The Proto-Indo-European aspect system

2014-12-261, S. E. & O.

The Proto-Indo-European aspect system ROLAND A. POOTH “Was wir als Anfänge [d.h. als Urindogermanisch] glauben nachweisen zu können, sind ohnehin schon ganz späte [d.h. nachurindogermanische] Stadien.” à la Jakob Burkhardt Weltgeschichtliche Betrachtungen quoted from Parzinger 2014: 12 The reconstructable Proto-Indo-European language exhibited an elaborate inflectional aspect system including over twenty specific aspect categories. From PIE to the Vulgar Pre-Indo-European dialect or variant cluster, many of these aspect categories were semantically broadened and merged, and their number decreased. The aspect system was “fused” with tense distinctions and was thus remodelled to a tense and aspect system including, among others, a prominent PRESENT IMPERFECTIVE tense and aspect category. Keywords: Proto-Indo-European verb morphology, aspect, Aktionsart, tense.

1 PIE verb morphotaxis It has recently been discovered that “Proto-Indo-European Proper”2 verb morphology was of the root and pattern morphology (RPM) type.3 According to the definition given by Bauer 2004: 93, languages of this type have the following property: “[...] In these languages, the root in a number of common binyanim[4] or paradigms may be analysed as being made solely of consonants, while the pattern of vowels which are found around the consonants and the particular vowels filling up the pattern provide morphological information comparable to that often given by affixation. This analysis leads to discontinuous roots and discontinuous morphs interacting with the roots, [...].”

1 2

3 4

This paper has been published at www.academia.edu on 2014-12-26 as provisional grey literature and work in progress and will undergo further revisions. Merry christmas! This term has been coined by Ringe 2006: 5. I avoid terms like “Early PIE” or “Late PIE”, because labels like this presuppose the notion of two chronological layers of PIE which I find a bit problematic. The term Vulgar Pre-Indo-European does not refer to a more or less homogeneous and standardizable languages, but to a divergent post-PIE variant or dialect cluster (comparable to what will be spoken in many parts of the world someday after the decline of the English standard language). Cf. Pooth 2004a, 2009b; Tremblay diss. 1999, 2003. Cf. Classical Hebrew binyānî́m.

ROLAND A. POOTH

2

Besides the skeletal consonant frame each PIE verbal finite word form contained a transfix, cf. Bauer 2004: 102: “A transfix is a particular type of affix, one which is completely interwoven with its base. Typically, it is a series of vowels which surround and interact with a base which in turn can be analysed as a series of consonants. For example, Arabic katab ‘he wrote’, kitaab ‘book’, kaatib ‘clerk’ (where the root is *ktb, indicating ‘writing’) illustrate the transfixes _a_a_, _i_aa_ and _aa_i_. Such transfixes [...] are discontinuous affixes attached to discontinuous bases, [...].”

I use the term vowel melody for transfix, however, because I follow the terminological tradition of the autosegmental approach (cf. McCarthy 1981). The different morpheme levels within the autosegmental morphological analysis are termed “tiers”.5 The vowel melody (VM) on the vowel melody template tier (e.g. _V_) was morphotactically independent from the agglutinating affixation on the skeletal consonant frame (CF) tier (e.g. *dɦi-dɦ_ʔ-t-i). An example of the different tiers is given below: FIGURE 1. vowel melody vowel melody template word form template consonant frame

_ɛ_ _V_ Ci-C_V1́ _C-t-i dɦi-dɦ_ʔ-t-i

entire word form

*dɦidɦɛ́ʔti (≡ *dhidhéh1ti)

The separation of the different morphological tiers can also be illustrated by the following figure; the entire word form is PIE *stɛ́utoi ‘topical referent is praising s.o. for topical referents’s own benefit’: FIGURE 2. vowel melody tier detransitive vowel tier bare vowel tier vowel melody template tier word form template tier word form accent tier word form CV template tier consonant frame tier root and lexical base tier C-suffix tier

5

Cf. McCarthy 1981.

ɔ

ɛ V1 ǀ

V2 ǀ

´ C C V1 C - C - V2 - C ǀ ǀ ǀ ǀ ǀ s t

u

t

i

The Proto-Indo-European aspect system

3

In addition to transfixation on the vowel melody tier and the word form template tier, PIE morphology made use of the morphotactic strategy of agglutination on the consonant frame tier. After subtraction of the discontinuous full vowels (*ɛ, *ɛː, *ɔ, *ɔː) an agglutinating C-chain (reduplication, root, infix, suffix) remains (ro_ot = discontinuous root, interrupted by a vowel slot _V_): FIGURE 3. C-chain wɦ

gloss

*g _n-t-i *ʔ_s-t-u *iu~n~_ʛ-t-i *dɦi-dɦ_ʔ-t-i *dɦ_dɦ_ʔ-t-i *dɦ_dɦ_ʔ-_n-t-i *ʔ_s-m_s-i

ro_ot-2/3DIR-PROG6 ro_ot-2/3DIR-DEB ro~aspect infix~_ot-DIR-PROG reduplication-ro_ot-DIR-PROG reduplication_ro_ot-DIR-PROG reduplication_ro_ot-PL-DIR-PROG ro_ot-1EXCL_PL-PROG

The reduplication templatic prefix, the two aspect suffixes (i.e., *-nV4u-, *-sk-), and the aspect infix were in complementary distribution. IE reduplicated present stems like Greek διδάσκω ‘I teach’ are obvious secondary innovations showing affix pleonasm (PIE *ɗiɗnsɔ́ :: PIE *ɗnsskɔ́ →) *didn̥ssk̑ó/é- > *didn̥sk̑ó/é-, cf. Old Avestan didąs ‘teaches’, dīdaiŋhē ‘I experience, get to know’, etc.

PIE had a vocalic prefix (*ɛ́-) always attracting the accent (e.g. *ɛ́-ʔɛst ‘was there, existed, sat (down) there). Although being vocalic, it did not belong to the vowel melody. It was used optionally to specify past tense reference. It is used as past tense prefix in Greek, Phrygian and IndoIranian (and is partially preserved in Armenian). The order of affixes in PIE verb forms is given in the following figure. FIGURE 4. Order of affixes in PIE finite verb forms T ɛ́

6

7

RE Ci Cɛ CV3 Cɛ́ː Cɛ́R Cɛ́Ci

R (~A~) CV1V2C C~n~V1C

A nV4u sk

M iV5ʔ ʔs

P mV6 uV6 tV6 sV6 ØV6

H (7) χV7

N s n rV8 χ

D m tV9 s

F i u

In principle, I follow the Leipzig Glossing Rules. Glosses: DIR = DIRECT-TRANSITIVE direction, INV = INVERSE-TRANSITIVE direction, PROG = PROGRESSIVE aspect, DEB = DEBITIVE mood, EXCL = 1PL.EXCLUSIVE, ITR = INTRANSITIVE-UNDERSPECIFIED direction (cf. Pooth manuscript e), etc. The H is used for ‘voice suffix slot’, because V is used for ‘vowel slot’.

ROLAND A. POOTH

4

Cover symbols: T RE R A M P H N D F V

narrative past tense prefix (*ɛ́-) reduplication templatic prefix “root” or lexical base aspect infix or suffix (*~n~, *-nV4u-, ...)8 modal suffix (*-iV5ʔ-, *-ʔs-) person-and-direction 9 suffix (1EXCL *-m-, 1INCL *-u-, 2/3DIR *-t-, 2/3INV *-s-, 2/3ITR *-Ø-) detransitive voice suffix (*-χ-) number suffix (1PL *-s-, 2PL *-n-, 3PL *-r- ~ *-n-, 2/3COL *-χ-) direction-and-deixis suffix (2/3COL.PROX *-m, DIR *-t-, INV *-s-) final progressive aspect suffix (*-i-) or debitive mood suffix (*-u-) vowel slot of the vowel melody

Each PIE verbal finite word form thus obligatorily consisted of a minimum of two overt morphemes: (a) the skeletal “root”, that is, the discontinuous lexical base (LB)10 and (b) the discontinuous inflectional vowel melody (VM). The other morphemes or morpheme slots could remain non-overtly zero-marked or “unmarked”, depending on how one prefers to define the status or notion of zero (Ø). The following figure can illustrate the internal morphotaxis of a PIE 2nd person PLURAL DETRANSITIVE DIRECT-TRANSITIVE PROGRESSIVE form *ɗiɗnstχáni ‘you (pl.) (TOP) are experiencing/getting to know REF now & then ...’:11 FIGURE 5. ┌── aspect and mood (AM) stem ──┐┌──“ending”──┐

P- REV - CV ~A~V C -AoV Ac-MoV Mc3 1 2 4 5 *ɗiɗ ns -

PV HV NV DV -FF 6 7 8 9 t χán i

└ lexical base ┘ or “root”

Cf. Old Avestan dīdaiŋhē ‘I experience, get to know’ from the root *ɗ_ns-, cf. LIV, p. 118f. NB. From PIE to Vulgar Pre-IE, *-tχán (without *-i) was reanalyzed as a new 2nd pl. active or “neoactive” portmanteau “ending”. It is reflected as Proto-Indo-Iranian 2nd pl. present imperfective (so-called “primary”) active ending *-thanā̆ > Vedic -thanā̆, cf. Pooth 2011. 8 9

10 11

Ao = onset of the aspect suffix syllable template (e.g. *-i_ of *-i_ʔ-), Ac = coda of the aspect suffix; likewise Mo and Mc. For the term direction cf. Wolfart & Carroll 1981: 68; DeLancey 1981; Thompson 1989: 21; Klaiman 1992; for “Transitivity Direction in Proto-Indo-European” cf. Pooth manuscript e. A lexical base (LB) can further be separated into the proper root and its derivational or quasi-derivational “enlargement” (ENL). Abbreviations: TOP = topical referent, REF = non-topical referent.

The Proto-Indo-European aspect system

5

To illustrate the PIE to Vulgar Pre-IE great morphotactic fusion, the consonant frame can be separated into two major parts, namely (a) the “aspect and mood stem” and (b) the “ending”: The “aspect and mood stem” was later fused to the IE aspect and mood stem (e.g. *dɦi-dɦ_ɛ́_ʔ- → *dhidhéh1-ti, etc.). The respective “word form ending”, on the other hand, was fused to the respective IE portmanteau suffix, that is, the so-called “inflectional ending” for tense, aspect, mood, person, number, and voice (e.g. *-t-χ_á_n → *-th2an, etc.). The distinction of “aspect and mood stem” and “ending” is solely motivated to illustrate the post-PIE morphotactic fusion. It is not implied that these stems were “PIE Proper” synchronic morphological units. The emergence of post-PIE and IE fusional aspect and mood stems (e.g. *didéns- ~ *didn̥s-´) was thus triggered by the process of morphotactic fusion. (It was not triggered by suffixation of clitics to a fusional word form.) Remark: However, the younger IE so-called “thematic” stems and the IE “sigmatic” stems developed from a later resegmentation: (a) From PIE to Vulgar Pre-IE, many 3rd person SINGULAR DETRANSITIVE INTRANSITIVE forms12 were pleonastically extended by the new productive middle “endings” (*-to(i) ~ *-tor(i)). In parallel, the former PIE 3rd person SINGULAR INVERSE forms were pleonastically extended by the 3rd singular socalled “secondary” “ending” (*-t). (b) Within the Vulgar Pre-IE dialect or variant cluster, the respective first segment of *-oto(i) ~ *-otor(i), *-eti, and the one of *-st were reanalyzed as a stem-final suffix *-o- ~ *-e- and *-s-. This resegmentation mainly occured in the so-called “Inner IE” part of the Vulgar Pre-IE dialect or variant cluster. This “morphotactic internalization” has brilliantly been described by Watkins 1962, 1969. In honour of Watkins it is called “Watkins’ law”, cf. Collinge 1985: 239. This resegmentation is transferrable to the IE *-sk̑o/e- stems (see figure 7): FIGURE 6. PIE *uɛ́iɗɔ

→

*uiɗɔ́

→

Vulgar Pre-IE new stem suffix *u̯éidotoi *-o↘ *u̯éidetoi (13) *-e*u̯idót(o) *-o↘ *u̯idét *-e-

PIE suffix zero zero

FIGURE 7. PIE *ʔrskɔ́

12

13

→

Vulgar Pre-IE ̑ toi *ʔrskó ↘ *ʔrsk̑éti

new stem suffix *-sk̑o-toi *-sk̑e-ti

PIE suffix *-sk-

These have been termed “stative”, but this label is inappropriate. Instead, they were 3rd sg. detransitive forms used in a PIE intransitive construction (including the antipassive construction), cf. Pooth 2000 and manuscript a. They had labile semantics. This form is reflected as Homeric Gk. 3rd sg. pres. ind. mid. εἴδεται, 1st sg. εἴδομαι.

ROLAND A. POOTH

6

A parallel suffix pleonasm happened to the corresponding 3rd person singular detransitive intransitive forms of the progressive aspect which were marked by the suffix *-i in the final morpheme slot (F). These PIE specifically PROGRESSIVE aspect forms were semantically broadened to Vulgar Pre-IE present imperfective tense and aspect forms. They were extended, then, by the productive, specifically present imperfective middle “endings” *-toi ~ *-tori, etc. or by the productive active (including the “neoactive”) ones (*-ti ~ *-ei ~ *-eti, etc.). The subsequent resegmentation of the respective first part of the pleonastic “ending” to stem-final suffixes (middle *-oi-toi, *-i-toi, *-i̯o-toi, *-ei-toi and “neoactive” *-i/i̯-ei, *-i̯e-ti, *-ei̯e-ti)14 is now datable to the Vulgar Pre-IE period. The “internalization” must have happened slightly before or by the time when ProtoAnatolian split up from the dialect or variant cluster: FIGURE 8. PIE ɦ

Vulgar Pre-IE ɦ

*d uɢ ɔ́i *ɠɔ́nʔi

→ →

ɦ

ɦ

*d uɢ óitoi *g̑ónʔitoi ↘ *g̑nʔi̯óntoi ↘ *dɦuɢɦi̯ónti

new stem suffix *-oi- (cf. Jasanoff 1976, 2003) *-i*-Hi̯o*-i̯o-

NB. 3rd person sg. forms of the *ɠɔ́nʔi type are reflected as the Vedic socalled “passive aorist” (Vedic jáni, etc.). Cf. Proto-Germanic *đuγaiþ(i), Vedic duhyate :: Gaulish dugiiontiio, etc. Cf. Latin 3rd sg. pres. ind. mid. oritur < *ʕwóritor(i) ~ *ʕwóritoi (← PIE *ʕɔ́ri) :: Hittite 3rd sg. pres. ind. act. araai Vedic 3rd sg. aor. inj. act. dhā́t, etc.) were the most “basic” forms. Many detransitive forms (e.g. *dɦɔ́ʔ, *dɦɔ́ʔi > Vedic 3rd sg. aor. inj. mid. dhāý i) were internally derived from the underlying agentive forms (e.g. *dɦɛ́ʔ) by mapping *ɔ upon a vowel slot of the vowel melody template. In terms of markedness, therefore, the detransitive voice forms contained more morphological material than the underlying agentive voice forms. Note that this situation is quite different from the one found in the most archaic IE languages, where active and middle forms show the same number of morphemes, e.g. Vedic 3rd sg. pres. ind. act. bhára-ti vs. mid. bhára-te. The grade I detransitive forms were internally derived from the grade IV forms, e.g. *bɦɔ́udɦ ‘wakes up, woke up; gets/got attentive’ → *bɦudɦɔ́ (27) ‘recognizes/recognized sth./s.o.; is/was/gets/got attentive towards s.o./sth.’. The forms of grade III (*uɔ́iɗɛ) were internally derived from the grade II detransitive forms, e.g. *uɛ́iɗɔ(i) ‘s.o. can see; s.o./sth. can be seen, is visible; is apparent’ → *uɔ́iɗɛ(i) ‘knows sth./s.o.’ (> Vedic véda, etc.). It can thus finally be concluded that a monovocalic underlying vowel melody template *_V_ had a nondurative or a (nondurative) transitional aspectual meaning (e.g. *uiɗɔ́ ‘s.o. found sth./s.o.’28), whereas a bivocalic (or “stereovocalic”) underlying vowel melody template *_VV_ or *_V_V_ had a durative, a (durative or “plurative”) stative-habitual or a (“plurative”) distributive-iterative aspectual meaning. In other terms, a monovocalic vowel melody had a SINGLEFACTIVE-SINGULATIVE (BOUND, PUNCTUAL) or else an UNDERSPECIFIED aspectual meaning, whereas a bivocalic vowel melody conveyed a specific PLURIFACTIVE-PLURATIVE (EXTENDED, INTERNALLY MULTIPLIED, EXTERNALLY MULTIPLIED or UNBOUND) aspectual meaning: FIGURE 19.

*_V_ SINGLEFACTIVE-SINGULATIVE or UNDERSPECIFIED aspect *_VV_, *_V_V_ PLURIFACTIVE-PLURATIVE aspect One may use the term superordinate vowel melody template aspects to refer to these two templatic aspect distinctions. The terms “imperfective” vs. “perfective” are rather inappropriate here, because the singlefactive aspect was compatible to the progressive aspect and thus conveyed a somewhat different aspectual meaning (which was less specified than the perfective aspect). As an exception, the 3rd pl. forms of the so-called “Narten type”, namely *stɛ́ur, *stɛ́unt, *stɛ́urs and the 3rd pl. of grade V (*suɔ́pr) showed a 27 28

This form is reflected as the Greek thematic aorist ἐπυθόμην. This form is reflected as the IE thematic aorist *u̯idó/é-, e.g. Vedic ávidat.

The Proto-Indo-European aspect system

13

monovocalic-singlefactive (underspecified) vowel melody template (*_V_), but belonged to a pattern of word forms which exhibited a plurifactive vowel melody template otherwise.29

3 The PIE progressive aspect The word final morpheme slot -F (see figure 4) provided a slot for the aspect suffix *-i or the debitive mood suffix *-u, but the latter will not be dealt with here. In PIE, the progressive aspect marker *-i could be attached to almost any finite verb form except for verb forms whose grammatical meaning was completely incompatible to the progressive durative aspectual meaning (cf. Pooth 2009a); see the figure below:

PROGRESSIVE

FIGURE 19. 1SG.AGT 1PL.EXCL.AGT 3PL.ITR.AGT 3PL.DIR.AGT 1SG.DTR 3SG.ITR.DTR 3PL.ITR.DTR

NONPROG

PROG (DUR)

*gwɦɛ́nm *gwɦnmɛ́(s) *gwɦnɛ́r *gwɦnɛ́nt

→ → → →

*gwɦɛ́nm-i *gwɦnmɛ́s-i *gwɦnɛ́r-i *gwɦnɛ́nt-i

*gwɦnχá *bɦɔ́udɦ *stɛ́uɔr

→ → →

*gwɦnχá-i *bɦɔ́udɦ-i *stɛ́uɔr-i

Remark: As already mentioned above, this suffix *-i was fused with the other suffixes of the “ending” from PIE to Vulgar Pre-IE and became part of the so-called “primary (portmanteau) endings” marking the Vulgar Pre-IE present imperfective tense + aspect category. The most productive Vulgar Pre-IE present imperfective aspect and tense “endings” are given in the following figure. Note that there was more variation; the 1st and 2nd person pl. forms, for instance, could optionally lack the *-i. FIGURE 20. 1SG 2SG 3SG 1PL 1DU.INCL 29 30

ACTIVE

*-mi *-si *-ti *-mes(i) *-u̯es(i)

NEOACTIVE

*-χai *-tχai *-ei ~ *-eti *-mos(i) *-u̯os(i)

MIDDLE

*-χai *-tχai ~ *-sχai ~ *-soi *-toi *-mo(s)-dɦχ (30) *-u̯o(s)-dɦχ

Note that these forms were marked for plural number by *-r- and *-n- (before *-t-). These markers thus may have coded plurality of the given event concept. The new 1st pl. and du. incl. middle endings obviously developed by attachment of a former clitic *=dɦχ (or *=dɦa ~ *=dɦi?) whose origin remains obscure. This clitic may be related to the deictic clitic *=dɦi that was attached to 2nd sg. imperative forms, cf. PIE *ʔɛ́s=ɗɦí ‘be there!’ (> Vulgar Pre-IE *ʔesɗɦí ~ *ʔsɗɦí). It may also be a form *dɦʔχ́ ‘one does/did it (for one’s own benefit, ...); it was done (by a group of people)’ (formed like a 1st sg. middle *g̑nʔχ́) which as a relic contained the old collective meaning of the marker *-χ- found both in 1st person sg. and 2nd person detransitive forms.

ROLAND A. POOTH

14

FIGURE 20 (continued). 2/3DU 2PL 3PL

ACTIVE

*-ten(i) *-enti

NEOACTIVE

MIDDLE

*-taχ(m) ~ *-aχ(m) (NEOACTIVE/MIDDLE31) *-tχan(i) *-tχa(n) → *-dɦu̯o/e (32) *-onti *-ontoi

Additionally, there were new Vulgar Pre-IE middle “endings” with a new suffix *-r(i). I follow the “old” view that this extension ultimately originated from PIE 3rd person plural detransitive intransitive forms (e.g. *stɛ́uɔr ~ *stɛ́urɔ ‘some people praised s.o.’) which were coded by the PIE 3rd person plural marker *-r- (in the number slot -N-). I think that the PIE 3rd person plural detransitive intransitive forms were reanalyzed as new 3rd person singular middle forms within the new Vulgar Pre-IE passive construction. This new passive construction emerged by addition of an oblique causer or agent to the original 3rd person plural intransitive construction: (1)

a. PIE (oblique agent ungrammatical) *χnɛ́r-Ø *stɛ́uɔ_r man-ABS:SG praise:DUR:DTR _3PL\ITR ‘as for the man, (some) people praised him’ b. Vulgar PIE (oblique agent grammatical) *χnéː(r) *stéu̯-or *pχtr-és ~ -ós man:NOM:SG praise-3SG.IPFV.IND.MID father-ABL/GEN.SG ‘the man was praised by the father’

Note that there is a second source for the new Vulgar Pre-IE passive construction. It also emerged by addition of an oblique causer or agent to the original 3rd person singular intransitive construction: (2)

a. PIE (oblique agent ungrammatical) *χnɛ́r-Ø *stɛ́uɔ man-ABS:SG praise:DUR:DTR:ITR_3SG ‘as for the man, someone praised him’ b. Vulgar PIE (oblique agent grammatical) *χnéː(r) *stéu̯-o *pχtr-és ~ -ós man:NOM:SG praise-3SG.IPFV.IND.MID father-ABL/GEN.SG ‘the man was praised by the father’

Crosslinguistically, both grammaticalization paths are well-known, cf. Haspelmath 1990: 49-50. A conflation of the passive and the middle function is confirmed. Thus *-r(i) was soon extended to be used as a general middle marker. The new Vulgar Pre-IE pres. imperfective middle “ending” variants are given in the following figure: 31 32

For the 2nd person and 3rd person dual “endings” cf. Pooth 2011. The origin of this ending is obscure. It may go back to a voc. sg. form, e.g. *bɦudsdɦu̯é of a verbal adjective, e.g. *gwɦntuɔ́, *bɦudɦtuɔ́ (>Vulgar Pre-IE *bɦudsdɦu̯ó-). It may also go back to a verb + auxiliary compound *gwɦn-dɦʔ-u_ɔ́ ‘slaying-do-1PL.INCL_DTR’ ‘we, you and me, do/did slaying (for our own benefit)’ which was later reanalyzed as a 2nd pl. detransitive forms ‘you ... (dito)’.

The Proto-Indo-European aspect system

15

FIGURE 21. 1SG 2SG 3SG 1PL 1DU.INCL 2PL 3PL

PRESENT IMPERFECTIVE MIDDLE

*-χai *-tχai ~ *-sχai ~ *-soi *-toi *-mos-dɦχ *-u̯os-dɦχ *-tχan → *-dɦu̯o/e *-ontoi

*-χa-ri *-tχa-ri *-o-ri ~ *-to-ri *-mo(s)-dɦχ-ri *-u̯o(s)-dɦχ-ri *-dɦu̯o/e-ri *-onto-ri

As mentioned above, there were additional pleonastic Vulgar Pre-IE 3rd person singular and plural present imperfective middle and neoactive “endings”: FIGURE 22. PIE ɦ

Vulgar Pre-IE pleonastic pres. imperfective middle ɦ

*d uɢ ɔ́i

→

*ɠɔ́nʔi

→

*suɔ́ːpi

→

*suɔpɛ́i

→

*dɦuɢɦóitoi 3rd sg. middle *-óitoi ~ *-óitori ɦ ɦ ↘ *d uɢ óiti 3rd sg. neoactive *-óiti ↘ *dɦuɢɦi̯ónti *g̑ónʔitoi 3rd sg. middle *-(H)itoi ~ *-(H)itor ↘ *g̑nʔi̯óntoi 3rd pl. middle *-(H)i̯óntoi ~ *-(H)i̯óntori *su̯óːpitoi ~ 3rd sg. middle *-itoi ↘ *su̯óːpi̯eti 3rd sg. neoactive *-i̯eti ↘ *su̯óːpi̯ontoi *su̯opéitoi 3rd sg. middle *-éitoi ↘ *su̯opéi̯eti 3rd sg. neoactive *-éi̯eti

As also mentioned above, there were additional pleonastic Vulgar Pre-IE 3rd person singular and plural middle or neoactive non-present “endings”: FIGURE 23. PIE

Vulgar Pre-IE pleonastic non-present “endings”

*uɔ́ɗɛ *dɦuɢɦɔ́

→ →

*uɛ́iɗɔ

→

*ɠɔ́nʔ *suɔ́ːp *suɔpɛ́

→ → →

*u̯óidet *dɦuɢɦóto ↘ *dɦuɢɦót ↘ *dɦuɢɦét *u̯éidoto ↘ *u̯éidot ↘ *u̯éidet *g̑ónʔto *su̯óːpto *su̯opéto ↘ *su̯opét

3rd sg. neoactive *-e ~ *-et 3rd sg. middle *-óto(r) 3rd sg. middle *-ó(t) 3rd sg. neoactive *-é(t) 3rd sg. middle *-óitoi ~ *-óitori 3rd sg. middle *-o(t) 3rd sg. neoactive *-e(t) 3rd sg. middle *-to 3rd sg. middle *-to 3rd sg. middle *-éto 3rd sg. neoactive *-ét

4 PIE verbal binyans As already mentioned above, the underlying word form template (WFT) had the status of a templatic morpheme in PIE. By means of the underlying

ROLAND A. POOTH

16

word form template, the position of the vowels of the vowel melody combined with the position of the word form accent on one of these vowels within the word form was determined. The word form template belonged to a superordinate set of word form templates. I have decided to term this superordinate template bundle the word form template set. It can also be termed more conveniently the “inflectional type”. For its brevity, however, I make use of the term binyan which is borrowed from Classical Hebrew grammar. Finally, all binyanim (binyans) were subordinate template sets to the superordinate verbal paradigm. There was nothing in PIE like a verbal lexical “conjugation class” (as found, for instance, in Latin, where the verb laudat, laudāre belongs to the first conjugation, whereas uidet, uidēre belongs to the second one, etc.). The different “PIE Proper” binyans were fully grammatical. Instead of belonging to a lexical conjugation class, every verb was principally inflectable for each binyan. But as in many languages, there were many defective verbal paradigms. In PIE, this defectiveness was mainly due to a semantic incongruency of a given lexical meaning and the respective grammatical meaning. I will return to this matter elsewhere. As just mentioned, each PIE verbal finite verb form had an underlying word form template (WFT). This word form template conveyed a specific inflectional meaning (remember: ro_ot is the gloss for the discontinous root or lexical base): FIGURE 24. a.

*C_ɛ́_C-m ro_ NONDUR:AGT_ot-1EXCL\SINGULAR e.g. *ʔɛ́sm ‘I am/was there, sit/sat there’

b.

*CC-m_ɛ́ root-1EXCL_NONDUR:AGT\PLURAL e.g. *ʔsmɛ́ ‘we are/were there, sit/sat there’

The word form template thus obviously had full morpheme status, because it coded number distinctions and belonged to a binyan with a specific grammatical, that is, aspectual and modal meaning. The PIE word form accent was part of this word form template (WFT) morpheme. Its position within the word form was definitory for the identification of a given word form as belonging to a specific aspect grade: FIGURE 25. a.

*su_ɔ́_́ p_ɛ (grade III) ro_STAT:DTR_ot_ITR:STAT\3SG ‘s.o. habitually falls asleep; habitually sleeps’

b.

*su_ɔ_p_ɛ́ (grade VI) ro_DISTR:DTR_ot_ITR:DISTR\3SG ‘s.o. falls asleep here & there/now & then; s.o. sleeps here & there/now & then /s.o. makes s.o. fall asleep’

The Proto-Indo-European aspect system

17

The PIE accent was “free”, that is, it was unpredictable from syllable structure or phonological word form structure. In word forms with more than one full vowel, one of these two vowels had to bear a contrasting high tone accent, opposed to a lower tone of the other vowel or vowels. The word form accent, therefore, was not a property of any morphological segment other than the word form template (WFT) morpheme. It provided grammatical distinctions. Since the verbal word form accent was an intonational suprasegment belonging to the verbal word form template (WFT) morpheme and was fully grammatical, PIE did not show different verbal lexical accent types. In the verbal system there was no lexically predetermined accent. The evolution of lexically predetermined accent of verb stems should be seen as a Vulgar Pre-IE phenomenon which must have occured after the great morphotactic fusion. Note that PIE also had no lexical “Narten character” of roots, that is, roots with lexical long vowels. PIE binyans can thus be defined as a combination of different word form templates. Remember that these word form templates were related to each other by so-called “internal derivation”. Within each PIE binyan, three types of finite word forms were distinguished: FIGURE 24. a. b. c.

all singular forms, e.g. *gwɦɛ́nt 2nd/3rd collective-plural and 3rd person plural forms, e.g. *gwɦɛ́nt, *gwɦntáχ “weakest” forms: 1st and 2nd person pl. forms, e.g. *gwɦnmɛ́(s)

“strong” forms: “weak” forms:

The word form template morpheme is thus separable into two subordinate morphemes: (a) The word form template (morpheme WFT) provided number and aspect distinctions. It was classified as belonging to a specific grade and vowel melody template (morpheme VMT) and it belonged to a superordinate word form template set or binyan which conveyed a specific aspectual (and also modal) meaning. To now provide the reader with an impression of how the PIE binyans looked like and were morphologically structured, the PIE radical binyans are given in the figures below. The first one is given in the following figure. It is the aorist-like NONDURATIVE or basic aspect. I have decided to term this inflectional pattern the PIE first binyan. To save space, I leave away the asterisk (*) marking reconstructed word forms in the figures/tables below. The vowel melody and the accent are coloured red:

ROLAND A. POOTH

18

FIGURE 25. PIE first binyan (grade I)

1EXCL 1INCL 2ITR 2DIR 2INV 3ITR

AGT SG

gwɦɛ́nm gwɦɛ́n gwɦɛ́nt gwɦɛ́ns

PL

DTR SG

gwɦnmɛ́(s) gwɦnuɛ́(s) gwɦnɛ́(n) gwɦntɛ́(n) gwɦsɛ́(n) gwɦnɛ́r

gwɦnχá gwɦnχá gwɦntχá gwɦnsχá gwɦnɔ́

3DIR

gwɦɛ́nt

gwɦnɛ́nt

gwɦntɔ́

3INV

gwɦɛ́ns

gwɦnɛ́rs

gwɦnsɔ́

PL

gwɦnmɔ́(s) gwɦnuɔ́(s) gwɦnχá(n) gwɦntχá(n) gwɦnsχá(n) gwɦnɔ́r ~ gwɦnrɔ́ gwɦnɔ́nt ~ gwɦnntɔ́

COL

gwɦnmɔ́(χ) gwɦnuɔ́(χ) gwɦnáχ gwɦntáχ gwɦnsáχ gwɦnáχ gwɦntáχ gwɦnsáχ

Remark: This first binyan is reflected by two Vedic and Greek verbal stems belonging to two different aspect categories: (a) the imperfective “root present” stem, and (b) the perfective “root aorist” stem. I propose the following developments: The progressive forms of this first binyan (e.g. *gwɦɛ́nt-i, etc.) once were predominantly used with ongoing present time reference and thus developed into Vulgar Pre-IE present imperfective tense and aspect portmanteau forms. Subsequently, the corresponding nonprogressive forms either developed into corresponding non-present imperfective forms (e.g. Vedic han :: áhan, etc.) or were further narrowed to “root aorists” (e.g. Vedic gán, ágan, etc.). The drift can be illustrated by the following figure: FIGURE 26. PIE *gwɦɛ́nti → *gwɦɛ́nt → †gwɛ́mti *gwɛ́mt →

Vulgar Pre-IE present + imperfective vs. non-imperfective

→ →

Proto-Indo-Iranian *ɟɦánti *ɟɦánt

→

*gámt

A class of totally terminative or totally telic roots, e.g. *gw_m- ‘come hither, go there’ perhaps generally lacked progressive forms in PIE (†gwɛ́mt-i). Many different stems (e.g. the one preceding Vedic gáccha-ti ‘go’ etc.) could be used as “stem-suppletive” present imperfective stems in Vulgar Pre-IE. Only later, slightly before Proto-Indo-Iranian and Proto-Greek, but definitively after Proto-Anatolian had left the dialect or variant bundle, the nonimperfective stems were specified to perfective “root aorist” stems and the well-known (neutral-) imperfective vs. anterior-imperfective vs. perfective aspect system was established. By that moment, former PIE progressive forms (e.g. *dɦɛ́ʔti ‘is/was saying, doing’) corresponding to non-progressive forms with a (gradually) terminative or telic meaning (e.g. *dɦɛ́ʔt ‘put, did, said’), as a rule, had to be given up. The reason is simple: By that moment, the Vulgar Pre-IE present imperfective end-

The Proto-Indo-European aspect system

19

ing *-ti became incompatible to these specific non-imperfective “aorist” stems. One may refer to this rule as the “*dɦɛ́ʔti (> teezzi) dropping rule”: FIGURE 27. PIE *gwɦɛ́nti → *gwɦɛ́nt →

Vulgar Pre-IE present + imperfective non-imperfective

→ →

“Inner IE” Vulgar Pre-IE *gwɦén-ti *gwɦén-t

but *dɦɛ́ʔti *dɦɛ́ʔt

present + imperfective non-imperfective

→ →

† (*dɦéʔ- incompatible to *-ti) aorist stem *dɦéʔ-t

→ →

Thus, I would rather not follow the idea that Hittite teezzi ‘says’ was an “innovative backformation”, derived from a former “PIE root aorist” stem. This idea has been labeled the “teezzi principle”. In my view, it can be taken for a Paradebeispiel of anachronistic reprojection of Graeco-Aryan morphosyntactic categories. Instead, I even think that forms like *gwɦɛ́nt ‘topical referent slew non-topical referent’ once were terminative or telic (and not at all “imperfective-like”)―they were only reinterpreted as neutral-imperfective forms, because the corresponding forms in *-ti were used as present neutralimperfective forms in Vulgar Pre-IE so frequently.33 Therefore, Hittite teezzi and the corresponding Anatolian forms are clear archaisms and ultimately go back to a PIE 3rd sg. progressive form *dɦɛ́ʔti ‘is/was putting, doing, saying’. The presence of such forms in Hittite and Proto-Anatolian perfectly parallels the abscence of the aorist category in this branch. This ultimately speaks in favour of an innovative nature of the entire aorist category outside Proto-Anatolian.

The other PIE five “root formations” or radical binyans are given in the subsequent figures. All forms of the following PIE second binyan (or “acrostatic” “Narten type”) had the word form accent on the vowel in the root vowel slot: 33

Vedic áhim ahan ‘he slew the dragon’, e.g., shows an evident terminative or “telic” meaning (‘... until its death’). The idea that PIE *gwɦ_n- “must” have had an iterative-like or durative-like lexical aspectual meaning and “must” have meant “wiederholt schlagen” (thus García Ramón 1998), just because this root shows a root present and not a root aorist in Vedic or Greek, is based on the mistaken inference that the IE root presents would reflect an original imperfective-like lexical aspectual meaning, that is, the so-called “Verbalcharakter” of the respective PIE verbal root. However, this is too much a backprojection of Greek and Vedic inflectional aspectual distinctions to the PIE verbal lexicon. Inferring that the imperfective vs. perfective distinction would be “lexically underlying” is, in my view, a severe mistake. Inflectional categories cannot be simply matched 1 to 1 onto a lexicon. Instead, many terminative or telic roots were compatible to the progressive aspect suffix *-i in PIE. Attaching this suffix simply yielded a (derivational-like) durative meaning (like in colloquial Ruhr-German hömma, der is ihn am totschlagen, hilf dem ma bitte ‘listen, he’s beating him to death, please help him’ vs. er hat ihn tot geschlagen, dem kannze nich mehr helfen ‘he has slewn him, you can’t help him anymore’). Therefore, the existence of a root present in IE languages can only tell us that the respective PIE verbal root was compatible to the PIE progressive aspect―but this does not entail that the root had an imperfective-like meaning.

ROLAND A. POOTH

20

FIGURE 28. PIE second binyan (grade II, “acrostatic”) AGT SG

1EXCL 1INCL 2ITR 2DIR 2INV 3ITR

stɛ́ːum

3DIR 3INV

PL

DTR SG

stɛ́umɛ(s) stɛ́uuɛ(s) stɛ́uɛ(n) stɛ́utɛ(n) stɛ́usɛ(n) stɛ́ur

stɛ́uχa stɛ́utχa stɛ́usχá stɛ́uɔ

stɛ́ːut

stɛ́unt

stɛ́utɔ

stɛ́ːus

stɛ́urs

stɛ́usɔ

stɛ́ːu stɛ́ːut stɛ́ːus

stɛ́uχa

PL

stɛ́umɔ(s) stɛ́uuɔ(s) stɛ́uχa(n) stɛ́utχa(n) stɛ́usχa(n) stɛ́uɔr ~ stɛ́urɔ stɛ́uɔnt ~ stɛ́untɔ

COL

stɛ́umɔ(χ) stɛ́uuɔ(χ) stɛ́uaχ stɛ́utaχ stɛ́usaχ stɛ́uaχ stɛ́utaχ stɛ́usaχ

Remark: This second binyan is the so-called “Narten type”. I agree to Kümmel 1998 who has suggested that this type had a DURATIVE aspectual meaning. But I do not follow the traditional idea of a lexical derivation of these forms from “underlying aorist stems”, because I think that the entire specific PERFECTIVE category was a post-PIE―even a post-Vulgar Pre-IE (a “post-Indo-Hittite Vulgar Pre-IE”) innovation. Instead, I simply think that this second binyan could be formed from almost any verbal lexical base. Later, the original sigmatic inverse transitive forms were pleonastically extended. I think that Watkins 1962 was correct by claiming that they were reanalyzed as new post-PIE sigmatic stem; cf. Greek 1st sg. aor. ind. act. ἔθεινα (PGk. *é-kwhensultimately going back to *ɛ́gwɦɛːns, *gwɦɛ́ːns,34 etc.). The corresponding progressive forms of this binyan (e.g. *ʔɛ́ːsti, etc.) merged with the progressive forms of the first binyan (e.g. *ʔɛ́sti, etc.), whence the zero-grade was introduced to the plural forms (cf. Vedic stuvánti :: stáuti, staut).

The following binyans were deponent binyans (and 3rd person intransitive binyans) and thus lacked 3rd person direct or inverse transitive forms and agentive-active forms. As the first of the deponent binyans, the PIE third binyan (or *uɔ́idɛ(i) type) is given in the following figure. FIGURE 29. PIE third binyan (grade III)

1EXCL 1INCL 2ITR 2DIR 2INV 3ITR

34

DTR SG

uɔ́iɗχa uɔ́iɗχa uɔ́iɗtχa uɔ́iɗsχa uɔ́iɗɛ

PL

uɛiɗmɔ́(s) uɛiɗuɔ́(s) uɛiɗχá(n) uɛiɗtχá(n) uɛiɗsχá(n) uɛiɗɔ́r

COL

uɛiɗmɔ́(χ) uɛiɗuɔ́(χ) uɛiɗáχ uɛiɗtáχ uɛiɗsáχ uɛiɗáχ

The LIV, s.v. (with reference) follows Chaintraine by claiming that this form would be a “Neubildung”. But PGk. *-kwhens- was not completely “neugebildet”; there was a preceding PIE sigmatic 3rd sg. form, but there were no PIE sigmatic 1st sg. person forms.

The Proto-Indo-European aspect system

21

Remark: I suggest that the original aspectual meaning of the third binyan was STATIVE-HABITUAL, e.g. *uɔ́iɗχa ‘I know (s.o./sth.)’. The stative-habitual forms were used as general present forms in Vulgar Pre-IE (e.g. *ɗɔ́ʕwɛ(i) ‘generally gives, gives; is giving’). The forms of this third binyan merged with the agentive-active forms of the second binyan or “Narten type” yielding the new semantically more underspecified Vulgar Pre-IE IMPERFECTIVE aspect. I agree to Jasanoff 2003 who has suggested that the forms originating from the second binyan (e.g. *qlɛ́ːpt, *qlɛ́ːps → *qléːp-t, *qléːp-st, etc.) were later predominantly used as imperfect forms, that is, as IMPERFECTIVE forms with non-present tense reference corresponding to “neoactive” present imperfective forms with o-grade (e.g. *mólχ-ei, *mólχ-eti, etc.). In principle, the scenario proposed here is very much in line with the “mixed paradigm *h2e-conjugation theory” of Jasanoff 2003. Yet there are some differences. The merger of the stative-habitual aspect (e.g. *prɔ́kɛ ‘always asks, generally asks’, *prɔ́kɛi ‘is always asking, is generally asking’) and the durative aspect (e.g. *prɛ́ːkt, *prɛ́ːks ‘asks duratively, asked for a relatively long period without finishing, was asking’) yielding the Vulgar Pre-IE more underspecified imperfective aspect can be illustrated as follows: FIGURE 30. PIE stative-habitual durative *prɔ́kɛ(i) *prɛ́ːkt :: *prɛ́ːks ‘always asks’ ‘asks/asked for a while/enduringly’ ↘ ↙ Vulgar Pre-IE imperfective *prók̑e(i) ~ *préːk̑t ~ *préːks̑ (t) This “mixed paradigm” developed into a present (and non-present) imperfective tense and aspect category from PIE to Vulgar Pre-IE. Crosslinguistically, the suggested aspectual semantic broadening is extremely common. Thus forms such as, e.g. *u̯óide(i) (with or without *-i) were taken for new present and non-present imperfective forms. I finally suggest that in the course of the genesis of this Vulgar Pre-IE “mixed paradigm” innovated imperfect forms (e.g. *u̯éːids(t)) were formed via backformation from “neoactive” present imperfective forms (e.g. *u̯óide(i), etc.). In this special case, the sigmatic form *u̯éːids(t) was not inherited from PIE, because originally this verb *u_iɗ- ‘see, find, know’ was a deponent experiencer-stimulus or “psych” verb and did not display agentive-active forms. I think, however, that Jasanoff’s “mixed paradigm” was a paradigm that was arranged so only in the Vulgar Pre-IE dialect or variant cluster but not before. Thus it cannot be taken for a very stable inflectional pattern and was prone to undergo immediate paradigmatic levelings, e.g. of the o-grade or the lengthened grade, etc. In the same period, the original detransitive forms of the second binyan were predominantly used as Vulgar Pre-IE oppositional middle forms to the corresponding active and “neoactive” forms of the “mixed paradigm”.

ROLAND A. POOTH

22

FIGURE 31. Vulgar Pre-IE: 3rd sg. present imperfective neoactive *mólχ-e(i) ~*mólχ-et(i) 3rd sg. imperfective neoactive *mólχ-e(t) 3rd sg. (past) imperfective active *méːlχ-s(t) 3rd sg. present imperfective middle 3rd sg. imperfective middle

*mélχ-oi ~ *-otoi ~ *-otor(i) *mélχ-o ~ *-oto ~ *-otor

Only later, new active forms like *mélχ-e(i) ~ *mélχ-et(i) were created in analogy to the given middle forms. Furthermore, I think that detransitive forms of the second binyan also had a potential, “future-prospective” and subjunctive-like modal reading besides the durative aspectual reading (and forms with this reading were used as “presubjunctive” forms in “future-prospective” and subjunctive-like function).

The plural and collective-plural forms of the following fourth binyan, that is, (in my view) the TRANSITIONAL aspect were identical to the ones of the first binyan. FIGURE 32. PIE fourth binyan (grade IV, “holokinetic”)

1EXCL 1INCL 2ITR 2DIR 2INV 3ITR

DTR SG

uɛ́iɗχ uɛ́iɗχ uɛ́iɗtχ uɛ́iɗsχ uɔ́iɗ

PL

uiɗmɔ́(s) uiɗuɔ́(s) uiɗχá(n) uiɗtχá(n) uiɗsχá(n) uiɗɔ́r ~ uiɗrɔ́

COL

uiɗmɔ́(χ) uiɗuɔ́(χ) uiɗáχ uiɗtáχ uiɗsáχ uiɗáχ

NB. A functional difference between the first binyan vs. the fourth binyan can be based on the following minimal pairs: (a) *bɦudɦɔ́ ‘s.o. recognizes, recognized, gets, got to know s.o./sth.’ → ɦ *b udɦó/é- > Greek ἐπυθόμην (-πυθό/έ-) ‘recognized, got to know s.o./sth.’ vs. *bɦɔ́udɦ(i) ‘awakes, awoke’ > Vedic bódhi ‘awakes/awoke’; (b) *bɦiɗɔ́ ‘s.o. makes/made sth./s.o. be torn into pieces’ cf. Vedic (TS) 2nd sg. aor. mid. bhitthās ‘you tear sth. into pieces’ (factitive-causative) vs. *bɦɔ́iɗ(i) > Vedic bhédi ‘breaks into pieces’ (anticausative), etc. The (non-progressive) detransitive forms of the first binyan had an “aoristlike” nondurative, that is, semelfactive, terminative or telic aspectual meaning implying a more or less affected 2nd participant or a goal of movement, whereas the ones of the fourth binyan simply coded a transition and were otherwise underspecified. Additional remark: The identity (or homophony) of the plural and collective-plural forms of the fourth binyan and the first binyan later triggered a Vulgar Pre-IE paradigmatic merger of these two inflectional patterns. I suggest that the progressive forms of the transitional fourth binyan were later mainly used as non-present imperfective middle forms, e.g. *bɦóudɦi ‘was

The Proto-Indo-European aspect system

23

awakening, awoke’ (pleoanstically extended to *bɦóudɦito ~ *bɦóudɦitor), whereas the (detransitive) ones of the first binyan were used as oppositional present imperfective middle forms: FIGURE 33. Vulgar Pre-IE: 3rd sg. present imperfective middle

*bɦudɦ-ói ~*bɦudɦ-ótoi ~ *-ótori *bɦudɦ-óitoi ~ *-óitori, 3rd pl. *bɦudɦ-ónti ~*bɦudɦ-i̯ónti ~ *bɦudɦ-óntoi ~*bɦudɦ-i̯óntoi ~ ...

3rd sg. imperfective middle

*bɦóudɦ-i ~ *bɦóudɦ-ito(r)

3rd sg. non-imperfective35 middle

*bɦóudɦ ~ *bɦudɦ-ó(t) ~*bɦudɦ-óto(r), 3rd pl. *bɦudɦ-ónt ~*bɦudɦ-ónto ~ *bɦudɦ-ró ~ *bɦudɦ-ór

In analogy to the present forms (e.g. *bɦudɦ-ói) the zero-grade was introduced to the singular forms (e.g. 3rd sg. *bɦudɦ-í(t), whence 2nd sg. *bɦudɦ-ís > Proto-Germanic *βuðíz > 2nd sg. pret. ind. act. OE bude, OS budi, OHG buti), 1st sg. *bɦudɦ-χ́ (cf. 1st sg. aor. ind. mid. -i, e.g. Vedic ákri, krí, etc.). Further pleonastic middle and “neoactive” forms were soon created, e.g. 1st sg. *bɦudɦ-ḿ̥χ ~ *bɦudɦ-χḿ̥ (whence Hittite 1st sg. pret. ind. act. -(ḫ)ḫun). Finally, a new 3rd sg. present imperfective *bɦudɦi̯ói ~ *bɦudɦi̯éi ~*bɦudɦi̯éti (with additional “neoactive” ending *-éi ~ *-éti) was created by analogical paradigmatic introduction of the segment *-i-/-i̯- before the “ending” (e.g. 3rd pl. *bɦudɦónt(o)i ~*bɦudɦi̯ónt(o)i, etc.) Based on these forms (e.g. 1st sg. *mr̥sχḿ̥ ‘I forgot’, 3rd sg. *mr̥sí(t) ~ *mr̥si̯ó(t), etc.) the segments *-χ-, *-í-, *-i̯ó- were further reanalyzed as new stem suffixes (whence the PToch. stem suffix *-a-, PBalt. *-i-). They were even pleonastically combined to *-χi- (*-Hi-). Thus new Vulgar Pre-IE middle voice stem suffixes *-χ-, *-í-, *-i̯ó-, *-Hi̯ó- and *-(H)i̯ó/é- (with either middle or new active inflection) were created. The merger of these two binyans and the subsequent variation given in the figure above must be the ultimate source of the Hittite daai/tiyanzi class and the IE yod-present (e.g. the Vedic -ya-presents). The problems with the Hittite daai/tiyanzi class have recently been summarized by Kloekhorst & Lubotsky 2014: 131 (for their references see there): “The exact reconstruction of the ablaut patterns of these verbs has been a matter of some controversy. Although it is generally assumed that their weak stems (ti-, išpi-, etc.) contain the zero-grade of the root + *-i- (*dhh1-i-, *sph1-i-, etc.), the reconstruction of their strong stems (dai-, išpai-, etc.) was for a long time, and still is, debated. For instance, Melchert (1984: 73; 1994: 65) and Jasanoff (2003: 102) reconstruct these strong stems as *CéC-i(*dhéh1-i-, *spéh1-i-, etc.), whereas Oettinger (1979: 46) reconstructs them as *CóC-i- (*dhóh1-i-, *spóh1-i-). But neither reconstruction accounts for a number of verbs belonging to the dāi/tii ̯anzi-class. For instance, the strong stem of the verb arai-i/ari- ‘to (a)rise’, which must contain the root *h3er- as found in e.g. Gk. ὄρνυμαι ‘to stir, to rise’ (cf. LIV2 299), can reflect neither 35

Non-imperfective = “aorist-like” = “pre-aorist”.

ROLAND A. POOTH

24

the structure *CéC-i- (a stem *h3ér-i- should have yielded **ḫāri-, and not arai- as attested), nor the structure *CóC-i- (*h3ór-i- should have yielded **(ḫ)āri-). Similarly, the strong stem forms of the verb ḫalzai-i/ḫalzi- ‘to call, to scream’, which according to Puhvel (HED 3:63) contains the root *h2letas found in Goth. laþon ‘to call’, can reflect neither the structure *CéC-i(*h2let-i- should have yielded **ḫalezzi-, and not ḫalzai- as attested), nor the structure *CóC-i- (*h2lót-i- should have yielded **ḫalāzzi-). The honorand of this volume (Oettinger 1979: xxviii; 2004: 400) was the first to argue that arai- and halzai- should reflect *h3roi- and *h2ltoi-,[fn.] respectively, an analysis that was extended by Kloekhorst (2006) to all dāi/tii ̯anzi-class verbs. In this view, all strong stems in -ai- should rather be reconstructed as *CC-ói-, i.e. with zero-grade in the root and with o-grade in the suffix [...].”

Therefore, even if Hittite daai ‘puts’ goes back to a preceding Vulgar Pre-IE *dɦʔói (< PIE *dɦʔɔ́i) and thus does not exactly match Vedic dhāý i ‘is put’ (which goes back to its Vulgar Pre-IE variant *dɦóʔi < *dɦɔ́ʔi), the corresponding Vedic 3rd pl. dhīyánte (< *dɦʔ(H)i̯óntoi), however, looks like a formal equivalent of Hittite 3rd pl. tiyanzi (< *dɦʔi̯ónti) and had the same ultimate source, that is, a new 3rd pl. with *-(H)i̯ - before the “ending” *-onti ~ *-ontoi which was analogically introduced from the pleonastic 3rd sg. form *dɦóʔitoi ~ *dɦóʔi. Note that the specification of Vedic dhīyánte ‘are (being) put’ etc. to passive function is a post-PIE innovation. As already mentioned in a footnote above, the scenario given here further offers a very plausible explanation for why the -nt-participle of Hittite araai does not show any *-i̯-, cf. araant-, cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 200. Since it is rather implausible that the PIE participles were not derived from the same underlying lexical base or “root” as the corresponding finite verb forms, a “root enlargement” *-i̯- is not a very plausible source in cases like Hittite araai, araant-. The segment *-i̯-, therefore, must go back to a segment that was part of the given PIE inflection, that is, an inflectional suffix that was not found in participles―and former progressive forms coded by *-i that were pleonastically extended are thus a more plausible source.

The singular forms of the following PIE fifth binyan had a bivocalic underlying vowel melody template *_VV_ (realized as long vowels: 1st sg. and 2nd sg. *_ɛ́ː_, but 3rd sg. *_ɔ́ː_). The templatic make-up of the corresponding plural and collective-plural forms should have run in parallel to the one of the “Narten type” and the other plurifactive-plurative binyans (i.e., grades II, III, VI). The plural and collective-plural forms, therefore, presumably had a vowel melody *_ɔ́_ɔ_, because, for instance, *suɔ́pmɔ(s) ‘we (exclusive) were sleeping; were gradually falling asleep’ with *_ɔ́_ɔ_ exactly parallels the 1st person exclusive plural form *stɛ́́umɛ(s) with *_ɛ́_ɛ_ of the second binyan.

The Proto-Indo-European aspect system

25

FIGURE 32. PIE fifth binyan (grade V, “acrostatic”)

1EXCL 1INCL 2ITR 2DIR 2INV 3ITR

DTR SG

suɛ́ːpχ suɛ́ːpχ suɛ́ːptχ suɛ́ːpsχ suɔ́ːp

PL

suɔ́pmɔ(s) suɔ́puɔ(s) suɔ́́pχa(n) suɔ́́ptχa(n) suɔ́́psχa(n) suɔ́pr

COL

suɔ́pmɔ(χ) suɔ́́puɔ(χ) suɔ́́paχ suɔ́́ptaχ suɔ́́psaχ suɔ́́paχ

NB. Proto-Germanic had both *swōf(i)ja- (> ON sǿfa ‘kill, libate’) as well as *swǣf(i)ja- (*su̯éːpi̯o/e-) (> ON svæfa). These variants (*su̯óːpi̯o/e- and *su̯éːpi̯o/e-) thus strengthen the given reconstruction of the sg. forms. Note that it is phonologically possible, at least, that the Vedic so-called “passive aorist” injunctive forms with irregular Vriddhi grade (e.g. jāni ‘is just being born’, tāri, śāri ‘is breaking’, etc.) go back to a 3rd person singular form with the template *Cɔ́ːCi and that some of these are not just analogical. The Vulgar Pre-IE o-grade of 3rd pl. forms (Vulgar Pre-IE *su̯óp-r(o), PIE *suɔ́pr) may be reflected by Toch. A class I preterite active forms, e.g., by Toch. A pret. I 3rd pl. tarkar, lawar, etc., but 3rd sg. cärk ‘dismissed, emitted’ (B carka), lywāṃ ‘sent’ (cf. Kim 2012: 138, pointing to PToch. *ljəwá, *lëwárë, a Transponat would be **léuH-h2-, **louH-h2-ro from *l_uH- ‘cut off, release’, cf. LIV, s.v.). I suggest that the original aspectual meaning of this fifth binyan was INCHOATIVE-STATIVE. 36 I suggest that the non-progressive (inchoative-stative) forms of this fifth binyan merged with the forms of the “mixed paradigm” that were mainly used as imperfect forms. The e-grade of the singular forms (which is presupposed by the given PToch. pattern according to Kim 2012) was thus analogically introduced to this type (from some other type), whereas the ograde of the plural forms is archaic (and not vice versa). FIGURE 33. Vulgar Pre-IE: 3rd sg. present imperfective neoactive 3rd sg. imperfective neoactive 3rd sg. present imperfective middle 3rd sg. imperfective middle

*su̯óːp-i̯ei ~*su̯óːp-i̯eti *su̯óːp-t, 3rd pl. *su̯óp-r̥ *su̯óːp-itoi ~ *suóːp-itor(i) *su̯óːp-to ~ *su̯óp-to, 3rd pl. *su̯óp-ro

Forms of the PIE fifth binyan were DETRANSITIVE, that is, so-called “protomiddle” forms. But later, the given forms were reanalyzed as “neoactive” imperfect forms in Vulgar Pre-IE. A pattern with non-sg. o-grade thus matches the one that has recently been postulated by Kim 2012: 146: “Nothing therefore stands in the way of postulating a subclass of h2econjugation root aorists marked by the alternation sg. *e ~ non-sg. *o, un-

36

Forms belonging to this binyan were underspecified as for the distinction between dynamic process and non-dynamic state.

ROLAND A. POOTH

26

known to paradigms of the mi-conjugation and directly ancestral to at least some Tocharian Class I preterites.”

The so-called “h2e-conjugation”, therefore, does not go back to one single PIE paradigm, but was a Vulgar Pre-IE melting pot of forms that once belonged to different PIE detransitive inflectional types/binyans.

The word forms of the following sixth binyan presumably had *_ɔ_ in the root vowel slot and *_ɛ́_ elsewhere throughout the entire paradigm (and thus *_á_ before /after *-χ-): FIGURE 34. PIE sixth binyan (grade VI)

1EXCL 1INCL 2ITR 2DIR 2INV 3ITR

DTR SG

suɔpχá suɔpχá suɔptχá suɔpsχá suɔpɛ́

PL

suɔpmɛ́(s) suɔpuɛ́(s) suɔpχá(n) suɔptχá(n) suɔptχá(n) suɔpɛ́r

COL

suɔpmɛ́ ~ suɔpmáχ suɔpuɛ́ ~ suɔpuáχ suɔpáχ suɔptáχ suɔpsáχ suɔpáχ

Remark: The progressive forms of this sixth binyan (e.g. *ɠɔnʔɛ́i) are reflected as the IE so-called “causative-iterative” present stem (Vedic janáyati, kāśáyati, etc.). This binyan had a DISTRIBUTIVE-ITERATIVE aspectual meaning, and it was also used in a specific factitive or causative construction: (3)

a. distributive-iterative *χnɛ́r-s *kwɔkɛ́_i man-ERG\SG see:DISTR:DTR:ITR:3SG_PROG ‘the man is (willingly) looking here & there’ b. factitive-causative *χnɛ́r-s *kwɔkɛ́_i *pχtɛ́r-m man-ERG\SG see:DISTR:DTR:ITR:3SG_PROG father-ALL\SG lit. ‘the man here is making seeing to the father there’ (α) ‘the man is making the father visible/seen (by s.o.)’ (β) ‘the man is making the father see s.o./sth.’

Appendix on the IE ā-stems: I think that most of these generally go back to the given 2nd or 3rd person collective-pl. form, e.g. PIE *kwɔrp(H)áχ ‘together they/you (pl.) turn somewhere’. These were pleonastically extended by the productive neoactive or middle 3rd pl. endings *-ont(i) ~ *-ontoi yielding e.g. Vulgar Pre-IE *kworp(H)áχonto(i). The same source should hold true for stems with any grade of the root and suffix *-aχ-, *-taχ-, *-saχ-. The ones with ograde of the root thus competed with the so-called “causative-iterative” present imperfective forms, e.g. Vulgar Pre-IE *sokwáχontoi ‘they are making s.o. follow’ (cf. Lith. sãko ‘says’ :: inf. sakýti < *sokwéi̯(e)-), *kworp(H)áχontoi ‘they are turning here and there’ (cf. PGerm. *χwarβōnan ‘go here and there, wander’ (cf. Ringe 2007: 256). However, Proto-Germanic *saγjō, *saγaiþi rather goes back to Vulgar Pre-IE *sokwói ~ *sokwóiti ~ *sokw(H)i̯ónti and belonged to the

The Proto-Indo-European aspect system

27

other Vulgar Pre-IE stems in *-oi- (pointing to PIE *s(ɛ)kwɔ́i (first binyan) : *sɔ́kwi (fourth binyan), see above). Note that a pleonasm PIE *gwɦɔnɛ́i → Vulgar Pre-IE 3rd sg. *gwɦonéit is evident in the case of by OCS 2nd/3rd sg. aor. ind. act. goni ‘drove, hunted’ (1st sg. gonixŭ, etc.) which seems to go back to a former Vulgar Pre-IE imperfect(ive) form with a 3rd sg. “secondary” ending *-t, cf. Stang 1966: 325. Summarizing the given PIE to Vulgar Pre-IE developments I conclude that the respective paradigmatic mergers of the PIE first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth binyan yielded a new Vulgar Pre-IE aspect system which included the following “root formations”: A.

or “Vulgar Pre-IE root present”: (i) 3rd sg. act. (incl. neoactive) *gwɦén-ti, *stéːu-ti, *u̯óide(i) ~ *u̯óidet(i); 3rd sg. mid. *gwɦn-ói ~ *gwɦn̥-tói, *stéu̯-oi ~ *stéu̯otoi ~ *stéu-toi, (ii) 3rd sg. (anticausative-passive) middle *bɦudɦói ~ *bɦudɦóitoi ~ *bɦóudɦi37 ~ *bɦóudɦitoi (3rd pl. *bɦudɦóntoi ~ *bɦudɦi̯óntoi), (iii) 3rd sg. (inchoative-stative or factitive) middle or neoactive *su̯óːpi ~*su̯óːpitoi ~ *su̯óːpi̯ei ~ *su̯óːpi̯eti, (iv) 3rd sg. (factitive or iterative) middle or neoactive *g̑ouséi ~ *g̑ouséitoi ~ *g̑ouséi̯ei ~ *g̑ouséi̯eti

B.

non-present IMPERFECTIVE or “Vulgar Pre-IE root imperfect(ive)” (and also “pre-subjunctive”): (i) 3rd sg. act. (including neoactive) *stéːu-t ~ *stéːust (= “pre-sigmaticaorist”), *u̯óide ~ *u̯óidet; 3rd sg. middle *stéu̯-o ~ *stéu̯oto ~ *stéu-to ~ *stéuso ~ *stéusoto ~ *stéusto, (ii) 3rd sg. (inchoative-stative or factitive) middle or neoactive *suóːp ~*suóːpto ~ *suóːpt, (1st sg. *suéːpχ, neoactive *suéːpχm̥), (iii) 3rd sg. (factitive or iterative) middle or neoactive *g̑ousé ~ *g̑ouséto ~ *g̑ousét

C.

non-present and non-imperfective or “Vulgar Pre-IE pre-root-imperfector-aorist”: C.1. “pre-imperfect”: 3rd sg. act. *gwɦén-t, middle *gwɦn-ó ~ *gwɦn̥-tó,

PRESENT IMPERFECTIVE

C.2. “pre-root-aorist”: (i) 3rd sg. act. *gwém-t, *dɒ́ʕw-t, etc.; 3rd sg. mid. *gwm-ó ~ *gwm̥-tó, *dʕw-ó ~ *dʕw-tói, etc.; (ii) 3rd sg. middle (including an anticausative-passive middle) *u̯idó ~ *u̯id-óto (3rd pl. *u̯idónt ~ *u̯idónto); *bɦudɦó ~ *bɦudɦóto ~ *bɦóudɦ ~ *bɦóudɦto (3rd pl. *bɦudɦónt ~ *bɦudɦónto ~ *bɦudɦró) The following figure can illustrate the allomorphic formal variants38 of the Vulgar Pre-IE “root imperfect(ive)” aspect category (category B) going back to the PIE second, third, and fourth binyan:

37 38

Maybe this form was rather used as a non-present imperfective form; see above. In either case, it developed to the Vedic so-called “passive aorist” bódhi. It is implied that forms of this “melting pot paradigm” were subject to reciprocal remodellings, e.g. *-χ + *-m̥ → *-χm̥ > Hitt. -(ḫ)ḫun, etc.

ROLAND A. POOTH

28

FIGURE 35. Vulgar Pre-IE non-present imperfective

1 1INCL 2ITR → 2 2DIR → 2 2INV → 2 3ITR → 3 3DIR → 3 3INV → 2/3

NEOACTIVE SG

PL

*ʔéːs-m̥ *mólχ-χa *su̯éːp-χ

*ʔés-me(s) *melχ-mó(s) *su̯óp-mo(s)

*ʔéːs *mólχ-χa *su̯éːp-χ *ʔéːs-t *mólχ-tχa *su̯éːp-tχ *ʔéːs-s *mólχ-sχa *su̯éːp-sχ

*ʔés-e(n) *melχ-χá(n) *su̯óp-χa(n) *ʔés-te(n) *melχ-tχá(n) *su̯óp-tχa(n) *ʔés-se(n) *melχ-sχá(n) *su̯óp-sχa(n) *ʔés-r̥ *melχ-ór *su̯óp-r̥ *ʔés-n̥t *ʔés-r̥s

*mólχ-e *su̯óːp *ʔéːs-t *ʔéːs-s

(COL →) DU

*ʔés-u̯o(χ) *melχ-u̯ó(χ) *su̯óp-u̯o(χ) *ʔés-aχ(m) *melχ-áχ(m) *su̯óp-aχ(m) *ʔés-taχ(m) *melχ-táχ(m) *su̯óp-taχ(m) *ʔés-saχ(m) *melχ-sáχ(m) *su̯óp-saχ(m) *ʔés-aχ(m) *melχ-áχ(m) *su̯óp-aχ(m) *ʔés-taχ(m) *ʔés-saχ(m)

Cf. Hittite eesun, eesta, etc. For eː-grade besides o-grade of the 3rd pl. cf. Hitt. ḫeeser (OH) vs. akir (OH). OH ḫeeser is older than MH ḫaaser pace Kloekhorst 2011: 154 who thinks that the MH form is more archaic. Nevertheless, Old Hittite clearly points to a variation of ablaut grades in the 3rd pl. pret. The following figure illustrates the paradigm of new Vulgar Pre-IE nonpresent non-imperfective, that is the “pre-root-imperfect-and-aorist” which showed less allomorphic variation, because it only reflects the PIE first binyan. FIGURE 36. Post-PIE non-present non-imperfective ACTIVE SG

*gwɦén-m̥

1 1INCL 2ITR → 2 2DIR → 2 2INV → 2 3ITR → 3 3DIR → 3

*g én *gwɦén-t *gwɦén-s

3INV → 2/3

PL

*gwɦn̥-mé(s)

(COL →) DU

*gwɦén-t

*g n-é(n) *gwɦn̥-té(n) *gwɦn̥-sé(n) *gwɦn-ér *gwɦn-ént

*gwɦn̥-u̯ó(χ) *gwɦn-áχ(m) *gwɦn-táχ(m) *gwɦn-sáχ(m) *gwɦn-áχ(m) *gwɦn-táχ(m)

*gwɦén-s

*gwɦn-éːr

*gwɦn-sáχ(m)

wɦ

wɦ

The figures below illustrate the Vulgar Pre-IE corresponding middle forms (note that analogical o-grade of the root is also an option):

The Proto-Indo-European aspect system

29

FIGURE 37. Vulgar Pre-IE non-present imperfective middle and “pre-subjunctive” MIDDLE SG

PL

*mélχ-χa ~ *mélχ-oχa 39

*mélχ-mo(s) ~ *mélχ-omo(s)

3DIR → 3

*mélχ-χa *mélχ-tχa *mélχ-sχa *mélχ-o ~ *mélχ-oto *mélχ-to

3INV → 2/3

*mélχ-so

*mélχ-χa(n) *mélχ-tχa(n) *mélχ-sχa(n) *mélχ-or *mélχ-ro *mélχ-ont ~ *mélχ-n̥to ~ *mélχ-onto *mélχ-ro

1 1INCL 2ITR → 2 2DIR → 2 2INV → 2 3ITR → 3

(COL →) DU *mélχ-u̯o(χ) ~*mélχ-ou̯o(χ) *mélχ-aχ(m) *mélχ-taχ(m) *mélχ-saχ(m) *mélχ-aχ(m) *mélχ-taχ(m) *mélχ-saχ(m)

FIGURE 38. Vulgar Pre-IE non-present non-imperfective MIDDLE SG

1 1INCL 2ITR → 2 2DIR → 2 2INV → 2 3ITR → 3 3DIR → 3 3INV → 2/3

*gwɦn̥-χa wɦ

*g n̥-χa *gwɦn̥-tχa *gwɦn̥-sχa *gwɦn-ó *gwɦn̥-tó *gwɦn̥-só

PL

*gwɦn̥-mó(s) wɦ

*g n̥-χa(n) *gwɦn̥-tχa(n) *gwɦn̥-sχa(n) *gwɦn-ór ~ *gwɦn̥-ró *gwɦn-ónt ~ *gwɦn-n̥tó

(COL →) DU *gwɦn̥-u̯ó(χ) *gwɦn-áχ(m) *gwɦn-táχ(m) *gwɦn-sáχ(m) *gwɦn-áχ(m) *gwɦn-táχ(m) *gwɦn-sáχ(m)

From “post-Proto-Anatolian or post-Indo-Hittite Vulgar Pre-IE” to other (but not necessarily all the other) IE proto-branches, thus mainly to the “Inner IE” branch, that is, the one including Proto-Greek and Proto-Indo-Iranian, the “root aorist” and a new “sigmatic aorist” developed from the following Vulgar Pre-IE forms: (a) sigmatic non-present IMPERFECTIVE forms, e.g. *gwɦéːnst → *gwɦéːns-t that were formerly used in a past tense + deliminative aspectual reading ‘he was slewing him/her/it (and the event was/is finished then)’ → ‘he slew him/her/it (and it was/is finished)’; (b) non-present non-imperfectives that lacked a corresponding “root presents”, e.g. *gwém-t ‘came hither, went there’; (c) non-present non-imperfectives whose corresponding “root presents” were used infrequently or were dropped, e.g. *dɦéʔ-t ‘put, said, did, made’, etc.

But let us leave the dialectal post-PIE period and return to the proper PIE aspect system. Up to now, we have reconstructed 6 PIE radical or basic 39

“Endings” in bold type were pleonastic and analogical.

ROLAND A. POOTH

30

transfixal aspects (also called “root formations”): the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth binyan.

5 PIE skeletal aspectual derivation “PIE Proper” had a combinatory or compositional aspect system. The aspectual meaning of the respective basic transfixal aspect or grade was combined with the aspectual meaning of what I term the skeletal aspect stem which was marked on the consonant frame tier. Combined with the root morpheme the aspect morphemes made up the skeletal aspect stem. It was either unmarked (radical), marked by a reduplication template prefix, marked by a nasal infix, or marked by a suffix. “PIE Proper” minimally employed the following skeletal aspect stems.40 FIGURE 39. radical Ci-reduplicated C_-reduplicated

skeletal stem

aspectual meaning

*dɦ_ʔ-

(see above)

ɦ

ɦ

DISTRIBUTIVE-ITERATIVE

ɦ

ɦ

CONTINUOUS

ɦ

ɦ

*d i-d _ʔ*d _-d _ʔ-

Cɛ-reduplicated

*d ɛ-d _ʔ-

EVENT-CONNECTIVE

Cɛ́ː-reduplicated/ Cɛ́R-reduplicated

*dɦɛ́ː-dɦ_ʔ*gwɦɛ́n-gwɦ_n-

INTERNALLY REPETITIVE INTERNALLY REPETITIVE

Cɛ́Ci-reduplicated/ *dɦɛ́ʔi-dɦ_ʔCɛ́Ri-reduplicated *gwɦɛ́ni-gwɦ_n-

DISTRIBUTIVE-REPETITVE DISTRIBUTIVE-REPETITVE

nasal infix/ nasal suffix

*iu~n_~_ʛ*ʔ(a)r-n_u-

INCOMPLETIVE INCOMPLETIVE

-sk-suffix

*ʔr-sk_

SUDDEN-MOMENT-PUNCTUAL

Each skeletal aspect stem conveyed a specific aspectual meaning―except for the underlying unmarked radical or zero-marked stem which was more underspecified and polysemeous. Both the respective grade as well as the respective skeletal aspect stem were mapped upon the word form template (WFT). The aspectual meaning of the given skeletal aspect stem was thus combined with the aspectual meaning of grades I, II, III, IV (and grade V, but not with grade VI?).

6 PIE reduplicated aspect 6.1 The two *Ci-reduplicated aspects I suggest that forms coded by the reduplication templatic prefix *Ciconveyed a DISTRIBUTIVE-ITERATIVE aspectual meaning. This prefix was fur40

PIE also had skeletal mood stems in *-i_ʔ- (OPTATIVE), *-ʔs- (CONATIVE).

The Proto-Indo-European aspect system

31

ther combined with grade I and grade IV, respectively. I am not sure whether the stative-habitual grade III could be combined with *Ci-, but the durative grade II should have been incompatible to it. FIGURE 40. form *dɦidɦɛ́ʔt *dɦidɦʔɔ́

grade meaning I ‘topic puts/does sth. (swh.) here & there/now & then’ I (3rd sg. detransitive intransitive)

*sisuɔ́p

IVd

‘s.o. falls asleep here & there/now & then; ‘s.o. makes s.o. fall asleep here & there/now & then’

NB. Note that Vedic shows an archaic reduplicated athematic aorist siṣvap (RV 6.26.6, “betäubst” according to Hoffmann 1967 or ‘make fall asleep’) which I think goes back to Vulgar Pre-IE *sisu̯ops, *sisu̯opt (which is a prior 3rd sg. detransitive *sisuɔ́p extended by *-s, *-t).

These two *Ci-reduplicated binyans were derived from the first and the fourth binyan, respectively. It is superfluous to give their paradigms. Their forms can easily be formed by prefixation of the reduplication templatic prefix *Ci- to the respective forms given above. I think that it is safe claiming that the grades II and V were incompatible to this type of reduplication, because the distributive-iterative meaning implies many breaks of duration of the event and this was not implied in the specifically interminative durative meaning of these two grades. In principle, habitual meaning (e.g. he used to sleep all day and spend all nights hanging around in bars) also implies many breaks of the duration inbetween the several habitually iterated events (e.g. sleep, spend). Thus a *Ci-reduplicated type with grade III was perhaps not needed, because a habitual distributive aspectual meaning was implied in the stative-habitual meaning of the third binyan. NB. I suggest that the progressive forms of the *mimnɔ́i type were broadened to such a new habitual reading from PIE to Vulgar Pre-IE. Subsequently, they merged with the new “root (general) imperfective”, that is, the Vulgar Pre-IE *mólχe(i) type and thus received the neoactive imperfective inflection (e.g. → *mimn-e(i) ~ *mimn-et(i) (with accent on the reduplication prefix or on the “ending)). Additionally, part of the detransitive intransitive forms, e.g. *mimnɔ́ were pleonastically extended by the Vulgar Pre-IE productive middle endings *-to(i) ~ *tor(i). Only later, these were remodelled to thematic stems, e.g. *mimnó/é(whence Gk. μίμνω). Likewise, the forms with grade IV were pleonastically extended by active endings (*-t, *-e(t), etc.), e.g. *sisuɔ́p → 3rd sg. neoactive *sisu̯ópt(i). Functionally, the distributive-iterative sixth binyan *suɔpɛ́(i) and these two reduplicated binyans were partically overlapping. For this reason, forms going back to these two reduplicated binyans were later used as oppositional aorist stems to the productive Vulgar Pre-IE present imperfectives of the *su̯opéi̯toi ~*su̯opéi̯eti type (see below). Originally, however, the agentive-active forms of

ROLAND A. POOTH

32

the *Ci-reduplicated types were not used in the PIE antipassive constructions (cf. Pooth manuscript a).

6.2 The PIE *Cɛ́-reduplicated aspect I suggest that a PIE “acrostatic” CONTINUOUS aspect was coded by the reduplication template *CV3- combined with grade II (*_ɛ́_ɛ_ and *_ɛ́_ɔ_). It always had the word form accent on the first vowel of the vowel melody, that is, the one in the reduplication vowel slot (which had to be no other vowel than *_ɛ́_). I assume that there were two types of singular detransitive forms. Continuous aspect forms which were derived from an underlying grade IV form (e.g. *ɠɔ́nʔ(i)) had the *ɔ in the root vowel slot, whereas forms which were derived from underlying grade I forms (e.g. *dɦʔɔ́(i)) showed a parallel position of *ɔ outside the root vowel slot. This reduplication templatic prefix perhaps also occurred sponaneously combined with grade V, e.g. *sɛ́suɔːp ‘s.o. continues being duratively falling into sleep’, but I am not sure. FIGURE 41. form *dɦɛ́dɦɛʔt *dɦɛ́dɦʔɔ

grade meaning II ‘topic kept on/was still putting/doing sth. (swh.)’ II ‘s.o. kept on/was still putting/doing sth. (swh.)’

*ɠɛ́ɠɔnʔ *sɛ́suɔːp(?)

II II/Vd

‘s.o. was still coming into being’

Remark: The PIE 3rd sg. agentive form *dɦɛ́dɦɛʔt is directly reflected as Vedic 3rd sg. imperfect inj. act. dádhāt. The corresponding detransitive intransitive form *ɗɛ́ɗʕwɔ was remodelled to a thematic stem *dédʕwo/e- (> Vedic dádate ‘grab, receive, obtain, get’). Part of the Vulgar Pre-IE non-present imperfective forms, that is, the ones without *-i were further narrowed to thematic aorist stem (in my view, this was done parallely in the more divergent dialect cluster in a period slightly before Proto-Greek and Proto-Indo-Iranian), e.g. *gwɦɛ́gwɦnɔ → *gwɦégwɦno/e- > Greek (ἔ-)πεφνο/ε-, but YAv. 3rd pl. present ind. mid. jaγnəṇte, 3rd sg. imperfect or aorist (?) act. -jaγnat̰. Furthermore, this binyan (partially) developed into Vedic reduplicated (perfect) subjunctives, e.g. *uɛ́urtɔ → Vedic 3rd sg. perf. subj. act. vavr̥tat. In my view, the non-progressive forms were first mainly narrowed to plain non-present imperfective function (‘is/was still doing sth.’ → ‘is/was (generally) doing sth.’) and this underspecification included the following readings: (α) general-habitual imperfective, (β) past imperfective, (γ) “futureprospective” or “pre-subjunctive” imperfective. From PIE to Vulgar Pre-IE, this binyan partially merged with the two *Cireduplicated binyans, whence the o-grade was introduced to the active forms in analogy to the neoactive ones (e.g. *sisuɔ́p → Vulgar Pre-IE *sisu̯ópt(i), etc.); cf. Vulgar Pre-IE *dɦédɦoʔs(i) > OS dedos, etc.

I think that the grades I, III, IV and the distributive-iterative grade VI were incompatible to this type of reduplication, because this reduplication

The Proto-Indo-European aspect system

33

template *CV3- indicated a continued duration (still be doing sth., still undergoing a change of state, ...).

6.3 The five *Cɛ-reduplicated aspects I have decided to coin the term event-connective to refer to an event that in itself consists of two separated but connected internal parts, the second one following the first part. This term implies the concept of a first internal part of an event connected to a following internal part of the event as its following consequence (or result). This term is used as a superordinate aspect term for the following PIE forms showing a combination of Cɛreduplication and transfixal aspect (grades I, II, IIId, IVd, Vd) marking: FIGURE 42. form *dɦɛ-dɦɛ́ʔt *dɦɛ-dɦʔɔ́ *dɦɛ-dɦɛ́ʔɔ *dɦɛ-dɦɔ́ʔɛ *dɦɛ-dɦɔ́ʔ *dɦɛ-dɦɔː́ʔ

grade I I II IIId IVd Vd

meaning ‘topic has put/done it & it has been completed’ ‘s.o. has put/done sth. & it has been completed’ ‘s.o. has put/done sth. & is thus able to do it’ ‘s.o. has put/done sth. & it has not been completed’ ‘s.o. has put/done sth. & does it once again’ ‘sth. happened to be done for a while & is now done’

The five combinations more detailed: 1. *Cɛ- + grade I yielded the COMPLETIVE-DELIMINATIVE-RESULTATIVE aspect, e.g. PIE *dɦɛdɦɛ́ʔt ‘topical referent has started to put sth. there and has put it there completely’; PIE *gwɦɛgwɦnɔ́i ‘s.o. is slewing s.o. completely; s.o. is slewn completely; s.o. has been slewn completely’. Here the first internal part of the event is its beginning, the second part is its finishing. Remark: The agentive-active form are still reflected as Vedic athematic aorists, e.g. ápupot, pupot* < *pɛpɛ́u(H)t, etc. The progressive detransitive forms developped to the Greek and Vedic perfect middle forms (see below).

2. *Cɛ- + grade II yielded the deponential ANTERIOR-POTENTIAL aspect and mood category, e.g. PIE *dɦɛdɦɛ́ʔɔ ‘s.o. has (always) put sth. there and is thus able to put it there’ and ‘s.o. (generally puts sth. there and thus) will put/have put sth. there’. Here the first internal part of the event is the past event, the second part is the resulting present ability or possibility as its consequence. NB. Forms of this type were remodelled to IE thematic stems and further developped to Vedic perfect subjunctive stems with guṇa grade of the root.

3. *Cɛ- + grade III yielded the deponential ANTERIOR (“PRE-PERFECT”) aspect, e.g. PIE *dɦɛdɦɔ́ʔɛ ‘s.o. has put it there and it is still there (nothing has changed yet)’. An anterior event is generally defined as an event that occurred or started in the past, but has a major present relevance.

ROLAND A. POOTH

34

Remark: From PIE to Vulgar Pre-IE, forms of this anterior binyan (e.g. *dɦɛdɦɔ́ʔɛ(i) ‘s.o. has (started to) put it there and it is still relevant for the present situation’) merged with the former progressive forms of the completiveresultative binyan (e.g. *dɦɛdɦɛ́ʔti ‘topical referent (has started to put it there and) is ongoingly putting it there until it is completed’) and part of the ones of the continuous binyan (e.g. *dɦɛ́dɦɛʔti ‘topical referent is still putting is there, is keeping on putting it there’) and developped into the Proto-Greek and ProtoIndo-Iranian reduplicated perfect stem; see the figure below: FIGURE 43. Vulgar Pre-IE “pre-perfect” imperfective NEOACTIVE SG

1

1INCL

*dɦedɦóʔ-χa *dɦedɦóʔ-χai *dɦedɦéʔ-mi *dɦédɦeʔ-mi

2ITR → 2

2DIR → 2

2INV → 2 3ITR → 3

*dɦedɦóʔ-tχa *dɦedɦóʔ-tχai *dɦedɦéʔ-si *dɦédɦeʔ-si *dɦedɦóʔ-e *dɦedɦóʔ-ei

3DIR → 3

*dɦedɦéʔ-ti *dɦédɦeʔ-ti

3INV → 2/3

*dɦedɦéʔ-si *dɦédɦeʔ-si

PL

*dɦedɦeʔ-mó(s) *dɦedɦeʔ-mósi *dɦedɦʔ-mési *dɦédɦʔ-mesi

*dɦedɦeʔ-χá(n) *dɦedɦeʔ-χáni *dɦedɦʔ-éni *dɦédɦʔ-eni *dɦedɦeʔ-tχá(n) *dɦedɦeʔ-tχáni *dɦedɦʔ-téni *dɦédɦʔ-teni *dɦedɦeʔ-ór(i) *dɦedɦʔ-éri *dɦédɦʔ-ri *dɦedɦʔ-ŕ̥ 41 *dɦedɦʔ-énti *dɦédɦʔ-n̥ti *dɦedɦʔ-ń̥ti *dɦedɦʔ-éːr *dɦédɦʔ-r̥s *dɦedɦʔ-ŕ̥s

(COL →) DU

*dɦedɦeʔ-u̯ó(χ) *dɦedɦeʔ-u̯ósi *dɦedɦʔ-u̯ósi *dɦédɦʔ-u̯osi *dɦedɦeʔ-áχ(m) *dɦedɦʔ-áχ(m) *dɦédɦʔ-aχ(m) *dɦedɦeʔ-táχ(m) *dɦedɦʔ-táχ(m) *dɦédɦʔ-taχ(m) *dɦedɦeʔ-áχ(m) *dɦedɦʔ-áχ(m) *dɦédɦʔ-aχ(m) *dɦedɦʔ-táχ(m) *dɦédɦʔ-taχ(m) *dɦedɦʔ-sáχ(m) *dɦédɦʔ-saχ(m)

Remark: Part of these forms were later simply included in the Vulgar Pre-IE plain imperfective category (e.g. Vulgar Pre-IE *kwekwk̑ŕ̥s > Vedic 3rd pl. present ind. act. cakṣur ‘they see’, etc.). The following PIE progressive detransitive forms of the completiveresultative binyan were later taken to supply the new “pre-perfect mixed paradigm” with new oppositional middle forms: 41

“Endings” in bold type were analogical to the ones of the unreduplicated type.

The Proto-Indo-European aspect system

35

FIGURE 44. Vulgar Pre-IE “pre-perfect” middle MIDDLE SG

*dɦedɦʔ-χái

1 1INCL 2ITR → 2 2DIR → 2 2INV → 2 3ITR → 3

*dɦedɦʔ-tχái *dɦedɦʔ-sχai *dɦedɦʔ-ói

3DIR → 3

*dɦedɦʔ-tói

3INV → 2/3

*dɦedɦʔ-sói

PL

*dɦedɦʔ-mósi ɦ

ɦ

*d ed ʔ-χáni *dɦedɦʔ-tχáni *dɦedɦʔ-sχáni *dɦedɦʔ-óri ~ *dɦedɦʔ-rói *dɦedɦʔ-ónti ~ *dɦedɦʔ-ntói

(COL →) DU *dɦedɦʔ-u̯ósi *dɦedɦʔ-áχ(m) *dɦedɦʔ-táχ(m) *dɦedɦʔ-sáχ(m) *dɦedɦʔ-áχ(m) *dɦedɦʔ-táχ(m) *dɦedɦʔ-sáχ(m)

Only later, the corresponding non-progressive forms of the completiveresultative binyan (e.g. *dɦɛdɦʔɔ́ ‘s.o. put(s) s.o./sth. there completely’) merged with part of the the distributive-iterative transitional (grade IV) binyan (e.g. *ɠiɠɔ́nʔ ‘s.o. came into being here & there’) and made up a new Vulgar Pre-IE “reduplicated pre-aorist mixed paradigm”: FIGURE 45. Post-PIE reduplicated “pre-aorist” middle MIDDLE SG

1 1INCL

*dɦedɦʔ-χá *g̑ig̑ónʔ-χ

2ITR → 2 2DIR → 2 2INV → 2 3ITR → 3

*dɦedɦʔ-tχá *g̑ig̑ónʔ-tχ *dɦedɦʔ-sχa *g̑ig̑ónʔ-sχ *dɦedɦʔ-ó *g̑ig̑ónʔ

3DIR → 3

*dɦedɦʔ-tó

3INV → 2/3

*dɦedɦʔ-só

PL

*dɦedɦʔ-mó(s) *g̑ig̑nʔ-mó(s) *dɦedɦʔ-χá(n) *g̑ig̑nʔ-χá(n) *dɦedɦʔ-tχá(n) *g̑ig̑nʔ-tχá(n) *dɦedɦʔ-sχá(n) *g̑ig̑nʔ-sχá(n) *dɦedɦʔ-ór ~ *dɦedɦʔ-ró *g̑ig̑nʔ-ór ~ *g̑ig̑nʔ-ró *dɦedɦʔ-ónt ~ *dɦedɦʔ-ntó ~ *g̑ig̑nʔ-ónto

(COL →) DU *dɦedɦʔ-u̯ó(χ) *g̑ig̑nʔ-u̯ó(χ) *dɦedɦʔ-áχ(m) *g̑ig̑nʔ-áχ(m) *dɦedɦʔ-táχ(m) *g̑ig̑nʔ-táχ(m) *dɦedɦʔ-sáχ(m) *g̑ig̑nʔ-sáχ(m) *dɦedɦʔ-áχ(m) *g̑ig̑nʔ-áχ(m) *dɦedɦʔ-táχ(m) *dɦedɦʔ-sáχ(m)

These were later resegmented to thematic stems and ultimately yielded the Proto-Greek and Proto-Indo-Iranian reduplicated thematic aorist stems.

4. *Cɛ- + grade IV yielded the deponential SEMELREPETITIVE or REaspect, e.g. PIE *dɦɛdɦɔ́ʔ ‘s.o. has put sth. there and puts or

TRANSITIONAL

ROLAND A. POOTH

36

has put it once again’; *uɛuɔ́rti ‘s.o. is returning’. Here the second part of the event is a single total repetition or re-transition of the past event or transition, cf. English to return.42 Remark: This binyan is still reflected as Vedic -vavarti ‘returned’ (RV 2.38.6a) < PIE *uɛuɔ́rti ‘is returning, turning around again’. The respective 3rd sg. non-progressive form is reconstructed by substracting *-i from the 3rd sg. progressive form.

5. *Cɛ- + grade Vd yielded the deponential ANTERIOR-RESULTATIVE aspect, e.g. PIE *dɦɛdɦɔ́ːʔ ‘sth. happened to be done for a while & is now done’. Here the second part of the event is a result of a preceding prior inchoative process. Cf. also PIE *sɛsuɔ́ːdɦ ‘has gotten accustomed more and more and is now accustomed’ which is reflected by Greek εἴωθε ‘is accustomed’ < Vulgar Pre-IE *sesu̯óːdɦ ~*sesu̯óːdɦe , etc.

The five *Cɛ-reduplicated binyans were derived from the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth binyan, respectively. It is thus superfluous to give their entire paradigms. Their forms can easily be formed by prefixation of the reduplication templatic prefix *Cɛ- to the respective forms given as the first four binyans above. But note that, as an exception, the anteriorpotential binyan (or *dɦɛdɦɛ́ʔɔ type, grade II) lacked agentive-active forms.

6.4 The *Cɛ́ː- ~ *Cɛ́R- (~ *CɛC-) reduplicated aspects The two so-called “intensive” reduplication templatic prefixes *Cɛ́ː- ~ *Cɛ́R-43 were allomorphic variants, the choice of which was triggered by the structure of the root. With roots of the shape *C_R(C)-, e.g. *gwɦVn- the latter had to be used. The first was used in the other cases. Some roots of the type *C_P-, *C_F- (with P = any plosive, F = any fricative or sibilant, e.g. *ʔVs-) maybe optionally showed full reduplication instead of *Cɛ́ː-. As indicated by the given Vedic outcomes (cf. Schaefer 1994), this type of reduplication coded an internally multiplied event. I suggest that it was structured like the *Cɛ́-reduplicated aspect: FIGURE 46 (t.b.c.).

42

43

form

underlying grade (form)

meaning

*dɦɛ́ː-dɦɛʔt *dɦɛ́ː-dɦʔɔ

I (*dɦɛ́ʔt) I (*dɦʔɔ́)

‘topic put(s) and put(s) and put(s) ...’ ‘s.o. put(s) and put(s) and ... ...’

A typological parallel is provided by Koyukon (Athabascan, Alaska, USA) where this meaning is marked by middle voice (i.e. the so-called “d-effect”), cf. Thompson 1996: 364 with example ełkonh ‘it is raining’ vs. no’elkonh ‘it is raining again’. This strengthens my proposal that this reading was marked by detransitive voice in PIE. *R = m, n, r, l, u, i.

The Proto-Indo-European aspect system

37

FIGURE 46 (continued). form

underlying grade (form)

meaning

*ʔɛ́s-ʔɔsɛ *ɠɛ́n-ɠɔnʔ *sɛ́ː-suɔːp(?) *sɛ́ː-suɔpɛ(?)

IIId (*ʔɔ́sɛ) IVd (*ɠɔ́nʔ) Vd VId

‘s.o. has sat down and sits-sits-sits’ ‘s.o. came and came and came into being’

There maybe were variants that showed the accent pattern of the underlying non-reduplicated forms, cf. Hittite 3rd sg. pres. ind. act. (ḫi-) asaasi ‘settles there’ < PIE *ʔɛs-ʔɔ́sɛ(i) (grade III) ‘s.o. sits down there and sitssits-sits there’, 3rd pl. *ʔɛs-ʔɛsɔ́r. The reduplication prefix also perhaps lacked a vowel in these cases, e.g. *ʔs-ʔɔ́sɛ(i). NB. Note that it is possible that the irregular PGerm. 3rd pl. *đēđun (< Vulgar Pre-IE *dɦeːdɦʔń̥t ← PIE *dɦɛ́dɦʔnt) goes back to this binyan. Remark: The corresponding 3rd person singular detransitive intransitive forms of the progressive aspect which were marked by the suffix *-i in the final morpheme slot (F) were pleonastically extended by the productive, specifically present imperfective middle “endings” *-toi ~ *-tori, etc. or by the productive active (including the “neoactive”) ones (*-ti ~ *-ei ~ *-eti, etc.). The 3rd person pl. forms *tértrχ̥i ̯onti ~ *tértrχ̥i ̯ontoi were then created via paradigmatic levelling of *-i- in Vulgar Pre-IE. This development is illustrated by the following figure:44 FIGURE 47. PIE

Vulgar Pre-IE

Vedic outcomes

*tɛ́r-tɔrχ → *tɛ́r-tɔrχ-i →

*tértorχ-t(i) → tártarīt* *tértorχiti ~ → tartarīti *tértorχitoi tartūryáte* ↘ *tértr̥χi̯ontoi > tartūryante ↗

NB. The fact that Vedic tartarīti and tartūryante paradigmatically belong together (cf. Schaefer 1994) is very clear Vedic internal evidence. It ultimately confirms that the origin of the Vedic -yá-te stems was a Vulgar Pre-IE paradigm with o-grade in the singular forms and “endings” going back to the PIE progressive aspect. It completely parallels the origin of the IE yod-presents (Vedic búdhya-, etc.) from the fourth binyan (*bɦɔ́udɦi type). The remodelling of the fourth binyan can thus be confirmed by this parallelism (see above).

44

This scenario offers a plausible explanation for why the Vedic tartūryá-te type (a) is middle tantum and (b) still belongs to the paradigm of the corresponding athematic intensive type (3rd sg. pres. tartarīti). It also motivates the constant linking vowel -ī- of the latter which seems to ultimatley go back to both, the root auslauting *H and the former progressive marker *-i-.

ROLAND A. POOTH

38

6.5 The *Cɛ́Pi- ~ *Cɛ́Ri-reduplicated aspects Again, these two reduplication templatic prefixes *Cɛ́Pi- ~ *Cɛ́Ri- were allomorphic variants, the choice of which was triggered by the structure of the root. Note that *C_Pi- is used to symbolize that the two reduplicated radical consonants were not identical. Roots with two plosives *C_P-, e.g. *dɦVʔ- thus showed complete reduplication of the root. I suggest that this type of reduplication coded an externally multiplied event: FIGURE 48. form

underlying grade (form)

meaning

*dɦɛ́ʔi-dɦɛʔt *dɦɛ́ʔi-dɦʔɔ

I (*dɦɛ́ʔt) I (*dɦʔɔ́)

‘topic put(s) here and there and over there’ ‘s.o. put(s) and put(s) and ... ...’

*ɠɛ́ni-ɠɔnʔ ...

IV (*ɠɔ́nʔ)

‘s.o. came into being here and there and ...’

There could have been variants showing the accent pattern of the underlying non-reduplicated forms. (This was just to mention these binyans. I will return to these PIE “intensives” elsewhere.)

7

Two more aspects

1. Another aspect category was expressed by means of a nasal infix (*~n~) or its continuous suffixal counterpart (*-nV4u-) which were allomorphic variants. Their respective use was triggered by the structure of the root. Biradical roots of the shape *C_R- took the suffix, whereas triradical roots of the shape *C_RC- took the infix. I assume that this aspect was an INCOMPLETIVE-INTERMINATIVE or a more generally IMPERFECTIVE aspect. In principle, these nasal markers were derived from grade I forms and thus were combined with grade I. But infixed 2nd person singular and plural imperative forms could optionally be combined with grade II, e.g. *iunɛ́ʛtɛ(n) > Vedic yunákta ‘(you (pl.) should) yoke it!’: FIGURE 49. form

underlying grade (form)

meaning

*iunɛ́ʛ-t *iunʛɔ́ *iunɛ́ʛɛ(n) *iunɛ́ʛtɛ(n)

I (*iɛ́uʛt) I (*iuʛɔ́) II II

‘topic is/was (still) yoking’ ‘s.o. yokes/yoked’

w

*ʕ r-nɛ́u-t *ʕwr-nu_ɔ́

w

I (*ʕ ɛ́rt) I (*ʕwrɔ́)

‘(you (pl.)) be yoking it!’ ‘topic is/was raising nontopical referent’ ‘s.o. is/was (still) rising/raising sth.’

The Proto-Indo-European aspect system

39

The paradigm of the nasal infix binyan, e.g. from the root *klVu- ‘hear, be heard’ is given in the following figure: FIGURE 50. PIE infix binyan (grade I, 2nd pl. agt. with optional grade II)

1EXCL 1INCL 2ITR

AGT SG

klnɛ́um

2DIR

klnɛ́u ~ klnú klnɛ́ut

2INV

klnɛ́us

3ITR

PL

klnumɛ́(s) klnuuɛ́(s) klnuɛ́(n) ~ klnɛ́uɛ(n) klnutɛ́(n) ~ klnɛ́utɛ(n) klnusɛ́(n) ~ klnɛ́usɛ(n) klnuɛ́r

DTR SG

PL

COL

klnuχá

klnumɔ́(s) klnuuɔ́(s) klnuχá(n)

klnutχá

klnutχá(n)

klnutáχ

klnusχá

klnusχá(n)

klnusáχ

klnuɔ́

klnuɔ́r ~ klnurɔ́ klnuɔ́nt ~ klnuntɔ́

klnuáχ

klnuχá

3DIR

klnɛ́ut

klnuɛ́nt

klnutɔ́

3INV

klnɛ́us

klnuɛ́rs

klnusɔ́

klnumɔ́(χ) klnuuɔ́(χ) klnuáχ

klnutáχ klnusáχ

2. In my view, the PIE aspect indicated by the *-sk- suffix was deponential and thus lacked agentive-active forms. I tentatively assume a MOMENTATIVE-SEMELFACTIVE-PUNCTUAL meaning including an UNEXPECTED or ACCIDENTAL reading. The corresponding progressive forms had an iterative interactional reading. This reading was not necessarily unexpected or accidental; e.g. PIE *ʔsskɔ́i ‘was there one moment and another moment, repeatedly (moment for moment)’. NB. Positing such a polysemy can solve the problem that the corresponding IE presents are either inchoative-anticausative or iterative. FIGURE 51. form

underlying grade (form)

meaning

*ʔr-sk_ɔ́ *ʔr-sk_ɔ́_i

I (*ʔrɔ́) I (*ʔrɔ́)

‘s.o. hit s.o./sth. suddenly/unexpectedly’ ‘s.o. was hitting s.o. (moment for moment)’

Thus, e.g., also PIE *ɠnʔskɔ́ ‘suddenly came into being’ or ‘was brought into being suddenly’, whence the inchoative-anticausative function of later IE *-sk̑o/e-, cf. Latin nāscor ‘was born’. This binyan was structured in parallel to the one of the detransitive forms of the first binyan (see above) with the sole exception that it lacked 3rd person direct and inverse transitive forms, because it had to be used in the PIE antipassive construction―like all the deponent and 3rd person intransitive binyans, e.g., the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth binyan (cf. Pooth manuscript a, passim).

ROLAND A. POOTH

8

40

Concluding remarks

It can be concluded that “PIE Proper”, a bit surprisingly, made very little use of suffixation to overtly mark distinctions within its verbal aspect system―there was much less aspectual suffixation than in the Vulgar PreIE variant cluster and in the later IE languages (which show legion of specified verbal derivational or derivational-like TAM suffixes). As already mentioned above, the subsequent resegmentation of the given first part of the respective pleonastic “ending” to stem-final suffixes is now datable to the very end of the Vulgar Pre-IE dialect or variant cluster, that is, to a period shortly before or by the time Proto-Anatolian got separated from the rest of the dialect cluster. I conclude that all post-PIE vocalic stem suffixes and the sigmatic *-s- originated from a PIE to Vulgar Pre-IE morphological resegmentation (it was ultimately motivated by the great morphotactic fusion which yielded plenty of new “endings” including pleonastic endings undergoing abundant paradigmatic levelings): (a) The origin of the Vulgar Pre-IE 3rd sg. present imperfective middle forms in *-oitoi, *-itoi, *-i̯etoi, *-eitoi, 3rd pl. *-i̯ontoi (including variants with preceding *-H-) and 3rd sg. pres. imperfective “neoactive” forms in *-i̯ei, *-i̯eti, *-ei̯eti, 3rd pl. *-i̯onti have already been given in detail above. As also mentioned above, a second, but minor source of IE yodpresent stems were derivational “root enlargements” in *-i-, e.g. *ɗ_χ_i- ‘separate, detach, devide, distribute, share’ from underlying *ɗ_χ‘id.’ (cf. LIV, s.v. “deh2(i̯)-”). (b) I suggest that the three suffixes *-aχ- (> *-ā-), *-taχ- (> *-tā-), *-saχ(> *-sā-) share a common origin. They go back to pleonastic 3rd person collective-plural middle forms in *-aχonto, *-taχonto, *-saχonto, 3rd pl. “neoactive” forms in *-aχont, *-taχont, *-saχont. In my view, these suffixes thus also originated from forms belonging to the many PIE binyans given above. A second source of stems in *-aχ- (> *-ā-) were derivational “root enlargements” in *-χ-, e.g. *ɗ_m-_χ-_ ‘build, tame, domesticate’45 from underlying *ɗ_m- ‘id.’ (cf. LIV, s.v. “dem(h 2 )-”). (c) In my view, the ending *-eːr ultimately originated from PIE 3rd pl. inverse-transitive forms, e.g. *gwɦnɛ́rs which merged with the other 3rd pl. forms to Vulgar Pre-IE. These 3rd pl. forms in *-eːr, e.g. *u̯id-éːr were thus allomorphic variants of the 3rd pl. forms *u̯id-ŕ̥ ~ *u̯id-ŕ̥s ~ *u̯eid-ŕ̥ ~ *u̯eid-ŕ̥s ~ *u̯eid-ór (of the former third binyan) and also belonged to the 3rd sg. imperfective “mixed paradigm” of the *u̯óide(i) ~ *u̯óidet(i) type. This type was labile and thus had both a factitive-causative reading and an anticausative-stative reading: (4)

45

a. *χnéː(r) *gwɦór-e(t) man:NOM:PL warm-3SG.IPFV.IND ‘the man was warm/got warm; made s.o./sth. warm’

The LIV, p. 114-117 distinguishes two roots ‘build’ from ‘domesticate’, but there obviously was one single polysemeous root *ɗ_m-_χ-_ ‘make something like a house: built’ and ‘make s.o./sth. be house-ish: tame, domesticate’.

The Proto-Indo-European aspect system

41

b. *χnéres *gwɦréːr (→ *gwɦréː-r) man:NOM:PL warm-3PL.IPFV.IND ‘the men were warm/got warm; made s.o./sth. warm’ The inner-Vulgar-Pre-IE resegmentation of this 3rd pl. form (e.g. *gwɦréːr → *gwɦréː-r) then triggered the genesis of new 3rd sg. endings *-eːt(i), pl. *-eːnt(i), *-eːront(i) with labile meaning. In addition, proper middle endings *-eːro(i) ~ *-eːnto(i) were created, but due to the labile meaning of this inflection, middle forms were not necessarily needed. Therefore, in my view, both the Latin present uidēre, uidet and its perfect uidī ‘have seen’ ultimately go back to a prior common paradigm *u̯óidet (> uīdit), *u̯idéːr(i) (→ *u̯idéːti ~ *u̯idéːi̯eti, etc.). This scenario offers an easy and plausible explanation for why the IE suffix *-eː- is so intimately intertwined with the post-PIE perfect stem. Within the given scenario the reason is simple: The 3rd pl. ending *-eːr was also found in the paradigm of the “pre-perfect mixed paradigm” (cf. Latin 3rd pl. perf. ind. act. -ērunt, etc.). A second source of stems with *-eː- were probably comitativeintrumental case forms in predicative used, e.g. PIE *ʔrudɦɛ́ʔ ‘with red, redness’ → Vulgar Pre-IE *ʔrudɦéʔt(i) ~ *ʔrudɦéʔet(i) ~ *ʔrudɦéʔi̯eti ‘is getting red, is red’ (cf. Jasanoff 2003: 156f. with references). Note that I am not a follower of the “essive-fientive theory”, because I think that the very late Vulgar Pre-IE stems in *-Hi̯o/e- (e.g. *g̑n̥ʔi̯ó/é- > Vedic jāý a-te) were not originally derived from the ones in *-eː- (in my view, the reconstruction of a single suffix *-eh1- is a mistake). ̑ /e(c) Vulgar Pre-IE also had pleonastic stem suffixes *-eːs- and *-eːsko from *-eː- plus *-s- and *-sk̑-, respectively. There were many more. (d) For the respective origins of post-PIE “thematic” stem suffix *-o- ~ *-eand the sigmatic stem suffix *-s- see above. Note that the latter was resegmented and specified to a perfective suffix not before ProtoAnatolian already had left the stock. A second, but minor source of IE sigmatic stems were derivational “root enlargements” in *-s-, e.g. PIE *kl_u-s- ‘listen to, hear from’ from underlying *kl_u- ‘hear’ (cf. LIV, s.v. “k̑leu(s)-”).

Therefore, the view that the PIE protolanguage already had legion of suffixes with specific derivational meanings seems to be very problematic and should be fundamentally revised. It has turned out that PIE predominantly made use of the strategy of transfixation and reduplication to code aspectual distinctions. There was a minimum of three aspect categories coded by aspect suffixes (PROG *-i, IPFV *-nVu-, and PUNC *-sk-). All the other aspect categories were coded templatically, that is, by means of internal inflection (transfixation) on the vowel melody tier and word form template tier and by means of the more derivational reduplication templatic prefixation. Final count: We have hereby reconstructed the following specific aspect categories: 6 basic transfixal aspects + (minimally) 2 distributive *Ci-reduplicated aspects + the “acrostatic” *Cɛ́-reduplicated aspect including 2 subtypes +

ROLAND A. POOTH

42

(minimally) 5 *Cɛ-reduplicated aspects + 2 different “intensive” aspects, each one with grade I vs. IV subtypes and the one with an additional grade III subtype (= 5) + 2 further aspects which were coded by infixation and suffixation. We should not forget the progressive (*-i) vs. nonprogressive (unmarked) aspect distinction. The nonprogressive aspect, however, cannot seriously be counted as a specific aspect category. Thus all in all, PIE had a minimum of 6 + 2 + 2 + 5 + 5 + 2 = 22 specific aspect categories plus 1 progressive aspect.46 The following figure now finally provides an overview of the PIE binyans which have been reconstructed by internal reconstruction so far. The following binyans were derived by means of root and pattern morphology from the lexical base or root *dɦVʔ- ‘put, do, say’. To save space, I only give translations with the English past tense of ‘to do’. But note that the given forms were generally tense-neutral and could also be used with present tense reference. They also had a lexical meaning equivalent to English ‘to put, to say’. To save space, I use ‘he’ for ‘topical referent’, but of course ‘she’ or ‘it’ (depending on the gender of the PIE topical referent) is also possible. PIE minimally had the following aspect binyans:47 FIGURE 51 (t.b.c.).

46

47

binyan

3SG.AGT.DIR/ 3SG.DTR.ITR

translation

1st 2st 3rd 4th 5th 6th

*dɦɛ́ʔt *dɦɛ́ːʔt *dɦɔ́ʔɛ *dɦɔ́ʔ *dɦɔ́ːʔ *dɦɔʔɛ́

‘he did it’ ‘he did it for a while’ ‘he always does it, he used to do it’ ‘sth. happened to be done (by s.o.)’ ‘sth. happened to be done for a while (by s.o.)’ ‘s.o. did sth. here & there/now & then’

7th 8th

*dɦi-dɦɛ́ʔt *dɦi-dɦɔ́ʔ

‘he did it here & there/now & then’ ‘sth. happened to be done here & there (by s.o.)’

9th 10th

*dɦɛ́-dɦɛʔt *dɦɛ́-dɦɔʔ

‘he still did it, kept on doing it’ ‘sth. was still being done (by s.o.)’

11th 11th

*dɦɛ-dɦɛ́ʔt/ ‘he did it until it was finished’ *dɦɛ-dɦʔɔ́ ‘sth. happened to be done (by s.o.) & was then done’

12th 13th 14th 15th

*dɦɛ-dɦɛ́ʔɔ *dɦɛ-dɦɔ́ʔɛ *dɦɛ-dɦɔ́ʔ *dɦɛ-dɦɔ́ːʔ

‘s.o. did sth. and can/will/shall/should do it’ ‘s.o. has (just) done sth., has already done sth.’ ‘s.o. did it and did it again or un-did it’ ‘sth. had happened to be done for a while before and was then done’

Typological comparanda are the Apachean languages, e.g. Navajo. They show an elaborate aspect system including many overtly distinguished and semantically specific aspect categories (termed “modes” and “aspects”, cf. Young & Morgan 1987, 1992). PIE also had some corresponding modal binyans. These modal binyans were derived from the skeletal mood stems in *-i_ʔ- (OPTATIVE) and *-ʔs- (CONATIVE). But they will be dealt with elsewhere.

The Proto-Indo-European aspect system

43

FIGURE 51 (continued). binyan

3SG.AGT.DIR/ 3SG.DTR.ITR

translation

16th 17th 18th (18th

*dɦɛ́ː-dɦɛʔt *dɦɛ́ː-dɦɔʔ *dɦɛ́ː-dɦɔʔɛ *ʔɛs-ʔɔ́sɛ

‘s.o. did-did-did it’ ‘sth. happened to be done-done-done (by s.o.)’ ‘s.o. had done sth. and did-did-did it’ ‘s.o. sat down and sat-sat-sat’)

19th 20th

*dɦɛ́ʔi-dɦɛʔt *dɦɛ́ʔi-dɦɔʔ

‘he did it here, here & there’ ‘s.o. happened to be done here, here & there’

21th 22th

*dɦnɛ́ʔt ~*dɦʔnɛ́ut ‘he was doing it’ *dɦʔskɔ́ ‘sth. happened to be done suddenly (by s.o.)’

Glosses I follow the Leipzig Glossing Rules. AGT = agentive-active voice; DTR = detransitive voice (cf. Pooth manuscript a); DISTR = distributive-iterative aspect, etc. But note that I use the underline _ to mark a morpheme boundary between the skeletal consonant frame and the transfix or vowel melody (e.g. PIE *gwɦ_ɛ́_n-t-i).

Representation of reconstructed word forms Reconstructed “PIE Proper” word forms are coloured blue here and marked by the conventional preceding asterisk (e.g. PIE *suɔ́ːpi). Dialectal Vulgar Pre-IE word forms, however, are not coloured blue (e.g. *su̯óːpi̯eti) Note that I particularly make use the I.P.A. symbols instead of the traditional symbols , because I think that such an algebraic symbolization of phonemes and their respective phonetic realization is unneccesary and has no linguistic advantages at all. It only makes this language look like freaky mathematics to linguists of other fields who are not used to this notation. It has been argued that the traditional symbolization would have the advantage of leaving these phonemes underspecified and that a symbolization with may specify more phonetic details than we can conretely know, but this holds true for any I.P.A. symbol that is used to represent PIE phonemes (e.g. , and all traditional symbols , etc.), because the phonetic realization of PIE phonemes and word forms can only be represented more exactly by listening to a native speaker of Proto-Indo-European. Furthermore, the argument that the traditional symbols would be “underspecified” is not entirely correct, because is a concrete and specified linguistic symbol and minimally two of these phonemes were definitely not realized as I.P.A [h]. One may thus even argue―but this is, of course, be a bit too pedantic―that the traditional symbols are simply linguistically inadequate in minimally two cases. Finally, to be honest, I personally dislike number symbols , etc. in linguistic representations, because they are primarily nonlinguistic symbols that were developed to represent abstract numbers, not concrete sounds of human language. (I also prefer using accent symbols instead of numbers to symbolize tones, but in these cases numbers seem a bit more adequate). So whatever was the actual PIE phonetic situation, I think that the I.P.A. symbols used here come very close to their actual PIE phonetic realizations. I will return to this matter more detailed elsewhere. The PIE “bare” vowel phoneme */ɛ/ is written , but before and after χ, ʕw. The other vowel phonemes are (sic!) and . The traditional

ROLAND A. POOTH

44

symbols are used in Vulgar Pre-IE word forms. But vowel length is generally indicated by the two dots (I.P.A.). The traditional symbols for i, u, m, n, r, l, and s remain unchanged (). The redundant diacritics are ommited in PIE forms (but not in Vulgar Pre-IE forms). The PIE stops are represented here the way suggested by Kümmel 2012. But the Vulgar Pre-IE velars are represented with the traditional diacritic < ̑>, i.e. to avoid a misunderstanding. A note on all the colours used here: For languages that exhibit discontinuous morphemes and transfixes colours can be very useful, because they help to distinguish the respective transfix from the skeletal consonant frame and they help to recognize the discontinuity of the given morpheme (e.g. *stɛ́umɛsi or *stɛ́umɛsi).

References Aldridge, E. 2011: “Antipassive in Austronesian Alignment Change”, Manuscript, http://faculty.washington.edu/eca1/pdf/Alignment.pdf Anthony, D. 2007: The horse, the wheel and language. How bronze-age riders from the Eurasian Steppes shaped the modern world. Princeton & Oxford. Bauer, L. 2004: A Glossary of Morphology. Edinburgh. Beekes, R. S. P. 1995: Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia. — 2011: Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. Second edition. Revised and corrected by Michiel de Vaan. Amsterdam & Philadelphia. Benjamin, G. 2011: “Deponent Verbs and Middle-Voice Nouns in Temiar”, Austroasiatic Studies: papers from ICAAL4. Mon-Khmer Studies Journal Special no. 2. Ed. by S. Srichampa & P. Sidwell. Dallas, Salaya & Canberra, 11-37. Besniers, N. 1987: “An autosegmental approach to metathesis in Rotumam”, Lingua 73, 201-223. Brugmann, K. 1916: Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. 2nd ed. Strassburg. Bybee, J., R. Perkins & W. Pagliuca 1994: The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago & London. Clackson, J. 2007: Indo-European Linguistics: an Introduction. Cambridge. Collinge, N. E. 1985: The Laws of Indo-European. Amsterdam & Philadelphia. Comrie, B. 1981: Aspect. Reprinted with corrections. Cambridge. Dahlstrom, A. 1986: Plains Cree Morphosyntax. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Berkeley. DeLancey, S. 1981: “The category of direction in Tibeto-Burman”, Linguistics of the Tibeto- Burman Area 6 (1), 1981, 83-101. Dixon, R. M. W. 1977: A Grammar of Yidiɲ. Cambridge. — 1979: Ergativity. Cambridge. — 2000: “A typology of causative: form, syntax and meaning”, Changing Valency. Ed. by R. M. W. Dixon & A. Y. Aikhenvald. Cambridge, 30-83. — 2010, 2012: Basic Linguistc Theory. Vol. I & II 2010, Vol. III 2012. Oxford. Donohue, M. & S. Wichmann 2008 (eds.): The Typology of Semantic Alignment. Oxford. Dowty, D. 1991: “Thematic proto-roles and argument selection”, Language 67, 547-619. Drinka, B. 1999: “Alignment in Early Proto-Indo-European”, Language Change and Typological Variation. In Honor of Winfred P. Lehmann on the Occasion of his 83rd Birthday. Ed. by C. F. Justus & E. C. Polomé. Washington DC, Vol. II, 464-500. Eichner, H. 1972: “Die Etymologie von heth. mēḫur“, Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 31, 53-107. — 1985: “Das Problem des Ansatzes eines urindogermanischen Numerus ‘Kollektiv’ (‘Komprehensiv’)”, Grammatische Kategorien, Funktion und Geschichte: Ak-

The Proto-Indo-European aspect system

45

ten der VII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Berlin 20.-25. Februar 1983. Ed. by B. Schlerath & V. Rittner. Wiesbaden, 134-169. Fortson IV, B. W. 2004: Indo-European Language and Culture. Oxford & Malden MA. Fox, Anthony 1995: Linguistic Reconstruction. Oxford. García Ramón, J. L. 1998: “Indogermanisch *gu̯hen- ‘(wiederholt) schlagen, töten”, Mír Curad. Studies in Honor of Calvert Watkins. Ed. by Jay H. Jasanoff, H. Craig Melchert and Lisi Oliver. Innsbruck, 139-54. Geldner RV = K. F. Geldner 1923ff. Der Rig-Veda. Göttingen. Nachdruck 2003, Cambridge, Ma. & London. George, C. H. 2005: Expressions of Agency in Ancient Greek. Cambridge. Givón, T. 2001: Syntax. Volume I & II. Amsterdam. Haspelmath, M. 1990: “The Grammaticization of Passive Morphology”, Studies in Language 14 (1), 25-72. — 1993: “The diachronic externalization of inflection”, Linguistics 31, 279-309. Haspelmath, M. & A. D. Slims 22010: Understanding Morphology. Second Edition. London. Heine, B. & T. Kuteva 2002: World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge. Hill, E. & M. Frotscher 2012: “The Accentuation of Old Indic Reduplicated (3rd Class) Presents”, The Indo-European Verb. Proceedings of the Conference of the Society for Ind-European Studies, Los Angeles 13-16 September 2010. Ed. by H. Craig Melchert. Wiesbaden, 105-114. Hoffmann, K. 1967: Der Injunktiv im Veda. Heidelberg. — 1970: “Das Kategoriensystem des indogermanischen Verbums”, Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 28, 19-41. Hoffner, H. A. Jr. & H. C. Melchert 2008: A Grammar of the Hittite Language. Winona Lake. Hopper, P. J. & S. A. Thompson 1980: “Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse”, Language 56 (2), 251-299. Jasanoff, J. H. 1979: “The position of the ḫi-conjugation”, Hethitisch und Indogermanisch. Hrsg. von Ernst Neu und Wolfgang Meid. Innsbruck, 79-90. — 1998: “The thematic conjugation revisited”, Mír Curad. Studies in Honor of Calvert Watkins. Ed. by Jay H. Jasanoff, H. Craig Melchert and Lisi Oliver. Innsbruck, 301-16. — 2003: Hittite and the Indo-European Verb. Oxford & New York. — 2009: “*-bhi, *-bhis, *-ōis: Following the trail of the PIE instrumental plural”, Internal Reconstruction in Indo-European. Ed. by J. E. Rasmussen & T. Olander. Copenhagen, 137-149. Kemmer, S. 1993: The Middle Voice. Amsterdam & Philadelphia. Kim, R. I. 2012: “Unus testis, unicus testis? The Ablaut of Root Aorists in Tocharian and Indo-European”, The Indo-European Verb. Proceedings of the Conference of the Society for Ind-European Studies, Los Angeles 13-16 September 2010. Ed. by H. Craig Melchert. Wiesbaden, 137-149. Klaiman, M. H. 1992: “Inverse Languages”, Lingua 88, 227-61. Klimov, G. A. 1974: “On the character of language of active typology”, Linguistics 131, 11–25. — 1977: Tipologija jazykov aktivnogo stroja. Moscow. Kloekhorst, A. 2008: Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden. — 2012: “Hittite “ā/e”-ablauting Verbs”, The Indo-European Verb. Proceedings of the Conference of the Society for Ind-European Studies, Los Angeles 13-16 September 2010. Ed. by H. Craig Melchert. Wiesbaden, 151-160. Kloekhorst, A. & A. M. Lubotsky 2014: “Hittite nai-, nē-, Sanskrit nī-, and the PIE Verbal Root *(s)neh1-”, Munus amicitiae. Norbert Oettinger a collegis et amicis dicatum. Ed. by H. C. Melchert, E. Rieken & T. Steer. Ann Arbor & New York, 126-137. Kortlandt, F. 1981: “1st sg. middle *-H2”, Indogermanische Forschungen 86, 123136.

ROLAND A. POOTH

46

— 1983: “Proto-Indo-European verbal syntax”, Journal of Indo-European Studies 11, 307-324. — 1994: “The fate of the sigmatic aorist in Tocharian”, Tocharisch. Akten der Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Berlin, September 1990. Ed. by B. Schlerath. Reykjavík. — art269e: “An outline of Proto-Indo-European”, Manuscript, www.kortlandt.nl → art269e.pdf. Kümmel, M. J. 1996: Stativ und Passiaorist im Indoiranischen. Göttingen. — 1998: “Wurzelpräsens neben Wurzelaorist im Indogermanischen”, Historische Sprachforschung 111, 191-208. — 2004: “Zur o-Stufe im idg. Verbalsystem”, Indo-European Word Formation. Proceedings of the Conference held at the University of Copenhagen Oct. 20th-22nd 2000. Ed. by J. Clackson and B. Olsen. Kopenhagen, 139-158. ― 2012: “Typology and reconstruction. The consonants and vowels of Proto-IndoEuropean”, The Sound of Indo-European. Phonetics, Phonemics, and Morphophonemics. Ed. by B. Nielsen Whitehead, T. Olander, B. A. Olsen & J. E. Rasmussen. Kopenhagen, 291-329. Kuryłowicz, J. 1932: “Les désinences moyennes de l’indo-européen et du hettite”, Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris 33, 1-4. Kurzová, H. 1986: “Typologie und die Rekonstruktion der indogermanischen Morphosyntax”, Folia Linguistica 20, 49-86. Lakoff, G. 1987: Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago. Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson 1980: Metaphors We Live by. Chicago. Lazzeroni, R. 1990: “La diatesi come categoria linguistica: studio sul medio indoeuropeo”, Studi e Saggi Linguistici 30, 1-22. — 1993: “Arcaismi e innovazioni nella flessione verbale vedica: le forme dello stativo”, Studi e Saggi Linguistici 33, 11-23. Ledgeway, A. 2012: From Latin to Romance. Morphosyntactic Typology and Change. Oxford. Lehmann, W. P. 1974: Proto-Indo-European Syntax. Austin. — 1995: Residues of pre-Indo-European Active Structure and their Implications for the Relationships among the Dialects. Innsbruck. — 2002: Pre-Indo-European. Washington DC. Letuchiy, A. 2009: “Towards a typology of labile verbs: Lability vs. derivation”, New Challenges in Typology. Transcending the Borders and Refining the Distinctions. Ed. by A. Arkhipov & P. Epps. Berlin, 223-244. Litscher, R. 2014: “Voraussetzungen für ein feminines Genus und Implikationen für das Kategoriesystem des frühindogermanischen Nomens”, in Neri & Schuhmann 2014: 137-165. LIV = Rix et al. 2001. Lubotsky, A. 1997: A R̥gvedic Word Concordance. 2 Volumes. Cambridge, MA. Luraghi, S. 1987: “Reconstructing PIE as an Ergative language. A Test”, Journal of Indo-European Studies 15 (3-4), 359-379. — 2001a: “Syncretism and classification of semantic roles”, Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 54 (1), 35-51. — 2001b: “Some remarks on Instrument, Comitative, and Agent in IndoEuropean”, Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 54 (4), 385-401. Mallory, J. P. & D. Q. Adams 1997 (eds.): Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. London. Malzahn, M. 2010: The Tocharian Verbal System. Leiden & Boston. Martin, J. B. 2011: A Grammar of Creek (Muskogee). Lincoln & London. McCarthy, J. 1979: Formal Problems in Semitic Phonology and Morphology. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Cambridge, MA. — 1981: “A Prosodic Theory of Nonconcatenative Morphology”, Linguistic Inquiry 12, 373-418.

The Proto-Indo-European aspect system

47

Meillet, A. 1931: “Caractère secondaire du type thématique indo-européen”, Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 32 (2) (numéro 96), 194-203. — 1937: Introduction à l’étude comparative des langues indo-européennes. Paris. Meiser, G. 1993: “Zur Funktion der Nasalpräsentien im Urindogermanischen”, Indogermanica et Italica. Festschrift für Helmut Rix zum 65. Geburtstag. Ed. by G. Meiser. Innsbruck, 280-313. Melchert, H. C. 2012 (ed.): The Indo-European Verb. Proceedings of the Conference of the Society for Indo-European Studies, Los Angeles 13-16 September 2010. Wiesbaden. Neri, S. & R. Schuhmann 2014 (eds.): Studies on the Collective and Feminine in IndoEuropean from a Diachronic and Typological Perspective. Leiden & Boston. Neu, E. 1968: Das hethitische Mediopasiv und seine indogermanischen Grundlagen. Wiesbaden. Newman, P. 1973: “Grades, Vowel-Tone Classes and Extensions in the Hausa Verbal System”, Studies in African Linguistics 4 (3), 1973, 297-346. NIL = Wodtko et al. 2008 = Nomina im indogermanischen Lexikon. Ed. by D. S. Wodtko, B. Irslinger, C. Schneider, Heidelberg 2008. Parzinger, H. 2014: Die Kinder des Promotheus. Eine Geschichte der Menschheit vor der Erfindung der Schrift. München. Pooth, R. A. 2000: “Stativ vs. Medium im Vedischen und Avestischen”, Historische Sprachforschung 113, 88-116. — 2001: “Studien zur frühurindogermanischen Morphologie I. ‘Stativ’, ‘Medium’ und ‘Perfekt’”, Historische Sprachforschung 114, 220-258. — 2004a: “Ablaut und autosegmentale Morphologie: Theorie der urindogermanischen Wurzelflexion”, Indogermanistik - Germanistik - Linguistik. Ed by. M. Kozianka, R. Lühr & S. Zeilfelder. Hamburg, 401-471. — 2004b: “Zur Genese der späturidg. thematischen Konjugation aus frühuridg. Medialformen”, Indogermanische Forschungen 109, 31-60. — 2009a: “Der urindogermanische Progressiv”, Protolanguage and Prehistory. Akten der XII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft ... in Krakau. Ed. by R. Lühr & S. Ziegler. Wiesbaden, 381-406. — 2009b: “Proto-Indo-European Ablaut and Root Inflection”, Internal Reconstruction in Indo-European. Ed. by J. E. Rasmussen & T. Olander. Copenhagen, 229-254. — 2011: “Die 2. und 3. Person Dual und das Medium”, Indogermanistik und Linguistik im Dialog. Akten der XIII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft ... in Salzburg. Ed. by T. Krisch & T. Lindner. Wiesbaden, 473-83. — 2012: “Zum Aufkommen transitiver Verben in frühen Vedischen am Beispiel 1 r̥”, The Indo-European Verb. Proceedings of the Conference of the Society for Ind-European Studies, Los Angeles 13-16 September 2010. Ed. by H. Craig Melchert. Wiesbaden, 267-84. Pike, M. 2009: “The Indo-European long vowel preterites: new Latin evidence”, Internal Reconstruction in Indo-European. Ed. by J. E. Rasmussen & T. Olander. Copenhagen, 205-212. Rijkhoff, J. 2002: The Noun Phrase. Oxford. Ringe, D. 2006: From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. Oxford. Rix et al. 2001 = LIV = Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Unter der Leitung von H. Rix ..., 2. erw. und verbesserte Auflage. Wiesbaden 2001. Sasse, H.-J. 1978: “Subjekt und Ergativität: Zur pragmatischen Grundlage primärer grammatischer Relationen”, Folia Linguistica XII/3-4, 219-252. — 1982: “Subjektprominenz”, Fakten und Theorien. Beiträge zur romanischen und allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft. Festschrift für Helmut Stimm zum 65. Geburtstag. Ed by S. Heinz & U. Wandruszka. Tübingen, 267-286. — 1993: “Syntactic Categories and Subcategories”, Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 9.1. Syntax. Ed. by H. Steger & H. E. Wiegand. Berlin & New York, 646-686.

ROLAND A. POOTH

48

— 1991a: “Aspect and Aktionsart: a reconciliation”, Perspectives on Aspect and Aktionsart. Ed. by C. Vetters & W. Vandeweghe. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 6, 31-45. — 1991b (ed.): Aspektsysteme. Arbeitspapier Nr. 14 (Neue Folge). Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. Universität zu Köln. Schaefer, C. 1994: Das Intensivum im Vedischen. Göttingen. Schmidt, K. H. 1979: “Reconstructing Active and Ergative Stages of Pre-IndoEuropean”, Ergativity. Towards a theory of grammatical relations. Ed. by F. Plank. London, 333-345. — 1980: “Zur Typologie des Vorindogermanischen”, Linguistic Reconstruction and Indo-European Syntax. Proceedings of the Colloquium of the Indogermanische Gesellschaft (Pavia 1979). Ed. by P. Ramat. Amsterdam, 91-112. Seiler, H. 1983: Possession as an operational dimension of language. Tübingen. ― 1988 [1990]: “The dimension of Participation”, translated & ed. by F. Leal. Función 7. Universidad de Guadalajara. Stang, C. S. 1932: “Perfektum und Medium”, Norsk Tidskrift for Språgwedenskap 6, 29-39. — 1942: Das slavische und baltische Verbum. Oslo. — 1966: Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen. Oslo. Taylor, J. R. 11989, 32003: Linguistic Categorization. Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. 3rd editon 2003. Oxford. Thompson, C. L. 1987: An Introduction to Athabascan languages. Yukon-Koyukuk School District. — 1989: “Pronouns and Voice in Koyukon Athapascan: A text-based study”, International Journal of American Linguistics 55 (1), 1-24. — 1996: “The Na-Dene middle voice: An impersonal source of the D-Element”, International Journal of American Linguistics 62 (4), 351-378. Thompson, L. C. & M. T. Thompson 1969: “Metathesis as a grammatical device”, International Journal of American Linguistics 35, 213-219. Tichy, E. 1993: “Transponierte Rollen und Ergänzungen beim vedischen Kausativ”, Indogermanica et Italica. Festschrift für Helmut Rix zum 65. Geburtstag. Ed. by G. Meiser. Innsbruck, 436-460. — 12000, 22004, 32009: Indogermanistisches Grundwissen für Studierende sprachwissenschaftlicher Disziplinen. 2. und 3. überarb. Aufl. Bremen. Traugott, E. Closs 1972: The History of English Syntax. New York. Tremblay, X. 1996a: “Zum suffixalen Ablaut o/e in der athematischen Deklination des Indogermanischen”, Die Sprache 38, 31-70. ― 1996b: “Un nouveau type apophonique des noms athématiques suffixaux de l’indo-européen” BSL 91 (1), 97-145. ― diss. 1999: Études sur les noms suffixaux athématique de l’Avesta. Dissertation É.P.H.É. IVe section. Paris. ― 2003: “Interne Derivation: „Illusion de la reconstruction“ oder verbreitetes morphologisches Mittel? Am Beispiel des Awestischen”, Indogermanisches Nomen. Derivation, Flexion und Ablaut. Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Freiburg, 19. bis 22. Sept. 2001. Ed. by E. Tichy, D. S. Wodtko, B. Irslinger. Bremen, 231-259. ― 2004: “Die Ablautstufe des Lokativs der akrostatischen Nomina. Apophonica III”. Per Aspera ad Asteriscos. Studia Indogermanica in honorem Jens Elmegård Rasmussen sexagenarii Idibus Martiis anno MMIV. Ed. A. Hyllestedt, A. R. Jørgensen, J. H. Larsson & Th. Olander. Innsbruck, 473-589. — 2010: “Jenseits von Schindler? Die Bedeutungen der drei WurzelnominaAblauttypen”, MSS 64, 2004 [2010], 181-221. — 2013: “Zwei? Vier? Sechs? Zur Anzahl der Nominalablauttypen und ihrem Grundwesen (Apophonica VII)”, Indo-European Accent and Ablaut. Ed. by G. Keydana, P. Widmer & Th. Olander. Copenhagen,

The Proto-Indo-European aspect system

49

de Vaan, M. 2008: Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages. Leiden & Boston. Vine, B. 2012: “PIE mobile accent in Italic: Further evidence”, The Sound of IndoEuropean. Phonetics, phonemics, and morphophonemics. Ed. by B. Nielsen Whitehead, Th. Olander, B. A. Olsen & J. E. Rasmussen, Copenhagen, 545575. Widmer, P. 2004: Das Korn des weiten Feldes. Interne Derivation, Derivationskette und Flexionsklassenhierarchie: Aspekte der nominalen Wortbildung im Urindogermanischen. Innsbruck. — 2013: “Akzent und Ablaut, externe und interne Derivation in der Nominalkomposition”, Indo-European Accent and Ablaut. Ed. by G. Keydana, P. Widmer & Th. Olander. Copenhagen, 187-195. Watkins, C. 1962: Indo-European Origins of the Celtic Verb I. The Sigmatic Aorist. Dublin. — 1969: Indogermanische Grammatik III/1. Geschichte der indogermanischen Verbalflexion. Heidelberg. Weiss, M. 2009: Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin. Ann Arbor & New York. Wodtko et al. 2008 = NIL = Wodtko, D. S., B. Irslinger, C. Schneider 2008: Nomina im indogermanischen Lexikon. Heidelberg. Wolfart, H. C. 1978: “How many obviatives: Sense and reference in a Cree verbal paradigm”, Linguistic studies of native Canada. Ed. by E.-D. Cook & J. Kaye Vancouver, 255-272. Wolfart, H. C. & J. F. Carroll 21981: Meet Cree: A practical guide to the Cree language. 2nd, revised ed. (1st ed. 1973). Edmonton. Yakubovich, I. 2014: “Reflexes of Indo-European ‘ē-statives’ in Old Indic”, Transactions of the Philological Society 112 (3), 386-408. Young, R. & W. Morgan Sr. 1987: The Navajo Language: A Grammar and Colloquial Dictionary. University of New Mexico Press. — 1992: Analytical Lexicon of Navajo. University of New Mexico Press.

Further references (to my manuscripts) The following manuscrips (.pdf) are downloadable from my profile at www.academia.edu. They have been published as provisional grey literature and work in progress, and they will undergo further revisions. The respective date of revision is indicated on top of the front page before the title. If you have no account at www.academia.edu, I can send these manuscripts (.pdf) to you by e-mail. Pooth, R.A. manuscript a: “Voice, Transitivity Direction, Case, and Alignment in Proto-IndoEuropean. II. The Proto-Indo-European Voice System.” — manuscript b: “Ein Problem der Methode der komparativen Rekonstruktion von Morphemen, Morphemgrenzen und morphosyntaktischen Kategorien.” — manuscript c: “Die komplexe Morphologie der urindogermanischen Personalpronomina.” — manuscript d: “Voice, Transitivity Direction, Case, and Alignment in Proto-IndoEuropean. IV. The Proto-Indo-European Case System.” — manuscript e: “Voice, Transitivity Direction, Case, and Alignment in Proto-IndoEuropean. III. Transitivity Direction in Proto-Indo-European.”

Dr. R. A. Pooth Merheimer Straße 117 50733 Köln (Nippes) [email protected]