *léwk-os n. ‘light’ (Av. raocah- n. ‘light, day’, Ved. rókas- n.)
→ *luk-s-ó- ‘having light’ (Ved. rukṣá- ‘shining, radiant’ RV 6.3.7).
• *ksér-os n. ‘dryness’ (Lat. serēnus 3 ‘clear (of the weather)’ < *kser-es-no-)
→ *ksr̥ -s-ó- ‘having dryness’ (Gk. ξηρός ‘dry, dried’ Att.-Ion.).

3
A different analysis of Ved. vatsá- is proposed by Vine (2009:161).
4
Note that PIE also had the possibility to substantivize adjectives by introducing an o-grade vorne im Wort (cf.
Schindler 1980:390 note 17 [“Substantivierung durch o-stufige Vr̥ ddhi”]; Neri 2013:197f; Neri 2016:24 et passim),
which could encourage a reconstruction of numerus as *nomh1so-, itself an o-substantivization of adjectival *nemh1só-.
But as far as I can see, Latin shows only inherited o-substantivizations of such adjectives (i.e. this word formation
process was not productive in the precursor of Latin), viz. (1) Lat. collus m. ‘neck’, PGmc. *halsa- < *kwól(h1)so- ‘the
turner’; and (2) Lat. uespa f. ‘wasp’, Lith. vapsà f., russ. osá f. < *(h1/2)wobh(h1)seh2 ‘the weaver’. We would have to
assume, then, that *nomh1so- was a PIE formation, in which case the Saussure effect would have deleted the laryngeal
(as arguably in *kwól(h1)so-), but then a *nomso- would not have resulted in numerus (see above 2.2)
3
A presumably younger, but still PIE layer shows full-grade in the root of the base word:

• *téwh2-(o)s n. ‘power’ (OAv. tǝuuiš- n. ‘violence’)

→ *tewh2-s-ó- ‘having power’ (Ved. taviṣá- ‘strong’, Lyd. tawśa- ‘id.’)
• *pék̑ -os n. ‘wool’ (Gk. πέκος n.; also Lat. pecus, oris n. ‘farm animals’)
→ *pek̑ -s-ó- ‘having wool’ (Lat. pexus 3 ‘woolly’5)
• *wéyd-os n. ‘seeing, knowing’ (Ved. védas- n. ‘knowledge’)
→ *weyd-s-ó- ‘having knowledge’ (PGmc. *wīsa- ‘wise’ > OIc. víss, OE wīs)

In a parallel manner we can set up the following derivational chain:

• *némh1-os n.‘distribution’ (YAv. nəmah- n. ‘a loan’)

→ *nemh1-s-ó- ‘having distribution, distributed’

Just as with adj. *wet-s-ó- ‘having a year’ → subst. Ved. vatsá- ‘the one having a year’ > ‘calf, yearling’,
one has to assume a “simple” substantivization of *nemh1-s-ó- ‘distributed’ to *nemh1so- ‘the distributed
thing’ > Lat. numerus ‘number, category’. Formally, the derivation seems to work.

§5 The development of *-ema- > Lat. (*)-uma-

A development *-ema- > Lat. (*)-uma- might seem adventurous at first, but there are some not so bad
examples that speak in favor of this assumption.

Phonologically, we would have to assume a backing of *e to *o, and subsequently a (dissimilatory) raising
of *o to *u, both caused by the combination of the nasal *m and the low vowel *a.

5.1 Lat. numerus

The stages would be as illustrated below:

(1) *nemh1so- > (2) *nemaso- > (3) *nomaso- > (4) *numaso- > (5) *numiso- > (6) Lat. numerus

There is evidence for:

• stage (4): the personal name dat. sg. NUMASIOI if for classical ‘Numeriō’ (on the Fibula Praenestina;
7th century BCE).
• stage (5): the gentile name of the gens Numisia (Cic. Phil. 2.8, etc.); cf. the gens Numeria (Sest. 94).
o Archaic phonology/spelling in gentile names is not surprising.
o Cf. gens Quinctia (Liv. 3.12.3 etc.; Quintia), gens Duī(l)lia, Duēl° (Cic. Orat. 153 as Bēll°).

5.2 Lat. Numitor

The legendary king of Alba Longa, Numitor (Verg., Liv., Ov.), could reflect an agent noun *nemh1-tōr ‘the
distributing one’ (cf. Gk. νεµέτωρ ‘avenger’ A.Th.485), implying *nematōr > *nomatōr > *numatōr >
Numitor, which would be an appropriate name for a legendary king.

5
This is different from the participle of pectō ‘I comb’ (i.e. pexus ‘combed’). For pexus ‘woolly’ cf. Colum. 11.3.26:
at Cappadocia [sc. lactuca], quae pallido et pexo densoque folio uiret, mense Februario. “[B]but the Cappadocian
lettuce which grows with a pale, woolly, thick leaf is planted in the month of February” (Loeb).
4
If this etymology is correct, Numitor’s Greek name cited by Dionysius of Halicarnassos, Νεµέτωρ (1.81),
does in fact represent the etymologically “correct” Greek rendering of an old *Nematōr.

But caution is advised, of course, when dealing with names. So besides NUMASIOI , Numisia, Numitor, and
Numa is there credible evidence for our sound change?

5.3 Lat. humī ‘on(to) the ground’

Usually, Lat. humī is reconstructed as loc. *dhg̑ hm̥ (m)-ei (Vine 1993:247) or *dhg̑ hm-eh2+i (Hajnal 1992:
209ff.), the latter of which would find support in Gk. χαµαί ‘on the ground, to earth’.

The comparative evidence, however, rather speaks in favor of reconstructing an allative *dhg̑ hem-eh2(±i)
‘on(to) the ground’ with e-grade (cf. also Hajnal 1992:215 note 37):

• Ved. kṣamā́ ‘on(to) the ground’ (RV, AV), YAv. +zəme ‘id.’ (2 syllables in Y.10.17), OPr. semmai
‘downward’, Lith. žemaĩ ‘low, down’.
o Gk. χαµαί can be assimilated from *χεµαί, perhaps similar to ἅµα ‘at once’ if for *ἕµα (cf.
Vine 1993:248 note 27)
• For Latin, the development would be *hemai̯ > *homai̯ > *humai̯ > Lat. humī ‘on(to) the ground’.
o The thematic noun humus, ī f. ‘earth, ground’ was back-formed from this adverbial humī
(cf. also Vine 1993:246 with references in note 17).

This is the evidence for *-ema- > *-oma-. Subsequently, this *-oma-, then, together with actual *-oma-
sequences, developed to Lat. (*)-uma-.

Cf., e.g., Numa Pompilius, Rome’s second king (Cic., Liv., Ov., Mart.), whose name is interpreted as ‘the
distributing (one); distributer’ qua *nom[h1]-eh2 by Nishimura 2014.

5.4 Lat. Numidae ‘Numidians’

The word Numidae ‘Numidians’ (Sall.+) is a loan from Gk. νοµάδες (Plb. etc.).

• Implied development: *nomadº > *numadº > Numidº.

5.5 Lat. hūmānus ‘human’

Perhaps this rule also raised long *ō vowels to ū. For in that case, we could explain the long-standing
mystery of hūmānus ‘human’ (Enn.+).

• *dhg̑ hōm > (Pre)Lat. *hōm ‘earth’, whence with suffix -ānus ‘belonging to X’ the adjective
*hōmānus ‘belonging to the earth’ (cf. SPic. homanah AQ1 ?) was derived, whose first vowel in
the sequence *-ōmā- was raised to -ūmā-, resulting in hūmānus. Cf. also Vine 1993:250f.

5.6 Summary of the phonology

The confinement to cases in which an *a (or *ā) vowel followed in the subsequent syllable explains why -
om- was not raised to -um- in words such as domus, homō, uomō, etc., and why (*)-em- was not affected at
all in words such as semel, simul, similis, nemus, emō, femur, lemurēs, etc.

5
Potential counterexamples:
Lat. geminus ‘twin-born’ (Naev.+) if (transp.) *gemhxno-, but etymology unclear.
Lat. tenebrae f. pl. ‘darkness’ (Plaut.+) from *temhxsreh2 (Ved. támisrā-), but for
Latin, a reconstruction *temhx-es-reh2 cannot be ruled out (cf. temere), and -n- is an
issue.
Lat. dominus ‘master’ (Plaut.+) if from *domhxno-, but restoration of o-vocalism
would seem natural.
In any case, the formulation of the rule is more felicitous than assuming a “sporadic” raising of *o to u
before m (cf. Leumann 1977:48; Vine 1993:246; Meiser 1998:83f.; Weiss 2009:140).6

• An interpretation of Lat. numerus as a continuant of *nemh1so-, thus, seems possible.

• And perhaps – but this is idle speculation – Lat. cumerum and cumera ‘chest, box, basket’ continue
a phonologically similar *kemarā < *kemh2-reh2, which would form a quasi-equation with Gk.
(Ion.) καµάρη f. ‘anything with an arched cover, covered carriage’ (Hdt. etc.) < *km̥ ́ h2-reh2 (with a
similar distribution as in Lat. equus < *h1ék̑ wo- vs. Gk. ἵππος < *h1ǝ́k̑ wo-).

§6 Lat. umerus < *h1emhxso- ?

If we apply these findings to the interpretation of Lat. umerus, it now becomes possible to assume a pre-
form *h1emhxso- and a regular sound development:

• *h1emhxso- > *emaso- > *omaso- > *umaso- > Lat. umerus.

But how does that square with the pre-form *(hx)ómso- that we need to account for Ved. áṁsa-, Gk. ὦµος,
PGmc. *amsa-, etc.?

• *(hx)ómso- could in fact be *h1ómso- < *h1ómhxso- (with Saussure effect; cf. Nussbaum 1997).

So, *h1emhxso- and *h1omhxso- could be interpreted as two stem allomorphs of the ‘shoulder’ word.
o To be sure, this idea is not new; Hilmarsson 1987:69, for example, assumed *h2émso- for
Toch. A es, B āntse, Ved. áṁsa-, PGmc. *amsa-, and *h2omso- for Gk. ὦµος and Arm.
ows. But neither *amso- nor *omso- would lead to Lat. umerus (see above).
o For Hilmarsson, both forms are “a thematic derivation of an underlying s-stem *H2em(e)s-.”
However, an interpretation of the ‘shoulder’ word as a derivative of an s-stem (similar to my account of
numerus) is not particularly attractive for several reasons.
o The ‘shoulder’ is a body part. Etymologizing names of body parts is oftentimes futile.
[They do tend to show archaic morphology, however; neuter root nouns, for example.]
o There is no verbal root (*√h1emhx, *√h2em, vel sim.) that could easily be regarded as a
plausible semantic basis for a word for ‘shoulder’.
o Therefore, no attempt will be made at further etymologizing *h1emhxso- /*h1omhxso-.
But of course, the assumption of root ablaut in a thematic masculine noun is not a trivial assumption. In fact,
this idea is categorically rejected by many notable (and perhaps generally most of the) scholars (among

6
Different from that in any case is the raising of the vowel before m plus consonant clusters (e.g. Lat. umbilīcus m.
‘navel’, if < *ombalīkos; cf. Gk. ὀµφαλός), as rightfully noted by Vine 1993:250 with note 32.
6
which Schaffner 2001:79; Tichy 2004:55-57; Keydana 2013) and for good reason – there seems to be no
synchronic evidence for such a claim.

• However, the idea that thematic nouns showed ablaut did not seem so sacrilegious a few decades
ago. Cf. AiGr III:88f. (with references; also the list in Schaffner 2001:70 note 5).
o Cf. *wog̑ hno- m. (PGmc. *wagna- m. ‘wagon’) vs. *weg̑ hno- m. (OIr. fén o, m. ‘id.’).

So, after the first breach of taboo, we could further hypothesize that one stem allomorph (e.g. the o-grade
*h1omhxso-) was the allomorph of the strong stem and of the nominative singular, while the other stem
allomorph (e.g. the e-grade *h1emhxso-) was the allomorph of the weak stem and perhaps of the nominative
dual, which in the case of ‘shoulder(s)’ was definitely a prominent word-form.

• The fact that Latin generalizes the weak stem of a bodypart noun (while the others generalize the
strong stem) is, of course, paralleled by pēs, pedis m. ‘foot’ < weak stem *ped- vs. strong stem
*pod- > Hitt. pat(a)-, Gk. πούς, PGmc. *fōt-, etc.

§7 The PIE dual of thematic nouns

The PIE dual of thematic (masculine) nouns is not overly represented in the scholarly discussion.7

From athematic nouns, however, we know that the dual often shows a “weaker” stem allomorph than the
singular (cf. Nussbaum 1986:131). Evidence from neuters:

• YAv. uši, OP ušīy ‘(the two) ears’ < *h2us-s-ih1 ‘(the two) ears’ (vs. *h2éws-os n. ‘ear’ in OCS uxo,
OIr. áu; with secondary o-grade Gk. (Att.) οὖς). Cf. also *h2ews-s-ih1 ‘(the two) ears’ (Lith. ausì)
as the basis of Lat. auris f. ‘ear’.
• Arm. ačʿkʿ ‘(the two) eyes’ (and possibly Gk. ὄσσε) < *h3kwih1 ‘(the two) eyes’ (vs. *h3ekw- in OCS
du. oči etc.).

Athematic non-neuters, however, regularly show the strong stem in the nom. du. (cf. also Nussbaum
1986:131).

• Ved. nom. du. f. nā́ sā ‘nose’ (RV 2.39.6), gen. du. nasóṣ, instr. sg. nasā́ (AV), loc. sg. nasí (YV).
• Ved. nom du. m. pā́ dā, YAv. pāδa, Gk. πόδε ‘(the two) feet’ vs. Ved. instr. sg. padā́ , etc.

But a couple of u-stem body part duals are, in fact, based on the weak stem:

• Ved. nom du. m. bāhávā (3× RV), YAv. bāzauua, Gk. πήχεε ‘(the two) arms’ vs. Ved. acc. sg.
bāhúm, Gk. πῆχυν, and nom. du. (productive; AiGr III:50) Ved. bāhū́ .
• YAv. nom. du. f. zanauua ‘(the two) jaws’ (Yt. 1.27) vs. nom. du. (productive) Ved. hánū, Gk. nom.
pl. γένυες. Cf. Narten 1969.

Note that all of the mentioned forms are duals of body parts that naturally come in pairs, where the retention
of an archaism is understandable more easily than in other words denoting occasional pairs or two entities.

• Cf. the synchronically irregular plural (*dual) forms of body part names in Modern Hebrew:
o E.g. yad ‘hand’ – yadayim ‘hands’ (vs. productively formed yadot ‘handles’), etc.

7
If at all, the treatment focuses, understandably enough, on the endings (as, e.g., in Deplazes 1991; Fritz 2011; also
Weiss 2009:208-210), but never on the root ablaut.
7
And in fact, some thematic masculine nouns for body parts that usually come in pairs do indeed show
possible traces of (root) ablaut.

• Ved. jaghána- m. ‘buttock, etc.’ (RV+), with metrically required dual +jāghánā in RV 1.28.2; cf.
also pr̥ thu-jāghana- ‘with broad hips’ in RV 10.86.8; jā́ ghanī- f. ‘tail’ (Br, Sū+). Cf. EWAia I:563.

• Ved. stána- m. ‘breast, teat’ (RV+), with dual stánau in RV 2.39.6, and Toch. B du. päścane, A du.
päśśäṃ ‘(the two) breasts’8 < *psten-oh1(+nº) vs. *pston-o- > YAv. fštāna- m. ‘id.’; cf. EWAia
II:752; Pinault 2008:502.

• Ved. īrmá- m. ‘arm, shoulder’ (AV+), Lith. ìrmėdė f. ‘gout’ (“arm-eater”) as *h2r̥ hxmó- vs.
*h2erhxmo- > Lat. armus m. ‘shoulder, forequarter’, PGmc. *arma- m. ‘arm’. Cf. Leumann
1977:407. YAv. ar(ǝ)maº ‘arm’ is ambiguous; cf. EWAia I:205f.

• OSwed. liuske m., OE lēosca m. ‘groin’ (cf. Engl. lesk) if *lewsko(+n)- vs. dual *luskoh1 > Toch.
A *lyäṣkäṃ (loc. du. lyäṣknaṃ) ‘groins, flanks’ (with palatalization taken over from the e-grade
singular?); but other explanations are possible, cf. Hilmarsson 1989:16f.

None of these examples is, by itself, particularly probative. But perhaps they encourage to lift the ban on
thinking about intra-paradigmatic ablaut in thematic stems.

§8 Conclusion
Taken all together, I therefore wish to propose…

• … that PIE had a word for ‘shoulder’, a thematic masculine that formed a nom. sg. *h1ómhxsos >
(with Saussure effect) *h1ómsos ‘shoulder’
o the phonologically regular basis of Ved. áṁsa-, Gk. ὦµος, Arm. ows, PGmc. *amsa-.
• … that the nom. du. probably had the shape *h1emhxsoh1 ‘(the two) shoulders’.9
o … and that it is this form that via *emaso-, *omaso-, *umaso-, led to the attested shape of
Lat. umerus.

Incidentally, if we accept this scenario, there could be indirect support for a (Proto-)Italic10 *emasō ‘(the
two) shoulders’:

• The notorious Hesychian gloss ἀµέσω· ὠµοπλάται ‘shoulder blades’11 could perhaps represent a
trivial lapsus by Hesychius (or one of his sources), and might in fact have to be read +ἐµασω ‘(the
two) shoulder blades’.
• The existence of (Proto-)Italic glosses in Hesychius is not a priori unlikely. A second example is
σπαράσιον· ὄρνεον ἐµφερὲς τῷ στρουϑῷ, a diminutive of *(s)parasā ‘a bird’ > Lat. parra, Umbr.
parfa- (cf. Höfler 2017a:17f.)

8
Apparently with haplology (acc. to Ron Kim, teaching materials from the IE Summer School 2014 in Jena).
9
In this scenario, I have to assume that Gk. ὤµω and PToch. *ænsā(+næ) (see p. 1) are leveled dual forms.
10
Umbr. loc. sg. uze, onse reflects /ons-/ and can be syncopated at stage *omasō (implying that *-ema- > *-oma- took
place in Proto-Italic), or it reflects the strong stem *h1ómso- (that was lost in Latin).
11
This notorious gloss has, of course, received many different interpretations and affiliations over time. But under
anyone’s theory, the dual ending -ω qua *-ō can only be attributed to a thematic stem, and not to an athematic s-stem
(for which there is absolutely no evidence).
8
 §9 References
AiGr: Jacob Wackernagel (‒ A. Debrunner ‒ L. Renou ‒ R. Hauschild) (1896-1954), Altindische Grammatik, 3 Bde., Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
DEPLAZES, Norbert (1991), Der griechische Dativ Plural und oblique Dual untersucht anhand des ältesten inschriftlichen Materials sowie
ausgewählter Literatur, Bern u.a.: Peter Lang.
EWAia: Manfred Mayrhofer (1992‒2001), Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen, 3 Bde., Heidelberg: Winter.
FRITZ, Matthias (2011), Der Dual im Indogermanischen, Genealogischer und typologischer Vergleich einer grammatischen Kategorie im
Wandel, Heidelberg: Winter.
HACKSTEIN, Olav (2002), Die Sprachform der homerischen Epen, Wiesbaden: Reichert.
HAJNAL, Ivo (1992), ‘Griechisch χαµαί — ein Problem der Rekonstruktion?’, in: Rekonstruktion und relative Chronologie, Akten VIII.
Fachtagung, Leiden 1987, Innsbruck: IBS, 207‒220.
HILMARSSON, Jörundur (1987), ‘Reflexes of I.-E. *suH2n̥ to- / -ōn “sunny” in Germanic and Tocharian’, Die Sprache 33, 56-78.
––––––– (1989), The Dual Forms of Nouns and Pronouns in Tocharian, Reykjavík: Tocharian and Indo-European Studies.
HÖFLER, Stefan (2017a), ‘Observations on the palma rule’, Pallas – Revue d’études antiques 103, 15-23.
––––––– (2017b), Der Stier, der Stärke hat. Possessive Adjektive und ihre Substantivierung im Indogermanischen, Unpubl. PhD Thesis,
University of Vienna.
IEW: Julius Pokorny (1989²), Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, I. Band. Bern: Francke.
KEYDANA, Götz (2013), ‘Accent in Thematic Nouns’, Indo-European Linguistics 1, 107-130.
KLOEKHORST, Alwin (2008), Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon, Leiden: Brill.
LEUMANN, Manu (1977), Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre, Neuausg. 1977 d. 1926-1928 in 5. Aufl. ersch. „Lateinischen Laut- und
Formenlehre“, München: Beck.
LIV²: Helmut Rix (2001), Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben, Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen, 2. Aufl., Wiesbaden:
Reichert.
LIV² Addenda: Martin Kümmel, Addenda und Corrigenda zu LIV², abrufbar unter http://www.martinkuemmel.de/liv2add.html; letzte
Änderung 03.02.2015 20:25.
MALZAHN, Melanie (2010), The Tocharian Verbal System, Leiden: Brill.
MEISER, Gerhard (1986), Lautgeschichte der umbrischen Sprache, Innsbruck: IBS.
––––––– (1998), Historische Laut- und Formenlehre der Lateinischen Sprache, Darmstadt: Wissenschaft. Buchgesellschaft.
NARTEN, Johanna (1969), ‘Idg. ‘Kinn’ und ‘Knie’ im Avestischen: zanauua, zānu.drājah-’, IF 74, 39-53.
NERI, Sergio (2013), ‘Zum urindogermanischen Wort für ‚Hand‘’, in: Multi Nominis Grammaticus, Studies in Classical and Indo-
European linguistics in honor of Alan J. Nussbaum on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday, hg. von A. I. Cooper et al., Ann Arbor,
New York: Beech Stave Press, 185-205.
––––––– (2016), Rezension von KROONEN 2013, Kratylos 61, 1-51.
NIKOLAEV, Alexander (2010[2011]), ‘Indo-European *dem(h2)- ‘to build’ and its derivatives’, HS 123, 56–96.
NISHIMURA, Kanehiro (2014), ‘The Roman King as an Indo-European Distributor’, paper presented at the 26th Annual UCLA Indo-
European Conference, Los Angeles, October 24th and 25th, 2014.
NUSSBAUM, Alan J. (1986), Head and Horn in Indo-European, Berlin: de Gruyter.
––––––– (1997), ‘The “Saussure Effect” in Latin and Italic’, in: Sound Law and Analogy, FS Robert S.P. Beekes, hg. von A. Lubotsky,
Amsterdam: Rodopi, 181-203.
PETERS, Martin (1980), Untersuchungen zur Vertretung der indogermanischen Laryngale im Griechischen, Wien.
––––––– (1997[2002]), ‘Indogermanische Chronik 35, Teil III’, Die Sprache 39/3, 94–129.
PINAULT, Georges-Jean (2008), Chrestomathie Tokharienne, Textes et Grammaire, Leuven-Paris: Peeters.
SCHAFFNER, Stefan (2001), Das Vernersche Gesetz und der innerparadigmatische grammatische Wechsel des Urgermanischen im
Nominalbereich, Innsbruck: IBS.
SCHINDLER, Jochem (1980), ‘Zur Herkunft der altindischen cvi-Bildungen’, in: Lautgeschichte und Etymologie, Akten der VI. Fachtagung
der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Wien, 24.―29. September 1978, hg. von M. Mayrhofer, M. Peters, O. E. Pfeiffer, Wiesbaden:
Reichert, 386-93.
SCHMITT, Rüdiger (2007), Grammatik des Klassisch-Armenischen mit sprachlichen Erläuterungen, 2. Aufl., Innsbruck: IBS.
TICHY, Eva (2004), Indogermanisches Grundwissen, Bremen.
DE VAAN, Michiel (2008), Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages, Leiden: Brill.
VINE, Brent (1993), Studies in Archaic Latin Inscriptions, Innsbruck: IBS.
––––––– (2009), ‘A yearly problem’, in: East and West, Papers in Indo-European Studies, hg. von K. Yoshida & B. Vine, Bremen:
Hempen, 205-24.
––––––– (2016), ‘Latin crassus, grossus, classis’, IF 121, 131-158.
WALDE/HOFMANN: A. Walde & J. B. Hofmann (1938-54), Lateinisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, 2 Bde., 3., neubearb. Aufl.,
Heidelberg: Winter.
WEISS, Michael (2009), Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin, Ann Arbor, New York: Beech Stave.