From: Andrew Jarrette
Message: 38180
Date: 2005-05-30
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...>
wrote:
> I have read that in primitive IE, the verbs with "characterized
presents", i.e. with n-infix, nu-affix, zero grade + -j-, sk-affix,
etc. are formations built to verbs that are inherently punctual in
meaning, and the durative character of the present tense was a
secondary notion in these verbs, and therefore was denoted by
derived means such as the affixes and infixes mentioned above, in
contrast to the uncharacterized (unelaborated) aorist forms of these
verbs, which were similar in form to the present forms of verbs that
were inherently punctual. Thus it seems that certain verb
formations had an originally semantic function in IE.
> My question is, has anyone found a semantic function for the
existence in IE of both thematic and athematic verbs? Why should
there be two different types of verb conjugations? In many cases
originally athematic verbs were converted to the more prevalent
thematic types in the descendant languages of IE, so there seems to
be no practical need for the two types of conjugation. But perhaps
there was an original semantic differentiation between thematic and
athematic verbs. Has anyone found one, and what was it? Also was
there a semantic function for reduplication in the presents of verbs
of the reduplicating class (which, apart from reduplication, are
conjugated like the athematic types)? As well, are there specific
meanings for each of the various affixes and infixes of the
characterized present stems (those that were inherently non-present
or non-durative in basic meaning)?
> I would most appreciate any response to these questions.
In my most objective reading the basic facts are as follows:
1. A root can form a root present or a root aorist, apparently
dependent on its lexical meaning: *H1�y-ti 'goes' : *d�H3-t 'gave'.
2. Inherently punctual verbs may form durative ("present") stems by
derivation, the three basic types being indeed:
2a. Reduplicated present: *di-d�H3-ti 'gives'. The reduplication
most probably originally expressed an iterative or distributive
note, as 'give several things, distribute gifts'.
2b. Nasal present: *yu-n�-g-ti 'yokes, harnesses', as against the
root aorist *y�wg-t 'yoked'. The original function was factitive
(from adjectives) or causative (from verbs), cf. Hitt. tep-n-u-
zzi 'makes small' (tep-u- 'small'), Hitt. harnik-zi 'destroys' (hark-
'vanish', 3sg harzi). Thus *yu-ne-g-/*yu-n-g- originally
meant 'cause to yoke', and the seemingly unaffected meaning of the
nasal present will then originally be that of the middle
voice: 'cause oneself to yoke, be caused to yoke' just means 'yoke'.
2c. J-present: *gWm.-y�-ti 'is coming' : aor. *gW�m-t 'came'. This
is the default durative used most plainly with some of the derived
stems. Thus stative, aor. *wid-�H1-t 'came to be seeing', prs. *wid-
H1-y�-ti 'is seeing'; factitive *n�waH2-t 'renewed' : prs. *newaH2-
y�-ti 'is renewing'. I suppose the *-y�/�- of denominatives is
properly also just the durative marker, and that the denominative
type without a marker (Ved. bhis.�j-mi 'am a doctor') is properly
the corresponding aorist.
3. Thematic stems are in all probability old subjunctives. For some
it can be followed that old aorist subjunctives, as Vedic
g�mati 'shall come', k�rati 'shall make', develop into new present
indicatives. This may well be the origin of a form like Gothic
qimith 'comes'. The functional shift is small, for one use of the
aorist subjunctive is to express the immediately imminent future, a
meaning that can also be expressed by the present indicative. I
consider it highly likely that this is the only origin of the type
*bh�r-e-ti, *w�g^h-e-ti, *dh�gWh-e-ti, *H�g^-e-ti. I also believe
that the process of transfer of the aorist subjunctive to present
indicative had already been completed for some verbs (including
these) in the prehistory of the protolanguage, while others only
followed later (and some of course never).
4. There are apparently also original present subjunctives among the
thematic presents. While I do not know of a secured example of the
structure root + e/o, I see no other good solution for the
reduplicated thematic type *st�-stH2-e-ti, *s�-sd-e-ti, *p�-pH3-e-ti
(> *p�-b-e-ti) than to assume that they are properly the
subjunctives of older athematic reduplicated presents of the type
**sti-st�H2-ti, **si-s�d-ti, **pi-p�H3-ti which would belong to the
root aorists *st�H2-t, *s�d-t, *p�H3-t. These are continued in Vedic
�stha:t, �sadat (secondarly thematicized from **�sat), �pa:t.
5. One characterized aorist type was the sigmatic aorist. In a
number of cases it quite clearly constitutes the punctual companion
of the sk^-present, as Ved. pr.cch�ti, aor. �pra:ks.am; y�cchati,
�ya:m.sam; Lat. cogno:sco:, Hitt. ganes-zi; Gk. ge:r�sko: 'grow
old', Welsh gwisgo 'dress' with -e:- of the s-aorist copied by the
sk-present. Also the inchoative stative in *-eH1-sk^e/o- (as Lat.
sene:sco: 'am growing old') has a shorter form *-eH1-s- beside it
(Hitt. mars-es- 'become falsified') which is then probably its old
aorist. If the inchoative function seen in Latin, Avestan and
Lithuanian (-sta- by dissimilation) is the old function, also the
sigmatic aorist will be originally an inchoative expression. That
makes good sense: if a verb like *w�g^h-e- 'drive' had come to be a
present stem and therefore needed a replacement as its aorist, a
practical choice could be the inchoative *w�:g^h-s-t 'began to
drive, drove off'. Thus the s-aorist would originally be the aorist
of an inchoative derivative verb which gradually came to be enrolled
in the grammar as the default aorist for verbs that needed an aorist
with easily recognizably marking. - Given the functional status of
sk-verbs as the durative of the s-aorist I have suggested that the
suffix *-sk^�/�- is in origin a phonetic development of the
encounter of the *-s- of the s-aorist and the durativizing *-y�/�-
of the other derived categories.
6. The zero-grade-plus-e/o type seen in the present type of Vedic
tud�ti and the thematic aorist �vidat (Gk. e�de, Arm. egit) is just
a secondary change of a radical formation, most often apparently a
root aorist. One source would be the old middle voice with a 3sg
without a consonantal marker (as Ved. s'�ye 'lies' for later s'�te;
Hitt. esa 'sits' vs. Ved. �:ste). If the old 3sg middle desinence
was *-e, the verb *d�rk^- 'see' (whose old root aorist subjunctive
has become a thematic present in Greek d�rkomai) would form 3sg
middle aor. *dr.k^-�. Deprived of a consonantal marker in the
personal ending it would be vulnerable to the new trend of
introduction of the personal markers of the active, which is here -t-
. The introduction of -t- apparently led to *dr.k^-�-t which was now
an active-voice form; that did not matter, for this was a medium-
tantum verb which did not utilize the opposition between the verbal
voices. Then, to *dr.k^-�-t were formed 1sg *dr.k^-�-m, 2sg *dr.k^-�-
s, etc. on the analogy of pre-existing thematic verbs. It should not
be forgotten that the types with suffix *-sk^�/�- and *-y�/�- were
thematic from the beginning. There are very few reconstructible
thematic aorist forms; Cardona who treated the subject in a
monograph in the fifties found only two (*wid-�-t 'saw' and *H1ludh-
�-t 'came', the latter in Gk. �:luthe and OIr. luid). The tud�ti
present type is quite generally assumed to be an innovation; Renou
found some distinct nuances of aorist aspect in its semantics.
It is a strange fact that the manifestly secondary tud�ti type is
present in Hittite (suwe-zzi 'pushes' = Ved. suv�-ti 'pushes'),
while the much better secured type of bh�rati, �jati etc. is not
found at all. The truly odd thing is that the very roots that form
the "pure thematic type" *bh�r-e-ti do not inflect by any other type
in Hittite either, but are simply not present. I can see only one
explanation for this surprising fact, namely the one that was
occasionally expressed by Jochem Schindler in a joking mood: they
were abolished. Indeed, if the Anatolian branch abolished the IE
subjunctive, speakers may well have gone to the extreme of
stigmatizing the very structure *C�C-e- as a verbal stem, an
attitude that made some of the basic verbs of IE useless and in need
of replacement by synonyms. Thus, the lack of a subjunctive in
Anatolian may well be connected with the lack of some very basic
verbal lexemes, and this may well indicate that the pure thematic
type *is* in reality just an old subjunctive.
It is hard to say to what degreee there was some predictability
between the aspect stems in PIE, but the arrangements found strongly
indicate that there once was a very high degree of system in this.
That system however was crumbling, and in Vedic and even more in
Greek and some of the other branches the whole system has become
lexical: a speaker has to learn which aorist goes with which
present. Later still, it may be fair to say that the thematic
present and the sigmatic aorist took over and laid the foundation of
a new system which was developing already in the protolanguage.
Jens