Aorist Participles in the Rveda

John J. Lowe University of Oxford Centre for Linguistics & Philology Walton Street Oxford OX1 2HG email: john.lowe@ling-phil.ox.ac.uk

Aorist Participles in the Rveda

The aorist participles of Sanskrit are problematic in a variety of ways. They are almost entirely conned to the Rveda, with only a very few found in later Vedic texts; even in the Rveda they rare in comparison with the productive present and perfect participles (there are are unexpectedly 4,430 present, 900 perfect, and only 200 aorist participles in the RV). Morphologically, they often do not correspond to attested nite verbal stems, and almost all are formed to root stems (i.e. apparent root aorists); only two are formed to s-aorist stems, for example, while nite s-aorists are relatively productive. Regarding semantics, most authorities agree that the aorist participles of the Rveda show little evidence of aoristic meaning, i.e. perfective or preterital reference, and are often indistinguishable from present participles (Delbrck, 1888; Tikkanen, 1987). These problems raise questions for the synchronic and diachronic status of the category in IndoIranian, and for the reconstruction of participial categories in PIE. Only in Ancient Greek is a fully productive and regular category of aorist participles found, and the aorist participles of IndoIranian, particularly those of R . gvedic Sanskrit, provide practically the only comparative support for reconstructing such a category to PIE. I rstly review the heterogeneous collection of forms traditionally labelled aorist participles, showing that many such forms have been mis-classied. Since almost all aorist participles are root formations, there is considerable potential for ambiguity, leading to several root adjectives, present participles, etc. being erroneously classied as aorist participles. For example, sus ant- is listed as an aorist participle by Lubotsky (1997, p. 1426), but it is better treated as the expected present participle to the present stem sv asiti snorts, beside the analogical present participle svas ant-. A more careful delimitation of the category means that the number of genuine aorist participles attested in Sanskrit is even smaller than traditionally assumed, but also means that it is possible to discern certain clear patterns and features in the R . gvedic aorist participles, particularly when active and mediopassive forms are considered in separation. Active aorist participles are rarer than mediopassive aorist participles (15 stems, of which 8 are hapax legomena, vs. 30 stems of which 12 are hapax legomena). Nevertheless, they are functionally and morphologically the more regular category: almost all correspond both formally and functionally to attested nite aorist stems, and semantically the clearest examples of aorist participles with a genuinely aoristic sense are all active. Despite their rarity and undoubted ongoing obsolescence, then, they are still relatively well integrated into the aorist verbal system and are used as genuine participles. In contrast, the more common mediopassive aorist participles are morphologically and functionally far less regular. Few correspond to attested nite aorist stems, and very few, if any, display any real aoristic semantics. I argue that a moribund category of mediopassive aorist participles was extended through at least two distinct processes of analogy, explaining both their relative frequency and their lack of morphological and functional adherence to the aorist system. By one such process, mediopassive aorist participles could be created on the basis of mediopassive perfect participles: for example, the meaning and usage of vrdh an a- to vrdh grow, increase can only be explained in reference to semantic developments aecting the perfect system and the mediopassive perfect participle v avrdh an a-. by developments in the stative system. I assume the existence Another such process was licensed of a distinct stative formation with 3sg. in -e , following Oettinger (1976, 1993) and Kmmel (1996). The existence of some participles to stative stems is demonstrated by Kmmel (1996). I argue that a further set of forms should be identied as original stative participles, forms whose morphological 1

adherence to the stative system was lost when corresponding nite forms were rebuilt as nasal statives. For example, suv an a- pressed represents the original stative participle to expected *suv e sunv e is pressed. These, and a few other isolated forms, were then liable for reanalysis as derived from root aorist stems, and subsequently licensed the creation of further root-based participles in - ana- that had no genuine adherence to the aorist system and displayed no aoristic semantics. I conclude that there is evidence for a core of genuine aorist participles, morphologically and semantically regular, but not synchronically productive, and showing signs of obsolescence (due to functional syncretism with other categories). This genuine core is, however, obscured by analogical formations and previously mis-categorized forms. The evidence for a core of genuine aorist participles supports, if only weakly, a comparable PIE category.

References
Delbrck, Berthold (1888). Altindische Syntax. Halle: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses. Kmmel, Martin Joachim (1996). Stativ und Passivaorist im Indoiranischen. Historische Sprachforschung: Ergnzungheft 39, Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Lubotsky, Alexander (1997). A R . gvedic Word Concordance (2 vol.), volume 8283 of American Oriental Series. New Haven, Conn.: American Oriental Society. Oettinger, Norbert (1976). Der indogermanische Stativ. Mnchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 34, pp. 109149. Oettinger, Norbert (1993). Zur Funktion des indogermanischen Stativs. In Gerhard Meiser (ed.), Indogermanica et Italica : Festschrift fr Helmut Rix zum 65. Geburtstag, Innsbruck: Institut fr Sprachwissenschaft der Universitt Innsbruck, pp. 347361. Tikkanen, Bertil (1987). The Sanskrit Gerund: a Synchronic, Diachronic, and Typological Analysis. Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society.