You are on page 1of 71

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

JAY H. JASANOFF
STATIVE AND MIDDLE
IN INDO-EUROPEAN
INNSBRUCK 1978
Die INNSBRUCKER BEITRAGE ZUR SPRACHWISSENSCHAFT werden gefiirdert
durch das Bundesministerium fr 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 Untersttzung des Fonds
zur Fiil'derung del' wissenschaftlichen Forschung, des Verbandes del' wissenschaftlichen
Gesellschaften bsterreichs (auf Antrag der fnnsbrucker Sprachwissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft)
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 fr 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
5
CONTENTS
Bibliographical abbreviations
1. Introduction: The Stative Formations o Indo-European .
1. Deverba tive and denomina tive sta tives. 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
ewetar. p.44. 39. Class nI forms with active endings. p.45. 40.
Smnmary. p.46.
Appendix: The Thematic Middle in Tocharian and Indo-European 47
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.
7
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 dii: tiyanzi. p.63. 55.
Earlier theories (con t.): *--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. duh: development of the class nI
paradigm. p. 74. 66. Gmc. *fulyaip and Ved. sp'(sti. p. 76. 67. Class nI
verbs beside preterito-presents. p. 77. 68. Gmc. and Av. mamne.
p. 77. 69. Gmc. *witaip and Ved. vid. 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. viddvasu-.
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 ..... .
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. dosiant- and
Ved. disynt-. 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. 91. The 3 pI. as starting point for the stative paradigm.
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.
V. Conclusion: The Role o *-e- in Indo-European .
100. Middle aorist presents: reappraisal of Ved. duh. p.118. 101.
Relationship of the type *(me)mnr to *sikr and *dhuyhr. p.119. 102.
Uses of *-e- in the attested languages. p.120. 103. Uses of Ved. yhi.
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.
94
118
Index o Forms Cited . . . . . . . . . 127
8
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ABBREVIATIONS
AfdA: Archiv fr deutsches Altel'tum.
Bartholomae: C. B., Altiranisches Worterbuch (1904).
Bartholomae, Stud. Z. idy. Sprachyesch.: C. B., Studien zul' indoyermanischen
Sprachyeschich(e n (1891).
BB: Bezzenbryel's Beitl'ii{e.
Benveniste Probo de liny. yn.: E. B., Pl'oblemes de linyuistique ynrale (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
Brugmann, G1'.
2
: K. B., G1'und1'ij3 der veryleichenden Grammattk del' tndoyermant-
schen Sprachen
2
(1897-1916). .. .
Brugmann, Gr(undrij3)
1
: K. B. and B. Delbruck, Grundrij3 del' veryleichenden
Grammatik der indoyel'manischen Sprachen
1
(1886-1900).
BSL: Bulletin de la Socit de Linyuistique de Paris.
Chantraine, Gram. ham.: P. C., Grammaire homTiq'ue I (1948).
Ohantraine, Hist. du parf. yr.: P. O" Histoire du parfait yl'ec (1927). .
Oollitz, Das schwache Praeteritum: H. O., Das schwache Pl'aeterttum und setne
Vo1'yeschichte (1912).
Delbrck, Veryl. Synt.: see Brugmann, Gl'undrij31.
Endzelin, Lett. Gr.: J, E., Lettische Grammatik (1923).
Festyruj3 Roth: an Rudolf von Roth 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 ber 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' 1 ndoyermanischen (1975). .
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 Ge-
denkschl'ift jl' W ilhelm Brandenstein (1968),
Geldner: K. F. G., Del' Riyveda (Harvard Oriental Series 33-35),
Godel, lntrod. to the Study ofOlass. Arm.: R. G., to the ofOlassical
Armenian (1973). '
Grassmann, Wb.: H. G., Wol'tel'buch Z1lm Riyveda. ,
Guxman, Srav, yram. yel'm.jaz.: M. G. et al" Sravnitelnaja yrammatika yel'mansktx
jazykov (1966).
Holthausen, Alts. EI.2: F. H" Altsachsisches Elementarbuch
2
(1921).
lnt. of Slav. Liny. and Poet.: lnternational Journal of Slavic Linyuistics and
Poetics .
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'open (1956).
KZ: (Kuhns) Zeitschrift fr vergleichende Sprachforsch7mg.
Lg.: Language.
Ling.: Slavistina 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 comm7m2 (1934).
JYI SS: JYI nchener Studien Z7tr Sprachwissenschaft.
N arten, sigm. Aor. : J. N., Die sigmatischen Aoriste im Vedc (1964).
Noreen, Altn01d. Gl'. 1: A. N., Altnordische Grammatik 14 (1923).
NTS: Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap.
P BB : Beitrage Z7r 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).
Lar. and the lE Vb.: J. P., !-,aryngeals anel the Indo-E7tropean Verb (1960).
RelChelt, Awest. El.: H. R, Awest'!sches Elementarbuch (1909).
Val. el7 palj. : L. R, L,a valeur d7 paljait dans les hymnes vdiques (1925).
Schmld, (Stud. z.) balto (7. Vb.: W. P. S., Studien Z7m baltischen 7tnd
inelogermanischen Verb7tm (1963).
Schwyzer, Gr. Gram.: E. S., Griechische Grammatik 1 (1938).
Skutsch, Kl. Schr.: F. S., Kleine Schriften (1914).
Slav. and E. Etr. J01tl.: Slcwic and East E7t1'Opean Journal.
Sommel', Krit. E1'l.: F. S., Iitische 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).
Urgermanische Grammatik: W. S., Urgermanische Grammatik (1896).
Stud'es Lane: St1dies in Historiwl Ling7tl3tics 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., Znaenija glagol'nyx osnov v litovskoslovjanskom jazyke
(1891 ).
Vaillant, Gram. comp. lII: A. V., Grammaire compare 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 fr celtische Philologie.
Zinkevicius, Let. Dial.: Z. Z., Liet7Wi1? Dialektol<Jgija (1966).
11
r
I
!

I
\
I
I
1
INTRODUCTION:
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. vo$ti 'wishes', Hitt. wekzi, Gk. XWV ( < Ved. ko$ti
'dwells', GIL XTlfLVOC; *tkYei-); Ved. co$te 'sees', Av. Caste *k'eks-);
Ved. sye 'lies', Hitt. kitta(ri) , Gk. X;;'i.'TI):. Forms of this kind survive as
scattered archaisms in the attested lE languages, where their stative
function is synchronically predictable only from the lexical meaning of the
underlying root.
Even in such archaic groups as Indo-Iranian, Anatolian and Greek,
however, unmotivated root presents account for only a small fraction of the
stative verb forms actually found. In every early lE language the majority
of statives are not primary, but morphologically derived: the starting
point for the creation ofnew forms may be either a non-stative verbal root,
as, e. g., in Ved. tro$yati 'is thirsty' < tro$- 'become thirsty, turn dry', Gk.
(perf.) 'is broken' < (f)l):y- 'break', Lith. turi 'has' < tver- 'seize', or a
nominal stem, as, e. g., in Gk. '1 am king' < Lat. albeiJ '1
am white' < albus, Go. -jJiwan, -aijJ 'be a servant' < jJiU8 'servant', etc. The
formal devices used for this purpose in the daughter languages are
extremely numerous. Most of the synchronically productive processes,
especially in the later languages, are denominal in origin and perform a
characteristically wide range of non-stative functions as well: compare,
e. g., the twofold value of Gk. '1 am a stranger' and '1 receive as a
stranger' < '1 am young' and '1 bring up from boyhood'
< xopoc;, xoupUhoc;, or OIr .. raigedal' 'is green' < r 'fresh, green', but
. ailegedar 'alters' < aile 'other'. Denominatives like these characteristical-
ly represent specializations of the lE denominative type in *-jejo- (cf. Ved.
uktany- 'act like a bull' <uko$n-, Hitt. nalJsariya- 'fear' < nalJlal', GIL
< epc;, 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.
13
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 of an 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, 7t7tOL!)o '1 trust'
< m:Wo(.lO(L, '1 stand' < la't'O((.lO(L, 't'Il'l'f)){.O( '1 am dead' < the
"resultative" perfect (e. g., '1 have given', yypO(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'-,
dadhrt;a 'is bold' <dhrt;-, jagra 'is watchful' <gr-, but cakra 'did',
jaghna 'killed' etc.; Av. ttauua V. 6. 32 'is possible' < tau-, 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. vdc(,) , man 'T intend' (= Gk. (.l(.lO'lo(. Lat. memin'i) , ga-dars '1 dare'
(= Ved. dadhrta) 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'gathar 'fears',
OLith.lekti 'is left', stvi 'stands', OCS boit'b se 'fears' and Toch. B nesam 'is'
( < *nos-) are synchronically from presents, but to
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.
14
r
3. The lE perfect is formally characterized by o : apophony (cf. Gk.
: = Ved. vda : vidm = 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 yyo'lo( and
(.l(.lI)'Io(, respectively; in Vedic the presents corresponding to rnamrt;a
'ignored', vavrta 'turned' and rurca 'shone' are rnrtyate, vrtate and j'cate,
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 'took aliking to' (cf. Ved.
3pI. jut;ran): *(ge)guse 'enjoys' (cf. Ved. jjot;a(ti)), *mt1(t) (*mn(t)o)
'brcught to mind' (cf. Ved. mata, GAv. 'manta) : *( me )mne 'is mindful (of)'
(cf. Gk. (.l(.lO'lE, Lat.meminit, Go. man), *li7c"(t) 'left (intr.)' (cf. Ved. 2sg.
rikthlJ,): *(le)lik1'e 'is gone' (cf. Gk. intr. W,OmE'I), *sthz(t) 'stood up' (cf.
Ved. 3 pI. sthiran, Toch. B ste 'is' < pre-Toch. *sto): *(ste)sthzy(e) 'stands'
(cf. Ved. tasthru, Lith. stvi).
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 87ff., and E. Risch, ibid., 251ff., the non-stative
value of lJ,i-conjugation forms like 1 sg. 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.
15
n. '1 am dead', regularly became preterites ('1 (have) died'), from which
presents 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. paprtha '(caused to) spread out' beside paprath 'is stretched
out', vavrdha 'made great' beside vavrdh 'is great, has become great',
jajana 'begat' (contrast Gk. yyove) beside jaj '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 of the perfect
to acquire middle forms in its intransitive uses, particularly in the presence
of a well-developed middle paradigm elsewhere, is already pronounced. Cf.
T'rUXTOCL beside TeTeuxw<;, dfLOCPTOCL beside b:fLfLope, l:pwpe beside pWp'l)TOCL (subj.),
later 1t1teLIJ"fLOCL (Aesch., etc.) beside 1t1tOL6oc, 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 of denominative verbs
with infinitives in *-eti (Lith. -%i, OCS -ti) and present stems in *-eje(o-
(Lith. -Ja-, OCS -je(o-); when not compounded with a preposition, these
are typically stative in Slavic (cf. OCS bogatti, 3 sg. -jet'h 'be rich' < bogat'h
'rich'; 3 sg. -jet'h 'understand, know how' < um'h 'understanding')
but more often inchoative in Baltic (cf. Lith. senti, 3p. -Ja 'grow older'
< senas 'old' 3 p. -Ja 'turn black' <juodas 'black'). The same two
functions are associatd with the denominative suffix *-e- in Latin; here,
however, statives in -ea, -ere (e. g., senere < senex, nigrere < niger,
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. senli and Lat.
sene-re from the lE denominative type in thematic vowel + *-je(o- (cf. GIL
(fnAw < cpLAO<;, Ved. asvayti 'desires horses' < Sva-, 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
1 sg. -eaand the thematic inflection ofthe corresponding Balto-Slavic forms
are likely to represent innovations.
A major finding ofWatkins' study is that Hittite dnominative statives
such as 3 sg. nakkezi 'is important' < nakki- 'important', tannattezzi 'is
deserted' < tannatta- 'deserted', lJassuet 'was king' < '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:..s-):
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 etc.; the corresponding
presents pLyW, o:v6w, 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
model of pairs like cpLMw : A clear case of a denominative e:..stative in
Celtic is 011' .. ruidi 'blushes' (AH), which invites direct comparison with
Lat. t'1lbere and Russ. Ch. SI. ndti 3 sg. -jet'h '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
.. ------------
(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 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).
N one 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', <.pv'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: <.pv'f), but also in [J.dVE:TtX: E[J.v'f), xtXtpe;: XP'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. minli 'think, remember', pret. minjo; 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. mini, 3p. mini) and by *-i in Slavic (cf. OCS 1 sg.
mbjq, 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 invite
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 1 sg. hej, 3 pI. hnja, etc.) and
*-jn- in Old Saxon and Old English (cf. OS 1 sg. hebbi'u, pI. hebbind, OE 1 sg.
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 poin t 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. mnyate '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,
discussed, as can be seen aboye all from such correspondences as Ved.
lbhya- 'be desir??s': Lat. lubet, .Go. *lu?ct:ij>. (cf. Ved.
bdhya-, Av. biona- 'be awake': LIth. budeh, OCS Id. ,Ved.
grdhya- 'be greedy': Serb. Ch. SI. z1:Idti, -it'b Ved. tz't;yati 'be
thirsty', Go. j>aursjan silc 'id.': Lat. torrere, SImIlar forms, though
most numerous in Indo-Iranian, areattested m every early lE language;
like the semantically related perfect, presents ofthe mnyate: 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. budhmn, ptcp. budhan- beside bdhya-,
aor. ptcp. trt;arJ- beside trt;ya-, aor. 3 sg. mata, ptcp. manan-, GAv. manta
beside mnyate, etc. .
An exact equation of Lith. 3 p. mini, OCS 3 sg. mhn'b with forms hke
Ved. mnyate is ruled out by the fact that the historically regular
of lE *-jefo- in Balto-Slavic is wIth
palatalization after consonants, cf. Llth. 1 sg. 1 hck ,3 p. hezw, OCS
lizQ 'id.' 3 sg. zet'b. Since the first edition ofBrugmann's (1892),
however, an important group of scholars have held .that both the
Slavic and the mnyate: fLdve'l"o(L type contmue an lE formatlOn
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 fuIly non-
statve type in *-jefo-, with which they generally feIl together m every lE
dialect except Balto-Slavic. . . . ..
Although embraced by such distingmshed authorltws 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. '1
take', 3 sg. 'gaib, 'liciu '1 leave', 3 sg. 'lici; OHG liggtl '1 le'.' 3 sg. ligit, Go.
hausja '1 hear', 3 sg. is at best inconclusive: nothmg prevents a
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
languages preserves any traces of a
elsewhere in its verbal system. Even wlthm Balto-SlavlC, as we see m
ch. 4, fail to show the predicted distribut:on 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 by St1.td. Z. balto .1(, idg. Vb., eh.y ..
7) 01', b Celtie and Germame, from the
suffix *-ejejo-, whieh in faet aeeounts for the largest smglenumber of 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 \vithout reference to
lE *-e-, it will suffice here to menton 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. '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
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 hebbl, OE hillbbe ( 7) arephonologically
derivable from *kapjo, while Gmc. 3 sg. *habaij> can be taken to reflect the
substitution of *kapjeti for *ka,pjeti 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. 1 sg. 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 case, Specht's views have not 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
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 < 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.
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. and 3 pI. could 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 edition ofthe Grnndrij3, 2
3
, 195ff., where
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. 3pl. *-'i1jnti (Stnd. z. balto n. idg. Vb., 83); he
then derives Slavic *-i- and Baltic -i- from the suffix-forms *-ei- and
respectively, and sees a thematized form ofthe latter alternant as the basis
ofthe Indo-Iranian type in -ya- (mnyate). J. Puhvel, Lar. and the lE Vb.,
53ff., sets up an inherited type in *-eEY-j*-EY-, the "palatal" laryngeal of
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 -- 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 existen ce
of athematic presents in *-ei- (*-eEY-) j *-'i1i- (*-t-, *-EY-) in lndo-European,
it is necessary to as sume 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
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, for Toch. E; for Toch. A and E cf.
Toch. Elem. I, have two defining formal characteristics. Common
to the entire class is a element which appears as in Toch. A
and 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 *i. 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
present forms of the common verb AE 'be, be located, sich
befinden' 1) :
A E
sg.l maskamar maskemar
2 maskatir masketar
3 maskatar masketar
pI. 1 maskamtar maskemt(t)ar
2 maskacar masketar
3 maskantCir maskentar
ptcp. maskama'Y[!, maskemane
ger. I maskal maskelle
inf. maskatsi [maskatsi] 2)
Such presents correspond to class V subjunctives and class I
preterites, both of which may be active as well as middle; the only
exception is the root itself, which anomalously forms a class III
preterite in Toch. A (3 sg. maskas beside E maska).
1) Here and below, forms which 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: 'subside'; 'desire'; ego astray, be
confused'; 'be, be located'; A E
'starve'; A E 'join with'; 'vanish'; out (intr.)';
'separate (intr.)'.
Found only in A: ego out, be extinguished'; ego up';
'become oppressed' (E class X); 'bend toward'; 'worry'; 'fall
down' (E IV); 'separate (intr.), decide' (E IX); 'weave';
'sorrow'; 'overflovv'.
Found only in E: 'care about'; 'become bothered';
'resemble' (A II)3); croar' (ewetar; A VIII); 'bum (intr.)';
'restrain oneself' (A I) ; 'be fulfilled' ; 'be put on sale' ;
'be inferior' ; 'forget' (A VI); 'set out'; 'disappear';
'remain over'; 'send' (lyewetar); 'shine forth' (lY1lkettir);
'rub'; 'be upset (?)'; 'trust'4); 'perish'; 'die';
'arise' (tse1iketCir); (A IV); 'cross over, beredeemed'
(AIV); '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 < 'grow old' (A and 1 pI. cukemar < 'be hidden'
(A could in principIe belong either to class II (thematic) 01' class III,
although the root vocalism of both forms makes class III the
likelier choice
5
). The class I subjunctive and class III preterite ofE
'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 E 'laugh', which shows only active
finite forms in both languages and appears to contract to 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. (The "active"
class III subjunctives of Tocharian E 225), e. g., 3 sg.
naka'Y[!" 1 pI. '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. emended by Krause-Thomas (op. cit. II, 157) to

5) For the initial palatalization compare B Zyuketiir <
25
----------------------... ,.. ................ .......
of classes VIII .(-8-) and X (-nii8(k)-). Subjunctives of class III are reliably
eIght,roots: kiin- 'happen' (AB), ki8- 'go out, be extinguished'
tam- be (A sg. cmatiir, B C1netii1') , niik- 'destroy' (act.) / 'perish'
nam- b.?V; only; A class V), piik- 'make ripe' (act.) / 'grow
(mld.) (AB), wal- dIe (A only), t8iik- 'burn (tr.)' (act.) / 'burn (intr.)'
(mld.) (AB). Amnthroot, t8ii1'- 'separate', has in Toch. A agerundive IIsral
ando a ve.rbal sralune, which would normalIy imply a class III
subJ:,tnctlve *8ratCtr. The of this verb, however, is t8ratiir (= B
t8retar).' also of class IU; If genume, *sratliT would constitute the unique
to general rule that class UI presents form class V
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 Like the forms surveyed aboye, class IV presents are almost
excluslvely they are regula,rly accompanied by subjunctives of
class Van? pretentes of 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-
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
terms, to O. In Toch. A the class IV is
C:, as m class III; unhke the a of class IU, however, the cIass IV theme vowel
IS an a in the next sylIable (i. e., before the
. endmgs 1 sg. -mar, 2 sg. -ta1: and participial suffix -miir(l,). Corresponding
the apparent umlaut of a to o m Toch. B, the root voweI ais repIaced by a
In Toch.A.
The paradigm may be illustrated with tlw forms of plant- 'be
pIeased : A
B
sg. 1 plantmar plontomar
2 plantta1' plontotctr
.3 plantatiir plontoUir
pI. 1
plantamtiir
plontomt(t)iir
2
plantaciir
plontoUir
3
plantantiir
plontontiir
ptcp.
plantma'f(i
plontomane
ger.I
plantal
plontolle
inf.
plantat8i
[plantat8i]
26
I
!
18. Class IV presents are attested from more than twenty roots, which
are Iisted below.
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); wiik- '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', t8ilpetiir ( < 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) < '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.
plantmiil'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
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 tiisk- is an sk-extension
of the root which underlies Hitt. dakk- 'resemble'.
7) Watkins, TPS 1971, 61, hs 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-lhpti
'stick;'), B luk- 'shine': Lat. [-cer'e, B walc- 'split': Gk. It seems
certam, moreover, that lE *eregularly yields Toch. A a and Toch. B e, cf. A
ma, B mee '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 ewetar 'roars', lyeweti1' '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,
complete absence of relic forms with a palatalized root-final consonant
suggests rather lack ofpa.latalization in these classes is phonologi-
cally I lS tha t m presents of the thematic type (class II)
ordlparrly preserved befare *a > *e (cf. 3 sg. A B
hears < *kle7tSet01'), even though unpalatalized forms are found
m the 1 sg., 1 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-, and *-eje/o-(cf. 9-12) would, hke
*-.e:- have ca.used palatalization of a preceding consonant.
Likewlse phonologl?ally 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 with note
51.
28
presumably have yielded CToch. *-i-, 01', with vocalization 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
Eng. chew), as original iteratives in *-aje/o- in which *-aja/a- has
contracted to *-a-. Thus, the nature ofthe relationship, if any, between
class In (IV) presents and the e-statives of other lE languages remams
very unclear.
21. The q,bsence ofpalatalization the cass
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) lead' < *agorn-. and (cf. aboye) 3 p.I.
mido A klyosctntaJ', B klyausentar < *kle7lsontOl', and m, o-grade thematlC
nouns like A pl'ClJik, B pl'enke 'island' < *bhronko- (cf. 33) A
wctr B wel'e 'odor' < *uom-. Since *a from this source regulaTly farls to
a preceding nothing in 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 phonological
elevelopments associatel with pl'esents of class IV. bnef on
the Tocharian vowel system which follows ( 22---6) rt wlll be our ultllnate
object to show that both the root 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 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-ilnta (Krause--:-
Thomas, 10, Anm. 1) shoulel eithel' be intel'preteel as a pul'ely gl'aphlC
imitation of the alternation founel in pairs like ke 'enel', pI. akntct, 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
yieleleel e anel (5 in Toch. A in length with. e. anel o Jl'om othel'
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
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.
29
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 *i 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 a and a in Toch. A, like
that between a and 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
).
23. In my view the deseriptive and historie al facts 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:
i [i]
e [e]
a [i]
a [A]
; [a]
u [u]
o [o]
Apart from taking "short" a as a mid vowel, this interpretation has only
the novelty of treating the "Fremdvokal" i as the central vowel
corresponding to *i and *u. Toch. i 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, i is rounded to u, rather than o, in the
neighborhood of a velar 01' labiovelar consonant, e. g., AB kulyp- 'desire'
< *kwilyp- (cf. B ger. 1 kwilypelle beside kulypelle) , Ayuk 'horse' < *yikwa
(B yakwe); 2) similarly, i is frequently replaced by the high vowel i in the
neighborhood of palatal and labial consonants, e. g., A cici1', ciciJ', B
cicaJ'e, ciw1'e 'lovely' < *ciciTa, A 3 pI. -ic < *-ici < *-nti or *-nti, B
pilko 'glance' < *pilka (Apilk); 3) CToch. *iis 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 e. g., A 1'tM, B mt1'e 'red' < *Tit1'a < *1'udhm-, A
ckawr, B tkace1' 'daughter' < *tikacaT < *dhngte1'; 4) in a few lE
*i appears to yield Toch. *i after initial *w-, e. g., A wis, B wase 'pOIson'
< *y,iso-, A wit, 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 i can be
interpreted in a phonologically natural way. Toch. B
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, ykwe) and the latter appears elsewhere (aknta, yilcwnta). The
alternation of a and a thus reflects exactly the same articulatory process as
the alternation oa and i. 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 i 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 as sume 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 *i and partial
development *i (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')
*e *8)
*a*e;*u)
*; *it (*8), *0; *0)
*u *)
*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' < 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 olcit, B okt 'eight' < *olctO', AB 01' 'wood' <
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' It !s generally heId tha.t the aberrant of
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 *i has ever been carefully described.
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 call primary rmtnding and primar'y unround'ing. (These will be
distinguished in the discussion below from the purely Tocn. A processes of
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 poc '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. niti]; 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 p08tal"e 'last' < *p08t- (cf. Lat. p08tremu8), AB y80mo
'aItogether' < *en-80ma, and probably A okit, B okt < *oictO('Il) 17). Else-
where *0 was unrounded to the vowel which we have designated *i.
The phonetic value of this segment is uncertain. Since *i normalIy yields
alllid central vowel (a) in Toch. A, we might consider thepossibilitythat *i
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 *i
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 of a
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 statement (p. 64) "Toch. k zeigt anschei-
nend eine N eigung zu labiovelarer Aussprache" and their discussion (pp. 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 as sume [A] as the value of CToch. *i, we
must therefore suppose that pre-Toch. *e was first centralized to *i 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 *i is directIy preserved, not in Toch. A a, but
in Toch. B e. If *i was in facta front mid vowel, the unrounding of pre-
Toch. *0 to *i 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. Accordingly, the- vowel system of Common Tocharian lllay be
reconstructed as follows
19
):
*i [i] *a [i] *u [u]
*i [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 *i.
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. *i [e] regularly centralized to a [A] (a new e, of course, was
supplied by the lllonophthongization of *ai), but CToch *i 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. *i > A o are A om '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 Tocharan
vowel *e, twouldclearly bedesirable toregard *aas [A] rather than [e]; on the other
hand, it is also possble 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
......... ......,.,---------------------
re
em, 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 *i [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 vs. B ost, A praslci 'fear' vs. B proslciye, and A onlcalan
'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 ver b is clearly related to Lat.
arere and Gk. 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 *ts- 'dry'. Whether long 01' short, the initial vowel of a late lE *ts-
would eventually have yielded pre-Toch. *a, and *as- is in fact directly
recoverable in such extra-present forms as A subj. 3 sg. B causo 3 sg.
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 of the 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 (c. 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.
It is notable, though hardly surprising, that the sequence *0 . .. *0 seems
not to have been subject to primary unrounding in Common Tocharian
20
).
The phonetic explana tion 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
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
such forms to undergo primary unrounding. Probably the simplest course is
to :ss.ume that the process which merged the three lE i-diphthongs
as at and the lE tl-dlphthongsas *atl was not yet complete at the time of
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
111 Toch: B. In Toch. A, however, two phonological changes have
slgmficantly modlfied their appearance; these are the secondary unround-
ing of *0 ... *0, *ou ... *0, and *oi ... *0, to a .. . a, *au( > o) ... a and *ai
(> e) ... '. a, and the of the class IV tlwme vowel before enClings
conta111111g the vowel Ta (c. 1 sg. plantmar> *plantamar, ptcp.
>. *plantama'f[/" etc.). The former development is readily intelligi-
ble 111 Vlew of the fact that secondary unrounding in Toch. A is characteris-
tically triggered by the absence of afollowing 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 well. The partial syncope of -a- is likewise phonologically
regular, S111ce Toch. A normally eliminates -a- in medial open syIlables when
the 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 (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., 213., 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 carried, etc.' point respectively to earlier
*bherotm, 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 followng sections we shall
excluslvely be concerned with the distributon and spread of this inflec-
tional pattern in Tocharan.
? 30 .. 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, tim- '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
to the root of the petrified Luvian participle 1l( wa )lantis' dead' (cf.
Cop, ng. 2, 40--2 [1957]) but the further connection ofthese forms with
Hitt. wallszi 'strikes' and nominal forms like Lat. 1l0ln-us, Gk. 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:
kiin- 'happen' (Sllbj. A knatir): cf. Ved. janami '1 beget' and OLat. geno,
-ere 'beget, produce', with passive genor, -1 'be pl'oclucecl'.
kas- 'go out' (A *ksatr, B ksetiir): cf. the isolatecl thematic middle
participlejsamana- 'exhausted' RV1.112. 6, 7. 68. 8.
, nam- 'bend, bow' (B nmetar): cf. Ved. nmate 'bows', Av. 3 pI. n'Jmante
'bow' 57. 18. middle forms are usual in Vedic; in Avestan, 3 sg. acto
occurs wlth the same meaning.
pak- 'growripe' (A *pkatar, B pketar): cf. Ved.pacati 'cooks', Av. paaiti
'id.', with further thematic cognates in Lat. coquo, OCS pekq, Lith. kep (for
*pek), Alb. pjelc '1 bake'. For the intransitive value ofthe middle forms in
Tocharian compare pcyate 'cooks (intr.)' RV 1. 135. 8.
tsiik- 'burn (intr. )'(A *tskatiir, B *tsketar): cf. Ved. clhati 'burn (tr.)', Av.
clazaiti 'id.' (neither, however, with intransitive middle forms), further
Lith. cleg '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
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
mets'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 *gnhFejo-, *gl's-ejo-, *nm-ejo-,
*pkY-ejo-, *dhg'th-ejo-. Theeliminationofthesestemsfrom theindicativein
Tocharian and their replacement by the more highly marked presents of
classes VIII and X 23) recalls the early su bstitu tion of jdyate 'is born' (cf.
011' .. gainethar) for *jnate in Vedic; note also 2 pI. impv.jasyata RV 1. 191.
7 beside jsamana-.
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 miskatar' (B misketir) 'is, is located', B
musketiir 'gets lost' and A mloskaiar 'escapes'. All but the last can be
etymologically identified: misk-, as noted in passing in 21, probably
continues an earlier *m?J-slCj- (: Gk. VW, Lat. mane'e, etc.), which would
have yielded in Tocharian, whence *mask- by dissimilation;
m71slc- < *mu(s)-slCj- appears to contain the root found in Lat. mouere
(caus.) and (with an added s-element) 8kt. '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 mloskatir < *mlouskotar) is problemar
tic. The deponent presents ofthese verbs are genuine archaisms, continuing
the same lE type as Lat. pacscor, nancscor, obl1lscor, 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!tar and B sinastiir 'is oppl'essed' represent the
normal morphological replacements of earliel' presents in *-je/o-.
37
endings (e. g., 3pl. kilpi.iskentiir 'obtain' < *-skontor, but 3 sg.
kiilpi.istar < *-sketol).
32. Fiveverbs whichform classnI (IV) presents, viz., B klalltk- 'turn', B
prlltk- be fulfilled', A yutk- 'worry', A wtk- separate, decide' AB siitk-
'spread ou t' , end in a sequence -tk, which recurs ou tside 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 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
-sk: both groups, for example, are disproportionately well-represented in
classes nI and IV, and both have the idiosyncracy offorming class VI (-ni.i-)
presents with a "split" suffix in 'roch. A (cf. 3 sg. ki.itiinki.ifj 'stands up'
< ki.itk-, wastiJikatii1' 'moves' < waslc-). It may therefore be suggested that
is .t?e in 'rocharian of an lE dental stop + sk; the
sllnphflCatlOn of *tsk to tic would then recall the treatment of
stop + s + stop clusters in Indic, where s is similarly lost without a trace (cf.
aor. patthalp [AV] beside 1 sg. pats, 3sg. bhakta beside 1 sg.
abhakfji) '4).
If correct, this explanation of root-final-tk would suggest a straightfor-
ward etymology for the verbs ylltk- and witk- and provide a rationale for
their class nI, inflection.The present A ylltkatar can plausibly be derived
from *jlldh-skto1', where *jlldh- represents the root of Lith. j1ldli 'be
agitated', Ved. ydhyati, -te 'fights' (= Av. yir5iia-) and, with causative
mealling, Lat. htbeo. Although no other branch of, the family attests a
comparable sk-present, the relationship of *;iudh-skj- in Tocharian to
*illdh-jj- in Indo-Iranian recalls exactly that between *gl'm-sfcj- in
Indo-Iranian (Ved. gcchati 'goes') and in Italic (Lat. 'ueniO) and
Greek note also the root aorists Ved. ptcp. yodhan- RV 1.121.8,
and Ved. 3 sg. ()gan, Arm. ekn 'came', Toch. B sem 'id.'25). Similarly, witlc-,
the.basic meaning ofwhich appears to be 'separate, divide', can readily be
denved from a late lE *tlidh-skj-. The root is doubtless that of Lat.
dTilido, which is in turn usually connected with Ved. vdhyati 'pierces' 26) ; for
24) To be sure, there are no cIear instances -of underlying *-tsk- in Vedic: The
morphologicaJly productive outcome of *-t- + *-sk- in Tocharian is *-t-iisk-, wi th
epenthetic -ii-, cf. B 3 sg. luta<$<$iirIJ < l'llt- 'drive off, causo 3 sg. s:pantiissiim < s:piint-
'trust'. . ..,
25) With e-vocalism, perhaps suggesting the former existence of a lengthened-
grade root aorist *rJ!'em-t.
26) IfVed. vid/- in turn a zero-grade of *l,li-dheh
r
(see K. Hoffmann, Spr.15,
1-7 [1969]), the ilsence of a laryngealreflex in wiitk- (for expected *wiitask- < *u-
dh;-sk-) would recal! the same phenomenon in Hitt. zikk- [tsk-] < *dh(<J)-sk-. '
38
the phonological development of lE to CToch. *wii- see 23 and the
examples there cited.
A number of other tk-roots, although no longer associated with thematic
presents, invite a corresponding analysis. AB litk- 'fall away, depart' is
clearly an extension of AB lit- 'fall down' and B lait- 'id.'; the final cluster
points to a present *lit-skj-, with the root (*leit-) of 01 loa 'depart, go'
(= Go. ga-leipan 'go't and Av. irifJiieiti 'dies'. Similarly, AB putk- 'divide,
distribute' < *put-slcj- is related to Lat. p1do, and OCS pytajq '1
investigate', while AB martlc- 'cut,. clip' < *mrd-slcj- is probably the
Tocharian cognate of Lat. mordeo. To these may al so be added AB nitlc-,
which, though glossed 'sttzen' by Krause and Thomas, Toch. Elem. II,
110,203, appears often to mean 'hold distant' 01' 'push aside' in Toch. B., cf.
Toch. Sprachr. 1, 33, b 2-3 ompalslcoe piist pranlciifjfjiir(l" laulce
aisame, yarlce peti afjtiir s 'he gives up meditation, holds knowledge
distant (Sieg and Siegling: 'halt fern') and craves only honor and flattery';
further 8, b1 (palslcal)(e)nta palslcomer(l, n(iit)lcnallona '(die Vorstellungen)
[sind] vom Geiste her zu halten'. It attractive to consider the possibility
that this verb represents lE *nud-slcj-, with the root of the Indic sixth
class present nlldti, -te 'push, thrust away', root aor. 2 sg. nutthlp RV 6.44.
5. For the phonological development *u > ii cf. 23.
These etymologies, and others like them to be discussed by Melchert in a
forthcoming study, make it probable that the five class nI (IV) verbs in -tic,
like the four verbs in -sic discussed in the preceding section, ultimately
continue lE thematic presents in *-skejo-.
33. Of the remaining verbs which form class III (IV) presents it is
notable that not a single example can plausibly be traced to an lE thematic
present of an apophonically normal type. Apart from the sk-presents just
discussed, the majority of class nI (IV) verbs whose etymology is known
correspond to roots with punctual (aoristic) meaning in Indo- European; in
such cases the Tocharian present stem corresponds to a thematic 01' root
aorist elsewhere. This pattern is illustrated by the following verbs, listed
below in alphabetical order.
AB ar- 'stop' (pres. A amtar, B orotiir): cf. probably Glr. &p'l'O,
presupposing unaugmented *ip'l'O < *(hj)rto, whence also Ved. rta, rta
'went' and Hitt. artat 'stood'. For the semantics compare Gel'. aufhoren and
especially Hitt. Icarp-, which in the middle means both 'finish' and 'rise'.
The a-vocalism oftheextra-presentforms (e. g., A subj. 3 sg. amfj, Bpret. 3,
sg. am) reflects the regular passage of *or'-a- to *ivr-a- in pre-Tocharian; cf.
22.
AB 1c1Il- 'subside, slacken' : the root is perhaps to be equated with that of
Lith. gulti 'lie down' (stative gllleti 'lie'), gvatC:as 'stretched out'; note A
B Iclyiye 'woman, wife', with a semantic development similar to that
seen in Glr. &AOXOC; (J. Schindler, personal communication). A possible
f
l1
rther comparandum is Glr. aor. mid. the specifically passive, rather
39
--------------------------.................. ----------------
than of .which ('was felled') could have arisen by
OpposltlOn to the transltlve actIve 'throw' (cf. Lat. iacere: iacere). AH
of referred to a root *gyel(h
1
)-: the circumflex
mtonatlOn of pomts to an ani( root shape in Baltic, while
presum.ably a se( form *gyh
1
t. The position of Toch. kul- itself
lS amblguous, smce CToch. *lcula- could equally well reflect *gul-- 01'
*gttlhr-. .
.A p.ark- 'go up' : cf. Arm. aor. ebarj ( < *ebhrghet) < bar'nam 'raise, rise'
,RItt .. lmpv.,parkta:ru <park- 'rise'. The latter form appears to represent an
mherlted root aorlst, to which may originally have corresponded a present
*bhrgh-jj- (> Ritt. par'kiya- 'id. ') ..
,. _ B 'restrain oneself' : the evidentlyrelated noun Aprank, B prenke
lsland shows that the sense of the verb is probably a specialization of
oneself, cut oneself off from'. The root may be compared with Skt.
bhmr(l,s-, bhms-, usually 'fall', but in its earliest non-causative occurrence
(as a thematic aorist injunctive) 'fall away from, be removed from': RV 10.
173. 1 m tvt rii<$(rm dhi bhrasat 'die Rerrschaft soll dir nicht entfallen'
(Geldner). We reconstruct}E *bhrenk-, the abnormal phonological
structu:-e the *-k to be an enlargement. In Indic only the
thematlC aOl'lst bhmsat appears to be old; the present bhramsati attested
from the Brahmanas, is probably a secondary formation the' model of
pairs like ()vidat: vindti, ()mucat: mucti, etc.
27
).
B mars- 'forget': cf. Ved. aor. 2 sg. mid. mr<$(hlp RV 3.33.8,3 pI. mrsnta
RV7. 18. 21 'not heed'. .
B lttk:.'shine' cf',Ved. aor. ptcp. ruciin- 'shining' (+ 1 sg.
opto ructya TA), Rltt. pret. luktat .became light'. Note that the Tocharian
form ca,rmot be directly with the thematic present represented by
Ved. rocate and a preform *leukator would have yielded
Toch. B * lyauketa?' , wIth the same treatment of the diphthong as in
'hears' (: Ved. ptcp. sr<$amiina-). The initial palatalization of
lyuketar lS probably on the model of forms like the causative preterite
lyauksa :< where was phonologically regular.
AB wtk- vamsh : whether thlS verb should be compared with Ved. visti
'enters' (= Av. visaite) 01', as Melchert suggests, Ved. vijte 'rushes away,
flees' (: OE wican, ORG wihhan 'weichen') cannot be resolved with
but the latter is clearly preferable from a semantic point
of Vlew. The two roots exhlblt much the same behavior in Vedic: both
preser,-ve direct traces of a middle root aorist (cf. 3 pI. visran RV 8.27. 12,
3 sg. vtktaRV 1. 162. 15), and bothhave developed class VI (tudti) presents
from earlier thematic injunctives (cf. below).
, A 'overflow': cf. Ved .. aor. 3pI. asican, nj. 2sg. sicalp, etc.
pour , Av; class VI preso Yt.14. 54. A middle root aorist ofVed.
27) The creation of bht'C!1'I!sati may also have been facilitated by the presence of
the noun bhra1'l!sa- = Toch. B. pre'like.
40
"-1
sic- appears to bepreservedin scate RV 10. 96.1, if, as the sense allows, this
form is a "short-vowel" subjunctive rather than the thematic indicative
assumed by Grassmann, Wb., 1516. The complete absence of a thematic
stem sca- elsewhere would clearly favor such an interpretation.
34. Another verb for which the former existen ce of a root 01' thematic
aorist may reasonably be ihferred, even though no old aorist is directly
quotable from Greek 01' Indo-Iranian, is B lip- 'be( come) left, brig bleiben'.
The immediate affinities of this word are with 01 lifa 'be left, live' and its
cognates Go. liban, ORG leben, OS libbian, O E libban 'live', all pointing to a
CGmc. 3 sg. *libaip (class III weak). Both the Tocharian and Germanic
forms seem. to reflect lE *leip- 'smear, cause to adhere (act.) j stick to
(mid.)', semantically influenced by the phonologically similar *leik
11
- 'leave
(act.) j be left (mid.)'; the same root also underlies an e-stative in Slavic
(OCS pri-lbpti 'stick to'). A thematic aorist of *leip- is directly attested in
OCS pri-lbpe (: preso pri-lb(p)nqti 'become stuck to'), and is indirectly
presupposed by the nasal present which appears outside Slavic in Lith.
limpu '1 stick' and Ved. limpati (AV) 'smears'. Cf. also Class. Skt. them. aor.
alipat, root aor. mid. alipta.
There is likewise reason to suspect that a middle root aorist was
originally formed by lE *llag- 'break', which appears in Tocharian as B
wiik- 'break open, split (intr.)' (pres. wokotar; cf. subj. V A wiika<$). The
perfect of this root, which is seen most clearly in Gle 'is broken', is
probably inherited; Ritt. wiiki 'bites', the transitive value of which may be
due to the polarizing influence of a competing middle paradigm, is perhaps
traceable to a perfect as well (cf. 4). The existence in Indo-European of a
perfect *(ye)yige is itself sufficient to suggest the former presence of an
intransitive aorist *yag(t)a (cf. 3). In Greek, *llag(t)O was apparently
replaced by.the aorist passive E(f)&Y-1J in the same way that, e. g., .t[XTO was
replaced by .t[y"IJ (cf. Chantraine, Gr. ham.I, 400).
35. The class III (IV) presents ofthe ten verbs just discussed would thus
seem to be related to root 01' thematic aorists elsewhere. An obvious
expedient would be to compare them with the sixth class (tudti) presents
of Indo-lranian; these forms, as has long been recognized, are based on
earlier injunctives outwardly indistinguishable from thematic aorists. A
direct equation of the two categories, however, although it would account
neatly for pairs like B wiketar : Ved. vijte 01' B pranketar : Ved. bhrasat
would not be free of difficulties. The"tudti-type is well-attested only in
Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic; both these branches also exhibit a well-
developed thematic aoristo The latter formation belongs to a comparative-
ly recent, stratum of the lE verbal system: as shown by Cardona, The
Thematic Aarists of Indo-Ettrapean (unpublished Yale University disserta-
tion, 1961), only two such aorists, *yidt 'saw, found' < *yeid- and
*h
1
1udht 'went' < *hieudh-, are attested in as many as three independent
41
lE traditions. While it is true that the thematic aorist has enjoyed
considerable productivity in the lE dialect area consisting of Greek,
Armenian, Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic, it is not nearly so well represen-
ted in the more westerly branches of the family. In Tocharian the only
attested example of a thematic aorist is A lac, B lac CToch. *ltlc
<*h
1
ludhet; cf. Gk. 011'. luid 'went'), which serves as the normal
preterite to AB lat-, lant- 'go out'. This form is an isolated survival from
Indo-European itself; it cannot in any way be taken to justify the
assumption of a whole series of thematic aorists at a stage of pre-Tocharian
just prior to the emergence of the classlII (IV) presents.
A further consideration is the following. Sixth class presents in Indo-
Iranian are characteristically active ra ther than middle, and only exception-
aHy media tantum. This is even more strikingly true of the thematic aorst :
of the nearly sixty roots which attest this formation in Vedic Sanskrit, only
fourteen are found with finite middle forms, and for at least five roots these
are demonstrably secondary28). The predilection ofthe thematic aorist for
the active voice has n synchronic motivation in Vedic, and is almost
certainly an archaism, while the routine occurrence of second aorist
middles in Greek can easily be secondary. Thus, the exclusively middle
inflection ofTocharian class III (IV) presents argues against a derivation of
these forms from thematic aorists 01' injunctives, which probably originany
lacked a middle altogether. On the relationship between thematic and
middle root aorists see further 47.
36. The conclusion suggests itself, therefore, that while the class nI
presents surveyed aboye may in individual cases continue preforms which
were already thematic in Indo-European, the type as a whole is best
regarded as an inner-Tocharian development ofthe lE middle root aorist
injunctive. ]rom a formal point ofview it is easy to see how the spread of
thematic inflection might have proceeded : the identity ofthe thematic and
athematic middle paradigms in the 3 sg. would have provided an obvious
starting point for the complete elimination of the latter type. As we have
noted obliquely in 3, the oldest form of the athematic 3 sg. desinence in
Indo-European may be reconstructed as *-0 (01', with a following particle,
*-01", *-oi; cf. 45); moreover, it is clear from archaic formslike Hitt. neya,
neyari 'is led' (: Skt. nayate) , lJ,aliya, lJ,aliyari 'kneels', etc., 011'. pass. 'berar,
'berr 'is carried' and probably sbhe 'shines' RV 1.120. 5 (= sbhate) that the
28) Thus, 3 pI. budhnta and are mechanical replacements of *budhra[n]
and n] ; the ending -raE n] is systematically excluded from the injunctive (cf.
Hoffmann, Der Inj7nktiv im Veda, 227). Similarly, vidnta, ifnot simply created to
supply a middle counterpart to 3pI. V1:dn, may have supplanted *vidra[n];
avidanta and 3 sg. vidata are first found in the Atharvaveda. 3 sg. arata (beside root
aoristarta) and 1 pI. aramahi (AV) are based on 3 pI. aranta, thereplacement ofolder
*arira[n]. 1 pI. gamemahi appears to have been created as a medial pendant to acto
gamma.
42
same ending must be reconstructed for the thenatic conjugation as well.
For Tocharian, as, mutatis mutandis, for Indo-Iranian, the simplest course
is probably to assume that the occasional aspectual ambiguity ofthe aorist
in its non-indicative uses led to the creation of a class ofpresents based on
the stem ofthe aorist injunctive; such a development would o bviously have
been favored by the pre-Tocharian loss of the aorist as an independent
aspectual category. Once established in the present system, 3. sg.
forms like *bhrgh(r) , *luk(r) etc. wouldhave been formally mdlstmgmsh-
able from thematic presents like *pk!'o(r), *m1}s/C(r) and *iudhs/C(r). The
paradigm of the latter forms, characterized by "persistent" o-color of the
thematic vowel, was ultimately generalized; as an independent and later
development the 3 sg. ending *-0(1') itself carne to be replaced by *-otar,
whence class In *_Car
29
).
37. The presents just discussed represent transformations of lE
aorist and as such are exclusively non-stative in value. We shall see m the
follow'ing chapters the significance of fact that,
meaning, it is precisely these forms WhICh are correlated wlth e-statlves
elsewhere.
The list of class In (IV) aorist presents can probably be expanded. Thus,
the lE roots which underlie AB as- and B palk- form second conjugation
statives in Latin (are re, and despite the absence of independent
evidence for late lE root aorists *ls- and *bh!g-, it is not impossible that
such forms provided the starting point for the creation of CToch. *osotar
and *palkltar
30
Here too may belong class III (IV)
zero-grade of the root, such as A platar goes, out,
(probablyrelated to Lat.flare and OE blow ), Atnwatr:r, B
'mingles' and B sr1lketar 'dies'. The lack of smtable w?rd these
and similar forms, however, makes a clear determmatlOn of thClr status
impossible.
29) In his importan t Harvard University dissertation, On the Sy'stem of Oonju;ga-
tion in Proto-Indo-E7tropean (1977), Hollifield takes a somewhat dlfferent posltlOn.
Hollifield holds (ch. 12) that certain middle root aorists, which originally were
characterized by full-grade, ga ve rise within Indo-European itself to derved
presents with zero-grade root vocalism; CToch. a;r!:d Av. visaite, Vlew,
continue a single inherited present based on the aOrIst *ytk(t)o. The posslblhty that
the stems under discussion owe their zero-grade to a process of internal derivation is
not unattractive' that such stems were thematic in both voices, and occurred with a
full range of indicative forms, however, appears doubtfuI. Under either
analysis, of course, the connection of the Tocharian forms with the lE middle root
aorist is unmistakeable.
In the case of *bhleg- the existence of an lE sk-present (cf. Ved. bhrjjti
'roasts', Lith. blizgeli 'glitter' , Toch. AB piilsk- :think', all with an analogical voiced
cluster for phonologically regular *-sk- < *-g-sk-, as in Gk. [J.(cryw for arg,;es
for the former existen ce of a root aoristo Tocharian is the only lE language m WhICh
the root *ls- underlies a primary verbo
43
_______________ p.s __ -----------_-.t
38. Four of the verbs listed in 15, 17 show presents with lengthened
grade. As noted earlier, A samatar 'grows' and salpatar 'crosses over, is
redeemed' point to preforms with original *-e-; despite their synchronic
agreement with classIV, these forms continue CToch. samatar, *salpatar
( < pre-Toch. * semotar, * selpotar) and thus belong historically to class nI.
In Toch. B the same roots form class In presents of the regular type
(tsmetCir, tsCilpetar); here, however, lengthened-grade presents are formed
by nu- 'roar' (ewetar) and l71- 'send' (lyewetar), which lack equivalents in
Toch. A. It seems likely that these forms originally belonged to an lE
"acrostatic" paradigm, characterized by lengthened grade in the active
singular (cf. Ved. (AB) 'fashions' (= Av. tiist'i) , stti 'praises') and full-
grade elsewhere (cf. 3pI. 3sg. mido stve)31). The e-vocalism of
samatar, salpatar appears to have spread from the (unattested) forms of the .
active, while the zero-grade of tsmetar, tsalpetar probably reflects a
substitution of zero- for full-grade {jf the same type as that seen, e. g., in
Ved. 3 pI. st71vnti for *stvati < *sty,'i],ti
32
). The vocalism of ewetii.r invites
identification with that of Ved. 3 pI. anavan 'roared' RV 10. 68. 1, but no
such comparisons suggest themselves for lyewetar, samatar and salpatar.
The latter two verbs correspond to thematic presents of the ordinary (full-
grade) type in Gk. a(1.w (cf. especially at(1.OCC; 'bodily form, build'; so
Pedersen, Toch. 21
7
) and Lith. telpu, tilpti 'fmd room, enter', respectively;
whether these should in turn be regarded as replacements of earlier *dm-
mi and *tlp-mi is impossible to ascertain from the available evidence.
As 1 shall argue at length elsewhere, there is also considerable reason to
believe that Indo-European possessed acrostatic presents of a second type,
characterized by o-grade in the active singular and e-grade elsewhere; a
representative example is Go. malan 'grind', Lat. molo, -ere beside 011'.
melid and OCS met'jq, for which an athematic with apophony was
correctly posited in 1916 by Meillet, MSL19, 186
3
). It is possible that
several class IV presents were originally inflected in this fashion. We have
seen in 18 that the regular Toch. A correspondent of B laitotar 'falls' is
litatar (In); it is attractive to suppose that the o-grade of laitotar is
basically that of the corresponding active (compare the *-e- of salpatar,
31) See. J. Narten, Pratidanam, 9-19.
32) Under this analysis the four presents in question would constitute our best
examples of class IH (IV) verbs derived from lE athematic presents. The absence of
initial palatalization in B tse'liketar 'arises' (probably < *dhengh-, IEW 250; cf. A
tsa'likar 'peak') makes its derivation from an acrostatic present less certain.
33) Although the point is only of incidental relevance here, 1 believe it can be
shown that presents of this type were characterized not by the regular active
endings (*-mi, *-si, *-ti, etc.), but by an archaic form ofthe middle endings similar
to those traditionally reconstructed for the perfecto The decisive evidence for this
view is provided by Hittite, where the cognates of verbs like maZan and molo
typically belong to the (t,i-conjugation (cf. 3 sg. mallai 'crushes', kanki 'hangs': Go.
hahip<*hanhip, etc.). See also 54, 70, 72, 90.
44
I
I
I
\
samatar) , while litatCir reflects the of.an e-grad.e by
grade (cf. tsalpetar, tsmetr; e-vocalism is mamtamed m Go. ).
Similarly, A tsarwatCir 'is confident: *torpo-; ?f:, B opto Vl
tsarwoytar) is clearly related to the famIly ofVed. becomes
and Gk. Tp7tO(1.OCL; the assumption of a present *torp-j*terp- would explam
the aRophonic relationship of the Tocharian verb to its Greek counter-
part
3
). Other class IV verbs which may in here :be
capable' (A yatatar, B yototar; cf. Ved. stnves, Av. begms
moving') and B aiw- 'devote oneself (cf. A ru- forward:), a,s a,s
such isolated lexical items as A pot-, B paut- flatter and B shnvel .
To be sure) other explanations for these forms are in J?rinciple available.
AB tsarw- is stative in meaning, and thus could theoretlCally be compared
with the o-grade perfect attested in Go. .. yiit-,
likewise stative, recalls the Avestan perfect yanata lS m motlOn , ptcp.
yaats. The verb lait-jlit-, while unlikely on grounds to
old perfect, conceivably continues a formation like the Indo-Iraman aonst
"passive": this category, as S. Insler shown (IF 73,
historically opposed o-vocalism in the smgular (cf. Ved.
etc.) to zero-grade in the plural v'(tran).
39. Several class In (IV) presents show occasional instances of active
inflection. The active forms listed by Krause and Thomas (200, 202) are the
following: A 3 sg. 3 pI. karyec, B? pI. keriyeny, :: A kary-, ke;y-
'laugh'; A3 sg. < klav;- ; A ptcp:, tnkant <" be
confused' ; A 3 pI. triwec < tnw- mmgle ; A ptcp. maskant, B maskenca <
mask-' A 3 pI. ritwec, ptcp. ritwant < ritw- 'connect (intr.)'; A 3 sg.
ptcp. sparcwant < spartw- 'turn'. A (for
*sparcwas-) and sparcwant show root-final palatahzatlOn and thus clearly
belong to 'class n; they require no discussion here 35). Four of six
remaining verbs have active forms only 3 pI. and present_partlClple.
From a historie al point of view the partlClples m A -ant, B -enea are not
properly "active" at all: the original voice of.the .verbal
adjectives in *-nt- is from theIr J?asslve value m HlttIte
appant- 'takel1' ,piyant- glven ,etc.) and occaslOnallyelsewhere, as, e. g., m
Lat. euiclens, ttehens 'qui est vhicul', Ved. 'speckled', etc. It
therefore seems likely that the association of forms like B
maslceca with the otherwise deponent class III paradlgm lS a gel1ume
34) Since Tocharian has no "morphological" zero-grade in. ofthe type
e. g., in Greek, !talic and Celtic, there is no reasonable posslblhty that tsarwata1' lS
based on a root-allomorph *tarp-,
35) Similarly, 1 omit from the lst of active forms the wholly anomalous,?resent.?f
A yam- 'make, do' (sg. 1 ypam, 2 yat, 3 yali, etc.) and A 1 pI. tsaTa,rtWS
'separate'), which differs in vocalism from B tsretal' (lII) and could Just as easIly
belong to class IL
45
archaism in Tocharian, and that the few "active" class III participles
which survived beyond the CToch. period were themselves the model for
the creation in Toch. A of new and phonologically similar 3 pI. forms with
the active ending -ee < *-ae(i).
The only roots with active finite forms outside the 3 pI. are A kary-, B
ke1'y- and A klaw-. The latter verb is clearly based on lE *kle1l- 'hear' (Ved.
sr;rpti, etc.), and in both root vocalism and meaning recalls Ved. sravyati
'makes to hear' and Av. sra1l1laiieiti 'proclaims (the Gathas)'. A direct
derivation of Toch. A 3 sg. klawaf? from an lE iterative-causative *kloyje-
would be possible ifwe assumed an early Tocharian contraction of *-eje- to
*-e-, as, e. g., in Italic: we might then envisage a phonological development
* kloyie- > pre-Toch. klowe- > CToch. * klaw a- > A klawaf? N othing seems
to stand in the way of such an explanation, for although lE *-eje- yields
CToch. *-ai- rather than *-a- in A tre, B trai 'three', the treatment of*-eje-
in polysyllabic words could easily have been different from that in
disyllables
36
). It seems attractive, moreover, to attempt a similar analysis
for kary-/kery-, which likewise shows o-grade root vocalism and from a
semantic point of view cbuld easily be an iterative of lE *(her- 'take
pleasure, rejoice' (cf. xoc(pe:V y:AW-n, Xen. Oyr.8. 1. 33). I would therefore
tentatively suggest that lE *-ejo- yielded *-iya- in Common Tocharian
(perhaps via the intermediate stages *-iijo- and *-ijo-) ,so that a preform
*(horejont(i) regularly gave CToch. 3 pI. *kiriyan(c) and B keriyen;,. Since
CToch. *-i- is in any case subject to syncope before y in Toch. A (cf. A opy1ic
'zur Erinnerung' vs. B epiyac), the corresponding Toch. A form (karyee)
presents no additional difficulties. In the 3 sg., where we should have
expected A *karaf? pre-Toch. *kore- < *(horje-) in place of karyaf?, it is
possible that root-final y was generalized from forms like the 3 pI., where it
was regularly presento An alternative Toch. A treatment of the sequence
*-iya.. is apparently responsible for the contraction seen in the participial
form kareman;, (for *karyaman;,; cf. pairs like A yme, B ymiye 'going', A yoke,
B yokiye 'thirst', etc.)37).
Thus, the active inflection of class III (IV) finite forms can in every case
be attributed to the secondary influence of the present participle 01' to the
late and accidental merger of lE *-eje- and *-0-.
40. Our major findings thus far may be summarized as fUows. The
classIII (IV) inflectional pattern points to a pre-Tocharian thematic type,
36) If this analysis is correct, B klowotar 'proclaims' would have to represent an
analogical replacement of 3 sg. *kleyer, (: A klawafl). A natural point of departure
would have been the subjunctive and preterite stem kliiwa- (cf. subj. V abstr.
kliipale, pret. 13 sg. kliiwa), to which a deponent present klowo- could have been
created on the m,?del of pairs like iira- : orotar, wiika- : wokotar, etc. The apparent
replacement of *kloy-eiejo- by *kloy,-ii- in the preterite and subjunctive is archaic;
cf. 011'. 'cuirethar 'puts' *kor-ejejo-), but subj. 'corathar *kor-ii-).
37) Cf. also subj. V A karefl for *karyafl.
46
confmed to the middle and characterized by persistent (non-alternating)
*-0- in predesinential position. Most of the forms which exhibit this
inflection in the attested forms of Tocharian continue one of three lE
categories: 1) inherited fuU-grade thematic presents, which give the class
III subjunctives ( 30); 2) iterative and inchoative presents in *-sk/-,
whichgive the classIII (IV) presentsofroots in -sIc and-tk ( 31-2); and3)
middle root aorists, which give the non-stative class III (IV) presents of
roots with zero-grade ( 33-7). Other apparent sources of class III (IV)
presents include the lE acrostatic present types in *-e- and *-0-, and
causatives in *-ie/o- ( 38-9).
In arrivmg ato these results we have ignored the problem posed by the
persistent thematic *-0- of the forms in question and proceeded on t,!le tacit
assumption that invariant thematic stems such as *pPo-, *m'i}sk-, etc.
were either secondarily produced by levelling within Tocharian 01' directly
inherited from Indo-European. Before bringing Tocharian evidence to bear
on the analysis ofthe "e-verbs" ofGermanic and Balto-Slavic, however, we
will do well to examine the historical position of persistent *-0- more
closely.
APPENDIX:
THE THEMATIC MIDDLE IN TOCHARIAN
AND INDO-EUROPEAN
41. As observed in 29, the non-alternating *-0- of the Tocharian
class III (IV) presents and subjunctives has an exact formal parallel in the
Gothic passive (1,3 sg. bairada, etc.), which represents the only olear reflex
ofthe lE thematic middle in Germanic. These two categories, however, are
not entirely isolated: outside Tocharian and Germanic, thematic presents
with persistent *-0- are found both in Baltic, where the thematic vowel is
uniformly *-a- (*-0-; cf. Lith. 1 sg. vedit 'I lead', 3 p. veda, 2 pI. vedate, 2 duo
vedata); and in Hittite, where thematicverbs ofthe lJ,i- conjugation (cf. 2 sg.
sarratti, 2 pI. sarratteni, mido 3 sg. sarrattari, 2 pI. sarradd1lma < sarra-
'break off, transgress') and, less regularly, the mi-conjugation (cf. 3 sg.
tiyazi 'steps', mido 3 sg.lazziyattari 'recovers', pret. 2 sg.lc1lrk1lrislcattati 'you
stifled') exhibit the same peculiarity. The Baltic and Hittite forms have
been interpreted by Watkins (Idg. Gram. III. 1, 213f.) as evidence for the
existence of a thematic type with persistent *-0- in Indo-European; the
situation in Tocharian would at first sight seem to lend support to this
view.
It may be noted at the outset, however, that the comparative evidence
for nn-alternating *-0- is considerably stronger in the middle than in the
active. In Germanic and Tocharian the persistent *-0- of the thematic
middle contrasts with the alternating thematic vowel of active forms like
Go. ba,ira, bairis, bairiP and Toch. A arsam, araf?t, araf?, B ersau, erf?t(o) ,
47

!
erfii1'(t A ar-, B er- 'call forth' (class VIII))38). We shall see directly that
traces of a similar distribution of thematic types can be detected in Hittite
as well; the agreement of three lE traditions in associating persistent *-0-
with the middle voice is too striking an idiosyncrasy to be accidental.
42. The only branches ofthe family in which *-0- is found in
the active are Baltic and Anatolian. It is remarkable that the presence of
persistent *-0- in the former group has no parallel in Slavic, where *-e- has
instead been generalized from its original domain to the plural and dual
forms of the first person (cf. vedem'b, vedev for *vedom'b, *vedove'). The
probable explanation forthis discrepancywas seen m 1891 by G. Uljanov,
who noted, Osnovy 21, that in the productive and numerically predominant
Balto-Slavic presents in *-jejo- the distribution of e- and o-timbres of the
thematic vowel was altered by normal sound change. In Slavic lE *-je- and
*-jo-, when not followed by a sonant with which *-e- or *-0- could form a
diphthong, ultimately merged as *-je-, so that the appearance of *-e- for
*-0- in the 1 pI. and 1 duo of jejo- presents is phonologically regular
39
). The
pattern of the jejo-presents was subsequently adopted by the other
thematic present types as well; significantly, however, *-e- did not replace
*-0- in the thematic aorist (cf. 1 pI. padom'b, 1 duo padov<pad9, pasti
'fall'), where no functionally equivalent formation in *-jejo- existed to
supply the model for such a change.
In Baltic several facts suggest that the absence of e-timbre in the
thematic conjugation is not original. Thus, the Common Baltic athematic
2 sg. ending *-sei appears to reflect a blending of inherited *-si with a
thematic ending *-ei (cf. Stang, Vergl.Gr. 408), while in Latvian a dialectal
2 pI. in -et survives in the marginal function of an imperative (Endzelin,
Lett. Gr. 671). Accordingly, it is probable that the generalization of e-
vocalism to the 1 pI. and 1 du., as we find it in Slavic, represents the
Common Balto-Slavic state of affairs, and that the immediate trigger for
the replacement of *-e- by *-a- throughout the thematic conjugation in
Baltic was provided by the Baltic sound change of *-je- > *-ja-, through
which persistent *-a- was regularly introduced into the paradigm of jejo-
verbs. In effect, forms like Lith. 3 p. veda, 2 pI. vedate and 2 duo vedata, like
OCS 1 pI. vedem'b, 1 duo vedev may be said to owe their predesinential
vocalism to the influence of phonologically regular forms like Lith. lieiia,
lieiiate, lieiiata (: lieiti 'lick') and OCS liiem'b, liiev (: lizati 'id.'),
respectively. ,
38) Tocharian, of cou:se, also has thematic middles which show the familiar *-elo-
namely, the mlddles of class II and classes VIII- XII, Ther position vis-
a-VIS the deponents of classesIII and IV is discussed below.
39) 01', more accurately, this is true where the sequence *-jelo- followed a vowel.
Mter consonants, where *-je- became *-e- in Balto-Slavic, we must assume that *-i-
was analogicallyreintroduced into the 2 sg., 3 sg., 2 pl., etc. before the two
diverged.
48
43, The reasons for the non-alternation of -a- in the Hittite thematic
active are complex, and several classes offorms must be distinguished. The
thematic iteratives in -Slc- show no sign of persistent *-0- in the active,
where e-timbre is regular in the singular (1 sg. -slcimi, -skinun, 2 sg. -slcisi,
-slcis, -slces, 3 sg. -skizzi, -skit) and tends to be generalized to the 1 pI. as well
(-slc'iwen( i) beside -slccwen( i), -sgawen( i); the hesitation between 2 pI.
-skitten(i) and -slcatten(i) may have its source here). In the middle, on the
other hand, -slca- for -slci- is extremely common: texts from all periods
attest 3 sg. forms like areslcattal'i 'learns by oracle', karpslcattari 'lifts,
fmished', akkislcattari 'dies', paislcatta 'goes', etc,40).
The conclusion suggests itself that sk-verbs in Hittite were originally
conjugated with persistent *-0- in the middle but *-ejo- in the active; the
existence of middle forms in -slci- could then smply be attributed to the
analogical influence of the -slci-j-slca- alternaton in the active paradigm.
This would recall the stuation we have observed in Tocharan, where
unmotivated deponents like misk-, m1sk- display persistent *-0-, but
where sk-presents of the productive type (B class IX) show an alternating
thematc vowel)n both active and midd!e forms (cf. B 3 sg. acto
'obtains' < *-ske-, md. kilpastir" < *-sketor).
The productve and extremely common Hittte verbs in -iya- (lkewse
mi-conjugation) residually attest the same original dstrbution of -e- and
-a-; here, however, t is generally -a- whch, wthn the Hittte tradition,
has tended to spread at the expense of -e-o The older language regularly has
acto 3 sg. -iezzi, -iet but mido -iyatta(ri), -iyattat(i), while the correspondng
mddle endings wth e-timbre, -ietta(ri) and -iettat(i), are comparatively
rareo It may be noted that the inherted thematic deponent iyatta(ri) 'goes,
marches' (= Ved. yate according to Hollifield ap1ld Watkins, '1'P S, 1971,
81), shows no sign of ever having had an alternating thematic voweI. The
gradual replacement of -iezzi, -iet by -iyazi, -iyat belongs mainly to the
historical period and may in part be due to a phonological change of -ije- to
-ija- (cf. Carruba, Krat. 7, 157--60 [1960]).
The thematic verbs of the lJ,i-conjugation show persistent *-0- in the
active as well as the middle. These verbs are of diverse origins: some, such
as gangab}}i '1 hang (tr.)', which appears to show traces of moveable
accentuation in Olcl Hittite 41), must have been secondarily thematized at a
relatively late date; others perhaps continue thematic presents from Indo-
European. In the case of gangalj7}i (3 sg. kanki, -ai), it may be significant
that an intransitive miclclle from the same root is attested in Skt. (Br.)
sa1ikate 'hesitates'. Since the Hittite analogue of the latter form would have
40) That the sign -kat- is not to be read -kit
9
- in these forms is shown by occasional
spellings such as pa-is-ga-ta-m, VBoT 58 V S. 11.
41) Hollifield has called my attention to the significance of the spelling 3pl. ka-an-
ka-an-zi vs. 3 sg. ka-a-an-ki in the Old Hittite ritual for the royal couple, Cat.
2
416,
edited by Otten and Soucek (Ein althethitisches Ritual fr das Konigspaar, StBot 5).
been *ganga(tta)ri, with persistent _a_
42
), it is not impossible that the
process by which the active forms of gang- were thematized consisted
simply in the extension of the invariant stem ganga- from the middle to the
active. Other cases in which a thematic f,i-verb appears to be based
formally on an earlier thematic middle are discussed by Watkins, ldg.
Gram. 76-7
43
). In sum, the Hittite distribution of persistent -a- in the
active does not seem sufficient to justify the assumption of a corresponding
type in lndo-European.
44. Three branches ofIndo-European thus attest thematic middles with
persistent *-0-; the historie al status of these forms cannot be determined
without a brief examination of the position of the thematic conjugation
within the parent language itself. Watkins' groundbreaking study ofthis
inflectional class (ldg. Gram. III. 1, passim) has established that the
paradigm ofthe lE thematic active may be reconstructed in the singular as
1 *bhroh2 (= "classical" lE *bhrO), 2 *bhreth
2
e, 3 *bhre
44
). The recon-
struction *-th2e for the 2 sg. desinence is supported by the Hitt. thematic
2sg. in -atti and Toch. 2sg. A B < *-eta; for the 3sg. in *-e cf.
Gk. Lith. veda, liezia ( < *-e; cf. 42), OCS vede(t'b) and Toch. A B
both reflecting 3 sg. *o1'se with suffixed particles ofunclear origino A
thematic 3 sg. in *-ei (i. e., *-e + the hic et nunc particle *i) is presumably
also to be seen in the -i of certainthematic f,i-verbs in Hittite
45
).
In Watkins' view the thematic conjugation had its origin in an earlier
athematic type *bhr-h
2
e, *bhr-th
2
e, *bh1'-e; he explains the thematic
vowel as the result of a reinterpretation of3 sg. *bhr-e as abare stem form
with subsequent generaliza tion of*-e- ( > *-0-) before laryngeals and
resonants) to the rest ofthe paradigm. This is not the place to discuss the
arguments-weighty in my judgment-which favor this hypothesis.
Whether 01' not we accept Watkins' account of the genesis of the thematic
vowel, two facts about the thematic conjugation are of immediate
relevance here. First, the endings of the thematic present bear an
unmistakeable resemblance to those ofthe lE perfect and middle (cf. 3),
42) The root-final-k of Skt. sankate, however, makes it likely
that thematlzatlOn of thlS form, and also that ofthe hypothetical *gangattari, was a
post-IE development. Cf. 72.
43) AIso perhaps a factor in the elimination ofthe eja- alternation was the general
predilection of the [,i-conjugation for stems with a in their final syIlable.
44) In the 1 sg. Watkins writes *bhroilo; the reconstruction given here, which was
by accounts more easily for the bimoric *-0 of Germanic (cf.
Go. ba,ra, OHG bu'u) and the acute *-0 of Baltic (cf. Lith. ved!/', r!;lfl. vedos).
Compare the doublets *-h
2
e (e. g., in Hitt. eS(Jat(i) '1 sat') and *-h
z
(e. g., in Ved.
duhi) in the 1 sg. middle.
45) Note that this ending was mostlyretained in Old Hittite, probably because it
ceased to be analyzed as -e-i at an early date. The "regular" thematic 3 sg. in -ai is
clearly an innovation.
50
and make it likely that forms like *bh1'e, etc. originally patterned as part of
a middle, 01' at any rate diathetically neutral paradigm 46). On the other
hand, it is also olear that by the time of the break-up of Indo-European
such forms had synchronically been reinterpreted as actives; they are
without exception< active in the daughter languages, most ofwhich show a
further tendency to replace 3sg. *-e by *-eti (Anatolian (mi-conj.), lndo-
Iranian, Armenian, Italic, Celtic, Germanic) andjor 2 sg. *-ethze by *-esi
(Anatolian (mi-conj.), Italic, Germanic, proba:bly and
Celtic). These endings were eVIdently formed by the suflxatlOn of the
particle *i to the corresponding endings *-et *-es; in
imitation of the pattern *-s: *-t: of the at,hematlC actIve;
similarly,l sg. *-omi, thoughlesswidelydistributed (cf. Hitt. -iyami,
-em, perhaps in part I-Ir. *-ami), probably rests on the secondary endmg
*-om. The very fact that the thematic present *bhroh
2
, *bhrethze, *bhre
was associated within lndo-European itself with an overtly active
imperfectjinjunctive *bhrom, *bhres, *bh1'et provides clear proof that
*-oh
2
, *-eth
2
e, *-e had been restructed as active endings by the end of
the common period
47
).
45. The reinterpretaton of the original thematic type as an active
appears to have led at a comparatively late stage of lndo-European to the
introduction of anew thematic middle, the structure ofwhich remains to be
examined. In the 3 sg. we have already seen ( 36) that the oldest proper
middle form was probably *bh1'o(1'), opposed to an active *bh1'e. The
creation of this form reflects a general lE tendency to specialize the ending
*-0 in an exclusively middle value, while restricting its apophonic alternant
*"':e to synchronically active (including perfect active) functions; the
eventual propagation of the 3 sg. middle ending as *-to(1'), rather than
*-te(1'), can be regarded as an indirect further consequence of the same
development (see below). In the remaining singular forms of the thematic
middle there is no evidence to support the assumption of an apophonic
contrast between, e. g., *-h
2
0 and *-thzo (middle) and *-h
z
and *-thze (active).
Rather, it appears that outside the third person the formal opposition
between the thematic active and thematic middle consisted solely in the
fact that the latter was normally characterized by the originallyoptional
particle *1'48): the earliest pattern would thus have been sg. 1 acto *bh1'oh
2
46) A systematic functional study of the thematic conjugation in the light of
Watkins' reconstruction is undertaken hy Hollifield, op. cit., ch.7.
47) It seem reasonable to speculate that once 3 *bhre
reinterpreted as an active, the absence of a formally dlstmct ImperfectmJunctlve
led to the suffixation of the athematic secondary ending *-t to *bhre in its non-
primary functions. The new form in *-et would then have engendered the creation
of *-am *-es, etc. elsewhere in the paradigm.
48) ease of exposition, it will be assumed here that *-r was used in Indo-
European to mark the primary middle endings of all three persons in the singular,
51

vs. mido *bhroh
2
r', 2 acto *bhTeth
2
e VS. mido *bhreth
2
er, 3 acto *bhre vs. mido
*bhrOT, or, after laryngeal coloration and loss, *bhro: *bhror, *bhreta:
*bhJ'etar, *bhre: *bhmr
4D
). This system is nowhere exactly retained,
although its essential features are preserved in Hitt. -alJ}.Ji : -aljljm'i, -atti :
-attaTi, -i : -ario
46. The majority ofIE languagespresent the paradigm ofthe thematic
middle in a significantly altered formo The middle desinences themselves
have been subject to far-reaching changes: 1 sg. endings like Gk.
Toch. A -mar, B -emaT, and Pali -ame (replacing Ved. -e), and 2 sg. endings
like Ved. -ase, Gk. and Go. -aza reflect the influence of the
corresponding actives in *-mi and *_si
50
). The most widespread innovation
ofthiskind lS the replacement of3 sg. *bhmr by forms such as Ved. bhmte,
GIL (for and Phryg. (cf. also Hitt. alclcis1citt((jri 'dies'
and MW impers. lcymyscetor *-etor + i?) 'is mixed'), which show the
addition of the productive allomorph of the 3 sg. middle ending to *bhre-,
the regular shape of the thematic stem before obstruents. In !talic and
Celtic there seems also to have aTisen a 3 sg. ending of the form *-etr- V,
which appears, e. g., in Osc. ur:ncteT 'is conquered' and 011'. do' moinethaT
'thinks', with medial-e- preserved. A desinence of this type is pro bably the
SOUl'ce ofCToch. *-(Ci)tr as well. From a purelyphonological point ofview,
Osc.-Umbr. -ter, 011'. (non-syncopating) -tha(i)r' and Toch. -tCiT can most
easily be referred to preforms in *-t1"i; we shall not, however, pursue the
consequences of this observation here
51
).
The second majar respect in which the paradigm of the thematic middle
has been altered in the daughter languages is in the distribution of the e-
and o-variants of the thematic voweI. Under the reconstruction just
proposed, the only lE middle forms in which the thematic vowel appeared
as *-e- were the 2 sg. *bhretar and 2 pI. *bhredhJ.w; in the 3 sg, the *-0- of
*bhroT contrasted with the *-e of *bhre, and in the dual su eh forms as
and of the third person in the plural. The true state of affairs may have been more
complex: inSpr. 23, 159ff. (1977) Ihave suggested that *-r, 01' anextended variant
*-r, was originally employed only in the third person, while the *i ofthe hie et nune
was utilized for the same purpose in the 1 sg. and 2 sg. Fortunately, the problem of
the r-endings is of no immediate relevance to the present discussion.
49) In the 1 pI. and 2pI., on the other hand, late Indo-European had probably
already introduced a more lmdamental contrast between the active and middle
endings. The actualreconstruction ofthe 1 pI. and 2 pI. middle desinences, of course,
is problematic.
50) Similarly the 3 pI. in *-onto(r) has replaced an older form
containing the desinence found in Ved. d1hr, sre, etc. In the 3 pI. of the thema tic
conjugation an r-ending of this type is found in Middle Indic, where it is doubtless
secondary.
51) See the reference citec1 in note 48; it seems at least possible that forms of the
type *bheretn: or *bherotri were created from earlier *blterori by mechanicaIly
inserting *-t- after the thematic vowel.
52
Skt. 2 duo bharethe, 3 duo bharete and Toch. B 2 duo impv. pyamttsait 'make!'
show that the original predesinential vocalism of the 2 duo and 3 duo was
*-o(i)-. These circumstances would obviously have been highly favorable
to the establishment of a new 2 sg. *bhToth
2
er and 2 pI. *bhmdhye, the
effect of which would have been to complete the creation of a thematic
middle paradigm with persistent *-0-.
Whether the generalization of *-0- throughout the middle in Anatolian,
Germanic and Tocharian reflects an innovation within late Common Indo-
European 01' an independent development in each ofthe three branches in
question cannot easily be determined. In the former case we would have to
assume that the regular alternation of *-e- ancl *-0- which characterizes the
thematic middle in languages like Greek, !talic and Celtic is the result of a
secondary re-assimilation to the pattern of the active. This would not in
itself be impossible, since we have seen that in Hittite the alternating
middle paradigm of the s1c-verbs is probably not original, and that in
Tocharian persistent *-0- has been eliminated from the middle in present
classes where both active and middle forms occur ( 43). Nothing, however,
stands in the way of the alternative hypothesis, under which we would
suppose that Anatolian, Germanic and Tocharian extended o-timbre to the
2 sg. and 2 pI. in the post-lE period, but at a time when the 3 sg. ending was
still *-or'. (The replacement of *bhmr by *bhreto1' , of course, would
effectively have prevented the establishment of a paradigm with persistent
*-0-.) In point of fact, *-or (*-oi) seems to have survived for a significant
time in all three branches, at least in certain functions; it is still preserved
in Hittite, and its former existence in Germanic and Tocharian can be
independently inferred from such facts as the merger of thematic and
athematic middles in Tocharian ( 36), and the identity ofthe 1 sg. and 3 sg.
passive in *-adai in Germanic, presupposing an earlier identity of 1 sg. *-ai
(=Ved. -e)and 3sg. *-ai < *-oi (cf. Watkins, op. cit., 138).
47. The eVldently secondary character of the opposition *bhre (act.) vs.
*bhro(T) (mid.) suggests the possibility that at an eady stage of Indo-
European the choice of *-e 01' *-0 as a 3 sg. ending was determined not by
functional, but by phonological criteria which were subsequently obscured.
Although the following remarks are necessarily speculative, it may be
appropriate to call attention to the apparent relationship between the
occurrence of *-e 01' *-0 in the 3 sg. on the one hand and the position of the
lE accent on the other. Under Watkins' assumptions, an lE 3 sg. in *-e can
be reconstructed in at least three important groups of forms: full-grade
thematic presents (*bhre, etc.), perfects (*1lide, 013E, etc.) and
thematic ("short-vowel") subjunctives (*(h
1
)se,Ved. sa[ti] , Lat. eTi[t]; cf,
Cret. etc.). All of these are characterized by fuU grade of
the root and barytone accentuation. The 3 sg. middle in *-0, and with it the
later ending *-to, on the other hand, is subject to no such distributional
constraints, but occurs freely in both barytone and oxytone forms (cf. Ved.
53
I
saye but duh, c<$(e but brilt, *rta but *mrt). The hypothesis thus
suggests itself that *-0 was originally confmed to forms in which it was
accented, and that only after its morphological specialization as the 801e
mark of the 3 sg. middle was it extended to other environments
52
). We
would then assume, e. g., *dhugh, *kjo and *bhro as the roost aneient
reconstructable prototypes of Ved. duh, sye and bhra[ti]; an early lE
sound change of unaecented *-0 to *-e would have led direetly to the
replacement of the latter two forms by *kje and *bhre
53
). These were
subsequently treated in different ways, *kje reroaining synchronically a
middle and undergoing renewal to * kjo, and *bhre showing a roorphologi-
cal split into two forros, an active *bhre and a middle*bhro.
The only important exception to the distributional rule just diseussed is
the 3 sg. of the thematic aorist, a form normally reeonstrueted with the
ending *_t
M
). According to the interpretation of the thematie aorist set
forth by Watkins, op. cit. 83, and supported with further data by Peters,
Spr. 21,37-42 (1975), a form such as lE *yidt ( = Ved. vidat, Gk. (.f)L8r::,
Arm. egit) is ultimately to be regarded as a transformation of an earlier
middle root aorist, standing in the same relationship to an underlying 3 sg.
*l
tid
as Ved. 3 sg. duhat 'milked' and sctyat 'lay' stand in relation to
earlier duha (MS3, 3,4; 4, 2, 2) and *saya (ef. Waekernagel, Kl. Sckr.,
498-502). While the formal possibility of sueh an analysis may be taken
for granted, the morphological status of the hypothetieal *yid is unelear.
Hollifield has recently shown (op. cit., ch. 11) that in Indo-European,
middle root aorists denoting entry into a state were originally eharaeteri-
zed by e-grade root vocalism; the replaeement of sueh aoristsby equivalent
zero-grade forms must be attributed partly to late Indo-European and
partly to the dialectal period (cf. Ved. mata 'remerobered' beside GAv.
manta). lE *ye'id- was evidently a root of this type; the eOlTesponding
stative is attested in the perfect *yide 'knows'. The oldest forro of the 3 sg.
aorist middle of *yeid- is thus perhaps to be reeonstrueted as *yide, with
the regular post-tonie desinenee *-e. Itwas possibly to sueh a form, after
the synchronic reinterpretation of *-e as an active ending, that *-t was
52) I of course assume that at the stage ofIndo-European when the distribution
of *-e and *-0 was phonologically determined, *-r (01' *-ri) was not yet obligatory in
the presen t middle endings (this is still the case in Hittite). There can be no question
of an lE rule *'-01' -+ *'-e1.
53) 01', mutandis, we could consider the theoretical possibility that early
lE *- yielded later *-. Likewise speaking in favor of an accentually-linked rule is
the ending *-e of the originally enclitic thematic vocative, and the enclitic particle
*-kl'e 'and' (vs., e.g., stressed *kud 'what?').
54) Note also stressed 3 sg. *-sk, *-j; here, however, it is possible that the
attested active forms were _created later than the corresponding middles in 3 sg.
*-sk(1'), *-j(1).
54
..
I
added 55); the apophonic reduction of *yidet to *yidt would then have
been a separate and later development. Other early thematic aorists may
have arisen in the same way: in particular, the association of lE *h
1
ludht
'went' (= Gl\:. with an archaic perfect *(h
1
le)h
1
ludhe (= Gk.
Se) makes it probable that this root too originally formed a middle root
aorist with full-grade.
55) Note thatIE *llidt is unequivocally active in function as well as morphology.
In lndo-lranian and Armenian *llidt furnishes the active aorist to an active nasal
presentmeaning 'find' (Av. vinasti, Ved. vindti, Arm. gtanem); its valuein Greekis
substantially the, same ('see' in the sense 'catch sight of', 'lay eyes on', etc.),
although th present *llindmi is no longer preserved.
55
'"


8
'" '" ::[ '"


..o
..o

..o

..o
..o

..o
..o
o



'--J
III
THE THIRD WEAK CLASS IN GERMANIO
""
.",
'" '"

I I

'" 8 8 ;:>

'"
I


Among the traditional subdivisions ofthe Germap.ic verb, the third
.", .", .",


..o .",
.""
48. ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o
if2
..o .c .c ..o ..o .c ..o

..o ..o
weak class presents the greatest variety of forms fromlanguage to language
'"

'" '"

."" '"
'"
o
and the greatest difficulties of comparative reconstruction. The basic data
'"O
may be illustrated with the forms in Gothic, Old Icelandic, 0lc1 High O)

N
German. Old amI Old English of the verh 'have' 1) (see page 57).


I Itl .",
El

"""

I

'" """
" "
4\:J. The morphological behavior of Go. haban is entirely typical of its
0 Itl Itl
","
'"
Itl o
P:i
..o
"
..o ..o
"" ""
..o ..o

..o
class anc1 calls for no separate c1iscussion. In the other early Germanic

ro
O
.S languages, however, 'have' and several other verbs display features which
Ul
require specialnote.
El
"
In 0lc1 Icelanc1ic the regular class III type is represented by vctka 'be
..;:
awake' , fro:m which ha fa diverges in 1) showing umlaut in the singular of the
e-J--... -:--

O)
Ul
.", .",
" present (hef(i) , hef(i)r') , 2) lacking a final vowel in the impv. 2 sg. (ha!), and N:

N: o

Z
3) lacking a union vowel in the inflected form of the past participle (hafar


+>
Ul
for *hafaar). A further peculiarity is the occurrence of short forms in the O)
singular of the present indicative (hef, hefr); these are archaisms confined to
f$
H h
olc1er poetry and have no analogue in verbs of the vaka-type. Certain of the
O
" .", ro
ic1iosyncrasies of hafa do; however, recur in segja 'say' arid pegja 'be silent' :
" ".,

O)

"., "., ::
segja has a short imperative (seg) and past participle (sagar) , as well as
.",


'h
'"O
occasional short forms in the inc1icative singular (seg, segr), but differs from
'"
o-

O)
.t;
both hafa and vaka in showing an umlauted root vowel, together with an
"
O)
underlying stem-final -j- throughout the present (1 pI. segj1trn, 3 pI. segja,

preso ptcp. segjandi); pegja follows segja but lacks short forms in the ..<:1


"" ""
H
singular indicative and has a disyllabic impv. 2 sg. pegi.
""

""


8
0)" .", .", .", .", .",
In Old High German the normal paradig.n of haben, like that of Go.

"
o
..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o O) h
..<:1..<:1
haban, is indistinguishable from that of other class III ve1'bs. Along with 0

sagen 'say' and leben 'live', however, haben displays occasional fo1'ms of a
Ul "

quite diffel'ent type, viz. 1) 1 sg. preso hab1t, sagu (Tatian, scribe y), as iffl'om
'"0..<:1
strong *haban, *sagan, 2) 2 sg. hebis(t), segist, 3 sg. hebit, segit, libit, as iffl'om

ro f5
*haban, *sagan, *lebctn 01' class 1 weak *hebben, *seggen, *libben, 3) pret.
"
hapta (Isidore, Monsee Fragments), without a union vowel, and 4) pret.
.... C'l M -C'l M C'lM C'l
-
P, P, <+-i
"a
bJ bJ

.E .E .s _3
w. w.
p.,p., ":'1 Q)
u:i po:
" 1) For the data in this chapter 1 have relied heavily on the classic study by
""
u:i
H
<D p.,
p.,
<D
w.
H. Flasdieck, Untel'such'llngen ber die gel'nwnischen schwachen Vel'ben JJJ. [{lasse,
1'<
o
.S
1'<
ce
<D
p., p., 1'<
7i11ter besondel'el' Ber7lcksichtigng des Altenglischen ( = Anglia 59 [1935J).
p., p.,
56
57
hebita, segita, libita, past ptcp. gihebit, gisegit, gilibit, again as if from class 1.
The Old Saxon paradigm given aboye is the usual one in the ve1'sion of the
Heliand p1'ese1'ved in the Monacensis MS (M). The dialectally distinct and
slightly late1' Cotton MS (C), howeve1', has 2, 3 sg. habis, -id, sagis, -id
( < seggian 'say') and impv. 2 sg. habi, sagi; the unexpected absence of i-
umlaut in these fo1'ms (but note 2 sg. segis (M) (1 x )) 1'ecu1's in pI. habbiad
and in. habbian (M), as well as in 1 sg. habbiu (C) (1 x). The ve1'b libbian
'live' shows a partial transfe1' to the second weak class, c. 3 sg. libod, leot,
lebot, pI. libbiod (= libod x *libbiad). .
The g1'eatest diversity of fo1'ms is found in Old English. Beside the
p1'operly West Saxon 2 sg. hoejst, 3 sg. hoejp, Anglian poetry and Mercian
show the classIl forms hajas(t) and hajap (c. WS impv. haja); correspon-
dingly, secJan 'say' has 2 sg. saJas(t) , 3 sg. saJap. ClassIl forms of libban
'live' are found in West Saxon as well (c. 2sg. liojas, 3sg. liojap, later
leojas(t) , leojap). In Anglian and Kentish 'live' has a distinctive inflection in
which libb- is replaced by lifJ-, yielding forms like (disyllabic) in. lifJan,
3 pI. lifJap; the same morphological type is also attested in a num ber of
originally class nI verbs which have otherwise been absorbed into class n.
The Northumbrian equivalents of habban, sec3an and libban have the
aberrant 1 sg. forms hajo, soeJo and lijo, as iffrom strong verbs. For hycJan
'ponder' see 60, 77.
50. Class nI weak verbs are comlllon in Old Righ German, where they
constitute a productive denominative type, but elsewhere their number is
restricted. Fewer than thirty verbs inflect like haban in Gothic, and fewer
than sixty like vaka in Old Icelandic; in Old Saxon and Old English only
'have', 'say' and 'live' consistently show class In forms, although a small
number of other verbs preserve more 01' less substantial traces of an earlier
paradigm lilm that of lifJan in the Anglian dialects of Old English. In both
Old Saxon and Old English the great majority of original class nI verbs
have been transferred to the o-class (classIl).
Synchronically primary class In ver bs are prevailingly stative, although
a num ber are simply durative in meaning; semantically typical examples
are Go. hahan, ORG hangen 'hang (intr.)', Go. *wunan (in unwunands
'unsatisfied'), 01 una, ORG wonen 'be satisfied', Go. wakan, 01 vaka, ORG
wahhen 'be awake', 01 bija, ORG biben, OE bijian (with class III traces; cf.
Flasdieck, 45) 'trem ble'. A number of such verbs can be compared directly
with Latin statives in -e- andjor Balto-Slavic presents in with
infinitives in *-e- (c. 7), e. g., Go. pahan, -aip, ORG dagen 'be silent': Lat.
tacere, Go. munan, -aiJ) 'intend, be lllinded' (c. ORG jir-monen 'despise'):
Lith. mine%i, OCS mbneti 'think, relllember' (c. also Gk. Go. pulan,
-aip, 01 pola, -ir, ORG doren 'endure, suffer': Lith. tyle%i 'be silent', Go.
witan, -aip 'observe', ORG gi-wizzen 'be capable': Lat. uidere, perhaps also
OCS videt'i 'see', Lith. pavyde%i 'envy' (but see 90), etc. Pairs of this kind
constitute the principal evidence for positing a direct formal relationship
58
between the Germanic forms and the Italic and Balto-Slavic stative types
in *-e:-.
Similarly, the dominant group of class III denominatives invites compar-
ison wi th the lE sta tive jinchoa tive type seen in La t . .senere, Lith. sene1i, -e(ja
and OCS sta1'l!ti, -jet'b (c. 6). Characteristic examples are Go. jastan, -aip,
ORG jasten 'fast', Go. ana-silan, -aip 'fall silent' (: Lat. silere) , 01 skorta,
OE scortian (cf. Flasdieck, 60) 'lack'; the productive Old Righ German
inchoatives in -en, e. g., roten 'turnred' (: Lat. rube're, Russ. Ch. SI. ndeti
etc.), blinden 'grow blind' (= OE blindian, with secondary transfer to
classn) 'grow blind', tagen 'become day' belong here as welI. A much
smaller number of class In denominatives are neither stative nor incho-
ative but fa<;ltitive in meaning; such forms are especially conspicuous in
Gothic, c. piwan, -aip 'make subject', weihan, -a1) 'sanctify', jastCln, -Clip
'hold fast' (beside 'fast'), .sweran, -aip 'honor', etc.
51. It can readily be seen that the classnI found in
individual Germanic languages are formally classllable llltO three lllalll
groups. The forms of Go. haban are synchronically built from two stems:
one, haba-, is to all appearances thematic and has the sallle distribution as,
e. g., bindCl-, bClira- 01' giba- in the system of the strong verb (hence also
passivehabada); the other, habai-, is confined .. 2 sg., 3 sg. a.nd2:pI.
and to the weak preterite habClida, ptcp. TIllS pattern hkewISe
underlies the conjugation of 01 vaka: 2, 3sg. vClkir evidently continues an
earlier form in *-eR < *-aiz, while 2 pI. vakio, pret. vClk(}a and ptcp. vokat
point respectively to CGmc. *wakaip, *wakauRr and *wakaida-. The
remaining Norse forms, with the exception of 1 sg. vaki, are thematic like
their Gothic counterparts; vaki itself is an obvious innovation, made by
deletingthe -1' of2, 3 sg. vakir on the model of otherparadigms (cf. 1 sg.jliJg
(for *jljg), 2, 3 sg. jliJgr <jljga 'fly', 1 sg. jer (for *fqr), 2, 3 sg. jerr <jara
'go', etc.). The position ofthe 1 sg. in North Germanic, it should be noted,
was already seen by R. Moller, AjdA 20,128 (1894), andrenders
superfluous the reconstruction of a Gmc. 1 sg. *wakem, proposed by Rlrt,
IF 1,204 (1892) as the comlllon source of vaki and Go. waka. .
A second class III type is represented in Old Saxon and Old Enghsh,
whicl oppose forms reconstructible with *-ai- (OS habas, -es, habad, -ed, OE
hoejst, hoejp, Northumb. hoejest(t) , hoejep) toforms built on a stem in *-ja- (OS
hebbian, hebbiu, etc., OE habban, hoebbe). The apparent class Il forms of OS
libbian, OE libban (see aboye) do not constitute evidence for an original
difference of inflection in this word, but ra ther illustra te the partial transfer
of 'live' tothe o-class, a process which has gone to completion in the
overwhelming majority of class III verbs in both languages. Silllilarly, the
OE (Anglian) lifJan-type appears not to be ancielit: although forms such as
1-3pI.lifJap, opt.lifJe(n), preso ptcp.lifJende, etc. have widely been taken
to point to a Germanic stem *libeja- (e. g., by Flasdieck, 158f.), Cowgill,
Lg.35, 13f. (1959) has decisively shown that pre-OE *libeja- is a late
59
innovation, ereated by adding *-ja- to the stem *libe- ( < CGme. *libai-) of
the 2 sg. and 3 sg. on the model of class 1 verbs like WGme. *domijan 'think',
1 sg. *domijn, 3 sg. *domijJ. Presents of elassII show a parallel, but more
widely rustributed remodeling: the type sealfian 'anoint' < *salbojan (for
CGme. *salbon) is eommon to all OE dialeets andis sporarueallyrepresented
in Old Saxon in forms sueh as ladoian 'invite' (= OE laoian), pI. folgoiad
'follow' (= OE fol3iajJ), ete.
3
).
It is usual to see traces of a Germanie infleetion like that of OS hebbian
and OE habban in 01 hafa and segja, the morphological peculiarities of
which have widely been attributed to the analogical interaction of
inherited stem-forms in *-ai- and *-ja- (thus, e. g., . 2, 3 sg. hefir may
continue a form like Go. habais, -aijJ, with umlaut extended from 1 sg.
hef < *habjo; 3 pI. segja may reflect *sagjanjJ, with ungeminated -g- from 2,
3 sg. segir < *sagai-). Similarly, the former existence of a pattern *habjo,
*habais, etc. in Old Righ German has sometimes been infened from 2 sg.
hebis(t), segis(t), 3 sg. hebit, segit, libit (cf. 57-9). Apart from scattered
forms like these, however, the third class paradigm in Old Righ German is
based on a single, synchronically athematic stem in -e- *-ai-). This
inflection constitutes a third major class III type - one which has no exact
counterpart in any other Germanic language.
52. Of the numerous attempts which have been made to explain the
morphological behavior of the third class, the overwhelming majority, as
noted in ch. 1, have begun with the assumption of an explicit etymological
relationship between the Germanic forms and the e-statives of other lE
traditions-an assumption which W. Streitberg expressed with the words
"jede Erklarung del' germ. Verba, die nicht an die auBergermanischen e-
Formen anknpft, scheint mil' prinzipiell verwerflich" (Urgenn. Gr., 307).
The utility of this hypothesis, however, has yet to be demonstrated : as the
following survey will show, the lE antecedents of the third weak class
remain almost as obscure today as they were a century ag0
4
).
The basic equation of the Germanic forms with the Latin statives in -e-
( < -e- 01' *-ejejo-; cf. 6) was first set forth in detail by G. R. Mahlow in 1879
(Die langen Vokale, 19ff.). By the early twentieth century a variety of
theories seeking to derive the third class from an lE type in *-e- (athematic)
andjor *-ejejo- (thematic) had already been elaborated; see, e. g., Brug-
mann, G1'.
2
, 2
3
, 203--4 for a representative discussion of the periodo Few
scholars would any longer claim to see evidence for an inherited athematic
3) A similar innovation underlies Alemannic optative forms such as 1,3 sg. salMe,
haMe, 2 sg. salMes, habees, etc.
4) l have not, of course, attempted to deal exhaustively with the enormous
literature on the third class. FOl' a more detailed survey of older views, the reader is
referred especially to the relevant sections of Flasdieck, op. cit., and Wagner, e-
Verba,
60
paradigm in ORG habem, -es, -a. From a phonological point of view it is
doubtful that lE *-e- would have yielded WGmc. *-e- in this position (cf.
78), and even if such a development could be justified, a derivation of
ORG haba from CGmc. *habep would require us to abandon the attractive
equation of habet and Go. habaijJ, the diphthong of which points unam-
biguously to Gmc. *-ai-. E. folom's attempt, Festschr. Pokorny 87-9, !o
explain the -ai- of habaiP as a reflex ofGmc. *-e- flies in the face ofGo. faheps
'joy' and is not supported by any other phonological developments in
Gothie; an earlier effort in the same direction was made by
K. F. Johansson, De den:v. verbo 187.
The overwhelming majority ofinvestigators have therefore preferred to
interpret the inflection ofORG haben as the result of a secondaryextension
of * habe- from the 2 sg., 3 sg. and 2 pI., where it was the regular reflex of
*habai-, to the remaining forms; the invariant stem vowel of the c1ass II
verbs (salbom, -os, -ot', etc.) wouldhave supplied an obviousmodel for such a
development. The "regular" appearance ofthe ORG paradigm would then
reflect a remodeling by whieh forms similar to Go. 1 sg. haba, 1 pI. habam,
3 pl. haband 01' OS 1 sg. hebbi7l, 1-3 pl. hebbiad were replaced by analogical
habem, habemes, habent in pre-ORG times.
Athematic preforms in *-e- have been invoked for another purpose as
well: since Streitberg, Z7lr germ. Spmchgesch., 73ff., the suggestion has
repeatedly been made that Go. 3 pI. haband and preso ptcp, haba.nds owe
their -a- to an early shortening of *-e- to *-a- before tautosyllabic resonants
(Osthoffs Law), and that -a- was analogically extended from these forms to
1 sg. habcl and 1 pI. habam. Despite its espousal by so recent a source as
Krahe, Germ. Sprachw.II, 121, however, the objections to this view are
prohibitive. It is highly unlikely that haband can regularly continue a
form like *kapgnti: since *-ent- appears to have been shortened to -ind- (via
*-ent-) in Go. winds 'wind' < *1.lent-, an athematic 3 pI. in *-gnt' should
rather have yielded *-ind in Gothic
5
). Furthermore, even if a phonological
passage of *-enti to -and could be admitted, it is difficult to see why this
should have led to the generalization of -a- e1sewhere; the simpler course for
speakers ofpre-Germanic would sure1y have been to reintroduce *-e- in the
3 pl. by analogy, thus bringing the inflection of the stem *habe- into
agreement with that of class II stems like salbO- (cf. Go. 3pI. salbond)6).
5) This, moreover, is precisely what we should have expected on a priori grounds:
in no other lE language is Osthoffs Law accompanied by qualitative, as well as
quantitative changes.
6) To be sure, forms like *sa.lbonp may not yet have been contracted from *-ajonti
when Osthoffs Law applied to *-enti. But l lmow ofno typological parallel in any
lE language fOl' the remodeling of the 1 sg. and 1 pI., and of these fonns only, in
response to an Osthoff shOl'tening in the 3 pI.
Note that here and throughout this chapter l have written b, el and g in Common
Germanic even where the sounds represented by these symbols were fricatives
rather than stops. Similarly, and likewise entirely fol' convenience, l have
61

According to what is probably the most widespread view, the diphthong
of the stem continues an originally thematic (or thematized; see
below) suffix *-eje-, which yielded fIrst *-eji- and then *-ai- in Germanic. No
actual counter-examples to this development are known; as Cowgill has
pointed out, however (personal communication; see also Lg.39, 265
[1963]), we should rather have expected that *-eje- would give *-e- in
Germanic, just as in class II the comparable sequence *-iije- is contracted to
*-0- (via *-oji-). Moreover, whatever the legitimacy of assuming a change of
*-eje- > *-ai-, no comparable explanation can be offered for forms like Go.
haba, habam, haband, ol' OS hebbiu, hebbiad, which clearly cannot be derived
from a thematic stem *kapijo-. (The suffix-fOl'm *-ejo-, to judge from the
treatment of *-iijo- (> *-0-) in class II, would almost certainly have yielded
a Germanic long vowel, presumably *-e-. Since Common Germanic
evidently had no phonemic *_ii_
7
), the possibility that the -a- of Go. haba,
habam, haband represents the result of a contraction can safely be
discounted; cf. Flasdieck, 116.) Thus, while a derivation of Gmc. *habaip
from lE thematic *kapijeti is not strictly impossible, advocates of this
reconstruction have invariably been forced to invoke one or another ad hoc
explanation for the Gothic and Old Icelandic forms in *-a- and the Old
Saxon and Old English forms in *-ja-. Characteristic expedients have
included the assumption of a paradigm with both thematic and athematic
forms (e. g., Krahe, loco cit.), the hypothesis of a Germanic type in *-eje-/
*-ejo- (Specht, KZ 62, 77), and the supposition that Go. haba, habam,
haband and OS hebbiu, hebbiad are transfer forms from the strong or first
weak conjugation (e. g., Brugmann, Gr.
2
2
3
, 203).
53. As seen in 12, the West Germanic stem-form *habja- has been
compared with stative formations in other branches of Indo- European,
most notably the Balto-Slavic present type in *-l:- (cf. Lith. 1 sg. miniu, inf.
minli, OCS mbnJQ, mbneti). This comparison has typically required the
assumption of an ablauting morpheme *-ei-/*-'t- (*-iJi-); an element of this
shape was first posited in 1891 by Chr. Bartholomae, Stud. z. idg.
Spmchgesch. and, partly in association with the theory of lE "disyllabic
heavy bases", has continued to figure prominently in discussions of the
third weak class to the present day. Variants of the *-ei-/*-l:- theory, of
which the most recent has been argued by W. P. Schmid in the work cited
aboye, are too numerous to be discussed individually; representative
surveys are given by Flasdieck, 68-78 and Wagner, e- Verba, 48ff. In
reconstructed *-an, rather than *-ana
n
, for the Cmmon Germanic infinitive
endings, *-@, rather than *-e, for the 3 sg. perfect ending, and (as a rule), *-]J, rather
than *-]Ji 01' *-oi, for the ending ofthe 3 sg. present active. Ido not, of course, wish
thereby to claim that al! short final syl!ables were lost in the common periodo
7) The first vowel of forms like Go. ]Jahta, ORG diihta 'thought', was, of cOUl'se,
nasalized in Common Germanic.
62

general, the following features are common to most versions of the theory :
1) forms like Gmc. 3 sg. *habaip are derived either from *-ei- 01' its
thematized counterpart *-eje-; in the former case the long diphthong *-ei-
must be assumed to have developed differently from other *- V R- sequences
in Osthoffs Law environments; 2) Northern West Germanic forms ofthe
type *habjo are derived from thematic prototypes in *-jo- < *-(iJ)i-o-;
whether the replacement of *-l:- (*iJi-) by *-jo- represents a purely
Germanic, or partly lE development is a matter of controversy; 3) the
absence of *-j- in Gothic and Old Icelandic (vaka, etc.) is explained
secondarily, usually by assuming contamination with the alternate stem in
*-ai- (so originally Sievers, PBB 8, 94 [1881]); the apparentretention of*-j-
in 01 hef(i) , hef(i)r and throughout the paradigm of segja is taken to
represent the survival ofthe original pattern in the two most common, and
hence most conservative classIII verbs.
Apart from the questionability of positing a development of *-eje- and
*-ei- to Gmc. *-ai- and the implausibility of an analogical replacement of
*habjo, etc. by *habo (cf. 61), the *-ei-/*-'t- theory suffers from serious
diffIculties at the lE level. From a morphological point of view probably
the most acceptable reconstruction of the lE paradigm within the
framework of this approach is that of Schmid, who postulates sg.l
*kapiimi, etc., pl.l *kapiJim, 3 *kapiJjnti (op. cit., 83). Yet it is almost
inconceivable that such a paradigm, characterized as it is by the completely
regular alternation of strong and weak athematic forms, would not have
left a trace in Indo-lranian 8), Greek or Hittite (see below); Northern West
Germanic, on the other hand, must be assumed not only to have retained
the inherited alternation of *-ii- and *-iJj(o)-, but to have extended the
weak stem in a wholly unparalleled fashion to the 1 sg. as well. Wagner and
others, who as sume a thematic 1 sg. for Indo-European itself, obviously
avoid the latter difficulty, but only at the cost of having to assume an
original paradigm utterly unlike anything otherwise reconstructible fOl'
the lE verbal system.
54. The view, originally put forth by Wagner, e-Verba, 50ff., that
Hittiteverbs like teMi 'Iput' *daiMe) , 3 sg. diii, 3 pI. tiyanzi support the
reconstruction of an lE present type in *-ei-/-l:-, calls for special comment.
Although these forms (Friedrich's class II 2 b) present many mOl'phological
diffIculties, two facts make the comparison with the third weak class highly
suspect. First, the inflectional pattern of the diii- type is not associated
with stative meaning; other class II 2b verbs are lJaZziii- 'call', lJttwiii- 'run',
ilJiii- 'tie', il}amiii- 'sing', ipiii- 'eat one's fill' miii- 'prosper', niii- 'lead,9),
8) Schmid takes the 3 pI. in > lIr. *-ynti to have served as the starting
point for the creation of fully thematic presents such as Ved. mnyate, etc.
9) This verb do es not strictly belong here, inasmuch as its "weak" stem is not
*niya- but neya-.
63
pa- 'give', parai- 'blo:,,', ( ?) sai- 'press' and zai- 'c.ross':
important, the Hittlte forms belong to the It lS thus
difficult to see how they can be equated with the true e-presents and aorists
ofGreek Latin (habet) and Rittite itself (dannattezzi) , which show a
clear preference for active (mi-) inflection. While dai- has a semanticlly
specialized mi-conjugation doublet te- 'say', it is significant that this verb
shows no sign of ever having contained a diphthong.
The -ai-j-iya- "apophony" which characterizes the dai-type is problem-
atic. Several class II 2 b verbs are built from roots which show an
enlargement *-i- in languages outside Anatolian; the clearest such case is
is1Jai- 'tie', which belongs to the family ofVed. sat 'tied' (*seh
2
-t). perf.
s/tya (*(se)soh
2
-j-e). Superficially, it would be attractive to compare the
Rittite verb with the latter form: 3 sg. is1Jai would then continue a preform
*sohd-ei, with -l,- introduced after s- under the influence of 3 pI. is1Jiyanzi
(*sh
2
-i-) 11). The case of ishai-, however, is isolated: no other verb ofthe dai-
class can be equated with an i-extended perfect elsewhere. The alternative
thus suggests itself that dai-, pai-, ispai-, and perhaps is1Jai- as
an otherwise extinct present type in which an ablauting
root (*dheh-j*dhh-) was followed by an invariant i-element and the
"activized" middle endings (with *'-e(i) in the 3 sg.; cf. 47 and 38, note
33). This analysis need not be insisted on here; it should be clear that
whatever the correct interpretation of the Rittite forms, their potential
significance for the prehistory of the third weak class is slight
I2
).
55. In Lg.39, 265---6 (1963), Cowgill has suggested that both the
Germanic third weak class and the Balto-Slavic stative presents in *-f-
continue a single thematic type in *-3-jejo- < *-hrf,ejo-, representing the
formal extension of an originally athematic suffix *-eh
1
-j*-h
r
by *-jejo-
(Cowgill writes *-eE-, *-E-, *E-jejo-). Insofar as it relates to Germanic, this
hypothesis is essentially equivalent to W. Bennett's reconstruction (Lg. 38,
135--41 [1962]) of the class III suffix as *-3jejo-. More recently, R. Rock
has proposed a variant explanation which differs from Bennett's in sup-
posing that the phonologically regular treatment of the suffix-form *-310-
is preserved in Northern West Germanic *habjo and *habjanp, rather
ID) The present ofthis verb was probably fOl'med by adding the *-i ofthe hic et
nunc to the root aorist *dhehrt (= Hitt. tet, Ved. dhat).
11) Alternatively, we might reconstruct the underlying root as *sh
2
eh
x
-' and thus
account fOl' i8fJ,- directly.
12) Note that under any analysis of the Hittite facts, forms like 1 sg. teMi and
2 sg. diiitti are best taken as reflecting an analogical extension of the strong stem
diil:- from the 3 sg., synchronically reanalyzed as /dwi-i/. Clearly important are the
old (Middle Hittite) 1 pI. forms l]alziwen and pwen, which show that the weak stem
of these verbs originally ended in -i- rather than -iya-. The thematic appearance of
3 pI. tiyanzi is thus deceptive: historicaIly, the correct segmentation is /di-anzi/.
64
,....
I
than in Go. haba and haband (Kachru et al. (eds.), Issues in Ling1istics,
pp. For our present purposes the views of aIl three scholars may be
discussed together.
The theory is superior to other recent explana-
tions of the Germanic forms, such as those ofWagner and Schmid, in taking
as its starting point a completely regular thematic paradigm free of
apophonic anomalifils. In my view, however, it is very doubtful that the
putative phonologial development of *-3jejo- to Gmc. *-ai-j*-ja-, oi *-ai-j
*-a-, can be upheld. Common to all versions of the theory is the supposition
that, contrary to the usual pattern in internal syllables (seen, e. g., in Go.
dauhta1' 'daughter' < *dhugatr) , a medial laryngeal was retained in
Germanic when it prece(led a *-j- which was lost before *-i-: the 3 sg. in
*-aiP is thus explained by Bennett and Rock as the regular outcome of
*-3jeti, which became fITst *-3jiP(i), whence *-3iP(i) and *-aiP. In a form
such as the 3 pI., on the other hand, pre-Gmc. *-j- would at the outset have
been preserved before *-a-. Here Rock posits a development of *-310nti to
*-3janp(i), whence, after loss of medial *-3-, *-janp (cf. OS hebbiad, OE
habbaP); Bennett supposes instead that *-3janp(i) yielded *-anp (cf. Go.
haband, 01 hafa) , presumably by way of *-3anp( i). The crucial, and shared,
assumption is thus that *-3- remained distinct from *-a- until well into the
history ofGermanic prqper. For Rock this hypothesis permits an explana-
tion of the syncope of *hab'Jjanp(i) to *habjanp at a date later than the
change of *habajiP( i) to *hab3iP( i); for Bennett the continued existence of
*-3- as an autonomous reduced vowel makes intelligible the contraction of
*hab3anp(i) to *habanp (*habaanp(i), with *-a- < *-3-, would probably have
yielded Gmc. *habi5np.) 13).
These arguments seem more ingenious than convincing. The loss of *3 in
medial syIlables is a phonological feature which Germanic shares with
Balto-Slavic, Iranian and Armenian; it is unlikely that this development
occurred completely independently in all four branches 14). Direct evidence
against the theory is provided by the class VII
(reduplicating) strong verb Go. a1jan, ORG erien 'plow', a reflex of lE
*h
2
erh
3
- (cf. Gk. &pOTpOV, etc.). Under Bennett's assumptions, the dialectal
lE present *h2erha-jejo-, apparent reflexes of which are found in Celtic
(011' 3 sg. airid), Balto-Slavic (Lith. 3 p. aria, OCS 3 sg. or'Jet'b), Greek (&p6w)
and perhaps Italic (Lat. aro, -are < *arCv-ji5? ), would have been expected to
yield 3 sg. *a1'3jip(i) < *a1'3ip(i) < *amiPin Germanic; in fact, however, the
attested forms point unambiguously to CGin. *a1'ip (remade to *a1jiP in
13) Needless tosay, it is ofno importance to the argument whether the alleged
developments took place before 01' after the Germanic consonant shift. We could as
easily write for *hab<JjiP(i) and for
14) Indeed, it would probably be simplest to suppose that mediallaryngeals were
never vocalized in these dialects.at aH.
65
-----------
Gothic, like nasjip < *nasip), implying a development *-'Jjeti > *-jiP(i) >
*_ipf5).
56. Apart from considerations, *-'Jjejo- (*-h
1
je,lo-) seems an
unlikely reconstructlOn oi the class In suffix on morphologlOal grounds.
Oowgill's interpretation ofthe Germanic forms, as we have seen, is based on
the assumption that Indo-European originally had a class of athematic
stative presents in which full-grade forms in *-eh
r
( > *-e-) alternated with
zero-grade forms in *-h
r
(> *-'J-). It is significant, however, that in no lE
language does the stative suffix *-e- appear to participate in apophonic
alternations of any kind. ThiR iR most strikingJy the case in Greek, where
the intransitive aorist in -1/- which Oowgill views as an old imperfect, has an
invariant stem: the 1 pl. and 2 pl. end not in *-E(J.EV, *-ETO: but in -'f(J.O:V, -'(TO:,
while the 3 pI. in -EV probably represents underlying *-IJVT. The e-aorist of
Balto-Slavic, although clearly a remodeled category, is similarly free of
paradigmatic ablaut, as are the stative presents of Rittite and Italic. By
the same token, those lE languages which have secondarily created verbal
adjectives in *-to- and verbal abstracts in *-ti- from stative stems generally
show *-e-to- and *-e-ti-, rather than *-'J-to- and *-'J-ti- in such forms. Thus,
Balto-Slavic has both adjectives in *-eta- (Lith. -elas) and infinitives in *-ft:
(Lith. -eti, OOS -ti) ; a formation of the same type in Germanic is Go. faheJ)s
'joy'. (On the other hand, the recent attempt by Bammesberger and
Oowgill, Lg.45, 534-5, to explain the Germanic participles *habda-,
*sagda- etc, (> OS gihabd, gisagd) and the abstract noun *hugdi- 'thought'
(> Go. gah1lgds, OS gilmgd, etc.) on the basis ofpreformsin *-P-'J-t, *-k-'J-t,
etc. is incompatible with the phonological history of *dnhte1'-
'daughter' < the latter form shows that the application of
Verner's Law in Germanic must ha,ve been later than the loss of medial
schwa. See further 77) 16).
In Italic the deverbative type in *-e-to- survives in substantivized forms
like Lat. aceturn < aCMe, 1'1lbeta < 1'nbe1'e, olet1lrn < ole1'e, etc., an observation
for which 1 am indebted to Alan N ussbaum. The synchronically regular
participles to e-statives, however, have a suffix which appears in Latin as
-ito- (c. habitus, tacitus, placitus); that -i- in these forms reflects *-e- rather
than *-a- < *-'J- is shown by Umbr, ta<;ez (written tases in the Roman
15) To be sure, it would be possible to salvage Cowgill's explanation by supposing
that *-;- was regularly lost next to *-i- in Germanic (hence a1jan) and restored in "i}.
verbs" of the haban type. But this would only add to the complexity of the
axgument,
16) We could, of course, make the ad hoe assumption that yielded *-ht- in
Germanic, rather than the expected *-gd-; this is Bammesberger and Cowgill's
solution. Note, incidentally, that the evidence for a class In present from the root
*hug- is restricted to the preterite *hugaido
n
( = hogeta); neither a Gmc. 3 sg. *hugaifJ
nor an lE has left any direct trace in our data (cf. 77).
66
T
alphabet), which corresponds exactly to Lat. tacitus. The suffix *-eto- is also
utilized in Italic to form the passive participle of iterative-causatives in
(c. Lat. rnonitus < nwneo, Umbr. V1lfetes beside Lat. uou.ei5), and it
lS no doubt here that its origin is to be sought. Prior to the loss of Italic
interv?calic participles like *rnonetos were evidently created by
replacmg the *-Jejo- ofthe present stem by *-to- on the model ofverbs like
*kapjo: *kaptos, *kantajo: *kantatos, etc. After the formal merger of the
pre-Italic present formations in *-ejejo- and *-e(jejo )-, the new type in *-eto-
was free to spread to statives as well as causatives, whence the extension of
thepattern *rnone- : *rnonetosto *habe-: *habetos, *take- : *taketos, etc, There
is thus no clear evidence in Italic for an ablauting stative morpheme *-e- :
*-'J-; if such an alternation was present at an early stage of Germanic it is
impossible to verify this by direct comparison with forms elsewhere.
57. seen in 52, the invariant -e- ofthe stative paradigm in Old High
German lS probably best attributed to the analogical influence of verbs of
*sa:lbon class. It is far from olear, however, which ofthe two remaining
mflectlOnal that of Old Saxon and Old English (*-ai-j*-ja-) 01'
that of GOthlO and Old Icelandic (*-ai-j-a-) is the more original
1
\ While
opinion has tended to favor the former (so also, beside vVagner,
Schmld, Rock and others; M. Guxman, Smv. gmrn. gerrn.jaz., 385-91), the
antiquity of the Gothic-Scandinavian type has had recent defenders as
well. obvious of a Germanic 1 sg. *habjo is
the posslblhty of comparmg a form of thlS structure directly with the 1 sg.
in *-joofthe Balto-Slavic presents in *-r-. Yet the value ofthis comparison
is vitiated by the uncertain historical position of the latter forms: as we
shall verify in the foUowing chapter, attempts to explain the origin ofthe
Balto-Slavic statives have been fuUy as varied, and fuUy as inconclusive, as
the theories which have been put forth to explain the third weak class.
Speaking against the Oommon Germanic status offorms like *habjois the
fact that Old Saxon and Old English, the two languages which most clearly
attest the stem *habja-, are precisely the languages in which the third class,
as a category on the verge of total extinction, is most likely to have been
con taminated with other ver balformations. In the case of the class In ver b
'live' sorne disruption of the inherited paradigm must be assumed in any
event; we have seen aboye that forms like OS3sg. libad, lebot and OE
liofap point to the straightforward replacement of class nI by class n
inflection. In the discussion that follows a similar interpretation will be
offered for the stem-forms in *-ja- of 'have', 'say' and 'live'. In particular,
17) Theoretically, of course, both could be equally old; it is also thinkable that the
original type was characterzed by a three-way altel'llation *habai-f*haba-f*habja-.
In fact there is little reason to favor either of these altel'llatives.
67
we shall attempt to show that (*habja-, *sagja- and *libja- belong properly
not to class In but to classI, and that the Northern West Germanic type
*habji5, -ais, -aip is an innovation of post-Germanic date.
58. Of the three ver bs which show third class inflection with ja-forms,
the only one for which a stem in *-ja- appears certain to be of Oommon
Germanic antiquity is 'say', which unambiguously attests *sagja- beside
*sagai- in both North and West Germanic. (The corresponding verb is not
found in Gothic.) It is probablynot entirely coincidental that *sagja- is also
the only class In stem in *-ja- with a clear etymology outside Germanic:
the Balto-Slavic present in *-- represented by Lith. saloyti 'say' and Serb.
Oh. SI. sociti 'indicare' 18) points to an original iterative-causative * sok'jefo-
*sek!'- 'say'; cf. Gk. Lat. inseque) , from which *sagja- can be
derived with equal ease 19). An equation of * sagja- with ES * salc-, however,
would imply the original presence in Germanic of two paradigms for 'say' ,
one corresponding to that ofaclassI weakverb (*sagji5, *sagis, *sagip, etc.),
and the other to that of a classIII verb (2 sg. *sagais, 3 sg. *sagaip; we shall
argue below for 1 sg. *sagO). This situation would clearly have been
conducive to the creation of mixed paradigms in the individual Germanic
dialects, and as the actual distribution of*sagai-, *saga-, *sagi- and *sagja-
in North and West Germanic confirms, such secondary realignments of
class I and class nI forms have in fact occurred.
The only forms of 'say' in Old Icelandic which belong unambiguously to
classnI are 1 sg. segi and 2, 3 sg. segir; of these segi1', with analogical i-
umlaut, ultimately continues OGmc. *sagais and *sagaip, while segi is an
obvious inner-Norse creation on the basis of segi1' (segi = segir minus -1'; cf.
51). The remaining present forms resemble those of a class I verb, save
that Old Icelandic has completely eliminated the expected gemination of
-g- before -j- (cf. however OSw. s<*3ggia beside sighia < segja) 20). It is
noteworthy that evidence for an apparent *sagjan is not restricted to
positions in the paradigm where reflexes of *sagja- are attested in Old
Saxon and Old English, but is furnished also by the archaic 2, 3 sg. segr
(= OSw. 1 sg. seg = segr minus -r) < *sagis, *sagip and impv. 2 sg.
seg < *sagi < *sagje. These forms, which invite direct comparison with OS
sagis, sagid (O) and OHG seg'is(t), segit, testify to the original presence of a
complete classI paradigm for 'say' in Scandinavian.
The apparent reflexes of *sagis and *sagip in West Germanic have
traditionally been explained as analogical creations on the basis ofja-forms
like 1 sg. *sagji5and 3pl. *sagjanp (so, e. g., Flasdieck, 128). This interpreta-
18) The sense of ORuss. sociti 'aufsuchen' is perhaps due to semantic interference
with *selc!l- 'follow'; cf. Fraenkel, Ll:t. Etym. Wb.,757.
19) On the development of *-eje- > *-i- in Slavic see 86. The suggestion that
*sagjan is an iterative-causative was first made to me by Hollifield in '1971.
20) Cf. Flasdieck, 121.
68
tion, however, is difficult to reconcile with the occurrence of segis(t) and
segit in Old High German, where 1 sg. *seggu and 3p1. *seggent are
unknown
21
); given the distribution of class I forms in North Germanic, it
would be simpler to regard the pairs * sagis '" * sagais and * sagip '" * sagaip as
doublets ofOommon Germanic date. Also favoring such a conclusion is the
unique Old High German 1 sg. form sagu (Tatian, scribe y), which, pace
Flasdieck (529), is unlikely to be a back-formation from seg1:s(t) , segit;
preferable would be the assumption that, parallel to coexisting *sagis'"
*sagais and *sagip"'*sagaip, Oommon Germanic had both a classI 1 sg.
*sagji5 and a corresponding class nI *sagi5. Another possible reflex of *sagi5
is OE S<*330, the normal 1 sg. form in the Northumbrian dialecto The
tendency ofNorthumbrian to eliminate gemination in the 1 sg. of all verbs
in *-jan, however, makes it safer to regard this as a late and purely local
replacement of *sec3u < *sagji5.
59. Although the inflection of 'have' bears o bvious resemblances to that
of 'say', the morphologicaljlifferences between the two verbs have been
insufficiently emphasized by--authors who have sought to establish a
paradigm *habji5, *habais, *habaip forOommon Germanic. In Old Icelandic
the forms which supposedly establish the former presence of a stem *habja-
in Scandinavian, namely 1 sg. hej and 2, 3 sg. hejr (= OSw. with
analogical absence of i-umlaut; both < *habis), are in fact indistinguish-
able from the corl'esponding forms of a strong verb; descl'iptively, the
plural forms hqjum, hajio, haja can be assigned to the strong conjugation 01'
to the regular class In (vaka) type, but not to a paradigm like that of segja.
Of special interest is the 2 sg. impv. haj, which recalls strong imperatives
like graj < graja and skjt < skjta (contrast tel < telja, seg < segja and
vaki < vaka). It is not probable that this form, occupying a naturally
conservative position in the paradigm, could have been "crossed" from an
inherited *haji (like valci) and *hej (lilm tel and seg). Rather, the conclusion
suggests itself that 'have', like 'say' originally had two presents in
Scandinavian, one, *habi5, *-ais, *-aip, cOl'responding to that of a class III
verb ofthe regular type, and the othel', *habi5, *-is, *-ip, formally identical
with that of a strong verb of classIV.
The Germanic, rathel' than purely Scandinavian character of2 sg. *habis
an:d 3 sg. *habip is suggested both by OS habis, habid (O), with analogical
absence ofumlaut as in sagis, sagid, and by OHG hebis(t), hebit, which, like
segis(t) and segit, can only with difficulty be regarded as analogical
cl'eations on the basis of unattested *hebbu, *hebbent, etc. Although both
Old Saxon and Old English attest unambiguousja-forms in the 1 sg. and
elsewhere, it is not impossible that the replacement of, e. g., *habi5
(originally proper to both the stl'ong and class nI weak pal'adigms) by
21) On the distribution of OHG stem forms see Brinkmann, Sprachwandel, 96ff.
and K6geI, PBB 9, 518 (1883).
69
*habji5 was triggered by the generalization in these languages of *sagji5
(originally class 1) at the expense of *sagi5 (originally class HI). An
important indication that the stem *habja- may be secondary in Northern
West Germanic is the consistent absence of umlaut in the ja-forms of 'have'
in Old English (cf. hoobbe, habbap, habban, etc. beside sec3e, sec3ap, sec3an)
and its sporadic absence in Old Saxon (cf. habbiu, habbiad, habbian (M),
habbiu (C), beside invariant seggiu, seggiad, seggian) 22). Direct evidence for a
West Germanic 1 sg. *habi5is found in ORG habu, attested twice in the same
source (Tatian, scribe y) which preserves 1 sg. sagu, and perhaps in OE
(Northumbrian) hafo.
The obvious wealmess of assuming the former existen ce of an indepen-
dent paradigm *habi5, *-is, *-ip in Germanic is that a comparable present is
found nowhere else in Indo- European. (It is not impossible, of that
the thematic inflection of *hab- simply represents the replacement of an
earlier athematic type like that of Alb. karn '1 have < *kabhmi 01' *kapmi.)
Whatever the genesis of the strong forms of 'have', however, the hypothesis
of two distinct presents accords well with the facts in the case of 'say',
where the reconstruction of an independent *sagjan is supported by Lith.
and Serh. Ch. And while the expedient of assuming an
earher twofold paradlgm lS perhaps somewhat inelegant, it is at least
significant that fewer ad hoc assumptions are needed to explain the special
peculiarities of 'have' and 'say' under the analysis suggested aboye than
under the competing view that both verbs, like the membership ofthe third
weak class as a whole, were originally characterized by the alternation of
*-ai- and *-ja- within a single paradigm.
60. Forms pointing to a Gmc. 1 sg. *libji5, 3 pI. *libjanp, etc., like those
pointing to *habji5, habjanp, etc., are confined to Old Saxon and Old
English. EIsewhere in Germanic the inflection of 'live' is perfectly regular,
save for the infrequent appearance in Old Righ German of 2 sg. libis and
3 sg. libit; OSw. 2, 3 sg. livl1' beside l'iv'ir (as ifto 01 *lifr beside lifir) is almost
surely to be attributed to a secondal'y extension of the inflectional pattern
of 'have' in East N 01' se 23). Pro bably the only certain conclusion that can be
drawn from the West Germanic fOl'ms of 'live' is that this word has
everywhere shown a pronounced tendency to acquire new paradigms of a
synchronically deviant type. It is at least possible that ORG libit was
coined on the model of hebit and segit; favoring an early morphological
assimilation of 'live' to 'have' and 'say' might have been the fact that all
22) See Holthausen, Alts. El.2, 164. This differeilCe between 'have-' and 'say' has
never been e.xplain.ed. A different view is taken by J. Dishington, who in
a personal commumcatlOn pomts out that the absence of umlaut in h;;ebbe, habbi7
may simply reflect a desITe by Old English and Old Saxon speaker s to distinguish
these forms from hebbe, hebbiu '1 lift'.
23) For other such forms etc.) see Flasdieck, lOG, cit.
70
T
three verbs, together with *hugjan 'think, ponder' (class 1), originally had
irregular weak preterites with the phonologically marked clusters *-bd- and
*-gd- (cf. OS sagda, ho.gda, libd([, ORG hapta, hocta) 24). Although it is
e.asy channel for the reJ?lacement of, e. g., 3 sg.
by class H *Mop m Old Saxon and Old Enghsh (cf. 49), it is evident
that the mixed inflection of 'live' in thse languages casts considerable
doubt on the view that forms like 1 sg. OS libbt, OE libbe and F----3 pI. OE
libbap are genuine inheritances.
61. Thus, confused and ambiguous as the histories of 'have', 'say' and
'live' undoubtedly are, it is at the very least clear that these verbs do not
constitute real evidence against the view that the Common Germanic
__ class IH paradigm was of the Gothic-Scandinavian type, i. e., characterized
by th regular alternation of stem-forms in *-ai- and *-a-. On the other
hand, it is notable that scholars who have taken the opposite position and
claimed Germanic antiquity for the type *habji5, *-ais, *-aip have without
exception been unable to adduce a plausible motivation for the replace-
ment of*-ai-j*-ja- by *-ai-j*-a- in N orth and East Germanic. As mentioned
in 53, the usual explanation for the creation offorms like Go. haba, haband,
etc. and 01 vqknm, vaka, etc. has been to assume that Gothic and
Scandinavian systematically eliminated *-j- from the class nI paradigm
under the influence ofj-Iess forms like CGmc. 3 sg. *habaip, *wakaip, etc.
But this will not explain the special behavior of 'have' and 'say' in
Scandinavian, which differ both from other class nI verbs and from each
other; nor does it seem natural to suppose that if forms in *-ja- were felt to
be anomalous they would not simply have been replaced by forms with
*-ai- generalized from the 2 sg., 3 sg. and 2 pI., as happened independently
in Old Righ German and, in part, Old English (cf. 51).
On balance, therefore, the available evidence favors a reconstruction of
the present paradigm ofthe third weak class as sg. *habi5, *habais, *habaip,
pI. *habam, *habaip, *habanp, inf. *haban. In the following sections we shall
attempt to discover how this pattern originated.
62. As 52--6 have shown, attempts to copnect the paradigm of the
third weak class directly to the stative suffix *-13- 01' to one of its presumed
variants, have not in general been successfuI. It is important to note,
therefore, that forms such as the class nI 3 sg. in *-aip need not from a
diachronic point ofview reflect,the addition of a desinence *-p to a proper
suffix *-ai-, but may instead owe their origin to the historically redundant
suffixation of *-p to a well-formed 3 sg. in *-ai, already provided with a
desinence. Morphological renewals of this kind are not infrequent in lE
languages. We have already ( 47) called attention to the replacement of
Ved. duha, *saya by "thematic" dnhat, sayat, and to the similar
24) The status of these forms is discussed in 77 below,
71
------- ------------------
replacement of *1I-id by *1I-idt in the prehistory of the lE thematic aoristo
In Hittite the 3 sg. in -ai ofthematic can be remade to -aizzi, thus
falling together with the normal 3 sg. of (mi-conjugation) verbs in *-eh:ejo-
(= Brugmann's *-i'ijejo-): typical instances are tarni'iizzi beside tami'ii
'leaves', and iSkalli'ii beside iSkalli'iizzi 'rips up', the latter found in the
earlier and later recensions of the Laws, respectively25). Note also the type
parsiya--+parsiyazi discussed by Watkins, ldg. G1. III. 1, 102. Cases like
these are scarcely to be separated from such developments as the
replacement of the Vedic 3 pI. middle ending -ra by -ran 01'
-rata, the replacement of the inherited 2sg. middle in *-tha *thze) by
Ved. -thi'il" or the renewal ofthe 1 sg. middle ending *-r fJ.laas in Greek.
In Germanic two 3 sg. forms in *-aijJ for which an anlysis of this kind
suggests itself are *r:raijJ (val'. *rairaijJ) 'trembles' (cf. Go. reiran < *1'i'-,
OE ri'irian<*rai-) and *bibaijJ (val'. *bebaijJ, *b'ibaip) 'id.' (cf. OHG biben,
beben, OI bija, OSw bejjwa, OE bifian). It is usual to compare Go. 3 sg.
reiraijJ with Skt. leldyati 'swings, is unsteady'. The form lelyati, however,
is found no earlier than the Brahmanas, and is itself the replacement of an
earlier 3 sg. leldya (MS), a wholly anomalous creation which resembles an
intensive in reduplication but a perfect in inflection. (Compare perhaps
Hitt. asasi 'settles' beside esari 'sits'.) Similarly , the starting point for the
creation of Gmc. *bibaijJwas probably a perfect form similar to Ved.
bibhdya 'is afraid' (the lE prototype was presumably *bhebhih
x
e)26) rather
than a secondary present like, Ved. bibhti; the long vowel of the variant
*b'baijJ suggests that this verb too may have had byforms with intensive
reduplication 27).
The process by which forms like 3 sg. *reirihxe and *bhe(i)bhihxe were
replaced in Germanic by *r'raijJ and *bltbaijJ is not, to be sure, entirely clear.
The possibility cannot be excluded that the endings of the (athematic)
active were substituted at an early period for those of the perfect, in which
case *bibaijJ would represent a form precisely analogous to bibhti. It is at
least as simple, however, to suppose that *r'raijJ and *bltbaijJ were created in
the same way as leldyati, i. e., by the direct suffixation of *-jJ(i) or *-ti to an
already complete 3 sg. formo Once established in the verbal system of
Common Germanic, *r'raijJ and bltbaijJ were treated as normal classIII
forms and equipped with full classIII paradigms
28
).
25) This interpretation of tarnaizzi, etc. was first suggested by Watkins, Id(.
Gr.III. 1, 102.
26) The -i- ofthe first syIlable ofbibaip, of course, would have been phonologicaIly
regular before the *-bt(i)- of the plural forms.
27) This would accord weIl with the semantics of *bibaip. That >!<bibaip and bibhti
represent independent innovations was seen long ago by Wackernagel, Kl. Schr.,
305-9 [1907]. 1 am indebted to Hollifield for calling my attention to lelya.
28) PhonologicaIly, it would then be most natural to as sume that *-oihxe, 01' its
regular development *-aije, was extended to *-oihxeti (*-aijepi); this gave flrst
*-aijijJi, and subsequently, with the loss of *-j- before *-i-, *-aijJ.
72
63. The possibility of an analysis of this kind for the two verbs just
discussed, taken together with the results of the preceding chapter,
suggests a new approach to the problem ofthe third weak class as a whole.
In our study of the class III and IV presents of Tocharian we saw that
although the roots from which such presents are derived frequently
underlie e-statives elsewhere in Indo-European, the Tocharian forms
themselves ultimately represent transformations of the lE middle root
aoristo It is thus not possible to refer Toch. B o8otiir 'turns dry' and Lat.
1iYere, 01' Toch: B wokotiir 'splits, opens (intr.)' and Gk. to a single
original paradigm; the existence of these and similar pairs simply reflects
the fact that many roots which formed a stative stem in *-e- in late Indo-
European denoted the punctual entry of a subject into a state, and thus
also served' as the basis for a middle root aorist, together with suoh
formations as, e. g., a stative perfect and an "intransitive" present in *-jejo-
(cf. 3,9). In principIe, there is no reason why the relationship ofthe third
weak class to categories su eh as the Latin statives in -e- 01' the Greek
intransitive aorists in -'r- cannot be of this kind also: correspondences like
Gmc. *lubaijJ: Lat. lubet, OHG dagen: Lat. tacere, and OHG ji1'-monen: Gk.
can as easily be explained by assuming that the lE prototype of
Gmc. *-ai- and the stative suffix *-e- tended to be associated with the same
roots, as by supposing that Gmc. *-ai-, Lat. -e- and Gk. -'r- were originally
mere variants of one and the same underlying morpheme
29
).
In my view, an earlier version of which was set forth in Lg.49, 850ff.
(1973), the class III 3 sg. in *-aijJ is ultimately to be analyzed as a 3 sg.
middle in *-ai < *-oi, secondarily reinterpreted as part of the verbal stem
and suffixed by the 3 sg. active ending *-jJ. In the following sections we shall
attempt to identify the lE middle formations which can plausibly be
viewed as having undergone this renewal, and to show how the replacement
of *-ai by *-aijJ in the 3 sg. can ultimately have led to the establishment of
the class III paradigm in its Common Germanic formo
64. The Gothic and West Germanic preterito-present *dugan, 3 sg.
*daug 'be fit, be strong, taugen' (cf. Go. dugan, daug, OHG tugan, toug, OE
dU3an, dea3) is not found in Scandinavian; its place is taken in Old Icelandic
by the class III weak verb duga, 2, 3 sg. dugir *dugai8, *-aip), which in
part continues the sense of the old preterito-present, but in part has the
non-stative meaning 'help, render assistance'. The etymology of these
forms has been discussed by Meid, Da8 germ. Praet., 24-5, who has
established their connection with the lE root *dheugh- 'give forth as a
benefit, Ertrag produzieren'.
Outside Germanic, primary verbs from this root are found in Greek
('l'e:Xw, 'l'Unvw) and Indic (3 sg. duh 'gives milk; milks'). Neither Gk. 'l'e:xw
nor 'l'U'YXvw is likely to continue an inherited present: 'l'e:xw, which
29) This was seen very clearly by Kurylowicz, Infl. Oat., 82.
73
resembles secondary thematic forms such as Aebtw, Tp1tw, Tpcro[J.cu, etc.,
lacks an exact counterpart in Vedic 01' Germanic; Tunvw, like other
"double nasal" presents in Greek, is probablrc a late formation on the basis
ofthe corresponding thematic aorist (huxov) 0). The archaic morphology of
Ved. duh on the other hand (3 sg. mido - for -t, 3 pl. duhT beside duhat,
etc.), identifies it as a form ofIE antiquity; the associated active dgdhi s
later, being confined in the Rigveda to a of3 sg. dho.k (4'.1?
7), and to fourteen 3 ,WhICh _owe th81r
to the influence of the actIve partIClple d1lhant- ( = d1lhana-; cf. 39) ).
For Indo-European we may reconstruct an athematic 3 sg. *dhugh(T)
the immediate precursor of duh; su eh a form may also haveplayed a role m
the creation ofthe pre-Greek thematc aorist *dhught (> cf. 47,
100). Together with the perfect *(dhe)dh1lghe (> Gmc. *da1lg), *dhugh(r)
is the only 3 sg. form which may be assumed for the verbal system of the
earliest pre-Germanic.
65. The form *d1lgC(ip is most simply regarded asthe in *-p
earlier *d1lgai, a 3 sg. middle comparable to Ved. d1lhe l. In ltself thlS
analysis need not have a bearing on the interpretation of the third class as
a whole: the complete formal overlap of *d'ugan, *-aip with class In verbs
such as, e. g., *wakan, *-aip could in principIe be explained by supposing
that *dugan was morphologically assimilated to *wakan after the seconda-
ry coincidence ofthe two verbs in the 3 sg. On the other hand, we have seen
in 52----6 that traditional attempts to derive the inflection of *wakan and
other statives from an earlier type in *-e- have proved unworkable on both
phonological and morphological grounds. It is thus of
that the paradigm of the third weak class can be explamed as a dlrect
transformation of the athematic middle type to which 3 sg. * d1lgCti , like
duh, must originally have belonged.
Letus assume that at a stage ofpre-Germanicprior to the loss ofthe non-
passive middle the ancestor of olass nI *dugan had a present of the
following type 33) :
30) The semantic difference between Texw and TUYXvw is largely to be explained
from the "reciproca!" sense of the root *dheugh-, which dou btless mean t 'receive (as
a product)' as well as 'produce' in the parent language. Cf. Benveniste, Probo de ling.
gn., 315-26 [1951).
31) The other form which must have played a role in the creation of d1thnti was
the "active" imperfect dthat ( = dtha + t); d1/,hat and d'zhntiin turn gave rise to
occasional class VI transfer forrns in the later language.
32) That the primary rniddle endings in Germanic were characterized by .*-i
rather than *-r is shown by the Gothic passive endings -ada, -aza and -anda, WhICh
continue *-ada1:, *-azai and *-anda,i. .
33) 1 have, of course, no way of establishing a relative chronology of the
morphological changes to be discussed in this section with respect to Grimrn's Law
and Verner's Law. The argument would in no way be affected ifwe wrote *dhugh-
for *dug-, *-'(ftoi fOl' *-ttndai, etc.
74
sg.l *dugai (cf. Ved. -l
2 *d1lhtai (cf. Hitt. -(t)ta, Ved. secondary -tMilp)
3 *d1lgai (= Ved. d1th)
pl. 1 *dugm- 34)
2 *d1tgd- 34)
3 *d1lg1mdai or *d1tgmi (cf. Ved. d1that, d1lhr)
Such a paradigm could not have survved indefmitely: the complete
absence ofrecognizable deponents in Common Germanic makes it virtually
certain that the above forms would eventually have been restructurecl as
actives 01' eliminated entirely from the language. We have suggested that
the former was the course acloptecl: the obsolescent 3 sg. ending *-ai was
reinterpretecl .as a' bare stem-vowel ancl enlargecl by the *-p of the 3 sg.
active 3,,). In view of the absolute regularity with whch the 3 sg. of the
Germanic present agrees in preclesinential vocalism with the 2 sg. ancl2 pl.,
it s very probable that ths renewal woulcl in turn have entailecl the
creation of a parallel 2 sg. *d1lgais ancl 2pl. *dugailJ *-pe).
How the 1 sg., 1 pI. and 3 pI. might have acquirecl active enclings is less
olear. Ifthereplacement of*-ai by *-a'ip in the 3 sg. hacl been the inital step
in the "activization" of *d1lgan, we should perhaps have expectecl that the
new stem *d1lgai- woulcl be generalized throughout the paracligm, giving
rise to forms like 1 sg. *dugai, 1 pI. *d'ugaim, 3 pl. *dugainp (cf. class n 1 sg.
*salbo, 1 pI. *salbom, 3 pl. *salbonp, with *-0- as in 3 sg. *salbojJ). But it is
equally possible that the creation of *dugaijJ occurrecl at a comparatively
late stage in the elimination of the miclclle paracligm. In the 1 sg., the
inherited form *d1lgai was homonymous with the 3 sg.; here, as Hollifielcl
has pointed out to me (personal cmmunication; cf. 78), *-ai coulcl easily
have been directly replaced by the active encling *-0, which characterized
the great majority of 1 sg. presents in Germanic. Similarly, the substituton
of 3 pI. *duganp for *d1tgrai (01' *dug1tndai) may have been triggered by the
presence of an archaic nt-participle *dugand- 36); the ?f
would then be precisely analogous to that of Ved. besIcle d1thant-
(cf. 64) ancl, mutatismutand1:s, Toch. A 3pl. Titwec beside ptcp.1'itwant (cf.
39). If active forms such as 1 sg. *dugo and 3 pl. *duganp already belongecl
to the paracligm of *d1tgan when *dugai was replacecl by the new 3 sg.
*d1lgailJ, it would not be clifficult to unclerstancl why the analogcal spread
of the stem *dugai- was restrcted to the 2 sg. and 2 pI.
37
).
34) It may be supposed that Germanic once had plural endings ofthe type seen in
Ved. pI. 1 -l1wh, 2 -dhv, Gk, -J.eeot, -creE. Since we cannot be sure of the forrns of
these endings in Indo-European 1 have left them unspecified.
35) Pre-Grnc. *-ai hadno doubt already been replaced by *-dai *-toi) in sorne of
its original functions.
36) On the status of *d1lgand- see 75.
37) Note the typologically similar spread ofthernatization in the frrst person of
the Slavic aorist: 1 sg. delax'b < *-som, duo delaxove < *-soye, pI. delaxom'b < *-somos,
but 3 sg. dela < *-s(t), duo delaste < *-ste, pI. < *-S'(ft.
75
-
As we shaIl see below, further light is shed on the remodeling of the
athematic middle in Germanic by the history of the weak preterite. The
aboye account, however, has been sufficient to demonstrate the theoretical
possibility that the *-ai-j*-a- stem vowel characteristic of the third weak
class reflects not an etymological suffix, but a morphological process
whereby active desinences were adjoined to 01' substituted for their
obsolete middle counterparts. In the last analysis, the practical signifi-
cance ofthis possibility must depend on the extent to which class III verbs
other than *dugan can be compared with semantically appropriate middle
forms elsewhere in Indo-European. As it happens, pairs like Gmc. *dugaip
and Ved. are by no means isolated.
66. Under the analysis just proposed the paradigm of *dugan represents
a transformaton of an athematic middle type similar to that presupposed
by Toch. A parkatar (III) 'goes up', B lyuketar (III) 'shines', B wolcotar (IV)
'splits, breaks' and similar forms. The two formations differ in only one
respect: while it was seen in ch. 2 that the Tocharian forms are ultimately
based on inherited root aorists, pre-Gmc. *dugai and Ved. duh can most
directly bereferred to an lE present *dhngh(r). The status ofthis form will
be discussed further in 100.
By way of digression, it may be noted that originally deponent aorist
presents ofthe Tocharian type are also represented in Germanic, but only
as a marginal class. The clearest example is probably *-aip 'follow'
(cf. ORGfolgen, OSw. sg.folger (: OIhapaxfnlger, Flasdieck, 59), further
OS folgon, OE fol3ian, with the characteristic transfer from classIII to
class II). In the absence of a better etymology, 1 would submit that this
word is cognate with Ved. sprs- 'touch' (pres. sprsti), which means 'reach
out' in RV 4.4.2 tva bhmmsa isuy patanty mt sPl"sa dhrfjat ssncinalt,
translated by Geldner 'deine Lohen fliegen schneIl, greif mutig zu, hell
flammend' ; compare also the compounds nparispts- 'towering' and l"taspts-
'pursuing, practicing rta-'. Although no root aorist of spis- is actually
attested, the class VI present spl"sti presupposes a thematic injunctive
*sprst and is thus probably ultimately referrable to an athematic 3 sg.
form in *-e 01' *-0 (c. 47, 100). For Indo-European we mayreconstruct a
3 sg. aorist middle * (s)plf
38
) ; at an early stage ofpre-Germanic such a form
evidently served as the starting-point for the creation of an aorist present
*p[ki, which in turn became the immediate source of *fnlgaip39). A
different present formation is reflected in the class 1 weak verb *fnlgjan (01
fylgja, OE fyl3(e)an), originally a jejo-present of the fLdvOfL<XL-type; the
3H) Whether was here original or the replacement of earlier *-e is immaterial
for the present argument; as we have seen already, *-e was everywhere replaced by
*-0 (01' *-to) in forms which continued to function synchronically as middles.
39) The Old English preterite full eode 'followed' rests on a misinterpretation of
3sg. *fulgaiP as a compound of 3sg. *gaiP 'goes'.
76
relationship of *fnlgjan, *-ip to *-aip is precisely the same as that
of Ritt. par'kiya- to Toch. A parkatar ( 33). Outside Germanic and Indo-
Iranian the root *(s)pelk- 'reach for, strive' is found also in Toch. B spilk-
'be eager, strive' (A spiltk- with secondary -tk-; c. also B speltke
'eagerness') 40). Gmc. *fnlgan, Ved. sPl"S- and Toch. *spil(t)k- share the
syntactic peculiarity of governing an object in the locative (= Germ.
dative) case.
67. CGmc. *dugan, *-aip is one of an archaic group of class III verbs built
to roots which al so underlie preterito-presents (cf. Go. dang, etc.). The
other mem bers of this group, which are discussed at length by W aguer, e-
Verba 7ff.; are '*mnnan, *-aip (Go. munan 'intend, wish', ORG fir-monen
'despise'; c. Go. man '1 think', etc.), *witan, *-aip (Go. witan 'observe', OE
be-witian (II < III) 'id.', ORG gi-, ir-wizzen 'be capable'; cf. Go. wait '1
know', etc.), *parban, *-aip (Go. ga-parban sik 'abstain' [with 3sg. -ip
erroneously for -aip, 1 COl'. 9. 25], ORG dat'ben 'lack', OS tharbon (II < III)
'id.', c. Go. pa.rf '1 need', etc.), *kunnan, *-aip (Go. ga-lcunnan 'recognize',
ORG knnnM 'id.'; cf. Go. kann '1 lmow how', etc.), perhaps also *magan,
*-aip (ORG magen 'be able', OE ma3ian (II <III) 'prevail' ; cf. G<? mag '1
can', etc.)41).
The analysis of *dugaip presented aboye makes it a priori likely that the
synchronically parallel forms *parbaip,. *lc,,!,nn(1) and
*magaip reflect remodelings of a similar kmd. ThIS expectatlOn lS borne out
by a considerable body of comparative evidence.
68. The forms of the root *men- 'bring to mind, remember' reconstruct-
ible for Indo-European include a deponent jejo-present (Ved. mnyate, Glr.
fL<x1vofL<XL, 011'. dO'moin1tr), a deponentroot aorist (Ved. mata, GAv. man,ti)
and a stative perfect (Gk. fLfLoV<X, Lat. memin'i, Go. man), the latter bemg
the only "active" form traceable to the parent \c. 3). In
principIe it would thus be reasonable enough to seek a denvatlOn of Gmc.
*mnnaip from an earlier 3 sg. middle in *-a'i < *-oi; no other attested
language, however, offers any evidence of a deponent root from
which pre-Germanic could have inherited a 3 sg. *mnnai. Alternatlvely,
might attempt to explain *mnnai as an aorist pre.-Gmc.
( 66), but the stative meaning of *mnnan, m the hlstoncal Germamc
languages would not at first glance favor such an
On the other hand, it is significant that the root *men- lS one ofthe very
few for which it is possible to reconstruct a perfect middle in Indo-
40) It is simplest to assume that CToch. *-ltk- was reduced to *-lk- in Toch, B. The
vocalism of the Tocharian forms is problematic.
41) 1 omit the pair 01 ask 'fear': Go. ogan 'id.', since only of the
Scandinavian verb shows classIIl forms (cf. 77). Go. 7magands unafrald ,on the
. t d * *'" other hand, perhaps does reflect an otherwlse unattes e agan, -aty .
77
d
European: a 3 sg. *(me)mnl' (*-i) isdirectly 01' indirectly attested in Indo-
Iranian, Greek and Celtic, the only three branches of the family in which
the perfect middle occurs as an autonomous category. IIr. *mamnai is
attested as the perfect of *manyatai twice in the Rigveda (2 duo mamnthe
7.93.6, 3 duo mamnCite 7.31. 7) and, significantly, no fewer than four times
in Avestan (Gathic 3 duo mamanaite Y. 13.4, YAyo 3 sg. mamne P. 18, 25,
ptcp. mamnanai Yt.13. 88), where the perfect middle is far less productive
than in Vedic. N either Indic nor Iranian has a corresponding perfect active.
In Old Irish the suffixless preterite of dO'moinethar is dO'mnair, which
appears to reflect a pre-Celtic 3 sg. *memnor, with analogical palatalization
of the final consonant; cf. Watkins, ldg. Gmm. lII. 1, 222, and note 44
below. Greek attests the perfect middle of *men- in the form fLfLv'I)'t'OCL,
showing the apparent substitution of the set zero-grade -fLV'l)- for ghonologi-
cally regular -fLOC-, as in the corresponding present ). From a
functional point of view, it is of interest that *(me)mnr (*-i) is
synchronically associated with apresen t in all three branches of the family;
in this respect it differs characteristically from the perfect active
*(me)mne, which functions as an independent lexical item in Gk. fLfLoVE,
Lat. meminit and Go. mano It would probably not be far off the mark to
suppose that this was already the situation in late Indo-European, and
that *(me)mnr was originally created to fill the structural gap caused by
the seman tic divergence of the inherited perfect * (me )mne and the presen t
*mn-ij-.
assumption of an lE perfect middle *(me)mnr permits a simple
formal and functional explanation of Gmc. *munaiP. Since reduplication is
ordinarily lost in the Germanic perfect system, the expected pre-Germanic
reflex of this form would have been *munai 'remembers, thinks, intends',
with the zero-grade *mun- (for *mn-) either generalized from anteconso-
nantal position 01' regularly derived from a variant *m'ftni (by
"Lindeman's Law", cf. NTS20, 38-108 [1965]). As in Indo-Iranian, the
retention of the dentalless ending *-oi in the 3 sg. of the perfect middle can
presumably be attributed to the absence of a dental in the corresponding
active ending *_
3
). The inflection of *(me)mnr in late Indo-European
would have been identical with that of *dhughr; the same analogical
42) Such substitutions are common in Greek. They are in part to be explained
from the fact that since and an1:t roots commonly had antevocalic zero-grades Qf
the same structure (TaR-), their anteconsona:t!tal zero-grades (T1;l- fol' anit, TRA-
for set roots) tended to be equated also. TRA-, which spread in this way to anit
roots, was subsequently extended to antevocalic environments also. The productiv-
ity of such zero-grades is nicely illustl'ated by the presents 8v-ncrxw and (Aeolic)
which have apparently replaced earlier *6IXv(crxw(set root) and
(01' anit root), respectively.
43) In Common Greek, of course, -TOL (> -TIXL) was extended to aH middle
paradigms with primary endings.
78
'r
I
1
I
developments may be assumed for the paradigm of Gmc. *munan, *-aiP as
for that of *dugan, *-aiP.
69. This analysis can be extended without difficulty to *witan, *-aiP.
For the root *'l}eid- too there is reason to suppose the existence of a perfect
middle in late Indo-European. The Vedic form vid, though listed by
Grassmann as a present of vid- 'find', has been shown by Renou, Val. du
parj., 155ff., to bethe 3 sg. middle corresponding to vda 'knows'; although
the two forms are not consistently distinguished in meaning, vid is
sometimes passive, and has a specifically medial nuance in such passages as
7.40.5 vid h rudr rudryam mahitrm 'Rudra connait en effet la grandeur
propre a Rudra;'. The Rigveda contains eighteen occurrences of vid, to
which may be added more than twenty instances ofthe participle vidCin-
(vdana-) , three of 2sg. vitse and two of 3pI. vidr. Even though no
equivalents of these forms are quotable from Iranian, they are clearly
archaic: it is instructive, e. g., to note the formulaic use ofthe phrase yath
vid 'as one lmows, as is known', which is attested six times in the Rigveda,
always in pada-final position. In both structure and meaning, moreover,
vid strongly recalls the Old Irish preterito-present ro'fitir 'knows' (1 sg.
ro'fetar). The latter verb presents well-known difficulties: both the root
vocalism and the unlenited -d- of 'fitir point to an immediate preform
*widr' < *widri 01' *widre, while a perfect middle of the expected type
(*widor) would hav yielded OIr. *'fedar. Thurneysen, OIGr., 436, has
suggested that the Old Irish paradigm was remodeled on the basis of a 3 pI.
form akin to Ved. vidr; alternatively, it is not impossible that an inherited
*widor was remade to *widri under the influence of the 3 sg. deponent
ending *-tri (cf. 46)44). Whichever analysis is ultimately preferred, it is
difficult to escape the conclusion that the inflection of ro'fit1' must in the
last analysis be derived from an athematic middle type similar to that of
vid
45
).
From a formal point of view, of course, the development of to
*witaip in Germanic would exactly duplicate that of *dhughr and
*(me)mnl' to *dugaip and *munaiP. The semantic link between *witan,
*-aiP and the perfect middle forms ofIndic and Celtic is clearest in ORG gi-
wizzen 'be capable (+ gen.)', the intransitive value of which recalls the
frequent use ofVed. vidiin- (vdana-) in the absolute sense 'wise'46). Go.
44) MW g(vyr 'Imows' points ultimately to the same preform as fiti?', cf. Meid,
t. Celt. 13, 346--7 (1972).
45) The synchronic association of ro . fitir with the present ro finnadar 'gets to
know' recaHs that of do mnair with do' moinethar. Nowhere in Indo-European, on
the othel' hand, is the active pel'fect *J!ide synchronicalIy associated with a
presento
46) The "active" participle is also employed absolutely, but its
Germanic cognate has been specialized in a different meaning (cf. Go. weitwops
'witness').
79
witan, -aiP 'observe, watch (+ dat.)' is similarly intransitive, but has
durative, rather than stative meaning; for a possible explanation see
72, note 51.
70. Of the remaining class III verbs associated with preterito-presents,
Gmc. *pa1'ban, *-aiP shows an aberrant o-grade ofthe root, which precludes
the possibility of a direct equation with the Vedic perfect middle
tiill'p < trp- 'become sated'. It is striking, however, that * pa1'ban agrees
exactly in vocalism with the Toch. A class IV present tsa1'watii1' 'is
confident' < *tOl'potOl', a form tentatively analyzed aboye as continuing an
lE acrostatic present *t01'p-j*te1p- ( 38). In theory, the possibility cannot
be excluded that the Germanic and Tocharian verbs represent completely
independent creations, and that *parban is a denominative formation
based on *pal'bo 'necessity' (= Go. pal'ba) 01' *Par'ba- 'necessary' (= Go.
pal'bs). Yet neither the semantics of *pa1'ban nor its obvious structural
parallelism with *munan, *-aip, *witan, *-aiP, etc. speak in favor of such a
view
47
); it is simpler to suppose that the Germanic and Tocharian forms
reflect a single present middle paradigm of lE antiquity. See further 72.
Little can be verified about the prehistory of Gmc. *magan, *-aip 'be
strong'; indeed, the very legitimacy of assuming such a verb for Oommon
Germanic on the strength of ORG magen and OE ma3ian (class lI) is not
entirely beyond question. Yet it is difficult to see how these forms could
have been created on the basis of the preterito-present *mag in post-
Germanic times, and correspondingly attractive to consider the possibility
that, whatever their status at the lE level, an active perfect *mag
*mage) and a middle 3 sg. *magai existed side by side in the verbal
system of pre-Germanic
48
).
The relationship ofthe third class verb *kunnan, *-aiP to the preterito-
present *kann is discussed in 73.
71. The explanation just proposed for *munan, *-aiP, *witan, *-aip,
* *-aiP and *magan, *-aiP depends critically on the assumption that
47) Although *-0- originally characterized only the strong forms of the inherited
paradigm, the root vocalism of late lE *torpor (for expected *terpor) can be
understood if we assume, as suggested in ch. 2, note 33, that presents of this type
were originally "deponent", i. e., that like thematic presents, they ended in *-e,
rather than *-ti, in the 3 sg. With the synchronic reinterpretation of *-e as an active
ending (45), it would have become possible for *-0 to be substituted for *-e informs
with overtly middle value: in this way *bhem(r) was introduced as the new middle
corresponding to 3 sg. *bhel'e, and *torpo(r) became the middle counterpart of
*torpe.
Gmc. *pm'ban, *-aiP must be carefully distinguished from 01 parfa (II) 'be
necessary', which represents a true denominative * parbon.
48) There is no semantic justification, however, for supposing a historie al
connection between *magaip and Ved. mamah (5 x ), which consistently appears to
mean 'granted'.
80
ya
the perfect middle was already present as a category in late Indo-
European. In recent years this assumption has been questioned by a
growingnumber ofscholars (see, e. g.,Kurylowicz, Infl. Cat., 63), whohave
taken the late extension of the perfect middle in Indo-Iranian and Greek
(cf. 4) to indicate a post-IE origin for the formation as a whole. In fact,
however, it is often difficult to distinguish a category which has been
independently innovated in several lE languages from one which was
marginally present in the proto-Ianguage and independently elaborated in
the dialectal periodo The equations Av. mamne = Gk. = 011'.
'mnail' and Ved. vid = 011'. fitil' constitute strongpr'imafacie evidnce for
assuming at least two perfect middles for late Indo-European; to the
extent that tlie account given aboye ofGmc. *munaip and *witaip provides
a simpler and less al' bitrary explanation for these forms than the theories
surveyed in 52----6, Germanic may without circularity be said to
contribute to the same conclusion.
Taking the lE status of *(me)mnl' and *Uidl' as given it is natural to
suppose further that, as in Indo-Iranian, Greek and to a lesser extent
Oeltic, the perfect middle underwent a period of secondary expansion in the
early history of Germanic. Such a conjecture cannot be verified directly; it
can be made plausible, however, by showing that a munber of third class
verbs correspond etymologically to lE roots of a type which proved
favorable to the creation of new perfect middles elsewhere in the family.
In the attested forms of Indo-Iranian and Greek, the perfect middle is a
fully established constituent of the verbal system, and new perfect middles
may be created at any time by applying the middle endings to the
appropriate (originally zero-grade) form of an already existing perfect
stem. It is of considerable interest, however, that in certain lexical items an
early channel for the introduction of a finite perfect middle paradigm
appears to have been the perfect middle participle. The clearest such case in
Indo-Iranian is that of the root jur- 'enjoy', which furnishes twelve
Rigvedic occurrences of the participle jnjuriirt-, and no more than three of
3 sg.j7ljur, the only other attested perfect middle form; in the active, on
the other hand, 3 sg.jnjra, 3 pI.jnjurlp and 3 sg. subjunctivejjorati, etc.
appear more than twenty-five times, while the participlejujurvln is found
only twice. A similar, ifless dramatic, pattern can also be observed in forms
such as tiitl'riirt- (4 x ), tatl'riirt- (1 x) vS. 3 pI. tiitrrlp (1 x) trr- 'thirst')
and bubudhiin- (3 x ) vs. bbodhati, etc. (3 x) budh- 'awake'); further
examples are given by Renou, op. cit., ch. 6. Distributions like these are
doubtless related to the fact that, descriptively, tiill'riirt- and
bubudhiin- are merely reduplicated variants of the shorter participles
juriirt- (34 x ), tl'riirt- (4 x) and budhiin- (3 x), with which they agree
completely in function
49
). The latter forms, though historically associated
49) On the value ofthe aorist participle in -ana- see the references cited by Renou,
op. cit., 137.
with the root aorist, were evidently reinterpreted in Vedic as formally
aberrant members of the perfect system, and were secondarily provided
with reduplication in consequence of their stative meaning. For a similar
development, compare the anomalous participle sasayan-, found twice
beside regular syana-(18 x) (: preso sye 'lies').
Although the matter will not be pursued in detail here, it may be
conjectured that the relative prominence of the perfect middle parti?iple
and pluperfect middle in Greek (cf. the pattern
: : e:'LfLIXPTo, and the discussion by Chantraine, Hist. d1t parf.
gr., 54ff.) ultimately reflects a similar introduction of reduplication into
the participle, and later the indicative, of the middle root aoristo Thus, it is '
possible that a form such as was originally stative (perhaps
meaning 'lying' ; cf. 33, 95), and that in this value it was renewed by its
reduplicated counterpart Subsequently, with the systematic
extension of the present: aorist opposition throughout the non-finite
paradigm of the Greek verb, an opposition could naturally have arisen
between (stative) and (punctual); the contrast between
these forms would then have served as the starting point for the creation of
a stative preterite (pluperfect) beside the aorist
72. The purpose ofthis excursus has been to show that in Vedic Sanskrit
and perhaps also in Greek, new perfect middles were created in two
important ways: by supplying an older perfect active with middle forms,
and by providing an older middle root aorist with reduplication. In
principIe, either 01' both processes could have played a role in the extension
of the perfect middle in early pre-Germanic: it should be noted in
particular, however, that the loss ofreduplication in the Germanic perfect
system would have rendered the synchronic relationship of the perfect
middle and the root aorist especially close, since it had the effect of merging
the two categories in all their modal and participial forms
51
).
At least ,three further class III verbs are referrable to roots for which the
assumption of a perfect 01' middle root aorist in Indo-European is probable
01' certain; their presents can thus reasonably be derived from perfect
middles created in early pre-Germanic, if not lE times:
50) The accentual difference between and of course, must be
seconda1'Y in any case.
51) Indeed, the rarity ofmodal forms ofthe perfect middle in Indo-Iranian even
suggests the possibility that the subjunctive and optative of the perfect middle
were supplied by unreduplicated, i. e., root ao1'ist forms in Indo-European. The
early convergence of the two categories may also be responsible for the twofold
semantic va.Iue (stative and non-stative) of class III p1'esents like *witan, *-aip, the
sense of which in Gothic ('observe') is perhaps best explained on the basis of a middle
1'oot aorist 3 sg. y,id 'noticed'. Cf. 101.
82
r

*liban, *-aip 'live' (Go. liban, 01 lija, ORG leb'f'n, OS, OE *libjan): a
middle root aorist is directly indicated by the Toch. B class In present
lipetii'i' 'remains over', refiecting a 3sg. *lip(r) (cf. 34).
*wunan, *-w) 'be content, stay' (Go. *wwwn (in 7lnwunands 'dissatis-
fied'), 01 una, ORGwonen, OE wunia.n (lI, with traces oflII; cf. Flasdieck,
58)): the Vedic impv. 2 sg. attested five times in the Rigveda,
should probably be regarded as a root aorist; while a sigmatic interpreta-
tion is also possible, the only other Rigvedic instances of an 8-aol'ist
imperative in -sva are the doubtful hapax sk<$va, 3.37.7, andrti8va, taken
by Narten, 8igm. Aor., as a "medialization" of 2 sg. acto 1'tiS1;r,2).
Indirect evidence for a 1'001, aorist is also furnished by the class VI opto 1 pI.
vanma ,and' subj. 3sg. vantiti (cf. 66, 100); note further vantct,
RV 1. 139. 10, rendered by Geldner as 3 sg. 'el' beansprucht' rather than as a
syncopated 3 pI. (for *vanata 01' The corresponding perfect is
found in the Ga,thic Avestan participle vaunus (nt. sg.) 'flehentlich',
y. 28. 8.
*pulan, *-a'ip 'endure' (Go. pulan, 01 pola, ORG do len , OE J)olian (lI,
with traces of lII: cf. Flasdieck, 56): an lE perfect is indicated by Gk.
1AlXfLe:v, TT/\'I)U'IX, etc. and OLat. tetul'i; likewise inherited is the 1'001, aorist
hAa, although middle forms of the type *(s)T/\aTo ( < are nowhere
directly attested.
A number of other class III verbs may belong here also, although the
details of their morphological pl'ehistory are less clear. A representative
example is *l71ban, *-aip (cf. Go. lubw:n8 Chope'), the Germanic cognate of
Lat.lubere and Ved.lbhyati 'desil'es eagerly' (AV). No old aorist oftheroot
*leubh- survives in Vedic; it is by no means impossible, however, that like
other zero-grade presents in -ya-, lbhya was originally associated with a
middle 1'001, aorist, to which it stood in the same relation as, e. g., tl'flyati 1,0
tr<$a1]-, mnyate 1,0 mata and bdhyate to budhan-.
The o-grade root vocalism ofGmc. *hangan, *-aiJ 'hang (intr.)' (cf. Go.
hahan, 01 hanga, ORG hange:n) might at first glance suggest a connection
with the pe1'fect for this ver b as wel1. We have already noted (cf. ch. 2, note
42), however, that the related Sanskrit verb, sa1ikate 'doubts, hesitates'
was pro bably originally an athematic present; for the prehistoric renewal
* sa1ike compare the repla,cement of athematic stve 'is praised' by
stvate in historical times. It seems attractive, therefore, to reconstruct a
3 sg. middle *konkor, an indirect trace of which can perhaps be identified in
';2) Narten herself, however, takes v'J,sva as sigmatic (p. 235).
53) The root van- has both and anit forms (cf. N a1'ten, loe. cit.); vCf.1{a, if
genuinely a 3 sg. root aorist, could in principIe represent either an old *llnto (aniO 01'
the replacement of an eal'lier *vana<*y,1Jhx- (set). Whethe1' 01' not a middle 1'oot
aorist is actually attested in Vedic, of course, the significant fact is that such a form
probably did exist in the parent language.
83
Hittite (43)54). The prefrm *fConkol' , f curse,
cmparisn with3 sg. *tOl'pOl', the assumed *parbafp.( 70); lf
ur interpretatin f this frm as an ac!statlC IS It wuld
fllw that the active cunterpart f *konkol' was *k6nke, ngma!ly a 3 sg.
in *-e fthe type discussed in nte 47 abve. Pro. bable reflexes f *k6nke can
be seen in Hitt. kanki 'hangs (tr.)' and Gmc. *hanhip, G. hahip 'id.': nte
that under this analysis the cntrast between *hanhip and *hangaip wuld
simply reflect an riginal difference f vice 55).
73. A final grup f Germanic frms in which the 3 sg. ending *-aip is
mst simply analyzed as *-ai + *-p are the nasal presents with class III
inflectin, the clearest examples f which are *kunnan, '*-aip 'recgnize'
(G. ana-, at-, get-, ORG kunnen), *liznan, *-a.ip 'learn' (ORG
limen, lemen, O E leomian (H, with traces fIII; cf. Flasdieck, 48-9)) and
*Mina.n, *-nip 'lean' (ORG Minen, OE Minian (HjIII; cf. Flasdieck,
8)). AIs fthis type, thugh with unambiguus third c1ass frms nly in
Old High German, are *ginnn, *-aip 'yawn' (ORG ginen; cf. OE 3ininn, OS
ginon (II)) and *-niP 'grieve' (ORG momen; cf. G. mn1.tmnn
(stem ttested), 01 momn, OS momon (H)); further examples
are given by Flasdieck, 140ff.
The surce f the class HI paradigm in these verbs, which is c1early f
Cmmn Germanic date (cf. Wissmann, Nominn postverbnlin, 141ff.) is
prblema,tic. J. Schmidt's recnstructin f an lE nasal present type in
*-na'i- (Festgntj3 Roth, 179), whence in certain envirnments Gmc. *-nni-,
can no. lnger be seriusly entertained. Nor is there any likelihd that
Gmc. *-naip can be explained n the basis f an lE nasal class in 3 sg.
*-ntli < *-nh}ti: nt nly is it difficult t envisage hw an ending f this
shape culd have yielded -naip, but there is no. evidence that Ind-
Eurpean ever pssessed such frms except in nasal infix presents t rts
in *-hj (e. g., in *pI-n-h-ti 'fills' < *plehr)fl6). The pssibility that verbs like
54) Similar1y, Lat. c7mctor, -arimay be based o.n a 1o.stdepo.nent *concoT, *-i 'hang
(intr.)'. '. .
55) The accentuatio.n o.f *torpoT and *konkor has dehberate1y been left unspeCl-
fied. Altho.ugh we sho.uld have expected these fo.rms to. sho.w ro.o.t accentuatio.n,
*jJarbaijJ and *hangaijJ clearly co.ntinue o.xyto.ne prefo.rms. It is pro.bably simplest to.
suppo.se that at so.me po.int in the prehisto.ry o.f Germanic )nherited *trpol' and
*fnkor, 0.1' their co.ntinuants, were remade to. *torpr and *konkl' o.n the mo.del o.f
o.ther athematic middle fo.rms.
Superficially similar to. *jJarban and *hangan are the o-grade class III verba
*sagan and *wakan 'wake'. The vo.calism o.f *sagan, ho.wever, may reflect the
influence o.fthe iterative-causative *sagjan; that o.f *wakan canno.t be separated
fro.m the o-grade o.f the underlying adjective *wakraz (= Gel'. wacker).
56) To. be sure, it is no.t unthinkable that the ro.o.t o.f*kwnnaijJ was o.fthis shape;
Lindeman, NTS24, 7-12 (1971), has attempted to. establish *h
1
as the fmal
laryngeal o.f "classical" lE *gnii- o.n the strength o.f Hitt. gane8zi 'reco.gnizes'. But
there is no. po.ssibilty o.f ro.o.t-fmal *h
1
in the o.ther presents in *-naijJ.
84
*lcunnnn riginally frmed presents in *-no- ( < *-na- < *-neh
z
-) which were
secndarily transferred t the third class is remte; the nly nasal presents
which seem t have been prductive in Germanic times belng t the
inchative type seen, e. g., in G. ga-wa.knan, -nip, pret. -nada 'wake up' and
01 vakna (II) 'id.'.
A characteristic feature f nearly all Germanic nasal presents is their
ingressive 0.1' durative functin. Mst are als intransitive: in additin t
the frms already discussed nte, e. g., such synchrnically primary verbs
as G. keinnn, pret. keirwdn 'bud, sprut' beside OE c'innn, ORG ch'nan
(strng) 'id.', and OE dw'innn (str.) 'disappear' beside 01 dvnn, dvena (II)
'id.'. Frm a histrical pint f view this situatin is surprising, since the
nasal presents of Ind-Eurpean seem typically t have been transitive,
and ften, as inHitt.lJ,am'i(n)k- 'destry' vs.lJ,nrk(iya)- 'perish', Ved. p7mlti
'purifies' vs. pvate 'flws in a purified state' (of the sma), 0.1' Ved. inti
'drives' vs. t1: 'ges', t have had a specifically causative 0.1' factitive sense.
Taken as a grup, the Germanic nasal forms accrd closely in value nly
with their mrphlgical cunterparts in Balto-Slavic, where both the
Baltic type with infixed -n- (e. g., Lith. bur1da" inf. Mlsti 'awake') and the
Slavic type in -nejo- (e. g., OCS vbz-bbnetb, inf. vbz-bbnqti 'id.') are normally
utilized t form inchatives similar in functin t the Gthic ga-waknan
type.
In my view the semantic behavior fboth the Germanic and Balt-Slavic
nasal presents can best be accunted fr by assuming that verbs like
'awake' in these languages were riginally cnjugated in the middle, and
that their attested thematic active frms represent replacements f earlier
frms cmparable t Ved. 3 sg. mido grr.e, grrp'it beside acto grrplti < gr-
'prise'. The specific mrpholgical prcesses which led t the establish-
ment f the regular active types in Germanic and Balt-Slavic can be
envisaged in a variety f ways, and need nt cncern us here
57
). Of
immediate relevance to the present discussin is rather the fact that the
assumptin f medial nasal presents fr pre"Germanic permits a straight-
frward explanatin f frms like *k1mnaip, *liznaip and *hlinaip as
renewals f older 3 sg. forms in *-nai < *-nhx-i. In the case f *k1mnan in
particular, the inherited 3 sg. *k1.tnnai *(J1J-n-h
3
-6i 0.1' *gr;.h
3
-nh
z
-i) 58)
57) Specifically, it is unclear whether the thematic nasal presents in *-nelo-
represent simple thematizatio.ns o.f o.riginal active presents in *-nehz-j*-nh
z
-, 0.1' were
directly remade fro.m o.lder middle fo.rms. In either case, the incho.ative functio.n o.f
nasal presents in Germanic and'Balto.-Slavic wo.uld have o.riginated in the middle,
and beco.me general o.nly after the causative and factitive functio.ns o.f the active
hOO been taken o.vr by o.ther fo.rmatio.ns, no.tably the type in *-ejelo-,
58) The latter reco.nstructio.n, certainly the less like1y, wo.uld sho.w the zero.-grade
o.f *gnehs- fo.llo.wed by a synchro.nic su:ffix *-nehz-j*-nh
z
-,
85
r----------------
I
would originally have stood in the same formal and functional relation to
the preterito-present *htnn 'lmows' as did *dugai to the old perfect *dcmg;
indeed, it was doubtless on the basis of a proportion of the type
*d7lgai : *dwug :: *kunncli : X that *1cann was itself created, replacing an
earlier form akin to Skt. jajau and Lat. gnouit. Gmc. *liznaiJ and the
preterito-present *lais (= GO.lais 'knows (how) , understands') constitute a
similar pair: here, however, synchronic restrictions on the structure of
verbal roots in Germanic ruled out the possibility of a renewal
*lais -> **lcsn.
74. The lexical items discussed in 62-73 supply the bulle of the
evidence for supposing that the paradigm of the third weak class is
ultimately traceable to a Germanic replacement of *-ai by *-wijJ in the third
person singular. Although these words account for only a comparatively
small fraction of the total membership of the third class, they make up a
much higher percen tage of the class III ver bs with primary ver bal cogna tes
outside Germanic.
It would not, however, be necessary or desirable to attempt an
explanation of the numerical majority of third class verbs on the basis of
the paradigm reconstructed for *dugan, *-aip in 65. This is especially clear
in the case ofthe denominative statives and inchoatives(cf. 50), which
almost certainly continue, directly 01' indirectlYi the lE denominative type
in *-e- or *-eielo- (cf. 6). It would be easy to account for the classIlI
inflection of, e. g., Go. ana-silan 'fall silent' (: Lat. SaeTe) ifit were possible
to suppose that lE *-eie- yielded *-ai- in Germanic: we would then assume
that the morphological identity of *silan and *d7lgan in the 2,3 sg. and 2 pI.
led to the formal merger ofthe two types everywhere. Since we have seen,
however, that a derivation of *-ai- from this source is in fact very dubious
( 52), it is probably safer to regard the inflectional agreement of the
class III denominative and deverbative statives as a simple consequence of
their close functional paraHelism. The confusion of the two formations
would clearly have been favored by the fact that certain third class verbs
belonging historically to the *dugan type might easily have created the
synchronic appearance ofbeing denominative. The ambiguous position of
*pm'ban, *-clip in this regard has already been noted ( 70); a similar case is
that of *s(w)'n1'gan, *-Clip 'worry' (ORG s(w)o1'gen, OE S01'3ia.n (Flasdieck,
49), probably Go. sa7lTgan) , which, although probably based directly on the
root *s(JI)er-gh- 'worry, be sick' (Pokorny, IEW, 1051), could have been
interpreted within Germanic as a derivative of *S(W)7lr-gO 'sorrow' (Go.
Sa7lTga, 01 S01'g, ORG s(w)o1'ga, etc.). A close typological parallel to the
replacement of denominative forms of the type *silep ( < *-e(ie)t?:) by new
forms in *-aijJ is provided by the occasional cases in Baltic in which a
denominative stative shows the characteristic i-inflection of the deverb-
ative class (cf. Lith. gilis 'feels sorry', inf. gailUs<gailus, sf1csti 'is
86
stingy', inf. syksteli < SyICSt1lS) in place of the regular denominative
paradigm in
More obscure are the factitive denominatiolls of the type seen in Go.
swemn, -aip 'honor', ga-ainan, -aip 'make separate', etc. (cf. 50). In a
recent study of these forms (Lg.52, 851---65 [1976]), J. Dishington has
attempted to show that they continue an lE present class in *-oielo-, which
he also takes to be the source ofthe Greek present typein-w (30uA6w, xEv6w,
etc.). The patently secondary character of the latter formation, however
(cf. Schwyzer, GT. G1'.727), deprives the alleged lE parent formation of
serious extra-Germanic support
60
). It is at least equally possible, in my
view, that the class III factitives represent secondary transfers from the
second we!1k class, where the formation represented by ORG mihhilan
'make great', meTan 'make more', etc. is of lE date (cf. Ritt. newalj- 'make
new'). The twofold value of forms like *fastan, *-aip (cf. Go. fastan 'hold
f'irm' and 'fast' , ORG fasten 'fast') and *piwan, *-aip (cf. Go. ctna-piWCln
'subject', OE peowian 'serve' (Flasdieck, 54-6); 01 pj 'serve') would then
reflect the earlier presence oftwo independent verbs, a class II factitive and
a class III stative.
Denominatives, it should be noted, do not necessarily exhaust the cases
in which a morphological replacement of *-ep *-e(ie)ti) by *-aip can
usefully be assumed. The only clear extra-Germanic cognat)e ofGo. pahan,
-aip 'be silent' and ORG dagen 'id.' is Lat. tace Te (cf. Umbr. taQez 'tacitus'),
to aH appearances a primary e-verb; since there is no evidence that the root
*tak- formed a perfect 01' root aorist in the parent language, it may be
simpler to reconstruct a late lE *takitti 01' *takitie(ti) than to postulate an
actual 3 sg. middle *taki as the ultimate source of Gmc. *pagaip61).
Similarly, it is difficult to find support outside Germanic for deriving
*habaip 'has' from a 3 sg. middle *1capi; an original 01'
on the other hand, would accord perfectly in structure and formation with
Lat. habet
62
). The lE distribution of *-e- in non-denominative statives is
discussed in 105.
59) It is true that the denominative and deverbative statives of Balto-Slavic
agree in having stems in *-8- outside the presento But it is at least possible that a
similar situation once existed in Germanic, and in any case, the semantic similarity
of the two types would alone have been sufficient to bring about their formal
merger.
60) The Greek type in -6(,) appears to have been back-formed from the adjectival
type in -(,)T6" the basic pattern having been supplied by presents in -6:(,) with verbal
adjectives in -aT6,.
61) The reason for the elimination of gmmmat-ischel' Wechsel in Go. pahaip is not
clear to me,
62) Lat. habel'e, of course, presupposes a root-form *ghabh- rather than *7cap-. A
genuine example of a perfect middle meaning 'have' is Ved. tse, akin to the
Germanic preterito-present *aih, pI. *aigum.
87
75. Before summarizing the results of the preceding discussion, will be
useful to return briefly to the formal analysis of the class III paradlgm. In
this and the following sections we shall see that the proposed in
65 for the present indicative of the third weak class leads to a
straightforward explanation of the non-indicative and non-present forms
as well.
No special problems are pl'esented by the third class modal forms. The
inherited optative type is preserved in Go. habcw" -ais, -cti, etc., 01 haja,
hajir, haji and ORG habe, habes, habe; the latter forms, it will
constitute additional evidence for assuming that in West Germamc, as m
Gothic and Scandinavian, the class III suffix originally had the shape
*-ai-j*-a- rather than *_ai_j*_ja_
63
). This inflection is that of a
normal thematic optative, and is doubtless to be explamed m the same
fashion as forms like 1 sg. *habo (*dugO' 01' 3 pI. *haband (*dugand): outside
the 3 sg. and its immediately associated forms, the athematic middle
endings which characterized the ancestor of the third class paradigm were
mechanically replaced by their thematic active counterparts. In
imperative, the 2 pI. is the same as the indicative, as everywhere else m
Germanic, while the 2 sg. impv. (cf. Go. habai, 01 vctki, ORG habe) is a new
form, evidently created according to a proportion of the type 3 sg. *hanz'ip
'hears': 2 sg. impv. *ha1tz'i:: 3 sg. *salbop: 2 sg. impv. *salbo:: 3 sg.
*hctbctijJ: 2 sg. impv. X, X = *habai
64
).
In principIe, the class III present participle in *-and- can be explained in
the same ,vayas the optative: there is no reason why forms like *dugand-,
*witand-, etc. could not have replaced earlier participles of the type found,
e. g., in Ved. dhiina- (d1thiin-), vdiina- (vidiin-), etc. In fact , however,
there is a second, and simpler possibility. In ternal evidence from Vedic
suggests that in certain cases middle participles in -iina- haye either
replaced 01' encroached upon the domain of earlier verbal adjectives in -nt-,
traces ofwhich can be seen in such pairs as dhrf!nt- : dh'(f!ii'f!- (AV) < dhrf!-
'dare', vrdhnt- : vrdhiin- (viivrdhiin-) < vrqh- 'increase' and, especially,
duhnt- (cf. 64): dhiina-, duhiin- < dnh- 60). Snce the assumption of a
pre-Germanic stem *dh11.ghnt-j*dh'ughr,d- is necessary in any case to
account for the feminine abstract OE dU3uP, ORG tugund
'yirtue' < *dhugh'{lt, it is attractiye to consider the possibility that the
class III participle *d1lganel- is directly cognate with Ved. eluhnt-, from
which it differs significantly only in the yocalism of its second syllable
66
).
63) Ifnecessary we could as sume an analogical replacement *habjai- --+ *habai- to
account for the OHG optative, but a direct explanation is cleady preferable.
64) In Gothic the *-cd of this form has been retained under the morphological
influence of the rest of the paradigm.
65) It is doubtful that any special significa.nce should be attached to the fact that
duhnt- is transitive; so too, on occasion, is d7lhan- (dhana-).
66) Tha t is, I assume tha t this and similar ver bal adj ectives wi th zero-grade of the
root had a declension of the "hysterokinetic" type.
88

The status of "active" nt-participles beside middle finite forms has been
discussed in 39.
76. Eyidence corroborating this interpretation is proyided by the
unique R unic N orse compound witaclahalaiban (Tune, c. 500 A.D.). Accord-
ing to the prevailing and doubtless correct view, this form represents the
dato sg. of an n-stem *witand-hlaiban-, itself built, via a productiye
Germanic process, to an underlying *witand-hlaiba- 'watching oyer the
bread'. The sense of the n-stem is thus 'one who watches oyer the bread,
lord' , showing the same semantic deyelopment as O E hliijorel 'lord' < *hliif-
weard 'bread-guard' 67). Compounds ofthis kind, in which the first term is a
participl\l whi(lh goyerns the second, are otherwise unlmown in Germanic;
they are, howevel', well-attested in the oldest Indo-Il'anian, where fol'ms of
the type Ved. bhardviija- beal'ing the pl'ize' (cf. Ay. bamt. zao8m- 'beal'ing
the libation'), elham,ytkavi- 'protecting the wise', etc., constitute a sizeable
class. Especially conspicuous among the pal'ticiples found in such com-
pounds is IIr. *vidt-, which occul's in viddva,s'u- 'finding wealth',
*viddasva- (in vidadasvi- descendant ofV.') 'finding horses' (PN), YAyo
v'idat. gauu- 'del' del' Kuh teilhaftig wird, del' fr das Rind sorgt' (Bartholo-
mae) and vioat. x"arCJncth- 'del' des XV. teilhaftig wird' (PN). The complete
isolation of *witctnd-hlaiba- in Germanic makes it probable that both this
form and the Indo-lranian vidt-compounds continue a single lE type with
*y,iel1;,d-in initial position 68). Snce, howeyel', Gmc. *witand- in composition
is formally and semantically indistinguishable f1'om *witand-, the participle
of *witan, *-aip (Go.: 'observe, watch'), the conclusion natul'ally suggests
itself that lE *ltidnt-j*y,idr,d- is the source of thelatte1' fol'm as we1l
69
).
These obseryation afford an insight into the actual origin of participle-
object compounds in Indo-European. In outward appearance 8uch com-
pounas resemble normal bahuvrihis such as Ved. dhrf!dva1'1.w- 'having a
bold nature', '/'1tstpa!nt- 'haying bright cattle', s1LCdmtha- 'haying a
shining chariot', brhel1Lkf!an- 'having tall bulls', etc., in which the first
element is an nt-stem. The lE type *lLidr;.t-X, in my yiew, originally had
precisely the same structure as cases ofthis latter kind, and properly meant
'having an X which is found (seen, lmown), . The possibility that *llidnt-j
*llidr;.t- had passive as well as active functions in Indo-European, of course,
is suggested by the passive yalue of nt-participles in Rittite; in Vedic,
v'diina- (vidiin-) , the replacement of *vidnt- as a free form, may mean
67) It is hardly possible that the participle of a class II *witon could have entered
into a compound ofthis type, or that it would have been spelled witada- in A. D. 500.
(8) As Schindler has pointed out in a personal communication, the zero-grade
in Iranian as well as Indic ex eludes the possibility that *vidt-belongs to the
paradigm of the thematic aoristo
69) It is less attractive to suppose that the participle *witand-represents a wholly
new creation, to which *wihmd- ( < *ll'd1Jt-) was secondarily assimilated at a later
periodo
89 __________________________________________________ au7.nr"up2"5"""""""""" .............................. 111111 .... 111111.
_ .... __ ---
'known' as well as 'knowing' (> 'wise'). The syIltactic reinterpretation of
*uidnt-X as 'finding (seeing, knowing) x' may already have begun in late
European; in Inclo-Iranian *vidt- was synchronically identified with
the 3 sg. thematic injunctive *vidt ancI new compounds of the same type
were created from other roots with thematic presents 01' aorists
70
).
77. The preterite system ofthe third class, like the present, is markecl by
formal cliscrepancies among the attestecllanguages. The "regular" preteri-
te type is founcl in GJthic, Scanclinavian ancl Olcl High German, where the
clental suffix of the weak preterite is separatecl from the root by a
connecting *-ai-; this vowel is preserved in Gothic (habaida, habaijJs) ancl
Olcl High German (habe:ta, gihabe:t) but is usually syncopated in Olcl
Icelanclic(hafoa, hafor, nt. (arch.) hafat). Old Saxon ancl Old English, on the
other hancl, attest a second type in which no union vowel is present (OS
habda, gihabd, OE hoefda, (3e)hoefd); a trace ofthe same formation can also
be seen in OHG hapta. Flasclieck's opinion (p. 160) notwithstanding, there
can be little cloubt that the latter pattern is the more archaic, for while it is
difficult to see how a form such as 1 sg. *habaido" coulcl have been replaced
by *habdo
n
in West Germanic, the pattern *nazijJ: *nazido" *nazjan
'save'), *salbojJ : *salbOdo
n
woulcl have proviclecl an obvious :n:0clel for the
creation of *habaido" from 3 sg. *habaijJ. Inclependent eviclence for the
relative antiquity of *habdo
n
ancl similar forms is provided by the Gothic
third class verb uf-kunnan 'recognize', the preterite ofwhich is repeatedly
attested as uf-k unjJa , but appears once in the regularizecl shape
uf-kunnaida (1 COl'. 1. 21). The existence of a formerly productive
process whereby weak preterites ofthe form * X-dO" were replacecl by new
forms of the type *X-aidO"' may also permit an explanation for the ex-
ceptional preterite of *hugjan 'think' : here an original *hugdO"' (OS hogda,
OE h03de, OHG hocta) was evidently renewed by *hugaido
n
(OHG hagaa,
OGutn. hugjJi, 01 ptcp. nt. hugat) despite the absence of classln present
forms in any attested Germanic language
71
). .
'rhe pro blema tic voiced clusters of * habdo
n
and * hugdo
n
(eL also OS libda,
sagda < *libdo
n
, *sagdo") are probably of analogical origin: under the
70) The lE inventory ofpassive nt-participles which figured in such compounds
was probably not confined to *Ltidnt-j-1}i-, though the proliferation of the type in
Indo-lranian seems clearly to have followed the reinterpretation ofthe first term as
transitive and active. vVhether the syntactically similar formations represented by
Gk. (cf. Ved. tmsdasYlt- 'affrighting foes') and (cf. Ved.
dilUvara- 'granting wishes') originally had a passive first element remains to be
determined.
71) Go. pret. bcuaida, if not simply the regular preterite corresponding to a lost
*bcmaiP 'dwells' (the attested form is bauiP) may have arisen in the same way; the
prehistory of this verb is obscure. Note also OIfla 'flow' and ask 'fear', with class
III forms in the preterite only.
90
I
influence of the root-final *-b- and *-g- which characterized the presents of
these verbs the phonologicallyregular groups *-ft- and *-ht- were apparent-
ly remade to *-bd- and *_gd_
72
). This peculiarity aside, it seems legitimate to
conclucle that the weak preterite of the third weak class was originally
made by suffixing the appropriate dental endings directly to the verbal
root-a finding which accords perfectly with our view tha,t *-ai-, in
historimil terms, represents not a suffix but a desinence.
78. The origin of the Germanic dental preterite is probably also to be
sought in an athematic middle forlllation. Although the full range of
evidence favoring this conclusion will not be presented here, the history of
the weak preterite is potentially significant fOl' a correct understanding
ofthe formal history ofthe third class, and it is in this connection that the
following theory is briefly offered.
Both preterito-presents and their associated class nI verbs, in my view,
originally utilized middle root aorists of the type 3, sg. *mrpt,
reduplicated (pluperfect) forllls of the type 3 sg. *memrpto, to lllake thmr
preterites. Thus, after the loss ofreduplication in pre-Germal1ic, a represen-
tative group of presen t al1d preterite forllls of the verb tha t was even tually
to becollle *munan, *-aip (nI) would have been the following (cf. 65) n):
preso sg. 1 *munai pret. sg. 1 *muna (cf. Ved. -1:)
2 *mundai 2 ( cf. Ved. -th?il,)
3 *munai 3 (cf. Vecl. -tCt)
pI. 3 *nmn7mdai pI. 3 *mummda (cf. Ved. -ataf4)
opto *m7m'i- opto *m1m'i- (cf. Ved. -i-)
It may 110W be conjectured that, as occasionally elsewhere in Indo-
European
75
), the oppositiol1 betweel1 the primary al1d secol1dary llliddle
72) 01 olla>wltlpon, 1 sg. pret. of va.lda 'wield', provides one of the strongest
pieces of evidence foI' supposing that the dental of the weak preterite was *t. The
often expressed view that the weak preterite contains a form of the verb 'do'
refuted, as we shall see below (cf. especially note 76), by the fact that the Rumc
Norse 3 sg. in -de (j({hide, tawide) continues not CGmc. *-de but *-da/i.
1 am indebted to Cowgill for having pointed ot to me that the absence of a
in ONorw. pret. sg. haje and similar forms (cf. Noreen, Altnord. Gr. 1, 350) lS the
result of a, secondary phonological development. The Common Germanic prototype
of haje must be reconstructed *habdai. .
73) My decision to assume that the basic sound of Germamc
operated at this stage is, of course, arbitrary. The offered .he1'e lS to
that set forth by H. Collitz in Das schwache Pmetent1tm 11nd seme Vorgesch'Whte
(1912); a different, but closely related interpretation will be presented in a
forthcoming publication by Hollifield.
74) 01' conceivably *l1mnm, although the presence f a dental ending in the 3 sg.
does not favor this possibility.
75) Compare, for example, Osc. 3 sg. -ter, 3 pI. -nter in primary an.d secondary
functions, beside the more archaic Umbrian opposition -ter; -nter (prIm.) vS. -tll,r,
-ntu,1' (sec.).
91
endings was neutralized in favor ofthe former set in Germanic, leading to
the (originally optional) introduction of final-ai into the paradigm of the
preterite. Outside the 3 sg. this change would have had the effect of
introducing an undesirable homophony between the two tenses; the
resulting situation could have been rectified, however, by generalizing the
distinctive difference between the 3 sg. preso *munai and 3 sg. pret.
*mundai, i. e., the absence vs. presence of a dental, to the rest of the
paradigm. The preterite forms accordingly acquired a dental everywhere,
while the dental ofthe 2 sg. was dropped from the presento The new system
would have been:
preso sg. 1 *mnnai pret. sg. 1 *ni1tndai
2 *munai 2 *mnndai
3 *mnnai 3 *mundai
pI. 3 *mnmtndai pI. 3 *rmtndundai
opto *m1tn'i- opto *m1tnd'ir-
The three persons of the singular were now alike in both tenses. With the
decay of the middle as a category a natural expedient for distinguishing the
1 sg. preso from the remaining singular forms would have been the
substitution of *-0 for the obsolescent middle ending *-ai; given the
systematic relationship between the present and preterite paradigms,
moreover, such a renewal could easily have led tothe creation of a
corresponding 1 sg. pret. * mundo. After the remodeling of the 1 sg. the
present and preterite appear to have developed along independent lines. In
the present the loss ofmiddle inflection was marked by the replacement of
2, 3 sg. *m1tnai by 2 sg. *m1tnais and 3 sg. *rmtnaip, and by the creation of
thematic forms in the 1, 3pl. and optative on the model of 1 sg. *nwnoand
ptcp. *nntnand-. In the preterite the middle endings of the plural and
optative were replaced by their active (strong preterite) counterparts,
while the singular forms of the first and second persons were further
extended by the corresponding secondary active endings. The final result
would have been a system like the following, which may be assumed for
Common Germanic 76) :
preso sg. 1 *1mtnO
2
3
pI. 3
opto
*m1tnais
*munaiP
*munanp
*munai-
pret. sg. 1
2
3
pI. 3
opto
*mundo"
*1n1tndais
*mundai
*mund1tn
*mund'i-
76) As a final step, of course, *nw,nda; was replaced by *m1lnaidai under the
influence of the associated present stem. The ending *-dai in the 3 sg. is assured by
the archaic form talgidai 'engraved' (N 0vling, third century); Hollifield will show
separately that the conventionally reconstructed *-dewould have yielded Runic
*-da. The Gothic weak preterite forms in -des, -de:dum, etc. appear to reflect a
secondary analogy with the preterite of 'do'.
92
"
Thus, three steps can perhaps be distinguished in the genesis of the
class III pattern: 1) the replacement of 2 sg. *-dai by *-ai, resulting in the
establishment of *-ai as the singular ending in all three persons; 2) the
replacement of 1 sg. *-ai by *-0; and 3) the replacement of 2,3 sg. *-ai by
*-ais, *-aiP, leading to the eventual generalization ofthe suffix *-ai-j*-a-
throughout the paradigm.
79. The preceding discussion has presented arguments to show that the
third weak cIass is based not on an lE present type in *-e-, *-ejejo-, *-ei- 01'
*-ojejo-, but on a group of inherited athematic middle formations charac-
terized by a pre-Gmc. 3 sg. in *_oi
77
). Important for this interpretation was
the existence' of an archaic group of third class verbs associated with
preterito-presents: in such cases an original middle paradigm was suggested
by the derivational affinities of the perfect with the middle in Indo-
European. One verb of this group (*dugan, *-aip; 64-5) has been refened
to an older zero-grade root present, while two C'thers (*munan, *-aip and
*witan, *-aiP; 68;-9) have been traced to earlier perfect middles; such
verbs as *wunan, *-aip and *pulan, *-aiP (71-2) may continue perfect
middles as well. Gmc. *parban, *-a.iP (70) and *hangan, *-aiP (72) have
been explained as reflexes of an acrosta tic presen t type with al terna ting *0-
and *e-grade vocalismo The nasal type represented by *htnnan, *-aiP and
*liznan, *-aiP ( 73)points to an originallydeponent cIass in 3 sg. *-nh"i; an
aorist present like those discussed in ch. 2 appears to underlie *fulgan, *-aiP
( 64). We have surmised that the inflection of the class III denominatives
(*silan, *-aiP, etc., 74) reflects a process of secondary assimilation to the
statives of the deverbative type.
As we shall see below, this analysis can be pursued further: in 101, it will
be suggested that the lE antecedents of Gmc. * dugaiP , *fulgaip and
*munaiP originally constituted a single morphological category, rather
than three distinct formations. Before speculating on the Indo-European
sitnation, however, it will be useful to investigate the position ofthe stative
presents of a third branch of the family, Balto-Slavic; here, as the following
chapter will show, the Baltic type in -i- and the Slavic type in *-'i- present a
historical picture strikingly similar to that of the third weak class in
Germanic.
77) My earlier analysis of the third weak class as a reflex of the thematic middle
(Lg. 49, 85{}--70 [1973J) while obviously closely related to that presented here, was
partly based on an incorrect appraisal of Gmc. *hangaip, which l no longer regard as
continuing an lE thematic presento Whether any originally thematic middles have
found their way into the third class is doubtful; theirregular treatment in Germanic
has been discussed in 46.
93
IV
STATIVE PRESENTS IN *-t'- IN BALTO-S LA VIO
80. The functional position of the third weak class iri Germanic is partly
occupied in Balto-Slavic by verbs with an infinitive stem in *-e- (Lith. -e-,
OCS --) and a present stem in Balt. *-i-, SI. *-i- (Lith. -i-, OCS -i-). The
forms of *mingti 'think, remember'l) in Lithuanian and Old Church
Slavonic may be taken as representative of the class as a whole:
Lith. OCS
preso sg. 1 miniu mbnJq
2 mini mbnisi
3 mini mbnit'b
pI. 1 m1nime mbnim'b
2 minite mbnite
3 (mini)
imp. sg. 2 min1c m,i
3 te-minie mbni
pret. sg. 3 mine,jo mbn (aorist)
ptcp. pret. acto minej1ls- mbnv'b
pass. minla,s mbnn'b
parto preso acto minjs, minint-
pass. minimas mbnim'b
inf. minU mbnti
As regularly in Old Church Slavonic, is replaced by a after a soft
consonant; cf. slysati 'hear' for *slySti, lezati 'lie' for *lezti, etc.
1) For convenience the ending of the Balto-Slavic infmitive is here reconstructed
*-ti, although the OCS infmitive in -ti presumably continues an immediate
prototype in *-tei. EIsewhere in this chapter 1 have taken similar liberties with
certain of the Balto-Slavic personal endings.
94

i
81. Most verbs of this type (Senn's conjugation class II in Lithuanian,
Leskien's class IV. 6 in Slavic) are primary, i. e., deverbative statives; as we
have seen in 6-7, it is characteristic of Balto-Slavic that e-verbs of
denominative origin are associated with an inflectional pattern oftheir own
(cf. Lith. senU, 1 sg. senju 'grow older', OCS sta1'ti, 1 sg. sta1'ejq 'id.'). In
neither branch are lexical items like *mingti productive as such, although
the iteratives in -sli, 1 sg. -siu (e. g., epsli 'smack the lips',
bliksti 'glitter', str-aksti 'hop about'), intensives in -deti (e. g., m1'deti 'lie
dying', sv1'deti 'stagger') and "diminutive perfectives" in pa- ... -li (e. g.,
pabgU 'run. a little and stop', palk1i 'wait a little') belong descriptvely
to the same conjugatonal class. The inflectional pattern of *mini is found
throughout Slavc, but in Baltc t is well-represented only in Lithuanan.
Standard Latvan has replaced the historical *-i- of the present stem by
(palatalizing) -a-, normally the reflex of CBalt. *-ia-; some Latvian
dialects, however, retain -im and - in the 1 pI. and 2 pI., respectively. A
similar loss of i-inflection is found in many dialects ofLithuanian 2). In Old
Prussian the only clear representatives of the Lithuanian minti-type are
the verbs tU1''it, preso 3 tun'i 'have to, be obligated' (: Lith. tU1'li 'have') and
lcinlit, preso 1 sg. k'i1'dimai 'hear' (cf. Lith. gi1'deJi 'id.'), other eji-verbs
having been assimilated to the pattern ofthe e-denominatives (cf. bude <
*budeja beside Lith. bUdi 'is awake', mile < *mileja beside Lith. myli
'loves').
The Baltic and Slavic forms in question' agree so nearly that a close
historical connection between the two types may be assumed at the outset.
Yet, as noted in 7, the nature of this relationship is quite unclear. Balt.
and SI. *-- can be traced easily enough to BS *-e-; Balt. *-i- and SI. *-i-,
however, can hardly be directly equated, since the former is short while the
latter is etymologically long. Over the past century much scholarly effort
has been expended in attempts to resolve this difficulty, along with the
more general problem presented by the synchronically athematic appear-
ance of the Baltic and Slavic paradigms. In summarizing the principa,J
theories that have been put forth to accoullt for the ejt'-class, it will be
useful to distillguish three main groups of approaches: 1) those which
attempt to relate BS *-t'- to the lE suffix traditionally reconstructecl as
*-iejo- (the "semithematic theory"); 2) those which trace BS *-t'- to an
earlier dissyllabic morpheme *-eiejo- 01' *-iiejo- (the "contraction theory");
and 3) those which derive Balt. *-i- and SI. *-i- from apophonic variants of
an athematic suffix, which may be variously reconstructed (the "ablaut
theory") 3).
2) See the survey of dialect forms in Zinkeviiius, Liet. Dial., 341-3.
3) This classification, of course, is ollly adopted for reasons of convenience. In
sorne cases the assignment of an approach to one 01' another group is arbitrary;
Schmid's theory, for example, relates the attested forms in -f- both to the
traditionally reconstructed class in *-je/o- and to a hypothetical athematic type in
*-ei-/*-'Ji-.
95
82. An outline of theory has presente.d in
9. According to thlS V16W, promment adherents ofwhlCh mclude MeIllet
(see, e. g., his Slnv. com., and Stang (Sl. bnlt. Vb., 23ff., Vergl.
Grnm. d. bnlt. Spr., 320-2)4), the intransitive and stative jejo-presents of
lndo-lranian, Greek and other lE languages were originally only partly
thematic, exhibiting an alternation between a suffix-form *-jo- in the 1 sg.,
1 du., 1 pI. and 3 pI. and *-i- 01' *-i- in the remaining indicative forms.
Semithematic inflection was then allegedly replaced by the fully thematic
type.in *-jejo- in the lE languages ofthe southeast (notably lndo-lranian
and Greek), while *-jejo- was absorbed by *-i-j*-jo- and *-i-j*-jo- in a dialect
area including Italic, Celtic and Germanic. Only in Balto-Slavic did the
semithematic conjugation survive in its original func-
tion, the subtype in *-i- being generalized in Baltic and that in *-i-
prevailing in Slavic.
The shortcomings ofthis analysis have been pointed out in ch. 1. Outside
Balto-Slavic the assumption of a semithematic conjugation is entirely
redundant, since, as noted in 9, the Italic, Celtic and Germanic present
types in *-i-j*-jo- and *-i-j*-jo- can as easily be traced to thematic
prototypes in *-jejo- and *-ijejo-, respectively. It is strilring thatno sign ofa
semithematic type survives in Hittite (cf. pnrkiyn- 'go up', lsnrkiyar 'perish'
and similar forms, all fully thematic) 01' Tocharian, where dialectal
idiosyncrasies ofItalic and Celtic often reappear. Even ifwe admitted the
possibility that Balto-Slavic inherited semithematic presents in *-It-j*-jo-
from lndo-European 5), it would be difficult to account for the attested
distribution of thematic and athematic forms, since in point of fact neither
Baltic nor Slavic provides any evidence at all for the suffix-alternant *-jo-
except in the thematic 1 sg. *minjo (Lith. miniu, OCS nthn"jq). Note
especially that the preso 3 pI. (OCS and present participle (Lith.
minint-, OCS mhnr;st- < *mininti(n)-) show *-t'- for expected *-io-: to
account for these forms under the semithematic theory it would be
necessary to assume that contrary to the prevailing Balto-Slavic pattern
(c. OCS 1 sg. vedq '1 lead', 3 pI. vedqt'h, ptcp. vedqst-, vs. vede- elsewhere in
the present), inherited *minjnnti and *minjnnt- were specifically distanced
from the 1 sg. and assimilated to the athematic forms in *-t'- 6). Similarly, in
the inherited optative (= imperative), OCS 2,3 sg. mhni, 2pI. mhnite, etc.
would have to be explained as replacements of earlier thematic *minjnis,
*-nit, *-nite, the regular OCS reflexes of which would have been
Here and below, the notation "BS *-f-" should be understood only as a cover
symbol for the prototype(s) of Balt. *-i- and pre-Sl. *-i"-. It should not be taken to
imply that Balto-Slavic had a single suffIx *-t- with long and short aIlomorphs.
4) Following Brugmann; cf. 9.
5) It will be recaIled that *-je- yielded *-ja- in Baltic; cf. 42.
6) l use *a to represent the Balto-Slavic prototype of Balt. *a, SI. *0.
96
'1
I
*mhn'ji, *mb'ijite. For the corresponding optative forms in Baltic, which
present comparable difficulties, see 98.
In Lg. 32, P. Tedesco has presented strong arguments to show
that OCS u-mb'i'q '1 will die', 3 sg. u-mhret'h should be read with a palatalized
r, i, e., as *u-mh'fjq, *u-mhr"jet'h. If this interpretation is correct, forms like
u-mhret'h would constitute decisive inner-Slavic evidence for supposing
that the traditionally reconstructed intransitive type in *-jejo- (cf. Ved.
mriyte, Lat. morior) was in fact fully thematic from lE times.
The semithematic theory, in short, not only presupposes the existence of
a morphological class found nowhere else in lndo-European, but also
requires the assumption of a series of analogical changes quite inconsistent
with the general structure of the Balto-Slavic verbo Despite the authority
ofthe distinguished scholars who have espoused it, its relative popularity is
quite undeserved,
83. A very different analysis, although its point of departure is likewise a
familiar thematic present formation, is that of Specht, KZ 62, 29-115
pnssim (1935), who derives both Balt, mini- and SI. mhni- from a single lE
type in *-eiejo-, which he also takes to underlie the -e- of Lat. 2 sg. taces,
rubes, etc.
7
). From a phonological point ofview this theory is superficially
attractive: lE can plausibly be identified as the source of -i- in the
Slavic iterative type in -iti (cf. OCS nositi 'carry', preso nosq, nosisi, -it'h;
prositi 'ask', preso prosq, prosisi, -it'h, etc.), and unaccented *-i-, when
resulting from a contraction, appears to be shortened in final syllables to -i-
in Lithuanian (cf, brlis 'brother' < *brlijns vS. gnidfJs 'rooster' <
*gnidjns). Nevertheless, the objections to assuming an lE deverbative
stative type in *-ejejo- are very serious. Specht's derivation ofLat. taceo, -es
from *tnkejejo- depends crucially on his derivation of seneo, -es from an
earlier *senejejo-; as we have seen in 6, however, seneois almost certainly
to be referred to an earlier * sene(jejo)- rather than to a denominative ofthe
type seen in Gk. qnMw 01' Ved, nmitmyti 'ishostile's). Apart from the Balto-
Slavic forms in question, no lE language unambiguously attests *-ejejo- in
a deverbative stative function; even within Balto-Slavic itself, Specht is
obliged to make the arbitrary assumption that *-ejejo-, which originally
characterized both the primary and denominative stative types, was
subsequently replaced in the latter forms by *-ejejo- under the analogical
influence of the *-e- of the infinitive stem.
To be sure, it is possible to envisage an alternative form of the
contraction theoryunder which Balt. *-i- and SI. *-i- would be traced not to
lE *-ejejo-, but to a suffix-form *-ijejo-. Lith. and OCS mhnit'h could
then be referred to the same preform as Gk. (J-CdVET()( and Ved. mnyctte: in
7) So earlier Bezzenberger, BB26, 171ff. (1901).
S) Ved. sanay- 'ewig sein', however, does not eonstitute evidenee for an lE
* sene(jelo)-, sine e it is pro bably a direet derivative of sna 'von je her'.
97
Balto-Slavic we would as sume that the long Sievers variant *-ijejo- was
generalized as a morphological replacement of earlier *-jejo-. Such an
explanation would be free of a major defect in Specht' s theory; on the other
hand, a fal' more natural development would have been the extension of
*-ijejo- in the non-stative jejo-class, where roots with a heavy sylIabic
structure are verynumerous (cf. Lith.josti 'gird', 3 p.josia, veflcti 'weep',
3 p. veflcia, OCS pisati 'write', 3 sg. piset'b, lizati 'lick', 3 sg. lizet'b), rather
than in the stative type, where the great majority ofverbs have short 01'
only secondarily long initial syIlables (cf. Lith. htrl3%i 'have', gulti 'lie', OCS
dr'bzati 'hold'; with morphologicallengthened grade (cf. 95) Lith. tyleti 'be
silent', lzeti 'be broken', OCS vis ti 'hang'). .
Both this analysis and Specht's, moreover, are suspect on othe!' grounds.
Neither *-ejo- nor *-ijo- can be supposed to have yielded *-i:- in Balto-
Slavic; consequently, the 3 pI. in *-inti, present participle in *-int- and
optative in *-i- present the same difficulties under the contraction theory
as under the semithematic approach (cf. aboye). Even more serious is the
fact that the shortening of *-i:- to *-i- observable in Lith. b1'lis vs. gaidys is
unlikely to be of Common Baltic date. The phonological history of the
Baltic nominal type in *-ija- has been discussed in detail by Stang, Vergl.
Gram. d. balto Sp1'., 188ff. (with literature). The development ofunaccented
*-ys to -is in the nominative singular is found ayer only a part of the
Lithuanian dialect area, and is completely absent in Latvian, where brllis
'brother' continues an immediate preform *bmli:s (Balt. *-is yields Latv. -s;
cf. avs 'sheep' = Lith. av1,s). While it is logically thinkable that the
Standard Lithuanian contrast between '-is and -ys reflects the original
Baltic situation, and that Latvian and those Lithuanian dialects which
exhibit forms of the type brlys have eliminated an earlier opposition, this
possibility is in fact very remote. If the contrast between *'-is and *-[s were
ofCommon Baltic antiquity, it would be difficult to explain why leveling,
where it has occurred, has invariably been in favor ofthe accented form of
the ending, despite the fact that the paradigm of the ija-stems otherwise
shows several secondary poin ts of agreemen t with the i-stems (cf. Lith. acc.
sg. -1, loco sg. -yje, nomo pI. -ys), where the nominative singular historically
ended in *-is. In view of the inability of -is to maintain itself under
favorable circumstances in the paradigm of ija-stems, it may seriously be
doubted whether a Common Baltic shortening of 3 p. *mini: to *mlni, even
if phonologically regular, would have been sufficient to bring about the
complete replacement of forms like 1 pI. *mini:me, 2 pI. *mini:te by mlnime
and mlnite
9
).
84. A radicalIy different interpretation of the contrast between Balt.
*mini- and SI. *mbni- is offered by the numerous versions of what we have
9) The handful of Latvian forms in -i:- cited by Endzelin, Lett. Gr., 629, have
been shown to be secondary by Schmid, Stud. Z. balto U. sl. Vb., 89.
98
-j'.-

termed the ablaut theory. Despite many differences of detail, most such
explanations agree in supposing that at an early stage ofBaltic and Slavic
the ej-type was represented by a single paradigm in which strong forms
containing an i-diphthong (*-ei- 01' *-ei-) contrasted with weak forms
containing the zero-grade alternant of the same suf[x. Slavic is then
assumed to have generalized the diphthongal forms, in which *-ei- (*-ei-)
was regularly monophthongized to *-i-, while Baltic is presumed to have
remodeled the paradigm on the basis of the weak suffix-form *-i- (01' *-'Ji-).
Several variants of this analysis have been encountered in the preceding
chapters. Schmid, as we have seen, posits an etymological relationship
between the Balto-Slavic present and infinitive stems, and reconstructs a
paradigm *mini!imi, *-iisi, *-iiti, pI. *-'Jim, *-'Jit, *-'Jjnti (op. cit., 83). A
similar formation, though with a diffeI'ent distribution ofstrong and weak
forms, is assumed by W agner, 0- Verba, 52-3; both scholars compare the
putative Germanic inflection *habaiP, 3 pI. *habjanp, and Wagner further
adduces the Hittite type seen in 3 sg. lJ,alzai, 3 pI. lJ,alziyanzi. The same
fundamental approach is embodied in Puhvel's reconstruction of an
athematic type in *-eEY-j*-EY- (Lar. and the lE Vb., 53ff.): here the
hypothesis that the syUabic form ofthe "palatal" laryngeal * EY yielded *-i-
in Baltic obviates the need for assuming a long diphthongal suffix in Indo-
European, but, as noted in 12, leaves the quantity ofSI. *-i- unexplained.
Other varieties of the ablaut theory make no attempt to establish a
historical connection between and *-0-. A. Vaillant, Gram. comp. III,
437ff. operates with a Balto-Slavic type in *-ei-j*-i-, which he assumes to
have been created in post-IE times through a complex series ofremodelings
of earlier thematic and semithematic formations. Arecent study by
W. Schmalstieg (Linguistique 8, 123ff. [1972]) posits a pre-IE element
*-je-j*-ej-, from which evolved an lE ablauting suffix *-ei-j*-jo-, in
Schmalstieg's view the immediate source ofthe stative conjugations ofthe
attested languages.
These arguments have in large part been reviewed in ch. 3. Fundamental-
ly, all suffer from the defect of assuming for Balto-Slavic and, with the
exception ofVaillant's theory, for Indo-European, an athematic paradigm
of a type whoIly unknoWll in the most archaic lE languages. To a greater 01'
les ser extent most depend also on the alleged formal parallelism between
the Balto-Slavic statives and the Germanic third weak class; we have seen
in 59, however, that OS 3 sg. habad, -ed, pI. hebbiad and OE 3 sg. h'JefP, pI.
habbap, the Germanic forms which most strongly invite comparison with
the Balto-Slavic are in fact aImost certainly the result of a post-
Germanic dialectal development. (On the Hittite type lJ,alzai, -iyanzi cf.
54) 10). It may further be noted that reconstructions like Schmid's and
10) In a revision ofhis theory, Wagner, ZCP 25,161-73 (1956), compares the
absence ofpalatalization in the 1,3 pI. and passive of 011'. saidid 'sits' (3 pI. sedait)
and laigid 'lies' (3 pI. 'legat) with the alternation of -ai- and -a,- in Gothic . .But saigid
99
Puhvel's, which presuppose a Balto-Slavic 1 sg. in *-mi, are badly
compromised by the fact that the only finite' indicative form on which
Baltic and Slavic agree exactly is the thematic 1 sg. *minjo ( > Lith. miniu,
OCS mhjq). While the possibility cannot in principIe be excluded that this
form is simply the Balto-Slavic replacement of an earlier *mineimi 01'
*mineEYmi, it is clearlyunlikely that such a renewal ofthe 1 sg. could have
taken place at a time when the putative alternation of strong and weak
stems remained productive elsewhere in the paradigm.
A special case is presented by Cowgill's explanation of the
(Lg. 39,265-6), which combines aspects of both the ablaut and contrac-
tion theories. As we have seen in 55, Cowgill assumes an original ablauting
type in *-ehrl*-h
r
, from which Germanic and Balto-Slavic allegedly
created a series of thematic statives in *-hz-ie/o-. While in sorne respects
more attractive than the solutions surveyed aboye, this reconstruction is as
unconvincing in Balto-Slavic as in Germanic : in the last analysis it remains
unclear whether the stative suffix *-e:. ever had a zero-grade *-h
r
, and
doubtful that a medial laryngeal would have survived long enough in
Balto-Slavic to participate in a development *-hzie- > *-'Jje- > *-ije- > *-1:-
(> Balt. *-i-). Apparent counterexamples to the latter treatment, cited by
Cowgill himself, are Lith. h'ia 'rows' from the root of Olr. rli'd, 01 ra,
etc., and OCS 3 sg. S'b-tuet'b 'will crush' (for *-ryet'b; cf. Tedesco, loe. cit.) from
the root of Gk. 't'e;(pw, 't'pl')'t'6<;;, etc. Note also Lith. aria, OCS oryet'b 'plows'
( = Go. arjan) < *h2erhde/o-. Moreover, even if Cowgill's special assump-
tions were otherwise admissible, his analysis would suffer from the same
general weaknesses as the variants of the contraction theory discussed in
the preceding section.
85. A novel approach to the problem of the is that of
Kurylowicz, Infl. Gat. 39-54. Noting that certain statives, such as Lith.
gari 'burns', OCS gorit'b ( : Gk. 8<pofW;, etc.) and Lith. stvi 'stands' (cf. Ved.
pf. tasthu) can be taken to continue old perfects, Kurylowicz derives both.
the Baltic third person form in *-i and the pre-Slavic 3 sg. in *-1: ( > -i-t'b)
from *-ei, the lE 3 sg. perfect ending enlarged by the hic et nunc particle *i
(cf. OCS vd '1 know' < *J!f!ida.-i). Accentualfacts aside, the development
of Lith. -i and OCS -i from such an ending would have been completely
regular
ll
); Kurylowicz speculates further that on the basis ofthe 3sg. a
new morphological type was created in which the reflex of final *-ei was
generalized as a predesinential element throughout the paradigm. While he
'seeks' and the compounds of ic(c)- 'come', which show the same fluctuation, are not
stative, and l seeno convincing reason to abandon Thurneysen's view (OlGr., 354)
that forms of the type sedait have simply lost their palatalization by analogy with
presenta of class B 1.
11) It would, however, be necessary to assume tha t the accen t of phonologically
regular *mini was analogically retracted to the root.
100
"..,..
!
does not make clear the relative chronology of these events, it would
probably be simplest to assume that the 3 sg. in *-ei was reinterpreted as a
stem-formative in Balto-Slavic times, triggering the creation of 1 sg.
*-ejo > *-jO) , 2 sg. *-ei-(s)ei, 1 pI. *-ei-me/o, etc. The development of the
Slavic forms would then have proceeded normally, while in Lithuanian the
shortening of *-ei to *-i in the third person would have led to the
replacement of forms like 1 pI. *mineime, 2 pI. *mineite, etc., by the attested
minime, minite
I2
).
The ingenuity of this analysis is beyond question, but it is clearly
untenable. As we shall see in 90, the absorption of forms like 3 sg. *garei >
*gl'hre-i into the minifti-type appears actually to have been a comparative-
ly late development which occurred at least partly independently in Baltic
and Slavic. More decisive, however, is the simple fact, noted already in 10,
that in Old Prussian, where 3 p. turri, 1 pI. turrimai clearly show the same -i-
as Lith. turi, turime, final *-ei is unambiguously retained (cf. dato sg. tebbei
'tibi', 2 sg. -sei = Lith. -8/', -se-s; further examples are given by Stang, op.
cit., 120) 13). Similarly, in those Latvian dialects which preserve the i-
presents as a separate class, the 3 p. has a zero-ending (cf. gul' 'lies' = Lith.
guli, cited by Stang, 320), pointing to a Common Baltic short vowel;
original i-diphthongs are regularly retained in this position as -i. The
possibilitl that the -i of Lith. mini continues earlier *-ei must thus be
rejected 1 ).
86. The history ofpast research into the makes it clear, in my
view, that attempts to explain Baltic *-i- as a phonologically regular
shortening of earlier *-1:-, or to derive both *-i- and *-1:- from apophonic
alternants of the same original suffix, are unlikely to prove fruitfuI. There
remain, however, two theoretically possible ways of accounting for the
discrepancy between Balt. *mini- and SI. *mhni- which have not been
widely discussed. These are 1) to assume that the Slavic type in *-1:- is
original, and that Baltic *-i- reflects the morphological influence of a
distinct and etymologically unrelated formation; and, conversely, 2) to
suppose that Balt. *-i- is original, and that pre-Slavic *-t'- was introduced
into the stative paradigm under the influence of a historically separate type
in which *-1:- was inherited. The fll'st assumption does not appear to lead to
interesting results and will not be explored further here. The second
possibility, however, is more promising.
12) Kurylowicz' explanation supersedes his earlier view (L'apoph., 128) that the
Baltic and Slavic forms continue lE athematic formations in *-i- and *-i-.
13) l am indebted to Cowgill for having fIrst drawn my attention to the
phonological weaknesses of Kurylowicz' theory.
14) Note also that ifthe paradigm ofthe r-presents had been created on the basis
of the 3 sg. of the perfect, as Kurylowicz claims, it would be difficult to explain why
the overwhelming majority of these forms show zero-grade, rather than o-grade of
the root.
101
As noted in passing in 83, the Slavic present type in *-i- is not confmed
to verbs like OCS mbnti, but is equally characteristic of iterative-
causatives like wsiti, pmsiti, etc.; to these may also be added the formally
indistinguishable denominative type seen, e. g., in OCS gostiti 'lodge as a
guest', preso goSQ, gostisi, etc. < gOStE 'guest'. In the latter two categories it
is difficult to escape the conclusion that *-i- is the result of a contraction :
the only plausible source for the stem-vowel ofthe iterative-causatives, as
Specht, op. cit., 78ff., recognized, is lE *-eje- while the gostiti-type is
probably to be compared in part with Indo-Iranian denominatives like
Ved. lcaviyte 'acts like a sage' < lcvi- 'sage'. Note further that the
circumflex intonation of *-i"- in these forms (cf. SO 3 sg: nosi and Vaillant,
op. cit., 438) excludes the possibility of a derivation from an inherited long
voweI. To be sure, a completely general development of *-eje-, va *ije-, to
*-i- may not be assumed: examples like trbje 'three (masc.)' show that
originally disyllabic forms remain uncontracted in Slavic. In longer words,
however, the only serious counterexample to the proposed rule is the nomo
pI. in -bje ofmasculine i-stems (cf. pqtbje 'paths'). This ending may simply
have been taken over from trbje, a development which would have been
favored by the existence ofnom. pI. forms like synove 'sons' *-e1/es) and
consona.nt-stem forms like grazdane 'citizens' *-es; cf. Sommer, Krit.
Erl., 138); it is perhaps significant that contrary to the general Slavic
pattern in masculine nouns, the expected nomo pI. *pqti would have been
homophonous with the corresponding accusative form (PQti < *-ins). In the
feminine, where the identity ofthe nominative and accusative plural was a
recurrent feature, the phonologically regular ending was retained (cf. nomo
pI. lcosti 'bones') 15). .
The Lithuanian i-stem plural in -ys (cf. alcfJs 'eyes' < alcis), taken
togetherwith thenom. sg. in -f}s ofnouns with stem in *-ija- ( 83), suggests
that the contraction *-eje- (*-ije-) > *-i"- may date from Balto-Slavic,
ra,ther than Slavic times; this question, however, will not be pursued
frther here
I6
).
There is thus no reason to exclude out of hand the possibility that the
stem vowel of the Slavic statives was originally short, and that it was
lenghthened under the influence ofthe iterative-causatives and denomina-
15) 1 have benefited from useful discussions with Cowgill on this matter. It
cannot be denied tha.t if there were an adequate explanation for the -i- of the
iterative-causatives which did not require the assumption of a contraction *-e;je- <
*-i-, it would be simpler to take the -i of kosti, rather than the -bje of pqtbje as
analogical. (The feminine form tri 'three', of course, must be secondary in any
event.) The important point, however, is that pqtbje does not constitute a telling
argument against the proposed contraction.
16) Similarly, the infinitive in OCS -iti, Lith. -y ti may reflect a Common Balto-
Slavic creation on the basis of a preterite imperfect) 3 sg. in *-it < *-e;jet (cf. OCS
3 sg. rwsi, SC nos'i, with historically circumflex *-i-), just as the infmitive in BS *-eti
102
tives in *-iti, where *-i"- was inherited. The value of this hypothesis, of
course, remains to be demonstrated; only if a direct lE source can be found
for the Baltic stative type in *-1:- will it serve any purpose to suppose that
the length of SI. *-i- is secondary. In the sections that follow we shall
attempt to demon8trate that an explanation for the *-1:- ofBalt. *mini- i8 in
fact available, and that a similar argument will account for the presence of
*-i- in another Baltic categorywhose morphologicalhistory is obscure. The
latter formation is the Letto-Lithuanian sigmatic future, the importance
of which for our present discussion makes a brief excursus desirable.
87. The East Baltic languages have an inflected future, the stem of
which in Li.thuanian is characterized by -si- in the first and second persons,
and by -s- in the third. The finite forms of the future of doti 'give' are thus
as follows:
sg. 1 dosiu
2 dosi
3 d7l0S
duo dosiva
dosita
pI. dosime
dosite
The active participle associated with this paradigm exhibits a further
morphophonemic peculiarity. Whereas in the i-presents the active partici-
pIe is made by adding -nt- directly to the stem (cf. minint-, nomo sg. masco
minjs), in the future the vowel -a- is regularly interposed after the temle
sign, so that the future participle of doti i8 dosiqs, dosiant- rather than
*dosint- 17). This feature is alreadypresent in our earliest Lithuanian texts.
Historically, of course, the general affmities of this formation, which is
almost exactly mirrored in Latvian, are with the sigmatic futures of Indo-
Irnian, Greek, Italic, and Oeltic. The detailed history of the Bahic forms,
however, is far from clear; in particular, the variable shape of the future
marker, with its three distinct allomorphs, has no obvious parallels
elsewhere in the family.
Apart from the synchronically isolated 3 p. duos, the Baltic future most
closely resembles the Vedic (and, mutatis mutandis, Iranian) future in -sya-.
The la;iter formation is fully thematic, and, accentuation aside, two
memb6rs of the Vedic paradigm, viz., 1 sg. diisymi *diisy; cf. Lith.
dosiu) and ptcp. diisynt- (cf. Lith. dosiant-) , can be exactly equated with
their Lithuanian counterparts. These forms are in fact identified in most of
was presumably built from a preterite in 3 sg. *-et. The acute *-'i- of *-'iti would then
be secondary. But it is perhaps more pro bable that *-iti originated in denominatives
from i-stems, where participles in BS *-'ita- were directly descended from lE forms
of the type found in Lat. mell'itus, Lith. akJJtas 'having eyes', etc. The extension of
*-'iti to the iterative-causative class could then have taken place even before the
contraction of *-iie- to *-'i-
17) Forms ofth; type d o ~ i n t - do occur dialectally, but the synchronic isolation of
dosiant- makes it likely that this is the original formo
103
the standard handbooks, where they are generally taken to continue a late
01' dialectal lE future in *-sjejo-. The rest of the Lithuanian paradigm,
however, does not admit of so simple an interpretation, since late lE forms
such as 1 pI. *dosjome 01' 2 pI. *dosjete would have yielded Lith. *dosiame
and *dosiate, respectivelyI8). To circumvent this problem, Stang, op. cit.
379ff., has proposed a semithematic interpretation of the future suffix,
according to which *-si- and *-sjo- would originally have had the same
distribution as *-i- and *-jo- in the stative class. This solution, unfortunate-
Iy, is open to many of the same objections as the arguments presented in
82; furthermore, it is incapable of accounting for the 3 p. form d1los, which
must therefore be explained apart from the rest of the futuI'e paradigm.
Stang himself has convincingly shown that duiJs can only continue a pre-
Baltic prototype *di5st, i. e., the 3 sg. of a simple sigmatic stem with no trace
of a further formative *-i- or *-jejo_19). ./
88. The very isolation of 3 p. d1loS would lead us to suspect that it is an
archaism, and this impression is confirmed by further facts. In a large
number of Lithuanian dialects (see Schmid, op. cit. 55ff. for a closer
description) the dual and plural forms of the first and second persons are
optionaIly 01' obligatorily athematic; representative examples from the
dialect of Tverecius, cited by Otn;bski, Narzecze Twereckie 1, 372ff., are
1 pI. ve((sme, 2 pI. veaste beside "regular" veasim, ve"sit < Standard Litli.
vedu, vesti 'lead'. Forms ofthis kind, as Schmid, op. cit. 58, has shown, are in
aIl probability inheritances from Common Baltic, rather than reformations
on the basis ofthe 3 p. in *-s. Likewise athematic in appearance is OPr. 2 sg.
postasei 'wirst' (2 x), which is perhaps to be traceq. to an earlier *sta-s-sei;
the meaning of this form, however, does not exclude the possibility of other
analyses.
Athematic s-futures are also found in Celtic and Italic. The Old Irish
sigmatic future is usuaIly reduplicated (cf. 3 sg. gigis 'will pray' < *gigedsti,
memais 'will break' < *mimadsti) , thus recalling the Indo-Iranian desidera-
tive; I'eduplication is lacking, however, in forms like 3 sg. reiss 'will run'
< *retsti and seiss will sit' < *setst?: (Thurneysen, OJGr. 4,10f.), which differ
from Lith. duos only in showing a primary ending. To these should
doubtless be added Oscan and Umbrian futures like 3 sg. Osc. didest 'dabit',
Osc., Umb. just 'erit', Umb. jerest 'feret', 3pl. Osc. censazet 'censebunt',
Umb. jurent 'erunt'. The ltalic s-future, to be sure, is often taken to be
thematic (e. g., by Buck, Gram. ojOsc. and Umb. 169), but against this view
18) Such forms occur only in Lithuanian dialeets which have given up i-inflection
generally; see Schmalstieg, Slav. and E. Eur. Jour., 16, 120ff. (1958), for a short
summary. Note that the 2 sg. dosi can also be analyzed as a thematic form, though
this is not necessary (cf. 89).
19) On forms of the type dosi, which occasionally appear in isolation, and are
regular before the reflexive particle -s(i), see Stang, Vergl. Gram. d. balto Spr.,
398-9.
104
speak 1 ) the regular preservation of the thematic vowel in presents of the
third,conjugation (cf. Vest. didet 'dat', Marr.jeret 'fert'); 2) the patently
athematic character of the Latin subjunctive type 1 sg. ,jaxim, axim, etc.
(vs. secondarily thematized jaxo, capso, etc.); and 3) the form of the 3 pI.
ending *-sent, which points directly to an athematic preform *-srfti, rather
than to thematic *-sonti
20
).
J ust as such considerations make it probable that the athematic future is
old in Baltic, the distribution offuture forms in the Rigveda suggests that
the comparison of Balt. *-si- with III'. *-sya- is largely ilIusory. We have
already noted that one of the two Lithuanian future forms with an exact
correspondent in Indo-Iranian is the synchronicaIly exceptional participle
dosiant-,.which can be matcheii segment for segment with Ved. dasynt-.
The apparent etymological identity of these forms takes on added
significance in view of the disproportionately high frequency of future
participles in the Rigveda: Grassmann, Wb., lists twenty-nine participles,
representing twelve roots, compared with only twenty finite forms,
representing ten roots. This pattern, which differs notably from that
displayed by ya-presents of the normal (classIV) type, would seem to
indicate that finite forms like dasyt'i are historical back-formations from
participles like dasynt- ; the model for their creation, of course, would have
been supplied by such regular pairs as p,yati :pllyant-, syaU: syant-,
etc,
It thus appears that a future participle in *-sjont- can legitimately be
reconstructed for dialectal Indo-European; note further the isolated OCS
participle 'about to be, future', the latter variant of which
(cf. also OCz. probys7lcny 'useful') is doubtless tobe referred, along with
Lith. b1siant- and Av. 'id.' (Ved. bhavillynt- is a younger form) to
an inherited *bhusjont_
21
). On the basis of such forms a complete finite
paradigm in *-sya- was evidently created in Indo-Iranian, while in pre-
Baltic, where no comparable renewal took place, athematic forms of the
type 1 sg. *dosm'i, 1 pI. *dosme, 2 pI. *doste, etc., were for a time preserved
intacto It is in this historical setting that the later creation ofLith. dOS7l,
dosime, dosite, etc. must be viewed, and not in the false light of the
equation dosiu = dasymi: the identity ofLith. -siu and Ved. -symi is, in
Meillet's phrase, a "mirage de la grammaire compare."
89. In my view, which is essentiaIly the same as that of Schmalstieg,
Slav. and E. Eur. Jmlr.16, 120ff. (1958), the si-forms ofthe Baltic future
20) The future, in faet, is most pro bably the category whieh provided the model
for the replacement of *-ont by *-em in Ose. 3 pI. preso fiiet 'fiunt', staiet 'stant'; it is
difficult to follow Buck in attributing *-ent and *-sent to the influenee of isolated
athematic forms like sem 'sunt'.
21) The close agreement of Lith. b1siant- and Av. busiiam- makes it unlikely, in
my judgment, that OCS bysqst- was created within Slavic, as claimed by
Aitzetmller, Gedenkschr. Brandenstein, 11ff.
105
can be explained entirely on the basis of an earlier athematic paradigm in
*-S-. The process by which the future sign carne to acquire a following *-i- is
most clearly revealed by the exceptional paradigm of the ver b 'know' in our
oldest attested Baltic language, Old Prussian. In the singular, OPr. waist
has the athematic present forms 1 waidmai, 2 waisei, and 3 waist; historical-
ly, this inflection has replaced that of an earlier perfect, the 1 sg. of which
survives in 008 vd (OPr. -mai = pf. *-ai x preso *-mi). We should expect
the plural to be athematic as well; the actually attested forms, however, are
1 pI. waidimai and 2 pI. waiditi, with an etymologically extraneous *-i-. The
origin of this vowel is no doubt to be sought in the fact that before the
Oommon Baltic loss of the singular: plural opposition inthe third person,
the 3 pI. of waist would have been *waidint(i) 01' *waidir, with an ending
l'epresenting an earlier perfect 3 pI. in *-1Ji 01' *-1'. A form like 3 pI.
*waidint(i) would naturally have been subject to renalysis as stem *waidi-
+ 3 pI. marker *-nt(i), and such a reinterpretation could in turn have led to
the generalzation of -i- to the remaining persons of the plural. Typological-
ly, developments of this kind are not unknown outside Baltic : a precisely
similar case is that of the plural preterite endings 1 *-um and 2 *-up in
Germanic (cf. also Go. 1 duo -u < *-u-we, 2du. -uts < *-u-tes), the *-u- of
which has been extended from the regular 3 pI., in *-un *-tl-t).
G. Klingenschmitt (personal communication) has called my attentioll to
the fact that the-a- ofthe Armenian passive aorist (type beray, berar, etc. 'I
was carried, you were carried') can plausibly be traced to the 3 pI., where lE
*-tl-to yielded -ano Note also the replacement of -ci- by -mx- in the plural and
dual of the sigmatic aorist in Greek, where -IX- is etymological onll in the
3 pI. in -crIXV ( < *-8t1-t + analogical -v) and 1 pI. in -lXfLe:v 2 ).
8imilarly, the inflection of the Baltic future can be accounted for by
assuming that the pre-Baltic 3 sg. *dost originally corresponded to a 3 pI.
*dsint < *dstl-t. From such a form it would have been a simple matter for
*-i- to be extended to the rest of the plural and dual paradigm, thus giving
rise to the immediate antecedents of Lith. 1 pI. d1losime, 2 pI. dosite, etc.
The new forms did not at the outset completely replace the old : a slight but
perceptible functional contrast between the types dosime and dosme is
maintained in sorne Lithuanian dialects to the present day (cf. Otrftbski,
loe. cit.; Fraenkel, Malcher Pietkiewicz, 34f.). The singular paradigm was
largely unaffected by these developments. Here Lith. duJs directly
continues *dast, and 2 sg. dosi is most simply taken as *duos-sei, i. e., as a
straightforward athematic form with the substitution ofBalt. *-sei for *-si
(cf. 42). Only in the first person was *dsmi replaced by dosiu, a renewal
which was favored both by the form of the present participle and by the
regular Baltic correlation ofplural and dual forms in *-i- with 1 sg. forms in
*-jo.

22) The -IX ofthe 1 sg., of course, is also regular *-81/1); since it is synchronicalIy
a desinence, however, it is unlikely to have had much effect on the generalization of
-cr(J,- at the expense of -cr- in the dual and plural.
106
...
It is impossible to give an exact chronology for these remodelings, save,
o course, to note that the extension of *-i- from the 3 pI. could only have
occurred before the loss of the 3 pI. as a distinct form in Oommon Baltic.
Slavic preserves no unambiguous traces of a future in *-si- 01' *-s1:-. The
participial fOl'm which could in principIe represent a replacement o
bysQst- *bhusjont-) under the influence of a finite paradigm *bysQ,
*bysisi, etc., can equally weIl be explained, as Hollifield has pointed out to
me, as the reflex of an earlier form in *-8t1-t-: it is significant that the s-aorist
participles of Avestan, which are historically ofthis shape, frequently have
future value (cf. Reichelt, Awest. El.,328). Nevertheless, the only cel'tain
terminus post quem fOl' the substitution of *-si- for *-s- in the plural and dual
of the future is the Balto-Slavic sound change of *t1 to *in; there exists at
least a theoretical possibility that forms of the type *dosime and *dosite
once existed not only in Baltic, but in pre-8lavic as welI.
90. Baltic examples of the extension of i-inflection from an original 3 pI.
in *-int( i) are nQt confined to OPr. waist and the Letto-Lithuanian future;
it is significant, moreover, that traces of a similarprocess can be o bserved in
Slavic. OPr. 1 pI. waidimai and 2 pI. waiditi invite immediate compal'ison
with Lith. stoveZi 'stand' (1 pI. stvime) anddveli 'wear' (1 pI. devime) , which
likewise continue original perfects (cf. 85; fOl' dveU cf. Ved. dadhu)23);
inseparable from these is 008 bojati 'fear' *-ti), which belongs with
the family of Ved. bibMya and Gmc. *bibaip ( 62).
Here too, in the usual view, belong Lith. gareli, OOS gorti, -it'b 'burn',
OOSpolti, -it'b 'burn', and bolti, -it'b 'be ill' (Stang, Slav. U. balto Vb., 24). To
be sure, the o-grade of these forms is ambiguous: in the case of BS *garti in
particular, an earlier athematic present *gl'hor-j*gl'her-, rather than a
perfect, is suggested by the vocalism and morphology of Gk. 8pofLlX (cf.
38, 70, 72). But since a zero-grade 3 pI. ending would have been regular
both in the o-grade present and in the perfect, it is not important to make a
distinction between the two categories as far as Balto-Slavic is con-
cerned
24
).
A second group of verbs whose membership in the f,-class is secondary
consists of original acrostatic presents with *e: *e apophony (cf. 38). This
type, which likewise ended in *-tl-ti in the 3 pI., was formerly well-
represented in Balto-Slavic: directly attested examples include OLith. esti
'eat', 3 p. esti, OOS jasti 'id.', 3 sg. jast'b; OLith. be'gti run', 3 p. be'gti, OOS
Miati *-ti) 'id.' (cf. note 26 below); perhaps also OLith. srgeti 'protect',
23) OtherwiseBammesberger, Lg. 50, 687-95 (1974); Idonotfindhis arguments
persuasive, although the original function and distribution of *-')!- in these forms
remains problematic.
24) Nor, assuming that the acrostatic analysis is correct for sorne 01' alI of these
verbs, is it possible to decide with certainty whether the pre-Balto-Slavic forms
were middle, like pre-Gmc. 3 sg. *torpr and *konkr, 01' active, like pre-Gmc.
*knke. The latter alternative seems likelier (cf. note 35).
107
3 p. srgti ( < *strgti). Sevveral .ho,weer; ?ave replaced forms of ths
kind by paradigms in *-'i-. OCS see lS perhaps best taken as the
replacement of an earlier athematc *yAidmi, *-si, *-ti, the optatve of
which survves, at least indrectly, in OCS mpv. 2, 3 sg. viidh
25
). Both
athematic and i-forms of the root *yeid- are found in Baltc also: for the
former compare Lth. veizdli 'look' (OLth. 1 sg. veizdmi)26), for the latter
Lith. pavydli 'envy' (cf. Lat. inuidere), 3 p. pav{di. Despte Kurylowicz,
L'apoph.,292, the acute intonaton of BS *tddf,- and ts synchronc
assocaton wth an athematc paradgm in both branches make it doubtful
that ths stem was created by secondary lengthening from a statve of the
usual type (cf. 95). Rather, it appears that the startng point for the Baltic
and Slavc stem-forms in *-I:- was a 3 pI. *yUinti < *-1Jti, replacing an earler
3 pI. *y,eid1Jii; the new morphologcal zero-grade *y,'id- would have stood in
the same relatonship to *yZid- as dd *-i- to *-ei- in athematic presents of
the tradtonally reconstructed type. For the ablaut compare the parallel
Baltc pars Lth. nedti 'shun' vs. Latv. nfdet (besde nfst) 'scorn' and
Latv. zidt 'bloom' vs. Lth. iydli, 3 p. i{di
27
).
As in the case of the future, t s dfficult to establsh a relable
chronologcal interpretaton of these facts. The plural of the ver b 'know' in
Slavc (cf. OCS 1 vm'b, 2vste, 3 vdfit'b) seems to show that the extracton of
the stem *y,aidi- from the 3 pI. was a purely Baltc development. The
equatons Lth. gari = OCS gorit'b and Lth. pav{di = OCS vidit'b, on the
other hand, indcate that here the generalzaton of i-forms may have
begun in the common perodo It s possble, for example, that the Balto-
Slavc paradgms of these verbs were already characterized by *-i- in the
plural and dual, though not in the singular: both branches would then have
completed the extenson of *-i- independently, Slavc innovating further
by lengthening *-i- to *-'i- (cf. 86). That the dstribution of*y,'idi- was still
partly restrcted in Balto-Slavc s suggested by the athematc forms cted
above; for *gari- note the OCS preso ptcp. gorqst- (beside regular gorfist-),
25) On the oas athematic imperative see note 43 below. Although the acrostatic
type in *e: *e appears to have been associated with aoristic roots from lE times,
*'J!idrni itself need not have been inherited from the parent language; see also 97.
26) The -zd- of these forms, which is confmed to Baltic, may have arisen in the
imperative, where *Jiid-dhi 'look!' would have given *yeizdi, 01' (less likely) in the
3 sg., where a stem *yeizd- could have been extracted from *yeisti < *Jiid-ti.
27) The latter verb, referred by Pokorny, IEW 355, to the root *{jei-, is offurther
interest in showing that the root enlargement *-d- (*-dh-) could form athematio
presents in Baltic; it is thus probable that the i-inflection of the Lithuanian
iterative type in -d- (cf. rnrdti, 3 p. rnrdi) is likewise due to the original presence of
a 3 pI. in *-inti. Other t-presents of aorostatio origin include dialectal Slavic bii-
beside biati (Vaillant, op. cit., 382f.), and Latv. 1 pI. raUdirn, 2 pI. raUdit raUdt
'weep'), the correct explanation of which was seen already by Endzelin, Filologu
biedr'ibas raksti 8, 107.
108
which can only date from a tme when the incorporaton of goreti into the
normal stative type was not yet complete
28
).
91. The relevance of the formatons dscussed in the preceding seotons
to the problem of the statve presents should now be olear. The hstory of
the future, perfeot and aorostatic present types in Balto and Slavo
undersoores the fact that the 3 pI., as the non-singular verbal form par
excellence, is typologcally well-suted to serve as the point of departure for
formal innovatons elsewhere in the plural and dual paradgm. It s true
that many, and concevably even all of the remodelings studed aboye
belong to the post-Balto-Slavic perod, when f-presents were already
avalable to provde a model for the extraction ofnew stem-forms in *-f,-
from the 3 pI.; neveI"theless, nothing whch we have assumed for the
development of the three categores in queston would have been
mpossible or unnatural f the statve type had not yet been present in the
language. (Compare the Germanc example cted in 89, where *-u- was
able to spread from the 3pI. despte the absence of a pre-exsting type in
*-um, *-up, *-un elsewhere in the verbal system.) In short, the possblty
cannot be excluded a priori that the *-f,- of the Balto-Slavic statives s tself
ultmately attrbutable to a process of generalzaton from the 3 pI. The
mplcatons of ths fact wl1 be explored in detal below.
92. We have seen in 82-5 that attempts to relate the stem-vowelof
Balt. *mini- and SI. *mhn?:- to the lE suffxes tradtonally reconstructed
*-jejo-, *-ejejo- and *-e- have not met with notable success. As an
alternatve approach, let us now consder the possblty that the present of
BS *mintti s to be explained on the bass of the same formaton as ts
Germanic counterpart, the third class weak verb *munan, *-aiP. In 68 t
was argued that Gmc. 3 sg. *munaiP s best regarded as a transformaton of
an lE perfect mddle * (me )mnr, the hstorcally regular outcome of whch,
*munai, was suffxed further by the *-p of the 3 sg. actve. Since Balto-
Slavc, like Germanc, appears generally to have elminated reduplcaton
from ts survving reflexes ofthe lE perfect (cf. Lth. stvi, OLth. liekmi '1
remain', OCS boit'b, etc.) the pre-Balto-Slavc paradgm corresponding to
that of pre-Gmc. *munai would presumably have had the following form
(cf. 65, 78):
sg. 1
2
3
*mina'i
*mintai
*minai
( = pre-Gmc. *munai)
( = pre-Gmc. *mundai)
( = pre-Gmc. *munai)
28) Note also the deviant oas participle vidorn'b. Further evidence for "mixed"
paradigms in Baltic is parhaps to be seen in 1 sg. forms such as Lith. stvrn'i, -vfdrni,
ifdrni, rnrdrni; these are, however, late (Ruhig) and open to other possible
in terpretations.
109
pI. 1
2
3
*minm_
29
*mind_
29
*minintai
( = pre-Gmc. *mnnm-)
( = pre-Gmc. *mnnd-)
( = pre-Gmc. *mnnnndai)
Two preliminary remarks are in order. The aboye reconstruction
presupposes that Balto-Slavic originally had primary middle endings ofthe
type in *-i, like Greek, Indo-lranian and Germanic, rather than ofthe type
in *-1', like Anatolian, Italic, Oeltic and Tocharian. This assumption will
play no role in the remarks that follow: final *-ai may everywhere be
replaced by *-ar without significant consequences for the discussion as a
whole. Less trivially, however, we shall also assume in what follows that
pre-Balto-Slavic replaced the inherited 3 pI. in *-rai (= Ved. -re) by
*-intai < *-1}toi; although this supposition cannot independently be con-
firmed, comparable renewals of lE *-ro(i) are found in every lE language
in which the middle has survived as an autonomous category30).
93. As the initial step in the remodeling of the perfect middle in Balto-
Slavic we may speculate that, as in the typologically similar cases cited in
89-90, the *-i- ofthe 3 pI. wasgeneralized to theremainingpluralforms,
yielding 1 pI. *minim- and 2 pI. *minid-; the same process would presum-
ably have introduced *-i- into the endings ofthe dual as well. Oonsider now
the effect on this paradigm of the general Balto-Slavic elimination of the
middle desinences. In the plural and dual, where the old middle forms
contained a union vowel *-i- before the terminations proper, the simplest
course would be to assume that this vowel was preserved intact, while
active endings were substituted for their middle counterparts. 3 pI.
*minintai would thus have been remade to *mininti, while the original
forms of the 1 pI. and 2 pI. would have become *minime and *minite,
respectively. Outside the singular, therefore, the original perfect middle
paradigm would have yielded forms essentially identical to their attested
equivalents in Baltic.
It is less easy to predict how the loss of the middle would have affected
the paradigm of the singular. The 3 sg. middle *minai could in principIe
have had several developments. As in Germanic, the obsolete ending *-ai
might have been reinterpreted as part of the stem: in this case *minai
would probably have been retained, since the 3 sg. in Balto-Slavic is
typically characterized by a zero-desinence (cf. below). Alternatively, *-ai
could have been replaced by its athematic active analogue *-ti, yielding
a new 3 sg. *minti 01', with generalization of *-i- from the plural, *miniti.
29) As in the corresponding Germanic forms, we shaH not attempt a reconstruc-
tion of the 1 pI. and 2pI., middle endings.
30) Thus, only Indo-Iranian and Tocharan preserve 1'-endings in the 3 pI. middle
at aH, the latter most clearly in the isolated form B stare 'are' < *sth
2
-r (for *sUfre,
presumably because it was enclitic; cf. 3 sg. ste 'is' < *sth
2
-). Even in Indo-Iranian,
*-atai and *ata appear beside *-rai and *-m[ n].
110
T
I
N either of these possibilities seems in fact to have been exploited. Instead,
Balto-Slavic evidently extended to the nascent i-class the pattern of the
thematic conjugation, where the 3 sg. was formally identical to the stem-
allomorph which appeared before the endings of the 1, 2 pI. and 1-3 duo
3 sg. *minai was thus replaced by *mini, which stood in the same relation to
1 pI. *minime, 2 pI. *minite, etc. as did, e. g., 3 sg. *yede to 1 pI. *yedeme, 2 pI.
*yedete, etc.
31
).(If the change of *-eje- to *-f- had already taken place (cf.
86), the inflectional type ancestral to OOS 3 sg. nosi(t'b), 1 pI. nosim'b, 2 pI.
nosite would have conformed to this pattern as well.) An additional factor
in the choice of *mini as the new 3 sg. may have been the following. In the
3 pI., the replacement of *minintai by *mininti was
nied by a period of fluctuation in the use of these forms, wlth
gradually gaining the upper hand. To a speaker ofpre-Balto-Slavic at this
stage fmal *-ai and *-i would have appeared to be in free variation in the
3 pI.; it is not entirely improbable that this situation could have induced a
similar alternation in the 3 sg., where the inherited ending *-ai would
thereby have acquired a variant *-i.
With *mini established in the 3 sg., the history of the remaining singular
forms would for all practical purposes have been determined. The original
1 sg. *minai would almost surely have been supplanted by an active form in
*-001' *-jo, just as in Germanic 1 sg. *mnnai was remade to *mnno (cf. 78);
in Balto-Slavic the presence of an apparent stem *mini- elsewhere in the
paradigm would obviously have favored the selection of *minjo, rather
than *mino, as thenewform
32
). In the 2 sg. thereconstruction ofthe Balto-
Slavic prototype is unclear. Probably the simplest assumption would be
that a new 2 sg. was created according to a proportion of the type 3 sg.
*yede: 2 sg. *yedei:: 3 sg. *mini: 2 sg. X, X = *mini + i> *mini; it would
then be possible to take BS *-i as the direct source of dialectal Lith. -i,
reflexive -ts (cf. Stang, op. cit. 409)33). Rere too may belong OPr. 2 sg. tnrri,
if this form has not simply been generalized from the third person;
Standard Lithuanian -(e) (= Latv. -i(e)) is probably best regarded as an
analogical creation on the model of the regular thematic type in *-ja-. In
Slavic a 2 sg. in *-i perhaps underlies the attested form in -isi (OOS), with
31) Of. 42, where these forms have been discussed. I follow Watkins, Idg. Gr.1I1.
1, 219, in taking OOS -t'b to be a secondary accretion to the 3 sg. ending, possibly
identical with the demonstrative pronoun t'b 'ille'.
32) It is not inconceivable that the choice of *minjO was also influenced by the
continued existence at this stage of Balto-Slavic of a synonymous -je(o- presEffit
cognate with Gk. and Ved. mnyate. The 1 sg. could also, of course, have
ended in *-ijO (i. e., *-i-i5), from which *-jOin both branches would have been regular
in any case.
33) With the acute intonation, historically pro blematic, of other Lithuanian 2 sg.
forms.
111
*-sei suffixed directly to the inherited ending
34
). If of this origin, 2 sg.
mbnisi, etc., may have played a role in the replacement of*-t- by *-i"- within
the subsequent history of the stative paradigm in Slavic (see below) 35).
94. The fmal result of these developments would have been the creation
of an indicative paradigm which may be taken to represent the present of
in Balto-Slavic:
sg. 1
2
3
*mino
*mini"
*mn
pI. 1
2
3
*mnme
*mnte

These forms, with the obvious exception of the 3pI., were preserved
unchanged in Baltic. In Slavic, on the other hand, *-t- was apparently
replaced by *-i"- under the influence of the iterative-causatives and \
denominatives in *-i"- (cf. 86); themergerofthetwo types, itwill benoted,
would have been phonologically regular in the 1 sg. (cf. OCS nosq < *-jO <
*-io < *-eiOJ and probably in the 2 sg. as well (cf. OCS nosisi < *nos + si,
with 2 sg. *nosi < *-ejei) 36). In the 3pI., contrary to the pattern elsewhere,
the stative ending *-int, synchronicallyreinterpreted as *-i"nti, superseded
the iterative-causative 3 pI. in *-ionti < *-ejonti; OCS 3 pI. thus
represents an analogical replacement of inherited *nosot'b. For a discussion
of the corresponding modal and participial forms see ' 98.
It emerges, then, that the presents of Lith. minli and OCS mbnti can
both be explained as morphological transformations of the lE paradigm
posited in ch. 3 as the prototype of the Germanic classIII weak present
*muno, *-ais, etc. It remains to be seen, however, whether the lexical
membership of the mini-class favors such a derivation for the Balto-
Slavic stative type as a whole.
34) Alternatively, we could explain both the Slavic and Standard Lithuanian
forms on the basis of a thematic (*-jejo-) 2 sg. in BS *-ei < *-jei. The analogical
process which created the dialectal Lithuanian 2 sg. in -'i would then have been of
post-Baltic date.
35) The above account presupposes that *-i- was generalized from the 3 pI. before
the 10s8 of middle inflection. If we assumed that these developmen ts had occurred in
the ?rder, it would be less easy to motivate the creation of 1 sg. *minjO
and 3 sg. we would also be unable to explain why the extension of *-i- from
3 pI. *-inti was general in the stative class, but only sporadic in other categories.
The possibility of explaining the -i- of the Baltic sta,tive class as an analogical
extension from the 3 pI. was already seen, though not fully exploited, by
Schmalstieg, Int. Joum. oi Slav. Ling. and Poet.1, 181-3 (1959).
36) The existence of 3 sg. forms of the type *gori < *-ei, whatever their origin,
may have played a role in the substitution of *-'i- for *-i- in Slavic. Typologically,
the merger of the two i-conjugations recaIls, e. g., the substitution of It. capire fol'
Lat. capere (1 sg. capia.
112
......
I
I
95. As in Germanic, the expansion of the perfect middle in pre-Balto-
Slavic would have been most likely to affect roots with inherited perfect
actives or inherited middle root aorists (cf. 71-2). Examples of both
types are not difficult to find:
Lith. budli, bUdi, OCS b'bdti, -it'b 'be awake': an active perfect is
presupposed by Ved. (subj.) bbodhati. Note also the middleroot aorist 3 pI.
budhran, abudhmm, inj. budhnta (with -anta for -ran; cf. 35), ptcp.
budhanr; Gl\:. E7t()e;-ro is doubtless a thematization of a similar formo Both
Vedic and Greek, moreover, show the corresponding perfect middle: cf.
Ved. ptcp. bubudhan- (with post-Vedic finite forms), Gl\:. 7trcUcrTG, plpf.
7t7tUcrTO.
OCS -it'b 'hold': the Vedic classIV present drhyati 'is firm' and
perfect middle participle dailrha1Jr suggest the former presence of a middle
root aorist, a trace of which evidently survives in YAv. d<J'l'<Jzano. p'J'l''Jea-
V.3.41 '(exacting) strict (d'Jr'Jzana-) penance'. These forms point to root-
final *-gh; a variant in *-gh is attested in YA v . drazaite 'holds', which in this
respect more nearly resembles the Slavic formo
Lith. gulli, guli 'lie' : as suggested in 33, an etymological connection is
possible with one or both of Gk. and Toch. A kulatii'l' ,
B kuletiir (classIII) 'slackens', the latter verb, of course, being the normal
Tocharian continuant of a middle root adrist.
OCS lezati, -t'b 'lie' : the root *legh- attests a perfect in Gl\:. AEAOXU!.IX A:XW
Y:vofLv'Y) and perhaps in Hitt. laki 'makes crooked'. The corresponding
middle root aorist survives in Gl\:. AXTO.
OCS 'be stuck (to)': B 'remains over' implies
an lE aOflst 3 sg. *hp. Under the analysls offered ID the preceding chapter
Gmc. *liban, *-aip 'live' would represent an exact parallel to the Slavic
form (cf. 72).
Lith. Vytli, Suyti 'glitter', OCS 8Vbtti -it'b 'shine' : the long root vowel
ofthe Lithuanian form reflects the morphologicallengthening, common in
verbs ofthis class, described by Kurylowicz, L'apoph. 291f. (Lith. Vitli,
1 sg. Suitu, from which Suytli is derived, has abandoned i- for a-inflection.)
An aorist middle participle Svitanr is found once in the Rigveda (6.6.2).
ty'lli, tyl 'be silent': as in the preceding item, the long root
vocalIsm lS secondary. The relationship of tylli to Gmc. *pulan, *-aip
'suffer, endure' is the same as that ofOCS -lbpti to Gmc. *liban, *-aip (cf.
above). As noted in 72, Gk. perf. 1 pI. TTAlXfL:V (cf. OLat. tetuli") and aor.
3 sg. point to the existence of an active perfect and root aorist in Indo-
European.
OCS tr'bpti, -it'b 'suffer, endure': the original existence of an active
perfect is shown by Go. pa'l'f 'needs' and related Germanic forms. Gk. subj.
1 pI. TlXp7tWfL:81X is probably thematized from an earlier root aorist *trp(t); a
perfect middle participle tattpanr is found RV 10. 95. 16. It is also possible
that the Slavic verb continues an original present of the type assumed in
38 and 70 for Toch. A tsa'l'watiir and Gmc. *parbaip; the attested zero-
113
grade could then have been extended from the stem in --, where this
vocalism was regular.
96. Here also belong two Slavic verbs which are exceptional in having
infinitives in -ati rather than -ti:
OOS shcati, shcit'h 'mingere': an lE middle root aorist is indicated by
Toch. A 3 sg. *sikata1' 'overflows' and, as noted in 33, Ved. subj. 3 sg.
scate. The sense of shCati makes it unlikely that this verb continues an
earlier perfect middle. Instead, it seems probable that the present stem
shci- was extracted from an athematic aorist present of the type found in
the Tocharan third class and in Gmc. *fulgan, *-aiP (cf. 66); from a
morphological point ofview, of course, the loss ofreduplication in Balto-
Slavic would have rendered such forms indistinguishable from perfect
middles. If correctly explained in this way, the presents of shcati and
Toch. A sik- would constitute a genuine word equation, permitting the
reconstruction of an lE 3 sg. preso *sikr.
OOS s'hpati, s'hpit'h 'sleep': the immediate comparandum is Hitt. 3 sg.
8uppari, suptari 'sleeps', the historical status ofwhich, however, is itselfnot
entirely clear. If, as seems not impossible, 8uppari is simply the middle
corresponding to Ved. preso 3 sg. svapiti (cf. also impv. 3 sg. svptu (AV)).
the most direct explanation of SI. *s'hpi- would be on the basis of a middle
root present of the same type. It is perhaps likelier, however, that the
Httite present is a secondary creation, formed by adding primary endings
to an older root aorist *sup(t) (cf. martari 'dies' beside Ved. aor. inj. mrta);
in this case the Slavic present would invite typological comparison with the
Vedic perfect middle participle su?upan- and inj. 2 sg. su?upthalp (Brahma-
nas).
The verbs shcati and s'hpati are of additional interest in that they
strengthen the assumption, implicitly adopted here, that the Balto-Slavic
present suffix *-t- is historically independent of the infinitive stem in
*_e_
3
\ The association of shci- and s'hpi- with extra-present forms in -a-
strikingly recalls the association of class III (IV) presents in Tocharian with
subjunctives and preterites in OToch. *-a- ( 14).
97. In a number of cases the interpretation of a Baltic 01' Slavic stative
under the perfect middle hypothesis is uncertain. If, as suggested to me by
Schindler (personal communication), the -e:- ofLat. sed' and Go. 1 pI. setum
'we sat' reflects a sound change -Vzd->-Vd- of lE date (cf. Av.
hitJaiti = Ved. stdati), it would be possible to derive Lith. sedeli, se'di and
37) To be sure, it would still be possible under Cowgill's theory of the t-presents
(84) to derive shi- and s'hpi- from *sik-hdejo- and *sup-hdejo-; presumably
*-hdejo- and *-hriejo- would have yielded the same result in Slavic. Note that
whatever its true explanation, shi-, which is not semantically stative, is unlikelyto
be a mere Entgleisung for earlier *sik-jejo-.
114
OOS sedeti, -ith from a reduplicated perfect middle stem *sed-<*sezd-
38
).
On the other hand, it is difficult to separate the vocalism ofthis verb from
that of the OOS thematic aorist sde 'sat down' 01' from that of OLith. 3 p.
'sits down', which points to an earlier acrostatic present in *e: *e. Note
also the short root-vocalism o OOz. sedeti. An unambiguous determina-
tion of the status of BS *seditti does not for the moment seem feasible
39
).
BS as we have seen above ( 90), is probably best separated from
Gmc. *witan, *-aiP and explained without reference to an inherited perfect
middle. It should be borne in mind, however, that if our interpretation of
the root-form as a morphological zero-grade is correct, the new
allomorph could in principIe have replaced the phonologically regular
zero-grade *y,id- in any and all grammatical categories where the latter was
inherited. Thus, even if Balto-Slavic had originally possessed a series of
forms precisely analogous to Gmc. 3 sg. *witai(p) and Ved. vid, such forros
would no longer necessarily be uniquely recoverable.
Not all t-presents, of course, are directly referrable to athematic
forroations. OOS stojati, -it'h 'stand' is most naturally explained as an old
jej 0-presen t * sthz-ie j 0- which, following the deca y ofthe in transitive type in
*-jejo- in Balto-Slavic, was secondarily transferred to the t-class. The oes
present is thus probably the replacement of an earlier *stojq, *-jesi, which
may be compared directly with Hitt. 'step' and Gmc. 3 sg. *sta(j)ip
(OHG stet) , 3pl. *stajanp (OHG stant)4 ). Another likely transfer of this
kind is OOS kypti, -it'h 'boil', for which Skt. kupyati (Ep.) 'be angry' and
Lat. cupw guarantee an old jejo-present, but for which no clear evidence of
an inherited perfect 01' root aorist can be cited. Lith. syjeli, sfJji 'be
connected' is doubtless to be compared with Ved. va syati 'binds' and Hitt.
iBIJai-; the precise interrelationships ofthese forms, however, are unclear
(cf. 54).
98. The examples discussed in show that a substantial number
oH-presents can plausibly be regarded as morphological transformations of
earlier athematic middle formations. One of the most conspicuous advan-
tages ofthis analysis is that it accolillts directly for the Balto-Slavic 3 pI. in
*-inti, which must otherwise be explained by a weak analogical argument
(cf. 82). As we shall now see, the theory presented above also permits a
straightforward interpretation of the present participle in *-int- and
optative in *-'-.
3M) forms as Av. pf. opto 3sg. hazdiiiitand Gk. would then, of course,
have to be explained as analogicall'emodelings.
39) 1 sg. se'dmi 'sedeo' (R uhig) is eviden tly a form of the type stvmi (cf. note 28).
40) It is not improbable that the replacement of *stoje- by stoi- was triggered by
the prior creation of the stative infinitive *stojeti, On ORG stet, stiint, see Cowgill,
Journ. of lE St7d, , 1,298-9 (1973), corl'ecting my earlier attempt to explain these
forms as tl'ansformedmiddles (NSF ReportRARV-LING-01-72, 291-307 [1972]).
115
In 75-6 it was suggested that Germanic third class present participles
such as Go. munands are best explained as apophonically normalized
reflexes ofthe lE participial type in *-ent-/*-r!J-, rather than as entirelynew
analogical creations on the basis of the class III finite paradigm. The
corresponding Balto-Slavic forms (cf. Lith. minint(i)-, OCS are
equally amenable to such an analysis: here it is only necessary to assume
that the zero-grade suffix-form *-int- < *-rJ;- was generalized under the
influence of the present stem in *-i-. In Slavic *-int- was extended to all
presents in *-"-, so that phonologicallyregular OCS *nosQst- was replaced by
in the same way that *nosQt'h was superseded by in the 3 pI. (cf.
94)41). . .
Likewise exhibiting an athematic structure are the inherited forms ofthe
optative. In Slavic, where the original situation is relatively clear, the
plural and dual forms of the imperative ( = lE optative) are characterized
by -i- + the personal endings, and are thus indistinguishable at the
segmentallevel from the corresponding indicative forms. 'fhey differ from
the indicative, however, in showing acute intonation of the suffix (cf.
Vaillant, op. cit., 528), thus recalling athematie imperatives like OCS 2 pI.
dadite 'give' *dadUe), in which the mood sign -i- is simply the regular
Slavic reflex ofIE *-1:- < *-ih
r
. Within the context ofthe present theory,
nothing would be more natural than to assume that forms such as OCS
impv. 2 pI. mhnite, like dadite, continue lE prototypes in which the optative
suffix was applied directly to a suffixless athematic stem. In the singular,
the contrast between 2, 3 sg. mhni < *-"s, *-"t and 2, 3 sg. daidh < *-dj's,
*-dj'et would then reflect the fact that the ablaut *-je-/*-"- *-jeh
r
/
*-ih
z
-) was confined to the opta tive active in Indo-European, while the
paradigm of the optative middle was characterized by *-"- *-ih
r
)
throughout
42
).
The Standard Lithuanian "permissive" 3 p. te-minie is in appearance a
thematic optative and, like the 2sg. indicative in -(e), is probably to be
interpreted as an analogicalformation on the model ofthe ja-presents (cf.
93). Dialectal Lithuanian, however, has permissive forms of the type te-
miniJ (cf. Stang, op. cit., 422ff.) ; these, despite intonational difficulties, can
perhaps be equated with their Slavic counterparts in -i. A direct
comparison of Lith. te-miniJ with OCS mhni would entail the assumption
that BS *-t(t), which would regularly have shortened to *-i in Lithuanian,
was analogically lengthened under the influence of the *-"- which still
41) Under this interpretation it is attractiye to compare BS *sedint- (Lith. s'dint-,
OCS sdl?st-) with the isolated Vedic participle siidat- (saddyoni- RV 5. 43. 12).
42) Here and elsewhere, l have tacitly assumed that daidh, vizdh, etc. have been
shortened from earlier *daidi, *viidi, etc., via a process typologically comparable to
the shortening observable in Lat. die, dc, jac. The phonologically regular
treatment of the 2 sg. athematic optative appears in OCS 2 sg. xosti = xosteli (cf.
Vaillant, op. cit., 401).
116

characterized the optative plural and dual. The new long vowel would then
automaticaUy have received circumflex intonation
43
).
99. The foregoing discussion has shown that in all essential respects the
Baltic stative type in *-i- and the corresponding Slavic type in *+ can be
exactly compared with their functional analogues in the Germanic third
weak class. As in Germanic, the nucleus of the Balto-Slavic category
appears to have been a smaU group of lE 01' early post-lE perfect middles
(*mini-, *budi-; cf. 92-5); in one instance, as, m'utatis mutandis, in
Germanic also, an seems to have been crcated from a middle root
aorist (*siki-> SI. *shi-; cf. 96). This inventory has been enlarged by the
secondary transfer to the of earlier je/o-presents (cf. OCS stoi- etc.;
97) and athematic active formations of various types (*dosi-, *gari-,
*y,"di-, etc.; cf. 89-90); in the latter cases the elaboration of fuUy
developed paradigms in must be regarded, at least in part, as a
development of the post-Balto-Slavic periodo
The most striking difference between the primary statives of Balto-
Slavic and Germanic lies in their behavior outside the present system:
while the preterite of Go. munan, -ai]J is evidently based on an inherited
root aorist 01' pluperfect (cf. 78), the extra-present forms of *mini- are
built from a stem containing the stative suffix *-e-. This morpheme has
played only a peripheral role in the preceding chapters, where we have
denied it a position ofimportance in the history ofthe third present class in
Tocharian, the third weak class in Germanic and the presen t of the type
in Balto-Slavic. N o account of any group of "e-verbs", howeyer, can be
complete without a study ofthe function and distribution ofIE *-e- itself.
Our concluding remarks are largely devoted to an examination of this
suffix.
43) Similarly, the circumflex intonation ofLith. -ie- must be secondary yis-a-vis
the acute of SI. --, which, as Hollifield points out to me, continues a sequence
*-oih
r
. The retention of *-i as a long vowel in the third person would obyiously
haye been favored by the fact that this ending was synchronically analyzable as
stem-yowel *-i- + mood sign *-'i-.
For a general discussion of the lE optative in Lithuanian, which still presents
many unsolved problems, see Stang, Vergl. Gr. d. balto 8pr, , 422ff.
117
v
CONCLUSION:
THE ROLE OF *-e- IN INDO-EUROPEAN
100. Before proceeding further, it will be useful to examine our results
thus far from a slightly wider perspective. It has been shown that the
Tocharian, Germanic and Balto-Slavic presents traditionally regarded as
primary (deverbative) "e-verbs" in fact belonghistorically to two main
types. The first consists of deponent presents derived from root aorist in-
jlillctives by the substitution of primary for secondary middle endings.
Such forms, characteristically inchoative 01' durative rather than stative in
meaning, are especially well-represented in Tocharian, where, as shownin
ch. 2, they constitute one ofthe two main so urce s ofthe attested classIII
(IV) presen ts 1 ). Isola ted exam pIes of the same forma tion ou tside Tocharian
are Gmc. *fulgan, *-aip 'follow' (cf. 66) and SI. *shcati, *shit'h 'mingere'
( 96); the present of the latter verb invites comparison with CToch.
*sikita1' 'overflows' and thus, as already noted, suggests the possibility
that a 3 sg. preso *sik6r may already have existed in lE times.
To these may perhaps be added the lE prototype ofGmc. *dugaip 'helps,
taugt' and Ved. duh 'gives milk'. For clarity ofpresentation lE *dhugh61' .
was treated in 64fT. as an ordinary root present; in several respects,
however, its status is exceptionaI. In the first place, the root *dheugh-
underlies a thematic aorist in Gle given the close relationship
between the thematic aorist and the middle of the root aorist in other ver bs
(cf. 47) we should rather have expected that a form like 3sg. *dhugh
would belong to the aorist, and not the present system. In Germanic,
*dugan, *-aip is the unique example ofthird class weak verb which can be
equated with a suffixless oxytone present elsewhere in the family;
synchronically it is closely connected with a preterito-present (*daug) and
an archaic weak preterite (3 sg. *duhtai; cf. 78), both of which are
normally associated with aoristic roots. Furthermore, note that although
middle presents in Indo-European regularly show zero-grade when
they are opposed to athematic actives with full-grade (cf. Ved. 3 sg. b1'uve,
b1'iU beside braviti 'speaks', hale (SA 12.27) beside hnti 'slays', etc.), full-
grade middles are the rule in presents media tantum (cf. Ved. 'sees',
1) The other large group, of comse, eonsists of old thematic deponents in *-ske(o-,
which have not played a signifieant role in the elaboration of e-statives elsewhere.
118
T
!
1
vste 'wears', sye 'lies'). lE *dhugh1', if a present ofthe ordinary type and
not a transformed aorist, would clearly violate this pattern, since the active
present represented by Skt. 3 sg. dgdhi 'milks' is almost certainly a back-
formation from the paradigm of duh (cf. 64)2).
It seems likely, then, that aorist presents of the Tocharan type already
constituted an incipient class in Indo-European, where, as suggestedin
36, they were probably created on the basis of modal, injunctive and
forms which were felt to be aspectually ambiguous. (This
amblgmty was d?ubtless furthered, in the case of *seik- and *dheugh-, by
the fact that nelther root had a contrasting present stem with a well-
developed middle paradigm.)3) Similar pro ces ses continued to operate in
the post-lE periodo Closely allied with the Tocharian class III (IV) presents
are the sixth class presents oflndo-Iranian: these, however, seem not to be
based directly on middle injunctives in *-6, but on the corresponding
(thematic) active type in *-t (cf. Av. hiaiti, Ved. sicalp beside CToch.
*sikita1' (33); Ved. sp'{st beside Gmc. *fulgaip (66); see also ch. 2 note
29)4). '
101. The second major source of "e-verbs" in the languages studied
aboye is the perfect middle. We have seen in 68-9 that perfect middles
were already formed from the roots *men- and *y,eid- in Indo-European; if
the res.nlts of chs. 3 and 4 can be upheld, anumber of other roots may belong
here as well. Semantically, the perfect middle is distinguished from other
middle formations by its consisten tly stative meaning; formally, it differs
from the type *dhugh61' , *sik61', etc. only in the fact that it shows
reduplication in Indo-Iranian, Greek and Celtic. In Germanic and Balto-
Slavic, where reduplication has generally been eliminated from the perfect
system, the contrast between perfect middles and middle aorist presents
has beco:rne blurred. 013 sg. dugi1', in its meaning 'helps', can straightfor-
wardly be compared with Ved. duh; at the same time, however, it also
functions as the North Germanic counterpart of Go. daug and OHG toug
'taugt' , and in this value is indistinguishable from the expected reflex of an
lE perfect middle *(dhe)dhugh6r. Similarly, OHG gi-wizzet 'is capable' can
be directly equated with Ved. vid and 011'. 1'0 'fiti1' 'knows' while Go.
witaip 'observes' has rather the non-stative sense of an aorist (cf.
2) Another possible lE aorist present of this kind is suggested by the equation
B orotiir = Hitt. artari ( 33); given the frequency with which preterites give
r18e to new presents in Hittite, however, it is just as simple, and thus probably
preferable, to suppose that mtari is a back-formation from pret. artat(i) (= Ved.
arta).
3) The nasal present represented by Ved. sicati, if old, was presumably
originally confined to the active.
, 4) the zero-grade thematic presents of Baltie (ef. Lith. spa 'roeks',
clImbs, etc.) appear to have developed from forms in 3 sg. *-t.
119
69). Such semantic variation merely underscores the fact that in the
"Northern" languages the types *dhughr and *(me)mnr have coalesced
into a single present class, characterized by both durative-inchoative and
stative functions. It is thus entirely possible that in individual cases a
Germanic 01' Balto-Slavic stative may be based directly on an aorist
present rather than on a true perfect middle; in effect, it is neither useful
nor feasible to insist on the distinction between the two categories in the
post-IE history of these languages.
Indeed, it may even be questioned whether forms like *dhughr and
*(me)mnr belonged to fully separate formations in Indo-European. An
aorist present of the type *mnr (01' could have acquired stative
value through normal semantic change, just as the stative sense of lE
(cf. Gk. (J-dvo(J-aL, etc.) probably evolved from the intransitive, but
non-stative meaning of jejo-presents like *mr-j- (cf. Lat. morior,
etc.). Following such a development, could naturally have
been reinterpreted as a perfect and provided with optional reduplication.
It would then be possible to regard the perfect middle and presents
like *dh1ghr and *sik1' as representatives of a single pre-IE category,
characterized formally by zero-grade root-vocalism and a 3 sg. in *-01', and
covering essentially the same range of semantic functions as the present
type in *_jj_
5
). But this is speculation.
102. The formations just discussed are exclusively deverbative; the
same cannot be said fOl' the lE types in *-e- and *-ejejo- (i. e., *-eh
r
, *-eh
r
jejo-) , which, as we have seen in 6, supply denominative statives and
inchoatives in Anatolian, Greek, Italic, Celtic and Balto-Slavic, and
probably once existed in Germanic as well. This fact is alone sufficient to
cast grave doubt on the supposition that *-e- was excluded fmm the present
system in Indo-European (cf. 8). A far likelier assumption is that *-e-, like
other lE suffixes with denominative functions, originally occurred with
both primary and secondary endings, and that in Greek and Balto-Slavic,
the two branches of the family which employ *-e- as an aorist marker (cf.
Gk. E(J-!X.V'l), OCS mEne), the imperfect type in *-em, *-es, *-a was su bsequent-
ly utilized to provide new aorists to stative and intransitive presents of
varying origins. In a substantial number of cases it can be shown that an e-
aorist has replaced an earlier middle root aorist: in Greek compare such
pairs as (J-[y-t vs. (J-[X'rG, E7t&.y1J vs. (cf. Chantraine, Gr. hom., 400) and
M'p) beside Toch. B wokota1' ( 34); in Balto-Slavic compare OCS leza ( < *-e)
5) A similar "stative" category is postulated for Indo-European, though without
attention to the specific evidence given aboye, by N. Oettinger, MSS 34, 109-50
(1976). Oettinger's discussion of the Hittite ending -a(l'i) is highly relevant to the
present study, although his view of the lE verbal system differs widely from that
adopted here.
120

beside Gk. AXTO, OCS b'hde, Lith. bude'(jo) beside Ved. hudhran and Lith.
gule'(jo) beside CToch. *kuliJar (95)6).
The morpheme *-e- is peculiar, however, in several respects. One of its
most notable idiosyncrasies is the fact that, unlike other lE verbal stem-
formatives, it not only functions as the basis of a regular finite conjugation,
but also serves in isolation to derive a nominal form with a variety of
periphrastic uses. Thus, in Latin the imperfect and future ofthe denomina-
tive stative rubere are rubebam and ruMbo, respectively, which are most
simply analyzed as an "infinitive" *rubefollowed by inflected forms ofthe
root *bheuh
z
- 'be, become'. Primary statives in Latin form their imperfect
and future in the same way (cf. tacZbam, tacebO); the imperfect type in
-wam, recurs in the third conjugation (cf. dcebam, etc.), where
-e- synchronically replaces the thematic vowel of the present stem. This
situation has often been compared with that in Slavic, where the imperfect
ofverbs in -eti is made by adding what appears to be a preterite ofthe root
*(hj)es- 'be' to the infinitive stem (cf. OCS 1 sg. stareax'h, mEneaX'h, 2, 3 sg.
starease, mEnease, etc.)7), and where thematic presents, as in Latin, show a
special stem-form in -e- < *-e- before the imperfect endings (cf. OCS
vedeax'h beside 1 sg. preso vedq). It isnot impossible that theproblematic Old
Irish f-future (cf. 3 sg. do' moinfethat') rests on a similar formation 8).
The -e- of Lat. l'ubebO, -bam is inseparable, moreover, from the second
vowel of factitive ver bs such as calefacio (pass. -fiO), arefacio, patefacio, etc.,
the -e- ofwhich is due to iambic shortening
9
). That such forms represent a
comparatively late fusion of original two-word sequences is clear from
phonological considerations alone; an inherited compound *calefaciowould
have been weakened in Archaic Latin to *caleficio, like pe1'-, con-ficiO, etc.
Note also the following ear ly examples of factitives with tmesis : ferue bene
facito (Cato, 1'. 1'. 157, 9), peljeme ita fiet (Varro, r. r. 1, 9, 2), conS1e quoque
faciunt (ibid., lI, 9,13), excande mefecer'unt (ibid., lII, 4, 1),facit are (Lucr.
VI, 962). Such cases directly refute the attempt by Skutsch, Kl. Schr. 214,
285, to derive calefio from *calensfio, and to explain calefacio as a back-
formation from calefio. Likewise unattractive, although for other reasons,
6) Note further that under the analysis set forth in 78, the Balto-Slavic aorist in
*-e- (3 sg. *minet, etc.) maypartly correspond in Germanic to a reflex ofthe lE root
aorist (3 sg. *mundai).
7) For theories of the Slavic imperfect, the second element of which is obscure,
see, e.g., Meillet, Sl. com., 272ff. and Vaillant, op. cit., 66f.
8) Numerous explanations, of course, have been put forth to explain the lrish
f-future; the most attractive, in my view, is still that which derives 'moinfetha1'
*man"-fJha- where *man" = BS *mine-, Gk. and where *fJMi- is the
lrregularly syncopated reflex of *besa- (for *esi-, a-subjlIDctive of the copula; cf.
Lat. erat). See Thurneysen, op. cit., 398.
9) In irefacio, of course, we fmd the generalization of -e- from calefacio, patefacw,
liquefacwand other verbs with a short initial syIlable. The etymological-e- is still
found, e. g., in consuejacio (Ter., Ad. 1.1. 29, etc.).
121
is Leumann's explanation of calefit as a replacement of calescit after the
latter had been folk-etymologized as cale + escit (1F42, 62 [1924]): escit
simply does not have the required meaning 'becomes, is becoming' in Old
Latin.
Latin thus utilizes denominative stems of the form * X-e- in three ways:
1) to make stative presents meaning 'be X' (rube1'e, calere) , 2) to make
periphrastic imperfects and futures with the root *bheuh
2
-, meaning
'wasjwill be X' (rubebam, -bO, calebam, -bOJ, and 3) to make factitives with
the root *dheh
r
, meaning 'make X' (calefaciO). As we shall now see, this
configuration of functions has a striking parallel in Vedic Sanskrit.
103. The Vedic root guh- 'hide' (pres. gflhati, -te) is associated with an
adverb gha 'hidden, in hiding'. This form is attested a total of 53 times in
the Rigveda, 22 of them in conjunction with the roots dhi- (ni-dhi-) and
kr-. The sense of gha (ni- )dhi- and gha lcr- is 'make hidden', as the
following examples show:
1) 1. 130. 3 vindad div nhita'f(b gha nidh'f(b
vr n grbham priv'itam 1nany
annte antr 1nani
'Er fand den im Versteck verborgenen Schatz des Himmels,
der im Fels verschlossen war wie die Brut des Vogels (im Ei),
im endIosen Fels' (Geldner).
2) 2. 12. 4 ynem vva cyvana lcrtr,i
y dsa'f(b vrr,am dhara'f(b ghlca'"
'Durch den (1ndra) alle diese UmwiUzungen geschehen sind,
der die dasische Rasse unterworfen und verdunkelt hat .. .'
3) 5. 15. 5 pad'f(b n tayr gha ddhano
mah ray cityann trim aspa'"
4) 10. 5. 2
'Del' du wie ein Dieb deine Spur verbirgst, du hast jetzt zu
groBem Reichtum dich offenbarend dem Atri (aus der Not)
herausgeholfen. '
rtsya pad'f(b lcavyo n panti
gha nmani dadhire prar,i
'Die Seher hten der Wahrheit Spur; sie haben ihre h6ch-
sten Bezeichnungen in ein Geheimnis gehllt.'
Used independently of (ni)dhi- and kr-, gha characteristically has the
value of a predicate adjective, with qr without an explicit copula:
122
5) 3. 1. 9 gha cmnta'f(b skhibhi'" ivbhir
div yahvbhir n gha babhva
'1hn, del' VOl' seinen guten Freunden sich verborgen hielt-
vor den jngsten T6chtern des Himmels war el' nicht
verborgen.'
6) 8. 14. 8 d gtt ajad ngirobhya
krr,vn gha sat'"
'El' trieb die Khe den Angiras' heraus, die versteckten zum
Vorschein bringend.'
7) 9. 102. 2 pa tritsya paSor
bhalcta yd gha padm
'In des Trita Kinnladen (?) hat er seine geheime Stufe
erreicht.'
8) 10. 45. 2 vidmtt te nima gha yd
vidmf tm tsam yta ajagntha
'Wir kennen deinen h6chsten N amen, del' geheim ist; wir
kennen den Quell, von wannen du gekommen bist.'
The syntactic overlap of gha in these examples with the Latin
"infinitive" in -e is too remarkable to be ignored. The locution gha
dha- (lcr-) resembles the Latin type calefacia, facit are, etc.; the use of gha
with forms of as- and bh- recalls Latin imperfects and futures like calebam
and caleba. Only the Latin conjugated type in -ea, -es, -et, etc., lacks a
precise equivalent in Vedic: its place is taken by the predicative use of gha
without a copula as in exx. 8) and 9), where the phrase yd gha (gha yd) is
translationally equivalent to Lat. quod latet latere).
The comparison of ghawith e:-forms elsewhere takes on added interest
when it is noted that the root *gheu[jh- actually underlies an e-stative in
BaItic. Ved. gflhati (cf. also YAyo 1 sg. mido aguze '1 hid (myself)', etc.) is
cognate with Lith. guzti 'cover (with something warm)'; this verb in turn
underlies a stative gzeti (3 p. guza, guzi, gieja) 'le (under something
warm)', typically used of young birds nestling beneath their mother.
Clearly, it would be desirable to relate ghato the stative stem *ghu[jh-- in
some direct way.
104. Unlike Lat. *cale, are, etc., the morphological structure of gha is
clear: it is simply the instrumental singular in -a *-e < *-eh
1
), with
adverbial accentuation, ofthe root noun guh- 'hiding place, concealment'
123

(cf. acc. sg. gham RV 1. 67. 6). The literal meaning of gha is thus
approximately 'with (i. e., in) concealment'; for the instrumental in this
value compare, e. g., the Latin "ablative of description", originally
probably an instrumental also (cf. Delbrck, Vergl. Syn.240). From a
typologicalpoint ofview, nothing, sofar as 1 am aware, standsin thewayof
identifying the *-e of such forms with the -e- (> -13-) of Lat. calefaciO,
calebam and calebo, and the -e- of OCS mbneaX'b. Once established as a
regular constituent of the verbal paradigm, of course, the instrumental
"infinitive" would have tended to become derivationally attached to the
present stem with which it was associated; it is neither necessary nor
desirable to assume an instrumental *deuk-eto account for the genesis of a
form like Lat. dilcebam 10).
Perhaps even more significant is fue fact that instrumentals like gha
can be used to explain the creation in Indo-European of the fully
conjugated stative type in *-emi, *-esi, *-eli, etc. We have alreadynoted the
collocation yd gha (gha yd) in exx. 7) and 8) aboye, where gha is the
syntactic equivalent of a stative verb; particularly striking is the
parallelism of yd gha in the first pada of ex. 8) with yta ajagntha in the
second. Similar instances are provided by the Vedic adverb mrJa 'in vain'
(cf. Hitt. madezzi 'is false, deceptive' < *m'[s-e-) , which is used predicative-
ly both in its only Rigvedic occurrence (1.179.3 nmrJasrant1f1, yd vanti
devlp 'nicht vergeblich ist das Mhen, das die G6tter begnstigen') and
later (e. g., AV 5.18.9 ym syanti sarava1f1, n s mrJa 'the arrow which
they send isnot in vain'). It may be conjectured that in such constructions
certain late lE instrumentals were reinterpreted as unmarked 3 sg. verb
forms; they would thus have become capable of receiving personal endings
when employed with non-3 sg. subjects. A new 1 sg. in *-emi and 2 sg. in
*-esi created in this way would have stood in the same relationship to the
3 sg. in *-e as forms like PoI. pret. 1 sg. znalem '1 knew', 2 sg. znalcsz stand in
relation to the endingless 3 sg. (historically a participle) znal
ll
). Subse-
quently, *-e would have been replaced by *-eli in the 3 sg. under the
influence of other athematic paradigms. Probably an important factor in
the reanalysis of the instrumental ending *-e as a verbal suffix was the
growing obsolescence in late Indo-European of the root noun class from
which forms like ghawere derived, and its replacement by the productive
neuter type in *-e/os- (cf. Gk. Lat. genus < *fnhre/os-, Ved. tpas-
10) Nor, of course, need we assume an actual case form *1}edh-e(*-eh
1
) to explain
OCS vedax'b. The Latin first conjugation imperfect in -abam, like the Slavic
imperfect in -aax'b, is perhaps best explained by a proportion of the type tacere
(mbnti) : tacwam (mbnax'b) :: cantare (dlati) : x, x = cantiibam (dlaax'b).
11) Or, conceivably, a 3 sg. pret. in *-l could have been created to the present
3 sg. in *-e(with loss of*-h
1
alreadyin late Indo-European) on the model ofpairs like
3sg. *bhere (pres.) vs. *bheret (impf.). The typological importance of the Polish
preterite paradigm has been stressed by Watkins, Gelt. Vb., 94.
124
y'--------------------------
!
'heat' < *tep-e/os-, etc.). In the case ofthe root *gheugh- in particular, the
corresponding adverb in *-e was "verbalized" in Baltic (cf. gili) but
not in Indic, where the survival of the root noun guh- provided a syn-
chronic support for the continued analysis of gha as a nominal form 12).
While admittedly speculative, the foregoing account directly motivates
two notable peculiarities of the presents and aorists in *-e- of the attested
languages, viz., their failure to display paradigmatic apophony (cf. 56),
and their almost exclusive confinement, despite a predominantly medial
(and, in Greek, even passive) function, to the active voice. (Impersonal
passives like Umbr. loufir 'lubet' and Lat. calelur constitute arare
exception.) Note also the fact, drawn to my attention by Schindler
(personal cOPlmunication), that a derivation of *-e- from the instrumental
singular of a verbal abstract would accord well with the role played by
denominative statives in archaic "Caland's Law" alternations such as that
seen in Lat. rube:re, 011'. . ruidi, etc. *h
1
ntdh-i (*-h
1
)): Gk. Lat.
ruber, etc. *h
1
t'1tdh-r-) : Ved. ntdhi-kT (PN) 'blutausstreuend'
*h1ntdh-i-; cf. Wackernagel-Debrunner Altind. Gr. n.1. 61), etc.
13
). As
Schindler will demonstrate elsewhere, the apparent substitution of suffixes
in such forms is best explained by assuming each term in the Caland series
to have been derived independently from an underlying root noun.
105. If the aboye theory is correct, we may summarize the ulterior
history ofthe "e-verbs" as follows. Late Indo-European possessed a series
of presents and imperfects in *-e-, based historically on the instrumental
singular of root nouns and hence ultimately denominative. In cases where
the underlying root was not also utilized to derive a primary -verb, this type
(01' ts thematized equivalent in *-e-je/o-) was able to maintain its identity
in a majority ofthe lE daughter languages, giving rise to the denominative
statives and inchoatives discussed in 6. In cases where there existed a
competing verbal paradigm, on the other hand, the fortunes ofthe type in
*-e- were mixed. In Balto-Slavic the imperfect in *-e- was retained as a
preterite ("aorist"), but the corresponding present class was replaced by
the productive formation in *-r-, an outgrowth of the lE perfect middle;
similarly, in Greek, the e-imperfect was utilized as an aorist, while presents
such as fW.lvo[J.cl'.L, XiXlpw, etc. brought about the general elimination of forms
of the type from the present system 14). This process was
12) 1 am indebted to Schindler for this explanation of the survival of gha.
13) The commutability of stative *-e- with *-1'0- and other Caland's Law suffixes
was first noted by Watkins, TPS 1971, 64f.; additional examples are discussed in
the important 1976 Harvard University dissertation of Alan Nussbaum Galand's
"Law" and the Galand System. '
14) An exceptional case in which Greek appears to retain an e-present beside a
non-denominative perfect is {nyw *-ejo, like av8:w; cf. 6) beside pf.

125
carried further in Anatolian, where *-e- was generally restricted to
synchronically denominative functions, as well as in Indo-Iranian, Ger-
manic and Tocharian, where *-e- was not only unable to maintain itself
against the perfect middle and root aorist, but was eventually replaced
in the denominative class as well. Only in ltalic was the synchronically de-
verbative present type in *-e- retained on a large scale.
126
T
INDEX OF FORMS CITED
(Numbers refer to paragraphs; superscript numbers refer to footnotes.)
abhaksi 32
bhakta 32
budhmn, -mm 9, 95, 102
dhat 54
10
duha(t) 47, 62, 64
31
duhi 44
44
()gan 32
38
3, 38
alipat 34
atipta 34
mata 3, 9, 47, 68, 72
amitmyti 83
()mucat 33
niti 25
aramahi 35
28
amnta 35
28
amta 35
28
1ta, arta 33, 35
28
, 47, 100
2
asa- 27
Mat 54
sati 47
sayat 47, 62
asican 33
sthimn 3
asvyti 6
syati, -yant- 88
()va1ti 38
avidanta 35
28
()vidat 33, 47
vismn 33
()vrtmn 38
yate 43
bhrate 46
bhmti 47
bharethe 46
bhardvaja- 76
88
Sanskrit
bhra(rIJ)s-, bMarIJsati 33
bhramsa- 33
27
bhmiat 33, 35
bhrjjti 37
30
bibhya 2, 62, 90
bibhti 62
brav'iti 100
brhduksan- 76
b1'1tve, 47, 100
bbodhati 71, 95
bubudhan- 71, 95
budhan- 9, 71, 72
budhnta 35
28
, 95
bdhyate 9, 72
cakra 2
co$(e 1, 47, 100
dadhrsa 2
dadhu' 90
dadrhan- 95
dhati 30
dasymi 87, 88
dasynt- 87, 88
diJlvara- 76
70
dhamytkavi- 76
dhrsdvarna- 76
i 5
dhro$nt- 75
dgdhi, dhok 64, 100
drhyati 95
duhan- (d-) 64, 75
duhnt- 64, 65, 75
duhnti 64, 65
duh 47, 64, 65, 66, 100, 101
duhr, -at 64, 65
ti 73
gcchati 32
gamma, -mahi 35
28
grdhya- 9
127
g'f1Jti 73
g'f1Je, g'f1J'it 73
guh-, gham 104
gha 103, 104
g1ihati, -te 103
hnti 100
hate 100
inti 73
Tse 74
62
jagm 2
jaghna 2
jajana 4
jaja1 73
jaj 4
janami 30
jsamana- 30
jasyata 30
jyate 30
juj<$a 71
jjo<$ati 3, 71
j1ljU<$?irJ,- 71
juju<$ 71
j1/{ju<$l,71
j1ljuIIVn 71
j11<$a1J- 71
kaviyte 86
k<$ti 1
k1lpyati 97
lelya( ti) 62
limpati 34
lbhyati 9, 72
mamrsa 3
mamnt(h)e 68
manan- 9
mnyate 9, 12, 53
8
, 68, 72, 83, 93
32
rnriyte 82
mflla 104
m'f<$nta 33, 35
28
mr<$thl,33
ml
i
<$yate 3
m'fta 96
m1lcti 33
m1l<$1Jti 31
nmate 30
nasanti 30
nyati, -te 36, 43
nudti, -te 32
mdthal,32
pacati 30
pcyate 30
128
paprtha 4
papmth 4
patsi 32
patthal,32
pvate 73
p'f<$nt- 39
punti 73
p<$yati, -yant- 53
8
, 88
risva 72
r'ikthl,3
rcate 3, 33
'ftaspis- 66
ruciin- 33
ruciya 33
rudhi-kr- 104
rurca 3
rustpas1l- 76
saddyoni- 97
41
sikllVa 72
sna 83
8
sanay- 83
8
sankate 43, 72
ssayana- 71
syana- 71
Sye 1, 47, 71,100
scate 33, 96
sical, 33, 100
stdati 97
si1icati 100
3
si<$iya 54
Sbhate 36
sbhe 36
sprst(i) 66, 100
sravyati 39
sr1Jti 39
Srljamana- 33
St1di 38
stvate 72
stve 38, 72
stuvnti 38
sucdratha- 76
SUlj1lpan- 96
S1lljUpthal, 96
svapiti 96
svptu 96
Svitan- 95
syti 97
tkljati 38
tpas- 104
tasthu 3, 85
tilj(i 38
tatrpan- 95
tat;p 70
tatrlja1J (ta-) 71
tatr<$l,71
tmsdasY1l- 76
70
t;pnti 38
trlj?irJ,- 9, 71, 72
tfljyati 1, 9, 72
uk<$any- 1
uparispts- 66
vidadaSvi- 76
vmsva 72
v a ~ t i 72 '
vanma 72
vanta 72
vr'tate 3
vste 100
v ~ t i 1
vavrdha 4
vavrta 3
vavrdhan- 75
aguze 103
ahiSaiia 2
bamt, zaoOra- 76
bioiia- 9
bsiiant- 88
calte 1
caxnar' 2
da!aiti 30
d'iJr'iJzano, p'iJr'iJOa- 95
dm!aite 95
fmsicanti 33
hazdiiat 97
38
hicaiti 100
hioaiti 97
iriOiieiti 32
mamanaite 68
mamnanai 68
mamne 68, 71
akamas 21
ar-, aratar 18, 33
arlilj 41,44
a r ~ 33
vda 2,3,69
viddvasu- 76
vidn 35
28
vidan- (v-) 69, 75, 76
vidnta 35
28
vidata 35
28
vid 69, 71, 97, 101
vidh-, vdhyati 32
vidm 3
vidr 69
vidvims- 69
46
vijte '33, 35
vikta 33
vindti 33, 47
55
visti 33
vitse 69
vrdhan- 75
vrdhnt- 75
ytati 38
yodhan- 32
ydhyati, -te 32
Avestan"
manta 3, 9, 47, 68
n'iJmaiti 30
n'iJmante 30
paaiti 30
raocaiti 33
srauuaiieiti 39
tasti 38
ttauua 2
vaunus 72
vidat, gau1- 76
vioat, xVar'iJnah- 76
vinasti 47
55
visaite 33, 36
29
yaetul 38
yaiiata 38
yateiti 38
yioiia- 32
Tooharian A
araljt 41, 44
arsam 41
art- 18
as-, asatar 17,18,19,27,37
129
asa,! 27
cica1', ciiiicar 23
cki'icar 23
cmatar 16, 30
cmol26
epe 25
18
, 26
19
kan- 16, 30
karema11J 15, 39
kare,! 39
37
kary- 15, 39
karya,!39
karyec 39
kas- 16, 30
!catiiki'i,! 32
kla(w)- 18
!claw- 18, 39
klawaf 39,
!clyosantar 20, 21
!clyosma11J 28
!clyosmar 28
!clyo'!tar 20
!cnatar 30
!cosne 25
kowi 26
!cul-, !culatar 15, 19, 33
k ~ l i 33
!culyp- 15, 23
kur- 15
lac 35
la(n)t- 35
lit-, lita(n)ta1' 15, 18, 32, 38
litk- 32
lotk- 18
maca?' 20
mal- 15
ma 19
martk- 32
miisk-, maskatar 14, 15, 21, 31, 43
miiskant 39
maskas 14
ml1sk-, mloskatar 18, 31
nak- 16, 30
22
natk- 32
natsw- 15
om 26
okat 24, 25
onk 26
onkalam 26
opyac 39
01' 24, 25
130
pacar 20
pak- 16, 30
pakna'!tar 30
23
pal-, platar 15, 37
palk- 23
palsk- 37
30
park-, parkatar 15, 19, 33, 66
piirsk-, praskatar 18, 31
pats 21
pketar 30
plant-, plantatar 17, 18
plantmarL 18,28
plantmar 28
poke 24
pons 25
pot-, patatar 18, 27, 38
pracar 24, 25, 26
prank 21,27
2
,33
praski 26
putk- 32
ritw- 15
ritwant 39, 65
ritwec 39, 65
rtar 23
rwa- 20
sak- 18
satk- 15, 32
sik- 15, 33, 96
spaltk- 66
sparcwant 39
sparcw,!-a11J 39
spartw- 18
sral, sralune 16
stwar 21
SU1'- 15
wa- 20
tam- 16, 30
tiisk- 15, 18
tiis!cmam 18
tpuk- 15
trap- 18
fj'e 39
trik-, trikata1' 7, 15
trikant 39
triw-, triwatar 15, 37
triwec 39
tsak- 16, 30
tsiilp-, salpatar 18, 20, 38
tsam-, sama(n)tar 18, 20, 38
tsankar 38
32
tsar-, tsratar 15, 16, 30
tsarama" 39
35
tsarw-, tsanvata1' 18, 38, 70, 95
tunk 26
wakaf 34
wal- 16, 30
wank- 18
want 19, 20
wiip- 15
war 21
was 23
wasankatar 32
Waft 24, 25, 26,
wat 23 .
watk- 15, 32
aiw-, aiwotar 18, 38
alce, akenta 22, 23
akem(o) 21
aniisk- 25
ar-, orotar 18, 33, 39
36
, 100
2
ara 33
art- 18
as-, osotar 18, 19,27,37,63
i'isii'll$a11J 27
camel26
cicare, caca1'e 23
cmeta1' 16, 30
e1ikwe 26
epe 25
18
,26
19
epiyac 39
e1'lar 41,44
ersau.41
e1',!t(o) 41, 44
kalpaskentar 31
kalpal$,!a11J 43
kiilpi'istii1' 31, 43
kan- 16
!carp- 18
kii.s- 16, 30
kery- 15, 39
keriye11J 39
keriyemane 15
Jcewiim 26
klaik;- 18, 38
klapale 39
36
klautk- 18, 32
klaw-, lclowotar 18, 39
36
Jclawa 39
36
wik- 15, 33
wlatii1' 30
yam-, y(p)a- 39
35
yat-, yatatiir 18, 38
ye1'pe 25
18
yme 39
yo!c- 24,25
yoke 39
yom- 25
yow- 25
ysomo 25
Y1- 15, 38
yuk 23, 26
yutk-, yutkatiir 15, 32
Tocharian B
lclay- 18
lclyausemane 28
Jclyausemar 28
!clyausentiir 20, 21
klyau'!tiir 20, 33
klyelle 33
klyiye 33
knetiir 30
kas 25
lcramp- 15
ksetii1' 30
kul-, kuletar 15, 19,33,95
kulyp- 15, 23
kurp- 15
kwiilypelle, kulypelle 23
kwiir-, Jcwremntiir 15
lac 35 '
la(n)t- 35
lait-, laito(n)tar 15, 18, 27, 32, 38
lip-, lipetiir 15, 19, 34, 72, 95
lit- 32
litk- 32
l1-, lyewetiir 15, 20, 38
luk-, lyuketiir 15, 19, 33, 66
lutassiim 32
24
lyatdcsa' 33
lyu- 15
macer 20
ma1ik- 15
mars- 15, 19, 33
ma1,tk- 32
miisk-, miisketiir 14,15,21,31,43
mas!ca 14
131
miiskeca 39
matsts- 15
mee 19
mit- 15
musk-, musketiir 15, 31, 43
niik- 16, 30
22
nakiiTIJ 16
niim- 16, 30
iisk-, 18
7
niitk- 32
em 26
nesiiTIJ 2
nkem 16
nmetiir 30
metsi 30
nu-, ewetiir 15, 20, 38
olet 24,25
onkolmo 26
onolme 25, 27
0'1', arwa 22, 24, 25
ost 24, 25, 26
pacer' 20
piik- 16, 30
piilk- 15, 19, 37
piilsk- 37
30
paut-, pa1dotiir 18, 27, 38
petso 21
pUe, pilenta 22
pilko 23
pliink- 15
plant-, plontotiil' 17, 18
pliitk-, plyetkemane 15
pokai 24
poc 25
postae 25
priink-, priinketiir 15, 33, 35
prerike 21, 27
20
, 33
procer 24, 25, 26
proskiye 26
pl'utk- 15, 32
putk- 32
pyamttsait 46
mtr'e 23
ritt- 15
nlwa- 20
samp- 18
siitk- 15, 32
sem 32
sinastiir 30
23
80y- 20
9
132
spalk- 66
spiint- 15
32
24
spiil'k- 15
spartt- 18
spaw- 18
speltke 66
sruk-, sruketiir' 15, 37
stare 92
30
ste 3
#wer 21
wa20
syelme 25
trom- 16, 30
tanlcw 26
tas-, tasaitiir' 15, 18
tkacer 23
tmi 39
trapp- 18
trile-, tl'iketiir 7, 15
triw-, triwetii1' 15, 37
tsiik- 16, 30
tsiilp-, tsiilpetiir 15, 18, 38
tsiim-, tsmetiir 15, 18, 38
tsii'le-, tseriketiir 15, 38
32
tsiir-, tsretiir 15, 16, 39
35
tsarw- 38
tsarwoytiir 38
tsriille 16
t,m- 15
t1lle-, c1lkemar 15
wale-, wokotii1' 18,19,34,39
36
,63,66,102
wiiks- 15
wase 23
wate 23
were 21
wik-, wileetiir 15, 33, 35
yakwe, yiikwenta 23, 26
yiim-, yamastiir 18
7
yanle- 18
yat-, yototiir 1 8, 38
yente 19,20
yerpe 25
18
ymiye 39
yok- 24, 25
yoleiye 39
yom- 25
yop- 25
ysomo 25
'..,
alclJi 4
akkis1cattari 43, 46
appant- 39
ares1cattari 43
a'rtari 100
2
artat(i) 3, 100
2
asasi 62
ellJat( i) 44
44
el(t)ari 62
lJaliya(ri) 36
lJalzai, -iyanzi 12, 54, 84
lJalziwen 54
J2
lJark(iya)- 73, 82
lJami(n)le- 73
lJaMuet 6
lJ,uwai- 54
ishiii, -iyanzi 54, 97
islJamai- 54
i8lcalliii(zzi) 62
ispiii- 54
iyattari 43
ganeszi 73
56
lca-an-lea-an-zi 43
41
gangaMi, -ai 43
Jcanlei (lea-a-an-ki) 38
34
, 43, 72
karp- 33
learpis1cattari 43
leitta(r'i) 1
leurkuris1cattati 41
liilei 95
lazziyattar'i 41
luletat 33
miii 54
mallai 38
34
marsezzi 19, 104
martari 96
naMariya- 1
niii- 54
1l(wa)lantis 30
ba1:nam 33
Hittite
nakleeszi 6
nakleezi 6
newalJ- 74
neya(ri) 36
paM-6
pai- 54
pai8lcatta 43
43
40
pais1catt1lma 31
parai- 54
par'kelzi 19
parkl:ya- 33, 66, 82
padctaru 33
pU1'siya(zi) 62
piwen 54
12
piyant- 39
sai- 54
salelJi 2
sarmttari, -dd1lma 41
sa1'ratti, -tteni 41
suppa1'i, s1lptari 96
dai, tiyanzi 54
diiitti 54
12
dalek- 18
7
tannatteszi 6
tannattezz'i 6, 54
tarniii(zzi) 62
teMi 54
tezzi, tet 54
tiya-, tiyazi 41, 97
dus1cis1citta 31
ui8lcitta 31
wiilei 34
wallJ,zi 30
welezi 1
ziii- 54
zikle- 32
26
Luvian
Armenian
bemy, -ar 89
ebarj 33
egit 47
elcn 32
af3f3E1!ETOe 46
djelc 30
kam 59
(F)Y'VTW 7
aOtXl)15Et 47
aeTW 20
9
aCw 27
33
av()w, -ijafll 6, 105
14
ae07:eOl' 55
aew 55
aexxaxoc; 76
70
f3atvw 32
f3AAw 33
f3a(ftAeVW 1
71
f3f3A/lTfll, -TO 71, 95
f3AijTO, 33, 71, 95
yyol,a, -e 3, 4
yyef1Cpa 2
104
ytyVO{1fll 3
oowxa2
Ostxaet 47
owc; 38
olO) 38
oovA6w 74
(F)(F)iye 1, 34
e(f)YI), (F)ayi'l'fll 7,19,34,63,102
e(f)coe 47
efxTo 71
elAlAov()e 47
e'l'lfleTw, -TO 4, 71
eflfletJooc; 71
xdJ1' 1
134
gtanem 47
55
wtim 6
Phrygian
Albanian
pjelc 30
Greek
flvr, pavi'l'w 7, 50, 54, 63, 102
ecweE 4,71
eJ'Ve:rre 58
eotxe 71
[m;yl) 102
env()eTo 95
e(!tcw 1
eeetya 105
14
e(!v()ec; 104
EaTrxa 2
eTAi 72,95
(e)TvxO', -e 64, 100
hAv()e 35, 47
()aef3w, -i'aw 6, 105
14
()(!Oflfll 85, 90
(Jr(axw 68
42
(F){ope' 3
rcw 97
38
XE!TW 1
xevw 74
xove{Cw 1
1
Aelnw 64
AXTO 95, 102
AAome(l') 3
AeAoxvla 95
lfl{'Olflt, -eTat 3, 7, 9, 68,83,93
32
,101,
105
ttrl'a 3
fl/lV/)Tf11 68, 71
pw'a, -e 2, 3, 68
pbw 31
piy)) 7,34,102
tlxro 34, 102
utVataxw 68
42
utvlaXOpfll 68
tlayw, -STW 7, 37
30
;E(C),tCw 1
(F)olOa, -E 2, 3,47
oUVU, -CW 3
oAw},a 2,3
O(!erTW 4
O(!WeE 4
OVAr 30
nbrElalfll 4
ninoc()a 2,' 4
ninvaTw, -ro 95
nijxTo 102
tyiw, -l}afll 6, 105
14
TaenWtE()a 95
aeet1tm 56
albeo, -ere 1, 10
anatis 27
are 102, 103
al'efaeio, -ere 102
al'eO, -ere 19, 27, 37, 63
aro, -are 55
audio, -is, -ire 9
axim 88
ealroam 102, 103, 104
calebO 102, 103, 104
calefacio, -fio 102, 103, 104
caleo, -ere 102
caletul' 104
cantabam 104
10
canto, -are 104
10
capio, -is, -ere 9, 94
36
capire (lt.) 94
36
capso 88
carcaris 27
conS7te 102
consuefacio, -ere 102
9
coquo, -ere 30
C7tnctor, -ar'i 72
54
cupio, -'ire 97
dic 98
42
d'iuido, -ere 32
due 98
42
d()'I)Xa2
Telew, TerTC; 84
denw, -Opat 38, 64
deaOlflt 64
76
70
T8T8VXWC; 4
drAapev 72, 95
T8rArvill 72
dTvxTal4
T8XW 64
TVYXvw 64
<paveTf1t 7
<pvr 7
<pieet 44, 47
<p(!eTf11 46
<pcAw, -ijafll 6, 83
xa{ew, -el, -8{)' 7,39,105
X(1) 7
Latn
ducroam 102, 104
emo, -ere 25
erit 47
escit 102
e7tidens 39
excande 102
fac 98
42
faxim, -o 88
fente 102
-ficio, -ere 102
flo, -are 37
fulgeo, -ere 19, 37
geno, -ere 30
genor, -'i 30
gemts 104
(g)nau'i, -it 2, 73
habeo, -ere 7, 8, 54, 74
habit7tS 56
iaceo, -ere 33
iacio, -el'e 33
inseq7te 58
inuideo, -ere 90
iubeo, -ere 32
latere, -et 103
liquefacio, -el'e 102
9
lubere, -et 9, 63, 72
luceo, -er'e 19
maneo, -ere 7, 8, 31
135
- - ~ - - - ~ - - - - - - ~ - - ~ -
mellit1ls 86
16
memini, -it 2, 3, 68
molo, -ere 38
monitus 56
morior, - 82, 101
m01teO, -e1'e 31
nanc'iscor, -i 31
nigreo, -ere 6
nigresco, -ere 6
obli1lscor, -i 31
odi 2
oletum 56
paciscor, -i 31
pasco, -ere 6
patejacio, -ere 102
perjerue 102
placit1ls 56
postrem1lS 25
puto, -are 32
rubebam 102
rubebO 102
censazet 88
didest 88
didet (Vest,) 88
jeret (Marr,) 88
jiiet 88
20
just, j1/rent 88
loujir 104
ad'gathar 2
'ailegedar 1
airid 55
'ber(a)r 36
rofetar 69
rofinnadar 69
45
rofitir 69, 71, 101
'gaibitl, 'gaib 9
'gainethar 30
136
rubeo, -e1'e 6, 7, 50,83,102,104
1'uber 104
1"1lbeta 56
1'UO, -ere 20
sed'i 97
seneo, -ere 6, 7, 50, 83
senesco, -e1'e 6
sileo, -ere 6, 50, 74
silesco, -ere 6
tacebam 102, 104
10
tacebo 102
taceo, -ere 7, 50, 63,74, 83,104
10
tacit1ls 56
tetul'i 72, 95
torreo, -ere 9
uehens 39
1telim, -is 90
uenio, -1'e 32
uideo, -ere 50
uoueo, -ere 56
uoln7ls 30
Osean
just 88
sent 88
20
staiet 88
20
tlincter 46
Umbrian
tavez, tases 56, 74
vujetes 56
Old Irish
gigis 88
ic(c)- 84
10
laigid, 'legat 84
10
'lici1l, 'lici 9
11dd 35
melid 38
memais 88
do'mnair 68, 69
45
, 71
do'moinjethar 102
do'moini1l1', -ethar 9, 46, 68, 69
45
ri'd 84
re?:ss 88
'ruidi 6, 104
gwyr, gwybot 69
44
ga-ainan, -aip 74
arjan 55,84
baim 41 , 44
44
bairada, -aza, -anda 29, 41
bairis, -ip 41
bauaida 77
71
bauip 77
71
ga-dars 2
daug, dugan 64,67, 101
dauhtar 55
jaheps 7
5
,52,56
jastan, -aip 50, 74
jaurhts 31
gahugds 56
haba, -am, -and 7, 11, 52, 55
habada 50
habai (impv,) 75
habaida, habaips 51, 77
habais, -aip 51, 52
ha,ban 49, 50, 51
habands 52
haba1l, -ai(s) 75
hahip 38
34
, 72
hahan, -aip 50, 72
hausja, -eip 9
kann 67
keinan, -noda 73
ga-k1tnnan, -aip 67, 73
uj-k1tnnan, -aip 73, 77
uj-k1tnpa, -kunnaida 77
lais 73
ga-leipan 32, 38
liban, -aip 19, 34, 72
11lbains 9, 72
mag 67
malan 38
saidid, sedait 84
10
saigid 84
10
seiss 88
'raigedar 1
Middle Welsh
kymyscetor 46
Gothie
man 2, 3, 67, 68
maurnan 73
munan, -aip 50, 67, 99
munands 98
nasjip 55
ogan 67
reimn, -aip 62
salbond 52
saurga 74
saurgan 74
setum 97
ana-silan, -aip 50, 74
sweran, -aip 50, 74
pahan, -aip 50, 74
pahta 52
7
parba 70
ga-pal'ban sik 67
pa1'bs 70
parj 38, 67, 95
pa1lrsjan sik 9
piwan, -aip 1, 50
ana-piwan 74
ptlan, -aip 50, 72
unagands 67
unwunands 50,72
wait 2,3,67
'waka 51
wakan 50
ga-waknan, -nip, -nada 73
weihan, -aip 50
weitwops 69
46
wiljau, -ei.., 90
winds 52
wit(tn, -aip 50,67,69, 101
wit1lm 3
..
137
Old NOI'se
habela, gihabel 7, 77 momen 73
(Old Icelandic unmarked)
habu 49,59 roten, -el 6, 7, 50
hangiTn 50, 72 mtela 7
beffwa (OSw.) 62 olla 77
72
hapta 49, 60, 77 sagen 49
bifa 50, 62 ra 84 hebis(t), -it 49, 51, 59, 60 sagu 49, 58, 59
duga, -ir 64, 65, 101 sceggia (OSw.) 58 hebita, gihebit 49 salbi5e, -es 51
3
(OSw.) 60
23
(OSw.) 58 hlinen 73 salban, -at 52
dvna, dvena 73 sagor 49 hocta 60, 77
segis(t), -it 49, 51, 58, 59, 60
fahide 77
72
seg (impv.) 49, 59 hogela 77 segita, gisegit 49
fer(r) 51 seg(i) (1 sg.) 49, 58 ktmnen 67, 73 sm, stant 97
fla 77
71
seg(i)r 49,51,58 leben 34, 49, 72 s(w)orga 74
fl'!g(1') 51 segja (inf.) 49, 51, 53 libit 49, 51, 60 s(w)orgen 74
folge1' (OSw.) 66 segja (3 pl.) 49, 51 libita, gilibit 49 tagen 50
ftdger 66 segjtm 49 liggu, ligit 9
toug, tugem 64, 101
fylgja 66 sighia (OSw.) 58 limen, lemen 73 tugund 75
graf 59 skjt 59 magen 67, 70 wahhen 50
haf 49,59 skorta 50 meran 74
wihhan 33
hafa (inf.) 49, 51 sorg 74 mihhilan 74
-wizzen, -el 50,67,69,101
hafa (3 pl.) 7, 55, 59 talgidai (Rtm.) 78
76 jir-monen 50, 63, 67 wonen 50, 72
hafa, -i(r) (opt.) 75 tawide (Run.) 77
72
hafe (ONorw.) 77
72
tel59
Old Saxon
hafio 59 pmja 70
47
hafoa 77 pegi 49
folgoiad 51
ladoian 51
hafor, hafat 49, 77 pegja 49
hanga 72 pj 74
folgon 66
libbian 34, 49, 51
(OSw.) 59 pola, -ir 50, 72
gihtgd 56
libbiod 49
hef(i) 7, 49, 51, 53, 59 (OSw.) 60
23
ginon 73 libbit 60
hef(i)1' 49, 53, 59 tma 50,72
habad, -ed 51, 84 libda 60,77
hqftm 59 vaka 49, 50, 51, 53
habas, -es 51 libod, lebot 49, 57
hugat 77 vaki (impv.) 59, 75
habbiad 49, 59 mornon 73
htgpi (OG1ttn.) 77 vaki (1 sg.) 51
habbian 49, 59
sagda, gisagd 56, 60, 77
loa 32 vaki1' 51
habbit 49, 59
sagi 49
lifa 34, 72 vakio 51
habda, gihabd 56, 60, 77 sagis, -id 49, 58, 59
lifir 60 vakna 73
habi 49
seggiad 49, 59
(OSw.) 60 vakOa, vakat 51
habis, -id 49, 59
seggian 49, 59
livir (OSw.) 60 valda 77
72
hebbiad 7, 11, 52, 55, 84 seggit 59
moma 73 vqktm, vaka (3 pl.) 61
hebbian 51 segis 49
ask 67, 77 71 witadahalaiban (Run.) 76
hebbit 7,11,12,51,52 tharbon 67
hogda 60,77
Old High German
Old English
beben, biben 50, 62 erien 55
bi1tl 44
44 fasten 50, 74
bijian 50, 62 dw'nan 73
blinden 50 folgen 66
blawan 37
fol3ian 66
chinan 73 ginen 73
blindian 50
fol3iaP 51
dagen 50, 63, 74 habe (impv.) 75
ceowan 20 ftdl eode 66
39
daMa 52
7 habe, -es (opt.) 75
cinan 73 fyl3(e)an 66
da'l'ben 67 habee, -es 51
3
dOO3, dt3an 64 3inian 73
dolen 50,72 haben, -el 7,49,52
dttgup 75 habban 51, 59
138
139
habbap 7,55,59,84
heebbe 7, 11, 51, 59
heefde, (3e)heefd 77
heefes(t), -ep 51
heefst, -p 49, 51, 84
hafa 49
hafas(t), -ap 49
hafo 49,59
hebbe 59
22
hlaford 76
hlinian 73
h03de 77
hyc3an 49
lalJian 51
leofas(t),-ap 49
leornian 73
libban 34, 49, 51
libbap 60
Ubbe 60
lif3an 49
akfjs 86
akytas 86
16
aria 55,84
avs 83
be'gti 90
blikseli, -i 81
blizgeli 37
30
bl'lis (brlys) 83
budeJo 102
budeli, -i 9, 81, 95
b1isiant- 88
busti, buda 73
cepseli, -i 81
deg, 30
dveli, -i 90
dvime 90
dtlOS 87, 88
dosi (2 sg,) 88
18
, 89
dosi (3 p,) 88
19
dosiq,s, dosiant- 87, 88
dosime, -ite 88, 89
dosint- 88
17
dosiu 87, 88, 89
dosme 89
doti 87
e'sti 90
140
lif3ap 49, 51
lif3e(n) 51
lif3ende 51
lifo 49
liofas, -ap 49, 57
ma3ian 67, 70
rarian 62
see,30 49, 58
sa3as(t), -ap 49
scortian 50
sealfian 51
sec3an 49,59
sec3ap59
sec3e 59
sor3ian 74
peowian 74
polian 72
w'ican 33
be-witian 67
wunian 72
Lithuanian
gaidfjs 83
gailelis, -is 74
gareli, -i 10, 85, 90
girdeli, -i 81
guleJo 102
guljJi, -i 19, 33, 83, 85, 95
gulti 33
guzeli, -a, -i, -eJa 103, 104
guzti 103
gvallCias 33
iria 84
judeli 32
juodeli, -eJa 6
josti, -ia 83
kepu 30
lekmi, -ti 2, 91
lieziate, -ta 42
lieti, 9
liezti, -ia 9, 42, 44
limpu 34
lipa 100
4
lzeli, -i 83
mrdeti, -i 81, 90
27
mrdmi 90
28
myleli, -i 81
mineJo 7
e 2iIfI1
I
mineU 7, 50,53, 94
mini 7, 83, 85
te-minfj 98
te-minie 98
minime, -te 83, 85
minis, minint- 82, 87, 98
mini 9, 53, 82, 84
nedti 90
pabgeli, -i 81
palkeli, -i 81
pavydeli, -vydi 50, 90
sakyti 58, 59
sdeli, -i 97
se'dint- 97
41
'
se'dmi 97
39
seneU, -eJa 6, 50, 81
srgti, srgti 90
se'sti 97
syjli, -i 97
syksteli, -i 74
stoveli, -i 2, 3, 85, 90, 91
stvime 90
avs 83
bralis 83
gul', guUm 10, 85
bude 81
kil'dil, k'irdimai 81
mile 81
postasei 88
tebbei 85
stvmi 90
28
strakseli 81
s1/,pa 100
4
svrdti, -i 81
tvitli, svitu 95
tvyteli, -i 95
tyleli, -i 50, 83, 95
titpti, telp1i, 38
hu'eli, -i 1, 81, 83
ve"sim, -it 88
ve"sme, -te 88
veda 41, 42, 44
vedate, -ta
vedt/' 41, 44
44
vedos 44
44
veizdeli, -i 90
veizdmi 90
vefkti, -ia 83
-vydmi 90
28
zydeli, zydi 90
zydmi 90
28
Latvian
n'det, n'ist 90
raudim, -it 90
27
ziedet 90
Old Prussian
tUl''[t, t1l1'-r: 81, 85, 93
turrimai 10, 85
waidimai, -ti 89, 90
waidmai, waisei 89
waist 89,90
Slavic
(Old Church Slavonic unmarked)
bzati 90
bogatti, -jet1> 6
bojati Sl!, -it1> 2, 90, 91
bolti, -it1> 90
b1>d 102
b1>dti, -it1> 9, 95
v1>z-b1>nqti, -netb 73
bysl!st-, -qst- 88, 89
dadite 98
daZdb 98
de7aax1> 104
10
dlati 104
10
de7ax1> 65
37
141

r
drr,zati, -it'b 83, 95
goreti, -it'b 10, 85, 90
gorQst-, 90
goSQ, gostisi 86
gostiti, -U'b 86
gmzdane 86
jasti, jast'b 90
kosti 86
kypeti, -it'b 97
lea 102
lez'ati, -it 80, 95
pri-lbpe 34
pri-lbpeti, -it'b 19, 34, 95
pri-lb(p)nQti 34
lizati, lizet'b 9, 83
lizem'b, -ve 42
lizo 9
meljQ 38
mbne7,102
mbneaX'b, -ease 102, 104
10
82, 98
mbneti 7,50,53,86,94,104
10
mbnfit'b 82
mbni, -ite (impv.) 82, 98
mbnisi 93
mbnit'b 7,83
mbnJQ 9, 53, 82, 84
u-mbrg, -et'b 82
neseax'b 104
10
nosi (aor.) 86
16
98
94, 98
nMi (S.-O.) 86
nosim'b, -te 93
nositi, it'b 10, 83, 86, 93
nosQ, nosisi 83, 94
or"jet'b 55, 84
padom'b, -ve 42
pekQ 30
pisat, piset'b 83
poleti, -it'b 90
142
pQtbje, pQti 86
pl'obysucny (GOz.) 88
prositi, -it'b 83, 86
Pl'OsQ, pl'Osisi 83
pytajQ 32
rr,det' -ejet'b (R.Oh.Sl.) 6, 50
sede 97
97
41
sede ti (GOz.) 97
sedeti, -it'b 97
sbcati, sbcit'b 96
slysati, -it'b 80
soCit 58
18
sociti (S.Oh.Sl.) 58, 59
stareax'b, -ease 102
stareti, -ejet'b 50, 81
stojati, -it'b 97, 99
s'bpati, -it'b 96
8Vbteti -it'b 95
synove 86
S'b-tbl'et'b 84
tri 86
15
trbje 86
trr,peti, -it'b 95
t'b 93
31
umeti, -ejet'b 6
vede 2, 85, 89
vedeax'b 102
vedem'b, -ve 42
vedq, -qt'b 82, 102
vedQst- 82
vem'b 90
veste, 90
videti, -it'b 50, 90
vidom'b 90
28
vise ti , -it'b 83
vizdb 90, 98
42
xosti, xostesi 98
42
zegq 30
zl'bdeti, -it'b (S.Oh.Sl.) 9
znal, -em, -esz (Pol.) 104
I
INNSBRUCKER BEITRAGE ZUR SPRACHWISSENSCHAFT
Publications in General Linguistics
Proceedings 01 the International Congress 01 Lingllists, Vienna, August 28-
September 2, 1977. Edited by WOLFGANG U. DRESSLER and WOLFGANG
MEID.
1979. ca. 850pp.; ca. AS 1.600.-
ELISE RICHTER: Kleinere Schriften zllr Allgemeinen Ilnd Romanischen Sprachwissen-
schaft. Ausgewahlt, eingeleitet und kommentiert von YAKOV MALKIEL. Mit
einer Bibliographie von B. M. WOODBRIDGE, JR. Gesamtredaktion: W. MEID.
1977. 599pp..; AS 960.-
Phonologica 1976. Akten del' 3.Internationalen Phonologie-Tagwlg, Wien, 1.-
4. September 1976. Herausgegeben von WOLFGANG U. DRESSLER und OSKAR
E. PFEIFFER.
1977. 31Opp.; AS 520.-
Textlingllistik und Semantik. Akten del' 4. Arbeitstagung Osterreichischer Linguisten,
Innsbruck, 6.-8. Dezember 1975. Herausgegeben von WOLFGANG MEID und
KARIN HELLER.
1976. 283pp.; AS 240.-
Wortbildung diachron - synchron. Akten des Kolloquiums del' Sektion fr Diachrone
Sprachwissenschaft im Osterreichischen Linguistischen Programm, Innsbruck, 5.-
6. Dezember 1975. Herausgegeben von OSWALD PANAGL.
1976. 157pp.; AS 240.-
ANGEL O DIETMAR PEER: Studien zur Wortbildung in einer "klassischen" Translor
mationsgrammatik. Die Relativsatznominalisierung im Deutschen.
1978. XII, 483pp.; AS 480.-
ALWI.N FILL: Wortdurchsichtigkeit im Englischen. Mit einer kontl'astiven Untel'-
suchung del' Rolle durchsichtiger W6rter im Englischen und Deutschen del'
Gegenwal't.
1979. ca. 180pp. ; ca. AS 320.-
ILSE SCHON: Neutrum und Kollektivum. Das a im Lateinischen und
Romanisehen.
1971. VI, 140 + 35pp.; AS 240.-
To be obtained from:
Institut liir Spraehwissenschalt del' Universit1it Innsbruck
A6020 INNSBRUCK, Innrain 30