Is the “tēzzi principle” a plausible inference? (submitted)

1 Is the “tēzzi principle” a plausible inference? 2 Roland A. Pooth 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 On the background of crosslinguistic, comparative, and internal facts, is it a plausible inference to assume that Hittite 3sg pret. ind. act. te-e-et ‘spoke, said, stated’ (OH/MS) goes back to a prior root aorist and that its pres. te-e-ez-zi ‘says, states’ (OS) was a backformation (= “tēzzi principle”, cf. Malzahn 2010: 267f.)? Or is Hittite te-e-ez-zi formally archaic? Does it go back to a PIE category which was functionally modified in the course of the emergence of the tripartite tense/aspect system of Indo-Iranian and Greek? Is the traditional reconstruction of the PIE tripartite aspect system with multiple present stems, aorist stems, and a perfect stem a plausible assumption? This paper will offer a brief discussion of these issues from a diachronic typological perspective. (123 words) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1. From progressive to imperfective present and from zero to perfective. Given that progressives typically develop into imperfective or general presents (cf. Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca 1994: 125-75), the most plausible source of the IE “primary” person, number, voice, tense/aspect, mood suffixes (Hittite ku-e-mi ku-e-ši ku-e-en-zi (OS) = Vedic hán-ti, cf. Greek εἰ-µί, etc.) is a prior progressive aspect, coded by the locative and progressive suffix *-i in word-final position (cf. Pooth 2009). The functional prehistory of the Vedic and Greek present indicative forms can thus plausibly be identified with a shift from progressive aspect to imperfective present tense and aspect. On the other hand, “a way that perfectives develop is as a consequence of the development of an imperfective. In such cases, the perfective has zero expression” (Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca 1994: 90). Diachronic typological findings, therefore, provide us with an important relative chronology: perfectives from zero are functionally younger than imperfective presents from progressives. 25 26 27 28 2. From inflectional suffix *-s to sigmatic aorist stem. A plausible source of the Vedic and Greek sigmatic aorist stem suffix -s- are (2sg) 3sg forms with a nonprogressive “secondary” ending *-s (Watkins 1962) (continuing a PIE 23 INVERSE suffix, cf. Pooth 2015-04-17). This is strengthened by the following evidence: 29 30 2.1. R̥gvedic active sigmatic aorists frequently occur in the 3sg (cf. Narten 1964, Lubotsky 1997) (the list includes the irregular “precative” jéṣma): 3sg apās (root aor.?) aprās ahās hā́s ájais yaus akṣār atsār abhār bhā́r asvār atān ayān áchān ákrān asyān bhāk aprāṭ adhāk dhāk avāṭ ā́raik acait aśvait adyaut dyaut asrāk [ānīt akārīt gārīt cārīt árāvīt asāvīt svānīt, Narten 1964: 53f.] 2sg prā́s (root aor.?) ákrān yāṭ ayās adyaut 1sg ayāsam ajaiṣam [prec. TS jeṣam?] stoṣam abhārṣam áspārṣam áhārṣam ayāṃsam 3pl dhāsur ayāsur hāsur ábhaiṣur yauṣur áchāntsur amatsur 2pl naiṣṭa áchānta 1pl ájaiṣma [prec. jéṣma?] ábhaiṣma 2du yauṣṭam 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 ROLAND A. POOTH 42 2 3du asvārṣṭām 43 44 45 The isolated 3sg aor. act. acait āŕ aik (a)dyaut are attested besides root aor. mid. ácidhvam rikthās dyutāná- (cf. Kümmel 2012, 2015+), cf. YV (a)mauk besides AV ámok, RV ámugdhvam (cf. Kümmel 2015+). 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 2.2. Possible relics of a 3sg SE -s (as per Kümmel 2015+): (1) apās RV 5.29.8, since more forms are root aorists (ápām ápās ápāma) ~ 3sg ápāt (RV 2.37.4, 6.38.1, 8.69.11, 8.92.4). (But Hittite pāšš-ḫi :: Luwian pašš- ‘swallow’ point to a PIE suffix/enlargement *-s-.) (2) aprās ‘has/have filled’ RV (10x 3sg, 1x 2sg), subj. prā́s (= pra.as), imp. prā́si, cf. AV aprāt. (3) véṣ RV 1.77.2, 2.5.3, 4.7.7 (vī-) may not be a “Kunstbildung”, but an archaic 3sg pres. inj. (pace Malzahn 2002), cf. 2sg pres. inj. véṣ RV 4.3.13, 4.7.8, 6.15.14; RV 1.77.2 yó adhvaréṣu śáṃtama r̥tāv́ ā hótā tám ū námobhir ā́ kr̥ṇudhvam | agnír yád vér mártāya devā́n sá cā bódhāti mánasā yajāti is unlikely to be *vay-ī-ṣ (cf. Kümmel 2015+). (4) dhāyīṣ (RV 1.147.5d) utá vā yáḥ sahasiya pravidvā́n márto mártaṃ marcáyati dvayéna | átaḥ pāhi stavamāna stuvántam ágne mā́kir no duritāý a dhāyīḥ “Oder auch, du Starker, welcher Sterbliche mit Vorsatz einen Sterblichen durch seine zwei (Hände) schädigt, vor dem schütze, du Gepriesener, den Preisenden. Agni, dass nicht irgendwer uns dem Unglück übergebe!” (Pooth). 3sg is possible, because it usually occurs with mā́kiṣ (cf. Kümmel 2015+). (5) dhās HirGS 1.13.15 ĀpMB 2.10.17 tan ma ūrjaṃ dhāḥ “[d]as verschaffe mir Kraft!” (cf. Burrow 1957: 64f.) occurs besides a highly archaic 3sg opt. īśīya, cf. 3pl dhāsur RV 7.97.5, subj. dhāsathas RV 1.160.5, dhāsathā RV 1.111.2 (cf. Narten 1964: 151f.). Cf. Messapic hipades ‘ἀνέθηκε’ (literally ‘κατέθηκε’?) with -des (likely -dēs) < *dʱéh₁-s? (6) bhūṣ (opt. syās?) in RV 10.11.9 = 12.9cd ā́ no vaha ródasī deváputre mā́kir devā́nām ápa bhūr ihá syāḥ = AV 18.1.25 AVP 18.59.5 “fahre herbei zu uns die beiden Welthälften. Sei nicht als einer der Götter weg/Dass keiner der Götter weg sei; mögest du hier sein!” (Kümmel); 3sg for bhūṣ is at least possible, because it mainly occurs with mā́kiṣ (cf. Kümmel 2015+). (7) abheṣ ‘has feared’ AB 1.20.3 prāṇo vā ayaṃ san nābher iti. tasmān nābhis. tan nābher nābhitvam “The breath being here hath not feared (they say); therefore is it the navel; that is why the navel has its name” (Keith) (cf. Narten 1964: 180, Anm. 515). 74 2.3. Mistakes? Let me add a quote from Kümmel 2015+: 75 76 77 78 “TS/TB: TS 2,2,12,6 agnír dā dráviṇaṃ vīrápeśāḥ ~ dād RV 10,80,4 TS 5,6,8,6 pitā́ mātaríśvā́chidrā padā́ dhāḥ (= AB 2,38,6f.) ~ dhāt KS 40,6 TB 2,5,4,15 ná=atārīr asya sámr̥tiṃ vadhā́nām ~ ná=atārīd RV 1,32,6 KB 27,4 asmāsu nṛmṇaṃ dhāḥ ~ ā́smā́su nṛmṇaṃ dhāt MS 1,9,1: 131,9 TA 3,1,1.” 79 80 81 2.4. The Early Vedic 3sg aor. opt. act. ending -s. The following Table 1 provides a list of the R̥gvedic 3sg active so-called “precatives” and some corresponding root aor. opt. active forms, cf. also AVŚ 16.2.4 śrūyāsam (for jéṣma see 2.1). Is the “tēzzi principle” a plausible inference? 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 3 Table 1. root avi r̥dh kr̥ 3sg avyās r̥dhyās 2sg avyās r̥dhyās gam jñā dah naś pā bhū mr̥dh yam yā yu vr̥j śru sah gamyā́s jñeyā́s daghyās aśyās peyās bhūyā́s mr̥dhyās yamyās gamyās 3pl 1sg 1pl r̥dhyā́ma kriyāma ~ kriyāsma aśyur bhūyā́s aśyā́m aśyā́ma bhūyāsam bhūyā́ma yeṣam yūyās vr̥jyās śrūyā́s sahyās vr̥jyā́m [AV śrūyāsam] sahyur vr̥jyā́ma sāhyā́ma R̥gvedic siṣ-aorist ind. and “precative” forms are attested from gā and 2yā (cf. Narten 1964: 70, Lubotsky 1997: 1149, 1151: 1sg ind. act. ayāsiṣam, 2sg opt. mid. yāsisīṣṭhās (RV 4.1.4b), 3sg ind. act. ayāsīt, opt. mid. yāsīṣṭa, 2pl ind. act. áyāsiṣṭa, 3pl ind. act. agāsiṣur ayāsiṣur, 2du inj. act. yāsiṣṭám [3du ind. act. RVKh 5.7.3c prāyāsiṣṭām]; cf. 3sg subj. gāsiṣat yāsiṣat. 3sg opt. forms of thematic stems show -t, e.g. aor. sanet, AV r̥dhet gamet -yamet vocet, VS vidét, pres. syā́t bhávet, likewise 3sg perf. opt. forms, e.g. dadhyā́t jagamyāt juguryā́t, etc. An irregular “precative” type is RV yeṣam (and jeṣma?), AV+ stheṣam, etc., YV khyeṣam. It exhibits the suffix -īṣ- and should be analyzed as *°a(H)-īṣ- (*ja(y)-īṣ-?). A 3sg in *°eṣ is not attested, but this can be accidental (cf. Kümmel 2015+, Jamison 2009, Hoffmann 1967b: 32 = 1976: 472f., 1968 = 1975: 247, fn. 4). The 3sg SE -s was taken as (irregular) innovation by Renou 1952: 291 and Hoffmann 1967: 28: “Hier konnte beim Optativ das s-Formans vermißt worden sein [why?]. Es wurde deshalb bei der 2. Sg. die Personalendung s in *yūyās nach der 2. Sg. yaus als Aorist-Formans s interpretiert und demzufolge zur 3. Sg. yaus eine 3. Sg. RV yūyās geschaffen”, cf. further Jasanoff 1991: 113f.; 2003 : 186ff. (starting from *-ī-ṣ → -yā-s), Harðarson 1993: 109-112, Gotō 2013: 93f. This ad-hoc-assumption is implausible, because the substitution takes the opposite direction and -s is replaced by -t, e.g. iṣ-aor. *átārHs(t) > *átārīṣ → átārī-t ... ágrabhī-ṣ : ágrabhī-t = átārī-ṣ, likewise ānīt akārīt gārīt cārīt árāvīt asāvīt svānīt (cf. Narten 1964: 53f.). The idea does thus not conform to inner-Vedic tendencies: (1) RV yāṭ → ind. áyās (RV 3.29.16) confirms a spread of -s as 2sg (not 3sg!) ending; cf. also srās for *srāṭ (AV 11.2.19, 26; cf. Kümmel 2015+, Narten 1964: 200, 273); abhinas AVP 13.4.2 for RV abhinat < *abʱinat-s (cf. Kümmel 2015+, Hoffmann 1965: 188f. = 1975: 179f., cf. Pāṇ. 8.2.75). ROLAND A. POOTH 4 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 (2) RV bhūyā́s → AV bhūyā-t confirms a spread of -t as 3sg ending, i.e., -t replaces -s from RV to AV, not vice versa (cf. Hoffmann 1967: 29 = 1976: 469); likewise RVKh ájait, AV+ (a)nait aprāt ahāt, etc. for *ájaiṣ *ánaiṣ aprās ahās; cf. also VS asrat for *asras (Kümmel 2015+). (3) The genesis of the siṣ-aorist (3sg *áyās → áyās-īt) conforms to the general tendency to introduce the endings 2sg -īs and 3sg -īt in the sigmatic aor. (cf. Narten 1964: 71), cf. AV+ avāts-īt, dhākṣ-īt, anaikṣ-īt besides regular 1sg -s-am, etc. Therefore, a younger emergence of a 3sg ending -s is unlikely. It is more plausibly an (archaic) ending: “Taking the Vedic system where s occurs only in the second and third person singular, it is clear that in the active the suffix is -yā- and that -s is in both cases termination” (Burrow 1954: 40). Recall that “the optative of the sigmatic aorists is still acrostatic, but asigmatic in Gāthic (Narten 1984), whereas the sigmatic stem has been generalized in [the m]iddle (opt. 1sg rāŋ́hē Y 12.3)” (Tremblay 2008: 29). OAv. thus corresponds to Early Vedic. It is evident that the 2sg 3sg -yā́-s was reanalyzed as *-yā́s-Ø with 2sg 3sg zero ending -Ø and spread over to a few 1st person forms. Therefore, the RV provides evidence for a morphological reanalysis of a 3sg aor. opt. -yā-s to a new “precative” stem suffix: RV kri-yās-ma, bhū-yās-am, AV śrū-yās-am (cf. Harðarson 1993: 110, Kümmel 2015+). This is a parallel case of “Watkins’ law”. 128 129 130 2.5. The Early Vedic 2sg 3sg aor. opt. mid. endings -sthās, -sta. The R̥gveda displays special sigmatic 2sg 3sg aor. opt. endings, cf. also SV bhakṣ-ī-ta ~ AB bhakṣ-ī-ṣṭa (cf. Narten 1964: 43ff.): 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 diṣīya (3dā ‘distribute’) bhakṣīyá masīya (1man) mukṣīya rāsīya maṃs-ī-ṣṭhās darṣī-ṣṭa [bhakṣī-ṣṭa (AB)] maṃs-īṣṭa mr̥kṣ-īṣṭa yās-īṣṭa (2yā), redupl. aor. rīriṣ-īṣṭa (RV 6.51.7d) ririṣ-īṣṭa (RV 8.18.13c), root aor. padīṣṭá (5x RV) 1pl bhakṣ-ī-máhi maṃs-ī-máhi vaṃs-ī-máhi/vas-ī-mahi sakṣ-ī-máhi 3pl maṃs-ī-rata 2du trā́s-ī-thām 1sg 2sg 3sg R̥gvedic iṣ-aorist “precative” middles are 3sg janiṣīṣṭa vaniṣīṣṭa, 1pl tāriṣīmahi, vandiṣīmahi sāhiṣīmahi (cf. Narten 1964: 67), cf. 2sg yāsisīṣṭhās (RV 4.1.4b), AV maṃsīṣṭhā́s sāsahīṣṭhā́s modiṣīṣṭhās. Thematic aor. videṣṭa (AV 2.36.6), śoceṣṭa (+śuceṣṭa) ĀpMB 1.9.3, cf. Hoffmann 1967b: 31 = 1976: 472 Fn. 9) show -eṣṭa. The sigmatic endings were interpreted as secondary by Renou 1952: 292 (“donc janiṣīṣṭa de JAN- remplacant *janiṣīta, d’apres l’indicatif ájaniṣṭa”). But -ī-ṣṭa for -ī-ta in parallel with ár-ta : arī-ta = jáni[ṣ]-ṣṭa : X → X = janiṣī-ṣṭa is ad hoc, cf. Kümmel 2015+ (“Sekundäre Entstehung von [...] -ṣṭa nicht leicht verständlich”). The stem of 1sg aor. mid. opt. maṃsī-máhi, etc. is maṃsī- (†maṃsīṣ-). Therefore, the sibilant cannot be segmented as part of the opt. suffix, but belongs to the endings (2sg -ṣṭhās, 3sg -ṣṭa). This leads to the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-Iranian 2sg 3sg aor. middle secondary endings *-stHās, *-sta, and 2sg 3sg mid. optatives in *-ī-ʃtHās, *-ī-ʃta. There was also a 2sg in *-īʃa, cf. YAv. °raēxš-īša (raēxš-, raēk- ~ iric ‘let’, pres. irinaxti). These sig- Is the “tēzzi principle” a plausible inference? 5 152 153 154 155 156 matic opt. endings further confirm that the sibilant was not due to the alveolar + alveolar rule */TT/ > *-TsT- (pace Jasanoff 2003), because there is no preceding alveolar here; rīriṣ-īṣṭa ririṣ-īṣṭa (redupl. aor.) and padīṣṭá (root aor.) confirm that -ṣṭa is not restricted to the sigmatic aorist stem and was more independent from it. These forms are relics and contradict a “precativization”. 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 2.6. The type RV -jániṣṭa was (implausibly) derived from a 1sg (RV ajani →) JB ajaniṣi (ajaniṣṭhās ajaniṣṭa) by Narten 1964: 60. But whereas RV (á)jániṣṭa is attested early, JB ajaniṣi is attested too late to serve as a model (thus Kümmel 2015+). Insler 1995 suggested that 2sg -ṣṭhās < *-s-th₂a, but as seen by Kümmel 2015+, there is no Vedic parallel for -s-t° in the 2sg middle. It is more likely that the Vedic iṣ -aorist stem -jániṣajaniṣṭhās ajaniṣṭa and du. act. janiṣṭām janiṣṭam go back to a Proto-Indo-Iranian root aor. mid. 2sg *ʥánH-ʃtHās, 3sg *ʥánH-ʃta < *g̑énh1-sto with 3sg ending *-sto, thus likewise PII*ʥánH-ʃtām < *g̑énh1-stah2(m). A (proto)middle origin is evident for the 2du 3du forms RV janiṣṭām, AV janiṣṭam, since -jániṣ- is (otherwise) middle-tantum. Another (otherwise) middle-tantum paradigm (-vr̥ṇī-) also includes 2du 3du “active” RV 1.180.4b avr̥ṇītam, AVP 1.92.1 vr̥ṇītām. The Vedic 3rd du. ending -tām < *-tah2(m) is (still) used as a middle ending in RV 10.4.6, where 3du adhītām (-tām) has a passive meaning and belongs to the aorist middle (adhithās, adhita, adhīmahi, etc.), cf. RV 10.4.6 tanūtyájeva táskarā vanargū́ raśanā́bhir daśábhir abhi àdhītām “So wie zwei den Leib hingebende, im Wald umhergehende Räuber, mit den zehn Zügeln (raśanāb́ hir daśábhir, sc. mit den 10 Fingern) wurden die beiden (sc. Reibhölzer) [...] festgemacht” (Pooth 2011). 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 2.7. IE comparanda. Hittite shows sigmatic ~ asigmatic 3sg pret. act. endings, e.g. ākiš (a-ak-ki-iš) (OS) → ak-ta (NS, OH/NS NH) (cf. Melchert & Hoffner Jr. 2008: 189, 215; Kloekhorst 2008: 167), cf. also OH a-ša-aš-ta from the ḫi-pres. ašaši (cf. Oettinger 2002: 51, 430, Kloekhorst 2008, s.v.). Hittite further exhibits suffix pleonasm: pa-iš (OS), pa-iš-ta (OH/NS), pe-e-eš-ta (NH) (cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 614); tar-na-aš (OS), tar-ni-eš-ta (KUB 13.34 iv 14 (NS)), tar-ni-iš-ta (KUB 1.1+ iv 49 (NH)) (cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 846); ši-pa-an-ta-aš (KBo 15.10 iii 59, 66 (OH/MS)), ši-pa-an-da-aš (KBo 15.10 iii 64, 68 (OH/MS)), ši-pa-an-za-aš-ta (KUB 20.59 v 6 (see Groddek, DBH 13, p. 106), KBo 8.68 iv 5), ši-pa-an-da-za (KUB 19.37 ii 24 (NH)) (cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 405, Oettinger 2002: 41, 408); cf. also ḫa-a-az-ta (= /ḫāt-št/) (OH/MH), ḫa-a-az-za-aš-ta (MH/MS), 3pl. ḫa-a-te-e-r (OH/MS) (ḫāt-i, cf. Oettinger 2002: 408, Kloekhorst 2008: 328). The Proto- Anatolian sigmatic ending *-s(t) perfectly equates with Proto-Indo-Iranian *-s(t) (mid. *-sta). Tocharian AB show sigmatic 2sg 2pl 3sg act. pret. endings, cf. Figures 1ab (cf. Malzahn 2010: chapters 7-9): ROLAND A. POOTH 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 6 Figure 1a 2sg 3sg 2pl ā̆-inflection TB TA -ā̆sta -āṣt -a -Ø/-āṃ -ā̆s(o) -ās 196 Figure 1b 197 198 199 200 201 2sg 3sg 2pl 2pl PT *-stā *-sā *-sä *-så non-ā̆-inflection reconstruction TB TA PT -asta -äṣt *-stā -sa -äs/-sām *-sā -as/-so *-sä ~ *-så (NB. Malzahn 2010: 514 reconstructs PT *-sās) Transponat *-sth2a *-sh2a (?) *-se/*-so *-sah2 internal comparison *-th2a (cf. *-ste :: *-te) *-th2a *-te/*-ste *-tah2- (> PII 2/3du *-tām) 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 Taken together, Proto-Tocharian 2sg pret. *-stā, Hittite (NH) 2sg pret. ind. -(i)šta (e.g. Hitt. pa-it-ta (OH/MS), pé(-e)eš-ta (NH), cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 614), Latin 2sg perf. ind. act. -istī < -istei, e.g. CIL 10 gesistei, Greek -σθα, e.g. Hom. τίθησθα, etc. point to a PIE 2sg protomiddle ending *-sth2a(i). The segmentation †-s-th2a(i) must be a mistake. Cf. another interesting paradigm in Early Vedic: 1sg cyávam, 3pl cyavante (OAv. š́auuaitē), besides 2sg cyoṣṭhās point to a PIE “Narten” protomiddle 1sg *kwiéuh2a(i) (→ *kwi ̯éu̯(h2)om), 3sg *kwiéuo(i), 3pl *kwi ̯éu̯n̥to(i) ~ *kwi ̯éu̯onto(i) and a sigmatic 2sg *kwiéusth2a (2/3col. *kwi ̯éustah2). Vedic 2sg cyoṣṭhās shows the sibilant exactly in the paradigmatic position, where we would expect it from the given comparative perspective. To be sure, Hittite -(i)šta was claimed to be an inner-Anatolian creation (cf. differently Jasanoff 2003: 119, Kloekhorst 2008: 802). But this is weakened by the equations. Moreover, after subtraction of the “union” vowel -i-, Latin 2pl perf. ind. act. -istis includes a string *-stes corresponding to Hittite 2pl ind. act. pret. -šten :: pres. -šteni (cf. Kloekhorst 2007). These point to PIE sigmatic 2pl act. endings *-ste(n) *-ste(n)(-i). Latin -sti- (of -istis) = Hittite -šte- (of -šten(i)) constitute an equation, which is usually called a “proof”. PIE thus had a set of 2sg 3sg (2pl 3pl) sigmatic suffixes/endings with a hitherto unknown function (but cf. Pooth 2015-04-17). These merged with the non-sigmatic ones, yielding pleonasms, e.g. PIE *klép-t → root aorist (vs. *klḗp-t → “Narten” pres.), but PIE *klép-s → *klép-st → post-PIE sigmatic aor. *klép-s-t (cf. Latin clepsit ~ clēpit, cf. Pike 2009); likewise *klḗp-s → *klḗp-st → sigmatic aor. *klḗp-s-t. The sigmatic aorist, both its form as a stem and its function as a perfective, should not be reconstructed for the common protolanguage of Hittite, Tocharian, Vedic, Greek. 225 226 227 228 229 3. Problems with Early Vedic reduplicated aorist stems. There are relics of two different reduplicated thematic aorist stems -vavr̥ta-t vs. -vīvr̥ta-t in RV 6.17.10ab ádha tváṣṭā te mahá ugra vájraṃ sahásrabhr̥ṣṭiṃ vavr̥tac chatā́śrim “Und dann drechselte Tvaṣṭar deine, des Großen, du Starker, Keule, die tausendzackige, die hunderkantige” (Pooth) vs. RV 10.174.3 abhí tvā deváḥ savitā́bhí sómo avīvr̥tat | abhí tvā víśvā bhūtā́ny Is the “tēzzi principle” a plausible inference? 7 230 231 232 233 234 abhīvartó yáthā́sasi “Dich hat der Gott Savitar, hat Soma überrollend (sc. überlegen) gemacht, dich über alle Geschöpfe überrollend, so wie du sein sollst” (Pooth). Hoffmann 1976: 591f. took vavr̥ta- as belonging to the „mit a reduplizierten, athematisch[en ...] Aorist“, but whereas -vavr̥ta-t has an internally repetitive meaning (“drechselte”), avavr̥tran avavr̥tranta share a REITERATIVE meaning with -ávavarti. 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 3.1. Relics of a reiterative reduplicated inflectional type are found in RV 2.38.6ab samāv́ avarti víṣṭhito jigīṣúr víśveṣāṃ kā́maś cáratām amā́bhūt “Gleich kehrte wieder um, (wer) aufgebrochen (víṣṭhito) (war), (etwas) begierig zu erlangen. Aller Wandernden Wunsch ward (ábhūt) heimwärts” (Pooth); RV 1.164.47c tá āv́ avr̥tran sádanād r̥tásya- “sie sind (wieder) zurückgekehrt vom Sitz der Ordnung her” (Pooth); RV 3.32.15c sám u priyā́ āv́ avr̥tran mádāya “zusammen aber haben sich die lieben wieder herbei gewandt, zum Sich-Berauschen’ (Pooth); RV 10.18.3a imé jīvā́ ví mr̥taír āv́ avr̥trann “Diese Lebendigen haben sich mit den Verstorbenen zueinander (wieder) herbeigewandt” (Pooth); RV 4.24.4c sáṃ yád víśó ’vavr̥tranta yudhmā́ “Wenn sich die Stämme (wieder) einander zugekehrt haben, die streitbaren” (Pooth) (middle reciprocal reading). The “passive” aorist lacks this meaning: cf. RV 8.6.38 ánu tvā ródasī ubhé cakráṃ ná varty étaśam | ánu suvānā́sa índavaḥ “Dir nach sind beide Welten wie das Rad dem Etaśa nachgerollt, (dir) nach (sind sie gerollt), die ausgepressten Säfte” (Pooth); RV 8.92.14ab tvé sú putra śavasó ’vr̥tran kā́makātayaḥ “Zu dir, o Sohn der Kraft, haben sie sich wohl schön/tüchtig gewandt, die Wunschwünscher” (Pooth); Kümmel 1996: 107: “An dich, Sohn der Kraft, haben sie sich gewandt, die Wunschwünscher”. Any idea of a formal analogy to the “passive” aorist is functionally contradicted. Since the ablaut of RV avavarti avavr̥tran avavr̥tranta structurally runs in parallel with the “passive” aorist, PIE presumably had a reduplicated type *ueuórt(i) *ueur̥tró(-), derived from a non-reduplicated type *uórt(i) *ur̥tró(-). 256 257 258 259 3.2. Relics of a PIE athematic reduplicated type. It cannot be accidental that R̥gvedic athematic reduplicated aorists, perfect injunctives and pluperfect indicatives are formally identical. The following forms can serve as an illustrative sample (cf. Kümmel 2000: 32f., Lubotsky 1997 svv., Thieme 1929; act. not indicated): 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 2sg 2sg 3sg 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl ind. aor. ájīgar (imp. 2du jigr̥tám, 2pl jigr̥tá), plupf. ájagan áiyes ábubhojīs áviveśīs áviveṣīs (2viṣ, pres. III viveṣṭi ávives, inj. vivés, subj. víveṣas) inj. aor./perf. tūtos, aor. dīdhar (cf. imp. 2du didhr̥tám, 2pl didhr̥tá) susros síṣvap, perf. cākan śaśās ind. aor./plupf. áśiśret, aor. ádudrot ánūnot ápupot acucyavīt, plupf. ájagan ábibhet ámīmet ávivyak inj. aor./perf. tūtot, aor. dūdhot (dhū) nūnot yūyot, perf. dīdhet rāráṇ vivyak dadharṣīt (cf. Kümmel 2000 s.vv.) inj. perf. yuyoma (AVŚ 7.68.3) ind. ájaganta ájagantana ajabhartana, acucyavītana, inj. perf. bibhītana ind. aor./plupf. áśiśrayur, aor. ácucyavur aśuśravur, plupf. adīdhayur [RVKh. 1.7.5 ábībhayur] arāraṇur avivyacur, perf. viveśur (~ viviśur) vivyacur ROLAND A. POOTH 272 273 274 275 276 277 2du 3du 1sg 3sg 3pl 8 ind. plupf. amumuktam [cf. perf. inj./imp. mumuktam] ind. plupf. áviviktām mid. aor. áśuśravi mid. aor. -avavarti (see 3.1) [cf. pres. III didiṣṭa] mid. plupf. ácakriran ajagmiran, mid. aor. avavr̥tran avavr̥tranta (see 3.1) ásasr̥gram 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 We can add OAv. Y 51.12 urūraost (urud, cf. Hoffmann & Forsman 2004: 237) and OAv. Y 32.11 cikōitərəš ‘they are conspicuous’ (cf. Tremblay 2008: 31, Jasanoff 1997). Avestan lacks augmented perfects/pluperfects. There is no inner-Vedic evidence for a loss of the thematic vowel, but the opposite is evident, cf. RV acyucyavur, cucyavīt ~ KS 20.1 (II.18.12) acucyavat, RV aśuśravi, aśuśravur ~ MS 3.9.7 (124.14) ā́ aśuśravat, RV áśiśret ~ AVŚ 6.31.3 aśiśrayat. Furthermore, Tocharian A displays athematic types: “The historical evidence of Tocharian A strongly points to the existence of two different patterns for the finite verb forms in pre-Tocharian A, viz. both pre-TA *Cæ-CäC-a- and *C’æ-C’äC-a- [...]” (Malzahn 2010: 183). Moreover, Hittite ku-ku-uš-zi (mi-) is athematic (cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 1010f.); Hittite ú-e-wa-ak-ki, ú-e-wa-ak-mi (mi- ~ ḫi-) should continue a PIE intensive-repetitive protomiddle type *uḗ-uok̑(i), 1sg *uḗ-uok̑-h2(i) → neoactive *u̯ḗ-u̯ok̑-h2m̥ (cf. *kwḗkwok̑-h2m̥ *kwḗkwok̑h2t(i) > Vedic acākaśam cākaśīti). (For Hittite ḫi-conjugation-reduplicated forms cf. García Ramón (2010), Jasanoff (2003: 128ff.).) Thus, PIE had more than one athematic reduplicated type with unstressed reduplication syllable *Ce-. There was a REITERATIVE type 3sg *ueuórt(-i), 3pl *ueur̥tró(-) and another type with regular vocalism sg *gwegwém-, pl *gwegw(e)m-´, mid. *gwegwmó(-), besides the pre-perfect type *ueuórte(i). 297 298 3.3. Relics of an “old anterior”. An interesting R̥gvedic paradigm is the one of payi ~ pī ‘swell (labile)’: 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 páyate píyānapīpāý a pipyathur pipyur pīpivā́ṃsam pipyúṣī pipyúṣīm pipyúṣīs apīpet ápīpema ápīpyan pīpes pīpihí pipyatam pipyatām pipyata pīpayas pīpáyat 3sg pres. I ind. middle athematic part. middle aor. 3sg perf. act. ind. 2du 3pl perf. participle with long pī. before pi.CV vs. short pi. before pyV.CV id. id. id. 3sg ind. plupf. or aor.? (compare plupf./aor. ápupot) 1pl ind. (plupf. Lubotsky 1997, but aor. Kümmel 2000: 301) 3pl ind. (aor. Kümmel 2000: 301) 2sg inj. 2sg imp. perf./aor.? (aor. Kümmel 2000: 301) 2du imp., “sec. thematized” (irregular, but cf. pipyathur) 3du 2pl 2sg subj. perf./aor. or injunctive of a thematic stem? 3sg Is the “tēzzi principle” a plausible inference? 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 pīpáyatas pīpáyan pīpáya pīpáyata ápīpayat ápīpayanta pīpáyanta pī ṕ yānapīpyāná- 9 3du subj. with PE (but cf. 2du aor. injunctive act. kr̥-thás with PE) 3pl 2sg imp. “to the subj. stem” (Lubotsky 1997) 2pl 3sg “pluperf. sec. thematized” (Lubotsky 1997) 3sg mid. ind. plupf./aor.? 3sg mid. inj. plupf./aor.? part. perf. mid. with accent on the redupl. syllable (irregular) part. perf. mid. The thematic active forms jihvaras pīpáyat bībhayat correlate with pres. I middles hvárate páyate bhayate (cf. jána-/jīj́ ana-, bódha-/búbhoda-). Doubting the linguistic reality of páyate (RV 1.164.28d) is unjustified. This correlation provides more evidence for the (proto)middle origin of thematic stems (cf. Pooth 2014+, chapters 7f.). The given 2sg imperatives confirm a basic status of the stem pīpáya-. They cannot be rendered nonce forms, because there is no inner-Vedic justification. An irregular “secondary thematicization” is unlikely, since it does not conform to the regular formation of Vedic imperatives. These are usually not derived from a different stem. More instances of R̥gvedic “subjunctive-looking” thematic perfect imperatives are given below. They are more likely archaisms: 2sg 2pl 3pl 3pl 2du mid. pipráyasva māmahasva act. pīpáyata mumócata (cf. act. aor. imp. śiśráthantu, Lubotsky 1997: 1414) perf. mid. māmahantām act. dīdayatam jujoṣatam mumócatam (zero grade vāvr̥dhasva vāvr̥ṣasva) It cannot be accidental that R̥gvedic thematic perfect injunctives, thematic pluperfects, perfect subjunctives (and aorist subjunctives) with guṇa are formally identical (cf. Kümmel 2000: 61, Lubotsky 1997, Thieme 1929). Most forms are given below (act. not indicated): 1sg 1sg 2sg 3sg cakaram, ciketam (-am is ambigously (a)thematic; it is more likely injunctive, since the regular subj. ending is -ā ~ -āni); plupf. átuṣṭavam (cf. perf. subj. tuṣṭávat) mid. perf. subj. tatane nanámas (redupl. aor. inj. Lubotsky 1997: 789, but perf. subj. Kümmel 2000: 279), subj. cākánas cíketasi jújoṣas jújoṣasi tatanas dīdáyas dīdáyasi pipráyas pīpayas bubodhas mamádas māmáhas rāráṇas sāsahas (papráthas in RV 3.30.20 redupl. aor. Lubotsky 1997: 937) ápīpayat ásasvajat (cf. redupl. them. aor. ádīdharat), subj. cākanat ciketat ciketati jújoṣat jújoṣati tatánat dídeśati dī́dayat dīdáyat dīdáyati dadhánat, dadhárṣat dadhárṣati pipráyat pīpáyat búbodhati jabhárat mamandat mumócat mumocati rāráṇat vavártat (perf./aor. subj.?) vavártati (perf./aor. subj.?) śuśravat sāsáhat tastámbhat tuṣṭávat paspárśat jaghánat, cf. paprathat (perf. subj. in RV 2.35.2, 7.42.6) :: papráthat (redupl. aor. inj. in RV 1.103.2, 7.86.1, 8.3.6) (cf. Lubotsky 1997: 789) ROLAND A. POOTH 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 10 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl mid. jújoṣate tatápate yuyójate śaśámate cākánāma tatánāma śuśávāma jújoṣatha búbodhatha jújoṣan tatánan dī́dhayan (papráthan redupl. aor. inj. in RV 8.94.9b, 2.11.8 according to Lubotsky 1997: 789) pīpáyan mamádan 3pl mid. plupf. ápīpayanta, ávāvaśanta (vāś) (:: aor. ávīvaśanta, act. avīvaśan, 3sg ávīvaśat), inj. pīpáyanta vāvaśanta, subj. cákramanta cākananta tatánanta dadabhanta paprathanta māmahanta vivcyacanta 2du them. plupf. átataṃsatam, subj. cíketathas jújoṣathas 2du [cf. mid. them. plupf. ápaspr̥dhethām with zero grade] 3du subj. pīpáyatas It can also be no accident that R̥gvedic injunctives of the reduplicated thematic aorist and subjunctives of the reduplicated athematic aorist with guṇa are formally identical (cf. Macdonell 1910: 376, Lubotsky 1997): 1sg 2sg 3sg 3sg 3pl 3pl inj. jījanam śiśnatham (cf. 3sg redupl. aor. ind. act. aśiśnat, inj. dīdharam is ambiguous, but belongs to dīdhar according to Lubotsky 1997: 736) subj. dī́dharas (cf. Lubotsky 1997: 736), inj. nīnamas nīnaśas (2naś ‘perish’, cf. anīnaśat) pīparas (cf. apīparan) papráthas (inj. in RV 3.30.20 Lubotsky 1997: 937) siṣvapas śiśnathas (them. inj. Lubotsky 1997: 1412) śiśráthas (them. inj. Lubotsky 1997: 1414) (sī́ṣadhas) jihvaras subj. cucyavat dīdharat dudrávat (cf. ádudrot) [RVKh 5.7.3d yūyavat cf. Kümmel 2000: 403ff.] śiśrathat (Lubotsky 1997: 1414), (sī́ṣadhāti), inj. jīj́ anat bībhayat pīṕ arat ~ pīpárat (pr̥) siṣvadat cf. redupl. aor. ind. mid. atītape vs. átāpi inj. jīj́ anan papráthan (cf. Lubotsky 1997: 937) mid. inj. jīj́ ananta sīṣapanta (compare ind. ábībhayanta) What is the superordinate function of stems like pīpáya-? It is a subjunctive (pīpáya-tas), a thematic aor./plupf. (á-pīpaya-t), and a thematic stem (pīpáya). Can it have all these functions? If we lump the guṇated thematic perfect injunctives, thematic pluperfects, perfect subjunctives, athematic aorist subjunctives, thematic aorist injunctives together, it is possible to interpret stems like pīpaya- as aspectually/modally polysemous still in Early Vedic and before. On a typological background, such a polysemy is well-known and identifyable as “old anterior” (cf. Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca 1994: 78f., Table 3.7). It is further inferential that pīpáya- goes back to a PIE reduplicated “Narten protomiddle” *pepéiHo and was derived from the “Narten protomiddle” *péiHo (continued as Vedic pres. I páyate) by prefixation of the (unstressed) reduplication syllable *Ce-. This correlation is paralleled by Homeric perf. opt. πεφεύγοι :: pres. φεύγω, which helps to explain the Greek e-grades of perfects by merger of *bɦebɦéugo with *bɦebɦóuge. Therefore, it is possible to assign “old anterior” meaning to stems like pīpáya-. The “old anterior” polysemy is continued as a residual formal identity and polysemy within Early Vedic: Is the “tēzzi principle” a plausible inference? 11 404 405 Figure 2a. The Early Vedic reduplicated thematic perfect-and-pluperfect-and-aorist subjunctive-and-indicative stem (“old anterior”) 406 407 408 ⎧ subjunctive of plupf./aor. ind. pīpay-, pipi-´ pīpáya- ⎨ subjunctive of perf. ind. pīpā́y-, pipy-´ ⎩ non-subjunctive thematic stem ápīpayat, imp. pipáya 409 Figure 2b illustrates the parallel forms/functions of these two stems: 410 411 412 páya- ⎧ subjunctive *páya-t(i) (:: hána-t(i)) of root aor. píyāna⎨ ⎩ non-subjunctive thematic pres. I stem páya-te 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 3.4. Conclusions. PIE had several reduplicated types preceding the given reduplicated stems. The Vedic athematic forms go back to PIE athematic forms. PIE had a REITERATIVE type which was derived from a TRANSITIONAL protomiddle type *uórt(-i). A second reduplicated protomiddle type (*pepéiHo → *pepéiHo/e-) can be identified with “old anterior” Aktionsart and was derived from the “Narten protomiddle” (*péiHo → *péiHo/e-). Proto-Germanic pret. *dedō̜ *dedēz *dedē may continue the same thematic type (but cf. Kim 2010: 13). A fourth reduplicated “pre-aorist” was identical to the predecessor of the IE perfect middle with the exception that it lacked the progressive suffix *-i (*gwegwmó → *gwegwmó/é- > YAv. jagmat̰ (Yt. 19.12) :: Vedic 3pl mid. ajagmiran). The thematic stems continue the so-called “stative” protomiddle forms, cf. Pooth 2014+, chapters 7f. (e.g. PIE 3sg *kwk̑ó → *kwk̑ót ~ *kwk̑ét(o) > Vedic (-á)khyá-t, -ákhyata (1x). This is why Vedic middle forms of these aorist stems are infrequent.) Thus, Early Vedic points to several PIE reduplicated types (Aktionsarten). Cases like 3sg pres. ind. act. yuyoti (RV 1.92.11b), but 3sg aor./perf. inj. act. yūyot (RV 10.95.12c), redupl. them. pres. jíghna-te, YAv. 3pl pres. ind. or perf. subj. mid. jaγnəṇte (cf. Tremblay 2008: 22), 3sg aor. or perf. inj. -jaγnat ̰, Greek aor. ind. act. ἔπεφνον even weaken the existence of a Proto-Indo-Iranian reduplicated aorist category (cf. Gotō 2013: 112). The IE reduplicated stems need a revison. PIE lacked reduplicated aorists (pace Bandahman 1993), but had several reduplicated Aktionsarten. 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 4. The prehistorical storyline 4.1. This article features a fundamental principle of linguistic reconstruction of functional categories. Since it is recognizable that a comparative equation of IE morphosyntactic categories cannot yield precise prehistorical results, we must use additional knowledge to draw further infererences from. Following the goal of making the prehistorical aspectual developments more precise and plausible, the reconstruction of grammatical categories is in duty to be principally based on linguistic diachronic knowledge, that is, it must be based on a typology of crosslinguistic diachronic semantic paths. As an important by-product of this principle, it must be our duty to revise the traditional model of the PIE aspect system by adjusting it to evident diachronic paths. We cannot reasonably rely on a solely comparison-based model of the PIE as- ROLAND A. POOTH 12 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 pect system any longer. Even if we concede that a reconstruction of categories that are not among the canon of the IE ones is not provable and cannot be falsified by means of comparison, we must accept that this lack of proof is an entailment of the use of an improper method for this purpose, that is, that it is due to the logical implication that the comparative method does not provide us with a proper tool for insights concerning functional categories that have vanished or were modified from PIE to post-PIE and IE. 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 4.2. Imperfective presents came first. The PIE progressive aspect provides a perfect example for such a grammatical category. This category most plausibly existed. But it must have been modified already in PIE or immediately after PIE broke up. It is no longer maintained in its original progressive function in any IE language. Its marker was the word-final suffix *-i, which was attachable to many PIE nonprogressive verb forms in word-final position. It was called the “particle of the hic et nunc”, but it is neither demonstrable that it was a particle, nor is “hic et nunc” an adequate functional term. On a typological background, it is implausible that it was a pure tense suffix (cf. Pooth 2009). From this perspective, it is inferential and plausible that PIE progressive forms once developed into imperfective present portmanteaus (cf. Pooth 2009), e.g. PIE *gwɦén-t-i → *gwɦén-ti (*-t-i → *-ti) (> Hittite ku-e-en-zi (OS) :: Vedic hán-ti, etc.). It is a relevant implication of diachronic typology that such portmanteaus emerged chronologically prior to the narrowing of “zeros” to root aorists. Therefore, post-PIE had multiple ex-progressive imperfective present forms, e.g. *bɦérti *bɦrénti :: *bɦibɦérti *bɦibɦrénti :: *bɦibɦrént > (a)bibhran (RV 10.28.8a)), continuing several specific PIE aspect categories (Aktionsarten) (cf. Pooth 2015-08-31: 16-35). 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 4.3. Perfectives from non-progressives. By the time PIE progressives became imperfective presents, corresponding non-progressives with “secondary” endings were unmarked non-tensed non-progressives, such that were prone to be narrowed to opponent imperfective/perfective preterits. The most plausible inference which can be drawn, for instance, from the functional mismatch of Greek ἔδακον versus Vedic dáśati is that there were no perfective aorists even in the post-PIE variants preceding ProtoIndo-Iranian and Proto-Greek. The term “Aoristpräsentien” is inadequate. These presents go back to non-progressive protomiddles (“statives”), and so does the thematic aorist (cf. Watkins 1969, Cardona 1960), e.g. Vedic (á-)vidá-t (*uidó → *u̯idót ~ *u̯idét(o)), (á-)vócat (*uéukwo → *u̯éukwot ~ *u̯éukwet(o)): 478 Figure 3. The PIE origin of the Vedic tudáti type pres. stem 479 480 A *dn̥k̑ói → *dn̥k̑ótoi progressive B *dn̥k̑ó → *dn̥k̑ót(o) non-progressive 481 482 483 484 → → *dn̥k̑étoi ~ *dn̥k̑éti > Vedic dáśati ‘bites, is biting’ imperfective present *dn̥k̑ét(o) > Gk. ἔδακον ‘bit, has bitten’ non-imperfective → perfective 4.4. IE root aorists are functional innovations. The IE root presents and root aorists go back to a predominantly NONDURATIVE or unmarked-underspecified PIE cate- Is the “tēzzi principle” a plausible inference? 13 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 gory, which was compatible with the progressive aspect (e.g. *gwɦén-t-i, *dɦéh1-t-i). IE root aorists continue such PIE basic forms that either lacked corresponding progressives or whose progressives were used with a lower frequency than corresponding non-progressives. The broadening of PIE progressives to root imperfective presents (e.g. *gwɦén-ti) functionally preceded the narrowing of non-progressives. PIE *gwɦént was later taken for an opponent non-present/preterit injunctive, whereas the reflex of *dɦéh1t was later narrowed to a root aorist. Root aorist pl. forms outside the 3pl may simply continue corresponding PIE “Narten” type forms, cf. Vedic 1pl ákarma, 2pl ákarta, 2du ákartam, 3du ákartām, but cf. 3pl ákran, 2pl aor. injunctive act. kr̥tá, 2du kr̥tám ~ kr̥thás, Homeric 3du βάτην with zero-grade (cf. differently Malzahn 2004). 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 4.5. A chain shift. Several Greek and Vedic root aorists were narrowed as a consequence of the emergence of new imperfective stems from previous pleonastic progressive forms. I suggest that the Vedic “passive” aorists (e.g. védi) continue PIE 3sg progressive forms (e.g. *uóid-i) of a PIE TRANSITIONAL aspect that developped an anteriorresultative meaning. It was narrowed to aorist after the emergence of new innovative yod-presents which had developped from previous pleonastic progressive forms. In my view, many IE yod-presents thus continue pleonastic progressive forms, cf. Figure 4: 504 Figure 4. The genesis of the Vedic passive aorist and yod-passive-presents 505 506 507 A *uóid-i → *uóid-itoi → ‘is just being seen/found’ transitional progressive 508 509 510 B *uóid-i → *uóid-i Vedic (á)védi ‘is/was just being seen/found’ ‘is/was just seen/found’ transitional progressive anterior-resultative → aorist/perfective 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 *u̯(o)id-i̯etoi > Vedic vidyáte ‘is (being) seen/found’ imperfective pres. The paradigmatic correlation of yod-presents and o-grade protomiddles is confirmed by Vedic tartarīti tartūryante < *tértorh2i-ti *tértr̥h2-i̯ontoi ← PIE *tértorh2(i) *tértrh2ont(o) :: *tórh2(i) *trh2ónto (cf. *bɦóudɦ(i) *bɦudɦónto). The protomiddle origin explains the deponency of the tartūryá-te type. It helps to explain the constant linking vowel -ī- of the tartarīti type (from root final *-H, 1sg protomiddle *-h2, and the PIE progressive marker *-i-). Likewise, e.g., PIE *bɦórg̑ɦ-i → *bɦórg̑ɦ-i ~ *bɦórg̑ɦ-ito ~ *bɦorg̑ɦ-i̯ót ~ *bɦorg̑ɦ-i̯óto, 3pl ɦ ɦ *b r̥g̑ -ónt-i → *bɦr̥g̑ɦ-ónt-i ~ *bɦr̥g̑ɦ-i̯-ónti ~*bɦr̥g̑ɦ-i̯-ónto(i). The familiar thematic 3sg *bɦr̥g̑ɦ-i̯-éi ~ *bɦr̥g̑ɦ-i̯-éti (*-e(i) ~ *-et(i) were productive neoactive endings) was a later analogical creation yielding a new middle *bɦr̥g̑ɦ-i̯-éto(i). Pre-Proto-Anatolian obviously participated in developping yod-stem imperfective presents: cf. *bɦr̥g̑ɦi̯ó/é- > Hittite parkiya- ‘rise’ (pár-ki-ya-at OH/MS), pár-ki-ya-an-zi (MH/MS) vs. *bɦr̥g̑ɦtó, 1sg *bɦr̥g̑ɦh2á > Hittite pár-ak-ta-ru (OH/MS), pár-ga-aḫ[-ḫa-ri?], par-kán-zi (NS), likewise 3pl kar-pí-an-zi (OS) ‘they lift’ ~ kar-pa-an-zi (OS). Several ROLAND A. POOTH 14 525 526 527 528 529 corresponding -ant-participles lack the yod-segment, e.g. kar-pa-an-t- (a-ra-an-t- :: 3pl a-ri-ya-an-zi, 3sg pres. ind. act. a-ra-a-i (OS)), ultimately confirming an inflectional (but not a derivational/enlargement) origin of *-i-. Pre-Proto-Anatolian did not, however, evidently participate in a subsequent narrowing of the non-yod/non-iotated counterpart to aorist/perfective (pace Melchert 1998, 2015). 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 4.6. A post-PIE substitution rule. In parallel with the rise of imperfective present/non-imperfective pairs and the emergence of imperfective present endings (*-ti, etc.), less frequent ex-progressives (e.g. *dɦéh1-ti) were finally replaced, because their corresponding non-progressives (e.g. *dɦéh1t) were more frequently used in nonimperfective function: Such root formations (e.g. *dɦéh1-) became incompatible with the imperfective present endings (*-ti, etc.). A new basic imperfective stem, e.g., *dɦédɦeh1-ti (*dɦádɦaH-ti, etc.) replaced *dɦéh1ti (†dɦáH-ti) from the moment *dɦéh1(*dɦáH-) was narrowed to perfective. Thus Hittite te-e-ez-zi continues the exprogressive. 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 4.7. Suppletive/combined aspect stems including root aorists cannot be reconstructed for PIE, since many progressives like *dɦéh1-t-i must have been lost before Vedic and Greek. The aspect stem suppletion emerged independently and is still an ongoing process within the IE aspect-languages, e.g. within Greek (cf. Kölligan 2007). IE languages independently selected different pairs. Whereas Vedic ágan ágman perhaps equates with Hom. 3du βάτην (but cf. Malzahn 2004: 55), gáccha-ti does not equate with βαίνω. Even Vedic pres. dádhāti, Greek τίθηµι, OHG pret. 13sg teta 2sg tāti, OS 2sg dādi ~ dedos, OE inf. dōn ‘do’ are mismatching, because dá°, τί° and the Germanic vocalism(s) cannot be equated. They go back to different PIE reduplicated types 3sg *dɦédɦeh1t(i) (“acrostatic”), *dɦi-dɦéh1t(i), *dɦe-dɦéh1o(i) (→ *dɦedɦéh1o/e-) (“old anterior” protomiddle), *dɦḗ-dɦoh1(i) (“intensive-repetitive”) (but cf. Kim 2010). Only exact equations of two straightforwardly combined present and aorist stems are decisive, for which the evidence is nil. Corresponding IE root presents or aorists (e.g. Vedic inj. dhāt = OAv. dāt̰ :: [O]Arm. ed (3sg mid. edaw) = Greek (Boiot.) αν-εθε̄ (Myc. te-ke)) can thus only show that the given formation was used more frequently in non-durative or durative (and progressive) function, respectively. We must conclude that PIE generally lacked aspect (stem) suppletion and thus lacked paradigmatic combinations of (different) present stems and aorist stems. 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 5. Is the “tēzzi principle” a plausible inference? 5.1. The answer must be no. A backformation of Proto-Anatolian presents from PIE root aorists contradicts the most plausible, that is, secondary diachronic emergence of root aorists. On the background of the most plausible diachronic semantic path from progressive to imperfective present and from zero to perfective, the “tēzzi principle” (pace Eichner 1979, Malzahn 201o: 267f.) is (most plausibly) misleading. But does this, at least, provide us with evidence for “Proto-Indo-Hittite” (cf. Sturtevant 1929)? Again no. Although Hittite 3sg pres. ind. act. te-e-ez-zi should be taken for a (formal) archaism, this does not imply that its function as a general present and the Proto-Anatolian tense system must be archaic. Moreover, the development of a ca- Is the “tēzzi principle” a plausible inference? 15 567 568 nonical tripartite aspect system cannot be a reliable shared innovation, because such systems emerge in parallel quite easily. 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 5.2. Conclusions: We cannot reconstruct aorists/perfectives any longer, since these are post-PIE innovations. We must reconstruct PIE progressive forms (e.g. *dɦéh1-t-i) in many cases, even if Greek and Vedic display root aorists. We should further avoid circular reasoning based on the presence of IE root presents. We cannot deduce from Vedic hánti that the PIE root *gwɦen- ‘beat, slay, kill, hunt’ was not (gradually) terminative (pace García Ramón 1998), simply because Vedic hánti (as ex-progressive) does not reflect the aspectual meaning of the PIE basic form (*gwɦén-t). Reconstructing the PIE aspect system turns out to be more difficult. On the background of crosslinguistic, comparative, and internal facts, the traditional “Erlanger” tripartite aspect stem model for PIE (cf. Hoffmann 1970) is typologically implausible and must be a mistake. PIE had no “presents” and “aorists”. (6.077 words) 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 Abbreviations: I use the convenient abbreviations and grammatical glossing, e.g. 3sg = third person singular, etc.; act. = active, aor. = aorist or perfective, Hom. = Homeric Greek, IE = Indo-European, imp. = imperative, ind. = indicative, inj. = injunctive (a temporally and modally, but not aspectually underspecified category going back to a PIE non-progressive indicative-hortative, cf. Pooth 2009), mid. = middle, [O]Arm. = Old (Biblical) Armenian, OAv. = Old Avestan, OHG = Old High German, OS = Old Saxon, part. = participle, PE = “primary” (imperfective present or present) ending, perf. = perfect stem, PIE = Proto-Indo-European, PII = Proto-Indo-Iranian, PT = Proto-Tocharian, pre. = “precative” (aorist optative), pres. = present or imperfective present, pret. = preterit(e), SE = “secondary” ending, subj. = subjunctive, YAv. Young Avestan. I use the conventional philological cover symbols, e.g. OH/OS = Old Hittite/Old script, etc. (cf. Kloekhorst 2008: xi-xiii); RV, AV (AVŚ), AVP, etc. (cf., e.g., Kümmel 2000: “Textsigla”, etc.). 592 References, further reading, links 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 Beekes, R.S.P. 2011: Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. Second edition. Revised and corrected by Michiel de Vaan. Amsterdam & Philadelphia. Bendahman, J. 1993: Der reduplizierte Aorist in den indogermanischen Sprachen. Egelsbach, Köln, New York. Binnick, R.I. (ed.) 2012: The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect. Oxford. Burrow, T. 1954: The Sanskrit precative. In: J. Schubert (ed.), Asiatica. Festschrift Friedrich Weller, zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet von seinen Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern. Leipzig, 35-42. ― 1957: An archaic verbal termination in early Indo-Aryan. Indo-Iranian Journal 1, 61-76. Bybee, J., R. Perkins & W. Pagliuca 1994: The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago & London. Cardona, G. 1960: The Indo-European Thematic Aorists. PhD diss. Yale University. University Microfilms, Inc. Ann Arbor. Cowgill, W. 1974: More evidence for Indo-Hittite: The tense-aspect systems. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of Linguists. Bologna-Florence, Aug. 28 - Sept. 2, 1972. Ed. by L. Heilmann. Volume II. Bologna, 557-570. ROLAND A. POOTH 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 16 Dahl, E. 2010: Time, Tense and Aspect in Early Vedic Grammar. Leiden & Boston. Dahl, Ö. 1985: Tense and aspect systems. Oxford. Drinka, B. 1995: The sigmatic aorist in Indo-European. Evidence for the Space-Time-Hypothesis. Washington D.C. Eichner, H. 1975: Die Vorgeschichte des hethitischen Verbalsystems. In: Flexion und Wortbildung. Akten der V. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft. Regensburg, 9.-14. September 1975. Ed. by H. Rix. Wiesbaden, 70-103. García Ramón 1998: Indogermanisch *gu̯hen- ‘(wiederholt) schlagen, töten. In: Mír Curad. Studies in Honor of Calvert Watkins. Ed. by J. H. Jasanoff, H. C. Melchert & L. Oliver. Innsbruck, 139-54. ― 2000: Indoiranische Wurzelpräsentia und iterativer Verbalcharakter. In: Indoiranisch, Iranisch und die Indogermanistik. Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 2. bis 5. Oktober 1997 in Erlangen. Ed. by B. Forssman & R. Plath. Wiesbaden, 119-131. ― 2010: On Hittite verbs of the type mimma-ḫḫi ‘refuse’: Aktionsart and aspect in IndoEuropean reconstruction. In: R. I. Kim, E. Rieken, N. Oettinger, M. J. Weiss (ed.), Ex Anatolia Lux. Anatolian and Indo-European studies in honor of H. Craig Melchert on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday. Ann Arbor, 40-54. Gotō, T. 2013: Old-Indo-Aryan morphology and its Indo-Iranian background. In co-operation with Jared S. Klein and Velizar Sadivski. Wien. Groddek, DBH 13 = Groddek, D. 2004: Hethitische Texte in Transkription KUB 20. Dresden: Dresdner Beiträge zur Hethitologie 13. Harðarson, J. A. 1993: Studien zum urindogermanischen Wurzelaorist und dessen Vertretung im Indoiranischen und Griechischen. Innsbruck. ― 1997: Bemerkungen zum reduplizierten Präteritum im Tocharischen. In: Sound Law and Analogy, Papers on honor of Robert S. P. Beekes on the occasion of his 60th birthday. Ed. by A. M. Lubotsky, Amsterdam & Atlanta, 95-102. Heine, B. & T. Kuteva 2002: World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge. Hoffmann, K. 1965: Materialien zum altindischen Verbum, 1. añc ‘schöpfen’, 2. chand, 3. du, 4. path, 5. mreḍ, 6. édhate, 7. VS. dīṣva, 8. AB. purāṇi, 9. 2. Sg. abhinas, 10. JB. liliyur. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 79, 171-191 [= 1975: 162-182]. ―1967: Der Injunktiv im Veda. Heidelberg. ― 1967b: Der vedische Prekativtyp yeṣam, jeṣma. Münchner Studien zu Sprachwissenschaft 20, 25-37 [= 1976: 465-474]. ― 1968: Zum Optativ des indogermanischen Wurzelaorists. In: J.C. Heesterman et al. (ed.), Pratidānam. Indian, Iranian and Indo-European Studies Presented to Franciscus Bernardus Jacobus Kuiper on his sixtieth birthday. Den Haag & Paris, 3-8 [= 1975: 245-250]. ― 1970: Das Kategoriensystem des indogermanischen Verbums. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 28, 19-41. ― 1975, 1976: Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik. Hrsg. von J. Narten. Bd. 1, 2. Wiesbaden. Hoffmann, K. & B. Forsman 2004: Avestische Laut- und Flexionslehre. 2., durchgesehene und erweiterte Auflage. Innsbruck. Hoffner, H. A. Jr. & H. C. Melchert 2008: A Grammar of the Hittite Language. Winona Lake. Insler, S. 1968: The origin of the Sanskrit passive aorist. IF 73, 312-346. ― 1972: Some irregular Vedic imperatives. Language 48, 551-565 ― 1995: Vedic ajaniṣṭa and related problems. In: Verba et structurae. Festschrift fur Klaus Strunk zum 65. Geburtstag. Hg. von H. Hettrich et al. Innsbruck, 91-103. Is the “tēzzi principle” a plausible inference? 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 17 Jamison, S.W. 1999: Once more, yet again: the Vedic type dheyām revisited. In: H. Eichner, H.C. Luschützky (eds.), Compositiones indogermanicae in memoriam Jochem Schindler. Prag, 165-181. ― 2009: Where are all the optatives? In: K. Yoshida, B. Vine (eds.), East and West. Papers in Indo-European Studies. Bremen, 27-45. Jasanoff, J.H. 1988: The sigmatic aorist in Tocharian and Indo-European. TIES 2, 52-76. ― 1991: The ablaut of the root aorist optative in Proto-Indo-European. MSS 52, 101-122. ― 1997: Gathic Avestan cikōitərəš. In: A. Lubotsky (ed.), Sound Law and Analogy. Papers in Honor of Robert S. P. Beekes on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday. Amsterdam & Atlanta, 119-130. ― 2003: Hittite and the Indo-European verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ― 2009: Notes on the internal history of the PIE optative. In: K. Yoshida, B. Vine (eds.), East and West. Papers in Indo-European Studies. Bremen, 47-68. Kim, R. 2003: Uncovering the Prehistory of the Tocharian Class II Preterite, Historische Sprachforschung 116, 190-233. ― 2010: On the prehistory of Old English dyde. In: Þe comoun peplis language. Ed. by M. Krygier & L. Sikorska. Frankfurt am Main, etc. Peter Lang, 9-22. Kloekhorst, A. 2008: Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden & Boston. ― 2007: The Hittite 2pl.-ending -šten(i). In: A. Archi & R. Francia (eds.), VI Congresso Internazionale di Ittitologia, Roma, 5-9 settembre 2005 (= Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 49-50), 493-500. Kölligan, D. 2007: Suppletion und Defektivität im griechischen Verbum. Bremen. Kümmel, M.J. 1996: Stativ und Passivaorist im Indoiranischen. Göttingen. ― 2000: Das Perfekt im Indoiranischen. Wiesbaden. ― 2012: Monosyllabic lengthening in Vedic aorists? International Journal of Diachronic Linguistics and Linguistic Reconstruction 9, 51-63. ― 2015+ (handout): Anatolisches und indoiranisches Verbum. Erbe und Neuerung: 100 Jahre Entzifferung des Hethitischen. At: Morphosyntaktische Kategorien in Sprachgeschichte und Forschung. Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft in Marburg 21.-23. September 2015, available at https://uni-jena.academia.edu/MartinKümmel LIV = Rix, H. & M. Kümmel et al. 2001: Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Unter der Leitung von H. Rix und der Mitarbeit vieler andererer bearbeitet von M. Kümmel, T. Zehnder, R. Lipp, B. Schirmer. Zweite, erweiterte und verbesserte Auflage bearbeitet von M. Kümmel und H. Rix. Wiesbaden. Lubotsky, A. 1997: A R̥gvedic Word Concordance. 2 Volumes. Cambridge, MA. Macdonell, A.A. 1910: Vedic Grammar. Strassburg. Malzahn, M. 2002: Auf der Spur von ai. veḥ. Indo-Iranian Journal 45/3, 197-204. ― 2004: 3:3, 5:1, or 4:2? On the Ablaut of the Root Aorist in Greek and Indo-European, Historische Sprachforschung 117/1, 50-75 ― 2010: The Tocharian Verbal System. Leiden & Boston. Meillet, A. 1908: Sur l’aoriste sigmatique. In: Mélange de linguistique offerts à M. Ferdinand de Saussure. Paris, 81-106. Melchert, H. C. 1998: Traces of PIE Aspectual Contrast in Anatolian, Incontri Linguistici 20, 8392. ― 2012 (ed.): The Indo-European Verb. Proceedings of the Conference of the Society for IndoEuropean Studies, Los Angeles 13-16 September 2010. Wiesbaden. ROLAND A. POOTH 18 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 ― 2015: The Tocharian s-preterite. In: Tocharian Texts in Context. Ed. by M. Malzahn, M. Peyrot, H. Fellner, T.-S. Illés. Bremen, 127-136. Narten, J. 1964: Die sigmatischen Aoriste im Veda. Wiesbaden. ― 1968: Zum „proterodynamischen“ Wurzelpräsens. In: J.C. Heesterman et al. (ed.), Pratidānam. Indian, Iranian and Indo-European Studies Presented to Franciscus Bernardus Jacobus Kuiper on his sixtieth birthday. Den Haag & Paris, 9-19 (= 1995: 97-107) ― 1984: Optativ und Tempusstamm im Altavestischen. Die Sprache 30, 96-108. (= 1995: 270282). ― 1995: Kleine Schriften. Band I. Hrsg. von Marcos Albino und Matthias Fritz. Wiesbaden. Oettinger, N. 2002 (1979): Die Stammbildung des hethitischen Verbums. Nachdruck mit einer kurzen Revision der hethitischen Verbalklassen. Dresden. Pike, M. 2009: The Indo-European long vowel preterites: new Latin evidence. In: J.E. Rasmussen & T. Olander (eds.), Internal Reconstruction in Indo-European. Copenhagen, 205-212. Pooth, R.A. 2000: “Stativ vs. Medium im Vedischen und Avestischen”, Historische Sprachforschung 113, 88-116. ― 2009: Der urindogermanische Progressiv. In: R. Lühr & S. Ziegler (eds.), Protolanguage and Prehistory. Akten der XII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft ... in Krakau. Wiesbaden, 381-406. ― 2011: Die 2. und 3. Person Dual und das Medium. In: 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 1r̥. In: Melchert 2010: 267-84. ― 2014+: Die Diathesen Aktiv vs. Medium und die Verbsemantik im Vedischen der R̥gvedaSaṃhitā. PhD diss. Leiden University Repository. At: https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl ― 2014-05-12 (ms.): Altertümliche Wortformen in der R̥gveda-Saṃhitā (I): Zu RV 7.6.1d dāruṃ, RV 2.38.6a samāv́ avarti. At: https://leidenuniv.academia.edu/RolandPooth ― 2015-04-17 (ms.): Transitivity direction in Proto-Indo-European. Revised version 2015-04-17. At: https://leidenuniv.academia.edu/RolandPooth ― 2015-08-31 (ms.): A typological overview of Proto-Indo-European. Manuscript version 2015-08-31 At: https://leidnuniv.academia.edu/RolandPooth Renou, L. 1952: Grammaire de la langue védique. Lyon/Paris. Sasse, H.-J. 1991a: Aspect and Aktionsart: a reconciliation, Belgian Journal of Linguistics 6, 31-45 = Perspectives on Aspect and Aktionsart. Ed. by C. Vetters & W. Vandeweghe. — 1991b (ed.): Aspektsysteme. Arbeitspapier Nr. 14 (Neue Folge). Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. Universität zu Köln. Sturtevant, E.H. 1929: The relationship of Hittite to Indo-European, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 60, 25-37. Tremblay, X. 2008: Iranian Historical Linguistics in the Twentieth Century - Part Two. IndoEuropean Studies Bulletin 13/1, 1-51. Watkins, C. 1962: Indo-European Origins of the Celtic Verb I. The Sigmatic Aorist. Dublin. ― 1969: Indogermanische Grammatik. Bd. III/1. Teil. Formenlehre. Geschichte der indogermanischen Verbalflexion. Hg. von J. Kuryłowicz. Heidelberg. 744 745 746 747 Roland A. Pooth University of Cologne & Leiden University (Alumnus) Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History (IELex 2 Data Entry) [email protected]