Sie sind auf Seite 1von 71

--------------------------------------,

JAY H. JASANOFF

STATIVE AND MIDDLE IN INDO-EUROPEAN

--------------------------------------, JAY H. JASANOFF STATIVE AND MIDDLE IN INDO-EUROPEAN INNSBRUCK 1978

INNSBRUCK 1978

Die INNSBRUCKER BEITRAGE ZUR SPRACHWISSENSCHAFT werden gefiirdert durch das Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft und Forschung in Wien, die Kulturabteilung des Amtes der Tirolel' Landesregierung und durch den Universitatsbund Innsbruck Die Publikation der vorliegenden Studie erfolgte mit zusatzlicher Unterstützung des Fonds zur Fiil'derung del' wissenschaftlichen Forschung, des Verbandes del' wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaften bsterreichs (aufAntrag derfnnsbrucker SprachwissenschaftlichenGesellschaft) und des Department of Linguistica der Harvard University

Adresse des A1ttorS:

Professor Jay H. Jasanoff Depal'tment of Modern Languages and Linguistics Coruell University Ithaca, New York 14853, USA

ISBN 3-85 124-540-7

1978

INNSBRUCKER BEITRAGE ZUR SPRACHWISSENSCHAFT Herausgeber: Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Meid Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universitat Innsbruck A-6020 Innabruck, Innrain 30

Druck: Ernst Becvar, A-1150 Wien, Lichtgasse 10

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This book owes much to the advice and criticism ofmy friends, colleagues and students at Harvard University, to whom 1 am happy to express my gratitude. Thanks are due also to the Editor, Prof. Dr. Meid, for his assistance in pteparing the manuscript for the press, and to the Depart- ment ofLinguistics, Harvard University, for helping to defraypublication costs.

Cambridge, Mass.

June, 1978

CONTENTS

Bibliographical abbreviations

1. Introduction: The Stative Formations oí Indo-European . §1. Deverbative and denominative statives. p. 13. §2. The perfect: form and function. p. 14. § 3. The perfect and middle endings. p. 15. §4. Expansion ofthe perfect middle. p.15. §5. The suffix *-e-. p. 16. §6. Denominative e:. statives. p. 17. §7. "Primary" e-statives. p.18. §8. The problem of the distribution of *-e-. p.19. §9. The type *mineti, *minT-: the semithematic theory. p.19. §10. *mineti: other views. p.21. §11. The Germanic type *habaiP: competing theories. p.21. §12. The putative alternation *-e(i)-:

*-~(i)-. p.22. §13. Conclusions. p.23.

9

13

II. Class III Presents in Tocharian

24

§14. Present of AB mask-. p. 24. §15. List ofverbs with class nI presents. p.25. §16. Class nI subjunctives. p.25. §17. Present of AB plant-.

p.26.

§ 18. List of class IV presents. p. 27. §19. Class nI presents and e-

statives. p. 27. §20. Inadequacy 'of the proposed derivation *-a- < *-e-.

p.28. §21. Phonological source ofthe class nI theme vowel. p.29.

§22.

Absence of distinctive quantity in Tocharian. p. 29. §23. Phonetic interpre- tation of the Tocharian vowels. p.30. §24. The Pre-Tocharian vowel system. p. 31. §25. Primary rounding and uurounding. p. 32. §26. Later developmentsin Toch. AandB. p. 33. §27. Phonologicalhistory ofAasatar, B osotar. p. 34. §28. Syncope of -a- in Toch. A. p. 35. §29. "Persistent" *-0-. p.35. §30. Class nI subjunctives and thematic presents. p. 36. §31. Class nI (IV) roots in -sk-. p. 37. §32. Root-final -tk-. p. 38. §33. Class nI (IV) presents and lE aorists. p. 39. §34. B lip:'; wak-. p. 41. §35. Morphological idiosyncrasies of the thematic aoristo p. 41. §36. Development of class nI presents frommiddle root aorists. p. 42. §37. Other roots: AB as-, B palk-, etc. p.43. §38. Apophonically deviant forms: the types A tsarwatar, B ñewetar. p.44. §39. Class nI forms with active endings. p.45. §40.

 

Smnmary. p.46.

Appendix: The Thematic Middle in Tocharian and Indo-European §4L Persistent *-0- elsewhere in lE. p.47. §42. The thematic vowel in Balto-Slavic. p.48. §43. The thematic vowel in Hittite. p.49. §44. The thematic conjugation in Indo-European. p.50. §45. Introduction of the thematic middle. p.51. §46. Later remodelings of the thematic middle. p.52. §47. Original distribution of the endings *-e and *-0. p. 53.

47

III. The Third Weak Class in Germanio.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

56

§48. Inflection of 'have' in Germanic: paradigms. p. 56. §49. Irregularities and special features. p. 56. §50. Synchronio position of the third weak class. p.58. §51. The stems *halJai-, *haba-, *habja-. p. 59. §52. Earlier theories of the class In suffix: *-e(-iefo)-. p.60. §53. Earlier theories (cont.):

*-ei-: *-t- (*-¡¡i-). p.62. §54. The Hittite type déii: tiyanzi. p.63. §55. Earlier theories (cont.): *-¡¡-iefo-. p.64. §56. Apophonic behavior of lE

*-e-(*-eh r ). p. 66. §57. The problem of *-a- vs. *-ja-. p. 67. § 58. Distribu- tion of *sayja-. p. 68. §59. Distribution of *habja-. p. 69. §60. Distribution

of *libja-. p. 70. §61. The CGmc. paradigm. p. 71.

 

§62. Formal renewal of

the 3 sg.: *rfmip, *bibaip. p. 71. §63. Replacement of *-ai by *-aip in the 3

sg. middle. p.73. §64. Morphological behavior of *dheuyh- in Indo-Euro- pean. p. 73. § 65. Gmc. *duyaip and Ved. duhé: development of the class nI paradigm. p. 74. §66. Gmc. *fulyaip and Ved. sp'(sáti. p. 76. §67. Class nI verbs beside preterito-presents. p. 77. §68. Gmc. *m~maip and Av. mamne. p. 77. §69. Gmc. *witaip and Ved. vidé. p.79. §70. Gmc. *Parbaip, *mayaip. p.80. §71. Perfect middles and root aorists. p.80. §72. Gmc. *libaiP,' *wunaip, *pulaip; status of *hanyaip. p. 82. §73. The type *kun- naiP. p. 84. §74. Class nI denominatives. p. 86. §75. Modaland particip- ial forms. p.88. §76. Runic witadahalaiban and Ved. vidádvasu-. p.89. §77. The preterite ofthe third weak class. p. 90. §78. Formal history of the Gmc. dental preterite. p. 91. §79. Summary. p. 93.

IV. Stative Presents in *-t- in Balto-Slavic

 

.

94

§80. Inflection of *mintti in Balto-Slavic: paradigms. p.94. §81. Earlier analyses: introduction. p.95. §82. The semithematic theory. p. 96. §83. The contraction theory. p.97. §84. The ablaut theory. p.98. §85. The theory of Kurylowicz. p. 100. §86. Other i-presents in Slavic. p. 101. §87. The Baltic s-future: form of the tense signo p. 103. §88. Lith. dúosiant- and Ved. déisyánt-. p.l04. §89. Extension of -i- from the 3 pI.: OPr. waidimai,

-ti. p.l05. §90. Spread of -i- in other categories: Lith. devi-, yari-, veizdi-.

p. 107.

p.l09. §92. The perfect middle of *men- in pre-Balto-Slavic. p.l09. §93. Establishment of the stem *mini-. p.110. §94. Replacement of *mini- by *min;¿:" in Slavic. p.112. §95. Comparison oH-presents with middle forms elsewhere. p.113. §96. OCS shcati, s'hpati. p.114. §97. Miscellaneous other verbs. p.114. §98. Participial andmodal forms. p.115. §99. Summary.

p.117.

§91. The 3 pI. as starting point for the stative paradigm.

V. Conclusion: The Role oí *-e- in Indo-European .

§100. Middle aorist presents: reappraisal of Ved. duhé. p.118. §101.

§102.

Uses of *-e- in the attested languages. p.120. §103. Uses of Ved. yúhéi. p.122. §104. Development of a finite conjugation from the predicative use of the instrumental. p. 123. §105. Extension of*-e- (*ehr) as a verbal suffix.

p.125.

Relationship of the type *(me)mnór to *sikór and *dhuyhór. p.119.

Index oí Forms Cited

8

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

118

127

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ABBREVIATIONS

AfdA: Archiv für deutsches Altel'tum. Bartholomae: C. B., Altiranisches Worterbuch (1904). Bartholomae, Stud. Z. idy. Sprachyesch.: C. B., Studien zul' indoyermanischen

Sprachyeschich(e n

(1891).

BB: Bezzenbéryel's Beitl'ii{¡e. Benveniste Probo de liny. yén.: E. B., Pl'oblemes de linyuistique yénérale (1966). Brinkmann', Spl'achwandel: H. B., Sprachwandel und Sprachbeweyunyen in althoch- deutscher Zeit (1931). Buck, Gram. ofOsc. and Umbr.: C. D. B., A GrammarofOscanar:d Um?1'ian (1904~. Brugmann, G1'. 2 : K. B., G1'und1'ij3 der veryleichenden Grammattk del' tndoyermant-

. K. B. and B. Delbruck, Grundrij3 del' veryleichenden

schen Sprachen 2 (1897-1916).

1

:

Brugmann, Gr(undrij3)

Grammatik der indoyel'manischen Sprachen 1 (1886-1900). BSL: Bulletin de la Société de Linyuistique de Paris. Chantraine, Gram. ham.: P. C., Grammaire homéTiq'ue I (1948).

Ohantraine, Hist. du parf. yr.: P. O"

Oollitz, Das schwache Praeteritum: H. O., Das schwache Pl'aeterttum und setne Vo1'yeschichte (1912). Delbrück, Veryl. Synt.: see Brugmann, Gl'undrij31. Endzelin, Lett. Gr.: J, E., Lettische Grammatik (1923). Festyruj3 Roth: Festyr~lj3 an Rudolf von Roth ~um Doktol'-Ju?i1aum: (1893). FestscM. Pokorny: Beitrii{¡e zul' lndoyel'manisttk und Keltoloyte, J ultus Pokorny zum 80. Geburtstay yewidmet (1967). Flasdieck: H. F., Untel'suchunyen über die yel'manischen schwachen Vel'ben 111. Klasse (= Anylia 59) (1935). Flexion und Wol'tbilduny: H. Rix, ed., Flexion und Wortbilduny, Akten del' V. F achtayuny del' 1ndoyermanischen Gesellscl~aft Fraenkel Malchel' Pietkiewicz: E. F" Sprachltche, besonders syntakttsche Untersu- chung des kalvinistischen litauischen Katechi81nus des Malcher Pietkiewicz von 1598 (1974). Gedenkschr. Brandenstein: Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft und K ~lltul'k1tnde; Ge- denkschl'ift jül' W ilhelm Brandenstein (1968),

Geldner: K. F. G., Del' Riyveda (Harvard Oriental Series 33-35), Godel, lntrod. to the Study ofOlass. Arm.: R. G., lntl'od~lCtionto the St~ldyofOlassical '

, Guxman, Srav, yram. yel'm.jaz.: M. G. et al" Sravnitelnaja yrammatika yel'mansktx jazykov (1966).

Histoire du parfait yl'ec (1927).

.

Armenian (1973). Grassmann, Wb.: H. G., Wol'tel'buch Z1lm Riyveda.

Holthausen, Alts. EI.2: F. H"

lnt. Jo~wn. of Slav. Liny. and Poet.: lnternational Journal of Slavic Linyuistics and

Poetics .

Altsachsisches Elementarbuch 2 (1921).

9

IF: Indogermanische Forsch-ungen. J AOS: J oumal of the American Oriental Society. Johannson, De derivo verb.: K. F. J., De derivatis vel'bis contractis linguae graecae quaestiones (1886). Journ. of lE Stud.: Joumal of Indo-EuTOpean Studies. Krahe, Germ. Sprachw.: H. K., Germanische Sprachwissenschaft lI6 (1967). Krause, WToch. Gram.: W. K., Westtocharische Grammatik 1 (1952). Krause-Thomas, Toch. Elem.: W. K. and W. T., Tocharisches Elementarbuch I (1960), II (1964). Kurylowicz, Infl. Cat.: J. K., The Inflectional Categories of Indo-E7tTOpean (1964). Kurylowicz, (L')apoph.: J. K., L'ClIpophonie en indo-ew'opéen (1956). KZ: (Kuhns) Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforsch7mg. Lg.: Language. Ling.: Slavistiéna Revija-Linguistiw. Mahlow, Die langen V okale: G. H. M., Die langen Vokale A E O in den eUl'opaischen Sprachen (1879). Meid, Das germ. Praet.: W. M., Das germanische Praeterit7tm (1971). Meillet, Slav. com.: A. M. and A. Vaillant, Le slave comm7m 2 (1934). JYISS: JYIünchener Studien Z7tr Sprachwissenschaft.

N arten,

sigm. Aor. : J. N., Die sigmatischen Aoriste im Vedc¿ (1964).

Noreen,

Altn01·d. Gl'. 1: A.

N., Altnordische Grammatik

1 4 (1923).

NTS: Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap. P BB : Beitrage Z7¿r Geschichte del' deutschen Sprache und Literat7M'.

Pedersen,

Toch. 2 :

H.

P.,

Tocharisch

vom

Gesichtspunkt

del'

indoe'uropaischen

Sprachvergleichung 2 (1941).

Pokorny, IEW: J. P., Indogermanisches etymologisches Worterbuch 1 (1959).

Pu~vel, Lar. and the lE Vb.: J. P., !-,aryngeals anel the Indo-E7tropean RelChelt, Awest. El.: H. R, Awest'!sches Elementarbuch (1909).

Reno~, Val. el7¿ palj. : L. R, L,a valeur d7¿ paljait dans les hymnes védiques (1925).

Schmld,

inelogermanischen Verb7tm (1963). Schwyzer, Gr. Gram.: E. S., Griechische Grammatik 1 (1938). Skutsch, Kl. Schr.: F. S., Kleine Schriften (1914). Slav. and E. Et¿r. J01tl·.: Slcwic and East E7t1'Opean Journal.

Sommel', Krit.

Verb (1960).

(Stud.

z.)

balto

(7¿. ~dg.) Vb.:

W.

P.

S.,

Studien Z7¿m baltischen 7tnd

E1'l.: F. S., Iúitische Erlautentngen Z7tr lateinischen Lmd- ttnel

F01'1nenlehre (1914). Spr. : Die Sprache.

Stang, Sl. U. balto Vb.: C. S. S., Das slavische unel baltische Vel'bum (1942). Stang, Vergl. Gr. d. balto Spr.: C. S. S., Vergleichende Grammatik elel' baltischen Sprachen (1966).

Stl'eitberg, Z1tr germ.

Sprachgesch.: W. S., Z1t1· germanischen Sprachgeschichte

(1892).

Stl'ei~berg, Urgermanische Grammatik: W. S., Urgermanische Grammatik (1896). Stud'¿es Lane: St1¿dies in Historiwl Ling7tÍl3tics in Honor of George Sherman Lane

(1967).

Thurneysen, OIGr.: R T., A Grammar of OlelIrish (1946). Toch. Spmchr. 1 : E. Sieg and W. Siegling, TocharischeSprachreste, SpracheB, Heft 1

(1949).

TPS: l'ransactions of the Philological Society.

10

Uljanov, Osrwvy: G. K. U., Znaéenija glagol'nyx osnov v litovskoslovjanskom jazyke (1891 ). Vaillant, Gram. comp. lII: A. V., Grammaire comparée deslang7tes slaves III (1966). Wackernagel, Kl. Schr.: J. W., Kleine Schriften (1955). W ackernagel-DebrUllller, Altinel. G1'. : J. W. and A. D., Altinclische Grammatik I- III (1896-1957). Wagner, e-Yerba: H. Wagner, Zur Herkunft der e-Yerba in den indogermanischen Sprachen (1950). Watkins, Celt. Vb.: C. W., Indo-European Origins ofthe Celtl:c Verb 1. The sigrnatic

aorist (1962).

Watkins, Idg. Gr. (lII. 1): C. W., Indogermanische Grammatik lII. 1, Geschichte del' indogermanischen Verbalflexion (1969). Wissmann, Jlfomina postverbalia: W. W., Nomina postverbalia in den altgermani- schen Sprachen, 1. Teil (1932). ZCP,' Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie. Zinkevicius, Líet. Dial.: Z. Z., Liet7Wi1? Dialektol<Jgija (1966).

11

r

I

!

¡

I

\

I

1

INTRODUCTION:

I THE STATIVE FORMATIONS OF INDO-EUROPEAN

§1. Among the athematic root presents reconstructible for Indo-Euro- pean are several which denote a state rather than an action or process. Such presents, which clearly belong to an ancient type, may be active or middle, cf. Ved. váo$ti 'wishes', Hitt. wekzi, Gk. ÉXWV ( < *~ek-); Ved. ko$éti

'dwells', GIL XTlfL€VOC; «*tkYei-); Ved. cáo$te 'sees', Av. Caste «*k¡'eks-);

Ved. sáye 'lies', Hitt. kitta(ri) , Gk. X¡;;'i.'TI):¡. Forms of this kind survive as scattered archaisms in the attested lE languages, where their stative function is synchronically predictable only from the lexical meaning of the underlying root. Even in such archaic groups as Indo-Iranian, Anatolian and Greek,

however, unmotivated root presents account for only a small fraction ofthe stative verb forms actually found. In every early lE language the majority of statives are not primary, but morphologically derived: the starting point for the creation ofnew forms may be either a non-stative verbal root, as, e. g., in Ved. tro$yati 'is thirsty' < tro$- 'become thirsty, turn dry', Gk. ~aye:

(perf.) 'is broken' < (f)l):y- 'break', Lith. turi 'has' < tver- 'seize', or a nominal stem, as, e. g., in Gk. ~1):(nAe:ú(Í) '1 am king' < ~I):O'¡A€ÚC;, Lat. albeiJ '1 am white' < albus, Go. -jJiwan, -aijJ 'be a servant' < jJiU8 'servant', etc. The formal devices used for this purpose in the daughter languages are extremely numerous. Most of the synchronically productive processes, especially in the later languages, are denominal in origin and perform a characteristically wide range of non-stative functions as well: compare, e. g., the twofold value of Gk. ~e:(¡)v(~w '1 am a stranger' and '1 receive as a stranger' < ~&voc;, xoup(~w '1 am young' and '1 bring up from boyhood'

úraigedal' 'is green' < úr 'fresh, green', but

. ailegedar 'alters' < aile 'other'. Denominatives like these characteristical-

ly represent specializations of the lE denominative type in *-jejo- (cf. Ved.

ukt¡anyá- 'act like a bull' <uko$án-, Hitt. nalJsariya- 'fear' < nalJlal', GIL

Ep(~W < ep¡c;, etc.); while they have often had complex histories in the individual languages, their structure and status present no serious problems from an lE point.ofview.

< xoüpoc;, xoupUhoc;, or OIr

The morphological origins ofthe deverbative, 01' "primary" 1) statives of the historicallanguages, on the other hand, are considerably more obscure. With the exception of the descendants of the lE perfect, which are usually historically transparent, almost all the non-denominative stative forma- tions ofthe older lE traditions have at one time 01' another been linked to the supposed existence in Indo-European of a class of "e:-statives" 01' "e- verbs"2). The problems surrounding this category constitute the major focus ofthe present study, and will be surveyed in a preliminary fashion in

§§5-13.

§2. The lE perfect (whence the perfect active ofGreek and Indo-Iranian) originally denoted the state resulting from the accomplishment ofan action

01' process. This value is still faithfullypreserved in Homeric Greek, where it is evident in such forms as OAWAO( '1 am lost' < OAAU(.lo(L, 7tÉ7tOL!)o¡ '1 trust'

< m:Wo(.lO(L,

~a'1:'f)){.O( '1 stand'

< la't'O((.lO(L, 't'ÉIl'l'f)){.O( '1 am

dead'

< e'l~a){.w; the

"resultative" perfect

(e. g., 3É~w){.O( '1 have given', yÉypO(rpO( '1 have written',

etc.) is almost wholly a post-Homeric development. The perfect is likewise well-attested as a stative in both branches of Indo-Iranian, although in Vedic, as in later Greek, its inherited function has in large part been replaced by that of a general preterite, cf. Ved. bibhaya 'is afraid' < bh'í-, dadhárt;a 'is bold' <dhrt;-, jagára 'is watchful' <gr-, but cakára 'did', jaghána 'killed' etc.; Av. tütauua V. 6. 32 'is possible' < taúu-, 3 pI. caxnarfi Y.44.13 'care about' < kan-, ahisaiiaY. 29.1 'oppresses' <ha(ii)-. Outside Greek and Indo-Iranian, the stative perfect has left substantial traces in Germanic, where preterito-presents such as Go. wait '1 know' ( = Gk. ol80(, Ved. védc(,) , man 'T intend' (= Gk. (.lÉ(.lO'lo(. Lat. memin'i) , ga-dars '1 dare' (= Ved. dadhárt¡a) constitute an archaic category of considerable descrip- tive importance. Elsewhere in the family only scattered forms continue the perfect in its primitive function. Sorne of these, like Lat. memint, (g)nOut, 15m, OCS vede '1 know' « *yoidai) and Hitt. saklJi 'id.' « *-ljai) are inherited perfects in shape, secondarily reinforced in their original value by the addition of the hic et nunc particle *i; others, like 011'. ad'ágathar 'fears', OLith.líekti 'is left', stóvi 'stands', OCS boit'b se 'fears' and Toch. B nesam 'is' ( < *nos-) are synchronically indistinguishabl~from presents, but appe~rto continue inherited perfects in a morphologically altered formo

1) Rere and below, the term "primary stative" will be used to mean a stative verb derived directly from a verbal root, rather than from an already characterized (typically nominal) stem. 2) It is, of course, potentially misleading to speakof "e-verbs" rather than "e- presents" 01' "e-aorists" in Indo-European; nevertheless, the term will be retained as a convenience in the discussion below.

.

r

§3. The lE perfect is formally characterized by o : ~ apophony (cf. Gk. oí~O(: 'L~fJ.E'I= Ved. véda : vidmá = Go. wait : witwrn) and by a distinctive set of personal endings; it is less clear whether reduplication, often absent in the daughter languages, was obligatory 01' merely facultative in Indo-Euro- pean. Our understanding of the position of the perfect in the system of the lE verb has been enormously furthered by the discovery, made indepen- dently by J. Kurylowicz, BSL33, 1---4 (1932) and Chr. S. Stang, NTS6, 29ff. (1932), that the perfect endings are etymologically related to those of the present and aorist middle. The language which supplies the decisive evidence in this regard is Hittite, where the simplest forms of the middle endings in the singular, 1 -(lJ)lja, 2 -(t)ta, 3 -a, differ only in the vocalism of the 3 sg. frQm the classically reconstructed perfect endings sg. 1 *-a

« *hze), 2 *-tha ( < *-thze), 3 *_e 3 ). Outside Hittite, the perfect and middle agree further in their common predilection for r-endings in the 3 pI., cf. Ved. 3 pI. pf. -ur, Lat. -ere; Ved. 3 pI. mido -re, -ra[n] , Av. -aire, Toch. B -re. Predictably, the historical affinity of the perfect and middle endings is reflected in their respective distributions. In Greek and Indo-Iranian the perfect archaically behaves as part of the middle paradigm: Gk. OAWAO( corresponds semantically not to the active OAAU(.lL but to the middle OAAU(.lo(L, while deponents like y[Y'lO(.lO(L and (.ld'lO(.lo(L form "active" perfects yÉyo'lo( and (.lÉ(.l·I)'Io(, respectively; in Vedic the presents corresponding to rnamárt;a 'ignored', vavárta 'turned' and ruróca 'shone' are rnrt¡yate, vártate and j'ócate, all media tantum. An especially common lE pattern opposes a middle root aorist, denoting entry into a state, to a perfect, representing the state itself; characteristic pairs ofthiskind are *g~lS(t)Ó'took aliking to' (cf. Ved. 3pI. ájut;ran): *(ge)góuse 'enjoys' (cf. Ved. jújot;a(ti)), *mt1(t)ó (*mén(t)o) 'brcíught to mind' (cf. Ved. ámata, GAv. 'manta) : *(me )móne 'is mindful (of)' (cf. Gk. (.lÉ(.lO'lE, Lat.meminit, Go. man), *li7c"(t)ó 'left (intr.)' (cf. Ved. 2sg. rikthálJ,): *(le)lóik1'e 'is gone' (cf. Gk. intr. W,OmE'I), *sthz(t)ó 'stood up' (cf. Ved. 3 pI. ásthiran, Toch. B ste 'is' < pre-Toch. *sto): *(ste)stóhzy(e) 'stands' (cf. Ved. tasthríu, Lith. stóvi).

§ 4. In the historical lE languages the perfect has characteristically come to acquire the value of a general preterite, thereby merging semantically with the aorist and/or imperfecto This function is already dominant in the language of the Rigveda, as well as in the oldest !talic, Celtic and Germanic; in Greek and lranian the evolution from stative to preterite falls within the historical periodo An identical development may perhaps be assumed in part for Anatolian, where, as recently argued by H. Eichner, Flexion und Wortbild~tn{J, 87ff., and E. Risch, ibid., 251ff., the non-stative value of lJ,i-conjugation forms like 1sg. aklji '1 die' ( < *-lje < *-ljai) can be accounted for by assuming that original perfects like *ak7Ja ( < lE *-hze),

3) The form of the middle endings is discussed at greater length in §§ 45---47.

n. '1 am dead', regularly became preterites ('1 (have) died'), from which ~ew presents were

n. '1 am dead', regularly became preterites ('1 (have) died'), from which ~ewpresents were created by the addition of the hic et nunc particle *i. The loss of the perfect in its original function has been offset in most languages by the growth ofnew stative categories oflate 01' "dialectal" lE date. A conspicuous example of such a formation is the perfect middle, a productive type in Indo-Iranian and Greek, and apparently represented in Old Irish as well (cf. §68). Both the form and function of the perfect middle in these languages suggest a comparatively recent creation. From a historical point ofview the middle endings are redundant in the inflection ofthe perfect; as we have noted, the morphological and semantic ties ofthe perfect "active" are not properly with the active atall, but with the middle. In both Indo-Iranian and Greek the typical function ofthe perfect middle is to renew the lE perfect in its original meaning, while the inherited perfect itself tends increasingly to acquire new and specifically active 01' non-stative functions. Verbal roots which form active presents in Vedic Sanskrit typically utilize the perfect active as a simple preterite, essentially equivalent to the imperfect; in such cases the perfect middle is often stative, cf. paprátha '(caused to) spread out' beside paprathé 'is stretched out', vavárdha 'made great' beside vavrdhé 'is great, has become great', jajana 'begat' (contrast Gk. yÉyove) beside jajñé 'has been born'. The situation in Greek is similar: although the stative value of the perfect active is still consistently maintained in Homer, the tendency ofthe perfect to acquire middle forms in its intransitive uses, particularly in the presence of a well-developed middle paradigm elsewhere, is already pronounced. Cf.

TÉ'rUXTOCL beside TeTeuxw<;, dfLOCPTOCL beside b:fLfLope, l:ípwpe beside ÓpWp'l)TOCL (subj.),

later 1tÉ1teLIJ"fLOCL (Aesch., etc.) beside 1tÉ1tOL6oc, etc. For the history of the perfect middle in Indo-Iranian and Greek and its distribution in relation to the active see further Renou, Val. du parj., chs. 5-8, and Chantraine, Hist. du parf. gr., chs. 3,5. The status ofthe perfect middle in Indo-European is discussed in §§ 71, 101.

§5. More conspicuous than the remains of the perfect in many lE languages are the stative formations which appear to contain a suffix *-e-. The problems surrounding the form and distribution of this mQrpheme rank among the most stubborn in lE comparative grammar. This is due partly to the fact that Indo-Iranian, normally our best source of information about the lE verbal system, offers no unambiguous traces of stative *-e- at all; more than tbis, however, it reflects the extraordinary degree to which the categories allegedly built on this suffix in the remaining languages differ among themselves. Before proceeding further, it will be useful to review the basic evidence for "e-verbs" in Indo-European. Both deverbative and denominative formations occur. The former, which are more difficult in almost every respect, will claim the major share of our attention in subsequent chapters; the latter, which present a more

16

coherent formal picture, provide a more convenient point of departure for the survey which follows.

§6. The lE denominative sta ti ves in *-e- have recently been studied by C. Watkins, TPS, 1971, 51-93, who has demonstrated that they are more widely distributed than has traditionally been supposed. The clearest examples of denominative e-statives are found in Balto-

Slavic and Italic. Balto-Slavic has a productive class ofdenominative verbs with infinitives in *-eti (Lith. -é%i, OCS -éti) and present stems in *-eje(o- (Lith. -éJa-, OCS -éje(o-); when not compounded with a preposition, these are typically stative in Slavic (cf. OCS bogatéti, 3 sg. -éjet'h 'be rich' < bogat'h 'rich'; ~lméti, 3 sg. -éjet'h 'understand, know how' < um'h 'understanding') but more often inchoative in Baltic (cf. Lith. senéti, 3p. -éJa 'grow older' < senas 'old' ;j~lOdéli, 3 p. -éJa 'turn black' <juodas 'black'). The same two functions are associatéd with the denominative suffix *-e- in Latin; here,

however, statives in -ea,

silere < *si-lo-; cf. Pokorny, IEW, 891) are formally distinguished from inchoatives in -esca, -escere (i. e., *-e-ske(o-; cf. senescere, nigrescere, silesce- re). Despite the frequency of attempts to derive both Lith. senéli and Lat.

sene-re from the lE denominative type in thematic vowel + *-je(o- (cf. GIL (fnAÉw < cpLAO<;, Ved. asvayáti 'desires horses' < áSva-, etc.), Watkins has shown that the only plausible source ofthe Balto-Slavic and Latin forms is an inherited present class in *-e- 01' *-e-je(o-. A specifically athematic paradigm is suggested by the Latin 3 pI. ending -ent ( < *-enti), beside which 1sg. -eaand the thematic inflection ofthe corresponding Balto-Slavic forms are likely to represent innovations. A major finding ofWatkins' study is that Hittite dénominative statives such as 3 sg. nakkezi 'is important' < nakki- 'important', tannattezzi 'is deserted' < tannatta- 'deserted', lJassuet 'was king' < lJass~l- 'king' are reflexes of the same historical category. It is significant that these and

similar forms are found side by side with inchoatives in -e.s- (i. e., *-e:

nakkeszi 'becomes important' and tannatte.szi 'becomes deserted' agree completely in function with the Latin type in -escO, and stand to it in the same formal relationship as, e. g., Hitt. pa7Js- 'protect' to La,t. paseO. The extended suffix-form *-e-s- is, in Watkins' view, also to be seen in Greek

sigmatic aorists snch as 6OCp~~crOCL, pLY'~crOCL, O:V6'~crOCL, etc.; the corresponding presents 6ocp~Éw, pLyÉW, o:v6Éw, etc., although usnally taken as denominatives to nenter s-stems, are for the most part chronologically later than their associated aorists, and appear to have been created secondarily on the

stative in

Celtic is 011'

ruidi 'blushes' (AH), which invites direct comparison with

model of pairs like cpLMw : cpLA·~crOCL.A clear case of a denominative e:

-ere (e. g., senere < senex, nigrere < niger,

s-):

Lat. t'1lbere and Russ. Ch. SI. ndéti s~, 3 sg. -éjet'h 8~ 'id.'; nnfortunately, the complex origin of the Celtic weak verbs in -i- makes it difficnlt to distinguish further examples of this type from original presents in *-eje(o-

and *-ije(o-. The Germanic clenominative verbs of the third weak class

17

-------------~r

(type OHG roten, 3 sg. rotet ( < *-aip) 'turns red') testify to the original presence of the same category in a sixth branch of the family as well; here, however, the formal relationship between the predesinential diphthong *-ai- and the lE suffix *-e- has never been satisfactorily explained (see below). Whether denominative statives in *-e- are also preserved in the Armenian present class in -i- (type unim '1 have') is unclear; on the class as a whole see now Godel, Introd. to the Study oj Class. Arm., 155.

§7. The synchronically deverbative 01' "primary" formations in *-e- present a more varied picture. In Latin the deverbative statives of the second conjugation,-such as habere, manere, tacere, etc., are indistinguish- able in the present system from denominatives like senere, rubere, etc., and like these, appear to continue an athematic type in *-e-. A similar type has been identified in Tocharian, where Schmid, Stud. z. balto ~L idg. Vb., 99f. and Watkins, Celt. Vb., 70f. have derived the stem vowel of class III presents (type 3 sg. A b'ikatar, B triketar 'is confused') from lE *-e-; the absence ofroot-final palatalization in theseforms, however, makes such an interpretation doubtful (cf. §20). None of the other branches of lndo-European offer clear cases of a non- denominative present class in *-e- q '). In Greek it is usual to take lE *-e- as the source of the aorist passive in -'f)-: the originally medial rather than passive function of this category is evident from forms like [J.tyr¡ 'mingled', E<X"(f) 'broke', <.páv'f) 'appeared', etc. (cf. Schwyzer, Gr. Gram., 756ff.; Chantraille, G"i'am. hom., 399ff.). Such\orists are found in association with a variety of different present formations (cf. [J.tcrye;·w;¡, IXYVUTtX¡, <.pdve;TtX¡); especially well-represented among these is the intransitive type in *-iejo-,

seen not only in <.pdVE;TtX¡: <.páv'f), but also in [J.dVE:TtX¡: E[J.áv'f), xtXtpe;¡: XáP'f), etc.

The situation in Greek recalls that in Balto-Slavic, where *-e- in primary statives is confined to the infinitive stem, historically derived from the aorist (cf. Lith. minéli 'think, remember', pret. minéjo; OCS mb1u!ti 'id.', aor. mbne). Unlike Greek, however, Balto-Rlavic opposes its extra-present forms in *-e- to presents of a uniform type, which are characterized by *-i- in Baltic (cf. Lith. 1 sg. miniú, 3p. mini) and by *-i in Slavic (cf. OCS 1 sg. mbñjq, 3 sg. 'fnbnit'b). These forms are not immediately reconcilable with each other and neither Baltic *-i- nor Slavic *-i'- has a clear source in llldo- European. 'In this respect, if in no other, the ejt-verbs ofBalto~Slavicinvite comparison with their functional counterparts in Germanic. Here, as in Latin, no distinction is made between the deverbative and denominative types: like roten, OHG haben 'have' inflects as a verb ofthe third weak class, showing -e- < *-(¿i- before the present endings and the suffix of the dental preterite (habeta, roteta). The origin of this etymological diphthong, as remarked aboye, is disputed, and the historical position of the third class is further obscured by the fact that outside Old High German *-ni-

4) On the supposed reflexes of such forros in Ce1tic see ch. 4, fn. 10.

18

participates in an exceptional alternation with *-n- in Gothic and

Scandinavian (cf. Go. lsg. hnbn, 3 pI. hnband, 01 1sg. hej, 3 pI. hnja, etc.) and *-jn- in Old Saxon and Old English (cf. OS 1sg. hebbi'u, pI. hebbind, OE 1sg. hcebbe, pI. hnbbap, etc.). Although a direct relationship between the Germanic forms and the e-formations surveyed aboye is suggested by their close semantic agreement, it should be noted that nowhere in the Germanic

verbal system

is an unequivocal reflex of lE *-e- preserved 5).

§ 8. Thus, while the denominative statives discussed in § 6 seem ultimate- ly to point to an lE present type in *-e-, the only branch of the family which preserves unambiguous traces of a corresponding class of deverbative presents in -*-e- lS Italic. Greek and Balto-Slavic, by contrast, appear at least synchronically to exclude *-e:. from the present system of non- denominative statives; whether this 01' the Italic pattern represents the more ancient situation has never been conclusively resolved. According to one prevalent conception, the "e-verbs" appear in their most archaic form in Greek, where -r¡- is confined to the aorist and plays no role in the formation of the associated parent stem; advocates of this position have typically attempted to explain the Balto-Slavic t-presents, and occasional- ly the Germanic statives as well, without recourse to the assumption of inherited present forms in *-e-. Proponents ofthe opposite view, taking the exclusion of *-e- fram the present in Greek to be secondary, have instead sought to derive the Balto-Slavic and Germanic forms from prototypes ultimately equatable with Lat. hab"i're, manere, etc. Numerous variations of these two basic approaches, embracing a wide range ofindividual analyses, have been proposed ayer the past century; none, however, has succeeded in winning general acceptance. Since the stative presents ofBalto-Slavic and Germanic clearly hold the key to a proper understanding of the position of the "e-verbs" in lndo- European, it will be useful here to give a brief survey of earlier attempts to explain these formations. Our purpose in so doing will not be to achieve bibliographic or factual completeness, but simply to focus attention on a group ofproblems which will be addressed at greater length in the chapters below.

§9. Among the historical explanations which have been proposed for the Balto-Slavic stative presents in *-t-, one of the most widely accepted identifies these forms with the lE type seen, e. g., in Ved. mányate 'thinks', Gk. [J.tXtVE;TtX¡ and 011'. do' moinethar 'remembers'. Presents of this class, characterized by zero-grade of the root and a suffix traditionally recon- structed *-jejo-, overlap closely in function with the stative formations just

5) To be sure, *-e- has 1eft a clear trace in Go,fahejJs 'joy', but this is a deverbative llOUll. It is discussed in §56,

has 1eft a clear trace in Go,fahejJs 'joy', but this is a deverbative llOUll. It is

discussed, as can be seen aboye all from such correspondences as Ved. lúbhya- 'be desir??s': Lat. lubet, .Go. *lu?ct:ij>. (cf. ~~lbai~~ '~w~~'),;.Ved. búdhya-, Av. büiona- 'be awake': LIth. budeh, -~, OCS b'bdet~, -~t'b Id. ,Ved.

grdhya- 'be greedy': Serb. Ch. SI. z1:Idéti, -it'b 'des~re'.; Ved. tz't;yati 'be

thirsty', Go. j>aursjan silc 'id.': Lat. torrere, e~c.6). SImIlar forms, though most numerous in Indo-Iranian, areattested m every early lE language; like the semantically related perfect, presents ofthe mányate: fLdve'l"o(L type are often found in association with deponent root aorists, as can be seen from such,cases as Ved. aor. 3 pI. ábudhmn, ptcp. budhaná- beside búdhya-,

aor. ptcp. trt;arJá- beside trt;ya-, aor. 3 sg. ámata, ptcp. mananá-, GAv. manta

. An exact equation of Lith. 3 p. mini, OCS 3 sg. mhnÜ'b with forms hke Ved. mányate is ruled out by the fact that the historically regular treatm~nt

of lE *-jefo- in Balto-Slavic is *-j~fa- afte~ ;.?,;el~ ~nd *-~~:~, wIth

palatalization after consonants, cf. Llth. 1sg. l~ez~u 1 hck ,3 p. hezw, OCS

lizQ 'id.' 3 sg. Úzet'b. Since the first edition ofBrugmann's Gnlndr~f3(1892), however, an important group of scholars have held .that both the Bal~o­

Slavic ~-presents and the mányate: fLdve'l"o(L type contmue an lE

in which the suffix-form *-jo- (*ijo-) regularly alternated not with *-je- (*-iie-) but with *-t-, under conditions parallel to the alternation of *-0-

and *-~-elsewhere. Such "semithematic" presents, in Brugmann's view

(Gr. 1 2 2 , 1055-7), were originally distinct from the

statíve type in *-jefo-, with which they generally feIl together m every lE

. Although embraced by such distingmshed authorltws ~s A~tome Mmllet (see, e. g., his Slav. com., 232-4) anel Chr. S. Stang (e. g., m hlS Vergl: G1·. d. balto Spr., 319-20), the semithematic theory has .ah:ays r.emame.d a minority view. The alleged evidence for semithematlC mflectlOn o.f *e!o- verbs outside Balto-Slavic (cf. Lat. capio, -is, a,udio, -'is; OIr. 'ga~b~~l '1 take', 3 sg. 'gaib, 'léiciu '1 leave', 3 sg. 'léici; OHG liggtl '1 líe'.' 3 sg. ligit, Go. hausja '1 hear', 3 sg. h(l~lseij» is at best inconclusive: nothmg prevents a deri~ation of the stem vowel *-~-in Italic, Celtic and Germanic from lE *-ie- or its Sievers' Law variant *-ije- 7 ). Only fully thematic equivalents of these forms are found in Indo-Iranian, Greek and Hittite, and none of these

dialect except Balto-Slavic.

beside mányate, etc.

formatlOn

fuIly the~atic, non-

.

.

languages preserves any traces of a s~m~thematic co~jugational patte~'ll

elsewhere in its verbal system. Even wlthm Balto-SlavlC, as we shal~see m ch. 4, ~-presents fail to show the predicted distribut:on o~ the~a~~c and athematic forms, the former being found in the 1 sg. only (Llth. m'¿mu" OCS mb1ijQ; cf. §82). Thus, the semithematic theory is essentiaIly an arbItrary

6) Further sueh pairs are lis~ed by Sehm~d, St1.td. Z. balto .1(, idg. Vb., eh.y

7) 01', b Celtie and Germame, from the lteratlV~-eausatlve and,,~enOlmna~!:e

suffix *-ejejo-, whieh in faet aeeounts for the largest smglenumber of ~-presents m these languages.

20

r

compromise, motivated only by a perceived need to reconcile the athematic appearance ofthe Balto-Slavic statives with the thematic inflection ofjef o - presents in the remaining languages.

§10. Among other attempts to explain the ~-presents\vithout reference to lE *-e-, it will suffice here to mentíon only two. In Infl. Cat., 79-84, Kurylowicz has sought to derive the theme vowel of the Baltic and Slavic forms from the 3 sg. perfect ending *-ei (i. e., *-e + hic et nunc *i). Since final *-ei would in fact regularly yield -i in Lithuanian and -i(t'b) in Old Church Slavonic, the quantitative difference between, e. g., Lith. gaTi 'bums' (-i) and OCS g01'it'b (*-'i-) would have an attractively simple explanation under this theory. A se,rious difficulty, however, is that the Lithuanian reduction of *-ei to -i 'in final position is not a development of Common Baltic date; consequently, it is questionable whether the 3 sg. perfect can have played a role in the creation of the obviously related i-presents of dialectal Latvian and Old Prussian (cf. Latv. gulim 'we lie', OPr. t~lTl'imai'wir sollen', and see also §85). Less daring, though hardly more compelling, is the view of F. Specht, whose major study of the e-statives (KZ 62, 29-115 [1935]) a.ttempts to show that stative *-e- was originally confined to extra-present ((l~lj3eTpl'tisentisch) functions, while its place in the present system was taken by the thematic suffix *-ejefo-. Specht views *-eje- as the direct source of Slavic -i-, comparing the apparently parallel development of *-eje- to *-'i- in inherited iterative-causatives like OCS nosit'b 'canies' < *nokeje(ti). From a phonological point ofview, however, the contraction of *-eje- to *-'i- cannot be regarded as firmly established, while the presumed subsequent shortening of *-'i- to -i- in Baltic seems even less secure (see §§ 83,86). Nor is it clear to what extent *-ejefo- can be assigned stative value in Indo-European : we have seen that denominative presents like Lat. albere are better regarded as continuing preforms in *-ejefo- (§6).

§11. Attempts to account for the class III weak verbs of Germanio along similar lines have not been numerous. The present writer's derivation of Gmc. *-aij> from a 3 sg. middle in *-ai ( < lE *-oi), secondarily suffixed by the active 3 sg. ending *-j> ( < *-ti) (Lg.49, 850-70 [1973]), is discussed in ch.3. Of the theories summarized aboye, only Specht's is applicable to Germanic: hereforms like 1 sg. OS hebbúl, OE hillbbe 7) arephonologically derivable from *kapéjo, while Gmc. 3 sg. *habaij> can be taken to reflect the substitution of *kap¿jeti for *ka,péjeti undel' the influence of the non-

present stem in *-e:- (Specht, op. cit., 77). This, however, fails to motivate the absence of -j- in Go. 1sg. haba < *ha,b(J and leaves the reasons for the retention of *-e- in part of the paradigm and its replacement by *-e- elsewhere unexplained. Given the poor evidence for statives in *-ejefo-

outside Germanic in any

been widely

accepted. The great majority of scholars who have investigated the third weak class have instead taken the position that *-e-, 01' a v<j,riant of this suffix (see

case, Specht's views have not

21

below), was originally distinctive of the entire category. The standard handbooks of Germanic, from Streitberg's Urgermanische Gmmmatik (1st ed. 1896) to Guxman's Smvnitel'naja gmmmatika germanskix jazykov (1966), are virtually unanimous in deriving the Germanic forms in *-ai- from lE *-eje-, although the supposition that such a sequence would have yielded a Germanic diphthong is at least questionable (cf. §52). Even under a derivation of *habaip < *kap~jeti, however, the position offorms such as Go. 1sg. haba, 3pl. haband and OS hebbin, hebbiad remains unexplained. According to a widespread older view, still favored by Krahe, Germ. Spmchw. II, 121, Go. haband regularly continues an athematic 3pl. *lcap~nti, parallel to Lat. habent; the agreement of 3 pl.-cmd < *-enti with -and < *-onti would then have led to the secondary creation of quasi- thematic forms 1sg. haba and 1pl. habam. Yet it is highly doubtful that *-ent- would have yielded *-and- and not *-ind- ( < *-ent-) in Germanic, and equally unclear how 3 sg. *kap~jetiand 3 pI. *lcap~nticould ever have come to be associated in the same paradigm 8). A number of recent studies have therefore uplield the historical priority of forms like OS hebbin, ayer Go. haba, although they have rejected the specific interpretation placed on hebbiu by Specht. Characteristically, such theories have instead assumed that the ja-forms of Germanic contain an apophonic variant of the stative suffix itself; as might be expected, this assumption has had important consequences for Balto-Slavic as well.

§12. The suggestion thi1t the stative suffix originally displayed quantita- tive apophony in Indo-European is hardly new. Such a position was taken,

e. g., by Brugmann in the second

the e-statives of the attested languages were derived from "disyllabic heavy bases" in *-e1:; the reduced-grade (*-i < *-'i1i) and zero-grade (*-i) of this formant were, in Brugmann's opinion, most clearly recognizable in the semithematic presents of Baltic and Slavic, but also detectable in OS hebbiu, etc. Although the apophonic theory on which this interpretation is based is no longer tenable, it. has had several modern representatives. H. Wagner, comparing the Hittite type 3 sg.lJ,alzai 'calls', 3 pI. lJ,alziyanzi (e- Verba, 50-2) reconstructs a pre-Germanic present in *-eje-j*-jo-, which he supposes to have been secondarily thematized from an earlier type in *-ei-j *-i-. A similar position is taken by W. P. Schmid, who assumes an athematicpresentin 3 sg. *-~iti,3pl. *-'i1jénti (Stnd. z. balto n. idg. Vb., 83); he then derives Slavic *-i- and Baltic -i- from the suffix-forms *-ei- and *-'i1i~,

respectively, and sees a thematized form ofthe latter alternant as the basis ofthe Indo-Iranian type in -ya- (mányate). J. Puhvel, Lar. and the lE Vb., 53ff., sets up an inherited type in *-eEY-j*-EY-, the "palatal" laryngeal of

edition ofthe Grnndrij3, 2 3 , 195ff., where

8) For other attempts to explain the inflection of the third weak class on the basis of an athematic type in *-e- see §52.

22

which would allegedly yield -í- in Baltic; how Puhvel would explain Slavic *-i- and Germa.nic *-ai-j*-(j)a- is not made clear. Such theories, even if they were free of phonological difficulties, would hardly be more than stopgap measures. In order to maintain the existence of athematic presents in *-ei- (*-eEY-) j *-'i1i- (*-t-, *-EY-) in lndo-European, it is necessary to assume their complete elimination as a distinctive type in Indo-Iranian, Greek and, pace Wagner (cf. §54), Anatolian-precisely the three branches of Indo-European in which the athematic conjugation is most faithfully preserved. The suffix *-ei- assumed by Wagner and Schmid is nowhere unambiguously attested as such, and in its long diphthong differs radically from every other affix in the lE verbal system; a reconstruction such as Puhvel's escapes the latter difficulties, but only at the cost of assuming an ad hoc and very doubtful phonological rule~ In some respects the most attractive of the "ablaut" theories of the e- statives is that put forth by W. Cowgill, Lg. 39,265--6 (1963). Basing his views in part on a suggestion ofW. Bennett (cf. §55), Cowgill proposes to derive both the t-presents of Balto-Slavic and the third weak class in Germanic from an earlier thematic type in *-'i1jejo-, where *-'i1- represents the zero-grade of *-e- (i. e., *-eh r ). This analysis has the merit of simplicity at the morphological level: if the phonological developments which it presupposes could be shown to be correct, the stative presents of the northern lE languages would represent jejo-presents of a type routinely encountered throughout the family. The developments in question, however. are by no means trivial, and appear to be contradicted by forms in which a vocalic laryngeal is lost without a trace befare *-jejo- in both Balto- Slavic and Germanic. Such cases, and Cowgill's theory generally, will best be deferred to chs. 3 und 4, where they will be discussed in detaiI.

§13. The e-statives of Balto-Slavic and Germanic thus remain in many key points obscure. Closely associated with their elusive history are a host of related questions, bearing on such unsettled issues as 1) the inherited distribution ofthe stative suffix *-e-, 2) the original form ofthis suffix and its relationship to the morpheme traditionally reconstructed *-jejo-, and 3) the ancient position of the e-statives vis-a-vis their close functional counterpart, the perfecto This study will attempt to resolve some of these uncertainties by proposing a new explanation for the Germanic and Balto-Slavic statives:

more specifically, an effort will by made to show that a close analogue to these formations exists as a productive category in Indo-lranian and Greek. Rather than proceed directly to the problematic forms themselves, however, we shall turn first to two lE languages which have never played a major role in discussions of the e-verbs, but which present the comparatist with a verbal class ofunsuspected interest for their study. These languages are Tocharian A and B; the forms in question are those of Krause's third present class, a detailed discussion of which follows.

23

II

CLASS III PRESENTS IN TOCHARIAN

§ 14. The Tocharian presents of W. Krause's third' present class (cf. WToch. Gram. I, 66~8 for Toch. E; for Toch. A and E cf. Krause~Thomas, Toch. Elem. I, 200~1) have two defining formal characteristics. Common to the entire class is a stem~final element which appears as ~a~ in Toch. A and ~e~ in Toch. E, pointing to a Common Tocharian vowel which, in accordance with a suggestion of J. Schindler (personal communication), I shall represent by the symbol *ií. Equally distinctive is the virtually obligatory presence of the middle endings; the rare instances of class III forms with active inflection constitute a case apart and will be discussed separately in §39. The class III paradigm may be illustrated with the

sich

present forms befinden' 1) :

of the

common

verb

AE

 

A

sg.l

maskamar

2

maskatéir

3

maskatar

pI. 1

maskamtar

2

maskacar

3

maskantCir

ptcp.

maskama'Y[!,

ger. I

maskal

inf.

maskatsi

mask~ 'be,

E

be

maskemar

masketar

masketar

maskemt(t)ar

masketar

maskentar

maskemane

maskelle

[maskatsi] 2)

located,

Such presents correspond to class V

(~a~) subjunctives and class I

preterites, both of which may be active as well as middle; the only exception is the root mask~ itself, which anomalously forms a class III preterite in Toch. A (3 sg. maskas beside E maska).

1) Here and below, forms which ~re not directly attested but which can be predicted with complete confidence from other lexical items are not marked with an asterisk. 2) Formed, as regulatly in Toch. B, on the subjunctive stem.

24

§15. The verbs for which class III presents are attested have been collected by Krause, loe. cit., for Toch. E, but no comparable inventory has been compiled for Toch. A. Eoth languages are taken into accoUllt in the list which follows. Common to A and E: lcul~ 'subside'; kulyp~ 'desire'; trik~ ego astray, be

confused'; triw~'mingle'; mask~ 'be, be located'; A niitsw~, E miitsts~

'starve'; A ritw~, E ritt~ 'join with'; wilc~ 'vanish'; siitk~'spread out (intr.)'; tsar~ 'separate (intr.)'. Found only in A: paz~ ego out, be extinguished'; park~ ego up'; mal~ 'become oppressed' (E class X); yu~ 'bend toward'; yutk~ 'worry'; lit~ 'fall down' (E lait~, IV); watk~ 'separate (intr.), decide' (E IX); wap~ 'weave'; .41t1·~ 'sorrow'; 8'¡k~ 'overflovv'. Found only in E: kurp~ 'care about'; kramp~ 'become bothered'; tas~ 'resemble' (A téislc~, II)3); nu~ croar' (ñewetar; A VIII); palk~ 'bum (intr.)'; pra1Ík~ 'restrain oneself' (A I) ; prutk~ 'be fulfilled' ; pza1Ík~ 'be put on sale' ; ma1Ík~ 'be inferior' ; mars~ 'forget' (A VI); mit~ 'set out'; m1lsk~'disappear'; lip~ 'remain over'; lu~ 'send' (lyewetar); luk~ 'shine forth' (lY1lkettir); lyu~ 'rub'; waks~ 'be upset (?)'; spant~ 'trust'4); spark~ 'perish'; sru,k~ 'die'; tsa1ik~ 'arise' (tse1iketCir); tsam~'grow' (A IV); tsalp~ 'cross over, beredeemed' (AIV); tsu~ 'accommodate oneself'. Here too may belong severa] presents which are too sparsely attested for an unambiguous determination of their class to be possible. E 3 pI. kwre'Y[!,ntar < kwar~ 'grow old' (A kul'~) and 1 pI. cukemar < tulc~ 'be hidden' (A tpulc~) could in principIe belong either to class II (thematic) 01' class III, although the zero~grade root vocalism of both forms makes class III the likelier choice 5 ). The class I subjunctive and class III preterite ofE pzatk~ 'come forth', on the other hand', speak in favor ofKrause's assignment of the participle E plyetkemane to class II. Special problems are presented by the anomalous behavior of A km'y~, E lce1'y~'laugh', which shows only active finite forms in both languages and appears to contract ~ya~ to ~e~in A ptcp.

karema'Y[!, (E keriyemane); see further §39.

§ 16'. Formally indistinguishable from the class III presents are the class III subjunctives, which, like their indicative counterparts, are inflected by adding the middle endings to a stem ending in CToch. *~ií~. (The "active" class III subjunctives of Tocharian E (Krause~Thomas, 225), e. g., 3 sg. naka'Y[!" 1 pI. nlcem<naJc~ 'destroy', are athematic in form and properly belong to class I rather than here.) Such subjunctives are invariably intransitive; the majority correspond to intransitive and medial presents

3) Doubtful, see § 18.

4) Cf. A3pl. smiintantr~ii!rr¿, emended by Krause-Thomas (op. cit. II, 157) to

8piintatr~iif!1,.

5) For the initial palatalization compare B Zyuketiir < luk~.

25

----------------------

of classes VIII .(-8-) and X (-nii8(k)-). Subjunctives of class III are reliably atteste.~fr~meIght,roots: kiin- 'happen' (AB), kéi8- 'go out, be extinguished'

(A~),tam- be ~or~ (A ~sg. cmatiir, B C1netii1') , niik- 'destroy' (act.) / 'perish'

(~m~.)(~B),nam- b.?V; .(~only; A class V), piik- 'make ripe' (act.) / 'grow rlp~ (mld.) (AB), wal- dIe (A only), t8iik- 'burn (tr.)' (act.) / 'burn (intr.)' (mld.) (AB). Amnthroot, t8ii1'- 'separate', has in Toch. A agerundive IIsral

ve.rbal ~bs~~act sralune, which would normalIy imply a class III

subJ:,tnctlve *8ratCtr. The 'presen~ of this verb, however, is t8ratiir (= B t8retar).' also of class IU; If genume, *sratliT would constitute the unique ('Xc~ptlO:r: to ~he general rule that class UI presents form class V subJu~ctIVes.SInce a class V subjunctive of t81iT- is in fact attested in B gel'. U t8ralle, the status of A sral, sralune must be considered doubtfuI.

§ 17. The presents assigned by Krause(-Thomas) to class IV (cf. WTock G1·. I, 68-9, Toch. Elem. I, 201-2) are historicaIly mere variants ofthose of class ~II. Like the forms surveyed aboye, class IV presents are almost excluslvely depon~nt;they are regula,rly accompanied by subjunctives of class Van? pretentes of clas~I (a8- 'turn dry', with a class UI preterite in Toch. A, IS the only exceptlOn). The formal difference between the two types appears to be phonologicalIy conditioned : roots which form class IV presents .almost inv.ariably contain the underlying vowel a 01' the diph-

~hongs a~ 01' au, whIle class UI presents typically show ii-, i- 01' u-vocal- Ism of the root syIlable.

. In Toch. B, where classes III and IV are more sharply differentiated than

m Toch. A, the most characteristic feature of class IV is the stem-final voweI o (vs. class UI e), before which an a of the preceding sylIable is in

sync~ll'onicterms, it~elfroundedto O. In Toch. A the class IV stem-vow~lis

ando a

C:, as m class III; unhke the a of class IU, however, the cIass IV theme vowel IS r~gularly syn~opated ~efore an a in the next sylIable (i. e., before the .endmgs 1 sg. -mar, 2 sg. -ta1:and ~heparticipial suffix -miir(l,). Corresponding In ~o the Toch.A. apparent umlaut of a to o m Toch. B, the root voweI ais repIaced by a

The ~lassIVparadigm may be illustrated with tlw forms of plant- 'be

A

pIeased :

B

sg. 1

2

.3

plantmar

plantta1'

plantatiir

plontomar

plontotctr

plontoUir

26

pI. 1

plantamtiir

2 plantaciir

3 plantantiir

ptcp.

ger.I

inf.

plantma'f(i

plantal

plantat8i

plontomt(t)iir

plontoUir

plontontiir

plontomane

plontolle

[plantat8i]

,

I

!

§18.

are Iisted below.

Class IV presents are attested from more than twenty roots, which

Common to A and B: ar- 'stop'; a1't- 'praise'; a8- 'become dry'; A kla(w)-,

B klay- 'fall'; klaw- 'proclaim' ; A trap-, B t1'app- 'stumble'; A pot- B paut-

'flatter'; plant- 'be pleased'; yat- 'be capable'; A 8partw-, B 8partt- 'turn'.

Found only in A: piir8k- 'fear' (pra8katii1'; B V); mlu8k- 'escape' (mlo8ka-

tiir); wiiñk- 'gossip'; 8ak- 'remain'; t8arw- 'be confident'; t8iim- 'grow' (3 pI. Sctmanttir; BIII); t8iilp- 'cross over, be redeemed' (salpatliT; BIII). Found only in B: aiw- 'devote oneself' ; karp- 'step down' (A VI) ; klaik8- 'shrivel' ; klautk- 'turn' (A lotk-, VI); yank- 'delude'; lait- 'fall' (A lit-, III); wak- 'split, open (intr.)'; samp- 'be arrogant'; 8p1iw- 'run dry (? )'. W orthy of note are several cases in which a class IV present in Toch. A corresponds to a class III present in Toch. B, and conversely. The contrast

between B t8metii1', t8¿ilpetiir ( < t8iim-, t8iilp-; III)

and A *samatiir, salpatii1'

(IV) is clearly due to an original difference of apophony in the root syIlable:

the Toch. B forms show the regular treatment of an earlier zero-grade, while the vocalism and initial palatalization ofToch. A sam-, salp- point to lengthened grade preforms *t8em-, *t8elp-. A similar relationship holds between A 3 pI. litantiir (III) and B 3 pI. laitontiir (IV), which appear to continue apophonic variants *lit- and *loit-. It is not impossible that, despite their semantic divergence, A *ywatiir (UI) < y~t- 'bend forward' and B aiwotiir (IV) < aiw- 'devote oneself' constitute yet another example

of such a pair (cf. §38).

According to Krause--Thomas' classification, the class III.present B *ta8etiir (emended from ta8aitiir) has a class IV counterpart In A ptcp. ta8kmam. This, however, is almost surely not correct, since the regular

class IV participle of ta8k- in Toch. A would have been *ta8kma:r" (cf. plantmiiíl'lJ). The unaltered root-vocalism of ta8kma'f(i clearly marks It as a class U (thematic) form - a fact which lends independent support to K. Schmidt's analysis (Flex1:on und Wortbildung, 287ff.) ofB ta8aitiir as a class

U

3 du. 6 ).

.

§ 19. AH but a handful of the attested class III and IV ~reseI~ts ~re intransitive' while most denote an action 01' process, a substantIal mmonty are stative. The functional resemblance of these forms to the e-statives of

Latin Germanic and BaIto-Slavic has been independently noted by Watkins, eelt. Vb., 70f., and Schmid, Stud. Z. balto u. idg. Vb., 99-100, bot.h

of

whom have attempted to explain the class III theme vowel on the basIs

of

an lE athematic type in *_e_ 7 ). This suggestion is attractive in several

6) We could then assume that the root was originally task- in both languages, and that B tas- was extracted from forms like 3 sg. *taljtar < Pre-Toch. *taljljiitiir. According to H. Craig Melchert (personal co~munication), tiisk- is an sk-extension of the root which underlies Hitt. dakk- 'resemble'. 7) Watkins, TPS 1971, 61, hás retracted this view.

27

r------

respects. A significant number of class nI (IV) presents are actually paralleled ?y apparent e:-forms elsewhere in the family; the examples quotable, mght m all, are AB as- 'become dry' : Lat. arere, AB kul- 'subside, slacken': Lith. guleli 'lie' (§ 38), A park- 'go up': Hitt. parkeszi 'becomes

high', B palk- 'burn': Lat. fulgere, B mars-'forget': Hitt. mar'sezzi 'is false',

B lip- 'remain over': Go. liban, -aip 'live' (probably also OCS pr'i-lhpéti 'stick;'), B luk- 'shine': Lat. [-ücer'e, B walc- 'split': Gk. (f)C(r~Vc(LIt seems certam, moreover, that lE *eregularly yields Toch. A a and Toch. B e, cf. A

mañ, B meñe 'moon' < *men-, A want, B yente 'wind'

< *];tento-. Earlier

attempts to identify the lE e:- statives in other Tocharian verbal categories, such as the class I (athematic) presents (H. Pedersen, Toch. 2 , 162) 01' the class V (-a-) presents (e. g., J. Elfenbein, Ricerche Linguistiche 2, 185 [1951]), have not been successfuI. -

§20. ~et des.pite.its ob.vious appeal, the Watkins----Schmid theory is open to a senous obJectlOn. Llke other etymological front vowels, the Tocharian reflex of lE *eregularly induces palatalization of a preceding consonant:

compaiatively secure examples, beside A want, B yente just cited, include the nominative singular ofkinship terms like A pacar, B pacer 'father' (cf. A macar, B macer 'mother', etc.), the final syllable of which presupposes lE *-ter, and lengthened-grade presents like A *samatar, salpatar (see aboye)

and B ñewetar 'roars', lyewetéi1' 'sends' (cf. §38). Pa.Iatalization is conspi- cuously missing, however, before the stem-vowel of classes In and IV, although it is theoretically possible that it was lost here by analogy, th~ complete absence of relic forms with a palatalized root-final consonant suggests rather ~h~tt~~lack ofpa.latalization in these classes is phonologi- cally re?ul~r.I ~lS SlWllfl~anttha t m presents of the thematic type (class II) paIatalr.~a:lOn l~ ordlparrly preserved befare *a > *e (cf. 3 sg. A klyo~t¿¡r, B ~lyau~tar hears < *kle7tSet01'), even though unpalatalized forms are found

m the 1 sg., 1 p~ and 3 pI. of the same paradigm (cf. 3 pI. A klyosantaT, B

klyausentar' < *kleusont01') 8).

It is unlikely, therefore, that the class In (IV) theme vowel can be traced directly to lE *-e-. Furthermore, most ofthe hypothetical alternatives to *-e:- surveyed in the last chapter can be excluded for the same reason : such sequences as *-ei-, *-€le/o-, *-~-/*-jo- and *-eje/o-(cf. §§ 9-12) would, hke

*-.e:-its~lf;almosts~relyhave ca.used palatalization ofa preceding consonant. Likewlse phonologl?ally ~nsatlsfactor~,although on different grounds, are the suffIX-forms *-,n-, poslted by SChlllId as the source ofthe Baltic statives

in -i-, and *-'J-je/o-, taken by Cowgill as the prototype of both the Balto-

Slavic presents in *-f- and the Germanic type in *-ai-/*-(j)a-. lE *-'Ji- would

8) Throughout this chapter we shall assume, at least as a convenient fiction, that

the middle endings AB -tiir, -ntiir continue TE -tal', -nto1'. Nee fUl'ther ~4-(i.with note
51.

28

presumably have yielded CToch. *-i-, 01', with vocalization o~ the initial element, *-ai- « A *-e-, B *-ai-). The compound suffix *-'J-le/o- would probably first have given *-aja/a-, with the regular development of *'J to CToch. *a, Although no absolutely certain other examples of this sequence are known 9), it is attractive to regard certain class V presents, such as A r-wa- B 1'uwa- 'rip out' (: Lat. 1"lW, -er-e 'rip up') and AB wa- 'eat' (: OE ceow~n,Eng. chew), as original iteratives in *-aje/o- in which *-aja/a- has contracted to *-a-. Thus, the nature ofthe relationship, if any, between ~he class In (IV) presents and the e-statives of other lE languages remams very unclear.

§21. The q,bsence ofpalatalization befor~the c¡ass IIIvt~eme vowelma~es it aH but certain that this vowel, representmg CToch. *ct, 18 areflex ofIE '0. lE *0 is in fact the most common source of *a: representative cases of *a < *0 can be found in isolated lexical items such as A stwar, B ,4twer 'four' < *kL'etuores and A pctts, B obI. petso 'husband' <,*poti-, in thematic verb

forms like 1 pI. A akamas, B ctkem(o) 'w~lead' < *agorn-. and (cf. aboye) 3 p.I.

< *kle7lsontOl', and m, o-grade thematlC

(T6I-LO~) nouns like A pl'ClJik, B pl'enke 'island' < *bhronko- (cf. §33) a~ld A wctr B wel'e 'odor' < *uom-. Since *a from this source regulaTly farls to pal~talizea preceding c~nsona,nt,nothing stan~sin the way?f deriving a

form like A rnaskcttal', B rnasketdl' from an earher *rn1}sfcoto1' 0).

Independent confirmation of this is provieled by the speci~lphonological elevelopments associatéel with pl'esents of class IV. Ir-~th~bnef excur~us on the Tocharian vowel system which follows (§§ 22---6) rt wlll be our ultllnate object to show that both the characteris~icroot umla~t of these.forms anel theo-timbre ofthe classIV theme vowel m Toch. B pomt uneqmvocaHy to the original presence here, as in class In, of a preelesinential yowel *0.

§22. While our knowleelge of Tocharian phonetics is obviously frag.men- tary, it seems fairly clear that vowel length was no~ phonolog!cally elistinctive in either Tocharian language. Thus, there lS no conslstent opposition between i anel i 01' U anel ii in the native lexicon: the infrequent Toch. B graelation seen, e. g., in ptle 'wounel' vs. pI. p-ilénta (Krause--:- Thomas, § 10, Anm. 1) shoulel eithel' be intel'preteel as a pul'ely gl'aphlC imitation of the alternation founel in pairs like áke 'enel', pI. akéntct, 01' as a second, anellikewise subphonemic, alternation ofthe same type. Similal'ly, the miel vowels e anel o are not further subclassifieel accoreling to quantity:

Krause anel Thomas' view (50ff.) that the CToch. eliphthongs *ai anel *ct1¿

(co~tl'asting in length with. e. anel oJl'om othel'

yieleleel e anel (5 in Toch. A

soul'ces) seems to be purely conJecturaI. Only the OpposltlOn of a : ct , clearly

phonemic in both languages, remains a potential case where length is

mido A klyosctntaJ', B klyausentar

9) Save where the first vowel is in the root syllable; here -ajii- yields B -oy-, as in

soy- (TI) 'be sated' < *sajiija- < *sh 2 -jejo- (cf. Gk. &ETaL).

10) On the phonology of the first syIlable see §31.

phonologieally relevant; here, however, several faets suggest that the underlying eontrast was one of quality rather than quantity. From an etymologieal standpoint CToeh. *a (> AB a) eontinues not only late lE *a and *0', but also the short vowels *a and *¡¡; a further souree is lE *0, whieh, aeeording to the rule diseussed by Cowgill, Studies Lane, 176ff., may be lowered to CToeh. *a before *a in a following syllable (ef. B 01' 'wood', pI. a1'wa < *d01'lla; for other examples see §§ 33, 37 ff. below). Similarly, and with equal indifference to quantity, the CToch. "short" vowel *a continues the lE mid vowels *0 and *e. Given that length is not distinctive elsewhere in Tocharian, and that the normal antecedents of *a and *ií are lE low and mid vowels, respectively, it is attractive to consider the possibility that the Common Tocharian contrast between *a and *a was not one of length but at least partly one ofheight. Under this assumption it would be simplest to regard the historically cognateopposition between aand a in Toch. A, like that between aand e in Toeh. B, as a contrast ofheight also; and since it is likely that (a) had approximately the same phonetic value in Toch. B as in Toch. A, it may be surmised that both A a and B a represent a central mid

vowel

11

).

of Tocharian

phonology can best be aecounted for by assuming a system like the following for the major vowel phones 12) of Toch. A and B:

§23.

In

my view the

deseriptive

and historieal facts

i

e

[i]

[e]

a [i]

a

¡¡; [a]

[A]

u

o [o]

[u]

Apart from taking "short" a as a mid vowel, this interpretation has only the novelty of treating the "Fremdvokal" éi as the central vowel corresponding to *i and *u. Toch. éi is usually assumed to represent a reduced schwa-like sound. Its exact phonetic properties cannot, of course, be determined, but in several respects it patterns as a high vowel rather than as a mid voweI. Compare such facts as the following: 1) in both languages, and especially in Toch. A, éi is rounded to u, rather than o, in the neighborhood of a velar 01' labiovelar consonant, e. g., AB kulyp- 'desire'

< *kwéilyp- (cf. B ger. 1 kwéilypelle beside kulypelle) , Ayuk 'horse' < *yéikwa

(B yakwe); 2) similarly, éi is frequently replaced by the high vowel i in the neighborhood of palatal and labial consonants, e. g., A ciñcéi1', céiñcéiJ', B

ciñcaJ'e, céiñw1'e 'lovely' < *céiñcéiTa, A 3 pI. -iñc < *-éiñci < *-énti or *-nti, B

pilko 'glance' < *péilka (Apéilk); 3) CToch. *éiis not only thereflex odE *e,

11) Tliis ¡s, of course, also the value of a in the Indic writing system from which the Tocharian system derives. 12) On the taxonomic phonemic level, only two heights are distinctive in Toch. B (cf. below).

30

but also frequently of *~I" e. g., A 1'tM, B mt1'e 'red' < *Téit1'a < *1'udhm-, A

ckawr, B tkace1' 'daughter' < *téikacaT < *dhng¡¡te1'; 4) in a few instanc~s lE

*i appears to yield Toch. *éi after initial *w-, e. g., A wéis, B wase 'pOIson'

< *y,iso-, A wéit, B wate 'second' < *dy,ito-.

Under this system the Toch. B alternation between the stressed vowels a and a and their respective unstressed eounterparts a and éi can be interpreted in a phonologically natural way. Toch. B ~as tw~ phone~ic central vowels, one relatively low (a ~ a), the other relatlvely hlgh (Cl ~ a); each has a low and a high allophone, of which the former appears under stress (dke, yákwe) and the latter appears elsewhere (akénta, yéilcwénta). The alternation ofaand a thus reflects exactly the same articulatory process as the alternation oía and éi. A eomparably simple statement does not appear to be possible under any other non-quantitative interpretation of the three a-vowels: in this respect, at least, the readings [A] for a and [i] for éi seem preferable to such conceivable alternatives as, e.g., [al] and [8]13).

§24. The aboye analysis makes it possible to survey the history of the .lE vowels in Tocharian in a new light. At the outset of the Tochanan development we may assume the following comparatively straightforward ehanges, of which only 4) is in any way controversia1: 1) palatalization of consonants before front vowels (cf. §20), 2) passage of *e to *éi and partial development of*~do *éi (§§20, 23)14), 3) merger of*O'and *aas *a, 4) loss of distinctive quality, and 5) lowering of *0 to *a [a] befo re *a in a following syllable 21) 15). Taking *ii as [i], we thus obtain the followingintermediate system:

*i «

*'l')

*a«*e;*u)

*u «

*ü)

*e

«

*8)

*0

«

*0)

*¡¡; «

*it (*8), *0; *0)

The least well-understood developments in the history of Tocharian vocalism center about the subsequent treatment of the three non-high

vowels *a, *e, *0. The normal outeome of *a, as we have seen, is AB a, but neither language shows a in such forms as A pmwr, B pmcer < *bh1'ate1'; A

Wallt,

B

ost

'house'

< *llast~l; A poke,

B

obI.

polcai

'arm' < *bhagh-.

Similarly, pre-Toch. *e « *e) and *0 « *0) normally fall together as ¿Toch. *a (>A a, Be), but both languages showo, apparentlypointing to CToch *0, in cases like A olcéit, B okt 'eight' < *olctO', AB 01' 'wood' < *dor'~l,

13) This does not, of course, require us to assume [A] as the value of CToch. *a,; cf. below. 14) Schindler has called my attention to the fact that the best examples of the sound change u -+a occur in the neighborhood of a dental consonant. 15) There are, of course, other possible orderings. 2) could as easily have preceded as followed 3); 5), appropriately reformulated, could have preceded 4).

31

AB yok- 'drink' ~ *~g!(h-. It

pre-Toch. *a, *e, *0 m these mstances reflect the mfluence of a neIghbormg

rounded voweI 01' Iabia.I(ized) consonant, but neither the nature of this "labial umIaut" nor its chronological relationship to the Ulliversally assumed unrounding of *0 to *ií has ever been carefully described.

!s generally heId tha.t the aberrant r.eflexe~ of

§25. The ulterior history of the pre-Toch. non-high vowels, I would suggest, can best be interpreted in terms of two basic processes, which I

shall

distinguished in the discussion below from the purely Tocn. A processes of

call

primary

rmtnding

and primar'y

unround'ing.

(These will be

8econdary rounding

and 8econdary unrounding.) Theeffect of primary

rounding was to convert *a and *e to *0 under conditions which remain to be precisely identified; the most important instances involve 1) rounding of *a after a labial 01' labiovelar consonant, e. g., nomo pI. Apons, B poñc 'all'

< *pante8; A pmcar, B procer < *bhrater; A wa<$t, B 08t < *ya8tu (for A a

beside B osee below), 2)rounding of*abefore *0 in thenext sylIable, e. g., B

onolme 'living creature' < *a1wlmo- (: ana81c-'breathe' [cf. Ved. ániti]; fOl'

the suffix compare 8yelme 'sweat' < *8'l¡.,lidolmo-), and 3) rounding of *e before a labial 01' labialized consonant, e. g., AB yok- < *eg¡'h-, and probabIy also AB yom- 'obtain' (: Lat. emere) and A yow-, B yop- 'enter'16). Primary rounding produced abundant new instances of *0; these were offset, however, by the even more numerous cases in which *0 was lost through a complementary, and perhaps simuItaneous process ofunround- ing. Although the exact conditions are again uncertain, pre-Toch. *0 typicaIly survived in Common Tocharian only when it was supported by a neighboring rounded vowel or labiaIizing consonant. The former is the conditioning environment in AB 01' < *doru, and further examples to be discussed shortly; the latter is the environment, e. g., in A k08ne, B k08 'how

much?' < *Po-, B p08tañl"íe 'last' < *p08t- (cf. Lat. p08tremu8), AB y80mo

'aItogether' < *en-80ma, and probably A okéit, B okt < *oictO('Il) 17). Else- where *0 was unrounded to the vowel which we have designated *ií. The phonetic value of this segment is uncertain. Since *ií normalIy yields alllid central vowel (a) in Toch. A, we might consider thepossibilitythat *ií was already centraIized in Common Tocnarian, and that e, its Toch. B reflex, illustrates a specifically Toch. B sonnd change of [11] to [e]. The difficulty with such an interpretation lies in the fact that the lllerger of *ií

16) The suggestion that these roots originally contained a long vowel is due to Schindler (personal communication). It is entirely possible that primary rounding consisted ofnot one, but two 01' three distinct processes, and that the rounding ofa to o before o occurred simultaneously with the lowering of o to a before a. 17) Here and in a number of other cases, k appears to have inhibited primary unrounding. Compare Krause~Thomas' statement (p. 64) "Toch. k zeigt anschei- nend eine N eigung zu labiovelarer Aussprache" and their discussion (pp. 49~50) of the Toch. A change of ato 7l in the neighborhood of a velar.

32

with pre-Toch. *e « lE *e) is apparentIy of CToch. date: except in cases where primary unrounding was inhibited, lE *e and *0 have identical reflexes in both languages. If we assume [A] as the value of CToch. *ií, we must therefore suppose that pre-Toch. *e was first centralized to *ií in the common period, and then fronted again to e in Toch. B. This is not an especially natural sequence of deveIopments, and may rather indicate that the original phonetic value of *ií is directIy preserved, not in Toch. A a, but in Toch. B e. If *ií was in facta front mid vowel, the unrounding of pre- Toch. *0 to *ií wouId simpIy have been a phonetic change of [o] to [e]; in Toch. A this [e], continuing both pre-Toch. *e and unrounded *0, would subsequently have been centralized to a [A]18).

§26.

reconstructed as follows 19 ):

Accordingly,

the- vowel system of Common Tocharian lllay be

*i [i]

*a [i]

*u [u]

 

*ií [e]

*0 [o]

 

*ii [a]

In principIe, of course, this system is identical to that of §24, but the distribution ofthe non-high voweIs is no longer the same: pre-Toch. *ii and *e have become *0 in primary rounding environments, while in primary unrounding environments pre-Toch. *0 has been fronted to *ií. The CToch. voweIs are preserved essentiallyintact in Toch. B, where the only major subsequent development was the introduction of a [A] as the stressed variant of a and the unstressed variant of a. In Toch. A, however, the inherited system was affected by several important new changes: not only was CToch. *ií [e] regularly centralized to a [A] (a new e, of course, was supplied by the lllonophthongization of *ai), but CToch *ií and *0 underwent a second pair of rounding assimilation rules. Unlike the corresponding processes in Common Tocharian, secondary rounding and unrounding in Toch. A appear in the great majority of cases to have been conditioned exclusively by the environment to the right of the affected voweI. Characteristic exampIes of CToch. *ií > A o are A ñom 'name' vs. B

18) Whether we reconstruct [e] 01' [A] as the phonetic value of*a depends in large part on our interpretation of the first vowel in forms like AB epe '01", AB yerpe 'disk', etc. If the correspondence A e = Be indicates a distinct Common Tocharían vowel *e, ítwouldclearly bedesirable toregard *aas [A] rather than [e]; on the other hand, it is also possíble that A e in forms like these represents C'roch. *a which, for obscure reasons, failed to undergo centralization to a [A]. 19) 01', if we take *a as [A] and reconstruct a separate *e for cases like AB epe,

*i [i]

*ii [4]

*u [u]

*e [e]

*a [A]

*0 [o]

*a: [a]

33

~-~---------------------

ñem, A pI. lcowi 'cows' vs. B obI. pI. lcewa'f[/" A onlc 'man' vs. B enlcwe, and, with regressive assimilation, A cmol vs. B camel; compare also the development of a to u in A yulc vs. B yalcwe, A tunTe 'love' vs. B tmilcw and similar forms. The corresponding rule of secondary unrounding converted CToch. *0 to Toch. A a; whether *0 first became *ií [e], which was then subjects to the centralization rule, or whether *0 was unrounded directly to a [A] is impossible to determine. Examples of *0 > a include A pracar vs. B

procer, A wa~t vs. B ost, A praslci 'fear' vs. B proslciye, and A onlcala·n¿

'elephant' vs. B onlcolmo. Here too belong the Toch. A class IV presents, to which we may now return.

§27 . We are at last in a position to understand the complex phonological behavior of the fourth present class, which illustrates the interplay of several ofthe rules just discussed. A representative member ofthis class is AB as- 'turn dry' , 3 sg. A asatar, B osotar. This verb is clearly related to Lat. arere and Gk. &~w, as well as to nominal forms such as Skt. asa- 'ashes' and Gmc. *aslcon- 'ash', all ofwhich are referred by Pokorny, IEW, 68, to an lE root *tís- 'dry'. Whether long 01' short, the initial vowel of a late lE *tís- would eventually have yielded pre-Toch. *a, and *as- is in fact directly recoverable in such extra-present forms as A subj. 3 sg. asa~, B causo 3 sg. asa~~a'f[/" etc. In the presents A asatar and B osotar, however, the root vowel evidently continues CToch. *0, which has been secondarily unrounded to a. in Toch. A. CToch. *osota1', the immediate antecedent ofthe attested forms, in turn owes its initial vocalism to the primary rounding of *a to *0; the environment for this change must have been provided by the *0 of the following syllable (cí. B onolme< *anolmo-, §25), which, having no possible secondary explanation in terms of the rounding processes described aboye, can only continue lE *0. The pre-Toch. source of CToch. *osotdr must therefore be reconstructed as *asotar.

*0 seems

not to have been subject to primary unrounding in Common Tocharian

The phonetic explanation for this is doubtless to be sought in the reinforcing effect of each rounded yowel upon the other; a partly comparable phenomenon, as Watkins has pointed out to me, is the retention ofmedial -a- in Latin under the influence of an a in the preceding syllable, as, e. g., in

gen. sg. anatis, carcaris, etc.

The class IV presents with root vocalisms *ai and *au require further comment. Since presents like A potatdr, B pautotar 'flatters' and B laitotar 'falls' apparently point to CToch. *patltotar and *laitotar, respectively, no obvious phonetic condition will explain the failure of the theme vowel in

It is notable, though hardly surprising, that the sequence *0

20

).

20)The only apparent counterexamples are o-grade thematic nouns of the type A

pm'lik, B pre'like < CToch. *pra'lika < *bhronko8. Here, however, unrounding would

have been phonologically regular in case-forms such as the voc. sg. in *-e, dato sg. in *-O'i, instr. sg. in *-0' and loe. sg. and nomo pI. in *-oi (> CToch. *-i), from which it could easily have been generalized to the rest of the paradigm.

34

re

,.,---------------------

such forms to undergo primary unrounding. Probably the simplest course is to :ss.ume that the C~och. process which merged the three lE i-diphthongs as at and the lE tl-dlphthongsas *atl was not yet complete at the time of pri~aryunroun?ing, so that at the period when this rule applied the forms WhICh were ultllnately to become *patltotar and *laitotar were in fact *pout?tar and loitotar, with rounded diphthongs. In principIe, the root vocahsm of such forms could either reflect inherited *ou and *oi preserved intact from lE times, 01' inherited *au and *ai (phonemically *atl and *ai in pre-Tocharian), with the first element rounded here, as elsewhere, befare an *0 in the following syllable. In laitotdr, as remarked aboye 18), lE *oi seems the likelier source of the diphthong; in pautotar and the majority of other such forros, the absence of reliable etymological evidence makes a clear choice impossible.

§28. The. class IV presents preserve their CToch. appearance essentially u~lal~ered111 Toch: B. In Toch. A, however, two phonological changes have slgmficantly modlfiedtheir appearance; these are the secondary unround-

ing

(> e)

of *0

*0,

*ou

*0, and *oi

*0,

to

a

a,

*au( > o)

a and

*ai

the class IV tlwme vowel before enClings

conta111111g the vowel Ta (cí. 1 sg. plantmar> *plantamar, ptcp. pla~tm~'t¡?,>. *plantama'f[/" etc.). The former development is readily intelligi- ble 111Vlew of the fact that secondary unrounding in Toch. A is characteris-

tically triggered by the absence ofafollowing labial environment; the stem vowel *-0- would thus regularly have become Toch. A a, and in forms like *osotdr this change could easily have led to the loss ofrounding in the root

syllable ~s well. The partial syncope of -a- is likewise phonologically regular, S111ce Toch. A normally eliminates -a- in medial open syIlables when the prece~ing syllable contains a "Vollvokal" (i. e., a non-high vowel) and

the

foIlow111g syHable a vowel other than a (01' final i). This phenomenon is

also observable in class Il

'. a, and the syncop~e_of

(cf.

lclyosma1',

lclyosma'f[/, = B

lclyausemar,

lclyausemane);

it is not found in class In only because presents of this class

show a-, i- 01' u- vocalism in the root syllable 21 ). For further examples and discussion cf. Krause-Thomas, 46f.

§29. Both the class nI presents and subjunctives and the class IV presents therefore point to a uniform earlier type with the stem vowel *-0-. The most obvious possible source for this element, as Krause and Thomas implicitly suggest (pp. 200-1, 225), is the o-colored variant of the lE thematic voweI. Although the lE thematic conjugation is almost univer- saHy reconstructed with an obligatory alternation of predesinential *-e- and *-0- (the treatment by Watkins, ldg. Gr. IIl.1, 102f., 213í., is a significant exception), the appearance of thematic paradigms with "persis- tent" *-0- is not unknown in the attested lE languages: in particular, an

21) Note again the tendenc,y of ti to pattern with i and 1l.

35

apparent parallel to the class III (IV) conjugational pattern can be found in Germanic, where the forms of the Gothic passive, 1,3sg. bairacla, 2 sg. bairaza, .1 ~3 pI. bafrancla '1 a~ carried, etc.' point respectively to earlier *bherotm, bhet'Oso~, *bheronto~. Whether the non-alternation of the thema- tic vowel in these forms constitutes evidence for a distinct lE thematic type 01' merely reflects the secondary generalization of *-0- at the expense of *-e-, as usually assumed, is a problem which will be deferred to §§ 41-u, where .it wiII be discussed in detaiI. In the followíng sections we shall excluslvely be concerned with the distributíon and spread of this inflec- tional pattern in Tocharían.

The Tocharian forms which definitively establish the etymological

ldentlty of the stem vowel *-a- (*-0-) with the lE thematic vowel *-0- are the classIII subjunctives. In our survey ofthese forms 16) we have seen that such subjunctives are attested from eight roots, excluding the doubtful case of tsar- 'separate'. Of these, two, tiím- 'be born' (subj. A cmatar, B cmetar) and wal- 'die' (subj. A wlatar) do not with certainty correspond to primary verbal formations in any other lE Ian¡!lIage: tam- has no clear etymology at aH, despite W. Winter's attempt, IF67, 27-8 (1962), to trace it to a root *clhem-, parallel to *clheh F 'put' ; wal- is probably cognat~ to the root of the petrified Luvian participle 1l(wa )lantis'dead' (cf. Cop, üng. 2, 40--2 [1957]) but the further connection ofthese forms with Hitt. wallszi 'strikes' and nominal forms like Lat. 1l0ln-us, Gk. OUA~, etc. is unclear. The remaining six roots aH have clear verbal cognates elsewhere in the family, and it is a remarkable fact that five can be matched with thematic presents in Indo-Iranian:

?30

kiin- 'happen' (Sllbj. A knatiír): cf. Ved. janami '1 beget' and OLat. geno, -ere 'beget, produce', with passive genor, -1 'be pl'oclucecl'. kas- 'go out' (A *ksatür, B ksetiir): cf. the isolatecl thematic middle participlejásamana- 'exhausted' RV1.112. 6, 7. 68. 8.

, nam- 'bend, bow' (B nmetar): cf. Ved. námate 'bows', Av. 3 pI. n'Jmante

'bow' .~.57. 18. ~he middle forms are usual in Vedic; in Avestan, 3 sg. acto n'Jmmt~ occurs wlth the same meaning.

pak- 'growripe' (A *pkatar, B pketar): cf. Ved.pacati 'cooks', Av. paéaiti

'id.', with further thematic cognates in Lat. coquo, OCS pekq, Lith. kepü (for *pekü), Alb. pjelc '1 bake'. For the intransitive value ofthe middle forms in Tocharian compare pácyate 'cooks (intr.)' RV 1. 135. 8.

tsiik- 'burn (intr. )'(A *tskatiir, B *tsketar): cf. Ved. cláhati 'burn (tr.)', Av.

clazaiti 'id.' (neither, however, with intransitive middle forms), further Lith. clegü '1 burn (intr.)', OCS zegq (for *clegq?) 'id.', Alb. cljek '1 burn

(tr.)'22).

22) From a formal point ofview, it would also be attractive to add the class III subjunctive of AB nak-, which recalls Ved. 3 pI. nasanti «nas- 'perish'); the latter form, however, is not an indicative, but a subjunctive.

36

form, however, is not an indicative, but a subjunctive. 36 In each instance the stem of

In each instance the stem of the class III subjunctive is exactly equatable with the stem of the corresponding thematic present; the syncopated root vowel of the Tocharian forms points to CToch. *ii, which here doubtless continues lE *e. Root-initial palatalization, which would be phonologicaHy regular before an etymological front vowel, is in fact preserved in A cmatar, B cmetar < tiim-, and in the isolated infinitive B ñmets'i < nam-, but elsewhere has been analogically eliminated. Given that the Tocharian subjunctive is known to have incorporated a variety of originalIy indicative forms to which a modal function has secondarily been attached (see especially G. S. Lane, Lg.35, 159-79 [1959]), it seems entirely !latural to conclude that the five class III subjunctives listed aboye

simply continue lE thematic presents *génhFejo-, *gl'és-ejo-, *ném-ejo-,

*pékY-ejo-, *dhég'th-ejo-. Theeliminationofthesestemsfrom theindicativein

Tocharian and their replacement by the more highly marked presents of classes VIII and X 23) recalls the early substitution of jdyate 'is born' (cf.

011'

gainethar) for *jánate in Vedic; note also 2 pI. impv.jasyata RV 1. 191.

7 beside jásamana-.

§31. The fact that the class III subjunctives continue inherited thematic presents should lead us to expect a significant number of originalIy thematic stems among the class III and IV presents as well. 8uch forms are in fact fairly common, although unlike the c)ass III subjunctives, they consist almost exclusively of old presents in *-skejo-, the suffix ofwhich has been reinterpreted as pa.rt of the root. Clear cases of sk-presents are A

p1'Clskatar 'fears' «piirsk-), A méiskatar' (B méisketéir) 'is, is located', B

musketiir 'gets lost' and A mloskaiar 'escapes'. All but the last can be etymologically identified: méisk-, as noted in passing in §21, probably continues an earlier *m?J-slCéjó- (: Gk. ¡ÚVW, Lat. maneí'e, etc.), which would have yielded *méi'í?~sk- in Tocharian, whence *mask- by dissimilation; m71slc- < *mu(s)-slCéjó- appears to contain the root found in Lat. mouere (caus.) and (with an added s-element) 8kt. m1l~náti 'steals'; parsk- is doubtless related to Go. fa1lrhts 'fearful' (personal communicar tion of H. Craig Melchert), although the apparent o-grade of

praskatar < *proskotiir (like that of mloskatéir < *mlouskotar) is problemar

tic. The deponent presents ofthese verbs are genuine archaisms, continuing

the same lE type as Lat. pacíscor, nancíscor, oblí1líscor, etc. and OHitt.

uiskitta 'comes', d71s1cis1citta 'rejoices', 2. pI. pais1catt71ma 'you go', etc. Morphologically, their classIII (IV) inflection, with persistent o-color of the thematic vowel, sets them off from the productive and far more numerous sk-presents, predominantly causative, of Toch. B (classIX), which show the normal alternation of *-e- and *-0- before the personal

23) P. Hollifield, in a personal communication, has suggested that intransitive class IX presents such as A pakn¿ú!tar and B sinastiir 'is oppl'essed' represent the normal morphological replacements of earliel' presents in *-je/o-.

37

endings (e. g., 3pl. k¿ilpi.iskentiir 'obtain' < *-skontor, kiilpi.istar < *-sketol·).

but

3 sg.

§32. Fiveverbs whichform classnI (IV) presents, viz., B klalltk- 'turn', B prlltk- be fulfilled', A yutk- 'worry', A wütk- separate, decide' AB siitk- 'spread out' , end in a sequence -tk, which recurs outside classes In and IV in about two dozen additional roots. Since clusters of dental + velar stop are not acceptable terminations for an lE morpheme, past studies of these forms (s~e Lane, JAOS 85,66-73 [1965], for a summary of earlier views) have umformly sought to analyze the group -tk into individual compo- nents; a satisfacto.ry explanation of the second element, however, has yet to be found. 1 am mdebted to Melchert for having drawn my attention to the close morphological parallelism between the roots in -tk and those in